laity, and long may clergy and laity meet, as we do in this place to-day, to promote the honour of the Church, the prosperity of the Church, and through the Church, the honour of our God.

The REV. CHARLES H. RICE.-I have few observations to offer upon the efficiency of our Church Societies. But there are two objections to be made to the multiplication of Societies in addition to what has been so ably said already; and first, I would urge that it involves a waste of the zeal of the Church on the mere machinery of administration. Now, the zeal of the Church is a gift from God for which she must render an account; it is a talent which she is bound to turn not only to some, but to the very best, advantage, and which she has no right to divert to unnecessary office work when it might to be employed in furthering God's work.

Again, the result of this multiplication of societies must be to bring inferior men into power, and so to mar the success of a good work. But if we are to be saved from the disastrous consequences of this multiplication of societies, the Church Societies must learn to restrain themselves-to know their place and keep it They must act on these principles; first, that they are human institutions, and that the Church is a Divine one; next, that the Church is God's appointed agent for all religious work, and that they must act on God's own plan if they desire to do God's work; and, thirdly, they should remember that they are not the mouthpiece but the hands of the Church. At the present day, when the Synods of the Church are silenced, there is greater danger than ever that when earnest men meet for any religious purpose, they will seize the opportunity of expressing their opinions on whatever happens to be the subject of the day, however unconnected with the professed object of that particular meeting. Some Societies -I hope not all-yield to this temptation; and so far as they do so, they throw a direct impediment in the way of the progress of God's work. I have been very much struck with this on reading over the resolutions proposed at the last annual meetings of several of these religious Societies. In every list there was one resolution containing some expression or other evidently calculated to bring out a speech, not in support of the Society, but in disparagement of a certain unpopular party. It is unpleasant to say anything against any particular Society. It looks so much like personality; and yet, I suppose, our object here is to deal with facts; and while I do not wish to say anything personal or to reflect on the general working of either Society, I have something to say against both the great Societies which the Attorney-General has mentioned-the Church Missionary Society and the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel.

I dare say there are many present who have at some time or other attended at the Board-room of the latter Society, at the monthly meeting. They will bear me out in saying that it is a very painful thing to find a body of men, noisy men generally, who come there to advance anything but the interests of the Society itself. They are ready on any and every occasion to enter into any subject but that which it is the special purpose of the Society to advance. I must add that, as far as my experience goes, they are always outvoted. But often I have noticed that on occasions when an important letter is being read from one of the Colonies, or some Colonial bishop is present and stands up to make a most interesting and valuable statement respecting his diocese, everything is received tamely by a portion of the audience who appear very uncomfortable indeed at such an

interruption, and to desire only to proceed to these petty discussions which seem to gratify them so much.

Now for the Church Missionary Society. I read not long ago, in the Church Missionary Intelligencer, a statement which I confess astonished me; but I suppose that as it appeared in such a publication we are bound to regard it as authorized and official. The passage occurs in an article in the number for December, 1866, on the subject of "New Zealand," and it is as follows:

"Primarily it is imperative that the Society retain its own independent status and action."

Primarily! I deny that. I say that primarily it is not important that the Church Missionary Society should exist. Primarily, it is important that the Gospel of the grace of God should be preached by the Church. But let us see what it is of which the Society is to remain independent.

"It cannot merge its action in that of Church Synods. Such assemblages necessarily consist of men of diverse principles, some Scriptural, others more or less deviating from that standard."

Granted! And what guarantee, may I ask, has this Society that its Committee does not "necessarily consist of men of diverse principles, some Scriptural, others more or less deviating from that standard?" What single religious Society, founded by man, can have a more perfect gnarantee of its perfect purity than the Church of Christ?

Again: "It is impossible to know what influence may be in the ascendant, or what direction the action of a Church Synod, especially in these days, may take. It cannot identify itself with Church Synods, because it cannot calculate on their action. It must so direct itself as to allow to Church Synods ample room to describe their orbits, however eccentric they may be and, therefore, the course of the Society in New Zealand must continue to be, as to direction and management, such as it has always been. The centre of action must be

Where, my Lord Archbishop?

"In the Society's Committee Room, Salisbury Square, London !"

