Liverpool and England (part 1 of 2)

The Second Triennial Charge To The Diocese Of Liverpool, October

21, 1884.

My Reverend Brethren, By the mercy of God we are allowed to meet together again at the second Visitation of the new Diocese of Liverpool. On this occasion, I have thought it best to assemble all the clergy of the Diocese in one place, to address the whole body at one time, and to give up a second day’s Visitation at Wigan. In adopting this arrangement, my chief aim has been to consult your convenience. The area of our Diocese is very small, and it is thoroughly intersected by railways. The total number of our clergy is not large, and to the great majority of you, I believe, no meetingplace is more accessible than Liverpool. To this let me add that the arrangement follows the precedent of the Diocese of London. In the visitation of that great See, the whole of the clergy meet the Bishop on one day in St. Paul’s Cathedral.

A triennial gathering like a Visitation is always a solemn season, and the calling over of names ought to raise in our minds solemn thoughts. Our eyes cannot fail to see gaps in our ranks, and some of us perhaps are reminded of the famous picture of ‘The Muster-roll’ on the morning after a battle in the Crimean War. The incumbents of Walton, Ormskirk, Grassendale, Garston, Prescot, Skelmersdale, Sefton, Raven-head, St. Luke’s, St. James the Less, and Christ Church, Hunter Street, are no longer with us. Who can tell what gaps there may be before another three years have passed away? May we all be found ready when our turn comes! It is a comfortable thought that the great Head of the Church ‘dieth no more,’ ‘death hath no more dominion over Him.’ John Wesley’s memorial tablet in Westminster Abbey contains a striking saying, ‘God buries His workmen, but carries on His work.’

On an occasion like this, a Bishop may reasonably be expected to say something to his assembled clergy about two great subjects. One of those subjects is the special condition of the Diocese over which he is appointed to preside; the other is the general condition of the whole Church, of which his Diocese forms a part. On each of these subjects I propose to say something today.

1. Concerning our own Diocese, I shall have to begin with some facts and figures, which I hope you will hear patiently. But it is impossible to form a correct estimate of the spiritual condition of the district in which we live unless we understand the very peculiar position which it occupies, in many respects, compared with other Dioceses in the land. I desire to use great plainness of speech on this point, because of the many unfavourable and unfair criticisms to which the Churchmen of this new See are frequently subjected. I say without hesitation, that there is not a Diocese in England or Wales in which the Established Church has to work under such disadvantages and difficulties as the new Diocese of Liverpool.

(1) Our first difficulty consists in the painful disproportion between the number of our clergy and the number of souls residing in the Diocese. The West Derby Hundred of Lancashire, which forms the new See of Liverpool, contains a population of little less than 1,200,000. For this immense mass of people we have only 187 incumbents with Parochial Districts. Let this proportion be compared with that of the six Dioceses which exceed Liverpool in population. In York there are 630 incumbents for 1,300,000 people; in Manchester, 490 for 2,300,000; in Ripon, 490 for 1,600,000; in Worcester, 480 for 1,200,000; in London, 500 for 3,000,000; and in Rochester, more than 300 for 1,600,000. Of course, I have used round numbers. Nor is this all. Out of the 187 consecrated churches in our new Diocese, no less than 137 have been built since the year 1800, and are churches practically without endowment, and dependent upon pew rents and voluntary offerings. As to livings well endowed with rectorial tithes or lands, such as you may find by hundreds in some Counties of England, I cannot find twenty in the whole West Derby Hundred. And, to crown all, out of the 187 incumbencies, the income of at least 100 does not exceed £300 a year; and in many cases an incumbent with £300 a year has 8,000 or 10,000 people, or even more, under his charge! I doubt whether there is anything like this state of things in the Church of England from the Isle of Wight up to Berwick-on-Tweed.

(2) Our next difficulty consists in the very peculiar and exceptional character of our population. Outside our great city of Liverpool, there is a most singular and remarkable scarcity of resident nobility and large landed proprietors, who, as a general rule, are the chief supporters of the Established Church. A glance at any county map of the West Derby Hundred will show few of those green spots which usually denote the presence of a landed proprietor. Nor must it be forgotten, that at least three of the largest estates in the district are in the hands of old Roman Catholic families. In Liverpool, which comprises half the population of the Diocese, about one half the people are either Roman Catholics, Scotch Presbyterians, or Welsh or English Nonconformists. It is a notable fact, moreover, that few of the wealthy and successful merchants of our great city seem to be rooted and tied down to Lancashire, and that not a few leading families have left Liverpool in the last fifty years for other parts of England, after an honourable success in business. Their names have disappeared on our Exchange, and they are no longer connected with us.

Beside this, it must never be forgotten that Liverpool is the largest seaport in the world, and that many of our people are sailors of all nations, continually moving and changing, here today and gone tomorrow. Moreover, the north and south ends of our great city contain myriads of people connected with the docks, who are almost always in a most destitute condition, living from hand to mouth in very miserable and poor dwellings, and terribly disposed to give way to intemperance, improvidence, and habitual neglect of the means of grace. I might say something besides about the dense colliery population round Wigan, and the thousands employed in the chemical works at St. Helen’s and Widnes, if time permitted. But I think I am justified in saying that we have altogether in our 1,200,000 souls a mass of people presenting most peculiar difficulties to the Bishop and clergy of our new See. And I say once more that I doubt whether there is anything quite like it in the Church of England.

