and a door into the chancel. The roof of the vestry, which towards the east terminates in a gable, is at the other end sloped off so as to give room in the end wall of the aisle for a small triangular window filled with tracery and stained glass, the whole having in the interior a very beautiful effect.

The central and principal feature of the west front is of course the tower and spire. It is disengaged, that is, only attached to the building on one side. Approaching the chapel from the west, with the ground on which it stands rising at a considerable angle, this tower has a grand and imposing effect, not lessened on a nearer view, and due not so much to the actual size of the structure, as to the proportions of the different parts and the disposition of the various openings. On the west side is a large doorway, with richly moulded sides and arched head, above which is a window of three lights, with the head filled with rich tracery. This window will be seen from the interior of the chapel, through the lofty arch which separates the nave from the tower. As high as the top of this stage of the tower, there is no aperture whatever in either the north or south sides, and this tends greatly to the massive and substantial character of the whole structure, which exhibits a decided superiority in this respect to many modern towers, designed on the principle of having the sides all alike. Above this point, there are still two stages or heights of the tower before the spire commences; the lower one exhibits on the west side two, and on the north and south sides one very small narrow window; and the top stage of all has, on each of its four sides (as we are now above the ridge of the nave roof), two windows with tracery in the heads, and the rest filled with louvre flags. This is the belfry, and the one below the ringing-room. Though it is not intended to have bells immediately, we shall not be surprised to hear before very long a peal of eight bells sending forth their solemn music over the adjacent country, to call the worshipers to prayer. Above this stage, which is the highest part of the square portion called the tower, rises the spire, which is octagonal on plan, the four angles of the tower, on which the spire does not rest, being carried up in an oblique direction, sloping towards the centre of the spire, and forming what is technically called a broach. There is no parapet to the tower. At the south-east angle of the

VOL. IV.

2 A

tower is a small circular staircase to give access to the belfry and ringingroom. The other angles of the tower have bold and massive buttresses. Immediately above the commencement of the spire, in each face corresponding with the faces of the tower, is a window of two lights; and higher up, dividing the spire into three nearly equal portions, are two other sets of four windows each, placed on alternate sides of the spire.

The adoption of the spire appears certainly at variance with the principles on which Dissenting chapels have hitherto been erected; but, on reflection, we think it will be admitted that, in point of fact, Dissenters have till very recently had no principles of a definite nature to guide them in the designing of their chapels, except perhaps that of avoiding as much as possible all resemblance to a church. Whether this is a sufficient reason for a departure from the true principles of ecclesiastical architecture, is a question which, we think, few will at the present day answer in the affirmative; it has certainly not had much weight with the builders of the chapel under consideration, who have without scruple adopted the ancient model in use in this country during the middle ages. But before saying more on this point, we will briefly notice the interior of the chapel.

On entering by the porch on the south side, we are at once impressed with a feeling of solemnity. The whole interior bears a peculiarly religious aspect, well befitting a place set apart for Christian worship. This effect is owing, not only to the correct proportions of the different parts, but also to the exclusion of that glare of light which is so common a characteristic of modern religious edifices. There is here, without gloominess, a “dim religious light,' well calculated to harmonize with and sustain the devotional feelings of the worshiper. A sense of seclusion impresses him, and a consciousness of being in a place from which every thing of a worldly, every-day nature is excluded.

"

Both the chancel and the lower part of the tower are open to the interior of the nave by large and lofty arches, the one to the tower being plain, but that to the chancel has pillars and rich arch mouldings. The central division of the nave is occupied entirely with low seats, terminated by plain standards with a simple carved panel in each. A row of seats with similar standards is also

placed against the side walls; between these last-mentioned seats and the pil. lars are the passages; and, as the seats in the middle are confined entirely within the pillars, these are seen for their full width and height. All the seats face the east, and give accommodation for rather more than 400 worshipers. A broad passage extends across the chapel between the porch door, and one on the north side immediately opposite.

The chancel is to be set apart for the administration of the Lord's Supper and the celebration of Marriages. It is raised two steps above the floor of the nave. The pulpit is to be placed against the pillar on the north side of the arch leading to the chancel, and will be of carved oak, placed on a pedestal of stone. The organ will be placed under the arch leading to the tower, the instrument itself being within the tower and concealed by an elaborately carved oak screen.

