213

NOTICES.

1. Cambridge Camden Society. Account of the Sixth Anniversary Meeting, &c. 1845.

2. A Letter to a Non-Resident Member of the Cambridge Camden Society on the present position of that Body. C. A. S. Privately printed. 1845.

3. A Statement of Particulars connected with the Restoration of the Round Church. By the CHAIRMAN OF THE RESTORATION COMMITTEE. Cambridge: Deightons, Stevenson, and Walters, &c.

1845.

It will be not more satisfactory to all who have at heart the real practical working of the Church in a very important department of its duties and services, than it is to ourselves to understand that the Cambridge Camden Society is still, and likely to be, at work. The way to understand the value of this Association is to look only at facts: let us compare what churches were twelve or fifteen years ago and what they are now. Ignorance the most deplorable in those who practised the architectural profession; cheapness, vulgarity, pretence, unreality then ruled: where any knowledge existed, it was only for book-making purposes, like the well-husbanded resources of Mr. Britton, or for mere antiquarianism, like that of Carter and Stothard. But now the whole aspect of Church building and restoration is changed: it is looked at as religion: it has become a work. And this those whose hearts are in their work find to be attributable mainly to the existence of the Cambridge Camden Society: it is a nucleus, a stiff, stern, unyielding knot of principle which has gathered and attracted to itself all the knowledge and details which, supposing them to exist, would otherwise have been, if not altogether unserviceable, still very unavailable. For acquiring and imparting information which can be quoted and acted upon there must be a responsible body-a Society-something which has tangible form and identity. This is what people apply to, and what they have confidence in. The country Clergy-those interested in the colonies-men who have money to spend, and who desire to spend it properly, always go to the authoritative Architectural Societies: they know that they will get the best advice and assistance, given without fear or partialityacquired painfully, but dispensed liberally. To judge then of the use of such a society, there is but one question to

put: Has it the confidence of those who have anything to to do, who have a meaning in their new churches, or their restored churches, or their new seats, or plate, or what not? who spend their money for the glory of God, and the honour of His sanctuary? These are the people, and these alone, whose opinion is worth attending to. Others whose vocation is only to preach or to talk and write against good works, and who think or pretend that it argues great spirituality to let their churches fall down, and who ask others to give their money to fancy-fairs, of course must feel a great spite against the Camden Society. It is a practical, living, earnest, active enemy of them, and of all that they do and say. Its function is to work;-theirs to talk, to write, to preach, perhaps, but to do anything but produce facts. This is, therefore, one element of the rage which has been excited against it. And if we bear in mind the professional vanities and pretensions cut down, and the individual neglects and sacrileges exposed, often perhaps unpleasantly, we can quite account for the mass of ill-will which the Society had silently treasured up against itself.

And under such circumstances the storm was sure to comeaffronts like these will always find some way of revenging themselves: the Society was too influential, too much of a positive agent to be openly patronized; it was just the thing to be encouraged and thought well of in private upon the understanding that it was to be thrown over as soon as the popular elements had set in strongly against it. And precisely because the Society was concerned with visible material things, it has come to pass that its particular history is, in some measure, an epitome of more important and more general oppositions to, and struggles for, the truth. Its fate becomes, therefore, an interesting, however painful speculation, apart from its own deserts and usefulness. Considerable satisfaction we cannot but feel that its labours are likely to be continued; and that it has suffered diminution in point of numbers is rather a matter of congratulation than of regret. A word, however, on the opposition to which it has been subjected. Never were objections so palpably absurd: the seceders (Letter to a Non-resident, &c.) admit that few but the present members of the Committee are competent to carry on the business of the Society.'-P. 14. They allow that their views of the importance of what they call the original objects of the Society remain unchanged: and when challenged to propose any definite plan for its continuance on any principles, or to suggest a new Committee who should be able to do its work-not a word. They can destroy, object, criticize, impede, grumble; but not a step forward will they take. If Church architecture without Church principles-if

Church restoration without a clear knowledge of what is to be restored-and if the negation of symbolism, the negation of reality, the negation of costliness, the negation of truthfulness, antiquity, and authority, all taken together, make up a definite Protestantism of Christian art, then, and then alone, can the opponents of the Camden Society maintain their position. And before the unparalleled step of circulating blank forms, soliciting members to leave the Society was taken, we are quite surprised that even the usages of society, to say nothing of the courtliness of a University, should not have urged gentlemen to pause.

With Archdeacon's Thorp's pamphlet we are quite satisfied, though it is somewhat too long. Mr. Faulkner's little tricks are at length exposed. The man who could, as a non-resident incumbent, quietly minister at a stone-altar at Havering in Essex, and then publish an appeal to the Protestant public against the awful introduction of doctrines and observances into our Churches at this day, and the erection of these Stone-altars and Credence-tables, by which the most pernicious and soul'destroying heresies are nurtured,' is fit for anything. His small, unutterably small, pettifogging use of a pencilled note written by Archdeacon Thorp to a third party, by which Mr. F. declares that he had been deceived by a promise made to him ' with regard to the erection of the Stone-altar which he had been 'told WOULD NOT be put up without his consent,'-and which statement of Mr. Faulkner, it seems, imposed even upon the Bishop of St. David's-we prefer to give from Archdeacon Thorp's pamphlet, not only because it shows that gentleman's frank, unsuspicious temper, but because it opens out the incredible shifts to which preferment-hunters will descend. It shows, too, what shuffling may pass off under the name of religion; and the whole story is in every way so characteristic, that we make a long extract:

ton.

