O'Connell, Harvey, &c. should wish to improve the efficiency of the Church, is not only a palpable absurdity, but the very idea would attribute to them the grossest equivocation and inconsistency. They would thus be represented as favourers of opposite religious systems at once; holding one set of opinions, and yet eager to afford facilities for the dissemination of another, which they must consider importantly erroneous. It is strange that this evident fact should be so little regarded by the friends of the Church, that many of them are really persuaded of the necessity of some extensive reform on no better authority than an outcry raised by men who are in conscience bound, not to reform and repair, but to ruin and exterminate the Church. There is, indeed, one simple test of attachment to the Church, by which every project of reform must be tried :-DOES IT EMBRACE THE REVIVAL OF THE CONVOCATION? This really necessary piece of reform, or rather this return to the ancient and inalienable right of the Church, never appears in any scheme devised by the enemies of our Zion, however ostensibly solicitous for her efficiency. They know too well, that, if the Convocation were restored, their puny malice might wage everlasting warfare in vain; that real abuses would be corrected, real improvements be made; vigilant power would guard the interests of the Establishment, and secure a thorough and efficient system of universal instruction and spiritual edification to every corner of the land; and the enemies of the Church be obliged to skulk into obscurity and shame. They know too, that, as long as the Convocation is withheld, they may work with security and success; and therefore, while they make false blots in the Church for their malicious artillery, they either pass unnoticed that real defect, which not her own culpability incurred, but extraneous tyranny created; or they openly declare their conviction, that nothing could be so injurious to the Church, as the Convocation; which, if such were their opinion, they would in conscience be bound to recommend. Lord Henley is one of those Churchmen who have been led away by the popular cry. He proves that he is attached to the Church by his strenuous support of the Convocation. So far we go with him entirely; but we can scarcely accompany him further. We have said, on a former occasion, that no project of Church Reform would meet with any notice from us which did not involve the full and entire re-establishment of the Convocation in all its unquestionable rights and privileges; and on this subject Lord Henley is plainspoken and decisive. In the "Letter to the King," which prefaces the pamphlet, his Lordship writes : It has been truly observed of the Church of England, that it differs in a most important particular from the Church of Scotland, and various dissenting * Christian Remembrancer, April, 1832. bodies, in possessing little or no ecclesiastical power, and no means by which the wisdom and influence of the body can be concentrated. It is "a mighty but a scattered host;-a powerful body, but its power so dissipated as to be unavailing and ineffective-a body threatened with dangers the most urgent and overwhelming, and lying prostrate, helpless, and trembling, for want of union, counsel, and organization." This evil, it is rightly submitted, may be remedied by the Revival and Restoration of the Convocation. To what extent your majesty's personal and kingly duties, and your Majesty's Christian responsibility are involved in this important matter, is clearly set forth in the following admirable observations of Archbishop Wake. "I shall not doubt to affirm," says that temperate and judicious divine, "that whenever the King is in his own conscience convinced, that for the Convocation to sit, and act, would be for the glory of God, the benefit of the Church, or otherwise for the public good and welfare of his realm, he is obliged, both by the Law of Reason, as a Man,-by his duty to God as a Christian,—and his duty to his People as a Ruler, set over them for their good, to permit, or rather to command his Clergy to meet in Convocation, and transact what is fit, for any or all those ends, to be done by them.". "When the exigen cies of the Church call for a Convocation-if the Prince be sensible of this, and yet will not suffer the Clergy to come together; in that case I do acknowledge that he would abuse the trust that is lodged in him, and deny the Church a benefit which of right it ought to enjoy."-Plan of Church Reform, pp. xvi. xvii. All this is excellent; and it gives us much pleasure to say so, as there is much in Lord Henley's writings and conduct which we shall be called on to censure most unequivocally. The position of Archbishop Wake should re-echo from the Universities, from every Chapter-house, from every Parsonage, in the land. In the present day, all that has been gained has been gained by energy, firmness, perseverance, decision. And though we would on no account be mistaken to recommend any imitation on the part of the Church of those reckless demagogues who have forced their demands by violence and intimidation, yet there is a constitutional, legal, peaceable, and loyal firmness in defence of demonstrable right, which is nothing less than positive duty, and which must be respected and regarded. The King has sworn to maintain the Church in her just titles and privileges; and not to remind his Majesty of this