Church of Alexandria, or the Church of Rome, or the Church of England, but to a synod of the neighbouring bishops canonically convened. A synod of bishops, then,-not merely of the bishops of England, but any canonical assembly of orthodox bishops, is the proper authority for the appointment of a prelate to preside over those to whom none has hitherto been appointed.* "Where there is authority to appoint, there is duty to obey." And to an Ordinary, therefore, thus appointed, it becomes the duty of Episcopalians to give their allegiance. This is the answer to the great objection which Simplex makes at starting to the appointment of " a continental bishop." If the English Clergy resident in France are Episcopalians, they will act on the orthodox and Catholic principles which true Episcopalians have always maintained, and render their allegiance to Bishop Luscombe; if they are not Episcopalians,-why then no harm is done; they will, of course, withhold their allegiance, and things will remain, as far as they are concerned, as they were before; for I feel sure that Bishop Luscombe can have no wish to violate the rule of St. Jerome; "Episcopus præest volentibus, non nolentibus."

Simplex appears to me to be, throughout, entirely mistaken in supposing that the Scottish bishops presumed to send Bishop Luscombe to preside over any little sect of Englishmen on the continent; they, as Episcopalians, have sent him to superintend, not merely the English, but all those Episcopalian communions in France and the Netherlands, of whatsoever nation or language, who, although professing Episcopalian principles, have not any person among them, qualified to discharge the Episcopal functions. Already, a communion of French Protestants, whose minister has received Episcopal ordination, and who have adopted the authorized translation of our Liturgy, have tendered their allegiance to Bishop Luscombe, being actuated, not by sectarian, but by truly Catholic principles.

It is against the general principle upon which Simplex argues, which goes, in my opinion, to unchurch the English establishment, that I contend; I forbear, therefore, to descend to particulars and details. They were wise men and good who decided upon the mission of Bishop Luscombe, and they need not the advocacy of so humble an individual as myself. But, if need shall be, I think that Simplex will find that the Cyprianic mantle of Sage has not fallen upon unworthy shoulders; and that if a Jolly and a Low, a Sandford and a Gleig, have acted with decision and firmness, they can also defend their conduct with learning and talent.

I remain, Sir,
Your obedient humble servant,

W.F.H.

April 5th, 1826.

Simplex would imply, that some English bishop is the Ordinary of all the English abroad,—I wish to know by what ecclesiastical authority he has been appointed. He also quotes an act of the British parliament;-I wish to know whether the laws of England are binding on those who reside on the continent.

ON THE EXPEDIENCY OF HOLDING PUBLIC MEETINGS ON BEHALF OF CHURCH SOCIETIES.

To the Editor of the Christian Remembrancer.

SIR, --I beg leave to send you a few observations on "A Letter to the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, President of the Societies for Promoting Christian Knowledge, and for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, on the present State of those Societies, and on the Benefits which might accrue to them from holding Public Meetings in their behalf. By a Layman."

The Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, and that for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, have long existed in so intimate a connexion with the Church in which they originated, as to have acquired much of the same fixed and established character. With the advantages, they, however, also partake of the disadvantages to which all institutions, formed in times very different from our's, are subject, by the changes which have taken place in public opinion, and the general spirit of the age. New societies have arisen in our own days of a very different character in some respects, though professing to have similar objects in view. These modern associations have had the great advantage of being able to profit by the experience of those which preceded them, and of constituting themselves altogether in the manner most likely to further their views. We have now before us the results of their labours, and an opinion may be fairly formed as to the wisdom of the plans of their founders. That they have been successful in obtaining notoriety and subscriptions cannot be doubted, whatsoever opinion may be entertained as to the real good effected by them. The author of the letter imputes this success to the Public Meetings which are one characteristic of them—and urges the expediency, if not the necessity, of adopting a similar course with respect to the Societies for Promoting Christian Knowledge, and for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts.

"In them (i. e. public meetings) the preservation of the shipwrecked mariner; the instruction of the unenlightened heathen; the conversion of the Jews; the abolition of slavery; the advancement of education;— and many other objects, equally philanthropic, are discussed and advocated with zeal, if not always with discretion. Although some of the objects may not be pursued by the most legitimate courses; although, in these discussions, zeal may sometimes degenerate into intemperance, and fanaticism may be substituted for piety; yet still, my Lord, it is a cheering and heart-stirring sight, to behold a crowded and attentive meeting, listening to details which do not affect their worldly interests, and anxiously watching over the concerns of those with whom they. have no immediate connexion." Pp. 2, 3.

