social system as the standard by which the civilization of other countries must be measured, and they assume as a fundamental principle, that in countries where there is no individual property in land, and where the land is not cultivated, there is no civilization, and that they may therefore seize it. This assumption is true, if we measure civilization by the rule here laid down, for on individual ownership of land, and the cultivation of land, the whole European system rests. Whether land might be advantageously cultivated in common, and the institution of private property in land might be abofished, is another question, which however has not yet been satisfactorily resolved, and cannot be resolved without destroying the present social systems of Europe. A recent committee of the House of Commons, appointed to inquire into the state of New Zealand, have put forth the following doctrine :-" The uncivilized inhabitants of any country have but a qualified dominion over it, or a right of occupancy only, and until they establish amongst themselves a settled form of government, and subjugate the ground to their own uses by the cultivation of it, they cannot grant to individuals, not of their own tribe, any portion of it, for the simple reason that they have not themselves any individual property in it." This is not very precise language, but one may collect what it means. Lord Stanley, in a despatch to the governor of New Zealand, dated 13th August, 1844, says, "With respect to this doctrine, I am not sure that, were the question one of mere theory, I should be prepared to subscribe, unhesitatingly and without reserve, to the fundamental assumption of the committee; and I am sure that it would require considerable qualification as applicable to the aborigines of New Zealand. There are many gradations of uncivilized inhabitants,' and practically according to their state of civilization must be the extent of the rights which they can be allowed to clain, whenever the territory on which they reside is occupied by civilized communities." After describing the "aborigines of New Holland" as far below "the New Zealanders in civilization, and being wholly ignorant

of or averse to the cultivation of the soil, with no principles of civil government or recognition of private property, and little if any knowledge of the simplest form of religion, or even of the existence of a Supreme being;" he adds, that "it is impossible to admit, on the part of a population thus situated, any rights in the soil which should be permitted to interfere with the subjugation by Europeans of the vast wilderness over which they are scattered; and all that can be required by justice, sanctioned by policy, or recommended by humanity, is to endeavour, as civilization and cultivation extend, to embrace the aborigines within their pale, to diffuse religious knowledge among them, to induce them, if possible, to adopt more settled means of providing for their subsistence, and to afford them the means of doing so, if so disposed, by an adequate reservation of lands within the limits of cultivation." The principles laid down by Lord Stanley are those which the civilized nations of Europe have long acted on, sometimes tempering their conquests of uncivilized nations with mercy and humanity, and sometimes treating them as if they were merely wild beasts that infested the country. The foundations on which even Lord Stanley places the justification of European occupation are Dot stated with much precision. The real foundations are, the enterprising spirit of Europeans; the pressure of difficulties at home, which drive men abroad; the necessity of possessing land in their new country, as the basis of that edifice of civilization which they propose to erect after the model of the mother country; and the power to take from those who are too feeble to resist. Europeans admit, and the admission is contained by implication in Lord Stanley's remarks, that the nearer a nation's social system approaches to their own, the safer should it be against unprovoked aggres sion; but they contend, as Lord Stanley does, that the same self-restraint will not and ought not to be practised in those cases where the social system, or the mode of life, is altogether opposed to those fundamental principles on which European society is constituted.

CLARENDON, THE CONSTITUTIONS OF, were certain declaratory ordinances agreed to at a general council of the nobility and prelates assembled by Henry II. at his palace or manor of Clarendon, in Wiltshire, in the year 1164. These ordinances were sixteen in number, and were intended to define the limits between civil and ecclesiastical jurisdictions, to prevent the further encroachments of the clergy, and to abolish the abuses which had arisen from the gradual and increasing usurpations of the pope. (Howell's State Trials, vol. ii. p. 546.) CLEARING-HOUSE.

273.]

[BANK, P.

CLERGY, a collective term, under which that portion of the population of a country is comprehended who are in holy orders. It is used in contradistinction to laity, which comprehends all other persons. Like most ecclesiastical terms, it is of Greek origin, the word Kanpikós (cléricus) having been used in the sense of "appertaining to spiritual persons" by the Greek ecclesiastical writers. From clericus comes the word clerk, which is still a law-term used to designate clergymen, but which appears antiently not to have been confined to persons actually in holy orders, but to have been applied to persons possessed of a certain amount of learning.

The distinction of clergy and laity in the Christian church may be considered as coeval with the existence of the church itself; for in the apostolic period there were officers in the church specially appointed to discharge the duties of pastors or deacons, and even, as many suppose, bishops or overseers, who had the superintendence of various inferior officers. These persons, though they might not perhaps be entirely relieved from the ordinary duties of life, so that they might devote themselves exclusively to their sacred office, yet must necessarily have been nearly so, and it is certain that they were nominated to their offices by some peculiar forms. Very early however the distinction became complete. The bishops, priests, and deacons of the Christian church, each ordained to the office in a manner which it was believed the founders of Christianity appointed, and

each supposed to have received a peculiar spiritual grace by devolution from the apostles and from the founder of Christianity himself, soon formed a distinct body of men whom it was convenient to distinguish by some particular appellation.

