STATE OF ECCLESIASTICAL QUESTIONS AND THE CLAIMS OF DISSENTERS.
It was not the Catholics alone who regarded the Protestant establishment with a jealous eye; there were discontents and heart-burnings, also, among dissenters. The great majority of the people of England adhered to the established church, yet the dissenters formed a numerous body, possessing in many instances great respectability, wealth, and influence. As a body they were impressed with the idea that, by the church being supported as a national institution, they were stamped with a mark of inferiority. Acting upon this impression, they very naturally employed the power with which they were now invested to bring down the established church to the same level on which they themselves stood; to annihilate all the rights, powers, and privileges which belonged to its members; and, by depriving it of all support from the funds of the state, convert it into a self-constituted religious community. Their great objects were to obtain those privileges from which they were excluded, and to be relieved from the necessity of supporting an establishment in the advantages of which they did not participate. The occasion was favourable for the enterprise, in consequence of the unsettled and uncertain state in which things stood, and the hopes held out by a ministry who seemed disposed to make concessions to all classes of men if they were but importunate. In accordance with their views, various petitions were presented by them to parliament in the beginning of the session, praying to be relieved from church-rates; and in many instances urging the separation of church and state, or recommending the general establishment of the voluntary system. These petitions, however, led to no other result but that of producing a strong expression of opposite opinions, and calling forth numerous anti-petitions, praying parliament to preserve the church inviolate. Ministers declared that they would listen to no proposition for its destruction; but, notwithstanding this, a motion was made by Mr. Rippon, the new member for Gateshead, to expel the bishops from the house of lords. This motion was seconded by Mr. Gillon, a Scotch member; but on a division it was lost by a majority of one hundred and twenty-five against fifty-eight. The minority seems to have been much larger than had been anticipated, for the announcement was hailed with loud cheers.
Among the grievances of which the dissenters complained in their numerous petitions, none were more forcibly insisted on than their practical exclusion from degrees at Oxford and Cambridge, in consequence of its being required, as a preliminary, that they should conform to the church of England, or to subscribe to her articles. As a matter of civil right, they demanded that all religious tests should be abolished, and the universities thrown open for the education and graduation of men of all creeds. Exertions were made by them to get up petitions from the universities, and in one of them they succeeded. On the 21st of March Earl Grey presented, in the house of lords, a petition from certain members of the senate of the University of Cambridge, praying for the abolition by legislative authority of every religious test exacted from members of the university before they proceed to degrees, whether of bachelor, master, or doctor, in arts, law, and physic. On this occasion, as on others when similar petitions were presented, there was much incidental discussion of the merits of the demand. Ministers declared it to be just and proper, and showed an inclination to grant it; but no distinct motion was made on the subject till after the Easter recess. On the 17th of April, however, Colonel Williams moved an address to the king, “requesting his majesty to signify his pleasure to the universities of Oxford and Cambridge respectively, that these bodies no longer act under the edicts or letters of James I., 1616; by which he would have all who take any degree in schools to subscribe to the three articles’ of the thirty-sixth canon, with the exception of those proceeding to degrees in divinity; nor to require the declaration, namely, ‘that I am bona fide a member of the church of England,’ nor any subscription or declaration of like effect and import.” It was, however, thought for many reasons more advisable to proceed by bill; and Mr. Wood, one of the members for Preston, moved as an amendment for leave to bring in a bill to grant to his majesty’s subjects, generally, the right of admission to the English universities, and to equal eligibility to degrees therein, notwithstanding their diversities of religious opinion, degrees in divinity alone excepted. The address was withdrawn; and after a discussion, in which even the introduction of the measure was opposed by Messrs. Goulburn and Estcourt, and Sir R. Inglis, three of the four members for the universities, it was carried by a majority of one hundred and eighty-five to forty-four. Although the Cambridge petition had been presented in both houses by members of the cabinet, and government had declared its entire concurrence in the prayer of the petitioners, neither the proposition for an address, nor that for a bill, was brought forward by ministers. They were favourable to the measure, however, and supported it by their speeches and votes. At the same time they wished that neither parliament nor the government should be pressed or hurried to intermeddle, before they could take up the matter with the prospect of terminating it in the best and most satisfactory manner. They hoped, they said, that as a portion of one of the universities was already inclined to it, the object, by allowing some time for consideration, might be effected with the concurrence of those learned bodies, and in a much better form, and to much better purpose, than if they were made reluctantly to act under the compulsion of a statute. That hope, however, was vain. Before the bill was brought in, the sentiments of the great mass in the two universities were fully expressed. It was soon discovered that the sixty-three petitioners at Cambridge, by offending the honest principles of many, and the party-spirit of others, had raised a storm which no argument or explanation could allay. Meetings were almost daily held, pamphlets were distributed on every hand, the public press joined in the contest, and the university pulpits resounded with the most awful denunciations. During the excitement at Cambridge, a counter-petition was signed by two hundred and fifty-eight members, resident and non-resident, comprising eleven heads of houses, eight professors, and twenty-nine tutors; while a second was signed by seven hundred and fifty-five under-graduates and bachelors of arts. These were presented on the 21st of April by the Duke of Gloucester in the lords, as chancellor of the university, and by Mr. Goulburn in the commons, as one of its representatives. A similar document was presented from the university of Oxford by Mr. Estcourt, and on the 9th of May a second petition was sent from Cambridge, signed by one thousand members of the senate who had not signed the other.
