L I B RA RY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 U N I VERS ITY 
 
 or ILLI NOIS
 
 * , 
 
 
 /■Cfl>^ n^rrr*^ 
 
 J 
 
 
 Jc^^y 
 
 It 
 
 
 
 tn% 
 
 _ __- /h^A^ 
 
 (J
 
 -'4 
 
 REPORT OF SPEECH 
 
 BY THE 
 
 BISHOP OF ROCHESTER 
 
 AT A 
 
 PRIVATE MEETING 
 HELD AT 
 
 BISHOP'S HOUSE, KENNINGTON, 
 12th APRIL, 1905.
 
 ^Lww 
 
 BISHOP'S HOUSE, 
 KENNINGTON PARK.S. E. 
 
 'I 5 ^mh May, 1905. 
 
 ;eiv 
 
 Having received, under God, from His Majesty the 
 King, the charge of the New Diocese of South wark, with 
 its population of more than two million people (2,025,000), 
 and daily growing, I felt it to be my first duty to take 
 advice as to the way in which I could provide for its 
 effective Episcopal supervision. 
 
 A meeting, chiefly of laymen, invited to my house on 
 April 12th, made, unanimously and cordially, the following 
 recommendations : — 
 
 (i.) That the Diocese could only be properly worked 
 
 by the assistance of two Suffragans, 
 (ii.) That means must be provided by endowment to 
 secure an income of not less than £500 a year 
 each, 
 (iii.) That for this purpose an effort be at once made 
 to raise £25,000. With existing endowments 
 producing about £250, this would yield the 
 required sum. 
 
 A large sum was raised by those present. 
 
 Acting upon this advice I have applied to the Crown 
 for consent to the appointment of two Suffragans whose 
 titles will be Bishop of Kingston-on-Thames (by Order in 
 Council dated 5th July, 1889) and Bishop of Woolwich (by 
 Order in Council just passed for the purpose).
 
 I propose to assign to each of them half the Diocese 
 as a special sphere, preserving my own connection 
 undiminished with the whole. The Suffragans will act as 
 connecting links between myself and their respective 
 districts. 
 
 As at present advised, I contemplate their giving 
 their whole time to their Episcopal work, without other 
 charge. 
 
 I shall share with them by devolution, the work of 
 Confirmation, the duties of public institution to benefices, 
 of dedication of church buildings, of the different depart- 
 ments of diocesan work, and of careful parochial visitation. 
 
 The relief to myself will be enormous, and the 
 addition to the efficiency of the Diocese, I hope, 
 proportionate : for it is not, I need hardly say, with any 
 intention of taking ease niyself, that I ask for this help. 
 
 A committee, mainly of laymen, whose names are 
 overleaf, has undertaken to carry this matter out for me 
 under the chairmanship of Mr. W. J. Lancaster. 
 
 I hope that this will approve itself to you as a 
 thoroughly businesslike manner of meeting, at a very 
 modest cost, and in^-very frugal way, the needs of this 
 heavy Diocese (the third in size in the whole country).
 
 It will abolish the need of any collection, as in the 
 past, of annual subscriptions : a method which is very 
 unsuitable for this particular purpose, and which has 
 been a cause to me of constant anxiety and trouble. 
 
 It is not without real reluctance that I make this 
 appeal, in view of the heavy demands for the Endowment 
 of the See to which the Diocese has just responded. But 
 this is in fact the completion of that work by what is 
 necessary to secure the results which we have all hoped 
 for from it. 
 
 It would be therefore an immense help if you would 
 assist the Committee in the very spirited attempt which 
 they are making to raise the sum by Michaelmas next, 
 
 about which time the Archbishop has most kindly con- 
 sented to consecrate at our Cathedral the two new Bishops 
 of Kingston-upon-Thames and Woolwich. 
 
 I desire to remain, 
 
 Your faithful Serva^ 'Ty^ 
 
 ( BisJwp- Designate of Southi 
 
 ^^ /It: V-^ ■ 
 
 [P.T.O.
 
