Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-03-01 00:00:00

PARLIAMENTARY OATHS

CHANGES in the constitution of a political
system generally lead to much more extensive and
more varied results indirectly, than was designed
to be directly produced ; and they often require,
therefore, further and corresponding changes, it
may be of infinitely greater moment than the
others, in order that the system may be restored
to a state of harmony and consistency. In the
words of a celebrated dissertation on political

philosophy, " political innovations commonly
produce many effects beyond those that were
intended. The direct consequence is often th e
least important. Incidental, remote, or unthought-
of evils or advantages frequently exceed the good
that was designed, or the mischief that was
foreseen." And the inevitable consequence, we
repeat, is, that other innovations must be intro-
duced in order to bring the system itself into a
state of congruity. The Constitution of a country,
or so much of its law as relates to the form and
character of the Legislature, and the rights and
functions of the several parts of the legislative
body, must thus be adapted, whenever, as in our
own case, it has become the object of unavoidable

changes.
We have witnessed, for instance, in this country,
during the last quarter of a century or more, a
great change in the composition of the most
powerful of the constituent parts of that body
the House of Commons ; and this change has,
among other necessities, rendered it expedient to
alter the oaths provided for its members upon
taking their seats. The admission of persons
originally and for long time excluded from that
body,—first, Dissenters, then Roman Catholics,
and. now Jews,—has made changes, from time to
time, in the Parliamentary Oaths, indispensable.
These changes, however, have been more in the
form of the oath, than in the object of it ; and
what has now, perhaps, to be principally com-
plained of is, that an object is left to be sworn
about which is quite oat of character with the
altered state of the case. This, at any rate, was
the real gravamen, it appears to us, of the question
as it was brought before the House last week, on
the part of the Roman Catholics. They have to
swear about their religious faith,—" that it is not
an article of my faith, that princes excommunica-
ted or deprived by the Pope, or by any authority
of the See of Rome, may be deposed or murdered
by their subjects, or any person whatsoever." And
if they are to swear about their faith, why should
not others do the same ? The intention is to
guard against the deposition or the death of the
Sovereign, which is certainly most important.
But its being confined to the Romanists could only
be justified, if it were justifiable at all., upon the
ground that their faith was likely to have in it
such an article ; in which case, assuredly, no oath
could ever really prevail against it—the same
power which could authorise any thing so utterly
in defiance of all law, human and divine, to the
contrary, surely being sufficient to authorise the
making an oath null and void, in such a case.
The oath, they maintain, is one containing
matters and statements which no Roman Catholic
gentleman can take without feeling that he is
placed in a position of degrading inferiority.

THE NORTHERN TIME TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 1859

And why this offensive distinction, when all that
is really wanted is just what is required and taken
from all the rest without any thing offensive at
all, their solemn declaration of allegiance to the
Crown and the Constitution ?
But the anomaly of these oaths is the more
glaring, when we come to that which, if it has
any meaning at all, can only mean that they who
take it are to consider their hands tied up as
respects the Established . Church. " And I do
hereby further disclaim, disavow, and solemnly
abjure any intention of subverting the present
Church Establishment as settled by law within
this realm." So runs the oath. Now how
can those be expected, in reason and good faith,
to put themselves in a position to have no intention
at any time to correct what they may conscien-
tiously believe to be a great wrong ? Why, if
there are to be no religious distinctions in
Parliament—if not only all denominations of
Christians, but they who are religiously opposed
to Christianity in any and every form, are admis-
sible there—if a man's- religious belief, or his wan t
of any religious belief at all, is not in anywise to
be taken into account—why should they be
obliged to swear they have no intention of remov-
ing what they most probably cannot, with their
views, but believe is a great political evil ? Eyen
were they all Christians, they are not as~• such,
that is by their religion, under any such religious
obligation,—for a State Church is no part of
Christianitiy, but only, at best, a method of incul-
cating it. We have it on the authority of no less
eminent a divine of the Church of England than
Dr. PALEY, that " the authox:ity of a Church
Establishment is' founded in its utility ; and that
whenever, ulion• this principle, we deliberate
concerning the form, propriety, or comparative
excellency,• of different establishments, the single
view under which we ought to consider any of
them is, that of 'a scheme of instruction ;' the
single end we ought to propose by them is, the
-preservation and communication of religious
knowledge.' Every other idea, and every other
end, that have been- mixed up with this, as the
making of the Church an engine, or even an ally,
of the State : converting it into the means of
strengthening or diffusing political influence ; or
regarding it as a support of regal in opposition to
popular forms of government ; have served only
to debase the institution, and to introduce into it
numerous corruptions and abuses." So that,
ac-
cording to this—and it is the common-sense vie w
of the subject,—its very utility, the only ground
of its authority, and therefore its sole justification!
is destroyed by its being just what it is—a Church

