L I B R.ARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVER.5ITY 
 
 or ILLINOIS
 
 /c 
 
 f 
 
 SUBSTANCE 
 
 OF 
 
 AN ADDRESS 
 
 DELIVERED BY 
 
 HON. CHARLES L. WOOD, 
 
 AT THE 
 
 ORDINARY MEETING OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH UNION, 
 
 HELD AT 
 
 FREEMASONS' TAVERN, 
 On FEBRUARY 27, 1877. 
 
 LONDON: 
 ENGLISH CHURCH UNION OFFICE, 
 
 2,$^ WELLINGTON STREET, STRAND, W.C. 
 
 Price %d. ; iz. copies^ is. Gd. ; 50 copies^ ss.
 
 RESOLUTIONS 
 
 UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO AT THE SPECIAL GENERAL 
 MEETING OF THE E. C. U. AT FREEMASONS' TAVERN 
 ON TUESDAY, 16TI1 JANUARY, 1877. 
 
 Whereas since the year 1849 *he constitutional independence of the 
 Church of England in things Spiritual has been increasingly encroached 
 upon by the proceedings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council 
 n the Ecclesiastical causes upon which that Tribunal has adjudicated, and 
 by the action of Parliament — Resohed: 
 
 I. — That the English Church Union, while it distinctly and expressly 
 acknowledges the authority of all Courts legally constituted in regard to 
 all matters temporal, denies that the Secular Power has authority in 
 matters purely Spiritual. 
 
 2. — That any Court which is bound to frame its decisions in accord- 
 ance with the judgments of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, 
 or any other Secular Court, does not possess any Spiritual authority with 
 respect to such decisions. 
 
 That Suspension a sacris being a purely Spiritual act, the English Church 
 Union is prepared to support any Priest not guilty of a moral or canonical 
 offence who refuses to recognize a Suspension issued by such a Court. 
 
 3. — That "the Church" (not the State) having "power to decree 
 Rites and Ceremonies and authority in controversies of Faith," this Union 
 submits itself to the duly constituted Synods of the Church; and, in 
 regard to the legality of matters now under dispute, appeals to the Rubrics 
 of the Book of Common Prayer, and to the interpretation put upon those 
 Rubrics in 1875 by the resolutions of the Lower House of Convocation 
 of Canterbury in regard to the Eucharistic Vestments and the Eastward 
 Position.
 
 AN ADDRESS, 
 
 Gentlemen, it is I know an unpopular opinion, but nevertheless 
 I shall venture to record it this evening, and that is my convic- 
 tion that the Public Worship Regulation Act has in one respect 
 done us good service. It has compelled us to look our difficulties 
 in the face ; and it will, I believe firmly, prove the occasion of over- 
 coming them. Everything that has happened since the great meet- 
 ing of the English Church Union on the 1 6th of January shows 
 that Churchmen are beginning to realize what it is that lies at the 
 root of our difficulties ; and I need not say that to understand what 
 we want is the first step towards obtaining it. Now the root of all 
 our difficulties, as we stated on the l6th of January, is this — the 
 power given to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to 
 decide hnally on causes involving directly, or indirectly, the doctrine 
 and rites of the Church. This is the root of our difficulties, because 
 as long as the Courts — whether they be Diocesan or Provincial, 
 whether they be the Court of Arches, as presided over by 
 Sir Robert Phillimore, or the tribunal in which Lord Penzance 
 is the judge — consider themselves bound by the decisions of the 
 Judicial Committee, so long will it be true that it is with the Privy 
 Council, and not with any subordinate Court, that we are really 
 brought face to face. Now since the meeting of the 1 6th two 
 arguments have been chiefly brought forward to show that we have 
 no right to object to such a state of things, and I propose to examine 
 them carefully this evening. The first is, that whether it is a griev- 
 ance or not, it is too late for us to object to the jurisdiction of the 
 Privy Council in Spiritual matters. The clergy, it is said, may not 
 technically have assented to the exercise by the Privy Council of 
 the powers formerly enjoyed by the Court of Delegates ; but to 
 the Court of Delegates they did formally assent, and the Judicial 
 Committee is to all intents and purposes identical with the Court 
 of Delegates. Now, I pass by the fact that a grievance is not 
 less a grievance because it is one of old standing. I pass by 
 the fact that this matter concerns not the clergy alone, 
 but the laity also. I pass by the fact that neither the clergy 
 nor the laity formally accepted the Court of Delegates. I 
 pass by the fact that the jurisdiction of that Court in matters 
 of doctrine was never really exercised. I pass by the fact
 
 that against the power given to the Judicial Committee in 
 Church matters there has been a constant protest on the part of 
 Churchmen ever since 1 850 — when the present Court of Final 
 Appeal was practically constituted — and I proceed at once to the 
 question, Is it true that the Judicial Committee is really identical 
 with the Court of Delegates, as alleged to have been accepted by 
 the Church ? Let us compare the constitution and practice of the 
 two Courts. The Court of Delegates could consist only of 
 Churchmen. As a matter of fact it consisted, I believe I may 
 say, almost exclusively of clergy and canonists. It was 
 established not only on the distinct understanding that the 
 king should adjudicate on Spirituals through the Spiritualty — as 
 he governed in temporals through the temporalty — the preamble 
 of the Act for restraining Appeals to Rome distinctly recognizing 
 the right of the spiritualty " to declare, interpret, and show any 
 cause of the law Divine or of Spiritual learning " — but by the 
 very Act of Submission it was distinctly provided that all the old 
 canons and constitudons of the Church were to remain in force. 
 What was accounted heresy by those old canons was to be 
 accounted heresy still. Catholic consent was to be the standard 
 of orthodoxy and practice. In a word, the Court or Courts to 
 which the clergy submitted were Courts to be administered by 
 spiritual persons ; they were to be tied to a certain standard 
 which could not be altered without the consent of the clergy — 
 for the only authority for making and altering the canons was 
 admitted to rest in the clergy — and they were to be put in motion 
 by a Sovereign, himself a member of the Church — as much 
 bound by her rules as any other member of the Church — and 
 acting solely on his own responsibility as a member of the 
 Church. Contrast this with the Judicial Committee. That 
 Court — I believe I am correct in my statement — need not, with 
 the single excepdon of the Lord Chancellor, consist of persons 
 of any religion at all, much less of Churchmen. The standards 
 by which the old Courts were to be governed have been altered 
 by Parliament against the will of the Church ; I need only 
 remind you, as an illustration, of the marriage laws, which 
 violate all the canons as to the marriage of divorced persons, 
 but are nevertheless held to bind the ecclesiastical Courts. 
 The decisions of the Judicial Committee, instead of being bound 
 by Catholic consent, and of being based upon the old principle of 
 construction, that if the matter was doubtful, it was to be decided 
 by the practice of the Church, and the ancient canons, openly 
 disregard primitive tradition, set Church authority endrely on one 
 side, and base themselves upon the implied theory that the Gospel 
 was first preached in England— or, as Lord Penzance puts it, ''that 
 
