A short history of the Oxford movement

Preface

This little work is merely a layman's attempt to give an unbiassed account of the very interesting episode in history commonly called The Oxford Movement. It makes no pretence to discuss the theological questions which were raised in its progress, but endeavours to explain, How it arose, Who were its leaders. How it proceeded, and What were its results. Its main activity only covered a very limited period (1833 to 1845), and though it was not, and could not, be an entirely isolated affair, yet it was almost dramatic in its completeness and interest. The writer has made free use of the Authorities of which he has given a list, and vi PREFACE

hopes this will be accepted as sufficient acknowledgment even in those cases where he has not expressly and precisely indicated his

obligation.

S. H.

Chapter I. Page

Intboductor^ 1

1. English Protestant Sects. 2. Sketch of English Church History before the Reformation. 3. The Reformation and Its Machinery. 4. Later History of the Church. 6. Reform Act, 1832. 6. State of Oxford and the Church in the Reform Days.

Notes : A. — J. A. Froude on Dogmatic Theology - - 29

B. — Dr. Tulloch on the Reformation - - - 31

C.—Dr. Hook on the Prayer-Book - - - - 33

D. — Dr. Hook on the Thirty-Nine Articles - - 35

E.— C. A. Fyffe on State of Oxford - - - - 40

Chapter II

1. Whately. 2. Keble. 3. Hurrell Froude. 4. Newman — Difference with Hawkins — Sermons. 5. Pusey. 6. Hugh James Rose, and others.

Note : Illustrations of Newman's style - - - . 108 viii CONTENTS

Chapter III. Page

1. Immediate OccasioD. 2. Hadleigh Conference — Associations — Addresses to Archbishop. 3. Earlier Tracts — Tract 1. 4. List of Tracts— Prosperity to 1839— Circulation of Tracts. 5. Question of Subscription at Matriculation — Hampden's Pamphlet— Pusey's Tracts. 6. Hampden, Regius Professor of Divinity. 7. Lectures — Wiseman and Newman — Martyrs' Monument — Via Media.

1. Turning of Tide— W. G. Ward. 2. Pusey's Letter- Newman's Article in British Critic. 3. Newman Studies Monophysite Controversy — Wiseman on Anglican Claims — Littlemore — Newman's Preparations. 4. Younger Men's Forward Movement. 5. Tract 90. 6. Sensation caused by Tract 90 — Protest of the Pour Tutors — Censure by Authorities. 7. Newman at Littlemore — The Three Blows: (a) Arianism, Question Involved ; (b) Bishops' Charges ; (c) Jerusalem Bishopric, and their Effect on Newman. 8. Professorship of Poetry — Monastery. 9. Newman went to Littlemore permanently, 1842 — Retractation of Language against Rome — Pusey Suspended — Newman's Last Sermon as Anglican — His delay in going over. 10. Ward's Leadership — His Ideal — His Deprivation — Newman's Censure vetoed. 11. Newman's ** Development" — Received into Roman Catholic Church.

Chapter IV

1. Anglican Church remained stable. 2. Oxford Reform. 3. Influence on English Church — Raising of Tone — Scholarship — History and Historical School. 4. Ritualism. 5. Indifference — Agnosticism. 6. Conclusion.

PRINCIPAL AUTHORITIES USED,

{The dates are those of the Editions used.)

Burgon. Twelve Good Men. 2 vols. 1888.

Church. The Oxford Movement. 1892.

The Christian Year. 1873.

Dictionary of National Biography, v.d.

Hampden's Bampton Lectures. 1832.

Lely. Position of the Church of England (Statutes). 1899.

Lives. Arnold. By Stanley. 2 vols. 1858.

Kehle. (1) By Coleridge. 1880. (2) By Lock. 1893.

Hurrell Froude. By Louise J. Guiney. 1904. Remains. 2 vols. (4 parts). Keble and Nev^man.

Manning. By Purcell. 2 vols. 1895.

Pusey. 4 vols. By Liddon and others. 1893-97.

Pattison. Memoirs. 1885.

Tadti Archbishop. 2 vols. 1891.

Whately. 2 vols. 1866.

Wilberforce, Bp. 3 vols. 1880-82.

Wiseman. By Wilfrid Ward. 2 vols. 1897.

Woi'dswoi'th, Bp. Charles. Annals. 2 vols. 1891-93. Rev. Thos. Mozley. Reminiscences. 2 vols. 1882. Dr. Jas. B. Mozley. Letters. 1885.

