Mr Brown takes a tumble

As I observe the repetitive cycle of history, I note that our Queen again relies for comfort and consolation on the men of the Scottish Brown clan. They are men of sobriety and steady as a rock but it may be questioned whether they have the temperament to be trusted with the highest affairs of state.

It is with some difficulty I seek to comprehend Mr Brown's latest travails. I do recall that in the practice of politics the Scots are anything but dour. Who can forget the torches, fireworks and bonfires that greeted my arrival in Edinburgh on that momentous occasion? To this day I do not know - and do not care to know - which generous patrons provided the finance for this spectacle. I can only observe that generous patronage was in those days necessary in order that men of humble means can participate in democracy and government.

But reform is progressive and matters have moved on a little in the last century. The state takes up taxes in order that the Labour members - and indeed all members - can live with integrity. It is right that neither voters nor politicians should be bribed nor that power should be used for personal gain. I hear that the young Welsh firebrand, that erratic Celt, (Mr Lloyd George - ed) caused some difficulty in his latest career in the dispensation of peerages and that the present government has been accused of being subject to the same temptations.

So now it is Mr Brown who is mired in questions about who paid what to whom. It is in the nature of political scandal that it is incomprehensible and a leader cannot protest innocence, however ignorant of matters they may be. It is hard to govern amidst such hullabaloo and it does not bode well for Mr Brown. Our dear Queen would undoubtedly have been concerned at his distress and would, with reluctance, have advised her chief minister to step aside for a period.

A new volume

My attention has been drawn to a new volume devoted to aspects of my life. Regrettably my limited funds have long been dissipated to my heirs so I anticipate some difficulty in gathering the large sum that is being asked for this excellent sounding volume by Mr Richard Shannon (Gladstone: God and Politics; Hambledon Continuum, £80). A Mr Howse has written an interesting account of Mr Shannon's work. It is perhaps regrettable that my friend Mr Morley's account of my life was tempered by the growing irreligiosity of the last century. There are comments from that dear lady, Her Majesty, someone who could sometimes be sharp of tongue when she had so many matters of state to consider and who did for a period fall under the spell of that scoundrel Beaconsfield and his antiquated Toryism. Reference is also made to that fool Labouchere, to whom I referred recently. His fine words conceal the lasting damage he did whilst, through the Grace of Our Lord, I always endeavoured to improve the lot of my fellow men and women.

Mr Blair - An odd way to separate faith and politics

I have, as I have intimated previously, some limited admiration for Mr Cromwell, who was responsible for otherthrowing tyranny in this country but went on to become another kind of tyrant. Mr Cromwell was known as a man of faith and, within the church, remains well-known for his particular prayer, if indeed it was him who uttered it: "Lord, thou knowest how busy I must be today. If I forget thee, do not thou forget me."

I have a disagreement with this prayer and reading the thoughts of the former Prime Minister Mr Blair today I am reminded of that disagreement. Apparently rather than speaking directly to the people, Mr Blair, following the custom of monarchs and monarchists, was wont to have others speak on his behalf. And on occasion, this speaker stated, with considerable dishonesty, "We don't do God."

Now, today, Mr Blair asserts that this Christian faith was indeed important in his life as Prime Minister. The immediate inference is that he followed the path of his American counterpart Mr Bush, who, it is said, is influenced by zealots seeking to bring about the Apocalypse; but, I would suggest, it would be a wrong inference.

I will quote Mr Blair in full:
"To do the prime minister's job properly you need to be able to separate yourself from the magnitude of the consequences of the decisions you are taking the whole time. Which doesn't mean to say … that you're insensitive to the magnitude of those consequences or that you don't feel them deeply.

"If you don't have that strength it's difficult to do the job, which is why the job is as much about character and temperament as it is about anything else. But for me having faith was an important part of being able to do that… Ultimately I think you've got to do what you think is right."

