between the revenues of the different bishoprics, a step which, besides its inherent reasonableness and equity, would extinguish the desire of promotion by translation, except in a few specified instances.  Various reasons, sufficiently obvious and notorious, rendered the two archbishoprics, and the bishoprics of London, Durham, and Winchester, more costly to the occupants than the other dioceses; and these were, therefore, left in possession of larger revenues than the rest, proportionate to their wider duties or heavier charges.  But all the others were to be nearly equal, none exceeding L5500, and none falling below L4500; while the five richer sees were also the only ones to which a prelate could be translated from another diocese.  It followed, almost as a matter of course, that the practice of allowing a bishop to hold any other preferment was to cease with the cessation of the cause that had led to such an abuse.

Another part of the bill provided for the suppression of such canonries or prebends as might fairly be considered superfluous.  Four were considered sufficient for the proper performance of the duties of each cathedral; and the extinction (after the lives of the present holders) of the rest was designed to form a large fund, to be at the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners,[243] and to be applied by them chiefly to meet the wants of the more populous parishes in different large towns, for which it had hitherto been difficult to make any provision,[244] by contributing to the erection of additional churches, by increasing the incomes of the incumbents in cases where it was insufficient, or in any other way which the practical experience of the members of the commission might suggest.  One very important reform of a different kind was also provided for in the abolition of pluralities, the bill prohibiting the holding of two livings by the same person except they were within ten miles of each other.  The measure was objected to by Sir Robert Inglis, who had represented Oxford as the peculiar champion of Protestant and Church principles ever since 1829, and by a party which shared his views, as one calculated to be “fatal to the best interests of the Church.”  They looked on the property of the Church and everything connected with it as invested with so peculiar a character, that they not only contested the right of Parliament to take any step to diminish its revenues or to change the employment of them, but they even “disputed its right to deprive one class of the clergy of any portion of their revenues for the purpose of distributing it among another.”  But the distinction thus made between Church property and that of any other public body seems one which can hardly be supported.  The purposes for which ecclesiastical chapters or officials have been endowed with possessions and revenues are undoubtedly of a more sacred character than the duties imposed on lay corporations; but that consideration cannot be regarded as affecting the tenure of those