far as respects Mr. Fox's opposition, it is but due to him to state, that he expressed himself as friendly as possible to the general object of the measure; and if I have any ground of complaint against his opposition, it is, that wishing well to the object, he gave, as it appeared to me at least, too great weight to objections which were made to some of the detailed provisions, and which might certainly have been removed by amendments in the committee.

This fate could not, as I think at least, have attended this measure, if the provision for it had been ingrafted into Sir William Scott's act; for many who were eager and anxious for the act relaxing the obligations to residence in favour of the rectors who did not perform their duties, exhibited, unfortunately, no similar eagerness and anxiety for a bill which was to provide for the better maintenance of the curates who did perform those duties in their stead. But I cannot see how either patron, or rector, or any advocate for either of their interests, could have objected, had the provision for such better maintenance made part of that act. The condition must have been felt to be reasonable; it would have been urged, and must have been felt, that the law would only apply to cases of non-residence; if the rector did not take the advantage of non-residence he would not be within the reach of that law, and if he did take that advantage, he could not complain that he was obliged to submit to the condition upon which alone he was admitted to the advantage. The objection that the legislature can have no justifiable ground for interfering and exercising its jurisdiction upon the subject, could not possibly have been urged or felt by them, at whose instance, and for whose benefit, the legislature was called upon to interfere to exercise its jurisdiction, by relaxing the obligations to residence, by indemnifying against penalties which had been incurred, and modifying with new provisions those which were to attach thereafter. And, even in the state in which the matter now stands, the idea of denying the propriety of parliamentary interference to enforce the object of such a measure as is now under consideration, upon any other ground than such (if any such can be produced) as may shew its inexpediency and im

policy, is extravagant to a degree that is perfectly incompre hensible.

It cannot be doubted that the canon law, the common law, and the statute law, require residence. In the third volume of Dr. Burn's Ecclesiastical Law, p. 291, under title "Residence," you may find authorities for this position.

"The Bishop shall provide that in every church there shall "be one resident."

66

46

"The rule of the ancient canon law was, that if a clergyman deserted his church or prebend without just and necessary cause, and especially without the consent of the diocesan, he should be deprived;" and agreeably hereunto was the practice in this realm: for, though sometimes the bishop proceeded only to sequestration, or other censures of an inferior nature, yet the more frequent punishment was deprivation. Gibs. 827.

66

Regularly residence is required of ecclesiastical persons upon their cures." The intendment of the common law is, that a clerk is resident on his cure. 2 Inst. 625.

In furtherance of these canon law and common law obligations to residence, the legislature interfered about the time of the reformation, to impose statutary obligations to reside, and pecuniary penalties for non-residence. Those obligations were by Sir William Scott's act modified, at least, if not relaxed. And all that my argument assumes is this, that the legislature which does relax these canon and common law obligations to residence, and does define its limits, must of necessity be competent to annex such conditions upon its modifications and relaxations, as it shall see fit; and may therefore unquestionably say to the clerk, who, by the canon law, is obliged to reside, "we mean to enforce the canon law "obligations to residence by temporal penalties, but they "shall not apply unless your non-residence is of a given extent, provided you sexure the residence of a curate in your absence, and furnish him with what we deem a competent "maintenance. If you do not choose to comply with these "terms, then we will compel you by temporal penalties "to perform that duty which the canon law imposes upon

you." With this view of the argument, surely it must be absurd to contend that it is incompetent for parliament to interfere, and that such interference is either an innovation on the church, or a violation and plunder of its property.

