Изображения страниц

word 'which' seems to be wanting.—Those who (hall allow the present remark to be just, will allow the negligence pointed out to afford a fair opening for farther criticisms. I should doubt whether the word respectively is always used with propriety, though it sometimes answers to my idea: can it ever be properly used with a singular number? It seems to have much the fame power as the expression " each to each" in geometry.

The first eleven sections of the Act respect farming; their intent is to obviate the inconveniences arising from the Acts of Hen. YIII. and Elizabeth, which they probably do very judiciously. I am most inclined to pass them over {perhaps I do not clearly understand them all) and proceed to the subject of Residence.

A clergyman may be required to reside on an archdeaconry, deanery, other dignity, prebend, benefice, dona* tive, perpetual curacy, or parochial chapelry. Here seven preferments are specified, besides what may be comprehended under the words "other dignity." I hope it will cause no confusion if I sometimes use the word Benefice as i general term including them all; referring only to particulars when any observation seems to require it. I would also sometimes use the word Rector as a fort of general term.

From sect. 12. it appears that Residence on any one benefice satisfies the present Act. An archdeaconry is a good roomy home. But may a prebendary live at the city or town where his prebend is? Perhaps the answer may be, yes, in his prebendal-house. Has every prebend of St. Pauls a house annexed? At Southwell I have heard there is only one prebendal-housc. May a prebendary of South, well, reside always at Southwell? I ask the question, be» cause it occurs, and seems worthy to he proposed distinctly; though it will occur again.

Suppose a country rector has two Benefices, one of 1000/. a year, the other of 50/.; and is absent from both, without licence or exemption, seven months; according to sect. 12 he is to forfeit half the value of" his benefice: is he then to forfeit five hundred pounds, or twenty five? I have not seen any thing yet to determine this very material question. As the whole penalty goes to the informer, it may be worth his while to sue for five hundred pounds, and yet not for twenty five. But the fault of the Incumbent is the fame, •whether he is fined the larger sum, or only one twentieth part of it. If he had resided nine months upon either benefice, he would "have forfeited nothing,

This assignment of the whole penalty to the informer, seems at first sight a great encouragement to what the Act was intended to prevent, vexatious law-suits; there are however, several clauses afterwards which tend to lessen the evil; but I doubt whether they do it effectually, or In as great a degree as might be wished *. I think if I had been a law-giver I should rather have favoured the old <^ui tam. —A thing almost as vexatious as a law-suit is a threat of one, tending to some compromise; to make a person pay a considerable sum in order to free himself from the trouble and expence of a suit; after compliance with which, by the way, a person is as liable to be sued as he was before.—I should be afraid, that the dread of great penalties might occasion very inconvenient submissions.

Every penalty is excused if the absence be for a sufficient cause; but alas! to know what cause is sufficient, we are referred back to Hen. VIII. ann. 21, 2,5, 28, 33! besides the licences and exemptions of the present Act.

As the penalties are proportioned to the values of the benefices, it becomes necessary to ascertain the value of each benefice, concerning absence from which any question arises. The principle seems perfectly good; but in the application of it to practice many intricate questions might arise. The incumbent himself is not supposed to state the value; the bishop is to certify it; and other evidence may be received. If the end be necessary, we must submit to bear the means, as so many necessary evils. But if a question arises whether such an Act as the present is beneficial upon the whole, then every necessary evil is an argument against it, And in my judgment, a law's being difficult to execute is a very strong argument against it, because it fetters the actions and torments the minds of conscientious men, who are inclined to do the greatest good; without effectually restraining the actions of the selfish and disorderly, who aim at evading every wholesome regulation, and at taking advantage of every perplexity.

I am much pleased with the next section, the 14th, which gives one year's regular residence the power of obliterating the negligences of all preceding years.—Yet I feel a wish that the Commencement of the year intended had been specified particularly in this place.

* See sections 14. 17. 27. 36.; but the equitable ground of the treble costs in Sect. 27. to me is not evident.


