POSTSCRIPT, LONDON, JAN. 13, 1884.

TO THE PUBLIC.

SINCE sending my letter to the printers, I have had an unexpectedly early opportunity of seeing the original document at Lambeth palace, to which reference is made in note, page 15: and most cordially do I rejoice in my consequent ability to add this Postscript, in order to lay before all who have been kind enough to give me their attention, such extracts as will satisfy every unprejudiced reader that I have not been merely indulging a cacoethes scribendi on Church-Reform, but that in the part which I am taking against the Unionists, I am proceeding on just reasons, and correct information. The document is a manuscript, filling (as I was informed by the secretary) twenty-one volumes, and it is signed at different places of session by the commissioners, who were appointed by the Parliament in A. D. 1649, not for any one particular object, but to take a general survey of Church Property then extant, and to make such suggestions and recommendations as should seem adapted to meet the emergency of the case, and calculated to rectify any existing evils and inequalities; and in short to promote the convenience, and religious "edification of the people." My know

* I feel confident that it would lead to very many results, beneficial both in a religious and civil point of view, if Parliament would create a commission on the same principle at the present moment. A return of the value of benefices, has been made by the clergy themselves; and therefore, as far as they are concerned on this subject, nothing farther is necessary than to swear them to the truth of their returns, and in cases of suspicion, which will hardly occur, to leave the investigation and consequences to the honour and discretion

ledge of the returns now made to our respective Diocesans, is of course, very limited; for it is evidently an object to work the mine in the night. (Alas, that a system of espionage should be thought expedient in England, before men dare submit Church matters to public knowledge!!!) I know enough, however, to embolden me to challenge a public comparison between the recommendations now made by the Clergy themselves, and those made under the authority of the Commonwealth Parliament. "He that speaks (says Bishop Taylor) had better in all things speak plainly, for truth is the easiest to be told :" therefore I have no scruples in confessing that, though I did feel in no common degree gratified by finding THE PRINCIPLES OF DIVISION, and greater equalization AUTHORISED

BEYOND

MY MOST SANGUINE EXPECTATIONS, BY THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONERS WHO MADE THEIR REPORT UPON THE MOST AUTHENTIC INFORMATION, AND AFTER COLLECTIVE DELIBERATION, I did nevertheless

of the commissioners. Perjury, if brought home, reduces matters into a very small compass. There are, however, a great many instances where the moderation of the incumbent has hardly done justice to the proprietor of the advowson; and again there are others where exorbitant demands have raised the income of the benefice above its average value: and as a commutation or compulsory composition of tithe is now decided upon, and these inequalities must be made smooth, all parties would surely be most happy to lay their various cases before a commission of gentlemen for their final arbitration and arrangement: and as the whole business, which would be entrusted to them would be now so simplified by the increased toleration and general intelligence of the country, and as expense in their inquiries is as unnecessary as it is seen to be in others no less important, it would seem far better not to magnify this commission into a piece of patronage: and therefore let me ask, why should not the Parliament entrust the selection of the commissioners to the High Sheriff in each county, previously fixing their number, and limiting the proportion of the clergy admissible, (if any should be eligible which I should call unnecessary) and giving to the Sheriff a draught of such instructions as should enable him no inform the commissioners of the duties, which it is the wish of Parliament they should fulfil to the best of their abilities.

feel astounded, when on reference to the parliamentary survey, I found in all the cases at which I caught a glance, (perhaps ten, besides the subjoined extracts) no single recommendation of union.-I did nevertheless feel amazed to find that so much indifference, and inertness have so long co-existed under a monarchical constitution, and the continuance of a Protestant Prelacy, when so much anxiety and exertion combined with such system and moderation were evinced during the Commonwealth.-I do nevertheless feel alarmed and grieved when I reflect that the Episcopacy have just done on their own responsibility, that which even CROMWELL DID NOT DARE TO DO BUT WITH ORDER OF HIS PARLIAMENT, and that the clerical commissioners, with all their CONSERVATIVE PRETENSIONS, have indulged their DESTRUCTIVE notions at

