« EdellinenJatka »
cousin, Mr. William Russell, giving him directions, which his own experience suggested, for his behaviour while deer-stalking. Yet, though Lord John worked hard and late, nature, which had so freely endowed him with many qualities, had not given him the steady hand and quick eye which make a good shot. A Scotch gillie—Lord Lansdowne is responsible for the story—said of him, ‘Forbye it hadn't pleased the Lord to make him a sportsman, he was a very decent body.' And at the Black Mount, at Taymouth, and at Braemar, Lord John failed. At last, at General Duff's, to the old General's great joy, he succeeded in repeating the achievement of the previous year, and brought down his stag. After his return from his two months’ holiday, Lord John threw himself into the many anxious affairs which will be related in the following chapter. Here it may be well to add that he saw the old year out and the new year in at Woburn. Miss Lister and his own son acted in one of the little plays which Mr. Stafford was in the habit of writing for the amateur troupe at the Abbey. No one enjoyed these performances more, or laughed more heartily at them, than the Prime Minister. And perhaps on the present occasion he was vividly reminded of his own youth. For the epilogue to ‘The Eggs of Gold'—the title of the play—was spoken on New Year's Eve by his own boy, who had played the part of a page. Ladies and gentlemen, at your desires, My little Muse her little page inspires With such a little epilogue as fits, Not your great wisdom, but his little wits. The old year dies Oh may the new year smile On all we love, and on our native isle ! May it be like Dame Good-luck's wondrous goose, And lay to each the egg that each would choose— To the young, gay and happy hearts: to know That they are blest, and to make others so.
1850 breech-loaders had not been invented, and muzzle-loaders were painfully loaded with powder and shot. But, even in 1850, the shot was occasionally separately enclosed in a cartridge, and was supposed to carry further and hit harder than when merely rammed down with wadding.
To boys and girls new toys and pretty stories;
THE FALL OF THE WHICS.
DURING his long administration, Lord John was chiefly occupied with the various questions which had their origin in Irish distress and continental revolution. But he was concurrently attending to other matters of great significance ; and among these there was none to which he attached more importance, or in which he took a deeper interest, than the state of the English Church. Lord John had always regarded with deep distrust the progress of the great religious movement which is associated with the names of Cardinal Newman and Mr. Pusey. Its votaries, he thought, were not merely traitors to the Church, but guilty of ‘shocking profanation.' They were, consciously or unconsciously, initiating a movement which was leading to Rome, and they were simultaneously turning a service of remembrance into an offensive spectacle." Holding such opinions, Lord John used his influence during the Ministry of Lord Melbourne, and during his own administration, to secure the promotion of men free from all taint of Tractarianism to the highest offices of the Church. It so happened that, in the years which succeeded his accession to office, the vacancies on the bench were more than usually numerous. Lord John appointed, in 1847, an Archbishop of York; in 1848, an Archbishop of Canterbury; he filled up, in the first four years of his administration, the secs of St. Asaph, Sodor and Man (twice), Hereford, Manchester, Chester, Norwich, and Llandaff. The men whom he selected for these posts were Drs. Sumner, Musgrave, Short, Shirley, Eden, Hampden, Lee, Jackson, Hinds, and Ollivant. During the same period he sent Dr. Tait, the future Primate, to the Deanery of Carlisle, Dr. Milman to the Deanery of St. Paul's; and he offered Dr. Stanley (the late Dean of Westminster) high preferment. It is needless to add that most of these men were remarkable for the depth of their learning; while all of them were distinguished for the breadth of their views.
' These words are taken from Åecollections and Suggestions.
It is not impossible that the marked preference which Lord John was displaying for men of comprehensive opinions stimulated the very movement which he wished to defeat. The High Church party displayed increased activity; and the Bishop of Exeter declined to institute a clergyman, Mr. Gorham, to a living in his diocese, on the ground that he held heretical views on the subject of baptismal regeneration. The Bishop's decision was upheld by the Court of Arches, and Mr. Gorham appealed to the Privy Council. This tribunal reversed the judgment of the Ecclesiastical Court (in the language of Pembroke Lodge), ‘to the satisfaction of all friends of liberty of conscience.' But, however satisfactory the judgment might be to moderate and reasonable people, it was eminently distasteful to a party in the Church. The Bishop of London declared that a question of doctrine should not be decided by a court composed chiefly of laymen. But the following letters will show the Bishop's opinion, as well as Lord John's:—
February 25, 1850.
My dear Lord, What I think essential to the Queen's supremacy is that no person should be deprived of his rights unless by due interpretation of law. If the Supreme Court of Appeal in heresy were formed solely of the clergy, their opinions would probably be founded on the prevailing theological opinions of the Judicial Bishops, which might be one day Calvinistic and the next Romish. Especially if three senior bishops and two Divinity Professors were to form part of the tribunal, we might have superannuated bishops and university intolerance driving out of the Church its most distinguished ornaments. If your Lordship will speak to the Archbishop, he will inform you what I think might be done.— I remain, &c.,
J. RuSSELL. The Rt. Rev. the Lord Bishop of London.
Chesham Place: March 15, 1850.
My dear Lord, I am much obliged to your Grace for sending me the letter of the Bishop of London. I am sorry to learn that he expects a secession from the Church, more especially on the ground of the late decision given by the Judicial Committee of Privy Council. For that decision, as I understand it, does not oblige any member of the Church to espouse the opinions of Mr. Gorham, and to renounce those of the Bishop of Exeter. It only pronounces that the opinions held by Mr. Gorham, respecting baptismal regeneration, do not disqualify him from holding a benefice in the Church to which he has been lawfully presented. This view of the case induces me to be very watchful in respect to any proposed tribunal to judge of doctrine. For, if such tribunal were to exclude from benefices all clergymen whose doctrines on various matters of controversy did not agree with those of the majority of that tribunal, we should infallibly lose that freedom of judgment on nice points of doctrine which has at all times been the characteristic of our Protestant Church. . . . If for
... the present constitution of the Judicial Committee of Privy Council we were to substitute the Upper House of Convocation with the addition of some learned judges, I fear we should subject the rights and privileges of the clergy, and the patrons of livings, to an ecclesiastical body more intent on theology than on law and liberty; put in hazard the Queen's supremacy over all matters in the Church, spiritual as well as temporal; and revive those fierce disputes which, at the beginning of the last century, made the meetings of Convocation a scandal and a public nuisance. I should be quite ready to concur in the plan of adding any bishops, who may be of the Privy Council, to the present Court of Appeal; and I am sorry to see that the Bishop of London says that such a plan would “be who/My useless and unsatisfactory.” Such being the case, I do not see that anything can be done at present. Indeed, I fear that nothing but the erection of a priestly supremacy over the Crown and people would satisfy the party in the Church who now take the lead in agitation. I request you to give a copy of this letter to the Bishop of London, and remain, &c.,
J. RUSSELL. The Archbishop of Canterbury.
It is the essential characteristic of faith that it cannot be assaulted by reason ; and the position of the High Church party, relying more and more on authority, could not be shaken by Lord John's arguments. But the decision of the Privy Council produced a prodigious ferment, and, throughout the summer