CHURCH REFORM. (Hansard, 4 May 1830)

The Earl of Mountcashell

proceeded to say, that pursuant to his express intention, he should then submit to their Lordships a motion founded on the prayer of these petitions, of which he had already given their Lordships notice. In doing so, he begged leave to assure them that he never felt more deeply embarrassed on account, he could sincerely say of a conscious want 359 of ability to do justice to the very important subject involved in his Motion. His embarrassment was heightened when he recollected with regret, that upon so young a member of that House as he was, and upon one consequently so inexperienced in its proceedings, and so unable to command its attention, a task of such difficulty and such importance should have devolved. He, indeed, should have wished that other noble Lords, more gifted and more influential, had taken the subject into their hands, and thus relieved him from much responsibility—responsibility which nothing would have induced him to incur but a deep sense of duty, and a strong conviction that somebody should open the way in calling the attention of that House to a matter of paramount interest to the spiritual welfare of millions. Trusting, then, in the courtesy of the House, and that noble Lords better able to illustrate the subject he intended to bring under their notice than he was, would help him out, he should proceed to state, but not too strongly, the points of his case. But before he did so, he thought it light to observe, that he feared it might be alleged that he was actuated by motives of hostility to the Church of England, of which he was born, and of which he trusted in God he should die, a member. He disclaimed—earnestly, sincerely disclaimed—being actuated by such an unworthy motive. No; he was, he solemnly assured the House, a devoted member of the Protestant Church of England—warmly attached to its episcopal form of government—to its usages, its tenets, its rites, its discipline, and, he would add, its lawful privileges. Indeed, he brought his present Motion forward in the spirit of an attached friend of that Church, and he trusted it would appear that he acted as its best friend in directing the attention of the legislature to its undeniable abuses, so as to strengthen its trunk by lopping off its excrescences. It was in this spirit he brought his Motion forward; and instating facts to illustrate and bear it out,—and he begged to say he had a multitude of such facts, stubborn, undeniable facts—indeed he was armed with them, he wished to be understood as meaning any thing but disrespect to the Established Church of either England or Ireland. His only object was, in a word, to make that Church respected, and what it ought to be—an instrument of salvation to millions of benighted souls in the Empire. He had said he was a member of the Church of England, that he consci- 360 entiously believed its doctrines, and was ardently attached to its discipline. He was so, but not implicitly and without inquiry. He was not a member of the Protestant Church of England merely because he was born in it: he had not subscribed to its articles as a school-boy does to the grammar rules he learns by rote: he had inquired into the scriptural validity of those articles; he had examined for himself into the gospel characteristics of its tenets, and the result was, that he was a more attached member of it than he possibly could otherwise have been. Indeed, indeed, he wished from his soul that he could make others as attached members of the Protestant faith as he was, from conviction. But still he felt there was much in the Established Church that he wished to see altered, much amended, and much placed altogether on a different footing from that on which it at present stood. He wished to see all its ministers—ministers in soul, in heart, and in spirit—ministers of religion—ministers of the Gospel. He had learned that the great utility of religion—that is, of Christianity—was its tendency to enlighten the minds and purify the hearts of men; and he knew that Christianity differed from all other systems of religion, including Paganism, in its being emphatically the religion of the heart. But for this, the great leading feature of Christianity, it would, in a legislative point of view, be little superior to Paganism: but as this was its great, its all-important excellence, it was the solemn duty of the Legislature to encourage, by all means in its power, its growth, and to prevent, as far as it could, the introduction of abuses. And here he would observe, that he feared, so far as the spirit of Christianity was taken into account, he feared—that Paganism had but too many votaries in this country; but on this point he would not expatiate. He had said it was the duty of the Legislature to foster and guard the institutions of Christianity; but he did so, fully aware that other avocations so much engaged the attention of legislators as to preclude the possibility of any attention being bestowed on the far more important matter of religious politics. And yet it was evident that, to the general weal,—he spoke politically,—religion, that is, Christianity, was necessary; and to good religion a good system of discipline was essential; and to secure a good system of discipline, they should guard against the introduction of abuses such as those in the Protestant 361 Church of England and Ireland, to which he would then invite the attention of their Lordships. He would first bring under their notice the state of the ecclesiastical laws. He might perhaps be told that that was a subject which had better be left in other hands,—that something had been done towards amending these laws, and that more was in progress, as a commission then