reader of my anxiety, to divest the subject as much as possible of all appearance of personality. My own credit is, however, in some measure perhaps, at stake; and I therefore hereby engage myself, if called upon by my diocesan, to avow those to which I refer.

The first mention made in this division of the County, of the operations of this commission, issued to make a return of benefices convenient to be united, was officially by the Archdeacon for the West Riding of Yorkshire, in his Charge, at his last visitation, and I do not allow myself to express the feelings of regret with which I heard it announced. THE PRINCIPLE of the commission is what is OBVIOUSLY OBJECTIONABLE: and therefore, if I show its fallacy in one return, it becomes evident in all: the one I adduce is most appropriate, both as evincing the evil of union, and the advantages of division:-it affects two livings directly, and by the Archdeacon's allusion to a similar commission, issued many years ago, a third indirectly; all three adjoining each other.

1. A. worth, say £.100 per ann. X, lay patron.

2. B. worth, say £.200 per ann. Y, lay patron.

3. P. worth, say £.1400 per ann. Z, patron—the Diocesan. In the two former of these benefices, the incumbents do not reside, from the want of houses; but they serve their churches themselves, one residing within an hour's EASY ride; the other, a pleasant walk's distance from his cure. In the third, the incumbent resides; and I have only occasion further to state, that in this parish P,

There is a township, say Q, tithes worth, say £.200 per ann. most of the houses in which are about two miles nearer to the parish church of B, than their own at P, and the property of which belongs, I believe generally, to Y, the patron of B. It is of importance that your lordships and the public should observe these peculiarities, because

by allusion to the commission, * adduced as a precedent for your present one, we are naturally led to consider the reasons which actuated the members of it to recommend that the tithes of the township of Q should be taken from the more populous, large, and opulent benefice of P, and given to the smaller cure, and poorer benefice of B.

Concluding now that my reader is made conversant with the circumstances and localities of these said parishes, I venture to presume that every impartial man, if asked his opinion, will say in this case

the division of the large benefice is obviously

more just and more practicable than

the union of the small ones.

FIRST, because A DIOCESAN may with some justice propose to sacrifice a little and insignificant portion

* The commission alluded to, and to be adduced (as we conclude from our Archdeacon's Charge) as a precedent for your present measure, was issued (I think) in the time of the Commonwealth: but as is obvious, the antiquity of its date, is immaterial; or if material, I must reply that the further we go back the better, until we arrive at the time of "the separation of benefices," which will supply facts and principles on which any illiterate peasant is qualified to defy "An union of the same." Not having the opportunity of better information, I will not pretend that I know the recommendations and purposes of that commission: but this I will say, that no contradiction on earth will shake my faith in the individual who informed me of them, save that of the original documents themselves; open at all times to your lordships' inspection in the Lambeth library, I believe. Why your lordships should trouble yourselves to obscure your measure by referring to that commission, it is not for me to guess? but, as on points of law the latest decisions are usually considered the most authoritative, it will relieve the question of much trouble and inquiry, at once to quote from more modern practice and two more appropriate precedents (for nothing it seems is to be done, even in this enlightened and improved age, as it is called, without precedents) are supplied by the Reform-Bill, which united parishes to complete a constituency; and the Irish Church-Bill, which united bishoprics on the ground of expediency. The opposition which your lordships offered to the latter Bill (to say nothing of the former) was certainly little calculated to prepare us for your present measure decided upon at the very time you were opposing the Union of Bishoprics.

of his own patronage,-while under any circumstances whatever HIS right to alter the course of lay patronage, so long recognized and secured by law, is at least questionable :—or if not questionable, certainly not the point where the Hierarchy should begin. "There were two men in one city, the one rich and the other poor; the poor man had nothing save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up, and it grew up together with him and with his children." But your lordships will understand me without the sequel: which if applied might aggravate existing discontent.

SECONDLY, because in this case many of the inhabitants of the township of Q would be far more conveniently situated to enjoy the benefits of a parish church, by being

transferred from P to B.

THIRDLY,-because their landlord would thus become the patron of their tithes, and while this would facilitate any composition, it would obtain among the people of Qa respect for the incumbent of his choice, and for the Church, and beget an influence which is in practice seldom found so strong as when the proprietor of the land and the patron of the benefice are one and the same person.