Establishment ; that is, a State Church. And can
members of the Legislature whose laws have
made it, and maintain it, as an Establishmen t
"settled by law," be they of what religion they
may, yet taking Dr. PALEY'S political and philo-
sophical view of it, remain prohibited by an oath
from having any intention, at any time, of sub-
verting it under a conviction not only of its
inutility, but of its inexpediency and even its
impropriety, consistently with that freedom of
thought and of uction which it has been decreed.
by that Legislature even religion itself is not to
interfere with ? We do not believe it. To attempt
it were an incongruity too gross to be endured,
even under an oath. There can be no true
religious equality, where one set of members may
not' do, on account of their religion, what yet
others may do. As Lord JOHN RUSSELL put the
case,—" An hon. gentleman who is a Protestant
dissenter holds the voluntary principle. He
thinks -he is quite entitled by your present laws to
bring forward a proposal, to bring forward a
motion, for a bill which is to destroy the Church
altogether, and there are other members of the
House who are not allowed to vote for that
motion, and are precluded by oath from so acting.
What then becomes of the equality of members ?"
What, indeed !
The effectual remedy for all this difficulty, and

all this inequality, is to remove religious subjects
out of the way altogether. An assembly that is
composed of men of all religions, and of none,
can never be qualified to deal justly with any one
particular religion,* or any establishment of such
religion. Every form of religion is not only to be
tolerated, but to be protected; and the Church of
England will therefore fare no worse than all the
rest, without the special interference of Parliament,
by oath or otherwise, in her behalf, —and particu-
larly so long as that clause in the Oath remains to
which no objection seems to be taken,—" And I
do swear that I will defend to the utmost of my
power the settlement of property in this realm as
established by law."

France and Austria,—the Government, happily,
being in a position to freely offer advice; and this
without any danger that their motives would be
mistaken, or any fear that they had any interest
beyond the general interest in the continuance of
peace. And, the further assurance that, upon the
whole, satisfactory communications had been
received both from France and Austria—communi-
cations leading to the hope that the Papal States
would ere long be evacuated by the troops
both of France and Austria, and this with the
full concurrence of the Papal Government, was
undoubtedly a most important fact at so critical a

conjuncture.
It is perhaps to be regretted that all this could
not have been made known to Parliament and this
country some days before ; for not only might its
cordial reception by the Great Council of the
Nation, and by the Nation itself, have had a
salutary influence upon the Continent, but it would
have calmed and tranquillised the public mind here
at home, and thereby have served the financial and
commercial interests of the country. It is evident,
as Lord JOHN RUSSELL has so frankly admitted,
that Her Majesty's Government have taken a right
view of their position, and that great advantages
have already accrued from their interventions. It
is indeed most fortunate that, at such a crisis, we
have a Government of peace—whose great aim,
and whose highest interest is peace ; and whose
strongest claim to the gratitude of their country
will doubtless be, that at such a time of difficulty
and danger they have succeeded—if succeed they
fortunately do--in promoting and maintaining the
peace of Europe.
The last effort to that great end, we suppose,
must be considered the mission of Lord COWLEY
to Vienna. And it was certainly most assuring to
the country, to find even Lord JOHN RUSSELL
declaring that he expected every thing that prece-
dence could obtain from the intelligence and the
experience of so well-chosen a diplomatist,—in
forcible contradiction to the carping of the leading
organ of the Opposition Press, that such a choice
was absurd,—not, it is true, because he was not
the best man for so delicate and difficult a duty,
but because he could not be in both Paris and
Vienna at once ! Well haS it been asked, however,
" How would it be possible for our Ambassador at
the Court of Vienna to speak. with the authority
that necessarily attaches to the words of Lord
COWLEY ? Who would give Austrian statesmen such
an insight into the Imperial motives and resolves,
as the nobleman who has made the policy of the
Emperor the special object of his vigilant study 9"
There can evidently be no answer to such ques-
tions as these, which will not amount to a sentence
of warm commendation of the selection of Lord
'.COWLEY for so important and peculiar a mission
of peace.

The result of Lord COWLEY'S mediation is
naturally awaited with intense anxiety. But
it is strange, and almost disheartening, that
all the while the preparations for war in
France have been going on as actively, and
as -ostentatiously as ever_ We read, for in-
stance, that " the French Minister of War
has issued a circular to the commanders of all
military divisions, ordering them to avail them-
selves of the fine weather to train the troops to
forced marches and night bivouacs,"—and
that " all the military surgeons, who in time
of peace are sent to the various hospitals to keep
them in practice, have been ordered to join their
corps, and within the last few days immense
quantities of lint have been sent on to Lyons."
This does not look hopeful for peace : it does not
accord with the peaceful communications said to
have been received by her Majesty's Ministers
from the French Government. However, a very
short time now will most probably answer our
question—PEACE OR WAR ?

