authorities in matters pertaining to the Church. As to appeals, those touching on doctrine had been so rare, that, when the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was substituted in 1832 for the old Court of Delegates, which had been establisht by the 25th of Henry the Eighth, for the hearing of appeals both in ecclesiastical and maritime causes, it hardly seems to have been taken into account that cases affecting doctrine might occur, the ecclesiastical causes referred to being mainly matrimonial and testamentary. Hence, when this omission was observed, and the various controversies springing up on doctrinal matters rendered it probable that causes connected with them might come before a Court of Appeal, the Bishop of London, acting in consort, I believe, with the Bench, introduced a clause into the Bill concerning Ecclesiastical Offenses, whereby an excellent Court of Appeal was constituted for all causes involving charges of heresy, false doctrine, blasphemy, or schism. This Bill has been brought into the House of Lords in both the last two Sessions; and, had it merely related to the Court of Appeal, it would probably have past. Against certain other clauses in it exceptions have been taken; and thus, according to the dilatory practice of our recent legislation, it has been postponed from year to year. Still this proves that it has not been the purpose of the Church to acquiesce in having her doctrines defined by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; though at the present moment, owing to the abovementioned course of events, this happens to be our supreme Court of Appeal. Hence the complaints against our Church for allowing her doctrines to be determined by an exclusively secular tribunal are groundless. This being the tribunal at the present moment, we are bound to submit to it as to the power ordained by God. But it has been the desire of our rulers for the last two years to obtain a better tribunal; and when the Bishop of London so judiciously brought forward his present Bill on one of the first days of the Session, with the view of quieting this clamour, he was merely renewing an attempt which had been already made both in 1848 and in 1849. Only it seems to me that the Court of Appeal proposed in the new Bill is much less

wisely constituted than that in its predecessors. In them it was to consist of the two Archbishops, three Bishops, the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, the senior Vice-Chancellor, the senior Puisne Judges of the three Common-Law Courts, the Dean of Arches, the Chancellor of the Diocese of London, and the Regius and Margaret Professors of Divinity at the two Universities; with a provision that no one should sit as one of the Court, who is not a member of the Church of England. In the new Bill, on the other hand, the only lay members of the Court are the Dean of Arches, the Chancellor of London, and the Lord Chancellor; so that, in an appeal from the Court of Arches, the only Judge in the Court would be the Lord Chancellor. The change has probably been made in deference to the outcry against a lay tribunal; but it appears to me extremely inexpedient; since clergymen, on doctrinal questions, will mostly have a bias swaying them more or less strongly on one side or the other; and they would be apt to fancy that their business was to determine the doctrine of the Church, what it ought to be, instead of being content to interpret and apply it to the case before them. For the sake of justice it is of the utmost importance to have a considerable number of persons in the Court, trained and disciplined in judicial habits of thought, and able and accustomed to look impartially, without predilection or prejudice, on both sides of a question. This great defect in the present Bill will be corrected, I trust, before it passes into law. Of course it is indispensable that every person who sits in the Court should be a member of our Church. Indeed one may reasonably feel surprise, if not indignation, if it be true, that a sense of common decency has not withheld a Presbyterian from taking his seat in such a Court.

Still, seeing that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is at present our only Court of Appeal, our duty is to bow in the present instance to its decision. To act otherwise would be seditious. Doubtless too we may rely on the clearsightedness and integrity of our Judges, more especially in a case to which they have given the deepest attention, and in which they

evidently feel the exceeding difficulties of their position; and we may be assured that their sentence will express the actual law of the Church, as nearly as human sagacity can ascertain it. Should anything seem unsatisfactory in the result, we may endeavour to correct it by means of calm, reasonable persuasion. This, with truth on its side, has always been powerful, and is so more than ever now. But, as it is our duty to submit, so is it our strength to be patient and faithful and trustful, and diligent in the work which God has appointed for each of us. This will be a far wiser as well as godlier course, than to follow the counsel of our ecclesiastical demagogues, who are copying the example set by their political brethren in Ireland, and endeavouring, when anything does not go just as they wish, to agitate the whole body of the Church. Such persons, who by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple, mischievous as they are to the body politic, are still more pernicious to the body ecclesiastic; and we have the Apostolic command to avoid them.

