cutors, would be the first to hail such a course, and to express their warm sympathy with him, and with the line of conduct which he had thus marked out for himself.

Dr. Hampden may be assured that he can do himself no good by such extracts from an early work of his as have just appeared, although coupled with a declaration, that, as he is about to republish it, it must be taken as a fair view of his present opinions. Surely he must see, that if, after having, as a young man, written wisely, truly, and rightly, in the fuller maturity of his mind he has written as at least is openly alleged-unwisely, falsely, and wrongly, he cannot possibly refer to his early writings to show the correctness of his subsequent views. Surely he must see that this cannot go a single step towards restoring confidence, and that this is the one only thing which he has to do. Here are lately published works, which are felt to be dangerous. Let him disavow the dangerous consequences, or apologize for his incaution, or, if he can, defend them: nothing else can do.

P.S. Since the above remarks were written, Dr. Hampden's Inaugural Lecture has been put into circulation; but it does not, in any way, alter the case. It contains a direct, formal, and vehement declaration, on Dr. Hampden's part, of his adherence to the various great points of faith held by the church of England. But Dr. Hampden obviously forgets that confidence, like love, cannot be forced. It will be remembered that in the last Number of this Magazine, the whole argument proceeded on the supposition, that Dr. Hampden (by the very fact, indeed, of his remaining as a minister of the church) had already made such declaration, and that it was to be received. But still the litera scripta manet. His works still exist, and exist unretracted. Now, what his opponents say is, that the whole tenour of the phraseology of these works, the whole tendency of the view maintained through them, is inconsistent with such a belief; and that, consequently, Dr. Hampden does not deserve confidence, as a teacher of youth. They do not impute insincerity to Dr. Hampden; very far from it; but it is a very common thing, that where a person chuses to promulgate some new (or, at all events, some fancied new,) system of philosophy, it is found by reasoners, who look farther than he does, that it is necessarily inconsistent with opinions which he himself, in all honesty, professes, and has always held. Whether in religion, or in other topics, it is quite a common thing, that the belief of early life stands fast by the individual, and will produce practical results in his conduct; when, if he logically followed out new views which he has adopted, every vestige of it ought to have been blotted out of his mind. There is, consequently, not the slightest wish felt to impute insincerity to Dr. Hampden, or the least suspicion entertained of his disbelieving what he professes to believe; but he believes it, in spite of his own proclaimed and promulgated philosophy. That remains just where it was,-equally (as his opponents say) false, and equally dangerous. His vehement profession of belief can, therefore, serve no purpose what

To account for the chronology, it may be necessary to observe that there was just time to stop the press, and insert the statement in p. 434, as to the meeting of March 22. VOL. IX.-April, 1836. 3 L

ever which is not served by his remaining a minister of the church. If he wishes to set himself really right in the opinion of those who are now offended at his opinions, he must submit simply to the same law that every other man does; that is, he must either defend the opinions which he has put forward, and show that they are really consistent with the belief which he holds, or he must openly give them up, as inconsistent. What is there hard in this? By what other law are other men, and other writers, judged? Why should the King's Reader in Divinity at Oxford be alone exempted from the operation of that law which, to go no further, is common to every other literary man?

A second postscript is necessary, to notice a most laborious pamphlet, called "Dr. Hampden's Theological Statements compared with the Thirty-nine Articles," with a very learned, thoughtful, and powerful preface, by Dr. Pusey, in which the same view, so imperfectly and feebly expressed in the foregoing sentences, is put forth with a fulness, a depth, and a range of thought, which make the work most valuable, quite independently on this controversy. Now, if Dr. Hampden means to do himself any real good, he must answer this work, and show that it is wrong, and that the citations given from his works do not prove what they are alleged to prove.

LANGUAGE OF DISSENTERS, AS TO THE GOVERNMENT.

FIRST, let the "Christian Advocate," of February 29th, speak:

"We rejoice to perceive that the Birmingham voluntaries, including that staunch advocate of the voluntary principle, Mr. Burnet, of Camberwell, have made a movement in advance of the tardy and temporizing London dissenters. In an interview which the deputies of the former had with Lord John Russell a few days ago, they plainly told his lordship, that, rather than have a mere commutation of the churchrate, they would have nothing. This is the right method of proceeding. We are the more glad that it has been adopted, because we have seen certain parties, as usual, forgetting their loud professions of determination to be content with nothing less than the absolute annihilation of the rate; and, after a few faint bow-wows of discontent, tamely acquiescing, with a wagging tail, in the minister's design. The government, no doubt, calculated upon this unworthy facility of disposition, when they resolved to insult the dissenters of England, by re-proposing the rejected juggle of Lord Althorp. But, thanks to the activity and honesty of our Birmingham brethren, they have received timely warning of the peril to which they will expose themselves, by trifling thus with a body of men whose support is indispensable to their official existence. They err egregiously if they suppose, that by the Municipal Bill of last session, and the Marriage Bill of this, they have made themselves so secure of the confidence of dissenters as that the question of church-rates may be trifled with, or its satisfactory settlement be postponed another year. We believe we know the

It appears, by a letter in the "Standard," that the statements in the Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, alluded to in a former note, are quite false; that instead of 70 out of 200 residents taking up the question, there are 120 out of 180; that, of the other 60, many are not with Dr. Hampden, and that 14 out of 25 heads are against him. With respect to the calumnies uttered in that disgraceful letter, against the venerable President of Magdalen, not a word of reply can be necessary. The slanderer who imputed scruples to him, must have known that he was uttering slander, and that the act in question, like every other act of that venerable man, proeeeded from the highest and purest motives.

