I therefore again conclude, that the trade of infidelity hath been taken
up only for an expedient to keep in countenance that universal
corruption of morals, which many other causes first contributed to
introduce and to cultivate. And thus, Mr. Hobbes' saying upon reason may
be much more properly applied to religion: that, "if religion will be
against a man, a man will be against religion." Though after all, I have
heard a profligate offer much stronger arguments against paying his
debts, than ever he was known to do against Christianity; indeed the
reason was, because in that juncture he happened to be closer pressed by
the bailiff than the parson.

Ignorance may perhaps be the mother of superstition; but experience hath
not proved it to be so of devotion: for Christianity always made the
most easy and quickest progress in civilized countries. I mention this
because it is affirmed that the clergy are in most credit where
ignorance prevails (and surely this kingdom would be called the paradise
of clergymen if that opinion were true) for which they instance England
in the times of Popery. But whoever knows anything of three or four
centuries before the Reformation, will find the little learning then
stirring was more equally divided between the English clergy and laity
than it is at present. There were several famous lawyers in that period,
whose writings are still in the highest repute, and some historians and
poets who were not of the Church.[12] Whereas now-a-days our education
is so corrupted, that you will hardly find a young person of quality
with the least tincture of knowledge, at the same time that many of the
clergy were never more learned, or so scurvily treated. Here among us,
at least, a man of letters out of the three professions, is almost a
prodigy. And those few who have preserved any rudiments of learning are
(except perhaps one or two smatterers) the clergy's friends to a man:
and I dare appeal to any clergyman in this kingdom, whether the greatest
dunce in the parish be not always the most proud, wicked, fraudulent,
and intractable of his flock.

[Footnote 12: What Swift calls learning was, in his day, the property,
so to speak, of professional men, such as divines, lawyers, and
university teachers. The common man was too poor or too much taxed to
acquire it; the aristocrat often too lazy or too fond of
pleasure-seeking to bother about it. The Pre-Reformation days, to which
Swift refers, could boast such men as Fabyan, Hall, Chaucer, Gower, and
Caxton, as well as Lord Berners, Sir Thomas More, and Lydgate, who were
not, in any sense, professional men. [T.S.]]

I think the clergy have almost given over perplexing themselves and
their hearers with abstruse points of Predestination, Election, and the
like; at least it is time they should; and therefore I shall not trouble
you further upon this head.

I have now said all I could think convenient with relation to your
conduct in the pulpit: your behaviour in life[13] is another scene, upon
which I shall readily offer you my thoughts, if you appear to desire
them from me by your approbation of what I have here written; if not, I
have already troubled you too much.

[Footnote 13: Scott and Hawkesworth print "your behaviour in the world."
The above is the reading of the first edition. [T. S.]]

  I am, Sir,
  Your Affectionate
  Friend and Servant
  A.B.

  January 9th.
  1719-20.


*****       *****       *****       *****




SOME ARGUMENTS AGAINST ENLARGING

THE POWER OF BISHOPS IN

LETTING OF LEASES.


NOTE.

The years between that which saw the publication of the "Drapier
Letters," and that which rang with the fame of "Gulliver's Travels,"
were busy fighting years for Swift. Apart from his vigorous championship
of the Test, and his war against the Dissenters, he espoused the cause
of the inferior clergy of his own Church, as against the bishops. The
business of filling the vacant sees of Ireland had degenerated into what
we should now call "jobbery"; and during the period of Sir Robert
Walpole's administration it was rarely that an Irishman was selected. On
any question, therefore, which affected the welfare of the lower clergy,
it will at once be seen, that the Lords Spiritual, sitting in the Irish
Upper House, would find little difficulty in coming to a solution. That
the solution should also be one which only increased the clergy's
difficulties, might be expected from a body which aimed chiefly at
acquiring wealth and power for itself.

