Apart from the discussions to which these petitions gave rise, the case of the dissenters was presented in Universities' the more definite shape of a bill, introduced by Bill, April 17th, 1834. Mr. George Wood.1 Against the admission of dissenters, it was argued that the religious education of the universities must either be interfered with, or else imposed upon dissenters. It would introduce religious discord and controversies, violate the statutes of the universities, and clash with the internal discipline of the different colleges. The universities were instituted for the religious teaching of the Church of England; and were corporations enjoying charters and Acts of Parliament, under which they held their authority and privileges, for that purpose. If the dissenters desired a better education for themselves, they were rich and zealous, and could found colleges of their own, to vie with Oxford and Cambridge in learning, piety, and distinction.

On the other hand, it was contended that the 'admission of dissenters would introduce a better feeling between that body and the church. Their exclusion was irritating and invidious. The religious education of the universities was one of learning rather than orthodoxy; and it was more probable that dissenters would become attracted to the church, than that the influence of the church and its teachings would be impaired by their presence in the universities. The experience of Cambridge proved that discipline was not interfered with by their admission to its studies; and the denial of degrees to students who had distinguished themselves was a galling disqualification, upon which churchmen ought not to insist. The example of Dublin University was also relied on, whose Protestant character had not been affected, nor its discipline interfered with, by the admission of Roman June 20th. Catholics. This bill being warmly espoused by the entire liberal party, was passed by the Commons, with July 28th.

1 Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., xxii. 900. Ayes, 185; Noes, 44. Colonel Williams having moved for an address, the bill was ordered as an amendment to that question.

large majorities. In the Lords, however, it was received Aug. 1st. with marked disfavor. It was strenuously opposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Duke of Gloucester, the Duke of Wellington, and the Bishop of Exeter; and even the new premier, Lord Melbourne, who supported the second reading, avowed that he did not entirely approve of the measure. In his opinion its objects might be better effected by a good understanding and a compromise between both parties, than by the force of an Act of Parliament. The bill was refused a second reading by a majority of one hundred and two.2

London Uni

Not long afterwards, however, the just claims of dissenters to academical distinction were met, without trenchversity estab- ing upon the church or the ancient seats of learnlished, 1836. ing, by the foundation of the University of London, open to students of every creed.3 Some years later, the Oxford and education, discipline, and endowments of the older universities called for the interposition of Parliament; and in considering their future regulation, the claims of dissenters were not overlooked. Provision was made for the opening of halls, for their collegiate resi dence and discipline; and the degrees of the universities were no longer withheld from their honorable ambition.*

Cambridge
Universities'
Acts.

Dissenters'

1844.

The contentions hitherto related have been between the church and dissenters. But rival sects have had Chapels Bill, their contests; and in 1844 the legislature interposed to protect the endowments of dissenting communions from being despoiled by one another. Decisions of the Court of Chancery and the House of Lords, in the

1 On second reading-Ayes, 321; Noes, 147. On third reading — Ayes, 164; Noes, 75. Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., xxiii. 632, 635.

2 Contents, 85; Non-contents, 187. Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., xxv. 815. 8 Debates, March 26th, 1835; Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., xxvii. 279; London University Charters, Nov. 1836, and Dec. 1837.

4 Oxford University Act, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 81, s. 43, 44, &c.; Cambridge University Act, 19 & 20 Vict. c. 88, s. 45, &c. These degrees, however, did not entitle them to offices hitherto held by churchmen.

case of Lady Hewley's charity, had disturbed the security of all property held in trust by nonconformists, for religious purposes. The faith of the founder, not expressly defined by any will or deed, but otherwise collected from evidence, was held to be binding upon succeeding generations of dissenters. A change or development of creed forfeited the endowment; and what one sect forfeited, another might claim. A wide field was here opened for litigation. Lady Hewley's trustees had been dispossessed of their property, after a ruinous contest of fourteen years. In the obscure annals of dissent, it was difficult to trace out the doctrinal variations of a religious foundation; and few trustees felt themselves secure against the claims of rivals, encouraged at once by the love of gain and by religious hostility. An unfriendly legislature might have looked with complacency upon endowments wasted and rivalries embittered. Dissent might have been put into chancery, without a helping hand. But Sir Robert Peel's enlightened chancellor, Lord Lyndhurst, came forward to stay further strife. His measure provided that where the founder had not expressly defined the doctrines or form of worship to be observed, the usage of twenty-five years should give trustees a title to their endowment; and this solution of a painful difficulty was accepted by Parliament. It was not passed without strong opposition on religious grounds, and fierce jealousy of Unitarians, whose endowments had been most endangered; but it was, in truth, a judicious legal reform rather than a measure affecting religious liberty.2

1

Endowed

In the same spirit, Parliament has lately empowered the trustees of endowed schools to admit children of different religious denominations, unless the deed Schools Act, of foundation expressly limited the benefits of the endowment to the church, or some other religious communion.