J. H. Newman. Works. Apologia. 1879. Sermons, Tracts, Verses, Histories, etc., etc., v.d.

„ Controversy with Kingsley, with Apologia. 1864.

„ Letters and Correspondence during his Life in

the English Chu7'ch. 2 vols. 1891. Edited by Anne Mozley.

X PRINCIPAL AUTHORITIES USED

„ Life. By Abbott. 2 vols. 1892.

,, Literary Life. By Dr. Barrv. 1904.

Oakeley's Histo7'ical Notes on the Traetarian Movement.

Overton. Life in the English Church, 1660 to 1714. 1885.

Abbey and Overton. The English Church in the Eighteenth Century. 1878.

Palmer. Narrative of Events connected with the Tracts for the Tiines. 1883.

A. P. Perceval's Collection of Papers connected with tlie Theological Movement of 1833.

Swete. Patristic Study. Handbooks fcyr the Clergy. 1902.

Tracts for the Times, v.d.

W. G. Ward. Ideal of Christian Church. 1844.

W. O. Ward and the Oxford Movement. ' By Wilfrid Ward. 1889.

Isaac Williams. Autobiography. 1892.

Wilberforce, Bp. Essays from Quarterly. 2 vols. 1874.

ABBREVIATED TERMS OCCASIONALLY USED IN REFERENCE.

Apologia for Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua.

Letters for Newman's Letters and Correspondence during his Life in

the English Church.

Reminiscences for Rev. T. Mozley*s Reminiscences. Church for The Oxfwd Movement. By Dean Church. Palmer for Palmer's Narrative. Ward for Mr. W. G. Ward and the Oxford Movement.

Chapter I. Inteoduotoey

1. The forms of belief held by English Protestants are many and various, and the difficulty of classifying or enumerating them is practically insuperable. Most of those, however, who profess to have any religious belief, accept the existence of a Supreme Being and a future state of rewards and punishments. They have indeed (not quite seriously) been sometimes accused of worshipping a book, and the very general adoption of the doctrine stated in Chillingworth's The Bible and the Bible alone the Religion oj Protestants, coupled with the right claimed and asserted of private judgment, has not only given some countenance to the charge, exaggerated though it be, but has led to the great multiplication of sects, and hence it is when any attempt is made to add fuller details to the above-mentioned statements of faith that enormous difficulty arises.

The first and fundamental element of religious belief, the existence of the Supreme Being, has given rise during many generations to numerous speculations and disputes. What is the nature of this Being ? Is it one, or is there a Trinity in Unity ? and if so, what are the nature, origin and status of the several persons of the Trinity, and what is the nature of their relationship to each other and to mankind ? It is obvious that the Divinity and Incarnation of Christ and the Atonement by Him involve difficult and serious questions which must vitally affect the details of the faith held even by those professing and calling themselves Christians. The Unitarian Society, for example, must have broad diflferences which lie between it and the other Christian bodies. In the same way, the doctrine of the future state of rewards and punishments necessarily gives rise to difficult speculations and discussions, upon which many different conclusions have been arrived at. Thus a large body of Christians, commonly called Calvinists, hold that God has chosen a certain number in

INTEODUCTORY 3

Christ to everlasting glory before the foundation of the world, of His free grace and love, without faith, good works or other conditions of the creature, and that the rest of mankind are passed by and ordained to everlasting dishonour and wrath ; that the atonement of Christ enured only for the benefit of the elect, with the subsidiary doctrines of moral inability in a fallen state, irresistible grace and final perseverance. Another large body, commonly called Arminians, on the other hand, hold that God from all eternitv determined to bestow salvation on those who as He foresaw would persevere to the end in their faith in Jesus Christ, and to inflict everlasting punishment on those who should continue in their unbelief and resist to the end of life His Divine assistance, so that election was conditional and reprobation the result of foreseen infidelity and persevering wickedness ; that the atonement of Christ enured for the benefit of all who believed in Him, with the subsidiary doctrines that regeneration was only by operation of the Holy Ghost which was the gift of God through Jesus Christ ; that all good works were attributable to God alone, and especially (as opposed to the Calvinistic doctrine of final perseverance) that the regenerate might fall away and die in their sins.

