viewed by the light of its relations to the whole body public, and not exclusively by that of the internal action of its own community. It follows from this truth that in order fully to judge of the expediency of a severe handling of that ultra section, we cannot afford to lose sight of them even after they may have been compelled to leave the Church. It is quite conceivable that they might succeed as an independent sect in winning proselytes from the residuary body, who would otherwise have been retained and kept in order, by that surest antagonism to excess which is offered by the constant example and gentle influence of corporate moderation. In this aspect of the case I do not hesitate to say that the moderate High Church party is the best bulwark within the Church against the extreme wing. Anything which paralyses that party gives additional opportunities to the ultra wing to make conquests, which will not tell the less effectively upon the opposite section, or—to speak more correctly—upon the whole community, because they might be won by those who had become outsiders, in favour of some body no longer within the formal circle of the Church. The same argument, in the same terms, is equally applicable to any violent proceeding on the part of High Churchmen which might result in a secession on the Low Church side.
It may, however, be pleaded that it is, in point of fact, the desire of some at least of those who promoted the Committee to disturb at all hazards the status in quo of the High Church section, and not merely to check specific practices for which that section as a whole cannot be held as in any way responsible. It may be argued that the mischiefs produced by those practices are so great that nothing short of sharp and strong material guarantees covering a wider ground than that of the absolute and literal grievance would be effective. If this be the true explanation of the
