which was a dead-letter the moment it was passed, which everybody knew would be a dead-letter, and of which everybody who was concerned in the passing it is now heartily ashamed. Let our rulers be wise, learning wisdom by experience of the past. Let them at least pause before they pass any law on a subject as yet little understood, and ask themselves the question whether at the instigation of a fanatic earl and a half-saved marquis abetted by the laughing-stock of the House of Commons, they will enact a law, which must either be from the day of its enactment a dead-letter, or bring about a speedy disruption of the Establishment.

Such are the circumstances which we have thought it worth our while to detail before entering upon an examination of the Report, the title of which is placed at the head of this article.

The Report originated in a suggestion of the Archbishop of Canterbury, made to the Premier with the intention of shelving a Bill which Lord Shaftesbury had introduced into the House of Lords. What the ulterior consequences of the appointment of such a Commission were likely to be was, perhaps, little considered at the time, either by the Archbishop or the Bishop of Oxford, who was understood to concur in the course adopted; but it was certain that any action on the subject taken in hand by a private individual pending the sitting of such a Commission must tall to the ground. It was not to be wondered at, therefore, either that the Commissioners should have been in no hurry to report, or that Lord Shaftesbury should have chafed under the restraint which he felt was put upon him when his appeals for the appearance of a report were always met with the easy -response that it was not yet ready. Of course, to Lord Shaftesbury himself nothing would have been easier. What he wanted was a one-sided legislation which should legalise all the deformities of Puritan worship, and, if possible, cut away the status which he was wise enough to see the present state of the law allowed the Ritualists. And, with the help of a 'No Popery' cry, it is possible he might have been successful, and perhaps have stood aghast at the consequences of his success, which, as we have already implied, would have been such as he has not sufficient grasp of mind to comprehend. He neither has any idea of the strength of the Church party, nor does he appear to be aware that they have thrown their broad shield over the Ritualists, and mean to stand or fall with them. Even he would scarcely, we suppose, like to enjoy the triumph of putting a stop to Ritualism at the expense of lopping off so large a limb from what he himself in his way considers a noble tree. And so he was very near committing himself to the suicidal measure of bring

ing forward his motion in the teeth of the Commission. But better or worse counsels, according as the case may be viewed, prevailed, and the Bill was suffered to die out with the prorogation of Parliament, to be re-introduced in a future session with, as Lord Shaftesbury well knows, very diminished chances of success. The Commission is dated June 3d, and, considering the comprehensive as well as delicate nature of the investigations to be entered into by the Commissioners, they had a very sufficient pretext for not issuing a report, or any part of a report, within the period of little more than two months that Parliament would be sitting; and it was not till the 19th of August that the Report was concluded. How soon it was presented and printed we cannot exactly say. Its contents were tolerably well known before the end of the month. The Times was in ecstasies at the Ritualists being done, and it was hinted in other papers that they had been tried by no unfriendly judges, and that the verdict was against them. Quite at the end of August the text of the Report was produced in the London papers, and about a week afterwards the Blue Bock was published, which contains both the Report and the evidence on which it is founded-or rather, we should say, to which it is attached, but on which it is not founded.

But before we examine the Report, we may be permitted to say a few words on the terms of the Commission, and the men who were appointed to sit upon it. On neither of these points do we conceive that Churchmen have any reason to find fault with Lord Derby. It is in no sense a Ritual Commission, as it does not so much as once contain the word Ritual. It is a direction to the Commissioners to inquire into all the Rubrics, Orders, and Directions which regulate the public worship of the Church, so that they may suggest such explanations and emendations of them as may secure uniformity of practice in such matters as may be deemed essential. The terms of the Commission, then, are such as eminently proclaim fair play. If there is what is called excess on the one hand, or defect on the other; if there is any deviation of practice from the exact letter of the Rubric and the law; if there is any violation of the spirit or the letter of the Prayer-book-all is to be taken into consideration, all is to be reduced, if possible, to a kind of uniformity, at least in essentials, whatever meaning may be supposed to lurk under the term essentials. If a Commission was appointed at all-and we entirely disapprove of there being any Commission on such a subject at this time we repeat that the terms are fair, and no one has any reasonable ground for complaint. Nay, it is a very curious circumstance to remark how the Evangelical clergy have been bearing themselves with reference to this subject. We hear absolutely tolerant measures proposed by themselves. They

