To struggle successfully against these great and growing evils requires administrative qualities of an imperial order. Neither bureaucracy nor absolutism could grapple with them: can Liberty herself govern alone the forces she has created? Liberty was the watchword of the middle classes, whose influence in legislation was paramount between 1832 and 1867. Leave the individual to himself, said the middle-class leaders, and all will be well with the State. Let all restrictions be removed from trade; the natural laws of demand and supply will soon cause all other nations to follow our sensible example. Relieve all classes and denominations of their political disabilities, that every Englishman may have an interest in promoting the well-being of his country. Encourage complete freedom of opinion, leaving the final judgment in all disputed matters to the common sense of the majority. Let every kind of taste be gratified, without seeking to discriminate whether it be good or bad; since de gustibus non est disputandum. There was some truth and more generosity in this line of argument, but as a principle of national policy it was hopelessly incomplete, for it left the soul of the nation without satisfaction. During the period of class legislation between the two great Reform Bills, the guiding idea in the mind of the nation was, that all things could be measured and managed by money. To make money became an end in itself, beyond which men did not care to look. The middle class never considered the great imperial questions raised by the changes in the Indian and colonial dependencies, over which its energies had made us masters. It was content to watch without reflection the growth of the multitudes whom its industries called into existence. The multiplicity of opinions, generated by the great development of the periodical press, tended to weaken its belief in principle and authority. It showed no capacity to create or regulate taste. It was content to patronize art through the medium of picture-dealers; to leave the drama in the hands of the stage-painter; to submit its opinions on poetry and fiction to the dictation of professional critics. In a word, though it showed a genius for making money, it developed no capacity for using it; it lacked originality and imagination; and, wrapped up in physical enjoyment, existed from day to day without thinking of the future. The Reform Bill of 1867 brought new blood into the Constitution; but public opinion has been slow in recovering from the stupefying effects of a passionate money-worship. It is impossible, however, that a great people should continue to live from hand to mouth without any national ideal. In all parts of her Majesty's dominions, signs are visible of a craving for unity in the English race, and a desire for some central purpose of national life. Yet the middle class remains

without

without ideas in the presence of the conditions it has created, and asks, with as much bewilderment and more impotence than the aristocracy when confronted with the questions of Catholic Emancipation and Reform, 'What is to be done?'

The answer to the question must, we believe, be furnished by the English aristocracy. In a mass,' says Burke, 'we cannot be left to ourselves; we must have leaders. If none will undertake to lead us right, we shall find guides who will contrive to conduct us to shame and ruin.' There is undoubtedly a danger at the present moment lest the people, from mere vacuity of imagination, should commit themselves to the counsel of those whose interest it is to advise a policy of destruction, veiled under the name of liberation. The best hope of the country lies in the courage and administrative genius of the ruling classes. The long crisis of legislation, through which the nation passed previous to the Revolution of 1688, was followed by a still longer period of successful government. It may be that now, when the legislation of the last forty years has widened the base of the old settlement, the path has been cleared for the action of imperial administration. The Constitution has never been wanting in generative power, and the English people have shown their practical genius, in the midst of their most revolutionary moods, by refusing to touch what is vital in their political organization. We have therefore retained the character of our Constitution as it existed from the earliest time, and that character is essentially aristocratic. Magna Charta was the work of the aristocracy; the Revolution of 1688 was achieved by the aristocracy; Catholic Emancipation was conducted under their auspices; and so was the first Reform Bill. The Reform Bill, which was to be a deathblow to the House of Lords, had only been passed a few years, when the Peers asserted their rights of legislation in the most determined manner by their amendments to the Municipal Corporation Reform Bill, and their rejection of Lord John Russell's Appropriation Clause. They have formed a large part of every Cabinet since 1832, and their conduct of foreign affairs has amounted to monopoly ; for since Canning's time there has been no Foreign Secretary who has not been at least a member of a noble house. They have shown their capacity for administration as governors of our noblest colonies, and as viceroys of India. At home they naturally take the lead in the management of local business, and form the centres of social organization.

Those who survey mankind from the eminence of their own superiority tell us that the aristocracy, though 'splendid,' is ' materialized.' But such, we think, would not be the impression of a stranger who listened to a debate on foreign affairs in the

H 2

House

House of Lords; nor is it our own judgment after reading one of Lord Dufferin's speeches in Canada. Here, at least, are ideas of policy, vigorous, sagacious, and imperial. We believe that the English aristocracy are still animated by the old principle of noblesse oblige, on which all great patrician orders must build their success. Protection-the word is by no means synonymous with restriction-has been the chief feature of their policy in all ages of their history. In the Catholic days protection flourished under the form of religious and military tutelage; it was afforded by monastic charity and feudal obligation. When the order of the national life was modified by the Reformation, it identified itself with patriotism, and assumed the guardianship of the national liberties. And now, when the people has declared itself free from the state of pupilage, protection may take its last, perhaps its noblest form, of leadership and example. The lifelong devotion of some members of the aristocracy to the cause of their poor and suffering countrymen; the large enterprise of others in the field of material improvement; the opportunities that all of them -inheriting as they do the best English tradition of art, letters, and breeding-possess for elevating the standard of taste and manners, too long debased and vulgarized by the predominant influence of money: all this seems to point to the wide field of action and administration that opens before them in the future. As the leaders of free opinion among their countrymen they may find some compensation for the loss of the old protective and paternal system of government which they fought so valiantly to retain under the banner of the Duke of Wellington.

