and ceremonies must be devised in which all the 'sects' must participate, to represent the highest common measure of agreement in all. We seem to remember seeing it suggested in print on the occasion of the last Coronation that representatives of all the chief religious Denominations should be allowed to touch the king's crown in token that he had their assent to reign. In order to avoid the suggestions of such unseemly absurdities and the difficulties of sectarian controversy, is it not probable that the tendency would be more and more to eliminate all mention and appearance of religion from public life?

What would be the effect on the life of the remote and thinly-populated parts of the country? Hitherto, in spite of the steady diminution in the numbers of the clergy, the Church has maintained her high standard as a witness for God, a representative and minister of true religion in every parish of the land, whether in the congested slums of a large city, or in a hundred square miles of mountain and moorland inhabited by a few farmers and shepherds. As a consequence of Disestablishment, it is to be feared that the work of the Church in many parishes might have to come to an end.

The difficulties of the situation are serious; but may easily be exaggerated. The task undertaken by the Church with the assent of Parliament has been accomplished after many years of deliberation and thought with much success. The patient labours of so many eminent Churchmen, representing various schools of thought, but united in a common aim, and inspired by the highest motives, have already borne good fruit. When we recall the long and embittered controversies through which the present Prayer Book reached its final stage, it is remarkable what a large measure of agreement has been won by the continued exercise of patience, wisdom, and charity for the Deposited Book. It represents, not, as is invidiously suggested, an effort of compromise, but of comprehension. In consequence there is a new spirit of loyalty and unity and mutual understanding abroad which gives much hope for the future. But the successful progress of the measure after passing the Church Assembly and the House of Lords by large majorities has been checked by a narrow majority of

AM

40

be

8

L

B

the House of Commons. This has created an impasse not and given rise to serious misgivings. It cannot be held that the measure of agreement reached after the labours of so many years by the main body of the Church has been duly considered in all its bearings, or ought to be finally rejected by the House of Commons in a single night. And it is out of the question that the voice of Parliament can affect the spiritual autonomy of the Church. On the other hand, it is to be remembered that Parliament has no wish, it has for many years past expressed a steady disinclination, to interfere with anything that concerns the Church alone. Moreover, in recent years important measures have been passed securing greater freedom of action to the Church and enabling her to go forward in the way of reform and greater efficiency in her work. There has also grown up a better understanding between the Established Church and other religious Denominations, and a greater desire for unity and co-operation in Christian work. These are changes which all may be thankful for as productive of nothing but good.

te

in

e

There is every hope of an extension of the ground that has been gained if the Church will steadily and patiently persist in the course that she believes to be best for her own self-government and for the highest good of the nation. The danger to be feared is that of hasty and ill-considered action, of narrowness and prejudice, and of a recrudescence of religious intolerance and the controversies of the past. The situation seems to call for careful consideration and the continued exercise of patience and good will. The difficulties are serious, but with good sense and good will on both sides they can be easily overcome. It is the aim of this article that there should be a clear understanding of the issues involved, so that no irrevocable steps may be taken which it may be impossible to retrace. And it is the writer's conviction that there is no good reason that can be put forward, and no necessity has yet arisen, which could justify a break in the age-long and wellproved relationship of Church and State.

Art. 4.-THE WHITE HOUSE AND ITS OCCUPANTS. 'O CARP, Carp, what wouldn't I give to-night to exchange this hospital of wearisome pain and woe they call the White House for the place of some poor boy that sleeps under the sod of a Southern battlefield !'-So mourned President Abraham Lincoln to his friend, Frank Carpenter, during the Civil War. Ever since General Washington, with a keen eye to personal 'Business,' surveyed the Potomac in a pre-historic piroque-'hollowed out of a great poplar-tree-a long line of widely-differing men have ruled in the famous Executive Mansion, and all have protested against the intolerable tedium of its duties, both great and small. With these duties I shall presently deal in detail-only remarking here that we have in Europe no exact analogy to the sacrosanctity of the White House and its occupant. Not even King George, were he isolated in Westminster Abbey, would quite form an analogy; though perhaps a Sovereign Pontiff, infallible as to political faith and morals, and enthroned in a changeless Vatican, comes nearer to the ingenuous American truth. It is inaccurate to say that the First President declined a Third Term for fear of creating an 'autocratic' precedent. He was merely weary of a job which we know has soured even the temper of Calvin Coolidge, the most placid of men, and caused Woodrow Wilson to refer to himself bitterly as a national exhibit, like the Monument or the Smithsonian'!