In Christian nations the distinction has been usually recognised by the state, who have allowed certain privileges or exemptions to the clergy. No inconsiderable share of temporal power, extending not only over the members of their own body, but over the laity, has in most states been conceded to them. In the old German confederation the sovereign power in some of the states was vested in ecclesiastics; while at Rome there has been for many ages an elective head, in whom all temporal and spiritual authority over the states of the church has been vested.

It is easy to account for the ascendency of the clergy in the middle ages, and their acquisition of power. They were the best instructed part of the population. The learning of the age was almost exclusively theirs; and knowledge is a means of obtaining power. Beside this they had the means of working upon the ruder minds of the laity, in the power vested in them alone of administering the sacraments of the church, and of regulating under what circumstances those sacraments ought to be administered. This enabled them to win acquiescence in any favourite design, sometimes by gentle influences and sometimes by terror.

The history of almost every country of modern Europe presents instances of struggles between the laity and the clergy for power or privilege. All power in the clergy of England to erect an authority dangerous to the laity, or to secure to themselves political immunities or privileges inconsistent with the general good, was broken at the Reformation. The clergy of England then became a fragment of a once great and well disciplined body dispersed through the whole of Christendom, which, when acting with common effort, and putting forth all its strength, it had been difficult for any single temporal prince to resist with effect.

ing the number of six, or in any case in which any trade or dealing, or any share in any trade or dealing, shall have devolved or shall devolve upon any spiritual person or upon any other person for him or to his use, under or by virtue of any devise, bequest, inheritance, intestacy, settlement, marriage, bankruptcy, or insolvency; but in none of the foregoing excepted cases shall it be lawful for such spiritual person to act as a director or managing partner, or to carry on such trade or dealing as aforesaid in person."

Spiritual persons holding benefices could not legally become members of a jointstock banking company before the passing of a short act, 1 Vict. c. 10, which enacted that no association or co-partnership or contract should be void by reason only of spiritual persons being members thereof; and the principle of the act is now adopted in 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106.

It is enacted in § 30 of 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106,"That nothing hereinbefore contained shall subject to any penalty or forfeiture any spiritual person for keeping a school or seminary, or acting as a schoolmaster or tutor or instructor, or being in any manner concerned or engaged in giving instruction or education for profit or reward, or for buying or selling or doing any other thing in relation to the management of any such school, seminary, or employment, or to any spiritual person whatever, for the buying of any goods, wares, or merchandise, or articles of any description, which shall without fraud be bought with intent at the buying thereof to be used by the spiritual person buying the same for his family or in his household; and after the buying of any such goods, wares, or merchandises, or articles, selling the same again or any parts thereof, which such person may not want or choose to keep, although the same shall be sold at an advanced price beyond that which may have been given for the same; or for disposing of any books or other works to or by means of any bookseller or publisher; or for being a manager, director, partner, or shareholder, in any benefit society, or fire or life assurance society, by whatever name or designation such society may have been constituted; or

for any buying or selling again for gain or profit, of any cattle or corn or other articles necessary or convenient to be bought, sold, kept, or maintained by any spiritual person, or any other person for him or to his use, for the occupation, manuring, improving, pasturage, or profit of any glebe, demesne lands, or other lands or hereditaments which may be lawfully held and occupied, possessed, or enjoyed by such spiritual person, or any other for him or to his use; or for selling any minerals, the produce of mines situated on his own lands; so nevertheless that no such spiritual person shall buy or sell any cattle or corn, or other articles as aforesaid, in person in any market, fair, or place of public sale."

Under § 31 of the act the bishop of the diocese might suspend a spiritual person for illegally trading, and for the third offence such person might be deprived; but proceedings for this offence would now be regulated by 3 & 4 Vict. c. 86.

(Philli

This act (3 & 4 Vict. c. 86, commonly called the Church Discipline Act) was passed in 1840, " for better enforcing Church Discipline," and it repeals the old statute (1 Henry VII. c. 4) under which bishops were enabled to proceed against their clergy and sentence them to imprisonment. Before this act was passed, the mode of procedure against spiritual persons for ecclesiastical offences was "by articles in the diocesan or peculiar court, or by letters of request to the court of the metropolitan." more's Burn, iii. 365.) Dr. Phillimore states, that "any person, it has been held, may prosecute a clergyman for neglect of his clerical duty." The 3 & 4 Vict. c. 86, enacts, "that no criminal suit or proceeding against a clerk in holy orders of the United Church of England and Ireland, for any offence against the laws ecclesiastical, shall be instituted in any ecclesiastical court otherwise than is hereinbefore enacted or provided," nor in any other mode than that pointed out by the act (§ 3). The act provides, "that in every case of any clerk in holy orders in the United Church of England and Ireland, who may be charged with any offence against the laws ecclesiastical, or concerning whom there may exist scandal