plenty of freedom, and let the native Church form and frame itself, as is necessary for the wants of their own people, so as not to be a Church of England in India, but a Church of India in full connection with the Church of England."-Dr. Harold Browne, late Bishop of Winchester.

That any one denomination will in course of time absorb the other denominations is entirely out of the question. Any union that may eventually take place will therefore be on the lines of mutual compromise, leading to a fusion of the existing sects into a Church drawing to itself the best characteristics of each. To Western nations it might seem a stupendous achievement to bring about such a union, but, so far as India is concerned, it is not necessarily so. The sectarianism of the West is deeply rooted in the minds of the people whose fathers fought for it and suffered for it. The sectarianism of the East exists merely by reason of the will and the pleasure of the missionaries, and has so little root that, if they were to say to-day that they had resolved on sinking all their differences and forming a united national Church, the proposal would be received with acclamation by the Indian Christians, a large proportion of whom, as I have said before, have no intelligent notion as to the origin and necessity for these differences.

Thanks to the caution and foresight of the Church Missionary Society, which has deliberately set its face against any of its representatives in India adopting any Romish practices or doctrines, there is, as a matter of fact, amongst the different sects working in India no serious difference of opinion so far as the essential dogmas of Christianity are concerned. Whatever difference there is has reference chiefly to the question of Episcopal ordination, of Church government, and of mode of worship, matters by no means difficult of adjustment. It may be conceded at once that no union is possible, so far as the adherents of the Church of England are concerned, unless it is on a basis of Episcopal ordination of priests and deacons. Will the Nonconformists consent to this? Why not? So far as the Indian Christians are concerned, it would be by no means difficult to persuade them that an ordination of their ministers at the hands of a bishop and two or three presbyters would be at least as good as at the hands of a number of Nonconformist ministers. If the alternative is presented to them of union coupled with the Episcopal ordination of ministers, or not at all, there can be no doubt which alternative they will accept. Then, as to Church government, as a matter of fact, in India there is not much difference between the Episcopal Church and the various Nonconformist bodies. The one has over its head a bishop, who exercises a general supervision over its affairs; the others have officers, who perform a similar function, but are called by another name generally secretaries of the Society to which they belongwhilst the American Methodists, who are, perhaps, destined to take a more prominent part in the evangelisation of India than any other

denomination, are subject to the control of a bishop just as much as the members of the Established Church of England. But happily there are points of agreement to be found in India which are absent in England. The Nonconformist bodies have conferences or synods composed of ministers and laymen to regulate the affairs of their respective Churches, and the Episcopal Church is not far behind them so far as the Indian Christians are concerned.

There are at present eight Church Councils in India acting independently of each other, with District Councils subordinate to them, and in their hands to a large extent is vested the administration of the affairs of the Indian Church. These Councils are composed of laymen and clergy, and are entirely free from the control of the bishops. The secretary of the Church Missionary Society, holding as he does the purse-strings, naturally exercises a considerable influence in the deliberations of these councils, but as the Churches become self-supporting this influence will proportionately decrease, whilst the laity and clergy will find themselves placed in a position of greater independence. And the day is not far distant when we may see the constitution of a General Church Council for the whole of India, which, with the aid of bishops specially appointed for the Indian Church, will exercise a complete control on all matters relating to the organisation and administration of the Church, constituting, as it were, a Court of Final Appeal on all matters ecclesiastical.

So far as the connection between the Church and State in India is concerned, it has no meaning whatever to Indian Christians. The State does nothing and can do nothing for them, placed as it is at the head of people who believe in a variety of religions, and towards whom it professes to maintain a position of absolute neutrality. True enough the bishops who ordain the priests are State officials; but if the Church Missionary Society were to-day to send out a number of bishops to work solely amongst the Indian Christians, the Government of India would be the first to welcome such a measure, as removing a cause of complaint with the non-Christians, that it was applying a portion of the revenues of the country to the support of the Christian religion. Not a voice would be lifted in India in support of the maintenance of the connection, such as it is, between the Church and the State. The Bishop of Lucknow, in the address I have referred to above, has, with reference to the doctrines to be adopted by a National Church, given utterance to the following wise and weighty words, which would indicate that no serious difficulty need be anticipated, on this point at least:

"The elaborate doctrinal standards of the English Church or the Church of Scotland were produced by circumstances which do not exist in India. To imitate them here would be a fatal mistake. The motto of the Church of India, if it desires to comprehend in itself all existing bodies of Protestant Christians, must be simplicity, not elaboration, as regards doctrinal standards.

There is, of course, no difficulty in suggesting a simple standard; Holy Scripture and the Creeds of the first four centuries would supply it; the difficulty would lie in getting people to be liberal-minded enough to exact no more than this from their neighbours. The tendency amongst Christians to anathematise one another for small divergence from their own particular standard of orthodoxy has always been great; but it may be not unreasonably hoped that a brighter day is dawning upon Christendom, and that the recognition of principles of liberality and charity is on the increase. Certain it is that to the end of time Christian men will take different views of truth and adopt different interpretations of Scripture, and if we wish to unite them in a common organisation it must be on the understanding that within certain broad lines freedom of opinion is permissible. Christian and Churchman ought to be co-extensive terms, and though in this world of error we can hardly expect that such a happy consummation as that will ever take place, yet in drawing up the constitution of a new National Church the greatest care should be taken that the terms of communion should be as liberal as possible, and no needless dogmatic hindrances to membership imposed. Among our native brethren, I believe, there would be no opposition to a very simple and comprehensive standard. Feeling the broad contrast between the heathenism they have left and the Christianity they have embraced, differences between the doctrinal views of this Christian and that seem to them insignificant. And surely we have much to learn from them in this respect. In this country, at any rate, in face of the common foe, we may well tolerate minor differences for the sake of the great matters in which we are at one. God grant that when it comes to the point liberality and charity may prevail. For my part, I believe they will, and that the unity of the Church of India will not be frustrated by any un-Christlike exclusiveness on our part."

