forcements of the eccentric discipline* of most fantastic interpretations of the Faththe Isle of Man, carefully recorded, but all ers, he rejected, without examination, withthose various shades of his character which out thought, the inquiries of scholars, the bring out his connexion with the tendencies most deeply learned in Hebrew and Bibliof his time least loved by modern High cal lore that Christendom has ever seen, Churchmen. Such were his admiration for declining to consider any variations from William III.; his indifference to scenery the received view of Biblical inspiration as and architecture; his "suffering the holy proceeding from "men too wicked to be and venerable building in which he was en- reasoned with." Whilst advocating to the throned to fall into hopeless decay;" his last the extremely lax view of the Articles willingness to let his people look at the on behalf of the High Church school as exdifferent aspects in which truths, and re- pressed in Tract XC., he was sternly opligious truths especially, are sure to pre-posed to any relaxation of subscription in sent themselves to different minds;" his any direction which might favour other near approach to the allowance of the va- views than his own. His powerful mind lidity of Presbyterian orders; his appeal to was for years absorbed in the revival of the Privy Council, and his deliverance by the scholastic subtleties respecting the soits intervention; his acceptance of a high called "Real Presence" in the Eucharist. office in the Moravian Church; his permis- It was his sermon on "National Apossion to dissenters to receive the Commu- tasy," in 1834, which Dr. Newman always nion sitting. Keble hmself, as he pro- regarded as the birthday of the Oxford ceeds, seems to warm with Bishop Wilson's High Church movement - the "National own warmth towards the " despised eigh- Apostasy" being the suppression of the ten teenth century," marked by "the move- Irish bishoprics, of which its author lived ment of the great and good men who had to take so different a view that, if we may formed the Societies for the " Propagation accept the whispered approbation conof the Gospel, the Promotion of Christian veyed to Dr. Newman in 1865, he at last Knowledge, and the Reformation of Man- acquiesced without a murmur in the supners." pression of the whole Establishment.

Again, if, in Keble's published letters, there is an almost total absence † of the world-wide strength and originality of Arnold, or the pungent wit and fire of Whately, there is yet a saintly simplicity and sweetness in even the most trivial of them, which disarms criticism and wins attention even where the matter itself deserves attention. Even in his remarks on the ritual questions which now so much agitate the ecclesiastical world, and were beginning to do so before his death, it is impossible not to be struck by his moderation and forbearance.

But not the less is it true that he embraced, in all their rigidity, the peculiar views which marked the Oxford movement of 1834. The letters which touch on those matters rarely move beyond this orbit. On these grounds he broke off intercourse with Arnold, in spite of Arnold's own solemn remonstrance, though, with a happy inconsistency, he renewed a kindly connexion after the heat of the first agitation had passed away. With a curious mixture of humanity and unconscious arrogance, whilst he accepted without scruple the

See the humorous but painful description of dealing with the poor idiot penitent, vol. i. p. 298. †There are two or three exceptions, as, for example, the description of Arnold's" merry defiant moods in his younger days: "-"He only cackles and crows at anything anybody can say to him.".

P. 131.

*

It is not for the disparagement of a sacred and venerable memory that we have noticed these theological extremes in the author of the "Christian Year." It is in order to show what would be the results to the English Church of the series of legal prosecutions and judgments of late set on foot and threatened by one ecclesiastical party against the other. These prosecutions, from whichever side they start, have in common one most unpleasing and ungenerous peculiarity. Professing to wish to ascertain the law of the Church of England on some disputed doctrine, they choose for

* The passage is somewhat ambiguous. Dr. Newhe been a member of the University of Oxford, he man (in his Letter, p. 518) seems to say that, "Had must have voted against Mr. Gladstone, because he was giving up the Irish Establishment." On this Keble whispered in his ear (he cannot recollect the exact words, but he took them to be)," And is not that just?" An earlier passage (p. 512) might suggest some doubt as to whether this really was his meaning. "Might not what says about the Irish Church have somewhat the effect of a firebrand?

