The Sun.
London, England, 1847-12-15 00:00:00

that it must eventually amount to 100,0001. a year.—
(Hear, hear.) After all the increase which one would
naturally suppose must have taken place in his income,
it was singular enough that in the next return made by
the Right Rev. Prelate the see appeared to be none the
richer. On the contrary, in the year 1843, after all those
splendid buildings had been erected, the return made by
the Bishop of London was actually less than it was
in 1831. At that period he made his net income to be
13,9001., but in 1843 it was reduced to 12,4001., notwith-
standing buildings covering 400 acres of ground had been
erected, and although the Right Rev. PrElate had signed
upwards of 2,000 leases.—(Hear, hear.) Now he should
like to have some explanation of this.—(Hear, hear.)
They could not possibly doubt the correctness of an
episcopal return—(A laugh)—but what must they think
of episcopal management?—(hear, hear.) The Bishop
of Durham returned his gross income at 21,0001. and the
net income at 19,000/. His future income he put down
at 17,8901. Instead of this, however, the net income
rose to 22,000/. and the gross income to 26,000!. The
Bishop of St. Asaph estimated his income at 6,3001.,
and said a gradual decline was to be expected; it was
accordingly written down by the Ecclesiastical Com-
missioners at 5,2001., but it had risen to 6,5481. The
Bishop of Bangor's net income was returned in 1831 at
at 4,464/.; and he having also said there must be great
reductions, it was put down at 3,240 L, but went up to 1,643/.
by the year 1843. The Hon. Gentleman gave similar de-
tails with reference to the following sees, stating in
every case that the bishops had calculated on a decrease:—
Chester, estimated in 1831 at 4,2291. net, put down at
3,8001., and increased to 5,2001. in 1843; Hereford, put
down by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in 1831 at
2,5101., but risen to 3,104/. ; Lincoln, estimated at 9,8001.,
but increased to 5,2231.; Norwich, income returned in
1831 at 5,3001., put down at 4,700/., and risen in 1843 to
5,728/ ; Oxford, returned in 1831, at 2,648/., future in-
come
estimated at 1,6281., income in 1843, 2,659/4 Solis-
bury in 1831 returned at 4,0001. gross, future income
estimated at 5,0001., returned in 1843 at 7,200 L; Wor-
cester in 1831, 6,8091. net, future income estimated at
6,500/., returned in 1843 at 7,122/. net, and 3,166/. gross.
The Bishop of Llandatf returned the income of his see
in 1831 as 924/, and he was the only prelate who said
there would probably be an increase in the future
income; but, like all the rest, he was mistaken, for
it turned out that by the year 1843 it had decreased
to 9151.—(Laughter.) Nevertheless, it was upon these
statements that the Commissioners proceeded to make
their future calculations.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.)
How it happened that the returns had been soerroneous,
it was not for him to say—he would leave it to the
House to Perin its own opinion on the matter. The
Commissioners had to arrange the payment to be made
to the rich sees and to the poor sees, and it way simply
a case of figures to show that they had taken too little
from the rich and gave too much to the poor ones. The
figures were taken from the report of the Commissioners
themselves. The gross income of the Archbishop of
Canterbury was 28,0001. a year; the payments to be
made were 9,000/., which reduced his income to
19,000/. a year. The income which he would receive
under the Act of Parliament was 15,000/., so that if a
vacancy occurred the next Achbishop would receive
4,0001. more than he ought. The net income of the Arch-
bishop of York was fixed by Act of Parliament at 10,000 L
a year, but, after the payments were deducted, he would
have an income of 12,100/. The intended income of the
Bishop of Durham was 8,0001. a year, but the future
Bishop of Durham, if a vacancy was to occur,would receive
11.7921., consequently the present bishop was receiving
3,792/ more than he ought under the Act of Parliament.
The income of the Bishop of Bath and Wells was 7,954/.,
the receipts 6,554/., the intended income 5,0001., conse-
quently the surplus in this case was 1,5541. In the case
of a vacancy in the see of Salisbury the sew bishop
would receive 6931. more than he would be entitled to
under the Act of Parliament. These aro prospective
payments. Now, with respect to actual payments which
had commenced, the Bishop of Chichester had 3671. over
and above the sum fixed by Act of Parliament; or,
taking the payments of the Commissioners, he had a sur-
plus income of 1,017/. more than was fixed by the Act.
The Bishop of Hereford had a considerable surplus.