ART. IV.-1. The History and Antiquities of the Archiepiscopal Palace of Lambeth; with an Appendix. By Dr. A. C. Ducarel. 2. A Concise Account of Lambeth Palace. By W. Herbert and E. W. Brayley. London, 1806.

3. The History and Antiquities of the Parish of Lambeth and the Archiepiscopal Palace. By Thomas Allen. London, 1827. 4. Ditto Ditto. By John Tanswell, of the Inner Temple, &c. London, 1858.

5. Stray Studies from History of England, &c. By John Richard Green. London, 1876.

FOR

OR nearly seven centuries, and during a succession of exactly fifty occupants of the See, Lambeth Palace, or, as it was formerly called, Lambeth House, has been the official residence of the Archbishops of Canterbury. That they should

have taken up their abode here, on the banks of the Thames, outside their own diocese, at a time when they already possessed nearly a dozen palaces within it, is itself a fact of historical interest, and indeed one of no little political and ecclesiastical significance; for it is nothing less than a standing memorial of a great struggle with the Papacy: a protest of the English Church against the dictation of Rome; and also of her championship of the interests of the people.

It arose thus. In the latter part of the twelfth century, there had been a long-protracted contest between the two conjoint yet often rival authorities at Canterbury, the Archbishops of the Province and the monks of the Priory of Christ Church. To escape from an interference of these his nominal counsellors and coadjutors, to free himself from the control which these Regulars were seeking to exercise, not only in minor points of local administration, but even in the election of the Metropolitan-a claim advanced on the ground that the election had formerly lain with them when the Archbishop was also their Prior—Archbishop Baldwin (1185-1193), backed by Henry II., resolved to have a Collegiate body outside the Cathedral City, where, with a residence for himself, he could gather round him a Chapter of Secular Canons, independent of the Canterbury monks.

Hackington, now commonly called St. Stephen's, about half a mile from Canterbury, was the spot first selected; and a Bull was obtained from Urban III.: but Hackington proved to be too near to Canterbury. The monks saw the work beginning, and, suspecting ulterior motives in the Archbishop's designs, hurried off emissaries to Rome to intrigue against him. The original Bull was revoked; prohibitory mandates were obtained; and the project was so far abandoned, that the Hackington site was given up. But Archbishop Baldwin was not disposed to yield altogether. Having obtained a suitable site at Lambeth, which presented other and far more powerful attractions, the materials he had collected were all transferred thither, and the building was commenced; yet the same influences were brought to bear against him even here. His death, soon after, gave the monks their opportunity, and, vacante sede, they demolished the unfinished chapel. However, under Hubert Fitzwalter (A.D. 1193-1207), who after a short interval succeeded Archbishop Baldwin, a fresh and more vigorous effort was made; additional ground was obtained, and the chapel was again commenced on its new site (A.D. 1197). Yet even this prelate was not permitted to carry out his plan; three Papal mandates in succession, accompanied by dire anathemas, were launched against him, and prevailed.

The

The great anxiety of the monks doubtless arose, not only from the fear lest their Metropolitical Priory of Christ Church should cease to be paramount among the monasteries of England, but from the dread of losing the prestige and the offerings which were now centering round the shrine of St. Thomas-à-Becket. They felt that the glory and the wealth of their own body might be seriously lessened by the foundation of a distinct and probably rival power. All this stimulated them to the persevering opposition which eventually proved successful. Within two years the final mandate was issued, accompanied by the threat of an Interdict. King and Primate combined had not the courage to resist this; and so the chapel, which had made considerable advance towards completion, as the nucleus of the future College, was again demolished (A.D. 1199); and with it fell to the ground all hopes of a Lambeth Chapter. But, though Archbishop Fitzwalter might not have his College and his Canons, he was resolved to have his residence at Lambeth,

It may be well to explain how the possession of this now historic site had been obtained. The manor and advowson of Lambeth, according to Domesday Book, belonged to the Countess Goda, sister of Edward the Confessor, and wife of Eustace, Earl of Boulogne, to whom the Registrum Roffense' assigns the credit of having granted the manor to the Bishop and Convent of Rochester. During the wars between the Saxons and the Danes, Lambeth became a position of some strategical importance, being the western termination of the ditch, or canal, which Canute dug to bring up his ships from below the bridge for the attack on the western side of London. Harold, therefore, seized it as a vantage-ground; and from him it passed to William the Conqueror, who gave part of the manor to his half-brother Odo, Bishop of Bayeux; but William Rufus restored it to the See and Priory of Rochester, and added also the advowson of the parish church.

Now it lay at an inconvenient distance from the Cathedral City of Rochester; while the much more handy manor of Darente (Dartford), with the Church and Chapel of Helles, and the grounds adjacent (which had also the additional advantage of being far more valuable land for grazing), belonged to the Archbishops of Canterbury. So Darente was exchanged for Lambeth; an arrangement effected, A.D. 1197, between Archbishop Hubert Fitzwalter and Gilbert de Glanville, Bishop of Rochester, at that time also Rector of Lambeth. Lambeth, no doubt, then retained much of the character to which it is believed to owe its name, being little more

than