INCORPORATED SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING THE ENLARGEMENT, BUILDING, AND REPAIRING OF CHURCHES AND CHAPELS.

A MEETING of this Society was held at their chambers, in St. Martin's-place, on Monday, the 19th of June-his Grace the Archbishop of York in the chair. There were present the Bishops of Winchester, Chester, Bangor, Rochester, Gloucester and Bristol, and Ripon; Lord Rolle; Revs. Dr. Spry, Dr. Shepherd, J. Lonsdale, T. Bowdler, Dr. D'Oyley, and H. H. Norris; P. Pusey, Esq., M.P., Joshua Watson, S. Bosanquet, H. J. Barchard, J. W. Bowden, William Davis, James Cox, Esqrs., &c.

Among other business transacted, grants were voted towards building a chapel at East Harrington, Somerset ; increasing the accommodation in the church of St. Philip and Jacob, Bristol; building a church at Seaham Harbour, in the parish of Dalton-le-Dale, Durham; increasing the accommodation in the chapel at Euxton in the parish of Leyland, Lancashire; building a church at Alveston, Worcestershire; building a church at Havant, Hants; enlarging the church at Conden, Kent; enlarging the church at Corfe Mullen, Dorset; increasing the accommodation in the church at Halesworth, Suffolk; building a church at Ashby-de-la-Zouch, Leicestershire; building a chapel at Downside, in the parish of Midsomer Norton, Somerset; building a chapel at Freckleton, in the parish of Kirkham, Lancashire; enlarging, by rebuilding, the church at Charlton, in the parish of Donhead, St. Mary, Wilts; re-arranging the seats in the church at Wilden, Bedfordshire; repewing and erecting a gallery in the church at Hales Owen, Salop; enlarging, by rebuilding, the church at Horsley, Gloucestershire; building a chapel at Chatburn, parish of Whalley, Lancashire; repewing the church at Butler's Marston, Warwick; building a chapel at Holmwood, parish of Dorking, Surrey; building a church, to be called Trinity Church, at Blackburn, Lancashire; repewing, and building a gallery in, the church at Helston, Cornwall; building a church at Middlesbrough, York; building two chapels in the parish of Rotherhithe; restoring the tower of the church at Headley, Southampton; building a chapel at Burghclere, Hants; building a church at Upper Gornall, in the parish of Sedgley, Staffordshire; building a church at Chittlehamholt, in the parish of Chittlehampton, Devon; building_two chapels at Copt Oak and Woodhouse Eaves in the forest of Charnwood, Leicester. [The annual Report of this most invaluable society is postponed, for want of room, till the next Number.-ED.]

CHURCH MATTERS.

IN consequence of the lamented decease of his late Majesty King William the Fourth, it is clear that the bills now before the House of Commons affecting the church must at any rate be delayed, in consequence of the dissolution of parliament. The progress of one of them has been of somewhat an extraordinary nature, and very much resembling a retrograde movement. After a majority of five had supported the government measure, by which the leases of church lands were to be put on a new footing, and a new fund created for the payment of church rates, &c., all of a sudden it was imagined that it would be as well to inquire whether the creation of such a fund was possible or not; and, accordingly, a majority of about eighty of the

PES

Pi

House of Commons agreed to inquire into the possibility of doing what the same house had voted should be done some six weeks before! We are fond of sneering, in the present day, at the wisdom of our ancestors; it is to be hoped that our posterity may be more mercifully inclined towards us, as, if they are not, they will have room for laughter. The Church Rate Bill, therefore, needs no further comment now. The following remarks, which have been contributed by a most able and learned friend, were written before the lamented event above referred to; and as the Irish Tithe Bill is a sort of standing dish, though its accompaniments undergo some modifications, they will be highly acceptable on all accounts.

THE IRISH TITHE BILL.

LORD MORPETH is reported to have said, in a speech made some months ago at Leeds, that the Irish clergy had rejected the bill of 1836, and that they should get a worse. Whether or not the threat was made by the noble lord, the prediction has been unhappily verified; and the bill prepared and brought in by Viscount Morpeth, Lord John Russell, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, surpasses, indeed, all its predecessors. The provisions of this bill may be divided into two classes, those which tend to destroy the episcopal constitution of the Irish branch of the united church of England and Ireland, and those which alienate its property from the clergy. With the former class we shall begin our remarks, as they are, if possible, of more dangerous tendency.

