salary for the Curate, he is giving, perhaps, to one who is poor, but he is taking from one who is as poor or poorer. The Curate may acquiesce in the statement, but may humbly represent that he must at least have the means of existence. Add to this, that in different dioceses, the opinions of Bishops upon this subject will differ. A person when he takes a living upon which he does not intend to reside, may find himself considerably disappointed in his expectations of profit, and may look upon that which is only a sound exercise of discretion as an act of personal injustice. But let the salary be fixed by law, and all those difficulties are at an end, or at least they are confined to a few cases. Every man, when he takes a living of a given value with a given population, will know what he has to expect. Every man, when he offers himself for a Curacy, will know what is the salary allotted to him; and though he must receive with gratitude whatever addition may be made by the benevolence of the Incumbent, or the justice of the Bishop, he can have no pretence for discontent, no feeling that his services are undervalued by his immediate employer, or his remonstrances disregarded by his ecclesiastical superior. If his pittance is small, it is only because the produce of the living does not afford a larger; if it is more ample, it is because the produce of the living admits of a salary more adequate to the extent of the duty. I know not whether I shall be told that the proposal to take the general assignment of the salaries of Curates out of the discretion of the Bishops, and to fix it by positive enactment, implies a censure upon the manner in which that discretion appears hitherto to have been exercised. I can assure your lordships that this was far from the intention of those who have had any share in preparing or proposing this Bill. I cannot indeed declare with truth, that the manner in which it has been exercised is precisely that, which, consistently with the view I have taken of the subject, appears most advantageous to the interest of the Church; but I feel to their full extent the great difficulties which attend the exercise of such a discretion. I do full justice to the motives which have guided those in whose hands (if proper to be placed in any) it has properly been vested; I am far from presuming to say, that reasons may not have existed in each individual case, separately taken, which may have accounted for and justified the decision; but it is impossible, I am firmly

persuaded, even for those who have acted for the best in each individual case, to look at the returns before your lordships, and to view the great mass of poverty created by the general principle which has governed those decisions, without feeling the extent of the evil, the necessity of a remedy, and the utter insufficiency of their present powers to supply one adequate to the evil. If censure must be implied, let it fall where it is due, upon the narrow and incompetent nature of the legislative provisions upon this subject. When Parliament established a maximum, first of 501. and afterwards of 751. for the salary which an Incumbent was to be compellable by his Bishop to assign to his Curate, it appeared, unintentionally no doubt, to have established this proposi tion, that whatever might be the value of the living-whatever the extent of the duty-these miserable sums were a sufficient remuneration for its discharge. If they were sufficient for the Curate of the most valuable and most po, pulous living, an application of the commonest rules of arithmetic would prove, that for a living less valuable and less populous, a smaller salary was sufficient. Where the highest prize is only 757. per annum, a descending scale must reduce the lower prizes to be little better than blanks. In this lottery they are indeed far less than the purchasemoney paid for the tickets. If we add to the erroneous impressions created by this enactment, all the difficulties with which the Bishop must have to contend in his struggles against the private interest of every incumbent, who builds his arguments upon the general practice, and represents a deviation from it, with respect to himself, as an act of pecu liar hardship, we shall be more disposed to lament the mischief which has arisen, and to devise the means of preventing it, than to conceive or express our surprise at the dreadful magnitude to which it has grown. The next point to be considered is, the best mode of enforcing the proposed provisions, in case your lordships should be of opinion that they ought to be adopted. The law and the practice of the Church, as they stand at present, give indeed to the Bishop, if he thinks proper, the power of assigning a certain salary to the Curate, and require him to specify such salary in the instrument of licence. The Incumbent also and the Curate are subject to ecclesiastical censure, if the latter officiates without a licence. In point of fact, however, out of 3694 Curates returned by the Bishops, only 1808 have been

licenced. What is the consequence? It is only by the application of the Incumbent to licence his Curate, that the Bishop is called upon to take cognizance of his salary. The salary of one half of the Curacies returned has been fixed, if not without the knowledge, at least without the authority, of the Bishop. The salutary controul which was intended to be vested in him is deprived of its effect. But this is not all; a Curate officiating without licence, is in a state of ab solute dependance; he is removable at will. If he applies to the Incumbent for an increase of salary, he may imme diately be dismissed if his application is refused, and he carries his appeal to the Bishop, his dismissal by the Incumbent is only rendered more probable. From this state of dependance he is rescued by a licence: but the Incumbent is not thereby placed in a situation of being obliged to keep a Curate against whom he may have reasonable objections, although he could not proceed against him by any legal process; for the Bishop has the power to decide summarily upon any complaint of an Incumbent against his Curate, and to break off a connection which for any cause is grown disagreeable to both parties, by withdrawing his licence. It is evident that until the laws of the Church, which prohibit Curates from officiating without licence, are generally enforced, all provisions for the increase of their salaries are nugatory. It is proposed, therefore, to substitute legislative enactments for the brutum fulmen of ecclesiastical censures; and to subject to the penalties for non-residence, every non-resident Incumbent who shall employ an unlicenced Curate, notwithstanding he may have a statutable exemption, or a licence for non-residence. In order that the Bishop may necessarily be informed, without the trouble of inquiring, of every circumstance which ought to guide his discretion in assigning a salary to the Curate, is is proposed to require that every person who applies to the Bishop for a licence for nonresidence, shall state all these circumstances in his application; and that every person being exempt by law from residence, shall, in applying for a licence for his Curate, state the same particulars that it shall not be lawful for the Bishop to grant any licence for non-residence, or any licence for the Curate of a person exempt by law from residence, unless this requisition shall have been complied with; and that no licence shall be valid which does not specify the salary to be allowed to the Curate. There are also proviVOL. III.-1812, 5 F

