with the two last heads of a competent staff of organising secretaries. The adoption of these several agencies is the result of long experience and the catalogue presents, I think, little ground for criticism, either on the score of deficiency or excess. As far as my own judgment goes, none of the means enumerated can be safely dispensed with, nor is there anything of a practicable character to be added to them; but there is room for a few observations upon the mode of carrying them out.

To begin with the first head, that of publications: most persons present are familiar with the criticisms, so frequently pronounced upon the dry and uninteresting character of those most important instruments of influence, the periodical reports of the Societies' proceedings. I think that in these criticisms the difficulties of the case are not sufficiently considered. To deal with the mass of details, which must necessarily be comprised in these publications, in such a way as to give the reader a succinct and connected view of the whole operations of the year, with their varied results, to set distinctly before his view in what places the work of the Society is advancing; where it is receding, and, where, perhaps, it is stationary, with the several causes of success or failure; illustrating the narrative with such characteristic incidents as the reports of the Society's agents may furnish, requires (as many of the critics if they were to try their hands would discover) a more than ordinary degree of literary talent. Still, though the model of excellence, which the imagination of the reader is apt to conjure up, could hardly be expected to be realized, I can but think that a material improvement in the style of reports might be effected, and that the devotion of more time and labour, and, possibly, of additional outlay to those most important publications would be amply rewarded.

any

the

Before dismissing this part of the subject it is not immaterial to say a word upon the necessity, with reference not only to the preparation of a society's report, but to the conduct of its operations, of its being supplied by its missionaries or agents, with full particulars of their own proceedings. This is a duty so obviously arising out of the relations between themselves and the Society on the one hand, and between the latter and its subscribers on the other, that it may seem strange that remarks upon point should be needed; and yet in truth great difficulty is frequently experienced by the officers of Missionary Societies, in obtaining from its Missionaries adequate reports, and, in not a few cases, any reports at all, of the state of their respective missions. Time does not admit of my entering upon the grounds or pretexts for this reticence, but it would be improper for me to pass on without expressing my conviction, that it is the imperative duty of the managers of a Society to insist upon the information required being regularly supplied.

To proceed to the second head:-A few of the most important public meetings, those held in the metropolis, for example, are

D

attended with little expense to the subscribers beyond the cost of advertisements and other ordinary incidents; the whole of the speakers on such occasions (amongst whom happily are found the most distinguished and able men, both in Church and State) giving their gratuitous assistance; but for the meetings generally, and also for a large proportion of the addresses from the pulpit, the gratuitous services of volunteers requires to be aided by persons employed by the Societies for the special purpose of making their proceedings known; and, who, giving their whole time to the work, must necessarily be paid for their labor. The salaries of these paid deputations constitute, however, a considerable item in the expenditure of the Societies, and it becomes an important question, whether the cost might not be reduced. In my humble opinion, so far as addresses from the pulpit, at least, are concerned, it might and ought. But, for this, the fiat of the Societies would be powerless. What is wanted is, if I may be permitted to say so, that the clergy should do their own work. If our religious Societies are laboring in the service of the Church, if, conse quently, they have a claim to the support of churchmen, it must necessarily be incumbent upon the clergy to instruct their parishioners in this as well as in every other duty, and to make themselves masters of whatever information is requisite to enable them to do so. There are, doubtless, amongst the dense populations of our great towns many clergymen, whose time and energies are so much taken up with instilling into their semi-heathen people the first elements of religion, as to make it impossible for them to do more. But, with regard to the great bulk of the clergy, and especially the incumbents of agricultural parishes, it cannot be alleged that they have not time enough to instruct their parishioners in every department of Christian obligation.

