are firmly attached to the principles of the British Constitution, and labour, through evil report and good report, for the promotion of social order, and the extension of every thing that is peaceful, benevolent, and purifying, in Christianity, at home and abroad, without receiving, or asking, or desiring, to be paid for their labours by the State; thus leaving the episcopal clergy in a relative situation, which, if it is not voluntarily relinquished, will, at length, turn the scale of popular favour, hitherto, not by the most honourable means, kept on their side, decidedly against them; endanger their continuance in the national religious buildings in which they minister; and expose to public odium the polity to which they are attached.

The French have a manageable public debt, and feel little inconvenience in paying the moderate salaries which the clergy receive. The English are pressed to the earth by the weight of their eight hundred millions of debt, principally incurred in the prosecution of a war which the clergy were the most forward in abetting, as the church was then in danger from revolutionary principles; and, without the sacrifice of the country's and of Europe's best blood and treasure, could not be maintained. Is it so destitute of all feeling, that the groans of a people, burdened beyond the power of endurance, cannot affect its heart? Is it so insatiable in its appetite as to covet all the advantages resulting from the war, without being willing to sacrifice even the increase of its wealth, which, by the advance of prices, was derived from that war?'-pp. 203-206.

We shall not go into the author's reasoning upon the respective sanctions of the Jewish and English tithe systems: that is a question beyond our province. But we must adduce his testimony, for we believe it to be true, as to the consequences of the alliance, the unholy alliance, which has for some time subsisted between the church and the state.

It is undeniable fact, that the greater part of those who continue nominally attached to the established church, have their hearts as little interested and excited in that attachment, as they would be in a matrimonial alliance, entered into with some dull piece of stiff and formal antiquity, for the sake of financial convenience or state necessity. They may support, or rather, require others to support it, as a part of their dignity. They may pay their cold and infrequent visits to her assemblies, as a part of their ceremonial duty, but there are none of the elements of life and passion entering into the relation which they profess to bear, and imparting pleasure, freedom, and enjoyment to the intercourse which is maintained.

'The period is come, when names will no longer rule, and ancient forms no longer fetter the expanding intellect of the country: the principles of all institutions will be investigated, and those which are founded in fallacies, and burdensome in their support, will be exposed and removed. There is no fallacy which is so utterly groundless, or which has proved so extensively injurious, both to the temporal and spiritual interests of mankind, as that which assumes the necessity of State endowments to preserve and perpetuate the religion of the New Testament. Christianity is reduced to a mere lifeless form, before it can receive these endowments; and then, in the corrupting process of that form which follows, infidelity is engendered and grows and riots on the plenteous food prepared for its nourishment. So scon as reason expels blind prejudice from the authori

ties of the country, every relic of the blundering and mischievous legislation by which the character of religion has been debased, its evidences obscured, its power neutralized, its purity converted into contaminating defilement, and its heathful frame into a body of "wounds and bruises, and putrifying sores," will be cleared away, and then the era of the nation's moral and political regeneration and prosperity will commence.

'We contend that the laws by which the English tithe system and the English church are supported, are odiously partial, making impolitic, unjust, and absurd distinctions between those who equally love and serve their country. This might not, indeed, have been intended nor foreseen when these laws were enacted; but it has arisen, as a necessary consequence, from the unsound and unenlightened principles on which they were constructed. And the enormity of the evil lies here, that they have conferred a bounty for the perpetuation of error and intolerance; have engaged many of the most powerful and learned writers on religious subjects in an unnatural war against some important parts of those Scriptures which they have undertaken to defend; have induced suspicion on the motives by which they were influenced in advocating so much of Christianity as they retained, and have thrown a reproach on the name and character, and raised formidable obstacles in the path of those who were desirous of pursuing the radiant steps of banished truth wherever they might discover them. It deserves to be very thoughtfully and honestly inquired, whether the influence which has neutralized the beneficial effect of the works which have been written on the evidences of Christianity, which has prevented the light of those evidences from shining brighter and brighter unto the perfect day; which has thrown theology into the shade, while every other science has been advancing towards meridian clearness, and which has restricted the blessing of God on the exertions of the church, may not be found in the love of filthy lucre by which every part of the church has been more or less infected; and in the unauthorized and coercive means by which it has sought its gratification? The book of nature would have been no better known than is the book of Scripture, if similar endowments and influence had been connected with the ancient but unscientific mode of interpreting its laws.