was actually inquiring into their operation. To this he need only say, that if he understood rightly, the powers of that commission extended merely to the regulations of the ecclesiastical courts, and did not reach the letter or the spirit of the ecclesiastical laws. So far, therefore, as that commission was concerned, the ecclesiastical laws were left within the scope of his inquiry, the rather as it embraced the Church of England with that of Ireland. He had examined, with no ordinary care, in relation to those laws, a work to be found in their Lordships' library, namely, Gibson's Codex, which was acknowledged to be the best manual of ecclesiastical law, and he found, in the first place, that there were nominally in force, as part and parcel of the law of the Church of England,—some canons which were every day violated, though they seemed to be proper institutions, and which ought to be observed or repealed. There was a second class of those ecclesiastical laws, which were absurd and ridiculous; and there was a third class actually opposed to the principles of the Protestant religion. As an example of the first class, he would refer their Lordships to page 157 of Gibson's Codex, where they would sec that it was one of the canon laws of the Church of England that "no clergyman should exercise secular functions." He would not then stop to inquire into the policy and wisdom of this law, but should merely observe its irreconcileableness with the every-day fact of clergymen's exercising secular functions, even as civil magistrates. Either, therefore, it was or it was not an acknowledged canon of the Church of England. If it were, then the clergymen of that church deserved ecclesiastical censure for violating it; if it were not, the sooner they were relieved from the onus of thus violating one of their canons the better. In the same work they would see set down, as the 75th canon of the church of England, that no minister of that church "should engage in servile labour." He need not trouble himself with an explanation of the meaning of the phrase "servile labour," as it plainly resolved itself into a reiteration of the 362 injunction against the exercise of "secular functions." Nor need he trouble their Lordships or himself with quoting facts to show that this canon was every day violated. He knew of clergymen, he was sorry to say, who acted as land-agents, and in other offices of "servile labour," though an Act of Parliament had been passed, to in some degree enforce the canon, which was, however, as they all knew, every day evaded. Either, then, this canon should be expunged or enforced—there was no other rational straightforward course for all parties. Again, in page l62 of Gibson, their Lordships would find a canon of the Church of England, by which its ministers were prohibited from "indulging in cards, dice, and other unlawful games." He would not stop to inquire how far this ecclesiastical law was obeyed, hut it was plain that in the canons he had referred to there was nothing absurd or reprehensible. He would then proceed to the next class, such as were ridiculous and absurd, and the first he would mention was to be found at page 168, canon 74, by which all clergymen were forbidden to appear in "coifs and night-caps of cotton, or black silk or velvet" [a laugh.] He was not surprised that the mention of this canon had disturbed the gravity of their Lordships, and he would put it to them whether such laws did not require revision and amendment? But he would next beg leave to direct their attention to canons of much more serious importance, which he thought imperatively called for some change, one which they would find in page 170 of Gibson, and which were, in fact, a part of the "Constitutions of Otho." It might, perhaps, surprise some of their Lordships to whom the fact might not be familiar, to hear that the decrees of Popes and of Popes' legates should still constitute a portion of the ecclesiastical law of the Protestant Church of England; but such was the fact. By the canon he had just mentioned it was declared, that "the Bishops should reside in their sees, and celebrate high mass on holidays." That canon was at the present moment a part of the regulations of the Established Church of this country, though with what propriety it was not easy to determine. All such rules, he thought, ought to be expunged from our canons, which should be repealed or enforced, according to the intention of their framers. Then there was the 88th canon [page 191 of the Codex], by which it was forbidden to hold "plays, ungodly banquets, or pro- 363 fane usages in churches, and even in the churchyard." He should like to know how the holding of concerts in churches could be reconciled with this canon, which, he might observe, was laid down in 1603? Was there not something of "profane usage" in the converting the sacred edifices of religion into a kind of opera, with money-takers, public singers, and other circumstances totally opposed to the letter and spirit of the canon? In opposition to this canon also, money was continually lavished in ornamenting and decorating churches, so that they were rendered more like places of profane entertainment than of holy worship. Should they not, he again asked, have a code of ecclesiastical law which should be obeyed, and not one containing canons which were violated with impunity? Was it not, in fact, expedient that the clergy should know what ecclesiastical laws they were bound to obey, and that the laity should know what those ecclesiastical laws were? The next subject he would direct their Lordships' attention to, was the state of the parishes in England and Ireland, so far as they were provided with churches and efficient resident clergymen—a subject