 u,uc
 
 the Church was first established" — in the reign of Edward VI. 
 I think that no one can pretend that this is what the Church 
 of England submitted to ; and I sum up the matter in the words 
 of Mr. Keble,* which are all the more weighty from the fact of 
 their conceding more than is necessary, " that it by no means 
 follows because the Church bound itself to the Court of Delegates, 
 as it was then constituted, that she bound herself to the Court of 
 Delegates if it should come to be materially altered, much less to 
 any Court which might profess hereafter to succeed to the same 
 functions, though differing most widely from the Reformation 
 Court, both in its composition and in the authority by which it is 
 constituted." It does not follow, because the Church assented 
 to a certain power in the Crown, advised by Churchmen and spiri- 
 tual persons, that she has therefore acknowledged a supremacy 
 virtually put into commission, and exercised by those whom a 
 majority of the House of Commons shall see fit to entrust with it. 
 *' Neither by oath or engagement," says Mr. Keble, *' are we 
 committed to such an arrangement. It is no part of the system 
 to which the clergy are pledged." And far from its being 
 their duty to submit to it, it is their duty, so long as the Church 
 Courts consider themselves bound by the decisions of the 
 Judicial Committee, to treat them, so Mr. Keble puts it, " as 
 the Dissenters treated certain Acts of Parliament which fined 
 them for not going to church — i.e., to disregard them, and to 
 take the consequences." So much for the duty of acquiescing 
 in the decisions of the Privy Council and of the Court controlled 
 by it, on the ground that we are bound by our engagements in 
 the Church of England to do so. 
 
 Now for the second reason for acquiescence and submis- 
 sion, which is, that the Privy Council does not decide doc- 
 trine, but only interprets and construes legal documents. I 
 will reply again in the words of Mr. Keble. The Privy Council 
 does attempt to decide the doctrine of the Church of England ; 
 " for," and he gives an illustration which has since bepn verified, 
 ''if it is found necessary to excommunicate a layman, no civil 
 right at all being concerned, but only the right of admission to 
 Holy Communion, this would be the Court to decide the 
 matter finally." The case of Jenkins v. Cook, decided last 
 year, proves that Mr. Keble was right ; but in truth, those who 
 assert that the Privy Council does not decide doctrine do not 
 believe what they say themselves. It will be remembered what 
 passed when the late Bishop Blomfield proposed in the House of 
 
 * See Pastoral Tracts in volume of " Occasional Papers and Reviews," 
 by John Keble, M.A., recently published by Messrs. Parker.
 
 
 
 Lords that the same jurisdiction exercised by the Privy Council 
 should be transferred to the Episcopate. It was at once replied 
 that such a proposal was out of the question, for such a transfer 
 would " put the doctrine of the Church under the control of 
 the Bishops." In lay hands the power exercised by the Privy 
 Council amounted to nothing ; in those of the Bishops it would 
 be everything. It does not require any great amount of intelli- 
 gence to see that such statements cannot stand together. In 
 truth the question does not admit of discussion. Austin in his 
 ''Jurisprudence" — a book of authority on such points — 
 lays down that "judicial decisions are one of the sources of 
 law ;" and again, that judicial decisions erect what were opinions 
 nto law — i.e., create law, for " courts of justice are a source 
 of law in so far as the law consists of judicial decisions binding 
 upon subsequent judges." 
 
 Mr. Keble sums up the whole matter when he says, *' That a 
 judicial sentence, contrary to a prevailing interpretation, though 
 its force be short of legislation, cannot be denied to be a 
 practical change in the law ; " an assertion which is endorsed by 
 Mr. Gladstone, in his celebrated letter to the Bishop of London, 
 in the following words, " That the licence of construction 
 claimed by the Privy Council, although disclaiming in words the 
 decision of doctrine, in effect leaves the whole range of Church 
 doctrine and practice at the mercy of the Court." 
 
 Now, we cannot deny that such a condition of things seriously 
 affects the well-being of the Church ; and we may well be grateful 
 to the Public Worship Regulation Act for bringing this home to 
 men's minds. People are beginning to apprehend that the Church 
 is the only religious body in the Queen's dominions to which the 
 following privileges are expressly denied : — To declare her own 
 Doctrines ; to confirm, vary, and repeal her own Canons ; to 
 have a voice in the appointment of her chief Pastors ; to grant or 
 withhold her own Sacraments according to her own proper rule 
 as a religious body. And surely when this is once under- 
 stood there is no Churchman in England who vs^ill hesitate for one 
 instant in uniting with us to demand that our rights be restored 
 to us. It will be said, I know, that such rights are inconsistent 
 with Establishment. We have only to carry our eyes across 
 the border, into Scotland, to see the falsity of the assertion. In 
 Scotland the General Assembly of the Established Presbyterian 
 body is absolutely independent of the civil Courts. That Assembly 
 is an exclusively clerical body, for the elders, who, together with 
 the ministers, compose it, are all, in theory, ordained persons, 
 and have all been set apart with the laying on of hands. The 
 Assembly is absolutely supreme in all ecclesiastical matters in
 
 Scotland ; and, to prove that I am not making an empty 
 assertion, I will refer to a case that was brought before the 
 Court of Sessions, in Edinburgh, on the 29th June, 1870. 
 The case was this. A minister of the Established Church in 
 Scotland was suspended by the Presbytery of Dunkeld for six 
 months, during which time he was compelled to pay ^^/. to his 
 assistant for discharging the duties of the cure. The General 
 Assembly, however, were not satisfied with the decision of the 
 Presbytery, and on May, 1 870, ordered the Presbytery to 
 proceed to a fresh trial on the same charge. Upon this, the 
 minister prayed the civil Courts to suspend the judgment of the 
 Assembly, on the ground that the Assembly had exceeded its 
 jurisdiction. The Court of Sessions, however, held that the 
 proceedings complained of being within the exclusive jurisdic- 
 tion of the Church Courts, it had no power to review them. 
 The following were the decisions of the Judges : — 
 
 It appears to the Lord Ordinary that the whole matter was a question of 
 ecclesiastical law and procedure, of which it was the exclusive province of 
 the General Assembly to judge, and with which the Court of Sessions had 
 no right to interfere. If the Court were to do so it would simply be 
 reviewing the proceedings of the supreme ecclesiastical Court. 
 
