1823.]

the Parliament, for his emigration took place in the reign of James I.; also PHILO-HISTORICUS is, I think, mistaken in supposing that the loyalty of these emigrants was the means of their being banished from their native country, as will appear by the following extract from Morton.

"In the year 1602 divers godly Christians of our English nation, in the North of England, being studious of Reformation, and therefore not only witnessing against humane inventions, and additions in the worship of God, but minding most the positive and practical part of divine institutions, they entered into covenant, to walk with God, and one with another, in the enjoyment of the ordinances of God, according to the primitive pattern in the Word of God; but finding by experience they could not peaceably enjoy their own liberty in their native country, without offence to others that were differently minded, they took thoughts of removing themselves and their families into the Netherlands, which accordingly they endeavoured to accomplish, but met with great hinderance; yet after some time, the good hand of God removing obstructions, they obtained their desires; arriving in Holland, they settled themselves in the City of Leyden in the year 1610*."

up

Moorlands of Staffordshire, May 3.

WITHOUT being considered ini

mical to the interests of the Established Church, (of which I profess to be a member,) I trust I may be allowed to make a few remarks on a statement in the letter of "R. C." concerning Tithes, which appeared in your valuable Magazine for March, page 197.

After some observations on the origin of Tithes, "R. C." proceeds thus: He who first succeeded, say by inheritance, to the founder of a Church, had no right to complain that his father, having the absolute disposal of an entire estate, devoted one-tenth of it to the service of God; and bequeathed nine-tenths, and only nine, to his heir. And all who, in succeeding

* Morton's New England's Memorial, Cambridge, printed by S. G. and M. J. for

John Usher of Boston, 1669.

519

times, have come into possession of the same estate by purchase, gave less for it, probably one-fifth less, than they would have given, had they bought it not subject to the out-going Church payment.

Who that reads these words of "R. C." can say that, under such cir"had no cumstances, the successor right to complain?" By devoting, in the shape of Tithes, a tenth part of his estate to the service of God, the founder of the Church (unthinking mortal!) absolutely annihilated another tenth part of it; for, according to "R. C." (and I believe the statement is correct,) the value of the estate is onefifth, or two-tenths, less than if it had not been "subject to the out-going Church payment." Thus, however paradoxical, however repugnant to the well-known axiom, "The whole is equal to all its parts," it may appear, it is plain from "R. C.'s" own words, that when, in Tithes, one-tenth of an estate is given to a Church, eighttenths, and only eight-tenths, or fourfifths, remain to the owner of such estate.

When such an inference as this is clearly deducible from the statement of "R. C." will it not appear surprising that he should tell us, that "the mode in which God himself prescribed for the support of his Church under the ancient dispensation, is the most eligible, and the most expedient for all parties, for the payer as well as the receiver of Tithes?"

Many well-wishers to the Church admit that the mode of providing for our Clergy by Tithes is liable to several very serious objections. By operating as a direct tax upon industry, they greatly impede the progress of agricultural improvements; and, when taken in kind, are generally found to produce more vexation than any tax which our Legislature ever thought proper to impose. Indeed, when it is considered that, from the expense incurred in collecting them, they are less beneficial to him who receives them, than prejudicial to him on whom they levied, it is not so surprising that this system excites such general disgust, as that some more eligible plan should not before this time have been adopted for providing for that respectable body, the Clergy; so that they might hold the same station in society they now in general so deservedly occupy, with

520

Mr. URBAN,

RURICOLA.

June 19.

HAVE been a constant subscriber to your entertaining Work for above the space of forty years, and I wish to submit a few observations to your numerous clerical readers.

In the year 1814, was published a 'book, entitled "A Sketch of the History and the Proceedings of the Deputies appointed to protect the Civil Rights of the Protestant Dissenters." The chairman, it appears, of those deputies was William Smith, esq. M. P. for the city of Norwich. I beg leave to draw your attention to an assertion made by the deputies in the book to which I have referred, p. 157, Towcester, 1798.

The Curate of the parish having made a demand of Easter dues, the Committee took Mr. Sergeant Heywood's opinion upon the subject, which being that the demand could NOT be supported, it was communicated to the parties, and the matter dropped!!!

