to go back to the French revolution and trace the several successive steps of the aggressive warfare, which assailed first the monarchy, next the noblesse, then property, and finally abolished the Christian faith. The English people have still before their eyes, across the Channel, examples which they will not desire to imitate; we wish we could say that there exists no party among them desiring to follow a Transatlantic example equally undesirable, by "Americanizing" British institutions. If passing events in America do not serve to warn such persons of the consequences of their course, it would be hopeless to attempt it by reason or argument.

Notwithstanding all that has been said hitherto in this article, it is not to be inferred that the writer, or his brethren of the Church of Ireland, or the Protestant people, are opposed to, or do not desire and look for, such reforms as are really needful, and would prove conservative and salutary. It is essentially necessary, however, that they should be of such a character as to satisfy all who have a friendly interest in the matter, and not any one class or party in the Church. The bishops are not the Church, neither are the bishops and clergy, but the bishops, clergy, and laity; and though this will be readily admitted by all, nothing is, in fact, more frequently and injuriously forgotten in practice. No project, for example, plotted in a conclave, or in a series of conclaves, and concealed until the moment of execution, however well intended, can be accepted upon a question so momentous. Concealment of this kind is alien to the genius of Protestantism; questions so weighty require public discussion, and the authority which a public judgment thus arrived at will not fail to supply. If those conclaves be clerical, it is as contrary to the principles of the Church as it is to our own ideas upon the proper mode of treatment for all other important questions, that the clergy should decide in secret for the whole body. And if these conclaves be episcopal, it would be a still more violent shock to our principles and ideas, inasmuch as though things are so managed for our Roman Catholic countrymen, our affairs were never so arranged for us secretly on any former

occasion. The danger of such a conclave is greater, inasmuch as the episcopacy are more likely to be in contact with, and to be influenced by men in power-inasmuch as they are less in contact with, and less influenced by the masses of the clergy and people, from whom they stand so much apart, and above whom they conceive themselves so far exalted. We must add, that if the leaders of any party in the State should make the very absurd mistake of supposing that an arrangement concocted in any such way would be an arrangement with the Protestant Church of Ireland, they would discover their error in an ignominious expulsion from power.

It is equally our duty, and we do not regret the opportunity of discharging it, to warn them against imagining that the opinion of the Church on any important question is to be gathered from the proceedings of the spouting clubs called Church congresses, where a platform is provided for the most forward, shallow, and notoriety-seeking of the clergy, and from which we miss the men of weight, standing, wisdom, and experience. These irresponsible volunteer conventions, dangerous in any case, are the more so when originated provincially, in a corner of the land, by a few individuals who exhibit, as in Belfast, the deplorable inconsistency and shortsightedness of selfishly suggesting a principle of confiscation for the South and West that would lead to the destruction of the whole Church, only because they expect local and temporary benefit at the expense of their brethren.

Hitherto, the Northern part of the Church have not in any respect obtained such distinction over their Southern brethren as to warrant the transfer of the incomes of the South to Ulster, as a rate in aid of their shortcomings. They cannot claim it on the ground of an aristocracy of intellect or talent. If such exists, where are the authors or the great works which this pretentious province has produced? If her clergy are distinguished for learning, ability, and services to the Church at large, over their Southern brethren, the public do not seem aware of it, and Governments have not recognised it by elevating them to posts in the Church suitable to their ideas of their

There are some

own importance. where about thirty-two deans, we believe, in the Irish Church at present, and not more than two or three at the utmost boast themselves of Northern extraction; and of the twelve bishops, not one has this distinction--though possibly the North is entitled to the credit of having converted some of the Southern bishops who have emigrated north to the adoption of provincial views. They have not been more active in the practical work of the Church than distinguished by position in its literature, or the attainment of its dignities. In the South, within the last twenty or thirty years, the Church has virtually abolished Dissent, and has made deep inroads upon the Church of Rome, which are felt and confessed by all; whereas it would appear, by the Census statistics already given in this paper, that with all the advantages of numbers, resources, and position, and the absence of the peculiar dangers and difficulties of the South and West, they cannot in the North show that they have made any proportionate inroads either upon Romanism or any form of Dissent.

