The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-27 00:00:00

THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY.

(Prom the Times.)
We need rot remind our readers of the energetic and
elaborate speech addressed by the Bishop of Salisbury
to the House of Lords on Friday last, in reply to cer-
tain observations we had lately made on the misappro-
priation of the revenues of his see. We, too, reply at
the "earliest possible moment," and repeat, that whereas
it was the intention of the Legislature that the Bishop
should have had 5,0001. a-year, he has "received and
retained" for 14 years an annual 6,7371., and therefore,
not 21,0001., but 24,3151., more than his due. Before,
however, we enter upon our proof, we admit our error in
uniting 6` Brother Commissioners," and beg to express
our regret for any " insinuations" against anybody
which such an epithet may have conveyed. Dismissing
this important matter, we proceed with our proof by
facts, figures, and quotations, quite innocent, we hope,
of the "insinuations" in question.
Our first fact is, that in the first report of the Eccle-
siastical Commissioners the "future net income" of
Salisbury was estimated at 5,0001. a-year, and that in
their next report they said, "In this see we do not
propose any alteraton. ' Well, in 1836 came the 6th
and 7th of William IV., providing that "such fixed
annual sums should be paid out of the larger sees, so
as to leave" certain annual incomes, numerically speci-
fied, to certain bishops, and that "out of the funds
thus accruing fixed annual payments should be made,
so that the average annual incomes of the other bishops
respectively should be not more than 5,0001." Also,
that a septennial return should be made, and there-
upon the scale be revised, so as to preserve as nearly as
might be an average income to each bishop equivalent
to that determined on in the first instance. We re-
assert, then, that the Legislature did not intend the
bishop to have 7,4821., if he could make it, but simply
to secure him 5,000/. a-year, and in confirmation we
produce the following :
" We aro of opinion, that although the see of Salisbury
is not specifically mentioned in the act, yet that; from the
plain intent of the Legislature appearing on the face of the
clause in question, it is competent to the Commissioners to
charge the Bishop with a contribution, if it appears that
the annual revenue of that see exceeds 5,0001.
"J. DODSON.
" CAMPBELL.
"R. M., ROLFE.
" Doctors' Commons, March 20, 1837." •

