The Press.
London, England, 1856-07-26 00:00:00

BISHOPS' RETIREMENT BILL.

TnE suggestion that suffragans should be
introduced as the remedy for our episcopal
deficiencies has been warmly taken up in both
Houses of Parliament. If it is an acknow-
ledged fact that our Episcopate requires to be
strengthened, why not employ the simplest

THE PRESS.

and most natural means to that end? The
system of deputies is one that must always
extensively prevail in every complicated
scheme of administration. Our Judges have
deputies ; our rectors and vicars have depu-
ties ; and, in fact, almost every official of
permanent rank in the country has some one
on whom he can fall back, in case of tempo-
rary disability, for the performance of his
duties. Why should a bishop be the only
exception; why should not he too have his
curate? Why should he be expected to
resign his see when incapacitated for the
performance of such duties as require phpical
exertion, but not for such as demand expe-
rience, prudence, or learning? In America the
system of suffragans works well. Here is at
all events a precedent for the one expedient—
while, for the other, of episcopal resignation,
on condition of a retiring allowance, there is
not a single one from the Reformation down
to the present day.
Pending the discussion of this question, it
is necessary to point out the objectionable
character of the course which the Government
has adopted. When it had long been notori-
ous that our Bishops not unfrequently reached
an age at which the efficient performance of
their duties became impossible, and when the
country had been at intervals shocked by the
spectacle of one Prelate discharging the whole
business of two dioceses to the unavoidable
detriment of both—when these things had
occurred so often that the necessity for some
general remedial measure had begun to
assume a definite shape, then our Govern-
ment steps forward, deals with a particular
instance as if that was the only one likely to
occur for a century, and deals with it by a
method to which a large portion of the Church
are unlikely to give in their adhesion. An
excellent opportunity of laying down a general
rule is thus thrown away, and our whole eccle-
siastical regime is unsettled without satis-
fying any one. Independent of the crude
character of such legislation as this—and
apart from the clumsiness of requiring a sepa-
' rate act of Parliament to suit the caprices of
each particular Bishop—the magnitude of the
change involved should alone have been suffi-
cient to insure delay. " The measure," says
Lord DERBY, "is framed in entire disregard of all
"Church principles and Church discipline," and
that so wide au innovation should be attempted
without full discussion of the principles in-
volved, seems almost to justify the inference
that Ministers rather wished to steal a prece-
dent that might be useful hereafter, than to
bring before the public the general question
at issue. If it is a good thing that the
Bishops should be enabled to resign their
sees, the Church will suffer less from a delay
of one year in relieving the two dioceses of
London and Durham than from the absence
of a comprehensive enabling measure which
the bill now hurried through the House of
Commons must unquestionably be the means
of deferring.
But the positive evils of this hurried legis-
lation are not less serious than the negative.
If it be desirable that Bishops should be en-
abled to retire when incapacitated for the
discharge of their duties, it is highly unde-
sirable that they should come before the
Minister with a proposal of their own which
cannot, twist it what way we will, avoid the
semblance of a bargain. If no general rule be
laid down, Bishops will naturally consult their
own convenience. Six thousand a year is a
very fair income, even to a man who has been
in the receipt of 18,0001.; but it does not follow
that he who had been receiving but six thousand
would be contented to retire upon two. We all
know the unfortunate facility with which our
consciences and our interests contrive to
march hand in hand. The Bishop who did
not wish to resign would but too readily per-
suade himself that resignation was wrong.
But, were the question finally settled, and a
general law in force regulating the retiring
pensions, and recognising the resignation of
Bishops as an established fact, which, whether
right or wrong, was beyond dispute, each pre
late would feel himself necessitated by a spe-
cies of moral obligation to retire when he had

699

reached a certain state of debility. Such a
step would then be expected of him—now it
is not. Under the existing system, although
a bishop might be actuated by the sincerest
desire to promote the welfare of his diocese,
he might feel it still more incumbent on him
to bear witness to a great theological principle,
and to protest against any effort at tampering
with the spirituality of the episcopal office.
The necessarily inviduous character of all
inquiries into the efficiency of public officers
is acknowledged. There are of course certain
cases in which it is impossible to 'avoid Ithem,
but they are always to be deprecated, and very
frequently give rise, as was recently the case
with the Irish Judges, to most unseemly and
painful disputes in the Legislature. This
ought, surely, to be a strong ground for pre-
ferring that system of relief which would not
entail such evils. And when we add the
powerful temptation to jobbery held out by
the method which the present Government
seem inclined to adopt, we have said enough
to show the absolute necessity of smnething
further being done at the earliest opportunity.