_Debate on the Motion of Edward Miall, Esq., M.P., May 9th, 1871.
Reprinted from the Nonconformist._
We doubt whether when the opponents of Mr. Gladstone's Irish Church
policy, during the electoral campaign of 1868, insisted that
disestablishment in Ireland would inevitably be followed by
disestablishment in England, they expected that such a debate as that
which took place in the House of Commons on the 9th of May last would
furnish a seeming justification of their prediction. The prediction,
however, was one which tended to fulfil itself; for, if it did not
suggest, it encouraged the movement which has followed it. The
plea--in the mouths of English Episcopalians, at least--was an
essentially selfish one, and has brought with it its own punishment.
Mr. Gladstone has reminded us that he did his best to convince the
electors of Lancashire that, neither on logical, nor on practical
grounds, did his proposal necessarily involve the sweeping away of all
the Established churches; and he has also said, and, no doubt, with
truth, that while Mr. Miall and his supporters may be entitled to
speak of the Irish Church Act of 1869 as the initiation of a policy,
that was not the intention of its authors, who regarded it simply as a
measure of justice to the Irish people. The upholders of
Establishment, however, were too heated and unreflecting to see that,
in refusing to allow Mr. Gladstone and the Liberal party to escape by
this flying bridge, they were virtually bringing down the enemy on a
portion of their territory hitherto comparatively secure. The less,
they insisted, involved the greater, and the public at large, taking
them at their word, was prepared for an advance movement on the part
of the opponents of all national religious establishments which a few
years ago would have been regarded as the blunder of a party
altogether bereft of political prudence.
It nevertheless required no small degree of courage on the part of Mr.
Miall to give notice so soon as a year after the passing of the Irish
Church Act that he would, in the following session, ask Parliament to
apply the principle of that measure to the other Established Churches
of the kingdom, and we are not surprised to know that the time
selected was, in part, determined by accidental circumstances, as much
as by deliberate choice. It is true that the honourable member was not
a novice in the matter; seeing that in 1856 he had submitted a motion
which similarly aimed at the extinction of the Irish Establishment.
But the Irish question, even in 1856, was, so far as public sentiment
was concerned, more advanced than the English Church question is now;
for Protestant ascendancy in Ireland had long been condemned by
English Liberalism, though the mode of bringing it to an end
occasioned a wide divergence of opinion. Nobody could and nobody did,
then deny Mr. Miall's facts, however much they dissented from his
practical conclusions; while the absence of concurring circumstances
gave to the debate an air of languor strangely in contrast with the
excitement occasioned by the same topic in after years. It is true
that the recent disestablishment motion is not the first which has
been submitted to the House of Commons, even in regard to the Church
of England. For nearly forty years ago--on the 16th of April,
1833--Mr. Faithfull, the member for Brighton--a borough then, as now,
intrepidly represented in Parliament--moved: 'That the Church of
England, as by law established, is not recommended by practical
utility: that its resources have always been subjected to
parliamentary enactments, and that the greater part, if not the whole,
of those resources ought to be appropriated to the relief of the
nation;' but on this occasion the question excited too little interest
to subject the mover to any sharp antagonism; Lord Althorpe declining
to reply to Mr. Faithfull's speech, and moving the previous question,
while the motion was negatived without a division. Mr. Gladstone's
memorable declaration, in 1868, that 'in the settlement of the Irish
Church that Church, as a State-Church, must cease to exist,' required
high moral courage; but the speaker knew that he was the mouthpiece of
a party powerful within, as well as without, the walls of Parliament,
and that he was sounding the tocsin for an immediate, and a
comparatively brief struggle, in which success was already assured.
Mr. Miall, on the contrary, knew that he would have no powerful
backing in the House of Commons, however great the moral strength
which he represented, and he knew also that he headed a skirmishing
party, rather than led a final attack; while he must also have been
conscious that the wisdom of his procedure would, by friendly, as well
as hostile, critics, be judged by the measure of success.
That the success was great, few persons who combine intelligence with
candour will be likely to deny, and probably it was greater than
either Mr. Miall, or the most sanguine of his friends, had ventured to
expect. Success, of course, has relation to the objects aimed at, and
these were well defined, and such as can be readily compared with the
actual results. We assume that Mr. Miall wished, by means of his
motion, to give a practical direction to the out-door agitation with
which he has been so many years identified; to put the subject in the
category of practical political questions, by forcing it on the notice
of politicians by the ordinary political methods; to place before the
greatest legislative assembly in the world, with something like
completeness, views held by a large and growing party in the country,
but never before directly and fully advocated in Parliament; to draw
out the forces enlisted on the side of establishments, and to put them
on the defensive, at a time when the difficulties in the way of
defence were by no means inconsiderable; and, finally, to secure such
a thorough discussion of the whole subject by the country as would
hasten the time when it must be dealt with with a view to a practical
settlement. If this is an accurate description of Mr. Miall's aims,
can it be said of any one of them that there has been even an approach
to failure? Could any parliamentary question, in the hands of an
independent member, have been launched with greater _éclat_, or with
more hopeful presages, than characterized the discussion in the House
of Commons on the 9th of May last? A large house--a speech which the
most competent critics in England have pronounced to be of the highest
class--a seven hours' debate sustained, for the most part, by members
of the greatest mark--a weakness of argument and of tone on the part
of the opponents of the motion which has excited general surprise--a
division almost exactly tallying with the calculations of those at
whose instance it was taken--leading articles and correspondence on
the subject in every journal in the kingdom, and an almost universal
impression that disestablishment is nearer at hand than it was thought
to be before the motion was submitted--if these do not satisfy the
most ardent of 'Liberationists,' the patience which has hitherto
distinguished them must have given way to unreasoning haste.
