The Duke of St. Albans writes to the Times to
say that the parishioners of Redbourne have recommended an excellent man to the living, the Rev. G. Godfrey, M.A., of Queen's College, Oxford, now curate of the parish of Hinckley, Leicestershire. He denies that he asked the parishioners to elect, but only to select and recommend, he reserving to himself the right to refuse their choice, had an improper selection been made. That is all very well, but it is obvious enough that the sort of error likely to be made by parishioners—due to their preference, as we said, in commenting on the matter, for men who will attend tea-parties, who will "mix," and preach stimulating sermons—is not an error which it would be either agreeable or possible for a lay patron to meet by a veto. A veto would be a slur on any man's reputation, and reasons would necessarily be demanded and have to be given, while reasons of a kind really sufficient would be quite impalp- able to the public apprehension. Mr. Godfrey may very likely be the very best man in the world for Redbourne, but if he is, the exercise of a first responsibility of this kind, when a special parish is jealously watched by all the world, is no manner of rule for its universal use. It is impossible for any one who has watched care- fully and habitually the actual process of congregational elections, to admire a method which so very rarely admits of the choice of a man genuinely above the level of his people, and as well qualified to gather in the external barbarians, as to satisfy the fussy religious leaders.
Previous page
