DR. ELLICOTT'S PROPOSAL.
THE Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol made last week a very practical suggestion about new Bishoprics. The need of them is one of the most generally accepted items in the programme of Church Reform. If Church officers are anything more than confirming, ordaining, and consecrating machines, the Church of England is under-officered. The clergy lead, for the most part, a perfectly independent life. They work if they like to work, and in these days they mostly do like it. But if they like to be idle, there id little to pre- vent them from indulging that taste also. The law has so hedged round the beneficed clergyman, it is so impressed with his inviolable sanctity not as a priest, but as the owner of a freehold, that if there were a Bishop for every dozen parishes, he could do but little with an incumbent who defied him. But the list of clergy who defy their Bishop is a scanty one, and of those who compose it, a considerable per-tentage are more disposed to defy him by doing work he does not want them to do, than by doing none at all. The ordinary clerical idler is much more likely to keep out of his Bishop's way, and the extent of the existing Sees makes this a very much easier business than it would be if a Bishop was always, so to say, round the corner. Ideally, a Bishop ought to know the inside of every church, and the general working of every parish, in his diocese. No doubt, however com- pletely he might be in possession of this knowledge, there would be cases in which it would be of no value to him. The incumbent would be conscious that he enjoyed his Bishop's entire disapproval, and would only be "blest in so believing." But these would be rare cases. More commonly the incumbent would be distinctly uncomfortable under his Bishop's frown ; and though he might not be willing to do much to smooth the episcopal brow, he would be not willing only, but anxious, to do something. The oftener he saw his Bishop, the stronger this feeling would tend to become ; until at last he might himself catch something of his superior's enthusiasm, and go into action as though he meant fighting.
The difficulty that has hitherto stood in the way of multi- plying Bishoprics is money. It is estimated that to found a new See costs something like £60,000 ; and considering the many unavoidable expenses which fall upon an Anglican Bishop, the sum may not be too large. At all events, we will assume that it is not too large ; and even if it were, it would not make much difference to the argument. Let us say that £50,000—which at 4 per cent. would give the Bishop an income of £2,000 a year—is all that would be required, and even then we get a lump sum of £300,000,—.£50,000 less than the Bishop of Gloucester reckons would be wanted for six new Bishoprics over and above the two that are nearly founded. That is a sum which it is not easy to raise for a special ecclesiastical object in days when ecclesiastical objects are multiplying in all directions. It has taken a long time to set even three new Bishoprics going, and to add double that number—including Wakefield and Bristol, nearly treble that number—to the list will, if no new machinery is brought to bear, take a good deal more than double or treble the time. Indeed, when Wakefield is founded, and Bristol separated from Gloucester, we may naturally look for a considerable pause in the movement. The most urgent cases, or those which are willing to do most to help them- selves, will have been provided for, and some newer or more interesting demand may for a time take the place of additional Bishoprics. The choice lies, therefore, between resting content with the Bishoprics we have, together with the two in process of creation, and finding some new method of raising money. The method the Bishop of Gloucester suggests is taxation of existing episcopal incomes. In this way, something like £12,000 a year might be raised, the Bishop thinks, and with such aid as might fairly be expected from the areas included in the new dioceses, this would be enough to set the six new Bishoprics on foot within the next few years. The effect of this arrangement would be to place the incomes of the new and the old Bishoprics much more cn an equality, and this would in itself be a recommendation of the scheme. If there is a great distinction between one and another in point of income, we shall inevitably get back to the old practice of translation from the less wealthy to the more wealthy Sees. It is really expedient, therefore, that there should be a process of levelling-down as well as of levelling-up. Great inequalities in episcopal incomes are not desirable ; and as it is impossible to raise all Sees to the old level, the end can only be obtained by drawing down the existing ones to the new level. We are not, of course, arguing for an absolute equality. It would be necessary to take account of the circumstances of each diocese, and to apportion to some extent the episcopal cloth to the coat which it is convenient that the particular Bishop should wear. The expenses of a Bishop of London, for example, must always be very much more than those of a Bishop of Southwell. But, speaking broadly, the income that is thought sufficient for the holder of a newly created See should be sufficient for the holder of an already existing See, and the sum that would thus be saved would at once be available for the endowment of new dioceses.
The Bishop of Gloucester adds one qualification to his suggestion, and it is one which we should be inclined to ex- press in a considerably more stringent form. " It ought," he says, "always to be left possible for any Bishop whose income was diminished' by the taxation I have suggested, to pass, with the assent of the Commission, from his so-called palace, and its expensive surroundings, to a smaller residence, and by consequence a more limited expenditure. As it is, the occu- pants of most of the episcopal residences have considerable difficulty, unless they have private fortunes, in maintaining with due liberality their present position and in meeting the varied calls to which they are never ;low to respond." But why should it only be " left possible " for a Bishop to get rid of a house which he has not the means to keep up ? As a matter of fact, every Bishop will wish to do so, unless he has private means out of which to maintain the necessary state, and it is certainly not expedient that rich and poor Bishops should in future be distinguished, like snails, by the size of their shells. Besides, if it is only left possible " for a Bishop " to pass from his so-called palace to a smaller residence," a Prime Minister may be tempted hereafter to do the very thing which Bishop Ellicott rightly deprecates, and, in appointing to any diocese which happens to be burdened with, a costly house, to make a man of fortune Bishop because only a man of fortune can afford to live in the palace. Whatever is done should be done all at once, and the more so that in some cases the sale of the palace and its surroundings would not merely relieve the occupant of a burden, but bring in a considerable sum to the fund for founding new dioceses. We do not mean that there is to be a general eviction of Bishops. It is only where the episcopal palace is altogether out of keeping with the changed position of its inmate that any change should be made. Surroundings which were quite appropriate when Bishops were temporal princes, cease to be so now that they retain scarcely any functions that are not purely spiritual. A Bishop should have a house of adequate size and dignity in his cathedral city ; and there, when he is not at work in another part of his diocese, he should ordinarily live. The country-house and the landed estate belong to an order of things which has passed away. The only exception we would make is that of Lambeth. In this one instance, it seems appropriate that the chief Bishop of a communion so large and so widely diffused as the Anglican should retain possession of the historical building with which the Archbishops of Canterbury have been so long associated. Lambeth stands to the Church of England somewhat as the Vatican stands fo the Church of Rome ; and to confine the Archbishop of Canterbury within the boundaries of his cathedral city, would be to seriously impede him in the dis- charge of his extra-diocesan work. He is much more than the Bishop of certain Kentish parishes, and in any redistribution of episcopal incomes this fact should not be forgotten.
Previous page
