fully provided for by the addition made to the rubric giving the ordinary power to decide in any difference "concerning the bread and wine to be used," if "appeal" be made to him.

XV. Page 20. "And when by reason of numbers it is inconvenient to address to each Communicant separately the words appointed to be said on delivering the Bread and the Cup, it shall suffice that the words be said once to so many of those who shall together kneel for receiving the Communion at the Holy Table, as the Minister in his discretion shall see fit: Provided always, that in case of any doubt arising as to the necessity thereof, reference shall be made to the Bishop, whose judgment shall be final."

I am entirely opposed to the "discretion" which this new rubric proposes to give to the minister, for the reasons following:

1. It would give the sanction of the Church of England to a practice which, having regard to history, there seems no reason to doubt, is contrary to the general rule and custom of the Church from the earliest times; and which there is no sufficient ground for thinking was contemplated by the rubric of any of the authorized Prayer Books from 1549 to 1662.

2. It is completely at variance with the answer given by the bishops to the Presbyterians at the Savoy Conference in 1661; for they said, "It is most requisite that the minister deliver the bread and wine into every particular communicant's hand, and repeat the words in the singular number, for so much as it is the propriety of sacraments to make particular obsignation to each believer, and it is our visible profession that by the grace of God Christ tasted death for every man." In accordance with this answer, and apparently to prevent any future misunderstanding, they inserted the words "to any one,' which appear in the present rubric.

3. It would encourage others to follow the example of those who do not now comply with the existing rule.

To pro

hibit a lax practice which long custom has sanctioned in many churches, but which it may be hoped is decreasing, might be a proceeding of doubtful policy; non-interference, however, is a very dif ferent thing from directly countenancing and protecting the practice by a new rubric.

4. It only pleads inconvenience as the reason for the proposed permission; but none, which might not be otherwise remedied, has been shown in the evi

dence taken by the Commission, and there seems no reason for thinking that additional evidence would be of a different character. The witnesses showed that on the one hand in two churches where there was a single celebration of the Holy Communion fortnightly, the number of communicants ranged from 150 to 270, and the words of adminis tration were only said once to each group; on the other hand, in churches, where there are from one to three celebrations every Sunday, the communicants at each celebration averaged from forty to eighty, and the words were said separately to each communicant. On the Great Festivals in one case there were two celebrations and 500 communicants, the words being said collectively; in other cases, two, three, or four celebrations and from 300 to 750 communicants, the words being said individually; in one of the latter churches 200 persons, and in another 267 were thus communicated singly at one celebration. There seems ground for supposing that the celebrants in all these instances had not alike sufficient assistance, or might not have obtained it, whether to multiply celebrations or to distribute the Sacrament; the reasonable conclusion, therefore, to be that by more frequent celebrations the present rubrical direction could be followed without real inconvenience to either minister or people.

seems

no

5. It will be likely to increase the offence which is well known to be frequently caused by the present departure from the rubric, and of which some evidence has been given to the Commissioners.

XVI. Page 25. "The Curate of every parish may upon Sundays, and holy-days after the second lesson at Evening Prayer, or before or after Divine Service, openly in the Church instruct and examine so many children of his parish sent unto him, as he shall think convenient, in some part of this catechism."

This rubric, as it now stands in the Prayer Book, no doubt needs some qualification, because, while properly requiring public Catechizing, it conveniently limits it to "Sundays and holy. days, after the second lesson at Evening Prayer;" whereas experience proves that greater latitude as to time is needed. This is, indeed, to some, yet not to a sufficient, degree provided in the altered form of the rubric. But the substitution of "may" for "shall" would enable the clergyman to omit entirely public catechizing in church; and this is a change which, I think, ought not

to be encouraged, especially at a time when alterations in the educational system of the country render it important that the church should not relax or abandon opportunities of giving distinct religious instruction to the young among her members.

XVII. Page 28. " If there be no Communion the minister shall dismiss with the blessing those who are gathered together."

This proposed rubric is an addition to the office of Holy Matrimony; and seems to me as unnecessary as if it were affixed to the office of Public Baptism; but if some consider it desirable, I think the direction should not be compulsory, nor should the blessing be limited to that at the end of the Communion service; especially as changes recommended in existing rubrics have been of the opposite kind.

XVIII. Page 30. "Here is to be noted that the office ensuing is not to be used for any that die unbaptized, or excommunicate, or have laid violent hands upon themselves; but it shall be lawful for the minister on sufficient cause to read one or both of the Psalms following, together with one of the lessons, and the four sentences appointed to be said while the corpse is made ready to be laid into the earth, concluding with the Lord's Prayer and the Grace at the end of the office: Provided always, that the office thus allowed be not used without the permission of the Ordinary, but that if, from want of time, this permission cannot be obtained, then the Minister shall notify in writing, within seven days to the Ordinary, the use of the shortened office, and the reasons for his having so used it."

The "Order for the Burial of the Dead" has given rise to difficulties which at least were less prominent in former times when the exercise of Ecclesiastical Discipline was more recognized. The Commissioners have, indeed, endeavoured to adjust the disputed points, but I fear that the altered rubric will notgive satisfaction, either in what it has done, or in what it has left undone; for :

1. The prohibition to use the office in the case of the "unbaptized" does undoubtedly operate beneficially upon many careless parents, and thus is a protection to the children themselves. Moreover, the office is designed for the members of the Church, i. e., for the baptized; therefore it is consistent and not uncharitable to limit it to them. If it be thought a hardship to refuse the office to those whose non-baptism is not their own fault, then the shortened office would be an injustice to them,

because it makes no distinction between their case and that of those who reject baptism.