Section 15th gives us a list of persons who, without procuring any. licence, are exempted from residence, either wholly, or during some 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 such reference to antiquity than I am aware of; but I may be permitted to regret, that any thing so very inconvenient to the persons concerned mould be found necessary.—The exemptions make so long a paragiaph, that I must submit to others, more conversant in the language of statute law than myself, whether a prebendary may not always reside ia the town or city where his church is situated; 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 deserted and given up. On what ground is Residence enforced? No one would hesitate to answer, for the good of the Parish; or of those amongst whom the clergyman is to reside. 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 Person who held the benefice could not reasonably be expected to reside whilst he was so or so occupied; that oa account of his occupation he was excusable; suppose every man thought him so, yet is that any thing to the principle on which residence is founded? Whilst you are trying the innocence of a Person you are trying one question; whilst you are trying the claims of a Parish you are trying a question wholly distinct from the former. Might not a parish fay to an exempted rector, can your occupations take away our right to have a resident 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 resident rector, or we have such a right; which, of course, cannot with justice be withheld.

In section 16. what is allowed by 28 Hen. VHI. c. 13, might easily have been specified: now no one can obey the present Act by consulting it alone.

To Sequejiration it is difficult to make any objection ir» theory; because though some losses and payments maybe incurred by it in practice, which would be saved if the incumbent paid his own penalties, in his own way : yet every good law will, no doubt, find a secure method of levying the penalties incurred under it. And those who execute the Jaw, may frequently, according to the present liberal man

C ners,

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

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

We come next to what may be called the principal part of the Act before us, the procuring of Licences for non-residence. The arrangements relating to these must have occasioned great thought and contrivance. And putting myself 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 licensing could have been better managed. Nevertheless, what has been said 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 said here with regard to exemptions, as to their deserting the principle of the Act, is equally applicable to licences. And something of what was said concerning Parsonage Houses under the Curates Act might find an application under the l8th section of the present Act, which Is now before me.

Any remarks of inferior consequence 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 less so. The fame might perhaps be said with regard to those incumbents whose diocesan is an archbishop: I think such lie under a disadvantage. A rector who applies in the first instance to his diocesan, being a bishop, and on being dissatisfied with him, appeals to a different person, is in less danger of being oppressed, in case prelates should prove worldly-minded, as some, no doubt, have proved, than one whose application may be refused without the motives of refusal being ever exposed to examination. An archbishop's foreseeing this security of concealment, must be a strong temptation to indulge any little resentments, or prejudices; if he should not be always more than man. But to whom an appeal could lie from a diocesan when he is an archbishop, I do not presume to determine.

I cannot help feeling some alarm as to the Revocation of licences granted for two years. When a man has got a licence for two years, and ha* arranged all his affairs in consequence, k may be a very great evil to have that licence recalled. The recalling of it may be the very height of oppression. Yet, on the other hand, if an incumbent has obtained a licence under any false pretences; or if, though infirm at the time of licensing, he has perfectly recovered his health, and makes an unclerical use of that blessing, the intent of the Act requires that some remedy should reach him; that, in ssiort, he should forfeit the benefit of his licence. False pretences are generally understood to invalidate any agreement built upon them; and a person's shewing all marks of J rood health when privileged on account of bad health, is candalous; and reflects unmerited disgrace on those who framed the licence. In such a dilemma what more can e done than to examine, diligently and impartially, whether some methods of revocation might not be assigned, on these principles, making it less arbitrary and less dangerous, than it now is.—A new bishop should be particularly cautious of revoking a licence granted by his predecessor, as he never may be able to ascertain all the reasons for which it was granted.—Whether the licence be recalled by the bissiop who granted it, or by his successor, or by the king in council, I think the incumbent mould have the most early, regular, formal notice possible of its being recalled, as his whole course of action, his contracts, engagements, provisions, must all be changed by the revocation; but for such notice I have not, in my perusal of the Act, seen any order.

In the 22nd section several things are ordered to be done tending to give all persons affected by a licence, an opportunity of knowing whether one has been really granted, and in what circumstances; but no harm follows from neglecting the injunctions. The fame omission is observable in the marriage act, with regard to a month's residence in the parish where the marriage is to be solemnized. And, I think, in the old Act of Hen. VIII. about a rector's preaching a certain number of times, in the course of a year, in the parish where he does not most usually reside.—A list of licences granted is to be read, with the reasons for granting them, at the archdeacon's visitation; but I do not see that the archdeacon is obliged to read it or any other person.

Under the 25th section it has occurred as a doubt, whether a rector who holds two livings, and resides on one of them, mould, every year, within six weeks after new-year's-day, declare to his diocesan why he does not reside upon the other. The determination has been in the negative, as residence on any one benefice it the residence required by the Act. And a


« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »