Again, we may observe that Mr. Cobden's opponents have recourse to a dilemma, which is rather plausible than sound. They say: If a change in the law is against the interest of England, she ought not to consent to it; if it is in her interest, other nations will not consent to it. The first part of the proposition is undoubtedly true; but the second is not so obvious. England is at once the strongest and the most commercial of maritime nations. She is the most vulnerable, but she can strike the hardest blows. Her normal condition is not one of war, but of peace; and it is while she is at peace as a neutral nation that she most keenly feels the effect of blows at the commerce of the world, which injure her without being aimed at her, and which she cannot return. It may therefore well be for her interest upon the whole to put an end to a system of warfare from which she suffers severely and gains nothing; and yet it may not be against the interest of any individual nation to oppose a change which in the event of that nation's going to war with a third power might tend to keep England from throwing her sword into the scale. We hear a great deal of the blockade of the Confederate States. It is probably more efficient than any other blockade is ever likely to be; but if it should cause such distress in France, for instance, as to bring France into the contest, it may be questioned whether the Government of the United States will find that they have gained more than they will lose by their recourse to it. The whole subject is full of difficulty, and deserves more consideration than it has yet received. The University of Durham. HERE are some works of restoration greater, as acts of munificence and faith, than even works of foundation from which they spring. The conception and execution of so noble a design as a third University for England in the nineteenth century, was, if possible, a grander effort of self-denial and love than that which gave Oxford her " Durham College," four hundred years ago. It takes more of the moral and spiritual strength of man to give back than simply to give. Richard de Bury did well when he endowed his Theological College at Oxford, little reckoning of the day when Henry VIII. would dissolve it, and make away with its goods. But William Van Mildert and his Dean and Chapter did better when, in a far more selfish and luxurious age, they restored that college as the "University of Durham," knowing well that they were giving back to education at Durham what Henry had taken away from education at Oxford, and made over to them to enrich themselves withal. We heartily pity the man whose soul fails him to appreciate the greatness of this effort of faith towards God, and loyalty and love to the English Church. Of the Chapter who so acquitted itself in princely love all have gone to their reward, save one. And his name is still, thank God, a tower of strength-Henry Phillpotts, Bishop of Exeter. May he be spared to vindicate the purpose of that munificence in which he had a share! After thirty years' trial, the experiment of a third University for England has been found to fail. Of course, it is a primary question whether such a trial suffices for such a conclusion. Would the first thirty years' trial of Oxford or Cambridge have given any better promise? But we are willing to assume that the experiment has failed. Like all experiments which, by force of nature, cannot take full account of future changes among men, it was, perhaps, destined to fail. If that almost miraculous progress of rapid and easy intercommunication between all parts of England which has been made since 1832, and the extent to which the endowments, at the old traditionary seats of learning, are now open to all the world, had been foreseen-we may be quite sure that the intention of the Church of Durham, in restoring to their original purpose funds which had been diverted from it, would have taken another form. The Bishop and his Chapter would, doubtless, have preferred to reinforce sound religious learning within the old Universities; or, at least, they would have sought for their project affiliation with these ancient mothers of literature. They would, probably, have shrunk from establishing a separate and independent University. But, however this may be, if failure there be, it is but of recent growth, and the result of causes which, hidden to the founders, are patent enough now. "In its first years," says Archdeacon Churton, who was more than once Examiner in Theology, "as a Theological school it was no failure. Many good men have gone from it to serve the Church at home and abroad." And, therefore, while the early years of success amply justify the venture which was made, in a large-hearted spirit, to give the North of England a University of her own; the later years of disappointment must be attributed to causes, unforeseen thirty years ago, which have now made the old Universities accessible to all. The question has arisen now, What is to be done with the University of Durham? And the solution of that question, with which the powers of the State furnish us, does not satisfy the justice of the case. It is impossible to dispose of the University of Durham-that is, to dispose of more than 108,1967. worth of English Church funds, without due regard to the Church of England. The Commissioners whom Parliament has appointed to deal with the case have so proposed