For convenience in future reasoning and references, it may be well to divide the destitute parishes into three classes :

It will be observed that the cases in St. Asaph and Bangor chiefly belong to the 2nd class.

It may now be permitted to refer to the valuable communication on the subject of church accommodation which was sent to the "British Magazine" of last month, by Mr. Bedford, of Sutton Coldfield. For the correction supplied by that document to some of the results arrived at by the compilers of these tables, none can feel more grateful to Mr. Bedford than the compilers themselves. If he will do them the favour to refer to the "British Magazine" of December, he will find that they had already anticipated that all their care to attain secure documentary accuracy would still leave them liable, in many cases, to errors which can be checked only by that local information which residence upon any given spot supplies. They therefore take this opportunity to invite every further possible scrutiny and correction of their labours, being conscious that the more the subject of the want of church-room is examined, the more apparent will become that fearful amount of guilt which has already been incurred from negligence in this matter."

N.B. It will be seen that in Table II., as to Birmingham itself, the church-room is not far wrong. They have observed the chief source of their error in regard to the neighbourhood. There are one or two places in Table III. where the ecclesiastical report gives a large population to one church, a part of which is, doubtless, accommodated in other churches and chapels. These are Heapley, and Mottram and Stayley-bridge, the two last of which are in Longdendale parish.

REGISTRATION AND MARRIAGE ACT.

THE following abstract of the Bills proposed on this subject, with some sensible remarks on them, is taken from that excellent paper, the "Cambridge Chronicle:"

"Lord John Russell obtained, last week, leave to bring in two bills; one to regulate the registration of all births, marriages, and deaths, and to make it a civil affair entirely; and the other to allow dissenters to be married in their own chapels, when licensed for the purpose, and by their own ministers. "The machinery of the former bill is as follows:

"The poor law commissioners shall appoint the relieving officer, or any other person whom they may think fit, to keep the register of a certain number of parishes; and the auditor of the union, or his clerk, or any other person appointed by the poor law commissioners, shall superintend the register of that part. There is to be a general registry office in London, and a subordinate one in each county. In whatever house a birth or death may take place, the occupier is to give notice of such event, within eight days, to the registrar, (in whatever part of the union he may then be, we suppose,) and within twenty days the registrar is required to call at the house to obtain the name of the child, or of the person deceased, together with other particulars. With regard to the expense of working this bill, Lord John Russell stated that it would amount to about 80,000l. per annum; and that he should propose, that, for the present, a clause should be contained in the bill, empowering the Lords of the Treasury to pay the expenses; but that the future expenses be borne by the parishes in the country, according to the number of entries supplied by each.'

"So, then, the fees of the registrars, and other expenses, amounting to 80,000l. per annum, are to be paid out of the poor-rates.

"The chief provisions of the marriage bill are shortly these. The registrar appointed by the poor law commissioners, who may be the relieving officer, is to keep the account, not only of all the births and deaths, but of all marriages also intended to be contracted. After the names of the persons who intend to enter into the married state have been inscribed in his book, open to inspection, for twenty-one days, he is to grant a certificate, which will enable members of the church to be married, according to the existing rite, without banns, and dissenters to be married according to any rites, and by any minister they may choose, provided the ceremony takes place in a chapel licensed for the solemnization of dissenters' marriages, and in the presence of the registrar himself!

"Any chapel may be licensed for the solemnization of dissenters' marriages, if twenty householders apply in writing for such a licence. We need hardly observe, that great abuses must necessarily arise under this provision of the bill, unless it be most distinctly laid down, that no application for a licence shall be entertained, unless the subscribing householders be of undoubted respectability.

"Is there not the germ of a new grievance' in the circumstance of requiring the presence of the registrar at all marriages of dissenters, and not of members of the church of England? [Is this so? ED.]

