severity of the season. The Church of England, now really in danger, requires that every Act of Parliament fraudulently obtained, and injuriously applied, and The other anecdote * he gives is of a different kind, though it must be read with feelings of the most poignant affliction-a shame that burns the cheek:

Now let us listen to the milder voice of the enlightened, the benevolent, the venerable Poet of Bremhill; who owes his situation of dignity in the church to neither King, Noble, Minister, nor Bishop; but to his own gentle virtues, his eminent talents, and his blameless life.

†There are seven meeting-houses in the parish of St. Asaph, and none in the next, while in the Cathedral itself, with all its attractions and reminiscences, and with a Bishop from Christ-Church, you rarely find an audience.'-W. S. Landor's Letter, p. 43. Mr. Landor's account of the state of the Church and of the religious feelings of the inhabitants of Wales, is well worthy of attention; and, if not overcharged, must be read with feelings of deep regret. See p. 89, &c.

Besides

Curate, who has served, or participated in
the parochial services and cares with them-
selves; and to my knowledge the greatest
share of the preferments in the disposal of
this Chapter, has been so given : and with-
out such patronage, many deserving men,
some with large families, would have gone
down to their graves without any prefer-
ment from episcopal patronage.
such claims, there is in every diocesan
city, some studious and exemplary young
man moving among his ecclesiastical but
more prosperous brethren, who might be
benefited by their knowledge of his silent
studies and merits; when the Bishop is
thinking how he may benefit those who
have more immediate connections, or
more general opportunities of approach."

near and dear to him, if found deserving. But how far does this patronage extend? -To the ranks often of the most distant relation. I speak not this in disparagement; but what comparison is there between his (the Bishop's) already vast patronage and the small occasional preferment which a Canon Residentiary in his lifetime has to bestow? Perhaps such Canon might be able after many years to provide for a son, expensively educated, and who might have no other means, or hope of some preferment, when his father's grey hairs shall have been brought down to the grave. But when such a claim be not made on an affectionate parent, who are the next objects in general of canonical patronage? a deserving From this most important and affecting statement, we learn that the Commission takes away the patronage of livings from the Chapters who do give them to deserving men, in order to bestow it on the Bishops who do not; and this, on the ground that the Bishops alone can distinguish or reward merit. This statement of Mr. Bowles of the manner in which the patronage of the Chapter of Salisbury is bestowed, together with another too long for us to give, of his petitioning the Bishop for a small living for an old and most deserving clergyman without success, shows the false and flimsy pretences under which this most unrighteous spoliation of property is sought to be effected. There are many other important remarks in the same pamphlet and not the less that the controversial remarks are softened by a naturally benevolent temper, and that the bright laurel of Apollo peeps out from beneath the sacred fillet of the Priest. We need not remind him,

:

"Pastorem, Tityre, pingues

Pascere oportet oves."

But we exhort him not to forget, also,

"Deductum dicere carmen.'

Vive diu, vive felix, vir admodum reverende, vir mihi in paucis charissime. Perhaps the initiated part of the community do not know of the existence of what is called options, that is, certain livings, which the Archbishop, when he consecrates an inferior Bishop, marks for his

* In St. Paul's, the patronage of fifteen of our best livings is to be instantly conferred upon the Bishop of London-in other words, he confers them on himself, as Commissioner. This little episode of plunder, as Mr. S. Smith calls it, has this peculiar feature: The Bishop of London is not to wait for the death of the present patrons. There is a reason for not waiting, by which (had I to do with a person of less elevated character than the Bishop of London,) I would endeavour to explain this precipitate seizure of patronage;-that is, the livings assigned to him in this remarkable scheme are all very valuable, and the incumbents all very old.' p. 37.

