and almost entirely independent of external or symbolical modes of expression.

As long before as 1851, in a letter to Dr. Skinner, Bishop of Aberdeen, which in the following year was printed by desire of the Scottish bishops, Mr. Gladstone, discussing "the functions of laymen in the church," had said:"I shall venture two remarks upon ritual changes generally, in which I am bold enough to anticipate extensive agreement. The first is, that as ceremonial is but the dress of devotion, it ought to follow upon rather than precede spiritual growth, of which it must become the consequence before it can become the cause; and, except as to the removal of palpable indecency and scandal, it should be left for its increase to such spontaneous demand as may arise out of our gradual return to that temper of elevated and concentrated devotion, which has unhappily become rare among us. The second is, that many of the points which have given rise to dissension are in themselves really but secondary, and have derived their importance from prepossessions conventionally rather than essentially connected with them. Now both of these remarks point to one and the same conclusion; namely, that diversities and changes of ritual, so far as they are open questions at all, are a matter to which the people ought to have something to say. If ceremonial be in general not so much a means of awakening as an instrument of edification for those already awakened, then the expediency of ritual restrictions must, it is evident, vary greatly with the religious temper of each congregation. If, again, its details are, as it were, prejudged by prepossessions for or against them, then manifestly there is a tender and irritable state of mind to deal with, which will become hopeless under anything like an exasperating treatment. The way to conquer men's prejudices is to appeal freely to their good sense, and allow some reasonable scope to their free-will and choice. Such appeal involves, or at the very least harmonizes with the idea of giving them a share of discretion in determining the points at issue. Nothing can be more painful or disgraceful than to see questions of divine service settled, as they were some years ago

settled in Exeter, by riot and uproar.

But we probably never should have witnessed them, had it not been for the anarchical state into which congregational organization has there been allowed to lapse. Besides the things in themselves, nay, besides the prejudices attaching to them, there was, I believe, at the root of all a sentiment in the people that they were over-ridden, which generated, as it were in self-defence, a strong and unmanageable reaction. Had there been in those cases a regularly constituted congregation, or, to borrow a phrase from our Presbyterian friends, a roll of communicants, and had these had the means of making known their sentiments, and of acting by their duly chosen officers, the clergy would have derived from them the most valuable aid at the outset, instead of being left to work out their way, as it were, blindfold; a general harmony would have been secured between the forms of divine service, and the tone of feeling in the congregation, to which, as we have seen, they ought to bear a close regard, and authority, too weak already, would have been spared some heavy blows."

These words, addressed though they were to the Scotch episcopacy, might have been profitably studied in England, and a due regard for them would perhaps have prevented the scandals which have followed the practice of the adoption of strange ritualistic observances by "priests" newly appointed to churches where the congregations were averse to practices against which they were allowed no immediately effectual protest. The result of "Ritualism" has often been that the clergy, while defying alike the bishop's commands and the provisions of the civil law, have virtually evicted the first congregation who had contributed to the establishment and maintained the structure of the building in which they met to worship, and have left them to wander where they chose, another, and perhaps non-resident, congregation filling their places. Doubtless the arrogant assumptions of many of the priests who introduced their own ritual, combined with the deep disappointment of the congregations whom they had disregarded, had the effect of hastening

nance.

There had, as we have seen, been repeated attempts to introduce measures into parliament for the abolition of church-rates, but they had not been successful. The manner of collecting the tax had ceased to be so conspicuous as it formerly was, and in many cases it was not enforced. A general impression existed that the entire remission of the rates would soon be accomplished. There was no agitation outside parliament sufficiently powerful to carry a bill against the majority who voted against Mr. Walpole's bill in 1859, but Sir John Trelawney's bill of January, 1860, passed the second reading by a majority of 263 to 234 votes, and was read a third time, to be thrown out by the Lords on a second reading by a majority of 128 to 31. This roused an active agitation on both sides. The representatives of the Dissenting denominations convened a great meeting at Freemasons' Hall, for the purpose of securing the passing of the bill which Sir John was to bring in the next session. Several hundreds of wellknown leaders of dissent were present, most of the chief towns and many rural parishes of the kingdom being represented. It was determined to raise £3000 for carrying on the agitation, and half that sum was obtained in a few minutes. It was decided that direct and persevering action should be adopted to influence parliament, and that no heed should be taken of any threat of resistance or offer of compromise. But the opponents of the bill were

13

busy too, and they were powerful. An effort must be made to reverse the recent divisions in favour of the abolition of church-rates. As the supporters of Sir John Trelawney's bill had held meetings and signed petitions, the same means were adopted by its opponents, and clergymen were everywhere exhorted to enlist their parishioners against the measure. Mr. Disraeli took the lead in the opposition movement. At a meeting of the clergy and laity of the rural deanery of Amersham in Buckinghamshire, he declared that the question of church-rates necessarily involved the existence of a national church. "The clergy must make members of parliament understand, that though this was not a party question it was a political one, and a political question on which in their minds there ought not to be, and there could not be any mistake." He could assure them, from his own knowledge, that there were many members of parliament who on this question gave careless votes, and thought by so doing they were giving some vague liberal satisfaction without preparing any future inconvenience for themselves. "Let their clerical friends, Whig or Tory, Conservative or Liberal, make these gentlemen understand that, in their opinion, on the union of church and state depend, in a large measure, the happiness, the greatness, and the liberty of England."

