GT
MR. BIDDULPH, the Member for Herefordshire, and a Liberal, is to propose,—if he can find an opportunity on the report of the Reform Bill,—what Mr. Disraeli says will -raise "a very grave question," and is likely to give rise "to protracted discussion,"—that priests and deacons " who have not been clerically employed for twelve months " shall be eligible as Members of Parliament in future. We hope he may find time to propose this on the report, and we hope the "protracted discussion," if it ensues, will terminate in extinguishing this foolish and unmeaning legislative attempt to bar a particular sort of human being out of political life. We do not see the use of Mr. Biddulph's limi- tation on the class of clergymen from whom a member might be selected. It seems to imply that clergymen ought to have abandoned their professional calling, as far as a clergyman under the present restrictions on that head can do so, before he may enter political life. If it is meant merely to prevent a clergyman from neglecting his clerical duties for the sake of politics, we do not think this restric- tion the right one. No doubt, as for a branch of the Civil 'Service, it might be necessary to provide that no clergymen -4' with cure of souls " should sit in the House of Commons. But anything beyond that would take away half the meaning of the concession. We do not specially care to get clerical black sheep, clerical deserters, men who have ceased to serve the Church because the service of the Church is no longer to their mind, the right to serve in Parliament if they will. We conclude that what Mr. Biddulph wants,—certainly what we want, —is to get clergymen who love the Church, who love their own duties in the Church, who if they gave up a cure of souls to sit in Parliament would do so not because they were ashamed of their work as English clergymen, but because they thought it the side of their work on which they .could render the Church most service, and who, therefore, would not wish to be estranged from any such clerical duties as might still fall in their way by the political duties they had under- taken. The attempt to insist on interposing any interval of time or any chasm between the clergyman's political life and 'his performance of clerical duties seems to us one of the greatest mistakes that could be made in according clergymen the privileges of all others of their fellow-citizens. If they are to be elected Members of Parliament, the fresher they are from the spirit of their clerical duties, the more use they will be as representatives of their brethren in the Church. Nobody thinks of preventing military officers from sitting in the House of Commons, and indeed they sit there in considerable slumbers. Nobody would think of making it a condition that for a year back they had not been engaged in any military duties. We do not know, of course, with what view Mr. Biddulph has engrafted this odd proviso on his proposed -repeal of a special disability. But if it is meant in any way to loosen the tie between clerical and political life, except so far as to provide that clergymen with duties requiring their whole time must not give a great part of that time to politics, we think it goes to neutralize the whole force of the boon. In any case, to insist upon interposing a year between a clergy- man's clerical life and his parliamentary life seems to us wholly unmeaning and absurd.
The object of setting the clergy free from this mischievous 'political disability seems to us so clear, that we cannot even enter into, or understand the existence of, the case on the other side. Mr. Disraeli said recently in a Reform debate that no good leading article could be anything but onesided. If you allowed yourself to state the opposite side you would ruin the article. That seemed to us to show that Mr. Disraeli, though he mayhave written able articles now and then, has never really been a practised political writer. For our own parts, we doubt if a really good leading article ever did try to ignore the case on the other side, except for political, and not literary reasons. No argument really seems strong till it has been tested by collision with the strongest form of opposing argument. And, therefore, it is not for Mr. Disraeli's very bad reason, but for the much better reason that we can find no sort of even primd facie case justifying this disability, that we omit to state the case on the other side. On our own side the case is very simple and very strong. Nothing is worse than an artificial line drawn between secular and spiritual affairs. No Parlia- ment can seriously avoid spiritual considerations,—or else un- spiritual considerations, which, for our purpose, comes to the same thing ; and no Church ought to ignore political facts. The attempt to divide the two spheres is a mere fiction of abstract thought. Every debate,—not merely on Church matters, but on questions of justice and equity,—such a debate, for instance, as last Friday's, on the bad justice administered by the Wiltshire bench of magistrates,—neces- sarily invokes considerations which no one feels more deeply than clergymen. So true is this of the debate we have just referred to, that it was a clergyman, from his deep feel- ing of the injury done to his parishioners by the in- justice in question, who forced the whole matter before Parliament, though he would have been himself disquali- fied for calling the attention of Parliament to the subject. You cannot exclude questions vital to the highest interests of the clergy from the consideration of Parliament ; and you cannot exclude questions vital to the secular interests of the nation from the consideration of the clergy. There is no more reason for denying the clergy the right of representing their fellow-men in Parliament than for denying the same right to Dissenting ministers, or to barristers, or to phy- sicians, or to merchants, or soldiers, or any other class of men. On the contrary, there is less reason than for denying the same to any of these except Dissenting ministers,—for the clergy, if they are true clergy, are at least profoundly intimate with the condition of the most suffering of all classes, whose condition demands most consideration from the Legislature ; and on educational questions no opinion