In the reign of Charles I. an act was passed, "prohibiting all bishops,
and other ecclesiastical corporations, from setting their lands for
above the term of twenty-one years: the rent reserved to be half the
real value of such lands at the time they were set." As Swift points
out, about the time of the Reformation, a trade was carried on by the
popish bishops, who felt that their terms of office would be short, and
who, consequently, to get what benefit they could while in office, "made
long leases and fee-farms of great part of their lands, reserving very
inconsiderable rents, sometimes only a chiefry." It was owing to a
continuance in this traffic by the bishops when they became Protestants,
and to a recognition of the injustice of such alienation, that the
legislature passed the act. In 1723, however, an attempt was made for
its repeal. Swift was not the man to permit the bishops to have their
way, if he could help it. His opinion of Irish bishops is well known.
"No blame," he said, "rested with the court for these appointments.
Excellent and moral men had been selected upon every occasion of
vacancy, but it unfortunately happened, that as these worthy divines
crossed Hounslow Heath, on their way to Ireland, to take possession of
their bishoprics, they have been regularly robbed and murdered by the
highwaymen frequenting that common, who seize upon their robes and
patents, come over to Ireland, and are consecrated bishops in their
stead." To prevent, therefore, the encroachments of such individuals he
wrote this tract, in which he clearly demonstrates the justice and
salutariness of Charles's act. His contention, as Monck Mason points out
("History of St. Patrick's Cathedral," p. 392, note 1) "is confirmed by
all writers upon the subject," and quotes from Carte's "Life of James,
Duke of Ormond," where it is stated that the bishoprics in Ireland had,
"the greatest part of them, been depauperated in the change of religion
by absolute grants and long leases (made generally by the popish bishops
that conformed)--some of them not able to maintain a bishop, several
were, by these means, reduced to £50 a year, as Waterford, Kilfenora,
and others, and some to five marks, as Cloyne and Kilmacduagh." To Swift
is largely due the fact that the House of Commons, when they received
the bill from the Lords, threw it out.

Scott, in his note on this pamphlet (amended from one by Lord Orrery),
takes his usual course when considering Swift's attitude of opposition
--he implies a motive or prejudice. In his opinion, Swift considered the
bill for the repeal of Charles's act, "an indirect mode of gratifying
the existing bishops, whom he did not regard with peculiar respect or
complacency, at the expense of the Church establishment," and that,
therefore, "the spirit of his opposition is, in this instance,
peculiarly caustic." As a matter of fact, the spirit of Swift's
opposition was always peculiarly caustic, in this case no more so than
in any other. But to imply that his motive was a self gratifying one
only, is to treat Swift unfairly. If the bishops required an example as
to how they should deal with their lands, they could easily have found
one in Swift himself. In all the renewals of the leases of the Deanery
lands, Swift never sought his own immediate advantage, his terms were
based on the consideration that the lands were his only in trust for a
successor. To take one instance only, the instance of the parish of
Kilberry in county Kildare, cited by Monck Mason (p. 27, note h). In
1695 the rent of this parish was reserved at £100 English sterling, in
1717, Swift raised this rent to £150, in 1731 to £170, and in 1741 to
£200 per annum, with a proportionable loss of fine upon each occasion.

The tract is dated October 21st, 1723, but as I have not come across a
copy of the original separate issue, I have based the text on that given
by Faulkner (vol. iv, 1735), and the title page here reproduced is from
that edition. The fifth volume of "Miscellanies," also issued in 1735,
contains this tract, and I have compared the texts of the two. The notes
given in Scott's edition are, in the main, altered from Faulkner's
edition.

[T.S.]


  SOME
  ARGUMENTS
  AGAINST ENLARGING the
  POWER OF BISHOPS
  In LETTING OF
  LEASES.
  WITH
  REMARKS on some _Queries_
  lately published.

_Mibi credite, major haereditas venit unicuique vestraem in iisdem bonis ae
jure & ae legibus, quam ab iis ae quibus illa ipsa bona relicta sunt._

Cicero _pro_ A. Caecina.

Written in the Year 1723.

Printed in the Year MDCCXXXIII.


In handling this subject, I shall proceed wholly upon the supposition,
that those of our party, who profess themselves members of the church
established, and under the apostolical government of bishops, do desire
the continuance and transmission of it to posterity, at least, in as
good a condition as it is at present. Because, as this discourse is not
calculated for dissenters of any kind; so neither will it suit the talk
or sentiments of those persons, who, with the denomination of churchmen,
are oppressors of the inferior clergy, and perpetually quarrelling at
the great incomes of the bishops; which is a traditional cant delivered
down from former times, and continued with great reason, although it be
now near 200 years since almost three parts in four of the church
revenues have been taken from the clergy: Besides the spoils that have
been gradually made ever since, of glebes and other lands, by the
confusion of times, the fraud of encroaching neighbours, or the power of
oppressors, too great to be encountered.