'I allude to the charge asserted in Mr. Faulkner's "Appeal," of my having promised that the Altar should "be removed if he insisted upon it," and having giving a written " pledge" to the same effect to Mr. DalThis will be best understood from the following correspondence; but I should first state that the whole matter had been discussed in the Cambridge newspapers in the spring of last year till the public were sick of it, and was brought to a close by the following paragraph in a letter of mine to the Editor of the Chronicle, (March 22, 1844,) from which it appears that I had not then succeeded in obtaining from Mr. Dalton a copy of the note (No. VII.), in reliance on which he wrote off to Mr. Faulkner to acquaint him that I had pledged myself that the Altar should be removed. [The word "breathless" refers to the concluding words of the note in question.]

"I am unable to make out what were those wishes' of Mr. Faulkner which 'common courtesy', &c., authorized Mr. Dalton to expect

should be attended to', as I learn, on applying for a copy and the date of the entire note, 'written at his door,' that he is again absent from Cambridge; and can therefore only say, till I know to what communication this pencil note referred, that they were not such as to pledge me by that memorandum to the breathless conclusion which it led that gentleman to impart to his principal."'

CORRESPONDENCE.

I.

Trinity College, Nov. 3, 1844.

REV. SIR,-I beg the favour of your pointing out to me the passages in my letters to you of Nov. 9 and 11 of last year, in which, according to a Circular which I have just read bearing your signature, and which I understand has been industriously circulated in every direction except where its statements could be questioned, you consider me as having 'giving you to understand that it' (the Altar Table in S. Sepulchre's church), 'should be removed if you insisted upon it :' and also the date and terms of the 'pledge' which you represent me as having distinctly given in writing' to the same effect to Mr. Dalton. I remain, Rev. Sir,

Your obedient Servant,

Rev. R. R. FAULKNER, Havering.

II.

T. THORP.

Havering Parsonage, 6 Nov. 1844. REV. SIR,-As you wish me to point out to you the passages in your letters to me of Nov. 9 and 11 of last year in which I consider you as having given me to understand that the Stone Altar should be removed if I insisted on it, I beg to say that in my Appeal to the protestant public, to which you allude, I have used the very words of your own letters to me on the subject, and cannot possibly give a more accurate copy of your own statements than are there expressed.

Respecting the date and terms of the pledge' given to Mr. Dalton to the same effect, I am informed by Mr. D. this morning that he has fully stated them again to you, in reply to a letter received from you on the subject.

I remain, Rev. Sir,

REV. SIR,-In the only Appeal to the Protestant Public,' as you call it, which I have seen, and which is published in the Record of Sept. 19, there are no words cited as from my correspondence with you at all. It is merely stated, that in 'a lengthened correspondence' I 'gave you to

understand that it' (the Altar) should be removed if you insisted upon it but begged you to be silent about the matter, and wait a little :' and add that you 6 you have my letters now in your possession of Nov. 9 and 11, which positively assure you of this.' This you will perceive, is an assertion of yours, not a quotation of my words: and it is an assertion which I deny. I therefore again demand of you a copy of the words in which, in letters now in your possession of Nov. 9 and 11, I gave you to understand,' and 'positively assured you,'' that the Altar should be removed.'

I need scarcely apprise you that I shall hold myself at liberty to publish the present correspondence.

REV. SIR,-In reply to your demand this morning, I beg to say that you are quite at liberty to publish the present correspondence, and that I am fully prepared to substantiate my assertion,' as you are pleased to call it.

The letters to which you allude are in the hands of a professional friend: but you will, by a reference to two letters signed by Mr. Dalton and myself in the Cambridge Chronicle of 16th March, see a copy of the words which you appear to have forgotten.

I shall decline all further correspondence on the subject, and remain, Rev. Sir,

The VEN. T. THORP.

V.

Your obedient Servant,

R. R. FAULKNER.

Trinity College, Nov. 3, 1844. REV. SIR,-I take the liberty to renew the request I addressed to you last March (22d), with which, having received no answer to it, I conclude that your absence from Cambridge at that time precluded your complying, that you would favour me with a copy of the 'pledge' which you are represented as having forwarded to Mr. F., to the effect that the Altar Table in S. Sepulchre's church 'should be immediately removed.' I shall also be obliged by your informing me, if you can, of the date and occasion of that note, and of any note or notes of yours by which it was suggested.

I am, Rev. Sir,

Your obedient Servant,

Rev. J. E. DALTON.

VI.

J. THORP.

Queen's College, Cambridge, Monday, 4th Nov. 1844. DEAR SIR,-On the other side you have the сору which you desired. The reason why you did not have it before was that I supposed you