reasonings on the case, it has nothing to do with the principle involved. The point in dispute is whether the incumbent is seized of his parish as of a freehold, and can stop all efforts for its improvement which can be made under the direction of the dignitary to whom he owes canonical obedience. Over irregular agencies he is powerless. To meet this emergency Lord Shaftesbury has introduced two clauses into a bill, now. lying on the table of the House of Lords, which in similar cases of resistance on the part of the rector give the diocesan the power to proceed by his own authority, provided the population of the parish exceeds two thousand souls. This is stigmatized as legislating on an individual case; but the evil is one which has long been felt by conscientious churchmen; and the remedy proposed is no further 'special' than that it has been suggested by an instance of aggravated grievance. The measure, framed no doubt in haste, has not been so carefully matured as we trust it will be in its passage through the legislature; on the one hand its application might be extended so as to embrace all analogous missionary efforts; on the other further safeguards might be introduced to prevent abuse of his authority on the part of the diocesan. The limitation of the clause should be made to depend not on the actual population of the parish but on its excess above the incumbent's means of ministering to its wants. The case for the latter is usually argued as if it were forgotten that the 'rights of the rector' imposed correlative duties, and presumed correlative powers. If this be otherwise the right of the rector is the 'villanage' of the parish. As it is manifestly impossible to subdivide the London parishes so as to secure adequate church accommodation and ministerial superintendence, there remains but one alternative, to give the necessary elasticity to the parochial system, without which that system must break. Where a discretionary power exists, the abuse of it is always possible; but to whom could it be so safely given as to the diocesan?-to none could the rights of the rector and the church be so confidently entrusted. In some instances the bishop has already the power of compelling the rector to multiply services and to engage curates, it is surely no great stretch of his authority to enable him, under certain limitations, to insist on the introduction of other aids, to which the rector is not expected to contribute either by his purse or his personal exertions. That any measure can be framed which will meet all objections and please all parties, is not to be expected, but with whatever defects the remedy finally adopted may be chargeable it cannot be so dangerous to the Church as the actual state of the law,

law, which gives to one man the power, if he chooses to incur the awful responsibility of exerting it, to stop all her efforts to christianize a whole district.

We come now to the last topic of the Report to which we proposed to advert-one too important to be omitted, though we have already trespassed so largely on our reader's patience. The following paragraph of the Report is not ranged under the head of Finance,' though it so far belongs to it that expenditure is often a more important article in a budget than income. We quote it with great satisfaction as being by far the most important and the most valuable in the whole Report. It contains a full admission of the principle for which we have been so long contending, though that principle is neither so broadly stated nor so extensively carried out in the subsequent suggestions, as we could wish.

'Much attention has of late years been drawn to the subject of church building, and we have now numerous examples of churches, built at a great cost, of good ecclesiastical types, and of substantial character. But we are of opinion that in our large centres of population, and in the remote hamlets of many of our wide-spread parishes in rural districts, there is a demand for buildings of a much more simple and inexpensive kind. To meet the spiritual wants of the shifting masses of population in some parts, and the growing settlements in other parts of our mining and manufacturing districts, temporary or mission chapels are greatly needed, which ought not to exceed in cost 17. per sitting, and which might, nevertheless, be distinguished by a certain ecclesiastical character. These buildings might eventually be superseded by larger edifices designed for permanence. But before the means can be provided for the greater undertaking, it is of the utmost importance to have ready for a population however accumulated, whether rapidly or otherwise, a building into which it might be gathered, and where, under the direction of the incumbent and other agencies selected by him, there might be offered to it the ministry of Christ's word and Sacraments.'— Report, p. 5.

We trust that in this monition of the Lower House of Convocation the Church has spoken. She acknowledges she has trifled long enough. It is time to come to essentials. We will dispute no more about painting and gilding letterns and rood-skreens, tracery and symbols. Architecture and archæology have had their day as principals; let them now take their place as subordinates, and a very worthy and important place it will still be. Hitherto we have mistaken the means for the end. The object of the diocesan societies has been to build the greatest number of the handsomest churches within their respective districts-an object, the import

ance

ance of which we do not wish to depreciate, and which they have pursued with considerable success; but now a nobler end, to which their former efforts were only subsidiary, is proposed to bring the knowledge of the truth to thousands who are perishing in ignorance..

The Committee recommend that church-building societies should revoke that rule which forbids their giving aid to unconsecrated buildings: we would rather advise such a general remodelling of their code of regulations as would make them what they ought to be-the great focus of missionary exertion in their respective dioceses; and moreover the principle which the committee have recognised in the construction of churches, they must be prepared to extend to all buildings erected for pious purposes by charitable contributions. They feel the weight of prejudice which they have to struggle against in abandoning the cause of architectural ornamentation, and they timidly protest that these buildings need not be deprived of a certain ecclesiastical character.' Assuredly not; nor we may add, of real architectural beauty and picturesque effect. It is the architect's first duty in such cases to unite the maximum of convenience and durability with the minimum of expense; but if the result be ugly, let him lay the blame on the poverty of his own genius and not on the parsimony of his employers; a hint from the Committee to this effect might stimulate our modern architects to put forth maxims more reasonable and designs more in accordance with good sense, and therefore with good taste, than are usually exhibited by their teaching or their practice. It is not enough to inculcate the duty of economy without showing how economy may be achieved, † as we never knew any case of extravagance in charitable build

