\amm:Mr^ 
 
 ^ r * 
 
 't 
 
 ,^:m^.v^ 
 
 ■^ 
 
 ««-■>' Y/'"''
 
 L I B HARY 
 
 OF THE 
 U N 1 V LRS ITY 
 or 1 LLl NOIS
 
 
 
 o> . oC 
 
 
 ^3 . ^'' ^ '~
 
 <^ /^ O-i 
 
 L4 U. /cTJj . 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL DUTIES AND 
 REVENUES BILL, ff^ 
 
 LORD LTTTELTON'S 
 SPEECH 
 
 IN THE 
 
 HOUSE OF LORDS, MONDAY, JULY 27, 1840. 
 
 ^. 
 
 The order of the day for the Second Reading of the Bill 
 having been read^ his Lordsliip rose and said : — 
 
 '' My Lords — I have heard with great regret the determination of 
 the noble viscount and the most rev. primate to proceed Avith this 
 bill ; and I cannot allow it to pass ^vithout protesting against it. 
 
 " ^ly Lords — This subject, fuQy treated, is of great extent and 
 great difficulty; but, in the remarks with wliich I am going to 
 trouble your Lordships, I propose very much to narrow the ground 
 upon winch it may be considered. I will take no exceptions to the 
 composition of the Commission: nor -ndll I speak of any illustrations 
 wliich that composition may have received from any of the pro- 
 ceedings of the Commission previous to the introduction of this bill. 
 Nor will I dispute the right of the Legislature to deal with these 
 revenues as it thinks fit. He will be a much bolder, and a very 
 much abler man than I, who wiR venture upon that ground, after 
 the remarks of the learned counsel on Friday evening. I will 
 take a lower and a simpler ground; and endeavour to show 
 that the bodies to wliich tliis bill refers have important functions 
 vested in them, provisions for which at this moment lie dormant 
 in their statutes, essential at all times to be exercised, most es- 
 sential at this time, and that the true duty of the Legislature is, if 
 needful, to enforce the due perfonnance of their functions. 
 
 " ]\I\" Lords — I say that tliis is the true ground on which these 
 institutions should be defended, and that this is the ground which 
 has always been taken by their best defenders. This was the ground 
 taken in an excellent pamplilet by i\lr, George Selwyn, to which I 
 just allude, for the purpose of objecting to an interpretation put 
 upon a passage in it by a Right Rev. Prelate in his Charge. The 
 Right Rev. Prelate says, ' It has been asked " Are cathedral institu- 
 tions useless ? " and the ingenious querist, in order to prove them 
 useful, sets himself to prove that they might be made to answer
 
 2 
 
 several good purposes^ which they do not answer as at present con- 
 stituted! My Lords, this is the exact reverse of what the author 
 of the pampMet says; it is the exact reverse of what has always 
 been said in defence of these institutions. We say — the author of 
 the pamphlet says — that these bodies do not answer those good pur- 
 poses, because they do not act according to their constitution, in the 
 very words of the Right Rev. Prelate, as at present constituted; that 
 the purposes are involved in the constitution ; and that what is now 
 required is to bring back their action to a state of harmony with 
 their principles. Here is a material difference ; and, my Lords, I 
 submit that even on the ground of expediency, we stand in a posi- 
 tion of some advantage, when defending institutions not on account 
 of some presumed use to which they might be apphed, but in virtue 
 of ancient principles inherent in them — principles which were for- 
 merly called into action, and wliich seem to have given to them 
 vitality to endure tlu-ough so long a time. I say that it is better 
 and wiser to make such institutions work in accordance with such 
 principles, than thus throw them, as it were, into the middle, to try 
 what new results may be drawn from them. 
 