There is, indeed, a case in which a misapplication of this prohibition gives reasonable offence, I mean the occasional refusal to use the Burial service over those who have been baptised by a person not episcopally ordained, or by a layman. But this objection might have been removed by an explanatory note to the effect that such baptisms, though irregular, are valid if administered with water "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

2. The case of the "excommunicate" can hardly be said to occur now, when it is recollected that the 68th Canon of 1603 strictly defines it to be one “denounced, excommunicated, majori ercommunicatione, for some grievous and notorious crime, and no man able to testifie of his repentance." Yet this would seem to be just a case for which, should it arise, the prohibition ought to exist.

3. The case of those who "have laid violent hands upon themselves" presents greater difficulty, owing to a change of circumstances since 1662, when the rubric was prefixed. Until the law was altered by the 4 George IV. c. 52, 1823, no question could arise as to the use of the office in the case of "violent hands" pronounced to be felo de se, because burial in consecrated ground was forbidden but now that this interment is permitted (although without the office) some support may seem to be afforded to the opinion that the verdict of " temporary insanity," most usually given by the coroner's jury, qualifies the rubrical prohibition, and warrants the use of the service in this latter instance. Ancient Canons of the Church of England (based upon a decree of an early council) appear not to have allowed a complete religious office to be used, whatever other distinction they may have drawn in cases of suicide. The permission given by the altered rubric to use part of the present service corresponds to this, except in the proposed use of “one or both of the psalms." But it seems to me that the existing difficulty will not really be removed unless some definition be given of the sense in which for the future the term "violent hands" is to be understood. If the decision of a jury is deemed to be the only satisfactory mode of settling the question, then I think that a verdict other than that of felo de se should be held to authorize the use of the shortened office for those who "have laid violent hands upon themselves."

4. But this altered rubric wholly fails to provide for the difficulty which most of all presses, viz., the offence caused by the use of the Burial service in the

case of the " open and notorious evil liver." The subject was indeed carefully considered by the Commissioners, and it will probably not cause surprise that objections which seemed insuperable to others presented serious obstacles to ourselves when discussing the various proposals which were made. Yet, after all, it appears to me that, on the whole, it would be less objectionable to allow a clergyman to use the proposed shortened office in this case, rather than leave him in the questionable position of

refusing the present service upon a kind of understanding that the bishop must disregard his doing so. I think that the altered rubric should not be adopted, at least unless it is extended to cases where the use of the whole office would cause great scandal, or where the friends of the deceased wish or consent that the entire office should not be used. The discretion thus allowed to the clergyman might be sufficiently guarded by requiring that three properly qualified persons (perhaps householders) should certify their belief that the scandal was likely to be given if the full service were used. THOMAS WALTER PERRY.

1.-AN ACCOUNT OF THE GROSS PUBLIC INCOME OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND,

In the Year ended the 31st day of December, 1870, and of the actual Issues within the same period, exclusive of sums applied to the Redemption of Funded or paying off Unfunded Debt, and of the Advances and Repayments for Local Works, &c.

£

s. d.

EXPENDITURE.

20,205,000 0 0 Interest and Management of the Per

22,437,000 0 0 manent Debt

9,020,000 0 O Terminable Annuities

£

s. d. 1,170,572 8 3

Annuities and Pensions

Diplomatic Pensions

Courts of Justice

Miscellaneous Charges

886,282 0 0

138,578 0 0 1,451,522 13 4

3,646,955 1 7

SUPPLY SERVICES:

3,985,221 13 9

13,740,400 0 9,776,641 0

9,759,988 17 1

100

Total Income. £71,268,955 17

Total Ordinary Expenditure £68,218,919 4 10 Expenses of Fortifications (provided for by Money raised by Annuities created)

100,000 0 0 Total Expenditure £68,318,919 4 10 Excess of Income over Ordinary Expenditure in the year ended 31st December, 1870 Deduct-Expenses of Fortifications, as above 100,000 0 0

3,050,035 16 9

2,950,035 16 9 £71,268,955 1 7

2.-AN ACCOUNT OF THE BALANCES OF THE PUBLIC MONEY

Remaining in the Exchequer on the 1st day of January, 1870; the amount of Money raised by additions to the Funded or Unfunded Debt, and the amourt applied towards the Redemption of Funded or Paying off Unfunded Debt in the Year ended the 31st day of December, 1870; the total amount of Advances and Repayments on account of Local Works, &c., in the same period; and the Balances in the Exchequer on the 31st day of December, 1870.

*2,259,718 5 10

850,473 12 3

Issued to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, to be applied to the Redemption of the Public Debt

3,110,191 18 1 Deduct-Amount applied in Repayment of Bank Advances for Deficiency Exchequer Bonds paid off, viz. :Series O., dated 27th March, 1868

Q.

Exchequer Bills paid off in Money

Advances for Purchase of Bullion, and for Local Works, &c.
Advances for New Courts of Justice
Advances for Greenwich Hospital

10,000 0 0

100,000 0 0

3,758,989 6 2

Repayments on account of Advances for the Purchase of Bullion, and for Local Works, &c.

Repayments on account of Advances for Greenwich Hospital Excess of Income over Total Expenditure, in the year ended 31st December, 1870

* No balance remaining of the Money raised for Fortifications.

Treasury Chambers, Whitehall, 12th January, 1871.

+ No balance remaining of the Money raised for Fortifications. £9,295,354 8 6

JAMES STANSFELD.