On one point, at least, in regard to which there was, at one time,
room for reasonable doubt, Mr. Miall's triumph must be considered
complete. Although it would have been difficult for any Nonconformist
member to have successfully vindicated a refusal to support the
motion, on the plea that it was 'premature,' yet there was something
to be urged in support of the plea itself, and it required a
recognition of some facts scarcely known to the public at large to
decide unhesitatingly in favour of the course actually adopted. But,
now that the motion has been made, the plea of prematureness can
scarcely be repeated. Even Sir Roundell Palmer frankly admitted that,
having regard to the feeling excited by the subject, both in the house
and in the country, it was one which was rightly brought under
discussion, and, notwithstanding the embarrassment which it was likely
to occasion the ministry, Mr. Gladstone tendered his thanks to Mr.
Miall for initiating the discussion, since, 'by introducing this
question, he has absorbed minor matters, which really involve his
motion as an ulterior consequence, but which do not fully express it,'
and has 'raised the question in a clear, comprehensive, and manly
manner, calculated to keep it from all debasing contact, and to raise
a fair trial of the great national question involved in the motion.'
These admissions are in singular contrast to the reception given to
Mr. Miall's Irish Church motion in 1856, when a Conservative member
actually tried to avert discussion by moving the adjournment of the
house, and Lord Palmerston, the then Premier, though he did not
venture to sanction the attempt, deprecated as 'unfortunate' the
enforced consideration of the subject.
If Mr. Miall has not acquired fame as a parliamentary debater, he has
made two speeches which will live in the political history of this
half century. Of that of 1856 it may, perhaps, be said that its
influence was greatest in the effect which it produced on the minds of
Liberal politicians whose minds were made up in condemnation of the
Irish Establishment, but whose notions in regard to remedial measures
were confused and undecided, or were radically unsound. The principle
which he then affirmed was as bread cast upon waters seen after many
days; and seen in the unequivocal shape of a statute of the realm
giving practical effect to the views enunciated thirteen years ago.
But the task undertaken then was far less difficult than that of 1871,
the area of discussion was much narrower, and the issues raised much
less complicated. Of Mr. Miall's recent speech, Mr. Leatham happily
said that it seemed to him 'as though it were the condensation of the
thought of a life-time;' but, in truth, the speaker had to disengage
his mind from many thoughts which had for years engaged the highest
powers of his intellect and the warmest sympathies of his heart. He
had to remember that he was standing, not on a Liberation platform,
but on the floor of the House of Commons, and that he was addressing
not the eagerly responsive readers of the _Nonconformist_, but the
cold and critical readers of journals of a very different type. And,
further, while avowing that the religious side of the question was
that which most powerfully affected his own mind, and conscious that
the most potent arguments which he could employ were those which
derive their force from religious considerations, he had to leave that
vantage ground, from the admitted unwillingness and unfitness of the
House of Commons to deal with the subject in its spiritual aspects,
and to take the lower ground involved in objections of an exclusively
political and social character. It required no small degree of
self-restraint, and of practical skill, for a speaker of such
antecedents as those of Mr. Miall to keep strictly within the lines
which he had laid down for himself; and the unstinted admiration
expressed by all the subsequent speakers and especially by public
journals, which--within a week of his Metropolitan Tabernacle
speech--were little likely to be biased in his favour, have shown
conclusively the completeness of his success. When the usually
moderate _Guardian_ affirms that Mr. Miall's speech was a signal
example of dissenting exaggeration, dissenting narrowness of view, and
dissenting shortness of thought and inability to comprehend the higher
aspects of a great religious and national question; and the _Record_
asserts that 'never was a speech delivered on a great question more
damaging to the cause it was intended to support:' the very
recklessness of the misrepresentations indicate a consciousness that
the impression produced was of a kind which has given great uneasiness
to the supporters of the Establishment. We expect, moreover, that the
_reading_ of the speech, in the complete form in which it has since
been published and widely circulated, will be found to have deepened
the impression produced by its delivery, and by a first hasty perusal.
Its calm yet forcible statements--its close reasoning--its apt and
pungent illustrations--its incontrovertible facts, and its elevation
of tone and style will, we are confident, perceptibly affect the minds
of thoughtful men on whom, for some time past, the truth has been
dawning that there must be something radically wrong in the existing
relations between the State and the several religious bodies of the
country. By a process of filtration, the truths enunciated by Mr.
Miall in this speech will, aided by other influences, find their way
into quarters into which none of his previous utterances on the same
subject have penetrated, and, unless the tendency of ecclesiastical
events greatly changes, it may be expected that the seed now sown will
germinate, and produce its fruits, with a degree of rapidity for which
previous efforts furnish no precedent.
Nor would justice be done to others were there no recognition of the
valuable aid given to the mover of the resolution by those who
supported him in the debate. It was fitting that a proposal so deeply
affecting the welfare of the Church of England should be seconded by a
member of that body, and the duty which Mr. J. D. Lewis voluntarily
undertook was discharged with both ability and courage. The facts and
figures supplied by Mr. Richard admirably supplemented Mr. Miall's
exposition of principle; while, so far as the Principality is
concerned, they demolished some of the boldest allegations of the
advocates of the existing system. If Mr. Leatham's speech must be
spoken of in terms of qualified praise--and notably in regard to his
insinuation respecting the views previously expressed by Mr.
Winterbotham--it must be admitted that he blurted out some truths
which were required to be told, however roughly, and presented with
admirable force, as well as vivacity, some aspects of the question
which ought not to have been neglected in such a discussion, and which
will tell upon minds but little affected by the less graphic method of
the philosophical and unrhetorical member for Bradford.
