fulness of riches. And the ruthless onslaught lately made upon two of the bishops, for alleged misappropriation of Church funds, by the chief organ of the press, has tended to fix this opinion in the public mind. We may admit that no method could have been devised more certain to lead to injurious consequences than that adopted by Parliament in 1836* (now happily abandoned) for the regulation of episcopal incomes. It was intended that the bishops should receive a certain salary, and it was enacted that they should pay over a fixed sum (the supposed surplus of their revenue over that intended income) to the Ecclesiastical Commission. The Commissioners underrated the value of the sees of Durham and Salisbury, and assessed them at so low a payment that the two bishops have received an income much larger than Parliament had intended. But this assessment, once made, could not (until the recent change in the law) be legally altered in the lifetime of the respective bishops. The surplus, though erroneously given them, was their legal property. The charge against them is that they did not at once hand over this surplus to the Commissioners. But it must be remembered that their income was fluctuating, and that they knew not whether the surplus of one year might not be cancelled by the deficit of the next. It might well have happened (as it did in Egypt) that seven fat years should be swallowed up by seven lean. We may wish, indeed, that when experience showed a continued surplus, these prelates had presented it to the public, instead of spending it (as they did) upon the charities of their own dioceses. But it is a calumnious exaggeration to say, as their assailants have said, that because they failed to show this degree of liberality, they were guilty of conduct which would exclude a merchant from the Stock Exchange.'t We admit, however, that the former method of fixing the episcopal incomes produced bad effects, and exposed the bishops to the suspicion, if not to the temptation, of avarice. But we must remember that the system censured belongs to the past, and has been superseded by the assignment of fixed payments to future prelates. We have already endeavoured to show that the incomes so given cannot be considered inordinate, when compared with the standard of other professions. We may add that munificent donations to all religious and charitable objects are expected from the bishops, both by their own dioceses and by the public; and that such expectations are hardly ever disappointed.

* By 6 and 7 Will. 4. c. 77. †These were the words of Mr. Peto in the House of Commons, May 26. 1853, and were echoed by The Times,' June 21.

We have thus attempted to expose the fallacies involved in some popular schemes of Church reform. But we are far from thinking that no reform is needed in our ecclesiastical economy. Much indeed has been done during the last twenty years, but more remains to do. It is gratifying, however, to see every indication that the changes still required are now likely to be effected with less hesitation than formerly. The feeling of Parliament on these subjects responds to the wishes of the public, and is ready to welcome every well considered project of improvement. The measure which has attracted most notice among those recently brought forward, is that of Lord Blandford, which stands at the head of our article. We observed with great satisfaction the general assent given by all parties in the House of Commons to the principle of this Bill. Its object is to relieve the bishops and other dignitaries in future to be appointed, from the management of their estates, and to place the property under the administration of the Estates Commis'sioners,' who are empowered to apply the surplus, after paying the dignitaries in question, towards the parochial necessities of the Church, as they may judge most expedient.* It has been

objected to this measure that it gives to the three Estates Commissioners powers too great to be wielded by so small a body of officials. But this we regard as one of the most valuable features of the Bill. It does in fact create a rudimentary department of ecclesiastical affairs; but with this advantage over a ministerial department, that the board would be independent of all party influence, its members being appointed for life. The small number of the board is also a recommendation, because it secures their acting with a due sense of individual responsibility. We should see the adoption of this measure with peculiar pleasure, because it is obviously a step towards the reestablishment of some instrument of Church government intermediate between Parliament and the clergy. We have from time to time taken occasion to point out how much such an instrument is needed. Its best form would, perhaps, be a body of representatives (whereof not less than half should be laymen), elected by the members of the Church of England. This might retain the ancient name, without the defects, of Convocation. The changes ratified by such an assembly would command greater confidence than if they were decreed by Downing Street. But the form of such a council matters little, compared with its functions. Some organ of the kind is absolutely necessary, both to prepare Church

* See clauses 15. and 17. of the Bill.

measures for the sanction of Parliament, and to superintend their execution. Till it exists, there can be no thorough reform in our ecclesiastical machinery.

One of the earliest objects of the attention of such a board, whether created by Lord Blandford's Bill or by any other plan, ought to be the education of the poorer clergy. The existing means provided for this object are wholly inadequate. The Mountain clergy, though their need is the greatest, are not the only section of the profession which suffers from the same deficiency. Probably few persons are aware of the very rapid increase of the non-academic clergy during the last few years. We have ascertained that, in 1851, the total number of deacons ordained was 573, and the total increase of clergy (i. e. the excess of ordinations over deaths) was 295. Again, in 1852, the number ordained was 607, and the increase of clergy 320.* In each year, nearly two-thirds of the increase consisted of men who had neither been at Oxford nor Cambridge. Thus the Church is being rapidly recruited with ministers who are destitute of the moral and social advantages (which are worth far more than the intellectual advantages) of academic life. It is true, that a few among the number enjoy these advantages at Durham, and in a less perfect degree at Lampeter†; but from the rest they are wholly withheld. This is a state of things which ought not to continue. It is doubtless most important to create and endow new parishes; but it is equally important that the ministers provided for such parishes should not disgrace themselves in the eyes of their parishioners by incompetence or vulgarity. At present the education of the national schoolmasters, trained at St. Mark's and Kneller Hall,

* In 1851, the new deacons were 202 of Cambridge, 201 of Oxford, and 170 of neither. In 1852, they were 232 of Cambridge, 204 of Oxford, and 171 of neither. We have compiled these returns from the lists of ordinations given in the Ecclesiastical Gazette.

