The Sun.
London, England, 1862-04-10 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TWITIISOA.Y kVgNING,- APRIL' 10, 1862.

in this country may be said to have been reason- I
ably cared for by that watchful custodian of the
Public Purse, that vigilant observer of the incom-
ings and outgoings of our taxable commodities, the
right hon. the Chancellor of the Excheques. At
wines of 42 degrees of alcoholic strength
Mr. GLADSTONE stops short in his levy-
ing of the higher rate of a half-crown
duty, And he does so for the very simple and
comprehensible reason that, at 42 degrezm the
limit bas been attained, beyond which no really
legitimate wino can be introduced. Wherefore,
upon all wines imported into this country above
that limit, he proposes to levy a prohibitory
duty of 3d. for every additional degree !

It is a matter of comparative insignificance, in
its way, that Mr. GLADSTONE'S newly projected
modification of the wine duties—changing, as at
the flap of a Harlequin's wand, the scale of Four
into a scale of Two—will bring in a net gain,
altogether, of £15,800. It is the simplification of
the whole system that is the boon—not that net
gain of £15,800. And it is a simplification that
will be hardly more welcome to the Trade than
it will be to the country.

One of the most singular remanets of Papal super-
stition occupied the House of Commons yesterday,
and it was really amusing to see that honourable
members thought it a really difficult case to deal
with—we refer to what is termed " the indeli-
bility of Orders." Mr. BOTTVERIE himself seems to
have found it a rather awkward subject, and the
House and be agreed to send the matter to a select
committee. For what reason any religions body
or corporation can desire to retain amongst their
clergy a person who has ceased to believe the doc-
trim., livid by that body, or -who cannot, with the
approYal of his own conscience, perform its religious
services or ceremonies, it is hard to conceive. Yet
we actually find difficulties placed in the way of a
man's laying aside the character of clergyman. He
may, indeed, decline to act. Happily no one can
compel him to that. Bnt if he act as a seceder from
the Church, if he choose to publish an Atheistical,
Deistical, or Socinian work, or to write against the
Church which he believes to be wrong, he is liable
to " correction" by the Bishop, which may mean
serious inconvenience or expense, if nothing
worse. If he preach in public as a Dissenter
he is liable to Episcopal prosecution or perse-
cution. He may not even return to any honest
business, except that of a schoolmaster, to sup-
port a starving family; the professions are all
barred to him, and a special act forbids him to enter
the House of Commons. It seems hardly creditable,
but it seems to be the fact, that by an act passed so
late as 1794 the seceding clergyman who engages
in business, or preaches as a Dissenter, is liable to
six months' imprisonment.
The reader will naturally ask—why should not a
clergyman be as free to lay aside hie profession as
any other man ? Except while engaged in actual
service, the naval or military officer meets with no
difficulty in giving up a service which for any rea-
son may be no longer desirable for him. The sol-
dier or the sailor may become a clergyman if he
pleases, and sometimes does ; but woe to the
clergyman who, whatever his qualifications and
tastes, should become a naval or military officer.
Bishops in olden times have girded on the sword,
and fought in coats of mail, but they remained
bishops still. At the present day bishops; unless
perhaps in Albania or Syria, show no such tastes.
We are not advocating changes from the pulpit to
the camp, or to any other profession; but we do
advocate free trade in clerical work as in any
other work. Indeed, the prima facie case
is, that it ought to be the freest work of
all. A person who of necessity engages in
any other service or occupation, may yet fulfil its
duties properly; but even the Bishops of OXFORD
and EXETER would not contend that a person who
disbelieved the Thirty-nine Articles, or who ab-
horred the ceremonies of the Prayer-book, ought to
be a Minister in actual service in the Church of
England. Why, therefore, compel him to remain
legally a Minister ?
The explanation of all the absurdity which Mr.
BOUVERIE would do away with, lies in the anti-
quated superstition of something sacramental in the
ordination of priests. All reasonable men repudiate
the superstition now, but the consequences
seem to stick while the cause is rejected.
Having discarded the notion of a magical

afflatus from 4eaven, conveyed through the hands

of one of the nominees of the Premier for
the day, or through any human hands whatever,
all the effects of such ecclesiastical magic ought to
have vanished also. If no member of the House
of Commons believes that a Bishop can do more
than give officially his sanction to another man's
serving as a clergyman in the Church of England,
why should he make any mystery of enabling the
authorised clergyman to return his commission, at
any time, to the superior officer who conferred it ?
There is one consideration which shows, above
all others, the cruelty of the present state
of the law. The great majority of clergymen took
orders at an age when they were wholly incompe-
tent to conjecture what their views might be in
middle and later life. Took them as a matter of
course—as what they were brought up to. Surely
to fasten irrevocably on a man for life a profession
which he selected almost in his boyhood, however
repugnant it may afterwards become to his taste
and his convictions, is an intolerable hardship.
The natural checks on mere fickleness of purpose
are, in all conscience, quite sufficient. Besides loss
of emolument, and loss of statue in a man's own
circle, there is generally also the natural reluctance
to seem to have failed in the profession we have
chosen. Generally speaking, too, no profession more
unfits a man for most secular occupations than that
of a clergyman, while the seceder who becomes a

" dissenting teacher" has to encounter obloquy
enough to prevent all but the most self-sacrificing
from adopting that line. We cannot, therefore,

comprehend what difficulty there should be in
authorising any clergyman who desires to give up
the commission he received from a Bishop, on the
part of the Crown, from placing his resignation
of that commission in the hands of the Bishop,
and making it imperative on the Bishop to accept
and register the same. He would thus become a
disembarrassed English Gentleman.

Mr. NEWDEGATE, indeed, stood upon the old
maxim, " once a priest always a priest," and consi-
dered that principle to be essential to the existence

of an Established Church ! As we cannot compre-
bend the argument, we must decline attempting an

answer. Sir W. HEATHCOTE and Mr. HUBBARD

thought bishops insulted and hardly dealt with if

they were required by law to liberate the seceding
clergyman from his obligations. If this be really

in any degree galling to Episcopal pride, we can see
no need for using the agency of the bishop at all.

What difficulty can there be in making a notice to
the civil magistrate sufficient ? The seceders merely
ask to have their civil rights restored to them,
if they give -up a profession, which involved
the forfeiture of some of them. The act has but

to provide that, after due notice to the civil autho-

rities, the seceding clergyman shall be in the posi-

tion of all other laymen, and that the notice ;hall

render null and void rib initiv any proceedings