fituation of the parfonage-houfe in an inconvenient or perhaps unhealthy fituation; in which cafe it might be expedient to allow the biflop to grant a difpenfation for non-refidence only after it thall be proved to him that measures have been taken by which an exchange of houfes would eventually take place; or, if no fituation can be found within the parish, to allow of one out of it. The lan act fays, "if the house of refidence fhall be unfit for refidence, fuch unfitnefs not being occafioned by any negligence, defect, or other mifconduct, of fuch ecclefiaftical perfon," the bishop may grant a licence for non-refidence. As thefe words are very indefinite, and the bifhop cannot inspect every houfe himff, a large addition will be made to the number of non-refidents; and it will draw on the utter run of those houfes which are now only tending to decay for want of being lived in. An incumbent of ealy forme, finding a mean houfe on his benefice, will frequently purchase or build a houfe for himfelf, rather than make the other fuitable to his conveniency*.

Even under Mr. Gilbert's act, the defaleation is fhewn to be too confiderable for an incumbent to engage in." "It may be afked, no doubt, by perfous of delicate habits and faftidions manners, would you oblige a gentleman to live in a mean cottage? The plain anfwer is, that the welfare of the church requires the incumbent's refidence in his parifh; and to that rule he ought to fubunit Meanwhile, he may improve his houfe or enlarge it, as far as prudence will permit; or, if he forelees inconveniencies, as fome there are in enlarging, the ingenuity of modern workmen will fornith him with temporary and removeable accommodations both for his houfe and out-houfes; and, lafily, there is no co tage fo mean, but extreme neatnefs

within and without will diftinguish the abode of a gentleman from that of a pealant."

An eighth caufe of non-refidence is, when the incumbent and his pa rishioners have been at variance on account of tithes or other dues; fo that the refidence of the incumbent may be rendered unpleafant to himfelf, and fometimes even dangerous. When this happens without the fault of the minifter, it were to be wished that his refidence might be difpenfed with, by exchange of benefices.

The lafi caufe of non-refidence is, where the incumbent is a chaplain er fchoolmafier. Mr. S. properly contends, that the care of a parith, and the matterbip of a school, “are incompatible; but not an incumbent having two or three pupi's. The domeftic chaplains and tutors of noblemen and gentlemen are ufually young men of good abilities, who engage in that em ployment in hope of obtaining prefermein at fome future time by means of a refpectable connexion. The fituation of fuch clergyinen is generally fo eaty, and full of reasonable expecta tips, that there feems no good reafon why the great duty of refidence thould be difpenfed with on their account. When their expectations are fulfilled, and a benefice is offered, why thould fuch clergymen be excapted from the general duty more than others? If their chaplaincy be fuch as to requ're their actual fervice and attendance, let theia choofe that fituation which may be moft fuitable, and not attempt two offices incompatible with each other. Some indulgence might, perhaps, be allowable towards chaplains in the army and navy, because their situations are feldom permanent.

All other pleas in favour of non-. refidence, Mr. S. confiders as frivolous and endless. He fhould confider too what a difference there is between the

GENT. MAG, January, 1805.

qua

the clergy, the laity might derive a benefit from them. However this might have been, when applied to the clergy of modern times the prohibition is manifeftly abfurd and illiberal. The ftatute of king Henry VIII. prohibits the practice in general, but it allows as large an exemption as a reasonable man could with; but the late act, without making any material difference in the thing itfelf, has made it neceffary moreover to procure the approbation of the bishop for the purpose; and, while it allows a clergyman to cultivate his freehold property, forbids him to cultivate, without leave of the bishop, his leafehold property, though, perhaps, defcended to him from his ancestors. The whole fubject of farming land had better have been omitted. There is no end to fuch minute law-giving, when once the fpirit is gone forth. In our profeffion, for example, why has this new ftatute fixed upon farming alone, and not proceeded to many other avocations which fometimes occupy too great a fhare of a clergyman's attention? Will the legiflature proceed on this plan? will it prohibit the clergyman from playing at eards or dice, from hunting and fhooting, from painting and fidling, and even from gardening? for thefe amaufements do at prefent occupy more hours of the clerical tribe, and are moft of them more derogatory to the clerical character, than the practice of farming. When the latter fhould have been carried to a reprehenfible extent, it would have been time enough for the legiflature to have interfered." (p. 62.)

