Before stating the case of the owner of the "Camberwell Rent-Charge," in which the question arose, and was determined, it will be useful to refer to the sections of the Act directly bearing upon the point. The 67th section of the 6th and 7th William IV., c. 71, (the Tithe Commutation Act,) provides, that after the confirmation, by the commissioners, of the apportionment, "the lands of the parish shall be absolutely discharged from the payment of tithes; and instead thereof, there shall be payable to the person mentioned in the apportionment, a sum of money equal in value to certain averages mentioned in the section, in the nature of a rent issuing out of the lands charged therewith, and such sum shall be payable by two equal half-yearly payments, on the 1st day of July and the 1st day of January in every year, and such rent-charge may be recovered at the suit of the person entitled thereto, by distress and entry.' Then the 81st section enacts, "that in case the said rent-charge shall at any time be in arrear and unpaid for the space of twenty-one days next after any halfyearly day of payment, it shall be lawful for the person entitled to the same, after having given or left ten days' notice in writing at the usual or last-known residence of the tenant in possession, to distrain upon the lands liable to the payment thereof, or on any part thereof, for all arrears of the said rent-charge, and to dispose of the distress when taken, and otherwise to act and demean himself in relation thereto, as any landlord may for arrears of rent reserved on a common lease for years; provided that not more than two years' arrears shall at any time be recoverable by distress." And by the 82nd section, "when the rent-charge shall be in arrears and unpaid for forty days next after any halfyearly day of payment, and there shall be no sufficient distress on the premises, it shall be lawful for a judge of any of the courts at Westminster to order a writ to issue to the sheriff of the county in which the lands chargeable with the rent-charge are situated, for him to assess the arrears by a jury, and to return the inquisition thereupon taken to one of the courts of Westminster." The owner of the rent-charge (after notice of the inquisition to the landowner) "may then sue out a writ of habere facies possessionem, directed to the sheriff, commanding him to cause the owner of the rent-charge to have possession of the lands chargeable therewith, until the arrears of the rent-charge, and the expenses of executing the writ and keeping possession &c. shall be satisfied; provided always, that no more than two years' arrears, over and above the time of such possession, shall be at any time recoverable."

In the Camberwell rent-charge, it appeared that on the 4th or 5th of October, 1841, the owner of the rent-charge, who was the lessee by demise from the vicar of the parish, demanded of the occupier arrears of rent-charge for the last three years, when the tenant stated that he had only held the land from the preceding January, and did not think it right to pay the debt of his predecessor; for by the 67th section of the Tithe Commutation Act, "no one is to be personally liable to the payment of the rent-charge." He, however, offered to pay the rent-charge for the half year ending in July, 1841, which was refused.

In March, 1842, the owner of the rent-charge issued a writ, under the 82nd section of the Act, commanding the sheriff to assess the arrears of the rentcharge due to him for four half years, although it was stated that there had been at all times from January sufficient distress on the premises to answer the whole amount claimed in the writ.

It was objected to this writ, on behalf of the tenant, that it was not competent to the owner of the rent-charge to avail himself of it for the recovery of the rent-charge for the four half years, unless he had endeavoured to keep down the accumulation of arrears by distraining for each half year, under section 82, or unless there had been no available distress for each half year.

But Lord Denman, C.J., said-"This is an important question. The statute, in my opinion, would be a nuisance if enforced in the manner contended for. Its meaning is, that the owner of a rent-charge, if he does not delay his

remedy so as to extend it over more than two years, may recover all the arrears by the process described in section 82; and this, though at the end of each half year there may have been sufficient distress for the arrears then payable."

And Mr. Justice Wightman was of opinion," that sections 81 and 82 must receive the same construction; and cases of hardship are provided for by the clauses limiting the recovery to two years' arrears."

It will be seen that the Tithe Commutation Act expressly provides, that the sum of money which shall be payable, by virtue of the apportionment, in lieu of tithes, is "in the nature of a rent-charge, issuing out of the lands charged therewith." The effect of this provision is to constitute the rent-charge thus created, a perpetual lien or burthen upon the land, and to bind it whilst in the Occupation of any person, always to the payment of the rent-charge. The land is liable to distress, not of common right, but by virtue of the clause in the statute; and, therefore, it is called a rent-charge, because in this manner the land is charged with a distress for the payment of it. (See Coke Litt., 143.) In the case of a change of tenancy, it is, therefore, the obvious duty, as well as interest, of an in-coming tenant to see that his predecessor has paid the rent to the time of his quitting the premises or otherwise, he will have no reason to complain, if he is afterwards obliged to pay arrears which were due before his own occupation. He has the means in his power of protecting himself against this apparent injustice, by inquiring, previously to taking possession, and his neglect to do so is his own fault or folly. A tenant who is thus compelled to discharge arrears of the rent-charge due prior to the commencement of his tenancy, may probably be entitled to sue the former occupant of the same premises for money paid to his use, as it might in law be treated as a compulsory payment, for which the new tenant ought to be compensated. But the enforcement of such a demand by legal proceedings would, in most cases, be attended with greater expense and inconvenience to the tenant than the actual loss of the amount out of pocket.

