The remainder consists of one with 2507.; seventeen where the eurate has the whole income; one, where he has two-thirds of the income: and one where three curates have 2751.

The first suggestion that might arise from a view of this statement would probably be, that the smallness of the stipend is owing to the low value of the living, or at least in some degree proportionate to the means of remuneration. But how little is to be attributed to that cause will immediately appear from the following analysis. Dividing the number of the livings into two classes, those under 1507. and those above it, there are found to be of the former about 600, of the latter about 1150. Of the first class the average value is 897. and the average amount of their curacies, 35l. Of the second all we know is that they are above 150l. Some of them are ten times as great: and very many exceed it by several hundreds. Yet of this whole class there are only 152 in which the salary is so high as 751. Deducting these from the whole number of 1150, there will remain about 1000 livings each above 150l. per annum, upon which the salaries of the curates will not exceed, upon an average, 45l. The difference between this average, and that of the curacies upon livings under 1507. is not more than 10%. So little ground is there for presuming that the poverty of the living is the cause of the low amount of the curate's stipend.

This, it will be remembered, is not half the extent of the evil.We have been speaking hitherto of those curacies only where the incumbent is non-resident by license. The non-residents by exemption are still more numerous, and there is no reason for supposing that the salaries are in these instances adjusted by any higher standard. Indeed the only difference between them has a tendency the other way for the amount of the salary not being submitted to the bishop in this case, one check is removed which has a feeble operation in the case of licenses;-and the incumbent is left to make the best bargain he can in a private agreement between himself and his curate. However, taking these at the same rate with the others,

there

there will be found 2540 livings above 150l. per annum, served by curates at a salary of 451. per annum on an average, and in no case exceeding 751.

We confess such a disclosure of the state of the church, filled us with regret and shame-feelings that were not at all soothed by the consideration that the remedy now applied is forced upon it, in spite of the resistance of its own more wealthy and dignified members. Against such a statement, it is idle to oppose some petty inaccuracies or omissions in the returns, or some few palliatives of particular cases. It has been alleged that advantages of surplice fees, or gardens, or a few acres of land are often enjoyed by the curate in addition to his stipend-that in many instances the same curate serves two or even more churches, and thus enjoys an accumulation of salaries-that the house alone would be in many situations an acceptable remuneration for his services, and fully adequate to his wishes-that incumbents may for their mutual accommodation reside each on the other's living, and thus appear to swell the list of curates, when neither of them in fact feels the wants or grievances of that station, and both ought in reason to be left out of the account. To this latter circumstance we wish indeed that the noble lord had in some degree adverted. It mitigates the aspect of the case, as far as the character of the Church is concerned, by reducing the number of inefficient incumbentsand the arrangement is often productive not only of domestic happiness, but of real service to religion. For where the character of a man is known, and he stands in the eye of all his dearest connections, he is undoubtedly capable of doing most good. But after making every allowance for these cases, the merits of the general question remain exactly where they were. No allowance, indeed, ought to be made for the case of curates who serve more than one church. For either the duty is in that case less than it ought to be, or if the duty is greater, the payment ought to rise in the same proportion. And as to the other alleged cases, they are so few in number as not to weigh a feather in the scale against the noble` lord's argument: and when pleaded in opposition to it, only prove the weakness of a cause which rests on such a support.

Another objection sometimes offered we will just mention; although it can hardly proceed from the friends of a rich church endowment. What reason is there, it may be said, to expect a duty of this kind to be better performed in proportion as the pay is increased? A conscientious man will do his duty let his income be ever so small; and if the fault lie in his conscience, it is not likely to be mended by an increase of salary. Such reasoning, if reasoning it can be called, cannot, as we have observed, come from the mouth of any man who is a sincere well-wisher to the Church

establishment:

establishment: for if it be valid against raising the scanty pittance of a curate, how much more conclusive is it against the ample revenues of our dignitaries and incumbents? We have produced it chiefly because it gives us an opportunity of extracting a passage from the speech, which is a fair specimen of the manly, rational, and moderate tone which pervades the whole performance.

I am far from supposing that respectability of character, exemplary discharge of duty, or a competent share of learning, are necessarily connected, or even connected at all, with the amount of the salary received. The most exalted virtues may be found in the humble cottage of the curate, as well as in the ample parsonage of the richly beneficed incumbent. But human arrangements must be calculated upon the ordinary course of human affairs: we are not to look for apostolical virtues in the curate, merely because we reduce him to apostolical poverty. How can we expect, considering the Church only as a profession, that men who have necessarily received a good education, and who ought to be men of liberal views, will continue to enter into a profession, in which the blanks bear so large a proportion to the prizes? How can we expect that persons, whose incomes hardly afford the means of subsistence, will be able to keep up that decent appearance which is almost indispensably necessary to ensure the respect of their parishioners? Much less can we expect that they should be able to con ciliate their affection, by administering to the wants of those who are only in a slight degree poorer than themselves. Want of respect for the persons who discharge ecclesiastical duties, will soon be transferred to the duties themselves. Men are too apt to measure the respect they owe to persons, or to offices, by the respect which they see paid to them by the authorities to which they look up. What must they think of the value which is set by the legislature upon the persons or the office of those to whose care the religion of the people is entrusted, when they see at how low a rate their services are estimated? How can we be surprized at the rapid progress of every species of sectaries (who are far from allowing the ministers of their congregations to fall in point of income to a level with the curates of the established church) when so large a proportion of the ministers of that church are left in a state of abject poverty; when they are left in that state, not only in cases where the church is poor and the duty light, but where the church is rich and the duty most laborious?'-p. 15.