This is taking the most favourable view of the subject for his own cause, but not one calculated to give a correct idea of it in all its bearings. In the following passage, the advantages are more detailed.

"The advantages derived from public meetings, both to their respective objects and to the persons who attend them, are undoubtedly

great. Information respecting their proposed object is widely circulated, and that too, in a way which renders it much more attractive than when embodied in a report. There are many, induced perhaps by novelty, or some other trifling motive, to be present at these meetings, whose attention it would be difficult to attract by means of a formal statement; moreover, the account in the public journals of the proceedings, is read by multitudes to whom the cause would be otherwise wholly unknown. Nor is the knowledge only of the hearers increased; their affections are more easily excited by an oral address than by the best written report." p. 4.

Upon this the Layman proceeds to enlarge at some length, but finally sums up the advantages very briefly.

"The great advantages accruing to a cause, from periodical meetings, are, without doubt, the notoriety given to it, and the interest excited in its favour." p. 9.

This is followed by a statement of the want of notoriety and general interest in the two societies in question, and the remainder of the letter is employed in the attempt to enforce from these premises, a conclusion in favour of the adoption of public meetings by the societies, whose cause he advocates.

Such is the substance of the pamphlet, which has been given at once and in the words of the author, that its intrinsic worth may be better estimated. Upon some of the assertions and arguments contained in it, I will now make a few observations.

In the first place, I conceive that the success of the societies which have availed themselves of public meetings to the extent now common, is by no means to be ascribed in so great a degree to such meetings as the Layman would infer. Many other causes have contributed to their success in an equal and even a greater degree. The complicated machinery by which such effects have been produced, was not the result of a public meeting, nor have public meetings ever been the really effective force. They have had their use, but would have been a mere idle parade, had not the minds of the auditors been prepared beforehand, and the feelings, once excited, never been left to cool afterwards.

That information may be rapidly communicated, and with greater effect by public meetings, is in some cases true; but surely the Layman does not imagine that information is the great object of those who compose the bulk of such assemblies. The report is almost invariably made a mere plea for speechifying. The plain matter of fact is lost in the quantity of words to which it gives rise, and very rarely is any more definite idea conveyed than that something very great is to be effected by means of these societies, and that all present ought to contribute to the utmost of their power.

There are, no doubt, some advantages to be obtained from public meetings, which cannot be so fully secured in any other way; but the question is not to be decided in their favour with respect to the Societies for Promoting Christian Knowledge and for propagating the Gospel, so rapidly and on so partial a view as the Layman thinks sufficient. Meetings of this nature may be very well adapted for the attainment of the objects of those societies which have hitherto made

use of them, and may be peculiarly calculated to meet the views and feelings of those classes of persons inclined to support them, and yet would prove very awkward appendages to the elder societies, and be very little suited to the habits of regular churchmen. If it be said that the habits of the latter then must be changed, and the constitution of the societies altered so as to receive this addition, it may deserve serious consideration, whether the gain would be so great as to deserve the incurring the risk attendant on such a change. It is easy to draw a pleasing picture of our prelates presiding, and our ablest divines assisting at such meetings;-nor am I insensible to the decided superiority public meetings, well regulated under such circumstances, would have over those which now occupy attention; but if the object be to gain popular feeling, the Established Church can never stand in such assemblies on equally advantageous ground with those now existing ; and, I apprehend, failure in this respect would be far more prejudicial than any evils at present experienced. Learning, moderation, and sober piety are not the things calculated to make such mectings attractive to the many. There is a kind of decent and becoming restraint in the Church, owing to the very nature of its constitution, which would effectually check those bursts of enthusiasm which contribute principally to the success of public meetings. If meetings of this kind were now adopted by the societies in question, it must be evident, from their close connexion with the highest authorities in the Church, that they must be modified in some measure, so as to suit its general character. As the matter now stands, it appears in the power of the bishops and leading men in the various dioceses, to give that additional degree of publicity which local circumstances may render necessary; but if it be made an essential characteristic of the societies that such meetings must be held, it will be found, perhaps, neither so easy nor so advantageous as the author of the Letter imagines.

