an heroic side, when there were not only financial difficulties in the path of enterprise, is fitly adorned by its own success, which is the passport to a host of dignities, of the municipium, and the county; the new estate of journalism and popular literature has the ear of the world, and is accompanied by a many-voiced repute that flies further than the fame of the oldest title. There is a class remaining whose success is a success of esteem, an esteem moreover that in a world of the commonplace sometimes tarries long before it developes into popular appreciation, and is a mantle of pride rather for his descendants than for the man himself. The knight-errants of the modern time may consume all their days in the fight, and win only the stings of the dragons they war with. There are qualities also which are rare and violet-like, and yet chivalric. The persons of the esoteric class would greatly prize the distinction conferred by knighthood of an ideal and unworldly order. The object of this paper is but to put in a word for them.

It has always been an object with wise kings and queens to fan the spirit of unselfish enterprise, which is the fine sap of the tree of the commonwealth, by a requital of sympathy and recognition. In this latter day Royalty has to a large extent given over to the administration the office of conferring dignities; and as regards the more ponderous rewards, it is no doubt right that it should be so. Political expediency is a demand which cannot be overlooked. But political expediency itself may be elevated into an ideal range, and no truly great statesman would look with jealousy on an institution which had for its object the concentration of the higher impulses of men.

With a word on a few minor matters we conclude our paper.

It

may seem absurd to stop to consider how far the institution of a new Order of Knighthood would affect that anomalous and imperfect Table, the Scale of Precedence. Human weaknesses, however, must be respected. We have tried to show how far the historic conception of knighthood differs from any other dignity; but the general social scale followed is one long line which makes no allowance for differences in quality, and takes account only of the minute gradations in a single ladder of precedence. A new Order then might follow up the modest historic conception of knighthood by assuming nothing. It could not well be ranked lower than the Order of Knights Bachelor, if they be really the Bas-Chevaliers; but instead of claiming to be above it, it might rest well content with equality, and make no effort to vie with any other dignities whatsoever for precedence. With simplicity the object rather than ostentation, it might be well that, if a decoration were decided on, the bauble should be a trinket of the smallest size, and possess artistic rather than pecuniary value. The old

knights were often far from wealthy; adventurous spirits are compelled to simplify their tastes, and limit their personal expenses if they allow freedom to their own individuality. It would be a mockery to confer upon a knight of an Order after the ancient pattern the necessity of assuming an array far surpassing Solomon in all his glory. The Knight of the Garter is æsthetically superb; he wears a mantle of blue velvet, a garter of blue velvet of a darker shade, a hood and surcoat of crimson velvet, a hat of black velvet, bearing a white ostrich plume and black heron's feathers, fastened by a band of diamonds. The sign

of the Order, too, consists of a very elaborate collar, consisting of twenty-six pieces of gold, pendant to which is the figure of St. George in his struggle with the dragon. There is also the silver star of eight points, bearing in its centre the red cross of St. George, or of knighthood.

To carry out still further the idea of simplicity, and differentiate the new order from other kinds of dignity, it would be possible to make it a provision of the original constitution that the knights were not expected to exceed in the

direction of personal state or magnificence. They might be considered to be related to territorial rank in something like the same way as the learned missionary friars of old would compare with the priests holding goodly benefices.

"Glory is the firebrand of a noble mind," says the old motto. This paper is written in the hope that the firebrand will be flung among those whom it is good to arouse, and that they will respond to the incentive with a new invigoration of splendid effort.

EXCEPT the few who are contented with the fatness of to-day, and the many who find acceptance of things as they are, easier than thought, almost everyone looks forward to some great change in the Church of England. There are thoughtful men who would be well content if they could believe in the permanence of the existing compromise; but they cannot. When pressed home, they admit that some great change is approaching, only they would postpone it as long as possible. Some of the reasons for this dread of the future will be noticed later. Meantime we may be content with the broad but safe assertion that a crisis in ecclesiastical affairs, amounting to a peaceable revolution, is generally expected; not perhaps immediately, yet probably before most brown heads become very grey.

It is not needful here to discuss the issues between the Liberation Society and the defenders of the Establishment. The appeal now to be made is addressed alike to those in favour of disestablishment and those opposed to it. All that need be assumed at present is that a national church cannot be a permanent institution in a free country unless it satisfies the wants and wishes of the nation in some tolerable degree.

Let it be observed that the word church is here used, not of the clergy, but of the whole body of persons united in one ecclesiastical system. The truth of the proposition is then selfevident. Any church, large or small, national or other, must be

governed, in the last resort, by the majority of its own members, unless it is overruled by some power alien to itself. The majority may delegate its power to the clergy, or to a synod; but the power sprang from the majority, and may at any time revert to it. This seems to be, not a theory, but simple matter of fact. Can it be disputed that, if two-thirds of the Roman Catholics throughout the world were determined to reverse the decrees of the last Vatican council, they would carry their determination into effect, unless persuaded to abandon it, or coerced by secular power? But, if the Church be national, and the nation selfgoverning, the will of the majority, if sufficiently earnest, must prevail on the ecclesiastical as on the secular side. So it is at present with the Church of England. Dissenters take no share in the benefits of the property which is now administered on behalf of the Church; but they, and all citizens, are, in a very real sense, members of the National Church; since they have their share in the election of members of Parliament-that is to say, in constituting the sole body which has legislative authority in all affairs, ecclesiastical or civil. Here again, this is not theory, but fact. Parliament, which has cut down the incomes of the bishops, could take away those incomes altogether. Parliament which, under a Conservative Government, passed the Public Worship ReguĨation Act of 1874, could alter, amend, or abrogate the powers

of any ecclesiastical functionary. Further, if a sufficient majority of electors, Dissenters or Churchmen, were to determine that the Athanasian Creed should no longer be read in churches, and cared enough about the matter to elect a Parliament pledged to carry out their wishes, the recent decision of Convocation on the subject would be simply brushed away into nothingness. As matters stand, the will of Parliament is supreme in Church as well as State, and could alter doctrine as well as ritual. We are not saying that this ought to be, only that it is.

