the good broad Scotch accent in which they rejoiced, together with the abundant antipathy of race and kingdom which was prevalent a hundred years ago, made them unfit for the English parishes in America; for such the colonial parishes were. There could not be much attractiveness in the church, nor much enthusiasm for it, in the nearly one-half of the parishes where these gentlemen were found.

But there was a deeper cause than this at work. The system itself was wearing out, the Establishment was becoming out of harmony with the times. American sentiment was growing very rapidly, and that sentiment meant absolute equality both as to person and property, before the law; and of this equality the Establishment was a curtailment. Other disturbances were rather symptons of this deeper disease; objections were strongly expressed because there was a more or less conscious antagonism to the institution itself.

This growing instability of the Establishment was perceived by some of the clergy, who during the frequent discusions upon the matter of the clerical salaries, were more apprehensive for the existence of the law of 1702 than they were about their incomes. For the readiness and the facility with which the Assembly tampered with one section of the law, made them fear that the law itself might become a common thing in handling, and at last without consideration be cast aside. And doubtless there was good reason for just that fear. Also, as the records show, there was more than one occasion when the validity of the law was questioned, and that by eminent legal

authorities and professing churchmen. The thought was to get rid of what was felt to be a burden, by that means. That they did not attempt a straightforward repeal of the law, whatever the Proprietary might have said in the case, is proof that the church was very close to the hearts of the largest part of the people... That the Proprietary would have resisted such a repeal is probable, though by no means certain.. He professed friendship for the church and the clergy, but what he cared for chiefly was that which promoted his own emoluments and pleas

ures.

The question of the poll tax was frequently discussed at this time. In 1747 the earlier law had been reenacted, making one-fourth of the amount payable in other produce than tobacco, at a fixed rate. This, like many of the colonial laws, was to continue in force only for a given time; the people, not having the right of repeal, thus retaining power over the laws in their own hands. Again, in 1753, the law was enacted to continue in force five years. And also again in 1758 and 1763. On this last occasion the law was further modified by making the poll to be thirty instead of forty pounds. Though this reduction imposed no real burden on the clergy; for owing: to the great increase in population the salaries. had generally so advanced as that the incomes in some instances were handsome, and in almost all parishes good. By this frequent presentation of the matter the question of salaries was kept alive in the people's minds, and so when any delinquency occurred among the clergy the matter was known far and wide. Such a case

did occur a little later than our present period that shows the sensitiveness of the public feeling, and that the abuses of the system of the Establishment were working out their natural and fatal result. The Rev. Dr. Chandler, of New Jersey, distinguished subsequently to this by his activity as a champion of the church and church principles, was on a visit to Maryland, and he speaks about a condition of things that was very far from pleasing. The trouble was in Coventry Parish, which it was the desire of the people that the Doctor should receive, it being then vacant, and application was made to the Governor. Instead, however, of listening to them and presenting the man of their choice, who was also so eminently worthy, and thus pacifying a people who had formerly shown a restive spirit; possibly for that very reason he chose to ignore their desires; and that his lordship's prerogatives might be fully vindicated, forced upon the parish a man whom the people knew only too well as one wholly unfit for holy functions.

But the parishoners rose to the occasion and refused to receive the letter of induction offered, falling back upon what they esteemed their right of presentation. For they argued, that as the law was of their passing, and the church was sustained by their contributions, however provided, the parish was of necessity in their gift. Warm and acrimonious was the discussion that ensued, with even violence threatened, and that against the parson. The result was, however, that the people had to recede from their extreme position, and accept the order of things as it had been from the beginning. Mr. Henderson,

formerly commissary, had held the view that the Bishop of London had the power to induct. Mr. Daniel Dulaney, who was the great legal authority in the colony at this time, as members of the same family were through several generations, showed that their claim had no ground in law, and that over and beyond the privileges that belonged to the Proprietary by his charter, the law of 1702 in plain terms put the right of presentation and induction in the governor's hands. Out of this difficulty there came other changes in the form of the letter of induction, as we shall see. It is said that this case was carried to England on appeal and decided in favor of the parish. What effect such a decision might have had does not appear, but things went on in this matter as they had been all along. This incident only shows that the troubles of the Establishment were now thickening, the people restive, the proprietary more exacting, and the colonial authorities just and honorable, but wanting in sympathy. The next ten years were to witness the further progress of these symptoms and eventuate in the death of the institution.

One of the instances that prove the unfortunate position of the church under the ungodly and presumptuous Proprietary, was his action in the year 1754. The clergy had not for years met together for conference, whether for mutual edification and protection, or for the promotion of the general welfare of the church. The governor did not summon them, as had been done earlier in the century, nor was there any commissary to gather them. Any meeting could only be accomplished by a common agreement,

and they reached this in the year 1753. What was the occasion of their assembling then we do not know; possibly the further consideration at that time by the Assembly of the matter of reducing their salaries, though there were many things of common interest and general moment that they might find to discuss amongst themselves, and both they and the people would be the better for it. But how was their action regarded by his lordship? He professed a warm interest in both the church establishment and the clergy at this time. He immediately expressed to his governor his will and pleasure that they should not assemble again, and the governor of course. issued notice of his lordship's desire. Truly we are living in different times from those when the church of God, as represented in her ministers, was subjected to such tyranny, the whim, the caprice of a young egotist who had only just reached his majority. And this was more than twenty years before the end came. That the

.

clergy should have felt they were wearing a galling yoke could not help but be. The Establishment was to them sustained at a heavy cost of manhood; while the portents that indicated the future deliverance were as yet exceedingly indistinct, the cloud not even as large as a man's hand. The young administrator of such immense estate and weighty duties, may have had kind feelings for the church and clergy, but certainly he was exceedingly obtuse as to what would under the circumstances advance the church's best intrests.

The church, I have said, commanded no enthusiasm among the people or with the legis