{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_47862/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_47862","id":"gutenberg_47862","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/47862","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Biographies","Category: History - British","Category: Politics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Church of Ireland -- Establishment and disestablishment","Gladstone, W. E. (William Ewart), 1809-1898"],"text":"Transcriber's Note\n\nThis Plain Text version uses characters from the Latin-1 character set\nonly. Italic typeface is indicated by the use of _underscores_. Small\ncaps typeface is rendered as ALL CAPS.\n\nThere is one instance of an oe-ligature symbol which is shown as [oe].\n\nFootnotes are numbered sequentially and are presented at the end of the\ne-book.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nA CHAPTER OF AUTOBIOGRAPHY.\n\n\n\n\n                                   A\n                       CHAPTER OF AUTOBIOGRAPHY.\n\n                                  BY\n\n                    THE RIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE.\n\n      \"Blame not, before thou hast examined the truth: understand\n      first, and then rebuke.\"--ECCLESIASTICUS, ch. ii.\n\n                                LONDON:\n\n                    JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET.\n\n                                 1868.\n\n             _The right of Translation is reserved._\n\nLONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, DUKE STREET, STAMFORD\nSTREET, AND CHARING CROSS.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nAt a time when the Established Church of Ireland is on her trial, it is\nnot unfair that her assailants should be placed upon their trial too:\nmost of all, if they have at one time been her sanguine defenders.\n\nBut if not the matter of the indictment against them, at any rate that\nof their defence, should be kept apart, as far as they are concerned,\nfrom the public controversy, that it may not darken or perplex the\ngreater issue.\n\nIt is in the character of the author of a book called 'The State in\nits Relations with the Church,' that I offer these pages to those who\nmay feel a disposition to examine them. They were written at the date\nattached to them; but their publication has been delayed until after\nthe stress of the General Election.\n\n\n\n\nA CHAPTER OF AUTOBIOGRAPHY.\n\n\nAutobiography is commonly interesting; but there can, I suppose, be\nlittle doubt that, as a general rule, it should be posthumous. The\nclose of an active career supplies an obvious exception: for this\nresembles the gentle death which, according to ancient fable, was\nrather imparted than inflicted by the tender arrows of Apollo and of\nArtemis. I have asked myself many times, during the present year,\nwhether peculiar combinations of circumstance might not also afford a\nwarrant at times for departure from the general rule, so far as some\nspecial passage of life is concerned; and whether I was not myself now\nplaced in one of those special combinations.\n\nThe motives, which incline me to answer these questions in the\naffirmative, are mainly two. First, that the great and glaring\nchange in my course of action with respect to the Established Church\nof Ireland is not the mere eccentricity, or even perversion, of an\nindividual mind, but connects itself with silent changes, which are\nadvancing in the very bed and basis of modern society. Secondly, that\nthe progress of a great cause, signal as it has been and is, appears\nliable nevertheless to suffer in point of credit, if not of energy and\nrapidity, from the real or supposed delinquencies of a person, with\nwhose name for the moment it happens to be specially associated.\n\nOne thing is clear: that if I am warranted in treating my own case as\nan excepted case, I am bound so to treat it. It is only with a view to\nthe promotion of some general interest, that the public can becomingly\nbe invited to hear more, especially in personal history, about an\nindividual, of whom they already hear too much. But if it be for the\ngeneral interest to relieve 'an enterprise of pith and moment' from the\nodium of baseness, and from the lighter reproach of precipitancy, I\nmust make the attempt; though the obtrusion of the first person, and of\nall that it carries in its train, must be irksome alike to the reader\nand the writer.\n\nSo far, indeed, as my observation has gone, the Liberal party of this\ncountry have stood fire unflinchingly under the heavy vollies which\nhave been fired into its camp with ammunition that had been drawn\nfrom depositories full only with matter personal to myself. And, with\nthe confidence they entertain in the justice and wisdom of the policy\nthey recommend, it would have been weak and childish to act otherwise.\nStill, I should be glad to give them the means of knowing that the case\nmay not after all be so scandalous as they are told. In the year 1827,\nif I remember right, when Mr. Canning had just become Prime Minister,\nan effort was made to support him in the town of Liverpool, where the\nlight and music of his eloquence had not yet died away, by an Address\nto the Crown. The proposal was supported by an able and cultivated\nUnitarian Minister, Mr. Shepherd, who had been one of Mr. Canning's\nopponents at former periods in the Liverpool elections. Vindicating\nthe consistency of his course, he said he was ready to support the\ndevil himself, if it had been necessary, in doing good. This was a\nsuccinct and rough manner of disposing of the question in the last\nresort. I hope, however, that those who sustain the Liberal policy\nrespecting the Established Church of Ireland, will not be driven to\nso dire an extremity. It can hardly be deemed on my part an unnatural\ndesire, that political friends, and candid observers, should on grounds\nof reason and knowledge, and not merely from friendly prepossession,\nfeel themselves warranted not to believe in the justice of language\nsuch as by way of example I subjoin. I must, however, suppose that the\nauthor of it is persuaded of its fairness and justice, since he bears\nHer Majesty's Commission; and his statement is adopted and published\nby a brother-officer, who is himself a candidate for Berwick in the\nministerial interest, and therefore (I presume) not particularly\nsqueamish on the subject of political consistency, although I entertain\nno doubt that both are gallant, upright, and estimable gentlemen.\n\n        \"There is obviously no need, on the present occasion\n        at least, to extend this catalogue of the political\n        delinquencies of this would-be demagogue, whom we may\n        accordingly leave gibbeted and swinging in the winds of\n        the fools' paradise! an object of derision and contempt\n        to those at least who maintain that integrity of purpose\n        and consistency ought not altogether to be discarded from\n        public life.\"[1]\n\nIt freezes the blood, in moments of retirement and reflexion, for a man\nto think that he can have presented a picture so hideous to the view\nof a fellow-creature!\n\nOne thing I have not done, and shall not do. I shall not attempt to\nlaugh off the question, or to attenuate its importance. In theory\nat least, and for others, I am myself a purist with respect to what\ntouches the consistency of statesmen. Change of opinion, in those\nto whose judgment the public looks more or less to assist its own,\nis an evil to the country, although a much smaller evil than their\npersistence in a course which they know to be wrong. It is not always\nto be blamed. But it is always to be watched with vigilance; always to\nbe challenged, and put upon its trial. The question is one of so much\ninterest, that it may justify a few remarks.\n\nIt can hardly escape even cursory observation, that the present century\nhas seen a great increase in the instances of what is called political\ninconsistency. It is needless, and it would be invidious, to refer to\nnames. Among the living, however, who have occupied leading positions,\nand among the dead of the last twenty years, numerous instances will\nat once occur to the mind, of men who have been constrained to abandon\nin middle and mature, or even in advanced life, convictions which they\nhad cherished through long years of conflict and vicissitude: and of\nmen, too, who have not been so fortunate as to close or continue their\ncareer in the same political connexion as that in which they commenced\nit. If we go a little farther back, to the day of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox,\nor even to the day of Mr. Canning, Lord Londonderry, or Lord Liverpool,\nwe must be struck with the difference. A great political and social\nconvulsion, like the French Revolution, of necessity deranged the\nranks of party; yet not even then did any man of great name, or of a\nhigh order of mind, permanently change his side.\n\nIf we have witnessed in the last forty years, beginning with the epoch\nof Roman Catholic Emancipation, a great increase in the changes of\nparty, or of opinion, among prominent men, we are not at once to leap\nto the conclusion that public character, as a rule, has been either\nless upright, or even less vigorous. The explanation is rather to\nbe found in this, that the movement of the public mind has been of\na nature entirely transcending former experience; and that it has\nlikewise been more promptly and more effectively represented, than at\nany earlier period, in the action of the Government and the Legislature.\n\nIf it is the office of law and of institutions to reflect the wants\nand wishes of the country, (and its wishes must ever be a considerable\nelement in its wants), then, as the nation passes from a stationary\ninto a progressive period, it will justly require that the changes in\nits own condition and views should be represented in the professions\nand actions of its leading men. For they exist for its sake, not it\nfor theirs. It remains indeed their business, now and ever, to take\nhonour and duty for their guides, and not the mere demand or purpose\nof the passing hour; but honour and duty themselves require their\nloyal servant to take account of the state of facts in which he is to\nwork, and, while ever labouring to elevate the standard of opinion and\naction around him, to remember that his business is not to construct,\nwith self-chosen materials, an Utopia or a Republic of Plato, but to\nconduct the affairs of a living and working community of men, who have\nself-government recognised as in the last resort the moving spring of\ntheir political life, and of the institutions which are its outward\nvesture.\n\nThe gradual transfer of political power from groups and limited classes\nto the community, and the constant seething of the public mind, in\nfermentation upon a vast mass of moral and social, as well as merely\npolitical, interests, offer conditions of action, in which it is\nevident that the statesman, in order to preserve the same amount of\nconsistency as his antecessors in other times, must be gifted with\na far larger range of foresight. But Nature has endowed him with no\nsuch superiority. It may be true that Sir Robert Peel shewed this\nrelative deficiency in foresight, with reference to Roman Catholic\nEmancipation, to Reform, and to the Corn Law. It does not follow that\nmany, who have escaped the reproach, could have stood the trial. For\nthem the barometer was less unsteady; the future less exacting in its\ndemands. But let us suppose that we could secure this enlargement of\nonward view, this faculty of measuring and ascertaining to-day the\nwants of a remote hereafter, in our statesmen; we should not even\nthen be at the end of our difficulties. For the public mind is to a\ngreat degree unconscious of its own progression; and it would resent\nand repudiate, if offered to its immature judgment, the very policy,\nwhich after a while it will gravely consider, and after another while\nenthusiastically embrace.\n\nYet, as it still remains true that the actual opinions and professions\nof men in office, and men in authority without office, are among the\nmain landmarks on which the public has to rely, it may seem that, in\nvindicating an apparent liberty of change, we destroy the principal\nguarantees of integrity which are available for the nation at large,\nand with these all its confidence in the persons who are to manage\nits affairs. This would be a consequence so fatal, that it might even\ndrive us back upon the hopeless attempt to stereotype the minds of men,\nand fasten on their manhood the swaddling clothes of their infancy.