to the spirit of the world. I do not like to leave these stories about clergymen without adding that my experience has also made me acquainted with lines of conduct which appear to be acceptable even to laymen who might be called men of integrity. As illustration of what I mean, here are two stories which set up a contrast between two different views of public duty.

The first was told me by a man who had been a Member of Parliament. It was a tale of his own experience. Two lines of railroad were proposed, and parliamentary sanction was sought. The proposed lines both ran through a certain property on their way to London, shall we say? The owner of the property opposed the enterprise, and employed counsel to state his objections and, of course, to claim compensation. It will be well to give names to the two companies which sought for legal approval: one we may be allowed to call the London and Fudlington Railway, the other the London and Pudlington. When the parliamentary committee met, counsel appeared on behalf of (say) Mr. Skimpole, and opposed the Bill on the ground that it would seriously damage the property. The committee, having heard the arguments, assigned in compensation £30,000. The next day, when the Bill for the other line of railway was under consideration, counsel appeared on behalf of Mr. Skimpole to oppose the Bill. A member of the committee asked whether Mr. Skimpole's case had not been disposed of on the previous day, when compensation of £30,000 was given? Counsel disclaimed any legal knowledge of such a matter this affair had nothing to do with the London and Fudlington line: he was solely concerned that day with

the loss which would be occasioned to his client by the London and Pudlington line. After consultation, the case was settled by assigning once more £30,000 to Mr. Skimpole. And then Mr. Skimpole sold his property for a goodly sum of money, having called attention to the great advantage which the property possessed as being in the immediate neighbourhood of two lines of railway.

As I heard this story I felt that this was not a story of justice or right; and I ventured to say that it seemed to me to be a case of an intolerable wrong done, and an unfair advantage taken of the circumstances. The narrator, however, did not agree with me: he remarked nonchalantly that it was not unfair, as a man had a right to take whatever the law gave him.

My heart sank, for I thought that if our consciences were only operative by the maxims of law it would be an ill day for the standards of public morality; and there came to my mind another story-and this is my second storyin which, as it seemed to me, a nobler and more magnanimous conscientiousness was displayed. It was a story my father used to tell.

In the early days of railway enterprise there lived a certain nobleman not far from London. When the railway -probably the London and North-Western Railway--was desirous of making its way to London, it proposed to run through this nobleman's property. The nobleman was full of wrath. He hated railways: why should this horrible desecration of his property take place? He would have no dealings with such a business: he opposed the line as a man full of pride and prejudice might. In the end his

objections were overruled, and a sum of money was given him in compensation. Time went on, and houses began to spring up near the railway station, and the land of the nobleman rose in value. One day he said to his son: "I was wrong about the railway: I thought it would injure the property, but it has improved it greatly. This is surprising; and I see that, so far from being, as I feared, a loser, I have been a gainer through the railway; and this being so, I do not think that I am entitled to keep the money which was given me in compensation for a supposed loss which has not occurred." The nobleman acted on his words, and returned the compensation money to the railway company. This was the story I cannot vouch for its truth. It would be interesting to know whether any record of such a transaction exists in the historical pages of the London and NorthWestern Railway Company, if that was the company

concerned.

At any rate, it stands as a story in contrast to the other; and I think that I would rather live and die with a conscience like that of the prejudiced old peer than with a conscience touched by the smarter methods of Mr. Skimpole. It may, I think, be said with truth, that a man whose life is regulated by the letter of the law is yet a long way off from that kingdom of heaven which is within; unless life is governed by some principle higher than can be expressed in any code, he is still a stranger in the world of good.

SKETCHES OF PARSONS WITH A

MORAL

THE clergyman of the stage has too often a fixed type ; but clergymen are of various types: their variety is as marked as that of any other profession. There is the parson who dresses like a groom or a jockey, who looks so unclerical that people of highly ecclesiastical conventionality declare that "they don't like him because he is so unclerical." Kind reader, who may be tempted to echo this verdict-remember the warning, so wise and kindly and needful: "Judge not by the appearance, but judge righteous judgment." I utter this warning the more readily in the present case, because I can recall clergymen whose appearance would most certainly have been described as unclerical; and yet they were among the best workers I have known. Here is a man who dresses like a sportsman his only concession to clerical attire is the white tie; but what a good, practical, kindly parson he is. He runs the parish like a guardian: he has noticed the illness. which is so prevalent: he has traced it to the doubtful and indifferent water supply: he has taken prompt action, and now a fine, wholesome and abundant water supply has been provided. He has noticed that the cluster of houses by the railway station is growing in numbers: a new town

ship is being formed; his energy meets the emergency, and now a comely and hospitable church stands conveniently placed among the increasing population. There is no affectation about this parson. He belongs to no party in the Church he offends no one's taste either by unctuous phraseology or sacerdotal pretensions: he is a man among men. You may wish that he had a more reverent manner, or that his spirituality were more apparent; but he cannot affect a rôle or a pose: he must be just himself. His temperament is practical: he is honest and energetic he sees what the place and the people seem to need, and he loses no time and spares no pains to supply them.

This man may not be your favourite type of parson, or mine; but he is a man who is filling his post in a way which wins respect, if not affection. He will be remembered with a regret which will have a note of tenderness in it. "He was a right good sort, he was." This is what you will hear; and the speaker will turn his face away, as one who fears to let even a passing emotion be noticed.

Here is another unclerical parson. You might take him for a groom, out in attendance on his master on some important duty, for his white tie seems to harmonize with the groomlike costume. He is clean and neat-almost spruce in appearance. His church is a model of cleanliness and comeliness: the service is reverent: decent appointments are noticeable everywhere: flowers appear, fresh and various, as decorations suited to the seasons. As the church is well served, so the people are well visited. Classes and mothers' meetings are regular. Among his brother clergy this parson is regarded as a man who brings to

I