If the Irish Church has failed, as the preceding facts abundantly evince, and as is admitted by Sir Robert Peel-failed from no want of pecuniary aid—from no want of temporal power -where, let us ask, shall we find the remedies which the true and judicious friends of the Church most ardently desire? We answer, the remedies must consist in carefully removing the anomalies and deformities of the present system, and bringing the whole establishment into stricter conformity with the existing state of the Episcopalian Protestant population.

If Ireland were a country with which a legislature was enabled to deal without reference to existing ecclesiastical institutions-if it were now intended for the first time to combine the scattered Episcopalian Protestants of that country into an Established Churchto endow this Church, to appoint clergymen, and to divide the land into districts or benefices, in each of which the appointed clergyman should perform divine service, and devote himself to the religious instruction of the people under his peculiar care—what, let us ask, would be the principle on which, in distributing the means of religious instruction, the Legislature should be guided? The first point to be determined would be-what number of clergymen and of places of worship would be sufficient. If the population were every where of almost equal density, these points might be determined with comparative ease. In apportioning clergymen to population, the example of this country might be rendered available; and if it appeared that in numerous instances, with a population of similar density, one clergyman had satisfactorily, and worthily, and without difficulty, performed his duties as a parish priest, to a certain number of parishioners of his own persuasion, this number might safely be accepted as a standard. Again, places of worship might in such cases be equally distributed throughout the country, with only this limit to the restriction of number, that there should be a sufficiency to admit of such proximity to the abode of every member of the church, as might enable each, without great difficulty, to attend divine service. But where, as in Ireland, the Episcopalian Protestant population is of a very unequal density -where, comparing diocese with diocese, it varies from twenty-six per cent to less than one per cent of the total population—where it varies from 220 to 1000 acres, as in Clogher, to scarcely more than eight to 1000 acres, as in the diocese of Tuam ;—when we find it here closely congregated in large towns, there thinly scattered over large rural districts-where, in an extent of many square miles, no Protestant can be found;-to a country so circumstanced a different rule must be applied and though we may avail ourselves as before of a standard drawn from some one degree of density, and adopt it as a pivot for our e

yet in such calculation new elements must be applied. The dates of a clergyman, and the sphere of his exertions, are limited both by the number of persons under his care, and the extent of surface which his benefice comprises. In the performance of his duties as a parochial clergyman, he ought to visit every house, and to be acquainted with every person to attend the sick-to comfort the affected-to admonish the erring-and to carry religious consolation and advice to the abode of all who need it. The locality and degree of dispersion of his flock are therefore elements which materially affect this important branch of his duties. The labour of thus attending to 100 persons dispersed over an extent of tea square miles, would probably be as great as that of bestowing equal care on 1000 persons collected within the space of one. The labours of the clergyman must therefore be estimated by a compound ratio of numbers and area, varying inversely; or, in other words, as in the preceding hypothetical case, the sum of the numbers multiplied together will afford an approximation to a comparative view of the weight of duties in each benefice. In towns where almost an uniform density prevails, such calculation need not be applied; but it would be difficult to apportion justly amongst the unequally distributed population of the rural districts, without adopting some such mode of calculation, or without at least keeping in view the principle on which it is founded. But we are not advocating a division founded solely on a rigid adherence to a numerical standard. Other circumstances must be considered. Area is made an element of our calculation, because distance increases the labours of the clergyman. We must therefore not overlook such local circumstances as tend still further to increase his labours. Hills, morasses, unfordable rivers, few, bad, and circui tous roads; whatever, in short, makes communication difficult between him and his parishioners, must be also taken into the account. But these circumstances cannot be so expressed in figures as to be rendered elements of numerical calculation. The numerical standard should therefore be taken merely as the basis of an arrangement which must be modified discretionally, in compliance with such local peculiarities as a survey of the country may have brought to light.

If there were no existing places of worship, and it were to be determined in what number, and of what dimensions they should be built, we would say let each be placed as nearly as pos sible in the centre of its respective benefice. Let the form of that benefice approach to the square or circular, rather than to the oblong; and, if possible, let the distance of any member of the Established Church, from his place of worship, not exceed five miles. As for the capacity of the church, it must of course have

reference to the number of the congregation that can be expected to attend.

We have slightly sketched a plan for the division of Ireland into benefices,—a plan which may be supposed applicable to that country, if no division already existed. Is it practicable-is it permissible to apply this principle to the present circumstances of Ireland-to the reconstruction, where expedient, of that ecclesiastical division which already exists? That it is difficult cannot be doubted, but we can conceive no reason to deny that it is practicable. That it is permissible will, we doubt not, be admitted even by the conservative opponents of the appropriation of Church property to secular purposes. We have no doubt of their assent; for we are armed with a precedent which they are not likely to reject. We will first venture to assume that the limits of a benefice are not less tangible than those of a diocese; and having made this assumption, we will substitute benefice' for 'dio'cese,' and offer our recommendation in language which we trust is neither spoliatory nor irreligious-in the words of the first Report of the English Church Commission. In the words of that Report (with the exception above mentioned) we say, 'although various circumstances render it impossible to establish a perfect equality of benefices, we are of opinion that the disparity 'which now exists between them will admit of considerable di'minution.'

