by their partial suppression was accounted an advantage more than counterbalancing individual wrong. How then can we expect, that any memorials or remonstrances will avail with the present Commissioners, who chiefly consist of the same persons? If the magnificent buildings which the piety, taste, and munificence of our ancestors erected as houses of God,-those cathedrals, which the ancient law considered as the metropolitan parish-churches of dioceses,—are to be despoiled of their revenues, they will not long be preserved from decay; and the impious and desecrating Act which despoils them, will be but little better than the profane devastation of Cromwell. It is a fallacy to reply, that reduction only is intended; for reduction would lead to reduction, and ultimately produce suppression; and even the funds which the first reduction would leave, will be inadequate to the repairs of those ancient buildings, whose age induces constant decay, much less will sufficient remain for the maintenance of a proper choir.

The fallacy of the proposed measures will further appear, when we consider that the expected annual sum is 130,0007., and that it is absolutely inadequate to the wants which it is ostensibly designed to supply. To erect new churches, to establish a ministry in them, even in the metropolis alone, for the superabundant population that cannot be accommodated in the present churches, a greater would be required; and in this calculation it will generally be necessary to include the purchase of site, which in large towns is always of an exorbitant price. If we add to these things the indispensable endowments-perhaps too the salaries of the Commissioners and their clerks, the expenses of their offices, journeys, &c.—it will be found lamentably wanting in the balance, and worthy of "TEKEL," as a sobriquet. But the 297 livings under 50l. per annum, the 1629 of 50l. and under 1007., the 1602 of 100l. and under 150l. in England and Wales, have each a respective claim for augmentation, on the sum of 130,000l.; so that it would become divisible into fractions far too minute to confer any good whatever.

By way of casting a little light on this gloomy picture, existing interests are to be respected; and in the case of cathedral and collegiate establishments, the spoliation is to be deferred, till the present possessors shall have been gathered to their fathers; which certainly raises in us a hope that, long ere that event, the present Ministry will be out of office, and another be appointed which will reverse their acts. But in the Benefices Plurality Bill, though there is a similar exhibition of respect for existing interests, clause follows clause, in which the privileges of present incumbents are taken away.

The majority of the Commissioners being laymen, and not independent laymen, but men who must be subservient to the Ministry, the Commission is no more qualified to legislate for the Church, than Korah, Dathan, and Abiram were qualified to usurp the priesthood. The restriction, which demands the presence of two of the Episcopal Commissioners, is no restriction at all; for since, of the thirteen

members, eight are laymen, and ten are appointed and removable at the will of the Crown (i. e. the Ministry), five of these ten also being Cabinet Ministers, who can at any time remove the other five, it is manifest that if there be any independent members, they can be only three, and that the whole Commission must act under the guidance of the Government. Thus the Ministers of the Crown are virtually the Commission; and the independence of the three may, on many accounts, be questioned.

As all these separate members dwindle into the Ministry, we need not be surprised at the inquisitorial powers with which they are invested; that they are authorized to require any person's attendance, to compel his answers on oath to any questions (notwithstanding the Act for abolishing unnecessary oaths), and to extort information for their future purposes by the compulsion to produce, upon oath, all statutes, charters, grants, rules, regulations, bye-laws, books, deeds, contracts, agreements, accounts and writings whatsoever. A more abominable tyranny is not to be conceived; nor can a closer and more practical resemblance to auricular confession be imagined. If the title-deeds of all the ecclesiastical estates in the kingdom thus be at their command, if the management of them be thus submitted to their inquisitorial inspection, the liberty of the subject is infringed: -would they hazard a similar infringement of it with respect to private property in general?

