vfsM^ 
 
 »^.>^ 
 
 .w: 
 
 mwT^n 
 
 p^^yK 
 
 M^K«KI|^^||^^^^^V* « ^^L 
 
 D^H* V^^fa^R 
 
 ^i^f^W\ 
 
 l&^^.^Sf 
 
 ^hHR N^ tH 
 
 '7l^nBf'""^^m^ 
 
 ■tL^L'^^Hr^^ 
 
 (B|v--jb» 
 
 vh9 
 
 ^^^nm 
 
 tco 
 
 ^^ 
 
 ^^
 
 ^^,^r^ 
 
 V"^ 
 
 L I B RARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 U N IVERSITY 
 
 or ILLl NOIS
 
 mi^^M^^&-T:
 
 r 
 
 ^ 
 
 - 
 
 f 
 
 p 
 
 -i 
 
 y 
 
 
 -iS ^ ^ 
 
 
 K, 
 
 7^^ 
 
 
 
 VEllMl AND STATE QUESTIONS IN iMc. 
 
 
 
 
 
 A CHAliGE 
 
 
 
 
 
 DELIVEKED TO .THE 
 
 
 
 
 
 CLERGY AND CHURCIIAVARDEXS 
 
 
 
 
 
 OF THE 
 
 
 
 
 
 ARCfJDEACOiNRY OF MIDDLESEX. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ht i)ig iiJrimar^ rtsitation. 
 
 
 
 
 
 HELD Al 
 
 
 
 
 
 St, Paul's, C<;>vent Garden, ^Iav KStjf, 187(5. 
 
 
 
 
 
 BV 
 
 JAMES AUGUSTUS HESSEY, D.(\L, 
 
 
 
 
 
 ARCHDEACON OF MIDDLESEX, 
 
 
 
 
 
 Anrl Preaclier to the Hon. Society of Orai/'s Liu. 
 
 
 
 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 
 
 
 
 JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET. 
 
 
 
 
 187(). 
 
 
 ^u 
 
 \, 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 
 7 
 
 Price One SliiUing. 
 
 ^ 
 
 (. 
 
 7"^
 
 
 ^^^^'^^ 
 
 -<:>«^ 
 
 :2^Wi' ^^ 
 
 '^^^:^^ 
 
 A<^^
 
 CHUEGH AND STATE QUESTIONS IN 1876. 
 
 A CHAEGE 
 
 DELIVERED TO THE 
 
 CLERGY AND CHURCH WARDENS 
 
 OP THE 
 
 AECHDEACOMY OF MIDDLESEX, 
 ^t i^iis prtmarg 'Fist'tatt'ott, 
 
 HELD AT 
 
 St. Riul'8, Coyent Garden, May 16th, 1876. 
 
 BY 
 
 JAMES AUGUSTUS HESSEY, D.C.L., 
 
 ARCHDEACON OF MIDDLESEX, 
 And Preacher to the Hon. Society of Gray's Inn. 
 
 LONDON : 
 JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET. 
 
 1876.
 
 N.B. — The passages marJced [] icere, for want of time, omitted in delivery, 
 and certain other passages icere someivhat condensed. 

 
 My Reverend Brethren, and my Brethren the 
 Churchwardens of the Archdeaconry of 
 Middlesex. 
 
 It is impossible for any one who has been called to an 
 office of almost unknown antiquity in the Church Universal, 
 to enter upon that office without solemn prayer on his own 
 part, or without entreating the prayers of his fellow-labourers, 
 both of Clergy and of Laity, that, so far as he is concerned, 
 " Ne quid detrimenti capiat Ecdesiay Therefore, before I say 
 one word more, let me assure you that as my own approaches 
 to the throne of Divine Grace have not been wanting, so I 
 ask, very earnestly, that I may have the great and inestimable 
 advantage of your prayers for me being blended with mine. 
 
 Your kind reception of me as your Archdeacon has 
 already given me much encouragement, and, imperfectly as 
 I know my duties at present, I trust that as years pass on I 
 may, by God's assistance, be of some little use in my portion 
 of this vast and overwhelming Diocese. The Archdeaconry 
 of Middlesex, alone, contains nineteen Bural Deaneries, at 
 least three hundred and twenty-three Benefices, something 
 like six hundred Clergy, and a population of certainly a 
 million and a half.* Under any circumstances, then, I should 
 need the forbearance and consideration of my brethren in the 
 
 * The exact amount at the last Census -was 1,455,784, and it has 
 increased since that was taken very considerably. 
 
 a2
 
 performance of what I have to do with so large a field before 
 me. But the reputation of many of my predecessors, the 
 conviction that I cannot equal them even in their individual 
 excellences, and much less in their united accomplishmentSj 
 and the thought that more is expected of those in office now 
 than Avas expected heretofore, indefinitely Increase that need. 
 I do not speak of Pre-Reformatlon worthies, though of them 
 there were many. But he who occupies the chair of Alexander 
 Nowell,* the author of the celebrated Catechism, one of the 
 first-fruits of the Eeformation ; or of Daniel AYaterland,t 
 whose Eevieio of the Doctrine of the Eucharist were of itself 
 sufficient to brighten the dark days of the eighteenth century ; 
 may be permitted to express some misgiving as to his own 
 powers. Much more, if he finds that his three immediate 
 predecessors were a canonist such as AVllliam Hale Hale,:|: 
 or a scholar and educationist such as John Lonsdale,§ or, 
 last but not least in honour, John Slnclair.|| 
 
 Yes ! John Sinclair ! Who, that had the advantage of 
 personally knowing that venerable man, can forget his kindly 
 presence, his courteousness, his chastened hilarity, his know- 
 ledge of men and of books — always ready to be communicated 
 to all, but never unduly forced upon any ? " Erat in ilia 
 viro^'' says Cicero,^ speaking of the capturer of Tarentum, 
 '"^comitate condita gravitasf and this is my recollection of 
 our friend's demeanour, whether in private life, or in the 
 public Societies over which he had to preside, and the internal 
 storms of which his geniality of temper not unfrequently 
 
 * In 1559. Afterwards Dean of St. Paul's and Prolocutor of the Lower 
 House of Convocation. 
 
 f In 1730. He was offered, but declined, the Prolocutorship of the 
 Lower House of Convocation, and the Bishopric of Llandaff. 
 
 I In 1840. Afterwards Ai-chdeacon of London, 
 g In 1843. Afterwards Bishop of Lichfield. 
 
 II In 1843. He held the Archdeaconry more than thirty-two years. 
 5[ Ck. : de Senectute. — s. 4.
 
 allayed. To his unflagging energy in the parish committed 
 to his care, our Bishop has given this striking testimony : — 
 " During his incumbency he succeeded in adding to it twenty 
 new churches, with five mission or temporary chapels, besides 
 rebuilding his own." This last work, be it remembered, was 
 achieved in his extreme old age, when most men would have 
 considered that they had well earned some repose. Of his 
 learned research, of his severely logical reasoning powers — not 
 unbreathed in the trying schools, first of Edinburgh, and then 
 of Oxford — and of his judicious application of both to the 
 requirements of the day and of the Church, his Charges will 
 be a lasting record. Many of us still remember them as 
 though they were delivered yesterday. I rejoice to learn that 
 they are to be republished in a collected form. The Rights of 
 Bishojis^ Preshytei's^ and the Laity may still receive illustration 
 from the Charge of 1864, in these days, when three great 
 currents of feeling are moving in the heart of the Church, 
 and somewhat interfering each with the other. These are, as 
 you know, a desire for an increase of the Episcopate — a 
 jealousy of too arbitrary interference on the part of Bishops 
 with the reasonable liberty of Presbyters — an anxiety on the 
 part of the Laity to be employed in the work of evangelizing, 
 and to have a voice in the Church's councils, partly welcomed, 
 partly distrusted by the Presbytery. And the Charge of 1865, 
 on "Free-thought," contains a reductio adabsurdum unequalled, 
 except by Archbishop Whately's Historic Doubts relative 
 to Napoleon Buonaparte^ which is well worthy of re-perusal. 
 In it his object is to show, that a clergyman who had written 
 Hume's Treatise of Human Nature^ or his Essay on Miracles^ 
 or his Posthumous Dialogues on Human Nature^ would be 
 entitled to acquittal on the very identical grounds on which 
 Mr. Wilson and Dr. Williams were acquitted. Whether one 
 agrees with his conclusion or not, it is impossible to withhold 
 admiration of the ingenuity and delicate irony by which it is 
 compassed.
 
 6 
 
 You will, I am sm-e, pardon this passing tribute to 
 Archdeacon Sinclair's memory, and my direction of your 
 attention to the legacy which he has, in his writings, 
 bequeathed to the Church. 
 
 I come now to myself, or rather, to my duties in reference 
 to you. 
 
 It would be unprojfitable, and, indeed, impossible, to enter 
 at length upon the origin or primitive functions of the 
 Archidiaconate, or the particulars of what a London Arch- 
 deacon has to do, as compared with what has to be done by 
 his brethren of similar office elsewhere. I will simply say 
 here that, as a Presbyter, delegated by the Bishop, who cantons 
 his diocese into Archdeaconries for Its more convenient 
 administration, I accept the old titles of my office, Episcoin 
 Oculus^ Episcopi Cor. By the former I understand, that I am 
 to bring to the Bishop's notice not merely such matters as 
 deserve amendment ; but, so far as I may be able, deeds and 
 men who deserve encouragement. By the latter, that I am to 
 represent personally and through the Rural Deans, and other 
 Clergy, and the Churchwardens, the kind and fatherly feeling 
 with which the Bishop regards both the Clergy and the 
 Laity. 
 
 From the best enquiries that I have been able to institute, 
 I find that the duties performed or performable by an Arch- 
 deacon in this Diocese are divisible into definite and indefinite. 
 The former are those which are enjoined or restrained or 
 permitted, by prescription or by statute, and capable of being 
 executed partly in person, partly by deputy. The latter, 
 those which are more or less optional, and dependent upon 
 personal exertions. 
 
 The definite duties of the Archdeacon appear to be : — 
 Examination of Candidates for Holy Orders and Presentation 
 of them to the Bishop for Ordination. Induction of Presentees 
 to Benefices. Holding General Visitations of the Clergy, 
 and Churchwardens, receiving Presentments from the out-
 
 going Churchwardens, and admitting those for the coming 
 year. Visiting Churches and Churchyards, either specially, 
 in consequence of matters which have transpired in Pre- 
 sentments ; or, more or less periodically, so as to inform 
 himself as to their condition, and the general Ecclesiastical 
 condition of the Parish. Visiting any Church, or Church- 
 yard, or Parish, at the special desire of the Bishop, to enquire 
 into the reasonableness of any complaints which have been 
 made to him — or into the desirableness of issuing any 
 Faculty, which the Chancellor of the Diocese has submitted 
 to the Bishop for his approval — or into the way in which the 
 terms of a Faculty have been carried out — or to compose, 
 if possible, any Parochial misunderstandings. Administering 
 Funds of which he is an Official Trustee. Attending 
 Meetings for Diocesan purposes at the suimnons of the 
 Bishop. Preaching certain Sermons at St. Paul's Cathedral 
 where he holds a Stall. And attending the Sittings of 
 Convocation and of its Committees. 
 
 Such are the definite duties of the Archdeacon.* I shall 
 enlarge on them presently, because they have been somewhat 
 misunderstood. The indefinite duties it is rather difficult 
 to enumerate. Suffice it to say, that they appear to include 
 membership, and participation in the business, of every large 
 Church Society, whether general or diocesan ; constant calls 
 for sermons, to which he responds most willingly, as far as 
 he can ; correspondence with the Clergy — especially the 
 younger Clergy, with whom he is happy to advise ; and with 
 Churchwardens and many of the Laity. And to these must 
 be added, the keeping himself abreast of the Ecclesiastical 
 questions of the day, and using what influence he can exert 
 to have them exhibited in a light in which their scope and 
 bearing can be best comprehended. 
 
 * The Archdeacon does not in this Diocese grant Faculties or Marriage 
 Licenses. These powers are exercised by the Bishop. And no Surrogates 
 are appointed by, or in behalf of, the Archdeacon.
 
 Upon many of these, I have, as you know, ah-eady entered, 
 and as I am happily free from the cares of a parochial charge, 
 I hope to continue a diligent performance of them. 
 
