country, that a man should hold lands as a bishop, any more than if he
were a temporal person; so it is of great advantage to the community,
where a bishop lives as he ought to do. He is bound, in conscience, to
reside in his diocese, and, by a solemn promise, to keep hospitality;
his estate is spent in the kingdom, not remitted to England; he keeps
the clergy to their duty, and is an example of virtue both to them and
the people. Suppose him an ill man; yet his very character will withhold
him from any great or open exorbitancies. But, in fact, it must be
allowed, that some bishops of this kingdom, within twenty years past,
have done very signal and lasting acts of public charity; great
instances whereof, are the late[5] and present[6] Primate, the Lord
Archbishop of Dublin[7] that now is, who hath left memorials of his
bounty in many parts of his province. I might add, the Bishop of
Raphoe,[8] and several others: Not forgetting the late Dean of Down, Dr.
Pratt, who bestowed one thousand pounds upon the university: Which
foundation, (that I may observe by the way) if the bill proposed should
pass, would be in the same circumstances with the bishops, nor ever able
again to advance the stipends of the fellows and students, as lately
they found it necessary to do; the determinate sum appointed by the
statute for commons, being not half sufficient, by the fall of money, to
afford necessary sustenance. But the passing of such a bill must put an
end to all ecclesiastical beneficence for the time to come; and whether
this will be supplied by those who are to reap the benefit, better than
it hath been done by the grantees of impropriate tithes, who received
them upon the old church conditions of keeping hospitality; it will be
easy to conjecture.
[Footnote 5: Dr. Marsh.]
[Footnote 6: Dr. Lindsay.]
[Footnote 7: Dr. King.]
[Footnote 8: Dr. Forster.]
To allege, that passing such a bill would be a good encouragement to
improve bishops' lands, is a great error. Is it not the general method
of landlords, to wait the expiration of a lease, and then cant[9] their
lands to the highest bidder? And what should hinder the same course to
be taken in church leases, when the limitation is removed of paying half
the real value to the bishop? In riding through the country, how few
improvements do we see upon the estates of laymen, farther than about
their own domains? To say the truth, it is a great misfortune as well to
the public as to the bishops themselves, that their lands are generally
let to lords and great squires, who, in reason, were never designed to
be tenants; and therefore may naturally murmur at the payment of rent,
as a subserviency they were not born to. If the tenants to the Church
were honest farmers, they would pay their fines and rents with
cheerfulness, improve their lands, and thank God they were to give but a
moderate half value for what they held. I have heard a man of a thousand
pounds a year, talk with great contempt of bishops' leases, as being on
a worse foot than the rest of his estate; and he had certainly reason:
My answer was, that such leases were originally intended only for the
benefit of industrious husbandmen, who would think it a great blessing
to be so provided for, instead of having his farm screwed up to the
height, not eating one comfortable meal in a year, nor able to find
shoes for his children.
[Footnote 9: To cant means to call for bidders at an auction sale.
Probably derived from the O. French _cant = quantum_ = how much. [T.S.]]
I know not any advantage that can accrue by such a bill, except the
preventing of perjury in jurymen, and false dealing in tenants; which is
a remedy like that of giving my money to an highwayman, before he
attempts to take it by force; and so I shall be sure to prevent the sin
of robbery.
I had wrote thus far, and thought to have put an end; when a bookseller
sent me a small pamphlet, entitled, "The Case of the Laity, with some
Queries;" full of the strongest malice against the clergy, that I have
anywhere met with since the reign of Toland, and others of that tribe.
These kinds of advocates do infinite mischief to OUR GOOD CAUSE, by
giving grounds to the unjust reproaches of TORIES and JACOBITES, who
charge us with being enemies to the Church. If I bear an hearty
unfeigned loyalty to his Majesty King George, and the House of Hanover,
not shaken in the least by the hardships we lie under, which never can
be imputable to so gracious a prince: If I sincerely abjure the
Pretender, and all Popish successors; if I bear a due veneration to the
glorious memory of the late King William, who preserved these kingdoms
from Popery and slavery, with the expense of his blood, and hazard of
his life: And lastly, if I am for a proper indulgence to all dissenters;
I think nothing more can be reasonably demanded of me as a WHIG, and
that my political catechism is full and complete. But whoever, under the
shelter of that party denomination, and of many great professions of
loyalty, would destroy, or undermine, or injure the Church established;
I utterly disown him, and think he ought to choose another name of
distinction for himself, and his adherents. I came into the cause upon
other principles, which, by the grace of God, I mean to preserve as long
as I live. Shall we justify the accusations of our adversaries? _Hoc
Ithacus velit_--The Tories and Jacobites will behold us with a malicious
pleasure, determined upon the ruin of our friends: For is not the
present set of bishops almost entirely of that number, as well as a
great majority of the principal clergy? And a short time will reduce the
whole, by vacancies upon death.