\nBut such is not the alternative. We may regulate the changes which we\ncannot forbid, by subjecting them to the test of public scrutiny, and\nby directing that scrutiny to the enforcement of the laws of moral\nobligation. There are abundant signs, by which to distinguish between\nthose changes, which prove nothing worse than the fallibility of the\nindividual mind, and man[oe]uvres which destroy confidence, and entail\nmerited dishonour. Changes which are sudden and precipitate--changes\naccompanied with a light and contemptuous repudiation of the former\nself--changes which are systematically timed and tuned to the interest\nof personal advancement--changes which are hooded, slurred over, or\ndenied--for these changes, and such as these, I have not one word to\nsay; and if they can be justly charged upon me, I can no longer desire\nthat any portion, however small, of the concerns or interests of my\ncountrymen should be lodged in my hands.\n\nLet me now endeavour to state the offence of which I am held guilty.\n_Ille ego qui quondam_: I, the person who have now accepted a foremost\nshare of the responsibility of endeavouring to put an end to the\nexistence of the Irish Church as an Establishment, am also the person\nwho, of all men in official, perhaps in public life, did, until the\nyear 1841, recommend, upon the highest and most imperious grounds, its\nresolute maintenance.\n\nThe book entitled 'The State in its Relations with the Church' was\nprinted during the autumn of 1838, while I was making a tour in the\nSouth of Europe, which the state of my eyesight had rendered it prudent\nto undertake. Three editions of it were published without textual\nchange; and in the year 1841 a fourth, greatly enlarged, though in\nother respects little altered, issued from the press. All interest in\nit had, however, even at that time, long gone by, and it lived for\nnearly thirty years only in the vigorous and brilliant, though not\n(in my opinion) entirely faithful picture, drawn by the accomplished\nhand of Lord Macaulay. During the present year, as I understand from\ngood authority, it has again been in demand, and in my hearing it has\nreceived the emphatic suffrages of many, of whose approval I was never\nmade aware during the earlier and less noisy stages of its existence.\n\nThe distinctive principle of the book was supposed to be, that the\nState had a conscience. But the controversy really lies not in the\nexistence of a conscience in the State, so much as in the extent of its\nrange. Few would deny the obligation of a State to follow the moral\nlaw. Every Treaty, for example, proceeds upon it. The true issue was\nthis: whether the State, in its best condition, has such a conscience\nas can take cognizance of religious truth and error, and in particular\nwhether the State of the United Kingdom, at a period somewhat exceeding\nthirty years ago, was or was not so far in that condition as to be\nunder an obligation to give an active and an exclusive support to the\nestablished religion of the country.\n\nThe work attempted to survey the actual state of the relations between\nthe State and the Church; to show from History the ground which had\nbeen defined for the National Church at the Reformation; and to\ninquire and determine whether the existing state of things was worth\npreserving, and defending against encroachment from whatever quarter.\nThis question it decided emphatically in the affirmative.\n\nAn early copy of the Review containing the powerful essay of Lord\nMacaulay was sent to me; and I found that to the main proposition,\nsufficiently startling, of the work itself, the reviewer had added\nthis assumption, that it contemplated not indeed persecution, but yet\nthe retrogressive process of disabling and disqualifying from civil\noffice all those who did not adhere to the religion of the State.\nBefore (I think) the number of the 'Edinburgh Review' for April,\n1839, could have been in the hands of the public, I had addressed to\nLord (then Mr.) Macaulay the following letter, which I shall make no\napology for inserting, inasmuch as it will introduce one more morsel of\nhis writing, for which the public justly shows a keen and insatiable\nappetite.\n\n        6, Carlton Gardens, April 10th, 1839.\n\n        DEAR SIR,\n\n        I have been favoured with a copy of the forthcoming\n        number of the 'Edinburgh Review,' and I perhaps too much\n        presume upon the bare acquaintance with you of which\n        alone I can boast, in thus unceremoniously assuming you\n        to be the author of the article entitled 'Church and\n        State,' and in offering you my very warm and cordial\n        thanks for the manner in which you have treated both\n        the work, and the author, on whom you deigned to bestow\n        your attention. In whatever you write, you can hardly\n        hope for the privilege of most anonymous productions,\n        a real concealment; but if it had been possible not to\n        recognize you, I should have questioned your authorship\n        in this particular case, because the candour and\n        single-mindedness which it exhibits are, in one who has\n        long been connected in the most distinguished manner with\n        political party, so rare as to be almost incredible.\n\n        I hope to derive material benefit, at some more tranquil\n        season, from a consideration of your argument throughout.\n        I am painfully sensible, whenever I have occasion to\n        re-open the book, of its shortcomings, not only of the\n        subject but even of my own conceptions: and I am led\n        to suspect that, under the influence of most kindly\n        feelings, you have omitted to criticize many things\n        besides the argument, which might fairly have come within\n        your animadversion.\n\n        In the mean time I hope you will allow me to apprise\n        you that on one material point especially I am not so\n        far removed from you as you suppose. I am not conscious\n        that I have said either that the _Test Act_ should be\n        repealed, or that it should not have been passed: and\n        though on such subjects language has many bearings which\n        escape the view of the writer at the moment when the pen\n        is in his hand, yet I think that I can hardly have put\n        forth either of these propositions, because I have never\n        entertained the corresponding sentiments. Undoubtedly\n        I should speak of the pure abstract idea of Church and\n        State as implying that they are co-extensive: and I\n        should regard the present composition of the State of the\n        United Kingdom as a deviation from that pure idea, but\n        only in the same sense as all differences of religious\n        opinion in the Church are a deviation from its pure\n        idea, while I not only allow that they are permitted,\n        but believe that (within limits) they were intended to\n        be permitted. There are some of these deflections from\n        abstract theory which appear to me allowable; and that\n        of the admission of persons not holding the national\n        creed into civil office is one which, in my view, must\n        be determined by times and circumstances. At the same\n        time I do not recede from any protest which I have\n        made against the principle, that religious differences\n        are irrelevant to the question of competency for civil\n        office: but I would take my stand between the opposite\n        extremes, the one that no such differences are to be\n        taken into view, the other that all such differences are\n        to constitute disqualifications.\n\n        I need hardly say the question I raise is not whether you\n        have misrepresented me, for, were I disposed to anything\n        so weak, the whole internal evidence and clear intention\n        of your article would confute me: indeed I feel I ought\n        to apologize for even supposing that you may have been\n        mistaken in the apprehension of my meaning, and I freely\n        admit on the other hand the possibility that, totally\n        without my own knowledge, my language may have led to\n        such an interpretation.\n\n        In these lacerating times one clings to everything of\n        personal kindness in the past, to husband it for the\n        future, and if you will allow me I shall earnestly desire\n        to carry with me such a recollection of your mode of\n        dealing with the subject; upon which, the attainment\n        of truth, we shall agree, so materially depends upon\n        the temper in which the search for it is instituted and\n        conducted.\n\n        I did not mean to have troubled you at so much length,\n        and I have only to add that I am, with much respect,\n\n          Dear Sir,\n            Very truly yours,\n              W. E. GLADSTONE.\n\n        T. B. MACAULAY, ESQ.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n        3, Clarges Street, April 11th, 1839.\n\n        MY DEAR SIR,\n\n        I have very seldom been more gratified than by the very\n        kind note which I have just received from you. Your book\n        itself, and everything that I heard about you, though\n        almost all my information came--to the honour, I must\n        say, of our troubled times--from people very strongly\n        opposed to you in politics, led me to regard you with\n        respect and good will, and I am truly glad that I have\n        succeeded in marking those feelings. I was half afraid\n        when I read myself over again in print, that the button,\n        as is too common in controversial fencing even between\n        friends, had once or twice come off the foil.\n\n        I am very glad to find that we do not differ so widely\n        as I had apprehended about the Test Act. I can easily\n        explain the way in which I was misled. Your general\n        principle is that religious non-conformity ought to be\n        a disqualification for civil office. In page 238 you\n        say that the true and authentic mode of ascertaining\n        conformity is the Act of Communion. I thought, therefore,\n        that your theory pointed directly to a renewal of the\n        Test Act. And I do not recollect that you have ever\n        used any expression importing that your theory ought in\n        practice to be modified by any considerations of civil\n        prudence. All the exceptions that you mention are, as\n        far as I remember, founded on positive contract--not one\n        on expediency, even in cases where the expediency is so\n        strong and so obvious that most statesmen would call it\n        necessity. If I had understood that you meant your rules\n        to be followed out in practice only so far as might be\n        consistent with the peace and good government of society,\n        I should certainly have expressed myself very differently\n        in several parts of my article.\n\n        Accept my warm thanks for your kindness, and believe me,\n        with every good wish,\n\n          My dear Sir,\n            Very truly yours,\n              T. B. MACAULAY.\n\n        W. E. GLADSTONE, ESQ., M.P.\n\nFaithful to logic, and to its theory, my work did not shrink from\napplying them to the crucial case of the Irish Church. It did not\ndisguise the difficulties of the case, for I was alive to the paradox\nit involved. But the one master idea of the system, that the State as\nit then stood was capable in this age, as it had been in ages long\ngone by, of assuming beneficially a responsibility for the inculcation\nof a particular religion, carried me through all. My doctrine was, that\nthe Church, as established by law, was to be maintained for its truth;\nthat this was the only principle on which it could be properly and\npermanently upheld; that this principle, if good in England, was good\nalso for Ireland; that truth is of all possessions the most precious to\nthe soul of man; and that to remove, as I then erroneously thought we\nshould remove, this priceless treasure from the view and the reach of\nthe Irish people, would be meanly to purchase their momentary favour at\nthe expense of their permanent interests, and would be a high offence\nagainst our own sacred obligations.\n\nThese, I think, were the leading propositions of the work. In one\nimportant point, however, it was inconsistent with itself; it contained\na full admission that a State might, by its nature and circumstances,\nbe incapacitated from upholding and propagating a definite form of\nreligion.[2]\n\n        \"There may be a state of things in the United States of\n        America, perhaps in some British colonies, there does\n        actually exist a state of things, in which religious\n        communions are so equally divided, or so variously\n        subdivided, that the Government is itself similarly\n        chequered in its religious complexion, and thus\n        internally incapacitated by disunion from acting in\n        matters of religion; or, again, there may be a State in\n        which the members of Government may be of one faith or\n        persuasion, the mass of the subjects of another, and\n        hence there may be an external incapacity to act in\n        matters of religion.