Wrexham and Denbighshire Advertiser and Cheshire Shropshire and North Wales Register

ST. ASAPH; DIOCESAN CONFERENCE. MEETINGS AT WREXHAM. I I i The Sr. \ear-h Diccssan Conference was held in 'Y''Ú,-r' i,. ;Jnr'lb H"D, OI Trf-div and Wee- I resuav. nrder the nvi-uleiicv of the Lord Bishop"? ? lb" Picc*«*. Exc?icnt arrangements baj h., ,1 irado hv the local committee, of which the Rev. ci'^on \V. H. Fletcher. The Vicara?*, Wrexham, was chairman. and ia the Rev. Ll. Wynne Jones. Cat-vfci Hey, and Mr Ll. Hugh-Tones, B Ihyfryd, the committee had two excellent and untiling secre- taries. The hall wao very effectively decorated for the occasion. The members of the Diocesan Committee, m(L of whom were present, wen: :-The Very Rev. the Dean of Sr. Asaph, the Venerable Archdeacon Thomas (clerical secretary), the Venerable Arch- Howell, the R~vs. Principal J. Owen, D. Grimaldi Davis. D.ti Edwards. Canon D. Evans, Canon W. IT, Plehd, H. Holbech. Cecil Hook, T. Llc-yd. 0. A. Nares, Chancellor W. Richardson, D. Wi'an,s. the of Powis, Lord Kenyon, Lord IT&iiech, the Hon. C. H. Wynne. Sir -Watkin Wil- liams Wvnn, Colonel W. Cornwallis West, Sir R. A. Cv.iiiiffe.'Sir R.. E. E-.rertcn, Sir Pryce Pryce-Jor.es, Mr W. Forrester Addie, Mr Marshall Duglale, Captain E. T. GrilF.th-Boscawen, Lieutenant-Colonel I1. Standtsh Here. Mr Stanley Lcighton, M.P., Mr J. Lewi-. Chancellor Trevor Parkins (lay secretary), Mr P. P. Pennant, Mr h, M. Biddulph, Mr P. Yorke. Anions the delegates present were :-Revs. James Davies. "Denbigh W. "A. Morris. Penycae J. D. More an. Ll&ndyssi!; Edward Williams, Llanfair, D.C. J. E. Thomson, Esclnsham J. Jones, Llan- desia Kg, Davies, Connah's Quay J. W. Unwin, Overton Jenkin Tones, Holt Robert Charle3 Er.yon. Hhuddkm J. F. Recce, Llaufwrog W. T.; D T 1 f T 1 'T- J L1 h Davies. Llanfynydd; LI.Wynne Jones, Llanymynech, J. Fisher. Ruthin J. Morris.Llauelidar.; J. Williams Llangadwaladr li. E. Thomas, Llangollen C. F' Roberts, SL Asaph 0. Davies. Fiint; 0. G. Prichard' Minera F. B. Roberts. Whitchurch W. T. Davies, Bistre 0. G. Davie;, Bistre B. M. Jones, Llanfair, D.C. Canon Roberts, Colwyn W. R. Williams, Gvfylliog T. W. Vanghan, Ithuddlan R. CHsen, Bala Stephen Gladstone, Hawardell; Canon Richardson, Northop R. Edwards, Gwer- syllt P. W. Sparling. Erbistock: W. Beavan, Llan- ymvnech D. Owen. Gwernaffield; T. Owen, Llan- gedVm J. Felix. Cilcain D. Morgan, Yscertio- T. Z. D:ivies, Holywell T. H. Evans, Minera; J. Morris. Llanrhaiadr: A. B. Churchill, Oswestry J. L. James, Bangor W. Dampier, Buckley J. C. Evans. Bala D. Williams, Nantgwvu T. Williams, St. Martins J. T. Edwards, Tremeirchion; D. Jouea, li'iir.riiaiadr; D. Tqnies, Pennant; John Davies, Lilanvnvs: G. Vaughan, Overton; J. H. Lewis, St. Asaph A. Lewis. Welshpool J. W. Thomas. Bwlchy- cibau L. Williams, Prion O. D. Williams, Berse W. Jones, Llanassa; Thomas Williams, Connah's Quav P. R. Phillips, Llanrwst; J. B. Seaton, Oawesuy R. Ellis. Llansannan D. W. Evans, St. George's; U. Hockley, Hawarden J. W. Jones, Mariord; R. Jones. Oswestry Robert Roberts, Hope; T. Harris, Llandrinio; W. Jones, Ruabon Hush Hanmer, Hanmer; D. Edwards, Rhyl; Thos. James, Llanarmen; M.M., A. W. M. Weatherly, Oswestry: J. 0. Browne, Hawarden; David Jones, Llangerniew; W. Jones, Trofarth; Lewis Lewis, Llanarmon; T. Redfern, Oswestry; J. Dobell, Gwersvllt; J. nuntbatch, Malpas; J, Morgan, Denbigh: O. SI. Fielden, Frankton; J. Jenkins, Gresfcrd John Evans, Glyndyfrdwy; T. Ll. Wiliiams, Gwyddclwern; R. J. Robarts, PooUQuay; T. Jones, Llanfyllin T. Lloyd Williams, Wrexham; &c. Messrs W. G. Walker, Llanymynech; J. Whitfield, Llansilin R. H. Parry. Leeswood; J. O. Pugh, Ccrwen A. G. Andrews, Gresford, and H. S. Roberts, Hope Major Webber, Mold Messrs S. C. Moore. Huabon; David Jones, Cerrig-y-Druidion R. Roberts. Chirk; and A. M. Hallewell, Llanrwst J. P. Evans, Llanddogt T; fl. Vanghan, Rhyl; J. Bowen, Minera; 1 Lieutenant-Colonel Maltby, Oswestry Messrs C. William?, Llanllugan, and W. Newton, Buckley; Miss Chapiv.an, Brymbo Miss Grainger, Broughton; Messrs T. Hoplev, Frankton J. Davison, Frankton; John Matthias, Brymbo R. W. Bowen, Flint; S. G. Jarman, Wrexham; S. War- rington, Gobowen, Edward Jones, diocesan sur- veyor, Wrexham R. G. Evans, Rhosymedre; John Piitchard, Llandrinio; John Sankey, Llan- drinio: T. H. Housfield, Manifan; A. Smith. Fiint; R. T. Jones. Colwvn Bay; O. V. Openshaw, Oswes- try; C, l'hillip, Chirk; J. P. Hughes, Oswestry; C. Ratlibone Jones, Holt W. Roberts, Mostyn A. Barratt, Mostyn Owen Jones, Brymbo Dr. D. R. Jones. Corwen; H. G. E. England, Trenierchioii; J. S. Lewis. J. S. Scales, Llanfair; W. Daves, J. ftiackay. Kerry: J. Marston, Kerry; W. Martin, Oswestry; G. Hughes. Oswestry John Bayliss, Rhyl; D. W. Evans, Llangwm E. Roberts, Aber- •rek-: H. Williams. Denbign; R. A. Davies, Den- high: D. Lawson, Brymbo F. J. Archer, Oswestry; T. W. Bowdage, Denbigh; Davies. Holywell; E. J. f. Davies, Denbigh; P. Williams, Brynteg; E. Dodd, Gwersyllt; W. H. Johns, Llangollen: E. P. Hughes, Llanrwst; W. T. Hughes, Llanrwst; E. J cries, Rhos; John Evans, Malpas; S. B. Jones, Mold; H. E. Walker, Coiwen; R. Sides, Llan. W. B. Roberts, Llangollen; D. Rogers, Kowiown T. J. Roberts. Flint; R.Jones, Cedwain -I. George, Mold W.A.Jones. Cerrigydruidion; W. Mathias. Brymbo; John Hannah, Abergele; D. Jones. Llanfechan G. W. Whitehouse, Wrexham; C. Duncombe, St. George; C. W.Richards, Llan- gollen; R. riughss, S. George; J. E. Ellis, Llany- fclodwei: \V. ii. Evans, Flint; J. Lloyd, Flint; R. Horspocl. Llangollen; L. Roose. Rhyl; J. Morris, Fernhili, Gobowen W. Exili. Colwyn Day- T. Williams. Tallarn Green J. George, Nerquis W. H. Lloyd, Flint; E. Blane, Connah'3 Quay R. T Olrs, LJannhangel; E. Morns, Kfacs; E. W. J. Roberts, Biyneglw? ll. Graesscr, Argoed Hall; W. -11. Gibson, Buckley: 1. Jozie4. Rhyl; J. Williams, Southsea David Owen, Souihsea; W. Williams, Mostyn; W. H. \il!iams, Oswestry; T. Joite- Llanfyllin; T. Kite hire. Har.n:er; R.J. Robert?, Oswestry; E. B. Davies, Achvy and E. Gordon Griffiths, Coedpoeth Captain Michel!, Minera; Messrs J. Beckett, Malpas J. Bithel! Riiosnessnev; Thomas Hughes, Holywell: Thomas Jones, Hamuer; John Davies, Brymbo; O. J. Davies, Rhyl; Thomas Corfield, Bwichgwyn: J. Hilditch, llhoddu; Thomas Davies, W. Evans, Nantygolien; W. E. Roberts, Glyn- dvfdwv E. Morris, Wrexham. .h.!i¡)q those present on the platform were Lady Ounliiiel"Lord Morton, Mr R. iilyddleton Biddulph, Mr Philip Yorke. Colonel vlesilam, Major Birch, Captain Cole, Colonel Howard, Mr J. Eldon Baukes, Mi Robert Williams Wyn.n, the Hon. Mrs Bulkeley OWd, Captain T. A. Wynne Edwards, Mr J. C. Edwards. Mr and Mrs St. John Raikes, Major Pryce Jones- M.P., Captain Mytton, General the Hon. SanvasjC Mostyn, Mr Thomas Bury, Mr J. O. Pugh, Corv.eu. A'c. After prayers by the Vicar of Wrexham, Arch- deacon Thomas read a letter from Chancellor Trevor Pavkins. lav secretary, in which he expressed hi* rc-qret that, by doctor's orders, lie was prohibikd I attending the Conference. The Archdeacon said he was sure the Conference would join with him in reletting the cause of the Chance.-ior's absence. THE BISHOP'S ADDRESS. The Bishop, who on rising was loudly cheered, Last year our Diocesan Conference gave way to the riveting held at Rhyl to protest against a measure, which has now with the Government that it birth, disappeared. (Hear, hear.) The Fesssns of tlu-.t struggle are of more value to-day than its incident: The main issues at stake are brought home clearly to the minds of men. They know now as they never knew before what the thing really n;emsl This is good. It is good for truth and justice that those who attack should quite clearly know what their attack involves, and that those who attack defend should with equal clearness appreciate the full meaning of their defence. Such a clarifica- tion yields strong convictions. The more strong conviction", occupy the front place the less room will there be for those stupid personalities which the un- ir.tellicent or the uninformed mistake for arguments. (Cheers.) Sow our duty ae Churchmen is to make the peaceful years that lie before us as fruitful in good works. (Cheers.) Church Reform and Voluntary Schools ciaim first attention. (Hear, he:tr.) With- out anticipating the discussions that are to fcfilow I venture some remarks on both subjects. When I use the Words •• Church Reform' I do not moan the Church of England in one diocese or any group of dioceses, but I mean the Chnrch of England in one dioee?c or any group of dioceses, but I mean the Church of England throughout the length and breadth of the provinces of Canterbury and York. (Cheers.) Reform is a word which has come into the ecclesiastical sphere alrcady charged with a political connotation, but the two reforms are not in pari holcria and we must be on our guard against the per- plexities that may arise from this confusion. The nature and limitations of poEtical reform are diiic-rent from any siniilai1 process in the ecclesi- astical i^hsve. The repair of an hi storic building like Wes'tminster Abbey goea on under our eves, and the weak places that time or storm has revealed ate made strong, and internal readjustments that dc not alter the essentia! fabric are from time to tii)-e jrade. All these things we approve, but the refonnt-r who would pfli" down a side-chapel hc-e or ? arch there, and would remould and ichv? ild, believing that the newest is ever the best would ?ot I believe, find many supporters. (C)' CM.) This illustration wiU &uSce. 'he point is ? obvious, th?t 1 need not ]?bour it iu further detail. When, tlu.retoro, we use the word Church Reform, it ini-st be Op:1 to all to define the sense in which they have :;dop!ed the phrase. Amongst the most difficult a.id most important points which discussion of this i-i, ri mnrh u))on, is that of the freehold or indc- I p, ntlcnce of the clergyman. It is wise to remember, that this iuderc-ndance is 01 a special character. The /•V-irvniAn has legally a freehold, a he is legally Lc-ud to discharge the duties attaching to that free- h*old. (Cheers.) The just balance between the two i«u ts of this compact must be maintained. (Hear, hear.) The dinmnd fOr Izeiil legislation simply a of people are convined that 1.1;( law. as it stands, fully secures the frehold part of connact. whi-o it imperfectly secures the other la.rt ci uie con-.p-.ct, viz.. the tall discharge of those •lir.tie •. for which the freeho\ exists. i Hear, hear.) v who advocate iresh legislation, which may rmticr tl if balnnre more inst and perfect, may well trr.lv inainla:n that they do not desire to establish •„ I'.e.v. relationship between the freehold, and the dis- •Itaice of the duties of the freehold, or any new posi- tion 1.1);" the trf-hoi?er. ha? simply aim at legislation, v h?L: ?T'o Rifective? nccure the orgiual pur- "c 'i.if intention o? both the freehold and the 't?