The Sun.
London, England, 1840-07-28 00:00:00

THE SITWLONDON, TUESDAY, JULY 28, 1840.

more favourable to popular election, but not any more fa-
vourable to the spiritual interests of the Church and the
people. He did not wish to raise any diieussion' but he
thought it his duty to state publicly what he had done.
He could not support the claims urged by the Church to
set the laws at defiance, and he trusted that during the
recess the members of the Church would take that oppor-
tunity of inculcating obedience to the laws, and setting
example to the people of Scotland by their own deference
and obedience to those laws, and by avoiding every act
contrary to such obedience. He deprecated the lan-
guage of resistance made use of in many of the
petitions on this subject. This was not a question of con-
flicting authority, but one of civil right. The Church and
the liberties of the country would be in danger if any
great public establishment, like the Church of Scotland,
were to take any course but that of setting an example to
all the Queen's subjects of implicit obedience to the laws.
Mr. FOX MA ULE denied that the Church of Scot-
land had shown any disposition to interfere with any
civil rights. The General Assembly had over and over
again declared, that, so far as civil rights were concerned,
they bowed implicitly to the decision of the laws. The
General Assembly of the Church of Scotland did not in-
terfere with the patron's presentation to the benefice ; bet
after that they had a sacred duty, imposed upon them by a
higher authority, to perform which was to maintain invio-
late that portion of the constitution of the Church which
related to the cure of souls. That right, which was
known by the name of Non-intrusion, had been recognised
and upheld by the principles of the Presbyterian Church ;
and if the Right Hon. Baronet thought that the Bill
which he had introduced into the other House would tend
to reconcile the existing differences he had been misled
and misinformed on the subject. The opponents of that Bill
neither sought for fur,her power, neither would they shrink
from their duty, and put the rights of the people in
jeopardy. What they, contended for :was the tight
of the people to approve of the minister who
was called on to preside over their spiritual welfare.
The Bill of the Noble Lord gave the Church Presbytery
the veto; thus over-riding the popular veto, which was
what the Church was now contending for, and what he
hoped they would contend for..—(Cheers.) With regard to
the statement read by the Right Honourable Baronet,
he would draw his attention to a counter-declaration,
signed by 388 ministers, and 2,254 office bearers, ex-
pressing t ' cordial concurrence in the minute of the Ge-
*
nerah As ly, and stating that no legislative measure
that fell s of that could meet with their approbation.
The Members of the Church who favoured this doctrine
were represented as rebels. He had always repudiated
the use of such language towards the Church of Scot-
land, which was only maintaining its proper position.
The Right Honourable Baronet had expressed a hope
that the Church of Scotland would set an example of
obedience to the laws. He did not in the least fear but
that these men of God would preach peace, but if the
Right Hon. Gentleman thought that they would forego
what they thought was their duty, he could hold him out
no such expectation—(Cheers)--or that the Church of
Scotland would ever consent to any measure founded on
the principles of the Bill of the Noble Lord. The simi-
larity of the Bill to the Act of Bolingbroke in 1711 was
great. That measure had been hurried through that House,
and inthe House of Lords had been read a second time,
committed, and read athird time in one day. It had created
a greater schism than any Act that was ever passed ; and as
surely would such a measure produce another rent so
great as to endanger the existence of the esta-
blishment itself; and if that fell the establishment in
England must be affected also. They ought rather to
advance than to go back : and if the moderate party, who,
during 'the time of their rule, had utterly neglected
the interests of the Church, were again to obtain authority,
:he knell of the Church of Scotland would be rung. Ii
the question came before Parliament next Session, he
should be able to show to the House precisely where the
question of spiritual jurisdiction commenced. He hoped
nothing would occur to disturb the public tranquillity, and
he did not believe that such would be the ease. The
clergy were willing to obey as far as civil rights were con-
cerned ; but they had a higher and more sacred duty to
perform—a duty imposed upon them by a superiour au.
thority, and from the performance of which they would
never shrink.—(Cheers.)
Mr. HUME said the question was, whether 5,000/.
should be granted for a certain service or not? He was
surprised that the Right Hon. Baronet, disapproving as he
did of their conduct, could consent to granting them this
money. It appeared to be on the principle that the worse
a person behaved the better you ought to use him. The
fact of voting this money would be taken as an act of weak-
ness, and if ever there was a time when a grant of money
to the Church of Scotland ought to be refused, the pre-
sent was the time. He was surprised that his Hon.
Friend should defend those men, who were in open rebel-
lion against the law. To this day the seven clergymen
were refused what the law said was their own. Men of
God forsooth I they were men disturbing the country, dis-
obeying the laws, and had they been of less consequence they
would have been under the lock of the Secretary of State.
If his Hon. Friend's views were correct, the voluntary
system must be established in Scotland. It would never
be suffered that men should be receiving the tithes
who were acting in opposition to the law. They were
only the Church by the law, take from them the support of
the law, and where would they be ? The law had given to
individuals the power of presenting to livings. The
living that was worth one thousand pounds before the
Veto Law, was now not worth one hundred pounds.
Was : not that an interference with the rights of pro-
perty ? They were not ignorant men, and there was no
excuse for them. What course should be taken ? Were
they to be bribed by giving them a hall to carry on
their agitation in ? He would not give them any facility
for placing the law at defiance. The City of Edinburgh had
permitted the Assembly to meet iu the Chinch of St. Giles
for two hundred years up to 1830. The 3,000/. was granted
for its repair; it was found not to be convenient ; in 1832
they left it, and since they have met in the Tron Church.
What reason was their for riving 10,0001. to provide them
a place of meeting when they already had one ? The
heritors might by law be called upon to give them a title.
The Town Council of Edinburgh was the proper body to
provide them a place of meeting, and there was no reason
for voting a single shilling. Besides, the Church of Scot-
land were only one-half the people of Scotland, and had
no right to have a place of meeting provided for them at
the public expense; and if the Right Hon. Baronet were
consistent in his objection he should claim his vote. He
did not think they would do their duty.if they sanctioned
the grant, and he should certainly vote against it.
Mr. R. STEUART supported the grant. The Ge-
neral Assembly had no funds whatever of their own, and
as an Ecclesiastical Court they had a claim on the public

