Bishop of Exeter, because he was not satisfied that the prohibition which at present existed against these marriages was immediately and directly founded upon the law of God. In his opinion, the ordinances of Leviticus were part of a moral law; but it did not follow that every particular ordinance relating to this subject should possess the character of an immutable moral law. His impression was that in this case too many attempts had been made to accommodate Scripture to a preconceived opinion. Such being his views on the religious part of the question, he next came to consider it in a social light, and here he thought that Lord St. Germans had failed in proving that the existing law was inefficient, or that it caused dissatisfaction among any great class of the community. On the contrary, by far the greatest portion of society in England was opposed to the measure now before the House, and it was unanimously condemned by public opinion both in Ireland and Scotland. While he sympathised with those who had brought suffering on themselves by transgressing the existing law, he did not consider that they had made out a sufficient case for altering the law.

The Bishop of Norwich said that if the noble Lord who introduced the measure had based it upon broader principles of religious toleration he should not have been indisposed to support his motion; but he could not agree to a measure which, however it might give relief to a comparatively few individuals, would sacrifice the comforts and the domestic happiness of the greater portion of the people of the United Kingdom of England and Ireland, and especially of Scotland.

Lord Gage supported the measure. He pronounced the existing law tyrannical in its operation against the poor, while it was not required by scriptural authority, by nature, nor by public policy.

66

Lord Campbell opposed the Bill at considerable length. He characterized the agitation on the question as one that had arisen purely from a purpose of personal interest." It was instigated by those who had violated the law or made engagements which the law forbade. They began by retaining counsel and solicitors, by sending lecturers over the country, by writing pamphlets, and by holding public meetings, at which their advocates spoke from the platform. It was by having taught people that these marriages are lawful that they had occasioned, in many instances, the law to be broken; and then they brought forward those breaches of the law as arguments in favour of now altering the law of marriage. Before the Commission there was examined the then Bishop of Melipotamus, a gentleman who had since received a more sounding title, but of whom upon no occasion would Lord Campbell speak with the slightest disrespect. When that reverend gentleman was examined before the Commission, he mentioned what were the doctrines and practices of his church, and showed that the Roman Catholic Church looked much less to Scripture than to the power of the clergy to enact laws for themselves. He also stated, in the most express manner, that since the Act of 1835 passed, making these marriages void, although they could not among the Roman Catholics be celebrated without a dispensation, he had

continued to grant dispensations permitting such marriages. So that here was the source of a large number of instances in which the law of the land was entirely set at defiance, and marriages encouraged in direct violation of it. But the proportion of these incestuous marriages has been monstrously exaggerated. He had been assured, by those having the best means of information, that they were not more numerous than instances of bigamy; an offence which, from his own experience, he knew to be exceedingly common in the counties of England. If, then, Parliament were to pass the present Bill because the law had been violated, we might, for the same reason, pass a law sanctioning bigamy. The arguments founded on the example of Protestant Germany and America proved too much if we take the example of Germany, we should make marriage a matter of contract only during convenience; and if that of America, we should have to dissolve the marriage bond upon frivolous grounds, which the feeling of the country would be shocked to act upon. Lord Campbell hoped that the Bill would be rejected by such a majority as would render hopeless the attempt to alter the law.

After some remarks from the Bishops of London and Ossory against the Bill, the House divided, when there appeared

For the second reading
Against it.

Majority

16

50

34

The Bill was consequently lost. A discussion of much interest to members of the Church of

England, in reference to the corporate jurisdiction of the National Establishment and its relations with the State, was raised in the House of Lords on the 11th of July, upon the motion of Lord Redesdale. The noble Lord stated his views to the House in a temperate and discriminating speech. Moving formally for a copy of the petitions presented by the clergy and laity of the province of Canterbury to both Houses of Convocation on the 5th of February last, he reviewed the objections to renewing the synodical action of the Church, and portrayed the evils which arise from the absence of Convocation. It was legal, and had only fallen into disuse. Fatal disputes were feared; but they did not arise when Convocation existed, and do not arise in the governing bodies of other religious denominations, as in the case of the Church of Scotland and the communities of Dissenters. Peace did not exist at present; but only the violent obtained prominence and control; so that the Church was either paralyzed, or represented by unauthorized persons. stream of opinion in favour of granting the Church her old liberty of synodical action was flowing so fast that at last it would be impos sible to withstand it.