(.?!t?'?'<?'?'??'?"?'???' Personally, I am J? ?i'c.? that "eLlI legislation is mCS5S:UY. (Cheers) ?t ;;1:' ? ?i? th?6 this dees not ?o far enough. At a.y ) ?? it U a point and an aim which 1 believe • co-> ■ ::t:ds the nnanicious approval of Chnrchmcn. ?- ..c it wordd seen more statesmnulike first of aU to it sc-c:,i ,ti?re statc!sri,,iu-ike f-"rst of all to io offers the 'u? of ft-ast rüsistnc2, tlmu to piur.ge into conten- tior:s subjects which ivo,ilc- only waste the youthful j anergics of a hopeful aioveircut "n d end in nothing. ) Hear. h^a-r.) There is one subject closely allied to I Church Reform, upon which I may touch without being in danger of anticipating the discussion that is to follow. Afuch has been said about the drop iu clerical incomes. If the facts are to be brought home cleariy to the minds of the laity, we must not deal in generalities, but give particular proofs. Taking it as a whole, I should say that the livings in the diocese of St. Asaph were not below the general average in value. I will take some instances froen different parts of the diocese, and I undertake that these instances do not overstate the condition of the diocese taken as a whole. A living of X700 a year nominal value is now only JE425. Another of £ 3i0 is now only £ 215. Another of £ 3S4 is now £ 230. Anotbe of £ 3S6 is now only 1210. Put into one formular which will hold good practically for every living, the difference between the nominal value of a bene-, fice and the actual valae is something like forty per cent. So that a clergyman who accepts a living nominally of JE540 would receive about S200 a year. In addition to this it must be remembered that the general claims upon a clergyman have not decreased, and in many parishes, owing to growth of population and developments of work, the clergyman contributes out of his small income a large quota in subscriptions. Now, I want to put this question quite fairly before the laity of this diocese. We, as clergy, are ready to welcome any fresh rearrangements which may be necessary to secure the more satisfactory discharge of those duties which attach to the incumbent's free- hold. The clergy can welcome such arrangements all the more gladly because they know how devotedly the clergy as a body are striving to do their duty. (Hear, hear ) Fairness demands that it should be pointed out that a great change is taking place in clerical incomes, and that change has been going on unobserved for years, and, as far as an opinion can be formed, the downward tendency is not likely soon to be arrested. Who is to come to the rescue ? The laity, especially those whose property lies in land, will plead an inability to help, which we must all readily admit. (Hear, hear.) The same economic causes are pulling down heavily the incomes of clergy and landowners. But this does not apply to all classes of the community. In the general increase and larger distribntion of wealth great resources of help are available. I am quite sure that there are few parishes in this diocese where something cannot be done to help the clergyman. I know that in several parishes the parishioners have already- realised the true situation of affairs, and have come to the rescue with an Easter offering. I would also venture to remind clergy and laity alike of the Sophoclean maxim, Naught avails, or tower or ship When men are not within." (Hear, hear.) Before embarking upon a large out- lay of money in bricks and mortar, it would be well for every parish to be quite sure that the existing staff of clergy are first of all provided with the in- comes necessary for bare subsistence. (Hear, hear.) Immense sums of money have been spent upon church building in this diocese, and the work of building has been nearly completed. I should like to see this stream of resourcefulness largely diverted in the future—(hear, hear)—and devoted to making provi- sion where necesssary, for the clergy. (Cheers.) In Ivery many parishes, I believe the work of the Church would be more helped by providing the endowment of a curate's salary, than by spending the same sum of money upon new buildings. (Hear. hear.) It may be necessary to open a general diocesan fund for helping impoverished benefices, but this is a matter that must be decided upon after very careful con- sideration among the leading clergy and laity of the diocese. With regard to the voluntary schools, let us consider this question first of all as citizens. The Stae in this oountry controls elementary education and carries on work with the duplex machinery of voluntary schools and board schools. I ask careful attention for these facts taken from the last Blue- book issued by Lord Rosebery and Mr Acland, and I group the facts under scholars, 6na.nee, instruction. The scholars in average attendance in public elemen- tary day schools in England a'? Wales number 4,225.854. Of that total 2,448,037 are i ii the voluntary schools, and 1,777,797 are in Board i ':ioals. Please seize the fact that the voluntary scla.ols are now edu- cating 670,024 more than the Board schools. (Cheers,), Tho tinance stands thus, the cost for maintenance only per child in Board schools is S-2 gg 9Jd in voluntary schools 11 18s Hd. The cost per child is 10s 8d more in a Board than in a voluntary school. But I would ask you to note that this is only the comparative cost of actual instruction, and by no means represents the total expenditure of the Board Schools. Last year the total expendi- ture of the School Board3 in England and Wales was £ 8.674,313. Before I leave the finance. I must call your attention to the fact that the liabilities of School Boards in England and Wales was on the 29th of last September, iE22,507,056, almost a national debt in its size. This gigantic debt has increased by more than 97,000,000 since 1885. The Blue Book this year states that the cost of providing accommodation in Board Schools is 113 6s 6d per child. (Cheers.) The voluntary schools have at present accommodation for 3.633,833 scholars. It would therefore cost the School Board 150,000,000 to provide the accommodation now pro- vided for the voluntary schools. When we come to religious instruction we reach a dividing line. The advocates of a purely secular teaching in our day schools forra, I believe, in this country a very small minority. The great majority of the people in Eng- land are in favour of some religious instruction being given in our day schools. (Hear, hear.) The question is what instruction. Many maintain that in rate-aided schools religious instruction, as given by the Church of England, or the Roman Catholics, or the Wesleyans, must not be accepted. They have therefore suggested a new form of religious instruc- tion. This is called undenominational religion.' IL is all-important to realise that undenomi nationalism i3 a now form of religion, which alone is to be en- dowed out of the rates. The Blue Book issued by Lord Rosebery and Mr Acland in their list of schools connected with the several denominations includes under this heading undenominational schools. Here then we have the authority of the Blue Book tor staling that undenominationalists constitute a. de- nomination. It is really a question of more or less. The undenominationalists because they teach lens demand a preferential treatment compared with those who teach more. The practical issue thea is this, that various sections of the people desire different forms of religious instruction, and the undenominationalists demand that the one religion and the only one to be endowed out of the rates is the un- denominational religion of which they approve. It is at once evident that this demand constitutes a gross anomaly and injustice. (Applause.) Why, it has been well asked, should members of other religious denominations be rated for the teaching of this religions hybrid, engendered in Boa.rd Schools. (Cheers.) The only way out of this difficulty is clear. if the undenominationalists are to be allowed to teach their form of religion in the Board Schools. the most elementary justice demands that every ifacility should be given to the members of other Ireligious bodies to found and maintain schools in which the religion they believe can be taught to their own children. (Cheers.) With regard to Wales t itself I do not desire to put in sharp antagonism the Board Schools and the voluntary schools, but it would not be right to keep in the background these all-important facts. The total expenditure of the School Boards in Wales and Monmouthshire amounts last year to x'584,048 33 2d, and their liabilities to SI.250.220. Their total expenditure shows an in- crease over the previous year of zE54,000, and it is an instructive fact that out of that total expenditure the School Boards in W ales and Monmouthshire spend no less a sum than i28,459 upon expenses of adminis- tration. Last year the School Board rate in Wales and Monmouthshire amounted to L252,311, an in- crease of £ 26,520. Let me put this financial state- ment for Wales and Monmouthshire in a nnt-shell Last year. the Board Schools of Wales and Mon- mouthshire, taking the average attendance educated 157,000 children, and the voluntary schools 105,000 children. It cost the ratepayers of Wales and Mon- moutb.