those duties are, and, at the same time, withholding the means by which his substitute may decently and respectably perform them, that I will not trust myself with saying what I think of it.

But it has been argued, that if 250l. per annum is necessary and proper for the curate's salary, in any parish in which the burthen of duty is extremely small, it must be necessary in every parish; and therefore, the law should require, that no curate should be appointed without a salary of 250l. per annum. It is obvious, that the effect of such a regulation would be, to compel the owners of small benefices to perform their duties themselves, to deprive them of the benefit and licence of non-residence altogether; and, as to pluralities, to prevent their existence altogether as connected with small livings.

This undoubtedly would be to introduce an alteration in the state of the church property, infinitely greater than what my proposal aims at. But, to be consistent with myself, I must admit that I have no disposition to quarrel with the principle of this argument; and if such an alteration could be accompanied with the improvement in the state of church property, which I have alluded to above, namely, that of raising the incomes of every living and benefice in the country to the amount of 250l. at least; I certainly should think that it might be adviseable to require, under such circumstances, that no incumbent, who is not resident, should appoint a curate with a smaller salary. A law to that effect, however, would oblige the incumbents on such smaller livings either to reside themselves, or to give up the whole advantage of their benefices.

But, while the state of ecclesiastical property remains as it is, and while the arguments for the necessity of pluralities, or at least in favour of them, arising from the insufficient provision of the clergy, continue to appear so plausible as they do at present, a law indispensably requiring, in all cases, so large a salary to curates, is evidently inapplicable. And, it is not uncandid to add, that it must be known and felt to be so by those who urge it, and that it is therefore that they urge it. But can it, to any cool and impartial mind, appear to be

.

a reasonable way of dealing with the practicable improvement which my measure proposes, to point out a still greater improvement, to which my own principle would, I admit, fairly extend, but which greater improvement is wholly and obviously unattainable; and then to say, that, if I cannot accomplish such greater improvement, if I cannot carry my own principle to its perfection, I ought not to attempt to act upon it at all, nor carry it to the extent to which it may be carried? It is in other words to say, if you cannot reach perfection, you should not strive at improvement; this, whatever it may be, certainly is not practical wisdom. My more moderate view aims at no more than this; I conceive 250l. per annum to be in no case too large an income for a resident officiating minister of the church of England. Where then such an income can be had for the resident minister, leaving still behind a large proportion of surplus for the incumbent, I think it ought to be had. But where the benefice can by no means afford it, as long as pluralities, as long as non-residence are allowed, so long I conceive we must be contented, in inferior livings, to take less, and even much less. But then, as the only reason for being contented to take that less is the inferior value of the benefice, which cannot afford what we would prefer, the amount of salary which even there is required, should be regulated in a given proportion to that value. And when the manner in which the whole of our ecclesiastical establishment is paid, is taken into consideration, such a distinction in the salary of the curates will, I think, be found in perfect conformity to the general principle which pervades the whole establishment. It is, in all its other branches, paid unequally. The character of the whole ecclesiastical body, their station and dignity, their rank and estimation in society, as far as depends on the appearance which property enables its members to assume, is supported, in a great degree, upon that high level which they hold, by a sort of average, if I may so express myself, which is made up of the different degrees of opulence which belongs to different orders, and which belongs also to the different individuals in the same orders. The rank, the dignity, the opulence of the bishops, and the more opulent clergy, reflect a certain degree

of dignity and respectability to the whole body of which they are members. In the different classes the same observation applies. The respectability and dignity of the episcopal character, in those instances where the incomes of the bishops are extremely low, is, however, upheld by that station which the more opulent of the order are now enabled to maintain. So it is with respect to the order of rectors, whose incomes are so unequal. Why then should not the same principle be usefully extended to the class of curates, to uphold that class from the contempt which might, and, I fear, in many cases, does fall on it: and, through the class, on the whole of religion, or at least the whole of the church, by the indigence under which some of them labour? If, from the poverty of some livings, you must be content to have curacies served for fifteen pounds per annum, because the livings themselves are worth no more: on terms, therefore, which renders it absolutely necessary for curates, in order to obtain a possible maintenance, to do the duties of distant parishes; if you must be content to see and put up with the appearance of indigence, the slovenliness of hurry, and all the indecencies which are connected with such circumstances, in those cases, where the legal provision will afford no better means of providing for the discharge of the duty, is it not of importance that the general character of the body of curates (a most useful, a most deserving, a most interesting body of men) should, if possible, be upheld from the contempt into which their circumstances might tend to plunge them,---to plunge the individuals first,---and through them the whole order,---by the better, the more decent appearance, and more exalted and comfortable condition, which others, where the legal provision of the living does afford such means, may be enabled to support?