 I proceed to say a few words upon my definite duties : — 
 On the first, the Examination and Presentation of Candi- 
 dates for Holy Orders, in which the Bishop kindly allows me 
 to share, I need not dwell ; it is a most deeply interesting 
 function, and one which brings the Examiner into close and 
 brotherly contact with the young, to enquire whether they 
 are " apt and meet for their learning and godly conversation, 
 to exercise their ministry duly, to the honour of God and the 
 edifying of His Church." And it is a matter of serious 
 responsibility, to certify, in the presence of God and of the 
 congregation, that one " believes them so to be." I 
 scarcely know a more anxious season than is the Ember Week 
 to all concerned in it. It is a solemn moment, when the 
 youthful candidate, with whom one has prayed, whom one 
 has endeavoured to advise, and with whose weaknesses, it 
 may be, one has become confidentially acquainted, kneels, by 
 one's encouragement and recommendation, before the Bishop, 
 his whole frame sometimes quivering with emotion, showing 
 that even yet 
 
 " The storm is high within 
 'Twixt love of Christ and fear of sin." 
 
 But I pass on to another function — that of Induction to 
 Benefices. This is especially one of the duties of the Archdeacon . 
 The Bishop institutes, and then he issues a mandate to the 
 Archdeacon to induct. I think that this duty should, if 
 possible, be done personally. I found, on coming into my office, 
 that a practice had grown up, long before our time, by 
 which, on the Bishop's mandate arriving at my Kegistry, 
 the Registrar was accustomed to issue, under my seal, and 
 without necessarily informing me what was going on, an 
 Archdeacon's mandate to any Eector or Vicar to induct. 
 For this, a fee is charged of 10s. to the Archdeacon, and
 
 of 14s. to the Registrar, The Archdeacon really doing 
 nothing — the Registrar doing what is superfluous — yet both 
 being remunerated. The Rector or Vicar, who actually 
 inducts, receiving nothing — and the Clergyman to be inducted 
 paying what he need not have paid. One or two instances 
 occurred before I knew of the practice ; but directly I was 
 informed, I desired that I might always know who was thus 
 coming into the Archdeaconry, that I might welcome him as 
 a brother, and both save him useless expense, and save the 
 Church and her officers the reproach of laying unnecessary 
 burdens upon the Clergy. And my Registrar kindly complied. 
 I shall ahvays, if due notice is given me by a Presentee, be 
 glad to induct him myself, in any parish over which I 
 have jurisdiction. [There are indeed some six or seven 
 ancient Parishes, which, with their modern statutory sub- 
 ordinate Parishes, though locally in the Archdeaconry, are 
 for induction of Clergy and admission of Churchwardens, 
 under the Commissary of London. To these, until the 
 anomaly shall be abolished, and I really do not see why it 
 should be retained, my remarks will not apply.] 
 
 There are unfortunately no Offices generally authorized by 
 the Church either for Institution or for Induction. Possibly 
 Convocation may take up this subject. A Committee of the 
 Lower House of the Southern Province was appointed on 
 July 9tli, 1875, " to consider whether a short Office might 
 not be prepared for the Institution and Induction of Ministers, 
 similar to that of the American Church." The Report of 
 this Committee was presented in February last, and again in 
 the present month, amended, but it has not been yet considered 
 by the House. I trust that its issue may be the meeting of 
 a want which is now pressingly felt on occasions so deeply 
 interesting both to Incumbent and to Parishioners. As the 
 Bishops frequently institute publicly, both in this and in 
 other Dioceses, and, as I have said, the Archdeacon is willing 
 to act himself at Inductions, there is no resource at present
 
 10 
 
 but to have no Service at all, or to employ a few Collects 
 more or less applicable, or to have a form for each Diocese, 
 of imperfect Ecclesiastical obligation, as in the case of con- 
 secration of Churches and Chm'chyards. 
 
 I come next to the subject of a gathering like the present. 
 It has, as has been well remarked, a two-fold character * It 
 is, first, a Court of the Clergy and Churchwardens and Sides- 
 men or Synodsmen, the business of which is the personal 
 appearance of the Clergy, the exhibition of Articles and Pre- 
 sentments by the Churchwardens as to the state of their 
 Parishes, as to the due performance of Divine Service, and as 
 to the condition of the Churches and Churchyards. And it 
 is, secondly, a Chapter of the Clergy, making with the Laity 
 assembled, a sort of S}Tiod, at which, the Archdeacon addresses 
 them upon subjects especially in his province — I mean the 
 moral and material and ritual condition of the Chm'ch as 
 distinct from its doctrinal and spiritual matters. These 
 latter are specially retained by the Bishop, who possesses 
 inherently all the visitorial and other official powers of the 
 Archdeacon; and, indeed, reserves them, by an inhibition, for 
 a certain period, in the year in which he holds a personal 
 Visitation. It used to be customary, if occasion required, for 
 counsel to be taken together after the Address. In later times, 
 especially in this Diocese — where the institution of Ruri- 
 decanal Chapters prevails, and where the Bishop annually 
 summons the Archdeacons and Rural Deans to a Conference — 
 this custom has been intermitted. The Archdeacon confines 
 himself to suggestions and remarks, which the Clergy con- 
 sider, at their discretion, in the Ruri-decanal Chapters, or 
 discuss with the Laity in their Parochial Councils. I may 
 state, by the way, that, in modern days, the subjects appro- 
 priate to the Archdeacon's Address have become so blended 
 
 * See a Charge, May, 1871, by Archdeacon Harrison, and references 
 there — pp. 6 — 9, on Visitation Courts and Synods.
 
 11 
 
 with others more peculiarly belonging to the Bishop, that the 
 distinction between the characters of their respective Charges 
 cannot always be strictly and sharply observed. It is my 
 desire, however, in anything that I may say, to observe it as 
 much as possible. Nothing that I shall utter will corrvpromise 
 you. 
 
 Of course, fi'om the very constitution of an Archdeacon's 
 Visitation, the Clergy are expected to be present at it. But, 
 as I know their many engagements, I have most willingly 
 followed the example of the Bishop, and have foregone the 
 custom of calling over their names. But I am always glad to 
 see them, or advise with them, both on such occasions, and 
 elsewhere. Bye and bye, if I am spared to do so, I hope to 
 be more or less acquainted with all. And I may remark that 
 one of my earliest steps was to convene the Bural Deans, as 
 their natural representatives, to a friendly meeting at my 
 house. 
 
 The Churchwardens, both the outgoing and the incoming, 
 necessarily appear at my Visitation ; the former to make their 
 Presentments, and introduce their successors ; the latter to be 
 admitted to office, and to make the requisite declarations. As 
 to both, I may remark that their duties are, I hope, clearly 
 set forth in the paper of Instructions to Churchicardens, issued 
 by my predecessor. I have had it very carefully revised by 
 an eminent legal friend ; and should any difficulties suggest 
 themselves, I shall be glad to be referred to. Both my Official 
 Principal and my Registrar are ready to give me assistance ; 
 though, if a Bill now before Parliament becomes law, I scarcely 
 know how long I shall have them at my side. Their advice I 
 may mention by the way, is, in this Archdeaconry, covered by 
 the legal Visitation Fee of eighteen shillings arranged by the 
 two Archbishops and the Lord Chancellor, and sanctioned by 
 Order in Council. Xo part of this belongs to the Archdeacon. 
 Two shillings belong to the Official Principal ; twelve and 
 sixpence to the Registrar ; and three and sixpence to the
 
 12 
 
 Apparitor.* This sum is legally demanded from the Church- 
 wardens. They recoup themselves from the Church Rates, 
 if there are any : if not, there is seldom any difficulty in its 
 being defrayed by the Parish. I hope, in spite of the proposal 
 made in the Bill, that it should be supplanted by a five- 
 shilling stamp, to be procured and paid for before the Church- 
 wardens are admitted, that things will be allowed to remain in 
 this respect as they are. For observe: 1st. — The admission of 
 incoming Churchwardens does not depend upon the payment 
 of this Fee, and thus no discouragement is offered to their 
 acceptance of office : 2nd. — The Archdeacon is by means of the 
 existing charge provided with officers who will give him the 
 best legal advice, and thus second the moral influence which 
 he is able to exercise in settling parochial differences, and 
 questions which, if allowed to proceed further, might involve 
 considerable expense. It is in consequence of his being thus 
 fore-armed with the necessary knowledge, that, of late years 
 at least, scarcely any necessity has arisen for the exercise of 
 contentious jurisdiction on the part of the Archdeacon. A 
 vast number of small disputes abont seats, and paths in 
 Churchyards, obstruction of lights, and infringement of 
 boundaries, and eligibility to serve office, are settled by 
 reference to him personally. It is only in case of matters 
 involving serious principles that recourse is had to a higher 
 court. Civil legislation, indeed, especially the Act for 
 Abolition of Compulsory Church Rates, has also limited his 
 contentious jurisdiction : though he still holds a Court to 
 inquire into any alleged misconduct on the part of a Parish 
 Clerk, with power of suspension or dismissal. 
 
 [And here I M^ould say a word about certain payments 
 made at Visitations, called " Procurations'' and " Synodals." 
 
 * It is the Apparitor's duty to issue the summonses to the Archdeacon's 
 Visitation. Somehow or other a great deal of the trouble of doing this had 
 devolved upon the Rural Deans ; of this I have now relieved them, on their 
 representation, and remitted the task to the proper officer.
 
 18 
 
 It Is proposed, by the Bill to which 1 have alluded, that these 
 should be done away with, compensation being made for them 
 to the present holders of Archdeaconries, though I do not 
 see that the interests of future holders are provided for. They 
 are very ancient papnents, and in fact constituted in former 
 days the sole remuneration of some Archdeacons, especially 
 of the Archdeacon of ^Middlesex.* I care not how soon they 
 are commuted or abolished ; and I will tell you why : — 
 
 Li the First place: Though generally advanced by the 
 Churchwardens at Visitations, they are burdens not upon the 
 Parish, but on the Incumbent or Impropriator, who is liable 
 to reimburse the Churchwardens for them. 
 
 Secondly : Though very ancient, and historically con- 
 nected with the expense supposed to be incurred by the 
 Archdeacon at Visitations, they are, in this Archdeaconry at 
 least, a practical fiction. The Visitation is held at one centre, 
 which is fomid to be a most convenient method, and involves 
 him in little or no expense. 
 
 Thirdly : Besides being a practical fiction, they are a most 
 unfair fiction. Their incidence is ver}^ unequal. I will show 
 you how. There are now about 323 Parishes in the Arch- 
 deaconry. But of these, after we have deducted what I have 
 described above as Commissary Parishes, and their subdivi- 
 sions, and subdivisions of the ancient Parishes liable to the 
 payments, there remain only about 43 subject to this impost. 
 The Clergy of all the rest, though in several cases better able 
 to bear the burden, are exempt. 
 
 Fourthly : Besides being a burden upon the Clergy, their 
 existence is not quite fair to the Archdeacon, and they are no 
 adequate source of income to him. If every one of them 
 were exacted they would only amount to £24 I65. Qd. per 
 annum. They really average about £18 per annum. And 
 yet his first fruits from them are calculated at £60, as if he 
 
 * Archidiacunatus 3Iiddlesexice cvjus rictus in Procurationibus consistit.
 
 14 
 
 still retained under his jurisdiction the Deaneries of Heding- 
 ham, Harlow, and Dimmow, in Essex, and the Branghing 
 Deanery, about one-third of the County of Herts, which were 
 taken away by Order of Council, in 1845, and attached to the 
 Archdeaconries of Colchester, Essex, or St. Albans. The 
 addition of a portion of Kent, and of some peculiars of 
 the Archbishop of Canterbury, and of some Parishes in 
 Surrey, which was made to the Middlesex Archdeaconry, 
 at the same time, in lieu of what was taken away, has 
 caused scarcely an appreciable difference. Some of these 
 Parishes, t.e., all in the Woolwich and Greenwich Deaneries, 
 have, since 1867, been taken away from that of Middlesex 
 and added to that of Rochester. Further changes are yet 
 to be expected when the arrangements for the new See of St. 
 Albans are completed. The main income of the Archdeacon 
 of Middlesex is now provided from other sources, yet he 
 has the annoyance of paying on a partially delusive source 
 of income, and of exacting a payment from his brethren, 
 which is a fiction, and so a grievance — and a grievance 
 unequal in its incidence. 
 