There naturally arose many sects holding variations more or less important of Calvinistic and Arminian doctrines, and many other sects holding special views flowing as they considered from the fundamental articles of faith as expressed in the Scriptures, but it is not necessary for the purposes of this work to pursue this branch of the subject farther than to call attention to the great cleavage of all which really separated Protestants into two well-distinguishable camps, one of them, which coincided with the Established Church, recognised Episcopacy, and the other did not. The Non- Episcopalian bodies, commonly called "Nonconformists," roughly speaking regard only as of real importance the direct communion of the creature with its Creator. There are two, and two only, absolute beings, and the eternal salvation of the creature depends entirely on his direct communion with the Creator and their mutual relationship without the intervention of any third person or corporation. The Episcopalian, on the

INTRODUCTORY 5

other hand, believes in the existence of what he calls '' The Church " as a substantive body or corporation, which plays a vital, or at any rate a most important part in the relation between the creature and the Creator. He believes in what he calls ^'The Sacraments" as means of conveying grace from the Creator to the creature, and as generally necessary to salvation. He accepts the government of the Church by bishops, and regards them as having received a Divine commission which they communicate to others by the laying on of hands, and so keep up a body of men set apart to rightly and duly administer the Sacraments. From the death of Christ until the scattered books, making up the canon of the New Testament, had been collected, the knowledge of the teaching of Christ must have existed somewhere, and many Churchmen contend that this deposit of faith was given by Christ to His Church, who must be the ultimate teacher on matters of faith, and that the Bible was never intended to teach doctrine, but only to prove it, and that the dogmas of the Church must be sought for in the formularies of the Church — its Catechism and Creeds.^ But many Churchmen hold opinions which might not be a disqualification to their joining any ordinary Nonconformist body. This work, however, does not deal with the questions between the Church and Dissent. The real question involved in the Oxford Movement was between the Established Church and the Church of Rome. Is there a Church? If so, where and what is it? Is the Church of Rome a Church of Christ and the English Church another ? Are they two Churches, or do they in combination either with each other, or with each other and, say, the Greek and other Churches, make up the entire Church of Christ ? How far do variations from or corruptions of the original faith and practice, if and so far as they can be now ascertained, disqualify any body from being deemed to be the Church or part of the Church of Christ? Wide questions are involved in these considerations, and the difficulty in dealing with them arises partly from the nature of the subject, and partly from the nature and quality of the materials from which the details of the original faith and practice of ^ See Note A. J. A. Froude on Dogma.

INTEODUCTORY 7

the Church must be ascertained.^ The principal of these materials, the writings of ^Hhe Fathers," although they contain a large body of literature, only begin at a considerable distance of time from the death of Christ, although the space is now fore-shortened by time, and are naturally, from their scattered origins and immethodical and rather miscellaneous characters, very difficult to understand or to systematise.

2. There is, however, no doubt that after the death of Christ His teaching spread rapidly, and a body of men holding that teaching, and also believing in His supernatural character and career, rapidly grew up. Scattered disciples spread the faith here and there, and accordingly bodies of Christians calling themselves the Church of this place or that gradually were formed — probably for a long time with no definite co-relationship with each other. The Church at Rome, however, seems from obvious reasons to have gradually overshadowed and dominated the Churches in the other centres and assumed to itself the headship of Christianity, and its bishop claimed to be head of the Christian Church itself. A Church existed and flourished in England many hundred years before the Norman Conquest, but to what extent the Anglo-Saxon Church allowed the interference of Eome is matter of great dispute, but whether the interference was great or small there was no distinction between Church and State before the Conquest. William the Conqueror and Archbishop Lanfranc made great changes. The authority of the Pope was recognised. Special Romish doctrines such as transubstantiation were disseminated, and the ecclesiastical and secular courts were separated, it being arranged that civil matters should be decided by civil courts and ecclesiastical matters by ecclesiastical courts, and of course the boundaries of their jurisdiction being ill-defined this led to frequent misunderstandings and disputes, and accordingly we find a constant struggle by the secular power to resist the interference of the Bishop of Rome in the internal affairs of this country. Concurrently with this struggle, the corruption, religious and moral of the Church, as governed by and identified with Rome, had continuously increased until at last came the Reformation, and this event, or series of events, the Englishman

INTEOBUCTOEY 9

looks upon as constituting a point from which the English Church made a distinct and new departure. For what did the Reformation do? It is supposed to have purified the Church of Christ in this country from the corruptions, or some of the corruptions, of Eome, to have abolished its headship and control, and to have placed under the control of the secular Government, in the last resort, the enumeration and statement of those dogmas, which whether essential or not to salvation, were to be essential to holding office and preferment in the English Church. What the Reformation did in fact effect, and how it was done, are questions much too complicated for this book to discuss at length. Large works have been written and angry discussions have taken place on the questions by persons apparently well qualified to discuss them, but who arrive at very different conclusions. There are, however, several points which seem fairly clear.

