SIR, FANATICAL HOSTILITY TO EDUCATION. Bristol, May 10, 1842. I HAVE long hoped that some one of your correspondents in this city would report to your readers that at the meeting of the Bristol "Anchor Society" to celebrate "Colston's Anniversary," Nov. 13, 1841, the Hon. F. H. Berkeley, one of our Members of Parliament, made the following remarks on a recent outbreak of monkish bigotry. It should be observed that there are several societies which vie with each other in charity on these occasions, and that the two principal, the "Dolphin" and the "Anchor," represent, the former the Tories and the latter the Dissenters and Liberals of Bristol. POPULARIS. "I have made a point to attend all the dinners of the Anchor Society to which I have been invited, since my election, for I have felt it a part of my duty to do so (cheers). I have heard at such meetings various expositions of the merits of Colston from several able chairmen, and I know not which most to admire-the philanthropy and kindly feeling which tempted him to bestow his vast wealth on the descendants of those with whom he lived and with whom he laboured; or his paternal care for the rising generation, which prompted him to hold up before them the shield of education, the surest and best tested protection against vice, crime and disgrace (cheers). Gentlemen, these are sentiments which I am sure will be given utterance to also at the Grateful and Dolphin meetings, however we may differ from those who assemble at the latter on the subject of education. And there is a vast difference between the Dolphin and Anchor societies on this point; we of the Anchor holding that education should be influenced by the peculiar religious belief of those educated, those of the Dolphin contending that it should be regulated and governed by a class. Still we have mutually the object of education at heart: and I believe that no clergyman who knows his duty will deny that education is essential to the welfare of the people (cheers). Sure I am that, in the promotion of this good work, Dissenters have ever been among the foremost. - From these doctrines there are not, that I am aware, any dissentients in Bristol; but in a town at no great distance, I have been rather struck with the astounding fact, that a clergyman of the Church of England, high in station, commanding in influence, and great in oratorical powers, has taken on himself to pronounce that education is entirely opposed to the Word of God (derisive cheers). Yes, gentlemen, such is the fact; a fact too astounding to be credited without proof and vouchers. Such proof I hold in my hand, and the sentiments to which I refer militate in spirit so strongly against this and all other meetings held on this day, that I feel bound to offer some remarks thereon (hear). In this paper, the Cheltenham Examiner of the 3rd Nov., is a report of an address delivered by the Rev. Francis Close to the Church-ofEngland Tradesmen and Working-men's Association of that town; and I may say, parenthetically, that the Rev. Mr. Close is not more remarkable for zeal and eloquence in the pulpit than for zeal and energy in the support of Tory principles. In jumping from the pulpit to speak from a table, he waxes eloquent on the sins of Whiggery, and ranks with the M'Neiles and others who a short time ago indulged in no very respectful terms in speaking of her most gracious Majesty. The remarks of a clergyman in his position are therefore a fair subject of observation; and I assure you, in the passages I am about to quote I will make no garbled extract, but give the sentences from period to period. He says, 'The more a man is advanced in human knowledge, the more is he opposed to religion, and the more deadly enemy is he to the truth of God' (shame'). Had, gentlemen, a clergyman, Liberal in principles, urged such doctrines as these, what would the Tories have said? Would they not have said, and with truth, that he was insulting and degrading religion in thus promulgating doctrines adverse to the best interests of mankind? (loud applause). He says further, I know I tread on tender ground, but I am sorry to see a sort of coquetting on the part of the Church with human knowledge and philosophy; it is a leprosy that is infecting true religion, and pollutes the garb of the Church' (renewed expressions of 'shame'). Gentlemen, if the Rev. Mr. Close is right, Colston is assuredly not to be praised; his and other magnificent institutions-Queen Elizabeth's Hospital, for example, that excellent classical school, under the fostering care of your worthy chairman and his colleagues (cheers), should not exist; the people should be left in gross darkness, or only instructed by such teachers as the Rev. Mr. Close. This is a common cause in which we are all interested; had I addressed you in such language as that used by Mr. Close, I should have had all the Tory press set at me-the Dogberry of the Bristol Journal and the Verges of the Mirror, complaining that I was abusing religion and lowering the church, and exclaiming, This is most intolerable, and not to be