¡hir;, £232,311 to educa.te the 157,000 children in the Board School, whereas the voluntary schools who educated the 105,000 children did not receive a farthing piece from the rates. If you take the total expenditure (i.e., rates and grants), each child in average attendance in the Board Schools of Wales and Monmouthshire cost in rates and taxes S3 15s per head, while each child in the voluntary schools cost the ratepayers only £ 1 8s Id. (Applause.) fTlie difference in expense is enormous, and if there was any compensatory advantage in the superior educa- tion given in the Board Schools I should not deprecate the expense-(heu, hearl-but there is no such compensating advantage. (Ap- plause.) I doubt whether the secular educa- tion given in the Board School in Wales is one whit better than that given in the voluntary schools. (Cheers.) The additional fraction gained in grants by the Board schools is explained by the fact that many of the voluntary schools are situated in the poorest districts, and Board schools do not show a particular affection for very poor children. If we are to compare as a whole the education given in Board and voluntary schools in Wales, the posi- tion of religious instruction in the Welsh Board schools, m my opinion, gives the superiority to the voluntary schools. The Blue-book on religions teach- ing in Board schools, issued this year, is pitiful read- ing for any Christian Welshman. Of fifty-seven School Board districts in which no provision is made tor religious teaching, reading, or observances, no less than fifty are to be found in Wales and Mon- mouthshire. In Wales and Monijiouthshire there are 336 School Board districts. In 128 of thee districts the Bible is not read at all in the schools, and in 140 it is read without comment. We have then in Wales and Monmouthshire 268 School Board districts in which the Bible is not read at all or read without comment. Only in sixty-eight districts is the Bible read with comment. Nor is this all. Ot:t of the 336 School Board districts, there are 294 that have no syllabus of religious instruction, and there are actually 324 out of the 336 which have no examination in religious knowledge. A subject taught witliout examination is one for which you I have no test or guarantee of regularity or thorough- ness. (Hear, hear.) I confess it fills my mind with deep sa.duess to find that there are only twelve out of 336 School Board districts in Wales and Monmouth- shire where this essential guarantee for religious instruction is provided. Can any people continue to be a Bible-living people without being a Bible-loving people, and how can we be a Biblo-loviug people ii we are not a Bible-teaching people ? (Cheer ;.) I have endeavoured to bring out clearly and plainly the main facts relating to our Board and voluntary schools. Suggestions for the assistance of the voluntary schools will form part of the dis- cussion that is to follow, and I there- fore deliberately abstain from anticipating these. I will make one remark only. If the ¡voluntary schools, which are now educating nearly a million more children than the Board schools, can- not command that justice and f lir play which they deserve, it will be due simply to the fact that among the friends of voluntary education there is noc unity. (Applause.) Closely allied to education are the various social questions that occupy ??o much ¡¡Lt'U- j tion at the prec?nt time. Socialism is a vague term. I The epithet Christian," implies that there is a socialism which is nti-Christian or l.ou-Christian. i The hitter ranges from A mild phiiaudaopy to a v. iIl1 communism, f-very men ought r; In-.vo the chance | oi making the best of himself. Tho dualism to be corit:il c -t are the rights ot tl: :r.ivkirul and the rights of society. It is clear that the individual can- not make the best of himself except in and through socie:y. Hence the social obligation, but if this obligation is to be interpreted as meaning that society is to equalise the conditions for every individual, it is obvious that such an equality of condition would numb individual effort. Human progress depends upon the very fact that men are thrown into collision and competition. In this country where self-reliance and industry are national characteristics, a dead-level socialism will attract few followers. While we recognise the absurdity of such views, we must recognise that there are social questions which must be faced. These questions, it seems to me. can only be hopefully approached from the Christian stand- point. It'is the duty of every Churchman and of every citizen to study these questions. They must be thought out. Whatever his conclusions, the man who has thought out for himself these hard and dark question" deserves respectful attention. (Hear, hear.) There is so much wild talk, and wild just be- cause it is thoughtless. The extreme socialist seems often to be one who talks about what he does not understand to another man who does not know what he means. (Laughter.) Among the evils wrought by want of thougnt is unfairness. The rich man, whose wealth could only have been accumulated by the co-operation of others, and secured to him and protected for him by the laws of society, owes society a heavy debt. (Applause.) I feel nothing but con- tempt for the man who neglects entirely to discharge this debt of honour. (Renewed applause.) I have no sympathy whatever with the landowner who draws his rents, and forgets that his district and dependents have a first ch&rge on his attention and his generosity. (Cheers.) But let us be fair. The landowner as a rule is not the offender. Between landlord and tenant there is a personal tie, they are known either toother, and the personal bond is often strengthened by hereditary ties. This personal tie, itself a pledge of sympathy, can hardly be said to exist when some great property or industry belongs not to an individual but to a company. Greedy shareholders clamouring for a high dividend from an industry or nronertv which thev have nerhaDs mever seen, are often callous to the welfare of those who toil for them. (Applause.) All this may be met with the familiar formulas, Every man for himself," Supply follows demand," The survival of the fittest." Against the crushing tyranny of such natural or unnatural laws, the weaker members of society have sought protection in combination. The more equal distribution of wealth, the betterment of social conditions can only be obtained by self- sacrifice, and for that self-sacrifice there must be an adequate motive. \Ve may study the social questions of to-day simply in their economic aspects, but they will never be solved except by the operation of moral causes. Social legislation may prove most helpful and wholesome, but the final solution lies not in the sphere of legal enactment, but in that of morality and religion. (Hear, hear.) Are there those who grind the faces of the poor ?" Are the rich be- coming richer and the poor poorer ? If so, the un- lovely selfishness and the consuming passion for we:dth that produce the one and the improvidence and idleness that may have helped to produce the other, cannot be swept away by law, but both will yield to the progress of the Christian spirit. (Cheers.) Love your neighbour," not worse than yourself or better than yourself, but as yourself—(hear, bezir)- is the Christian answer to all these difficulties, and it is for the members of the Church of Christ, clergy and laity alike, to translate that answer into action. This is the one true clue. (Loud cheers.) Colonel Cornwallis West proposed a oordial vote of thanks to the Bishop for his most able, judicious, and eloquent address. He did not think that any of the Bishop's predecessors could come up to him in ability, or in the activity of mind and body which he had shows since he had been Bishop. (Cheers.. He had given one of the ablest addresses he had ever heard. He did not intend to refer to the discussions which were to follow, but he would like to ask Sir Robert Cunliffe who was to read a paper upon Patronage," whether he would suggest tha.t the laity of each parish should have a voice in the selec- tion of the clergyman—(hear, hear)—and, if so. what constituency he would ask to vote upon the subject. Would he confine the voting to parishioners or com- municants ? This was a difficulty, because the clergyman was the clergyman of every one in the parish. Another point which he wished to urge was the establishment of a fund for the pensioning the clergy, so that the old clergyman would be able to spend his latter days without worry or trouble. (Hear, hear.) This was a most important question, and he advocated, as he had at Rhyl, the combina- tion of the less populous parishes in fact, to use a vulgar phrase, to work the Church on cheaper lines. He also strongly advocated that the laity should be invited to take part in conferences and in other way3 be able to express their opinions upon matters con- nected with parochial life. (Hear, hear.) He had the greatest pleasure in proposing a vote of thanks to their excellent Bishop for the address which he had been kind enough to deliver. (Applause.) Sir Robert Egerton, who was received with ap- plause, seconded the resolution, and said that itS time was limited, it was necessary that he should be brief. He cordially agreed with all that the Lord Lieutenant had said concerning the address which the Bishop had delivered. (Applause.) Colonel West then put the question to the Con- ference. and it was agreed to without dissent. 'I The Bishop responded, and said that at 4,30 tha,tI day an At Home would be held in the Vicarage ground. Owing to the names not having been sent I in, invitsrtions had not been sent to all the delegates, but he took that opportunity of asking all the delegates to attend. (Hear, hear.) CHURCH REFORM. I The first subject for discussion was Church Reform," and the subject was introduced by Mr J. G. Talbot, M.P., for Oxford University. In calling upon Mr Talbot, the Bishop said in welcoming the member of the University of Oxford, the welcomed the name of one, who amongst the laity of Wales, had earned a most sincere gratitude. ) (Hear, hear.) Mr Talbot. who was cordially received, then read the following paper--I have been asked by the Bishop—a?ked in n. way which seemed to amonnt to a command—to introduce this delic.tte and difficult, yet urgent subject to the Conference. I will not wasta your time by making apologies, but I can assure you they abundantly due. Church reform is one of those subjects of which it may be severely said that ev: rybody demands it, vet when it is pro- posed nobody agrees about it. I have gone through reports on proposals for Church legislation far some years past, and I think it may be instructive to show very briefly what has been proposed, in order to establish the fact that if much has not been hitherto effected :u this direction, it is not for want of sugges- tions. Someth¡u also has actually been done, as I shall proeed to show. It m?y be convenient to divide these proposals in three classes, all of which come Tander the general description of "Church Reform." (1) Questions of patron- age (2) questions of criminal offence (3) questions of neglect of duty. Others who follow me will deal with details. I shall only attempt an out- line. (1) On the subject of patronage, the present Archbishop of Canterbury has introduced several Bills into Parliament, and these have more than once passed the House of Lords, but have been crowded out of the House of Commons. The first of these which I shall notice was introduced in 1885 —it proposed to estaohsh a Council of Public Patronage, to which advowsons migh be transferred by sale or gift, and it regulated other sales of advowsons. This Bill also proposed to give power to the Bishop to refuse institution to a clerk over seventy years of age, or to one who had been less than three years in priest's orders. And it provided for notice to the parishioners before an institution could take place. In the same year a Bill was intro- duced into the House of Commons, bearing the names of Messrs Rylands, Leatham, Fowler, and Brinton, with similar objects, but going further in the direction of prohibition. This Bill proposed to abolish the sale of next presentations, of donatives, and of resignation