We do not wonder that the Dean of Norwich has expressed
dissatisfaction with the apologetic and low-toned character of the
replies given by the upholders of the Establishment; for an
ecclesiastic who holds it to be the duty of the State to find out
which is Christ's Church, and, having found it, to uphold and extend
it to the utmost, must have heard, or read, the debate with downright
dismay. The proverb that 'one story's good till another's told' does
not apply in this case; for strong as was Mr. Miall's case when he had
concluded his speech, it was stronger still after the weakness of the
other side had been shown by the reply. 'Is that all?' might have been
asked by any one conversant with all the traditionary arguments used
in defence of Church Establishments, after hearing Mr. Bruce, Sir
Roundell Palmer, Dr. Ball, Mr. Disraeli, and Mr. Gladstone. Of the
'national conscience' which enjoins the provision by the State of the
means of grace for the nation, or of the 'national atheism' involved
in the absence of such provision; or, in fact, of any theory whatever
on which it may be supposed to be possible to base an Establishment,
there was heard nothing. The friends of the Church, indeed, so far
abandoned theory, that Sir Roundell Palmer reproached Mr. Miall with
the theoretical character of his arguments, and was himself forced to
fall back on statements of the most prosaic and practical character;
while Mr. Disraeli, though vaguely asserting that 'the State ought to
recognise and support some religious expression in the community,' was
content to rest the case of the Establishment chiefly on 'the manifold
and ineffable blessings it bestows.'
It was perhaps a misfortune for that establishment that its defence
was mainly undertaken by official and ex-official advocates. They, it
is clear, were more concerned for their own position, in relation to
the question, now or hereafter--and especially hereafter--than
affected by a noble zeal on behalf of Church Establishments. Of
course, if it had been felt that the foundations of those institutions
were firm as the everlasting hills, that fact would have given
firmness of tone, if not vigour of expression, to those who were under
the necessity of doing battle on their behalf. But the insecurity of
the position renders necessary a system of Parliamentary 'hedging'--to
use sporting phraseology--on the part of those who wish to continue to
be, or to become, the depositaries of political power; and that,
perhaps, is the most alarming fact which the late debate has forced on
the notice of those who once thought that Church and State never
_could_ be separated.
The Home Secretary, in particular, described the ministerial policy in
this matter with a frankness which revealed in an almost amusing way
the embarrassment of official Liberalism. He admitted that 'the
question of an Established Church was seriously occupying the minds of
the people of Scotland,' but added that 'nothing, he was assured,
would be done in the matter until the great majority of the people
were in favour of disestablishment.' With respect, however, to
England, 'the question was far less mature.' No fair-minded man, he
added, could deny 'that there was a great deal of truth in many of the
statements' made by Mr. Miall, in regard to the shortcomings of the
Establishment, and the extent to which the spiritual necessities of
the people had been met by Nonconformists. But, he continued:--
'The practical question for the House to consider was
whether they were for those reasons prepared to pass a
resolution which would bind them at once to legislate on
the subject. No Government would, he thought, be justified
in undertaking such a task in the present state of public
opinion. The calmness of his hon. friend in dealing with
the question would, he was afraid, not be imitated by the
country at large, and its discussion must lead to great
dissension and controversy, although in the end the result
might tend to promote peace and harmony. It was a subject
on which no Government should attempt to legislate without
the assurance of success. (Ironical cheers.) He was
speaking without reference to the present or any other
Government, and he must repeat that no Ministry would be
justified in proceeding to deal with a question of such
great importance without some assurance of success. ("Hear,
hear," and a laugh.) It was the business of private members
to ventilate such questions, and the duty of the Government
to take them up only when public opinion declared it to be
expedient.'
And then, as a _solatium_ to those whom these ominous statements were
calculated to disturb, he proceeded to say a few civil words about the
great work which is being done by the Church of England, and the deep
root she has taken in the affections of the people; returning,
however, to the official line on which he started, by admitting that
he 'was not prepared to defend the Established Church with any
abstract arguments,' and insisting that, as prudent men, they must see
their way more clearly before adopting such a motion. 'Call you that
backing your friends?' was the indignant, and not unnatural reply of
the fervent Dr. Ball, who declared that 'the Church would be defended
as long as it did not imperil the interests of the Government, and no
longer.'
Mr. Disraeli's milder expression of the opinion that 'when it comes to
a question of maintaining the union between Church and State, I think
your adhesion to the proposal, or your objection to it, should be
founded on some principle which cannot be disputed, and guided by some
policy which the country can comprehend,' did elicit from the Prime
Minister 'very different sounds'--to use the language of Mr.
Disraeli--but the substance was substantially the same. He could
remind the Opposition leader that, notwithstanding his appreciation of
principles, he himself was content to rest his defence of the
Establishment, 'not so much upon adhesion to any abstract theory, or
principle, as upon the fact that the convictions of the nation are in
its favour, or, in other words, that public opinion is adverse to the
motion of my honourable friend.' And it was, practically, upon this
proposition Mr. Gladstone took his stand; while he, at the same time,
strengthened his position by descriptions of the 'vastness of the
operation' pointed at in the motion, and the immense difficulties
which it would involve, and also dilated, with characteristic grace
and copiousness, on the pre-eminent advantages resulting from the
manner in which the Church of England discharges its practical duties.