Although Mr. Wood brought his bill into the house soon after the Easter holidays, it was not till the 20th of June that he was enabled to move the second reading. Mr. Estcourt proposed as an amendment that it should be read that day six months. Mr. Herbert seconded the amendment. Messrs. Paten, Poulter, and Ewart spoke in favour of the bill, contending that the alteration was necessary, no less for the benefit of the universities, than in justice to the dissenters. By the present system the latter were impeded in their progress to the bar, by having to keep terms for five years instead of three; and were prevented from becoming fellows of the college of physicians, for want of academical degrees. These were positive and weighty grievances, which ought, it was urged, to be remedied. Mr. Spring Rice complained that it was unfair to treat the bill, not according to its own deserts, but according to measures which might or might not be immediately connected with that now under discussion. He asked what could be more inconsistently unjust than the practice of Cambridge, where dissenters were admitted so far as instruction was concerned, but then excluded from everything to which instruction ought to lead? They were admitted to the fullest and most complete course of study until the twelfth term, when, on being brought into fair competition with their fellow-students, the odious principle of exclusion intervened: the dissenter was told that, however obedient he had been to college regulations, however high the eminence he had acquired, still he would not be allowed the badge or symbol of his acquirements, simply because he was a dissenter. The house, indeed, had the benefit of experience; for in Dublin dissenters were admitted to degrees, though excluded from fellowships, and all participation in the internal management of the university. And what mighty mischiefs, he asked, had followed the admission? Was the university less orthodox in its principles? or less a Protestant foundation than before? Had the zeal of its public instructors been lessened, or their sphere of usefulness narrowed by this interference? It should be remembered that those on whom the exclusions fell were men of active and stirring spirits, men who would excite and probably guide the councils of those with whom they agreed in opinion. It had been said that the dissenters ought to found universities of their own. He concurred in that argument; but the English universities would not allow them to do this. When they proposed such a step, in order to educate the youth of their own persuasion, and reward them with those honours which the university denied, and thus sought to secure to themselves academical honours and privileges, the universities stepped forward and said:—“We will not only exclude you from our own seats, but will also prevent you from enjoying the advantages and privileges of a university of your own.” This double ground of exclusion and prohibition was most undefensible. The colonial secretary was answered by Mr. Goulburn, who argued that in proportion as the friends of the bill enforced the danger of excluding dissenters, they rendered manifest the ruinous consequences of concession. If the dissenters really deemed it so great a hardship to be deprived of the empty honour of a degree, what would they say, if they were admitted to degrees, and found a bar raised against their admission to college emoluments and distinctions? Sir Robert Peel characterised the bill as an enactment intended to give to Jews, infidels, and atheists—to the man who professed some religion, and to the man who professed none—a statutable right of demanding admission into our universities. Sir E. Inglis and Lord Sandon opposed the bill, contending that it was impossible to establish any system of religious education in institutions into which persons professing different religious opinions were admitted. Lord Althorp, on the other hand, supported the bill, disclaiming at the same time any hostility to the established church. On a division the second reading was carried by a majority of three hundred and twenty-one against one hundred and seventy-four. In the committee the speaker gave his decided opposition to the bill; and some amendments having been made, it was read a third time, and passed by a majority of one hundred and sixty-four against seventy-five. The bill was conducted in the lords by the Earl of Radnor, who moved the second reading on the 1st of August. The Duke of Gloucester, Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, denounced the bill as being not only uncalled for, but most unjust and mischievous. His royal highness concluded by moving as an amendment that the bill should be read a second time that day six months. He was followed by the Duke of Wellington, Chancellor of the University of Oxford, who sustained the same