THOUGHTS ON THE RESIDENCE OF THE Thoughts on the Residence of the Clergy. By JOHN STURGES, LL. D. THIS pamphlet is the production of a gentleman who has acquired a right to teach the duties of the clerical character by fulfilling them; and who has exercised that right, in the present instance, with honour to himself, and benefit to the public. From the particular character of understanding evinced in this work, we should conceive Dr. Sturges to possess a very powerful claim to be heard on all questions referrable to the decision of practicable good sense. He has availed himself of his experience to observe; and of his observation, to judge well: he neither loves his profession too little, nor too much; is alive to its interests, without being insensible to those of the community at large; and treats of those points where his previous habits might render a little intemperance venial, as well as probable, with the most perfect good humour and moderation. As exceptions to the general and indisputable principle of residence, Dr. Sturges urges the smallness of some livings; the probability that their incumbents be engaged in the task of education, or in ecclesiastical duty, in situations where their talents. may be more appropriately and importantly employed. Dr. Sturges is also of opinion, that the power of enforcing residence, under certain limits, should be invested in the bishops; and that the acts pro hibiting the clergy to hold or cultivate land, should be in a great measure repealed. We sincerely hope that the two cases suggested by Dr. Sturges, of the clergyman who may keep a school, or be engaged in the duty of some parish not his own, will be attended to in the construction of the approaching bill, and admitted as pleas for nonresidence. It certainly is better that a clergyman should do the duty of his own benefice, rather than of any other. But the injury done to the community, is not commensurate with the vexation imposed upon the individual. Such a measure is either too harsh, not to become obsolete; or, by harassing the clergy with a very severe restriction, to gain a very disproportionate good to the community, would bring the profession into disrepute, and have a tendency to introduce a class of men into the Church, of less liberal manners, education, and connection; points of the utmost importance, in our present state of religion and wealth. Nothing has enabled men to do wrong with impunity, so much as the extreme severity of the penalties with which the law has threatened them. The only method to insure success to the bill for enforcing ecclesiastical residence, is to consult the convenience of the clergy in its construction, as far as is possibly consistent with the object desired, and even to sacrifice something that ought to be done, in order that much may be done. Upon this principle, the clergyman should not be confined to his parsonagehouse, but to the precincts of his parish. Some advantage would certainly attend the residence of the clergy in their official mansions; but, as we have before observed, the good one party would obtain, bears no sort of proportion to the evil the other would suffer. Upon the propriety of investing the Bench of Bishops with a power of enforcing residence, we confess ourselves to entertain very serious doubts. A bishop has frequently a very temporary interest in his diocese: he has favours to ask; and he must grant them. Leave of absence will be granted to powerful intercession; and refused, upon stronger pleas, to men without friends. Bishops are frequently men advanced in years, or immersed in study. A single person who compels many others to do their duty, has much odium to bear, and much activity to A bishop is subject to caprice, and enmity, and passion, in common with other individuals; there is some danger also that his power over the clergy may be converted to a political purpose. From innumerable causes, which might be reasoned upon to great length, we are apprehensive the object of the Legislature will be entirely frustrated in a few years, if it be committed to episcopal superintendence and care; though, upon the first view of the subject, no other scheme can appear so natural and so wise. } Dr. Sturges observes, that after all the conceivable justifications of non-residence are enumerated in the Act, many others must from time to time occur, and indicate the propriety of vesting somewhere a discretionary power. If this be true of the penalties by which the clergy are governed, it is equally true of all other penal laws; and the law should extend to every offence the contingency of discretionary remission. The objection to this system is, that it trusts too much to the sagacity and the probity of the judge, and exposes a country to the partial, lax, and corrupt administration of its laws. It is certainly inconvenient, in many cases, to have no other guide to resort to but the unaccommodating mandates of an act of Parliament: yet, of the two inconveniences, it is the least. It is some palliation of the evils of discretionary power, that it should be exercised (as by the Court of Chancery) in the face of day, and that the moderator of law should himself be moderated by the force of precedent and opinion. A bishop will exercise his discretionary power in the dark; he is at full liberty to depart to-morrow from the precedent he has established to-day; and to apply the same decisions to different, or different decisions to the same circumstances, as his humour or his interest may dictate. Such power may be exercised well under one judge of extraordinary integrity; but it is not very probable he will find a proper successor. To suppose a series of men so much superior to temptation, and to construct a system of church government upon such a supposition, is to build upon sand, with materials not more durable than the foundation. Sir William Scott has made it very clear, by his excellent speech, that it is not possible, in the present state of the revenues of the English Church, to apply a radical cure to the evil of non-residence. It is there stated, that out of 11,700 livings, there are 6000 under 801. per annum; many of those, 201., 30%., and some as low as 21. or 31. per annum. In such a state of endowment, all idea of rigid residence is out of the question. Emoluments, which a footman would spurn, can hardly recompense a scholar and a gentleman. A mere palliation is all that can be applied; and these are the ingredients of which we wish such a palliation should be composed: 1. Let the clergyman have full liberty of farming, and be put in this respect exactly upon a footing with laymen. 2. Power to reside in any other house in the parish, as well as the parsonage-house, and to be absent five months in the year. 3. Schoolmasters, and ministers bona fide discharging ministerial functions in another parish, exempt from residence. 4. Penalties in proportion to the value of livings, and number of times the offence has been committed. 5. Common informers to sue as at present; though probably it might be right to make the name of one parishioner a necessary addition; and a proof of nonresidence might be made to operate as a nonsuit in an action for tithes. 6. No action for non-residence to lie where the benefice was less than 80l. per annum; and the powers of bishops to remain precisely as they are. These indulgences would leave the clergy without excuse, would reduce the informations to a salutary number, and diminish the odium consequent upon them, by directing their effects against men who regard church preferment merely as a source of revenue, not as an obligation to the discharge of im portant duties. We venture to prognosticate, that a bill of greater severity either will not pass the House of Commons, or will fail of its object. Considering the times and circumstances, we are convinced we have stated the greatest quantum of attainable good; which of course will not be attained, by the customary error, of attending to what is desirable to be done, rather than to what it is practicable to do. |