siderable difference observable in the scale of this expenditure in different places; but with respect to any reductions which can be effected under this head, the case of each cathedral will require to be considered by itself.

We have still to mention the subject of sinecure rectories. The total number of these preferments is seventy, of which above thirty are in the patronage of the Crown, or of ecclesiastical corporations. We recommend that these should be suppressed, and that the resources arising from them should be applied towards augmenting the existing provision for the cure of souls; due regard being had, in the first instance, to the wants of those dioceses in which the sinecure rectories are situate.

With respect to the probable extent of the fund, applicable to the purpose of increasing the present provision for the parochial clergy, which may be derived from the different sources pointed out in this report; although it is not possible to form an accurate estimate, until the points which are reserved for further consideration shall have been finally settled, we entertain a confident expectation that the amount will ultimately not be less than 130,000l. per annum. It appears by the Liber Regis, compiled in the reign of King Henry the Eighth, that in several parts of England, there are hospitals of ancient foundation, which were at that time deemed promotions spiritual, and as such were charged with first-fruits and tenths, although partaking also of an eleemosynary character. We are informed that these establishments are, from the increase in the value of their possessions, capable of affording, in some instances, after amply satisfying the objects of the founder's bounty, the means of making a better provision for the cure of souls in the parishes with which they are connected. Our attention, however, having but recently been called to them, we have no precise information either of their number, of the value of their possessions, or of the expenditure necessary for their proper maintenance; and are not, therefore, at present able to offer to your Majesty any suggestions with respect to these hospitals.

Residence of the Clergy.-In obedience to your Majesty's command, we have next directed our special attention to the residence of the clergy on their benefices; and we have taken this subject into consideration jointly with that of pluralities, which has a direct and important bearing upon it.

A cursory inspection of the returns, made to the Ecclesiastical Revenues Commission, is sufficient to shew the difficulty of abolishing pluralities altogether.

It appears that of 10,478 benefices, from which returns have been received, 297 are under 501. per annum; 1629 are between 50l. and 1007. per annum; and 1602 are between 1001. and 150l. So that there are 1926 benefices under 1007. per annum, and 3528 under 150%; not taking account of the reductions, even of these small values, which have taken place since the returns were made.

On many of these benefices, there is no glebe-house, nor do they furnish the means of erecting any. It is difficult, in many cases, to provide for the performance of the spiritual duties of very poor livings, except by intrusting them to the clergyman of some neighbouring parish. With the evils, however, which may be supposed to result from such a state of things, there is this advantage-that it furnishes employment for young men, upon their first entering into the ministry, in the character of stipendiary curates; a regular supply of whom is indispensable to the efficiency and good order of the Established Church. Nevertheless, it has been long admitted that pluralities, if not wholly abolished, should be restricted within as narrow limits as the actual state of the Church will permit: and it is not unreasonable to expect, that such restriction may lead to the augmentation of many of the poorer benefices, partly from private resources, and partly from the funds which the operation of measures proposed by us may render available to that purpose.

In determining the principles upon which the holding of benefices in plurality should, in future, be regulated, we have had respect partly to distance and partly to value.

With respect to distance, we are of opinion that if an incumbent be permitted to hold two benefices, distant from each other not more than ten miles, he will be able, without inconvenience, to exercise an occasional superintendence and control over the benefice upon which he does not reside, the regular duties of which will be performed by his curate.

With respect to value, we recommend that no benefice of greater annual value than 5007. should be held in plurality with any other benefice, except in cases where the small value or large population of some neighbouring benefice may render it advisable that it should be held by the incumbent of a better endowed living. In such cases we recommend that, upon a statement, made by the Bishop of the diocese to the Archbishop, and transmitted, with the sanction of his approval, to the Privy Council, it should be lawful for your Majesty in Council to allow such plurality.

We recommend that not more than two preferments of any description be held by the same person, except in the case of an archdeacon, who may be permitted to hold one benefice with the cure of souls and one canonry. We are of opinion that the operation of a law, embodying these provisions, will, at no very distant period, have so far reduced the number of pluralities as to leave no just ground of complaint on that score.

Closely connected with this subject, is that which relates to the union of small livings, and the dissolution of existing unions.

