Protestants to be limited by themselves, and then pay over the proceeds "to purposes of education;" in plain English, however Lord Grey may deny, or Lord Brougham evade, to Popish priests and Popish schools! And all this without consent of Convocation or ecclesiastical patrons! It is absurd to exult, as some Tories, as well as Whigs, have hitherto done, at the triumphant opposition of the Commons to a Repeal of the Union. The Union is already repealed by the Irish Church Reform bill. But the repeal is confirmed by this commission. The integrity and perpetuity of the United Church is an integral and fundamental part of that measure by its fifth article; and how it can survive the destruction of an integral and fundamental part is more than we can understand. When the Papists have gained the dissolution of the Irish Church, they will not be slow to taunt ministers with this unanswerable argument; and by what process will they attempt to uphold the remainder of a contract, a prime article of which they have deliberately violated?

That the principle of the Commission can be restrained to Ireland is what none can be so weak as to suppose. And even if it could, it would be the height of injustice and cruelty to our Irish brethren, for us to sit unconcerned spectators of their calamity. But it is impossible that they should be the only sufferers. The legislature, in defiance of an unrepealed act, may awhile treat the United Church as two; but no English churchman will countenance the treasonable hypothesis, nor shrink from that community of suffering with his Irish brethren, to which, even were he so basely disposed as to decline it, the common enemy has too surely doomed him. What is justice in Ireland, cannot be injustice in England. There may be, for any thing we know, parishes in Lancashire, where Papists equal, or even outnumber Protestants; why should not these benefices be suppressed? By what moral rule can it be right to deal thus in Ireland, and leave England to her antiquated and illiberal institutions? Why should the ministerial Astræa take up her heaven in Ireland, and not shed an occasional blessing on these benighted shores? Why should not a certain number of dissenters in any parish, afford a fair reason to Parliament for plundering the benefice? And where is the operation of the principle to find its limit? How many churchmen, ultimately, are to be deemed sufficient to rescue a benefice from utter annihilation? It is plain as Midsummer daylight that the principle can have no limitation, while there is a penny of Church property to administer to Whig or schismatical rapacity. What is to resist this course but the Convocation ?-Let every churchman answer to himself, how he can neglect the means of obtaining this indispensable safeguard. When our Bishops will not take the lead, and encourage meetings and petitions for this purpose, the clergy and laity are competent to do so for we apprehend no prelate will condemn, though he may not approve.

We call upon Churchmen, that they may stand forth and save their Church, the first intended victim of the projected robbery. But we call upon men of all denominations to stand forth and help her; for her cause is now bound up with the cause of property and order. Why is the assault meditated?-Because the Church is convicted of misapplying the property entrusted to her care? This is not pretended. And if

it were, it would be no reason for impoverishing the Church, though it might be good reason for punishing the individual administrators of her affairs. No! the reason is this. Hear Mr. Spring Rice: "If it appeared in proof that the wealth of the Church of Ireland was more than adequate to its support, that it was so great as rather to endanger than to support its existence, he would, in that case, enter into the consideration of its revenues, for the purpose of promoting its security." Conceive a highwayman to address Mr. Rice: "Really, Right Honourable Sir, it seems to me your wealth is more than adequate to your support, and rather endangers than supports your existence; permit me to take that quietly, which some more straight-forward brother of the road may extort with the pistol; or, perhaps, pistol you first, and rob you afterwards." We should like to hear Mr. Rice's reply to such an address. Let Dissenters, aye, even Papists, look to the consequences of such reasoning as this. When wealth becomes great enough to be a bait to cupidity, it may be confiscated, for the "SECURITY" of the owner! If such doctrine is long suffered to prevail, our lexicographers must find new interpretations of the term "security."-The securities of the Dukes of Cleveland and Bedford, of the Marquis of Westminster, and of the Earl of Darnley, will differ widely from what they were in old illiberal Tory days. But we are told that all this may be done to a Church, without sanctioning the same principle in relation to patrimonial property. Those who say so know nothing of history or of the human mind. When was Church property confiscated, and individual property spared?-Will those who are to have a share in the plunder, make scrupulous and over-nice distinctions ?-Will the ten pound householders, for instance, if the pillage of Raby, and Woburn, and Eaton, and Cobham, would free them from the impost of the assessed taxes, be seized with qualms on the equity of the principle, just after the Irish Church has submitted, on the very same principle, to be despoiled? We do not, however, draw any distinction between ecclesiastical and hereditary property. Much of it is hereditary property in the strictest sense. ADVOWSONS are property disposable for money, and they descend from father to son. Some of these the new commission would EXTINGUISH; all, probably, it would reduce. It is an undisguised assault upon the most ancient and the most sacred species of property; property allowed to be such by Lord Brougham himself; and we call upon every Briton and every Irishman, be his creed what it may, if he has a penny in his pocket, to secure that penny by making every effort against the new Church Robbery Commission.

