Church of England has been so far most marked amongst men who are at once Churchmen in creed and Conservatives in politics.

Upon the action which these men have taken and will take I may have a word to say directly. Meantime I do not wish to deny one important aspect of the Archbishop's decision. It is matter for satisfaction that the Primate has, in the teeth of the Anglican clergy, publicly recognised that there is a Constitution in Church and State. The Lower House of Convocation of Canterbury, on July 4, practically threw over that Constitution and went solid for Disestablishment. They did not say so in set terms-but they denied the right of the State to have any voice whatever in interpreting its own Acts, so far as the Doctrine and Ritual of the Church are concerned. This in England means Disestablishment. Analogies taken from Scotland, the land of religious homogeneity, are altogether misleading. It cannot be too clearly and too early recognised that an absolutely independent right of the Church of England to put her own meaning on her articles and formularies is incompatible with the existing compact between State and Church of which those articles and formularies are the basis. I do not enter here upon the larger issues involved in this whole subject. Between making a Prayer-Book and Articles for the Church by Act of Parliament and the claim of the Church to tender to the State her own construction of the existing documents as a condition of Establishment there exist gradations of compromise.

His

But the Archbishop in giving his judgment was careful to recognise and lay down the real constitutional position of the Established Church. The apparent assumption of authority to pronounce upon the terms, with a semblance of jurisdiction, deceives nobody. judgment was admittedly one of policy. This is what has wrung unwonted venom from Lord Halifax and has fairly brought the button off his foil. But why blame the Primate? To have followed

up his Consubstantiation theories by a declaration in favour of incense and processional lights would have been to precipitate Disestablishment within five years. The man who doubts this would doubt that the world moves. Lord Halifax would very possibly have preferred a dare-all risk-all policy on behalf of any and every practice which has at any time or place received the sanction of the Holy Catholic Church. But even the Bishop of Rochester does not as yet declare for Disestablishment. Still less the aged Primate of all England, who knows where he and the Church and the country are under the Constitution as it stands and has no wish, even to oblige Lord Halifax, to put all three into the melting-pot.

Meantime to assume that the action of the Archbishop, whether he receives obedience or not, will settle the vital issues involved would be absurd. The Lambeth "opinion" would be indeed but a flimsy barrier to rely upon as a permanent check to the organised movement

within the Church to abolish the Reformation. The Anglican Protestant layman is perfectly well aware that a policy of entrusting the present Episcopal Bench with this duty would be fatuous. Some lack the strength, others lack the will, and even when both are combined they require to be reinforced at every point by a strong public opinion before a most invidious duty can be successfully discharged. But this public opinion (if it is to be effective) must find a constitutional expression upon the Statute Book. Half the excesses of the Ritualistic clergy have been due to the certainty of immunity. This immunity has arisen partly under the shelter of the Episcopal veto and partly from the knowledge that under present disciplinary laws procedure is so involved and penalties so obsolete that even the most aggrieved parishioner does not care to move. Here in a nutshell lies the argument for a Church Discipline Bill. This is what members of the Cabinet, like Mr. Walter Long, appear incapable of grasping. On September 14, when defending himself before his constituents at West Derby for having voted against the Church Discipline Bill of last Session, he said, "He was certain that the most earnest and determined reformer among them did not desire to see litigation or repeated legal proceedings in connection with the administration of their Church affairs." Mr. Long may rest assured that the most extreme Anglican Protestant does not "desire" legal proceedings. But that is no argument for making legal proceedings even in the final resort impossible. It is this very knowledge of the "impossibility of legal proceedings that has enabled the Romanisers to go ahead with such cheerful alacrity, and explains the supine indifference of half the Bishops on the Bench.

But while the immediate objective of the Protestant laity must be the passing of a Church Discipline Bill, there are other questions such as State patronage also involved. As I have already indicated the appointment of the Bishops has an important bearing upon the grave question whether the Church is or is not to remain a Reformed Church. A Bishop's influence upon his Diocese is enormous. It is not too much to say that by his direct patronage and his indirect influence he colours very largely its whole complexion. Clearly the appointment of Bishops faithful to Reformation principles must be an important object with all who desire to maintain the Establishment upon a Protestant basis. These results can only be achieved by action at the polls. I am not concerned with the question of the desirability or non-desirability of introducing ecclesiastical polemics into secular contests. Under the present condition of affairs in the Church there is no alternative between this and a complete triumph for the forces of medieval re-action. Things have gone so far that the Anglican clergy in Convocation have rejected in set terms the Royal Supremacy. They have challenged the right of the State to interpret its own Acts. It may be argued that Convocation does not

truly represent the clergy of the Church. Possibly not. By some mysterious process, which is part and parcel of the Ritualistic policy, even in Evangelical Dioceses proctors are generally selected from the opposite side. But Convocation after all is Convocation, the official mind of the Church, and as such must be taken into the reckoning. On the other hand, the House of Commons has declared by 200 to 14 that clergymen who will not obey the Queen's courts shall receive no preferment. The day of conflict between these mutually antagonistic positions is bound to come. For the moment it is deferred; first, by a Government in which sacerdotal influence is strongly entrenched; secondly, by that natural reluctance, shared by all Englishmen, to join issue on a difference involving matters of conscience.

