^m 
 
 tM 
 
 ,^„^^^^^^^,i,i^r^^,.^.^. ^.
 
 L I B RAR.Y 
 
 OF THE 
 
 U N IVE.R5ITY 
 
 or ILLINOIS
 
 THE EXPEDIENCY 
 
 OF 
 
 RELIEVING THE BISHOPS 
 
 FROM 
 
 ATTENDANCE IN PARLIAMENT, 
 
 ILLUSTRATED 
 
 BY EPISCOPAL SPEECHES AND VOTES 
 
 IN THE 
 
 IKISH CHURCH DEBATES 
 
 Of 1808 and 18G9. 
 PUBLISHED BY GEORGE HADFIELD, ESQ., M.P. 
 
 WITH AN 
 
 INTRODUCTORY REVIEW 
 
 BY 
 
 A MANCHESTER REFORMER. 
 
 LONDON ; 
 
 PUBLISHED BY E. STANFORD, G & 7, CHARING CROSS. 
 
 MANCHESTEK : TUBES & BKOOK, 11, MAEKET STREET. 
 
 1870.
 
 LEADEE AND SONS, PRINTERS, SHEFFIELD.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Ikthoductory REVIE^y— 
 
 The Conduct of the Bishops in the Irish Church 
 
 Debate, 1869 5 
 
 ILLUSTRATIONS 
 
 Of the Expediency of Relieving the Bishops froii 
 Attendance in Parliament. 
 
 I. Addi'ess of the Archbishop of Dublin [Trench) . . 31 
 
 II. Speech of the Bishop of Peterborough {Mar/ee) . . 35 
 
 m. Speech of the Bishop of Oxford {Wilberforce) ... 41 
 
 IV. Speeches of the Archbishop of Canterl)ury(C'aw^6eZZ Trt<7) 45 
 
 V. Votes of the Bisliops 50 
 
 VI. Votes of CathoHc Peers 68 
 
 YLl. Quotations of Churchmen's opinions 70 
 
 Conclusion 74
 
 uiuc
 
 THE CONDUCT OF THE BISHOPS IN THE 
 IRISH CHURCH DEBATE 
 
 REVIEWED. 
 
 The position in which the Bishops of the EngHsh Church 
 have placed themselves by their speeches and votes, in the 
 late Session of Parliament, when the Irish Church Bill was 
 before the House of Lords, is of the gravest character. 
 It must awaken serious thought, and give rise to anxious 
 questionings, with men of all parties. To many of the best 
 members of their own communion, of different theological 
 schools, their conduct has occasioned both surprise and regret, 
 not unmingled with feelings of shame. Multitudes outside of 
 that communion, who love and maintain the principles of the 
 Reformation with those of an enlightened and free Christianity, 
 beheld their course at the time, and recall it now, with repro- 
 bation and disgust. Once again the misfortune has happened 
 to their Spiritual Lordships to satisfy no body of men by their 
 line of action, and to come off from the field of conflict without 
 either the laurels of victory or the sympathy yielded to 
 honourable defeat. The very men who before the struggle 
 gloried in them as the impregnable bulwarks of Protestantism, 
 would now hang down their heads at the mention of their 
 names. They cannot adopt the words of Francis I., after the 
 battle of Pavia, and say, — ''All is lost, excepting our honour;" 
 for they have lost everything of consequence for which they 
 contended, and their honour to boot. They have not saved 
 the Irish Church Establishment : they have discredited and 
 endangered their own. The language employed by several of
 
 them was insulting to the Government, and the arguments of 
 others outraged the conscience of the people. A measure of 
 justice they denounced as " spoliation"; the provisions of mercy 
 they flouted as a *'sham"; while by supporting schemes of 
 concurrent endowment they showed an utter indifference to 
 religious truth. They were ready to bargain for the surrender 
 of the citadel, on condition of winning for their clients a share 
 of the spoils. The proposal was declined by the Eoman 
 Catholic party — ivithout thanks. The policy and the piety of 
 these Lordly Prelates have been weighed in the balance, and 
 both have been found wanting. Their policy is lacking in all 
 the elements of wisdom: their religious consistency stands 
 discredited and suspected. As for their dignity — they freely 
 sacrificed it — perhaps laid it aside as an awkward encumbrance 
 ■ — in the eager scramble for scraps of re-endowment. They 
 stooped to the mortifications of humility, but came short both 
 of the grace and the reward. 
 
 These things cannot be recalled without deep sorrow. It 
 must be a grief to all who love the cause of our common 
 Christianity, that it should sustain this injury at the hands of 
 those who are looked up to as its official representatives in the 
 Imperial Senate, by a large proportion of the English people. 
 It stirs the question, as to hov/ it came to pass that reverend 
 and learned men should fall into such serious mistakes, and 
 ' should evince such a want of sympathy with the prevailing 
 sentiments of the most enlightened and earnest portion of 
 their countrymen, as well as an incapacity of discerning the 
 dangers and embarrassments in which their counsels, if 
 followed, would most certainly have involved us. The 
 occupants of the Episcopal Bench at the present time are 
 undoubtedly, as a body, superior to most of those who in 
 former times have enjoyed that honour. In their own proper 
 department of duty, as Chief Pastors of the Church and 
 guides of the clergy, a large measure of esteem is readily 
 accorded to them; for their learning, their probity, and their
 
 religious zeal. But when they are led to step beyond their 
 true pro\'ince, and, as a part of the Upper House of Legisla- 
 ture, to meddle with the political interests of the empire, then 
 it is that they betray their incompetency, and provoke general 
 censure. Need this occasion any surprise, when we consider 
 their previous training and their habitual associations, and 
 reflect on the wide discrepancy that must always exist between 
 the qualifications which are appropriate to a true Bishop and 
 those which are demanded in a Legislator ? But the conse- 
 quence follows that the strongest objections are now enter- 
 tained by many faithful members of the English Church to 
 this unhappy mixture of incongruous offices and functions. 
 The presence of the Bishops in the House of Lords has 
 become, not simply an offence to Nonconformists, but an 
 anomaly and an evil which earnest Churchmen deplore and 
 desire to see removed. The time has evidently arrived when 
 this matter is ripe for discussion, and when a movement 
 should be made to bring it into the front rank of the questions 
 of the day. Delay will no doubt intervene before successful 
 action can be taken : so it has been with all great questions 
 of political and social amelioration. But if the experience of 
 the last forty years teaches us anything, it is this, that events 
 hasten on with accelerated speed, and often come with surprise 
 even on those who have been labouring and watching for their 
 accomplishment. Opinion ripens with wonderful rapidity in 
 our day. The opportune conjunction of favourable circum- 
 stances anticipates our hopes. While we are as yet only 
 mustering our forces and examining our arms, the hour strikes 
 which summons us to a successful assault on the entrench- 
 ments of the foe. 
 
 As a contribution to the preparatory work which must 
 precede the removal of the evil in question, it is proposed to 
 take a brief review of the sentiments advanced and the policy 
 advocated by the Bishops, in the recent debates in the Upper 
 House on the Bill for the Disestablishment and Disendowment
 
 8 
 
 of the Irish Church. This was a testing occasion, and sup- 
 plies us with ample materials for forming a decided judgment 
 as to the propriety or advantage of their holding seats in the 
 Legislature. Their Lordships took a very active and promi- 
 nent part in these debates; which was, indeed, naturally and 
 fairly expected of them. We are thus able to form a more 
 complete estimate of their views and spirit in relation to the 
 momentous interests that were at stake. No one can charge 
 them with reticence or ambiguity. All must admit that their 
 speeches — whatever else may be thought of them — contributed 
 in no ordinary degree to the vigour, the liveliness, and the 
 eloquence of the discussion. But it is not in the light of 
 oratorical or debating talent that we have to study their 
 expressions. We must bring them to the sifting test of such 
 enquiries as the following. 
 
 In this great crisis of our national affairs, were they dis- 
 tinguished for giving wise and prudent counsels, tending to 
 avert imminent and exasperating collision ? Did they pursue 
 a course which was likely to reconcile opposing parties, and 
 antagonistic branches of the Legislature, as might fairly have 
 been expected from their sacred office and character ? Stand- 
 ing, as they do, in a highly privileged position, and represent- 
 ing a Church which prides itself on the gentlemanly bear- 
 ing of its clergy, did they breathe the spirit of charity and 
 goodwill, and fulfil the claims of Christian courtesy, when 
 speaking of the non-endowed Churches of the country, and 
 of the men whom these Churches honour as their ministers ? 
 But, above all, did they so handle the matters in debate 
 as to lift them up from the low level of earthly politics, 
 to the higher region of spiritual principles, — or simply, let 
 us say, of those lofty moral considerations which ought to be 
 habitually present to a Christian mind ? Were their views 
 and aims throughout the discussion marked by a superiority 
 to worldliness — to what is narrow and sectarian — to what is 
 petty, selfish, and grasping ? Surely if the presence of Chris-
 
 tian Bishops be desirable in a political assembly, — or rather, 
 if their absence from their own dioceses and pastoral duties 
 can be at all defended, — it must be in the expectation that 
 advantages like these may be gained, and that the delibera- 
 tions of our Senate may be elevated and hallowed by the purer 
 atmosphere of thought and feeling which religious persons 
 shall breathe around them. If any such fond expectation 
 were cherished, the procedure of nearly all the Bishops on 
 the occasion on which we are treating, is enough to dispel 
 it for ever. 
 
 The conjunction was one of solemn and momentous in- 
 terest. The time had evidently arrived in the history of the 
 sister island when the unrighteous ascendency of a fractional 
 sect must be abandoned. To sustain it by force, or to buttress 
 it with bribes would no longer avail. Mere palliatives and 
 timid compromises had been tried too long, and must be 
 exchanged for consistent and thorough measures. A new 
 band of statesmen had taken the helm of affairs, unhampered 
 by old traditions, men at once honest and resolute, prepared 
 to carry out their convictions without personal regards, and 
 strong in the support of an enHghtened and united majority. 
 The country had been appealed to wdth the utmost distinctness 
 on the main issue, and had spoken out unmistakably. Men 
 in general felt that the time for delay in the removal of 
 Irish grievances had long passed, and that the most palpable 
 of them all, the most notorious — though not the most op- 
 pressive — the Establishment of an alien Church — must receive 
 immediate and decisive treatment. We stood before the other 
 nations of Europe taunted and shamed with this crying in- 
 justice. It was a perpetual reproach to the name and honour 
 of England. It was the insulting symbol to the Irish people 
 of a WTetched policy, pursued through three centuries of mis- 
 government and oppression, which had disorganized society, 
 driven multitudes into exile, brought the country to the verge 
 of ruin, and made rebellion and assassination chronic and
 
 10 
 
 incurable. If a remedy was to be applied to tbe sufferings of 
 Ireland, a commencement must be made — tlie ground must 
 be cleared — by tbe removal of tliis wrong. Tbat would be 
 the pledge of further and more needful reforms. It would 
 inaugurate a new policy of justice and conciliation, and inspire 
 the hope of a brighter era of genuine union and goodwill. 
 
 Under the influence of these views and convictions, Mr. 
 Gladstone and his colleagues brought in their Bill for the dis- 
 estabhshment and disendowment of the Irish Church. Its 
 aim was to introduce religious equality, by placing the differ- 
 ent churches on the same level of independence, and thus 
 to allay the animosities created by the State patronage and 
 support hitherto accorded to one. It was a masterpiece of 
 legislation, clear and consistent, comprehensive and compact, 
 carrying out one great idea of justice through its multifarious 
 details with such completeness as to repel criticism and defy 
 amendment. It provided fairly for existing life interests, but 
 contained no unworthy concessions or evasions of principle 
 to meet the requirements of a party. It could not be disin- 
 tegrated and transformed by skilful manipulation, as some 
 other schemes have been. The wisdom and ability displayed 
 in the manner of its introduction and advocacy, by the Leader 
 of the House and the Attorney- General for Ireland in par- 
 ticular, were truly admirable ; while the discipline and self- 
 control of the majority, in silently supporting the Bill, like 
 an unbroken phalanx, against all attacks, were more impres- 
 sive than the most ardent eloquence. The Bill passed in its 
 integrity, carried by one of the largest majorities that has 
 been seen for many years ; and thus, backed by the opinions 
 of the great body of the people, was sent up to the House of 
 Lords. 
 
 To the majority of that House it was known to be emi- 
 nently distasteful, for obvious reasons. Their Lordships are 
 an aristocratic assembly, deeply interested from their con- 
 stitution and traditions in all that is marked by privilege and
 
 11 
 
 monopoly. These features were indelibly stamped on the Irish 
 Church in their strongest form. It was the mere creature and 
 preserve of an aristocratic faction. Could they be expected 
 quietly to abandon it to its fate ? A small body of their 
 Lordships, guided by the dictates of an enlightened liberality, 
 and preferring the real interests of the nation to the supposed 
 interests of their order, were prepared to give the Bill their 
 hearty support. They enjoyed the leadership of a nobleman 
 — Earl Granville — who won the admiration of all parties by 
 his conciliatory demeanour, his unfailing tact, and the serenity 
 of temper he maintained under most trying circumstances. 
 The opponents of the Bill were very powerful, both in num- 
 bers and in talent, and would fain have got rid of it altogether. 
 This, however, was a questionable and perilous course to take. 
 It could no longer be said with any appearance of truth that 
 the proposed measure involved a surprise, and that an oppor- 
 tunity had not been given to the country at large fairly to 
 weigh its principal issues. In the closing session of the 
 previous Parliament, this had been pleaded as a reason for 
 throwing out the Suspensory Bill, which had passed the 
 House of Commons by a majority of 54. But since then a 
 special appeal had been made on this very question to the 
 enlarged constituencies throughout the three kingdoms. The 
 case had been debated and discussed in every possible way, 
 and the great body of the people had pronounced a decided 
 verdict, which clearly would prove irreversible. The more 
 sagacious portion of the Peers saw that the rejection of the 
 Bill would be a serious mistake ; that such a step could only 
 be followed by more intense excitement, and would end in 
 their being compelled to submit to the humiliation of having 
 a more severe and sweeping measure thrust upon them. 
 Thus the Irish Church would receive less favourable terms, 
 and a fatal blow would be given to the dignity and influence 
 of the Upper House. Many of their Lordships, however 
 much they might dislike or even hate the Bill, could not shut
 
 12 
 
 their eyes to tliese obvious considerations. They were there- 
 fore prepared to vote for the second reading, and thus to 
 sanction the principle of the measure. But, with one or two 
 exceptions, the bench of Bishops showed themselves utterly 
 blind to what was patent to most other minds, as well as deaf 
 to the voice of justice, and regardless of the peace of the 
 country. Only one of their number (St. David's) had the 
 good sense and the courage both to speak and to vote in 
 favour of the second reading. Sixteen of them gave their 
 votes against it. The two Archbishops retired behind the 
 Throne, and abstained from voting, an unconscious indication 
 of the propriety of relieving them from the necessity of tak- 
 ing part in the business of the House. The weight of the 
 Bishops' influence was thus mainly given to a policy which 
 the nation had pronounced unjust, dangerous, and inadmis- 
 sible, namely, to leave things as they were. They had no 
 counter scheme to propose ; they could only cry out against 
 the sacrilege of meddling with Church property, forgetful of 
 how that property was acquired, how it had been used by 
 many of their order, and of the iniquity stamped upon it by 
 its long-continued alienation from any ends of national bene- 
 fit. They did everything in their power to bring the House 
 of Lords into direct and most damaging collision with a 
 .popular House of Commons, and to spirit them up to offer 
 a foolish and hopeless resistance to the nation at large. 
 Could anything demonstrate more plainly the utter unfitness 
 of these Prelates to discharge the functions of legislators than 
 the language which some of them used — and which most of 
 them applauded — respecting the relations between the two 
 Houses? Nothing could well be more unconstitutional in 
 spirit, or more revolutionary in its tendency than the senti- 
 ments and the counsels which they advocated with reference 
 to the control which the Upper House should claim and 
 exercise in the government of the country. And even since 
 the excitement of the conflict is over, when quiet reflection
 
 18 
 
 should surely have supplied sounder conceptions of duty, the 
 Archbishop of Dublin is heard lamenting the defeat which 
 their Lordships have sustained, as if it were the knell of 
 their legislative powers, and venturing the prophecy that it 
 will no longer be possible for them "to thwart the will of the 
 House of Commons in any matter of high national signifi- 
 cance." Why, we may ask, was it ever regarded as an admis- 
 sible course that a majority of the Upper House, represent- 
 ing, not the judgment of the country, but only the personal 
 opinions of certain individuals of the privileged class, should 
 arrogate the right to defeat the policy of her Majesty's respon- 
 sible advisers, chosen and supported by so large a majority of 
 the national representatives ? If views like these were to re- 
 gulate the counsels of the Peers, we must either come to a 
 dead lock, or should have quietly to resign our liberties into 
 the hands of their Lordships, and treat ParUamentary govern- 
 ment as an empty and tedious form. 
 
