nent ability and learning-but it were gross flattery, if I said that more than a tithe of the profession know much about the subject of "Tithes," or that more than one-tenth of that tithing are men of distinguished talent and acquirements.

My Lord, not only do I respect the Bar; but, if I were susceptible of such a feeling, I should even envy the gentlemen who are called to it-for whilst every unfortunate Clergyman is exposed to a valorous attack from men, who can shrewdly distinguish when they are in personal jeopardy, and when they are safe, forbearance, and a due share of consideration are exercised towards a Lawyer. If a body of Clergy united in presenting the expression of their sentiments, they would probably be met with only a Kingly-I do not mean to say, a royal, or even a good or a witty jest whilst, on the other hand, a similar proceeding, on the part of the "Bar," would be regarded as a judgment pronounced-nay, even "learned" gentlemen in pin-afores may sometimes forsake their nursery pursuits, erect themselves into a little thinking community, and be received with all the deference and respect, which once belonged to the Senators of Rome.

But, my Lord, I have no complaint to make against the Commissioners for having taken the opinions of all the members of their own profession, upon the subject of Ecclesiastical prescriptions. Nothing was more natural, than that Lawyers should take the opinions of their brethren of the law-nothing was more natural than that those, who had little employment in their own line, should be lengthy, and wish

to appear learned in making out their Returns; and, perhaps, nothing is more desirable for the community at large to know than that there exists, at this day, in Newcastle, a whole sheaf of "northern lights," which promises to coruscate to the illumination and astonishment of a benighted world. But what I have to complain of is-that answers were not also required from the Clergy-that, whilst the opinions of the Bishops were taken, Incumbents, who have greater personal experience, and whose interests are as deeply involved, have not been deemed capable of answering a few simple questions, or worthy of any consideration if their opinions were obtained-and, therefore, I feel myself perfectly entitled to take the only course, which remains open to me, of examining into the soundness of those "Answers," on which the Report of the Commissioners, and, consequently, the present Bill are founded.

In my Letter to EARL GREY, the question of prescription, in matters affecting Church property, came as it were only incidentally in my way, and therefore received very little of my attention. I will now, however, enter more fully into it-in the hope that, if I fail to bring forward considerations sufficient to induce your Lordship to admit very material alterations in the proposed Bill, if not to withdraw, for the present, that portion of it which affects the property of the Church, I may at least succeed in drawing out such preponderating arguments on the other side as ought to convince me, and every one of equally limited information, that it is the best devised, as it now stands, for the good of the Church-if it does not

even go further, and confer a benefit upon us, at a probable sacrifice on the part of the proprietor.

As the Bill does not suggest any particular arrangement of my remarks, I propose to adopt that which the "Answers" of the Lawyers, and the arguments employed in support of the measure seem to point out. But I must be excused from paying any regard to the laws of the Romans respecting prescriptions, in this our year 1831-or to the "Landrechts" of Prussia, the Netherlands, and Bavaria-the "Siete Partidas" of Spain-or the "Gesetzbuch” of Austriathose appalling Authorities of Mr. Cooper, or to the Code Napoleon of Mr. Butler. And my reason, my Lord, is simply this-that all these Collections or Digests of Laws originated in communities in every way differing from ours-some of them belonged to States of too ancient periods, and perpetually introducing changes in their Constitutions-some to kingdoms too dark, in themselves, to afford any other light than perhaps now and then a moral lesson to Englandand with respect to the Code Napoleon, it might have occurred to Mr. Butler that, under all the circumstances of the case, there could have been no earthly use in fixing upon a longer period than thirty years; for, within that space of time, every thing had been overturned by the Revolution-and owing to the new mode of paying the Clergy, and maintaining public Institutions, it would have been of very little conse quence if the period of limitations had been still further shortened. With the exceptions of Mr. Barnes, Mr. Addison, and Mr. Jones, all those, who have either made written communications, or been ex

amined before the Commissioners, appear to be of one way of thinking on the subject-they differ, however, materially as to the length of the period, and many of them give no reason whatever for the opi nions they have formed.

As far as I am able to collect from the answers obtained, it appears to me that the reasons alleged for the proposed change may be reduced under the two following Heads :

1. A Limitation of the Claims of the Church to sixty years would be attended with much advantage to the Proprietors of lands-for, as the Law now is, a doubt often exists as to the validity of a modus, which produces a feeling of insecurity in the mind of the Landowner, and, by affecting the Title, tends to impede the transfer of Estates by sale-and the maxim, nullum tempus occurrit Ecclesiæ, is iniquitous in principle; because the Title of the Church is every day improving, whilst that of the protection from the payment of tithes is getting worse-and

2. The proposed change will really benefit the Church-for it will prevent litigation, and by necessary consequence save many a poor Clergyman from involving himself in ruinous expense, and remove the existing cause of the unpopularity of the Church, and of dissent from her communion-and the contemplated change will tend to preserve to the Clergy "the property which now remains to them."

My Lord, these are tempting considerations-they promise a great, a very great deal. But as we live in plausibly promising times, when promises are kept to the ear, your Lordship will forgive me, if I take the

liberty of examining a little into the probability there is that they will, in fact, be realized.

1. A Limitation of the Claims of the Church would be attended with much advantage to the Proprietors of lands.

This, my Lord, is a most undoubted truth; and, as the greater part of those who have returned answers are themselves Landowners, and the others Law-agents of Proprietors, the proposal comes from them in a peculiarly modest and disinterested shape. It would be greatly to the advantage of owners of estates, if a portion of Church property were conveyed to them-for, however disguised it may be, this is really the substance of the proposal—and if an inclined plane were devised, by which other portions might slide away in the same direction. I trust, I need not say that I consider your Lordship as the last man, who would sanction any measure likely to be attended with such effects. I regard the proposed Bill as the natural consequence of the number, if not the weight of authorities, by which it is recommended; and I beg, once for all, that I may be understood as opposing them, and not your Lordship.

But the present state of the law of Tithes is said to produce a feeling of insecurity in the mind of the landowner, and to impede the transfer of estates by sale. My Lord, I am strangely tempted to put in a demurrer here; but as this reason for the limitation implies a fact, which must be better known to Lawyers than to me, I will pay the same deference to their statements respecting it, which I intend to claim from them in return, when I come to speak of other facts,