"The Prince of Wales very much affronted the D. of Orleans and his

natural Brother, L'Abbé de la Fai, at Newmarket, L'Abbé declaring it

possible to charm a Fish out of the Water, which being disputed

occasioned a Bett; and the Abbé stooped down over the water to tickle

the Fish with a little switch. Fearing, however, the Prince said play

him some Trick, he declared he hoped the Prince would not use him

unfairly by throwing him into the water. The Prince answer'd him that he

would not upon his Honor. The Abbé had no sooner began the operation by

leaning over a little Bridge when the Prince took hold of his Heels and

threw him into the Water, which was rather deep. The Abbé, much enraged,

the moment he got himself out run at the Prince with great violence, a

Horse-whip in his Hand, saying he thought very meanly of a Prince who

cou'd not keep his word. The Prince flew from him, and getting to the

Inn locked himself in one of the Rooms."

"Prince of Wales, Mrs. Fitzherbert, the Duke and Dutchess of

Cumberland, and Miss Pigott, Mrs. F.'s companion, went a Party to

Windsor during the absence of _The Family_ fm. Windsor; and going to see

a cold Bath, Miss P. expressed a great wish to bathe this hot weather.

The D. of C. very imprudently pushed her in, and the Dut. of C. having

the presence of mind to throw out the Rope saved her when in such a

disagreeable State from fear and surprise as to be near sinking. Mrs. F.

went into convulsion Fits, and the Dut. fainted away, and the scene

proved ridiculous in the extreme, as Report says the Duke called out to

Miss P. that he was instantly coming to her in the water, and continued

undressing himself. Poor Miss P.'s clothes entirely laid upon the Water,

and made her appear an awkward figure. They afterwards pushed in one of

the Prince's attendants."

So much for High Life at the close of the eighteenth century. It is more

difficult to realize that we are separated only by some sixty years from

a time when a Cabinet Minister and a brother of the Sovereign conducted

a business-like correspondence on the question whether the Minister had

or had not turned the Prince out of the house for insulting his wife.

The journals, newspapers, and memoirs of the time throw (especially for

those who can read between the lines) a startling light on that

hereditary principle which plays so important a part in our political

system. All the ancillary vices flourished with a rank luxuriance. Hard

drinking was the indispensable accomplishment of a fine gentleman, and

great estates were constantly changing owners at the gaming-table.

The fifth Duke of Bedford (who had the temerity to attack Burke's

pension, and thereby drew down upon himself the most splendid repartee

in literature) was a bosom-friend of Fox, and lived in a like-minded

society. One night at Newmarket he lost a colossal sum at hazard, and,

jumping up in a passion, he swore that the dice were loaded, put them

in his pocket, and went to bed. Next morning he examined the dice in the

presence of his boon companions, found that they were not loaded, and

had to apologize and pay. Some years afterwards one of the party was

lying on his death-bed, and he sent for the duke. "I have sent for you

to tell you that you were right. The dice _were_ loaded. We waited till

you were asleep, went to your bedroom, took them out of your waistcoat

pocket, replaced them with unloaded ones, and retired."

"But suppose I had woke and caught you doing it."

"Well, we were desperate men--_and we had pistols_."

Anecdotes of the same type might be multiplied endlessly, and would

serve to confirm the strong impression which all contemporary evidence

leaves upon the mind--that the closing years of the eighteenth century

witnessed the _nadir_ of English virtue. The national conscience was in

truth asleep, and it had a rude awakening. "I have heard persons of

great weight and authority," writes Mr. Gladstone, "such as Mr.

