The Express.
London, England, 1851-08-02 00:00:00

Lily in that department, Hatfield-hall, wherein the!
expense of education is adapted to moderate means.
"hiring the period for which 1)r. VAN MILDERT was
bishop. the income of his see averaged, according to ,
parliamentary returns, 24,3761.25. 3d. a year; and in
addition to that enormous revenue, he possessed as
residences Aucklandeastle, one of the noblest mansions
ar demesnes in England, as well as the ancient and
fiery habitable castle of Durham; the latter, 110 W.
OTer, he very much gave up to the university he had
founded. It is enough for our present purpose to
add, that 1)r. VAN MILDERT, after an incumbency of
prolonged ill health and bodily infirmity, died on the
31st of February, 1438.
For some time previously to his demise, the sub -
feet of episcopal revenues, the greatness of some of
the bishops' incomes, and the smallness of those of
Others. had attracted serious attention; and a royal
commission, in which were five prelates, had been
awned to advise the crown on the subject. The com-
mission, as our readers know, made several reports
In the years 1835 and 1836. And on them parlia-
ment proceeded to legislate in the session of Iti34;.
The statute by which it did legislate, received the
royal assent on the 13th of August, 11,436.
After reciting the texts of the Reports, to which it
Was intended to give effect. the act by its first section
Incorporated the commission by which the reports
]sad been made, and by the ninth section directed
the commissioners to prepare schemes for carrying
out the recommendations therein contained to be laid
before the sovereign in council; by whose sanction
In the form of an Order of Comma they were to take
the full forte of law. Now one of thew recuunnen-
&lions was:
That in order to provide for the augmentation of the in-
tense of the smaller bishopries such tired animal sums be
paid to the commissioners out of the revenues of the larger
sees ri speetively as shall upon due inquiry and consideration
lye d, to. mined on, so as to lease an average annual income
le • • • • the ltishop of Durham of 14,000 t.
During all the time that this statute was under
the consideration of the legislature, the see of Dur-
ham, void by Dr. VAN MILDE,RT'S death, on the
21st of February, 1a36, was kept vacant by the
clown ; in order that the successor of that prelate
aright be brought under the operation of the new
Jaw, and be placed on the reduced allowance of
2,000/. a year so recommended to the crown, and so
adopted by the legislature. And this delay in filling
op the see was the more necessary, becalm other-
ensc—that is, without making the contemplated re-
duction of its income and the transfer of the surplus be-
yond s,INNU.a year to theEeelesiastical Commissioners,
that newly constituted body would have been without
funds schist-eon to have proceeded in the other duties
parliament had assigned to it—a circumstance which
was prominently stated by the Bishop of I.INCoLa,
one of the commissioners, when examined sonic three
years ago before a select committee of the Douse of
Commons on the then composition of the Ecclesias-
tical Conunission. No sooner, however, had the 6 &
7 William IV. c. 77, rescued the sanction of par-
'lenient, than the rwifpl delire issued to the Dean
and Chapter of Durham. 1/r. NIALTIIT, then Bishop
of Chichester, a see at that time worth 3,7001. a year,
was translated to the bishopric of Durham, and was
installed a bishop on the 20th of July, 1x36; not ho-'
fore the royal assent was given to the statute, but after,
the principle had been adopted by the legislature.
Immediately after the translation, and before the
date of the royal assent, negotiations commenced
between 1/r. MstsrisY and the Ecclesiastical Commis-
sioners as to the scheme the latter would, under the
forthcoming statute, submit to the eleess in coun-
cil; the bishop contending that there was reason to
apprehend that the arrange of 21,376/. for the seven
previous years, whilst Dr. V,ts MILDERT was bishop,
was a higher amount than the next seven would
produce, ening to the extraordinary and exceptional
receipts of 1831, when n new coal field was opened
up: and that an estimate could not he fairly made
until arrangements had been definitively concluded
ith Mr. Brat:nos r as to the composition in lieu of
t had ore that gentleman would consent to pity the
ace. These were not unreasonable objections, and
the commissioners, yielding to them, proposed
(13th August, 11436) " a provisional order
for a money payment of 10,045)1. per annum
until the amount and mode of contribution could be
decided." Doubt, however, arose as to there being
authority in the net for a provisional order ; and on
the law officers of the crown being consulted, they
reported that the commissioners could not safely
adopt that course ; adding, however, this remarkable
reason :
Thr di-Cod object of the legislature appears to us to
have been, that the rum payable by the Bishop of Dur-
ham should he fixed, in the first instance, at an amount
calculated in the jeu;fl/rment of the commissioners to leave
A.,,, o ryes r, 'wow o 6,00411. a year, and that this income
should remain fir during his incumbency.
