CLERICAL POVERTY.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR,"] Sin,—There are certain points which need to be emphasised in such schemes as you alluded to in an article for the relief of clerical distress. The suggestion of the Dean of Windsor that the better- endowed clergy should tax themselves for the benefit of the very poor is eminently practical. As the Bishops have hitherto received their incomes in full, they might fairly be asked to take the lead by submitting to some small redaction thereon. It seems doubtful whether, as the Guardian recommends, all livings in private patronage ought to be excluded from the operation of any scheme for the augmentation of poor bene- fices. Such exclusion would probably alienate the sympathy of a large number of the laity who, as patrons of such livings, have not the means to increase their value, yet are deeply interested in their well-being. It is also a question whether it would not be wiser to try to obtain promises of sub- scriptions for a given number of years, rather than to raise— or try to raise—a capital sum of ten millions. The laity might not wish to see their contributions locked up as capital, especially in these days when respect for endowments, however recent, is on the wane.
That something must be done is evident, and the Bishops must head the movement. They would not probably like to bear their clergy crying out for the readjustment of the values of livings, for this would be the first step towards Disestablish- ment ; but such a cry would not be ungrateful in the ears of a Government like the present. The poor clergy have been patient hitherto, but poverty may at length become unbearable. The laity would probably not care for a clergy whose educa- tion, social status, and intellectual powers were on a par with those of the present clergy of Italy and France ; but this, again, is a not remote contingency unless help be forthcoming. The question is a question for the episcopate and for the laity
Previous page
