tions made by our fathers at their own cost, for which they toiled and laboured and denied themselves; because there are other good works to be done now, and we do not choose to sacrifice anything for their accomplishment. We have suffered a half-heathen population to arise among us, for want of churches and parochial endowments, and we hope to remedy the evil, by violating the sanctity of those other endowments whereby men who had carefully provided churches and ministers for every portion of the existing population, went on to secure the perpetual daily intercessions of the cathedrals, and the maintenance of a learned clergy, who, secluded from the cares of a parish might be, and have often been, the de-
saving however small is the same as so much gain. The only reason for the confiscation of the cathedral property, for instance, is that we may gain about 120,000l. per annum, to extend the parochial system, i. e. that we may save the necessity of spending so much. This measure therefore is wholly different in principle from the suppression of the monasteries and other similar acts; the cathedrals are to be suppressed, not because they are deemed injurious or useless, but solely that we may seize their property. In discussing a principle, the author of course does not presume to censure those venerable prelates who form the minority of the ecclesiastical commission; who are but instruments in the execution of a scheme, of which the most distinguished among them has publicly expressed his disapprobation; (see the primary charge of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury,) and for which another has declared that they do not consider themselves responsible; as they were appointed, not to consider whether it should take place, but only to put it in execution. (See Letter of the Lord Bishop of Lincoln to his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury.)
