stripped, appeared to Her Majesty and the kingdom a very unnecessary hardship; upon which account it was at several times relaxed by the legislature. Now as the relaxation of that statute is manifestly one of the reasons which gives the Bishop those terrible apprehensions of Popery coming on us; so I conceive another ground of his fears, is the remission of the first-fruits and tenths. But where the inclination to Popery lay, whether in Her Majesty who proposed this benefaction, the parliament which confirmed, or the clergy who accepted it, his Lordship hath not thought fit to determine. [Footnote 30: Page 39.] The other popish expedient for augmenting church-revenues, is "engaging the clergy to renew no leases."[31] Several of the most eminent clergymen have assured me, that nothing has been more wished for by good men, than a law to prevent (at least) bishops from setting leases for lives. I could name ten bishoprics in England whose revenues one with another do not amount to £600 a-year for each; and if his lordship's, for instance, would be above ten times the value when the lives are expired, I should think the overplus would not be ill disposed toward an augmentation of such as are now shamefully poor. But I do assert, that such an expedient was not always thought popish and dangerous by this right reverend historian. I have had the honour formerly to converse with him; and he has told me several years ago, that he lamented extremely the power which bishops had of letting leases for lives, whereby, as he said, they were utterly deprived of raising their revenues, whatever alterations might happen in the value of money by length of time: I think the reproach of betraying private conversation will not upon this account be laid to my charge. Neither do I believe he would have changed his opinion upon any score, but to take up another, more agreeable to the maxims of his party; that "the least addition of property to the Church, is one step toward Popery." [Footnote 31: Page 39.]