The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-17 00:00:00

SUN, LONDON,

THE INCOMES OF THE BISHOPS
(From the Times,)
As a suitable preface to the questions which he has
propounded to the Prime Minister, Sir Benjamin Hall
has obtained a return giving a history of the doings of
the Ecclesiastical Commission for the two septennial
periods into which its existence is divided. We
are now able in some measure to estimate the
degree of their success in the object which
they had in view—the equalizing the incomes
of the different sees by applying the revenues
of the larger to meet the deficiency of the
smaller. They did not, indeed, aim at an exact equality,
since they allowed the Archbishop of Canterbury 15,000/.
a year, the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Lon-
don 10,000/, a year, and the remeioing bishops sums
varying between 4,2001. and 5,000/. Of course the
Commission had no authority to interfere with vested
rights, and it would be, therefore, unfair to cite against
them the fact, that the income of the Bishop of
London for the last three years has been in round num-
bers 24,0001., 19,0001, and 20,0001. respectively, while
the less fortunate Bishop ot Exeter has received during
the same period 3,0001., 1,500/., and 2,00 W. Bat we may
fairly take the case of the Bishop of Durham, who re-
ceived his bishopric in the days ot reform, and who, after
paying to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners 11,2001. ayear,
has received in 1848 23,0001., in 1849 9,0001., and in
1850, 27.0001. In these cases we have the two poles,
the zenith and nadir, of the episcopal system, and
are fairly authorised in concluding that, notwith-
standing the Ecclesiastical Commission is now
entering on the third lustre of its labours, something
is yet wanting towards that equitable equality
which it was its object to establish. Chester
receives 5501., Chichester 650/., St. David's 1,600/.,
Hereford 1,0001, Lichfield 8501, Liandaff 3,1501, Nian-
chester 4,20 W., Oxford 3,500/., Peterborough 1,1501., and
Roeheser 3,750/., in supplement of their incomes, while
Exeter and one or two other bishoprics nearly as poor
are left unendowed. Several bishoprics—as for instance
Salisbury, Worcester, Nor wich, and Ely, are allowed very
considerably to exceed the reductions fixed upon by the
Commissioners without any attempt to equalize them.
We are not now considering whether the principle upon
which the Ecclesiastical Commission proposed to re-
gulate the incomes of the bishops was a good
one, but are only pointing out how utterly it has
failed in the working. The Bishop of Durham,
who ought last year to have received 8,0001, re-
ceived 27,000/.; the Bishop of Exeter, who ought
to have received, we presume, at least 4,200/., received
under 2,0001., or less than ones-thirteenth part of the in-
coma of his more fortunate brother. The plan upon
which the Commission has proceeded appears to us pecu-
liarly unfortunate, and must have the effect of exhibit-
ing many members the right reverend bench in a
light most eminently undeArable. A prospective charge
upon the revenues of any see seems generally to have
been nett in a spirit of vicarious liberality, but the most
determined resistance is offered to any attempt to reduce
the income of the see in the hands of the present incum-
bent to the amount on the faith of receiving which he
accepted it. We select, as an instance of the manner
in which a bishop can condescend to higgle for a
perpetuation of an income far larger than that which
ha had any legal or morel right to, the case of the
Bishop of Worcester. The income of the Bishop of Wor-
cester was fixed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners at
5,000/. a-year. Now, the average of this see for the six
years ending in 1835 was 7,643/. thus leaving a surplus of
2,643/. The Ecclesiastical Commisstonere, by an order in
1837, fixed the payment on this see for the enlargement
ot smaller bishoprics at the very moderate suns of 2,300/.
a-year. For the seven years eridng in 1843 the
average of the income of the bishopric was pretty
nearly the same as for the preceding six. Under
these rather unpromising circumstances the Bishop
of Worcester memoralized the Commissioners for a re-
duction of the charge upon his bishopric from 2,300/. to
1,5001; he confidently states his opinion that the bishopric
will not continue to yield the sure at which it is estis
mated, expresses his utter inability to pay it, and in-
forms the Commissioners that such a payment, if
claimed, could Only be recovered by legal process,—that
is, as his Lordship explains, to obviate all mistake as
to his meaning, judgment and execution. In support of
his prayer is adduced the opinion or his brother, Lord
Co tteunum, to the eff, ct that the order imposing the rent-
charge upon the see of Worcester is invalid in law.
