The Express.
London, England, 1851-07-08 00:00:00

THE BISHOP OF LONDON AND SIR B.

HALL.

(From tbe Daily New.)

THE Bishop of LONDON has republished a letter
addressed by him twelve months ago to Dear Mr.
GOULBOERN " (who has since been made an ecclesi-
astical commissioner with 1,0001. a-year, in addition

to his pension of 2,0001. a-year), in which letter ho
assures that gentleman, and, through him, the coun-
try, that his septennial returns are "strictly correct,
and contain an exact statement of the income of my
bishopric in the years to which they relate." Our
diocesan has not, he begs the world therefore to
understand, revenues greater than from 13,8791.35.5 d.
to 24,2721. 13s. Bd., in addition, of course, to London
House and Fulham Palace.

Mr. l'itltAP MILES, too, has announced, on the
part of the Bishop of GLOUCESTER and Baistois
friends, that Dr. Mom: is at present on the eonti-
neat (when he ought to be attending to his legisla-
tive duties at Westminster as a lord spiritual), and
that it has been thought best by them to wait
" until a clear and distinct refutation of the charges
brought against him can be obtained," a reply very
needful to protect the Bishop's honour and honesty ,•
and a task not, we may usefully observe, by. way of
parenthesis, to be accomplished by informing the
public that the 11,0001. produced by liorticld lease
was laid out in building a great house for the Ste ut
Stapleton.
The force of public opinion being. thus recognised
by the bishops and their friends in this important
matter, it is quite clear that the question of episcopal
property cannot be allowed to rest where it now
does, but that proper steps must be taken to relieve
the public frum all doubt and suspicion as to its
value, and to protect it from the possibility of
abuse.

But how is it that the septennial returns made
by the Bishop of LONDON have been discre-
dited ? How is it that Dr. BLOYFIELD'S statements
in setting forth his income have been doubted ?
Front 1629 to 1850 we have returns of the proceeds
of the see ; and their accuracy has very generally
been disbelieved. This is a painful state of things,
which ought to be reproved or confirmed on autho-
rity beyond all dispute ; and this we take the liberty
of saying the more emphatically, because we have
never joined in the expression of any such doubts,
and because, when they were first ventilated, we
made an opportunity of fully explaining the interest
that the see of London had in the Paddington
Estate, out of which they have chiefly arisen.
Nevertheless, the Bishop of Losnus has, wo must
say, himself and the Ecclesiastical Commission en-
tirely to blame for this scepticism; and though there
may be nothing wrong, there is, we must add, a
great deal that ought to be explained, and much that
is very suspicious in his septennial returns.
The Bishop of LONDON iv the freeholder of the
Paddington Estate; but the representatives of the
Frederick family are its leaseholders for a very
lung term. lu their original leases there was not,
however, any power to grunt such sub-leases as would
induce builders to erect houses thereon. So to acquire
that power, they agreed that the freeholder should re-
ceive one third of the ground-rents reserved in all sub-
leases made for building purposes. What the Bishop of
LONDON is, therefore, entitled to out of the Padding-
ton estate is substantially one-third of the reserved
rents ; and they, of course, as the building leases tall
in, will gradually yield an enormous revenue to his
see. At present, however, it is obvious that, as the
estate has only lately been built on, the ground-rents
form a very. small part of the rack-rents paid for the
noble mansions that are covering Tyburn's.
it seems, by the lust septennial return made by
the Bishop of LONDON, and which was only ordered
to be printed on the 16th of June last, that his
" share of the Paddington rents" has risen front
the sum of 6,596/. 7s. 11d. in 1844 to the suns of
6,9411. 16s. lid. in 1850—figures which certainly do
appear disproportionate to what the supposed value
of such a city of palaces might be reasonably sup-
posed to yield.
But the doubts and scepticisms and disbelief have
not arisen out of these figures or out of any corre-
sponding items in the Bishop's.two former septennial
returns. They had their origin in the absence
of any such particulars in the returns made by
him in 1b35 and 15-14. The item "share of
the Paddington rents," tee., appears in the return
made in 1851 fur the first time. And
when people saw that the average of the income
returned by the Bishop for the first seven years, con-
siderably exceeded the average returned tor the se-
cond seven years, whilst concurrently they witnessed
mansion utter mansion, street after street, square
after square arising, during the latter period, in Ty-
burins, it is not surprising that they did, and still
do, come to the opinion that the returns are not to be
depended on.
And, in truth, even now, when this new item is,
for the first time, introduced, these returns are quite
unintelligible. We don't doubt Dr. llisinrthlas
word; but we hope he won't think it ungracious or
impertinent if we add, we can't comprehend his
figures. They are lumped together in a singularly
confused manner; worse, far, than, any of Mr. lieu-
SON'S railway balance-sheets, and they are quite tin-
vouched. What audit, or enumeration, or prepara-
tion, or manipulation they have undergone, is not
stated. They are Hung on the tables of parliament
with this note only :

