On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    eluded whenever it is desired , without reference to the matriculation test at all . It would , moreover , be most unworthy of the House to pass a . clause by which the Dissenter might creep in , but which would exclude the Romaa . Catholic . He also protested against any menace being held out to the University as to future Parliamentary interference , "the more so as it would be quit * nugatory . Lord Stanley remarked that the course taken by the Government on this question was just that in which , they had dealt with every question of principle , especially religious principle . It afforded another and a most superfluous instance of that policy of indefinite delay , which seemed their only definite policy . They had said tbat the bill would be thrown out by the House of Lords if this

    measure were incorporated in it ; but for his part he was by no means so certain that the bill would not pass both Houses of Parliament . He by no means contended that it was wise and expedient for Parliament to take upon itself the details of academical offices ; Imt the present question was not one of detail ; it was one of those questions of national interest and importance which could not in fairness and common sense be avoided whilst the principle vr as admitted that Parliament possessed any power at all over the University . Though technically it would be possible for the University to raise such obstacles as would render the resolution inoperative , yet he thought it -would not consider it wise or safe to disregard the indication of national opinion b

    given y a resolution of that House . He entertained no unfriendly spirit towards Oxford ; but in his opinion the admission of Noncomformiits was just one of those questions with which there would be the greatest difficulty in dealing , if it were left barely to the will and discretion of the University , which was the head-quarters of that ecclesiastical party which , had invariably looked with -the greatest disfavour upon the Protestant Dissenting interests . With respect to tests , if any time for them was more objectionable than another , it was when they -were imposed on persons whose opinions were necessarily unformed . He was glad this subject had been brought before the House , and hoped the question would he settled now , and not indefinitely deferred .

    The motion was opposed by Mr . Wiooam and supported by Mr . Lucas , who , renouncing any claim on the part of Roman Catholics , insisted upon the right of Protestant Dissenters to participate in national funds appropriated to national education . Mr . W . J . Fox noticed a remarkable omission in the debate ; no speaker , he observed , had assigned a reason yshy , morally or intellectually , it was necessary to require from young men , as an educational matter , subscription to a body of divinity containing some 400 distinct propositions relating to the most abstruse subjects , about which pious men were ranged , on different sides . He demanded , he said , the admission not only of Dissenters into the University , but of the spirit of nationality , and that great and distinctive principle of Protestantism , the right of private judgment in matters of religion .

    Mr . Roundel * , Palmer denied that this was a question of any right withheld from , or civil disability imposed upon , Dissenters . The Universities were great public schools of religious education in connexion with the Church of England for the time being . If they were opened to the Dissenters they would be made unfit for all , or at least unfit for the Established Church . He looked . upon this motion as the first step to a revolution , which he called upon all who adhered to the principles of the Established Church , to resist .

    Lord J . RUSSELL said , two distinct questions were involved in the debate , —first , the admission of Dissenters to the University of Oxford ; secondly , whether , there being a bill before the House for the belter government of that University , it vas desirable and expedient that such admission should be enacted by the bill . With respect to the first , he did not think that any argument of conclusive weight had . been urged against the admission of Dissenters , and he entered at some length into the reasons whicTi ha . d convinced him of the justice and expediency of the concession , explaining the extent to which lie thought it should be carried . Upon the second ( juestion , the bill , he ob - served , tended greatly to the improvement of the University , opening a door to further reforms , and he considered it better to retain it in its present shape . The consequence of inserting this clause , it was admitted , must involve other clauses containing the machinery indispensable to the currying out its object , which would delay the measure , and it was very probable it would be Host in the other House of

    l ' arlinment . The University would have the power under the bill to make this change , and would be likcljr to do it with the more willingness if not under compulsion . If it was not muulo , the grievunco should not l )« suffered to continue , and it would bo then right , he considered , to bring in a bill for the admission of Dissenters to the University - Upon a division on Mr . Ueywoou ' a first clause the motion was carried by 252 to 161—a majority of 91 against the Government .