 It may be said, that, if abolished, the deficiency in 
 Archdeacons' incomes thus caused, and the first fruits now 
 unfairly paid by them to the Queen Anne's Bounty, would 
 have to be made up from funds now applicable to the aug- 
 mentation of small livings. Commutation may be a fairer 
 method of settling the matter. But, if it is desirable to 
 maintain such payments from the Clergy at all, they should 
 be made more fair in their incidence. And, if they are 
 maintained in their present state, the Ecclesiastical Commis- 
 sioners, or the Commissioners for Queen Anne's Bounty, 
 should be bound to collect them. In the case of Bishops' 
 Procurations, which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have 
 demanded should be handed over to them, the Bishops and 
 their Registrars have in some Dioceses absolutely declined to 
 collect them, and they have fallen through altogether. In
 
 k 
 
 15 
 
 others, the Registrars have collected them, but of course on 
 the receipt of a commission for doing so. We must, however, 
 wait for the further progress of this Bill, though I confess I 
 look upon it with great mistrust. Its avowed object seems 
 strangely different from its main provision. The former is 
 the regulation of Ecclesiastical Offices and Fees, the latter is 
 the supplementing of a Fund to pay an Ecclesiastical Judge, 
 whose decisions seem to have no more finality, and to com- 
 mand no more ready obedience, than those of the Judges into 
 whose room he has succeeded. Expense, indeed, seems to be 
 to a certain extent likely to be limited, in the earlier stages of 
 litigation, and this is something. But if the decisions of the 
 Judge in question are to be made just as liable to appeal as 
 those of his predecessors, or if he considers himself as having 
 no discretion in cases similar to those already ruled by the 
 Privy Coimcil, in some instances without both sides being 
 heard, one scarcely sees that much is gained by the abolition 
 or merging of various offices, some of them of considerable 
 utility, in order to remunerate him.] 
 
 I have observed already that the contentious office of the 
 Archdeacon is limited in several respects by civil legislation ; 
 so has been the office of Churchwardens. Hence they will 
 remark that in the Instructions as to their duties (Sect. 4), 
 and in the Articles of Enquiry^ no mention is made of their 
 now all but obsolete obligation to present immoral persons, or 
 persons absenting themselves from Church, and the like. 
 And no mention is made of the immense moral good that they 
 may do in the Parishes to which they belong, by high personal 
 character and example, or by seconding the efforts of the 
 Clergyman. The duties which they are specifically still bound 
 to perform are set down in the Instructions with sufficient 
 clearness. But I wish to bring to their notice the dictum of 
 Lord Stowell (mentioned in Sect. 6), that their office is " an 
 office of observation and complaint, but not of control, with 
 respect to Divine worship." — It is not theirs, whether by
 
 16 
 
 custom or by statute, to remove ornaments, or to prevent 
 ritual, which they may deem objectionable ; nor, on the other 
 hand, is it theirs, to demand services in the Church, which 
 they may consider necessary ; or to insist upon the services 
 being carried out without mutilation or addition. Of course, 
 if they are supported by a vast majority of the Parish, or, at 
 least, of those who are habitually attendant at, or willing to 
 attend at, the Parish Church, their representation would have 
 great weight with their Clergyman. If it does not, their 
 complaint comes before the Ordinary in their return to the 
 Articles of Enquiry^ and he acts according to his discretion. 
 There is, indeed, another way, permissible under 37 & 38 of 
 Vict. c. 85,* under which complaints may be taken cognizance 
 of. The Archdeacon, or a Churchwarden of a Parish, or any 
 three Parishioners of a Parish, may, under certain limitations 
 of time, as to the things, or acts, or omissions alleged, if 
 they think fit, send in a representation to the Bishop. The 
 Bishop may decide that no proceedings shall be taken. If 
 he does not so decide, he may, by the agreement of the party 
 accused and the party or parties accusing to abide by his 
 decision, determine the matter. If they do not so agree, the 
 question goes to the Court of Arches, now represented by 
 the new Ecclesiastical Judge, from whence an appeal lies to 
 Her Majesty in Council. 
 
 Such are the provisions of this new Act, which was 
 expected to do great things, but which, I believe, will effect 
 very little. It will effect very little, because a decision by 
 the Bishop, with the consent of the parties, will be simply in 
 personam^ not in rem. It will not prevent exactly the same 
 question from being raised in other places. 
 
 And if a decision is given by the Court of Arches, it is 
 liable to be reversed by the Superior Court, and at present, 
 on a number of points raised, or liable to be raised, the Court 
 
 * Commonly called the Public Worship Begulation Act.
 
 I 
 
 > 
 
 of Arches feels itself bound by the existing decisions of the 
 Superior Court. 
 
 For these reasons, I should, as Archdeacon, consider very 
 matiu'ely, before I endeavoured to put the provisions of the 
 Act in motion. And I should not merely advise a Church- 
 warden and any three Parishioners, but earnestly exhort 
 them, to pause, before they adopted a course which, after all, 
 is not compulsory upon them, but purely optional. And yet 
 more, supposing that some association external to a Parish 
 had, with whatever pretext, and with what theological bias 
 soever, induced some three Parishioners to send up a repre- 
 sentation to the Bishop, complaining of matters with which 
 the Parish and Congregation generally are satisfied, I should 
 recommend the Churchwardens, and those who are so satisfied, 
 to take means to let the real state of the case be known to 
 their chief Pastor. And, having made it known, to add a 
 petition that he will pause also. It may be said, perhaps, 
 pause till when? I reply, in some cases, until by movement 
 from some other place, where persons are not so judicious, not 
 so large-hearted as themselves, the points in debate have been 
 reconsidered, and after mature argument on both sides, decided 
 one way or the other. In most cases pause altogether. And let 
 no one be startled at this recommendation. (We are speaking, 
 as does the Act, of external matters, not of doctrines.) It is 
 not worldly, but Scriptural. It is not latitudinarian, but 
 catholic. It is not founded on political considerations, but 
 deep in human nature. Above all, it is essentially practical 
 and charitable. And let me tell you why I say this: If 
 there ever was an unworldly man, both in his personal 
 conduct, and in his advice to others, it was St. Paul. His 
 proceedings with regard to the circumcision of Timothy, and 
 his advice of forbearance to the Corinthians in reference to 
 eating meat offered to idols, and to the observance of holy 
 days may be studied by us with advantage. We are fond of 
 looking back to the days of early Christianity. Well, we find 
 
 B
 
 18 
 
 great diversities in worship and shades even of doctrine 
 endured then without serious interruption of harmony. It is 
 as impossible to make all persons think alike on the accom- 
 paniments of Divine Service, as it is to induce all men to 
 admire the same landscape, or to pursue the same method of 
 arranging their domestic affairs. God has bestowed upon us 
 many great and excellent gifts; let, then, all be employed to 
 His honour. He has given us a variety of tastes, and a 
 variety of objects to call them forth. Colour, and harmony, 
 and voice, and proportion, and form, are all of them His. 
 We possess or appreciate them respectively in different 
 degrees, and should not be offended if some of us bring one 
 or other of them more prominently forward than we our- 
 selves do. I may illustrate what I mean by a consideration 
 which I have employed elsewhere. I had an opportunity, 
 some time ago, of visiting a room in a School of Art, where 
 a number of students were occupied in drawing. They were 
 all copying the same object, a model of a cathedral. All of 
 them were advanced draughtsmen, and little fault, I was 
 assured by the teacher, could be found with the perspective of 
 their performances. And yet no two of their drawings were 
 alike. In one the choir or chancel was most prominent ; in 
 another, the spire ; in another, the nave concealed the chancel 
 altogether ; in another, the whole building appeared, though, 
 even here, projections threw parts of it into deep shadow. 
 Of course the reason of this was that no two of them could, 
 from their allotted places, nearer or further off, in the front or 
 at either side, on the floor,, or in a gallery against the walls of 
 the apartment, obtain exactly the same view. Each took the 
 cathedral from his own position, and accordingly transferred 
 a modified idea of it to his cartoon. And yet there was 
 similarity enough, even in the most different representations, 
 to convince me that the object copied must have been one 
 and the same. 
 
 It struck me at the time that this might serve as a sort of
 
 19 
 
 parable of the compatibility of a general grasp of truth, with 
 considerable variety of opinion, in members of the same 
 Church. One man, it seemed to me, might be awed and 
 impressed with the greatness of the grace conferred in 
 Baptism, another with the fear of indolently reposing on that 
 grace. One with the importance of laying hold on Christ by 
 faith, another with the necessity of evidencing his Christianity 
 in his life. One with the importance of Holy Orders as a 
 Divine Commission, another with the obligation to improve 
 the grace of God thus conferred. One with the great 
 blessedness of frequent Communion in the Holy Eucharist, 
 another with the great blessedness of Prayer, or the read 
 or preached Word, and the like. Each person might seize 
 upon any one of these as his dominant idea, without being 
 supposed to neglect the others."* 
 
 This illustration may, I think, be extended, and applied 
 to our present purpose. So long as the body of worship 
 remains the same, and so long as symbolism, or " teaching 
 by the eye," as it is sometimes called, or the attitudes and 
 accompaniments, employed, are fairly xioitMn the Churcli's 
 rubrical allowance^ and do not necessarily and of their very 
 nature inculcate something contrary to her teaching^ we should 
 charitably bear and forbear. Unless they come under this canon 
 I have not a word to say for them. But there is a greater 
 approximation to each other in the various schools of which the 
 Church consists than we believe, so long as we shut our- 
 selves up in our own limits, or trust to reports in vehement 
 periodicals. 
 
 Let me further explain what I mean, premising that I use 
 the designations which I employ simply for the sake of clear- 
 ness, not to convey any reproach. Perhaps the Broadest Church 
 in London has a musical service as attractive as that which is 
 furnished by the very Highest. Perhaps the " Seven Words" 
 
 * See Boyle Lectures, Second Series, pp. 172, 173. 
 
 b2
 
 20 
 
 which several of the latter cLass supply, may find their 
 parallel in others to which no obloquy attaches. Perhaps — nay, 
 certainly — the prominence given to our Blessed Lord's Atone- 
 ment, was, during the days of our Home Revival Missions, 
 equal in some of the most Ritualistic Churches to that which 
 is given to it in the most Evangelical. And some words 
 which I have just read in a letter by one of the ablest of the 
 Evangelical School are very remarkable. He had been 
 explaining his reasons for restoring his Parish Church, and 
 distinguishing carefully between excess and defect in matters 
 of ritual and ornament, and a due and legitimate employment 
 of them. Then he proceeds. " Thei'e is, I believe, no surer 
 way of promoting such abuses than denying or ignoring 
 the truths and excellence that underlie them. EiTor, it must 
 be remembered, is ahnost always the exaggeration of some 
 truth. Superstition itself, even in its grossest forms, is the 
 excess of fear or zeal in matters of religion. The fault is 
 not attention to religion, but attention to it in a wrong way. 
 And the person who is most likely to arrive at a just conclu- 
 sion is the one who has a mind large enough to discover 
 where the germ of truth lies, and in what consists the error, 
 which has grown as an incrustation around it. 
 
 " It is the opposite course which has frequently been 
 productive of much hai'm. Men are easily driven from one 
 extreme to another. There is a notable instance of this, in 
 the fact that many of those who have of late adopted the 
 practices of Rome were originally brought up in a totally 
 different school of thought. They have been urged in this 
 direction by many culpable neglects which they have observed ; 
 such as irreverence in worship, depreciation of the Sacra- 
 ments, and the undervaluing of due order and discipline. 
 
 " On their account we should be anxious to supply all 
 that their minds may legitimately require ; we should remove 
 any occasion for well-grounded complaint, and never give the 
 least pretext for their excesses by reason of our defects.
 
 21 
 
 " And on our own account we should be on our guard, 
 lest we let slip that which might be very conducive to our 
 spiritual health, and the want of which is fraught with a 
 danger of its own. 
 
 " I do not deny that there may be a love of ornamented 
 service where there is no true love of Christ, and that outward 
 ceremonies may be the mere mocking substitutes for spiritual 
 realities ; yet, on the other hand, a very plain service may be 
 an equally dead thing, and the man who plumes himself upon 
 being ' no Ritualist,' may, nevertheless, be ' no worshipper.' " 
 
 For these reasons, again, I recommend you to pause 
 before putting the Act into operation. A little more forbear- 
 ance and a little more discretion on all hands would bring 
 us more closely together, and render it almost unnecessary. 
 If those of each school would but compare their own works 
 with those done by others they would discover even a greater 
 approximation than I have already alluded to.* Though 
 under different names, they would find every spiritual age, 
 and eveiy spiritual want, and every need of the poor, and 
 every circumstance in his career, provided for — every class 
 exhorted and encouraged to do its duty to other classes — 
 every yearning of our nature, in its best moments, to spend 
 and be spent for Christ's sake, developed by opportunities for 
 action. What matters it, though different names are used, 
 if, by any means, Christ is preached and the body of Christ is 
 edified '? It would be premature to anticipate the proceedings 
 of Convocation in the matter of revising the Rubrics, under 
 Her Majesty's Commission ; but I may at least say that 
 everything which has been agreed to hitherto, is directed 
 towards comprehension, and the avoidance of favour to any 
 particular school. 
 