"The power granted to the bishop by this flaunte is another fubject which claims attention. It is better to live under a precife law, without hope of evafion, than with a probability (uncertain of courfe) of being able to evade it by the indulgence of a fuperior. A body of men are more likely to be liberal and respectable living under known and politive laws, than if they are fubject to the uncertain will of a fuperior; and it is to be feared that young men, equally respectable, would not enter into the profeffion urfder the latter circumfiance, as they would enter into it under the former. If this power of granting or refufing licences be indefinitely lodged in the hands of the bithops, it is easy to fee that the clergy muft become fubfervient

to them, for the fake of a benefit which it may be fome time or other convenient to obtain. That bishops fhould have authority over their clergy is truly to be defired; but, by autho rity ought to be understood the power of enforcing the laws, not the arbitrary determination of particular cafes. The right of epifcopal jurifdiction to fuch an extent as fome men of high epifcopal principles hold, I am perfuaded can be proved neither from the practice of the primitive church, nor from the original fettlement, or progreffive flate, of the church of England. The fituation of thofe very perfons to whom this difcretionary power is intrufted will be peculiarly unpleafant. Lafily, the difficulty of executing this act appears to be greater than has been duly confidered. Hitherto the intercourfe between a clergyman and his diocefan has in general been little ; fimilar to that which exifs between a private gentleman and the magiftrate of his neighbourhood; and many men have spent good and ufeful lives, without once having occafion to appear before him, or hold any correspondence with him. The late act will make a confiderable alteration in that refpect. In a diocele of 400 benefices, perhaps 150 of the incumbents apply for leave to farm, which leave muft be repeated when the leafe fhall expire, and as often as the petitioner finds it convenient to change his fields. Perhaps 100 incumbents apply for leave of nonrefidence, which must be repeated every two years; and the bishop muft examine into each of thefe cafes, and a great number of curates must be licenfed, which heretofore was little practifed. An attention to these cafes, moft of them attended with trifling circumstances, cannot but be irkfome, and, to one who is required to live in the metropolis a part of the year, very inconvenient; and, where a perfonal interview fhall be neceflary (which will be fo generally, if cafes are firialy enquired into), it will be impracticable. The confequence will be, that the difficulty and delay to which fome cafes will be liable, and the trifling nature of the petition in others, will induce many clergymen to neglect any application at all, and to rifque the confequences of the omiffion; and it cannot be expected that the bishop will bring vexation on himfelf by fearching after delinquents; he will in general

in

different

of fuch affemblies, and with it profeffional zeal and profeflional learning are decaying. Some Irregularities regularly creep int every lociety; fome perhaps have crept into the Church, both among the clergy and the people. Some i novations might be checked; fome im: roprieties might be amended; fome caules of complaint might be removed; fome doubts might be cleared; fome duties might be enforced, fome notorious immoralities might be difcouraged, if the Church poffefled the common means which other focieties have of regulating their peculiar concerus. Let the Convocation fit as ulual, or (which perhaps might be preferable) let the diocetan fynods he regularly aflembled, and the Church would be in fome degree accountable for the conduct of its members, which at prefent it can fearcely be faid that it is. I know the party violence, the malignant indifference, and the fufpicions of Government, which occafioned the difufe of Convocations; and I know that, even at prefent, many perfous, whofe ftation in life ought to give them better information, regard the Church with a caution and fufpicion which is really ridiculous. The Church is now completely at the mercy of the State. It might forbid her decrees from being executed after they are paft; or it might inhibit her proceedings at their commencement; no relifiance could be made, or even thought of: it might even feize upon all her temporal poffellions, and were certain of nothing but perfuafions and arguments to oppole. I do not fay this as finding fault with the order of things as they now are: the State ought to have its fupremacy, and the Church to fupport its fubordination; but when the Church is fo fubject as it now is, when her Clergy are eminent for loyalty, and are befides related by confanguinity and allinity to half the families in England, there furely can be no political danger in allowing them to regulate the internal affairs of their own fociety. I conclude, by leaving these

Confiderations to the confcience of fome, and the political wildom of all, whom Providence has called to take part in the adminißration of the Commonwealth --my firft earthly with is for the property of my country, and that profperity is deeply interefied in the welfare of the Chipch of England.

5. Letters, from the Year 1774 to the Year 1796, of John Wilkes, Ejq. addreffed to bis Daughter, the late Mifs Wilkes; with a Collection of bis Mifcellaneous Poems. To which is prefixed, a Memoir of the Life of Mr. Wilkes. In Four Volumes.

IN the Memoirs prefixed to this Collection very little information will be found beyond what has already ap peared at large in our vol. LXVIII. p. 77. A few gleanings have, however, been felected.

Lord Mansfield, we are here informed on the unquestionable authority of Mr. Strahan, was of opinion, that "Mr. Wilkes was the pleafanteft companion, the politeft gentleman, and the belt fcholar he ever knew."

The Editor's affertion, that Mr. Wilkes's "fame" was "hourly on the decline," is exactly the reverse of the fact. The flame, if not fo fierce as it had been, was fteady; and he had almoft redeemed the lofs of character.

Portraits are given both of Mr. and Mifs Wilkes, from a painting by Zoffani. The original, in that able artift's beft manner, is a fcene in a garden, in which Mifs Wilkes, ftanding in an eafy attitude, is converfing with her father, who fits looking up at her with that calm extacy which none but a fond father can properly appreciate. Never was there an infiance in which paternal tenderness and filial affection were more happily exemplified than in the originals; and the painter has happily caught the idea. By feparating the portraits, this effect is totally loft. The likenelles, indeed, are tole rably well preferved, and that of Mifs Wilkes is very pleafing; but the father's, as here given, conveys the ludicrous idea of an idiot gazing at vacuity.

Without