abominable piece of tyranny; and it will turn out to be an inexhaustible source of favouritism and malice. In the bishop's bill I have in vain looked for a similar clause,―That if the population is above 800,000, and the income amounts to 10,000l., an assistant to the bishop may be appointed by the commissioners, and a salary of 2000l. per annum allotted to him.' This would have been honest and manly, to have begun with the great people.

But mere tyranny and episcopal malice are not the only evils of this clause, nor the greatest evils. Every body knows the extreme activity of that part of the English church which is denominated evangelical, and their industry in bringing over every body to their habits of thinking and acting; now see what will happen from the following clause:- And whenever the population of any benefice shall amount to 2000, and it shall be made appear to the satisfaction of the bishop, that a stipend can be provided for the payment of a curate, by voluntary contribution or otherwise, without charge to the incumbent, it shall be lawful for the bishop to require the spiritual person, holding the same, to nominate a fit person to be licensed as such curate, whatever may be the annual value of such benefice; and if, in either of the said cases, a fit person shall not be nominated to the bishop within two months after his requisition for that purpose shall have been delivered to the incumbent, it shall be lawful for the bishop to appoint and license a curate.' A clause worthy of the Vicar of Wrexhill himself. Now what will happen? The bishop is a Calvinistic bishop; wife, children, chaplains, Calvinized up to the teeth. serious people of the parish meet together, and agree to give an hundred pounds per annum, if Mr. Wilkinson is appointed. It requires very little knowledge of human nature to predict, that at the expiration of two months Mr. Wilkinson will be the man; and then the whole parish is torn to pieces with jealousies, quarrels and comparisons between the rector and the delightful Wilkinson. The same scene is acted (mutatis mutandis), where the bishop sets his face against Calvinistic principles. The absurdity consists in suffering the appointment of a curate by private subscription; in other words, one clergyman in a parish by nomination, the other by election; and, in this way, religion is brought into contempt by their jealousies and quarrels. Little do you know, my dear lord, of the state of that country you govern, if you suppose this will not hap

The

pen. I have now a diocese in my eye, where, I am positively certain, that in less than six months after the passing of this bill, there will not be a single parish of 2000 persons, in which you will not find a subscription curate, of evangelical habits, canting and crowing over the regular and established clergyman of the parish.

In the draft of the fifth report, upon which I presume your dean and chapter bill is to be founded, I see the rights of patronage are to be conceded to present incumbents. This is very high and honourable conduct in the commissioners, and such as deserves the warmest thanks of the clergy; it is always difficult to retract, much more difficult to retract to inferiors; but it is very virtuous to do so when there can be no motive for it but a love of justice.

Your whole bill is to be one of retrenchment, and amputation; why add fresh canons to St. Paul's and Lincoln? Nobody wants them; the cathedrals go on perfectly well without them; they take away each of them 15007. or 16007. per annum, from the fund for the improvement of small livings; they give, to be sure, a considerable piece of patronage to the Bishops of London and Lincoln, who are commissioners, and they preserve a childish and pattern-like uniformity in cathedrals. But the first of these motives is corrupt, and the last silly; and, therefore, they cannot be your motives.

You cannot plead the recommendation of the commission for the creation of these new canons, for you have flung the commission overboard; and the reformers of the church are no longer archbishops and bishops, but Lord John Russell;—not those persons to whom the crown has entrusted the task, but Lord Martin Luther, bred and born in our own island, and nourished by the Woburn spoils and confiscations of the church. The church is not without friends, but those friends have said there can be no danger of measures which are sanctioned by the highest prelates of the church; but you have chased away the bearers, and taken the ark into your own possession. Do not forget, however, if you have deviated from the plan of your brother commissioners, that you have given to them a perfect right to oppose you.

This unfair and wasteful creation of new canons, produces a great and scandalous injustice to St. Paul's and Lincoln, in the distribution of their patronage. The old members of all other cathedrals will enjoy the benefit of survivorship, till they

subside into the magic number of four; up to that point, then, every fresh death will add to the patronage of the remaining old members; but in the churches of Lincoln and St. Paul's, the old members will immediately have one-fifth of their patronage taken away by the creation of a fifth canon to share it. This injustice and partiality are so monstrous, that the two prelates in question will see that it is necessary to their own character to apply a remedy. Nothing is more easy than to do Let the bishop's canon have no share in the distribution of the patronage, till after the death of all those who were residentiaries at the passing of the bill.

So.

Your dean and chapter bill will, I am afraid, cut down the great preferments of the church too much.