(3) Our third, but not our least difficulty, consists in the conspicuous absence of much of the machinery for carrying on the work of the Established Church with which other Dioceses are supplied. Next to Archdeacons there are no Diocesan officers more useful to a Bishop than Rural Deans. But of these helpers there are only 9 in the Diocese of Liverpool. In York there are 31, in London 25, in Rochester 19, in Worcester 31, in Manchester 21, in Ripon 24. We have no endowed Dean and Canons, and the services at the Cathedral in the second city in Great Britain are carried on by the voluntary aid of unpaid Honorary Canons, in many cases with great inconvenience to themselves. We have nothing that can be called a Cathedral worthy of the Diocese up to the present day. When Manchester and Ripon Dioceses were formed, there was a Cathedral in each case ready made to hand. At Newcastle there is a parish church of a size and scale fitting it to be a Cathedral. At Wakefield, when the See is formed, there is another parish church far exceeding anything we have in Liverpool. At Southwell there is already a beautiful Minster. In the whole city of Liverpool there is not a single church which could be made into a proper English Cathedral. We have before us the gigantic work of building and endowing a Cathedral in the midst of a huge, crowded city. I have no doubt the work will ultimately be done; but it is vain to deny that it is a most formidable undertaking, taxing heavily the energy and liberality even of Liverpool, and constituting a very grave difficulty in the face of a new See. In short, our Diocese is thoroughly under-manned and imperfectly equipped, and its first Protestant Bishop is in the position of a captain of some huge steamship who is suddenly called upon to start a voyage across the Atlantic with half the crew, and half the engineers, and half the coals that the ship requires. Let no one misunderstand me. I do not say what I have said in a spirit of complaint. I find fault with no one. The state of things which I deplore has been chiefly caused by the commercial skill and prosperity of this part of Lancashire, and the marvellous growth of population which has consequently taken place in the last forty years. I admire the zeal, courage, and liberality of those well-known men who laid the foundation of the new Bishopric. I doubt whether Newcastle and Southwell would ever have been founded had it not been for the noble example set them by those who gallantly led the van in Lancashire. But I have mentioned certain facts because many people in England are entirely ignorant of them, and in their ignorance have expected far greater immediate results from the creation of the See of Liverpool than they had any right to expect. Many seem to have thought that, like the Roman general who boastfully said that he had only to stamp on the ground and an army would rise up, so likewise a Bishop had only to be sent to Liverpool, and in two or three years there would be nothing left defective in the Diocese. For myself, I never expected anything of the kind. I saw the difficulties before me, and came to my post prepared to face them, and to bear patiently the unkind remarks that would be made. Nor have I at this moment the slightest feeling of despondency. Give the Church of England time, and I believe she will yet do as great things in the West Derby Hundred, by the blessing of God, as any Diocese in the land.

One thing only I must publicly regret about the formation of our new See, and that is the omission, in the Act of Parliament which constituted the Bishopric, of any due provision of patronage for the Bishop. Here again I must gently complain that the position of the Bishop of Liverpool is most exceptional. For the relief of aged and infirm incumbents, and for rewarding young clergymen of ‘light and leading,’ he has only four livings to give away, and four others of which he has the alternate patronage with the Crown. There is not another Bishop on the bench who is in the same position. Even in the newly-formed Diocese of Newcastle, the Bishop has nineteen livings to give away, beside eleven alternately with the Crown. Some of these livings are of far greater value than any of the four which are in the patronage of Liverpool. The See of Chester, which, by the formation of the Bishopric of Liverpool, was relieved of two-thirds of its population and an immense amount of responsibility, at the dissolution of partnership transferred to our See only four livings, and retained the patronage of fifty! I make no comment on this. Patronage is at best an invidious possession. The mistake has been made, and cannot be retrieved except by a general Act of Parliament, which will probably never be obtained. But I do think it right to mention the subject in this public manner, because I wish my clergy to understand how little I am able to do for them.

I now turn with pleasure from the difficulties and black clouds of our Diocesan horizon to the blue sky of our position. We have some blue sky to turn to. Looking back over the last four years, and knowing far more of the ecclesiastical condition of the West Derby Hundred than I did when I first came here, I see many things for which I thank God, and take courage.

(1) First and foremost, I am deeply thankful for the general courtesy and kindness with which I have been received by the Churchmen of the Diocese, both clerical and lay. Wherever I have gone, north, south, east, or west, I have met with kindness, consideration, and readiness to assist me and meet my wishes. An English Bishop in the latter part of the 19th century, of course has his own views and opinions. No sensible man would wish him to be a mere figurehead, without any independent mind of his own, and an honorary member of all schools of thought. It is not desirable that he should be. It cannot, therefore, be expected that he will entirely approve everything that every one of his clergy says or does, or that every one of his clergy will entirely agree with him. The Established Church is eminently comprehensive, and allows all her members an immense liberty of thought, so long as they are loyal to her Articles and Prayer-Book. There will always be a considerable diversity of opinion and practice among her clergy, within certain limits. From this diversity the Diocese of Liverpool is not exempt any more than other Dioceses in the land. In fact, I think we have a very large share of free thought on theological subjects in the county of Lancaster, as well as on every other subject, and I do not regret it. But, this being the state of things, I must honestly say that I am very grateful for the small amount of friction and collision in our work which I have seen. We have got on much better than I dared to expect, and I trust that our harmonious action will continue and increase. With all our diversities, I believe we are knit together by a common desire to promote the interests of the Church of England, and as time goes on I trust we shall be still more welded together and united. Union is strength, and disunion a prime cause of weakness in a Church. I am very sensible of my own fallibility, and I always feel that all I do might be done far better. But I hope my clergy will believe that I try to do my duty.

