"IS IT NOT A LITTLE ONE?" 333 shall be done:"-so at least say the Sheldons and the Morleys of this our day. Under the pressure of some influence, we know not what, Lord Ebury has been induced to give up his Permissive Bill altogether, and to reduce his present application to Parliament to what the Bishop of Oxford is pleased to call-a "most minute, perplexing, insignificant, useless, and therefore mischievous relaxation of one particular clause in the Act of Uniformity." Like Niobe in the fable, the noble lord has seen all the elder and stronger members of his Revision family pierced to the heart by the ruthless Archer of Cuddesdon ;one by one he has witnessed fall prostrate before his feet, baptismal regeneration, priestly absolution, the damnatory clauses of the Athanasian Creed, the amendment of the Calendar, abridgment of the Services, and he clings with all a mother's fondness to his little one,-the last and the least, -and cries piercingly with the patriarch, "Is it not a little one?"-but he cries in vain. The bow is bent, the ruthless shaft is sped, and the distracted parent is left weeping in perpetual stone. One advantage, however, has resulted from the decision of the House of Lords on this occasion. It is an ill wind, they say, that blows no one any good; and the stormy debate of last night has brought luck to the door of the Author of these Letters. "Ingoldsby" may spare himself any further trouble. He may husband his eye-sight, and reduce his weekly expenditure of midnight oil. His occupation is gone. His talk may now be of bullocks and of fatlings. It would be et oleum et operam perdere to pursue his task of the past five years any further. If the public are not to be convinced by the arguments of last evening, they are beyond reclaim. With Ephraim of old, they are "joined to their idols," and we are bid to "let them alone," and shall obey. One or two remarks, notwithstanding, may be allowed us We are in thus taking leave of the too indulgent public. fain to believe that neither the noble lord nor ourselves have altogether laboured in vain. The debate of yesterday, however unproductive of any immediate result, is a manifest advance upon any we have had occasion previously to notice. It differs from all former ones in having brought new actors on the stage, in the shape of Earls Russell and Shaftesbury, -characters whose lightest word will have weight with the country, and whose words on this occasion, though light, were not on the side hostile to the motion before the House. On the other hand, the feeble logic of Dungannon* acted as a powerful foil to every point urged by the noble mover,—an advantage he never enjoyed before. Canterbury (Sumner), being this time absent from ill health, left the field open for York (Longley) to speak out, had he been so minded. His Grace preferred silence, and stands therefore happily uncommitted on a question in which he will one day, probably, have to bear a leading part.† London (Tait) spoke as usual on both sides, but more favourably to the question than heretofore. Oxford (Wilberforce), by more than his wonted energy, both in language and gesticulation, worked hard, like an unscrupulous advocate, to make up by bluster for what was wanting in argument. To do his lordship justice, he raised the cry of Mumbo Jumbo to perfection, by which the House was frightened out of its propriety, and Lord Ebury very prudently, under such a panic, declined to divide it. And so the question is put to rest for at least another twelvemonth. The celebrated Bicentenary of 1662 is to be honoured by the Dissenters alone,‡ Died shortly after this;-remembered only, if at all, as having lifted up his voice in opposition to Lord Ebury's motion on May 27, 1862. And did so; to the best, it is believed, of his ability. (1878.) Who raised on the occasion £200,000 for the purpose of building fresh places of schismatical worship all over the kingdom. "LORD EBURY IS BEATEN AGAIN." 335 while Churchmen (like Archdeacon Denison and A. J. B. Hope, Esq., M.P.) chuckle that all things are to go on exactly as they are for the term of their natural lives. Their are et foci are renewed to them for a lease of another 100 years." Peace in our time" is still the whispered comfort from ear to ear in the highest ecclesiastical quarters. No matter who suffers, who is annoyed, who stifles the pangs of conscience, who painfully resigns his preferment,-what younger son gives the preference to the army, the navy, the civil engineers, the clerk's office, the merchant's counter,-to any thing, every thing, rather than the Church.