From this, it seems, that Mr Blair's faith is about "character and temperament". Ultimately, he says, you have to do what you think is right. He states you have to separate yourself from the "magnitude" of your decisions. Mr Blair, therefore, made decisions on the basis of his righteous character and his solid temperament. There is an arrogance in this belief that one's character is so righteous that decisions of high moral consequence can be made without reference to a source of morality and for a Christian there is a clear source of that morality. There is also an inference that the statesman has recourse to prayer and Bible study to purge his conscience of decisions that may have awful consequences. There were many such in my time - one can name generals who prayed - and they were so often wrong.

That is where I take issue with Cromwell and fear it may have been the source also of his weakness. For the prayer suggests it is allowed for a Christian statesman to forget his God, provided he has beseeched his God to guide him with an unseen hand through his forgetfulness, rather than to beseech his God not to allow him to forget the compassion and mercy of his Son .

It seems that Mr Blair will be remembered for one decision - to take his nation into a war that unleashed terrible slaughter and had doubtful moral basis and legal status. In my time I judged all my actions and decisions against the words of the Prince of Peace and it led me to impose restraint on a nation that wielded far more power over the world than did Mr Blair - although perhaps not so much as the American. Nevertheless, would he not have benefitted from some contemplation of the Gospels before letting slip the dogs of war?

WEG

Veering to Mr Clegg

I am unclear whether the Liberal Party has an upper age limit for membership or whether my extra-corporeal state would disbar me from application. Having discovered that paying members, rather than elected members, hold the votes, I have had insufficient time to apply in order to influence the contest to be my successor as next leader of this nation drawn from the liberal quarter.

Nevertheless I have followed the contest between Mr Clegg and Mr Huhne as if a voting member and, as have many I suspect, my opinion has veered on a daily basis. One day Mr Huhne appears to act disgracefully and I favour Mr Clegg. The next Mr Huhne's charges of "flip flop" appear to hold substance and I favour him, rather than Mr Clegg.

Both aspirants have today made submissions to their electorate through the pages of Liberal Democrat Voice and, as a consequence, my opinion today veers towards Mr Clegg. For Mr Huhne repeats in brief the same messages as before while Mr Clegg, perhaps driven by the power of the Huhne onslaught, seeks to deliver new direction and vision.

Mr Clegg draws our attention to two themes, rallying calls which he has issued. One is familiar and perhaps common to both men and that is a pledge to restore the power and majesty to the local councils, which were amongst the glories of my administrations. Regrettably his exposition on this matter lacks substance and does not win my favour on this account.

His second theme is expounded in substance and is a brave and apposite choice of subject matter for a party, which is often accused of seeing individuals as islands as a consequence of the excellent but limited work of Mr JS Mill, of whom more perhaps at a later date. It has been a source of dismay to me in this century that children are fatherless and often seem to lack families, who can show them love but also restraint. Mr Clegg echoes my concern that these matters, which relate to the nature of families, have been left to the heirs of Beaconsfield, the "social conservatives" whilst the doctrines of Mr Mill have been taken, not just by my party, to mean that private choices cannot be influenced by state policy, even when that policy is a bad policy. Indeed it is perhaps unsurprising that the socialist government appears equally influenced by the teachings of Mr Mill and Mr Marx, who would have the state take over the work of the family. Can it be true that they have created taxes which drive families apart? It is an appalling prospect and one which would have shocked to the marrow our dear Queen, even with her untutored grasp of fiscal matters.

It is clear to me, having undertaken considerable study of this matter, that the dissipation of the family, in part through misguided zeal in the pursuit of private liberty, has resulted in there being too many ill-disciplined and unhappy children and a selfishness and even rapacity in this nation that is at odds with the progress that has been made in so many ways. So today I veer towards Mr Clegg. It is now for Mr Huhne to put his counter-proposition.

WEG

Bishop or Baroness?

