The Press. — London, England, 1858-06-12 00:00:00

THE PRESS, JENE 12, 1858. 554 ration. So far, like the Bill lately, shipwrecked, it is a good bill. But then come the excepting and dispensing clauses, and these are such as to make the whole affair a farce, though a very deplorable farce. First, the Quaker is to be allowed to omit the words "on the true faith of a Chrisitiva,'! YO we always thought that the Quakers were not only professed Christiaus, Out C 441661.08 of an unusually strict and high profeasion. They acknowledge CURIO as the only Lord and Head of the Church; they attach supreme importance to the influences of the HOLY SPIRIT ; they are, in fact, Christians in a peculiar and especial sense. What reason can be given for allowing them to decline making a profession of Chris tianity we know not. But the next clause, numbered V., is so large as to include not only Quakers, but all other misbelievers or disbelievers of all classes. It provides, that " when in either House of Parlia ment a Member shall declare that he cannot " conscientiously take the oath with the words " I make this declaration on the true faith of a " Christian,' the said words shall be omitted in " administering the same to such person; and " the taking and subscribing the said oath with "such omission shall be deemed a sufficient " taking and subscribing the same." Then follow other clauses, relieving " her Mkjesty's subjects professing the Jewish religion." But we cannot see the sense or utility of sepa rate clauses for the relief of Quakers or Jews, when one single claw* exempts everybody who chooses to be exempted. Is not the whole proceeding one of the greatest possible absurdity? By this Act, if it should ever pass, the three estates of the realm undertake to devise a simpler form of oath than the present one, to be taken on entering Parliament, or being admitted to various offices. But having done so, and having framed a plain and simple form, they then provide, that whenever any person shall make an objection to a certain part of the oath, that part shall be omitted ! Is there any parallel to this in the whole history of our legislation P Is there any case on our Statute-book in which the Legislature, having ordered a certain thing to be done, next provides, that if' any person objects to do it, he may leave it undone ? To us, this appears to be a burlesque of legislation. Lord LUCA—VS Bill merely permits either House to dispense with the words "on the " true faith of a Christian," whenever such House sees reason to do so. But Lord Lvsn- HURST'S measure gives a right to every Jew— in fact, to every unbeliever, be he Mormonite, Jew, Turk, or infidel—to demand the exclusion of these words. This goes far beyond the pro viso contained in Lord LI7CAN . S Bill, and would still more plainly render Parliament a non-Chris tian assembly. After its enactment there would remain no ground for rebuking a Paine or a Newman. should such a one, in his place, openly deny and ridicule the Christian faith. This point ought to be seriously considered before the Lords, in their desire to " settle the " Jew question," do something vastly greater and more portentous. The concession to the Jews is often urged on the ground of the insignificance of their numbers. "There will never be," it is said, "more than two or three Jews in the House "of Commons." But who will promise us that there shall not be a dozen avowed Pantheists or Atheists ? It may he replied, that some of these creep in now, under our present regulations. This is true ; but they creep in under a profession of Christianity, and are silent. Let their entrance as unbelievers be legalized, and we shall soon hear their voices, and shall have no power to rebuke them. Viewed in this light, this making a Christian profession quite optional is a very serious matter. But, if we were inclined to be jocose. we should say that this new mode of legislation would be a convenient one, in many cases. For instance, we may have a new statute to simplify the making and collecting of Church-rates, which, after enacting that all persons shall pay Church rates, may add a proviso, that "all persons who “ shall declare that they cannot conscientiously "' pay Church-rates shall be exempted from any 44 payment of the same." Doubtless, Dissenters would very quickly remark that this would be to make the payment of Church-rates a merely voluntary act, which is all they claim. Just as, in the present case, the proposed law is to pro . vide, first, that all persons shall profess them selves Christians ; and secondly, that no man need profess himself a Christian unless he likes to do so! But vfbat is " child's play," if this be not ? _ We confess that, oe a calm consideration of the matter, this Bill of Lord LAReitußwr's appeared, to us so monstrous .s to force upon us a question, whether it is Rat meant as a foil, to make 1. 4 0 rd LUCAS'S awe aiu appear almost harmless by comparison, and $0 to gain a passage for tap weaker measure ? This k‘ ingenious device" would indeed he worthy of * object in view. But let not their Lordships submit to be thus prac tised upon. Lord LucAN's, small and weak as it is, is an entire "Jew Bill." Lord LYND• ilußsfs is a Jew Bill, and something more. Such, however, are the follies and absurdities into which men are sure to run when they forsake the plain, straightforward path of honesty and truth. The present question is, in fact, a very plain one ; but men are afraid of meeting it in a candid and open manner, and hence they quibble and refine, and descend into all sorts of trickery and evasion. The substantial question is, Shall the national profession of Christianity be given up ? It seems a very easy and simple thing merely to exempt a few persons from the obligation of re peating and subscribing a dozen words. But Lord LYNDHURST sees that, if you exempt two, you must exempt two hundred, or two thousand, or rather all persons who like to be exempted. And then your standard, your profession of Christianity, is gone. And what then ? What follows ? Why, a great deal more, we fear, than many of their Lord ships quite understand. Striking out the pro fession of Christianity, or making it optional, the position of the nation as to all religious matters is altered. The consequences will meet us day by day, and hour by hour. For instance, Lord LYNDHURST finds it expedient to add a ninth clause, excluding Jews from the offices of Lord Chancellor or Lord Privy Seal, or Lord Lieute nant of Ireland ; but he proposes no such exclu sion in the