without pluralities, it would be impossible to have served at all, so inadequate are they to the separate maintenance of a clergyman.'

P. 17. The bill for the better observance of the Sabbath, 'like all other measures of overstrained severity, must necessarily have created a re-action, 5 which must have defeated its own ends.'

Pp. 17-19: 'The other measure [rendering unbeneficed clergymen eligible for seats in the commons' house] has not yet been brought before the House, and I see that its postponement is announced—I trust never to be resumed. [Footnote. Since this Charge was delivered, the.....member 10 for the borough of Cambridge has published a letter in the Cambridge Chronicle, kindly expressing his sense of the hardship which he thinks clergymen suffer by being unrepresented in the House of Commons, (of course unbeneficed clergymen only, on his own principle,) and declaring that he means to resume the motion at a future period. The same....member has 15 made a motion, also since the delivery of this Charge, for the exclusion of Irish Bishops from the House of Lords, in which he was supported by Mr. Hume.]......The next step is easy to foresee—I mean the rejection of the Bishops from the House of Lords, on the ground of the Clergy being eligible to sit in the House of Commons. But supposing such a consequence not 20 to follow, what Clergyman who has a due sense of his character would offer himself as a candidate ?....And how very few unbeneficed clergymen are there who possess sufficient property to give them a qualification for sitting in the House.... The only way in which they could appear there, with any semblance of dignity, would be by election, not in a popular way, but by their own body, as a sort of substitute for the Convocation. But even this, could it be effected, appears to me highly objectionable. They would not be numerous enough to maintain the dignity of their order.'

25

Pp. 19-23. Tithe Commutation Bill intended to remove impediments in the way of agricultural improvement, and to prevent collision and dis30 putes between the clergy and their parishioners,....by substituting for tithes a permanent tithe rent, in the nature of a corn rent, subject to an average to be taken every ten years, and by making the land owner, and not the occupier, the party responsible for payment. In these instances I think the Clergy will gain something in the way of peace, and something in the 35 way of security....It is proposed,...that the average of any composition agreed on for tithes, during the last seven years, after certain deductions for outgoings, shall be considered as the fair value....I could mention an instance where the compensation paid for the last seven years for tithes of the annual value of £1200 has been only £200 a year....I could mention 40 another instance where the tithes have continued to this time at precisely the same amount as they were compounded for in the year 1789....This Bill, which professes to relieve the agriculturist from the impediment which tithes present to the application of capital for the improvement of the soil, completely fulfils its object in that respect, by effectually preventing any future 45 increase in the real value of livings. For by its provisions the land owner is bound to pay only the value of a fixed number of bushels of wheat, barley, and oats, as a tithe rent on his land.'

A charge delivered to the clergy of the archdeaconry of Derby, at the visitations at Derby and Chesterfield, June 26. and 27. 1834. By the Rev. S.

Butler, D.D. F.R.S. &c. archdeacon of Derby, and head master of Shrewsbury school. London: printed for Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, Green, and Longman, Paternoster-Row. 1834. 4to. pp. 20. [In the same library.]

P. 3: 'We have now to contend for the preservation of our spiritual 5 and temporal interests of our temporal, in securing a decent provision for ourselves and our families; of our spiritual, in maintaining that form of sound doctrine which we have received from our forefathers.'

P. 4. Clause in the Poor Bill, 'excluding the minister of each parish from being one of the guardians of the poor.'

Pp. 5-9. Bills for the better observance of the Sabbath. "Never, perhaps, were more numerous or more unanimous petitions presented to the legislature, on any subject, than this. The act of legislating on it however is extremely difficult; and I am not among those who venture to hope much success from the attempt. One or two efforts have been made, evi- 15 dently so uncongenial to the spirit of freedom and liberty which belongs to our Constitution, so harsh in their restrictions, and so unequal in their operation on the different classes of society, that we ought, I think, most heartily to rejoice at their rejection. Extreme severities always defeat their own object.... Furthermore, the severest prohibitions will not effect 20 the truly religious observance of the Sabbath, by influencing the heart. Rather will they tend to bring odium, not only on such legislation, but on the sacred day itself; and, by turning it into a day of ascetic gloom, instead of religious cheerfulness, may conduce to harden men's hearts, but not to convert them....I apprehend there are already enough, and more than 25 enough, of these [severe legislative provisions], if enforced. They might perhaps be consolidated; and such as are of long standing and out of date might be abolished, or better adapted to the habits and temper of the times: but additional and more penal restrictions I cannot but deprecate.... They who have been confined in the close and heated air of manufactories and 30 shops, in narrow streets, and crowded and ill-ventilated apartments, for six days continually, naturally wish to breathe a freer and purer air, and to enjoy a refreshing relaxation on the seventh. To debar these from their usual and only gratification, that actual rest from their labours, and, I may add, that moral enjoyment which they can only receive on this day, would 35 be as oppressive as it fortunately is impossible. It is absurd to suppose that rest consists in merely sitting still.... Averse as I am to restrictions, I cannot but strenuously advocate the entire closing on this day, of those temples of all vice and immorality, the gin shops.'

