"To these are to be added fifteen hundred livings in Ireland to be disposed of in the same way, making the total number of benefices in the gift of the government, directly or indirectly through the nobility, gentry, dignitaries of the church, and corporations, above eleven thousand. The whole of this rich and powerful establishment is independent of the action of the people, and is regarded and used by the aristocracy as a vast domain for the special benefit of their younger sons and favorites. To but a very small extent indeed is it used to reward merit, or to cure the souls of the people."-Vol. II, pp. 262-265.

After having spoken of the distinction of the clergy into the idle and the working, or the non-resident and the resident, he speaks of the traffick in which the right of presentation to a living is sold in open market.

"The case stands thus: A certain parish living is worth £1000 a year (about $4,500,) and the patron who has the right of giving it away is a private gentleman, or even a young lady. The incumbent is old, and can not be expected to live long. Another person has a son whom he designs for the church, but he has not interest enough at court, or with the nobility or dignitaries of the church, to obtain a good living for him. He therefore calculates the probable time the aged minister will live, and buys for a few thousand pounds, from the private patron, the right to make the next presentation to the liv ing upon the death of the incumbent. Of course, when this event occurs, the purchaser presents his own son, who may be both a blockhead and a sinner. Yet he

becomes the rector; and as he does not wish to reside, nor to do the work of an evangelist, he bargains with a curate to do the work for fifty or one hundred pounds per annum, and retains the remaining nine hundred pounds, thus making a clear speculation of about $4,000 a year."-Vol. II, pp. 265, 266.

Dr. Durbin's statements respecting the revenues of the establishment, and the manner in which they are distributed, deserve the particular attention of those readers, if there are any, who have given credit to the representations put forth by Bishop Brownell's counsellor at law. We are sorry to be under the necessity of curtailing our quotations.

"The revenues of the church, and their distribution, are attracting much attention, yet it is remarkable that the truth can not be ascertained with respect to either of these points. Some estimates make the revenue about four millions sterling, others six, others eight, and the Westminster Review nine millions sterling, or about forty millions of dollars."

"The distribution of this vast ecclesiastical revenue is becoming a subject of eager inquiry in England. Three classes of men are in the receipt of it: the prelates of the church, who do some service; the sinecures and non-residents, who do none; and the resident rectors and the curates, who really do the work. With the exception of the curates, it is impossi ble to ascertain what is the salary of any churchman. The returns to Parliament show the nett proceeds of each living; but then there are tithes, fees, and parsonage houses and grounds, not taken in

to the account. The amount and nature of the ecclesiastical revenue, and the appropriation of it, are so mystified by those who are interested in them, that the mass of the people can not clearly comprehend the matter. It is agreed that much of it is appropriated to persons who render no service at all, or such service as is of no worth to the people. It is also agreed that the revenue is most unequally distributed; some prelates receiving as much as £25,000 to £30,000 ($140,000) annually, while the average salaries of the resident clergy would not be more than £400, and the average of the curates' quite under £100. Many of these excellent and laborious men receive not more than £40 to £50 each annually. The clergy list for 1842 sets down the salaries of the principal bishops: Archbishop of Canterbury, £17,000 $75,000

66

York, Bishop of London,

66 Winchester,

10,000 44,000 11,700 51,948 10,500 46,620

"The remaining twenty-three bishops do not receive so much each; but graduate downward to his lordship of Sodor and Man, who receives only £2000, and is denied a seat in the House of Lords.

"But although these enormous sums are set down in the clergy list, there is no doubt but that the receipts are very much greater in each case. The dignitaries of the church themselves do not hesitate, in case of family quarrels, to abuse each other in regard to these revenues. The Bishop of London thus discourses in the House of Lords about the sinecures attached to St. Paul's Cathedral: 'I pass the magnificent church which crowns the metropolis, and is consecrated to the noblest of objects, the glory of God, and I ask myself in what degree it answers its object. I see there a dean and three residentiaries, with incomes amounting in the aggregate to between ten and twelve thousand pounds a year; I see, too, connected with the cathedral, twenty-nine clergymen, whose offices are all but sinecures, with an annual income of twelve thousand pounds, and likely to be very much larger after a lapse of a few years. I proceed a mile or two to the east and northeast, and find myself in the midst of an immense population, in the most wretched destitution and neglect; artisans, mechanics, laborers, beggars, thieves, to the number of three hundred thousand.'