In fact, not so many years ago, when letters used to be issued from the Crown, commending this and that religious Society or charitable object to the clergy, to be brought under the notice of their flocks, the subject was, as a matter of course, introduced to each congregation by its own minister. Afterwards, when the number of appeals was increased it was found convenient and acceptable to the congregations, that clergymen should sometimes interchange pulpits on these occasions, and the Societies found it necessary from time to time to assist the parochial clergy further by providing preachers of the own. Unfortunately, what was at first done as an occasional necessity, has come of late to be the ordinary practice, and to appeal to their parishioners for the support of the religious Societies of the country has come to be considered by a large portion of the clergy as beyond the range of their own duty, if not as a thing which does not concern themselves at all. They have, in fact, got to consider the loan of their pulpits to a preacher on behalf of a religious Society, not, as it really is, a boon to themselves, but a special favor on their part to the Society. This has been carried so far, that some personal

advantage to the clergyman himself is not, I believe, very frequently stipulated for as a consideration for his allowing his parishioners to be taught what they ought to do; and the use of the pulpit has been refused, except upon the condition, that the Society, for which the sermon is to be preached, should not only supply a preacher for that purpose, but should provide for the performance of the whole of the Sunday services, so as to enable the Incumbents, at the cost of the Society, to obtain a holiday, for which he would otherwise have to pay out of his own pocket. "If your Society will not do it, I know others that will," is a reply that has been made to an expostulation against this somewhat unreasonable proposal.

What has been just mentioned may be hoped to be an extreme case. But the habit of feeling, of which the above may be looked upon as an extraordinary development, is, I fear, widely spread, and I trust that in commenting upon it, as one tending to throw an unnecessary burden upon the finances of all religious Societies, as well as materially to detract from their efficiency by weakening their hold upon the clergy at large, I shall not be deemed to have outstripped the limits of that duty which the subject I have undertaken imposes upon me.

One other remark in connection with the same subject-I would respectfully submit to the consideration of the Bishops, whether they might not themselves render Societies some assistance in this matter. It will have been gathered from what I have said, that the expenditure of our religious Societies in the collection of their funds is aggravated in no inconsiderable degree by the rivalry between them, and when there are two or more Societies, having partly the same objects, a Bishop might reasonably decline to commend one of such Societies to the Clergy of his diocese in preference to the others. But the objection would not apply to a call from a Bishop to his clergy, to preach for the common object of two or more Societies, whether it was foreign missions, for example, or any other, leaving it to each clergyman and his own congregation to determine what instrumentality to select for carrying it out. If the Bishops were induced to issue Pastoral letters to the purport suggested, the weight of direct episcopal influence thereby imparted to the appeals of the Societies would, there can be no doubt, materially increase the amount of support yielded to them, whilst the outlay incurred in obtaining it would, at the same time, be sensibly diminished.

I have not left myself time to remark upon the two remaining heads in my division of the means of obtaining contributions; and I have been obliged, in order to bring myself within the limits assigned to me, to leave the paper imperfect in other respects. But this I cannot help. I would merely request permission before sitting down to say, that if, in anything that has fallen from me, I have seemed to any one to speak in too positive a tone, the fault is one of appearance only. I am too sensible of my deficiencies to

entertain an extravagant confidence in the correctness of my own judgment. But I am here to-day for the purpose of expressing to you the sentiments which I actually entertain, be their worth more or less; and, in frankly doing so, I trust to obtain the indulgence of my hearers, whatever they may any of them think about the value of what I have said.

DISCUSSION.

The RIGHT HON. ROBERT R. WARREN, (Attorney General for Ireland).— I suppose it is obvious to every one present that any minute criticisms upon the details of our Religious Societies or upon their administration would be better suited for the deliberations of a select committee than for discussion at a popular assembly like the present; therefore, during the very few moments for which I shall presume to occupy your attention I shall not introduce any observations of that character, but I shall confine my remarks to two subjects, one bearing chiefly upon the economical administration of our charities, the other upon their effective operation.