(2) In the next place, I am thankful for the large amount of solid good work which is going on in a great proportion of the parishes in our Diocese. Of course there are parishes and parishes, and much more is done in some than in others. But when I look at the quantity of Christian machinery which is patiently, perseveringly, and habitually kept at work by many ill-paid incumbents of unwieldy, overgrown districts in many parts of this Diocese, I cannot help feeling that we have great cause to praise God, and I should be ungrateful if I did not publicly say so.

(3) In the next place, I am thankful for the condition and equipment of the great majority of our places of worship and the manner in which their services are conducted. I have a right to express an opinion about this. Within the last four years I have been enabled to stand in the pulpits of no less than 150 churches, out of the 187 in our Diocese, either for preaching or delivering Confirmation addresses. I speak, therefore, of what I have seen with my own eyes, and observed for myself. I do not hesitate to say that, although we have few grand churches in an architectural point of view, there are very few in which, through the laudable exertions of the clergy and churchwardens, there is anything of which we need be ashamed. (4) In the next place, I am glad to say the work of church-building, in order to meet the crying wants of our huge overgrown parishes, is going on at a much greater rate than most people suppose. In the four years which have elapsed since the See was formed, I have consecrated nine entirely new churches, viz.: St. John the Evangelist, Walton; All Saints’, Southport; St. Luke’s, Southport; St. Athanasius, Kirkdale; St. Cyprian, Edge Hill; St. Andrew, Wigan; St. Elizabeth, Aspull; St. Ambrose, Widnes; and St. Gabriel, Toxteth Park; and two others which have been rebuilt, viz. St. Andrew’s, Maghull, and St. Stephen’s, Edge Hill; and three chancels added to existing churches, viz. Padgate, Great Sankey, and Upholland. I have also opened by licence three other large churches, viz.: All Saints’, Princes Park; St. Mary, Waterloo; and St. Lawrence, Kirkdale; which will be consecrated as soon as the repair and endowment funds can be raised. Besides this, four other churches, St. Agnes, in Liverpool; Cowley Hill, at St. Helen’s; St. Paul’s, Widnes; and St. Philip’s, Southport, are soon likely to be finished. St. Bede’s, St. Polycarp, and St. Philip’s, Liverpool; St. Benedict’s, Everton; St. Dunstan’s, Earl’s Road; and a new church at Ince, are likely to be soon commenced. On the whole, I entertain a strong hope that, by the end of 1885, twenty-three entirely new churches will have been consecrated since our See was formed. Last, but not least, I may add that since I came to Liverpool as many as eighteen or twenty iron rooms, schoolrooms, or mission rooms, have been opened by licence for divine worship and administration of the Lord’s Supper in various parts of the Diocese, and not a few unlicensed rooms, of which I cannot speak particularly. The value of such rooms, I am convinced, is immense. They give an opportunity of gathering together hundreds who shrink from a large parish church, but are quite willing to attend a simple elementary service in a room. I take occasion to recommend, in the strongest way, to every clergyman of a large parish the erection of such a room, in order to attract and reach those who at present go to no place of worship. I am sure he will find it an invaluable auxiliary, and not least because it will enable him to secure the Sunday help of gifted laymen.

To sum up all, I see great cause for thankfulness in the material (or bricks and mortar) work which has been done and is doing during the last four years. Much, no doubt, remains undone. The state of things in particular at the North end of Liverpool is painfully unsatisfactory, and there is a pressing and immediate want of, at least, three new churches and parochial districts in the neighbourhood of the Alexandra docks, within the area of St. Paul’s, North Shore, Bootle, and Seaforth. I have seen with my own eyes, in the last four years, acres of ground in this district covered over with new houses, while nothing has been done by our Church hitherto to supply their inhabitants with places of worship. I earnestly hope that this want may be taken into serious consideration by the clergy, the landed proprietors, and all connected with the shipping interest at the North end. There really is need of a great effort being made by the Church in that quarter, and before another triennial Visitation is held I hope that something will be done. Unless some energetic steps are taken, thousands of families will soon be lost to the Church of England, or absorbed by other denominations, or added to the roll of non-worshippers.

(5) The Ordinations which I have held since I became Bishop of Liverpool afford me much ground for thankfulness. It is a striking fact that, during the four years ending with Trinity Sunday, 1880, the number of deacons ordained for parishes in the West Derby Hundred, which forms our present Diocese, was only seventy-six. The number of deacons whom I have ordained down to the present day, forming another period of four years, has been one hundred and thirteen, showing the large and remarkable increase of 37 in the number of clergy brought to the service of the Church in this Diocese. To this let me add that there were only 131 curates in the Diocese when I came here in 1880, and now in 1884 there are 170. This again is an increase of 39. These facts, moreover, become even more noteworthy when it is remembered that we have only 187 incumbents, and that many of them are so miserably underpaid that they find great difficulty in providing any curate at all. I have repeatedly said, and I say it again today, that the first want in a large undermanned Diocese like ours is a great increase in the number of living agents. If any wealthy Churchman wishes to do good service to our Church in Liverpool, I believe he could not possibly do better than to say to some incumbent of a large poor parish, ‘I will provide £150 a year for five years to endow a new district if you will form one, or to maintain a curate.’ There is room for many more clergy in this great city, and for much work to be done.

