The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1871-05-22
ENGLAND.

The English state Chu.ch-yhe Meve ment In
the English House Of COnlmOns Toward Its
Disc siablisl,,nent.
In the House Of Commons on the 9th inst. MIR.
MAIL moved his resolution aiming ut the disestab-
llshment OF the Church OF England IN these terms:
"rhat II Is expedlent at tne earlies; practicable
period to apply the policy initiated by the disestab.
lIshment Of the Irish Church to the other Churche
established by law in the United Kingdom" lie
presented the question, not as disseners' griev.
ance, but as q matter OF national policy, ana IN
combating the usual objections to abstract reso.
luton said his chief object ascertain prac-
ucally how far the House was disposed to apply
to Great b1an those which had
the Opportuneness Of the motion, he
discaimed all hostility to the Church or
Church parties; and he asserted mat the ratsOR
Tere OF the Establishment had disappeared. ana
that she herself was convulsed by internal dissen-
sions. Next he went Oh 10 argue that the Church
system had failed In every way, and that 1t was
wise any longer to be bound oy lis letters. 1t had
failed to secure universally, harmony ana unilor-
NIFTY OF worship, and II had failed to supply the
spiritual wants Of the country for the greater part
voluntary principle wsrkIng WITHIN It's borders, not
to connection with the State On The unjust appro-
prlatlon OF the whole ecclesiastical revenues the
country to one particular Church he expatiated at
length ana he nsld tnat me precedent ,S OF
a 1saaa OF he oenrcn Engand
Next he touched on the social mlsch.es OF estab
lIshsd Church. ana on the Disadvantages tn, to inc
urged that she would be all the safer by dsestab
lishment when the time OF revolutionary attacks
should COME
Air. J. d. LEWIS seconded the notion treating 1t
from The point or view OF churchman desiring
Mr. BRUCE, on behalf OF the government opposed
both the opportuneness and the subject.matter OF
IRISH Church act furnished any precedent Tor deal
ing with the English Church, and pointed out that
neither in Scotland nor IN England was there any
| particular demand for disestabIishment.
Sir Il. PALMER admitted that the discussion was
extremely natural, though Its most important Side
the reglous-could not be adequately handled
there. II the Church were mere political body he
trary, she was religions Church. resting on COM
mon basis OF doctrine and worship, ana her
when the present relations between them were
| formed. Sir koundell replied seriatlm TO MIR. Malls
IKE tme Church acea as bsneca stimulus to tas
dlssenters themselves, and he dwelt on the enor
nous risk Of destroying a machinery which was
confessedy doing much gooi, on the score Of mere
theoretical objections.
MIR. RICHARD advocated disestabllshment In the
state religion by the condition OF things In Wales.
Mr. seoURrIELD argued IN favor OF The main e
WILLIAMS supported the resolution, which he adj.
miIted would carry disendowment with It, -,
hearted opposition which the Home Secretary had
offered to the motion asserting that 1t was really
announcement to the enemies or the Church, and
| predicting that whenever Ministers felt their own
existence impered they would themselves NO over.
MIR. LEATHAM, IN supporting the resolution, spOSe
| OF the establishment as paradox" an "excres.
cencei anu an anomaly and Of her endowmens
ecclesiastical robbery and ''sacerdota absorb
tlon,r He was sanguine of the speedy success OF
the movement, and, IN answer TO somebody's ques.
ton, '.How long Is party OF dissenters TO follow
Cabinet OF ChurcnmenY' he expressed great conf
dence In Mr.. Gladstone's receptive aptltude'' aud
the noblc;ns!nct OF selrpreservaton which states
Mr. DIsRAELI remarked that the proposal was
reversal Of the policy Of the old Purians who haa
always appealed 10 the temporal power In spiritual
| matter5 and he answered the argument founded
on Continental and Irish precedenis by examining
| consequences of lSeStaDSlmcut In France
| Ireland The Irish precedent, he admitted, led
but we were governed more by rhetoric than logic,
| aud fortunately Tor the experience OF Irish dis
| establishment was not encouraging. Who, he asked,
| prompted THIS appeal TO the House Of Commons?
| III answering this Mr. Disraei expressed confident
belief that the great majority both in the House and
Church. lie attributed the movement to nOn-con.
formlsts allied for The moment with revolutionary
| nished some better evidence that the Church OF
England had ceased TO be the Church Of the
| dispute, that the Church was predominant, in the
rural districts ut least AS to the large towns, II the
| majority was not In communion with the Church,
neither was 1t with dissent But Mr.. Disrae looked
| with great confluence to the future efforts OF the
would be In ner iavor but an educated aud cutl-
| waited people, he believed, would be more and more
herself discreetiy. Criticzlng dr. Bruce's haiiins
tone, Mr.. Dsrasi expressed hope that the Prime
Minister wond lay down some pnpe Weh sne
| peroraon by declaration that he should oppose tho
motion more III the Interests Of the state than OF
| Mr. GLADSTONE after defending Mr.. Bruce. said
that the government intended TO oppose the motion
not limiting themselves TO the present OCCASION nor
| regarding 1t Us question OF detail on which they
might change their opinions tomorrow. The lrlsn
act, he argued, was no precedent for English dis
esiabl shment; aad In following up Mr.. Disraelrs
discussion OF the causes OF the motion, he appre
| nended that the internal condition OF the Church
had contributed great strength to H. pointing the
moral which botn the parties TO recent contests
might draw from this fact. Criticizng the language
oi tho motion, he drew from it the inference that
! Mr.. Mall had not considered the yastness OF the
years antiquity OF the Established Church, and The
| mode In winch 1t had INTERVIEWED ITSELF with the
| law and institutions OF the country anu the local
habits and feelings OF people, II was impossible
| to Overestinate tine magnitude OF the enterprise
il Was IN the power OF he non confOrmsts TO break
up the aprc OF the LIBERAL majority at any moment;
but he felt confident they won not demand that the
policy or the government should be ruled eXciu-
sively by this. Among other culogies Of tne learn
| Ing, culture and breadth OF the Church; Mr.. Glal
stone expressed the belief tBat she afforded the best
arena for The settlement OF the disputes between an
cient beliefs and modern Thought; and, alter vind
eating her claims to be the Church oil the majority.
he told Mr. Mall that II he woald carry his motion
he must begin by converting the people.
On division the resolution was negatved by
majority Of 2S5-347 to 80.
The London Times the .Joins High Csn,-
mission aud the Business Before IL.
From the London Times, May l0.l
Lord Enfield took the opportunity Of q question
put to him yesterday AFTERNOON in the House OF
OolnIlOuS W sthtc tiiot y tTeuby WIN inc united
states mad been signed at Washington, but he added
thai at the present moment the government were
not In position TO publish its contents. We learn
by telegraph frnm our correspondent Mt Phiiadel-
pnla That the Senate Is convened for to-day TO
slider the treaty, but as Its sittngs Will at first DC
private, we must be content to walt for an Official
statement Of the terms OF the agreement. The
reason Of this reserve will be easily understood. 1t
Is OF the utmost importance to the satisfactory re-
ceprion OF the treaty that 1t should be simultaneously
publishedn the fullest detail IN both countries The
subjects IN dispute between ourselves and the
United States very intricate, and nothing would
be easier than to create o wrong impression az 10