With fatal precedent, the church-rates in Ireland were abolished by the act of 1833. To supply the deficiency of these funds, ten bishoprics were destroyed at one fell swoop; many parishes were confiscated, and the management of the repairs of the churches and of the requisites for divine service was taken from the minister and churchwardens, who performed these offices gratuitously, and given to a board, the officers of which absorb the incomes of four bishops. The measure was declared to be a final adjustment, but what has been the result? This board, like every other set of commissioners, not content with the funds already at their disposal, grasped each year at more, and each year has a new act been passed, confiscating to their greedy rapacity more of the church property. This board is to be elevated to the summit of unconstitutional power by the new bill. The bishops of the established church are cashiered; their name, their power, a mere mockery. The whole episcopal jurisdiction of Ireland is at once transferred to a board whose members are connected with the established church only by the slender provision that they must declare themselves members of the united church of England and Ireland.

By this new bill, the commissioners are "to ascertain the spiritual duties to be performed by the incumbent of each parish, and the number of assistant curates either employed or required for the due discharge of such duties;" they are to prepare such schemes as seem to them to be proper and necessary for the more perfect distribution of ecclesiastical duties and revenues, by augmenting or diminishing parishes, erecting churches or chapels, building glebe-houses, or, finally, by any other means they may

think fit in cases for which this act has not made provision. We would ask, is there any precedent for granting such monstrous powers as are conferred by this last clause? We would ask, of what use are all the provisions of the act? would it not be much simpler, in one line, to enact that the ecclesiastical commissioners have full powers to do whatever they please? But, in serious sadness, we ask, what remains of the episcopal constitution of our church after such an enactment? Is not the jurisdiction of the bishop in his diocese a mere name? Are not all the powers of all the Irish bishops vested in this ecclesiastical board?-not even the consent of the bishop is necessary for making any of these changes. The very act is referred to which required the consent of the bishop and patron for such changes, and their consent is made no longer necessary. Nay, the bishop's power of collation is suspended upon the will of these despots, and he cannot present to a living for two months after he has given notice of a vacancy.

The bishops of Ireland may surely appeal to the parliamentary returns presented to Parliament within the last thirty years for the improvements that have been made in the different dioceses; they may appeal to the number of churches and glebe-houses that have been erected within that period, and ask how have they deserved this insult-how have they forfeited the trust reposed in them? The utmost malice of their enemies could not supply an adequate answer. But, granting the greatest extent of abuse that their worst enemy has ventured to hint,-granting that all the existing bishops have acted corruptly, negligently, shamefully, is the episcopal character of our church to be permanently changed for such temporary misconduct of individuals? The remedy should be very different. Let these powerful ministers, instead of framing unconstitutional acts of parliament, take care that successors be appointed to these prelates, as the sees become yacant, who will administer more faithfully the existing laws. We do not wonder if they shrink from such an attempt.

Another clause of this bill provides for breaking down all the ancient divisions of parishes, for expensive modes of surveying and tracing out new parishes, but does not state how these expenses are to be defrayed. No doubt the clergy will, in some manner, be compelled to defray them; and for what purpose is this breaking down of all ancient landmarks? for the better discharge of ecclesiastical duties forsooth-when the existing laws enable the bishop, by establishing perpetual curacies, or by making district parishes, to counteract all the anomalies of parochial divisions without any inconvenience or expense, and when their exertions to effect this desirable object have only been impeded by the impossibility of getting money to build a new church. It is asserted, without fear of contradiction, and if contradicted it can be proved, that there is not a parochial inequality in Ireland which cannot be corrected by the laws already in force, that the correction is only delayed by want of funds, which funds are as necessary for the completion of the new scheme, and that this new scheme has nothing to recommend it but the subversion of everything established, the violation of private property and solemn compacts.

Such extravagant and unconstitutional powers we trust the British

legislature will never give to a set of commissioners; we trust they are not yet prepared to surrender at once the sacred and episcopal character of the established church in Ireland. If it were thought possible such a measure could be carried, they should be warned of the object in view, the subversion, not of the Irish, but of the English church; they cannot surely have already forgotten the plan adopted with regard to the church-rates bill; the subversion of church-rates in Ireland was carried on the ground of the total dissimilarity between the situation of the established church there and in this country. Had not the argument been strongly put forward, and as firmly believed by those to whom it was addressed, the measure could not have passed the House of Commons. Three years elapse, and the passing of the bill for Ireland is put forward as the precedent for establishing a similar measure in England. There is no doubt that the same course will be pursued, provided the present bill should unfortunately pass without very considerable alter

ations.

