The Sun.
London, England, 1834-09-16 00:00:00

presented—such a prospect of future calamity as it ex-
hibited under the old system of poor law manage-
ment—is not to be found elsewhere under the
sun ; and yet with all these facts staring them in
the face, there ara writers who would per-
suade the public that the past system ought to have
remained intact, or at least to have been but slightly
changed, and that the authors of the new are men of
hard and flinty hearts, who have no bowels of com-
passion for the distressed, and would sternly sacrifice
the whole poor of a country at the shrine of an expe-
riment based upon their peculiar theories I We an-
swer, in reply to such accusations, look on this picture
and then on that—compare the past with the pre-
sent—the prospects of the one with the prospects of
the other—prove to us that the country could have
gone on even for five years more under the old sys-
tem—and we cry you mercy ; but until you have done
so, we must even go forward in our own way, and in
our own belief that the Poor Law Amendment Act is
as just as it was imperatively called for, and its opera-
tion will result in more snbstantial benefit to the com-
munity than any other measure either of the reformed
or of any other parliament.--Morning Advertiser.
The Bishop of London reminds his clergy, that
when he addressed them four years ago, he did not
perceive amongst the Dissenters any symptoms of
increased hostility towards the Established Church ;
but it has since, he says, become apparent that the
spirit of bitterness prevailed amongst them to a great ex-
tent, and waited only for an opportunity to break forth.
" That opportunity was shortly afterwards afforded, in the
excitement and agitation occasioned by the proposal and ac-
complishment of a great political change ; and the moment at
which it was peculiarly to be desired that Christians of all de-
nominations should unite their efforts to tranquillize the public
mind, and to allay those heats and dissensions which must ever
be most injurious, not merely to the interests of this or that
religious denomination, but to the cause of the gospel isself,
—that moment was chosen by our adversaries to assail the
Church and its ministers with every engine which the armoury
of controversy could supply."
The cool assurance of this representation is amaz-
ing. The Bishop complains that the enemies of the
church seized the occasion of the reform excitement to
attack its ministers ; and this assault, of course wholly
unprovoked, he shows was the more culpable when it
was peculiarly to be desired that Christians of all de-
nominations should unite their efforts to tranquillize
the public mind, and allay heats and dissensions. Are
we to understand, then, that during the reform agita-
tion the clergy were exerting themselves to tranquillize
and allay heats and dissensions, and that they only re-
quired the aid of the Dissenters in this blessed work,
instead of receiving which they were wantonly assailed ?
Does the Bishop mean to say that the part which was
generally acted by the clergy during the struggle for
reform was the part of moderators and peace-makers ?
Did they go up and down between the contending
parties, as brothers of charity, neutral as to the subject
of strife, and soothing irritation, and deprecating ani-
mosities? Was partisanship utterly unknown to them,
and did they sedulously keep themselves clear of any
active opposition to the public sentiment ? While the
contest was raging were they seen apart, busy only in
their saving functions, or were they observed foremost
in the fray, striving and striking against the popular
cause, and loudest in the din, shouting the war cry of
corruption ? The Bishop of London sees the scars
which the body of the Clergy received in that memo-
rable conflict ; but before he reprobates the virulence
of those that struck the blows, he should establish the
fact that they were unprovoked, or at least that the
Clergy are not chargeable with having put themselves
in the front of the battle array, opposed to the people.
These are things which it would be well to forget, but
Bishop Bloomfield has an ugly manner of reviving re-
collections. What can be so like the indiscretion
which the ancients assigned to doomed men as the com-
plaint that the clergy were assailed during the reform
struggle ? They certainly had not all the attack to
themselves, and this seems hard to the Bishop. This
is as if one man were to wound his hands in cuffing
another, and then to hold up his bleeding knuckles in
evidence of a cruel assault upon him. The church
has, indeed, cause to tremble under the advocacy of
Bishop Bloomfield. He is just one of those men, be-
tween abuse and reformation, who go far enough to
disturb and loosen an impaired system, without going
far enough to refix and settle it. In the storm-tossed
ship he is for making an opening precisely between
wind and water. He will unbolt the door to improve-
ment, and thinks to satisfy it with some few conces-
sions. He is liberal and enlightened enough to see
the necessity of putting the house in order ; but the
cellars and_ attics only, according to his notion, require
cleansing and arrangement, and he has not a thought
of any alterations in the drawing-rooms. Indeed, it
is beautiful to see how he steers clear of his own
case. All his ideas of reform are centrifugal. He
says, that if any changes can be made in the dis-
tribution of the ecclesiastical resources which would
have a clear and unquestionable tendency to increase the
usefulness of the church, they ought to be carried into
effect, " even if it be at the expense of some of those
ornamental parts of the system, which have their uses,
and those by no means unimportant ; yet not so im-
portant as that they should be suffered to stand in the
way of improvements calculated to enhance and give
lustre to the true beauty of the Church—the beauty of
its holy usefulness." When we read this, we made
sure of some surrender of the ornaments of the mitre
—some renouncement of the pomp, not to say vani-
ties, of the purple ; but no—the Right Rev. Bishop
had nothing of the kind in his thoughts ; he had in
view only the regulation of pluralities. His ideas on
this subject are not a little curious :
" My own opinion is, that the most inconvenient kind of
plurality, as far as the interests of parishes are concerned, is
that by which two very poor benefices are held by the same
incumbent ; especially if they are not absolutely contiguous to
each
living
to
other the least
held
injuriousleastbythe incumbent is
that which permits a very
small
of
benefice. The reason of this will Le evident a
everywell-endowed
en
person
to
who is practically acquainted with the working of our paro,
,ors
chial system."

