EPISCOPAL INCOMES.

New Zealander, Volume 8, Issue 638, 26 May 1852, Page 4

EPISCOPAL INCOMES.

[From the " Tnnei."] The scandal which enlivened the latter days of the last session of Parliament with reference to the inequalities and anomalies of episcopal incomes has just resulted in the promulgation of an order in Council, by which a tardy, hut ultimately effectual remedy, will he administered to the dbo rders so justly complained of. All Bi&hops ap-

pointed subsequently to the Ist of January, 1848, are required to deliver twice a-year a correct account in writing, certified under their hand, of all moneys received by them in respect of the revenues of their sees during the last hall-year, and, if such sum shr.U exceed or fall short of the haL-y early income allotted to him by the Commissionci i, the Bishop is to pay over the surplus, or receive the deficiency, as the case may be. It is farther provided, that in every cose of a fine exceeding a hundred pounds, the Bishop shall not be permitted to renew without the consent of the Commissioners, and, if the fine exceed one-half the annual income, the leases are empowered to pay it over to the Commissioners. The Commissioners are further authorized to enter into an agreement for regulating the income of any Bishop appointed before the Ist of January, 1848. No one acquainted with the manner in which several of the Bishops appointed since the Ecclesiastical Commission was erected have dealt with their incomes will deny that such a prospective re-i illation was absolutely necessary. It is a melancnoly fact, that while the Bishops have uniformly resisted the payment of a fixed sum imposed upon them by the Commissioners whenever it cut down their income below the sum which they were intended to receive, they have ?s uniformly pocketed the surplus when their income happened to be in excess of what had been calculated upon. The Bishop of Durham, who, after receiving £8,000 for his see, and p.iying £13,000 over to the commission, had yet £17,009 to carry to his credit, which lie received neither as the legitimate income of his see, nor by any other better title than accident and miscalculation, to which ho had himself mainly contributed, is a sufficicut instance in point. It was necessary, no doubt, to make these regulations, but it is melancholy to think that such a necessity should have existed. The plan of taxing episcopal incomes by the deduction of a fixed payment was undoubtedly objectionable, but it might have been hoped, ti)l experience demonstrated" the contrary, that the imperfections of the plan would not be taken advantage of hy the dignified body for the regulation of whose incomes it was framed. It might have been expected that the Bishops would as a body, have adopted one of two intelligible courses, — that they would cither have treated the arrangement ns binding upon them for loss as well as for gain ; or, if they had assumed to break through it in cases were it reduced theiv incomes below what was intended, that they would have followed out the same equitable principle of restitution Avhen they received more than was designed for them. It might have been expected that if their Parliamentary income fixed a minimum below which they would not sink, it also created a maximum above which they would not rise. It now strnds solemnly recorded that these expectations are utterly futile, and that, after taking all which they are entitled to by law, they had no objection to grasp what is thrown in their way by accident. The decision of the Commissioners with regard to the Bishops appointed since January, 1848, affords an interesting comment on the past, and a light for the future conduct of the Bishops appointed before that period. It is equivalent to a declaration on the part of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners that the advantages obtained by those Bishops whose income has exceeded the intentions of the Commission, though secured to them by the letter of the law, are reprobated by the dictates oT morality and honour, and that what through an oversight they have been permitted to do shall not be allowed to those who are to succeed them. It is a solemn record of the distrust entertained by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of the capacity of the to abstain from laying their hands upontiiat which in Luth and justice is not theirs, and appointed warning for the future to bring no fresh scandal on the church, by persevering in a course of conduct which has attracted and merited such general reprobation. The unfortunate part of the matter is, that so large a proportion of the episcopal bench are excluded from the provisions of this new order, and, consequently, that so large a proportion of superfluous wealth will be diverted from the service of the church for so many yeai'3, to swell the incomes of individual dignitaries. We do not envy the feeling of the man who can contentedly pocket year after year thousands of pounds winch it was never intended he should possess, which he is abstracting fjom the most beneficial objects, and the retention of "which is visited by the disapprobation of the public, and the implied censure of the most respectable members of the church. "We have, however, little doubt that this system will continue till the course of mortality restores to the church the funds which she should long since have received. Wjien the last of those bishops who, by virtue of being appointed before the Ist of January, 1848, have acquired the right to intercept such large portions from the patrimony of the church, shall have ceased to adorn the bench, men will probably cease to justify these things by transparent sophistries and personal recriminations, and that which is now contended to be right and just will be cited as an instance of the low tone of morality prevalent in the times we live in. The clause which enables the Commissioners to require the lessee to pay over to them the amount of any fine amounting to more than half the annual income seems to imply a suspicion which, if well founded, appears extremely derogatory to the character of the Bishops, and fatal to the success of the whole scheme. The only reason we can see for requiring the fine to be paid directly to the Commissioners, instead of allowing the Bishop to receive it, and include it in his half-yearly account, is the apprehension that j either the Bishop would not include it in his account, or that, if he did, he would refuse to pay over the surplus. On no other supposition can we account for the insertion of this provision, and if this supposition be well founded the pre- ! sent system will share the fate of its predecessor. So long as there is anything to be received the accounts wiJl be carefully rendered, and the deficiency importunately demanded. If there be any , thing to be repaid, either the account will not be forthcoming, or the surplus will be retained. We do not say that we anticipate these results, but that they seem to be calculated on by the Commissioners. If the Bishop can be trusted to account for and pay over the surplus of his ordinary income, it would seem he might have been intrusted with the fine, and, if not with the fine, then equally not with the surplus of his ordinary income. We may notice that the order seems to make no provision for such cases as the renewal of the lease of the manor of Ilorfield to a trustee for the Bishop's own benefit, without the receipt of any fine at all, and that the church has quite as much to apprehend from the waste of her property by the remission of fines altogether as by excessive demands. ' There is one nint in the order in Council which the Bishops appointed before the Ist of January, 1848, will do wisely to consider. They are permitted to enter into agreements with the Commissioners for the regulation of their income. If they are anxious as far as possible to obliterate the memory of past scandals, they will one and all cheerfully surrender to the Commissioners any excess above the stipends allotted them. The Bishop of Salisbury is said to have proposed to do this. Will his querulous brother of Worcester be equally liberal? Will the Bishop of Durham content himself with the humble pittance of eioht thousand a-year \ Will the ill-used Bishop of Gloccster and "Bristol subside to five thousand and the manor of Ilorfield \ We shall be delighted to announce to the public that the spirit of moderation has at length, though somewhat tardily, descended on these right rev. personages, and that they have succeeded in contenting themselves with an income which one and all have agreed to be amply sufficient for their successor*, though utterly inadequate for themselves.

