be checked only by a vigilant clergy in the church, and, to be vigilant, they must reside.

The objection urged to this bill, that it was unconstitutional, as it would place the property of one man at the disposal of avo-. ther, appears to me to have arisen from an erroneous idea of the nature of that property which consists of church benefices. The living of a clergyman seems to have been regarded as his private property; but, that it cannot be so, in the usual meaning of those words, must, I think, appear evident to every one, who, for a moment, looks back to the origin of that. property. A church. was built by some proprietor of the land, and the tithes of a certain district round the church were left by that proprietor to the clergyman who should perform divine. service there. This, generally speaking, was the way in which parishes were formed; thus was this sort of property created; and, though the laws regulating its distribution have undergone great alterations, the nature of the property itself can never be changed. We do, indeed, call a living private property, and this appellation is countenanced by the fact of its being a freehold, and conferring the right of voting at elections for members of parliament; but, if we take but a moment to reflect, we always find the living inseparable from the clerical duties of the possessor of the living; that the possession is a conditional one; that the thing possessed cannot be, positively, either sold, or let, or lent, not even for the life of the possessor, no, nor for a single month. The condition, upon which a clergyman receives his living is, that he shall perform the duties attached to it, according to the ones of the church and the laws of the county; and, as by a disobedience of Lose ordinances and laws, he may forfeit the living altogether, it follows, of course, that a part of the income of, that living may be justly applied to the causing of those duties to be performed, which he either does not or cannot perform himself, and for the performance of which, and that only, the living was given him.To the same error as to the origin of church property. is to be attributed much of the clamour against tithes. The possessors of the land, and more especially the immediate possessors, always speak of the tithe as of something which is theirs, and which the law unjustly takes from them to give to another person. But, by looking back to the origin of this sort of property, they would soon perceive that it is not theirs; that the tithe is a charge entailed upon their land; that they purchased or rented the land with a full knowledge of the existence of such charge; and that, therefore, to withhold any

In

part of that tithe from the clergyman is an act of fraud. They would further perceive (and I heartily wish every poor man in England could be made to perceive it), that they, the possessors and cultivators of the land, are by no means to be regarded as persons who pay the clergy; as persons who maintain the clergy; as persons to whom the clergy are under obligations. They would perceive, that what they render to the clergy. they have no right, either legal or moral, to withhold; that they confer it favour; that they give no gift; that the gift comes from those who founded the church and settled" the perpetual charge upon the land; and, at this stage of the inquiry both those who' grudge the tithes and those who regard livings as private property would perceive, that the gift was not only for the maintenance of the clergyman, but also for the support of religion, and this, not only for the sake of the owners and the renters, but also for the sake of the tillers of the land. short, they would perceive, that the living of each parish, is a pious bequest from some one or more of our ancestors to all the people, but particularly to the poor, of that parish; which living is to be so disposed of and conferred as to insure to the people the due performance of religious duties in their church and parish.This, though a mere glance at the subject, must, I should ima- ' gine, produce in the reader's mind such a train of reflection as will make him reject the principle, upon which chiefly the bill has been opposed. It must, however, be confessed, that there is a palpable inconsis-> tency in passing a law like this; a law to produce residence; while the practice of bestowing pluralities is every day becoming, in all the channels of preferment, more and core prevalent. We have seen above, whence church property arose, what is its nature, and what is its object; and, can we, then, behold the number of pluralities that exist, can we observe who the pluralists but too frequently are, without being amazed, almost stunned, at the sound of a law for the purpose of inducing to residence?It has been said, out of doors, at least, that the consequence of the beneficed clergy will be diminished by this law, while the increase to the stipends of the curates will not raise' them high enough in society to give them any consequence at all; so that, upon the whole, the clergy will loose consequence. If I thought so, I should disapprove of the bill. But, people very often lose their breath in dispute, for want of settling the meaning of the terms upon which they are disputing. What is meant by the consequence of the clergy? Is it their consequence in the pul