 Southwark Suffraaan €ndou)ttient 7und. 
 
 COMMITTEE. 
 
 W. J. Lancaster, Esq., J. P., L.C.C. (Chairman). 
 
 The Ven. the Archdeacon of Southwark. 
 
 Sir Frederick Wigan, Bart. 
 
 The Eev. Canon Allen Edwards. 
 
 Derman Christopherson, Esq. 
 
 J. T. Chaklesworth, Esq. 
 
 Augustus C. Sadler, Esq. 
 
 E. C. P. Hull, Esq. 
 
 The Eev. Canon C. E. Brooke. 
 
 D. G. Landale, Esq. 
 
 Simpson Eostkon, Esq. 
 
 A. B. Stevens, Esq., M.B. 
 
 Pe&cival a. Nairne, Esq. 
 
 The Eev. T. B. Dover. 
 
 The Eev. J. Allen Bell. 
 
 Harky Lloyd, Esq., {Hon. Treasurer^) 
 Woodlands, Caterham, or 
 Bishop's House, Kennington, S.E. 
 
 Hon. Secretaries : 
 
 W. H. B. Joyce, Esq., St. David's, Eeigate. 
 F. S. GouLDiNG, Esq., 1 Breakspears Eoad, 
 
 Brockley, S.E. 
 Malcolm Christopherson, Esq., Grove 
 
 House, Kidbrooke, S.E.
 
 REPORT OF SPEECH BY THE 
 BISHOP OF ROCHESTER, 
 
 AT A 
 
 Private Meeting held at Bishop's House, Kennington, 
 12th April, 1905. 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 I am extremely grateful to you for having 
 come together at my summons to-day for a purpose more 
 or less undefined. I should wish you to understand also 
 that you are yourselves, if I may say so, undefined. 
 This is not a meeting of any body ; it is a meeting of 
 those taken — I won't say at random, that would be 
 wrong — but chosen by myself somewhat hurriedly as 
 representing themselves and others who really care for 
 the interests of this diocese, and upon whose counsel and 
 support I might rely in the task which lies before us. 
 
 We know now clearly what our position is, and 
 within a month's time we shall start upon this enter- 
 prise, which, both in a religious and an historical sense, is 
 one of considerable importance, that of founding and 
 organizing a new diocese in God's Church, and that 
 diocese one in the metropolis of the empire ; and as the 
 task has in the first place fallen upon me, I thought that 
 I must invite my friends and advisers to come together 
 in order tliat I might put before them as l^riefly as I 
 nnght, but still with some little fulness, what seemed to 
 me the urgent questions. Of course, I am speaking now 
 not of those greater questions of what the diocese can 
 attempt or effect. That lies all behind. I am speaking 
 now of its equipment and organization. And first I want 
 to say what I think you all know, and what some of 
 you have been good enough to impress upon me, viz., 
 that if I or any man after me is to do this work with any 
 degree of efficiency and without breaking strain, he 
 must have assistance of the episcopal kind. Those of
 
 you — and that is the greater numher — who have heen 
 associated in the work of the council for the creation of 
 the diocese, will do me the justice to say that never 
 at any time, hardly at any meeting, did I disguise from 
 those who were working with me, that the division of the 
 diocese did not mean that that part which was to he 
 Southwark could be worked by a single bishop. I fore- 
 saw afar off the danger that some people not closely 
 acquainted with the facts might think the object was to 
 divide the diocese in order to get two workable areas, 
 each with its bishop. I saw that would not be the case, 
 and I pointed it out w^ith perfect clearness. I may now 
 perhaps just illustrate that in one or two ways which I 
 think may bring out the point somewhat vividly. 
 
