OUR LONDON LETTER by M. Ellsworth Olsen

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Mountain View, California · Mar 21, 1906

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 32, No. 12.

OUR LONDON LETTER.

By M. Ellsworth Olsen

WITH the general election over and the new Parliament getting under way with its work, a few backward glances at the events of the last couple of months may not be unprofitable, more especially as the revolution in public feeling, of which that election was the evidence, is generally regarded as forming an important turning point in British politics.

Electioneering Ministers.

One of the most significant features of the late campaign was the intense electioneering activity displayed by the leading Nonconformist ministers. The Free Church Council, an advisory board representing the chief Nonconformist churches, resolved itself into a political body of no mean efficiency, and conducted a well-organized agitation in all the leading centers, special attention being given to strategic points. Automobile tours were arranged by which a number of the most prominent clergymen were taken rapidly over large tracts of country, making numerous fiery election speeches, and arousing great enthusiasm. Perhaps the general spirit of this campaign is revealed in the remark one of the ministers engaged in it made to a friend. He said he was having "a high old time." Certainly the telling of funny stories calculated to place the other side in a ridiculous light, the use of highly-colored rhetoric, and other prominent features of political speechifying were all called into use. In short, these eminent divines seemed to take to politics like ducks to water, and while nothing unseemly was done from the standpoint of a man of the world, it can hardly be denied that the course taken was such as to impair the dignity and sobriety of character which in a special sense we expect of the Gospel minister.

"An Organized Army of Puritans."

Naturally the present attitude of these ministers is best described as jubilant. If they are not openly boasting that they helped very materially to win the recent victory at the polls, they know it in their hearts, and have a feeling that the new body of legislators sitting in Westminster in a special sense belongs to them. One minister goes so far as to call it a "Free Church Parliament," and adds, "For the first time we [Nonconformists] are adequately represented, and our influence in the national life is reflected in our preponderance in the political counsels of the nation." What a Nonconformist minister regards as adequate representation may be gathered from the fact that in the present Parliament the number of Nonconformist members outnumber the entire Conservative party.

The religious phase of the election was generally recognized by the Conservative papers. Thus the London Times, referring to the defeat of a certain candidate, said he was a "victim to Nonconformist animosity."

Of course it is not with Nonconformists as individual voters that we are here concerned. It is quite natural, in view of the obnoxious Education Act of 1902, that they should generally vote against the Conservative party; but the recent election involved more than this. Even the careless onlooker could hardly help seeing that all through the campaign the Nonconformists were acting together as a well-organized religious body, largely under the leadership of their ministers, in a supreme effort to elect a Liberal and, incidentally, a Nonconformist Parliament. It was a case of a church body entering politics in dead earnest. As one of the leading agitators said: "Once again in English story, we have an organized army of Puritans, well equipped, and animated by a resolute spirit. . . . We shall not allow ourselves to be robbed of the fruits of victory," etc.

"An organized army of Puritans"—to the student of history the phrase sounds ominous. What has always been the result of the church organizing itself for political warfare? It has invariably meant an alliance in some form with the reigning government, which has worked havoc with the spirituality of the church, while it has fettered the hands of the legislators and the executive.

Is It an Exchange of Yokes?

It is therefore with mixed feelings that we look forward to the future. While gladly allowing that the Nonconformists have been in the right in their opposition to the Education Act and in their attitude toward disestablishment, we can not but fear that if the policy upon which they have embarked is carried out with complete success, it will simply mean that the country will get rid of one yoke for another. No religious body has yet obtained a leading voice in a government without using its power to aggrandize itself and oppress other bodies of individuals with different convictions. In other words, it is perfectly possible for England to develop under Nonconformist influence a religious despotism, in comparison with which the mild sway of the present endowed church would be absolute freedom. Chapel rule has no intrinsic advantage over church rule; and presbyter, as Milton said, may be simply "priest writ large." Indeed, the modern Nonconformist churches are, in point of political aggressiveness, more to be feared than the state church. It would be hard to find a parallel to their zeal outside the Roman Catholic Church. In America this political zeal has thus far taken form chiefly in such institutions as the National Reform Association, the American Sabbath Union, and like organizations. In Britain it has not yet assumed such specialized phases of activity, but is all the more powerful in that it stands for certain large general ideas, and is so firmly united.

The Labor Party.

There is another phase of the recent election which calls for consideration, namely, the rise of the Labor Party. In previous years there have been in Parliament a few straggling members who have represented the Labor interests, but they have never counted for much. In the late election some fifty Labor members were returned. What is of still further significance is that four-fifths of them have formed themselves into an independent party, entirely apart from the Liberals, and have taken their places on the Opposition benches, under the leadership of Mr. Keir Hardy, a radical Socialist. Thus, for the first time in its history England has an Opposition Labor party organized on much the same lines as the German Socialists.

What developments, favorable or unfavorable, will grow out of this new factor in British politics, remain to be seen. Socialist newspapers make light of the very general surprise expressed throughout the country that so large a Labor representation should be returned. The Clarion, which is probably the most influential of these organs, prophesies that at the present rate of growth, something like two hundred Labor members will be returned at the next election.

The saddest feature of this rapid development of a distinct Labor party is that it points unmistakably to the prevalence in Great Britain of social conditions which hitherto have been confined largely to continental countries. Indeed, there have not been wanting in recent times other indications of social distress. For some years past Londoners have been familiar with processions of unemployed men and women, "forlorn citizens of the British Empire, marching tattered and hungry through the streets of wealth and pleasure." Not very long since a very large number of such marched into St. Paul’s Cathedral during the Sunday afternoon service, and crowded into seats alongside the elegantly-dressed worshipers. Quite a commotion was created, but there was no serious disturbance, and when the service was over, the motley crowd gradually dispersed, after some fiery speeches by the leaders.

Naturally the course to be taken by the Labor party in Parliament will depend largely upon the leader. Mr. Keir Hardy, it must be confessed, does not have the reputation of being a safe man. His utterances at times have savored strongly of anarchism. Some months ago, when Manchester was passing through a grave social crisis, he sent a telegram to the leading agitators which was of a decidedly inflammatory character, and his public speeches have at times betrayed the same heat and lack of self-control. He is, however, a man of disinterested aims, strong convictions, and one deeply affected by the suffering and distress of the lower classes. If he possessed the wisdom of a statesman, he could be of very great help; but it is to be feared that he may take a course to hinder, rather than aid, practical legislation in behalf of the unemployed.