all the present entries of marriages; and consequently whatever new enactments applied to the one, would have applied to the other. This excuse, therefore, is obviously not the true one. What is it?

As to the active and agitating dissenters, by whom, (and not by the conscientious ones,) in fact, all the cry has been raised, there can be no difficulty in saying that they do not wish any relief to be granted, for the moment that relief comes, not only do they personally lose their consequence, ("Othello's occupation being gone,") but their other great aim, that of injuring the church, is proportionally made more difficult. The existence of grievances is their lever of action. The continuance of grievances must consequently be their chief wish; the removal of them would be the most deadly injury to them. This is the explanation of their ready acquiescence in the delay of the measures for which they have professed to be so anxious. They see that the Irish Church Bill is doing their real work, while deferring legislation on their grievances gives them an instrument for still effecting mischief in the same way which they have found so useful for some years. If, then, Government wishes to benefit the church, if Sir R. Peel's Bill would have satisfied the parties which alone had any claim to be satisfied, why is legislation on this point deferred?

Why, again, is not the Composition of Tithes Bill, prepared by the church years ago, carried? Even if anything more is to be done, there could be no possible objection to this as an interim measure? What possible objection can there be to satisfying all whom a voluntary and equitable arrangement would satisfy?

THE SABBATH IN GREAT CITIES.

THE Sabbath question has been treated in the House of Commons several times lately, by several members, with that spirit which makes every decent and religious man shudder or sigh whenever the name of religion is mentioned there. It does not appear that anything can be done, and this for many reasons. First, because the truth is not known nor cared for; secondly, because great cities are an evil in themselves, which lead to moral and religious evils, incurable while they last; thirdly, because the open neglect or defiance of religion by the rich, makes it undoubtedly impossible for the law to compel the poor, even for their own good, to do what the rich will not do. The writer is not arguing for a puritanical observance of the Sabbath, for, on the contrary, he would think it wrong in principle, as well as in practice. But never let it be forgotten by those who believe that from the beginning the Sabbath was ordained, not for the Jews only, but for all men, for their souls as well as their bodies, that a large part of the arguments in the House of Commons are directed against all use of the Sabbath as a means of spiritual edification. Let us look at one of the most common of them. "I will never," says an honourable member, "consent that a poor man, who has been hard at work in a factory in a great city all the week, shall be deprived of his Sunday's jaunt. It is a necessary source of health and recreation. Coaches, horses, steam-boats, &c., must be encouraged, rather than checked,

in order to enable artisans to get out of London, and breathe pure air for a few hours." And does this philanthropist believe that they who do not join in his common-place and stale song, envy pure air, and all the quiet, wholesome, elevating, purifying joys of pure nature to the weary mechanic and the worn-out labourer? No! but they know or care for the truth and the facts of the case, and he does not. Will any man say deliberately that that nation is in a right condition, where, in the slavery to Mammon, hundreds and thousands of immortal beings are so pent up in noxious air, and in exhausting occupations, for six days, that they want the seventh to recruit the weary body, to escape into purer and more life-giving air? Will he say that God made the Sabbath for the body only, and not for the soul; that it is folly, and bigotry, and priestcraft, to say that quiet thought and freedom from the low, and debasing, and distracting occupations of this working-day world, and meditation and prayer are not as necessary for the recovery, and health, and well-being of the soul, as fresh air and amusement for the body? But will the philanthropist go farther? Will he tell us that the embarkation of near 30,000 persons near London Bridge, in the midst of a swarm of pickpockets, (with eight or ten joining every steam-boat,) and under a burning sun, to go in that heat, and crowd, and turmoil to Gravesend, to fill the miserable, hot, close, foul alleys of that wretched place, and to be a nuisance to the very publicans who live by strangers, can do even the body good? And will he venture to say, not as a religious, but as a philosophical man, anxious for the "march of mind," that this is a good way of spending the only season of entire relief from mechanical labour? Will he say that this time is not worse than lost, that it is not criminally wasted, as far as the higher part of man and his higher interests are concerned? Will the person who, whatever may be his practice, professes at least that religion is good for the people, say that the regular consecration of the Sunday to amusement of this kind is good, or wholesome, or even defensible? Can he not see that even if this point were proved, viz. this regular devotion of the seventh day to repairing the ravages made by confinement, bad air, and hard work on the other six was absolutely necessary, the clear and only right inference would be, that the social system which inflicted or permitted these ravages was an utterly bad one, not that its evils are to be cured by the infliction or permission of others? Does he never reflect that, if these things do certainly arise from overgrown cities, this is only one of a thousand proofs that such cities must be an abomination to God, and the bitterest curse to man? Does it never enter into his mind to inquire whether there are no moral faults and evils at the very foundation of our social condition-whether some of those things which we quietly assume as the natural and necessary condition of society, are not in themselves monstrous evils, arising from our total neglect of the most solemn considerations? Whatever he believes, however, as to the entire dedication of man to money, what does the professing Christian say? Does he, who believes that God prohibits the worship of Mammon, and that, in the natural order of things, violations of God's commands lead to misery, doubt that the

