The Express.
London, England, 1848-10-14 00:00:00

seriously : we hope he will give us credit for the
abstinence end the eaertion.

WE insert in another column a letter (which has
been duly authenticated) from a Welsh curate. It is
curiously illustrative of both the wealth and the
poverty of the church. There are, it would seem,
curates in Wales whose stipends are fixed, or at all
events sanctioned, by their bishops, at 251. a year ;
whilst in the Tele of Ely there is a rector, the Rev.
ALGERNON PEYTON, I/IW, mines 1811, has beee, and
still irk in receipt of 9,0001. tile"; whilst from the rec-
tory or. Stanhope the Rey. WILLIAM NICHOLAS I)AR.
NELL draws an annual income of 5,0001. ; whiart from
Alresford and from St. Mary's, Southampton, the Earl
of tieleveoari receives so large a reveuue that he is
ashamed to let its amount be known to the world, and
accordingly his benefices have no value assigned them
in the" Clergy Let" These inequalities are all, we
are told, teethe benefit of the church; Christianity, so
SYDNEY Serra would have it, was promoted by such
"prises;" and whoever suggests that such a condi-
tion of things is a deplorable spectacle, is of course
considered by the three "prize men " we have men-
tioned, as a radical, if not au infidel. What Welsh
curates may think of these inequalities we don't know.
Probably their thoughts are too much occupied by
their own hardships to have much time or inclination
to attend to such matters. For, if our correspondent's
case be a fair specimen of the manner in which that
body of ciao men are treated, we are only surprised
that they don't occasionally mob a bishop when he
ventures his episcopal person amongst them.
Our correspondent, it would seem, was licensed by
the Bishop of ',LANGAN, (who, because the revenue of
his see is small, is also Dean of St. Paul's, with
stun three or four thousand a year in that
character), to the curacy of a living con-
taining a population exceeding 500, and worth
about 4001. a year. The incumbent of this living
was non-resident. Now, to enable • clergyman to
receive the income of a living without doing any of
its duties, he must have the license of his Bishop ;
and the ground on which such license is usually
granted, is the possession of some other preferment ;
wham in exchange for income the pluralist dces per-
form some of his sacred functions. The probability
then is. that tho incumbent of this Weigh living,
worth 4001. a year, wee a pluralist ; the certainty is
' that be must have had the Bishop of LIANDAFF'd
Lemma not to reside. This license imposed motel
responsibilities of no ordinary amount on beh in-
cumbent and bishop. Possessing it, the former
was bound to have had the duties of his living
efficiently performed and adequately paid
for ; having granted the licenv, the Bishop
was bound to more than ordinary sumu-
vision over the living ; to see that it
did not suffer because of the license, and to protect
(as directed by law) the pecuniary interests of the
ecclesiastical substitute for the absent incumbent. Th se
responsibilities both incumbent and Bishop, if the
statement sent us be correct, disregarded. The con-
resident incumbent, who elsewhere kept seven domes-
tics nod three or four horses, appears to hive had but
one object in engaging a substitute, and that was to ge t
as much income as possible out of the living the
bishop had licensed him not to serve. Ile accordingly
engaged a curate at 23/. for the first year, 751. for the
second year, and 801. for the third ; leaving him a
balance of 375/. in his favour for the first terries,
months, of 3251. for the emend, and of 320!. for the
third —a Tiny pretty profit on nothing to du,
quite sufficient in poiut of fact to render
him an ecclesiastical " prize man," Curates
to non-resident livings must be licensed by
the Bishop : and ono of the moat practical of tie-
episcopal duties is to ascertain that the nmeresido at
incumbent has agreed to pay the resident curate a
sufficient stipend ; in fact, to protect, when necessary,
the latter against his poverty. The Bishop of ',LAN-
DAN' being himself a pluralist, and necessarily a par-
tial non-resident, appears, however, to have sympa-
thised with the non-reeident pluralist in this case,
and he sanctioned this rate of stipend.
In giving the episcopal sanction to so miserable
a scale of remuneration, the Bishop of LLANDAFY
violated the enactments of 1 8: 2 Vic., c. 106, a sta-
tute passed for the discouregement of non-residence
and for the better provision of curates, whose pecu-
niary protection it assigns to their bishop ; for by
that act the lowest stipend that can, except when the
living does not produce that sum, be assigned to the
curate of a living whose incumbent is nun-resident, is
801. a year, the highest rate which our
correspondent was to receive. But the sta-
tute also enacts that where the population of
the parish reaches 500, then the stipend, unless with
the sanction of the archbishop, shall be 1201. And
as in this MO no application had been made for the
archiepiscopal unction for a smaller stipend, that
sum the Bishop of LLANDAPF was bound to have seen
assigned and paid to the curate. Our correspondent
by accident stumbled on a knowledge of the provi-
sions of this useful act; and, when aware of what
ought to have been his pecuniary position, applied to
his diocesan to have him placed therein. The reply
was a refuel; and the refusal was followed by the
episcopal permission for the non resident incumbent
to dismiss so troublesome a correspondent.
These facts, if correctly_ detailed, are, we must say,
very discreditable to the Bishop of ',LANGAN, ; SO dis-
creditable, indeed, that we should have hesitated in
giving them publicity, were we not aware of the
large amount of injustice and suffering which that
useful body of clergy, curates, bear patiently and un-
complainingly of their bishops. Such co duct is an
encouragement to non residence and plurality of
livings, and a discouragement to the due performance
of parochial duty by curates. It not only involves a
violation of the statutory provisions which
have been passed for the promotion of religion and
the support of the church of England, but
it amounts to positive inhumanity. Only think of a
bishop, in the enjoyment of at least 4,0001. a year,
sanctioning a stipend of 251. a year to a curate of •
nee-resident living ! One of the primary duties of a
bishop is to carry out and to enforce the laws of the
church: yet here have we an instance of a prelate
himself violating the positive enaetm:nts of a statute
which he satiated in passing through the legislature.
No wonder dissent, ignorance, and vice, prevail in a
diocese superintended by • prelate who can act thus !
No wonder we have reports that startle and alum all
reflective men from a principality thus episcopally