The Press. — London, England, 1856-09-06 00:00:00

842 tion of large classes out of doors. It is worthy of note that the people of Manchester invited him to preside at one of the anniversaries of their Athenwum, and the brilliant speech on that occasion showed how deeply the whole social problem had been studied by him ; and even the Spectator recorded its philosophic approbation of his address at Manchester. Even his fictions proved how much social phe nomena were studied by their author. Not only was Mr. DISRAELI the first to speak about " Administrative Reform," but he was the first also to touch with critical precision on the true nature of the disease of our offi cial system. " The want of spiritual rewards " in the Civil Service leaves subordinates with out the hope of fame, and their ardour is not called forth by the ideal excitement of honourable distinction. On that defect in our official system Mr. DISRAELI cast powerful light in his speech on the subject in Parlia ment ; and we assert that no other public man has so repeatedly given proofs that " social questions " were so constantly present to his mind as the Member for Bucks. Such sub jects are fatiguing, and involve much consi deration of intricate details, and we must do Mr. DISRAELI'S detractors the justice of ob serving that most of them acknowledge " the labour" and " capacity for hard work" of Mr. DISRAELI. Such qualities, combined with vast social knowledge, and continued study of the subject (as evidenced in a series of thought ful speeches), gives the Member for Bucks the most powerful claims for being heard with the greatest respect on a subject which he was the first to invest with practical importance. THE CONSERVATIVES AND THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. THE two great parties into which the Church of England is divided are in turn broken up into a variety of sections, each more or less strongly marked with its own peculiarities, according to its distance from that central mean where High Church and Low Church imperceptibly melt into each other. At pre sent we are concerned with only two of thes e many subdivisions,—those who assert, on the one hand, that he cannot be a sincere Pro testant who would not repeal the Maynooth grant, and those who maintain, on the other, that he cannot be a sound Churchman who would not revive Convocation. Both unite, as extremes often do, in viewing the Conservative party with some degree of cold ness and distrust; and, as we promised in our article of last week, we shall now proceed to consider the causes of this estrangement, and what we believe to be the true way of meeting it. It is to the latter class of mal contents we shall address ourselves on the present occasion. Had it not been for the unfortunate rupture in the Conservative ranks, occasioned by the repeal of the Corn Laws, it is possible that this source of dissatisfaction might never have occurred. But it so happened that among t'ie body of gentlemen who adhered to the late Sir ROBERT PEEL were to be found many of those names which a party in the Church had long been accustomed to regard as their especial friends. When, therefore, the separa tion took place, the eyes of this party naturally rather followed the movements of those who stood aloof from, than those who still consti t ited, the ancient Conservative body As events progressed, matters grew worse. Scme few of the more astute and ambitious spirits began to perceive the advantage which might accrue to them from this opportunity of ad vocating a high sacerdotal theory behind the m isk of political liberalism. The effect of the conduct to which this idea gave rise is still ♦isible both among the clergy and laity, but happily as it was shared by none of our more experienced and judicious Churchmen, so we are glad to perceive that its disciples are daily growing fewer; while the divine who has been the recognised head of the party we are now ad lressing ever since the first publication of the " Tracts for the Times " is known to be totaily opposed to it. THE PRESS. We would fain hope, therefore, that even the most fervent enthusiasts may not just now be indisposed to listen to our observa tions on this subject. What is the chief ob jection which this party entertain towards the Conservatives ? That it takes no in terest in dootrines, will not take any trouble to free the Cbareh from the shackles of State control, and will see with indifference her most ancient dogmas endangered If we are to support a Ministry on Church principles, they say, let us see that it will do something for the Church Now wo 'nay observe, in passing, that even were these charges true in the sense in which they are uttered, they would scarcely weaken the obligation of Churchmen to supporta Conservative Ministry, if the arguments adduced in our previous article are worth a moment's consideiation. But the fact is, that in spirit these statements are totally false. Substitute "can not" for "will not," and some of them will perhaps be correct. Those who bring them forward shut their eyes to the irreversible results of modern legislation. Churchmen should remember that ever since the Reformation no theological tenets, and no ecclesiastical practices, have borne pushing beyond a certain point—that is, because ever since that period there have been two parties in the Church, each pulling different ways, and so evenly balanced that the triumph of one is certain to he only tem porary, and to be followed by a recoil propor tionate in violence to the success of the pre vious movement. The short-lived supremacy of LAUD'S system was followed by the destruc tion of the monarchy, and the suspension of Church ordinances throughout the kingdom ; and the predominance of ultra-Calvinism, in the last generation, was as surely succeeded by that antagonistic movement which, what ever good it may have done incidentally, has robbed the Church of some of her brightest ornaments. The question, then, for Church men to