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

EVENING EDITION.

try. Now, no necessity had been shown for making
these most important changes, nor had it been shown
that the spiritual destitution, which it was intended to
supply, could not be supplied by any other means. If
no necessity for the measure existed, expediency might
be urged ; but although expediency was a bad plea, he
would join:issue with the Noble Viscount on that ground,
and contend that no plea of expediency could be
made out. The measure, in his opinion, would go far to
impair—it would well nigh destroy—these institutions,
and he could assure their Lordships and the Noble Vis-
count that the connection between cathedral institu-
tions and sound theology was very close. It appeared
to him that it was impossible, from the materials of that
Bill, to procure funds to supply the existing spiritual
destitution, and he doubted very much whether the
parochial clergy would forego their prospect of advance-
ment in the Church for the sake of the small additional
stipend which that Bill would give them. He had an-
other objection to urge on the score of principle. He
doubted whether their Lordships would be justified in
diverting the funds of this or any other institution from
the intention of the original founders or donors. He
doubted whether they had any right to resume the
free gifts which had been made for ever, and when that
claim was not put forward by the parties who made the
gifts, or their representatives, what right had they to
make free with the management of these gifts, or to
resume what had been given by a private individual, as
was.the case in many instances ?—( Hear, bear.) In
1541, Henry VIII. endowed the cathedrals of Can-
terbury, Worcester, and others, not as a monarch, but as
a private individual, bestowing upon them some of his
own. The church of Southwold had been endowed by
a private individual 1200 years ago, and the Bill pro-
vided that that cathedral should be abolished.—(Hear.)
What right had they to do that ? or what right had
they to transfer the property of one church to another
without the consent of the donors ?—(Hear, hear.)
Why had not the State done its duty before the, appeal
had been made to the House ? If the country had been
appealed to in a fitting manner, to supply the existing
spiritual destitution, they would never have heard of
the present
.Bill. The eloquent and wise statesman,
Burke, had said that if the property of cathedrals and
chapels was attacked, it would not end there ; and his
words in reference to a similar measure, attempted to
be carried in his time, were now likely to be verified.
He need not remind their Lordships, that at the time
of the revolution in France, six weeks bad not elapsed
after the church property had been pronounced national
property, until it had been all confiscated, and social
order at an end. He trusted they would never witness
similar scenes in the annals of their country. The pre-
sent was not a question between the Deans and Chap-
ters and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—it was one
in which the interest of Church and State were literally
and vitally at stake.—(Hear, hear.) He would conclude
by applying to their Lordships the words of Archbishop
king, who said, he was entrusted with a great power,
either to preserve or to waste the property of the
Church. Dispose of it for God's sake as the donors
intended. Let neither friends nor flatterers induce
them to do otherwise, and put a stop to the approaching
destruction of the Church, as they hoped for mercy at
the last day.—( Hear, hear.)
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY sad nothing
he had heard from the Right Rev. Prelate who had
just sat down had shaken his opinion as to the advan-
tages of the Bill. It was a measure of the greatest im-
portance to the country and the church, and if their
Lordships rejected it, he feared the consequence would
he most mischievous. The Right Rev. Prelate had
objected to the transfer of property from one church to
another, but he would remind him that the system of
translation had been already on many occasions
recognised by the House and the country.—(Hear.)
According to the Report of the Commons, it appeared
that not less than 230,0001. per annum would be re-
quired to raise the poorer benefices to 2001. per annum,
and their Lordships might infer from that how great
was the amount of spiritual destitution existing. What
was of still greater importance, it would appear that in
four parishes of the metropolis, containing 166,000 in-
habitants (and no parish containing less than 10,000
inhabitants was included) there was only church room
fur 8,208, and only eleven clergymen. In twenty-
one parishes on the banks of the Thames, contain-
ing 799,000, there was only church room for 6,500.
In short, not to go into any unnecessary details, it ap-
peared that in the metropolitan parishes of 1,147,000
persons only one in eleven had church accommodation,
and there were only 76 clergymen for that large num-
ber. The same destitution prevailed in the diocese of
Chester. Of 716,000 persons in the 38 parishes there
was only church room for 100,000. In York, in a po-
pulation of 402,000 there was only church room for
29,000 ; and in the diocese of Exeter, in a population of
235,000 there was only church accommodation for about
the samenumber. The accommodation varied in different
districts from one in eight to one in thirteen. The Learned
Counsel who had addressed their Lordships with so
much eloquence a few nights ago, had talked of the
destruction of canonries, but that Bill did not contem-
plate that—it was merely the suppression of those which
were comparatively useless, and the rendering the
others more efficient, by retaining a sufficient number
to perform the duty. With regard to those non-residen-
tiaries, there could be no doubt that these must be
considered sinecures. What was the use of preaching
a sermon once or twice a year ?—(Hear, hear.) Why,
it was absurd to talk of revenues like these in any other
light than sinecures. The right of the State to inter-
fere with these establishments had been questioned, but
it must be taken into consideration the period at which
the donations had been made. The State was found to
act upon the principles of Justice, but it was not al-
ways to be limited by the obligations which bound pri-
vate individuals—(Hear, bear.) It appeared to him that
the arguments of the Learned Counsel were better
fitted for a Court of Justice than for a Legis-
lative Assembly. The authority of Lord Eldon had
been referred to, and it had been stated that because
Lord Eldon saii he was bound to act according to law,
whether that law was good or bad, they were equally
bound to obey the law. That might be a very good
rule for a Judge, but the Legislature was to judge of
the laws themselves, and it had the power when it
seemed fit to alter or dispense with them altogether.—
( Hear, hear.) On the importance of the object he en-
tirely agreed. He had set before their Lordships the
destitution which prevailed. On the other hand he
might be permitted to state the sacrifices that would be
required to be made by the Chapters 'to supply it.
There were upwards of three millions destitute of the
advantage of religious worship, and to give it to them
they were about to suppress offices held by about 400
clergymen. Now he would argue the case on the
supposition not the most favourable to the Chapters.
He would not take the case of their having
discharged the functions of their offices, which, making
the ordinary allowances for human nature, he believed
they had. It could not be supposed gentlemen entered
the Church for the sake of obtaining these offices.
What was the probability a clergyman entering on a
parish would Rbtain a canonry ? He believed a great
majority of them never expected such a thing, and if
they did, they must necessarily be disappointed. But
then it was said the destitution was great. And so it
was ; for when it was said the sum was small, he ad-
mitted that ; but everything must have a beginning.
So was Queen Anne's Bounty at first, and that of other
similar institutions. Again, it was said by the opo-
nents of the Bill that the State should help the Church.
He agreed with that ; but the Church must first help
herself. This was the opinion of the Noble Duke
( Wellington), expressed a few days ago in that
House, and the Noble Duke had used the same lan-
guage to him (the Archbishop of Canterbury) twelve
years ago, and had said, " Something must he done,
but ;it must not be done in the first place, by the
Church." Lord Grey had used the same language to
him, and said, " We can do nothing for you, if you
do nothing for yourselves." Sir Robert Peel was also.
of the same opinion. With respect to what had been
said of precedents, he believed that if a` party opposed
to the Church got the reins of Government, they
would pay little respect to precedents, and would not re-
frain from injuring it, though there were no precedents
to guide them in doing so. When it was asked what