Grenville, and also, I think, Archbishop Howley, ascribe the beginnings

of a reviving seriousness in the upper classes of lay society to a

reaction against the horrors and impieties of the first French

Revolution in its later stages." And this reviving seriousness was by no

means confined to Nonconformist circles. In the eighteenth century the

religious activities of the time proceeded largely (though not

exclusively) from persons who, from one cause or another, were separated

from the Established Church. Much theological learning and controversial

skill, with the old traditions of Anglican divinity, had been drawn

aside from the highway of the Establishment into the secluded byways of

the Nonjurors. Whitefield and the Wesleys, and that grim but grand old

Mother in Israel, Selina Countess of Huntingdon, found their

evangelistic energies fatally cramped by episcopal authority, and, quite

against their natural inclinations, were forced to act through

independent organizations of their own making. But at the beginning of

the nineteenth century things took a different turn.

The distinguishing mark of the religious revival which issued from the

French Revolution was that it lived and moved and had its being within

the precincts of the Church of England. Of that Church, as it existed at

the close of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth,

the characteristic feature had been a quiet worldliness. The typical

clergyman, as drawn, for instance, in Crabbe's poems and Miss Austen's

novels, is a well-bred, respectable, and kindly person, playing an

agreeable part in the social life of his neighbourhood, and doing a

secular work of solid value, but equally removed from the sacerdotal

pretensions of the Caroline divines and from the awakening fervour of

the Evangelical preachers. The professors of a more spiritual or a more

aggressive religion were at once disliked and despised. Sydney Smith was

never tired of poking fun at the "sanctified village of Clapham" and its

"serious" inhabitants, at missionary effort and revivalist enthusiasm.

When Lady Louisa Lennox was engaged to a prominent Evangelical and

Liberal--Mr. Tighe of Woodstock--her mother, the Duchess of Richmond,

said, "Poor Louisa is going to make a shocking marriage--a man called

_Tiggy_, my dear, a Saint and a Radical." When Lord Melbourne had

accidently found himself the unwilling hearer of a rousing Evangelical

sermon about sin and its consequences, he exclaimed in much disgust as

he left the church, "Things have come to a pretty pass when religion is

allowed to invade the sphere of private life!"

Arthur Young tells us that a daughter of the first Lord Carrington said

to a visitor, "My papa used to have prayers in his family, but none

since he has been a Peer." A venerable Canon of Windsor, who was a

younger son of a great family, told me that his old nurse, when she was

putting him and his little brothers to bed, used to say, "If you're

very good little boys, and go to bed without giving trouble, you needn't

say your prayers to-night." When the late Lord Mount Temple was a youth,

he wished to take Holy Orders; and the project so horrified his parents

that, after holding a family council, they plunged him into fashionable

society in the hope of distracting his mind from religion, and

accomplished their end by making him join the Blues.

The quiet worldliness which characterized the English Church as a whole

was unpleasantly varied here and there by instances of grave and

monstrous scandal. The system of Pluralities left isolated parishes in a

condition of practical heathenism. Even bare morality was not always

observed. In solitary places clerical drunkenness was common. On

Saturday afternoon the parson would return from the nearest town

"market-merry." He consorted freely with the farmers, shared their

habits, and spoke their language. I have known a lady to whom a country

clergyman said, pointing to the darkened windows where a corpse lay

awaiting burial, "There's a stiff 'un in that house." I have known a

country gentleman in Shropshire who had seen his own vicar drop the

chalice at the Holy Communion because he was too drunk to hold it. I

know a corner of Bedfordshire where, within the recollection of persons

living thirty[8] years ago, three clerical neighbours used to meet for

dinner at one another's parsonages in turn. One winter afternoon a

corpse was brought for burial to the village church. The vicar of the

place came from his dinner so drunk that he could not read the service,

although his sister supported him with one hand and held the lantern

with the other. He retired beaten, and both his guests made the same

attempt with no better success. So the corpse was left in the church,

and the vicar buried it next day when he had recovered from his debauch.

While the prevailing tone of quiet worldliness was thus broken, here

and there, by horrid scandals, in other places it was conspicuously

relieved by splendid instances of piety and self-devotion, such as

George Eliot drew in the character of Edgar Tryan of Milby. But the

innovating clergy of the Evangelical persuasion had to force their way

through "the teeth of clenched antagonisms." The bishops, as a rule,

were opposed to enthusiasm, and the bishops of that day were, in virtue

of their wealth, their secular importance, and their professional

cohesiveness, a formidable force in the life of the Church.

