The Press.
London, England, 1854-06-24 00:00:00

'r i 11R .

JO~i

than prolong the evils and bitterness which they now
oceasioned„
Saint urged the necessity of a speedy
settlement of the question which had caused twenty
years' agitation. Though Iron; John Russell inter-
jected a promise that the Geverinnent would bring in
a bill next session, the hon. nieinber refused to wait,
'and contended that if the Ministry would not under-
take to legislate forthwith on the subject he must
support the bill now before the house.
The CIIANCELLLOR of the EXCHEQUER admittedthat
the church rates was a wrong for which there ought
to be a remedy, but he did.not See the advantage el a
demonstration in the form of a measure which could
by no possibility become law during the present
illeission, and therefore he could not assent to the pro-
Ivisition that the alternative lay between counte-
Wincing these rates and abolishing them. The case for
'it change was irresistible, and the Government was
prepared to encounter the difficulties attendant upon
.legislation upon the subject, and would endeavour to
'skive at an equitable adjustment of the question.
sitmOng the ebjections to the present system was the
fact that the existence of a legal obligation, which
4potild not be enforced, tended to weaken the ;dininis-
.tration of the law, and, he conceived that the rates
Were a grievance both to churchmen and dissenters,
'to the former because, if the rate were granted, angry
feeling were excited, and, if we refused, the Church
'Was left without support ; and to the latter because
'the state of affairs had altered from what it was in
times when the benefit and the imposition went toge-
ther.' BUt` he did not consider that for these reasons
church rates ought to be abolished. Mr. Gladstone
proceeded to examine the various plans that had
been proposed for adjustment, and then ventured upon
a suggestion of his own
.
" He was aware that it was far more easy to take
objeotion to the plans of others then to suggest plans which
were free from objection; but he hoped that, when the house
catne to consider this question, they would do 'so with a
temper prepared to make some mutual sacrifices ; for they
might depend open it, if the diffietilties that lay in the way
were net miet in this manner, the (petition would•never be
settled. lifear, hew.) 'He thought., without committing
ilximself to anything definite for the. future, that much was
to be said in favour •of a plan which would divide the class
of parishes, so as to make a distinction between those, in
which the system worked wril, sad those in which it worked
badly. (Otnerpl pies1 and murmurs 4 dial...fail:-
faction.) dVdi hot preeetid Co say whether such a dis-
tinction Atild'bi• broStight into sbperation„ bat he would
venture to Make a suggestion as it, how it Might be effected.
Hh wortld not proceed by making ha absolute distinction
with. regard to the limit of population, but he would rather
eel with the state ;of facts as they existed,in order to ascer-
tain what proportion of parishes were for or agains: church
raters. ..Hip lope was., theta plau would work by which the
441111,parialiea would be left very rotailt as they were at pa*
sent ,•(!flyiilitcr =titOby which, in other cases where the
was refuse ;the pal-lilies shoiild have a legal title to
that which they now enjoyed de had; but with a very ques-
tionable legality. He ventuled,to press upon the house that,
if it wcrc to Abollish ft,mhurch 'rates in, all parishes, the effect
',Medd be to deprkveany pariShes of fiiud* whieli they now
€njoyed,` ilia to idatee them in a'cotalitionof incapacity
bhck•tipon 'voluntary support, because thurchitien
eeuld not have in their hands the application of the fends
they might themselves subscribe for titerepairof the ahuroh.
It was possible they might be driven to ,the total abolition
of church rates—(Hear, hear)—and he admitted that his
hopes of avoiding that altentinkvi were not raised by what
he had heard that ddy •, but the house 'should beware how it
proceeded to establish a system of equality which would
&pica tiveX hutch of the voluntary means open to individuals
to. suppla:;froin .their own resources their (ma religions
Mfmtll,,,( Pftf. kePr.)"
Chancellor
Mr.,Nathipw was. at ..a. loss to er the
Chancellor pf, lilschequer' intended
far the glisteteFial or the
,ppetiltwit„tiglsadot, „the
liouse, 4, wag ,pretky clear etAhgfikwor s,4#llcul
in the Cabinet u; the ehtWebmtte aff ere
was upon every , er question of importance. As to
the intreduetiop. o tihs.promised , nest session, is
expeued, thattAtNtpuld, depend 1.. ,t,he•atate of the
Sublime Porte.' If the present i should. unfortft-
Pl4fif..b,9 thftiM 4)Sti.*h9Ped e rairto*ty would be
wiiitkimletce..laord ,John ussell to ibend his
It tiPPP.the Principle of abolition.
ItPr4.J.:#94Fp. recapitulated .Xhe couditions on
whAch.:42,h4 opinion, any aatirifactery settlement of
iho,qhprelinrate. question nuw4i he. ibaed, Ile Gould
not pqrcgit tho.vc4utary, gyutem itoi supersede the Es-
tablishment, nor could he consent to abolish church
rates without first providing some fond fer, the main-
pnance of the fabricknow belcuiging.to.the church.
,whilled to *lies, thp,. Prutestexa dissenters,
to owe of civil and religious liberty
!yip nine* indebted, from their present griev-
anoess but could sanction, no measure, that, did
not recognise the justice of drawing fromille „land
mousy. for the support of the parochial churches of
the country. Those churches, he argued, diti not her
long to a sect, but to ;the nation, and should find
national support., No substitute of which he could
approve had been suggested in the room of the
eltureh rate ; and, failing that provision, he thought
it most advisable to retain the impost :--
" The law said that the kariali is bound to repair the gar
cient parochial chiircli. Such was the theory of the law.

