The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-16 00:00:00

THE INCOMES OF THE BISHOPS
(Freers the Times.)
As a suitable prerace to tte quese ens which he has
propounded to the Prime Minister, Sir Btejamin Ball
has obtsieed 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 iu some measure to estimate the
degree of their success in the object which
they bad 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''
dots 10,0001. a year, and the remaining bishops sums
varying between 4,200/. 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
Leneon for the last. three years has been in round num-
bers 24,0001., 19,000 L, and 20,0001. respectively, while
the less fortunate. Bishop of Exeter has received during
the same period 3,000/., 1,5001., sad 2,0001. But we may
fairly take the case of the Bishop of Durham. who re-
csived his bishopric in the day aof reform, an who, after
paying to the Ecclesiastical Commissicners 11.200/,
has received in 1848 23,0001., in 1849 9,0004, 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 550/., Chichester 650/., St. David's 1,6004
reford 1,000/., Lichfield 850/., Llandaff 3,150/., Mau-
ceester 4,200/., Oxfor ; 3.500/, Peterborough 1,1501, end
Rochester 3 7501., in supplement of their incomes, while
Exeter and our or two other bishoprics nearly as poor
are left unenclowsd. Several bishoprics—as for instance
ali,,bury, Worcester,Norwich,fsed Ely, are allowed very
consitet.ably to exceed the reductions fixed upon by the
Cematissioners without any attempt to qualizs theta.
We are not now considering whether the principle upon
which the Ecclesiastical Commission proposed to re-
gulate the incomes of the bisbops was a good
one,' but are only pointing out how utterly it bas
failed in the working. The Bishop of Durhala►
who ought last year to have received 8,0004 re'
ceived 27,0001.; the Bishop of Exeter, who ought
to have received, we presume, at least 4,2001., receive=d
under 2 eOOL, or less than one-thirteenth cart of the in'
come of his mere fortunate brother. The plan upon
which the Commission has proceeded appears to u. peen.
liarly uulertunate, and must have the Oh ct of exhibit-
ing many members of the right reverend bench in a
light most eminently undesirable. A prospective charge
upon the revenues of any see seems generally to have
been m t 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 prevent locust'
bent to the amount ou the faith of receiving which be
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
he had any legal or moral right to, the case of the
Bishop of Woe tester, Ihe income of the Bishop of Wor-
cester was fixed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners at
5,000/. a-year. Now, the ave. age of this see for the si%
veers ending in 1835 was 7.643/. thus leaving a surplus of
2.643/. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners, by an order is
1837, fixed the payment on this see for the enlargement
of smaller bishoprics at the very moderate sure of 2,3001.
a-year. For the seven years ending 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-
ductien of the charge upon his bishopric from 2,3001. to
1,5004; he confidently states his opinion that the bishopric
will not continue to yield the sum at which it is esti-
mated, expresses his utter inability to pay it, and
forms the Commissioners that such a payment, 11
claimed, could only be recovered by legal process.—tbat
is, as his Lerdship explains, to obviate all mistake et
to his meaning, judgment and execution. In support 0!
his prayer is adduced the opinion of his brother, Lora
Cottenhem, to the eff ct that the order imposing the rent'
charge upon the see of Worcester is invalid in law.
The Commissioners appointed a committee, on which
tat the Bishops of Loudon, Durham, and Hereford.
and they, by no means appalled by the opinion of
the ex-Chancellor in favour of his brother, reporter,
against the Bishop's claim. On this the Bishop of Wor
rester gave notice of a motion to be made by him in the
Ecclesiastical Commission, to the eff. ct that the rent'
charge on 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 was that the charge was confirmed.
minus 100/. taken off on the ground of a clerical error.
Of course, our readers wiil suppose that the average of the •
next seven y ears fully bore out the ap;,rehensions of the
Bishop, and justified him, in spite of the contradiction
afforded by the income of thirteen successive years, in net
only calling in his brother to be judge in his cause, but is
the attempt to adjudicate upon it himself. It is consulivg te
those whose apprehensions may have been excited bi
these gloomy prophecies to know that for the
seven years concluding 1850 the income of the Bishop Of
Worcrster has exceeded 9,0001, so that, after paying the
much-disputed rentcharge of 2.3001.. he receives, over
and above the 5,000/. designed for him, 1,700/., or near!,
as much as the income of his brother of Exeter. We
have now an average of 20 years of the see of 'Nor..
