then to find her alive; but she rallied again and we went down with all our family to the Lakes for the holidays, intending to return to Laleham for a short time before the end of the vacation. But the accounts became worse, and we went up to her, leaving the children at the Lakes, towards the end of July. We spent more than a fortnight at Laleham, and returned to Rugby on the 18th of August, expecting, or at least not despairing of seeing her again in the winter. On the 23rd, we heard from Mrs. Buckland, to say that all was over; she had died on the night of the 21st, so suddenly, that the Bucklands could not be called from the next house in time. The last months, I may say indeed the last twenty years of her life, had been à constant preparation, and she was only spared the nervous fear which none probably can wholly overcome, of expecting the approach of death within a definite time. I never saw nor ever heard of a more complete triumph over selfishness, a more glorious daily renewing of soul and spirit amidst the decays and sufferings of the body, than was displayed throughout her twenty years' martyrdom. My poor aunt, well comparatively speaking in body, but decayed sadly in her mind, still lives in the same house, close to the Bucklands; the only remaining survivor of what I call the family of my childhood. I attach a very peculiar value to the common articles of furniture, the mere pictures, and china, and books, and candlesticks, &c., which I have seen grouped together in my infancy, and whilst my aunt still keeps them, it seems to me as if my father's house were not quite broken up.

You may have heard, perhaps, that great as is the loss of this dear sister, I was threatened with one still heavier in May last. My wife was seized with a most virulent sore throat, which brought on a premature confinement, and for some time, my distress was greater than it has been since her dangerous illness in 1821. But she was mercifully recovered, not however without the loss of our little baby, a beautiful little girl, who just lived for seven

CHAPTER VII.

LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE-JANUARY 1833

SEPTEMBER 1835.

His alarm about the state of the poor naturally subsided with the tranquillization of the disturbances amongst the rural population, but was succeeded by an alarm almost as great, lest the political agitation which, in 1832, took the form of the cry for Church Reform, should end in destroying what, with all its defects, seemed to him the greatest instrument of social and moral good existing in the country. It was this strong conviction which, in 1833, originated his pamphlet on "the Principles of Church Reform." "I hung back," he said, "as long as I could, till the want was so urgent, that I sat down to write, because I could not help it." But with him preservation was only another word for reform; and here the reform proposed was great in proportion as he thought the stake at issue was dear, and the danger formidable. Most earnestly do I wish to see the Establishment reformed," was the closing sentence of his Postscript, "at once, for the sake of its greater security, and its greater perfection: but, whether reformed or not, may God in his mercy save us from the calamity of seeing it destroyed!" As much of the misunder

66

with all its rument of untry. It originated Reform." d, till the write, bepreservahere the thought formidhe Estae of his

security, med or

lamity under

standing of his character arose from a partial knowledge of this pamphlet, and of his object in writing it, it may be as well to give, in his own words, the answer which he made to a friend, in 1840, to a general charge of indiscretion brought against him.

"It seems to me that the charge of 'indiscretion,' apart of course from the truth or error of the opinions expressed, belongs only to my Church Reform pamphlet. Now, I am quite ready to allow, that to publish such a pamphlet in 1840, or indeed at any period since 1834, would have been the height of indiscretion. But I wrote that pamphlet in 1833, when most men-myself among the number— had an exaggerated impression of the strength of the movement party, and of the changes which it was likely to effect. My pamphlet was written on the supposition-not implied, but expressed repeatedly-that the Church Establishment was in extreme danger; and therefore I proposed remedies, which, although I do still sincerely believe them to be in themselves right and good, yet would be manifestly chimerical, and to advise them might well be called indiscreet, had not the danger and alarm, as I supposed, been imminent. I mistook, undoubtedly, both the strength and intenseness of the movement, and the weakness of the party opposed to it; but I do not think that I was singular in my error-many persisted in it; Lord Stanley, for example, even in 1834 and the subsequent years-many even hold it still, when experience has proved its fallacy. But the startling nature of my proposals, which I suppose constitutes what is called their indiscretion, is to be judged by the state of things in 1832-3, and not by that of times present. Jephson finds that his patients will adopt a very strict diet, when they believe themselves to be in danger; but he would be very indiscreet if he prescribed it to a man who felt no symptoms of indisposition, for the man would certainly laugh at him, although perhaps the diet would do him great good, if he could be induced to adopt it."

The plan of the pamphlet itself is threefold; a defence of the national Establishment, a statement of the extreme danger to which it was exposed, and a proposal of what seemed to him the only means of averting this danger :-first, by a design for comprehending the Dissenters within the pale of the Establishment, without compromise of principle on either side; secondly, by various details intended to increase its actual efficiency. The sensation created by the appearance of this pamphlet was considerable. Within six months of its publication it passed through four editions. It was quoted with approbation and condemnation by men of the most opposite parties, though with far more of condemnation than of approbation. Dissenters objected to its attacks on what he conceived to be their sectarian narrowness, the Clergy of the Establishment to its supposed latitudinarianism:—its advocacy of large reforms repelled the sympathy of many Conservatives its advocacy of the importance of religious institutions repelled the sympathy of many Liberals.

Yet still it was impossible not to see, that it stood apart from all the rest of the publications for and against Church Reform, then issuing in such numbers from the press. There were many, both at the time and since, who, whilst they objected to its details, yet believed its statement of general principles to be true, and only to be deprecated because the time was not yet come for their application. There were many again, who, whilst they objected to its general principles, yet admired the beauty of particular passages, or the wisdom of some of the details. Such were the statement of the advantages of a national