EPISCOPAL FEES. T HE Return, in answer to the Address of
the House of Lords, of all Charges, Fees, First-Fruits, and Tenths, and other payments made by Archbiihops and Bishops since January 1st, 1885, disposes of a popular delusion. It was very generally believed that that mysterious personage, the Crown, practically-appropriated under various titles the whole of the income coming to a Bishop during the year after his appointment. The public did not much trouble themselves over this arrange- ment until the death of Archbishop Magee, within three months or so of his translation to York, produced a sudden qualm of compunction. It seemed too shocking that a man without private fortune should not only have to pay £10,000 for being made an Archbishop, but should also leave the balance as a burden on his family, when he himself had not lived to receive the income out of which the payments were supposed to come. The remedy first resorted to on these occasions is the preparation of a Parliamentary Paper, and, as it turns out, this familiar document really provided a healing balm. Things are not so bad as they were thought to be. An appointment to a Bishopric does not mean a fine of a year's income. Possession can be taken at a lower figure than this. Archbishop Magee paid £573, the Bishop of London £414, the Bishop of Exeter £434. The Bishop of Manchester got off with £272 ; while the Bishop of Wake- field seems hardly to be counted as a Bishop, for he only paid £72. This, apparently, is due to the newness of the See. Very few of the ceremonial payments made by other Bishops seem to come upon the Bishop of Wakefield. There is no Conge d'Elire, no Letter Recommendatory, no Royal Assent, no Election, no Confirmation,—all these are superseded by a simple Royal nomination. So unaccus- tomed indeed were the officials to this type of Bishop, that they could not at first bring themselves to charge him little enough, and one of the items of the account is, " Less half Home Office fees returned."
Let us look at the particulars of one of these Bills—that paid by Archbishop Magee. The Home Office charges were £62, which included five items,—Conge d'Elire, Letter Recommendatory, Royal Assent, Oath of Homage, Restitution of Temporalities. But of these, three—the Cone d'Elire, the Royal Assent, and the Restitution of Temporalities—reappear under the head of Crown Office, and cost in all £267 more. In this case, each of them is subdivided into Warrant, Certificate, Letters Patent, and Docquet, the Docquet in each case costing only 2s., which seems little as compared with the Certificate, which, in the Restitution of Temporalities, sums up to £72 15s. Od. Next we have Introduction Fees to the House of Lords, which, in the case of the Archbishop, were £27. Election, Confirmation, and Enthronement, cost in all about £160. Among these many payments, the two which strike us as excessive are those to the Home Office and the Crown Office. Those made on Election, Confirmation, and Enthronement are at least in the nature of payments for extra work or for legal documents. No one, for example, would grudge their guineas to the " Song-men " or their crown-pieces to the choristers ; and in these temperance days £5 5s. to the vicars " in lieu of wine " will generally be regarded as a wholesome composition. But the Home Office and the Crown Office are public departments, and we do not quite see why pieces of business, which, we presume, are all in the day's work, should be made the subject of a separate charge. The newly-made Bishop does not ask to have all these formalities. It is not for his pleasure that the Cone d'Elire is sent to the Chapter, or that the Royal Assent is given to the election of the person named in the Cone d'Elire. The need for the restitution of temporalities is wholly a creation of the law, since if the Crown had not taken them away during the vacancy, there would have been no occasion to give them back. Of course, if these payments are defended on the plea of their being merely a form of taxation, so that a Bishop pays his fees just as an eldest son pays succession duty or a legatee legacy duty, we have nothing more to say. But, in that case, why are not the fees credited to the national revenue, instead of to particular offices ? The officials of a Government department ought surely to be paid by the day and not by the job. The country takes their time, and when a Bishop has to be appointed, so much of that time as is wanted is spent in drawing up certain documents. Why should the cost of this fall on the Bishop when there are men in the office paid to do it ? It may be, of course, that these fees really merge in the general revenue of the country, and that we are misled by official phraseology ; but in that case it would certainly be better if the nature and destination of the payments- were made clear. No one likes to pay £500, but it would' be pleasanter to pay it to the nation than to a particular office. In the former case, the Bishop would at least have the consciousness that he was helping to build up - the Chancellor of the Exchequer's surplus. There is- another part of the payments given in this Return which we think might bear some reduction. Among the- charges paid by the Bishop of Salisbury on his succession- to the Bishopric, is included the Chapter Clerk's costs and charges. It is just a solicitor's bill, and therefore comes under the innocent head of payment for work done. But is it necessary that quite so much work should be done ? This, however, is a criticism which the unlearned public. so often pass on similar documents that it is hardly worth- while to insist on it.
Another .part of the Return deals with -Episcopal First- Fruits and Tenths. We approach this subject with some- uneasiness. They were annexed to the Crown by the- 26 Henry VIII., c. 3, and Statutes passed about that time usually contain some reference to Praamunire. We should like, therefore, to withdraw in advance any calculated to subject us to that mysterious- penalty,—if it be a penalty. There is no need, how- ever, to criticise the payments made under this Act,. because they were commuted for a yearly payment by the 6 and 7 William IV. Under the old system, for example, each Archbishop of Canterbury paid on succes- sion, £2,682 as First-Fruits ; he now gets off with a yearly payment of £150. Each Archbishop of York paid £1,610; he now gets off with £100 yearly. London pays the same as York, and the other Bishops, with the exception of those holding recently created Sees, from £70 to £42 each. Why the last-mentioned class of Bishops are charged anything we do not see, as the endowments of their Sees have usually been provided by voluntary subscription. They are not allowed, however, to escape altogether, though the First- Fruits do not rise above £8 at Southwell and Truro, and fall as low as £3 at Wakefield and Liverpool. The yearly Tenths amount in each case to about the same sum as the First-Fruits, the largest total payment being £281 in the case of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and £5 13s. in that of the Bishop of Wakefield. We do not know on what principle either of these charges are now levied. In the- old days, when the incomes of the Bishops were, for the- most part, very large, and there was little or no inter- ference with their management of their estates, First- Fruits and Tenths were an effectual, if clumsy, method of securing for the Crown some portion of these great pro- perties. But now all this is changed. The Bishops are- paid a fixed salary, and one which only fairly covers the two items of payment for work done and pay- ments to cover outlay actually incurred. When the subdivision of dioceses and the consequent reduction, of episcopal incomes has been urged upon the Govern- ment, it has usually been said, and said, we dare say, with a great deal of truth, that the majority of the- Bishops do not get much more than, considering what is expected of them, they have to spend. If so, where is the justification for taking from £80 to £280 a year in the shape of these two payments ? We may be quite sure- that the Income:tax collector does not omit to call at the-- palace ; why, then, should they have to pay nearly as much again by way of First-Fruits and Tenths, because Henry VIII. saw in these items a mode of adding to his-. wealth ?
Previous page