 Tbe Lord Justice Clerk — Within their spiritual province the Church 
 Courts are as supreme as we are within the civil, and as this is a matter 
 relating to the civil discipline of the Church, and solely within the 
 cognizance of the Church Courts, I think we have no power to interfere. 
 
 Lord Co^an — I am of the same opinion. The Assembly is the supreme 
 tribunal in ecclesiastical offences whether attaching to the morality of 
 ministers or to alleged heretical opinions. I repudiate the idea of a civil 
 Court being entitled to overrule the deliverances of the Assembly in 
 matters of that kind. It may be that incidentally and necessarily the civil 
 interests of the clergyman may be affected. Every such judgment pro- 
 nounced by the Assembly has necessarily that effect, but because the 
 civil interests of the man found guilty of an offence may be affected, is that 
 any reason for the civil Courts interfering ? By no means. The pro- 
 cedure having regard to offences cognizable by the Church courts, and to 
 be followed on conviction by ecclesiastical pains and penalties, the Church 
 Courts had supreme and exclusive jurisdiction. 
 
 Lord Benholme — \V ithin their own department the law of the land gives 
 the Assembly an exclusive and final jurisdiction. The General Assembly 
 is the supreme ecclesiastical Court in Scotland. 
 
 Now, what is consistent with Establishment in Scotland can- 
 not be inconsistent with Establishment in England. And, I ask, 
 why is that amount of freedom to manage her own affairs to be 
 denied to the Church of England which is freely granted to the 
 Establishment in Scotland ? It can only be because we do 
 not ask for it. It is a moderate demand -, it is a reasonable 
 demand ; it affects no one but ourselves ; there are no 
 reasonable arguments against it ; and, I say again, let us 
 irrespective of party unite in demanding that the great Church to
 
 which we belong shall not be denied the rights which are 
 freely conceded to other religious bodies in union with the 
 State, and it is hard to see how the demand can be refused. 
 
 Allow me to make a practical suggestion towards attain- 
 ing that end. By 29 Henry VIII., cap. 12, it was enacted 
 that the final appeal should, in certain cases, be to the Upper 
 House of the Convocation of Canterbury. I have shown that 
 the General Assembly is supreme in ecclesiastical matters in 
 Scotland. What the General Assembly is to the Scotch Estab- 
 lishment that the two Convocations are to the Church of England. 
 Let Convocation, then, be restored to its rightful posidon. Let 
 the Upper Llouses of both Convocations, after hearing the advice 
 of the presbyters assembled in the Lower Houses, be made, as 
 they ought to be made, the final judges in all matters affecting 
 doctrine and discipline, and I will predict that, as far as we are 
 concerned, we shall have heard the last of accusations of law- 
 lessness and disobedience to constituted authority. All that is 
 required to make such a change is a little good will. Why 
 should not some such scheme as the following be adopted ? — 
 (i) Let the Episcopal and Provincial Courts be so reformed 
 that all proceedings in them shall be cheap and expeditious — 
 as pointed out in the letter from Dr. Liddon, printed at 
 the close of this address. (2) Let the Provincial Courts of 
 Canterbury and York be cleared of any difficulties that now 
 beset them (entailing the repeal of the P. W. R. A.) (3) Let the 
 appeal from those Courts — which ought to represent the Arch- 
 bishops — be to the Bishops generally, whose decision on Doctrine, 
 Ceremonial, and Ornaments of the Church should be final. 
 This might be arrived at easily by withdrawing the new rules 
 now constitudng the assessors of the Final Court of Appeal, 
 and constituting instead the whole Episcopate the assessors of 
 the Court. In any appeal from the Provincial Courts let the 
 matter be at once referred by the Final Court of Appeal to the 
 assessors — i.e., the Episcopate — who should sit separately, under 
 the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Let the report 
 of the Episcopate be made to the Privy Council within a given 
 time, and be final in regard to doctrine and practice. In most 
 cases there can be little doubt the Privy Council would accept 
 such a decision, and the matter would be setded ; but if not, 
 let the decision of the Episcopate be operative qua Spirituals, 
 which, following the analogy of the Scotch Establishment, 
 should include the use of the fabric of the church ; while in 
 respect to temporalities — and this is asking less than what is 
 enjoyed by the Scotch Establishment — the Privy Council might 
 decide as it pleased ; awarding, if it saw fit, to the aggrieved
 
 9 
 
 party, as in Scotland, pecuniary damages, to be paid out of the 
 income of his former benefice. For the working of such an 
 arrangement the Bishops might, and should, refer in the first 
 instance for information to a joint Committee of the Lower Houses 
 of the Convocations of both Provinces, who should have power to 
 call to their assistance any persons well acquainted with Canon law 
 they pleased. Such Committee should report to the Episcopate, 
 in order that the mind of the Episcopate might be properly 
 informed, but the Episcopate would be left absolutely free as to 
 the answer they might make in the last resort to the Privv 
 Council. 
 
 Let us insist upon some such scheme as this, by which 
 the Episcopate should be made ultimately responsible for the 
 government of the Church ; and let us insist upon one other thing 
 — I mean that the communicants of the Church may be restored 
 to some of their ancient freedom in the election of the Bishops. 
 This again is less than is enjoyed by the members of the 
 Scotch Establishment. For these things let us petition, let us 
 labour, till by quiet and steady perseverance we shall have 
 obtained the redress we seek. Meanwhile, 'Met us protest," 
 it is Mr. Keble that speaks, '^ that the Privy Council is 
 not, cannot represent the Church, that we will not be bound by 
 it. Let us be forward in offering our goods " (the words are 
 still Mr. Keble's) " for the support of those whom our Master 
 shall call out from among us, if so be, to suffer for the Liberties 
 of the Church." While at the same time let us — the caution 
 can never be unnecessary — "be very patient and gentle our- 
 selves. Gentle, for many may shrink whom sve would least 
 wish to offend ; patient, for the chains are deeply rivetted, and 
 it must take time to unloose them." If we act in this way we 
 shall, with God's blessing, succeed. If not, then let us again 
 listen to Mr. Keble, who says, " That if it should appear that 
 Establishment is in our case incompatible with these liberties " — 
 namely, those which have been referred to — *' we earnestly 
 implore that measures may speedily be taken for depriving us 
 of such painful support, and that for this obvious reason : that 
 we had rather be a Church in earnest, separate from the State, 
 than a counterfeit Church in professed union with the State." 
 I do not wish for disestablishment ; far, very far, from it. 
 I appreciate its evils as keenly as anyone ; but it is possible to 
 pay too heavy a price for Establishment. It is possible — it was 
 a truth evident even to the Roman poet — *' propter vitam vivefidi 
 perdere causas ;' and that point, I assert without fear of serious 
 contradiction, will have been reached if we are to be compelled 
 to submit to the Judicial Committee, as the supreme authority in
 
 10 
 
 all matters relating to the doctrine and practice of the Church oi 
 England. 
 