 * I have been led to this conclusion by a careful examination and 
 comparison of Pastoral Letters, and annual statements of work, social, moral 
 and spiritual, issued by Clergy, of very different shades of opinion, to their 
 Parishioners.
 
 22 
 
 As to visiting Churches and Churchyards more or less 
 periodically. This is generally performed through the Rural 
 Deans, according to the Bishop's Commission. It was to be 
 done yearly, but the Bishop has now, at the request of the 
 Rural Deans of Middlesex, revised the Commission, and once 
 at least in four years has been substituted for yearly. I hope 
 frequently to accompany them, as my brother Archdeacon has 
 done in London. 
 
 At their request also, I have drawn up a printed form of 
 Report, which will make their inspection more systematic, 
 and save a great deal of that trouble in writing, which is 
 evident in one laborious Report which I have received. 
 All their Reports will be transmitted by me to the Bishop. 
 Various parishes I have visited already informally, either 
 on my own motion, or at the invitation of the Clergyman 
 or Churchwardens, or at the desire of the Bishop. And I 
 need hardly say that anything that has transpired at this 
 General Visitation, or that appears in the Reports of the 
 Rural Deans, will receive anxious attention. With regard to 
 Churchyards, I shall have something more to say before I 
 conclude. As to those which are disused, perhaps the 
 recent Faculty issued by the Chancellor of the Diocese with 
 regard to a certain Churchyard in the East of London, may 
 suggest a method of making them both ornamental and available 
 for quiet recreation. Of course it will be understood that, in 
 such cases, the question in Sect. 16, of the Articles of Enquiry^ 
 is answerable in the affirmative : " Is fit attention paid to the 
 decent preservation of Monuments and Graves V" As to those 
 which are still in use, the tenour of the Resolutions which have 
 been recently rejected by both Houses of Parliament, but which 
 are sure to be represented by a Bill, either this year or next 
 year, demands our candid consideration. By candid^ I mean 
 deliberate weighing our inclination to admit them — not merely 
 our inclination to reject them. We may err in the former as well 
 as in the latter way. Perhaps, fi-om the local circumstances
 
 I 
 
 23 
 
 of many of the Parishes in this Archdeaconry, we are more 
 likely to err in the former way. 
 
 [There are two Funds for the benefit of the Clergy, of 
 which the Archdeacon of Middlesex is an Official Trustee. 
 As their exact character is not generally known, I mention 
 them here. The first Is a Fund established by Bishop 
 Porteus, in 1808, for Clergy officiating in the then Diocese 
 of London, and which is therefore available still for Clergy 
 of London, Middlesex, Essex, and the old Archdeaconry of 
 St. Albans, who may be, from lack of means, in distress. 
 It is in amount £219 per annum, and is distributed, in the 
 month of February in each year, in grants, generally of not 
 more than £10 each, two only of £20 being lawful in the 
 same year. The other, called " the E-ev. Dr. George Richards' 
 Charity for the Relief of Infirm ClergjTnen," established in 
 1850, is of a larger amount — about £600 per annum. This is 
 distributed twice a year, in the months of February and July, 
 in grants of not less than £50 or more than £100 each, to 
 Clergymen throughout England and Wales. The recipients 
 are those who, though of fair means, may need some tem- 
 porary aid, in circumstances of sickness or overwork, and by 
 it be enabled to get medical relief, or change of climate, or 
 relaxation, so as to be recruited for their labom's. I am sorry 
 to say that there are many applicants for both. Whatever 
 information is required with respect to the latter, with the 
 necessary form for application, will be readily supplied by 
 Mr. George H. Brooks, of 7, Godliman Street, Doctors' 
 Commons. With respect to the former, by the Archdeacon 
 within whose limits the Clergyman applying is permanently 
 officiating. Mere residence within an Archdeaconry, I may 
 mention, to prevent misunderstanding, is not a sufficient 
 qualification. 
 
 The Trustees of the Bishop Porteus' Fund, are the 
 Archdeacons of London, Middlesex, Essex, Colchester, and 
 Eochester and St. Albans.
 
 24 
 
 The Trustees of Dr. Richards' Charity are the above five 
 Archdeacons, the Vicar of St. Martin's in the Fields, and the 
 Preacher of the Charterhouse.] 
 
 I need not dwell on the rest of my definite duties — already 
 mentioned — or indeed, upon the majority of my indefinite 
 duties ; I will only say that I perform, and will perform them, 
 by God's help, to the best of my power. And 1 again thank 
 both the Clergy and the Laity for having accepted so kindly 
 what I have endeavoured to do thus far. 
 
 It remains that I make some remarks upon three questions 
 of the day which are of very pressing importance. 
 
 The first of them arises out of the 44th Section of the 
 Articles of Enqm'iy : — " Is a printed copy of the Table of 
 the Degrees prohibited in Marriage publicly set up in the 
 Church?" (Canon 99). 
 
 The second, from the 11th and 12th Sections: — " Is the 
 Churchyard properly fenced and kept in good order?" " To 
 whom by custom, or by law, are these matters chargeable ?" 
 " Is it kept free from all improper uses?" 
 
 The third is a matter of general policy which it is im- 
 possible to ignore. What should the Clergy do in the 
 circiunstances of discouragement which attach in this Arch- 
 deaconry, especially in that part of it which falls within the 
 Metropolitan area, to the maintenance of Church Education 
 for the poor ? 
 
 I feel bound to offer to you some observations on each of 
 these points. I will condense them as much as I can. 
 
 An attempt is being made this Session to induce the 
 Legislature, by an indirect process, to render valid a con- 
 nection* — I cannot call it a marriage — of a man with his 
 wife's sister. If this is brought about, I iieed scarcely point 
 out to you that the Table of Forbidden Marriages, which is 
 
 * By enabling children of such unions contracted in the Colonies to 
 succeed to property in the Mother Country.
 
 25 
 
 authorised by the Church, will be infringed upon in one point. 
 But it is more important to observe that, by such infringement, 
 its authority upon all points will be impaired. It will be im- 
 possible to maintain the Table as founded on Scripture, which 
 indeed it is throughout, either in the letter or by inference and 
 implication, unless it is accepted in its entirety. And to this 
 must be added the consideration that embarrassment will be 
 caused to the Clergy, who will naturally hesitate to admit to 
 the Holy Communion, those who are not, according to the 
 view of the Church, miited in lawfiil marriage. You know 
 how the miserable question arose. That connection, and, 
 indeed, all those which are mentioned in the Table, were 
 originally voidable by the Ecclesiastical Law, if action was 
 taken during the lifetime of both the parties. If proceedings 
 were not taken during that period they could not be taken 
 afterwards, and thus the issue was by mere lapse of time 
 rendered legitimate for civil purposes. The Church's discipline 
 slept, and it was seldom worth anybody's while to interfere, 
 unless some worldly interest was at stake. At length exactly 
 such a case appeared. A connection of this particular descrip- 
 tion occurred in a certain noble family. Serious complications 
 involving title and property might have ensued. On this, an 
 Act was passed, which, while it seemed to be called forth by the 
 scandals produced by such connections and the injury accruing 
 to the offspring, had really a very different object, the relief of 
 the special offenders. They were supposed to have acted in 
 ignorance of the law, or through mistake as to the meaning 
 of voidability, and were, therefore, forsooth, to have their con- 
 nection legalised. This, however, was studiously veiled by 
 legahsing, not merely their connection, and the issue from it, 
 but every such connection which had taken place, or should 
 take place, up to a certain date. After that date, in order 
 that there might henceforth be no mistake, no plea of igno- 
 rance whatever, such unions were to be absolutely void and 
 null from the beginning. It was thus presumed that people
 
 26 
 
 would for the future take warning. But mark the mischief 
 of what may, without irreverence, be called " respect of 
 persons." Almost immediately after that Act had been 
 passed, and a principle had been broken in upon for the sake 
 of relieving certain great people, other people began, 
 frequently in defiance of the entreaties of friends, to break 
 the law. Their contention was that it could not be a Divine 
 law, or It would never have been allowed by the human legis- 
 lature to be contravened. Accordingly they set on foot an 
 unceasing agitation, without regard to difficulty or expense, 
 to get It repealed. For years they have carried this agitation 
 on. In vain has it been shown to them, over and over again, 
 that the Table which the Statute sanctions Is part of the 
 Moral Law. In vain, that It was understood so to be by the 
 Church Universal, until, towards the end of the fifteenth 
 century, Alexander VI. (Roderlc Borgia) gave a dispensation 
 for the union of Emmanuel, King of Portugal, with his sister- 
 in-law, following it up afterwards with a dispensation to 
 Ferdinand, King of Sicily, for a union with his own aunt. 
 In vain are they reminded that, though from the sixth to the 
 fifteenth century, the Tables of Forbidden Degrees were 
 much extended, and though such additional prohibitions 
 were frequently dispensed with, and the Church of Rome 
 has chosen in her Infallibility to confound all prohibitions 
 together, and so at length to claim power to dispense with all ; 
 the latter are purely Ecclesiastical, those in the Table are 
 Moral. At first she only dispensed with the additional 
 Ecclesiastical prohibitions, and did so on the ground that they 
 were not Moral but Ecclesiastical. In vain have their pro- 
 fessions that this is the one case of hardship been exposed, 
 by their being reminded that it was originally proposed to 
 sanction a union between a man and his niece, but that this 
 was abandoned as being too shocking to the moral sense to 
 be endm'ed. 
 
 In vain has the plea that the law must be bad because it
 
 27 
 
 has been often violated, been refuted — 1st, By documentary 
 evidence that even worse transgression against the Tables has 
 been committed ; and, 2nd, By showing the absm'dity of the 
 admission of a principle which would render it necessary to 
 repeal any law against which there are frequent offences. 
 
 In vain has it been proved to demonstration that this 
 question is not a poor man's question. Their assertion that 
 it is so has been disposed of by statistics which show that 
 the majority of such unions have taken place among the lower 
 portion of the middle class, with a few among the upper. 
 
 In vain has their assertion that it — the union — is not 
 forbidden in Scripture in so many words, and that nothing 
 not so forbidden is unallowable, been disposed of by the 
 following argument, which shows that implication and fair 
 inference must be admissible : — 
 
 Firstly. — It is not said that a father may not marry his 
 daughter. We infer that to be unlawM thus : it is said that 
 a son may not marry his mother ; conversely, we infer that a 
 mother may not marry her son ; and then, by analogy, we 
 infer that a father may not marry his davighter. But this 
 is a prohibition by inference; it is not found in so many 
 words. 
 
 Secondly. — It is not said that an uncle may not marry 
 his niece. We infer that to be unlawful thus : it is said that 
 a nephew may not marry his amit ; conversely, we infer that 
 an aunt may not marry her nephew ; and then, by analogy, 
 we infer that an uncle may not marry his niece. 
 
 Thirdly. — In the same way, it is inferred that the mar- 
 riage of a man with his wife's sister is unlawful. It is said 
 that a woman may not marry her husband's brother ; and 
 this case is exactly analogous to the prohibition of a man's 
 marriage to his wife's sister. 
 
 Those, thei'efore, who will admit nothing but what is set 
 down in so many words to be Scripture, are brought to this : 
 they must cither allow all these inferences, or none of them ;
 
 28 
 
 /.e., if they allow a man to marry his wife's sister, they must 
 allow an uncle to marry his niece, and even a father to marry 
 his daughter.* 
 
 In vain has it been shown that Lev. xviii. 18, which, 
 at first sight, appears to sanction it, has, when rightly 
 interpreted, (as it is in the margin of the Biblest), nothing 
 to do with the matter, but is, probably, a precept against 
 polygamy. 
 
 In vain has the futility of the plea that the gentleness 
 of an aunt will modify the proverbial harshness of a step- 
 mother been exposed ; and it has been shown that, even 
 supposing this would be so in a few cases, it would be a very 
 small compensation for impairing the now unsuspected and 
 affectionate relations existing between every man and his 
 wife's family. 
 
 In vain has it been shown that — granting that Protestant 
 bodies on the Continent, and the Church of Home allow such 
 unions — it has not been proved that family relationships are 
 thereby rendered more happy, or marriages more sacred. 
 
 In vain have legal decisions, one after another, disallowed 
 such unions, quashed the plea of ignorance of the law which 
 is still urged, and overruled the alleged hardship to children, 
 by the obvious reply that it is unfair that those who have 
 voluntarily created the hardship should look to the State for 
 redress, and w^ound the conscience of the Church by the 
 redress being granted. 
 
 And, in vain, year after year, has Parliament declined to 
 change the law. 
 
