The Sun.
London, England, 1829-11-27 00:00:00

TO THE LORD BISHOP OF FERNS.

WOKE ?IRS, NOY. 1829.
Loan,.-...." A letter purporting to have been written
3-"" I-tr(1111;P, and addressed to me, having appeared in
the Ne"PaPeras I feel it a duty which I owe to the cause
bays undertaken to defend," to give it the answer it calls
r. My Lord, I cannot commence this letter in more ap-
t?rvriate words. Indeed you ought well to know I have
'ae hest claim to them. And here let me ask why you
trould not condescend to acknowledge the receipt of my
nanuscript answer ?
I suppose by this time, if your Lordship has seen the
late Cork Newspapers, that you Avill no longer express
your surprise at my unfair conduct (as some rather hastily
considered it) in omitting to pablish your two attacks on
llutiu company with my single defence to your first.
I feel I deserve no blame for not performing that,
Which I have shown was at the time out of my power.
I feel much regret to hear your Lordship complain of
'garbled extracts" and " harsh remarks." To the first
complaint I must plead not guilty, and what is worse, I
deapair of pleasing your Lordship even on future occa•
it1"11, as the extracts I may think right to make, are pro-
-4a bly the very ones your Lordship would wish me to pass sover in silence. As for " harsh remarks," lam sorry to
and Your Lordship suffering from these, when I thought
corrective was introduced at the end of all our letters,
the good effects of which were reciprocal.
I cannot conceal my disappointment in finding so little
new matter contained in the communication now before
• I ranat, however, try to dispose of your Lordship's
(two positions," without much trouble. Whilst, in the
Place, your Lot dship telly me you confined yourself to
117/Ing that cc abuses are not creeping into our Church,"
read a been complaining of abuses, that like cancers, al-
reath
y stick to her, that gnaw her very vitals, and check
through y circulation of sound doctrine and practice,
_ the great body of the people. And has your
Lordship proved me to be wrong ? Again, whilst you say
Lordship
every means have been used by the Bishops to " in-
!real
flaree the effectiveness of our Church Establishment
First, he," I
denied the assertion, and I still deny it. -
c!inse convocations, like Roman Catholic General Coun-
fe'l% appear to have long fallen into disuse. (I hope not
rora similar causes, )_Secondly, because the zealous and
really pious Bishops and Clergy receive little encourage-
ment from the worldly minded class, who I fear have up
to
414 time formed the great majority. Thirdly, because
I see the abuses, so
often and so long complained of, still,
in
'3° many instances tolerated, nay, not unfrequently
practised by those who ought to take the most active part
at their aupprepsi
Now, on.
f°, your Lordship's scondposition that " the
Melina resorted to by toe note only p
were not the beet
within
uiy power, but such as experience had proved to
Hbe most dangerous both Have t the Church and the State."
ave I not already explained why I neither first applied
iiYour Lordship, to his Majesty's Ministers, net. to his
a.l" hitnselt, before I ventured to take e chair at the
a lk Meeting ?
When it was believed byth the public that
sitti4nrni"i" Bppointed by his Majesty's Government was
for tj.! t° examine into matters connected with the Church
tornPurPose of making changes, was there much time
rocrastination? And when your Losdship so hastily
fred "er the pages of history, appealing to the fears
° the credulous and of the ignorant, and wishing to im-
Pr"a an weak nerves by past " experience" the impend-
'a,'!,g4d,asger which a complaint against Ecclesiastical abuses
for 'd
reuseca to the Church and State, have you so soon
I °,t,st y appeal also to history
must here call your Lordship's attention to the follow-
oo
-%etract froth Rapin's Ilistory of England (vol. 10,
mr- 19'1). 8. A.ThD. 162), in confirmation of my for-
one
hi.itaternent. e historian writes of King Charles 1.,
i:ll'lheeeeding to the throne in these words :
sped i e soon discovered by what maxims he meant to pro-
'efusedn ,tbe government of his dominions. He not only
the' redress such grievances as had crept in during
by a l:thg hie father's reign, but increased their number,
u'Lr'"lt,g others more intolerable. He affected to let his
i—ceeta see, not only that he was not moved with their
elie; "le", but that it was an offence to pray hint to re-
Dra;4,l4em• IA a word, he gave to understand very
both by his speeches and by his conduct, that lie
,°'"ed upon Parliaments only as assemblies appointed
to supply him with money. And that in case of

