The Sun.
London, England, 1833-07-20 00:00:00

his honour, that he felt it his duty, as shortly as possible,
to state his opinions on that most important question, and
he would occupy their useful time for as short a space as
the nature of the question would allow. He owed that
the more to their Lordships when be considered the
attention with which they were always pleased to hear any
his observations, but the more, so, when he thought
on the respect which they had shown him during the
unprecedented length of time he had the honour of occu
pying the woolsack. He might never have another oppor-
tunity of expressing his grateful thanks to their Lordships,
neither would he measure his address by the gratitude
which he owed them, or it would be without end. The
question was one of the greatest importance that had ever
come before that House—(Hear, hear)—and what-
ever observation might be made upon what he
might say, he would not be deterred from doing
his duty. He would ask whether any man could look at
what had been transacted during the last 12 months and
not be obliged to say that there bad been a conspiracy
going on against their Lordships' House, the import of
which was to put an end to its functions ? But, notwith
standing all that, he called upon their Lordships to do
their duty. He had been raised from a very humble sta-
tion of life, and he would ask leave to tell them that the
only means whereby they could give an advantage to their
opponents, was to give way to menaces and clamour—
the consequence would be dreadful if their Lordships did
not restore that House to the character it bad three or four
years ago—the great saviour of the country; they might
depend upon it that in a very short time there would not
be an opportunity for any one to address their Lordships in
that House. It was his most determined purpose to submit
to all the consequences, before he, fair one, would allow
the same measures to be pursued, as had been for
the last two years. With these preliminary ohserva.
lions he would proc-ed to the consideration of the Bill
then before them. That Bill—he submitted it more
particularly to the Reverend Bench—that Bill, if
allowed to pass in its present shape, would prevent
any one 20 years younger than himself from ever ad-
dressing that Bench again. Before proceeding to the
details of the B;11, he would ask one sirnp!e question—it
was, whether Ws Majesty could, consistently with his co-
ronation oath, give his consent and sanction to that Bill?
On that he had only to say, it certainly astonished him,
that, after the union of the English and Irish Churches, and
after it had been solemnly declared by Parliament that there
was no longer an English Church and an Irish Church,
but that, after that Bill passed, there should be one united
Church of England and Ireland—he was, be said, asto-
nished that, knowing such to be the case, their Lordships
bad debated for four or five nights respecting the Irish
Church.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") There was no
Irish Church—the two churches having been united by the
solemn declaration of Parliament. Good God! When be
looked back to that period when the Act of Union passed,
with which he had something to do, he could not imagine
how it happened that the interests of the English
church and those of the Irish church had been
so separated as they were by the present Bill before
the House. Now with respect to the coronation oath—
he spoke with reference to a Noble Duke (Wellington),
for whom no one entertained a greater respect than he
did, though he must say that he had objections of a very
strong nature to the Act of 1829 (the Catholic Bill),
and the circumstance gave him great pain, because he
was opposed to that Noble Duke to whom he was
under so much obligation—he must say, that he was
astonished to hear a Learned Lord (Plunket) speak as
be did respecting the coronation oath. With all respect to
the opinions of others, and with the greatest reverence to
his Sovereign, he could not reconcile, either in the Act of
1829 or in the present measure the coronation oath to
his Majesty's giving his Royal Assent to it.—(Hear, bear.),
The Act of Union between England and Ireland was not
the first Act of Union in this country. Long before that
Union, there was the Union with Scotland. The Union
between England and Ireland was made by a Protestant
Parliament of Ireland, and a Protestant Parliament in Eng-
land, for the purpose of maintaining inviolate the Protestant
religion. The Irish Union was not formed with the caution
practised by our Scotch neighbours.—(A laugh.) He en-
tertained great respect for !he Noble Peers in the House,
and those who came from Scotland, but he must say
that Scotchmen possessed far more caution than either
Englishmen or Irishmen.—(Laughter.) The Scotchmen
saw that in uniting with England they would lose
their Parliament ; they, however, consoled themselves
with having the same number of representatives in the
English Parliament, but they insisted that, prior to the
Union taking place, an Act should pass to prevent the
English Parliament from ever touching the Presbyterian
religion as practised in Scotland. That solemn Act was
passed, and secured the inviolability of that religion.