bonds. The Bill was similar to one introduced three years before by Messrs Leatham, George Russell, Henry Fowler, and Shield. Both these Bills were referred together to a select com- mittee of the House of Commons, aud there seemed a fair prospect, which was, however, not then realised, of their passing in a combined form tnta law. In 1837 another Church Patronage Bill was brought in by the Archbishop of Canterbury, which proposed to enact that no right of patronage should be sold except to "a fit person," to be certified by the Chancellor of the Diocese. The Bishop was empowered to refuse institution on the ground that the presentee had been less than two years in holy orders, or was subject to physical infirmity, or pecuniary embarrassment, or laboured titid-r evil report." And this Bill further proposed to provide that, if three parishioners represented to the Bishop that the incumbent had been for three years in- capacitated from duty, the Bishop might institute a cammismon under the Benefices Resignation Act. In 1893 another Church Patronage Bill, similar to others which had preceded it. was introduced by the Archbishop, and passed the House of Lord-. (2) Turning now to questions of criminal offence, thf record is shorter, but it is more satisfactory. In 1890 a Bill, entitled" Clergy Discipline (Immorality) Bill," was introduced by the Archbishop, passed the House of Lordi. but was withdrawn in the House of Com- mons. In 1892 an Act on this subject—so urgent, yet so deli,ate-p:t--)sed both Houses of Parliament, received the Royal assent, and is now law. It will not be forgotten through what opposition this Bill was steered snccesifully, how it comm-.tndeii the assent of responsible politicians of all parties, how a very small minority sought to obstruct it, and with • what indignation that minority was met. especially by rt grr>!if Parliamentary leader who lives in this diocese. Into its provisions I do not feel called upon to enter; suffice it to s!i. indeed, but not so few as all Churchmen would desire, which disgrace the ministry of the Church of England have been removed whilst a recent example has shown that the appeal provided for those who are dealt with under it )s no Jeal fiction, but to oi,? Bishop, a.t any rate, ha= proved a very t criiI.. 13) My last head is questions of neglect of duty. And | here it will at once he felt that we tread on very un- certain ground. For we are at once met by th, questions, What is "duty" and what is "neglect?" Yet the subject is one which cannot be ignored. I ) feel that I may call this a matter of urgency, because in dealing with it we are trying to recognise what i surely is an element ary principle of Christian ethics yiz :-Tha.t the chief reason for the interests of a Christian ministry is, not to provide a maintainanca for the ministers, but to secure the ministration of religion; and therefore that any system which per- miis these to be practically with held in even a fev.* parishes is faulty and needs to be amended. As long ago as 1SS2 a Bill on this subject was brought in by the present Bishop of London, then Bishop of Exeter, i and passed the House of Lords, its object being to ensure the more compldta performance of ecclesias- .J." 101'4 \l -J .1- I- I- (01-- tied duties !;y tho clergy. Its title was tho :H");h .J,"} ,1 D'l t. c 38:j 1;i"; A Bill. In 1385 a the s.miv title was again introduced, passed tl-wi for.se cf Lords. having been taken charge of by u.,ifor. "4"?-}J: ,#I.<) \vL"L li vcive.l his withdrawal troln Parliament', had the lave fort*.»io of pvs-arg tho House ot Co. raons. As Act "°1\" be considered the prototype of the Bills ) .L J., ¡,- t. ,0. f .'c";t'Hyi].?';dK';?.:n\h?h I 'h?.U "have to :;peak :co .c!c'jn':? this ?.?I'M?, I may perhaps give a i tw< J.I. 'I u. ;) .1" 1:4.U L'' M" L.. brief sketch of its provisions. It i. as its name implies, an amending Act—amending one passed ill the first and second years of her present Majesty. (Clause 3) It substituties for the commission appointed under the old Act one constituted as loliows:—(a) an archdeacon or rural dean (b) a member of the cathedral body (c) a layman, justice of the peace, to be nominated by the Chairman of Quarter Sessions; (d) a nominee of the Incumbent affected (e) a beneficed clerk, to be elected by the beneficed clergy of the archdeaconry. (Clause 7) Witnesses are to be examined on oath. (Clause 8) The Bishop is to assign to a curate appointed under the Old Act a stipend which must. not exceed £ 150, except where the benefice provides m',)!"c th, £:00 a year. (Clause 9) In large parishes, where the Incumbent is non-resident, the Bishop may require the appointment of two curates. (Clause 10) llJC Bishop may assign to a curate appointed during the vacancy of a benefice X200 a year, but such stipend shall not exceed the annual value of the benefice. (Clause 12) An Incumbent non-residtpnt by per- mission shall not return to his benefice without per- mission. (Clause 13) In certain cases of large populations, or parishes containing two churches, the Bishop may require an. assistant curate to be appointed, or in default may appoint one at not over iElSO a year. (Clause 14) There is an extension In this Act of what may be called the limits of flurality." And now, finally, I come to what will, I suppo-ie, interest this Conference most, viz., the proposals which have been made in the last two I years under the head of Church Patronage." A Bill was introduced into the House of Commons in 1834 by Mr Bart icy, bearing also the names of other Churchmen, which dealt both with questions of patronage and neglect of duty. It was favourably received in the House of Commons, but circumstances did not enable it to pass into law. As. however, the Bill of the present year is that on which public atten- tion has of late been chiefly fixed, it will probably be convenient if I confine myself to this, which was introduced by Mr Fisher, and bore the names also of Lord Wolmer (now LOIn Selhorne). Mr Rnsivuvpn. Mr Brodrick, Lord Cranborne, Mr Hartley, and myself. It is to be observed that this Bill is almost entirely limited to the questions of enforcement of duty, those more closely connected with patronage being dealt with in a Bill introduced into the House of Lords by by the Archbishop of Canterbury. This Bill, which I may call ours, after being read a second time, had the advantage of being thoroughly dis- cussed in the Standing Committee of the House of Commons, to which it had been referred, where it was materially altered. It is quite within the bounds of Parliamentary possibility that, if the session had not been cut short by the dissolution, it might have passed the House of Commons. I panose now, as briefly as I can, to give an outline of its provisions as it left the Standing Committee. The first clause deals with presentation to benefices, and provides that no such presentation shall be complete till the Bishop has received (a) a declaration by the presentee of all benefices, offices, and employments held bv him since he was ordained deacon (b) testimonial in the prescribed form, signed by three beneficed clergymen having knowledge of the presentee, and countersigned by the diocesan of each signatory, which every such Bishop shall give with or without qualification. Further, the Bishop is not to institute uny presentee till after a month's notice that he is about to do so, to be sent to the churchwardens for them to publish, any parishioner being at liberty to object to the institution on any ground which en- titles the Bishop to refuse to institute," and the Bishop is bound to consider such representation before determining to institute. The second clause provides that the Bishop, sitting with two assessors (of whom one shall be the chancellor of the diocese, or a lawyer nominated by him, and the other the archdeacon or rural dean, or a clergy- man nominated by the Bishop), being satisfied that the presentee has not been more than a year in priest's orders, or that he is unfitted for the dis- charge of the pastoral duty of the benefice to which he has been presented by reason of any circumstance not being a question of doctrine or ritual, or of opinions pr action in matters of policy in Church or State," may, after giving to the presentee and the patron a reasonable opportunity of being heard," refuse to institute the presentee, being ot opinion that" the institution would on such ground be injurious to the interests of the parish." It is to be observed that, in order to act on this conclusion, it is sufficient that the Bishop and one assessor shall agree. Further, the section provides for an appeal from such decision to the Archbishop of the province, il who shall hear the appeal in the iike manner as an appeal by a curate against a revocation of his licence, and. if the appellant so requires, in open court, and shall give his decision in writing, which shall be final." Power is given to the Archdeacon to sunynon witnesses on oath or o,-i solemn aiffrmation." In the case of a benefice in an archiepiscopal diocese, the appeal is to three Bishops. Clause 3 provides that, instead of the lay justice of the peace in the act of 1885 (above referred to), one commissioner is to be a barrister or solicitor of not less than three years' stauding. Clause 4 adds to the powers conferred upon the Bishop and his commission by the Act of 1S35 power to require the commissioners to inquire and report" whether, having regard to the iu. adequate performance of the duties of a benefice, the incumbent is unable, through his own fault, or unwilling competently to discharge the cure of souls therein," and if four commissioners report that this is so, the Bishop may inhibit the incumbent, and if in the interests of the parishioners he thinks fit. may further require him to vacate the residence house of the benefice." Clause 6 provides that the Bishop shall appoint a curate or curates in charge of the benefice during such inhibition, and substitutes for the scale of remuneration appointed by the former Acts the ier? ti'ie z7tniiu I v In- of the benefice is not over S100, the incumbent shall not be required to pay any curate's stipend. (2) Where it does exceed SIOO, sr,cli stipend drawn frum I the income of the benefice shall not exceed in the aggregate either the annual value less Eloo, or two- thirds of the annual value, whichever sum be the smaller." Further, the Bishop may assign the residence house of the benefice to the curate or curates during the inhibition. Clause 7 provides that no inhibition shall be issued until thirty-five days have expired after service on the incumbent of a copy of the report, and of the terms of the inhibi- tion (if any). Within one month after such service the incumbent may appeal to the Archbishop or the three Bishops, who