which cannot be inconsiderable; if, therefore, we add the amount of their efforts to our previous calculation, we shall find that the classes of religionists without public endowments, not only possess the greatest share of Christian zeal, but of moral and educational energy.

With so many things to be proud of, it is not surprising the Dissenters have begun to manifest symptoms of dissatisfaction with the favour shown to the national establishment. Hitherto they have submitted to this inequality in an exemplary manner, and steadily refrained from any thing like political agitation. Some fifty years ago, it is true, their ministers were said to be "men of close ambition," and the way in which this imputation was met deserves to be recorded. It was occasioned by the introduction of a bill, in 1772, to relieve dissenters from the hardship of subscribing to the thirty-nine articles. The bill passed the House of Commons, but was lost in the House of Lords by the weight and influence of the episcopal bench, particularly Dr. Drummond, Archbishop of York, who strongly inveighed against dissenters. Pitt, the eloquent Earl of Chatham, in reply to the archbishop, said, "whoever brought a charge against dissenters without proof, defamed." After a pause, he felt the workings of a generous and indignant enthusiasm, and thus proceeded : "The dissenting ministers are represented as men of close ambition-they are so, my lords; and their ambition is to keep close to the college of fishermen, not of Cardinals; and to the doctrine of inspired apostles, not to the decrees of interested bishops. They contend for a spiritual creed and spiritual worship. We have a Calvinistic creed, a Popish liturgy, and an Arminian clergy. The reformation has laid open the Scriptures to all; let not the bishops shut them again. Laws, in support of ecclesiastical power, are pleaded, which it would shock humanity to execute. It is said, that religious. sects have done great mischief, when they are not kept under restraint; but history affords no proof that sects have ever been mischievous, but when they were oppressed by the ruling church.”

The chief oppression of which dissenters have to complain is the injustice of having to pay tithe and church-rates. Building their own chapels and maintaining their own ministers; supporting their own colleges to the number of twenty; educating upwards of 700,000 children in their Sunday-schools; and expending nearly £150,000 in diffusing their religious tenets-impose on them duties and sacrifices sufficiently onerous, without being compelled to aid in the support of the Episcopal establishment. It is apparent, therefore, if land-owners, farmers, and politicians were to be silent on ecclesiastical grievances, they would not be much longer tolerated by the vast body of separatists-who in England probably equal, and certainly in the United Kingdom greatly exceed, in number the members of the national communion. The dissenters have already begun to sound the tocsin of discontent, and several papers, extensively circulated, sufficiently indicate the spirit working within them. We subjoin one of these documents.

TWENTY REASONS why Dissenters should not be compelled to pay Church Rates and Tithes, or in any way to support the Church of England.

1. Because it is a flagrant violation of equity, to compel people to pay for instruction, which they, in conscience, cannot receive.

2. Because it is a denial of our Saviour's interpretation of the law: "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the prophets."-Matt. vii. 12.

3. Because no passage in the Bible sanctions compulsion in supporting religion. 4. Because Christianity is slandered by its professors using compulsion for its support.

5. Because compulsory payments were not known in the purest ages of Christianity.

6. Because the Constitution of the Church of England, with the peculiar names, titles, and offices of its clergy, has no foundation in the Holy Scriptures. 7. Because no writer in defence of the Church of England, has ever dared to rest its claims upon the declarations of the Holy scriptures.

8. Because the Church of England is a fearful system of traffic in the souls of men. -Rev. xviii. 13.*

9. Because the Church of England gives the chief occasion to infidels to slander Christianity as a system of mere Priestcraft,—INFIDELS of this class are found in every parish.

10. Relinquishing unscriptural claims would remove a foul blot from the Church of England.

11. Because Dissenters bear, all the expenses of their own Colleges, Chapels, Ministers, and Schools.

12. Because Dissenters in the United Kingdom far exceed in number those who attend at church.

13. Because religion flourishes most in the United States of America, without tithes or church rates, but supported by voluntary contributions.

14. Because religion is known to flourish most at those places in the Church of England, in which all their expenses are met by voluntary contributions. 15. Because the system of compulsion leads the clergy grievously to oppress

each other.

St. James's Chronicle, of Nov. 20 to 23, 1830, contains the following articles of "Property for Sale," advertised and specified in numbers from 1 to 79:20" Advowsons," income from £300 to £2000 per annum.

