The Press. — London, England, 1858-05-15 00:00:00

U did not anticipate that the hints thrown out by the Earl of DERBY would be so readily taken up ; and a great step has been gained in the Roman Catholics changing their tone, and showing a dis position to come to some arrangement. Here tofore, the tone taken on Mr. SPOONER'S motion by the Roman Catholics was to insist upon May nooth as an Imperial Institution resulting from the Union with Ireland. They argued that it was erected in order to influence the minds of the Roman Catholics of Ireland towards the question of a Union, and they talked of "breach of faith ;" and many Protestants, it cannot be denied, were influenced by that line of argument. But they omitted the important fact that the policy of the Roman Catholic Church had entirely changed since the time when the Romanists of Ireland were suppliants for admission within the Consti tution. Before the Union, and for many years subsequently, the Bishops of the Irish Roman Catholic Church were ready to allow the Crown to have a voice in their nomination. But they receded from that Liberal ground ; they obtained " Unqualified Emancipation" without any se curities ; they entered on an Ultramontane ➢olisy, and Cardinal WISEMAN made his ag 11Pailbo. It was no wonder that the Protestant `fbeling rose to flood-height under such extraor dinary circumstances, for " the breach of faith " in this case was clearly not on the part of England, • but of Rome ! In the meantime, Mr. SPOONER'S motion has been, year after year, supported by large num bers; on one occasion it was carried. And the policy of Sir ROBERT PEEL has proved to be a failure, because the endowing of Maynooth has not prevented the question from being brought onward again and again. It cannot, therefore, be a wonder that the Romanists now wish to come to terms, and are ready to treat. They see that their Church derives increased odium from these repeated annual discussions, and they think, for the sake of peace and quietness, that a sum of money paid down would be better for them than this annual grant, with its privilege of becoming (pro tanto) an institution of the State. The Tablet of last week thinks "it would be best if " Maynooth were oommuted for a fixed sum— ' say 800,0001." It is a great point in the settle ment of this question to have obtained this ad mission. The amount of the commutation is mere matter of business detail ; and we do not forget that it is not a subject of money, but ram- CIPLE. The Tablet says that 200,0001. for each of the four provinces of Ireland would enable the Roman Catholic Episcopate to provide for the education of the priesthood of the Irish Roman Catholic persuasion. The circumstance of the Tablet having panned to consider the proposal of commutation, and then pronounced in its favour, is of additional significance. It is most remarkable that, by the plan of a pecuniary commutation, all parties would be gainers. In a religious and national point of view, the State would be immensely a gainer if it could get rid of the enormous responsibility of teaching doctrines diametrically opposed to scrip tural religion, and of maintaining a nursery for missionaries against the Established Church. Supposing that the grant were to be continued, in that event it is clear that, on mere economical grounds, the State could not lose by a commuta tion, if fairly and equitably assessed. And the Irish Roman Catholics would, also, be social gainers by the cessation of what is called the Maynooth Question." The flippant remarks of the Dublin corre spondent of the (imps about " the wild crusade of Mr. SPOONT.R" are scarcely worthy of notice. That is no " wild crusade" which has gained votes year after year since 1829—first by THE PRESS, MAY 15, 1858. units, then by tens, next by scores, and at last by hundreds. 'the " Maynooth Question" has ad vanced year after year, and always pari passe with the steadily rising Intramontanism of the Church of Rome. Lord DERBY was in the Ca binet when Sir R. PEEL increased the endow ment, but Sir R. Plum died before Cardinal WISEMAN threw off the mask, and the tone of Lord DERBY 18 very different from what it was at the period of the " endowment." It was then brought forward as a "message of peace." Did it put down "Conciliation-hall," or " Young Ireland," or " The Treason Clubs"? No, it was the law of the land, tardily executed, that at last put them down. There never can be political "peace" or religious comfort on this subject until the State is freed from the extraordinary incongruity of a Roman Catholic college placed by the side of the Established Church. We rejoice, therefore, that there is progress makingon the question. The Roman Catholics no longer take a fixed stand upon prescription, but appear inclined for a commutation. In England there are niany who are favourable to paying a fixed sum to get rid of Maynooth at once and for ever, even while they think that there is no strict legal ground of right to enforce any claim tbr commutation. There is a precedent on this subject worthy of notice. The British people never established slavery, and they were not bound to pay the West India proprietors ; yet the nation acceded to the proposal for giving twenty millions of money to them in 1833. Numbers subscribe large sums for the conversion of the heathen and the propagation of the Gospel in distant regions; and we believe that there are amongst them several who would have no objec tion to a grant of money being given for the purpose of dissociating the State from Maynooth. nProtestant quarters, and amongst those con sistently interested in this great question, the idea of buying up the interest of the Roman Catholics in the grant is certainly making way and attracting much notice ; and upon an early occasion we shall illustrate other phases of this most important subject. " churches are the equal inheritance of all the pa. " rishioners." Now, in London we fre quently f i nd one parish of 12,000 people immediately