to much more than 2007. per annum, at all events, if the whole property were thrown into one stock, and the same sum given to each parish. So that poor Clergy there must be, till the Nation gives more to the Church. If the Church's generous friends, then, would change their note, and cry out about the hardships of poor Clergy, Incumbents as well as Curates, their pity would be less suspicious.

But allowing the hardship to be as great as heart can desire, and peculiar to Curates, what is to be done? Let it be remembered that private individuals are the patrons of above 7600 livings, and the Crown of many more. If Curates, then, are ill requited, it is quite obvious that the Laity are in fault far more than the heads of the Church. How can Laymen (some of them Church Reformers too) think of giving a living, which has been served for many years by an exemplary Curate, to a friend?*

The writer proposes, next month, to consider somewhat more at length the case of Cathedrals, and the arguments brought against Bishops sitting in Parliament.

(To be continued.)

not.

It may be right to notice a second pamphlet on Church Reform, just published by Mr. Girdlestone, principally impugning the arguments used in the former numbers of this Magazine. Controversy, especially with persons whom one respects and values, is so odious, that the writer entirely declines it. It is happily unnecessary, as Mr. Girdlestone's and his own arguments are before the public. Valeant quantum. Mr. Girdlestone, too, thinks that pluralities can and should be got rid of at once; and he has so entirely mistaken the writer as to suppose that his reply to the exaggerated representations of the evils of pluralities is a statement that they are in theory a spiritual good, and that his complaint of the falsehoods about the distribution of the temporals of the Church, is a proof that he thinks that the temporals of benefices are the only things to be thought of. So many good words, and so much good time, must necessarily be wasted before persons so utterly opposed in opinion as to what is practicable would find any common ground; and there would obviously be still so much danger lest every word said should be utterly mistaken, that on these accounts also, no controversy shall be entered into with Mr. Girdlestone. At the same time, the writer utterly and strongly protests against such entire mistaking of his arguments. He will answer for what he does mean, and not for what he does When false views are taken of present arrangements, he may surely shew that those views are false, without saying that nothing better in theory than the present arrangements could be devised. And he may surely say, that present arrangements answer many good purposes, (as, for example, that the system of pluralities is a convenient mode of ensuring a succession, though not originally intended to do so,) and that those who wish to sweep them away are bound to shew how they will provide for the same objects, before they require assent to their schemes, without contending that the spending of pounds, shillings, and pence, and not the cure of immortal souls, is the object of the minister's appointment to his parish.' Mr. Girdlestone will judge, on reflection, whether he has done justly in ascribing low views and lower feelings to those who adopt a different line of practical conduct from himself, who wish to know exactly what evils are before they endeavour to sweep them away, and whether the admitted disadvantages of any (or every human) arrangement are not accompanied, and, perhaps, compensated by some great advantages, so that at most modification, and not destruction, is advisable. It is only necessary to say, as Mr. Girdlestone makes some moving complaints about the word meddlers used by the writer, that not only were all personalities out of the question with respect to any one, but that the word could not be intended for him, as the writer, when he used it, was not aware that Mr. Girdlestone had written on Church Reform, and has never seen his first work yet.

MISCELLANEA.