vt4Pat he might proceed without their assistance. Ac-
wruingly he dissolved several Parliaments, because they
act speedy enough to grant the sums he demandtd.
°ffered violence to several Members, and extorted from
subjects what money he wanted, either by forced loans,
°Y taxes imposed by his own authority. This ought
.o seem strange, since over and above the lessons he had
bvounr. taUgllt
I'Y the King Lis father, lie had the same fa-
""esatne Ministers, the cause Council!"
Rat lvidat has this to do with the question, your Lord-
'l) will Perhap „ . k A great deal in my humble opi-
elle i"' s
For when you would impress on the public the
thipposition that 4, holding a Lay Synod" (as your Lord-
')
sores it) " tends manifestly to reproduce all the evils
'Whnitt-'"tanded the overthrow of the Church Establish-
• r • - w° hundred years ago, and which led to all the he-
-47" ttn'l schisms of that fatal period, and mainly contri-
vr lei(' to the murder of the King, and to the placing Crow-
'te.luNrl the throne of England," (see your second letter),
1401, I believe, important to show how greatly your Lord-
si'ol3in this mistaken. Let the truth be told. It was
aacil',.72l despotism which first made the breach, tyranny
oh,„7lPlession that widened it, and whilst weakness and
ea,-gittscY bid defiance, physical power, like the flames
s,• -,",",°,ed within an edifice, at last burst forth with irre-
• it, fury, and overwhelmed those who sought to stop
And had religion lain dormant all this time, re
still existed no want of inflammable matter to producetln the
thtl)l4'ion. But so far from joining in the loud cry against
x.,,niterference of Parliament in religious affairs during
Charles's reign, I feel rather inclined to believe we
e" goud cause to rejoice for its discouragement of Po-
'.?' When the King was believed by the whole nation
uihute a Papist, when the Queen was an avowed one, and
knme h e Conduct of several of the Bishops, especially
ti
-a
most in favour at Court, was opposed to the doe-
ese
r
as contained in our Thirty-nine Articles, it was high
tnale for Parliament to support the national religion.
In
14,°vIlla.tioentsslinds Archbishop of Canterbury, commenced -
h 'n the divine service by introducing several
of°plPi,a's-e,ctei:nen'onies, were the laity to he debarred the right
g against these? (See p. 237.)
trial •hen "spin tells us elsewhere " that some new cere-
b Do were continually introdnced, especially at Durham
w, °etor Couzens, the Dean, as Angels, S tints, Crucifixes,
stag Candles on Candlemas-day, &c." (Vol. 10, p. 191)
eir,the laity still to remain silent?
churue,n the King not only protected the enemies of the
cu of England, but even promoted them to Bishop-
were 1 or other good benefices, (see 'lapin, vol. 10, p. 196),
_ the laity wrong in feeling dissatisfaction?
When it was known the printers and booksellers corn-
Plan a
of " the restraint of books written against Popery
4.:dCrna'nianil'n, whilst a license was never refused to
sait?aere composed in favour of Popish or Armenian
-a w"i" and this through the means of the then Bishop
to su:4ll or his Chaplains, was it improper of the laity
Ah,-P" and to complain ? (See page 197.)
laithe',,i",°rds had the Bishops and the Clergy performed
liearii-"Y their duty, it is not impossible that we should have
Claj
el"' about puritans and puritanism. In King
"•
and rrs-," time it seems that the most influential Bishops
ti%,'ergY unfortunately were greet courtiers and politi-
• thit'' and that they sacrificed the Kingdom of Heaven to
tq i
tw_°rld's glory. if we have no puritans now, we have
• ter*, etr stead a sufficient number of conscientious dissen-
the (I use the word conscientious to separate:them from
ti fanatical and free-thinking bodies, whose lives and
A°_,etnes accord but little with the volume of Inspiration.)
toutio these though they ought to be more or less attached
a hill
,Church of England, as being like " a city set upon
• ttoett:l_ a visible Church in which sound and. primitive
pur'e is taught and perpetuated, must and will hk.e t. e
afiditana 'of Old, declare against those abuses in discipline
which at the present time threaten our este-
• aesivec'cithrcligion with annihilation.—T.he free-thinker is
j;`_ PoPe is active, and all the Dissenters are active.
what does your Lordship think will be at last the con-
gqu~ee? In the mean time your Lordship, no doubt for
its private reasons, whilst loudly condemning the officious-
Aighj4ft.,, the laity, will sing most harmoniously to the short-
. ``lAs a gentle "lullaby." To these you may whisper
tare; Ar° the only judges of our own conduct, private in-
, th t will never interfere with our pullic duty, we bare
ili:?yer and the wid to rectify, much has been done,
tt's.lie alas ; who is afraid?" In the mean time be-
• tattio4 nave taken the liberty to call your Lordship's at-
eat t° sixteen of the laity, considered even by Parlii.a-
„, (-)n sever.l occasions, as well qualified to interfere in
14) IcZnastieal affairs, and when I ask " wl y the laity are
• P.e„ler!".' debarred the privilege of complaining against
aufrer,!justical abuses, when laymen were before readily
ligio to take to active a part in the most important re-,
Teuitit,4lfairs, is this such au answer as fought to receive .
"tot? Lord, this is a curious argument: . Because
" Parliament have appointed Commisstoners to

