Lords Sitting of 6 April 1835

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a second time:—On the Motion of the Earl of MULGRAVE, Bribery Witnesses' Indemnity.
Petitions presented. By Lord BROUGHAM, from eight Places, for Alterations in the Factories' Regulation Act; from Yorkshire, for a Modification of the Beer-Laws; from Bridgetown, for an Alteration of the Laws relating to Imprisonment for Debt; from Ardquir, against Tithes in Ireland.—By the same, and Viscount MELBOURNE, from several Congregations in Edinburgh, Glasgow, &c.—against any farther Grant of Money for Building Additional Churches in Scotland.—By the Earl of CARNARVON, from the Parishioners of Blagdon, for an Inquiry into the Sequestration of their Rectory.—By the Earl of RIPON, from Landed Proprietors in Canada, against any Alteration in the Constitution of that Colony.—By the Earl of ROSEBERY, from Irvine, against, and by the Duke of RICHMOND, from the same Place, in favour of Separating that Parish into Districts, or uniting part of it with the Neighbouring Parish of Dundonald.—By the Dukes of GORDON, ARGYLE, and RICHMOND, the Earl of RIPON, and Viscount MELVILLE, from a Number of Places,—for Additional Accommodation in Scotch Churches.

CHURCHES OF SCOTLAND AND ENGLAND.
Viscount Melbournepresented a Petition from the Inhabitants of Glasgow, declaring themselves opposed to the endowing of new Churches. The Petition stated that, taking into consideration all the Churches and Chapels in the place, there was at present ample accommodation. The petition was agreed to at a public meeting, and was signed by the Provost of Glasgow on behalf of the meeting. The meeting had been called by an advertisement that was signed by 340 persons, among whom were some of the principal merchants in Glasgow. The Provost was supported by several of the principal Ma-

829
gistrates of the city, and out of between 700 and 800 persons who were present, not more than fourteen or fifteen persons dissented from it. The noble Viscount also presented a petition, on the same subject, from the seceding congregation of Old Cross-street, Paisley. This latter petition contained some strong language respecting the Church, and urged the abolition of the Establishment. On this point he did not agree with the petitioners, though he felt bound in duty to present their petition. The petitioners stated that there was ample room for the accommodation of persons who were desirous of going to Church. He expressed himself opposed to the building of new Churches, unless absolutely required by the people. The noble Viscount also presented similar petitions from Auchtenmuchty, from Kirk-wall, and from St. Andrew's.
Petitions laid on the Table.
The Earl of Carnarvonpresented a petition from a curate, who complained that for some time past he had received no stipend. A sequestration had, some time ago, been issued against the profits of the rectory, and while that sequestration was in force, the petitioner was duly paid his stipend, but when it was set aside, no further stipend was paid. There was no blame whatever imputable to the Bishop of the diocese; it was the fault of the law that left the curate without a stipend; he hoped that the subject would receive the attention of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. There certainly was something in the law that required to be altered, for there was one instance where a man had paid tithes twice over. He believed that the administration of Church matters in the hands of the Prelates, was as pure and as unimpeachable as any administration whatever.
The Bishop of Bath and Wellsthanked the noble Earl for the fair and candid manner in which he had stated this case. Of the incumbent he should say nothing, for he could not say anything favourable. It was not in his power to do anything to relieve the curate; nor had it been in his power to enforce a payment of the stipend. He had made every sort of inquiry, and he believed that the incumbent had kept out of the way that he might not be laid hold of. He hoped that the law would be altered. He had done all that he could, but he could not go beyond the law.
Lord Broughampresented a petition
830
from Eastwood against the increase of Churches. He said that Eastwood had been mentioned by the Church Assembly as one of the places where a new Church was wanted, and the fact that this petition came from this place, proved that the example had been improperly quoted on the other side; for the petitioners stated that there was already ample accommodation.
Lord Kenyonsaid, that the fact of an objection made by a parish, was no proof that such accommodation was not wanted in it, for when the Church Building Commission was sitting, objections were made by some of the most populous parishes. One of these was the parish of Shoreditch. The objection, however, was not that there was not a want of accommodation, but that they did not wish to pay anything, and were, in fact, in support of the measure, or against it, according as they were friendly or unfriendly to the Church.
Lord Broughamsaid, that that might sometimes be so, but that even that was not conclusive against the present petition, for this petition was signed by the majority of the Churchmen of the place. The petitioners objected to the use of public money, which was raised from all persons whatever, and which was to be expended in building Churches, which were to be beneficial only to a part of them.
Lord Kenyonsaid, that they might be called Churchmen, but he believed persons were often called so merely because they did not belong to any other sect. He did not think that they were really much attached to the Church.
Lord Broughamsaid, that the observation reminded him of what he had told the noble Baron the other day, with reference to an observation of a similar kind, namely, that if it was not persecution, it did not look much like tolerance. The noble Baron was very sincere in his opinions, but it did not follow, because a man was sincere in his opinion, that, therefore, his opinion was the right one.
The Bishop of Londonwished to add, to what the noble Baron had said, one fact—that the Commissioners for building Churches, notwithstanding the objections made to them, as in the case referred to, did advance money for the building of new Churches, and that those Churches, from that time to the present, had been well filled. He should not quote an opinion of an English Bishop on this subject, but he should refer to that of an eminent

