door, so that the stranger is unconscious of his right, and the number who know theirs gradually diminishes, and no local authority announces or protects the public right. Or, again, the path is robbed of all its charm by the erection of high, black-pitched fences, which, though they leave the right of way, have deprived it of all its amenities. Often the narrow, enclosed, darkened passage becomes unsafe as well as unpleasant. Surely, if the public has any right to a path, some recognition by law is needed of all that made the path of value. Take from a path the view of all but a narrow strip of sky, deprive it of the fresh air that blew across it, the view over adjacent field, and you leave but a hollow mockery of a possession. Then there is the loss of paths boldly closed without legal right by many a high-handed owner, whose neighbours have not knowledge, courage, money, or perseverance to protect the paths which were their common possession. Once lost, these paths can never be regained. Let us, before it is too late, unite to preserve them. To me their value seems great. I think men love a country more when its woods, and fields, and streams, and flowers, and lakes and hills, and the sky that bends over them are visible. I think men are better for the whisper of their quiet voices when the din of the city ceases, and the time of rest begins. I think these little winding ways, that lead us on by the hedgerows and over brooks, through scented meadows and up grassy hill, away from dusty road and into the silent green of wood and field, are a common possession we ought to try to hand down undiminished in number and in beauty for those who are to follow.

I may here mention how large are the powers conferred on Parish, District, and County Councils for the defence of such public rights, and I would recommend to all residents in the country the admirable pamphlet by Sir Robert Hunter on these powers. Sir Robert Hunter is, I believe, the greatest authority in England on the law with regard to these common rights, as well as the devoted and experienced leader of all the efforts to preserve them, from the very beginnings of the movement. And I may add that intelligent correspondents in the country are among the most useful allies to the various bodies striving either to uphold public right or purchase and dedicate suitable sites to the people.

There are various good societies which anyone who feels called to help forward this cause can join and support.

1. There is the Commons Preservation Society, first in the field and ever foremost in the difficult struggle, founded by men like Fawcett, Sir Robert Hunter, Mr. Shaw Lefevre and many another brave champion of public right.

It has the hardest duty of all-the fighting-has to meet unpopularity and deserves our deepest gratitude. From the days when it saved Epping Forest, Wimbledon, and the New Forest, always

VOL. XLVI-No. 269

D

foremost in the field. It can be consulted on all questions dealing with common right, public right over commons and footpaths in all parts of England and Wales.

2. Then comes the Kyrle Society, which has done a great deal of London open-space work. The earliest to lay out and open London churchyards, it also helped to save Parliament Hill, Churchyard Bottom Wood, Hilly Fields, Deptford Park, The Lawn, the Postmen's Park and many others. Its open-space work, however, is not confined to London, and it will, I hope, be available for much country work.

3. The Metropolitan Public Gardens Association, Lord Meath's Society, has done a good work in further popularising the idea of London Public Gardens, and has secured and laid out many.

4. The Kent and Surrey Committee of the Commons Preservation Society has separate funds in order to enable it absolutely to take up cases of encroachment in these two counties which form so important a natural playground for London. It looks to the parent society for guidance, but is able to take up important cases, and to communicate constantly with all the Parish and District Councils, to prepare maps, and enroll correspondents.

Similar sub-committees have been formed for dealing with the North of London.

5. Lastly there is the National Trust, latest born of the goodly group, and entering into a happier phase of work.

Many of the duties of the other bodies are those of struggle and contention, honourable, but sad and difficult. The National Trust is happy in that it appeals to the generosity of men. It was founded because there did not exist a body which could hold land and buildings in trust for the public in all parts of England. It was felt that there might be donors who would be glad to give for the people beautiful sites and interesting historic buildings if there were a responsible body to hold them.

Also that some of us who could not make such large gifts might care to join with others in purchasing such places. It was decided that it would be well to form the governing body who are to be trustees for these gifts in such a way as to secure a high standard as to natural beauty and historic interest; and our Council is nominated, and must in the future be nominated, by various artistic and learned bodies, such as the Trustees of the National Gallery, the Society of Antiquaries, the Linnæan Society, the English, Scotch, and Irish Universities.

The National Trust has not been more than five years at work, but we have made a small practical beginning which we believe will gradually develop. We are much encouraged by the deep and general interest in our scheme. We have received from one lady a gift of a beautiful cliff near Barmouth; we have purchased by 173

donations a headland of fourteen acres in Cornwall, commanding the best view of Tintagel, and are appealing now for help to secure a wooded hillside in Kent with a splendid view; we have bought and entirely preserved from ruin a lovely old clergy house in a fold of the Sussex Downs; we have purchased a piece of fen land to preserve plants, moths and birds peculiar to marsh land; lastly, we have received a gift of a spur of a Kentish hill commanding a lovely view over the country. This was given in memory of their brother by a lady and gentleman who wished to make this a memorial to him. Beautiful indeed it is, and more changeful in morning glow and evening blue, and with fair sight of sunrise and sunset from its steep slope, than any stained-glass window: free for all time to the step of every comer, a bit of England belonging to the English in a very special way.