†The recommendation lately given in this Review for conferring extended privileges on Lampeter has been since adopted (at least in part) by the Government. We have acknowledged on a former occasion the benefits conferred upon the northern districts by that noble foundation. It is not impossible that Marlborough College, which is at present charteredfor the education of the sons of the clergy, might, by a slight extension of its plan, be made to serve the same purpose for the south of England which Durham serves for the north; and the character of its present Master (Dr. Cotton) would be a guarantee against that perversion of clerical education to party objects which has ruined similar schemes elsewhere.

is incomparably better than that obtained by three-fourths of the non-academic clergy.

The need of a regular provision for this novel state of things is shown by a phenomenon peculiar to the present day. Colleges for the education of this new class of clergy are established, not by public authority, but by private adventure. A clergyman begins by taking a few pupils, whom he prepares for ministerial functions, by a course of parochial visiting, and Pearson on the Creed.' After a time he persuades a bishop to ordain one or two of these pupils without requiring them to take a university degree. The next step is to call his parsonage the College of Saint Ignotus,' and to advertise it in the newspapers as a new theological seminary. If a goodnatured bishop will consent to be nominated as visitor,' the scheme is complete. Candidates for cheap ordination flock to the halls of St. Ignotus; the projector dubs himself Provost, Warden, or President; and a self-created dignitary is added to the Church. We do not say that this is always done from unworthy motives; it may be well to supply an urgent need even by irregular means. But the wants of the Church ought to be met by the deliberate and collective action of her official authorities, not left to the chance-medley of individual speculation.

Another reform demanded by the interest of these poor candidates for the ministry, is the abolition of the enormous ordination fees now exacted by bishop's secretaries. The solicitor who acts in this capacity supplies every clergyman ordained with a small piece of parchment, sealed with the bishop's seal, and called a letter of orders.' Before the end of his first twelvemonth, the young curate must pay from 77. to 107.*, (i. e. about a tenth of his year's salary) for a couple of these documents, including his licence. A single London solicitor is secretary to twenty-three bishops, and receives these fees from about 500 clergy, annually; that is, he derives 4,000l. or 5,000l. a-year, from this tax upon poverty. These charges admit of no justification. The letters of orders (which, perhaps, cost a shilling apiece) ought to be gratuitously given by the bishop. Indeed, we think it questionable whether the ordination fees are not illegal under the Act 31 Eliz. c. 6., which imposes penalties on those who take or pay money for ordination. Of

The charge varies in different dioceses; in that of Worcester it is (or was very recently) 97. 4s. 6d. for the two letters of orders and the licence; in the adjoining diocese of Hereford it is 77. 10s. 6d. for the same. No reason can be assigned for these variations.

course no blame attaches in this matter to individuals who have only adopted a system long established; but the sooner the practice is discontinued the better.

Akin to this abuse is the extravagant sum abstracted from public purposes by the fees and salaries of the solicitors who act as secretaries and officers of the Boards of Queen Anne's Bounty and the Ecclesiastical Commission. It should be remembered that these funds being devoted to the relief of spiritual destitution, are peculiarly sacred; and it is a painful spectacle to see London attorneys fattening on ecclesiastical famine.

Another important branch of our present subject will shortly be brought before Parliament by the Report of the Cathedral Commissioners. But as this report is not yet published, and as cathedral reform has recently been the theme of a separate paper in this Review, we need not now do more than refer to that Article for a discussion of the details.

The Commission on Cathedrals reminds us of another Royal Commission whose report has perhaps attracted less attention than it deserved. We refer to the Commission appointed in 1849 to consider the best mode of subdividing overgrown parishes. It has recommended the immediate formation of 580 new districts as essential to render the parochial system a reality in England. Of the desirableness of such an addition, after the details published by the Commissioners, there can be no question. But the difficulty is how to provide funds for building and endowing so many churches. The Commissioners recommend a new and rather singular expedient; the sale of the greater part of the livings, now in the gift of the Lord Chancellor.* They reckon upon raising a million from this source; and another million from private contributions. We doubt, however, whether they have sufficiently considered the depreciation which would be produced in the value of advowsons by the nearly simultaneous sale of so many. Their proposal has been objected to, from a fear lest it should injure the patronage of the Crown. In this fear we confess that we do not share. is no doubt important to keep the great dignities in the gift of the Crown, but we do not see what advantage is gained by putting 777 livings at the disposal of the Lord Chancellor. One benefit resulting from it, is that it keeps up lay influence over the clergy; but this would be equally gained by the sale

It

* Lord Harrowby's Bill, which we mentioned at the beginning of this Article, adopts another recommendation of these Commissioners. applying the proceeds of the sales of the smaller Chancellor's Livings for the benefit of the particular parishes whose advowsons are sold.