The Press. — London, England, 1857-07-11 00:00:00

. _ - ....141.P.~41111001.1•4101. low , rl ST ril T • . • . ~• f r•, • • • - (1 ,;I.iti !,.!:, • • . ;,.. (11j . iprit6s LONDON, SATURDAY, JULY 11, 1857. No. 219.—V0L.V. STAMPED .... SIXPENCF. lINSTAMPED ..F1 VEPENCE. ghe dress. LONDON, SATURDAY, JULY 11, 1857. A sitssloN like the present is not remembered by the passing generation. A Premier with out a party, Liberals without leaders, a Ministry without measures, describes the condition of the successors of the Reform Party. Only for the election committees there would scarcely be a ripple on the Parliamentary surface. Something of a faint political interest is still preserved in the anxiety to know what report was made in certain cases of asserted intimidation and imputed treating. It seems to be the age of a lounging Liberalism. Nothing is done now, because in the next session wo are promised a Reform Bill, and quidnunes speculate as to whether the Prime Minister really means to introduce any inno vations in Parliamentary privileges. The manner In which the question of the Irish Viceroyalty was discussed this week shows the character of the Cabinet. His Whig colleagues did not say a word for the Premier. Seven years since the Premier's present Whig colleagues consented unani mously to the abolition of the Irish Vice royalty and the transference of its business to a fourth Secretaryship of State. When the subject was again brought forward on Tuesday, they were silent. They left Lord PALMERSTON to deal with it as best he could. What the convictions of the Cabinet are on this important subject are unknown to the country—their votes prove nothing on the question ; and some of the pure Whigs in the Ministry probably dream of a Schedule C for dealing with the Irish Viceroyalty in the promised Reform Bill. '['hey leave the ques tion to be settled as chance, or Lord PALMERS TON, may resolve. For domestic legislation the country must be satisfied with the Divorce Bill, and with the chance of the Attorney-General's bill about fraudulent trustees becoming law in the current session. With Lord CRANWORTH on the Woolsack it would be vain to expect more progress in Legal Reform. At the name of " Administrative Reform" Ministers would laugh as loud as if they were visiting the French comedians at the St. James's Theatre. Lord PANMORE is at the Horse Guards, and he has not the gout just now, so let those who desire a new military organisation be con tented. Such is the way in which a Liberal Cabinet conducts the business of the country. It is really surprising that under such cir cumstances-Ministers condescended even to notice the mutiny of India. " Thank God, "we have a House of Lords," was once a popular exclamation, when some harsh legis lation about the poor was corrected by the Upper House. " Thank God, we have a Horse " Guards," may yet be the cry in India ; and Ministers are fortunate in possessing so ex cellent a Commander-in-Chief as his Royal Highness the Duke of CAMBRIDGE. Against this Ministerial lassitude there will be a strong political reaction through the LATEST EDITION. country. In this year the excitement of the general election occurring at an awkward period of the session interrupted the regular working of parties, and absorbed a large portion of popular interest. But such excuses can not last for ever, and political questions of a serious character must be again submitted to the public mind. Eventualities of the highest importance may occur before another session has passed away, and the force, wealth, numbers, and organisation of the Conservative body may be enabled to command that official influence due to its great resources. INDEPENDENCE OF THE CHURCH• TUE Church of England has ever been the faithful servant of the civil power. In fair weather and in foul her motto has been, obedience to the powers that be. With certain perhaps inevitable exceptions, and these few and far between, she has showed a just appreciation of those broad principles on which the Constitution is founded; and with some deductions, for which causes inseparable from an established religion are answerable, has proved herself the steady friend of civil and religious liberty. To such an extent, indeed, has her submission to the temporal ruler and her toleration of doctrinal differences been carried, that her enemies have long taunted her with the appellation of a Par liamentary Church and a latitudinarian religion. Narrowminded men cannot comprehend the character of a Church in whose dogmas there is no bigotry, and in whose devotion there is no cant. But the bulk of the English people love and reverence these qualities with an unconscious ardour that renders our national Church the most powerful institution in the realm. They are qualities that speak at once to the sober earnestness and traditionary leanings of the English understanding and we have on more than one occasion sought to impress upon the English clergy the policy of preserving them. While they do so. the Church, if united, could overturn any Ministry and remodel any Parliament. But her prin ciples, under ordinary circumstances, lead her to abstain from political agitation. And it is this which constitutes so peculiar a claim on the forbearance of her rulers. Let us only imagine for a moment what would be the effect upon the English Govern• ment of a really agitating Church—of a Church that should follow the example, for instance, of the Belgian or Irish Roman Catholics, and exert all their energy to thwart the authority of Government, instead of lend ing the whole weight of their influence to its support. Then indeed we might ask to some purpose, how shall the Queen's Government be carried on ? But, notwithstanding her disapproval of various recent acts of legisla tion, true to the principles she has professed for three centuries, the Church has declined to interfere ; and her spiritual rulers evince their sense of the obligations by which they be lieve themselves bound, by according a general support to the Government of the day on all questions of a strictly political character. d But these obligations should surely be t o some extent reciprocal. If the Church defer to the Crown upon civil questions, it is but equitable that the Ministers of the Crown should show some deference to the wishes of the Church upon spiritual questions. This plain duty must surely have escaped the con sideration of the House of Lords when they enforced the insertion into the Divorce Bill of so obnoxious a clause as that which compels the clergy to perform the marriage•service be tween adulterers. We sincerely trust that this portion of the new Divorce Bill may re ceive the reconsideration of her Majesty's Government before it comes under the discus sion of the Lower House, and that a measure calculated in many ways to promote the hap piness of the people will not pass into law dis figured by this cruel and unwarrantable pro vision. We would most distinctly impress upon our readers that the opposition to this enactment springs from no theological party in the Church. The disapprobation of the Primate was as distinctly expressed as that of Dr. WILBERFORCE. Much ingenuity has been ex• ercised in framing meanings for words to suit the conflicting tenets of different schools of doctrine; but we venture to say this resource is entirely out of the question in the present instance. No words can possibly be plainer than those by which the Church holds herself hound to refuse the rite of marriage to adul terers. Opinions will always differ about the exact force of any obligation ; and the com plainants in the present instance do but ask that a man and woman shall not be enabled to fix upon any clergyman they choose who is known to disapprove of the principle, and compel him either to violate his conscience or lose his preferment. Priests will always be found who take a more lenient view of these questions, and who can perform the service without any injury to any one. To make it compulsory upon all is practically so needless as to wear very much the appearance of a studied insult. To say that clergymen will not be required to comply with the law, so far from being any recommendation, is in our eyes the strongest objection to it.. In that. case the only object gained is to remind the clergy that they have no will of their owe, and to teach future legislators how they may violate principles without even the excuse of expediency. A more inopportune moment for this exer cise of power could not easily have been found. At the time when a most important change in the religious character of our repre sentative body is under discussion, it is most ill-judged to throw a fresh torch of dissension among the disputants. An Act of Parliament by which the Church is made to feel so acutely the presence of a hostile element in the Legis lature is not calculated to recommend a pro posal by which, in the opinion of many conscientious men, that element will be strengthened. We are unfeignedly sorry should ever have been that her Majesty's Ministers, session to a just demand, odium on the cause of r that the loyal clergy of the may not be driven to believe means little more than li! like—unless they disagree )rry that ON 7 raised ; at*aria took . . sters, by a eing4befog d, may avo,d, .4. lAN 7 . religious • • PM 12p he Churchri .lieve that Mil= liberty to 0 41 ' . .ee with Gaps