*We have had so many quarrels with the Ecclesiologist, that we have great pleasure in transcribing the following passage in favour of simplicity of design:How often do we see a simple village church, consisting of low and rough stone walls, surmounted and almost overwhelmed by an immense roof, and pierced with some two or three plain windows, between as many bold irregular buttresses on each side, or having a short massive tower placed at one angle, or in some seemingly accidental position, which nevertheless every one confesses to be as picturesque and beautiful and church-like an edifice as the most critical age would wish to behold? while a modern design with all its would-be elegancies of trim regular buttresses, parapet, and pinnacles, would cost twice the money, and not look like a church after all. Here perhaps one half of the money is laid out first in procuring and then in smoothing and squaring great masses of stone, or in working some extravagant and incongruous ornament, whereas the small and rude hammer-dressed ashlar, or rubble work of the ancient model, has a far better appearance, and allows a larger expenditure where it is most wanted in the arrangements of the interior.'-(A few words to Church Builders, p. 6.)

† There is great need of some rational work on these subjects: the known predilections of the ecclesiologists have guided the taste of the architects, and the architects are quoted as authorities by the ecclesiologists: the result of this action and reaction is the extravagance of design and decoration, of which we have so many instances that it seems almost invidious to single out any one for comment.

ings, however flagrant, in which the parties concerned were not prepared to maintain that the utmost parsimony had been practised. We can hardly request the Committee to stigmatise as heretical the words objectionable,' 'undesirable,' 'unsatisfactory,' and many others of equally vague import with which clerical projectors are wont to reject every suggestion by which expense may be spared, but they should hold up economy, not so much as a necessity to be submitted to, but as an imperative duty to be fulfilled; nor should they neglect to impress upon all, whether public bodies or individuals, who are levying contributions on the public for charitable purposes, that it is their business to consider not how much they can obtain, but how little will suffice.

It is barely possible that a remonstrance from men of so much practical experience as the Committee of the Lower House might convince the Committee of Privy Council on Education, that their regulations are framed as if it was their primary object to procure the investment of the greatest amount of capital in brick and mortar. It is possible they might be able to prove that their Lordships' requirements are not absolutely necessary at all times, and under all circumstances, and that the inspectors might advantageously be entrusted with a dispensing power. If this is too much to be hoped, it is a subject well worthy the attention of those who are zealous for the cause of Church extension, to inquire how these requirements can be complied with at the least expense. Abundance of encouragement to bestow more time and thought on the subject of economy is held out by the success of those who have exerted their ingenuity, not in writing begging-letters, but in endeavouring to effect their charitable object with the means at their command. Not long ago, in an opulent metropolitan parish -there is no use in particularizing, the mischief is done-an influential meeting was held to take the state of the national schools 'into consideration.' The phrase is not accurate. There was no consideration: an eloquent arraignment was read and sentence passed. The buildings had previously been condemned (of course) by her Majesty's inspectors. They were too small for the wants of the parish; nobody asked if they could not be enlarged. They were ill ventilated and unhealthy. Nobody asked how the children did, nor whether an improved ventilation could be introduced. A sum little short of 5000l. was needed to rebuild them, and this was readily acceded to by the opulent philanthropists who attended and subscribed in proportion to their reputed wealth and known liberality. In a remote parish, and in a poor district, a similar case occurred. Total demolition and rebuilding were as usual proposed by her Majesty's inspector. But there were no suffi

cient

cient funds, and no means of raising them, and no hopes of begging them. The ventilation was not only defective, but many efforts to improve it had failed. However, at last, by the very simple expedient of inserting four gratings (to be closed at pleasure) in the two external walls of the school-room, the atmosphere was rendered perfectly sweet and fresh in winter and in summer, and a small addition gave the required space in the most convenient way. The difference between the two cases is simply that in one the money could not be procured, in the other the rector, by domiciliary visits among his wealthy parishioners, will ultimately obtain the amount of the estimate, and of the probable deficit. And what, it will be asked, is the sum of 50007. or 60007. to so opulent a parish? Little enough, certainly; but, nevertheless, so much is lost to the general funds of charity; and till this is generally felt, no important progress will be made in the cause of church extension.

It is the duty of all public Boards established for the furtherance of charitable objects, to consider whether their rules are so framed as to effect their objects in the cheapest and most expeditious manner, or whether routine has not introduced sluggishness, and entailed unnecessary expense. Thus, much benefit might accrue to the cause of the Church, if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners could be induced to review their regulations, so as to give greater facilities for the donation of small pieces of land for pious purposes. It is worth considering whether the disagreeable correspondence, the tedious law business, and the great expense in which the donor of a 'site' finds himself involved, not less to his surprise it often happens than to his annoyance and discouragement, might not be considerably curtailed, by making the best of the existing laws on the subject. But if the Commissioners should find it necessary to apply for further help to the legislature, we cannot doubt that Parliament would defer to their wishes in a matter that in no way is opposed to the spirit of the Act of Mortmain.

Closely connected with the expenses of conveyance are those of consecration-this is a subject which requires careful consideration and readjustment. Some bishops feel so painfully the tax thus imposed on the liberality of their flocks, and the personal part which they are made to take in it themselves, that they have given up their own portion of the fees. But it is too much to expect they should have the resolution--perhaps they have not the power-to attack vested interests, and incur the resentment of their own officials. The assistance of the legislature is needed to strengthen their hands, and to suppress what savours of abuse in the present system.