 " My Lords — "What those functions were to which I refer, I find 
 so happily and comprehensively sketched by a writer whose opinion, 
 in this case, as I think I can show your lordships, has some weight, 
 that I will take the liberty of reading the passage, and making it 
 the text of the remarks with which I shall trouble your lordships. 
 The Rev. Sydney Smith, with whose general conclusion I agree, 
 but with most of whose arguments, and whose whole mode of view- 
 ing the subject, I am compelled to differ — throws out, quite loosely 
 and carelessly, in a corner of one of his pamphlets, the following 
 remarks : — ' I cannot help thinking that a great opportunity has 
 been lost of improving the discipline of the Church by means of 
 those very institutions wliich Lord J. Russell is so anxious to des- 
 troy. Divide the diocese among the members of the chapter, and 
 make them responsible for the superintendence of the clergy in 
 their several divisions, under the supreme control of the Bishop. 
 By a few additions they might be made the Bishop^s council, for 
 the trial of delinquent clergymen. They might be made a sort of 
 council for the general care of education throughout the diocese, 
 and applied to a thousand useful purposes, which would have oc- 
 curred to the commissioners, if they had not been so dreadfully 
 frightened, and to the Government, if their object had been, not 
 to please the Dissenters, but to improve the Church.' Now, 
 my lords, without in the least admitting any of the imputations 
 implied in the above passage, what I wish to urge upon your 
 lordships is this : — If this powerful writer had not been, as he 
 somewhere calls himself, so determined a hodiist — if he had con-
 
 descended to look a little into the ancient liistory and inherent 
 principles of these institutions, he would have found that the very 
 offices which he thus conjectures these bodies might perform are, 
 ynih almost a curious exactness, the offices which they were in- 
 tended to perform, which in former days they did perform, and the 
 performance of which might and should be now required of them. 
 And, my Lords, 1 think this should rather dispose us to consider 
 whether such be not the right way to deal with these bodies, when 
 we find that tliis writer, evidently not thinking nor caring about 
 their ancient principles, but merely conjectming what might be 
 the best use to which they might be turned, precisely liits upon the 
 very functions wliich they u-ere intended and fit-amed to perform. 
 
 " My Lords — Even in inquiring briefly into these functions, I 
 must apologise if I appear to go over part of the same ground which 
 was trodden by the learned counsel. My Lords, it could not be 
 otherwise. That learned counsel exhausted the subject ; and all 
 that remains to do is to support, as I shaU attempt to do, by a few 
 arguments and citations, the positions wliich he advanced. 
 
 " My Lords — Following the plan I proposed, I look at the first 
 of ]\L*. Sydney Smith's propositions, which is tliis ; — ' Divide the 
 diocese among the members of the chapter, and make them res- 
 ponsible for the superintendence of the clergy in their several 
 divisions, under the supreme control of the Bishop.' Now, it is 
 notorious that originally the chapters were much more than this. 
 The cathedrals were the fountains fi'om which flowed the stream 
 of rehgious instruction which Christianised the land. Selden, 
 quoting from an ancient authority, calls the capitular bodies 
 ' Singularum ecclesiarum presbyteri, qui popiilmn erudire debent. 
 In confirmation of which I would refer to the words of the charter 
 of the cathedral of Ely, given by Henry YIII. : ' Statuimus et 
 volumus, ut decanus et canonici in verbo Dei seminando sint 
 seduH, cum alias, turn praecipue in ecclesia nostra cathedrali," — 
 words which show, assuming the constitution of similar bodies to 
 have been similar to this, that the operation of these bodies was 
 intended to be co-extensive with the diocese belonging to the 
 cathedral city in which they were placed. 
 
 " Such, then, was the case in former times. My Lords, I say 
 that the same necessity, the same machinery, the same power, the 
 same responsibilities exist at tliis day and ought to be called into 
 action. Will it be said that the comitry is Christianised, and that 
 the division of it into parishes supersedes the necessity for the 
 diffusive agency of the chapters ? We answer by denying the 
 fact : the country is not Cliristianised fully, and re-conversion is 
 often more difficult than conversion, opposing pecuhar obstacles 
 which do not impede the latter. Undoubtedly the parochial
 
 division of the country makes a modification necessary of the 
 system in which chapters should act ; and tliis is just what we 
 should expect. Principles are everlasting; the mode in which 
 they should be carried out varies from time to time. And the 
 modification I mean is, of course, the introduction of Archdeacons ; 
 their duty being to have a general superintendence of the clergy 
 and the state of the whole diocese AVill it be answered that 
 Archdeacons stiU remain ? But the Archdeacons of former times 
 differed from the present ones in two most important particulars ; 
 first, they were in number proportioned to the size of each diocese ; 
 secondly, they were always members of the chapter. The first 
 provided for the real and efiicient supervision of the diocese ; the 
 second gave to their charge that character of organization and 
 reference to a central point of unity, wliich is the essential princi- 
 ple of these institutions. This has now ceased to be the case, and 
 this requires to be restored. 
 