*

* I here allude to an order of Parliament obtained to authorise a second commission, which according to Scobell's Acts and Ordinances was issued in 1654, which would be just after the first inauguration of Cromwell as Protector, that having taken place (if my memory does not mislead me) in 1653. I would here beg leave to state that,-from Scobell's account of the instructions given to the members of this commission, it would seem that the first object was to raise all small livings, if possible, to £.100 per annum (quite high enough with a house to prevent any deficiency of well-qualified candidates.) Let men in power proceed cautiously in fixing any standard above this sum : all parties would rejoice to see the day when no minister in the Lord's house shall receive less: and we should thus avoid much discussion. But if Bishops or ministers ever commit themselves by fixing a sum which they deem "SUFFICIENT" for a clergyman, let them foresee the natural and fair inference that "MORE IS TOO MUCH." At all events they would agitate the question of equalization, an evil which would prove most prejudicial to the poor of the land as well as the church at large, and an evil which may perhaps be somewhat contravened by saying of it, that its enactment never entered into Cromwell's plans, even in his most republican and puritanical moods and that he saw its injustice and baneful effects, when he was weak enough tò assume a supremacy he had taught his generation to reject, is evident from the instruction which did not (to use the words of the ordinance itself)" restrain the said Trustees from granting augmentations to preachers in cities and market towns where there shall be cause of a greater proportion than aforesaid," viz. £.100 per annum.

the expense of PRIVATE PROPERTY and PRIVATE ́PATRONAGE, and (mirabile dictu of the clergy) in direct violation of the universally recognized conditions of endowment. Really we might have expected that self-interest alone (to say nothing at all about conservative consistency, which is, perhaps, becoming rather too hazardous a game for clerical expectants to play) might have prevented the clergy from recommending to others this violation which has hitherto been an exclusively clerical perquisite: for if one condition, and that one of all the most important, that one which was the sine quâ non of endowment,—that one on whose presumed validity augmentations have from time to time been made throughout the kingdom,I mean the condition of separation, the presumption that there should ever be a distinct incumbent to every benefice ;—if this may be annulled by the legislature, or by any power on earth, (and the clergy, yes, the conservative clergy, as they call themselves, have recommended that it shall be annulled)—then all title-deeds, wills, and bequests may be at once thrown on the fire,-then may all our own societies at once discontinue that "form for a legacy" which they take such care to append to their reports. Who will ever leave a farthing to a charitable purpose, or a religious institution, if they are to be at the mercy and caprice of a few self-elected commissioners ?-if it is competent to the episcopacy, or the King, or even the legislature to consolidate parochial endowments, what,—I ask the conservative clergy to answer me as best they can, I challenge them to do so, and as they are so kind as to decry me as a reformer, they will doubtlessly be only too glad to find me ready to endure their chastisement,-what is to prevent the consolidation of all ecclesiastical revenues whatever?— what, I ask these anti-destructive commissioners, is to render it wrong to convert the whole into one vast church

fund, instead of allowing it to continue, as it begun the several properties of so many small parochial corporations ?*

After the Bishop of Exeter's opinion in favour of the latter, expressed in his late Charge, I look forward with intense interest to the perusal of his advocacy of unions, when the subject is formally broached to the House of Lords. Every one is well aware of his lordship's extraordinary powers of reasoning, but no one will feel surprise at my confessing that my limited faculties do not enable me to foresee how he will get over his difficulty this time. Has his lordship laid himself safe by saying that the boundaries of a parish are "ARTIFICIAL?" if this artificial one should prove the best plea he can discover, I can tell his lordship beforehand that it will disappoint him and moreover, that he will fail also in attempting to shew that the transfer of a part of one parish, recommended (as you will see by the subjoined extracts) by the parliamentary commissioners in 1649, is the same thing as uniting A and B," as recommended by the CONSERrva

66

* 1 sincerely trust that some of the commissioners will castigate me for my unequivocal questions, because in so doing they must indulge my curiosity so far as to answer them. I beg to inform them that I have no objection whatever to their getting a layman "to wage war with me" again: I am quite accustomed now to expect all sorts of liberties, but as my first accuser has assured me that he has committed his thoughts of me to the press for the last time, I am relieved henceforth from all apprehensions in that quarter. Let me, however, inform any new competitor for public favour, by “remarking” upon me or my Letter, that even the consolidation of bishoprics is not capable of being established as a precedent for the recommended Unions of Parochial Benefices. Bishoprics owe their foundation, and boundaries, and most of their wealth to the will and munificence of the kings of the days when they were formed, and have since the Reformation always been in the patronage of the Supreme Power in England: therefore the king is at any time entitled to authorise the legislature to alter their extent and income as may seem most conducive to the general good of the church, and the edification of the British people. Now let the conservative commissioners for the Ainsty of York assert as much as this with regard to the two benefices of A and B, and perhaps some one will be independent enough to second my positive contradiction of them.