 If in the first instance we compare the Diocese of 
 Southwark, as it is to be, with the Diocese of Rochester at 
 the time Bishop Thorold succeeded to it, we find, I believe, 
 the following result. I take the population of the new 
 Diocese of Southwark — and this is the lesser of two 
 estimates — at 2,025,000 people. Now when Bishop Thorold 
 took up the whole undivided diocese which was regarded as 
 such a weight, it consisted of about 1,800,000 people, of 
 whom the population of South London was then about a 
 million and a quarter. That is one illustration which I 
 would give of the matter. A second illustration which I 
 think is somewhat interesting in view of what has recently 
 happened is that the two dioceses into which the old 
 Diocese of Worcester has been parted, the Dioceses of 
 Worcester and Birmingham together, amount to one and 
 a half million against the two millions roughly of the one 
 Diocese of Southwark. A third way of putting the 
 matter (to which I have had my attention drawn by one 
 of our clergy not present here), is that if we take the five 
 Dioceses of Hereford, Gloucester, Truro, Salisbury, and 
 Carlisle, their total population amounts to 1,600,000, as 
 against (once more) the two millions of the single 
 Diocese of Southwark. Then again, to come closer 
 home and also nearer the matter to which I proceed ; 
 if we take the Diocese of London we find that there is a 
 population of 3,245,000 against the Southwark 2,025,000. 
 For this population of London there is now an episcopal 
 
 c UIUC '
 
 staff of four bisliops, so that wc have four bishops at 
 present to work the three and a quarter niilHons ; and 
 you have to consider in that Hght partly what is required 
 for the Diocese of Southwark. 
 
 I do not mean to say that an advocate upon the 
 other side could not find some criticism to make on these 
 comparisons of mine ; I think he could. For instance 
 one very important deduction is in regard to the number 
 of parishes. I will take the five dioceses which I have 
 named and compare their population with our own. I 
 have not taken out the number of parishes. Of course, if 
 you were to put together the parishes in those five dioceses 
 you would find their number was immensely greater 
 than the parishes of the Diocese of Southwark. Some 
 very good judges think the number of parishes is the 
 best test of the amount of a bishop's work. I will only 
 say I am not myself convinced of that. With regard to 
 our country districts, I have not found that the nuini)er 
 of small parishes adds to my work at all proportionately 
 to what a small number of what may l)e called the heavy 
 parishes in the towns or suburbs do. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, to what conclusion does this bring 
 us with regard to Episcopal assistance ? I think myself 
 it brings us to the necessity of employing siiffrcKjan Jiclj) 
 I know it is said — it has been said to me again and again 
 that the laity — there are a good many generalizations 
 which begin with that nominative — that the laity dislike 
 the suffragan system ; and therefore, if that be at all true, 
 I must approach you to-day with a certain amount of 
 diffidence. Again ; my brother, the present Bishop of 
 Worcester, who, of course, always impressed upon us 
 the great drawbacks which undoubtedly there are to the 
 suffragan system, would, I think — in fact I am sure — 
 have done almost anything rather than give in to it if at 
 this moment he sbood in my place. You see, suffragan 
 assistance is not the same as Episcopal assistance. I am 
 at this moment leceiving from a number ol my brethien 
 in the Episcopate very valuable help for the temporary 
 discharge of the Confirmation work, and assistance of 
 that kind somewhat more methodized, would be a
 
 possible way. But I must own that it appears to me 
 that suffragan assistance is what is needful and right. I 
 have had to think the matter over again in the light of 
 some objections, and this is the way in which it comes 
 home to me, — that there is a certain amount of definitely 
 Episcopal work, defined and undefined, which according 
 to our Church's constitution ought to be discharged 
 in a diocese, not merely organizing work or superintend- 
 ing work, but work which ought to be done by a bishop ; 
 that those functions seem to me in a diocese of this 
 scale altogether beyond the powers of a single man, and 
 therefore, (speaking reverently as to what one thinks it 
 would be according to God's will to do), that, until there 
 be some greater change in the whole order, in the whole 
 working of the Episcopal system, the Episcopate in a 
 huge diocese must be in a degree in commission, it must 
 be in a degree discharged by a couple or more men: 
 though the position of the bishop of the diocese secures 
 the unity of administration which is one essential of 
 Episcopacy. 
 
