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

NATIONAL REGIST,ER.

Our king, conAitution, anb

• ~~#

PIO "•+
-.4(1110. 44i %IS 1.41,:if
Ptf•—, *2ll erltsi
r 10040 0-144
MAY 1, 1808. . PRICK 84

• •

all kinds existing in this country. It has been computed
(and for the arithmetical statements in detail we refer our
readers to Burn's Ecclesiastical Law), that of our 10,000
parishes upwards of five thousand furnish less than 50/.
a-year to the incumbents of their respective benefices. What
must be the number then of livings amounting in value
to 400/. a-year, which is the sum specified in the pending
Bill, our readers will easily guess. We have not been able
to ascertain the precise number of such u s inns : but when
we obsen e that more Ulan half the benefices of the country
are of an annual value under 50/. and when we consider that,
of the richer livings, a very large proportion is in the hands
of Jay proprietors, for whose Vicars or Curates no provi-
sion is pointed out by this act, we cannot but fear that
few, very few persons, will be materially benefited by the
measure.. With regard to the exclusion of lay appropriators
and their Vicars from the operations of this measure, we by
no means approve the present Bill: for though we should
kthink it unjust to blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer
Who introduced this Bill, for not having introduced a Bill
that might thoroughly reform the Church, yet IYhen we
see him proposing a measure for the remedy of grievandes
which oppress two classes of people, namely, the Curates
of the Clergy, and the Curates or Vic::rs of Laymen, anti
see that the nu:attire propte;e4 ears ;is fact rentigy the
grievance only inasmuch as relates to one of ttose classes,
namely t...e Curates of the Clergy, leaving the Curates and
Vicars of Laymen to complain of the unj:lst partiality by
which they are excluded—then we do feel it our duty to
vindicate the rights of the excluded class, and to represent
the necessity of extending to them the privileges that are
to bt. extended to their brethren.
Perhaps it may be urged, that the Curates or Vicars
of the laity can have no right to complain, because the
certain permanency of their cures, which belong to then'
for life, has placed them already in a better situation than
the removeabie Curates, for whose benefit this Bill is in-
tended. But if we consider the principle of the Bill, we
shall find that this is no answer at all to our claim in
favour of the omitted class. For the principle of this
Bill evidently is, That it is just and expedient that a par-
" lion of the !ergs rrrenues paid certain puri;hes for the
" support of their churches, shall be taken away from those
" who enjoy a ripenue without performing the duly, in
" order to make a v.:plc:lent provision for the maintenance
" of those by whom the duties of such churches are actually
" perf'ormee." if this be the principle of the Bill, which'
we believe will hardly be denied, then we ask—Ought not
the person performing the duties of a Church for a Lay
Appropriator to be as sufficiently and , respectably sup-
ported, as the person who performs the duties of the
Church for a spiritual Parson ? And that, whether his pre-
seat insufficient maintenance be oily temporary, or whe-
ther it be the stipend upon which he may linger out :a
miserable maintenance till death ? Nor let it be oNected
• that this argument would apply to ail poor Rectors,
and principals of livings, as well as to Curates sad Vicars.
444: lers

--
.malpi

278

\