If not on the consciences of the English Parliament and
of the King, its head, on what would stand such an Act ?
If the obligations which either the Parliament or the King
entered into were neglected or dispensed with, it would
go for nothing at all ; and then, after these two Acts had
passed and been consummated, the very next day a Bill
might be brought into Parliament, which should declare
that there should be no Protestant religion in Scotland, or,
if the Scotch got the start of us, that there should be no
Episcopacy in Ireland.—(Hear, bear.) They had
nothing to rely on but the solemn oath of the
King. With respect to the Union of Ireland,
when the King gave his consent to the Act of Parliament,
he was called on by the most solemn rights and ceremo-
nies, not merely to say "Le Roi le veut," but also to ap-
peal in the most solemn manner, and to say, " So help him
God!" So help him God he would not consent to any Act of
Parliament that would disturb or affect the interests of
that establishment, to which he vowed his constant and
eternal attachment. With all that deference and respect
which he owed to the Noble Duke near 11111), he must be
allowed to say, whatever consequences it might expose
him to, for be was driven to it by what had passed
in the House, that'if the Great Seals bad been in his
hand at the present time, which bound him to tender his
humble advice on this subject to hie Majesty, and if the
King bad declined accepting, what in his conscience
he might have given,—so help him that God----
(Hear, hear)—before whose tribunal he had soon to
appear, he would, with all dutiful respect, have said,
" Sire,—lt is my duty to assume that you understand
your duty better than I do ; the advice I have given is,
from my soul and conscience, what I ouglst togive you; I am
bound to defer to your superior judgment, but I cannot
entangle myself with the consequences which in my after
life must attach to other advice, and I cannot go out
of this room without resigning into your hands
the seals of office, which compel me to tender
to you my advice."—(Hear, hear, bear.) As to the
Bill itself, it did appear to him to be one of the most ex-
traordinary ever introduced into Parliament. Could
their Lordships suppose, knowing as they must what
was going on in this country, that this measure was
the limit to which they would be obliged to go,
if they acceded to it? As a Peer of that House, he was
tremblingly alive to its existence and stability. Four
years ago the most illustrious assembly in the world was
the House of Lords. It was the palladium of the rights
and liberties of the people, and if its honours and distinctions
did not continue to exist, the Monarchy could not long be up-
held. But if there were in this country people who ex-
pected to deter him from the execution of those duties which
be thought heowed to the King, which he thought he owed
to the country, and which he owed even to that class
of men, the people of the country, one of whom he once
had been, and one of whom he hoped he still was, they
might threaten him, they might endeavour to affright him,
from the execution of his duty, but, let the consequences
be what they might, they could not accomplish that
point,—they should never prevent him from doing
what in his conscience he believed to be his duty.
He would live, and when he died, he would die the dutiful
subject of the King—the supporter of that House—
the supporter of a House of Commons who did their
duty to the people, and did not allow the people to tell
them what their duty was. With respect to the compact
between England and Ireland, be would take the liberty of
saying that, in his opinion, those two countries had at that
rime a Protestant representation, and that that Union was
made—and he thought he knew it was made—to
ear.) He support
wParoutledstadnel
taairnatertehsatst oaf IBreilllandp.
Church,
Opposition.))he
bad thoughtlreland.—(Hear,
Rear.)
on the principles of this Bill, was a direct and main
friend a
fraud on the Protestant representation.—(Hear, hear,
he
He wasa
at
tincaearee
r ,from
of the thec
time of his life to be a minister of that church. He
had spent a long life in looking into this subject, as well
as he could, and he would venture to say now
that if there were such men in the world, who ought to be
p arts of the church establishment, it was its Archbishops,
Bishops, &c. He conceived that it should be taken as an

axiom that every man ought to be a member of some ch urc
or other ; for if the obligations of religion were loosened, thee
every man might be told to think as be plea-,
on religion, and what, he would ask, could b
expected to result from such a license ?—(Hear, hear.)
