Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

listlessness, knowing well that, whatever they may think or say, it is of absolutely no importance at all. That, under such unfavourable conditions, the work of the clergy of the Established Church has reached such a high general level of excellence redounds enormously to their credit, but is no answer in favour of the existing pernicious system.

Like most other medieval constitutions, however, the Church of England is consistent only in its inconsistencies. Although for its own purposes it raises up and maintains its officials on a pinnacle of power beyond the possibility of influence by their subjects, yet its cruelty and callousness to the sufferings of its disciples when failing health has robbed them of their usefulness to it in its work, is monumental and almost incredible-such, in fact, as would not be sanctioned for one moment in any other institution existing by the will of Parliament. No matter how long a cleric may have laboured, no matter how valuable his services may have been, no matter how much he may have spent out of his stipend in the cause of charity or religion, all these considerations weigh as nothing when the time comes at which he feels himself unable to continue to hold his post without injury to his health and to the cause for which he has worked. It is true that charitable persons have contributed to a fund with the object of ameliorating the condition of the most unfortunate of the disabled soldiers of a Church which turns its back upon those who have fallen in its service, more pitiless in its forgetfulness than ever Le Roi Soleil was to a beaten marshal; but the fund is small out of all proportion compared to the heavy calls made upon it, and the Church itself contributes nothing. As might be expected as a natural outcome of such a selfish policy, the effects recoil with most damaging results upon the perpetrator of these follies. The average clergyman, not being sufficiently endowed with the goods of this world to enable him to contemplate with equanimity such a decrease in his income as the surrender of his living would involve, is forced to put the question of the welfare of his flock entirely on one side, and to hold desperately on to his post regardless of his continually increasing inability to perform his proper duties. The result which naturally follows in such a case is that the spiritual care of the parish is neglected, the numbers of the congregation fall off, and the ministers of Dissent, ever on the look-out to improve their position, find a ready and fruitful field awaiting their labours.

Nothing short of radical reformation of methods to meet all the above existing abuses is in the least likely to assist the Church of England in the approaching conflict. It is imperative that, in order to secure the active support of the laity, the churches, the churchyards, and all church buildings, should be under the management of the congregation. It is grossly unfair to an incumbent that he should be expected to keep all church property in his parish in good repair at his own expense, or to be obliged to go round with the hat

begging subscriptions from people to repair buildings in which they are not allowed to have any vested interest. The methods of appointment to a living should be entirely altered. Presentation to a living by an individual, a college, or even a bishop should be rendered impossible. Only those who are in every way qualified for a cure of souls should be allowed to apply for a living, and the gift itself should be entirely in the hands of the congregation. The power of dismissal must belong to those most nearly affected by incompetence or undesirability, and a mandate from two-thirds of the parishioners should be decisive. The revenues of the Church should be controlled by a financial body composed of two-thirds laity and one-third clergy, and adequate pensions given to those who, having served their Church well, are incapacitated from further ministration of their duties. It should be a recognised principle that the stipend of a cleric should be the return for the work he has accomplished, and that, under no circumstances, should he be expected, as at present, to play the part of a glorified relieving-officer. There can be no reasonable doubt that the funds of the Church, being at present in the hands of those who have no expert knowledge of finance, are most shockingly mismanaged and wasted. The travesty of a balance-sheet issued as an apologia by one of the most brilliant and hard-working of modern clerics the Bishop of London, is well worthy of study as proving the total incapacity of even the cleverest of his cloth to do the work required of him, and, at the same time, to distribute the wealth which, if he has fairly earned it, should be his to do what he likes with, and which an absurd system expects him to dispense in charity. This extraordinary and amusing document clearly proved how money is at present wasted. Large sums were apparently squandered on what are familiarly known as 'bun-worries,' as an extension, presumably, of the methods by which little children are enticed into attending Sunday school by the promise of treats.' The casual manner, also, in which applications for financial assistance were considered and dealt with was flagrantly exposed a little later in the confessions of a prisoner who admitted having received considerable sums from the Bishop, although the briefest inquiry at the offices of the society which exists for that purpose would have at once elicited the fact that the applicant was entirely unworthy of the help she received.

The real reason, however, why this balance-sheet is deserving of attention is because it is representative of what goes on all over the country, and because of the reasons which prompted the Bishop to publish it. It is fair to assume that, if a man like the Bishop of London, who has worked his way up to the high position he now holds by sheer hard work and ability, is in the habit of wasting money, less gifted clergymen will, in proportion, waste much more, and therefore it is in the highest degree necessary that the power of the

clergy to make away with funds of which they are, after all, only the trustees, should be greatly curtailed. Nor should the reason for the publication by the Bishop of this balance-sheet be ignored, inasmuch as it has its origin in one of the most iniquitous of the slanders which the enemies of the Church are constantly spreading among the more ignorant section of the public concerning the enormous salaries on which, they insinuate, the bishops batten. It is not difficult to excite feelings of envy and hatred among those struggling to obtain an honest livelihood, by the simple expedient of pointing out the palaces in which some of the chief clerics of the Church reside, informing these hopeless toilers of the 10,000l. or 15,000l. that the country provides in order to enable these dignitaries to dwell in ease and luxury, and carefully suppressing all reference to the hosts of dependents and charities which it is the duty of the recipient of this princely salary to support. There is only one way in which the poisoned tongue of these traducers can be effectively silenced, and that is to relieve the clergy of the duty of administering, out of their incomes, to the multifarious calls of Church and charity, and to appoint a secular body who will do the work for them.

