THE DUTY OF CHURCHMEN IN THE ELECTIONS. T HE unlooked-for deliverance
from the Welsh Dis- establishment Bill has apparently turned the heads of some Churchmen. They seem to think that they can not do enough to turn the respite to good account. One idea that is common among them is that no candidate should be voted for who will not undertake to oppose any future measure of the same kind. A correspondent of the Guardian wishes for some distinct assurance on this head from the Duke of Devonshire and from Mr. Chamberlain, and urges electors to "obtain a clear state- ment of their views from candidates who have hitherto been Liberal Unionists." The Bishop of Norwich again, in the course of an otherwise sensible letter to his clergy on the subject of the Elections, says : " It should be clearly under- stood from every candidate whether he would support that [Mr. Asquith's1 or any similar Bill if again brought before the Legislature." It is not wonderful that such advice as this should be given. Here is an opportunity for Churchmen to make their existence and their influence felt by politicians, and the obvious way to take advantage of it is to demand of every candidate a clear profession of his faith on this point. But though it is not wonderful that such advice should be given, it might be disastrous if it were generally followed. Just when a minority among Liberal Unionists are a little disturbed at the entrance of their leader into Lord Salisbury's Ministry, just when they are being congratulated by their old friends on having at last come out in their true colours and proclaimed themselves the Tories they have long been, just when their position happens to be a shade more embarrassing and delicate than usual, Churchmen are expected to make it more embarrassing and more delicate still. Possibly, the Liberal Unionist candidate is a Nonconformist, and in that character, " in his Radical days," he has said some strong things against the Established Church. Since then he has had to unsay many things, and it has been a comfort to him to be able to pose as still a good Liberationist,—in principle. He is now heckled on this very question, and challenged to say whether he will vote against any and every Disestablishment Bill. Perhaps his apostacy to the Tories has been in part condoned, in consideration of his firmness on this one point. He is not, his old friends say, a mere turncoat, or he would have swallowed the Estab- lished Church when he swallowed so much else. And now he is asked to abandon this last fragment of Liberal doc- trine, in presence alike of those who have made the best, and those who have made the worst, of his conduct. It would be only natural if such a man were to deny all con- nection with the Conservatives on this point, and to declare his continued willingness to support Disestablishment- in principle—on every fitting occasion. In that case, it might easily happen that Churchmen would refuse to vote, and a constituency which might have returned. a follower of Lord Salisbury's, would return a follower of Lord Rosebery's. The very counsels that had been designed to ensure the success of the Unionist candidate, would have an exactly opposite result.
We can imagine the authors of these counsels arguing that they had at all events had the effect of clearing the air, and of teaching Churchmen to distinguish between true and false friends. What, they might say, is the gain of returning a Liberationist candidate by Church votes ? He may be sound enough upon Home-rule, and so far his title to be called a Unionist is indisputable. But we think Disestablishment at least equally important with Home-rule, and that being so, we had a right to ask him plainly which side he took upon Disestablishment, and to let our votes be governed. by his reply. Even if the candidate in question were Mr. Chamberlain himself, he must be made to know that if he wishes to get the support of Unionists who are also Churchmen, he must purge himself of his Liberationist heresies. That Church- men have a right to do this we shall not deny. It is enough for our purpose to maintain that they will write themselves down fools if they use their right. For what will be the effect of the two courses between which they have to make their choice ? In the one case—we are assuming, of course, that they are strong enough in the constituency to turn the scale—the Unionist candidate is elected, and supposing this process to be repeated a sufficient number of times, Lord Salisbury remains in office. In the other case, the Liberal candidate is elected, and supposing the process to be repeated. a sufficient number of times, Lord Salisbury makes way for Lord Rosebery. In either case it will be the votes of the Churchmen in the constituency that will have brought about the conclusion, and if by any act or abstention of theirs they have had a hand in the overthrow of the present Government, we say that they will have acted with incredi- ble folly. In politics the thing to be considered is the imme- diate, not the remote result. Nothing is gained by looking beyond the Parliament actually in course of election. Before another Election comes, the issues presented to the country may have wholly changed. What Churchmen have to consider is not what course of action will best defeat Dis- establishment six years hence, but what course of act'oa will best defeat Disestablishment to-day. The facts they have to take into account are simply these,—Two Govern- ments are before the electors. The one makes Dis- establishment a leading feature of its policy. At the moment it went out of office it had a Disestablishment Bill in Committee, and was pledged to carry that Bill through the Commons before Parliament rose. The other Government is composed in the main of the very men who led the Opposition to this Bill, the men who voted against the second reading, and introduced or supported all the most damaging amendments. Yes, the Churchmen we have in view will reply, this is true. But it is also true that among the leading members of the new Government are one or two Liberal Unionists who, in the past, have been advocates of Disestablishment. What guarantee have we that the policy of the Government will not in- sensibly be influenced. by the opinion of these Liberal Unionists, and why should we not take this opportunity of showing that we will not stand any irresolution or hesitation on this head ? No doubt this may be a highly satisfying and heroic line to take ; but it will, none the less, if it succeeds, replace the Liberals in power, with the Welsh Disestablishment Bill at the head of their programme for next Session. The cardinal facts of the situation are that the great majority of the Unionist party are convinced defenders of the Established Church, and that the defeat of the Liberationist policy is one of the foremost objects of the Unionist Government. How do these facts affect the attitude of that small minority of Unionists which on this question takes a line of its own ? Do they make them lukewarm in defence of Lord Salisbury's Government, or indifferent to its success at the polls ? Not in the very least. What does it matter that a candidate has a theo- retical preference for Disestablishment, if he can be trusted in the event of being elected. to do all he can to keep in office a Government which is committed alike by its antecedents and its pledges to resist Disestablish- ment ? A Churchman who wishes to postpone every other consideration to the maintenance of the Established Church, has but one question to ask of a candidate. It is, Will you support Lord Salisbury or Lord Rosebery If he stands this test, he need be subjected to no other. It may be objected, perhaps, that this view of the question leaves out of sight the possibility that the Liberals may have a majority after all, and that the votes of those Liberal Unionists who are supporters of Dises- tablishment in principle, may then go to swell the Govern. ment majority on the Welsh Bill. No doubt, there may be an off-chance of this kind. If the Liberals are re- placed in office by the Elections, there are a few Liberal Unionists who may hold themselves bound to vote for the second reading of Mr. Asquith's next Bill. But what is this off-chance by the side of the certainty that every vote given to a Unionist candidate is a contribution towards his return, and that every Unionist candidate returned is a contribution towards the maintenance of the Unionist Government in power ? He would be but a poor friend of the Established. Church who allowed his vote next week to be determined, not by the broad issue, How shall I best keep Lord Salisbury in and Lord Rosebery out ? but by the remote and con- tingent consideration, How shall I weaken the majority in favour of Disestablishment in the event of the Liberals carrying the Elections ? Finesse is almost always an error in politics, and any calculation which has for its outcome a refusal to vote for a Unionist candidate because he will not expressly abandon what is nothing more than an academical preference, is finesse of the most mischievous kind. If Lord Sailsbury stays, there will be no more Disestablishment Bills. If Lord Salisbury goes, there will be Disestablishment Bills for Wales and Scotland, and very possibly for England as well. If this statement does not make the duty of Churchmen in the Elections sufficiently plain, we despair of finding one that will answer the purpose better.
Previous page
