of any arguments or reasons by which the legislature can establish a claim to the exercise of such a power. In the reign of Queen Anne, parliament granted an estate, and built a palace for the Duke of Marlborough: will it be contended that, in the reign of George the Fourth, the same assembly has a right to resume this recent grant, and strip the present owner of Blenheim of his patrimony? Even if this were affirmed, we must enter our solemn protest against the revolutionary opinion, that parliament, in the nineteenth century, has a right to strip ecclesiastics of any particle of those proprietary claims to which a similar assembly had, many centuries ago, given them a title.

But we have no space, nor do we conceive it necessary, to proceed further in speculating on the manner in which tithes were originally introduced into England. Whether they were, in the first instance, acquired by a grant from the sovereign, as general and supreme lord of the soil; from individual owners, who built churches on their estates, and endowed them with a tenth part of the produce of their land; or by solemn and reiterated acts of those assemblies, in which was vested the power of legislating for the nation: these are points which do not appear to us of vital importance to ascertain.' We are satisfied to rest our argument on one broad fact, which cannot be contested: no man will dispute that, for five centuries, at the least, the right of the ecclesiastical establishment to exact tithes from the produce of land, has been invariably and uninterruptedly recognized by the customs and laws of this country. It is not a dormant right, to be found only in books and records; but a right which, for ages, has been exerted and acted upon in practice. Whatever theory, therefore, we may adopt with respect to the introduction of this charge upon the produce of land, it is indisputable, that it had been fully established by law, and universally recognized by practice, long anterior to the oldest titles, which the lay owners of any estates can produce. It may, therefore, be assumed as a fact, which no reasoning or historical inquiry can shake, that for five centuries, at the least, every acre of land, which is now titheable in this kingdom, has been inherited, or purchased, subject to this charge.

It may possibly be contended that, although the representation which has been here given of the nature and origin of ecclesiastical benefices, might establish the claims of the ecclesiastics to whom tithes were originally granted, it cannot be deemed a valid foundation for a claim to these revenues advanced by a Protestant incumbent. This is an objection which does not appear to us to possess much weight. In looking at these grants, we are rather called upon to consider the purposes for which, than the

NN 2

persons

persons to whom they were made-we are to collect, as far as we can judge from analogy, in what manner the founders of benefices, if they were at this moment alive, and in the actual enjoyment of their original estates, would dispose of that portion of their property which they conferred upon the church by endowment.

Let it be assumed that, in the infancy of science, the proprietor of an estate had founded an astronomical lecture, and endowed it with a tenth part of the produce of his land, expressly ordaining that the individual enjoying this income should, once in each week, demonstrate the phenomena of the sun's revolution round the earth. When subsequent discoveries pointed out the incorrectness of this theory, it is evident that the nation, acting as trustees for the proper application of this endowment, acquired a right to dispense with the literal injunctions of the founder, and to order the individual holding this appointment, to lecture for the future on the more correct principles which later science had brought to light; but it cannot surely be contended, that because the founder had endowed a lecture to demonstrate a theory, which time had discovered to be false, the nation acquired the right of applying the funds of this endowment-not to secure the continuance of the lectureship on correct astronomical principles-an object perfectly consonant to the founder's views-but to build a bridge over the Thames, or barracks on Warley Common, or to any other purpose foreign to the intention of the founder-which was the promotion of the science of astronomy.

In like manner, the founders of parishes appropriated a tenth portion of the produce of their estates to secure the instruction of their tenants and domestics, in doctrines and tenets consonant to the opinions of their own age. The voice of the public has pronounced some of these tenets superstitious in their nature, and injurious in their effects; but it does not hence follow, that the public has acquired a right to apply this property to purposes entirely foreign to the views of the original grantors. The power of the public over this property cannot, under these circumstances, extend farther than to regulate the instruction, which the present holders of these endowments should be required to minister. To those, who are in the actual enjoyment of ecclesiastical property, the public, acting as trustees for the original grantors, has a right to say, 'You shall not pray for the souls of the dead'' You shall not teach that wine may be converted into blood; but you shall comprize, in your public instructions, those doctrines alone, which, on a mature consideration of the scriptures, the majority of the nation

has

bas sanctioned as correct.' But the public has no right to say, 'because these endowments were granted for the purpose of inculcating opinions which have been declared false or injurious, they shall, instead of being applied to the promulgation of doctrines which are beneficial in their tendency, be appropriated to purposes, which the founders never, for a moment, contemplated. The owners of estates granted a part of their property to ensure the religious and moral instruction of those who lived upon them; and it never could have been intended by them, that, under any circumstances, any portion of this fund should be applied to defray the burdens, or cancel the obligations of the state. It appears to us, then, that the protestant incumbents of English benefices have equitably, as well as legally, succeeded to every claim and right which the owners of land had conferred on their catholic predecessors.