 I say that I make this assertion without fear of serious contra- 
 diction, and yet there is one, and that a name never to be 
 mentioned without respect in an assembly of Churchmen — I 
 refer to the Bishop of Lincoln, who appears, if I understand 
 him aright, to lay down principles which must lead to an 
 opposite conclusion. I hope it will not be unbecoming in me 
 if I advert to the argument which apparently underlies the 
 Bishop's recent letter to Canon Hole. The Bishop appears 
 to lay down that it is a duty of Divine obligation to obey the 
 civil power in whatever it may order, whether it be against 
 the law of the Church or not, so long as the matter in 
 question is not one directly commanded or directly forbidden 
 by the Word of God ; and from this premiss he draws the 
 conclusion that the matters now under dispute, not being in 
 themselves essential in the strict sense of the word, ought to be 
 given up as a matter of duty if the civil power commands it. 
 He further fortifies this position by dwelUng on the troubles of 
 disestablishment — one of the consequences he anticipates from 
 the line of action recommended by Mr. Keble, with respect to 
 which he seems to say that scarcely anything can justify conduct 
 which may lead to a result fraught, as he considers, with so 
 much evil. Now the position laid down, as I understand it, 
 by the Bishop of Lincoln seems to me to touch the very heart 
 of our difficulties, for it involves the whole question of what 
 we believe to be the constitution and prerogatives of the 
 visible Church of Christ. Do we believe that God has founded 
 a kingdom, with a King ruling and governing that kingdom 
 through an executive whom He has Himself commissioned — 
 a kingdom complete in itself, and so distinct from all earthly 
 power that no human authority has a right to interfere in its 
 concerns ? Assuredly we believe it, just as — only in a far 
 deeper and higher sense than — we believe that no foreign 
 prince has a right to interfere with the Queen's Government. 
 But, then, what is the consequence ? Why, that loyalty to our 
 King and obedience to His Government forbid us to admit that 
 in matters relating to His Kingdom there can be <7ny duty to 
 yield obedience to any but His representatives. The powers 
 that be are indeed ordained of God, but the State is not the only 
 power that exists by God's ordinance. The Church of God 
 exists by His decree, and within her own sphere can admit no 
 rival claim to the obedience of her children. It is not necessary, 
 ut I will call two witnesses to attest this position. One shall 
 be Bishop Sanderson, to whose testimony the Bishop of Lincoln
 
 11 
 
 has referred, who himself lays down the principle that ''semper 
 necesse est suhjici, non semper ohed'ire ;' the other the Bishop of 
 Lincoln himself, who in his introduction to the Acts of the 
 Apostles says : — 
 
 "The Apostles and Elders meet in Council in Jerusalem, they frame 
 and promulgate a decree, and the question is settled. Thus the dispute 
 was made to be a source of peace by which disputes are ended. It was 
 made to supply a precedent and rule for the practice of the Church in all 
 ages, and to establish a principle of universal application: that for the 
 settlement of controversies, whether concerning doctrine or discipline, and 
 for the quieting of men's minds, and the appeasing of strife, resort should 
 be had not to any one man in the Church, not to Peter, not to the Bishop 
 of Rome, but to the Holy Ghost Himself speaking in Councils and 
 Convocations of the Church, praying for His guidance and building their 
 decrees upon His Word." 
 
 I submit there can be no question as to the principle of the 
 matter, and if so the whole question of obedience to the 
 civil power in matters relating to the Church's doctrine and 
 practice as a matter of duty falls to the ground (I have previously 
 considered the particular moral obligations contracted by the 
 English clergy towards the State), and all we have to consider 
 is the question of submission merely in reference to the further 
 argument on behalf of its expediency. Doubtless — for the 
 Church, like all those who are conscious of the security of their 
 position, has never been careful to insist, so long as her substan- 
 tial rights were secured, upon the precise manner in which this 
 was effected — expediency ought not to be excluded from con- 
 sideration at the present moment. I will go so far as to admit 
 that in certain cases, and with a view to what seems the Church's 
 obvious well-being, what is expedient may rise into becoming 
 almost a duty. The question is does it do so, as the Bishop of 
 Lincoln appears to think, in the present instance ? 
 
 Now I should be doing the Bishop a great injustice if I did not 
 express my conviction that he would be the first to sacrifice all 
 he possessed if he was himself convinced God's Truth required it. 
 I would therefore ask him, is he so very sure that God's Truth 
 is not involved in some of the matters which I suppose he would 
 wish us under certain circumstances to surrender ? I would ask, 
 in all seriousness, when we remember the way the Sacraments 
 have been ignored among us, the irreverences (not intentional, I 
 fully believe, but still irreverences) to which the Blessed Sacra- 
 ment has been exposed, the infrequent Celebrations of the Holy 
 Eucharist, the Sundays and Saints'-days disgraced by the omis- 
 sion of the one act of Christian worship enjoined by Christ 
 Himself — for even now what is the proportion of our churches 
 where the Holy Communion is Celebrated even every Sunday
 
