this act.' But they are told so to no purpose. They hug their donum tighter, and thrust it deeper in their pockets; and entreatingly extend their hands again towards the government coffer, crying, 'Give, give.' Here are eight professors' chairsendow them; and do be so paternally kind as to increase your grant to some of the poorer sort of us this hard year.' Yes; this has been the cry; and it has proved successful as to the professorial chairs; but, miserabile dictu! it has failed as to the other object of their modest request. To the exposition of this request, and the unfeeling, unpaternal, and repulsive reply which they have received, we now beg to direct our readers' attention. On February 14th, 1847, as we learn from the important government document which stands at the head of this article, Dr. James Morgan, of Belfast, then the Moderator of the General Assembly, addressed a letter to the Chief Secretary of Ireland, in which he preferred two requests, both based on the distress consequent on the failure of the potatoe crop,' 'many congregations of the Assembly suffering severely from the visitation.' These requests are, first, the relaxation or suspension of the law' which requires the payment' by each congregation 'of £35. stipend to qualify them for the royal bounty being paid to the ministers.' And secondly, an 'addition' to their ministers' small salaries.' These requests were preferred by Dr. Morgan with great confidence, and hope of success. experience of past kindness' encouraged him to indulge this hope.' Indeed, the presentation of this 'beggar's petition' could not have been entrusted to better hands. He appears not to be troubled with the feeling of shame, nor over-burdened with modesty. He knows, also, how to press his point with mingled urgency and respect. But alas! his fond 'hope' was doomed to disappointment. It was 'hope' which 'maketh ashamed.' In reference to the 'relaxation' of the rule referred to above, Sir H. Labouchere, the chief secretary, replied to Dr. Morgan in these terms: 'I have to say, that, after making the fullest inquiry into the subject, I am not of opinion that I ought to recommend a measure which could only be justified by the most urgent and undeniable necessity.' Before this official letter' was received, intimation to the same effect had been given through Mr. Mathews; but, in the application, great importunity had been displayed. Several communications both personal and by letter,' the chief secretary says, were received by him, upon the subject.' What a pity such perseverance should be fated to fail in its object!

'The

But the most important part of the government document before us is, the Report on the Application of the Rev. Dr. Morgan,' drawn up by J. Mathews, Esq., of Dublin Castle, him

self, be it observed, a zealous presbyterian. As an appendix' to this report,' there is a 'return for the year ending March the 31st, 1847, of the congregational income of the ministers of the General Assembly of the presbyterian church in Ireland, with the number of families belonging to each congregation, arranged into presbyteries.'

The substance of this 'report,' containing, as it does, the most shameful but most merited exposure which the Irish presbyterian church has ever received, we shall now endeavour to lay before our readers. We do this with regret, and under an imperative sense of duty. Enormous wrong is done to our protestant faith, the practical evils of which we expose, in order to their correction. Let none say that we have pleasure in revealing the misdoings of others. All minor considerations give place to the paramount importance of the interests which are at stake.

After Dr. Morgan's application had been transmitted to Mr. Mathews by the chief secretary, Mr. Mathews forwarded to the several presbyteries 'printed forms to be filled up with the customary statistical accounts of their various congregations, for the year ending March 31, 1847. Such forms are annually issued in March; and to follow the same course again appeared to be the best way of collecting the facts necessary for a decision of the matter. Shortly afterwards, many presbyterian ministers in Ulster intimated' to Mr. Mathews, that 'their congregations had not paid them the requisite thirty-five pounds of stipend, having been led by some newspaper reports to believe that, in consequence of the existing distress, the royal bounty would be issued this year 'without regard to any particular payments by the people to their ministers.' Mr. Mathews soon undeceived them on this point, telling them, that unless the stipulated sum were paid, no royal bounty would be paid to the ministers of the defaulting congregations.' This brought the parties to their senses, and led to the stipend being paid by all the congregations, except in two cases, which are still under consideration.' And, what is worthy of remark, 'the aggregate amount of stipend for the year ending 31st March last, is not now less than for former years, when no failure of the crops could be complained of.' This shows two things-first, that the presbyterian people do not feel it to be their duty to support their ministers, and will pay as little as they can; and, secondly, that they seem disposed, if possible, to hand over their ministers entirely to government; and to excuse themselves from all trouble and cost in the matter.

'But as the extract from Dr. Morgan's letter indicates the possibility of this application being submitted to government,

with reference to the year ending March 31st, 1848, notwithstanding every appearance of an abundant harvest,' Mr. Ma-. thews thinks it his duty to go more into detail on the subject. Accordingly he does so, honestly and thoroughly, to the great scandal of his presbyterian brethren. The result of the first part of his inquiry is the disgraceful discovery, that the 'average payment, by each individual' member of the presbyterian churches connected with the General Assembly, to his minister, is, 'forty-one farthings a year. This is the price at which the presbyterian community of Ulster prize their ministers, ten-pence farthing a man! This is the value of their love to the ministry. Dr. Morgan tells the chief secretary, that if he knew the usefulness' of the presbyterian ministers in the country, he would have something done speedily for their advantage. Strange that the chief secretary should be expected to take such a deep interest in them, when their own people, the very objects of their usefulness,' seem so contented to allow them to starve! But we give Mr. Mathew's own words:

'In this,' the return already referred to, there are four hundred and fifty-one congregations accounted for, paying altogether £18,444 of stipend, or about £40 a-year each. The number of families is stated to be 86,450, and multiplying them by five (which is about the truth), the total number of persons will be 432,250. And if the aggregate stipend be divided by them, the average payment by each individual to his minister, is, forty-one farthings a year.'

