Current:

Leader (1850-1860), 12th July 1851, Edition Country of 2, Page 7

Page 7
Page 7
7 of 24

On this page

  • Text (4)
  • Transcript

    • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

      Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

      , Transatlantic Mails. The Arrival Of Th...

      . " n ^ el fiv e buildings , loss 50 , 000 dollars , Fifteen horse-Sers had been pursued and shot by citizens near ^• • t « "River twelve of the thieves were Indians , and t Sewe « unites who Tad organized the savage banditti » nd aS as their leaders , They had stolen fifty horses from one " coral " -tbat of Messrs . Peaseley and Lockhart .

      Svly 12, 1851.] «!»« «,««»««? 651

      Svly 12 , 1851 . ] «!»« « , ««»««? 651

      The Quarter's Revenue. « Abstract Of Thb...

      THE QUARTER'S REVENUE . « ABSTRACT OF THB NET TRODUCB OF THE REVENUE OF A VbAT BRITAIN IN THE YBA * S AND QUARTERS ENDED ? ULY 5 . 1850 . AND JULY 5 , 1851 , SHOWING THB INCREASE OR DECREASE THEREOF . YEARS ENDED JULY 5 . — " J 850 1851 . Increase . Decrease . W = ft ft" ? £ . fefe = 'if f | " r » i Miscellaneou » 209 , 744 162 , 333 .. 47 , 411 Total Ord . Bev .. 49 , 161 , 146 48 , 854 , 369 , 196 , 273 503 , 050 ^ jSoneys " ! . !! ! " 682 , 807 655 , 39 * .. 27 , 411 ^ anC ?!! . / . ^ : 570 , 797 694 , 246 123 , 449 - ' Total Income ... 50 , 414 , 750 50 . 204 , 011 319 . 722 530 , 461 Deduct Increase ol 9 , 723 Decrease on the Year .... 210 , 739 QUARTERS ENDED JULY 5 . — ~~^~ 1850 . 1851 . Increase . Decrease . £ £ £ £ Customs 4 , 333 , 708 4 , 318 , 218 .. 15 , 490 Excise 3 , 325 , 223 3 , 419 , 810 94 , 585 - Stamps 1 , 590 , 767 1 , 525 , 492 .. 65 , 275 Taxes .... 3 , 073 , 281 2 , 045 , 231 .. 28 , 050 Pioperty-tax 1 , 026 , 835 976 , 881 .. 49 , 954 Post-office 210 , 000 210 . C 00 30 , 000 — Crown Lands .... 40 , 000 30 , 000 .. 10 , 000 Miscellaneous 81 , 474 91 , 241 9 , 767 — Total Ord . Bev .. 12 , 681 , 290 12 , 646 , 873 134 , 352 168 , 769 ImprestMoneys . & c . 135 , 827 139 , 770 3 , 913 — Repayment * of Advances 188 , 289 123 , 409 .. 64 , 880 Total Income ... 13 , 005 , 406 12 , 910 , 052 138 , 295 | 233 . 649 Deduct Increase 138 , 295 Decrease on the Quarter 95 , 354

      The Distressed Bishops. Dr. Monk, Bishop...

      THE DISTRESSED BISHOPS . Dr . Monk , Bishop of Gloucester , has -written to the Times to explain away the allegations made by Mr . Horsman respecting the Horfield estate . He "writes : — " I declare that every assertion attributed to Mr . Mr . Horsman respecting the estate of Horfield-manor , in which I am concerned , is either directly untrue or is so distorted from the truth as to convey to the House an impression opposite to that which the facts , if fairly stated , would have produced . " " In the first place , " he continues , " it is asserted that Bishop Allen , the last diocesan of Bristol , received the see under a pledge given to Lord Melbourne that he would not renew the lease of Horfield . This statement

      is the very reverse of truth . Lord Melbourne , to whom the circumstances of the lease had been made known from another quarter , expressly told the bishop that he was at liberty to lease this estate as other bishops had done . This fact I heard from Bishop Allrn himself , who accordingly was in treaty for the renewal . ; but before that could be effected he was translated to Ely . The letter which he wrote to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners when Bishop of Ely , in which Horfield is mentioned , implies only that he had been consulted about tbe arrangements to be made for his successor ( being offended at the omission ) , he should have advised that Horfield , the immediate lapse of which was expected , should be devoted to the expense of a new episcopal residence in place of that destroyed in the Bristol riots ; nor has that letter any bearing upon the matter which Mr . Horsman wishes it to prove . "

