GENERAL HISTORY. 



[o3 



The non-residence of the paro- 

 chial clergy, and the necessitous 

 and degraded condition of those 

 who were hired to do their duty, 

 had long been a subject of scandal 

 and regret to the friends of the 

 church, and various plans had been 

 in contemplation for remedying 

 the evil. That of augmenting the 

 stipends of curates, and making 

 them bear some proportion to the 

 livings, was one of the most obvi- 

 ous ; and a bill of this kind was 

 introduced into the House of Lords 

 ty the earl of Harrowby, who 

 moved its second reading on March 

 11th. The Bishop of London hav- 

 ing observed that it went materi- 

 ally to alter the constitution of the 

 church, and that opportunity ought 

 to be allowed for its full discus- 

 sion, the mover proposed that it 

 should go to the committee pro- 

 Jbrma, and that the discussion 

 should take place upon re-com- 

 mitment. The second reading then 

 took place. 



On March 23rd, after some re- 

 marks upon the bill, its commit- 

 ment was ordered without oppo- 

 sition. 



having, on March 

 itself into a com- 

 bill, several of its 

 clauses were read over and dis- 

 cussed. On the reading of the 

 clause for fixing the salaries of the 

 stipendiary curates, the Bishop of 

 London urged a variety of objec- 

 tions to it, conceiving that it would 

 operate oppressively by the gene- 

 Tality of its enactments; and he 

 ■moved an amendment to fix the 

 salary, at the discretion of the bi- 

 shop, at a sum not exceeding 100/. 

 per annum, including house and 

 glebe; but on the suggestion of 

 the two archbishops he raised his 

 maximum to 200/. 



The House 

 29th, resolved 

 mittee on the 



The Earl of Harrouiby supported 

 the original enactments of the bill 

 as necessary to ensure to curates 

 performing parochial duty an ade- 

 quate support. The earl of Liver- 

 pool and lord Grenville spoke on 

 the same side; and a division tak- 

 ing place, the amendment was ne- 

 gatived by 17 against 15. 



On May 17th, the House pro- 

 ceeded to the consideration of the 

 report on the Curate's bill. 



Lord Redesdale made a warm 

 attack on the lower orders of the 

 clergy, complaining of their resi- 

 dence far from their parishes in 

 market towns ; of their riding with 

 indecent speed from church to 

 church; and hurrying through the 

 service with unbecoming levity ; 

 and he imputed the imperfect per- 

 formance of the sacred duties to 

 the inattention of the dignita- 

 ries. 



The Archbishop of Canterbury 

 repelled this charge with much 

 vigour, and expressed himself as 

 greatly hurt by the imputation. 

 Several other prelates joined in the 

 vindication of the clergy, ^uperior 

 and inferior. The clauses of the 

 bill were then gone through, the 

 report was agreed to, and the bill 

 was ordered to be printed. 



On the order of the day for the 

 third reading, May 21, the Bishop 

 of London stated his objections lo 

 the bill. He argued that it would 

 destroy the'subordination of ranks, 

 so necessary to the well-being of 

 the ecclesiastical government ; that 

 the curate would be at variance 

 with the incumbent, and an interfe- 

 rence of the lower with the higher 

 orders of that class of clergy would 

 be perpetually recurring. In cases 

 where the living was not more than 

 80/. 100/. and VIOL a year, the 

 whole, according to this bill, might 