 12 
 
 does it amount to one-half ? — the multitudes of our people, not 
 the openly profane, but those who come regularly to church, 
 who yet live and die without ever communicating — when, 
 moreover, in connection with all this, we recollect the importance 
 of outward acts in enshrining the truths which they symbolize, 
 the connection in popular estimation of the ritual now under 
 dispute, at least in its main features, with the true doctrine of the 
 Sacraments — doctrine in the closest relation to the Incarnation 
 but which has been too sadly ignored among us — I say when 
 we remember all this, and further recollect that the main 
 features of the Church's Ritual, apart from their own value as 
 a witness to the fact that our present Office for Holy Communion 
 is only the ancient Service of the Church of England, '* com- 
 monly called the Mass," translated into English, could hardly be 
 surrendered, under existing circumstances, without the further 
 evil of appearing to recognize a legitimate authority in the civil 
 Courts to decide the Church's doctrine and practice, I venture to 
 ask the Bishop of Lincoln, in all humility, whether, great 
 as may be the evils of Disestablishment, it would not be a 
 greater evil to do anything which checked the reception of the 
 Sacramental teaching of the Church among the masses of this 
 country, or, which gave people reason to think, that the Church 
 of England alone among the Churches of Christendom was the 
 one body that did not know how to suffer for her principles. 
 I trust it is not inconsistent with the profound respect and 
 veneration which I feel for the Bishop, and with the grati- 
 tude I owe him for his many personal kindnesses, if I say, that I 
 cannot help thinking that he has lived so much with the divines 
 of the sixteenth century, that he has, insensibly to himself, caught 
 something of that tendency to exalt the Regale which it has 
 generally been thought the Anglican divines of that period have 
 exhibited in their writings. Be this as it may, I would remind 
 the Bishop that if undue pretensions of the Roman See as 
 against the State are to be corrected, it will not be by the 
 Anglican Communion throwing itself into the opposite extreme. 
 We have to think not of ourselves only, but of the whole of 
 Christendom, to remember the light in which our history and our 
 acts must strike others as well as ourselves, and for the sake of 
 those outside, no less than for our own, to be very careful lest 
 even in appearance we should seem to sacrifice the Church's 
 rights. 
 
 Upon this subject I wish to speak plainly, for I believe the 
 future of Christendom, to a very great extent, humanly speak- 
 ing, depends upon the decision the Church of England has 
 to make at this present moment. I say, then, when we con-
 
 13 
 
 sider, in connection with tlie matters to which I have alluded, 
 the practical Erastianism which has disgraced the English Church ; 
 the way in which, and the men by whom, the separation of the 
 Church of England from the rest of Western Christendom was 
 effected ; when we consider the undeniable fact that, however 
 justifiable and however necessary, separation from Rome was as 
 much an act of revolution against the existing ecclesias- 
 tical organization of Western Christendom as it would be in 
 these days if the Bishops of India or South Africa, through the 
 pressure of the State, were to break off communion with the 
 see of Canterbury, and that this is the light in which our 
 position must strike the rest of the Churches of the West — 
 when we remember, too, the existing disbelief so prevalent 
 amongst us in the visible Church as a real living spiritual 
 society apart from the sanction of human law — I say again, 
 when' we think on all these things and realize the importance 
 with which the externals of the sacramental system are invested 
 in our case, and see the special danger in our circumstances arising 
 from any act that, even in appearance, ignores the Church's 
 inherent rights, it is impossible to accept the position affirmed by 
 the Bishop of Lincoln, or to deny that it may be the duty of 
 those, who have been teaching in various ways, and, I thank God, 
 successfully teaching, what the Church is, and what her sacra- 
 ments really are, to suffer in their own persons rather than give 
 up what has proved a most effectual way of bringing home these 
 truths to the minds of their countrymen. 
 
 In the great revival of Catholic doctrine and practice which the 
 present generation has witnessed three very marked stages may, 
 I think, be observed. There was first the revival of doctrine. 
 Then came, by a natural consequence, the restoration of those 
 outward acts by which that doctrine expresses itself. It was a 
 natural and a necessary development, and to ask those who have 
 taken part in it — who, with much deliberation ; and not, as they 
 humbly hope, without the guidance and help of God the Holy 
 Ghost, have revived this pordon of the Church's system — to 
 abandon what has been won, at the command of mere human 
 law, is surely to make a demand that it is impossible to comply 
 with. Those to whom the request is made will assuredly ask 
 themselves by what consideration, human or Divine, they are 
 precluded from making another effort on behalf of what they 
 know to be of the very greatest importance in regard to their 
 own flocks, to the Church of England, and to the whole of 
 Christendom, when that effort is confined to the determination 
 of suffering in their own persons, and that too under circum- 
 stances which seem to indicate that such suffering is the
 
 14 
 
 indispensable price that has to be paid for the restoration of those 
 constitutional rights of the Church of England, inherent in every 
 branch of the Church of Christ, the vindication of which is the 
 third stage in the Catholic revival, and the goal to which all our 
 present efforts and our most earnest prayers must be directed. 
 
 Since the 1st of January 1 183* new members have joined 
 the Union — a fact unprecedented during the same space of. 
 time in the history of the Society. The resolutions adopted 
 at the Freemasons' Tavern, on the 1 6th, have been adopted 
 by 141 Branches and District Unions, a Hst of which is 
 appended. Many of the Branches have held three meetings 
 since the 1 6th of January, while the dissentients at those 
 meetings appear to mount up exactly to ten individuals. I 
 congratulate the Union upon the result — for it is a proof 
 of the unanimity which exists in the great Society over 
 which I have the honour to preside, and is also a proof how 
 wide and deep is the revival of Church principles in England. 
 It only requires an event like Mr. Tooth's imprisonment to call 
 it out ; and the meeting of our own Society and the magnificent 
 meeting of the working men at Cannon-street the other day is 
 the response. Gentlemen, I cannot help expressing my sense 
 of the great cause we have for thankfulness. Let us persevere, 
 and be of a good courage, and we shall see, with God's blessing, 
 the Doctrine, the Ritual, and Liberties of the Church settled 
 upon so sure a basis that no Church Associations, no Protestant 
 Leagues, will venture upon insulting the consciences of the 
 clergy and the rights of congregations as they are now permitted 
 to do, to the infinite disgrace of all concerned in their proceed- 
 ings, at S. James', Hatcham. 
 
 LETTER FROM DR. LIDDON TO THE TRESIDENT OF 
 E. C. U. 
 
 Christ Church, Feb. 23, 1877 
 My Dear President, 
 
 Circumstances will prevent me from attending the 
 meeting at which you will preside on Monday. But, although it is, as I 
 think, unnecessary, it is a pleasure to assure you on the occasion of your 
 visit to Oxford of my sympathy with the efforts of the Union on behalf 
 of the primitive faith and Apostolic discipline of the Church of England. 
 The resolutions which are to be submitted to the meeting on Monday 
 
 * The number of persons enrolled this year is now 1,644 (March 17).
 
 15 
 
 will, as I anticipate, command the general assent of thoughtful Church- 
 men, under our present circumstances. They are, however, open to a 
 criticism which is entitled to consideration, as it is constantly urged against 
 similar language used on other occasions. They are, indeed, framed with 
 a view to public discussion; and, as a natural consequence, they are some- 
 what indefinite in their terms. The two first resolutions are negative : 
 they express the objections entertained by Churchmen to the Public 
 Worship Regulation Act, and the present Court of Fmal Appeal. The 
 third is so far positive that it insists on the necessity of restoring to the 
 Church, under due constitutional safeguards, judicial authority in matters 
 of faith, and the regulation of her own discipline and ritual. But these 
 terms, however unexceptionable, are perhaps too general and indefinite to 
 point the way to action in the future. 
 
