A View of the Revenues of the Parochial Clergy of this Kingdom, from

the Earliest Times. By the REV. DANIEL LYSONS, M.A. F.R.S. and F.S.A. Rector of Rodmarton, in the County of Gloucester. 8vo. 112pp. 2s. 6d. Rivingtons. 1824.

THIS is a very important little pamphlet, which we hope will obtain, as it deserves, an extensive circulation; because it cannot fail to remove many erroneous impressions, and to expose many wilful misrepresentations of the subject upon which it treats. It was first published some years ago, and is now reprinted, " on a presumption that it may be found interesting at a time when the subject of ecclesiastical revenue has, in a more than ordinary degree, attracted the attention of the public." To this point, (if our space will permit) we shall shortly advert at the conclusion of this article: when after having shewn from Mr. Lysons, that many, very many of the clergy have too little, we shall say something in behalf of those who are charged by some persons with having too much.

We shall not stop to prove the divine and legal origin of tithes. An institution, so supported, may well be presumed to be founded in the very nature of things. Confining our views to this kingdom, we find, that it "had been universally divided into parishes before the year 970, about which time it was provided by the laws of King Edgar, that every man should pay his tithes to the mother church of the parish to which he belonged."

"These," (it is truly observed by Mr. L.) "were the golden days of the church, when the parochial clergy had every man an income adequate to the support of himself and family, notwithstanding his parsonage was charged with the repair of his church, and the relief of the poor; for the price of labour being then well proportioned to that of the necessaries of life, none needed relief but the impotent, the destitute widow, or the infant orphan."

We think this a complete answer to those who are apt to remind us of the original three-fold application of tithes. Restore to the church its ancient revenues, and it will cheerfully perform all the conditions upon which they were granted. The first serious injury to the parochial clergy, and through them to religion, and the community in general; arose from the rapacity of the monastic priesthood. Their "appropriations" of parochial tithes to their monasteries, prepared the way for the future "impropriations" of them by Henry VIII. to laymen, who,

So called (says Sir Henry Spelman) because they were improperly in the hands of laymen. This pamphlet, p. 23.

however, appear long before to have discovered an appetite for this species of food. For "within 100 years after the conquest," it seems that," most of the parish priests in England were become tributary to their patrons, and paid such large pensions to them, that they were not able to subsist with decency and credit." Still, considering the state of celibacy, to which they were restricted, the condition of the parochial clergy was at this time tolerable, if we may judge of the rest from the allowances made to the " Vicar of Taunton," as exhibited in the Note in the 9th page. But the monks continued to vex and oppress them. "The perverse modus decimandi was, in a great measure, a stratagem of theirs, to incline their tenants to pay their full tenth of corn and hay to their proper uses, and to give but a small trifle for their smaller tithes to the vicar." But in due time they received the just reward of their multiplied iniquities. The dissolution of the monasteries put an end to their infamous extortions. "And this," as Bishop Kennett justly observes, "was the proper season for doing justice to the parochial clergy, for restoring those alienated goods to the altars defrauded by them, or, in a proper sense, rendering unto God the things that were God's.' But Henry VIII. as Mr. L. says, was no friend to the parochial clergy. He even made their condition worse than it was before. And he remarks, that to Mary with all her bigotry and cruelty they were more indebted, than to her glorious successor: for that "all ranks of the clergy suffered more grievous hardships and oppressions during her government, than under that of any of our monarchs." From this time till the reign of Queen Anne we are presented with a series of the sufferings of the clergy, aggravated by occasional abortive plans for their relief. But it is remarkable, that the justice of their complaints was always acknowledged, though they constantly failed to obtain redress. Not only did the University of Oxford, in 1408, and the general council of Constance, in 1418, take up their cause: but we find even the Commons in Parliament repeatedly remonstrating strongly in their behalf.

"Impropriations, radix omnium malorum, still continued, universally acknowledged, though unredressed. Notwithstanding, that the learned Selden, whose History of Tithes breathed such hostility to the church, as to subject him to ecclesiastical censures, said, 'I doubt not but that every good man wishes, that at the dissolution of monasteries, both the lands, and impropriated tithes, and churches, possessed by them (that is, things sacred to the service of God, although abused by such as had them) had been bestowed rather for the advancement of the church, to a

better maintenance of the labouring and deserving ministry: than con ferred with such a prodigal dispensation, on those who stood ready to devour what was sanctified.""

And the same opinion was advanced about the same time by Lord Bacon.

"It were to be wished," he says, "that impropriations were re turned to the church, as the most proper and natural endowments thereof. In my own opinion and sense, I must confess (let me speak it with reverence) that all the Parliaments since the 27th and 31st of Henry VIII. (who gave away impropriations from the church) seem to me to stand in a sort obnoxious, and obliged to God in conscience to do something for the church, to reduce the patrimony thereof to a competency. For since they have debarred Christ's wife of a great part of her dowry, it were reason they made her a competent jointure."

But we meet afterwards with an able, upright, and eloquent, though unsuccessful advocate of the clergy, where we should little have expected it, amongst the zealous parliamentarians, on the eve of the civil war. We cannot forego the pleasure of transcribing a few sentences from Sir Benjamin Rudyerd's Speech; referring our readers for more to Mr. L. and for the remainder to a scarce work, called “Ephemeris Parliamentaria.”

