A letter from the Bishop

Branston Hall, near Lincoln, 29 July 1829

Having been one of your auditors at the charge delivered by your lordship in July last year at Lincoln, and having read such charge, as well as the correspondence recently published between your lordship, Mr Archdeacon Goddard and the Revd Mr Wray, I believe I am in possession of your lordship's sentiments on the subject of the performance of ecclesiastical duty. I have besides lately seen the reply of Mr Herries in the House of Commons on the occasion of Mr Hume's motion, wherein he states that 20 parishes in the diocese of Lincoln were under your lordship's consideration respecting the performance of double duty in such parishes.

I am one of the principal, perhaps I might say the principal inhabitant of the parish where I live, the rector, the Rev. Peregrine Curtois, excepted, and I think I may not be very far wrong in requesting that your lordship would have the goodness to inform me whether the parishes of Branston and Potterhanworth, adjoining each other and both within 6 miles of Lincoln, are amongst the number of parishes so under your lordship's consideration. If that be the case, I have no reason to doubt that your lordship will make such regulations as the circum- stances of the case may call for.

Nevertheless, I shall take the liberty of making a few remarks, and in the first place I may state that the rector of this place (an hereditary one, he being possessed of the advowson) having the chief control over the disposition of a considerable sum of money distributed in charity, the poorer classes of his parishioners cannot be expected to complain, and with as little reason can it be supposed that the churchwarden, for we have but one, who is an occupier of glebe land, should be much disposed to complain of his landlord. The generality of the farmers, from one cause or another, may not chuse to interfere, and it therefore seems that + if + it be done at all, I am the most likely person to communicate with your lordship.

The population of the parish of Branston I do not accurately know. It must considerably exceed 400 souls, + that number living in the village +, and the value of the benefice amounts, I have reason to believe, to £600 a year. It is possible that I may have overrated its value. It is probable that I am below it. The rector resides in the parish, but there is only one duty once a day on Sunday, and I have heard of no change being in contemplation.

I observe at page 17 in your lordship's charge the following remark, 'I am willing to suppose that these cases (referring to cases where a resident minister performs only one service) admit of satisfactory explanation from local circumstances with which I am unacquainted'. Now, my lord, I believe one reason why one service only is performed at Branston is this: the rector of Branston is also rector of the adjoining parish of Potterhanworth, containing upwards of 600 acres of glebe land, with at least £600 a year, with a considerable population. There also he performs duty once a day on Sunday (I may remark, by the way, that I should not have thought it either necessary, or perhaps proper, to say anything on the subject of the latter parish, had it not been thus intimately connected with Branston), but that parish, my lord, has no resident minister, no resident curate, how much soever it may need, or be entitled to require one. I understand there is no parsonage house, or at least not a proper one, but I think it will appear a proper case for your lordship's interference.

The present rector succeeded his father in both the livings of Branston and Potterhanworth, and in the former he will be in turn succeeded by his son. It does not always follow, my lord, that a man in such a case is fitted to fulfil the duties of the living, but it does invariably follow that the emoluments of the living suit the convenience of the man, and it is much to be lamented that so it is.

In addressing these remarks to your lordship I have done what I conceive to be my duty. What else may be necessary to be done devolves upon your lordship, although I am aware that any minister may be compelled to reside upon his benefice, not having a licence, and to dispense with his so doing. Your lordship may enquire if I have made any representation to Mr Curtois on this subject, and to such a question I should reply in the negative.

My reasons for abstaining from an application to him are these: until very recently the morning service, when it occurred, was performed at what I believe I, in common with the others, thought at a very inconvenient time to say the least of it, for I have known morning service commence upon the very near approach of noon.

I wrote to Mr Curtois on the subject - I think in a manner at which he had no right to take offence. My remonstration was attended with effect, the service has commenced punctually (at 20 minutes past 11) ever since, but his demeanour to myself subsequently has been such as to preclude my ever again applying to him on a similar occasion. I have been guilty of the unpardonable offence of inter- fering with him, and having good grounds for so doing has made his displeasure the greater. This I can bear with perfect philosophy, much as I may lament the not being upon good terms with the minister of my parish, the which I know has, and must necessarily have, a bad effect. I may add that individually I have little interest in the matter, it being in my power to go to an adjoining parish, but I think the interests of religion might be advanced by the having two services; to all classes it is desirable, whether desired or not, and with such a living we have perhaps some right to expect it.

To the minister of the parish, I well know your lordship is aware, that a heavy responsibility attaches; on the rector's own head rest that responsibility. I shall be happy to give your lordship any further information which you may require, and have merely, in conclusion to remark that nothing has been further from my intention than to say anything that can be deemed offensive by your lordship.