New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-07-25


ought to be exactly ascertained.
Hereupon Sir b. Hall made speech IN
which he handled the reverend prelates
without reserve. They had all got great
deal more money than the law allowed
them. The Bishop of st. David's was 70
have $500 year; but in seven years he
had pocketed S6,325 more than that sum.
The Bishop of Norwich was to have the
same, but IN seven years he had got S35.355
too much. The three Bishops Of Oxford,
Rochester and Salisbury had cribbed
$4,000 more than their proper revenues.
The Bishop of London, in II years, had
taken S3s6.29 to which he had no good
right; and in the same time the Bishop of
Winchester had outrun his just income
S225.S3O, and the Bishop of Durham
s39s,29C If other people were to do such
things it would be called robbery So too
in some minor offices Of the church. In the
diocess of Ely there were five clergymen,
whom he named, receiving together S55,7l5
wear, who did no duty at all. and one more
receiving Sl6,95O, who did duty only as it
suited his convenience.
In this way Sir B. Hall went through the
abuses of the Church, and showed up the
more prominent with an unsparing hand.
He went for reforming them all. The state
of things was disgraceful in the highest de-
gree. An end should be put to such a sys-
TEN Of clerical peculation. He would pro-
pose to take the property of the bishoprics,
deaneries and ecclesiastical bodies, all and
singular, and pay the clergy proper IN
comes, leaving no chance for them to get
more by trick and management. Instead
of $4,000 year, let the Archbishop of
/ Canterbury have no more salary than the
Prime Minister As for the Bishops, turn
them out of the House of Lords, give them
$4,000 or $4,000 year, and make them
act in their spheres as good parish priests
would. In respect of the inferior clergy, he
would have none of them allowed to starve
on $50 or 5000 year, without clothes fit
to be seen none of them should have less
than : 200 nor more than $4,000 BY this
means the Church would be made useful re-
spected, and blessing to the country at
/ large. while there would be ample funds for
It's extension.
This Speech as well as one of similar
sort, made subsequently, in the same debate
by Mr.. Horsman. could not but provoke re-
plies from the prelates in question, and the
public press has been widely occupied with
the subject The Bishops defend them
selves with a spirit quite vehement and
irate, but apparently with no great success.
Their pecuniary malpractlceS seem in
most if not in all cases, to be beyond dis
proof. and the practical good sense of the
public treats them with little indulgence.
Their enormous salaries they cannot long
retain and however dsagreeable to their
personal tastes, it will be happy day for
the Church when more equal distribution
of its income is made among its ministers.
1t is urged by the towards who abound
everywhere, that the exposure of these
scandals must be hurtful to religion but
the plain answer is that not the exposure,
but the scandals themselves, cause that hurt.
The Bishops have done wrong, not the
faithful public servants who have revealed
their doings.
Thus one by enc the abuses that have
grown into the political and ecclesiastical
system of England are assailed and abated
The revolution moves tardily, but it moves
Common sense and the instinct of Justice
are sure at last to have their way. And
distant as may be that complete separation
of Church and State, 50 much TO be desired
for the kingdom, there is no reason to
doubt its final achievement