most frightful misery must and does result from the devotion of man to Mammon? Does he doubt that great cities, which are one of its results, are the source of some of the worst evils which afflict the race of man? Is it his doctrine that there is a cure for all the evils which human folly or wickedness causes? Is it his doctrine that the right way of remedying the evils brought on necessarily by the neglect of one of God's commandments is by neglecting another? No! he will answer, but he means to unite an attention to religion with an attention to the recreation of the body. Men may attend public worship, and then amuse themselves. Putting aside all attention to any thing but his facts, it is impossible not to suspect the man who says this of gross ignorance of facts or grosser hypocrisy. Does he really not know that the mass of those who undertake Sunday expeditions set out for the whole day, and not part of it? Let him look at the long line of advertisements of steam-boats in the daily papers. He will find that nine out of ten sail on Sundays, and at nine o'clock. Does he really believe that they who object to things as they are would object to any reasonable recreation and refreshment for the body which could be united with the higher purposes for which the Sabbath was ordained? Does he really mean to tax every one as a fanatic who thinks that Christian worship in public, and thought in private, are two main purposes of the Sabbath, though not the sole ones?

LORD RADNOR'S BILL RESPECTING THE UNIVERSITIES.

(From a Friend.)

It has been asserted that, on the occasion of the late decision in the University of Oxford, on the question of substituting a declaration for subscription, a majority of resident members of convocation were in favour of the proposed change. How little ground there is for such an assertion may appear from the following considerations:-The minority consisted of 57. From that number it is not probable that any residents, really favourable to the change, were excluded; whilst it is certain that several persons included in it came from a distance. Now of the whole number of 57 it may, I apprehend, be, with truth, remarked that it falls short of a third of the members of convocation, resident either in Oxford or so near to Oxford as to be within reach of all meetings of convocation that excite any degree of interest.

But the assertion, thus appearing to be groundless, would, even if true, be of little value, unless it could be shewn that the question referred to is one of such questions as usually are, and properly ought to be, left to be decided by the resident members of convocation. It is altogether impossible so to regard this particular question. It is true that there are various matters of order and of discipline, various details of internal government and arrangement, which it is customary, because both wise and safe, to leave in the hands of those who are constantly on the spot, and engaged in academical business. But the question, in this instance, concerned the relation of the university to the church; it could not, therefore, fail to draw the attention of members of convocation, wherever they might be settled; they felt

that they had a right to exercise and a duty to perform; nor was it possible, by any arguments, to satisfy them that they would be justified in abstaining from interference on the occasion. Nor is it to be supposed that the attendance of 459 members of convocation (the number of the majority) was owing to extraordinary efforts of zeal and to urgent entreaties on the part of the opponents of the declaration in Oxford. The truth is, that the exertions made did not go beyond the circulation of intelligence as to the nature of the change contemplated, and as to the time fixed for the meeting of convocation on the subject. This intelligence was communicated in a printed letter,* couched in the simplest and the calmest terms; and each individual addressed was left entirely at liberty to judge for himself as to the necessity or propriety of attending to vote.