which had occasioned much well-founded complaint in both countries. The noble Lord repeated, that he was not actuated in his intended statements respecting the want of churches and efficient clergymen by any feeling of disrespect to the discipline and privileges of the Established Church. He still felt it, however, to be his duty to state, that much amendment was necessary in this branch of the Church government, that too many clergymen were unqualified by education and previous habits of life for the duties of their high station, and that many most zealous conscientious men were prevented from entering into the ministry by some of the regulations of the existing canon law, which regulations a right rev. Prelate had declared must be in force till that law was modified. He meant no charge against the clergymen of the Church of England as a body, when he declared that many, too many, individual members of it had been unfaithful and negligent in the discharge of their sacred duties; and that, as a consequence, the spiritual welfare of thousands had lamentably suffered. He wished that this distinction between a censure on an individual, and an attack on the body, of which that individual was a member, should be continually borne in mind in the present discussion. Animadversion on an individual member of the Bar or of the 364 Army was not construed into an attack on either profession as a body, and neither should it be with the ministers of the Church of England. "All I can say," said the noble Earl, "is, that I am not induced to bring forward my present Motion by any unworthy feeling towards the Church of England in the aggregate. Far from it. I thank—solemnly thank—my God, that my conscience acquits me of all other motives than anxiety for the best interests, the spiritual welfare of the people. When we are all rotting in our graves, and when my soul shall be summoned to the judgment scat of my Creator, it will, I humbly trust, be seen that I am actuated solely by a solemn sense of duty." He trusted, the noble Lord continued, though unable to express himself as he should wish, that justice would be extended to the purity of his feelings. The noble Lord next proceeded to contend that there was not a sufficient number of churches for the members of the established religion in Ireland. In a report of the other House of Parliament, he found that in 1820 there were 1,155 churches in Ireland, which, on the average, would accommodate but 1.50 persons each—that is, but 173,250 persons altogether. Now, he had the high authority of Mr. Leslie Foster for the fact, that the members of the Church of England amounted in Ireland to 1,269,800 souls. Let them deduct from that number 70,000 for infants and children too young to attend divine service, and they would have still 1,200,000 persons, speaking in round numbers, for whom there should be church accommodation in that country. And yet, according to his estimate, there was not accommodation in 1820 for one-sixth of that number. This was, as it appeared to him, in a great degree owing to the improvident mode in which the money voted and subscribed for the building of churches in Ireland was expended. Every thing was done for show,—for an architectural display of cut stone, and so forth: the spiritual welfare of the flock was a secondary consideration. Every thing, he repeated, was sacrificed to ornament and appearance, and for comfortably providing for the few richer parishioners: no pains were taken to ensure accommodation in the temple of prayer for the poor. This was not as it should be, and he trusted it would not be so henceforth. He was ready to admit that efforts had been here and there made to remedy the abuses to which he was alluding; but they were on far too limited a scale to be productive of essential 365 benefit. For, even supposing that 26,750 persons more might be accommodated in the churches of Ireland, there was still 1,000,000 of souls for whose spiritual welfare there was no church provision: that is, that for every five out of six of the Church of England Protestants of Ireland there was no accommodation in the places of worship. Was this, he would again ask, as it should be? Then, with regard to England, the case, he was sorry to say, was not much better. He need not go beyond the precincts of the metropolis in which they all then lived for a sad proof of the neglect of a proper provision for the spiritual welfare of the people. The inhabitants of this mighty city had been estimated at not less than 1,400,000 souls, and yet of these not less than 1,000,000 were said to be habitually negligent of the worship of their Maker. When he inquired into the progress of the Church of England doctrines throughout the country at large, he found proofs of the neglect of providing accommodation for the members of that Church in the growing numbers of Dissenters. Their Lordships had authentic public documents to convince them of this lamentable fact. From one which he held in his hand, it appeared, that out of a population of 4,937,820 persons, there were but 2,533 churches for 1,856", 108 members of the Established Church; while there were, in the same district, not less than 3,413 places of worship for the Dissenters. In the province of York, the Dissenters had 310 more places of worship than there were churches. In Devonport, containing a population of 40,000 inhabitants, there was but one parish church, and three chapels, while the Dissenters had twenty-three places of worship. And so in other places, as their Lordships might satisfy themselves by inquiry. Connected with this want of churches was a want of clergymen—particularly of resident-clergymen. In Ireland there were 1,263 benefices; in which 390 incumbents were permanently