As, in a chapel designed on the principles here adopted, galleries would have been a most unsightly addition, they have been very properly omitted. In accordance with the principles that have guided the architects (Messrs. Bowman and Crowther, of Manchester) in designing this chapel, of concealing no part of the construction, but of imparting to each feature, by its mode of treatment, just that degree of prominence required by its position with respect to the whole design, the roofs both of the nave and chancel are open to view, and contrived accordingly in a proper and characteristic manner.

To some it may appear, from simply reading the above description, and without an actual inspection of the building, that though the style and arrangement adopted may impart beauty and character to the edifice, yet that, for the actual purposes for which it has been erected, a less pretending or simpler plan would have been equally efficient, and more suitable to the views generally entertained by our body. Our form of worship, it may be said, differs so widely from that in use when the churches, on the model of which this chapel is designed, were built, as to destroy that consistency and adaptation which ought to be the leading and fundamental principle to guide the architect in all his designs. This objection to the use of the Gothic style in this and other Protestant countries, applies, if at all, equally to churches of the Establishment as to Dissenting

chapels; but we think that, when examined carefully, it does not possess much weight.

It should be remembered that the Pointed style (its perfection at least, if not its origin) is the offspring of the Christian religion, and has been consecrated for ages to its exclusive use, and that all other styles whatever, so far as they are connected at all with religion, are the production of Paganism. We are not of those who think that the present rage for the use of this style is merely a temporary fashion, destined in a short time to give place to some other equally short-lived successor. We believe its principles to be fundamentally and absolutely perfect, and if any changes should in course of time be introduced in its application to modern requirements, it is probable that they would be developments of a still higher perfection. The principles on which the style is built can never be superseded. Other styles, as the Grecian, Italian, &c., may, as they undoubtedly possess great beauty and adaptability to many purposes, maintain their ground, and continue to be used for those purposes; but for ecclesiastical buildings, no style can permanently supersede the Gothic, or Pointed, resting as it does on a basis of constructive truth, and dispensing with and despising all meretricious attempts at false show, which, however excusable or admissible in secular structures, are certainly quite unworthy of admission in a house dedicated to the worship of Almighty God.

We must add that, as respects seeing and hearing, the building is successfully contrived. The human voice traverses the length of the chapel, great as it is, from the extremity of the chancel to the organ gallery under the tower, without difficulty or echo; and for psalmody it appears to be admirably adapted.

We close our account of this beautiful ecclesiastical building, the pure taste of which redounds to the credit of the architects, with the inscription which will, we believe, be placed on a carved stone over the north door:

This House of Prayer, Standing near the site of a Chapel built A.D. 1708, Was erected A. D. 1846, by the descendants of the Founders,

And dedicated to the Worship of The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Under the protection of that Act of public justice (Stat. 7 and 8 Vict. c. 45), Which secures to Non-subscribing Dissenters peaceful possession Of the Chapels and Endowments of their pious Forefathers.

Report on Schools presented to the Committee of the Normal School Society, Feb. 16, 1848.

In order to ascertain, in compliance with the 3rd resolution of the meeting in May last, "what permanent demand would be likely to be created for Teachers trained in an Unsectarian Normal School," circulars were addressed last July to the ministers of the 223 Unitarian congregations in England. From 10 of these no returns could be obtained. Of the 213 from which returns were obtained, there are 77 in which there are week-day schools supported by the congregation, or there are schools

in the town or neighbourhood, not supported exclusively by Unitarians, yet which might prefer a teacher trained in an unsectarian Normal school; and 136 have no week-day schools whatever of a liberal character; 51 Unitarian congregations have week-day schools of their own, 41 have liberal schools in the neighbourhood, and 15 have them both in the congregation and in the neighbourhood. Of evening schools such only have been enumerated as have paid teachers; but there are 26 congregations which have evening schools, in which the teaching is gratuitous.

The following is a summary of the returns:

With respect to the third query contained in the circular, viz., "Whence have the Teachers in these schools been chiefly drawn, and what were their previous opportunities of instruction?" -from the very nature of the question, it is not possible to state the result in a precise and tabular form; but of the Teachers in these 174 schools it appears that only 47, i.e. not much more than a fourth, have been at any regular training establishment; as to the rest, some have been trained in the schools in which they eventually became teachers; some few in schools of a higher description; in several instances the school is taught by the minister of the chapel himself; and with respect to the majority, their opportunities of instruction have been extremely limited.