\"\n\nThe book goes on to describe that incapacity, however produced, as a\nsocial defect and calamity. But the latter part of the work, instead\nof acknowledging such incapacity as a sufficient and indeed commanding\nplea for abstention, went beyond the bounds of moderation, and treated\nit as if it must in all cases be a sin; as though any association\nof men, in civil government or otherwise, could be responsible for\nacting beyond the line of the capabilities determined for it by its\nconstitution and composition. My meaning I believe was, to describe\nonly cases in which there might be a deliberate renunciation of\nsuch duties as there was the power to fulfil. But the line is left\ntoo obscurely drawn between this wilful and wanton rejection of\nopportunities for good, and the cases in which the state of religious\nconvictions, together with the recognised principles of government,\ndisable the civil power from including within its work the business of\neither directly or indirectly inculcating religion, and mark out for it\na different line of action.\n\nI believe that the foregoing passages describe fairly, if succinctly,\nthe main propositions of 'The State in its Relations with the Church;'\nso far as the book bears upon the present controversy. They bound me\nhand and foot: they hemmed me in on every side. Further on I shall\nendeavour to indicate more clearly in what I think the book was right,\nand in what it was wrong. What I have now to show is the manner in\nwhich I retreated from an untenable position. To this retreat, and\nthe time and mode of it, I now draw attention, and I will endeavour\nto apply to them the tests I have already laid down:--Was it sudden?\nWas it performed with an indecent levity? Was it made to minister\nto the interests of political ambition? Was the gravity of the case\ndenied or understated? Was it daringly pretended that there had been\nno real change of front; and that, if the world had understood me\notherwise, it had misunderstood me? My opinion of the Established\nChurch of Ireland now is the direct opposite of what it was then. I\nthen thought it reconcilable with civil and national justice; I now\nthink the maintenance of it grossly unjust. I then thought its action\nwas favourable to the interests of the religion which it teaches; I now\nbelieve it to be opposed to them.\n\nBut I must venture to point out that, whatever be the sharpness of\nthis contradiction, it is one from which I could not possibly escape\nby endeavouring to maintain the Established Church of Ireland on the\nprinciples on which it is now maintained. I challenge all my censors\nto impugn me when I affirm that, if the propositions of my work are\nin conflict (as they are) with an assault upon the existence of the\nIrish Establishment, they are at least as much, or even more, hostile\nto the grounds on which it is now attempted to maintain it. At no time\nof my life did I propound the maxim _simpliciter_ that we were to\nmaintain the Establishment. I appeal to the few who may have examined\nmy work otherwise than for the purpose of culling from it passages\nwhich would tell in a quotation. I appeal to the famous article of Lord\nMacaulay,[3] who says with truth--\n\n\"Mr. Gladstone's whole theory rests on this great fundamental\nproposition, that the propagation of religious truth is one of the\nprincipal ends of government, as government. If Mr. Gladstone has not\nproved this proposition, _his system vanishes at once_.\"\n\nThis was entirely just. In the protest I addressed to the distinguished\nReviewer on a particular point, I took no exception to it whatever.\nMy work had used (as far as I believe and remember) none of the\nstock arguments for maintaining the Church of Ireland. I did not say\n\"maintain it, lest you should disturb the settlement of property.\"\nI did not say \"maintain it, lest you should be driven to repeal\nthe Union.\" I did not say \"maintain it, lest you should offend and\nexasperate the Protestants.\" I did not say \"maintain it, because\nthe body known as the Irish Church has an indefeasible title to its\nproperty.\" I did not say \"maintain it for the spiritual benefit\nof a small minority.\" Least of all did I say \"maintain it, but\nestablish religious equality, setting up at the public charge other\nestablishments along with it, or by distributing a sop here and a\nsop there, to coax Roman Catholics and Presbyterians into a sort of\nacquiescence in its being maintained.\" These topics I never had made my\nown. Scarcely ever, in the first efforts of debate, had I referred to\none of them. My trumpet, however shrill and feeble, had at least rung\nout its note clearly. And my ground, right or wrong it matters not for\nthe present purpose, was this: the Church of Ireland must be maintained\nfor the benefit of the whole people of Ireland, and must be maintained\nas the truth, or it cannot be maintained at all.\n\nAccordingly my book contended that the principle of the Grant to\nMaynooth, unless as a simply covenanted obligation,[4] and that of the\nEstablished Church of Ireland, could not stand together. In the House\nof Commons, on the question relating to the Grant, I am reported as\nhaving said in the year 1838,[5] that I objected to the Grant because\nit was fatal to the main principle on which the Established Church was\nfounded.\n\nAnd further. The Liberal Government and party of that day proposed,\nin 1835 and the following years, the famous \"Appropriation Clause.\"\nThe principle of their measure was, that the surplus funds only of\nthe Irish Church were to be applied to popular education, after\nadequate provision had been made for the spiritual wants of the\nProtestants. This principle, that adequate provision is to be made for\nthe spiritual wants of the Protestants, before any other claim on the\nproperty of the Irish Church can be admitted, was the basis of the\nAppropriation Clause; and is, as I understand the matter, the very\nprinciple which is now maintained against the Liberal party of 1868,\nby the (so-called) defenders of the Irish Established Church. But this\nprinciple I denounced in 1836 as strongly as I could now do. I extract\nthe following passage from a report in 'Hansard,' which, as I remember,\nI had myself corrected, of a speech on the Irish Tithe Bill with the\nAppropriation Clause:--[6]\n\n        \"A Church Establishment is maintained either for the\n        sake of its members or its doctrines; for those whom it\n        teaches, or for that which it teaches. On the former\n        ground it is not in equity tenable for a moment.\n\n        \"Why should any preference be given to me over another\n        fellow-subject, or what claim have I personally to have\n        my religion supported, whilst another is disavowed by\n        the State? No claim whatever in respect to myself. I\n        concur entirely with gentlemen opposite, hostile to an\n        Establishment, that no personal privilege ought in such a\n        matter to be allowed.\n\n        \"But if, on the contrary, I believe, as the great bulk of\n        the British Legislature does believe, that the doctrine\n        and system of the Establishment contain and exhibit truth\n        in its purest and most effective form, and if we also\n        believe truth to be good for the people universally,\n        then we have a distinct and immovable ground for the\n        maintenance of an Establishment; but it follows as a\n        matter of course from the principle, that it must be\n        maintained, not on a scale exactly and strictly adjusted\n        to the present number of its own members, but on such\n        a scale that it may also have the means of offering to\n        others the benefits which it habitually administers to\n        them.\n\n        \"Therefore we wish to see the Establishment in Ireland\n        upheld; not for the sake of the Protestants, but of the\n        people at large, that the ministers may be enabled to use\n        the influences of their station, of kindly offices and\n        neighbourhood, of the various occasions which the daily\n        intercourse and habits of social life present; aye, and\n        I do not hesitate to add of persuasion itself, applied\n        with a zeal tempered by knowledge and discretion, in the\n        propagation of that which is true, and which, being true,\n        is good as well for those who as yet have it not, as\n        well for those who have it. It is the proposition of the\n        noble Lord which is really open to the charge of bigotry,\n        intolerance, and arbitrary selection; because, disavowing\n        the maintenance and extension of truth, he continues by\n        way of personal privilege to the Protestants the legal\n        recognition of their Church, which he refuses to the\n        Church of the Roman Catholic.\"\n\nThe negative part of this passage I adopt, except the censure it\nimplies upon Earl Russell and his friends; who, whether their actual\npropositions were defensible or not, had the \"root of the matter\" in\ntheir hearts, and were far ahead of me in their political forethought,\nand in their desire to hold up at least the banner of a generous and a\nhopeful policy towards Ireland.\n\nIn this manner I prove that, while I was bound by the propositions\nof my work, I was not singly but doubly bound. I was bound to\ndefend the Irish Church, as long as it could be defended on the\nground of its truth. But when the day arrived on which that ground\nwas definitively abandoned, on which a policy was to be adopted by\nthe Imperial Parliament such as to destroy this plea for the Irish\nEstablishment, I was equally bound in such case to adopt no other: I\nhad shown that justice would fail to warrant the mere support of the\nChurch of the minority; I was held, therefore, not to construct out\nof rags and tatters, shreds and patches, a new and different case for\nmaintaining it on the ground of favour, or, as it is termed, justice,\nto Protestants; and, if I had done anything of this kind, I should not\nhave escaped the responsibility of inconsistency, but should simply\nhave added a second and (as I think) a less excusable inconsistency to\nthe first.\n\nThe day for the adoption of such a policy as I have described was not\nfar distant.\n\nScarcely had my work issued from the press when I became aware that\nthere was no party, no section of a party, no individual person\nprobably in the House of Commons, who was prepared to act upon it.\nI found myself the last man on the sinking ship. Exclusive support\nto the established religion of the country, with a limited and local\nexception for Scotland under the Treaty of Union with that country,\nhad been up to that time the actual rule of our policy; the instances\nto the contrary being of equivocal construction, and of infinitesimal\namount. But the attempt to give this rule a vitality other than that of\nsufferance was an anachronism in time and in place. When I bid it live,\nit was just about to die. It was really a quickened and not a deadened\nconscience in the country, which insisted on enlarging the circle of\nState support, even while it tended to restrain the range of political\ninterference in religion. The condition of our poor, of our criminals,\nof our military and naval services, and the backward state of popular\neducation, forced on us a group of questions, before the moral pressure\nof which the old rules properly gave way. At and about the same period,\nnew attempts to obtain grants of public money for the building of\nchurches in England and Scotland, I am thankful to say, failed. The\npowerful Government of 1843 also failed to carry a measure of Factory\nEducation, because of the preference it was thought to give to the\nEstablished Church. I believe the very first opinion I ever was called\nupon to give in Cabinet was an opinion in favour of the withdrawal of\nthat measure.\n\nIn this state of facts and feelings, notwithstanding the strength of\nanti-Roman opinion, it was impossible that Ireland should not assert\nher share, and that a large one, to consideration in these critical\nmatters. The forces, which were now at work, brought speedily to the\nfront and to the top that question of Maynooth College, which I had\nalways (rightly or wrongly) treated as a testing question for the\nfoundations of the Irish Established Church; as, in point of principle,\nthe _Articulus stantis aut cadentis Ecclesi\u00e6_.