 And this is the service we are to accept from the wisdom 
 and moderation of these Christian Prelates ! What an exhi- 
 bition of reckless audacity was given in the same debate by 
 the Bishop of Peterborough, who, in a style more resembling 
 the declamation of an actor than the serious address of a 
 statesman, harangued their Lordships on the consequences 
 which would befall them if they were induced to pass it in 
 deference to the decisive votes of the Commons. In terms 
 the most exaggerated and puerile, he even taunted them with 
 the degradation and contempt which they would thus bring 
 upon themselves, while he flung out most indecent and in- 
 sulting reflections on the debates in the other House — a fine 
 specimen truly of the high sense of propriety which we expect 
 in one holding his sacred office. And now, what must be the 
 eff'ect of all this ? The House of Peers, under the guidance 
 of wiser heads, not only passed the second reading, but finally 
 — recognising their true position, and adhering to the path of 
 duty and safety — accepted the very details of the measure with
 
 14 
 
 slight modifications ; and they did this confessedly in defer- 
 ence to the attitude of the other House. If there were then the 
 least shadow of truth in the remonstrances and vaticinations 
 of these right reverend orators, the peerage of Great Britain 
 would now stand weakened and humiliated hefore the nation. 
 Is not the very reverse the case ? Do they not the more enjoy 
 the esteem and confidence of all whose opinion is worth con- 
 sidering, because they frankly yielded to the pressure of a 
 crisis which it would have been madness to brave, and sacri- 
 ficed their own prepossessions to the judgment of their 
 countrj^men ? And it is for this that the querulous wailings 
 of Prelatic spleen are poured forth in visitation addresses ! 
 The House of Lords may well be congratulated that they will 
 henceforth be freed from the risk of listening to such effusions 
 in their own chamber ; and surely on reflection they must 
 feel it desirable that the clearance effected in one part of the 
 Bench were extended to the whole, when it is evident that 
 its occupants have done their best at this time to inflict on 
 the House that diminution of dignity and power which they 
 profess to lament. Whatever else the Bishops may do in the 
 House of Lords, they do not aid it by their sagacity in avoid- 
 ing those perils to which a hereditary chamber is peculiarly 
 exposed : instead of elevating, they lower its prestige. 
 
 So far in reference to the utter want of sound statesman- 
 ship displayed by the Spiritual Lords in this debate. But 
 surely we have a right to look to them for much greater quali- 
 ties. Their proper department is that of religious principle 
 and duty. They should shed the light of higher truth and 
 loftier convictions on the matters in discussion. They should 
 clear away the mist and darkness which earthly and selfish 
 views throw around our path. They should detect and unravel 
 the confusion in which the sophistry of prejudice and personal 
 interest is apt to involve men's minds. It should be theirs to 
 bring measures to the test of the equity and benevolence of 
 the Gospel, and to urge the recognition of '' ivhatsoever things
 
 15 
 
 are true, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are 
 2mre, whatsoever things are lovely and of good report.'' But 
 we slioulcl look in vain through their speeches for any distinct, 
 straightforward recognition of principles like these. This, 
 indeed, hecame an impossibility when they ventured to defend 
 the existence of such an institution as the Irish Church. It 
 excites one's astonishment to observe how they employ all 
 their ingenuity to conceal its real character and working, to 
 elude the true bearings of the question, and to make this 
 monstrous wrong — of which all men but themselves had 
 become ashamed — appear a natural, seemly, and righteous 
 arrangement. Mark the tissue of sophistical evasions in the 
 Bishop of Peterborough's elaborate attempt to meet 'Hhe three 
 great issues raised in the debate," — of the justice of the mea- 
 sure — its policy — and its being in accordance with the verdict 
 of the nation. How does he deal with the noble, Christian- 
 minded appeal of Earl Granville, that we should follow the 
 golden rule of divine morality, and act to Ireland in that way 
 in which, were our situations reversed, we should wish Ireland 
 to act towards ourselves ? This argument he takes up, not 
 under the head of justice, to which it properly belongs, but 
 under the head of jiolicg ; and then proceeds to answer it by 
 putting the question — " Which Ireland do you mean ? There 
 is the Ireland of the North, and the Ireland of the South, 
 These are two, and very different Irelands. But, according 
 to my reckoning, there are three. There is a. Protestant 
 Ireland; there are the Roman Catholic peasantry of Ireland ; 
 and there is — distinct from both, a nation within a nation, 
 owning a separate cdlegiance — there is the Roman Catholic 
 priesthood. These are the three parties for ichom you propose 
 to carry a measure of great State policy.'" Such special 
 pleading as this, on a great question of national justice, is its 
 own refutation. But it is unspeakably painful to remember 
 that this was not the address of some nimble-witted lawyer in 
 a civil court, trying to varnish over a rotten case by dexterous
 
 16 
 
 word-fencing, but a high effort of eloquence by a Christian 
 Bishop, before the august assembly of the Peers of England. 
 It is refreshing to turn from such windy and deceptive talk, to 
 the clear, honourable, right-minded reply, by which the fol- 
 lowing speaker — Earl de Grey and Ripon — completely exposed 
 the sophistry of the Bishop. But if their Spiritual Lordships 
 cannot be trusted to sound a distinct and certain note on the 
 common points of morality ; — if they require to be set right 
 there by the sounder understandings, and healthier consciences 
 of the Temporal Peers — what purpose do they serve in that 
 assembly ? There is every reason to fear that their participa- 
 tion in such debates does no good to others, and inflicts injury 
 on themselves. They are called to occupy a false position, 
 which blinds and perverts their minds. He is their best 
 friend who advises them to seek release from it speedily. 
 
 In spite of the general opposition of the Episcopal Bench, 
 the second reading of the Bill was carried. When the discus- 
 sion of the clauses began in Committee, it was soon evident, 
 from the amendments proposed by the Opposition, that they 
 were determined, if possible, to rob the measure of everything 
 in it that was vital ; and not only to spoil it of all grace, but 
 to transform it from what it professed and was designed to be 
 — an offer of justice and conciliation to the Irish people— into 
 a covert insult and wrong. Having consented to sever the 
 connection of the Church with the State in the sister island, and 
 thus to remove it from its invidious position of supremacy, they 
 wished to give back secretly, in the worst of all forms, what 
 they had professedly taken away. They would have re-endowed 
 this disestablished Church with the greater part, if not the 
 whole, of the property which it had enjoyed before. Where, 
 then, would have been the religious equality which the Bill 
 was intended to establish ? This was, in fact, intensifying the 
 wrong complained of, and introducing a new peril. To allow 
 the Church, when no longer under State control, to possess 
 revenues belonging to the nation, is to create an abuse and a
 
 17 
 
 clanger of the worst kind. The Opposition seemed to have no 
 sense of this. Having adopted the principle of disestablish- 
 ment, they were hound to carr}^ it out consistently and fairly. 
 Instead of this, they strove in every possible way to make it 
 nugatory. It would be tedious to recount all the expedients 
 by which they strove to filch back what they had nominally 
 surrendered. Let us recall the more glaring instances of 
 encroachment. 
 
 In the whole of this tortuous and mischievous poHcy, 
 they were led on and supported by the Bench of Bishops, 
 who seemed for the time to lose sight of every other con- 
 sideration than what pertained to the grossest worldly in- 
 terests. One proposition after another emanated from these 
 Spiritual Lords, which savoured of nothing but extortionate 
 greediness for money. The Bishop of Peterborough proposed 
 that, in the compensation given to holders of benefices, no 
 deduction should be made of the tax on clerical incomes pay- 
 able to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners ; which was claiming 
 for the clergy what had never belonged to them, but had been 
 appropriated by law to public purposes. It was also done in 
 such a way as to conceal the real character of the arrangement. 
 This claim was exposed by Earl Granville; but it was in vain 
 that he showed how complete was its deviation from the prin- 
 ciple of the Bill — that it went, in fact, ''to the endowment, 
 in a new form, of the disestablished Church," — and would also 
 act in the most partial manner, immensely increasing the 
 value of larger incomes, but lea\'ing all below £300 unafi'ected. 
 This most unfair motion was carried by a majority of 4-Jt ; all 
 the Bishops present, namely, thirteen, voting in its favour in 
 a compact body — as, indeed, they did on every occasion w^hen 
 more money was concerned. This may be taken as a specimen 
 of their procedure. It is not needful, as it is certainly not 
 edifying, to go over the other claims they advanced, and which 
 were recklessly conceded ; such as retaining the glebe houses 
 free of building charges, fixing the commutation value of the
 
 18 
 
 incomes of the Episcopalian clergy (not the Presbyterian) at 
 fourteen years' purchase, (being an addition of ^1,222,000,) 
 and keeping possession of the Ulster glebe lands, granted 
 by James I., out of confiscated estates, under the pretext 
 of their being private endowments. This last unwarrant- 
 able appropriation amounted to giving the Church a hand- 
 some endowment, — (some said, of a million sterling : but, 
 deducting the life interests, it would come to half that sum,) 
 and left her in the Northern part of the island — where 
 the strength of Protestantism is with the Presbyterians — 
 to all outward appearance, in as favoured a position of as- 
 cendency as ever, only without the name of State connec- 
 tion. There were several minor additions for which the 
 Bishops pressed, and which the House of Lords voted to 
 give them ; but one barefaced piece of extortion, which the 
 Bishop of Peterborough attempted, (July 1st,) was too much 
 even for the Tory Peers ; and, at the Earl of Carnarvon's 
 request, the motion was withdrawn. It was nothing less than 
 this : that when the incomes of any of the beneficed clergy fell 
 below ^200 a year, they should have compensation given 
 them to that full amount, on the ground of their professional 
 expectations ! In short, all through, these reverend dignitaries 
 — whose business it is to teach men to look higher than sordid 
 pelf — seemed, like the insatiable daughters of the horse-leech, 
 to join in one incessant cry of — Give ! Give ! The issue of 
 their proceedings thus far was apparent in the extravagant 
 provisions of the Bill when it was sent down to the House of 
 Commons. Mr. Gladstone, in his speech on July 15th, put 
 the case thus : — The whole property of the Irish Church — 
 without any addition for the use of the public credit (which 
 greatly augmented its value) — might fairly be reckoned at 
 ^15,000,000. The Bill, as it left the House of Commons, 
 dealt so liberally with the Church, that two-thirds of this 
 amount (^10,000,000) were actually surrendered to the con- 
 demned institution, or its ministers. (Yet the disendowing
 
 19 
 
 clauses were constantly denounced by the Tory Peers and 
 their Episcoj^al allies, as liarsli and niggardly; and the 
 Government was said to be acting towards the Church in the 
 spirit of Shylock.) But the Tory majority in the Lords, in- 
 spired mainly by the rapacity and fanaticism of the Bishops 
 — who could not endure the thought of the secularization of 
 Church property, as they termed it — had so increased the 
 allowances, that, out of the £15,000,000, the Church posi- 
 tively retained £14,000,000 ; and this was called disendow- 
 merit ! This was to answer the language of the preamble : 
 ** After satisfying , so far as possible, upon principles of equality y 
 as between the several religious denominations in Ireland, all 
 just and equitable claims. '^* Seldom has a more impudent 
 farce been transacted under the guise of constitutional legis- 
 lation. And the most prominent actors in this mixture of 
 farce and factious injustice were the Eight Reverend Prelates, 
 who misrepresent the Church of England. 
 
 "We have no wish to decry or to abuse these ecclesiastical 
 dignitaries. We cheerfully recognize and honour the virtues 
 they display in their proper sphere. But the facts just stated 
 are undeniable and ought not to be forgotten. They grasped, 
 without scruple, at this immense amount of national pro- 
 perty, claiming it for their own sect, — now in the name of 
 justice, now in the name of generosity, and now on grounds 
 of pity, — at the very time when the conscience of the nation 
 had been roused to repair a signal and long-continued wrong, 
 by trying, as far as possible, to introduce religious equality in 
 the sister island. That property, which had so long been un- 
 righteously and cruelly alienated from the benefit of the Irish 
 people, the House of Commons tried to restore, at least in 
 part, as a token of penitence and goodwill. The Bishops 
 laid hold of it with their crosiers and snatched it back again > 
 merely giving up the empty shell of State -Establishment. 
 They reversed the miracle of the Hebrew Lawgiver, and in- 
 stead of sweetening the bitter waters of Marah, they renewed
 
 20 
 
 and intensified their bitterness by casting into tliem the 
 poisonous tree of sectarian selfishness. They cared nothing 
 for the rights and feehngs of the Irish people, or for an ami- 
 cable understanding between them and ourselves. When the 
 bonds of Empire were strained to bursting, and the hearts of 
 men were sick with anxiety for the public welfare, these men 
 thought of nothing — talked about nothing, but glebes and en- 
 dowments, a larger per centage on commutations, the allow- 
 ances of rectors and bellringers, deductions for curates and 
 cravings for curtilages — a small slice here and a bigger slice 
 there of the national property, so as to leave as little as 
 possible for the sacrilegious use of the nation itself ! Oh it 
 is a sad thing when ministers of religion — or men who should 
 be such — become hucksters in the market of earthly interest, 
 and pedlars in the strife of Parliamentary faction ! 
 
 It may be said, — they did not crave this money for them- 
 selves ; they were actuated by sentiments of equity and 
 compassion towards their unfortunate brethren, who were 
 about to be cut adrift from the State. They desired to 
 provision the forlorn bark of the disestablished Church as 
 comfortably as possible, in prospect of the hardships of the 
 voyage that lay before her. The Archbishop of Canterbury 
 seemed to be touched, on one occasion, with a sense of the 
 unseemliness of the attitude which he and his brother Prelates 
 were assuming, in so constantly driving the terms of a good 
 bargain, and hinted at some such apology. But why should the 
 pity of Episcopal bosoms be all lavished on one class of suffer- 
 ers, — on rectors and curates, with deans and other dignitaries, 
 — and none be left for the poor millions of Ireland, who for three 
 centuries have had no beneficial interest in the national funds ? 
 Can this be genuine pity? When a nation lies before us 
 naked, wounded, and heart- sore with the wrongs of centuries, 
 can we excuse Priest and Levite for averting their eyes, and 
 passing by on the other side ? Would it be a sufi^cient defence 
 for this neglect; that they were hastening in pursuit of the
 
 21 
 
 robbers; not on purpose to rescue and restore the sufferer's 
 property, but to get a large share of the spoil for some of 
 their own poor brethren ? What can have so perverted the 
 minds of these prelates that they could follow such a course 
 without misgiving, — nay, that they could dare so to affront 
 pubHc opinion ? 
 