non-resident and only 873 resident. The noble Lord proceeded to animadvert upon the mischievous consequences of the non-residence of the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland. The evil was of ancient date,—as old as the exemption law of Henry 8th; it was much aggravated by the 57th of his late Majesty; and had arrived at a pitch that loudly called for reform. The whole system of exemptions should be revised. He saw no reason why the holder of a living should continue to 366 reside at college till he was thirty years of age; as, indeed, he saw no just ground for many other admitted exemptions, by which the spiritual welfare of the people was much neglected. Nor was the system of non-residence unfortunately confined to Ireland. In England he found, in 1810, there were 4,471 non-residents, out of upwards of 10,000 incumbents, and 1,846 of these were wholly non-resident, having livings in other places. Since the year 1814 there had been a decrease of incumbents to the amount of 2,500,—a fact which necessarily induced the inference that there must have been a proportionate increase of pluralities during the same period. The existing state of the parochial schools he considered to be another proper subject for inquiry. Certain it was, that Protestant parents in Ireland were frequently constrained to send their children to Roman Catholic schools for education, in consequence of the manner in which the Protestant seminaries were conducted. The noble Earl then proceeded to condemn the system, of pluralities in the Church of England, asserting that clergymen were to be found who united ten benefices in their own persons. This practice, he contended, was inimical to the true interests of the Christian Church, in support of which opinion, he cited a pastoral address of Bishop Burnet, expressive of sentiments similar to his own. He wished also to call attention to the present economy of Church property, which appeared to him highly objectionable from many considerations. It in some respects resembled the large farms in England, as the greater part of the church property was engrossed by a small number of persons. The small estates and the small benefices had disappeared, and the land and the Church property were both divided into large masses, to enrich a few individuals. This was likewise a subject that required parliamentary inquiry, and he trusted that they would soon come to a determination to turn over a new leaf. There was one point, however, that related to Ireland which he was sorry to touch upon. He alluded to the Ecclesiastical Reports, relative to the affairs of the Irish Church. The information which these documents contained was in many particulars inaccurate and defective. They were for the most part compiled by the Bishops' Registrars, and the task had been very inefficiently performed. Parishes were described as not worth 40l. a year, the income of which was found to be quadrupled in the tithe 367 composition. Some were ascertained to be even five or six times the amount stated in the reports. The amount of acres had been similarly misrepresented, and in the last return there was a misstatement of not less than 13,000 in number. He neither wished to pull down the Church, nor to deprive it of an acre of its rightful property, but merely desired to prevent their Lordships from being led astray by erroneous representations. Some parishes also had been omitted in these reports, and these omissions were so frequent that nine parishes in one diocese were forgotten altogether. On a subject intimately connected with what he had just referred to, he wished to say a few words. He was favourable to the general introduction of tithe composition, as nothing, in his opinion, had more conduced to cement peace and concord between the laity and clergy in Ireland, so far as he could judge of its effects, than the act for this purpose. He had in his possession letters and documents that would prove to the fullest extent the truth of what he asserted. In one parish the clergyman had actually distrained, amongst other chattels, a poor woman's Bible to satisfy his demands. Few of his reverend brethren, he believed, would have proceeded to such lengths; but certainly, while such a system was acted on, parishioners could scarcely be expected to listen with much relish to the most eloquent discourses that their pastor could deliver. A curious illustration of the effect of the present mode of receiving tithes had lately come to his knowledge through the medium of a correspondent. A clergyman was not long since riding in company with a naval officer to receive his dues, when, chancing to meet a goose, accompanied by a certain number of goslings, in his neighbourhood, he immediately proceeded to count them; and the result was, that his reverence laid claim to one of the latter. Soon after he practised a similar process of arithmetic on a litter of pigs, and made lawful seizure of two of them also. Occurrences like these did not beseem the clerical character, and he therefore wished to see a general adoption of commutation of tithes. The dissention created by the prevailing system was well exemplified by the murder of Mr. Parker, for it appeared that the dispute which provoked the crime had emanated from the collection of tithes. Another source of injury to the Church might be traced to improper appointments, which were at present of but too frequent recurrence. He thought it 368 desirable that more care should be observed in the examination of candidates for ordination. As it was, a knowledge of classics seemed to be held paramount to every other consideration, and the result proved to be, as might be anticipated, a devotion to secular rather than to spiritual concerns. But