left to find them at their own expense, though, by the present law, all such books &c. are furnished to them at the cost of the parish.'

With respect to the Marriage Bill, perhaps the following observations will be worth attention. They proceed from the same source as those on the Registration, a source entitled to the highest respect; and the writer only regrets that he is obliged to abridge them.

"The clergy distinctly declare, that they have no desire to oppose the relief of persons who are not members of the church of England, from any grievances under which they may suffer, or any disabilities to which they may be liable. They only desire for the lay members of the church, that these objects may be provided for without invading their rights; that the services and ceremonies of the church may not be infringed or altered; that the law, as it relates to the marriages of the church, may not be changed. Their objections to the present bill rest upon these grounds: that it interferes unnecessarily and vexatiously with the marriages of persons belonging to the church of England, and with the duties and rights of the clergy; and that it is calculated to produce an injurious effect on the morals of the country, by discouraging marriage in many cases.

"That the present bill interferes with the marriages of the church of England, will be rendered clear by reference to the title and preamble of the bill, and to clauses 1, 2, 4, 9, 21, 22, which apply to all marriages, whether of persons being members of the church or not; and impose new conditions, and new restrictions on the solemnization of matrimony, unnecessary and uncalled for, as far as the members of the church of England are concerned.

"Clauses 1 and 2 take away the necessity for the publication of banns; and substitute for that publication a notice to the registrar of the district, which notice, by subsequent clauses, is directed to be given in cases of marriage by licence also, and is to be entered into a book left open for the inspection of the public; and any person, on payment of one shilling, may enter a caveat against any marriage of which notice is so given. The operation and effect of this caveat is not very clearly stated in this bill; it may fail of giving that security against clandestine marriages which the present law affords; it may be made the instrument of vexatious and injurious delay; and there seems to be no provision made for the remedy of such an injury, but that of an action in a court of law.

"To these provisions the clergy object,-1. Because their effect will be to prevent the publication of banns, the ancient and approved practice of the church, which has provided a sufficient check to the solemnization of clandestine marriages. For proof of this the clergy refer to the fact, that very few clandestine marriages take place under the operation of the present law; and, to their own experience, that banns are very frequently forbidden by persons having a legal right to do so.

"3. The practical experience of the clergy in the operation of the present law of marriage gives them great reason to fear, that many persons who, from various causes, wish to contract marriage as privately as possible, (though there be no legal impediment to the contract,) will be induced, by the painful publicity to which this bill will subject them, to forego their intention. This will be the case especially when parties have, for some time, lived together as man and wife; and are then, from a sense of the sinfulness of their course of life, desirous of being married. With such persons, the provisions of the present bill will prove a serious impediment to the fulfilment of their wishes. Other cases may readily be imagined; for instance, that of domestic servants, in which the intended process of notification will operate as a bar to lawful marriage; and if such should be the effect of the proposed bill, its influence cannot but be deeply injurious to the morals of the country. At all events, as far as the Established Church is concerned, if the publication of banns has been found sufficient for the purpose of preventing clandestine marriages, without giving to the intention of parties who desire to marry an offensive degree of publicity, the members of that church may justly remonstrate against the substitution of a system, which creates difficulties without yielding any real advantage.

"But an additional impediment is thrown in the way of the marriages of the church, by the time which must elapse between the notice to the registrar, and the solemnization of the marriage.

"By the present law, a marriage by banns may take place on the sixteenth day from their first publication. By the new bill twenty-one days must elapse before it can be solemnized.

"By the present law, a marriage by licence may take place immediately on the granting of the licence; instances are not unfrequent of the solemnization of the marriage on the morning on which the licence is obtained. By the bill, seven days must elapse between the notice to the registrar and the solemnizing of the marriage. This provision materially interferes with the marriages of the church of England; it interposes a new and vexatious impediment in their way; and places the members of the church under conditions and restrictions uncalled for, as respects them, and in no way necessary to the avowed object of the bill, which is to relieve those who are not members of the church, from the necessity of solemnizing their marriages according to the rites and ceremonies of the church of England.

"5. The power of entering a caveat given to any person who will pay one shilling for the privilege, never should be granted to any person who cannot show, prima facie, that they have a just ground of interference, much less granted in the loose and vague way in which it is given by this bill, according to the provisions of which, the extent of its restrictive operation is by no means clearly stated, nor is any remedy granted for the injury it may inflict, but through the tedious, expensive, and uncertain process of an action at law; nor is it certain that it will enable parents or guardians effectually to interfere to prevent the marriages of persons not legally competent to contract matrimony without their consent.

"It may be added, that the poorest person may now forbid the banns of a child, or relative, without any expense of time or money; whereas, under this bill, he must lose his time in going to the registrar, and pay one shilling for entering his

caveat.

"6. There seems no good and valid reason why marriages of persons under this act may take place from nine in the morning till three in the afternoon; while the members of the church can only be married, according to the act of 4 Geo. 4, c. 76, between the hours of eight and twelve in the forenoon.