to dispose of this property. Their proposal, therefore, is unjust. We We have no desire to travel beyond this record. We might express a great deal of warm feeling, none the less real and true for being warm. might say, honestly, with unfeigned sorrow, how we miss the spirit of Van Mildert in the President of the Commission. And this we must in candour, say. If Bishop Baring could not sympathize with the great purpose of his distinguished predecessor, so as to enter upon the minutes of the report some token of his appreciation of its real value to the English Church, he might at least have refrained from insulting the man whom, as its first Warden, the founder of the University delighted to honour. We cannot, out of mere respect to the late Warden's memory, pass this by. Whatever Dr. Thorp was or was not, he was one of the founders of the place, and for thirty years its active H 2 -- governor, called to that high office by the confidence of the eminent men who were allied with him in the work-of whom five were of equal dignity, and (we say it respectfully) higher reputation than Bishop Baring, Bishop VAN MILDERT, Bishop JENKINSON, Bishop GRAY, Bishop SUMNER, and Bishop PHILLPOTTS. Now it was hardly pardonable in Bishop Baring to wish such a man as the Warden out of his way at all; but it was rude and undignified, even indirectly, to tell him so. Again, if Bishop Baring could not accept Dr. Thorp's suggestion that it would be well to assign a retiring pension to the office of Warden, he need not have made haste to conclude that Dr. Thorp must be asking a pension for himself: and least of all need he have proclaimed that, but for his certainty that such was the meaning intended to be conveyed, he would never have offered him a pension at all! All this was surely most unepiscopal conduct, to say the least, considering also that Dr. Thorp was his Archdeacon. If Dr. Thorp's services were long able, and meritorious, they deserved the pension. Bishop Baring so described them when he offered it. But how Dr. Thorp should deserve the pension, and yet, not only not deserve it, but have his memory (now that he is gone) stained by the Bishop's public announcement that he grasped it from “ luctant" hands, is beyond our comprehension. re And that We gladly pass to the main question. we may justify our view of the great injustice to the Church which the Ordinances of the Commissioners propose to inflict, we will sum up their contents. We find them thus described by a correspondent of the Guardian : "I. There are to be three schools-1. Arts or Classical Literature; 2. Theology; 3. Physical Science; and in these schools, the degrees, respectively, of B.A. and M.A.; of B.T. and M.T.; of B.S. and M.S. How the degrees of B.T. and M.T. are to be hindered from clashing with the old degree of B.D. already conferred on men of three times longer standing than B.T. does not appear. Nor is the relation generally of new degrees in T. to old degrees in D. defined. Is it to be no longer D.D. but D.T.? "2. There are to be two sets of students-matriculated and non-matriculated. Each matriculating student is to choose his school; and then his matriculation examination will be made to turn on the subjects of the school selected. The matriculated student must ordinarily reside in college; but a dispensation may be granted to reside elsewhere. The non-matriculated student is to pay his fees, and attend lectures by permission, but need not reside at all. He is not eligible to degrees unless he matriculates. "3. No matriculated student is to be required to keep more than four terms, in order to the degree of Bachelor, in any one of the three schools. After an interval of three years, any Bachelor (his name being kept on the books) may proceed to the degree of Master in the school of his choice. The terms are to be lengthened in duration and shortened in number. Thus-to take the one school which requires the most elaborate work, and time for the work a student in theology may, in four terms, or schoolboy 'halves,' finish his education in the most difficult of sciences, and come out a full-blown B.T. And, after one year's residence, any licentiate or graduate in medicine' may go in for theology, and come out B.T., if he passes the examination ! So also any licentiate in theology' according to the old system (which never recognized that position as a degree) may, without any further residence or examination, lay claim to B.T., and, after three years, to M.T. "4. There are to be two Canon-Professors-one of Divinity, the other of Greek. According to the original | constitution, there should be a third-of Hebrew. But now there is to be no need of him. There are also to be one Professor of Mathematics and three Professors in the school of Physical Science-viz. of Chemistry and Metallurgy, o Geology and Mineralogy, of Mining and Machinery. So, the proportion of importance between Physics and Theology in the University will be as four to one. The University is to be secularized through and through. All Professors, except the Canons, are to have 300l. a-year; and all the Tutors, who are to be multiplied according to demand, are to have 250l. a-year. The Canon-Professors are to have nothing but their canonries. The other Professors and Tutors are to have shares of the fees, according to Mr. Lowe's favourite testing law of results-i.e. ' in proportion to the number of lectures delivered by them, respectively, and the number of students who have attended such lectures.' There are also to be teachers of modern languages, and book-keeping (!), and drawing, and surveying, and other subjects. The encouragement, there fore, to distinguished scholars and divines and men of science is to be small; to fifth-rate schoolmasters and commercial ushers and foreign refugees it will be great. 