If then the views we have taken of this subject be correct, it must be evident that the sentiments which we hear so frequently expressed, with regard to the expense and burden of an ecclesiastical establishment, are totally destitute of any reasonable foundation, and that they arise entirely from prejudice and misconception. The notions of those who describe the clergy as a stipendiary body of public functionaries, pensioned by the state who represent their incomes as derived from dissenters as well as members of the church of England-who represent them as paid by the consumer of titheable commodities, whether he be rich or poor, whether he be engaged in the cultivation of land, or resident within the walls of a city-can be ascribed only to the perverseness, or the ignorance which prevails so generally on this branch of political economy. We are fully persuaded, that when the true principles of this science are properly attended to, it will be seen that the clergy are not a body of functionaries, supported by pensions levied upon the public-that their incomes are, in no part, derived from any payment or con, tribution out of any property which, either in law or reason, dissenter can term his own-and, that the levying of tithes does not add to the money price of titheable articles, and fall, as the new school of political economy assure us, equally on every indi vidual in the kingdom- on the poorest beggar as well as the richest lord, in proportion to their respective consumption of the articles on which they are levied.' On the contrary, it will be seen, that tithes merely constitute a part of the rent of land, and that the revenues of the church arise from a portion of the real property of the country, held on a peculiar tenure, and appropriated to ecclesiastical purposes by some former owner of the freehold.

NN 3

the

We

We are confirmed in the opinions which we entertain on this point by the sentiments of a well known republican, who cannot be supposed to have been unreasonably prejudiced in favour of ecclesiastical establishments. We allude to Dr. Franklin, who, in a letter originally addressed to the editor of the London Packet, and inserted in his posthumous works lately published, says that the presbyterians went from England to establish a new country for themselves at their own expense, where they might enjoy the free exercise of their religion in their own way. When they had purchased the territory of the natives, they granted lands out in townships, requiring for it neither purchase-money nor quit-rent, but this condition only to be complied with, that the freeholders should for ever support a gospel minister (meaning probably one of their own persuasion), and a free school within the township. Thus what is commonly called presbyterianism became the established religion of the country. All went on well in this way while the same religious opinions were general: the support of the ministers and school being raised by à proportionate tax on the lands. But in process of time some becoming quakers, some baptists, and, of late years, some returning to the church of England (through the laudable endeavours and proper application of the funds of the society for propagating the gospel), objections were made to the payment of a tax appropriated to the support of a church they disapproved and had forsaken. The civil magistrate, however, continued to collect and apply the tax according to the original laws which remained in force: and he did it more freely, as thinking it just and equitable that the holders of lands should pay what was contracted to be paid when they were granted, and what had been considered by all subsequent purchasers as a perpetual incumbrance on the estate, and bought, therefore, at a proportionably cheaper rate: a payment which it was thought no honest man ought to avoid under pretence of having changed his religion: and this, I suppose, is one of the best grounds for demanding tithes of the dissenters now in England.'

Some individuals, however, who acknowledge the right of ecclesiastics to levy tithes, contend that, under peculiar circumstances, the exaction of the full tenth of the whole gross produce is an extension of the original claim conferred upon the church. They seem to think that the tithe-owner has only a claim to a tenth part of the natural produce of the soil, and not a tenth part of the artificial produce of land, in the cultivation of which the occupier has expended a large capital. They conceive that ecclesiastics are fully entitled to a tenth of the produce which may be acquired from land in an unimproved state, but deny that he

can

can justly claim an equal proportion of the produce of the same land when improved by expensive process of tillage. Let it be supposed, that a farmer expends £20 on an acre of land, for the purpose of growing hops; and that the produce of this acre, which, as corn land, would have yielded no more than £5, should sell for £30-is it, ask they, fair and equitable, that the tithe-owner should, in the instance here stated, claim the tenth of thirty pounds, the value of the improved produce, and not be contented with the tenth of five pounds, the value of the ordinary produce?

In considering this question, it must be remembered, that the point to be decided is, not whether the landlord would obtain' more rent for the gross produce-of this there can be no doubt. But the real object of the inquiry is, to ascertain whether the profits of capital employed in tillage would be increased by reducing the claims of the tithe-owner. We acknowledge that as to the amount of rent, the reduction of the claim for tithes would be an advantage to the landlord: but we are satisfied that, as to the profits of the occupier, no permanent effect would be produced by this restriction. Indeed, we are of opinion, that the net profits of the capital employed by the occupier of land, in the production of the most expensive crops that are ever grown, would not be increased permanently, even by a total abolition of tithes; much less would they be affected by a partial reduction of its amount, We shall shortly state our reasons for entertaining this opinion; and if this holds good, with respect to the most expensive crops, to hops, for instance, they must be equally cogent with regard to all the capital laid out on land in raising any other species of agricultural produce. As the basis of our reasoning on this point, we must remind our readers, that it is an acknowledged axiom in political economy, that in every country where capital has a free circulation, the profits of stock, in whatever way it may be employed, can never long vary in amount. If capital, in a given average of years, should make a larger return of profits in one branch of agriculture or commerce than when employed in another, a portion of it will naturally flow from the less lucrative channel, to that which is more profitable, till the rate of profits becomes at length equalized in every branch of agriculture and commerce. Let us apply this axiom to the produce of a hop ground, and consider whether the partial reduction or even the abolition of tithes, would increase the profits of the capital employed in growing hops, Assume that an acre of hops yields to the tithe-owner £3 as the tenth of its produce: it is clear that, notwithstanding this charge, it must return a fair average of profits for the capital expended upon it by the occupier; otherwise he would cease to grow hops,