shall hear the appeal as under clause 2, For such appeal the Archbishop or the three Bishops shall be assisted by an assessor, who is to be either the Vicar-General of the Arch- bishop. or one of the diocesan chancellors. Clause 3 provides for the adjournment of the inquiry, if four commissioners desire it, for not more than eighteen months, iii order to ascertain how the duties are per- formed at that time. Clause 9 provides that if the inhibited incumbent interferes with the proper discharge of the ecclesiastical duties of the narish," the Bishop may direct the whole income to be paid to the curate or curates—subject again to appeal. Clause 10 provides that when a benefice is seques- trated for debt within twelve months after the in- stitution of the incumbent, or for a whole year, or twice in two years, the benefice shall become void, unless the Bishop shall otherwise direct. Clause 12 provides that if five parishioners represent to the Bishop that an incumbent has, "for not less than j three years last preceding, been incapacitated by cou- tinning nientt] or bodily infirmity trom the due per- formance of the duties of his benefice, nr if if Mhor- I' wÍ:;c becomes known to the Bishop that such i.! bent has for the said period been so incapacitated," the Bishop may issue V- commission under the In- cumbents' Resignation Acts of 1871 and 1887. Clause 13 provides that si: weeks before issuing such commission a copy of the representation (if any) and of notice of the Bishop's intention to issue such commission shall be served on the incumbent. The I incumbent may nominate a commissioner to sit with the others, but if he does not within five weeks of the notice the others may proceed alone. Where the commissioners find that notwithstanding the il- capacity of the incumbent due provision has been made for the adequate discharge of the duties they may certify that the resignation is inexpedient. Provision is also made for a pension to the com- pulsorilv retired incumbent (a) of the whole value, if the benefice does not exceed £100 (b) where it does exceed ZEIGO, of one-third or £100, whichever sum is greater. Clause 16 makes an important alteration in the Act of 1885. There it is said, The term ecclesiastical duties' shall include not only the regular and due performance of Divine ser- vice on Sundays and holidays, but also all such duties as any clergyman holding a benefice is bound by law to perform, or the performance of which is | solemnly promised by every clergyman of the Chura-h of England at the time of his ordination, and the performance of which shall have been required of him in writing by the Bishop." These last words arc now proposed to be omitted, but no alteration is made as to the requirements of services in the I Welsh language, which are, no doubt, well-known to this Conference. The first part of Clause 17 I must quote verbatim (1) It is hereby declared that j ecclesiastical duties, as defined by the Pluralities Acts Amendment Act, 1887, includes not only the Acts referred to in that definition, but also the due observance in other respects by a clergyman of the several promises solemnly made at his oidination. (2) For the purposes of the Pluralities Acts Amendment Act. 1SS5. and this Act, ecclesiastical duties, as de- fined by the Pluralities Acts Amendments Acts, 18S5, (a) shall not include duties in respect of questions of doctrine or litual (h) shall be deemed to be in- adequately performed whenever the conduct or other duty embraced in thai definition, except as aforesaid, ie improperly pursued or discharged, but otherwise sipili have the same meaning as defined in the first- mentioned Act." Section IS contains an important series of interpretations of terms. I have now tI fear wearisome length) tried to put the Conference which I have :he honour to address in possession I first) of a short history ot proposals :nade and, in a very few m:-tauces, of Acts passed before the present year (secondly) of a detailed outline of the last Bill. W ith regard to this, let me say that of course it wûu!\Ï b; ,1.1)3:U:d to pretend that it is perfect. Pro- bably errs, like other human proposals, in what it oi::it.s, and it proposes. But I claim at least for :t the credit that it is nn honest attempt to remove scandals from the Church to which we are all attached with the least possible hardship to those who have caused the scandals. And, in conclusion, perhaps I may be allowed to appeal to the Confer- e?ce :c help those on whom the brrien necessarily f?Hs to use an opportunity, which seems in my Parlia- mentary experience almost unique, to rid the Chnrch of some of the hindrances which beset it. Attacks from without are comparativel y harmless. We 11 a, lately b.:cn allowed to ward off some of these, and if they should be renewed I doubt not that we shall again bs delivered. But rottenness within, the corruption ot the best—the savourless salt—these arc dingers which may well grieve and alarm the most faitbml heart. It is to remove some of these that we i nave striven, and sh?li eo;,inuc to strive). But in such attempts th JSC who represent yon in Parliament ;nu-t surely fad. utile- you give the support which i iueii assemblies as this can give. I do not ask for absence of criticism. On the contrary, I ask for as much as any intelligent Churchman can afford. But what we must r.sk tor is a determination on the part of clergy and iaity alike to remove evil, even if it m?s? be at the ca?s of suffering of the wrongdoer, and 1:rm resolution to look prh.?rily to t'-? spiritual interests of those to whom ti; ch-rsv are called to of tlic)?,e t;i a-ce to mhMstur. By?U?;?r.sprc'vh? Dc.Hsio' t'cilihte retirement on the easiest terms, deal gently with those whose neglect of duty is not wilful; but above all things remember that the clergy of the Church are bound to minister." Should not the shepherds feed the flock ?" The following paper upon Patronage" was read by Sir Robert A. Cunliffe, Bart. In endeavouring to carry out the wisn of the Committee that a discussion should be held on the present condition of the law affecting patronage in the Church of England, I think I can best do so by stating briefly what are its present recognised short- comings and what attempts have hitherto been made to deal with them. First in point of time and not Ie.1st in importance was the appointment of a Select Committee in the House of Lords in 1874 to take evidence upon this subject. Among its members were Archbishop Thompson, Lord Stanhope, Bishop Wilberforce, Lord Selborne, and Bishop McGee, who acted as chairman. The evidence collected by them may be taken as the basis of what has since been done. In 1877 the Archbishop of Canterbury brought in a Bill to deal with the main diiHcuIties, of which 1* s two to five affected the sale and transfer of the Right of Patronage, six to thirteen procedure on presenta- tion, and some miscellaneous provisions followed relating to the cases of sequestration of benefices for debt, incapacity of incumbent to perform his duties, donatives and limitation of Resignation Bonds. These were the aims of the Bill of 1887 which, how- ever, did not pass through Parliument. In 1884 also, a Select Committee of the House of Commons was appointed. Among its members were Sir R. Cross, Mr S. Leighton, Mr A. Grey, Mr J. J. Talbot, and the late Mr W. E. Forster, who acted as chairman. This Committee sat several times, and passed some seventeen resolutions, several of which were exactly, others with modifications, introduced into the Arch- bishop's Bill of this year, and into that which in the same session was brought in in the House of Com- mons. These efforts serve to show how urgent in the opinion of the best authorities clerical and lay, in the Church it is, that the existing evils in the exercise of patronage, should, as far as possible, be dealt with. As none of the proposed measures have yet become law, your Committee have, I venture to think. done wall in selecting this topic as one for the considera- tion of the present Conference. Even if the question of patronage may not present the same difficulties in this diocese as in some others, it is no doubt well, that the general opinion of the Church at the com- mencement of a Parliansent in which her friends have so preponderant a majority, should be clearly placed before the Legislature, and that so favourable an opportunity should not be lost for remedying any abuses which may hinder her work and influence. I should be detain- iag you too long if I attemnted to go into any great detail regarding the different clauses hat if I mention the chief features of the Archbishop's Bill they may serve to elicit the views of the Confer- ence. First and foremost the first clause prohibits the sale or offer of sale of any right of patronage by public auction. I do not think there will be any difference of opinion here that this enactment will do away with what has long been regarded as a, serious injury to the Church, namely, the public barter and sale of positions, and that such a practice has given a, weapon to her enemies, which they have not been alow to use. In connection with the question of the sale of advowsons, which may be a perfectly legitim- ate proceeding, comes in the dinicult point of the sale of next presentations, which it was shown before the the Lords' Committee has often led to serious evils. The distinction between the two was well stated in his evidence by the then Bishop Suffragan of Notting- ham, An advowson is an inherited trust that ought not to be sold for mere pecuniary profit. The sale of a next presentation is a matter chat can only be undertaken for the personal advantage of one individual, and that is not a question which ought to come into consideration in the Church. I think the inherited trust when exercised, will most likely be exercised rightly, as there an a priori probability that if a nobleman or landowner has an advowson in his possession, he will naturally look about for the best person, or the one who will do tha most justice to his own tenants; but the person who buys a presentation buys it for the personal benefit of himself or some- one else." It was pointed out to the Bishop, that assuming it were thought desirable to prevent such sales, the law might be evaded by a party buying the advowson, exercising the next right of presentation, and then reselling the advowson. His answer was that this point had been dealt with by a Committee of Convocation, and that their proposal was That at every sale of an advowson the deed of conveyance ba enrolled by the purchaser, and that such pur- chaser be not allowed to present to the benefice until at least years after the date of such enroll- ment, and that in the event of the edifice becoming vacant during such years, the right of presenting