The above decision will not apply to a tenant or occupier of lands who holds under a lease or an agreement made subsequently to the commutation of the tithes in his parish, as by the 80th section of the Act, such person" who shall pay any such rent-charge will be entitled to deduct the amount thereof from the rent payable by him to his landlord, and allowed the same in account with the landlord."

[The case of the Camberwell Rent-Charge is reported in the fourth vol. of Adolphus and Ellis' Queen's Bench Reports, p. 151, New Series.]

LETTER FROM THE BISHOP OF EXETER TO A RURAL DEAN. (From the Western Luminary.)

Bishopstowe, 3rd Dec. 1844. DEAR SIR, I thank you for your communication. I entirely assent to the reasonableness of your delaying the use of the surplice in preaching until the Sunday after next, or, as has been decided in another deanery, till the first Sunday in January next, in order that you may all be able to satisfy your people that the use of it is adopted by you, not from any preference on your own part, but from obedience to your bishop-obedience which, at your ordination, you vowed to God that you would reverently pay.

My order on this particular is given for the sole purpose of putting an end to party another word for those divisions which the apostle deprecates in terms which no Christian can read without a deep sense of the duty imposed on him. "Now, I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the

same judgment." As for the surplice, it cannot be necessary for me to tell you, or any other of my clergy, I hope, that I have no special liking of a thing so merely indifferent in itself. You may all remember (for it is not very long ago) that I positively forbade the wearing of the surplice by the clergy generally at the consecration of the chapel at Killerton, though it had been desired and that I issued this prohibition because the surplice is the appropriate dress of the clergy ministering-and only of those who minister.-(See 50th canon.)

In like manner, a very short time ago, I forbade the clergy of a ruri-decanal chapter (though so desired in the summons) to wear the surplice in church, as many of them as were not ministering on that day. You may explain to the people, therefore, the reason of my ordering the surplice. It is because I must make some order, if there is to be uniformity. I must order either surplice or gown-and the surplice has the authority of the church, which the gown has not.

If there are any so perverse as to deny to the bishop the right to make such an order for such a purpose, and if they threaten to leave the church on account of it,-use with them all Christian persuasion; let them see that it is not really the surplice which is here the point at issue, but it is the right and duty of the bishop to act on the direction of the apostle, that " All things be done decently and in order."

The real question, in short, is, whether there shall be authority or not. Those who say there shall not, must be always separated in heart; and we dare not sacrifice a necessary principle to their pleasure. I have no doubt that calmly stating the matter will suffice with all whom reason can satisfy.

You may also read this letter to your clergy to-morrow. You are at liberty also to let any of them, or any of your or their parishioners take a copy, or make any other use of it.

I am, dear Sir, your faithful friend and brother,

Rev. J. Armstrong.

H. EXETER.

THE following letter appeared in the Western Luminary on Tuesday, December 24th :

:

TO THE CLERGY OF THE DIOCESE OF EXETER.

Bishopstowe, December 23, 1844. DEAR AND REVEREND BRETHREN,-It has been represented to me by many of you, in different parts of the diocese, that the use of the surplice in preaching is more repugnant to the feelings of the people than could have been reasonably anticipated. To those feelings, however erroneous, I deem it my duty to surrender what may be abandoned without the sacrifice of any principle. I therefore withdraw my order, as respects the surplice.

That order was avowedly issued by me, not for the sake of enforcing an express rule of the church, but in execution of the power given to me to "appease a diversity" in Divine worship, and so to remove a symbol of disunion amongst ourselves. If my object cannot be obtained in the way which I had pointed out, without leading to other evils of as grave a kind, let me, however, hope and entreat, that in using your own discretion in this particular, you will so use it as shall least expose you to the reproach of cherishing party spirit. Wherever, therefore, the surplice is now used without offence, there I hope it will be continued in use.

The enforcement of the rubrics rests on different ground. In them the church has spoken clearly; and to the voice of the church, when it gives not an uncertain sound, every true churchman, and especially every faithful minister, will hearken with reverence and submission.

I am, reverend and dear brethren, your faithful friend and brother,

H. EXETER,

70

CHURCH MATTERS.

EDUCATION IN IRELAND.

AN able pamphlet has lately been published on the subject of education, by the Reverend Doctor Miller, Vicar-General of Armagh, which was noticed last month as deserving of serious consideration. As it is the reverend author's wish to call attention as widely as possible to the circumstances in which the church in Ireland is now placed, no apology, it is hoped, need be made for extracting some passages from his pamphlet, which will serve to convey to the reader the importance of the question at the present moment. The pamphlet is entitled, "The Present Crisis of the Church of Ireland Considered," and the propriety of the title is justified by the opening observation.