 Now in regard to the other plan of a large diminution 
 in the size of dioceses, I think I would say this, 
 gentlemen, that we may claim to have done our part in 
 our generation. I think that by creating the Diocese of 
 Eochester as you have helped in doing, we have made 
 our contribution to the multiplication of workable 
 dioceses in this generation. But we have not made a second 
 workable Diocese of Southwark in that sense, nor do I 
 think that in any time which I and most of us are likely 
 to see, we shall be able to do that with regard to South 
 London. I think we must leave that, if it is to be done, 
 to the next generation. 
 
 o^ 
 
 I find that the plan of working by suffragans is 
 apparently operating with real efficiency on the other side 
 of the river. The Bishop of London and I are very old 
 and very close friends, and I have talked to him a great 
 deal about this matter, and after doing so I want rather 
 to bring before you under certain heads what I think is 
 the kind of way in which you may get, at one and the 
 same time, relief to the bishop and efficiency to the
 
 diocese, which are tlie two aims, the first being a means 
 to the second, which we have before us. Take for 
 instance, the matter of the institution of new incumbents 
 of parishes. My own experience and that of other 
 bishops whose time and engagements have allowed them 
 to do it more, goes to show that there is hardly anything 
 which is better for the life of a parish, hardly anything 
 which is a happier opportunity for the bishop, than the 
 occasion when an old incumbency is wound up and a 
 new one inaugurated ; and the bishop should be there to 
 preside and carry that through. Now I can very rarely, 
 it may be my fault, I cannot tell — but as a matter of fact 
 I can only rarely undertake public institutions. The 
 Bishop of London and his suffragans never now allow 
 anything else. 
 
 Then a second point. You will imagine that with 
 the great staff of clergy such as we have — I think some- 
 thing like 900 — and with the constant shift that is going 
 on, that one part of the bishop's Avork is the inquiry into 
 character and the verification of antecedents. The Bishop 
 of London tells me that there he has been able to a very 
 large extent to relieve himself of that work, reserving of 
 course necessarily the ultimate treatment of the more 
 difficult cases ; but all the ordinary routine of discipline 
 being done for him by his suffragan bishops. 
 
 A third point is the disputes which arise and need 
 some kind of arbitration and settlement, disputes in 
 parishes, either amongst the clergy or between the clergy 
 and some of the people. There again, what is really 
 serious and important must probably come to the diocesan 
 himself, but there is much that can be settled for him. 
 
 Again, there are now in diocesan work a large 
 number of important departments ; there is the depart- 
 ment of education, the department of lay readers, the 
 department of temperance, the department of public 
 morality, and several other departments which might be 
 named. Now it is quite plain that if one man tries to 
 make himself the working head of all these departments 
 the work will all be done somewhat feebly. In the Diocese 
 of London we on this side of the river have had very
 
 6 
 
 special reason to know very thankfully what power comes 
 from the Bishop of Stepney in particular being able lo put 
 himself at the head of one department, and we are looking 
 forward, in the coming educational difficulty, to further 
 help in that way. The entire change in energy and 
 efficiency which w^as brought about when I delegated the 
 charge of the lay readers to the (then) Bishop of South- 
 wark is another very striking case. 
 