There were, however, eminent persons who were in favour of a compromise, which would perhaps have satisfied the main body of the Dissenters. Mr. Hubbard, who had become an authority on the subject of finance in the House of Commons, and was known to be deeply interested in church matters, had already endeavoured to bring in a bill, the main principle of which was that those who dissented from the Church of England by a simple declaration should be exempted from the payment of church-rates. The Bishop of Exeter, in reply to an appeal for a declaration of his opinion, issued a very conciliatory letter, in which he intimated that common prudence and the manifest interests of peace demanded the substitution of temporal for ecclesiastical courts on occasions of church-rate litigation. He considered that weight should be given

to the conscientious objections of those who, in refusing to pay church-rates, refused to support a system of doctrine and worship to which they were opposed. He did not go quite so far as to acknowledge that such objections were reasonable, but he thought that at all events they should be rendered inapplicable. Clergymen should, he thought, no longer contend for all that was desirable, nor even for all that might be reasonable. They must make concessions, and could do so with very little damage to their cause. In conclusion he suggested that church-rates should only be so far retained as to furnish, in some shape or other, funds for maintaining the structure of the churches, and the proper keeping of churchyards; but that all beyond that should be provided by voluntary contributions. The charges for the various accessories of worship should be defrayed by the actual worshippers and not by those who could not enjoy the use of the service.

When Sir John Trelawney returned to the charge, and brought in his bill in 1861 (the second reading came on the 27th of February), there was a multitude of petitions and strong opposition, but little display of genuine interest in the house. An amendment was proposed by Sir W.Heathcote, the colleague of Mr.Gladstone as representative of the University of Oxford. He was in favour of a policy of conciliation, and denied that concessions made in order to get rid of difficulties and animosities could be held to be a surrender of principle. He put it to the government whether a time had not arrived most favourable to a conciliatory arrangement of the question, and moved that the second reading of the bill be deferred for six months. Sir W. Heathcote was quite the right sort of man to make this proposal, though he was not distinguished as a speaker. He was a man of social position and of high character, representing the university where he was educated, and where, in 1821, he had taken a first-class in classics, in 1824 had graduated B.C.L., and in 1830 D.C.L. Further, he was an eminent magistrate, a devout churchman, a good landlord. As a genuine country gentleman, he lived on his estate at Hursley Park in Hampshire, formerly the

property of Richard Cromwell, who inherited it from his father-in-law, Mr. Mayor. Close to the Park a new and extremely beautiful Gothic church had been built, and the rector was Mr. Keble, whose Christian Year was then, as it has been since, a volume beloved of pious souls. It was said that the church had been paid for out of the profits of the book; but whether this was so or not, it was the parish church, and Sir William Heathcote was a regular attendant, he and his family occupying a seat amidst the rest of the congregation. The worthy knight was therefore the proper man to propose conciliation, and he was soon followed by Mr. Gladstone, who said that he remained of the opinion that he had always held, and should refuse to vote for the second reading of the bill. To get at the merits of the Church-rate Bill it must be divided into two questions, as respected two portions of the country. In populous parishes it might be in practice bad, and he would abandon the principle of the rate there; but in rural parishes, where the rate was paid with as much satisfaction as any other public charge, why was this ancient law to be abolished? Dissenters were in the main congregated in the populous parishes; and the offer was made to them to exempt themselves from the rate if they pleased, but they did not please. If church-rates were in fact the cause of providing religious worship for the great majority of the poor, were they to be abolished for the sake of a minority who declared they had a grievance from which they would not accept exemption? He was not willing to intrust to mere speculative support the venerable fabric of the parish churches. He suggested that an arrangement might be made to accept the power of the majority of a parish to reject or agree to church-rates as a right, at the same time allowing a parish also to tax itself by the will of the majority.

Mr. Bright was utterly opposed to this view. It had, he said, all the faults of all the plans of compromise of the question, and in fact it amounted to what was already the law, namely, that where you could not get church-rates you were to let them alone, and where a majority was in favour of them they were to prevail.