An impartial reader, if he pleases to examine what I have already said,
will easily answer the bold "Queries" in the pamphlet I mentioned: He
will be convinced, that "the reason still strongly exists, for which"
that limiting law was enacted. A reasonable man will wonder, where can
be the insufferable grievance, that an ecclesiastical landlord should
expect a moderate, or third part value in rent for his lands, when his
title is, _at least_, as ancient and as legal as that of a layman; who
is yet but seldom guilty of giving such beneficial bargains. Has "the
nation been thrown into confusion"? And have "many poor families been
ruined" by rack-rents paid for the lands of the church? Does "the nation
cry out" to have a law that must, in time, send their bishops a-begging?
But, God be thanked, the clamour of enemies to the Church is not yet the
cry, and, I hope, will never prove the voice of the nation. The clergy,
I conceive, will hardly allow that "the people maintain them," any more
than in the sense, that all landlords whatsoever are maintained by the
people. Such assertions as these, and the insinuations they carry along
with them, proceed from principles which cannot be avowed by those who
are for preserving the happy constitution in Church and State. Whoever
were the proposers of such "queries," it might have provoked a bold
writer to retaliate, perhaps with more justice than prudence, by shewing
at whose door the grievance lies, and that the bishops, _at least_, are
not to answer for the poverty of tenants.
To gratify this great reformer, who enlarges the episcopal rent-roll
almost one half; let me suppose that all the Church lands in the kingdom
were thrown up to the laity; would the tenants, in such a case, sit
easier in their rents than they do now? Or, would the money be equally
spent in the kingdom? No: The farmer would be screwed up to the utmost
penny, by the agents and stewards of absentees, and the revenues
employed in making a figure at London; to which city a full third part
of the whole income of Ireland is annually returned, to answer that
single article of maintenance for Irish landlords.
Another of his quarrels is against pluralities and non-residence: As to
the former, it is a word of ill name, but not well understood. The
clergy having been stripped of the greatest part of their revenues, the
glebes being generally lost, the tithes in the hands of laymen, the
churches demolished, and the country depopulated; in order to preserve a
face of Christianity, it was necessary to unite small vicarages,
sufficient to make a tolerable maintenance for a minister. The profit of
ten or a dozen of these unions, do seldom amount to above eighty or an
hundred pounds a year: If there be a very few dignitaries, whose
preferments are, perhaps, more liable to this accusation, it is to be
supposed, they may be favourites of the time, or persons of superior
merit, for whom there hath ever been some indulgence in all governments.
As to non-residence, I believe there is no Christian country upon earth,
where the clergy have less to answer for upon that article. I am
confident there are not ten clergymen in the kingdom, who, properly
speaking, can be termed non-residents: For surely, we are not to reckon
in that number, those who, for want of glebes, are forced to retire to
the nearest neighbouring village for a cabin to put their heads in; the
leading man of the parish, when he makes the greatest clamour, being
least disposed to accommodate the minister with an acre of ground. And,
indeed, considering the difficulties the clergy lie under upon this
head, it hath been frequent matter of wonder to me, how they are able to
perform that part of their duty as well as they do.
