3. I think the local acts referred to clearly apply only to the legal right of demanding tithes, and not a voluntary donation. It is manifest from the facts set before me in this case, that the offerer meant tithes of what he possessed, and thought proper to offer, and not tithes which the incumbent could claim, or had a right to take.

The churchwarden chosen by the parish would have more strictly fulfilled his duty if he had been present with his colleague at the examination of the collection after the service was over. It is stated in the case that offerings of this kind had been made on former occasions in a similar manner, and I do not see why the churchwarden who was present should be bound to anticipate any disagreement on the part of his colleague who was absent, as to the distribution of the alms and oblations, unless, indeed, they were devoted to an illegal object. Whether they were so or not, is the principal and most important consideration in the case. Assuming that the rector and churchwarden who was present had (as is stated in the case) satisfied themselves, on the best authority, that the offering in question was destined for the minister, were they at liberty to give him the bank notes, or were they compellable by law, whatever might have been the intention of the offerer, to apply them to the relief of the poor? The question must be answered, in my opinion, by a reference to the language of the service of the Holy Communion, and of the rubrics in that part of the Book of Common Prayer. It is not immaterial to observe, that the liturgies preceding that which was established at the Restoration contained provisions for making offerings to the minister as well as giving alms to the poor. In the Prayer-book, as settled by the Act of Uniformity (1662) now in force, among the sentences directed to be read before the collection at the offertory are five, which appear to me most strangely inapposite, and indeed without meaning, if they do not refer to offerings to be made to the minister:-"Who goeth a warfare at his own cost," &c. "If we have sown unto you spiritual things," &c. "Do ye not know that they who minister about holy things live of the sacrifice, and they who wait at the altar are partakers with the altar; even so hath the Lord ordained, that they who preach the gospel should live of the gospel." "Let him who is taught of the word minister unto him that teacheth in all good things," &c. In the adjoining rubric it is ordered that the churchwardens" shall receive alms for the poor and other devotions of the people in a decent basin." In the following prayer is the passage, "We humbly beseech Thee to accept these our alms and oblations;" and in the marginal rubric, "if there be no alms or oblations," &c. Lastly, at the end of the communion service, it is is directed, "that the money given to the offertory shall be disposed of to pious and charitable uses.' Now, looking to the fact that these rubrics were part of the result of the careful and searching revision our liturgy underwent in 1662, to the fact that Lyndewode and our canonists use "oblations" repeatedly to signify free gifts to the minister, as well as offerings to the furniture and decorations of the church, that "devotions" is scarcely an intelligible word, unless used in the same sense; looking to the studied and express distinction between two sorts of gifts marked out by the particles "and" and "or" in the passage cited, remembering that the word "oblations" was then introduced for the first time into the service, that the collections of the offertory were then, for the first time, ordered to be presented at the altar, instead of being put, as in the former liturgies, into the poor-box-I can come to no other conclusion than that the Church and the Legislature contemplated the possibility of two kinds of offerings being made in money. And I must further think that they rendered the making an oblation to the minister, as well as the giving alms to the poor, lawful at this service. Perhaps the former may be classed under the head of "pious," and the latter under that of "charitable" uses. It is not altogether irrelevant to remark that the dues paid to the minister at the churching of women are called "offerings," a term, of course, identical

"

with "oblations." I am aware of the case reported in the 15th volume of Howel's State Trials-the trial of the Rev. W. Hindley, for collecting at a charity sermon; but after a careful examination of that case, decided by a single judge, evidently, and indeed avowedly, upon the belief that money was levied for the Pretender under the guise of collections for charity-considering the indecent party spirit which taints it throughout, that some of the propositions contained in it are overthrown by a subsequent decision of Lord Hardwicke and, lastly, that so great a judge as Lord Stowell, when it was cited to him, designated it "as one of party heat, which took place in times of party ferment, and of smaller authority on that account," and passed it by as a precedent of no value, I am not shaken in my opinion by this case. (Hutchins . Denziloe, Consistory Reports, p. 174.)

5. I am of opinion that this is one of the cases of disagreement contemplated by the rubric, and that it would be most properly referred to the diocesan for his adjudication by churchwardens and rector, and not by the vestry, who are not parties on whom the law has devolved the care of this matter.

6. Assuming that the rector and churchwardens are not legally compellable to apply offerings to the purpose for which they are expressly destined, I think they are at liberty to do so when the purpose falls under the class of "pious and charitable uses."

Doctors' Commons, Jan. 16, 1845.

ROBERT PHILLimore.

TITHE COMMUTATION.

To the Editor of the "Churchman's Newspaper."

