apologize for having thus long occupied your attention, I must, in concluding, touch upon one point of great public importance-the condition of the Negroes in the Colonies, whom this country has, by the most noble act ever performed by a nation, emancipated at a vast pecuniary sacrifice. On such an occasion as the present, I feel, and all, I am sure, will agree with me, that no allusion should be made to topics calculated to excite political differences or discussions. -But with respect to Negro emancipation, I may, without infringing that rule, observe, that the act was, in itself, a noble one. As to the time, and mode of carrying that emancipation into effect, all may not quite agree with the authors of the measure; but all must agree that the traffic in Negroes was opposed to all Christian principles. Property in the flesh and blood of our fellow men, ought to be done away with. It is my own opinion that it should have been done earlier, and by more gradual means. Had Christianity in the West Indies been more extensively propagated, instead of such momentous dnties being left in the hands of ignorant enthusiasts-had the church been our earlier care, that which has now somewhat precipitately taken place might have been effected gradually and with safety, and without that vast pecuniary sacrifice which has entailed upon us an expense of 800,000l. per annum, for ever. But the benevolent feelings of all must now lead them to wish that the inculcation of the doctrines of the church should be a leading feature in the measures to be taken in cultivating the minds of our emancipated fellow-subjects, to prevent their converting their liberty into licentiousness. Once more apologizing for the length of remark into which the consideration of so important a subject has led me, it only remains for me to bespeak your attention to the arguments that will be used, and the details that will be laid before you, by those gentlemen near me, who are so well qualified to urge the claims of the society for the propagation of the gospel, to your generous support.

INCORPORATED SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING THE ENLARGEMENT,
BUILDING, AND REPAIRING OF CHURCHES AND CHAPELS.
A MEETING of this Society was held at their chambers, in St. Martin's
Place, on Monday, the 15th of December; his Grace the Archbishop of
Canterbury in the chair. There were present the Lord Bishop of London,
the Lord Bishop of St. Asaph, the Right Hon. Lord Bexley, Rev. Archdeacon
Cambridge, Rev. Dr. Shepherd, H. J. Barchard, Esq., Samuel Bosanquet,
Esq., J. S. Salt, Esq., and others of the Committee.

Among other business transacted, grants, varying in amount according to the exigency of the case, were voted towards rebuilding and enlarging the church of St. Michael, Stamford; enlarging and new pewing the church at Holybourn, in the county of Southampton; building a gallery in, and repairing the church at, Great Waltham, in the county of Essex; building a church at Chichester; enlarging the church at Kirkhammerton, in the county of York; rebuilding the church at Chapel Colman, in the county of Pembroke; repewing the church at Ware, in the county of Herts; rebuilding and enlarging the chapel at Brentwood, in the county of Essex; rebuilding and enlarging the church at Bramshot, in the county of Southampton; building a chapel at Forest Row, in the parish of East Grinstead, and county of Sussex; building a chapel at Danehill, in the parish of Fletching, and county of Sussex; increasing the accommodation in the church at Mundesley, in the county of Norfolk.

CHURCH MATTERS.

THE churchmen and clergy who have so anxiously recommended large changes in the church may now see that they have not laboured in vain. Church reform was a cry taken up for political purposes, without any definite form, till they gave it one, and pointed out the various modes in which it was possible to violate the principle of property, and break in on the existing condition of the church.* Some have conferred this great service on the church and the country from very good motives, though not from very wide views; some from vanity; some from mere love of change. But whatever the motive was, they accustomed the public ear to the notion of large changes; and as whatever a possessor offers to grant is, of course, not looked on (as he would idly hope) as the end, but as the beginning of concession, they have whetted the public appetite to a far higher condition of hungry craving than even their fondest dreams could have imagined. On the prudence of this course, it is now too late to dwell. It remains probably to be seen, how those, who have prepared the medicine, will relish it. For they have rendered it impossible for even a friendly government to commence its course without speaking of a fresh distribution of church property; and for those who most clearly see the dangers, on the one hand, and the mischiefs, on the other, which will follow change, to nourish the expectation that change will not take place. Previously to the present day, the lawyers