of all points that which he most desired to insist on was the custom of selling the next presentation to livings, which, however unseemly, was practised to such an extent that it met the eye in our public papers almost daily. This alone was calculated to bring the Church into disrepute, as it opened a door to the admission of persons who were particularly unfit for the discharge of the sacred functions. Whoever had money might enter the clerical profession without delay, sure of promotion, as his father could appoint him, by virtue of his purse, to almost any living he should choose to select, although the transaction would amount to simony if a Bishop were a party to it. These observations applied both to England and Ireland; but in making them he had no other object in view than the interests of the United Church. Amongst the clergy there were undoubtedly many pious single-hearted men, who were sincerely devoted to the hallowed duties of their calling, but there were likewise others, he lamented to say, who were careless of their character, indolent in their office, and dissolute in their lives. If he appeared to expatiate with any invidiousness on the errors of the church and its ministers, he desired it might be remembered that it was his object only to direct attention to what was wrong,—not to eulogize what was deserving. Setting aside the Irish curates, he wished for a moment to notice the clergy of the same rank in England. According to the statement put forth in the year 1810, the number amounted to 3,694, of whom 455 had more than 50l. per annum, whilst 3,239 had even less. A great improvement, he admitted, had unquestionably taken place since that period, as the 57th of George 3rd, limited the sum to 75l. a year; but that income itself, it must be acknowledged, was a miserable stipend, amounting only to 4s. 1d. per diem. Some men were getting large sums fordoing nothing, whilst others, who had received a good classical education, and devoted all their time and ability to spiritual instruction, were thus scantily remunerated. The operative clergyman he should like to see more adequately rewarded, for a labourer in the vineyard was worthy of his hire. The fact that there was "a house of call" for 369 clergymen in London, who were thence called journeymen parsons, sufficiently demonstrated to what melancholy resources the profession was reduced. In further confirmation of what he asserted, the noble Lord here read an advertisement, which bore date December 10, 1829, from a respectable clergyman, aged seventy-nine, who had been fifty years in orders, setting forth that he had suffered for months from ague, and was then confined with a sore leg, and supplicating for relief. Many similar cases he had no doubt occurred, although they did not happen to come so directly under the notice of the public. With respect to resident clergymen he should observe, that he knew some who resided and did no duty whatever, while he knew others who did worse, devoting their time exclusively to secular employments, to the duties of magistrates, which were contrary to the Ecclesiastical Law,—and to agricultural speculations, which the old law had not permitted. The 57th of Geo. 3rd. however, allowed clergymen to cultivate farms to the extent of eighty acres, provided their income did not exceed a certain amount. In the "Belfast Commercial Chronicle," February 6, 1830, he found an advertisement stating the bankruptcy of the Rev. R. Gregg, dealer and chapman, and appointing the following Thursday for the sale of his effects, consisting of furniture, hay, wine, whisky, &c, and naming the succeeding Friday for a meeting of creditors at a Belfast hotel, with a view to making arrangements respecting his real property. This was forbidden by the canon law, and it could not be denied that it was in the highest degree unseemly for one laying claim to the office of a gospel minister to come in such a character before the public. He understood also that it was equally repugnant to the canons of the Church, that clergymen should engage in those field sports which might be lawfully indulged in by the laity; yet he knew many instances in which this regulation was disregarded. He knew an archdeacon in Ireland—he would not mention his name—who kept one of the best packs of foxhounds in the county. Another clergyman, not seven miles distant from the former, had also an excellent pack of fox-hounds, with which he regularly hunted; and he had heard of a clergyman who, after his duties in the church had been performed, used to meet his brother huntsmen at the communion table, on the Sunday and arrange with them where the hounds were to start from on the next day. These were gross 370 abuses, and perhaps the best mode of correcting them would be to give them publicity; for if he should not succeed in obtaining the commission for which he should move, what he now said might go abroad and produce some salutary effect. He was unwilling to detain their Lordships, or he might state many instances of such abuses, similar to those he had mentioned, and many of a much more serious nature. If their Lordships knew the many facts of this nature which had come to his knowledge within the last six months, they would feel astonished; but he would not publish them, as well on account of the nature of the facts themselves as of the disgrace which must attach to certain parties, and through them to the Church, from their disclosure. He did trust and hope, however, that something would be done to check such scandalous abuses. It was a disagreeable and painful subject upon which to enlarge; he did it with reluctance, for he knew it must be unpleasant to the House, but he begged of them to consider well before they negatived