Upon reference to the sixth clausé of what has been denominated the Toleration Act, viz. 1st. W. and M. chap. 18, you will find it expressly declared, that Dissenters are not entitled to any exemption from Tithes, or any other parochial duties, or any other duties to the Church or Minister thereof. I need not observe, that in a Northern county a person has been found to contest with the Clergy of his parish, the legality of the demand for Easter reckonings. That person is and has been supported by the Radical Societies of Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle, &c. and the consequence has been, that a decision in that case has been protracted by every species of delay! One purpose has thereby been promoted by the Radical Press, holding up the Clergy as a set of persons who were not only acting illegally, but were oppressing the poor man, and taking away from his starving family their daily bread! The people at large,

ever, are not yet come to that pitch of delusion, as to take the slanderous ravings of the "Black Dwarf" for truth, nor the opinions of Messrs. Wooler and others, for the law of

the land: but the publication to which I have alluded is the groundwork to the resistance to what I contend are the legal demands of the Es tablished Clergy. It is stated that Sergeant Heywood gave his opinion, "that Easter dues could be sup ported!" You will rema. he Setgeant's opinion is not given. w, in contradiction to this opinion, what ever it was, that bowed to the ground this poor solitary Curate, and induced him to give up to the mandate of these deputies his civil rights, I will fear. lessly contend that the Judges of the land have ever spoken a far different language. I will not take up your time with quoting many cases, but I will mention one or two, and beg of you to refer for further proofs to Guillim on Tithes, Hutton Wood's Exchequer Cases, Blackstone, Burn, &c. &c. In the 11th of George I. Trin. A. D. 1724, Egerton v. Still, it was decreed by the Court in this cause, 1st, that the Plaintiff should have Easter offerings, as due of COMMON RIGHT, though he demanded them as due by custom.

A. D. 1724, Lawrence v. nes. The lay impropriator is not titled to offerings, but he only who exercises a spiritual function. 33 Geo. II. A.D. 1760. To a bill for Easter of ferings, the defendant demurred; the demurrer was overruled.

Much has been said in Parliament and elsewhere concerning the illegality of the Constitutional Society; now I should be glad to ask whether these Deputies, who throw down the apple of discord between a Clergyman and his parishioners, are better than these poor stigmatized persons who united in the hope of extinguishing the seditious publications of the day; and yet their Attorney is continually, according to the account of the proceedings published by themselves, writing to different Clergymen throughout the realm, either threatening them with prosecution, or that their claim will be resisted by the Deputies appointed to protect the civil rights of the Dissenters! Have the Church any such a society? If they had, no language would have been slanderous or imperative enough for the mouth and pens of their opponents.

Yours, &c.

CARTHUSIANUS.

Mr.

1823]

鼎

105. Th

of William Davison, Secretary of and Privy Counsellor to Queen Elizh. By Nicholas Harris Nicolas, Esq. of the Inner Temple. 8vo. PP. 355. Nichols and Son.

THIS is a valuable piece of historico-biographical information, and merits minute attention, as being of standard character.

was

The inference to be drawn by philosophers from the reign of Elizabeth, is the extraordinary influence of character. By means of uniting wisdom and popularity, her Government was absolutely arbitrary. If there were circumstances in the times favourable to such a state of things, the chief was the preceding unpopularity of Mary, under whose tremendous discipline Elizabeth had been providentially educated in the best school, that of adversity. She n as a Princess endured, not Alatr Attachment she could only com by conciliating esteem. Loyalty of principle and feeling (for she was not apparently a rising Sun) could alone operate in the attentions paid to her. Elizabeth was obliged to be wise. A system of art was forced upon her by necessity; and, as in all other persons to whom such a conduct has become habitual, it induced a regard to self-interest and self-preservation, at the expence of principle, where measures could not be carried by any other means. Elizabeth had been annoyed by perpetual plots from the Catholicks. Treason was the only source of danger, and from that religious sect she had only to fear either, because with that party only she was unpopular. There could be on her side no confidence wherever the parties professed that creed. Proverbs, notwithstanding Lord Chesterfield, are not questions of manners, in the use of them, by all persons. They are compendious rules of the best wisdom. "A burnt child dreads the fire." Treason she knew must be crushed in the bud; and that she thought correctly is manifest, from the wise remark of Robertson, that if Leo X. had not held Luther in contempt, but issued the writ de hæretico comburendo, before the GENT. MAG. June, 1823.