Unfortunately for his own consistency and political reputation, this Northern party have found a Sir Hugh Cairns to lend the sanction of his name to a perilous innovation. We appeal from this Congress ill-informed to the great congress of the Protestant public, to be better informed, we trust, after the whole question has been fully and fairly discussed, and every man who can contribute anything to its elucidation has had an opportunity of expressing his opinion, and the grounds for it, for the general good of all.

It will be seen to be in keeping with the spirit of these observations if we proceed to lay before this great public, not dogmatically, but for their serious reflection and to invite thoughtful investigation and further suggestions, such improvements as suggest themselves to our own mind. We freely admit, that where endowment exists labour should be exacted and proportionate results expected. In too many instances, unhappily, this labour has not been given and these results have not followed, although at present the instances of such neglect are comparatively few

and are lessening daily. This wholesome change, however, is rather due to the influence of public opinion and an awakened energy and spiritual life in the Church, than to the exercise of that control to which we should naturally look for the same effects. There is still much room for progress in this direction, and need for the remedy which lies in the proper administration of the power vested in the Church itself. Where the clergy are blameable, which undoubtedly they are in some instances, others are so too. The people are to blame for not expecting and demanding those earnest services to which they are entitled. The University is not free from blame in neglecting all training for the practical and pastoral part of the work of the ministry, as her testimoniums have always hitherto been given without the attempt to ascertain the possession of spiritual qualifications or any of those gifts by which the alumni may be able to communicate to others what she can teach them. Nor is it merely in the training of the general ministry of the Church that the University is to blame: she, or rather her governing body, deserve very serious reprehension for the manner in which they have dispensed the vast Church patronage at their disposal. As we have already shown, they possess thirty-one of the principal livings in Ireland, amounting to an aggregate value of above £20,000 a-year. The clergymen promoted to such livings, and issuing from a body so distinguished and so endowed, and claiming to represent the erudition and worth of the whole body, may well be expected to be the best specimens of their class; but, unfortunately, in all that constitutes pastoral, parochial, and pious labour and services, they are proverbially the least notable. The unhappy obligation upon the Fellows of the University to take the solemn vows of ordination upon them, the equally unhappy rule of giving them a choice of those livings in the order of their college seniority, and the additional misfortune that some of these parishes are held by men continuing to hold most important lucrative Professorships of the University, and consequently obliged to abandon their parishes to the care.

of stipendiary curates, fully account for the results so many deplore.

66

The bishops are seriously to blame, as with them rests the sole and absolutely irresponsible power of admission to the ministry of the Church. If their standard as to character and efficiency of candidates and ministers were what it should be, as a general rule, the ministers would be found faithful and diligent in the discharge of their functions. If after they have made all due and anxious inquiry with reference to the antecedents and piety of the candidates for ordination (a duty we deeply regret to say generally neglected), they are mistaken in some, as they well may, they have not the same excuse if in the promotions to benefices, in which they are equally irresponsible, they do not select for advancement the men who have purchased to themselves a good degree" by the honest and laborious fulfilment of their ordination vows. How much worse is it when instead of bestowing the Church's bread on those who do her work, they depress and discourage them by conferring their best patronage upon sons and sons-in-law, until the best livings come to have the least work, because the drones put into them from other considerations than their capacity to serve have neglected to labour and have left to their successors, as the legacy of their unfaithfulness, the troubles which now disturb us. Neither is it from any lack of power or authority in the bishops that neglect is permitted, even after promotion; for, apart from the great power which they have in the circumstance that the advancement in life of so many educated gentlemen and their families depends upon episcopal favour, the canons and the common and ecclesiastical law vest in them an amount of power which is in many respects excessive, and we suspect would surprise the general public if they were but acquainted with its extent. With many of them it would not, in short, be out of place to remonstrate as Archbishop King did with Ashe, Bishop of Clogher, in 1714, for making his bishopric a pompous sinecure." We heartily wish we could persuade the bishops to visit the clergy in their several parishes, enter into friendly intercourse with

66

them, and invite them in turn to their houses, talk kindly over their duties, give them paternal counsel in their perplexities, assist them by their experience, cheer them onward in their toils, and encourage them by cordial sympathy. We may venture to prophesy, that if the day shall come when the bishops will feel disposed to accept this advice, anomalies and reproaches will disappear together. This is one of the reforms the necessity of which we concede, and which has the merit of being capable of an easy and immediate accomplishment.

