an intellectual, moral, and believing assent to those formularies, which the other only undertook that the recipient should use. Το take away the former at the present time would be understood to mean, that a man might satisfy the Church, provided he undertook to conform to the outward ritual, while in his heart he was at liberty to deny its truth. If there was any danger more than another now threatening the Church, it was the notion that men might safely and honourably undertake the responsibility of remaining in her communion, that they might minister in her congregations, and read her Liturgy and Psalms, while they disbelieved her doctrines. While, therefore, he thought that all subscriptions were in themselves a great misfortune, and while, if they were now to be enacted de novo, he would not adopt them, yet when he was asked to make this particular alteration, because the tendency of this declaration was to keep conscientious men out of the Church, he must express his conviction, that its removal would not add one conscientious man to the ministry of the Church, but that, on the contrary, it would leave others free, as they might suppose, no longer to believe with their hearts what they spoke with their tongues.

The Bishop of LONDON supported the motion, believing that the declaration in question was not only useless, but mischievous. It had been his lot to be thrown in the way of persons who experienced the difficulties which this declaration offered to some conscientious minds. For his own part, in explaining the declaration to any of his clergy, he would gladly adopt the interpretation given by the most rev. Primate, and impress on them that all that was really required was, that they should be able honestly and conscientiously to use the Liturgy. At the same time, it was an unfortunate fact that certain words had crept into the declaration, which to men of scrupulous consciences had the appearance of meaning more than that. It was of the utmost importance that all declarations should be couched in the most explicit language, so that no one should have any difficulty in understanding their meaning. Under the peculiar circumstances of the present time, they ought to be cautious in their dealings with young men seeking to enter the Church. He knew that there was an unwillingness on their part to bind themselves more than was necessary, and therefore it was desirable to tell them exactly what was required from them; and that the words employed should stand in need of no casuistry to explain their meaning. Of course, the great mass were not troubled with any such scruples; but earnest men were often the most troubled about these things, and if any persons of that description were prevented from approaching or remaining in the Church, or were made, after ordination, to look back as if they had made some mistake in using the words which the noble lord proposed to abrogate, that in itself constituted a strong argument for their removal. The declaration was unnecessary for another reason than that he had already given. A person might attain the

highest eminence in the Church of England, and exercise the greatest influence, without ever being called to make this declaration. He had held five different positions in the Church,-curate of a parish, tutor of an influential college, head master of a great school, dean and bishop; and in only one of these-the Cathedral office, which had the least influence as far as regarded the teaching of the Church-was he called upon to make the declaration. There was, therefore, something utterly capricious in the way in which the declaration was required, and he should be very glad to get rid of the words, which were a relic of the vile persecuting spirit which dictated the drawing up of the declaration. His own case was not at all singular. He knew at least one other prelate who had occupied a number of important offices without making the declaration.

The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S said that he would vote for the motion, if Lord Ebury should press it to a division; but he regarded the declaration itself as of insignificant importance, it being virtually identical with that which it was intended to retain, and the real and obvious interpretation of it being, that the persons making it found nothing in the Prayer Book to which they could not conscientiously conform.

Earl GREY expressed his strong repugnance to the mode of explaining the declaration and removing conscientious scruples as to its terms which had been suggested by the Archbishop of Canterbury. He considered it most dangerous to teach young men to take a declaration, of which the words conveyed an unfeigned assent and consent to every thing that was contained in the Book of Common Prayer, including the damnatory clauses, and to tell them that the words did not mean what they appeared to convey, but meant something else. He thought the mere fact that prelates of the Church, when consulted by young men as to whether they should take the declaration, sought to remove their scruples by such assurances, was of itself a proof that some such measure as this was required. He could conceive nothing more corrupting or demoralizing than to teach young men that they could safely make a declaration of so much importance and of so solemn a character, by construing its terms in a non-natural sense. The House rejected Lord Ebury's motion upon a division, there being 50 for, and 90 against, the proposition.

Another occasion on which the principles of ecclesiastical government and religious toleration came under discussion in the House of Lords, was upon a motion by Lord Ebury for an address to the Crown, praying for the appointment of a Commission to consider the complaints made in respect to the compulsory use of the Burial Service of the Church of England. The noble lord explained that his object upon the present occasion was the same as when he brought the subject forward two years ago, namely, to relieve those clergymen who had conscientious objections, from the penalties imposed by law for refusing to perform the burial service over

the bodies of persons who had died notoriously in the midst of a career of crime. On the last occasion the late Archbishop of Canterbury had supported his motion, and, in fact, he had met with scarcely a dissentient opinion with regard to the hardship he wished to see remedied. The difficulty was that, while there were certain persons who were regarded by the Church as excommunicate, the law compelled the clergyman to read the burial service, including that portion which alluded to the blessed hope of future salvation. In such cases as that brought before the public some years ago, where a man in a state of beastly intoxication went reeling out of a public-house into a ditch, and was suffocated, it could hardly be said that Mr. Dodd, the clergyman, was to blame in refusing to perform the service. Yet he was suspended for three months, and mulcted in the costs of fourteen months' litigation in the Arches Court. He did not wish to lay down any specific form of remedy, but he thought the mode adopted in the American Prayer Book would answer the purpose by making the expression of the hope of salvation more general.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY thought the great difficulty would be that, in proposing to alter a portion of the burial service, they would be re opening the whole question of the revision of the Liturgy. He was aware, however, that great anxiety was felt at times by the clergy, and he had been consulted by them himself. His answer had always been, that where a man had been known to have lived and died in a persistent course of sin, he should certainly refuse to perform the service, whatever legal penalties might follow. He could not, however, give his consent to the motion without having more time for himself and his right rev. brethren to consider the question.