view of the question. The Earl of Carnarvon spoke against the bill; the Archbishop of Canterbury maintained the same side. Lord Melbourne admitted that the subject was surrounded with difficulties; that he did not altogether approve of the bill; but, notwithstanding this, the question being brought before the house, he would vote for the second reading of the bill, because he thought a question of such magnitude and importance was entitled to the fullest and most anxious consideration. Lord-chancellor Brougham supported the bill, because he thought it went to remove a practical grievance, without affecting the discipline of the universities or the safety of the church. The discussion was closed by the Bishop of Exeter, who, in a long and ingenious speech, opposed the bill in all its bearings. On a division, the amendment to reject the bill was carried by a majority of one hundred and eighty-seven against eighty-five.
Another grievance of which the dissenters complained was, that they were liable to church-rates—that is, they were taxed towards the expenses of the established church. On the 21st of April Lord Althorp brought forward his plan for the mitigation of this evil in the shape of a resolution: “that, after a fixed time, church-rates should cease and determine; and, in lieu thereof, a sum not exceeding £250,000 should be granted from the land-tax to be applied to the expenses of the fabrics of churches and chapels in such manner as parliament should direct.” He said that his intention was not merely to relieve dissenters, but likewise to provide for the fabrics of the church. This plan, however, did not suit the views of either churchmen or dissenters. The friends of the dissenters, indeed, immediately attacked it with unmeasured violence. Mr. Hume moved that all the words in the resolution should be expunged, except those which declared “that church-rates should cease and determine.” The proposal, it was said, was a contemptible juggle, founded on the old financial principle that if money were taken out of the pockets of the people by indirect means, they would not be sensible of their loss. On the other hand, the friends of the church objected to the plan because it questioned the rights of the church, infringed on some of them, and left others on a foundation less sure than before; and all this without any reason in principle, and confessedly without any good result in practice. Lord Althorp, in his reply, expressed much surprise that the dissenters should receive the proposition so ungraciously; but expressed his determination to persevere in bringing it forward. On a division the original motion was carried by a majority of two hundred and fifty-six against one hundred and forty; but notwithstanding this majority, and the certainty of ultimate success, ministers proceeded no further with the measure. Churchmen considered that one advantage was gained, in the dissenters having been brought to disclose somewhat prematurely the real purposes which they had in view, and to proclaim opinions tending to the complete abolition of a religious establishment. Government were equally unfortunate in another attempt to gratify the dissenters, by allowing them to celebrate the marriage ceremony in their own chapels, and thus escape what was deemed by them a grievous oppression.
The commutation of tithes in England was a subject still more complicated and difficult. It in fact involved so many interests of different kinds, and so many details requiring minute attention, that the adjustment of the question was a work requiring both time, patience, and circumspection. Lord Althorp brought forward the ministerial plan on the 15th of April, and it was contained in the following resolution:—“That it was expedient that the payment of tithes in kind should cease and determine, and that in the several parishes throughout England and Wales there should be substituted in lieu thereof a payment to the parties who might be entitled to such tithe, such payment bearing a fixed proportion to the annual value of all land whence tithe might be payable, that value to be ascertained throughout the several counties at large, striking an average on the parishes in each county; also that all owners of property liable to tithe be at liberty to redeem the same at the rate of twenty-five years’ purchase.” Lord Althorp then proceeded to develop his plan at great length; but its principles and details were so strongly objected to both by landlords and the clergy that the measure was dropped for the present. Lord Althorp stated as a reason for not going on with it, that he saw, from the state of the public business, and the time which would require to be devoted to the more urgent question of the amendment of the poor-laws, that there was no probability of its being brought to a successful issue before the termination of the session.