HL Deb 26 May 1845 vol 80 cc831-5
The Bishop of Cashel

presented a petition against the grant from 270 of the clergy of the United Church of England and Ireland. The right rev. Prelate, in presenting the petition, said, their Lordships were aware that in this city there were generally about this time annual meetings of many religious societies; there were similar meetings in Dublin, and it was upon one of those occasions when there was a large assemblage of clergy, that this petition had been agreed to. They felt it their duty to express that, as endowed ministers of the Protestant Church, they could not be parties to the instruction of any persons in what they considered as erroneous tenets. He admitted that during the last century nothing could have been lower, nothing could have been worse than the Established Church in Ireland. From the time of Archbishop Boulter it had been sinking. Dr. Mant, who, as they knew, was an Englishman, and was likely, if anything, to be prejudiced in favour of the Establishment, in his History, said— The chief motive to his elevation was of a political tendency, the object of the English Ministry being to place in that situation a confidential adviser, who might support what was called the English interest in Ireland; and this will suffice to account for the non-appointment of Archbishop King, who was at the head of the Irish party."—Vol. 2, p. 418. "And the like motive avowedly actuated the public appointments, urging, as he did, the necessity of the English interest being constantly maintained by the selection of persons who could be depended on for maintaining it. It is remarkable, and it is calculated to excite entiments of dissatisfaction and disapprobation on perusal of the Primate's letters, that very little is, in fact, said of the religious, the moral, the theological, the literary, those who are put forward for vacancies in the episcopate, and that their recommendations rest, in a prominent degree, on political and secular considerations. Archbishop King also, in one of his letters, said— We have nothing to trust to in effect but the prudence and diligence of the bishops and clergy to press and make the best advantage of a good cause; and if we consider the preferments that have been made of late, many are of opinion that much is not to be expected from them. It was about this time that Dr. Rundle, who had been rejected as unfit for Gloucester, was thought good enough for Derry. The letter continued— I told you in my last that since my Lord Lieutenant was nominated to the Government about 18,000l. per annum has been given in benefices to strangers, and not 500l. to any in Ireland. The bishops sent us from Ireland follow the same track in many instances. The Bishop of Derry (Dr. Rundle?) since his translation to that See has given about 2000l. in benefices to his English friends and relations. The Lord Primate hath had two livings void since his translation; one he has given, of about 200l. per annum, to one of his Waltham blacks" (which Bishop Mant says was one of a well-known horde of deer-stealers in Hampshire), "whom he ordained priest; and the other to one Mr. Blennerhasset, whom they commonly call a Hottentot, I know not for what reason." "The Bishop of Waterford has not only given all livings of value in his gift to his brothers and relations, but likewise his vicar generalship and registry, though none of them reside in the kingdom. At the same time he said he should be most wanting in gratitude if he did not offer his unfeigned thanks on the part of the clergy of that Church to the present Administration for what they had done in respect to the patronage of the Irish Church. Dr. Doyle, a most excellent Roman Catholic prelate, speaking of the clergy of the present day, in his evidence before their Lordships, said— Though many have personal property, still, generally, they are solely dependent upon their livings. They have only a life interest in them. They generally have large families, and are obliged to live with economy, and to husband all their resources, in order to educate their children, and make some provision for them. Their expenditure must, therefore, be small. Then, as to their benevolence, there are several of them who are extremely kind; and their wives and children, I believe, are not less well disposed Latterly, unfortunately for themselves and the peace of their parishes, they have almost universally been influenced by over-zeal in religion; and while with one hand they scatter a few blessings, with another they sow discord; and the clergyman and his family are among what we call 'proselyters,' who disturb the peace of the people, and do a vast deal of mischief, whilst they do some good. And Dr. Cook, of Belfast, said— That he could speak of a great revival in the clergy of the Established Church. In speaking of a revival, he might appear to accuse them in former times of not being what they ought to be; but he was sure the Commissioners, the members of the Established Church, would wish him to speak the truth; and he must say, in past time they fell short of their proper standard, but of late their orthodoxy and zeal have had a most influential effect upon the orthodoxy of the Presbyterian body, and in turning many from Arianism. Dr. Chalmers had the following eloquent passage on the same subject in his Lectures on Church Establishments:— The remedy is, not to abolish the Protestant Establishment of Ireland, but rightly to patronize it; nor can I imagine a wider contrast than between the wise and temperate reformers from Popery of 300 years back, who, despite the enormities of that system, let alone the material of its establishment, and only committed it to other and better hands, and the reformers of the present day, who have abridged and would destroy the Protestant Church; and that, too, in the face of a manifest revival in the zeal, in the character, in the devoted missionary spirit of its clergymen, who, unlike to those predecessors for whose errors—I should say, for whose crimes—they are not responsible, consecrate their whole time, and talent, and unrequited labour to the moral interest of their country; the martyrs of its now misplaced and excited violence, yet, we trust, the agents of its coming regeneration. The truth is, that among the Estabblished Churches of our Empire, that of Ireland, in the vital and spiritual sense of the term, is the most prosperous of the three. While its outward man perisheth, its inward man is renewed day by day. The hand of power may strip it of its temporalities, but we trust its indomitable spirit in the cause of a pure and scriptural faith will not so easily be quelled. Though despoiled of their rights, they will not abandon their duties. Like the Christians before the days of Constantine, they may, perhaps, have to win the ground over again—when the Church, purified by the discipline of adversity, will again arise in its strength, and, repeating the conquest of truth over a degrading superstition, will add another victory to the triumphs of former generations. While receiving the endowments belonging to the Protestant Church, the Protestant clergy in Ireland had not departed from the path of duty by ceasing to support the cause of truth against that with which it was in a state of the greatest antagonism; and if ever they lost the affections and esteem of their countrymen, it would be through pursuing the inconsistent course of not defending that cause which they were bound to defend.