Many of the British and Foreign Schools, besides those included in the above enumeration, profess to be conducted on unsectarian principles, and combine in their Committee the members of various religious denominations; but it is not believed that they would wish for a teacher trained in an unsectarian Normal school. In certain quarters it is stated that the amount of exclusiveness is very great, and that it will be a long time before those into whose hands the education of the poor has chiefly fallen, will be liberal enough to act with those who desire to see the children of various persuasions meeting in the same class-rooms, and receiving either purely secular instruction, or such religious teaching only as is perfectly catholic in its character. In se

61 62 24

veral places school-rooms are now in the course of building, in which such teachers as we propose to furnish will be required; and in others an earnest desire is expressed to have day-schools for the poor, taught by competent teachers, and free from all sectarian bias.

S. WOOD, Hon. Sec.

Jewish Disabilities Bill. After two nights' debate in the House of Commons, this important Bill was carried by a majority of 73, the numbers being-for, 277-against, 204. We can scarcely regard this as a satisfactory result. Less than half the Members of the new Parliament care to record their votes in favour of a principle of religious liberty, and nearly one-third of them oppose it. But the tone of the debate was in many respects gratifying. The opponents of Jewish emancipation were evidently heartless and half ashamed of their task. Never before did Tory bigotry speak with such "bated breath." The feebleness of the opposition arguments was indeed pitiable. It is sufficient to mention the names of the speakers:-Mr. S. A. O. Stafford (N. Northamptonshire), Lord Burghley (S. Lincolnshire), Mr. Cochrane (Bridport), Lord Mahon (Hertford), Mr. Walpole (Midhurst), Mr. Newdegate (N. Warwickshire), Lord Drumlanrig (Dumfriesshire), Mr. Seymer (Dorsetshire), Mr. Spooner (N. Warwickshire), and Mr. G. Bankes (Dorsetshire). Speeches, full of vigorous argument and noble sentiments,

were delivered in support of the Bill by Mr. W. Page Wood (Oxford), Mr. Monckton Milnes (Pontefract), Mr. Sheil (Dungarvan), Mr. C. Pearson (Lambeth), Mr. W. F. Cowper (Hertford), Mr. Horsman (Cockermouth), Mr. Cockburn (Southampton), and Sir Robert Peel. The speech of Mr. Sheil, though brief, was characterized by his accustomed eloquence; that of Mr. P. Wood shewed that his own Puseyism was neutralized by hereditary liberalism (he is the son of Sir Matthew Wood). Sir Robert Peel, after extricating himself from the embarrassment of supporting a Bill the principle of which on former occasions he had opposed-the allusion to which was received by his former and unforgiving allies with ironical cheers-proceeded to deliver an address worthy of a British statesman of the 19th century, and

sat down amidst the enthusiastic cheers of the House. With great success did Sir Robert Peel tear to tatters the unconstitutional opinion of the late Dr. Arnold, that it was no injustice to deny the Jews political rights, confuting the opinion of the divine by the older and sounder opinion of the lawyer and statesman, Lord Bacon. We had marked many passages in this debate as worthy of extract and comment, but are compelled to omit them from want of room.

It will gratify many of our readers to learn that THOMAS HARDY, Esq., of Birksgate, a well-known friend of civil and religious liberty, is placed in the Commission of the Peace as a Magistrate of the West-Riding of the county of York.

REV. J. JOHNS.

To the tribute to the memory of this admirable man (printed in another part of our Magazine), the writer hopes that he may be permitted, though it be somewhat late, to add a brief biographical notice.

The Rev. JOHN JOHNS was born at Plymouth, March 17, 1801. He received the greater part of his education first from Dr. Bidlake, a good scholar and an accomplished man, and afterwards from the late Rev. Israel Worsley. From Plymouth he went to complete his education at the University of Edinburgh, where he distinguished himself by his classical attainments. On returning to his native town, highly eligible opportunities were presented to him for commencing the profession of a Tutor; but a decided desire for statedly engaging in the work of the Christian ministry took possession of his mind, and in this purpose he was warmly encouraged by his friend Mr. Worsley. Accordingly, towards the close of the year 1820, he accepted an invitation to become the minister of the Presbyterian chapel at Crediton. Here, for sixteen years, he devoted himself to the duties of a country minister; and in the midst of peaceful scenes and occupations, surrounded by influences favourable to the development and cultivation of that poetic temperament for which he was afterwards so conspicuous,