would be the effect of the Bill, he asked what would

be the effect of rejecting it ?L(Hear, hear.) There

were many prejudices against the Church, and one of
these was that the Church was calling upon the coun-
try to do everything, and would do nothing for
itself. He believed tho benefits resulting from
the Bill would be very extensive, and not the least of
them would be the removal of this prejudice.—(Hear,
hear.) The Most Rev. Prelate then adverted to mea-
sures of the same principle which had had that effect,
and been attended with great advantage to the Church ;
and he believed the effect of this measure would be the
same, and that if the Bill were rejected these prejtuleees
would revive, and with tenfold force. NotwitLat'anding
the great eloquence of the Counsel at the bar, there
was one thing he had heard with great surprise. It Was
a lid the storm had blown over, Who but must spama..
thise in the feelings expressed on this subject, bN the
Noble Visconnt who had first addressek their Lord-
ships ? How was it possible such an. idea. could be
entertained that they should male,e a capitulation, and
then break it as soon as the besieging army marched
off? It was not to ho doubted the measures of the
Commissioners had been adopted upon a full view of
an
the subject, They saw danger, thought it their
duty to do what they could for its removal. This dan-
ger was not founded on transtirentedte ea uses s or on excitement,
oli a
but on causes which had
and would continue to
operate in a certain degree, but in a more or less degree,
th,,
as concession; were made by Church. They sought
to E,,r.4 a remedy for the destitution which prevailed, and et
ale same time to secure the Established Church, and the
institutions connected Lsith it, which undoubtedly would
would fall with it. They said that a nominal reform
would be unsafe, and unsatisfactory, and therefore con-
sented to reduce Cathedral Establishments: to what they
conceived to bu consistent with the object which they had
kept constantly in mind—the performance of the duties
attached to them and the preservation of their fabrics.—
(Hear, heat.) He believed this to be a measure of pru-
dence, and that the time would shortly come when the
wisdom of the Commissioners would ho extolled for re-

com Mending it to Parliament. He had heard it said
that Deans and Chapters were against the measure ;