NOTE L: p. 45.

The object and plan of the Schools spoken of in the text are explained by my honoured friend, Mr Woodard, in an excellent little Tract, entitled A Plea for the Middle Classes, which is given to any one applying for it to Masters in Bond Street. As this Charge may fall into the hands of some persons who may not have met with that Tract, I will insert some extracts from it here.

"The object of my school (Mr Woodard says) is to provide a good and complete education for the middle classes, at such a charge as will make it available to most of them. The need of such an undertaking must have suggested itself to many; but it will be imprest upon them more fully, if they only consider what miserably imperfect schools now abound all over the country; schools as devoid of sound principle as of sound knowledge.

As the political and moral well-being of the country depend upon the middle classes; and as by neglecting them you can neither have sound legislation, peaceable parishes, or the children of the poor successfully instructed, (notwithstanding the millions spent in national education,) we are bound to make a grace of necessity, and seek to educate them, if we wish for peace and even national prosperity. Much as there is in this consideration, there is a good deal more behind; and that of a nature to move the sympathies and affections of those who feel that the love of GOD is the soul of existence to a rational creature, and that the best employment of a sincere Christian is, next to his love of GOD, that pure love of our neighbour, which is exhibited in an unceasing effort to rescue souls from error, and to train them up in the truth.' I think a very cold-hearted man might see the evils of leaving the middle classes-the strength of England-to their present uncertain mode of gaining information, secular and religious, and might desire some plan for counteracting those evils; but the same evils pointed out to one imbued with Christian philanthropy could scarcely do less than engage him heart and soul in a diligent and never-tiring effort to remedy the innumerable evils of our present neglect. This is the design of my school.

"As the condition of gentlemen of small incomes, solicitors and surgeons with limited practice, unbeneficed Clergymen, naval and military officers, &c., &c., is well known, and the difficulties they have to contend with in educating their children in a suitable way, likely to come home to many who read this, I shall leave this large portion of what may be denominated the middle class, to tell their own tale, and shall turn to that portion which may be designated the trades-class." This comprises persons of very different grades, from the small huckster, who obtains his livelihood by his dealings with the poor, up, step by step, through third and second-rate retail shops, publicans, gin-palace keepers, &c., to the highly influential and respectable tradesman, whose chief dealings are with the higher ranks of society. Yet this great mass is so linked together by common

interests that it moves as one body to an extent scarcely credible. Now, from beginning to end, with how many of these is the Church, through her Clergy or otherwise, brought into a healthy intercourse? Take London as an example. The Clergy scarcely think it either their duty or interest to be on very free terms with even the most influential part of their trading parishioners. For this practice there may be excuses offered, and some undoubtedly reasonable ones; but it does not alter the fact, that tradespeople, as a class, although by far the majority of the Church's children, and the most able to do her service in times of difficulty, are yet neglected by the Clergy.-The great mass of the people, the real life and strength of England, occupy so anomalous a position, that they can never enjoy the fatherly and friendly ministrations of their spiritual Guides. The Clergy, however, are not alone to be blamed, and perhaps are to a great extent free from fault; for the evil has now proceeded so far, that it is impossible to know how to meet it. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, a Clergyman in London would find it impossible to gain an entrance to the family of his tradespeople; and where he did succeed, it would put them out of their way, and cause them pain and inconvenience rather than any pleasure. This is the fruit of ages of neglect, which will not be remedied without great exertion and much patience. But the visible consequence is, that an unpleasant feeling exists between the Clergy and the mass of the people. They do not sympathize with each other; and so, when difficulties arise, they cannot feel alike or pull together. They have no thoughts in common; and the people could not possibly understand the genius of the Church, if ever so well inclined. They have no idea of the Church as a Divine institution, never once think that they have any share in her fortunes, could not be brought to understand the privileges secured to them when they were admitted into the Church by Baptism, test all the acts of the Church by the same rule by which they try their secular affairs, viz., that of success, think all payment for religion unendurable, and expect a competent return for all subscriptions and donations of charity,