consider is this, whether they will rest satisfied with a position which the best Churchmen of a past age were contented to occupy—such men as Bishop BUTLER, Dr. RotrrEr, and Dr. Joarisos, who lived nearer the time when men's minds had been especially directed to such ques tions, and could, therefore, judge better of the sacrifice which their principles de manded—or whether they will continue to agitate for something beyond this, which, if attained at all, could not last long, and would probably lead to the total disruption of the Church. " Oh," but we ere told, " this is rank " indifference to religion—it is better to fight "it out, and know the worst—a vital creed, " though driven to caves and forests, is better " than what we have now, however powerful " and splendid." There would be truth in this view of the subject, no doubt, could its assertors show that the great men whose names we have above quoted were deficient in vital religion. But BUTLER'S " Charge to his Clergy," and JOHNSON'S daily life, are suffi cient refutations of such a charge; while Dr. ROUTH is especially described by NEWMAN himself as having survived to meal to a faith less generation the theology of their fore fathers—we forget the exact words, but such is the gist of his language We see nothing in the present state of the religious world to distinguish it so very favorably from the men of the last century. Had religion then less vitality, because it had less oAtentation 9 As good a position as the Church then occu pied may still, we believe, he secured to her through the agency of the Conservative party ; and once more we entreat the clergy to con sider whether the interests of religion and patriotism do not alike call upon them to accept this situation. For let us suppose the decision of doctrinal questions transferred from the present tribunals to Convocation. Is the party which advocates that measure cer tain that its judgment would be in their own favour? But, however this might be at the present time, it is totally impossible to deny that a majority of the clergy would never re main long fixed to one particular side. It would continually fluctuate, now High Church, now Low. The voice of the Church of Eng. lan4 would be more uncertain than ever. The majority of the moment would be perpetually SATURDAY, at war with deliberately expressed convictions three hundred years old; and what it is fondly hoped would add vigour to her action might only result in bringing confusion to her creeds. We cannot repeat too often, that it is impos sible the Conservatives can have any object more at heart than the welfare of the whole Church. Tories cling to traditions, and this is one of their most aueient. If the Clergy wish to retain the Church as ono of the insti tutions of the country, they must support the Conservatives cordially and honestly. No wise Churchman would wish to see a fresh secession of non-jurors. They would not now enjoy even the brief period of existence they attained to in the last century. But if any party in the Church were to push matters to extremes, such would probably he the result. For the sober theology and reverent practices which have hitherto characterised the English Church, the greatest security is to be found under the Conservative banners MISTAKES OF THE "MORNING HERALD." WHEN a controversy is in danger of turning into mere logomachy it is time that it should cease. Our remarks on the article of the Morning Herald in last Monday's publication shall be very brief 1. We may remind our readers that there is only one substantial point in dispute between the Herald and ourselves. It is simply as to whether Maynooth was ever a test of Conserva tive Protestantism between 1835 and 1811. Finding itself embarrassed by our question, as to when it could produce an anti-Maynooth speech from its own witness (Sir J. Cra the Herald of last Monday says:— We are now asked in which of those speeches did Sir J. Graham assail Maynooth ? Why in none of them. In none of those years was Maynooth under consideration. What? Was there no Mr. PLUMPTRE then playing the part of Mr. SPoorma ? Did Mr. PLUMPTRE never take the sense of the House of Commons on Maynooth in those years ? Did the Member for St. Albans (now Sir H. G. WARD) never taunt Sir R. PEEL in the House of Commons with hia support of Maynooth, and was there no attempt made by the Liberals in those years to sow dissensions between Conseivatives on this identical question of Maynooth? Quota tion was once defined by the late PAYNE KNIGHT as " the last refuge of a dunce," and we really dislike solving political disputes by referring to Hansard, in whose involved pages the Herald is evidently not deeply versed. 2. The Herald tries back on a second edition of its former narrative of the Conservative po licy. A few days since it was stated to have been exclusively " Protestantism." It has since added, as we suggested, " Protection ;" and we must further suggest to our contempo rary, that the Conservatives rallied against " Reform of the House of Lords," " The Vote by Ballot," " Triennial Parliaments," and vari ous electoral changes of a levelling character, not connected with either " Protestantism" or " Protection." 3. The Herald has thought it better to keep silent about our bringing to its recollection the important fact, that the lamented Lord GEORGE BENTINCK was not only opposed to insulting the Roman Catholics of Ireland, by r evoking . grants to them, over which time has cast t he shield of proscription, but that he was actnilly in favour of endowing the Roman Catholic priesthood, a project which we never recom mended. So much for the absurdity of attempting to make Maynooth the touchstone of the Conner , vatism of the British Empire ! THE CASE OF OUDE. IF BURKE had lived in our day he would have found new reason to exclaim that the age of chivalry had gone. The arrival of the Queen of OUDE in this country has, we are sorry to say, provoked a burst of insult from the Ministerial press.