Pp. 9-13: I come now to another important point,... the admission 40 of Dissenters to graduate in our two English Universities. The difficulties of this question are, I believe, on several accounts, greater at the sister University, than at that to which I more especially belong [Footnote. I have the honour of an ad eundem D.D. degree at Oxford also.], owing to subscription to the Articles being required at Oxford from all students at their 45 admission. This not being requisite at Cambridge, in limine, has opened more generally the access to that University; and, having known it above forty years, by actual residence, by frequent visits, and by constant communication, and that too with many of its tutors and heads of colleges, I must own, that I never knew or heard of any evil resulting from such 50

facility. The sons of Dissenters, of various denominations, have been, and now are, educated there, in the same lecture-rooms, submit to the same college discipline and regulations, and attend the same chapel service, as those whose parents are of the Established Church. I have known the 5 sons of Unitarian ministers admitted to examination for the same degree, and fairly earn the same honours, at those examinations, as the sons of clergymen of the Establishment. So far therefore we must admit, that no invidious distinctions have been made, either in the instruction given, or in the rewards allotted to those who have profited by it. But surely it seems IO absurd to say to the Dissenter, we will allow you to attend our lectures, and to undergo examination for your degree, and we will assign to you, according to your proficiency and desert, such honours as we assign to our pupils of the Established Church; but the degree itself for which we examine you shall not have, unless you will subscribe yourself a member of 15 the Church of England.... On such grounds therefore, had I been a resi dent member of the senate, I might have been induced to sign the Cambridge Petition, which has been the source of so much discussion, and, I fear, of so much disunion. [Footnote. On principle, I contend for the abolition of tests for lay degrees; on the ground of self-defence, I consider 20 it necessary that the abolition of tests should be accompanied with security to the Church against any possible mischief arising from this measure.] It is but honest to add, that the subsequent avowals on the part of our dissenting brethren, would have given me cause to repent such a proceeding, without having stipulated for certain restrictions, by way of security 25 to ourselves, which I should not previously have thought necessary.... Few of us, I presume, if desirous of information on any subject of science, would refuse to consult an able treatise, because it was written by a dissenting Master of Arts. They who are involved in law-suits, would not decline asking the opinion of an eminent lawyer, because, though distinguished by 30 the highest academical honours, he might chance to be a Dissenter. Were a man dangerously ill, he would hardly enquire who was the most orthodox physician, but who stood highest in general estimation, as best skilled in his profession. If therefore, in the most important affairs of common life, we do not refuse to trust the care of our property and persons to men of 35 eminence in their respective professions, without nicely discriminating their religious persuasions, why should we withhold from laymen the academic honours which their talents might entitle them to claim?... The petition went simply to ask the removal of subscription. It neither sought the admission of Dissenters, as such, nor a change in the college lectures or 40 discipline, nor a participation in college fellowships or emoluments. Now the real benefit of an M.A. or higher degree is, that, besides being an academic distinction, and a presumption that the bearer of it has been liberally educated, it admits him in some cases to civil appointments which may be held by laymen. In this degree there are two steps, inception and creation. 45 Inception, which gives the title and general privileges,-Creation, which confers the farther power of voting in the Senate. If subscription be thought necessary as a security, it still need not be required till creation. No man would then be prevented from taking his B.A. or M.A. degree, who was duly qualified by learning and compliance with the rules and 50 discipline of the University; but no man could vote in the Senate, who

was not a member of the Established Church. For all college and university offices, and for all fellowships, subscription might still be required. Bachelors in law and physic having already the privileges of Masters of Arts, but no vote in the Senate, might proceed without subscription to the higher degree. Doctors in either, might be required to subscribe at creation 5 only. In the mean time however I must be allowed to say, that it appears an act of absolute injustice to withhold our own degrees from Dissenters, and at the same time to throw impediments in the way of their obtaining them elsewhere.'

Butler's sagacity thus suggested the very compromise which is now (1869) 10 established as law.