The Commissioners appointed a ceismittee, on which
sat the Bishops of London, Durham, and Hereford,
and they, by no means appalled by the opinion of
the ex-Chancellor in favour of his brother, reported
against the Bishop's claim. On this the Bishop of Wor-
cester gave notice of a motion to be ceade by him in the
Ecclesiastical Commission, to the eff ct that the rent-
charge en his see was calculated on erroneous data, and
ought to be reduced to 1,600/. per annum, a proposition
on which it never seems to have occurred to him
that he as a party interested was incompetent to decide.
Luckily the Bishop abstained from this discreditable pro-
cedure, and the result seas that the charge was confirmed,
minus 100/. taken off on the ground of a clerical error.
Of course, our readers will suppose that the average of the
next seven years fully bore out the apprehensions of the
Bishop, and justified him, in spite of the contradiction
afforded by the income of thirteen successive years, is not
only calling its his brother to be judge in his cause, but in
the attempt to adjudicate upon it himself. It is consoling to
those whose apprehensions may have been excited by
these gloomy prophecies to know that for the
seven years conciudieg 1850 the income of the Bishop of
Worcester has exceeded 0,0001, so that, after paying the
much-disputed rentcharge of '2,3001., he receives, over
and above the 5,0001. designed for him, 1,7001., or nearly
as roach as the income of his brother of Exeter. We
have now an average of 20 years of the see of Wor-
cester, which raises the income considerably above
8,000/. The Bishop has no claim to one shilling above
5,000/., and yet he considers himself deeply injured be-
cause he has been obliged to contribute a sum towards
the augmentation of poorer bishoprics which cnly allows
him 700/. a year more than he ought to receive. But
not only heve the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Com-
mission been unfortunate iu developing an avidity after
the perishable things of this world exactly proportionate
to the superabundance in which they are distributed
among the teachers of our faith; it has also, singularly
enough, called several bishops as witnesses against them-
selves. The Bishop of Durham considers 8 0001. per
annum a sufficient remuneration for the future incum-
bent of his princely see, yet he received in 1847, 19,0001,
and. in 1850, 18,0004 more than that sum. The Bish,p
of Winchester is content that the Bishops of Winchester,
his successors, shall receive 7,0001., for which sum he is
of opinion that a prelate can be obtained worthy to dis-
charge the duties of his see; yet for the last seven years
he has been in the receipt of an income exceeding this
sum :by an amount in no case less than 2,000/., and
reaching, lest year, 28,000/., or four times the very
ample salary which he destines for his successor. The
Bishop of London pockets 20,000/. a year, which, by his
own admission, is 10,000/, more than is required. Is,
then, the end and aim of life the accumulation of money?
Is there such an utter dearth of objects on which to ex-
ereiee her activity that our Church is obliged to squander
her resources iin adding surplus to superfluity, and giv-
ing more to those who, by their own confession, have
already so vastly too much? Something we hear of the
necessity of church extension, something of the neces-
sity of relieving the craving wants of the working clergy
in remote districts, something of the increasing demand
for religious education. The laity are continually called
upon to contribute to these objects, but where are the
hundreds of thousands which the Church could contri-
bute after making provision for the deceet and even
affluent maintenance of her rulers? They aro to be
traced into the hands of those who are fortunate enough
to inherit the gains of men succeeding to the episcopal
office, often with but slender means, and leaving to their
descendants a splendid inheritance accumulated from the
funds of the Church.
" Nun hos quassitum minas in usus."