In this state nevertheless, things have long remained-or rather in a continual course of deterioration: for the trifling advance in the average amount of curacies bears no proportion to the change which has been felt within the last 50 years in the value of money. During that period the price of all commodities which are necessary to a decent subsistence, has been about trebled. Many have risen in a much larger proportion: and yet 401. a year was an ordinary stipend in those times, equivalent certainly to 100l. at present.-The maximum fixed by the act of Queen Anue, was at least equal

in effect to 1507. of our present money. By the act of 1797, this maximum was raised to 757.; just half what it ought to be, if the design was merely to continue the provision of Queen Anne's reign. The minimum was not raised: it was left at 20l. as before. And from the foregoing analysis of the bishops' returns, we have seen how rarely even the pittance of 70l. was paid; while the officiating ministers in parishes of which the income exceeds 150l., but whose salary is only 50l. per annum (i. e. less in value than the minimum in Queen Anne's time) may be computed at about 3000.-vid. p. 15. The evil has not indeed failed of attracting notice, nor of exciting some endeavours to redress it. In 1803, soon after the Residence Bill was passed, a bill for improving the condition of the inferior clergy passed the House of Commons, but so late in the session that it was not carried through the Upper House. Early in the following session, Sir W. Scott moved for a Bill to encourage the residence of stipendiary curates, which proceeded as far as the committee, and was then dropped. In 1805, Mr. Perceval took up the business, but his Bill went no farther than the committee of the House of Lords. In 1808, he brought forward another bill to the same effect, which, after passing the Commons, was thrown out by the Lords. So great has been the difficulty, in this enlightened age, of carrying a measure which has reason, equity, and the interests of religion on its side. In a law embracing so many objects, it is natural to suppose indeed that many minor difficulties would arise, that many cases would be described calling for exception or modification-and after all, that it must be at the expense of some, if thousands are to be relieved. That these objections would be magnified beyond the truth, that the hypothetical hardship involved in them would be represented as deliberate cruelty and injustice, and so obtruded on the view as to hide, if possible, all the disgraceful reality which has now been proved to exist, and that many well meaning persons would be biassed by these imaginary dangers, and forget or disbelieve the statements alleged in behalf of the bill-all this perhaps was no more than might have been expected-and this force coming in aid of the interested mass, which only wanted an impulse, gave it a momentum which was irresistible. Since, however, the bishops' returns in 1810 have been made public, the case is materially altered. Such a body of evidence was produced in support of the main facts, that no hypothetical arguments could withstand it: and the principal weapon of the opponents was at the same time wrested from their hands, by providing that the bill should not apply to incumbents in possession. Thus met and thus disarmed, it would indeed have portended ill for the present generation, if the adversaries of the measure had prevailed. Hardly a voice was raised against it in the Upper House,

except by the Spiritual Lords, whose arguments have been so ill reported in the newspapers, that it is difficult to ascertain the precise grounds of their opposition. Whatever they were, a considerable majority turned a deaf ear to their remonstrances, although it is said that one noble lord, unconvinced by their reasoning, still thought it his duty as a senator, to bend to their authority.

The noble mover has therefore the satisfaction of having accomplished what his late virtuous friend and colleague, Mr. Perceval, had greatly at heart; and what from regard to his memory, as well as from a cordial approbation of the measure, he entered upon, as the discharge of a sacred trust. By this one step he has deserved the thanks of those who venerate our church establishment, and who wish to see its foundations laid firm and deep in the affections of the people. Nothing can tend so much to alienate those affections, or to strengthen the hands of its numerous adversaries, as that narrow and illiberal policy which exalts the means above the end-which is active, quicksighted, and pertinacious in the defence of some worldly interest, but suffers evils and abuses to spread within it, such as not only affect the very essence and purpose of its institution, but are the surest forerunners, if unchecked, of its political decay and ruin. It is not the clamorous stickler for some antiquated privilege whom we regard as its truest friend in a season of general defection-but he who seeks to rectify what is amiss, to remove all ground of reproach and scandal, to correct the growing abuses to which all human institutions are liable, to frame expedients according to the change of times and manners, by which the same good may be effected in all ages, and to baffle that greatest of all innovators, time, by corresponding alterations in the detail and administration of its important duties. Let us only possess a few powerful friends, with hearts so disposed, and our rights and endowments are safe enough against all our enemies.

Let it not be supposed we would include all the clergy who employ stipendiary curates under one sweeping charge of illiberality, because the salaries are found, upon inquiry, to be inadequate to the service done. When we descend to the examination of individual cases, we find that the salary has been fixed with reference to the general practice, and from no sordid desire to drive a hard bargain, and to get the work done at the cheapest rate. In so numerous a body as the English clergy, it must indeed happen that many of this description will be found, who will traffic upon the duty of their church, on the same principle, and with the same feelings as they contract with a menial servant. But with the generality we are firmly persuaded it is not so. And nothing tends to convince us more of the necessity of some legislative interference than this persuasion. Leave the matter to be settled