of the same advowsons to private patrons. But we fear that this is a case in which official traditions are likely long to prevail over common sense.

This recommended sale of livings is connected with a subject which formed the theme of several debates in the House of Commons during the last session; we mean, the expediency of altering the laws which regulate the possession and purchase of Church patronage. This has been brought forward, by a new member of the House, Dr. Phillimore, who has shown less judgment and information on this question than his acknowledged abilities and eminent legal acquirements would have led us to expect. In his main proposition, that the present state of the law is anomalous and absurd, and that it causes scandals which ought to be suppressed, we heartily agree with Dr. Phillimore. But to his proposed remedy we object for two reasons; first, because it would be no cure; and secondly, because, if it were, it would be worse than the disease. But, before we give our reasons for this opinion, let us recapitulate the anomalies complained of in the existing law. 1. It is legal both for laymen and clergy to purchase an advowson, whether the living be vacant or full, but such purchase cannot convey the presentation to a vacant living. 2. It is legal for a layman to purchase a next presentation, if the living be full. 3. It is illegal for a clergyman to purchase a next presentation. 4. It is illegal for any one to purchase a next presentation when the living is vacant. 5. It is legal for a clergyman to give a bond to resign a living for certain specified relatives of the patron. 6. It is illegal to give a general resignation bond. These inconsistencies are absurd enough in themselves, but appear still more monstrous when it is remembered that the transactions prohibited, though not morally differing from those sanctioned, are stigmatised as simoniacal. The origin of this application of that term, and of all these anomalies, is to be found in the fact, that the present state of the law represents a compromise between two antagonistic systems. It is the result of a long struggle between the Common Law and Canon Law. In fact, the questions reopened by Dr. Phillimore (himself a Doctor Canonici Juris, and therefore a partisan in the strife,) are fragments, so to speak, of the great contest of investitures, which so long divided the temporal and spiritual powers throughout Europe. According to the strict theory of the Canon Law, no lay patronage was recognised, but the bishop had the sole disposal of all Church offices. As a check upon his power, the rights of private patrons were created by the Common Law. The Church of Rome, during the contest of investitures, branded her opponents with the ugly stigma of

simony; and the Romanising traditions of the Canon Law have applied this nickname to transactions which have not the slightest resemblance to that sin of Simon Magus from which the term is derived. Blackstone forcibly points out this misapplication of the word, and observes that the true (though not the common) notion of simony,' is 'if any person obtain orders, or a licence to preach, by money or corrupt practices; an offence which (by 31 Eliz. c. 6.) is punishable, both in the person giving and receiving such orders, by fine and incapacity of preferment. Thus it would be true simony (under this Act of Elizabeth), if a bishop were to ordain a disqualified relative for the corrupt purpose of providing him with preferment. This true notion of simony, however, has been superseded by the technical usage of the word, in which it is applied to any illegal transfer of patronage. Not satisfied with this extension of the term, Dr. Phillimore wishes to stretch it still farther, so as to include the sale of next presentations, which his Bill proposes to forbid. But this prohibition, instead of rectifying the anomalies of the law, would only introduce a new inconsistency. There are only two methods by which the law would be rendered consistent; either by absolutely prohibiting the alienation of patronage, or by legalising it without restriction. The former is the true object of that party which Dr. Phillimore represents; the party which seeks to approximate the ecclesiastical laws and customs of England as nearly as possible to those of Rome. Dr. P. himself professes for the present to respect the right of private patronage; but his adherents are less cautious. The Guardian' newspaper, in its vigorous articles in defence of Dr. P.'s Bill, openly declares that he does not go far enough, and that the sale of advowsons must also be made illegal. The direct consequence of this is that the right of private patronage must be abolished, for (as Paley well remarks)+ patronage if inalienable from the inheritance would devolve on the most indigent and therefore the most improper hands. Moreover, the reasons alleged for prohibiting the sale of presentations apply much more forcibly against the sale of advowsons. The main argument urged by Dr. Phillimore and Lord Goderich, the two champions of the measure, was that the power of buying presentations induces men to take orders from corrupt motives. Now if this were true of the sale of present

* One of the best examples of true simony on record is the case of a bishop in the last century, who is said to have paid his wife's gambling debt by ordaining and preferring the son of the winner. † Moral Philosophy, book 3.

ations, it would be more true of the sale of advowsons, and most true of the permanent possession of advowsons. This will be evident, if we consider the circumstances under which the two kinds of property are held. The purchaser of an advowson becomes, from the time of the purchase, the owner of what is called a family living.' Thenceforward that living may be filled, as often as it falls vacant, at the discretion of himself and his representatives. Of course, it will naturally be given to some near relative, and will act as an inducement to some of the family to take orders. And the longer it is held in the same family, the oftener does it exercise this biassing influence upon the young of successive generations. On the other hand, the purchaser of a presentation buys it for some definite person, who is either already in orders, or is intending to take orders before the purchase is made. For example, a merchant has three or four sons, who have their profession to choose, and he intends to give them 5000l. apiece, to start them in the particular line of life which they prefer. One son chooses the army, and his portion is employed in the purchase of his commission and the subsequent steps. A second chooses to enter an attorney's office, and his money purchases him a lucrative partnership. A third prefers emigration, carries his capital with him to Australia, and returns a millionaire in twenty years. A fourth son of studious habits and devout temper wishes to become a clergyman. His father warns him that he is selecting a life of comparative poverty, and that he can invest his fortune for him better in almost any other line than in the Church. But the son adheres to his choice, and the father invests his 50007. in the purchase of a presentation with prospect of early possession; by virtue of which the son succeeds, in due time, to a professional income of four or five hundred a year. Plainly he has not been induced to choose his profession by pecuniary motives, but by taste and conscious fitness; and the pecuniary advantage, such as it is, has followed upon his choice, not preceded it. It is obvious that the men who succeed to livings thus purchased will be amongst the most disinterested members of their profession. They will usually have other resources, independent of their tithes; and they will be free from the mean and odious motives. which actuate the clerical adventurer, who seeks his preferment from the patronage of the bishops or the Crown. Dr. Phillimore's Bill would exclude a large proportion of that most valuable class of men who (as we have before seen) bring their private fortune to eke out the pittance which they receive as the wages of their ministry.

