The Press. — London, England, 1858-10-23 00:00:00

THE PRESS, OCTOBER 23, 1858. 1018 cumbered estates, as to their market value, was clearly neither just to the latter, nor consistent with sound public policy; and the result has been the constitution, by the recent Act of the Attorney-General for Ireland, of the Landed Estates Court—a Court is which every owner of land in Ireland may have his title certified and made indefeasible. The practical working of this Court, under the code of procedure already prepared for it, will, in the opinion of the Noble and Learned Lord, furnish a satisfactory solution of the difficult and long-vexed question " how "to simplify the transfer of land, with complete " security of title, and without disturbing the "settled foundations of property." We have italicised the concluding words of Lord Chancellor NAPIER'S observations on the objects contemplated by this undeniably great amendment of the law of real property, because in them is contained the pith of the difference between Law Reformers of the school to which the Noble and Learned Lord belongs, and Law Reformers of the school to which Lord JOHN RussELL has given in his adhesion. The former, while maintaining undisturbed the settled foundations of property, aim at giving to that property the protection of the law in the best, the simplest, the least expensive, and the most expeditious form. The latter strike at the foundations of property; they would make short work not only of the forms of law by which property is protected, but of the very rights of property itself. Lord Chancellor NAPIEICW oration, which was to have been delivered on the day after the opening of the Congress by the General President, was, of course, prepared long before the extraordinary doctrines pro pounded by Lord JOHN RUSSELL could meet his eye ; but if he had designedly framed his remarks with a view to controvert those doctrines, and to rescue the " Social Science Association " from the suspicion and reproach which they are likely to bring upon it, be could not have done it more effectually than by the following exposition of the principles to be kept in view in any amend ment of the law of real property. "In dealing:l the Noble and Learned Lord said, " with the laws of property in a country " whose social system is consecrated to order and " freedom, we must proceed with cautious cir " cumspection. It is, doubtless, an easy matter " to talk vaguely on making land a commercial " commodity, and dealing with broad acres as " with bales of merchandize. The practical " solution is quite another matter. The question " was put to Lord ST. LEONARDS when he at " tended as a witness before a Committee of the " House of Commons, of which I was the chair " man. He was asked by a very zealous Re \' former, ' Why cannot you deal with land as with railway shares ?" So you may,' replied his Lordship, 'if you choose to ignore all the uses "of land in our social system ; but if these are " to be preserved, the difference and the difficulty " exist in the distinctive nature and use of the " things compared.' " It must have sounded strange, we should think, in Lord Jonx RUSSELL'S ears to hear his own voice give utterance to sentiments so directly condemnatory of the views on which he had ex patiated with so much point and complacency only a few days before. For what becomes of " the settled foundations of property," when So estate can be settled " beyond the lives of " two persons living at the time of the crea " tion of the estate, who shall live to attain " their majority " ? With such limitations to the process of " settling," what property could ever acquire " settled foundations " ? The re servation about taking care not to " act too harshly," or " sweep too widely," in particular cases, will hardly protect Lord JOHN RUSSELL from the imputation of having talked loosely on the subject of the law of real property, before he had given himself time to reflect on the social philo sophy of real property. Let him be content, then, to sit at the feet of his sectional colleague, and get by heart the lesson which, on his behalf, he read to his Liverpool audience last Saturday morning. " The common course of society; continues the address of Lord Chancellor I'n- PIER, " furnishes the most intelligible explana -44 tion. When industry or providence has accu " mutated capital, an investment in land is " generally sought, not for commercial gain, but " for social repose, for the position and the land !cps which belong to flied property. land " has its local limits ; it is not capable of exten " sion. Commerce is co-extensive with the wide " world. Land has its system of tenancies, its " various easements, its subordinate estates and " interests, its encumbrances and charges, its " local duties which accompany its acquired " rights. Its code of laws is more or less incor " poratecl with the delicate arrangements of " family life. Is there any