"It cannot be the intention of the framers of the bill to hold out temptations to the members of the church to avail themselves of its provisions; but such will too probably be the effect of the clause; and while this clause remains in the bill, and while no provision is contained in it restricting its operation to persons who are not members of the church, they consider that their rights will be unnecessarily violated, and a lure held out to the members of the church to forsake its communion.

"7. It is also desirable, as far as possible, to prevent the various places to be licensed under this bill from competing with each other, and with the established church, by lessening the fees demanded for the solemnization of marriage; for it is obvious that such a practice would be justly offensive to all reflecting persons, and would tend to degrade marriage itself in the estimation of the people at large, to the great injury of public morals. For this purpose, it would be very advantageous to introduce a clause into the bill, providing that the same fee shall be required and paid for every marriage, by notification or by licence, under the provisions of this bill, as is now payable by law or custom within the parish or district wherein the same shall be solemnized for marriages by banns or licence according to the rites of the church of England.

"8. These injurious clauses might easily be removed from the bill, and its provisions rendered effectual for the relief of persons who are not members of the church, by restricting its operations to such persons, and declaring that none of its provisions shall be construed to affect the present law of marriage, as it applies to members of the church of England.”

May it be added to these observations, that parties may actually be married before the registrar, in his own room, under this bill? What will be the effect of this on public morals, when a young thoughtless couple go before a man who may not be restrained by any feeling whatever from the most improper conversation? Will this add to the solemnity of the marriage tie? But again, let any one fairly consider the provisions of this bill, and they will see, that, by those provisions, a clandestine marriage with an heiress may be effected anywhere, instead of at Gretna Green. The writer will undertake to shew that travelling twenty miles from London will answer just as well as 250. Will our legislators like this?

TITHE BILL.

THE readers of this Magazine will perhaps remember the difficulty expressed in the last Number as to the principle of this bill. That difficulty, in fact, extends to all bills, whether voluntary or compulsory, which take away the old right of taking up the tenths, in default of compliance with the agreement; for it rests, in fact, on the question, whether it is right to allow any change of tenure, or any the smallest sacrifice of property on the part of the clergy, their property being property set apart for religious uses. They who think that the assent of convocation to any sacrifice, small or great, would mend the matter, seem, to the writer, to mistake the question altogether. The convocation which, for the sake of peace, assented to the sacrifice of a sixpence which was set apart for religious uses, or to the acceptance of a worse tenure or title for the present, would do that for which it could offer no excuse whatever. And the writer would prefer to see the establishment pillaged by force ten times over, rather than see its clergy attempt to keep up the show of their own power, and of the forms of law, by using that power and those forms to sanction what is fundamentally wrong. It may and would be very convenient hereafter to shew, that nothing was done as to church property but by consent of the clergy; but it would not be particularly advantageous, if, with the proof of that fact, came the proof of another, that they had consented to any the least spoliation, and had given up, from whatever cause, that which did not belong to them, but was the inalienable possession of the established church of the country, committed to them only to keep, and by them, in their exercise of their trust, given up on demand. Here is a difficulty which the writer does not at all see how to get over. For any one who talks to clergy will find, that very many of them are exceedingly disposed to commutation and change of the present tenure; and it is, consequently, very doubtful whether convocation would refuse what are called fair terms. Now fair terms, used of the property of the clergy, means, robbery not beyond a certain extent. Would it do well for the clergy to assent to robbery of church property to any extent, great or small? Mr. Preston tells us, that clergy in general do not expect above one-third of their tenths. And the writer believes that, practically, this is very nearly true. Now, suppose a fair and sincere offer made to convocation, that the clergy should have everywhere two-thirds, if they would give up the remainder-that is, that their actual incomes should be doubled; and suppose the title to this twothirds to be made as strong as any titles are now-a-days, is it quite certain that convocation would refuse so really advantageous an offer, for the sake of abstract rights, in these days? Even if Mr. Preston's argument is over-stated, it is quite notorious that the clergy receive very much below their real tenths. Would convocation refuse an agreement which should materially increase their income? And would not the giving up the abstract right to a great deal, on condition of having the real enjoyment of the rest, unquestionably do so? These are the grounds which make the writer doubt

very much whether he wishes the clergy to be asked. It is a fearful precedent, doubtless, for their property to be touched in any way without their consent; but it would be a still worse to find them, the especial guardians of that sacred trust, formally consenting to give up one sixpence of their property, while the fact is, that their formally giving up a great deal might be the means of greatly increasing their actual and future revenues.

To put this difficulty in one more shape. Does any one believe that the legislature will pass any bill which shall much displease the landowners? Could any one who knows what alone would satisfy them, tolerate the notion of convocation assenting to any such plan whatever? For what, then, could convocation be brought together, but to refuse? And what would be the fruit of that? If the legislature was determined, could convocation resist? What difference, then, does it make whether force is put on the clergy by not asking their consent, or by laughing at their refusal? The ground for future protest is laid just as strongly in one case as the other, if that is all that is wanted. Force is put on us when Parliament legislates without appeal to us. And the evil of an open struggle, not about faith or doctrine, but about money, between the body of the assembled clergy and Parliament, would, in the writer's opinion, be most fearful. He has printed, however, in justice to the other side of the question, a letter signed "A." He cannot satisfy himself or his own difficulties in the matter.