Where two benefices are contiguous to each other, each being of small value and population, we think that it may, in many cases, be expedient to unite them, so as to form one benefice. This may now be done, under certain restrictions, by the Bishop, with the consent of the patron; but there exists a degree of uncertainty, as to the circumstances under which it can be legally done, which it is desirable to remove by a more strict and precise limitation. On the other hand, some instances are to be found of unions, the constituent members of which are so circumstanced, with respect to value or population, as to render it desirable that they should be separated from each other, and made independent benefices. We think that your Majesty in Council, upon the recommendation of the Bishop, certified to your Majesty by such Commissioners as may be appointed for the purposes connected with the objects of this Report, should have the power of declaring, that such separation shall take place, either immediately, with consent of the incumbent, or, if such consent be not given, upon the first avoidance of the benefice.

We are also of opinion that power should be given to your Majesty, in certain cases, with the advice of your Majesty's Privy Council, and with the consent of the Bishop and patrons, to alter the boundaries of parishes contiguous to each other.

With respect to residence, we are of opinion that it is not necessary so depart from the general principles of the statute 57 Geo. III. c. 99, which consolidated all the previous acts relating to residence, and the employment of stipendiary curates by non-resident incumbents. But we think it expedient to make further provision for the enforcing of residence, by diminishing the number of exemptions, and the grounds of licence of non-residence, which the act in question allows; by limiting the period of legal absence in certain cases; and by giving additional powers to the Bishops with respect to the appointment and payment of curates, and the repairs and erection of glebe-houses.

With reference to these subjects, pluralities, residence, and the employment of stipendiary curates, we have prepared a Bill, embodying the suggestions to which we have alluded; repealing the present statute law, and re-enacting its principal provisions, with such alterations and additions as appear necessary to carry those suggestions into effect. But we think it right to state explicitly our opinion, that the residence of the parochial clergy, to the extent which the interests of religion require, can only be secured by providing the means of augmenting poor benefices, and erecting glebe houses. There are not less than 2,878 benefices on which there is no house of residence, and 1,728, the houses upon which are unfit for residence. We deem it right respectfully to repeat the observation made in our first Report, that in all our proposals we assume that vested interests will be respected, so far as regards the revenues and profits of persons actually holding any of the offices which will be affected by those proposals.

Having, in the course of our proceedings, been informed of your Majesty's gracious intention not to fill up the stall which has become vacant in your Majesty's royal chapel at Windsor, until it should have undergone our consideration, and having also received, through Viscount Melbourne, your Majesty's express permission to deal with the chapter of that chapel, notwithstanding its contiguity to and connexion with the royal residence, in the same mode as with other chapters in the patronage of the Crown, we have, without scruple, offered to your Majesty, in the foregoing Report, such suggestions as have been dictated by our sense of duty, as well with regard to those dignities which are in the direct patronage of your Majesty, as with regard to those which are in the gift of Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, and Chapters. We have further to acknowledge the communication, by Viscount Melbourne, of your Majesty's commands, that no appointment shall take place to the stall which has lately become vacant in the chapter of Westminster. As the reasons assigned in our former Report, for recommending the union of the stall, then vacant in the same chapter, with the parish of St. Margaret, apply with equal force to the annexation of similar preferment to the equally populous parish of St. John, Westminster, we humbly submit to your Majesty's consideration, that the present vacancy affords a suitable opportunity of providing for the spiritual wants of the latter parish.

We also think it due to those Archbishops and Bishops who have forborne to collate, pending our proceedings, to sinecure rectories, prebends, and offices within their patronage, to enumerate the preferments now remaining vacant on this account, with the names of their respective patrons :-In the patronage of the Archbishop of Canterbury: the sinecure rectory of Ashbury, in the diocese of Salisbury; the sinecure rectory of Kilken, or Cilcain, in the diocese of St. Asaph. Archbishop of York: the prebend of south Newbald, in the Cathedral of York. Bishop of London: the prebend of Chamberlayn Wood, in the Cathedral of St. Paul's. Bishop of St. Asaph: the sinecure rectory of Llanbrynmair, in that diocese. Bishop of Bath and Wells: the precentorship of the Church, and the prebend of Litton, in the Cathedral of Wells. Bishop of Chichester: the prebend of Waltham in the Cathedral of Chichester. Bishop of St. David's: the precentorship of the Church of Brecon, and the prebend of Boughrode, in the same church. Bishop of Exeter: a non-residentiary prebend, in the Cathedral of Exeter. Bishop of Lincoln: the three prebends of Carlton cum Thurlby, Em pingham, and Welton Rivall, in the Cathedral of Lincoln.

