The Press. — London, England, 1854-06-24 00:00:00

'r i 1 1R . JO~i than prolong the evils and bitterness which they now oceasioned„ Saint urged the necessity of a speedy settlement of the question which had caused twenty years' agitation. Though I r on; John Russell inter jected a promise that the Geverinnent would bring in a bill next session, the hon. nieinber refused to wait, 'and contended that if the Ministry would not under take to legislate forthwith on the subject he must support the bill now before the house. The CIIANCELLLOR of the EXCHEQUER admittedthat the church rates was a wrong for which there ought to be a remedy, but he did.not See the advantage el a demonstration in the form of a measure which could by no possibility become law during the present illeission, and therefore he could not assent to the pro- Ivisition that the alternative lay between counte- Wincing these rates and abolishing them. The case for 'it change was irresistible, and the Government was prepared to encounter the difficulties attendant upon .legislation upon the subject, and would endeavour to 'skive at an equitable adjustment of the question. s itmOng the ebjections to the present system was the fact that the existence of a legal obligation, which 4potild not be enforced, tended to weaken the ;dininis .tration of the law, and, he conceived that the rates Were a grievance both to churchmen and dissenters, 'to the former because, if the rate were granted, angry feeling were excited, and, if we refused, the Church 'Was left without support ; and to the latter because 'the state of affairs had altered from what it was in times when the benefit and the imposition went toge ther.' BUt` he did not consider that for these reasons church rates ought to be abolished. Mr. Gladstone proceeded to examine the various plans that had been proposed for adjustment, and then ventured upon a suggestion of his own . " He was aware that it was far more easy to take objeotion to the plans of others then to suggest plans which were free from objection; but he hoped that, when the house catne to consider this question, they would do 'so with a temper prepared to make some mutual sacrifices ; for they might depend open it, if the diffietilties that lay in the way were net miet in this manner, the (petition would•never be settled. lifear, hew.) 'He thought., without committing ilximself to anything definite for the. future, that much was to be said in favour •of a plan which would divide the class of parishes, so as to make a distinction between those, in which the system worked wril, sad those in which it worked badly. (Otnerpl pies 1 and murmurs 4 dial .. .fail:- faction.) dVdi hot preeetid Co say whether such a dis tinction Atild'bi• broStight into s bperation„ bat he would venture to Make a suggestion as it, how it Might be effected. Hh wortld not proceed by making ha absolute distinction with. regard to the limit of population, but he would rather eel with the state ;of facts as they existed,in order to ascer tain what proportion of parishes were for or agains: church raters. ..Hip lope was., theta plau would work by which the 441111,parialiea w ou ld be left very rotailt as they were at pa* sent ,•(!flyiilitcr = titOby which, in other cases where the was refuse ;the pal-lilies shoiild have a legal title to that which they now enjoyed de had; but with a very ques tionable legality. He ventuled,to press upon the house that, if it wcrc to Abo l lish ft,mhurch 'rates in, all parishes, the e ff ect ' , Medd be to deprkveany pariShes of fiiud* whieli they now €njoyed,` ilia to idatee them in a'cotalitionof incapacity bhck•tipon 'voluntary support, because thurchitien eeuld not have in their hands the application of the fends they might themselves subscribe for titerepairof the ahuroh. It was possible they might be driven to ,the total abolition of church rates—(Hear, hear)—and he admitted that his hopes of avoiding that altentinkvi were not raised by what he had heard that ddy •, but the house 'should beware how it proceeded to establish a system of equality which would &pica tiveX hutch of the voluntary means open to individuals to. suppla:;froin .their own resources their (ma religions Mfmt l l , ,,( Pftf. kePr.)" Chancellor Mr.,Nathipw was. at ..a. loss to er the Chancellor p f , lilschequer' intended far the glisteteFial or the ,ppetiltwit„tigl s a d ot, „the liouse, 4, wag ,pretky clear etAhgfikwor s,4#llcul in the Cabinet u; the ehtWebmtte aff ere was upon every , er question of importance. As to the intreduetiop. o tihs.promised , nest session, is e xpeued, that t AtNtpuld, depend 1.. ,t,he•atate of the Sublime Porte. ' If the present i should. unfortft- P l 4fif..b,9 thftiM 4)Sti.*h9Ped e rairto* t y would be wii i tkimle t ce..laord ,John ussell to ibend his It tiPPP.the Principle of abolition. ItPr4.J.:#94Fp. recapitulated .Xhe couditions on whAch.:42,h4 opinion, any aatirifactery settlement of iho,qhpreli n rate. question nuw4 i he. ibaed, Ile Gould not pqrcgit tho.vc4utary, gyutem i t oi supersede the Es tablishment, nor could he consent to abolish church rates without first providing some fond fer, the main pnance of the fabricknow belcuiging.to.the church. ,whilled to *lies, thp,. Prutestexa dissenters, to owe of civil and religious liberty !yip nine* indebted, from their present griev anoess but could sanction, no measure, that, did not recognise the justice of drawing fromille „land mousy. for the support of the parochial churches of the country. Those churches, he argued, diti not he r long to a sect, but to ;the nation, and should fi nd national support . , No substitute of which he could approve had