was one of the Children of the Chapel Royal front 1819, held various unimportant posts as organist from the age of fifteen, and in 1832 was appointed to Hereford Cathedral. His career as composer began with his splendid anthem, “The Wilderness,” which was probably written for the opening of the Hereford organ in that year. In 1834 it fell to him to conduct the Festival of the Three Choirs, and in the following year he resigned Hereford for Exeter Cathedral; and during the next six years his name became gradually more and more widely known. In 1842 Dr Hook, afterwards dean of Chichester, offered him a large salary to become organist of Leeds parish church, and at Leeds much of his finest work as a composer was done. In 1849 he quitted this post for Winchester, in order to secure educational advantages for his sons. He was at Winchester until 1865, when he offered himself as a candidate for Gloucester Cathedral, the last of his many posts. He again conducted the Three Choirs Festivals of 1865, 1868, 1871 and 1874. A civil list pension of £100 a year was conferred on him in 1873; he died at Gloucester on the 19th of April 1876, and was buried at Exeter.
Like his father he was a very eccentric man, but his compositions show powers that are found in very few Englishmen of his date. If the list of his compositions is smaller than that of his father’s, it must be remembered that his anthems, in which is contained his best work, are far more important and more extensive than most compositions so called: in many of them the whole anthem is no longer sung, but even the selections from them make up anthems of ordinary length. They are masterly in design, fine in inspiration and expression, and noble in character. His “Blessed be the God and Father,” “The Wilderness,” already mentioned, “Ascribe unto the Lord,” “O Lord, Thou art my God,” and many others, are masterpieces in their way, and in all of these; as in the service in E, published with a rather trenchant preface in 1845, there is a happy combination of the modern resources of harmony with the dignified cathedral style, a combination which naturally alarmed the orthodox party of his time.
WESLEYAN METHODIST CHURCH, one of the chief branches
of Methodism (q.v.). On the day of John Wesley’s death the
preachers in London sent a brief note to those stationed in the
country: “Dear Brother, The melancholy period we have so
long dreaded is now arrived. Our aged and honoured Father,
Mr Wesley, is no more! He was taken to Paradise this morning,
in a glorious manner, after a sickness of five days. We have
not time to say more at present relative to his Demise. Only
what respects out future Oeconomy. This injunction he laid
upon us, and all our Brethren on his death-bed, That we each
continue in our respective Station till the time appointed for the
next Conference at Manchester. We have, therefore, no doubt
but you will, with us, readily comply with his Dying Request.
The more so, as this is consonant with the determination of the
Conference held at Bristol when he was supposed to be near
death there, and confirmed in succeeding Conferences.”
In 1790 there were 294 preachers and 71,668 members in Great Britain, 19 missionaries and 5300 members on the mission stations; 198 preachers and 43,265 members in the United States. The 6th of April was kept as a day of fasting and prayer, and the 1st of July was thus set apart in order to seek divine guidance for the approaching conference. The crisis was serious. The large proportion of Wesley’s members had been gathered by the labours of himself and his helpers. They had been taught to observe the sacraments and naturally desired that provision should be made for their administration in their own chapels. Some felt that they could not go to the Lord’s Table where the clergyman was a worldly man; others went, but with much fear and doubt The Church party was influential and resolute to maintain closing relations with the Church of England. Their object was to prevent Methodism becoming independent. There was also a small but determined party that leaned to dissent. The struggle between these conflicting tendencies soon began. On the 30th of March 1791 nine preachers sent out the famous Halifax circular making suggestions as to the choice of president and other matters that must come before the conference. The first signature to this circular was that of William Thompson who was afterwards elected as the first president. On the 4th of May eighteen laymen met at Hull and expressed their conviction that the usefulness of Methodism would be promoted by its continued connexion with the Church of England. They would not consent to the administration of the sacraments by the preachers in Hull, nor to Methodist preaching at the time when services were held in church. A trenchant reply to this circular was prepared by Alexander Kilham (q.v.), one of the younger Methodist preachers.
The conference met in Manchester on the 26th of July 1791. A letter from Wesley (dated Chester, April 7, 1785) was read, beseeching the members of the Legal Conference not to use their powers for selfish ends but to be absolutely impartial in stationing the preachers, selecting boys for education at Kingswood School, and disposing of connexional funds. The conference at once resolved that all privileges conferred by Wesley’s Poll Deed should be accorded to every preacher in full connexion. To supply the lack of Wesley’s supervision the circuits were now grouped together in districts. At first the preachers of the district elected their own chairman, but they were afterwards appointed by the conference. Regulations as to its business were issued in 1812. As to the sacraments and the relations of Methodism to the Church of England the decision was: “We engage to follow strictly the plan which Mr Wesley left us.” This was ambiguous and was interpreted variously. Some held that it forbade the administration of the sacraments except where they were already permitted; others maintained that it left Methodism free to follow the leadings of Providence as Wesley had always done. During the year the difficulties of the situation became more apparent. Wesley had given the sacrament to the societies when he visited them and this privilege was greatly missed. The conference of 1792 was so much perplexed that it resorted to the casting of lots. The decision was thus reached that the sacraments should not be administered that year. This was really shelving the question, but it gave time for opinion to ripen, and in 1793 it was resolved by a large majority that “the societies should have the privilege of the Lord’s Supper where they unanimously desired it.” In 1794, this privilege was definitely granted to ninety-three societies. The feeling in Bristol was very strong. The trustees of Broadmead, who were opposed to the administration of the sacrament by the preachers, forbade Henry Moore to occupy that pulpit. Nearly the whole society thereupon withdrew to Portland Chapel. The conference of 1795 had to deal with this controversy. It prepared a “Plan of Pacification” which was approved by the conference and by an assembly of trustees, and was welcomed by the societies. The Lord’s Supper, baptism, the burial of the dead and service in church hours were not to be conducted by the preachers unless a majority of the trustees, stewards and leaders of any chapel approved, and assured the conference that no separation was likely to ensue. The consent of conference had to be given before any change was made.
In 1796, Alexander Kilham, who refused to abstain from agitation for further reform, and accused his brethren of priest craft, was expelled from their ranks and the New Connexion was formed with 5000 members (see Methodist New Connexion). The conference of 1797 set itself to remove any ground for distrust among the societies and to enlist their hearty support in all branches of the work. Annual accounts were to be published of various funds. The Circuit Quarterly Meeting had to approve the arrangements for the support of the preachers. The preachers had long been accustomed to consult the leader’s meetings of their societies, but it was now clearly decided that stewards and leaders should be appointed in connexion with the leaders’ meeting, and certain rights were granted to that meeting as to the admission and expulsion of members. Local preachers had to be accepted by the local preachers’ meeting, and the powers of trustees of chapels were considerably extended. The constitution of Methodism thus practically took the shape which it retained till the admission of lay representatives to conference in 1878. No period in the history of Methodism was more critical than this, and in none was the prudence and good sense of its leaders more conspicuous. Advance was quietly made along the lines now laid down. The preachers had agreed in 1793 that all distinction between those
