LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
THE BOURNEMOUTH CASE.
TEl EDITOR OF TUB " SPECTATOR.."] Sia,—The letters of Sir Henry Taylor and Mr. Portal leave very little for those outside the parish of Bournemouth to say at present. At the same time, it seems right that some one should say,—after your forcible and generous article,—that some of those who have been giving special attention to 4` Patronage " for some time past, feel strongly that a case has now arisen in which the injustice and absurdity of the present system are so clearly brought out, that it may be looked upon as a point of departure for a serious movement in favour of reform.
Sir Henry Taylor tells the story almost too favourably. But the first fact to be grasped is that the patron• is merely exer- cising a perfectly legal right in an arbitrary way—not more so, perhaps, than when his father appointed the late Vicar, Mr. Bennett, thirty-five years ago. Meantime, the state of the circumstances is so changed, that it is hard to realise that exactly the same thing is being done over again,—namely, the appointment of a clergyman as pastor of the parish at the absolute will of a local landowner, with no more account taken of the parishioners than if they did not exist. And this feature in the case, instead of being exceptional, is just that which it has in common with the whole system of Patronage in the Church of England. There are, indeed, a handful of exceptions, but these exceptions take so crude and unworkable a form—that of -direct popular election—that no reformer dreams of moving for reform in that direction. It is necessary, therefore, to admit, as your article does, that in resisting the patron in this case, or encouraging the parishioners to resist him, we are setting our- selves in opposition, not to an individual, but to an immense system of incalculable strength. And, as one who has long foreseen this struggle, I can only say that I had not hoped to see the issue raised in a form so sure to carry popular sym- pathy, when it is plainly and dispassionately stated. This, however, is not my present object.
It is clear that the Bishop of the diocese is nearly powerless in such a case. He can only refuse institution, when the patron has legally presented a clerk to him, on grounds that will sus- tain an action at law, and not always then. No one dreams of raising formal objections to Bishop Ryan, though had the recommendations of the recent Commission become law, it would, perhaps, have been possible to do so, on the score of age. The venerable Bishop is clearly taking up strong ground in declining to recognise any one's right to in- terview him on the part of the parish, with a view to influencing his decision. He has accepted a gift from a friend,—which his friend had a perfect right to bestow upon him, and which happens to be agreeable to him. What can any one have to say to him That the rights of other people have been made over to him, and that no moral right can be made out on the patron's part to bestow these, nor any on his part to accept them, as if they were part and parcel of the donor's private property, which he could give away like a present of
game,—this is a view of the case which no one has a right to suppose has ever presented itself . to an Anglican clergyman in Bishop's orders, who has been familiar with the existing sys- tem during the last forty years. Bat it is the view of the case which presents itself with increasing force to the present and the rising generation of Churchmen. And the question is how best to
give effect to it in the present case, if not in order to effect any change in the patrons' present plans, at all events in order to influence public policy in the imminent reform of " Patronage."
And I can only see the familiar and unpleasant policy of " agitation." It may be respectful and considerate, just as well as discourteous and violent. But agitation there must be. The patron may be roused to see that he is endangering the " rights " of a very large class. The temptation to quote " Quern Dens vult perdere," &c., is almost irresistible, when one looks round on the present temper of too many landowners. That they can hope to be allowed to go on " giving away " their " livings " on the present footing, is what surely not even Lord Salisbury nor Sir George Meyrick can believe. The Bishop of Winchester and the other Bishops may be roused to see that their true policy lies in the direction of openly protecting " divers uses " in different parishes, or even in the same ; and in ranging them- selves on the side of the movement for obtaining some voice for the people in the appointment of their own pastors. And Churchmen generally may be roused to take a larger view of the Patronage question than they have hitherto done. It is time for a truce to the vain wrangling over the question which of the present classes of patrons has exercised the right best or worst, and to concentrate our energies on the endeavour to find tenable ground of solid principle for the reform which can no longer be delayed.
Having been, by the kindness of friends at Bournemouth, taken into their counsels and confidence, I refrain from saying anything that might look like an indication of their probable course of action. It is enough to say that Mr. Harland's moderate and plausible letter has no practical bearing whatever on the question which has now arisen between the patron and the parishioners of St. Peter's, Bournemouth, and that no one can expect such a congregation, organised and led as it is, to submit to be dispersed or coerced, and the work of thirty-five years undone, and the monument of a ministry of rare simpli- city and unselfishness overthrown, from any fear of invading the rights of " property." They are not the kind of men to be moved either by the displeasure of their " patron," or by well- meant assurances that, if they will only be quiet, everything will turn out for the best, in this best of all possible Churches. —I am, Sir, &c.,
St. Saviour's, Horton, August 3rd. JOHN OAKLEY.
Previous page
