forward. The Bishop of London has been charged with having a contingent income of 100,000. a-year : he replies, “ that his income, allowing for casualties, does not amount to one-seventh of that sum;" i. e. as every school-boy can tell, does not amount to 14,2861. Now, when the Bishop asserts that his income does NOT amount to 14,2867., with what fairness is it assumed, "from the admission of the Bishop of London, that the present income of his see is 14,4447. ?" This is one of the assertions, and one of the 'calculations which is, I hope, peculiar to the Black-Book, whose editor, with his characteristic complacency, with his consistent freedom from any sense or consciousness of error, adverting to the Liber Regis, in which "the see of Canterbury is valued at 2,682l. 12s. 2d., the see of London at 1000l.," proceeds to argue that "the present incomes of these sees are 32,000l. and 14,4447., so that the one has increased in value twelve, and the other more than fourteen-fold;" and concludes, that "the other bishoprics have no doubt increased in a similar proportion. Hence, as the incomes of the twenty-six sees in Liber Regis amount to 22,8551. a-year, their present value cannot be less than thirteen times that sum, or 297,115l." The argument is this: certain landed estates, from particular local advantages, have undergone certain improvements; therefore all incomes, derived from whatever source, have undergone the same improvements. The estates of the Duke of Bedford, Earl Grosvenor, and Mr. Berkeley Portman, have of late years been covered with expensive and valuable buildings; therefore their estates in Dorsetshire, Cheshire, and Bedfordshire, have been, or at a certain period will be, equally improved. But let the rule be applied to some other of the bishoprics. Durham, which, with a fourth part of 150,000l., would be entitled to 35,000l., or with the balance left by the other three sees, to 56,3247., is estimated in the King's Book at 1,8217. 1s. 2d., which, being multiplied by thirteen, yields but 22,6731. 15s. 2d.; and it has been said, that one moiety of the Bishop's income, whatever it may be, is paid to officers of the palatinate. Salisbury, by the same calculation, is raised from 1385l. 5s. to 18,0081. 5s., which is 4000l. more than the estimate in the radical placards, and probably 10,000l. more than its value. Worcester is also raised from 9297. 13s. 3d. to 12,085l. 12s. 3d. ;—but let the rule be applied to some of the poorer sees. Bristol would thus have been raised from 3271. 5s. 7d. to 4,254l. 12s. 7d.; although within a few years before it received a particular augmentation, its revenues hardly exceeded 600l., and a certain loss was sustained by the Bishop who accepted it. St. David's would also have been raised from 4261. 2s. 1d. to 5,5391. 7s. 1d., though within the last thirty years, when the late Bishop took the see, and gave one tenth part of the revenues of the diocese to the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge and Church Union in his diocese, the donation was 120l., and the estimated income was but 1,2007. The error of the editor of the Black-Book consists in supposing, that all the income of the Bishops arises from estates which have been constantly in their possession, and in an uninterrupted course of improvement since the time of the Reformation; and though he affects to undervalue the authority, he might have derived information from the following remarks of Dr. Cove: Upon comparing the present incomes of the sees with the valuations of them in the King's Book (including the valuations of the several dignities and livings annexed to them since the time of Henry VIII.), it will be found that during the intervening years, the episcopal revenues have increased in the proportion of nearly five and a-half to one, the valuations of the sees in the King's Book, and of the dignities and livings since annexed to them being about 24,000l. per annum; which comparatively small increased value of the episcopal revenues will require a short explanation, as an idea generally prevails, that all the ecclesiastical revenues of the kingdom have increased during the above period in the proportion of at least ten to one. It is certainly true, in respect of the average revenues of the parochial Clergy; but in respect of the revenues of the Bishops, Deans, and Chapters, and other dignitaries in the Church, it is, as certainly, incorrect. This material difference between the progressive increase of the revenues of the episcopal and dignified Clergy, and those of the parochial clergy, may be attributed to the considerable fraudulent and forcible alienations of the episcopal, and cathedral, and collegiate lands, previous to the statute of 1 James I., to the gradual loss of them continually accruing from the want of proper surveys and terriers, ascertaining the quantity of land in the occupation of the lessees of the Bishops and dignitaries, and to the notorious spoil and plunder of the Church lands during the confusion and anarchy preceding the Commonwealth, and afterwards by its connivance. Add, also, to these causes, that the revenues of the Bishops in particular arise from a variety of ancient fixed payments (as amongst others the tenths of their Clergy, in many instances forced upon them in sad exchange for their best and most desirable estates) from which they cannot deviate, and which, from the decrease in the value of money, have lessened and dwindled away, comparatively to nothing.