In process of time also, divisions unhappily arose among the brethren of Christians; they separated themselves off into separate sects, and each sect had its own body of Priests, and each body of Priests called themselves the Church. Europe, however, long remained under the sway, as regarded religion, of what is now termed the Papal Priesthood. This Priesthood was maintained partly by the nation, and partly by estates which the nation allowed the Priesthood to hold after the fashion of a corporation.

When that division took place which is called the Reformation, multitudes of sects arose; and, as before, every sect had its own Priesthood, and these different Priesthoods arrogated to themselves the title of Church. In different countries the State or Government favoured different sects, and generally the manner in which they evinced their favour was, by declaring the peculiar tenets of the favoured sect to be the true tenets, and by paying the Priesthood of that sect. Thus, in England, HENRY VIII. threw off the Papal dominion, and established a set of tenets which he declared to be true, and ordered all his subjects, upon pain of death for disobedience, to believe these said tenets. A Priesthood was quickly found for a religion with a King at its head; and, after sundry revolutions, finally, in the reign of ELIZABETH, the Reformed Anglican Religion was established in England. The people of this faith constitute, strictly speaking, the Church of England; and the tenets of these people are maintained by the governing body of the country, by the State; and as the Priesthood are paid by the same, this Church is called the State Church of England. But as the Priesthood of this Church, like that of all others, have arrogated to themselves the title and denomination of Church, the State Church of Eng. land in ordinary, but incorrect language,

signifies the Priesthood of the Church whose tenets are maintained, and Priesthood paid by the State-the word State here not signifying the whole body of the People, but simply the governing

power.

We may now arrive at a correct understanding of what is really intended by the many expressions now so freely used respecting the danger of the Church. It is quite evident that thereby it cannot be intended that the great body of the People of England who are of the faith which distinguishes this Church, are really in any temporal danger. But it must mean one or both of two things. It must mean, either that tenets which distinguish this Church are likely to be no longer held by the People, or that the Priesthood are likely to be no longer paid by the State. Now, without any very great violence upon any man's belief, I think we may all conclude that the cry of "the Church is in danger" is raised by those who dread the loss of pay, and not by those who fear a change of tenets. And I am the more inclined to believe that such is really the sort of thing dreaded, because the dread is a very reasonable one. There is much danger that the payment of the Priesthood by the State will actually cease; every reasonable man must acknowledge this. But, on the other hand, no man in his senses, or not blinded by passion and interest, can believe that the tenets of the People are in any danger. We do not find that the tenets of the Dissenters are less firmly held because their religious teachers are not paid by the State; neither is there any fear entertained by any one that the Catholics of Ireland are likely suddenly to be deprived of their religion; and yet the Catholics of Ireland pay their own Priesthood without aid from the State. We ought to give those who utter the cry of "the Church in danger" the benefit of this distinction, and out of

charity suppose that they intend what is reasonable. Their dread is lest they lose the pay, not that their religion should all at once be filched from them. That the Priests will lose their pay without a serious outcry, no one need anticipate; but, luckily, the priestly weapons are not very dangerous at the present time. Some ages since the

The

The

matter would have borne a different look, but now no one need be terrified respecting priestly vengeance. worst they can do is to bring false accusations; and this, we may be assured, they will most freely attempt. chief accusation will be irreligion; and I have little doubt but that the explanation which I have here attempted (and which I venture to affirm is in the highest degree orthodox and sound) will be denounced as savouring of infidelity. To take the Apostles for one's guide, when they lead to conclusions opposite to the reception of pay, must appear irreligious to those in whose minds pay and religion are inseparable. Anything that militates against much money and little work is, in its very nature, heretical with those to whom the sweet and savour of religion is the money that it will bring. Any one that can persuade himself that the gorgeous appointments of the Archbishop of CANTERBURY are compatible with the humbleness and meekness of a Christian Bishop, can easily, by the same process, arrive at the conclusion that a correct account of the Apostolic Churches is a venomous libel upon the Church of England. An ballucination of this sort is no uncommon affair: doubtless there are many orthodox yet drunken followers of the precepts of the Koran; and many a pious courtezan has for her patroness the chaste and virgin mother of God. The robber who blows out your brains, and adores Christ on the cross, are apt specimens of the same state of mind:

One of the favourite statements of those who cry out that "the Church is in danger," is, that the property of the Church is as much the property of the Priesthood as Woburn Abbey is the property of the Duke of BEDFORD. This fallacy would never have been listened to, had the explanation above given of the meaning of the term Church been steadily fixed in the minds of the People.

Uniting for the purposes of religion, a given People say the People of England-thought fit to set apart certain lands for their own religious uses. The property was indeed the property of the Church; or, using the definition for the word defined, the property of the People of England, united together by the bond of a common faith; in other words, it is the property of the Nation or People, viewed in their capacity of Christians. It so happened that the People chose to change their religion; in other words, they broke up their former religious community, and formed a new one. At this dissolution of the old community much of the property was taken by the governing power, and turned to other uses; a great portion, however, remained, and the same governing power declared that it should be applied to the purposes of religion. Hereupon the Priesthood step in and say, "this is Church property; Church and Priesthood are identical; therefore it is our property-Priesthood property." Was ever anything so preposterous? The property belongs to the People, in their capacity of a Church or religious Assembly; hitherto they have employed it in over-paying an idle Priesthood. They are fast coming to the conclusion that the interests of religion would be better promoted by a different mode of providing for their. religious expenses, and they therefore determine no longer to apply the property hitherto dedicated to this service in the way formerly

the names of both were attached. List rejected, and the parish disfranchised.

