to engage in any lay pursuit, though he might become a Roman Catholic priest. He asked the House whether it was just and right that the law should be in such a state, imposing, in fact, a temporal penalty for religious opinions. He insisted that the relief his Bill proposed would be not only just to individuals, but for the interest of the Church of England, it being to the prejudice of the Church forcibly to retain dissatisfaction within its pale, instead of suffering, and even in. viting, it to go out. He should not object, he added, to the Bill being referred to a Select Committee.

Sir W. Heathcote, who had given notice of a motion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, observed that there was some confusion in Mr. Bouverie's argument. He had not distinguished the cases of beneficed and unbeneficed clergymen. He was not aware that a clergyman, unless holding a benefice, was under any disability. There was, however, a residuum of grievance which he desired to relieve, and he was ready to assent to the second reading of the Bill with the understanding that it would be referred to a Select Committee; but unless it came out of the Committee in a very different state, he should be disposed to resist the passing of the Bill.

Mr. M. Milnes thought the Bill, in its present state, might offer a premium upon heresy, and place persons in an inconvenient and even immoral position. He, however, desired that some measure should be devised to liberate persons who had taken Orders in the Church at an early age from their obligations without stain upon their character or degradation.

Lord Stanley, after quoting in favour of the principle of the Bill a pamphlet written in 1849 by the present Bishop of Exeter, said he supported its principle upon two grounds; first, that it was for the interest of the Church of England; secondly, that it would be an act of justice to individuals. He, however, suggested various points of detail which, in his opinion, would require consideration.

Mr. Walter was prepared to support the second reading of the Bill; at the same time, he agreed with Mr. Milnes and Lord Stanley that there were many details in the Bill which required serious and grave consideration. thought there was force in the remark of Mr. Milnes that the Bill would offer, to a certain extent, what amounted to a premium upon heresy.

He

Mr. Hubbard did not deny that there was a certain small amount of grievance, but he demurred to the title of the Bill and to the spirit in which some of the clauses were drawn. He was ready to relieve the grievance, but not by throwing a slur upon the clergy.

Mr. Newdegate considered the measure to be crude and partial. He thought it inconsistent with the character of the Church of England that persons who had taken priest's orders should be at liberty to abandon them at their own mere will, without the sanction of any tribunal.

Sir G. Grey said he retained the opinions he had expressed upon a former occasion, that it was desirable some provision should be made to relieve clergymen of the Church of England, who had conscientiously changed their opinions, from the obligations they had contracted, and

from liability to proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court. There were provisions in this Bill, however, especially those contained in the 7th clause, which required careful consideration. He agreed with the suggestion that it would be better if deacon's orders were not irrevocable.

The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be referred to a Select Committee, where it underwent considerable modifications, devised to meet the objections of those who apprehended mischief to the Church from certain of its provisions. Upon the motion being made for the third reading on the 9th of July, the opponents of the Bill mustered in some force against it, and the attendance in the House being thin, its supporters had to fight the battle at a disadvantage.

Sir L. Palk moved that the third reading should be deferred for three months, alleging that the principle of the measure, which would relieve persons from the most solemn vows and obligations, was so objectionable that he felt bound, even at this late stage of its progress, to resist the Bill.

Lord Henley expressed an earnest hope that the House would not stop the Bill at this stage. He did not approve of all that it contained, but it was confined to the Church of England, and only relieved those who differed from its doctrines, and objected to its discipline.

Mr. Bouverie thought he had a right to complain of the course adopted by Sir L. Palk, in calling upon the House, at the last moment, to reject this Bill, the object, of which was to give to clergymen

of the Church of England liberty of conscience, and to exempt them from temporal penalties. He repeated, in support of the Bill, the arguments he had urged on its earlier stages.

Mr. Roebuck, after exposing, in very plain and free terms, the two ideas whence he considered the opposition to the Bill to spring, observed that it merely said that one who had taken priest's orders, and afterwards dissented from the Church of England, shall not be followed by the penalties of the law for so doing.

