TOPICS OF THE DAY.

BISHOPS AND VICARS versus CURATES; MR. LYONS AND THE BERESFORDS.

"THERE is something," said the facetious -SYnatirt SM:TH, "that excites compassion in the very name of a curate ;" and there are

few who have witnessed the treatment which these poor working

men of God experience too generally from their sinecurist em- ployers, the beneficed -sons of the Church, but must have felt both pity and indignation at the sight. It is a grievous blot upon the character of the wealthy members of the clerical body, that the Legislature has been compelled to interfere for the protection of their more humble brethren from their rapacity : it is still more disgraceful that advantage should be taken of the necessities of the curates, in order to evade the law, which provides that a certain maintenance shall be secured to them by their employers. But out of this evil, some advantages will arise. We firmly believe that one great stimulant to the national desire of Church Reform, the abhorrence of the unchristian, overbearing, and contumelious disposition evinced in numberless instances by the beneficed to- wards the working clergy. You can scarcely meet with a grown- up -person who is not acquainted with one or more cases of insolent and niggardly treatment of a Curate by his Rector or Vicar. In- deed, liberal conduct towards a Curate, is the exception—to get as

much work out of him for as little pay as possible, is the rule adopted by the men of tithes and preferment. But the right feel- ing of Englishmen revolts at such proceedings : harsh and illiberal treatment of inferiors in every calling or occupation provokes their disdain, but in the professors of a mild and humble religion it is peculiarly hateful; and hence the reform of the Establishment, the abolition of ecclesiastical sinecures and pluralities, the transfer of income from the drones to the industrious and faithful workmen, are substantial improvements, on which the people of this country have set their hearts, and which they are determined to achieve. The very best dispositions of men—the prejudices, if they can be called prejudices, of human nature—prompt them to deal with the Establishment in the manner that the soundest worldly wisdom would also sanction. No corrupt establishment on the face of the earth ever maintained itself long against the force which is now antagonist to the rotten parts of the Church of England.

The unwise among the High Church party in this country are indignant at the idea of separating the English and Irish Esta- bli-hments in dealing with either of them. It is the United Church of England and Ireland, they cry out: you cannot strike a blow at Armagh without causing Canterbury to totter: the pluralities of a BERESFORD ought to be as sacred from profane touch as the multifarious preferment of a LUXMORE or a SPRY. Yet, notwithstanding all this clamour, there are times, we suspect, when even the most zealous asserters of the intimate union of the two Churches, in this country, would sincerely rejoice in the power to disown the connexion. For, although the delinquencies of the Establishment in England have been, and are, serious and many, yet as compared with that of Ireland, the English Church is pure and undefiled. There is a bloated insolence—a hard, unfeeling contempt of the rights both of their paymasters and their servants —in numbers of the Irish beneficed clergy, to which we can find no parallel in this country. The bigotry of our divines, or at least the expression of it, is more subdued, antl their political partisan- ship less indecent. In England, we question whether any clergy- man would have given the right hand of fellowship at a public meeting to such a personage as the notorious SAMUEL GRAY of Ballybay; and we trust that there are but few even in Ireland, who would have treated their curates as the family of BERESFORDS have used Mr. LYONS.

The case of this gentleman, which boa occupied a good deal of public attention lately, and which has been stated at length in a pamphlet sent to us this week,* illustrates very forcibly the internal condition of the Irish Church. As we have just remarked, we hope that such oppressive conduct as the Reverend MARCUS BERESFORD, his father the Bishop of Kilmore, and his near rela- tive the Archbishop of Armagh, have been guilty of, is not of frequent occurrence even in Ireland ; but it may be, for there are probably very few Curates there who possess the dogged indepen- dence of Mr. LYONS, and who would dare to " bell the eat" with the overbearing family who have borne sway in the land so long. We see what the BERESFORDS can and will do in spite of Canon and Christian Law. We see that, in the diocese of Kilmore, the appeal from the oppressive and illegal conduct of the son must be made to the father, from the father to the cousin; and that all three defend and sanction proceedings which the commonest regard to decency would teach them to avoid or conceal.

