The second reading of the Bill providing for additional Bishop-
rics, which came down from the House of Lords, was moved on Monday in the Commons by Mr. Cross, and carried after a short debate by a majority of 128 (188 to 60). Mr. Dillwyn opposed it on the ground that the connection between Church and State is undesirable,—which, even if it were true, would be a very bad reason for keeping the organisation of the Church inefficient while it is in connection with the State ; and also on the ground that any revenue which can be spared from the existing Bishoprics should go to the working clergy, and not to the ornamental staff officers. Mr. Dillwyn even objected to Bishoprics endowed by voluntary subscription, on the ground that the "weak women" who give to such objects, would be doing much better to leave the money to their own relations. Surely that is an argument not very consistent with Mr. Dillwyn's own 'principles. If you are to oppose the Voluntary system, because on that system " weak women " will give their money unwisely, Mr. Dillwyn should propose to have all the sects established at once, and to exercise a strict Parliamentary control over the distribution of their funds. What would the society with the long name (" for the Liberation of Religion from State Patronage and Control ") say to Mr. Dillwyn's Voluntaryism, so far as it is illustrated by his Monday's speech ?
Previous page
