that the fourth is a bad useless law, which cannot be done away with too soon.

II. Such is STATE PROTECTION: now, on the other hand, let us consider the existing set off against it, which is demanded of us. This is STATE Interference, which encumbers us in ways too numerous to be catalogued, but is especially grievous in regard to the two following particulars:-1. Church Patronage. 2. Church Discipline.

1. With regard to the first of these, it is obvious that the efficiency of the Church must ever mainly depend on the character of the Bishops and Clergy; and that any laws which facilitate the intrusion of unfit persons into such stations must be in the highest degree prejudicial. The appointment of our Bishops, and of those who are to undertake the cure of souls, is a trust on which so much depends, that it is difficult to be too cautious as to the hands in which it is placed, and as to the checks with which its due execution is guarded. The sole object which should be kept in view is the getting these offices well filled, and the fewer private interests which are allowed to interfere in filling them the better. Yet what are the Laws which are forced on the acceptance of the Church for regulating this important matter? What is the care that has been taken to vest the appointment in proper hands? with what checks is its due execution guarded? what attention has been paid to any one point except the very last that should have been

thought of, the private interests of patrons? We shall see.

The appointment of all our Bishops, and, in much the greater number of instances, of those who are to undertake the cure of souls, is vested in the hands of individuals irresponsible and unpledged to any opinions or any conduct; laymen, good or bad, as it may happen, orthodox or heretic, faithful or infidel. The Bishops, every one of them, are, as a matter of fact, appointed by the Prime Minister for the time being, who, since the repeal of the Test Act, may be an avowed Socinian, or even Atheist. A very large proportion of other Church benefices, carrying with them cure of souls, are likewise in the hands of the Prime Minister, or of the Lord Chancellor and other Lay Patrons, who, like him, may be of any or no religion. So much for the hands in which these appointments are vested the checks by which they are guarded must be considered separately in case of Bishoprics and of inferior benefices.

At former periods of our history, even in the most arbitrary and tyrannical times, various precautions were adopted to prevent the intrusion of improper persons into Bishoprics. To exclude the great officers of state from a share in the nomination was indeed impossible,—perhaps not desirable; -but to prevent their usurping an undue and exclusive influence, their choice was subjected to the approbation of other bodies of men, with different

interests, and sufficiently independent to make their approbation more than a form.

The Nomination of the King and his Ministers was to be followed by a real bona fide election on the part of the Collegiate Body attached to the vacant See. In the Church of Canterbury this body consisted of 140 men, with small incomes, and connected, in many instances, with the peasantry of the country, whose feelings and opinions they seem to have, in a great measure, represented. The courage and resolution with which these men frequently resisted state persecution, will be appreciated on reading Gervase's History of Canterbury, between the years 1160 and 1200. Indeed, it would be no difficult matter to make a catalogue of the atrocities perpetrated at different times on these collegiate bodies by kings and nobles, in the hope of extorting consent to improper nominations, such as would rival Fox's Book of Martyrs in number and cruelty. Here then was the first check on improper appointments.

Again, after Nomination and Election followed Confirmation, a process well calculated to elicit any sinister dealings which might have influenced the previous steps. On a day appointed by the Archbishop, all persons whatever that had any objection to urge against the election or person elected, were cited to appear in the cathedral church of the vacant Diocese. The Archbishop was himself to be in attendance as judge, to confirm or annul what had passed, according to the evidence which should

come before him. The publicity of this process, and the circumstance that it was conducted in a place of all others the most interested in the result, seemed calculated to preclude any very flagrant neglect of duty.

But, should no obstacle have interfered with the will of the State, either in Election or Confirmation, it still remained with the Archbishop to decide whether he was justified in consecrating and in deciding this he was left to the dictates of his own conscience, exposed indeed to the vindictive tyranny of power, but uncontrolled by any law, and responsible to no earthly tribunal.

These

Thus it appears that in the most arbitrary and tyrannical times the constitution of England recognised three independent checks to the King's appointment, allowing a veto to be put upon it either at Election, Confirmation, or Consecration. checks were, indeed, frequently overpowered by the capricious tyranny of the feudal system, or the still more capricious interference of the Bishop of Rome. Perhaps, also, though upon the whole well adapted to the times in which they were devised, they are unsuited to those in which we live. Yet it is evident, that whatever difference exists between those times and our own, it is a difference in our favour; whatever checks to abuse of power could exist then, might exist, and more effectually, now; nor can any objection we may make against the particular checks adopted under the feudal system, be an

argument for abolishing them without finding a substitute.

[Let us then take a survey of our present condition.]

It cannot be denied that at present it is treated far more arbitrarily, and is more completely at the mercy of the chance government of the day, than ever our forefathers were under the worst tyranny of the worst times. Election, Confirmation, Consecration, instead of being rendered more efficient checks than formerly, are now so arranged as to offer the least possible hindrance to the most exceptionable appointments of a godless ministry. As to Election: the Dean and Chapter, with whom it still formally rests, have only twelve days given them to inquire into the character of the person nominated, who may be an entire stranger to every one of them, or known through report most unfavourably; if they fail to elect in this time, election becomes unnecessary, and the Crown presents without it. And now the Dean and Chapter have eight days given them, and the Archbishop, twenty, for reflection; if within these periods the former fails to go through the form of election, and the latter to consecrate, both parties subject themselves to the pains and penalties of a Præmunire, i. e. all their goods, ecclesiastical and personal, are liable to confiscation, and themselves to imprisonment till such time as they submit. Such is the legal urgency which has been substituted for the violence of former times: and thus, as the law now exists, we