The Sun.
London, England, 1833-02-08 00:00:00

y,5.6 - 77!
. ;
t.,

LONDON,
FRIDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 8, 1833.

In the House of Lords, last night, a sort of flying
skirmish took place between Lord KING and the
Bishop of LONDON, on the exceedingly ticklish sub-
ject of Church Reform. The Noble Lord is—it is
well-known—a stanch advocate for the correction
of all ecclesiastical abuses. He " flutters the Vols-
cians in Corioli," wherefore his rising in the
House, more especially when he happens to be in a
caustic vein, is always viewed with uneasiness li
by the Reverend Bench. His Lordship observed last
night that " those great personages (the Bishops)
abstracted a large portion of the revenues of the
Church, while the pittance given to the ministers who
did the whole of the duty, was scandalous in the ex-
treme." To this plain, straight-forward, hard-hit ting
remark, the Bishop of LONDON replied, that "there
was no doubt that one of the greatest blessings de-
sired in this country was to increase the comfort, the
respectability, and efficacy of the poor clergy; but
that could only be done by measures which were
not inconsistent with the safety of the Church.
By raising the inferior condition of the clergy,
there was great danger of their weakening the
efficiency of both; and, therefore, although some
changes, and some important changes, in the
Church, as established, were necessary, yet he
(the Right Rev. Prelate) had the fullest confi-
dence in his MAJESTY'S Ministers that they would
not propose any change that would not be com-
patible with the essential interests of the Church."
Now these observations have, we must confess, too
episcopal an air about them to suit altogether our
views of what a Church Reform should be. The
Rev. Prelate has no doubt that the working clergy
ought to be better remunerated; his only doubt is,
whether " it could be done by measures which were
not inconsistent with the safety of the Church."
Why, certainly, if the " safety of the Church" is
inseparably bound up with the wealth of its epis-
copal dignitaries and pluralists, there can be no
question that the more such wealth is reduced, the
more the safety of the establishment is compro-
mised ! But we deny the fact. The safety of the
Church, we contend, has nothing to do with its
riches—else how happens it that the Scotch
Church is still alive and flourishing ?—exorbitant
wealth is its blemish, not as the good Bishop
would seetn to imply, its ornament. An over-paid,
or rather a Church whose revenues are disproportion-
ately distributed, ever has been, and ever will be, a
nuisance, for it sets inquiry on the work, and, worse
than that, provokes the most hazardous comparisons.
The Bishop's reply evidently conveys an idea that the
Rev. Bench have no objection to raise the incomes
of the inferior clergy, provided their own incomes
do not suffer by the experiment. If it bear not this
meaning, it bears no other that we know of. It is
a straw thrown up to show how the wind blows;
and we infer, therefore, that none but a bit-by-bit
Reform will satisfy the squeamish tastes of the Rev.
Bench. We could enlarge on this fertile theme,
but space and time just now forbid.

The adjourned debate in the House of Commons
was not, it will be seen, concluded last night, and
we deem it problematical whether it will be brought
to a close even to-night, If Mr, O'CONNELL mean!