These Commissioners, moreover, may project schemes for the altcration of the extent of dioceses, for the suppression of sees, and the erection of others, the equalization of episcopal revenues, and the distribution of episcopal patronage; so that these Commissioners may easily invest members of their own families with the mitre and crosier, provide them with new sees, and rob the bishops to furnish them with revenues. We fearlessly affirm, that nothing in the Church requires a rectification such as the effects of this provision, if it becomes a law, will require. The confusion which must arise from such an inversion of the whole ecclesiastical system, from the arbitrary separation or union of benefices, from the alterations of boundaries, the apportionment of tithes and emoluments, and the appointment of curates unauthorized by the incumbents;-in fact, the confusion which must arise from the acts of this irresponsible oligarchy, will, in the nature of things, generate evils which cannot long be tolerated. If this gigantic stride to absolutism be not checked, what will be the power of the bishops? will it not degenerate to a mere name? will not acts styled episcopal, be in reality the acts of the Commission? Is it not contrary to our constitution, that there should be in the state a set of men empowered to abrogate ancient usages, to confiscate property, to propose new laws, especially since these men being nearly identical with the Government, are sure of obtaining the Sovereign's approval, which will make their projects laws? And let us ask our countrymen generally, if in this instance the Ministry be not impeded, how long will it be, should an opportunity be afforded, and rapacity

apply its stimulus, before other societies and private life will be equally invaded? We may be assured that the vulgar proverb will apply to this Government, that if an inch be granted to them, they will seize an ell; nay, we are confident, that where they are allowed to introduce one foot, they will force in their whole body.

THE DURHAM PETITIONS.

We have elsewhere recorded our opinion on the baleful tendency of the "Benefices Plurality Bill." We are glad to be able to support our arguments there advanced, by a petition, which was, without a dissentient voice, adopted by the clergy of Durham at a recent meeting, held under their Archdeacon in Bishop Cosin's Library. The language of the petition is most temperate, the views therein maintained most sound, and the regard for principle so scrupulously set forth, is most cheering in these days of laxity and indifference. We have reason to hope that the bill will die a natural death. Nay, we trust that ere these words meet the public eye, the bantling will be cast upon the world as unworthy of patronage. Be this as it may, there are truths in the following petition which give value to its statements, irrespective of any particular details against which it may be levelled. In the third clause of the petition there is a truly catholic spirit abundantly manifest. Fatal will be that hour for the peace and happiness of England, in which the powers of a Commission, partly clerical and partly laic, are recognized as superior to the pastoral mandates of him who is selected to "warn and premonish" the flock of a stated fold, under the general pastorate of the Great Shepherd. But let the petition speak for itself; its language is plain and simple; its tone courteous, yet firm; and its prayer just, and free from sectarian bias:

"To the Honourable the Commons' House of Parliament.

"The humble Petition of the Archdeacon and Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Durham, and of the Officialty of the Dean and Chapter of Durham, and others residing within the limits of the same, whose names are underwritten,

66

Sheweth, That your Petitioners are informed that a Bill is now under the consideration of your Honourable House, entitled a Bill to abridge the holding of Benefices in Plurality, and to make better provision for the residence of the Clergy.

66 That your Petitioners are well content to acquiesce in the diminution of Pluralities, and in all necessary provisions for securing, under reasonable exceptions, the residence of the Clergy upon their Cures.

"But your Petitioners have grave objections to the extension of the powers of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, a body unknown to the constitution of the Church, whereby they are enabled to change the bounds and limits of Parishes, and to exercise functions which might be

properly and conveniently committed to the Bishops, with the advice of their respective Chapters and Synods, under the control and sanction of the Crown.

"And your Petitioners further object to the new authority given to the Bishops over resident Incumbents, regularly performing their duties, with respect to the nomination of Curates and the services of their Churches; as well as to the intervention of a Commission of Clergymen in suspected cases of neglect, to the prejudice of the ordinary powers of visitation and reproof which appertain to the Episcopal Office.

"Your Petitioners, therefore, pray your Honourable House that the Bill, in its present state, may not pass into a law.

