The Sun.
London, England, 1833-07-12 00:00:00

LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 12, 1833.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, JULY ii.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY presented pe-
titions against the Irish Church Reform Bill, from the
clergy of Limerick, and from the diocese of Armagh. At
the head of the signatures attached to the latter peti-
tion, was that of the Archbishop of Armagh, respecting
the part taken by whom, concerning the temporal
changes of the Church of Ireland, rumour had been
very active. He would state, were it necessary, the
manner in whirls that most Reverend Prelate had
met the propositions of his Majesty's Government,
and what were, in his judgment, the concessions and
sacrifices, which, under the dangers and difficulties
by which the Irish branch of our church was surrounded,
might safely and reasonably be made. But conscious of
his inability to state their sentiments so clearly and for-
cibly, so correctly or so eloquently, he should read a few
passages of the petition, from which it would appear how
far the most Rev. Prelate alluded to, and the rest of the
petitioners, agreed with the provisions of the Bill, and in
what respect they disapproved of them. The most Rev.
Prelate (who was very inaudible) then read the petition,
which stated that the petitioners were willing to agree to
a consolidation of a certain number of Bishoprics, the
revenues of which should be applied to diminish the tax
upon the clergy. They prayed the House not to suspend
the appointment of incumbents in parishes where divine
service had not been performed for three years.
Lord CARBERY presented a petition to the same
effect from Cork. The Noble Earl said that, within his
own knowledge, where three churches formerly stood,
there were now twelve, which were attended by very
respectable congregations.
E arl BATHURST presented a similar petition from the
University of Oxford. Since the drawing up of the petition,
one of the material objections of the petitioners had been
removed, in consequence of the withdrawal of the clause
for appropriating the revenues to state purposes.
The petitioners complained that, by abolishing church
cess, the clergy alone was made chargeable with it.
He believed, from everything he had heard, that formerly
these assessments had been subject to great abuse, but
every one knew that a very great change had since taken
place.
The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a petition
from the clergy of the diocese of Youghall, against the
Church Temporalities (Irel and) Bill. He said—My Lords,
though I shall have another opportunity of stating my
opinion of the Bill, still I cannot allow the present oppor-
tunity to pass without saying that it is a Bill that is
utterly inconsistent with the policy of the country,
since the period of the Reformation up to the present
time, but more especially since the Revolution. That
Bill is a necessary consequence of the measure—of that
departure from the true policy of the country—which took
place last year. Since the periods I have alluded to, the
uniform object of Parliament has been to maintain the
Church of England in all its integrity in Ireland. That
object is shown more particularly in latter times.—(Hear,
hear.) I need only allude to the repeal of the Test
and Corporation Acts in 1828, and to that larger measure
which was introduced the year following—l mean the
measure of Catholic emancipation. In both of those
measures it is easily to be seen that the first object of Par-
liament was to maintain the Protestant religion in that
country as established at the Union. Now we have this Bill
brought upon us, which I will maintain is a necessary
consequence of the measure of last year, which I have
never ceased to deplore. Notwithstanding all that I have
heard said against that Bill, militating against the coro-
nation oath, I maintain that it is impossible that that
oath can be kept in all its integrity, and that Bill
receive the Royal Assent.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Why,
his Majesty positively swears that he will maintain
inviolate all the principles and Temporalities of the Church
of England, and surely no one will deny but
that the property of the church is vested i❑
the church ; and therefore that the Bill before
the House is diametrically opposed to the very spirit of
that oath.—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) My
Lords, I am not one who can draw any distinction be-
tween the legislative and executive capacity of his Ma-
jesty. I think that an oath is as binding in the one as
the other—(Cheers)—and I will, at the proper time,
defy any man to show that his Majesty can, by any possi-
bility, give his assent to that Bill, or any one containing
such provisions.—(Hear, hear.) My Lords, I have be-
fore stated several reasons to bear me out in the positio❑
I have taken, that this measure is altogether opposed to
the policy hitherto pursued by this country. That oath
is another evidence that such was the policy of the country
at the time it was framed, and I most sincerely hope it
never will be departed from.