"The Rev. Sidney Smith, the wittiest of whigs, happens to be a canon of St. Paul's, and thus turns upon his lordship:

This stroll in the metropolis is extremely well contrived for your lordship's speech; but suppose, my dear lord, that instead of going east and northeast, you had turned about, crossed London Bridge, and resolving to make your walk as impartial as possible, bad proceeded in a southwest direction, you would soon, in that case, have perceived a vast palace, containing not a dean, three residentiaries, and twenty-nine clergymen, but one attenuated prelate, with an income, enjoyed by himself alone, amounting to £30.000 per annum, twice as great as that of all these confiscated clergymen put together; not one penny of it given up by act of Parliament during his life to that spiritual destitution he so deeply deplores, and £15,000 per annum secured to his successor; though all the duties of the office might be most effectually performed

for one third of the salary.'

"The same excess in receipts of the prelates will appear from the following

passage

from the Examiner for June 26, 1840 Remarkable it is that, notwith standing all the charities of the bishops, they die richer than any other class of men. By the probates at Doctors' Commons, it appeared in 1828 that the personal property of twenty-four bishops who

had died within the preceding twenty years amounted to the enormous sum of £1,649,000, an average of nearly £70,000 for each bishop. This was the sworn value of the personal property only, and some of the bishops are known to have had very large possessions in real proper ty. Now we will venture to assert that in no other profession will it be found that so large an average of wealth has been left by the heads; take the twenty-four last generals, the twenty-four last admirals, the twenty-four last judges, nay, the twenty-four last merchants, and their per sonal property will not equal that of the bishops, nor approach it. So that, after all, the charities of the holy men do not hurt them; and if they live poorer than other men, yet some how or other they die richer.'

"A church with such revenues, so administered, can offer but little security for the morality, not to say the piety of the clergy. Besides, her connection with the government taints her with political vi ces; while the great inequality of her clergy establishes an aristocracy within the kingdom of Christ; a kingdom in which our Lord said, that he who would be greatest, must be servant of all."—Vol. II, pp. 266-270.

The visits of American clergy. men to Europe are desirable or otherwise, according to the views and purposes with which the traveler goes abroad. If he goes, as many go, with no other views or intentions than those of a mere tourist-if he goes simply to indulge himself in the luxury of seeing sights-he will not only do no good, but he will also get no good; he will come home in no way better qualified for the work to which he is devoted. But if he goes as a minister of the gospel, mindful of his character and relations-if he goes resolved to lose no opportunity of doing good-if he goes to hold Christian communion with those in other lands who love the truth as it is in Jesus, and by personal observation to make himself acquainted with the state and prospects of the churches of Christ, then he will do good to others, his own mind and heart will be enlarged, and he will come home better qualified for usefulness in his native land.

--

We shall discuss, on the present occasion, but one point of this important subject. We shall inquire into the ground upon which the government has negotiated for the incorporation of Texas with this nation. That ground is the real one. The government has been under the control of Southern statesmen, who have foreseen and have plainly declared that the agricultural and commercial interests of the Southern states will be injured by the annexation. We may be certain, therefore, that the consideration which has outweighed these foreseen evils, is not only the paramount consideration, but is one, in their estimation, of great importance. The interest which the government has sought to promote at such an expense, is the one which is to bring Texas into the Union. We do not ask, then, what ground might be taken, nor what ground individuals have taken, but the ground which the government has taken upon this subject. Nor shall we discuss the less important considerations, but the one which it has placed foremost beyond all others. Nor shall we catch at mere rumors to settle this point. We ask the attention of our readers to the grave state papers which have become a portion of the history of the country. What, then, is that interest, which the government has set forth in its state papers as the great and leading one to be promoted by the annexation? We answer, Slavery. Slavery, in some of its manifold relations, meets us in almost every paragraph of these documents. But we desire a nearer view. What is the particular interest of slavery which is to be advanced,-what the particular aspect which the government has looked at in this transaction? What is the precise object which it has had in view in this movement in behalf of

* Public Documents.

slavery? The public documents furnish a reply.