 I think these are four good instances such as will be 
 quite intelligible to yourselves as to the kind of way in 
 which suffragan help — and suffragan help only, I think, — 
 can relieve the bishop and promote efficiency, for I do 
 not think you would say that all of these things could 
 really be discharged by a Bishop who merely drops in 
 now and again to give a little assistance from outside. To 
 which I may add that the Bishop of London tells me he 
 has found, to use his own words, " quite extraordinary 
 help " in his work from the habit — which the employment 
 of several suffragans necessitates— of meeting together 
 perhaps once a month to consider and discuss different 
 topics arising in the several spheres, and take advice 
 upon matters like patronage, and so forth. I think it 
 might perhaps be an encouragement to you if I just 
 mention two instances which show that the sentence 
 I quoted above as to the laity is not universally true. We 
 have recently heard that two laymen of the Diocese of 
 Winchester, finding that their Bishop's health was, as we 
 have been so sorry to learn, considerably impaired, came 
 forward to help him, offering the sum of £500 a year for 
 the employment of a second suffragan. I heard from the 
 Bishop of St. Albans only last night that when he took 
 up his diocese — or it might be in the time of his 
 predecessor — the late Lord Salisbury said it would be 
 necessary in order to work the diocese, that there should 
 be two suffragans, and in order to give effect to that 
 opinion, he offered the sum of £5000, of which the interest 
 now goes to form part of the income of one of the two 
 suffragans of that diocese, in addition to the subscription 
 he gave year by year to the first stipend. 
 
 Let me come on to our own case. You know 
 that what has been done in the past is that we had
 
 1 
 
 one suffragan to whom a stipend of £1000 a year 
 was paid, which was afterwards raised to £1250. 
 That stipend was made up (1) liy £500 which the 
 Bishop of Kochester paid from his income of £4500, (2) by 
 the rent of a house bequeathed by Mr. Macmillan for the 
 purpose, which amounted to a little under £150, and (3) 
 by the interest on a small endowment fund, a little less 
 than £80, and then (4) by annual subscriptions and 
 donations on which we relied for the residuum. That was 
 a system which those in the room who know the matter 
 even more closely than I do will agree with me caused a 
 considerable amount of anxiety and distress. And the 
 fact that it did so is one of the things I want you to take 
 into account. 
 
 Now I am anxious for your advice as to what it is 
 really wise to attempt. If you think that it is best we 
 should attempt to keep one suffragan bishop either at the 
 original stipend or at perhaps even a slightly lower one, 
 and work the diocese in the same sort of way that we have 
 hitherto worked it, I shall cheerfully accept that. But I 
 own that I am anxious rather to ask you to consider 
 whether we might not have in some way a better method 
 than that. I should like you to consider whether we 
 might aim — whether it is altogether too desperate an 
 ambition to aim — at having tico Sujfragans, between whom 
 I might make some kind of territorial division, so that 
 while I was common to the whole diocese — nothing 
 would induce me to make any arrangement under which 
 that was not true — each of the men who worked with me, 
 except so far as occasional confirmations, etc., might come 
 in, would in the main confine themselves to their own 
 spheres. 
 
 Well then, if we are to consider that, what resources 
 have we for it ? And there I must own we are not in a 
 very encouraging position. For the first thing I must 
 say, and I know you will agree with me, that it is 
 impossible for me or my successors to do, out of the 
 income of the See of Southwark, what the Bishop of 
 Eochester did out of his £4500 a year. That knocks 
 out, you see, the most valuable item in the whole of our 
 former finance. The house Mr. Macmillan bequeathed
 
 8 
 
 has been sold and is now in trust for a suffragan of the 
 new diocese. That will bring in roughly, I hope, £160 
 a year. A very dear old friend of mine at his death left 
 me a sum to be employed at my discretion which will 
 amount to just under £1800, and I am quite disposed to 
 think that I cannot use it better than by putting it to 
 this purpose. That might mean an additional £70 a 
 year. You will remember there is also another endow- 
 ment which yields nearly £80, so that you have thus 
 these two sums ; £160 for the house, and about £150 for 
 the past and the new endowments, making in all a little 
 over £300, which is all we have to go upon. The sort of 
 idea I had was this. First, that I might find a man, or 
 perhaps two men, to one or both of whom the idea of 
 carrying out Episcopal work in a place like South London 
 of a very simple and uncostly form, was not only 
 tolerable, but even attractive, and that therefore we 
 might obtain the services of men who would work at 
 what might be considered for such a purpose, a low 
 stipend. That further, we might come in for some kind 
 of windfall. By a windfall, I mean different sorts of 
 things. One windfall would be the finding of a man of 
 ample means who would give me his help. Another 
 windfall would be the finding of some benefice within the 
 diocese or, just conceivably — I do not put much reliance 
 upon that — across the water, (the suggestion has been 
 made after the example of what was done by the Chapter of 
 Canterbury in the Croydon case,) which would provide a 
 part of the stipend. But it seems to me that the least 
 we ought to have for this purpose if we are with any 
 hope to help in the ways I have indicated to carry out 
 the plan, is a clear £1000 a year for suffragan purposes. 
 I am disposed to think that if you thought it possible in 
 any way to get that £1000 a year, not divided into two 
 stipends of £500, but entrusted to me, or if you like 
 to any Committee working with me, to divide as I pleased 
 in arrangement with the two men whom I might appoint, 
 that would perhaps be the best system. Is it possible 
 to do that, and how can it be done ? I only see, subject 
 to correction from you, two ways in which it can be 
 done. One is the old and hated expedient of the
 