The difficulty men had to free their minds arose from the old idea at the bottom of the idea of the holy Roman Empire, that the State and Church were one, just as the body and soul are one, but the insular position of England, the scandals of the papacy, and many other special circumstances had weakened and almost destroyed the idea in this country. The revival of learning which threw ridicule on the scholastic theology, and Luther's discussions which raised fundamental questions, opened men's minds wider to truer conceptions of State and Church, of what they were and what they ought to be, and to newer conceptions of the essentials of the Christian faith. At the commencement of the reign of Henry VIII. the power and authority of the Roman Church were displayed and the dual authority of the Church and State accentuated by the style and authority of Cardinal Wolsey, and it is from his fall that the era of the Reformation really dates. Whether it was that Cromwell from a wide statesman's view, and Henry, on his advice, determined there should only be one authority in England in matters ecclesiastical as well as civil, or whether Henry, irritated by the resistance of the papacy to his divorce from Catherine, concluded that such a constitution would best bring about his desire for a union with Anne Boleyn, or whether an

INTKODUCTOEY 11

avaricious desire to appropriate the revenues of the Church was the determining factor, are interesting questions. Probably all the motives had their effect. It is certain that neither Cromwell nor Henry was influenced in the course he took by any desire to arrive at or promote religious truth. Their object was secular, and was to unite the civil and ecclesiastical powers in one hand, perhaps for the greater peace and benefit of this country, perhaps for the greater glory and power of the Tudor dynasty and the removal of any obstacle to fulfilment of the immediate desire of the king, perhaps for the wealth to be so acquired or controlled. The measures taken were, however, clear, drastic and business-like in the extreme.

3. By the Act 23 Henry VIIL, c. 20, affirmed by Henry by Letters Patent in pursuance of the Act, the annates or first-fruits, being the first year's profits of every archbishopric and bishopric, were nojonger to be paid to Rome, and by 26 Henry VIIL, c. 3, was granted to the Crown for ever not only the first-fruits or first year's produce of all bishoprics, benefices and other clerical preferments, but also a tenth part of the annual revenues of such preferments. These Acts largely stopped the enormous drain of money from England to Rome, and the fund known as '^ Queen Anne's Bounty for the augmentation of the livings of the poorer clergy " was nearly 200 years after derived from the first-fruits and tenths. Acts were also passed by Henry by virtue of which many monasteries were suppressed and their lands confiscated.

There were four great Acts in the reign of Henry VIII. by which the change was mainly effected.

(1) By the Act of Appeals (24 Henry VIII., c. 12) testamentary, matrimonial and divorce causes, and rights of tithes, oblations and obventions, were from thenceforth to be heard and determined within the king's jurisdiction and not elsewhere — in such courts spiritual and temporal as the nature of the causes should require, and no papal or other foreign citations, processes, interdicts or excommunications were to be regarded.

(2) By the Act of Submission (25 Henry VIII. , c. 19) no new canons were to be made in convocation without the royal licence, and

INTKODUCTOEY 13

it was also provided that no manner of appeals should be made to Rome, but all manner of appeals should be made in accordance with the Act of Appeals, and as the ultimate appeal mentioned in that Act was to the archbishop, the Act of Submission provided a further appeal from any court of the archbishop to the king in the Court of Chancery, to be heard by commissioners named by the king. This ultimate jurisdiction is now vested in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

(3) The Election of Bishops Act (25 Henry VIII., c. 20) provided that no archbishop or bishop was to be presented to the Bishop of Rome, and also provided for the election, confirmation and consecration of archbishops and bishops.

(4) The Archiepiscopal Licences Act (25 Henry VIII., c. 21) provided that the Archbishop of Canterbury might grant any licence or dispensation which the Pope had been in the habit of granting for causes not being contrary to the Scriptures or the Law of God. It is by virtue of this Act that the Archbishop of Canterbury now grants special licences for marriage at any time and place.

