per annum, drawn from the soil, are spent among the working classes of Ireland, which, if these endowments did not exist, would, like the rest of the surplus revenue of that unfortunate island, be carried away to be expended among strangers,-a calamity to which we really think the people of Ireland ought to submit without repining. We do think, that an income of 20,000l. per annum, drawn from the produce of land, expended on the spot whence it accrues, by the receiver of it, although he be an ecclesiastic, is laid out in a manner quite as beneficial to the Irish community as if it were transferred into the hands of an absentee, and spent at Naples: though this new proprietor, instead of being called a bishop, might be styled a duke.

In all the views of receipt, expenditure, and personal employment,' says Burke, 'a sober legislator would carefully compare the possessor whom he was recommended to strip of his property with the stranger who was proposed to fill his place. Before the inconveniences are incurred which must attend all violent revolutions in property, through extensive confiscation, we ought to have some rational assurance that the purchasers of the confiscated property will be in a considerable degree more laborious, more virtuous, more sober, less disposed to extort an unreasonable proportion of the gains of the labourer, or to consume on themselves a larger share than is fit for the measure of an individual, or that they should be qualified to dispense the surplus in a more steady and equal mode, so as to answer the purposes of a politic expenditure, than the old possessors, call those possessors bishops, deans, canons, prebendaries, rectors, vicars, or what you please.'

But although we unequivocally deny that the state either is or ever was the proprietor, either for use or dominion, of our ecclesiastical endowments, we freely acknowledge that it is the guardian and regulator of that species of property. Every ecclesiastical benefice we consider as a distinct eleemosynary foundation, endowed for the purpose of imparting religious instruction to the inhabitants of the district attached to it; and the authority of the state over such an institution goes no farther than to frame and enforce such regulations as may appear necessary to ensure the fulfilment of the views and intentions of its founder.

A very just and sensible principle, which courts of equity apply to the regulation and management of lay eleemosynary foundations established for the purposes of education, will, perhaps, render this point more clear. If the original founder of a school or a college appointed no special visitor to watch over the interests and management of his charity, the law vested this power in him and his heirs. The power of visiting these private foundations was considered as incident to the property out of which they were endowed. This property came from the founders, and the law

secured

secured to them and their heirs the authority of establishing, at their own discretion, the conditions on which it should be enjoyed; and of altering, or adding to these statutes, as often as such a measure might seem expedient. Whenever the heirs of the founders become extinct, the power of altering the statutes, and enforcing their observance, lapses to the crown, to be exercised by the Chancellor.

The principle upon which eleemosynary foundations of a lay character are thus regulated, will analogically apply to ecclesiastical benefices. When at some early period of our history, no matter how many centuries ago, the owner of a manor built a church upon his estate, and endowed it with the tenth of the produce of his land, he became the founder of a Sunday school for the instruction of his domestics and tenants. From him was

solely derived the property of the endowment, and in him and his heirs was vested, on principles of moral equity, the right of making statutes or rules for the government of this parochial charity; of determining the conditions under which the incumbent of the parish (the master of this Sunday school), which the founder had endowed, should be entitled to receive the emoluments of his office. From circumstances which it is not necessary now to detail, all the rights and privileges inherent in the original founders of parishes have devolved upon the state; hence the state has become the guardian of the endowments conferred upon parish churches by their munificent founders; and, acting in this capacity, it possesses the authority of framing any laws or regulations which may seem calculated to increase the usefulness and efficiency of these institutions.

The principle here laid down as the foundation of the controlling authority which the state possesses over ecclesiastical endowments, will also point out the limits which, in exercising that authority, it cannot justly transgress. The lords of manors who endowed the parish churches which they built, retained no right to recall any part of the property which had passed from them by voluntary gift; and if the original donors had no right to reclaim this property, it is needless to argue that those who, in the capacity of trustees, now represent them, are destitute of any such right. The state, as representing and acting in the behalf of the original donors, may make any alteration which may be deemed expedient, in the conditions attached to the enjoyment of these endowments. It is within the legitimate exercise of this authority to adopt and enforce, at any time, such new regulations as may seem calculated to render the diocese or the benefice a more efficient instrument of religious and moral instruction and control; to modify and alter the duties required of the holders of

such

such endowments-nay, to impose additional duties upon them, if such a measure should be considered conducive to the public good. Here, however, it must stop; beyond this limit it cannot proceed without injustice; for the moment the state proposes to meddle with ecclesiastical property, not for the purpose of regulation but appropriation, it commits the same species of wrong as that visitor of a private charity would perpetrate, who should not only undertake to frame new regulations or statutes for its government, but likewise abstract a part of the endowments granted for its sustentation by the original founder.

