but I will not for a moment let that prejudice me against Mr. Poole, and GOD forbid that I should put myself in the way of any good that he is trying to do. However, if a formal complaint is made against him by persons having proper authority to do so, I shall of course investigate the case. Good morning, Mr. Baring." Far from such a course of action is the Bishop of London. If Mr. Baring is to be believed-(we put the matter hypothetically) -his allegations were gladly welcomed, and every opportunity given to him for taking the strongest ex parte proceedings against the accused individual; and a sort of court was opened at his-the accuser's house for the purpose of receiving the evidence of the women in question. Mr. Poole was himself summoned before his Bishop, and emphatically denied that there was any truth in what the women said as to the kind of questions he had asked when catechising them on the seventh commandment. The Bishop seems to have shrunk from saying that he believed the women and did not believe Mr. Poole, but alleges that the latter had made some "admissions," (which in spite of repeated application his Lordship will not specify) on the ground of which his licence as Curate to the Church of S. Barnabas must be, and is revoked. The "admissions" made by Mr. Poole appear to have been to the effect that he certainly did ask questions of certain persons respecting the seventh commandment as well as respecting the other nine, though he never made this the exclusive subject of examination.

Thus the case stands-for we pass over all the insane and filthy twaddle of S. James' Hall as sufficiently exposed by the newspapers-that a curate of well-known high character has been deprived by his Bishop of the licence under which alone he can act as curate, for "admissions" of this kind said to have been made by him in a rather incautious conversation which he was imprudent enough to hold with his sharp-practising Diocesan.

We find it extremely difficult, looking at the circumstances of the case, Mr. Baring's prominence in the whole matter considered, and his well known enmity to S. Barnabas' constituting as it did his only claim to attention-we find it extremely difficult to believe otherwise than that this blow is aimed not so much at Mr. Poole, at least as far as the Bishop is concerned, but at S. Barnabas' and the "Tractarian" system which that Church is supposed to represent. And this the more, since Mr. Liddell the Incumbent of that Church offered to place himself in the position of Mr. Poole, to take upon his own shoulders the responsibility of all that his Curate had done, in fact accused himself of the crimes of which the Bishop finds that Curate guilty; and he is said to have been

1 Though Mr. Baring's confident assertion that the Bishop revoked Mr. Poole's licence in consequence of the statements made by the women-if it is a true assertion-shows that this was the case.

told that "Incumbents being in an independent position" (having temporalities, that is) "the Bishop preferred proceeding against Curates who were more completely under his jurisdiction"!! We take it for granted that this is the speech of some underling, not of the Bishop himself, (though we fear it represents the true state of the case,) and we must say a more disgraceful admission was never made.

Now we do not wish to encourage tyranny, ungentlemanly conduct, or bad language, either in Bishops or Honourables, but we cannot express sorrow altogether at this occurrence. It will go far, before the affair is done with, towards opening the eyes of the influential public as to the injustice to which a large proportion of their clergy are always liable, and are sometimes subjected at the hands of their Bishops. We have no wish-as will be seen before we have done-to exaggerate the importance of a Curate's office, but at the same time it is impossible not to see that from their numbers alone Curates have become a very important element in the working body of the Church. An examination of the "Clergy List" will show that the number of English Clergy approaches very nearly to 20,000. Of these, about 4,000 are either unemployed or not engaged in parochial work; some being like Mr. Baring, idle priests of fortune, others schoolmasters, fellows of colleges, tutors, chaplains and non-parochial dignitaries. The number of benefices in England is 12,000 (in round numbers) but as there are many cases in which more than one living is held by the same individual, the number of beneficed clergy is probably rather over than under estimated at 11,000. This makes the remaining portion of the working clergy to number 5,000, which is 230 less than the number of curates named in the census returns of 1851 as existing twenty years before that time. We may therefore fairly reckon that the Curates of the Church of England amount in number to one third of the whole body of her employed clergy and when it is remembered that every Curate is by his very office a working-man, while many Incumbents are too aged to work, or are for other reasons resting on their oars, it will not seem an exaggeration to say that they are doing one half of the actual work that is being done day by day in the Church. Remembering also that a large proportion of this number is composed of men who have seen many years of service in the Church, we think it may be truly said that the body of Curates forms a very important section of the clergy, both from their numbers and their work.

Let it be asked now what is the actual position of these 5,000 or more out of 16,000 working clergy with reference to their legal status, and it will be found that it exactly answers to that which we described it to be a few pages back the only appeal that they can make to a civil tribunal as Curates is for the purpose of

recovering their stipends, which they can recover as a common debt, but for which purpose they rarely have occasion to appear. But as they cannot officiate without a licence to do so from the Bishop, and as it is not the custom for any Bishop to license a Curate who has been deprived of his licence by the Bishop of any other diocese, the earning of this stipend may be entirely stopped by a Bishop revoking the Curate's licence; and with that stipend he may be deprived of his whole means of livelihood. In such a case the Curate has no locus standi for appeal to a civil court as the Incumbent has, but must simply go to the wall. Now considering that Curates' wages are not easily earned, that of these 5,000 educated gentlemen and clergymen some few receive £150 a year, a large number £50 or £60, few more than £100-the average being probably £80-we are sure that this is a state of things which would be repulsive to the good feeling and justice of most intelligent Englishmen if they only knew of it, and that this one phase of the question needs only to be well known to attract attention and consideration to the whole subject of the Curate's position.

