The Sun.
London, England, 1821-05-01 00:00:00

the affairs of his own country, and there-
fore we shall merely observe, that he is altoge-
ther mistaken in what he says with respect to
the Scotch Church. That Church, like most
others in the same situation, was stript of all its
property, Lands and Tithes, at the Reformation,
and a fixed allowance has been given to the Mini-
, sters of the different Parishes, payable partly in
money, and partly in grain. This allowance is not a
conversion of tithes, though it can in no case exceed
the value of the tithes. " This stipend," says the
writer in question, " being annually assessed ac-
cording to the prices of Corn, is kept to its due level
by the best practical standard of value; and the
Church, instead of being a loser by the regulation,
is clearly a gainer; for every one knows, that in
England, the Clergy, on an average, do not re-
ceive three fourths of the Tithe •due to them by
law, owing to the practical impossibility, in most
cases, of their taking it in kind. We do not
hesitate to say, that a similar modification in the
collection of the church revenues in England
would in our opinion be highly beneficial to the
Church itself. But this is extremely different
from seizing half the Church property on the'
robber like plea, that it is an overgrown establish-
ment." This comes of officious friendship! 'We
said nothing of the Church of England—we spoke
merely of the overgrown establishments of Spain
and Portugal. But here a writer, out of kind-
ness,, forsooth, to •the English Church, which
does not receive three-fourths of the Tithe due
to it by law, and to save it from being stript of
half its property," recommends that it be put on
the footing of the Scotch Church. The Members
of the English Church, however, know more of
the matter than he does. They know that three-
fourths of their legal tithes, amounting to four
shillings or five shillings, and often much more in
the pound of rent, are a' very different thing from
the stipend of a Scotch Minister, which in many
cases does not exceed 6d. in the pound of the
rent, and hardly ever amounts to ls. We would
recommend it to this writer, before he again pre-
sumes to advise the Church of England on this
'subject, to look into the statistical account of
Scotland, or some of the more recent agricultural
surveys, which will teach him that he has been
proposing not to rob the Church of England of a
half merely, but to leave it only a pittance of its
present revenue.

THE CLERGY.

CHESHIRE ASSIZES.

