The non-residence of the parochial clergy, and the necessitous and degraded condition of those who were hired to do their duty, had long been a subject of scandal and regret to the friends of the church, and various plans had been in contemplation for remedying the evil. That of augmenting the stipends of curates, and making them bear some proportion to the livings, was one of the most obvious; and a bill of this kind was introduced into the House of Lords by the earl of Harrowby, who moved its second reading on March 11th. The Bishop of London having observed that it went materially to alter the constitution of the church, and that opportunity ought to be allowed for its full discussion, the mover proposed that it should go to the committee proforma, and that the discussion should take place upon re-commitment. The second reading then took place.

On March 23rd, after some remarks upon the bill, its commitment was ordered without opposition.

The House having, on March 29th, resolved itself into a committee on the bill, several of its clauses were read over and discussed. On the reading of the clause for fixing the salaries of the stipendiary curates, the Bishop of London urged a variety of objections to it, conceiving that it would operate oppressively by the generality of its enactments; and he moved an amendment to fix the salary, at the discretion of the bishop, at a sum not exceeding 100l. per annum, including house and glebe; but on the suggestion of the two archbishops he raised his maximum to 2001.

The Earl of Harrowby supported the original enactments of the bill as necessary to ensure to curates performing parochial duty an adequate support. The earl of Liverpool and lord Grenville spoke on the same side; and a division taking place, the amendment was negatived by 17 against 15.

On May 17th, the House proceeded to the consideration of the report on the Curate's bill.

Lord Redesdale made a warm attack on the lower orders of the clergy, complaining of their residence far from their parishes in market towns; of their riding with indecent speed from church to church; and hurrying through the service with unbecoming levity; and he imputed the imperfect performance of the sacred duties to the inattention of the dignitaries.

The Archbishop of Canterbury repelled this charge with much vigour, and expressed himself as greatly hurt by the imputation. Several other prelates joined in the vindication of the clergy, superior and inferior. The clauses of the bill were then gone through, the report was agreed to, and the bill was ordered to be printed.

On the order of the day for the third reading, May 21, the Bishop of London stated his objections to the bill. He argued that it would destroy the subordination of ranks, so necessary to the well-being of the ecclesiastical government; that the curate would be at variance with the incumbent, and an interference of the lower with the higher orders of that class of clergy would be perpetually recurring. In cases where the living was not more than 80l. 100l. and 120l. a year, the whole, according to this bill, might

be appropriated to the curate. He was convinced that the part which was intended to leave discretion to the bishops would not cure its defects; and he concluded with moving, "That the bill be read this day three months."

The Lord Chancellor made many objections to the bill, founded on the hardships that in various cases might result from it, and its incompetence to attain the ends proposed.

Lord Redesdale defended both the principle and the provisions of the bill. He did not consider the property of the church in the light that some others appeared to do, as private property belonging to individuals, but as belonging to the church as a whole. Much had been said about the poverty of the church; but, in his opinion, it was rich enough, and the only defect was in the unequal distribution. One of its indispensable duties was, to provide a resident clergyman for every parish in the kingdom, which was the principle of the present bill, and its provisions were well calculated to produce the effect. He had asserted that there was a great decrease in the performance of duty by the lower orders of the clergy, and his observations had been commented upon with warmth by several of the bishops; but he knew it to be fact in many places. His lordship then made various other remarks in favour of the bill.

The Bishop of Worcester spoke in opposition to the bill, and considered any interference of legislative authority to be of dangerous consequence to the ecclesiastical constitution.

The Earl of Liverpool, in de

fending the bill, expressed his dissent from the opinion of lord Redesdale, that the church was rich enough, and that its duties were more neglected than formerly. He praised the system of hierarchy in this country as being unequal, and of a mixed complexion, and therefore more consistent with the other parts of our constitution. He thought the principle of the bill was perfectly simple, and that it was well calculated to produce the desired effect of residence.

Lord Ellenborough attributed the non-residence of the clergy to the want of houses, the poverty of the benefices, and pluralities; evils that would be augmented by the bill, which he regarded as a bill of confiscation and forfeiture of the smaller livings. Although he was confident that such was not the object of the noble lord who introduced the bill, yet he had no doubt that several had in view the reduction of the value of the small livings in order that they might be purchased by a fund which he knew to be busily employed in purchasing livings, with the view of filling them with persons holding doctrines most injurious to the church of England, and, he would add, to sound Christianity.

The Earl of Harrowby stated that the poverty of the church was not the cause of non-residence, nor of pluralities, for they abounded most upon the richest benefices.

A division now taking place, the numbers were, For the third reading of the bill, 37; against it, 22; majority, 15.

On July 5th, the order of the day standing in the House of Commons for going into a committee on this bill, it was opposed by some mem

bers as being an encroachment on the freehold property of the church, and an invasion of private pro perty, and defended by others on account of its necessity. The committee was then formed, and a clause was introduced on the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for empowering the bishop to deduct a part of the curate's salary for keeping the parsonage house in repair.

On July 8th, the report of the bill being taken into consideration, a debate ensued, in which the former arguments on each side were repeated, and the motion for the third reading was carried by 37 votes against 7. This took place on July 13th, after a division in its favour of 66 to 9; after which some new clauses were added by way of rider, and the bill passed into a law. (For its principal enactments, see our Abridgment.) In the parliamentary report of the last year it was noticed that Lord Folkestone having moved for a committee to inquire into the state of the jurisdiction of the inferior ecclesiastical courts, he withdrew his motion upon the engagement of Sir William Scott to bring in a bill for that purpose. The right hon. and learned gentleman in consequence introduced a bill, which the dissolution of parliament prevented from being carried through in that session.

