though farmers, as I have already observed, always gain most in years of abundance, their profit on corn is, even in the best seasons, so small, that were they not permitted to increase their prices when scarcity takes place, and when they have only small quantities to dispose of, in what manner is it possible that their business could be carried on? It seems, however, to be the desire and expectation of many, that in all seasons, farmers should sell their corn at nearly the same value, whatever the quantity may be ! A desire so unreasonable, that it cannot easily be accounted for or explained.' Mr. Bell is decided in reprobating all restrictions on dealers in provisions. To encourage abundance, he advises a very simple plan: Let every statute be repealed that has hitherto been continued against dealers in corn, and other provisions: let all who deal in them be protected, and permitted to purchase and sell in all situations and circumstances, and whenever they may think proper; and the business will be done. When this shall happen, and the period is not probably distant, it will soon become matter of surprise and wonder, that any of these pernicious statutes were continued till the nineteenth century. They will be considered as the more remarkable, from being kept in force by the people of Britain, who have long been convinced of the utility of freedom of trade in every other article; and hereafter will be spoken of in the same manner with all statutes that authorise persecution, where full liberty should be given.' On the subject of the proper size of farms, this author asserts that it is for the interest of the public, greatly for the comfort of farmers, and very beneficial for the poor, that full encouragement be given to farms of considerable size;' and that all the labouring cottagers should be possessed of small portions of land for the use of their families. Large farms indeed produce quantities for the market; while small farms are most favourable to population. A distinct section is employed in discussing the operation of Country-Banks; and it is maintained that they prove useful to agriculture, and thereby tend to lessen rather than to raise the prices of produce.' In many respects, Country-Banks afford an accommodation to Agriculturists; and, as they assist greatly in giving stability to cur paper currency, they ought not to be abolished: but, as they unavoidably help to increase the quantity of the circulating medium, they must operate, together with the National Bank, in raising the nominal value of provisions and other articles. We have already mentioned that Mr. Bell, among the means of preventing future scarcity, does not recommend an increase of the quantity of ploughed lands, and opposes the cultivation of wastes as an injurious measure; though, strange to say, he would have commons divided, because, till this is done, he asseris, asserts, they cannot any way be occupied to advantage? but if the welfare of the nation does not require them to be subjected to the operations of agriculture, why divide them? why expend any of the national capital on them? It is maintained that it is for the national interest to lessen the quantity of corn land, which is here said to be already three times more than it necessarily should be. We possess, according to the statement before us, 27,000,000 of acres of arable land; and the full cultivation of 10,000,000 is represented as adequate to provide more than sufficient for our consumption. Mr. Bell's opinion, in this respect, will be combated; at all events, it merits a full discussion. The first two essays in this volume belong rather to the class of Political Arithmetic than to Agriculture; in them, Mr. P. treats of the Taxation of Income, of the National Debt, of the Funds, and of the Sale of the Land Tax. To an Income tax he is extremely partial; and he thinks that, if such a tax were instituted, it ought to include all incomes, from the largest down to those of 151. per annum; though the assessments should not be on the same scale of proportion. There is truth in the following observation, that, by collecting the revenue of the kingdom in one article, making every person pay a certain proportion of his clear income, instead of taxing every article in common use, as is done at present, the whole might be managed with much less expence than is now paid for a single branch of it.' By experience, however, it has been found. that the demand of the disclosure of income is so cdious and irritating, and that opportunities of evasion are so numerous, that few persons wish for the revival of this tax in any shape. It is very difficult, also, to levy it with equality.-The amount of the National Income is reckoned at 243,000,000, which is probably much too high.-For instance; the whole amount of the income from land is taken at its utmost estimate, and to this is added the whole of the mortgage capital: now it is admitted by Mr. B., that a great proportion of men of landed property are in debt, and the amount of the interest paid on the sum total borrowed must be subtracted from their incomes. The amount of the interest on the mortgage capital must be taken from, not added to, the landed income.--Mr. Bell appears to be actuated by the purest motives: but we are surprised that he should labour to exhibit an exaggerated statement of our wealth; for what benefit can accrue from encouraging national vanity, or from inviting a minister into the dangerous paths of excessive taxation? Mr. Bell's doctrine on the Funding System is that it will be the gulf of our national wealth and prosperity, as long as it is permitted to exist; that, so far from our flourishing state having any dependence on the high price of the Funds, we shall thrive in proportion as their price is low; and that we ought to make every effort for the speedy liquidation of the National Debt. His opinion of the Act for the Sale of the Land-Tax be collected from a short passage: may Instead of calling upon the proprietors of land to purchase their land-tax, or expecting others to do it, this tax ought, in equity, to be at once annihilated, and income from land be put upon the same footing with income from any other source. Were this to be done, there