LORD TENTERDEN AND THE NEW MONTHLY MAGAZINE. THE following article from the New Monthly Magazine deserves especial attention. That magazine is avowedly conducted by a gentleman who loses no opportunity of reviling the church and the clergy, as miserable teachers of morality, and, in his own publications, talks in the highest strain of the improvements in morals which are to be effected by the progress of light and knowledge in the changes in our political and social condition. It is an object of no little interest, consequently, to know by what means persons of his way of thinking believe that all this is to be effected; what feelings of the heart are to be cherished by the " new Christianity," and what are to be checked and controuled. It would never be candid to judge from a single instance; and if the following observations on Lord Tenterden stood alone, atrocious as they are, they should not be noticed here. But they merely present a more convenient and concentrated specimen of the spirit which interpenetrates (so to speak) the whole of this periodical, under the guidance of the New Lights. What is the object of this paper, then? Lord Tenterden, a man of the most unblemished character, a man who had never offended any party in the state by being a politician, but rose to his high condition by his eminence as a lawyer,—a man remarked by all for the laborious and faithful discharge of his duties, died almost in the discharge of those duties, having never failed in them till the last few days of his life. He died in the arms of an affectionate family, and the last sad hours of decline were, as the public journals told us, rendered yet more painful by the fact that there was an occasional wandering of the mind, which was overcome by the infirmity of a body worn out by honourable and useful services to his country. Most men would regret that such things should be made public; and all, who had any thing of human feeling and tenderness, would be touched with compassion for the suffering and infirmity of an eminent and honourable man. Not so the New Lights. Lord Tenterden, it was related, in the wandering of his imagination, fancied himself in court. And this is seized on as a matter of reviling, by these amiable persons! They cannot say that he was unjust, or cruel, or oppressive; they cannot allege any thing against him, except that he had filled a most laborious and difficult station with unexampled assiduity and advantage to the country. But as he imagined, in his wanderings, that he was still discharging his public duty, they revile him and his memory, and exult that he is gone to where he can be a judge no longer, and where no respect of persons will be paid to his rank, but he will be called forth as the vilest criminal! And for what is this exultation? No name shall be given it. It shall not be called inhuiman, brutal, fiend-like. But it is simply asked, what causes the display of these dreadful and loathsome feelings? Why are the readers of this periodical who are still endowed with human sympathies to be disgusted by seeing such exultations over a powerful mind borne down by the infirmities of our common nature, over the remains of an eminent and excellent man? What had he done? Do the New Lights wish to extinguish all sympathy with the weakness of our mortal frame, and all reverence for the dead, or to inculcate an universal hatred for every man who is called on to condemn vice and punish crime? Are these the wholesome feelings by which our morality is to be exalted, and the teaching of the clergy to be replaced ?

But one act of Lord Tenterden is mentioned, and marked out for peculiar reprobation. What is it? He had risen from humble life, and in grateful remembrance of the benefits which he had experienced at the school where he was educated, he left a prize there, to cheer and stimulate students like himself to a similar carcer of usefulness and honour. The Old Lights would have

felt that such an act reflected honour on him who did it,-that it shewed his readiness to acknowledge his origin, and his gratitude for the source from which many of his advantages had come. The New Lights teach us, that such reference to our origin, such gratitude for help received, and such a wish to help others, are things to be received with ridicule and reviling. We saw before what feelings they wished to call forth, and now we see what they wish to repress !

One may write with bitterness for a moment about such things; but the lasting impression from them is a mixture of grief and dismay. This dreadful and cruel tone is to be found through a large portion of the writings of many of the New Lights, who seem to wish to brutalize their readers, and prepare them for any thing, however fearful. God help this country, and its miserable inhabitants, if it and they are to be delivered up to the dominion of men capable of indulging such awful feelings as this outrage on Lord Tenterden's memory experiences. What is there of cruelty and debasement,—of defiance of every feeling of tenderness, and of humanity, which one may not expect at such hands?