Leaving that point, however, I wish rather to speak about the other subject the economical management of these Societies. This requires careful consideration, for whatever may be said in reply to "Vigilans," there is no doubt that the expenditure of our Societies is excessive; and there is this additional unpleasant fact to be borne in mind that they are not doing their work thoroughly; that they are always confessing that they are not doing it, and appealing for further help to enable them to do it. The fact is they trust too much to impulse, and too little to principle; and as long as Societies act as rivals to each other, we shall not find an impartial consideration of the more pressing claims upon our present help; we shall be too apt to overlook the cause which at the time most requires the attention of the Church.

First of all, if it be true that we are shamefully extravagant in the working expenses of our Societies, we ought to acknowledge it. The Societies ought to feel an obligation upon them to let their friends and the public see exactly what is spent in working expenses. It is at present very hard to find that out; and, although I have taken considerable trouble to make out a statement, I am not at all sure that even now I have made out the whole case. The difficulties are many. For example, the remit

tances forwarded to the central office of some of these Societies from the

branches, have had deducted from them, before they are forwarded, the expenses of the Branch Association, and only the nett amount reaches the head office. When this is the case, of course what figures in the Annual Report as the " gross income" of the Society is not, in fact, the gross amount given by Church people to the cause; but, as regards a certain part of the income, the amount represents what is forwarded to the central office after certain deductions for expenses incurred by the Branch Association. With this observation, let us see what the subscription lists disclose. Last year these local expenses of the Church Pastoral Aid Society amounted to £639; of the London Jews' Society £711; of the Gospel Propagation Society, £1538; of the Church Missionary Society, more than £3500. These items of course raise the per centage of working expenses very considerably in some cases.

As regards per centage, the Church Pastoral Aid Society has the smallest devoted to working expenses, it being but 7 per cent., whilst the Additional Curates' Fund Society's expenses were nearly double that. It is right to add, that I am told that this is in part, at least, due to its Committee having recently extended their deputation work, thus sowing new seed which, it is hoped, will bear fruit in future years. The Church Missionary Society, the Gospel Propagation Society, spend each between 12 and 13 per cent. of its income on its working expenses; that is to say, there is half-acrown out of every pound you contribute to these Societies, which is lost in the cost of management, and never reaches the real objects of the Society's operations. If it were proposed to merge these Societies into one, of course it is clear that even in this respect a great saving might be effected. Then I find that the London Society for Promoting Christianity among the Jews, spends, in working expenses, 23 per cent. of its income, and the South American Missionary Society 21 per cent. This bears on the question of the evil of multiplying these Societies; and I ought to quote an extreme instance of that evil here. I hold in my hand the Ninth Report of the Columbian Mission Society. In the balance-sheet of that Report I find that the gross receipts for the year 1867 were £1254, out of which, however, I discover that no less than £433 was received from the Gospel Propagation Society special funds; and that, consequently, the Society itself only received, through its officers and agents, £821, as against which the working expenses for printing, salaries, and incidentals, appear to be £270 5s., or in other words, nearly 32 and 33 per cent. of the entire income derived through the Society itself! The sooner this is merged in the Bishop of Columbia's Special Fund of the S. P. G. the better. I will not go further into details; but to speak generally, the working expenses of religious Societies may be divided into four classes or heads, viz. :— office expenses, canvassing, deputations, and printing. I should like to say a word or two on each.

And first, as to office expenditure. I do not think we can expect much reduction under this head until we have an amalgamation of the Societies, whether by using one common house or in some other way. In London there is an attempt being made to build a large Church-house in which it is intended that these bodies may meet and manage their business. This may materially lessen the total of office expenditure.

But as regards canvassing. If we cannot all agree to give our money to the same society, I think we might agree to have our canvassing conducted in a more simple, and therefore more satisfactory, manner; and I would

venture to suggest this plan :-Suppose there were in every diocese an officer appointed by the bishop to make every year one general canvass for all the Societies, say which the bishop himself sanctions. This would greatly economize the expenditure, especially it would secure an enormous saving under the head of postage alone, and would secure efficiency in the work of canvassing; and I would suggest that every cathedral could supply the men to execute this diocesan work; if, not, they must be poverty-stricken indeed. I cannot think that such a canvass would be treated with disrespect by the clergy, coming to them as it would, with the sanction of their bishop.

As to deputations, it is doubtless necessary that detailed information should be given to the people generally on the subjects with which our Societies deal; and sometimes, not always, that men should be sent to give the people that information. But a clergyman would not send for a stranger on a special occasion if he wanted to warn his people, for instance, against the sin of intemperance. And does not his duty include also his telling such facts as relate to the work of these Societies to his own people? Thus he might often be himself a "Deputation" from the Societies to his own flock.