 " My Lords — The second point wliich Mv. S. Smith mentions is 
 this : — By a few additions, they might be made the Bishop^s council 
 for the trial of dehnquent clergjTuen. My Lords, I am aware that 
 the subject to which these words point is one of some delicacy, and 
 I will not venture to treat it otherwise than generally. It is well 
 known that originally the capitular bodies were council to the 
 Bishop in a more extensive sense than is here indicated. But I will 
 first produce one or two passages to shew that they were so espe- 
 cially for the purpose which Mr. Sydney Smith conjectm-es they 
 might be. Dr. Hacket, the apologist of deans and chapters before 
 the Long ParUament, says, ' I would first allege that which is the 
 real and proper ^mrpose of these bodies, and for which they were 
 originally instituted — namely, that they should aid the bishop with 
 their ad\dce and assistance in his censures, if there should be any 
 thing wrong either in the doctrine or the manners of the clergy/ 
 And this is estabUshed by the following passage from the ancient 
 Ecclesiastical Constitutions : — ' But if any tiling should be so bad 
 [in a clergyman] as to require either deprivation or deposition 
 from the ministry, let the bishop enforce it, with the assistance of 
 the dean, the chancellor, and some of the prebendaries! Lf the 
 noble lord (Lord Ellenborough) who is not now in his place, and 
 who complained the other night of the want of some authority to 
 remove unfit persons from the ministry, were now present, I think 
 he would see that this bill, which I fear he supports, destroys the 
 very machinery for ever by which formerly the object which he 
 wishes to see accomphshed was attained in a proper manner. 
 Moreover, I think the fitness of these bodies for these purposes 
 has been indirectly recognized to a certain degree, even in these 
 days, when they have fallen into comparative inaction, in the bill 
 
 /^\ 
 
 , UIUC
 
 for Church thsciphne introduced by the noble and learned lord on 
 the woolsack ; in which it is provided that some members of the 
 chapter shall be of the tribunal appointed by the Bishop for the 
 trial of criminal clerks. But further, my lords, I must express 
 my conviction that the ancient and true form of Episcopacy was 
 that in wliich the power of the bishop was exercised with far 
 greater co-operation on the part of the chapters than has been the 
 practice for a long time past. I need hardly remind your Lord- 
 sliips of what importance this question was dmiug the century 
 follo^nng the Reformation. This is the sentence of Lord Bacon — 
 ' There are two things in the jurisdiction of bishops which I never 
 can approve ; the first is the sole exercise of their authority ; and 
 looking a little lower down, to a most important crisis, the time of 
 the Savoy conference, we shall find that tliis was the point on which 
 the dispute between the Puritans and the high Church party hinged 
 so materially, that it seems as if it might have been settled, had 
 some concessions been made in the direction which I allude to. In 
 the address of the Puritans to Charles II., in the year 1661, we find 
 the foUo^ving : — ' We do not renounce the true, ancient, primitive. 
 Episcopacy or presidency, as it was balanced with a due commixture 
 of Presbyters.'' And in the reply of the King : — ' No Bishop shall 
 ordain or exercise any part of the jurisdiction which appertains to 
 the censure of tlie Church without the ad\dce and the assistance of 
 the Presbyters." And even in the Bishop's answer, upon which the 
 negotiation was finally broken ofP, it is said : — ' They do not find 
 that the Bishop's authority was balanced by any authoritative com- 
 mixture of Presbyters, though it hath been at all times exercised 
 with the assistance and counsel of Treshyters in subordination to 
 Bishops. So that even the extreme high Church party did not 
 assert the exercise of the Bishop's authority without the regular 
 co-operation of the Presbyters. My lords, such has not been the 
 case for a long time past, and I do not think it will be weU with 
 the Church till that practice is restored. The consequence of this 
 question being unsettled in the seventeenth century was schism in 
 the Church of England, and the separation, which I consider 
 lamentable, between the Churches in the two neighbom-ing coun- 
 tries. I do not know whether noble lords opposite connected with 
 Scotland, and particularly the noble earl (Aberdeen) who has in 
 this session shown such intimate knowledge of the history of the 
 Kirk, take much interest in this view of the subject, or in any 
 thing which may seem to give a hope of future union between the 
 Churches ; but at all events I will put it to him whether there is 
 not evidence in history to shew that the point I have been treating 
 was that on wliich the controversy very materially turned. The 
 result was in both countries, in the words of a writer to whom I
 