pit, or in a ball room? It is certain; that misery, such as some curates are left in, is calculated to bring the clerical character into contempt; but, I can see no advantage t that religion is to derive from that sort of consequence, which is to be produced by the incumbent's being enabled to spend a great deal of money, and that, too, observe, away from his living; while, on the other hand, I can conceive, that an addition to the curates' stipend will very usefully add to his consequence in the eyes of the people, amongst whom he is to officiate. But, I really am afraid, that this is not the species of consequence that is contemplated. There seems to be something beyond this. Something very like a wish to spend up to the tune of the 'squire, at least; and, if so, the case is desperate; for, the clergy never havé been, they never will be, and they never ought to be, able so to spend. This is, be sides, quite a new way of acquiring clerical consequence, which was formerly sought for rather by the road of humility, abstinence, and mortification. Without, however, entertaining any wish to drive the clergy back to primitive manners, while their flock, or rather their herd, are wallowing in the luxury of the day, I may venture to assert, that the only useful consequence for the clergy to maintain, or acquire, is to be maintained or acquired, by means very little connected with the possession of large incomes. They will easily perceive the means I allude to you; but, alas! it is so much pleasanter to acquire consequence by riding a fine horse, by lolling in a coach, by strutting at a ball, by melting away at a music meeting, by eating fricandoes, and by drinking of claret, that it would be presumption in the extreme to hope that my hint would not be treated with disdain.-There is one point more, on which it may not be unnecessary to say a word or two. The bill closes with declaring null and void all private agreemcuts made in fraud of the bill. But, it appears to me, that nothing will ever effectually prevent such agreements, short of insisting upon a record, kept in some office to which the Bishop has easy access, of all contracts between incumbents and

curates.

INDIA- The recent dispatches from India, like all the other sets of dispatches from that quarter, make us regret, that our warriors there have not at their elbow wives like good Mrs. Baxter, who, as Swift tells us, often used to say to her husband: **Write less, my dear, and more to the ve purpose. The gentlemen, of whom I am venturing to speak, are, it must be alowed, unmercifully voluminous. What

they may be with the sword, I know not but, when they once draw the pen, the c is past praying for. Then, again, they have a way of ringing changes upon their accounts of the same event. If there are five of them who have had something to do in the same battle, every one of them writes a long letter upon the subject, taking care so to vary the dis position of the parts, the manner, and the fanguage, to say nothing about the facts, that any person, unacquainted with the circumstance, would suppose, that five battles frad been won, and, of course, that each of these chief had been a victorious commander. To this cause, in part, it is, that the dispatches from India amount annually to three or four follo volumes, close print. We see them, till we are sick of the sight. The words " INDI "HOUSE," at the top of a newspaper column drives the eye across the page firin instant. Notwithstanding we had, but about two months before, seen a whole folio laid upon the table of the House of Com mons, we were, about a fortnight agó, treated with half another folio through the columns of the newspapers. From this last set we learn, that there has been more wars with the natives of the country; more towns taken, more provinces over run, and, doubtless, more plunder amassed. When! read of these exploits, my mind is always drawn off from the scene, by the reflection, that every battle won in India is a victory over the rights and liberties of Englishmen. How many hamlets, how many villages in England, smart, and how many more will yet smart, under the oppression of the op pressors of India!The late proceedings, indeed the proceedings for many years back, have lately found an advocate in a person, whose name had not been pronounced in the political world, for several years past. Lord Wellesley will, doubtless, be delighted to hear, that the late Mr. David Scott, who, has been dead, as a Director, since the year 1799, is suddenly come to life again, and has taken up the cudgels in his lordship's defence. Or, perhaps, he was, like Falstaff, only down and out of breath. The tre meaning of his present resurrection, in the form of a pamphlet, appears to be to identity

or to assimilate himself and his associates with Lord Wellesley, and to make a mirty maxty of Scott, Melville, and Wellesley, that they may all pass for birds of feather, under the old, original firm of the house of David Scott and Company. When ever Mr. Francis shall publish his tate speech, as I trust he will do, we shall see whether Mr. David Scott, who says he did not hear it, has answered it or not. If has, it must appear little less thair t Thiftact

lous; considering that he was very sick and did not attend, and that his answer, or, as he calls it, his observations on the subject of the debate, is dated the next morning.