his Motion. Let them not be averse from every change—it was a law of nature that all things should change—nothing remained stationary; all things became in time either worse or better. He felt that in bringing forward the present Motion he ran some risk, but he had made up his mind to incur that risk. Some noble Lords might think there would be danger in what he intended to conclude by proposing, but he begged to remind them that they had only to do what was right—to obey the dictates of their consciences, and leave consequences in the hands of Almighty God. If they acted conscientiously, they might depend upon receiving the direction and guidance of the Holy Spirit; they had the warrant of God's word for that, and a surety that they would be safely carried through every difficulty into which they might be led from acting in accordance with a sense of duty. The greatest danger indeed that could occur to the Church would be to leave those matters without a remedy; for if they were neglected by those whose duty it was to check them, the consequences would be severely felt hereafter. It was only putting off the evil day, like the debtor who put off his creditor from time to time: the debt was claimed at last, when he was least able to pay it. Those who objected to the present application of the remedy, lest it should give an advantage to the enemies of the Church, should recollect, that those enemeis would become more powerful by the delay. 371 He wished the matter had been introduced years ago, and he should have felt it his duty to do so, had it fallen to his lot to have a seat in the House at that time. One reason why he introduced the subject just now was to be found in what had been stated in the other House by the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department—that the Church must now be defended by its own purity. The same opinion had been pronounced by the noble Duke (Wellington,) in that House—that the Church was to be defended by its own purity. But let no one be deceived by this. If they were to ask, where was the purity of the church, might they not be following an ignis fatuus? It was absurd to talk of relying upon the purity of the Church while such abuses as he had mentioned were allowed to remain without a remedy. Another reason for his Motion was, that the Church did not augment her forces, but that they were rather on the decline, in comparison with those of other Christian denominations. He found by a book,—the "Directory of the Roman Catholic Laity" that from the year 1824 to 1829, there had been an increase of fifty-three Roman Catholic chapels in England and Wales. There were fifty-three additional congregations of that communion since that period. He had also seen letters, stating, that since the passing of the Catholic Bill, 100 Protestants in Leicester had become converts to the Roman Catholic faith. He did not include amongst these the instance of a recent distinguished individual who had left the Protestant Church to embrace the Roman Catholic creed. He might also mention the increase of the numbers of those belonging to other religious communions as compared with those of the Church of England. When their Lordships saw these things, he thought they could not reasonably deny that an investigation of the cause was necessary. Another reason, and perhaps the strongest of all, for bringing forward this Motion, was the state of the country with respect to the increase of crime. If we wished to judge of the state of religion in the country, we might, with much propriety, look at the conduct of the people, and see how far, taken as a whole, the nation was advancing in morality. He found, by the returns made to Parliament, that in the year 1823, the number of persons committed for crimes in England and Wales was 12,663, while in 1829 it was 18,675. The convictions in 1823 were 8,204, and in 1829 they were 13,261l.. In 372 fact, the convictions in 1829 amounted to more than the committals in 1823. They had increased 6,000 in the course of six years. A stronger proof could not be given that the people were becoming less attentive to their religious duties, than that the moral conduct of the great mass was becoming worse and worse. He knew that there were two ways of correcting wickedness—by impressing on the mind the fear of offending God, and by the fear of the laws of men. The laws relating to offences had been much improved—our police establishments had been much improved, and these ought to tend to decrease crime; yet it was found to be daily on the increase. The habits of the lower orders were becoming daily worse and worse. Were they more attentive to church on Sundays? On the contrary, were not the gin-shops as open on those days as on any days of the week? Public houses were more frequented on that day than on any other, and it was well known that such was the state of drunkenness of the working classes on that day, that it was extremely difficult to get them to attend to their business on the Monday. Such was the state of the population, and it was evident that the Church was inefficient in correcting the lives of the people, notwithstanding its professions and pretensions were great, and its revenues and privileges immense. The cause of this insufficiency and of great laxity of moral and religious feeling, was a subject deserving of the most serious consideration; and with the view of instituting a proper inquiry into it, he should now beg leave to move—" That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased to appoint a Commission to inquire into, and state whether any and what abuses existed in the Established Church of England and Ireland, and if any, to report what measures would be most expedient for the removal thereof."