THE action of Dr. Tait as Bishop of London in licensing Mr. Allen to the lectureship of St. George's-in-the-East, without even making any inquiry into the serious grounds for at least hesitating to do so alleged by the Rector, has been already referred to, and, in consequence of that action, no history of the riots at St. George's would be correct which did not attribute to him his full share of the blame for the origin of the riots, which can be clearly traced to the appointment of Mr. Allen. In his subsequent treatment of Mr. King, Dr. Tait made no kind of reparation for this all but criminal blunder and injustice; but rather did all that lay in his power, short of openly encouraging the violence of the rioters, to aggravate the feeling of hostility to the Rector, which caused the unhappy mob to act like people possessed. Dr. Tait was born in the cold hard atmosphere of Presbyterianism, and he never escaped from it. On the occasion of his visits to Scotland, he was evidently glad to have the opportunity to get back to the dismal worship,--if it may [65/66] be so called,--of the Presbyterian meeting-house, stiff-backed like the pews in which it was enjoyed, and formal with the most rigid formalism in its attempt to avoid anything that might appear like formalism. A mind more entirely out of sympathy with either the aesthetic or symbolical use of externals in religion than that of Dr. Tait could not be imagined; and scarcely any one man could be found less fitted to take a leading part in the government of the Church of England at a time when the spirit of devotion aroused by the Oxford movement was irrepressibly struggling to manifest itself in a fuller outward expression, in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Book of Common Prayer. So wide was the influence of the Oxford movement that it reached Dr. Tait's predecessor in the See of London, ungenial as the circumstances of episcopal life and work then were for the reception of such an influence; and it was, indeed, in his obedience to the directions of Bishop Blomfield that Mr. King's opponents found the occasion for the beginning of their opposition.
It seemed at the time disastrous, though it has ultimately helped to prove the irresistible force of true Church principles, that an unsympathetic Scotchman, taking such a narrow view of ecclesiastical questions, whose chief bond of sympathy with the English Church was the rigid chains of establishment, should have become Bishop of London, and then [66/67] Archbishop of Canterbury at such a critical period in the history of the Church. To the unfortunate mental attitude of Dr. Tait towards the Catholic Revival, together with the incongruity of the work of a schoolmaster as the preparation for the Episcopate, must be attributed that unhappy hectoring and domineering spirit in which Dr. Tait was the first Anglican bishop of modern times to treat his clergy.
The writer of this memoir may be blamed for setting forth the way in which Mr. King was treated by his Bishop, but, having taken it in hand, at the desire of old friends and relations of Mr. King, to offer this tribute to his memory, he feels bound to explain fully all the circumstances of those lamentable riots, for his part in which Mr. King's name, once a by-word with the majority of the English people, is now rightly honoured amongst all faithful Churchmen who recognise what they owe to the pioneers of the Catholic Revival. Bishops must learn that the tyrannical and schoolmasterly way of treating their clergy cannot but fail.
If there were no other reason for setting forth the actual state of things in regard to Mr. King's treatment by Dr. Tait, the unfortunate tone taken in the face of facts well known and easily proved by Dr. Tait's adulatory biographers makes it necessary in the interest of truth and justice. Dr. Randall Davidson, who had no personal acquaintance with Mr. King to justify his expressing any such sort of [67/68] opinion, has thought fit to depreciate Mr. King, in order to rehabilitate Dr. Tait, by saying that he was "unsuited, in a singular degree, for the charge of such a parish as St. George's-in-the-East," [Life of Archbishop Tait, vol. i. p. 230.] and that "it would be easy to name clergy of views similar to his who might have made far more sweeping changes in the services of the church than were made by Mr. King, and who would yet have retained the enthusiastic support of at least a large section of their parishioners," [Ib., p. 235.] and this because "Mr. King with all his earnestness had not the gift, in introducing such changes as he thought necessary, of doing it in a conciliatory manner." [Ib., p. 231.] A most unfair comparison is drawn between Mr. King and his curates at the mission churches, Revs. C. F. Lowder and A. H. Mackonochie, and it is suggested that, if the Bishop had only had to deal with them in the place of the Rector, he could have arranged matters amicably.
