of the Church from 1066 to the Reformation, and a similar account to the present time, form the contents of the first seven chapters; and it is no impeachment of Mr. Thackeray's abilities to say that he has not been able to handle such a variety of matters in so small a compass. On several of the subjects much may yet be said-The Church Charters for instance, which are alluded to, but not examined or classified, have been discussed with great minuteness in the old controversies respecting tithes; and an abridgment of the opinions of our great writers upon these and similar questions would form a useful chapter in a modern treatise. The whole subject of tithes is once more before the public: their opponents come to the conflict with all the confidence of ignorance and innovation, and it may be as well for the Clergy to look back upon the unanswered arguments of their good and learned predecessors,-not for the purpose of bringing them forward in their old shape and dress, but of adapt. ing them to that less solid fashion of reading and thinking which now prevails. Something of this kind might have been easily introduced into the little work before us; and substituted with advantage for the uninteresting truisms with which it now abounds. We feel this more strongly because the question of tithes is precisely that part of his subject which Mr. Thackeray treats the best, and his pamphlet might have been rendered of considerable importance, if he had prefaced this portion of it by information connected with the particular subject on which he was about to enlarge. We consider the tenth chapter upon tithes as affecting agriculture, 10 be the best and most useful in the Treatise; and the followi ing extract will suffice to exhibit the line of argument which Mr. Thackeray adopts, and his general method of dealing with it. "It would exceed the limits, and inREMEMBRANCER, No. 47. deed the nature and intention of this essay, were I to enter into a regular investigation of the effects produced by tithes upon the ever, 1 bring it to a conclusion, I cannot agriculture of the country. Before, howrefrain from expressing my decided opinion that no subject has been more grossly misunderstood, nor more perversely misrepresented. Almost every obstacle, of howvariation in the price of produce, has, at ever opposite a description, almost every one time or other, been ascribed to, the operation of tithes. That heterogeneous and disjointed production, "The Annals of Agriculture' contains many of these vagne and indefinable charges. Mistaking headlong assertion, for political courage, and hostility to one class, for friendship to the community, it long cried out against the payment of tithes. It went farther, and hardships imposed upon the farmer by the dared to say that the time was not distant, when the unanimous voice of England will refuse to discharge them. When that day arrives, is there, I ask, in the names of is there any sort of property secure?. every thing sacred, venerable or lawful, What nobleman, what gentleman, what yeoman, shall be unassaulted by that species of logic, which would deprive him of his possessions under the plea of rendering them more advantageous to the commu nity? If tithes occasion obstacles to the productions of the earth, or the increase of its inhabitants, are there not many other causes much, more powerfully affecting both Let me illustrate my meaning by a homely appeal to men in each gradation of society. Upon the same reasoning that tithes would be attacked, why may not the nobleman of great landed possessions be told, that if his estates were parcelled out into many minute divisions, a much greater quantity of corn might be raised, When the price of corn was at its height, the common cant mode of accounting for it was tithes.". The present wonderful depreciation in corn, &c. has been referred by many farmers, to the same cause. This senseless jargon of the antithists, reminds one of the mutinous will have it that his existence is the sole citizens in Shakspeare's Coriolanus, who cause of the scarcity of bread. 1st. Citz. First you know, Caius Marcius is the chief enemy of the people. All. We know it, we know it. have corn at our own price. Is't a ver dict? a much greater number of human beings enabled to subsist? That if he would but consent to reduce his establishment, and simplify his fare, he could afford to let his land at a very considerable abatement? The private country gentleman, with the same reason may be told, that if he would but consent to substitute for wine, the nutritions beverage ale, if he would but clothe himself in a coarser apparel, and adopt some other similar retrenchments, his tenants also might thrive. The yeoman might even be upbraided by his subtenant, with superfluity in his expenditure; might be told that the gloss of his Sunday hat was a reproach to him as a landlord, and that a saving in the vehicle which conveyed him to market, would enable him to repair the cottage of his tenant, and remit some portion of his rent. Every man, taken from the unsifted mass of the community, must now see the utter absurdity of such reasoning. They must see it, because the occurrences of each day teach them that human society and human nature would not admit of such a levelling application. Why then are the claims of the Clergy to be made an exception? Only because the selfish think they are more detached from the community than other classes, and therefore that they are to be assaulted with greater impunity. To me it has never appeared that the operation of tithes, has been any impediment to the interests of agriculture *. It may, perhaps, in some cases have checked the *It is true estates are not as