STE, — It may be presumptuous for a working man to attempt
a criticism of an article in the Spectator. I do so with the greatest diffidence, hoping the while that the pen of a more ready writer will be wielded to some purpose in denouncing the views expressed under the above heading in your issue of December 31st, 1904. It is, I think, a matter for regret that the Bishop's balance-sheet was ever given to the Press, though undoubtedly the Bishop was actuated by a worthy motive, and a scrupulous regard for the honour of his word. Yet I think the effect will prove more harmful than otherwise. Probably no individual exists whose annual expenditure, pub- lished with the exactitude of the Bishop's, would give complete satisfaction to any other two persona. But it is not to your comments on particular items that I take exception, but to your embracing the " obvious suggestion " that the Bishop should give up Fulham, or sell London House, and rent rooms, perhaps over some shop or other, in the vicinity of St. Paul's, where he might interview his clergy. From such false economy may God preserve the Church of England ! A few years back it was almost impossible to peruse a periodical or book on whatever subject which did not contain some thoughts arising from an undercurrent tainted with the war. To-day, subconsciously perhaps, all subjects appear to be viewed through " unemployed " spectacles. In no other way can I account for the democratic and Socialistic tendency shown in your comments, comments which would not have been sur- prising if uttered by some Nonconformist Park orator, for the same logic gives us the " obvious suggestion " that the Royal Family might advisedly give up Buckingham Palace to the Government, for infirm and decrepit statesmen, and take up their abode in Delahay Street or Whitehall Gardens. I would, however, deal with this subject with the sincerity of thought it calls for. Perhaps the most painful of your remarks is your proposal that ordination candidates should find lodgings in the vicinity of London House. Sir, I cannot express how deeply I feel this error which you have unguardedly allowed to go forth. And I think all who ponder this matter over seriously will conclude that, if only for that one reason, Fulham should be retained by the Bishop, so that candidates may be quietly and properly entertained previous to ordina- tion. Even were Fulham given up, but retained by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for " sick or worn-out or aged clergymen," the cost of such an institution in the Metropolis would be very great, the house would still be " sufficiently old to need a good deal of repair," and the grounds costly to keep up. With regard to the selling of London House, and the " claims of utility" being met by hiring rooms near St. Paul's, such economical steps would, I think, be positively dangerous to the welfare of the Church. I protest, Sir, emphatically against such a narrow, purely economical view of the Bishops' position. They are the ambassadors of Christ's Church on earth. If ever such parsimony as you advocate is adopted, we may expect considerable decadence in the influence of our Church, and the falling away of many of her members, especially amongst our nobility and the affluent, who would embrace the Roman Catholic faith. Such a statement may require some explanation ; its truth, however, could be demonstrated. But I have already trespassed at some length on your valuable space.—I am, Sir, &c., Camberley. G. W. ROBINSON.
Previous page
