« AnteriorContinuar »
spleen, and provokes the hostility of the enemies of the ecclesiastical establishment:—still there are men who are either too ignorant or too prejudiced to see this fact; or who, seeing it, are malignant enough to misrepresent the nature, and exaggerate the amount of the provision secured to the ministers of the church- of England, with the secret or avowed design of weakening the attachment which the people of this realm cherish towards the ecclesiastical institutions of the state.
It is not an unusual circumstance that the advocates of the Church of England should be taunted with the extravagant expense of that establishment, when contrasted with the ecclesiastical mstitutions of Scotland: the loud and incessant praises of Scotch economy with which we have been stunned had led us, before we looked more narrowly into the subject, to imagine that the revenues of the latter were trivial and inconsiderable indeed when compared with the income of the former. For the purpose of enabling those who feel an interest in the subject, to institute a comparison of the expense of these two national churches, we present them with a few details, from which we shall leave them to draw their own inferences. About the year 1810, the affairs of the church of Scotland were laid before Parliament, when it was discovered that there were in that country 172 livings with stipends which, on the average, did not exceed 100/. per annum; and an annual and permanent grant of 10,000/. was made for the purpose of raising the'incomes of these benefices to 150/. per annum, exclusive of glebes and houses. The houses attached to Scottish livings are built and kept in thorough repair by the proprietors of land in each parish, and these, together with the glebe land appropriated for their use, cannot be estimated at less than 80/. per annum. The smallest benefices in Scotland, amounting in number to 172, are therefore worth 180/. per annum each, while the incumbents of the remaining 776 parishes, which are much more opulent and extensive, enjoy incomes of various and considerably larger amount. We have reason to think that the following table will exhibit a pretty correct summary of the value of Scotch livings.
1£2 benefices at. £ 150 each .,£25,800
200 do. . at 200 40,000
200 do. . at 250 50,000
200 do. . at 300 60,000
100 do. . at 325 32,500
76 dp. . at 350 26,600
bl» . 234,900
Total Revinves of Tne Cuuecn Of Scotland . . 263,340
If the aggregate incomes of 948 livings in Scotland amount to 263,340/. the average stipends of their incumbents are very nearly as high as those of the incumbents of 11,342 benefices in England, who, according to our calculation, divide among themselves a sum which does not exceed 3,459,688/. The average value of Scottish livings amounts to 275/. per annum each, while the average value of each English benefice does not exceed 303/.
When the difference in the style and manner of living, and the expense incurred in preparing young men for the church, in the two countries, are further taken into consideration, it will hardly. be contended that 275/. per annum is not a much more liberal income for the minister of a Scottish benefice, than 303/. for the incumbent of an English parish. It should be likewise remembered that the above estimate is made on the average price of corn in the markets of Scotland during the year 1822; and that the stipends of the Scottish ministers being settled upon a fixed quantity of corn from each land-owner, must rise and fall in proportion to the rise and fall of the price of provisions. As we have taken the corn price of 1822 for the basis of our calculation, it is not unreasonable to presume that we have computed the revenues of the Church of Scotland by the very lowest scale on which they can be ever estimated.
Every one will acknowledge that, in one point at least, the church of Scotland has been much more fortunate than the English national establishment. When it was ascertained in 1810 that there were in Scotland 172 benefices, with stipends under 130/. per annum, parliament made a permanent grant of 10,000/. pel1 annum, in order to raise them to that amount. There are, w£ conceive, but few men who will contend that the legislature did not act wisely, as well as liberally, in making this grant; and we do most cordially wish, that the case of the poor benefices in England had attracted the same attention, and called forth an equal degree of liberality. It is almost certain that, at the present moment, there are in England no less than 3000 small benefices, which the slow operation of Queen Anne's bounty, aided by an annual grant of 100,000/. made by Parliament for that purpose, will hardly raise to 150/. per annum in less than one hundred years. If it was politic and humane that 172 Scottish livings, not amounting to one-fifth of the whole number, should have been raised to 150/. per annum, we do think that sound and just views of policy should have dictated a similar proceeding with respect to English benefices under that value, which amount to nearly a third of the whole number. Parliament conferred upon the church of Scotland a permanent addition of revenue, which instantly raised the stipends attached to the smallest benefices in that country to 150/. per annum: to the Church of England it doles out casual grants>
o o 3 while while it is clear that, on this plan, the same object caunot be effected in much less than a century.
It must, therefore, be perceived, that there is no just foundation for the assertion which is frequently and boldly advanced, that the revenues of the establishment for the religious instruction of Scotland are proportionally less than those attached to the ecclesiastical institutions of England. We feel no inclination to undervalue or depreciate the efficiency of the church of Scotland. It is, we trust, as its eulogists maintain, suitable to the tastes, feelings, and habits of the people for whose instruction it provides: but we must, in justice, be permitted to observe, that the praises, lavishly and insidiously heaped upon its comparative economy, do not appear to be well founded; and that in the point where its merits are confessedly the strongest, its claims to approbation and support are not superior to those of our own excellent, although ill understood and misrepresented, ecclesiastical institutions.