* The cry jubilant has gone forth, "Lord Ebury is beaten again "-and again"-and that alone is cause enough for a shout and song of triumph along the whole length of the line. But hear a word, ye wise ones (in parting), from one who rarely spoke or wrote in vain. Being once asked, which was the most proper time for removing a nuisance, Sydney Smith replied, "The properest time is that when a man can be found to propose the removal of it. There is then a fair prospect of the thing being done well, because done at the right time. Whereas the history of human nature is so opposite to this, that almost all improvements are made after the bitterest resistance, and consequently in the midst of tumult and violence, the very worst period at which they can be made; compared to which any period is eligible, and should be seized with avidity." That the so-called friends of the Church, by resisting the present wholesome movement, are reserving her for some future period of severe trial, all past experience would seem to indicate. They rejoice in her momentary escape from the hands of the reformer. She refuses to take physic, and will rather die of her dignity than submit to be healed. The too * See Letter CXXXIII., on the supply of candidates for Holy Orders. propitious gods have heard the prayers of the enemy within She has only to revel in one more such victory in her pale. May 28, 1862. I remain, yours, &c., "INGOLDSBY." LETTER CXXVII. CHARGES OF THE BISHOPS OF WORCESTER AND LONDON, 1862. "I never thought to hear you speak again.”—SHAKSP., Henry IV. SIR,-Some months have elapsed since I last addressed you on the subject of Revision. Indeed, after the debate of May 27th, and the apathy with which the motion of that night appeared to be received by the House of Lords, I had made up my mind to give up all present agitation of the question, under the conviction that the fates were adverse, and that there was no use striving any longer against destiny.* I am roused, however, to one more effort by the recent publication of two Episcopal Charges bearing directly on the subject, and more or less in support of it. I mean those of the Bishops of Worcester and of London. The Bishop of Worcester (Philpott) is a man of such well-known moderation, and so unattached to either party in the Church, that a word from him in this matter should go a great way. Accordingly it is satisfactory to hear his lordship saying in his late Charge,† that, though he should have See last Letter, p. 333. "What's t'use ?"-as the rustic lad said of taking off his cap to the Rector. "Dii me terrent, et Jupiter hostis." + A Charge delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of Worcester, August, 1862, by Henry, Lord Bishop of Worcester. Bell and Daldy. Pp. 48–53. CHARGE OF BISHOP PHILPOTT, OF WORCESTER, 1862. 337 regretted had the particular Bill of last Session to amend the Act of Uniformity received the sanction of the Legislature, yet it might be that the form of words in which assent is required to be given is justly open to objection. "The times," observes the Bishop, "in which we live are happily different from those in which the Act of 1662 was framed; and if we had to compose the form anew, we might find words sufficient for the desired purpose, yet less exacting than the unfeigned Assent and Consent to all and everything contained and prescribed in and by the Book of Common Prayer." The Bishop's remarks on the probable effect of the proposed Bill of 1862 are so just and simple, that a further extract from the Charge may be permitted: "If good men feel conscientious scruples, it is not easy to see how they could have been removed by the proposed Act, unless it had been followed up by other measures. No honest minister of the Church could declare his intention of conforming to the Liturgy, unless he could also give to it his unfeigned assent. His scruples as to the truth of the substance of the book, or as to the rules prescribed for the use of it, could not have been removed by the withdrawal of one declaration, while the other was to remain in force. "It is said that some of the Rubrics prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer are obsolete and impracticable. Conscientious men have been troubled by scruples, whether they ought to express their unfeigned assent, or promise to conform to a book in which such rules are found. It would give little relief to such persons to be told that they need no longer express their assent to what is prescribed, but that they must still promise to conform to what they believe to be inexpedient or impracticable. I acknowledge, in its full force, the difficulty which arises from the existence of such rules, though I believe that difficulty to have been in many w |