of the honour and peace of innocent parties and families. But the act of the government, which in our judgment deserves the highest commendation, is the Bill to quiet possessions in the chapels, schools, and cemeteries belonging to Nonconformists. Attempts had been made at law, and with some success, to deprive various congregations of the property which they and their ancestors had enjoyed; of the chapels where they had worshipped; the schools they had built; the charities they had endowed; and the graves where their parents slept. Because, in some cases, the opinions of the aggrieved parties were considered as heterodox, it was therefore held that those parties might be wronged with impunity. A more flagrant attempt at injustice-a more melancholy exhibition of bigotry-never took place. Opposition the most violent was excited. Above 350,000 persons were found to petition against this act of simple justice. Lamentable is it to confess, that many of these were themselves Dissenters; who either were at the time, or had been within a few years, the humble petitioners for that toleration which they now refused to extend to their brethren. In quitting the mention of these commendable measures, and again tendering to the government our humble thanks for their steady support of the cause of religious liberty during the Session, we would beg leave again and again to exhort them to persevere in that course, regardless of the complaints to which it may have sometimes exposed them from their followers. Let them be well aware that it is not to such murmurings that they owe either their loss of strength, or their loss of character. It is to their timid measures of half reform-it is to their abandonment of one doctrine without frankly and candidly professing another, losing the confidence of the ultras without gaining or deserving that of liberal men-it is to a wretched and ineffectual attempt to reconcile their present sense of duty when in office, with their unfortunate and indefensible declarations when in opposition-it is to the necessity thus imposed upon them of fighting important questions in a false position, where their flanks are turned, or their line is pierced-contending for the slidingscale contrary to the wishes of many of the best friends of agriculture, and opposed as it is to the interests of all-involving themselves in an inextricable maze, by a desire to combine their love for sugar and for revenue with their proclaimed hatred of slavery-it is to causes like these that we are, very mainly, to trace that appearance of vacillation and want of principle which drive from their ranks those who cannot support, because they are not taught to respect them; and which place the government, as Sir Robert Peel has himself admitted, inno very 'enviable situation.' 6 We have thus seen the strongest of all governments' defeated more than once in the House of Commons during the late Session ;-defeated on the question of sugar, on the Factory bill, and even on less important questions; such as Mr. Gladstone's railroad project, and Sergeant Murphy's motion on the subject of Minister's money in Ireland. But what is more extraordinary still, is their defeat in the House of Lords on a Church question, proposed by the Duke of Wellington, and strongly supported by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London. We must be allowed to make this memorable instance of mutiny in the Tory camp intelligible to our readers. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners, including. Archbishops, Bishops, the Lord Chancellor, Sir Robert Peel, and several other of the most eminent members of the Tory party, so far back as 1835, had recommended that the two Bishoprics of Bangor and St Asaph should be united; and that a new See should be created in the populous town of Manchester, the extensive diocess of Chester being divided into two. This formed part of a general measure of reform, intended to remedy the anomalies, and inequalities of all descriptions, which had been too long tolerated in the Episcopal System of the Church of England. That some measure of this description was necessary will be evident, when we state that the value of the episcopal sees varied from an income of L.19,000 at Durham to one of L.1000 at Llandaff; that the authority of the Bishop of Lincoln extended over 1234 benefices, and that of the Bishop of Rochester over 94. The diocess of Ely contained 126,000 inhabitants; the diocess of Chester, 1,900,000. It is obvious that these inequalities must have interfered much with the government of the church; and that so very indefensible a system required immediate correction. A remedial measure was accordingly introduced into Parliament, which passed both Houses with but little observation. By this act, the crown was invested with the authority necessary to make a more equal apportionment of episcopal duties and revenues. As a part of this reform, two English sees (Bristol and Gloucester) were directed to be united, as also the two Welsh bishoprics. The former union took place on the first vacancy of the see. The union of Bangor and St Asaph has been necessarily suspended till the time of such a vacancy. In the meanwhile, a strong excitement has arisen against the consolidation of the Welsh sees;-founded mainly upon the principles of the new Oxford school of divinity. It was asserted that no alteration like that proposed by the ecclesiastical Commission was defensible, if made by lay authority only. The alteration was stigmatized as Erastian, and contrary to the true principles of the Episcopal church. The Bishops, or 6 Angels of the Church, as they are termed by the new school, were considered as beyond, or rather above, the scope of all civil authority. In vain it was suggested that the spiritual well-being of 1,300,000 souls, inhabitants of the intended see of Manchester, and the well-being of their parochial pastors, would be promoted by the appointment of the new Bishop. This was set aside by the new school, as being less important than the preservation of a bishopric of 1300 years' standing; and it was suggested that some mode might be discovered for combining both these objects. It was on the other hand suggested, that there were in these Welsh dioceses nearly forty parishes held in commendam, or otherwise annexed to the two bishoprics; that in these parishes the ministers who attended to the services of the church were miserably unprovided for ; that these parishes contained a population of 53,062, being more than one-seventh of the whole population of North Wales; that, in Anglesey, fifty clergymen had the charge of seventy-eight churches and chapels; that, in thirty cases, single ministers had charge of two churches each; and that instances existed in which divine worship was performed