urged, as it will certainly be felt more by the curates than by the rectors; for it is evident, that this power can only operate in diminishing the salary below the allowance which the law prescribes, and never in extending it. It cannot, therefore, be oppressively exercised as against the rector. And to judge from the sparing way in which, if I am not misinformed, most of the bishops exercise the discretionary power already vested in them under the 36th of Geo. III., the fear is, that the curates will have much more reason to complain than the rectors that any such discretion continues to exist. But, not withstanding this impression, I could not venture to omit it; for much as this discretion may now be objected to, I am persuaded, if it had not been introduced, that the bill would, on that account, have had to encounter a much greater opposition; and I have therefore resorted to it, not as what I thought most preferable, but what I thought most attainable.

As to the charge, that the measure originates in a dark and mysterious design of hostility against the establishment---that it aims at destroying the independence and dignity of the ecclesiastical character, and at driving from the profession all men of independent and liberal minds---it really appears to me so extravagant as not to deserve a serious answer. If indeed, it does originate in such a design, it must be confessed that it is very dark, and very mysterious, and very well disguised; at least, it far surpasses any power of mine to understand or detect it. Its hostility against the establishment is manifested by its deference to episcopal authority, which, according to the opponents' arguments, it enlarges and confirms. It seeks to destroy the independence and dignity of the ecclesiastical character, by endeavouring to rescue the officiating ministers throughout the country, from indigence and contempt. And it aims at driving every man of liberal mind from the profession, by. requiring that the person, for instance, who receives an annual payınent of 2,000l. for the performance of certain duties which he neglects, shall be obliged to pay 250l. to the curate who performs them in his stead, and shall be contented himself with the remaining 1,750l. for doing nothing. The liberality of mind which will be revolted by such an obligation, may, I should conceive, be driven from the church without any loss to that profession.

I have now gone through all the leading objections which I have heard urged against the bill: there may be others of a minor nature, to some of the details of which I have not here adverted; but I do not believe there are any which are not, if they should really be felt as objections, capable of being obviated by such amendments as might be admitted without any departure from the principle of the bill itself :---and I cannot conclude without expressing a hope, that, if any such occur to you, you will have the goodness to suggest them. The application of this measure to Ireland is reserved for a separate bill.

London, April, 1808.

I am, my dear Sir,
Very sincerely yours,

SP. PERCIVAL.

On April the 12th, the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose, for the purpose of moving for leave to bring in a bill for making more effectual provision for the maintenance of the stipendiary curates in England. He said, he had the honour of bringing this question three times before the consideration of parliament; on the first, the bill was rejected by the Lords, on account of a money clause which was attached to it; on the second, it was rejected by the Commons, on account of an amendment which it received in the Lords; and on the last, through the opposition of a noble Lord, supported by the commanding eloquence of a late and much to be lamented Secretary of State (Mr. Fox), it was not suffered to go to a committee in that house. Now on all these occasions, not one argument had ever been urged against the principle of the bill. He did not, however, consider these failures as sufficient to deter him from reverting to the subject. It was his wish that the bill should be read a first and second time, be committed, and the blanks filled up before the recess, upon an understanding, that it should be re-committed after, and the principle debated, if there were any objection to it.

Lord Porchester could not agree with the Right Hon. Gentleman, that such frequent rejections of the bill were not to be considered as proofs that the principle of it was disapproved. If he thought them an advantage, he hoped they

might be continued to him, and that the bill would be rejected a fourth time. He had on former occasions resisted it as unconstitutional, and he would persevere in his opposition. It tended to vest the bishops with a power contrary to the spirit of the English law, and from which there was no appeal: even the king's supremacy was taken away by it.

Mr. Babington spoke in favour of the bill.

Mr. Creevey objected to it, though he agreed with Mr. Percival, that a further provision should be made for curates, but not in the way this bill would provide for them.

Sir P. Milbanke thought curates should be provided for upon a principle of justice, and that the rectors should pay them according to the value of the living, for instance a fifth.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied to the several arguments, and contended that the debate ought to be delayed to a late stage of the bill, that the blanks might be filled up, and then printed, by which gentlemen would thoroughly understand what the bill was, which he was certain was at that time very much misunderstood.