It may have sometimes appeared to the readers of this Magazine that Church Reformers have been too harshly spoken of. But the fact is, that in by far the majority of eases, their proposals were so crude, and shewed such utter want of all power and inclination to see how schemes would work, that persons guilty of it must be considered as most presumptuous. To talk, as they did, and still do, of abolishing pluralities and non-residence at once, and a variety of other schemes of the same kind, as if more harm than good would not be done, is so wild that it cannot be mentioned in a very courteous manner. Another specimen has been added to the former list within these few days in a paper circulated by Archdeacon Webber through his archdeaconry. The Sussex Incumbent," who has forwarded this amusing specimen of radical reform, (which arrived too late for the present number, but shall be used in the next,) will easily appreciate the reasons which prevent a person, long engaged in endeavouring practically to reform what has generally been thought a gross scandal and abuse, in opposition to Archdeacon Webber, from making any remarks on his paper. His motives might be mistaken either by himself or others. Happily, however, no comment is necessary. When a scheme, consisting of fourteen propositions, intended to secure the church against all pluralities, jobbing, &c. &c., has been so hastily drawn up, and so little considered, that, if tried in the case of the proposer, it would actually allow him to hold an archdeaconry and two stalls, and to receive a pension from each of two livings, the Sussex clergy are not very likely to need any caution against it. One thing more as to church reformers. They have left, perhaps, to those who, on principle, resisted as long as they could, no other task than that of doing whatever they can to make the measures proposed as little evil and as really useful as possible. But let them not reproach those who have resisted so long on principle, if they resist no longer; and, above all, let them not complain at last, if the sacrifice required of them comes nearer home than some of them may like. Are not all of them, indeed, bound, in their own persons and times, to submit to the changes which may be ordered only for the successors of the present generation? They who have recommended measures ought, surely, to set the example of submitting to them.

guarded church property, not alone, but in common with all property, with an almost religious awe, and preserved the most trifling prescriptive rights and payments in any transfers of property-not on a narrow, but a broad view-viz., that the structure of society, as it is, is built on the notion of the inviolability of property, and that conse quently the idea of that inviolability must, for the good of society, be most carefully cherished. In the very few cases where a sort of physical necessity existed-i.e. excessive evil to be remedied, or exceeding advantages (as in the cases of canals, roads, &c., through private property) to be gained-for a departure from the principle, the caution, the difficulty, and the compensation shewed that this departure was an exception, not a rule. Now, by the efforts of church reformers, it seems probable that, in the case of church property, first, a departure from this principle will be recognised as the rule, and not the exception. A citizen, far more than a churchman, may bewail this, because a very little reflexion and knowledge of history will teach him the consequences, consequences which it is better to advert to, than to describe in detail. But, to come to a narrower ground, not the dangers to the country from touching any property, but the mischiefs to the church, from altering what belongs to that body, while any specific measures are not announced, it would be idle and unwise to enter into detail. This however should be said, that while every real friend of the church would, at all times, rejoice at any measures which should prevent accumulation of preferments, and would never wish for very large incomes for the clergy, they who intend not only that the establishment should be preserved, but that it should preserve its influence, must take care that sufficient incomes are left for the clergy to enable them, by their education, habits, and manners, to mix with the gentlemen of the country. It is very true that a party, which imagines itself friendly to the church, and which has usually shewn its friendship by endeavouring to introduce arbitrary measures, and to treat the clergy as if they were actuated by no motive but one, in its profound ignorance of mankind and society, refers to the Swiss, German, and Scotch clergy. Of the Scotch clergy every one must wish to speak with that respect which eminently belongs to them; but it is vain to contend that they have any influence; or that, except where their extraordinary attainments make their society a favour on their part, they are looked on as the proper companions of the higher classes. This is still more the case in Germany, where they are positively treated with contempt and contumely. They who have no influence with the rich will have much less influence with the poor. He, therefore, who has so little studied the structure of society in this country, as to suppose that, if he reduces the clergy to that condition that they cannot freely associate with the higher classes, they will retain their influence, cannot deserve that much time should be expended in arguing with him. The statesman must consider whether he thinks the influence of the clergy of any use-whether it is not always on the side of good order and tranquillity, and whether, even now, its being withdrawn would not materially lessen the chance of the country's remaining tranquil. They who profess a reverence for religion may consider also whether they would think it desirable,

on religious grounds, that the rich and great should be exempted from the check, control, and influence of the society of a well-instructed and influential clergy; and whether they think that the entire degradation of the clergy will serve the cause of religion with the poor. These things are really worth patient consideration; though they will notreceive it from those who wilfully or ignorantly confound one state of things with another, and represent the condition, the difficulties, and the zeal which belong to the missionary among savages, as the wise, and proper, and wholesome condition of things in a long settled state. It is hardly worth while perhaps to go further than to observe that, should any attempt be made, now or hereafter, to reduce the incomes of clergy below a certain point, and yet to retain the establishment, the country ought to be prepared to make some large grants, for every one who inquires about the clergy whom he knows, will find that an enormous quantity of private income is brought into the church, (which is thus maintained at a much cheaper rate than it could otherwise be,) and that assuredly fathers, who can leave incomes to their sons, will not bring up their children (speaking generally) to a profession which holds out no prospects to them. The facts in the case of the dissenters prove this sufficiently. There are plenty of monied men among them. But who among these brings up his son to the ministry ?*