 6 
 
 am indebted for the suggestion of this particular view of the sub- 
 jectj that ' England lost her Presbyterate, Scotland her Episcopate; 
 and the effects have been evil for both/ Nor do I believe that 
 there is a chance of that evil being healed, but by some re- 
 organization of the machinery which this bill destroys. 
 
 " I will now touch briefly, and abstaining, as I have done 
 throughout, from any reference to details, on the third point, which 
 Mr. Sydney Smith mentions, in these terms : — ' They might he 
 made a sort of coimcll for the general care of education through 
 the diocese' In this respect, too, he has but proposed what was 
 one of the essential purposes to which these bodies by their con- 
 stitution were applied. One of their members had the particular 
 charge of education through the diocese entrusted to him ; this 
 member, as your Lordships well know, was the chancellor. So, in 
 Dr. Racket's speech, to which I before referred : ' Eirst, our prin- 
 cipal grammar schools in the kingdom are maintained by the 
 charity of these Churches, the care and discipUne of them is set 
 forward by their oversight ; fit masters are provided for them, and 
 their method in teacliing frequently examined.^ And for a general 
 testimony to this effect, I refer to the following passage from the 
 historian of the Council of Trent : — ' Some proposed to revert to 
 the ancient custom in all cathedrals, which was even then in use 
 in some, when the monasteries and chapters were simply schools.' 
 My lords, I say this principle is essential to be revived ; and that 
 this too has been indistinctly recognised in the present day, when 
 in all dioceses, \Aath the general approbation of churchmen, diocesan 
 boards of education have been established. The central organiza- 
 tion wliich is aimed at in them is the very same wliich was secured 
 by the former system, and I beheve that were these institutions 
 and the church in a healthy state they would be taken as the 
 groundwork and chief element of the movement for education now 
 in progress. 
 
 " My Lords — I have now gone through all the points — compre- 
 hensive points, as it seems to me — which I proposed. I have taken, 
 throughout, the lowest ground of utihty, leaving the higher to those 
 who can better handle them. I have not even mentioned that 
 which, nevertheless, I cannot but feel warmly, the subject of daily 
 worship — as it has been beautifully called, ' the daily intercession 
 of cathedrals.' Will this be duly kept up with the diminished 
 numbers proposed by this bill ? Those who must best know — the 
 chapters themselves — in several of their memorials tell you that it 
 cannot. 
 
 " My Lords — I am at least confident that 1 shall not be accused 
 of upholding sinecure offices. I am pleading for the re-imposition 
 on these bodies of important duties and heavy responsibihties.
 
 But there is one point which usually is insisted on, but which 1 do 
 not press, from the view ^^•hich I have taken, wliich I will just 
 mention in reference to a particular subject, namely, the value of 
 these institutions as affording what is called ' learned leisure ' to 
 studious clergymen. I would only say that I believe they have been 
 of considerable service to the universities in tliis respect ; and in 
 the college to which I belong, Trinity College, Cambridge, I believe 
 that the anticipation of tliis measure has had an injurious effect. 
 