There is a noble author,[10] who hath lately addressed to the House of
Commons, an excellent discourse for the "Encouragement of Agriculture";
full of most useful hints, which, I hope, that honourable assembly will
consider as they deserve. I am not a stranger to his lordship; and,
excepting in what relates to the Church, there are few persons with
whose opinions I am better pleased to agree; and am, therefore, grieved
when I find him charging the inconveniencies in the payment of tithes
upon the clergy and their proctors. His lordship is above considering a
very known and vulgar truth, that the meanest farmer hath all manner of
advantages against the most powerful clergyman, by whom it is impossible
he can be wronged, although the minister were ever so evil disposed; the
whole system of teasing, perplexing, and defrauding the proctor, or his
master, being as well known to every ploughman, as the reaping or sowing
of his corn, and much more artfully practised. Besides, the leading man
in the parish must have his tithes at his own rate, which is hardly ever
above one quarter of the value. And I have heard it computed by many
skilful observers, whose interest was not concerned, that the clergy did
not receive, throughout the kingdom, one half of what the laws have made
their due.
[Footnote 10: The late Lord Molesworth.]
As to his lordship's discontent against the Bishops' Courts, I shall not
interpose further than in venturing my private opinion, that the clergy
would be very glad to recover their just dues by a more short, decisive,
and compulsive method, than such a cramped and limited jurisdiction will
allow.
His lordship is not the only person disposed to give the clergy the
honour of being the _sole_ encouragers of all new improvements. If hops,
hemp, flax, and twenty things more are to be planted, the clergy,
_alone_, must reward the industrious farmer, by abatement of the tithe.
What if the owner of nine parts in ten would please to abate
proportionably in his rent, for every acre thus improved? Would not a
man just dropped from the clouds, upon a full hearing, judge the demand
to be, at least, as reasonable?
I believe no man will dispute his lordship's title to his estate; nor
will I the _jus divinum_ of tithes, which he mentions with some emotion.
I suppose the affirmative would be of little advantage to the clergy,
for the same reason that a maxim in law hath more weight in the world
than an article of faith. And yet, I think there may be such a thing as
sacrilege; because it is frequently mentioned by Greek and Roman
authors, as well as described in Holy Writ. This I am sure of; that his
lordship would, at any time, excuse a parliament for not concerning
itself in his properties, without his own consent.
The observations I have made upon his lordship's discourse, have not, I
confess, been altogether proper to my subject: However, since he hath
been pleased therein to offer some proposals to the House of Commons,
with relation to the clergy, I hope he will excuse me for differing from
him; which proceeds from his own principle, the desire of defending
liberty and property, that he hath so strenuously and constantly
maintained.
But the other writer openly declares for a law, empowering the bishops
to set fee-farms; and says, "Whoever intimates that they will deny their
consent to such a reasonable law, which the whole nation cries for, are
enemies to them and the Church." Whether this be his real opinion, or
only a strain of mirth and irony, the matter is not much. However, my
sentiments are so directly contrary to his; that I think, whoever
impartially reads and considers what I have written upon this argument,
hath either no regard for the Church established under the hierarchy of
bishops, or will never consent to any law that shall repeal, or elude
the limiting clause, relating to the real half value, contained in the
act of parliament _decimo Caroli_, "For the preservation of the
inheritance, rights and profits of lands belonging to the Church, and
persons ecclesiastical"; which was grounded upon reasons that do still,
and must for ever subsist.
October 21, 1723.
***** ***** ***** *****
[REASONS HUMBLY OFFERED]
TO HIS GRACE
WILLIAM, LORD ARCHBISHOP OF
DUBLIN, &c.
THE HUMBLE REPRESENTATION OF THE CLERGY
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN.
NOTE.
Scott's text has been collated with that given in volume eight of the
quarto edition of Swift's Works (1765). In that edition the title is
given as: "The Representation of the Clergy of Dublin," &c.
[T.S.]
[REASONS HUMBLY OFFERED] TO HIS
GRACE WILLIAM, LORD ARCHBISHOP
OF DUBLIN, &c.[1]
THE HUMBLE REPRESENTATION OF THE CLERGY
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN.
[Footnote 1: William King, D.D. (1650-1729), Archbishop of Dublin, was
born in Antrim, and educated at a school at Dungannon and Trinity
College, Dublin. He was installed Dean of St. Patrick's in 1688-9
(February 1st). For his open espousal of the Prince of Orange, he was
confined to the Castle, and suffered many indignities. In 1690-1
(January 9th) he was promoted to the see of Derry. His conduct through
life was that of an ardent Irish Protestant patriot. He fought against
Sectarianism, Roman Catholicism, and the interference of the English
Parliament in Irish affairs. He opposed the Toleration Bill, and
protested against the act confirming the Articles of Limerick. His
relationship with Swift became close when he sent the vicar of Laracor
to London, to obtain for the Irish clergy the restoration of the
first-fruits and twentieth parts; but it was a relationship never
cemented by feelings warmer than those of esteem. King acknowledged the
ability of Swift, but found him ambitious and overbearingly proud.