      The Times , in a leading article , however , quotes the original letter from Bishop Allen , and the words he used were these : —¦ " As I was prepared to have recommended the Horfield property in the diocess of Bristol to be assigned over to the Commissioners for the building of a palace , and for other purposes under the act , so , in my own case , I can havcnoobjcction . it being my decided opinion that neither of these leases should bo renewed for liven , and that upon their expiration the fines , for the full term of twenty-one years , should be at the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for general purposes . ' This ia something more , " says the Times , " than saying , as the Bishop represents , that Horfield ought to have been applied to the building of the episcopal palace , and is certainly a censure by relation of the conduct of any bishop who should renew the lease even under the then circumstances of the nee . '

      Dr . Monk declares that tho cstato camo into his hands fifteen years ngo , upon the union of tho sees . Bristol ' and Gloucester , " perfectly free from any engagement or understanding which distinguishes it from any other property of the nee . " Mr . IIor « - man ' s story of the communications between the Ecclc-Hi ^ Btienl Commissioners and himself in 1842 , upon Horiield , the Bishop declares to be a fiction . He did not know that they had the property under consideration until 1 H 1 G ; and , with respect to the offer of £ 11 , 600 for the bishop ' s interest in tho estate , he says , that except the fact itsejf , nil Mr . Jloranmn hoe to way is ' also pure fiction " :- — I