\n\nIn the course of the year 1844, when I was a member of the Cabinet of\nSir Robert Peel, he made known to me his opinion that it was desirable\nto remodel and to increase the Grant to Maynooth. I was the youngest\nmember of that Government, entirely bound up with it in policy, and\nwarmly attached, by respect and even affection, to its head and to\nsome of its leading members. Of association with what was termed\nultra-Toryism in general politics I had never dreamed. I well knew\nthat the words of Sir R. Peel were not merely tentative, but that, as\nit was right they should, they indicated a fixed intention. The choice\nbefore me, therefore, was, to support his measure, or to retire from\nhis Government into a position of complete isolation, and what was\nmore than this, subject to a grave and general imputation of political\neccentricity. My retirement, I knew, could have no other warrant than\nthis: that it would be a tribute to those laws which, as I have urged,\nmust be upheld for the restraint of changes of opinion and conduct in\npublic men. For I never entertained the idea of opposing the measure\nof Sir Robert Peel. I can scarcely be guilty of a breach of confidence\nwhen I mention that Lord Derby, to whom I had already been indebted\nfor much personal kindness, was one of those colleagues who sought to\ndissuade me from resigning my office. He urged upon me that such an\nact must be followed by resistance to the measure of the Government,\nand that I should run the risk of being mixed with a fierce religious\nagitation. I replied that I must adhere to my purpose of retirement,\nbut that I did not perceive the necessity of its being followed by\nresistance to the proposal. Overtures were, not unnaturally, made to\nme by some of those who resisted it; but they were at once declined. My\nwhole purpose was to place myself in a position in which I should be\nfree to consider my course without being liable to any just suspicion\non the ground of personal interest. It is not profane if I say \"with\na great price obtained I this freedom.\" The political association in\nwhich I stood was to me at the time the alpha and omega of public life.\nThe Government of Sir Robert Peel was believed to be of immovable\nstrength. My place, as President of the Board of Trade, was at the very\nkernel of its most interesting operations; for it was in progress from\nyear to year, with continually waxing courage, towards the emancipation\nof industry, and therein towards the accomplishment of another great\nand blessed work of public justice. Giving up what I highly prized,\naware that\n\n                              \"mal\u00e8 sarta\n              Gratia nequicquam coit, et rescinditur,\"[7]\n\nI felt myself open to the charge of being opinionated, and wanting\nin deference to really great authorities; and I could not but know I\nshould be regarded as fastidious and fanciful, fitter for a dreamer, or\npossibly a schoolman, than for the active purposes of public life in\na busy and moving age. In effect so it was. In the month of January,\n1845, if not sooner, the resolution of the Cabinet was taken; and\nI resigned. The public judgment, as might have been expected, did\nnot favour the act. I remember that the 'Daily News,' then as now a\njournal greatly distinguished for an almost uniform impartiality, as\nwell as for breadth of view and high discernment, remarked at the\ntime or afterwards upon the case, as a rare one, in which a public man\nhad injured himself with the public by an act which must in fairness\nbe taken to be an act of self-denial. I hope that reference to this\ncriticism will not be considered boastful. It can hardly be so; for an\ninfirm judgment, exhibited in a practical indiscretion, is after all\nthe theme of these pages. I do not claim acquittal upon any one of the\ncounts of indictment which I have admitted may be brought against the\nconduct I pursued. One point only I plead, and plead with confidence.\nIt proved that I was sensible of the gravity of any great change in\npolitical conduct or opinion, and desirous beyond all things of giving\nto the country such guarantees as I could give of my integrity, even at\nthe expense of my judgment and fitness for affairs. If any man doubts\nthis, I ask him to ask himself, what demand political honour could have\nmade with which I failed to comply?\n\nIn the ensuing debate on the Address (February 4, 1845), Lord John\nRussell, in terms of courtesy and kindness which I had little deserved\nfrom him, called for an explanation of the cause of my retirement.\nIn a statement which I corrected for 'Hansard's Debates,' I replied\nthat it had reference to the intentions of the Government with respect\nto Maynooth; that those intentions pointed to a measure \"at variance\nwith the system which I had maintained,\" \"in a form the most detailed\nand deliberate,\" \"in a published treatise:\" that although I had never\nset forth any theory of political affairs as \"under all circumstances\ninflexible and immutable,\" yet I thought those who had borne such\nsolemn testimony to a particular view of a great constitutional\nquestion, \"ought not to be parties responsible for proposals which\ninvolved a material departure from it.\" And the purpose of my\nretirement was to \"place myself, so far as in me lay, in a position to\nform not only an honest, but likewise an independent and an unsuspected\njudgment,\" on the plan likely to be submitted by the Government. I also\nspoke as follows, in more forms than one:\n\n        \"I wish again and most distinctly to state, that I am\n        not prepared to take part in any religious warfare\n        against that measure, such as I believe it may be; or\n        to draw a distinction between the Roman Catholics and\n        other denominations of Christians, with reference to the\n        religious opinions which each of them respectively may\n        hold.\"\n\nNow I respectfully submit that by this act my freedom was established;\nand that it has never since, during a period of nearly five-and-twenty\nyears, been compromised.\n\nSome may say that it is perfectly consistent to have endowed Maynooth\nanew, and yet to uphold on principle, as a part of the Constitution,\nthe Established Church of Ireland. It may be consistent, for them; it\nwas not consistent, as I have distinctly shown, for me. The moment\nthat I admitted the validity of a claim by the Church of Rome for the\ngift, by the free act of the Imperial Parliament, of new funds for the\neducation of its clergy, the true basis of the Established Church of\nIreland for me was cut away. The one had always been treated by me as\nexclusive of the other. It is not now the question whether this way of\nlooking at the question was a correct one. There are great authorities\nagainst it; while it seems at the same time to have some considerable\nhold on what may be termed the moral sense of portions, perhaps large\nportions, of the people. The present question is one of fact. It is\nenough for the present purpose, that such was my view. From that day\nforward, I have never to my knowledge said one word, in public or in\nprivate, which could pledge me on principle to the maintenance of the\nIrish Church. Nay, in a speech, delivered on the second reading of the\nMaynooth College Bill, I took occasion distinctly to convey, that the\napplication of religious considerations to ecclesiastical questions in\nIreland would be entirely altered by the passing of the measure:--\n\n        \"The boon to which I for one have thus agreed, is a very\n        great boon. I think it important, most of all important\n        with regard to the principles it involves. I am very\n        far, indeed, from saying that it virtually decides upon\n        the payment of the Roman Catholic priests of Ireland by\n        the State: but I do not deny that it disposes of the\n        religious objections to that measure. I mean that we, who\n        assent to this Bill, shall in my judgment no longer be\n        in a condition to plead religious objections to such a\n        project.\"[8]\n\nTrue, I did not say that I was thenceforward prepared at any moment\nto vote for the removal of the Established Church in Ireland. And\nthis for the best of all reasons: it would not have been true. It is\none thing to lift the anchor; it is another to spread the sails. It\nmay be a duty to be in readiness for departure, when departure itself\nwould be an offence against public prudence and public principle. But\nI do not go so far even as this. On the contrary, I was willing and\ndesirous[9] that it should be permitted to continue. If its ground in\nlogic was gone, yet it might have, in fact, like much besides, its day\nof grace. I do not now say that I leapt at once to the conclusion that\nthe Established Church of Ireland must at any definite period \"cease\nto exist as an Establishment.\" She had my sincere good will; I was not\nsorry, I was glad, that while Ireland seemed content to have it so,\na longer time should be granted her to unfold her religious energies\nthrough the medium of an active and pious clergy, which until this our\nday she had never possessed. My mind recoiled then, as it recoils now,\nfrom the idea of worrying the Irish Church to death. I desired that it\nshould remain even as it was, until the way should be opened, and the\nmeans at hand, for bringing about some better state of things.\n\nMoreover, it was a duty, from my point of view, completely to exhaust\nevery chance on behalf of the Irish Church. I have not been disposed,\nat any time of life, gratuitously to undertake agitation of the most\ndifficult, and at times apparently the most hopeless questions. At\nthe period of the Appropriation Clause, I represented to myself, and\nI believe to others, that the true power of the Church as a religious\nengine had never up to that period been fairly tried. In name a\nreligious institution, her influences, her benefices, her sees, were\ncommonly employed for purposes, which we must condemn as secular, even\nif they had not been utterly _anti-national_. Only within a few, a very\nfew years, had her clergy even begun to bestir themselves; and they had\nforthwith found that, from the unsettled state of the law of tithe,\nthey were in the midst of an agitation, both menacing to public order,\nand even perilous to life. I was desirous to see what, after person and\nproperty should have been rendered secure, and a peaceful atmosphere\nrestored, a generation of pious and zealous men could accomplish in\ntheir actual position. I am still of the opinion that thirty-five years\nago the religion of the Irish Church had not--to her and to our shame\nbe it spoken--had fair play. From the days of Elizabeth downwards, with\nthe rarest exceptions, the worldly element had entirely outweighed the\nreligious one (whatever the intention may have been) in the actual\nworking of the ecclesiastical institutions of Ireland. Mr. Burke has\nimmortalised the burning shame and the hideous scandals of those penal\nlaws which, perhaps for the first time in the history of Christendom if\nnot of man, aimed at persecuting men out of one religion, but not at\npersecuting them into another. I will not be so rash as to enter on the\nfield--\n\n  \"Per quem magnus equos Aurunc\u00e6 flexit alumnus.\"\n\nBut the time of awakening had come. The Irish Church had grown\nconscious that she had a Gospel to declare. Even with my present\nopinions I might feel a scruple as to the measures now proposed, but\nfor the resistless and accumulated proof of impotence afforded by the\nexperience of my life-time, and due, I believe, to a radically false\nposition. For the Irish Church has, since the tithe war of 1830-2 came\nto an end, had not only fair play--that is such fair play as in Ireland\nthe Establishment allows to the Church--but fair play and something\nmore. She has enjoyed an opportunity, extending over a generation of\nmen, with circumstances of favour such as can hardly be expected to\nrecur. What has been her case? She has had ample endowments; perfect\nsecurity; an almost unbroken freedom from the internal controversies\nwhich have chastened (though, in chastening, I believe improved)\nthe Church of England. The knowledge of the Irish language has been\nextensively-attained by her clergy.[10] She has had all the moral\nsupport that could be given her by the people of this country; for it\nwas the people, and not a mere party, who, in 1835-8, repudiated and\nrepelled the Appropriation Clause. Her rival, the Church of Rome, has\nseen its people borne down to the ground by famine; and then thinned\nfrom year to year, in hundreds of thousands, by the resistless force\nof emigration. And, last and most of all, in the midst of that awful\nvisitation of 1847-8, her Protestant Clergy came to the Roman Catholic\npeople clad in the garb of angels of light; for, besides their own\nbounty (most liberal, I believe, in proportion to their means), they\nbecame the grand almoners of the British nation. When, after all this,\nwe arrive at a new census of religion in 1861, we find that only the\nfaintest impression has been made upon the relative numbers of the two\nbodies; an impression much slighter, I apprehend, than would have been\ndue to the comparative immunity of the Established Church from the\ndrain of emigration; and, if so, representing in reality, not a gain,\nbut a virtual loss of some part of the narrow ground which before was\noccupied by the favoured religion of the State.