    Mr . He ? wood then moved the other clause for abolishing tests on talcing degrees , upon which Lord J- Kcsseix said he should not take a division , as the House had declared its opinion so unequivocally upon the former clause . But being appealed to by Mr . Waipolb to persevere in opposition to the clause , Lord J . Russell said , if there was a division , he should certainly tote against it . Another division then took place with a different result , this clause being negatived by 205 -to 196 . Mr . Bkiqht and Mr . Heyvtood announced their intention , to take the opinion of the House again upon this second clause at th « third reading of the

    bill . FATE OF THE CHURCH-RATE BILL . Sir William Clay's bill stood for the second reading on Wednesday , -when there was a set debate and a division . The bill was rejected ; but the discussion served to advance the question nearer to a solution , and elicited from Lord John Bus sell , incidentally , a promise to introduce a bill next session . The debate commenced , as usual , with the lighter and less effective speakers . There appeared to support the second reading Mr . Pbucatt , Mr . Mukrocgh , Mr . Edwxed Balx , and Mr . Vernon Smith ; the opposition being headed by Mr , GotrLburn , who moved tfre second reading of the bill that day six months , and sustained by Mr . Ltbdem . and Mr . R . Phillimoee alone .

    Mr . Gladstone opposed the bill . The practical question was whether the House would allow a great wrong to continue without a remedy . Admitting the evil , the * abolition of church-rates is not the only alternative . The Argument in favour of a change is irresistible , and Government will endeavour to make an equitable arrangement , but it does not follow that church-rates should be abolished . In his opinion , the law with respect to church-rates ought to be altered , because it tended to weaken all law in the country . A state of things ought not to be allowed to continue in which there was a law

    without the adequate means of enforcing the legal obligation . The law ought , then , to be altered in such a manner as would bring the means of enforcement up to the standard of the legal obligation , or else the character of the obligation ought to be altered . He maintained that the law is not only a grievance to the Dissenters , but to the members of the Established Church . "He did not think the law of church-rates ought to be abolished , and for this reason—that in the great bulk of country parishes the law of church-rates , in its substance , still worked well and peaceably , and in accordance with the object of its original institution . He wished it to be distinctly understood tnat be alluded to rural parishes , and uui iv i oi lue oi

    « uy grtsai populous pariaues mu uieuupjua or the large towns . There was not , unfortunately , any means of knowing in . what number of parishes church-rates had been either refused or condemned . These were , however , it was well known , 11 , 000 parishes in the country , and the number in which church-rates had c « en refused or contested did not exceed a few hundreds . If he allowed the number to be 50 0 , he thought the estimate was a liberal pne . If this were true , it would not be an adequate reason for abolishing the lair with respect to the remaining 10 , 500 parishes . In the rural parishes church-rates were lojked upon as a permanent burden upon the fixed property of the country—a charge upon land like tithes , or the rate for the relief of the poor , but this was not the case in populous parishes . He was , therefore , of opinion that church-rates should not be abolished in the rural

    parishes , for there the churches were not wholly inadequate to accommodate the people applying for admission . The persons who dissented from the Established Church did so from conscientious feelings , and not from any desire to escape the payment of church-rates . He held tbat in populous towns the bulk of the population who belonged to the Church had cause of complaint , because the floors of the churches , which wero their property , were monopolised , or , he might go to the length or saying , were robbed from them by the disgraceful system of exclusive pews . { Loud cries of 1 / Ieai ~ , hear . ' ) He thought , without committing himself to anything definite for the future , that much was to be said in favour of a plan which would divide the class of parishes , bo as to make a distinction between those in which the ajstem

    worked well , and those in which it worked badly . ( General cries qf i No , arid murmurs of dissatisfaction . ) Ho did not pretend to say whether such a distinction could be brought into operation , but he would renture to make a suggestion as to liow it might be effected . He would not proceed by making an absolute distinction with regard to the limit of population , but he would rather deal with the Btnto of facts as limy oxUtcil , in order to ascertain what proportion of parishes were for or against church-rates . His linpo was , that « plan would work by wliich the rural parishes would bo left vi'ry much aa they wer « at present—( laughter }—mid l > y which , in otlier casea where the rate was refused , the parishes should Uavo a legal title to that which theynow enjoy « d de facto , but with ii very questionable legality . "

    Mr . Bright did not know for which side of the House Mr . Gladstone ' s speech was intended . Upon the whole , however , ho thought the speech wad in favour of tho abolition of church-rates . He was inclined to think there was a difference in tho Cabinet upon this question not loss remarkable than that whidi was tsup >|> 08 ud to exist on all other subjects . ( Laughter . ) JJut he would rather take the speech delivered by Lord John Uusscll , wh « n the bill was

    introduced , as an indication of the intentions of Government , because Lord John might soon 'be the leader in bx > th Houses . Lord John said that it -was hopeless to attempt to satisfy Dissenters , because erery concession brought forth atew demands . That was the argument of Sir SoDert Inglis a . nd Mr . Craker . Another argument was that if the Church abandoned its rights , Parliament must provides compensation . That , surely , must tatfve been said without much consideration ; for if the Church were a . national Church , and the tax one imposed by law , surely , if Parliament chose to abolish the tar , it was not necessary to provide compensation The State could not