 Public opinion, unhappily, has very little hold on Lordly 
 Bishops, in whose appointment the people have no voice w^hat- 
 ever — who are merely the irresponsible nominees of a Prime 
 Minister. But the clue to their policy was obvious enough : 
 they were not ashamed to show it. It was nothing less than 
 this : to keep the clergy, as far as possible, from being depen- 
 dent on the support, and, consequently, amenable to the 
 judgment, of the laity. They regard this arrangement as pro- 
 viding a security for the faithful teaching of the pastors. It 
 simply means that the body of the clergy are to be the despots 
 of the Church, introducing rites, doctrines, and observances, 
 as seems good to their priestly fancies, and so far as they 
 can do it without being checked by the clums}^ and expensive 
 machinery of ecclesiastical courts. The Episcopal notion of 
 Church government is to retain the laity — who are the Church, 
 if there be a church at all — in a state of perpetual pupilage ; 
 always *' under tutors and governors;" bound to accept any 
 teaching, or no teaching, that the clergy choose to give them ; 
 and to contribute to schemes which they shall not be permitted 
 to control. And it is because the thorough carrying out of 
 *'the voluntary principle " would be sure to liberate and ele- 
 vate the minds of the people, and compel the clerg}' to show 
 some deference to their judgment, that Episcopal lips seem 
 never weary of decrying, misrepresenting, and vilif}dng it. 
 Some of them would seem to regard it as David regarded the 
 adversaries of God ; — they hate it with a perfect hatred, and 
 count it their enemy. Well, instinct is generally an un- 
 erring guide ; and the bitter instinctive dishke of our Spiritual 
 Lords to the system of Voluntaryism is no doubt just. Let it
 
 22 
 
 come into play, and it would make sliort work with tlieir digni- 
 ties. When the Church shall really rest for support, not on 
 legal endowments, but on the free goodwill and offerings of the 
 faithful, there will be an end — not to Bishops as chief pastors 
 ■ — but to Bishops who neglect their dioceses for half the year, 
 that they may oppose the will of the nation, and thwart the 
 progress of sound and Liberal measures from their seats in 
 Parliament. There will be an end also to their baronial titles 
 and honours, to their lavish incomes, and to the extravagant 
 outlay on their Palaces of funds that should have gone to the 
 augmentation of small benefices. Yes ; the voluntary principle 
 would make short work of an Episcopal Dives, pleading in his 
 purple and fine linen for some cast-off clothing, to replace the 
 rags of Lazarus, the curate, shivering with his poor children 
 at his gate. Then a stop would be put to such flagrant 
 instances of Nepotism, as those that have recently been re- 
 ported of the Bishop of St. Asaph (Dr. Short), which are by 
 no means without a parallel. The profitable abuse of Church 
 patronage — so dear to all who live by the smiles of the 
 aristocracy — so fatal to the life and purity of the Church — 
 would cease to be tolerated. Bishops would be obliged to 
 lend a more respectful ear to the petitions of congregations, 
 when remonstrating against novelties introduced in the public 
 .service by High Church rectors and vicars. Curates, of 
 course, can be put down at once, and deprived of their 
 licenses; but a beneficed incumbent, who is independent 
 of the people, must be treated with the gentlest forbear- 
 ance. In short, this dreaded voluntaryism would restore 
 their rights to the laity, and make the clergy mindful of their 
 obligations. Ilinc ilks lachrymcd : — hence this denunciation 
 of the only lav/ of ministerial support sanctioned by Christ 
 and his apostles. How can the Church of England prosper, 
 while she so much resembles the image of Nebuchadnezzar's 
 dream, v/ith a head of gold and feet of clay ; her rulers rolling 
 in wealth, her working clergy tramping through the mire of
 
 £3 
 
 poverty? Quite natural is it that this mitrorl lip;ul of gohl 
 should have "a mouth speaking great things," hlaspheming 
 voluntaryism, and traducing its ministers.* 
 
 The abhorrence of Yoluntaryism, displayed by their Lord- 
 ships, is intensified by their ignorance of its real nature and 
 workings, on Tvhich we have not time to dwell, further than 
 to say that — with the facts of our Free Churches before them 
 — there is no excuse for it ; and by their lamentable want of 
 all faith in the steady and powerful action of spiritual motives. 
 These men are so surrounded and intoxicated by all the ele- 
 ments and influences of secular dignity and wealth, that they 
 cannot rely on anything that is not tangible and patent to the 
 senses. For a Church to be disestablished and disendowed 
 was, in their view, to be sent adrift on the barren waste of a 
 cold, inhospitable world ; it was subjecting her to some T\ild 
 Colchian experiment of being hewn in pieces and cast into the 
 caldron, in the desperate hope of her coming forth in renovated 
 youth. Do such men believe in anything they do not see and 
 handle ? Christian willinghood is nothing in their eyes unless 
 it is backed by a legal document ; a Government annuity is the 
 secure bond between a pastor and his work; a glebe house and 
 ten acres of land, free of all charge, are the bulwarks of minis- 
 terial fidehty. There is no such thing as Christian manliness 
 in the pastorate — no fear of God — no love to the truth for its 
 own sake, which will induce preachers to speak faithfully to 
 their congregations, unless they have £300 or £400 a year 
 secured to them by law, independently of the people. This 
 is the Episcopal theory of the case — a most ^Tetched and 
 grovelling one indeed. We might ask, Have well-paid rectors 
 and vicars, and courtly bishops, been so very famous for 
 
 * See tlie expressions used by the Archbishop of Canterbury, in Lis 
 speech on July 22ucl, (reported on page 47,) where he describes an un- 
 endowed ministry as "the mere servants and tools of those whom they 
 should teach," etc. That is the estimate expressed by the Primate of the 
 English Church of the character and labours of half the Christian ministers 
 in the kingdom, who have done more to advance vital religion than three- 
 fourths of the Established Clergy.
 
 24 
 
 preaching unpleasant trutlis— truths demanded by the pre- 
 valent evils of the day, especially among the upper circles ? 
 Is it in Dissenting congregations that the habit of preach- 
 ing smooth things has been most common ? Oh ! '' tell 
 it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon" — 
 this newly announced Episcopal doctrine, that the Church 
 of Christ must not look for fidelity in the pulpit, unless 
 its occupant has an independent income, or at least a good 
 rectory over his head, and a few acres around it! And the 
 men whose minds are so narrow, whose vision is so obtuse, 
 and whose faith is such a poor parasitical plant that it must 
 have some legal prop to cling to, are to occupy a place in 
 the High Council of this Empire as Heads of the Church, 
 and to influence the destinies of the nation ! How long 
 is it to be suffered ? On what pretence can it be defended ? 
 Surely no one can say that they fairly represent in any way 
 the sentiments and wishes of the adherents of the Church of 
 England, when we call to mind the course they adopted in 
 reference to what has been called the scheme of " concurrent 
 endowment." A few words on this head are required in 
 order to complete our review of their procedure. 
 
 The motion of the Duke of Cleveland, on July 2nd, and 
 that of Earl Stanhope, brought forward on July 12th, on the 
 third reading of the Bill, had for their object to provide out 
 of the surplus, residences for the clergy and ministers of all 
 denominations, which, as Lord Cairns showed, would really 
 amount to a permanent endowment (in most instances) of £60 
 a year to each incumbent or parish priest. This would absorb 
 an enormous sum of money, not to speak of the great difficul- 
 ties in the way of carrying out such an arrangement in the 
 case of any other clergy than those of the Episcopalian Church. 
 But what he and some other Lords on his side of the House 
 especially insisted on was the strong objection to the very 
 principle of such schemes, entertained and expressed by men 
 of all political parties throughout the country ; a fact which
 
 25 
 
 was notorious. The proposal had been barely mentioned in 
 the House of Commons, and had received no support. It was 
 inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, and with the verdict 
 pronounced by the vast majority of the constituencies in favour 
 of general disendoinnenf. It was condemned by all staunch 
 Churchmen and Conservatives, who would not hear of endow- 
 ing the Koman Catholic clergy. The Roman Catholic mem- 
 bers in both Houses most loyally and honourably refused to 
 join in the scheme, as involving a violation of their pledges. 
 It was only the pet notion of a few old Whig peers — political 
 doctrinaires— Viho have been left completely behind by the 
 march of opinion, and whose traditional crotchets are entirely 
 out of date. Earl Harrowby spoke the simple truth when he 
 said (July 12th) — ''Nothing is more clear than that, if it had 
 not been stated to the constituencies that endowment of any 
 kind to the Roman Catholic Church was entirely out of the 
 question, we should not have had to go into committee at all, 
 for we should never have had this Bill. If there was one point 
 more than another upon which Conservative seats were lost, 
 and the present majority of the House of Commons was 
 formed, it was the pledge that when the property of the Irish 
 Church was taken away, there should not be an atom of en- 
 dowment to the Roman Catholic Church." And in those 
 constituencies where the Conservatives, by the aid of the 
 clergy, gained their greatest triumphs, — more especially in 
 Lancashire, — is it not well known that they succeeded by 
 kindling the fire of an ignorant zeal for Protestantism, and 
 charging the Liberal party with a design to advance the inter- 
 ests of Popery ? The cry, raised by the clergy in their very 
 pulpits, and which prevailed with too many of their followers, 
 was this : " Will you have the Queen, or the Pope, to ride 
 over youV* Mr. Gladstone was constantly defamed and 
 calumniated as a secret favourer of Popery, — as a Jesuit at 
 heart. They encouraged their dupes to look for safety, in 
 this imminent danger which threatened our Protestant insti-
 
 26 
 
 tutions, to our Protestant Bishojjs ; -thcij, at least, miglit be 
 trusted to make no compromise with tlie emissaries or friends 
 of Kome. And now, Low did these same Protestant Bishops 
 act ? They not only spoke and pleaded for the scheme of en- 
 dowing the Koman Catholic priesthood ; but on the Duke of 
 Cleveland's motion, (which was lost,) nine prelates voted for 
 it, five being against ; and when Earl Stanhope's motion was 
 carried by a surprise on the third reading, this ill-omened 
 momentary triumph was gained solely by the votes of seven 
 members of the Einscopal Bench, among whom were found 
 the two Archbishops, the heads of our Protestant EstabHsh- 
 ment ! What do our Protestant clergy think of that ? What 
 do the sound-hearted majority of Churchmen think of it, who 
 desire no fellowship with Kome; who have no love for the 
 nice distinctions which an astute Bishop can make between 
 the Catholicism and the Bomanism of the Popish priesthood ? 
 As to the view taken by enlightened and resolute Protestants, 
 like the Scottish people, and the Nonconformists of England 
 and Wales, for that their Lordships may care less ; but the 
 time is at hand when it will be brought to bear upon them. 
 It is certainly not a fitting thing that, in a Parliament which 
 legislates for Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, as well as for 
 England, a position of so much dignity and influence should 
 be given to Anglican Bishops, who have no relations or sym- 
 - pathies with the far larger part of the population of the empire, 
 and who have so clearly shown that they are either ignorant 
 or careless of the sentiments held by the members of their 
 own communion on a point of vital concern to the policy of 
 the State. 
 
 What could be their inducement to follow^ this suicidal 
 course ? Only two reasons can be suggested, both of which pro- 
 bably had a measure of influence. The scheme aimed a blow at 
 that real religious equality, founded on Voluntaryism, which 
 (as has been remarked) they absolutely hate and dread. It 
 would also secure an additional sum of about a02,000,000 for
 
 27 
 
 the Irish Church, while giving only an inconsiderable sum to 
 the other denominations, as was pointed out by Earl Granville. 
 Yet it professed to aim at rclirjious equality ! Well might 
 that courteous nobleman utter the remonstrance — " Can your 
 Lordships really wish that such a proposal should go down 
 to the other House as illustrative of the spirit of your legisla- 
 tive enactments?" But this remonstrance was thrown away 
 on the Bishops, whose votes carried the motion. Assuredly 
 whatever virtues they may possess, they cannot be commended 
 in Scriptural phrase as being men v>'ho '' have understanding 
 of the times, to knoiv what Israel ought to do.^' Never was 
 there a scheme mooted more at variance with the prevaiHng 
 opinions and spirit of the age, or more injurious to the in- 
 terests both of the Church and of the State. 
 
 When this amendment came on for discussion in the 
 House of Commons, it gave occasion to the Irish Roman 
 Catholic members to disclaim in the most emphatic terms 
 any wilhngness to accept for their clergy either endowments 
 or residences out of the funds of the Irish Church. These 
 gentlemen, as well as the body of the Roman Catholic Peers, 
 certainly acted throughout a most honourable and consistent 
 part, showing the strictest fidelity to their understood engage- 
 ments with their Liberal allies, for which they are deserving 
 of all praise. Through their firmness the scheme was utterly 
 quashed. Had they shown the slipperincss and subtlety in 
 making convenient distinctions, in which some Episcopal 
 minds excelled, what mischief might have followed ! 
 
 Nor have we to thank their Spiritual Lordships for avert- 
 ing the serious danger which threatened our national peace 
 when the Bill went back (with their insidious amendments 
 rejected) to the House of Peers. It wiU not soon be forgotten 
 how nearly we were driven to the brink of a revolutionary 
 crisis on July 20th, by a majority of the Peers insisting on 
 their amendment of the preamble. This really meant fjust 
 ichat the Bishops had aimed at all along J — that, sooner than
 
 28 
 
 allow the surplus funds of tlie Irish Church to he cTevotecl to 
 really national ohjects, they would destroy the Bill itself. 
 Twelve Prelates, including the three Arclihishops, voted in 
 the majority against the Government. To the credit of the 
 Bishop of Oxford, be it said, he was not the victim of '' an un- 
 fortunate accident " on this occasion ; he was present in the 
 flesh, as well as in the spirit, and wisely gave his vote on the 
 Government side. But he stood alone among his brethren, 
 no other Bishop voting in the minority. It was an emergency 
 full of anxiety and peril. A convulsive excitement would soon 
 have followed^ and the institutions of the State would have 
 been rudely shaken. The prudence of Lord Cairns, joined 
 with the conciliatory spirit of Earl Granville, and the modera- 
 tion and forbearance of the very man who had been insultingly 
 taunted with overbearing arrogance, averted the evil. And 
 thus the great healing measure of justice passed at length 
 into an enactment, amidst general congratulations ; one great 
 blot on our scutcheon, one fretting sore in Ireland's heart, 
 was removed ; and for the first time a policy of disestablish- 
 ment and disendowment in religious affairs received Imperial 
 sanction. 
 
 But now the question arises, Ought twenty-six Bishops of 
 THE Anglican Church to retain their seats in the United Par- 
 liament of Great Britain and Ireland ? So far as they can 
 pretend to represent any party, it is but a doubtful moiety of 
 the English people : the Nonconformists and Koman Catho- 
 lics, with the majority of the Welsh people, the whole of Scot- 
 land, and now Ireland as well, have no part nor lot in them. 
 Yet the political interests of these portions of the empire are 
 seriously affected by the votes of the Bishops ; and we have 
 seen how their votes are likely to be given, namely, in general 
 opposition to all Liberal measures. Consistency and sound 
 policy alike demand a speedy reform of this anomaly. Baronial 
 prelates and Episcopal legislators are most undesirable relics 
 of the middle a^es. It is evident that the combination of Par-
 
 29 
 
 liamentarv work with their dioc3sau duties forms a burden 
 which they are not able to bear, and an obligation which they 
 cannot adorn. It is distracting to their minds, injurious to 
 their spirit, and damaging to their reputation. Let them be 
 released from it as speedily as may be. Eeligion and politics 
 would both benefit largely by the change. It would supersede 
 the necessity for an extension of the Episcopate, and for the 
 appointment of suffragans. It would be the harbinger of a 
 happier era for the country at large, and for the Church of 
 England in particular, — an era when worldly dignities and 
 political functions shall cease to be associated with spiritual 
 offices. Then would she arise in her spiritual strength, cast 
 forth ahen elements from her bosom, and become ere long 
 united and free. Then might we look with hopefulness to the 
 time when asc?ndency shall not be claimed by one communion 
 oyer others; when the distinctions of social caste between 
 Church and Dissent shall vanish; and when heartburnings 
 and jealousies shaU no more separate those who are really one 
 in the faith. Then Religion, shaking off the trammels of 
 State control, and the dust of factious contention, arrayed 
 in purity, and armed with the power of truth, shall go forth 
 as a heavenly minister of peace through the length and breadth 
 of our land.
 
 81 
 
 ILLUSTRATIONS 
 
 OF THE EXPEDIENCY OF BELIEVING THE BISHOPS FROM 
 ATTENDANCE IN PARLIAMENT. 
 
 I. 
 