 The agitation still goes on ; and it has now assumed the 
 following form : — Acts have been passed in the Parliament of 
 
 * See Argument against permitting Marriage with a Deceased Wife's 
 Sister, being a pamphlet by the Author, called a Clergyman's Letter to a 
 Friend. Eivmgtons. 
 
 t The marginal reading is, one wife to another.
 
 29 
 
 Australia, where Cliurch feeling is, of course, not so strong, 
 legalising, so far as thej could go, such unions. The Hoihe 
 Government, after considerable hesitation, has allowed these 
 Acts to become law, on the ground that they were portions 
 of Colonial domestic policy. The result is, that the children 
 of such unions, being rendered legitimate there, desire to be 
 considered legitimate in the Mother Country as well ; and 
 this demand is eagerly supported by the favourers of such 
 unions here. I commend to your careful consideration, the 
 statesmanlike reply of Lord Carnarvon : — " He did not con- 
 sider the deputation were justified, in consequence of certain 
 Colonial Statutes having been passed, in asking Parliament 
 to rescind its expressed opinion and to go back from its policy. 
 If their request were granted the result would be that the 
 Colonial Parliament had nothing to do but to pass Acts within 
 a certain province of legislation, and the Mother Country, in 
 order to avoid a discrepancy on the subject, would have to 
 change its legislation so as to conform with that of the 
 Colonies." And I entreat you to continue your resistance to 
 every effort, whether direct or indirect, to do away with a 
 restriction founded deeply in our moral nature, exhibited in 
 Scripture as part of the Moral Law, recognised as such by 
 the whole Church for 1,500 years — happily still so recognised 
 by our own Church, when we separated from Rome, and of 
 inestimable importance towards the maintenance of purity 
 and affection In our social relations. Is such a point to be 
 surrendered at the bidding of a Society, which has never 
 shown itself to the light, except by the name of a Secretary 
 and by a firm of Solicitors, and which is really a disguise 
 assumed by a few rich men, who have wllfiilly broken the 
 Statute with which they desire to do away ? 
 
 I now come to the question — a very serious one — How 
 far are we justified in conceding a demand which is now 
 being made that services other than those of the Church of 
 England should be permitted in our Churchyards ?
 
 .30 
 
 Let us, first, unequivocally understand what is the exact 
 issue before us. 
 
 It is not whether we will allow Nonconformists, who are 
 Parishioners, to be buried in our Churchyards. This claim we 
 are not inclined to disallow, impaired though it is as a claim 
 of strict justice by their freedom from liability to maintain 
 the Churchyards. 
 
 It is not whether the Clergy of the Church of England 
 will use the Church Service at the burial of Nonconformists. 
 This they already do, if the person whose body is brought 
 to be buried was baptized with water in the Name of the 
 Trinity. 
 
 It is not whether we will carry animosities with Non- 
 conformists beyond the grave, and symbolize an opinion 
 uncharitably imputed to us, that they cannot be united to us 
 in the resurrection of the body, by refusing to be united to 
 them in the corruption of the body. We neither assert, nor 
 desire to symbolize, any opinion of that kind. 
 
 Our view is simply this, and it is well that it should be 
 laid down with all the distinctness possible : 
 
 We hold that the State has, as a matter of fact, recognised 
 the Church of England as the depositary of Christ's teaching 
 in this country, and that the Ecclesiastical edifices of the 
 Church of England, and the Churchyards locally or otherwise 
 connected with them, are in her keeping, and are to be used 
 for and with her Services exclusively. 
 
 We hold, in accordance with these positions, that all who 
 claim the benefit of such Ecclesiastical edifices and Church- 
 yards, should be content with her Services, which are not 
 legitimate unless celebrated by her own Ministers. 
 
 We hold, (for we admit the validity of Baptisms in certain 
 cases, though they may not have been performed by a 
 Minister of the Church of England), that any one. Noncon- 
 formist though he be, who has been baptized with water in 
 the Name of the Trinity, has a claim to be buried with such
 
 31 
 
 Services, and by her Ministers, unless he have forfeited it by 
 having died formally excommimicate, or by having been 
 pronounced a deliberate suicide. 
 
 We hold that, in strictest justice, those who possess this 
 claim to be buried in our Churchyards should be bound to 
 abandon it, if they assert and enjoy an immunity from the 
 expense of maintaining them. We do not, indeed, press such 
 abandonment. But we hold that, if they do urge their claim 
 to be buried there, and, if we concede their manifestly 
 impaired claim, they should either accept our Services 
 and Ministrations, or not injure our discipline and wound 
 our consciences by intruding others which we consider 
 unauthorized, and which, we fear, may lead to iiTeverence. 
 
 We hold, further, that no real grievance is endured by 
 Nonconformists. In fact, we more than suspect the specious 
 cry for " religious equality in the grave" to be rather a 
 political watchword, proclaimed by a few, with an ulterior 
 and aggi'cssive aim, than an expression of anything like a 
 conscientious yearning to be freed from a hardship. 
 
 All these positions the Nonconformists, or rather, those 
 who profess to represent them, dispute. 
 
 We, of the Church of England, though persuaded that 
 equity, and even the strictest justice are on our side, are 
 naturally anxious to promote peace and quietness. Accord- 
 ingly, various methods of arrangement have been attempted 
 by us. I do not mean, of course, that they have been publicly 
 oflPered, but that they have been offered with sufficient dis- 
 tinctness to exhibit our willingness to meet any reasonable 
 allegation of inconvenience or unfairness. 
 
 But we have not received the slightest encouragement. 
 On the contrary, it has been epigrammatically said of our 
 overtures, that Churchmen will offer nothing that Noncon- 
 formists will condescend to accept. 
 
 A clever saying, however, is hardly conclusive of a matter. 
 Very often it is capable of being met by a rejoinder. And this
 
 32 
 
 is the case here. It may be said quite as pointedly, and with 
 much more justice: Nonconformists will accept nothing which 
 Chm'chmeu can concede, having due regard to their existing 
 position, or to the fiscal bm'dens binding upon them, or to 
 common prudence in the presence of their adversaries' avowed 
 aims, or to their feelings of reverence, or to their conscience. 
 The only compromise which the Nonconformists will enter 
 upon is one which involves an unreserved surrender of 
 Churchmen's rights. There is, forsooth, to be no reciprocity 
 whatever. The others have nothing to do but to demand ; 
 Churchmen have nothing to do but to yield. They are to be 
 content with the issue of the contest, though it be like that 
 described by the Roman satirist — 
 
 " Ubi tu piilsas, ego rapulo tantum." 
 
 The following may serve as specimens of compromises, 
 proposed, on our part, with more or less authority, which have 
 been promptly, not to say scornfully, rejected. One of them, 
 perhaps, goes beyond what the majority of Churchmen would 
 be willing to concede, but its even partial entertainment 
 shows that a conciliatory spirit exists strongly and un- 
 mistakably amongst us. 
 
 Would you be satisfied with a silent interment — our 
 Ministers doing nothing but simply registering the fact of the 
 burial in the Parish books ? 
 
 The answer has been-, Xo. 
 Would you be satisfied if our Ministers used a Service over 
 the body, consisting merely of passages of Scripture, so as 
 not to ofiend the scniples of the religious Society to which 
 the deceased belonged '? 
 
 The answer has been, No. 
 
 Would you be satisfied, if we allowed recognised Non- 
 conformist Ministers to officiate, with a prescribed form, 
 consisting of Holy Scriptures, Prayers, and H^Tuns, our 
 object in laying down these restrictions being to prevent 
 irreligious or infidel demonstrations?
 
 83 
 
 The answer has been, No. 
 
 Would you be satisfied, as you clami to be buried in 
 Churchyards, to submit to a re-imposition of compulsory 
 payment of Church Rates, and thus to let things be as they 
 were ? 
 
 The answer has been, No. 
 
 Would you be satisfied, if, though we tax ourselves already 
 for the maintenance of Churchyards, an impost ft'om which 
 you are now freed, we were to tax ourselves additionally, by 
 a general rate, in order to purchase and keep up Cemeteries. 
 The answer has been, No. 
 
 Thus all these overtm*es have met with a rebuff; and a 
 recent Resolution on the subject, in the House of Commons, 
 which we may presume expresses the determination of those 
 who profess to represent the demands of the Nonconformists, 
 is this : — 
 
 " That the Parish Churchyards of England and Wales, 
 having been by the common law of England appropriated to 
 the use of the entire body of the Parishioners, it is just and 
 right, while making proper provision for the maintenance of 
 order and decency, to permit interments in such Chiu-chyards 
 either without any burial services or with burial services 
 other than those of the Church of England, and performed 
 by persons other than the Ministers of that Church." 
 
 For the present this Resolution has been defeated in the 
 House of Conuiions, as has been a similar one in the House 
 of Lords. But they, or some Bill involving them, are sure 
 to be brought forward again. 
 What is to be done ? 
 
 I am afraid that it is all but useless to lay before the self- 
 constituted asserters of what they call the rights of the 
 Nonconformists, the arguments by which the unreasonableness 
 of their demands may be shown. 
 
 But we may remind ourselves of them, and lay them in a 
 clear form before those who are amenable to reason. 
 
 c
 
 34 
 
 Such are the following : — 
 
 1. A common law right to be buried, if it exists, is surely 
 to be accompanied by a common law obligation to maintain 
 the Burial Ground. Those who have been freed from the 
 latter have little reason to complain if they forfeit the former. 
 
 2. The Nonconformists were freed from the burden of 
 Church Kates, because it was against their consciences to 
 contribute to the maintenance of Churches and Churchyards. 
 Desecration, which Churchmen declare would take place, if 
 services other than those of the Church are permitted, is 
 certainly against the Churchman's conscience. Nonconform- 
 ists have declined to accept a proposal that recognised 
 Ministers of their respective bodies, and decent fonns only 
 should be admitted. And various recorded funerals of 
 Infidels and Socialists show what may take place. Should 
 not then the consciences of Churchmen be respected, on the 
 ground that they may feel desecration at least as much as the 
 others feel a pecuniary burden? And especially as they 
 sustain themselves the pecuniary burden of maintaining the 
 places which they are requested to submit to the chance of 
 desecration ? 
 
 3. If the Nonconformists have any real grievance at 
 being obliged to accept the performance of the Church's 
 service by a Minister of the Church of England as a condi- 
 tion of being buried in the Churchyard, — 
 
 How is it, 
 
 That this was not brought forward when the compulsory 
 payment was put an end to ? 
 
 How is it. 
 
 That, where Churchyards and Burial Grounds belonging 
 to Nonconformists exist in the same Parish, the friends of 
 deceased Nonconformists so frequently prefer the former to 
 the latter? 
 
 How is it, 
 
 That the cry of grievance has usually arisen, not in the
 
 country, where the resource of Cemeteries does not exist, but 
 in towns where that resource does exist ? 
 
 How is it, 
 
 That the fact Is utterly ignored — that the grievance, 
 if there Is one, Is being reduced year by year, as Church- 
 yards are closed for sanitary reasons, and will shortly be 
 niinlmlsed ? 
 
 HoAv Is It, 
 
 That Nonconformists, including the two extremes of 
 Romanists and Quakers, who happen to have Burial Grounds 
 of their own, decline to admit any services but those belonging 
 to their sect, or not opposed to it ? 
 
 Besides, If Churchmen were to claim to be burled there, 
 would they not be told that they did not contribute to their 
 maintenance ? Why, then. Is a similar reply not permissible 
 in reference to Churchyards ? 
 
 How Is It forgotten. 
 
 That, If the consciences of any men require relief In the 
 matter, they are the consciences of the Clergy, who are com- 
 pelled, because a person has been baptized with water and In 
 the Name of the Trinity, to biury him with the rites of the 
 Church? He may have been vehement throughout his life 
 against her doctrines and ordinances, or he may, as Indeed 
 many professing Church people may, have lived anything 
 but a godly life ; but his relatives think a Church funeral 
 respectable ; though he has practically put himself out of the 
 Church's pale, he Is presumed to have been reconciled, in 
 articulo mortis^ and so has a right to her ministrations. 
 
 How can It escape observation. 
 
 That, if we concede the claim to unconditional use of the 
 Churchyard, noAV that Chmxh Rates are not compulsorlly 
 payable to support It, It Is difficult to see how we can resist a 
 demand for unconditional use of the Church. It Is absurd to 
 meet this by saying, " A man need not go to Church, but he 
 must be burled." The cases are not similar. For, as I have 
 
 C2
 
 36 
 
 stated already above, the grievance is practically nil — it was 
 never alleged till recently — it is in process of being remedied 
 by the creation of Cemeteries. Moreover, it is scarcely to be 
 doubted that the Church would, for peace and quietness' sake, 
 allow silent burials, so far as the Churchyard is concerned, 
 the relatives celebrating, or causing to be celebrated, a 
 service accordant with their own views, elsewhere. 
 