endured,'-'Flat burglary, by the mass!' (cheers and laughter). It would be the first time they were right as regards me, but not their first misrepresentation by scores. These are the words of the Rev. Mr. Close. What will they say of them at the Dolphin? What will be said to them by Mr. Philip Miles, Liberal Tory as I believe him to be? Will he defend the Rev. Mr. Close in his denunciation of all learning, both ancient and modern? I was brought up at the same seminary at Oxford as Mr. Miles, and I wonder whether he deems it desirable to burn Newton, Locke and Bacon, and whether all lighter literature is to be denounced as of accursed character? Are we to bid farewell to Milton, Pope and Dryden? Poor Will Shakspere, I suppose, is also to go to rack (cheers and laughter). There are some few lines of old Will's wherein he assails a dunce, rather applicable on this occasion. Sir, he is one who hath never fed of the dainties that are bred in a book; he hath not eaten paper as it were; he hath not drunk ink; his intellect is not replenished; he is only an animal, only sensible in the duller parts' (loud cheers and laughter). Who could suppose that Shakspere, instead of satirizing a dunce, was eulogizing a saint of the 19th century? (renewed cheers). But so it is, according to Mr. Close. This is a specimen of one of those bold and reverend gentlemen who, when things were not as they are now, undertook to read a lesson to the Queen." SIR, BIGOTRY AT HARTLEPOOL. Ir is almost impossible to open a newspaper without meeting with some account of orthodox bigotry. The clergy of the Established Church seem determined to render themselves as obnoxious as possible to their brethren of other persuasions. At Hartlepool, in the county of Durham, the Catholics possess a very fine choir, the members of which are all amateurs. There is at present great distress prevailing amongst the poor fishermen, colliers, &c., of that town; and the gentlemen of the Catholic choir, with a view to a partial alleviation of that distress, got up a concert, the proceeds of which were to be distributed amongst the poor of all denominations. The concert was liberally patronized, and a considerable sum was raised, which was divided into four portions and sent to the Church clergyman, the Rev. Mr. Taylor; the Catholic priest, the Rev. Mr. Knight; the Presbyterian clergyman, and the Methodist minister. It will hardly be credited that the Church clergyman returned the money and the letter of the committee to Mr. Knight, with a note, in which he said, "It was a capital joke, and, as a continuation of it, he begged to return the money and letter." Why the money was returned to Mr. Knight, who had nothing to do in getting up the concert, and how it was "a capital joke," it is somewhat difficult to understand. The Presbyterian and Catholic clergymen received their portions with thanks. The Methodist minister returned the money and letter to the committee, accompanied by an ill-written epistle, in which he displayed bigotry and intolerance of the grossest description. Like Mr. Taylor, he is determined to have no dealings with " Papists;" he can understand jesuitry; he knows why Catholics give alms to the poor of all denominations! In concluding this account, I must not forget to state that the Catholics of Hartlepool, though a numerous, are a very poor body; and the money raised by the concert was chiefly from the patronage of the Protestants of the town, who are highly indignant at the conduct of the parson and the Methodist minister. I understand that the Rev. Mr. Knight and the Presbyterian clergyman have distributed the entire proceeds in the most impartial manner. UNITARIAN CHAPELS IN THE COLONIES. D. SEVERAL articles have appeared in the Christian Reformer headed as above, and we now transfer to our pages two letters bearing upon the same subject, which were lately inserted in the New-Zealand Journal, (London,) from individuals who are subscribers and occasional contributors to our own publication. SIR, THE NEW-ZEALAND COMPANY AND RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS. To the Editor of the New-Zealand Journal. Birmingham, Feb. 10, 1842. I shall feel obliged by the insertion of this letter in the columns of your valuable Journal, in the hope that it may induce some one of your readers, conversant with the subject, to favour the public, through the same medium, with any information possessed. By the "Terms for Purchase of Lands in the Second Settlement," issued a year ago, the New-Zealand Company engages to appropriate the purchase monies (£300,000) in the following manner, viz. £150,000 to Emigration. 