The southern press., 1851-09-24
British Bishops.

An overhauling of the way the bishops of the
British church cause themselves to be fatty paid,
is now going on in England. II began in the
House Of Commons on motion of Lord Bland
ford to provide for the spiritual destitution of
the people, by founding new bishoprics and par
ishes and building churches, the expense to ne
met partly from the present income OF the church,
and partly by private subscriptions. Herenpon
Mr.. Hume moved for a return OF the exact
amount of the property and the incomes belong.
| ing to the various bishoprcs and ecclesiastical
bodies. His desire was to see the funds OF the
church applied as they ought to be. Byareport
made in 1881, while the average income OF the
5 $40 curates employed in the kingdom was
1895 each, the bishops had from $4,000 to
$4,000. ln order in some measure to remedy
this, a law Ind been passed limiting the lowest
bishops revenue to S22,500, and the highest,
that of the Archbishop of Canterbury, u $75,-
600. But this law had been grossly evaded, and
the funds which ought to have gone to the minor
clergy, had been taken from them. The facts
ought to be exactly ascertaned.
| 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. Da-
yids was to have Ss22500 a year, but in seven
wears he had pocketed $685. more than that
sum- The Bishop of Norwich was to have the
same, but in seven years he had got 1886 ,353 too
much. The three Bishops of Oxford, Rochester,
and Salisbury had cribbed $4,000 more than
their proper revenues. The Bishop Of London.
in Ia years, had taken $386295 to which he had
no good right; and in the same time the Bishop
of Winchester had outrun hi just income
S225,830, and the Bishop of Durham $39S,290.
Ii other people were to do such things, 1t 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 $50, 7l5 a year, who did no duty at all.
and one more receiving $l6,a5o, 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 degree. An end
should be put to such system of clerical specu-
ation. He would propose to take the property
of the bishoprics, deaneries and ecclesiastical
bodies, all and singular, and pay the clergy pro-
per incomes, leaving no chance for them to get
more by trick and management. Instead o.
$4,000 year, let the Archbishop Of Canterbuva
have no more salary than the prime minister
AS for the bishops. turn them ont of the House
of lords, give them $4,000 to $4,000 year. and
make them act in their spheres as good parish
priests would. III respect Of the inferior clergy,
he would have none of them allowed to starve
on $3.50 or 5000 year, without clothes fit to
be seen none of them should have less than L.
900 nor more than $4,000. By this means the
church would be made useful, respected and n
blessing to the country at large, while there
would be ample funds for its extension.
This speech, as well as one of similar sort,
made subsequently, in the same debate by Mr..
Horsman, could not but provoke replies from
the preates in question, and The pnbc press has
been widely occupied with the subject The
bishops defend themselves with spirit quite
vehement and irate, hut apparently with no
great success Netp York Tribune '..'