LORD JOHN RUSSELL AND THE CHURCH.
TO TILE EDITOR OP THE SPECTATOR. 8d January 1848.
Sin—I have taken your paper for so many years, and read it so regularly, that I feel as possessing the right of an old acquaintance to grumble, if I ever per- ceive a deviation from that candour which, I admit, even when I dissent from your views, remarkably characterizes your treatment of political subjects. Your course upon the vexed question of Dr. Hampden tempts me to an exercise of this imaginary right. The contest is over. The obstacles by which it was attempted to bar the way of that dignitary to the "Episcopal throne" of Hereford have been "by barefaced power swept from sight." There can therefore be no danger of aiding persecution, or abetting heresy, by offering a few remarks on the subject of his promotion. Those remarks will apply exclusively to the discretion exer- cised by the First Minister of the Crown; of which (from the sneer of disparage- ment upon all those who have questioned it) the tone of your comments seems to imply an approbation which you do not frankly pronounce, and which I cannot be- lieve that you conscientiously accord. I am no theologian. I have no knowledge and no opinion respecting Dr. Hamp- den's doctrine. I am ignorant whether the University. censure and the protests Irons clerical remonstrants are founded in truth, or in unjust prejudice. The fact of the notorious existence of this censure and of this hostile feeling in the Church, quite independently of the ceases in which they may have originated, is sufficient for my purpose; and I would ask you to resume your natural candour and say whether any Minister ever committed a more gratuitously injudicious act than that of recommending Dr. Hampden to a bishopric.
Let us for a moment examine the positions, in their several spheres, of the patron and the client.
Lord John Russell is not Minister by the voluntary selection either of the Crown or the People, but because, Sir Robert Peel having suddenly abdicated and dis- banded his forces, parties in Parliament fell into a confusion which rendered any other selection impossible. The Clergy is a very powerful and influential body; and it is the obvious policy of a Minister under any circumstances (I purposely refrain from touching upon the higher views of duty) to keep upon friendly terms with them; but it was most imperatively that of Lord John Russell, because un- der his circumstances he could afford to throw away no considerable support which was likely to be offered to him. Now Sir, for the first time since the Revolution, the Clergy were disposed to support a Whig Government. They were dissatisfied with Sir Robert Peel, and they were pleased and conciliated by the language of Lord John in relation to the Church, at the close of the last Parlia- ment. .Actuated by thiestirit, the any of Northumberland decided the county
election in favour of Sir George Grey; and common prudence, without any un- worthy concession, could, in a short time, have secured their rank adherence to the present Administration. Is it credible that Lord John, so situated, should have contemptuously cast away their good-will and alliance, and should have stirred up the strife and revived the scandal which had subsided and WAS almost forgotten, by deliberately fixing upon the one individual in the Three Kingdoms whom the Church had stigma- tized as an object of her distrust and disapproval, in order to thrust him into her most exalted and responsible office? This query has been vainly repeated in every society. Had he been bound in honour by a previous promise, engagement, or understanding, however indiscreet, that would have been an answer, or at least an explanation; but no such obligation is pleaded or pretended.
Had Dr. Hampden been a luminary in eclipse—a man conspicuous for genius and learning, pining in obscurity and penury, oppressed by an University censure, deprived of the high and prominent place to which extraordinary merit entitled him, by the jealous scruples of his brother Churchmen,—then, at least there would have been an atoning generosity, a something of chivalry in Lord John's disregard of his own political interests. But was this the case? Nothing of the sort. Dr. Hampden is, according to all evidence an amiable and a respectableman, not deficient in natural abilities' and of evidence, average acquirements; but it
would be a mere derision to ascribe to him any remarkable eminence of talent or learning, or any qualifications which, but for the doubts and discussions raised by his profession of faith, were ever likely to suggest his name either to the public or the Government for a vacant mitre. He was, moreover, in possession of a good living, a Canonry, and an University Professorship; and was consequently, in proportion to his personal claims, most liberally provided for.
So far for the judgment of the Premier in the act itself: that which he exhibits in the correspondence it has entailed upon him is of the same quality. He has written sharp, clever, caustic answers, to the memorial of the Bishops, the pro- tests of the Dean, and the remonstrances of the clergy. It may possibly be very good sport to sting these reverend persons with sneers and sarcasms; but as a pastime for the Prime Minister of England, it is felt by every man of sense and right feeling to be most unfitting, impolitic, indecent, and undignified.
In the answer from Woburn to certain clergymen of Bedfordshire, partially published in your last number, his cleverness, however, forsakes him—perhaps for want of the controversial stimulant; and I have seldom read anything more in- apposite or illogical than the following observation upon the "warning addressed privately by the Archbishop and publicly by the thirteen Bishops, that the eleva- tion of Dr. Hampden would be disapproved by a majority of the clergy." Lord John writes—" Had this objection been founded on any past accusation against the life and morals of Dr. Hampden, it was not too late to confess my error and withdraw my recommendation. But, founded AS it was upon a charge of teaching unsound doctrine, it behoved me not to desert a clergyman whom the Queen had been pleased to nominate for a bishopric, without some authority or substantial proof. No such authority appeared. The conduct of the Archbishop and Bish- ops gave a strong presumption the other way. No such proof was given. No proof or evidence of any strange doctrine contrary to God's word, as held or fa- voured by Dr. Haupden." First, It is not easy to see how the nature of an objection could affect the fact of its being too late, or not too late, to withdraw his recommendation, had he been so minded.
Secondly, Upon his hypothesis that the objection had been founded on an ac- cusation against the morals of Dr. Hampden, how could he have known whether the accusation was "just "or unjust, without inquiring into it and referring it to some tribunal for investigation. -
Thirdly, Why should there be a different rule for an accusation of unsound doctrine and of immoral life; either charge being, I presume, if proved, a disqua- lification for episcopacy? The Bishops, in their memorial, petitioned that the prirni facie case against the soundness of Dr. Hampden's doctrine, contained in the censure of the University, should be brought to proof by being referred for examination to a competent clerical tribunal. How this conduct gave a strong presumption the other way, passes my comprehension. It is surely a most inapt reply to those who say "Pray bring this charge to trial, in order to obtain a proof, or a disproof," to tell them, "No, the case shall not be investigated, because you have produced no proof." Why, it is clear that "proof" could only be elicited by [Much in our correspondent's letter claims our concurrence, especially as we had already indicated an opinion, on the point of discretion, the same in substance as that which he has developed. Yet we cannot but perceive that there are cir- cumstances on the other side which may have had with Lord John Russell an influence akin to that of an appeal to his chivalry." However ill he, may have stated one ground for perseverance, others stand good. He must have known well how much of paltry personality was mixed up with the o ition to Dr. Hampden; he was right in surmising, as Dr. Wilberforce and Dr. erewether have testified, that some opponents had not read the writings for which they opposed the author; he had before him the unpublished correspondence in the Dean of Hereford's own case • he saw the use which was made of isolated if not garbled ex- tracts from Dr. Harimden's writings; and such circumstances could not but se- riously detract from the solemnity and force of the objections urged against the Bishop elect. —En.]
Previous page
