CLERGYMEN PAST WORK.
WHAT can be done with aged clergymen who are really only fit for an almshouse' but under the existing laws of the Church of England have the charge of a parish ? The case of Mr. Miller, which was heard before the Dean of Arches on Saturday, might be the case not indeed of any clergyman— for the hoary head is sometimes a crown of glory—but of a good many. He is eighty-three years old, and has been a Vicar for thirty years. It is not alleged that his mind is unsound, though, if Lord Penzance had been witness instead of Judge, he would plainly have given evidence to that effect. But he has the failings of extreme old age, incoherence, loss of memory, and aptitude to have his head affected by a moderate quantity of wine. It does not appear ' that Mr. Miller drinks enough to affect him on week-days. But under the pressure of Sunday work, he undoubtedly does drink more than is good for him. The amount may be small in itself, but it is enough, when taken at lunch-time, to make him quite unfit to read prayers or preach in the afternoon. There can be no doubt that this is the fact, because there is an unmistakable difference between his demeanour at the two services. In the morning lie makes mistakes, but they are the natural mistakes of old age. He loses his place, or leaves out some part of the Service. But in the afternoon his mistakes are those of old age which is over- excited by drinking. He talks about anything that comes into his head, says the same prayers more than once, and in fact behaves in all ways as a man who has no control over himself. What is really wrong with him is per- fectly evident. He is in his second childhood, and in his anxiety to get through his work he has resort to the stimulus of port wine. Alcohol will render this service to failing powers, but not to powers that have altogether failed. The parishioners have tried to get Mr. Miller to resign the living or to employ a curate, but he has refused to do either, and as a last expedient they instituted a suit against him in the Ecclesiastical Courts. It does not appear what Mr. Miller's income is, or whether, supposing him not to have the means of doing what the parishioners asked, it was proposed to provide them for him. As regards Mr. Miller's own claims to pity, this is an important consideration. Unless he is really of unsound mind, he must be aware that from some cause or other he is not able to conduct the Sunday after- noon service properly, and only inability to provide a substitute can excuse him for continuing to conduct it any longer. Lord Penzance very properly postponed passing sentence, though the evidence left no doubt as to Mr. Miller's technical guilt, in the hope that in the interval something might be done to remove him from the parish. If that hope is disappointed, he will plainly have no alternative but to suspend him from duty. It is a melancholy case, and all the more so, because it might easily be one of such frequent recurrence. The freehold tenure on which an Anglican incumbent holds his benefice has some advantages, but it certainly has its counterbalancing dis- advantages. In so far as it protects both incumbents and parishioners against Episcopal caprice, it is of great ser- vice ; but in so far as it exposes parishioners to be ministered to by incumbents who have lost whatever power they once had of ministering decently, it is an injury to both parties. It deprives the one of services which they have a right to have performed for their benefit, it forces the other to give those services when he is no longer able to perform them in such a way as to be a benefit. It is not, it must be admitted, a new evil. On the contrary, it is one which con- fronts us at every step, whenever the status of the Established Church is under discussion. From time to time we see moving appeals in the newspapers, on behalf of clergymen in want or trouble. Sometimes the appeal is made on behalf of some one man, sometimes it is put out on behalf of a society which under- takes the relief of such cases. In either ease, the same difficulty presents itself. Why should the wealthiest Church now left in Europe be reduced to make such appeals ? Of course, the answer is that the Church of England is only wealthy in the sense that India used to be secure against famine. There was abundance of grain somewhere or other in India, and there is abundance of money somewhere or other in the Church of England. But the grain could not be carried to the place where it was wanted, and the consequence was that people starved almost within sight of plenty. This is just what happens in the Church of England. If all the benefices were brought into hotchpot, there would probably be enough to make proper provision for the work of the Church, and for the superan- nuation of clergymen who are past work. As it is, there are insuffi- cient funds available for the one purpose, and none at all for the other. If the funds were forthcoming, a case like Mr. Miller's would present no difficulty. The Bishop would long ago have been appealed to in camera, and have been asked to declare whether Mr. Miller was fit to go on working. He would certainly have declared that he was not fit, and he would then have made such provision for the conduct of the services as would have satisfied the parishioners, with the least shock to Mr. Miller's feelings. None of this evidence about the unseemly state into which he falls by Sunday afternoon need over have become public. The matter would have been treated all along as occasion not for a suit in the Court of Arches, but for a friendly arrangement before the Bishop.
If patrons were enthusiastic Churchmen, a remedy would be easily found. It would only be necessary to tax all benefices above a certain value, and to employ the money in the esta- blishment of a Superannuation Fund. Suppose that the patron of every living of a net value of more than £500 were to pay over 50 per cent. of the surplus to the Ecclesiastical Commis- sioners, there would be a very considerable sum available for ecclesiastical purposes, without anything like a really impover- ished Clergy being created. No doubt, if such a plan were seriously proposed, the patrons of rich livings would complain of the injustice of taxing a particular form of wealth for a public purpose, nor have we anything to urge in defence of the sugges- tion. We only say that the anomalies which detract so much from the benefit of an Established Church must remain as long as the Establishment lasts, if patrons will not of their own accord divest their livings of their superfluous wealth, and the State will not compel them to do so. What is most wanted, if the Established Church is to remain secure, is not so much a generous devotion of money to Church purposes on the part of the laity as a body, as a generous devotion of money to Church purposes on the part of men who have the actual dis- tribution of Ecclesiastical patronage. It is true that this can only be realised in an Ecclesiastical Utopia, but while it re- mains unrealised, anomalies quite inconsistent, not with an Ecclesiastical Utopia only; but with a commonly decent Eccle- siastical administration, must continue to exist. We cannot expect people to provide a sustentation fund for a Church of which the aggregate riches are vast beyond all existing parallel.
Previous page