beneficial to the possessor, as if there were no tithes ; so neither are farms as beneficial to tenants, as if there were no rents, and no right to turn them out. But as this is no reason why landlords should be deprived of their rents; so neither is it a reason why the Clergy should be deprived of their tithes. Dr. Belward's Defence of the Right to Tithes, on Principles of Equity. This reasoning is strictly applicable, and a reference to history will prove its truth. It is curious, indeed, to observe, how nearly the pretexts of hypocrisy and avarice may resemble each other. As the last would now attack tithes, so the first once objected to the payment of rents. Hume tells us that, during Cromwell's protectorate. the doctrine was pretty common, that it was unworthy of a Christian man, to pay rent to his fellowcreatures; and the landlords were obliged to use all the penalties of the law against those tenants whose consciences were scrupulous. Hume, Note F. Vol. x. enclosure of waste lands, but the advan tages arising from a very extended cultivation appear to be questionable. If it can with certainty be proved, that tithes have prevented the present quantity of land under cultivation, from receiving the necessary improvements of labour, manure, and general attention; if it also can be shewn that the stubborn avarice of the Clergy, in refusing a moderate compen sation for a certain number of years, has been a serious impediment to the culture of wastes; and, above all, if it can be proved that the general interests of agri. culture have within the last fifty years, receded, I will acknowledge that a parliamentary investigation is necessary, and that a general commutation of tithes may be expedient. But even allowing these facts to be proved, I would still exhort my ecclesiastical brethren, and all who value the dignity and stability of the profession, to pause most deliberately before they consent to alienate and exchange rights, the most ancient, the most universal, the most legitimate in the world. Let them, even then, pause before they consent to accept a degrading pensionary establishment, or lend themselves to any compromise of character or station, by receiving a substitute, which would reduce them to be mere tillers of the earth. But the case I have supposed, is imaginary. It is impossible to look around one, in any part of England, without being convinced, that so far from receding, the progress of agriculture has been prodigious. from there having been any remissness or languor in the work of enclosure, the attempt has been extended with beedless ardour to soils almost incapable of improvement. That the farmers have been of the race of Antaus-giants, acquiring their strength from the elastic touch of the earth; and then (to continue the comparison) becoming wanton with success, have supposed that the Herculean power of the world was to confess their, ascendancy. That agriculture has been most powerfully affected by recent occurrences, that the plough may, in consequence, partially stand still, must be allowed and lamented. But is a temporary, or even a permanent inconvenience to one class of men, to be the cause of injustice to another? Another, which for centuries, when the farmers of the country were considered scarcely su perior to the clod they turned, or the cattle they drove, have been eminent and illustrious in almost every portion of the globe. Those who entered upon farms ten or twelve years ago, may be compared to merchants. Their venture was a great That so far speculation; it succeeded for some time. Bat the causes of that success were unnaturally stretched, and the collapse has been most violent. They have suffered, and their sufferings are to be lamented. So likewise are those of the merchant, who, miscalculating the supply of any fo reign or domestic market, is ruined by the incumbrance of his unsold cargoes. So likewise are those of the merchant who is deprived of half his vessels by the violence of the tempest. But these last are every day occurrences, and no one stops to be. moan them. The poor merchant is left to repair his rates quassas,' to embark again in speculation, or, pauperiem pati.' No one can be more thoroughly convinced than myself, of the importance of agriculture to the welfare of all classes of the English community. But the conviction of that importance may carry, and has carried men too far. The farmers snpposing their individual interests identified with those of the country, have plunged into expences wholly beyond their means and utterly inconsistent with their occupation. They went on in a giddy sort of expenditure without appearing to think a change of condition possible; and now hat change has taken place, they seem to consider themselves the only legitimate ojects of public commiseration and asistance. I wish not to say any thing harsh, I wis not to involve the whole class of far mere in one sweeping condemnation, for numbers of most prudent, most industrious, and bost honourable men are amongst them; but I must say, that the farming scheme has been carried so far during the last five nd twenty years, that it appears to resem le, in many of its features, the notorious 'outh Sea scheme of 100 years ago. I ade merely to the self-delusion which existel, to the disappointment and loss which is ensued; any farther comparison would be most inapplicable and unjust. That he farmers will, for years, severely feel th depression of the market prices of produc is, I fear, too certain to be disputed. Wat then is to be the remedy? I know f none which will not demand a long, Ptient, and painful endurance. A degre of forbearance towards them, on the pet of the community, and a great degree f exertion on their own, will, I trust, enale the present proprietors to retain their rms, and the present tenants to cultiva them. If not, however harsh the truth may sound, the lands must necessarily betransferred to others, who can, and will, ard to accommodate themselves to the xpences and profits of cultivation. The higher orders of land proprietors must set the example, and the most rigid economy must be adopted." P. 172. The Use and Abuse of Party-feeling in Matters of Religion, considered in Eight Sermons preached before the University of Oxford, in the Year 1822, at the Lecture founded by the late Rev. John Bampton, M.A. Canon of Salisbury. By Richard Whately, M.A. Fellow of Oriel College. 