It is not, then, to increase the value of slave plantations. It seems to be taken for granted, that it will seriously depreciate it. To show the extent of this anticipated depreciation, we may refer to the declaration of Senator Walker, that so far from having any pecuniary interest in the annexation, his friends have calculated that he will lose fifty thousand dollars by it in the diminution of the value of his estates. It is not, then, to open a new market for the productions of the slave region. Texas, on the contrary, might supply the world with cotton and sugar, and her annexation will raise up, as Mr. Upshur says, (letter of Sept. 22d, 1843, to Mr. Murphy,) "a powerful competitor." If it benefit in a pecuniary respect any part of the country, it is that part only which excites the constant vigilance of Southern politicians for its opposition to slavery. It is not, then, to extend and stimulate the slave-trade of the United States. For, though that may and undoubtedly will be the effect, still that is not the object for which the government has been preparing the way for annexation. Nor is it to facilitate the success of the principles of free trade. For, if it have any effect upon that subject, it will be, as the government argues, to bring a country under the Tariff laws, which, as an independent nation, with free trade, would destroy the Tariff. Thus, it will uphold the very system which is regarded as so hostile to slaveholding interests. It is none of these. On the contrary, the slave interest will be injured in these important respects,-respects so important, that for a single one of them, it has been ready to destroy the integrity of the Union. If, then, annexation diminishes the value of slave plantations; if it brings a powerful competitor into the market for all the

productions of the southern regions; if the stimulation of the slave-trade is a motive it scorns to use; if it is a barrier to prevent the overthrow of the tariff; if it thus injures so many Southern interests, what is the grand interest of slavery, which the government has undertaken, with such warm affection and energy, to foster and promote? What is that object, to gain which, the government runs the fearful risk of war, and the still more fearful one of alienating from itself the attachment of a large portion of its citizens? What is that object which slavery has in view, when she is so ready to sacrifice her other interests? What is the overwhelming necessity, which has compelled the government to force the subject upon the attention of a foreign nation, which hates slavery, there to be looked at with new abhorrence, and to be commented upon with renewed indignation by the wisest statesmen, the profoundest scholars, the most learned and pious clergy, the lights of the world, who, disagreeing upon many things, are all harmonious here, and above all, to be talked over by a whole people, who have a deep, everliving feeling towards slavery, and that feeling, hatred against it? What, we say, is that overwhelming necessity which has compelled the government to thrust this dangerous and excitable subject upon the arena of politics at home, to be discussed at ten thousand public meetings, and by ten thousand inflamed orators, and to be borne by every newspaper that issues from the press, to every inhabitant of the land? What, we ask again, is that overwhelming necessity which has compelled the government to introduce this solemn and awful subject into the house of God and the meeting of prayer, to be judged by the principles of the Bible, and to be carried in petitions for its abolition to the throne of the Almighty?

It is the necessity of preventing a few thousand slaves in Texas from being made free. It is to provide with wicked forethought against the

possibility of that region filling up with freemen. There, is a country embracing one hundred and sixty thousand square miles,we refer only to Texas proper,-big enough to make five states as large as South Carolina, all adapted to the growth of Southern products, and all of the greatest fertility. There, possibly,— a bare possibility, however, hardly more than the delusion of hope,-may be established an independent repub lic, without slavery, in a climate and upon soils heretofore consecrated to slave labor. But the vision of a republic upon our southwestern border, untarnished by slavery, fills our gov ernment with horror and alarm. To prevent the possibility of such a glorious sight, as we must call it, all the resources of diplomatic skill and the whole influence of the government are put in requisition. Rather than have slavery abolished in Texas, every other slave interest is to be damaged, and slavery itself to be searched with indignant scrutiny by the civilized and Christian world.

