The Sun. — 1838-03-02 (London, England)

LONDON : FRIDAY EVENING. MARCH 2, 1838.  Brawling in Church is a punishable offence—brawling, in Parliament some persons seem to think is entitled to honour. If any Member of the House of Commons should be as indiscreet as the Bishop of ExETEn, and answer his attacks on the honour and good faith of the Catholics by attacking the honour and good faith of the priests of the Church of England—if Mr. O'CONNELL, for example, quoting the Bishop of LLANDAFF as his authority for its being the duty of every man to denounce perjury, which the Bishop (knowing the habits of the class he associates with) admits is frequently committed, and taking his text from Lord RADNort's often-repeated and unrefuted declaration in the House of Lords, that the Members of the Universities, and those who matriculate there, and most of those who swear that they belicre the thirty nine articles are guilty of perjury, were to repeat, week after week, and month after month in the House of Commons, charges of perjury against the Clergy of the Church of England, as the Bishop of EXETER repeats his charge of perjury again • t the Catholic Members of the House of Commons—we do not see, bow, consistently with preserving that liberty of speech which is so necessary to both H use; the brawling could be put a stop to. What passes in one House cannot be corrected or punished by the other, and as the Press must, according to the privileges of both Houses, only admire, not criticise, what is said in either we see no re :son, if there be any other Members of either House equally indiscreet as the Bishop of EXETER, why reciprocal charges and reciprocal brawling may not occupy the whole corps of reporters till the end of the session. Such a conclusion demonstrates at once without further remark, the absurdity of the proceeding which the Bishop of EXETER began last night in the House of Lords. The charge of perjury which the Bishop makes against the Catholic members of the Legislature is wholly undeserved. The oath taken by them was never intended, and never could be intended, to suppress their legislative functions. In fact, the Legislature can have no power to  impose an oath on its Members not to fulfil their duties ; and such olth would be, ab &Julio, void, whoover might impos4 it, from its own i-dierent lice, like an ostli to tcll lie=, or commit murder. eery Member of the Legislature is hound by the very nature of his functions to vote mi all questions which coma before him, according to his conscientious epluion of what will promote the public  welfare. No oath can dispewe with that obligation. the Catholic Members of the Legislature, therefore thought that cutting -off twelve Bishops from the Church of Ireland was for the public benefit, they were bound to vote for it. If they think, as we hope they and all reasonable men think, that a further reduction ia the Church Establishment in both countries, that theabolition of Church rates, and the abolition of tithes would be for the public benefit they are bound to vote for these measures. As Legislators, their duty to consult the public welfare overrides all other obligations ; and unless the Bishop of EXETEit and his friends can prove that the Catholic Members have knowingly toted for measures which they conscientiously believe will be injurious to the public, to charge them with perjury in their Legislative capacity is absurd. The conduct of the Bishop amt of the Church generally in placing its whole sectuity en oaths, is calculated to awaken some serious reflections,. There is no necessity to impose oaths on men not to put an cud to baking bread or slaughtering cattle—not to use their influence to suppress firming or weaving—nothing, in short, which is useful to the public, requires that men should swear to support it. The great desire of the heads of the Church of of England, to impose oaths son other men, for its security, and their feverish anxiety to inculpate those who do not observe these oaths in their sense, betrays cn their part a deep, inured, conscience-born conviction, that the Church and the Clergy, are not useful to mankind, like the arts and their professors. The weakness too of the tie, which an oath imposes, was well illustrated by Lord MELBOURNE, and the Bishop of