NEWS OF THE WEEK.
As the session of Parliament draws towards a close, the conviction strengthens that we have " too much Church" in this country. As the session of Parliament draws towards a close, the conviction strengthens that we have " too much Church" in this country. What are the questions which, to the exclusion of almost all others, force themselves upon the attention of the Legislature con- tinually? These,—settlement of Tithes, in Ireland and in Eng- land; Reform of the Established Church, in both countries ; Church Discipline ' • Marriage Ceremonies and Registration of Births, which the Church has managed for its own worldly advantage; Church-rates ; and many others, bearing less directly on the maintenance of a State religion, but still materially affected by the consideration that we have a Church Establishment to support. These remarks are as applicable to the business of this as of any previous week of the session. On Monday, Ministers suc- ceeded in carrying the Bishop's Bill, by a vote of 175 to 44,—a large majority certainly; but a scrutiny of the Division-lists proves that it ought not to be a satisfactory one to a Liberal Administra- tion. The majority was swelled by 72 Tories, and 24 holders of office under Government. The minority numbered the Repre- sentatives of the Reformers of London, Southwark, Finsbury, the Tower Hamlets, Lambeth, Liverpool, Birmingham, Leeds, Hull, Sheffield, Manchester, Salford, Wigan, Bath, Wolverhampton, and the Metropolitan County. In other words, Representa- tives of all the first-class towns in England, except Bristol and Norwich, recorded their disapproval of the bill ; whilst it is well known that, under the peculiar circumstances of the Ministerial position, many Members voted in the majority to keep out the Tories, not because they liked the measure.
That the minority were perfectly justified in the course they took, however annoying to the Government, will be manifest from a statement of the merits and demerits of the Bishop's Bill. It limited the income of the Bishops, and put an end to the practice of holding preferments in commendam. Behold the sum of bene- fit, quoad the public I But, on the other hand, the incomes it secured to the Bishops were a great deal too large, the smallest being nearly equal to the Premier's salary—the Archbishop of CANTERBURY'S three times as much : it precluded the application of any part of these enormous revenues to the necessities of the working clergy, or the repairs of churches in lieu of rates; it ex- tended the jurisdiction of Bishops in quarters where it was most offensive; in the case of Manchester it installed an ecclesiastic with temporal power as a Lord of Parliament among a hostile population of Dissenters and Catholics : it established a Com- mission, practically independent of Parliament, with powers which required cautious limitation, and yet were almost indefinite : lastly, the bill had not received the necessary consideration; it had been partly smuggled, partly forced through the Houie of Commons,—a sufficient reason, were there no other, for resisting it. We regard as nothing the vaunted concession of a disputed principle: the assumption that this bill has for the first time -.drawn from the Tories a recognition of the right of the State to interfere with the distribution of Church revenues is un- 'founded—the bill had no such merit; provided that the amount were left whole, Sir ROBERT PEEL and other Tories admitted two years ago, and Lord STANLEY in 1833, the propriety of a new ap- portionment of the revenues. When to the power of interfering a sufficient motive is added, the right is always taken for granted : when power and motive are on the other side, the right of interfe- rence will be denied just as it used to be. Nothing is gained by Reformers as against a hostile majority, by the recognition of the principle, of which so much is made. But in the mean while, the Bishops, in exchange for their worn-out tenure of prescription, will have got a new lease, by Act of Parliament, to plead against future encroachments : they will exclaim against the inje.srice of attempting to overturn a " recent" settlement by the Legislature. The Lords on Monday struck out of the Iris,h phprell Bill its Mast valuable provisions. They gave (if jheir vote could have
£LATEST EDITION.
given) the tithe-owners 75 instead of 70 per cent. on the nominal value of their property, refused to reopen the compositions under Mr. GOULBURN'S Act, and rejected the Appropriation clause. This being accomplished, Lord MELBOURNE " washed his hands" of the measure ; and Lord LYNDHURST moved it through the re- maining stages, and sent it down to the Commons ; who have agreed to consider the Lords' amendments on Tuesday next. It has been asked, why the bill was not suffered to drop in the House of Lords—such being the course adopted by Ministers last year ? The answer is, first, that it suited the Tory tactics to throw upon the Commons the onus of acceptance or rejection, and Ministers had no choice : so long as the bill lay on the Lords table, it was competent to any one of the Tory party to take it up and press its adoption in the Commons, perhaps at a very incon- venient time. Secondly, the Ministers have no objection to bring the subject once more before the House of Commons, in the expectation that their majority will exceed that on the last divi- sion. How far they are justified in anticipating an increased majority, remains to be proved. All who wish to keep the Whigi in office, should be in their places ; for Lord MELBOURNE has distinctly declared, that, if beaten on this question, even in the PEEL House of Commons, he will at once resign. We suppose that there is no danger whatever of a Ministerial defeat on Tuesday next ; but we hope there will be a full attendance of the Liberal party, and that an energetic declaration will be made against any more trifling on this subject. The time, labour, and anxiety which the Irish Church Bills of the last two sessions have cost, are far more than they are practically worth. The z. really valuable assertion of principle has been carried, in the House of Commons, over and over again : another and another- affirmation of the same thing, will not convert the Lords. If no- thing better than a paltry palliative is to be—not carried, but battled for—instead of a large measure of reform,—a rooting up and extermination of the Established nuisance in Ireland,—let the question be dropped. Englishmen and Scotchmen are indignant, and justly so, that subjects of the greatest practical importance to them should be neglected for wearisome discussion on Irish bills of compromise, destined for rejection. To put down the State Church in Ireland—the only mode of really settling the dispute —the earnest Reformers of England and Scotland would gladly unite with the Irish Members; but they will not endure to have another session wasted in debating upon the smallest palliative of a gigantic abuse. On Tuesday, therefore, the British Reformers will take their leave of the Appropriation-clause " and nothing more." The main object of the Marriage Bill was to make marriage a civil contract, to which anybody might add the religious ceremony by his own clergyman, whether Churchman or Dissenter. The Bishop of EXETER prevailed upon the Peers to " amend" this part of the bill, by enforcing a religious declaration on the parties appearing before the civil officer. Lord MELBOURNE, with whom on this occasion Lord ELLENBOROUGR and the Duke of WEL- LINGTON agreed, declared that the Bishop would strike out the vital principle of the bill,—which, we apprehend, was precisely what Dr. PHILLPOTTS aimed at doing. His motion was carried by 19 to 15 ; the majority including six Bishops, the minority one. Unless the decision is reversed, the bill cannot pass the Com- mons.