He admitted that there ought to be the most free tolera-
tion, but that was not to be obtained to the destruction of
the Church. If God gave him sufficient length of life.
he should enter his protest against the Bill, being deter-
mined that his countrymen should know that he was n.
tpoarbtye
st f such a
nv
icteti
ofha proceeding,vi
ng andneglected egle
esa
tveds
hisd etedr determined not
duty.
The Bishop of LONDON felt great embarrassment in
rising to address their Lordship., not as to any doubt he
entertrined as to the propriety of the vote he had deter-
mined to give for the second reading of the Bill, a deter-
mination he had formed after the most serious and anxious
consideration, but he was embarrassed by the very cir-
cumstance of having no doubt as to the adoption of that
course; that embarrassment was not diminished when h,
considered the observations he should have to make mink,
not be satisfactory to those who supported or opposed the
measure. There were some of the provisions of the
measure to which be had no reasonable objection, but
there weYe others to which he must give
1.,;s most unqualified dissent ; hut, looking at the
state of the Church of Ireland, he thought it imperatively
call:d on him to vote for the second reading of the Bill ;
Whether this be the wisest and safest measure that could
have been devised I should hesitate to affirm. I acknow-
ledge that in the manner of its originating, and in the bear-
ing of some of its provisions, it is, in my opinion, open to
serious objections. With respect to the manner of its
originating, I cannot help regretting that the great bud)
of the Irish clergy was not consulted as to the
best and safest remedy for those evils the existence
of which they are amongst the foremost to acknowledge,
and of the real remedy of which they are the best judges.
—(Hear.) I ant sure they would not have been
deterred from proposing that remedy by the apprehension of
personal sacrifices on their own puts, for there exists no'
in the world a more disinterested, more liberal, more spi-
ritual-minded body of men than the Irish Protestant
clergy.—(Cheers.) He was aware, indeed, of the diffi-
culties which might have been met with in obtaining for-
mally the opinions of the Irish clergy as a body. He was
aware that it would be difficult to summon a Convocation.
But if that had been done, and though there was diffi-
culty, still it might have been done, the greatest of all the
objections which existed against the Bill would have been
removed at the outset.—(Hear.) In giving his vote for
the second reading, he wished it to be known to their
Lordships that he did so not with unmixed satisfaction.
He could not conceal from himself that it would follow
from the absolute recognition of this Bill that danger
would be brought upon all the establishments of the
cauntry. No person immediately conversant with the
state of Ireland would contradict him when he said that
the payment of tithe by the occupier of the land to the
incumbent was extinct and never could be revived. He
could not go into a discussion of the causes which had pro-
duced this state of things; but such it was, whatever
might have led to it. His Majesty's Ministers had under-
taken to collect them, but with all their means and ap-
pliances they had failed to do so. The grant to the
clergy was a measure both of justice and humanity; but
how would the Government and the clergy be situated if
the present Bill should be rejected? Could it be sup-
posed that the House of Commons would pass a Bill
founded on the resolutions, for the payment of the clergy
of the arrears of 1831 and 1832, if the Bid now before
their Lordships should be rejected ?—(Hear, bear.) He
believed that the Church of Ireland was in such a state
that for its preservation a measure of concession as large
as this was necessary. But their Lordships bad been told
that the Bill was in principle ruinous, and that it was
their duty to throw it out in disregard of all consequences.
But what were the consequences ?—( Hear.) One was
the immediate ruin of the Church Establishment in Ireland.
--(Hear, hear.) Was it not then the duty of every
Member of their Lordships' House carefully to weigh those
consequences?—(Hear, hear.) Would they not best con-
sult the interests of the Church itself by consenting to a
measure which, although it might affect its temporal re-
sources, would yet preserve it from immediate and inevi-
table destruction ?—(Hear, hear.) It had been said
that the certainty of change was quite as detrimental to
the character and to the efficiency of the Church as the
probability of destruction. But let their Lordships look
to the nature of the change proposed. Certainly, if the
Bill went to affect the Irish Church in a single point of
its doctrines, to change a single sentence in its formularies,
the only point in respect to which the Bill could be sup-
posed to trench upon these forbidden grounds was in the
appointment of the Commission. But in all other re-
spects the Bill might be said to be one which affected
the economical arrangements of the Church, but left its
spiritual affairs untouched. The question for considera-
tion was, whether it would not be better to admit of
some alteration in the existing arrangements of the
Church to avoid the total and immediate destruction of
the establishment ?--(Hear, hear.) It had beeu said
that by this Bill a door would be opened to innovation.