But the population connected with the General Assembly is constantly affirmed by presbyterians to be twice the number here stated,' although the present census' was furnished to Mr. Mathews by the several presbyteries.' The Belfast News Letter asserts the number to be 800,000. So be it then,' says the Scotsman, who has done good service of late in the cause of voluntaryism. So be it, then; but increase the divisor, and down comes the dividend. Altered, therefore, according to the Belfast organ's wishes, the fact stands thus: the people of the Irish presbyterian church contribute for their ministers five-pence halfpenny per annum. Or, if Dr. Cook would like it better, it can be stated thus: 'one half of the people value their ministers at ten-pence farthing, and the other half hold them altogether valueless.' These are stubborn truths' indeed.

Nor let the plea of poverty be alledged to excuse the beggarly pittance thus contributed by the presbyterian people. No doubt,' says Mr. Mathews, in the Report, there are many poor in so large a denomination; but, as is known to every one acquainted with Ulster, there are also great numbers of

prosperous, wealthy families.' 'It is, however,' he adds, 'unquestionable, that for about the last forty years, no class of Christians have been in the habit of paying so little to their ministers, as the laity of the several presbyterian synods, endowed by parliamentary grant.' The cause of this,' he then proceeds most satisfactorily to show; and in this showing, the regium donum appears to have dried up the well-springs of Christian liberality in the hearts of the people, and to have destroyed all sense of responsibility in reference to the support and extension of the gospel.

'From 1690, when the royal bounty commenced, down to the year 1803, the grant was annually divided — share and share alike-among all the ministers of each synod,' and as a new congregation was formed, the amount previously received by the other ministers of the body was diminished. But previous to 1803, the presbyteries, by which new congregations are organized, would allow none to be formed, unless there was a sufficient body of people undertaking to pay the minister an amount of stipend considerably more than £35. But in 1803, the grant was increased, and divided into three classes of £50, £75, and £100, to different congregations. Newly-formed congregations also were secured the bounty, without any diminution of the shares of existing ministers. What has been the result?

Under the operation of the system up to 1803, the congregations had been trained to pay their ministers liberally; and a change to the worse in this respect never being apprehended, no stipulation was, in the arrangements of 1803, made by government requiring the payment of stipend as a condition of obtaining bounty. But that arrangement began in a few years to operate most prejudicially; congregations were from time to time formed without regard to their payment of stipend, for bounty could be got without it, or without lessening the share of other ministers. What used formerly to be the smaller part of the minister's income became in this way its chief part; and an opinion gradually gained ground throughout the congregations, that it was not to them but to the government that ministers were to look for support.'

The threefold classification proved unsatisfactory to the great bulk of the ministers of whom the second and third classes were composed. It was destructive to the ecclesiastical parity of ministers recognised (they told government) by the presbyterian church; and deputations from year to year waited on government, praying for an equalisation of the grant, and the abolition of class division.' But the equalisation which they sought was, 'that all ministers should receive £100. a-year of bounty.' To this modest request which was prompted by 'parity,' the

6

government objected, but arranged to give all £75., raising the £50. class at once to that sum, and reducing to the same the £100. class as vacancies occurred. At the same time regulations were under consideration rendering the payment of a certain stipend by each congregation the condition of their minister receiving the bounty; the amount of which stipend was ultimately fixed at £35. a-year. The equalisation took place in 1838, and the requirement of the payment of £35. stipend took effect in 1840. Great reluctance was manifested,' says Mr. Mathews, to this regulation, or to the payment of any prescribed amount of stipend being made an absolute condition of participating in the parliamentary grant;' but government was firm to its purpose. The bounty had been made the 'mainstay' of the congregations. Congregations had often, during the continuance of the threefold classifications of bounty, on finding that their minister had got himself advanced from the third to the second class, or from the latter to the first, thereupon diminished their previous payment of stipend, and, by keeping down his income to its former amount, saved their own contributions at the expense of the treasury.' Without government interference this system, it was seen, would continue; the rule was, therefore, established, and the presbyterian church was compelled to submit to it. Every minister now receives (exclusive of the royal bounty) a minimum congregational income of £35., of which £20. must be paid by his congregation, while the balance may be made up by a free manse, or a permanent bequest or donation. It is only, be it observed, congregations endowed since 20th of October, 1838, and old congregations as they become vacant, that are subject to this regulation.

The effect of this rule on the presbyterian congregations is thus stated by Mr. Mathews:

'Since the regulations have been in force, all congregations bound to make up the £35, are certified by their Presbyteries to do so; but it is apparent from a glance at the return, that they seldom exceed the prescribed amount. On the other hand, congregations formerly paying old ministers beyond £35, now pay new ministers exactly £35; and it is feared only pay that sum, just because the government regulations make it necessary. Wherever the bounty cannot be got without payment of a particular stipend, the requisite sum is paid and no more; such, with occasional exceptions, is be coming the practice. Three old rural congregations, which from change of ministers fell under the regulations during the past year, and who paid the former ministers not more stipend than from £10 to £15, at once made up the £35 to secure the bounty, notwithstanding the prevalent distress; and it is notorious that many congregations could well pay far more stipend than they do at present.'