378 
to that war. I do not believe the Franco-German war would ever have 
taken place, but for the concealed irritability of the two peoples who met in 
that deadly conflict. In the Middle Ages one man could throw Europe 
into a state of war, while now, it is only the antagonism, not of rulers but of 
peoples, that can bring it about. However this, after all, is a mere matter of 
opinion, and if anybody likes to strike that passage out of my paper, it 
leaves the position as it was before. As to the question of workhouses and 
prisons, there were many organizations for the relief of distress in our 
monasteries much more than fifty years ago. Then I come to the point about 
Russia and Turkey, and all I would say is, that while there are sure to be dif- 
ferences of opinion on the subject, I would rather live in Russia than in Turkey, 
and I would prefer to live iu England, to being in either of those countries. 
There is this to be said for Russia, that with all her faults and all her 
absolutism, she has emancipated her slaves within our memory, and to what 
has that been owing except the influence of Christianity, which, even in 
Russia, is a great controlling power ? (Cheers.) As to India, I would only 
refer to the efforts being made to put a stop to the famine, to show that the 
most beneficent, the wisest, and the best Government for India, has been 
that of its Christian rulers. As to the question whether, in commercial 
morals and good faith, we are worse now than we were before, I do not know 
that this is the case. We are all prone to exaggerate existing evils, and if 
you take the Times of fifty, sixty, or seventy years. ago, you will find plenty of 
records of commercial dishonesty. I never said that Christianity had eradi- 
cated evil from the world, but I do point to the country in which we live, as 
showing us the best and most glorious development of Christian principles. 
Wc cannot help admiring, for instance, the conduct of our working men who 
are on strike now, when we compare it with what they would have done 
thirty-four years ago, for it shows what Christianity has done, to make its 
principles felt among those who a little time ago would have risen in violence 
and indignation, whenever arrangements were made of which they did not 
approve. 
A visitor (Mr. Leach) states that poor Archbishop Theodore was, somehow 
or other, instrumental in bringing the Pope into England. He was sent here 
by the Pope, no doubt, but when here he did not choose to obey the 
Pope ; he simply ignored his interference in the ecclesiastical affairs of this 
country, as much as the Archbishop of Canterbury would now. It was 
not until the Norman Conquest that the Papacy was really brought here ; 
but Archbishop Theodore brought the various parts of the country into a kind 
of ecclesiastico-political union, and so paved the way for one ruler with one 
sceptre, and for putting an end to the war, strife, and murder to which we 
had been condemned since the invasion. Now, I come to that unfortunate 
13th paragraph in my paper, where it seems I have committed the terrible 
blunder of using the name of Plato instead of the name of Aristotle ! But 
any one who does not like my argument can substitute the one name 
for the other to suit himself. Then Mr. Leach asks why Christianity did not 
