The Sun.
London, England, 1837-06-13 00:00:00

Committee and appointed a Commission, with the result of
whose labours, however, the House was still unacquainted.
—(Cheers.) Now, to apply the same illustration to the
present case, suppose the same course pursued with regard
to this motion that had been pursued in the case of the
Corporations ; suppose a Committee were appointed ; sup-
pose it were to commence its labours, find that in three
or four instances there had been abuses in the appropria-
tion of Church property, but when it came to detect the
scheme of the executive Government should perceive
that the interests to be affected by its agencies were se
various, the positions of lessees and properties in dif-
ferent parts of the country so dissimilar, that the mere exa-
mination of a surveyor brought up from one pare of the
country, and be able to speak only to the state of that parti-
cular part of .the country, the examination, perhaps, being
adjourned until the following Tuesday, and meanwhile in-
tersected by the examination of another surveyor from an-
other part of the country. That such incongruous and un-
satisfactory modes of inquiry could not possibly lead to any
result commensurate with the objects sought to be obtained
by the Committee, what would be the probable period be-
fore the Committee could report.—( Hear.) And was it
intended that until that period arrived, the final settlement,
or even the legislative consideration, of the Church ques-
tion should be suspended ?--(Hear.) How these Hon.
Gentlemen who considered the settlement of the Church-
rate question—its immediate and final settlement—abso-
lutely necessary for the public quiet—how those gentlemen
could contemplate, with any degree of complacency, this
motion to support a Committee on the 12th of June, for
the purpose of taking a first step in the question which they
thought ought long since to have been disposed of, he
(Sir R. Peel) was at a loss to conceive.—(Hear, hear.)
He objected to this mode of escaping from the dif-
ficulties that must occur when parties were divided,
this transfer of the duties of the House of Commons and
the Government, to a Committee, whose decision could be
of no authority or weight at all. That Committee must
either be nominated by the Government, and have their
confidence, or it must be equally composed of the two
parties whose opinions differed on this question. In either
case what chance was there of a satisfactory decision ? His
objection was this :—Either the Government would be re-
lieved from the duties properly belonging to them, which
might be stopped or protracted according to their conve-
nience.—(Hear, hear.) He also objected because he con-
sidered the appointment of such a Committee as this, after
what had passed as to the Ecclesiastical Cammission, as
tantamount almost to a breach of faith.—( Hear, hear,
hear.) He thought that Commissions ought not to be re-
newed without a distinct intimation on the part of the
Government that they might thereafter propose to find
out of the Church property, to which the attention of
the Commissioners was directed, a substitute for Church
rates.—(A laugh from Lord John Russell.) The Noble
Lord laughed. He (Sir R. Peel) did not know what the
Noble Lord meant by his laugh. It might perhaps have
greater weight than his argument. He was going on
to say that it was the duty of the Government to apprise
the Commission that they did mean to find a substitute for
Church-rates in that way. That Commission was ap-
pointed on his (Sir Robert Peel's) recommendation to the
Crown. The Noble Viscount now at the head of the Go-
vernment succeeding to office, the Commission was re-
newed, though all the original members of the Commission
who had held political offices under the former Govern-
ment retired from the Commission, their places being sup-
plied by members of the new Government. The Noble
Lord expressed much satisfaction at these appointments.
The Commissioners made proposals for Church reform.