no one could deny that, but he did not believe
the clergy of this country were really adverse to it.
He knew there had been many petitions against the mea-
sure, but it had never been fairly laid before the clergy.
The Commissioners had been attacked on every side;
their arguments had been misrepresented, their facts mis-
stated, and they had, in fact, been assailed with every art
which ingenious o pposition could devise to resist an un-
palatable measure. The Most Rev. Prelate then proceeded to
argue, that he had been right in stating, on a former occa-
sion, that his own clergy were not opposed to the measure,
and proceeded :—There was one subject which he should
have mentioned earlier, namely, that of oaths. Many re-
spectable clergymen had remonstrated with hint on the
violation of his oath, in being ins'rumental in supporting
this measure, which would deprive the Cathedral of Can-
terbury of a part of its rights and revenues. He conceived
the oaths taken by individuals, whether civil or ecclesias-
tical, or the corporations to which they belonged, were
always taken in subordination to their higher dutiet,
and their obligations to the laws of their country.
An oath of this kind left every men at liberty to do his
duty and speak his mind as a subject, to deliver his opinion
in Parliament, and to advise his Sovereign if he chanced
to be Privy Councillor. He conceived it was in the nature
of such an oath not to interfere with their duties, nor could
he conceive that any oath could have been taken in any
other sense by himself as a resident canon or prebendary
of Canterbury. If it should appear that the terms of that
oath did not meet his view of the case, he thought in ano-
ther sense they would, because the rights and privileges
of the Chapter of Canterbury spoken of in the oath involved
everything belonging to the Church, and therefore he
was bound by his oath, as he should have been without it,
to maintain the rights and privileges of the chapter of
Canterbury against all unlawful aggression. But that
oath by the terms of it did not prevent the visitor -
or Chapter from proposing an alteration of the statutes?.
Those statutes were framed by his illustrious predecessor,
Archbishop Laud, in the reign of Charles 1., and the
was a peculiar sanctity attached to the statutes of Laud;
which prevented their being altered. The right was exe
pressly reserved to the Crown of altering or changing, the
statutes in any respect, or to make entirely new ones.
Nor was any one to be accused of perjury for giving advie‘e
to that effect, nor when adopted would any prebendary be
reduced to the alternative of disobeying the new law, or
breaking his oath. He (the Archbishop of Canterbury)
said that if he did not obey the new statutes he would
break his oath, because all the new statutes were made by
authority of the Crown, and were as binding as the old
statutes, and his obedience to the old was transferred to
the new ones. He would trouble their Lordships -lout a
short time longer, but he must again state that he tho'bght
the Commissioners of the Government deserved great
credit for this measure.—( Hear, hear.) Look at the
amount of patronage the Government would' sacrifice
in carrying this measure.—(Hear.) Look at the seed-
Sees made by the Archbishop of York and the Bishops of
Lincoln and London. Was it because they had no friends
to serve, or clergy to reward, they consented to them ?
No but because they felt the good of the Church re.
quires! it. He was sure they would not regret those sa-
crifices. While, however, he maintained the expediency
of the Bill, he thought there were certain points in it
which would require amendment—( Hear, hear)—and
that certain additions might be beneficially made to it.
Respecting this, he would only state there were a great
number of clergymen who regretted the abolition of their
spiritual offices more than their emoluments. Whether
these could be retained or not was matter for consider-
ation. If be might propose it, he thought every Bi-
shop should have the power of appointing a certain number
of honorary canons who should hold the offices
without sharing the emoluments, and which might be
bestowed on those who assisted the Bishop in the manage-
ment of his diocese, or who had distinguished themselves
by learning, piety, or attention to their parochial duties.
Another provision might be made, though he was not pre-
pared to say bow, for the distribution of the funds raised.
They must never lose sight of this great object, in assist-
