The Sun.
London, England, 1836-04-26 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Mr. RIPPON said it might be in the. remembrance
of some Honourable Members that two years since he
had brought forward a measure somewhat similar to that
which he was now about to offer. It was receiriffl by Lord
Althorp with contempt, that Noble Lord stating, that if any
one but the mover and seconder concurred in the motfoii, he
would state the grounds upon which he opposed ii.
The division that took place afforded the best answer
to that, because although 128 voted, against the motion,
no less than fifty-eight voted in favour of it.—( Hear.)
Having thus been defeated in his object, he was compelled
once again to bring the subject forward, the subject advanced
in public interest, and its former reception by that House had
not checked, but on the contrary had augmented the feeling
which originally existed—(Cries of " Hear.") A spirit a
religious reformation was at that momeht stirring which it
would be impossible to stay. He would entreat Hon. Gentle-
men to banish from their minds those impediments to improve.
ment, veneration for antiquity, and reverence for established
practice. He would beg of them to consider whether the
practice of which he complained was at all beneficial to re-
ligion or profitable to the great mass of society. It was his
desire to discuss this question without aspertty of language,
and to avoid, as far as he could giving needless
offence to anyone. He would not weary the House by tracing
the origin of ecclesiastical government for the possession of
secular powers by persons prior to that time when the Crown
was substituted for hierarchy, neither would he allude to the
events that took place in the latter period of our history, when
the Sovereign and the subject were at variance with each
other, and when the cry of " No Bishop" and " No King,"
was raised. Suffice it to say that Charles perished on the
scaffold—James became an exile from this country, and the
House of Stuart was banished for ever—( Hear, hear, hear.)
His present purpose was simply to consider what were the
duties attached to the office of Bishop, and to show that these
would be amply sufficient to engage the entire of his time.
By the first Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, it
appeared that under the new arrangement there would be
no less than 10,400 benefices in th twenty-six dioceses of
England and Wales. These, if equally divided, would
give four hundred benefices to each of the Sees. The
second report called for a further enerease of eher,l,
poolation. iNow if every benefice had, as it ought to have, a
residen,: Pastor, there would be 400 Pastors under the care of
one Bishop,
and if the wants of the Church were attended
to there would a great increase. He should next call
the attention of the Hot:qe to that intimacy which should sub-
sist aecording to Ecelesiaitin,2l policy between the Bishop and
the Clergy, without which the :`est system of religious eco-
nomy trust fail of producing good reolts. It was the duty of a
Bishop to visit his Clergy, he should ITeeive them without
ostentation, and approach them without reset.ye. He should
examine carefully into the affairs of the Church .in the various
parishes under his charge—seeing with his own Ayes, and
hearing with his own cars—not trusting to the reports of other
parties. He should attend to the establishments for the edu-.
cation of the people, making the conduct and qualifications ot
the masters the subject of diligent scrutiny and careful
examination.—(Hear, hear.) He should inquire into the
fitness of all candidates for holy orders, not merely as
to their qualification in Greek and Latin, but in their habits
of industry, their attention to the discharge of such duties as
would make them good clergymen and fit bishops in office.
It was the duty of a bishop to administer the rite of confirma-
tion to all persons in his see, and to discharge all ecclesiastical
duties imposed upon him by the acceptance of his high office.
They had seen by the Report of the Commissioners to what he
before alluded, that there were 1248 benefices in the gift of the