Henry moreover passed an Act of Supremacy (26 Henry VIII., c. 1) which enacted that the kings of this realm should be taken and accepted and reputed '' the only Supreme head in earth of the Church of England," but this Act was repealed by Queen Mary, and not afterwards revived.^

These measures completely freed the English Church from the authority of Rome, and all details of internal affairs became subject to the control of the State. Although Henry and his advisers were not influenced by any desire to arrive at precise theological truth, there were many men in the Church who, awakened by the revival of learning, by the dissemination of the Scriptures, owing to the labours of Tyndale and others, by the teaching of Luther, Calvin and other reformers, and by conviction of the gross abuses of Rome, regarded these measures as steps by means of which a reformed religion might be established

1 See Note B at the end of this chapter for Dr. Tulloch's view of the character of the English Reformation. See also the Thirty- seventh Article and the Declaration prefixed to the Articles for a statement of the position of the King as Governor of the Church and his relation to Convocation.

INTKODUCTORY 15

in this country. The separation from Rome involved two great struggles — one respecting the shape of the formularies and Articles of belief of the separated English Church, and the other respecting conformity to those formularies and Articles, and incidentally the right of religious belief in this country.

In the reign of Edward VI. two Acts of Uniformity were passed, each accompanied by a Book of Common Prayer in English, the use of which was enjoined. The first book, 1549, speaks of the Communion Service as ^' The Supper of the Lord and the Holy Communion commonly called The Mass," but in the second book, 1552, among other alterations in a Protestant direction, the use of the word ^^Mass" is discontinued, and it never reappeared in the Prayer-book. In Edward's reign too it was enacted that the administration of the Sacrament should be in both kinds and that the marriage of priests be permitted.

Queen Mary having repealed the Reformation Acts in force at her accession, the statutes against foreign jurisdiction were revived by Queen Elizabeth by the Act 1 Elizabeth, c. 1, with the exception of Henry's Act of Supremacy (26 Henry VIII., c. 1), which so continued repealed. Elizabeth also passed an Act of Uniformity (1 Elizabeth, c. 2) which revived with some alterations the second Prayer-book of Edward VI., e.g., the two sentences of the first and second books of Edward VI. were combined into the present form of administration of Holy Communion. The great Act of Elizabeth's reign was the Act (13 Elizabeth, c. 12) entitled '' An Act to reform certain disorders touching Ministers of the Church," which required clerical subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles agreed upon by Convocation in 1562, for the avoiding of diversities of opinions and for the Stablishing of Consent touching true religion. The declaration prefixed by Charles I. to the Thirty -nine Articles was drawn up by Archbishop Laud in 1628, and is added to the Prayer-book prescribed by the Act of Uniformity of 1662. Omitting discussion of the canons of 1603 or of the Hampton Court Revision in 1604 of the Prayer-book, the great Act of Uniformity of 1662 (14 Charles II., c. 4) required the use of the Book of Common Prayer as we now have it (qualified by the Amendment Act of 1872),

INTRODUCTOEY 17

and which is in fact the Elizabethan Book of Common Prayer with certain additions and alterations presented by the convocations of Canterbury and York. The additions and alterations were numerous, but not of radical importance.

The first struggle thus resulted in the Book of Common Prayer and the Thirty-nine Articles substantially as we now have them. They are obviously a compromise between the mere lay statesmen and the religious reformers who desired to embody in the formularies and Articles those principles and doctrines which are commonly called Protestant as opposed to Romish on the one hand or Latitudinarian on the other. ^

The other consequential struggle arose from the idea that the secular and religious authorities were necessarily one. There was one State and one Church. The idea that each unit of the State should be at liberty to formulate his own belief and his own form of worship was scarcely conceivable then, but that right which really included the right to have teachers

^ See Notes C and D at the end of this chapter for an Anglican view of the origin of the Prayer-book and Articles.

of those special views was gradually conceded, and it is only within comparatively recent times that religious disabilities which assumed that every one who did not conform was for many purposes outside the civil pale have been practically removed. It was only after a great struggle that the London University was authorised, and a still greater struggle that Oxford and Cambridge were thrown open. The struggle for uniformity is not yet settled, but it is now mainly between persons who all profess to be members of the Established Church.

The Movement which so broadened down to religious toleration and almost to religious equality was not an isolated Movement. Cotemporaneously a struggle went on for civil liberty and equality, and in the life of the community it is impossible to sever the two movements. And a third influence quieter and more insidious was the increase of learning, especially in history, philosophy and the physical sciences. All these together make modern history a very complicated study, and it is absolutely impossible to divide it into compact and separate departments.

