'Law,' and 'The Rose, Thistle, and Shamrock '--are printed in the collected edition of her works. The unity of action wanting in her novels is equally neglected in these dramas; the dramatis persone are mostly Irish of the lower class, and much of the dialogue is pure brogue. The utmost that can be said for these productions is that, if compressed into one-act farces, with Irish Johnson and Power to take parts, they might have had a run; and her name must be added to the long list of novelists, headed by Fielding and Le Sage, who have failed, or fallen lamentably short of the expected degree of excellence, in the kindred walk of fiction. The dramatic fame of the author of Tom Jones' rests on the mock tragedy of Tom Thumb;' and so long as the author of ' Gil Blas' was only known as a playwright, no one saw any incongruity in the joke placed by Piron in the mouth of Punchinello:Pourquoi le fol de temps en temps ne diroit-il pas de bonnes choses, puisque Le Sage de temps en temps dit de si

6

'mauvaises?'

It is from the apex of the pyramid that men calculate its height, and the altitude of genius must be taken where it has attained its culminating point. Let those who wish to appreciate Miss Edgeworth, and derive the greatest amount of refining and elevating enjoyment from her works, pass over the prefaces, short as they are never think of the moral, excellent as it may be-be not over-critical touching the management of the story, but give themselves up to the charm of the dialogue, the scene-painting, the delineation and development of character, the happy blending of pathos and humour with the sobriety of truth. Let them do this, and they will cease to wonder at the proud position conceded to her by the dispassionate judgment of her most eminent contemporaries.

We cannot conclude without expressing an earnest wish that a Memoir so rich in curious matter, and so well calculated to confirm and even exalt her reputation, will not long be confined to a limited circle. In this age of monuments and testimonials, such a monument, if she wanted one, would be the most appropriate and the most durable.

ART. VI.-First Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Rubrics, Orders and Directions for regulating the Course and Conduct of Public Worship, &c., according to the Use of the United Church of England and Ireland: with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices. Presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of Her Majesty. London: 1867.

THE

HE first Report of the Ritual Commissioners-long promised and long delayed-is at last in everybody's hands, and has been received with very general though not universal satisfaction. A still longer delay would have been amply compensated by such completeness in the investigations pursued, and such unanimity in the decision arrived at. We are much struck with the value of the Evidence contained in these Minutes. It is of the greatest importance to have brought out the facts, and drawn forth the declarations, here placed on record; leading, as we think they do, quite irresistibly to the conclusions which the Commissioners have come to. That the vestments are not deemed essential by any who have adopted them, however important in the eyes of some; that they give such grave offence to many as to be fatal in most places to the maintenance of the parochial system; that the wearers have the vaguest notions of their origin, their meaning, and the authority by which they are to be regulated, while avowing the startling principle that clergymen are entitled to do anything not absolutely forbidden by the Rubric, if only they follow that supposed practice of the Catholic or of the Western Church which really resolves itself into the practice of the Church of Rome, not without a fanciful reference to Levitical usages and the Church of the Apocalypse '-facts like these compel the conclusion that it is necessary to restrain a licence which may run to lengths still more indefensible. Meanwhile the Rubric itself has lost authority with all parties by reason of its obvious unfitness to meet existing circumstances. The Ritualists are by no means the only offenders against it. Some very striking instances of its infringement are brought home in these investigations to clergymen of the opposite schools. Whilst, however, the latter plead in their excuse either necessity, or long usage, or episcopal sanction, professing themselves ready and willing in all cases to submit to directions if made clear and consistent and imperative, the Ritualists on their part present the singular phenomenon of an alleged sensitiveness of conscience impelling them to carry out to the

utmost the obsolete and impracticable order respecting ornaments in use in the second year of Edward VI., while they show themselves singularly indifferent to the open violation of other rubrics, and the palpable evasion of many more.

It is of course to their practices solely that the Report itself refers. We may be thought to lay too much stress on the unanimity of the opinion expressed by the Commissioners, seeing how vague after all are the remedies which they have practically adopted. But absolute unanimity (and with regard to the main issue it is absolute) was more than anyone expected; and it strengthens our confidence in the utility of such Commissions as the present for dealing with delicate and difficult matters. In the present instance the most sinister forebodings were entertained. The composition of the Commission was sharply criticised, not only by the general press, but by public men of the highest character and station, while justifying their refusal to act on it; nor could it be denied that there was justice in the remarks then made, and ground for the fears then so widely felt. Yet here we have from this very body a verdict as remarkable for its decisiveness as for its freedom from party-spirit; and this has evidently resulted from the free interchange of conflicting views after careful examination of facts. We could hardly have a better proof, we repeat, of the efficacy of the method just resorted to- the reference, namely, of questions of high importance to a body of distinguished men of diverse tendencies, acting under a sense of their responsibility to their Church and country, and feeling that it is incumbent on them above all things to think and to decide with impartiality and justice. In such cases it matters little which way the majority may incline, if only all opinions are effectually represented. One-sidedness disappears before the broader and larger views which a quasi-judicial position tends so powerfully to develope.