Swainswick.-The overseer in attendance had transmitted a list, but could not swear to having sent the original list to the clerk of the peace, it having been left with the printer for his use. Decision deferred.

Dunkerton. This list was signed by the assistant overseer, but not signed or authorized by the two overseers. List rejected, and parish disfranchised.

Freshford.-The list produced was not signed. The original list was not sent to the clerk of the peace. Decision deferred.

Kelson.-A similar case. Decision deferred. Englishcombe. The list was signed by one overseer only, when affixed; but after publication the other overseer signed. List rejected, and parish disfranchised.

Claverton-This list was not proved to have been sent to the clerk of the peace. Decision deferred.

The following lists were passed, reserving for after-decision the objections to individuals:Bathford, St Catherine, Langridge, Weston, Batheaston, Charlcombe, Northstoke, Hardington.

TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY.

The following parishes were wholly disfran chised on account of informalities of the overseers with regard to the preparation of the lists:Timsbury, Publow, Wellow, Kelson, Monckton Coombe, Claverton, Buckland Denham.

ST MICHAEL'S, BATH.-The county voters in this parish have also been disfranchised through an informality. This case appears to be one of peculiar hardship, inasmuch as the overseers had rigidly complied with the spirit of the Act. Their notices were all published in due time, and the directions of the Act strictly complied with, with the exception of their having sent to the high constable a copy of their list instead of the original; an objection of so frivolous and vexatious a character, that if it had been strictly insisted upon in every case, nearly the whole division of the county would have been disfranchised. The overseers produced the original list from which their copy had been made, and upon oath verified its authenticity, and its being that from which their copy was made. As the Revising Barristers have upon former occasions received copies, and, indeed, at this revision the other Barrister, Mr Stephens, has in a parallel case done so, it does seem to be peculiarly unjust towards this parish-more especially as, to use the expression of the Barrister (Mr Oxenham) who rejected the list, they had, in other cases (viz. at Saltford) "twisted and turned the law."

ST PETER AND ST PAUL, BATH.-The case of this parish was similar to that of St Michael. The overseers sent the high constable a copy of the list instead of the original. The dis. franchisement of the abbey parish is, however, of little import, as most of the claimants are qualified in other parishes.

REVISION OF VOTERS FOR THE BOROUGH OF BATH.-Yesterday, the Barristers, William M. Praed and John Greenwood, Esqrs, attended a Court, at the Guildhall in this city, for the purpose of revising the Lists of Voters for the Borough of Bath. The chief feature in the day's proceedings had reference to two or three

individuals, who claimed a right of voting on the ground of their occupancy of certain houses which they let out for lodgings; at the same time having their actual residence elsewhere.

The first case of this kind which came before the Court was that of Samuel Nicholls, on whom notice of objection had been served in respect of the house, No. 48 Pulteney street. It appeared that the house had been at various times let out to lodgers, Mr Nicholls retaining possession thereof by his servant, who constantly slept on the premises. Mr N. had at all times access thereto; and he frequently slept there himself. The servant, whether rendering service to the lodgers or otherwise, was always paid by Mr Nicholls, and subject to his dismissal at pleasure. A question was here raised as to the actual value of that part of the premises (when fully let), which was occupied for the use of the servant, and which being stated by Mr N. to be more than 10%. per annum, the Learned Gentleman stated that, as it was very probable that many cases of a similar character might be brought before the Court, they should for the present postpone their decision, as facts might be hereafter adduced, tending more fully to elucidate the validity of this alleged qualification.

In the Revision Court, at Brighton, on the 30th (Sept.), we find the following matter reported in the Tory Brighton Gazette :

"On the name of John Smith being read

over

"Mr Good, overseer, objected to him for neglecting to send in a new claim on changing his residence. He conceived that the 36th clause was imperative on persons changing their residence to send in a fresh claim, and quoted the following portion of the clause : No person whose name shall be upon such register for the time being, shall be required thereafter to make any such claim as aforesaid, so long as he shall retain the same qualification, and continue in the same place of abode described in such register.' Now, as Mr Smith had not continued in the same place of abode, in his opinion the Act disfranchised him.

"Mr Deedes, to meet the objection, quoted a portion of the 37th clause, by which it appears that if an overseer believes that the person claiming is not entitled to vote, he may have power to add the words 'objected to.' But in this case the qualification was not disputed; therefore it turned merely upon the change of residence, and he was not quite sure whether the overseers were acting strictly within the meaning of the Act, by putting the words 'objected to. Notwithstanding, he thought the responsi bility ought to attach to the voter.

"Mr F. Cooper said he was prepared to prove that Mr Smith lived at 1 Hanover place. (He was described as living on the London road.)