There are many wonders in this new age, some which even the writers of the Holy Scripture could not have envisaged. One, which it seems is now commonplace, is that mothers can give birth to children without the assistance of a father, yet not by parthenogenesis. I hear that my noble Lords have been discussing this and that senior Bishops have raised objections to proposals issued by the Government, proposals which would enable a woman to register another woman as the father of her child or, perhaps, as a second mother. To me such proposals are unconscionable although I had not favoured the inclusion of adults, acting with free will, in our Bill of 1885. That Bill was the fruit of many years of my research into the exploitation of women, research I should say undertaken at the cost of considerable temptation and fleshly suffering to myself, and it led to many necessary legal protections, especially for girls under the age of consent. Under Salisbury's government, that fool Labouchere added in a clause that made criminals of adult men indulging in private acts; I know not what he had to gain from it or whether he had matters from which he wished to distract attention. It is a matter of shame for our age that it led to the persecution of that fine writer and genuine wit Mr Wilde. It is, I believe, entirely untrue that the legislation was influenced by Her Majesty passing comments on the possibility of members of the fairer sex committing unspeakable acts with themselves although, in truth, it was Salisbury who was privy to that most awkward of conversations rather than myself.

With regard to the matter at hand, our bishops, it seems, are exercised that children may be raised without fathers and, not only without fathers, but in the belief that their second mother is in fact their father. Our own Baroness Tonge, however, has assured the noble Lords that failure to support the measure would be discrimination against those who are otherwise merry and would, presumably, reduce their sum of total happiness.

So to whom am I to incline, the Bishops or the Baroness? In spite of my reverence for the Holy Church, I am aware that its bishops are only too human and indeed have erred on many occassions through involvement in the secular sphere, although they are also capable of calling legislators, bogged down in the morass of affairs, to consider higher matters. It is no novelty that women should dwell together as friends when no husband is available although I find it surprising that now they undertake legal ceremonies to enshrine their friendships. Perhaps this is better, especially if they are to raise children, as it is unfortunate for a child to grow in a family not sanctioned by marriage and uncertain as to who its parents may be. My Lord Archbishop of York however informs us that this measure progresses matters to a further depth and creates children who are "fatherless by design". I must plead pity for the bishops for there are many matters in this modern age that challenge Christian morality and, indeed, the Christian traditions of our nation. Each step is taken for good liberal and humane reasons and yet the sum of steps creates a nation of fatherless children and childless fathers. I would claim to be vindicated in my original opposition to divorce although Mr Mill and many other colleagues repeatedly assured me that it was the most liberal of measures. In respect of the current legislation - to which I may return in the future - some consideration is need as to what difference of reality this new measure will make to the child as, regardless of the birth certificate, it will be raised quite legally with two mothers and always could be. Under the legislation, should the "mothers" part, one may claim rights of access and care for the child although not being a natural mother. This woman might legitimately claim she has sacrificed natural motherhood to share her maternal instincts with another woman.

I concur with the Archbishop that the State should take care not to dissipate the role of fathers and their place in families and, indeed, as married husbands in the household. In this instance I would urge His Grace and the Minister to consider also the role of the second mother who will exist in these families. Following a parting or a divorce, it seems to me the growing child will have more inclination and curiosity about their natural father, who shares their very material, their stuff of life, than they will about a woman who may have shared their mother's life for a period. And yet both child and second mother may also share familial affection and should not be automatically parted. These are different and difficult matters, not to be solved by a name on a birth certificate.

Mr Clegg and Mr Huhne

What a marvellous device it is that brings moving pictures directly into the home. This enabled me last night to observe Mr Clegg and Mr Huhne "debating" their aspirations to lead our great party. I fear that debate must be a little strong a term, even in this times when the spirit of Beaconsfield appears to have triumphed and debate too often is confined to witticisms and absence of substance.

I have heard the two aspirants compared with twin characters created by that excellent writer of children's tales, Mr Dodgson, namely Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Perhaps they are not twins but with certainty they are not deadly rivals. Thus Mr Clegg says of Mr Huhne "one of the most thoughtful people I know" whilst Mr Huhne assures us Mr Clegg would be a "key" person in his team.

I listened hard to seek to distinguish them and heard that Mr Clegg is passionate about the poor and so is Mr Huhne. Mr Huhne would not raise the school leaving age and neither would Mr Clegg. Mr Clegg deplores the coup d'etat mounted by the president of Pakistan and so does Mr Huhne.

