have been approved by Athelstan, one of the wisest, most powerful, and most energetic of Anglo-Saxon princes; who granted the rank of thane to proprietors, being otherwise qualified, who would not see their tenants unprovided with a place of worship'. It records an exhortation of the archbishops, given solemnly at a witenagemot early in the eleventh century, to the building of churches "in every place." They would hardly have acted thus at such a time, without sanction from the legislature. Thus we find the national authorities urging and alluring opulent individuals to build and endow churches upon their lands, during the whole period of nearly four hundred years-from Theodore to the Conquest. It is known, that many of these foundations are of a subsequent date, and, probably, existing parochial subdivisions were not consummated under six hundred years. Our ancient and uniform religious endowments arose then, like the multiform religious foundations of later times, from the spontaneous liberality of successive individuals. Formerly also, as now, there was every variety in the magnitudes of property. Because, however an estate was small, its lord often would not be without a church upon it. In many cases too, he shewed whose accommodation was first consulted, by placing the new erection close to his own home, although both the chief population, and the house provided for its minister, might be at some distance. Parishes, therefore, owe their actual dimensions to no negligence or caprice, but to the accidental inequalities of private property.

This private origin of English parochial religious foundations is obviously the clue to existing rights of patronage. Hence the verse familiar to canonists, in days when church-building was common, or had lately

been so,

Patronum faciunt dos, ædificatio, fundus".

The church's dowry of glebe had notoriously been settled upon it by some land-owner, who likewise raised the fabric, and provided more effectually for the maintenance of its minister, by resigning in his favour one-tenth of all that his own possessions around should hereafter produce. Such public spirit justly demanded a suitable acknowledgment. None could be more so, than a freehold right of selecting, under proper control, that functionory who was to realize the liberal donor's pious intentions. This was nothing beyond an equitable return to an individual, who had not only provided his neighbours with a place of religious worship at his own. expense, but had also rendered this liberality available to them, and to those who should come after them, by building a parsonage, by surrendering inalienably a part of his own property as glebe, and by burdening irredeemably the remainder. Undoubtedly the justice thus done to founders has withdrawn a very large number of benefices from professional emulation. But the laity have really no great practical reason to complain of this. They thus, however, draw important pecuniary benefits from the Church, and they are thus additionally bound to respect ecclesiastical rights. A man may have little

J. DE ATON, Const. Legit. totius Regionis Angl. f. 105.

value for religion, or may dislike that of his fathers; but surely he cannot be justified in encroaching upon the patrimonies of his kinsmen or neighbours. Now, this character attaches to a great proportion of English parochial preferments. A landowner has presented a younger son to a living in the gift of his family, or another person has invested one child's portion in an advowson, or presentation; advancing like sums to settle his remaining children in secular callings, or situations. Charity forbids a belief that the lay brother can desire, or could even endure, to have the clergyman's portion confiscated to swell his own rent-roll, or pay his own taxes.

Our larger ancient churches have, indeed, been founded by the crown, and so have many of the smaller. But no reasonable or safe principle will allow the denial to such foundations of all that inviolability which rightfully belongs to those that originated in the publicspirited sacrifices of individuals. If even ages of possession are no secure title to a royal grant, many a child of affluence must bid farewell to hereditary splendour, and enter a profession, or sue for a pension.

Unquestionably, the great bulk of our ancient religious revenue arises from tythes, and these may be hastily regarded as wholly derivable from legislative liberality. But were this undeniable, a new appropriation, advantageous, even temporarily, to any other than the landlord, is obviously very difficult while he remains. It would, however, be a monstrous folly to present gratuitously persons of the richest class with a large augmentation of their fortunes, which they have neither

inherited nor purchased, and to which, on any account, they have no more just or equitable claim than they have to some adjoining estate. If, instead of such idle prodigality, a fiscal appropriation were advocated, it would be trifling with the hopes of undiscerning occupiers. The tax-gatherer would disappoint them bitterly. For commissioners, clerks, and surveyors, patronized by the ruling party, some fortunes, it is true, might be provided, and many comfortable situations. The pressure of taxation, too, might be somewhat modified, or even lessened. But this advantage, hardly perceptible to individuals, would be fatally counterbalanced by a national disregard of all that renders property secure.

A sufficient knowledge of our ancient history gives, however, great reason to doubt the legislative origin of tythes. They seem to have been paid by the AngloSaxons before the legislature interfered to enforce them. There are, in fact, traces of them in every age and country. Hence this appropriation has not unreasonably been considered as dictated by that patriarchal creed, which men have nowhere been able wholly to forget. When an early Anglo-Saxon proprietor founded a church, he solemnly dedicated the tythes of his land for its maintenance, apparently, without any legal compulsion, or any hesitation, or reserve. His foundation was an evidence of his piety; and such a man could feel no disposition to deny a religious claim which even heathens admitted. A similar spirit, however, would inevitably be wanting to some among the representa

tives or posterity of any man.

Individuals are certain

to arise eager to forget any deductions under which their estates were acquired. To restrain this dishonourable rapacity, the Saxon legislature at length interfered, and that repeatedly. At first, it was hoped that solemn injunctions, or ecclesiastical censures, might sufficiently remind selfish men of their duty to religion, and of the terms on which they had become possessed of land. Hence Athelstan's legislature pronounced tythes demandable both upon crops and stock, requiring them to be strictly rendered'. Edmund the Elder again gave legislative weight to this injunction". Mere admonition, however, will not long strive successfully against the necessities, artifices, and avarice of mankind. Edgar's legislature was, accordingly, driven to compel, by civil penalties, the due discharge of that claim to which every landowner had found his possessions liable'. A precedent for this act of justice was, indeed, afforded by Alfred's treaty with Godrun. The great king was contented to naturalise a colony of his Danish invaders in the eastern counties: but he would not allow these unwelcome settlers to escape from liabilities immemorially fixed upon their several estates. Well, however, did he know the lawless rapacity with which he had to deal. He, therefore, provided pecuniary fines for keeping the new proprietors to the only terms on which he was willing to place them in possession, or, indeed, considered himself able1. From his reign more than nine hundred