I cannot leave the subject of ordination, however, without making two remarks, to which I request the special attention of my clergy. For one thing, I wish to say that I have not the least desire to lower the standard of requirements for the office of a deacon, and I cannot sympathize with those who press the Bishops to bring into the ministry men who know little or nothing of Latin, Greek, Church History, the story of the English Reformation, the Prayer-book, the Church Catechism, or the Evidences of Christianity, and, in short, are only godly men who know the Bible and can talk about the gospel. I think the office of the ministry demands men of a higher standard than this, if it is to command the respect of the laity, and I cannot see the wisdom of what is called an extended Diaconate. Although Ordination is not a sacrament, it is a very solemn thing; and orders ought not to be lightly conferred, whatever the needs of the Church may be. For my part I am entirely in favour of recognizing and calling forward an order of approved Readers, or lay agents. I think they may be a most useful class of men, and I heartily wish there were more of them. Indeed, if it was clearly legal, I would gladly permit such Readers to conduct short religious services in churches at any times when the church was not being used by the incumbent; provided, of course, that they did not administer the sacraments, and that they did nothing which was not fully approved by the incumbent and sanctioned by the Bishop. I have long been of opinion that we do not make sufficient use of our churches. To erect a huge ecclesiastical building at the cost of £7,000 or £8,000, and then only use it four or five hours on Sunday, and perhaps four or five more during the week, does not appear to me wise or sensible. I long to see our churches turned to account by a class of approved Lay Readers. But I do desire to maintain in this Diocese a welltrained and qualified class of ordained deacons, and of such men I am glad to say the supply at present is far greater than the demand. My other remark is, that I particularly request the incumbents who give titles to curates to remember that a deacon has to be ordained a priest, and not to require of him so much work during the year of his diaconate that he has no time for reading or preparation. It is a painful fact, which I and my chaplains have found out after four years’ experience, that when a deacon comes up for priest’s orders he seldom does so well and passes so good an examination as he did when he was ordained deacon, and has evidently not had time to keep up his reading.

(6) The Confirmations which I have been enabled to hold annually during the last four years have been on the whole very satisfactory. The number of candidates presented has steadily increased year by year. In the first year I confirmed 4719, in the second 5744, in the third 6310. In the present year about 5640 have been already confirmed, and my list is not yet completed. The whole result is that I have already administered the ordinance of Confirmation to more than 22,000 young persons since I became Bishop of a Diocese of only 187 parishes.

I can find no words to express my deep sense of the value of Confirmation when it is preceded by proper preparation, and followed by proper attention to the spiritual state of those who are confirmed. Though Confirmation is not a sacrament ‘ordained by Christ Himself, and generally necessary to salvation,’ it is one of the most important ordinances which the Church of England has provided for its members. It gives every clergyman a golden opportunity of becoming personally acquainted with the younger portion of his flock at the most critical period of their lives. It enables him to secure an interest in their affections and consciences, and, by God’s blessing, to give a bias to the whole future course of their lives. It often secures for him a continual succession of communicants, Sunday-school teachers, and workers in his parish, to take the place of those who are removed by death or change of residence. Let me affectionately charge you, my reverend brethren, never to relax your efforts to make this important ordinance efficient, and to procure as many candidates as possible for its reception. I am quite certain that far more candidates might be presented every year in this Diocese, if the importance of the ordinance was realized in all parishes as much as it is in some. There are still some large parochial districts in which the number of candidates is most painfully small, and more than one, I am afraid, from which I have hardly ever had a single candidate. This ought not so to be. The clergyman who really wishes to strengthen the Church of England should remember that the right way to do it is to begin with the young, and one of the best ways of enlisting the young is to persuade them to come forward for Confirmation.

(7) I cannot leave this topic without saying a few words on the kindred subject of Sunday schools. I am very thankful for the interest taken about Sunday-school teaching in the Diocese at large. I earnestly hope that this interest may never languish, but annually strengthen and increase. I believe we have on the rolls of our Church Sunday schools at this moment, speaking roughly, about 40,000 scholars and 4,000 teachers. I suspect those numbers might be easily increased by a little more exertion. There never was a time when it was so important to provide definite, thorough, dogmatic religious teaching for the children of the Church at least one day in the week. The State having formally refused to recognize or reward religious teaching in schools to which grants are given, the Church must see to it that the scriptural instruction of the young is never neglected in the day school, and that it receives special attention in the Sunday school. I solemnly charge every incumbent in my Diocese to bestow as much care as he possibly can upon his Sunday school, to do his utmost to procure efficient teachers, and to take care that the time at the Sunday school is well spent, and not frittered away by those well-meaning persons who are content to read weak little story-books, and make children smile. Bible and Prayer-book instruction should always come to the front, and clear teaching about the doctrines necessary to salvation should never be lost sight of.

(8) For the efforts made in the Diocese to check intemperance, and to promote purity in all the relations of the sexes, and to watch over the welfare of young women, I am again deeply thankful. They are most valuable and healthy movements, and deserve every encouragement from every inhabitant within the district. Steadiness, trustworthiness, morality, regular habits of life, providence, and a high standard of honour, are the backbone of a nation’s prosperity, and no nation ever prospers in which they are neglected. I am certain that the wealthy employers of Liverpool cannot do a wiser or more politic thing than to encourage by money and influence the existing organizations of the Diocese which promote the objects of which I have been speaking.

