ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY
the year.[1] It should be added that Blomfield, when more experienced,
recognized the evils of pluralities,[2] though considering them useful or necessary in some cases;[3] the abuse received its deathblow from the Act of 1837—8.[4] Closely connected with pluralism was the evil of non-residence,
which deeply affected Church life in London. At the end of the 17th
century most of the pluralists resided on their London rather than on their
country livings, but even in 1680 complaints were made that the London
parish saw its rector but once a year, when he collected his dues,"* and the
custom of putting a curate into a London parish was defended by Wharton
in 1692."" Non-residence was most unpopular in London ; Sacheverell, a
good judge of public opinion, declared at his trial that it was a sore affliction
that he could not minister at St. Saviour's, though he did not scruple to
accept a Welsh living.^'* Bishop Gibson found it necessary to remind his
clergy that the canon required thirteen sermons and two months' residence
from the pluralist,'^' and Churchill, curate of St. John's Westminster from
1759 to 1764,'" wrote of how he kept 'those sheep which never heard their
shepherd's voice.' The first step towards improvement was made by the
Evangelical clergy, who in time aroused the public conscience. Bishop
Porteus (1787— 1809) succeeded in reducing the evil, but non-residence con-
tinued 'a matter of just as well as of general complaint.'"*^ In 1803 the
Act of 1530 was revived,"*' but, as perhaps might be expected, did not prove
successful.'*' The result was a number of prosecutions for non-residence.
William Van Mildert, rector of the united parishes of St. Mary le Bow,
St. Pancras, and Allhallows, was the first to be attacked. The sites of the
rectories had been let on building leases after the Fire, and no incumbent
since then had been resident.'** Van Mildert rented a house in Elv Place,
but spent a considerable part of the summer and autumn months at his
country living of Farningham, as 'he considered it not too far from London for him occasionally to visit it and minister there at the less inviting seasons of the year.[5] The case came up for trial in 1813, and a verdict was given against Van Mildert, to the indignation of his friends, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, who paid the costs of the case.'** After the trial Van
Mildert gave up his London house, and stayed with a friend when ' his
occasions ' brought him to his London living.'*' In the words of Bishop
Randolph (1809-13), 'a very considerable number of clergy, through
ignorance, forgetfulness or inadvertency,' had ' incautiously exposed them-
selves to informations,' '*- the result being the passing of the Clergy Penalties
Suspension Act of 18 14.'** The fear of prosecution removed, the abuse
went on unchecked. The unhealthiness of the City was a general plea for
non-residence there, but this Bishop Blomfield (1828—56) would not allow,[6] and though he recognized the ditficulty caused by the lack of population and
"* Discourse of Pluralities (B.M. Pressmark 17517, g, 19, no. 3). *" Wiiarton, op. cit. 160. "* William Bisset, Modern Fanatick. *" Gibson, Charge, 1727. »*" J. E. Smith, St. 'John the Evangehst Par. Mem. 77.
- " An Address to Lord Grenville in Behalf of the Inferior Beneficed Ckrgy, 1 7.
"' Stat. 43 Geo. Ill, cap. 84. "' Overton, Engl. Ct. in 19M Cent. 300. '" Cornelius Ives, Mem. of IVilltam Van Mildert, 16 et seq. '" Ibid. 18, 19.. '" Churton, Life of Joshua Watson, i, 76. "' Randolph, Charge, 18 14, p. 5.
- ' Stat. 54 Geo." Ill, cap. 175.
355