If Dr. Davidson could not clear Dr. Tait from blame without, in this unfair way, throwing undeserved blame on Mr. King, he would have done more wisely not to attempt the task. Dr. Davidson partly answers himself; for he has printed a letter from Dr. Tait to Mr. King, in which he speaks of "the high opinion of your high and gentlemanlike bearing under trying circumstances which I have [68/69] heard expressed, even by those of your people who are strongly opposed to you," and if he had made inquiries he could easily have discovered that such expressions of respect were not infrequently made in reference to Mr. King's chairmanship of the vestry, which involved an enormous amount of administrative business, by those who opposed him on ecclesiastical questions. This does not give much colour to the charge of being lacking in the spirit of conciliation made by one who had no personal knowledge of the person he attacks. The only possible ground that Dr. Davidson had for the charge is an extract--not given in its entirety---from a "Letter from Mr. Bryan King" in Mr. Lowder's Twenty Years in St. George's Mission, in which Mr. King, as competent witnesses can prove, is led by his natural modesty to exaggerate his own failure, almost single-handed, to cope with insuperable difficulties. There are many persons still living who know how real Mr. King's spiritual work was, and that the Eucharistic Vestments which Dr. Davidson professes to regard as forced upon an unwilling congregation, were really the gift of members of the congregation, who thereby showed how they appreciated the teaching of the Rector.
The fact is that Dr. Tait was, as Dr. Lake, one of his greatest friends, said, "a Protestant, with a strong dash of the Presbyterian, to the end." [Ib., vol. i. p. 139.] He was, as his own letters show, quite incapable of seeing [69/70] things from the point of view of a Catholic-minded churchman. As his own biographer says, when he was made Bishop of London, "It would not, perhaps, be possible to find another instance in the last half-century in which a man with so little previous training of a technical sort has been placed at one step in a position at once so responsible and so independent." [Life of Archbishop Tait, vol. i. p. 193.] "He had scarcely ever attended a clerical meeting: he had never sat in Convocation." [Ib., p. 193.] "About strictly Episcopal work he knew absolutely nothing." [Ib., p. 194.] "His training and temperament combined to lead him to take a view of the Church's life, less ecclesiastical, more national and comprehensive." [Ib., p. 197.] No wonder that such a man failed to understand and sympathise with one who regarded his spiritual mother with such filial reverence that he could hardly ever speak of the Church without using some such expression as Christ's most Holy Catholic Church.
It is, however, to Dr. Tait's credit that although he never learned to sympathise with those of his clergy who were truest to the spirit of the English Church, although, perhaps, he was constitutionally incapable of sympathising with them, yet before his death he came to see the futility of trying to stamp out that Catholic spirit which has been gradually permeating the Church of England, having been revived after long slumber by the Tractarians. The [70/71] arrangements which he made for peace in the parishes of St. Alban's, Holborn, and St. Peter's, London Docks, by the interchange of incumbents, if not signifying any acceptance of Catholic principles, and if not marking that high standard of statesmanship that his flatterers attributed to him, was at least significant of a vast change in Dr. Tait's attitude towards the Catholic movement, which those in authority might well ponder. Whatever he might remain as a churchman, Dr. Tait showed in this last important act of administration that he was at least statesman enough to recognise, at last, that Catholicism in the English Church was no longer to be regarded, even by its strongest opponents, as a pest to be stamped out, but as a power to be treated with. If he had seen this at the beginning of his episcopate his action in regard to St. George's-in-the-East would have been very different from what it was.
