'

invited to attend; (3) that such laymen should have free leave to speak. The subject, and others connected with it, was discussed at the Special Synod of 1870, but no definite action was taken. It was reopened at the Episcopal Synod of 1873, but without any immediate result. Finally, in 1876, the General Synod established the Representative Church Council, which dealt with matters of finance and external administration, a point beyond which the Episcopal Church has not yet gone. Those who are interested in the question, as many now are in England, will find useful material in Bishop Wordsworth's Charge' of 1870, and its Postscript in reply to arguments. He dwells much upon the proper qualification of Laymen to be admittedthey must not only be confirmed and be communicants, but accept the canons and make some form of subscription. He would not elect the lay members, but have their names as Synodsmen put in by the clergy. This is to apply to Diocesan Synods. As regards General Synods, laymen are to be chosen from Diocesan Synodsmen, and be fully thirty years of age, and be obliged to attend. The safeguards he contemplated were: voting by orders if demanded; a right of veto in each order; and a power in any of the three orders to claim reconsideration of a resolution by another General Synod. He considered that such General Synods should meet triennially, and their functions not be confined to legislation only. He would not, however, abolish the Episcopal Synods.

In November 1868 interesting letters passed between the Bishop and his old friend, Roundell Palmer, on the latter's candidature for Parliament and his Richmond Address.' The Bishop, in his zeal for the principle of Establishment (notwithstanding difficulties which he felt as to applying it to the case of Ireland), went so far as to say that his friend had neglected the teaching of revelation

on the subject. His language was startling, as he afterwards felt himself:

'The notion that the ruled are to be judges of what is right and best for them in matters of Religion, and that Rulers are to accept their judgment and not God's, appears to me an unscriptural, an infidel, notion-excluding God from the government of His own world; or at least supposing Him to prefer such mere human justice (so to call it) to the maintenance of His own Truth,' &c.

The letter is of course that of an intimate friend, speaking his mind, and must not be judged as in any way harsh or rough. The reply acknowledges its kindness, and is written in a very open and affectionate style. 'I shall say to you some things which at the present time I could not be induced to say to (almost) any one else, and which I have not said to any one else in fact.' The writer comments on the strength of the Bishop's language as calculated to search his own conscience, especially as coming from one 'who though of an impetuous natural temperament is not usually rhetorical or unreal in his way of handling great subjects.' The substance of the reply is practically that he differed from the Bishop on the question of the revelation of the duty of Establishment. I will quote a few sentences which exhibit the noble character of the author-a character afterwards proved in action, as all his contemporaries knew.

When I gave my reasons for not holding the opinion that a political Establishment of Religion was always required by the duty of a Christian State, I said (in effect if not in words) that the best way of promoting or advancing the interests of religion appeared to me to be not at all times and in all places one and the same; but to be liable to variation, according to circumstances and that State Establishments of Religion, when most certainly right, had not been created upon any abstract or prior theory of the duty, in that respect, of a Christian State, but had arisen spontaneously, as the natural fruit of the religious

anxieties of the people. By 'the interests of religion 'I certainly meant the interests of Truth, and the advancement of the Knowledge and Service of the God of Truth. Had I believed that this cause (to which, by God's grace, I desire to devote my whole life, and for which my mind is wholly made up to renounce everything else which I believe, or even suspect, to have a tendency to tempt me to be unfaithful to it) would be endangered or compromised by one course, rather than another, of those which I was called upon to consider, I should, without hesitation, have stated this as a reason for rejecting that course.

After discussing Scottish and Irish Establishment the letter concludes as follows:

My doctrine is, that every act of a Christian man, public or private, political or individual, should be done with a view to the promotion of God's glory, and should be consistent with faith in His revealed Truth: but (if I may, without irreverence, allude to words not Christian) that in the government of nations there are oλai μoppaí—not of Truth, but of the means of serving the GOD of Truth.