would be content, they say, to compromise matters, and adopt the use of the surplice universally, if all parties will agree to it. They are really not so addicted to extemporaneous prayers before sermon, but they will gladly give them up now that they see that they stand on no basis of law. In fact, they will conform to existing law as much as may be, if only they can get the one law which galls them on the subject of vestments altered. No one will wonder at their being so utterly in the dark as to the views and meanings of Churchmen. Of course, it is not likely that they would be able to see that Churchmen care very little about black gowns and surplices; but that doctrine should be symbolised in vesture is as unintelligible to them as the mode of reconciling their doctrine of justification by faith with a judgment according to works. It is a part of their general ignorance of all things that do not fall within their own immediate beat that has prompted them to cry out against the persons appointed to sit upon this Commission. Of course, any one can see that it would be highly unfair to sit in judgment upon deviations from law on the one side, and take no notice of flagrant violations on the other. But it is not so easy to form a judgment of the views of persons, and the Evangelical party look upon the Commission as being in this respect somewhat one-sided and against them. And we never remember a Royal Commission of inquiry on any subject issued which was more found fault with, both publicly in Parliament and in private coteries. Even in high quarters complaints have been made on this score, and as we think most unreasonably. As far as that party is concerned all fairness has been shown. Almost every man of any mark or learning they possess has been placed upon the Commission. If Lord Derby could have found any more probably they would have been there. But in choosing twenty-nine men of note, it was impossible to find a third of that number to represent the Evangelical body. On the other hand, without in the least degree accusing Lord Derby of any partiality, we must say that the Ritualists are represented only by one person, and that High Churchmen seem hardly represented at all except among laymen. Every one, of course, must have the highest respect for such men as Sir Robert Phillimore and Sir William Page Wood, as well as for Mr. Beresford Hope and Mr. Hubbard. They fairly represent the feelings of Churchmen. But we miss the names of influential clerical members of the old High Church party, such as Dr. Pusey, Mr. Carter of Clewer, and others who might be named, who would have brought learning and discretion to such a task. We miss any name that is famous for knowledge of the time of the Reformation, when most of those rubrics were drawn up, or acquainted with later Church history

of the times of Elizabeth and the Stuarts. And as to the allegation that the Bishops of Oxford and Gloucester are themselves Ritualists, the former has made it his boast that his diocese is exceptionally free from Ritualism, whilst both of them, it is known very well, would be glad to get rid of every Ritualist in their dioceses, if they could do so by fair and honest means. We believe that there was every disposition to be fair on the part of the Government, and probably these prelates were selected as amongst the least prejudiced against Ritual of any that could be found.

We have thus, with as little personality as possible, analysed the members of the Commission sufficiently to show that Ritualism proper had little chance of a favourable verdict. And yet we own we were extremely surprised at first sight of the Report. Neither can we now understand such a Report being issued, except on the supposition that the wisest of the Commissioners are well aware that no action can be taken upon it. Though every one who reads these pages will be familiar with that Report, we shall, as we intend to dissect it, reproduce it, only omitting the technical portions of it.

'We find that, while these vestments are regarded by some witnesses as symbolical of doctrine, and by others as a distinctive vesture whereby they desire to do honour to the Holy Communion as the highest act of Christian worship, they are by none regarded as essential, and they give great offence to many.

We are of opinion that it is expedient to restrain in the public service of the United Church of England and Ireland all variations in respect of vestures from that which has long been the established usage of the said United Church, and we think that this may be best secured by providing aggrieved parishioners with an easy and effectual process for complaint and redress.

'We are not yet prepared to recommend to your Majesty the best mode of giving effect to these suggestions, with a view at once to secure the objects proposed and to promote the peace of the Church; but we have thought it our duty in a matter to which great interest is attached not to delay the communication to your Majesty of the results at which we have already arrived.'

The result then of the whole of the deliberations of the Commissioners comes to this, that we think it expedient to restrain variations of vesture from the established use.' Now we are not going at present to compare this conclusion with its premises as they appear in the evidence. We will simply take the report by itself, and give the impression left on the minds of thinking and reflecting people during this nine days' wonder, before the appearance of the blue book, with the evidence which some people, perhaps, fondly hoped would clear up the mystery. Now it is quite certain that this was a foregone conclusion in the minds of, to say the very least, a majority of these Com

missioners, before even they had heard a particle of evidence or had a single sitting for deliberation. Whether or not they expected or intended to be influenced by the evidence itself it is impossible to say. However undesirable it may be for judges to have a bias beforehand, we all know how overwhelming evidence to the contrary will in some cases completely change that bias, and produce a judgment quite different from what was expected. We do not say that this or that Commissioner was biassed or unduly prejudiced. What we do say is, that looking to the constitution of the Commission as a whole, no person endued with common sense, and knowing the characters and antecedents of the individuals, but must have known that a majority, if they had had to decide without evidence, would have given their opinion that it was desirable to restrain ritual observances. Count the twenty-nine individuals, and, without respecting either ecclesiastical or temporal rank, simply divide them into the obvious classes of clergymen and laymen, we say that the clergymen present would have voted in a very large majority for stopping ritual proceedings if it could be safely done. We venture to say that a majority of these not only had no sympathy with Ritual, but that they scarcely understood the nature of the thing they were debating about. We have already said we miss the representatives of historical, and antiquarian, and theological learning on that Commission, and we shall not descend to personalities or specifications, but we ask any person of common sense to judge what we say with reference to the clergy, inclusive of archbishops and bishops, English and Irish. The laymen on the Commission are more equally divided, though we believe that setting aside the question of evidence, and judging, supposing they had had to judge from the present state of affairs, their conviction would have been that the vestments, as they are technically called, had better be put down. We are not blaming either ecclesiastics or laymen for this prepossession. It is but natural that men of cultivated minds and mixing in political society, must form conclusions perhaps sometimes prematurely, upon questions that come before them, especially if those questions are very prominent, and have become a general topic of

conversation.

The conclusion, then, that the Commissioners have arrived at -we are supposing ourselves to be writing during the nine days of wonder between the appearance of the report and the authoritative publication of the evidence-was exactly such as might have been expected. The Commissioners are, however, directed to make diligent inquiry into all such matters, and to report from time to time. Accordingly we waited in anxious expectation of the first report which we understood to be ready,