The

feelings of the great mass of the dissenters; and, unless we greatly mistake them, they will accept no measure as a measure of relief to them, which does not contain within it the acknowledgment of the great principle, that no man ought to be compelled to support or countenance, in any way, any form of religion, much less a form of which he does not approve. By merely abolishing the name of church-rate, whilst they retain the thing, therefore, government will not only not give satisfaction to dissenters, but will offer a gross insult both to their feelings and their understandings. At this we are not surprised; for we did not suffer ourselves to be deluded into great expectations by the "toleration" paragraph of the King's speech. Whigs are just as great sticklers for the principle of an establishment-yea, and all its practical, but especially its pecuniary details, as ever the Tories are. The see of Durham is vacant. By the deceased occupant's own admission, it yields an income little less than 20,000l. a-year. Now, let us see how the Melbourne cabinet will dispose of it. Will they fill it, subject to an agreement on the part of the fortunate individual to submit to whatever deduction Parliament, in its economy, may see fit to make? or will they afford one of their few right reverend friends the opportunity of acquiring a vested interest in its princely revenues? With what ease might a few slices from this and other pieces of preferment, in which much is received for doing nothing, be taken to supply the place of church-rates, until the nation thinks proper to resume both the churches and the property attached to them, and devote them to purposes really national. The time when it will come to this is rapidly hastening; and the reason why the Whigs will not propose the entire abolition of church-rates is, that it would involve in its consequences the entire abolition of church—a consummation which it is not their cue to facilitate."

Next, let us hear the "Patriot," on church-rates :

"It will appear from our Parliamentary digest, that Lord John Russell stated, in reply to a question addressed to him by Sir Robert Peel, that it was the intention of government to bring in a bill relative to church-rates, soon after the Easter recess. At the same time, no intimation was given in what manner this litigated question is to be adjusted; whether by their commutation or extinction. If the information conveyed to us be correct, (and we have reason to believe that it is sub.. stantially so,) it would appear that ministers have not, up to the present time, fully determined what course to take. The character of the bill will probably depend, in a great measure, on the tone of public feeling, and on the manner in which that feeling is expressed; more especially on the line of conduct adopted by those who are most deeply interested in the question. Now is the time for the dissenters to speak out in a firm and decided tone, and to act with union and vigour, if they mean effectually to obtain relief from this odious, because most unjust, impost. If they remain apathetic or silent, they must blame themselves, should Lord John Russell commit the same error into which the amiable and upright Lord Althorp, with the best intentions, fell, in imagining that the diminution and commutation of the tax, in a form which would render it a fixed burden, less capable of being efficiently resisted, would prove satisfactory. His Majesty's Ministers should be told most respectfully, but plainly and firmly, that this is regarded by the general body of protestant dissenters as one of their most annoying grievances," &c. &c. &c.

REGISTRATION AND MARRIAGE BILLS.

Ir may be well to say here a few words relating to this and all other public measures treated of in this Magazine. Magic is now at a discount. Consequently, if a periodical is to be in the country on the first day of a month (and the country readers will have it so) it really must leave London before the said first. To leave London before the first, in various conveyances, despatched from various booksellers, it must (on the same ground, of the present discount of magic) have been sent to the said booksellers by natural means, all of which (very inconveniently) want time. But, again, it cannot leave London "un

houseled, unannealed." It must have a cover on its back, and be stitched. Time, again, is wanted for these operations, after the printing is completed, and the number entirely out of the printer's hands. And worse than all, in this sad eventful history, if it is to be printed in time to have all these various operations of stitching, covering, packing, and conveying performed on it, it must be out of the hands of the writers a very considerable time before the said first of every calendar month. If, therefore, either a town or country reader, having on this said first of the month found in the "Morning Post" or "Herald” a very full analysis of the Tithe or Registration Bill, is inclined to be extremely angry at finding that the poor periodical, which rears its unlucky head at the same moment, contains no such analysis, and only very imperfect remarks on the Bill itself, let him consider, before he is too angry, that the said remarks could not be written later than the twenty-fifth, (at all events,) of the preceding month; and that at that date, perhaps, his own information was not more accurate, nor his own ideas clearer on the subject than those of the writers. They who took the trouble to compare the article on the Registration Bill last month with the last words in the Notices to Correspondents, may have, perhaps, some notion of the way in which light breaks on periodicals as well as the rest of the world. And perhaps after these remarks, readers may have, in future, that degree of benevolence and charity which will induce them not to expect the impossible.

