The Press. — London, England, 1858-08-21 00:00:00

794 things is required. We know of no remedy but the creation of a new order of constituencies by enfranchising the learning and education of the country. Let all lawyers, doctors, clergymen, registered Dissenting ministers, artists, members of learned corporations, retired officers of the army and navy, certificated schoolmasters, &c., have bestowed upon them a separate qualification to enable them to choose their own representatives. We should thus have a fitter clan of men for legislation sent to Parliament—men of trained minds, of reflective habits, free from popular control. We have the less difficulty in advocating, this scheme, because we feel it to be impossible to foresee, with such a mixture as Dissenting ministers with clergymen, and doctors and law yers with retired army and navy officers, how it would affect the balance of political parties. For it is not proposed to give to these different professions separate members, but to combine all of the different learned profes sions within a given district in one constituency. It is a false argument to say that learning, office, position, is not property : it is a species of pro perty. Many a man has invested a fortune in securing his attainments. And, apart from this, learning, office, and position are important social elements in a State, which ought not to go un represented. The advantages we think certain to accrue from giving these influence in the councils of the nation are, that they would provide a corrective and counterbalancing element to the purely popular one in the Legisla ture—that the character of the House of Com mons would become elevated by the class of men thus chosen—that all the interests of the com munity will then be represented, and no one class will unduly predominate over the other. To carry out this scheme without increasing the members of the House of Commons, it will, of course, be necessary to disfranchise some of the smaller boroughs ; or, if not to disfranchise them altogether, either to reduce the representa tives to one where they have now two, or to com bine two or three adjacent boroughs in one constituency, as is done in Scotland. This would create a number of vacancies, to be filled up by the new-created constituencies. And it cannot be denied that the number of members for the smaller boroughs is altogether disproportionate both to the property represented and to the ag gregate of the persons. The scheme we have here advocated rests upon much higher recommendation than our own. It was suggested in a memorial which was laid be fore Lord PALMERSTON a few months ago, signed by about 230 of the most distinguished men in the country for learning and science, selected from all the liberal professions and of all shades of politics, including such men as BROUGHAM, BREWSTER, BRODIE, ALISON, EVERSLEY, MUR CHISON, PEACOCK, &c. &c. Both of the late Speakers' names were put to this memorial in favour of an Educational Franchise ; and no one could know better than the last Speaker, who had presided over the House for eighteen years, the defects in the constitution of the present House of Commons. There can be no reason why the poor should not also have their representatives in Parliament. At present no one represents them. A few members might, we believe, be given to the mechanics and labourers of our country with per fect safety to the State; for, their number being few, they could never exercise any overpowering influence; and we have, moreover, a strong con fidence that these would elect better members than the busy, bustling, little shopkeepers in our large boroughs. It is (Ally to restore the old franchise of " Scot and Lot," known to the Con , stitution, by which every adult man would have a vote, who was not otherwise enfranchised, and the most desirable result would be accomplished of uniting the rich and the poor in the common object of promoting the welfare of their country. We advance these views upon no other authority than our own, and not in any way to commit the Conservative party. They spring out of our zeal for good government. To elevate the character of the representatives, and at the same time greatly to extend the franchise, are the two oltjects at which, in our opinion, the Conservatives should aim in any scheme of Reform which they may propound. They need not fear, we are tzinvinced, largely to extend the franchise among the people, so long only as they secure a counterbalancing element lib.. THE PRESS, AUGUST 21, 1858. against the overbearing sway of' popular impulse, in the members chosen by the more sober and calculating class of the community. Let them propose a scheme, then, liberal in its nature, yet soberly limited, having respect to the well working of the State rather than to the predomi nance of any party; and then, though clamour should be excited against it in the ignorant multitude by " leading" journals and fkctious partizans, and they should have to appeal to the country, they will find themselves supported by the good sense of the nation. THE BISHOP OF OXFORD AND MR. SHAW. THE correspondence bet ween the Bishop of OxFoan and the Rev. JOHN SHAW, Vicar of .Stoke, which has recently appeared in the papers, will, we have no doubt, be read with the greatest interest. The practice of confession is so loathsome and repugnant to the minds of English men and English women—at least to all who are not caught in the trammels of a false and idolatrous Church—that all attempts to in troduce such a practice into our Reformed Church will be examined into with the deepest interest, and will meet with the most unrelenting opposition. Of the many vile and unchristian doctrines which disgrace the Popish Church, the vilest, the most mischievous, and the most un social, is that one which enjoins as a duty the practice of confession (more especially by females) to a frail mortal, pretending to be en dowed with the power of absolution. Thinking thus of this practice, we are glad to see it justly denounced by the Bishop of OXFORD as "break " ing up the confidence of family life," and as " erecting a vast system of priestly domination " over the soul, with its innumerable consequent " evils, spiritual, domestic, and political." These being the opinions on this point pro claimed by the Bishop in the above-named corre spondence, the question has been started— Whether in his dealings with the case brought before him by the Vicar of Stoke he has fairly and honestly acted up to the principles which he has so clearly laid down in the words which we have quoted ? Now we desire to deal with this matter simply and exclusively by a fair consideration of the documents which have been published. It appears from them, that if the