shall reserve his political opinions concerning the late transactions in India for a future discussion; observing only that, if it be true, as he affirms and laments, that the principles, which have regulated the conduct of the British Indian Government "for the last seven years, are formally impeached, such impeachment must be founded on the declared sense of the Legislature. The question is, whether schemes of conquest and extension of dominion be or be not repugnant to the wish, the honour, and the policy of this nation. The Legislature affirms., David Scott denies. The authorities are balanced. The parties are at issue. As to the allegation or admission stated in a pamphlet, attributed to Mr. Francis," that the whole peninsula of India is now, in effect, laid under contribution to the power of Great Britain," &c. the inference drawn from the fact is fair and obvious, to wit, that in a country, where an enemy in arms is not to be found (for no man ever thought of Holkar as a formidable power), the plea of unexpected wars could no longer be set up for absorbing the immense revenues, which ought now to be at our disposal. But as to the justice, or even the sound policy of those measures, by which we have possessed ourselves of the whole peninsula, or the means, by which that possession is to be maintained, the bare allegation of the fact proves nothing; much less does it prove that applause is due to the counsels and conduct of those, to whom such events are to be attributed. All we yet know of the effects of these measures is the devastation of India, a perpetual drain on England both of men and money, and the hitter ruin of the East-India Company on one side, with the jealousy and hatred of all Europe on the other. On the financial part of the subject, the next India Budget will help to explain those ominous words of Lord Castlereagh, the heavy pressure of the Mahrotte war, which, he says, was felt long before the war began. We shall then see what proportion the revenue bears not only to the debt, but, what is much more material, to the expenses. An estate, that bearly pays Its charges, will never pay its debts; or, if, after providing for charges and debts, it does not leave a surplus of profit to the proprietor, what is the advantage of holding such a possession? and much more, if the proprietor is perpetually called upon for supplies to that estate, from his other funds or revenues, The last observation I shall

. £794 make on Mr. David Scott, is, that he does not state the Company's debt correctly.He says, that in 1793, it amounted to 9,084,5501. The act of 1793, states it to be 7,000,0001, precisely. By this stratagem he makes the accumulation of debt, in the ensuing ten years, less by 2,000,000l. than it actually was. He then says that, in 1804, it amounted to 19,869,2231. but that was the amount at which it stood on the first of April, 1803: What it amounted to in April 1804, neither he nor I know; but here the confusion of dates is palpable, and, whether intended or not, must have the effect of misleading the public.-But, I do not know why we should trouble ourselves about Mr. David Scott or Lord Castlereagh or the East-India Company. Nothing that we can say, or do, will retard, by the space of one hour, that explosion which awaits the whole of the East-India concern. Every part of the vast scheme of Messrs. Pitt and Dundas seems to have attained the point of its duration. Whichever way you look, you behold symptoms of approaching ruin. The whole seems to have been calculated to last twenty years, and no longer as if they had said to one another, that, if they could but bear it out for that length of time, they would jump the life to come.

-As connected with the administration of Indian affairs, upon which score so much blame is imputed to Lord Melville, it is but fair to notice whatever is said in his favour. Amongst the various testimonials, which have been presented to the House of Commons in behalf of his lordship, there is one, of which he does not seem to be quite so proud as he ought to be; or, at least, his friends have hitherto made no use of it. In point of competence, the evidence I alJude to is unexceptionable. It comes from a person united to the noble lord by many sympathies; and certainly, from a perfect judge of the genuine merits of his character. It would be a pity that such a document should be lost in the mass of papers, perpetually printed for the use of the House of Commons, and never read by any body; and it seems to devolve on me, to rescue from oblivion the panegyric written by such a man as Sir Home Popham, on such a man as Lord Melville. This officer in defending his character as to charges for repairs of his ships produces, in favour of it, many authorities. Among the rest, he lays before the House of Commons a voluminous correspondence between himself and Lord Wellesley, of forty folio pages in small print, giving an account, very much in point, of his embassy to the Red Sea, and of his negotiations there, which no mortal in England ever heard of