14" Next Presentations," income from £150 to £700 per annum.

45 Other "Livings," for sale or exchange, including " a sinecure of two parishes in Ireland," for which" a dispensation has been granted," 79 and two Livings, one of £700, the other of £1000 per annum!! Compare this with the Oath on Simony.

16. Because the curates of the church are worse paid than any class of educated men; and the majority of them far less than journey men mechanics.

17. Because the working clergy would be incomparably better supported by free contributions.

18. Because Christianity, left to its own resources, would become universal, as in the first ages.

19. Because no priesthood, in any age or nation, has received tithes to the extent of our clergy.

20. Because the tithes of the Israelites were not for the clergy, but for the whole tribe of Levi, about a tenth of the population, who were not allowed to possess a single acre of freehold land; and these were the judges, magistrates, lawyers, physicians, and instructors of the nation.

A desirable fact to ascertain is, the relative strength of religious sects in the several counties of England. Official returns, as before stated, have been received for the county of Lancaster, (Parl. Paper, No. 664, Sess. 1830,) but for no other county. From these returns it appears the number of parish churches in Lancashire is 65, parochial chapels 157, chapels of ease 59: total number of churches and chapels of the establishment, 281. The total number of dissenting places of worship is 590, and of sectarians 255,411. So that one-fourth of the population of Lancashire are open and professing non-conformists.

We shall conclude with stating the results of the inquiries of the Dissenters on this subject. They have exhibited a statement of the number of church livings and the number of chapels or congregations in each county in England. Their statement, we apprehend, is not far from the truth; it is certainly not exaggerated, as will appear from comparing the results of their inquiries with the official returns for Lancashire. It does not contain the unitarian chapels in England and Wales; this sect has 169 chapels; they are a numerous and increasing body; in Lancashire alone there are 28 congregations of that persuasion, with 5,099 members.

In the next chapter, on the Church of Ireland, we shall endeavour to ascertain the proportion of Conformists and Separatists in the United Kingdom.

VIII. WHO WOULD BE BENEFITED BY A REFORM OF THE

CHURCH?

A reform of the Church, like most other reforms, would permanently benefit the many, and only temporarily injure the few. The lawnsleeves, the shovel-hats, silk-aprons, and monopolizing incumbents would be the chief sufferers; while the condition of the most numerous and useful order of the clergy would be improved. Such odious abuses as non-residence and pluralities would be abolished, and the shameful injustice of one man doing the duty and another receiving the reward would be no longer tolerated. Every district, or parish, requiring the services of an officiating clergyman would be provided with one to whom the degrading epithet of " 66 curate" or "poor poor parson" could never be justly applied. By mitigating the penury of the working clergy, their respectability and influence would be augmented, and every neighbourhood enjoy the advantages which are known to result from the permanent abode of at least one educated, intelligent, and exemplary individual. The clergy alike profess to be engaged solely in the work of religious instruction, and no class can boast superior piety or attainments by which to lay claim to superior reward. Why then should there exist such disparity in income? Why should the rector enjoy his £2000 per annum, the vicar receive but £400, and the curate only £80 or £100?

The equalizing of the value of sees would remove the abuse of translations, and thereby effect a great improvement in the bench of bishops. It is only a few lucky individuals who obtain the rich prizes of Canterbury, Winchester, London, Ely, and Durham, that are benefited by the unequal revenues of the bishoprics. Many prelates have barely income enough to support the dignity of their stations; yet they share, in common with the rest, the public odium attached to their class from the inordinate wealth of their more fortunate brethren. It is this inequality, and the desire consequently excited to move to the wealthier endowments that gives to the bishops their political animus, and renders them the most self-seeking men in the country. Without translations they would be as independent in their conduct as the judges are said to be; but with the help of them government has, generally, the power to render them subservient to its purposes.

The exercise of legislative functions by the bishops has become extremely unpopular since their mischievous vote on the Reform Bill. The House of Lords has always been to them the great scene of jobbing, intrigue, and ambition. On no occasion have they done themselves credit there; they appear, indeed, totally void of legislative aptitude, and never, by one act, have they rendered substantial service to the State, or done honour to themselves and the Church. Whether as magistrates or legislators, clergymen are inherently disqualified for the discharge of secular duties. It is not so much in their character of churchmen as of laymem that they have become so universally disliked ;