2 JANUARY 1830, Page 10

THE CHURCH.

A FRIEND has handed to us the following communication, which was addressed to him by the highly respectable writer. "In that clever and masculine newspaper the Spectator, No. 77, is an article from the Times, on the Church.' It contains several fallacious statements. It assumes that the Church is wealthy ; it assumes that its wealth is public property ; it assuines that the Bishops are the overpaid, and. that the Curates are by far the 'worst paid' portion of the clergy. " Now the whole Ecclesiastical revenue, by careful enquiry,' was esti- mated in 1822 at 2,300,000/. Two millions, the aggregate revenue of 10,000 benefices, give an average of 2001. to each incumbent. There are at this hour 3,500 parochial benefices, not exceeding 100/. per annum, and of these 1000 are under 60/. per annum, and 422 under 301. per annum. 2dly, The property of the Church is not public property ; but of course, like all other property, subject to legislative interference by regulation. To equalize benefices, were to take from the munificent founder of the better endowment of the parish church of his founding, in order to eke out the less ample, or the very insufficient endowment of some other founder. The nation founded not one of the churches of the National Church. Tithes are a voluntary rentcharge laid on by the landlord—they are no tax' on the people, but a part of the original rent of land. " 3dly, As to the bishoprics, they are very unequal both in the duty to be performed, and in the income attached to their sees. Three or four sees are very rich-rnine or ten ate very poor; but the average income of all the English bishoprics would not exhibit superfluous and immense wealth' for the maintenance of their plaze and dignity, and claims of charity on this the highest order in the Clergy. If equalized, the bishoprics might give perhaps a net 4500/. per annum as the average; but London needs more than Hereford. " 4thly, The stipendiary Curates are not the poorest of the poor' pvtion of the clergy. By law no curacy is less than 80/. per annum unless the whole benefice be less, and then the curate of a non-resident has the whole? in- come ; and the stipends rise with the population and income of the benefice, to 150/. and 2001. per annum. The wealth of a clergyman is not all from the wealth of his benefice, but of his friends and private fortune ; yet the parish has the whole expenditure, and the Church the envy attached to this seeming superfluity, while lords and squires and fund lords spend where and how they please, from the sweat of the peasant. "The writer has a family living, on which he has built at the cost of 4000/. The rectory is a reputed 1000/. per annum. The land tax is 68/. per annum, the house and window tax 26/. Poor-rates, collector's poundage, and bad debts, 1501. Out of the remainder, the labourers of the parish are employed, and have food, and physic, and Sunday schools. His son is educated, not by nu! nation, for the Church, (an expensive education it is made to be) ; and he asks the Spectator, whether TWO inc.umbents of 500/. each, of GROSS income, could do as much good as he can do, and does do with his gross 10001.? and v.iiether his curate, with 80/. per annum, (a bachelor in lodgings) is not in easier circumstances with his certain net income, than the ' rich Rector' with his parsonage house,' his family, and his housekeeping, all to be built perhaps, to be maintained, repaired, fed, and provided for, out of a life income. A MERE salary does not justify the spoor curate' in marrying at all : an incumbent must keep house and house without wife is dull, and expensive keeping by menials only. " 5thly, As to the 'English clergy not knowing their poor parishioners,' (another fallacy), it is owing, where true, not to their wealth, but to their poverty, and the great population of many parishes. For a rich incumbent, living among rustics, and employing them, does more good than an absentee squire, and draws his men' and people much better than a mere preacher Presbyterian Dissenter, or Roman Catholic.'" Now we cannot avoid remarking, that a corporation with a revenue of 2,300,000/. is, according to our notions, a rich corporation. Sub- divide its revenue as you will, our Church must still remain the richest in the world. As to the tenure by which the Church holds its property, it should not be forgotten that the Church of England enjoys great part of the revenues devised by pious Catholics to the Church of Rome, as trustees for the poor, and as an equivalent for certain masses. The destination of that property having already been altered, it is some- what of the latest to indulge in doubts as to the right of the Legislature to interfere with Church property. We must take occasion to deny, too, that tithes are any part of the original rent of land. They have nothing in common with rent. They -do not affect cultivation as rent does. They do not obey the same laws. Lastly, we cannot admit that a bishop with 4,500/. a year is not a rich bishop, or that a curate with 80/. a year is not in a worse condition than a rector with 1,000/. sub-

ject to all the deductions specified.