The

The Archbishop of Canterbury declared himself unfavourable to the revival of Convocation, mainly on the grounds of apprehension of increased dissension and controversies. If the assembling of Convocation were to end in reconciling some conflicting rubrics, or in supplying the deficiencies of others, or in the change of a few obsolete words or questionable phrases, the result would be little worth the cost. Thus far you

would disappoint; go further and you would excite. Where we had now a smothered fire, hotter perhaps than was agreeable, but still manageable, we should raise a conflagration which it would require all Her Majesty's prerogative to extinguish.

After giving some account of the early history of Convocation, and showing that it was in fact a very uninfluential body for about a century after the Reformation, the most reverend Prelate thus proceeded:-" After the Revolution matters were altered. The history of Convocation during the reign of Queen Anne is a history of altercations between the Upper House and the Lower. It soon appeared that a body so constituted was ill suited to the purpose of solemn deliberation or wise legislation. The last disputes were ended, as former disputes had been, by a timely prorogation; and since the year 1717 it has never seemed expedient to the Government for the time being to advise the Sovereign to issue a licence for the dispatch of business in Convocation. Now, what can we reason from but from what we know?

What grounds have we for believing that more advantage or less injury to the Church would result from the assembling of Convocation now than in the reign of Queen Anne or George I.? But the noble Lord who has brought on this debate has pleaded for Convocation on the ground that every religious body has such meetings; and the argument at first sight seems reasonable. There may, however, be privileges which are not advantages. There may be privileges which it is not desirable to claim. Between independent bodies of religionists and

the Church of England no parallel can be established. They are not involved in the constitution of the country. They may meet, and deliberate, and resolve, without constituting that anomaly in Go- . vernment, an imperium in imperio. And, after all, is peace or harmony the result of those meetings? The conferences of the Wesleyan body, whenever they have led to a change in the mode of government, have ended in separations and secessions. And I doubt whether the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, which might be best compared with though different in a very important particular-I doubt whether that is always a scene of peace and harmony. In the diary of the late Dr. Chalmers I find these words, May 8. A meeting of presbytery. I dislike its atmosphere, though it is my duty to enter it, and, if possible, to soften and transform it.' And again,

ours,

May 9. A most tempestuous day in the presbytery.' Certainly, my Lords, the General Assembly, if it did not contribute to occasion so fatal an event, did not prevent a disruption of the church in that country, the most serious which has ever occurred in any church since the Reformation. ( Hear, hear.') At all events, the benefit which is expected of self-regulation and independent legislation would be dearly purchased if purchased at the cost of confidence on the part of the people. And we must shut our eyes against all experience if we do not foresee this danger, if we believe that it would not rather foment than allay divisions. No one can lament more than I do the existence of such divisions. No one would be more ready to concur in any measure

that might seem likely to remove them. But in spite of those divisions, and notwithstanding its want of independent action, the Church of England enjoys the best of all privileges, the means of extensive usefulness. During the last 30 years she has founded 1000 new parishes at home. She has established 20 new episcopal sees in our colonies abroad. She is supporting schools, not indeed without assistance, for which we are most grateful; but still, as the principal instrument in every village of the land, she is exerting herself, and successfully exerting herself, to supply the spiritual wants of her increasing population. That she might do more if all her sons were united together in the same mind and in the same judgment, I am not prepared to deny. But I do not believe that the assembling of Convocation would be the means of promoting such union, and therefore I cannot agree with the noble Lord in desiring the assembling of Convocation." ("Hear, hear.")