About the time of the Reformation, many popish bishops of this kingdom,
knowing they must have been soon ejected, if they would not change their
religion, made long leases and fee-farms of great part of their lands,
reserving very inconsiderable rents, sometimes only a chiefry; by a
power they assumed, directly contrary to many ancient canons, yet
consistent enough with the common law. This trade held on for many years
after the bishops became Protestants; and some of their names are still
remembered with infamy, on account of enriching their families by such
sacrilegious alienations. By these means, episcopal revenues were so low
reduced, that three or four sees were often united to make a tolerable
competency. For some remedy to this evil, King James the First, by a
bounty that became a good Christian prince, bestowed several forfeited
lands on the northern bishoprics: But in all other parts of the kingdom,
the Church continued still in the same distress and poverty; some of the
sees hardly possessing enough to maintain a country vicar. About the
middle of King Charles the First's reign, the legislature here thought
fit to put a stop, at least, to any farther alienations; and so a law
was enacted, prohibiting all bishops, and other ecclesiastical
corporations, from setting their lands for above the term of twenty-one
years; the rent reserved to be one half of the real value of such lands
at the time they were set, without which condition the lease to be void.

Soon after the restoration of King Charles the Second, the parliament
taking into consideration the miserable estate of the Church, certain
lands, by way of augmentation, were granted to eight bishops in the act
of settlement, and confirmed in the act of explanation; of which bounty,
as I remember, three sees were, in a great measure, defeated; but by
what accidents, it is not here of any importance to relate.

This, at present, is the condition of the Church in Ireland, with regard
to Episcopal revenues: Which I have thus briefly (and, perhaps,
imperfectly) deduced for some information to those, whose thoughts do
not lead them to such considerations.

By virtue of the statute, already mentioned, under King Charles the
First, limiting ecclesiastical bodies to the term of twenty-one years,
under the reserved rent of half real value, the bishops have had some
share in the gradual rise of lands, without which they could not have
been supported, with any common decency that might become their station.
It is above eighty years since the passing of that act: The see of
Meath, one of the best in the kingdom, was then worth about £400 _per
annum_; the poorer ones in the same proportion. If this were their
present condition, I cannot conceive how they would have been able to
pay for their patents, or buy their robes: But this will certainly be
the condition of their successors, if such a bill should pass, as they
say is now intended, which I will suppose, and believe, many persons,
who may give a vote for it, are not aware of.

However, this is the act which is now attempted to be repealed, or, at
least, eluded; some are for giving bishops leave to let fee-farms;
others would allow them to let leases for lives; and the most moderate
would repeal that clause, by which the bishops are bound to let their
lands at half value.

The reasons for the rise of value in lands, are of two kinds. Of the
first kind, are long peace and settlement after the devastations of war;
plantations, improvements of bad soil, recovery of bogs and marshes,
advancement of trade and manufactures, increase of inhabitants,
encouragement of agriculture, and the like.

But there is another reason for the rise of land, more gradual, constant
and certain; which will have its effects in countries that are very far
from flourishing in any of the advantages I have just mentioned: I mean
_the perpetual decrease in the value of gold and silver_. I shall
discourse upon these two different kinds, with a view towards the bill
now attempted.

As to the first: I cannot see how this kingdom is at any height of
improvement, while four parts in five of the plantations for 30 years
past, have been real disimprovements; nine in ten of the quick-set
hedges being ruined for want of care or skill. And as to forest trees,
they being often taken out of woods, and planted in single rows on the
tops of ditches, it is impossible they should grow to be of use, beauty,
or shelter. Neither can it be said, that the soil of Ireland is improved
to its full height, while so much lies all winter under water, and the
bogs made almost desperate by the ill cutting of the turf. There hath,
indeed, been some little improvement in the manufactures of linen and
woollen, although very short of perfection: But our trade was never in
so low a condition: And as to agriculture, of which all wise nations
have been so tender, the desolation made in the country by engrossing
graziers, and the great yearly importation of corn from England, are
lamentable instances under what discouragement it lies.

