THE ARCHBISHOPRIC OF YORK, THE GOVERNMENT, AND THE CHURCH.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SPECTATOR.
entirely agree with all your observations in favour of the Bishop of Hereford on his elevation to the Archiepiscopal see of York. I have never heard a word against Dr. Musgrave. For many years he held offices, onerous and im- portant, both in his College and in his University; and always discharged his duties in the most upright, kind, andgentlemanly manner. No complaint has ever been publicly brought against him by his clergy in the diocese of Hereford. Therefore I beg it to be understood that I have nothing whatever to say against the Bishop of Hereford: rather would I join in his praise. But it seems to me that the real "question has been lost sight of by the press. That question is, not whether the Bishop of Hereford is properly qualified to occupy the see of York, (which no one doubts,) but what GREATER claims or Iyalificatiorts HE possesses over Bishops senior to him in the province of York? Why should he be brought out of the province of Canterbury, when (to mention enly two) such two men as the Bishops of Chester and Ripon have been passed over, and that in their own province?
To mention the claims which those two Bishops have earned in every way, would make my note too long for your columns at this time.
But do you not think that the clergy in the province of York have some cause to ask the Government for a reason why a junior Bishop should be placed over the heads of two such men, his seniors, and in the province?
Previous page
