The determined opposition of the English Radicals to the Tory-
Ministerial Church Bills, induced Lord JOHN RUSSF.I.L to surnmo.1 a meeting of the usual supporters of Government, which was held yesterday afternoon at the Foreign Office. The Morning ChroCcle supplies the following report of what took place at the meeting. Lord Joon RussEtt, rose, and stated the object for which he had called them to- getto e; namely, the disposition manifested by several honourable Members. who had
hitherto supported the Govetnment, to opposejthent on the three Church,Bills—the
Es: .b"shed Church Bill, the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill, and the Church Discip-ine Bill—now in progress in the Up, r and Lower Houses of Parlia- ment. It was well known that these bills were intr :uced and founded on the Report of the Ecclesiastical Coremissioners; and he thought it was not treating him with their usual courtesy and consideration to allow the bills to be brorght in without ob. serration, and to proceed through certain stages, as he thought, with their perfect ap- probation, and when he was fully and entirely committed in their success through the Douse of Commons, then to turn round and meet him with decided and deter mined opposition. This, as he had stated before. was what he was not led to expect, irons honourable gentlemen who had so disioterestly, on all occasions since the recent formation of the Government voted and sup r;ed the present Ministry, of which he had the honour of being a member. However, he felt it due to his character to state. that the bills, or at least that which was fixed for a third reading on this day, had gone tea far to admit of any deviation un the part of the Ministry—that to abandon it to its fate at this stage of the session. and after tie manner in which they were com- mitted, would risk the sacrifice of honour; and, rather than for an instant lay himself open to such an imputation, he would inallesitatin• ly ant', cheerfully resign the station ire held in the Government of the country. lia honourable Memners taken excep- tions to the Report of the Ecclesiastical Cummissi ors, or to the bills on being brought forward, and that the Ministry on a question of policy differed .em them, then there would be some ground of complaint ; but when the bills were allowiti to be introduced, and to proceed to an advanced stage with little remark, he thought it would be a harsh proceeding to visit tile Ministry with censure, which should be ap- plied generally to those who sat at his side of the liouse. Mr. Hoes contended, that the Reformers, wino had so liberally supported the Go- vernment, were justified in refusing their assent to bills that went to appoint addi- tion:II Bishops to the number already in the country ; and, if not to add to their al- ready immense revenues, at least to equalize and a jest them in such a manner as to give the people no hope of relief from their pressure: and this at a time when there is a general outcry raised against the wealth or the Church, and when all denominations of Christians are calling out to be red ased frum so heavy a burden, and to have the principle of appropriation" applied with an steady and unflinching hand. Ile ad- mitted that the bills had attained certain stages in the House beiOre the evil tendency of their enactments was discovered. The monieut it was, the Reforming party deiermined to offer all the opposition in their power. On mature reflection, he was free to admit, that the Reformers should have been more on tile alert ; and they would have been so but for the confidence which they had in the judgment and discrimination of the Ministry. With this feeling, he thought there was some ground for excuse; but he was of opinion that it would be much better to postpone the bills until next session of Parliament, to afford time for consideration.
Mr. AoisiONBy followed; and took a similar view of the state of the Ministerial party. Ile condemned the bills, and justified the Ministry in abandoning them.
Several other Liberal Members took the same vier: of ne tiers.
Mr. O'Coresrr.r. was free to admit, that more caution should have been exercised by the members of his Majesty's Government before they brought such bills forward, even on the Report of the Commissioners of Ecclesiastical Inquiry ; particularly if the s, had reflected on some of the names on the list of that commission,--nteu lie, it was well kuown, would not recommend any reform that %rush' in the smallest degree tend to abridge the overgrown revenues of the Established He emild not, therefore, dissent from the conduct mnsued by his honourable friends. sr 110 bud determined on opposing the Ministry on the three bills before tire Commons. But having goy& SO far, he would implore them, for the sake of Ireland, to reflect on the calamitous conse- quences that would result it' tiny persevered in their determination I The noble lord. the Home Secretary, had stated the course which, iu honour, he mnsid,hoal himself bound to adopt at this crisis; and it would be for the judgment and good sense or the meeting whether they would press him to such an alternative. A division among Reformers at this juncture must unquestionably lead to it break-up of the Ministry; and let but the Tories, who were gaping for the opportunity, but once more force themselves into power, and them the reign of terror would be intmluced into ill-fated Ireland. Of two evils, he thought it better to choose the least; and ire was of opinion that would he best done by psing the one bill with all its objections, rather than to allow the Tories to assume power agaiu. A desultory couversation ewe 1; in which several Members supported the view of !Messrs. Dame and Aglionby ; and others approved of the policy suggested by Mr. O'Connell, that it wars necessary to bury all differences rather than give the Tories even a chance of returning to office. The decision, we believe, come to, was that suck Members as thought there would be no compromise of principle in supporting the Ministers in passing the " Establ'•hed Church Rill," appointed for the third readin, were at liberty to do so; but there was au almost general impression that the other two bills should be postponed until next se. ion, to admit of further investigation.