 subscription list. The other is the method of endow- 
 ment. There was a time, when, speaking in this room 
 at a meeting of the council for the creation of the new 
 diocese, I sketched out what I thoudit would be really 
 our wisest plan, and that was to raise a capital sum of 
 in all £130,000 which would provide the income of the 
 See and the suffragan income also. That was received 
 by some of those present to-day, I remember, with a 
 good deal of warmth and favour. It dropped, however, 
 chiefly I think because others thought— and perhaps 
 quite wisely—that to attempt what might seem too great 
 a task would discourage effort, and that to concentrate 
 on the single and apparently more attainable aim and 
 first get just the minimum income for the bishop was 
 the best and most politic course. Whether that was 
 right or not, it was done, and my original suggestion 
 dropped out of sight ; but I did make, it, and it appears 
 to me a question now whether you will think it right 
 to make an attempt to raise that endowment. I said 
 there were two courses ; perhaps I might have said there 
 were three. It would, of course, be possible to get 
 together a certain capital sum and then to eke that out 
 by the method of subscription. Certainly in the last few 
 months the diocese has risen manfully to the occasion 
 and put out a great deal of collective strength and 
 generosity. It is very difficult for me, and perhaps 
 hardly less difficult for you, to judge how far it is 
 ungenerous to take advantage of an effort which has 
 been so willingly made for what may seem a single 
 emergency, or how far it is politic and right to try to 
 train on all that common action and common effort in 
 order that its strength may carry us on towards the 
 accomplishment of fuller designs. Well, then, at that 
 point I ought to introduce what was l)efore the Finance 
 Committee to-day before the bulk of you came. The 
 very happy condition of things of the diocese funds is 
 this, that according to the statement which Mr. Harry 
 Lloyd, our Treasurer, put before us, all the capital 
 needed to create the minimum income has been raised, 
 and, over and above that, we shall, if all promises are 
 paid up, have a capital sum of £3300. The effect of
 
 10 
 
 which is that the Bishop for the time to come will have 
 an income assured to him of about £3100. There 
 comes then the question which was discussed by the 
 Finance Committee, whether we ought to regard that 
 job as finished or whether we ought to go on raising the 
 income above the minimum. Some have drawn attention 
 to a former meeting, at which the Finance Committee 
 decided that the income to be raised should not be less 
 than £3500, and that, if possible, it should be made £4000, 
 and I only say — because I know it will be said — that 
 there are those, few or many I do not know, who 
 cherish the ambition of making the income of the See 
 £4000. Well, now, if the income of the See was made 
 £4000, then the obligation would revive upon the Bishop 
 of the diocese to allow a portion of his income to 
 possible suffragan assistance. Therefore it is necessary 
 to take that question into account along with the matter 
 which we are immediately discussing. I think I have 
 made these matters now as clear as I can, but I still feel 
 that in justice to you and to the future, I ought to add 
 one or two things. 
 
