who did not hold bishoprics had demanded compensation for the chance of being Bishops, which they had thus lost?
In 1817, parliament abolished the lucrative places of Teller of the Exchequer, Auditor of the Exchequer, Chief Justice in Eyre, Warden of the Cinque Ports, and many other similar sinecures. The rights of the existing holders were strictly respected; and if any of those places had been granted in reversion, which, I believe, was not the case, the rights of the persons in whom the reversion had vested, would doubtless have been recognized too. But there, of course, parliament stopped. Nobody ventured to say —“I am a public man. I stood very fair for a Tellership of the Exchequer. I had as good a chance as anybody of having it when it fell in. Therefore I have an interest in the continuance of these places, and I am injured if that interest be not protected.”
The interest of the holders of stipends in the stipends which they hold is a vested interest; and I would protect it. Their interest in any stipend beyond what they hold is not a vested interest, and I would pay no regard to it.
I never can admit that their hopes are to be the criterion. Many an Irish Curate might have hoped four years ago to be Bishop of some see which is now abolished. But that was no reason for keeping such a see when it was thought desirable to get rid of it. A young politician twenty years ago might have hoped to be Chief Justice in Eyre, South of Trent. But that was no reason for keeping up such a situation when it was found to be useless.
Nay this argument proves too much. For if the pupils who had small stipends hoped for larger stipends, so did the pupils who had no stipends hope for stipends; so did boys who were not yet pupils hope to be stipendiary pupils. Where is the distinction? “Let those who have anything, keep it,” is a plain rule. I know who they are: I can estimate the whole effect of such a principle. But “Let those who hope for anything, get it,” is quite a different rule. No reason can possibly be assigned for giving ten rupees now to a boy who had five rupees in 1833, which is not exactly as good a reason for giving five rupees now to a boy who had nothing in 1833. I say therefore, Stick to the plain principle. Protect vested interests, and as to the rest consider yourselves as perfectly free.—[Book K. page 126.] 16th February, 1837.
My opinion is unchanged. I am satisfied that the interest of the boys in stipends which they had not in possession was not a vested interest. I would ask Mr. Colvin this question. Suppose that it had been thought desirable for the interest of the school to diminish the number and increase the value of