In December, 1858, the year before the riots,--the churchwardens having complained that at the anniversary of the opening of the Calvert Street Mission Chapel there had been a procession with banners, that the Communion table had been covered with a handsomely worked frontal, that there had been flowers on the altar, and that the Rector and his curate, Rev. W. R. Burn, had worn coloured stoles,--the Rector and curate were summoned to an interview with the Bishop at London House. On Mr. King stating that his authority for wearing [71/72] different coloured stoles according to the season was the indisputable custom at the time of the Reformation, the Bishop expressed the opinion that there was no authority for any such custom except that of some tailor who had invented them for the sake of his trade, and asked Mr. King if he intended to continue the use of them. Mr. King replied that as they appeared to him to be legal, as he had worn them for more than eight months without objection being urged by any member of the congregation, and as he found that they were edifying to many, he did intend to continue their use. Whereupon the Bishop said: "The man must be an utter fool or madman who persists in such tomfooleries, for I can call them by no other name." Mr. King rose to leave the room, saying, "My lord, as I am not in the habit of being addressed in such language as this, I must take the liberty of bidding you good morning." The Bishop hastened to prevent his leaving the room, and kept him standing and talking for some time, and eventually made a kind of apology for his language, and induced Mr. King to shake hands with him, but the subsequent conversation, if less offensive, was no more satisfactory. Turning to the curate, who was, of course, in his power, the Bishop got him to promise that if Mr. King wore coloured stoles, he would not do so. Mr. King objected that it was not fair for the Bishop to put pressure on the curate instead of trying the question legally with the [72/73] Rector. On which the Bishop replied: "Do you think that I should be such a fool as to try the question with you?" Thus it will be seen that it is not a new idea of certain bishops to strike at incumbents who will not submit to their arbitrary and unlawful demands through their curates. Dr. Tait must have the credit of originating that valiant form of ecclesiastical warfare. Needless to say, on the Bishop summoning Mr. King to another interview, the latter replied that after his late experience he must decline the honour of another interview, and request the Bishop to put any communications that he had to make in writing. With the exception of the interview with the Bishop in the presence of the churchwardens at St. Matthew's Church on November 4th, 1859, Mr. King did not meet Dr. Tait again until years afterwards, when, at Rose Castle, they were fellow-guests of Mr. King's brother-in-law, Bishop Harvey Goodwin, of Carlisle, on the occasion of the marriage of one of his daughters to a relation of Dr. Tait. Needless to say, the former interview was not alluded to, and they met on the best of terms, as if there had never been such a scene at London House.
To return to that point in the history of the riots where we arrived at the end of the last chapter. On September 2nd, 1859, the vestry appealed to the Bishop to interfere with the manner in which the services were conducted at St. George's-in-the-East, [73/74] on the ground that it was the cause of all the disturbances.
They concluded their appeal with the following words:--
"The vestry therefore earnestly entreat your lordship's authority to put an end to these unseemly disturbances by restoring the afternoon service to its usual hour, and prohibiting the use of unaccustomed vestments by the officiating clergy."
Without any previous communication with the Rector, the Bishop sent a reply to the vestry, which was immediately published, from which it is necessary to give considerable extracts. After dealing with the question of the hour of the lecturer's service and of the Rector's afternoon service, which he fully admitted that the Rector had a legal right to decide, the Bishop wrote:--
"I now come to the only other point you mention--the use of unaccustomed vestments by the officiating clergy. It is well known that I have announced my determination of putting a stop to such follies when I can do so by my summary jurisdiction over those who are placed more immediately under my personal control, and such jurisdiction I have already exercised in St. George's; and I hereby require the churchwardens to give me immediate information if any clergyman so officiates in the church as to give reasonable offence by this childish mimicry of antiquated garments, or by so dressing himself up that he may resemble as much as possible a Roman Catholic priest. Even if it be proved that such foolish practices are not a distinct [74/75] violation of the letter of the law, they may indicate such a wrong-headed and self-willed determination, for the sake of a foolish theory, to endanger the success of his ministrations among the souls committed to him as to justify the Bishop in summarily withdrawing a curate's license for the good of the parish. I need not, however, point out to you that the law does not give a Bishop any such power of dealing summarily with an incumbent; and in the case of the Rector of your parish, with whom I had some lengthened communication last winter on the subject of these very garments, you are probably aware that, on mature consideration, I determined to trust rather to my conviction that common sense will in the end prevail, and not to go into a court of justice on a matter which appears to me so foolish in itself, and the issue of the legal prosecution of which through all the several courts must, after all, be uncertain, from the very nature of a controversy turning on the shape and pattern of the clothes worn at the time of the Reformation, and their points of resemblance to, and divergence from, the garments made for us in the present day."
After suggesting that, although he would not prosecute himself, yet if the vestry wished to do so, he would give them all possible facilities, he went on:--
"You may feel at first surprised that my power as Bishop should go no further than I have notified; but on the whole, for my own part, I do not consider it an evil in the Church of England that incumbents of parishes are invested with so independent a responsibility, which I am bound to say, in most cases, they exercise wisely for the good of their parishioners, and which it would not be consistent with our manly English spirit to see superseded by [75/76] an arbitrary extension of episcopal dominion. As I have said, it is not by compulsory force of law, but by authority of a gentle kind that a Bishop most effectually works; and I would now shortly consider, in the second place, how such authority may avail us in the present miserable disputes. ... If the case was thus voluntarily placed in my hands by both parties for friendly adjustment, if the clergy of the parish on the one hand consented to follow my directions as to the ordering of the services, and the vestry with the churchwardens, on the other hand, were equally willing to be guided by my advice as to the best way of allaying the unseemly tumults which have arisen, I am very hopeful that all might yet go well. There has, I doubt not, been no lack of conscientiousness on both sides, but so far as I can judge, there has, I am bound to say, been a lack of kindly Christian consideration for each other's feelings."