i

sions to empower the Bishop to fix in his licence the residence of the Curate; to give publicity to the licences; to guard against agreements in fraudem legis; and to enforce payment by sequestration. The discussion of these provisions will take place with more propriety in a future stage of the Bill, if your lordships should so far adopt the principle as to permit it to proceed to a Committee. They will undoubtedly require and receive correction from the wisdom of your lordships, and the measure may, I flatter myself, be brought into such a shape as to be highly and permanently beneficial. I have endeavoured, at too much length for the patience of your lordships, but in a manner very inadequate to the extent of the subject, to state the grounds upon which this Bill is founded, and the general nature of its provisions. I am far from supposing, notwithstanding the high authority by which it has been sanctioned, an au thority most dear to me and to every friend of the Church, that it may not be liable to objections which have not been foreseen, or that it is impossible to devise provisions by which the object in view may be more effectually obtained. My chief anxiety is to draw to this subject the attention of your lordships, to convince you that the call for that attention is the call of duty, as you regard the preservation of that Established Church, which is the boast and the support of our country. It is assailed from within and from without. Some of its antient outworks are, in the opinion of many of its warmest friends, no longer applicable to the circumstances of the times in which we live; but its citadel is strong; if repaired upon its own principles, it may resist every attack; let it not be betrayed by want of discipline, or by starving its garrison. While the licences for the erection of dissenting places of worship are increasing from the average of 90 per annum, during the first 14 years of the present reign, to an average of 518, during the last 14 years; and the licences for dissenting preachers in a still larger proportion; while there are 1881 parishes, containing a population of nearly five millions of persons, in which the churches and chapels are 2553, capable of containing only 1,856,000 persons, and the places of dissenting worship are 3438; do not let us shut our eyes to the dangers of our situation; do not let us imagine that by denying their existence we can secure ourselves against their progress. Nearly half our benefices are occupied by Incumbents who are returned as neither resident nor doing their own duty. About

3000 parishes appear to have no Minister legally resident. At least one-fourth of our livings have incomes not exceeding 1001. per annum. We know that near 1000 Curacies, whose salaries are returned, are below 50%. per annum. We have reason to presume that above 1500 *other Curacies are in a state of equal poverty. These lists do not consist merely of obscure hamlets, with a small population, and a scanty income, but comprehend a large number of populous places and of well endowed benefices. In many of these livings, as well as in those of a lower description, there are no houses of residence, or none which are fit for the habitation of a Minister; and as the provisions of our law in this respect are inefficient, and even the powers which they give are rarely exercised, this evil, though partially remedied, cannot remain stationary, but bas a natural tendency to increase. In the most popu lous parishes, places of worship, according to the Church of England, are notoriously deficient. The people have no option but the entire neglect of all divine worship, or the attendance upon a worship which makes them dissenters from the establishment. While the chapels of every sect are rising round them day by day, and inviting congregations by every species of accommodation, and by the repetition of their services at different hours, the parish church is open, perhaps, only once on the Sunday; is insufficient to accommodate the rich; and in too many places is almost shut against the poor. The extension of statutable exemptions and grounds for licence inercases the number of non-resident Incumbents. The insufficiency of the salaries of the Curates reduces them to the necessity of undertaking to serve more Churches than one, for the purpose of eking out a scanty subsistance; and in every case where one person serves two churches, two parishes must be left with single duty, deprived of those means of worship to which they are entitled by the rubrick and canons of the Church. If any part of this picture is overcharged, I shall most sincerely rejoice in being convicted of my error, because every mistake which may be pointed out will be pro tanto a diminution of the dangers which I apprehend. Much indeed might be deducted from them, and yet enough would be left to excite alarm, and to demand attention; if that attention is given, the result must be beneficial. If this measure is rejected, something better will be adopted; it is imposible for things to remain as they are. For myself, I owe many apologies

1