\n\nLike others, I have watched with interest the results of those\nmissionary operations in the West of Ireland which have, perhaps, been\nconstrued as of a greater ulterior significance than really belongs\nto them. They were, I understand, due not so much to the Established\nChurch, as to religious bodies in this country, which expend large\nfunds in Ireland for the purpose of making converts: an operation in\nwhich the Presbyterians and Protestant Dissenters lend their aid.\nLet them not be undervalued. But I, for one, recollect that this\nis not the first time when local and occasional inroads have been\nsuccessfully effected by Protestants upon the serried phalanx of the\nRoman Church in Ireland, and have been mistaken for signs of permanent\nor a general conquest. More than forty years ago, Bishop Blomfield--no\nmean authority--prophesied or announced, in the House of Lords, that\na second Reformation had then begun. And there had indeed taken\nplace in Ireland at that time one, if not more than one, instance of\nconversions on a large scale to the Established Church, such as was\nwell calculated to excite sanguine anticipations, though they were\ndispelled by subsequent experience. I think we ought now to perceive\nthat the annexation of the warrant of civil authority to the religious\nembassy of the Irish Church, discredits in lieu of recommending it in\nthe view of the Irish people. I do not mean that we are to put down the\nEstablishment for the sake of a more effective propagandism. We must\nnot for a moment forget that civil justice, an adaptation of the state\nof things in Ireland to the essential principles of political right, is\nthat one broad and more than sufficient justification of the measure,\nin which all its advocates agree. But, over and above this, they may\nalso agree in reflecting with satisfaction that the time is about to\ncome when in Ireland, in lieu of a system which insults the religion\nof the majority and makes that of the minority powerless, creeds will\ncompete upon the level, and will thrive according to their merits. Nor\nwill they be offended with one another when, in the anticipation of\nsuch a state of things, each man who has faith in freedom, faith in\njustice, faith in truth, anticipates a harvest of benefit for his own.\n\nThe emancipation thus effected from the net in which I had been bound\nwas soon after tested. In 1846, it was suggested to me that I should\noppose a member of the newly-formed Government of Lord John Russell.\nIn my reply, declining the proposal, I wrote thus: \"As to the Irish\nChurch, I am not able to go to war with them on the ground that\nthey will not pledge themselves to the maintenance of the existing\nappropriation of Church property in Ireland.\" This, however, was a\nprivate proceeding. But, early in 1847, Mr. Estcourt announced his\nresignation of the seat he had held, amidst universal respect, for\nthe University of Oxford. The partiality of friends proposed me as a\ncandidate. The representation of that University was, I think, stated\nby Mr. Canning to be to him the most coveted prize of political life.\nI am not ashamed to own that I desired it with an almost passionate\nfondness. For besides all the associations it maintained and revived,\nit was in those days an honour not only given without solicitation,\nbut, when once given, not withdrawn.[11] The contest was conducted with\nmuch activity, and some heat. I was, naturally enough, challenged as\nto my opinions on the Established Church of Ireland. My friend Mr.\nColeridge, then young, but already distinguished, was one of my most\nactive and able supporters. He has borne spontaneous testimony, within\nthe last few weeks, to the manner in which the challenge was met:--\n\n        \"Gentlemen, I must be permitted--because an attack has\n        been made upon Mr. Gladstone, and it has been suggested\n        that his conversion to his present principles is\n        recent--to mention what is within my own knowledge and\n        experience with regard to him. In 1847, when I was just\n        leaving Oxford, I had the great honour of being secretary\n        to his first election committee for that university, and\n        I well recollect how, upon that occasion, some older\n        and more moderate supporters were extremely anxious to\n        draw from him some pledge that he should stand by the\n        Irish Church. He distinctly refused to pledge himself to\n        anything of the kind.\"[12]\n\nThe next Parliamentary occasion, after the Maynooth Grant, which\nbrought prominently into view the ecclesiastical arrangements of\nIreland, was that of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill in 1851. I felt\nbound, as one of a very small minority, but in cordial agreement with\nthe chief surviving associates of Sir Robert Peel, to offer all the\nopposition in my power, not only to the clauses by which the party then\ncalled Protectionist, and now Tory, Conservative, or Constitutionalist,\nendeavoured to sharpen the sting of the measure, but to the substance\nof the measure itself. I may be permitted to observe, that for the\nrepresentative of the University of Oxford thus to set himself against\nthe great bulk of the Liberal as well as the Conservative party,\nwhatever else it may have been, was not a servile or a self-seeking\ncourse. But this is irrelevant. It is more to the present purpose\nto observe that, in resisting this measure, I did not attempt to\nmitigate the offence by any profession of adhesion in principle to\nthe maintenance of the Established Church of Ireland; but I spoke as\nfollows:--\n\n        \"We cannot change the profound and resistless tendencies\n        of the age towards religious liberty. It is our business\n        to guide and control their application. Do this you may.\n        But to endeavour to turn them backwards is the sport of\n        children, done by the hands of men; and every effort\n        you may make in that direction will recoil upon you in\n        disaster and disgrace.\"[13]\n\nThe years flowed on. From 1846 forwards, the controversy of Free Trade\nwas, as a rule, the commanding and absorbing controversy, the pole of\npolitical affairs. But from time to time motions were made in relation\nto the Established Church of Ireland. That question remained as one\nasleep, but whose sleep is haunted with uneasy dreams. These motions\nwere, as far as I remember them, uniformly of a narrow and partial\ncharacter. They aimed at what is called getting in the thin end of\nthe wedge. All honour, however, to each one of those who made them.\nThe mover of any such proposal was _vox clamantis in deserto_. The\npeople of England had, in 1835-8, settled the matter for the time.\nThe reproaches now made against the older leaders and the body of the\nLiberal party for not having seriously entered the struggle, appear\nto me to be not only unjust but even preposterous. The Legislature\nhad other great subjects to deal with, besides the Irish Church. Four\nyears of deadly conflict on such a matter might well be followed by\nfive times four of repose. But in the mean time individuals, by their\npartial and occasional efforts, bore witness to a principle broader\nthan any which they formally announced. That principle--the application\nof a true religious equality to Ireland--was biding its time.\n\nNo one, in my opinion, was bound to assert, by speech or vote, any\ndecisive opinion upon so great and formidable a question until he\nshould think, upon a careful survey of the ground and the time, of the\nassisting and opposing forces, that the season for action had come. The\nmotions actually made were commonly motions for inquiry, or motions\naimed generally at a change. I did not enter into the debates. When I\nvoted, I voted against them; and against such motions, if they were\nmade, I should vote again.\n\nI now arrive at the Government of 1859-65. He who has slept long is\nlikely soon to wake. After the Free Trade struggles of 1860 and 1861\nwere over, so it was, I thought, with the question of the Irish Church.\nThere was a lull in political affairs. They hung, in a great degree,\nupon a single life--the remarkable life of Lord Palmerston. It was\nsurely right to think a little of the future. The calm was certain to\nbe succeeded by a breeze, if not a gale. It was too plain to me that\nthe inner disposition of Ireland, relatively to this country, was\nnot improving; and that, in the course of years, more or fewer, the\nquestion of the Irish Church was certain to revive, and, if it should\nrevive, probably to be carried to a final issue. My first thought,\nunder these circumstances, was about my constituents. Anxiously\noccupied in other matters, I did not give my nights and days to the\nquestion of the Irish Church. Yet the question continually flitted, as\nit were, before me; and I felt that, before that question arose in a\npractical shape, my relation to the University should be considered,\nand its Convocation distinctly apprised that at the proper time it\nwould be my duty to support very extensive changes in the Irish Church.\nMy valued friend, Sir R. Palmer, has done me the favour, of his own\nmotion, to state in public that I then apprised him of my state of\nmind:--\n\n        \"There had been people who had said, 'You would never\n        have heard anything about the Irish Church question from\n        Mr. Gladstone if the Tories had not been in power, and\n        he had not wanted to get their place.' (Hear, hear.)\n        To his certain knowledge that was not true. He could\n        mention what had taken place between Mr. Gladstone and\n        himself, and he did so the rather because it did justice\n        to him, and would show them that his own mind had been\n        particularly addressed to that subject, to which he had\n        paid some degree of attention some years before the\n        present time. In the year 1863, at a time when no one was\n        bringing forward this question, or seemed very likely to\n        do so, Mr. Gladstone had told him privately that he had\n        made up his mind on the subject, and that he should not\n        be able to keep himself from giving public expression to\n        his feelings. How far or near that might be practicable,\n        he could not foresee; but, under the circumstances, he\n        wanted his friends connected with the University of\n        Oxford to consider whether or not they would desire\n        for that reason a change in the representation of the\n        University.\"[14] #/\n\nPartly because I felt that this question might come to the front, and\npartly because I saw a manifest determination in a portion of the\nAcademical constituency to press my friends with incessant contests, of\nwhich I was unwilling to be the hero, I was not indisposed to retire\nwithout compulsion from the seat, if it could have been done without\nobvious detriment to the principles on which I had been returned. This\nwas judged to be uncertain. Consequently, I remained. But in 1865, on\nthe motion of Mr. Dillwyn, I made a speech, in which I declared that\npresent action was impossible, that at any period immense difficulties\nwould have to be encountered, but that this was \"the question of the\nfuture.\" I stated strongly, though summarily, some of the arguments\nagainst the Church as it stood. I entirely abstained from advising or\nglancing at the subject of mere reform, and I did not use one word from\nwhich it could be inferred that I desired it to continue in its place\nas the National or Established Church of the country.\n\nMy speech was immediately denounced by Mr. (now Chief Justice)\nWhiteside, as one intended to be fatal to the Established Church of\nIreland when an opportunity should arise;[15] and I am told that my\nopponents in the University circulated my speech among their portion of\nthe constituency (as I think they were quite justified in doing) to my\nprejudice. My friends, however, stood by me, and resolved to contend\nfor the seat. An application was made to me by a distinguished scholar,\ndivine, and teacher, the Warden of Trinity College, Glenalmond, to\ngive certain explanations for the appeasing of doubts. I did so in the\nfollowing letter:--\n\n        \"11, Carlton House Terrace, S.W., June 8, 1865.