We believe the fact really is, that the anomalous position of this important body of Clergy has grown up imperceptibly within a comparatively short period. Until the present century we doubt if such a person as a Curate, in the present sense of the word, was known, except as a substitute for a non-resident Incumbent, but this class now forms less than a third of the whole number, and what is more familiarly understood by the name is a clergyman assisting a Rector or Vicar in the discharge of his duties. For such an assistant, neither the ecclesiastical nor civil law seems to have made any provision. Ordained Deacon or Priest, a clergyman is licensed by the Bishop to "perform the duties of an AssistantCurate" in such a parish; but what those duties are is no where defined. Practically, if he be a Priest, his duties are made identical with those of the Rector or Vicar, the person to whom cure of souls is actually and solemnly committed by the Bishop; and yet he certainly has no such formal responsibility for the souls of those among whom he is appointed to work as the Rector or Vicar has. He is said to be the deputy of the Bishop, appointed to assist a Parish Priest who finds himself insufficient singlehanded for his work; and yet he is surely no more directly the deputy of the Bishop than any other Clergyman, certainly not so much so as his parochial superior to whom the Bishop has formally said, "Receive this cure of souls, thy charge and mine," words very different from those of the ten-shilling licence issued out of a lawyer's office, which is nine times out of ten the only link between the Bishop and the Curates of his diocese.

This indefiniteness of position appears to us to be growing into a great evil. Of two Priests in a parish, each equally competent

to perform the whole duties of his priestly office, each equally zealous in the discharge of those duties, the one differenced from the other by no more than what is popularly at least regarded as a mere accident of patronage, and would be so regarded by most Bishops of these two Priests so circumstanced, the Curate is in so precarious a situation, that the mere slander of some loose or idle person may, if it falls in with the prejudices of a party Bishop, stop his work and prevent him from undertaking any in another parish, while the Incumbent is so firmly settled in his positionon account of secular laws-that the Bishop cannot possibly remove him at his will, or without trial; and that in practice he dare not attempt against him those wild freaks into which temper and party-spirit have to our knowledge led several of the Low Church occupants of episcopal thrones.1

If Curates are as competent as Incumbents to take upon themselves all the work for which both are qualified by their ordination, let the fact be formally recognised by our Bishops: if not, let them point out in what respects they are incompetent. If Incumbents may ask questions on all the Commandments of the Decalogue without fear that they shall be deprived of their benefices, let it be shown why Curates may not do so without danger of being deprived of their licences. So much work is now put into the hands of these 5,000 Curates, and the number is so much on the increase as the activity of the Church is more and more aroused, that it will not do to leave their position and powers any longer in the vague and uncertain light which they at present occupy. It is extremely unjust to them as members of the community, that they should be placed so completely beyond the protection of the law; and it is unfair to those Bishops who have not the power of controlling their party spirit, or commanding their tempers, that they should be subjected to such strong temptations as are thus offered to them.

As regards the practice of Confession, the discussion cannot but do good. Even "Times"" correspondents are asking that it should be recognized, so as to secure the protection of publicity, and the agency of the most competent Priests for conducting it.

1 We know a case in which the churchwardens deposited £1,000 at their bankers, for the purpose of defending their Curate against the threatened attack of a Bishop. His Lordship was officially acquainted with the fact, and withdrew his threats, although no further reason had offered itself for his doing so. The High Church laity, if they chose, might bring many of us to our senses; and we are glad to see that the congregation of S. Barnabas' are rallying round Mr. Poole.

336

REVIEWS AND NOTICES.

Archdeacon MOORE's Charge, The Church's Work and the Church's Danger, (Masters) is a sensible, right-minded address. We would venture, nevertheless, to hint to the Venerable Archdeacon, that the one thing which would enable the Church to avoid the "dangers" which threaten her and do the "work" which is before her, is a better instructed and more disciplined Clergy.

My Three Aunts; or, Lowminster, by the author of "Long, Long Ago," (Mozleys, London) is a reprint of an interesting and gracefully written tale from the "Monthly Packet." None of the tales in that publication seem to aim very high; nor does this go beyond a picture of patient resignation for the disappointment of a strong earthly affection. But the power of religion in effecting this and in transforming, through suffering, a weak and somewhat frivolous character into one of great sweetness and unselfishness, is well described, and the story has a good tending throughout.

Royal Rosebuds, (Mozleys) likewise a reprint from the same periodical, is a small collection of Sketches of Royal Children, whose virtues or misfortunes have retained their memory in the pages of history. It is written with great refinement and a touching tenderness of style, which suits the subject well. These true stories cannot fail to be both more interesting and profitable to children than the majority of ordinary tale books.

In Emily in her new place (Mozleys) we have the continuation of the little tale for servants, which we already commended warmly in our last number. It is deserving of praise equally with its predecessor. We wish the series all success, and should be glad to see these little volumes in the hands of every school-girl of the lower ranks.

We are sorry to notice a deterioration of tone in Miss SEWELL'S new Tale of Ursula. It has a moral object certainly—the inculcation of habits of self-control; but this not on religious principle, but simply on calculations of worldly interest. It was not so, we need scarcely say, with "Amy Herbert" and "Gertrude."

Mr. CARTER has published an admirable Sermon, which he preached at the Anniversary of the Dedication of S. Saviour's Chapel, WellClose Square. It is called The Church's Mission, (Masters) and points out very eloquently what has been so unhappily overlooked by those among us who have undertaken to carry the Gospel into heathen lands-that Missionary work must ever include the inner work of the Sanctuary along with the outer traversing of the "streets and lanes" of cities.