The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-10 00:00:00

result had been an almost total destruction of the confidence

for a time of the young in those whom they ought to be able
to rely upon and follow with confidence on account of their
age, ability, and learning. By the authorised construction
that had been attached to the articles, subscription had be-
come more stringent; but if, as Dr. Stanley urged, a more
liberal or enlightened method of interpretation was granted,
such as was in use in the time of Archbishop Howley, the

grievance of subscription would be very light. He thought
the Government had done right in not meeting the question
with a direct negative, and he agreed in feeling that any
measure of the kind ought not to take its origin in Parlia-

ment, but first pass in review elsewhere, not that he doubted
the power of Parliament to deal with it as with every other

subject.

Mr. HADFIELD said that the effect of subscriptions had
been to exclude the most pious part of the clergy from the

Church, and it was time all those difficulties and distinc-
tions that were so ruinous to the Church should be swept
away. The Church was not equal to her duties, or in ac-
cordance with the spirit of the age in which they lived ; and
she was like the old patriarch, whose hand was against

everybody, and everybody's hand was against him. He
claimed more attention from that house for the large mass
of Nonconformists. There was not that intercourse there

should be between the clergy and the people, and he was
convinced that the reforms in the Church should go much
further before religious peace could be established in the

country.
Mr. B. JOHNSTONE pointed out that there were two

ways in which an institution might be defended—by in-

variable and steadfast resistance to every demand, or

wise and timely concession. The first was the policy of
Rome at the Council of Trent, and the result was th 3

establishment of Reformed Churches all over Europe.
The lesson should not be overlooked by the Church of
England. (Hear, hear.) There could be no question that
there was a falling off in the number of candidates who now
presented themselves for holy orders. In 1841 the number
was 6C6, in 1861 it was only 489, and he could state posi-

tively that he had known many young men at the univer-
sities who had been unwilling to enter into the ministry on

account of the rigidity of the subscriptions which were re-
quired of them. (Hear, hear) In the university sermons,
it was true, it was endeavoured to soften that rigidity, but

young men felt that such a course was paltering with their

conscience, and declined to accept an interpretation contrary
to the language itself. (Hear, hear.) He admitted that a
national establishment should have tests, but they should
be such that grave men might conscientiously take. (Hear,
hear.) Was it difficult or impossible to frame such tests ?
Or was it difficult to have a form of subscription which ac-
tually implied what it was meant to imply by it ? He did

not believe in any such difficulty or impossibility, but he
did believe that, if they maintained the present rigid tests,
they would soon not be able to get any young men at all to
enter the ministry of the Church. (Oh, oh, from the Op-
position. and hear, hear.) The tests had been imposed by
Parliament, and it was proper that the same assembly should
relax them; but if they were to relegate the matter to any
other tribunal, it;would be relegating it to the Greek kalends.
(Cheers.)

Mr. LEFROY said, as he was the only representative of
the Irish Church present, he could not give a silent vote on
this question. He had heard with pleasure the speeches of
the Secretary for the Home Department and the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, both of whom enforced in strong language
the necessity of maintaining the bulwarks of the Church,
and on that ground he gave his hearty support to the pre-
vious question.