I cannot now leave the special subjects of our Diocese without mentioning three points which cause me much anxiety, and in respect of two of which, at any rate, I think there is great room for improvement.

(1) The first and most painful point is the conspicuous absence of immense numbers of people in our Diocese from the public worship of Almighty God upon Sundays. That this is the case in Liverpool has been publicly stated by Mr. Gladstone very recently in the House of Commons, and he said, ‘that the state of things here was extremely disgraceful.’ I am aware that he had Liverpool especially in view, but I am afraid that the state of Wigan, St. Helen’s, and Warrington is pretty much the same. Now I need hardly say that it is rather unpleasant to have our deficiencies publicly exposed by the Prime Minister of the first country in the world, in the greatest national assembly in existence, and to consider that his words are reported and read in every quarter of the globe. But I will not complain of this. Intentionally or not, I think Mr. Gladstone may have done us good service by giving wide publicity to a startling fact. At any rate, I firmly believe that it is likely to set Liverpool thinking. I do not admit that the state of Liverpool is one bit worse than that of London, and other large towns that I could name, in the matter of attendance on public worship. But I frankly admit that things are not at all as they ought to be, and I have said so publicly and privately many a time ever since I became Bishop of this Diocese. There are certain subjects on which it is very hard to make people awake and open their eyes, and if Mr. Gladstone’s words in the House of Commons help to awaken us in Liverpool, I shall be very much obliged to him. Let me, however, briefly point out what are the true causes of what the Premier calls ‘our extremely disgraceful religious census,’ and then point out what in my judgment are the true remedies. Let me preface what I am going to say by observing that a census of public worshippers in any town on a given day is no fair test of the quantity of religion in the place. I will never concede for a moment that the Christianity of its inhabitants is to be gauged and measured by the number of heads within the walls of churches and chapels. I am convinced that at this moment there are thousands of the working classes of Liverpool, of both sexes, who are never to be found within the walls of any place of worship, and belong to no congregation, and yet are not destitute of all religion-, and would be justly offended if you called them heathen. In some cases, from poverty, they have no good clothes, and have an honest feeling that it is not respectful to go amongst well-dressed worshippers until better times come. In other cases they really do not know what place of worship to attend, are never visited, never invited, and are immigrant strangers unacquainted with Liverpool, who could not tell you in what parochial district they live. Beside this, there are not a few who meet together in unlicensed rooms and out-of-the-way places, under the voluntary teaching of good men and women of a missionary spirit; and no census can take account of such assemblies. In considering the matter before us, I think these things ought not to be forgotten.

One primary cause of the small attendance at churches and chapels in Liverpool is the utter inadequacy of the provision made in the city for public worship. It is not too much to say that if all the inhabitants of some of the poorer parishes in Liverpool were to take it into their heads to go to church next Sunday, room could not be found for a tenth part of the worshippers. When the Established church of a Liverpool parish provides only one building for ten or twelve thousand people, and good Protestant Nonconformists provide perhaps only one or two more, the result is sure to be that thousands of people go nowhere upon Sunday, and stay at home. A religious census in parishes of this kind must of course present what Mr. Gladstone calls ‘an extremely disgraceful result.’ The plain truth is, that in the last two or three generations the Established Church has allowed many districts in Liverpool to slip completely out of its fingers, and a population has grown up of people who are practically no man’s parishioners. I declare I know no more pitiable condition than that of a Liverpool incumbent at the north or south ends of our city, with eight or ten or twelve thousand working people under his charge, and an income of about £300 a year. Reason and common sense point out that it is perfectly impossible for such a man to reach the greater part of this population. He has only one head, one tongue, two eyes, and two feet, and with all the zeal in the world he cannot possibly reach or visit more than a very limited number of his parishioners. Numbers of them he will never see, and they live and die comparatively ‘let alone,’ without any fault of his. In such a parish as this who can wonder if hundreds never darken the door of any place of worship, and are practically without God in the world, and without Sunday worship? These are precisely the sort of parishes in which non-worshippers abound, and in which Mr. Gladstone says, with too much truth, ‘the religious census is disgraceful.’

But if this state of things exists in a green tree, what may we expect to find in a dry? If the incumbent of a parish of eight or ten thousand people, sound in body, right in heart, and willing to work, must sorrowfully confess, after doing all that he can, that many of his parishioners go to no place of worship, what must be the state of a town parish where the conditions are entirely different? What can we expect when the incumbent is old, or infirm, or a chronic invalid, or pressed down by poverty, and has no curate, and no staff of assistants of any kind? What can we expect when this incumbent, however good or well-meaning, has no original fitness for a town parish, no popular gifts? That there are parishes of this description in our Diocese it is vain to deny. What, I say, can be reasonably expected but an empty parish church, and an immense number of parishioners who go to no place of worship at all upon Sunday? To blame such an unfortunate incumbent is unjust and unkind. With an income of about £300 a year you cannot expect him to resign under the Act, and retire on an income of £100 a year. The Church unhappily makes no provision for a superannuation fund for wornout incumbents. You cannot expect him, out of his limited income, to pay others for doing what he cannot do himself. In short, in cases like these, the system of the Established Church seems entirely to break down, and the parishioners are like ’sheep without a shepherd.’ It would be a miracle indeed if the religious census of such a parish as this was not most unsatisfactory and deplorable, or what Mr. Gladstone calls ‘disgraceful to Liverpool.’