account given by the woman of what the Curate (Mr. WEsT) said to her be true, the conduct of the Curate is deserving of the severest censure. And so the Bishop admits; but he refuses to condemn the Curate, not because he would justify such conduct, as is described in the report of the conversation, but because the truth and accuracy of that report is denied by the Curate. The question, as the Bishop puts it, is a question of fact—the testimony being conflicting; and in this dilemma the Bishop believes the Curate and disbelieves the woman. Now, we think, unless the Bishop had ground for distrusting the Curate, that he was quite right in preferring his testi mony to that of the woman, provided, however, that the woman's testimony remained uncor roborated by any other witness, and unsupported by other considerations. But how stands the fact ? The Bishop suc cinctly sums up the charges against the Curate as follows : 1. That the Curate put to "a voman about to be confined most improper questions,'" espe cially with regard to the Seventh Command ment. 2. That he told her that "if she hoped to be delivered, and live, she must make confession to him." 3. " That he further told her that if she died unconfirmed she could not enter into the king dom of heaven." 4. " That he urged her ' not to tell her hus band." 5. " That by this treatment the woman was greatly 'upset.'" With respect to the last four of these charges, they are dismissed by the Bishop on the ground that the Incumbent "had assured him, from his " inquiries at the time, that they had no founda " tion in fact." In this we cannot help thinking that the Bishop arrived at an erroneous concln sion and missed an important point: because_ The fifth charge—that the woman w as " upset "—did not depend at all on the testimony of the woman ; on the con t rary, it was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the lady who report the conversation; and, unl ess t h at l ady ' s testunon) be quite unworthy of cr e d it , t h ere can be no question but that the woman actually wu " upset," and that she was so by some recent occurrence : this is clear, from the lady having found her in tears, and having been therefore induced to ask her, " Why ar e y ou crying w much ?" But according to the Incumbent's in. quiry the very " " contrary " to h er b e i ng " upset ' took place, for she had expressed special grafi " tude for the treatment of her case." The Curate therefore, it appears, had been " treating her case," and if she really fek ." spiritual grafi. tude" for his mode of treating it, it may well b e asked, why was she in tears ? Surely it is evident that if she was crying her "tears" were the consequence of her " treatment," and the Bishop says very correctly that the " treatment" which produced expressions of gratitude must have been " contrary " to the treatment which pro. duced tears. Now, this is a very important point in the case, for the tears have to be accounted for. Whatever the "treatment" was which the woman had met with, it had clearly made her cry. The question, then, is, can it be reasonably inferred from the crying that she cried because the Curate's " treatment " had led her to repent ance ? or is it not more natural to conclude that she cried because " most improper questions' had been put to her, whereby she had been flus tered and " upset" ? It is difficult not to be lieve that the latter alternative is the true one, and, if it be the true one, then we regret to say that suspicion must rest upon all the other de nials of the charges, respecting which the Bishop has come tt) the conclusion that they have "no foundation in fact." These denials are, indeed, carried too far. If the Curate had contented himself with contradicting the second, third, and fourth charges against him, which depend on the exclusive testimony of the woman, such denials might have been fairly accepted by his Bishop but he betrays too great an anxiety to free him. self, and to smash the whole case, when ' affirms that the fifth charge has no "foundation in fact ;" because, after he had left her, how could he undertake to say that the effect of conversation on a poor weak woman, expecting her immediate confinement, and " dangerously ill" (in which conversation he admits having exhorted her to repentance), had not "upset" her after he had left the cottage ? This over-zeal to deny what he was not in position to deny of course throws discredit upon his other denials, and leads us to look more ' probabilities than testimony. What, then, the internal evidence in favour of the accuracy the conversation as reported by the lady? false or inaccurate, it must either have been vented or misrepresented by the lady or woman. It is quite unreasonable to suppose that the lady invented it. That something passed between the Curate and the woman is admitted. If invented, then the woman must have vented it on the spot. Let us suppose, then , that it was invented, and also that the Curate' representation of the transaction is the correct one, and that he really had just been successful in his endeavours to " lead her to repentance. We then are called upon to believe that a w oman who had just been expressing her gratitude ` having led her to repent, immediately that Curate's back was turned set to work to malign his character by inventing indecent questions, and falsely representing that he had addressed them to her. Assuredly this seems hardly cre dible, and we are constrained to say that, ijoklng at the probabilities of the case as set forth in correspondence, the truth of the woman's air' tions appears to us far more to be relied on than the denials by the Curate of those assertions. But again : the Curate's denials, and his repre sentation of the conversation, leave the tears wholly unaccounted for. On the other hand, woman's story accounts for those tears, and consistent with them : the fact that she • _ _ crying surely cannot be disbelieved. But admitting the Curate's account to be; corr ct one, we still do not like the transacnoi We do not think that it is part of the duty of !ea U. clerg] dan as ment ny durin ed broke ed faith ny throe no confe as alarn flt a s t an s eqw ,re repel so the U. happ of Mak he sick' no to s ti- weal be migl ent frier the Phr lop to ich "ml ire out ro- Sick sick the bein for. sick the Ane her dire bly invi use bide " cc hat "mi as" conl us- Cur be. sick ne; wit say oug s ay hop Poi 'no an) eed, tic] ted get and the the in dais Cu op; as irn• fhr he CO tion how his It] Ling nsly Ft ring set" an tic in a fei mon e to tie 1, IS 11( ty of of If te in- the that a ssed el tied. 14 i a hen, ate's erect ssful ice. man for the tlign ions, :sse 4 cre- king the s ser- than ;pre- tears ~ the ad is too the : tion. of a 11