of brotherhoods and sisterhoods is so far a denial of the one Catholic Church of faithful men and women. Something may be said in support of this view, especially at a time when the religion of common life bids fair to be swamped in the wild scamper for deeper devotion in innumerable guilds and societies of Holy This and Holy That.

+

One of our greatest modern bishops has publicly announced his dream, which he hopes one day will come true, of a community of celibate men living the life of the early Christians, working and praying and holding all things in common.

What does the good bishop mean? I suppose he means that the ordinary life is not an adequate training ground for the cultivation of the higher Christian qualities. If that is his meaning, he is committing the old fallacy, which I thought had been exposed by the principles of the Reformation, of the essential mutual exclusiveness of Stoicism and Epicureanism, of reason and faith, of the religious life and the common life.

Does the reader follow me when I say that the foundation of Settlements as an aid to parochial work is but one aspect of that spiritual exclusiveness which converted simple-mannered and simpleminded men of the Reformation into burning zealots and bitter fanatics? Have we not here a negation of the holiest part of life? Is not this Settlement business an attempt to disprove the sacredness of relationships which God Himself has sanctified?

Woman indeed owes a grudge-and she would seem at the moment to be doing her best to pay it-to the persistent refusal of a certain poor type of man to grant to her her natural rights. She has to thank that kind of man for her civic disabilities, for her inferior education, for the time-worn tradition of her 'subjection.' It is not surprising, now that she realises that her redemption is nigh, that she should seek some demonstrative way of expressing her new-found liberty; and, as all the sweet domesticities of life-husband, children, and the loving care of them-are closely associated in her mind with the fetters of her slavery, it is not unnatural, perhaps, that she should eschew the banalities of home, shirk its responsibilities, endeavour to escape the wickedness (and the drudgery) of the 'world,' and at the same time gain glory of a mild kind in spheres of activity as far as possible removed from her ordinary experience, and, among others, in the quasi-conventual life of the Settlement. But in so doing she is, as I think, giving the lie to the essential holiness of every-day existence.

Hence it follows, as the night the day, that a Settlement of unmarried women will always run less risk of unacceptability in a parish over which a celibate vicar, assisted by celibate clergy, presides than in a parish ruled by married clergy. For, indirectly it may be, but no less certainly, the Ladies' Settlement fosters the ancient

heresy of the superiority of the unmarried clergy to the married. Like favours like, and, after all, it is only natural that it should.

Without doubt, in the Anglican Church of the present day there is a distinct tendency to put a premium upon the celibacy of the clergy. It is simply a truism to assert that marriage is a block to preferment. If Gibbon is to be believed, in the early centuries ecclesiastics were chosen for benefices in order that they might amuse the vacant tenderness of unmarried ladies' hearts; and, as human nature is pretty much the same all time through, it is not impossible that history may, within a measurable period, repeat itself in this particular. If it should do so, we may hazard a shrewd guess as to the use which the Settlement lady is likely to make of such influence as she possesses.

Nor is it impossible, it may be added, that our sons and daughters may live to witness a recrudescence-in a refined form, one concludesof the barbarities practised in the Church of the Middle Ages against the married clergy, with possible consequences on the sexual side not entirely pleasant to contemplate.

Members of the Anglican Communion who are not accustomed to read the signs of the times would do well to hearken to the warning of history as to what may be expected should the tendency exhibited in the Settlement system to exalt celibacy at the expense of the married life continue to grow in popularity. For it must not be forgotten how, under Bonner of evil fame, priests who had wives were suspended from office, deprived of their livings, and persecuted in a variety of other ways; and a curious picture presents itself to the mind of the historian of a certain rector of St. George's, Eastcheap, who openly, in his own church, regretted his 'former wicked living' with his wife, and under the direction of his spiritual superiors cast her off there and then for ever.

Now I do not expect to make such plain statements as the foregoing without rousing a certain amount of hostility. Some of my readers are conceivably saying: 'You are old-fashioned. You are not moving with the times. You are presuming on the freehold of your living, on a mere accident of authority, on a position which the act of an individual has bestowed upon you. You evidently regard the laity as of no account. Your opposition to Ladies' Settlements is a relic of feudalism. As feudal lord of your parish you are using your medieval powers for your own petty purposes. You are able to assume this arrogant position because of the lack of discipline which has distinguished, and all but extinguished, the Church of England since the Reformation. In a word, you are parochial. But the parochial system must go, and you, perhaps, with your thirteenth-century notions, with it, and way must be made for a larger interpretation of the meaning of the Catholic Church of England.'

Well, to such honest criticism I reply: 'My friends, you

will

excuse me if I point out that you are making a grievous mistake. I am no more feudal and old-fashioned in objecting to a Ladies' Settlement in my parish than a brother is feudal and old-fashioned because he will not allow his sister to arrogate to herself equal authority with himself in his own house. I am no more feudal or old-fashioned than the head of a firm would be who should object to his female second-cousin using a corner of his own shop for the purpose of entrapping his own customers.'

As to the charge of 'parochialism,' that requires a more detailed

answer.

To begin with, do we not owe an immense debt of gratitude to the parochial system? That system has been instrumental in distributing evenly over the whole of our land humaneness, morals, and culture. That system has made the Church of England the Church of the people. Whatever may be the future of our Church, it is at least perfectly clear that under any other system than the parochial it will never be quite the particular thing it has been in the past. It may be better or it may be worse, but it can never be exactly the same. This, I suppose, nobody would be concerned to deny.