The Archbishop of YORK said there were three modes in which the matter might be dealt with. The words of hope in the service might be used in all cases, or in none, or only on special occasions, at the request of friends of the deceased. He thought there were very few cases where a clergyman would willingly omit to use them, and the rule was to use the words in all cases. If omitted entirely, he saw very little consolation to be derived by the mourners from the remainder of the service; but to give a discretionary power to the clergyman would be to set up at once between 12,000 and 13,000 judges of the hope of salvation of a dead man's soul. Not that that would affect the man himself at all; but it would cause frequent painful scenes with sorrowing relatives at a moment when no one would willingly desire to add to their grief. He doubted whether that House, however, was the best possible place to decide the question; and he trusted his noble friend would withdraw his motion, and leave it to the bishops, after full consideration, to originate the necessary measure of relief.

Several peers, among whom were some of the bishops, thought that the present question was one more fit for Convocation than for Parliament to deal with.

The Bishop of LONDON suggested a point which relieved the case of some of the supposed difficulty in practice. It was important that it should be known that no one could proceed against a clergyman for not reading the burial service except his own bishop. It was now settled by the Church Discipline Act that all such proceedings must originate with the bishop; and was it conceivable that a case was likely to arise, in which any member of that bench would proceed against a clergyman under the circumstances that had been supposed? Suppose, then, a case like that of Mr. Dodd occurred. That was not an improbable thing, for only last week one of his own clergy had told him that a difficulty of this kind had occurred to him; and he had. stated to him that, if the matter had been laid before him, he would have advised the clergyman either to act as he had done, or in a very similar way, and that then he, as bishop, would have been ready to take upon himself any difficulties arising out of the matter. It was for that bench to relieve the clergy from any such difficulty, and if there were to be a prosecution, he felt confident it would be against the bishop, not the clergy, under the present state of things.

The LORD CHANCELLOR protested against the view of the law taken by the Bishop of London. The right rev. prelate, he said, had committed a mistake in the law in stating that a clergyman might do this with impunity, because the bishop would sanction the refusal of the clergyman, and would undoubtedly decline to put the law into force against him. Now, unless these momentous declarations were qualified, and accompanied by a promise of action on the part of the episcopal bench, their lordships would find hundreds of instances, giving rise to great difficulty and to great indecency, in which clergymen, acting on the advice of their most illustrious and most reverend monitors and guides, would refuse to comply with the law. What would be the position, for example, of the most rev. prelate? A clergyman in his diocese refused to obey the law. Some individual came to him as bishop of that diocese, and called upon him to enforce the law. The clergyman said, "I have acted with the sanction and approbation of my diocesan." Accordingly, to be consistent, the most rev. prelate would himself be compelled to incur all the penalties of the law rather than enforce the law, to which he was as much bound to pay obedience as to the Church.

Earl RUSSELL thought the question would be best left to the right rev. bench of bishops, but he hoped no general discretion would be given to all the clergy to use the burial service or not, as they thought proper. Neither would he lodge the power of decision with the bishop, because that would lead to many painful conflicts. He had been told it was a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church that of no person whatever, however great his crimes, could it be said there was absolutely no hope, because in the very last moment there might be that faith which would afford

some hope of salvation. He should be sorry to see the Church service so altered as not to be consistent with such a feeling of charity towards the dead.

Eventually Lord Ebury offered to withdraw his motion, on condition that the bench of bishops would undertake to consider the subject, and suggest some remedial measure, which the Archbishop of Canterbury having undertaken on behalf of his right reverend brethren to do, the discussion terminated.

The annual motion on the grant to Maynooth College, which was this year taken in charge by Mr. Whalley, produced but a short debate, devoid of novelty or interest. Mr. Whalley contended that the experiment had proved a failure, and had frustrated the expectations of its promoters. Under the operation of the Act, the Jesuit, or Ultramontane system, had been substituted for the Gallican. All he asked was, that the grant should no longer be removed from the control and supervision of the House of Commons, but that being made annually by vote, the College should have the opportunity of defending itself from the charges that were brought against it. The motion was supported by Mr. Newdegate, who argued that the College having become a mere monastic institution, and seeing that, even in Roman Catholic countries like Spain, it had been found necessary to reduce such establishments, it was an anomaly to give them Parliamentary support in a Protestant country.

Sir R. PEEL, as Secretary for Ireland, defended the Endowment Act, and said it would be most intolerant on the part of members of the Established Church, to deprive their Roman Catholic fellowsubjects of the educational advantages which they derived from the establishment and efficient maintenance of the College.

The motion was negatived, after a short debate, by 198 to 109

votes.

The state of the Established Church in Ireland, -a question which thirty years before had excited the greatest political commotion, had formed the battle-ground of parties in Parliament, and involved the fate of Cabinets, but which since the abandonment of the famous Appropriation Clause in 1838 had slumbered in abeyance, became this year again the subject of animated discussion. The question was raised by Mr. Dillwyn in the House of Commons, in the form of a motion for a Select Committee, "To inquire how far the present distribution of endowments for religious purposes throughout Ireland may be so amended as most to conduce to the welfare of all classes of Her Majesty's Irish subjects; to search the journals of this House for any resolutions passed since the Act of the 39th and 40th George III., cap. 67, having reference to the application of any surplus revenue arising from ecclesiastical endowments in Ireland; and to report how far such resolution or resolutions appear to have been subsequently carried into effect."

In proposing this motion, Mr. Dillwyn admitted that it was