Whatever blame attaches to the bishops attaches to the Governments who have appointed them. It has been our desire in this article to speak with the most perfect plainness, and certainly without any party object or leaning. We feel that both parties in the state have inflicted an almost equal amount of evil upon the Church in this respect; and it ill becomes them now to inflict also the penalty of their own crime upon the body against which it was committed

committed, too, in total disregard of her and her people's remonstrances. It is notorious that the most indefensible appointments were made to the highest offices of the Church by each successive Government. We have no wish, nor do we deem it necessary, to go into particulars to prove that every consideration has had weight except the qualifications which the Church herself would have insisted upon had she the opportunity of making her own selection, or possessed any voice in the matter. Of all the reforms that can possibly be suggested the most beneficial would be the reversal of the whole policy of the past.

are

It may seem unkind, but it really is not so intended, that when we urge the bishops to increased exertions, we should at the same time throw out the suggestion that in future these may be made with somewhat diminished incomes. If we rightly informed, their incomes were fixed on the present high scale in consideration of their being obliged, alternately, to attend their duties as Peers of Parliament; but surely if a large proportion of the Members of Parliament attend at Westminster every year, and during the whole session,

with incomes far below ten, eight, six, four, or even two thousand a year, so might the bench of bishops. Perhaps, after all, now that the importance of their presence is not what it used to be in days gone by, the two Archbishops (at an income each, say of £8,000 or £6,000 a year), and the two senior bishops (say at £4,000 each), would very suitably represent the Church without any alternation. We should thereby have an equal amount of representation. The other bishops would, we should imagine, be amply provided for by an income of £2,000 per annum, together with the other emoluments of their office. This would release over £22,000 a year, and enable us to retain the respectable class of incumbents in the South and West, and to prevent all the ruinous consequences we have already described. We can assure the Government of the country that this is a reform to which they need fear no violent opposition on the part of the clergy or laity of Ireland, or the sinister suspicion of unfriendly motives.

But in addition to the saving of £22,000, supposing the bishops' incomes to be fixed as above, in all probability about £20,000 a-year more would be saved for church purposes by a reform of another crying abuse connected with the leasing of episcopal lands, which, according to the present practice, are let from one-third to one-half of their real value. When bishops and dignitaries were empowered to grant leases of twenty-one years, the object was to encourage the improvement of the lands which form the endowment of their offices. But, unfortunately, this privilege has been made use of to found families, and the lands have been leased for twentyone years to their sons, nephews, sonsin-law, and relations, by leases renewed from year to year, with trifling renewal fines. So that from the day of a bishop or dignitary's death or translation, the lands of his successor are leased against him for twenty-one years; and he has the option of running his life against the lease, as the phrase goes, receiving only the nominal rent for twenty-one years after his appointment, or of accepting the arrangement made by his predecessor and the yearly renewal fines, carrying on the burden and the abuse as before. VOL. LXIII.-NO. CCCLXXVI.

If, as a general rule, the average duration of an episcopal life has been ascertained to be fifteen or sixteen years, therefore, a bishop cannot afford to lose the portion of his income which arises from renewal fines. Several, however, do run their lives against the leases, and sometimes succeed; and sometimes their successors obtain the advantage. But, whether themselves or their successors, the Church gains no benefit, as they immediately use their power to lease these lands to their nephews and relations. Flagrant instances of the operation of this practice are known to us, which we forbear to mention. If we are rightly informed, bishops may be instanced as in possession of some thousands a-year of property of this kind, leased to them by their episcopal fathers from sees other than those from which their legitimate and ample income should be and is derived. Now, we make a proposal: and it is simply, that such a perversion of the intention of the law should be rendered illegal; and the lands let, like all other lands, for their real value, upon the basis of some public and authorized valuation, without disturbing the good objects of the leasing power referred to. The fund thus realized could not certainly be less than the £20,000 a-year at which we have estimated it, and would be an important addition to the resources of the Church, obtained, moreover, in a way entirely unobjectionable, and so as to wipe out the scandal which public opinion has not been able to suppress. No bishop or dignitary could complain of such a reform, as it is altogether unreasonable and unjust that they should claim a beneficial interest for their families in church property for generations after their decease. We have before us a letter of a dignitary, whose statement is, that his predecessor was fifty years in possession; that he leased severally to one one relative after another, as each dropped off, the lands from which came the emoluments of his office; and, finally, to his son, who for twenty years after his death is to hold the lands for one-sixth of Griffith's valuation (which, as every one knows, is, as a general rule, 25 per cent. under the rental), with a small renewal fine; so that though this dignitary did not