50,000 to defray expenses of selecting, &c. 50,000 to the Company, for expenses and profit. £300,000 "The Company undertakes to apply the purchase monies in the proportions stated, or as nearly so as may be practicable, to the several objects previously specified." Of the £50,000 to public purposes, I further learn that it is intended to apply £15,000 to religious uses and endowments for colonists of all denominations, £15,000 to the establishment of a college in the settlement, &c. &c. The liberality of the Company's terms has caused individuals of various religious sects to purchase allotments in Nelson; and they will very naturally look forward to the period when the spiritual wants of their friends who have emigrated will be to some extent provided for out of the £15,000 reserved. I am not aware that any form of application to the Directors for portions of the fund has been prepared and issued, for the guidance of such purchasers of land in Nelson as feel deeply interested in the religious welfare of emigrants, and yet the public prints have teemed with notices of the Company's liberality in granting £5000 towards the endowment of a church. If any form has been issued, when and where did it appear? Have some friends of the Established Church complied with its terms? Or is it proper to suppose that the sum alluded to was granted by the Directors, without an attempt being previously made to ascertain how many Christians belonging to each particular sect had emigrated to Nelson? Perhaps yourself or some correspondent who may possess the needful information, will oblige by mentioning whether the Directors intend apportioning to each denomination of which there are emigrants a sum of money towards the erection of a building for worship? VOL. IX. 3 R What is the contemplated mode of division; and from what quarter must application for grants proceed? Several friends of the same persuasion as myself feel desirous to know more fully the views of the Directors upon this subject, although doubtful whether they will give purchasers of land any pledge as to their intentions in future. Conceiving that one sect should not be supported in preference to others, it is thought partial and premature for so large a sum as £5000 to have been already granted to the Episcopalian Church. That the inhabitants of New Zealand may be free from the tender mercies of a Church established by Act of Parliament, and that the Directors of the NewZealand Company may liberally and impartially aid the diffusion of the Gospel of peace, by whatever name its advocates are called, is the sincere desire of yours respectfully, CHARLES LLOYD, [Our correspondent is informed that no form of application has been issued, and to prescribe such a form would only be to throw an unnecessary difficulty in the way of the application. The members of the Church of England met together by a notice addressed to all the persons who formed the first body of emigrants to Nelson. The members of any religious denomination sufficiently numerous to form an organized congregation, may apply to the New-Zealand Company in any manner they think proper; and we have no doubt their application will be attended to. As to the proportion assigned to the Church of England, we believe it is less than their due proportion, if mere numbers alone had been attended to. The obvious course for our correspondent to adopt in order to ascertain the intention of the Directors is to address a letter to the Secretary; but we should imagine no pledge can be given to individuals of every persuasion. The Company on this matter can only treat with the authorized representatives of religious bodies, who will, we doubt not, be received with courtesy and treated with liberality.-ED.] RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS IN NEW ZEALAND. SIR, Feb. 26, 1812. I have been much pleased with the temperate and judicious letter of your correspondent, Mr. Charles Lloyd, in the last number of the New-Zealand Journal, and trust it is only the forerunner of such inquiries as will place the question of the present anomalous condition of the Church in New Zealand clearly before the public. The New-Zealand Company appears to have adopted a system of patronage towards the Church established by Act of Parliament, and probably this is perfectly accordant with the feelings of the Court of Directors as individuals. But to those who derive the establishment of their religion from a higher source, such a procedure cannot give satisfaction. Whilst the law-established Church itself exhibits such a shameful avidity, not wholly in reference to the souls alone of the inhabitants of New Zealand, a more enlightened public cannot but regard it as a dangerous ally of the Company. And the tenor of the instructions sent out to Governor Hobson, as well as such observations as the following from the Bay of Islands' Gazette, are apt to induce a doubt whether the same feeling towards religious liberty is intended to prevail in the settlements of the Company and those of the Government--a matter of weighty moment to those designing to emigrate. The quotation to which I allude is as follows:-"The people of New Zealand will shortly be represented by their respective members in Council. They will be called upon to submit probably to new or amended laws; they will be charged with the maintenance of judicial and police establishments-to the whole of which they will cheerfully submit. But we most sincerely hope that that bugbear, an ecclesiastical establishment in connexion