he lived a happy and useful life, enjoying with enthusiasm the natural charms of his lovely native county, and presenting to the world effusions of his pen which gave him an undoubted right to claim a place among the true sons of genius. In the year 1833, he married Caroline, daughter of the late Mr.Henry Reynell, by whom he had eight children, six of whom survive him. Towards the close of the year 1836, to the surprise of all who knew him, he accepted the laborious office of Minister to the Poor in Liverpool. A greater change, in point of locality, habits and occupations, than this step involved, can hardly be conceived; but the result shewed how wisely for themselves and the great objects of their Mission the managers of that valuable institution decided, when they elected him to the office. For ten years Mr. Johns dedicated all the energies of his benevolent spirit to his high and holy work; and, however his previous habits of life and the peculiarly sensitive temperament both of his mind and body might seem to have unfitted him for the situation, he, nevertheless, discharged his anxious, painful and laborious duties, with extraordinary zeal, fidelity and success, bravely and beautifully encountering every difficulty, toil and danger,-till, falling in the very midst of his labours, and amid the very haunts of misery, poverty, disease and death, whose horrors he

strove to mitigate, he has left behind him a name worthy of all honour, a memory which must always be precious. In the summer of last year, during the prevalence of fatal disease among the poor of Liverpool, while intrepidly and benevolently pursuing his accustomed duties, Mr. Johns and a fellow-labourer, a Catholic priest, undertook to remove a dead body which no one else would touch, because the person had died of the malignant fever then making such fearful ravages; both took the infection, and both fell the victims. Thus passed away, on the 23rd June, 1847, one of the purest and most amiable spirits that ever tenanted an earthly tabernacle.

On the 4th of July, the Rev. J. H. Thom preached a most appropriate and beautiful funeral sermon from Acts xx. 24, of which a full report appeared in the Liverpool Mercury; but as few of our readers may have seen it, we will give a few extracts, which will supersede the necessity of any further remarks of ours on the character and services of the subject of this notice.

After describing the qualifications which the managers of the Domestic Mission in Liverpool sought for in their Minister to the Poor, Mr. Thom goes on to say-"Their attention was directed to our departed friend, in whom they had reason to believe these primary gifts eminently abounded. Yet he was not one who, at first sight, or from all we had heard of him, would perhaps have generally been selected as marked out by nature for this service. Many would have taken him for a dreamer, lost in visions, fit only to live in a realm of his own, where the business and the interests of the common world could not break into the happiness of his brooding fancies. Many would have thought it a violence to nature, a useless cruelty, to call him away for ever from the scenes of beauty in which his spirit felt its home-in which, indeed, he revelled with no little of the rapt power of genius, and chain his steps for life to the grim streets where a city's refuse are collected-to turn his eye from the cloud and the sunset, on squalid rooms and haggard faces and loathsome sickness-to dismiss from his thoughts the ideal things in which he lived, and make him the daily companion of intemperance, coarseness, sensuality and brutal vice. We had heard of him as one who was much given to his own musings, and yet had a lively interest in the cause of popular improvement, and lent him

self to it with singular energy, whenever opportunity offered in the schools and mechanics' institutions of his neighbourhood-as of one who was not fond of mixing in society, but who had a deep view of the responsibilities of life

of the claims of those of his fellowmen who were less favoured than himself-who nursed fond thoughts of the progress of society, and was readily moved to enthusiastic sympathy by any noble efforts in that direction, and occasionally poured out through the press his own hopes and convictions in strains of fervent feeling. We were assured by himself of his devotion to this cause, that his heart would find its peace in this service; and believing as they did that society required new and peculiar agencies for its redemption, and that a fervid nature, a glowing heart, a self-relying force, a self-sacrificing zeal, were the first and indispensable qualifications, the supporters of this Ministry, in strong hope, confided it to his hands. I have always felt that it was not a little creditable to the friends of this Mission that they perceived from the first that it was only a man of some refinement of spirit, with a mind penetrated by moral trusts, who seized and uttered religious truths with the energy of greatness, who could do any thing effectual in this serviceand now it is a happiness to be able to record, not for the first time as a eulogy after his death, but as a repetition of what was spoken in his presence at every successive anniversary of this Mission, that we had judged rightly of his gifts and of his zeal. That tribute which we yearly paid to his life and living work is the highest tribute to his memory now that he is gone-that he realized the character of a Minister to the Poor-that he nourished our confidence in this Christian enterprize

that he left not only the outcasts whose souls he sought, but also the supporters of his ministry, better than he found them, with new hopes for man, new faith in the power of Christ's holy love. This is the sum of every thing-the highest praise—and I utter it here because it is no more than our customary acknowledgment of his unsparing labours.

"He had the poetical temperament in an eminent degree. He spoke in poetry; his thoughts, especially in conversation, ran in images, not by effort, but spontaneously. It gave him great power with the poor. The pictures which his words conveyed, when his