8vo. 304 pp. 7s. 6d. Rivingtons. 1822. THE object of this volume is so amiable and excellent, the author's claims to attention so well founded and notorious, and the execution of his labours for the most part sø successful, that the work must become the subject of very general regard. There are few persons in this age of party spirit and controversy, who do not require to be reminded of the danger of carrying them to excess. Mr. Whately warns us against errors to which all men are prone. He draws the limit with great skill and perspicuity, between feelings which are not always dis tinguished accurately from one another; and he furnishes tests to ascertain the true character of motives which are the source of so much good and so much evil, and with respect to which the heart is often ignorant of its own secrets. The first point, therefore, to which we shall attend in this review, will be to put our readers in possession of Mr. Whately's sentiments, as far as they can be adequately conveyed by an analysis of his Lectures. The second will be to furnish specimens of his mode of reasoning and writing; and the third to explain the grounds upon which we venture to differ from some of the conclusions at which he arrives. The first lecture contains an enquiry into the principle by which men are led to form parties; and although it may be doubted whether this is beginning at the right end, whether the nature of party-feeling should not have been deduced from the actual workings of party, rather than the workings of party drawn out from an abstract consideration of its source, yet at all events there is much ingenuity in the following passages, and much truth in the consequence which they are supposed to establish. "One of the most important of these principles, and one which is not in general sufficiently attended to, is that which binds together the members of any community, class, or party, and renders the body to which they belong, considered as a body, a distinct object of attachment. Not in deed that this part of our constitution has been by any means overlooked altogether; but it is seldom, if ever, that a comprehensive view of it has been taken: some particular branches of it have been noticed fully, while the wide extent and variety of its operation has been disregarded: and its evil or beneficial effects have been viewed separately, without tracing them up to their source, as modifications of what may be reckoned one common, innate principle of the human heart. + 3 "Thus, the soundest among the ancients, while they very wisely pronounced man to be by nature a social being, impelled to form communities, not by any consideration of the advantages thence accruing, but by a sort of instinctive ten dency, yet confined their attention almost exclusively to the political union; which is only one among many which man has a tendency to form. And various writers have made just remarks on the extravagances of party-spirit, without however perceiving, or at least without pointing out, that these are only the abuses and perver sions of a principle, which, being essential to our nature, exists, in a greater or less degree, in all mankind; which is in itself (like all our other propensities) neither virtuous nor vicious, but is calculated, ninder the control of reason, to lead to important benefits." P. 2. "That principle then which I am now speaking of, that party-feeling, (if I may be allowed to give it such a name, in default of a more precise one,) may be described as a certain limitation of the general social principle which binds together the human species: it consists in the at tachment and regard men are disposed to feel towards any class, body, or association they may belong to, in itself, and towards the fellow-members of the same, as such, over and above any personal regard they may have for them individually; and in a zeal for the prosperity of the society, and for the objects it peculiarly proposes, over and above what is felt for those objects in themselves, and what would be felt for them by each individual, supposing him singly to pursue them. It must be added, that men have a natural tendency to sym, pathize and unite with those who coincide with them in any point; and hence are led to form these communities or parties, as well as to feel towards those in which they may be placed, that attachment and zeal which have been just mentioned. "Those who delight in analysing the complex principles of our nature, and re, ferring them to their simplest elements, may perhaps without much difficulty trace up that of which we are now speaking, to our natural desire of sympathy, and dispe sition to afford it. We take a pleasure il meeting with persons with whose situations and sentiments we can sympathize; we are pleased likewise with the idea of their sympathy with us; from which consequent. ly we derive additional ardour also in common pursuit, and increased confidenc in a common opinion; and hence arise a mutual attachment between those amag whom this mutual