SIR,-As some of the London papers have copied from the Essex Standard an erroneous account of the averages to Christmas last, and of the rent charge payable for the present year, I beg to send you the following abstract from the "Annual Supplement to the Tithe Commutation Tables," which will be published in a few days.

NOTES OF LEGAL DECISIONS.

EXPENSES OF THE APPORTIONMENT UNDER THE TITHE ACT.

By the 75th section of the Tithe Commutation Act, it is provided that "all the expenses of or incident to making any apportionment (except the salary of the commissioners, and any expense which they may be authorized and may have ordered to be otherwise paid,) shall be borne and paid by the owners of lands included in the apportionment, in rateable proportion to the sum charged on the said lands in lieu of tithes by such apportionment;" and the 76th section enacts that if any dif ference shall arise touching the said expenses, or the share thereof to be paid by any person, it shall be lawful for the Tithe Commissioners to certify the amount to be paid, and, in case of neglect or refusal to pay, two justices of the peace of the county where the lands mentioned in the apportionment lie, are empowered to issue a warrant of distress for the amount certified to be payable. After this act came into operation, considerable doubts were entertained as to the expenses which might be considered to come within the meaning of these sections, and, in consequence, the legal liability of landowners, in this respect, for a length of time remained the subject of frequent inquiry. These difficulties have been removed by the decision of the Court of Exchequer, in the case of Hinchliffe v. Armstead, reported in 9 Mee and W., p. 155. In that case the question arose, whether expenses incurred by the employment of a professional man, a solicitor, by the landowners of a parish, to conduct the proceedings towards a commutation of the tithes, were "expenses of or incident to making the apportionment," within the 75th section; and if this question were decided in the affirmative, then it was contended that the solicitor's proper remedy against the landowners for these expenses was not by an action at law, but by proceedings under the 76th section of the act. But the court resolved that both these propositions were untenable, and as the decision in Hinchliffe v. Armstead presents a certain and intelligible rule as to the construction of these sections, it is of importance to give the opinions which were there delivered by the judges. Lord Abinger, C. B., is reported to have said, "I should be sorry to hold that the words, expenses of or incident to making any apportionment,' would justify the charging of an attorney's bill in every case, although I do not say that the services of an attorney may not be useful for many purposes. I think these words must reasonably be interpreted to mean incidental expenses arising in the cause of the survey and valuation themselves. The landowner might choose to employ an attorney to receive tenders from different valuers, and that may be a beneficial course for their own protection; but surely his charges could not be considered as expenses incidental to the apportionment. Then, secondly," continued the learned baron, "is the proper remedy by action? If these were not expenses incidental to the apportionment, it was not a proper course to apportion them among the landowners. The defendant, however, is benefited by that proceeding. But even if this were otherwise, it

does not follow that the plaintiff's common law remedy upon his contract is taken away. Where an act of parliament gives a new right, and a particular remedy for the enforcement of it, the party must pursue that remedy, and no other can be resorted to; but this is not the case here."

Mr. Baron Alderson concurred in these views, and observed, "that it was very difficult indeed to say that the expenses of employing an attorney could be considered as expenses incidental to making the apportionment."

The effect of this decision is, that expenses which are not immediately incidental to the apportionment, cannot be apportioned among the landowners under the 75th section, without their concurrence, and, in such case, the remedy of the party incurring them is only against the landowners or landowner who employed him.

NEW RURAL DEANERIES IN WALES.

THE following new rural deaneries have been created in Wales, by an order in council of the 13th ultimo, in pursuance of the Act of the 6th and 7th of Victoria, entitled "An Act for regulating the Cathedral Churches of Wales" :

RURAL DEANERY OF BROMFIELD.

:

Mold-Containing the parishes of Bistre, Bryn, Eglwys, Gwernafield, Hope, Llanarmon yn Tâl, Llandegele, Llanferres, Llanfynydd, Llantysilio, Mold, Nerquis, Pont bleiddyn, Treiddyn.

Wrexham-Containing the parishes of Berse, Brymbo, Erbistock, Gresford, Marchwiail, Minera, Rhosllanerchrugog, Rhosymedre, Rossett, Ruabon, Wrexham.

RURAL DEANERY OF MARCHIA.

Llangollen-Containing the parishes of Chirk, Llanarmon dryffryn Ceiriog, Llanarmon mynydd mawr, Llangadwaladr, Llanged win, Llangollen, Llanrhaiadr Mochnant, Llansantffraid glyn Ceiriog, Llansilin, Llanyblodwel, Rhyd y croesan,

Trefor.