FOURTHLY,-because by the union of A and B, the inhabitants of one or the other must lose the services of one incumbent, whereas at present they enjoy the services of Two.

FIFTHLY, because (as of course your lordships know if it is the case) the commission, by whose precedency it is pretended to justify the present one, did, as I am informed, actually recommend.

THE DIVISION of the largeR BENEFICE OF P, by naming the township of Q, as being proper to be transferred to the smaller benefice of B.

Now, then, we come naturally to ask, Is this addition of Q to B, recommended by the present commission? No such thing. LET A and B be united, is their return.

But let us proceed from THE ORIGIN and OPERATION of this commission, to inquire THE REASONS and THE NECESSITY for the measure to which it is preparatory. Why unite benefices at all? What advantage can possibly ensue from it, which we do not equally possess WITHOUT it?

Of course to these questions I do not pretend to anticipate your lordships' answers: for answers you will inevitably be obliged to make to them or similar ones, when you introduce your intended bill, to which the NAME of a measure of REFORM is manifestly intended by the Bishop of London's reply, to the inquiries of the Duke of Newcastle. But though the arguments in favour of your projected Union of Benefices, are as yet known only to your lordships; yet, facts already manifest inform us of some of those which your lordships CANNOT POSSIBLY use.

The first and obvious one,-which is at all times nearly forbidden to the clergy,―is political expediency. On this ground your lordships can gain no footing,-for, by Lord Althorp's declaration the present ministry are against you-some of the friends of the ex-ministry, (friends to our church, always true) are against you-and THE VOICE OF THE COUNTRY from one end of it to the other is AGAINST YOU; your lordships are indeed bold to attempt the attack: but courage is not the only requisite in such a siege as your's!

Again your intention to annihilate one incumbency, precludes the idea that your lordships will advocate an Union of Benefices as a means of securing residence more than at present.

Again; ex necessitatis causâ, because the income of one benefice is insufficient to maintain the incumbent, I hardly know how you can establish your union: for here we have two incumbents serving in their own persons two benefices which your lordships propose to consolidate.

But instead of pursuing this negative opposition, I

B

would beg permission to view the measure, as inconsistent with the principle upon which I fully believe it is about to be attempted by your lordships and I think that none of your lordships will object to the principle which I attribute to you, when I take it from the late Charge of the Bishop of Exeter, a charge, which, without meaning any invidious insinuation, I hope I may be allowed to regard as the dawn of a new era in our Church history, in spite of one part in which his lordship discloses, I think, a mistaken opinion: for let that reverend Prelate's character as a politician rise or fall in public estimation, his character as a Bishop, after that Charge, would absolutely be defamed by the eulogy or admiration of so incompetent a critic as myself.

*

"The principle on which church-reform ought to be "conducted is-regard to the best method of making the "institutions and the revenues of the church as available

66

as possible, to the preservation and extension of the

* I allude to the objections made by your lordship of Exeter, to any taxation of benefices, (page 37 of your Charge,) and though no one can venture to differ with your lordship without considerable diffidence, yet I must confess that you have as yet failed in making me a convert to your opinions on this subject. We have all recognized the right of the king, "as in all matters ecclesiastical as well as civil supreme," to first fruits and tenths, and as no succeeding incumbent is bound by the composition of his predecessor, so neither need any succeeding king be bound by the valuation or composition of preceding power. Your lordship has recognized the duty of making "the revenues of the Church as available as possible," &c.—and as a fund is wanted to increase small benefices, especially those overrun by population, Dr. Burton proposed a taxation; and so far from thinking that this could not be committed without much injustice, it would seem to me that we shall be indebted to royal favour, if his Majesty or his ministers were to accede to some composition, instead of demanding full first fruits from every incoming incumbent.-Full actual tenths from all existing ones I hope they will demand, as being a plan for raising a fund, least liable to fraud and difficulty: and excuse me for adding that no valid reason appears evident to me for exempting bishoprics, deaneries, and all cathedral benefices, from sharing with us parochial clergy, "the burden and heat of the day."