more honourable men on his own side were, or at least had cause to be, ashamed,” for during political elections I have known men, otherwise and at other times fair and right-minded, to lose their heads, to lose all sense of perspective, justice, and fairness, and to say and do things which at other times they would not do, and of which in any other connection they would sincerely be ashamed. The law of libel sets some limits to political abuse. but even so, staid, upright, respectable and usually sober-minded citizens apparently think nothing of speaking of equally staid. upright, respectable and sober-minded citizens as belonging to a party of "traitors," " tricksters," "shufflers," "cowards,"

hypocrites" and "liars."

Ministers of religion often preach and speak of the degrading influence of the Turf, but I am by no means sure that there are not as many if not more free fights," as much drunkenness, rowdy, cowardly and blackguardly behaviour at election times as at a race meeting. I do not recall any incident in connection with the Turf when a Member of Parliament and professedly a religious man struck a cowardly blow at a woman as happened at the last election. I have said all this, not because I hold any brief against politics as a profession, but because as played under the present party-system it seems to me, of all forms of public life the most self-interested, and that in which the motives are most mixed. While it remains so-I hope it will not long so remain-I am strongly of opinion that from party politics clergymen and ministers should stand aloof. The argument that, even if the state of the political stable be as I say, there is all the greater need of disinterested workers to effect its cleansing, does not apply to ministers and clergymen. They have other work to do than beating the big drum on behalf of their local candidate for Parliament.

"Oh!" but says some clergyman or minister, “I am not working merely for my local candidate. What I work for is the cause he represents." I reply: "The cause he represents is his political cause. The cause you represent is Christ, and His Cross, and, by trailing that cause and that cross in the dust of politics, you are injuring religion and weakening your own spiritual influence." The cleavage in politics is not identical with the cleavage in religion-for many strong Nonconformists are Con

rvative and as many good Churchmen are Eiberal-and so a inister or clergyman must know that in introducing politics to the pulpit he is giving offence, as Mr. Atkins has pointed it, to some members of his congregation, and possibly is riving that member and his family from the church of his pbringing or of his choice. Moreover, in preaching politics from e pulpit, the minister is taking a mean and unmanly adantage of any member of his congregation who happens to differ om him. In sporting parlance it isn't "cricket" to turn our pulpit to a use for which it was never intended, and to lay your game in such a way as not to give the other man his chance." You invite him to church or chapel presumably for raise, worship and prayer, and then when you have him at your ercy—metaphorically gagged and bound, for not every one ares to make a scene in God's house by rising pointedly from is seat and walking out-you abuse the confidence he placed you by coming there, and degrade your sacred office by comelling him to listen to statements against which his conscience, is convictions and his principles protest.

"Coward's Castle were the words used by Frederick Roberton of Brighton of the pulpits from which political sermons are reached. At an ordinary political meeting dissent may be xpressed; a speaker may be called upon to prove and to make ood or, failing that, to eat his own words. Inconvenient uestions may be asked; inconsistent acts or statements of his wn may be recalled. There is even the possibility of personal iolence being offered to him in the hall; of his being hustled by ooligans in the streets. But a minister of religion in the pulpit, ecure in his sacred office, sheltered by the sanctity of God's house, an make any statements he pleases with none to contradict him nd none to protest, and is turning that pulpit, as Robertson said, ato" coward's castle."

I admit the plausibility, the seeming support even, of the plea hat righteousness exalteth a nation, and that if a clergyman r minister honestly believes that one political party is working lore for the cause of righteousness than the other, it is his duty o give that party his public and private support. My reply is hat a minister's business is not with this or that political party vhich, by reason of his upbringing, his associations, his prejudices,

or even by his sincere conviction, he believes to be most worthy of support, but with righteousness as righteousness and not with righteousness as he holds it to be affected by politics. In that connection, and whether he be Liberal or whether he be Conservative, he may be mistaken, inasmuch as men admittedly as earnest and sincere as he, and admittedly as competent to judge, hold views the opposite of his own. But in working for righteousness as righteousness there can be no mistake or misdirected energy. Just as soldiers are the sworn servants of the King, and, as the King knows no party, are forbidden, while on active service to take part in politics, so a minister, the sworn soldier and servant of God and standard-bearer of Christ, must serve no other master, must be the single-hearted champion of one cause, must not sully the honour of the white banner (Christ's" colour which he carries, by associating it with this or that particular political faction or party.