The views of Mr. Stanley, though far different as regards the Church, are equally fatal with those of ministers themselves to the principle of property. But, that Sir Robert Peel should coincide in them! If Mr. Stanley, on a late occasion, has acted with more scrupulosity than we could have expected, Sir Robert Peel has indeed astonished us by the licentiousness of his new doctrines ! He has never righted, perhaps never will, from the fatal hurricane of 1829. We deny that the income of one benefice can be transferred to that of another, or applied to ecclesiastical purposes other than what it at present serves, by mere act of Parliament, without convulsing the whole aggregate of property in the kingdom. Let the consent of patrons, and of Convocation, be obtained,

and then, indeed, Parliament may safely go to work. Once allow Mr. Stanley's principle, and we may transfer the endowments of our Universities to Gower Street College; the revenues of the College of Physicians to Dr. Morrison's College of Health; the property of our Inns of Court to the Law Institution; and Fazely Park to Joseph Hume, Esq.

The Dissenters in Ireland view matters with eyes far different from those of their brethren in England. The Irish Dissenter sees, in all the ministerial attacks upon the Church, a servile truckling to Papists, on whose will and pleasure the places of ministers in some degree depend. He sees that self, and self only, is the object of the present ministry; and that to that object they would immolate any thing that even seemed to stand in the way. He knows that the cause of property and of the Church is ONE. We beg our dissenting friends and enemies to consider whether their brethren across the channel are not in the right; and, for their own sakes, quite as much as for ours, to make common cause against the new interpretation of " FIAT JUSTITIA."

LAY PATRONAGE IN THE CHURCH.

If ever there was any maxim in policy which appeared strictly selfevident, it is this: that the offices and emoluments of any profession should never be in the disposal of extra-professional men. The truth of this assertion, if it require illustration, will easily admit of it. If the Lord Chancellor appointed Colonels in the Army, and the Commander-in-Chief conferred silk gowns: if the Board of Trade bestowed naval commissions, and the Admiralty elected the Examiners of Surgeons' Hall; would such absurdities remain a moment without incurring the most intense ridicule ? Would it not be instantly seen, that such arrangement could not fail to be inefficient and injurious, and subservient to no purpose except the uses of interest and patronage? Yet this same absurd system excites no surprise or attention in the Church, although not occasionally allowed, but dominant and universal. The Lord Chancellor, a lay officer, distributes, ex-officio, a great number of livings; and a still greater number are disposed of by the lay gentry of the kingdom.

: We remark not this to question the undoubted civil right of these ecclesiastical patrons, although "from the beginning it was not so.” The Lord Chancellor was formerly most usually an ecclesiastic: and lay patronage arose from the unwarrantable plunder of the monasteries by Henry VIII. The immunities of those bodies being granted to laymen indiscriminately, the presentations to benefices passed among them. What was originally a most unjustifiable extension of power, long prescription has sanctified and rendered inviolable. Of this we are fully aware, and we pretend not to dispute it. The property of advowson is as sacred as any other. Yet we may be allowed to remark on the dangers and absurdities of the present system. Its dangers indeed are so much greater than those of extra-professional interference in other cases, as the profession of a clergyman is of greater importance than any other in the interests of society.

Both as regards justice towards the individual, and the spiritual ad

vantage of the community, the largest benefices ought always to be conferred on the most pious, active, and intelligent men. In the present system of private patronage this can never take place universally. The patron usually considers the relationship or the interests of the party whom he presents, and nothing more. There is always a temptation which should not exist. From this result numerous evil consequences: -useful and meritorious men are excluded from their just reward, and parishes deprived of their valuable services. The Church suffers in reputation, and those, whose opinion of religion is formed by their opinion of the clergy (a very large proportion of mankind), suffer in religious sentiments proportionally. An inducement moreover is held out to men to enter the Church with worldly motives; a horrible and dangerous profanation as regards the individual; a fearful event for the scene where he is required to labour; and a circumstance of incalculable injury to the Church and to religion. We shall find, among the occasional instances of clergymen who have disgraced their profession, that much the greater part have been beneficed men; a fact which can only be expected from this unworthy method of disposing of benefices. But if piety, purity, learning, and well-regulated zeal were the qualifications which alone opened the way to preferment, unworthy men would not venture to engage in the clerical profession.