is reason to believe, that it would be productive of more public benefit than will ever probably arise from the plan which Government appears at present willing to promote for it.' It can be the interest of none but proprietors to become purchasers. Many sensible observations occur in this volume: but it is diffusely written; for which Mr. B. apologizes, like the parson for his long sermon, by saying that he had not time to make it shorter. The public may expect a continuation of this gentleman's agricultural remarks. Hat. ART. XI. An Appendix to the Guide to the Church: In which the Davies. PER *See M. Rev. N. S. Vol. xxviii. p. 234. debate, Mo-y I debate, or which leads to any decisive conclusion. It is rather amusing, however, to see with what assurance of success each combatant prepares to attack his adversary, and with what eagerness and mutual (gentlemanly) tauntings they hasten to measure lances with each other. Both Knights profess the warmest attachment to the same Lady, while each upbraids the other for deserting her. What can we do in this case? As umpires, must we let them fight on, and then divide the palm? The Clergyman accuses the Baronet of being a Dissenter from the Established Church with regard to Discipline; and the Baronet pronounces the Clergyman to be a Dissenter in point of Doctrine. Mr. Daubeny unchurches all societies of Christians who are not episcopally governed; and Sir Richard Hill will not allow those to be true Church of England Clergymen who do not preach up Calvinism. We cannot entirely agree with either of these gentlemen. The Baronet, in his account of Church Government, appears to have the advantage over the Clergyman, especially if the appeal be made to the evidence of Scripture, and to the practice of the primitive church: but, when he proceeds to discuss the doctrines of Grace, Free Will, &c. he loses his superiority, by endeavouring to uphold doctrines which are less in unison with the general tenor of the New Testament than those of Mr. Daubeny. It is contended by Mr. D., in the first part of his Appendix, that Episcopal Government is necessary to the existence of a Christian Church;' whence it follows, as a necessary corollary, that the Church of Geneva, the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and the Dissenting Congregations, are not true churches. To establish this position, an appeal is made to the history of the early ages of the Church, in order to prove that nothing was thought to be legally done without the authority of the Bishop; and that there existed among the primitive Christian Clergy three distinct orders, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. Unfortunately, however, for his grand hypothesis, he is forced to confess that it may be somewhat difficult at this day to ascertain the precise meaning of the different titles of Bishop, Priest, and Deacon in every passage in which they occur. By this concession, the basis of his fabric is completely subverted; for, if it appears (as it unquestionably does) that a Presbyter in the primitive Church had often the same order and power with the Bishop, his whole argument, by which he would turn such multitudes out of the Christian Church, falls to the ground. As this is a species of reasoning which we should not have expected in any scholar of the present day, and least of all in a minister of the Protestant Church, we must not suffer it to pass without farther observation. Does Does Mr. Daubeny need to be informed that the word exitusTos, on which he lays such stress, is a civil term, employed by the Greek classic writers to signify a person who alicui rei curandæ præfectus est; and that it was adopted by the writers of the N. T. and the primitive Christians to express the office of overseership, or presidency, in the society of believers which was formed in any place for the purposes of piety, fellowship, and communion? Can Mr. D. be ignorant that the original sense of EIxoxos, in the age of the apostles, was not exactly commensurate with the modern signification of the word Bishop, by which it is generally translated? The chief ministers of every church, or congregation of Christians for social worship, were denominated STICKOTOI, or overseers, as the word is translated in our version of the N. T., Acts xx. 28.; and the author of the Inquiry into the Constitution, Discipline, &c. of the Primitive Church, which flourished within the first three hundred years after Christ, observes, p. 54. that "what we generally render Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, would be more intelligible in our tongue, if we did express it by Rectors, Vicars, and Deacons; the former being the actual incumbents of a place, and the latter Curates. or assistants, and so different in degree, but yet equal in order." Mr. D., with a weakness of argument which, for the credit of his understanding and liberality, we wish him to relinquish, urges the necessity of having an officer named Bishop in every society or convention of Christians, in order to constitute that society a Church; as if Tinos and Bishop were convertible terms, and the sense of the former could be expressed only by the latter. The fact is that the heads or rulers of every Christian society answer to the antient 1, whatever mo dern appellations they may assume; and that the Presbytery of Scotland, the Calvinists at Geneva, and all the societies of Separatists, are as much Christian Churches as the Church of Rome. When Mr. D. makes the validity of ordination to rest on an uninterrupted succession of Bishops, we are disposed rather to smile at his credulity than to offer a serious reply. Where is the necessity of this succession stated, and how can it be proved? On this occasion, we shall spare our own remarks, and oppose to Mr. D.'s regular succession the remarks of Sir R. Hill: When I consider the perpetual disagreements and bickerings which subsisted in the first ages of the Church, and how often the different bishops were deposed, and others ordained in their stead, so that not unfrequently there were two, three, or more nominal bishops appointed over the same district; I say, when all this is duly consi dered, as well as the darkness of those times, and the dreadful con |