would have so much weight as that of an able and experienced clergyman. There is a sort of superstition that the cure of souls once undertaken is too sacred a duty to be given up for politics. But, in the first place, it constantly is given up for occupations even less dignified than politics,— for leisurely social life,—if a clergyman has private property which is enough for him without the income of a living. In the next place, it is nonsense talking about one class of duties being more sacred than another, without reference to the special powers of the person who undertakes them. Making railways, for a man endowed by Providence with a special gift for engi- neering, is a more sacred duty than the cure of souls. And everybody knows that there are clergymen who are rather poli- ticians, or even statesmen with a special kind of experience, than mere clergymen. Where this is so, why should a false and mis- chievous chasm between secular and spiritual life be invented, for the express purpose of depriving the State of this class of representatives ? In the House of Lords the theory is that the Bishops owe a duty to the State. If Bishops owe a duty to the Upper House of Legislature, how can clergymen who may be delegated by their fellow-citizens to represent them in the Commons, owe less duty to the Lower House ? There would be another incidental advantage in doing away with this absurd, obsolete, and unconstitutional restriction. We often hear now,—we heard with regard to the Ritualistic Commission from the Archbishop of Canterbury only on Monday,—that Parliament cannot properly legislate for the Church without asking the previous assent of Convocation Now; we must say we think it would be nearly as reasonable to say that Parliament cannot reform the law without asking the assent of the Inns of Court ; and we should say not only " nearly " but " quite " as reasonable, but for the fact that barristers can get into the House of Commons, and do get in in great numbers, while the clergy are by a special disability kept out of the House of Commons. No corporate body can be conceived more contemptible, for legislative purposes, than Convocation, or indeed any other guild of unalloyed professional men. It is a sort of Trades' Union. And what Trades' Union could be entrusted with power to legislate for the trade? But there is just this show of excuse for this absurd pretension of Convocation,—that one class of the nation, and that a class specially interested in our Church legislation, is, by a most absurd provision, shut out from Parliament, and, therefore, unable to make its voice directly heard on the subject of that legislation. If Mr. Biddulph's clause, without its needless and unmeaning proviso, were carried, we hope we might hear no more of such non- sense as asking the consent of Convocation to the ecclesiastical legislation of Parliament.
MR. BIDDULPH, the Member for Herefordshire, and a Liberal, is to propose,—if he can find an opportunity on the report of the Reform Bill,—what Mr. Disraeli says will -raise "a very grave question," and is likely to give rise "to protracted discussion,"—that priests and deacons " who have not been clerically employed for twelve months " shall be eligible as Members of Parliament in future. We hope he may find time to propose this on the report, and we hope the "protracted discussion," if it ensues, will terminate in extinguishing this foolish and unmeaning legislative attempt to bar a particular sort of human being out of political life. We do not see the use of Mr. Biddulph's limi- tation on the class of clergymen from whom a member might be selected. It seems to imply that clergymen ought to have abandoned their professional calling, as far as a clergyman under the present restrictions on that head can do so, before he may enter political life. If it is meant merely to prevent a clergyman from neglecting his clerical duties for the sake of politics, we do not think this restric- tion the right one. No doubt, as for a branch of the Civil 'Service, it might be necessary to provide that no clergymen -4' with cure of souls " should sit in the House of Commons. But anything beyond that would take away half the meaning of the concession. We do not specially care to get clerical black sheep, clerical deserters, men who have ceased to serve the Church because the service of the Church is no longer to their mind, the right to serve in Parliament if they will. We conclude that what Mr. Biddulph wants,—certainly what we want, —is to get clergymen who love the Church, who love their own duties in the Church, who if they gave up a cure of souls to sit in Parliament would do so not because they were ashamed of their work as English clergymen, but because they thought it the side of their work on which they .could render the Church most service, and who, therefore, would not wish to be estranged from any such clerical duties as might still fall in their way by the political duties they had under- taken. The attempt to insist on interposing any interval of time or any chasm between the clergyman's political life and 'his performance of clerical duties seems to us one of the greatest mistakes that could be made in according clergymen the privileges of all others of their fellow-citizens. If they are to be elected Members of Parliament, the fresher they are from the spirit of their clerical duties, the more use they will be as representatives of their brethren in the Church. Nobody thinks of preventing military officers from sitting in the House of Commons, and indeed they sit there in considerable slumbers. Nobody would think of making it a condition that for a year back they had not been engaged in any military duties. We do not know, of course, with what view Mr. Biddulph has engrafted this odd proviso on his proposed -repeal of a special disability. But if it is meant in any way to loosen the tie between clerical and political life, except so far as to provide that clergymen with duties requiring their whole time must not give a great part of that time to politics, we think it goes to neutralize the whole force of the boon. In any case, to insist upon interposing a year between a clergy- man's clerical life and his parliamentary life seems to us wholly unmeaning and absurd.