We have further to observe, that the Rev. J. H. M. Luxmoore, the present possessor of the sinecure rectory of Whitford, in the diocese of St. Asaph, has expressed his willingness to

resign all vested interest in the same, if it can be appropriated towards the endowment of a Welch professorship, in the northern part of the principality of Wales.

And lastly, we have received from Mrs. Hartley, of Bath, the liberal offer of placing at our disposal, with reference to the object of this Commission, her interest in a portion of the tithes of the parish of Wendron, in Cornwall.

All which we humbly submit to your Majesty's consideration.

(Signed)

Dated this 4th day of March, 1836.

W. CANTUAR.
COTTENHAM, C.
E. EBOR.
LANSDOWNE.

HARROWBY.

MELBOURNE.

J. RUSSELL.

C. J. LONDON.
J. LINCOLN.

J. H. GLOUCESTER.

T. SPRING RICE.
H. HOBHOUSE.
HERBERT JENNER.

[The Tables will be given, if possible, in the next Number.]

CHURCH MATTERS.

DR. HAMPDEN.

EVERY thing which has occurred since last month has tended to aggravate the regret, which all right-minded men must have felt, at the unfortunate appointment of this gentleman to the divinity chair at Oxford. It was quite clear, that the distinguished persons who had felt it their duty to take such strong and singular proceedings against him, as occurred in the month of February, would not, and could not, stop there. They had gone too far, not to go farther. They owed it, indeed, alike to Dr. Hampden and to themselves, to allege distinct proof of their assertions, and to present their humble requests to the heads of the university, that further measures might be taken, on the strength of those proofs. After various difficulties-to which it would be painful to do more than allude—a statute passed the Board of Heads, the purport of which was to declare, that not having any confidence in the way in which Dr. H. treated divinity subjects, the university could not allow him to judge of the qualifications or the doctrines of the select preachers at St. Mary's. The form in which a censure is conveyed is not of much consequence. This statute is a formal censure, grounded on Dr. H.'s works. Such a censure is certainly looked for from the university; and the tone and terms of it are those of singular discretion. It prefers no formal accusation against Dr. Hampden, as holding false doctrine, but states, that his mode of treating theology is such, that the university cannot feel confidence in him.

On Tuesday, the 22nd of March, a large body of members of convocation had assembled, and there was no doubt whatever that the statute would have been passed. On this, the proctors took a step, which the university laws allow, the stopping the measure on their own sole responsibility. Whether such a step was advisable; whether it can answer any good end to Dr. Hampden's own cause, so often to stop proceedings, simply by his own vote, or the arbitrary act of two individuals preventing the university from exercising its judgment, he and his friends must decide. But, to others, it would seem that this could not be so; for, next term, new proctors will be in office; and they who know the feeling excited, and the numbers collected, can have no doubt that the statute will be passed early next term.

Let Dr. Hampden and his friends consider this well, and the position in which it will place him. He is hardly likely to condescend to read these humble pages; but if any of his friends should do so, let them fairly consider the plain statement about to be made, and see, at once, whether Dr. H. can escape from one or other of the two alternatives presented, and whether the counsel which follows is offered in an unfriendly spirit. All consideration of Dr. H.'s technical defence is laid aside; not because there is no strength in it, for, as a technical defence, as a lawyer's argument, to maintain his client, and annoy his adversary, the questions raised, as to the time of censure, the silence observed at first as to the Bampton Lectures, and the appointment to the Moral Philosophy professorship, have all of them undoubtedly weight; that is to say, they have the sort of weight which a lawyer wishes his arguments to have-they go to procuring a verdict on grounds quite irrespective of the real rights and merits of the case. Doubtless, in strict right, Dr. H. ought to have been censured (or, as his friends call it, persecuted) at once; and he ought not to have been honoured with any farther appointment. All this goes to a verdict, but no farther: it does not touch the real merits of the case, that is, whether his doctrines are false, unsafe, or unsound, which is a question quite unconnected with the time when they are proclaimed or pronounced to be so. It does not prove that they who forbore to take extreme measures, till they were necessary, from good feeling and kindness, and dislike to attack opinions, were liable to any other censure than that which always attaches to generous feeling, when it leads to overlooking real faults, while, for the purpose of shewing that they act from any bad feeling now, it is worse than contemptible. No reply is required to such a charge, but the recital of the names of those who have been active on this occasion; men distinguished for learning, piety, genius, and worth; men utterly incapable, in short, of harbouring a bad, vindictive, or personal feeling. Where other charges, indeed, are laid aside, and that of persecution alone is maintained, what is it that is meant? A certain number of persons, capable of judging, conceive that there is very much unsafe and unsound in a particular book, published under particular circumstances, and, from those circumstances, likely to have much weight. They declare this publicly, and wish the book to be censured by public authority; and the writer, not to be fined, not be injured, not to be imprisoned, not to be deprived of his worldly goods, but, to be prevented from teaching young and inexperienced men the opinions which he holds. Let those who talk of persecution say what should be done by conscientious men in such circumstances, who are fully and thoroughly persuaded that the tenets held are dangerous, and that the consequences are likely to be deplorable? Supposing them to be right; supposing, in the case of a future Regius Professor, very grave and serious objections to his doctrines can be maintained, do Dr. H.'s friends mean that, whatever such professor may maintain, it is to be allowed to pass, sub silentio; in short, that it is of no matter what a man teaches, while he outwardly continues in the church?