subject which ought " to be touched with a more cautious hand ?" Such is the question asked by Lord Chancellor NAPIER. Lord Joitx RUSSELL'S question is, " IVhy should not an old society be freed from " the complications of our law of real property ?" Let the public judge which of the two questions is the more pertinent, the more statesmanlike. We remarked on Saturday last on the indirect advantages likely to spring from these quasi scientific associations. The little episode in the proceedings of the " Social Science Congress" which was going forward at Liverpool while our readers were conning our remarks, goes a great way to confirm the view which we then took. Meeting with such opposite views on the floor of' the House of Commons, NAPIER and RUSSELL would have been engaged in a Parliamentary duello of the fiercest character. How pleasantly, on the contrary, all went off at Liverpool. There, instead of firing away at each other, both fire at the social science of real property, put up in the shape of a target at a convenient distance. When everybody has had his shot, both marks men and spectators run up to the target to see how the shots have told. NAPIER'S, it appears, has hit "the bull's-eye," while RUSSELL'S has gone wide—we are afraid to suggest how wide—of the mark. And if Lord Chancellor NAPIER deserves great credit for the skilfulness of his aim, a mitigated amount of credit is assuredly due to Lord JOHN RUSSELL for the good nature with which he has, in the present instance, acted as marker, pointing out with his own finger the hole made by his rival's bullet. TIIE FACTIONS OF TIIE CHURCH. 3,11:cn, very much, have they to answer for who originated, and, despite of many palpable proofs of its mischievous tendency, persist in lbstering, the Romanizing movement in our Church. To instil into young men, raw from college, a notion that their calling is, not to serve humbly in their curacy, till they have learned something of the responsibilities of the clerical office, and have gained some experience of the human heart, to influence whose inner workings is the object of religion, but that they are to reform and re model their Church, and to purge out from her the " Protestant leaven," is surely not the way to train up a race of sober-minded and right thinking ecclesiastics. To lead them to suppose that the most efficient method to bring about the desired effect is to dress a la soutane, to hang the churches with silks and satins of divers colours, to burn candles in daylight, to put flowers on the altar, to multiply crossings and bowings, genu flexions and prostrations, is as surely the way to beget a race of clerical coxcombs. But to encou rage them to play at Popish priestcraff, to dress and to undress men's and women's consciences, as girls do their dolls, and to fancy themselves spiritual guides and directors, when it is a hard matter for them to keep their own feet out of the ditch, is to substitute the arrogancy of human folly for,the meekness of Divine wisdom. It is no use to tell us that to assert that such things are done in our Church is a most scan dalous exaggeration, a most foul slander. "By " their fruits ye shall know them," is a test of men's conduct, for which we have good autho rity, and which, therefore, we need not scruple to apply. It cannot be denied, for it is a matter of notoriety, that a goodly number of the men who within the last twenty years have grown up under the sort of training above indicated, have deserted our Church altogether, and thrown themselves into the embraces of Rome, in the expectation that there they would find the reality of what they have been taught to make a plaything of as "Anglicans." Neither can it be denied that the perverts are not all youths of feeble intellect and weak character, but that among them were men who, on the ground of both their intellectual attainments and the: high character, were reckoned, and deservedly so, amongst the highest ornaments of our Church. Hence it is impossible to deny that unfaithfulness to the Church of' England, a per version of the moral sense, leading to final apos. tasy, are the not uncommon—we have a right to conclude that they are the legitimate—fruits of the system which we have ventured briefly to delineate in its most prominent features. Neither is it unjust or uncharitable to say that those who have set that system on foot, and con. tinue to keep it up, have much, very much, to an swer for. Having regard to the clerical perverts alone, and to the numbers of the laity, both men and women, :who have followed them into the Romish Communion, they have doubtless in curred a most grave responsibility. But, un happily for the Church, and for the cause of re ligion, their responsibility does not end here. As human nature is constituted, error and evil are propagated, not only by imitation, but by contrariety. One wrong begets another of an opposite kind ; one extreme provokes another. In