"A crisis has arrived in the history of the Irish part of the United Church of England and Ireland, in which it has, I conceive, become the duty of every man, who may consider himself as qualified for the office by the past habits of his life and by his actual position in society, to offer his sentiments on this all-important subject. The question is not now, whether the Church shall be deprived of some portion of its revenues for the great purpose of maintaining the public tranquillity. To this it has submitted without a murmur, even to the extent of being subjected to the heavy expense of repairing and of erecting the buildings necessary for the public worship of the state, which had before been defrayed by public assessments. We are now called to consider a question of far greater importance; a question not of money, but of principle; a question affecting the conscience of every man professing to belong to this Protestant Church, though more directly and immediately affecting those who are entrusted with the offices of its ministry.

"This question is, whether the clergy of the Protestant Church of Ireland shall be compelled to co-operate with a Board constituted on a principle, to which a large majority of its bishops, including its chief prelate, and supported by the general sentiment of the clergy, have solemnly declared that they cannot conscientiously accede. The principle of this new Board is the exclusion of the Sacred Scriptures from the public and general course of the National Education; a principle familiar to the Church of Rome, but alien and abhorrent to the profession of Protestants. To enforce it the treasures of the state are lavished with profusion, while a separate grant to satisfy the scruples of the Protestant clergy has been refused; and even a peremptory denial has been given to a proposal of comprehending them in one common grant to be made to the United Church, in fulfilment of the union of the two Churches of England and Ireland, solemnly enacted in that treaty, on which the legisla tive union of the two countries depends for its validity."—pp. 3, 4.

Having stated the grounds on which the secularized system of national education for England was successfully resisted in England, and shewn that such a system is still less suited for Ireland, Doctor Miller refers to the remarkable language of Sir Robert Peel, with reference to this country, in 1839.

"But, with respect to the Established Church, I hope that, rather than consent to any plan from which ecclesiastical authority is excluded, it would separate itself from the state upon this point; that it would take the education of the people into its own hands; that it would not shrink from insisting on the publication of its own peculiar doctrines; but that it would demand, that

the highest respect should be entertained for its power, by its being inculcated in the minds of children, that religion formed the basis of all education. I very much doubt, whether the principles of the Christian faith, being thus inculcated among children, as good a chance of harmony would not be secured as by telling them religion was an open question, and that each of them was to be instructed by a minister of his own creed, on a certain day set apart for that purpose."-p. 8.

On this, Dr. Miller observes as follows:

"Ireland, it is true, is a country, in which a large majority of the people are members of a church differing from that which has been established. But it will not be said by any one acquainted with this country, that the Protestant Church of Ireland had on this account failed to discharge its educational duty; for it is notorious that the success of the church in attracting to its schools the children of Romanists, has been the exciting cause of that clamour of opposition, to which the government appears to be now disposed to sacrifice its dignity and importance, possibly its very existence. Nor will it be said, that the Romanists generally were adverse to this discharge of the duty of the church, and called for the interposition of the government to protect them against the intrusion; for, it is not less notorious, that the laity of the Romanists were well disposed to avail themselves of the scriptural education offered in its schools, and did actually so avail themselves, except when they were hindered by their own clergy, SENDING THEIR CHILDREN AGAIN TO THE SAME SCHOOLS WHEN THEY HAD FOR A SHORT TIME COMPLIED WITH THE PROHIBITION. The true motive, then, for adopting in Ireland this policy of concession is, that there is in this country a very numerous and well-organized body of the Romish clergy, whose favour and support, the government vainly hopes to conciliate by sacrificing to them the Protestant Church. This appears to be the plain statement of the great case of the church now at issue. That church has faithfully and efficiently discharged its duty to the utmost extent of the means with which it has been entrusted, and is now to be driven from its constitutional position, because its success has alarmed the jealousy and apprehensions of a Romish priesthood.

"It would seem that a very obvious prudence might have suggested the expediency of considering, whether that priesthood can by any concession be so conciliated, as effectually to relieve the minister from the embarrassment, which he experiences in his government of Ireland. Has he discovered any thing in the history of the Church of Rome, which might encourage him to entertain this hope of deliverance? The very principle of its structure is to effect a combination of a supremacy of this world with the spiritual authority of revealed truth; a supremacy of whatever kind may be attainable, temporal, if temporal supremacy be within its reach, but at least a supremacy over the minds of men, controlling, if possible, their very thoughts, and retaining them in an entire subjection to its dictates. The priesthood of such a church is not one which may be conciliated, except by absolute submission. Their church would cease to be the church of Rome, if it could admit conciliation on terms less rigorous, for it would in so doing, forego the very principle of its constitution. To reject conciliation, except as a mere measure of temporary expediency, is the bounden duty of its ministers, and most faithfully is it discharged.

"Nor can it be imagined that, if Ireland were so wholly abandoned to the church of Rome, as to be held by the Romish priesthood in a sort of feudality under the Protestant government of Great Britain, a different policy could be peaceably maintained in that country. Opinions, especially religious opinions, cannot be thus held in separation and distinctness; neither would the church of Rome remain satisfied with the dominion of the one country, when any favourable opportunity should present itself for acquiring an influence in the