It will be seen from the above, that Lord JOHN RUSSELL endea- voured to show that he had been misled by his Radical opponents into the belief that they approved of his bills ; and that Mr. HUME pleaded guilty to the charge of negligence, but retorted upon Lord Jolts, that the confidence of the Liberals had been misused by Government. Upon a review of the course taken by Ministers, we ei t perceive that they are entitled to reproach Mr.; Huila and those who act with him. Ministers introduced three Bills, founded upon four Reports of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Of these' one, the Church Discipline Bill, was introduced into the House of Peers ; and little objection, from laymen at least, has been made to it as yet. The other two—the Established Church Bill, and the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill (the first for the regulation of Episcopal incomes and duties, the second having reference to the patronage of Deans and Chapters and the augmentation of benefices out of Cathedral revenues)—have been brought to their last st. vs in the House of Commons ; though, so little do Members r .d reporters know of what is done in Parliament, that the general impression among both has been, that the Established Church Bill alone -as been in regular progress through the House. This bill was brought in on the 20th of May, and the Ecclesiasti. cal Duties and Revenues Bill on the 8th of June. The Third and Fourth Reports of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, on which they were respec- tively founded, were placed in the hands of Members about the same time. Lord Jour; RUSSELL complains that no opposition was given to these bills till they had passed through certain stages,—meaning, we suppose, the first and second readings. To this it must be replied that the first reading was managed so as to pass as a matter of form merely ; and that, fir the convenience of Ministers, the discussion was not taken ott the second reading, but postponed till the motion for going into Com- mittee, on the Stir of July ; when,for the first time, Lord JOHN RUSSELL- explained the provisions of the Established Church Bill to the House. On that occasion, the Liberals offered strenuous opposition to the measure. Mr. LUSHINGTON, Mr. EWART, Mr. HARLAND, Mr. WASON, Mr. HUME, Mr. LENNARD, Mr. BUXTON, and Mr. CHARLES' Bui.Lea, all spoke in decided disapprobation ; arid, on the question of the translation of the Bishops, divided the House against Ministers. Ample warning of what the Ministerial Leader might expect, was thus given, a fortnight ago.
But, it is said, the Radicals should bare read the Commissioners' Reports and the Bills, in the interval between the first and second reading. True, they ought ; but the fact is, that human strength and faculties would break down under the task of mastering the contents of all the Parliamentary Papers, which it is the duty of
Members to read and digest. Besides, we find that during the interval mentioned, the Irish Municipal Bill, the Irish Tithe Bill, the English Tithe Bill, and many other measures of great import- once, were pressed on the attention of Parliament. It really seems as much as Ministers could expect, that, on the very first regular dis- - cussion of the Church Bill—a discussion which had been postponed to suit their convenience—the Liberals spoke out against them. It would be a poor excuse for Mr. MARK PHILLIPS, Mr. Home, Mr. BUN- COMBE, and other representatives of large constituencies, to allege, that because they had been persuaded by Ministers not to oppose the second reading, therefore they were bound not to oppose the third, but suffer bad bills to become laws. These gentlemen have their consti- tuents to look to ; and it is not surprising that, at the meeting yes- terday, they were proof against the threats of Lord Jowl RUSSELL and the entreaties of Mr. O'CoNNELL, and refused to be " whipped" into the House to aid in passing the Tory bills. The question, however, now is, what will be done ? Ministers say that they will resign rather than abandon the position they have so un- wisely taken up; because, say they, "our personal honour " is pledged to perseverance. It is their own fault that their personal honour is p'edged to carry bad me:.sures. Their first duty is care of the national. weal, to which all other considerations should yield ; and courageous statesmen, of a high order of mind, would at once admit their error, and retrace their steps. Postponement of the " Established Church Bill" is the precise, business-like, and decorous course of dealing with it ; for it is perfectly clear that it has not been deliberately considered. But Ministers stand upon their notions of personal honour, arid will not give up their bilk. There is probably sufficient commiseration for their unhappy plight, to allow them to crawl out of the dilemma. There is no wish on the pail of any section of the Liberals to compel them to resign—above all, to resign on this miserable ground, chosen for them by the Tories. While those Members who are pledged to oppose the bills by their votes will undoubtedly adhere to their pledges, it is pro- bable that others will allow the bills to pass under protest, and with a distinct understandirg that the arrange !rent is merely temporary, and that the whole question is .speedily to be opened up again. In the mean time, the Church will gain nothing by her Bishop's Bill, but increased odium from without, and beartburnings within.
Previous page
