The Press.
London, England, 1858-06-12 00:00:00

THE PRESS, JENE 12, 1858.

554

ration. So far, like the Bill lately, shipwrecked,
it is a good bill.
But then come the excepting and dispensing
clauses, and these are such as to make the whole
affair a farce, though a very deplorable farce.
First, the Quaker is to be allowed to omit the
words "on the true faith of a Chrisitiva,'! YO
we always thought that the Quakers were not
only professed Christiaus, Out C 441661.08 of an
unusually strict and high profeasion. They
acknowledge CURIO as the only Lord and Head
of the Church; they attach supreme importance
to the influences of the HOLY SPIRIT ; they are,
in fact, Christians in a peculiar and especial
sense. What reason can be given for allowing
them to decline making a profession of Chris-
tianity we know not.
But the next clause, numbered V., is so large
as to include not only Quakers, but all other
misbelievers or disbelievers of all classes. It
provides, that " when in either House of Parlia-
ment a Member shall declare that he cannot
" conscientiously take the oath with the words
" I make this declaration on the true faith of a
" Christian,' the said words shall be omitted in
" administering the same to such person; and
" the taking and subscribing the said oath with
"such omission shall be deemed a sufficient
" taking and subscribing the same."
Then follow other clauses, relieving " her
Mkjesty's subjects professing the Jewish religion."
But we cannot see the sense or utility of sepa-
rate clauses for the relief of Quakers or Jews,
when one single claw* exempts everybody who
chooses to be exempted.
Is not the whole proceeding one of the greatest
possible absurdity? By this Act, if it should
ever pass, the three estates of the realm undertake
to devise a simpler form of oath than the present
one, to be taken on entering Parliament, or being
admitted to various offices. But having done so,
and having framed a plain and simple form, they
then provide, that whenever any person shall make
an objection to a certain part of the oath, that
part shall be omitted ! Is there any parallel to
this in the whole history of our legislation P Is
there any case on our Statute-book in which
the Legislature, having ordered a certain thing to
be done, next provides, that if' any person objects
to do it, he may leave it undone ? To us, this
appears to be a burlesque of legislation.
Lord LUCA—VS Bill merely permits either
House to dispense with the words "on the
" true faith of a Christian," whenever such
House sees reason to do so. But Lord Lvsn-
HURST'S measure gives a right to every Jew—
in fact, to every unbeliever, be he Mormonite,
Jew, Turk, or infidel—to demand the exclusion
of these words. This goes far beyond the pro-
viso contained in Lord LI7CAN.S Bill, and would
still more plainly render Parliament a non-Chris-
tian assembly. After its enactment there would
remain no ground for rebuking a Paine or a
Newman. should such a one, in his place, openly
deny and ridicule the Christian faith.

This point ought to be seriously considered
before the Lords, in their desire to " settle the
" Jew question," do something vastly greater and
more portentous. The concession to the Jews is
often urged on the ground of the insignificance
of their numbers. "There will never be," it is
said, "more than two or three Jews in the House
"of Commons." But who will promise us that
there shall not be a dozen avowed Pantheists or
Atheists ? It may he replied, that some of these
creep in now, under our present regulations. This
is true ; but they creep in under a profession of
Christianity, and are silent. Let their entrance
as unbelievers be legalized, and we shall soon hear
their voices, and shall have no power to rebuke
them.

Viewed in this light, this making a Christian
profession quite optional is a very serious matter.
But, if we were inclined to be jocose. we

should say that this new mode of legislation
would be a convenient one, in many cases. For
instance, we may have a new statute to simplify
the making and collecting of Church-rates, which,
after enacting that all persons shall pay Church-
rates, may add a proviso, that "all persons who
“ shall declare that they cannot conscientiously
"' pay Church-rates shall be exempted from any
44 payment of the same." Doubtless, Dissenters
would very quickly remark that this would be to
make the payment of Church-rates a merely
voluntary act, which is all they claim. Just as,
in the present case, the proposed law is to pro-
.

vide, first, that all persons shall profess them-
selves Christians ; and secondly, that no man
need profess himself a Christian unless he likes
to do so! But vfbat is " child's play," if this
be not ? _

We confess that, oe a calm consideration of
the matter, this Bill of Lord LAReitußwr's
appeared, to us so monstrous .s to force upon us a
question, whether it is Rat meant as a foil, to make
1.40 rd LUCAS'S awe aiu appear almost harmless
by comparison, and $0 to gain a passage for tap
weaker measure ? This k‘ ingenious device" would
indeed he worthy of * object in view. But
let not their Lordships submit to be thus prac-
tised upon. Lord LucAN's, small and weak as
it is, is an entire "Jew Bill." Lord LYND•
ilußsfs is a Jew Bill, and something more.