 The Akchbishop op Dublin's Visitation Address; refeiTed to on 
 page 13 of the preceding Review. 
 
 THE ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN (Trench), in his Visitation 
 address, in October, thus pronounces his opinion on the humihation 
 of the House of Lords : — 
 
 Referring to the Irish Church Disestablishment Act, he said : 
 *' They could not but regret that the House of Lords (although more 
 '' for their own sake than for the Church) did not from the first 
 '' declare their inability to do anything efiectual on our behalf. Had 
 *' they avowed from the beginning that they were but the porcelain 
 *' jar, and the House of Commons the iron vessel, and that a coUi- 
 " sion between the two must at any sacrifice be avoided, one might 
 " have regretted that their real pov^er was not more commensurate 
 ^' with that which the theonj of the constitution assigned to them ; 
 *' but none could have been so unreasonable as to find fault with 
 <' the weak for owning themselves such. It was a pity they promised 
 *' 60 much, and performed so little. It excited a painful surprise to 
 ** see the manner in which the House of Lords gave way, amid the 
 *' mutual congratulations of its memberSf and as though they were ac- 
 " co})qilishing a feat the most glorious; everybody extolling everybody 
 " else; the consciousness of having extricated itself from a position of 
 '' embarrassment rousing in it a delight intense enough to swallow up 
 ** every thought of the p)Oor Irish Church, at the expense of which this 
 *' extrication had been effected/' 
 
 " As I hve over again," said his Grace, " that memorable night, 
 *' I feel that it is not wo who have lost and buffered the most." He
 
 82 
 
 icas hold to loropliecy that the stnif/r/h on the Irish Church Bill icoulcl 
 be the very last in which the House of Lords mould ever venture even 
 to appear to cross or thwart the will of the House of Commons in any 
 matter of high national significance. 
 
 The most Reverend Prelate tells his story with admirable 
 simplicit}^ and truthfulness. It is interesting to learn from such 
 authority the feeling and sentiment in the House of Lords as soon 
 as the Leader for Government announced his intention to proceed 
 no further with the Bill, when the Lords insisted on their amend- 
 ments in opposition to the House of Commons, and thus brought 
 the two Houses into collision. 
 
 The Archbishop of Dublin exhibits an ignorance of the constitu- 
 tion that is surprising, after all that has been done by constitutional 
 means to carry a measure of policy and justice. 
 
 In 1868 the House of Commons decided to disestablish and dis- 
 endow the Church of Ireland, and passed a Suspensory Bill by a 
 majority of 312 to 255. 
 
 That Bill was rejected by the House of Lords on the 29th June, 
 by a majority of 192 to 97. 
 
 By the advice of a Conservative Government, the Queen ap- 
 pealed to the country and dissolved ParKament. The electors 
 returned a majority of members to the House of Commons, number- 
 ing 120, to carry out the measure. 
 
 In consequence, the Conservative Government resigned on the 
 9th December, and the Queen commanded Mr. Gladstone to form a 
 new Government, which he accomplished, and brought a Bill into 
 the House of Commons to disestablish and disendow the Irish 
 Church. The Conservatives opposed the measure, but the House 
 confirmed it in 25 divisions on the second reading and on details ; 
 and the Bill was finally read a third time, (31st May,) by a majority 
 of 361 to 247, and sent to the House of Lords. 
 
 On the 10th June, 1869, the House of Lords adopted the Bill, 
 and read it a second time by a majority of 179 to 146. 
 
 Then followed in the House of Lords 14 divisions, on details, in 
 the committee, on report, at the third reading, and on consideration 
 of amendments rejected by the Commons. 
 
 On these occasions the majority of the House of Lords, under
 
 83 
 
 Lord Cairns, their aclaiowledgetl leader, showed their opposition to 
 the Government, (for whom the Earl Granville conducted the Bill,) 
 and the solemn decisions of the House of Commons. 
 
 So capricious were the Conservative Peers, that they decided to 
 continue the Irish Bishops in the House of Lords for their lives, 
 after the disestablishment of the L'ish Church ; but this amendment 
 they subsequently cancelled of their own free will. 
 
 They changed the time for disestabhshing from 1st January, 
 1871, to 1st January, 1872, and this they changed again to 1st 
 May, 1871; but this amendment was rejected in the House of Com- 
 mons, and the original clause was restored and adopted by the Lords. 
 
 They rejected the Duke of Cleveland's motion for endowing the 
 Catholics and L'ish Presbyterians, (2nd July,) by a majority of 146 
 to 113 ; but they subsequently (12th July) adopted Earl Stanhope's 
 motion to set aside the resolution of 2nd July, and to endow these 
 denominations, by 121 to 114, being a majority of 7, obtained by 
 the votes of seven Protestant Bishops, and in the absence of thirty- 
 two peers who voted in the majority of 2nd July. 
 
 *' I am painfully conscious that the Government does not possess 
 the confidence of your Lordships," said Earl Granville; and he 
 patiently bore defeat after defeat, until the Bill became so changed 
 as to be unacceptable to the House of Commons, and that House 
 decided by large majorities to reject all material changes in it that 
 had been made by the House of Lords. 
 
 When Earl Granville (20th July) proposed that the House of 
 Lords should not insist on the first of their amendments, the 
 Government was defeated by a majority of 173 to 95. 
 
 His Lordship then stated he could proceed no further with the 
 Bill until he had consulted his colleagues, and the debate was 
 adjourned for 48 hours, viz., from Tuesday to Thursday. 
 
 This righteous menace, from an accomplished and courteous 
 statesman, the Government Leader in the House of Lords, — after 
 exhausting every constitutional effort to pass a just law, on which 
 the peace and satisfaction of Leland depended, — could not be, and 
 was not, misunderstood. 
 
 The House of Lords quailed under it, and succumbed to the 
 House of Commons.
 
 81 
 
 No time was to bo lost. The Lcaclcr of the Opposition, Lord 
 Cairns, after a snpposecl consultation with the Leader of the Opposi- 
 tion in the House of Commons, requested an immediate interview with 
 Earl Granville, and capitulated on terms of abandoning every amend- 
 ment that affected the Integrity of the Bill. ''I look on these 
 " amendments less as a compromise than as an unconditional sur- 
 " render," said Mr. Yance in the House of Commons ; and the 
 Archbishop of Dublin asserts, " The House of Lords will never 
 " again venture to thwart the will of the House of Commons in any 
 " matter of high national significance." 
 
 For this result the House of Lords arc much Indebted to the 
 English and Lish Bishops, and to no one of them arc they more 
 indebted than to the Archbishop of DuWin, except it be the Bishop 
 of Peterborough. 
 
 His Grace the Archbishop of Dublin voted against the second 
 reading of the Irish Church Bill. 
 
 For the Archbishop of Canterbury's motion to enlarge the time 
 for disestabhshment to a second year. 
 
 For the Bishop of Peterborough's motion, 1st July, 18G9. 
 
 For additional glebe lands ; Earl of Carnarvon's motion. 
 
 For the Marquis of Salisbury's motion, for more endowment. 
 
 He did not vote against Catholic endowment, on either motion, 
 having absented himself from the divisions. 
 
 He voted for the Archbishop of Canterbury's motion, for addi- 
 tional glebe lands to be given to the clergy, (5th July,) estimated at 
 one million. 
 
 For Lord Cairns' motion against appropriating the surplus for 
 secular purposes. 
 
 Against the Marquis of Clamicarde's motion (9th July). 
 
 Absent at the Earl of Devon's motion, (12th July,) to rescind 
 the resolution to continue the seats of Irish Bishops for life. 
 
 He voted (20th July) to insist on the Lords' Amendment for 
 altering the preamble of the Bill, which drove the two Houses into 
 collision, and brought on the result before referred to. 
 
 Finally, he opposed (22nd July) Earl Granville's motion, not to 
 insist on the amendments to clause 27 (ecclesiastical residences) ; he 
 divided the House of Lords on it, and v/as defeated by 47 to 17.
 
 35 
 
 His Grrace's ^Ulieory'' of the constitution seems to to that a 
 majority of hereditaiy and irresponsible Peers, aided by 30 Bishops, 
 should control the Queen's Government, the decision of the House 
 of Commons, and the opinions of the electors of the United Kingdom, 
 expressed at a general election, which drove a Conservative Govern- 
 ment from office. 
 
 It is consolatory to know that, on and after 1st January, 1871, 
 his Grace's voice and vote in the House of Lords will be known no 
 more for ever. 
 
 n. 
 
 THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH'S SPEECH. 
 
 " The Bishop of Peterborough placed himself at one step in 
 " the first rank of Parhamentaiy orators by a brilliant declamation 
 '' against the Bill, marked by every rhetorical merit except an apprc- 
 " ciation of the conclusive reasons ivhich have satisfied the countvy, the 
 " House of Commons, and almost every Statesman in England. — 
 {Times, llth August). 
 
 The speech was delivered in opposition to the second reading of 
 the Irish Church Bill, the 15th June, 1869, and deserves considera- 
 tion in connection with the visitation address of the Archbishop of 
 DubUn, delivered after the Bill had passed into an Act. 
 
 In the speech of the Bishop of Peterborough he forewarned the 
 House of Lords of the consequences that would befall them if they 
 passed the Bill, and the Ai-chbishop of Dublin has recorded the 
 result of what has happened to them by enacting the Bill. 
 
 As the speech occupied several hours in delivery, we have space 
 only for a very few extracts from this *' brilliant piece of declama- 
 tion." 
 
 The following comprises the Bishop's opinion of the two Houses 
 of Parhament, and the character of theii' debates, viz. : — 
 
 " There is one gi'eat encouragement I feel — it is a thought that 
 ** has been present to my mind all through this debate — that is, that 
 " I have the privilege of addressing an assembly in which freedom of 
 '* speech is still permitted to its members. I have heard much, my 
 ** Lords, since I had the honour of being a member of youi' Lord-
 
 ** ships' House, and I have read something about the antiquated pre- 
 *' judices which still haunt it, but which are not to be found in the 
 " other House; but among those antiquated prejudices / rejoice to 
 ** see that your Lordships still retain the notion that a deliberating 
 " assembly should be aUoived to deliberate. I have no fear, my 
 *' Lords, at least upon this point, that if the remarks which I venture 
 " to make should be distasteful to some of your Lordships, I shall be 
 " at least free to make them. I am reminded that jouv political 
 *■* education is imperfect, but I am glad to find that you have not 
 *' yet adopted the most recent form of Parliamentary cloture ^ 
 " ivhich simply consists in howling down the jierson ivho takes 
 " the unpopular side of a debate. (Oh ! Oh !) I regret that in 
 " the first few words I have spoken I should have called forth 
 " expressions of dissent; but I think I am justified in describing 
 *' lahat I think I saw and heard in ivhat I do not venture to call 
 '' another House, but a public meeting, in ivhich there were present 
 " a great many Members of Parliament.''' — [Hansard, 15th June, 
 page 1854). 
 
 This unusual mode of debating in the House of Lords by 
 slandering the Representatives of the People assembled in the 
 House of Commons, was not only tolerated, but it was cheered to 
 the echo, and resulted in the humiliation of the House of Lords in 
 the eyes of the people. 
 
 It was sure, however, to receive some notice in the House of 
 Lords, and on the 17th June (debate on Mr. Bright's letter) — 
 
 Earl Granville said: "May I not then feel a little regret 
 *' that the Right Reverend Prelate in a speech, the brilliancy of 
 '' which it is perfectly impossible to exaggerate, should have begun 
 *' at a time when the noble and learned Lord's (Lord Cairns) words 
 *' are so true, even before he ivas ivarmed by that great eloquence 
 '* which he possesses, by saying, amid the cheers of the leading 
 *' Bench opposite, that the House of Commons had 'howled down ' 
 *' every attempt to argue against the Bill." 
 
 The Bishop of Peterborough promptly rose and said : "I 
 " feel compelled to interrupt the noble Earl. I did not say that 
 '' the House of Commons had 'howled down' any person. What 
 " I said ivaSf in that House certain persons were howled down.
 
 87 
 
 " (Oh I Oh !) That is a very different thing. I take it that the 
 ** acts of the House of Commons are the collective acts of tlie whole 
 " body. I did not iific the words, ' House of Commons,' in vu/ 
 ** speech at all, nor did I sat/ or mean that the House of Commons 
 " had HOWLED anij person down. I did say that certain persons in 
 ** the House of Commons had howled down certain speakers,'" — 
 (Hansard, 17th June, page 14). 
 
 We leave this explanation to bo construed by those who may bo 
 pleased to compare it with the first report. 
 
 The Bishop of Peterboeough thus describes the Bill introduced 
 by the Government, and adopted in the Houses of Parliament by 
 great majorities, approved by the Queen, and now become the law 
 of the land, viz. : 
 
 " Tlu'oughout its provisions, this Bill is characterised by a hard 
 " and niggardly spirit. I am surprised by the injustice and imjjolicy 
 *' of the measure, but I am still more astonished at its intense 
 " shahbiness. It is a small and pitiful Bill. It is not worthy of a 
 " great nation. This great nation in its act of magnanimity and 
 " penitence has done the talking, and has put the sackloth and 
 ** ashes on the Irish Church, and made the fasting be performed 
 ''by the poor vergers and organists." — {Hansard, 15th June, 
 page 1874). 
 
 Brave words these, my Lord Bishop ! — especially in view of the 
 following facts : At tho census of population in Ireland (1861) 
 the people numbered 5,764,543, and of these the estabhshed 
 Episcopal Church comprised 678,661, or less than one-eighth. 
 
 Estimating the property of the late Established Chui'ch of 
 Ii-eland at sixteen milHons, the sum appropriated to compensate for 
 life and other interests will exceed eight millions, or one-half for 
 the benefit of one-eighth of the population. 
 
 The Bishop considers this to be shabby, niggardly, unbecoming, 
 and unworthy of a gi-eat nation ! ! ! 
 
 Let U8 now take the Right Reverend Prelate's Prediction of the 
 humiliation (f the House of Lords. 
 
 D
 
 88 
 
 The following passage in the Bishop's speech may excite, in his 
 mind, regret that he uttered it, but it foretold a state of things 
 which the Archbishop of Dublin assures us has actually occurred. 
 
 " My Lords, I have but one or two more words to say. I will say 
 " but a few words, my Lords, about the menaces and the warnings — 
 '' the mixed menaces and warnings — which have been addressed to 
 '* your Lordships' House by many without, and, so far at least as 
 *' warning is concerned, by some within. My Lords, I myself h.?LYe 
 " been told that I should be very heedful of the way in which I 
 " may vole on this question, because none may say tvliat will he the 
 " consequences to your Lordsliips' House — to the fate of your Lord- 
 *' ships' Order, and to the great interests of the country— of the 
 " vote you are about to give. 
 
 " My Lords, as far as menaces go, I do not think that it is 
 " necessary that I should say one word by way of inducing your 
 *' Lordships — even if I could hope to induce you to do anything by 
 '' words of mine — to resist those menaces. 
 
 "I believe that not merely the spirit of your Lordships, but 
 ** your Lordships' high sense of the duty which you owe to the 
 '' country, would lead you to resist any such intolerant and over- 
 ** bearing menaces as those which have been uttered towards you. 
 ^^ I believe that if any one of your Lordships ivere capable of yielding 
 *' to those menaces, you would be possessed of sufficient intelligence to 
 *' know Jiow utterly useless any such humiliation would be in the way 
 '^ of jJrolonging your Lordships' existence, as an institutio7i ; because 
 " it would be exactly the case of those who, for the sake of preserving 
 " life, lose all that makes life ivorth living for : it would be an ahne- 
 " gation of all your Lordships' duties for the purpose of preserving 
 *' those powers which a few years hence would be taken from you. Your 
 *' Lordships would then he standing in this p)Osition in the face of the 
 *' roused and angry democracy of the country, with ivhich you have been 
 " so loudly menaced out of doors, and so gently and tenderly urirned 
 " within. You ivould then be standing in the face of that fierce and 
 " angry democracy, with these words on your lips: Spare us, we entreat 
 "and beseech you! spare us to live a little longer as an Order, is 
 *' all that ice ask, so that we may p)^(^y (ii being statesmen ; — that ive 
 " may sit upon red benches in a gilded House, and affect and j^retend
 
 89 
 
 ** to fjuide the destinies of the nation, and play at lerjislation. Spare 
 ** us for this reason ; that we are utterly contemptible ^ and that we are 
 *' entirely contented with our iynohle p)osition. Spare us for this 
 " reason ; that we have never failed in any case of danger to spare our- 
 ** selves! Spare ws, because we have lost the power to hurt any one I 
 ** Spare us, because we have now become the mere subservient tools in 
 ** the hands of the Minister of the day, — the mere armorial bearings 
 *' on the seal that he may take in his hands, to stamp any deed, how- 
 " ever foolish, and however mischievous I And this is all we have to 
 ** say by way of plea for the continuance of our Order. My Lords, 
 *' I do not believe that there is a Peer in your Lordships' House, or 
 " any one who is worthy of finding a place in it, who could use such 
 " language, or think such thoughts ; and therefore I will put aside 
 '' all the menaces to which I have referred." — [Hansard, loth 
 June, page 1874.) 
 