money.
After a few words from Mr. BANNERMAN,
Sir R. PEEL said he wished to put a case to the Hon.
Member opposite (Mr. F. Maule) who had said that the
Civil Law in Scotland would be able to vindicate itself.
Suppose certain members of the Church disobeyed the
authority of the General Assembly, and suppose they were
suspended for that disobedience, what redress could the
law afford them?
Mr. F. MAULE said that he still maintained that
the law had the power of maintaining itself. He would
not, however, undertake to answer the question of the Right
Hon. Baronet. He admitted that the Ecclesiastical
Court of Scotland could visit with its censure those who
disobeyed it, but that was a subject which should be left to
the Church itself.
The LORD ADVOCATE complained that a discussion
of the kind had been entered on in so incidental a manner.
Ho regretted to sear the majority of members of the Scot-
tish Church treated as rebels to the law. There was a broad
distinction to be made between civil and religious jurisdic-
tion, and the Church of Scotland never assumed any ju-
risdiction in civil matters. With regard to the divisions
which now distracted that Church, he should say that no
measure would terminate those divisions which did not in-
clude the principle of popular control. The Bill which
had lately been introduced in the other House on the sub-
ject, gave that power to the Church which should be given
to the people if there were to be any peace in the country.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when the numbers were—
For the grant 72
Against the grant
Majority
The vote was then agreed to.
The Report was then agreed to and was ordered to be
received on Wednesday next.
THE REGENCY BILL.
On the motion of Lord PALMERSTON the Regency
Bill was read a first time, and was ordered to be read a se-
cond time on 'Wednesday next.
MUNICIPAL DISTRICTS (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion of Lord MORPETH the Municipal
Districts (Ireland) Bill was read a third time and passed.
The Church Temporalities (Ireland) Bill was read a
third time and passed.
CUSTOMS BILL.
Sir R. PEEL wished to ask the Right Hon. Gentle-,
man, the President of the Board of Trade, whether he in-
tended to proceed immediately with the Customs Bill.
Mr. L ABOUC HERE said it was not his intention to
proceed with the Bill that night, as he understood it would
meet with some opposition. He should, however, intro-
duce it to-morrow. He certainly felt the disadvantage of
bringing forward measures at so late a period of the session.
Sir R. PEEL did not complain of the period at which
the Bill was to be brought forward. He should say, how-
ever, that he wished that the three descriptions of coffee
should stand in the same relation in which they now stood,
which he believed was not proposed by the Bill.
Mr. HOGG gave notice that he should move an amend-
ment on the Bill that coffee from Mysore should hence-
forward be subject to a duty of bd. only.
The Court Houses (Ireland) Bill was then read a third
time and passed.
The Pilots Bill was read a third time and passed.
The Insolvent Debtors (Ireland) Bill was read a third
time and passed.
The Rating Stock in Trade Blil was read a third time
and passed.
Mr. VERNON SMITH brought up the Report of
the New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land Bill,
and the Bill was ordered to be read a third time on Wed-
nesday.
The Attorneys and Solicitors (Ireland) Bill was re-
ported.
The Toll on Lime Bi!l was read a third time and
passed.
The Railways Bill was reported, and ordered to be
read a third time on Wednesday next.
The East India Shipping Bill went through Committee.
JOHN THOROGOOD.
Dr. NICHOLL wished to know, in consequence of
what had fallen from the Noble Lord, the Secretary of
State for the Colonies, on Saturday, whether the Attorney-
General intended to bring in a Bill with respect to con-
tempts in the Ecclesiastical Courts.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that his Noble Friend had such a Bill under consideration.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said his firm belief
was, that the churchwardens of the parish might at any
time have John Thorogood discharged out of custody.—
(Hear, bear.)
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed cf,
and the House adjourned at Half-past Two o'Clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS, JULY 27
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
sack at Five o'Clock.
Lord PORTMAN presented a petition from Leigh-
ton Buzzard, against the growth of opium in China.
The Bishop of DURHAM presented a petition
from the Dean and Chapter of Durham, against the
Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill.
The Prisons (Ireland) Bill, was read a third time
and passed.
The Caledonian Canal Bill went through Committee.
On the motion of Viscount DUNCANNON the
Insolvent Debtors' (Ireland) Bill) was read a second
time.

MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS.
Mr. BERNAL and others brought up the Fisheries
Bill, the Austrian Treaty Bill, the Bangor Ferry Bill,
the Metropolis Improvement Bill, the Marriage Act
Amendment Bill, the Soap Duties Bill, and the Affir-
mations Bill, which were severally read a first time.
The Marquis of NORM ANBY laid on the table cer-
tain papers connected with the state of health in Scotland.
The NOBLE MARQUIS then presented a petition from
the Minor Canons of St. Christ, Canterbury, in favour
of the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill.
The Canal Police Bill was read a third time, and
passed.
The Bishop of EXETER, seeing the Secretary of
State for the Home Department in his place, gave no-
tice that he would on Monday next (as he believed the
Noble Marquis would be absent the greater part of the
week) present a petition from the Clergy and others of
Manchester, praying their Lordships to inquire into the
facts relating to the prosecution of Abel Heywood, for
publishing a blasphemous libel ; and the circumstances
under which the Government thought fit to forego pass-
ing any sentence.
CHIMNEY-SWEEPERS BILL.

The EARL of HADDINGTON brought up the
Report of the Committee on the Chimney-sweepers
Bill, and moved that the Bill, together with the amend-
ments, be printed. The Noble Earl stated that the
Committee had introduced an amendment, that the Bill
should not come into operation till July 1842.
The Earl of 'WICKLOW observed that the result
of the evidence had convinced him the use of boys
might be dispensed with, except for the purpose of re-
pairing chimneys.
The Marquis of NORMANBY said he should cer-
tainly pr,:ceed with the Bill, and therefore gave notice
for the Committee on Friday next.
ECCLESIASTICAL DUTIES AND REVE..

looked to, he admitted, with great caution. In the
case of the monasteries at that period, there certainly
had been a surrender with regard to some of them,
but others had forcibly been deprived of their pro-
perty. By the 27th of Henry VIII., 276 houses had
been dissolved, and land producing 30,0001.
a year, and personal property amounting to
100,0001., had been confiscated and seized
on by the Crown. No doubt, however, some of the
larger monasteries afterwards surrendered, but it was
from fear of sharing the same fate. He would next pass
to the case of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem. If
they looked to the 32d of Henry VIII. chap. 24, they
would find that that Act gave to the Crown the pos-
sessions of the Order in question. Those knights were
living abroad at the time, and being out of the power of
Henry, refused to make surrender ; their possessions
were accordingly seized on at once, solely on the ground
that they adhered to the Citholic religion. He thought
that a complete evidence of the transfer of property on
religious and political grounds, and of a change of cir-
cumstances which had been effected in the course of time.
The Learned Counsel went on to state various reasons.
why this measure was inexpedient, and stated many,
duties which he said the Chapters ought to perform
and which they might, with great advantage to the
country, be called upon to perform. He (Lord M.)
thought the Chapters would not like this Bill better