5. The existing College and Halls are to be merged into the College, which will, in fact, become a large 'boarding establishment for young gentlemen,' in which 51. a term, rent, is to be paid for rooms furnished; and 25s. a week for board-everything except washing included.' The expense of degrees will be 27. for Bachelor, and 41. for Master; or, if degrees in more than one school are taken, the cost will be 17. for the first degree, and 21. for the second. Ten-shillings a term, or a composition of 51., will keep a name on the boards. With such facilities, Durham will be able to advertise degrees for the million. "6. The endowments of the University are to be made available for general purposes under a general account, into which all the existing Fellowships and Scholarships are to be thrown. The only rewards of merit are to be eighty Scholarships-forty of 30l. a-year, and forty of 501. The 30l. are to be open to all the world, except to members of the University of more than one month's standing, and will be tenable for two years. The 50l. are to be open to students in their second year, and will be tenable for one year only, unless the Scholar should intend to go in for a degree in another school, and then it may be held for a second year. No Scholar is to hold more than one Scholarship, and the Scholarships are to be divided between the three schools, according to 'results,' i. e. 'in_pro portion to the number of students respectively.' There will be another account' opened-the 'private Scholarship account,' into which the private foundations of Pemberton, Lindsay, Gisborne, Thorp, Newby, Van Mildert, Barry, Jenkyns, Maltby, and Ellerton will be all thrown, and reappear in a reduced and almost worthless form of from 25/. to 10l., tenable for two years. "7. All marks of identity with the ancient Universities and with its former self are to be obliterated. The very name as well as reward of a Fellowship is to be blotted out. There is to be no further election to the offices of Registrar, or Senior or Junior Proctor, or Pro-Proctor, or Censor, or Master, or Vice-Master of University College; or Principal of Bishop Hatfield's Hall; or Principal of Bishop Cosin's Hall; or Sub-Warden, or Sub-Treasurer, or Bursar, or Warden's Secretary, nor to any of the six Readerships, nor to any of the four Medical Scholarships, nor to any of the twenty-four Fellowships of the University.' "8. All sects and denominations of belief are to be free of admission. None dissenting from the English Church are to be required to worship God. No oath, not even any subscription whatever, is to be required of any student, or member, or officer of the University. And, in the school of Theology, no test of any kind is to be applied to candidates for degrees, except a simple declaration, which any Dissenter may make politically, that he is bona fide a member of the Church of England." " There is nothing analogous to this scheme in the whole history of the English Universities. It is the Church. But the control over her own means must remain with the Church, and the use of them is at her own discretion. The Durham University is just one of those institutions which the Church in the day of her wealth endowed, and in the day of her power protected, and in the day of her honour delighted to honour. Now, in the day of her need, it is an institution of the assistance of which she must not be deprived. such a revolution in academical life as cannot be | admit Dissenters freely to profit by the bounty of compared with anything of which we have experience. The intellectual standard is lowered, the social standard is lowered, the religious standard is debased. It is the reduction of a University education to the depths of a measure in which cheapness and shortness are the ruling elements. Men in the lowest ranks of life may be blessed by a University education, because they may be raised by it intellectually, socially, and spiritually. But if they are kept down by it to the dead level in which they may have been born, and have neither time nor opportunity for advancing in all that is sound in scholarship, refined in manners, and true in religion, it is hard to say whether a University education is not more of a curse than a blessing. A University degree, in England at least, has hitherto been a passport to a man, because it has witnessed to his share in certain intellectual and social and spiritual privileges which have allied him with some of the noblest and greatest traditions of the English Church and nation. And the process by which such privileges have been made accessible to the lowest-born has been one of elevation practised upon the man, not of depression practised upon the University. When you have overturned all those well-tried academical laws which have hitherto governed the inner life of our Universities, and made them great, there may be nothing for you to do but to debase the system to the level of the new-fashioned model-cheap and easy. But then the honour of your degree