Viewing the question politically, it may be asked, whether the government, in these times, can afford to maintain the ancient system of religious favouritism, or possesses strength enough to uphold it? Whether, if the Church and State do not voluntarily agree to dissolve an alliance, which God never sanctioned,-which enlightened reason condemns,-which the Scriptures describe as spiritual fornication, and which, in the too painful experience of the country, has been found to involve all the corruption, extravagance, and folly of such a connexion, both parties to the illegal contract may not suffer shame and loss. Above all, it deserves to be seriously inquired, whether the clergy can answer for the share which they have had in nullifying the divine sanctions of Christianity, by resting its support on the coercion of a fleshly arm? Are not they bound to enforce in all things, and more especially in those things which relate to religious affairs, the precept, "Whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance for ye serve the Lord Christ?" Are not they bound to exemplify his spirit, and carry their own views, and those of their hearers,

forward in the direction which he looked, who said, "Not that I desire a gift, but fruit that may abound to your account?" Is it nothing to them, that Christianity has been divested of its ethereal spirit, and presented to mankind in cold, and cheerless, and heartless forms? Is it nothing to them, that the scrutinizing eye of the public should see in those forms the corruption which must be turned from with loathing? Is it nothing to them, that truth is shorn of the splendour of its beams, and thrown out of the harmony of its proportions, by rites of human invention being ranked with the sacred symbols of Christ's mediatorial work, and called "decent ceremonies?" Is it nothing to them, that religion should be classed with the country's heaviest burdens, instead of its richest blessings? Is it nothing to them, that the things which they call sacred, should afford the readiest channel through which to pour the stimulants of infidelity into the cup of which the thirsty multitudes are drinking? Is it nothing to them, that the ills of poverty, instead of being soothed by the consolations of gospel truth, should be exasperated by the demon which can say to them, The lowly Jesus I know, and the laborious Paul I know, but who are ye? Is it nothing to them, that on their account, as on that of Jonah, the country resembles the troubled sea, and the storm is rising which threatens to toss and engulf the vessel of the State? Are they asleep in the hold, while the less enlightened mariners are wondering at the omens of the sky, and exerting every nerve to keep the vessel buoyant in the storm? Could they not calm the raging sea, without offering to be thrown themselves into it? Could they not, by saying, We give back, for the public relief, that which from the public was fraudulently obtained,-we cast ourselves, like others, upon the providence of God, and the affectionate liberality of those who are benefited by our ministrations, and would be themselves blessed in their giving, and then, at length, joyful in their reward,--throw oil upon the waves, and calm the tumult of the people? Now they may do this with dignity and efficiency; if they wait till the storm gathers more blackness, and the waves rage more furiously, and the vessel strains more fearfully, the counsel may at length be taken to heave them overboard.'— pp. 243-248.

His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury has introduced into the House of Lords a bill for the composition of tithes in England, which, at least, admits the fact that that charge, in its present form, is not relished by the people. It is also, so far, a token of homage to the progress of public opinion, if not indeed, as Mr. Hull forcibly puts it, 'an expedient suggested by timidity arising from a consciousness of weakness.' It is the object of his Grace to secure to the church the payment of the same amount of contributions, but only in a different shape, such as might be less odious to the party paying, and equally beneficial as the other, to the party receiving. The archbishop seems not yet to have thought of a bill for reducing his own enormous revenues, and those of his brethren of York, Durham, and London. We fear that no idea of such a bill as this has as yet arrived at maturity in his mind, though he must be aware that the day of reckoning is not far off. Vain legislator! Does he flatter himself with the hope that with such a sop as his composition bill, he can quiet the growing indignation

of the country, and persuade the people that they ought to pay for the perpetual maintenance of a church which great numbers of them have already abandoned?

