futed than this argument. Once admit that the Church is a proprietor, as distinguished from the State-that the Church lands are private property-and there must of necessity be an end of the question. Parliament can have no conceivable right to take the additional value any more than the original estate. Nay, admit that these lands are separate property, and Parliament can have no conceivable right to meddle with the management of it at all. Even, if the intended Act had been able by some magical operation to alter the nature of the soil, and increase its fertility tenfold, that would give no one but the owner a right to the increase. The very operation of increasing the value by any such means, unless the owner consents, and upon his own terms, is utterly repugnant to the idea of property, and subversive of its rights. But all that the Act could pretend to do, was to remove the restraints which former statutes had imposed; and imposed for the purpose of protecting the property, and preserving it to the use of the Church, say the advocates of ecclesiastical rightsto the use of the State, say those who take a sounder view of the subject. In like manner, the law refuses to persons under oneand-twenty the right of conveying or leasing their estates, and to heirs of entail, or rather tenants in tail, the right to lease for more than 21 years. If an Act were passed, enabling all proprietors, and all tenants in tail, to grant 99 years' leases, could it be said that Parliament would have a right to step in and appropriate the additional value thus bestowed upon the land, by making it grantable on building-leases? It is perfectly manifest that there is but one ground upon which the measure can be rested; that is, the right of the State to deal with Church lands as public property;—a right which has been exercised with respect to every possession of the Church, both in England and Ireland, and which it is more for the true interests of the Church than of any other party to recognize in the present instance; when the object is to remove a grievance more injurious to the peace and security of the Establishment than even tithe itself.

If this plan had been so improved in its details that the objections above stated might be removed, and the full benefit of the property secured to the State, Church-rates would have been wholly extinguished, and a considerable surplus in all probability left for augmenting small livings. By giving too favourable terms to the lessees of town lands, only enough to pay the current rates, those levied for current expenses were expected to be raised. There was a large amount, between a fourth and fifth of the whole rates, left unprovided for, and which must have continued to be collected; those, namely, which went to pay the interest and extinguish the principal of the Church debt contracted under the

powers of various local Acts and charged upon the rates. For these the legal remedy is certain; it not being disputed that the levying of all this portion of the rates can be enforced by law, and no attempt being ever made to resist it. For many years to come, therefore, notwithstanding the new measure, rates would have been collected in all those parishes, and they were for the most part town parishes, where Dissenters are chiefly to be found. Nothing more is required to show the absolute necessity of so modifying the plan, before it is again brought forward, as to gain the full benefit of the change made in the Church property, and to effect the entire abolition of the rates.

Suppose, now, that the plan so improved and rendered effectual shall be carried, a great good will undoubtedly be done both to the Church and to the Dissenters. But it must not be supposed, by the one party, either that the least deviation will have been made from the principle of supporting an Establishment, or by the other, that they no longer contribute to support the Church. A portion of the public property will have been employed in maintaining the fabric, and providing for the service of all churches belonging to the Establishment. No part of that property will have been given to any other churches, and the Dissenters will still have to pay for supporting their own. In the course of the discussion and excitement that attended the progress of the measure, there was nothing on which the Dissenters insisted more than the evil of throwing the expense in question on the Consolidated Fund, according to Lord Althorp's plan of 1834; and Mr Rice argued at great length, and with much ingenuity, against that plan. Yet in principle it differs not at all from the new plan, and on no ground can the one be supported which does not also support the other. Mr Rice's first objection was, that Lord Althorp's plan deprived the parishioners in vestry assembled of the power they now possess of refusing a rate. They could no longer say Ay, or No, to any proposition for 'a rate. They would be deprived of the power they now possess.' Does the new plan give them any such negative-any such control over the expenditure? The Commissioners in London, and the churchwardens, or the archdeacon, or whoever looks after the affairs of the Church, without any kind of interference on the part of the parish, are to order the work and spend the money. The difference only is, that they take it from one public fund instead of another-from the land revenue fund instead of the consolidated fund. The other argument urged by Mr Rice has more plausibility, though in substance it is not at all more sound. He says that in a great number of parishes there are no rates. Indeed, he seems to think that there are 5000 parishes, where, from particular charitable funds having been provided by

benefactors in former times, no rates are required to be levied ; and he contends that it is unfair to make the inhabitants of those parishes contribute towards the service of the Church in other parishes, which they would do indirectly by paying the taxes which go to the consolidated fund. But where would this kind of reasoning end? Does it not apply to every one instance in which any money is expended by the public upon local objects ? There is scarce an item in the yearly votes for miscellaneous 'services,' which is not liable to the self same ' decisive objection.' It goes, in fact, almost to the destruction of all government, and all social union; and would reduce all administration of the public funds and all raising of the taxes to a system of parochial polity-nay, it would justify or rather require still further subdivisions of authorities where interests were still more subdivided; because in the larger parishes, and in the more populous manufacturing towns, one district and one street might justly complain that they were made to pay for the service of other districts and streets in which they had no direct interest. We should be entitled to conclude that Mr Rice can never have sanctioned any vote for schools (to take a case quite identical with the one in question), because there are many parishes where schools are not wanted, and where not a farthing of the grant can ever be received; and yet those parishes pay to the consolidated fund from which the grant is taken. Every one must perceive that if there is to be an Established Church, in one way or another its support must come from the country at large; and whether the land revenue, or the revenue raised by taxes is taken for the purpose, cannot, in point of principle, make the least difference.