As to such interference being charged as an innovation on the established church, the church of England, the church which takes the date of its legal establishment certainly not before Henry VIII.'s time, see how that charge stands. It is clear, from what has been already said, that the statutary penalties for non-residence are as old as the reformation. The English church has never had an existence but accompanied with the legislative provision of the statute of Henry VIII., till the passing of Sir William Scott's act. Can any man possibly deny the right of the legislature to repeal Sir William Scott's act, which has passed within these four years, and which is only a temporary law that will expire of itself, unless it is continued; and consequently, (for such would be the ef⚫fect of its repeal) to revive the penalties of the former statute of Henry VIII.? If then it is clearly competent to the legislature to repeal the late act, can there be any doubt that it can, instead of repealing it entirely, suffer it to remain, annexing to the advantages which it confers on the beneficed clergy, those conditions on which alone they may still be allowed to enjoy them? The impropriety, therefore, of legislative interference, must unquestionably depend entirely on the inexpediency and impolicy of such interference, and not on any doubt of the competency of parliament to interfere. And I do trust that these observations are abundantly sufficient to remove any degree of possible doubt which has been endeavoured to be raised, upon the full, absolute, entire, and unquestionable competency of the legislature to interfere with whatever regulations it may conceive expedient and necessary to enforce the performance of any duties which the common law, which the canon law, and which the reason and nature of the establishment annex to the possession and enjoyment of ecclesiastical property.

The objection which is founded upon the supposed violation of ecclesiastical private property, which ought to be held as sacred as any other, is in no small degree affected by the ar

gument on the former point. I agree, and would contend as strongly as any man, that ecclesiastical property should be held as sacred and inviolate as any species of property whatsoever; but, the question is not, whether that property ought not to be held as sacred, as much under the protecting guardianship of the legislature as any other; but, whether there are not duties and conditions annexed to the enjoyment of that property, which do not attach to any other? and whether those duties ought not to be held sacred also, and ought not to be protected by legislative guardianship? That it is subject to many considerations which distinguish it materially from other property, it is impossible that any one should seriously deny. This property is rather to be considered as the reward and salary for the performance of ecclesiastical duties. It was given, probably in early times of christianity, by kings, or great proprietors, for the support of the ministers of religion in the performance of their important duties. How it was originally derived to the church is a matter of mere antiquarian curiosity and research. The canon and common law which have been referred to, prove the condition on which it is now holden, whatever might have been the condition on which it was originally given. Nothing can be more clear than, that the non-performance of these duties is an actually legal cause of forfeiture. Can it then be seriously maintained, that if use, the fashion of the times, or any other cause, shall have introduced too great a degree of remissness in the discharge of any of those duties, that the legislature cannot interfere, either by punishment to correct this remissness, or by regulation to qualify and diminish its mischievous effects, without being charged with a violation of private property, and an abandonment of those cautious principles, on which it abstains in other cases, from interfering with the rights and possessions of individuals?

The argument cannot be pushed to that extent; at least, if it is, it cannot have any effect on persons really acquainted with the subject. But then it is said by those, who cannot deny that church property is held on the condition of performing the duties belonging to the station to which it is annexed, that all the duty which is annexed to this species of property

Is this: that the proprietor, the incumbent, should either discharge the duties of it himself, or find some one who will discharge them for him;-that the terms on which he can prevail on a man to discharge these duties are mere matters of private contract between the rector and his curate;—that the curate is the true and only person to put the proper estimate on the value of his own labour; and if he is contented, no one else has a right to interfere or complain.

Now I must deny absolutely, the proposition that no person has a right to interfere in regulating the salary of the curate, except the rector and the curate themselves. But I am not disposed to deny, that all the condition which is annexed to this sort of property, and on which the incumbent holds it, is either to discharge the duties of his office himself, or to find another person as his curate to discharge them for him. But then those duties, which are to be performed either by himself or his substitute, must be well understood; and it must also be taken into the account, that he is not himself the judge to determine whether they are sufficiently discharged. We have seen by reference to the canon law, that residence is one of those duties; that the desertion of the benefice is a legal cause of privation; and we need only look at the form of a faculty of dispensation for a plurality, to see with what guards, and upon what terms, where the law allows the appointment and substitution of a curate, in the case of the nonresidence of the incumbent, such appointment and substitution must be made.

This form is printed in third volume of Burn's Ecclesiastical Law, p. 103. It contains the following provisoes:

"Provided always, that in each of the churches aforesaid, as well in that from which it shall happen that you shall be "for the greater part absent, as in the other on which you "shall make perpetual and personal residence, you do preach ❝ thirteen sermons every year, according to the ordinances of "the church of England promulged in that behalf; and do "therein sincerely, religiously, and reverently handle the "holy word of God; and that in the benefice from which you "shall happen to be most absent, you do nevertheless exer"cise hospitality two months in the year; and for that time,