 This brilliant passage in a speech that was said to have been 
 *' rarely equalled, and never surpassed," literally produced no effect 
 whatever on the division, which resulted as follows : 
 
 For the Second Reading : Contents 179 
 
 Not Contents 146 
 
 Majority 33 
 
 The House of Commons disallowed eveiy amendment of their 
 Bill in the House of Lords that in any material way affected it, 
 and returned it to the House of Lords to be rejected, or to be shorn 
 of the amendments which had been so ungraciously introduced 
 into it. 
 
 We have already stated the result. 
 
 The Bill, as passed by the House of Commons, has now become 
 the law of the land. 
 
 The Bishop of Peterborough foretold what would be the issue 
 to the House of Lords if they listened to the menaces and warnings 
 held out to them. He probably heard Earl Granville's menace to 
 withdraw the Bill, and witnessed its effect on the House of Lords. 
 He held his peace. And the Archbishop of Dublin has informed us 
 that what he (the Bishop of Peterborough) foretold, has actually 
 occuiTed, by the Peers yielding to the menace.
 
 40 
 
 A word more on the Bishop's Speech. Shall we regard it r.s a 
 fau' mstance of the way in which a Spiritual Physician appointed 
 by the State, pours the healing balm into the wounds of his dis- 
 tracted country ? 
 
 Here is the peroration of this specimen of Irish eloquencGi, 
 uttered in the House of Lords, " the first assembly in the world ; " 
 but more fitting for a schoolboy contending for a prize at Christmas* 
 " My Lords, — I hear a great deal about the verdict of the 
 " nation on this question, but without presuming to judge the con- 
 " science or the wisdom of others, and speaking wholly and entirely 
 " for myself, I desire to remember, and I cannot help remembering 
 " this, that there are other and more distant verdicts than the verdict 
 '* even of this nation, and of this moment, which we must every one 
 '' of us face, at one time or another, and which I myself am thinkmg 
 '' o/v/hile I am speaking, and in determining upon the vote I am 
 " about to give. There is the verdict of the Enghsh nation in its 
 " calmer hours, when it may have recovered from its fear and its 
 " panic, and when it may be disposed to judge those who too hastily 
 " yielded to its passions. There is the verdict of after history, which 
 '' ive are making even as we speak and act in this place, and which is 
 " hereafter to judge us for our speeches and for our deeds. And, my 
 " Lords, there is that other more solemn and more avv'ful verdict 
 " which we shall have to face; and I feel that I shall be then judged 
 " not for the consequences of my having m.ade a mistake, but for 
 " the spirit in which I have acted. And, my Lords, as I think of 
 '* the hour in which I rdustface that verdict, I dake not, I cannot, 
 " I MUST NOT, AND I WILL NOT, vote foT this uiost Unhappy, this 
 *' most ill-timed, this most ill-omened measure, that now lies on 
 " the table of your Lordships' House." — {Hansard, 15th June, 
 page 1877.) 
 
 The Bishop accordingly voted against the second reading, and 
 in most of the divisions in the House of Lords which defeated the 
 Government. 
 The following is a list of his subsequent votes : 
 
 He voted for the Archbishop of Canterbury's motion, 29th June. 
 
 For Clerical Exemption, (his own motion,) 1st July. 
 
 For the Earl of Carnarvon's motion, 1st July.
 
 41 
 
 For the Marquis of Salisbiirv's motion, 2nd July. 
 
 For Catholic and Irish Presbyterian Endowment, i^nd July. 
 
 For ditto ditto 12th July. 
 
 For the Ai'chbishop of Canterbury's motion for increase of 
 glebe lands for the clergy. 
 
 Against the Marquis of Clanricarde's motion, Gth July. 
 
 Against the Earl of Devon's motion to rescind clause to con- 
 tinue the Irish Bishops in the House of Lords, 12th July. 
 
 Against Earl Granville's motion, not to insist on the amend- 
 ment of the Preamble, which vras defeated, and brought the two 
 Houses into collision. 
 
 Earl Granville's menace (20th July) silenced the Bishop of 
 Peterborough, and he neither spoke nor voted on the subject of 
 this Bill afterwards. 
 
 m. 
 
 THE BISHOP OF OXFORD'S SPEECH. 
 
 2nd July, 1869. — On the Duke of Cleveland's Motion to Endow 
 the Catholics and Irish Presbyterians. 
 The Bishop of OXFORD said: ''I venture to ask your Lord- 
 ships to allow one of the Bench on which I sit to say a very few 
 words in explanation of the vote I am about to give. In voting, as 
 I intend to do, for the amendment of the Noble Duke (the Duke of 
 Cleveland), I cannot profess that I do so with any desire whatever 
 of advancing the Roman Catholic Priests of Ireland. But I think 
 there are three very important points to consider, and I earnestly 
 desire your Lordships to consider them. They are these : That in 
 the Roman Catholic faith there is, first, the element of Catholicism , 
 and, secondly, the element of B<juiamsm. As far as you promote 
 the power of the teachers of that faith by promoting the element of 
 Catholicism, you strengthen them in the work which you desu-e they 
 should do. As far as you help them to set forward the peculiar views 
 which, over and above Catholicism^ divide their teachimj from the tcachimj 
 of the early Church, you mahe them the great legionaries of Eominism in 
 the land. 1 believe that by giving to the Roman Catholic priesthood 
 in Ireland the status and position of holding these glebe houses
 
 42 
 
 independently, you ivlll cnahle them to maintain for tlwnselves a lihertij 
 of teaching, which it is of the utmost importance that they should he enabled 
 to pursue. And therefore it is, and not because I have any sympathy 
 with the peculiarities of their teaching, that / heartily desire to help 
 them out of the sectional difficulties of their position into something like a 
 grander and more general teaching of Christianity. And as far as that 
 portion of the subject goes, I shall give my vote feaelessly and openly 
 for giving them these glebes. I do not think this is a question of con_ 
 current endowment at all. You have a certain surplus, and in 
 bestowing a portion of it in this way you are not endowing any 
 particular form of Christianity. The evil of so doing lies in making 
 it the paid servant of the State from year to year. What do you do 
 by this proposition more than you have done ivith regard to Maynooth? 
 You are winding up the question once for all, and you are not crea- 
 ting any fund for the sustentation of a particular religion. It is 
 said that the sum proposed to be given is large ; but, after all, what 
 is it you are taking from the £8,000,000 of Church property ? It 
 seems to me, therefore, that this is a question your Lordships 
 ought to settle. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) talked 
 about the importance of this House leading the opinion of the 
 country by speeches, and not by votes. But when were Englishmen 
 ever led by words, unaccompanied by deeds ? It has always been 
 said that the difference between the English and other armies was 
 that the ordinary officer said, '' Gentlemen, go on," while the 
 English officer said, " Gentlemen, follow me." In the same way, 
 your speeches here may be as loud as you like, but you will not 
 carry public opinion with you unless you show that you have the 
 courage to follow up your words by the necessary action. If that is 
 the case, it seems to me that we have at this moment the duty set 
 before us of showing that we are not afraid of doing that which we 
 believe to be right. I make the greatest possible allowance for the 
 Government for not proposing such a measure as this. All govern- 
 ments must be subject to a certain gentle pressure. / believe that the 
 convictions of every noble lord upon the Ministerial Bench are ivith me in 
 this matter; but they are not able to march with us unless they 
 receive a gentle p)ressure, to which I believe they will yield ivith the 
 greatest possible satisfaction. I believe that the country at large,-
 
 43 
 
 after a vory short space of time, ■v^'ill agree with yoii in the justice 
 of this measure. For what is it you are going to do ? The question 
 is not hcticecn the Church of Ireland and these competinrj relujious bodies. 
 If it were, however higotcd I may he thoufjht for saying so, I would not 
 (jive one single halfpenny of the Charch's money to any competing sect. 
 The question is, when you have created a considerable surphis of 
 money, whether you are to give it to the Roman Cathohcs, not ag 
 an endowment, but in a form which will give to the Roman Catholic 
 priest, and the Presbyterian teacher, a certain independence, which 
 will lift him above the position in which he is at present ? It is on 
 this ground that I venture to say, in common with every statesman 
 for thffsc many years past who has dared to state his opinion on 
 this subject, that I believe you will, in passing this amendment, 
 be doing an act of consummate 2wlicy, as well as of the gi'eatest 
 justice, in so administering these remaining funds." 
 
 Division: Contents 14G 
 
 Not Contents 113 
 
 Majority 33 against Endowment. 
 
 The Bishop of Oxford showed no want of courage. A bravo 
 British soldier he would have made. Nature designed him for the 
 army, but he devoted his genius and valour to the service of the 
 Church. " Follow me," was the command of this Episcopal hero, 
 and he led eight Bishops into the division lobby, who voted with 
 him for Catholic and Presbyterian endowment, to the astonishment 
 of the House and the country. By a majority of 33, Government 
 successfully resisted the motion, and in this majority were included 
 seven Catholic Peers, while in the minority there were nine Protestant 
 Bishops. 
 
 The motion of Earl Stanhope, on 12th July, made in the 
 absence of 32 Peers who had voted against endowment on this 
 occasion, reversed this decision by a majority of seven Bishops, 
 who again voted for Catholic and Presbyterian endowment, but 
 this amendment, thus carried in the House of Lords, was rejected 
 in the House of Commons without a division. 
 
 The Bishop boldly asserted **his belief that the convictions 
 of every noble Lord upon the Ministerial Bench were with him in
 
 this matter." With "a gentle pressure," he believed, '^they 
 would yield with the greatest possible satisfaction." It is to be 
 regretted he did not express the grounds he had for this monstrous 
 assumption. The country will not believe, without evidence, in the 
 insincerity and hypocrisy of the Ministers of the Crown. 
 
 An explanation should have been given as to whom, the Right 
 Reverend Prelate referred to, when he spoke of " competing bodies," 
 to whom " he would not give one sincjle halfpenny of the Church's 
 money.'" He cannot include in these " competing sects" either the 
 Catholics or the Irish Presbyterians, because his Lordship voted 
 to give them two millions of the Church's property. In the House 
 of Commons no one obtained " one single halfpenny" of tms pro- 
 perty for any sect or body, or for religious endowment in any 
 shape or form whatever, except what has been embodied in the Act 
 of Parliament. 
 
 The Bishop must hold peculiar views on other things besides 
 theology, for he believed that by the passing of the Duke of Cleve- 
 land's amendment, the House of Lords would be doing an act of 
 CONSUMMATE POLICY, as woU as of the greatest justice. And yet it 
 was clear that the object of that amendment found no favour with 
 the Roman Catholics, and (if carried) would certainly have raised 
 a storm of indignation throughout the country. His Lordship's 
 courage may be great, and his mental subtlety unequalled, but we 
 must take leave to question his wisdom. 
 
 But though he could not see what was best for the nation, he 
 had a keen eye to what was safest for himself. When the crisis 
 came, on July 20th, he alone of the Bishops, like a faithful Abdiel, 
 voted with the Government. For this Episcopal Abdiel — though he 
 cannot look up for guidance to the steadfast stars — can see as 
 high as the vane of the steeple, and mark which way the wind 
 blows. Alas ! that in this plausible, wily priest we must own the 
 ^QU of the great and good WilHam Wilberforce.
 
 45 
 
 IV. 
 
 THE ARCHBISHOP OP CANTERBURY. 
 
 2ncl Juhj, 1869. — On the Duke of Cleveland's motion. 
 
 The Abchbishop of Canterbury. — ** It is quite impossible for 
 me to give my vote without saying a few words, the more so as I 
 do not quite agree with my Right Reverend Brother (the Bishop of 
 Oxford) in the reasons which guide his vote on this question. 
 
 *'My reason for supporting the amendment of the Noble Duke 
 (the Duke of Cleveland) is this, that ever since I was able to think 
 on pohtics, I have conceived that the poHcy indicated by the noble 
 Earl (Earl Russell), who lately addi-essed the House, was the only 
 policy likely to bring peace to Ireland. I have in my humble way 
 supported that policy in matters of education. I have supported 
 it in the matter of the Queen's Colleges. I have always thought it 
 right and fail* that the Maynooth Grant should be made. I have 
 thought that although we were not bound in Ireland, as in Canada, 
 by an actual treaty, yet, being brought into close relations with 
 our Roman Catholic brethren, we could not deny them that small 
 meed of justice which the Maynooth Grant gave them, without 
 treating them as if they were our slaves. Therefore, when an 
 opportunity occurs — unexpectedly to me, not vrillingly — and I am 
 called upon to say whether I still maintain the poKcy which I have 
 always supported, I am constrained to adhere to the opinions which 
 I have entertained for the last twenty years. In doing so, I am 
 consoled by the thought that, after all, there is no difterence in 
 principle, though there is considerable difference in policy, between 
 the two proposals before the Committee. And, upon the whole, 
 as the Noble Marquis (the Marquis of Salisbury) said, I prefer 
 making a respectable secular priest comfortable in his house to 
 paying an indefinite number of monks and nuns for services in 
 lunatic and other asylums, and think that the amendment supports 
 that form of Romanism which is the least objectionable. I beheve 
 the day has passed long ago when you could say that you did not 
 recognise the existence of Romanism in Ireland. I believe I am 
 not wrong in saying that a fair salaiy — two-thirds above that 
 given to any Protestant clergj^man — is given in every union in
 
 46 
 
 Ireland to the Priest out of the poor rate. And I think that this 
 is just, because a vast majority of the poor are Roman Catholics ; 
 they must be attended to by somebody, and as they cannot be 
 attended to by the Protestant clergyman, the Roman Catholic 
 priest must be emplo3^ed and paid for his services. I know also 
 that this mode of paying the chaplain of the workhouse really 
 provides a Roman Catholic curate in a Yerj large number of 
 parishes in Ireland, because the priest has a salary far larger 
 than is required for his service in the workhouse, and the greater 
 part of his time is spent in teaching Roman Catholics who are not 
 in the poorhouse. This being the case, it appears to me to be 
 something not very real to say that there is a great principle at 
 stake in an amendment which proposes to put the Roman Catholic 
 priests into comfortable dwellings. The only thing that makes one 
 hesitate to do this, is that the money, unlike the m^oney in the case 
 of the workhouses, and unlike that which used to be voted for May- 
 nooth, comes out of the funds of the Irish Church. Still, it must 
 be remembered that the money is to be taken from the Church and 
 applied to Irish purposes. Being forced to pronounce an opinion 
 between what seems to me the sham scheme proposed by the 
 Government as to the disposal of the surplus, and the real scheme 
 of the Noble Duke, I shall record my vote in favour of the latter." 
 
 Extracts from His Grace's Speech on the Commons' Amendments, 
 22nd July, 1869. 
 