Lord Lyttelton expressed his desire for the revival of Convocation, as promising, by further discussion and explanation, to smooth the way to peace; at all events he thought peace was purchased at a great cost with the sacrifice of life and freedom. He explained that he meant by Convocation "a representative body, including the laity as well as clergy." The Archbishop of Dublin, who next spoke, referred to his views as expressed long ago in print. He thought the government of the Church by the clergy exclusively would not be tolerated in these days. The Duke of Argyll remarked that great misapprehension prevailed as to the nature of the old English Convo

cation, which was a purely clerical body, convened not to regulate ecclesiastical affairs, but to assent to taxes on the clergy. The difficulty of forming a new tribunal arose from the want of any traditionary model on which it might be formed. Earl Nelson believed that the greatest danger now impending was that the Government should neglect this question.

The Marquis of Lansdowne declared that no sufficient grounds had been stated to induce him to consent to the introduction of so novel and important an element into the constitution of the State. He was not prepared to say, whatever his apprehensions of the innovation might be, that if he saw any prospect by the introduction of such an element, however new, of obtaining that unity and peace in the Church which must be the object not only of every member of the Church of England, but of every good subject in this realm, he should not be prepared to embrace it or any measure that could effect so desirable an end; but when he remembered what had been the result of ecclesiastical bodies meeting in Convocation, he confessed he entertained no such confidence as would induce him to be a party to the scheme proposed, or to prolong the existence of such a body without being able to govern its proceedings, or to say into what ways of controversy it might be directed. When it was said that these were matters for the Crown to control, he would ask if the exercise of that control would contribute to the peace of the Church or to the restoration of her tranquillity. ("Hear, hear.") No one could look to the controversy that had so unhappily occupied us without seeing the

possibility of a great difference of opinion, of passion, and of agitation arising in this assembly. But it was said when those differences arose that the Crown might step in and induce them to forego and regulate the controversy. Was it to be supposed that in such a temper of the meeting and in the very heat of discussion that the Crown was at once to interfere to allay the controversy and to put an end to the discussion which agitated men's opinions and consciences, when history proved that such attempts had signally failed? He had been surprised to hear the noble Lord who introduced this motion allude to the Council of Trent. In that case great assiduity, talent, time, and industry had been employed in a series of transactions which we had the satisfaction of having had recorded by one of the greatest writers of controversial history. And what had been the result? It was but a series of ineffectual efforts to obtain that peace and concord in the Church which was so desirable, but which, after the lapse of many years, left the Church in Europe in a state of fatal discord and inquietude. He could not entertain any such hope as that Convocation would lead to different results. If, indeed, he saw any better means of eliciting the opinion of the members of the Church on these matters he should be glad to embrace it, and to bring it to bear on the better government of the Church; but till he saw that power distinctly pointed out he could not, for one, nor, he believed, could Her Majesty's Government make themselves a party to try an experiment so important, so new, and so perilous. (Hear, hear.")

The Bishop of London declared his opinion to be, that unless some representative body, combining the representation of all classes in the Church, should be permitted to assemble and deliberate, the time was not far distant when the Government and heads of dioceses would be placed in a position of great embarrassment.

The Bishop of Oxford entered into a discussion of the question in its religious aspects, but not without a reference to political results. He was desirous of going back to that which was established when the Apostles said that they met together to consult for the welfare of the Church, and that because they did so consult they spoke such words as seemed good to the Holy Ghost for the general good. That which he desired to see granted to the Church of England

was

no priestly domination, no episcopal tyranny. There was no remedy for the evils that had crept in by reason of the recent divisions in the Church, and no power for that necessary self-expansion, if the Church of England did her duty, unless power for her own internal regulation were given to her-a power which should bring together her discordant elements, and blend them in one harmonious operation. It was not and never had been the condition of the Church of Christ to have perfect unity of opinion. It could not be. He believed that the constitution of men's minds made it impossible. Some must incline to Calvinism and others to Arminianism. The office of the Church of Christ was not to extinguish all those differences of opinion; but it was, nevertheless, possible that Christians should exist together in harmonious co-operation, according