BISHOPRIC OF PETERBOROUGH, THIS DIOCESS Contains the county of Northampton, except the parishes of King's Sutton, Gretton, and Nassington; and the county of Rutland, with the exception of Empingham, Hetton, and Liddlington, peculiars to the church of Lincoln, and contains 364 churches and chapels, 91 of which are impropriate. Charged in the king's books 414/. 17s. 8d. BISHOPS DURING THE PRESENT REIGN. Dr. Richard Terrick was translated to London, and in May, 1764, was succeeded by Dr. Lamb, in this bishoprick. Dr. Lamb dying in 1768, was succeeded by Dr. Hinchliffe, upon whose decease in 1794, Dr. Madan was translated from the see of Bristol. BISHOP. Spencer Madan, D. D. rector of West Halton, co. Lincoln, and rector of Castor, in Northamptonshire, this latter rectory being held with the bishoprick. The very Reverend the DEAN, J. Kippling, D. D. The Venerable the Archdeacon of PETERBOROUGH, PREBENDARIES. Rev. Peter Coryton, L. L.D. | Rev. Spencer Madan, M. A. Benjamin Bernard,M.A. Francis Tuttè, M. A. Divinity reader. Joseph Stephen Pratt. PROCEEDINGS, &c. &c. IN THe diocess of PETERBOROUGH. February 12. Notice was given by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough, that if any clergyman in his diocese, possessed of small income and a large family, wished to apply for the annual distribution of Dr. Taylor's, and Mr. Middleton's benefactions, he was to state to the bishop the circumstances of his situation without delay. Another notice was given on the 18th of March, that if any clergyman in this diocese, of the description above mentioned * wished to apply for Mrs. Cam's benefaction, he was to state the same to the bishop. REV. JOSEPH STEPHEN PRATT, vicar of Peterborough, collated to a prebendal stall, in that cathedral, vice Rev. Smith, deceased. At the assizes in March, at Northampton, came on a cause, the Rev. Wykes, v. Jackson, for a libel. The plaintiff is rector, and the defendant an inhabitant of the parish of Nashbeach; the defendant had written several letters to the bishop and archdeacon of Peterborough, complaining of Mr. Wykes as a clergyman. In consequence of these letters, Mr. Wykes with the advice of the bishop, brought his action for libel: but the judge being of opinion that the defendant had written to the bishop and archdeacon in their official capacity, who being fully competent to decide upon the merits of the case, and to redress any grievances that might be complained of, the action could not lie, and the plaintiff was consequently nonsuited. A dispensation passed the great seal, to enable the REV. THOMAS FAWCETT, M. A. to hold the rectory of Bradden, with the rectory of Aynhoe, in the county of Northampton. At a public ordination of the Right Reverend Father in God, Spencer, by Divine permission Lord Bishop of Peterborough, held in the cathedral church of Peterborough, on Sunday the 24th day of April, 1808, the following persons were ordained, viz. DEACON. Joseph Shaw. A. B. fellow of Christ college, Cambridge. PRIESTS. Philip Story, A. B. Jesus college, Cambridge. Robert Simpson, A. B. St. Mary Magdalene hall, Oxford. Robert Pedder Buddicom, A. B. Fellow of Queen's college, Cambridge. Thomas Woodd, A. B. St. Edmund hall, Oxford. Edward Kempe, M. A. Trinity college, Cambridge. June 16. The Bishop held a confirmation at Peterborough, for that city, and the adjoining parishes. For an account of Mrs. Cam's charity, vid. Diocess of Gloucester, REV. R. BOON. B. D. senior bursar of St. John's college, Cambridge, presented to the rectory of Ufford, with_the chapelry of Bainton, in the county of Northampton, vice Rev. Dr. Jenkin. A dispensation passed the great seal, November 11, enabling Mr. Boon to hold the above-mentioned rectory, with that of Stokerston, in the county of Leicester. A dispensation passed the great seal, enabling the REV. THOMAS HOLDICH, M. A. domestic chaplain to the Earl of Lonsdale, and rector of Burton Overy, in the county of Leicester, to hold the rectories of Maidwell, St. Mary and St. Peter, co. Northampton, vice Rev. Dr. Jenkin. REV. W. W. LAYNG, M. A. vicar of St. Lawrence, in the city of York, instituted to the united vicarages of Great and Little Harrowden, co. Northampton. REV. JAMES HOGG, curate of Geddington, instituted to the rectory of Glendon, in the county of Northampton. During this year, a circumstance took place in this diocess, that excited a considerable degree of animadversion. The event to which we allude was noticed in most of the London prints, and was copied into almost every provincial newspaper throughout the kingdom. As this circumstance involves a question of the utmost importance to the clergy in general, we have not only thought proper to give a particular statement of it in the Ecclesiastical Register, but have considered it in a measure our duty to insert the opinion of one of the most eminent civilians upon a similar case. The child of John Swingler, an inhabitant of the parish of Wardley-cum-Belton, in the county of Rutland, was baptized in a congregation of Dissenters, assembled for public worship, in the dwelling-house of one Thomas Goodliff, at Lambly Lodge, in the parish of Belton, by the Rev. George Hill, a dissenting minister of Market Harbro', on the 17th of July; on the 28th of August the child died, and a request was made to the vicar of the parish (the Rev. J. W. Wickes) to bury it. Mr. Wickes, however, refused to perform the ceremony. In con sequence of this refusal, Mr. Green, an independent minister at Uppingham, made a formal complaint to Mr. John Webster, secretary