It is to be noticed that the Bishop expressed a doubt as to the lawfulness of the Eucharistic vestments almost amounting to an admission of the probability of their lawfulness, according to what he disparagingly calls the letter of the law, as if the letter of the law were not the very thing to be obeyed. But there can be no doubt that if the letter of the law does not forbid the Eucharistic vestments, it enjoins their use, for the one question that has been disputed is whether or not the Ornaments Rubric enjoins their use. However, on a question where Dr. Tait admitted at least the uncertainty of the law, he thought fit to interfere with that independent responsibility of the incumbent, which he [76/77] declared to be required by our manly English spirit, in regard to the practice of unbeneficed clergymen who were in his power, whilst shrinking from testing the lawfulness of what the incumbent required them to do in the only way in which it could be tested. At the same time, whilst refusing to undertake a prosecution himself, he voluntarily offered to the vestry such facilities as he could afford them if they would prosecute.
Mr. King could scarcely have been blamed by any honest and reasonable person if, in the face of such a letter, showing such distinct bias, he had refused the proferred mediation of the Bishop. Like many other people in similar circumstances, however, he seems to have had in mind what the Bishop ought to be rather than what he was, and accepted the arbitration of the Bishop on the two points on which the vestry had specifically appealed to the Bishop, although he must have known what the result would be. There is something decidedly unsatisfactory in submitting to arbitration a question on which you feel sure that the arbitrator will decide against you, although you are convinced that you are maintaining not merely a right but a duty. It shows something more than a spirit of conciliation. And yet in this case the self-suggested arbitrator had dealt out at least as much blame to Mr. King as to the profane rioters, and the owners of public-houses and houses of ill-fame who as vestrymen encouraged the rioters. [77/78] In Dr. Tait's opinion, these latter were as conscientious as Mr. King, and he was as wanting in kindly Christian consideration as they were!
But this was not all. At the instigation of the vestry, Dr. Tait and his secretary, encouraged by Mr. King's submission, endeavoured to entrap him into a yet fuller surrender, and made persistent efforts to induce him to submit the whole conduct of the services to the Bishop's arbitration, if such it could be called. A long correspondence ensued between Mr. King and the Bishop and his secretary. To show the way in which this correspondence was conducted the following letters are given:--
"Rectory, St. George's, East,
October 4th, 1859.
"The Bishop of the Diocese having offered his mediation between the Vestry of this Parish and myself upon the questions of my use of unaccustomed Vestments in Divine Service and the time for the Sunday afternoon (Lecturer's) Service, I hereby pledge myself to abide by any decision which his Lordship may make upon the above questions.
"3, Dean's Yard, Westminster, S.W.,
"October 6th, 1869.
"I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 4th October instant, in which you state that the Bishop [78/79] of the Diocese having offered his mediation between the Vestry of St. George's-in-the-East and yourself, upon the questions of your use of unaccustomed Vestments in Divine Service and the time for the Sunday afternoon (Lecturer's) Service, you pledge yourself to abide by any decision which his Lordship may make upon the above questions.
"I observe in reference to the Bishop's letter to you of the 1st inst. that his Lordship asks you to state to me that you agree to be bound by his decision as to the hour at which the Lecturer's afternoon service is to commence, and as to the Vestments to be worn in the Parish Church by yourself and the other officiating clergy.
"I have no doubt that you intended to pledge yourself to the precise terms of the Bishop's letter, but to prevent the possibility of misconception I shall be obliged to you to state to me that such was your intention.
"I am, dear sir,
"John B. Lee."
"Rectory, St. George's, East,
"October 7th, 1859.