and

There is no hardship in this any more than there is for the soldier. In England conscription plays no part in filling the ranks either of the Christian ministry or of the Army; and if s man, by his own choice and under no compulsion elect to enlist under the captaincy of Christ, he equally with the soldier, he more even than the soldier, must abide by the conditions under which he serves, must be ready to sacrifice his personal inclinations and faithfully to follow whither his Captain leads. Wherever that 'whither" may be, it is not along the path of politics, as the Founder of Christianity has clearly and unmistakably by his own example shown. To-day many ministers of religion, of their own choice, plunge into the turgid and muddy stream of party-politics. The Master whom they serve, and whose example they profess to follow, resolutely refused to be led into speaking of politics at all. A Jew of the Jews, racially at least, he declined to express even so much as an opinion, not merely upon politics but upon the great national issues upon which depended the welfare

if not the existence of his own people.

"Render unto Cæsar

the things which are Cæsar's, and unto God the things which are God's," was his reply to those who thought to entangle him in s

political discussion.

And why? Not because as a Jew and a man He had no views (possibly His views were infinitely stronger, his feelings

nfinitely more intense, than the views and feelings of any of us io-day); not because he was not aware of the spilling of innocent lood, of cruel injustices and infamous wrongs, that the human as well as the divine side of Him burned beyond endurance to redress, but because it was not the work which God had sent him here to do, and because He would not soil or injure that work by casting upon it the shadow of things outside and less worthy than itself. I do not say that the pursuit of politics worthily followed is in itself unworthy, but it is not the work, the worthiest of all work, in which Christ's minister should engage. That work is so arduous and exhausting, charged as it is with dire and tremendous responsibilities, that if he toil at it conscientiously, prayerfully and assiduously, he will have more than enough on his hands to do in the care and the cure of the souls of his people. If he, by his life, his example and his words, can persuade them to be truthful, fearless, honourable, and self-sacrificing; in a word, if he can succeed in making them good Christians and consequently good citizens, right-judging and justice-doing at all costs, he will have done more for God, for Christ, for King and country, and for national, political, and personal righteousness than he can ever hope to do by other means.

"Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you.'

COULSON KERNAHAN

UNIONISM AND FOOD DUTIES

SOME passing incidents in recent by-elections, especially in N.W. Norfolk, have lent some colour to the impression that the Unionist Party is weakening on the question of Imperial Preference; if indeed it is not unsound in parts on the general policy of Tariff

Reform.

Mr. Lloyd George at a recent meeting held in Swansea, on the subject of Welsh Disestablishment, reproving some of his followers for their slackness and want of backbone, added, " even the Tories are getting ashamed of their principles."

Is it true that the Unionist Party is becoming ashamed of Preference? In my opinion there is very little evidence to support the suggestion that the Unionist Party is becoming less resolute on the subject than it has been at any time during the past nine years. Indeed, the reverse may be said to be nearer the truth.

There have always been Free Importers in the Unionist camp and they undeniably exist to-day; but they are fewer in number. There are others-a fading remnant of the old Fair Trade League -who confine themselves to "stout and thumping" duties on im ported manufactured goods only; and there are a few" cranks” as there are in every party and in every group of a party. But the men who nine years ago were of opinion that the advocacy of that part of Mr. Chamberlain's policy which involved the imposition of small duties on foreign food-stuffs, would do irreparable harm to the Unionist Party, politically, shedding that belief.

are fast

I take a certain noble Lord, an ex-Cabinet Minister, as a type of that class. Nine years ago, he was popularly regarded as being associated with a powerful group, led by men of whom the late Duke of Devonshire, the late Lord Goschen, the late Lond Ritchie, the late Lord James of Hereford, and Lord Balfour of