You know me too well to accuse me either of insincerity or enthusiasm. I am actuated by neither when I beg you to consider, that it is God himself who reasons with you by His afflictive dispensations, and in mercy gives you time and space for reflection. Should the fears which I express turn out to be unfounded, still I shall not regret having written this letter to you. May God prosper it to your good, to whose gracious Providence I most earnestly commend you." V.] BISHOP BLOMFIELD IN PARLIAMENT. 123 CHAPTER V. BISHOP BLOMFIELD AS A PUBLIC SPEAKER-HIS DEFENCE OF THE CHURCH IN PARLIAMENT HIS REPLY ΤΟ CHARLES BUTLER OPPOSES ROMAN CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION-ATTACKED IN CONSEQUENCE BY THE PRESS-HIS COLLISION WITH BISHOP BATHURSTTHE TIMES NEWSPAPER-ADVOCATES THE ABOLITION OF THE TEST AND CORPORATION ACTS-IS TRANSLATED TO LONDON-FEELING OF CHURCHMEN ON THE OCCASION-CONGRATULATORY LETTERS. 66 THE elevation of Dr. Blomfield to the Episcopal Bench introduced him to the public in the new character of a legislator and speaker on public affairs, by virtue of his position as a Peer of Parliament. In this character he perhaps appeared to greater advantage than in any other by which he was known to the world. Impressive as a preacher, thoroughly efficient as a man of business, he was still more admirable as a public speaker. Gifted with a clear and musical voice, and a pleasing delivery, a ready facility of expression, and a mind quick to seize and to appreciate the points on which it had to deliver itself; accustomed by long habit to spare no pains in accumulating and digesting the facts upon which decision must be built1 (so that his speeches were those of one who had something to say, not of one who had to say something); and possessing an almost complete mastery over a temper naturally liable 1 The pains which he took in preparing his more important speeches are attested by the copious MS. notes which he has left behind him. to be soon roused by the angry recriminations of debate; he was just the man to carry weight and produce a favourable impression, whether in such an assembly as the House of Lords or in a more mixed audience. "As a public speaker" (wrote Bishop Copleston) "he is the best I ever heard. For he is ready, fluent, correct, always addressing himself to the point, never seeking admiration by sarcasm, and ornament, and rhetorical flourishes. He is above all that."1 "He always brings out original thoughts, bearing well upon the subject. His diction the readiest, the purest, and most correct of any speaker."' "No report can do him justice. It is always below the truth." Archdeacon Sinclair, on a visit to the United States, met with the eminent American lawyer and politician Daniel Webster, who, speaking of Bishop Blomfield, declared that, having heard speeches delivered by the most noted orators of this country, "in dignity of manner and weight of matter, no speaker in Great Britain was, in his opinion, equal to the Bishop of London." He added that such was also the opinion of M. Guizot. The Archdeacon also remembers that the Bishop once told him in conversation that he had never felt nervous when rising to address a public meeting, not even when he spoke for the first time in the House of Lords. There was something in his tone and manner which arrested the attention of the hearer, even when his remarks were brief, and their subject unimportant. His after-dinner speeches were always apt and happy, neither too ponderous nor too jocose. It may be added, that in the 1 From an unpublished letter. 3 Id. p. 178. V.] ROMAN CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION. 125 House of Lords he never spoke except in his character of a spiritual Peer, and upon subjects affecting, directly or indirectly, the interests of religion, or the welfare of the Established Church. The principal question which agitated the House of Lords at the time at which Bishop Blomfield took his seat (Feb. 3, 1825), was that of the claims of the Roman Catholics to be admitted into Parliament. In a letter written to Mr. Lyttelton about this time he defends the active part taken by the clergy in the discussion of this question: .... "June 22, 1825. I am sure you will excuse me if I take the liberty of offering a remark upon one part of your letter, which relates to the interference of the clergy in 'the angry controversies of the political world.' I conclude that you refer to the discussion of the Roman Catholic question, for I am not aware that for the last twenty years the clergy have meddled with any other political matters. I never could understand with what justice that question could be considered purely political. The assuming it to be so is a complete petitio principii; for we argue, and I think justly, that it directly concerns the safety of that Church of which we are the ministers, and which we value as the most effectual instrument of diffusing and upholding true religion. Whatsoever measure threatens the Established Church with a diminution of its property, its privileges, and its security, is justly regarded by us as hostile to the interests of religion itself; and nothing, I think, can be more unjust or more unreasonable than to require of us that we should sit quietly, and contemplate the progress of such a measure without even a remonstrance, or an expression of our opinion. Every other profession is allowed If and expected to petition and remonstrate when any measure is in contemplation which seems to threaten its interests; but as for the clergy, when not only their personal interests, but, as they believe (mistakenly perhaps), the interests of religion itself, certainly those of the established religion, are at stake, their mouths are to be stopped, and they are rebuked and reviled as agitators if they express an opinion upon what is to them the most important of all subjects. But we are told that we ought to leave these matters to the wisdom of others, and to acquiesce in their determination. the clergy were persuaded, if they had any reason to be persuaded, that all those other persons, or even a very great majority of them, were really and firmly attached to the Church, that they understood its interests, and would suffer nothing to interfere with them, then they might be content to remain silent, and leave the question wholly to them. But when this is notoriously not the case, when a very large number of persons in the House of Commons declare their hostility to the Church, and a still larger number display an incredible ignorance of its doctrines, its constitution, and its securities, it would be the height of folly in the clergy not to raise their voices in its behalf, and to deprecate the enactment of laws which they believe to be greatly injurious to it. Only let them do it in such a manner as to show that their real motive is a concern for the Church, as the depositary of sound Christianity." Many clergymen, amongst others, having petitioned the House against these claims, the Liberal peers enlivened the debates with a good deal of indiscriminate abuse of the Established Church in England and Ireland. Conspicuous in the attack were Lord Holland and a now forgotten nobleman, Lord King; and it was in |