"In reference to yours of yesterday I beg to state that the terms employed in my letter of the 4th inst. were adopted from those read in the letter of the Vestry Clerk of Sept. 2nd, when on behalf of the Vestry of this Parish he invoked the interference of the Bishop upon those two points. It is upon those two points alone that I have acceded to the Bishop's offer of mediation. But of course, so far as the meaning of the Bishop's words is identical with those thus employed, and so far as the Bishop's words [79/80] do not imply any extension of the scope of this reference to his mediation, I have no hesitation in adopting them in place of those employed by myself, and to pledge myself to abide by his Lordship's decision accordingly.
"3, Dean's Yard, Westminster, S.W.,
October 7th, 1859.
"I have to acknowledge the receipt of your answer to my communication of the 6th inst.
"Instead of importing into your engagement a reference to the letter of the Vestry Clerk to you, it would be much more satisfactory to me to receive from you a direct answer to the inquiry which I made, and which I now repeat, viz. Do you agree to be bound by the Bishop's decision--1st, as to the hour at which the Lecturer's Afternoon Service is to commence, and 2nd, as to the Vestments to be worn in the Parish Church by yourself and the other officiating clergy?
"I am, dear sir,
"John B. Lee."
The tone of such letters written by a legal secretary to a gentleman and a priest may be left to the judgment of the reader without comment. After some more correspondence of a similar character Mr. King wrote the following letter to the Bishop:--
 "My Lord,
"I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's letter of the 12th inst. with enclosure from Mr. Lee; and in reference to my correspondence with Mr. Lee to state that I understand the terms 'the use of unaccustomed vestments' to apply to coloured stoles and the chasuble, both of which I should be ready to give up at your Lordship's desire, supposing it to be possible for you as Bishop to desire me to discontinue obedience to what, in the case of the chasuble is, I presume, both the undoubted Canon Law of the Church and the Statute Law of the Realm.
"Now I must again most emphatically decline acceding to any extension of the scope of this reference to your Lordship's mediation. I cannot recognise the Vestry as the exponent of the feelings of the members of the Church--still less of the members of my congregation in religious matters; whilst on the other hand the Committee of the St. George's Church Defence Association, who do represent the feelings of my congregation, earnestly deprecate any further concession on my part.
"In conclusion, permit me to request that if the Vestry persist in extending their original complaints of Sept. 2nd, by urging such extravagant demands as it is impossible for me to comply with, your Lordship will kindly undertake the office of mediator between Mr. H. Allen and myself upon the question of the time for his service, as there can be no question that this was the origin and the main cause of all the late most scandalous outrages.
"I am, my Lord, "Your very humble and dutiful servant,
 Now it was made obvious that the object with which Mr. King had been badgered by the Bishop's secretary was to get some admission from him of a compromising character, for, on the 24th of October, the Bishop, ignoring the fact that when he first suggested his own mediation he had done so on the explicit understanding that both sides were to submit to his directions, ignoring also the fact that Mr. King's submission was conditional on this stipulation being observed, and on the arbitration being limited to the two points specified, wrote as follows to Mr. King:--
"Rev. and dear Sir,
"I have fully considered your letter of the 14th, which reached me a few days ago in Berwickshire. You state therein, with reference to coloured stoles and the chasuble, that you would be ready to give them up at my desire. I certainly do desire and distinctly enjoin you to give up both. With regard to the hour of the Lecturer's service, I deem it best that it should take place at that hour, which has, I am informed, been usual for a great many years, viz. half-past three.
"I am led from your letter to hope that you will be ready at my desire to carry these two changes into effect, whether the Vestry agree to your limitation of the reference to me or no; and I trust that, when the Church is reopened, as it soon must be, it will be found that good has resulted from this change. I cannot, however, say how far the Churchwardens representing the Vestry may consider that a settlement of these points will meet the views they have entertained of the nature of the reference to be made to my [82/83] arbitration. I shall desire Mr. Lee to lay before them distinctly what the points are on which you are ready to give way at my desire, and I trust they may be disposed for the sake of peace to acquiesce.
"The other matters which the Churchwardens wish to include, but to the mixing up of which with this reference I understand you to object, will some of them probably require to be considered separately apart from the proposed arbitration, e.g. I have understood you to give me positive assurances that the candles on the Communion table are never lighted except when it is dark, yet it is, I find, one of the allegations of the Vestry that they are lighted in broad day. No doubt it will be found on examination that there is some misapprehension on this point on the part of the Vestry.
