Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

CHAP. V.

State of Ecclesiastical Questions, and the Claims of the Dissenters in England-Petitions for Separation of Church and State-Motion in the Commons to exclude the Bishops from Parliament-Petition of some Members of the University of Cambridge to Admit Dissenters to take Degrees-Motion for an Address to the King to Recall the Regulations Preventing Dissenters from taking Degrees-Motion withdrawn, and Leave given to bring in a Bill to effect the same Object-Counter Petitions from Cambridge and Oxford-Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill for the Admission of DissentersSpeeches of Mr. Estcourt, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Spring Rice, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Stanley, and Sir R. Peel-The Bill is Passed-Debate on the Second Reading in the Lords-Speeches of the Earl of RadnorThe Dukes of Gloucester and Wellington-Lord Melbourne-The Lord Chancellor-The Bishop of Exeter-The Lords reject the Bill-Motion in the Commons for the Abolition of Church RatesThe Motion withdrawn in respect of Government being about to introduce a Measure to Relieve the Dissenters from Church Rates-The Ministerial Plan is laid before the House-The Dissenters violently oppose it, and it is withdrawn-Bill to authorize the Celebration of Marriage by Dissenting Clergymen in Dissenting Meeting-houses -Is opposed by the Dissenters, and withdrawn-Petitions for commutation of Tithes-Resolutions and Plan of Ministers for Commuting Tithes - The Measure is not proceeded withProceedings in the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland regarding Patronage.

ALTHOUGH, in the case of The reform act had consecrated the Irish church, the resist the principle that the predomiance to the payment of tithes, and nance of political power should the repeated attacks upon her rest with the mass only of mere constitutional securities, derived numbers, and had produced the much of their rigour from the unavoidable result that the mabitterness and animosity with jority was always to be found which Popery regarded the Pro- amongst the lower classes of the testant establishment; they were constituency. Every man who connected with, if they did not possesses power, is naturally led proceed from, a much more gene- to consider how it can be applied ral spirit, busily operating in every to serve his own interest. Alpart of the united kingdom, and though the great majority of the carefully nourished and skilfully inhabitants of England adhered directed by political agitators. to the established church, the

Dissenters formed a numerous body, possessing, in many instances, great respectability, wealth, and influence Thinking that the very fact of the existence of an established church, supported as a national institution, and represented by its dignitaries in the highest branch of the legislature, stamped them, as religionists, with a mark of inferiority, it was not wonderful that they employed the power, with which they were now invested, to bring down the established church to the same level on which they themselves stood; annihilate all the rights, powers, and privileges which belonged to its members; and, by depriving it of all support from the funds of the state, convert it into a self-constituted religious community. The occasion was the more favourable for the enterprise, in consequence of the unsettled and uncertain state in which all things now were, and the hopes held out by a ministry who seemed to find concession to all sturdy beggars the easiest mode of leading a quiet life. In many places the Dissenters could turn the fate of an election; it was they alone who returned Mr. Rice for Cambridge, in opposition Sir Edward Sugden. Principles, too, which formerly would have been propounded as matters of speculation, had now become the subject of daily discussion, glibly and dogmatically laid down in parliament as the ground work of practical legislation, and countenanced, to a certain extent, by the house of Commons itself. Papists detested the doctrines of the Protestant church; but no less did Dissenters, though they might not quarrel with the doc

trines of the thirty-nine articles, detest the liturgy of the church of England; and, in their eyes, its episcopalian form of government was an abominable and unchristian corruption. Why, then, should those who were not of the church of England, be burthened with tithes and church rates for its support, any more than the Catholics of Ireland for the support of the reformed religion to which they did not belong? Methodists and Presbyterians differed widely from Catholics; but Catholics, Presbyterians, and Methodists all differed widely from the episcopal church of England. The Catholic of Cork or Clonmel, no longer paid church cess to maintain the Protestant altars; why then should similar imposts be laid on the dissenters of Halifax or Huddersfield, to maintain the dignity of the episcopal mitre? This was an abuse; the reform act was valuable only as a means of removing abuses; whoever, therefore, refused to relieve dissenters from the necessity of supporting a church which they did not acknowledge, was an enemy of reform, an oppressor of the people, and a secret plotter against the new constitution.

The next step was unavoidable, or rather it was implied in the principle that Dissenters should pay nothing on account of the church. As the established church was still the church of an overwhelming majority of Englishmen, Dissenters could not admit that this fact should be an element in the question; for, in that case, their demands were at an end. They were compelled to say, that if the majority chose to have a church holding certain

doctrines, and governed by a particular ecclesiastical constitution, they were entitled, no doubt, to do so, for toleration should be universal; but they ought to enjoy it exclusively at their own expense. This, again, necessarily led to the adoption of the principle that there ought to be no established church; that the state should show no particular favour to any particular creed; that the public purse ought either to supply equally the means of religious instruction to all the various denominations into which Christianity should be split down, or to none: that as every man was at liberty to join that sect whose doctrines and government he thought best, so each religious body ought to support all the expenses of its own worship; and that any connexion between the state and a church, led only to corruption in the latter, while it implied, in its very nature, tyranny in the former, by compelling one man to pay for the religion of another, in opposition equally to reason and scripture. Dissenters might sincerely hold that the established church was unsound in its doctrine, corrupt in its practice, and God-dishonouring in its government. It was right that they should tolerate even such a nuisance, though to the pollution of their own purer and more apostolic atmosphere; but why should they be taxed in order to support it? In accordance with these views, various petitions were presented to parliament in the beginning of the session, complaining of the burthen of the church of England, and praying for a separation of church and state, that is, for the abolition of the

