Section 15th gives us a lift of perfons who, without procuring any licence, are exempted from refidence, either wholly, or during fome avocation which is approved. Here again we are referred to the statutes of the four years before-mentioned of Henry VIII. There may be more reason for fuch reference to antiquity than I am aware of; but I may be permitted to regret, that any thing fo very inconvenient to the perfons concerned fhould be found neceffary.-The exemptions make fo long a paragraph, that I must submit to others, more converfant in the language of statute law than myself, whether a prebendary may not always refide in the town or city where his church is fituated; even though he has not a prebendal-house. But what strikes me principally with regard to the exemptions is, that in allowing them, the whole ground and foundation of the Act is deferted and given up. On what ground is Refidence enforced? No one would hefitate to anfwer, for the good of the Parish; or of those amongst whom the clergyman is to refide. Whereas if any one was to question the rectitude of any particular exemption, the plea in favour of it would be, no doubt, that the Perfon who held the benefice could not reasonably be expected to refide whilst he was fo or fo occupied; that on account of his occupation he was excufable; fuppofe every man thought him fo, yet is that any thing to the principle on which refidence is founded? Whilft you are trying the innocence of a Perfon you are trying one queftion; whilst you are trying the claims of a Parish you are trying a queftion wholly diftinct from the former. Might not a parish fay to an exempted rector, can your occupations take away our right to have a refident rector amongst us? If any other parishes have that right, what have we done to forfeit the fame right? The innocence of our rector, as a Man, is no reason why we should be injured: either other parishes have not a right to a refident rector, or we have fuch a right; which, of course, cannot with juftice be withheld.

In fection 16. what is allowed by 28 Hen. V HI. c. 13. might eafily have been specified: now no one can obey the prefent Act by confulting it alone.

To Sequeftration it is difficult to make any objection in theory; because though fome loffes and payments may be incurred by it in practice, which would be faved if the incumbent paid his own penalties, in his own way: yet every good law will, no doubt, find a fecure method of levying the penalties incurred under it. And thofe who execute the law, may frequently, according to the prefent liberal man

Vol. XIII. Churchm. Mag. for July 1807.

ners,

ners, give an incumbent an opportunity, in the first instance, of paying in the manner most convenient to himself. If he is infolvent, or pertinacious, recourfe may then be had to fequeftration. At least we will hope that fuch liberal treatment might take place; though. I once felt the want of it when my Tenths remained a fhort time unpaid, through a mistake between my banker and myself.

We come next to what may be called the principal pare of the Act before us, the procuring of Licences for non-refidence. The arrangements relating to these must have occafioned great thought and contrivance. And putting myfelf in the place of those who framed the Act, taking all for granted which they took for granted, it does not strike me as a reader of the Act, how the expedient of licenfing could have been better managed. Nevertheless, what has been faid on the arbitrary government of bishops, and their influence in elections, and the nature of appeals, more particularly in my remarks on the Curates Act, is here to be recollected in its full force. And what has been faid here with regard to exemptions, as to their deferting the principle of the Act, is equally applicable to licences. And fomething of what was faid concerning Parfonage Houfes under the Curates A& might find an application under the 18th section of the prefent Act, which is now before me.

Any remarks of inferior confequence which occur, may as well be mentioned.-Some liberties depend upon a benefice, being of Small value; this is very indefinite, but perhaps there might have been difficulty in making it lefs fo. The fame might perhaps be faid with regard to those incumbents whofe diocefan is an archbishop: I think such lie under a disadvantage. A rector who applies in the first inftance to his diocefan, being a bishop, and on being diffatisfied with him, appeals to a different perfon, is in lefs danger of being oppreffed, in cafe prelates fhould prove worldly-minded, as fome, no doubt, have proved, than one whofe application may be refufed without the motives of refufal being ever expofed to examination. An archbishop's foreseeing this fecurity of concealment, must be a strong temptation to indulge any little refentments, or prejudices; if he fhould not be always more than man. But to whom an appeal could lie from a diocefan when he is an archbishop, I do not prefume to determine.

I cannot help feeling fome alarm as to the Revocation of licences granted for two years. When a man has got a licence for two years, and has arranged all his affairs in confequence,

may be a very great evil to have that licence recalled. The recalling of it may be the very height of oppreffion. Yet, on the other hand, if an incumbent has obtained a licence under any falfe pretences; or if, though infirm at the time of licensing, he has perfectly recovered his health, and makes an unclerical use of that bleffing, the intent of the A&t requires that fome remedy should reach him; that, in fhort, he should forfeit the benefit of his licence. False pretences are generally understood to invalidate any agreement built upon them; and a perfon's fhewing all marks of good health when privileged on account of bad health, is fcandalous; and reflects unmerited difgrace on those who granted the licence. In fuch a dilemma what more can be done than to examine, diligently and impartially, whether fome methods of revocation might not be affigned, on these principles, making it lefs arbitrary and lefs dangerous, than it now is. A new bishop fhould be particularly cautious of revoking a licence granted by his predeceffor, as he never may be able to ascertain all the reafons for which it was granted. Whether the licence be recalled by the bishop who granted it, or by his fucceffor, or by the king in council, I think the incumbent fhould have the molt early, regular, formal notice poffible of its being recalled, as his whole courfe of action, his contracts, engagements, provisions, must all be changed by the revocation; but for fuch notice I have not, in my perufal of the Act, feen any order.