"I leave this place to-day for the Palace, Ripon. I hope to be at Fulham by the end of the week, when I shall be glad to find it possible that there is an agreement between the two parties as to the terms of arbitration, or, if this be impossible, that your willingness to acquiesce in my desire as to Vestments and the hour of Service has at least put matters on a more hopeful footing.
"Believe me to be,
"Rev. and dear Sir,
"A. C. London."
Here was arbitration with a vengeance. Although the Bishop had stated in a letter to Mr. King, dated October 12th, "Of course, till the terms of reference are agreed on by both parties it is impossible for me to act as arbiter," yet, on October 24th, in a letter [83/84] in which he admits that the other side are still clamouring for a wider reference, he proceeds calmly to decide both questions that Mr. King was willing to submit to him, on condition that the reference was to be confined to them, and decides them against the Rector.
Of course the Rector demurred to this unfair decision; but eventually, at the opening of St. Matthew's Church on November 4th, the Bishop, with his legal secretary, met Mr. King and the churchwardens in order to carry out his mediation. At first the churchwardens refused to accept the Rector's limitation of the reference; but at length, finding him determined to maintain his point, and no doubt foreseeing that it would ultimately make very little difference, as they were not fettered by any inconvenient scruples in regard to what was honourable, they consented. Mr. King then agreed to be bound by the Bishop's decision--an example of Christian meekness, considering that the Bishop's decision was a foregone conclusion, which can scarcely be paralleled. He consented, however, to abide by the Bishop's decision only on the express condition contained in the record of the arbitration of the Bishop's secretary--
"So long as the Parish did not disturb me in any of the other matters complained of, but that if they took an adverse course in these respects, I should consider myself at liberty to, and should repudiate the decision as to the lecturer and the vestments."
 The Bishop, of course, decided both points in favour of the vestry, deciding that the vestments should be given up, and that the lecturer's service should take place at 3.30 p.m., although the Rector pointed out the extreme inconvenience of this arrangement as interfering with the parochial services.
Still of course the Rector acquiesced in the decision, and, under this arrangement, the church was reopened on Sunday, November 6th.
This chapter, however, cannot be concluded without some reference to Dr. Davidson's suggestion that if the Bishop had had to deal with Mr. Lowder or Mr. Mackonochie instead of Mr. King the matter could have been easily settled, and that they maintained in a more excellent way the principles for which Mr. King had perseveringly contended. To anyone who knew the three men, and their sympathetic relations to each other, this can only seem ridiculous; but to those who never knew them, Dr. Davidson's statement that the Bishop's correspondence with Mr. Mackonochie at the time referred to was of the most cordial and friendly kind, supported as it is by an extract from one of the Bishop's letters, may seem to give some colour to the suggestion.
The following, however, is another of the Bishop's letters to Mr. Mackonochie, and one fails to see where the cordiality or friendliness come in:--
"September 6th, 1859.
"My dear Sir,
"Till such time as Mr. King can return to do his own duty in the Parish Church I must require you to perform such service as being a licensed Curate of the Parish. I need not add that I strictly interdict you from using any dress except the common surplice university hood and black scarf with the black preaching gown.
"Yours most truly,
"A. C. London."
A letter of the same date from the Bishop to Mr. King informs him that he had inhibited the Rev. F. G. Lee, who had taken the service on the preceding Sunday; that being the reason for his Lordship's anxiety that Mr. Mackonochie should take the service. It should not be forgotten either that Dr. Davidson himself has put on record in a later part of his Life of Archbishop Tait (vol. i. p. 425), that when the Bishop offered himself in the capacity of arbitrator between Mr. Mackonochie and Mr. Hubbard, Mr. Mackonochie declined to avail himself of the offer. It is impossible to say what Mr. Mackonochie would have done if he had been in Mr. King's place in 1859, though everyone has a right to guess, but supposing that he would, as Dr. Davidson seems to suggest, have submitted all the points in dispute to the arbitration of the Bishop,--and it must be borne in [86/87] mind that what the vestry demanded was a return in all respects to the state of things that existed in the church at the commencement of Mr. King's incumbency,--it is absolutely certain that experience of Dr. Tait's method of arbitration made him wiser than to entrust the fortunes of his parish to its tender mercies when it came to his turn to decide. There are many statements in Dr. Davidson's book that will eventually come under the head of "Things one would rather not have said."