Let us now consider the diminution of income proposed; and, first, as to existing incumbents. Their composition for tithes is changed into a rent charge of 701. for each 1007., so that nearly one-third of each clergyman's income is taken away by this summary process, and no compensation afforded for his losses during the last three years. And this reduction is made when more than one-third of the composition rent of Ireland is paid free of all charges, under the act known as Lord Stanley's act, and a considerable portion of the remainder undertaken by landlords at an allowance of 15 per cent. From every inquiry we have been able to make, the result is, that the operation of Lord Stanley's act has become so beneficial to the clergy, that an allowance of 15 per cent, would be abundantly sufficient, and all the tithes of Ireland would long since have been undertaken on these terms, had not the cupidity of the landlords been fed with the hopes afforded, from year to year, of an augmented allowance. We may fairly estimate 15 per cent. on the whole as 25 per cent. upon the amount, for which landlords are not already liable; and the 30 per cent. proposed by the present bill would, in fact, be a bonus to the landlords of 45 per cent. for undertaking the tithes, which were not now payable by them. In this Magazine for March, 1835, it was clearly shewn that, from the year 1823 to that period, the various enactments had diminished the incomes of the existing incumbents at least 35 per cent., and this new act would make the diminution 50 per cent. for existing incumbents, and 60 per cent. for future.

But the severity of the proposed enactment upon the existing incumbents is not confined to this deduction; they are held responsible for the instalments of the million loan, as it is called. A mode of speaking has been adopted about this loan as if it were a loan to the clergy, as if it had been a loan to relieve their property. This language has been unfortunately tolerated, and its admission taken as proof that the clergy owe this money. The real state of the case is obvious to every one who thinks for a moment. The loan was to the tithe payers, and they were bound to repay it in five annual payments. By-we must call it-a cruel and impolitic enactment, the clergy were bound to collect these instalments, and severe penalties imposed

upon them if they did not. But surely these penalties were only intended, and can only be interpreted as extending to the cases where the clergy have been negligent in recovering, or where, having received the money themselves, they withheld it from the treasury; but they cannot extend to the cases where the clergy could not collect, where they were prevented from collecting by the government at one time holding out to the people hopes of a total remission, and at another time refusing to enforce the laws for compelling the refractory. If it should be deemed expedient to enforce the repayment, when four instalments are nearly due, the clergy should be released from the annoying task, and when it has been proved that they cannot collect, recourse should be had to some other power.

Another enactment allows a revision of all the compositious for tithes, and appoints three barristers, at fifteen guineas per day, to hear the complaints. Of this sum, the unfortunate incumbent must pay whatever part the barristers think fit, though the application has been made without his consent, and though, in most cases, it must happen, from the changes during fourteen years, and from the number of compositions made by the authority of government, that he had no concern in making the composition complained against. The incumbent will, in many cases, not be able to prove the value of his parish before the composition; he most probably has not preserved, or has not received from his predecessor, the papers, which were not considered of any consequence, the arrangement being supposed final; and the reign. of terror in most parts of Ireland will prevent them from being able to procure the evidence of any witness. To calculate the extent of loss upon this enactment is impossible.

The deduction made for future incumbents is the substitute for the appropriation clause. Ten per cent, is to be levied upon all future incumbents, and paid over to the commissioners of the Treasury to support the new board of national education. To justify this tax, recourse is had to the act of Henry VIII., which provides for clergymen keeping a school to teach the English language, and directs that they shall be paid for so doing. A marvellous analogy between that enactment and a deduction of 10 per cent. from their incomes! But waiving this, is it just to take from the clergy any portion of their income to support schools over which they have no constraint, where a system of education is pursued which they have almost unanimously denounced to the legislature as unscriptural and dangerous? It was not necessary to urge the clergy to support sound plans of education. Lord Glenelg may be considered impartial authority upon this subject, and his words are-"I am bound to say that among the most strenuous advocates of education, and among those who are most anxious to avail themselves of all means afforded them for this purpose, and who, according to their opportunities, have, in fact, been the most active in promoting it, are to be found the great body of the established clergy of Ireland." As the clause now stands, it must be considered by the clergy as the appropriation clause in its worst form, as an appropriation not only to other purposes, but to purposes dangerous to the existence of the church."

Not content with these diminutions of clerical income, the framers