But it is said that the Dissenters would feel aggrieved by paying money which they knew went into a general fund, out of which a portion was taken to repair the Established churches. We have shown that the Church land is public property; and if its revenues were not expended in repairing the churches, they would be expended in relief of the public burdens, and thus lessen the taxes now levied. Consequently, the Dissenter pays indirectly to the Establishment, by the new plan, just as certainly as he would have paid had the charge been thrown on the consolidated fund. He does not indeed pay so much, but the Church does not receive more; because if the sums wanted had been provided out of that fund without altering the present management of Church lands, those lands would either not have yielded the sums required, or if they had, the lessees would probably have received nearly the whole value. Upon the point of conscience, however, the amount is immaterial.

But another observation must strike every one who hears it

alleged as a grievance to Dissenters that they should pay taxes if any part goes to the Church. We freely admit the great grievance to them of an Establishment; we can easily comprehend how every Dissenter should, for the reasons already stated, object to all establishments whatever; but we are now upon the conscientious objection to paying money into a fund, part of which is to support the Church-an objection used as something peculiar and not falling within the scope of the general argument against an Establishment. Surely this is a groundless distinction. The whole government of the country, in all its branches, protects, maintains, supports the Church. Whoever pays taxes contributes to the support of the Church. This is necessarily involved in the very idea of an Establishment; and this is the very reason why the Dissenters have a right to oppose an Establishment. Thus the taxes which support the administration of justice and the police pay for the power which the parson has to enforce payment of tithe. But no Dissenter objects to the money he pays being so expended. The Quakers conscientiously object to tithe, and suffer their goods to be taken rather than pay. They have quite as strong an objection to war. But all the expenses of war are paid out of the taxes, and yet the Quakers never object to payment of all taxes during war. Why, while they know that part of every tax goes to warlike purposes, should they not make the objection to the payment of any tax which the Dissenters generally now make to charging the Church-rates on the consolidated fund? A Dissenter, by paying taxes, would no more pay for repairing churches than a Quaker pays for equipping expeditions, the objects of which he utterly abhors.

the

The more the matter is considered, therefore, the more clearly will it appear that, in as far as regards the principle, there is no kind of difference between charging the expense of repairing churches upon the consolidated fund and upon the land revenue. But there is a material difference between either of these methods of settling the question and leaving it in its present state; for the grievance is much greater to the Dissenter of being assessed to pay Church service and repairs in his own parish, where a majority, who, by the supposition, are members of the Establishment, provide partly at his cost for their own accommodation, in which he cannot share. The bulk of the objections to rates certainly is the objection which may be made to an Established Church generally; but part of the objection is peculiar to this method of making provision for the Church, and it is by much the most offensive and vexatious form in which the burden is cast upon those who do not conform to the Establishment. The transfer of this burden to the consolidated fund its objectionable, but not on

VOL. LXV. NO. CXXXII.

2 H

principle more objectionable than transferring it to the Church lands. It is true that so much is saved to the public revenue by the latter plan, and to this extent it deserves the preference. But if after using the Church lands for the purpose, there is found to be a manifest necessity for more than the surplus can afford, in order to make the livings of the poorer clergy sufficient for their decent maintenance, and if after every thing shall be done which a better distribution of the other property of the Church can effect towards accomplishing this object, the public revenue must in the end bear the burden; for as long as an Established Church shall be the settled policy of the country, there must be a decent maintenance provided for its clergy. Whether or not the whole property, as it is called, of the Church, is sufficient for this purpose, in whatever way distributed, has long been a question involved in great controversy. It is at least plain that all things must be tried to make the distribution, before any recourse is had to the ordinary revenues of the State, those raised by taxations; and it is precisely because the measure lately propounded consists of a fair attempt to make this distribution, as far as the surplus is concerned, and because it casts the burden of the repairs upon the Church funds, that its principle has received such unqualified approbation from all who feel the necessity of reforming, and thus repairing and strengthening the Establishment.

The whole body of the Dissenters throughout England and Wales warmly approved of the plan. In this sentiment they were heartily joined by the greater part of those belonging to the Established Church who favour liberal opinions. By some oversight, the errors in the details of the measure were not corrected when the sense of the House of Commons was first taken upon the merits of the plan. This alarmed the lessees, and many steady reformers joined in their dislike to the proposition. A majority of twenty-three was all that could be persuaded to support it; and this on the subsequent division dwindled down to a majority of five, which sealed the fate of the measure for the present. There can be little doubt that the efforts which the Church party had made, and the misconception of the nature of the plan which had spread through the country during the long time allowed to intervene between the two stages of the proceeding, tended to influence many members who would otherwise have been most averse to withdrawing their support from the Government. Their conduct is, however, not the less to be lamented. They have given a serious blow to the cause of liberal opinions; they have made it appear that narrow, goted, and intolerant views bear a sway in Parliament, and have a vogue in the country far beyond what we can have