"The late Chief Justice is said to have retained his faculties to within a few moments of his death, when he began to wander; sat upright in his bed, used the action of taking snuff, which was habitual to him, and said- Gentlemen of the jury, consider of your verdict,' and died. Poor mortal! he was going to trial himself-not to judge, but to be judged! He was about to appear, wigless and robeless, naked and forlorn, to hear his own sentence ! Where be now his quidlibets and quodlibets? No nice quirk of law will serve his turn! He cannot, like the attorney in Quevedo's Vision of Judgment,' demur to his own soul, and swear that, in the confusion of the Last Day, he has picked up another man's. The soul of a Tory Chief Justice must be well marked: probably it is of scarlet hue, like his robe of office, and not to be confounded with others. 'Charles Abbott! Charles Abbott! Come into court! come into court! or you will be non-suited!' With what a blast must such a summons come upon the complaisant soul of a Chief Justice, with whom the habit of judging is so inveterate, that to stand in the dock, even before the Court of Light, must appear a case altogether contrary to precedent! When the Judge's trumpet rings in the assize town, it is well known with what a terrible sound it enters the dungeons of the wretches who are avaiting the gaol-delivery; some through the medium of death-some of banishment-some to be restored to life and light. But all these men are accustomed to obey the voice of authority: they have been educated in fear and terror; they take their trial as an ordinary vicissitude of a troubled scene. Great must be the change when the trumpet sounds for the ordeal of the Judge himself: fearful is the reverse-dreadful the responsibility! 'Gentlemen of the jury, consider of your verdict.' Perhaps the poor Judge fancied, like the Egyptians of old, he was leaving his character to the discussion of the public. He would know that the press he had always persecuted would be retained against him, and could hardly expect any mercy. He had long been a famous interpreter of the law, and where he could espy an advantage for the few over the many, there he lent his aid: he could not, therefore, hope for the verdict of a common jury. But why try him?-the culprit has slipped into another court;-the pannel is empty, save of a huge wig and a wide robe, which are already being donned by another. While we are speculating on his appearance in another world, he has taken his fare in the Black Omnibus, and has ere now been set down at the chapel of the Foundling Hospital. In order to perpetuate his memory, and bestow a boon on posterity, he Justice defunct has left an annual prize for Latin verse to Canterbury school. Latin verse seemed to be the best substratum of education in the enlightened judgment of the departed lawyer-but let him rest. Ora pro nobis!"

Let it not be forgotten that the gentleman by whose permission this article appears in the New Monthly Magazine has placed the hero of one of his novels in what he obviously considers as a situation of glory, when he represents him as deliberately committing a base and savage murder, in order to get money, by which he might prosecute his studies, and advance his knowledge!

POLITICAL ECONOMISTS AND THE POOR.

Or all periods in our history, this does not appear to be that when it is most advisable (on the mere score of expediency) to increase the separation between the rich and the poor; and yet there are a good many causes tending to produce this undesirable effect. Among others, there is a series of works by a lady of some talents, and doubtless of very good intentions, which is likely to do a great deal of harm in this way, whatever good they may do in any other. In England every thing goes by fashion, and a doctrine may have been promulgated for half a century, and yet have been heard of by very few. Fine ladies and fine gentlemen, learned and liberal as they are, read nothing which they cannot read running; and, as the booksellers know, very often to their cost, valuable, sound, and learned books sleep very quietly on their shelves. In due time, comes forth some one who has looked into the books, and manages to present their doctrines so cleverly that the fine ladies and fine gentlemen can just manage to understand it without deranging their indolence too much. So it is with Miss Martineau. She has presented Mr. Malthus's doctrines, and others of various political economists, in the easy and taking form of popular tales. But unfortunately, in some cases, she has far outstept her masters. Every one is aware, for example, of the present helpless and dependent condition of the poor; and is aware, too, that injudicious charity will not cure it or relieve them. But Miss Martineau tells us boldly that all regular charities for the relief of the poor, such as hospitals, dispensaries, clothing societies, &c. &c. are extremely mischievous; and that one only makes the condition of the poor worse by relieving them in this way. Genuine philosophy thus would teach us to see our fellow-creatures suffer and die, without relieving them, and genuine philanthropy directs us ourselves to enjoy the goods we have, and if the poor will be such bad managers as to die of starvation, or pine in unrelieved sickness, just to let them. No intention whatever exists of calling Miss M. hard-hearted or cruel. She is very likely a very kind-hearted person; but still these are the regular tendencies of her doctrines. Now, be it known to all the world, that there are a great many fine ladies and fine gentlemen to whom such doctrines will be extremely acceptable, simply because they do not at all like having to give five pounds to this charity, or two to that. And Miss Martineau's doctrines, as they will find ready advocates in the dispositions and purses of these persons, will requite the favour by affording these ladies and gentlemen a good excuse for sending away the clergyman, and the other collectors of subscriptions, with empty bags. Now, on mere grounds of expediency, is it advisable, at this moment, for the rich to shut their hearts and purses against the poor? No doubt Miss M. and her friends will say that they wish to introduce a better system. Be it so; but they will find it very easy to persuade the world not to part with their money, very hard to induce them to join in difficult and distant schemes of improvement. And even if they did, the poor cannot be expected to understand or feel the kindness of distant intention, while they are smarting under the cruelty of present practice. But, in good truth, are not the steps recommended unjust as well as inexpedient? Let all that can be said as to the present state of the poor be allowed fully, and let their own faults, improvidence, &c., if you will, be allowed, still by other faults than their own, by the bad management of their superiors, they have been brought to a state where the evils that press upon a large number of them are such as to make life intolerable without the kind intervention of their richer friends.* When a