      " The plain fact is , that an overture had been made , and a specific fine offered me , for a hew lease of the estate . I was wishing for a considerable time to carry out an object of diocesan improvement which I had much at heart ; and it struck me that an opportunity was offered for combining three objects—the improvement of Horfield , the benefit to the funds of the Commission , and the . erection of parsonages in small livings . It had been intimated to me that the Commissioners were desirous of such an arrangement . I therefore proposed to assign them my whole interest on terms somewhat more favourable to them , having previously broken off the negotiation for renewal . For my conduct in this transaction I received the handsomest thanks of the board . " He accuses Mr . Murray , the late defaulting secretary and evil genius " of the Commission , of having given rise to the notion , that he , Dr . Monk , was prevented , by " some engagement , or understanding , or moral obligation" ( Mr . Murray ' s words ) , from leasing Horfield like other estates . " In 1849 , a short time after a mutual release from the agreement had been executed by the Commissioners and myself , the lease expired by the death of the remaining life , and I found myself in the full possession of this property , consisting partly of land in possession , partly copyholds , and partly rent charge . I immediately resolved to resign a piece of preferment which I held in comraendam of about the same yearly income as Horfield—an act perfectly spontaneous on my part . I had then three great objects in view , which were anything but selfish in their nature . I wished to commute the manorial rights for land—to set an example in the parish of effectual draining and other agricultural improvementsand to provide for the future augmentation of the living by giving to it prospectively the tithe rent-charge . All these objects could be accomplished by a lease , of which I myself might retain the control ; and , as I understood and still understand this matter , they could have been attained in no other way than by a lease , the two first requiring a large expenditure of money , and the time when the third might take effect being uncertain . I did , therefore , grant a lease for three lives ( though not of my own children ) to my secretary . Besides the motives stated , there was a sort of necessity for such a step , arising from the insinuations broached by Mr . Murray . When the power of carrying out my avowed objects was in my hands , had I hesitated to grant a lease , it would have been believed that there was ground for the idea that I was withheld by some mysterious cause from leasing this estate , and I should have been thus exposed to the vile suspicion of having proposed to sell to the Commissioners a right which 1 could not have exercised . " He then tells us that he has received " no emolument from Horfield beyond £ 36 reserved rent . " So much for one bishop , we leave him in perfect confidence in the hands of Mr . Horsman . The next-bishop who comes before us in a distressed condition , and hampered with a superabundance of property , is Charles James Blomfield . He has a mighty estate in London , notably at Paddington . Sir Benjamin Hall has written to the Times on the subject of the Paddington estate , in which he shows that the income derived from that estate is what may be called a mysterious or unknown quantity . The " evil genius of the Commission , ' Mr . Murray , again comes before the public as the accuser of the bishops . Quoting from his evidence , Sir Benjamin arrives at these two facts : that the return of 1843 was " very fallacious , " that it was " made by the bishops themselves , " and that the " net was struek from the gross by themselves . " In the return of 1843 , the return sets down the income derived from Paddington at £ 6376 ; and as the net income of the see was set down at £ 12 , 481 , " the net income of the whole rich see of London ( exclusive of Paddington ) was , according to the bishop ' s return , not more than £ 6105 in the year 1843 . " The income of the Paddington estate is now set down , on parliamentary authority , at £ 8911 . Having stated this , Sir Benjamin proceeds : — " When the late Mr . Sidney Smith was asked , ' What do you suppose may be the amount of tbe Bishop of London ' s income ? ' he replied , ' There is but one man who knows . ' In 1836 , the Bishop of London was the gr ^ at obstacle to the payment of fixed incomes to the bishops , and to the management of the properly of the sees being vested in the hands of a commission , and such ( as I understand ) he still continues ; but ( notwithstanding all his opposition ) 1 believe the time is coming when the laity will insist upon knowing the exact value of the immense property of their Church , how it is leased , how it in managed , and how it is appropriated ; and I believe the debate of Ttffsday last has hastened the consummation of this long-desired and legitimate object . " And ho then asks : — " Will his lordship be so good as to answer the following very plain and intelligible questions which I put to the House of Commons on Tuesday last , and which , therefore , his lordship ban had umplc time to consider ? On Saturday , May 30 , 1837 , it was resolved b y th < t episcopal body that £ 10 , 000 , with two palaces , London-house and Fulhum , Was an umplc income to maintain the dignity of the see , and such should bo tho income assigned to the see on tho next avoidance . If that sum was sufliciont for the next bishop , why in it not sufficient for the present binhop ? Why has the bishop , according to his own returns , received in the lnst fourteen yours no lest * tl »» n a net sain of £ 77 , 2 /> O over and above tho income a « ugn « d to the «*< - ? tod why did he alHo , in 1848 , appro-£ * ' •*»»»«« W a «* t income of £ 23 , 97 /> , being exactly & l 3 fi 3 % Mmfit , $ bmmhe d » olar « d was amply sufficient for a Bway . rrf ; fr . g ^ lfty ^ « ¦> j * « t >»» "

      This is pretty well for one week's revelations . But this is not all . The direct effects of the debate on Lord Blanford ' s motion do not stop there . Another writer , under the signature of " H , " enters the field and breaks a lance with the Lord Bishop of Durham , whose liberality , not so much of purse as of conscience , we had occasion to applaud last week . "H " writes a very sprightly letter on the difficulty of assailing , or rather effectually damaging bishops in general ; and then selects the Lord John's correspondent , becausehe knows nothing of him personally , and because he concludes , " from his having been selected by the Premier as his bottle-holder on the occasion of the late Papal agression , that he is a perfectly virtuous , learned , and disinterested Christian—a pattern prelate , in short , who has no cause to complain if the bushel be removed from his light . "

      " It was decided by act of Parliament in 1836 , continues " H , " " that the future income of this Bishop of Durham should be £ 8000 a-year . The Ecclesiastical Commissioners , who were to make this arrangement , required from him a statement of the gross revenues of his see . They then permitted him to make every deduction that could possibly be desired by him , and finding that the net revenue considerably exceeded £ 22 , 000 a-year , they finally proposed that he should pay annually to them £ 14 , 000 , to be applied to the establishment of other bishoprics , and that he should retain the balance naciousl

      for himself . To this the Bishop loudly and perti y demurred . He said that £ 14 , 000 was far too large a deduction—that in the years 1837 and 1838 the revenue of the see would certainly not leave him , after such a deduction , anything like £ 8000 a-year , and that having calculated and arranged his expenses on the assumption that his income would be £ 8000 a-year , he had a right to be assured at least that sum . The Commissioners , moved by his importunity , gave way , and ultimately fixed the annual payment to be made by him to them at £ 13 , 000 ayear .