thereto be exercised by some public patron such as the Crown or the Bishop." In the Archbishop's Bill as amended ill the House of Lords—the term proprosed is one year (in the Bill introduced in the House of Commons in 1894, it was two years), and if the benefice shall become vacant during tbat period the right of presentation shall be exercised by Her Majesty. With- o:t goi.g at length into the abuses which this clause is proposed to meet. I may be allowed to quote the evidence of the Bishop of Exeter. (Question) Your lordship is of opinion, I believe, that considerable evils exist in connection with the sale of next pre- sentations ?" (Answer) I think very serious evils." (Question) Will you be so good as to state, for the information of the committee; what are the evils which you think exist in connection with such sales ?" I think the worst evil of all is the shock to the religious feeling of a great number of people, especially of the artisan class and of the lower middle class, who, I think, find it a very great hindrance to them and a stumbling block, greater than it is quite easy for more educated people to measure—I think the evil is so great that it cuts, ai it were, at the very reason for the existence of a Church at all. because a Church only exists to help people to be Christians and to be better Christians, and this, I think, is a positive hindrance in their wav. I have constantly found, in conversation with them, that they look upon it as a personal humilia- tion when the advowson of the parish in which they ¡ live is sold, and I have no doubt at all that in this class a considerable number of quiet religious people become Nonconformists simply from their hatred of what seems to them so exceedingly wrong in prin- ciple." If the clause proposed should prove an effective stop to such sales, we may hope that it will be of great benefit to the Church but it will be well to remember that the evidence from which I am quoting was given twenty-one years ago, and that as yet no change in the law has been made. By clause two all transfers and transmissions of the right of patronage would have to be registered in the Diocesau Registry in this way all such transactions would be duly recorded, and under the Bishop's notice and a clergyman wishing to effect a bona- tide exchange would not be obliged to resort to adver- tisement or hunt up some clerical agent if in such registers those desiring to effect an exchange should inscribe the circumstances of their livings. By clause four, the patron is prohibited from presenting himself—that is in the words of the clause "when any right of patronage is transferred, after the passing of this Act, either to a person who is or becomes a clergyman, or to his wife, or to a trustee for him, he shall not be presented to the benefice to which such right of patronage relates." By clause five all donatives are to be n presentative benefices, and upon this point I presume there would be unanimous consent. Th^ Bishon of Peterborough defined a donative as a living where the Donor is not bound to present his clerk for institution to the Bishop, nor is the clerk bound to resign to the Bishop-he is appointed by the donor afterwards, and he resigns to the donor," and as he justly added it is very obvious th '.t donatives are liable to very great abuse." Inasmuch as a donative voids the benefice that may he held by the clerk accepting it, it has been found that they have been used by a per- son wishing to effect a. corrupt resignation" or ex- change, and whose resignation the Bishop for good reasons may have refused to accept. This clause, one may hope, would certainly stand part of the bill. The next two clauses, six and seven, are of great importance. The first deals with Preliminaries to Presentation," the latter with Grounds of Bishops' refusal to institute." By the first, presentation to any benefice is not complete until the Bishop has received a statutory declaration in prescribed form the patron stating how and when he acquired the right of patronage, and that he is either not a trustee for the presentee, or if such a trustee, that the patronage has not been transferred to him since the Act has been passed. Further that he has not made the presentation in consideration of any benefit to himself or any other person, and that II,) engagement has been made that the presentee shall at any time resign the benefice except as authorised by law. (These enactments apply to private and not public patrons.) They are not included in the House of Commons Bill of this year but looking to the abuses that have undoubtedly occurred, it might be well that they should form part of the statute. Then come subsections in both Bills providing that the presentation shall not be complete until the Bishop has received (1) A statutory declaration by the presentee of all benefices, offices and employ- ments, held by him since his ordination as a deacon I (2) lietters testimonial in prescribed form signed by ) three beneficed clergymen having such knowledge I¡ of the presentee as is stated in the letters counter- signed by the Bishop of the diocese in which each of the clerg-yrnen signing is beneficed, which counter- signature (be it observed) it shall be the duty of every Bishop to give with or without qualincation. I rhe;;c conditions, it approved by Parliament, would make it very diiScntt for unworthy men to be presented, whilst it would leave the road more 'open to men reaUy de??rving promotion. Ther remains one other subsection which especially de- serves consideration. This provides that the Bishop shall always give one month's notice to the church- wardens of n. parish of the institution of a person to a j benefice, which notice shall be published by the I churchwardens in the prescribed manner, aud any parishioner may send to the bishop a representation in writing, objecting to the institution on any of the grounds upon which the next chun-e of the Bill in. titles the Bishop to refuse to institute. Lõokin;" at the increased interest, especially in the larger and more important, parishes, which is now taken in all public affairs, and at the publicity given to them bv the press, it seems most desirable in the interests of the Church that the parishioners should feel that their voice can, if necessary, reach the bishop, and that any reasonable objections on their part will be carefully considered. The Church cannot lose, it must gain, by such a. proviso. What then are the grounds ircon which the llishop may refuse to insti- tute ? Here the Archbishop's Bill an-1 that of the House of Commons differ in the arrangement of clauses. I should be detaining the Conference too long by going into detail, but it may suffice to sav that in their practical object they are the same. His proposal is that the Bishop shall refuse to institute if I he is satisfied that the presentee at the time of pre- sentation has not been more than one year in priest's orders, or is unfitted for the discharge of pastoral duties by reason of physic-tl or mental infirmity, of existing pecuniary, cmbarassinent, of misconduct or I ne^lcct .of duly in previous hcr.efica or employment, Jt :t. 1' of evil life, or of grave scandal concerning his moral conduct. Perhaps I may be allowed here to quo:e a few word.s fconi the evidence of the Bishop Suffragan of Nott ,:)-s}i i-.i- who was eh:U!-i!ian of a committee of the Lower House of Convocation, and \110 reported on this subject. He says We thought tl'u.t the I rights of the laity had been very much ignored in the way in which patronage was exercised, and I have had pious laymen complaining to me that it was grevious that they should have a person imposed upon them who was really unfit for the discharge oi his duties, and we thought that extending such power to the Bishops as would justify them in declining to institute clergy unfitted by age, infirmity or inex- perience, was but giving a suitable power to enable the Church work to be better done." Both Bills provide that the presentee shall have reasonable opportunity of being heard on this point. The House oi Commons Bill proposes two assessors one of whom shall be the Chancellor of the Diocese to sit with the Bishop, and that if the Bishop refuse to institute, he shall signifiy this to both patron and presentee by a notice stating the grounds thereof, after which the patron or presentee may within one month appeal to the Archbishop of the Province, who shall have the power to require the attendance of witnesses and the production ot documents, and whose decision given in writing shall be final. Both Bills also make this most important provison in the same words that when any presentation is refused under the provisions of this Section, such refusal shall be a bar to any action in respect of that institution." In to any action in re  ct o be Passed, our Bishops other words, if this Section be passed, our Bishops would at last have the power, which it has long been felt they onght to have—that of refusing on due and just grounds to institute without being exposed to the penalty of harassing and costly law suits. This last sub-section also carries out the resolution of the Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1884, which reads as follows:—"That the power of Bishops to refuse to institute a presentee on the ground of unfitness in point of age, or want of proper testi' monials be made clear." There is only one other clause in the Archbishop's Bill to which I would wish to refer, which also carries out a resolution of the same committee, viz.: That in place of the present declarations against Simony, declarations be substi- tuted to be made by the Clerk and the Patron that they have not committed certain specific acts for- bidden by law. All the evidence taken before the House of Lords Committee, including that of a great ecclesiastical lawyer. Sir Robert Phillimore and other legal witnesses, goes to show that definition of the offence of Simony is by no means easy and that as the Bishop of Peterborough put it, the confusion between the moral offence and the legal offence is a snare to tender consciences, and a means of evasion to those who are not scrupulous. The proposed form of declaration would appear to make it very difficult to evade the law. These then are the main provisions of a Bill, which it may be hoped, will, without any very essential changes soon become law but important as an advance as this would be, there is yet one other resolution of the 1884 Com- mittee, the carrying out of which might be fruitful of the greatest good. It reads as follows That Patronage Boards, partly composed of laymen, be established in every diocese with power to purchase and hold Advowsons and to present to benefices*" Now the object of that resolution, whether we arrive at it in one