With respect to the details of the bill, the writer retains his opinion (and the clamours of the landowners bear him out in it) that, if fairly carried into effect, it would not have been unfavourable to the clergy, looking not to their real rights, but to their usual and practical exercise of them. He will not, however, waste his readers' or his own time in discussing them, as he is all but persuaded that it will not be carried, at least not in its present shape. But more than that, he is fully persuaded that no compulsory bill will be carried (he does not say, which will do common justice, for that is out of the question, but) which does not do the most crying injustice. Perhaps the fairer way of putting things is, to state his conviction that there is no chance of the landowners allowing such a bill to pass as the legislature (however indifferent to the clergy) could, in common respect to its own character, pass. This may seem harsh; but any one who has observed the "sayings and doings" of the landowners for years, will allow that it is just. Let us just look at even some recent trans

actions.

Two very instructive meetings of landowners have taken place in Palace-yard since March 1st, from which one may gather what sort of justice the clergy are to expect. Few things surprise one in these days; but one is a little surprised that such things as were said at the first meeting should be openly said and avowed. A Mr. Preston, tolerably well known in the world, came forward at that meeting and said, that he should lose fifty thousand pounds by this bill. Let these words be well weighed. Here is a bill which openly professes to take one quarter of the full value of tithes from every tithe-holder, and to VOL. IX.-April, 1836. 3 M

leave a portion of tithe-holders (most persons think a large portion) with only three-fifths of the full value of their tithes. By such a bill, this Mr. Preston tells us, that he shall lose fifty thousand pounds! How will he lose one farthing? Why thus:-He is one of that class who have been paying to the clergy, not only less than threefifths of their just demand, but so much less than three-fifths, that the making him pay three-fifths will occasion him a loss of fifty thousand pounds! This is open speaking indeed! It will be observed that this must be the interpretation of this Mr. Preston's open avowal of his intentions; for wherever the clergy have had three-fifths, they are left with what they have got-nay, if they got at all more than three-fourths, are reduced to three-fourths. Therefore this Mr. Preston would either be left where he was, or would be benefited by this bill, if he had paid his clergyman even three-fifths of what he ought to pay. But consider how much less he must have paid. This Mr. Preston is not one of the great landed Leviathans. He has not whole counties at his command, but has such an estate as the profits of his business as a lawyer would purchase for him. Suppose his rent roll to be five or six thousand a year ;* and take the interest of this fifty thousand a year, of which he talks, at two per cent. only. That makes a thousand a year. So that he has paid the clergymen on his petty estates so much less than three-fifths of their just due, that the making him pay this wretched instalment of the full right of the clergy will make a thousand a year difference to him! Here, then, we have the open avowal of one of these landowners,-a measure of his expectations, a sample of his justice. He considers himself as an absolute loser, a most injured man, when called on to pay three-fifths of that of which he, as an old lawyer, knows well that he can and ought to be compelled to pay every farthing! If this Mr. Preston is to point out the methods of dealing with the clergy, they may as well make their bows, and make him a present of their tithes at once. Nothing else, we may rest assured, will satisfy a gentleman who, whatever his knowledge of law may be, has yet to look out in "Johnson's Dictionary" to gain his first knowledge of the meaning of the word justice!

Mr. Preston, in a letter to the " Morning Herald" of March 14th, says, that his Devonshire estate is 10,000 acres, letting at 13s. 4d. per acre, so that the guess in the text is not so very far wrong. He adds, that the increase of tithes, under this bill, would exceed 3s. per acre per annum, because the tithe is 6-10ths of the gross value of produce. [This must be a misprint. What Mr. Preston means is not clear, and no comment can, therefore, be made.] But he goes on to say, that expenses in Norfolk equal five rents. Profits ought to equal one. Therefore the land should produce seven rents. If, then, a farm lets for 1001., the produce should be 7007., and the full tithe is 707. This, with 40 per cent. taken off, is 421., or two-fifths of the rent. On lands of 13s. 4d., the rental for 100 acres would be 661. 13s. 4d., and the tithe 421. per annum-viz., two-thirds of the rent. On inferior lands, the rate of produce would increase.

Mr. Preston has made a singular mistake here. The tithe, instead of 421., would, on the Norfolk calculation, as he stated it, be 281.; 281. is not two-thirds of 661.13s.4d. What does Mr. Preston mean by such proceedings as these? He goes on to say, that 40 per cent. is a bonus in those cases only where the full tithes are exacted, and is intended "as a compensation for collection, risk, &c.-i.e., to bring the value of tithes to their usual rental value, for the actual expence of collecting corn-tithe is,