THE CHURCH RATE COMPROMISE

THAT compulsory Church Rates, in the present

state of the nation, as respects religion, are a
source of dissension, and a cause of discontent,
among the people ; and that, dissension and dis-
content being evils, it is desirable, if not to abolish,
yet to re-adjust such an impost, is a position too
popular for any practical statesman now-a-clays to
resist. And this is just the whole case of the
Church Rate question. Whatever was the origin
of such payments, they have from time immemo-
rial been established as fixed charges upon
property ; and, as such, they have entered into
purchases and sales, and become debts, the dis-
charge of which ought not to be considered as in
any way wounding the conscience of the debtor.
They are, moreover, and for ages have been, the
law of the land. It is, indeed, a very ancient law
—part and parcel of the common law of England—
declared to be such by the highest tribunals in the
country—which imposes an imperative obligation
upon the parishioners of every parish in the king-
dom to maintain the fabric of their parish church.
And for this, among other reasons, that it is their
parish church, for their common use —free to all, even
the poorest, who may choose to avail themselves
of its ministrations. But when, unhappily, divi-
sions arose, and people came to repudiate the
religion of such parish churches, then was it, in
process of time, felt or imagined that the old law
was a grievance. And certainly it must be
acknowledged, that it is a law—being made at a
time when all persons were of one mind, or pro-
fessed so to be, in matters of religion, in this
country—which is not exactly suited to our altered
circumstances. For not only are the people no
longer unanimous, but the community is split up
into numerous sects; all differing from one another,
yet all agreeing in their dissent from, if not their
opposition to, the Church, for whose support the
law is in force. The money obligation on the part
of the owners of property was not taken away—
it could never be—by their dissenting from the
Church ; for it was an obligation clearly justified
and supported by reason and by conscience; and
one which the law was bound to enforce, just as it
would enforce the due discharge of any just debt
to man. Still such an obligation, or rather the
law enforcing it, has its inconveniences and evils,
alike, to Church and State; and hence the expe-
diency of some such compromise respecting it A

that which has beezi submit
Her Majesty's Ministers: submitted to Parliament by

Various plans for effecting such
a compromise
have, from time to time, been brought forward.
But they were schemes which either would .i..-ans-
fer the charge from the property now liable to

to property not at present liable ; or which
attempted to throw the obligation upon the public
taxation of the country or upon the revenues of
the Church ; or which attempted to substitute for
a legal obligation payment by means of pew-rents.
And all these were more or less objectionable,—the
two former as unjust in principle; and the latter
as not only oppressive to the poor, but impolitic
towards the whole people. The right idea of a
parish church—certainly the good old English
idea of it—means; as Mr. Secretary WALPOLE, in
bringing forward the Government measure, ex-
pressed it, " a church, which in every town, in
every parish, in every village in the kingdom
ought to be free and open to all, which ought to
furnish every poor man in the country who wishes
to receive it the blessings of the ordinances of
religion, without any tax or rent for a pew or
seat." And this most charitable, this truly
Christian ideal, at any rate, is still to be upheld.

The measure which Ministers have submitted
for the decision of the House of Commons proposes
to make the Church Rate a landlord's rate ; to
enable the owners of land to charge it with a
Church Rate, extending the power to tenants for
life as well as owners in fee; to make incumbents
and churchwardens corporations ; and to make
certain provisions for aiding this rent-charge by
voluntary assistance,—thus respecting and pre-
serving the moral and legal obligation that rests
upon property to discharge a debt to which it is
held justly liable. This is one side of the compro-
mise. The other is a provision to exempt
Dissenters from the rate, in order to relieve con-
scientious scruplesi—such persons as claim the
exemption upon that ground not to be permitted
to take part in vestry meetings for imposing a
Church Rate : only Vestry meetings for that
purpose, be it understood, and not from
meetings for other parochial purposes,
as we find the notion has begun to
prevail; for such a general prohibition of
Dissenters would, in the present state of things,
be a great wrong, as they are still parishioners,
as much interested in all secular parochial objects
as Churchmen themselves can possibly be.

That the Ministerial measure will meet with
universal approval is not to be expected. No
measure of the kind could possibly be framed that
would do so. But it must be remembered, that it
is a compromise; and one which, adjust it as you
may, with any sense of justice, will be found full
of difficulties. Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated a
number of objections to it ; and yet, after all, he
was constrained to declare, " I believe it is the
very best measure that under the circumstances
can be produced, though it is not the best measure
we could desire." We only regret to see Lord
JOHN still setting such great store, as he does, by
the maintenance of an Established Church, the
principle of which is getting more and more
inconsistent every day with the altered circum-
stances of the country, and the modified character
of our institutions. "As I followed the right
hon. gentleman's arguments," said Lord JOHN,
" I could not but perceive that with respect to the
second part of his measure in which he proposes
to relieve from payment all Dissenters who state
they have a conscientious objection, he is impairing
the principle on which an Established Church
rests, and he must have felt it himself." No doubt
whatever it is so. But then.has not that principle
been so impaired already, by Lord JOHN himself,
as to render its further retention not only a gross
anomaly, but often a great obstacle, and a
grievous inconvenience ? The whole idea of

Church and State" is now an idea not only out
of date, but quite out of character ; and the sooner
it were given up altogether, the better and
happier would it be, we verily believe, for all con-
cerned, the Church herself not excepted.