But the door was already open ; and it was the duty of
those who supported and defended the Church to take
such measures as would put the narrowest limits to en-
croachments. The Irish clergy almost universally desired
the abolition of the church cess. It was the fruitful
source of dissensions. But the object for which it was
levied could not be dispensed with ; and the most equi-
table way to get rid of the present evil in the mode of
collection would be for the Irish landlords themselves to
undertake the payment. That the number of the Bishops
might be diminished without detriment to the interests
of the Church, had been admitted by the head of the
Church in Ireland ; and although that Most Reverend
Prelate had given his opinion that six bishoprics only
might be reduced, and the Bill reduced ten, the question
became one solely of number, as the principle that
reduction might take place was admitted. In the course
of the debate last night the additional labour that world
by this Bill be thrown upon the Irish Bishops was com-
plained of. The justice of the complaint depended upon
what they bad now to do. His own official cares were
not light, but, if the care of another county should be
thrown upon him, he was not so vain as to say that he
should be fully adequate to it, but he certainly should
endeavour to do the duty.—(Hear.) There was one species
of reform much desired by many persons in this country,
the best friends of the Church—he meant the abolition
of peculiar juri.ilictions. With respect to the old
dioceses, the duty at present which devolved upon the
Bishops was sufficiently heavy. Ile had himself as much
to do as he could well undertake ; but, if the Bill which
d
s
f
t
scit
aoo r
one a sni
emt
obi
eeienesfmnadol
vsenrtuhefithtol
sooetseui t
appreciated
wndpl
eat
nruoyebetlupnche bringlp:idbohsaaaepstdrabr,eeotdi
eddetnceofhddeiftßahher4rwlielielssvtcohhe6wludbomeeslprei
dofotgasarbryoenbbeufi.too,net, itnathiwssetihi
Tnisfiiweotcochhnhdrebeeejsi
acaeeohscmndpfi objected
additionnoeetrnwgpddh
uietpnt peculiarorahucehte undertosoiieonuounnnunms ju-
risdictionsmthtthporioi
country
l
fteozoateasiorriedimfgeleee.iti
unnrrehaoetye lse:aryt
ceantbi
elahsoyeariosnadereot_seoi,ondof
arrangement
jeen
wouldt
butgneon tthr•ey say.
thought he might be able to perform his duties. The re-
ductione
gmr
roust
sutn ground
derive 'chat tfhiev.
t ht
00Hugehftu lay
equalize
satthdi
the
gtEnhherieertatr:teefdvrenue of the Bishops was a subject of difficulty, be-
causephroeyp egr
otii
property
sti;:nrfvfaeosrrl
Onttwnwh/ srocco eraaohs lnempsta
erffgoore,ueupOcol property.
Onts tyg/
e Legis-
lature
Mustdioceses,
Church
hypothetical
a year,
theone other with
onalny
case—was. it to be said that neither the Legislature nor
revenues, but to take any part from the larger dioceses and
add it to the smaller ? He would not now enter upon
this question, but should not be afraid at any time to take
his stand upon such a case as this. Great danger was
apprehended to the rights of the English clergy from the
principle of taxation introduced in this Bill. He appre-
hended nu such danger. It would be hypocrisy in him to
say that he approved of the whole of this measure. He
would vote for the second reading on two grounds—first,
because he apprehended great and imminent danger to the
Church if it should be rejected, and be was not ashamed
of this avowal. It was not cowardice to make it in a
case of this nature. He was apprehensive of a great con-
vulsion, not indeed immediately in this country, but in
Ireland. If it should be rejected he looked to the speedy
downfal of the Irish Church, and to some great civil
commotion.
