deserves; but it may be submitted to, as furnishing evidence of the jaundiced eye with which Dr. Lang beholds every proceeding in which the church of England has any concern, and of the wilfully erroneous statements which he permits himself to make respecting her clergy. It is undoubtedly true, that a general registry act, of the purport here stated, was passed by the legislative council on the 1st of November, 1825 (No. 21.); and it is provided thereby, that the fine for neglecting compliance with this law "shall be paid, appropriated, and accounted for, in the same manner as in and by a certain act of the governor in council, intitled an act to prevent the harbouring of runaway convicts, and the encouragement of convicts' tippling and gambling, is directed and prescribed." It appears already, therefore, that the unhandsome allusion to rogues and vagabonds, and their suppression, without which the charge would amount to nothing, is a pure fiction, and a gratuitous invention of Dr. Lang. But it may still further be shewn, that even the reference contained in the registry act, harmless and inoffensive as it is, was not peculiar to that act, but was at the time the customary mode of directing the appropriation of fines; for the same direction, in the same words, occurs also in the acts No. 4., February 8, 1825; No. 10., April 5, 1825; No. 2., February 20, 1826; No. 3., July 12, 1826; and probably in others. These, however, may suffice to manifest the spirit in which Dr. Lang writes; first suffering himself to be deceived, under the influence of spite, into a belief of that which does not exist, and then misleading others, by his neglect to examine documents, which were in every body's hands, and open to his immediate inspection. Such a proceeding produces all the ill-effects of wilful falsehood, and involves the writer very nearly, if not quite, in the guilt of it. "It was impossible," he says, "to mistake the meaning of this precious morsel of colonial, or rather of archidiaconal legislation, or its particular reference to my own case, and to that of all other ministers of the presbyterian church, who might afterwards be settled in either colony." Does this puzzle-headed man know his own meaning? Or can he explain how it was possible for the clause to have been invented by the archdeacon, with a view to insult the presbyterian clergy, when, as has been shewn, it had been already inserted several times in acts passed before the archdeacon came into the colony? No one who knew archdeacon Scott, would believe him capable of prostituting his influence in the legislature, for the purpose of inflicting a stab in the dark. Even those to whom he was most opposed will admit, that he never proved himself, at any rate, an insidious or dastardly adversary. Least of all, can Dr. Lang make such a charge without exposing himself to inevitable conviction of the crime of duplicity. If he believed what he now asserts, how came he, let him explain, to preserve an appearance of cordiality, and terms of friendly intercourse with archdeacon Scott, until the latter quitted the colony, four years after the registry act was passed? How came he, in 1828, to write and print the following sentence, "The venerable the archdeacon (Scott) is happily entirely free from that illiberal spirit which acknowledges nothing excellent or praiseworthy beyond the pale of its own little enclosure; in testimony of which the author (Dr. Lang) is very happy to state, that he has uniformly testified the utmost liberality, both towards himself and his coadjutor, the reverend Mr. Mc. Garvie." (Narrative of the Settlement of the Scots' Church, p. 101.) But in reality, Dr. Lang never did believe the accusation. He made no complaint, when it was natural he should do so, if he felt aggrieved; and he has at this distance of time trumped up the story before us, because he allows petulance to get the better of a regard for truth, and for his own respectability.

(To be continued.)

LONDON UNIVERSITY.

NO. I.

Ar the anniversary dinner of the Orphan Working Asylum, Lord Brougham was in the chair; and in returning thanks, after his health had been drank, his lordship said—" He might have expected some applause from fellow-labourers in the great cause to which he had devoted his life; but the very cordial and flattering manner in which his health had been drunk quite overpowered his warmest expectations. After some general observations upon the progress of education, his lordship said, that no plan in which he had ever been engaged had caused him so much mortification as the failure (he might call it) of the University of London. There were several most eminent professors in every department of literature and science employed at the University; but the truth was, that the people of London were so aristocratically inclined, that they would rather starve themselves to pay 250l. to send their sons to Oxford or Cambridge, where they might associate with the sons of lords and bishops, than pay 101. per annum to the University of London, where they might receive an education quite as complete and extensive. It would be very well if they would be persuaded to put the 2007. in their pockets, and send five sons to be educated in London for the remainder." (Great cheering.)-Patriot.

NO. II.