, .
Bishops, and it would be their duty to seek out proper persons
to fill the office of pastors without regard to the importunities of
needful friends, and seeking only worth and merit in those
whom they would thus promote. He trusted be had shewn
sufficiently that onerous duties devolved upon the Bishops,
enough to engage their whole time and attention.
He would further enquire whether it was reasonable to super-
add to those overburdened spiritual duties a wcighty and re-
sponsible office in the state—something between a church
overseer and a political peer. The ministers of the Church
ought to dedicate themselves, with vigour and diligenee
to the.maintenance of religion and the instruction of mankind,
but how could they do so if they were also obliged to attend
in their places in Parliament? He now wished to consider the
only plea be had ever heard put forth in justification of the
practice of Bishops sitting in the other House, viz., that they
represent the interests, and maintain the rights of the Church.
Now, in the first place, Ministers enjoyed the privileges with
other citizens of voting at the elections of Members, and as
far as he had seen, they exercised this privilege with a zeal
and earnestness that was not often surpassed. But supposing
that it was really meant to say that the Bishops were the Re-
presentatives of the Church, then why were they not elected
by the clergy, whereas they were appointed nominally by the
Crown, but virtually by the Ministers of State, always with
a due regard to their own political interests.—(Hear.)
In the House of Lords the Bishops had no veto in ecclesiasti-
cal affairs. It was perfectly clear that unless the majority
of the laity in both Houses supported them, they would
not be able to support the fabric.--(Hear, hear.) Serious
evils had resulted from their votes. They had often
secured the popular hatred not only to themselves, but
to the Establishment.—(Cheers.) Why then relieve them
from such a duty? Why not limit theil• regard to thoie things
and those persons who were placed under their c,ire. in the
name of religion. he asked to be allowed to bring in this Bill.
He could not believe that the Bishops were pervaded with
a spirit so purely worldly as to desire a continuance of thinp
as they now stood—he could not believe that they were ac-
tuated by such a desire for worldly pomp—by such a desire for
eminence in the political world. He would desire to regard
them as heralds of heavenly truth—as men gifted by God
and elected by men to fill high office in spiritual affairs. lie

thanked the [louse for its attention, and bogged to move,
" That the attendance of the Bishops in the Parliament was

inimical to the interests of religion."
Mr. GIL LON had had the honour of seconding that mo-
tion upon a former occasion, and he would be most happy to
do so now. He had done so upon two grounds—political and
religious. Upon political grounds, because the removal of the
Bishops would be a partial reform of the other House which was
rendered so necessary by the Reform which had taken place
in that House—it would be a means of bringing the two
Houses more in unison than they now were. He had found
them always ready to vote against the liberties of the people—
for the imposition of taxes, and any gagging Bill brought in.
Hereditary legislation had proved noxious in practice, and
absurd in principle. The question had been been brought
forward on religious, and not on political grounds, and there-
fore it should have his strenuous support. He begged leave
to second the motion.—( Cries of " Question.")
Mr. A. TREVOR, rose amidst loud cries of " Question,"
"Divide," which continued almost without intermission during
the time the Hon. Member continued to address the House.)
He differed totally from the view of the question taken by the
Hon. Member for Gateshead ; and so far from thinking- it pre-
judicial to religion he thought it most advantageous to it.
Mr. LAWSON suggested that the Hon. Member should
adl to his motion thatin any new appointments provision
should be made for the residence of Bishops in their dio-
ceses, and that the Archbishop of Canterbury and the
Bishop of London alone should have seats in the House
of Lords, and should receive the proxies of the other
Bishops.___( The remainder of the Hon. Member's words were
lost in the-lend and general laughter that followed. )
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was of opinion that, no practical
end would result froM the motion, and that neither the House
nor the cauntry were disposed to entertain the proposition.—
( Hear, hear. )
He merely rose for the purpose of assuring the llDn. Gentle-
man he was convinced the reasons he had stated were genuine,
and sincere, but still he should not enter into a discussion of
the question then,:and the Hon. Gentleman would not suppose
because he did not wish to venture into the discussion, that he
did not think there were grave and sufficient reasons for voting
against the motion.

—Mr. C. LUSHINGTON protested agaiti,t s Minister of
the Crown for a second time interfering for the purpose of

quashing a question so important to the interests of the
sta Church, arid so essential to the interests of the
( hri;tian religion—( Hear, hear.)
M. RIPP 0 N—lf the Noble Lord, or any other gentleman
of t lis House think they will put me down in this sort of
wsy they arc much mistaken, for if I have the honour of a seat
in t House the next Session of Parliament, I shall un-
d ub wily have the pleasure of proposing this qucstion again
to the House.
Th Gallery was then cleared for a divisor'.
For the motion,
Against it
Majority against the motion...
SELECT VESTRIES.

180

--12'7

Mr. LEADER: rose to move for a Select Committee to
inquire into the constitution and operation of Select Vestries
iu the city of Bristol, and was
(LEFT SPEAKING.)