than the Learned Counsel.—(Laughter.) The Learned
Counsel said one of their great purposes was the main-
tenance :of divine worship. That unquestionably was
one great object ; another, the study of theology. He
doubted that.—(Laughter.) That might be a very good
thing, and he had a great respect for that science ;
but ho must say, that he thought promoting the
exercise of public worship, in places where it
was wanted,was of more necessity.—(Hear, hear.) Others
were education and alms-giving. He (Lord M.) did
not see that education was their particular object, or
that they were particularly fitted for that purpose.—
( Hear, hear.) Then the Learned Counsel said the Pre-
lates were overlaboured and obliged to withdraw from
studies of which they had long been the ornaments,
having no time to prosecute them. He (Lord M.)
dared to say, that was very true and greatly to the loss
of the world, as well as of their own happiness. But the
Learned Counsel said that the Church wanted a general
Ecclesiastical Council to manage its affairs, an that
the Chapter should sit in that Council, and so as-
sist the Bishops. That was said to be a duty which
they had performed, and they might still perform.
He was not for that.—(Loud laughter.) He was
not for limiting the power or discretion of the
Bishops by any Council who might fetter them when
right, and screen them when .wrong.—(Hear, hear.)
He was a monogamist, and for the discretion of one
man, responsible either in himself or in his advisers.
The Bishops now had great power, and it was possible
might use that power oppressively ; but there was no
reason to think they did use it so.—(Hear, hear.)
They were there, in Parliament, at all times respon-
sible for that power—one great advantage of their
having seats in Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) And he
must say the few complaints of excess were sufficient
proof that in general they exercised their power with
prudence, moderation, and justice—(Hear, hear)—
therefore he did not think sufficient ground had been
shown by the Learned Counsel for keeping up a suffi-
cient establishment either for those offices which they
had filled or might fill hereafter. It had also been much
urged that this Bill had to encounter the opposition of
the great body of the clergy and of the Deans and Chap-
ters themselves. It was possible that to a certain extent

that might be so. And it was stated in the first place
they did not so act from selfish or interested motives. He
(Lord M.) felt quite certain that whoever of them ob-
jected to this Bill or formed an opinion upon it, did not
consider what effect it would have upon their own inte-
rest, situation, and position. He did not think that
truckling meanness or improper submission to power
was the characteristic of the clergy.—(Hear.) He
respected the Church of England, and entirely agreed
in its doctrines and form of Church government. He
did not agree with its politics—(Laughter)--and
though Right Reverend Prelates might condemn him
for his opinion, he thought they were indifferent poli-
ticians, and that ever since the Reformation no small
part of our politics had been religion, and of our reli-
gion, had been polities.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.)
He did not hold with High Church or Low Church
doctrines. He did not agree with that desperate oppo-
sition to a Bill made by the congregations in the time of
Queen Elizabeth. He did not agree with the clergy
who signed the Millennium petition, or with those who
gave up their benefices under the Act of Uniformity,
or with those who refused to take the oath to King
William and Queen Mary, and who were con-
sidered as Non-Jurors in the reigns of the family
of her present Majesty. He saw in these great
violence, pertinacity, obstinacy, and schism, on
points which, though of great importance, were not, he
thought, so important as to justify the division. He
therefore acquitted the Church of England generally
from being actuated by motives of self-interest. There
were a number of motives acting in opposition to the
present Bill of a different nature. There was the feel-
ings of the body, which were strong in every body, with
respect to the Deans and Chapters, who no doubt
considered this Bill as a sort of imputation upon them ;
and the great body of the clergy had a strong pro-
fessional feeling on this occasion, which would naturally
render them the less safe leaders upon it. He did not
think the clergy alone were ever celebrated for legisla-
tion, and particularly upon Church matters, and there•
fore he hoped that their Lordships would not,
be deterred
from proceeding with this Bill, even if the disappro-
bation of the clergy were as great and extensive
as it
was represented to be. One great and over-ruling ar-
gument for the measure was, that the surplus funds of
the Church would be divided among those who had the