to the committee for supporting the civil rights of the Dissenters: Mr. Webster, upon the receipt of this complaint, transmitted it, with the following letter, to the Lord Bishop of the diocess: My Lord. By desire of the committee for supporting the civil rights of the Dissenters, on the other side I send your lordship the copy of a letter received from the Rev. John Green, a dissenting minister, at Uppingham, in Rutlandshire, making a complaint against the Rev. Mr. Wickes, rector of Wardley cum Belton, in Rutlandshire, in consequence of his refusing to read the burial service over the child of one of his dissenting parishioners, and permitting the corps only to be interred in the churchyard, for which he demanded fees. I have written to Mr. Wickes in consequence, but have received no answer from him. The committee therefore have directed the matter to be laid before your lordship, in the hopes that you will interfere, and prevent a repetition of the like in future, as Mr. Wickes has acted contrary to law. I have the honour to be, my lord, &c. Signed-JOHN WEBSTER, Sec. Nov. 5th, 1808. The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Peterborough. This letter the bishop enclosed to Mr.Wickes, in the following: Pal. Pet. Nov. 9, 1808. Rev. Sir. The inclosed I received very lately, and forward it to you for your perusal. You will then please to return it to me. I doubt not you have very good reasons for what you did respecting the Dissenter's child, though Mr. Webster accuses you of having acted contrary to law. I have written a few lines to him, to request that he will point out that law to me, if there be any such thing in existence; but be this as it may, I know the present SIR WILLIAM SCOTT (whose opinion I took upon this very subject) recommends burying the Dissenters' children baptized by their own ministers, whenever brought to be buried by our established clergy. I read in the papers very lately, that there is a trial now pending in Westminster Hall, exactly upon the same case with yours, and I most heartily wish it may be so, that clergymen may know how to act for the future. One thing I am sorry you did, which was taking the fees, as you refused to bury. This was injudicious. I am, Rev. Sir, &c. Rev. J. W. Wickes. SPR. PETERBRO', The following is part of Mr. Wickes' reply. Belton Vicarage, Nov. 19th, 1808. My Lord. My protracted silence in respect to your lordship's very friendly and pastoral letter, dated the 9th instant, requires some apology. It certainly was my intention to have answered it by return of post; and I immediately commenced a duty which I owed to my most respected dio cesan. The reasons which induced my not reading the burial service over the infant child of John Swingler are plain and simple. Exclusive of the injury resulting from a ready compliance in such a solitary instance, when every other rite and ordinance of the established church is resisted, ridiculed, and despised by an increasing sect of fanatics in my parish, who have constantly opposed church baptism;-I thought myself bound in duty to refuse such application, when the infant had not been baptized or initiated into the church, according to the form prescribed in the book of common prayer. I considered myself sufficiently sanctioned in the refusal, by the tenor of the Ixviii. canon; and the virtual meaning, if not the more express words, of the order preceding the burial service itself, For I know not that any law exists in favour of Dissenters, in this particular; when in all others they are opposite to us. Nor to the best of my knowledge have the clergy received any authoritative injunction from the bishops, by which they might know how to act in so delicate a circumstance. These, my lord, were my reasons for acting as I did. We do not think it necessary to give the whole of this letter, we have copied all that bears upon the particular point in question, the rest alludes merely to calumnies which appear to have been insidiously propagated, but which the reverend author in his enlarged letter to the bishop has sufficiently refuted.† The question submitted to the consideration of Sir. William Scott, was founded on a case exactly similar in all respects to that of Mr. Wickes. Sir William Scott, however, previous to giving his opinion upon it, sent it back with an inquiry as to the form of the baptism, which had been used with respect to the child, which the clergyman had refused to inter. The answer was, that the child had been baptized by a dissenting minister, by the sprinkling of water, "in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."---Sir William Scott says, "I am of opinion, that if reasonable proof was offered to the clergyman, that the child had been baptized in the manner described in the answer to the question proposed by me, he acted illegally and improperly, in refusing to bury it, and that he might be prosecuted with effect in the ecclesiastical court for his refusal. "The ground upon which I hold the refusal of the clergyman to be anjustifiable, is that the child was not unbaptized in the sense and intention of the compilers of our Liturgy and Rubrick. What that sense and intention was, is very much a question of fact and of history, and I think that that history has been collected by different writers, but particularly by Bishop Fleetwood, with sufficient accuracy, to authorize the legal conclusion I draw." * Perlege Si Vis. A letter to the Lord Bishop of Peterborough. + See Mr. Wickes' reasoning upon the Ixviii canon, in page 16 of the same work. |