Mr Huhne does not commit himself to coalition with another party to form a government and neither does Mr Clegg, who proposes that reform should be a pre-condition of coalition, as does Mr Huhne. Mr Huhne would return the hospitals to local boards as would Mr Clegg...and so on and so forth.

So the argument is about one issue, namely a weapons system designed I understand to unleash unimaginable destruction. Mr Huhne does not want it and neither does Mr Clegg but Mr Clegg would not abandon it in advance of discussions with other countries including, it seems Persia, for he fears Persia may acquire similar weapons. Mr Huhne thereupon cites the playwright Aristophanes and accuses his rival of residing in cloud cuckoo land, nephelococcygia, stating that the Trident, the spear of Poseidon, was designed at a time when Russia was our enemy, not Persia. Mr Clegg in his turn accuses his opponent of secretly wishing to build more of these terrible bombs in our own country - a matter that he does not entirely deny.

So, in short, both consider it expeditious to reject the Trident but neither considers it a matter of principle. Both in their wisdom consider our country must have the potential to own such weapons if it is to have a place at international conferences. I fear this discussion needs much extension because so terrible are these weapons that their possessors must surely be able to answer the question: under what circumstances would you use them? It seems that John the Apostle scarcely conceived of such destruction as could be unleashed by modern mankind. You may detect a note of disappointment in my tone as I do believe these are gentlemen who could be great statesmen. But statesmanship requires an understanding of the balance of power and the moral basis of arbitration and not the issuing of empty threats or challenges, which may merely make allies of our enemies.

So I remain unable to commend either distinguished challenger over the other. Both are wise in many ways but in need of a little experience of great affairs before assuming great office. Whilst I am tempted to reconsider my decision not to enter the lists to seek a fifth ministry, I am advised this is not possible now and indeed, also, do recall the gracious words of the sovereign who asked me, repeatedly, when she offered me the mantle of office whether I was quite sure I wished to undertake such burdens or whether there was another whom I might prefer to commend.

School boards

My good friends at the Theos "think-tank" have been debating schools and education.

The Education Act of 1870 I regard as one of my greatest achievements as it established public education in Great Britain and also established elected school boards. Perhaps I will discuss more that at a future date as, also, for the first time we introduced the women's franchise by this means.

Never in any sphere of the public realm are the tensions between liberalism and faith so stark as on the issue of education and this indeed forms part of the subject of the discussion at Theos. We established a liberal education system knowing that in doing so the sterling efforts of the churches to educate our children in both knowledge and morality might be undermined. This was necessary in order to enable all children to have opportunities and to persuade ratepayers that they must contribute to such progressive measures. Some boards rapidly took the view that religious education was not a proper part of the state system and indeed that it was unnecessary as many children would be attending Sunday Schools. They did so on the entirely proper grounds that they could not determine which denomination's religion would be taught

I fear attendance at Sunday School is now all but a rarity. I have visited villages and cities where but a handful of children gain education by this means. Fortunately the state sometime ago recognised the need to complete this aspect of a child's education and found a way to encompass all denominations but I wonder whether it is done well or done badly.

The question that has been posed is whether children can be educated in morality and righteousness. I would hope so but must reflect that a teacher is employed to undertake certain tasks, including the preparation of children for public examination. If a child is a rascal, the teacher will certainly train that child to restrain his natural instincts on the school premises. In other places the father and mother and perhaps the public authorities must be held responsible for his upbringing.

I had always hoped that larger numbers of children would receive a full education in the humanities and that this would create a nation of liberal-minded citizens. I was perhaps too optimistic and must reflect that mankind retains its fallen nature after 137 years of progress. Nevertheless the endeavour must not be abandoned and has undoubtedly stimulated much progress of different kinds. I would urge that those of the Christian faith remember the proper limits under which they should operate within schools, while those of other persuasions should not diminish the benefits that knowledge of the Gospels and Epistles may impart.

I feel that Her Majesty would also be most gratified to see so much achieved through our joint endeavour, which we discussed at such length during the early years of my ministry although, indeed, I fear her delicate constitution might not withstand the shock of so much change and so much public depravity.