The object of setting the clergy free from this mischievous 'political disability seems to us so clear, that we cannot even enter into, or understand the existence of, the case on the other side. Mr. Disraeli said recently in a Reform debate that no good leading article could be anything but onesided. If you allowed yourself to state the opposite side you would ruin the article. That seemed to us to show that Mr. Disraeli, though he mayhave written able articles now and then, has never really been a practised political writer. For our own parts, we doubt if a really good leading article ever did try to ignore the case on the other side, except for political, and not literary reasons. No argument really seems strong till it has been tested by collision with the strongest form of opposing argument. And, therefore, it is not for Mr. Disraeli's very bad reason, but for the much better reason that we can find no sort of even primd facie case justifying this disability, that we omit to state the case on the other side. On our own side the case is very simple and very strong. Nothing is worse than an artificial line drawn between secular and spiritual affairs. No Parlia- ment can seriously avoid spiritual considerations,—or else un- spiritual considerations, which, for our purpose, comes to the same thing ; and no Church ought to ignore political facts. The attempt to divide the two spheres is a mere fiction of abstract thought. Every debate,—not merely on Church matters, but on questions of justice and equity,—such a debate, for instance, as last Friday's, on the bad justice administered by the Wiltshire bench of magistrates,—neces- sarily invokes considerations which no one feels more deeply than clergymen. So true is this of the debate we have just referred to, that it was a clergyman, from his deep feel- ing of the injury done to his parishioners by the in- justice in question, who forced the whole matter before Parliament, though he would have been himself disquali- fied for calling the attention of Parliament to the subject. You cannot exclude questions vital to the highest interests of the clergy from the consideration of Parliament ; and you cannot exclude questions vital to the secular interests of the nation from the consideration of the clergy. There is no more reason for denying the clergy the right of representing their fellow-men in Parliament than for denying the same right to Dissenting ministers, or to barristers, or to phy- sicians, or to merchants, or soldiers, or any other class of men. On the contrary, there is less reason than for denying the same to any of these except Dissenting ministers,—for the clergy, if they are true clergy, are at least profoundly intimate with the condition of the most suffering of all classes, whose condition demands most consideration from the Legislature ; and on educational questions no opinion would have so much weight as that of an able and experienced clergyman. There is a sort of superstition that the cure of souls once undertaken is too sacred a duty to be given up for politics. But, in the first place, it constantly is given up for occupations even less dignified than politics,— for leisurely social life,—if a clergyman has private property which is enough for him without the income of a living. In the next place, it is nonsense talking about one class of duties being more sacred than another, without reference to the special powers of the person who undertakes them. Making railways, for a man endowed by Providence with a special gift for engi- neering, is a more sacred duty than the cure of souls. And everybody knows that there are clergymen who are rather poli- ticians, or even statesmen with a special kind of experience, than mere clergymen. Where this is so, why should a false and mis- chievous chasm between secular and spiritual life be invented, for the express purpose of depriving the State of this class of representatives ? In the House of Lords the theory is that the Bishops owe a duty to the State. If Bishops owe a duty to the Upper House of Legislature, how can clergymen who may be delegated by their fellow-citizens to represent them in the Commons, owe less duty to the Lower House ? There would be another incidental advantage in doing away with this absurd, obsolete, and unconstitutional restriction. We often hear now,—we heard with regard to the Ritualistic Commission from the Archbishop of Canterbury only on Monday,—that Parliament cannot properly legislate for the Church without asking the previous assent of Convocation Now; we must say we think it would be nearly as reasonable to say that Parliament cannot reform the law without asking the assent of the Inns of Court ; and we should say not only " nearly " but " quite " as reasonable, but for the fact that barristers can get into the House of Commons, and do get in in great numbers, while the clergy are by a special disability kept out of the House of Commons. No corporate body can be conceived more contemptible, for legislative purposes, than Convocation, or indeed any other guild of unalloyed professional men. It is a sort of Trades' Union. And what Trades' Union could be entrusted with power to legislate for the trade? But there is just this show of excuse for this absurd pretension of Convocation,—that one class of the nation, and that a class specially interested in our Church legislation, is, by a most absurd provision, shut out from Parliament, and, therefore, unable to make its voice directly heard on the subject of that legislation. If Mr. Biddulph's clause, without its needless and unmeaning proviso, were carried, we hope we might hear no more of such non- sense as asking the consent of Convocation to the ecclesiastical legislation of Parliament.
Previous page