If ecclesiastical, like all other professional emolument, were dispensed by professional hands, the change would be very considerable. If with the reservation of some livings to the crown, and the disposal of a few conferred on collegiate bodies and cathedral chapters, all the presentations in each diocese belonged to the Bishop, the evil would be very nearly annihilated. We will suppose, for the argument's sake, the Bishop to be the most unconscionable nepotist that ever disgraced a church; still, after the most abundant provision for connexions and relations, an immense proportion of livings in the diocese would remain to be filled, and merit would then be the sole criterion. The most corrupt state of the episcopal bench, under this arrangement, would furnish a more uniformly serious and active parochial clergy, than the purest is likely to do under the present unnatural system of lay patronage.

Even among deserving men, it is by no means indifferent how livings are disposed. The active and contemplative characters, with equal zeal and equal piety, are suited to different spheres of operation. The Bishop would know the nature of the parish and the habits of the men, and suit them accordingly. This circumstance, singly, would be a great advantage in episcopal patronage; an advantage which would be felt in every corner of the kingdom.

But it may be said that we are decrying the present constitution of affairs, without the ability of suggesting or effecting a better; and amusing ourselves with visionary theories of improvement, which the nature of things forbids to be carried into effect. We should be sorry to be found guilty on this charge. To state an irremediable grievance is to perform a thankless and an useless office; and to start an impracticable project is no better. We do not believe the evil to be without remedy, but we believe the remedy to be one of very slow operation. The advowsons of the most important benefices ought to be purchased by Government and placed at the disposal of the respective diocesans.

and then, indeed, Parliament may safely go to work. Once allow Mr. Stanley's principle, and we may transfer the endowments of our Universities to Gower Street College; the revenues of the College of Physicians to Dr. Morrison's College of Health; the property of our Inns of Court to the Law Institution; and Fazely Park to Joseph Hume, Esq.

The Dissenters in Ireland view matters with eyes far different from those of their brethren in England. The Irish Dissenter sees, in all the ministerial attacks upon the Church, a servile truckling to Papists, on whose will and pleasure the places of ministers in some degree depend. He sees that self, and self only, is the object of the present ministry; and that to that object they would immolate any thing that even seemed to stand in the way. He knows that the cause of property and of the Church is ONE. We beg our dissenting friends and enemies to consider whether their brethren across the channel are not in the right; and, for their own sakes, quite as much as for ours, to make common cause against the new interpretation of " FIAT JUSTITIA.”

LAY PATRONAGE IN THE CHURCH.

The

If ever there was any maxim in policy which appeared strictly selfevident, it is this: that the offices and emoluments of any profession should never be in the disposal of extra-professional men. truth of this assertion, if it require illustration, will easily admit of it. If the Lord Chancellor appointed Colonels in the Army, and the Commander-in-Chief conferred silk gowns: if the Board of Trade bestowed naval commissions, and the Admiralty elected the Examiners of Surgeons' Hall; would such absurdities remain a moment without incurring the most intense ridicule ? Would it not be instantly seen, that such arrangement could not fail to be inefficient and injurious, and subservient to no purpose except the uses of interest and patronage? Yet this same absurd system excites no surprise or attention in the Church, although not occasionally allowed, but dominant and universal. The Lord Chancellor, a lay officer, distributes, ex-officio, a great number of livings; and a still greater number are disposed of by the lay gentry of the kingdom.

1

: We remark not this to question the undoubted civil right of these ecclesiastical patrons, although "from the beginning it was not so." The Lord Chancellor was formerly most usually an ecclesiastic: and lay patronage arose from the unwarrantable plunder of the monasteries by Henry VIII. The immunities of those bodies being granted to laymen indiscriminately, the presentations to benefices passed among them. What was originally a most unjustifiable extension of power, long prescription has sanctified and rendered inviolable. Of this we are fully aware, and we pretend not to dispute it. The property of advowson is as sacred as any other. Yet we may be allowed to remark on the dangers and absurdities of the present system. Its dangers indeed are so much greater than those of extra-professional interference in other cases, as the profession of a clergyman is of greater importance than any other in the interests of society.

Both as regards justice towards the individual, and the spiritual ad