 " I still regard the sacrifice of an Established Church in Ireland 
 as a great misfortune. I hold as strongly as ever that the right 
 policy for Ireland would have been to maintain the Established 
 Church there in moderate proportions, and to give the people of 
 Ireland the benefit which the sanction of religion by the State must 
 confer upon a nation. To say anything more, however, on that 
 point, would be to go back to the principle of the second reading of 
 the Bill, and to call in question the decision of the House. But 
 when the Established Church was gone, it still remained for us to 
 consider whether we ought not to endeavour, as much as possible, 
 to maintain an endowed Church : and I am thankful to believe that, 
 by some means or other — in truth, not in name ; because we are
 
 47 
 
 not allo\\'ccl to mention such a thing as endowment — we shall be 
 able to maintain an endowed Church of a very moderate character. 
 These endowments, I grant, may be small, and the Church will 
 have great difficulties to contend with ; but I regard the possession 
 of these endowments as a matter of great importance for the reli- 
 gious, social, and political well-being of Ireland. The evil of an 
 unendowed clergy is confessed by all. - * -i- All men who 
 understand what the office of the clergy is, greatly deplore the fact 
 that, when they are so stripped of all endowments, they become the 
 mere servants and tools of those ichom they should teach. Whether, 
 therefore, it is to be called endowment or not, I am thankful that, 
 through some means or other, there is to be retained something, 
 which is to be placed in the hands of a Church body, for the benefit 
 of the Church of Ireland, to carry on its ministrations independently 
 of the offerings of the congregations. '-!'- •-!< =!^ I think, therefore, 
 all experience proves that it is a great religious question, whether or 
 not the clergy shall be entirely dependent on their flocks for their 
 subsistence : and I am thankful to believe that if this bill passes, 
 according to what I am willing to say are the conciHatory proposals 
 of the Government, though they may not be satisfactory to all, 
 something will remain secured as a means of subsistence for the 
 clergy of the disestabhshed Church of Ireland. It has been re- 
 marked in the course of these debates, that the rehgion is not 
 worth preserving which looks to the secular arm, or the mere prop 
 of pecuniary endowment, for its maintenance. Now, our religion 
 requires nothing of the kind; but it is quite possible that if we 
 should neglect opportunities of good, which God has given us, our 
 religion may not be presented to the people in the purest form. I 
 believe that evil will be averted in Ireland ; partly, I trust, by the 
 fact that some endowment will still be left for the clergy, and still 
 more by the fact that the clergy who will first have to administer 
 the concerns of that Church will have been brought up in a totally 
 different system from the voluntary system. If they had had to start 
 on this voluntary system, I should have despaired for the reliyion, for the 
 social improvement, and for the political security of the country; but, 
 bred as they have been, in a totally different system, educated, 
 trained in habits of intimacy with the clergy of the English Church,
 
 48 
 
 and commanding, as they do, even from a Roman Catholic Prelate, 
 that tribute to their honour which has been more than once quoted 
 ' elsewhere,' and which shows that they are quite unlike those 
 fostered on the voluntary system, I believe they will be able, if any 
 men can, to import into this Free Church something of that spirit 
 which they have learned in a nobler, higher, and far better system. 
 I will conclude by reading the words in which that Roman Catholic 
 Prelate bears his testimony to the Irish clergy ; and which I trust 
 will still remain characteristic of them, and distinguish them from 
 all 2^€rsons ivlio live hij iiamlerlnfi to the 2y((ssious of the people : 
 
 *' In every relation of life, the Protestant clergy who reside 
 among us are not only blameless, but estimable and edifying. They 
 are peaceful with all, and to their neighbours they are kind when 
 they can; and we know that on many occasions they would be 
 more active in beneficence, but that they do not wish to appear 
 meddling, or incur the suspicion of tampering with poor Cathuhcs. 
 In bearing, in manners, and in dress, they become their state. If 
 they are not learned theologians, they are accomplished scholars 
 and polished gentlemen." &c. 
 
 We have here some most extraordinary sentiments to be held 
 and professed by the Head of a great Christian community. In his 
 Grace's present state of health, delicacy forbids us to do more than 
 simply to notify the following points. 
 
 1. The proposal to appropriate funds to " the relief of unavoid- 
 able calamity and suffering " — for which at present most insufficient 
 provision is made— is " a Sham scheme." To give the money to 
 clergymen and priests, preaching opposite and contradictory doc- 
 trines, is Real beneficence and excellent policy. 
 
 2. The support of the Christian Ministry by the endowments of 
 the State, — which leads inevitably to patronage, with all its abuses, 
 and deprives the Church of all liberty of action, as well as of disci- 
 pline, — is " a nobler, higher, and far better system" than the Apostolic 
 law, *' Let him that is taught in the ivord eommunioate iinto him that 
 teacheth in all good things.'" 
 
 3. If a Church vrere compelled to start on the Voluntary 
 SYSTEM, — that is, to depend simpdg on the sense of Christian obligation, 
 the living piety, and the grateful libendiiy of its msmbers, — it would
 
 49 
 
 iDcline the Most Pieverend Arcliibakl Campbell Tait to despair for 
 the religion, for the social improvement, and for the political security of 
 the country where that Church undertook to labour. Yet on that 
 system the Christian Church began, and in her best and purest 
 times has known no other. 
 
 Lastly, all ministers that have not been trained under the Estab- 
 lishment are marked by an inferior spuit and style of character, and 
 are tempted to " live hy pandering to the passions of the people."' 
 
 The only reply we make is this. May his Grace's health be 
 speedily restored, and may the Divine goodness strengthen him and 
 spare him for many years, that he may with calmness of mind 
 review these sentiments, and honourably recant them.
 
 50 
 
 VOTES OF THE BISHOPS. 
 
 No. 1. 
 29th June, 18G8. — Irish Church Suspensory Bill, 2nd reading. 
 
 The BisJio2:is' Votes. 
 
 Archbishop of Canterbury {Lougley) 
 
 ,, York {Thomson) 
 
 , , Armagh (Beresford) 
 
 Bishop of Bangor ( Campbell) 
 
 Carlisle ( Waldefjra ve) 
 
 Durham (Baring) „.. 
 
 Ely (Browne) 
 
 Gloucester and Bristol {ElUcott) 
 
 Killaloe, &c ,... 
 
 Kilmore, &c 
 
 Lichfield (Selwyti) 
 
 Lincoln (^Jackson) 
 
 Llandaff {Ollivant) 
 
 London [Tait) 
 
 Manchester [Lee) 
 
 Meath {Brahazon) 
 
 Oxford ( Wilherforce) 
 
 Ripon [Bickersteth) 
 
 Rochester [Claughton) 
 
 Salisbury [Hamilton) 
 
 Worcester [Philpott) 
 
 For. Against. 
 
 Nil. 
 
 21 
 
 Observations. 
 In the House of Commons the 2nd reading was carried 22nd 
 
 May, 1868, by 312 
 
 Against 258 
 
 Majority for the Bill 54 
 
 In the House of Lords the Bill was lost on motion for 
 
 reading by — Not Contents 192 
 
 Contents 97 
 
 2nd 
 
 Majority against 2nd reading 95 
 
 The majority included 21 Bishops. 
 
 No Bishop voted in the minority. 
 
 From various causes 10 Bishops who voted against the 2nd 
 reading of the Suspensory Bill did not vote at all on the 2nd read- 
 ing of the Disestablishment Bill, 18th June, 1869. 
 
 An asterisk (^^) is affixed to the names of those ten.
 
 51 
 
 No. 2. 
 
 18tli Juno 1SG9. — Irish Church Disestablishment and Disendow 
 ment Bill — 2nd reading. 
 
 The Bishops'' Votes. 
 
 Ai'chbishop of Dublin [Trench) 
 
 Bishop of Bangor {Campbell) 
 
 ,, Derry and Ptaphoe (Alexander) . 
 
 ,, Durham (Baring) 
 
 ,, Ely (Browne) 
 
 ,, Gloucester and Bristol (ElUcott) 
 
 ,, Hereford (Atlay) 
 
 ,, Lichfield (5'(?/?f</») 
 
 Llandaff (0///m?it) 
 
 , , London (Jackson) 
 
 ,, Norwich (Pelham) 
 
 , , Peterborough (Magee) 
 
 , , Bipon (Bickerstet/i) 
 
 ,, Rochester (Claughton) 
 
 ,, Tuam (Bernard) 
 
 , , Worcester ( Philpott) , 
 
 „ St. David's (r/uVZira?0 
 
 For. 
 
 A.gainst. 
 
 16 
 
 For 2nd reading 179 
 
 Against do 14G 
 
 Majority for 2nd reading 33 
 
 Observations. 
 
 The Archbishops of Canterbury and York retired behind tho 
 Throne, and did not vote. 
 
 The votes of each given subsequently wore opposed to the 
 Government Bill on every occasion. 
 
 The Bishop of Oxford's absence was thug explained by the 
 Bishop of St. David's : — 
 
 *' My Lords, I cannot refrain from regi'etting that a most unfor- 
 " tunate accident deprived me of the company of my Right Reverend 
 ** Brother (the Bishop of Oxford) in the lobby at the late division, 
 *' but I am dehghtcd to hear that he was j^rcseiit with me in the 
 " spirit, though not in the jlesh.'"
 
 52 
 No. 3. 
 
 29tli June, 1869. — In Committee of the House of Lords the Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury moved, in Clause 2, Page 1, Line 27, to 
 leave out the word "one," and insert "two," meaning thereby 
 to enlarge the time for disestablishment from 1871 to 1872. 
 
 Tlie Bishops^ Votes, 
 
 Aivhbi^lT^T^ '^T r!nTif PTbn vv ( TniiA 
 
 For one. 
 
 For two. 
 
 
 .^y^ V.^ v...w^^.-.^ ,^ -..~j 
 
 "Hnhlin (TrPvirlA 
 
 
 T)ishor) of T^^iTcr-n^' ((lm))}-)])pJl\ 
 
 
 
 T)prrv and Ranhoe ( A-lexciiidcv^ .«, 
 
 
 
 
 T)urham ( JBctrinfn :. 
 
 
 
 Gloucester and Bristol (Ellicott) 
 
 
 
 Llandaff {OUivant) 
 
 
 
 Tiondon iddchsoiiS > 
 
 
 
 Rochester YCZrt?/r/7j?o?il , 
 
 
 
 St. David's {ThirhvaU) 
 
 
 
 Tuam, &c. (Bernard) 
 
 
 Bish 
 
 nnfl 
 
 for one 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Nil. 
 
 11 
 
 For Amendment 130 
 
 Against do - 74 
 
 Majority against Government 50 
 
 Observations. 
 
 Eleven Bishops voted against the Government and for the 
 Amendment, and succeeded. 
 
 Lord Cairns moved, on the 9th July, to change this amendment, 
 and to alter the time for disestablishing to the 1st of May, 1871, 
 and the House so decided ; but the House of Commons disagreed 
 with the Lords, and required the first date to be restored. The 
 Lords did not insist on their amendment, the clause was restored 
 intact, and so passed.
 
 53 
 
 No. 4. 
 
 1st July, 1869. — In Committee, the Bishop of Peterborough moved 
 that " the Tax on Clerical Incomes, now payable to the Eccle- 
 siastical Commissioners for Ireland," should not be deducted 
 fi'om the amount of compensation. 
 
 The Bishops' Votes. 
 
 Ai'chbishop of Canterbury (Tait) 
 
 ,, York [Thompson) 
 
 ,, Diib^n [Trench) 
 
 Bishop of Bangor [Campbell) 
 
 Dern' and Raphoe [Alexander) 
 
 Ely [BroiLin) 
 
 Gloucester and Bristol [Ellicott) 
 
 Lichfield [Selivyn) 
 
 Llandaflf (0///m»f) 
 
 Peterborough [Magee) 
 Piochester [Claufjhton) 
 St. David's [Thirhcall) 
 Tuam, &c. [Bernard) 
 
 Against. 
 
 For the Motion. 
 Against do. 
 
 94 
 50 
 
 Majority against Government 44 
 
 Observation. 
 
 The Bishops voted in a body against the Government on this 
 point, and vii'tually gave it as their opinion that the clergy should 
 be exempted from the payment of taxes.
 
 64 
 
 No. 5. 
 
 1st July, 1869. — In Committee, the Earl of Carnarvon moved that 
 glebe lands and houses should be given to the Clergy, free from 
 charge. 
 
 The Bishops' Votes. 
 
 Ai'chbishop of Canterbury ( Tait) , 
 
 , , York ( Thompson) , 
 
 „ Dublin {Trench) 
 
 Bishop of Bangor (Camjjbell) , 
 
 ,, Chester [Jacobson) 
 
 ,, Derry and Kaphoe {Alexander) ,. 
 
 ,, Durham {Baring) 
 
 ,, Ely {Browne) 
 
 ,, Gloucester and Bristol {Ellicott) 
 
 , , Lichfield {Sclwyn) . 
 
 , , Llandaff {Ollivant) 
 
 ,, Liondon {Jacksoji) 
 
 ,, Oxford {Wilberforce) 
 
 , , Peterborough {Magee) 
 
 ,, Kochester {Claughton) 
 
 ,, St. David's {Thirlwall) 
 
 ,, Tuam, &G. {Bernard) 
 
 For the Government 
 
 Nil. 
 
 
 Not 
 
 Contents. 
 
 Contents. 
 
 — 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 . — 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 — , 
 
 
 Nil. 
 
 — 
 
 17 
 
 On original words being put — Contents... 86 
 Not Contents 155 
 
 Majority against Government ,, « 69 
 
 Observations. 
 The Bishops were generally unanimous on every motion that 
 sought to distribute the property of the Irish Church among the 
 Clergy. They are evidently of the same mind as Tennyson's 
 " Northern Farmer (New Style)," that the golden bond of union is 
 "j^M^i^tty, jnvjmtty." Wonderful talisman ! whose powerful touch 
 dissolves, as by enchantment, all differences of sentiment on minor 
 points, and draws together into one lobby High Church, Low 
 Church, Broad Church, to vote together against the spoiler.
 
 55 
 
 No. G. 
 
 2nd July, 18G9. — In Committee, clause 27, page 13, line 33, 
 Marquis of Salisbury's Motion on Church Endowment. 
 
 BisJiops' Votes. 
 
 For Government 
 
 Not Content. 
 
 Archbishop of Canterbury [l\iit) , 
 
 , , York {Thompson) , 
 
 ,, Dublin {Trench) 
 
 Bishop of Bangor {Camphell) 
 
 Chester {Jacohson) 
 
 Durham {Baring) 
 
 Ely [Broime) 
 
 Gloucester and Bristol {Ellicott) 
 
 Lichfield (Selivyn) 
 
 UandaS {Ollivant) 
 
 London {Jackson) 
 
 Oxford ( Wilherforce) 
 
 Peterborough {Magee) 
 
 Rochester {Clawjhton) 
 
 St. Da\id's {Thirlwall) 
 
 Tuam, &c. {Bernard) 
 
 For. 
 Nil. 
 
 Against. 
 
 Nil. 
 
 16 
 
 Question — original words : — 
 
 Contents 
 
 Not Contents 
 
 69 
 213 
 
 Majority against Government 144 
 
 Obseevation. 
 
 Episcopal unanimity was again displayed in favour of increased 
 gi'ants of property to the clergy. 
 
 I
 
 56 
 
 No. 7. 
 2nd July, 1869.~In Committee, Clause 28, Page 14, Line 31— 
 Duke of Cleveland's Amendment for endowing Catholics and 
 Presbyterians — (Question — that the original words stand part.) 
 
 Bisliops' Votes. 
 
 Contents. 
 
 Bishop of Chester (Jacobson).. 
 
 ,, Derry and Raphoe (Alexander) .. 
 
 , , Durham (Baring) 
 
 ,, Llandaff (OlUvant) ,. 
 
 ,, Tuam, &c. {Bernard) 
 
 Not Content. 
 
 Archbishop of Canterbury (Tait) 
 
 ,, York (Thomson) 
 
 Bishop of Ely (Browne) 
 
 Gloucester and Bristol (Ellicott) 
 
 Lichfield ( Selwyn) 
 
 Oxford (Wilberforce) 
 
 Peterborough (Magee) 
 
 Rochester (Claughton) 
 
 St. David's (Thirlwall) 
 
 Contents 
 
 Not Contents 
 
 146 
 113 
 
 Against Endowment 33 
 
 Observations. 
 