WE could have wished that the London University were more worthy of the support it has received; but we cannot conceal from ourselves that it is, as a university, a failure. It has as yet established nothing but a huge mass of almost unemployed brickwork. It has no reputation. It had, and it has some eminent professors belonging to it, but their reputation seems rather to have been buried under its weight than to have been able to lift it into a share of their own renown. Its diplomas, specifying upon what authority those grants are made, are not likely, till it be improved, to be worth much. Nothing can make them, in fact, valuable but a well-founded reputation, acquired by the institution which grants them.-Courier.

[And after these declarations, and after the Privy Council, full of persons anxious to get a charter for it, felt the impossibility of doing this in face of the evidence brought before them, the House of Commons, without any evidence, wishes to force the King to use his prerogative, and demands a charter for what its author pronounces to be a failure!]

DISSENT IN WALES.-VOLUNTARY SYSTEM.

FROM the "Patriot” of March 25 it appears, (in a statement signed by the leading congregationalist ministers,) that within the last thirty years the congregational chapels have increased from seventeen to one hundred and fiftyseven in North Wales, and nearly as much in South Wales; and that this has been effected at a cost of £34,000. Within the last two years the Welsh have raised £18,000. to pay this off, and have now sent a body of their ministers to beg for assistance. The "Patriot" complains that they have not yet received 1000l. from London and the suburbs; while the "Patriot" would have counted on double the sum. The fact is, that a very large portion of the wealthy dissenters have left them. The Churchman's Letters on the Voluntary System mention, that, to the writer's knowledge, above £100,000 per annum has been withdrawn from the dissenting body within these few years. The decrease of wealth accounts for the increase of bitterness.

590

DOCUMENTS.

BENEFITS FROM QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY TO LAY-PATRONS.

SIR,In your Number for December, 1834, appeared a summary of the Grants made by the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty to Livings not in the gift of the Church and Collegiate Institutions, from 1714 to the end of 1825. I have since been favoured with a copy of Mr. Hodgson's book, containing a Supplement of the Grants to the end of the year 1834. I think it, therefore, very desirable to lose no time in setting before the public a general view of what Lay-patrons have received from a tax, exclusively imposed upon the clergy, up to the present period.

A Summary of the Benefices in each Diocese, not in the Patronage of the Church or of the Universities, which have received AUGMENTATIONS from the Royal Bounty, and from Parliamentary Grants, stating the Amount they have received from these sources, and from the Benefactions of benevolent individuals.

Mr. Hodgson and the Clerical Guide differ as to the Patrons of the living of Langton

Hering, Dorset. The Lord Chancellor certainly has given nothing.

On the peculiar hardship upon the clergy in paying such a tax in order to increase the marketable value of what is become vendible property, I must refer to the observations in your Magazine for December. But as so many persons seem ignorant of the source from whence the livings in lay-patronage are daily acquiring an increase of worth, it may be useful to your general readers to offer a few remarks on the nature, history, and distribution of this fund. Your clerical readers know full well the inconveniences and burdens which they alone have to bear; though they even may have no idea of the vast sum of money which is annually drawn from them and given to laymen, who, in many cases, are large proprietors of Church property, are panting for further spoliation, and greedily seize upon these augmentations extorted from the impoverished clergy.

Every clergyman (with certain exceptions hereafter mentioned) is bound to pay to the "Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty" the amount of what is called the first year's income on his being presented to a benefice. This goes under the name of "first-fruits," being the first annual proceeds arising from the living in each incumbentship. He is also further required, every year, to pay the tenth" part of this annual value. So that, on a clergyman's getting a living, he pays, 1st, the amount of one year's income; and 2dly, every year afterwards he pays the "tenth" part of that sum. The valuation of the livings, according to which these taxes are rated, being, however, made in the time of Hen. VIII., is considerably below the real amount, and so far the payments are less onerous.

This money was anciently collected for the Pope, and sent to Rome; afterwards it was taken by the crown. About 130 years ago, Queen Anne, conscientiously scrupling to tax the clergy any longer in order to furnish pensions, or to supply the extravagance of courtiers, directed that the "tenths" and "first-fruits" should be laid out in augmenting the maintenance of the poor clergy. Hence the fund is called Queen Anne's, or the Royal, Bounty. Governors were accordingly incorporated, and authorized to receive and to distribute this money in the way best calculated to answer the Queen's purposes. One of the first measures was to exempt from the payment of these incumbrances 3,900 of the poorest livings, which have ever since continued free, and discharged from paying first fruits and tenths-most of which, indeed, have required aid from the funds collected from the other livings. This caused a considerable reduction in the future amount of the tax, but was an immediate, and doubtless a very acceptable mode of relief. After the lapse of a few years, the gradual augmentation of the very small livings commenced, and has been carried on with the greatest prudence, impartiality and effect.