has vanished. It has all but become a disgrace. Now, apart from the patent injustice of alienating funds from their proper object at Durham, for such a purpose as this, there is the wanton injury inflicted upon the original Durham degree by this device for vilifying it; and, worse still, there is the outrage done to Theology, the greatest of all sciences, by placing it in a parallel line with "Mining and Machinery," and creating an unnatural path of cheapness and facility whereby to reach a theological degree. Is it possible that the Bishop of Durham can seriously contemplate a race of "Bachelors in Theology," teaching from the pulpits of the English Church, with no other guarantee of their fitness for such a dignity, through learning, or good faith, If a high road, cheap and easy, to degrees in "Mining and Metallurgy," with a standard of theology, by the way, watered down to suit the liberal atmosphere of dissenting patronizers, had been desired by Bishop Van Mildert and his Dean and Chapter, there were not wanting signs then, any more than now, of the popularity which they might have earned for themselves by setting it up. Or they might have adopted any other mode of bestowing their wealth, such as men in these days are so apt to adopt. But, instead of this, after much thought and prayer, they deliberately chose to erect a seat of learning, after the type of the old Universities, but with the aim and purpose of theological study more definitely marked than even in them. By what, therefore, short of arbitrary spoliation, may this their choice be disturbed? If the Church is to be allowed no security in the enjoyment of such a choice, made through personal loss before God, by some of her most learned and holy servants, who shall foresee the form and extent of the plunder which she has yet to endure? And how is future munificence, in the long dark time coming, when the needs of men and the public funds will be mutually incommensurate, to be encouraged? We are not of those who either fear or despair of the cause of the Church of England. But when we hear the counsels of Church spoliation proceeding from a board-room in which a successor of Butler and Van Mildert sits as Chairman, we are bound to call upon Churchmen not to fail in the part committed to them-to assert the Church's right to employ all her own gifts in her own cause,-in deepening the foundations of her spiritual strength, while she is watching for the souls of men. or orthodoxy, than this—that they have kept four Mr. We must deliver our protest against Bishop Baring's new University scheme in very distinct terms. We will defend the principle which he assails with no faithless or faint heart. The Church has an inalienable right to enjoy the property wherewith God has endowed her, for her own use alone. The property wherewith the University of Durham is endowed belongs to the Church. There fore, the Church has the right alone to enjoy the use of the University of Durham. This is only the statement of a principle. There are many ways of working it out which diminish its apparent harshness. One, out of many such ways, would Gladstone's Theory of Moral HEN a great statesman devotes a period of leisure to a series of political harangues, it is but natural that the statements which he thinks becoming to make should receive very careful attention. Mr. Gladstone has recently pointed out, and with considerable force, that the formation of an opinon and its promulgation are processes of the mind in themselves distinct, and capable of being widely separated in order of time. Indeed, he added, with truth, that these phenomena might exist independently of any attempt to give them effect. Mr. Gladstone, therefore, in promulgating an opinion, must be held, not only to have deliberately adopted the opinion, but to have deliberately chosen the occasion for its promulgation; and it may be assumed that any proposition main tained by him has reached the middle drama of a great Trilogy. We do not propose to discuss the opinions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the American war, or the fitness of the opportunity selected for making the declaration which frightened Manchester, and paralysed the cotton-market; but it may be worth while to examine one of the opinions, deliberately adopted, and deliberately promulgated by Mr. Gladstone during his visit to Newcastle. Great weight attaches to the sayings of eminent men. A stump-orator may declaim against the Church establishment without effective results, and a parish churchwarden, or even the beadle of a vestry may jeer at the rites and ceremonies of the Church without achieving serious consequences; but a University representative cannot minimise the distinction between Truth and error, or hold up to obloquy conscientious men, without incurring heavy responsibility. Mr. Gladstone is held to represent the opinions of sober and learned men, and, as a statesman, cannot be ignorant of the weight which belongs to general propositions advanced by him. In one of the Newcastle speeches the Chancellor of the Exchequer is reported to have maintained that a great proprietor, who owned half a county, and refused to allow a meeting-house, where men might worship according to their consciences, to be erected on his estate, would use the rights of property in a way that involved moral guilt." Now, Ist., we can hardly suppose Mr. Gladstone to be