"We hardly think, too, that clandestine marriages can be effectually prevented by Lord John's bill, as he himself explained its provisions. The register of intended marriages, necessarily kept some miles from the majority of persons interested, will, we think, hardly ever be consulted by any one, unless a parent's suspicions be roused. If, on the other hand, as intended, its contents be constantly submitted to the eye of a prying and meddlesome curiosity, the annoyance and irritation that will be caused by it will be excessive. The marriage by licence remains, except that notice is to be given to the registrar eight days instead of twenty-one.

"There is a plan, so comprehensive, and yet, to our ideas, so simple, that we wonder it has never been suggested. Licence, we should say, one building in every union-if we are all to be centralized in unions-in which any dissenters may be married by any licensed minister of their own persuasion, and according to the rites they prefer. It seems to us, that some arrangement of this kind would materially simplify the machinery of Lord John's bill, and at the same time render it better fitted for the objects he has in view. We are quite sure we shall have for it the votes of all the registrars-who are expected to possess, at least, the property of ubiquity, according to the ministerial scheme."

A very few words may be added.

Any registration scheme must be either very expensive, very tyrannical, or nugatory. There can be little doubt that this particular scheme will fall under the third head of description. When an union consists of thirty parishes, the notion that all the day-labourers in it will give notice of the births of their children to a person at so great. a distance as the registrar must be from many of the thirty, must be reckoned quite absurd by any one who knows their habits, unless a severe penalty is attached to the neglect, which would be a very great hardship. And if the union is a populous one, it is clear that the registrar's personal attendance at every house where a birth or death has taken place is quite out of the question. It will be very soon found that the registers thus kept will be good for nothing. Were the system likely to be more efficacious, it might be extremely mischievous in one respect,-for careless parents, if they had their children registered, would be still less careful to have them baptized, and the strongest protest must then be made against it; but it would not be ingenuous to make such a protest now, because it can hardly be a matter of doubt that the scheme will be found so contemptible on examination that even such a House of Commons as this will hardly pass it; or, if they do, so inefficient that, in the course of two or three years, there must be fresh legislation on the subject.

With respect to the Marriage Bill, there is nothing of which churchmen, as churchmen, can feel that they have any right to complain. Their religious service remains as it was, and its celebration is that which will still make marriage binding. The only difference is, that the clergyman before, having married the parties, registered what he had done and in future, the registrar appointed by Parliament will, at most, attend, and either register the clergyman's act, or attest his doing so. This is no matter of grievance, although it is useless and absurd. The getting rid of the publication of banns in service-time is a benefit, although the substitution of a written entry in a book is absurd. Still the Act might as well require, in addition, the publication of banns in the church, at the time prescribed by the rubric-viz., after service, and thus give churchmen that protection which the church is willing to give them. But though free from objections on any church ground, can any moral man look at this bill without deep feelings of alarm, and without seeing what a dreadful blow the dissenters are about to give to the morals of the country? Any twenty householders may have a marriage-house licensed. They need not be reputable persons, nor

need the minister. They may agree to undertake this as a joint speculation. There is, among the lower orders, a great desire always to be married where they are not known, and a private room will be the very place to suit the thoughtless and young. As it is, with the sanction of our solemn service, celebrated in public, and in the church -certainly the most solemn place which can be found there is quite little respect enough for the marriage tie. How will it be when a thoughtless couple may repair to a private room, with the parish officer, appear before a person entitled to no respect, and go through a form which commands none-go through the whole, in short, without reverence, or remembrance that they are making a most solemn vow, in the presence of the Almighty God? This is a subject on which it is fortunately not necessary to dwell. It is enough to point this out to every considerate and moral person, in order to induce him to express his opinion, and save the land, if possible, from this heavy infliction on her morals from the hands of the dissenters.

It may be well just to add that the Marriage Act of George II. was passed very much to remedy the intolerable evils suffered from secret and surreptitious marriages, at certain well-known resorts for marriage, the Fleet Prison, &c. This bill will certainly create fifty of these private marriage-houses for one. This is full of danger to property, and likely to lead to sad cases of misery, in secret and forbidden marriages, as well as to the evils which have already been pointed out. The parish officer's presence can be no safeguard what

ever.