1 Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., lxxiv. 579, 821.

VOL. II.

2 Ibid., lxxv. 321, 383; lxxvi. 116; 7 & 8 Vict. c. 45

8 23 Vict. c. 11.

26

1860.

Repeal of penalties on

religious

Long after Parliament had frankly recognized complete freedom of religious worship, many intolerant enactments still bore witness to the rigor of our worship. laws. Liberty had been conceded so grudgingly, and clogged with so many conditions, that the penal code had not yet disappeared from the statute-book. In 1845, the Criminal Law Commission enumerated the restraints and penalties which had hitherto escaped the vigilance of the legislature.1 And Parliament has since blotted out many repulsive laws affecting the religious worship and education of Roman Catholics, and others not in communion with the church.2

The church honorably acquiesced in those just and necesChurch rates. sary measures, which secured to dissenters liberty in their religious worship and ministrations, and exemption from civil disabilities. But a more serious contention had arisen affecting her own legal rights, her position as the national establishment, and her ancient endowments. Dissenters refused payment of church-rates. Many suffered imprisonment or distraint of their goods, rather than satisfy the lawful demands of the church.3 Others, more practical and sagacious, attended vestries, and resisted the imposition of the annual rate upon the parishioners. And during the progress of these local contentions, Parliament was appealed to by dissenters for legislative relief.

The principles involved in the question of church-rate, Principles while differing in several material points from

involved.

those concerned in other controversies between the church and dissenters, may yet be referred to one common

1 First Report of Crim. Law Commission (Religious Opinions), 1845. 27 & 8 Vict. c. 102; Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., lxxiv. 691; lxxvi. 1165; 9 & 10 Vict. c. 59; Ibid., lxxxiii. 495. Among the laws repealed by this Act was the celebrated statute or ordinance of Henry III., "pro expulsione Judæorum."

8 See Debates, July 30th, 1839; July 24th, 1840 (Thorogood's case); Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., xlix. 998; lv. 939. Appendix to Report of Committee on Church Rates, 1851, p. 606-645.

origin, the legal recognition of a national church, with all the rights incident to such an establishment, in presence of a powerful body of nonconformists. By the common law, the parishioners were bound to maintain the fabric of the parish church, and provide for the decent celebration of its services. The edifice consecrated to public worship was sustained by an annual rate, voted by the parishioners themselves assembled in vestry, and levied upon all occupiers of land and houses within the parish, according to their ability.1 For centuries, the parishioners who paid this rate were members of the church. They gazed with reverence on the antique tower; hastened to prayers at the summons of the sabbath-bells; sat beneath the roof which their contributions had repaired; and partook of the sacramental bread and wine which their liberality had provided. The rate was administered by lay churchwardens of their own choice; and all cheerfully paid what was dispensed for the common use and benefit of all. But times had changed. Dissent had grown, and spread and ramified throughout the land. In some parishes, dissenters even outnumbered the members of the church. Supporting their own ministers, building and repairing their own chapels, and shunning the services and clergy of the parish church, they resented the payment of the church-rate as at once an onerous and unjust tax and an offence to their consciences. They insisted that the burden should be borne exclusively by members of the church. Such, they contended, had been the original design of churchrate; and this principle should again be recognized, under altered conditions, by the state. The church stood firmly upon her legal rights. The law had never acknowledged such a distinction of persons as that contended for by dissenters; nay, the tax was chargeable, not so much upon persons, as upon property; and having existed for centuries, its

1 Lyndwood, 53; Wilkins's Concil., i. 253; Coke's 2d Inst., 489, 653; 13 Edw. I. (statute, Circumspecte agatis); Sir J. Campbell's Letter to Lord Stanley, 1837; Report of Commission on Eccl. Courts, 1832.