ceeded as follows: My Lords, the question I am about to raise is one of considerable importance, and the state of the House proves that the public regard its solution with interest. Under these circumstances I regret that the subject has not fallen into abler hands; but it is not my fault I have endeavoured to induce others, whose opinions would have been received with more consideration, especially members of the Episcopal Bench, to take it up, but quite in vain. All that remains for me, therefore, is to endeavour to perform the task to the best of my ability, and, at the outset, to beg at your Lordships' hands a patient and indulgent consideration. Having alluded to the right rev. Bench, I think I ought to say, that whilst I feel sure that the opinions of that right rev. body will weigh much with your Lordships, yet, in truth, this question is rather a lay question than a clerical one; for, as the right rev. Prelate who presides over this diocese truly observed in a recent speech

"The ecclesiastical authorities are not to blame for the provisions of the Act of 1662; it was simply and solely the work of Parliament, and

Parliament alone is responsible for it."

I will commence by explaining why it is that I have adopted the present mode of proceeding, after the very small share of success which attended a Motion which I made two years ago of a description so far similar that it included the question now before the House. Your Lordships will remember that on that occasion I moved, in the very terms which found acceptance in this House in 1687, an address for a Royal Commission (the only method known to the Constitution for such a purpose) to examine and report upon the changes which were demanded, and which the lapse of two centuries had, in the opinion of many, rendered necessary, in the liturgy, canons and formularies of our National Church, including also the Act of Uniformity of Charles II. I was opposed on that occasion by all the speakers but one, not upon the ground that no change was necessary, but because my Motion was too extensive and indefinite, and contemplated the revision of some portion of our formularies involving disputed doctrine, which was said to be dangerous to the peace of the Church. The most rev. the Primate, whose absence upon this occasion we all in common regret, candidly avowed his preference generally for the alterations

made in our Prayer Book by the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States. The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London went further, and said, that had I confined myself to the terms of subscription, and the rubrics, he thought the result of the Motion would have been different. The noble Lord (Lord Lyttleton), who takes a great and most intelligent interest in these subjects, strongly repudiated the notion of finality. Such being the case, I thought myself justified in taking further counsel on this matter; and, deferring to the views of those distinguished persons, I prepared my measures accordingly. Of two Bills which I have laid before your Lordships this Session, the object of one is to give the officiating minister, in certain defined cases, a discretion in the performance of Divine worship which the rubric at present prevents his exercising. On that Bill (the Public Worship Bill) I shall not offer any observations, as it is for the present virtually withdrawn ; but I will proceed as briefly as I can to endeavour to persuade your Lordships favourably to receive the measure which stands for second reading this evening, being a Bill for the relaxation of the terms of subscription imposed by the Act of 1662.

I cannot satisfactorily perform the duty I have undertaken without entering a little into the history of that well-known, but often not-very-well-understood Act. It is neither the first, nor the second, nor the third Act of Uniformity which has been passed by Parliament, nor is it the only one now in force; that enacted a hundred years previously (1st Elizabeth) being in full vigour, with all those tremendous penalties with which the Legislature of those days was wont to enforce its provisions. Even should my present Bill fail, it would be as well that these two Acts of Uniformity should be reviewed, with the object. of making them somewhat more intelligible than they are at present, and bringing them into harmony with the more temperate legislation of the present times. Two Acts of Uniformity succeeded each other within two years in the reign of Edward VI. They were repealed by Mary. Then came the Act of Elizabeth, to which I have alluded; and, lastly, that of Charles II., which it is the object of the present measure to amend, It is quite true that all these Acts pass equally under the name of Acts of Uniformity. They all declare that a particular Book of Common