THE REV. MR. MELVILL. (Hansard, 26 July 1842)

§ Mr. Kemble
said, he hoped that he might be allowed to vindicate the character of a near and very dear relative, upon whom he conceived an aspersion had been thrown by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. M. Gibson) in the speech which he had made upon his motion inquiring into the distress of the country the Rev. Henry Melvill. He did not believe that the hon. Gentleman meant to say anything prejudicial to the character of that gentleman, but, at the same time, he thought his views might receive an unfavourable construction. It might appear, from the hon. Gentleman's speech, that he was a mere political person, whose object it was to ingratiate himself with the Government by supporting their measures. In the course of his speech, the hon. Member quoted very largely from a sermon of the rev. Gentleman, which had been reported in a publication called the Pulpit. Now it was not fair that a clergyman should be made responsible for certain expressions reported to have been used by him, and published without his sanction. At the same time there was no man more capable of defending himself, or less likely to shrink from the responsibility of any expression he might have uttered, than that rev. gentleman. The allusion to the Corn-laws which had been quoted was merely used by Mr. Melvill incidentally in the course of his sermon, and addressed to his hearers in the ordinary discharge of his duty, and they had occurred in a sermon preached on the occasion of the Queen's letter, when he undertook to advocate the cause of the distressed manufactures. That the House might see there was no want of sympathy or warmth in the cause on the part of the preacher, he might mention that the collection after the sermon in question was no less 'than 230l. The hon. Member opposite in the course of his speech had represented his rev. friend as a gentleman in connection with the Government. If that were the case, he did not know that that was any discredit, but upon that point he might say he knew not what was alluded to. The rev. gentleman had received no favour from the Government. If the chaplaincy to the 641 Tower was pointed at, the rev. gentleman had received that appointment from the Duke of Wellington, not as a Member of the administration, but as constable of the Tower, and before the present administration came into office. Mr. Melvill certainly placed great value upon that appointment, receiving it as he did, unsolicited, from the hands of that illustrious individual. The hon. Member had appeared to insinuate that the clergy had a pecuniary interest in supporting the Corn-law. [" Order.]

§ The Speaker
intimated that the hon. Member was out of order in replying to what had been said in a former debate.

§ Mr. Kemble
said his object was not to answer generally, but to show that the observation could not have reference to the Rev. Mr. Melvill, and that that gentleman could not be influenced by pecuniary motives in regard to tithes, as his income arose from pew rents. It was not for him then to express any opinion whether or not the clergy should interfere with politics; but at all events, no man could be less liable to such a charge than Mr. Melvill, who had never attended any political meeting, nor had in any way made himself conspicuous in politics. The character of that gentleman, however, was too well known to need any defence from him. Wherever Mr. Melvill was known he was most highly esteemed.

§ Mr. M. Gibson
declared, that in what he had said he had not been influenced by the slightest wish to cast any reflections upon the personal character of the Rev. Mr. Melvin. On the contrary, the language he had held was rather eulogistic than otherwise, for he had described him as a distinguished and talented clergyman, enjoying the confidence and respect of his congregation. With regard to the publication in the Pulpit of the sermon alluded to, the only question was, as to the accuracy of the report. He believed that the sermon as quoted to be as nearly as possible verbatim the sermon of Mr. Melvill, and it did not appear that the hon. Member disputed the accuracy of the report. As a Member of Parliament he had a right to express an opinion upon the doctrine propounded in the pulpit by a clergyman of the Established Church. The Established Church rested upon the foundation of an act of Parliament, and Parliament, he conceived, had something to do, if not with the religious doctrines, at least with 642 the doctrines of political economy, which a clergyman of that church might think proper to promulgate. If the clergy were to teach political economy, the House ought to take some steps by which a sound system should be taught. He appealed to the hon. Member for Oxford—that hon. Member would tell them that one of the advantages of an Established Church was uniformity. If it were intended that the clergy should teach political economy, there ought to be articles of the science drawn up, and a standard of faith established. [" Order."] If a discussion was revived and allusion made to what had fallen from an hon. Member in a former debate, surely it was but just and fair that an opportunity should be given to him of reply. He appealed, then, to the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford, whether, if the clergy were to teach political economy, it was not necessary that articles of that branch of political science should be drawn up, and a standard of faith established, so that something definite might be communicated to the people through the medium of the clergy. He spoke of Mr. Melvill with respect; but when that gentleman was in his pulpit be was public property, and was responsible to that House and to Parliament for the doctrines he chose to disseminate from thence. What, then, became of the connection between Church and State? Much had been said of that connection, and here was a point at issue between the Church and State. He contended that it was a misapplication of the funds of the Church, if not of the public estate, and a misuse of the functions of the clergy, to make the pulpit the vehicle for supporting the Corn-laws, or particular views of political economy. The Anti-Corn-law league, when they employed lecturers, subscribed and supported them. Let hon. Gentlemen opposite do the same if they pleased; let then) employ and pay lecturers out of their own private funds; but they must not sanction the dissemination, by the clergy of the Established Church, of particular views of the Corn-law question. He adhered strictly to the opinion he had before expressed with regard to the sermon of Mr. Melvill. He had not said that that rev. gentleman had individually a pecuniary interest in supporting the Corn-law; but what he had said was this;—that if the clergy, mentioning the Corn-law, said, 643 as Mr. Melvill bad, that it vas essential for the support of the national piety that that law should be maintained, their congregations might put to themselves this question—Had not the clergy a pecuniary interest in the support of this law? was it certain that they taught that doctrine with motives perfectly disinterested and pure? That was the view he had taken. The hon. Member for Surrey had said that Mr. Melvill did not generally meddle in politics—that he was not a leading political partisan. If that were the case, his opinions were the more likely to have weight and influence, and the consequence a his preaching such sermons as that in question was the more to be apprehended, on account of his influence with his congregation. He therefore protested against this system of upholding the Corn-laws by Means of the pulpit of the Established church, As to Mr. Melvill being in close connection with the Government, he agreed with the hon. Member for Surrey that things would have come to a pretty pass, if that circumstance was to be considered as a slur upon the character of a respected and venerated clergyman. So far from thinking it a slur, he thought that, agreeing with the Government in politics, it was an honour to the clergyman that he was known to have their confidence; and he viewed the appointment of Mr. Melvill to the chaplaincy of the Tower by the Duke of Wellington, who was known to have great influence in the Cabinet, although he held no particular office, as a testimony that Mr. Melvill did enjoy the confidence of her Majesty's Government. He should not have occupied the time of the House had he not been called up by the speech just delivered; but he wished it to be understood fully that he did not throw the slightest personal imputation upon Mr. Melvin, and he desired to say nothing that could by possibility wound in the least degree the feelings of the lion, Member who was his relative.

§ Sir R. H Inglis
, in answer to the question that had been asked him by the hon. Member, whether it would not be better that articles of political economy should be drawn up for the use of the clergy, would, in return, ask that hon. Member whether those articles must not be framed by that House, and whether, in that case, as the House stood at present, it was very likely that the articles would be approved 644 of by the hop. Member and his friends, and what advantage would arise to them from the articles so framed?