      " Two septennial periods have since elapsed , and we now can judge how far the calculations submitted by the Bishop of Durham in 1836-37 to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have enabled those functionaries to carry out the intentions of Parliament , that his lordship ' s yearly income should in future be , as nearly as possible , £ 8000 . " During the first septennial period , from 1837 to 1843 , we find that his average yearly income has been £ 11 , 793 4 s . Id . ; in 1837 and 1838 , the two years in which his man of business proved to the Commissioners that he would receive nothing like £ 8000 a-year , we find that his income averaged £ 10 , 233 los . 8 id ., and during the last septennial period , from 1844 to 1850 , we further find that his income has averaged no less than £ 15 , 583 18 s . 8 fd . ! Thus , the Bishop of Durham has received during the last fourteen years no less than £ 79 , 639 19 s . 8 jd . over and above the . sum of £ 112 , 000 , which it was intended by Parliament that he should

      . ' Now , as the Bishop of Durham in 1847 pointed out to the Commissioners that he had fixed the scheme of hia expenditure at £ 8000 a-ycar , it would be unfair not to assume that the banker ' s book of such a wise and prudent prelate as I am in charity bound to suppose the Bishop of Durham to be , must , at the termination of these two septennial period ' s , have been in a most plethoric condition . Yet we do not hear of his writing to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to say that he

      had a large balance in hand , occasioned by his own miscnlulations in setting forth the revenues of the see in 1836-7 , which he was prepared to pay to their account ; on the contrary , we find them writing to him , not to announce that the existing arrangement with him ia to be cancelled , but to ask him whether he sees any objection that , upon the next avoidance of the see , the important error should be rectified , and that the next Bishop of Durham , who will probably arrive at his palace penniless , should pay a much larger annual deduction than is at prebent paid by himself .

      " To this curious question the present Bishop of Durham , having in hand , and intending to keep , the aforesaid £ 7 ^> , 639 19 s . 8 £ d ., which he ought never to have had , answers , ' that upon the whole , he does not think he ought to object to such an arrangement with regard to hia succcsssor ! ' " Wo do not interfere in this pretty quarrel between the distressed prelates and their pertinacious and merciless assailants , Any man or men who can obtain some satisfactory account of Church Property , whether in the hands of distressed bishops or starving chapters , will deserve well of his countiy . Certainly , Lord Blandford'ti friends did not anticipate tho duimigini ? turn the debate haa taken .

      Chuhcil Mat-Tku8. The University Of Oxfo...

      CHUHCIl MAT-TKU 8 . The University of Oxford ban long and vigorously resisted tho payment of poor's rates . Some , years ago a suit was determined in favour of Exeter College , owing solely to a technical error in the pleadings . The case ia clear against the colleges , and steps have been taken in St . Aldate ' H and St . Peter's le HaiU-y , which will bring the question again to an issue . The parish officers of St . AlduU- ' n , Oxford , in pursuance of a distress wnrrnnt granted by one of the City magistrates , made a neizure on Friday of two silver teapots , tho property of tho Muster and Fellows of Pembroke College , wJio hnd refused to contribute the sum of £ 11 , < : lmrg << l upon the college , towards the support of the poor . The ground of refusal for paying tho rate . i « , tliut tho college is extra-parochial . A similar ueizure whs lnade a short time nine * of the plate belonging to New-inn-hall , but wa « shortly afterwards redvemrd by the Reverend J ) r . Wellealey ( Principal of the hall ) . Subsequently notice of notion for on illegal dmtreoa has been nerved

  • Citation
    • Leader (1850-1860), July 12, 1851, page 7, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/cld_12071851/page/7/