BRITISH ELECTORS AND THE ROMAN CATHOLICS.
LORD ORANMORE and BROWNE and the British Refor- mation Society evidently do not understand, in the small- est degree, how far the spirit of the Catholic Emancipation Act and of the Irish Church Disestablishment Act has pos- sessed itself of the minds of their countrymen, and moulded their convictions, since these Acts were passed. Indeed, the protest which they presented to the Prime Ministpr against the appointment of Lord Ripon to be Viceroy of India, and of Lord Kenmare to be Lord Chamberlain, on the ground that these two Peers are Roman Catholics, goes so far as to note with approval that not a single British constituency has returned a Roman Catholic to Parliament, and to infer from that fact that the equal employment of Roman Catholics and of Protestants by the British Government, so far as their official servicesare deemed equally useful, is "in direct opposition" to the electors' views. We only hope that the British Reformation Society are pro- foundly mistaken. We are very sure of this that if the cry of religious equality, of which we have heard much lately, is founded in justice, they ought to be mistaken ; and that British
electors are very unreasonable and inconsistent beings, if they are not. Of course, every one will admit that in selecting the proper man to fill any office whatever, any considera- tion, however personal, which is likely to enhance or to diminish his power to fulfil his duties well, is a matter which the Minister who makes the appointment is bound to consider. Supposing, what is quite possible, that first-rate horsemanship were an exceedingly useful or indispensable accomplishment for the holder of the office, then the Minister must consider carefully the qualifications of his appointee as a rider. Just so, and only in the same sense, should the creed of a possible official be considered, except, of course, in relation to those offices still withheld by statute from persons of par- ticular religions. If his creed is in any sense an advantage to the capacity or opportunities of the official, it should tell in his - favour. If it is a disadvantage it should tell against him. If it be neither an advantage nor a disadvantage, it should not tell at all. Of course, in one sense creed always tells upon character.
But equally, of course, it is impossible to say of any creed a priori, and without knowing your man, how it will tell. There
are men in the Service of the Crown,—for example, Gordon Pasha, whom Lord Ripon has appointed as his private secretary, is one,—whose strength of character has either been indefinitely increased, or at all events most emphatically expressed and consolidated, by rigorous and almost predestinarian Puritan- ism. Where that is so, and where services are wanted for which a rigorous Puritanism of faith is an immense assistance, it is perfectly right to select an official in great measure for his Puritanism. There may be other men in the Service —very possibly, though of this we know less, Sir J. Pope Hennessey may be one—whose character has been strengthened, and, as it were, buttressed by their Roman Catholicism ; and if this were so in his 'case, then it was quite right for the Government *of Lord Beaconsfield to take this into consideration on the favourable side in selecting Sir J.Pope Hennessey, as they did more than once, for important colonial governorships in situations of difficulty.
What we maintain is, that with the principle of religious equality once admitted, the Government of the Queen has no right at all to consider the religious creed or no- creed of one of its intended appointees, except so far as that creed is likely to bear on the acceptability of his person to those who are to have dealings with him, and the trustworthiness and efficiency of his work. Do the British Reformation Society mean to say that no Roman Catholic can be as trustworthy as a Protestant ? If they do, why do they give equal rights, political and municipal, to Roman Catholics, and admit them to Parliament, wherever a constituency is willing to choose them ? Do they mean to say that though Roman Catholics cannot be denied religious equality in the abstract, they ought to be treated as inferior beings by all who are officially responsible for the welfare of the realm, and told
that though their religion does not disqualify them for any post, it practically excludes them from all ? Clearly, that must
be what they mean. And yet that meaning is about as bad as any they could have. It involves first admitting the right of Catholics to be equally treated, and then refusing to judge them, as we judge men of any other creed, by their life, conduct, achievements, and personal influence, because they have against their names this black mark of Romanisna.
What can such a principle result in, except the moral aliena- tion of a large class of her Majesty's subjects after they have been admitted to full political and municipal in- fluence? And can any course be more silly, as well as more unfair? We . all know, as a matter of fact, that though creed counts for much, influences independent of creed count for a good deal more in determining trust- worthiness ; we all know men of no creed whom for given purposes we would trust more thoroughly than almost any man of the noblest creed ; and we all know, unfortunately, men of the noblest creed whom for most purposes we would not trust as heartily as we would other men of no creed. If religious equality means anything in our administrative system, it means this,—that using all the indications that are within our reach by which to judge of a man's fitness, his creed should count only as one of these indications, and even as such should be regarded withont any unfair prejudice, and
-with a strict* view to his probable efficiency, trustworthiness, and general usefulness. If that is not to be so, the talk about
religious equality in our administration is hypocrisy and folly. Now, we greatly fear that not only the British Reformation Society, but a considerable number of Scotch electors, have not taken this principle of religious equality to heart, though they have often had it on their lips. If the Lord-Advocate's defeat in the Wigtown Burghs is not due to Lord Ripon's and Lord Kenmare's appointments, a good many Scotchmen are much belied. More than one of the Free-Church Presbyteries have openly protested, we believe, against Lord Ripon's appointment ; and there can be little doubt that a good many votes were lost in the Wigtown Burghs through the horror which these Roman Catholic appointments caused. Now, if either Lord Kenmare's or Lord Ripon's use- fulness were prejudicially affected by his religion, we should have nothing to say. But every one knows that it is not so. Lord Ripon has been chosen by a Prime Minister who has what seems to us even a too violent prejudice against the Papal organisation,—too violent, we mean because, in our opinion, he assigns to it a much greater warping-power over individual
and national conduct than it really has. But however this may be, we may be quite sure that Mr. Gladstone did not choose Lord Ripon the rather for his being a Roman Catholic, any more than Lord Ripon chose Gordon Pasha as his private secretary the rather for his being a Puritan. On the contrary, Mr. Gladstone would have chosen Lord Ripon with a much lighter heart, had Lord Ripon remained attached to the Church of England. Nor, as we have previously pointed out, does Lord Ripon's creed in the smallest degree interfere with his acceptability to a people of M.ahomme- dans and Hiudoos, who probably regard all forms of Christianity with equal indifference. Still less *does it interfere with his authority over the Anglo-Indian Civil Service, who never wait to hear what their master's creed is, but judge him solely by the capacity he shows. If those who selected Lord Ripon, otherwise knew him to be the man they wanted, his creed was really irrelevant, so far as regards his office, though the earnestness and sincerity with which it was held and avowed were very relevant indeed. We greatly fear that there are too many Liberals, both in England and Scotland, —but especially, we fear, in Scotland,—who are enthusiasts for religious equality, so far as that principle tends to a dis- establishment of the English or Scotch Established Church, but who look upon it with disgust and dismay when it is so put in practice as to irritate the moral prejudice which they feel against Roman Catholics. If there be any such, we would say to them, with Dr. Johnson,—Let them clear their minds of Cant. Either let them cease to talk of religious equality, or let them cease to protest against appointments which are only assailable on the ground that a particular creed is a disqualifi- cation for all offices of trust.
Previous page
