New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-07-31

.,oa and where the patron OF the advowson
oan mt his nominee in possession OF the church
and NJ the parish without any regard Tor 'he
b;sbon or consideration of the moral ana III
teI,ectual fitness Of the candidate. once estap-
Iisbed as rector Of parish clergyman OF the
Church OF England cannot be deprived vi HIS
benence except ~ legal process when IS al
WAYS long and costly. In fact, almost the only
way in which priests of the Church OF England
lose their benefces is through conviction OF
son,e offence against The ordinary laws OF the
land.
BISHOPS ARE POWERLESS.
Perhaps no better illustration can be given or
the difficulty that exists with regard to the re-
moval of parish priests of the Church Of Eng
land who are 4 disgrace TO their cloth and a
serious impeachment TO the spread Of religion
than that with which the British Premier fur
nished the House Of Lords the other day in the
course of the discussion OF a bill put forward
by the Government which is destined to in
crease the disciplinary powers Of the bishops
over the clergy Of their sees. Lord Salisbury
cited the case OF Bishop who set in action the
entire machinery of ecclesiastical and temporal
law for the purpose Of getting rid OF drunken
parson the rector Of large and important
parish The man was condemned by The lower
courts But he carried the judgment to appeal.
and the decision against him was reversed by
the Prvy Council some technical plea. The
result of the proceedings was that the rector
was maintained in his benefce in defiance Of the
demands of his diocesan, who was mulcted in
costs TO the tune Of some $4,000 for having
done nothing but what was absolutely his duty
Now, English bishops, in spite Of their relatively
large stpends are not, as a general rule rich
men, and the experience Of this particular
prelate az pointed out by Lord Salisbury, is
scarcely calculated TO encourage his fellow
bishops to fulfil their duty in endeavorng TO
remove from Office unworthy priests.
In fact the Bishop of the Church of England.
in spite OF his seat in the House of Lords and
the prestige attached to his name, is entirely
without power over his clergy. He cannot even
shift the benefited clergymen from one parish
to another. means of discipline enjoyed by
the bishops Of Roman Catholic doceses. nor
can he. like the latter inhibit recalctrant or
unworthy priest from his ecclesiastical func-
tons. In fact, unless the English benefited
clergyman commits some offence serious enough
to justify a prosecution ordinary citizen,
the Bishop of the diocese can no more deprive
him of his living than magistrate take
away his neighbours stocks and bonds. This lack
OF authority on the part Of the Bishop would
be serious enough In all conscience even il he
possessed the fullest kind Of right TO withhold
induction in the case of clerics whom he knew
to be unworthy of the trust, without being held
legally responsible for the refusal and liable
to heavy costs and even damages in the event
Of his being unable TO furnish adequate proof OF
the candidates misconduct. 1t appears infinite
ly more grave when ii is borne in mind that his
prerogatives in connection with the refusal of