\n\n        \"DEAR DR. HANNAH,\n\n        \"It would be very difficult for me to subscribe to\n        _any_ interpretation of my speech on the Irish Church\n        like that of your correspondent, which contains so\n        many conditions and bases of a plan for dealing with\n        a question apparently remote, and at the same time\n        full of difficulties on every side. My reasons are, I\n        think, plain. First, because the question is remote,\n        and apparently out of all bearing on the practical\n        politics of the day, I think it would be for me worse\n        than superfluous to determine upon any scheme or basis\n        of a scheme with respect to it. Secondly, because it\n        is difficult, even if I anticipated any likelihood of\n        being called upon to deal with it, I should think it\n        right to make no decision beforehand on the mode of\n        dealing with the difficulties. But the first reason is\n        that which chiefly weighs. As far as I know, my speech\n        signifies pretty clearly the broad distinction which I\n        take between the abstract and the practical views of the\n        subject. And I think I have stated strongly my sense of\n        the responsibility attaching to the opening of such a\n        question, except in a state of things which gave promise\n        of satisfactorily closing it. For this reason it is that\n        I have been so silent about the matter, and may probably\n        be so again; but I could not as a Minister, and as\n        member for Oxford, allow it to be debated an indefinite\n        number of times and remain silent. One thing, however,\n        I may add, because I think it a clear landmark. In any\n        measure dealing with the Irish Church, I think (though I\n        scarcely _expect_ ever to be called on to share in such\n        a measure) the Act of Union must be recognised and must\n        have important consequences, especially with reference to\n        the position of the hierarchy.\n\n        \"I am much obliged to you for writing, and I hope you\n        will see and approve my reasons for not wishing to carry\n        my _own mind_ further into a question lying at a distance\n        I cannot measure.\n\n          \"Yours sincerely,\n            (Signed) \"W. E. GLADSTONE.\n\n        \"Rev. the WARDEN, Trin. Coll., Perth.\"\n\nThe letter has been the object of much criticism upon these three\ngrounds. First, it contained a statement that the Act of Union ought to\nentail important consequences in the formation of any measure relating\nto the Irish Church. Secondly, that the question was hardly within\nthe domain of practical politics. Thirdly, that I felt very uncertain\nwhether it would be dealt with in my time. The explanation of the first\nis as follows:--In contemplating the subject of the Irish Church, I did\nnot see how to give full effect to the principle of religious equality\nwithout touching the composition of the House of Lords. In this strait,\nmy personal opinion was that it would be best to retain (though in an\naltered form) the Episcopal element from Ireland in the House of Lords,\nlest its withdrawal should lead to other changes, of a kind to weaken\nthe constitution of that important branch of the legislature; and thus\nfar I was disposed to abridge the application of religious equality to\nIreland. I had not yet examined the question so closely as to perceive\nthat this mode of proceeding was wholly impracticable, and that the\ninconvenience of removing the Irish Bishops must be faced. And for my\npart I have not been so happy, at any time of my life, as to be able\nsufficiently to adjust the proper conditions of handling any difficult\nquestion, until the question itself was at the door. This retention of\nthe Bishops in the House of Peers was the important consequence that I\nthought the Act of Union would draw.\n\nAmong those errors of the day which may be called singular as vulgar\nerrors, is that which supposes the fifth Article of the Act of Union\nwith Ireland to refer to the endowments of the Church. Its terms touch\nexclusively her \"doctrine, worship, discipline, and government.\" There\nis no violation of this section of the Act of Union in withdrawing her\nendowments, were she stripped of every shilling. But it may be said\nthat her \"government,\" as distinguished from her discipline, perhaps\ninvolves the position of her exclusive relation to the State. So I\nthought; and accordingly thus I wrote to Dr. Hannah.\n\nThe second proposition of the letter was not only in harmony with my\nspeech, it was simply the condensation of the speech into a brief form\nof words. For, agreeing with Mr. Dillwyn as to the merits of the case,\nI held, as I have ever held, that it is not the duty of a Minister to\nbe forward in inscribing on the Journals of Parliament his own abstract\nviews; or to disturb the existence of a great institution like the\nChurch of Ireland, until he conceives the time to be come when he can\nprobably give effect to his opinions. Because the question was not\nwithin the range of practical politics, agreeing with his sentiment, I\nvoted against his motion.\n\nBut, forsooth, it is a matter of wonder that I should have felt\ndoubtful whether the Irish Church would be dealt with in my time. Now,\nI do not complain of this. It is an example of what is continually\nhappening in human affairs, of the mythical handling of facts, of the\nreflection of the ideas, feelings, and circumstances of one period upon\nthe events of another, and thus dressing the past in the garb of the\npresent. I abide by this, and by every word of the letter. The question\nof the Irish Church was in my view, in the year 1865, what, be it\nremembered, the question of Parliamentary Reform seemed to be in the\nfirst moiety of the year 1830--namely, a remote question. Had any man\nsaid to me, \"How soon will it come on?\" I should have replied, \"Heaven\nknows; perhaps it will be five years, perhaps it will be ten.\" My duty\nwas to let my constituents know the state of my mind on a matter so\nimportant, because the wind was gradually veering to that quarter,\neven though I might not believe, and did not believe it to be the\nmost probable event, that it would reach the point for action during\nthe life of the Parliament just then about to be elected. But then I\nreferred to my own political lifetime. On that subject I will only say\nthat a man who, in 1865, completed his thirty-third year of a laborious\ncareer; who had already followed to the grave the remains of almost all\nthe friends abreast of whom he had started from the University in the\ncareer of public life; and who had observed that, excepting two recent\ncases, it was hard to find in our whole history a single man who had\nbeen permitted to reach the fortieth year of a course of labour similar\nto his own within the walls of the House of Commons; such a man might\nsurely be excused if he did not venture to reckon for himself on an\nexemption from the lot of greater and better men, and if he formed a\nless sanguine estimate of the fraction of space yet remaining to him,\nthan seems to have been the case with his critics.\n\nThe reasons that, in my judgment, prove the time now to have arrived\nfor dealing decisively with the question of the Irish Church\nEstablishment, must be treated elsewhere than in these pages.\n\nSo far as Ireland, and the immediate controversy, and my personal\nvindication are concerned, I have done. But there is matter of\nwider interest, which connects itself with the subject. The change\nof conduct, the shifting of the mind of an individual, shrink into\ninsignificance by the side of the question, What has been, since\n1838, the direction of the public sentiment, the course of law and\nadministration, the general march of affairs?\n\nI have described the erroneous impressions as to the actual and\nprospective state of things, under which was urged the practical\napplication of that system of thought embodied in my work of 1838.\nIt may be said my error was a gross or even an absurd one. On that\nquestion I need not enter. But I will endeavour to bring into view some\ncircumstances relating to the time, which may help to account for it.\nAnd here I feel that I pass beyond the narrower and more personal scope\nof these pages, if I attempt to recall some of the changes that have\ntaken place during the last thirty or five-and-thirty years, in matters\nwhich bear upon the religious character and relations of the State.\n\nAt that time, Jews, and others not adopting the Christian name,\nwere excluded from civil office; and though Roman Catholics and\nNonconformists had effected an entrance into Parliament, there still\nremained an oath for the former, and a declaration for the latter,\nwhich, if they did not practically limit freedom, yet denoted, like the\nmark of chains on the limbs of an emancipated slave, that there had\nbeen a time when it did not exist. The Establishment of Scotland was\nstill entire, and animated with the strength principally of the eminent\nmen who afterwards led the Free Church Secession. The attack on the\nIrish Church, pushed in 1835 with earnestness and vigour by the Liberal\nparty, had speedily proved to be hopeless. The State continued to make\nto other persuasions certain grants, little more than compassionate,\nand handed down from other times; but, even in the case of the classes\nespecially in its charge, such as soldiers and sailors, or such again\nas paupers and criminals, it rarely permitted, and still more rarely\nprovided for them, the means of religious worship according to their\nown religious convictions. In the great province of popular education\nin England, nothing was granted except to schools of the Church, or to\nschools in which, while the Bible was read, no religion other than that\nof the Church was taught; and he would have been deemed something more\nthan a daring prophet, who should have foretold that in a few years the\nutmost ambition of the lay champions, and of the spiritual heads of the\nChurch, would be to obtain the maintenance of a denominational system\nin popular education, under which all religions alike should receive\nthe indirect, yet not unsubstantial, countenance of the State.\n\nBut the most important of all the changes which have taken place within\nthe interval, has been the change in the condition of the Church of\nEngland itself.\n\nEven for those old enough to have an adequate recollection of the\nfacts, it requires no inconsiderable mental effort to travel backwards\nover the distractions, controversies, perils, and calamities of the\nlast thirty years, to the period immediately before those years; and\nto realise not only the state of facts, but especially the promises\nand prospects which it presented. I am well aware that any description\nof it which may now be attempted will appear to bear more or less\nthe colour of romance; but, without taking it into view, no one can\neither measure the ground over which we have travelled, or perceive how\nstrong was then the temptation to form an over-sanguine estimate of the\nprobable progress of the Church in her warfare with sin and ignorance,\nand even in persuading seceders of all kinds to re-enter her fold.\n\nThat time was a time such as comes, after sickness, to a man in the\nflower of life, with an unimpaired and buoyant constitution; the time\nin which, though health is as yet incomplete, the sense and the joy of\nhealth are keener, as the fresh and living current first flows in, than\nare conveyed by its even and undisturbed possession.\n\nThe Church of England had been passing through a long period of deep\nand chronic religious lethargy. For many years, perhaps for some\ngenerations, Christendom might have been challenged to show, either\nthen or from any former age, a clergy (with exceptions) so secular and\nlax, or congregations so cold, irreverent, and indevout. The process\nof awakening had, indeed, begun many years before; but a very long\ntime is required to stir up effectually a torpid body, whose dimensions\noverspread a great country. Active piety and zeal among the clergy,\nand yet more among the laity, had been in a great degree confined\nwithin the narrow limits of a party, which, however meritorious in\nits work, presented in the main phenomena of transition, and laid but\nlittle hold on the higher intellect and cultivation of the country.\nOur churches and our worship bore in general too conclusive testimony\nto a frozen indifference. No effort had been made either to overtake\nthe religious destitution of the multitudes at home, or to follow the\nnumerous children of the Church, migrating into distant lands, with\nany due provision for their spiritual wants. The richer benefices were\nvery commonly regarded as a suitable provision for such members of the\nhigher families as were least fit to push their way in any profession\nrequiring thought or labour. The abuses of plurality and non-residence\nwere at a height, which, if not proved by statistical returns, it would\nnow be scarcely possible to believe. In the greatest public school of\nthe country (and I presume it may be taken as a sample of the rest) the\nactual teaching of Christianity was all but dead, though happily none\nof its forms had been surrendered. It is a retrospect full of gloom;\nand with all our Romanising, and all our Rationalising, what man of\nsense would wish to go back upon those dreary times:\n\n              \"Domos Ditis vacuas, et inania regna\"?