The Bishop of Bath and Wellssaid, he had to present to their lordships a petition, very numerously signed, of the archdeacon and clergy' of Taunton, in the diocess of Bath and Wells. The petition prayed, that their lordships would not grant what was commonly called Catholic emancipation. It was moderately and respectfully worded. Before it was laid on the table, he thought it right to trouble their lordships with a few observations. It had been asked, whether it was consistent with that charity which distinguished the Christian religion, for the clergy to come forward with petitions against the proposed measure in favour of the Catholics. Many aspersions had, in this way, been cast on the clergy. Now, he was perfectly willing to admit that to be the main, the discriminating feature of the christian faith; but he thought that the petitioners acted up to the true spirit and letter of christian charity, when they came forward and endeavoured to maintain pure religion— when they endeavoured to support Protestantism and the principles of civil and religious liberty against Popish domination —when they endeavoured to maintain the church of England against the church of Rome. He trusted their lordships would always maintain the Protestant church establishment in this country.
The Earl of Darnleycontended, that no aspersions had been cast upon the clergy. If the reverend persons conceived that they were upholding the church to which they belonged, by the petitions which had been presented, it was not only their right, but their duty, to address them to that House. He begged leave, however, to declare, that there never had been any desire, on his side of the House, to preclude the clergy from petitioning, or the reverend prelates from standing up for the interests of the church of which they were members. At the same time, he could not help alluding to a petition 1271 from the clergy of Ely, which had been presented on Wednesday, and which, if their lordships were to hear read again, they surely would not regard as remarkable for its charitable sentiments. The sentiments it contained were quite inconsistent with the spirit of the Christian religion. He thought the right reverend prelates ought to admonish their brethren against coming forward with petitions of this kind. He held the petition in his hand, and it would be found, that the reverend persons who signed it, cherished all that exclusive spirit of domination and hostility to other sects, for which they blamed the church of Rome. They censured the Catholic clergy of Ireland—men who performed their duty in a way which it would be well for these petitioners to imitate. The noble lord here read some passages from the petition, in one of which it was stated, that the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland obtained the prostration of the mind and will of the people to their views. This, on the part of the people of Ireland, he denied. The petitioners next called upon their lordships to avert the danger with which they supposed the country to be threatened by the Catholics, and desired that energetic measures might be adopted to guard against the evil; so that the reverend persons were not content with the state of the law as it now stood, but wished again to impose those restrictions, from which the Catholics had been relieved. He would now quote from that book, with the letter of which those reverend persons were doubtless better acquainted than he, though they seemed to forget its spirit, and would wish them to remember that it was better to take the beam out of one's own eye, before it was attempted to take the mote out of the eye of another.
The Bishop of Bath and Wellsnotwithstanding what had fallen from the noble lord, was bold to say that no description of persons was less deficient in charity than those who had been the subject of his comments. He wished to be liberal, wherever liberality could be properly dispensed. Liberality was a very great virtue; but it was not to be exercised at the expense of religion.
Lord Dudley and Wardsaid, that the petitioners against Catholic emancipation addressed the House as if they supposed the Catholic Association still continued its meetings. He would, however, remind them, that the bill for suppressing that 1272 Association having received the royal assent no such body was now in existence.
Lord Kingbegan by alluding to the petition from Ely. In that petition it was asserted, that the church of Rome procured the prostration of the mind and will of the people to the clergy. He at first wondered from whom the reverend petitioners had stolen this fine phrase; but he believed it was taken from a charge of the Bishop of London. He wished the right reverend prelate were present to defend his property; for he had said, that the prostration of the mind and will was the very temper in which a Christian ought always to be. In another part of the petition, certain members of the Roman Catholic church were styled "factious demagogues." Now, this sort of vague charge was one which might be applied any way and any where. It might, perhaps, just as well have been applied to the members of that House. A great many petitions had been presented from the clergy, which had better have been deposited with the chronicles of the church, and there left to rot. At present they came forward like an old medicine of the shops called album græcum, which might be found about the corners of cathedrals. This medicine was once in high repute, like "No Popery," which was now rejected by the stomachs of the public, as much as album græcum would be if it were administered.