In the "good old days" of Erastian Churchmanship, before the Catholic

revival had begun to breathe new life into ancient forms, a bishop was

enthroned by proxy! Sydney Smith, rebuking Archbishop Howley for his

undue readiness to surrender cathedral property to the Ecclesiastical

Commission, pointed out that his conduct was inconsistent with having

sworn at his enthronement that he would not alienate the possessions of

the Church of Canterbury. "The oath," he goes on, "may be less present

to the Archbishop's memory from the fact of his not having taken the

oath in person, but by the medium of a gentleman sent down by the coach

to take it for him--a practice which, though I believe it to have been

long established in the Church, surprised me, I confess, not a little. A

proxy to vote, if you please--a proxy to consent to arrangements of

estates, if wanted; but a proxy sent down in the Canterbury Fly to take

the Creator to witness that the Archbishop, detained in town by business

or pleasure, will never violate that foundation of piety over which he

presides--all this seems to me an act of the most extraordinary

indolence ever recorded in history." In this judgment the least

ritualistic of laymen will heartily concur. But from Archbishop Howley

to Archbishop Temple is a far cry, and the latest enthronement in

Canterbury Cathedral must have made clear to the most casual eye the

enormous transformation which sixty years have wrought alike in the

inner temper and the outward aspect of the Church of England.

Once Dr. Liddon, walking with me down the hall of Christ Church, pointed

to the portrait of an extremely bloated and sensual-looking prelate on

the wall, and said, with that peculiar kind of mincing precision which

added so much to the point of his sarcasms, "How singular, dear friend,

to reflect that _that person_ was chosen, in the providential order, to

connect Mr. Keble with the Apostles!" And certainly this connecting link

bore little resemblance to either end of the chain. The considerations

which governed the selection of a bishop in those good old days were

indeed not a little singular. Perhaps he was chosen because he was a

sprig of good family, like Archbishop Cornwallis, whose junketings at

Lambeth drew down upon him the ire of Lady Huntingdon and the threats of

George III., and whose sole qualification for the clerical office was

that when an undergraduate he had suffered from a stroke of palsy which

partially crippled him, but "did not, however, prevent him from holding

a hand at cards." Perhaps he had been, like Bishop Sumner, "bear-leader"

to a great man's son, and had won the gratitude of a powerful patron by

extricating young hopeful from a matrimonial scrape. Perhaps, like Marsh

or Van Mildert, he was a controversial pamphleteer who had tossed a

Calvinist or gored an Evangelical. Or perhaps he was, like Blomfield and

Monk, a "Greek Play Bishop," who had annotated Aeschylus or composed a

Sapphic Ode on a Royal marriage. "Young Crumpet is sent to school; takes

to his books; spends the best years of his life in making Latin verses;

knows that the _Crum_ in Crumpet is long and the _pet_ short; goes to

the University; gets a prize for an Essay on the Dispersion of the Jews;

takes Orders; becomes a bishop's chaplain; has a young nobleman for his

pupil; publishes a useless classic and a Serious Call to the

Unconverted; and then goes through the Elysian transitions of

Prebendary, Dean, Prelate, and the long train of purple, profit, and

power."

Few--and very few--are the adducible instances in which, in the reigns

of George III., George IV., and William IV., a bishop was appointed for

evangelistic zeal or pastoral efficiency.