But, notwithstanding all these mortifications, I suppose there is no
well-wisher to his country, without a little hope, that in time the
kingdom may be on a better foot in some of the articles above mentioned.
But it would be hard, if ecclesiastical bodies should be the only
persons excluded from any share in public advantages; which yet can
never happen, without a greater share of profit to their tenants: If God
"sends rain equally upon the just and the unjust;" why should those who
wait at His altars, and are instructors of the people, be cut off from
partaking in the general benefits of law, or of nature?

But, as this way of reasoning may seem to bear a more favourable eye
to the clergy, than perhaps will suit with the present disposition, or
fashion of the age; I shall, therefore, dwell more largely upon the
second reason for the rise of land, which is the perpetual decrease of
the value of gold and silver.

This may be observed from the course of the Roman history, above two
thousand years before those inexhaustible silver mines of Potosi were
known. The value of an obolus, and of every other coin between the time
of Romulus and that of Augustus, gradually sunk about five parts in six,
as appears by several passages out of the best authors. And yet, the
prodigious wealth of that state did not arise from the increase of
bullion in the world, by the discovery of new mines, but from a much
more accidental cause, which was, the spreading of their conquests, and
thereby importing into Rome and Italy, the riches of the east and west.

When the seat of empire was removed to Constantinople, the tide of money
flowed that way, without ever returning; and was scattered in Asia. But
when that mighty empire was overthrown by the northern people, such a
stop was put to all trade and commerce, that vast sums of money were
buried, to escape the plundering of the conquerors; and what remained
was carried off by those ravagers.

It were no difficult matter to compute the value of money in England,
during the Saxon reigns; but the monkish and other writers since the
Conquest, have put that matter in a clearer light, by the several
accounts they have given us of the value of corn and cattle, in years of
dearth and plenty. Every one knows, that King John's whole portion,
before he came to the crown, was but five thousand pounds, without a
foot of land.

I have likewise seen the steward's accounts, of an ancient noble family
in England, written in Latin, between three and four hundred years ago,
with the several prices of wine and victuals, to confirm my
observations.

I have been at the trouble of computing (as others have done) the
different values of money for about four hundred years past. Henry Duke
of Lancaster, who lived about that period, founded an hospital in
Leicester, for a certain number of old men; charging his lands with a
groat a week to each for their maintenance, which is to this day duly
paid them. In those times, a penny was equal to ten-pence half-penny,
and somewhat more than half a farthing in ours; which makes about eight
ninths' difference.

This is plain also, from the old custom upon many estates in England, to
let for leases of lives, (renewable at pleasure) where the reserved rent
is usually about twelve-pence a pound, which then was near the half real
value: And although the fines be not fixed, yet the landlord gets
altogether not above three shillings in the pound of the worth of his
land: And the tenants are so wedded to this custom, that if the owner
suffer three lives to expire, none of them will take a lease on other
conditions; or, if he brings in a foreigner who will agree to pay a
reasonable rent, the other tenants, by all manner of injuries, will make
that foreigner so uneasy, that he must be forced to quit the farm; as
the late Earl of Bath felt, by the experience of above ten thousand
pounds loss.

The gradual decrease for about two hundred years after, was not
considerable, and therefore I do not rely on the account given by some
historians, that Harry the Seventh left behind him eighteen hundred
thousand pounds; for although the West Indies were discovered before his
death, and although he had the best talents and instruments for exacting
of money, ever possessed by any prince since the time of Vespasian,
(whom he resembled in many particulars); yet I conceive, that in his
days the whole coin of England could hardly amount to such a sum. For in
the reign of Philip and Mary, Sir Thomas Cokayne of Derbyshire, [1] the
best housekeeper of his quality in the county, allowed his lady fifty
pounds a year for maintaining the family, one pound a year wages to each
servant, and two pounds to the steward; as I was told by a person of
quality who had seen the original account of his economy. Now this sum
of fifty pound, added to the advantages of a large domain, might be
equal to about five hundred pounds a year at present, or somewhat more
than four-fifths.

