proved very intractable. Discrepancies in the evidence were not unimportant, but the total absence of a judicial spirit in most of the investigators was doubtless a far greater hindrance. I have not the least intention of pursuing the quarrel in detail; it could be of no general interest. It is almost incredible to what depths of pettiest technicality both parties descended. A broad and statesmanlike view of the matter could have appealed to nobody. The Sunday after the secession at Ramsgate, some twenty or thirty people of the minority (which must have rallied in the interval) had come to the door of the meeting-room, only to find that by some mistake it had not been opened. They had accordingly dispersed, and the question was now raised whether by their omission to “break bread” they had not forfeited their character as an “assembly,” even if on other grounds they could be recognised. This involved the discussion of all the circumstances to which the omission to open the room might be attributable. It was even sought to investigate the state of mind of the company that the closed doors had discomfited. In some cases, men made for better things devoted no little dialectical skill to the public elucidation of these momentous points.
It had been reported that one of the leaders of this minority, after the failure to effect the desired entrance, had taken a walk on the sands. This was urged against the claims of his party with great pertinacity by the supporters of the Guildford Hall seceders. Afterwards it was definitely ascertained that the walk on the sands was not taken till the afternoon, and this discovery shifted the stress of the argument.
Some moderate minds were for a temporary arrangement to refuse recognition to both meetings; and this course was actually at one time decided upon at Cheap-
