nity was consecrated; and if he thought, that the removal of the words, which he wished to be struck out of the clause, would have that effect, he would not propose that they should be expunged. In practice, marriage had always been a religious ceremony; and the manners, the feelings, and the habits of the people had recognised it as a holy ordinance, which demanded the sanction of religion. It was not likely, then, that the striking out of these words would have any bad effect on the public, or would impair the religious feeling with which the ceremony was regarded. The intention of this act was to allow the Dissenting sects to celebrate the rites of marriage in their own chapels, according to their own forms; but at the same time, to guard against danger to the public, a civil officer was to be appointed to see that the marriages which were thus entered into, were formed after due notice had been given, and should continue binding and valid. He was apprehensive, therefore, that if the words, which he proposed to strike out, were retained, an objection would be raised on the part of those, for whose relief this act was intended, that we were introducing civil officers into their chapels, in order to perform a sort of religious ceremony. As the clause originally stood, it was not liable to any such objection, and it was well known, that it had met with the sanction of those who represented the Dissenting interests. The motion to expunge the words was carried by a large majority, of seventy-two against twenty-nine. The Lords struck out that provision of the bill, which totally abolished the

proclamation of bans; and they enacted, with regard to all marriages of members of the established church, that bans should still be proclaimed. They likewise provided, that the superintendent of each district should send to the clerks of the unions the names of all persons who gave notice of their intention to marry, they being Protestant Dissenters; and that their names should be read weekly, for three successive weeks, at the meetings of the guardians of the poor. In some parts of the bill, too, they introduced an oath, in place of a mere declaration, and required the interference of the superintendent-registrar, instead of the registrar.

When the bill returned to the Commons, some of these amendments were very unfavourably received by the Dissenting inter

est.

Lord John Russell advised them, however, to take the bill as it was, in the mean time. To some of the amendments he had very strong objections, as they did not tend to carry into execution, on some important points, what had been originally intended by the measure; but it was a matter of great moment to place on the statute-book, a law which admitted the general principle; and farther measures might subsequently be proposed for carrying the whole of the original scheme into effect. This did not prevent the Dissenters from pressing a division on the amendment, which required that the names of Dissenters intending to marry, should be read by the guardians of the poor at their weekly meetings, against which they inveighed as a positive degradation. It was stated in answer, that the objects of the

Lords had only been to ensure greater publicity, and that the provision might be unnecessary, but certainly had nothing degrading in it. The amendment was agreed to by a great majority.

During the administration of Sir R. Peel, a commission had been appointed to inquire what useful changes, if any, could be introduced into the ecclesiastical condition of the church of England, so as to remove anomalies which might still exist in it, and insure more effective pastoral superintendence. The commission consisted of the archbishop of Canterbury, and other ecclesiastical dignitaries, along with some of the great functionaries of the government, and had made a first report before Sir R. Peel resigned. On the occurrence of that event, his successors continued the commission, only the official members being changed; and their second report was presented to both houses early in the present session. The recommendations contained in these reports, which had been unanimously agreed to, arranged themselves under three heads-First, the ecclesiastical division of territory, and the revenues of the different sees; secondly, the cathedral and collegiate revenues, which it was desirable should be made more useful for the church establishment; and lastly, the residence of clergymen on their benefices. The first report of the commissioners had recommended a different territorial arrangement of dioceses, with the view of making them more equal; the suppression of two sees; the erection of two others in their place, those of Manchester and Ripon; and that the revenues of the sees should not exceed 5,500l., nor

fall below 4,500l. The two archbishoprics, and the sees of London, Durham, and Winchester, were to be the only exceptions to this rule. Tho enly material alteration proposed in the present report was, that the diocese of Bristol, which, according to the previous recommendation, was to comprehend part of the diocese of Llandaff, should be united, as far as respected the city of Bristol, with the diocese of Bath and Wells, and, as far as respected the remaining portion of the see, with the bishopric of Gloucester. It was likewise proposed, that the Isle of Man should in future be united with the bishopric of Carlisle. With regard to the revenues, the amount of which was calculated according to returns, which, though perhaps not quite accurate, were the only estimate that could be obtained, the following alterations were recommendednamely, that the income of the archbishopric of Canterbury should be reduced from 17,000l. to 15,000l.; of the see of London, from 12,200l. to 10,000l.; of Durham, from 17,800l. to 8,000l.; of Winchester, from 10,700l. to 7,000l.; of Ely, from 11,000l. to 7,500l.; and of Worcester, from 6,500l. to 5,000l. The excess produced by these deductions was to be divided among thirteen sees, so as to make their respective revenues range between 5,500l. and 4,500l. per annum. It was not recommended to make any change in the sees of York, Bath and Wells, Norwich, and Salisbury. There would thus be no longer that great dispro portion so generally complained of, both in the duties and the revenues of the different bishoprics; the necessity of attaching

benefices, with cure of souls by commendam, to bishoprics would be got rid of; the practice of translating bishops would become less frequent. It was also thought, that some useful measure might be proposed with respect to the mode of granting leases; but this was a subject which the commission had found extreme difficulty in dealing with, and they did not yet report any definite proposition regarding it.