When this opinion was received on the 26th Sep-
tember, 1836, the recess was commencing ; so all that
the commissioners then did was solemnly and delibe-
rately to resolve that at the very first meeting after
the recess the whole question of the revenues of
Durham be entered upon, and the annual sum to be
contributed by the bishop be fixed, " be as to leave
to the see the average annual income of 14,000/."
The commissioners re-assembled ou the 16th No-
vember. On that day a committee fixed the gross
average at 23,626/. 12s. 6d., the net average at
22,1631. 4s. sale ; and recommended that the contri-
bution should be fixed at 14,0001. a year. On
the 21th November that sum was reduced by
a general board to 13,2001. a year ; whereof
11,2110 e were to be paid by the Bishop of Deansn,
and 2,000/. a year were to be represented by the York-
shire estates of the see transferred to the Bishop of
Biros. Dr. Nlseviiv and his advisers made a feeble
opposition to the scheme ; but it was finally adopted
in December, 1430; and afterwards sanctioned by
order of council.
Now the object of the legislature, as stated by the
law officers of the crown in September, 1436, was to
gist- Dr. M.elsrtiv, as Bishop of lhirham, a net in-
come of 8,0001. a year std for that purpose and
with that intention his contribution was fixed at
11,0001. a year. Let us see how the objets of the legit'.
'sture andlhe intentions of the commissioners have
been fulfilled.
This contribution of 11.1100'. a year was. we have
seen, formed on the estimate that the average income
of the next seven yearn would be 23,626!. a year its-
desire of the Yorkshire estates, worth 2,0001. a year
Mlielvaa it turned out by the next septennial return
that the actual receipts, exclusive of these estates,
reached 23,1166/. • leaving the bishop a gross average
income of 13,000 i., instead of a net one of 8,000/. a
year. Whereupon. the Ecclesiastical Commissioners
raised the charge, in case the see became vacant in
the ensuing septennial Iseriod, to 13,200/., " a roe-
pective charge, Dr. MALTI3T remarked, "to which
" I do not think that I ought to object."
The contingency of a vacancy not having occurred,
Dr. NIALTRU, of course, continued for the seven years
ending 31st December. 1/450, to make, as his account
shows, payment to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners
of the fixed suns of 11,2001. u yeas During that
period, however, the gross receipts of the see reached,
according to his own tigurta, a still higher average
than they did during the previous seven years. For
in the seven years-1844-50—the gross receipts of
the see of Durham were no less than 207,6211.,
which sum produces an average of 20,6601. • so that
in those years Dr. MALTBY's gross income has been
18,460/., instead of the net sum of 8,0001. a year,
which the law officers of the crown stated in Sep-
tember. 1836, it was "Me distinct object qf the hats-
lettere," in passing the 6 and 7 William IV., c. 77,
he should have.
Now, what we claim to show from this state of facts
is simply that the " distinct object" of the legislature
has beau evaded by the Bishop of DURHAM and the
Ecclesiastical Conuniseioners ; evaded in substance by
his receiving a much larger income than was distinctly
intended; evaded in spirit, by his not refunding to the
Ecclesiastical Commission the annual difference be-
tween the intended 8,000!. a year and the sums he has
actually received. And in this evasion of a "distinct
intention of the legislature" by the commissioners,
'a bad example is, we submit, set all the QUEEN.a
subjects, by the rulers of the church, of that heartfelt
obedience to the law which is the duty of all citizens
as Christians.
We know the manner in which this is met. Ilse
Bishop of DURHAM, Lord Jona RUSSELL is never
tired of telling the House of Commons, is a generoas
nun ; he bestows large sums in charity, he gives
liberally to the church. Be it so; we have no wish
to doubt it. But he ought, we answer, to be just
before he is generous; and juat in the highest Dense of
• the word he cannot be whilsthe takes from the see