sympathy exists. Whe ther however this, or any different theory he adopted; or whether the party-feling we are speaking of is to be referred o any more simple principles of our natre, of which it is the necessary result, ors to be regarded as itself one of the primary ele ments, as it were, of the human siud, is a question of no consequence to or present object; only let its existence od univer sality be admitted, and its effets referred to it, as their immediate sourc; not to any calculations of reason upon ews of expe diency." P. 5. "But moreover, even in those cases where a coalition of any kind is formed manifestly and distinctlyfor the sake of promoting some commo purpose, still the zeal and the mutual attchment of the persons concerned, is n, even then, to be measured by the vale, (i.e. the original value,) even in the own eyes, of the advantage proposed. Their being engaged in a common purst, is generally found to bind them to eac other, and to increase their eagerness fr the object pursued, to a degree whichven they themselves would never have ancipated. What exertions and what saifices have been produced by patriotisni (i, e. attachment to the political community we belong to) is well known: it has often led men to resign cheerfully all personal objects, and even life itself, for the sake of the community and thus to forego all their own share of those common advantages, for whose sake alone, as some pretend, the community it self was formed. In this case indeed there is an obligation of duty; the force of which bas often, no doubt, had great influence in producing such conduct; but we cannot pronounce a sense of duty to be in general the sole motive, nor, always, even a part of the motive, which leads to these results, if we consider both how little of a general sense of duty has apparently been felt by men who yet have plainly shewn themselves not destitute of patriotism, how little many of them have been disposed, in any other case, to sacrifice their own to their neighbour's good;—what flagitious actions, in violation of duty, some have perpetrated, with a view to the benefit of their country;-and lastly, how much of the same zeal and attachment is daily shewn by the members of such factions, sects, or parties, as have not that claim upon the conscience. In fact, human conduct altogether world be an inexplicable riddle to any one who should deny or overlook the existence of party feeling as a distinct, and powerful, and general principle of our nature. Every page of history might teach us, if the experience of what daily passes before our eyes, were not sufficient, how slight an attraction is enough to combine men in parties, for any object, or for no object at all, how slender a tie will suffice to hold them together, whether a community of interests, or of situations, or of opinions, (or even the colour of an ornament, as in the celebrated case of the rival parties in the Byzantine circus;) and with what eagerness, often what disproportionaté eagerness, men engage in the cause of the party they have espoused. Even when they unite for the sake of some object which they previously had much at heart, what an accession of ardour do they receive from their union! like kindled brands, which, if left to themselves, separately, would be soon extinct, but when thrown together, burst into a blaze. "Now if to the considerations which have been thus briefly touched upon, we add this circumstance, that the principle we are speaking of is not only a source of union, but also of division;—of discord, no less than of concord, (since it implies in its very nature, hostility to every thing that opposes the interests and objects of the party adopted; a jealous aversion to every rival party, and a tendency to subdivide, and separate into fresh parties, upon any point in which a certain number coincide with each other, and differ from the rest) anil that thence it has a principal share in producing and keeping up almost all the contests that have ever existed, from the most gigantic wars between nations, down to the most obscure local controversies; and has even given rise probably to more dissensions between individuals than were ever produced by merely personal feelings-if, I say, we consider all this, we cannot but admit that of all the principles which actuate the human mind, this is one of the most remarkable, and in its effects most momentous." P. 8., In the theory thus developed, we are unable to believe; and it is fortunate that the subsequent lectures do not necessarily involve a suppo sition of its truth. The existence and power of party feeling may be admitted and acted upon, by those who cannot perceive that it origi nates in sympathy. And we should dismiss this part of the subject without any other remark, did we not apprehend that Mr. Whately is guilty of an oversight which cripples his subsequent operations, when he omits to place self-love among the causes of party spirit. .. That there is an intimate connec tion between sympathy and partyspirit we admit. A man who is intent upon some favourite subject, feels disposed to like or to sympa thise with those who re-echo his sentiments and support his undertakings; and friendships as well as enmities arise every day from this general if not universal disposition. But how does this unite men in a party? It seems to prove (what is often notoriously the case) that in dividual attachments are produced by party feelings, rather than party feelings by individual attachments. And it fails to exhibit any intelligi ble connection between the cause and the effect. We have the assertion of the theorist for the accuracy of his theory, and we have nothing more. It is true that there is a |