They reduced the incomes of some Bishops, augmented
those of others, and transferred portions of sees from one to
the other. A Bill embracing some of these alterations was
introduced and passed—the measure was carried into execu-
tion. The Noble Lord in bringing forward the measure,
and hoping for the consent of Hon. Members in opposition,
urged as one strong reason which had given hiai the induce-
ment to press on the plan, and at the same time to forego
some further changes which he would have been in-
clined to make, that, as no measure of Church Reform
could be satisfactory which had not the approbation of the
heads of the Church, so this measure was particularly free
from objection because it did possess that valuable sanc-
tion. The Noble Lord then said he did waive some de-
tails in the plan, because he so much desired the co-opera-
tion of the heads °lithe Church.—( Hear.) Last veer only
it was that the Bill passed into a law. Yet the Noble Lord,
notwithstanding that these transactions were so recent, did
now propose that the innovation which the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners had sanctioned should lead to still further
innovations, without having given to the heads of the Esta-
blishment any intimation beforehand of his intention so to
do. What was the language held by the Noble Lord
last year ? The Noble Lord said that, in respect of
the emoluments of the Bishops, they were not to be looked
on but as in a situation very different from that of the Chief
Justice of the King's Bench or the First Lord of the Trea-
sury, who received a large and full salary in order to enable
him to meet the expenses of office. He did not wish to
see the Bishops placed as stipendiaries on the State, with
nothing but their duties to perform in return for their sti-
pend. Such were the principles of the Noble Lord in
1836, when bringing in a Bill which he regarded as being
pre-eminently useful, from its having had the sanction of
the heads of the Church. Yet in 1837 he came forward
and proposed one which was wholly destructive of this
principle so laid down in 1836, and which actually made
the Bishops nothing more than mere stipendiaries for the
performance of certain duties.—(Hear, hear.) He (Sir
R. Peel) repeated that this measure was nothing more nor
less than a transfer to a Committee of the House of Com-
mons of a power, which, if exercised at all, ought to be ex-
ercised only by the Executive Government. Undoubtedly
if the Noble Lerd had told the Ecclesiastical Commissioners
that he would, one year from that time, propose to the
House of Commons a measure to revise the mode of letting
Church property, and the effect of which would be to divest
the Church of all right to manage its own property, he
never would have gained their assent. He (Sir R. Peel)
was not so sanguine as his Right Honourable Friend
near him. He did not expect that this question would be
viewed in the same light as that of Church-rates. He
believed that many persons, seeing the dangerous position
in which Church property was placed, would not be in-
duced to acquiesce in a proposition which was in itself de-
structive, but which to them would appear to afford a tem-
porary palliation for the evil. But he (Sir R. Peel) could
not give up nis objections to those opinions, and foreseeing,
as he did, the effect they must have in disengaging co-ope-
ration in measures of reform, he would rather find himself
in a minority of ten than subject himself to the conscious-
ness of having assented to a proposition so destructive to
the interests of the Church.—(Hear, hear.) Supposing
the House could determine, and it was just possible that
some Hon. Gentleman might have more confidence in the
Committee than in the Government—(a laugh)—in the
appointment of the Committee he did hope that some Gen-
tleman who was favourable to the appointment of it would
record his opinions, in order that the views with which they
entered on their office might be understood. If the Com-
mittee went into the case on the principle laid down by
the Noble Lord, they would go into it in the spirit of a
foregone conclusion.—(Hear, hear.) They must find
that there was a fund of of 250,000/. ; for unless they could
realise that, the project of a substitute for Church-rates
must fall to the ground. 100,000/. would not be enough,
because it would leave 150,000/. still to be provided from
some other source, that must trench on the relief desired to
be afforded to conscientious scruples.—(Hear, hear.) How
then could the Committee enter on the enquiry influenced
by any prejudice, so as to be able to come to a fair conclu-
sion ?—( Hear, hear.) He rested his objection to the mo-
tGiii 000nvu
Government
renn_mt the
aeen
t groundought
principlet
nho
tatot toihv revehos
1plI;ocen seo i
nnb
ti
eal i
rt
tcya
ioonmf e
mat hi
the
eeExecutivede-
cided
that
congratulateT amidstii
c loud chtiel
eerßini
objection. (The Right Hon. Baronet sat down
CHANCELLORcheering.)
Ho
n. ofß at
rh
oe eEtXo n Cthe En
eQtvU E
lights mustthat
had broken in upon him on this question. The Right Hon.
Baronet would have it that the Committee was proposed in
order to shift upon it the responsibility of the Government.—
(Hear.) But what had been the practice of Lord Liverpool's
Government on this very point ? Why, the most difficult and
disputed of all political questions—one involving the mode of
governing a large and important part of the empire—was re-
ferred to a Select Committee, and the Right Hon. Baronet
and himself (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) were mem-
bers of that Committee. What more important question
than the Government of Ireland could be referred to a
Committee ? But that was not all. So long back as 1816,
when at least there was no fear of revolutionary projects on
the part of the Government, the subject of the mode in
which English tithes ought to be leased to the landholder
was brought on. It was a period of great agricultural dis-
tress, and it did not suit the Government to resist the
pressure put on them by the agricultural interest. The
question then was referred to a Select Committee, and the
Right Hon. Gentleman, then Secretary for Ireland, took
part in the debate on the question, and expressly claimed
the benefit for Ireland of the same proceeding as regarded
Irish tithes, and the Irish part of the question was made a
portion of the reference to that Committee.—( Hear, hear.)
But there was a more recent example still—that of the
Canada question, in 1828, when the great interests of that
important colony were referred to a Select Committee of
that House. Yet no one now accused Mr. Huskisson of
a wish in so doing to shrink from responsibility. So much
for the Right Hon. Baronet's argument as regarded the re-
ference of this question to the Committee. But even were
there no precedents he maintained that the circumstances
of the present case were a sufficient justification. They
(the Government) had stated their case—they had moved
their resolution, and they were still ready to abide by it.
Let them not be supposed to have abandoned it ; on the