The Bishop of Oxford received altogether 5,8591.; the
intended income was 5,000/., consequently he
received 859/. more than he ought under the
Act of Parliament. The Bishop of Lincoln was in
receipt of a surplus of 2231. With respect to the
see of Rochester, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners
themselves laid it down as a rule that the income of
the bishop of that see should not be increased till the
next vacancy ; and accordingly, as late as August, 1845,
they fixed the payments at 3,7001. a year, which was to
commence at the next vacancy. But, although no
vacancy had occurred, he found that he had received
the 3,700/. from the Commissioners. The result of these
statements was this—that the payments by the rich sees
were less than ought to have been paid according to the
provisions of the Act, by 20,0001., and that to the poorer
sees more had been paid than ought to have been paid
by 6,0001. He confessed that the enormous discrepancy
between the gross and net receipts was to him wholly
unintelligible. It amounted to no less than 200,0001,
or 50,000/. a year. This difference could not proceed
from the fixed payments, because they were extremely
variable from year to year. For instance, in the see
of Durham the difference was no less than 14,000/., in
1337 ; in 1840, it was 20,0001. ; in 1841, it was 16,0001.
With respect to the see of St. Asaph the difference, in
1837, was 1,3001. ; in 1543, it was 2,5001. In the see
of Lincoln the difference, in 1837, was 4001. ; in 1838,
7001. With respect to the see of Norwich the difference,
in 1837, was 300/. ; in 1843, it was 1,200/. The gross
income of the see of Exeter was 1,0921. Last year the
net income was returned at 343/., or 300 per cent. below
the gross income. The Bishop's net income from his
diocese was only 300/. a year. It would be very satisfac-
tory if the House knew from the Ecclesiastical Com-
missioners what caused this difference between the gross
and net income. What deductions could they imagine
would reduce al income more than 300 per cent.?
Supposing that a bishop was litigious; that he was en-
gaged in constant lawsuits; that he was eminent in li-
terature—was a writer of pamphlets or long letters to
the Times ; were they to consider expenses incurred in
this way as proper and legitimate?—(Hear, hear.) An-
other subject of importance related to the variations of
the Commissioners in their management of eccolaias-
tical revenus. At present no prelate could know what
his income was to be. Now, nothing could be more in-
convenient, vexatious, or unsettling to a prelate than not
to know whether his income was to be 6,000/. or 2,000/.
Let them look to the effect of this system of manage-
ment on the dioceses themselves. The income of the
see of Durham was calculated at 19,000/. a year. The
Bishop was allowed a choice by the Commissioners
whether he would make over to them 11,0001., and take
chance for what the see made over 8,000/., or whether
they would make him an annual payment of 8,0001., and
keep the remainder. The Bishop, he understood,
a travnesrayctiong,oodandthiintg apo-f
inegeeammilid
ebalienhe received was, accordingg
pi te, preferreds
refodr t
thhae th
the
to the returns, 12,0001. a year. The plea which the
toC makeom the paymentsmissionersallege to alleged was,
she, that,they wbyaoluloldwihnagrte a the bishops
interest in the improvement of the property. In the
b en
uap f ai
nl s e t Pr
yni principle
; s for,qu e izfe aa
infiferwasnt,mspitoaiermeee,
Zoe I le bi
'ld
ese takedm to(n•e out of the property, how
twthhaoissllsst
much time could he devote tChis spiritual duties ? Now
did it operate in the case of the see of Durham ? The
did was to stimulate the Bishop to work it out to the
property there was a mineral property, and what they
utmost, and, accordingly, he had received 10,000/. over
the sum fixed by the Act of Parliament since his conse-
cration to that see.—(Hear.) That sum was lost en-
tirely to the Church—that loss was constantly increas-
ing,rham was greater
for it was generally believed that at the present mo-
ment the income of the Bishop of Du
than that of any former bishop. He would How go to a
case of a different character, in which the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners took on themselves to postpone the ope-
ration of the Act of Parliament—he alluded to the case of
the see of Salisbury. The Act was passed on August 13,
1836, but it had a retrospective effect from the 4th of
March in the same year, in order that the see of Durham
the Bishop of which diocese was gazetted on that day,.
might be brought under its operation. The Bishop of
Salisbury was gazetted on the 14th of March, 1847, more
than one year after the Bishop of Durham, and his
future income was expressly fixed at 5,0001. a year.