We have spoken of the Report of the Commissioners as a decisive verdict. This, indeed, it virtually is, with respect at least to the practices which provoked the inquiry. It expresses no opinion, it is true, on the legality of the disputed vestments; nor was this to be expected or wished. Such an opinion would evidently have no judicial force, nor would it even carry with it any weight of legal authority. Its conclusions rest on grounds of morality and expediency, and as such they are decisive. And if the public will see in this Report the expression of their own unalterable convictions, we also trust that the Ritualists will feel that it is a judgment to which they are bound to defer. They cannot but feel that they have been

treated by the Commissioners with the utmost consideration and tenderness. Their case has been tried before a tribunal, supposed by public opinion to be decidedly prepossessed in their favour, and undeniably containing several pronounced friends and even some pledged advocates of their views. Yet even this tribunal has pronounced against them. The very gentleness and courtesy of the verdict ought to give it all the greater weight with them, free as it is (in spite of its decisiveness) from all taunt or derogatory expression, or shade of irritating imputation.

We are gratified to find that the Ritualists themselves confess the impropriety of forcing their peculiarities upon an unwilling congregation (we are not so sure that we might say upon an unwilling parish); so that they will hardly resist such an alteration of the law as shall give force to this reasonable provision. But have we not a right to demand something more of them? The Report before us supplies a new and crowning proof that they have had to deal not only here and there with unwilling congregations, but everywhere with an unwilling church and an unwilling nation. This is a fact which has now been established by every conceivable method, except that impossible 'Synod' which Mr. Bennett asks for: and we trust that they will not persist in provoking or compelling that hostile action of the Legislature which their more moderate opponents deprecate. Surely if capitulation or surrender is often a duty morally incumbent on the bravest soldiers, we have a right to look for a generous submission from Christians and from churchmen, when submission means deference to legitimate authority and to the still higher law of charity, at the sacrifice only of personal tastes, and when resistance would mean internecine warfare, ending of necessity in the expulsion or secession of the recalcitrant few.

When we come to the practical recommendations of the Commissioners, we are forced to speak with more hesitation in their praise. They expressly reserve to themselves the right of further deliberation on this important part of the subject. But still what they do say seems to us unnecessarily ambiguous; and we doubt whether they are of one mind themselves as to what they intend by it. Their words are

'We are of opinion that it is expedient to restrain in the public services of the United Church of England and Ireland, all variations in respect of vesture from that which has long been the established usage of the said United Church; and we think that this may best be secured by providing aggrieved parishioners with an easy and effectual process for complaint and redress.'

Now what does this mean? Is there to be a prohibitory law against these vestments? or is there not? At first sight it would seem to imply that the restraint recommended is to be merely such as the contemplated 'process' may exercise-a restraint therefore wholly contingent on the voluntary action of the parishioners. Yet this can hardly be the meaning; else why should the three Commissioners who have published 'Reservations' contend for this very point? And, unless we assume a previous alteration of the law of vestments, restraining the licence now indulged, or at least an authoritative settlement of its present ambiguities, such as shall give parishioners a definite right of complaint, we hardly see on what plea they could claim redress, however easy were the process provided for them. If then the Commissioners contemplate an alteration of the law of vestments, what is that alteration to be? We conclude that the answer is to be looked for in the words established usage.' The present unfortunate rubric, about the second year of the reign of king 'Edward VI.,' must surely be expunged. What is to be substituted for it? A rubric apparently defining the legitimate vestments to be those which have long been the established usage of the Church.' A somewhat stricter wording would of course be necessary; but, broadly speaking, this sort of rubric appears to us very much what is wanted-far preferable to such minute regulations as those which are attempted by the Canons, or by Lord Shaftesbury's Vestment Bill. Such a rubric would allow a certain elasticity of interpretation, and of consequent practice, without entering into minutia which are in any case trifling and unworthy of the Church, and which might at some future time prove inconvenient. And the licence thus permitted would vary in each case according to the circumstances and the views of that particular authority with which would lie the power of enforcing the law. If such licence might in some cases prove very wide indeed, as, for instance, in cathedrals, and in collegiate, or private, or proprietary chapels, yet in parochial churches, where alone the restriction is of primary importance, a remedy would always be within easy reach even of a minority of the congregation-a remedy operative at once upon every one of the novel extravagances which have recently aroused Protestant susceptibilities. We should gladly hail the adoption of some rule capable of modification according to long-prevailing local practice and varying æsthetic tendencies; and we cordially approve the principle which leaves the power and opportunity of enforcing the rule with more or less strictness in the hands of the parishioners themselves. But