 While those who profess to represent the Nonconformists 
 ignore all these considerations, it must, I fear, be impossible 
 to meet them on equal grounds. 
 
 We are told that we are judging uncharitably of the state 
 of the dead. Why, we are doing nothing of the sort. We 
 are willing to celebrate a Service in all charity, but we decline 
 to allow the terms of our Communion to be violated. 
 
 We are told that we shall strengthen the Church by con- 
 cession. Surely this is a strange plea when urged by those 
 who, almost in the same breath, express their intention of 
 disestablishing the Church. Those who are defending a 
 castle, must be pardoned if they do not see the wisdom of 
 surrendering the outworks, and if they decline to accept the 
 assurance of the besiegers that they will be contented to 
 proceed no ilirther. 
 
 But the question recurs, — 
 
 What is to be done ? 
 
 Let us frankly state. 
 
 That we cannot allow our own conscientious scmples 
 to be over-ridden in order to satisfy the consciences of other 
 people. 
 
 That we cannot shut our eyes to the designs of those who 
 take their consciences — or rather, the alleged consciences of 
 other persons — as a vantage-ground for an attack upon the 
 Church. 
 
 That, as all conditions have been rejected, we must resist 
 the unconditional admission of Nonconformist Ministers, and 
 Nonconformist Services, into our Churchyards.
 
 37 
 
 But, at the same time, 
 
 That we do not wish to spare our purses by alleging our 
 consciences. And, accordingly, that we are ready, wherever 
 such a resource does not already exist, to promote the 
 acquirement of Cemeteries, and to perfonn om* part in 
 bearing the burden of their acquirement and maintenance. 
 
 That we are ready to do this, everywhere, in order to 
 remove any possible future ground of complaint. That we are 
 ready to do it, even where there is a sufficiency of room in 
 the Churchyard, and where the relatives of Nonconformists 
 have hitherto made no objection to their friends being bm-ied 
 with the Church's rites, and by the Church's Ministers. 
 
 That we are willing to have a measure to the above effect 
 passed at once. 
 
 That meanwhile, and indeed for the future, we should not 
 object to either of the following sorts of burials taking place 
 in our Churchyards. 
 
 A burial, of the body of a person baptized with water in 
 the name of the Trinity, at which the Church's Minister 
 shall officiate, without taking the body into the Church, and the 
 Office for which shall consist solely of passages from Scripture. 
 Whether such a burial can be extended to children of 
 baptized persons, dying unbaptized without their own fault, 
 (on the principle supposed to be sanctioned by 1 Cor., vii. 14,) 
 who are already granted, though by no direct order, a silent 
 interment, is a matter open to consideration. I very much 
 think it might ; a plain reason for this extension being found 
 in our wish to refrain from pronouncing upon the state of 
 the dead, and to comfort their surviving friends in their 
 sorrow. Or, if it should be undesirable to have such an Office 
 at the grave, it might still be possible, after the burial, 
 for the Church's Minister to hold, in the Church, under 
 the Act of Uniformity Amendment Act, a Service with the 
 m ourners. 
 
 A burial, witli regard to which, so far as rites in the
 
 ;38 
 
 Church and the Churchyard are concerned, no Service Is 
 employed. It cannot be said that this is a proposal on 
 the ChuTchbS part to'^glve a man the burial of an animal. 
 Those who use a Service of their own elsewhere than at the 
 grave, as Presbyterians and Roman Catholics, prevent Its 
 being so. Those who use no Service at all, can accuse no 
 one but themselves, if they make it so. And it cannot be 
 said that such a burial is necessarily contumelious because 
 wilful suicides are entitled to It. For, first, such burial 
 of such persons was enforced by the State, to prevent the 
 Indecency of the former method of burying them in the 
 public road, at a time when no other decent burial-place 
 existed than the Churchyard. And, secondly, the burial 
 of which I speak here, would be one conceded, in her 
 charity, by the Church, to the demands, reasonable or 
 unreasonable, of those who desire It. And, if the proposal 
 of a general rate for Cemeteries Is adopted, it will be of very 
 rare occurrence Indeed. 
 
 I could not satisfy myself without making these remarks. 
 Some of us — amongst these I include myself — were inclined, 
 until it was discovered that all attempts at conciliation were 
 fruitless, to go further than I have now ventured to advise. 
 And, perhaps, where, as in the thickly inhabited parts of 
 this Archdeaconry, for which, from sanitary considerations, 
 Cemeteries are provided, we live exempt from the annoyance 
 of having our Churchyards intruded upon, and our Orders set 
 at naught, and our Services disallowed, it was not unnatural 
 that we should incline to concede even unreasonable demands. 
 Perhaps, too, a pardonable excess of candour may have induced 
 us to listen too trustingly to a plea advanced by English 
 Nonconformists, when Incontrovertible statistics had shown 
 that they at least had no real grievance. This plea is that 
 their non-conforming brethren In Wales are subject to a sort 
 of hardship ; that in Wales Nonconformity prevails to a great 
 extent, and that the general feeling is against the Church,
 
 89 
 
 and her Services, and Ministers.* And hence that they can- 
 not, on principle and in honour, avoid taking up their brethren's 
 cry for relief. We may reply, Well, granting this to be 
 so, why not limit your demand for relief to the case of Wales ? 
 Why not join in a petition, not for participation in Church- 
 yards there, but for the remedy which we are willing to assent 
 to — a general burial rate, accompanied, if need be, with 
 powers to compel sale of land for Cemeteries ? But what if, 
 after all, the grievance alleged is infinitesimal, and Noncon- 
 formist Burial Grounds exist in Wales, to an amount which 
 fully meets their need, if they choose to use them ? This is 
 said to be the case. Besides, if you, on principle, contend 
 for the cause of others, may not we, on principle also, contend 
 for our own cause ? And if the topic of honour is to come 
 in, I do not see why those Churchmen who, from being 
 provided with Cemeteries would not feel any inconvenience 
 from the intrusion of Nonconformist Ministers and Services 
 into their Churchyards, should not sympathise with those of 
 their brethren who would feel that inconvenience very much. 
 On the whole, I cannot help thinking that the plea thus urged 
 is a resource adopted as a last ground of attack, when others 
 have proved to be untenable. Of this I am sure, the eyes of 
 many have been opened by the failure of all efforts at negocia- 
 tion. An excellent friend of mine — now, alas ! a late friend, 
 for he has been called to his rest and his reward — told me that 
 he attended a meeting of Clergy and Nonconformists in order 
 to try whether any fair basis of agreement could be adopted. 
 He went to it with the utmost wish to concede. He was not 
 what is called a High Churchman, in fact, quite the reverse. 
 But he assured me that he was obliged to abandon the attempt 
 in despair. All or nothing was the ultimatum. 
 
 * A friend of mine, very well acquainted with Wales, informs me that 
 whatever may be the feeling of the Welsh against the Church, they do, in 
 many places, make a great point of obtaining her Services for Marriages and 
 Funerals.
 
 40 
 
 I have scarcely left myself time to treat of the one 
 remaining subject which I proposed to bring before you — the 
 difficulties experienced by the Clergy in maintaining Church 
 Schools. These have always been considerable, but they are 
 greatly increased since the passing of the Education Act.* 
 I do not speak, however, of the chronic indisposition of people 
 to give at all, but of difficulties of recent creation to which 
 that Act has mainly given birth. Putting them generally, 
 they may be classed under the following heads : — 
 
 Where there is a Board School actually in a Parish. 
 
 Where there is a Board School, not actually in a Parish, 
 but very close upon it — viz.^ in some contiguous Parish. 
 
 Where there is a Board School threatened in a Parish, which 
 already possesses a Church School of some capacity, indeed, 
 but not of sufficient capacity, or not with buildings that will 
 satisfy Government requirements, or where the Parishioners 
 are unable or unwilling to enlarge and improve it. 
 
 Where a sufficient Church School, with buildings, &c., 
 exists, but the Parish refusing or being unable to contribute 
 to its maintenance, it is found impossible to keep it up with 
 efficiency. 
 
 These difficulties, again, will be varied in their character 
 and magnitude according as the Parish is within or without 
 the Metropolitan area. In the one case the Parishioners are 
 now burdened with a Rate which they cannot escape, and are, 
 therefore, unless veiy good reasons are shown to them, 
 unwilling to submit any longer to a voluntary impost. In 
 the other, there is generally found a considerable proportion 
 of persons hostile or indifferent to religion altogether, who are 
 glad to avail themselves of the opportunity of escaping any 
 burden — or, of persons, who are opposed to Church teaching, 
 and disposed to accept any teaching but that of the Church. 
 
 I am not inclined to assert, for a moment, that an 
 
 I 
 
 * Of 1870, amended in 1873.
 
 41 
 
 Education Act of some kind or other was unnecessary. It 
 was, I think, very necessary that something should be done 
 to meet the following facts, with which we were confronted at 
 every tm-n : — The fact that vast numbei's of children, in 
 various parts of the country, and especially in large cities 
 and to\\Tis, were not reached by the existing machinery of 
 education, on the part either of the Chm'ch or of Noncon- 
 formist bodies. The fact that vast numbers of people, well 
 able to bear such a burden, denied or escaped the duty of 
 assisting in the education of the poor. Hence the necessity of 
 an Act. And hence came — though I do not consider it to be 
 the best and fairest* that could have been passed — this Act. 
 I accept it ; and, though I would fain amend it in some of its 
 details, I am not disposed to recommend any movement on 
 the part of Chiu'chmen for its abolition. Such a movement 
 would be wrongly interpreted. It would be stigmatized as a 
 deliberate approbation of what was formerly merely acquiesced 
 in^er incuriam — viz.^ of leaving many absolutely mieducated, 
 and of freeing many from the responsibility to educate. And, 
 besides this, it would be to attempt an impossibility. The 
 Act has been for nearly six years in operation, and it has, by 
 the bodies which it has called into existence, by the bulldmgs 
 which it has erected, and by reason of the public mind having 
 become accustomed to it, forced its way into the constitution 
 of the country. In regard to it, the nation is much in the 
 condition of the steed mentioned by Horace, who, you will 
 recollect — 
 
 " Non equitem dorso, non frenura depulit ore," 
 and it cannot get rid of it. I must add — it would not, I fear, 
 if it could. 
 
 * The Act was not fair to the Church, whose endeavours to overtake by 
 education the increase of population had been much greater than those of all 
 the Nonconformists taken together. It was therefore only due to her that 
 she should have received distinct and marked encouragement, instead of 
 being classed with those who were satisfied with an imperfect religious 
 training, or were willing to dispense with religion altogether.
 
 42 
 
 It is, however, quite another thing to consider what 
 should be done by the Church in the presence of this Act — 
 that is, how to make the best of what we do not altogether 
 approve. For instance, to consider whether, where School 
 Boards exist, what is injurious in their action cannot be, to a 
 certain extent, neutralized? Whether, (and there is some 
 encouragement to hope for this in the recent refusal of the 
 House of Commons to make the establishment of School 
 Boards universal,) they cannot be, in many more cases than 
 we at present suppose, averted. Whether within the School 
 Boards themselves much may not be done to prevent education 
 from being altogether secular, by insisting upon some religious, 
 though not distinctively Church, teaching. And, lastly, 
 whether both with consistency and with justice, the provi- 
 sions of the Act may not be modified. By the phrase with 
 consistency^ I mean that I would press for no modification 
 which is not in accordance with its main principles, that every 
 one who is able to bear such a burden, should be rated for 
 the support of education, and that every one should be 
 educated. By with justice^ I mean that the burden should 
 be so regulated, that its incidence should not operate unfairly 
 upon either the consciences or the pecuniary resources of any 
 of the community. At present, in reference to this latter 
 point, it obviously contravenes the professed intention of its 
 authors and promoters, and of many who acquiesced in its 
 enactment. It supplants, instead of merely supplementing, 
 the educational efforts not only of the Church, but of various 
 non-conforming bodies. These, wherever its provisions are 
 in operation, unless they will endure an education either 
 absolutely and purely secular, or, at best, free from denomi- 
 national bias, are obliged to submit to an impost twice over. 
 Such an obligation they consider to be very hard, and more 
 than hard, to be inequitable. 
 
 I will first suppose, for the moment, that things are to 
 remain just as they are, or, in other words, that the Act is to
 
 43 
 
 be left, even In Its minutest details, unmodifiecl, and that no 
 steps are to be taken to modify it. And I will approach the 
 cases above mentioned in order. 
 