And his closing declaration went no further, and rose no higher, than
this:--
'I cannot but stand upon the firm conviction that the
nation which sent us here does not wish us to adopt the
motion of the hon. member.... I do not think that it is
necessary for us--indeed, I don't think the hon. gentleman
expects that we should do so--to vote for a motion which we
are firmly convinced is at variance with the established
convictions of the country, and I shall venture to say to
my hon. friend, what I am sure he will not resent, that if
he seeks to convert the majority of the House of Commons to
his opinions, he must begin by undertaking the preliminary
work of converting to those opinions the majority of the
people of England.'
When Mr. Miall led the attack on the Irish Establishment, in 1856, it
was stated that the task of replying to him was assigned to Mr.
Whiteside, but that the vehement representative of Dublin University
was quite unprepared to deal with a case so dispassionately put as it
was by Mr. Miall; while it is certain that he found his physical force
oratory--as Mr. Bright once described it--much more available in a
subsequent session, in denouncing the anticipated betrayal of the
Church by Mr. Gladstone. Sir Roundell Palmer, however, did not shrink
from fulfilling the intention which had been ascribed to him previous
to the debate, and, perhaps, no fitter representative man could have
been chosen for the purpose. Certainly no one could have succeeded
more fully in keeping the discussion up to the high level to which its
originator had sought to raise it. No one could be more candid in his
recognition of the ability, and the admirable spirit, with which Mr.
Miall had placed the subject before the House.[40] No one could be
more discriminating in choosing the grounds on which his resistance
was offered to the motion; and no one could put the case of the Church
more suavely, or more willingly. But, notwithstanding all these high
recommendations, the speech was a singularly weak one, in regard to
both its reasoning and its facts. The latter, indeed, constituted the
weakest part of his case--though, in some quarters, they are relied
upon with a confidence which seems to us to be attributable either to
imperfect knowledge, or to mistaken views of their bearing on the
question in dispute.
The two main facts urged by Sir Roundell Palmer were these--first,
that the existence of an Established Church no longer involves
injustice to Nonconformists; second, that 'this great institution does
a work of inestimable value over the whole land, and in every part of
society,' and, more especially, that, to the poor, and in the rural
parishes, it is of 'priceless value.'
If the first of these propositions can be sustained, the most
effective weapon at their command will be taken out of the hands of
the assailants of the Establishment. Mr. Miall, of course, insisted on
the converse of that proposition with the utmost emphasis--denouncing,
as he did, 'the essential and inseparable injustice involved in
lifting one Church from among many into political ascendancy, and
endowing it with property belonging to the people in their corporate
capacity;' and affirming that 'the inmost principle of a Church
Establishment is necessarily unjust in its operation,' and that 'man
suffers injustice at the hands of the State when the State places him
in a position of exceptional disadvantage on account of his religious
faith, or his ecclesiastical associations.' Sir Roundell Palmer has
two replies to this, viz., that what Dissenters 'call ascendancy' is
'no longer an ascendancy involving any civil rights, privileges, or
advantage whatever,' and that those who do not participate in the
benefit derived from the property in the hands of the Establishment
'fail to do so from simple choice.' He further asserts that the idea
'that no State institution intended for the public good can be just
which everybody does not equally participate in,' would 'lead us into
communism, or some other system of the kind.'
The plea that, the Establishment being open to all, no injustice is
done to these who stay outside, is one which it is difficult to
discuss with patience, even when seriously urged, as it seems to have
been, by an opponent like Sir Roundell Palmer. We saw nothing of the
inadequacy, as regards quantity, of that which the Establishment
offers to all--an inadequacy so great that the offer becomes a
mockery: it is enough to point out that that offer is one which, from
the necessity of the case, cannot possibly be accepted. The well-known
saying of Horne Tooke's that the London Tavern was open to every
man--who could afford to pay the bill, suggests the answer to the
shallow averment that the injustice endured by Nonconformists is,
after all, self-inflicted. If they are ready to pay the price at which
the advantages of the Establishment are offered to them, to sin
against their convictions, and to swallow their conscientious
scruples, they may enjoy religious equality within its pale, instead
of struggling for it without. It is a new use of the old defence of
the Irish Establishment so happily ridiculed by Thomas Moore, in his
'Dream of Hindostan:'--
'"And pray," asked I, "by whom is paid
The expense of this strange masquerade?"
"The expense!--Oh that's of course defrayed,"
(Said one of these well-fed Hecatombers)
"By yonder rascally rice consumers."
"What! _they_, who mustn't eat meat!"--
"No matter--"
(And while he spoke his cheeks grew fatter),
"The rogues may munch their _Paddy_ crop,
But the rogues must still support our shop.
And, depend upon it, the way to treat
Heretical stomachs that thus dissent,
Is to burden all that won't eat meat,
With a costly MEAT ESTABLISHMENT."'
Sir Roundell Palmer thinks that he has conceded everything which
equity requires when he expresses entire agreement with Mr. Miall that
'no State authority ought to interfere with any man's religious
belief,' and he clenches that admission by the bold assertion, that
the ascendancy of the Church of England no longer involves 'any civil
rights, privileges, or advantages whatever.' It might have occurred to
him that, even if his statement were strictly accurate, the words 'no
longer' pointed to a history of suffering and of struggle which
resulted from the existence of an Establishment, and in which
Nonconformists have figured as the victims. But is it accurate? Why at
the moment the statement was made there was before Parliament--as
there is likely to be for some time to come--a measure for
extinguishing the clerical monopoly in parochial churchyards; the
disabilities of Dissenters at Oxford and Cambridge had not been
removed,[41] and there had just been published the new Statutes of
Winchester and Harrow schools, which expressly insist that none but
members of the Church shall be qualified to act as members of the
governing bodies of those institutions! And, even when these grounds
of just complaint have been removed, there will still exist in
numerous Statutes, or Trusts, or Schemes, or Regulations, affecting
matters of parochial, educational, or charitable administration,
provisions which, directly or indirectly, exclude Dissenters from the
national Church from the enjoyment of rights, privileges, and
advantages, which Sir Roundell Palmer would have us believe are as
much within the reach of Nonconformists as of Conformists.