'The extent of the duties of a parochial minister, while it increases in some degree with the population, is also materially 'affected by the number and distance of parishes within each benefice. It is not, therefore, to population alone that we deem 'it right to look on the present occasion. Attention must like'wise be paid to other local circumstances.'

'We are not prepared to recommend any increase in the total 'number of benefices; but we are of opinion, that, by the union ' of certain existing benefices, of which the combined duties will 'not be too onerous for a single clergyman; and by the transfer, in some cases, of a district from one benefice to another, an arrangement may be made for the general performance of the 'duties of a parochial minister more satisfactory than that which 'at present subsists.'

Thus, with the substitution above mentioned, speaks a Report, to which are appended the signatures of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Bishops of London, Lincoln, and Glo cester, Lord Harrowby, Lord Lyndhurst, and Sir Robert Peel. It then proceeds to recommend in detail the alteration of th territorial limits of every diocese in England, except three, an the erection of two new sees. Nor do its innov 's end here It proceeds to extend alterations to minor eccl

VOL. LXI. NO. CXXIV.

21

"visions

The adoption of the plan now suggested,' says the Report, will involve the necessity of changing the limits of some archdeaconries and rural deaneries. And we farther think that it will be highly expedient to place every parish within a deanery, and every deanery within an archdeaconry, and that no archdeaconry ⚫ should extend into more than one diocese.'

• And we farther propose, that all parishes not specified in this one report, which are locally situate in one diocese, but under the jurisdiction of the bishop of another diocese, shall become subject to the jurisdiction of the bishop of the diocese within which they are locally situate.' If the limits and jurisdiction of bishoprics, archdeaconries, and rural deaneries may be thus dealt with in England, we can conceive no reason why, just cause being shown, alteration may not be extensively applied to the provinces, deaneries, and benefices of Ireland; bearing in view, as is contemplated by the English Church Commission, due attention to the existing rights of the present incumbents.

Whilst the recommendations of the English Church Commissioners afford a sanction to a redistribution of the benefices in Ireland, a measure which is now law, proposed and ably advocated by Lord Stanley, affords a precedent for reducing within corresponding limits the numbers of the clergy. We can see nothing sacrilegious in extending the provisions of the Church Temporalities' Act to a prospective reduction of the parochial clergy; or to a further reduction of the number of its bishops, and the numerous dignitaries and prebendaries of the establish ment. We can see nothing sacrilegious in extending the powers of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners appointed by that Bill, and causing them to act as trustees for the whole of the Church property in Ireland; issuing out of the fund thus created to every ecclesiastical person the full amount of the sums which they are now entitled to receive during the term of their natural lives.

We have stated the principle, on which it appears that a new division of Ireland into benefices might advantageously be made. We would say, let the requisite surveys be undertaken, and let the proposed limits be laid down and made known; and let all objections from such members of the Established Church as may be respectively affected by each change, be heard and considered: but let not the proposed division come into operation during the lives of present incumbents; unless the resident incumbents, the limits of whose benefices would be affected by such new distribution, give thereto their free consent. Moreover, in applying this principle to our existing system, let not change be made unnecessarily; and where the extent, form, and population of an existing bene fice approach tolerably near to the proposed standard of redistribu on, let small deviations be disregarded, and let the ancient limits

remain untouched. Upon the death of the present incumbent of any benefice, of which the limits cannot be altered during the lives or non-consent of the incumbents of other adjoining benefices, let a clergyman be provisionally appointed to perform the duties according to its existing state; and if it is a benefice in which, during the preceding year, divine service had not been publicly performed, and no clergyman had resided, let the commissioners be empowered to suspend the appointment altogether; providing at the same time that parochial duties shall be performed for a small stipend by the clergyman of an adjoining benefice. Let the Commissioners also be empowered and required, previous to a redivision of benefices, to extinguish all private rights of presentation by buying up the advowsons; after which, and the repair of churches, and a sufficient provision for the Established Clergy, and all needful ecclesiastical purposes, let the surplus be applied to those beneficial objects which have been sanctioned by a resolution of the

House of Commons.

It will be asked, we doubt not, how will you decide that difficult question, What is a sufficient provision for a parochial ' clergyman of the Established Church ?' We appeal to the clergy themselves. We ask the non-resident incumbent who lives in England, with the ocean between him and his benefice which he never sees, what he considers a sufficient provision for the resident curate, by whom the duties of that benefice are exclusively performed. We ask him not for an abstract opinion upon remunerations in general, but for the sum which he has practically shown he considers sufficient to obtain the adequate performance of religious duties; and we are content that the provision to be awarded under a reformed system shall never fall below that sum; and shall, in many instances, greatly exceed

it.

It is a favourite argument with those who contend that the revenues of the Irish Church are not excessive, to divide the amount by the number of the clergy, to exhibit the moderate income it affords to each, and then ask- Where is the excess? What is the whole among so many?' We ask, in rejoinder, Why so many? Few, we think, will now maintain, that it is essential for the religious welfare of Ireland that the Established Church of that country should exhibit in long array 2 archbishops, 10 bishops, 139 dignitaries, 187 prebendaries and canons; or that there should be 1333 parochial incumbents of benefices, and 752 curates.

The real ground of objection is not so much that the revenues are excessive in proportion to the present number clergy, as that the clergy are more numerous than, awith the existing provision for religious instruction