A MENDICANT BISHOP—EARL GREY'S DISPOSAL OF CHURCH PREFERMENT.
THE Ministerial Journals have, as in duty bound, taken up the cudgels for Earl GREY, and stoutly defended his appointment of the Bishop of HEREFORD to the Prebendal stall in Westminster.
The Globe wishes the public to remember that Dr. GREY has twelve children ; as if lie were a petitioner for parish relief, when every additional urchin would entitle him to an extra shilling or eighteenpenee per week. Then we are told, that it would be " a denial of justice" to have made him Bishop of HEREFORD with- out annexing some other valuable piece of Church preferment (which ought also to be a sinecure of course) to such a poor see as that of Hereford, the income of which hardly reaches 3,0001. per annum. The income of the bishopric, by the way, depends in a great measure upon the amount of fines for the renewal of leases which it may be the fortune of the holder to receive: the poor see of Chester, as it is called, has proved a rich one to some Bishops. The Globe says- " In truth, in accepting a poor see, every beneficed clergyman who surrendeis for that advancement a rich living with cure of souls, has a right to expect from any considerate and just Administration the same advantages that most of his predecessors have enjoyed in the annexation of some stall or sinecure, to supply the deficiencies of his revenues ; and it would he a new canon in political or even ecclesiastical morality, to enjoin a denial of that justice to a relation which would be conceded certainly to-a stranger, and perhaps to a political opponent."
It is clear, then, that if the great scandal of pluralities in the Church is to be avoided, those clergymen should be appointed to bishoprics who are not in possession of rich livings, but who to learning, piety, and Liberal politics (for as long as Bishops are legislators, their politics ought to be taken into account) unite unostentatious and economical habits. There are many such clergymen to be found in the Establishment,—many who would consider an income of 3,0001. a year, or thereabouts, ample for the sustenance of their dignity and the respectable support of their families. There is really no occasion whatever to select men who would feel themselves in straitened circumstances with a bishopric and 3,0001. a year. Much stress is laid upon the necessity of conferring the good things of the Church upon the political friends of the Ministry. This is an argument which it serves the purpose of the Ministerial Journals occasionally to use ; but the application of it in the pre- sent instance is most unfortunate, as it is notorious that the Bi- shop of HEREFORD is not a man whom the Ministry can count among their stanch adherents : on the contrary, it is an even chance that he will vote with the Opposition, or refrain from voting at all, on almost any given question of reform, either eccle- siastical or civil, which may be brought into the House of Lords. In fact, had the Bishop been a man unconnected by personal ties with Earl GREY, we are persuaded that the latter never would have been a patty to his promotion : the same reasons which in- duced him to protest against the elevation of Sir CHARLES MANNERS SUTTON would have prevented his concurring in Dr. GREY'S ad- vancement. It is amazingly silly, therefore, or extremely impu- dent, to attempt to justify Earl GREY'S conduct in this business on the ground that he has thereby added a Member to the Reform- ing minority in the Lords. The Times defends Earl GREY, because he has only done just as his predecessors did before him. The holders of the poorer bishoprics are all of them pluralists; and the Times gives a long list of them, from Llandaff to Peterborough. It is amusing to ob- serve how the misdeeds of former Ministers, which were matter of warm reproach and virtuous indignation in the Opposition days of Earl GREY and Ms colleagues, are now quoted as precedents in ample,justification of similar proceedings on their part. This is a convenient and never-failing mode of defence ; for it would be diffi- cult indeed for the present Ministry to perpetrate any thing in the sinecure and pluralist line which could not be matched by refe- rence to the performances of their predecessors. But, however satisfactory it may be to the thoroughgoing partisans of the Mi- nistry, the Liberal and Independent party in this country are dis- gusted at seeing the shifts which are resorted to in order to palliate their questionable acts. Better things were expected from the Reform Ministers; who, it was believed, would carefully shun, not recklessly follow, the examples set them by those who ad- ministered the Government in times and circumstances very dif- ferent from the present. The nation has been led to believe that the present Ministry are preparing a measure for the thorough reform of the Church Establishment. Of that measure, the abolition of pluralities and sinecures must form an essential part. But as there is no proba- bility that vested interests will be touched by it, but that ample compensation will be given to all whose actual income would be lessened by its operation, of course we shall have to pay the Bishop of HEREFORD an equivalent in some shape or other for the loss of his Prebendal stall. Had the vacant sinecure not been filled up, there would be no occasion for this. Perhaps, however, as the Courier suggests, Earl GREY has followed the example set by Lord BROUGHAM, who gave a valuable legal sinecure to his brother, upon the express condition thathe should require no com- pensation for it, when, in the progress of the Chancellor's reforms, it would be abolished, with other useless and lucrative places. We all know how Lord BROUGHAM redeemed his pledge; and it would be an agreeable surprise to the country to find, that, in the questionable case under consideration, Earl GREY had made a simi- lar arrangement.
Previous page