That, however, is a very limited view of the subject which supposes
that the principle of religious equality is violated only by means of
Statutes of the realm which, in so many words, place the members of
unestablished bodies on a different footing, as regards civil rights,
from that occupied by members of the Establishment. For it may be
safely asserted that for every act of exclusion, and every violation
of the principle of equity, for which the legislature is responsible,
in connection with an Established system, there are twenty others
which are the indirect, though inevitable, result of that system.
Establishment is a name for more than a collection of Statutes, and a
particular mode of appropriating national property: it represents a
powerful source of influence--a spring the force of which is felt
throughout all the ramifications of society, and is often experienced
by those who are unconsciously affected by it. Notwithstanding the
lip-homage now paid to the principle of religious equality, even by
politicians who once persistently fought against it, the ascendancy of
the Church Establishment is sought to be upheld by public
functionaries, by corporate bodies, and by individuals, organized and
unorganized, in a hundred ways which are independent of legislation,
but which, nevertheless, inflict, whether intentionally or not, great
injustice on those who are attached to other religious communities.
No one would now venture to declare, as a Conservative journal did
years ago, that a 'Dissenter is only half an Englishman,' but, so far
as a right to share in all the advantages afforded by civilized
society is concerned, that is the position in which he is, or is
sought to be placed, even now. The question with which Mr. Leatham
fairly startled Mr. Gladstone, 'How long are we, a party of
Dissenters, to be led by a cabinet of Churchmen?' suggests other
inquiries, of a more searching kind, which are even more strictly
relevant to the point we are now considering. Take the public
functionaries throughout the kingdom--the Commissioners who administer
the affairs of important departments, some of which decide matters
vitally affecting the interests of Nonconformists--the occupants of
the magisterial bench--the trustees of public charities--the holders
of municipal and parochial offices, great and small, and it will be
seen that the large majority are connected with the State-favoured
Church, and that offices of responsibility and influence, as well as
of emolument, are filled by Dissenters in an inverse proportion to
their numbers, their intelligence, and their energetic devotion to
public duty.
These are some of the allegations with which we meet Sir Roundell
Palmer's assertion that the Establishment no longer inflicts wrong on
those who think it right to dissent; but there are others, the aptness
of which will be still more apparent, because the facts come within
the knowledge of a far larger class. Whatever may be the case in the
great centres of population, it is certain that in the small towns,
and especially in those rural districts, in which, we are told, the
Establishment is so great a blessing, petty persecution, aiming at the
repression of dissent, is as rife as when that Establishment could
persecute by law. Is the dissenter a farmer? He is kept by Church
landlords and landladies out of a whole district, as carefully as the
rinderpest itself; or if he happens to be already in it, he is
deported as quickly as lease, or agreement, will allow. Is he a
shopkeeper? He must hold his head low, and consent to sell his
principles with his wares, or he loses half his customers. Does he
require education for his children? The day-school is, indeed, open to
them, but attendance at the Sunday-school and the church is insisted
upon, as part of the price to be paid for the education for which he,
in common with other tax-payers, largely pays. Is he poor? So much the
worse for him, when coals, blankets, and soup are distributed at
Christmas; when parochial charities, intended to be unsectarian, are
dispensed, or when misfortune makes him a fitting object for the help
and sympathy of all his neighbours. Nay! he may be wholly independent
of all around in regard to pecuniary circumstances--may have fortune,
culture, and all the gifts and graces of refined and of Christian
life; yet, if in the matter of the Lord his God he differs from those
who worship at the altars of the Establishment, he, too, pays the
penalty for conscientious Nonconformity, in the social exclusion, and
the haughty contempt, which to certain minds make country life one of
the hardest things to bear, and strongly tempt the children of wealthy
Nonconformists to desert, and ultimately to despise, the communities
to which they were once attached.
To these representations, as well as to others relating to the social
discord created by an Establishment, it has been replied that they
describe as much the result of the caste-feeling, which, rightly or
wrongly, exists among us, as the result of the Church being
established; that hard and fast lines will be drawn by individuals
even when State-made distinctions have ceased; that we 'shall not get
rid of the Church of England by disestablishing it;' and that 'so far
from being less energetic in the assertion of its claims,' it will be
'more energetic than ever.' The rejoinder is, that the existence of a
state-maintained Church aggravates social tendencies sufficiently bad
enough in themselves to require no encouragement--that, when the
possessors of invidious privileges find their privileges endangered,
they think themselves justified in doing what they would otherwise
condemn--that acts such as we have indicated are committed to a far
greater extent by the members of established than of unestablished
bodies, and that Episcopalianism in America, and in our own colonies,
does not adopt the repressive, and the oppressive, policy to which it
resorts at home. Sir Roundell Palmer's dictum that 'One of the
advantages of a union which subsists between Church and State is, that
it gives to the former an inducement to act in a more liberal and
conciliatory spirit than can be relied upon if the relations between
the two were different,' is, in our judgment, contrary to the facts of
history; and if the Church is, at the present time, 'bound over to
keep the peace' as it has not been before, it is just because the ties
between Church and State are loosened, and liberality and moderation
are necessary to prevent their being quickly severed.