•
The practice of the law was this (and for that practice
there is no remedy), that a majority of the parishioners
may rethse the rates necessary for the repair of the paro-
chial church. Well, the remedy proposed by the measure
before us is the total abolition of church rates. Now, the
adoption of that plan would be a hardship to those who at-
tend the church Dissenters way build places of worship to
snit their own wants, but that they should leave the ancient pa-
rochial churches without any means of legal support is, in the
first place, inconsistent with the principles of a church es-
tablishment. In the nextplace, it would be a practical hard-
ship on those attending the parochial church. Various
remedies have been suggested. One is, that there should
be a voluntary collection on the part of the Church. I
think that in many parishes a voluntary collection would
not be sufficient. Then, it is proposed to separate the
dissenters, and make out allot of those who do not attend
the church services. I strongly object to that proposition.
(Hear, hear.) I should be very sorry to see a system in-
troduced which would have the effect of depriving the dis-
senters of a right of attending the ordinances of the
Church. Another mode proposed was that of levying pew
rents, I think that mode is objectionable—(Hear, hear)—
because, in the first place, it would be very repugnant to
the feelings of the agricultural population generally--to
the farmers who have been accustomed to attend the
church as open places ofworship—(Hear)—and to the poor,
who would have a right to complain of beingdeprived of free
seats in the house of God. (Cheers.) Whatever plans
. .

may be suggested, I think that the Church has a right to
call upon the land to maintain in repair the parochial
churches. I couaider those churches not as the churches
of a sect, but as national buildings. (Cheers.) And con-
sidering them, I think they ought to be inseparably con-
nected with the land, by whom the Church has hitherto
been supported. I believe that it would be bad policy on
the part of the land to consent to any law by which our
village churches would fall into decay, and cease to be re-
garded as objects of veneration. (Hear, hear.) That is the
principle on which I oppose the bill. The hon. member
for Manchester says that great effects have been produced
by the voluntary principle in the United States of America.
I am not disposed to question that assertion of the hon.
gentleman. I know that great effects have been produced
by the voluntary principle, not only is America, but in this
country, in connection with the Church Establishment.
But I certainly do consider that, while the institutions of
the United Slates are harmonious, while they have a volun-
tarily-stipported Church, universal suffrage, no premogent-
ture with regard to the land, an elected Senate, and an
elected President—while, I say, they have those institu-
tions which agree harmoniously with one another, and
produce, no doubt, real greatness and real freedom, we in
this country have other institutions. (Loud cries of ' Hear,
hear.') have a national Church, an hereditary aristo-
cracy, and an hereditary monarchy. (Hear, hear.) All
these things stand together. ( Cheers.) And I must op-
pose Chia bill as a step towards subverting one of those
great institutions. (Loud cheers. )"
On a division the amendment was adopted by 269
votes to 182-27, and the, bill was consequently
thrown out.
OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL
'This bill was brought forward on Thursday for
"consideration as amended." 'The proposal for ad-
mitting dissenters to the university had been by
agreement left for discussion at this stage of the
measure, and Mr. Heywood accordingly introduced
it it an early hour. The principle was embodied in
two clauses which he purposed to append to the bill.
Onenf these abro;ated all oaths to be taken on or
bgford 'Matriculation, other than the oath of alle-
giance, or a declaration equivalent thereto. The
Second clause abolished, with similar reservation,
the oath now required upon taking degrees, except
with respect to degrees in divinity. By the forms of
the house each clause had to be decided upon sepa-
rately, and therefore the first clause was presented
for discussion alone; but the debate, which lasted
throughout the entire evening, embraced the prin-
ciples and consequences involved in both proposi-
tions conjointly.
A great ntnnber 'of Members took part in the dis-
cussion on both sides, but the arguments urged re-
volved in a narrow circle, end the successive speakers
differed rather in the details by which their conclu-
sions were illustrated and enforced, than in the chain
'cif ratiocination through which they conducted their
hearers. Mr. Hey Wood, in moving the clauses, gave
a Watery of university tests, from which he inferred
that their original purpose had been political, and
that they had been prompted by feelings of fear and
exaperation, end ought now to be obliterated. ' Mr.
Collier seconded the motion, and combatted the
argument based on founders' wills, which he Said
had already been extensively infringed when the en-
dowments were adapted to the Protestant establish-
ment at the Reformation.
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT admitted the principle, but
denied this 'expediency of the clauses. Religious
tests ottgiht to be abolished, but then the present was
tifit the fit occasion to act upon that maxim. The
bill had cost much trouble, and undergone much
opposition, and he entreated the house not to risk
its success "elsewhere " by incorporating with it so
debatable a provision as was now proposed at the
last moment.
Mr. Idnamit Gummy commented upon the loss of
dignity which the Commons would suffer if they re-
frained from doing right out of fear of anything the
Lords would do. He referred to bygone votes and

• ' SATURDAY

utterances of Lord John Russell, Lord Palmerston,
and the Peelite party, and sought to fla them to sup.
port the present motion under penalty of a charge of
inconsistency.