proof of this part of the charge which we have to bring against the originators and fosterers of the Romanizing movement, we appeal confi dently to the proceedings which took place on Monday last at St. James's-hall, and to other similar proceedings which have taken place, or are announced to take place, elsewhere. It is the fashion of the Romanizers to point to the gross ignorance, and the still grosser irreverence, of such gatherings, to the exaggerations and falsehoods which too often constitute the staple of the speeches addressed to them, and to ask triumphantly whether it is by such means that the holy cause of truth and religion is to be upheld. The sneer may be well deserved as re gards those at whom it is levelled, but it is not the less true that the heavier share of the respon sibility for all these scandals lies at the door of those who, knowing, or pretending to know, better, provoke them by their own wilful, dis honest, and, albeit under a great show of reve rence, essentially irreverent treatment of the most hallowed subjects, and the most sacred obliga tions. It is very shocking, no doubt, to witness such a mass of ignorant and vulgar declamation on religious topics, as resounded on the occasion referred to, amidst mingled laughter and cheers, groans and hisses, within the walls of St. James's-hall. It says little for the good sense or the good faith of one of the principal speakers and conveners of the meeting, that he talked about" the impurities and bestiality of the con " fessional," in a style calculated to impress his hearers and the public at large with the notion that religiously trained and virtuous women are subjected by the clergy of the Tractarian school to the abominations of auricular confession for which Romish priests derive their instructions from the moral theology of PETER DENS. More disgusting still it is to hear another of these would-be leaders of the religious mind of Eng land talk of " chaste women entering those re " ceptacles of vice, the confessionals, and coming " out polluted," because they must there " hold " criminal conversation with men," and bring their souls into captivity to "bad-minded priests" to such an extent that " its equal is only to be " found in the power of the devil himself." On behalf of the clergy whose foolish conduct has provoked these " railing accusations," we hesitate not to give to charges and insinuations such as these an indignant denial. There is not a tittle of evidence to support them. All the evidence that has as yet seen the light of day, looks the contrary way. The moral character of the clergy who have committed themselves by toying with auricular confession stands unim peached. The only witnesses that have de posed, or are said to have deposed, to questions of an impure tendency, are confessedly women of the most abandoned character, on whose veracity no reliance can be placed, and whose evidence. is impugned by credible witnesses, and in e stances self-contradicted. Does any man in his senses believe that if such men as Mr. boas soni BEAL, Mr. CHARLES SIBLEY, or their leader Mr. IVEsTEirrom, and that noisy and unscrupulous "accuser of the brethren," the Hon. and Rev. Mr. BARING, had any reliable ev idence to sub stantiate in a single instance one tithe of the charges brought wholesale against the Tractarian clergy at the St. James's-hall ge h er vig, they 111111.1111111111111111111111111.111111111M1111 1018 THE PRESS, OCTOBER 23, 1858. •ed estates, as to their market value, was " has its local limits ; it is not capable of exten- both their intellectual attainments and their wither just to the latter, nor consistent " sion. Commerce is co-extensive with the wide high character, were reckoned, and deservedly 'id public policy; and the result has " world. Land has its system of tenancies, its so, amongst the highest ornaments of our institution, by the recent Act of the " various easements, its subordinate estates and Church. Hence it is impossible to deny that 'neral for Ireland, of the Landed " interests, its encumbrances and charges, its unfaithfulness to the Church of England, a per. —a Court is which every owner of " local duties which accompany its acquired version of the moral sense, leading to final apos. ' may have his title certified and " rights. Its code of laws is more or less incor- tasy, are the not uncommon—we have a right to 'e. The practical working of porated with the delicate arrangements of conclude that they are the legitimate—fruits of *he code of procedure already " family life. Is there any subject which ought the system which we have ventured briefly to ' in the opinion of the Noble "to be touched with a more cautious hand ?" delineate in its most prominent features. Neither is it unjust or uncharitable to say that rnish a satisfactory solution Such is the question asked by Lord Chancellor those who have set that tem foot ,and co n• acornqueston NAPIER. Lord nn RUSSELL'S