The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-07-11 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS-TUESDAY.

The ARCHBISHOP of DUBLIN, on presenting a peti-
tion from a number of clergy and laity on the subject of
church government in Ireland, stated that the petitioners
prayed the house to take measures for remedying the evil
of a want of a legislative measure of church government
for the united Church of England and Ireland. The pe-
tition was particularly directed to the anomalous position
of the church. It had been felt that there was a want of
legislation for the whole church ; and if it were said what
need was there for this, be replied that although the
bishops were governors of the church, yet that they had
not the power of altering or abrogating its laws. Sortie
years ago he brought this subject under the consideration
of the house, and at that time he was listened to with great
attention. He then urged that those questions should be
settled, but nothing had yet been done. Were they now
in a more peaceable state than they were then ? He did
not wish that any alteration should be made in the liturgy
and formularies of the church, but he wished that some
legislative body should be appointed which could settle
those things which now needed to be settled. It was
most important that all those points that ought to be left at
large should be fully left at large; but some points needed to
be decided either one way or the other, for there were points
on which members of the same church entertained different
opinions; and the persons entertaining those opinions de-
nounced as unsoundmembers of the church those who en-
tertained contrary ones. They were told that they must
have controversies, that truth was elicitedby them. There
were parties in both Houses of Parliament; and was it to
be endured that a member of this or the other house
should denounce another member of high treason, merely
because he differed from him ? And was it not high trea-
son to denounce a member of the church, especially one
holding office in it, as an unsound one, merely because
there was a difference of opinion ? That had been going
on lately to an extent which was disgraceful, dangerous,
and ruinous to the church. If men could not agree, they
might say that such a course of instruction was improper
or injudicious ; but to say that it was heterodox, that it
was contrary to the articles of the church, was a charge
strictly analogous to that of treason in a civil community.
Their lordships must bear in mind that not only laymen
and clergymen, but bishops were denounced in this man-
ner, and were declared unsound members of the church.
by persons entertaining the highest zeal for the church. In
stating this, he begged to be understood as not giving any
opinion as to who were right or who were wrong. But he
had seen it stated not only in magazines and newspapers,
but in pamphlets bearing the author's name, that such a
bishop, or such a clergyman, wasan unsound member of the
church. The public had been looking with great interest
of late to the charges of the bishops, as giving such and
such opinions. But their lordships must be aware that
the bishops had no more authority to decide these points
than any writer of any anonymous pamphlet. A bishop
could not do more than give his own opinion. Then be
had been told, both in that house and in the other house
of parliament, that the great body of the clergy and laity
entertained a zealous attachment to the church ; but take li
all those who made that profession, acd they would find
one party condemning their opponents, who professed the
same attachment to the church, as unsound members of
the church. A said that B was an unsound member, and
B said that A was. Now he (the Archbishop of Dublin)
must say that this was a state of things which was dis-
graceful, which was dangerous, and which was ruinous to
the church, and would be disgraceful to any community
whatever. He stated, eight years ago, in that house, that
such a state of things would not right itself; but, on the
contrary, that the evil would increase, and his prediction
had been most lamentably confirmed by the present state
of things, for the evil bad increased, and was daily in-
creasing. They had been often told to adhere to the
wisdom of our ancestors. He could understand and
tolerate that doctrine when the circumstances were
similar; but they must know that in the time of our
ancestors the church was governed by members of
the church, but such had not been the case for
the last century. He begged to remind their lordships,
that rights carried duties along with them. The two houses
of Parliament, in conjunction with the Crown, alone had
the power of legislating for the Church; and if the three
branches of the legislature did not conceive it to be a suita-
ble office for them to put an end to all this discord and
uncertainty, it clearly was the duty of Parliament to en-
trust the task into the hands of those who legally might
have the right to do so, and who would have the will
to do so. If he were a permanent member of that
house, and were permanently resident in England, he
would endeavour to bring the matter before the house by
a substantive motion, for an address to her Majesty,
praying for the appointment of a committee to make in-
quiry, with a view of establishing a Church government
in spiritual matters, or of causing the adoption of such
other measures as might be deemed fit and expedient. As it
was, he submitted the matter to his right reverend breth-
ren of the English bench, for if they did not agree with
him, it would be impossible for him to carry any thing in
opposition to their wishes, or, in fact, to do any thing at
all without their assistance. The most rev. prelate here
concluded with moving that the petition should lie upon
the table.

The Brswor of SALISBURY observed that there was an
anomaly in the Church which did not exist in any other
society—namely, that of having no power of self-regula
tion to accommodate itself to those changes which took
place in society. There were many circumstances which
tended to impede the action of the Church, and to em-
barrass those who administered the affairs of the Church.
When the evil was obvious, the question naturally arose,
why was it allowed to continue? He did not say that the
Houses of Cwocation which were now by law the only
body entitledTo speak the sentiments of the Church, con-
stituted theoretically the best government that could pos-
sibly be devised ' • but he greatly doubted whether those
assemblies were deserving of the obloquy which was con-
tinually passed upon them. He agreed in what had fallen
from the most rev. prelate, that there could be no perma-
nent security for the Church if it were not permitted to
accommodate itself to the circumstances of the times in
which they lived, and to make those alterations which
vver,,, necessary.

The 131sHoi. of OSSORY addressed a few words to their
lordships, but was inaudible in the gallery.
The ARCHBISHOP of Dublin said, in explanation, that
the petitioners did not mention a word in favour of the
restoration of the convocation.
It was then ordered that the petition do lie upon the
table.

The Canada Corn Bill went through committee. Earl
Stanhope, the Dukes of Richmond and Buckingham, as
agricultural protectionists ; Earl Radnor. Lord Beau-
mont, and Lord Teynham, as free traders, combined to
oppose the bill, and after all recorded only 25 votes against
it !
Their Lordships then anjourned.