ADYOWiiON OF THE LIVING OF WILMSLOW.
PDX, ESQ, V. THE BISHOP OF CHESTER.
This was an issue from the Court of Chancery
(quere impedit) to try the legality, of the presen-
tation of the Rev. Mr. Uppleby to the Living of
Wilmslow, which the Bishop of Chester refused
to sanction.
Mr. PARKE opened the pleadings, and quoted
the different items on the record, which stated
that Mr. Trafford, being seized of the advowson
of the Church of Wilmslow, Cheshire, conveyed
the same, in Nov. 1819, to Mr. Fox, who had
presented the Rev. Mr. Uppleby to it, but that
George Henry, Lord Bishop of Chester, had pre-
vented such presentation, on the ground that it
was a Simoniacal contract, &c.
Mr. Serjeant CROSS then addressed the Jury
at great length. He said the plaintiff, Mr. FON,
is a gentleman of considerable fortune in the
County of Lancaster, and his brother, and bro-
ther-in-law are in the Church. The action was
brought by Mr. Foxfhe having presented, as
patron, Mr. Uppleby to the living of Wilmslow,
who was refused by the Bishop, who, he thought
it proper to state, had, throughout the whole pro-
ceeding, conducted himself with that dignified
moderation so becoming his high character. The
Learned Serjeant understood it would be con-
tended that Mr. Fox's title had been obtained
under circumstances contrary to the provisions of
the Statdte of Elizabeth, and the great question
then would be, whether the purchase from Mr.
Trafford was a fraudulent one. The object of
the Act to which he alluded was to prevent Cler-
gymen purchasing livings, directly or indirectly,
on the ground that unfit persons might thus gain
a benefice ; the law therefore says, that he who
presents shall not receive any profit, and like-
wise, that he who is presented shall be free from
any pecuniary payment. This, he believed, was
the principle of the statute of the 31st Elizabeth,
ch. 6, sec. 6. The Jury would therefore have
to try, whether Mr. Fox had presented from a
corrupt cause. It is said that a void living cannot
be subject to sale, because the duty devolves on the
patron to present, and he cannot get rid of that
duty ; and in this case, if the incumbent be not
dead, but in exlremis,—in extreme illness, the
Jury would have to inquire whether it is the
same as his actual death ? Mr. Cross then pro-
ceeded to state the facts which he should prove
to the Court ; Mr. Bradshaw was the Rector of
Wilmslow, when the plaintiff purchased the ad-
vowson. He had been ill of a fever nearly a
week, and was in great danger, and this circum-
stance might naturally give rise to a wish on the
part of the plaintiff to become the patron, for he
had two brothers in the Church, and it was de-
sirable, therefore, to obtain the patronage by all
fair, honourable, and legal means. Ile applied
toMr. Trafford'sagent in Manchester, and with
him set off immediately to Leamington, where
they saw Mr. Trafford, on Friday, the 12th
of November. A conveyance was then pre-
pared, and the purchase was closed for
6000/. It was three o'clock in the even-
n; of th at day when the conveyance was
executed, and about eleven o'clock that night,
the Rev. Mr. Bradshaw died. Mr. Fox then
made an offer of the living to his brother, who
declined it, and subsequently to his brother-in-
law, Mr. Uppleby, who accepted of it, but who
was refused by the Bishop. Mr. Fox had not
the least interest in this offer to his relative : it
was altogether an act of friendship on his part.—
The whole question would probably hinge on the
fact, whether Mr. Bradshaw was in extremis at
the time of the purchase ? This was a term, to
be sure, easily expressed; but it had no definite
meaning. The object of his Learned Friend the
Attorney-General, would be to establish a fraud,
but he challenged him to prove any thing like it.
The point raised was, that the incumbent's life
was despaired of ; but he denied it ; he was no
doubt in a dangerous state, but his life was not
despaired of. He therefore thought he should
satisfy his Learned Friend, that the objection of
the Bishop to Mr. Uppleby's presentation was
not well founded.
After some witnesses had deposed to the facts
stated in the opening,
The ATTORNEY GENERAL rose and addressed
the Jury on behalf of the defendant. He wish-.
ed explicity to state, that there was no imputa-
tion ever meant to apply throughout the whole
course of the proceedings to Mr. Uppleby ; the
special pleader had merely put it upon the plea
that the bargain was simoniacal. The statute of
Elizabeth had been adverted to by the Counsel
on the other side, but he (the Attorney-General)
never/pretended to insinuate that Mr. Uppleby
ever gave any money to Mr. Trafford' as a ;ra-
tuitrfor the presentation ; he did not wish to
touch at all on that part of the Act; he did not
assert there was any thing corrupt in the pre-
sentation; but he did assert, that the purchase
of the presentation, the party being dead, or his
life despaired of, was null and void to all intents
and purposes, and the next turn to presentation
fell to the Crown. Indeed, his Learned Friend,
Mr. Cross, had admitted, that a purchase under
such circumstances would be simony ; but he
also asserted, that a purchase might be made,
although the incumbent should then be 'on his
death-bed, which he (the Attorney-General)
decidedly denied. Mr. Cross appeared to argue,
that if the spark of life in the incumbent was not
completely extinct, there was a competency to
purchase; but it was no such thing. The Jury
would recollect that it had been decided by their
Lordships that there was a covenant at the latter
part of the purchase deed, which enabled Mi. Traf-
ford to call on Mr. Fox to re-convey the presen-
tation, and which rendered the agreement a mere
conveyance of the next presentation, as Mr.
Cooke had proved. His Learned Friend had
said, that although this might be the fact, still it
was held good. in the issue from Chancery tried
in the Common Pleas ; but his (the Attorney-
General's) answer to this assertion was, that in
the case before quoted, it was a conveyance,
strictly speaking) of the advowson, and a bona
fide contract, and that when the contract for sale
took place, the party was well. In the case of
Seldon and, Brett, Winch's Rep. p. 63, it was