their flock-but we do assert that, whatever be their own good intentions, they are blindly working out the designs and objects of such men as we have described, and giving to the very worst form of apostacy their unintentional, but very effective, countenance and support. We entreat these well meaning, but in general young and inexperienced clergymen to recollect that those very men who affect to reverence the traditions of the dark ages are those who reject the less doubtful traditions of our own Church, and while they deprecate and condemn the exercise of private judgment in such matters, are themselves doing nothing else but setting up their own private judgments against the principles and the usages that have been taught and practised by the Church to which they profess to belong ever since it had a distinctive character and ritual. Surely it needs no urgency of argument to show that such inconsistency (even if there were no graver objection to their proceedings) cannot be safely trusted.

But we are glad to be able to say that, with regard to the influence of these practices, even on the younger clergy, we see a considerable change for the better. In numerous recent publications we find satisfactory evidence that many of those whom we have designated as ultra-Rubricians are certainly not intentionally Puseyites or New-maniacs-nay, we believe that some of them have adopted what we consider as objectionable formalities from the notion (a mistaken one, as we think we have shown) that they are strictly Anglican; at least they began in that view, and now that a better opinion begins to prevail, they find it difficult to retrace their steps and to acknowledge in the face of their congregations that they have been mistaken. It requires great and unusual moral courage to make such a confession; and this we own is another reason that induces us to wish that the bishops should think it expedient to consider all those varieties of practice, which, under the pretence of uniformity, have been introduced amongst us, and come to some general expression of opinion -or what perhaps would be easier and safer-convey, each bishop to his own clergy, an opinion concerted with the other prelates, which we have little doubt could, upon all these points of form, be easily arranged among their lordships, and would be dutifully and readily adopted and followed by the whole Anglican Church. Indeed, according to our view of the whole case, there would be little more to be done than to maintain the ritual usages which have been followed for the last 150 or 200 years, and—in some points where the usages appear to infringe the strict letter of the law, and in others in which the letter of different laws is conflicting to give to whatever course or interpretation may be thought preferable,

preferable, some kind of authoritative sanction. The very case that has now occurred seems provided for by the prophetic eye of the fathers of our church in the prefatory Rubric

and, forasmuch as nothing can be so plainly set forth, but doubts may arise in the use and practice of the same, to appease all such diversity (if any arise), and for the resolution of all doubts concerning the manner how to understand, do, and execute the things contained in this book, the parties that so doubt or diversely take anything shall alway resort to the bishop of the diocese, who by his discretion shall take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same; so that the same order may not be contrary to anything contained in this book; and if the Bishop of the diocese be in doubt, he may send for the resolution thereof to the Archbishop.'

It may be said that the example of the Bishop of London, who has gone the most largely into such questions, and the observations which we and others of more authority have made upon his Charge, are not encouraging to such an expression of episcopal opinion as we suggest. We, on the contrary, think that it is that Charge which renders some such proceeding almost indispensable. We believe that if that learned prelate had discussed the topics with some of his brethren, his decisions might not have appeared in their present shape. Can we doubt that if the Archbishop had been, as the Rubric suggests, consulted, he would have been indisposed to show so much countenance as the Bishop of London has done to some of these novelties or revivals of obsolete usages? His Grace's sentiments on these very matters were expressly declared in his Charge of 1841, which says clearly and wisely

"In the celebration of divine service, the introduction of novelties is much to be deprecated, and even the revival of usages, which, having grown obsolete, have the appearance of novelties to the ignorant, may occasion dissatisfaction, controversy, and dispute.'

But the Bishop of London's opinions having been promulgated, and being, as far as we can discover, by no means in accordance with the opinions of some other, perhaps we might say any other of the prelates, and certainly not satisfactory to a great body of the clergy, it seems absolutely necessary that something should be done to restore confidence and uniformity to the performance of divine service throughout the country: for although the Bishop of London addresses only his own clergy, and to them gives rather hesitating opinions and a discretional latitude, than any decisive direction; yet the very hints of so able and eminent a man must have a powerful effect in his own diocese, and hardly less so in others, when, as is the general case, their own bishops have not happened to give any opinion on those topics.

In the meanwhile, and until we shall have obtained some more

VOL. LXXII. NO. CXLIII.

U

general

general expression of the opinions of our prelates, it cannot, we think, be reasonably denied that the safest way for the clergyis to continue to do as they have, for the most part, hitherto done— that is, to follow the Rubrics, and Canons, where their meaning is clear and indisputable, and their operation practicable and consistent; and in all cases that admit of doubt, to govern themselves by what we may call the common-law of the Churchthat is, the long-established usages and customs, which, far from being, as has been objected to them, a relaxation of discipline and a violation of authority, are in fact no other than discipline and authority, interpreted, directed, and enforced by that which is the ultimate sanction of all human ordinances-the experience and reason of mankind.

POSTSCRIPT.