What then, I would ask, is the great principle at which we ought to aim with a view to the economical administration of our charities? In my judgment it is the principle of "centralization." The principle of union and combined working among societies framed upon the same principle and aiming at a common purpose. Every distinct association involves the expense of a distinct establishment with distinct offices, and a distinct staff; and not only that, but it involves also an expensive machinery of operation for each, and it is obvious that each distinct staff will have a motive to create a peculiar interest in the public mind towards their own particular association even antagonistic to the interests of its rivals. This principle of "centralization" is, I believe, recognized by all Governments as the true principle of economical administration: and the objections which are raised to "centralization" in the abstract are founded sometimes upon selfishness, but more frequently, as I am willing to believe, upon an honest doubt is to whether the gain to be derived for centralization may not be outweighed by the disadvantages thereby experienced by local interests. This objection is one however which cannot be urged either by way of pretext or substantial argument against our Religious Societies, because as regards them the term "centralization" is used in a wholly different sense. With regard to Government, the term is used with reference to the place at which the work of that Government is to be carried on; but when we make use of the term with regard to Religious Institutions we refer rather to the means by which the charities contemplated by them are to be effected. Now let me illustrate this for a moment: we have our two great missionary societies the "Church Missionary Society" and the "Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts." I do not mean to be considered as suggesting for one moment that it would be either possible or expedient to combine or to blend those two great institutions. But I would venture to suggest that it would be most desirable for the Church itself, if those who conduct or establish Institutions of the kind,

instead of starting novel and expensive and often petty Institutions-such for example as the Patagonian Missionary Society-directed their efforts to combine and unite all the second and third class charitable Institutions of the country with one or other of these great Societies. Thus, beyond all doubt, great saving would be effected in the domestic expenditure and also as I believe in the foreign expenditure of our religious charities.

No one can read the letters of "Vigilans,"-let him disapprove of their spirit or let him doubt their accuracy or question their truth as he maywithout feeling that there is an excessive expenditure in the charities of England, and that there is room for reformation and for retrenchment in their management. I believe that the principles upon which that reformation and retrenchment may be most efficiently carried out is that principle of "centralization."

The other principle to which I desire to draw your attention for a moment, as bearing above all others upon the effective working of our Religious Societies, is the importance of a combined and harmonious operation among the clerical and the lay elements of the Church. Upon the clerical element of our Religious Institutions depends their harmony with the system of the Church itself: upon the lay element depends public sympathy, and upon the cordial co-operation of both elements depends the results and influence, and power for good of the Societies themselves. If you have the clergy and laity working, as they do in this our island, in harmony, in parallel lines, and so co-operating, you have good and beneficent results. If they diverge from each other, you have weakness: and if they converge against each other you have discord and confusion. If in our Religious Societies-be it one of the minor societies or in a department of the Church itself you have the clergy and the laity wrangling and disputing, quarrelling and striving with each other; then your Institution is like a brawling stream which rushes from the mountain top after a storm, attractive no doubt but noisy and noxious and doing no practical or permanent good. But when you have a great Institution established for the spread of the Everlasting Gospel, and for the extending of the Kingdom of our Lord and Christ; and when you have the clergy and the laity connected with it co-operating for such a purpose, working in harmony, applying their individual energies and their own peculiar powers in their own peculiar sphere, then you have, not the brawling stream, but, the mighty river into which the streams rush united at the foot of the mountain, majestic in its movements, irresistible in its force, turning the wheel of the manufacturer, irrigating the field of the husbandman, purifying the home of the citizen-at once the harbinger of health and the preserver of life.

If, my lord, in any church it is expedient, if in any church it is essential, that there should be this harmony and this combined co-operation, it is in our branch of the United Church of these kingdoms: we have in the independence of the clergy and the laity the occasion for this co-operation, and the necessity for it. We have an independent clergy, because the establishment and endowment of their Church place them in a position above the temptations, the cowardice and the servility to which voluntaryism is subject. We have an independent laity holding the the right of private judgment, repudiating all directors of their consciences and recognizing no rule of faith but the word of God. They are, therefore thoroughly independent each of the other, and long, long may Ireland possess that independent clergy, long may she retain that independent