The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-05-01 00:00:00

what can se sittesinnig °slits se than
that recent legislation having in many itsiancis
been based en the denial that the Church of
England is to "be acconnted a.national institution,
the law which exacts peauniary Support from
the a tion , and not nierelY frOni Churchmen,
cannot be.e%pecteci loug to hold 1-6 round ?
On the first view of it there seems much logical
truth in this. So incontrovertible has the nation
become, that we have started on a Course from
which there is no return; that many Minds as we
said are giving themselves up resignedly for a
change in every branch of the corporate system,
so complete that it niay be termed a revolution,
though possibly to be effected without violence
or abruptness. No one _can deny that tiffany
things have been done lately, inconsistent with
the union of Church and State ; and that there-
fore some of the pondanz advocates of Church-
rate abolition, who have been scared by the
revelation of ulterior designs by political dis-
senters, are somewhat open to the charge of
being temporising and illogical. If the work
before the innovators is simply to " carry
out their prineiPlc," it is no subject of legi-
timate complaint that they are faithful to
an acknowledged programme, or candid enough
to prevent . themselves being misunderstood. If
it be an acknowledged rule of future legislation
that the Church of England is not to be acceunted
as a national institution, but as belonging to those
only who patronise and accept her, why attempt
any longer to keep tip a sham, or to Pretend an
ultimate aim sadist of thiSP Now, admitting the
plausibility there is in this line of thought; the
last events in the history' of the Church-rate con-
test, must have come as a surprise to derange all
our calctilations. Church-rates have been long
anticipated es p'rdscribed by the doniinarit Liberal
policy. It was never doubted .brit -that the
" obstructives " would make a prolonged and
vigorous defence. Yet it was never Considered as
anything bsit a citidtieri of time. Long since the
defence was, as they said, relegated to thit abode Of
fossil remains and decayed championships, the
House of Lords, and the popular pressure was just
about to force this last stubborn stronghold. The
majorities on the side of progress in the CommonS
,were every year gathering new accessions, till
even churchmen stere beginning to feel. ashamed
of old advocacies, and of a too Persevering
bornness. It is -at such a moment of advancing
triumph as this, that in the Commons House
itself the focus and centre of advanced opinion,
the hitherto uninterrupted course of the new
policy, receives two abrupt and significant checks,
until a large and increasing majority sinksdown
in a House of four hundred anci sixty members
into a bate preponderance of nine' It is adnfitted
that the question MS taken another turrirand no
more talk is ventured upon as to pfesiiiii o r the
House of Lords. Now, we say that this may
suggest a very instructive lesson to the " social
Philesophers " of both classes. There is clearly
an undercurrent riniiiing athwart this law of pro-
gress which everyone had made up jiffs mind
about. What is logically true may be practically
false. Logic is not a safe instrument to be applied
in all cases of human action and motives....,. If the
Tines questions the applicability to present cir-
cumstances of a philosophy of conservatism, the
lesson this teaches us is to deny the truth of what
is called the philosophy of progress. Such a check
as this, side by side with the inedificationS in the
passionlot radical reforms, must baffle the expec-
tations of those confident disciples of the new
order of things, who account even a halt in
the onward course, much more a reverse, as
unnatural as though a river should go back to its
sources Logic is not for human affairs and: the
progress of nations. As society grows out of its
simple state, many inconsistent rein-601-1s will
spring up, which the State must provide for.
Yet it does not follow that old principles should
be torn up root and branch. Everything cannot
be done by line arid rules The old system must
be adapted to new conditions, though- not quits
in accordance with the original plan. Other-
Wise the two principles must come into a contest
for life and death. PTA the compromise may not
necessitate any adjustment of the demands of
logic nor any carrying out of new principles to
the complete absorption and destruction of the
old. And this, notwithstanding that nevef'svants
of the people may be legitimately supplied on
new prineiplea, Where old ones refuse the con-
cession. We congratulate Engiislinien that the
logicians of progress have received a back-handed
blow from their own admirers ; and that there is
some hope for old principles yet.

:.~.