more of his time than the ostensible functions of his office. I venture to say this because I am fearful that we may be misled into an inaccurate estimate of episcopal duty; and, I say it the more anxiously, because we have seen bishops in the height of their usefulness, worn down (just when their wisdom and piety were matured) by those innumerable calls, which their office, in a wide diocese, prescribed, but to which their strength was unequal. It is not well to overtask the earnest bishop.

"It is, indeed, perfectly true, that the bishop may go through his formal functions, and get through them with little pressure to himself. Then, I admit, his work becomes light. But is this desirable? Is this, the Church's scandal, to be the bishop's standard? Does this conduce to the efficiency of the Church? and, if we would turn it to its best uses, is this a prudent policy? Yet, if we heap on the bishop a mass of official work which it takes most of his time to master, we, in fact, preclude him from those various duties which he should discharge, and leave him without time except for official routine.

"Therefore it is, my Lord, that we felt that, as many churches and clergy had been added, an addition to the episcopate was necessary : the more needful when we contemplated a further large addition to the clergy. If the suvervision of the bishop should be close, and his connexion with his clergy constant, his diocese should be brought within narrower limits. But as it is plain that such an alteration of dioceses should occur rarely, because it disturbs many arrangements; so it seemed to us, that this was the fit season to make it, when we may hope that by some of the measures suggested, there is about to be a large increase of clergy and congregations."

The whole of this argument appears to us to go to one pointthat something more is wanted than the mere division of two or three dioceses; that three more bishops would be insufficient for our wants. In fact, we suppose that almost any earnest bishop would be glad if his diocese could be divided, as it would enable him to do his work much more satisfactorily and completely than he now does. The Bishop of Ripon has expressed his earnest wish for the subdivision of his diocese, which was itself constituted only a few years ago, and which does not contain as many parishes as the average number in each English diocese. All the hierarchy, without a single exception, that we are aware of, and including men of various political views, and even of different religious schools, are agreed in wishing for an increase in the episcopate. They have also accepted the principle of such increase not involving any additional seats in Parliament. The Plan before us is a very valuable testimony to the general desire which exists for such a measure. The leading men in this movement have never been reckoned amongst those members of the Church who are considered to rate the powers of the episcopate VOL. XI.-NO. XXI.-MARCH, 1849.

too highly. They look at it simply in a spiritual point of view, as a means of promoting the efficiency of the Church. They are anxious for such an increase in the episcopate as will bring it more in contact with the parochial system; will make the bishop more the personal friend, and counsellor, and helper of his clergy and his laity than he now can be. An expression of opinion on these points from such men as Lord Ashley and Lord Harrowby was just what was wanted, in order to prove the cordial concurrence of men of all shades of opinion in the Church of England in the desirableness of the object.

In reference to the amount of the addition which ought to be made to the episcopate, Mr. Colquhoun states this important fact, that although a high authority has affirmed "that if three or four bishops were added, it would be sufficient," he is "bound to say that the great body of opinion which has reached" the promoters of the plan "leans in a different direction. Some have proposed that fifty new bishops should be added; others, that all the deaneries (twenty-eight in number) should be converted into new bishoprics." We feel assured that such is the general feeling. The bishop is felt, even in the more moderatesized dioceses, where there are not above 400 or 500 parishes, to be at too great a distance from his clergy. He is very seldom seen. The clergy are, to a great extent, unacquainted with him. They feel that they must not trespass on his time with inquiries and requests which they would gladly make. Most of the laity never see him, except, once in their lives, at Confirmation. They never hear him preach in their parish churches. We know that matters cannot well be otherwise under the present system; but, in order to make the episcopate a reality in the eyes of our people,—in order to enable it to discharge in some degree its pastoral functions,-those duties especially and formally committed to it at Ordination,-those duties to souls which are its first and principal object,―we say, without fear of effectual contradiction, that it must be considerably increased. It must be increased as far as it is possible. We shall have but a moderate fund left for the episcopate under the plans now in progress. If all the improved value of Church lands and property is to be assigned to the foundation of new parishes, which seems to be demanded by public opinion, we have only one other source to look to, besides the actual income assigned to the hierarchy; viz., the endowments of the deaneries. In the Plan, it is proposed that these revenues, amounting to 36,4007. per annum, should be applied, as they fall in, to erect new sees; and, according to the scale proposed in the Plan, this would provide endowments for eighteen sees and no more; and were' the incomes of the new

bishops placed at a higher scale, their number must be still more limited.