The foregoing remarks clearly establish two distinct facts, the one bearing on the necessity, even the urgency, for a speedy union of the various denominations working in India; the other, that such a union is not outside the range of Indian Church politics. The best qualified authorities, whose theological opinions are most divergent, are at one in this, that if a serious and honest attempt is made to bring about a union it will be attended with success, and India may one day be blessed with having a National Church of its own and the present dissensions and heartburnings and jealousies be a thing of the past. It is not the purpose of this article to present a complete scheme for achieving this union, but reference has been made to the broad lines on which this end can be attained. The first step that has to be taken is for the Church Missionary Society to give a hearty response to the appeal of the Quinquennial Conference "to face at once and anew the important question of the policy of the formation of an independent Indian Church," and "to confer with the directors of the large Missionary Societies in order that some united policy may be adopted with reference to the questions of self-support and independence of the Indian Churches."

Gorakhpore, N.W.P.

ALFRED NUNDY.

THE WORKHOUSE FROM THE

INSIDE.

Μ'

Y attention has been called to the article "Within Workhouse Walls" in the June number of the CONTEMPORARY REVIEW, and perhaps a few words in reply may prove neither uninteresting nor inopportune, coming from one who has had a still more intimate connection, and for a longer period of time, with that workhouse of which Mrs. Crawford has now been an unpaid officer for the space of a little over a year. True, I was a paid officer; but I do not think that this makes me an untrustworthy witness or biases me for or against the present system of workhouse administration.

The question of that system is a very large one, complex as are the subtleties of our common humanity, and bristling with difficulties of which many can only be known and appreciated at their proper value by the paid officials; they alone live day in day out with that heterogeneous mass of men, women, and children who are known to the Poor-law as "paupers."

The vital importance to the commonwealth of finding an adequate solution to the problem of the treatment of paupers is forced home on any one who takes the slightest interest in social matters, but to those of us who have been brought face to face with the deepest depths of human poverty and degradation, dirt, and disease, to whose daily and hourly charge the victims fall in their ever-varying, horrible reality to us, indeed, it seems well-nigh impossible ever to cope with it. But it seems to me to be one of the ways "how not to do it" to brand the Poor-law official as a bully and a tyrant, as has lately become the fashion. I can truly say I never saw any cruelty or real hardship inflicted on any "inmate" by my fellow workers during my term of office. They were uniformly kind and patient to those

committed to their charge, who, to say the least of it, could be extremely exasperating.

Philanthropists generally, in their anxiety for the pauper, overlook the fact that, in order to carry out their most laudable and excellent ideas, it would be necessary to have a very superior kind of officer indeed, equal to themselves in fact, and that these peculiar qualifications are not to be had in every man or woman that aspires to the post, or indeed to be had at all for the present inducements offered. For an intelligent, educated man to be shut up with the lowest of his kind (both mentally and physically considered); to be on duty from 6.30 A.M. in summer and 7.30 a.m. in winter, till 8 P.M., Sundays and weekdays alike; with rations of inferior ever-alternating beef and mutton, and the impression in the minds of some of the guardians that he ought to be content with the same fare as the lazy and improvident under his care; liable to the foulest abuse, to say nothing of blows; to be willing for this life to forego marriage, a home, and all chance of advancement (for to the under officer the chances are small), on a money salary of from £20 to £50 per annum, would require the devotion of a monk of the Middle Ages. Small wonder is it that the desirable superior male officer finds work more attractive outside the workhouse, and the more hardy, if less talented, official takes his place within.

All the refuse of the hospitals falls to the share of the workhouse attendants; to them are brought for cleansing the most degraded o: human beings, even before the ordinary infirmary nurse is expected to touch them. Shall I ever forget the sight I once saw in our receiving ward? On the floor was seated an abject heap of misery, unable to open her eyes or help herself in any way. It was necessary to give the woman six baths of clean water before she was fit to be rolled in blankets and taken to the infirmary! A few weeks previously she had left our gates a clean and tidy woman, to go into a situation found for her by the matron. Through drink she soon lost it; sleeping in the parks and low lodging-houses she had become infested with vermin, and finally, in helpless intoxication, had allowed the flies their loathsome work: and all this rather than submit to what any justminded person would say was wholesome discipline. Is it to be wondered at that the average man and woman loses patience sometimes, and cannot hide the loathing and disgust which such sights inspire? Maternity cases, which no lying-in-hospitals will touch, often sent away in the last extremity from their door as not fit for the regular nurse, all and everything not admissible elsewhere comes to the workhouse; and it seems scarcely fair, or even honest, that the hospital nurse should be looked upon as a modern saint of society, while the workhouse attendant, trained in the hardest of schools, and without whose services the inhabitants of London would soon have