With regard to the great advantages "notoriety” and “interest," I am persuaded they can be obtained to a sufficient degree by the exertions of the Clergy in their respective parishes; and without their exertions, even the author of the Letter admits that public meetings will be in vain.

"But while I urge the necessity of holding public meetings, that the Societies for Promoting Christian Knowledge, and for the Propagation of the Gospel, may be fully understood, and properly supported by the members of the Established Church, I must not omit to mention that which alone can render such meetings effectual, the exertions of the parochial Clergy."-p. 19. "I repeat that it is only by the personal exertions of the Clergy that the people can be effectually roused." p. 21.

But if this be true, would it not be the safer course, to try fully in the first instance what can be effected by the personal exertions and influence of the Clergy, before we resort to a plan which has certain evils, but uncertain advantages?

April, 1826.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

A. B.

TITHE OF MILLS.

A CORRESPONDENT, signing himself a Norfolk Clergyman, has sent us a copy of the judgment of the Court of Exchequer, in a cause which the Rev. Dr. Browne, of Gorleston, in the county of Suffolk, and diocese of Norwich, instituted for the Tithe of Mills, and wishes us to give an opinion whether it be adviseable to make an attempt to set aside the judgment of the Court of Exchequer, by appealing to the House of Lords.

We insert the judgment, and presume to offer some remarks upon it.

Tuesday, 7th February, 1826.

(BROWNE, D. D. v. WOOLLSEY AND OTHERS.)

Lord Chief Baron.-"The bill is brought against the several defendants, for an account of the tithes of mills in their several occupations. Not any of the mills are ancient. All the defendants say that they do not grind for hire in the usual way, but that they are Corn and Grain Merchants; that they buy the corn and grain, grind it, and then sell the flour in its manufactured state; and they insist that for this operation no tithe is payable.

"There have been many cases respecting the tithes of mills. It seems now settled that they are personal tithes; but that for one purpose they are prædial. They belong to the incumbent of the parish where the mill is situated--so far they are prædial. They are payable only at Easter; and the clear gains alone are titheable after deducting all expences-so far they are personal.

"The general question here is, whether tithes should be rendered where a mill is not as hitherto it has usually been, by itself a substantive undertaking, where the sole profit is derived from the act of grinding, but where it is employed as part of a trade or commerce; I am of opinion, and I speak my own sentiments only, that under these circumstances no tithe is to be paid in respect of the employment of this engine in the trade.

"It is quite clear that the incumbent is not entitled to participate, in any shape, in the profits of a trade or manufacture. It is equally clear, on the other side, that, if the mill is employed in the usual way, and the miller is paid for the grist or mulcture, the incumbent is entitled to an aliquot part of what he receives, after deducting the expences. It has appeared to me that what I have had to consider in this case is, under which of these descriptions this case is to be classed. I think that it is under the first-It is a trade.

"It appears to me to be decisive against tithes being due, that there is no possible medium by which it can be ascertained how much is due upon the common principles of tithe. The occupier buys the grain and he sells the flour; how much profit or how much loss remains to him upon the whole is what he only knows. In one transaction there may be some loss, and in the next a great gain on the whole there may be a profit; or there may be, upon the whole, a loss. This arises from the change in the market-price of the commodity. Suppose that upon one purchase he loses-Is any tithe to be paid in that case? Suppose that upon the next he derive a double profit-Is double tithe to be paid for it? When he loses, it is clear that he receives nothing for grinding. When he gains, who can say how much is to be considered as received for the grist?

"I beg that it may be always remembered, that tithe, in its nature, is an aliquot part of some increase or profit received-a part of the thing itself. I must admit that an occupation-rent might be set on the mill, and a proportion of that rent might be paid to the incumbent; but then I say that tithe is, in its nature, an aliquot part of an actual increase, or actual profit. Now, supposing that there were an occupation-rent set on a mill, the party paying a proportion of that rent would be paying an assessment in lieu of tithe-not tithe-not an aliquot part of any increase or profit obtained for grinding.