-Essay on the Revenues of the Church, p. 107. Nothing more is required to expose the criterion that would make the present value of the bishoprics thirteen times more than the valuation in the King's Book, or the average income of each Bishop 10,1747., and the aggregate income of the Bishops 244,1857.; but the continued extravagance of the ignorance or perverseness of the editor of the Black-Book is such as exceeds belief. In reference to the statement of the Bishop of London, that his income did not amount to one-seventh of 100,000l., he says, "his Lordship of course meant his fixed income, and did not include fines for the renewal of leases, nor the value of his parks, palace, and mansions." And again, in stating that the incomes of the Bishops cannot be less than 297,115l., he adds, "this does not include the dignities and rectories annexed to the sees, or held in commendam, nor the parks and palaces, the mansions, villas, warrens, fines for renewals, heriots, and other manorial rights enjoyed by the Bishops, and which would make their incomes equal to at least half a million per annum.' Now, half a million is just two-thirds more than 297,115., which is stated to be the amount of the revenues of the Bishops. Is it meant that this addition is to be made to what is called the fixed incomes of the Bishops? that 100,000l. is to be added, by an equal or an unequal division, to "the revenues of the four sees of Winchester, Durham, Canterbury, and London?" that 20,000l. is to be annexed to the sums received at Lambeth, and 10,000l. to those received at Fulham? If this is not the writer's meaning, if he is not merely throwing dust to blind the eyes of the people, let him define what he means by the fixed incomes of the Bishops, separate from fines on the renewal of leases. Has he yet to learn that the principal portion of the Bishops' revenues arises from fines on the renewals of leases, whether of lands, houses, or impropriate rectories? I am not now vindicating the practice, but stating the fact which renders the incomes of the Bishops and other dignitaries very precarious and uncertain. There is more than one bishopric that has for a time been impoverished by a casual concurrence in the expiration of the leases; and I know a Bishop, whose reported annual income is 14,000l., who in one year received no more than 1500l.; and it was by the liberality of the same Bishop, that in another diocese he abandoned the fines, which he was justly entitled to receive, and obtained an act of parliament, appropriating the improved rent to the use of the diocese for ever. Such are the fixed incomes of the Bishops; such the addition to those fixed incomes by fines on the renewal of leases. Of the value of their " parks, palaces, mansions, villas," some estimate may be formed from the circumstance of the Primate's applying for a private act of parliament to obtain a loan of 37,000l. to assist in altering and improving Lambeth Palace, and thus subjecting himself and his successors to a rental equal to the payment of the principal, by instalment, at the rate of five per cent., with interest on the balance, in addition to the most liberal expenditure in the renovation of Fulham Palace and London House. The " heriots, and other manorial rights," as in all other cases, are chiefly profitable to the stewards. Invidious reference is also made to "the dignities and rectories annexed to the sees, or held in commendam;" and the metropolitan journals, those best possible instructors in prejudice and misrepresentation, have been lately employed in reporting the vast accumulations of preferment, including six or seven deaneries held by Bishops. The main use of this report is to prove the inadequacy of the Bishops' proper revenues. In the reign of Queen Anne, certain preferments were permanently annexed to the sees of Bangor and St. Asaph; and it is not uncommon to charge the Bishops of those dioceses as pluralists, for holding those preferments which the law has assigned to them, and without which they would be unable to maintain their rank and discharge their duties in society. Other sees are still left destitute of adequate means; and therefore it is, that the Bishops of Bristol, Carlisle, Chester, Chichester, Exeter, Gloucester, Hereford, Lichfield and Coventry, Llandaff, Oxford, Peterborough, Rochester, and St. David's, all hold, and are under the necessity of holding, preferments in commendam. Many of these preferments are dignities to be deducted from the revenues of the dignified Clergy, not added to those of the Bishops; or they are parochial preferments, which would be otherwise held by the parochial Clergy. They cannot, unless being twice charged, be charged to the Bishops AND to the dignified and parochial Clergy. Although no progress has been made in ascertaining the amount of the episcopal revenues, nor a shadow of proof been offered in substantiating the charge that the average annual income of each Bishop is 10,1747., that sum is nevertheless assumed to the last, and made the ground of further objection, as "far exceeding that of the highest offices in the civil department of the government." It has not yet been proved that the incomes of the Bishops form any part of the VOL. XIII. NO. XI. 4 T public property of the country; and I shall hereafter endeavour to shew the danger of representing, in an abstract proposition, that any income is too large. The incomes of the Bishops form no part of the ways and means under the control of parliament, but the salaries of the great officers of state are voted out of the public taxes; and for that purpose the commons will vote what sums may please them: although, under the constitution of this country, in which talent and merit may rise from the humblest origin to the highest eminence, I should say that the emoluments of every office should be fully ade quate to the expenses of the office and the remuneration of the officer, and that it is no wise policy which would make the office an incumbrance to him that holds it, and