Yet I am willing to acknowledge that the parochial system may be out of date. It is quite conceivable that we ought to be returning to the diocese as the unit of Church life. Nor is it impossible that the parish priest has more responsibility than he ought to have, that he is overwhelmed with tedious detail, that he is understaffed from the lay no less than from the clerical standpoint, that he possesses unwarrantable independence of action.

All this may be perfectly true; but what, after all, does it prove? Simply that there is room for reform. Of course there is. But if we are going in for reform, let us go in for it whole-heartedly. It really will not do to put new wine into an old bottle, or to sew the new cloth on to an old garment. The bottle will inevitably burst, the garment will inevitably be destroyed. New wine must be put into new bottles, new cloth must be sewn to new garments. In other words, if parochial methods are out of date, if the parish ideal is worn beyond mending, let us frankly acknowledge the fact and set about annihilating the parochial system with all our might and main. But let us not, at our peril, attempt to patch where patching will make the rent far worse than it was before. Let us beware of running the risk of convulsion and loss by attempting to amalgamate systems which are essentially destructive of each other. Let us restrain our hot-headed impatience to enhance the good or mitigate the evil of the old, proved, and trusted parish by the forcible intrusion into its midst of the new, untried, and suspected Settlement.

I plead for fearless facing of the facts, for reform where reform is needed. And my point is that reform will never be brought about, but much needless trouble will be, by the erection_within the parish

of an imperium in imperio, by the creation of a 'head' which owes no allegiance to the lawful head to whom the souls of the whole parish have been solemnly committed.

RICHARD FREE.

POSTSCRIPT.-The following unsolicited letter from a London vicar will speak for itself, and will prove at least that I am not solitary in my objection to Ladies' Settlements :

January 2, 1908.

DEAR SIR,-My attention has been called to the leader in yesterday's Evening News. If the facts are as stated, you have my most hearty sympathy as well as my thorough agreement with your views and decision. A Church Settlement of any kind, not under the incumbent's control, is bound to prove & mischievous institution and rival. But of all such things the worst is a Ladies' Settlement. The ladies set all law and order at defiance, worry the vicar with notices and requests of all kinds, pauperise and demoralise the people, establish an independent (and often antagonistic) Church organisation, and too often spread scandal and create mischief outside the parish. Last, but not least, the question of different theological standpoint may come in, a difference certain to produce lamentable ecclesiastical results and as likely as not to wreck the incumbent's health and peace. I congratulate you on your firm stand, and trust it will be rewarded with the success it deserves to be crowned with. New Year's good wishes.

Yours faithfully,

Later the same gentleman wrote a second letter, from which the following sentences are extracted:

I wrote sincerely and advisedly, and have nothing to withhold. The lack of moral courage is a proverb to-day; but we have to make allowance for the change in diocesan Church government. Forty years ago it was paternal; now it is autocratic and bureaucratic. . . .

...

As to the correspondence, I now learn that the Settlement is to be in your parish and the work in other parishes.

own.

1. That to my mind is even more serious than if the ladies worked in your There would, in the latter case, be some kind of check and even power of restraint over them; but if they work elsewhere you will be absolutely powerless.

2. Then no matter what may be the promises and rules made by the Settlement's Head you cannot prevent your people calling at the Settlement and gossiping and mischief-making. Nor could you prevent the ladies from carrying the gossip to other parishes.

R. F.

A WOMAN'S PLEA AGAINST WOMAN

SUFFRAGE

To the Suffragist the one thing needful for woman is the Parliamentary vote. It is held out as a universal and never-failing remedy, whereby the rough places in the world of women are to be made smooth and the crooked paths straight.

This faith in the efficacy of the suffrage is magnificent; but is it based on the solid foundations of reason and the public welfare?

Men and women are not two opposing armies seeking one another's destruction. The one sex is the complement of the other; their interests are one and indivisible. That which brings good to the man inevitably brings good to the woman, for they are indissolubly linked together. By the unalterable decree of Nature man was marked out to be the protector and guardian of the woman. He is expected to work for her, and, so far as he can, guard her from danger, though it be at the risk of his own life; and civilisation insists that, where life is in peril, it is the women, and not the men, who must first be saved. The privileges of a woman are neither small nor few, and she holds them by virtue of her womanhood. Have we ceased to think them of any account? Are we prepared to give them up, to forgo what Samuel Johnson called the super-eminent influence' we at present exercise over men, which makes so largely for the benefit and betterment of the world, in order that we may fight our way through life not as the helpmates of men, but as their competitors and rivals?

Let us consider for a moment how we have fared without this coveted vote. Have the interests of women been specially and markedly neglected? If we look over the field of legislation, it will be seen that as each class has been enfranchised it has brought its share of good alike to the men and women of that class. Since the working classes were enfranchised legislation has been greatly quickened in passing measures for the improvement of their position. The conditions under which they live and work have been made safer and healthier, and they are now entitled to compensation for injuries received and diseases contracted in the course of their employment. But these and other safeguards and advantages have not been given to men alone. Women, in so far as they are workers, have profited equally with men