Editing Archibald Campbell Tait (section)

==Notable accomplishments==
[[Image:AbpArchibaldCampbellTait.jpg|thumb|left|200px|Archbishop Tait.]]
If Blomfield had almost remodelled the idea of a bishop's work, his successor surpassed him. Tait had all Blomfield's earnestness and his powers of work, with far wider interests. Blomfield had given himself zealously to the work of church-building; Tait followed in his steps by inaugurating (1863) the Bishop of London's Fund. He devoted a very large part of his time at London in actual evangelistic work; and, to the end, his interest in the pastoral side of the work of the clergy was greater than anything else. With his wife, he was instrumental in organising women's work upon a sound basis, and he did not a little for the healthful regulation of Anglican sisterhoods during the formative period in which this was particularly necessary. Nor was he less successful in the larger matters of administration and organisation, which brought into play his sound practical judgment and strong common-sense. He was constant in his attendance in parliament and spared no pains in pressing on measures of practical utility. The modification of the terms of clerical subscription (1865), the new [[lectionary]] (1871), the Burials Act (1880) were largely owing to him; for all of them, and especially the last, he incurred much obloquy at the time.{{sfn|Collins|1911|p=363}}

===Dealings with liberalism===
With regard to the liberal trend in modern thought, he was in sympathy with it. His object in dealing with questions of faith, as in dealing with the ritual question, was primarily a practical one: he wished to secure peace and obedience to the law as he saw it. Consequently, after his sympathies had led him to express himself favourably towards some movement, he frequently found himself compelled to draw back.{{sfn|Collins|1911|p=363}}

He expressed a qualified sympathy with some of the writers of ''[[Essays and Reviews]]'' and then joined in the censure of it by the bishops (1861). The same kind of apparent vacillation was found in his action in other cases; e.g., in the case of [[John William Colenso]] (1863) and in the controversy as to the use or disuse of the [[Athanasian creed|Athanasian symbol]] (1872). It was naturally and widely misunderstood. Some who did not know him thought, or pretended to think, that he was a [[Socinian]] or a free-thinker. The world at large knew better; but even [[Frederick Temple]] warned him, in the case of ''Essays and Reviews, "You will not keep friends if you compel them to feel that in every crisis of life they must be on their guard against trusting you."{{sfn|Collins|1911|pp=363–364}}

===Dealings with the Oxford Movement===
[[Image:Tateblacksheep.jpg|thumb|upright|Illustration from [[Punch (magazine)|Punch Magazine]], showing Archbishop Tait, trying to control the "Ritualist black sheep" with his crook called the "[[Public Worship Regulation Act|Public Worship Regulation Bill]]"]]

As regards [[Oxford movement|the Catholic revival]], Tait was concerned with it during the whole of his episcopate and, above all, on the issue of [[Ritualism in the Church of England|ritualism]], on which it naturally came into most direct conflict with the recognised ecclesiastical practice of the day. He had to deal with the [[St George in the East|St George's-in-the-East protests]], in 1859,{{sfn|Crouch|1904|loc=Ch. V. The Riots}} and the troubles at [[St Alban's, Holborn]], in their earlier stages (1867); he took part as assessor in the [[Privy Council of the United Kingdom|Privy Council]] judgment in the Ridsdale case (1877); he was more closely concerned than any other bishop with the agitation against [[Confession (religion)|confession]] in 1858 and again in 1877.{{sfn|Collins|1911|p=364}}

His method throughout was the same: he endeavoured to obtain a compliance to the law as declared by the courts; failing this, he made the most earnest efforts to secure obedience to the ruling of the Ordinary for the sake of the peace of the Church; after this, he could do nothing. He did not perceive how much of reason the "[[ritualist]]s" had on their side: that they were fighting for practices which, they contended, were covered by the letter of the rubric; and that, where rubrics were notoriously disregarded on all hands, it was not fair to proceed against one class of delinquent only. In fact, if others were inclined to ignore it altogether, Tait could hardly realise anything but the connection between the English Church and the State. From such a position there seemed to be no escape but in legislation for the deprivation of the recalcitrant clergy; and the [[Public Worship Regulation Act 1874]] was the result.{{sfn|Collins|1911|p=364}}
[[File:Addington Palace1.jpg|thumb|Addington Palace, the summer home of the Archbishops of Canterbury]]

For this Tait was by no means responsible as a whole: some of the provisions which proved most irksome were the result of amendments by [[Anthony Ashley Cooper, 7th Earl of Shaftesbury|Lord Shaftesbury]] which the bishops were unable to resist; and it must be borne in mind that the most disastrous results of the measure were not contemplated by those who were instrumental in passing it. The results followed inevitably: clergy were cited before a new tribunal, and not only deprived but imprisoned. A widespread feeling of indignation spread not only among [[High Church]]men, but among many who cared little or nothing for the ritual practices involved; and it seemed impossible to foretell what the outcome would be. But the aged archbishop was moved as much as anybody, and tried hard to mitigate such a state of things.{{sfn|Collins|1911|p=364}}

At length, when the Rev. [[Alexander Heriot Mackonochie|AH Mackonochie]] was on the point of being deprived of his benefice of St. Alban's, [[Holborn]], for [[contumacy]], the archbishop, then on his deathbed at [[Addington Palace]], took steps which resulted in the carrying out of an exchange of benefices (which had already been projected), which removed him from the jurisdiction of the court. This proved to be the turning-point; and although the ritual difficulty by no means ceased, it was afterwards dealt with from a different point of view, and the [[Public Worship Regulation Act]] became practically obsolete.{{sfn|Collins|1911|p=364}}