 1. What is a Clergyman to do, if a Board School already 
 exists in his Parish ? Such a Board School either Ignores 
 religious teaching altogether, or professes what Is called unde- 
 nominational religious teaching. Whichever line Is taken by 
 It, his duty surely Is to Induce his Parishioners to help him 
 In his endeavours to Impart some Church education, that Is, 
 to provide some place in which it may be Imparted. Two 
 methods, by which this may be provided, suggest themselves. 
 A Mission House may be built and supported, or for Sunday 
 School teaching the premises belonging to the Board School 
 may be rented. Of course this will cost money, but en- 
 couragement In effecting either object Is given, in necessitous 
 cases, by the Bishop of London's Fund, in this Diocese, and 
 by the Christian Knowledge Society, and the National 
 Society, and the Church Sunday School Institute, both in 
 this Diocese, and throughout the country. The Clergyman 
 Is thus able to represent to his Parishioners that, though 
 they are burdened with a Board School rate, the voluntary 
 burden will not be so very overwhelming ; that surely 
 they will endure It rather than allow the children of the 
 poor to grow up without knowledge of God and hereafter, 
 Avhich would be the result of mere secular teaching ; and that, 
 if the Church's teaching Is of any value to themselves — that 
 Is, if they know why they are Churchmen — they will see the 
 Importance of proceeding further than to undenominational 
 religion. And his exhortations will receive additional weight 
 from his being able to show that those who are without are 
 Impressed with a sense of the gravity of the effort which he 
 desires them to make, by coming liberally to their aid. I 
 cannot help Imagining that there will be Instances In which 
 (I am speaking here of Parishes external to the Metropolitan 
 area) the earnestness of the Clergyman will so far infect the
 
 u 
 
 Parishioners, that a vast majority of his people will submit 
 their children to the Church's teaching in the hours proposed. 
 It is possible, too, at least outside the Metropolitan area, 
 that there will be instances in which, in consequence of 
 other Denominationalists doing, in their own way, much the 
 same thing, a vigorous reaction will take place in favour of 
 Denominational Schools; that premises will be acquired for 
 them, the premises of the Board School abandoned, and the 
 precept for establishing a School Board become a dead letter. 
 What I have said here will, of course, not be applicable to 
 Parishes within the Metropolitan area. The extreme pressure 
 of the Act must remain there, unless such modifications of 
 it as I shall suggest bye and bye are brought about.* 
 
 2. But what if a Board School exists in a contiguous 
 Parish, drawing off the children of a clergyman's own 
 Parish, or exhibiting, by the efficiency of its teaching, so far 
 as it goes, or by its accommodation and educational appli- 
 ances, an appearance which places his Church School at a 
 disadvantage. Here, again, the Clergyman will have to 
 urge arguments upon his Parishioners much like those which 
 I supposed just now, only he will have to urge them with 
 greater earnestness and pertinacity. This will be necessary — 
 1st, Because religious evils are less felt in one's neighbour's 
 
 * I read as follows in a report of the Salisbury Diocesan Synod. " On the 
 education question his Lordship observed that he intended to consider it at 
 length upon the occasion of his approaching Visitation, but could not refrain 
 from mentioning in passing that in several instances in the Diocese School 
 Boards seemed to be in a very inert condition, and in other cases the rates had 
 been so increased that the afflicted Parishes acted as standing advertisements 
 of the evil of School Boards. His Lordship urged the Clergy and School 
 Trustees not to surrender their freehold rights in their National Schools." — 
 Bishop of Salisbury's Speech, April, 1876. It is true that at present no pro- 
 vision is found in the Education Act under which a School Board can be 
 dissolved where it is no longer wanted ; or where the educational wants of a 
 place can be more efficiently met by other means, and the ratepayers would 
 make the change if they could. But this is an additional reason for making 
 every effort to keep out a School Board in the first instance.
 
 45 
 
 case than in one's own; 2nd, Because they cannot help seeing, 
 if in the Metropolitan area, that they are bearing two burdens, 
 while their neighbours have, or may have, only one ; 3rd, 
 Because almost everywhere there are persons, who, though 
 preferring Church teaching, do not distinctly enough know 
 why they prefer it, to endure paying twice over. Such a 
 position is very hard to contend with.* But it may be, in a 
 great measui'e, met by an exhibition on the part of the 
 Clergyman of zeal and devotion, and personal labour in the 
 work of Church education. This must eventually affect the 
 best of his flock. They will be induced to help him in 
 raising the tone of the secular as well as of the religious 
 instruction in his school, and also in improving its material 
 condition. Here I may mention a point which is worth 
 considering, in reference both to this case and to others. May 
 not the children's fee for schooling in Church Schools be 
 raised ? It was placed at its present low rate when wages 
 were much lower than they are now. Parents would be quite 
 able to bear an advance. This would greatly lighten the 
 Clergyman's difficulty. 
 
 3. But what if there is a Parish in which there is already 
 a Church School of some capacity, but not of sufficient 
 capacity, or not with buildings which will satisfy Govern- 
 ment requirements, or where the Parishioners are unable or 
 unwilling to make it what it should be? A School Board 
 either exists, or is talked of, and threatened. A Board School 
 is looming in the near distance. 
 
 This is a difficult case, whether the Parish is within or 
 whether it is without the Metropolitan area. If it is within^ 
 arguments and exertions, such as have been recommended 
 
 * "It will become every year more difficult to obtain subscriptions, as 
 the subscriber feels he is being rather hardly dealt with, for by subscribing 
 to the Voluntary School he is doing two things : one thing that he heartily 
 approves of — helping education ; and another, saving the pocket of his more 
 stingy neighbour, which he does not so much approve of or wish to do.'' — 
 Speech of Mr. W. E. Forster, M.F., Nov., 1875.
 
 46 
 
 already, must be employed. If it is without^ no pains must be 
 spared to induce the Parishioners to improve their present 
 building, and to bring- their educational appliances up to the 
 required standard. They should be shown, by statistics, 
 carefully prepared, but yet sufficiently simple, that not merely 
 will the Parish have to incur a greater expense* in the aggre- 
 gate than it has now, in erecting and maintaining a Board 
 School, but the very individuals who now contribute 
 voluntarily, and who are vexed at their neighbours declining 
 to contribute, will find their quota of contribution increased. 
 To encourage them, help might, perhaps, be obtained from the 
 sources already mentioned, and from such a Church Association 
 as exists in several of the Rural Deaneries. And they may thus 
 be prevailed upon to avert the impending evil. If all this 
 is found ineffectual, I fear that, under the present provisions 
 of the Act, a School Board must come, and then the circum- 
 stances mentioned in Case 1 will have to be met. A noble 
 instance, indeed, has occurred in this Archdeaconry, by which 
 a School Board has been averted. A Parish just outside the 
 Metropolitan area was threatened with one, and must have 
 succumbed ; — but a neighbouring Parish, itself in this area, 
 and already pressed with a double burden, stepped in, and 
 not merely helped to build, but promised a yearly subsidy for 
 the maintenance of, a Church School. . 
 
 4. What if a Church School, with sufficient buildings, &c., 
 already exists, but by reason of a large proportion of the 
 Parishioners refusing to contribute to its maintenance, it is 
 found impossible to keep it up with efficiency, and if thus the 
 formation of a School Board has been ordered ? 
 
 Then a resource exists. The Church School buildings 
 may be let to the School Board, under condition of their being 
 available for Church teaching at certain hours ; and the 
 
 * See a pamphlet by Canon Gregory, entitled, TJie Cost of Voluntary 
 Schools and of Board Schools. Published by the National Society, Sanctuary, 
 Westminster, 1875.
 
 47 
 
 expense will be very greatly lessened to the Church Parish- 
 ioners. The National Society provides forms under which 
 this letting may be effected.* It must be remembered, however, 
 that it is not incumbent on any School Board to make such 
 an arrangement, and that, even if made, it is only valid until 
 the next triennial election. Therefore, as great efforts must 
 have been made by the electors to return members who would 
 be favourable to it, in the first instance, so, great efforts must 
 be made at every election, if the arrangements adopted by the 
 previously existing Board are to be continued. In all cases, 
 indeed where School Boards exist, constant vigilance is 
 required on the part of the electors who care for the interest — 
 I will not say of the Church — but of religion. A majority 
 of one may convert a Board from the Undenominational 
 system of religious teaching — which, though unsatisfactory, 
 is far better than nothing — to mere secular teaching. This 
 latter brings up children with a view to the present world 
 only, and produces a hardness of heart with which it is almost 
 impossible to combat. The former is a postponement, indeed, 
 of doctrinal teaching — it is as it were, putting off the full 
 educational training in Christianity, which the Church desires 
 all her children to go through, to a later period than is 
 desirable, — but it supplies an acquaintance with the Bible 
 upon which such training may be engrafted ; and though it 
 does not adequately inform the mind, it is calculated to keep 
 the heart open for the reception of the more advanced Christian 
 truths, in their due and just proportions. Only one caution 
 more is required In this case. It is not incumbent upon any 
 Parish to surrender either the freehold or the leasehold of its 
 Church School to a School Board, either originally, or at the 
 
 * Forms of Indenture, and Articles of Agreement, can be had at the 
 Office of the National Society, Sanctuary, Westminster. But an important 
 Circular from the Committee of the National Society to the Managers of 
 Schools in Union, adopted at a Meeting held on the 2nd of June, 1875, His 
 Grace the Archbishop of Canferbunj in, the Chair, sliould be carefully 
 studied.
 
 48 
 
 end of a triennial period. It may be shut up, or used for 
 other purposes. But no process exists by which its surrender 
 to the Board can be enforced. 
 
 Thus much for working under the Education Act of 
 1870, supposing it to remain exactly as it is. But might not 
 its two leading principles — that every child should be brought 
 under education, and that every one capable of contributing 
 to the cost of education should be rated for that purpose — be 
 preserved intact, while at the same time some modifications of 
 its provisions is attempted? This I believe might be done. 
 And the result of doing it would be that much of what renders 
 the Act unpopular would be satisfactorily removed. As to the 
 manner in which it might be done, a suggestion of great value 
 is derivable from the system now pursued in Lower Canada, 
 which may be described in the words of the Bishop of Man- 
 chester, then Mr. Fraser. I quote these words from a most 
 able pamphlet on the subject, by Canon Gregory :* " In Lower 
 Canada, whenever in any municipality the regulations and 
 arrangements made by the Commissioners of any school are 
 not agreeable to any number whatever of the inhabitants 
 professing a religious faith diiferent from that of the majority 
 of the inhabitants of such municipality, the inhabitants so 
 dissentient may collectively signify, in writing, such dissent 
 to the Chairman of the Commissioners, and give in the names 
 of three trustees chosen by them (for three years, one retiring 
 each year,) which trustees shall have all the powers and be 
 subject to all the duties of School Commissioners, for the 
 purpose of establishing and managing dissentient Schools. 
 They become a corporation, they constitute their own school 
 districts, have the sole right of fixing and collecting the 
 assessments to be levied on the dissentient inhabitants ; are 
 entitled to receive, out of the General School Fund appro- 
 
 * Is the Canadian System of Education Bates possible in England? 
 By Robert Gregory, M.A., Canon of St. Paul's, &c. Published by the 
 National Society, Sanctuary, Westminster, 1875. Price &d.
 
 49 
 
 priated to the municipality, a share bearing the same propor- 
 tion to the whole sum allotted as the number of children 
 attending School at the same time in the municipality, and a 
 similar share of the building fund." 
 
 Surely something like this might be adopted among our- 
 selves. Most of our hardships Avould then disappear. Every 
 one would be rated for education, once and once onlv. Every 
 one who preferred Undenominational religious teaching could 
 obtain it in the Board Schools. If any one wished for some- 
 thing less than Undenominational religion, viz.^ Secularism, he 
 might be protected by a conscience clause. There would 
 scarcely be more than four religious bodies Avho would desire 
 to have separate Schools, viz. : the Church of England, the 
 Wesleyan i\Iethodists, the Roman Catholics, and the Jews. 
 All, or nearly all the rest, would fall in with the system of 
 the Board Schools. Indeed they have already generally done 
 so, and have thus avoided the double expense which presses 
 so hardly on their brother Denominationalists. Every parent 
 would be able to get his child educated, but would be freed 
 from the temptation to sacrifice his religious convictions in 
 order to do so. 
 