Mr. LYONS, Mr. MARCUS BERESFORDS Curate for the parishes of Drung and Lara, in the diocese of Kilmore, persisted in obeying the express injunctions of the Canon Law, in catechizing the children of his flock on Sunday, in church—being liable to severe penalties for neglecting this duty—contrary to Mr. BERESFORDS desire, that he should, catechize twice a week in the school-house. For this offence he was turned out of his curacy, at a day's notice. In a most insulting letter, Mr. BERESFORD calculated his wages by the day, to a fraction-6/. 8s.—as if he had been a stable-boy, and then made an extortionate demand of 71. I Os. for an acre of po- tato ground against him, by way of overbalancing his month's

• A Case of Clerical Oppression, S4c. Published by It mower and Son., Piccadilly.

stipend. But this part of Mr. BRRESFORD'S di:miisal letter is worth- quoting— " My last payment to you paid your salary up to the first of this month. Sinew that I owe you for one month ; which, being a long month of thirty-one days amounts, as near as I can calculate, to 61. 8s. illy steward returns you a's a debtor to the amount of 7/. 10s., for conacre ground ; which leaves some trifling balance in my favour. As I have no desire to inconvenience you in any respert, the parsonage:house is at your service till it may suit you to move. As it would be best to name a specific time, I would say till the 1st of March next."

If Mr. LYONS had been aware of the character of the man lie. had to deal with, lie would have put- it out of his Vicar's power to turn him off in this summary manner ; but he had neglected to procure a licence from the Bishop of the diocese, and thus was hi the power of his oppressor ; as Mr. BERESFORD thus reminded him, in the concluding sentence of his letter— "Another point I would beg to remind you of; which is, that as you are not a licensed Curate (never having prayed the Bishop to grant you a licence fur my parish), this notice is perfectly valid and sufficient."

Was there ever such inconceivably mean conduct as this ? It is worthy of a ruined gambler, or professional cheat, not of a Chris- tian minister. The Morning Chronicle says, that accord ing to the English Canon Law, the Bishop of Kilmore was guilty of a gross breach of duty in sanctioning Mr. Lvbiss's appointment to the curacy, without ascertaining that lie had a licence for his parish ; and that the penalty for his neglect is the payment of 4o/. a year to the discharged Curate, until he gets another appoint- ment. We fear that the Bishop would slip from the clutches of this law ; but it would be gratifying to see him compelled to pay in pocket for his connivance at his son's oppressive insolence. This Bishop, when applied to for a licence, which Mr. LYONS (evidently learned in Ecclesiastical Law, which is probably a hobby of his) maintains he had no right to refuse, returned this kind and Chris- tian-like reply- " Reverend Sir—It is now late to apply for a licence. - "1 am, Reverend Sir, yours faithfully, "Goo KILMORE."

The Bishop subsequently offered to pay him six months' salary, if lie would quit the diocese : the offer was refused.

Mr. LYONS then appealed to another BERESFORD, the Arch- bishop of Armagh; who, after some palaver, declined interfering in his case ; though subsequently, at a visitation, the Bishop of Kilmore refused to listen to his complaint on the ground that the Archbishop had taken up the appeal which he had refused to entertain.

At this visitation, Mr. LYONS was shunned by his brother clergymen; who were all fearful of falling under the ban of episcopal and archiepiscopal displeasure. It would not be fair to speak harshly of the conduct of these gentlemen. Many of them, it is probable, could not afford to act as their feelings must have dictated. But this is an additional circumstance in proof of the necessity of breaking down the enormous power which the present constitution of the Church has enabled the BERESFORDS to acquire.

Mr. LYONS'S pamphlet, above alluded to, is a somewhat dry and prosy production—the real interest of his case lying in a very small compass. We are not sufficiently learned in Canon Law to say positively whether lie has made out an infraction of it against his diocesan and the Archbishop; but if he has, we trust that he will be enabled to bring the men of purple and fine linen into court and mulct them in a good round sum. At any rate, he shows the English public what the Irish Church is.