seems to argue a want of courage with which Lord Henley (not incorrectly, as we think,) charges our Clergy. Extensive petitions in favour of the Convocation must succeed; and this point gained, our Church would occupy a position of greater elevation than history has yet had to record. Having said thus much in favour of Lord Henley, we can add little more on the same side. And no observation perhaps will sooner occur to the reflecting churchman than the glaring injudiciousness of the course which his Lordship has adopted, in endeavouring to preoccupy the public mind, not only by his pen, but by the formation of an irregular Society for the promotion of his views, and by arraying on his side the powers of oratory and the movements of popular passion, on a subject requiring the coolest and most dispassionate attention, at a moment when that very subject is exciting feelings the most opposite, and just before a Commission consisting of persons every way competent both to collect and to improve facts has divulged the results of its labours. Lord Henley's book has now reached a sixth edition, and the influence of his Lordship's statements, the interest of the subject, the efforts of others combined with him in a regularly marshalled society, may create in many minds so strong a prejudice, that the grave, authentic, and substantial productions of the Ecclesiastical Commission will scarcely obtain a hearing. It is in the highest degree honourable to the Church that the evils which Lord Henley proposes to remove are principally such as the Church has not created, such as she deeply deplores, and such as she has set all her energies to remedy. These are the want of church accommodation, the inadequacy of benefices, and the consequent prevalence of pluralities. The first of these evils results from the disproportion between the increase of population and the means of building churches; to reduce which the Church has put forth her most diligent and unwearied efforts, as the reports of the Churchbuilding Society will sufficiently evince. The inadequacy of benefices, and the want of proper residences, is a guilt which belongs not to the Church, but to King Henry VIII. and the nation; to the reckless spoliations of a capricious tyrant, and to the passive indolence of subsequent legislatures. And the Church may be so far grateful to Lord Henley, that he has called the attention of her members to these mighty evils. Few, we are persuaded, are aware of their extent. The Parliamentary Return of 1815 states the total amount of Livings under the annual value of 150l. per annum to be 4361. Of these, some are under 121. per annum, and no less a number than 1350 are below 701. per annum. Besides the Non-Residence thus unavoidably produced by the extreme poverty of the Benefices, the want of proper Residences operates in an equal degree in causing that evil. There are no less than 4809 Livings upon which a clergyman cannot reside. Of these 2626 have no houses at all. On 2183 there are houses unfit for the residence of a clergyman, let at 27. or 31. per annum, and worth no more. The consequences of this great and deplorable desecration are obvious. In many parishes Divine Service is only performed once in three weeks or a month. The week-day intercourse and natural influence of the Pastor are never known. From the distance of his residence, and the multiplicity of his avocations, and the necessary infrequency of his visits, he is as effectually a stranger to his Parishioners as if he lived in another hemisphere. But great as are these evils, which from their nature are confined to less populous and agricultural districts, the want of religious instruction weighs with a tenfold oppression in our crowded cities. A population has risen up in our manufacturing districts which our Churches cannot hold, and neither our own ministers nor the indefatigable exertions of Dissenters can adequately instruct. A mass of ignorance, heathenism, and crime is thus fostered, which threatens the country with the most alarming consequences. Much, indeed, has been done during the last ten years in building new Churches. But the misfortune is, that they are most wanted in those very places where the people are either unable or unwilling to pay for the endowment of them. The fol lowing extract from Dr. Yates's valuable work sets this in a striking light:"In a district containing by one estimation a population of 1,144,779, and by another 1,129,451, the astonishing truth is most incontrovertibly established, that only 81 parish Churches and 81 Ministers are provided by the Church of England for a population of upwards of 1,110,000 souls. The indubitable authority of Parliament hath, indeed, demonstrated that within the comparatively small circle of about ten miles around the metropolis of Britain,-the splendid seat of Science, Literature, Commerce, Legislation, Philosophy, and (as is supposed) Religion,-no less a number than 977,000 souls are shut out from the common Pastoral offices of the National Religion;—are without any beneficial communion with the Established Church,-receive no instruction from a Parish Minister,—and are totally excluded from the inestimable advantages of Parochial Public Worship."