THE TITHE BILL.

THE former Tithe Bills which have been brought forward have been discussed with no embarrassment or difficulty. The objections to them were clear, and there could be no doubt as to the duty of opposing them. The provisions of the present Bill, on the other hand, combined with the whole state of the subject, are embarrassing in the greatest degree. It is not that the writer has the slightest wish for any Tithe Bill, or any belief that, while things go on at all in this country, the present system is not the best. It is on the supposition that some measure will be past that he speaks, and must confess his embarrassment as to the present measure. Great objections to it are felt by very many persons;-first of all, on the score of the open violation of property, and that, sacred property. But, on the other hand, it is quite notorious that, with the full consent of all clergy who employ valuers, this sacred property is valued on principles quite different from any other property, or, in other words, clergy have for time immemorial consented to a regular robbery of the church (or, in fact, a complete alienation of part of its property,) exactly of the same kind, and probably to a greater amount, than this Bill contemplates, the only difference being, that the spoiler was then the occupier, and will now be the owner. This proceeding has been so general, and has continued so long, as to have established a rule which the clergy can never shake. In other words, they have lost a part of their property VOL. IX.-March, 1836.

2 U

which they cannot recover. When a practice has this prescriptive force, which makes it in fact a law, it seems idle to object to that being done openly which is tacitly done, and always will be, just as regularly as if a law for it were passed. Here then is one source of embarrassment in discussing this Bill. While the clergy, even if they gave their consent to it, would, in fact, not do one whit more than they do every year of their lives, and always will and must do,* yet is there not danger to society at large from this legalizing of spoliation? It is not in this way a church or clerical question especially, but one concerning the whole of our fabric of society.† The especial danger to the clergy arises from another source. Though they will not lose more under the Bill than they did before, the landlord will now get what they lose instead of the farmer. The landlords have a large share in legislation. If they have their appetite thus whetted by the taste of one slice of church property, will they not be likely to use their power in parliament to get more of what they will find so pleasant? The only guard against this is the remembrance that if, the clergy being without defence or advocates in parliament, the landlords do use their power for farther spoliation, their conduct will be not only so dangerous to the country, but so miserably and detestably base, mean, and shameful, that, even with all our present lax notions, they could never look an honest man in the face. The very persons who might profit by the theft would despise and reprobate the baseness of those who achieved it. It may be hoped, then, that, even in these days, this may be some safeguard. And if the Redemption Bill be passed, and even a portion of tithes be redeemed, there will be little danger of spoliation, even if better feelings should not prevent it. Let the landlords of England, however, look well to this, and see whether, even if they set better feelings aside, they will do well for themselves, in these days, to set an example of robbery by farther incursions on the property of the clergy, or by unfair use of their power in introducing unfavourable conditions into this Act. It is currently reported that one member of parliament is about to come forward and complain of the Bill as likely to double his tithe! What! if his paying sixty per cent. of the real value will double his tithe, will he really venture to come forward and say that he has only paid thirty per cent. of the real value of his tithe, and that, having cheated his clergyman to this fearful extent so long, he wishes to cheat him still longer? Is it possible that any man who has sixpence to

It will be said, that the clergyman may always take up his tithe. And this is true. But for what purpose do the clergy resort to this measure? Is it in order to induce the occupier to give them the real full value of his tithe? Certainly not, but to induce him to give the full value on the common scale. Doubtless there is here and there a single clergyman who goes farther. But we are speaking here of that general proceeding which establishes the rule.

It must be remembered, of course, that in getting a rent charge which will be paid without expense instead of tithe, the collection of which is very expensive, a deduction from the gross value must be made, and that such a deduction does not touch the question of property. The question here is, whether the deduction contemplated does not go beyond this. This, however, is a question for all. The consciences of the clergy, who have no share in making this Act, will not be burthened.