 Of course it would be necessary to frame various pre- 
 cautionary clauses in order to ensure the availableness of 
 such a modification of the provisions of the Education Act, or, 
 in other words, to engraft upon it, to any good purpose, the 
 system of Lower Canada. Every parent should not merely 
 be allowed to choose the School to which he desired to send 
 his child, but should be statutorily compelled to send his child 
 to some School. The expenses of each School would have to 
 be accurately regulated, and the allocation of subsidies out of 
 the general rate to be carefully adjusted. General Education 
 Boards in behalf of each Denomination, as well as a 
 General Board in behalf of Undenominational or Secular 
 Schools, (if Secular Schools continue to exist), all of them 
 subject to the Educational Committee of the Privy Council, 
 
 D
 
 50 
 
 would have to be constituted. These, however, are matters 
 of detail, for which I would again refer you to Canon 
 Gregory's pamphlet. It is impossible to do more than allude 
 to them here. 
 
 I used the expression just now, " if Secular Schools 
 continue to exist," and I used it most advisedly. It may be 
 doubted whether the country will long endure Schools which 
 are absolutely secular, /.e.,the principle of which is godless. 
 At any rate this does not seem to be the wish of Mr. W. E. 
 Forster, M.P., who conducted the " Education Act" through 
 the House of Commons. And it is very noteworthy that his 
 speech, delivered at North Tawton, scarcely a month ago, 
 contains a remarkable admission that it is impossible to 
 educate religiously without a creed, in fact without something- 
 like a body of doctrine.* He pauses, indeed, at a point far 
 
 * After other observations Mr. Forster spoke as follows, and he appears 
 to have carried with him the approbation and even the applause of his 
 audience. " They were also very anxious for this, and they ought 
 to be anxious for it, that no advantage should be taken of their need and 
 desire for education, and, above all, for religious education, to swell the 
 numbers of one denomination and one sect rather than another ; and con- 
 sequently there was a jealousy — a well founded, most reasonable, and 
 just • jealousy — ^against any kind of attempt at Schools, and by reason 
 of Schools, to obtain advantage for one denomination at the expense of 
 another — either of Church over Dissent, or Dissent over Church. Lord 
 Portsmouth, and their Vicar, and he, and no doubt the Dissenting 
 Ministers of the place, had all united togethei-, and what had happened 
 was this — that in their School they insist upon reading the Bible, and 
 not merely upon reading it, but upon teaching it. They insisted upon 
 learning the Belief, the Apostles' Creed, the Commandments, and man's 
 duty to God and his neighbour, the first part of the Church Catechism, to 
 which no one could object. The final result had been that they had no 
 religious difficulty whatever. On the contrary, had they done otherwise, 
 they would have had religious difficulty he ventured to say. He should not 
 have been there that day and Lord Portsmouth's money would have been 
 wasted if they had attempted to establish a Boarding School upon the Secular 
 system, or even a Day School. A Boarding School upon the Secular system 
 was an absurdity, because the master occupied the place of the parent, and 
 how could he hope to obtain moral and religious control over the children 
 to whom he stood as parent without being allowed to give them religious 
 instruction ? But as they had worked it they had had no difficulty, and.
 
 51 
 
 short of the Church's full teaching. But it is a something to 
 have gathered from the lips of one who is a keen observer of 
 the religious pulse of the country, and a candid and religious 
 man. Language of a similar character was used by Earl 
 Fortescue, at Barnstaple.* 
 
 The utterances of both these eminent persons are satis- 
 factoiy in their general effect. And it is to be observed that 
 they seem to go further than to prefer Undenominational 
 teaching to Secularism. ]\Ir. Forster speaks in so many words 
 
 therefore, he went away from this School with an additional confii-mation of 
 what he had long held, that the religioixs difficulty was one made by 
 controversialists outside the real work of education, and disappeared as soon 
 as men set to work to get a School upon principles which actuated parents 
 generally in England, and disappeared because they set to work to give 
 them that kind of religious instruction in which all could unite and which 
 all desired for their children." — Times, April 20th, 1876. 
 
 * Earl Fortescue said, " He had never varied in the opinion that the 
 Education Act of 1870, although in many respects valuable, was imperfect, 
 and that it was not creditable to England as a Christian nation that instruc- 
 tion in the primary principles of Christianity, upon which all sects were 
 agreed, should be left to the option of the different School Boards, and that 
 all testing of religious knowledge by the Govei'nment inspectors, who so 
 severely tested secular knowledge, should be given up. The latter practice 
 had been very satisfactorily carried out for many years, and he believed it 
 worked extremely well. The opinion he originally formed, that the Legislature 
 did abandon one of what he considered to be its positive duties as a Christian 
 Legislature, had since been strengthened. He had no sympathy at all with 
 those who would ignore the rights of conscience, but he thought it a great 
 misfortune that the instruction of children in the general doctrines of Chris- 
 tianity should be abandoned by the State. He said that the more confidently 
 because for something like a quarter of a century the British and Foreign 
 School Society had been proving conclusively that what seemed to Parliament 
 and to municipal bodies to be very difficult was practically not only feasible, 
 but easy, and had been systematically carried out for a long period. He had 
 himself been present at examinations in Scriptural knowledge conducted 
 successfully by dignitaries of the Church of England and eminent Noncon- 
 formist ministers at the central establishment of the Society he had named, 
 and he could only say that the amount of knowledge of the Bible, and 
 especially of the Testament, which was shown by the scholars on that 
 occasion was most gratifying and surprising even to those who had entered 
 the room with a high standard of expectation. He had made this statement 
 before, and he did not hesitate to reiterate it, because he could not help 
 trusting that the enormous preponderance of Cliristianity over all the rccog-
 
 52 
 
 of " the Belief, the Apostles' Creed, the Commandments, and 
 man's duty to God and his neighboui', the first part of the 
 Church Catechism," as things " to which no one can object." 
 Earl Fortescue's language tends the same way. This, I say, 
 is more than to prefer Undenominational teaching; it is to 
 advance towards doctrinal teaching, and to leave the Church 
 less to do In the impartation of her own teaching to complete 
 It.* It will not, however, justify our giving up our Church 
 Schools ; for it does not even mention Baptism as a Sacra- 
 
 nized foi'ins of religion in this country afforded grounds for hoiiing that in 
 some future time the error in judgment, rather than deliberate purpose, of 
 ignoring Christianity might be remedied by the Legislature, and because 
 meanwhile, though in the enormous majority of cases the School Boards of 
 the country had required a more or less Scriptural instruction to he given in 
 Schools ; yet in one town at least it had been forbidden, and the efforts of 
 voluntary teachers, zealous as they were, had been found quite unequal to 
 the task of supplying any Scriptural instruction whatever. He was afraid 
 separate instruction by a separate set of teachers — regular teachers being 
 forbidden to impart any Scriptural or religious iustruction — could not but be 
 carried on at great disadvantage. The melancholy fact remained, as he had 
 said, that in Birmingham there was at the present moment a very large 
 number of childi'en who were instructed in secular knowledge of various 
 kinds, but who were absolutely left in ignorance, so far as regarded any 
 teaching beyond that given at home of all Scriptural knowledge. For these 
 reasons he was glad to see the success which the public teachers had 
 attained. His Lordship subsequentlydistributed the Prayer-book prizes given 
 out of a fund left by tlie late Bishop of Exeter." — T'uncn, April 21st, 1876. 
 
 * Some remarks having been made in the Guardian upon Mr. Forster's 
 speech, that gentleman wrote an explanatory letter to the following effect : — 
 
 " To the Editor of the ' Guardian.'' 
 
 " Sir, — My attention having been drawn to your notice of what I said at 
 the North Tawton School a few days ago, will 3'ou allow me to correct a 
 misapprehension ? 
 
 " In describing and approving the religious education given at that school 
 (which I may observe is a A'oluntary Middle-class School, and chiefly for 
 boarders), my reference to the first part of the Catechism was intended to 
 apply only to what is taught in the school, viz., the Apostles' Creed, and the 
 child's duty to Cod and his neighbour. 
 
 " April 30th, 1876." " W. E. Fokster. 
 
 On this the Editor observes : — 
 
 '■ We quoted from the Times: but we understood the passage in the sense 
 ill which Mr. Forstcr now explains it, and which appears to us to entirely
 
 53 
 
 ment ;* it sajs nothing of the Sacrament of the Lord's 
 Supper, nothing of the Ministry, nothing of Confirmation, 
 nothing of the Church itself. 
 
 I will only observe in conckision, that, as an alternative 
 for the engrafting on the Education Act the system of Lower 
 Canada, a proposal of another modification of it has been 
 widely, though privately, circulated. It is in the form of a 
 suggestion of a plan for retaining both education rates and 
 voluntary subscriptions by an equitable plan of adjustment.f 
 Its reasonableness is set forth by the same considerations 
 which justify, or would justify, an adoption of the system of 
 which I have been speaking: the unfairness that some are 
 now taxed doubly, while others are taxed once only ; and the 
 hardship, that while those who do not care especially for anv 
 one form of religion are gently treated, those who do feel an 
 attachment to their particular belief are not thought of at all. 
 To this, however, is added another point, which, as it could 
 not have been entertained at the time of the passing of the 
 Act of 1870, ought, under the change of circumstances, to 
 be entertained now. It is this : — The arrears of School 
 Building are now nearly made up. The Education question 
 has entered upon a new phase. It is not now one of huilding 
 but of maintaining. Therefore, there should be a double 
 Education Rate. One to repay the loans for the building of 
 Board Schools, wherever they exist — from which no one 
 should be exempt ; another, a Bate for maintaining Schools, 
 which all, indeed, should be subject to, but the amount 
 
 cover our argument against the exclusion of the Apostles' Creed from Board 
 Schools." 
 
 I need hardly state that the admission of even as much as the Apostles' 
 Ci'eed in Board School teaching is, as I have said in the text of the Charge, 
 an advance in doctrinal teaching from mere Undenominationalism. 
 
 * It will he remembered that the word Sacrament does not appear in the 
 first part of the Catechism, which alone is mentioned by Mr. Forster. 
 
 t The title of this Paper is Education Bate and Subscription. Suggestions 
 for Plan of Adjustment.
 
 54 
 
 of which falling upon any individual, should admit of a 
 certain reduction, if he is a subscriber to a Denominational 
 School. As in the other case, great care and delicacy would 
 be necessary in order to adapt this proposal to the Act. But 
 (in the words of the Paper that I have alluded to) " the Act 
 of 1870 was carried in the name of Justice, amid loud 
 proclamations of the rights of Conscience. By such a 
 readjustment of the burden of School Maintenance, for 
 Town Districts at least, as has been suggested in this proposal, 
 loyalty would be slio^vn both to Justice and to Conscience, 
 a real grievance would be entirely removed, and a solid 
 foundation would be laid for lasting peace and goodwill 
 between the supporters of Board Schools and Voluntary 
 Schools.'' In places where School Boards do not already 
 exist, all managers of Schools will be put upon their mettle 
 to keep them out. One Rate, a compulsory one, will, of 
 course, be levied, but everyone will be able to turn that into 
 a Denominational subscription. It will be the fault of Church- 
 men and other Deuominationalists, if they cannot so far 
 compose their differences by conscience clauses as to obviate 
 the necessity of a second Bate for an Undenominational, /.e., a 
 Board School. Of course, also, it must be made imperative 
 upon every parent to submit his children to some educa- 
 tion, and imperative on certain authorities to see that he 
 does so. Which of these two modifications of the Act (if 
 either) the Govermuent is about to propose, I have no 
 means of knowing. But I earnestly commend the con- 
 sideration of the whole subject to you, as Christian Ministers 
 anxious to promote all practical harmony if not of thought 
 yet of action, as just citizens desirous to remove all grounds 
 of discontent and sense of unfairness, as thoughtful politicians, 
 careful to get imposts paid with cheerfulness ; and, as good 
 economists, concerned that imposts to be paid should be as small, 
 and that imposts actually paid should be expended as frugally, 
 as possible. At present there is an expenditure for Board
 
 55 
 
 Schools which we caiiuot help feainng is sometimes incurred tor 
 competition's sake, and to draw attention to the commodity- 
 supplied, rather than required by the necessity of the case. 
 There is a taxation which presses very heavily even upon those 
 who approve of Board Schools, and very heavily indeed upon 
 those who earnestly value the tenets of their own Denomina- 
 tion. There is a constraint upon conscience in localities where 
 a Board School is the only means of education. All these 
 are considerable evils. May we have wisdom to remedy 
 them, for the promotion of peace on earth and goodwill 
 towards men, and (through the attainment of these) of glory 
 to God in the highest. Amen. 
 
 LONDON : 
 I'RINTKII BV TiroMAS SCOTT, WAIIWTCK COUKT. IIOLllORX.
 
 
 • "??,: v; 
 
 :7.y^*^
 
 >^ 
 
 
 
 % 
 
 :^ .. 
 
 W' 
 
 ^ 
 
 !|