The Sun.
London, England, 1869-06-15 00:00:00

BISHOPS.

"Rusticus," in a letter to the Times, which is
honoured with large type and a leading article, says
there are but two ways of increasing the Episcopate—
the first, by reclistributingthe revenues of the present
bishops ; the second, by the appointment of suffragan
bishops without title, special social position. or right
of succession. At the present time £152,000 is
divided among twenty-seven prelates. Of this sum
-£50.000 is spent upon the five chief sees. There
seems no reason why the Archbishop of Canterbury
should have half f:s much again as the Lord
Chancellor, or the Bishop of London nearly twice
as much as the Lord Chief Justice. Nor is there
any apparent reason why a Bishop of Ely should
have £5,500, or a Bishop of Salisbury £5,000, while
the Bishop of the important see of Manchester gets
£4,200. A slight rearrangement of episcopal
incomes would provide for the erection of three new
sees, 'without drawing an additional farthing from the
revenues of the Church. But three new bishops would,
"Rusticus" thinks, be quite insufficient to meet the
great deficiency which now exists in the English Church
—the lack of frequent confirmations. To supply this
he would have one suffragan for every 500,000 souls.
Such a suffragan would retain his benefice, and give
such time to diocesan work as might be arranged
between the bishop and himself. Under an aged or
infirm bishop the suffragan's work would increase;
under a young and active bishop, it would be slight.
This plan would cost absolutely nothing. "Rusticus"
then goes on to deprecate the suppression or
the " parochialising" of canonries. lie would
rather adopt the same principle as that first
recommended with regard to the bishoprics. He
would redistribute the revenues among a larger
number of persons. Supposing a cathedral to have
an aggregate income for its resident canons of £2,400
a year, he would divide this among twelve persons,
each of whom would have a statutable month of
residence. By this means the cathedral establish-
ment would be brought into intimate connection
with the popular working clergy of the
Church. The cathedral town would profit by
the periodical presence and preaching of some of
the chief parochial ministers of the diocese. The
canons themselves would, in many cases, regard their
month of residence as the most marked and inter-
esting portion of their year, varying their home life,
enlarging the sphere of their influence, yet malting
no serious breach in the continuity of their parish
duties. The united body would form a diocesan
council of no slight weight and value, exercising
the cathedral patronage with a wider knowledge
and a more disinterested judgment, bringing
a powerful influence to bear upon works of local or
national usefulness, and, on the whole, carrying a
perceptible increase of energy into the operations of
the Church at large. Finally, the increased number
of canonries would provide rewards for the encourage-
ment of the clergy, and open new prospects to many
deserving and capable men now condemned to a
colourless life of uneventful routine.
The Times criticises these proposals unfavourably,
and in a thoroughly Philistine spirit. They would
involve a serious change, something quite new ; it
is impossible to foretell what the result would be ;
the thing has never been tried, there might
be serious consequences, &c. The chief argu-
ments are that the bishops, having a large income,
are expected to subscribe liberally, and that the
suffragan bishops, doing all the work, would pos-
sibly supplant the titled bishops in the estimation
of the people. The first objection is met by the
very adequate answer that if.the bishops ceased to
have a very large income (the question, however, is
simply one of a few hundreds more or less) they
would not be expected to contribute so liberally. The
second objection is answered by the question, What
harm would happen if the threatened result fol-
lowed ? The Times, first of all, fears that the suf-
fragans would supplant the regulars, and then goes
on to contradict its own supposition by saying
" Already the pure episcopal rank has suffered some
disparagement from the offensive comparisons
familiarly and now publicly made between Bishops'
and ' Colonials.' When this is the case we may guess
what would soon be thought of bishops paid just
their travelling expenses to go about confirming or
taking other hard or irksome work." In other words,
it is the inferior bishops who are looked down upon
when compared with their superiors, not the
superiors whose dignity is taken from them by the
inferiors. Altogether, the whole article is a typical
instance of that loose, inconsequential style of writing
which
Church
the leadingatn
termatters.
journal always adopts when it dis-
cusses