And lastly, for I am warned that my time is brief, there is room for great improvement and retrenchment in the printing of Annual Reports. They might be considerably reduced in bulk now that so many of the Societies publish excellent magazines to which the readers of the Report might be referred for fuller information. And they need not be sent broad

cast to people who don't ask for them and don't want them.

J. E. GORST, ESQ., M.P.-I wish, my Lord Archbishop, to call the attention of the Congress to the fact that the objects for which Religious Societies are established, consist of two sorts.-There is one kind of object which is purely local and temporary in its character, and societies established for the attainment of that class have very little connection with the general body of the Church, though they are deep objects of concern to those who manage and are connected with them, and who take an interest in the local or temporary objects for the accomplishment of which they have been founded. But there are other societies, and these are such as form the special topic of discussion amongst us here to-day-societies founded to carry out work, which is above all things Church work. If the character of any church be such that it merely is competent to hold its own, and to perform the services of religion in that place where it has been a long time established, but is incapable of extending its bounds, you do not consider that it has any real life, which is worth consideration. But suppose that a large and populous district suddenly sprung up in the neighbourhood of some city or town in England or Ireland, as Protestants you would value the church which was capable of extending its bounds, and embracing that new district in its religious operations, just as you would regard that church which was incapable of that extension of her bounds as practically "dead." Well, the same prin ciple applies to the missionary work; if you have a church alive to its duty at home, but incapable from its spirit or organization to bear the Gospel message to the Heathen or of carrying the word of Truth to foreign lands, you say, and say truly, that such a church is dead. Now, I want to put it to the Congress whether it is not a source of shame and disgrace in any church of this day that voluntary associations should be

necessary for the carrying on of what is essentially Church work? I do not wish to say one single word against the societies themselves, or against the large-heartedness and zeal of those laymen and clergy who devote their time and their care to the establishment and maintenance of these societies ; but I say that the shame and the disgrace falls upon the Church itself for allowing that which is her own special work to be performed by any voluntary association whatever. The only excuse for this state of things seems to be one which is entirely opposed to truth, but it is sometimes urged, nevertheless, and it is this: that these voluntary societies perform their work so well that it would be a pity to obstruct them in their labours and a discredit to destroy them. Is this so? In the great work of collecting funds for this army of workers, to enable the societies to carry out their work, no such success attends the operations of these bodies. Their reports shew, as has been just pointed out by the preceding speaker, not only a waste, but a waste at both ends. In London, the head quarters, there is a waste; and throughout the country there is a waste in the number of persons who are sent about by the different societies, many of them established for pretty much the same object, but who go about multiplying agents at great expense, not really knowing that they are advocating the claims of kindred societies, and so far hindering instead of promoting the true interests of the Church itself. It is idle to say

that the societies succeed thus in collecting sums and funds so well that we ought not to stop or obstruct their operations. But this may be said to touch the beginning of the matter: look now to the end of the scheme, the spending department of the societies, which I need hardly say is so vital a department to be considered in this question. Do you think that the money so collected by these deputations through the country and otherwise, is laid out with such great advantage that we ought not to expect any great reformation in that part of the operation of such bodies? Why, there are some societies which are carrying on their work in profound ignorance of what other similar societies are doing in the same direction. I know myself, as a positive fact, that the Gospel Propagation Society enters on its operations and allocates its funds very frequently without any knowledge of the operations of the Church Missionary Society; and, unless sometimes some gentleman, who happens to be on both Committees, may incidentally mention something of the working of the Church Missionary Society, the Propagation Society does its work in entire ignorance of what is being done in the same field, by the kindred society. And even in carrying on the important task of appropriating the funds amongst the efficient preachers of the Church in connexion with the Propagation Society we are often in perfect ignorance of what the Church Missionary Society may be actually doing in the same direction. And I have no doubt that exactly the same state of things exists at the Church Missionary Society's Committee Meetings. This could only result in great evil to the Societies themselves, were there not such failures in their work; for they have not anything like covered the field which they professedly seek to occupy. If they did, then this course of management to which I have alluded would be intolerable. There is not much danger perhaps at present, but why? Because the work is so little done, the ground is so extensive that the agents or representatives of these two great societies seldom come in contact with each other in the mission-field.

Look then at the results of all this; are they such, as regards our home