The second subject of inquiry had been the state of cathedral and collegiate revenues. There were two sorts of chapters, those of the old foundation, and those of the new foundation. Those of the old foundation were such as were enacted before the time of Henry VIII., and there was this peculiarity about them-that many of the prebends attached to them, had separate estates, with no obligation as to residence, and no duty to perform. The new foundations had been formed on a more systematic plan; the general estate belonged to the dean and chapter, and its surplus, after providing for the repairs of the cathedral, and other expenses connected with the performance of divine worship, was divided between the dean and the other members of the chapter. The commissioners recommended that all those prebendaries, to which the condition of residence did not attach, and all offices of the same nature, should be suppressed, and that the income derivable from them should be added to a fund for the general benefit of the church, and the extension of religious instruction. With respect to the deans and chapters, it was not recommended that they should be

altogether abolished, but that a sufficient number of dignitaries should be left in each cathedral to carry on the service. By a subsequent report, the commissioners proposed that the chapters of each cathedral church (except at Oxford), and the chapters of the Chapel Royal, at Windsor, and the collegiate church of Westminster, should consist of a dean and four canons, with the following exceptions, viz., that Christchurch, Oxford, should have a dean and six canons; that the chapters of Bangor, and St. Asaph, should each consist of a dean and two canons; that of St. David's, of a precentor and two canons; and that of Llandaff, of an archdeacon and two canons. It was likewise recommended that all benefices without cure of souls should be suppressed, except such as were in the patronage of private individuals, or of a college in either of the universities. The funds thus obtained were to be applied in raising small livings, and supplying additional means of religious instruction in populous parishes.

In regard to residence and pluralities, it was proposed that exemptions in favour of non-residence should be granted only to chaplains in attendance on their Majesties or on bishops, the principals of some public schools, and in a few other special cases. The law at present allowed incumbents to be absent three months, and it was not proposed to shorten the time; as circumstances did not permit the clergy generally to take advantage of it, and pluralities produced a far greater quantity of non-residence than all other causes. regard to pluralities, therefore, the commissioners proposed, that no clergyman should hold two livings,

In

reading of which had encountered no opposition, Lord John Russell entered at great length into the consideration, not only of the particular measure itself, but likewise of the other two bills which were to go along with it in reforming the church. He pointed out the great inequality among the existing sees in point of territory and number of benefices, some containing upwards of 1,200 benefices, and several upwards of 1,000, while others again had only between one and two hundred, and the equally glaring diversity in their emoluments, from Durham with upwards of 19,000l. per annum, down to Llandaff with little more than 1,1007. He adverted to two evils which had flowed from this inequality the practice of attaching benefices to the poorer sees, which was injurious to those benefices, and the belief, whether well or ill-founded, that the occupants of the poorer bishoprics were constantly looking forward to promotion, and allowed their conduct to be influenced by a wish to secure the favour of those who could bestow it. The plan recommended by the commissioners contained a prohibition against uniting benefices with the sees, by raising the income of the lowest to what was a sufficient amount, and rendered it unnecessary to do so. At the same time, it seemed to put an end, as far as could rationally be expected, to any opinion that bishops would neglect their dioceses, or become subservient to superiors, in the hope of translation. The only exceptions would be in favour of the two archbishoprics, and the bishoprics of London, Winchester, and Durham. The duties of these offices were such as required that

they should be more richly endowed; they would still remain an object of translation; but this could never affect the general character of the church, and the opinion entertained regarding it, as, with this exception, all the sees would be nearly the same in point of revenue. It was not to be expected that a man who had taken possession of a bishopric, and had established himself in it at considerable expense, would readily quit the place where he had so settled, and where his connections had been formed, in order to gain 500l. or 700l. a-year more. The entire revenues of the bishoprics at present was 150,340l. the sum required for them, under the new arrangement, would be 148,4007., leaving an apparent excess of 1,940l., which could not, however, be taken into account as an excess, because the returns could not be taken as perfectly accurate. This sum, according to the new distribution, would goto the archbishop of Canterbury 15,000l.; to the archbishop of York 10,000l.; to London 10,000l. ; to Durham 8,000l. to Winchester 7,000l., and to the other sees incomes varying from 4,500l., the lowest to, 5,500l. the highest.* It was easy to say, that, looking at other offices, an archbishop of Canterbury or a bishop of London would be too highly paid; but no just comparison could be instituted between functionaries like these, and those holding civil or judicial offices, who drew their salaries merely for performing the duties of their office, and whose expenses ended there. The bishops were placed by the constitution among those possessing large re