Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

considering this as a question which stands in relation to the whole empire, a vast deal more zeal must be manifested, and in very different quarters, before the legislature could with any face make a grant even of the millionth part of a farthing; and so long as they consider it, as they ought to do, a question of the empire, we have no fear of their making a grant even of so much as that.

We have now disposed of all those parts of Sir Robert's speech which have any title to be considered argument, if indeed any can be said to have such title. There is one passage more, however, in which the speaker affirms that he demands a grant for the Establishment, not because it is the state-church or the lawchurch, but because it is the authorised depository of divine truth,' which is so curiously and felicitously rich in absurdities, that we cannot refrain from laying it before our readers. If the problem were, 'given so much space, to determine how much nonsense could be compressed into it,' we doubt whether any one could approximate nearer to a solution than Sir Robert Inglis has done.' He (Sir Robert Inglis) asked support for the Established Church, because ' he believed it was the true church. He asked it, because it had been ' recognised as the true church. The sovereign on the throne had recognised it; and when he was told that it was a law-church, a parliamentary church, he could not help thinking that these ' were very odd terms to be used by any persons calling themselves 'good subjects. He thought it very strange that it should be made ' matter of reproach, because the church was a law-church, or a 'parliamentary church. But he did not ask support for it because 'it was either a law-church, or a parliamentary church, but because 'it was the true church. They had established it, and they were 'not at liberty, as the honorable member for Kilkenny had assumed by his amendment, to consider it now as an open question, whether they would have a church establishment or not. The argument on which the honorable member's amendment was founded was, 'that a church establishment was a very fitting thing, perhaps, in 'those times when men were compelled by statute to go to church, 'but that statute having been repealed, they ought to withhold 'from that church all the pre-eminence it at present possessed, and 'take from it its existing means, instead of adding to them. But 'he begged to tell that honorable member that the church was 'no voluntary assembling together of the people. It was no asso'ciation formed at hap-hazard, and that might be dissolved as readily ' as it was originally instituted. On the contrary, the Church was "the authorised depository of the divine law. As such, he asked for it their support, and as such they ought to give it their support. 'He did not ask for that support in reference to any proportion of 'the population belonging to this creed or that. True, he had re'ferred to numbers, not because he regarded numbers as of any

VOL. VIII.

'value among the elements of his calculation, but because he knew it was a popular argument brought against him, and those who thought with him on this subject. He thought, however, it was 'an argument perfectly untenable, even for the purpose for which it was urged on the other side. His views were irrespective of 'numbers. He believed that numbers were with him, but it was 'not on that account that he appealed to the house for support. It 'was because the Church was founded in truth. Truth was one; error was manifold.'

To call the Establishment a law-church, or a state-church, is enough, according to Sir Robert Inglis, to involve a man's loyalty in suspicion! Yet what is it else, so far as it is an Establishment? Its system of doctrines, and its system of policy may be right or wrong, considering it apart from its connection with the state; but so far forth as it is an Establishment, it is a law-church or a state-church; just as the Presbyterian establishment is in Scotland, or the Roman Catholic establishment in Lower Canada.

We should have thought, if the expression of any opinion on the subject could be construed into suspicion of disloyalty it would be the assertion that it was not a law-church, or a state-church.

Opinions as to the intrinsic truth or error of the system itself have nothing whatever to do with the question of loyalty, unless indeed it be the duty of a subject to believe that to be necessarily true which our governors tell us is so; a doctrine, no doubt, very acceptable to our high-churchmen. But possibly the worthy baronet means that, as it is a law-church or a state-church, it is treason to wish it were otherwise. If this be the case, he has chosenan odd way of expressing himself, while, even upon such an interpretation, his statement is not a whit less remote from common sense. If to question any thing sanctioned by the legislature, and to seek an alteration, be a mark of disloyalty, there will be disloyalty enough. There is no abuse whatever that has been cor rected, but what has at some period received the sanction of the legislature. Sheep-stealing, at one time, was a capital crime; and king, lords, and commons, were alike pleased to think that a man ought to be hung for it. But we never heard that to seek, by constitutional methods, an alteration in the law was inconsistent with the duty of a subject. It is just as little inconsistent with such duty, to seek, by the same methods (that is, with the consent of the legislature itself), the separation of Church and State. No. abuse could ever be reformed, no improvement ever effected, if this doctrine is to be denied.

However offensive to a high-churchman may be the language that the church is only a law-church or a state-church, they may depend upon it the people of England will never view it, so far as it is an establishment, in any other light. We know how offended George III. was at Paley for saying that the divine right of

kings was much the same as the divine right of constables;' the doctrine that the establishment, as such, is merely a law-church or a state-church, is doubtless equally unpalatable to men of the stamp of Sir Robert Inglis.