 As I ventured to suggest to you before, it is not enough for Churchmen 
 to say that they are dissatisfied with and distressed at existing arrange- 
 ments. Negative criticism, unaccompanied by any positive suggestions, is 
 easy ; but it is not courageous, nor is it likely to be useful. It is due to 
 others as well as to ourselves that we should say what we want ; what 
 will satisfy us ; what Courts and laws we should welcome and obey. If, 
 then, I send you one or two thoughts on this subject, it is, you will 
 believe, only in the hope that they will provoke something more complete, 
 and more practical, from more, competent persons. 
 
 The practical drift of the first resolution is the repeal of the Public 
 Worship Regulation Act, and I for one think that this is an object for 
 which the Union might well work steadily, incessantly. That Act was the 
 child partly of passion, partly of panic — of passion and of panic which, 
 since the date of its passing, have largely yielded to reason and justice. It 
 was avowedly pressed on Parliament as a party measure ; and the taint of 
 partizanship will cling to it as long as it remains on the Statute-book. Of 
 those who advocated it, some, at any rate, have since regretted that they 
 did so ; and, as members of another Parliament, after the next general 
 election, they might, without real inconsistency or loss of dignity, reconsider 
 a false move in legislation. Certainly if the Public Worship Act was 
 intended to bring peace to the Church, it cannot be described as a success ; 
 for it has aggravated previous dissensions beyond all our former experience. 
 It has, to say the least, thrown doubts on the historical continuity and on 
 the religious authority of our ecclesiastical Courts ; it has added to our 
 controversial difficulties in maintaining the true claims of our Church 
 against her various assailants ; it has lodged scruples and fears in many a 
 tender conscience which knew nothing of the kind before. It has created 
 bad blood all round, and this in days when the circumstances of the 
 Church demand from all sides new efforts after unity. But what Parlia- 
 ment has made Parliament can unmake if it chooses to do so ; and it will 
 be the fault of Churchmen if they do not employ such influence as they 
 may have in promoting the repeal of a measure which threatens very serious 
 disaster in the future. 
 
 At the same time, we must, I think, feel that Lord Shaftesbury and 
 other supporters of the Public Worship Act had a strong case against the 
 old ecclesiastical Courts, provincial and diocesan, on the ground that pro- 
 ceedings in them were notoriously costly and often protracted beyond en- 
 durance. Ecclesiastical justice, like all other kinds of justice, should, if 
 possible, be cheap and easy of attainment. To simplify and cheapen pro- 
 cedure in these ancient Courts, while retaining them m their integrity, must 
 appear as desirable an object to you and me as to any supporter of the 
 Public Worship Act. And therefore we ought to welcome — rather would
 
 16 
 
 I say that some one among us, with the necessary legal knowledge, ought 
 to frame — some measure which would secure that object, and so, as I would 
 hope, remove the most serious ground of discontent which could be enlisted 
 on behalf of the legislation of 1874. 
 
 But the greatest question is, undoubtedly, that of the future Court of 
 Final Appeal ; and here neither the second nor the third resolution com- 
 mits the meeting to any proposal at once positive and definite. May I 
 then be allowed to say that, in my opinion, our efforts ought to be directed 
 to procuring a Court which would be in accordance with the original prin- 
 ciple of the English Reformation, as stated in the 24th of Henry VIII. ? 
 In other words, the Court of Final Appeal should be the collective 
 English Episcopate, or so many of its members as might be freely elected 
 by the rest to serve as their accredited representatives. 
 
 A court of seven or nine bishops, advised by three lawyers and three 
 divines, and presided over by one of the Primates, would possess an autho- 
 rity which, as it seems to me, we could not but recognize. 
 
 The objections to such a proposal are obvious. It will be urged that 
 past and recent experience forbids the hope that any Court, so constituted, 
 would do justice to good Churchmen. This could not be of itself a decisive 
 objection, if the constitution of the proposed Court is in clear accordance 
 with the will of God. But I would add that we have not yet seen how 
 the Bishops would act, when they are no longer under the empire of pre- 
 dominating considerations which have more to do with the State than with 
 the Church ; when they shall have felt that they have fairly in their hands 
 the future of the great Communion over which they are called to pre- 
 side, and so are thrown back, as never before, on their sense of spiritual 
 responsibility. If it is generally true that human nature is improved by 
 being trusted, we may be sure that the chief pastors of the Church would 
 not be insensible to the great responsibilities attendant upon their recovery 
 of some measure of their ancient spiritual authority. 
 
 It may, however, be urged that this proposal is inconsistent with the 
 drift of some recent efforts among Churchmen to create a purely lay Court 
 of Final Appeal. The inconsistency is less real than apparent. 
 
 There are three practical forms of a Court of Final Appeal. It may be a 
 court of bishops, who alone vote, but who are advised by lawyers. It may 
 be a court of lawyers, who alone vote, but who are advised by bishops. 
 It may be a mixed court of bishops and lawyers, who vote together. 
 
 Of these, the first is in accordance with the government of the Christian 
 Church, as prescribed by her Divine Founder and His Apostles. The 
 second is calculated to secure such a measure and kind of justice as may 
 be attainable, if devotional formularies are interpreted by untheological but 
 clear minds, as so many clauses of an Act of Parliament, The third would 
 appear to forfeit the advantages both of the second and of the first, while 
 it combines their respective drawbacks. A court of lawyers and bishops is 
 without spiritual authority ; while the risk of substituting prejudices for 
 justice is enhanced by the difficulties of fixing responsibility. Such respon- 
 sibility can, upon occasion, be shifted from the lawyers to the bishops, or 
 from the bishops to the lawyers. 
 
 The recent efforts on behalf of a purely lay court proceeded on the 
 assumption that, since Bishop Blomfield's failure a quarter of a century 
 ago, a purely Episcopal Court was out of the question ; and, further, that 
 a strictly lay Court was, spiritually speaking, just as authoritative as, and 
 likely to be more just than, a Court composed of bishops and lawyers. But 
 Parliament might, under conceivable circumstances, reconsider its decision 
 of 1850; and, indeed, the recent changes effected by the Judicature Act
 
 17 
 
 nre obviously intended, so far as they go, to relieve the consciences ot" 
 Churchmen. They are not indeed satisfactory, even as an attempt to pro- 
 vide us with a lay tribunal, because, as Convocation was informed last 
 year, the bishops as assessors are, for practical purposes, members of the 
 Court — in other words, the Court is still really, although not in name, a mixed 
 Court of bishops and lawyers. Above all, any such arrangement is open to 
 the objection that it is not in accordance with those principles of Church 
 government which we learn from Holy Scripture and the primitive Church. 
 In asking for a Final Court of Appeal composed of bishops, we should 
 fall back on principle ; we should feel that we could make our profession 
 of appeal to the Church of the early days of Christendom with a better 
 conscience than now. And if the Church Union could concentrate its 
 forces on such an object as this, it would, I hope, command the sympathies 
 of many Churchmen who do not belong to it; and the prospect of a new 
 and happier future might open before us. At any rate, it is desirable 
 that we should say not merely what we do not want, but what we do ; 
 and that we should say this as clearly and as unanimously as we can. 
 