831
Scotch divine, namely, Dr. Chalmers, who had said that it was precisely because some people did not care to go to the labour and expense of increasing the accommodation in Churches, that the public ought to come forward for the purpose, for that the Church was the means of religiously educating, or, as Dr. Chalmers said, of christianizing the people; and it was the duty of the public to take care that ample means were afforded to produce that effect. He himself had no hesitation in saying, that whatever might be the remonstrances from some part of the people in Scotland, the rest of them were highly in favour of the recommendation which was contained in one part of his Most Gracious Majesty's Speech.
Lord Broughamsaid, that Eastwood was an instance that even one of the places especially selected by the Church Assembly, was not desirous of having any new Churches built, and that there was not any necessity for such an outlay of the public money. He was disposed to differ from the authority of Dr. Chalmers on the subject, and for this reason, that Dr. Chalmers was one of a small number of the Ecclesiastical body in Scotland who repined at the smallness of the endowments of the Scotch Church, and who, he should not say they envied, but that they looked with affection on the much larger endowments of the Anglican Church. Dr. Chalmers held opinions of that sort, but, happily, was in a decided minority of his Ecclesiastical brethren of Scotland.
The Bishop of Exeterwished to make one remark upon what had just fallen from the noble and learned Lord respecting Dr. Chalmers. That very learned and reverend Divine entertained the opinion just referred to, because he thought that the opulent endowment of the English Church, afforded the means of leisure, and thus gave a means of extending learning; and he said that that was highly beneficial, not only to the English Church, but to the Scotch Church, for that the Church of Scotland, as it were, lived upon the overflowings of the learning of the Church of England, as the opulence and station of the chief members of the Church of England enabled them to devote themselves so much to the cultivation of theological learning.
Lord Broughampresented another petition, and then said, that he protested
832
against the doctrine attributed to Dr. Chalmers, that the Scotch Church lived upon the superfluity of the learning of the Church of England. This was, indeed, a most fantastical theory. The fancy that the great endowments of the English Church made it have the effect of making the English Church so much more learned than the Scotch Church, was a great error, flowing from the very great admiration which Dr. Chalmers had of the more wealthy endowments of the English Church. That it was an error, no one could doubt who would look back through the two last centuries, where they would see quite as many eminent men—men of general celebrity—men whose names were celebrated throughout Europe for their learning—quite as many in the Scotch Church, in proportion to the number of its ministers, as in the more richly-endowed English Church.
Petitions laid on the Table.

THE MINISTRY.
Lord Wardrose and said: For the first time, and perhaps for the last, I now address your Lordships. I beg to know from his Majesty's Ministers whether they have advised an hon. Friend of mine, the member for Dudley, to present an address, from that place, to his Majesty, in favour of his Majesty's present Ministry? Am I to infer from the silence of the noble Lords opposite, that such is the case—that the hon. Member for Dudley has presented such an address to his Majesty? because, if he has, I feel myself called on to say that it is not founded in fact—that that address was got up at a hole-and-corner meeting—that it did not express the opinions of the people of the town of Dudley—that his Majesty has been deceived and cajoled by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Treasury; and I think it high time that his Majesty's confidence should be disabused, and that he should be informed that such are not the sentiments of my hon. Friend's constituents.
The Duke of Wellington: I understand that the noble Lord has inquired if any Members of his Majesty's Government, in this House, have advised the presentation to his Majesty of an address from the town of Dudley, in favour of his Majesty's present Ministers. In reply, I beg to assure the noble Lord, that I have no knowledge whatsoever of any such address.
Subject dropped.