This is a comfortable doctrine. To him who has mud

more shall be given. The Bishop does not conceive
that the incumbent of a well-endowed benefice can be
employed in his parish so fully and proportionately to
its emoluments that he cannot have leisure for the

duties of another. He does not perceive that the in-
cumbent of the well-endowed benefice is overpaid in
that parish if he has spare time even for a very small
living elsewhere. But these things church reformers,
who happen not to be Bishops, will surely see. The
following is also a characteristic canon :—" It is much
better that there should be a body of poor curates than
of poor incumbents." Carrying up the reasoning, it
is best of all that there should be rich Bishops. The
shining mitre for the head of the Church,—the hum-
ble travel-worn sandal for its feet. The Bishop, how-
ever, wishes that all Clergymen could be well provided
for ; but as this is impossible, he sees that the lower
members can best bear nakedness. The following is
his statement of the wealth of the Church :
" The total number of benefices with and without cure of
souls (including those churches and chapels which have no
other endowment than that of pew-rents) is 10,701, and the
total net income thereof is 3,058,2481., giving an average of
28.5/. for each. The total net income of the bishops, the ca-
thedral bodies, collegiate churches, and other ecclesiastical
corporations of every kind, is 432,9421. If this weft added to
the income of the benefices, and the whole were divided
equally amongst the parishes in England and Wales, so much to
the clergyman of each parish, no provision being made for the
rulers or officers of the church, nor for a large body of curates,
the average would be about 3261. net income for each--an
amount barely exceeding that which, by almost common con-
sent, has been fixed upon as the minimum of provision for a
well-educated man, set apart for the work of the Ministry,
and cut off from all other sources of emolument."

The first thought that mush occur to every impartial
person on reading this statement is, that if the average
income of the working clergy is so low, the more ine-
quitable is the great wealth of some of his bishoprics ;
nay more, the average income of the Bishops--if we
remember correctly, upwards of 5,0001. a year—comes
into startling comparison with the average of the infe-
rior clergy at 2851. " Any thing like an equalization
of church property" our Bishop is persuaded would be
" most injurious to the interests of religion," but he
does not explain why. He is content with declaring
himself of that persuasion. He has a faith in rich
sees and poor cures. The interests of religion are as
the square of the distance between a Durham, a Can-
terbury, and a Welch Curate. The Bishop's persua-
sion is not to be controverted, and all that we have to
say is, that it is a convenient and comfortable persua-
sion for a Bishop. People who live in palaces take a
peculiarly complacent survey of the dispensation of