The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-15 00:00:00

some of the bishoprics were very large, whilst the ineCales
of others were comparatively extremely small. Under
provisions of the Bill now proposed, he felt quite satish7t.,
that the great object of every bishop would be to establislA
himself permanently in his diocese, instead of looking for a:.
removal which would add only a few hundred pounds per-
annum to his income.—(Hear, hear.) Most of the high
dignitaries of the Church were men far advanced in life
before they were raised to the episcopal bench. Was it
likely that men of 60 or 70 years of age would go into the
House of Lords for the purpose of giving votes of which
they did not conscientiously approve, for the sake of being
removed to some larger, and (to the extent of a few hun-
dred pounds) more lucrative diocese ?—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. WARBURTON could not help thinking that this
Bill was at variance with the principles laid down on
former occasions, not only by the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir
R. Feel), but by the Hon. Gentlemen who sat, on that
(the Ministerial) side of the House. •
The question was then put, and the House divided,
when the numbers were—
For the amendment 43
For the original motion
Majority for bringing up the Report —47
The Report was then brought up.
Mr. A. TREVOR moved the insertion of a clause for
fixing the amount of the income of the present Bishop and
ail future Bishops of the diocese of Durham at a sum not
less than 10,000!. per annum. The Hon. Member then
moved that a proviso to the effect stated be added at the
end of the 10th clause.

