16 JUNE 1860, Page 14

WHO SHALL BE THE PAYMASTER ?

Tan Church of England has no more dangerous enemies than those who have the most exalted notion of its rights and privi- leges. A few grains of common sense, a prudent readiness to concede, a comprehension of the differences that exist between the second century and the eighteenth century, would go much further towards preserving to them the reality of power than all that high-flown declamation which seems to be so .much the v fashion. They have lately received some aid from a very unex- pected source, for just as Mr. Bright has, for the last two years, amused himself by playing into the hands of the Conservatives, the Nonconformists have frightened moderate churchmen into an opposition which might otherwise have been modified. There is no reason why the:Church party should not " improve " this occa- sion. They have really won a great victory, and they may, if they choose, make it a starting point for future triumphs. But they will certainly place themselves in a much worse position be- fore the public than they have hitherto occupied, if they show that success has only taught them to be more exacting. It is a spirit of an exactly opposite nature which should now be dis- played. If they are wise as serpents their wisdom should incline them to be harmless as doves. They should be moderate in the hour of victory, they should not treat their opponents with scorn, nor try to trample them under foot, as if they had gained an un- disputed mastery. They may depend upon it that their enemies are not less active than they were, and, if they have made a false step, they will probably know how to recover it. All true friends of the National Church must regret that very different counsels from those we have given appear just now to prevail. We allude, especially, to the course pursued by Mr. Selwyn and the Conservative party with respect to the Ecclesias- tical Commission. It would really seem as if the question which will be again discussed in the House of Commons on Wednesday next were an entirely new question. And yet it is one on which both Houses 01# Parliament have already pronounced an opinion, and refers to a system which has been in operation for several years. The question is simply as to who shall be the paymaster? Shall we retain the present system, according to which the epis- copal and capitular revenues are administered partly by bishops, deans, and canons, and partly by commissioners, who discharge their duties in Loudon, or shall we hand over every acre of Church land to the Ecclesiastical Commission, and put bishops and canons on the same footing, so far as their stipends are concerned, with ministers of state and other public functionaries. Both Houses of Parliament have decided that

the latter course is the better of the two ; and we earnestly hope that this decision will be confirmed on Wednesday next. The High Churchmen are, however, up in arms, and tell us that we are proposing to confiscate the revenues of the Church, perhaps to apply them to purposes which never entered into the heads of the " founders and benefactors," to pay poor curates instead of building bishops' palaces, or commit some similar monstrosity. The cry is raised that the Establishment is in danger, that we are about to secularize the Eng- lish Church, and to rob the heirs of a property bequeathed by pious men of the pleasure of doing what they like with their own. Now we honestly confess that we are anxious to bring about some of these changes. We think that bishops and canons would be much more likely to make their way with those whom they probably desire to win over from dissent, if they had nothing whatsoever to do with the management of these revenues. We even think that the commission should be composed, as far as possible, of laymen, that bishops and canons should be properly paid for the services they have to perform, but that they should have no voice in the matter, either as to the amount they should receive, or as to the manner in which the surplus revenues, in par- ticular districts, should be disposed of. What if they are to be called stipendiaries ? Will that make them less efficient, or is there anything humiliating in such a name ? They ought rather to be glad to be relieved of a burdensome responsibility, in the discharge of which they have incurred a considerable amount of odium. They seem to forget that the Convocation which meets now and then in the Jerusalem Chamber has long ceased to exer- cise any influence, and that the authority of Parliament is supreme on questions which were formerlydecided by Ecclesiastical authority. Let them accept this altered state of things. They are at liberty to question the justice and the expediency of an arrangement which is not likely to be disturbed, but it is foolish to contend against a principle which now is embodied in the constitution. Parliament has partly taken in hand the management of the tem- poralities of the Church, and we do not learn that the Church has suffered. Let us now complete what we have begun. It is undoubtedly in the interest of the High Church party to desist from their opposition to the Home Secretary's Bill. Mr. Selwyn talks about confiscation, but he does not understand that the most likely way of avoiding that dreadful contingency is to accept the kind of compromise which is now offered. The question of interpreting the capitular charters in a very liberal sense, has been mooted in both Houses of Parliament. It is true that, in either case, the attempt was unsuccessful, but the two bills to which we allude commanded a large amount of support out of doors. Bishops and Deans should be reminded that it is possible to in- terpret the charters by which they hold their possessions in a sense which actually implies a sweeping confiscation of church pro- perty. The Nonconformist bodies can claim to be considered as both " religions and pious," and it is possible the House of Commons may be exasperated by the exacting folly of the High Church party into sanctioning some extreme measure. The very reluctance exhibited by Mr. Selwyn and his supporters to extend the powers of the Ecclesiastical Commission, gives us reason to suspect that they are contending not so much for a principle as for a point in which their own interests are directly affected.