There is one other aspect of the case to which, perhaps, full justice
was not done by any of the speakers in the late debate, and that is
the influence exerted by the Establishment, in regard to opinion, as
affecting both theological belief and ecclesiastical practice. The
Nonconformist objection to an Establishment, as popularly put, is,
that it appropriates public property to the maintenance of a Church,
the advantages of which cannot be shared by large sections of the
community. That is true, but it is not the whole truth; for even if
the Church found its own capital, and the State gave nothing but
authority and privilege, the Nonconformist would still have ground to
complain of the injustice done to him by the junction of the two
bodies. The pocket objection, strong as it is, is, after all, neither
the strongest nor the highest. To the man who, in these days of
shifting and uncertain belief, holds definite views of truth, and
especially of the highest forms of truth, it is less a grievance that
the State should deprive him of his share of public property than that
it should exert its influence on behalf of what he believes to be
mischievous error--error, possibly, dishonouring to God, as well as
detrimental to men. The member for Richmond says that he is at one
with the member for Bradford in thinking that 'no State authority
ought to interfere with any man's religious belief;' but what is
interference with man's religious belief? Is no one's belief
interfered with when the Canons of a national Church excommunicate
_ipso facto_ all impugners of the Articles, the worship, or the
government of that Church, until they have repented, and publicly
revoked, their 'wicked errors?' Is the Unitarian belief not interfered
with by the state-sanctioned Athanasian creed? Or the Baptist belief
by the baptismal service? Or the Quaker belief by the eucharistic
doctrines of the Church? Or, to put the question in the broadest form,
is the Roman Catholic's belief not interfered with when there is
established a Protestant Church, which asserts that the leading
tenets, or practices, of the Romish Church are damnable and
idolatrous?
It is true that everybody in the country is free to protest against
the creed and practices of the Establishment, but why should anyone
have to protest at all? The Nonconformist may enforce his own views of
truth and religious duty, but why should the State, which is invested
with authority derived from him, in common with his fellow-citizens,
not only compel him to become a Nonconformist, but put a heavy premium
on the acceptance of that which he feels it to be his duty to
denounce? This is a question, the force of which increases in
proportion as the Established clergy assert their right to set at
defiance authorized doctrinal standards and rubrics, as well as to
disregard the most solemn judicial decisions; for the points of
theological antagonism between their teaching and the views of
Nonconformists will multiply as confusion grows within the Church. But
we are content to enforce our present point by an illustration drawn
from a state of things with which we have long been familiar, rather
than from any new development of clerical extravagance. Here, for
instance, are specimens of the teaching of one of the authorized
instructors of the people, taken from a twopenny catechism, entitled
_Some questions of the Church Catechism, and doctrines involved,
briefly explained, for the use of families and parochial schools_; by
the Rev. J. A. Gace, M.A., Vicar of Great Barling, Essex,[42] and
which, we understand, is circulated widely in many parishes far
distant from the author's.
'85. _Q._ We have amongst us various Sects and
Denominations who go by the general name of Dissenters. In
what light are we to consider them? _A._ As heretics; and
in our Litany we expressly pray to be delivered from the
sins of "false doctrine, heresy, and schism."
'86. _Q._ Is then their worship a laudable service? _A._
No; because they worship God according to their own evil
and corrupt imaginations, and not according to His revealed
will, and therefore their worship is idolatrous.
'87. _Q._ Is Dissent a great sin? _A._ Yes; it is in direct
opposition to our duty towards God.
'94. _Q._ But why have not Dissenters been excommunicated?
_A._ Because the law of the land does not allow the
wholesome law of the Church to be acted upon; but
Dissenters have virtually excommunicated themselves by
setting up a religion of their own, and leaving the ark of
God's Church.
'98. _Q._ Is it wicked then to enter a meeting-house at
all? _A._ Most assuredly; because, as was said above, it is
a house where God is worshipped otherwise than He has
commanded, and therefore it is not dedicated to His honour
and glory; and besides this, we run the risk of being led
away by wicked enticing words; at the same time, by our
presence we are witnessing our approval of their heresy,
wounding the consciences of our weaker brethren, and by our
example teaching others to go astray.
'99. _Q._ But is language such as this consistent with
charity? _A._ Quite so: for when there is danger of the
true worshippers of God falling into error we cannot speak
too plainly, or warn them too strongly of their perilous
state; at the same time that it is our duty to declare in
express terms to those who are without, that they are
living separate from Christ's body, and consequently out of
the pale of salvation, so far, at least, as God has thought
fit to reveal.'
Assuming, as we may fairly do, that the author of all this--well! we
need not describe it--preaches as he publishes, have the heretics and
sinners whom he thus consigns to perdition no right to complain that,
besides receiving--according to the 'Clergy List'--£230 a year of
public money, he should also be invested with authority by the State?
It is idle to say that truth is truth, and falsehood falsehood, and
that the one will prevail, and the other perish, no matter whether he
who utters it is an established clergyman, or a dissenting preacher.
In the long run it will be so, but the struggle between truth and
falsehood is prolonged when, instead of the two being left fairly to
grapple with each other, the weight of State-influence, as well as of
State-gold, is thrown into the wrong scale. To speak plainly, the
establishment of a Church is an organized system of bribery in favour
of that Church. It may fail to buy the adherence of strong and
independent minds, but the minds of the majority are neither the one
nor the other. It appeals successfully to the self-seeking, the
timid, the conventional, the fashion-loving, and _they_ are to be
found among every class of the community. And, in doing so, it
inflicts injustice--injustice to those who reject the established
doctrines, even though they may be in possession of every civil right.