Mr. HENLEY said that two extraordinary statements
had been made by the hon. member for Plymouth and the
hon. member for Canterbury. One of those gentlemen
took upon himself to say that he believed the parties who
subscribed these tests did so with mental reservation. He
did not know how any hon. member could take upon himself
to say that of others. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for
Canterbury made a similar statement of young men in the
universities, and said it was preached to them that they were
not to take these tests in the plain sense of the words. He
happened to live near the university, although unfortunately
he was not a young man, and he thought if such things
had teen done they would have come to his knowledge. A
great deal had been said of fewer young men taking holy
orders, bat one important element in the discussion of the
point had been left out of consideration. Ten years ago the
House of Commons stripped the Church of its great nurs-
ing mother, the fellowships of the Universities, They were
very good fellowships, and that might be a good reason why
so many young men did not present themselves for orders
now as before the provision which bad been left by pious
men of former ages had been taken away by the impiety of
Parliament. (Hear, and laughter.) The hon. member for
Canterbury said that they only asked for very little, but no
one in the course of the debate put his finger upon any
point in the Formularies and Articles and said, " That is
what we don't want to subscribe to." What was it they
wanted ? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the latter
part of his speech referred to some nice point about a man
conforming to a thing and not believing it. (A laugh.)
If a man conformed to the use of a thing and did not believe
it what sort of morality was that? They should remember
that they had an Established Church, and that it enjoyed
large revenues ; but if there were larger revenues probably
there would be more persons offering themselves for ordina-
tion. He could have wished the Government bad met the
resolution with a distinct negative, for he feared that, after
th speech of the Home Secretary, the public would say there
should be some alteration. All he would say was, whatever
might be the intellect of candidates for orders, if they had no
honesty he would rather they had remained away. Better
to have honest people, although they might not have an
abundance of intellect. (Cheers.)
Mr, H. SEYMOUR supported the resolution, and
pointed to the Episcopal Church in the United States as a
proof of what might be done by a general form of agree-
ment in the doctrines and liturgy in keeping a church to-
gether without tests.
Lord R. CECIL said he had listened attentively to the
debate, and he could hardly make out the reason why young
men in the universities did not go into the Church in such
large numbers as formerly. Probably the best reason was
the taking away tae fellowships. He understood that no
change in the formularies was asked for by these young
men. He did not believe that the hon. member for Canter-
bury (Mr. B. Johnstone) had rightly described the state of
mind of the young men of Oxford. He had no doubt that
a great intellectual movement was going en, and that there
was great unwillingness to enter into the Church, but the
cause of that lay much deeper than a mere unwillingness to
subscribe to the Articles of the Church. The truth was, it
was not mere subscription that was objected to, but it was
the Articles themselves, (Hear, hear.) There was no
doubt, owing to the subsidence of those great controversies
which had occupied the world during the last 30 years,
much more of unbelief in these days than at any period
during the memory of the oldest member of that house ; and
it was not an unbelief as to small points, but an unbelief
which went to the very foundation of religion, and with
which no compromise could be held. (Hear, hear.) But
at the same time he did not believe that under the present
system the clergy were compelled to tamper with their
consciences. For 200 years, and during six generations
those tests had been cheerfully subscribed to by the clergy ;
and they might depend upon it that the experience of 200
years was of more value than the experience of the hon.
member for Canterbury. (Laughter, and cries of " Hear,

hear,")
Mr. DISRAELI said that he could not at all agree
that moving "the previous question" was the proper mode
of meeting the. motion of the hen. member for Maidstone.
The hon. member counselled the adoption of the motion in
deference to the power of public opinion, while the hon.
member for Pomfret (Mr. M. Milnes) argued from a totally
opposite point of view, that public opinion was not to be
trusted as a guide in the matter. The House, however,
after hearing the statement of the Minister, agreed neither
to support the motion nor the amendment ; it consented to
a course which, without explanation, would give an implied
assent both to the motion and to the amendment. Sub-
scriptions to the Articles and the Prayer Book were ob-
jected to, because it was opposed to that comprehensive
character which the Church should assume and maintain.
No one wes more in favour than himself of the comprehen-
sive character of the Church of England, but he would
add the condition that the comprehensiveness of the
Church of England should be based upon Church prin-
ciples. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Maidstone
and others had referred to the Act of Charles 11. as inju-
riously affecting the comprehensive character of the Church,
and ancient legislation was denounced as the cause of their
present situation. Well, he doubted very much the justice
of that criticism. He doubted whether it was possible, in
this, or perhaps in any other country, to prevent what is
dissent. He looked upon dissent as a weakness incident to
humanity. (Laughter, and hear, hear.) Even in the case
of Roman Catholicism, he might show, if necessary, as
much dissent, as much heresy, as much schism as in the
Church of England, although in the Church of Rome
dissent had been occasionally more forcibly suppressed.
(Hear, hear.) What, then, were they to expect in a coun-
try the infallibility of whose religion was founded upon free
inquiry, and where, although religion was supported by the
civil power, it was by a civil power founded upon the prin-
ciples of civil liberty P (Hear.) No modern English states-
man had contemplated that though the Church of England
should be founded upon a Catholic creed it should, at the
same time, comprehend a Catholic union. A standard of
religious truth should be established in the country that
should influence the conduct of men by the highest con-
ceivable sanction, and that had been accomplished by the
Church of England during the last two centuries. But if
heu:dra mightbstlroch becomes. a
o ta
the experiment of a comprehensive Church had not been
very successful on the Continent, what was their chance of
success in England ? Nobody could doubt that the attempt
to
systeml
n r eshfoaecLtod!
it.h
enforce
would
r bi:sea able
ueu to ecomprehensive,
comprehensiveness
(Al religiona ug la of h
t.
)haltVatitt hle a swtonuo
respectlbdbenobody
dty
most Nationalto
Church
the Act of Uniformity, that had been so much maligned, it
was futile to consider it in the abstract. It must be looked
at in
connection with the history of the period, and then
some just ideas mi •
ght be formed of its usefulness. The
truth w
as that there was no one of the important mea-
sures introduced by their great ancestors that might not
be impugned or
perhaps improved He had no doubt that
if he were to give notice that on Friday next he would bring
forward the case of the Bill of Rights, with a view to its
amendment, he Would make out a strong cage Against it,