INTEODUCTOEY 19

The Tudor period, when the modern Movement really began, is marked by disturbances, as might be expected when changes of such far-reaching importance were begun and attempted to be developed. Persecutions and counter-persecutions were the natural phenomena of the time, there being little doubt that the Government of the time was influenced mainly by political motives, while many, perhaps most of the sufferers, were martyrs who suffered for conscience' sake.

4. In the Stuart period the political struggle' with Rome was practically over, but with weak kings and the strong development of Protestantism, aided by the political mistakes of Charles I. and James II., the flight of James left the Established Church in possession of power, but with great liberty to Nonconformists and a Crown resting on a Parliamentary title. In this period Romanism had been stunned, but there were many divines who taught what they considered to be Catholic doctrines, but which to the rabid Independent were not distinguishable from those of Rome, especially those respecting the authority of

the Church, the Apostolical Succession and

2 * the efficacy of the Sacraments. The divine right of kings was naturally a burning question during this period, but little was heard of it after the reign of Anne. The divines just referred to may be regarded as the founders of the modern High Church branch of the Church of England. The other conformists who took no special part may be looked on as the general body of the Church, but not Low Church as now understood. The Broad Church may perhaps have had some historical origin in the interesting men known as the Cambridge Platonists. During the time of the G-eorges the Church sank into a state of sloth and lethargy, theological learning was in decay, the services were slackly performed. It was mainly a machinery by which a moderate living was provided for moderate men from whom very moderate things were expected. The laity did not expect any great learning or spiritual fervour from their clergy, but they desired to be baptised, married and buried according to the ritual of the Church, and it was good form to attend once a week to hear the Church Service read. The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge

INTRODUCTORY 21

were practically dead. There were, however, here and there in country livings and among the Fellows of colleges traditions preserved of the old High Church doctrines and of the old broad views, but it was not until Wesley's day that life began to move again in the Church. Wesley, a Church of England clergyman, and his followers impressed strenuously on the minds of the people the importance of the question, What shall I do to be saved ? Its answer. Justification by Faith, was simple. He undoubtedly woke up the spiritual life of the country, though his teaching and measures led ultimately to an organisation separate from that of the Established Church. The few representatives of the High Church and Broad Church despised the Wesleyans for their enthusiasm and ignorance, forgetting that they themselves were little but dead bones. The destruction of baronial power by the wars of the Roses and the Tudors, and the political movements in the reigns of the Stuarts which completely curbed the kingly power, had resulted in making the government of this country a Constitutional Monarchy. The ) king was no doubt the head, but he could only act on the advice of his responsible ministers, and they were responsible to and removable by Parliament. The theory of the divine right of kings could not survive the Act of Settlement. The whole theory of Government rested on a contract between king and people.

5. The wars which began with William of Orange and ended with Waterloo prevented much attention being given to the solution of political problems, but the exhaustion of the country consequent on that prolonged struggle, the enormous misery of the mass of the people, and the partial destruction of respect for the throne which had taken place during the reign of the Georges, had brought the country to such a perilous state that responsible statesmen had no alternative between revolution and parliamentary reform, and hence the Reform Bill of 1832 was at last passed. The great Reform Act of 1832, which on the face of it merely reformed the House of Commons, was really a great revolution. It marked the end of the oligarchical period, when the government of the country was really in the hands of the aristocratic and landed classes, mainly

INTEODUCTORY 23

belonging to the Church of England, who filled the House of Lords, and by their influence controlled the Lower House. The Reform Act, however, by abolishing pocket boroughs,^ by extending the suffrage, and by redistribution, placed power in the hands of the middle classes largely embued with the Nonconformist spirit, and was the beginning of the political movements whose aim was political and religious equality. The Reform Act was a new departure, as important politically as the measures of Henry VIII. severing the English Church from Rome were important ecclesiastically. If any one did not appreciate the importance of the political movement, the measures proposed by the first reformed Parliament must have been a rather rude awakening. The Reform Act of 1832 was however no isolated movement. The stupendous political, social and religious eruption known as the French Revolution had not merely obliterated the ancient political, social and religious organisation of France, but had set free an enormous amount of speculation which spread over all Europe and largely destroyed the old acquiescence of men in things u^