I should have thought it discreet not to put the matter forward so prominently, unless a man saw his way to the mending of it." Besides the temporary interest of these passages, it is worth while to quote them as showing how small in Ke ble's eyes had in 1865 become the offence which in 1834 he regarded as "apostasy," and which had given the impetus to the whole movement of the "Tracts for the Times." These extreme oscillations of view are remarkable. Whilst they convey consolation to alarmists of all kinds, they show an instability of view not uncommon in all theological controversy, and seriously detracting from the oracular value of Keble's utterances.

the case in which to try it some person or
circumstance which presents the matter,
not in the most abstract or inoffensive form,
such as would really tend to the discovery
of truth and law in its clearest, calmest
aspect, but in the most exaggerated and ex-
citing shape, such is most likely to raise a
cloud of passion and prejudice-capable,
if it be possible, of obscuring the atmos-
phere even of the most serene tribunal.
And the effect is that, whilst it is but a
"vile body" in which "the experiment"
is made, the hostile conclusion sought to
be arrived at would strike right and left at
conscientious and scrupulous minds, too
generous to turn aside from a brother in
distress, too high-minded to avoid applying
to themselves what was, in the first instance,
meant for another. Thus, Mr. Gorham, dwarfed all those lofty qualities which have
with a somewhat peculiar tinge of Calvinis- made his poetry and his character a treas-
tic opinion, was to be made the engine ure of the whole nation? It may be that
which was to expel the whole Evangelical these sinister internecine struggles of party
party. Thus, Dr. Williams and Mr. Wil- against party will succeed in their attempt.
son, labouring under the accumulated odium There are many expressions in Articles and
of the " Essays and Reviews," and the Rubrics which, if taken literally, would ex-
Bishop of Natal, suffering from the extra-clude every eminent man in the Church of
ordinary personal virulence excited in some England from its ministrations. Di meliora
degree by some needlessly trenchant ex- piis. Let us hope that these miserable
pressions of his own, have been made the
objects of attacks which, if the truth or
falsehood of the doctrine and principles
were at issue, must include in their range
persons whom, for various reasons, no one
ventures to assail.

from the pale of the Church of England.
We ask, without fear of contradiction, Is
there any English Churchman
nay, we
might almost say, is there any English Non-
conformist - who would not have regretted
such a consummation? What would the
Church of England have gained by losing
from its ranks one of its most distinguished
luminaries one who has done more than
any other man in our generation to endear
its devotions to the nation? What would
the country have gained, what would the
lamented and respected victim himself have
gained, by becoming the member, perhaps
the leader - perhaps even the bishop-of
a small exclusive bitter sect, which would
have exaggerated all those inferior qualities
which we have felt bound to notice, and

efforts to narrow the National Church on either side may meet with their deserved frustration. Let us hope that the Supreme Court of Appeal, if indeed the litigation should ever reach that point, will act as a bulwark of liberty to those who have eagerThus, in the present case, the batteries ly sought to restrain true freedom, as to have been opened against an eccentric those who have thankfully availed themclergymen in Somersetshire, whose bald selves of it. The point in dispute between statements may have accidentally laid him the two parties is one which admits of no open to assaults which, if they are sincere- settlement, so long as they each insist on ly aimed not against the person but the using scholastic words which have lost their doctrine, must include - -not to speak of meaning, or Biblical words which they have great living names the venerable author never defined. By taking the system as a of the Christian Year." The "Real whole-by balancing one part with another, Presence" in the Sacrament whatever by the forbearance which in private life all those two most ambiguous words may mean gentlemen and all Christians feel bound to and the adoration" of that Real Pres-exercise towards each other the Church ence - whatever that third equally ambigu- of England can still be maintained as a ous word may mean was held by John Catholic and as a national institution. Let Keble, if ever it was held by any one. It us hope that in some future age there may is true that he thought that there was no yet, as far as our institutions are concerned, difference between saying, "Not in the be room for another Arnold, another Milhands but in the heart," or, "In the hands man, another Keble, to admire and revere and not in the heart; " but this only proves, each other, in the same Church, as at least if it proves anything, the entirely futile by two of them the third was admired and character of the whole logomachy. If a revered. judgment had been pronounced in his lifetime which had rendered it penal for an English clergyman to profess his belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and in the lawfulness and duty of adoring that Real Presence, John Keble, if any man, would have been struck at, and excluded