the

The Archbishop of DUBLIN said he should not enter
into the details of the Bill. He was doubly connected
with the measure, first, as an Irish Prelate whose cares
would be increased by it, while his revenues would be
diminished; and secondly, as one of the persons of whom

the Commission was to be composed in the event of th
Bill passing. Every strong feeling, therefore, which the
measure was calculated to excite was as likely to reach
him as it was any Prelate upon the English Bartell.
tie came to this question with no party feelings, no predi-
lections, no views hastily taken up; and he should not
vote for a second reading if he had not for some time
well weighed the consequences. It was not necessary for
him to enter into the general question, for his opinions
upon it were before their Lordships a year and a ha!!
hack, and they were now in print upon the table. These
opinions, which he expressed a year and a h ilf bark,
remained unaltered, and nothing had occurred since to in-
..lucellim to alter them. There were, however, some things
which he then deemed expedient, which would not be
expedient now. The views he then took were since
confirmed, and some of his predictions had been fulfilled.
He said that he was doubly connected with the Bill,
first, as an Irish Prelate, whose cares would be increased,
while his revenues were diminished by it ; and, secondly,
as one of the Commissioners. As regarded the revenues
of the see of Dublin be would state to their Lordships
what he had done. He spontaneously offered to dimi-
nish those revenues provided it appeared that it would be
for the general interests of religion and of the Irish
Church to make a different application of a part of them.
He subsequently made a proposal that the revenues of that
see should not be allowed to stand in the way if by an
application of them to that objet the vestry cess could be
got rid of. He considered the cess an evil, not so much
on account of the amount, but because it was a source
of great irritation. Though he considered the revenues
of the see his own, to be disposed of as be thought fit
,luring his life, he still thought them the property of the
Church. He felt that the perpetuity was a sacred trust,
not alone for the see of Dublin, but for the gene-
ral interests of the Established Church of Ireland ;
and he would most willingly sacrifice the whole
of the revenues if he thought that by so doing the
cause of true religion could he promoted. He considered
the income of a see, or of a parish, not alone with refe-
rence to the individual who held either for the time being,
hut with reference to the interests of the Church generally.
This offer he made without the slightest hint from the
Noble Earl at the head of the Government, with whom
his first intercourse was the offer to him by the Noble
Earl of the see of Dublin. He should be happy if by any
other contrivance the taxation of the clergy of Ireland
could have been avoided. He could not express as they
deserved the feelings he entertained of the merits of that
clergy, and his deep regret for their sufferings. These lie
had the pain to witness, and, as far as he could, alleviated
' them. They were received into his house and assisted
with his purse. Whether any better plan could be sub-
stituted in lieu of the cess than this taxation of the clergy
their Lordships were the best judges. The expediency of
the proposed measure was objected to as being uncon-
nected with principle. In cases of this kind, however,
expediency and principle must go together. He would
not sacrifice a religious principle to expediency, but here
there was no such question. The martyrs of old gave
themselves up to death for the faith, but they would
not have done so for any temporal interest. It was not
a sacrifice of principle to expediency if the object pro.
posed was to advanee the interests of the Church. He
would not say this was the best plan which could be
adopted, hut he heard no other suggested ; and, if
they could not reach the port they wished, they
must, as the sailors said, go as near the wind as they
could, and reach the nearest port. The wisdom or the
folly of the measure was not his, and he was not answer-
able for it. He thought a better system of measures might
he brought in some time ago than that proposed, but it
was at present too late. He would now come to the Com-
mission, which was objected to as dangerous in its com-
position, as it was proposed that it should be composed
partly of laymen. The majority, however, was to consist
of ecclesiastics. It appeared very inconsistent that a dimi-
nution of the number of Irish Bishops should be objected
to, while at the same time apprehension was expressed of a
Commission of which the Bishops were to form a majority.