Throughout life he remained a consistent High Churchman, and a strenuous
supporter of the rights of the Church in Ireland, but his attempt, in
1727, to interfere with the affairs of the Deanery of St. Patrick's,
brought down upon him Swift's wrath, and an open quarrel ensued which
was partly softened by the Archbishop retiring from the matter and
tacitly acknowledging Swift's right.
King's chief published work is his treatise "De Origine Mali," published
in 1702, and received with respectful consideration by the eminent
thinkers of the day. He wrote other minor works, but none of any
distinguished merit. He succeeded Narcissus Marsh as Archbishop of
Dublin in 1702-3 (March 11th). Swift's letters to King during the
former's embassy on the matter of first-fruits, make a most interesting
chapter in the six volumes which Scott devotes to Swift's
correspondence. T. S.]
Jan. 1724.
MY LORD,
Your Grace having been pleased to communicate to us a certain brief, by
letters patents, for the relief of one Charles M'Carthy, whose house in
College-Green, Dublin, was burnt by an accidental fire; and having
desired us to consider of the said brief, and give our opinions thereof
to your Grace;
We the Clergy of the city of Dublin, in compliance with your Grace's
desire, and with great acknowledgments for your paternal tenderness
towards us, having maturely considered the said brief by letters
patents, compared the several parts of it with what is enjoined us by
the rubric, (which is confirmed by act of parliament) and consulted
persons skilled in the laws of the Church; do, in the names of ourselves
and of the rest of our brethren, the Clergy of the diocese of Dublin,
most humbly represent to your Grace:
First, That, by this brief, your Grace is required and commanded, to
recommend and command all the parsons, vicars, &c., to advance so great
an act of charity.
We shall not presume to determine how far your Grace may be commanded by
the said brief; but we humbly conceive that the Clergy of your diocese
cannot, by any law now in being, be commanded by your Grace to advance
the said act of charity, any other ways than by reading the said brief
in our several churches, as prescribed by the rubric.
Secondly, Whereas it is said in the said brief, "That the parsons,
vicars, &c. upon the first Lord's day, or opportunity after the receipt
of the copy of the said brief, shall, deliberately and affectionately,
publish and declare the tenor thereof to His Majesty's subjects, and
earnestly persuade, exhort, and stir them up to contribute freely and
cheerfully towards the relief of the said sufferer;"
We do not comprehend what is meant by the word _opportunity_. We never
do preach upon any day except the Lord's day, or some solemn days
legally appointed; neither is it possible for the strongest constitution
among us to obey this command (which includes no less than a whole
sermon) upon any other opportunity than when our people are met together
in the church; and to perform this work in every house where the
parishes are very populous, consisting sometimes here in town of 900 or
1,000 houses, would take up the space of a year, although we should
preach in two families every day; and almost as much time in the
country, where the parishes are of large extent, the roads bad, and the
people too poor to receive us, and give charity at once.
But, if it be meant that these exhortations are commanded to be made in
the church, upon the Lord's day, we are humbly of opinion, that it is
left to the discretion of the clergy, to choose what subjects they think
most proper to preach on, and at what times; and, if they preach either
false doctrine or seditious principles, they are liable to be punished.
It may possibly happen that the sufferer recommended may be a person not
deserving the favour intended by the brief; in which case no minister,
who knows the sufferer to be an undeserving person, can with a safe
conscience, deliberately and affectionately publish the brief, much less
earnestly persuade, exhort, and stir up the people to contribute freely
and cheerfully towards the relief of such a sufferer.[2]
[Footnote 2: This M'Carthy's house was burnt in the month of August
1723, and the universal opinion of mankind was, that M'Carthy himself
was the person who had set fire to the house. [Note in edition of
Swift's Works, vol. viii., 1765, 4to.]]