We have, in the Disestablished Church of Ireland, an excellent model of a system which, enlarged and slightly modified, would admirably suit the conditions of a Reformed Established Church of England. In the Church of Ireland the great principle of self-help is given full scope to prove its capacity to excite the best efforts of all fervent religionists. In that Church every parish is encouraged, by judicious assistance from the governing body, to do all that lies in its power in order to make both the church and the living worthy of its incumbent. A congregation which neglects the warning that a servant is worthy of his hire is sharply reminded of it in a very practical manner. As the result of a knowledge that promotion depends on the ability to render a satisfactory account of his previous stewardship, a cleric is directly encouraged to give his best efforts to the work before him; while, should his health fail him and compel him to relinquish his labours, he knows that the practical management of the funds of the Church is such as to secure to him a moderate pension based on the amount of the salary attached to the position he had last held. That these new methods have been crowned with success there is no room to doubt. It is impossible for even the most casual visitor to Ireland not to recognise the enormous difference that exists between the tolerant apathy felt by the average Englishman towards the position of his Church, and the keen appreciation which all members of the Irish Church take in whatever concerns their religious interests. It may be urged that this laudable spirit is the direct result of Disestablishment, and that nothing short of a similar measure is likely to do the Church of England any good, but it is difficult to collect much good evidence to support such a view.

It very probably was the case that the clergy of the Irish Church were, previous to Disestablishment, just as indifferent to public opinion as their colleagues in England are to-day, and just as averse to surrendering the slightest shreds of power; also it is undoubtedly true that some of the firmest supporters of the doctrines of the Irish Church voted in favour of Disestablishment when that measure was brought forward, but, if the present position of the Irish Church be examined, it will be found that the real reason for the strength of its institutions rests on the loyal co-operation of its workers which an improved organisation has rallied to its standard, and not to a severance of Church and State with its attendant loss of revenue. The internal government of the Church of Ireland is, in fact, well worth the attention of those who wish to save the Church of England from itself.

The present opportunity of the clergy, to gracefully waive their claim to an independence of which they will most certainly be otherwise very quickly deprived, is one which will never recur. It has arisen purely owing to a total misconception by the party authorities of the strength of the Nonconformists over all other parties in the House of Commons. Consequent on that error in calculation the Government has hesitated to declare open war on the Church of England, and has endeavoured to make sure of the allegiance of as many of its supporters as possible by directing its assault on the Church of England schools, a subject on which, as they knew, many earnest members of that Church were in entire agreement with them. But for that error in tactics the Established Church might easily, before now, have ceased to exist. The success of a bold attack can hardly be doubted when one notices the blind obedience of a huge majority to its political leaders, no matter how wild the scheme in hand. Dependence on the veto of the House of Lords would probably mean the trusting to a broken reed; for, as a Bill of Disestablishment would be practically a money Bill, it is highly possible that the Upper House would have no locus standi to proceed on. That the position of the Church would then be an infinitely worse one than if a more liberal administration had been conceded, is abundantly clear when we consider the enormous revenue it at present draws from tithe, a source which would then become the property of the State. It is the wealth as much as the position of the Church which has excited the envy of Nonconformists, and it is very certain that, unless the Church loses no time in putting its house in order, its wealth will soon be made the subject of force majeure.

CARDIGAN.

THE KING'S SPEECH

THE most significant statement in the King's Speech is that the Government are considering the unfortunate differences between the two Houses of Parliament. I wish to discuss this question here, so far as I can, with fairness, and without prejudice. To the House of Lords as an institution all classes in this country, except the working class, are sentimentally attached. Its antiquity, its high, if accidental, reputation as a court of justice, even the splendour which at such opportunities as the meeting of Parliament it displays, are more than respectable, they are impressive. Personally, and in theory, I am what is vulgarly called a Single Chamber man. From 1895 to 1905 the country was governed by the House of Commons, and the Constitution survived the shock. During the first of those quinquennial periods the House of Commons represented chiefly opposition to Home Rule and Local Veto. During the second it represented approval of the South African War. I was in favour of Home Rule and against the war. But I recognise that under a system nominally democratic the will of the majority ought to prevail, and that the British people must take the responsibility for their own decisions. I am even willing to put up with the chance, such as happened in 1900, that an appeal to put patriotism above party may result in the exclusive predominance of one party in the State. Still the fact remains, and it is surely a very important fact, that for ten recent years the House of Commons did what it liked. The House of Lords led an easy, comfortable existence, passing all Ministerial measures with civility and speed, talking a little sometimes about foreign affairs, or the army, or the navy, never putting the smallest difficulty in the way of a Conservative, or, if the name be preferred, a Unionist Administration. People who approve of this arrangement cannot logically defend the bi-cameral system. If they defend it practically, that is because, like the majority of the Lords themselves, they are Conservatives, and support everything which promotes the triumph of the Conservative cause.

To expect that a Liberal shall be contented with this machinery and its working is to expect that he shall be more or less than human, a god or a beast, as Aristotle would say. Last year a Liberal majority

« VorigeDoorgaan »