ing those districts in which great destitution prevailed,
and yet at the same time *.o have reference to local wants,
and to those great agricultural parishes which were inadee
quately provided with the ministrations of the Church.--
( Hear.) He had nothing further at present to say than
that he was sure the Commissioners had acted wit a due
sense of their important duties, and had done all in their
power to promote the interests of the Church and the sta-.
bility of her institutions.—( Hear.)
Lord L YTTLE TON would not attempt to discuss
the fit constitution of the Commission, or the power of the
Legislature to interfere on this subject. He would be a
bold man to do so, after the able speech of Counsel at
their Lordship's bar. He would not defend the capitular
bodies as to the manner in which, for some time past, they
had discharged their functions, nor would he deny that
new enactments were necessary to cause tbem to fulfil the
purposes of their original constitution. The Noble Lord
referred to the writings of Selden and others to establish,
his position that the powers of the cathehral bodies coteid
not be limited within, nor extended beyond, the bounds of
their respective dioceses. It had been through their ;emu,
the country had been christianized. But it was not to be
said that when the country was christianised their
functions should cease.—( Hear, hear.) He thought
the powers of the Archdeacons and of the 'Chapters at
large ought to be increased, at the same time that he was
far from recommending sinecures in the Church. He
quoted several authorities to show that the Chapters were
the Council of the Bishop in some of his most important
ministrations—in ecclesiastical censures. He thought ttet
the original constitution of the Church required a greett-
number of presbyters than had lately been employed. The
Bishops had in modern times administered their powers foe
much of themselves, and had not sufficiently availed them-
selves of the assistance of the presbytery.' It had been said
by an authority which the Noble Lord opposite (Lord
Aberdeen), who had shown so much knowledge of, and bad
taken so much interest in the Kirk of Scotland, was ac-
quainted with, and would he doubted not respect, that Scot-.
land had lost her episcopacy, and England her presbytery,
and that in both countries the Church bad been a sufferer bef
the loss. For his part, he thought that if there were tny
chance of a re-union of the two Churches, it could or:ly be
effected, by each of them resuming the important feeaction,
of which they bad been deprived. In many ins*.ances the
monasteries and chapters were centres of education ; and
they were the means even at present of keeping
up daily
worship. There was also some weight the argument,
that these institutions afforded an eAcouragement to the
cioloekrgilg yi, totodevthoetem theiras p
time
r ovi
stiltsh
securedacquisitionfo
r themof li n
e a rn i
tnhge,
Church, when they had r.eglected other means of prefer...
meet for the pursuit of learning. It was thii
that the Bill would supply the wants of the
Church. lie denied that. The great want of
the Church was unity of action, which, he believed,
could not be kept up unless the original functions of those
bodies were restored. It had also been said that the very
example set by the Bill would be of service to the Chure,a,
but for his part he could not see how confiscations could
be useful.—( Hear, hear, from the Bishop of ExeAer.)
Several plans respecting better modes of colleetic,n and,
application of the revenues had been laid before the Com-
missioners; and he could not understand why threy had not
been attended to. lie denied the right of Parliament to
destroy the offices themselves, whatever right might be
claimed for it to ie:cerfere with the temporalities. He
would wish to see, the opposition to the Bill take the same'
form in this 13" it had taken in the other House—that is, a
demand for further inquiry. It was admitted by the most
Rev. Primate himself that the clergy knew nothing
of this B;11. Farther inquiry was necessary tee
enable the clergy and the public to unaerstand it.
It was most discouraging to oppose this Bill, considering
the venerable auspices under which it had been introduced,
and the little chance of defeating it. For his part lee
could only say, he trembled for the country in which rho
change in the constitution of the Church was to be e:ffeeted
—he trembled for the age in which the innovation was
made.—( Heal, hear.)