 Nine Protestant Bishops voted for Catholic and Presbyterian 
 Endowment, and five against. 
 
 Eight Catholic Peers voted against the motion, and one only 
 (Lord Orford) voted for it. 
 
 The decision was reversed on the 12th July by a majority of 
 seven, which was obtained by the votes of seven Bishops ; but the 
 House of Commons disagreed with the Amendment, and the House 
 of Lords not insisting on it, it was withdrawn.
 
 57 
 
 No. 8. 
 5th .Tuly, 1869. — In Committee, Archbishop of Canterbury moved 
 that an increase of Glebe land should be given to the clergy 
 (being the Ulster Glebes, granted by James I.), estimated by 
 Lord Duffeiin at near £1,000,000, and at any rate exceeding 
 ^£900,000. 
 
 Bishops' Votes. 
 
 For Government 
 
 Archbishop of Canterbuiy (Tait) 
 
 ,, Duhlm (Treiich) 
 
 Bishop oi BsingoT (Campbell) 
 
 ,, Derry and 'R?i])h.oe (Alexander) ., 
 
 ,, Ely (Broivne) , 
 
 ,, Gloucester and Bristol (Ellicott) 
 
 ,, Hereford (Atlay) 
 
 ,, Lichfield (SV/u-?/??) 
 
 ,, London (JacA-so») 
 
 , , Peterborough (Magee) 
 
 St. David's (r/nV/jr«?/) 
 
 ,, Tuam, &c. (Bernard) 
 
 For. 
 Nil. 
 
 Against. 
 
 Nil. 
 
 12 
 
 Contents 
 
 Not Contents 
 
 105 
 55 
 
 Against Government 50 
 
 The amendment was rejected by 344 to 240 in the House of 
 Commons, and the House of Lords did not insist on it.
 
 58 
 
 No. 9. 
 
 5tli July, 1869. — In Committee, the Earl of Limerick moved to 
 deduct from the sale of tithe rent-charges for poor rates — (Ques- 
 tion — original words to stand part.) 
 
 Bishops' Votes. 
 
 
 
 Contents. 
 Bishop of Derry and Raphoe 
 
 For. 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 
 Against. 
 
 „ Hereford (Atlay) 
 
 
 5 London (Jackson^ 
 
 
 ,, Tuam, &c. (Dernard) 
 
 
 Not Content. 
 Bishop of Gloucester and Hereford {Ellicott^ 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 Original words — • 
 
 Contents 91 
 
 Not Contents 64 
 
 Against Amendment 27 
 
 This matter concerned the terms granted to the landlords, not 
 the clergy. It was on this occasion that Lord Salisbury so flippantly 
 and unfeelingly said, that he wovld rather the Landlords had the 
 money than the Lunatics.
 
 59 
 
 No. 10. 
 
 5th July, 1869. — In Committeo, Lord Fitzwalter moved to leave 
 out Page 21, Line 41, relating to the compensation to Maynooth. 
 (Question — oriijinal words to stand part.) 
 
 Bishops'' Votes. 
 
 Contents. 
 Archbishop of Canterbuiy (Tait) , 
 
 Content. 
 
 
 ,, Yovk (2iio)))so)i) 
 
 
 Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol [EUicott) 
 
 
 ,, B-evehi'd (Athnj) 
 
 
 ,, OxiOi'd {IJ^ilberforce) 
 
 
 , , Peterborough ['Maqee) 
 
 
 „ St. David's (r/</?7»-rt/Z) 
 
 
 Not Content. 
 Bishop of Tuam, &c. (Bernard) 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 1 
 
 Contents 
 
 Not Content. 
 
 146 
 22 
 
 Against Amendment 124 
 
 Observations. 
 
 The Bishops did not open their lips on this occasion, and (with 
 one exception) then- votes were fairly given. But that receives its 
 explanation when we mark the course they pursued on " Concurrent 
 Endovrment." They have nothing to say against giving the money 
 into clerical hands — to any amount ; but apply it to the general 
 benefit of the nation — that is sacriler/e I
 
 60 
 
 No. 11. 
 6 th Jul3% 1869. — In Committee, Lord Cairns moved an Amend- 
 ment to Clause 68 to reserve Parliamentary power to apply the 
 surplus, without restricting it to secular purposes. 
 
 Bishops^ Votes. 
 
 Content. 
 Bishop of Oxford (Wilberforce) 
 
 Not Contents. 
 
 Arehbishop of Canterbury {Talt) 
 
 ,, York {Thomson) 
 
 Dublin (Trench) 
 
 Bishop of Bangor [Camphell) 
 
 Derry [Alexander) 
 
 Ely [Browne) 
 
 Gloucester and Bristol {ElUcott) 
 
 Hereford (Atlay) 
 
 Lichfield (Selivyn) 
 
 London (Jackson) 
 
 Rochester (Claurjhton) 
 
 St. David's (Thirlwall) 
 
 Tuam, &c. (Bernard) 
 
 That the original words stand part of the question — 
 
 Contents 90 
 
 Not Contents 160 
 
 Majority against Government 70 
 
 Observations. 
 
 The House of Commons disagreed to this Amendment. 
 
 The House of Lords compromised the difference by removing 
 the words respecting the surplus from the Preamble of the Bill, and 
 transferring them to Section 68th, which fixes the application of 
 the surplus to secular purposes — *' the relief of unavoidable calamity 
 and suffering'' — without strictly defining the form which that relief 
 should take. 
 
 Here again the Bishops were all but unanimous in resisting a 
 really national use of the surplus funds. The only kind of " calamity 
 and suffering " which seems to move them deeply is Disendoivment.
 
 61 
 
 No. 12. 
 
 9th July, 18G9. — On the Report of the Committee, the Marquis 
 of Clam-icarde (Lord Somerhill) moved to restore a portion ot 
 Clause 28, omitted in Committee, respecting residences of clergy. 
 
 Bishops' Votes, 
 
 For Clause 
 
 Not Contents. 
 
 Ai'chbishop of Canterbury (Tait) 
 
 ,, Dublin {Trench) 
 
 Bishop of Bangor {CampheU) 
 
 Deny and Raphoe {Alexander) 
 
 Lichfield ( Selwyn) 
 
 London {Jackson) 
 
 Peterborough {Mar/ee) 
 
 Tuam, &c. {Bernard) ., 
 
 For. 
 
 Nil. 
 
 Nil. 
 
 Against. 
 
 Contents .... 
 Not Contents. 
 
 56 
 91 
 
 Majority against Government 35 
 
 Observations. 
 
 The object of the motion was to restore the latter part of Clause 
 28, which required payment of the building charges on Glebe 
 Houses by the new Church. 
 
 The Bishops opposed the motion, as usual in such cases.
 
 No. 13. 
 
 12th July, 1869. — 8rd reading, the Earl of Devon moved to rescind 
 the clause for continuing to the Irish Bishops seats in the House 
 of Lords for their lives. 
 
 Bishops' Votes. 
 
 For Motion 
 
 Not Contents. 
 
 Archbishop of Canterbury (Tait) 
 
 Bishop of 'Ely (Broivne) 
 
 ,, Gloucester and Bristol {Ellicott) 
 
 J , Lichfield {Selwiin) 
 
 , , Peterborough (Ma gee) 
 
 ,, Kochester (Claughton) 
 
 Nil. 
 
 For 
 
 
 Motion. 
 
 Against. 
 
 Nil. 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 On original words — 
 
 Contents ,.. 82 
 
 Not Contents 108 
 
 Majority for Government clause 26 
 
 Observations. 
 
 The absurdity of continuing their seats to the Irish Bishops, 
 after disestablishing the Irish Church, as the House of Lords pre- 
 viously decided, was too manifest, and this motion of a Conservative 
 Peer succeeded. But the Bishops were unanimous in claiming for 
 their brethren this empty and burdensome honour. They feared 
 probably the effect of the precedent to themselves. The vacancy 
 on the Bench, when the Irish Bishops had retired, might be too 
 suggestive.
 
 63 
 
 No. 14. 
 
 12th July, 1869. — Third Reading. — Earl Stanhope moved to restore 
 the Endowment of Roman Catholic Clergy and Preshyterian 
 Ministers (rejected on the Duke of Cleveland's motion, 2nd 
 July). 
 
 BisJi02)s^ Votes. 
 
 Not Contents. 
 
 Bishop of Norwich {Pelham) 
 
 „ Tuam, Sec. {Alexander) 
 
 Contents. 
 The Ai'chbishop of Canterbury {Tait). ..,,.., 
 
 , , York ( Thomson) 
 
 Bishop of Ely (Browne) 
 
 ,, Gloucester and Bristol {EUicott) 
 
 ,, Lichfield (Sehcijn) 
 
 ,, Peterborough (Mr//7^(^) 
 
 ,, Rochester [Claughton) 
 
 Against, 
 
 For. 
 
 1 — 
 
 — 1 
 
 — 1 
 
 — 1 
 
 — 1 
 
 — 1 
 
 — 1 
 
 — 1 
 
 Contents 121 
 
 Not Contents 114 
 
 Majority for Endowment, and against Govern- 
 ment 
 
 Observations. 
 
 Seven Protestant B'lsliops gave the casting vote in favour of this 
 Endowment of the Roman Catholic Clergy. 
 
 The Commons rejected the amendment, and the House of Lords 
 did not insist on it. 
 
 The Bishop of Oxford and the Bishop of St. David's were absent ; 
 the former owing to another '' most unfortunate accident." 
 
 Thirty-tn'o Peers who voted against this endowment on 2nd July 
 were absent from this unexpected division.
 
 64 
 
 No. 15. 
 
 20tli July 1869. — Consideration of disagreements of tlie House of 
 Commons to the Amendments in the House of Lords — Earl 
 Granville moved that the House do not insist on Amendment 
 
 of Preamble. 
 
 Bishops^ Votes. 
 
 Content. 
 Bishop of Oxford {Wilberforce) 
 
 Against. 
 
 Not Contents. 
 
 Archbishop of Canterbury {Tait) 
 
 ,, York {Thomson) 
 
 „ Dublin {Trench) 
 
 Bishop of Bangor {CamjyheU) 
 
 Berry and Eaphoe {Alexander) . 
 Gloucester and Bristol {Ellicott) 
 
 Hereford {Atlay) 
 
 Lichfield (Selwyn) 
 
 London {Jackson) 
 
 Peterborough {Magee) 
 
 Rochester {Claughton) 
 
 Tuam, &c. {Bernard) 
 
 Contents 95 
 
 Not Contents 173 
 
 Majority against Government.. 
 Observations. 
 
 78 
 
 This division brought on a crisis that might have been serious, 
 and even have caused a colHsion between the two Houses, and 
 twelve Bishops voted for it. 
 
 Earl Granville, by tact and unfailing temper, had conducted the 
 Bill for the Government, to the admiration of the House and the 
 country. 
 
 He had suffered defeat after defeat without complaining, except 
 that he wns painfully conscious the Government had not the con- 
 fidence of the House. 
 
 After this division, he stated he could proceed with the Bill no 
 further until he consulted his colleagues, and moved the adjourn- 
 ment for forty-eight hours, viz., from Tuesday to Thursday. 
 
 Next day Lord Cairns waited on Earl Granville and proposed 
 terms equivalent to a surrender of all the objectionable amendments, 
 which the House confirmed.
 
 65 
 
 No. 15 — Continued. 
 The humiliation was gi'eat, but the Bishops were deaf to all 
 warnings, and voted against Government with almost unanimous 
 obstinacy. No thanks to them that the afiairs of the country were 
 not plunged into confusion, classes arrayed against each other in 
 bitter strife, and the hopes of the Irish people defeated. And all 
 for what ? The mere chance of delaying Disendowment a little 
 longer, or keeping a little more of the beloved pro2)erty. 
 
 No. 16. 
 22nd July, 1869. — Consideration of disagreements of the House of 
 Commons. — Earl Granville moved that the House do not insist 
 on the Amendment to Clause 27 (enactments with respect to 
 Ecclesiastical residences.) — The Ai'chbishop of Dublin said the 
 sum of money involved was small, hut at iihatever inconvenience 
 to the House, he must divide upon it. 
 
 Bishops' Votes. 
 
 Content. 
 Bishop of Chester (Jacobson) 
 
 Not Contents. 
 
 Ai'chbishop of Dublin (Trench) 
 
 Bishop of Derry and Raphoe (Alexander) 
 
 ,, Lichfield (SWii-?/??) 
 
 , , Tuam, &c. (Bernard) 
 
 Not 
 Contents. 
 
 Contents e 47 
 
 Not Contents 17 
 
 Majority for Government 30 
 
 Observations. 
 
 It is satisfactory to recognise the Bishop of Chester (once a 
 Dissenting Minister) favourable to Government on this occasion. 
 
 But it is painfully sad to mark the last expiring effort of the 
 Archbishop to snatch one little chestnut out of the fire. It u-as hut 
 a small sum, said his Grace. Then why be so obstinately bent on 
 lowering his just dignity for a trifle ? When we remember the 
 delightful impressions we have received from the many admirable 
 writings of liichard Chcnc^'ix Trench, and the pure and lofty prin- 
 ciples advocated in them, and then call up the image of the mourn- 
 ful Prelate stretching out his hand for this " small sum" — in vain, 
 we sigh to think how the spirit of a man and a Christian may 
 le extinguished by a Mitre !
 
 66 
 
 COMPAEISON OF NoS. 7 AND 14. 
 
 The Bishops who voted 2nd July, 1869, on the Motion of the Duke 
 
 of Cleveland to endow Catholics and Presbyterians in Ireland. 
 
 Peers. 
 
 Against Catholic, &c., endowment 146 
 
 For ditto 113 
 
 Majority against ditto 
 
 For Catholic Endowment. 
 
 The Ai'chbishop of Canterbury 
 
 York 
 
 The Bishop of Ely 
 
 ,, Gloucester and Bristol ... 
 ,, Lichfield... , 
 
 * ,, Oxford 
 
 ,, Peterborough 
 
 5, Rochester 
 
 * ,, St. David's 
 
 33 
 
 Against. 
 
 The Bishop of Chester 
 
 ,, Derry and Ptaphoe ... 
 
 ,, Durham 
 
 ,, Llandafi' 
 
 ,, Tuam, &c 
 
 {Tait.) 
 
 {Thomson.) 
 
 {Browne.) 
 
 {ElUcott.) 
 
 {Sehvyn.) 
 
 {Wilherforce.) 
 
 {Magee.) 
 
 {Clauqhton.) 
 
 {Thirhcall.) 
 
 — 9 Bishops. 
 
 {Jacohsou.) 
 
 {Aleccander.) 
 
 {Baring.) 
 
 {OUivcmt.) 
 
 {Bernard.) 
 
 — 5 Bishops. 
 
 On the 12th July, 1869, on Earl Stanhope's motion, the 
 Bishop of Norwich (Pelham) voted against, and so did Tuam. 
 
 The Bishops whose names have an asterisk (-) affixed did not 
 vote on the Earl of Stanhope's Motion, 12th July. On that occa- 
 sion the following were 
 
 Absent. 
 
 The Archbishop of Dublin {Trench.) 
 
 The Bishop of Bangor ... {Camphell.) 
 
 Bath and Wells {Lord Auckland.) 
 
 Chichester {Gilbert.) 
 
 Exeter {Philpotls.) 
 
 Carlisle {Waldegrave.) 
 
 Hereford {AUay.) 
 
 Lincoln {Wordsworth.) 
 
 London {Jackson.) 
 
 Manchester {Lee.) 
 
 Eipon {Bicker steth.) 
 
 Salisbury... {Bamilton.) 
 
 St. Asaph {Short.) 
 
 Winchester {Summer.) 
 
 Worcester {Philpott.)
 
 67 
 
 SUMMARY OF BISHOPS' VOTES. 
 
 No. 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 10 
 
 11 
 
 12 
 
 13 
 
 14 
 
 15 
 
 16 
 
 Suspensory Bill, 1868. 
 
 Government Bill and Clauses, 1869. 
 