    r demand compensation from itself—from the people it was about to relieve . It was said they -were to have a measure next session . What -was that measure ? ¦* He supposed it would depend upon the condition of the Sublime Porte it that time . ( A laugh . ) They had already six bills thrown , over on account of the war , which , including the Itetform Bill , would be re-introduced next session , and to them this new measure was to be added . The Chancellor of the Exchequer advised Sir William Clay to withdraw this bill ; but surely because ' the Government could not pass any of its balf-dozen - bills , that was no reason why a private member should not proceed with his own measure .

    "He would warn honourable gentlemen , opposite that established churches came not from the beginning and -would not last to the encL Without arguing whether , tmdfer some circumstances , they might not be useful , he was certain tWey were , not necessary for a State . In the United States no difficulties of the kind presented themselves . Those who went to tbe United States from this country were enabled to do under the voluntary system all that t £ « y could do here by the voluntary and established systems combined . In that country there were * in proportion to the population , as many churches , as elegant and as costly , as amongst us . They had as many ministers , as' well educated and' as . influential , as we bad . They had a more extended svstem of education meant tne iree states

    —ne , or course , —ana tney possessed as many , if not mere , asylums , hospitals , ]> enitentiari « 3 , ' and other refuges , for the unhappy , the suffering , or the gttilty . Canada was adopting the same course ; and last year -we had given * that colony a power—which no doubt it wool ! soon use—to place all churches on the same footing . Therewas at present a difference of opinion in the Australian colonies ; bnt no one acquainted with these colonies could doubt that the time was not far distant when the same principle would be carried out . He mentioned those thongs to show -what feeling was abroad , and that the Established Ohurch , in order to be usefal &sd enduring , must abolish all abuses , and make itself aa acceptable as it could to the

    people ., offering aa little insult < ~ to others as it could to those who differed from it . The I > isMnter 6 did not come to the House as suppliants upon this question . They had been a § rowimg body since the Information . All the , Charleses , le Jameses , and the Georges , had not been able to resist the deepening , the widening , the fertilising , and purifying stream of non-conformity which had enriched aud blesstjd tins country . If in the reign of Charles II- 15 , 000 families consented to acc « pt their rain , and hundreds' perished in prison because t-hey adhered , to their religions convictions , bow could it be possible . now by any law , except by the law of ki p dnesa , to bring back to the Ghurcu , or to prevent dissent Jrom constantly swelling , while th « members of the Church in proportion were constantly decreasing . "

    Dwelling on the great evils of the present state of things , and forcibly commenting on the advantages of the voluntary system , Mr . Bright declared he would support the bill . Lord John Russell said that this proposal for unqualified abolition of church-rates was intended to forw ard the viev ^ s of those who were opposed to all establishments , and as he deprecated the destruction of the Established Church , he could not be expected to support the measure . He referred to the admirable character of Dissenters in past days , and said that , considering the services they had rendered to the cauae of education and religion , he should be glad to

    make any reasonable concession , and the whole dispute in the present da . y arose , not upon th « social evils arising from these rates , but in reference to the remedy to which recourse should be had . It would be inconsistent with the principle of a Church establishment , and would bo also a hardship upon Churchmen , were no funds provided for the maintenance of fabrics which had not been erected , like Dissenting chapels , merely for those who required them , but for all . He discussed various plans which had been suggested as substitutes for these rates , explained and

    vindicated Mt . Gladstones suggestion , and declared his belief that the churches of the country ought to be considered ! , not aa belonging to a sect , but to the nation , and ought to be supported by tbe land , America had been referred to , and he admitted that her institutions had worked admira-bly ; but ours , he added , were of a different character . We had a national Church , an hereditary aristocracy , and an hereditary monarchy , and these must all stand or fall tog-ether . As this bill was subversive of one of these great institutions , he should oppose it .

    Sir W . Cuay briefly replied , and the House divided . Tho numbers were , —for the second reading , 182 j for Mr . Goulburn ' s amendment , 209 ; majority against the bill , 27 . The bill is therefore lost .

    Untitled Article

    ¦ '^ jf June 24 , 1854 . ] THE LBADSR . 681

• Citation
  • Leader (1850-1860), June 24, 1854, page 581, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2044/page/5/