With respect to the discretion in the bishops which this measure would repose, it is, I imagine, quite clear, that if the measure is at any time to be adopted, the superintendance of its execution, and any discretion with which it is to be executed, must be reposed in the bishops. It can be reposed no where else consistently with the known constitution and establishment of the church. The attempt to place it in lay

hands, or indeed in any other hands but those of the bishops, would, I apprehend, be such a departure from all analogies which the ecclesiastical establishment presents to us, that it would be wholly inadmissible. Besides, it is not a new principle; the dispensation in the case of a plurality, which is already referred to, presents the same principle; and the statute of the 36 Geo. III. cap. 83. following the precedent of the 12 Anne stat. 2. c. 12. refers itself for execution to the discretion of the bishop. It appears, therefore, that the regulation of the curate's salary by the bishop's discretion is no innovation; it has prevailed at all times by the canon law, and by statute for near a century. The 36 Geo. III. cap. 8. reciting the statute of Anne, begins thus: "Whereas in and "by a statute passed in the twelfth year of the reign of "Queen Anne, it is enacted, that if any rector or vicar, "having cure of souls, should, after the 29th of September, "1714, nominate and present any curate to the bishop or "ordinary, to be licensed or admitted to serve the cure of "such rector or vicar in his absence, the said bishop or ordinary, having regard to the greatness of the cure, and the "value of the ecclesiastical benefices of such rector or vicar, ❝should, on or before the granting such licence, appoint by "writing under his hand and seal a sufficient certain stipend

66

66

or allowance, not exceeding 50l. per annum, nor less than "20l. per annum, to be paid or answered at such times as he "should think fit, by such rector or vicar, to such curate for "his support and maintenance; and if it should appear to the "bishop or ordinary, upon complaint or otherwise, that any "curate of such rector or vicar, licensed or admitted before "the 29th September 1714, had not a sufficient maintenance, "it should be lawful for the said bishop or ordinary to appoint him a certain stipend or allowance in like manner as "before mentioned; and in case any difference shall arise ❝ between any rector or vicar and his curate, touching such « stipend or allowance, or the payment thereof, the bishop or ordinary, on complaint to him made, should summarily "hear and determine the same; and in case of neglect, or "refusal to pay such stipend or allowance, might sequester "the profits of such benefice for and until payment thereof:

66

*And whereas in many places the provision made in and by *the said statute for the support and maintenance of such "curate is now become insufficient, &c."--It then proceeds with its enactment to enable the bishop to grant 751. per annum, (instead of 30) over and besides, on livings where the rector or vicar does not personally reside four months in the year at least, the use of the rectorial or vicarage house, &c. Here then, I trust, I have distinctly shewn that I am introducing no new principle, no innovation, but am only applying a known, an ancient and recognized principle, in the manner in which the altered circumstances of the times require.

It has, indeed, been said, that my bill differs materially in principle from the acts to which I have just referred, because the bishop is in those acts specially directed" to have regard to the greatness of the cure." But, in the first place, I answer, it is only in the statute of Anne that these words occur; they are not repeated in 36 Geo. III.; and, if they were found in both the above acts, they could not, according to my view of the subject, have any place in this measure; because the sum of 250l. per annum is in this measure assumed to be the minimum of salary which a curate should enjoy, wherever the value of the cure is sufficient to afford such an allowance. It is assumed that he should, in all cases, however trifling might be the amount of duty, have such sum secured to him, not merely as the price of remuneration for his labour, but as the means of decent maintenance. The greatness of the cure, therefore, might indeed, upon that principle, make a larger salary reasonable; but the smallness of it could never make a less salary proper, where one to that amount could be procured.

With regard, however, to the discretion of the bishops, I will fairly own that I would much rather have made it imperative upon them, in all cases, to grant the one-fifth of the income of the benefice (not exceeding 250l.) than have left them any discretion upon this point at all. I think it would have been more to their own ease, as well as more to the benefit of the church, in all its ranks and in all its interests. But, whatever objections there may be to this discretionary power, I feel confident that it is an objection which should be VOL. I.

E