yet prepared to deny that the Churchman who refuses may have a conscience as well as the Dissenter who demands; though his language would certainly appear to be incapable of any other interpretation. It is, moreover, undoubtedly true that in many of those assemblies of men which he delights with his eloquence, it is taken for granted that all the concience is on one side. Hence e.g., the term "Conscience Clause." And, 2nd., according to the Church of England, the assembling of men and women for religious purposes is not the true worship of CHRIST, unless it be done in His name, that is, by His authority, and according to His order, for the promotion of His glory. His authority we are bound to recognize, Who hath mercifully ordered a due succession of lawful ministers in His Church, and His truth we are bound as Christians to maintain; yet the representative of the University of Oxford proclaims that the hindrance of irregular and profane assemblies involves "moral guilt." To pass by the grosser forms of Dissent, such as Mormonism, or Antinomianism, few men who value the primitive teaching of the Church of England will deny the perilous danger to immortal souls which results from the mischievous tenets of Baptists, Socinians, and Quakers. Belief in the Divinity of our Lord surely has, according to the Faith of the Church, some effect in bringing Christians to know, obey, and follow Him, who is their Lord and their God,, in the way that leadeth to everlasting life. The Sacraments are not of such small account that it is a matter of no consequence whether they are or are not imparted to mankind; and yet one honoured with the confidence of many of the clergy announces to his companions, at a political dinner, that a rich man who, from conscientious mo tives, and within the limits allowed by law, uses his wealth in such a way as to decline to be accomplice in misleading his neighbours and distorting God's Revelation is chargeable with "moral guilt." No duty is more incumbent upon Christians than the promotion of Truth. Hindrance of error is a link in the promotion of Truth. If the blind are not to lead the blind, still less should those who enjoy the blessings of sight entrust to the blind the functions of guiding aright the stammering steps of the helpless and ignorant. To help the spread of desolating error is to lay waste and spoil the garden of Truth. How, then, shall one who uses his talents to hinder the spread of opinions which mar the eternal Truth of God be justly chargeable with moral guilt? God's Truth is not a matter of opinion. It is not that which a man troweth or thinketh; but rather that which "troweth a man," i.e. makes him true; just as mirth is that which makes a man merry. Teaching which does not make a man true is not a blessing but a curse; and, therefore, to help Socinians to deny the Divinity of our Lord, and afford them the opportunity of making new disciples, is not only no Christian duty, but an act of uncharitableness towards the real interests of our neighbour. What special circumstances may have induced Mr. Gladstone to announce this theory of the duty of great landowners to promote heresy and schism we do not know: still less can we conjecture the exact amount of property which, according to this theory, carries with it the obligation: for it should be observed that a landowner of smaller possessions than half a county who so acts is exempted from blame. It is, however, to be hoped that much time may elapse before the Chancellor of the Exchequer proceeds to the last drama of the Trilogy by endeavouring to give effect to his new and strange opinions. It is not too much to expect that the University of Oxford may lay to heart this authoritative announcement. Recent experience, at home and abroad, has abundantly shown that latitudinarianism in politics is nearly allied to latitudinarianism in religion. It is not surprising that a minister who promoted the spoliation of the Canadian Church should acquiesce in the admission of Dissenters into the University of Oxford. A supporter of the Burial Bill in its early stages, before the attention of the clergy was called to the probable effect of its provisions, would naturally be found in the ranks of those who would sweep away the temporal safeguards which fence in the indelibility of Holy Orders; and these antecedents would not be incompatible with a subsequent denial of the importance of the teaching of the Church, and the necessity of the dogma of Christianity. It is the eloquent author of The State in its Relations to the Church who says that they who begin by "denying the relevancy of religious differences to the competency of men for civil office, slide out of an allowance of division in things indifferent to one embracing fundamentals also." The writer must have foreseen the danger which would follow from sharing the counsels of the late Sir William Molesworth, and the present Mr. Milner Gibson, and other supporters of the Liberation Society. The necessity which Mr. Gladstone has imposed on himself of political co operation with the enemies of the Church will probably bring him into greater straits than those into which he has yet drifted; and it is not improbable that he may hereafter afford a yet more striking illustration of the truth of his own saying, that they who "neglect Truth proceed onward to insult it by placing on the same level with it every form of