 I am, 
 
 My dear President, 
 
 Affectionately yours, 
 
 H. P. LIDDON. 
 The Hon. C. L. Wood.
 
 List of all the District Unions and Local Branches which 
 have held Meetings for the purpose of considering the 
 Eesolutions on page 2. 
 
 In the 3 Branches marked * there v/as o«e Dissentient ; in the 2 Branches marked f 
 there were tijoo Dissentients ; and in i Branch marked % there were three 
 Dissentients. In all the other Branches, &c., the Resolutions were carried 
 
 unanimously. 
 
 Bedfordshire. 
 
 Bedford, Biggleswade, and Sheffbrd. 
 Luton and Neighbourhood. 
 
 Berkshire. 
 
 South Berks District Union. 
 
 Newbury. 
 
 Windsor, Eton, and Clewer. 
 
 Buckinghamshire. 
 
 Newport Pagnell, Stony Stratford, &c. 
 
 Cambridgeshire. 
 Cambridge D. U. 
 Burwell and Newmarket. 
 
 Cheshire. 
 
 Birkenhead and Bebington. 
 
 Chester. 
 
 Cornwall. 
 
 Bodmin. 
 
 Hayle and S. Ives. 
 
 Helston and Porthleven. 
 
 liand's End. 
 
 Launceston. 
 
 Derbyshire. 
 
 Derby. 
 
 Devonshire. 
 
 Exeter. 
 
 Honiton Deanery. 
 
 Ilfracombe and Barnstaple. 
 
 Plymouth, Devonport, & Stonehouse. 
 
 Dorsetshire. 
 
 Poole and Blandford. 
 
 Shapwick Parochial Association. 
 
 Durham. 
 
 Durham and Northumberland D. U. 
 
 Durham. 
 
 Sunderland. 
 
 Essex. 
 *Braintree. 
 Epping Forest. 
 Newport. 
 
 Gloucestershire. 
 
 ^Bristol District Union. 
 Cheltenham. 
 Gloucester. 
 WInterbourne Down P. A. 
 
 Hampshire. 
 
 Gosport. 
 Isle of Wight. 
 Southampton. 
 *Winchester and Hursley. 
 
 Herefordshire. 
 
 J Hereford. 
 
 Hertfordshire. 
 
 Hertford. 
 
 Hitchin. 
 
 S. Alban's, Hatfield, and Welwyn, 
 
 Kent. 
 
 Beckenham. 
 Canterbury. 
 fChislehurst. 
 Hatcham, Peckham, & New Cross, 
 Lewisham and Lee. 
 Rochester and Chatham. 
 Sydenham. 
 Tunbridge Wells. 
 Woolwich, Plumstead, & Charlton, 
 
 Lancashire. 
 
 Liverpool and Birkenhead D. U. 
 
 South-East Lancashire D. U. 
 
 Barrow-in-Furness. 
 
 Bury. 
 
 Liverpool (South), 
 
 Manchester (South). 
 
 Miles Platting. 
 
 Rochdale. 
 
 Southport. 
 
 Warrington. 
 
 Wigan and Neighbourhood. 
 
 Leicestershire. 
 
 Leicester. 
 
 Lutterworth and Claybrooke.
 
 List of District Unions and Local Branches (continued). 
 
 Lincolnshire. 
 
 Gainsborough. 
 Glandford Brigg. 
 Spalding. 
 
 Middlesex. 
 
 Bow Common. 
 
 City of London. 
 
 City, road and I.'lir^tcn. 
 
 Ealing, Perrivale, and Hanwell. 
 
 Fulham, Hammersmith, and Barnes. 
 
 Haggerston. 
 
 Holborn. 
 
 Kensington, Brompton, & Chelsea. 
 
 Kilburn, Hampstead, & Willesden. 
 
 SS. Mar)4ebone and Pancras. 
 
 Paddington. 
 
 S, George's, Hanover-square. 
 
 South Clerkenwell. 
 
 Stoke Newington, West Hackney, 
 
 and Clapton, 
 West Kensington and Notting Hill. 
 Westminster. 
 
 StaflEbrdshire. 
 
 Staffordshire District Union. 
 
 North Staffordshire. 
 
 Rugeley. 
 
 Smethwick. 
 
 Stafford. 
 
 West Bromwich. 
 
 Wolverhampton. 
 
 Suffolk. 
 
 Suffolk District Union. 
 Bury S. Edmund's. 
 Ipswich. 
 
 Surrey. 
 
 South London District Union. 
 
 Croydon. 
 
 Kennington. 
 
 Lambeth, Newington, and Camber. 
 
 well. 
 Richmond. 
 Vauxhall. 
 Wimbledon. 
 
 Mourn outhshire. 
 
 Sussex. 
 
 Abergavenny and Monmouth. 
 
 Brighton. 
 
 Caldicot and Chepstow. 
 
 Chichester. 
 
 Newport. 
 
 Hastings and S. Leonard's. 
 
 Norfolk. 
 
 "Warwickshire. 
 
 Norfolk District Union. 
 
 Birmingham. 
 
 Great Yarmouth. 
 
 Coventry. 
 
 Lynn. 
 
 Wiltshire. 
 
 Norwich. 
 
 Malmesbury (South), 
 
 Northumberland. 
 
 Salisbur)\ 
 
 Durham and Northumberland D. U. 
 
 West Wylye. 
 
 Newcastle-on-Tyne and Gateshead. 
 
 Worcestershire. 
 
 Nottinghamshire. 
 
 Stourbridge. 
 
 Retford and Bassetlaw. 
 
 Worcester. 
 
 Oxfordshire. 
 
 Yorkshire. 
 
 Oxford District Union. 
 
 Bradford. 
 
 North Oxfordshire District Union, 
 
 Bridlington. 
 
 Bampton. 
 
 Hull. 
 