We have seen Federal Australia plant a new political capital in the wilderness at Canberra. The United States of Brazil have long been dissatisfied with Rio de Janeiro, and have marked out a jungle-site in the huge State of Goyaz as a more efficient centre of government for an inchoate land as large as all Europe. And years ago the Brazilian State of Minas Geraes transferred its capital from quaint little hill-set Ouro Preto to the plateau-city of Bello Horizonte, which was 'made to order' on spacious and salubrious lines. It is the City of Washington which has been the prototype of these political migrations. And the heart of that city is Pennsylvania Avenue, which has the White House at one end of it and the Capitol at the other, as the

3.

Executive and Legislative branches of the New American Empire, which to-day holds the primacy of the world in money-power and the influence that goes with it.

As early as 1785-even before the Constitution was adopted-the stormy Congress of the infant Republic had empowered a Commission to select a site for the new nation's capital on the Delaware River. Meanwhile, the Government offices were to remain in New York until 1790, after which they were to be transferred to Philadelphia. In the thirteen ex-colonies bitter sectionalism prevailed, just as Bolívar found in the freed colonies of Spain. The claims of the Susquehanna were hotly pressed, and other sites for the new city were suggested, with Madison, Ames, Sherman, and Lee foremost in fierce debates. Mr Burke thought a civilised centre better for a Government than any 'Palace in the Woods.' The Representative from Massachusetts vowed 'it was not of two paper dollars' worth of consequence where it was! Thomas Jefferson, whose classic 'Ana'records made mischief after his death, tells of a 'cute deal' arranged by Hamilton, whereby the new city was to be established on the Potomac, in exchange for State votes on the Revolution Debts, which amounted to $20,000,000. But it was President Washington who settled the matter, fixing the site as near as possible to his own home at Mount Vernon; and in the Amendment of March 3, 1791, his 'business' hand is clearly shown.

Trouble began at once. A dour old Scot-David Burns by name-who owned a tract of 650 acres in the heart of the proposed capital, refused to sell at any price; and when President Washington appealed to his patriot sentiment, sharply retorted: If it hadn't been for the Widow Custis and her niggers, you'd never have been anything but a land-surveyor-and a pretty poor surveyor at that!' This was a thrust at Washington's unromantic marriage. David Burns had, however, to yield. The Federal District of Columbia was duly ceded by the jealous States, and housing put in hand for Congress and the President, who insisted on the sole power of directing the Federal City to be laid off in what manner he pleases.' Washington at once sent for the French engineer, Major Peter Charles L'Enfant, and the

two surveyed the wilderness on horseback as the future heart of 'a mighty Empire.'

All told, the population of the Republic at the time was about equal to that of Glasgow or Philadelphia today. The alien designer, with Versailles and Le Notre's work in mind, had a terrible time with speculators. And in a letter of Washington's (Nov. 17, 1792) the exploits of a Mr Blodget, pouncing upon lots 'ripe for development' near the Capitol and White House, are anxiously dealt with-though I agree with you that this should not be generally known.' Being an artist, L'Enfant was also dictatorial. The Commissioners complained to Jefferson about his obstinate ways; the President himself did not expect to meet with such perverseness." In his own defence the Major pointed out that 'boomers would 'leap upon his best vistas and squares to raise huddles of shanties that would embarrass the city.' The poor man was soon in disgrace, having refused a fee of 500 guineas and a city lot which were tendered him with his dismissal. Later on the architect of Washington was paid $1394 for his services, and for a long time was a pathetic and picturesque prowler in crude Halls of State, with his big hickory stick and a roll of papers in which his grievances and claims were set out in odd Franco-English. Major L'Enfant found a nameless grave in a house of charity in 1825, and the work passed to his American assistant, Andrew Ellicott, who in turn was got rid of for negligence. Meanwhile, the nucleus of the city was growing; which is to say, the first Capitol and the President's House on the 'Potowmak' -to fulfil the Indian prophecy of that river's name as: 'The meeting-place of all the tribes.'

It is thought that George Washington was disappointed when he saw the White House. True, he styled it 'The Palace,' and always rode out in a coach and four with liveried footmen. But it was his successor, John Adams, who first occupied this very modest Executive Mansion, dumped down in a desert place. And in October 1800, a little packet-sloop sailed up the river from Philadelphia with all the records, archives, and furniture of the nascent empire. New-comers were dismayed at this town of streets without houses.' From the Capitol to the White House the present Avenue was