ennalue the Canons, and among them were some laymen,
therefore any laymen may at any time voluntarily appoint
theinselvei as a committee of Church grievances, " and
call upon all others to act in a similar manner."—My
Lord allow me to correct your mistake. Instead of ap-
pointing ourselves as a Committee of Church Grievances,
we only put in practice our right as British subjects to
petition against abuses which regard our own welfare, and
which every ono who values true religion must sincerely
wish to see corrected.
Passing on to some points which may appear deserving
of notice, for some of your Lordship's repetitions demand
little attention, I stop one moment to ask whether the
great Irish rebellion of 1641, and the execution of King
Charles, were the sudden effects of immediate circum-
stances? In my humble opinion many causes had long com-
bined to sow the seeds of discontent both in England and
in Ireland. History pointing to the previous reign, war-
rants me in saying so, and common sense can teach us,
that to render a large population, scattered over an exten-
sive country, sufficiently disaffected, daring, and organized,
to oppose the legitimate Govei nment openly, the motives of
discontent must have been of several years' standing. I
must therefore again protest against your Lordship's re-
newed attempt to intimidate. Disaffected as many may
now be, I remain convinced " that Great Britain, and
still more Ireland, is in a state more revolutionary than in
1628." But what is the most remarkable proof adduced
by your Lordship in support of this opinion, noticing the
distinction which I made between the bad and good
Clergy of our Church, you say, " I shall only observe,
that such attacks upon the Clergy, who do not belong to
a particular class, are among the ♦ery strongest proofs,
that a spirit now exists exactly similar to that which pre-
vailed in the unhappy times preceding the great rebellion
in England." After this assertion, we, who venture to
make such inconvenient distinctions between the useful
aid useless Clergy—may next expect to be called by our
Lordship, not " heathens and publicans," but enemies and
rebels.

Remarking that some of the Bishops not only voted for
the Relief Bill, but even exercised their talents to persuade
others tofollow their example, (one making a strange distinc-
tion between the words "idolatrous" and " idolatry," which
I never can forget) and also remarking that nothing after
this, may impede a Bishop from advocating on the grounds
of expediency at somo future time, the change of faith,
even in a King of England, I assert that every lay-member
is called on to watch with a jealous eye, now more than
ever, the conduct of those who were once regarded as the
uncompromising guardians and champions of the Church
of England. The sincerely pious Bishops who do their
duty, instead of fearing, will redouhle their Chrictian
labours, whilst traitors in the camp (should there be any)
may not like to find all their actions so closely scrutinized.
The next subject that claims attention, commences
thus :—" It is with great regret that I come now to re-
mark in the manner in which I must remark, upon what
your Lordship says, as to the parish of Moviddy." If I
mistake. not this " great regret" may be promoted to
the superlative degree, before your Lordship proceeds much
farther. Premising that even by the 7th and Bth Geo.
4th—an Act I referred to in my former letter, it was not
so extremely difficult to get a parish united previous to
our Lay-meeting,, I beg to call your Lordship's atten-
tion to the return made by the Bishop of Cork to Par-
liament in the year, 1820.—Your Lordship will their find
the parish of Illeviddy stated to be united in the year,
1818, and would your Lordship have me question the
Bishop's assertion ? But I perceive you would search for a
Union in 1818, in a return made to Parliament in the
year 1806, I can assure your Lordship lam quite satis-
fied it will not he found there. Your Lordship says the
Bishop of Cork never made the Union in question, and
thus proceeds :—" It appears from the returns to Parlia-