But it is necessary to go on and say a few words more on another part of this subject. The writer has always abstained from all party reflexions on the late ministry in treating of church matters, and has done so on principle. And certainly the same principles will actuate him now. But it is due to the heads of the church and the clergy to say, that, at least, it is not their fault that, on several points, such changes as wisdom and principle would permit and suggest were not made long ago. Let it be remembered that a Tithe Bill, which (with perhaps some improvement in its machinery) would have entirely relieved every one who felt aggrieved by the uncertainty of his payments to the clergy, and might have been the basis of any further measures, was actually brought in by the church. Why was it rejected by the House of Commons? No one can doubt that it was rejected because it was clearly seen by the enemies of the church both in and out of that house that it would have put an end to the cry against the church on that point. Again, the Heads of the church introduced a Bill to restrain Pluralities, which passed the Lords, and was introduced to the House of Commons, where considerable amendments were to be proposed, carrying the restrictions still farther than in the original bill. Strange to say, a time for reading this bill a second time could never be found! With all the ardour for church reform, a time could not be found or made to entertain the project of the church to remove any causes of complaint against itself! Dr. Lushington, to whom the bill was entrusted, used, it is to be presumed, all diligence to obtain a second reading, but time was never obtained. Now, can any one doubt that, had there been a proper feeling on the subject, a measure thus proposed would have been entertained? Can

The writer knows one person of private income, who was a dissenting minister, but he has retired, and has openly expressed dissatisfaction at much among them.

any one doubt that it was not carried because it was clearly seen by the enemies of the church, that as to pluralities also, this measure would have stilled all clamour, would have done away what was really objectionable, and would have satisfied every reasonable man? Since that time, as the Bishop of Exeter most justly states, as the government announced every year in the King's speech that they were about to introduce measures of church reform, they prevented all possibility of the church's moving on its own behalf, and yet they failed to introduce any measures, or rather abandoned what they did propose. Lord Althorp's second Tithe Bill wanted so much more consideration that it was impossible to carry it; and probably most reasonable people who know the complicated forms in which old property exists, will see that an enabling act is the only method of proceeding; that it would be most difficult to frame a compulsory act, and probably, even after very long consideration, impossible to do so without gross injustice. An enabling bill, giving a choice of means of changing the form of tithe property, would do all that is required.

Even

Of Lord Brougham's Residence and Pluralities Bills, it can hardly be necessary to speak seriously as measures ever intended to be carried, for the simple reason that the greater part of them were rank absurdity, and (as it is understood) the fruit of a confused mixture of two separate projects by different persons which almost contradicted one another. It is painful to remember, that one who could have done so much service to a good cause as Lord Brougham, should have shewn such an animus towards the clergy and church as those bills displayed (which was indeed all that they did), and that he should have made so publicly a declaration as to his intentions of leaving small patronage in the hands of the bishops without adhering to it. Lord Brougham is doubtless aware ere this (in some cases from public proceedings) that he would have done far better for the church and his own credit, as to several of these appointments, if he had so adhered to it.

As to the grievances, it has already been stated over and over again that (as the Bishop of Lincoln remarks) the clergy make no difficulties as to registration and marriages, whatever they may think (for no selfish reasons) of the expediency of the matter; and as to church rates, as the new premier has intimated his approbation of the principle of the late bill, some measure, it is to be presumed, of that kind, will be brought forward, free at least from the clumsy and impracticable machinery which disgraced the last. The writer's own belief is unchanged, that a simple enactment pointing out the means of recovering the necessary rates would have been sufficient, even a short time back, especially if Dr. D'Oyly's suggestion that the rate should cover only things necessary for public worship. But after all the clamour on part of churchmen for reform, it will be something to maintain the principle of a national maintenance of the national worship, although the church is robbed of so large a portion of what belongs to it. With respect to the universities, the premier's declaration will give satisfaction to all reasonable men. Let our universities remain to us; let the dissenters have their own colleges; and let the great authorities in law and medicine give to character and competency among the dissenters, established by what proofs