tester, which raises the income considerably above
8.000/. The Bebop has no claim to one shilling above
5,C00/., and yet he considers himself deeply injured be'
cause he has been obliged to contribute a sum toward.
the sus meutetion of peever bishopric's which only allows
him 700/. a yeer more than he ought to receive. But
not only have are proceedings of the Ecclesiastical CeOr
mission been unfortunate in developing an avidity after
the perishable things of this world exactly proportionale
to the superabundance in which they are distrtheteh
among the teachers cf our faith; it has also, singularly
enough, called several bishops as witnesses against theny
selves. The Bishop of Durham considers 8 000/. pile
annum a sufficient remuneration for the future incurs'
bent of his princely see, yet he received in 1847, 19,0004
and, in 1850, 18 tiOOL more than that sum. The Birth?
of Winchester is content that the Bishops of Winchesters
his successors, shall receive 7,000/, for which sum he tae
of opinion that a prelate can be obtained worthy to dis-
charge the duties of his Fee; yet for the last seven years
he hes been in the receipt of an income exceeding this
i
sum by an amount in no case less than 2,0004 6061
reaching, last year, 28,000/.. or four times the very
ample salary which he destines for his successor. The
Bishop of London pickets 20,0001. a year, which, by his
own admission, is 10,000/. more than is required.
then, the end and aim of life the accumulation of money?
Is there such an utter dearth of objects on which to ee."
ercise her activity that our Church is obliged to squander
her resources tin adding surplus to superfluity, and giv'
ing more to those who, by their own confession, have
already so vastly too much? Bian.thing we hear of OA
necessity of church extension, something of the Decor
city of relieving the craving wants of the working clergii
in remote districts, something of the increasing demise':
for religious education. The laity are continually caller'
upon to contribute to these objects. but where are the
hundreds of thousands which the Church could contri'
buts after making provision for the decent and even
affluent maintenance of her rulers? They are to be
traced into the bands of those who are fortunate enotig/1
..1
to inherit the gains of men succeeding to the episcePr
office, often with but slender means, and leaving to tbe".
descendants a splendid inheritance accumulated irons tb°
funds of the Church.
"Non ho. craa4itum minus in usus."
-Al

ALARMING ACCIDENT TO A RAILWAY _RAIN.--A0
accident of a very alarming kind, and which at one time
threatened to be attended by most serious consequences, oc•
curred on Monday to the mail train of the Bristol and Exete
Railway while on its way from the latter to theformer city
The train took its departure from the terminal station A
Exeter at ahout the usual time, and proceeded without any
particular occurrence, beyond a little loss of time, until it hat`
arrived at a distance of between one and two miles from the
terminus at Temple Meads, Bristol, when the utmost con'
sternation and alarm was excited among the passengers, Its
consequence of its being known that one of the carriages
was on fire. Efforts were made to signal the engine-driver
for a time ineffectually, as the train was carried full a mile
before it was pulled up. F m
ortunately, it was nearing the
city, and had to pass through a densely populated district'
and the inhabitants of the houses skirting the line gave the
et
welded,
e ironel
brokedd, is i
nne rd s t owtfhoe.a
Increased
e
do
fromne net .
if
stl
the
eaaviii
npega
br se
e that
second-classjamt
alarm as it passed them,
pcev‘cnra.thereirccio:thifygdrew attention to the acci-,
friction consequent on the irregular motion ignited the
The Pass rapers were at first alarmed by, the
smoke and sparks
hich flew off from the burning materiels;
bwuotmaitwok lrngthr. a
piece of the iron work was struck agains‘
he bottom of the carriage with such force as to break 111 s
portion of the fluor. The flames now forced their way into
the carriage, greatly alarming and perilling the passengers;
but it is gratifying to be able to state that the train Iva
stopped in sufficient time to prevent any very serious Corr
sequences.
DEATH OF LIEUTENANT-COLONEL MULLEN,
—Lieutenant-Colonel Mullen, who formerly served in the
Ist Royal Regiment, from which he retired in 1843, died on
the ith instant. He bat served in the West Indies and the
Pe inaula, and received the war medal with two clasps for
Guadeloupe (the attack and capture in 1810, and for the
battle of Vittoria in 18,3. In 835 he Wag nominated e
Knight of the Hanoveriati order.