'The Established Church will certainly not be weakened by the debate
of Tuesday,' was the final conclusion of the _Times_, in the three
fluctuating leaders devoted to the subject, and that is true in the
sense in which it is true that an army hard pressed by an enemy is not
weakened by abandoning an untenable position, and by retreating within
its inner line of defence. And that is just what the English
Establishment has done, so far as its present position is indicated by
the late debate. Almost everything in the shape of _à priori_ argument
on its behalf has been given up, and it has fallen back on the plea of
utility alone. In doing so, it has adapted itself to a characteristic
of Englishmen, of whom Emerson has smartly said that, while there is
nothing which they hate so much as a theory, they will bow down and
worship a fact. It does not, however, follow that objectors to the
Establishment are bound to confine themselves to the same weapons as
those selected for the defence. The reasoning based on religious
principle which--strange anomaly! seeing that Parliament charges
itself with responsibility for the religious concerns of the
nation--is thought to be unfit for the House of Commons, may still be
employed with effect in influencing pious and thoughtful minds
elsewhere. Nor can the reasoning which appeals to men's sense of
equity be disposed of in the summary fashion adopted by Sir Roundell
Palmer. An institution based on principles which are radically unsound
cannot long be vindicated solely with reference to its alleged
usefulness. That which is unjust cannot be permanently upheld, because
it is seemingly successful. The painted sepulchre is a sepulchre,
though painted; and if an establishment really contravenes the rules
of right, its most brilliant, and even its most solid achievements,
will ultimately fail to prolong its existence.
When the Church of England, put upon its defence as a Church
established by law, insists that it is the source of blessings to the
community, amply worth the price which the community is required to
pay for them, it indicates no lack of Christian or of generous feeling
to examine these claims in the same practical way in which they are
put forward. Especially is it necessary to discriminate between the
action of the Church simply as such, and its action as a Church
specially favoured by the State, as well as to see that, while
acknowledging all its deeds of goodness, we do not draw from them a
totally erroneous inference. It does not seem to us that very much is
conceded, if we admit the correctness of Sir Roundell Palmer's
assertion that the Church of England is exerting more influence over
the country than all the other religious bodies put together. Why--to
quote the language of the _Times_, used for an opposite purpose--'a
man of education might be expected to remember that modern Dissent can
only boast a history of a hundred and fifty years, and that before it
arose the whole system of the Church of England was firmly
consolidated.' And, besides the advantage of a long start, she has had
wealth, power, and prestige--all three being enjoyed at the expense of
Nonconformity, and yet the nett result is, that she only does more
than all the unestablished bodies, and in doing so, leaves masses of
the people almost untouched by her ministrations! Let it be remembered
also, that these descriptions of the Establishment, which are intended
to reconcile us to its existence, are descriptions which, to a large
extent, have been applicable only during the last fifty years. No one
would speak of the Church in the days of the Georges as he may rightly
speak of her in the days of Victoria; for one of her own clergy--the
Rev. Sydney Smith--has characteristically declared that during the
former period 'the clergy of England had no more influence over the
people than the cheesemongers of England.' And whence the change? Is
it attributable to the action of the Establishment principle--to the
retention of Parliamentary grants, or to the multiplication of
political privileges? On the contrary, not until voluntaryism had to
so great an extent supplied the deficiency existing in connection with
State-endowments and compulsory exactions, and not until the process
of disestablishment had, in principle, been commenced, has the Church
of England earned the eulogiums of which she is now deservedly the
subject. Sir Roundell Palmer asks for the gratitude of Dissenters
because the zeal and energy of the Church have given to them a
powerful stimulus, and reminds us that, in regard to architecture, to
music, and to modes of worship, they have not hesitated to copy the
Church from which they dissent. Well! we are as thankful as he is for
that 'community of feeling between the most enlightened and best of
men on both sides,' which not only brings them together, but leads
them to select for imitation each other's wisest and best methods. But
is the obligation all on one side? Does the Church owe nothing to
Nonconformity, in regard to zeal, to organization, to education, to
hymnology, to preaching, and, above all, to the pecuniary aspects of
voluntaryism? She is welcome to all she has borrowed, and we hope that
it may be possible to import into her own system other admitted
excellencies, to be found in those of Nonconformists; but does this
interchange of influence between different Churches justify the
placing of one in an exceptional position, to the prejudice of the
rest; and is Nonconformity,
'Like a young eagle, who has lost his plume
To fledge the shaft by which he meets his doom,'
to have an Establishment foisted upon it in perpetuity, because it has
done so much to make such institution more tolerable than in days of
yore? And what authority had Sir Roundell Palmer for the assertion
that Mr. Miall wished, 'for certain theoretical reasons, to destroy
the whole of the immense machinery by which all this good is done?' If
by this it was intended to suggest that all the good effected by the
Church of England comes out of its legal position, Mr. Miall would
deny the correctness of the suggestion; while, on the other hand, if
no inconsiderable portion of that good be the result of the piety and
devotedness of Churchmen--manifested in spite, rather than as the
result, of Establishment--he would repudiate any intention to destroy,
or in any way to hinder their work.
We have said that the case of the Establishment has been made to rest
solely on the utilitarian argument; and we now add that the range of
that argument is practically limited to the rural parishes. Sir
Roundell Palmer admits that in the large towns the Church of England
is not overtaking the spiritual wants of the population; though he
thinks that its efforts to do so are greater than those of Dissenters.
