The Sun.
London, England, 1868-12-04 00:00:00

THE SUN, LON1)1N, FRIDAY EVENiNG, DECEMBER 4, 1.68.

upon in the secular press. And yet it is a matter
of no small importance. If the English Church is
to be saved from attack it can be so only through,
timely precautions ; if the Church is to be spared a
revolution from without, it can be so only by a
reformation from within. Is the Church capable of
undertaking this work ? If she is there can scarcely
be a doubt but that it must be effected through her
representative body. As it happens, this body is not
at present representative in any true sense of the word.
One great section of the clergy are not propor-
tionately represented, another great section are
not represented at all, and the laity are in
the same plight. The Lower House consists,
in the first place, of deans, archdeacons, and
proctors, elected by the capitular bodies ; and, in the
second place, of proctors elected by the parochial
beneficed clergy. The unbeneficed clergy, i.e., the
curates, are allowed no vote, and are wholly unrepre-
sented. In other words, the very class which most
needs representation is entirely deprived of it. The
curate is at the mercy of an arbitrary bishop, who
may dismiss him without assigning any reason, and
take away the daily bread from a man who by virtue
of his profession is not allowed to earn it in any
other way. In fact, the curate has no legal rights,
and has no power of remedying personal wrongs. He
is as much " outside the pale of the constitution "
ecclesiastically as the man whose house was rented
below £lO was " outside the pale of the constitution"
civilly before the late Reform Bill. We do not say
that the parochial beneficed clergy have used their
power in Convocation as much for the benefit of one
class as the landowners did in Parliament. Yet it is
inevitable that any body of men who have engrossed
an undue share of power should exercise it for their
own benefit ; and if the beneficed clergy have not
done this to any great extent, it must be remembered
that Convocation is a body of very limited powers.

More important even than the representation of
the stipendiary clergy, is that of the laity. The clergy
themselves admit that the Church consists of the laity
as well as of themselves, and yet from the representa-
tive assembly of the Church the laity are banished.
One result of this is, that the two sections
have often been brought into collision on points
where a common agreement might often have been
obtained. For instance, the question of Ritual would
never have attained its present dimensions if Convo-
cation had decided what voice the laity had, or ought
to have, in making any changes in the accustomed
services. As it is, hostility has often been
aroused between clergyman and people, because
the first has been free to make any altera-
tions he pleased, not only without their con-
sent, but in defiance of their protest. The
laity, having no voice in the settlement of Church
affairs, take no interest in them. They are accus-
tomed to consider that everything should be done for
them, nothing by them, and that they have no more
to do with Church work than they have with the
business of the Inns of Court.

While the stipendiary clergy and the laity are
thus excluded from convocation, the capitular bodies
are enormously over-represented. It is not enough
that the cathedral chapters should be represented by
the dean, two or three archdeacons, and a proctor
elected by themselves, but they must interpose in the
election of the proctors chosen by the parochial
clergy. A cathedral dignitary is generally a paro-
chial clergyman as well, and in the latter capacity can
vote for the proctors whom the parochial clergy
choose. In some cases they even go so far as to
canvass the parochial clergy on behalf of special
favourites. The result is, that the elected house of
Convocation does little more than represent the
cathedral dignitaries. Hence it is that the capitular
bodies are the most glaring instances of unreformed
corporations in the kingdom. These bodies cannot
possibly survive in their present condition many
years longer ; the nation which has determined to
make short work with the Irish Church will assuredly
not permit corporations to remain in existence that fulfil
scarcely one of the objects for which they were consti-
tuted. Yet either the cathedral magnates of England
do not see the impending changes, or they care only
for themselves, and, feeling that the interests of exist-
ing hollers will be respected, care not, though after
them should come the deluge. how utterly regard-
less they are may be gathered from the fact, that the
Exeter Chapter has lately made it a condition of
surrendering their estates to the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners, that the incomes of the canons
should be increased one third, that they should
receive £l,OOO a-year instead of £750 as heretofore.
This bargain was agreed to, and the Church was thus
deprived of funds amounting to £1,500 a year,urgently
needed in many a neglected parish, in order that six
gentlemen who are almost sinecurists might have
added to their handsome incomes an increase of 33
per cent. It is not at all surprising that since then
their duties have been even less efficiently performed
than before; that the musical services have been
curtailed ; and that Exeter is now one of the worst
served cathedrals in England. When we remember
that these Church dignitaries who take such care
of themselves at the expense of their poor brethren
have almost exclusive powers in the election
of Convocation, is it surprising that this
assembly has become a byword for incompetency ?
To redeem it from this charge let the parochial
clergy protest, in the first place, against the interpo-
Sition of the capitular bodies in the election of the
non-capitular proctors ; let them in the next place
agitate for the representation of the stipendiary
clergy and of the laity, and so endeavour to make
Convocation really that which at present it is only
in name—the Representative Parliament of the
Church of England.

IT is somewhat surprising that a gathering of
working men for the purpose of considering a reform
of the patent laws should not have given the
subject a little wider consideration. There can be
little doubt that the Inventors' Institute, which has
taken this important question in hand, made out a
good case against the patent laws as they exist at
present. At a time when the intelligence of the
lower classes is becoming more and more developed,
the great expense of securing a patent for
an invention practically deprives many ingenious
public benefactors of the reward of their labour and
perseverance. The sewing machine brought nothing,
it is said, to the original inventor, because he was too
poor to obtain the protection of the Patent Office.
The steel penwas never patented for the same reason.
Of late years the number of inventions and improve-
ments has very largely increased, but, owing to the
poverty of many of the inventors, the injustice caused
by the deficiency of the present law has increased in
like proportion. The arguments brought by the meeting
of the Inventors' Institute in favour of a simplification
of this branch of the law are conclusive so far as they
go. If the protection of intellect exists it ought to
exist for all, and this condition can never be fulfilled
if the price paid for it is beyond the reach of the
multitude. That the poorer class of inventors suffer
from the want of cheap protection is beyond ques-
tion. But the subject, which has frequently been
brought up in the House of Commons, is of much
wider application. The price to be paid for protec-
tion is merely one part of the difficulty. The
great question whether the patent laws are in any
respect, as they now stand, a substantial benefit
has yet to be disposed of. It is, in
fact, very doubtful whether the statute-book
affords any efficient protection, even to those
who can afford to pay for it. It is a notorious
truth, indeed—it is the rule rather than the exception,
that the greatest inventors never reap the fruits of
their skill. A great discovery is immediately
" improved upon," and the originator of the
primary idea is often robbed by trifling modi-
fications of his patent. For instance, the
first inventor of the sewing machine got nothing, but
the numberless varieties of the discovery have
brought large sums to the patentees. The patent
system is in great measure a vehicle for injury as
well as protection. Many truly great inventors have
lost their all through the endless lawsuits in which
plagiarism has involved them. If the cost of patenting