[16]\n\nBut between 1831 and 1840, the transformation, which had previously\nbegun, made a progress altogether marvellous. Much was due, without\ndoubt, to the earnest labour of individuals. Such men as Bishop\nBlomfield on the Bench, and Dr. Hook in the parish (and I name them\nonly as illustrious examples), who had long been toiling with a\npatient but a dauntless energy, began as it were to get the upper\nhand. But causes of deep and general operation were also widely at\nwork. As the French Revolution had done much to renovate Christian\nbelief on the Continent, so the Church of England was less violently,\nbut pretty sharply, roused by the political events which arrived in a\nrattling succession. In 1828, the repeal of the Test Act. In 1829, the\nemancipation of the Roman Catholics. In 1831-2, the agony and triumph\nof Reform. In 1833, the Church Temporalities Act for Ireland. There was\nnow a general uprising of religious energy in the Church throughout the\nland. It saved the Church. Her condition before 1830 could not possibly\nhave borne the scrutinising eye, which for thirty years past has been\nturned upon our institutions. Her rank corruptions must have called\ndown the avenging arm. But it was arrested just in time.\n\nIt would be difficult to give a just and full idea of the beneficial\nchanges which were either accomplished or begun during this notable\ndecade of years. They embraced alike formal, official movements, of\na nature to strike the general eye, and those local improvements in\ndetail, which singly are known only in each neighbourhood, but which\nunitedly transform the face of a country. Laws were passed to repress\ngross abuses, and the altering spirit of the clergy seconded and even\noutstripped the laws. The outward face of divine worship began to be\nrenovated, and the shameful condition of the sacred fabrics was rapidly\namended, with such a tide of public approval as overflowed all the\nbarriers of party and of sect, and speedily found its manifestations\neven in the seceding communions. There is no reason to doubt that at\nthat time at least, and before such changes had become too decidedly\nthe fashion, the outward embellishment of churches, and the greater\ndecency and order of services, answered to, and sprang from, a call\nwithin, and proved a less unworthy conception of the sublime idea of\nChristian worship. The missionary arm of the Church began to exhibit a\nvigour wholly unknown to former years. Noble efforts were made, under\nthe auspices of the chief bishops of the Church, to provide for the\nunsatisfied spiritual wants of the metropolis. The great scheme of the\nColonial Episcopate was founded; and, in its outset, led to such a\ndevelopment of apostolic zeal and self-denial as could not but assist,\nby a powerful reaction, the domestic progress. The tone of public\nschools (on one of which Arnold was now spending his noble energies)\nand of universities, was steadily yet rapidly raised. The greatest\nchange of all was within the body of the clergy.[17] A devoted piety\nand an unworldly life, which had been the rare exceptions, became\nvisibly from year to year more and more the rule. The spectacle, as\na whole, was like what we are told of a Russian spring: when, after\nlong months of rigid cold, almost in a day the snow dissolves, the ice\nbreaks up and is borne away, and the whole earth is covered with a rush\nof verdure. These were bright and happy days for the Church of England.\nShe seemed, or seemed to seem, as a Church recalling the descriptions\nof Holy Writ; to be \"beautiful as the sun which goeth forth in his\nmight,\"[18] \"and terrible as an army with banners.\"[19]\n\nOf this great renovating movement, a large part centred in Oxford. At\nthe time, indeed, when I resided there, from 1828 to 1831, no sign of\nit had yet appeared. A steady, clear, but dry Anglican orthodoxy bore\nsway, and frowned, this way or that, on the first indication of any\ntendency to diverge from the beaten path. Dr. Pusey was, at that time,\nrevered, indeed, for his piety and charity, no less than admired for\nhis learning and talents, but suspected (I believe) of sympathy with\nthe German theology, in which he was known to be profoundly versed.\nDr. Newman was thought to have about him the flavour of what, he has\nnow told the world, were the opinions he had derived in youth from\nthe works of Thomas Scott. Mr. Keble, the \"sweet singer of Israel,\"\nand a true saint, if this generation has seen one, did not reside in\nOxford.[20] The chief Chair of Theology had been occupied by Bishop\nLloyd, the old tutor and the attached and intimate friend of Peel: a\nman of powerful talents, and of a character both winning and decided,\nwho, had his life been spared, might have acted powerfully for good\non the fortunes of the Church of England, by guiding the energetic\ninfluences which his teaching had done much to form. But he had been\nhurried away in 1829 by an early death: and Dr. Whately, who was also,\nin his own way, a known power in the University, was in 1830 induced to\naccept the Archbishopric of Dublin. There was nothing at that time in\nthe theology, or in the religious life, of the University to indicate\nwhat was to come. But when, shortly afterwards, the great heart of\nEngland began to beat with the quickened pulsations of a more energetic\nreligious life, it was in Oxford that the stroke was most distinct\nand loud. An extraordinary change appeared to pass upon the spirit of\nthe place. I believe it would be a moderate estimate to say that much\nbeyond one half of the very flower of its youth chose the profession\nof Holy Orders, while an impression scarcely less deep seemed to be\nstamped upon a large portion of its lay pupils. I doubt whether at\nany period of its existence, either since the Reformation, or perhaps\nbefore it, the Church of England had reaped from either University, in\nso short a time, so rich a harvest. At Cambridge a similar lifting up\nof heart and mind seems to have been going on; and numbers of persons\nof my own generation, who at their public schools had been careless\nand thoughtless like the rest, appeared in their early manhood as\nsoldiers of Christ, and ministers to the wants of His people, worthy,\nI believe, as far as man can be worthy, through their zeal, devotion,\npowers of mind, and attainments, of their high vocation. It was not\nthen foreseen what storms were about to rise. Not only in Oxford, but\nin England, during the years to which I refer, party spirit within\nthe Church was reduced to a low ebb. Indiscretions there might be,\nbut authority did not take alarm: it smiled rather, on the contrary,\non what was thought to be in the main a recurrence both to first\nprinciples and to forgotten obligations. Purity, unity, and energy\nseemed, as three fair sisters hand in hand, to advance together. Such a\nstate of things was eminently suited to act on impressible and sanguine\nminds. I, for one, formed a completely false estimate of what was about\nto happen; and believed that the Church of England, through the medium\nof a regenerated clergy and an intelligent and attached laity, would\nnot only hold her ground, but would even in great part probably revive\nthe love and the allegiance both of the masses who were wholly falling\naway from religious observances, and of those large and powerful\nnonconforming bodies, the existence of which was supposed to have no\nother cause than the neglect of its duties by the National Church,\nwhich had long left the people as sheep without a shepherd.\n\nAnd surely it would have required either a deeply saturnine or a\nmarvellously prophetic mind to foretell that, in ten or twelve more\nyears, that powerful and distinguished generation of clergy would\nbe broken up: that at least a moiety of the most gifted sons, whom\nOxford had reared for the service of the Church of England, would be\nhurling at her head the hottest bolts of the Vatican: that, with their\ndeviation on the one side, there would arise a not less convulsive\nrationalistic movement on the other; and that the natural consequences\nwould be developed in endless contention and estrangement, and in\nsuspicions worse than either, because even less accessible, and even\nmore intractable. Since that time, the Church of England may be said\nto have bled at every pore; and at this hour it seems occasionally\nto quiver to its very base. And yet, all the while, the religious\nlife throbs more and more powerfully within her. Shorn of what may be\ncalled the romance and poetry of her revival, she abates nothing of\nher toil; and in the midst of every sort of partial indiscretion and\nextravagance, her great office in the care of souls is, from year to\nyear, less and less imperfectly discharged. But the idea of asserting\non her part those exclusive claims, which become positively unjust in a\ndivided country governed on popular principles, has been abandoned by\nall parties in the State.\n\nThere was an error not less serious in my estimate of English\nNonconformity. I remember the astonishment with which at some\nperiod,--I think in 1851-2,--after ascertaining the vast addition which\nhad been made to the number of churches in the country, I discovered\nthat the multiplication of chapels, among those not belonging to\nthe Church of England, had been more rapid still. But besides the\nimmense extension of its material and pastoral organisation, English\nNonconformity (in general) appears now to have founded itself on a\nprinciple of its own, which forbids the alliance of the civil power\nwith religion in any particular form or forms. I do not embrace that\nprinciple. But I must observe, in passing, that it is not less unjust\nthan it is common to stigmatise those who hold it as \"political\nDissenters,\"--a phrase implying that they do not dissent on religious\ngrounds. But if they, because they object to the union of Church and\nState, are political Dissenters, it follows that all who uphold it are\npolitical Churchmen.\n\nThe entire miscalculation which I have now endeavoured to describe of\nthe religious state and prospects of the country, was combined with a\nview of the relative position of governors and governed, since greatly\nmodified; and the two lay at the root of my error. These two causes\nled me into the excess of recommending the continued maintenance of\na theory which was impracticable, and which, if it could have been\nenforced, would have been, under the circumstances of the country,\nless than just. For I never held that a National Church should be\npermanently maintained except for the nation,--I mean either for the\nwhole of it or, at least, for the greater part, with some kind of real\nconcurrence or general acquiescence from the remainder.\n\nAgainst the proposals of my book, Lord Macaulay had set up a theory of\nhis own.[21]\n\n        \"That we may give Mr. Gladstone his revenge, we will\n        state concisely our own views respecting the alliance of\n        Church and State....\n\n        \"We consider the primary end of Government as a purely\n        temporal end, the protection of the persons and property\n        of men.\n\n        \"We think that Government, like every other contrivance\n        of human wisdom, from the highest to the lowest,\n        is likely to answer its main end best, when it is\n        constructed with a single view to that end....\n\n        \"Government is not an institution for the propagation\n        of religion, any more than St. George's Hospital is an\n        institution for the propagation of religion. And the\n        most absurd and pernicious consequences would follow\n        if Government should pursue as its primary end, that\n        which can never be more than its secondary end: though\n        intrinsically more important than its primary end. But\n        a Government which considers the religious instruction\n        of the people as a secondary end, and follows out that\n        principle faithfully, will we think be likely to do much\n        good and little harm.\"\n\nThese sentences, I think, give a fair view of Lord Macaulay's\nphilosophy of Church Establishments. It has all the clearness and\nprecision that might be expected from him. But I own myself unable to\naccept it as it stands. I presume to think that perhaps Lord Macaulay,\nlike myself, made, from a limited induction, a hasty generalisation.