The Prisoners' Counsel Bill has been returned to the Commons, without the clause which gave the counsel of the accused the right of reply in cases of felony. Sir FREDERICK POLLOCK, Mr. O'CON- NELL, and Mr. EWART, considered that the alteration, if persisted in, would be fatal to the bill, and that the law had better remain in its present state than be amended after the fashion of the Lords. Last night, the Stafford Disfranchisement Bill was rejected, by the vote of 55 Peers to 4. But Lord Asnsuerort having incau- tiously admitted the justice of disfranchising the parties proved to have been bribed, Lord COTTENHAM and Lord MELBOURNE ac- ceded to the rejection of the bill ; being aware (of what probably Lord ASHBURTON had BO suspicion) that Lord CLANRICARDE had in his pocket a measure ready cut and dried for disfranchising the old Stafford burgesses. The Duke of WELLINGTON wished the bill to go into Committee,—in order, doubtless, to keep it there till. the close of the session ' • but we are happy to say that his Grace was outgeneralled. Lord CLANRICARDE introduced his fresh bill immediately after the division : it was read a first time, and will be again brought forward on Tuesday. In the mean while, let the Commons persist in refusing the writ for Stafford. The aim of the Tories is to preserve, not to disfranchise the venal freemen, with the view of buying both the seats at the next election : and we do not expect that Lord CL ANRICARDE'S second bill will be allowed to pass. The Edinburgh Poor-rates Bill has been rejected by the Peers. In Edinburgh, the members of the College of Justice, in which are included the judges, the advocates, eel some etkfr branches of the legal profession—the wealthy classes of the city —have enjoyed for several hundred years exemption from the payment of municipal taxes. This privilege was granted in 1542, with a view to entice lawyers to reside in Edinburgh and give eclat to the capital. It was then of little consequence ; but now a third of the whole rateable property of Edinburgh is in the hands of the members of the College of Justice. Their privilege has therefore become an enormous grievance ; and the object of the Poor-rates Bill was to make the comparatively wealthy men of the law pay their fair proportion of the expense of maintaining the poor. But the Lords H ADDINGTON and ROSSLYN declared that the measure was one of spoliation and rank injustice They sympa- pathized, and no wonder, with the possessors of an exclusive pri- vilege; and, by rejecting the bill, declared it to be right and just, -that while a shopkeeper or mechanic is heavily taxed to support paupers, a judge or an advocate of several thousands a year should not contribute a penny for such a purpose. One of the most useful improvements that have been projected this session, is the Manchester and Cheshire Junction Railway. Its object was to save a distance of fifteen-miles, by connecting Man- chester with the Grand Junction Railway from Liverpool to Bir- mingham, at Crewe in Cheshire. The bill for effecting this im- provement, after an examination of twenty-eight days in Com- mittee, passed the House of Commons without a division. The Lords' Committee heard all the evidence in favour of the bill ; find then rejected it, as they rejected the Dundee Water Bill, with- out hearing a syllable of evidence against it. They were required by Lord WHARNCLIFFE, the Chairman, in compliance with a resolu- tion of the House, to state specially their reasons for their deci- sion; but this the majority refused. Lord WHARNCLIFFE, in the House on Monday, moved that the Committee be directed to reas- semble and report the evidence ; which, he said, did not justify their decision, and which Lord SEAFORD declared to be quite at variance with it : but the House negatived the motion, by 23 to 18. Here, it would seem, Lord WHARNCLIFFE happened to have no particular interest of his own, at war with the rules of justice.
The Peers, then, have rejected, or effectually damaged, the Irish Church Bill, the Marriage Bill, the Prisoners' Counsel Bill, the Stafford Disfranchisement Bill, the Edinburgh Poor- rate Bill, and the Manchester and Cheshire Railway Bill all passed by the Commons. This is a tolerable week's work ! their Lordships, in sooth, have not been idle ; they have laboured in their vocation.
Previous page