1 do hereby certify that this return is correct.
V. J. LONDON.
Now C. J. LONDON may be a most exemplary
Bishop, and yet a very bad accountant; and as the
first doubt that was ever cast on his returns came
neither from Sir B. HALL nor Mr. HOILSNAN, but
from the Ecclesiastical Commission and its officers,
and was expressed to a committee of the House of
Commons, it is, we respectfully submit, due to the
Bishop, to the Ecclesiastical Commission, to its
officers, to Sir B. HALL, and to the public who have
a deep pecuniary interest, after Dr. BtonFtELD's
decease, in the property of the see, that these ac-
counts, from 1829 to 1830, be at once audited and
avouched. We propose, therefore, to call in QuivrEn,
BALL, and CO. What says our diocesan?
Less than this won't satisfy the yo fitment vulvas,
either in or out of parliament ; and by republishing
his letters to "dear Mr. GODLBOVRN " (equally dear
in our humble judgment to the Bishops and tho
country) Dr. BLOMUELU has at least shown that he
for once does not despise or contemn public opinion.
But now that he has roused it, he must go further
and satisfy it.

The following aro the letters referred to in tho
foregoing :

- -
The Bishop of London presents his compliments
to the editor of the Times, and in order to show that the
bishop has not "contented himself with a contemptuous
denial, and that only by implication, of the charge brought
against him by Sir Benjamin Hall," he requests the re-
publication of a letter addressed by him to Mr. Goulburn,
and read by that gentleman to the House of Commons on
the 15th ot July, IS,O. Reference was made to that letter
in the bishop's correspondence with Sir B. Hall, published
in the Times in March last.
Fulham, July 5.
" London House, July 11.
"My dear Mr. Goulburn,—ln the Times report of tho
debate on the Ecclesiastical Commission Bill on Monday
Right Sir Benjamin Hall is stated to have said that 'the
present income of one of the bishops—the Bishop of London
—was 50,0001. a year. It was quite absurd to adopt the
bishop's own returns on the point.'
" The absurd exaggeration contained in this statement it
is, perhaps, hardly worth while to notice. But the imputa-
tion cast upon ray honesty I think it right to repel, although
I trust that my character is not such as to render such an
imputation credible.
" I should be much obliged to you if you would take an
opportunity of assai the House of Commons that the re-
turns towhich Sir B. Hall referred were strictly correct, and
contained an exact statement of the income of my bishopric
in the years to which they relate.
" Sir B. Hall seems to think that I receive the wholo
rents of the Paddington estate, whereas it is only one-third
of the ground-rents which is paid to the bishop, the other
two-thirds being paid to the representatives of the original
lessees of the estate.
" Believe me, my dear Mr. Goulburn, yours most truly,
" C. J. LONDON.
" The Right Hon. Henry Goulburn, M.P."

TO THE EDITOR OP THE rums.

- ----
Sir,—llaving read the leading article in the Times of
this morning relative to the Bishop of Gloucester and Bris-
tol and the Horfleld estate, I beg to inform you that I hays
it in my power to contradict many of the assertions made
by Mr. Herman in the House of Commons; but, as the
right rev. prelate is detained on the continent by illness, it
has been thought best by his friends to wait until a clear
and distinct refutation of the charges brought forward
spinet him can be obtained.
I shall feel obliged to you to publish this in your next
edition. am, w' your obedient servant,
Bristol, July 4. Paws W. B. laws&