If I were called to state briefly the reasons which influenced the majority, I should be disposed to sum them up as follows:

Subscription to the thirty-nine articles is a test of membership of the church of England, which we believe to be both reasonable and convenient. We hold it to be reasonable, because we are of opinion that it neither does nor can imply more than assent so far as understanding and knowledge extend. The very nature of the case serves, in our judgment, to render this point sufficiently clear. But this is not all. The university herself plainly shews that such and such is only her meaning, by distinguishing, most formally and by striking features, subscription at matriculation from that more solemn act of subscription which is required before the taking of a degree. In the latter case, the person is compelled to read, or hear read, the articles within three days before his subscription; and, at the time of subscription, to declare (in the language of the 3rd Article of the 36th Canon), that "he allows the Book of Articles of Religion, and that he acknowledges all and every the articles therein contained, being in number 39 besides the ratification, to be agreeable to the word of God."

But we also hold subscription to be a convenient test of membership of the church. It is determinate enough not to admit of dishonest

"I, A. B., declare that I do, so far as my knowledge extends, assent to the doctrines of the United Church of England and Ireland, as set forth in her thirty-nine articles; that I will conform to her liturgy and discipline; and that I am ready and willing to be instructed in her articles of religion, as required by the statutes of this university."

"Sir,-I beg to inform you that the convocation, in which it is to be proposed to substitute subscription to the above declaration for subscription to the thirty-nine articles at matriculation, is fixed for Wednesday, the 20th of this month, at two o'clock.

"It is not attempted to be concealed, that it will depend upon the greatness of our majority whether the university shall again be harassed with this question and it is obvious that the force of our decision, as expressing the judgment of the university on this very grave question, will be lost if the numbers approach to equality.

"We have, however, no means of ascertaining the strength of the advocates for change among the non-residents; and, therefore, having made this statement, we must leave it to yourself to decide whether you do not think the occasion worthy the inconvenience of a journey."

evasion; whilst, at the same time, it takes for granted, in the young persons who come to be matriculated, the existence of that tractable and docile temper which will best qualify them to receive and profit by a course of instruction in the doctrines and duties of the Christian religion as they are laid down and taught in the articles. We ask, then, why we should abandon or alter what, after it has been practised for 250 years, we still deem and reckon to be both reasonable and convenient? Let our opponents, instead of contenting themselves with an assertion in the Preamble of an Act of Parliament, (see Lord Radnor's Bill,) prove, by sound and solid arguments, that subscription is unreasonable, and likely to lead to evil consequences.

Hitherto the dispute is with those who profess a desire to substitute for subscription a form of declaration that shall be, bond fide, equivalent, and shall as effectually exclude dissenters. To many who profess this desire we give full credit for sincerity. But we observe that they are joined by the advocates of farther and more material changes by such as wish the removal of all tests on first admission, and the opening of the university to dissenters. We are persuaded that concession, in this instance, would, in real truth, be made to the latter class of persons, who would be encouraged to proceed in the farther demands, which they openly declare themselves to be already prepared to urge; and we foresee that, in the attempt to disarm and to conciliate certain adversaries, we should only be laying ourselves open to the attacks of our bitter and inveterate foes. Thus awakened to suspicion and jealousy, we resist the proposal of change. What in itself we believe to be both reasonable and convenient, we guard more vigilantly and maintain more firmly, because we find that we are called to part with it by those from whom we widely differ in view, and whom we cannot but distrust.

In the event of the passing of Lord Radnor's Bill, or of any Bill like it, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford will be placed in an awkward situation. He is sworn to observe and to carry into effect the statutes of the university; and, by those statutes, he is bound to require of candidates for admission a subscription to the thirty-nine articles. Will he not then be involved in a necessity either of violating the law of the land, or of neglecting the obligation of his oath of office, and thus incurring the guilt of perjury? Which of these alternatives an honourable and conscientious man will choose, there can be no difficulty in conjecturing; and it is to be feared that his choice may lead to evil consequences, more serious in character and in amount than any which Lord Radnor's Bill anticipates from a perseverance in the practice of subscription.

EDUCATION.

Resolutions respecting Education presented to the House of Lords by Lord Brougham. 1. That although the number of schools where some of the elementary branches of education are taught has greatly increased within the last twenty years, yet that there still exists a deficiency of such schools, especially in the metropolis and other great towns; and that the means of elementary instruction are peculiarly deficient in the counties of Middlesex and Lancaster.