Take for your fund only the non-resident prebends, and leave the number of resident prebends as they are, annexing some of them to poor livings with large populations. I am sure this is all (besides the abolition of pluralities), which ought to be done, and all that would be done, if the commissioners were to begin de novo from this period, when bishops have recovered from their fright, dissenters shrunk into their just dimensions, and the foolish and exaggerated expectations from reform have vanished away. The great prizes of the church induce men to carry, and fathers and uncles to send into the church considerable capitals, and, in this way, enable the clergy to associate with gentlemen, and to command that respect which, in all countries, and above all in this, depends so much on appearances. Your bill, abolishing pluralities, and taking away, at the same time, so many dignities, leaves the Church of England so destitute of great prizes, that, as far as mere emolument has any influence, it will be better to dispense cheese and butter in small quantities to the public, than to enter into the church.

There are admirable men, whose honest and beautiful zeal carries them into the church without a moment's thought of its emoluments. Such a man, combining the manners of a gentleman with the acquirements of a scholar, and the zeal of an apostle, would overawe mercantile grossness, and extort respect from insolent opulence; but I am talking of average vicars, mixed natures, and eleven thousand parish priests. If you divide the great emoluments of the church into little portions, such as butlers and head game-keepers receive, you will very soon degrade materially the style and character of the

English clergy. If I were dictator of the church, as Lord Durham is to be of Canada, I would preserve the resident, and abolish, for the purposes of a fund, the non-resident prebends. This is the principal and most important alteration in your dean and chapter bill, which it is not too late to make, and for which every temperate and rational man ought to strive.

You will, of course, consider me as a defender of abuses. I have all my life been just the contrary, and I remember, with pleasure, thirty years ago, old Lord Stowell saying to me, Mr. Smith, you would have been a much richer man if you had joined us.' I like, my dear lord, the road you are travelling, but I don't like the pace you are driving; too similar to that of the son of Nimshi. I always feel myself inclined to cry out, Gently, John, gently down hill. Put on the drag. We shall be over, if you go so quick-you'll do us a mischief.

Remember, as a philosopher, that the Church of England now is a very different institution from what it was twenty years ago. It then oppressed every sect; they are now all free -all exempt from the tyranny of an establishment; and the only real cause of complaint for dissenters is, that they can no longer find a grievance, and enjoy the distinction of being persecuted. I have always tried to reduce them to this state, and I do not pity them.

You have expressed your intention of going beyond the fifth report, and limiting deans to 2000l. per annum, canons to 10007. This is, I presume, in conformity with the treatment of the bishops, who are limited to from 4500l., to 5000l. per annum; and it wears a fine appearance of impartial justice; but for the dean and canon the sum is a maximum-in bishops it is a maximum and minimum too; a bishop cannot have less than 4500l., a canon may have as little as the poverty of his church dooms him to, but he cannot have more than 1000%.; but there are many canonries of 500l., or 600l., or 700l. per annum, and a few only of 1000l.; many deaneries of from 1000l. to 1500l. per annum; and only a very few above 2000l. If you mean to make the world believe that you are legislating for men without votes, as benevolently as you did for those who have votes in Parliament, you should make up the allow ance of every canon to 1000l., and of every dean to 2000l. per annum, or leave them to the present lottery of blanks and prizes. Besides, too, do I not recollect some remarkable instances, in your bishops' act, of deviation from this rigid stand

ard of episcopal wealth? Are not the archbishops to have the enormous sums of 15,000l. and 12,000l. per annum? is not the Bishop of London to have 10,000l. per annum? Are not all these three prelates commissioners? And is not the reason alleged for the enormous income of the Bishop of London, that every thing is so expensive in the metropolis? Do not the deans of St. Paul's and Westminster, then, live in London also? And can the Bishop of London sit in his place in the House of Lords, and not urge for those dignitaries the same reasons which were so successful in securing such ample emoluments for his own see? My old friend, the Bishop of Durham, has 8000l. per annum secured to him. I am heartily glad of it; what possible reason can there be for giving him more than other bishops, and not giving to the Dean of Durham more than other deans? that is, of leaving to him one half of his present income. It is impossible this can be a claptrap for Joseph Hume, or a set-off against the disasters of Canada; you are too honest and elevated for this. I cannot comprehend what is meant by such gross partiality and injustice.

Why are the economists so eagerly in the field? The public do not contribute one halfpenny to the support of deans and chapters; it is not proposed by any one to confiscate the revenues of the church; the whole is a question of distribution, in what way the revenues of the church can be best administered for the public good. But whatever may be the respective shares of Peter or Paul, the public will never be richer or poorer by one shilling.

When your dean and chapter bill is printed, I shall take the liberty of addressing you again. The clergy naturally look with the greatest anxiety to these two bills; they think that you will avail yourself of this opportunity, to punish them for their opposition to your government in the last elections. They are afraid that your object is not so much to do good as to gratify your vanity, by obtaining the character of a great reformer, and that (now the bishops are provided for) you will varnish over your political mistakes by increased severity against the church, or, apparently struggling for their good, see with inexpressible delight the clergy delivered over to the tender mercies. of the radicals. These are the terrors of the clergy. I judge you with a very different judgment. You are a religious man, not unfriendly to the church; and but for that most foolish and