 Disestablishment and Disendowment Bill, 2nd reading 
 
 Ai'clibisliop of Canterbury's Motion (1st Jan., 1872)... 
 
 Bishop of Peterboro's Motion (taxes on Clerical Income) 
 
 Earl of Carnarvon's Motion (Glebe lands) 
 
 Marquis of Salisbury's Motion (Endowment) 
 
 Duke of Cleveland's Motion (Catholic, &c., Endowment) 
 
 Ai-chbishop of Canterbury (Ulster Glebes) 
 
 Earl of Limerick's Motion (Poors' Bates) 
 
 Lord Fitzwalter's Motion 
 
 Lord Cairns' Motion (on Surplus clause 68) 
 
 Marquis of Clanricarde (to restore part of clause 28)... 
 
 The Earl of Devon's Motion (Against Seats for Irish 
 Bishops) 
 
 The Earl of Stanhope's Motion (Endowment of Catho- 
 lics, &c.) 
 
 The Earl of Granville's Motion (Not to insist on Pre- 
 amble Amendment) 
 
 The Archbishop of Dublin's Division against Earl 
 Granville's Motion (Clause 27) 
 
 For. 
 
 Against. 
 21 
 
 For 
 
 Against 
 
 Govern- 
 
 Govern- 
 
 ment. 
 
 ment. 
 
 1 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 — 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 17 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 5 
 
 9 
 
 — 
 
 12 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 7 
 
 1 
 
 13 
 
 — 
 
 8 
 
 — 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 7 
 
 1 
 
 12 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 181 
 
 
 13 
 
 
 168 
 
 The Archbishops of England and Ireland voted uniformly, when 
 present, against Government, and also against the Suspensory Bill. 
 
 Both EngHsh Archbishops voted for Endowment of Catholics and 
 Presb3^terians in the two divisions. The Archbishop of Dublin was 
 absent. 
 
 Six Bishops voted against Catholic Endowment, and nine (including 
 the Enghsh Ai'chbishops) in favour of it. 
 
 The Bishops of Oxford and St. David's voted for the Duke of Cleve- 
 land's motion, but were absent from the division on Earl Stanhope's, for 
 Catholic Endowment.
 
 ea 
 
 VI. 
 VOTES OF CATHOLIC PEERS 
 
 On the Second Reading of the Irish Church Bill 
 
 Peers. 
 
 Duke of Norfolk 
 Earl Denbigh ... 
 
 Fingall 
 
 Granard 
 
 Orford 
 
 Gainsborough ... 
 
 Dunraven 
 
 Marquis Bute 
 
 Lord Camoys 
 
 ,, Stourton 
 
 ,, Vaux 
 
 ,, Petre 
 
 ,, Arundel 
 
 ,, Stafford 
 
 „ Clifford 
 
 ,, Lovat 
 
 ,, Dormer 
 
 ,, Beaumont 
 
 Viscount Gormanston 
 Earl of Kenmore , 
 
 For 
 
 Absent 
 For 
 
 5> 
 
 Absent 
 
 }5 
 
 14 For, 6 Absent ; None Against.
 
 6^ 
 
 VOTES OF CATHOLIC PEERS 
 
 On Concurrent Endowment. Session 1869. 
 
 Peers. 
 
 Duke of Cleveland's 
 Amendment. 
 
 Earl Stanhope's 
 Amendment. 
 
 Duke of Norfolk 
 
 Earl Denbigh 
 
 Against 
 
 Absent 
 For 
 
 ,, Finc^all 
 
 jy 
 
 Against 
 
 ,, Granard 
 
 ,, Orford 
 
 For 
 
 Absent 
 
 
 ,, Gainsborough 
 
 ,, Dunraven 
 
 )j 
 
 IM^rquis of Bute 
 
 Lord CamoTs 
 
 ,, Stourton 
 
 , , Yaux 
 
 
 
 Against 
 
 Absent 
 
 Against 
 Absent 
 
 ,, Petre 
 
 
 Against 
 
 ,, Arundell 
 
 
 For 
 
 „ Stafford 
 
 ,, Clifford 
 
 " 
 
 Agamst 
 
 Absent 
 
 ,, Lovat 
 
 ,, Dormer 
 
 Absent 
 
 )> .... 
 
 }) 
 
 ,, Beaumont 
 
 
 Viscount Gormanston 
 
 
 
 Earl of Kenmore 
 
 " 
 
 jj •.. .- 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 Against 
 
 1 For 
 
 12 Absent 
 
 wment in the Commo 
 
 4 Against 
 2 For 
 14 Absent 
 
 Concurrent Enclo 
 
 ns. 
 
 The only occasion upon which Concurrent Endowment was 
 formally under discussion in the Commons was on May 7th, upon 
 ]\Ir. Pirn's motion that the suq^lus of Lish Church property should 
 be devoted to the building of Glebe houses, fii'st for Episcopalian 
 Clergy, next for Pioman Catholic Piiests, and lastly for the Presby- 
 terian Ministers. After a long debate Mr. Pim ultimately withdrew 
 his motion. 
 
 Mr. Pim is reputed to be a Quaker. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli gave notice of an Amendment, involving the prin- 
 ciple of Concun-ent Endowment, but it was not moved.
 
 70 
 
 VII. 
 QUOTATIONS OF CHUKCHMEN'S OPINIONS. 
 
 It may be vv'ell to give a few quotations in support of the asser- 
 tions made in the Introductory Review regarding the strong dissatis- 
 faction felt by members of the Church of England with the conduct 
 of the Bishops in advocating '' Concurrent Endowment," as well as 
 to show the grovv^th of opinion in the same quarter in favour of theft* 
 retirement from the House of Lords. These will also serve to make 
 it clear that the proposal to relieve them from their Parliamentary 
 duties is not the offspring of sectarian jealousy, but springs from an 
 enlightened zeal for the true interests both of the Church and of 
 the nation. 
 
 1. From a pamphlet on ^'Concurrent Endowment^ and its Episcopal 
 Patrons, hi/ a Clergyman of the Church of England:'" — 
 
 '* Who that remembers the speeches at St. James's Hall, in the 
 spring of 1868 — whose mind does not bound on to the reflection, 
 when dwelling on the speeches delivered in the House of Peers, in 
 the summer of 1869, 
 
 * Oh ! what a falUng ofi was there, my countrymen !' 
 - Some mystery may even underlie the strange phenomenon that 
 highly-placed and well-educated men should so dehberately go out 
 of their way to be wicked ; while those who represent the Roman 
 Catholic Hierarchy seem — so far as man can judge — honourably, 
 honestly, and faithfully flinging back the profl'ered gift of palatial 
 residences and parsonages, with scorn and contempt, into the faces 
 of those who v/ould build such castles in the air." (P. 5.) 
 
 The writer closes by saying : — 
 
 - "We venture to predict that not many years will pass before 
 
 the Archbishops and Bishops are cast down from their present high 
 
 estate, and that they will fall unpitied, unforgiven; outcast of 
 
 England, though not, we trust, of Heaven. For, although the
 
 71 
 
 people of England may forgive them when they have fallen, on 
 account of then* first vote in the House of Lords on this Endowment 
 question, they can never forget or excuse the repetition of that 
 offence, when they might have rectified the blunder they had made 
 in voting for the Duke of Cleveland's motion, which vote had been 
 condemned, by both friends and foes alike, almost throughout the 
 whole length and breadth of the United Kingdom." (P. 30.) 
 
 2. From an admirable pamphlet that came out last year, en- 
 titled, " Church Reform. No more Lord Bishops. By Lay Church.'" 
 we take the following extract : — 
 
 ''I verily believe, that from peer to peasant the opinion is 
 forming, and rapidly spreading, and ere long will be uttered in loud 
 and decided tones by the nation, that the time has arrived when 
 Bishops of the Established Church in England should cease wielding 
 a special political povrer, and should no longer have seats in the 
 House of Lords. 
 
 " As a member of the Church of England of upwards of fifty 
 years standing, and belonging to a family which has been Church 
 of England for five generations, I will assert what I know to be the 
 deliberate opinion of many Churchmen, viz,, that the master griev- 
 ance and heavy burden of that Church, the evil which is the fruitful 
 parent of many other evils, the cause which to a certain extent 
 paralyses religious activity, and obstructs wise and necessary pro- 
 gress, the mainspring of personal pride, and the prime temptation 
 to poHtical intrigue, — that all these centre in, and spring fi'om, that 
 unchristian custom, the hybrid offspring of Papal and feudal times, 
 under which the Bishops of the English Church sit as *' Lords " in 
 the Upper House of Parliament. "We declaim against the temporal 
 power of the Pope ; but here, in our midst, have we the temporal 
 power of the Heads of our own Church ; a power held as tena- 
 ciously, and producing results almost as evil and fatal, as that held 
 by the old man at the Vatican." 
 
 The pamphlet thus concludes : — 
 
 *' I beUeve that the retirement of the Bishops from the House 
 of Lords would be followed by the happiest results ; by the sweep- 
 ing away of various abuses which at present Hmit the Church's 
 usefulness, and impede its progress in the nation ; by an increased
 
 72 
 
 activity, and a greater purity in religious matters, and a firmer and 
 deeper hold by the Church on the affections of the people. And I 
 also believe that the Bishops themselves would be among the first 
 to benefit by the change. 
 
 " And, therefore, I recommend the subject to the consideration 
 of all thoughtful and independent members of the Church of Eng- 
 land, and exclaim from my heart, "Success to Church Reform," 
 and "No more Lord Bishops.'' (P. 34.) 
 
 3. In a leading article in the Church Review, August 7, 1869, 
 among other very severe and caustic remarks on the character and 
 procedure of those who are now exalted to the Episcopal oflice, 
 occur the following : — 
 
 " Such men are the necessary results of a system created by 
 poHtical exigencies. When a Statesman selects a Bishop, he does 
 it either with a view to gratify his party, or to strengthen it by 
 making a popular appointment, having an eye to safety and sobriety 
 at the same time. -^^ * * Our great grievance is the way in which 
 our Episcopal appointments are made ; and it seems likely enough, 
 as far as that point is concerned, that the first step to a better state 
 of things ivill he taken when Bishops no longer have a seat in the House 
 of Lords.'" 
 
 4. " But the whole discipline of the Church is out of order. The 
 Bishops are so secularised hy their seats in Parliament, they are such 
 mere servants of the State, nothing can be hoped for from them. The 
 supine suicidal course at present taken by our Bishops will speedily 
 lead to a universal cry for disestablishment, if they do not soon 
 awake to their responsibilities as chief pastors of Christ's Church, 
 rather than merely Church and State overseers." — A Member of the 
 English Church Union, in Church Review, September 11, 1869. 
 
 5. The two preceding quotations express the views of those who 
 may be regarded as High Church and Ritualistic. The earnest 
 desire, however, which they breathe for some decided improvement 
 in the way of greater liberty and activity in the Church, is undeni- 
 able. But in the Evangelical section there are many whose 
 aspirations in the same direction, on different principles, are quite 
 as strong, if not stronger. Witness the letters recently addressed to 
 Tlie Record on Church Reform, by that eminent and warm-hearted
 
 73 
 
 minister of Christ, the Rev. J. C, RyJe, whose various publications 
 have been read with dcHght and profit by multitudes outside the 
 pale of the Church Establishment. We quote from a review of 
 these letters that appeared in the January number of the Liberator 
 of this year : — 
 
 " So far as a reform of the EstabHshment is concerned, Mr. 
 Ryle may be described as a root-and-branch man. His denuncia- 
 tions are unsparing, his boldness almost audacious, and his remedies, 
 within narrow limits, absolutely heroic. Practically, he would re- 
 construct the Church of England from top to bottom. Beginning 
 with the Episcopate, he would not only create more bishoprics, but 
 have Bishops of a less autocratic type, would pay them but £2000 
 a year, would not have them appointed absolutely by the Crown, 
 and would deprive them of their seats in the House of Lords. 
 
 6. It is probably well known that Archdeacon Denison has 
 declared his willingness to "join with Mr. Hadfield " to obtain the 
 removal of the Bishops fi'om the House of Lords, not because he dis- 
 approves of their recent conduct, but " because," he says, " Estab- 
 lishment having been cut away from under our feet, I wish to see 
 all things done which may help towards some realising of the 
 position, and some preparing for the time when the Church of 
 England shall be disestablished." 
 
 The late Lord Henley, (brother-in-law of Sk Robert Peel,) in a 
 pamphlet on Church Reform, published many years ago, gave it as 
 his opinion that the retirement of the Bishops from the House of 
 Lords would be the most important and effective step towards the 
 removal of abuses in the Church that had been made since the 
 Reformation. 
 
 (For additional opinions of the same kind, see the speech of Mr. 
 C. Lushington, in the Debate of 1837, referred to in page 74.)
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 Manifestly, then, tlie minds of men within the Church are 
 ripening for the change. The movement hastens on apace. 
 In the ensuing Session of ParHament Mr. Somerset Beau- 
 mont, according to notice, will ask leave to introduce a Bill 
 to relieve the Bishops from attendance in Parliament. Mr. 
 Beaumont is himself an attached memher of the Church of 
 England. He is following worthily in the steps of Mr. C. 
 Lushington and others, who, in 1837, brought up the same 
 question and secured a good discussion of it in the House of 
 Commons.* Let all sound Liberals rally round Mr. Beau- 
 mont, and support his motion heartily when it is brought 
 forward. Let none flinch or waver from a feeling that pre- 
 sent success is out of the question, and that our policy must 
 be one of delay. Constant and fearless attacks on abuses are 
 sure to overcome them at the last. Church rates were not 
 abolished till after many an assault and many a withering ex- 
 posure. So with the monster iniquity of the Irish Church. 
 Now, these are things of the past. But the lessons taught 
 by these contests and the courage inspired by our success 
 should animate and strengthen us in what we have yet to do. 
 Especially should we be hopeful and courageous when we re- 
 member that this is no party conflict ; — Ave seek no triumph 
 for ourselves, no humiliation of others ; we strive to win 
 for the whole nation freedom, light and unity. Never can a 
 
 * See the Debate on Chiircli Keform and the Bishops' Seats in Parlia- 
 ment, Feb. 16th, 1837, republished by Mr. Hadfield, with an Introduction, 
 discussing the general bearings of the question : Stanford, London, 1867.
 
 75 
 
 nation be truly free while so many of its members are fettered 
 (though by their own fault) in their ecclesiastical relations. 
 True enlightenment is hindered by the lingering shadows of 
 mediajyal assumptions. Unity is impossible, so long as un- 
 just privileges are defended. Those who enjoy these privileges 
 are in fact most injured by them. All classes are annoyed 
 by the spectacle of the Bishops in Parliament, and by their 
 obstructive efforts ; but it is the Bishops themselves who are 
 seriously damaged. They are the victims of a false position. 
 Surely in some Episcopal minds — now that the turmoil is 
 over — there must be longings for a purer and calmer air, and 
 the joys of a nobler service. Surely they would be glad to 
 leave behind them the strife, the dust, and the shouts of 
 the ParHamentary arena. What might not the eloquence of 
 Peterborough do, were it consecrated to the true objects of the 
 Christian ministry, instead of being wasted in futile and in- 
 glorious debates ? Let his Lordship seek his true renown 
 and his enduring reward in the labours of his diocese, rousing 
 the masses from their irreligious apathy, and kindling the zeal 
 of his brethren : — let him soar like the eagle to the azure 
 fields of heaven, and leave meaner natures, in quarrels over 
 the spoil, to sting like the wasp, or to ravin like the vulture. 
 
 It will be a happy day for England when her Bishops 
 shall be — what many desire to see them — Spiritual Over- 
 seers, and nothing else ; defending the faith by their learning, 
 difi'using it by their eloquence, and commending it by their 
 lives — " giving no offence in anything, that the ministry he 
 not hlamecL'" May God speed the coming of that day ! Al- 
 ready do we see streaks of its dawn reddening the horizon. 
 Ere long its light will fill the sky. 
 
 END.
 
 LEADER AND SONS, PP.INTEES, SHEgTtELD. 
 
 lE^ELD 
 
 V