The Marquess of Normanby

wished to put a single question to the right rev. Prelate with respect to this petition. He could not conceive for what purpose he had made the remarks which he had done, unless it were with the intention of attaching all the weight which now belonged to the character of the Irish clergy to the petition which he had presented. He entirely agreed with the right rev. Prelate as to the admirable change which had of late years taken place in the character of that Church; but he wished to ask the right rev. Prelate a question with reference to the exclusive weight which he attached to the sentiments of the petitioners, namely, whether many distinguished and eminent clergymen of his own diocese had not refused to sign the petition, and had not expressed to the right rev. Prelate their entire dissent from the sentiments contained in it? He would recall to the recollection of the right rev. Prelate the names of a few clergymen, who he was sure the right rev. Prelate would agree with him were amongst the most eminent—the Rev. Mr. Woodward, the Rev. Mr. Darby, the Rev. Mr. Heffernan, and the Rev. Mr. Paliser, rector of Clonmel.

The Bishop of Cashel

said, that not one single clergyman in his diocese had refused to sign the petition. It was got up in Dublin, was signed in two days, and had not been sent anywhere else for signatures. The clergymen of his diocese were not asked to sign it. The noble Marquess having put this question, he would state, that he had seen in the newspapers an account of some address from the clergy of the diocese of Cashel, which it was said eight or nine persons out of 160 had signed. He begged to say that no such address had ever come to him. He believed, however, that nine or ten of the clergy of the diocese, in consequence of having heard that Her Majesty's Government considered the absence of petitions from the Irish clergy a favourable circumstance as regarded the Maynooth Bill, had drawn up a document, which was sent round the diocese; and perhaps before this Bill came before their Lordships, he might have to state that more than 100 of the clergy had signed an address against the grant to the College of Maynooth.

Earl Fitzwilliam

said, the right rev. Prelate had by implication pronounced a somewhat severe judgment upon those who might not entirely agree with the clergy—as he would have their Lordships believe, the unanimous clergy—of the diocese of Cashel upon this question. He seemed to insinuate, at least, that those who did not partake in that unanimity were guilty of a very great dereliction of duty. The right rev. Prelate said, in effect, that parties ought not to enjoy the endowments of Protestantism, and not resist at the same time the teaching of that between which and something else there was the greatest antagonism. Now, be (Earl Fitzwilliam) knew perfectly well, that there was great difference in some points between the Church of England and the Church of Rome — a difference which made him prefer, in a degree not much less perhaps than even the right rev. Prelate, the communion to which he belonged. But to go the length of calling it antagonism was a little too much; unless, indeed, it were the antagonism merely of sectarianism, and not the antagonism of religion. Surely the right rev. Prelate did not mean to say, that those with respect to whom the sect to which he belonged was in antagonism, did not subscribe all the leading doctrines of their common religion? If he understood the scope of the right rev. Prelate's speech, his object was, to show that for a long period every clerical appointment in Ireland was made with a view to English, and not to Irish interests; but he could not conceive how his speech could be worth anything for the purpose for which he had presented the petition.