Tin* Blind School At. llolyrood.—*\Ve liavp lmd the pleasme of seeing the unique volumes presented by the Rev. iUr. Millar (of the Castle),with her Majesty's permission, to the two elder Royal children from the Directors of the Blind School, llolyrood. The volume for his Royal highness the Piinceof Wnles was entitled " Specimens ofGeometric.il figures, with Demonstrations for the use of the Blind" —t!n> figures being the more complex of the First Book of Euclid, distinctly outlined in tangible ink; and the demonstiationq in laised letters. The volume for her Royal Highness the Princess Roy.il was •' The Geography of Scotland," with historical notes and a beautiful tangible map; both volumes printed and outlined at the school by the superintendent and pupils. The kind considerfltion of her Miijosty the Queen in peimitting the acceptance of those volumes, must be very gratifying to the Directors and particularly to the Secretary, who has been most earnest in his endeavours to advance the education of the blind, by the introduction of every available improvement. The following letter intimated the permission: — Balmoral, October 2, 1851. Sir, —l have mucli pleasure in informing you that her Majesty the Queen has given permission for the acceptance by his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and hei Roynl Highness the Princess Koyol respectively, of the volumes referred to in your letter of the 27th September. —l have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient humble servant, Cji. Pinprs. To the Rev. James Millar, Edinburgh Castle.

Mr. Henry Drummond. —This gentleman, member for West Surrey, and the protestant champion par excellence, is the head of a body which scorns to call itself a sect, but answers to no less lofty a title than that of "the Catholic and Apostolic Church." Mr. Diunimond ia well known for his protestant zeal and enmity towards all superstitions, and mummeries, and papistical forms and ceremonies. The Morning Chonicle howe7er, has smelt a rat—that is, it discovers in a work published by Mr, Drummond grave cases at all evenls of inconsistency. The work is entitled " Principles of Ecclesiastical Buildings nnd Ornaments," and is published by Mr. Bosworth, of 215, ilrgentstieet. "This work bears its author's names and arms, illuminated in tbe mystical symbol which is called, we believe, a Vesica Piscis; and it is accredited by him thus, in black letter —t Hendricus-de-Drummond'de-Atbury. The scope of this book is to recommend, as necessary to the completeness of all worship —ns essential furniture of the house of God, without which a church is mutilated nnd unmeaning —confession and the confessional —the holy sacrament reserved on the altar, with a light constantly burning before it—lamps and candles (of course lighted) on, and on each side of, the altar—a stone altar —the constant use of incense — corona: lucis—albs, chasubles and copes, dalmatics, stoles, and tunicles —embroidery, symbolism, painting, gilding chanting, intoning—tabernacles, tryptychs, pictures, and crosses For these and all other particular, vide the work itself pmsim. Now we do say —and we do think that Lord Shaftesbury and Mr. Plumptre will agree with us —that no roan who seriously loves reverences, and recommends these things, has a moral right to come forward as a denouncer of popish or any other ' mummeries of superstition.' Is it fair, or even decent in Mr. Drummond to come forwaid, making 'common cause in a common piotestantism' with all sorts of what he believes to be heretics and schismatics —with the Christian Times and the Exeter Hall spouters—merely fora fling at tbe pope? Only let Mr. Drumraond's allies be sure of this, that the following are hia words and his real sentiments :•—' Amongst protestants, clergy and people.. ..the tendency of all the religious writers and the whole body of evangelical teachers, has been to destroy Ggd's order and authority, and to deny to His ordained priests and consecrated kings any authority or present presence of Himself in them for the guidance of mankind.' And then be goes to speak of ' priests as vicegerents of Christ, of the apostolical authority of the clergy, and the sacrament of orders. I —(Letter to the Bishop of Winchester, pp. 38, 44. 1846.) For ourselves, we feel it to be a duly to the chosen defenders ofprotestnnt simplicity of worship, whether senatorial or ecclesiasiical, to show them the real (however reserved) sentiments of one of their more famous Corypliai. All that we ask is for tbe Recoid newspaper to institute a parrallel —itwillbefar frdmuninstructive —between the Mr. Drummond who represents ' sound protestant principles' in tbe bouse of commons, and the Mr. Drummond who expounds the 'principles of ecclesiastical buildings nnd ornaments'—and of things deeper than these— to ' the catholic and apostolic church."'—Sheffield Times.