But, on whatever principle chosen, the bishop, once duly consecrated and

enthroned, was a formidable person, and surrounded by a dignity scarcely

less than royal. "Nobody likes our bishop," says Parson Lingon in _Felix

Holt_. "He's all Greek and greediness, and too proud to dine with his

own father." People still living can remember the days when the

Archbishop of Canterbury was preceded by servants bearing flambeaux when

he walked across from Lambeth Chapel to what were called "Mrs. Howley's

Lodgings." When the Archbishop dined out he was treated with princely

honours, and no one left the party till His Grace had made his bow. Once

a week he dined in state in the great hall of Lambeth, presiding over a

company of self-invited guests--strange perversion of the old

archiepiscopal charity to travellers and the poor--while, as Sydney

Smith said, "the domestics of the prelacy stood, with swords and

bag-wigs, round pig and turkey and venison, to defend, as it were, the

orthodox gastronome from the fierce Unitarian, the fell Baptist, and all

the famished children of Dissent." When Sir John Coleridge, father of

the late Lord Chief Justice, was a young man at the Bar, he wished to

obtain a small legal post in the Archbishop's Prerogative Court. An

influential friend undertook to forward his application to the

Archbishop. "But remember," he said, "in writing your letter, that his

Grace can only be approached on gilt-edged paper." Archbishop Harcourt

never went from Bishopthorpe to York Minster except attended by his

chaplains, in a coach and six, while Lady Anne was made to follow in a

pair-horse carriage, to show her that her position was not the same

thing among women that her husband's was among men. At Durham, which was

worth £40,000 a year, the Bishop, as Prince Palatine, exercised a

secular jurisdiction, both civil and criminal, and the Commission at the

Assizes ran in the name of "Our Lord the Bishop." At Ely, Bishop Sparke

gave so many of his best livings to his family that it was locally said

that you could find your way across the Fens on a dark night by the

number of little Sparkes along the road. When this good prelate secured

a residential canonry for his eldest son, the event was so much a matter

of course that he did not deem it worthy of special notice; but when he

secured a second canonry for his second son, he was so filled with pious

gratitude that, as a thank-offering, he gave a ball at the Palace of Ely

to all the county of Cambridge. "And I think," said Bishop Woodford, in

telling me the story, "that the achievement and the way of celebrating

it were equally remarkable."

This grand tradition of mingled splendour and profit ran down, in due

degree, through all ranks of the hierarchy. The poorer bishoprics were

commonly held in conjunction with a rich deanery or prebend, and not

seldom with some important living; so that the most impecunious

successor of the Apostles could manage to have four horses to his

carriage and his daily bottle of Madeira. Not so splendid as a palace,

but quite as comfortable, was a first-class deanery. A "Golden Stall" at

Durham or St. Paul's made its occupant a rich man. And even the rectors

of the more opulent parishes contrived to "live," as the phrase went,

"very much like gentleman."

The old Prince Bishops are as extinct as the dodo. The Ecclesiastical

Commission has made an end of them. Bishop Sumner of Winchester, who

died in 1874, was the last of his race. But the dignified country

clergyman, who combined private means with a rich living, did his county

business in person, and performed his religious duties by deputy,

survived into very recent times. I have known a fine old specimen of

this class--a man who never entered his church on a week-day, nor wore a

white neckcloth except on Sunday; who was an active magistrate, a keen

sportsman, an acknowledged authority on horticulture and farming; and

who boasted that he had never written a sermon in his life, but could

alter one with any man in England--which, in truth, he did so

effectively that the author would never have recognized his own

handiwork. When the neighbouring parsons first tried to get up a

periodical "clerical meeting" for the study of theology, he responded

genially to the suggestion: "Oh yes; I think it sounds a capital thing,

and I suppose we shall finish up with a rubber and a bit of supper."

The reverence in which a rector of this type was held, and the

difference, not merely of degree but of kind, which was supposed to

separate him from the inferior order of curates, were amusingly

exemplified in the case of an old friend of mine. Returning to his

parish after his autumn holiday, and noticing a woman at her cottage

door with a baby in her arms, he asked, "Has that child been baptised?"

"Well, sir," replied the curtsying mother, "I shouldn't like to say as

much as that; but your young man came and _did what he could_."