After all, whatever explanations we may offer, we must not shut our eyes to the fact that a town population, in which the majority never seem to worship God, is a most dangerous class, and demands the best attention, not only of all Churchmen, but of all Christians, all philanthropists, and all patriots. The man who supposes that human nature can be safely ‘let alone’ and not brought under religious and moral influences, must be a very ignorant person. Men and women who never go to a place of worship on Sunday, and are never reminded of God and a world to come, are precisely the class who are most likely to go wrong, and to be intemperate, improvident, quarrelsome, dishonest, a prey to every mob orator and seditionmonger, and a trouble to magistrates, municipal bodies, and Governments. They form the class too often of which Mr. Cowen, M.P. for Newcastle, has lately said: ‘Society, ashamed and despairing, sweeps them like refuse into dismal receptacles, where, seething in their wretchedness, they constitute at once our weakness and reproach. How to sweeten these receptacles and help their forlorn occupants to help themselves is the problem of the hour. If society does not settle it, it will in time settle society’. The truth is, that men who are left in ignorance of their duty to God are not likely to do their duty to their neighbours. The Bible, whatever some are pleased to say, is the true friend of order, morality, and peace, and people who never hear the Bible read and taught in church or chapel, as I fear is the case with myriads in Liverpool, are the seed-plot for every kind of mischief, and demand the most serious attention of the upper ranks of society. It is cheap and easy work to say that they may be safely ‘let alone,’ that England is a ‘free country,’ and that if the working classes do not like to go to church or chapel we cannot help it, and must stand by with folded arms and let them do as they please! I say, on the contrary, that the non-worshipping myriads of our great towns cannot be safely ‘let alone,’ and that it is not merely the duty, but the interest of the upper classes and employers to use every possible means to remedy the state of things which Mr. Gladstone calls ‘disgraceful’.

But what can be done to meet the evils of which I have just been speaking? Let us honestly and humbly accept the facts, and look them in the face. What can be done to diminish the ranks of nonworshippers, arid to make the religious census of this great city more creditable?

It is useless to suppose that we can at once double the number of our churches, by starting a great building fund, and cure the disease with bricks and mortar. There is not the slightest probability that money could be found for the purpose. You cannot build and equip a church in Liverpool, and provide for site, repair fund and a very moderate endowment, for less than £10,000. There have been noble-hearted men in Liverpool, who, after making their money in the place, have generously built a church without asking the public for a penny. But the number of such men will always be small. Moreover, it must never be forgotten that it is rather doubtful policy to begin by building churches before people are prepared to use them. To expect a working-man, who perhaps has never been inside a church for ten years, to value the excellent service of our Prayerbook, as soon as it is brought near him, is neither reason nor common sense. You might as well expect a man to begin reading a book, when he does not know A from B.

The true remedy for the state of things we deplore, as I have often said both before and since I became a Bishop, is the multiplication of living agents, and an organized system of aggressive evangelization. If we could only provide a territorial division of our large overgrown parishes into districts of about 3,500 people in each, plant an active energetic clergyman in each of those districts, with a Scripturereader and a Bible-woman to help him, and commission him to work his district in any way he liked, and in any room, providing only that he will use the most elementary means of grace, and not begin with an elaborate liturgical service--if such a man would only go to work as the Apostle St. Paul used to do, and visit house after house and room after room with the simple message of the Gospel, telling the story of the Cross, and approaching every one with love, sympathy, and sanctified common sense--if this could be done, I have not the smallest doubt that in five years there would be an immense change for the better in every part of Liverpool, and that our religious census would no longer be called ‘disgraceful.’ For I never will admit for a moment that the working classes in Lancashire are not to be won to Christ, if the proper means are used. It is false to say that naturally they are a bit more inclined to infidelity or immorality than other classes. They are all descended from the same parents, Adam and Eve, and are all born with the same hearts and consciences as the highest and noblest in the land. But they are what they are, apparently Godless and non-worshippers, simply because they are ‘let alone,’ never visited, never spoken to, never dealt with lovingly, as Christ dealt with the Samaritan woman. They are a field which, if rightly cultivated, is capable of bearing a rich harvest to the glory of God, the advantage of the place in which they live, and the benefit of the whole nation.

I am entirely unable to see anything unpractical, Utopian, or Quixotic, in the remedial scheme which I have just sketched out, or anything calculated to interfere with the rights and privileges of the incumbents of the Church of England. The scheme has been tried with great success in the Dioceses of London and Rochester, and I fail to see that that which answers in Middlesex and Surrey should not answer in Lancashire. I should never attempt to carry out such a scheme without the aid of a council fairly and impartially chosen. I should never dream of interfering with the rights of any incumbent, or trying to force the scheme upon him. Many of you will remember that the idea was proposed at our second Diocesan Conference, and received no favour at all. But I have seen nothing whatever to alter my opinion since the date of that Conference. No one has attempted to suggest any better means of coping with the evils we deplore; and I repeat this day, if I stand alone in the matter, that I see no surer way to improve the religious census of this great city. One thing, at all events, is very certain. The expense of the plan would be far less than to attempt to build churches. A single new church in Liverpool, as I have already said, costs £10,000. A missionary curate to work up such a territorial district as I have described, with a Scripturereader and a Bible-woman, could be obtained for £400 a year. And if we got missionary curates of the right sort, at the end of five years many districts would be self-supporting, after an expenditure of about £2,000. I earnestly charge my clergy to look this matter honestly in the face. I can only declare for the last time my deliberate conviction that, without a multiplication of living agents of the right sort, and an organized system of aggressive evangelization, you will never see the religious census of Liverpool improved, or the great defects of our Diocese cured. And if unfriendly critics would remember that no Bishop on earth can make old incumbents young, or invalid incumbents strong, or poor incumbents rich, or provide pensions for worn-out incumbents, there would perhaps be fewer unfavourable remarks made about the position of the Church of England in Liverpool.