\nThe difference was, that his theory was right for the practical\npurpose of the time, while mine was wrong. Considered, however, in the\nabstract, that theory appears to me to claim kindred with the ethical\ncode of another writer, not less upright, and not less limpid, so to\nspeak, than Lord Macaulay himself, I mean Dr. Paley. And the upshot of\nit may be comprised in three words: Government is police. All other\nfunctions, except those of police proper, are the accidents of its\nexistence. As if a man should say to his friend when in the country,\n\"I am going up to town; can I take anything for you?\" So the State,\nwhile busy about protecting life and property, will allow its officer\nof police to perform any useful office for the community, to instruct\na wayfarer as to his road, or tell the passer by what o'clock it is,\nprovided it does not interfere with his watching the pickpocket, or\nlaying the strong hand upon the assassin. I doubt if it is possible\nto cut out, as it were, with a pair of scissors, patterns of policy,\nwhich shall solve for all time and place the great historic problem of\nthe relation of the civil power to religion.\n\nIt seems to me that in every function of life, and in every combination\nwith his fellow-creatures, for whatever purpose, the duties of man are\nlimited only by his powers. It is easy to separate, in the case of a\nGas Company or a Chess Club, the primary end for which it exists, from\neverything extraneous to that end. It is not so easy in the case of the\nState or of the family. If the primary end of the State is to protect\nlife and property, so the primary end of the family is to propagate\nthe race. But around these ends there cluster, in both cases, a group\nof moral purposes, variable indeed with varying circumstances, but\nyet inhering in the relation, and not external or merely incidental\nto it. The action of man in the State is moral, as truly as it is in\nthe individual sphere; although it be limited by the fact that, as\nhe is combined with others whose views and wills may differ from his\nown, the sphere of the common operations must be limited, first, to\nthe things in which all are agreed; secondly, to the things in which,\nthough they may not be agreed, yet equity points out, and the public\nsense acknowledges, that the whole should be bound by the sense of the\nmajority.\n\nI can hardly believe that even those, including as they do so many men\nboth upright and able, who now contend on principle for the separation\nof the Church from the State, are so determined to exalt their theorem\nto the place of an universal truth, that they ask us to condemn the\nwhole of that process, by which, as the Gospel spread itself through\nthe civilised world, Christianity became incorporated with the action\nof civil authority, and with the framework of public law. In the course\nof human history, indeed, we perceive little of unmixed evil, and far\nless of universal good. It is not difficult to discern that (in the\nlanguage of Bishop Heber) as the world became Christian, Christianity\nbecame worldly; that the average tone of a system, which embraces in\nits wide-spreading arms the entire community, is almost of necessity\nlower than that of a society which, if large, is still private, and\ninto which no man enters except by his own deliberate choice, very\npossibly even at the cost of much personal and temporal detriment. But\nChrist died for the race: and those who notice the limited progress\nof conversion in the world until alliance with the civil authority\ngave to His religion a wider access to the attention of mankind, may\nbe inclined to doubt whether, without that alliance, its immeasurable\nand inestimable social results would ever have been attained. Allowing\nfor all that may be justly urged against the danger of mixing secular\nmotives with religious administration, and above all against the\nintrusion of force into the domain of thought; I for one cannot desire\nthat Constantine in the government of the empire, that Justinian in\nthe formation of its code of laws, or that Charlemagne in refounding\nsociety, or that Elizabeth in the crisis of the English Reformation,\nshould have acted on the principle that the State and the Church in\nthemselves are separate or alien powers, incapable of coalition.\n\nBut there are two causes, the combined operation of which, upon\nreaching a certain point of development, relaxes or dissolves their\nunion by a process as normal (if it be less beneficial) as that by\nwhich the union was originally brought about. One of these is the\nestablishment of the principle of popular self-government as the\nbasis of political constitutions. The other is the disintegration of\nChristendom from one into many communions. As long as the Church at\nlarge, or the Church within the limits of the nation, is substantially\none, I do not see why the religious care of the subject, through\na body properly constituted for the purpose, should cease to be a\nfunction of the State, with the whole action and life of which it has,\nthroughout Europe, been so long and so closely associated. As long as\nthe State holds, by descent, by the intellectual superiority of the\ngoverning classes, and by the good will of the people, a position of\noriginal and underived authority, there is no absolute impropriety,\nbut the reverse, in its commending to the nation the greatest of all\nboons. But when, either by some Revolution of institutions from their\nsummit to their base, or by a silent and surer process, analogous to\nthat which incessantly removes and replaces the constituent parts of\nthe human body, the State has come to be the organ of the deliberate\nand ascertained will of the community, expressed through legal\nchannels--then the inculcation of a religion can no longer rest, in\nfull or permanent force, upon its authority. When, in addition to this,\nthe community itself is split and severed into opinions and communions,\nwhich, whatever their concurrence in the basis of Christian belief, are\nhostile in regard to the point at issue, so that what was meant for the\nnation dwindles into the private estate as it were of a comparative\nhandful--the attempt to maintain an Established Church becomes an\nerror fatal to the peace, dangerous perhaps even to the life, of civil\nsociety. Such a Church then becomes (to use a figure I think of John\nFoster's), no longer the temple, but the mere cemetery, of a great\nidea. Such a policy is then not simply an attempt to treat what is\nsuperannuated and imbecile as if it were full of life and vigour, but\nto thwart the regular and normal action of the ruling social forces, to\nforce them from their proper channels, and to turn them by artificial\ncontrivance, as Apollo turned the rivers of Troas from their beds, to a\npurpose of our own. This is to set caprice against nature; and the end\nmust be that, with more or less of delay, more or less of struggle or\nconvulsion, nature will get the better of caprice.\n\nBut does it follow from all this, that the tone of moral action in the\nState should be lowered? Such a fear is what perplexes serious and\nsober men, who are laudably unwilling to surrender, in a world where\nfalsehood has so wide a range, any portion of this vantage-ground\nof truth and right. I, who may have helped to mislead them by an\nover-hasty generalisation, would now submit what seems to me calculated\nto re-assure the mind. I make an appeal to the history of the last\nthirty years. During those years, what may be called the dogmatic\nallegiance of the State to religion has been greatly relaxed; but\nits consciousness of moral duty has been not less notably quickened\nand enhanced. I do not say this in depreciation of Christian dogma.\nBut we are still a Christian people. Christianity has wrought itself\ninto the public life of fifteen hundred years. Precious truths, and\nlaws of relative right and the brotherhood of man, such as the wisdom\nof heathenism scarcely dreamed of and could never firmly grasp, the\nGospel has made to be part of our common inheritance, common as the\nsunlight that warms us, and as the air we breathe. Sharp though our\ndivisions in belief may be, they have not cut so deep as to prevent,\nor as perceptibly to impair, the recognition of these great guides\nand fences of moral action. It is far better for us to trust to the\noperation of these our common principles and feelings, and to serve our\nMaker together in that wherein we are at one, rather than in aiming at\na standard theoretically higher, to set out with a breach of the great\ncommandment, which forms the groundwork of all relative duties, and to\nrefuse to do as we would be done by.\n\nIt is, then, by a practical rather than a theoretic test that our\nEstablishments of religion should be tried. In applying this practical\ntest, we must be careful to do it with those allowances, which are as\nnecessary for the reasoner in moral subjects, as it is for the reasoner\nin mechanics to allow for friction or for the resistance of the air.\nAn Establishment that does its work in much, and has the hope and\nlikelihood of doing it in more: an Establishment that has a broad and\nliving way open to it, into the hearts of the people: an Establishment\nthat can commend the services of the present by the recollections and\ntraditions of a far-reaching past: an Establishment able to appeal\nto the active zeal of the greater portion of the people, and to the\nrespect or scruples of almost the whole, whose children dwell chiefly\non her actual living work and service, and whose adversaries, if\nshe has them, are in the main content to believe that there will be\na future for them and their opinions: such an Establishment should\nsurely be maintained. But an Establishment that neither does, nor has\nher hope of doing, work, except for a few, and those few the portion\nof the community whose claim to public aid is the smallest of all: an\nEstablishment severed from the mass of the people by an impassable\ngulph, and by a wall of brass: an Establishment whose good offices,\ncould she offer them, would be intercepted by a long unbroken chain\nof painful and shameful recollections: an Establishment leaning for\nsupport upon the extraneous aid of a State, which becomes discredited\nwith the people by the very act of lending it: such an Establishment\nwill do well for its own sake, and for the sake of its creed, to divest\nitself, as soon as may be, of gauds and trappings, and to commence a\nnew career, in which, renouncing at once the credit and the discredit\nof the civil sanction, it shall seek its strength from within, and put\na fearless trust in the message that it bears.\n\n        _September 22, 1868._\n\nLONDON: PRINTED BY W. CLOWES AND SONS, DUKE STREET, STAMFORD STREET,\nAND CHARING CROSS.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] From a placard just published at Berwick.\n\n[2] 'The State in its Relations with the Church,' ch. ii., sect. 71, p.\n73. Editions 1-3.\n\n[3] 'Edinburgh Review,' April, 1839, p. 235.\n\n[4] p. 252.\n\n[5] 'Mirror of Parliament,' Monday, July 30, 1838. The passage, which\nis full and clear, is more briefly given, but to the same effect, in\n'Hansard,' vol. xliv. p. 817.\n\n[6] June 1, 1836. 'Hansard,' vol. xxxiii. p. 1317.\n\n[7] Hor. Ep. ii. 3. 31.\n\n[8] 'Speech on the Second Reading of the Maynooth College Bill,' 1845,\np. 44.\n\n[9] _Ibid._, p. 33.\n\n[10] See 'Life of Archbishop Whately.'\n\n[11] The case of Sir R. Peel, in 1829, I do not consider an exception\nto this remark, as he gave back the charge into the hands of the\nelectors.\n\n[12] Mr. Coleridge's speech at Exeter, August, 1868. From the\n'Manchester Examiner' of August 22.\n\n[13] 'Corrected Speech on the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill,' 1851, p. 28.\n\n[14] Sir R. Palmer's speech at Richmond, August, 1868. From the\n'Manchester Examiner' of August 24.\n\n[15] 'Hansard,' vol. clxxviii. p. 444.--\"But I do complain of a\nMinister who, himself the author of a book in defence of Church and\nState, when one branch of the Christian Church is attacked and in\ndanger, delivers a speech, every word of which is hostile to its\nexistence when the right time comes for attacking it.\"\n\n[16] \u00c6n. vi.\n\n[17] It was, I think, about the year 1835, that I first met the Rev.\nSydney Smith, at the house of Mr. Hallam. In conversation after dinner\nhe said to me, with the double charm of humour and of good-humour, \"The\nimprovement of the clergy in my time has been astonishing. Whenever\nyou meet a clergyman of my age, you may be quite sure that he is a bad\nclergyman.\"\n\n[18] Judges, v. 31.\n\n[19] Canticles, vi. 4.\n\n[20] Since these lines were written I have learned, upon authority\nwhich cannot be questioned, that Mr. Keble acknowledged the justice of\ndisestablishing the Irish Church.\n\n[21] 'Ed. Rev.', April, 1839, p. 273-6.","title":"Chapter of Autobiography","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":17308}