While, then, we protest, in the strongest terms which we can use, against the justice, as well as the policy, of secularising any further proportion of the net revenue of this country, now encumbered with the performance of ecclesiastical services-we acknowledge, in its fullest extent, the right of the state, in its capacity of trustee, to enforce the due and effective discharge of the conditions on which this species of property is held, and to introduce any alterations or regulations which may seem likely to increase the efficiency and utility of the services attached to the enjoy.. ment of church endowments. We think it entirely consistent, for example, with the honourable discharge of this public trust, that the owners of landed property should be authorized to enter into an arrangement with the incumbents of ecclesiastical benefices, which would, for a period of reasonable length, put an end to the practical inconvenience of levying tithes in kind. Any regulation which would afford relief, or even merely satisfaction, to the landowners, without diminishing the endowments of the church, the public may unquestionably sanction. It may be expedient-it may be even necessary to correct disorders in the organization of a national establishment; but admitting that this expediency, or necessity, had been clearly and indisputably made out, it by no means follows that it is either expedient or necessary, or just, to divert the property of such an establishment from its lawful purposes. If it should be proved that these revenues are in many or any cases abused-if the conditions on which they are held are not strictly and honourably fulfilled-by all means let measures be adopted to remedy the abuse, and enforce the faithful performance of the conditions. But to the plans and schemes of those who, under the pretence of mending, really design to pull down; who, under the plausible cloak of a holy zeal for the purity and efficiency of the church, really aim at the confiscation of ecclesiastical endowments, every honest man will offer his firm and decided opposition.

We are not quite sure that some of the fundholders of this country have not been led occasionally to listen, with more com

placency

placency than becomes honest men, to schemes of ecclesiastical spoliation, in the belief that the payment of their dividends would thereby be rendered more secure. If there be such persons among the holders of stock, we request them to ponder a little upon the events which marked the progress of the French revolution; for what has happened may, and probably will, under analogous circumstances, happen again. Of the crimes and iniquities perpetrated during the course of that memorable convulsion, the first was the confiscation of ecclesiastical property. This invasion of the acknowledged right of a numerous class of citizens was declared to be indispensable, in order to preserve the public faith inviolate. To the national creditor the revolutionary demagogues said, ' If you do not join us in plundering the property of the church, the interest of your debt cannot be paid.' The Jews and jobbers of Paris acceded to this suggestion, and concurred in accomplishing the confiscation of ecclesiastical revenues. But the resource which was expected to uphold public credit and perform such financial marvels was soon discovered to be utterly inadequate for its destined purposes; whereon the sansculottes, determining to make short work with the burden of the debt, virtually abolished it by issuing paper assignats in payment of the rentes. The owners of funded property, having assisted in stripping the church of its possessions, were thus plundered in their turn. But the work of confiscation, having once begun, was not allowed to stop even at this point. The same measure was soon meted out to the landowners. From timidity, or in some instances, perhaps, from worse motives, many of these persons regarded with indifference the plunder of the other classes; but their turn soon came,—they were convicted of the crime of 'aristocracy,' and their estates confiscated and sold. Whenever the government of any state happens to fall into the hands of men who can consider it politic to seek a resource in confiscation of any kindwhenever one description of citizens can be thought of by any of the others as their proper prey-public faith becomes a shadow, in which no prudent man will repose the slightest confidence.

Si plures sunt ii (says Cicero), quibus improbe datum est quam illi quibus injuste ademptum est, idcirco plus etiam valent? Non enim numero hæc judicantur, sed pondere. Quam autem habet æquitatem ut agrum, multis annis aut etiam sæculis ante possessum, qui nullum habuit, habeat; qui autem habuit, amittat? ac, propter hoc injuriæ genus, Lacedæmonii Lysandrum ephorum expulerunt: Agin regem (quod nunquam antea apud eos acciderat) necaverunt: ex eoque tempore tantæ discordiæ secutæ sunt, ut et tyranni existerint, et optimates exterminarentur, et præclarissime constituta respublica dilaberetur.'

Having described the very different conduct of Aratus of Sicyon, whom he holds up as the model of true patriots, Cicero proceeds thus: sic par est agere cum civibus; non (ut bis jam vidimus) hastam in foro ponere, et bona civium voci subjicere præconis. At ille Græcus (id quod fuit sapientis et præstantis viri) omnibus consulendum esse putavit; ea est summa ratio et sapientia boni eivis, commoda civium non divellere, sed omnes eâdem æquitate

continere.'*

ART. VI.-1. Facts relating to Chinese Commerce, in a Letter from a Resident at Canton to his Friend in England. Lond. 1829.

2. A Review of the Arguments and Allegations which have been offered to Parliament against the Renewal of the East India Company's Charter. London. 1829.

1830.

3. Considerations relative to the Renewal of the East India Company's Charter. By W. S. Obrien, Esq., M.P. "THE question of the open trade ought not to be discussed as a hostile question between the East India Company and the country. Of the separate interests of the Company, I should say that they must be weighed and considered as connected with, and as subordinate to, the general interests of the country; but it does not, therefore, follow, that every thing taken from the Company would be necessarily gained to the country at large-or that what may be left in their hands may not be left there as much for the benefit of the country as their own.' Such was the spirit of moderation and good sense which a late eminent statesman recommended, in the discussion of a question, among the most momentous that ever demanded from its the benefits of cool reflection; and such the advice offered by a representative of Liverpool itself to constituents, who appear to have regulated their conduct by other principles, and to have accepted the alliance of visitors of a far different description.

Impressed as we are by the magnitude of the question which is shortly to exercise the wisdom of parliament, we shall (with more humility than distinguishes the statesmen of Cockermouth and Kidderminster) confine the present discussion to one important portion of the subject-the China trade; and considering documentary evidence, and the sanctions of local knowledge as the only legitimate grounds on which to build a sound opinion, we shall chiefly confine ourselves to the exhibition of these. We Cic. de Officiis, lib. ii.

Mr. Canning's Speeches at Liverpool,