The question was then put that the clause be read a first
time.—(Cries of " No, no.")
Lord JOHN RUSSELL would not oppose the clause
being brought up and read a first time, but he should cer-
tainly oppose the second reading of it.
The House then divided on the question that the clause
be read a first time—
Noes 133
Ayes 0
Majority against the clause —133
Mr. CHARLES BULLER then moved a clause, pro-
viding that the salaries of all Bishops should be equalized,
except that of the Bishop of London ; and that until due
provision shall have been made for the adequate payment of
the parochial clergy and for the supply of relieirius instruc-
tion to those parts of the country stated in the Report of
the Commissioners to be destitute thereof, the Archbishop
of Canterbury shall receive 8,0001., the Archbishop of
York 7,0001., the Bishop of London 4,500/., and the
other Bishops 4,000/. per annum. The Hon. and ,Learned
Gentlemansthen proceeded to remark on the low rate of
remuneration of the working clergy. He said it appeared
from the Report on the table of the House, that the resi-
dent clergy employed by the resident incumbents numbered
1,006, and their stipends on the average were 86/. a year.
The non-residents numbered 4,224 ; and their stipends
averaged 79/. a year. Thus the total number being 5,230,
the average stipends were 81/. a year. If it were a•ques-
tion between the bishops and the working clergy he should
say they ought to look to the working clergy first.—(Hear.)
The Government, however, had followed the contrary plan ;
their first consideration appeared to have been to provide
large salaries for the bishops. What had the Govern-
ment done ? A Bill had been brought in, in which a
great deal was said about deans and chapters, and no doubt
it would excite the admiring gaze of the public when they
came to examine its details.----(Hear, hear.) The Bishops
being politicians, had been objected to, and it was said
that. he wished to make them independent of the Go-
vernment ; but in the purposed arrangement all kinds of
temptations were held out to them. The incomes began
at about 4,000/. a year ; then there were several at
5,000/. ; the next step was 7,000/. ; up to the see of
Durham it was 8,0001. ; 10,000/. was to be the income
of the Bishop of London, and the Archbishop of York ;
and 15,000/. was the amount proposed for the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury. His first proposal was to equalise
the incomes of all the Bishops, making an exception in
favour of the Bishop of London, on the ground that ho
was a fixed resident in a most expensive place ; he
thought it was necessary on this account to give to the
Bishop of London a little more than to the others. He
not only proposed to equalise the incomes of the Bishops,
but also to reduce them. As his guide in fixing the
incomes, he had taken the scale of payment of the very
highest paid profession in the country, and that was the pro-
fession of the law. He put aside the income of the Lord
Chancellor, however, not considering that a permanent
income ; but with that exception, he had taken the highest
rate of pay for service to the public that could be got.
He could not imagine any reasonable objection to his
plan, unless it were said to be unjust to pay the clergy
and the bishops at the same rate as members of the law
were paid, there being this difference between the profes-
sions, that the one dpended for success on the posses-
sion of individual talent, and having surmounted their early
difficulties, and reached the top of their profession, they
secured to themselves almost a monopoly of the business,
and derived large sums from it. Such was not the case
with the clergy. In his opinion, the fair scale of remune-
ration for the clergy would be that of the army or navy ;
indeed, at present, the working clergy had nearly the same
sums as the subalterns of the army wero paid ; it was
iu the higher stations that the great difference existed.
—(Hear.) Officers in the army and navy were very happy if
they obtained 300/. or 4001. a year. He proposed to give
to the bishops much higher incomes than that. And, by the
way, he would here remark, that he did not see why the
high sense of an honourable occupation should not animate
the clergy as governed those devoted to the other profes-
sions in place of the ordinary desire of accumulating wealth.
An officer in the army was proud of wearing the King's
uniform, and was encouraged by that distinction to brave
the dangers of the field. The bishop, on the other hand,
fought under the banner of the cross ;• he was engaged irn
the constant struggle against the enemy of mens' souls to
save souls. Were his motives to be supposed to be of so
low a nature that they must treat him as they would
hired mercenaries, and crown him for the fight, or tempt
him by the prospect of plunder.—(Cheers.) As he had
said uefbre, he proposed to fix the scale of the incomes of
the bishops and the archbishops according to the highest scale
of remuneration in the legal profession, except the income of
the Lord Chancellor. To the Archbishop of Canterbury he
would give the same income as was received by the Lord
Chief Justice of England. The Archbishop of Canterbury
bad no duties to perform which required travelling, whereas
the Chief Justice of England went the expensive circuits
every year. The income of the Archbishop of York he
would reduce to the miserable pittance of 7,000/. a-year..
He took for his guide here the income derived by the Lord
Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas. He sup-
posed he should not be charged with a desire to reduce the
bishops to beggary. The office of the Master of the Rolls,
every one knew, was the best office in the gift of the Crown.
The Minister was thought lucky who had it to bestow, and
the person was thought lucky who succeeded in obtaining
it. The income was 7,000/. a-year. The great advantage
of the situation was its permanency, and the office of the
Archbishop was equally permanent. Then the labours-of
the Master of the Rolls were known to be severe, and no
one would pretend that the duties of the Archbishop were
laborious to anything like an equal extent. To the Bishop..
of London he would give 4,5001. a-year, which was the sum.
allowed to the common-law Lords. It might be said that.
the Bishop had to maintain a peerage, but he hoped we,
had not yet come to this, that it was to be considered no•
advantage to have the honour of a peerage without a very
large income to support it. The Judge, on the other hand,
had to pay out of his income the expenses of his circuits
each year. To the remainder of the bishops he would give
4,0001. a-year each. Such was his proposition, and he
should be sorry if it were considered a very heinous and
malicious attack on the Church.---( Hear, hear.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said it was impossible that he
could agree to the motion of the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman. In his opinion, the comparison which had been:
made by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was quite in-
applicable. Between the situation of the bishops and that
of the members of any of the professions referred to by the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman, there was a vast difference. •
The bishop had to maintain a large establishment, to ob-
serve hospitality, to contribute to the work of charity, and
to preserve his position amongst those who possessed large •
landed property ; while persons engaged in other profos-
sions were not liable to such serious charges on their in- •
comes. He thought that to reduce the means of the bishops
and archbishops in the way proposed, would exceedingly
impair the efficiency of the Church.
Mr. A. TREVOR protested against the insinuations
directed against the Church.
Sir L. PARRY should support the motion. The Bi-
shop of Bangor had only 3,800/. a year, and he maintained
out of that means a great number of distressed local clergy.
—(Cheering.) Why would they take the tithes from
Manchester for a bishop in Wales ? The people of Man-
chester
did not wish for a bishop ; but, if they did, they
certainly did not desire to have a bishop at the . expense of
Wales.
Mr. VILLIERS supported the motion.
The House then divided—
For the clause 44
Against it

Majority —3B
The Report was then agreed to.
GRAND JURIES (IRELAND) BILL.
The House then went into Committee on this Bill.

Clauses up to 138 were then agreed to, with the excep-
tion of clauses 93, 94, 99, and 117, which were postponed.
The Chairman reported progress, and the House resumed.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and
the House adjourned at a Quarter after Two.

HOUSE OF LORDS, JULY 14.
ROYAL ASSENT.
The Royal Assent, by Commission, was given to the
Following Bills, the Commissioners being the Lord "Chan• -