Another point strongly urged by the advocates of this

measure, was the expediency of putting an end to those disgraceful scandals sometimes witnessed when a living in private patronage becomes unexpectedly vacant. It occasionally happens that the patron, desirous to sell the next presentation, and being forbidden by law to sell it during vacancy, presents an old man upon the brink of the grave, and thus enables himself legally to sell the presentation, with a prospect of speedy possession. Several cases of this kind have been recently brought before the public by that indefatigable agitator, Mr. S. G. Osborne. But it is strange that Dr. Phillimore did not perceive that these cases, so far from furnishing an argument for his Bill, tell directly against it. For the scandal is caused, not by legalising the sale of presentations, but by forbidding it in one particular case. If the patron could sell the presentation while the living was vacant, he would have no temptation to fill it with a broken-down old man. It would be bought, under the circumstances which we have already described, for some young clergyman who has been ordained out of preference for the clerical profession. Whereas Dr. Phillimore's Bill would not at all remedy the scandal in question; for patrons capable of conduct so disgraceful would still put in their incompetent old nominees, and sell the advowson instead of the presentation. We may add that these appointments might be prevented, without any alteration of the law, by the instituting bishop. For the patron has only the right of presenting a nominee; it is the bishop who must institute, and he is bound to refuse institution to an unfit man. It should be farther observed that the prohibition of the present law, which prevents the sale of presentations during vacancy, is peculiarly absurd; for if they are to be sold at all, the most proper time for the sale is the vacancy of the living. There is a certain degree of gambling in the purchase of advowsons and presentations at present. The purchaser must speculate on the probable duration of the in

The worst case of this kind which has occurred was that of St. Ervan's in the diocese of Exeter. In this case the bishop instituted an old man in the last stage of decrepitude, who, as the bishop's secretary is forced to acknowledge, was, at the time of his induction, 'incapable personally to discharge the duties of his office,' (see Mr. Osborne's letter in 'The Times' of Aug. 20. 1853,) and who died two or three months afterwards. The Bishop of Exeter has publicly announced his determination to refuse institution to every clergyman who may agree with the theological sentiments of the Archbishop; but it appears that personal incapacity to discharge clerical duties is no bar to institution in his diocese. We presume that the palsied old presbyter of St. Ervan's was 'sound on the baptismal question.'

cumbent's life; and there is something disgusting in the notion of an expectant watching the failing health of a possessor.

But again, it is argued by Dr. Phillimore that the right of patronage is a sacred trust, and ought to be executed conscientiously, not sold for money. Now, in the first place, this proves too much for Dr. P.'s purpose; since he permits the sale of advowsons, though he forbids that of presentations. But, moreover we cannot force patrons to be conscientious by Act of Parliament. On this point Dr. P. is guilty of a kind of moral contradiction in terms; for he assumes the would-be vendor to desire to perform an unconscientious action and yet compels him to retain a power which cannot be duly exercised but by a conscientious man. The truth is that, for the reasons already given, the purchaser of such property is likely to make a better nomination than the vendor.

It is to be regretted that these very obvious flaws in Dr. Phillimore's arguments were not exposed by any of the opponents of his measure. They took their stand on the rights of property; and Mr. Butt, the principal speaker against the Bill, represented it as an act of wholesale confiscation.' This was a valid objection as against the Bill in its present shape; but might be met by the insertion of a compensation clause. Whereas no compensation would remove the real evils of the measure, which we have attempted to explain.

Even supposing that Dr. Phillimore's principles could be carried fully out to their legitimate consequence, in the abolition of all private patronage (a rasa tabula being made of opposing vested interests) what would be the gain? The Crown and the bishops would then be the only patrons in the country. Is it probable that the livings would, on the whole, be then better filled than at present? It is not very difficult to answer this question, by looking at the actual holders of Crown and episcopal livings. Nay, if we could go farther still, and devise some Utopian scheme of patronage, expressly constructed for the reward of merit, it is very doubtful whether such a plan would not cause more evils than it cured; whether it might not foster hypocrisy as much as it might encourage virtue. The present system of patronage, though theoretically very imperfect, works well upon the whole. It secures, at any rate, two very important objects; first, the due influence of the laity in Church appointments; and secondly, the fair representation of theological parties. The latter desideratum could scarcely be achieved

* At present two-thirds of the livings in England and Wales are in private patronage.