Yet that provision had been disregarded, and the
average income was considerably over what was fixed
by the Act.—(Hear, hear.) That was a case on which
It was not necessary to make any comment. He wished
that Right Rev. Prelate every enjoyment of his large
income, and he was sure he would make a right use of
it; but he believed that many of the poor curates of that
diocese could not think of it unaccompanied by those
reflections to which it must naturally give rise.—(Hear,
hear.) Compare this enormous episcopal superabundance
with the condition of the poor working clergy. The
tthoethls esmt.
ten
years
always generously responded to the appeals made
Thee
RBishoprs m o
snore
ef
thanit ipo n 251,
0a late, a
y declaredear
hadthat
beep
nobly subscribed by them. Churches had been built in
every direction by their contributions, which the Eccle-
siastical Commissioners engaged to endow; but those en-
gagements had been in many instances broken. He
heard an announcement made by the Ecclesiastical Com-
missioners in 1844, which was now in operation, to the
effect that they were unable to give any further assist-
ance because the commission was bankrupt. Yet at that
moment they were dividing no less than 26,0001—he
believed it was nearer to 40,000/. out of the ecclesias-
tical revenues which had been placed under their admi-
nistration. And thetas things took place at a time when
2,000 clergymen of the Church of England had incomes
under 1001. a year, and he knew some who had only 501.
and 20/., and some as low as Sl. and 3/.—(Hear, hear.)
Such isms the state of a portion of the (Thumb when
this enormous extravagance was taking place. He be-
lieved that a portion of the clergy were suffering priva-
tions such as had never been heard of in a rich and
civilized community. He could give statements of which
they had no conception of the poverty and wants of
these men. It had been said that it was a reproach to
them to know so little as they did of the condition of
the working classes. He believed they knew less of the
condition of the poorest portion of the working clergy.
(Hear, hear.) He knew instances during the last
winter in which many of them were without food or
clothing for themselves and their families, and that some
of them were obliged to ask charity and to borrow a
coat in order to be able to perform their duties.—(Hear.)
It was on the part of these men and their flocks that he
had come forward to make a statement on this occasion,
isfsriioenned rss,
and not from a wish to assail the Ecclesiastical Com-
m ,
andsome of
whose whomfrienhdeshhiapd
hteh e
wouldhonour
nootf
risk o
having
u.in
slight grounds. But his warmer sympathies were with
the parish congregations and their poor laborious guides
and pastors. It was on behalf of them that their sympa-
thies ought to be interested.—(Hear, hear.) The poor la-
bourer was not the less worthy of his hire, though he
did not live in palasos or enjoy legislative functions. It
was on behalf of those men he pleaded who looked after

those whom society and even Christianity had regarded
as outcasts, and of whom it was said:—

" His the hard duty to reclaim
The reckless son of sin and sham(
Contoinn'd—repulsed—from door to door,
ills heavenly message pressed the mote
At last prevailed : in him they see
A sympathising poverty.
Like them, by worldliness forgot,
Neglect and poverty his lot,
Their woes, their ways, to him are known,
Alas ! for they're his own.
He feels their woes—owns their cares
And all, except their crimes, he shares."
(Cheers.) These were the men whom they ought to
multiply and strengthen—who served as links between
the poor man and the Church.—(Hear, hear.) They
should recollect that every shilling given to the hierarchy
was taken away from the poor clergy, and that it was
their duty, for the sake of these 111011, and for the sake
of the Church, to 300 that the revenues of the Church
were justly administered. The Hon. Gentleman con-
cluded by moving—
" 1. That the Act 6 and 7 Will. IV., c. 77, contained,
among others, the following enactments: • That in order
to provide for the augmentation of the incomes of the
smaller bishoprics, such fixed annual sums be paid to the
Commissioners out of the revenues of the larger sees
respectively as shall, upon due inquiry and consideration,
be determined on, so as to leave as an average annual
iuoome to the Archbishop of Canterbury, 15,0001. ; to
the Archbishop of York, 10,0001. ; to the Bishop of
London, 10,0001.; to the Bishop of Durham, 8,0001. ; to
the Bishop of Winchester, 7,0001, ; to the Bishop of
Ely, 5,5001. ; to the Bishop of St. Asaph and Bangor,
5,2001. ; and to the Bishops of Worcester and Bath and
Welk respectively, 6,000/. And that out of the fund
thus accruing, fixed annual payments be made by the
Commissioners in such instances, and to such amount, as
shall be in like manner determined on, so that the
average annual incomes of the other bishops respec-
tively be not less than 4,0001. nor more than 5,000/.