[Footnote 1: Sir Thomas Cokayne (1519?-1592), known as "a professed
hunter and not a scholler." He was the eldest son of Francis Cokayne, or
Cockaine, of Ashbourne, Derbyshire. One of his sons, Edward, was the
father of Thomas Cokayne, the lexicographer. Sir Thomas, in 1591,
published "A Short Treatise of Hunting, compyled for the Delight of
Noblemen and Gentlemen." [T. S.]]

The great plenty of silver in England began in Queen Elizabeth's reign,
when Drake, and others, took vast quantities of coin and bullion from
the Spaniards, either upon their own American coasts, or in their return
to Spain. However, so much hath been imported annually from that time to
this, that the value of money in England, and most parts of Europe, is
sunk above one half within the space of an hundred years,
notwithstanding the great export of silver for about eighty years past,
to the East Indies, from whence it never returns. But gold being not
liable to the same accident, and by new discoveries growing every day
more plentiful, seems in danger of becoming a drug.

This hath been the progress of the value of money in former ages, and
must of necessity continue so for the future, without some new invasion
of Goths and Vandals to destroy law, property and religion, alter the
very face of nature; and turn the world upside down.

I must repeat, that what I am to say upon this subject, is intended only
for the conviction of those among our own party, who are true lovers of
the Church, and would be glad it should continue in a tolerable degree
of prosperity to the end of the world.

The Church is supposed to last for ever, both in its discipline and
doctrine; which is a privilege common to every petty corporation, who
must likewise observe the laws of their foundation. If a gentleman's
estate which now yields him a thousand pounds a year, had been set for
ever at the highest value, even in the flourishing days of King Charles
the Second, would it now amount to above four or five hundred at most?
What if this had happened two or three hundred years ago; would the
reserved rent at this day be any more than a small chiefry? Suppose the
revenues of a bishop to have been under the same circumstances; could he
now be able to perform works of hospitality and charity? Thus, if the
revenues of a bishop be limited to a thousand pounds a year; how will
his successor be in a condition to support his station with decency,
when the same denomination of money shall not answer an half, a quarter,
or an eighth part of that sum? Which must unavoidably be the consequence
of any bill to elude the limiting act, whereby the Church was preserved
from utter ruin.

The same reason holds good in all corporations whatsoever, who cannot
follow a more pernicious practice than that of granting perpetuities,
for which many of them smart to this day; although the leaders among
them are often so stupid as not to perceive it, or sometimes so knavish
as to find their private account in cheating the community.

Several colleges in Oxford, were aware of this growing evil about an
hundred years ago; and, instead of limiting their rents to a certain sum
of money, prevailed with their tenants to pay the price of so many
barrels of corn, to be valued as the market went, at two seasons (as I
remember) in the year. For a barrel of corn is of a real intrinsic
value, which gold and silver are not: And by this invention, these
colleges have preserved a tolerable subsistence, for their fellows and
students, to this day.

The present bishops will, indeed be no sufferers by such a bill;
because, their ages considered, they cannot expect to see any great
decrease in the value of money; or, at worst, they can make it up in the
fines, which will probably be greater than usual, upon the change of
leases into fee-farms, or lives; or without the power of obliging their
tenants to a real half value. And, as I cannot well blame them for
taking such advantages, (considering the nature of human kind) when the
question is only, whether the money shall be put into their own or
another man's pocket: So they will be never excusable before God or man,
if they do not to the death oppose, declare, and protest against any
such bill, as must in its consequences complete the ruin of the Church,
and of their own order in this kingdom.

If the fortune of a private person be diminished by the weakness, or
inadvertency of his ancestors, in letting leases for ever at low rents,
the world lies open to his industry for purchasing of more; but the
Church is barred by a _dead hand_; or if it were otherwise, yet the
custom of making bequests to it, hath been out of practice for almost
two hundred years, and a great deal directly contrary hath been its
fortune.

I have been assured by a person of some consequence, to whom I am
likewise obliged for the account of some other facts already related,
that the late Bishop of Salisbury,[2] (the greatest Whig of that bench
in his days) confessed to him, that the liberty which bishops in England
have of letting leases for lives, would, in his opinion, be one day the
ruin of Episcopacy there; and thought the Church in this kingdom happy
by the limitation act.