Thirdly, Whereas in the said brief the ministers and curates are
required, "on the week-days next after the Lord's day when the brief was
read, to go from house to house, with their church-wardens, to ask and
receive from all persons the said charity:" We cannot but observe here,
that the said ministers are directly made collectors of the said charity
in conjunction with the church-wardens; which however, we presume, was
not intended, as being against all law and precedent: And therefore, we
apprehend, there may be some inconsistency, which leaves us at a loss
how to proceed. For, in the next paragraph, the ministers and curates
are only required, where they conveniently can, to accompany the
church-wardens, or procure some other of the chief inhabitants, to do
the same. And, in a following paragraph, the whole work seems left
entirely to the church-wardens, who are required to use their utmost
diligence to gather and collect the said charity, and to pay the same,
in ten days after, to the parson, vicar, &c.
In answer to this, we do represent to your Grace our humble opinion,
that neither we nor our church-wardens can be legally commanded or
required to go from house to house to receive the said charity; because
your Grace hath informed us in your order, at your visitation An. Dom.
1712, that neither we nor our church-wardens are bound to make any
collections for the poor, save in the church; which also appears plainly
by the rubric, that appoints both time and place, as your Grace hath
observed in your said order.
We do likewise assure your Grace, that it is not in our power to procure
some of the chief inhabitants of our parishes to accompany the
church-wardens from house to house in these collections: And we have
reason to believe, that such a proposal, made to our chief inhabitants
(particularly in this city, where our chief inhabitants are often peers
of the land) would be received in a manner very little to our own
satisfaction, or to the advantage of the said collections.
Fourthly, The brief doth will, require, and command the bishops, and all
other dignitaries of the Church, that they make their contributions
distinctly, to be returned in the several provinces to the several
archbishops of the same.
Upon which we take leave to observe that the terms of expression here
are of the strongest kind, and in a point that may subject the said
dignitaries (for we shall say nothing of the bishops) to great
inconveniencies.
The said dignitaries are here willed, required, and commanded to make
their contributions distinctly; by which it should seem that they are
absolutely commanded to make contributions (for the word _distinctly_ is
but a circumstance), and may be understood not very agreeable to a
voluntary, cheerful contribution. And therefore, if any bishop or
dignitary should refuse to make his contribution, (perhaps for very good
reasons) he may be thought to incur the crime of disobedience to His
Majesty, which all good subjects abhor, when such a command is according
to law.
Most dignities of this kingdom consist only of parochial tithes, and the
dignitaries are ministers of parishes. A doubt may therefore arise,
whether the said dignitaries are willed, required, and commanded, to
make their contributions in both capacities, distinctly as dignitaries,
and jointly as parsons or vicars.
Many dignities in this kingdom are the poorest kind of benefices; and it
should seem hard to put poor dignitaries under the necessity either of
making greater contributions than they can afford, or of exposing
themselves to the censure of wanting charity, by making their
contributions public.
Our Saviour commands us, in works of charity, to "let not our left hand
know what our right hand doeth;" which cannot well consist with our
being willed, required, and commanded by any earthly power, where no law
is prescribed, to publish our charity to the world, if we have a mind to
conceal it.
Fifthly, Whereas it is said in the said brief, "That the parson, vicar,
&c. of every parish, shall, in six days after the receipt of the said
charity, return it to his respective chancellor, &c." This may be a
great grievance, hazard, and expense to the said parson, in remote and
desolate parts of the country, where often an honest messenger (if such
a one can be got) must be hired to travel forty or fifty miles going and
coming; which will probably cost more than the value of the contribution
he carries with him. And this charge, if briefs should happen to be
frequent, would be enough to undo many a poor clergyman in the kingdom.
Sixthly, We observe in the said brief, that the provost and fellows of
the University, judges, officers of the courts, and professors of laws
common and civil, are neither willed, required, nor commanded to make
their contributions; but that so good a work is only recommended to
them. Whereas we conceive, that all His Majesty's subjects are equally
obliged, with or without His Majesty's commands, to promote works of
charity according to their power; and that the clergy, in their
ecclesiastical capacity, are only liable to such commands as the rubric,
or any other law shall enjoin, being born to the same privileges of
freedom with the rest of His Majesty's subjects.