He further tells us that it is not a law-church or a state-church, for it is the authorised depository of divine truth.' Authorised by what? By the State, or the law to be sure, which has in the same manner authorised Presbyterianism to be the religion in Scotland and Catholicism to be the religion in Lower Canada. If he affirms that the Bible has itself authorised the State to regard the Church of England as the only depository of divine truth, we shall be glad to have chapter and verse for it; and the same chapter and verse would of course serve to show that the State has been guilty of direct rebellion against God in recognising any other form of religion. Sir Robert further tells us that truth is one, error is manifold,' and he leaves us in no matter of doubt as to what system he considers to be exclusively truth. Yet the State has established different systems of religion in different parts of the empire, so that even upon Sir Robert's showing it has done wrong twice as often as it has done right. We wonder whether it is inconsistent with loyalty to speak of the Kirk of 'Scotland' as the law-church, or the state-church. If so, even Sir Robert Inglis must be a rebel, for even he can believe it to be nothing more as long as he maintains that the Church of England is alone in the right. But enough, and more than enough of these absurdities.

The speeches of Mr. Ward, of Mr. Baines, and of Mr. O'Connell, are worthy of being preserved in a more permanent form than they can well be in a common newspaper, and we should accordingly be glad to reprint them entire, if our space would permit. We must, however, confine ourselves to the speech of Mr. Baines, which contains so many important facts that we shall give it with as little abridgment as possible. These speeches afford a happy indication of the progress of public opinion in the legislature itself. We rejoice to see that there are not a few in the House of Commons who have attained clear notions of what the voluntary principle really is, and who are not ashamed to avow them.

'Mr. Baines said he did not rise for the purpose of interposing any obstacle in the way of Church-extension, but to inquire into the destitution complained of, and the appropriate remedy for that destitution. In the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, it was stated that the number of parishes in England and Wales amount to 10,742, and · it is said that the defects which cripple the energies of the Established Church in the large and populous districts of the kingdom is the want of churches and ministers, and the following facts would illustrate this position.

That in the 34 parishes of the metropolis there is a population of

[ocr errors]

And church-room for only

In the diocese of Chester there are 38 parishes (principally in Lancashire) with a population of

And church-room for only

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

816,000

97,700

Or about one-eighth.

In 20 parishes and districts, each with a population of 10,000 at least, in the diocese of York, there is an aggregate population of

402,000

With church-accommodation for only

48,000

235,000

The proportion varying from one-sixth to one-thirtieth. And in the diocese of Lichfield and Coventry there are 16 parishes or districts, with an average population of Church-room for about

29,000

The proportion varying from one-sixth to one fourteenth. From these reports there appears to be a deplorable deficiency of accommodation for public worship in all the populous districts of the kingdom, and as far as the Church Commissioners are concerned, it was perfectly proper that they should present these statements, but when parliament is called upon to legislate, not for a sect, but for a nation, it behoves them to enter more deeply into the inquiry, and to ascertain what is the real deficiency. According to the Reports of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, there are 10,742 parishes in England and Wales, and from the population returns of 1831, we learn that there are

8,000 parishes with a population varying from 10 in

dividuals to

2,430, with a population from

200

110, above

1,000

1,000 to 5,000 . 5,000 to 10,000 10,000

Each of these parishes contains a parish church, and it may be fairly assumed that 10,000 of them at least have ample church accommodation, while in many of the parishes where the population exceeds 5,000 there is, undoubtedly, a deficient supply; but even in those selected by the Commissioners, each with a population exceeding 10,000, the deficiency is by no means to the extent that these reports might seem to indicate. Let us next inquire as to the large towns and manufacturing districts selected by the Commissioners, and first of the metropolitan parishes, with their population of 1,137,000, and in which there are now 194 churches and episcopal chapels which afford accommodation to 126,480 persons; and 256 chapels, not of the Establishment, which, according to the Rev. Baptist Noel, will accommodate an equal number of hearers. So that in reality there is double the quantity of accommodation for religious worship to that stated by the Church Commissioners.

Of the 38 districts in Lancashire in the diocese of

[blocks in formation]

In the county of Lancaster there are 68 parishes, containing 320 churches and Episcopal chapels, and 530 chapels not of the Establish

[blocks in formation]

The estimate of average attendance is as follows:

[blocks in formation]

This return nearly corresponds with that made by the
town-clerk of Liverpool, and is independent of Sunday
School scholars, of whom there are belonging to the
Church

To the Dissenters, Methodists, and Catholics

6,000 13,000

[blocks in formation]

As appears from the statistical returns made in the year 1839:

Population, 82,121.

In the Sheffield Union there is church and chapel accommodation, from the returns made by the Clerks of the Poor-law Union in 1838, as follows:

[ocr errors]
« ForrigeFortsett »