Yet nothing can be more certain than that Parliament will only use this power with great reluctance, and as seldom as possible; and few things more probable than that Parliament would take refuge in disestablishment rather than be troubled with any considerable measures of Church reform. Let anyone consider for a moment the probable course of a debate upon the Athanasian Creed, and he will see that the thing is practically all but impossible. Members of Parliament, as Parliament is now constituted, are certainly not fit to be legislators for the Church; and if they were fit they have no time. If so important a measure as the Public Worship Regulation Act occupied so many nights of debate; if the Burials question still comes up session after session; who can suppose that Parliament can really settle Church affairs? No one knows the impossibility better than the practical politician; and, if the condition of the Church or the will of the people were ever imperiously to demand extensive ecclesiastical reform, Parliament would try to free itself for ever from the burden of such matters at the cost of a session or two devoted to disestablishment.

We are therefore face to face

with the fact, that only one body has the power of legislating for Church affairs, and that that body will not do it. Yet legislation is absolutely required. The Public Worship Regulation Bill was received with the approval of the majority, not on account of its merits, which were minute, but because the existing state of things was felt to be intolerable. That Act has proved a failure; and the evils at which it was aimed are still unchecked. We desire here to complicate the question with as few side issues as possible; but shall not conceal our opinion that ecclesiastical legislation, to which that Act is as nothing, will be necessary before many years have passed. Be that as it may, it was conceded by the Conservative authors of the Act, and by the majority of the public which stood with them, that legislation of the kind was essential. If that was the case then, it is so now. Any party, High, Low, or Broad, which may succeed in carrying the majority with it, will require legisla tion to adapt existing institutions to changed circumstances. The world will not stand still; and, if Church and Nation are to continue united, the one must move with the other.

But, if Parliament cannot itself deal with the Church difficulty otherwise than by separating Church and State, could not powers of legislating in ecclesiastical matters be delegated to a Permanent Committee, to Convocation, or to some Church Assembly or Synod? If we are right in supposing that the affairs to be dealt with by such a body might be of the highest importance, a Permanent Committee would hardly meet the case. The Legislative Assembly of the National Church must be prepared, if necessary, to decide questions of

the first magnitude. No one, whatever his private opinion may be, has a right to assume that such an assembly could never have to determine anything more than finance or ritual. Development is the law of churches as of other bodies; and all churches, with any history to speak of, have had to determine doctrine, and most of them to admit doctrinal changes. The Legislature which might have to do this must be elected ad hoc, or at least must be more than the committee of another body. As to Convocation, no one outside a small circle would dream of entrusting it with legislative powers. In its present state it does not even tolerably represent the Clergy, and it has shown itself to be incapable of a single step in advance. But some have thought that a reformed House of Convocation, with due representation for the laity, would answer the purpose. It is scarcely conceivable that any such assembly could express the mind and will even of the majority of Churchmen. The clergy would be there in strong force, and they, together with like-minded allies among the lay members, would have pretty much their own way. But there is a fatal objection to this and similar schemes for the government of a National Church. It forgets the Dissenters, who, as we have shown, have at present the right of assisting in legislating for the Church, and are not likely to abandon it. So long ago as 1834 Dr. Arnold wrote: " I do not see how any man can avoid the impression that Dissent cannot exist much longer in this country as it does now; either it must be comprehended within the Church, or it will cease in another way, by there being no Establishment left to dissent from." (Arnold's Life and Correspondence, p. 306, 6th edition.) But the proposed reform would give the Dis

senters a much stronger case than they had then or have now. At present they have some sort of share in the administration of that portion of national property which is applied to Church purposes. To hand over the government of the Church and Church property to a body composed exclusively of Churchmen would be manifestly unjust; and such a measure would deprive the Church of all right to be called National, or other than sectarian. Nor is it very rash to predict the end of such an arrangement. Neither Dissenters nor the large and increasing number who stand aloof alike from Church and Dissent would be satisfied with it; in no long time they would be reinforced by malcontent Churchmen offended by the action of the new Church governing body, and agitation for disestablishment would begin again with redoubled force.

If, in despair of seeing our way through these perplexities, we turn to disestablishment, we shall find that our troubles will revive in a rather worse form than before. Politicians, who care little for the subject except for the sake of freeing Parliament from a whole catalogue of troublesome considerations, are apt to fancy that by a disestablishing Act they can shift the pack of ecclesiastical worries on to other shoulders. But disestablishment may mean any one of several very different things; and real and final separation between Church and State is not to be effected as readily as most people imagine. The fatal precedent of the Irish Church Act is sure to be used. We shall be told that we must give a constitution to the disestablished Church, and hand over powers of maintaining doctrine and discipline, and of administering property, to Convocation or some newly-created synod. The disestablished Church