established and national church, leaving its members to maintain their place as they best could, as a voluntary association, like other religionists. Nor did they want for supporters in parliament. To those, whose expression of such opinions was that of an honest belief, were added all who looked merely at the rich prize which might be gained in church property, if the church were destroyed; all who openly professed that no religion should be established, because they privately thought that any religion was a mockery; all who wished to use the spirit of innovation as a political engine, gradually undermining old political institutions; all who found it prudent from their own political situation to prate the popular jargon about "reform, and "civil and religious liberty." These petitions did not lead to any practical result, except that of producing a strong expression of opinion of an opposite kind, and calling forth hosts of petitions praying parliament to preserve the church inviolate. The movement was premature; the country was not yet sufficiently prepared to acquiesce in such demands, and put itself in a posture of defence, before the attack could be arranged. So far, likewise, ministers fulfilled their declarations to listen to no proposition for the destruction of the church; and Lord Grey, and the best of his colleagues would have stood by that resolution; but no such proposition was made; and the failure to make it, especially towards the end of the session, arose not from any dread of the victorious and unbending firmness

of the government, but from respect to the opinion of the country, which enabled the ministry to be valiant without danger, and threatened, if called into more energetic action, to dispossess the enemies of the church of all the outposts which they had gradually been gaining.

On the 13th of March, however, an attack was made on the bishops, which showed that the danger was not of a kind to be disregarded. It was a motion made in the house of Commons by Mr. Rippon, member for the new borough of Gateshead, to expel the bishops from the house of Lords-for such was its meaning, although he insidiously, and perhaps he thought, cunningly and cleverly, put it in the form of a motion for leave to bring in a bill "to relieve the archbishops and bishops of the established church from their legislative and judicial duties in the house of peers." After adverting to the usual topics of the necessity of purifying and reforming all institutions, and particularly the church, which had not been reformed for a long time, he told the house that he would not occupy their attention with historical facts or deductions as to the origin and nature of this right of the bishops. Even if they had been useful at a time when they formed, if not the only well-instructed, yet the best-instructed class of society, that state of things no longer existed. Their continuance in parliament, therefore, was unnecessary and might become dangerous. In every view their legislative and judicial functions were inconsistent with the nature of their office, and with the purity of the church. The crying

con

abuses in the church at present were pluralities, non-residence, and unequal distribution of its wealth--and all of these, Mr. Rippon maintained, were nected with the parliamentary duties of the bishops. They were made pluralists by having political functions superadded to their religious duties; they were compelled to be non-resident by being called to attend in the house of Lords; and they were made to furnish excuses for the unequal distribution of ecclesiastical wealth, by the plea of extraordinary expenses occasioned by this "political abduction." political abduction." As legislators, they could be neither independent nor impartial. A bishop was made by a minister; and instances were not wanting of private interest and political intrigue being stronger recommendations than piety and learning. The system of translation, too, made them, to a certain degree, dependent on ministerial favour, and tempted them to sacrifice their integrity to their interest. Neither could they be impartial, for they necessarily were opponents of every change by which their wealth and eminence might be diminished. Accordingly, the tendency of all church establishments connected with the state had uniformly been, and ever must be, to resist political improvements, because they knew that such improvements would not probably increase, but might possibly curtail the opulence and advantages which they enjoyed. An established church had supported the despotism of the Bourbons in France and Spain, and of Don Miguel in Portugal. Even the

exception of the conduct of our own bishops towards James II., confirmed the rule; for they did not oppose him, till he let out his design of substituting popery for the reformed religion, and they were contending for the supremacy of their own church as much as for religious truth or constitutional liberty. The conduct of the bishops in regard to the reform bill and subsequent measures showed, that, instead of using their legislative power in favour of measures tending to promote the public welfare, they had been mere partisans of their political creators. The only argument always put forward in their defence that it was fit and proper that the church and the property of the church, should be represented in parliament,-was a mere fallacy. The bishops were not elected by the clergy; they were named by the crown. They had no veto in ecclesiastical questions; they could not establish or annul one article of faith. It was preposterous to suppose that thirty united voices in an assembly of more than 400 persons, could have any controlling influence. All just and proper measures for the government of the church, which might be suggested by the bishops out of parliament, would be received by the legislature and by the people with equal attention, and with less distrust than when advocated in the senate by interested parties. Besides, the clergy enjoyed, in virtue of their property, the right of voting for members of the house of Commons; and if their advice or opinion were required upon ecclesiastical matters, the bishops might be summoned in the same

manner as the judges. Let them be disrobed then of their political livery, and show that they do not accept the oversight of the flockfor worldly gain. The ministry of the word afforded sufficient employment for the apostles, and so it would for their successors; for who could believe, looking to the extent of jurisdiction given to bishops in this country, that sufficient occupation for their time would not be found within their respective dioceses? With what grace could the village pastor be required to reside among his flock, when the spiritual overseer, whose duty it was to watch over hundreds of parishes and pastors, was far away from the scene of his duties, mixing in the contentions of the senate, or moving in the splendor of a court?

[ocr errors]

The motion was seconded by Mr. Gillon, a Scotch member, who, being likewise a member of the Scotch church, necessarily entertained a true Presbyterian abhorrence of bishops and their "ill-mumbled mass, whether within or without the walls of the house of Lords. He repeated the arguments of the mover, and maintained farther, that the legislative functions of the bishops impaired their usefulness, and made them be regarded with jealousy and suspicion, rather than with the reverence and awe which ought to attend upon their office. He likewise contended that the act of parliament passed in 1801, excluding persons in holy orders from seats in the house of Commons, had, in fact, decided the principle that bishops ought not to sit in the house of Lords; for, as Mr. Fox and the present Earl Grey had then main

« ZurückWeiter »