(18) _S. Dunstan-in-the-West, Fleet Street._ By 1 Geo. IV. c. lix., the tithes were commuted to an annual payment by the ratepayers of £359, of which £5 went to the Crown. By an order in Council dated 16th April, 1886, S. Thomas in the Liberty of the Rolls was united to the above parish, but the church of S. Thomas was taken down and the site and materials sold. The proceeds are to go towards building another church elsewhere, erecting a new parsonage for the rector of S. Dunstan and augmenting his income, which is £500 per annum; population, 2,300. These eighteen incumbents receive £18,632, or average of over £1,000 each per annum. But it must be noted that the lessees of three parishes receive £11,350 per annum, in lieu of tithes, from the ratepayers, viz.: S. Botolph without, Aldgate, £6,500; S. Gregory-by-S.-Paul, £4,000; and S. Botolph without, Aldersgate, £850. This £11,350 is not included here in any of the incumbent’s incomes. But here arises the public scandal. Eleven of these eighteen incumbents receive £13,341 per annum for an aggregate population including children, of 3,886, or £3 9_s._ per head. The populations are taken from the census of 1881; and it is probable that a considerable reduction in population will appear from the census returns of 1891. But the clerical incomes are not reduced. Again, twenty-six incumbents of Fire parishes receive £15,702 for a population of 14,000. If we compare the income of £350 for the incumbent of only one of the parishes in Bethnal Green, with a population of close on 14,000, with the £15,702 for a similar population in the aggregate, we at once perceive the public scandal. Again, eleven incumbents of the Fire parishes have £8,050 for an aggregate population of 7,000. If we take a single parish outside of the City and Liberties of London, we shall find it with a population much larger than 7,000, and yet the incumbent would consider himself fortunate to receive a net income of £300 per annum. I have now given sufficient data to prove that there exists reasonable grounds for the public scandal as regards the parishes in the City and Liberties of London. It is not my province to suggest remedies, but to indicate facts and figures. But eleven incumbents to receive £13,341 for an aggregate population of 3,886 forms the coping-stone not to a public scandal, but to a _public disgrace_, in this Christian country. But the greatest public disgrace of all is to see the Bishop of London himself receiving £10,000 net per annum, with three suffragan bishops not paid by him, but paid out of parochial revenues. Then, on the top of the hill, is S. Paul’s Cathedral, with _a net_ income of £25,000 per annum, and with palatial residences, which recently cost £20,000, close to the cathedral, for the canons. Truly it may be said of them, _Lac et lanas ovium Christi suscipiunt, sed curam gregis Domini deponunt_.