Sir W. HEATHCOTE, taking an academical view of
the case, pointed out the difficulties and discrepancies
which the clauses would occasion at Oxford, and
earnestly opposed this first attempt to divorce the
Church from the universities.
Sir J. HAMDEN supported and Mr. HENLEY
opposed the clauses.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER believed that
the Motion belonged to a series of parliamentary
attempts made, or to be made, with a view of abolish-
ing religious instruction at the university, and felt it
his duty, both as Minister and member, to resist it.
He argued also that the clauses would prove in-
effective. They might unbar the door of entrance
for the dissenters, but inside there were other hin-
drances arising from minute college regulations for
compulsory attendance at chapel, or on courses of
divinity lectures, ike., which could not be got over.
On the principle he contended that if dissenters
were admitted Roman Catholics could not be refused.
In practice he urged that the clauses would not
cohere with the bill. It was an " enabling" measure,
creating a new governing body, which it then left at
liberty to decide upon all questions of detail; and, con-
sidering the oaths as belonging to such, he could not
see why the Legislature should make them an
exception to the rule, and pass an arbitrary enact-
ment respecting them over the heads of the college
authorities. When the university itself became
willing to let in dissenters—a contingency which he
seemed to think not altogether beyond hope—a
solution for all difficulties would easily be found.
Lord STANLEY remarked that the Government
were treating this question as they had done all
others involving a religious principle. They would
neither support nor oppose it on broad and intel•
ligible grounds, but prosecuted a policy of indefinite
delay. He believed that the House of Lords was
often made a convenient excuse for Ministers anx-
ious to evade their pledges for reform. Respecting
the changes now contemplated, he approved of the
proposal to abolish the matriculation oath. It was
most improper to exact a pledge of religious faith
from young men, at au age when their opinion on so
solemn a subject must necessarily be unformed.
The abolition of the subsequent oath on taking
degrees presented greater difficulties, but be sug-
gested that the objects of all parties might be recon-
ciled by setting apart certain colleges for the exclusive
use of members of the Church of England.
WSORAM opposed the motion, and Mr. LUCAS
supported it, disclaiming, however, as a Roman
Catholic, any intention on the part of his fellow-
Papists to, avail themselves of privileges granted on
behalf of dissenters.
Mr. W. J. Fox turned the argument inside out by
remarking that the supporters of the motion should
not be called upon to prove the negative, but its op-
ponents must establish the positive position. Those
who insisted upon retaining the tests should show that
there were benefits, moral or intellectual, resulting from
them. He then criticised the thirty-nine articles,
declaring that they were difficult of comprehension,
doubtful in interpretation, and that no undergraduate
could pledge himself to them otherwise than either
ignorantly, indifferently, or hypocritically. ,
Mr. llounnill. PALNER, from an historical review
drew the conclusion that the universities were created
by ecclesiastical endowments, and should not be dis-
severed from the ecclesiastical establishments to
which they owed their origin. Upon the same prin-
ciple on which dissenters claimed admission to the
universities they could demand the abrogation of the
Established Church. The institutions were coreve-
lent ; an established church must have its universities.
He warned the house against making a first false step
in so dangerous a course.
Lord J. Russet'. followed the same course of argu-
ment as Mr. S. Herbert, but expatiated at greater
length upon the justice, safety, and expediency of re-
moving all the disabilities under which dissenters
labourel. In the university, he argued that they
shoald be admitted to every privilege except that
of sharing in its government. But as to time and
circumstance lie cousideaed that neither was appro-
priate. It was undignified to assert a great principle
in two clauses, supplemented upon a bill to which
they had no natural sequence. And it was inex-
pedient to cause the inevitable delay and probable
risk which the measure would undergo by the addi-
tion.
A brief reply from Mr. HEYWOOD was followed bye
division, in which the first clause was carried against
the Government by a majority of 91; the numbers
being—Ayes 252, noes 161. Terming this result "an
unequivocal expression of opinion " in the house,
Lord John Russell then announced that he should
not divide against the second clause.
Mr. Wsi.rout would not allow the matter to be so
easily settled. There were serious distinctions be-
tween the effects of the two clauses. One allowed the
nonconformists to enter the University for education,

tllik..llllMilllllinnmumll fil