and transfer his capital to some other speculation, where his profits would be higher. For it is hardly conceivable that any man will persevere in cultivating hops, if he can make more of his capital by growing wheat. If the £3 now levied as tithes on an acre of hops ceased to be exacted, the profits of growing hops would be higher than the average rate of profits in other branches of agriculture and commerce-more capital would be instantly employed in the production of hops, till the profits of the hop grower would, by degrees, be levelled with the general rate of the profits of stock.

It may perhaps be urged, that when a farmer rents land in a bad state of cultivation, with a view of laying out a considerable capital in improving it, he obtains a lease from the land-owner, which gives him, for a specified term of years, the exclusive benefits of the money which he has expended on the land; but that the claims of the tithe-owner, being put in force from year to year, convey to him a portion of the produce which the landlord could not claim, and which, therefore, would have increased the profits of the stock which he had embarked in agriculture. But when the occupier is said to enjoy the exclusive benefits of the capital employed by him on land which he holds on lease, it appears to us that his advantages are much exaggerated. When a land owner has a farm to let on lease, the rent which he expects to receive from it is calculated, we apprehend, not on the produce of the land, supposing no capital to be expended in tilling it—but on the produce which it will, on the average, yield, when a given capital has been laid out in improving it. The landlord addresses his tenant thus: I have 100 acres of land to let, for twenty-one years in its present unimproved state it cannot yield more than ten shillings per acre, as rent, but a capital of £1,000 laid out in improving it, will return to the occupier a fair profit for his stock, and enable him to pay twenty shillings per acre as rent; if you, therefore, are not both able and willing to embark such a capital in the improvement of my farm, I must look out for another occupier, who possesses the capital requisite for its cultivation, and who may, in consequence, be able to pay me the rent which I have a right to expect from my land.'

Indeed every landlord, before he lets a farm, ascertains that the tenant who takes it can advance the capital necessary for oc cupying it; and it is not by any means uncommon, that, where leases are granted, the amount of the capital required is expressly specified, and the manner in which it must be expended particularly defined.

Let the subject be twisted how it may, the abolition of tithes, or a partial reduction of their amount, would not, under any circumstances,

circumstances, increase permanently the average profits of the capital employed in agriculture. If no claim for tithes existed, to the demand of the landlord for rent would be added the money value of the tenth portion of the average crop, which the land in a certain number of years would produce, when a given capital had been expended in improving it.

The benefices now in the gift of the crown, were reservations, when the manors to which they were once appendant were granted away; or were acquired by lapse, or conferred on Henry VIII. and his successors, by Act of Parliament, at the dissolution of the monasteries to which they belonged. The livings belonging to the bishoprics, the deans and chapters, and the universities, were the gifts of their munificent founders. All these put together, as our readers will presently see, do not amount to a moiety, of the English benefices. The most numerous, and (another important circumstance) by far the most valuable portion of ecclesiastical preferments, are the property of lay-patrons, to whom the right of presenting to them has descended by inheritance, or by whom it has been acquired by purchase. An advowson is a species of property which sells for nearly as large an amount as a freehold, yielding an income of equal magnitude. It is well known, that a living of a thousand per annum, is worth nearly as much as an estate of equal value.

Hence it may safely be asserted, with reference to at least one half of the whole body of English ecclesiastics, that they make a sacrifice of their time, labour, and talents, in promoting the advantages of the public for which, in a pecuniary view, they re ceive little or no compensation. Let us suppose that a gentleman has two sons, to each of whom he intends giving twenty thousand pounds; one he educates for the bar, and the other for the church. The ecclesiastic vests his portion in the purchase of an advowson, which yields him an income of a thou sand per annum ; the lawyer, with his patrimony, purchases a real estate from which he derives an annual return of nearly equal amount. In this case, a thousand pounds is the whole annual income of the ecclesiastic; and it is an income arising principally, if not exclusively, from the capital which he has advanced, and but in a very trifling degree, as a reward or compensation for his professional exertions. But his lay brother enjoys an equal, or very nearly an equal income, as the rent of the estate which he has purchased; and to this he may add as much as his talents and industry in his profession enable him to acquire. It is difficult, therefore, to point out an individual, who makes a greater sacri fice of time and talents, than an ecclesiastic who purchases a living. If he laid out his money in the acquisition of any other specięs

species of property, he would derive from it an income of equal amount; and to this he might add the emoluments arising from, any other pursuit or avocation to which he might choose to devote himself. The time, the industry, and talents of the physician or lawyer, are rewarded with a pecuniary compensation proportionate to the reputation and practice which they respectively enjoy; but the time, the exertions, and talents of an ecclesiastic, who purchases a living, are conferred almost gratuitously on the public. From his professional services, he derives but: the most trifling pecuniary advantages. The income of his benefice makes little more than a fair return of interest for the capital, advanced in purchasing the advowson. There is, indeed, a chance, that by distinguishing himself in his profession, he may obtain some addition to his advowson. This benefit, however, ordinarily speaking, is but trifling, in comparison with the probable gains of the lawyer or the physician.