• It need not even be argued that the bad management of others has taught the poor to be improvident. The fact that very many of them are so, and that they suffer dreadfully, is enough. The cure for their improvidence, and the relief from its present evils, must go hand in hand. It may not be easy to devise such remedies: it is very easy to cut the knot, and say, "Do nothing for them."

father, mother, and two or three children are to live on an extremely small sum, and the father and mother have been brought up in improvident habits, though not otherwise vicious, there is a degree of suffering which it is perfectly barbarous and perfectly unjust not to relieve, while you may bitterly deplore it, and anxiously seek to teach the sufferers wiser and better habits.

The question has here been argued, after the base and dangerous fashion of these times, on the lowest possible grounds. The writer is, however, of a different school of philosophy from Miss Martineau and her friends, and would certainly wish to argue it on very different grounds. There is a book which says, "the poor ye have with you always," and which speaks of a future scene, in which it will be inquired who visited the sick, who assisted the prisoner, who clothed the naked, and who did not. They whose reply is to be in the negative, will doubtless defend their system by very ingenious reasonings; but humble minds may doubt whether the affirmative will not be the safer and more satisfactory answer.

DISSENTING JOURNALS.

THIS subject is again brought before the reader for a few minutes, in order to shew what effect the plain statement in the last number has had. The Christian Advocate affects to be jocular, and states that as the article in question is written in a browbeating style, it is better to pass it over in silence. As browbeating, where there is neither argument nor foundation in fact, is not very hard to answer, and as Dissenting Journals certainly never spare a churchman where they can strike, this declaration is tolerably intelligible. The only thing which the Christian Advocate does attempt by way of answer, is (as might naturally be expected after such a declaration) a perversion of what is said. The only way of appearing to answer what cannot be answered, is to distort it. Accordingly, the Christian Advocate represents the British Magazine as objecting to any inquiry into the conduct of the clergy. No such objection was ever made. Certainly the conduct of clergy does not affect the questions, whether establishments, creeds, and liturgies are good or evil, but still it is a very grave matter. No reasonable churchman ever objected to an inquiry into it. What the British Magazine objects to, and what every candid man must object to, is (1) reviling in coarse words, and (2) accusations without name and date, which cannot consequently be refuted, if they are false. Very probably the Christian Advocate can see no difference-but Christians, nay, candid men of any faith, will say that the mass of the clergy are men of irreproachable lives. Churchmen are quite willing to have this put to the proof. Journals like the Christian Advocate meet such an offer by defamation of parties whom they cannot name. And then when taxed with this, they affect to be amused at finding that any one doubts that there are some immoral clergy, or that any one thinks that the clergy are to be compared in conduct and zeal with Dissenting ministers. No one doubts that there are immoral and careless clergymen, and immoral and careless Dissenting ministers too; but notwithstanding the great jocularity of the Christian Advocate, people will take the liberty of thinking that the larger and respectable part of the clergy are at least equal in zeal and usefulness to the larger and respectable portion of the Dissenting ministers.

The Patriot attempts to deny that it reviles. This is a matter of fact, and any half-dozen numbers of the Patriot will settle it, not indeed to the satisfaction of that journal, which may very probably feel no objection to language which most Christians and gentlemen would denounce at once as intolerable. It attempts too, to retort the accusation of reviling, by a reference to the Quarterly, Blackwood, Fraser, and this Magazine. Now of all journals, to reproach the Quarterly with reviling Dissenters is the greatest injustice.