"Mr Deedes said the question was whether they had power to alter it.

"Mr Good said that in sixteen or seventeen cases similar to this the parties had sent in their claims.

"Mr Deedes approved of their doing so. "Mr Kell said there had been no difficulty in other parts of the county. If the residence could be supplied, that was deemed sufficient. "Sir Walter Riddell said that the object of

the Act was to give persons a vote who could prove their qualification. He conceived they had no right to insert the words 'objected to,' unless they were satisfied that the party was not properly qualified. He thought that, to construe the Act liberally, the name should be retained.-Deficiency supplied, and the name retained.

"Sir David Scott, Bart.-A case similar to Smith's; residence supplied, and name retained."

Now, without finding fault with this decision, let us turn to another under similar facts, which was given on revising the lists for South Warwickshire, at Stratford-on-Avon, on the 23rd of September last, by Mr Humfrey, a leading man at the Bar on the Midland Circuit:

"BIDFORD.-Edward Ashwin was opposed by Mr Hobbes, under the 37th section of the Reform Act, on the ground that he had changed his residence without sending in a fresh claim. The claimant was examined by Mr Patterson, and stated that he had given in his residence, in his first claim, as being in High street, Stratford-upon-Avon, and that he had since removed, retaining his former qualification, but he had not sent in a new claim stating his removal from his residence.

"By Mr Humfrey: He had no fixed place of residence now: he was now tenant in two different places.

"By Mr Patterson: He believed that he did not live in High street on the 31st of July last.

"Mr Hobbes said he thought it quite clear that the claimant did not live in the same place as he did when he gave in his claim to be regis tered, nor could it be said that the claimant was correctly described on that register, for he did not live in High street.

"Mr Patterson contended that it was not necessary that a person should continue to live in the same street. The change in this case was only from one home to another, within a few doors distance, and there could not, by possibility, be any atention to defraud, by the claimant not having sent in a fresh claim. It had been decided the other day that Dublin was a sufficient description of the place of residence of a voter, who held a qualification in this county; and surely, if such were the case, there could be no objection to the claimant being described as a resident of a small borough like that of Stratford-upon-Avon.

6

"The Barrister said, that if Stratford-uponAvon had been alone presented in the claim, and High street had been omitted, why, then, change of residence from one street to another would not, perhaps, have caused any objection; but here was the cailmant residing in High street, and he had changed his residence with. out sending in a new claim, which the law demanded. The words of the Act were-so long as he shall retain the same qualification, and continue in the same place of abode described in such register,' he shall remain entitled to a vote. It was hardly possible that

that vote could be allowed.

"Mr Ashwin said that now he had no fixed place of residence, and that he should not know how to describe himself if he wanted to claim.

"In reply to a question by Mr Hobbes, the lainant said that he still occupied the same

house to which he had removed from High

street.

"By Mr Patterson: The White Lion was one of his places of residence for the present time; he was not living in High street at the time of the last register, and there was no ob. jection made then. He had changed his residence about a year and nine months.

"The Barrister: That is of no consequence; few objections were taken last year at the regis tration, by either party.

“Mr Hobbes said that if the words ligh street' had been left out, then the only question would have been as to whether a change was contemplated by the act, in a removal in a town, from one house to another.

"The Barrister : Yes, certainly.

"Mr Patterson said that at the time of registering last year, the claimant was on the register for High street, while he had removed from there some time previous.

"The Barrister said he saw that he was; but as he did not live in High street now, how was he (Mr H.) to say that the claimant remained in the same place of abode as that described in the register? and which the Act said was requisite. As to what had been said about the name of the town being sufficient, it ap peared to him very doubtful; he thought that the name of the particular place should be mentioned; for, if that argument were good, a man might claim as a resident of Loudon, and yet chauge his residence, without giving notice that he had done so, though he might still be in London. The claim would certainly not do. Claim disallowed."— Leumington Courier.

Then again, notwithstanding all this trouble and expense, what security have the people in the decisions of the Barristers in their respective Courts? They are as varying as the climate in which we live. No man knows—no man can know when he has secured his vote, or in what manner he can proceed safely in order to secure it. We have one law for Warwickshire, and another for Sussex, both brought into operation from the same Act of Parliament, and each administered by a " Barrister learned in the law." Mr Clarkson, the other day, recommended the electors of Leeds to do that which, by his decision, he held to be unneces. sary, "AS OTHER BARRISTERS MIGHT DECIDE DIFFERENTLY!!"

Now, what a monstrous state of things is this! Here is a JUDGE, against whose decision there is no appeal, openly avowing and telling the people to their teeth there is no dependance to be placed in the permanency of his decisions, and that his successor may, upon the same facts, decide directly the reverse. Now, what security can the people have in such a state of things? Here is a fine field in which the attorneys can ply their vocation. In order to shew the sort of objections these gentlemen are disposed to avail themselves of, taking the chance of Mr Clarkson's avowed uncertainty of the Barrister's decision, we extract the fol

The Leeds case has been already noticed in a former Pamphlet in an article entitled "Liberal decision of a revising Barrister." The decision was, that the non-payment of the registration shilling was not a legal cause of disfranchisement.