Copy of an excerpt from the Times, March 20 1829

“The Marquis of Lansdowne agreed (with the Bishop of Bristol) that it was very essential to provide for the security of the established church; but that would be done in the most efficient manner by the regular discharge of their duties by resident clergymen. This (Gloucester) petition came from a district in which the Catholic religion did not only exist, but had been on the increase, and he was happy to have the opportunity of stating, in the presence of the House, and of the Right Rev. Prelate and instance of highly culpable conduct respecting the discharge of clerical duties which was more likely to produce injury to the established church than any measure which could proceed from the legislature. In part of the County of Dorset which was, he believed, in the Diocese of the Right Rev. Prelate, there had been for many years a nunnery, in which there were a great number of Catholic ladies remarkable for their zeal for the religion they professed. The part of Dorsetshire to which he alluded consisted of two villages, and during the whole of that time the nunnery existed, though the living worth 750L a year, there had never been a resident clergyman there. (Hear, hear). The living, to which another living was attached, was the living at Spettisbury, of which the rector had resided in London for 30 years, during which time there had not been even a resident curate in the place. Now, if the Catholic religion had increased there, let him not hear it said that it was owing to the encroaching spirit of that religion, but let it be attributed to the real cause – the want of efficient discharge of clerical duties on the spot by a resident clergyman …”

Back