error." It is the old story. England, by her WhigRadical Government and Tory Prime Minister, interferes and bullies where she dare; and makes a virtue of not interfering where she does not dare. Wanton acts of folly provoke sharp answers. See the despatch of the Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs, dated Oct. 15, and published in the Times of the 22nd inst. Earl Russell and Prince Gortscha koff. T may be a necessary accident of the published records of English diplomacy that they should contrast unfavourably with those of the diplomacy of other Powers: but the defect need not be aggravated by un-necessary displays of ignorance and pedantry. Neither is it part of the art of despatch-writing to expose yourself and your country to cutting retort and sarcasm : nor again to slap friendly Powers in the face for nothing as you go by. Anybody who has read the despatches of Earl Russell and Prince Gortschakoff reprinted in the Times of Nov. 1, from the Gazette de Petersburgh, will know what we mean; and will have observed the ingenuity with which Earl Russell has included the above three processes in one brief despatch. Earl Russell is fond of alliteration. So, when he wants an illustration, he strings together Prussia and Portugal, Sweden and Saxony. Perhaps it was that "the last Whig" could not resist the temptation of telling Prussia that, unless it become Whig, it has no chance of maintaining its position as one of the Great Powers. It may be so, but it is hardly a dignified way of conveying the warning. Then again, as if it were not enough to cram down English throats at every opportunity, reasonable and unreasonable, the clap-traps of Whiggery, Earl Russell must be mixing up a dose of the same stuff for the Russian. But here, unfortunately, he is convicted of a want of acquaintance with the facts and symptoms of the disease which he undertakes to cure. Lastly, by what fatality, or by what rule, except the prius dementat, does a Whig minister of 1862, who has devoted himself to the fomenting, by "moral influence," every species of resistance to lawful authority in the old monarchies of Europe, expose himself and his Sovereign to the bitter sarcasm which lies in the concluding sentence of Prince Gortschakoff's despatch? Russia may be all wrong, and England may be all right, about interfering between the Porte and the Montenegrins; but, if so, it is a pity that we should have a Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who sets us up to be knocked about like ninepins by a clever Russian who does know facts, is not a pedant, and can write. The policy of non-interference, announced as above by the Foreign Secretary for the East of Europe, has been once more placed in startling contrast with the policy of interference, or rather dictation, as announced by the same authority for the North of Europe in his despatch dated Sept. 24. meeting of Church Societies, held at Norwich, Oct. 16, a layman, J. Allen, Esq., moved the following resolution : "That this meeting deeply regrets the course taken by the National Society with regard to the exclusion from union of those schools which require by their trust-deed that every child shall be instructed in the Catechism, Articles, and Liturgy of the Church of England, believing such a course will inflict a grievous injury to the cause of religious education, and is calculated to undermine the very principles on which the Society is founded.” Nothing could be more truly, or more mildly stated. But the bishop, being in the chair, made a discovery, and objected that he felt a difficulty about the resolution, inasmuch as he was not aware that any resolution to the effect complained of in Mr. Allen's resolution had at any time been passed by the National Society. This was the straw; and for the time it saved the drowning man. It is a remarkable thing that his lordship, who is ex officio a member of the Committee of the National Society, does not know that no meaning is or can be attached to the words "the course taken by the National Society," than that of the course taken by the Committee of the National Society; and it is even more remarkable that no one of all those present at the meeting should have been able to throw any light upon the subject. We beg, therefore, to inform the bishop, and his diocese, that the government of the Society is by charter vested in the Committee; and that, though there have been examples, some fifteen years ago, of the expression of the judgment of the general body of subscribing members being brought to bear, with more or less success, upon the Committee at the annual meetings, still the fact remains that "the course of the National Society" is the course of the Committee of the National Society, and is nothing else. constitution of the National Society is, therefore, not a popular constitution. It does not even reach the French idea of constitutional perfection, viz. that of an election of a despot by universal suffrage. The great majority of the Committee are ex officio members, and the general assumption is that the Committee, as a whole, can do no wrong. The Committee, it is to be observed, have always insisted upon their extreme rights. In their view, a subscribing member is good only for paying money, and for implicit obedience. The annual meeting is good only for receiving, not for discussing, or presuming to question, the report then and there The |