The Press.
London, England, 1854-01-14 00:00:00

CAPITULAR REFORM.

WE observe that meetings of the Corn-
missioners for investigating the subject of
Capitular Property, &c., have lately been of
frequent occurrence. As the time for opening
Parliament draws nearer, it is to be presumed
that the committee feel more and more anxious
to mature and embody the results of their
deliberations. What those results are we have
of course no means of learning; but, in the
meanwhile, wo feel the importance of every-
thing connected with the Capitular institutions
of the Church to be so great that we return to
a consideration of the subject with anxiety
and interest. We can have no hesitation in

SATURDAY,

speaking of the proceedings of the original
Ecclesiastical Commission, issued under Sir

R. PEEL'S Government and auspices, as being
over-injudicious, hasty, and mischievous.
Fear is always a bad, often a ruinous, cowl.
seller ; and the Commissioners acted under a
sense of fear. Amongst the first fruits of
the Reform Bill was a clamour against

the unfairness with which Church property

was distributed, and the exorbitant emolu-.

ments and pluralities of many of the Church
dignitaries. The Ecclesiastical Commission

acted wisely and virtuously in reducing epis-
copal incomes to something like equality, and
in abolishing pluralities. For these two steps
they deserve the gratitude of every true
churchman. But, in abolishing so large a
proportion of the prebendal stalls, they in.
flieted a heavy blow and seriously impaired
the usefulness of the Church. By reducing
the number of the prebendaries of a chapter
to four, they have rendered four men useless
for any other purpose but to maintain the
ceremonial worship of their cathedral. At the
same time they did not attach any new duties
to the offices of prebend. The true line of
conduct to pursue was, we should have
imagined, unmistakably plain. They should
not have destroyed a single prebend—which,
in fact, was sacrilegiously pulling down a part
of the fabric of the Church—but they should
have retained the number of the prebends,
whilst they reduced their emoluments. Another
provision made by the Commissioners is just
now brought into painful notice. We say
painful, because we are reminded by it of the
death of Dr. MILL, who, as an Oriental scholar,
was unrivalled in the Church. He was He-
brew Professor in the University of Cambridge
and Canon of Ely—a canonry in that cathe-
dral having been attached to the professorship.
And, in like manner, a canonry in the same
cathedral was attached by the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners to the Greek professorship of
Cambridge. Now, we have no hesitation in
saying that a most mischievous and absurd
principle is involved in this. Why should it
be presumed that the best Greek scholar is
also fit to be a dignitary of the Church? The
two greatest Greek scholars that England has
produced within the last century—Poasox and
ELMBLEY—were laymen. Supposing PORBON
were now a candidate for the Greek professor-
ship, either he could not be elected, or, if he
were, the canonry would be alienated, probably
for ever, from the professorship. By all means
let the Greek and Hebrew professorships be
endowed in a liberal manner, befitting a rich
University and a Government that patronises
literature ; but let not the meanness of the
University or the Government be made up for
or remedied by the revenues and at the ex-
pense of the Church.
We observe that there are nine candidates
for the vacant Hebrew professorship of Cam-
bridge ; and these nine gentlemen represent,
probably, every variety of ecclesiastical opinion,
high, broad, and low. Are the electors, in
making their choice of a candidate, to con-
sider simply his qualities as a Hebrew
scholar? or are they also to consider his fit-
ness as a dignitary of the Church ? If they
pay regard only to his Hebrew scholarship,
we must protest against the most important
interests of the Chin-eh being made subordi-
nate to a Hebrew professorship. If they pay
regard to both qualifications—the fitness of a
candidate as a Hebrew scholar, and
.as
clergyman holding an important post in the
Church—then we must protest against an
arrangement by means of which it is rendered
always possible that the best Hebrew scholar
of the university will not be appointed to fill
the professor's chair.
It seems as if some fatality overhung all
proceedings relating to our capitular orders
and so it has come to pass that institutions
which are in themselves admirably adapted to
support, invigorate, and popularise the Church,
have been rendered by mismanagement the
sources of her weakness rather than of her
power, and the objects of popular suspicion
rather than of reverence and affeetion.

A

MNimaii....

r
1
e