38 
the sense of human responsibility. Looking at the question practically, it 
assumes this form. You and I are made to a considerable extent what 
we are, by the force of habit. This force of habit, when once formed 
in us, does, to a certain extent, modify our responsibility, but does not 
destroy it. And what I admire in Dr. Irons’s paper is that, while he 
persists in keeping before us the facts, he points out that, treating the 
question in whatever way you will, there is still some responsibility 
attaching to the conscious agent. I particularly draw attention to this 
admirable feature in the paper — that, while he plainly persists in bringing 
before us the whole facts, he shows that, however they may modify our 
view, there still remains some responsibility. It does not follow because I 
have not got universal freedom, that I have not got some freedom. It does 
not follow because I have not universal responsibility that I have not some 
responsibility ; and that is quite enough for the purpose for Avhich it is 
intended. There is another passage to which I would direct attention, and 
that is with reference to the position of the State, Dr. Irons rather implies 
than says that the State has a conscience. I quite agree with his reasoning, 
but I wish to draw attention to his statement that the State is bound to act 
according to the conscience of the various individuals who form it 
Dr. Irons. — I do not say that certainly. 
Mr. Bow. — It is pretty much the same thing to say that the very notion of 
a conscience in the State or corporation, implies the action of the individual 
conscience in its members. But I am afraid that is not always so, and as 
this discussion is rather a dry one, perhaps the Chairman will allow me to 
relieve it by narrating an instance of the kind of conscience which is some- 
times to be found in a corporation. When I was at Oxford, the Municipal 
Corporation Bill had just been passed. • The Corporation of Abingdon were 
very much noted for good living, and they had a splendid cellar of choice 
wines which they did not like to leave to their successors. What did they 
do ? They passed a resolution, that instead of meeting once a fortnight, as 
was their custom, they would meet three times a week, and drink up the 
choice wines, in order that they might not fall into the hands of the enemy. 
(Laughter.) That is an illustration of what may be called the conscience of 
a corporation. In one word, it seems to me that when we get into a party, we 
get the lowest perception of conscience. I even feel that this is the case 
with what are called “ Corporations sole.” Our friend Dr. Irons is a 
“ Corporation sole,” and I confess that I would rather deal with him as Dr. 
Irons individually than as Dr. Irons, Yicar of Brompton. A corporation of 
any kind, somehow or other, affects a man’s conscientiousness ; but when 
you come to a corporation aggregate it is a most terrible matter ; and the 
worst form of a corporation aggregate is that of a religious party, for it seems 
to destroy all conscience in the men individually, for there are hundreds of 
men professing and calling themselves Christians who in a corporate capacity 
will not scruple to do what they certainly would not do as ordinary Chris- 
tians, and therefore it is that I have a great objection to a state corporation 
being described as having a conscience 