66 And your Petitioners will ever pray," &c.

We have said that the petition just quoted was agreed to without a dissentient voice by the clergy of the diocese of Durham, met to discuss matters relative to the Church. We now come to speak of a petition which, though it was not adopted by unanimous consent, yet had a vast majority of the clergy then present as its supporters. We will first put our readers in possession of the petition, and we will then offer one or two observations in connexion with it. The petition is as follows:

"To the Honourable the Commons' House of Parliament.

"The humble Petition of the Archdeacon and Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Durham, and of the Officialty of the Dean and Chapter of Durham, and others residing within the limits of the same, whose names are underwritten,

66

Sheweth,-That your

Petitioners are informed that a Bill has been brought into your Honourable House, to carry into effect, with certain modifications, the 4th Report of the Commissioners of Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues.

"That your Petitioners are not averse to such necessary arrangements as may be conducive, under altered circumstances, to the efficiency of the Church, or may be recommended by lawful Ecclesiastical authority to the consideration of Parliament.

"But your Petitioners cannot contemplate without uneasiness the present measure, seeing that, in the judgment of your Petitioners, it threatens to uproot the Cathedral system, and to destroy, without a proved necessity, the ancient polity of the Church.

"Your Petitioners observe, that whilst a bare provision is left for the performance of the services and the maintenance of the fabrics of the Cathedral, the great purposes of those venerable and important Establishments are altogether overlooked.

"Your Petitioners are opposed, upon considerations both of principle and expediency, to the suppression of Cathedral dignities; and they deprecate the formation of a common estate in the hands and disposal of a perpetual Commission, a body unknown to the constitution of the Church, out of the property of the Chapters.

"Your Petitioners believe that such an estate, inadequate at the best for the purposes of augmentation, would be wasted and destroyed by the cost and difficulties of its management; and that the annexation of Cathedral dignities to important Cures, combined with a well-drawn scheme of augmentation, under the direction of the Bishops and their respective Chapters, would be more effectual for the supply of our parochial wants.

"Your Petitioners have grave objections to any extension of the powers of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, a body whose perpetuity they view with the greatest jealousy and apprehension.

"Your Petitioners therefore desire to express their earnest wish that the Bill may not pass into a law, and that the Reports of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners may be referred to some competent Church authority, to be considered with a view to the preservation of Chapters in their numbers and efficiency, to the annexation of parochial Cures to a portion of the Cathedral dignities, and to such a provision for the augmentation of livings as shall leave the fabric of the Establishment entire. "And your Petitioners will ever pray," &c.

We feel that in printing the petition we have said all that is necessary in its behalf. Surely it would be difficult to imagine how a churchman could find fault with its prayer. But were we to leave the matter here, the caviller might fairly say, "You have admitted that the petition was not unanimously adopted; none but churchmen, aye, none but clergy of the Church, were parties to the adoption or rejection of the petition, and therefore how can you say that no churchman can find fault with its prayer?" To this we reply, that we believe the opposition offered to the petition was made in ignorance of the terms in which that petition was couched. We take it that Dr. Gilly (for to this amiable and exemplary clergyman is the opposition to be traced) would never have disturbed even for a moment the harmony of the meeting by proposing his petition, had he previously heard the terms and been acquainted with the prayer of that read by Archdeacon Thorp, proposed and seconded by two zealous parochial clergymen, and ultimately adopted by the meeting. The whole of Dr. Gilly's speech betokens premeditation, and the preparation of a number of set phrases calculated to meet an exigency which did not occur. The same remark is applicable with redoubled force to the admirable discourse of Mr. Gisborne; we say admirable discourse, for such it was, and a most beautiful essay on moderation and christian charity it must be admitted to be. But nothing could possibly provoke one to cry "Quid ad rem?" more than the speeches of Dr. Gilly and Mr. Gisborne. From the latter we were not surprised at meeting with a refusal to disavow the principle of the Church Commission; we had hoped for better things from Dr. Gilly: nay, even now we would hope that he sees that the course he took was an ill-advised one. But even if the mists of error still hang around