The Sun.
London, England, 1861-11-15 00:00:00

nection between Church and State is to be upheld 1
and vindicated—(cheers)—on principles entirely ‘
in unison with the spirit of the age, with the
circumstances with which we have to deal,
and on the soundest principles of political
philosophy. The most powerful principle which
governs men is the religious principle. It is
eternal and indestructible, for it takes its origin in
the nature of human intelligence. That will never
be content unless it penetrates the origin of things
and ascertains its relations with its Creator. All
who are here present well know that that is a
knowledge which, unaided and alone, human intel-
ligence can never attain. A wise government, there-
fore, would naturally seek to include such an
element in its means for influencing men ; otherwise
it leaves in society a principle more powerful than
itself, which in due season will assert its supremacy,
and most probably in an obstructive manner. A
wise government, therefore, availing itself of re-
ligion, would, as it were, consecrate society and
sanctify the state. (Hear.) But how is this to be
done ? That is a problem of modern politics that
has always most embarrassed statesmen, and no
solution of it can be found in salaried priesthood or
in complicated systems. Side by side, however,
with the Church of England there has arisen a
majestic corporation, powerful, independent, and
wealthy, with the sanctity of long tradition, yet
sympathising with authority, full of consideration
and even of deference to the civil power, firmly and
deeply planted in the land, mixed up with all our
manners and cnstoms, one of our chief guarantees
of local government, and therefore one of our firmest
securities for our common liberties, the Church of
England is part of her history, part of her life,
part of England itselr. (Cheers.) It is said some
times that the Church of England is hostile to re-
ligious liberty. As well might it be said that the
monarchy of England was adverse to political free-
dom. Both are institutions that ensure liberty by
securing order. It is said sometimes that the
Church of England has proved unequal to its mis-
sion, and has been unable to secure the spiritual
culture of the teeming millions of the population.
Within the last fifty years, when the vast regular
increase of our population has taken place, it is said
that the machinery of the Church of England has
not been sufficient to keep pace with it. But the
machinery of the Church of England in that
respect has only been incomplete; it has not been
obsolete. It has been said that the Church of
England has lost the great towns, but unhappily,
it has never found the great towns. They
are the future of England. It is in the great towns
that the areatest efforts of the Church are to be
made; it is there that their greatest victories will
be accomplished, for the greater the population and
the higher the education of the people the more
they will require a refined worship, a learned theo-
logy, an independent priesthood, and a sanctuary
hallowed by the associations of historic ages.
(Cheers). Well, then, I say that here is a ground
for dismissing all these unsubstantial and illusory
feelings of perplexity, of distrust, and of discontent
--here is a ground upon which all sections and
parties of Churchmen should unite, and would be
able to act together in maintaining the religious
settlement of this country. (Hear, hear). Is it
unnecessary ? Is there any one now who will say
that this union between Church and State is not
assailed and in danger ? It is assailed in the prin-
cipal place in the realm—in parliament ; it is in
danger in an assembly where, if Churchmen were
united, the Church must be irresistible. Nothing
can exceed the preparation, the perseverance, the
ability, and, I willingly admit, the conscientious
feeling with which the assaults upon. the Church
are carried on in the House of Commons. Church-
men would do wrong to treat lightly those efforts
because they believe they are the action of a mino-
rity in the conntry, for the history of success is the
history of minorities. (Hear, hear). Last session
alone a series of bills were introduced, all with
specific objects, yet all converging to one point—an
attack upon the authority of the Church and the
most precious privileges of Churchmen. Your
charities were assailed, even your churchyards
were invaded, your law of marriage was to be
altered, your public worship—to use the language of
your opponents—was to be facilitated. (Laughter.)
Finally, the sacred fabrics of the churches were no
longer to be considered national. True it is that all these
assaultswere defeated; but how defeated ? By a strain
upon the physical energies of those who repelled the
attacks, on which it is not in human nature that
youshould count, unless the country and Churchmen
generally come forward to support them. Now, I said
that there should be no subject to-day on which to
make a controversial remark, and I am not going to
depart from that rule, though I am going to make a
a remark on the subject of church rates. My opinion
on that subject is well known. I look upon the
carrying of a measure for the total and uncondi-
tional abolition of church rates as a signal blow
against the alliance between Church and State.
(Cheers.) I think it is a measure that under no
conceivable circumstances—at least, none that I can
conceive—should ever be permitted to pass. There
is, however, a very general opinion that legislation
upon the subject of church rates is necessary and
desirable, and that the law may be improved
and adapted to existing circumstances. Be it so.
But this I would venture to impress upon Church-
men who are present, and perhaps I may presume
to say upon some who are not here, that if there is
to be legislation upon church rates none can be
satisfactory which is not introduced upon the
authority of her Majesty's Government. (Cheers.)
Sure I am that no member of Parliament, whether
ho sit in Lords or Commons, can with his own re-
sources, and on his own responsibility, succeed in
such an enterprise. It would lead only to renewed
defeat and increased disaster. The subject at pre-
sent is in that position, that the Government is
most happily placed in regard to it, if they wish to
attempt to legislate. Oee-half the House of Corn-
mons sitting opposite to them will support any just
measure, waiving any points of difference between
themselves in matters of detail, and, therefore, the
Government is in a position to command a large
majority upon the subject. I think myself that it
is upon the whole their duty to deal with it. The
question of church rates is the great domestic ques-
tion of the day. It ought not to be left in the
position which it now occupies after what has
occurred in the two Houses of Parliament of late
years. The very fact that the opinion of the
House of Commons, as against the Government
is equally divided, and that in the other House of
Parliament there is an overwhelming majority
against any rash and unconditional change, indi-
cates that it is the duty of those who aro respon-
sible for the good government of the country to
come forward, and with all the authority of the
Administration offer to the house a fair opportunity
to deal with the question. I would venture, my
lord, to ask your permission to offer one observa-
tion which I hope Churchmen, who minister to us in
sacred things, will not feel presumptuous. I am
myself, I need hardly say, in public life a party
man. lam not, however, unaware, nor am I in-
sensible of the errors and the excesses which occa-
sionally occur in party conflicts ; and I have a
profound conviction that in this country the best
security for the purity of government and for the
public liberty is to be found in the organisation of
public men. Nevertheless, I have ever counselled
to my clerical friends the utmost reserve in politi-
cal affairs. Not that I question their right to en-
tertain on all political suhj'cts their opinions," and
to act upon them. An English clergyman is an
English gentleman and an English citizen, but I
have always felt that in proportion to their politi-
cal activity will the integrity of their spiritual in-
fluence be diminished. I prefer the maintenance
of their spiritual and social influence to their poli-
tical activity. But there is a limit I would recom-
mend, and that is when individuals are no longer in
question, but institutions. When politics consist of
upon
no ti nnedeirveildyu
questions concerning institutions, and do not bear
fere. And wh
which their dail
ought always to be
which they are the sacredfixed
opinion, they would b
theirals, thenr ighitt
bisutthtehediurtdyuotyf
—to
clergymen
inter-
en the institution in question is that
y thoughts and nightly meditations
upon—the Church in
Tinisters —then, in my
, e guilty of an apathy that
cannot be defended if the
y were silent or idle. The
clergy of the Church of England
-- have g this