« AnteriorContinuar »
recess, these Ordinances, though printed, were not procurable at the Parliamentary Paper Office, or at the Queen's Printers. Forty days are, by statute, allowed to Parliament in which to consider the result of the Commissioners' labours. But eleven days at the fag end of last session, and, practically, no day at the beginning of this session-this is the way in which so wholesome a safeguard is exercised! We say, practically, no day in this session ; for it was not until the last of the forty days,' during which Parliament has the power to reject the Ordinances, that the Ordinances themselves were placed before the House of Lords, and not till a whole week after the “forty days' were exhausted, that the evidence on which the Ordinances are based was submitted for the information of Parliament. Thus, in effect, the opportunity of discussing one of the most revolutionary plans that was ever proposed for the reconstruction of an important Church University, has been evaded in the House of Commons, and stolen from the House of Lords.
Another fact betokens the reckless haste and off-handedness with which it is possible for a commission of this kind to do irreparable mischief. One of the commissioners, Dr. Vaughan, made and carried a valuable proposal, that the appointment of Professors and Tutors should be vested in the Warden, who, being also Dean of Durham, might not always be other than well affected to the Church. But this resolution was never entered upon the minutes. The Secretary was not in his place; and it remains to this day on the slip of paper on which Dr. Vaughan drew it up, while the Ordinances, as published in the London Gazette, and laid before Parliament, place those appointments in the hands of the Senate, the majority of which may be Dissenters or Unbelievers, and enemies to the Church of England!
We gladly call attention to the 'Quondam Fellow's ' pamphlet. He is rightfully indignant at the Commissiouers' plau for, first, spoiling the University of its property, and then degrading it through its own
It is difficult to overstate the boldness and violence of such a
The property of the University of Durham is all Church property, and it is manifestly unjust to withdraw her own property from the Church's own exclusive control. But, apart from the crime of spoliation, the Commissioners' scheme is guilty of a blunder. The establishment of a lower-class University on a new model, in which degrees are to derive all their value from the cheapness and rapidity with which they may be reached-set up upon a principle of condescension to the supposed wants of the people, without any such common religious test as Chapelprayers—is not only a breach of faith with the existing members of the University, but an utter mistake in relation to the great middle-class of Englishmen, who have free access to the old Universities, who want neither easy, nor cheap, nor irreligious Academical distinctions, and who will have the real thing, as it has been always received here in England, or none.
Theology is the prime end and object for which these Church-funds were first given at Oxford, and afterwards restored at Durham. And theology being of all sciences that of which the systematic study is now the least encouraged, and the most wanted in the English Church, the Durham University funds, either at Durham, or at the old Universities, ought to be reserved for the great work to which they were solemnly destined. The revival of a theological school, affiliated by the ancient universities, which have, alas ! suffered the scientific study of theology to drop from their hands, would be of inestimable value to the English Church now and in all time. The Deanery of Durham, and three Canon Professorships-Divinity, Hebrew, and Greek-besides twenty Fellowships, furnish a noble endowment for such a school. The Church of England actually possesses at this moment this endowment for this express purpose, granted to her by gifts of faith and love, and secured to her by law. Will she yield it up without a struggle?
Financial Policy, the last Twenty Years of
(Twenty Years of Financial Policy, by Sir
Universalism and Eternal Punishment [Skin-
ner's Sermons-Passaglia, &c.], 433-483.
SHORTER NOTICES OF BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS.
JANUARY.—M'Caul's Criticism of Bishop Co-
lenso's Criticism — Sir Roundell Palmer's
the Church Catechism-Lo-
spondence, edited by M, de Falloux-Geru.
gleterre-Lettre de Mgr. l'Eveque d'Orléans
R. CLAY, SON, AND TAYLOR, PRINTERS, BREAD STREET HILL.