At the end of the Whitwell epitaph are the words, “In dormitorium hic juxta positum demisit June 24, Anno Dom. MDCXCVI, Ætatis LXV.” Was it in imitation of this, that the words were introduced in Matthew Henry’s monument in Holy Trinity Church, Chester, “Confectum corpus huic dormitorio commisit 22 die Junii, 1714, Anno ætat 52”? Dr. Howson, Dean of Chester, who was staying with me at Crewe Hall when this visit was arranged, intended to be my companion, for he was a great admirer of the Henrys; but illness prevented him. In 1877 I was invited by Dr. Stanley to deliver a missionary lecture in Westminster Abbey, one of a series he had arranged, in which some friends of his, not clergymen in the Establishment, took part. In 1877 I gave a lecture in the room of the Society of Arts on the prospects and perils of modern civilisation. One of the audience was a native gentleman attached to the Chinese Embassy—a very intelligent person, speaking English well, and showing by his conversation how clearly he grasped points of the address he had just heard. It was a singular circumstance that a representative of the largest empire of the world—which not long ago counted all other nations as barbarous—should listen to a barbarian as he represented the good and _evil_ of European civilisation. Just before Christmas (1877) two or three days were spent at the Deanery of Westminster, and on the Sunday afternoon Dr. Stanley walked with me on the terrace of the Parliamentary Houses, where we had some interesting talk. He pointed to the palatial edifice at our back as we looked across the river, and said, “This is the palace of the nation”; turning attention to St. Thomas’ Hospital, he remarked, “That is the palace of the poor”; and next, looking towards Lambeth, he added, “There is the palace of the Church.” We discussed the state and prospects of the Establishment, and he, as a staunch advocate for its continuance, propounded schemes of reform, which, looking at the state of parties, seemed to me quite impracticable. He was filled with an idea of comprehension, if not within wide Episcopalian limits, then by a State union of different denominations—for example, thus: He would have been glad to see a Presbyterian Moderator, a Congregational Chairman, and a Wesleyan President sitting in the House of Lords on a bench with the bishops. He further thought that, as Charles II. was willing to have Nonconformist chaplains, after the Restoration, so an English sovereign might now, without any impropriety, do the same; and if the Uniformity Act were modified so as to allow a Dissenting minister to enter a pulpit of the Establishment, there would be no legal bar in the way. My friend had the widest sympathies possible, and union, with him, was a passion.