That is to say, the influence of the Establishment is smallest where
the intellectual and moral forces which ultimately decide the
country's destinies exist--a large admission, and one which will have
cumulative weight as time progresses. Mr. Miall, he complained, 'did
not sufficiently distinguish between the position of the working
classes in the towns and the working classes in the country,' and,
with regard to the last, he affirmed that, 'speaking generally, they
are members of the Church, and through the Church they are partakers
of benefits of every description, spiritual, moral, and even
temporal.' 'Those,' he added, 'who know the rural districts of this
country, will bear testimony to the existence of multitudes upon
multitudes of poor people who have in them both "sweetness and
light."' And then--utterly ignoring the influence exercised by all
other agencies--he stated that he could not 'imagine any institution
to which this character of the labouring poor is due more than to that
which has placed in the centre of the population of every part of the
country a man educated and intelligent, whose business it is to do
them good, whose whole and sole business is to take care of their
souls as far as by God's help he is enabled to do so, in every way and
in all circumstances of life to be their friend and counsellor.'
We assume that Scotland is not included in the sphere within which the
Established system has wrought thus beneficently. We assume also that,
after the facts and figures for which the House and country are
indebted to Mr. Richard, M.P., the Principality of Wales also may be
excluded from the map of the territory over which the sun of the
Establishment sheds these blessings, and, probably, a candid
Episcopalian would hesitate to claim for his Church credit for all the
civilization and Christianity to be found in Cornwall, and some other
districts. So that, tried by a geographical test, the argument may be
pared down even yet lower than it has been by the speaker himself.
But are we to be satisfied with Arcadian pictures, or to seek to build
on solid fact? We repeat Mr. Miall's question--what is the condition
of the rural parishes? and for an answer refer, not to Blue Books
alone, but to the knowledge of living men. How are 'the men whose
whole and sole business it is to take care of the souls' of our
villagers discharging their high function? Are they feeding them with
the bread of life, or with 'the husks which the swine do eat,' in the
shape of superstitious teaching, or of vapid formalism? Is it not in
our village parishes that there are to be found the most stolid
ignorance and the grossest superstition? Can there not be reckoned up
by hundreds parishes in which spiritual deadness and intellectual
stagnation are the prevailing characteristics of the population--or
where the only ray of light issues from the mission-station of the
despised itinerant preacher, and the only mental activity is due to
the self-sacrificing efforts of a handful of, perhaps, persecuted
Dissenters? These are the kind of questions which will be stirred up
by Sir Roundell Palmer's statements, and other recent utterances of
the like kind. Those statements are, no doubt, true of certain
parishes, and the number of those parishes is, we are glad to believe,
increasing; but that they accurately describe the majority of rural
parishes we utterly disbelieve, and surprise must not be felt if,
henceforth, there is less reticence than there has been in regard to
the real working of the Establishment in those districts in which it
is now alleged to be the greatest blessing.
We have heard of those who represent the world as resting upon the
back of a tortoise; and now the case of the English Establishment is
based upon the agricultural labourer. Even a journal having so
unclerical a bias as the _Pall Mall Gazette_ gravely declares that
'Without the parson of the parish the English parish itself
would revert to that barbarism from which it is, even under
existing circumstances, not so very distantly removed. The
agricultural labourers of this country have been not
altogether unjustly described as a class without hope; but
whatever chance of kindness or consolation they may have in
need, sickness, or the approach of death, depends in the
main on the presence and the comparative affluence of the
parish clergyman.'
Thus, as Earl Russell once vindicated the Irish Establishment by
alleging that it gave the farmer in every parish a customer for his
eggs and butter, so in England it has now become the fashion to look
upon the Established clergy as auxiliary relieving officers, or as a
supplementary county police. It is not a high conception of their
functions; while it indicates the kind of impression which the Church,
as a spiritual institution, has made upon the political and
religiously-indifferent class. Nor will it reconcile good men, whether
in the Church of England or out of it, to a continuance of the evils,
the anomalies and the perplexities which are now admitted to be
inseparably connected with its position as an establishment. The eggs
and butter argument did not save the Irish Establishment; and neither
will the resident gentlemen theory save that of England. An
institution is, in fact, doomed when its advocates are thus obliged to
descend from the higher ground which they previously occupied, to
one--comparatively speaking--so miserably low. The question 'what will
become of the rural parishes if the Church be disestablished?' is one
which should be and can be answered; but, even if no satisfactory
answer were forthcoming, it would not be practicable to maintain
intact all the elaborate and costly machinery which goes by the name
of an establishment.
It is not our purpose to deduce from the debate on which we have been
commenting any practical lessons for the guidance of those whose
principles and aims it was the object of Mr. Miall to advance. The
leaders of the movement are not likely to be led by any elation of
feeling, resulting from the recent rapidity of their progress, to
relax the exertions needed to overcome the difficulties still awaiting
them; while they are acute enough to perceive the direction in which
they must in future work. If the passing of the Irish Church Act
demonstrated the possibility of disuniting Church and State by
peaceful, legal, and constitutional means, it has now been made
equally evident that, whenever public opinion calls for a similar
measure for England and for Scotland, our statesmen will be prepared
to comply with the demand. And, although we are not sanguine enough to
expect that the remaining stages of the controversy will be passed
through with the placidity which characterized the recent debate, we
yet hope that the fairness of spirit, and the generosity of feeling,
which were conspicuous from its commencement to its close, will exert
a perceptible influence on disputants in a less elevated arena. The
issue to be tried is one which, from its very nature, should restrain,
rather than excite evil passions, and which pre-eminently calls for
the manifestation of a broad and catholic feeling, instead of a narrow
and acrid sectarianism. If it be useless to cry 'Peace--peace!' amid
the din of conflict, that conflict may yet be carried on in a spirit
which will make it easy for victor and vanquished presently to rejoice
together, in what will be ultimately felt to be a gain for interests
which are equally precious to both.