-Pp. 12, 13. In populous cities thousands are growing up from infancy to manhood who never hear the word of God. It was computed a few years ago, that in a circumference of eight miles, in a population of 1,152,000 inhabitants, more than 953,000 never could attend public worship in the Establishment. And though Churches have been built since that time, yet has the Population proportionably increased. In one diocese, out of 110,000 persons, the attendants at Church amounted to 19,069, and the communicants to 4,134, about one in seven only attending Church, about one in thirty-eight only attending the Lord's Table. Thus are we still in effect an unchristianized land:-the deepest ignorance and irreligion prevail:-the Gaols are crowded; and your Majesty's Judges, circuit after circuit, are lamenting over the alarming increase of crime.—Pp. vi. vii. This is, indeed, a fearful account; and had our Parliament remained in communion with our Church, it could never have been detailed within the walls of a British Senate without some endeavours to meet the crying exigency. To hope for any remedy from the delegates of popish priests, and from men whose religious belief is principally to be tested by negatives, would be sanguine indeed. Those who support Maynooth College with the national purse, and withdraw the grants made to the Societies for Promoting Christian Knowledge and for the Propagation of the Gospel, would scarcely countenance any remedial measures in this melancholy position of things. While, however, we have a national Church, something must, for shame's sake, be done by government; and had Lord Henley waited until the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had given a more accurate statement of the present condition of the grievance, and suggested some counteraction, he might perhaps have seen reason to regret the very extraordinary remedy which he has recommended. The groundwork of Lord Henley's plan is to throw the whole amount of property possessed by Bishops and Chapters (respecting existing rights) into a common fund, to be managed by Commissioners, and to be applied by them to the reduction of inequalities, and the removal of inconveniences in the Church. Lord Henley In this plan there is a great complication of error. has fallen into a very popular mistake on the subject of Church property; a mistake which it is important to rectify. He speaks of this property as if it were one large common fund, very partially appor tioned, and which might, with the greatest facility, be redistributed; instead of being, almost entirely, private bequest and endowment for specific Churches and specific purposes. Thus he speaks of "300,000l. per ann." being "paid " to provide service in our cathedrals; as if it literally came out of a fund which belonged to the Church at large, instead of being derived from estates with which those cathedrals have been severally endowed, and which is (according to old maxims of property) inalienable from their use without the consent of the parties. And afterwards he talks of "the immense misapplication of these large but still inadequate funds." (p. vii.) What misapplication there can be in appropriating estates to the purposes which the donors intended we cannot see, nor do we believe the thing can be made visible without the aid of reform spectacles. It is never alleged, for instance, that the funds of St. Thomas's Hospital are misapplied, on the ground that they are not divided among all the wounded and diseased in the kingdom, or because a part of them is not transferred to needier institutions of kindred character. Yet, Lord Henley talks of "our doling out the revenues of the church in so unequal a manner, that more than 4,000 of its districts are unable to support a minister in the decent habit and respectability of a gentleman." (p. 15.) The expression is greviously calculated to misguide. There are no such "revenues" to "dole out." Every bishop, dean, prebendary, parochial minister whatsoever, is maintained from a separate donation or bequest, appropriated by such as had an unquestionable right to make the assignment, and to demand the protection of the law for the appropriation. Any legislative act which should interfere with Church property against the consent of the holders must shake the security of all property whatever. The doctrine of Lord Henley, indeed, on the question of property at large, would have startled our plainer forefathers. No one now (says he) maintains the inviolability of corporate rights, where a clear case of public necessity or expediency demands their sacrifice. And when the first of all duties, and the most urgent of all necessities, call for an alteration in the application of public property, it would be preposterous to contend, that the embryo rights of any number of unappointed or unborn functionaries, can legitimately interpose to prevent a just or necessary measure of Reform. There is, therefore, not only an undoubted right in the Legislature, but it is its duty to vary the application and transmission of the property of the Church, whenever the interests of religion manifestly demand it.—Pp. 17, 18. Our reformer, if we be not greatly deceived, has vastly miscalculated the numerical strength of his school. Even "now," even in this astounding age of intellectual advancement, there are very many hardy enough to maintain the inviolability of all rights, corporate and individual; there are very many antiquated enough to hold that no "public necessity" can be so "clear" as to "demand the sacrifice" of a "right," and for the plain reason, that, if it is a right, the sacrifice of |