Our present purpose is, however, to inquire more particularly into the amount of money which has been appropriated out of this Clerical Fund to augment livings which are not in the gift of the Church and universities, but are in the patronage of the crown and of private individuals.

It may be necessary shortly to state the cause of so many clergymen deriving such trifling incomes, when their parishes are large and rich, and pay tithes to a great amount. When Henry VIII. destroyed the monasteries and other religious places, he sold, or gave to his favourites, the lands, tithes, patronage of churches, &c. which had belonged to the monastic institutions. By this means a very great number of benefices fell into the hands of private persons, who, became the legal owners,* who presented to the livings, and who continued to pay the officiating incumbent the old prescript stipend only, which had probably been allowed to him when he was a member of some neighbouring monastery, or which had been fixed at a time when his chief emoluments arose from personal oblations and occasional payments-sources

Q. Do lay rectors, or owners of tithes, pay first-fruits or tenths?

of income which almost entirely ceased at the Reformation. Now these livings, with the tithes, having become as it were lay-property, have, in a multitude of instances, been bought and sold, and have so passed into the hands of various owners, subject only to the same ancient rent or payment to the clergyman. Hence we see the reason why so many incumbents have poor and scanty incomes from benefices which pay large sums annually to lay-proprietors. We may notice two other reasons,—

1st, The tithes of several livings were appropriated to deans and chapters, the universities, &c., which bodies are in return bound to provide for the spiritual wants of the parish. They commonly enjoy the tithes of grain, and permit the vicar, or perpetual curate, who is now resident, to possess the small tithes.

2dly, The prevalence of moduses, and exemption from all tithes in various districts, arising usually from the clergy neglecting to enforce their rights, extensively affected their incomes, and seriously diminished their means of subsistence.

The governors of the Royal Bounty were directed to augment and improve all small livings according to certain regulations; those which were in the gift of the crown were to have a preference, but all others in the same state of poverty, whether they were in the gift of public bodies, ecclesiastical persons, or private individuals, were equally eligible.

The money arising from the first fruits and tenths is distributed by the governors in two ways:-1. Grants of 2001. each are made to augment any small living, (below such an annual income), on the condition that the same sum at least, shall be provided from some other source for the same purpose; so that for every 2001. collected or given by the patron, incumbent, or others, the governors will grant 2007.

2. The governors annually divide a considerable sum "by lot," to several poor livings, according to income, population, &c. in grants of 2001. each, without requiring any corresponding contributions.

Now as the money is thus exacted from the clergy to augment the maintenance of their poorer brethren, it might have been supposed that means would have been adopted to prevent the lay-patrons, who enjoyed the great tithes, and allowed in most cases such a pittance to the officiating minister, from deriving any profit from these augmentations, and that the livings in the gift of ecclesiastical persons would be first benefited; but such has not been the case.

There is an important difference (as was observed in the British Magazine for December) between Church patronage and lay or private patronage, which I must here notice. The former is attached to office, the latter to the person. A lay-patron, whether he has the tithes or not, can dispose of his right of presentation either entirely, or for one term; he can convert it into money, or exchange it for any other equivalent; it is quite as much a personal advantage as any other estate or commodity he may possess. But, on the other hand, the patronage of the Church is inalienably restricted to the office; and no bishop, or other ecclesiastical patron, can, either directly or indirectly, receive or derive, personally, any pecuniary or other benefit from the disposal of the preferments which belong to his office. We perceive, therefore, that in cases of private patronage, every augmentation increases the legal value of the patron's property or right in the market, and of course enhances the price he would ask either for a single presentation or for the advowson. When this augmentation comes from the Royal Bounty, the clergy alone constitute the payers, and the lay-patrons the receivers. With respect to Church patronage, the donor can derive no personal advantage.

Keeping in view this difference in the character of the two classes of livings, we proceed to ascertain what has been actually done by the governors towards bettering lay or private benefices, especially out of the tenths and first fruits of the clergy, to which lay-owners of tithes, &c. contribute nothing.