At the moment of concluding this article we receive a work, published within a day or two, entitled, How shall we conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England?' By James Craigie Robertson, M.A., of Trinity College, Cambridge, Curate of Boxley. Pickering, London, 1843. This is a most curious and valuable collection of precedents and practical authorities on all the ritual subjects now in controversy, followed by some temperate and able deductions from the evidence, little different from what we had arrived at from less copious materials. We heartily wish we could have seen it sooner--it would have saved us a great deal of trouble, and enabled us to support our views by much direct evidence and many important facts. It is, however, a great satisfaction to us to find our previous impressions corroborated, in almost every point, by Mr. Robertson's researches, and we most earnestly recommend his work, and the sound, moderate, and conciliatory conclusions at which he arrives, to the early and serious attention of the Clergy, and of all who take an interest in these important questions.

Lately published, 3 vols. post 8vo., 27s.,

Illustrations of the Liturgy and Ritual, being Sermons and Discourses selected from eminent Divines of the 17th Century. By the Rev. James Brogden, M.A., of Trinity College, Cambridge.

'I may be permitted to recommend a selection from the works of the great divines of the seventeenth century, entitled 'Illustrations of the Liturgy and Ritual, by the Rev. James Brogden,' as a most valuable addition to every parochial clergyman's, and indeed to every churchman's library.'-Bishop of Exeter's Charge.

'Mr. Brogden's useful Collection of Discourses on the Liturgy and Ritual of the Church.'-Bishop of London's Charge.

** NOTE

**NOTE to Article VI. in No. CXL.

[We have been requested by an officer of high distinction to print, by way of Note or Appendix to our recent article on the Life of Blücher and the Campaign of Waterloo, a Memorandum on the controversy about that campaign, which was drawn up on perusal of the article in question, by his friend Sir F. Head. Our respect for our correspondent and also for his friend would have disposed us to comply with this request; but we do so very gladly on finding that the Memorandum contains some details of fact not adverted to, in as far as we know, by any previous critic on the operations of June, 1815; and moreover, that Sir Francis enjoyed peculiar advantages in forming his opinion, inasmuch as he was on duty as an officer of Engineers at Charleroi when the French crossed the Belgian frontier there on the 15th-attended the Prussian Etat Major during the battle of Ligny on the 16th-and was also with our own army at Waterloo on the 18th.]

(Copy.)

My dear

--According to your request, I inclose a rough draft of the opinion I yesterday endeavoured to explain to you. Yours, very faithfully,

May 2, 1843.

F. B. HEAD.

Memorandum on Mr. Alison's statement that on the 15th, 16th, 17th, and 18th of June, 1815, the Duke of Wellington and Marshal Blücher were surprised, out-manoeuvred, and outgeneraled' by Napoleon.

When two armies or fleets, completely separated, are preparing for collision, it is evident that the commander of each can only be responsible for all that exists within the radius of his own power.

For instance, in the year 1805, when France was preparing to invade England, Napoleon could no more prevent the English from raising volunteer regiments, making pikes and muskets at Birmingham, gunpowder at Hounslow, and from casting shot and cannon at Woolwich, than King George III. could prevent the French people from obeying the conscription, or from making ball-cartridges at Paris. But out of the preparations for war, which at the period alluded to were carrying on on either side of the Channel, if there could be selected any one which above all the rest the opposite country had not the slightest power to influence,

it was the comparative secresy with which each government was enabled to veil its transactions from the knowledge of the other. And thus, if Napoleon had thought proper to keep his projected plan of attack concealed in his own breast, and if, by means of a police and gendarmerie of his own creation, he had been able to establish an embargo strong enough to stop up every crevice of communication, King George III. would have been no more to blame for the exercise of this power than Napoleon would have been to blame for the fogs which, proceeding from causes he had no power whatever to control, frequently concealed England from his view. In short, until the two nations came into open collision, to blame either government for the internal arrangements of the other, would be as absurd as to blame a nobleman who has a colt to run at the next Derby for the care and attention daily bestowed throughout the country on all the colts with which his is about to contend.

Now while the truth of this reasoning is before the mind, let us for a moment calmly apply it to Mr. Alison's remarks on the position which the Duke of Wellington occupied immediately before the Battle of Waterloo.

It is an historical fact which cannot be denied, that at daybreak on the morning of the 15th of June, 1815, the allied army, under the command of the Duke of Wellington, was suddenly attacked in its cantonments by the French army, headed by Napoleon, who by this unexpected movement obtained the military advantage of encountering separately the Prussian army on the afternoon of the 16th at Fleurus, and the English army on the morning of the 18th at Waterloo, before these two forces could efficiently combine together against him as they did at sunset on the 18th, after the two great battles alluded to had been fought.

Now granting to Napoleon for this dexterous coup-de-main the highest praise his most ardent admirers may declare to be his due, let us, with equal justice, consider how much blame, if any, belongs to the Duke of Wellington for having allowed himself, as Mr. Alison describes it, to have been 'surprised, out-manœuvred, and out-generaled,' by his antagonist.

There can be no doubt that, previous to the 15th of June, it was the desire of the Duke of Wellington that the allied army should not be surprised, and that, on the other hand, it was the object of Napoleon to surprise it. It must, however, also be admitted that it was impossible for the Duke to repel the attack of his adversary before it was made, or even to concentrate his forces in readiness to do so until he knew at what degree of longitude Napoleon's attack upon the allied army of observation was to be made; and as Napoleon, of course, would not himself tell him