On April 9th, Sir Wm. Scott rose in the House of Commons to move for leave to bring in a bill for the better regulation of the ecclesiastical courts in England, and for the more easy recovery of church rates and tithes," which he stated to be a revival of that which

he had brought into parliament in the last session. Leave was accordingly granted.

On the order of the day, May 21, for going into a committee on this bill, the mover proposed several alterations, one of which was, to continue to inferior ecclesiastical courts the power of excommunication, in consequence of the difficulty he had found in accommodating that part, as it originally stood, to all the variety of local circumstances throughout the kingdom. As abuses of this power were what first called the attention of members to the subject, the proposal of continuing it naturally occasioned disappointment; and Sir Samuel Romilly said, that he thought such an alteration of the bill was depriving it of its chief value. He also wished that the bill had gone much further. He could see no good reason why spiritual courts should take cognizance of defamation; and he knew that great abuses existed in this part of their jurisdiction.

Sir Wm. Scott regretted the hon. gentleman's disappointment, but he had deliberately weighed the subject, and was convinced that the greatest inconveniences would result from retaining the clauses as they now stood. He acted from an overwhelming necessity, and did not think it worth while to incur so much practical difficulty as would ensue from them. The amendments and alterations were then agreed to.

When the report of the bill was brought up for consideration on June 16th, Mr. Western said, that it appeared to him not to accomplish the object which it was un

derstood the right hon. and learned gentleman had in view. He observed, that it had originated in a motion made by lord Folkestone, in consequence of a number of grievances to which persons were liable from the proceedings of the ecclesiastical courts; and a particular instance was given in a case of defamation. In this case the defendant had been acquitted before the commissary court of Surrey, but was afterwards found guilty in the court of Arches, and condemn ed to do penance; and then came a dispensation for performance, for which he had to pay 95l. The bill provided no remedy against the recurrence of such a circumstance, nor did it take away the consequences of an excommunication.

Sir W. Scott made some remarks in defence of the ecclesiastical courts; and after some other members had spoken on each side, the House resolved itself into a committee, when sir S. Romilly proposed two new clauses; one, that no person should be appointed a judge of any consistorial court, who had not practised as an advocate in the court of Arches, or, if a barrister, had not practised three years in Westminster-hall; the other, that after passing the bill, no action for tithes should be brought, or suit instituted in any civil court, unless brought within six years after such tithes should have become due. Both these clauses were agreed to.

On July 1st, the order of the day in the House of Lords standing for a committee upon this bill, the Bishop of Chester objected to the clause above-mentioned respecting judges in the consistorial courts, contending that it conveyed an un

deserved imputation on the bishops with regard to these appointments; and that it was impracticable, inasmuch as persons of the description there stated, could not be found to undertake the office. He therefore moved to strike out the clause.

The Lord Chancellor spoke in defence of the clause; but the arguments of the bishop were supported by lord Ellenborough, who, after instancing several eminent churchmen who had acted as chancellors of dioceses, or had been the authors of valuable works on ecclesiastical law, affirmed that the clause' would confine the appointment to advocates in the court of Arches, who would not be qualified to render bishops that assistance which they ought to derive from their chancellors.

The clause was in consequence struck out; and nothing material further occurred with respect to the bill, till its passing into a law.

In the discussions on the Catholic Bill, though several members had manifested an intention to support all those exclusions from place and power which the Constitution had enjoined against separatists from the established church, yet the most extensive and liberal principles of toleration had been generally professed. Hence, probably, the time was chosen for an attempt to relieve from the pains and penalties still legally impending over them, those Christians who impugned the doctrine of the Trinity.

On May 5th, Mr. William Smith moved for leave to bring in a bill for this purpose. Its object, he said, was solely to remove certain

penalties imposed upon persons who denied the doctrine of the Trinity; and who were not included in the Act of king William, commonly called the Toleration Act. In the 19th year of the preseut reign an act had passed for the relief of those persons, by which they were exempted from the necessity of subscribing the 39 articles of the church of England, and a declaration of belief in the holy scriptures was substituted. The acts of king William, however, had not been repealed, by which persons, who in conversation or writing deny the existence of any of the persons of the Trinity, are disabled on conviction from holding any office, civil, ecclesiastical, or military; and if a second time convicted, are disabled to sue or prosecute in any action or information, or to be the guardian of any child, and are liable to imprisonment for three years. He therefore moved, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to grant further relief to persons differing in opinion from the church of England, with respect to certain penalties imposed by law on those who impugn the doctrine of the holy Trinity."

Lord Castlereagh said, he certainly did not see any reason to object to the principle of the bill; and the House, on the suggestion of the Speaker, going into a committee, leave was obtained to bring in the bill.

No further proceedings concerning it are reported in the House of Commons.

On the third reading of the bill in the House of Lords, July 30th, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Chester, each said a few words, not with any intention of opposing it, but affirming that it had not been called for by any attempt to inflict penalties upon, or to impede the worship of, the Unitarians. The bill was, then read a third time and passed.

That no voice of bigotted zeal was heard in either House on this occasion, may be deemed a pleasing proof of the progress which the principle of religious toleration has made within a short course of years. It is also affirmed upon good authority, that the positive determination of the ministry, that no opposition to the bill should meet with encouragement on their part, came in aid of the general spirit of liberality.