(2) I must now mention another point which causes me considerable anxiety. I refer to the financial condition of our well- known Diocesan Institutions. They are not receiving the support which they deserve at present, and are in a very languishing condition. Of course, I need not remind you of the purpose which five of these institutions are intended to serve. They are intended to be central fountains of support to which any one desiring to promote church-building, church aid, or education may apply, and obtain grants. The constitution of these institutions was framed with great care and most praiseworthy pains. The committees which manage them, to the best of my belief, are fair, impartial, and well selected. But the subscriptions and contributions of the Diocese are far below what they ought to be, and are really unworthy of the district in which we live. I commend the subject to the attention of all my clergy. I cannot help thinking that more might be done, if each incumbent annually pressed the claims of the Institutions more earnestly upon his parishioners. But there is an evident unwillingness in many quarters to send money out of the parish for Diocesan purposes, and it is plain that we do not yet work together as a Diocese, but as a collection of independent congregations. At any rate, there is great room for improvement, and, as time goes on, I trust the balance-sheets of our various Diocesan Institutions will wear a very different aspect.

One thing, however, must be carefully remembered. The subscriptions and contributions to our Diocesan Societies must not be supposed to represent the total amount of money contributed by Churchmen to Church objects in the Diocese of Liverpool. It would be ridiculous to think so. Within the four years which have elapsed since the creation of the See of Liverpool, no less than 77 faculties have been granted in our Consistory Court, for the repair, alteration, improvement, or enlargement of old or existing churches, at a total cost of no less than £38,137. Beside this, it may surprise some to hear that during the three years which have elapsed since my first Visitation, the money expended in this Diocese on church building, church enlargement, schoolrooms, and mission rooms amounts to the large sum of £145,385; and during the same three years no less a sum than £98,770 has been contributed to Parochial Charities, Diocesan Institutions, and Home and Foreign Missions. And all this has been done in a Diocese of only 187 Incumbencies in three years! (See APPENDIX, CHAPTER 3.)

I think this ought to be known widely, because there is a vast amount of misrepresentation on the subject, and unfriendly critics are fond of saying that the Diocese of Liverpool has done nothing since the Bishopric was formed in 1880. Facts, however, are very stubborn things, and the fact which I have just mentioned is one which ought to be known. It speaks for itself. No doubt we do less than we might do, and less than we ought to do. But when the total amount raised for curates, Scripture-readers, and Bible-women, for the cause of temperance, purity, and education, for church building and school building, for charitable and philanthropic objects, for sailors, for orphans and for reformatories--I say, when the total amount is reckoned up, it will never do to say that the Diocese of Liverpool does nothing at all.

(3) The last subject of special Diocesan interest about which you will naturally expect me to say something, is the proposed new Cathedral for Liverpool, and I am sorry to say it is a rather thorny and troublesome topic. The subject, you will remember, has been formally taken up for two years. At our second Diocesan Conference, a resolution was almost unanimously passed to the effect that ‘Liverpool must have a Cathedral.’ Two years have passed away since the passing of that resolution, and, as the foundation stone of a cathedral has not yet been laid, the dwellers at a distance may possibly suppose that the matter has been let drop, and nothing has been done. Nothing could be farther from the truth than such a supposition. The subject has been taken up, discussed, and examined with the utmost care by a committee of leading Churchmen. How many times that committee has met, and how much anxious discussion has been devoted to the matter, I will not attempt to say. The outside public knows very little about it. Indeed, few persons appear to have grasped and realized the enormous difficulty which confronted the committee at the very outset of its labours. That difficulty consisted in the selection of a site. To find a proper position for a huge, new ecclesiastical building in a large city like Liverpool, is a problem which might well puzzle the cleverest body of men in the world, and no one has a right to be surprised at the delay which has occurred in coming to a conclusion. The value of land in the heart of Liverpool is so great, and the open spaces so few, that decision has been extremely hard. The plain truth is, that not a single site could be found which was not open to most serious objections; and the utmost the committee could hope to attain was to find the site which was least objectionable, and combined the greatest number of recommendations. The site which was finally decided upon by a majority of the committee, in St. John’s Churchyard, behind St. George’s Hall, is undoubtedly not a perfect site. It is easy to point out its defects. But where can a better site be found, except by an expenditure for buying up buildings and clearing ground, which it is frightful to contemplate? It is quite certain that no available site could be named which is so near the three railway stations, and therefore accessible from every part of the Diocese; no site which is so near to Dale Street, Castle Street, Bold Street, the Town Hall, the Exchange, the Clubs, the Hotels, and all the leading places of concourse; and no site which is so likely to be the centre of Liverpool for all time to come. As to the capabilities of the site for the erection of a building worthy of the second city of the empire, I shall not trust myself to give an opinion. I will only say that it has been declared to be such by one of the most experienced architects of the day.