As a nation, we have endured the burden of slavery upon our conscience, because we have regarded it as a calamity fastened upon us before we became an independent people. We have always supposed that our government has viewed it as a mighty evil, to be endured only because it could not be thrown off. We have always so claimed it among ourselves and before the world. But what are we now doing? At the prospect of another republic, which has started with the same burden, casting it off, when light, before it has grown so mighty as to overpower every other interest, the government hastens, with alarmed speed, to bind it upon her forever. The free states have always sympathized with southern statesmen when they have groaned under this evil, and professed their willingness to get rid of it, if it could be done; but now we find these very statesmen, having the control of government in their own hands, when they fear a neighboring republic will overthrow

it, using all the power of this great country to make the curse of slavery there perpetual.

But, our object is to show the ground upon which the government has acted, not to comment upon it, if we can help it. We come then to the documents. The earliest statepaper, and the one which opens the whole subject, is a letter from Mr. Upshur to Mr. Murphy, dated Aug. 8, 1843. We quote the first paragraph.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, Aug. 8, 1843. Sir: A private letter from a citizen of Maryland, then in London, contains the following passage :

"I learn, from a source entitled to the fullest confidence, that there is now here a Mr. Andrews, deputed by the abolitionists of Texas to negotiate with the British government. That he has seen Lord Aberdeen, and submitted his project for the abolition of slavery in Texas, which is, that there shall be organized a company in England, who shall advance a sum sufficient to pay for the slaves now in Texas, and receive in payment Texas lands; that the sum thus advanced shall be paid over as an indemnity for the abolition of slavery; and I am authorized by the Texan minister to say to you, that Lord Aberdeen has agreed that the British government will guarantee the pay ment of the interest on this loan, upon condition that the Texan government will abolish slavery."

We pause here a moment. What ought to have been the feelings of an American statesman, acting for enlightened freemen, and in the genuine spirit of American liberty, when he beheld the prospect that a system of labor, which is our shame and may be our ruin, might be eradicated from that young republic before it was fastened forever upon its vitals? What but gratitude to God, that in His unexpected providence He was arresting at the outset this mighty evil? And, if a proper regard for the interests of his own country should lead him to examine with care the reVol. II.

58

lations which the government of Great Britain might sustain towards it, what more could be required of him than to see that England got no other advantage than what must result from the good-will felt towards her for her humanity?

But what were the feelings? Terror and alarm. Says Mr. Upshur, A movement of this sort can not be contemplated by us in silence. Such an attempt upon any neighboring country would necessarily be viewed by this government with very deep concern." Why not, rather, with earnest hope for the success of this new experiment in humanity? Great Britain has paid hundreds of thousands of pounds to Spain and Portugal, to obtain their cooperation in the grand project of abolishing the slavetrade; and universal humanity has applauded the generous deed, and the whole church has thanked God for the example of Christian benevolence on so broad a scale. But England has found by experience that the slave-trade can only be abolished by the abolition of slavery itself. If now she is willing to look with approbation upon a loan made by her citizens to Texas to pay the masters for consenting to emancipation, ought not this government, as most assuredly all other governments would do, to rejoice in this new instance of humanity in the conduct of nations? If there was to be any rivalry, ought it not to have been in contributing to so desirable a result? If there were to be any feats of diplomacy, ought they not to have been directed rather to the abolition of slavery by the promise of annexation? To have accomplished that, would confer immortal honor on a statesman, and its record, be the proudest page in our country's history. But, Mr. Upshur thought otherwise. Such an attempt upon any neighboring country," the Secretary can not even use the proper expression, for an act of intended kindness is not usually called an attempt on any one--"would necessarily be viewed by this government with very deep concern; but