Sir George Grey observed that it seemed to be admitted that cases of hardship might arise under the existing law, and he trusted that the House would adhere to its previous decisions in favour of the Bill.

On a division, the amendment was carried by 98 to 88.

The Bill was consequently lost. Another attempt, attended with a still smaller measure of success, was made by Lord Ebury in the House of Lords, to relax the Ecclesiastical Law, by making certain amendments in the Act of Uniformity. Two Bills with this object were laid by the noble Lord on the table of the House of Lords, the provisions of which he explained at length upon moving that they be read a second time. Two years ago, the noble Lord said, he had moved for a Royal Commission to inquire into the Liturgy and the Acts of Uniformity, with a view to adopting such changes as might be requisite after the lapse of two centuries. Though the motion was negatived it met with support, which had led him to introduce two Bills at the commencement

of this Session: the first, to give greater elasticity to the celebration of divine service than the present rubric allowed; and the second, which he then moved should be read a second time, to relax the extreme severity of the terms of subscription imposed by the Act of 1662. Besides the Act of Uniformity, however, the Act of 1st Elizabeth was still in force, with all the tremendous penalties of the age, and requiring an "unfeigned assent and consent to everything contained in and prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer," on admission to a benefice. The effect of this subscription had been to drive out hundreds of excellent and valuable ministers when first enacted, and to keep out thousands of similar ministers ever since, while no compensating advantages whatever had been received by the Church. Neither piety, unity, nor even uniformity had been really promoted, and he called upon the House to do away with a superfluous form of subscription, and thereby promote that best of all things, Christian harmony.

The Bishop of London pointed out that, as the declaration proposed to be abolished applied solely to persons taking possession of benefices, and persons in the highest position in the Church even Bishops had never been called upon to make it, the number relieved by the Bill would be comparatively but small. He did not believe at all in the gradual deterioration of the standard of candidates for ordination, and was convinced that the proposed change would not really conciliate any Dissenters. He should oppose the motion.

The Earl of Shaftesbury hoped the motion would not be pressed to a division, as the clergy and public were hardly yet prepared for a decision of the question. At the same time, it was one of vital importance to the Church, and he believed that it would be hard to maintain the integrity of the Church unless something in the way of liturgical revision, and something analogous to the proposal before the House was adopted.

Earl Russell joined in hoping that Lord Ebury would not press the motion. The question was one which it was desirable should be fully discussed at the Universities, and wherever men took an interest in the well-being of the Church. Such discussion would be conducive to its peaceable settlement, and he hoped it would be left to that discussion for the present.

The Bishop of Oxford denied the alleged necessity for any measure of relief, and ridiculed the arguments and facts brought forward by Lord Ebury. Unless their lordships were prepared to give up the principle of subscription entirely, they could not pass the Bill before them.

After some further debate, the Bill was by leave withdrawn.

Mr. Monckton Milnes brought the long-contested question of Marriages of Affinity again before Parliament this year by a Bill to legalize marriage with a deceased wife's sister. He supported his case by the arguments against the restriction which had been repeatedly adduced in the Legisla ture, and obtained leave to introduce the measure, though not without a protest from some members, and an intimation that

on a future stage the Bill would be vigorously opposed. On the 19th February the principal discussion took place.

It was commenced by Mr. Lygon, who warmly opposed the further progress of the Bill, and urged the House to stand by its former decisions.

Mr. Collier supported the second reading, insisting that the Legislature had no right to offer impediments not sanctioned by the Divine law to marriage, which was a law of nature; that, primá facie, any man might marry any woman; and there was no prohibition of the marriages in question in the New Testament or the Old. While the operation of the proposed law in countries where it had long existed produced no inconveniences, the evils of prohibiting these marriages, which violated no natural or moral law, were real.