The ecclesiastics at large, however, are constantly held up to the public, by democratic orators and revolutionary scribblers, as locusts employed solely in devouring the produce of the soilas the consumers of public wealth-as men who' reap what others sow-who swallow the property of others--for which they make neither compensation nor return. But we appeal to every honest and honourable Englishman, and boldly ask whether such a representation is just-whether ecclesiastics, who enjoy incomes derived from a portion of the produce of land appropriated for specific purposes by its original owners, can be described as the consumers of public property in any other sense than that in which the opulent owner of Holkham may be said to consume national wealth?

Every benefice in England may, without incorrectness, be represented as an estate held on a tenure peculiar to this species of property. It differs from every other estate in the same parish in the following particulars. It is a life estate: and before any individual is admitted into possession of it, he must satisfy the bishop, who is constituted a trustee to secure that object, that he can produce the qualifications specified by law-that he is of legal age, has passed through a regular and respectable course of public instruction, and possesses competent literary acquirements; and when in the actual enjoyment of this property, he must, at stated times, perform the services and duties which the laws have annexed to his station: aud he holds it on the further condition, dispensed with but in few instances, that he be constantly resident in the district from which his income is derived.

It appears to us that the bitterest antagonist of the English church establishment, if he gave himself a moment for reflection,

would

would be forced to acknowledge it to be, in every respect, infinitely more advantageous to the community, that a portion, at least, of the surplus revenue or rent of every parish should be received by an ecclesiastic residing on his benefice, conversant with the wants and attentive to the wishes of his parishioners, and diffusing among them religious and moral instruction, than that it should be added to the rent-roll of the lay-owner who is under no obligation to reside among them. For, be it remembered, the question is not whether it be expedient that this portion of the produce or an equivalent for it should or should not be exacted from the grower-it must and will be exacted by somebody-but the point to which we would, in this place, direct the attention of our readers, is, whether, even in a mere temporal view, it would be more politic aud advantageous that the income derived from tithes should be received by an individual residing in or near the spot from which it accrues, or that it should be added to the receipts of another who might take up his residence in any other district or country at the dictate of interest or caprice. The parish of B., for instance, is a perpetual curacy worth 20/. per annum : it is served by the incumbent of an adjoining parish-it contains about 450 inhabitants; and the tithes are received by the lay impropriator who is land-owner of this and several contiguous parishes. Laying the interests of religion out of the question, we must still contend, that it would be infinitely more beneficial to the public, that the sum now paid by the occupiers of land in this parish, in lieu of tithes, should be received by a well educated and well informed ecclesiastic residing and 'spending his income among them, than that it should be added, as in fact it is, to the revenues of the lay impropriator who seldom, or, perhaps, never sees them. The advantages which this parish would unavoidably derive from the residence of an in cumbent, receiving that portion of the produce which is now exacted by the impropriator, are numerous and apparent; and the only inconvenience to be dreaded from such a distribution of property would fall upon the impropriator, whom this reduction of his income would probably oblige to sell two out of the twenty hunters which now stand in his stables, and dispose of ten out of the hundred couples of hounds which are now fed in his kennel.

We are indeed convinced that the public are far from being sufficiently sensible of the incalculable advantages which the community derives from the constitution of our ecclesiastical establishment. Without adverting, in this place, to the diffusion of moral and religious instruction effected through the medium of such an institution, it appears to us an object of paramount importance to

secure

secure in every parish the residence of, at least, one individual who has been respectably educated-whose time shall not be entirely absorbed by personal and secular avocations, and whose pursuits shall not constantly come into collision with the feelings and occupations of his neighbours. It is not to be denied, that, in many instances, the lay-owners of estates reside upon their property, diffuse comfort and information among their tenants, and, by frequent and kindly intercourse, generate among them feelings of self-respect, and a taste for the conveniences and habits of civi, lized life. The benefits which a land-owner silently and indirectly confers on his surrounding tenants are of immense importance to the public; they are by no means confined to the advantages which they derive from the money which he immediately spends among them: the habitual intercourse of the landlord with his tenants softens the feelings and improves the habits of the latter; and, by promoting among them industry, frugality and civility, renders them better aud, therefore, happier men.

But there are many and extensive districts, even in England, where the proprietors of the soil reside on their estates but a very short portion of the year: or where, perhaps, their existence is only known from the periodical visits of an agent. In those parishes where, in addition to the absence of the principal landowners, no provision exists which can secure the residence of an ecclesiastic possessing a respectable income, the labouring population will be found strikingly contrasted, in their manners and appearance, with the inhabitants of districts where the landlord or incumbent, or both, are resident. The constant residence of a well informed individual among the inhabitants of a country parish, to whom, from his situation or profession, they are willing to look up for example and instruction, must imperceptibly and almost inevitably produce that civility and decency of outward behaviour which never fail to accompany, and not seldom even to generate, well regulated moral feelings. The personal demeanour of the labourers, the appearance and clothing of their children, the state of their cottages and gardens enable those who are at all conversant with the economy of a parochial district to detect, without further inquiry, the absence or presence of an ecclesiastic who feels an interest in promoting the comfort and improving the habits of his parishioners. Whenever we meet with a group of rude, unwashed, uncombed and squalid children loitering at the door of a neglected and cheerless cottage, occupied by a careless, discontented and sour labourer, we instantly recognize a district deprived of the advantages which result from the residence of a proprietor either lay or ecclesiastic. The parish of B. in the county of E. to which we have already alluded, will place in a

strong