It was not quite courteous to them, as Members of the
Commission, thus to estimate that they were likely to'
abuse their power. For himself be would say that if any
parish should be suspended by the Commission, and divine
service not performed there for a time, if afterwards it
should appear that in consequence of altered circumstances
the appointment of a clergyman was desirable, he would
immediately propose that the parish be restored. It was
uncharitable to suppose that the Commission would not
act in this way ; and, if their Lordships by their vote upon
this occasion implied any such opinion, it would show that
they did not entertain sentiments very favourable to the
Irish Bishops. He could not understand why such fears
were entertained of an admixture of laymen. The head of
the church was a layman. The Lord Chancellor also was
a layman. He had the disposal of a great number of liv-
ings. He had it in his power to suspend appointments
to parishes for three, four, or five years, however
eagerly the parishioners might be craving for the bread
of life. A greater trust was thus proposed in a layman
than would be confided to a numerous Commission, the
majority of whom consisted of the clergy. He entertained
no apprehension that the Commissioners would recommend
a wanton and rash removal of clergymen. If he saw
any such conduct he should not hesitate to lay a heavy
complaint in a quarter where he was pretty sure it would
be attended to. He admitted the Bill was attended with
dangers, but the danger of rejecting it was still greater.
It would be fatal. It was very possible to proclaim a
danger in such a way as greatly to aggravate it. If it
went abroad that it was the intention of his Majesty's
Ministers to overturn the Church of Ireland, and that the
present measure was only the commencement of the plan,
it could not fail greatly to aggravate the existing evils and
dangers. The report was industriously propagated by
agitators that such was the object of the Government,
and the professed friends of the Established Church con-
tributed their share in the cry. This was extremely im-
prudent, and many of those who were concerned in rais-
ing the cry now saw their error and deeply regretted it.
He hoped upon this occasion all parry feeling, all political
hostility, all recollection of former differences and of irri-
tating topics, would he laid aside, and that their Lord-
ships would come to the decision with singleness of mind,
anxious only to do all the good in their power. A large
body not only in Ireland but in England was hostile to
the Constitution, to the Church, and to that House, but
particularly hostile to the bench of Bishops. Nothing
would mortify these men more than to see their Lord-
ships unite to do the best they could for the interests of
the Church and of the country ; nothing please them more
than to see this measure rejected.—(Hear, hear.)
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said he rose thus
early in the debate because if he waited to a later hour he
feared his state of health would prevent him from address-
ing their Lordships. He could not give a silent vote upon
a question of this kind. It was with great pain he found
himself obliged upon this occasion to oppose his Majesty's
Ministers. It was a situation almost new for an Arch-
bishop of Canterbury. The ordinary policy of Govern-
ment used to be to consult with the heads of the church
upon questions of this kind. This prevented hostile colli-
sion in public, the advantage of which was not inconsi-
derable. He would not admit that the heads of the
church ought to submit tacitly to Government, but it was
inconvenient to appear opposed to that power to which
they ought to look for protection and support. Any sur-
mise that the Government was hostile to the church, or
the church suspicious of the Government, must at all times
he injurious. He lay under other disadvantages upon the
present occasion, for if he opposed this reform it would be
said he was hostile to all reform. By some his opposition
would be attributed to party feeling, from which no man
was more free. He had stated to himself and he had
heard from others what were the reasons for this measure,
and he was not able to satisfy himself that they were suffi.
cient. He would state shortly his objections to this Bill.
Two objects were proposed by it; the first reform, the
second conciliation. The reform consisted in making pro-
visions, by a tax upon the clergy and by other means, for
the building of churches and glebe-houses, the repair of
churches, and the improvement of small livings. The
conciliatory part consisted in the abolition of church cess.
He did not know to which of these two objects the reduc-
tion of the number of Bishops was to be referred, but the
alienation of the see lands must refer to conciliation.
The case, he admitted, was odious ; and it was easy to
conceive why it should be so from the difference of reli-
gious opinion in Ireland. He was most ready to give it
up. If it was the source of perpetual conflict, let it be
given up. But then they were told this was a boon to
Ireland, by way of compensation for the Coercion Bill.
He could not admit this view of the case. The effect
of the Coercion Bill was to restore peace and tranquillity,
and therefore it was, in point of fact, a boon to that
country.—(Hear.) The next question to be considered