Reformer had acquired friends and consequence, nothing but a subsequent interposition of Providence could have established the Protestant Religion. Elizabeth so sensitively felt the fears of treason, that she even punished the insane and futile attempt of Essex with death, merely because she thought, according to Robertson's state principle, that where such an insurgent had any support from party or popularity (as was the case both with Essex and Mary), the sacrifice was essential for her own preservation. It is to no purpose talking of moral and conscientious considerations, where the influence of fear is predominant. A man who is in danger of being drowned will lay hold of the leg of his father or mother, without any proper scruples how very unjustly and cruelly he is acting, by saving himself in a manner so utterly inconsistent with heroism, sentiment, and principle. Elizabeth had great qualities, and probably would have headed her troops, and died in battle with the Spaniards (if they had landed in the Armada Expedition); but she had no inclination for petty assassination. Wycherley justly observes, there is a feeling which will prompt submission to fortune in a field of battle, but none in being killed with a pot-de-chamber thrown out of a garret window. In our judgment the perpetual plots of the Papists had produced a sensitive irritability and fear in Elizabeth, which occasioned the decapitations of Essex and Mary, and without which stimulus the greatness of her mind might have prompted only milder measures. Now let any man suppose, that once a month during his whole life, he is in danger of losing that life by a conspiracy of any kind, and then judge whether he will not, within a short period, wish to get rid of such a horrible annoyance. But he ought to act like a hero, and treat it accordingly, with Cæsar-like clemency. What such forbearance cost him, we know well; but even if it had been a safe rule to act upon, as under circumstances it is, the case was different with regard to Elizabeth. "Religious feuds

(say's

520

I

Mr. URBAN,

RURICOLA.

Juné 19.

HAVE been a constant subscriber to your entertaining Work for above the space of forty years, and I wish to submit a few observations to your numerous clerical readers.

In the year 1814, was published a 'book, entitled "A Sketch of the His tory and the Proceedings of the Deputies appointed to protect the Civil Rights of the Protestant Dissenters.' The chairman, it appears, of those deputies was William Smith, esq. M. P. for the city of Norwich. I beg leave to draw your attention to an assertion made by the deputies in the book to which I have referred, p. 157, Towcester, 1798.

The Curate of the parish having made a demand of Easter dues, the Committee took Mr. Sergeant Heywood's opinion upon the subject, which being that the demand could NOT be supported, it was communicated to the parties, and the matter dropped!!!

Upon reference to the sixth clause

of what has been denominated the Toleration Act, viz. 1st. W. and M. chap. 18, you will find it expressly declared, that Dissenters are not entitled to any exemption from Tithes, or any other parochial duties, or any other duties to the Church or Minister thereof. I need not observe, that in a Northern county a person has been found to contest with the Clergy of his parish, the legality of the demand for Easter reckonings. That person is and has been supported by the Radical Societies of Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle, &c. and the consequence has been, that a decision in that case has been protracted by every species of delay! One purpose has thereby been promoted by the Radical Press, holding up the Clergy as a set of persons who were not only acting illegally, but were oppressing the poor man, and taking away from his starving family their daily bread! The people at large, however, are not yet come to that pitch of delusion, as to take the slanderous ravings of the "Black Dwarf" for truth, nor the opinions of Messrs. Wooler and others, for the law of

[June,

the land: but the publication to which I have alluded is the groundwork to the resistance to what I contend are the legal demands of the Established Clergy. It is stated that Sergeant Heywood gave his opinion, "that Easter dues could. be supported!" You will rema. he Setgeant's opinion is not given.row, in contradiction to this opinion, whatever it was, that bowed to the ground this poor solitary Curate, and induced him to give up to the mandate of these deputies his civil rights, I will fearlessly contend that the Judges of the land have ever spoken a far different language. I will not take up your time with quoting many cases, but I will mention one or two, and beg of you to refer for further proofs to Guillim on Tithes, Hutton Wood's Exchequer Cases, Blackstone, Burn, &c. &c. In the 11th of George I. Trin. A. D. 1724, Egerton v. Still, it was decreed by the Court in this cause, 1st, that the Plaintiff should have Easter offerings, as due of COMMON RIGHT, though he demanded them as due by custom.

A. D. 1724, Lawrence v. nes. The lay impropriator is net titled to offerings, but he only who exercises a spiritual function. 33 Geo. II. A.D. 1760. To à bill for Easter offerings, the defendant demurred; the demurrer was overruled.

Much has been said in Parliament and elsewhere concerning the illegality of the Constitutional Society; now I should be glad to ask whether these Deputies, who throw down the apple of discord between a Clergyman and his parishioners, are better than these poor stigmatized persons who united in the hope of extinguishing the seditious publications of the day; and yet their Attorney is continually, according to the account of the proceedings published by themselves, writing to different Clergymen throughout the realm, either threatening them with prosecution, or that their claim will be resisted by the Deputies appointed to protect the civil rights of the Dissenters! Have the Church any such a society? If they had, no language would have been slanderous or imperative enough for the mouth and pens of their opponents.

Yours, &c.

CARTHUSIANUS.

Mr.