way or another is very clear—namely, to give a more representative character to the working of Church institutions, to the laity, what they have not now, a consultative voice in the bestowal oi appoint- ments, and inasmuch as they would tnereby become responsible for results, to greatlv quicken their interest and stimulate their liberality. If leaving private patronage aside, which having been acquired by inheritance, or endowment, or purchase could not be dealt with except by Act of Parliament, we take public patronage alone, we find that its value is nearly equal to one-half the total income of the Church. This being in reality the Church's own estate, provided always that public patrons, such as Bishops, the Crown College, dee., would be willing to surrender a portion, at any rate, of such patronage, why should not such portion be placed in the hands of Diocesan Boards? It is the case, I believe, that at the las: Diocesan Conference at Wakefield, a unanimous vote was passed in favour of their establishment. It has been suggested that they should be composed as follows :-First, four of them should be nominators elected to the Board for three years, of these four two 3hould be clergymen elected by the clergy, beneficed and unbeneficed, and the other two laymen elected by the churchwardens. These four, with the Bishop of the diocese, would form the permanent Board, vacancies to which should be fille,l up as they occurred. But in dealing with any vacant living, this permanent Board might, and I think ought to. carry out another resolution of the Commons' Com- mittee, by co-operating for the purpose of presenting to that living with the two churchwardens of the parish, making therefore the nnmber of the Board in all cases seven, four of whom would be laymen, two clergymen, and the Bishop of the diocese as presi- dent, with a casting vote in addition to his ordinary vote. Such a proposa!, though it may seem perhaps a somewhat bold innovation, Ii, I venture to think, worthy of discussion by the Conference. It would be well, no doubt, that, like most things, happily, that we do in this country, the first steps shoul i be taken in a moderate and tentative way, aud that only the smaller and poorer livings should' at first be dealt with by the proposed Board. The poorer the living the uiore desirable it is to bring in tne lay element. It may be said, which should public patrons be asked to surrender any portion of their present respon- Sibility Par. Of the answer is that it might often be a relief to a Bishop if he could be assisted by a Board so constituted in the delicate task of selecting between several excellent clergymen, and that the local knowledge of its members might frequently be of groat value; but the main reason is that the future of the Established Church rests upon the degree in which the laity of all classes can realise that she exists for them, and that in matters deeply affecting their spiritual interests, their wishes and desires are effectually represented. One of the great hindrances we have to deal with is the poverty of many livings. In such cases, when the parishioners feel that they have no voice in the selection of their ministers, is it surprising that they should say (as I have seen it well put) Why should we tax ourselves to enhance the value of another man's patronage ?" But if on the contrary they know that their churchwardens will sit or vote on the Board of Selection, is it not in accordance with experience, to hope that far greater interest will be evoked in Church work, and that those who have so much to sav in the choice of their in- cumbent, will not be unwilling to make the living such that it might be offered to an able man and worthy of this acceptance. There remains only one other point to which I would briefly refer. We all know how difficult it has been found to carry any useful Church legislation through the House of Commons. To meet this difficulty, a valuable suggestion has been made by Mr Grey, the Proctor for the Archdeaconry of Durham. Taking the example of schemes affecting charities and schools, which obtain the force of law by being laid on the table of both Houses of Parliament for forty days- provided no address is presented to the Crown by either Houses against the scheme—he proposes that an Enabling Bill, which might be very short, might be asked for, which would give the force of law to any scheme agreed to by the Conventions of both Provinces and the Houses of Laymen. Such schemes, of course, to lie for the usual period on the tables of both Houses of Parliament, and to require the sanction of the Queen in Council. If some such pro- posal were adopted, the hands of the Church would be free to carry out such reforms as the geueral voice oi her members approved. Whatever may be our ton- elusions one thing we must not fail to bear in mind- we have now an opportunity such as has not occurred i)cfore-atid may not again occur for dealing with such questions. I think I may appeal to such ex- perienced members as Mr Talnot and Mr S. Leigh- ion, to say whether it will not be wise to press the Government to help us in the early days of this Parliament not to leave the relief we ask for to the chances of the late sessions. It is the unexpected, we know, which happens, and what might now with- out great difficulty be achieved, might later on be rendered impossible from causes which we cannot at present foresee. Therefore, in anything we would wish to attempt for the reform and strengthening of the Church, I would venture to say we must take as our motto—" Now is the accepted time." Mr Stanley Leighton, M.P., said that no large reforms could be undertaken without a general unanimity amongst those interested, and in case of Church reforms the concurrence cf the clergy and laity was esseutial. He would not deal with the thorny subject of discipline without speaking of ifnance." The two questions were more intimately bound up with one another than appeared at first sight. The control of the Church over her own revenues was an important factor in her power of maintaining the highest standard of professional work. As a whole the clergy were ill paid. They, in fact, gave more to the Church than they received from the Church. No adequate system of retiring pensions existed. It was hardly possible to remove a worn out servant without providing him with some decent maintenance. In every profession the neces- sity of retiring allowances was admitted. Therefore as a means to secure a higher efficiency he advocated the establishment of diocesan finance board, whose duty it should be to promote a pension system to overlook ecclesiastical fire insurances and dilapida-. tions, to allocate grants to poor clergymen, and when fully equipped to provide salaries for curates. Such a Board would be the nucleus of a new endowment. The conditions of professional remuneration in the Church should not b- wholly unlike the conditions In other professions. It would be easier to deal effec- tively with 41 criminous or inefficient clerks after an improved method of paying for clerical services was established. At present there was not much fault to be found in the law. The difficulty was to find persons willing to give evidence of criminality against a clergyman, and there always was and must for fver be a borderland between actual violation of the law and. unfitness for parochial work. It seemed to him that if in the opinion of a fair and competent tribunal, it was good for the Church that an incum- bent should be removed, he should go, either with a retiring pension, or in special circumstances without. Was it beyond the capacity of sincere and practical use to desire such a court? He would make a suggestion, namely, that the court should be composed of three members —the Bishop, and a clergyman, and a layman, selected by the Diocesan Conference. The court might be put rn motion of the initiative of the Bishop or either of the Churchwardens. The question to be decided would be whether it was for the benefit of the Church that the im-umbent should remain in the parish. An appeal might lie to a similar court, pre- sided over by the Archbishop. A Churchwarden as a parochial lay officer of tHe Church, seemed the appropriate channel through which parochial com- plaints might come. In the reports of the Church- wardens at the Archidiaconal visitations, they had an ancient precedent for inviting their co-operation. The proposal he offerer] to their consideration un- donbledly touched the principle of the freehold of the clergy. He would invite the clergy very seriously to weigh the disadvantages against the merits of the clerical freehold irom a professional point ol v• -j\y and to consider how far term in a bio appointments wo;i not make better prevision for the due flow of promotion and bow far the parochial aid not some- times lead to the impoverishment of the freeholder. The number of unbeneficed clergy was. lie believed, i increasing. The two hinges upon which any such re-organisation hung wore, as he had bj.'ure said, a general concr.vrence of opinion as to Ll utility, lid the formation ot a sufficient fand to maintain ade- quate r--tir:iigpension:?. A diocesan ehest. bitf enough to pro-, ido grants in recognition o £ clerical services; &nd administered so aa ^5* r')lnot on the principle of life insu a^ceTr a.Pension Svot i I by "oluntarv P'¡ft "ould "b ce.br¡';éi)' suP')' .-era j by voluntar y gifts, V,'Ould bc. rii e  1.t;tuen' Church work. A D.oce.an 1: d eUJrUlúU,' h i.t:d I u, O:¡'r- P j laymen, which would look a vl:fcfiv mann !«h.* mote the insurance of ecc.espV '^P'^tio L P!°- mo t 1e lIlSUr¡¡,llce of e(;c' e ,apldation. Y profits of which would go to "t"tll:al bni!àin:: pru, private offices, which i,l,. toth I '1 .Q."o. .t, I to the clergy n the cI ^mo^ov<r. a» n°' to  and rents, prov. LL verv to the clei-g?- in Liitficu,,t it,' Church, as regards materi"? ??.iP,L?t. Lj ?.?.? h d.. t;q..IP'lknt' .t .ae her own d?oe phne. and to grappii ^at'*aint £ ? ever increas demands I" :ilt':¡ 'eou '.i"4 r'e greater coutrol over ?i i??d?er?''?":?? ht 11  re' J" 'e ought M have a directorate of 1« rL-:?IJLI'cc' of tier u\Vn II' ¡ .oue Chancellor of the Exchequer ?'"?''Ce. o-f ?'?thh-r ,n tion, not to ?rha.?. wlitell sil?lu,?j,?U property now managed bv .bf. p ?"?'t? n.?sion and Queen Anne's CoJf e -Jun'}'1' û[l¡ Church might in the COure ? '??tic? c? cler"y ttl d I.de as"u. t clergy settled incomes, relieve tl, t-ro:u ltr.n t: le:¡ t tr an?ties in collecting their ?' ?'.  .bl 'd b OlIn s,o.' po»iblr get rid, by a schcme ofrj "?'? and to all parties, of her revenue deriveld f to all pMdes. of her revenue a? d ??  Thus ma -mg the most of her c' endowments, the splendid work w??'