been suggested in the room of the eltureh rate ; and, failing that provision, he thought it most advisable to retain the impost :-- " The law said that the k ariali is bound to repair the gar cient parochial chiircli. Such was the theory of the law. • The practice of the law was this (and for that practice there is no remedy), that a majority of the parishioners may rethse the rates necessary for the repair of the paro chial church. Well, the remedy proposed by the measure before us is the total abolition of church rates. Now, the adoption of that plan would be a hardship to those who at tend the church Dissenters way build places of worship to snit their own wants, but that they should leave the ancient pa rochial churches without any means of legal support is, in the first place, inconsistent with the principles of a church es tablishment. In the nextplace, it would be a practical hard ship on those attending the parochial church. Various remedies have been suggested. One is, that there should be a voluntary collection on the part of the Church. I think that in many parishes a voluntary collection would not be sufficient. Then, it is proposed to separate the dissenters, and make out allot of those who do not attend the church services. I strongly object to that proposition. (Hear, hear.) I should be very sorry to see a system in troduced which would have the effect of depriving the dis senters of a right of attending the ordinances of the Church. Another mode proposed was that of levying pew rents, I think that mode is objectionable—(Hear, hear) — because, in the first place, it would be very repugnant to the feelings of the agricultural population generally--to the farmers who have been accustomed to attend the church as open places ofworship—(Hear)—and to the poor, who would have a right to complain of beingdeprived of free seats in the house of God. (Cheers.) Whatever plans . . may be suggested, I think that the Church has a right to call upon the land to maintain in repair the parochial churches. I couaider those churches not as the churches of a sect, but as national buildings. (Cheers.) And con sidering them, I think they ought to be inseparably con nected with the land, by whom the Church has hitherto been supported. I believe that it would be bad policy on the part of the land to consent to any law by which our village churches would fall into decay, and cease to be re garded as objects of veneration. (Hear, hear.) That is the principle on which I oppose the bill. The hon. member for Manchester says that great effects have been produced by the voluntary principle in the United States of America. I am not disposed to question that assertion of the hon. gentleman. I know that great effects have been produced by the voluntary principle, not only is America, but in this country, in connection with the Church Establishment. But I certainly do consider that, while the institutions of the United Slates are harmonious, while they have a volun tarily-stipported Church, universal suffrage, no premogent ture with regard to the land, an elected Senate, and an elected President—while, I say, they have those institu tions which agree harmoniously with one another, and produce, no doubt, real greatness and real freedom, we in this country have other institutions. (Loud cries of ' Hear, hear.') have a national Church, an hereditary aristo cracy, and an hereditary monarchy. (Hear, hear.) All these things stand together. ( Cheers.) And I must op pose Chia bill as a step towards subverting one of those great institutions. (Loud cheers. )" On a division the amendment was adopted by 269 votes to 182-27, and the , bill was consequently thrown out. OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL 'This bill was brought forward on Thursday for "consideration as amended." 'The proposal for ad mitting dissenters to the university had been by agreement left for discussion at this stage of the measure, and Mr. Heywood accordingly introduced it it an early hour. The principle was embodied in two clauses which he purposed to append to the bill. Onenf these abro;ated all oaths to be taken on or bgford 'Matriculation, other than the oath of alle giance, or a declaration equivalent thereto. The Second clause abolished, with similar reservation, the oath now required upon taking degrees, except with respect to degrees in divinity. By the forms of the house each clause had to be decided upon sepa rately, and therefore the first clause was presented for discussion alone; but the debate, which lasted throughout the entire evening, embraced the prin ciples and consequences involved in both proposi tions conjointly. A great ntnnber 'of Members took part in the dis cussion on both sides, but the arguments urged re volved in a narrow circle, end the successive speakers differed rather in the details by which their conclu sions were illustrated and enforced, than in the chain 'cif ratiocination through which they conducted their hearers. Mr. Hey Wood, in moving the clauses, gave a Watery of university tests, from which he inferred that their original purpose had been political, and that they had been prompted by feelings of fear and exaperation, end ought now to be obliterated. ' Mr. Collier seconded the motion, and combatted the argument based on founders' wills, which he Said had already been extensively infringed when the en dowments were adapted to the Protestant establish ment at the Reformation. Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT admitted the principle, but denied this 'expediency of the clauses. Religious tests ottg i ht to be abolished, but then the present was tifit the fit occasion to act upon that maxim. The bill had cost much trouble, and undergone much opposition, and he entreated the house not to risk its success "elsewhere " by incorporating with it so debatable a provision as was now proposed at the last moment. Mr. Idnamit Gummy commented upon the loss of dignity which the Commons would suffer if they re frained from doing right out of fear of anything the Lords would do. He referred to bygone votes and • ' SATURDAY utterances of Lord John Russell, L or d P a l merston, and the Peelite party, and sought t o fl a th em to sup. port the present motion under penalty of a cha rge o f inconsistency. Sir W. HEATHCOTE, taking an academical view of the case, pointed out the difficulties and discrepancies which the clauses would occasion at Oxford, and earnestly opposed this first attempt to divorce the Church from the universities. Sir J. HAMDEN supported and Mr. HENLEY opposed the clauses. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER believed that the Motion belonged to a series of parliamentary attempts made, or to be made, with a view of abolish ing religious instruction at the university, and felt it his duty, both as Minister and member, to resist it. He argued also that the clauses would prove in effective. They might unbar the door of entrance for the dissenters, but inside there were other hin drances arising from minute college regulations for compulsory attendance at chapel, or on courses of divinity lectures, ike., which could not be got over. On the principle he contended that if dissenters were admitted Roman Catholics could not be refused. In practice he urged that the clauses would not cohere with the bill. It was an " enabling" measure, creating a new governing body, which it then left at liberty to decide upon all questions of detail; and, con sidering the oaths as belonging to such, he could not see why the Legislature should make them an exception to the rule, and pass an arbitrary enact ment respecting them over the heads of the college authorities. When the university itself became willing to let in dissenters—a contingency which he seemed to think not altogether beyond hope—a solution for all difficulties would easily be found. Lord STANLEY remarked that the Government were treating this question as they had done all others involving a religious principle. They would neither support nor oppose it on broad and intel• ligible grounds, but prosecuted a policy of indefinite delay. He believed that the House of Lords was often made a convenient excuse for Ministers anx ious to evade their pledges for reform. Respecting the changes now contemplated, he approved of the proposal to abolish the matriculation oath. It was most improper to exact a pledge of religious faith from young men, at au age when their opinion on so solemn a subject must necessarily be unformed. The abolition of the subsequent oath on taking degrees presented greater difficulties, but be sug gested that the objects of all parties might be recon ciled by setting apart certain colleges for the exclusive use of members of the Church of England. WSORAM opposed the motion, and Mr. LUCAS supported it, disclaiming, however, as a Roman Catholic, any intention on the part of his fellow- Papists to, avail themselves of privileges granted on behalf of dissenters. Mr. W. J. Fox turned the argument inside out by remarking that the supporters of the motion should not be called upon to prove the negative, but its op ponents must establish the positive position. Those who insisted upon retaining the tests should show that there were benefits, moral or intellectual, resulting from them. He then criticised the thirty-nine articles, declaring that they were difficult of comprehension, doubtful in interpretation, and that no undergraduate could pledge himself to them otherwise than either ignorantly, indifferently, or hypocritically. , Mr. llounnill. PALNER, from an historical review drew the conclusion that the universities were created by ecclesiastical endowments, and should not be dis severed from the ecclesiastical establishments to which they owed their origin. Upon the same prin ciple on which dissenters claimed admission to the universities they could demand the abrogation of the Established Church. The institutions were coreve lent ; an established church must have its universities. He warned the house against making a first false step in so dangerous a course. Lord J. Russet'. followed the same course of argu ment as Mr. S. Herbert, but expatiated at greater length upon the justice, safety, and expediency of re moving all the disabilities under which dissenters labourel. In the university, he argued that they shoald be admitted to every privilege except that of sharing in its government. But as to time and circumstance lie cousideaed that neither was appro priate. It was undignified to assert a great principle in two clauses, supplemented upon a bill to which they had no natural sequence. And it was inex pedient to cause the inevitable delay and probable risk which the measure would undergo by the addi tion. A brief reply from Mr. HEYWOOD was followed bye division, in which the first clause was carried against the Government by a majority of 91; the numbers being—Ayes 252, noes 161. Terming this result "an unequivocal expression of opinion " in the house, Lord John Russell then announced that he should not divide against the second clause. Mr. Wsi.rout would not allow the matter to be so easily settled. There were serious distinctions be tween the effects of the two clauses. One allowed the nonconformists to enter the University for education, tllik..llllMilllllinnmumll fil