 As I have said, the present gathering is a gathering 
 of those to whom I look for interest in making the 
 support of the diocese efficient and equipping it fully. 
 Now we cannot forget when we are speaking in that way, 
 that a diocese must have a cathedral, and that cathedral 
 must be maintained. You know, I think, that our 
 cathedral is distinctly in the nature of a pensioner. The 
 Archdeacon — there are several of the Canons here, and 
 they will correct me if I am wrong — but I think I am 
 right in saying that at present the Cathedral is relying 
 for its extremely slender equipment upon a subscription 
 list of about £1500 a year, and that that list is not in a 
 complete condition. I very much hope that our 
 cathedral will be, in the time to come, the object of 
 special gifts. You know, of course, that at this time our 
 friends in America, who are connected with us through 
 Harvard, have undertaken to take the chapel on the 
 north side and fit it up completely and beautifully as a 
 chapel, and present that to the church. I hope that
 
 11 
 
 some person may be found before very long to do 
 something of the same kind Avith that other most urgent 
 need, — that of new vestries for the Church. I also hope 
 that v^e may find in time to come that gifts such as have 
 been given to the Diocese of Newcastle, which has now 
 nearly got a completely equipped chapter of a modern 
 sort, will be ours, and I hope we may find endowments 
 for some canonries — not what people call fat and 
 comfortable places, but simply sufficiently paid working 
 offices. Of course, if we had canonries of that kind, I 
 need not point out that it might very possibly assist us 
 in the business of providing suffragan assistance. 
 
 There is one more thing. I ought to draw vour 
 attention to the College of St. Saviour's. There is no 
 doubt at all that when we speak of the value of the 
 diocese and the value of the cathedral, one thing which 
 contributes to that value is the fact of liaving a College 
 of Clergy connected with the cathedral, and the Bishop 
 of Southwark, in placing in my hands the report of that 
 College for the year before he left us, was able to draw 
 my attention to the fact that in twelve months that 
 College had, in some way or other, helped one in every 
 three of the whole number of parishes in the Diocese of 
 Kochester. That shows quite convincingly, I think, how 
 very necessary and very much valued the work of the 
 College is. Now I need only say that though, of course, 
 we get a certain amount of money from the fees which 
 the members of the College are able to earn upon the 
 ordinary clerical and professional system, when they 
 occasionally help w^here people are able to pay, or when 
 they are perhaps put in charge of a place in sequestration 
 in the case of a vacancy, there is a need for a sub- 
 scription list — a subscription list which, like many other 
 things, we have hitherto owed to the skill and energy of 
 the present Bishop of Worcester. That is not a very 
 large sum, but still there it is, and I mention it now 
 ])ecause it is very rarely I can get such a meeting about 
 me as I have got to-day. Having got it, I want it to 
 know all that is in my heart and all the burdens on my 
 back, and I don't want it to be said by the leading
 
 12 
 
 laitv of the diocese — " we never know what the Bishop 
 will next be asking us for ; it seems to be first one thing 
 and then another, until we get quite weary of the w^hole 
 matter " ! I am afraid I do not mean there are no other 
 things which I should never ask you. One aw^ul shadow 
 already looms across the path, and that is the shadow of 
 the London Church Schools about which we shall have 
 to take counsel within the next few^ months. But, 
 speaking of the equipment of the diocese, I think I may 
 fairlv say I have put the matter compactly before you, 
 and it is upon that I want your advice. 
 
 It occurs to me that you may say — " What practical 
 result ought this meeting to have ? ' ' Possibly this meeting 
 would feel itself competent to decide one or two rather 
 broad issues selected, perhaps, out of what I have said. 
 Then it might think it right to appoint a small committee 
 from itself to deal with any matters which could be 
 communicated to that committee as requiring to be 
 thrashed out. 
 
 CV .. ryf2 
 
 ^^■'t^S^'^'^^
 
 21,ENDSLEICH STREET, 
 
 TAVISTOCK SQUARE. 
 W.C 
 
 
 V^WJw' 
 
 
 cVv^-.' 
 
 U< 
 

 


 
 ^■.ii -^