And that, at the expiration of' every seven years,
reckoning from the Ist day of January, 1837, a
now return of the revenues of all the bishoprics
be made to the Commissioners; and that thereupon the
scale of episcopal payments and receipts be revised, so
as to preserve, as nearly as may be, to each bishop an
amount of income equivalent to that which shall have
been determined in the first instance to be suitable to the
circumstances of his bishopric; and that such revised
scale take effect, as to each see respectively, upon the
then next avoidance thereof.' 2. That, on the Ist day
of January, 1845, a new return of the revenues of all
the bishoprics, as ordered, from the Ist day of January,
1837, to the 31st day of December, 1843, was presented
to Parliament; and subsequently, on the 6th day of
February, 1846, and the 16th day of June, 1846, re-
spectively, were presented the first and second general
reports of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, showing how
the provisions of the above-named Act had been carried
out. 3. That, from these reports, furnished by the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners themselves, it appears to
this House, that the provisions of the Act 6 and 7
William IV., c. 77, so far as relates to episcopal incomes,
have not been carried out according to the intentions of
Parliament."

Mr. PLUMPTRE seconded the motion. lie did not
believe that the Honourable Gentleman was actuated by
any personal hostility to those whom he was obliged to
name in the course of his speech, but that he wished
sincerely to promote the advantage of the Church,
whose worst enemies were those who would allow a bad
system to proceed without any amendment.—(Hear,
hear.) After the statement of the Hon. Gentleman the
working of the Ecclesiastical Commission could not be
considered satisfactory, and therefore he would support
his motion.

Sir G. GREY agreed with the Hon. Gentleman who
introduct d this subject as to the spiritual destitution
which existed in the populous parts of the country, and
that the revenues of the Church ought to be made as
available as possible to meet that destitution• but he
would ask his Hon. Friend who seconded the motion
whether he thought, that if they passed a censure on the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners in the terms of the third
resolution, it would advance that object? He came down
to meet the case of the Hon. Gentleman, but he alluded
to the returns of the report of 1831, and it was entirely
u gratuitous assumption on his part to assume that the
Commissioners acted on this report, and that the fixed
payments they imposed on the vacancies of the sees to
which he referred:were founded on the returns of the
report of 1831. On the contrary, the returns of 11131
had, in no one instance, formed the basis on which they
framed the annual payments of the larger sees, or the
payments to be added to the smaller ones. In 1835
the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Feel) appointed an
Ecclesiastical Commission, with the ♦iew of pronsot
ing the very objects which his Honourable Friend
opposite so much desired. They made their report in
March, 1836, and that report contained various recom-
meudations in the shape of resolutions, having for their '
object the equalisation of episcepal duties and revenues,
or rather a tendency to such an equalisation, for an ab-
solute and complete equalisation was not possible. They
advised that fixed annual sums should be paid to the
poorer sees out of the revenues of the larger, so as to
leave certain sums applicable as income in certain cases ;
aad they further recommended that, once in every seven
years, returns of income should be made so that averages
might be struck on which there might be fresh appoint-
ments. Now he (Sir G. Grey) was not contending that
that arrangement was not capable of great amendment,
nor was he contending that great reduction in bishops'
incomes might not be made ; but what he did contend
for was, that the evil, if there was any, did not arise from
the fault of the Commissioners, but from the fault of the
Act of Parliament.
Mr. HORSM AN—Not at all.

a i dc noomt
ma ti
saslilo;
nbeur
at
had ishetlihr.EcclesiasticalMe mbers
tbeSigroGes.tiGooßEwYasT
carried out the provisions of that Act ? What had they
done P The Hon. Member said the returns made in
com-
pliance with the Act were grossly incorrect. Ile (Sir
G. Grey) had not looked into those
ose returns; he had not
had time to do so, and, therefore, all he should say was,
that the bishops, if the _re presentations of the Hon. Mem-
ber were correct, must
desponding view of tn 1831 have taken a somewhat
their affairs.—(bear, hear, and
laughter.) But the 11011. Member had made a great
mistake in taking the return of 1831 at all. That was
not the return on which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners
calculations wore founded. They had calculated on a
return made in 1837, a return which showed the incomes
of the sees to be v •
‘r.) much larger than they were taken
to be on the averages of
example. The Hon. 1831'
Look
at Canterbury for
et 17,300!. in 1831, but • Member said that it was returned
and it was upon this o i 1837 it was returned at 22,300/.,
ordered 7,300!. to be calculation
cdulation that the Commissioners
—(An lion. Member---Take
as
Surplus by the Archbishop.