Pp. 12-20. Dissenters avow a desire to overthrow the Church...Deeply indeed may we lament, that the spirit of conciliation with which a great number of Churchmen appear to have been influenced, has not been met by our dissenting brethren with that cordiality which might have been hoped... 15 Few, if any, among us, were unwilling to concede to Dissenters the right of marriage, and baptism, and burial, by their own ministers, in their own cemeteries...I am aware that many of these observations are now almost or altogether superseded by the events which have taken place in the House of Commons within the last five or six days; but I have not thought it 20 desirable to withdraw them in consequence. In truth, I was not aware of that momentous division on the Bill for admitting Dissenters to the Universities, till the very instant I was proceeding to our present meeting... With regard to the complete separation of the Church from the State, the first step to which, as proposed by the Dissenters, is the removal of the Bishops 25 from the House of Lords, I have already stated, in a tract on the subject of Church Dignities, that the Bishops are one of the three Estates of this realm...If therefore it be possible to remove the Bishops from the House of Lords by any legal act of Parliament, it is possible by the same process to abolish the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, and every constitutional 30 provision, up to Magna Charta...I say legal Act of Parliament, because the removal of the Bishops has been once effected by an illegal act...

"The separation of the Church from the State would therefore necessarily involve the dissolution of our present constitution, by taking away an integral part of it.... And this separation of the Church from the State would 35 inevitably lead to the destruction of the Church. Not but that there would always be found ministers ready to teach under all hardships and privations; but it would be impossible, if there were no Established Church, to provide ministers in sufficient numbers to take care of the spiritual concerns of this great nation, as at present. There would be no adequate means for their 40 support, much less for their present extensive charities; for it may be safely affirmed that there is no parish under our present Establishment, the poor of which do not receive some, and, in most instances, very important temporal, as well as spiritual assistance from the minister of their Established Church. And besides these local charities, there is no body of men who 45 contribute to the general and public charitable institutions of this kingdom, in any thing like so large a proportion as the clergy. A minister too would have much less moral influence over his flock, when voluntarily supported by them, than when receiving an independent income, and himself volun

tarily contributing to their support. In proof of this, without meaning the least offence, I might appeal to the state of those very dissenting congregations, whose ministers receive a scanty allowance from them while able to serve, and who have no settled provision for times of sickness, infirmity, 5 and old age.

'But that is not all were there no Established Church, there could be no standard of religion, if I may so express myself, by which even dissenting congregations might measure their own defects or proficiency; there would be no nucleus, round which Christians might be gathered; no cement, 10 if I may so say, to hold religion together; no food to keep it alive, and no stimulus to excite its activity....Sure we may be, also, that no Established Church will be more apostolic in its doctrines, more moderate in its polity, more decent in its ceremonies, more holy in its liturgy, or more tolerant in its practical intercourse with mankind, than our own; and, by its faithful 15 sons and ministers, it will not be deserted even in its fall. No, my Reverend Brethren, we may differ in our views of what is expedient or desirable for its preservation-of what we should, or what we should not, concede to its opponents; we may differ as to the extent to which reform or change may be necessary in the laws affecting its ministers or its property; but, in its 20 episcopal constitution, in its Trinitarian and essential doctrines, we must all agree, and by these we must stand or fall. It seemed necessary to say so much respecting the Established Church, after the avowal of the three denominations of Dissenters at their London conference, which amounts to a virtual declaration that they seek its dissolution; which avowal has not 25 yet been publicly contradicted, as far as I know, by any counter declaration. But I have the satisfaction to believe, that many Dissenters hold much more moderate opinions; and a protest from the Church of Scotland, already made, to that effect, is as honorable to the members of that body, as it is consolatory to ourselves.'

30

In p. 19 is an address to the king from the archdeacon and clergy 27 June 1834, expressing their 'heartfelt gratitude for your Majesty's recent and most seasonable declaration of your fixed purpose and resolution to maintain, in all its rights and privileges, the United Church of England and Ireland.'

35 Ibid. "The whole body of the Established clergy have manifested a praiseworthy forbearance towards those who are opposed to them. It may fairly be said of them, as a body, that they take joyfully the spoiling of their goods, not opposing laws by which they must be severe losers, if only occasions of quarrel and discontent can thereby be taken away.'

40

In the Cambr. Chron. 31 Oct. 1834 p. 2, is a letter from Dr. Butler respecting Coleridge.

A charge delivered to the clergy of the archdeaconry of Derby, at the visitations at Derby and Chesterfield, June 25. and 26. 1835. By the Rev. S. Butler, D.D. F.R.S. &c. archdeacon of Derby, and head master of Shrewsbury school. 45 London: printed for Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, Green, and Longman, Paternoster-Row. 1835. 4to. pp. 20. After the story of the purchase of the site of Hannibal's camp for its full value at the time he occupied it (Liv. xxvi. 9), and that of Jeremiah's purchase of his uncle's field, when he was a prisoner in a besieged city (Jer. xxxii. 9).-Pp. 6, 7: 'That we, my