But meantime it is the obvious duty of Protestant Anglicans to endeavour to strengthen the House of Commons by the return to it of such men as will vote with the Government, without the Government, or, if needs be, against the Government, in favour of a Church Discipline Bill and a general policy of maintaining the Establishment on a Protestant basis. Convocation is beyond our reach. But both the Episcopal Bench and Convocation can be influenced indirectly by the House of Commons. It may not be a pleasant method of improving the situation. But the Protestant laity have really no option in the matter. Houses of laymen which meet to register the decisions of Convocation or the decrees of Lord Halifax can hardly be treated seriously. Through the House of Commons alone can the Protestant layman make his power felt.

me.

I have avoided so far touching at any length upon two alternative policies which have been suggested from opposite quarters. One of these is what is called Autonomy for the Church. Many good and conscientious Churchmen feel, that if only the Church had a representative body of her own, she could settle all her differences. The general policy of giving powers to the Church somewhat similar to those exercised by the General Assembly in the Established Church of Scotland is too large a constitutional question to discuss within the space allotted to But I am bound to point out that no powers of this kind could adequately settle the question now before the country-viz., whether the Establishment is or is not to remain upon a Protestant basis. In the settlement of that question the whole country must necessarily have its say, and it is equally entitled to have its say in the decision of the question whether those clergy who now think the Protestant basis a mistake are entitled to break their contract with the State by introducing illegal "Catholic" ritual. These two questions surely claim priority of attention, and must be settled before grave constitutional changes can profitably be considered. I cannot understand why any Protestant Nonconformist should either be held or hold himself disqualified from pronouncing upon both these points by his vote at the poll.

The other policy is that known as Disestablishment. Upon this policy, as expressing the belief in and demand for religious equality, I offer no opinion in this paper. But Church and State have grown together in England for many centuries, and I, for my part, would view their divorce with apprehension. As a sad but necessary duty, if all other constitutional means of checking the sacerdotal aggression fail, it may have, indeed, to be considered and at no distant period. Disestablishment would certainly be preferable to the continued Establishment of what may become practically a Roman Catholic Church.

But the idea cherished apparently by so many Nonconformists that with the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church every Ritualistic priest would disappear as by an earthquake I look upon as delusive. The churches are there, the clergy are there, and the schools are there. In a Disestablished Church the clergy would be responsible to a Synod in which Nonconformists would have nothing whatever to say. To forecast the religious complexion of that Synod would be extremely difficult. Much would depend upon the nature of the Government under which it was called into being, and upon the ability of the Ritualistic section to capture and control it. If fair play were assured and the Anglican laity as much masters of the situation as their brethren in the Irish Church, the sacerdotal aggression would undoubtedly receive a check. But Disestablishment might as easily be the work of the Sacerdotalists themselves, in conjunction with a friendly Government, as of any other combination.

Meantime there remain the schools. If the Church of England were disestablished owing to the impossibility of further maintaining her upon a Protestant basis, the teaching of half the young in the country could no longer with safety be entrusted to her care. The same policy that would in such circumstances dictate Disestablishment would equally dictate the withdrawal of State support from the Anglican schools. This is a large order, but there is no use blinking the situation. A mandate from the country to carry through this double operation may appear a matter of impossibility at the moment, but I am of opinion that when the hour strikes for the first of these operations it will have struck for the second. That time is not yet, and let us hope for the sake of our country that it may be long deferred. Meantime the immediate duty of both Protestant Churchmen and Nonconformists alike is to "stiffen " the House of Commons with men who are prepared to vote straight upon the single issue of maintaining the Establishment upon its present Protestant basis, and placing no reliance upon archiepiscopal declarations for or against, to continue to exert pressure where alone such pressure is likely to bear fruit. AUSTIN TAYLOR

MILITIA, VOLUNTEERS, AND

REGULARS.

WE

E doubt if the Militia Bill that was introduced into the House of Lords during last Session by her Majesty's Government has attracted all the attention that it deserves. It was not in its immediate practical effects a very formidable measure. Lord Lansdowne prefaced it by elaborate qualifications, explaining carefully that he saw no prospect of having to apply its provisions. It was only designed to bring up to date the methods by which a compulsory ballot for the Militia would be enforced supposing that at any time hereafter, in a case of grave national emergency, a future Government should find it advisable to put into operation the ancient prerogative of the State to call upon all its subjects, through the Militia, to defend their homesteads. Few questions of national importance arouse much discussion among us, unless they are adopted as battle-cries by political parties. This would, for various reasons, not have been a convenient subject for the Liberal leaders to have taken up in a spirit of opposition. It was not brought before the House of Commons, and was only debated in the calm precincts of the Upper House. It involved no change in constitutional practice, but only furbished up an old weapon that has always, though unused, hung on our walls ready for service whenever a strong Ministry saw the necessity for taking it down, and had the courage to take it down from its accustomed place. All that was actually done was to propose certain amendments in the conditions of the standing Militia Act, the compulsory clauses of which are year by year suspended. Mr. Cardwell, at the time when he was introducing his various military reforms, had intended to amend the old Act. Lord Wemyss had also a scheme of his own.