These three men, amongst the departed lights of the English hierarchy in this century, were unquestionably the chief. Of these three, as of those other three whose*

* See the very interesting letter by Dr. Newman describing the interview between himself. Koble, and Dr. Pusey at Hursley. (Memoir of Keble, p. 520.)

last meeting is recorded in this volume, the | Or, as his biographer feelingly adds in thought arises in a still stronger and more Keble's own words: significant form, as was expressed by Keble after that singular meeting and parting:

"When before the Judgment-seat,

Though changed, and glorified each face,
Not unremember'd ye may meet,
For endless ages to embrace."

A. P. S.

MONS.

From The Spectator.

ties of men towards the lower tribes of ani

THE SEA-GULLS IN THE HOUSE OF COM-mals, which are, at best, very indirectly and accidentally represented in the House MR. SYKES obtained leave last week to of Commons, if at all. It is fortunate for bring in a Bill for the preservation of sea- the sea-birds that they can establish a cergulls and other sea-birds from wanton de-tain amount of identity of tangible interests struction, by making the slaughter of them during the breeding months, namely, between the 1st May and the 1st August, a penal offence against the law, except for the bona fide purpose of being used as food. He stated that the wanton shooting of these birds, merely for the sake of shooting them, or for the sake of their feathers, not for food, in the breeding months, has already to a considerable extent deprived the English coast of its sea-fowl, and that the East Riding of Yorkshire especially, and all the maritime counties of England to some extent, are really suffering from their destruction. Their disappearance injures three great interests, that of the farmers, the sailors, and the fishers, the sea-gulls serving the tillers of the soil in maritime counties by following the track of the plough in early spring and picking from the soil the grubs and worms, serving the merchantmen in dark and misty weather by warning them by their screams of the approach to a rocky coast long before a signal gun could be heard or a beacon light seen, so that near Flamborough Head they are called "the Flamborough pilots," and serving the fishers by congregating in clouds above a shoal of fish, and so guiding the fishermen to their proper field of work. In the name of these interests, therefore, Mr. Sykes appealed to the House to protect the sea-birds in breeding time, just as salmon, partridges, pheasants, and other game are protected in breeding time by our game laws; but he added that though he brought forward his Bill mainly on the ground of the usefulness of these birds to man, he thought it had sufficient ground to rest upon on merely humanitarian grounds as well.

This last hint of Mr. Sykes's opens a very interesting discussion as to the political du

with farmers, sailors, and fishermen, for the voices of farmers, sailors, and fishermen will count for a good deal in the House, if there be no organized hostile interest. But how far would there be a reasonable and just claim on behalf of these creatures, if no such subtle tie could be discovered between their interests and ours? Can we go so far as to say that every kind of living creature has a certain claim upon the protection of the State unless its existence can either be shown to be harmful to man, or its destruction can be shown to be useful to him? That we have a right to kill sharks which eat us, and for the matter of that, even bottle-nosed whales, if they really run away with the herrings and other fishes which our fishermen catch and all of us like to eat, is not, we suppose, disputable. That, for the same reasons, we may fairly protect the sea-gulls on the ground that they destroy worms and grubs which injure our corn and root-crops, that is, on the ground that they compete for existence with other living creatures which are, unless their multiplication is so checked, positively injurious to man, is also, we suppose, indisputable. But, so far, the argument for sparing them rests solely on their tendency to contribute to our benefit, or at least their tendency to contribute relatively more to our benefit, than the creatures upon which they feed, and the numbers of which would be more or less fostered by their destruction. But can we safely go any further, and say with Mr. Sykes, that on purely humanitarian grounds, there is a fair case against their destruction? In the case at least of all creatures which prey upon other creatures, all birds, for instance, which live on fish, and insects, and worms, is it tenable to say that they have any absolute claim on our protection, when