Mr. Tierney and Mr. Windham were of opinion that the bill should be printed immediately, and the second reading postponed till after the recess, during which time the house would have time to consider it.

It was at length agreed that the bill should be read a first and second time, and committed on the morrow; the blanks tilled up, and printed, on the undertaking of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that after the recess the bill should be recommitted, and two opportunities afforded to debate the principle.

On April the 13th, the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought in the bill.

Mr. Taylor expressed his satisfaction at this bill. The acts for enforcing the residence of the clergy were nugatory, from the facility of obtaining licences on certificates of sickness. He knew one clergyman who had two very valuable livings, and did not reside on either, because the air of one disagreed with himself, and that of the other with his wife.

After a short conversation, in which the Chancellor of the

Exchequer expressed his hope of the Hon. Gentleman's attendance and support against the opposition likely to be made, and Mr. Taylor promising his support in every stage of the Lill, it was passed through the various stages up to the report.

May the 10th, Lord Porchester discussed the merits, on a motion made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for reading the order of the day for the re-commitment of the curates' bill. The noble Lord objected most strenuously to the bill, because its effect would be to give relief where it was least wanted, to those curates who had 75%. salary, with an allowance of 157. more for a residence, whilst it made no provision whatever for the great mass of curates, who were in a state of actual misery. He contended that the sum of 2501. would be too much in amount to be allowed to curates, because more than the average amount of benefices. The bill he objected to also as giving too minute powers to bishops; and in whatever light he considered it, he was the more convinced that it would be dangerous in principle, and inefficient in operation. His objection went to the principle of the bill altogether, and as in form it might be necessary to suffer the order of the day to be read, he should take the opportunity of the question respecting the time for re-committing the bill, to move as an amendment that it be re-committed this day three months.

The order of the day was then read, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer having moved that the bill be re-committed on Friday next, Lord Porchester moved his amendment, that it be re-committed this day three months.

Mr. Windham had expected, that the arguments of his noble friend, and the knowledge he had displayed of the subject, would have produced some answer to his excellent speech. He had given a full consideration to this subject, and the result was, that the measure was dangerous in principle, and would be inefficacious in operation. It had two professed ends, to enforce the residence of the clergy, and to make a provision for curates. The ends were good, but the question was, whether the means were such as the house ought to resort to. The Right Hon. Gentleman argued with great ability and at much length against the various provisions

of the bill, dwelling with great industry and force upon the dangers of such legislative interference with the property of the clergy, and of innovation upon the principles of our church establishment. Such a measure should not be resorted to but upon evidence of strong necessity, which was not the case in the present instance. He agreed with his noble friend, that only a small proportion of curates would be affected by the operation of the measure, and of those, many had good friends, other means, and other avocations. He agreed also with his noble friend, that the bill would only increase the large prizes in this lottery, without diminishing the blanks, and have the effect of increasing the candidates for orders, without adding to, but rather lessening the number of curaeies. Considering the bill therefore dangerous in principle, limited or uncertain in benefit, and inefficient to its professed object, he should support the motion of his noble friend.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer having so frequently expressed his opinion on this subject before, thought it a point of respect to wait till most of the Hon. Gentlemen on the other side should have spoken, before he would offer his sentiments. The arguments of the Hon. Gentleman who spoke last applied to the principle of the bill. The Hon. Gentleman contended, that the curates with 751. a year, would be able to support a character of respectability beyond what they could support with 250l. The Hon. Gentleman argued as if all curates had now 75%. a year, and that they were all to be advanced to 250l. These were, however, in both cases, the utmost extent of the allowances which were regulated by many previous qualifications of limitation and discretion. All the interference with the property of the church, that this bill exercised, was to take care that the duties annexed to the property from the origin should be performed. The present bill, instead of making an attack on the act of his Right Hon. and learned friend, (Sir W. Scott), was subsidiary to it. It was, in fact, first introduced by that Right Hon. and learned gentleman. In giving exemption from residence to the incumbent, it was the duty of the legislature to provide for the performance of the duty. He was an anxious friend to the church establishment, and he con