Lord Calthorpeacknowledged, that sentiments appeared in some of the petitions, which were not consistent with humanity and justice. As to the petition alluded to, it was subscribed by most respectable persons, some of whom he personally knew. Of two of them he could particularly speak. One was a person as hostile to bigotry as any Christian minister he ever knew. The other was a blessing to the church, and an ornament to the university of which he was a member. It would, therefore, be wrong to form an estimate of such persons, from the sentiments which appeared in those petitions. He believed that nothing but the esteem, which was justly due to the character of the individuals who had petitioned against granting the Catholic claims, could have induced parliament so long to have resisted those claims. If the arguments against emancipation had been left to themselves, they would not have prevailed with parliament for a single year: but, a credit had been most willingly given to the 1273 character of the opponents of the Catholic claims, which certainly never would have been given to their arguments. Since he last addressed the House on this subject, he had received letters from various parts of the country, expressing surprise that he had given it as his opinion that the Catholic religion was changed. He wished to clear up this misunderstanding. He had distinctly stated, that he thought the Catholic religion, as to its form of faith, still remained unchanged; but that, as regarded the laity, the influence of the clergy was greatly diminished. When the subject should come before their lordships, he would show, from the conduct of the Catholics themselves, the truth of his opinion. Before he sat down he must say, that many of the petitions which had come before the House, were drawn up in utter ignorance of the subject to which they related. Many who supported the Catholic claims did so, not only because they considered that the concession proposed was in justice due to the Catholics, but because they considered that emancipation would be the most effectual means of undermining the Catholic religion altogether. Many persons, who perfectly agreed with the reverend petitioners in their notions of the Catholic faith, and in their wishes for the permanent security of the church of England, still conceived, that the restrictions of the Roman Catholics in Ireland acted as a common bond of union, which served only to generate hostility to the Protestant system. Those who considered the granting of the Catholic claims a matter of importance to the country, could not but feel satisfaction at seeing the description of petitions which were presented against those claims. The nature of the petitions, and the small number from which they came, proved what the state of public opinion was with respect to this question. But he was very sorry to observe the language in which some of these petitions were drawn up. The opinions of some petitioners were expressed in a manner never known before; and he regretted that the church should, in some measure, he brought into discredit by them.
The Bishop of Chesterpresented a petition from the dean and chapter of Chester, against the Catholic claims. He observed, that the seal of the chapter was not affixed to the petition; but, if it could not be received as the petition of the dean and chapter, he begged leave to present 1274 it as the petition of the persons who had signed it. Before it was read, he would make a few observations on the comments which had been thrown out on the petitions presented from the clergy. He made bold to say, that a few rash words which might have found their way into those petitions, were not more calculated to afford a just idea of the character of the clergy than words occasionally employed in their lordships' House were fit to be quoted as expressing the opinions and feelings of that assembly. He should be very far from judging of the character of their lordships' House by the speeches of some of its members, who might choose to draw metaphors from a dog-kennel. Noble lords had charged the clergy with intolerance; but he would distinctly charge those noble lords with greater intolerance. They pretended not to oppose the presenting of petitions from the clergy; but, the method which they pursued was a much more effectual one of excluding them from the right of petitioning. Nothing was better calculated to attain this end than the attacking the petitions one by one, and picking out here and there any objectionable expression which might appear in them. Many of their lordships had stated, that this question was to be considered merely as a political one; but the clergy, as it was their duty, looked upon it as a religious question. If they apprehended that an attack was made upon the establishment of which they were a part, and if they entered upon the discussion of this question with religious feelings, he could not think the expression of their sentiments blameable. At a future time, he should be prepared to show that the Catholic church was still as intolerant as ever. Far from him be any spirit of hostility; but, it was his duty to state his conviction on the subject. The most intolerant doctrines, were still maintained by the Catholics. Reproaches had been thrown out against the Bishop of London, for having given to the public that expression which had been so particularly pointed out in the petition. This was not the first time that the charge of the right reverend prelate had been misrepresented. That right reverend prelate recommended to all christians to cultivate the prostration of the mind and heart to the Creator of all things; but, he did not recommend them, as the Roman Catholic priests did, to prostrate the mind and will to a temporal authority, falsely presumed to be infallible. 1275 This, he conceived, completely did away with the argument of the noble lord. He did not know in what school the noble lord had studied his political tactics; but he would tell him, that venting sarcasms against the clergy was an artifice to which the enemies of pure religion (amongst whom he did not mean to class the noble lord) had had recourse in every age of Christ's church. He was satisfied that these sarcasms would not be attended with any success in that House; but it was impossible to hear them repeated night after night, and remain silent. If these personal attacks upon the bishops were parliamentary, it was time that the rules of parliament should be changed; but, if they were not parliamentary, then he called on the House to protect them from such missiles by the shield of its authority. They held their seats in that House by a tenure which was both legally and morally not less strong, than that by which the noble lords opposite held theirs; and they belonged to a body of men whom their lordships would find out one day, as their ancestors had found before them, that they ought to treat with respect, and not with contumely [hear, hear].
Lord Kingsaid, that the right reverend prelate had charged that side of the House, and himself in particular, with a spirit for taking to pieces the petitions of the clergy, which was quite unprecedented. But if this was not done formerly, it was because their petitions were not filled with such sentiments of bigotry and intolerance as those of the present day. The right reverend prelate had insinuated that he was not a friend to the church of England. He was not a friend to the church of England, whilst it encouraged intolerance, and pluralities, and non-residents, and all the other abuses which at present existed in it. Out of 11,000 parishes in England, upwards of 7,000 were held by non residents, and only somewhat under 4,000 by resident clergy. And, it was because they were conscious and ashamed of this circumstance, that the annual returns on this subject were kept back, or at least he was unable to find them. He wished that those champions for the almost apostolic purity of the church—
The Duke of Newcastlerose to order. He was not aware that there was any question before the House regarding the purity of the church.