26

preach in any of his parishes, for he was a pluralist also, for nearly thirty years, and died leaving a very large sum of money, he managed to impoverish the successor, for the benefit of his heirs, for twenty years after his death. All the particulars and exact figures are in our possession. Before we pass from this part of the question, we will suggest, that it would be tantamount to an addition to the incomes of incumbents and curates, already so small, if the bishops would, as in all conscience they ought, cease to exact fees for letters of orders to deacons and priests, charges for seals, inductions, institutions, commissions of dilapidation, and visitations, in which latter they seem to act in the spirit of the decree of Cæsar Augustus in summoning the clergy, every one from his own city, that he may be taxed. Clearly a bishop's ten or six thousand a-year is given him to perform all these and similar functions; and, as a Committee of the House of Commons has reported, "that they could find no authority for ecclesiastical fees other than the practice of exacting them," they should be made to cease.

Upon another branch of this subject, we would throw it out for consideration, whether it would not be a useful reform to unite some representatives of the laity with the bishops in the distribution of pat nage; in other words, to give them some voice, control, or influence, suggestive, negative, or affirmative, in the selection of their ministers, and the management of their own spiritual affairs. It cannot be contrary to the principles of episcopacy to do this, for it is done in the Episcopal Church of America; and, without exception, so far as we know, in each and all of our colonies. At home, too, we are familiar with it. In all the churches built by voluntary effort wherever, in fact, the church extends her limits beyond the operation of her present endowments-this principle is found necessary, and is always insisted upon. The most stanch Churchmen, who build and endow these churches, show no disposition to vest the patronage in the bishops; and we have seen within a few months, £1,000 offered by the late Archbishop of Dublin towards building a church refused, only because he required as a condition that

the patronage should be in the bishop for the time being. Nothing could strengthen the Church so much, as the attachment and affection which would result from such a change. The landed proprietors, who pay the rent-charge the communicants and congregations, who support the schools and charities-would feel a new and quickened interest in an institution in the management of which they had thus some share. The strength which the Church of Scotland derives in this way from below, saved her during the period of disruption, and is the main element of her security for the future. The Lord Chancellor of England, in carrying through Parliament last year his bill for transferring his patronage in a number of small livings, assigned as his principal reason for the step, his expectation that these presentations would be purchased by the local gentry, who, when they had thus obtained a voice in the appointment of their own minister, would be induced to take such an interest in their parishes as substantially to assist the minister of limited income. This reason commended itself to the Parliament and the nation, and has an obvious bearing upon the suggestion we have made. The working of this principle, to the extent that it operates in the city of Dublin and elsewhere, is seen in the crowded congregations who flock to the ministers thus selected. If the administration of the bishops, without control, was equally satisfactory, the parish churches, having everything else in their favour, would exhibit what, we regret to say, is more frequently witnessed in the other churches.

In the course of this article we have shown abundant reason why the clergy and Protestants of Ireland should prepare themselves for disastrous attempts at innovation. We have, further, fully stated the case of our adversaries, indicating what the political parties from whom we have anything to apprehend are in a position to effect. We have examined the accusation of failure against the Church of Ireland, and proved its falsity. We have forewarned the country of the consequences of any measure interfering with the integrity and permanence of the Church, in her national and territorial position. We have exposed the infatuation and