Lord R. Cecil replied to Mr. Collier, whose argument, he contended, went, logically, to the sanction of polygamy. He was not moved to oppose this Bill upon theological grounds, but he could not satisfy himself, if it passed, what the House might not be called upon to do next. If the marriage law were once altered, there would be no logical ground upon which other prohibited degrees could stand, and marriages still more repulsive might be legalized. He moved to defer the second reading for six months.

Sir G. Grey said he agreed that the theological ground of opposition to the Bill was doubtful; he thought it was the duty of every man to make up his mind upon that point, and that he (Sir George) was at liberty to consider the question on other grounds,

and he believed that the balance of advantages to society was on the side of the proposed relaxation of the law. He supported, therefore, the second reading of this Bill; but he deprecated the agitation of this question year after year.

Mr. Walpole opposed the Bill, believing that, on moral grounds, this disturbance of the marriage law-a law, uniform, consistent, and identical in the United Kingdom-would be very detrimental to society in this country. The law now said that these marriages were illegal; those who wished to alter the law were bound to show the reasons for the alteration, and to say how far they meant to go if the doctrine of Mr. Collier were true that, primá facie, any man might marry any woman. The Bill provided that marriages should not be void by reason of affinity. Was it to be confined to marriage with a sisterin-law, or to apply to all cases of affinity? If confined to sistersin-law, why should a widow not be allowed to marry her husband's brother?

Mr. Headlam, Mr. Buxton, Sir T. Colebrooke, and Mr. Horner addressed the House in support of, and Mr. Blackburn and Mr. Kinnaird against, the Bill; and Mr. Milnes having replied, Lord R. Cecil's amendment was negatived by 144 to 133.

The motion for going into Committee on the Bill was met with renewed opposition.

Mr. Hunt moved to defer the Committee for six months. He challenged the opinion of the House once more, he said, upon the principle of this Bill, which, in his view of it, would be the beginning of a very great social revolution. When once the

principle of the existing law was broken down, he asked, where could they stop? If once it was declared that there was no reason, on account of affinity, why a man might not marry his deceased wife's sister, on what ground I could he be forbidden to marry her mother?

Mr. Ball supported the Bill. He considered that Scripture not only sanctioned, but recommended and encouraged, these marriages.

Mr. Monsell opposed the Bill. He agreed that it would be wrong to retain upon the Statute-book a law contrary to the general feeling of the people; but he insisted that in Ireland and in Scotland there was the strongest feeling against this Bill. Mr. Milnes was, he said, bound to answer the question how far he meant to go, whether he intended to carry out his principle to its logical consequences. If Parliament once adopted this principle, continual attempts would be made to go down the precipice, doing infinite evil to the morals of the nation.

Sir W. Jolliffe argued in support of the measure. He considered that the Act of 1835 was a blot upon the Statute Book, and the proposed change was required on grounds of justice.

The Amendment was carried on a division by 148 votes to 116, and so the Bill was lost.

The customary annual motion in opposition to the Endowment of Maynooth College was promptly disposed of this year by the House of Commons.

Mr. Whalley moved, on the 5th of May, amidst much interruption, that the grant be discontinued, regard being paid to existing vested interests. Mr.

On the 22nd May the O'Connor Don called the attention of the House of Commons to the state of public education in Ireland. After some remarks upon the model schools and upon the government scheme generally, he directed them more particularly to the Queen's Colleges. He contended that these institutions erred against the principle that the State was not bound to provide for the education of any but the lower classes, except under peculiar circumstances. It had been alleged that the establishment of these Colleges was justified by peculiar circumstances, but this he denied. Their avowed object was said to be to meet the wants of the Roman Catholics and Dissenters in Ireland, who could not receive religious education in Trinity College. In a religious point of view, however, he observed, the Queen's Colleges were not less objectionable to Roman Catholics than Trinity College : so that the Queen's Colleges had failed to meet the object for which they were established. It was said that the result had, on the whole, been satisfactory. He denied, however, that the Colleges had provided an University education to Roman Catholics commensurate with the outlay.

Sir R. Peel observed that this question had been often debated in that House without any other