question is, tinue to keep it up, have sYsmuch, veryon much,' to ann." of land, h plete " Why should not an old society be freed from saver for. Having regard to the clerical perverts without disturlns&i the " the complications of our law of real property ?" alone, and to the numbers of the laity, both men ,erty." Let the public judge which of the two questions and women, :who have followed them into the 911Chldinfr words of is the more pertinent, the more statesmanlike. servations on the We remarked on Saturday last on the indirect Romish Communion, they have doubtless in. indeniably great advantages likely to spring from these quasi- curred a most grave responsibility. But, un -operty, because scientific associations. The little episode in the happily for the Church, and for the cause of re ' the difference proceedings of the " Social Science Congress" ligion, their responsibility does not end here. 'ool to which which was going forward at Liverpool while our As human nature is constituted, error and evil and Law readers were conning our remarks, goes a great are propagated, not only by imitation, but by ord JOHN way to confirm the view which we then took. contrariety. One wrong begets another of an • former, Meeting with such opposite views on the floor opposite kind ; one extreme provokes another. settled of the House of Commons, NAPIER and RUSSELL In proof of this part of the charge which we that would have been engaged in a Parliamentary have to bring against the originators and fosterers pest duello of the fiercest character. How pleasantly, of the Romanizing movement, we appeal conti ,st on the contrary, all went off at Liverpool. There, dently to the proceedings which took place on instead of firing away at each other, both fire Monday last at St. James's-hall, and to other at the social science of real property, put up in similar proceedings which have taken place, or the shape of a target at a convenient distance. are announced to take place, elsewhere. It is %lien everybody has had his shot, both marks- the fashion of the Romanizers to point to the si and spectators run up to the target to see gross ignorance, and the still grosser irreverence, the shots have told. NApIER'S, it appears, of such gatherings, to the exaggerations and 'it "the bull's-eye," while RUSSELL'S has falsehoods which too often constitute the staple vide—we are afraid to suggest how of the speeches addressed to them, and to ask the mark. And if Lord Chancellor triumphantly whether it is by such means that -serves great credit for the skilfulness of the holy cause of truth and religion is to be litigated amount of credit is assuredly upheld. The sneer may be well deserved as re- JOHN RUSSELL for the good nature gards those at whom it is levelled, but it is not has, in the present instance, acted the less true that the heavier share of the respon ting out with his own finger the sibility for all these scandals lies at the door of rival's bullet. those who, knowing, or pretending to know, better, provoke them by their own wilful, dis honest, and, albeit under a great show of reve rence, essentially irreverent treatment of the most they to answer for who hallowed subjects, and the most sacred obliga f many palpable proofs tions. persist in fostering, It is very shocking, no doubt, to witness ' such a mass of ignorant and vulgar declamation n our Church. To on religious topics, as resounded on the occasion college, a notion referred to, amidst mingled laughter and cheers, humbly in their groans and hisses, within the walls of St. ething of the James's-hall. It says little for the good sense or the good faith of one of the principal speakers •, and have and conveners of the meeting, that he talked heart, to about " the impurities and bestiality of the con 'ibject of " fessional," in a style calculated to impress his d re hearers and the public at large with the notion her • that religiously trained and virtuous women are subjected by the clergy of the Tractarian school 'ay to the abominations of auricular confession for - which Romish priests derive their instructions from the moral theology of PETER DENS. More disgusting still it is to hear another of these 'ould-be leaders of the religious mind of Eng 'd talk of " chaste women entering those re ntacles of vice, the confessionals, and coming polluted," because they must there " hold nal conversation with men," and bring 'ls into captivity to "bad-minded priests extent that its equal is only to be *he power of the devil himself" On • clergy whose foolish conduct has • " railing accusations," we hesitate barges and insinuations such as 'ant denial. There is not a to support them. All the yet -nnmitted themselves by onfession stands unim .Tseehenm theora llight of nesses that have de posed, to questions of nfessedlv women of on whose veracity characterd s of v hose evidence is nd in some in ./ man in his Mr. JA3"s leader Mr. Tupulous d Rev sub- the