strongest claims upon them, and that it would remove
those funds from that quarter where their loss would
be least felt, and give them to that where they would
be of the greatest benefit and advantage. The Learned
Counsel stated that the friends of the Church were
divided on this measure, but that its enemies were
unanimous in its approbation. If this were the case,
it was not the first time a body and institution had suf-
fered evils from their friends and derived advantage from
their enemies. This he really believed would be the case,
if those who were enemies of the Church were pressing
on this Bill, and that they were conferring on it great be-
nefit and stability, of which those mistaken friends who
opposed it were seeking to deprive it. The Learned
Counsel had said be wished to ask the Commissioners to
show some suitable authority for his proceedings. His
(Lord Melbourne's) authority was the common sense of
the case, that spiritual destitution prevailed throughout
a large part of the country, and the absolute necessity
which existed for the measure.—( Hear, hear.)
The Bishop of WINCHESTER said that he par-
_ _

ticipated in the feelings the Noble Viscounthad expressed
as those with which he rose to discuss this question.
He felt great difficulty in approaching this subject,
from a consideration of its importance, and this difficulty
was increased in no slight degree by the Noble Viscount
approaching the subject. He felt the kindness of many
of his expressions towards the Church ; and he felt, in
common, doubtless, with many Right Reverend Pre-
lates, gratitude to him for the opinions he had ex-
pressed towards his order, and for his avowal that no de-
linquencies on the part of the clergy called for
this measure. At the same time, he felt
that there would be a great difficulty in arresting
their Lordships' attention, and more especially when
they considered that the character given to the objects of
the Bill by the Noble Viscount was that of increasing
the efficiency of the Established Church, and making
it take root in the heart and affections of the people.
If he (the Bishop of W.) could bring his mind to
conceive this to be the effect of the measure now sub-
mitted to their Lordships, no person would more
strenuously support it than himself.—(Hear, hear.)
It was because he doubted whether it would increase
the spiritual instruction of the people that he ob-
jected to the present Bill. He admitted that the mea-
sure came recommended by very high authority. The
Commission consisted of eight Laymen and five Eccle-
siastical Commissioners, and he believed they had ap-
proached their important duty with a full and earnest
desire to carry into effect the recommendations of her
Majesty. He never differed from the Most Rev. Pre-
late who was at the head of that Commission but with
the deepest regret ; there was no one who knew that
most estimable Prelate, who did not entertain for him
feelings of the most profound respect and veneration.
He (the Bishop of Winchester) had, however, consi-
dered the subject with very deep and earnest attention,
and the result of his deliberation, in common with that
of many of his Right Rev. Brethren was, that he most
decidedly objected to the Bill. It wanted the autho-
rity of the Universities, and it wanted also the autho-
rity of the Cathedral establishments, twenty-two of
whom had petitioned against the measure. Under
these circumstances he could not but object to the
Bill, and it would be necessary to bear in mind the
nature of the institutions with which it was intended to
deal. They were divided into two branches, the old
and new foundations. The old foundations had canons
residentiary and non-residentiary, some as many as
twelve, and others only four ; and they amounted in
the whole to about 204. The new foundations were
established by Henry the Eighth, and they comprised
only residentiaries. The duty of residentiaries was
regular and stated, and they were required to give con,.
stant attendance in their cathedrals. The non-residen-
tiaries were only obliged to preach one or two sermons
in the year, and they comprised a much larger body of
clergy. The property of these establishments was very
considerable, and consisted of real property and
tithes, most of which had been exchanged fc;
real property in lands and houses. Now, of All the es,-
tablishments which the Bill proposed to abolish, none
could be abolished with greater safety, in his mind, than
the corpo'ratio-ns of the minor canons, because they had
petitioned in favour of the Bill. If its provisions were
Carried into effect it would abolish about 72 prebends
residentiary, and about 317 non-residentiary. At
would reduce some of the Chapters one-third, and all
Of them considerably—it would alienate their property,
and take away little less than one•half of the revenues now
attached to the cathedral establishments 9f the coun.