ment in 1806, that the Union of Aloviddy, Aglish, and
Kilbonane had existed from time immemorial, and there-
fore it was not dissolved by the derth of the Incumbent
in 1818." Now for the other side of the story. In the
year 1615, the Bishops of Ireland made returns to the
King's Commissioners of the state of their dioceses,
and by these it appears there was then no union of Mo-
viddy, Aglish, Kiibonane, nor even Inniskenny. On the
contrary all there parishes had separate Rectors or Vicars.
The Incumbent of Inniskenny was John Bruck, the Vicar
of Kiibonane Wtl3 Thomas Burden, the Vicar of Aglish

his eon the Reverend 'Richard Plu: the Rece""il
George Richards, so that after aa inquisitoi ri
times—in these days of lieferticiti,,e—it appears your
Lordship deserves the thanhs of tic puldic for having ap-
pointed not two, but one Curate more than there was
formerly.
As in the second example of those benefits your Lord-
ship has heaps(' upon your Diocese, you have prehably
through modesty omitted to mention the name of the cler-
gyman or parish, I ought to allow you all the advantlees
which are derivstl from the magnifying powers of imagina-
tion. Proceed, my Lord, with your unions of shadows,
let us know how you have disposed of these frail things...—
There is something so ghostly about them that otherwi,e
they might escape the eye of enquiry.
Flurrying over the Protestant lands which formerly
were colonised by Protestants, and now by Papists, I come
to the Board of First Fruits. This is a subject which ap-
pears to have strongly affected your Lordship's sensitive
nerves. Had your Lordship told me in good humour
what a miserable concern the Board was, I must have felt
it a duty to bow a respectful assent. This might have
been done without making every Radical bear witness to
the polished way in which you can employ a negative. I
am satisfied to be branded with ignorance, because I think
the First Fruits ought to be levied to the full year's value
of every ecclesiastical preferment. It is indeed quite con-
trary to the original intention that a two hundredth, nay
even a three hundredth fraction of one year's tithe, should
be often not payable for a parish by an incumbent. By
6 Anne, e. 17, e. 5, every Archbishop and Bishop was
allowed to compound, and had four years for the payment
of his First Fruits. And by the 26th Hen. 8, c. 3, the
Chancellor had power to send in the King's name Com-
missioners, to inquire of true yearly values of all the ma-
nors, lands, tenements, hereditament!, rents, tithes,
offerings, emoluments, and other profits, as well spiritual
as temporal, appertaining to any such benefice or pro-
motion, and to certify same. And by first George 2d,
c. 10, the Bishop of every Diocese, sede vacante, are
required to inform themselves of the clear improved yearly
value of every benefice with cure of souls, living and curacy,
within their dioceses, and from time to time, with all con-
venient speed, to certify the same to the Governors of the
Bounty. From hence we may plainly perceive, first, from
the time allowed for the payment of the first fruits, that
the paltry sum now paid, is not what was intended by our
ancestors ; and secondly, we may guess that the frequent
return of the improved yearly value had some reference to
what ought to be paid to the Board. Your Lordship for.tets
that part of the tidies in ancient times were devoted to
public works and charitable purposes, and that the sum
paid to the first fruits once by a Clergyman, is a fair sub-
stitute for tidies, which he himself does no: pay.
Thus has the public welfare been sacrificed to the interest
of a favoured body—Churches have been suffered to sink
into a Leap of, ruins—Congregations have-disappesred—
whilst the oppressed Curate and his family have endured
every possible privation.
Your Lordship proceeds in these words—" With re-
spect to the Curates' Act, I know not what more could be
done, that would not be injurious to the Church, and to
the Curates themselves." What do you think my Lord, if
a law was passed to suspend for the space of twelve months
every Incumbent who should neglect, refuse, or evade
paying his Curate the legal stipend ? And where the
wants of the population in a parish require additional at-
tention, that the Bishop may have the power, and should
exercise it too, to appoint one, two, or three active
Curates, as is the practice of the Roman Catholic Bishops,
who in this deserve some credit, for good management and
cleverness? But here your Lordship again appears to for-
get the wants of our Protestant population.
New conies the challenge to prove that curates are badly
paid. And where shall I first begin ? Let it be in the

diocese of Cork and floss, as 1 hear the Dean of Cork has
gone off to Ferns to your Lordship's assistance. In stat-
ing particulars such as follow, without having had com-
munication with any of the curates on the subject, it might
unavoidably occur that I am deceived in, perhaps, a single
instance. I, however, am satisfied I possess pretty accu-
rate information, and where I happen to he wrong, of
course your Lordship and your friend will set me right.
In the city of Cork, the curate of St. Finn Barr's re-
ceives only what arises from occasional fees, and the pro-
fits of the church-yard.