We have thus presented what we conscientiously believe to be a correct estimate of the amount of the funds appropriated forihe support of the English clergy; it is, we are satisfied, as near the truth as the nature and difficulty of such an undertaking will admit: and we have not only produced the summary results of pur inquiries and calculations, but we have disclosed the basis and data on which our estimate has been constructed. If any of the preceding calculations are erroneous, the means are thus supplied by which our mistakes may be detected. It must be evident to every individual, that, entertaining the views which we have explained in this Article, with respect to the nature and origin of church property, we can have no motive to attempt misleading the public as to the real amount of ecclesiastical revenues. We advert to this branch of the subject solely for the purpose of counteracting the efforts of desperate and unprincipled agitators, who exert all their ingenuity in endeavouring to impose upon the unwary, who proceed, upon an organized system of falsehood and misrepresentation, to generate and foster, among their ignorant and credulous dupes, feelings of hostility towards the ecclesiastical, as well as civd institutions of the state; and who, on all occasions, hold up the clergy of the established church,— not as, in truth they are, men faithfully discharging important duties attached to the property which they enjoy in their respective parishes, and which is as much their own, subject to the conditions on which it is held, as the estate of a lay individual is the property of the owner—but, as men who consume an inordinate proportion of wealth which belongs to the public, and which, it is therefore inferred, the public has a right to resume at its pleasure. . • •
".. . . Art.
Akt. XI.— t. Extrak des Memoires de M. Le Due de Roviga, conceinant la Catastrophe de M. le Due d'Enghien. Paris. 1823. .pp. 68.
2. Uifululion de CEcrit public par le Due de Rovigo sur la - GataUrophe de M. le Due d'Enghien. Par M. Maquart.
Paris. 1823. pp. 114.
3. Extruit des Memeires inedits sur la Revolution Francaise. , Par M. Mehee dela Touche. Paris. 1825. pp. 95.
4. Explications offertes aux Hommes imparliaux. Par M. le I Comte Hulin. Paris. 1823. pp. 16.
•5. Pieces judiciaiies et histariques relatives -au Procis du Due
d'Enghien. [By M. Dupin.J Paris. 1823. pp. 72. 7 J 'HE pamphlet which stands first in the above list, and which * has given rise to those which follow, and to many more, is. the most unaccountable performance which we have ever met with. That M. le Due de Rovigo should venture, under any circumstance or pretence, to place his name on the same page with that of M. le Due d'Enghien, would seem a most astonishing effort of assurance; but that he should, without any intelligible object, volunteer the re-production of the horrid drama in which he played so infamous a part, seems such perfect insanity, that we were at first inclined to suppose that the intellects of this unhappy man had been disordered by remorse, and that his case was .titter for Bedlam than for a critical examination. We are not, on consideration, quite sure that this first impression was not correct, and that Savary's conscience has not a little deranged his mind; but there is (if he be mad) such a method in hi? madness, and his statements seem so obviously intended to give colour to the posthumous falsehoods which Buonaparte has bequeathed to the world in the pages of Warden, O'Meara and Las Cases, that we think it our duty to lay before our readers some account of the discussion so unexpectedly raised—a discussion which has had the effect, not merely of reviving the indignation which all mankind felt at the murder of the Duke d'Enghien, but of dipping Buonaparte and his tool Savary still deeper in the blood of that illustrious victim.
Supposing, for the argument's sake, Savary not to be mad, he appears to have had three objects in view :—
I. To charge M. de Talleyrand with the chief guilt of this murder. <
- 2. To absolve Buonaparte from it, and to corroborate the apologies which he dictated to Warden and O'Meara. . 8. To exculpate himself.
In each of these points he has not only failed, but he has pro1 < o o 4 duced duced an effect the direct contrary of what he intended. We shall examine them in their order.
1. As M. de Talleyrand was Minister of Foreign Affairs at the period of the prince's seizure on a foreign territory, we were not unprepared to find that he had been aware of it—he might have concurred in that seizure without contemplating that it was to be followed by murder—he might have believed the life of the chief of the government which he then served was in danger, and might not be averse to have so important an hostage—or, finally, he might have disapproved the seizure, and yet not have thought the violation of the territory of Baden a sufficient cause for him to resign his employments, and, perhaps, as matters then stood, to risk his own head. Any of these cases are possible; and some of them were so probable that we always, till the publicationof Savory's pamphlet, suspected that, to such an extent, M. de Talleyrand might have had the weakness, or been under a necessity, to submit. We certainly never for a moment imagined that he personally dabbled in so atrocious and so wanton a crime. M. Savary, however, fortunately for M. de Talleyrand, is of a different opinion, and, by attempting to fix on him the charge of the murder of the duke, gives us strong reason to doubt that he was involved even in the seizure. In short, M. Savary, as far as he goes, proves the innocence of M. de Talleyrand.
Why, it may be asked, should Savary endeavour to inculpate M. de Talleyrand? There are two obvious answers: the first is, the natural desire of all culprits to attribute their crimes to any body else; and the second is, that the opposition of M. de Talleyrand to Buonaparte's treacherous attack on Spain, and his services towards restoring the legitimate family of France, rendered him particularly odious to Buonaparte et sa queue,*-—of which Warden, O'Meara, Las Cases, Gourgaud, Montholon and Savary are all joints.
The calumnies against M. de Talleyrand, which Buonaparte dictated to Warden and O'Meara, we shall observe upon by and by; here we will only state that the greatest part of them are refuted by Savary's admissions, and the rest by his silence.
It will be readily admitted that he tells all he knows against. Talleyrand: we shall show that all is nothing: and if Savary has proved nothing, we may fairly, we think, conclude there was nothing to be proved.
We shall not repeat the afflicting story itself; our readers will find it in all its most interesting and pathetic details in our Num
• The notorious Mehee de la Touche (who has written an answer to Savary) published in 1794 a very celebrated pamphlet, called " La queue de Robespierre." We wish some one would now expose with equal success "La queue de Buonaparte.". .