with Government, will never obtain here. In the absence of such establishments, the people are generally happy, consequently contented; wherever they are admitted, hypocrisy and misery are their concomitants. Save us, we pray, from their fell swoop." The discerning part of mankind do not at this day need to be informed that the purest elements of virtue and strength lie hid in the conscientious adoption of religious opinions for their truth and not their popularity; nay, that we are fully justified in regarding a right sensibility to religious liberty as the very securest basis on which the pros perity of a new colony can be founded. Partiality, therefore, displayed towards religious sects, by a Company which assumes the task of settling New Zealand,and I do not regard your explanation as satisfactorily shewing such partiality has not been exercised,-would be an evil of no ordinary magnitude. Trusting you will give these remarks a place in your next paper, and in the hope that they will lead to more explicit statements, I remain, Sir, yours respectfully, SPES. [No question can be injured by discussion; but we believe in the case under notice, our correspondent's fears will turn out to be groundless. We are as much opposed to an established Church, connected with the State, as our correspondent can be. If the State pay one, it ought to pay all. But we have no objection that any congregation of Christians should endow their own church. An endowed Church is a very different thing from an established Church, though they are sometimes confounded. If the members of the Episcopal form of worship (we object to the term Church of England, as applied to New Zealand) be the most numerous, they have clearly the largest claim on the fund for religious purposes; but other sects should participate therein, in proportion to their numerical strength; and we will support any application that may be made by any existing body. But we think the Company would not be justified in granting part of the fund to a few individuals of peculiar opinions, who happen to call themselves a sect. It would be well if the Company came to some definite resolution on the subject; and the easiest way would be, to declare the number of families they would recognize as such a body as to entitle them to share in the fund for religious purposes. The Court of Directors consists of men of several religious persuasions, and we repeat that an application would be properly attended to. Until such application be made, discussion seems to us to be premature. We may observe that the several churches and chapels-Episcopal, Catholic, Presbyterian, and we believe Wesleyan-now erecting in New Zealand, at Auckland, Wellington and elsewhere, are all being built by private subscription within the colony.-ED.] SIR, CLERICAL TYRANNY AT FARNHAM. Ipswich, April 10, 1842. AN instance of clerical tyranny lately occurred in the retired village of Farnham, near Saxmundham, in this county, by the incumbent of that parish, the Rev. Flood Page, towards one of his parishioners, a Mr. Edwd. Tibnam, formerly a local preacher of the Wesleyans, but lately an Unita rian in sentiment. On the 2nd of March last, it pleased the Almighty to deprive Mr. Tibnam of an interesting and only daughter. The day after the afflictive event, the clergyman waited upon the bereaved parents, not, however, to condole with them under their loss, but to inquire whether the deceased had been baptized according to the custom of the Established Church? On receiving a respectful answer in the negative, he observed, "that he should not allow the body Christian burial; that he regarded the bereavement as an interposition of Divine Providence; that, being Socinians, he looked upon them as Deists, and as bad as Heathens." A request that he would allow another clergyman, if one could be found, to read the funeral service, was rejected; he also peremptorily refused a hymn to be sung or a prayer to be uttered, declaring "that if any service was performed, he would cite the bereaved father before the Ecclesiastical Court." Under these trying circumstances, the father wrote to me, begging my attendance on the day of interment, and to perform whatever service I might deem proper on the occasion. Accordingly, I proceeded to the house of mourning, at a distance of twenty miles from Ipswich, and arranged the preliminaries of the funeral, which took place at three o'clock. The day was remarkably fine, and the novelty of witnessing the interment of a body in the parish ground without the charm of liturgical service performed by the spiritual functionary of the parish, attracted a great number of spectators. When the procession arrived at the ground, and the body was lowered into its narrow house, the friends and mourners returned from the grave, observing strict silence until they reached the high road, when that silence was broken by a hundred voices singing an appropriate hymn. This was followed by an address, which was listened to with marked attention; and the service concluded with prayer. Many expressions of sympathy |