restrict the execution of its duties to men that can afford to undertake them. It is said, that "the Bishops have their private fortunes as well as others; " but I reply that, in respect of their offices, neither the Bishops nor others should be dependent upon their fortunes, nor called to supply the want of public means from private sources: and I am not aware that I do the Bishops any injury if I say that they are generally deficient in private fortunes, that they are usually taken out of the middle class of society; and in defence of this assertion, I appeal to the Primate, and to the Bishops of London, Durham, Winchester, Bangor, Bristol, Chester, Chichester, Ely, Exeter, Gloucester, Hereford, Lincoln, Llandaff, Peterborough, Salisbury, St. Asaph, and Worcester, who all, I believe, to their own honour and that of their several patrons, have been raised on the ground of their personal merit, and not of any hereditary connexion. I would confirm the appeal by referring to the case of the late and present Bishops of London, and their immediate predecessors, Randolph, Porteus, and Lowth, and say that they had no private fortunes to assist in maintaining the dignities of the metropolitan see. Be the incomes of the Bishops, however, what they may, they are liable to very considerable expenses in taking possession of their sees; in keeping up the houses attached to those sees, and the establishments which those houses require; in attending their duties in parliament; in following the course of their visitations; in maintaining at all times a suitable hospitality; and in performing the most liberal acts of public and private charity. These are the uses to which their incomes are appropriated: if they are otherwise applied, they live before the public, and the public will not fail to condemn them; and whatever be the amount, the use, or the abuse of their wealth, I have pleasure in recording my belief, that it is but seldom accumulated in private coffers; that it is but seldom that a Bishop dies rich, and yet more seldom that he raises his family to the wealth, the rank, and the distinction which follow the successful pursuit of any other profession. How many noble families have arisen out of the army and the courts of law! how very few are of ecclesiastical origin! The revenues of the Deans and Chapters may be approximated to on the same principle (of an increase of 13 to 1). Their incomes, like those of the Bishops, arise principally from lands and manors, and certain payments in money. In the King's Book, the Deans and Chapters are valued at 38,000%. a-year; and consequently they do not amount, at present, to less than 494,000%. per annum, instead of 275,000l. But the returns in the Valor Ecclesiasticus are far from complete; several deaneries, prebends, and other offices are omitted. It follows, our estimate is far below the annual worth of the ecclesiastical corporations.-Black-Book, p. 44. The value of the deaneries, prebends, and other dignitaries, are calculated from the returns in Liber Regis, allowance being made for the increase in the value of ecclesiastical property in the proportion of thirteen to one. The result is, we are aware, an average value greatly below the truth. Some single prebends, as the golden ones of St. Paul's, Winchester, Ely, Lincoln, and Durham, are worth from 2,000l. to 5,000l. a-year. But, in the absence of more authentic information, we have been reduced to the alternative of either proceeding on the general principle mentioned, or of relying on private reports,—and we preferred the former.-P. 54. The deaneries, prebends, canonries, and other cathedral dignities, are, in fact, honorary offices of great value; they are endowed with vast estates, numerous manors, and other good things; and have valuable livings in their gift: all which advantages are so much public income idly squandered.-P. 56. All that has been said of the incomes of the Bishops, and of the mode of letting their lands may be applied to the incomes of the Deans and Chapters; and if the revenues of the one have increased as thirteen to one, so, and no otherwise, have those of the other. I cannot refer to better authority than that of Dr. Cove: The Deans and Chapters, with the several cathedral and collegiate members, have not been more fortunate in preserving undiminished the possessions with which they were endowed at the Reformation, nor much more successful in improving the revenues of those which they still enjoy. They, like the Bishops, are only tenants for life; have experienced similar losses from similar causes; and are under nearly the same restraints: so that though the valuations of the endowments, originally granted to them, may amount, in the King's Book, to 38,500l. per annum; yet their gross annual revenues do not at present exceed, collectively, 275,000l., and that, when compared with their valuation in the King's Book, they have increased, since the reign of Henry VIII., in the proportion of seven to one only. There are, it must be acknowledged, some noble and wealthy foundations, as Durham, Westminster, Windsor, &c.; but there is also a much greater proportion of others, originally poorly endowed, or subsequently impoverished, as St. Asaph, Bangor, Carlisle, (Qy?) Chester, St. David's, Llandaff, Norwich, Peterborough, &c. &c. Besides great allowance is to be made on account of those dignities which are not endowed with any lands, or corpses as they are called, and whose valuations are, notwithstanding, included in the before-stated 38,500l. in particular, the archdeaconries; one-half of which appear to have no endowments annexed to them, and whose incomes must therefore solely proceed from the procurations of the Clergy and from the fees of office, throughout : |