by the same clergyman in three separate churches. This statement of clerical distress was made with the view of suggesting, that the revenues of the suppressed Welsh bishopric might be most beneficially appropriated in improving the income of these distressed ministers, in case the bishopric of Manchester could be endowed from other funds. But all these suggestions were disregarded; the authority of the heads of the church, the authority of the ecclesiastical commissioners, the authority of the government, as represented by the Duke of Wellington, were all set at nought. Even a strong desire was for a time manifested to resist the undoubted prerogative of the Crown, and to proceed to legislate without the Queen's previous consent, in a case in which that consent had been invariably thought necessary for legislation. The Tory opposition were finally compelled to submit, but they did not yield to the numerical strength of the government, nor yet in deference to their leader's authority. They yielded to a mechanical force rather than to a moral conviction, and in doing so they assailed the government in no measured terms. The Lord Chancellor was charged by one of his allies with an unworthy manœuvre,' and when this was objected to as out of order, the words of a Parliamentary trick' were substituted; and, however unflattering these words, they were acquiesced in. The fact is, that the opponents of the government were on this occasion contending for two objects, neither of which were distinctly avowed. The first, the pre-eminence of the Church as a distinct body, superior to the legislature itself, and one not to be touched by lay hands. The approval of Convocation, it was contended, was re quisite to give validity to an act of Parliament trenching on any question of religion. With the assertion of this principle, the severance of church and state, the free election of Bishops without congé-d'élire, and the abolition of the Queen's supremacy, has been included. The second principle is, that the interests of religion are best to be promoted by a lavish, if not an indefinite Multiplication of Bishops. The success of missionary labours is now considered to depend less on planting the Cross and circulating the Bible, than in scattering Mitres and Crosiers. If our colonies are discontented, a new Bishop is the fashionable remedy. If the savages of New Zealand are to be reformed, a learned and excellent Prelate is to form part of our earliest plantation. The world were at first astonished at the appointment of a Bishop to our garrison of Gibraltar; and the only justification of that appointment we have heard is, that the right reverend divine may be employed to confirm the news from the East. We do not refer to these debates on the Welsh bishoprics as any proof that the government was wrong in the particular instance. On the contrary, we think they were justified and bound to act as they have done, in resisting Lord Powis's bill, and in pledging themselves to do so hereafter. But we have shown, that even in the House of Lords they are unable to direct and influence the proceedings of the legislature; that they are in a condition of unexampled weakness; and if it be true, 'that to be 'weak is to be miserable,' we are warranted in considering the present as one of the most miserable governments that has existed in modern times. Though we have greatly exceeded our prescribed limits, we cannot conclude without shortly noticing a mistake not unlikely to be committed. We may be asked, are we quite consistent and candid in casting reproach upon the government, if the gist of our accusation is, that they have adopted many of the principles to which we have so often expressed our adhesion ? We do not reproach them with what they are now doing, but with what they have formerly done: yet our main ground of reproach is not the extreme injustice which they committed against their opponents, by misrepresenting alike their measures and their motives. We lament the injury done to the cause of good government and sound legislation more deeply than any injury done to party interests; we lament to see the obstacles which the present government have raised against their own measures. What practically stands in the way of a just settlement of the corn laws? The unfortunate pledges given in favour of a sliding-scale. What complicates every arrangement for settling the sugar duties? Lord Sandon's motion. What has aggravated all Irish agitation? The vehement abuse of the Irish people, as well as of the Irish agita tors. We are, however, in hopes that some, at least, of the causes of reproach may in future be removed, and therefore forgotten. It is announced that a full and searching review of our financial condition will be undertaken next session, before Parliament are called on to renew the Income-Tax. For so great a sacrifice as the continuance of this tax, let the public exact a full equivalent. Let the principles of religious liberty recognised in the Dissenters' Chapel bill, and in the case of the Irish Charities, be fully carried out; let an atonement be made to Ireland, by a full equalization of the elective franchise, for the wrongs and follies under which she has lately suffered. A continuance in a wretched and timid system of halting between two opinions, cannot but fail utterly, and fail disgracefully. A bolder and a more manly line of conduct may yet succeed; and, if successful, it will not only promote the best interests of the country, but contribute to raise the legislature in the estimation of the public, and to restore to public men some portion of that confidence which has been so grievously impaired, if not altogether forfeited. ART. VI-1. Coningsby; or, the New Generation. By B. 2. Historic Fancies. By the Hon. GEORGE SYDNEY SMYTHE, M.P. 8vo. London: 1844. 3. England's Trust, and other Poems. By Lord JOHN MANNERS, M.P. London: 1844. H AVING been sometimes asked, What do the terms Young England' import? we have been induced to gratify the less informed of our readers with a notice of the very small party who rejoice in that name-a notice brief and slight, but which may suffice, for the present, to give some idea of its composition and pretensions. Should any circumstances occur to invest it with further importance, we may hereafter be induced to resume the subject in a more detailed and elaborate manner. We must, however, say that this party, though small, and in some of its aspects rather laughable, is yet entitled to more attention than it seems to have received. But this claim arises more perhaps from the causes from which it has sprung, and the feelings of which it is the exponent, than from any immediate practical results to which it can lead. Though, as just stated, it is no2 L † VOL, LXXXI. NO. CLXII. |