In defiance of this, and in the presence of two of these
distinguished authorities, the Bishop declared that "it
was the express intention of the law to promote a better
management of the revenues of each see by giving the
Bishop a personal interest in it during his incumbency."
On the contrary, we assert that no such intention is ex-
pressed or implied in the act, but that the object of its
enactment is distinctly stated to be, "in order to pros
vide for the augmentation of the smaller bishoprics."
Not only so, but the Bishop's assertion is as absurd as
unfounded. The act could not be designed to promote
a better management than formerly, nor to give a
personal interest ; for, even before the act was
passed, every bishop had this "personal interest" to
manage his own see in the best possible way, inas-
much as he enjoyed all its profits. What, then, becomes
of the assertion by which the Bishop mainly attempted
to justify his conduct ? It may, indeed, have been
imagined that by the act a bishop would be so much
interested in the proceeds of his see that he would keep
up the receipts of his predecessor ; but that affords no
foundation for the assumption that bishops were to have
an income indefinitely larger than the Legislature assigned
to them, by way of a premium for skill as land stewards.
But the Bishop goes further. He asserts that bishops
were invested with such interest, "as, whatever addi-
tional income was obtained by better management,
would appertain to them during their incumbency, and
the benefit of it accrue to the common fund from the
larger charge which would be laid upon their successors."
Does he, then, mean that if one bishop should, by
" whatever" means, such as excessive falls of timber and
inordinate working of mines, secure an enormous revenue
for himself, and transmit an impoverished see to his suc-
cessor—in such a case, the Legislature intended the for-
mer to keep all his gains, and the latter to pay for them ?
Yet such is the consequence of the Bishop's principle.
We come, however, to the gravamen of our accusa-
tion—viz., that, whereas the Commissioners had charged
Bishop Denison with the payment of 8001. a-year, they
were led by his representations to consent to an arrange-.
ment by which he not only retained it, but 9371. a-year
more. Well, were those representations true or not'?
The Bishop admits,—" I will not now say that every
argument or expression I may then have used is such
as I would used now." He may well,use this reserve,
for he then argued that "all property had depreciated
in value," in the teeth of the fact that his own see was
just returned at an increase of 1,0001. a-year, while
the receipts from the manors alone were raised in that
very year (1837) from 3001. to 8111. " Nothing, too,"
said he, " like 1,9351. a-year can be expected from the
leaseholds on lives," ;tad yet within a week 2,0001. came
in, and the average in 14 years was 2,4681. In 1832,
also (said he), a fine of 10,0001. was received ; so
that no such sum could arise again from the same
quarter for a long series of years ; and yet, before
six had passed, Mr. Sotheron paid him 9,9451. 17s.
Again, when the case was submitted to Mr. Morgan,
he was carefully instructed as to the alleged deprecia-
tion. But was the whole truth told—viz., that the
Bishop's " predecessor was 84 years old, and naturally
not very active ;" and that the " old steward, too, was
an aged man who died after a long illness at 84, and na-
turally not very active ?" All this we learn now. It
was suppressed then. Nay, after all this, when his sec
was estimated at 5,4351., the Bishop, who disclaims " a
love of money," and despises " hoarded wealth," perti-
naciously urged that a "further deduction from his con-
tribution might be fairly made," and that, according
" to the principles assented to by the Legislature, ho
ought not to be subjected to any charge at all." How-
ever, by means of representations which were not justi-
fied by the past, and which, " were very likely to be
falsified by the future," the Bishop was exempted from
all payment, and received his untaxed 7,4821., ad-
mitting afterwards that the proposed charge of
1,8501. " was the surplus over the income of 5,0001.,
which it was the intention that future Bishops of
Salisbury should have." Such were his words in
1846 ; and yet now he maintains it to have been the
" express intention" of the Legislature that they should
have as much as they could make by " improved ma-
nagement." We leave him to explain this, and come to
an important epoch in the case—the time when lie ac-
cepted the fixed income of 5,000/. But here some ques-
tions arise. If the Bishop could " legally and equitably"
have retained all, why did he, but not till the expiration
of 14 years, give up any ? If he thought it his duty to
do so when his average was 5,9931., was it not equally
his duty, seven years before, when his average was
7,482/. ? The moral obligation was surely just as im-
perative at one time as another. But, unfortunately, as
he himself admits, it was not till " early in February,
1851," that he personally signified his intention to ac-
cept the 5,0001. ; and it so happens that on June 7,
1850, and on February 10, 1851, these very returns
were moved for by which our accusations are supported;
nor was it till July 18, 1851, that he recorded that in-
tention by letter, and it did so happen that in June, 1851,
the House of Commons ordered those returns to be
printed by which our charges are substantiated. The
fact, then, is, that the Bishop did not propose this
arrangement till he knew that a full exposure would be
made of his persevering negotiation to elude a payment
which was justly due from him, and from the discharge
of which he only escaped by representations " which
have been completely falsified" by the result. And now
for a word or two on the letter which was so loudly
cheered. We have a grave accusation against the
writer. He said distinctly, "It was the object of the
act to give the bishop a pecuniary interest in the ma-
nagement of his see, by securing to him any increased
income which might arise from it." We have scruti-
nised the act most carefully, and we can find no expres-
sion of any such object—not a hint at it, nor any allu-
sion to it. We call upon the Bishop to quote and pro-
duce it, if he has any regard for the value of his asser-
tions. But his lordship has committed himself to
another assertion—viz., that it " was on the ground of
giving the bishops this pecuniary interest and securing
them this increased income" that the Commissioners in
their third report stated, that " their proposed arrange-
ments in this respect appeared less open to objection
than any other that had presented themselves." We
meet this declaration by exhibiting the " statement"
which the Bishop professes to quote. Here it is :
" Objections may be urged against the plan on the
ground that the fluctuating amount of the episcopal in-
comes may sometimes make it inconvenient to the holders
of the larger sees to pay a certain fixed sum ; but upon
the whole wo think that this mode is less open to objection
than any other which has presented itself to us ; and it
possesses the important advantage" (not of giving a " pe-
cuniary interest," but) " of insuring a sufficient fund for
the improvement of the smaller sees."
After this, what is the worth of the "loud cheers"
which followed the Bishop's reply ?

Here, then, we are content to leave this case, with
the conviction that those specific charges which we
made against his lordship remain ungainsaid by his
elaborate attempt to refute them, while we are much
deceived if he has not materially damaged his own
position and character by repeatedly attributing to the
Legislature and the Commissioners, as "express inten-
tions," what they never did intend, by asserting that
they had in view the particular object of the pecu-
niary benefit of bishops, which they never contemplated ;
and, lastly, declaring deliberately, in the House of
Lords, the existence of a particular statement in a place
accessible to himself, where, nevertheless, neither any
such statement nor any like it is to be found.

ADVERTISING VANS.-It seems to be forgotten that
the owners of vehicles, which from their size, shape, or
make, cause obstructions in the streets, and those carry-
ing show boards or placards on the pavement, are by the
Police Act, 2d and 3d Vic., c. 47, sec. 54, liable to a
penalty of 40s. ; and that, in addition, the commissioners
of police can, under section 52, prohibit any other ob-
structive carriage (not being used for a trading purpose)
being used in the metropolis ; power being given ex-
pressly to the commissioners to make regulations in any
case when the streets or thoroughfares may be liable to
be obstructed, and particularly at the West-end. This
act, if enforced before a magistrate, will remedy all the
recent complaints, the more especially as a policeman
can, under it, take into custody, without warrant, any
person who by means of any cart or carriage, or any
horse or other animal, shall wilfully cause any obstruc-
tion in any thoroughfare, and also any person so " car-
rying any show-board or placard upon any footway.'
All, therefore, that it is necessary for the commissioners
of police to do will be to issue a notice that the law as
above will be enforced, and one conviction before a ma-
gistrate will set the question at rest without further
delay. And, at the same time, it will be as well if the
fifth item of section 54, imposing a penalty of 40s. upon
persons furiously riding or driving, were enforced against
butchers and others.