In the 22nd section several things are ordered to be done tending to give all perfons affected by a licence, an opportunity of knowing whether one has been really granted, and in what circumftances; but no harm follows from neglecting the injunctions. The fame omiffion is obfervable in the marriage act, with regard to a month's refidence in the parish where the marriage is to be folemnized. And, I think, in the old A&t of Hen. VIII. about a rector's preaching a certain number of times, in the courfe of a year, in the parish where he does not moft ufually refide.-A lift of licences granted is to be read, with the reasons for granting them, at the archdeacon's vifitation; but I do not fee that the archdeacon is obliged to read it or any other perfon.

Under the 25th section it has occurred as a doubt, whether a rector who holds two livings, and refides on one of them, fhould, every year, within fix weeks after new-year's-day, declare to his diocefan why he does not refide upon the other. The determination has been in the negative, as refidence on any one benefice is the refidence required by the A&t. And a

fecond

fecond living is not reckoned in fect. 15. amongst the exemptions; and to notify exemptions is the purpose of fect. 25. Still, fuch doubt has actually arifen, and has been matter of debate amongst neighbours.-Under the fame fection a copy of the notification is to be filed; but copies are fometimes very incorrect: who would be accountable for incorrectness in this cafe? and what evil would arife from it to the writer? this may be too trifling; but if one reads with a pen in one's hand, one makes remarks fometimes that are not very important.

If I do not mifunderftand fe&t. 29, non-refidents may be profecuted in both civil and ecclefiaftical courts for the fame offence. This may be the cafe with other kinds of offenders; civil and ecclefiaftical laws having been formed, in ancient times, independently of each other: but that a new law fhould be made, diftinctly and pofitively ordaining fuch double profecution, ftrikes my ignorance aud ftupidity as fomething extraordinary.-Section 35 feems purpofely to disclaim applying two remedies to one evil.-This 29th fection feems to give great power to the archdeacon, confidering the ftation of life in which that officer is ufually found.

With regard to the Monitions enjoined in fect. 30, they appear to me to be measures truly epifcopal: they warn, and only proceed gradually to punishment, when it muft appear to every impartial obferver that punishment is unavoidable. This obfervation, as well as fome others, goes upon the fuppofition that the plan of compelling refidence is generally right. Commendation of particulars, on fuch a fuppofition does not bind a man to fupport the general plan.

a

By section 36, a Monition, though it cannot annul à fuit already begun, can prevent its ever beginning.-Were I engaged in fo arduous a task as that of framing a law on refidence, after a determination to enforce it had been made, methinks I fhould confider very attentively whether the whole bufinefs of law-fuits and informers might not be cut off by the ufe of Monitions. Law-fuits, in every refpect but as a check on bishops, might pretty clearly be difpenfed with; and as much is trufted to the diferetion of bishops, I fhould ask myself (fuppofing it agreed upon that Refidence must be enforced) might not this ufe of Monitions alfo? Or might not fome other check be provided? The offence of non-refidence is of a spiritual or ecclefiaftical nature, might not the cenfure be wholly ecclefiaftical ?-One may fee, that if a bishop had any fufpicion that a rector would be profecuted, he might prevent the profecution by iffuing a

monition; and thus might serve a friend, or do a kind office to any clergyman in his diocefe.

In like manner, a friend to one who had been non-refident without exemption or licence, might sometimes fave expence by turning informer or prosecutor, supposing imminent danger of profecution from an enemy: as the whole penalty goes to the informer, (by fection 12,) he might return it to his friend; and in fuch a cafe the colts would be much less than in a real and earnest contention.

Section 34 fpeaks of an Order from the diocefan to the rector to refide in his parfonage-houfe; overlooking the common case of a rector's having two livings; for if a rector has two parfonage-houses, he is not obliged to inhabit both. The words are, "by order of the archbishop or bifhop as aforefaid;" but does fuch an order make any part of the prefent A&t? Is it contained in a monition? When the parfonage-houfe is let (which parfonage-house? when the rector has two ?) this order is to be tranfmitted to the churchwarden, and to be "ferved on the occupier;" in which cafe, any contract between the rector as landlord and the occupier as tenant becomes void. But if landlord and tenant can truft each other, as might happen in fuch a letting, the ftipulated rent might fill be paid.-Yet the tenant is liable to pay forty fhillings a day whilft he continues to inhabit the houfe. Some one muft fue for this; might the landlord, or rector, himself? and fo get all the forfeitures, and return them to the tenant ?-How great an evil it is for a rector who has two livings, to be unable to let that parfonage-houfe at which he does not refide, I have endeavoured to fhew in my remarks upon the Curates' A&t. -For want of fome diftinction between this house, where the rector is not at all obliged to refide, and that at which, whilft refident, he does refide, this 34th section causes great confufion in my mind.

Although it is faid generally in this 34th fection, that the fums of forty fhillings each are to be recovered and applied as the other penalties are, yet Sequeftration is mentioned as if it were the first meafure for recovering them; whereas I have conceived it, from what was faid in preceding fections, to be a kind of dernier refort: my idea, got from reading thofe fections, was, that fome one is fuppofed, in the first inftance, to fue; or, if the cenfure comes from the bishop, a monition is fuppofed to iffue; but the fequeftration is to come laft; when nothing else will fucceed. Doubts of this kind we common country clergy would be glad to have

cleared