number of separate and independent organisations, each doing badly a work which, if they were all consolidated, might be done well.

Two general remarks may be offered in conclusion. The first is that the possibilities of recognition in this second sense must depend on the extent to which it is possible to recognise Dissent in the first sense. Stated in less technical language, this means, that where the Dissenters of a country parish have no definite and organised existence as Dissenters, and cannot therefore, or can only with great difficulty, be even recognised as Dissenters, or approached in that sense, it is impossible to treat seriously the idea of recognising them in the sense of treating with them and making advances towards them. An understanding between two parties presupposes that each of them has arrived at that state which metaphysicians call thinghood." But in many cases, rural Dissent is no thing; it rests on no vestige of principle consciously preferred by those who profess it; it has no assured permanence, but might vanish any day before a new clergyman, or in the event of two or three leading village tradesmen being removed from the district. Now we have recommended above, in cases of uncertainty, the clear discrimination of those who are from those who are not Dissenters. But probably in cases where Dissent is only just beginning to invade a parish, it is better to let it severely alone. Hence, there are three stages in the progress of rural Dissent which, if the country parson is sagacious enough to adjust himself to them, he will treat differently. There is, first, the stage at which Dissent is inchoate and invertebrate. In that case, it requires no notice. There is, next the stage at which it has obtained a respectable foothold. It should then be the aim of Churchmen, and indeed of Dissenters likewise, to endeavour to discriminate clearly between the members of the two connections. Lastly, there is the stage at which Dissent has become firmly rooted and permanently established. When that stage has been

reached, it must inevitably occur to every Churchman, and likewise, we should say, to every Dissenter possessed even of the most rudimentary capacity for statesmanship-that the time has come for setting on foot some of those attempts at understanding, arrangement and mutual co-operation which have been above suggested.

Our second concluding remark is that nothing in this last direction ought to be initiated by individual clergymen merely on their own responsibility. If anything is done to place Church and Dissent in country parishes on a better footing, it should be the act, if not of the Church of England as a whole, at all events of some considerable section of that Church, whether a Diocese, an Archdeaconry, or a Rural Deanery. The uncertain duration of any one man's tenure of his incumbency would alone be a sufficient argument to support this conclusion. Nothing can be less desirable than for a clergyman to dabble in negotiations the results of which, whether salutary or the reverse, may not be accepted by his successor. Nor is there any worse dislocation in the history of a parish than that which arises, when what has been done by one clergyman is undone by another. But even independently of this consideration, no changes of the kind referred to are ever likely to be successful, unless they are the outcome of a disposition on the part of Churchmen generally, to enter into new relations with the Dissenters, more especially in country districts. The mere expression of such a desire by a large and representative section of Churchmen would soon lead to its practical realisation, and no one knows better than the present writer that not even the best devised and most ably worked out scheme, let alone the mere suggestions offered above, can produce this result otherwise.

1 Of course this statement is intended to apply only to radical changes. That short of this a clergyman may take his own line as regards the Dissenters, goes without asking.

PART III

THE ALIENATED CLASSES

"Sind nun diese Zustände Zeichen eines allgemeinen Rückgang's der Menscheit, oder verbirgt sich in ihnen ein Fortschritt, den wir nur zunächst beschäftigt sehen, alte Formen des religiösen Lebens zu zerbrechen, der uns aber nicht hoffnungslos über einstige Wiedererzeugung neuer lasst?" -HERMANN LOTZE.

CHAPTER I

LIMITATION OF THE INQUIRY

THE subjects with which we have thus far been concerned are of a comparatively definite and limited nature, though capable of being regarded under a vast variety of aspects. We now, however, have to do not with existing and established institutions, but with sentiments and opinions which, though they often express themselves in a determinate and intelligible form, more often remain indefinite and unpronounced, and require the most patient and careful analysis in order to be understood. And not merely are these negative views often vague and indefinite, they are also in different cases most widely different from each other. For the divergence from orthodoxy assumes the most various forms as regards both its nature and extent; and, though it is no doubt true that those who hold orthodox opinions likewise differ widely amongst themselves, yet in this latter case the differences are less strongly marked, in proportion as orthodoxy tends more to uniformity. Our present subject then requires even more than those former ones, that great care should be taken as regards the particularisation of those to whom it is intended to refer.

For this purpose, it will be well briefly to consider, what is the nature of the limitation which we impose on ourselves by examining into the position of the classes