NOTES. [The Plate has appeared before, having been given, at a time when it was hoped that the present publication would not be called for, to a Periodical work circulating largely amongst members of the Cambridge Camden Society, who might be expected to be curious about so notorious a feature in a restoration with which they had been so closely associated, and which many of them had never seen, and are now not likely ever to see. It represents a comparative view of different kinds of Altars or CommunionTables, and was suggested by the arrival of the pen-and-ink drawing, No. 1, which is from an original sketch representing the Bishop of New Zealand using a canoe for the ministration. No. 2 (below) is the stone panelled Altar erected in Christ Church, Cheltenham, in 1839; close, and fixed to the wall, and opening with a lid generally locked, the interior serving for a box or cupboard. No. 3 is a specimen of the kind of Altar commonly found in new churches: and No. 4 is the unpretending Altar, now ejected from the Round Church by the Judgment of the Court of Arches. An interior view of the Round Church, including the Altar and Credence shelf, will be shortly published in the concluding Number of the Society's Monumental Brasses'.] 6 NOTE 1, In a letter to the Editor of the Cheltenham Journal, dated Nov. 29, 1844, Mr. Dalton says, "I was put upon the Committee without my knowledge, at the commencement of the work, but immediately "requested that my name should be removed. This was done. I never "attended one meeting but as Mr. Faulkner's representative in his ab"sence." What this means, I am unable to comprehend. I can only say that Mr. Dalton did attend the meetings of the Committee pretty regularly. Turning at random over the pages of only one of the books of Minutes now before me, I find him recorded as present, and as taking part in the proceedings, on the following days: Oct. 20, Nov. 5, Dec. 10, 1841; May 14, 1842. He continued to attend till Nov. 21, 1844 (inclusive), and requested that his name should be removed by a note dated Nov. 22, 1844, and not before. This note is now before me, as well as five or six more which I happen to have preserved, apologizing for his absence, or complaining of not having received timely notice. In what capacity Mr. Dalton attended cannot affect the above facts, and is nothing to the purpose: the question is, had the Officiating Minister of the parish access to the Committee? I believe the original resolution appointed the Incumbent or Officiating Minister: but as the former never was, or was likely to be, here, the person really on the Committee was Mr. Dalton; as he himself shewed he understood it, by actually attending. On the occasion when Mr. Faulkner was expected, as his presence would have superseded Mr. Dalton, it was agreed that in that event the latter should be elected specially on the Committee, by virtue of the power it possessed of adding to its number. "At the commencement of the work," Mr. D. says, he "immediately resigned." Now that, we all know, was in 1841. In the minutes of the Parish Vestry I find, under the date Oct. 13, 1841, "Resolved, that the Minister (that is, Mr. Dalton) and Churchwardens be requested to proceed immediately with the reparation and restoration suggested by the Cambridge Camden Society, according to the plans of Mr. Salvin." This minute is in the handwriting of Mr. Dalton, who was in the chair: as he had been at a previous meeting, Oct. 5, when the same subject was under consideration. [This fact is the more remarkable, because he appears not to have been in the habit of attending the meetings of Vestry; apparently not knowing that it is the Clergyman's duty always to attend those meetings, of which he is ex officio chairman by the common law of the land.] So that here we have him presiding at the meeting of what was in fact the Restoration Committee, when it deliberated in the Parish Vestry Oct. 5, and again Oct. 13; and again taking part in it, with the then Churchwardens, Mr. Ekin and Mr. Jordan, when it met as the more formal Restoration Committee' in the Committee-room of the Cambridge Camden Society. What possible attraction can have tempted him there of all places in the world? In what capacity, if not as Officiating Minister? and by what compulsion, if "without his knowledge"? Was it also "without his consent"? Mr. Faulkner and Mr. Dalton have certainly the strangest way of doing things "without their knowledge", and letting things be done "without their consent". As there can be no doubt that Mr. Dalton in these statements was unconscious of asserting what was contrary to fact, I can only attribute the mistake to that mental confusion, of which I have had occasion to complain 66 in other instances: and which in the same communication led him to represent as part of my long letter", and "statements which came out with my signature affixed", what was in fact a paragraph extracted from a Cambridge newspaper, and is expressly so described in my letter, as well as marked as a quotation by inverted commas. The Paper is in my possession, and at the service of any one who may wish to inspect it. See also Cambridge Chronicle, Jan. 18, 1845. NOTE 2, p. 4. Three gentlemen, one a Master, and two Bachelors of Arts, were selected for this duty, as best qualified, if not exclusively, to give any information or explanation which the Archdeacon or his Official might desire. They were told by the latter that he could not hold any communication with them, nor recognize them in any manner. NOTE 3, p. 4. It is far from my wish to say any thing unkind of one, whose scruples, even when they seem to me mistaken, I should respect, if I could disengage them from the mischievous fanaticism of which I believe him to have been made the instrument. I have never sanctioned the charge of ingratitude' so generally imputed to him, because, if he really thinks a stone Table to be capable of converting a pure rite into an idolatrous sacrifice, or that what is holy at Havering becomes an 'abomination' at Cambridge, he is to be pitied rather than blamed. Nor should I have admitted the allusion in the text, but for the argument to which it is applied, and still more for the practical contrast it suggests between different notions of personal obligation at the present day. It is impossible for me not to be reminded by it of some among those whom I fear Mr. Faulkner would stigmatise, who, not more favoured by fortune than himself, have nevertheless contributed more largely than its Pastor to the restoration of his church, even while forwarding that of their own by the venture of an aisle to be restored at their own expense; and of others, stipendiary Curates, private tutors, students with the world before them, who have to my knowledge incurred serious privations rather than forego their share in the work of which he reaps the harvest.-His qualification for the office of which we have saved him the trouble and the cost, may be judged of from the following letter to our Treasurer, dated Sept. 23, 1841 :-- “In 1825 we expended between £400 and £500 in repairs and improvements, as we then thought: but I have since much regretted that I caused the circular gallery to be placed where it is" (that is, blocking up the present Triforium!) "for the Sunday school children: it is sadly out of keeping with the structure, and should be glad to hear of its removal to |