1828:] Affairs in General. 625 
and that too in parishes where already were exacted an old church-rate, and 
a new church rate ;—and not content, again, even with this importunity, 
they have marked those houses where they did not find the occupier at 
home, and actually sent a printed circular, announcing that they had. 
ealled for ‘ your subscription,’ directing it to be paid according to a given 
address. Now, this we consider as perfectly inquisitorial and abomin- 
able—it is depriving the individual of his option. Had these persons 
any sense of delicacy, they might conclude, in many cases, it was not 
convenient to contribute—or the party might not approve of the object, 
and yet not desire to be conspicuous in refusing, nor wish at all to give 
expression to his disapproval ; and, at all events, would not wish to have 
a mark set upon him. The virtue and beauty of contribution is the 
voluntariness of it. When a plate is held at the church door, the passer- 
by may give or not give, without being very remarkable, though even 
there he is often noted ; or he may absent himself, and leave the field 
fairly open for the willing and the ostentatious. 
But this collection, moreover, was under the sanction of what is called 
‘the King’s Letter, which was represented as carrying with it authority ; 
though unquestionably it is no legal instrument, and any attempt to give 
it that character is wholly unjustifiable. It is placing the King’s name 
in a very invidious light ;—if money be wanted for public purposes, the 
Commons, in Parliament assembled, have alone the power of granting. 
With very many persons, a demand made in the King’s name, unsanc- 
tioned by an act of Parliament, would be a reason for rejection—and 
justly, for it is to raise money on false pretences. As head of the Church, 
the King’s rights and privileges are strictly defined, and confer no power 
to raise a penny arbitrarily. In matters of this kind, the King’s authority 
is absolutely nothing, and his example entitled to no weight whatever. 
The truth is this: —the King’s Letter was one of the ways and means of 
the Church Committee, and granted at their solicitation. More churches 
are petitioned for than they can build; but they are eager—the reason is 
obvious—to build all, and therefore ingenuity is racked to suggest new 
expedients for raising funds. ' Parliamentary grants, and private sub- 
scriptions, renewed, and renewed, are all insufficient, till one, more cun- 
ning than the rest, starts a King’s Letter ;—the Archbishop is applied 
to—the application is of course, without difficulty, complied with, for 
fees spring out of it. The letter, accompanied with the Bishop’s man- 
date, circulates among the clergy, who enforce it publicly and privately 
—some pique themselves on the amounts collected—some are eager to 
exhibit their zeal, or to shew their influence—and importunity follows, in 
season and out of season—careless of the offence they give, and the odium 
they incur, so that they make themselves conspicuous at head-quarters. 
Is there to be no end to this rage for building new churches? None— 
so long as money, by any means, can be screwed to build them. Every 
incumbent in the kingdom, if a decent pretence can be found, will desire 
to have a second church, for it gives him patronage—it enables him to 
provide for a son, or a nephew, or a cousin. The church is now inun- 
dated with candidates for preferment—for every new church there are 
forty new clergymen. 
An attempt, we observe, has been made, to represent this King’s 
Letter, of which we have been talking too long, as a substitute for the 
Church briefs lately abolished. These briefs were abolished very pro- 
M.M. New Series.—Vour. VI. No. 36. 41 