adjoining another parish of 20,000. And if it happens that the Incumbent of the 1 2,000 is young and vigorous and an effective preacher, while his neighbour is aged and only heard with difficulty, it is certain that ma n y o f the parishio ners of the latter will stray into the church of the former; and no parish officer can pretend to any personal acquaintance with 32,000 people. The argument, therefore, which rests upon the right of "the parishioners" to seats in their own church, breaks down. The people who will come and take seats may belong to three or four adjoining p ar i s h es . and their supposed " rights " may be non existent. Having thus pointed out two or three points in which the Committee's theory cannot be applied, let us now indicate our own views on the question. And first of all, we say that we are opposed to all systematic buttic w e distinctions arenot between:pposed to a therie di h st a in nd eti t o h n e poor between the congregation and strangers. In every parish-church in London and the large towns there will always be found some who are more or less strangers. Some of these will be absolutely unknown—they are stragglers who have wandered in accidentally. Others, who may be known, may still be non-parishioners, and probably non-communicants also. Now, none of these should be shut out ; but we cannot admit their " right to take any place that m a y b e vacant." Provision ought to be made for them, in such a way as not to encroach on the rights of the proper congregation of the place. We were much pleased with the arrangement which we found in use, a few years ago, at the noble church of Boston in Lincolnshire. The whole " middle aisle," as it is absurdly called, was free; the side aisles were appropriated to the families of the town. All the seats—or pews without doors—were alike : there was no supe riority of one over another, and the seats in the " middle aisle" were, in their position, obviously preferable to those in the sides. Hence it was easy to make this arrangement :—" The seats in the middle aisle may be taken by all comers, and the earlier the attendance, the better choice of a good seat. The seats in the side aisles are appropriated to families, who are thus freed from the necessity of a scramble for seats, and can enter quietly, at five minutes before eleven o'clock, and take their accustomed places." Some such arrangement as this we should like to see everywhere adopted. In London, almost every church has its gallery; and as we cannot afford to give up 30,000 or 40,000 gallery-sittings, we must keep them still in use. But we should like to appropriate the galleries, everywhere, to strangers, and to reseat the whole floor with com ftrrtable open seats, admitting to that part of the church only the known congregation. The par ticular seats used by this or that family might then be arranged among themselves, without 20P test or legal claim. The poor as well as the rich members should be provided fir; but it would be found that the former would not wish to be brought into the foreground. Such a reform as this might be accomplished in many London churches by an expenditure of 1,0001. And we believe that when it had been effected in one or two instances, the happy effect would strike Churchmen generally, and similar changes would everywhere take place. We feel so deep an interest in this matter, that we regard it as vastly more important than the " special services" which are now so popular, and command so much attention. We earnestly wish that the " General Committee" would turn its attention to the raising a sum—say of 1,0001. or 2,oool.—and to the reform of some exi stin g church in a prominent position; so that example might be taken from it, and an extensive improve ment take place. We feel certain that this, the most needed of all " Church Reforms," has only to be com menced in earnest, and on a good system, to command un iversal assent. But it must be commenced by money, and actual work. Me !'e talk, and discussion, and pamphleteering, !ill not much advance it. Let those who feel in terested in it apply themselves to raise funds, and to give a fair exemplification of their views, and we feel no doubt of their rapid success. TIIE PEW SYSTEM. Wu have received an application from the "General Committee on the Pew System "- 1 the lion. COLIN LINDSAY, President—to give their object our support. We respond, without a moment's delay, that their object has our wannest sympathy, and shall have the utmost support that we can give it. But while we can thus speak, unreservedly and without hesitation, of the object itself we must reserve ourselves as to some of the details. We think that the Com mittee, writing from a provincial town, have not taken that view which would have presented itself if they had dwelt in the metropolis. They state their purpose, without circumlocution, to be, that "all appropriation of seats, whether formal " or tacit, shall be abandoned, and every comer " feel himself free to take any place in a church " which he may find vacant." Now, in a village, where every inhabitant is known, and where the ostler would not attempt to seat himself by the side of the earl, this un limited application of the principle may be free from danger. But it is otherwise in the metro polis. Does the lion. COLIN LINDSAY think that a lady related to himself would feel at ease in one of the churches of Belgravia, if she had reason to suspect that the female who had just taken a seat at her side was a frequenter of the Saloons; or that the dashing blade who had placed him self on the bench behind her was one of the "swell-mob"? The total abolition of all restric tions, and the recognition of the right of any one to take any vacant seat, would shock existing prejudices so severely, that Mr. LINDSAY may assure himself of the impossibility of obtaining so great a concession, at least in the metropolis. But, again, the argument of the Committee rests mainly upon this allegation,—that " parish