take Durham. At —Take Durham.) Well, be would
Durham ?—(Mr. esii.what had the Lion. Member put down
orsnaae_l9eoeol.) Well, that was
correct—(Hear, heer)
the calculation
nd the Commissioners had upon
charged
ham, being the full 11,2001. upon the see of Dur-
annual income and am ount of the difference between the
ment. the amount fixed by Act of Perlin-
Mr. HORSMAN—Be
been nearly 12,000/. a t the income of Durham has
Sir G. GREY—Tha3t'ehar.
cries of " Hear, hear." e knew nothing about.—(Loud
the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.—(Renewed If
it was so, it was a fault of
cheering.) The see of Durham
ironical
became vacant; the
bishop was not permitted
the charge was imposed: to take possession of it until
Member himself said,this arrangement, as the Hon.
in order to meet this wase expressly made retrospective
seven years previous gen". Well, the average of the
year, and upon that ve
the seo of Durham 19,200!. a
sioners were made. Thethe
calculations of the Commis-
thine else. Their Commissioners could do no-
and they had no hands.
were tied by the Act of Parlia-
ment,Durham or any one else
to call upon the Bishop of
and ironical laughter.) eistlo violate that Act.—(Cheers,
Grey's) wish to lessen ow, it was not his (Sir G.
lion. Member had made the force of the appeal the
ritual destitution. The Bishop the Bishops concerning spi-
ritual
of Canterbury, and the of Durham, the Arch-
bishopall contributed very greatly the Bishop of London, had
respective dioceses, but the towards its removal in their
was not the fault
non-removal of that desti-
tutionthe Ecclesiastical comt of those prelates or of
therefore, be wrong
to on
and it would,
blame which attached to visit upon them the
had referred to the case :piers. The Hon. Member
turns in existence when the ESealisbury. Islow the re-
arranged their scheme, in 183e7lesiastical Commission
Salisbury an income not exceeding gave the Bishop of
had been arranged that when a bishop'
55,500/. a year. It
less than 4,500/., and not more tha income was not
should take place, and therefore thelles.";o no charge
on coming into his see was exempted fromhop of Salisbury
payment. But the Bishop had not
be making any
been altogether ex-
empted from the operation of the Act
been called upon to make a return of Acts for he had since
• income of his
see, and the Commissionjupon the rot had directed
that after the next avoidance a sum eflull,
paid to their fund out of the revenues of the see.
The rights of the present Bishop were
Act of Parliament—(lronical cries of .PiTtected by the
and therefore the alteration Gould not taki:ar,
placehear ")
in his
lifetime. This, however, was not the fault of the Eccle-
siastical Commissioners, but of the Aet
The House must recollect that the Ecei of Parliament.
Com-
mission was only formed in 1836, and tlsiastical
at Parliament
in placing powers in their hands, had coupled it with
great restrictions. Changes in their
Pr
were, in certain particulars, no doubt, desirable.
sent system
But the Commissioners had the law to administer, and
if the law was imperfect, the law should
be altered,
but the Commissioners should not be blamed. W
respect to the Honourable Gentleman', two with
ns
first reso-
lutio, he should meet them with the prey
if he pressed the third, he must meet it previous question;
with a direct
negative.
Mr. HUME said that the Hon.
, Member
for Cocker-
mouth wanted to show what was tne intention of Par-
liament with regard to episcopal allowances, and the
of
Home Secretary said that it was the faultthe Act of
Parliament that those intentions had not
out. Well, then, if they had not been Ca been carried
so carried out the
Home Secretary was to blame for not
(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Hume) well recelolnlecgted that
to
'L.--
Parliament had arranged that 139,000/. a
year should be
apportioned for episcopal incomes, and
all
beyond
received as bishops' revenues was to be applied to the
that
augmentation of small livings. The question was, if
that had been done or not? By a table •
in the lion.
Member for Ceckermouth'e possession he (ur, Hume)
saw that instead of 139,000/. being the amount—
by the bishops in 1843, their actual gross income
197,0001., and their net income above 150,0001. That
was not compliance with the intention of Parliament,
and the remedy for such misapplication was undoubtedly
a new Bill, He hoped the Government would promise
to introduce such a measure, and thereby prevent the
agitation of a question upon which, if they persisted in
defending the Commission, they were certain to be
speedily beaten. His own opinion was that they ought