? .,bil;;¡:t;¡, ld d ,<1 he \"0 would commend itself more and .r?e ? fc Pe^D:e and the deficiency of the dead h?d? ? ,?? ?.y  supphed by tne nberaiity of the hvi? il:¡piy Mr J. L.con Baukes said it w?s ?h f?'' 8»e«est hesitanun toat ?e accepted the icquc, ofV^ to a ddress that meeting, ?d he oirv l;d tUt .B1"il'jP  he had strong opinions on the .ub?jec.t? ?? ??u? form. He beloved thepreseat H tunny which might never occur a"\iu-.????'??? and he believed the value of -?? .P?- III."C"U' one in which they were g?herej. would -K ai diminished, unless men of all o.jiiunn.u.'?'. '"= '?ty to express those opinion 'a^cly to express those opinions t here 1, I was the auty of ail who felt interested i,?' ?-i It to consider fairly and ituparuaiiv th f?'?. were brought bdore them. (lieJr hVrf"rrWuil;h '?- pression was, and he believed the 0:)' ll.o 1J¡¡, unammoua, that the preeut conditio ot;la:¡", Was not satisfactory, and that soM?thiuh°.'wop? '?'? done. (Hear. ilear.) 'h' ''?? done. (Hear, hear.) Men w? .id?,' &pl2ian were not prepared with a cut ?d dried Ion reform, but they were not satisfied wit!, th s<: eru", of state of things. He behead tu?t uoi'?' be attached to the general body of cler^v ? f' hear.) It was not the c,'er?, they cumpi? .??. ,y the), coillp i allie d uf, but it was the system under wh?u th?c) ? but appointed, an? under which ti?y Were c.Y .,Ojre their livings. (Hear, hear.) ?dou? tf.^ some ?rave scandals among some of the c; Were he was happy to think that they wera e?"' ?? rare—(hear, hear)-but they d)d nccer ?'! ? occur among a large body of der?-men.-? would  ? m? tile) woul d amongst a similarly large hul: 0f m ? was wrong that criminous clerks ahou.d r? • the diocese, and in the enjoyment of the of their office. In the Ciuver.utes. if  d £f d d' 1 t:n,[ gra d uate oSended against morals. he wn aw almost before he had time to p? his P9rtn™f1J (Hear, hear.) This ought to be so in tJl" C"e U. cnmmous clerk. The sooner such a Ina ':iJ.5 4 f h' h th b H be.r  A  from his pans the etter. (Hear Leir ] should be appointed to consider the case oi\ l person, and he would give ? acc?.d a rVn7 « appeal, so that he might be safe-guarded againt an f posslbw i?ustice. He did not complain of .}l ;J d. 'd I b f h r 'Ill- dividual, bat of the system, h w? of t £ t h DEt importance chat the r[?nt man sho?d be ?'ee'- t0 have charge of the parish. (Hear, hear j fhc c; man hd the greteBt pestle :aauence for d7 good in the parish, and it w? therdore of th? utmost importance they should have the ri"? nl.! (Hear, hear.) ?ut itwase?sy to uuuk hoVi; pssible for the wrong man to be in the pariah iCl: might be chosen who wouid dis?ree w.th aimbm of his cORgregatwu; or who w?d not be suited for a parish in which there was a strong budy úf Xocccn formists, whilst there were others who I.hi; more suited to a large town, were uuable to stand the seclusion of a rural parioh, or most sad of all, felt that their work was done aud their usefulness over. To whom could these clergymen complain ? His opinion was that clergymen ought to be appointed to their livings for a short time only. aud to this tad he advocated the appointment of a patronage auihori-y to consist of clergy and laity. He did not advoiWa veto for the parishioners in the appointment of a clergyman, because he believed it would iead to con- ditions which would extremely undesirable. Be; he thought an appointment made by a board of patron- age for a short term of years would meet all the requirements of the hity. (Hear. hear.) He would not abolish private patronage, but thought many private patrous would transfer their of presen- tation to such a board as he suggested. Ide wocid like to see the whole of the etidowmeuu of a diice-e in the hands of a diocesau buurd. i Hear, hear.) Incomes could be equalised and a.fuiid could be formed with which to purchase private patronage. (Hear, hear.) He felt strongly ou the question, aad lie limped that it were necessary they wo-id not hesitate to use the knife to secure much needed reforms. (Loud cheers.) The Rev. Griffith Jones. Vicar of Mostyn. in the course of a very amusing speech, said the- had passed through a time of storm, itud now having sot into the calm, lie thought they should consider what reforms ought to be made aud make them. When he was iu Wrexham. 16 years there r.as a Sergeant of Police who used to say to the boys who loitered near the Market Haii, alove on before I tell you." (Laughter.) They must move on before their enemies told them. ("Hear, lwaL) He con- demned a form of exercising patronage, which he discribed as being done by a brother, or a sister, or an old auiit, who give a li\;¡]g to a youth because hia hair was the same colour as his grandfather, and so he was pitchforked into the living to the- de:ri- ment of the parish very often. (Laughter and hear, hear.) He did not speak of anything personally— (tuucli ILiug'Later)-but ior his owu part he would have private patronage struck out altogether. The same objection was to be urged against Crown livings. In many cases these livings were not given to men because of their service, to God and to the Church, but because they hid friends who could pull the strings which moved the Lord Chziucelior. (Laughter.) He would take those away. (Renewed laughter.; Regarding the =iiige;:ed Board of Patronage, he Wris not opposed to I- pro- viding that the Bishop was at the head. In respect of discipline lie ftared that men could not be mace to work by Act of Parliament—(laughter;—but it was perhaps a good thing to have the Act in reserve. He had reared nine children, but had ouly used the birch rod three times—(iauglitcr;—at tHe same time he always had it in a conspicuous place. (Renewed laughter.) In reference to the younger cieryy and curates he did not think there was a Oet'.cr Ludy of men in the whole world—(great cheering and laugh- ter)—but they usually came freh from college, and it would be well if they could have some preliminary training. He trusted that the present Government would be able to give the Church some 01 the reforms which were needed. (Applause.) The Rev. Canon Rohert3, of Colwyn Hay, t:io-aght that so far the speakers had not sufficiently con- sidered the wonderful power whioh lay in the Churcfl herself to do excellent work under the existing eoc- diti ons. He had been compelled to ask inmseh whether he was at a Conference or at a meeting o. their opponents. (Laughter.) At the same tune ufi reforms mentioned were matters for experts, ana Re thought they would be wise by not doing anything in a hurry. He trusted the clergy wouid go batk t) their parishes iflled win greater zeal ana with* greater consecration to the great work. irlear. MUJ. The Conference adjourned for luncheon, the lo- hop remarking that in consequence of the interest malllfested in the subject, he proposed to commas I the discussion in the afternoon. THE LUNCHEON. I Luncheon, supplied by Messrs C. K. Penson and I Co., ii-as seri-ed in a marquee opposite the 'V icarage, aud a very large number of guests sat a own. l-' Bishop of St. Asaph presided. AFTERNOON MEETING. The discussion on Church reform was coir.nwcu a the afternoon meeting. Mr J. 0. Pugh. CVr»e:i. ,n his remarks, said he desired to base his arcumeci oil one broad contention, that the voice of the laity mG;¡ be heeded in any scheme of reform—hear,  and that voice must be raised if t.iere wa? to L?t? aDY work of value done. The voice of the lai £ > 1 the past, had been almost entirely i?n"c ,¡ and the rights of the laymen neglected. had not been ignored there would have bee:: nO necessity for the present discussion. \N uh re"-rd patronage, it spoke well for the discrimination of the Bishop^ that they generally gave such satisfaction the appointments—(hear, hear;—but the spirit lit the time was against the present method, and some should be given to the parishioners in the choice of pastor. The bishop always had a large nuuiiLet clergy for whom he was expected to find livings- lac lay patronagL, e had been a grave aunse, as had. "e recently exemplified in the appointment to a » = living of a man who could not speak toe language. It was to be expected that many p^P, would quote such cases to the discredit of the Cilurch. The parishioners were entitled to ask tlJil. ,t e incumbent should not be a man of known lnsti1, • In many Church scandals, if in the brst in-?H? ?? voice ot the parish h?d been consulted, t?'  have been avoided. He thought a hvi? ??-.°? withheld from any priest who Td not hold hve?M. parochial experience. N?-beLl all incumbent from any cause had proved ? ??-.)?'j failure ia a parish for a number of yeM5. te should be some power to remove him. tHear, M_ He would surest a council of paroch?i cu? municants, to whom he would like Lo see tf incumbent responsible -o some extent Md ?"? proposed would ?ive the hity nothing wore •- their just n?h?. He would sn??t that the con?Bc should be responsible for the funds of the pM- He thought the .oform would best be carnea out  diocc3an board of debates from each ?chd?coM? He would also !:ke to ';C in a scheme for superau „r.1] tion, first, compulsory retiiement at a ccrt?fn .?e a two-thirds salary, and iecoirdlv a ve-IrIN. contritu- ticn froUl all inqllilbC:llt to  -the fuml. Tna tion from all incum b ents to 1),ovi? t (2That tuna wouid place no clergyman Uàer '"? "» bnt would ensure him .m income in his declining: •■ = (Hear, hear.) Those who assisted iu bringing  f' ld b 'h I. 't JD'ert:ti! reforms about woul d be consulting '?he b,-st of the Church. He thought he was cxPrj~s'* f well considered opinion cf true laymen, ar^n?*- n- V of well coiis,'cl,2re d opinion c.true the bishops .m d clersy were in favour of soxietn r0f the kind. They we.-? all agreed that ?"? r_ arrived when :hd question should ? thorci. ]?- dt?h witl!, ( dealt with. ( Cheers.; II. "11 ont: Color el Howard said they were all ,,oti ¡ I. I "¡.1,ctOh point, which he stated in h? ad dre? to the L j?'1. of riin?liire—i?h??i'. he.:r?—.mu i. was evuaau »< '& t. 1. 1;" '1(': appreciated :t, Mr Samuel Smith evidently "'?.'?'' appreciate it—that tuc-re must be Chu? Mt?.?. ;f, .1. 1, P1ln The Church w?a tho only profession in \v.c '? ??? could draw his pay and. if he liked, do for it. (Cries of No, no," --with?ir?i%' ?s?"?'"  ruption.) Colonel attonpt?d to p.oce:- L ?':t "'? further interrupted, withdrew the remark. Cor.un I 'd 'f l' '1 'h' :sc!?!i'?.? ing he said if a solictor misbehaved himself, .ie w>^ dealt with by the Incoporatcd Law Society au similarly wth every other p?ofcM.oH. but f'nre «-•=  1  J.' Cl  ii, ""I Arilv ? no control in the Chnrch. Co:)'?t''?S. *"? with the Chnrch, no regimen: c?uid p-??y -M r,'s ii it chose :t?3 cw? cornel, nud ho thor.^nt ?? P"-v1^ "1GuIJ be dlcwed to chos its own cl^ergy ••J- I" 1 d' í 1 .1 "I' (Cheers.) With regar d to the freehold. been a great cL,g ia the army i.? lite tli'tV. t-'t??