The transfer of Cathedral property, says the Quarterly Review (No. cxv. p. 205.), is undoubtedly illegal, and there is no reason to think it expedient. The great safeguard of the Church against the abuse of patronage, is its diffusion, not its concentration. 'Of seven communications made to the Commission,' says Mr. S. Smith, by Cathedrals, and involving very serious representations respecting high interests, six were totally disregarded, and the receipt of the papers not even acknowledged.' The petitions we have since read from Ely and Winchester, we think, cannot be overlooked, though perhaps not acknowledged. The claims made on Cathedral property, it is plain, if not happily withdrawn, will be subject to a legal trial of their right. This is one issue of Church Reform! and one result of "the property being put upon a better footing." See Report, p. 13.

own. Now, if the Archbishop dies first, this option remains with his relations, heirs, &c. He may leave it to his valet, his housekeeper, or what not. It is part of his assets,-it is found in his will. It may be sold for the benefit of his creditors. Such options have been publicly sold by auction!! Now, these options are not alluded to in the Church Returns, and are not known to the Church Commissioners, though they are worth some thousands of pounds.

"When," says Mr. S. Smith, "a parallel was drawn between two species of patrons, which ended in the confiscation of the patronage of Cathedrals, —when two Archbishops helped to draw the parallel, and profited by the parallel, I have a perfect right to state this corrupt and unabolished practice of their own selves, a practice which I never heard charged against Deans and Chapters. And then the patronage which is not seized,-the patronage which the Chapter is allowed to present to its own body-may be divided without their consent. Can any thing be more thoroughly lawless and unjust than this-that my patronage, during my life, shall be divided without my consent? How do my rights, during my life, differ from those of a lay patron, who is tenant for life? and, on what principle of justice or common sense is his patronage protected from the Commissioners' dividing power to which mine is subjected? That one can sell and the other cannot sell the next presentation, would be bad reasoning, if it were good law. But it is not law, for an ecclesiastical Corporation, aggregate or sole, can sell

a next presentation as legally as a laytenant can do. They have the same power of selling as laymen have, but they never do so: that is, they dispense their patronage with greater propriety and delicacy, which in the estimate of the Commissioners seem to make their right weaker, and the reasons for taking it away more powerful. The Commissioners may divide the livings of Chapters without their consent, but before they can touch the living of a Bishop, his consent must be obtained. It seems after a few of these examples to become a little clearer and more intelligible, why the appointment of any other ecclesiastics than the Bishops was so disagreeable to the Bench. The reasoning then is this,if a good living is vacant in the patronage of a Chapter, they will only think of conferring it on one of their own body, or their friends. If such a living falls to the Bishop, he will overlook the interests of his sons and daughters, and divide the living in small portions for the good of the public; and with these sort of civilities, Whig leaders, whose interest it is to lull the Bishops into a reform, pretend

This division of livings is called any arrangement for altering the exercise of patronage.' Not only may livings be divided by the Commissioners, but a portion of the income of one benefice may be transferred to another. Thus a parish will have to pay for its own minister, and for the minister of another parish, which may be ten, or a hundred miles off; and this is called Church Reform! But this is not all; if the patronage is ecclesiastical, the Commissioners may cut up a living, without saying by your leave ;'-if it is in the gift of a layman, his consent must be obtained. Oh! wise and righteous counsellors! So the laity are better judges of the spiritual wants of parishes than the clergy. Mr. Benson asks,-" Are Deans and Chapters too stupid to judge at all, or too corrupt to judge aright." Nothing can equal this injustice of this double-faced law, but its meanness; for, as is observed, the general incapacity of ecclesiastical bodies to make any effectual struggle for the maintenance of their rights, ought to be an additional reason for abstaining more carefully from the infringement of those rights." See Mr. Benson's admirable observations, p. 22, &c. See also the Bishop of Exeter's Charge, p. 34, in which his lordship most justly and indignantly calls this power of separating or consolidating benefices to promote the efficient discharge of duties, one of the most important and peculiar duties of a Bishop within his diocese; a duty which so belongs to him, as to exclude all others, even Bishops, from intermeddling with it. To thrust aside the Bishop of the diocese, in a matter of immediate connection with the essential rights and duties of his officeto leave him no voice in the decision-to make his being at all consulted to depend on the good pleasure of a board sitting in London, and consisting principally of laymen, -is such a violation of the first principles of Episcopal government, in other words, of the constitution of the Church, as was never hazarded in this or in any other branch of that Church. It is little short of putting the Episcopacy of the Church of England into Commission."-Charge, p. 34.