The remarks on the Registration and Marriage Bills in the last Number were, from the cause just alluded to, very imperfect. But the writer still sees no reason to depart from the position there laid down, nor from the view taken, that the Registration Bill must be so nugatory and contemptible that it can never pass any legislature, unless as a violent party measure. Every one must be aware that it will be totally impossible (and terribly unjust, if it were not impossible,) to induce poor labourers to lose half a day, or a whole day's work and pay, to walk across the country, in search too of a man whose name and look they detest, and whom they would willingly avoid, because they look on him as a spy, who will use every occasion he has of meeting with them to inquire into their affairs, and ask them troublesome questions. Then, these same Relieving Officers and Registrars will too often be broken tradesmen or farmers, who are employed because they have no other employment, and happen to have interest with some of the guardians. Their keeping a careful and correct register will be quite hopeless. Any one who has been accustomed to keep or make others keep a register in a large country parish, when the rector or curate, or both, have much duty besides, will know that, even with persons of education and orderly habits, it is not an easy thing, and that if left to persons like the Relieving Officers, the registers will be useless, to say the least. Will they not be something worse? One would not stigmatize a body, many of whom will be respectable; but it must be remembered, that just in proportion as the grade of the registrars is lowered, the danger of false registers is increased.

There have been some objections stated to the government by some

of the Middlesex clergy, a part of which are here extracted, and deserve attentive consideration :

"They conscientiously believe, that the substitution of a registry of births for that of baptisms will have a very injurious effect upon the religion of the country, inasmuch as it will greatly diminish the number of baptisms.

"They have too much reason to believe, that many children of the poorer classes would never be brought to the font of baptism at all, was it not for the civil advantages which their parents conceive to be dependent on their baptismal register; these civil advantages may indeed be conferred through other channels; but this will be no compensation to the children themselves, who are thus deprived of rite of baptism, nor to the country in which they will grow up heathens in a nominally Christian nation.

"The clergy are ready to admit, that parents who are induced to present their children at the baptismal font, solely or principally with a view to the secular advantages of registration, are lamentably ignorant of their own duty, and of the benefits which follow from that sacred ordinance; and it is undoubtedly the part of their spiritual teachers to endeavour, by all possible means, to bring them to a right understanding of this subject. But it is better, as far as the children themselves are concerned, that their parents should bring them to be baptized under the influence of a wrong motive, than that they should not bring them at all; and the withdrawing of any inducement to the observance of a solemn and necessary ordinance of religion, cannot fail to have a most injurious effect upon the parents themselves; while it will deprive their children, in too many cases, of the initiatory sacrament of Christianity.

"The clergy wish not to dwell on this sad and solemn consideration; but they earnestly hope that the legislature will pause before, for the sake of some statistical facilities, and a theoretical perfection of registration, it runs the risk of involving so many innocent children in this danger; and becomes the unintentional tempter of their parents to so fearful a neglect of Christian duty.

"The clergy also submit, that the provisions of this bill greatly interfere with the rights of the people, and violate those feelings which ought to be held most sacred.

"In proof of the first position they refer to clauses 19, 20, 22, 23, and the severe penalties enacted in the two latter clauses; in proof of the latter they advert to clause 25, requiring the next of kin (a widow, for instance, respecting her deceased husband, or a parent respecting his child) to give information to the registrar, not only respecting the death of the husband or child, but as to such other particulars as that officer may be required to certify, and therefore subjecting them at such a time, and under such circumstances, to the visits and interrogatories of a stranger." "The clergy have hitherto kept these registers free of any expense to the public, save that of providing proper books for the purpose; having been wholly paid for their trouble by the fees for entries, searches, and extracts, paid by the persons applying for them. They submit that, if the registrars appointed under the bill are to receive for the copies made out by them, once in every quarter, two shillings and sixpence for the first twenty names, and one shilling for each subsequent entry of births and deaths, (register bill, clause 29, page 10,) it is but just that the clergy should receive the same sum for every copy made by them, and transmitted to the registry office. But, by this bill, (clause 31, page 11,) the clergy are obliged to keep their marriage registers in duplicate (!) at great inconvenience to themselves, and delay and annoyance to the parties; and having so done, are further required to return copies of them four times in the year (!) without fee or reward.

"It is manifest, that in the great parishes in the metropolis, where so many persons are constantly attending at the vestry rooms of the churches, for the solemnization of marriage, the baptism of children, and the arrangements preparatory to funerals, this provision of a duplicate registry would occasion very serious inconveniences, and entail a great additional labour on the clergy, without any corresponding benefit to the public. If copies of the registers are to be returned quarterly, there can be no occasion for the duplicate, that is, if the duplicate itself is sent in.

"It is also a peculiar hardship imposed on the clergy by this bill, that while books, parchment, and vellum are to be furnished to all the registering officers appointed under it, no provision is made for supplying such to the clergy, but they are