"In the first year of the king," says he, "and the second Convention, I first moved for the increase and enlarging of poor ministers' livings. I shewed how necessary it was to be done: how shameful it was that it had been so long neglected. I declared also, that to plant good ministers in good livings, was the strongest and surest means to establish true religion; that it would prevail more against papistry, than the making of new laws, or executing of old. It shall ever be a rule to me, that where the church and commonwealth are of one religion, it is comely and decent that the outward splendour of the church should hold a proportion, and participate with the prosperity of the temporal estate. And for my own part, I will never give over soliciting this course, so long as parliaments and I shall live together."

This is the language of a man, who, upon another occasion, speaks thus of himself.

"Let no man think that what I have said is the language of a private end; my aim is upon the good success of the whole; for I thank God my mind stands above any fortune that is to be gotten by base and unworthy means. No man is bound to be rich or great, no, nor to be wise, but every man is bound to be honest out of which heart I have spoken."

But neither the justice of their cause, nor the eloquence of their advocates, availed to procure any restoration of their

original rights to the clergy. It was not till the reign of Queen Anne, that any decisive steps were taken, even to mitigate the hardships under which they laboured. The fund which she established, increased by some private donations, and by some late liberal parliamentary grants, for the augmentation of poor livings, is all which has hitherto been done, in reduction of the spoliation which they suffered at the dissolution of the monasteries. And the melancholy conclusion from the whole is, that notwithstanding the salutary operation of this fund,

"The accomplishment of that most desirable object, that every clergyman should have an income, not only competent to the maintenance of himself and family, but such as might enable him to make a decent provision for his wife and children, and to leave them at his decease above the reach of want, is as yet far distant."

Whether this state of things be absolutely inevitable in a country which is able, if necessary, to spend one hundred millions of money in a single year of warfare, we leave to the consideration of all those whom it may concern to think about it.

We will now redeem our promise of saying a few words upon another topic, which we presume gave occasion for the repubhishing of this interesting pamphlet. We allude to the complaints which are so frequently made of the hardships of tithes, and of the immoderate value of certain ecclesiastical preferments: now, premising our wish that the clergy should do all in their power, consistently with their duty to their families, to live upon the best terms with their parishioners, and our belief that in general they do so-we must say broadly, that both these complaints are absolutely groundless. Whatever may be the value of tithes, or rectories, or bishoprics, the title to them is at least as good as that of the king to his crown, or of the landlord to his estate: namely, the ancient and indisputable law of the land. But we will go much farther, and contend, that if it were to be done again, no valid objection could be raised against it. For, even putting for a moment religion out of the question, let us suppose, that this country were a country for the first time about to be settled, and the lands about to be distributed in the manner the best adapted to the public good; would it be preferable that the whole should be given to certain individuals and their descendants for ever, upon the condition of military service, or of no service whatever; or that a portion of them, or a certain interest in them, should be set apart as the reward of civil services; such as residence upon them, the instruction of the people in morality, and the affording them examples of good conduct: and these to be life interests merely,

and open to the acquisition by turns of almost every family in the kingdom. Can any man maintain that this would be an unwise, or an inequitable order of things? And if not, how much stronger is the case of the clergy! who can plead a divine origin for their rights, confirmed by almost universal practice wherever history can reach; who hold their life-estates not merely by such civil services as have been mentioned, important as they would be; but upon the maintenance and the diffusion of an holy and pure religion, upon which depends the welfare of society here, and the eternal condition of every individual hereafter.

We are happy to be able to confirm this opinion, by that of so able and competent a judge as the late Mr. Burke. He is speaking, it is true, of the French clergy; but that can make no difference whatever in the argument.

pro

"With regard to the estates, possessed by bishops, and canons, and commendatory abbots, I cannot find out for what reason some landed estates may not be held otherwise than by inheritance. Can any philo. sophic spoiler undertake to demonstrate the positive or the comparative evil, of having a certain, and that too a large portion of landed perly, passing in succession through persons whose title to it is, always in theory, and often in fact, an eminent degree of piety, morals, and learning; a property which, by its destination in their turn, and on the score of merit, gives to the noblest families renovation and support,— to the lowest the means of dignity and elevation; a property, the tenure of which is the performance of some duty, (whatever value you may choose to set on that duty,) and the character of whose proprietors demands at least an exterior decorum and gravity of manners; who are to exercise a generous but temperate hospitality; part of whose income they are to consider as a trust for charity; and who, even when they fail in their trust, when they slide from their character, and degenerate into a mere common secular nobleman or gentleman, are in no respect worse than those who may succeed them in their forfeited possessions? Is it better that estates should be held by those who have no duty than by those who have one?-by those whose character and destination point to virtues, than by those who have no rule and direction in the expenditure of their estates, but their own will and appetite? Nor are these estates held altogether in the character or with the evils supposed inherent in mortmain. They pass from hand to hand with a more rapid circulation than any other. No excess is good; and therefore too great a proportion of landed property may be held officially for life; but it does not seem to me of material injury to any commonwealth, that there should exist some estates that have a chance of being acquired by other means than the previous acquisition of money*."

* Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France. P. 216.