The plain statement spoken of is this: either Dr. Hampden is, or is not, prepared to abide by the positions he has laid down in his Bamp

ton Lectures, and other works. Giving him all the advantage (which every one may fairly claim) of getting rid of verbal inaccuracies, or careless phrases, there is a very large number of positions to which his persecutors have formally and most justly objected. He must now have made up his mind whether he will, or can, abide by these or not. If he is conscientiously persuaded of their truth, of course he can do nothing but persevere in defending them; nor can it, perhaps, in fairness, be expected of one who believes that they are fully and entirely reconcileable with the articles and formularies of the church, that he should resign an honourable station, which he believes that he has fairly won, and to which he thinks he can do justice. But then he and his friends must remember, that they who believe as conscientiously in the falsehood and danger of their positions, as he (on this supposition) does on their truth and safety, must as decidedly oppose him, as he must resolutely maintain his position. This is a very painful condition of things; but what remedy is there for it? It is a very false view of our condition here below, to suppose that there is a cure for every evil. If, indeed, Dr. H. can, by fair argument, maintain every position which he has laid down, and convince the world of them, that would be a remedy. But will his friends say, that they think this possible? If, on the other hand, Dr. Hampden, being a sincere and dutiful son of the church, cannot but confess, that he has spoken incautiously, unsafely, and unsoundly, although without the least intention of teaching falsehood, all may be well, if he can have magnanimity to avow this, and take the steps becoming him. It certainly wants great strength of mind, in any man, to avow publicly that he has been wrong, and especially in one who is to be a teacher of others. But if he should be so persuaded, he cannot, as a religious man, but see, that he owes the church, and the cause he has injured, a full satisfaction; and it will be hereafter his greatest pleasure to remember, that he has done all that in him lay to atone for the scandal and injury which he has caused. If he would come forward fairly and say this, accompanying it, with an honest and open declaration of his unfeigned attachment to the church of England, and with a declaration, also, of his wish to have time allowed him (a very natural and proper wish, under different circumstances,) for tranquil preparation of those lectures, which it has been the duty of his predecessors to deliver, but for which he is not prepared, all, it is repeated, may yet be well. By judicious and well-weighed publications, he may restore that confidence which he has lost, and which can never be forced back. It can only be regained by time, by a complete conviction of his good feeling, his honest intention, and his willingness to set himself right where he has been wrong. He may be well assured-probably he has little doubt* of it-that those whom his friends call his perse

Dr. H. has been unfortunate in an advocate. A wretched Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury' grounds his defence merely on the technicalities alluded to, and then on gross, base personalities against those who are acting in the business, anecdotes picked up in the streets, scandal, passion, and vulgar gossip. One of Dr. H.'s assailants swore an oath; this poor man has heard that another hates the ministry; a third wishes for "a row;" a fourth was a long time before going into priest's orders, &c. &c.!! Such friends must injure any cause, beyond the power of sober judgment to retrieve. But who can be the writer? Some one who has abused the confidence of some member of the Board of Heads, from his knowledge of the statute as proposed.