OCTAVIA HILL.

THE MEDIEVAL SUNDAY

IN condemning the seven-day newspaper, and in maintaining equivalently the seven-day concert, the public opinion of this country has drawn a rather delicate distinction, but one which, I venture to think, would have commended itself alike to the wisdom and to the religious feeling of our forefathers. Although the time has passed when the things that are old can hope to be treated with respect. merely because they are old, there are, nevertheless, a minority of us who believe that in social questions our modern reformers may still have something to learn from the ecclesiastical system of the Middle Ages. The Church has had a very large experience of human nature, and human nature in certain aspects is a constant quantity. Be this as it may, a brief summary of the theory and practice of Sunday observance before the Reformation may not be deemed out of place at the present juncture, when this topic has been so much before the public.

More than fifty years ago a contributor to the Histoire Littéraire de la France enunciated a somewhat novel theory concerning the prevalence of Sabbatarianism in England. Influenced no doubt by the then dominant views of Thierry, that all good things came to this country through the Norman Conquest, he was led to the remarkable discovery that even the English Sunday had its origin in the preaching of a Frenchman-to wit, Eustace, Abbot of St. Germer at Flai-who was sent over by Innocent the Third to obtain recruits for a projected crusade in 1200 and 1201. The most striking feature in the discourses of the eloquent Abbot was undoubtedly his earnest campaign against the profanation of the Sunday, and a number of startling miracles reported from many different parts of England were believed to enforce his words. C'est donc,' concludes M. Petit. Radel, au temps même de cet abbé que paraît remonter l'origine de l'exactitude scrupuleuse avec laquelle les Anglais observent religieusement le jour du repos dominical.'

6

The ecclesiastical legislation of the thirteenth and following centuries, not to speak of the statute of 27 Henry the Sixth, proves

1 Vol. xxvii. p. 396. The author of the chapter in question was M. Petit Radel, Membre de l'Institut.

conclusively that the effect of Abbot Eustace's mission was ephemeral; none the less there can be no doubt that an extraordinary sensation was produced at the time. We have only to contrast the elaborate account given of the Abbot of Flai by the contemporary chroniclers with the insignificant notices accorded twenty years later to that much more important event, the coming of the Friars, to see how the former had taken possession of the popular imagination. Two causes contributed to this result, the miracles which were said to have everywhere followed upon Eustace's preaching, but still more the singular document which the Abbot believed himself commissioned to make known to the world-a document which purported to be nothing less than a letter sent by Christ our Lord from heaven to warn mankind against the neglect of the Sabbath Day. Two contemporary writers, Roger Hoveden and Roger of Wendover, give the letter in extenso. It is a great deal too long and too ridiculous to be reproduced here, but the practical injunction which it embodies illustrates the maximum of observance then insisted on, and is useful for our purpose.

It is My will [Christ is made to say] that from the hour of none on the Saturday until sunrise on the Monday no man do aught of labour, save that which is for good, and if any one have transgressed let him atone for it by penance. And if ye do not obey this My commandment, Amen, I say to you, and swear to you, by My seat and My throne and by the Cherubin who 'guard My holy seat, that I will never again admonish you by letter, but I will open the heavens and rain down upon you stones and stocks and scalding water in the night, and nothing shall stay Me from destroying all the corrupt race of man.

It is curious that Eustace, no doubt in perfectly good faith, seems to have cited this letter as a communication which had been made to the world only a short time before. Matthew Paris, following Wendover, even declares that it was brought to the Pope from Palestine, and that he forthwith sent preachers, of whom Eustace was one, to make its contents known throughout Christendom. There is not the least foundation for such a statement, and as a matter of fact the fabrication was one of very ancient date, which may be traced back to the time of Licinianus, Bishop of Carthagena at the end of the sixth century. We find this prelate writing to rebuke a fellow bishop for his credulity in accepting a pretended letter of Christ on the observance of the Sunday which certain clear indications prove to have been in substance identical with that of Eustace. The same document was produced before a Roman Council held at the Lateran by Pope Zachary in 745.3 It was stated that a certain Aldebert was disseminating it, and gave out that it had fallen from heaven and was written by Christ Himself. The Pope ordered

2

2 Migne, P. L., vol. lxxii. p. 699. I quote from a paper recently read before the Royal Academy of Belgium by the Bollandist, Fr. H. Delehaye.

* See Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, i. 508.