Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1857-09-30
PifiabIa Poverty.

Inc present BISHOP OF LONDON Will DOt i've,
, it is said, at Fuham. The small, though fixed
income of the See will not allow Of house in st.
James square and palace at Fulham.-IlIus-
trated London Nsrs.
The will Of the Right Hon. and Right Rev.
Charles James Lord Bishop Bloomfield has been
sworn under 100000 personality.-I6id.
! Wealth and poverty are comparative. The
Marquis of Westminster, with daily income OF
$1,000 looks down with pity, we presume, on
Lord yndhurst-American born, by the way.
who has nothing to live upon except the $25,
900 year with which England has gratefully
which he held under four Administrations, and
finally declined to accept, fifth time, pressed
on him by Lord Derby in 1852. The Dukes of
Devonshire, Buccleugh, Portland, Athol Suth-
erland, and Bedford, whose annual incomes res
pectiveIy amount from 81, 100000 to 81, 100000
may pityingly contemplate the hard lot of such
poor devils as Lords Byron, Erskinc, Dnngan-
non, Clifford, and Kingsale, none of whom pos
sess as much as $4,000 a year. Indeed, Lord
| Kingsale, whose peerage dates from the year
1l81, is so poor that he can live only in small
country house, on $4,000 per annum, with the
satisfaction ofknowing that Gf the cost of prop
er suit of clothes would not nearly ruin him.
he might go to Court, and wear his hat in the
presence of Queen Victoria. This was priyi-
lege granted to the first peer 700 years ago, by r
King John,-a similar hereditary right was con-
terred by Henry VIII, on an ancestor Of the
present Lord Forester. There is q pleasant sto-
ry on record Of the enforcement of this right on
the part of Lord KiDgsale. 1t was soon after
the accession of George ii, who, German by
birth, and bred up. with grand notions of eti-
quette, was astounded and angry at beholdng
tall Milesian walk into his public drawing
room, hat on bis head, as independent as if he
owned st. James Palace. The matter was ex-
planned. The monarch saluted his hated SUBJ
ject, thereby acknowledging the claim. Lord
Kingsale, his privilege conceded, should have
uncovered his head He declined doing SO un-
til Lord Chesterfield, the most polite man of the
time, courteously accosting him stated that per-
haps lie was unaware that he was covered. 1t
is my privilege said the naughty Irishman-
"We know that" answered Chesterfield. You
may wear your hat before the King, but-6ut
before the adiesr Lord Kingsale bushed as
much as his Miesan blood would allow, and
instantly took off his hat with an apologetic
bow to the fair delnoiselles who were present.
Enough of this gossip. We come back to our
theme The Ulustrated London Netcs is the prop
erty of man of large weath-Mr Herbert In
grain, NJ P for Boston, and proprietor of the
auack medicine called PARIS Life Pills.'-who
contrasting his own abundance with clerical
poverty, speaks with sympathy and commisser-
alton Of the poverty of the Bishop of London
Disguise it as one may, Poverty is a bitter
draught DR.. TAFT the hierarch of London, was
formerly schoolmaster, and then, we believe,
not nearly SO well provided for by the way OF
income as he is at present. At one time, as we
know, he was only a curate, doing hard duty in
q rural parish, on an income OF $500 per annnm.
lie has known, therefore, what small salary
means. Knowing it, one would wonder at his
sef-sacri6ce in accepting the mitre, with the ti-
tie of Ny Lord scat in the House of Lords,
and the small, though fixed income attached
to the bishopric.
How much is that income, the limited amount
of which saddens the sympathetic spirit OF the
Illustrated London Nersl In the first place,
there tine ss. i u asa IL I sausEs loSaGR
the small though fixed income of the bishopric
is exactly $5S,50O, total, S66,500. Too small
q sum for clergyman to live respectably,-so
small, that the bishop has to give up his suburb
an retreat, that humble dwelling called The
Palace of Fubam, charmingly situated on the
banks of the Thames.
The late Bishop, DR.. Bloomfield did not labor
under the disadvantage of small, though fixed
income For nearly thirty years he was act
ing and actual head Of the church of England in
London. A great part OF the northwest end of
London happens to belong to the See, and the
amiabe Bishop had the pleasure, OF seeing most
of it built upon in his time,-with the agreeable
result, (from fines, leases, and renewals,) of
throwing between $250,000 and 100000 per
apnum into his purse. The amount tnctuated,
and therefore was not fixed but on the other
hand it was not small st. Paul We are sure
would have opened his eyes, in wonder, at the
magnitude of the amount.
The income of the present Bishop OF London
Y6S, 500 Year, would supply the salaries OF
round dozen of Bishops in the United States
Yet the hierarchy in this country, OF whatever
denomination, is not inferior, we believe, in pie.
ty, learning zeal, morals and practical goodness.
TheBishop who would complain of sos, 900 per
annum being small, though fixed income de-
serves to be remitted back to his pristine condi
ton of curate, with $500 per annum. There
are now some $4,000 clergymen of the Church
in England, and third Of these do not receive
$500 per annum each while another third do
not average Sl,400. We do not see that the
| bishop of London is so very much to be pitied,
because, on $68.500 q year, he cannot have a
house in ST. James Square, and palace at
Fulham' What stately mansions what splen-
did palaces did the Apostles reside inl
We have glanced at this subject, because it
seems to give the key to the state OF religion in
in England. The clergy there are general
ly underpaid-the bulk OF them averaging only
S1,250 per annuln. There are many great,
prizes. however-deaneries prebends, arch-dea-
con-ies, canonships and bishoprics, which the
fortunate minority monopolize. This is the
English system to the letter; the Few well off,
the Many in medioerity. 1t has been proposed
to throw the whole church revenues into one
aggregate, and more equally divide, SO that the
working clergy should have better Incomes
| But the church magnates, the fortunate we'll
| provided for, will not hear of it. No wonderl
If this fair division were made, the small though
fixed income of the bishop of London would
certainly be SO much diminished, that, besides
relinqushing his palace at Fulham,' he would
have to shift his quarters, and, giving up his
mansion in St. James Square, be content with
a moderatesized house and rent in someless FASH
ionable part OF London.
i The mere contemplation of Apostolic poverty
such as this SO horrifes US that, to raise our
readers spirits, we shall relate circumstance
IN the life OF the late bishop, who died few
weeks ago. BY his first wife, Miss Heath, he
had eleven children. She died, and his Lord
ship contracted a second marriage with Mrs.
Kent, widow with nine children. In fulness
of time the bishop and his second wife had elk
children additional. Altogether it made pref
ty large family party, most of the male members
of which, as they grew up were provided for
by good church preferments. To avoid confu-
sion, when speaking to Mrs. Bloomfield Of their
'happy family Bishop Bloomfield would seve-
rally designate them as my children, your chill
dren, and our childrenr
The late bishop, it will be seen, left $500, 900
in personal property. This over and above his
real estate, such as lands and hotses which he
purchased by way Of investment.