Lord Kingadmitted that there was not a question before the House on that sub- 1276 ject; but there was a petition from the clergy before it—his observations upon the language of which, had been met by an assertion of the purity of the church; and he contended, that that assertion could not be maintained, while those abuses which he was pointing out were unremoved.
The Earl of Liverpoolwould put it to the candour of the House, whether there ever was a period when the duties of the church were more purely administered than at present, and whether a most important change for the better had not taken place in the administration of those duties? Without going into details on this subject, he felt himself called to say thus much, in consequence of the observations which the noble lord had thought proper to make.
The Bishop of Chesterwished to say one word in explanation. He did not mean to insinuate, that the noble lord was an enemy to the church of England: what he had said was, that when he indulged in sarcasms against the clergy, he was unconsciously using the very means by which the enemies of religion endeavoured to overturn it. While he was on his legs, he would take that opportunity of informing the noble lord, that the annual returns of the resident and nonresident clergy had been made to the privy-council. He might, therefore, see them, if he pleased; or if not, it was by the privy-council that they were kept back. It was a notorious fact, that the residents were greatly on the increase. Out of 670 parishes in his diocess, there were only 40 in which the incumbents did not reside; and they did not reside in these because it was impossible for them to do so. For this state of things the merit was due, not to him, but to his predecessor, the present bishop of Bath and Wells.
The Bishop of Bath and Wellsanswered no, as to his diocess. He had visited every parish in it, and out of between six and seven hundred, there were but seventeen which had non-resident clergymen.
Lord Hollandagreed with the noble duke that this discussion was not regular. The motion before the House was, that the petition should lie on the table; but the discussion was occasioned by remarks upon an observation made in a former 1277 debate, and was, therefore, the natural consequence of a deviation from order. He could not help thinking that the merits of the church of England, and particularly its comparative merits with those of any other church, were not necessary to be discussed, in order that their lordships should decide, whether or not this petition was to lie upon the table. He should be extremely sorry that the question, whether or not their lordships would concede constitutional rights to the members of another church, was to be decided by the result of a comparison between it and the church of England; for in that case it would be impossible for any Protestant to doubt, for a moment, which way he was to decide. He had always considered this, not as a religious but a great political question, upon which they were bound to decide only with reference to the welfare of the community to which they belonged. He deprecated the idea that the introduction of this measure was to be considered as an attack upon the church of England, on the one side; whilst he wished it to be understood, that the noble lords who opposed it on the other side, were not defending the merits of the church of England, but were advocating the continuance of a monopoly of power (he did not use the phrase in an invidious sense) to themselves. He wished this distinction to be clearly understood, both in doors and out of doors.
The Earl of Liverpoolwished to remind the House out of what this discussion had arisen. It had proceeded from the unusual course adopted by noble lords of entering upon a debate on a petition: not on its merits, but on the particular terms in which it was drawn up. He was far from saying, if a petition were presented to their lordships which was couched in indecent language, that he would not object to its being laid upon the table; but he contended, that if the terms of every petition were to be discussed in this manner, it would, in its consequences, be extremely detrimental to the right of petitioning. With respect to the allusions which had been thrown out to the prejudice of the clergy, it was not for him to say (considering the quarter from which they had proceeded), that those who made them were enemies to the church; but he could not help observing, that, in making them, they did not manifest much friendship towards it.
The Lord Chancellordid not think he 1278 should discharge his duty, if he did not enter his protest, in as strong a manner as possible, against the practice of making observations of this nature on petitions being presented from the clergy, who had a right, under the constitution of the country, to petition their lordships on the subject of any measures before them. He did not want to have petitions from the reverend bench of bishops, or from any individuals of that House, but from the clergy and the laity at large. They ought to be, of course, couched in decent language; but, if their lordships were to observe upon every term contained in each petition, they would subject them to a trial which, not even their own debates, if dealt with in the same way, could bear. With respect to the measure alluded to in the present petition, he would take the liberty of saying for the clergy, that whatever faults some individuals might find with them, they had done their duty in giving their opinions upon this measure. A noble lord had complained, that he was said to have changed his opinion respecting the Roman Catholic religion: he (the Lord Chancellor) had to complain of communications having been made, in which he was said to have changed his opinion upon this question. He, therefore, took that opportunity of saying, that, so far from having changed his sentiments upon the subject, every successive event served to confirm him in the persuasion, that every man who wished to support the constitution in church and state, should go along with him in opposing the measure of Catholic emancipation.
§ Ordered to lie on the table.