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