those already in office being allowed, not indeed to _dictate_, but to _suggest_ such as seemed most qualified for the office. The last-mentioned deacon on the list just given—Mr. Robert Watson, of Hammersmith—ought to be specially noticed, for he wrought a practical change in the conduct of Church business little appreciated at the time. Being a most conscientious, methodical, and business-like man, as well as a devout and earnest Christian, he, as secretary of the official staff, conducted everything in the most orderly manner. I have heard him say that Church business occupied the chief time of one of his clerks. The change he introduced into the minutes of proceedings is very striking. Whereas before, entries were vague and irregular, and no clue is afforded to determine when and how members were admitted; after Mr. Watson took office, Church meetings are reported from month to month, with the greatest regularity; and it can be seen at once who were received into communion, and what of a spiritual or secular kind transpired. He and his brethren revised the list of members every year, striking off with inexorable decision the names of such as had ceased to attend the Lord’s Supper. In March, 1848, it was made a standing rule, “That any member being absent from the Lord’s Table for six consecutive months without sufficient cause assigned, shall, after notice to the party and mention to the Church, be considered to have withdrawn from the communion of this Church.” It may be added, that a distinction was made between members in full communion—having a right to vote in the choice of “bishop and deacons,” and on other ecclesiastical questions—and persons only occasional communicants, not adopting Nonconformist opinions, though from spiritual sympathy wishing to unite with the Church at the Lord’s Table. Occasional communion often led the way to complete fellowship; the communicant, however, had to be elected at a Church meeting to a full share in ecclesiastical rights and privileges. It may be mentioned further that young people, before they reached an age which would justify their giving a vote respecting Church affairs, were allowed to partake of the Lord’s Supper, their subsequent full admission to fellowship depending upon their election in the usual manner. That “manner” was in accordance with the usual practice in Congregational Churches half a century ago. A candidate first had an interview with the pastor; then he or she was proposed to the Church; one of the deacons _generally_, but not _always_, had conversation with the individual; and at the next Church meeting, after a report of eligibility, the election followed by a show of hands. {77}