The Press.
London, England, 1857-08-29 00:00:00

POSITION OF THE CHURCH.

THE wrong has triumphed. The Houses of
Parliament have declared themselves the
enemies of religious freedom. The Churoh of
England, that old and stanch ally of the civil
power, has been spoiled of an immemorial
right secured to her on the honour of the
Sovereign ; and in return for her firm
friendship she has been treated worse
than the most seditious and disloyal of
sectarians. The Church of Rome, which has
never scrupled to avow the most unconsti-
tutional sentiments, is permitted to violate
the decrees of Parliament ; while the law of
the land is itself violated to coerce the
Anglican clergy, the champions of allegiance
and order.
It is useless to discuss at this moment the
particular injury to which she has recently
been subjected. The clergyman's right to
the custody of his own church is one too
long and too plainly recognised by the law of
England to stand in need of any argument
from us. It is also an essential feature in our
ancient parochial system which we have
endured so much to preserve. And whether
we regard the new statute in its operation
upon either patron or incumbent, upon lay
property or ecclesiastical law, it cannot but be
denounced as a flagrant act of oppression,
insult, and ill faith.
The Church can now fully appreciate the
spirit in which the Liberal party are prepared
to deal with her. If she is not permitted to
retain those rights against Which nobody has
protested, how can she expect to retain those
which are the objects of popular hostility ?
Church rates will be the next sacrifice to
Ministerial exigencies; and by a gradual
transition we shall proceed to a community of
ecclesiastical goods, and the surrender of the
Church establishment. In point of principle
there is little difference between a clergyman
of the Church of England forcing his way into
his nci;;hbour's church, and Cardinal Wiszbuif

demanding permission to preach in West-
minster Abbey. If there are numerous per-
dons who would be aggrieved by the refusal
of a rector to marry them. there are still more
who are aggrieved by being excluded from the
use of our churches altogether. The Romanists
will say they built all our ecclesiastical edifices.
The Dissenters will say they have long contri-
buted to support them. Why are they not to
get something in return? If the doctrine that
the churches belong to the people be once
generally accepted, we see no impediment to
this conclusion. It is a logical result, and it
is certain to be worked out.

- -
If somebody will not stand firm against this
piecemeal demolition of the Church, farewell
to the English Constitution. " Church and
State " will soon become an empty idea, for
there will be no Church to embody it. In
fact, if this system be fully carried out, we
don't see how any class in the community can
expect to preserve anything which a small
body of pertinacious men choose to say they
dislike. But the Church is exposed to
peculiar danger. She has no voice in Parlia-
ment, except through a channel peculiarly
exposed to Ministerial influence; and, unless
she forms an integral part of one of our great
political connections, is utterly helpless. Her
defence, then, must not be left to individuals,
however zealous and able. Somebody, we
repeat, must stand fi7m who is able to do so
with effect ; and that resistance can never be
consummated without the formation of a
strong and united Church and Conservative
party.
In our articles of last year we pointed out
the necessity of this alliance simply to pre-
serve the framework of the Church. Sooner
than we expected the necessity has been
practically proved. A determined onset was
made upon one of the foundations of her inde-
pendence, and found the friends of the
Church disunited and disorganised. When
we see the closeness of the divisions both in
the Lords and Commons, it is impossible to
doubt that if the Church and the Conserva•
tives had been as intimately united as of old,
her resistance would have proved successful.
A political party ought not to interfere with
doctrines. The Conservative party can be
neither High Church nor Low Church exclu-
sively. It cannot carry out the favourite tenets
of either section of Churchmen. The ques-
tion is, is the Church herself worth pre-
serving? Would not the clergy of all parties
answer it in the affirmative ? If so, let them
support those statesmen who with the cordial
assistance of the clergy themselves would
alone be able to check the designs of her
enemies. _ _ _

We sincerely trust that during the recess
some measures will be taken for restoring the
lost confidence between the Tories and the
clergy. United they can do much to restrain
the spirit of destruction in every department
of politics. Dissevered they can do but little.
They are old allies ; and, for the sake of a
close union, it is surely worth the while of
either to sacrifice a few crotchets. If the
Churchman abuses latitudinarianism ; the lay-
man will abuse sacerdotalism. These words
must ho hushed. Neither must pettishly
throw away any substantial good for the sake
of visionary projects which can never be
realised.

WHAT IS THE WORTH OF LORD
PALMERSTON?

No domestic question of a political character
is worthy of more attentive consideration than
the degree of value which should be attri-
buted to Lord PALMERSTON. Recent circum
stances have considerably shaken the faith of
his admirers as to his special pretensions to
the fame of a great Minister. When the sub-
ject of calling out the Militia was mooted, the
Premier immediately vetoed it. His colleague
in the War•oflice echoed the indifference and
easy assurance of his chief, and after valuable
time had been lost, and when hands pre-
viously idle had found employment in gather-
lug the harvest, then our prescient Minist r