 " My Lords — Looking at the originators of this bill, 1 hope I 
 may assume that it is intended as a direct benefit to the Church. 
 I therefore may consider the question, 'Wliat are the wants of the 
 Church at this day? ' My lords, I believe that the want most ex- 
 perienced is that the Church should he/eli as a hving power, and 
 a principle of active beneficence ; that there should be a complete 
 and sound organization, and, above all, unity of action in the 
 Church. And I am convinced that, in this view, these institutions 
 should be revived and put into action, instead of being dealt with 
 as tliis bill proposes ; and that the Church will never be restored 
 to its true condition till that is done. Will it be said that all I 
 have alleged may be admitted, and yet that it nowise bears on the 
 present question, for that all the functions of chapters may be 
 equally performed with their numbers as reduced by this bill? 
 My lords, I answer that it is impossible seriously to maintain tliis. 
 Pour canons may, perhaps, perform the duties as they have lately 
 been measured ; but assm-ecQy not their full functions, as I con- 
 tend that, according to their constitution, they should be executed. 
 The bill itself shows that this could not be intended ; because if it 
 were, the number of canons in each diocese, instead of being uni- 
 form, would vary according to their different sizes : if four is 
 enough for a large diocese, it must be too many for a small one. 
 For the same reason I hope your lordsliips will think that I am 
 absolved from the task of attempting to answer the arguments of 
 the Most Eeverend Primate and the noble Viscount, which all pro- 
 ceeded on a much low^er view of the duties of chapters than I am 
 inclined to take. The noble Yiscount, indeed, considers all these 
 duties most unfit for such bodies. But he merely stated his 
 opinion, wliich will, of course, go for much more than mine. I 
 have endeavoured, on the contrary, to show to your Lordships that 
 these functions are essential to the Church. 
 
 " There is, however, one argument of the Most Rev. Primate 
 which is so strange that I will just notice it. He thinks this bill 
 will be an example to others to come forward to contribute towards 
 the same objects. My Lords, how should this be ? Confiscation 
 operate as an encouragement to endow ! How should any man 
 devote his means to endowment when he does not know whether
 
 his endowment may not be diverted at any time to purposes quite 
 different from what he intended ? 
 
 " My Lords — Unquestionably some contribution, even in mo- 
 ney, may be faiiiy demanded of these bodies towards the objects of 
 this bill. But in what way ? I conceive the true principle was 
 indicated by the noble Earl opposite (Lord Harrowby), in an able 
 pampldet, written thirty years ago, and republished in 1831, and 
 upon which was founded a bill introduced by the Most Rev. 
 Primate, namely, that of drawing from their incomes contributions 
 towards those parishes whose tithes are appropriated to them. 
 Tliis is a sound principle, and I regret that the noble Earl who in- 
 dicated it is now one of the most powerful supporters of this biU. 
 
 " ]\iy Lords, at the least and worst, if these revenues are to be 
 abstracted, there is yet another point which I would most earnestly 
 press upon your Lordships. ParHament may have the right — at 
 all events I have not been disputing it — to deal with the revenues 
 as it chooses. But I do most emphatically deny the right of 
 ParHament to destroy the offices themselves. A Most Rev. Prelate, 
 some time ago, laid it down, with the apparent approbation of your 
 Lordsliips — certainly \\\\\\ the expressed approbation of some of the 
 ablest supporters of tliis bill — that Parliament ought not to inter- 
 fere with anything but the temporaHties of the Church. The same 
 has been admirably maintained by Mr. ]\lanning, in a pamphlet, 
 with every word of which I agree ; and I, for one, will not allow 
 this bill to pass without attempting to persuade your Lordships to 
 retain the offices even without emolument. 
 
 " My Lords, it is under the greatest discom'agemeut that any 
 attempt is made to resist this bill. We know that it is introduced 
 by those to whom, for every action previous to the formation of 
 this Commission, the whole Church feels the deepest gratitude, and 
 the most entire confidence. But it is no consolation to us to know 
 that so dangerous a measure to the Church is promoted by those 
 who have been her ablest defenders. Rather, when I look at this 
 measm'e of wild and baseless confiscation, and see the venerable 
 authority under which it is introduced, I cannot but tremble — I 
 do not say for the Church, or for the establishment of the Church 
 — I tremble for none but those who do wrong — but for the na- 
 tion that does this evil; for the age that has produced such a 
 portent." 
 
 Printed by Thomas Mellard, Stourbndfjc .

 
 ^^. 
 
 
 : !£> 
 
 ^'/