In cases like this, it is utterly useless to expect everybody to be of one mind, however much we may wish it, and if we wait for entire agreement, the new Cathedral will never be built at all. At present I can only declare my belief, that the committee have honestly done the best they can in the face of much acrimonious criticism, and I believe the day will come when the public will do them justice. The delay no doubt may seem great, and some may point impatiently to the Cathedral of Truro, which appears on the title-page of so many almanacs this year. But really people appear to forget that there is not the slightest parallelism between Truro and Liverpool, beyond the fact that each is the metropolitan city of a Diocese. The difficulties which are found at Liverpool do not exist at Truro, a small city which altogether does not contain so large a population as several of our greater parishes in Liverpool do, while the whole Diocese of Truro is so well provided with churches, that little new church building is required, and the entire attention of the See may be concentrated on the Cathedral.

What the cost of our new Cathedral will be it is impossible at present to say. There is not the slightest desire on the part of the committee to cramp competing architects by specifying any particular sum. I am certain that the one ruling desire of every member of the committee has been to obtain the best and handsomest Cathedral that could be designed. The anonymous charge, too often made, that either I or any of the committee intended to be content with nothing better than a commonplace large parish church, is so utterly baseless that I shall not condescend to notice it. We are distinctly assured by our experienced adviser that there is room enough in St. John’s Churchyard to erect a Cathedral large enough for all practical purposes, and quite as large as some of the oldest and best in England. I presume that no one would wish to erect a Cathedral with a huge, useless Lady chapel at one end or a Galilee porch at the other, and as long as St. Paul’s, York Minster, Lincoln, Winchester, or St. Alban’s.

Whether the money which will be required to build and endow our new Cathedral will be forthcoming immediately, I do not pretend to say. There ought to be no difficulty about it. There are families who have realized so much wealth during the last fifty years in Liverpool, that they could easily put down £100,000, and hardly miss it. It would be a grand specimen of Christian liberality, and of fitting gratitude to the Giver of all wealth, if some Liverpool layman would come forward as Mr. Guinness did for St. Patrick’s, and Mr. Roe for Christ Church, Dublin, and break the ice, and rouse emulation by some splendid contribution. But I am quite content to leave the whole affair in the hand of Him who has all hearts under His control. If we mean to have a Cathedral, our duty is to begin the work, and, if we do not live to see it completed, to believe that those who come after us will place the top stone upon it. For the present, if we have no very grand Cathedral, we have an excellent Cathedral service, and one of which the Diocese need not be ashamed. For this, I think it right and just to say, we are greatly indebted to the care and pains of the Rector of Liverpool. I only wish the Churchmen of the Diocese would understand that our Cathedral service is entirely dependent on voluntary contributions, and would subscribe more liberally to its support.

2. From subjects of purely Diocesan interest, I now turn to the far wider topic of the general condition of the Church of England. Our Diocese, we must remember, is only one part of a great body, and it becomes every Churchman to take an interest in the general condition of the great body to which he belongs.

There are undoubtedly many things in the present state of the Church of England, for which we have reason to be most thankful. There is an immense amount of zeal, energy, activity, and work, which did not exist a hundred years ago. The fetters of black tape appear to be broken, and the Church is not in danger of ‘dying of dignity,’ or rusting out. The formation of new Dioceses, which is still going on; the general desire to meet the wants of all classes of our increasing population, both spiritual, moral, and sanitary; the widespread effort to introduce more elasticity into the arrangements of our services, the awakened readiness of clergy and laity to meet, confer, and discuss the best modes of meeting acknowledged evils; the immense amount of money contributed in the last forty years to the building and restoration of churches; the universal desire to strengthen the things which remain, and to supply the things that are wanting--all these things, I say, are unmistakable facts, and, however misdirected much of the energy may be, we ought to be thankful. Anything is better than idleness, lethargy, and sleep. Silence and immobility are the symptoms of death. With all her faults and shortcomings, our Church is comparatively awake.

In saying all this, I would not be mistaken. I frankly admit that there are many unsatisfactory points on the horizon of the Established Church in the present day, and not a few black clouds. I will briefly point out what I mean.

(1) One black cloud is the continued existence in our midst of a body of Churchmen who appear determined, if words mean anything, to Romanize the Church of England, to go back behind the Reformation, to reintroduce the Mass and the Confessional into our communion, and, in one word, to revolutionize our Church. I use the words ‘appear determined’ advisedly. I know well that the members of this body always deny that they have any such intentions as I have described. If this is the case, I can only say that they are most unfortunate in the use of the language continually employed by their organs in the press. That the movement I refer to will ever be successful I do not for a moment expect; I do not believe that the people of England will ever allow the Established Church to go back to Rome. But I do believe that, unless the Romanizing movement I speak of is checked by the active co-operation of moderate men of all loyal parties within our pale, it wilt ultimately be the cause of disruption and disestablishment. Above all, I believe that unless the laity can be made to understand that the points which have been disputed before the Law Courts are not mere petty questions about ornaments, dresses, music, and decorations, but attempts to subvert the Protestant principles of the Church, and to reintroduce some of the most dangerous doctrines of Romanism, they must not be surprised if, in a few years, the whole Church of England goes to pieces. The apparent inability of the laity to realize the immense gravity of the questions in dispute, and the common disposition to trifle with them as mere questions of taste, is to my mind one of the most alarming symptoms of our times.