However we may differ from Mr. Stratten upon other points, we cordially agree with him upon this, that in no part of this free empire ought any particular form of worship to be exclusively upheld by the state. It is unjust and tyrannical that any man should be obliged to contribute to the support of an ecclesiastical ministry, whose services he never requires, and whose doctrines he perhaps rejects as erroneous. Either the clergy of all religions should be paid by the Treasury, or none. We are of opinion that the nonmaintenance of any by the state, as in America, would be preferable in every respect to the pensioning of all by it, as in France. Let every man pay his own pastor as he pays his own doctor. These, it is true, are first principles; but to such principles the country is now rapidly returning, after too protracted a course of artificial policy, the cushioning and bolstering system, which will do no longer. The reform of our jurisprudence and of our legislature, which may be said to have already taken place, is but a partial symptom of the progressive tendency which men's minds have had for some years, and never more strongly than at this moment, towards the removal of inveterate abuses, and the adoption of measures which shall afford the best guarantee for the general welfare of the people.

ART. II.-The Lives of the Players. By John Galt, Esq., author of "The Life of Byron," &c. In two volumes, 8vo. London: Colburn and Bentley. 1831.

Mr. GALT has the modesty to introduce these volumes to the world, by assuring it that they will probably be among the most amusing books in the language.' For once we are not disinclined to agree with an author in his estimate of his own labours, particularly as in this case, they have been principally confined to the abridgment of larger works, and derive but a small portion of their merit from his own intellectual power. Undoubtedly there is not in the whole range of biography any class of characters that is at all to be compared with that of the actors. The profession being seldom one of choice, and being only adopted in most instances as a dernier ressort, those who follow it are a set of adventurers, alternately raised to the summit of prosperity, or plunged in the abyss of despair. They command our best sympathies, because they have at some time or other afforded us entertainment by the exercise of their talents, eliciting the exquisite tear or the loud laugh, as the scene varied from grave to gay, and often, even when their capabilities are not of a high order, leaving upon our minds impressions that are not easy to be removed. For our own parts we never see a poor devil of a shabby genteel player in VOL II. (1831.) No. IV.

2 K

town or country, off the stage, without feeling, that of all mankind he is the most to be pitied. In his countenance misery would appear to have taken up her permanent abode, and yet night after night, it is to be wreathed in smiles for the amusement of his more fortunate fellow-beings. A certain degree of mental cultivation he must have reached, which only renders his sensibilities more acute, and constantly stimulates him to a course of action, which, in the lapse of a few years, fills his life with an abundance of strange, and often of highly interesting, events.

The first personage commemorated in these volumes is Charles Hart, the grand nephew of Shakspeare. Few particulars have been preserved of his career beyond the fact, that he was distinguished by eminent professional merit. A somewhat more extended notice is given of Betterton, whose Hamlet is supposed to be the best that ever appeared on the stage. Colley Cibber does not hesitate to declare that he was as an actor, what Shakspeare was as an author. It was usual at the period in which Betterton lived to have the female characters performed by men.

One of the most celebrated of these representatives of the softer sex was Edward Kynaston, who was so beautiful, that ladies of high rank frequently used to take him in their coaches to Hyde Park in his stage dress after the play was over-a gratification which they might then have easily enjoyed, as dramatic performances occupied a much shorter time at that period than they do now, and were commenced at a much earlier hour. From his constant imitation of the female voice, he contracted a whining tone, which, in his latter days, became very disagreeable. To the last, however, he was distinguished for the beauty of his person, of which he was not a little vain, and that rather to his inconvenience on one occasion. Believing himself, as he was generally supposed to be, very like the celebrated Sir Charles Sedley, he dressed one day in a suit of clothes, copied in every particular after the style of Sir Charles, which offended the latter so much, that he hired a bravo to pick a quarrel with Kynaston in the character which he had chosen to assume. In vain did the actor protest that he was not the baronet; the ruffian would hear of no defence of that kind, while he bastinadoed him most unmercifully. Sir Charles wickedly enjoyed this most unpleasant of practical jokes, assuring those who remonstrated with him upon it, that he had suffered in his character much more than the other had in his bones, as the whole town believed that the disgraceful chastisement had been inflicted upon himself. Kynaston quitted the stage rich, about the year 1706.

The life of Joe Haynes, as he was familiarly called, is a curious medley. Born of obscure parents in Westminster, the brilliant talents which he displayed at St. Martin's school, induced several gentlemen to join in sending him to Oxford, where he completed his education. He was next employed by Sir Joseph Williamson, then member for that university, who, on becoming one of the