Mr. Charles Buxton made a very learned and able speech
on Tuesday in favour of a Commission, to be appointed jointly by the Queen and the President of the United States, for the revision of the English Bible, which he very justly treated as a matter affect- ing all English-speaking races, and not merely the British Empire. He overlooked, however, the constitutional objection pointed out by Mr. Gladstone, that the President of the United States hardly can, by the provisions of that almost deified document, the American Constitution, interfere in any way with American religion. A corre- spondent in another column regards Mr. Gladatone's reply as vir- tually hostile to the work of revision, but we confess we do not take that view of it. That he wishes the public feeling to be tentatively tested by a private attempt judiciously made, rather than by any authoritative interference of the Civil power, is perfectly obvious, and we think the abject cowardice of many members of the House of Commons on the subject justifies Mr. Gladstone's preference. Mr. Henley complained bitterly of the gentlemen who were 'unsettling all men's minds' by trying to translate the Bible better; Mr. R. N. Fowler remarked in effect that the old trans- lation being "unsatisfactory to scholars,"—i.e., wrong,—did not matter so much, because the mass of the people are not scholars, —an argument which, if applied to education, would prove that education is only important for the educated. In a word, the House was a great deal more cowardly in deprecating any attempt to teach English people that the Bible did not come down from Heaven ready translated and bound, than it would have been in facing an invasion. Surely the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol's noble enterprise is far more likely to succeed than any effort made by public authority, with a Parliament so excessively anxious not to disturb a superstition, behind it.
Previous page