Such, however, are the follies and absurdities
into which men are sure to run when they forsake
the plain, straightforward path of honesty and
truth. The present question is, in fact, a very
plain one ; but men are afraid of meeting it in a
candid and open manner, and hence they quibble
and refine, and descend into all sorts of trickery
and evasion. The substantial question is, Shall
the national profession of Christianity be given up ?
It seems a very easy and simple thing merely to
exempt a few persons from the obligation of re-
peating and subscribing a dozen words. But
Lord LYNDHURST sees that, if you exempt two,
you must exempt two hundred, or two thousand,
or rather all persons who like to be exempted.
And then your standard, your profession of
Christianity, is gone.
And what then ? What follows ? Why, a great
deal more, we fear, than many of their Lord-
ships quite understand. Striking out the pro-
fession of Christianity, or making it optional, the
position of the nation as to all religious matters
is altered. The consequences will meet us day
by day, and hour by hour. For instance, Lord
LYNDHURST finds it expedient to add a ninth
clause, excluding Jews from the offices of Lord
Chancellor or Lord Privy Seal, or Lord Lieute-
nant of Ireland ; but he proposes no such exclu-
sion in the case of men who refuse the words "on
" the true faith of a Christian," not because they
are Jews, but because they are Atheists. A man
may so have rejected Christianity, and may still
become Lord Chancellor, Lord Privy Seal, or
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. And either the
Jew, or the Atheist, or the Pantheist, may be
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, or Com-
missioner of Woods and Forests, and may in
either of these capacities have to exercise eccle-
siastical patronage. Nay, Church questions, of
chaplains, &c., are often coming before the Ad-
miralty, the Secretary for War, and the Secretary
for the Colonies. Our Colonial Secretary nomi-
nates our colonial bishops; our President of the
India Board, the bishops and chaplains for all
India. Our Home Secretary selects chaplains
for our prisons. All these functions Lord LTso-
-llva...cm leaves open alike to the Jew or the unbe-
liever of every class or degree. But this is mon-
strous. The truth is, that our old English
Constitution is Christian, not in a vague or
general way only, but in all its parts—in all
branches of government or administration. Anti-
Christianity or declared irreligion cannot be made
to coalesce with it. The result of such an
attempt must be, the gradual breaking-up of the
system itself.
And why are we to rush into all these perils
and absurdities ? Merely because two or three
Jews are pertinacious in advancing their claims,
and the House of Lords gets weary of saying
" No." But is it not a serious thing to present
the second branch of the Legislature in the light
of a body which has only a limited power of re-
sistance—a body which, under a certain amount
of pressure, is sure to give way ? Will not the
admission of such a fact be certain to increase
the arrogance of the House of Commons ; and
to encourage that body, on all occasions of a con-
trariety of opinion, to say to the Lords, " You
know that you must give way at last, so why
annoy us with a resistance which must be wholly
Ineffectual?" Yet, let this state of things be
admitted, and what argument can any longer be
advanced to prove the utility of a House of
Lords ?

This is, of itself; a great constitutional peril ;
hut it is not the only one. The profession of
Christianity given up, we have taken the first
great step towards the adoption of the whole
American system. If the nation is no longer

Christian, the support of a National Churh,-
on any intelligible grounds, must be impossible.
But a State professing no Faith, and maintaining
no Church pill Ant Wog tokrate such "old-world
notions" Lord** ox qiecns. If we are to have
the ein systeiß at 41, we must have the
wholq cif it ; and flail Rill Eery quickly be seen.
A moastrous conjuncOßß, of Ration of no Faith,
—no church, wi,tl4 an herectitary Peerage and a
Monarchy, is a 4144 ig which the world has never
yet baheld, and whir* je ig itself something very
much hike an impossibility.
We know that we may be ridiculed, as always
crying " Wolf! wolf!' when there is no real
danger. Let 119 show that in this our view of
the probable future we are supported by one
who is no alarmist—by one who takes a hopeful
view of our prospects. Mr. 'Mum., the leading
mind among the " Anti-State Church " party,
wrote thus, only six weeks since :

"It has been the one desire and work of our
life to lend a helping hand in bringing about the
great consummation which is being hastened on
by the events of every session—namely, a final
reconstruction of political parties upon a distinct
and fundamental politico-ecclesiastical basis. It
is coming—but the time is not yet. There still re-
mains a preliminary question or two to be dis-
posed of by parties as they now exist before the
flag of " separation" can be unfurled. The
public mind, although ripening fast, is not yet
fully prepared for a contest on this grand field.
Let Lord JOHN RUSSELL remain where he is to
carry his little Oaths Bill, and to resist the aboli-
tion of Church-rates ! Let Lord PALMERSTON
move under his "false colours" until his sup-
porters are disgusted with his hollow preten-
sions ! There is much for all of them to learn,
and all will best learn it when uncongenially
herded together on the Opposition benches.
They have still to carry a Reform Bill. Separa-
tion of Church and State will then be ready as a
basis for the party of progress, and once more
we shall have earnest politicians, ennobling
warfare, and in the end, we doubt not, glorious
victories."

We, then, are not alone in our anticipations.
This leader of the opposing party plainly tells us,
that after the " little Oaths Bill " and the aboli-
tion of Church-rates, will come on the real
struggle—a struggle which he expects to see
ended. by " glorious victories." But over whom
are these victories to be obtained ? Over all who
at present bear sway either in CHURCH or STATE.
Or rather, over that wonderful system which
has secured for the English people, for centuries,
more real freedom—more substantial " progress,"
than has been known in any other nation upon
earth.