 Banbury. 
 
 fLeeds. 
 
 Benson Parochial Association. 
 
 Middlesborough. 
 
 Burford and Shipton. 
 
 Richmond. 
 
 Dorchester, Benson, and Wallingford. 
 
 Rotherham. 
 
 Oxford (University). 
 
 Scarborough. 
 
 Wallingford Parochial Association. 
 
 Sheffield. 
 
 Witney. 
 
 Upper Hopton. 
 
 Shropshire. 
 
 Wakefield. 
 
 Shropshire District Union. 
 
 York. 
 
 Little Drayton. 
 Ludlow. 
 
 Wales. 
 
 Cardiff 
 
 Shrewsbury. 
 
 Margam P. A, 
 
 Somersetshire. 
 
 Merioneth. 
 
 Bath. 
 
 Swansea. 
 
 Wells. 
 
 Tenby. 
 
 1,644 new Members and Associates have been added to the 
 English Church Union between Jan. 1 and March 17, 1877.
 
 THE ENGLISK GlIUKCH UNION. 
 
 Offices— 35, Wellington-street, Strand, London, W.C. 
 
 Numler of enrolled communicants 15,000. 
 
 Clerical. 
 
 Et. Rev. Bishop Jenner. 
 
 Rev. 
 
 Yen. Archdeacon Denison. 
 Eev. F. Ll. Bagshawe. 
 
 Rev. 
 
 Rev. 
 
 Rev. E. L. Blenkinsopp. 
 
 Rev. 
 
 Rev. George Body. 
 
 Rev. 
 
 Rev. A. Brinckman. 
 
 Rev. 
 
 Rev. R. R. Bristow. 
 
 Rev. 
 
 Rev. T. T. Carter. 
 
 Rev. 
 
 Rev. A. T. Chapman. 
 
 Rev. 
 
 Rev. Canon W. R. Churton. 
 
 Rev. 
 
 Rev. Canon W. Cooke. 
 
 Rev. 
 
 Rev. the Hon. A. G. Douglas. 
 
 Rev. 
 
 Rev. the Hon. H. Douglas. 
 
 Rev. 
 
 Rev. H. F. Ebswoeth. 
 
 Rev. 
 
 Rev. J. Edwards. 
 
 Rev. 
 
 Rev. R. Eyton. 
 
 Rev. 
 
 Rev. George Greenwood. 
 
 Rev. 
 
 Rev. Prebendary R. M. Grier. 
 
 Rev. 
 
 Rev. C. S. Grueber. 
 
 Rev. 
 
 Rev. E. HosKiNS. 
 
 Rev. 
 
 Rev. R. C. Kirkpatric k. 
 
 
 THE COUNCIL. 
 
 President-— Tii-E Hon. CHARLES L. WOOD. 
 Vice-Presidents— Hey. Dr. PUSEY and The Earl op LIMERICK. 
 
 the Hon. R. Liddell. 
 Dr. Littledale. 
 
 C. F. LOWDER. 
 
 Malcolm MacColl. 
 P. G. Medd. 
 
 Prebendary R. W. Miles. 
 F. H. Murray. 
 Prebendary W. F. Neville. 
 
 H. D. NiHILL. 
 
 f. n. oxenham. 
 
 John Parr. 
 
 T. W. Perry. 
 
 Wm. Purton. 
 
 R. W. Randall. 
 
 A. H. E. De Romestin. 
 
 J. Fuller Russell. 
 
 F. L. Sharpin. 
 
 J. E. Vaux. 
 
 R. T. West (d.c.l.) 
 
 W. Allen Whitworth. 
 
 Viscount Kilcoursie. 
 P. A. Latham, Esq. 
 John Walter Lea, Esq. 
 .L H. P. Leresche, Esq. 
 W. Layton Lowndes, Esq. 
 Capt. LowRiE. 
 
 Colonel W. T. Makins (m.p.) 
 A. Meadows, Esq. (m.d.) 
 
 F. J. Mitchell, Esq. 
 
 J. Shaw Newstead, Esq. 
 
 Major J. A. Nutt. 
 
 T. Gambier Parry, Esq. 
 
 A. H. Pearson, Esq. 
 
 W. G. F. Phillimore, Esq. (d.c.l.) 
 
 Hon. Mr. Justice Pinhey. 
 
 J. S. Scott-Chad, Esq. 
 
 C. B. Skinner, Esq. 
 
 H. J. Spurling, Esq. 
 
 J. A. Shaav Stewart, Esq. 
 
 J. F. Streatfeild, Esq. 
 
 G. E. Street, Esq. 
 .John Turner, Esq. 
 
 T. Todd Walton, Esq. 
 W. White, Esq. 
 C. W. WiLSHERE, Esq. 
 H. Wood, Esq. 
 
 La»y. 
 
 G. C. E. Bacon, Esq. 
 
 Lt.-Col. Bagnall. 
 
 W. Clinton Baker, Esq. 
 
 F. Bahchard, Esq. 
 
 Charles Bath, Esq. 
 
 Lister Beck, Esq. 
 
 Alderman Bennett. 
 
 Professor Bentley. 
 
 J. Johnstone Bevan, Esq. 
 
 Captain Bury. 
 
 C. H. Cadogan, Esq. 
 
 J. D. Chambers, Esq. 
 
 Sir John Conroy, Bart. 
 
 George Cowell, Esq. 
 
 Dr. Henry Day. 
 
 The Earl of Devon. 
 
 Sir T. Dick-Lauder, Bart. 
 
 The Lord Eliot. 
 
 The Lord Forbes. 
 
 W. M. Foster-Melliae, Esq. 
 
 J. Froysell, Esq. 
 
 The Earl of Glasgow. 
 
 Hon. P. C. Glynn. 
 
 W. A. Glynn, Esq. 
 
 Major Alfred Heales. 
 
 Robert Hornell, Esq. 
 
 Sir E. HuLSE, Bart. 
 
 W. Holland, Esq., Treasurer. 
 
 G. H. Bkooks, Esq., Proctor. 
 
 H. Radcliffe, Esq., Solicitor. 
 
 Secretary — Lt.-Colonel J. B. Hardy. 
 
 Organizing Secretary — Rev. T. Outram Marshall (b.a.) 
 
 Banlcers — Messrs. Barnett, Hoares, & Co., Lombard-street, E.C. 
 
 Secretary Theological Lihrary—3. Stewart McBean, Esq. 
 
 Auditors — Messrs. F. J. Searancke and David Watebs. 
 
 Trifsfees— Earl of Glasgow, Henry Hucks Gibes, Esq., W. Holland, Esq.