case of men who refuse the words "on " the true faith of a Christian," not because they are Jews, but because they are Atheists. A man may so have rejected Christianity, and may still become Lord Chancellor, Lord Privy Seal, or Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. And either the Jew, or the Atheist, or the Pantheist, may be Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, or Com missioner of Woods and Forests, and may in either of these capacities have to exercise eccle siastical patronage. Nay, Church questions, of chaplains, &c., are often coming before the Ad miralty, the Secretary for War, and the Secretary for the Colonies. Our Colonial Secretary nomi nates our colonial bishops; our President of the India Board, the bishops and chaplains for all India. Our Home Secretary selects chaplains for our prisons. All these functions Lord LTso -llva...cm leaves open alike to the Jew or the unbe liever of every class or degree. But this is mon strous. The truth is, that our old English Constitution is Christian, not in a vague or general way only, but in all its parts—in all branches of government or administration. Anti- Christianity or declared irreligion cannot be made to coalesce with it. The result of such an attempt must be, the gradual breaking-up of the system itself. And why are we to rush into all these perils and absurdities ? Merely because two or three Jews are pertinacious in advancing their claims, and the House of Lords gets weary of saying " No." But is it not a serious thing to present the second branch of the Legislature in the light of a body which has only a limited power of re sistance—a body which, under a certain amount of pressure, is sure to give way ? Will not the admission of such a fact be certain to increase the arrogance of the House of Commons ; and to encourage that body, on all occasions of a con trariety of opinion, to say to the Lords, " You know that you must give way at last, so why annoy us with a resistance which must be wholly Ineffectual?" Yet, let this state of things be admitted, and what argument can any longer be advanced to prove the utility of a House of Lords ? This is, of itself; a great constitutional peril ; hut it is not the only one. The profession of Christianity given up, we have taken the first great step towards the adoption of the whole American system. If the nation is no longer Christian, the support of a National Churh,- on any intelligible grounds, must be impossible. But a State professing no Faith, and maintaining no Church pill Ant Wog tokrate such "old-world notions" Lord* * ox qiecns. If we are to have the ein systeiß at 41, we must have the wholq cif it ; and flail Rill Eery quickly be seen. A moastrous conjuncOßß, of Ration of no Faith, —no church, wi,tl4 an herectitary Peerage and a Monarchy, is a 4144 ig which the world has never yet baheld, and whir* je ig itself something very much hike an impossibility. We know that we may be ridiculed, as always crying " Wolf! wolf!' when there is no real danger. Let 119 show that in this our view of the probable future we are supported by one who is no alarmist—by one who takes a hopeful view of our prospects. Mr. 'Mum., the leading mind among the " Anti-State Church " party, wrote thus, only six weeks since : "It has been the one desire and work of our life to lend a helping hand in bringing about the great consummation which is being hastened on by the events of every session—namely, a final reconstruction of political parties upon a distinct and fundamental politico-ecclesiastical basis. It is coming—but the time is not yet. There still re mains a preliminary question or two to be dis posed of by parties as they now exist before the flag of " separation" can be unfurled. The public mind, although ripening fast, is not yet fully prepared for a contest on this grand field. Let Lord JOHN RUSSELL remain where he is to carry his little Oaths Bill, and to resist the aboli tion of Church-rates ! Let Lord PALMERSTON move under his "false colours" until his sup porters are disgusted with his hollow preten sions ! There is much for all of them to learn, and all will best learn it when uncongenially herded together on the Opposition benches. They have still to carry a Reform Bill. Separa tion of Church and State will then be ready as a basis for the party of progress, and once more we shall have earnest politicians, ennobling warfare, and in the end, we doubt not, glorious victories." We, then, are not alone in our anticipations. This leader of the opposing party plainly tells us, that after the " little Oaths Bill " and the aboli tion of Church-rates, will come on the real struggle—a struggle which he expects to see ended. by " glorious victories." But over whom are these victories to be obtained ? Over all who at present bear sway either in CHURCH or STATE. Or rather, over that wonderful system which has secured for the English people, for centuries, more real freedom—more substantial " progress," than has been known in any other nation upon earth. " THE PARTY OF PROGRESS." WHOEVER has frequently travelled by cab or omnibus from the Great Western Station to the more central parts of London, must have been struck by the inevitable shower of little yellow volumes injected gratis through door or window, in defiance of the paper-duties. Every month presents the nuisance under a new and imposing title. The " Temple of Taste" is succeeded by " The Emporium of Elegance," which in its turn gives way to the more majestic alliteration of "The Monster Mart." If the reader is curious enough to pry beyond the title blazoned without in capitals, he sees a variety of appeals to public confidence, and boasts of public support—prosaic some, and some in not unmeasured verse, illus trated by sketches of divers " men and measures ; " a wondrously multiform system of puff, yet by some fatality invariably ending to the honour and glory of " Moses and Son." And doubtless that ingenious and enterprizing firm have derived some substantial advantages from these everchanging appeals to the caprice or the credulity of their customers and the public. Even should the " article" prove unequal to the description (Moses forgive us for hinting such a possibility !), the gay deceiver may once more beguile an " unprotected female" by the help of an alias , and the rustic who has been sol d at the " Palace of the People" may yet be induced to buy in the " Warehouse of the World." It is not for nothing that the Poet of the Minories exhausts the alphabet in fresh appellatives.