Lost in these entrancing recollections of Anglicanism as it once was,

but will never be again, I have wandered far from my theme. I began by

saying that all one has read, all one has heard, all one has been able

to collect by study or by conversation, points to the close of the

eighteenth century as the low-water mark of English religion and

morality. The first thirty years of the nineteenth century witnessed a

great revival, due chiefly to the Evangelical movement, and not only,

as in the previous century, on lines outside the Establishment, but in

the very heart and core of the Church of England. That movement, though

little countenanced by ecclesiastical authority, changed the whole tone

of religious thought and life in England. It recalled men to serious

ideas of faith and duty; it curbed profligacy, it made decency

fashionable, it revived the external usages of piety, and it prepared

the way for that later movement which, issuing from Oxford in 1833, has

transfigured the Church of England.

"I do not mean to say," wrote Mr. Gladstone in 1879, "that the founders

of the Oxford School announced, or even that they knew, to how large an

extent they were to be pupils and continuators of the Evangelical work,

besides being something else.... Their distinctive speech was of Church

and priesthood, of Sacraments and services, as the vesture under the

varied folds of which the Form of the Divine Redeemer was to be

exhibited to the world in a way capable of, and suited for, transmission

by a collective body from generation to generation. It may well have

happened that, in straining to secure for their ideas what they thought

their due place, some at least may have forgotten or disparaged that

personal and experimental life of the human soul with God which profits

by all ordinances but is tied to none, dwelling ever, through all its

varying moods, in the inner courts of the sanctuary whereof the walls

are not built with hands. The only matter, however, with which I am now

concerned is to record the fact that the pith and life of the

Evangelical teaching, as it consists in the reintroduction of Christ our

Lord to be the woof and warp of preaching, was the great gift of the

movement to the teaching Church, and has now penetrated and possessed it

on a scale so general that it may be considered as pervading the whole

mass."

FOOTNOTES:

[6] Lord Holland's _Memoirs of the Whig Party_, ii. p. 123.

[7] The property of Colonel Davies-Evans of Highmead.

[8] Written in 1897.

VII.

SOCIAL EQUALIZATION.

It was a characteristic saying of Talleyrand that no one could conceive

how pleasant life was capable of being who had not belonged to the

French aristocracy before the Revolution. There were, no doubt, in the

case of that great man's congeners some legal and constitutional

prerogatives which rendered their condition supremely enviable; but so

far as splendour, stateliness, and exclusive privilege are elements of a

pleasant life, he might have extended his remark to England. Similar

conditions of social existence here and in France were similarly and

simultaneously transformed by the same tremendous upheaval which marked

the final disappearance of the feudal spirit and the birth of the modern

world.

The old order passed away, and the face of human society was made new.

The law-abiding and temperate genius of the Anglo-Saxon race saved

England from the excesses, the horrors, and the dramatic incidents which

marked this period of transition in France; but though more quietly

effected, the change in England was not less marked, less momentous, or

less permanent than on the Continent. I have spoken in a former chapter

of the religious revival which was the most striking result in England

of the Revolution in France. To-day I shall say a word about another

result, or group of results, which may be summarized as Social

Equalization.

The barriers between ranks and classes were to a large extent broken

down. The prescriptive privileges of aristocracy were reduced. The

ceremoniousness of social demeanour was diminished. Great men were

content with less elaboration and display in their retinues, equipages,

and mode of living. Dress lost its richness of ornament and its

distinctive characteristics. Young men of fashion no longer bedizened

themselves in velvet, brocade, and gold lace. Knights of the Garter no

longer displayed the Blue Ribbon in Parliament. Officers no longer went

into society with uniform and sword. Bishops laid aside their wigs;

dignified clergy discarded the cassock. Coloured coats, silk stockings,

lace ruffles, and hair-powder survived only in the footmen's liveries.

When the Reform Bill of 1832 received the Royal Assent, the Lord

Bathurst of the period, who had been a member of the Duke of

Wellington's Cabinet, solemnly cut off his pigtail, saying, "Ichabod,

for the glory is departed;" and to the first Reformed Parliament only

one pigtail was returned (it pertained to Mr. Sheppard, M.P. for

Frome)--an impressive symbol of social transformation.

Collections and Recollections · 第 4 / 27 段