in reality that protection means withholding | of sea-birds has any kind of bonâ fide justiprotection from the creatures which they fication on the ground that they live on destroy? If their animal tissues are solely other creatures. Those who destroy them supported out of other animal tissues, the for the sake of a mark to practise their quantity of life will perhaps not be greater skill upon, of course never for a moment if they are preserved than if they are de- even think of the prey that escape in constroyed; the only difference will be in the sequence of the birds' destruction. All distribution of life between different tribes they think of is the pleasure of the act of of animals; and, if the number of individual destruction itself, or at best, the pleasure centres of enjoyment counts for anything, of the skill which is exercised in the act of it may fairly be maintained that as one destruction. If the latter be the motive, it oyster-catcher must catch a great many fish is precisely the same as the motive of in order to support its own life, a plausible sportsmen in general, except so far as the humanitarian argument could be made out sportsman does intend to use what he kills for the slaughter of such birds of prey. for food. But then even the sportsman Will any one be bold enough to say which recognizes that there is a point where his has the most moral claim on man's protec- sport may become wanton, and that tion, the pelican, or the host of fishes with point is where he destroys a great deal which, during his term of life, he fills and more life by his exercise of skill than is at refills his pouch? Can we even go so far all involved in the special shot, if, for as to establish an equation between the instance, by shooting in the breeding season claim on us of ten thousand worms and one he destroys not only the partridge he shoots robin redbreast? If we trust the plan of at, but all the nest of young partridges as nature as a whole, there may be a pruden- well. It may be said that the limitations tial argument against disturbing, blindly, imposed by the game laws are imposed the natural balance between one existing solely as a protection to the amusement, tribe of living creatures and another on not for the sake of the creatures themselves which the former feeds, without knowing or at all, only lest the sport should fail by in any way forecasting the results. It may the failure of the breeds which the sportsbe said that we are in danger of interfering man pursues. And this may be more or with a balance of life that is more likely to less true in fact. Still we believe that be favourable to us than not, seeing that so there is a still more important and legitimany wanton interferences with it have mate political motive in these provisions turned out really hurtful to ourselves, as to curb the wantonness and wastefulness of in the case, for instance, of the wholesale man for the sake of curbing it, and not slaughter of small birds. But can we go solely for the sake of protecting the source higher than this, and find any really human- of his amusements. Every man who enitarian ground for protecting a tribe of ani- tails perfectly needless suffering by a shot, mals from destruction, apart from calcula- who sacrifices not only the individual bird tions of prudence as regards our own in- aimed at, but also five or six others, and terests? that perhaps in a very miserable way, by starving them to death, -is fostering a sort of artificial contempt for the life of the creatures beneath him, which is likely enough to end in contempt for other higher creatures of his own species. It may be right to say that human skill and capacity for field sport are of more importance than the individual lives of birds, or other animals which are taken in training it. But it seems to us quite certain that, even in sport, there ought to be a certain consideration for the creatures sacrificed, that all unnecessary pain and injury should be sedulously avoided, and that it is a worthy political object even to curb the almost insolent wastefulness to which men are much more liable in following out their enjoyments, than in prosecuting the duties of their ordi

One step higher we think we can go, though we admit at once that we are utterly unable to measure the relative claims of different kinds of animals to our protection, until at least they reach a level high enough to be associated in some degree with man by common sympathies, and a sort of mutual regard. Every one feels that in the case of the horse, and the dog, and all domestic animals that attach themselves to man, there arises a certain amount of moral claim upon us, though one very inferior in kind to any corresponding claim of human beings. But without approaching this level, we think we may lay it down that, quite apart from mere prudential regard to human interests, it is a just and wise political object to curb the wanton and wasteful impulses of men, however displayed. It is impossi- nary life. ble to contend that the wholesale slaughter