Oswestry-Containing the parishes of Kinnerley, Knock in, Llanymynech, Melverley, Morton, Oswestry, St. Martin's, Selattyn, Trefonen, Trinity (Oswestry), Whittington.

RURAL DEANERY OF RHOS.

Denbigh-Containing the parishes of Abergele, Bettws, Denbigh, Denbigh (St. David's), Henllan, Llandulas, Llanelian, Llanfairtalhairn, Llangerniew. Denbigh Containing the parishes of Llansannan, Llannfydd, Lysfaen, Nantglyn, St. George, Whitchurch.

Llanrwst-Containing the parishes of Capel Garmon, Cerrig y druidion, Colwyn, Eglwysfach, Foelas, Gwytherin, Llanddoget, Llandrillo yn Rhôs, Llanfihangel glyn y myfyr, Llangwm, Llangwstenin, Llanrhôs, Llanrwst, Llansantffraid glan Conwy, St. Mary (Llanrwst), Yspytty Ifan.

RURAL DEANERY OF TEGengle.

St. Asaph-Containing the parishes of Bodfari, Caerwys, Cwm, Diserth, Dymeirchion, Gwaenysgor, Llanasa, Meliden, Newmarket, Rhuddlan, Rhyl, St. Asaph.

Holywell-Containing the parishes of Bagillt, Cilcain, Flint, Halkin, Holywell, Mostyn, Nannerch, Northop, St. Mark's, Whitford, Ysgeifiog.

CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING DR. PUSEY'S SERMON.

LETTER FROM DR. HAWKINS TO THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER.

MY DEAR LORD,-It is with surprise and concern that I have seen in the newspapers a letter from your lordship, of the 26th instant, to H. March Philipps, Esq., published, I presume, by him, but not without your lordship's sanction, containing strictures upon the conduct of the late Vice Chancellor and his assessors in the judgment upon Dr. Pusey's sermon. You do us, indeed, the justice to acknowledge, that "the authorities in Oxford exercised a power belonging to them according to the conscientious judgment of those who had to exercise it ;" and you admit that a "university, as such, has very special duties of caution and jealousy, which it would be unreasonable and unjust to recognise as proper rules of action elsewhere;" and, possibly, your lordship did not intend to cast any reflections upon our conduct; but the public, I fear, will interpret your words otherwise, and when you speak of "the form of proceeding at Oxford," not merely as "absolutely irreconcilable with those principles which you feel it to be your duty to observe in administering discipline in your own diocese," but, apparently, as "anomalous and contrary to the generally-received principles of justice," and still more particularly, when you assert that Dr. Pusey was sentenced "without being told what were the specific charges of unsound doctrine on which he was condemned, and without being permitted to defend himself against any charge, however generally stated," it will be commonly concluded, that your lordship, after hearing the parties, and knowing exactly what had occurred, intended to reflect with some severity upon our conduct.

But, during the distressing agitation consequent upon the proceeding alluded to, the then Vice-Chancellor, and those who were associated with him, steadily refused to publish any account, either of the grounds of their censure upon the sermon, or of the form of proceeding which they had observed. Believing that it was not their duty to do so, assured that it was not their province to offer instruction to the University upon points of doctrine, much less to gratify the curiosity of the public, although they did not pretend to any indifference to public opinion, they determined to support, for a time at least, any measure of obloquy, rather than by any publication on their part increase the prevalent excitement, or inflict additional pain upon Dr. Pusey himself, or, above all, make any paper of theirs the occasion of an irreverent controversy concerning the doctrine of the Eucharist.

Some of these reasons have now lost much of their force; and, without touching upon the sermon itself, which has been published, and of which your lordship has of course formed your own opinion, I will give some account of the proceedings-such as, I hope, may show that, if they were in any way technically informal, they were substantially correct and just.

It was, of course, our duty to act under the statute; we had no power to amend it, and having ascertained the sense of the statute as correctly as we could, with the aid of those recorded precedents to which we had access, we were satisfied that our business in the first instance was exclusively with the written sermon. If, indeed, the preacher could produce no copy of his discourse, the statute expressly provided that he should be called upon to answer personally concerning the matters of which he was suspected or accused; but if (as in this instance) he delivered an authentic copy of the sermon, there was no room for evidence or cross-examination, and we had only to consider the sermon itself, not discussing with the writer the doctrines which it contained, but comparing them with the formularies of the Church. This painful duty, accordingly, we endeavoured to discharge as carefully as we could.

Yet, in point of fact, we had also before us, at that time, some explanation and defence of the sermon from the author. For Dr. Pusey sent a letter with