[Footnote 2: Dr. Barnet.]

And have we not already found the effect of this different proceeding in
both kingdoms? Have not two English prelates quitted their peerage and
seats in Parliament, in a nation of freedom, for the sake of a more
ample revenue, even in this unhappy kingdom, rather than lie under the
mortification of living below their dignity at home? For which, however,
they cannot be justly censured. I know indeed, some persons, who offer,
as an argument for repealing the limiting bill, that it may in future
ages prevent the practice of providing this kingdom with bishops from
England, when the only temptation will be removed. And they allege,
that, as things have gone for some years past, gentlemen will grow
discouraged from sending their sons to the university, and from
suffering them to enter into holy orders, when they are likely to
languish under a curacy, or small vicarage, to the end of their lives:
But this is all a vain imagination; for the decrease in the value of
money will equally affect both kingdoms: And besides, when bishoprics
here grow too small to invite over men of credit and consequence, they
will be left more fully to the disposal of a chief governor, who can
never fail of some worthless illiterate chaplain, fond of a title and
precedence. Thus will that whole bench, in an age or two, be composed of
mean, ignorant, fawning gownmen, humble suppliants and dependants upon
the court for a morsel of bread, and ready to serve every turn that
shall be demanded from them, in hopes of getting some _commendam_ tacked
to their sees; which must then be the trade, as it is now too much in
England, to the great discouragement of the inferior clergy. Neither is
that practice without example among us.

It is now about eighty-five years since the passing of that limiting
act, and there is but one instance, in the memory of man, of a bishop's
lease broken upon the plea of not being statutable; which, in
everybody's opinion, could have been lost by no other person than he who
was then tenant, and happened to be very ungracious in his county. In
the present Bishop of Meath's[3] case, that plea did not avail, although
the lease were notoriously unstatutable; the rent reserved, being, as I
have been told, not a seventh part of the real value; yet the jury, upon
their oaths, very gravely found it to be according to the statute; and
one of them was heard to say, That he would _eat his shoes_ before he
would give a verdict for the bishop. A very few more have made the same
attempt with as little success. Every bishop, and other ecclesiastical
body, reckon forty pounds in an hundred to be a reasonable half value;
or if it be only a third part, it seldom, or never, breeds any
difference between landlord and tenant. But when the rent is from five
to nine or ten parts less than the worth; the bishop, if he consults the
good of his see, will be apt to expostulate; and the tenant, if he be an
honest man, will have some regard to the reasonableness and justice of
the demand, so as to yield to a moderate advancement, rather than engage
in a suit, where law and equity are directly against him. By these
means, the bishops have been so true to their trusts, as to procure some
small share in the advancement of rents; although it be notorious that
they do not receive the third penny (fines included) of the real value
of their lands throughout the kingdom.

[Footnote 3: Dr. Evans, a Welchman. [Faulkner, 1735.]]

I was never able to imagine what inconvenience could accrue to the
public, by one or two thousand pounds a year, in the hands of a
Protestant bishop, any more than of a lay person.[4] The former,
generally speaking, liveth as piously and hospitably as the other; pays
his debts as honestly, and spends as much of his revenue among his
tenants: Besides, if they be his immediate tenants, you may distinguish
them, at first sight, by their habits and horses; or if you go to their
houses, by their comfortable way of living. But the misfortune is, that
such immediate tenants, generally speaking, have others under them, and
so a third and fourth in subordination, till it comes to the welder (as
they call him) who sits at a rack-rent, and lives as miserably as an
Irish farmer upon a new lease from a lay landlord. But suppose a bishop
happens to be avaricious, (as being composed of the same stuff with
other men) the consequence to the public is no worse than if he were a
squire; for he leaves his fortune to his son, or near relation, who, if
he be rich enough, will never think of entering into the Church.

[Footnote 4: This part of the paragraph is to be applied to the period
when the whole was written, which was in 1723, when several of Queen
Anne's bishops were living. [Note in edition of 1761, as amended from
the edition of 1735. T.S.]]

And, as there can be no disadvantage to the public, in a Protestant
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.