The Carl of H A kRO WBY said, tha.`s as his former
opinion: had been referred to, he was bud to admit that
he had, some Shirty years ago, expressed himself opposed
to a diminution of the number of, prebends. But he wag
not zeow unwilling to retract tleat opinion. He had not made
up his mind to support tills Bill, which was in its own na-
ture so i':uportant, and in many of its parts open
to so much objection, without having endeavoured to
mals,e himself fully acquainted with the subject-4 Hear.)
He beard a great deal of the right of the Legislature to in-
terfere with these ;offices and this property. The Legis-
lature had always exercised the right of making a new
disposition, more suited to the wants of the times, and
perhaps to the real views of the donors, of property in-
vestoi in public and permanent establishments.—( Hess.)
He did not allude to what had been done in such cases ass
that of the Tempters, but to many approved inszarsees,
wkieh might occur to their Lordships' minds, though he
could not now trust his memory with attempting a detail
of them. But their Lordships were aware that in tinny
instances, and in many ages, the Legislature had take*
upon itself not to alienate, but to alter the disposition of
welt property. In 1831 a Bill passed the House of Commons
and ultimately was agreed to in this House, for altering the
disposition of the Property of the Church itself, to supprele.
aDme bishoprics, awl to remodel others, in another part
of the empire. In 183 f,,
a similar Bill for a new disi-
tion of property of the Church in England, passed the H
ouse
of Coma:els—one of the effects of which would be to tail
from those who had too much duty, or too much wealth, end
to transfer some of the burthen, or the emolument, to
those. who were less employed, and less endowed. By them
Bill the See of Canterbury would have been reduced so
augment the See of Exeter.—(Hear, hear.) The propo-
sition now before them was to transfer wealth from one
pert of the Church, in which it was not so efficiently em-
ployed, to That part in which it was most needed,and which.
was the basis, and the most important part of the whole:.
fahk;e. The deficiency of parochial ministration in the
Church was acknowledged, and it was the interest of the
Estaldished Church to remove the destitution—( Hear,
hear)—and it was an impression very widely:spread that
before Parliament could do anything for the Church, tires
Church should show a willingness to go as far as it could to
help itself.—( Hear, hear.) He believed that after

,he'claims which Parliament' or the Government would be

disposed to make upon the Cathedrals, enough would re-
main for their unimpaired usefulness. It had been said
that if this Bill were carried into effect there would not

remain enough of inducements to
.men of the highest
talents to devote themselves to learning. But look at the
state of the case as between the Church and the other pro-
fessions. Now, if the Bill passed, there would still remain
26 bishoprics, worth 5,000/. a-year each, and 26 deaneries
of 1,0001. each; besides 1,600 rectories, of an average
value cf 5001. a-year each. There were certainly a greet
many of no more than 90/. or 70/. a-year, but this (as we
understood) was a disproportion it was proposed to re-
medy. But what was the case in the army ? Why, at
the last brevet, there were 133 promotions, but the officers
promoted had paid an aggregate of 210,000/. for their
commissions. The Noble Earl concluded by saying that he
supported the Bill from a thorough conviction that it would
promote the interests of the Church, and enable it the
better to accomplish the intentions of its Divine Founder.
The Earl of DE VON had always felt great doubts upon.
the propriety of such a measure being adopted as that be—
fore the Ilouse, and those doubts had beers increased joy
what he had heard that night. Parliament was ca .e d
upon to interfere without having any evidence whew ier