Earl GREY—My Lords, the Noble Duke has truly
stated that your Lordships will have a more convenient
and suitable time for discussing the principle and details
of the measure than the present. I, therefore, very
much regret that his Grace has thought it fit
to submit the observations which he has done this even-
ing.—(Hear, hear, hear.) However, as the Noble Duke
has thought it proper to make those observations,
I do not feel that it would be consistent with my
duty to let them pass, without answering one or
two of them. The Noble Duke has said that this
measure is absolutely inconsistent with, and contrary to,
the policy of this country from the period of the
Reformation, but more particularly since the Revo-
lution.—(Hear, hear.) My Lords, that is a matter
of opinion ; and when the proper time comes, I have not
the least doubt that I shall be able to show your
Lordships that the Bill deserves a very different
character.—(Hear, hear.) However, I am hound to
believe that these are the opinions of the Noble Duke—
that he objects not only to its details, but even to its prin.
ciple. I suppose t►e will, therefore, be prepared to oppose
it in its second reading, when its principle will be decided.
The Noble Duke has acted on his opinion as I should
act upon mine ; but I may be allowed to state
now, as I shall contend more fully hereafter, that
the Bill is not inconsistent with the policy which
has been adopted by this country.—(Hear, hear.)
My Lords, I mean by that statement, the maintaining of
the Protestant establishment of this country; and I shall
be prepared to show, according to the best of my humble
abilities, when this Bill comes on for further discussion, that
it is a Bill founded on principles of sincere and strong at-
tachment to the church of Ireland and England united
—that it is intended by it to support and strengthen that
Church—that it deserves none of the character affixed
to it—and that it is net only not inconsistent with,
but eminently conducive to, the best interests of the
Church.—(Hear.) My Lords, I heard this night, with
very great satisfaction, in some respects, the petition pre-
sented by the most Rev. Prelate, from the Lord Primate
of Ireland, and other distinguished members of the Irish
Church. I heard it with pleasure, my Lords, on account
of the moderation with which the opinion of the petitioners
was expressed—a moderation, my Lords, which well de-
serves the praise given to it by the Right Rev. Pre-
late. I heard it with greater pleasure, my Lords, be-
cause, so far from taking the view that has been taken by
the Noble Duke, of the general principle and policy of
the measure, it seems to acknowledge that the principles
of the Bill must be admitted, and that the objections
stated in the petition are founded principally on its pro-
visions and details. My Lords, I state, therefore, and I
state it with some confidence, that when this Bill comes
to be examined into, it will be found, not to be a measure
of spoliation—as the Noble Duke stated on a former night
—but a measure taking nothing from the Church.—
(Hear.) It is true, my Lord., that it has for its objects
a different distribution of its revenues—a principle
which I take on myself to assert will be advantageous to
the Church. It is not, my Lords, a Bill of spoliation--it
is not a Bill inconsistent with the policy which the
Noble Duke has stated ought to be pursued—nor
is it a Bill inconsistent with the duty cf Parliament
to support the Protestant Church.—(Hear, bear,
hear.) But, my Lords, it is a Bill that has bee❑ care-
fully framed with a view of removing those defects of
which even its greatest friends have complained, and
of which its enemies have taken so many advantages.
I think, my Lords, I have now said all I need say, except-
ing that I trust we shall consider the question dis-
passionately, without party feelings and animosities,
which ought ever to be excluded, but which never can
be excluded from a question of this nature. I say, I do
not know that it is necessary for me to say more,
than to take the general view for the defence of a
measure which I should never have thought of proposing
to you on any other grounds than those which I feel to
be necessary, consistent with the duty which, as a sincere
Member of the Church, devolves upon n►e.--(Hear,
bear.) Here again, I will advert to what the Nble

Duke has said with regard to the coronation oath.
(Hear, hear.) I was much surprised, I remember,
when that objection was urged quite as strongly
as now, against a measure which was proposed k)
the Noble Duke himself. I remember having, in sup-
port of that measure, urged that question, and fought
at times with the concurrence and to the satisfaction of
the Noble Duke.—(Hear.) My Lords, I must say tirtr
if that be an argument which was inapplicable to the
principle on which Catholic emancipation was passed,—as
I think the Noble Duke must have felt it to be,—it
is still more
inappropriate, possible, to the present mea-
sure.—(Cheers, from the Duke of Cumber-
land.
and
No,
no,
)
Earl GREY—I hope the Noble Duke will have the
decency—(Cries of " Order, order" from the Opposition
benches. and loud cheers from the Ministerial side of the
House.) Time Illustrious Duke has a right to maintain
his opinion on every measure that the forms of the House
will allow, but because he differs with me—
Lord KENYON—I call the Noble Earl to order, and
I ask your Lordships to say whether you conceive it is de-
corous for asy Noble Lord to make use of such language
in this House as the Noble Earl opposite has taken upon
himself to use.
Earl GREY—If the Noble Lord wishes to take the
opinion of time House upon the subject, I must submit to
the decision, but I can only say I think such interruptions,
when a person is speaking, are totally unworthy of the
Noble Lord, and indecent towards the House.—(Cheers.)
I repeat, my Lords, that I shall contend now, as I did
before, that the coronation oath does in no degree prevent
his Majesty from giving his consent to this mea-
sure, if it pass your Lordships' House ; nor do I under-
stand what the Noble Duke means by saying that his
Majesty, in giving his consent to an Act of Par-
liament when it has passed both Houses of the
Legislature, does so in his executive capacity. I
shall he prepared to contend, as I have previously done,
that in that capacity the coronation oath does not bind
his Majesty.—(Hear.) I trust that Noble Lords wil 1
not go away with an impression that this measure is
at all inconsistent with that policy which all, careful
of the interests of the Protestant Church, are anxious to
defend, lam anxious, my Lords, to defend its interests as
one of its members, and I can assure your Lordships that
this measure is not inconsistent with that policy which
has been adverted to.
The Duke of CUMBERLAND believed that there was
no man in that House who would more unwillingly commit
an act of indecency than himself.—(Hear, hear.)
The Duke of WELLINGTON explained.

The Duke of BUCKINGHAM considered the measure
to be one of spoliation, and therefore he should give his
determined opposition to it on principle.

After a conversation in which Earl GREY, the Duke of
WELLINGTON, and the Earl of HARROIYBY took part—
Earl GREY postponed the second reading of the
Church Reform Bill till Wednesday next, the Committee
to follow on the Friday, unless the debate on the second
reading he adjourned. In reference to what had been said
on a former evening, he was now prepared to state to their
Lordships that he was authorized to declare his Majesty's
formal consent to this measure.—( Hear.)