The National Register. — London, England, 1808-05-01 00:00:00

274 ~... Under the principle of the present Bill, this argument could not have such an application : for the principle of this dues not extend to the impoverishment of rich bene fices fur the supply of deficiencies in poor ones: it goes only to provide for the proper support of the Clergymen doing the actual duties of those churches that arc already rich euuugh, by applying the riches of such churches to the reward of the persons who labour for them. It is possible that the objection which has prevented the Chancellor of the Ls:chequer from extending the benefits of this Act to the Vicars and Curates of lay appropriators, may have arisen from the ecclesiastical coustitution of the jurisiictions which had been selected by him to administer the Act for we can hardly suppose that so considerate and sound a lawyer as Mr. Perceval, can have overlooked the esistence of this class of clergymen. Bet we own that any such objection appears to us exceedingly insufficient. Tor if the jurisdiction by which Mr. Perceval bad deter mined to administer this Act, was not equal to the accom plishment of all the purposes of that Act, he bad better have fixed upon some other jurisdiction which would have been equal to the accomplishment of those purposes : but we do not comprehend, for our own parts, why the eccle siastical nature of the jurisdiction now appointed should l;e any hindrance to the distribution of a just and expedient measure concerning the church. ehall it be said, that a lay appropriAor would object, upon constitutional princi ples, to the jurisdiction of the Church over his property ? We ask epon what constitutional principle the Church property is his ? Ile will auseer, by inheritance or by purchase. Bat thee does not that property belong to him On the conditions which his inheritance or his purchase traneullited ? it cannot he denied. The Statutes of 15th :lishard 11. and of 4th llcnry IV expressly enjoined that the Vicarages which were then the property of spiri tual appropriators, should be sufficiently endowed : on the conditions of these statutes, persons were permitted to hold the lands of the Church : and the former of them gave to the Diocesan bishop the power of interfering to distribute a competent su.n annually among the poor parishioners. Dere thou we find that these lauds were declared subject to the performance of the Church duties, and that the I;ishop was enipoocred to exercise an authority concerning them. At the dissolution of the monasteries in the reign of Henry the Eighth, the 11 ppropr4tions of the parsonages hich belouged to them, amounting to more than one t.iird of all the parishes in England, would hate been by the common law disappropriated : had not clauses Liter 's-cued in the statutes of V: and 31 Henry Fill, to give then to the King in as ample manner as the Abbots and ether heads of religious houses had before held them. All thew appropriations, as well as those of the alien priories, that hut been d.ssolved and given to the Crown iu former reigns, were afterwards granted out from time to time b 3 Inc Kings ; and such are the sources from which all the lay appropriation, or seen:ar parsonages in the kingdom, have sprung. But by the accession of these appropriations to the Crown, no alteration has certainly been made in the nature : for they were given to lute as his predecessors bad n "want'. ample. Still hurch were in force, when the tr., ; ' r . THE NATIONAL REGISTER. —,Mlliilike,h,... \ MAY 1. course those favourites were hound to fulfil such claims ; and this principle has even been virtually ackuowledged by a subsequent statute passed YV ear, 11. which renders per+ petual the temporary augmentations made by Appropria tors to their Vicars and Curates. Now, if according to the principles of these statutes, of justice, and of an expediency amountiug almost to abson lute necessity. a sadhcient provision be proposed for these vicarages and curacies, which pros isiou shall he subject to the jurisdiction of 4e Bishop, can. it he said that the con stitution is violated 'by taking the property of laymen out of their hands, and exposing them to the horrors of epis copal tyranny T We think no rational man, who reflects upon the monstrous anomaly which appears in the appro• priatiou of Church property to lay Proprietors at best, who contemplates the legality and fitness of providing a sufficient endowment for the vicarages, who remembers that what was a sufficient endowment in former times is net a sufficient endowment How, who observes that the profits of these parsonages, though not in the hands I Churchmen, are yet extorted from the people only under pretence of sup. porting the Church, who considers that the parsonage i themselves, having been originally subject to the Church in every way, ought still to be subject to its fair claims — under all these urgent reasons, we think no rational man could ever feel, that a Bishop, iu interfering between the Vicar and the secular Parson, was trespassing beyond. the limits of his ecclesiastical authority, or committing an innovation that could be dangerous to the constitutionat liberties of the laity. It has been further objected to this Bill, that an unfair. partiality is shown to the richer Clergy, in limiting the allowance of the Curate to 250/. a year, even where the. profits of the living amount to more than five time 4 that slim. We refuse to allow this objection, not. because vie wish to ace the overgrown affluence of the Clergy encoa raged and aided, but because we think th at an annua salary of 2M)I. appears to be an income quite sufficient tor a mere Curate. Whether a Curate performing all the chi lies of a cure so large as to exceed in value 125e1. a year, ought not to be the incumbent of that cure, that is in short, whether there ought, except 1n very few cases, to be any such things as curacies at all, is not the question nou Ge fore us. if the present Sister of the Church be the systeiu which is to coal lime, then it does nc.4 Recto fitting. that CurateF, should have salaries so large as to exceed '25 1. a year, vi hick for a single man is certainly more than a suffi cient maintenance, while the incumbents themselves of half our livinfa gain less than fifty pounds a year. For married awn 2501. a A ear may be, and certainly is, insuffi cient ; bat a prudent HMI, having :so dependence but a curacy, ought clot to marry : fur the revenues of a Church, though they eaght to be employed in respectably main taining the officiating I:l:e'ster of that Church, yet arc nut designed by the State as encouragement , to population. That Cie Bill is not iii:perati:e npou the Bishops, appears to us a se. futile objectiou in t. country like this, it nut to be supposed that a b:shop, when solicited by a ) 1 " - per applicaut, WA refs,, to I . .s:in to the !tr - itestient of the case, or that having listened h wit! be very te unit any iojustice : particuliork when an appeal ma!' r t. ways be made by the issjared varlyvto the ArebbiShep. 14" 7equisitioa of a previous .e.:earitc fir the costs from vary appellant, is in our eyes a eicasure . calculated 11.01 t ( 0 t prc''cat 4 .1 thevintritpriat i ion s theinsel " • <\-- : '.. linple a man • -..... ;i .,,, , , .•:„... • ~, . „• .: .0. 00480,e„.„, i 1,1. „,... ." in 4 .1 , ./r it ~.-4 , ie„.‘• • ',1 . ; • e t h 7a4 '2l S \s , TZdtg '7. i. 4 ,_ . • j . 4. ... ; . I * 4 - ' t 8. ' .. 411117 P i'•- ... ) 4.., • 7 '-- '," ..4 1 . It— _llll9*.gultr