Ever yours affectionately,

R. PALMER.

A few days later my father, then Canon of Westminster, received a note from Mr. Disraeli (dated 13 November, 1868), in which he expressed his intention, if it met my father's views, of recommending the Queen to raise him to the Episcopal Bench. No See was named, and it was doubtful what was meant. He was first desirous to decline, but it was rumoured that it was Ely, which attracted him from its relation to Cambridge. On the day he received the letter he went down to Wellington College, where he was the guest of Dr. Benson (afterwards Archbishop); and consideration in company with that kind friend led him to accept what he then supposed would be, as it turned out to be, nomination to the See of Lincoln.

The Bishop of St. Andrews was naturally called to assist

in the consecration, which took place on St. Matthias' Day (24 February, 1869), at Westminster. Immediately after it he went down with his wife, who was in very poor health, to Seaton, in South Devon, where he remained nearly two months, and then paid his brother a visit at his new home, Riseholme, a few miles from Lincoln. The Bishop from time to time felt his isolation in Scotland very deeply, and his friends at this period were anxious to find him some Cathedral preferment in England; but nothing came of their applications. There was also some talk of his going to Edinburgh, on the vacancy of the place of coadjutorBishop Terrot still living on, a wreck of his former self, till 2 April, 1872. The expenses of a large family pressed heavily upon him, and it was not till May 1871 that he had the relief of a Fellowship at Winchester College. Bishop Hamilton's death on 1 August, 1869, was also a great sorrow. The next few years were, in fact, years of considerable depression and disappointment, chiefly connected with the renewed disturbances in the Chapter of St. Ninian's, which were at their height in 1872-3. But there was also considerable discomfort in the College of Bishops. One question concerned the propriety of Bishops and others preaching in Presbyterian Chapels. Certain English dignitaries did this, and sides were taken in consequence. Then Bishop Ewing accepted an invitation to preach in the University Church at Glasgow, and Bishop Wilson interfered to prevent him-a dispute in which Bishop Wordsworth openly took the part of Ewing. Then there was considerable heart-searching (in 1871) as to Bishop Ewing's theology-which in its way was as broad as the Bishop of Brechin's was high. The latter had published his book on the Articles in 1867, and it reached a second edition in 1871. His further publication of a service containing prayers for the departed, in a way

which seemed to implicate his brother Bishops, gave renewed alarm, though no public action followed.

But the St. Ninian's disputes were so near home that they were a perpetual source of distress. I will not enter much into detail about them, but something must be said as to the principal events.

The fact of Provost Fortescue's resignation in July 1871 has been already referred to (Chapter III. p. 48). The Provostship was then offered to Mr. Shute, Incumbent of Callander, who, as the Bishop had reason to suppose, was likely to be acceptable to the congregation. He declined, apparently because of the insecurity of the endowment. At length (October) the Bishop determined to offer the place to Mr. Burton, who had been in the Diocese upwards of twenty years at Blairgowrie, Alyth, and Meigle.

He possessed many recommendations. He had the qualities of a Christian gentleman and a competent scholar. He had long experience of the Diocese, and hitherto he had shown no tendency to extreme doctrines or extreme practices; and I hoped that he would work with me. But in this I was disappointed. He had been brought into the Diocese originally by Mr. Forbes, of Medwyn, and he had not strength-nor, perhaps, inclinationto resist the closer and sturdier influence of Mr. Humble, who knew Lord Glasgow's mind, and this, for serious reasons, must remain paramount. The consequence was there followed no permanent improvement in my relations with St. Ninian's. I made once more the attempt to attend the services, but I soon discovered that they were still not conducted in a manner for which I could make myself responsible (which, the Cathedral being regarded as the Bishop's Church, my attendance would seem to imply) without serious damage to my general influence throughout the Diocese.

We have already described (in Chapter IV.) the main circumstances of the earlier conflict. They were to a certain extent repeated in this period. As in 1859, so in 1872, the Bishop's Charge at the ordinary Synod was a