We have before now expressed an opinion, that the plan adopted in the case of the erection of the bishopric of Manchester was not a desirable one, because the principle of interfering with the Parliamentary seats of all the episcopal sees was thus introduced; and also because the plan proceeded evidently on the supposition that it was necessary for all bishops to be in some sense, either at present or prospectively, peers of Parliament; and, therefore, that all new bishops must possess incomes on the same scale as the existing bishops. Now, we lament this, because it seems to us, that if such a principle be adopted, the increase in the episcopate must necessarily be extremely limited, unless, indeed, the scale of income for the hierarchy be diminished. The country would never bear to see many new bishops appointed, with incomes of 40007. or 5000l. a year. It would be exclaimed against as a useless expenditure of money: it would be exceedingly unpopular. We think, however, that if this principle is adhered to, there is only one way to obtain any increase in the episcopate worth talking of. The scale of income for the whole must be reduced. The present episcopal income, with the incomes of the deaneries added to it, would amount to about 200,000l. per annum; and this would give us fifty bishops, with an average income of 40007. More than this we cannot hope for, and with less than this we ought never to be content. The income of no bishop, except the Bishop of London, should exceed 40007.; in various cases it might be 35007.; and this would afford the means for giving somewhat larger incomes to the Archbishops and the Bishop of London. When it is recollected that several of the bishops, even at present, have only about 4000l. each, and that the dioceses would be reduced to half their present size, and also that there are some remote parts of the country in which there is less occasion for a considerable income than in others, we really think that such an alteration would leave the episcopate in the possession of adequate means for the support of its external dignity. To many persons this is of course a consideration of first-rate importance. We cannot concur with them in this; but still we would so far go along with them as to say, that an episcopal establishment must be larger than that of a private clergyman; that a bishop ought to be able to show hospitality; and that the demands on his purse for charitable and religious objects must always be considerable.

The proposal which is made in this Plan, to apply the incomes of deaneries as they fall in to increase the number of bishops, has been strongly objected to, as we learn from Mr. Colquhoun's

Postscript. It has been alleged that this reform would be too violent that it would have a revolutionary character-that the preservation of the office of dean is essential to the due subordination of ecclesiastical offices-that it is an important link in the hierarchy. We are not in the least surprised at these objections, which very naturally arise in the minds of men who look on the present organization of the cathedral system as efficient and good. We are not disposed to deny that there is some degree of weight in these objections; but the arguments on the other side, are, in our view of the matter, far more important.

In the first place, supposing the principle to be adopted that canonries are no longer to be sinecures, or mere benefices for the enrichment of persons who are not in want of them-suppose that canonries are in all cases attached to poorly-endowed and laborious cures—are we, in this case, to have sinecure deaneries? Why is the rule, which would give to all other members of a chapter the cure of souls, not to be applied to deaneries? Why are deans alone to be sinecurists? And, again-Is it not a fact, that deaneries have been, as a general rule, held along with parochial preferments? If this be so, there can be no possible objection, in point of precedent and principle, to the union of deaneries with the cure of souls. If every deanery were united with some poorly-endowed parish, there could not be a shadow of ground for objection to such an arrangement derived from the practice or laws of the Church.

For deaneries therefore to remain unconnected with all other duties, there can be no possible necessity. A head of a college has often been a dean. The incumbent of a great parish is sometimes a dean. Why then should not a bishop be a dean? Have we not had many instances of bishops who have held deaneries? The deanery of St. Paul's is always held by a bishop. The deanery of Durham was held by the late Bishop of St. David's. There is no sort of incompatibility between the two offices, except indeed when, as has generally been the case, bishops have held deaneries beyond their own dioceses.

The annexation of the office and authority of dean to that of bishop (every bishop becoming thus the dean of his own cathedral), would strengthen the episcopal authority. As it is, the bishop has no direct authority in his own cathedral. He is its visitor, but the dean is its ordinary ruler and governor. The bishop is actually subordinate to the dean in his own cathedral. The dean directs all matters regarding Divine service. It is only on appeal, or by holding visitation, that the bishop can interfere. We have heard of many instances, in which deans have exercised their authority in

opposition to the desires of their own bishops. Any collision of this kind would be at an end, if the bishop were himself dean and ordinary of his cathedral church. Were this the case, the office of sub-dean would at once assume much of the importance and position which is now held by that of the dean, just as the vicechancellors of the universities have become their heads in the absence of their chancellors. This office of sub-dean would of course be held by one of the canons in each cathedral, who might have especial charge of the edifice and of Divine Service in the absence of the bishop, and who might, on this ground, be assigned some cure of souls in immediate connexion with the cathedral, or might even be exempted from any parochial duties.

We cannot quite go along with Mr. Colquhoun in his apology for those who have proposed the union of the office of dean with that of bishop. He states that such union would be in opposition to his own private feelings and wishes, but that it appears necessary in order to remove sinecure appointments which public opinion will not tolerate, and to provide funds for a still more important object. But we really do not see that any apology is necessary for removing the evil of sinecurism, and for re-instating the bishop in that authority over his own cathedral which he originally possessed, and from which he has been ousted by the deans. The rank of dean is no essential link in the hierarchy. The dignity was not instituted till about the thirteenth century. It has only just been instituted in several dioceses, for the first time.

If deaneries be not applied to strengthen the episcopate, they will certainly not remain as they are. If any further measure of cathedral reform be carried, the deaneries will either be extinguished, or united to populous parishes. The country will not be content to see incomes of 1000l. and 2000l. a year given to functionaries who have nothing to do with the cure of souls.

It will be doubtless objected by a certain class of reasoners, that the removal of what they call prizes-the reduction of the number of dignitaries of the Church in any one branch would operate as a discouragement to the higher classes to enter on the Christian ministry, and therefore that it is necessary to retain deaneries as at present constituted. But such persons should remember that it is not proposed to diminish the number of Church dignitaries on the whole. The only difference would be, that we should have bishops instead of deans. There might be nearly as many more bishops as there are now deans.

We are fully aware that there are many members of the Church, to whom the most respectful consideration is due, who are reluctant to see any alteration in the present system of things, and who