faults of his prototype, in whose place he stands, and have distinguished himself by that very moderation, in which his model was so singularly wanting? There he rode-the Carbonaro of Romagnathe aspiring rebel of Strassburg-the daring adventurer of Boulogne -the gaoler-baffling prisoner of Ham-the dauntless Presidentthe people chosen Emperor-the victorious hero of Solferino. There he rode as if no assassin or maniac had ever levelled a pistol at his breast. He feared not death-for he believed in destiny. He thought not of danger, or if he thought of it, he said within himself, La balle qui doit me tuer n'est point encore fondue.' '

What the Carbonaro of Romagna has "committed so little evil forsooth, so few acts of violence and wrong!" Is he not a usurper of other men's rights, a tyrant at home, a revolutionist abroad? A plotter in the dark, an instigator of evil, has he not in Savoy reaped the reward of unjust war and sacrilegious spoliation? Did he not at Villafranca enter into a solemn treaty, every provision of which he has violated for his own advantage? Has he not broken his word of honour to the Pope? Has he not systematically deceived every one who has trusted him? He has perverted the public policy of Europe, undermined every state, put weapons into the hands of evil-doers, and furnished then with an opportunity of evil, which they never could have compassed by their own contriving. In one thing alone the nephew excels the uncle, he is a greater and more successful hypocrite. He has all the meanness, but none of the grandeur, of his great and guilty prototype.

We must remind our readers, however, that these political views and descriptions are episodes-merely natural or necessary episodes in the development of the story. The author appears desirous of showing that there are two sides to every question. As in the case of divorce and re-marriage there are the claims of two sufferers to be considered, so in the character of Napoleon, and of the Italian revolution there are two aspects presented to our judgment. It is indeed true that the opinions of men are divided; it is true, we fear, that Scipio Safi is a fair type of a vast portion of the educated Italians; it is true that vain-glory and the ambition to be a great nation have dazzled the judgment and darkened the moral sense of Italy; for the struggle is not so much one of nationality, of giving Italy to the Italians, as of surrendering Italy to Piedmont in the hope of playing a great part among the nations of Europe. But vanity and

VOL. L.- No XCIX.

16

ambition are no excuse for the violation of the eternal principles of justice, and for trampling right, because it is weak, underfoot. After making these protests, for in times like these it is necessary to be more on our guard than usual, we can heartily commend "The Law of Divorce" as a tale grounded upon high principle and as exhibiting great power, especially in scenes of love and hate, in which the volume abounds. It is written in a fresh and vigorous style, and the interest never for a moment flags; it might easily have been expanded into two volumes, but the writer has wisely chosen rather to let us with "Oliver Twist," ask for more than give us a surfeit or even a sufficiency at once.

ART. VIII-1. Essays and Reviews. By Frederick Temple, D.D. Rowland Williams, D. D., Baden Powell, M. A., Henry Bristow Wilson, B. D., G. W. Goodwin, M. A., and Benjamin Jowett, M. A. 9th Edition, 8vo. London, Longman and Co.

2. Specific Evidences of Unsoundness in Essays and Reviews. By the Rev. Dr. Jelf. London, Parker, 1861.

3. Convocation of the Province of Canterbury. [Times Newspaper, June 19, 20, 21, and 22, and July 10.] 1861.

4. Scripture and Science not at Variance. By John H. Pratt, M. A London, Hatchard, 1861.

5. A brief Defence of Essays and Reviews. By the Rev. Dr. Wild. London, 1861.

6. Analysis of "Essays and Reviews." By G. A. Denison, Vicar of East Brent and Archdeacon of Taunton. London: Saunders and Otley. 1861.

7. Supremacy of Scripture. An Examination into the Principles and Statements advanced in the Essay on the Education of the World; in a Letter to the Rev. Dr. Temple. By W. E. Jelf, B.D. London: Saunders and Otley. 1861.

8. Reply to Dr. Wild and the "Edinburgh," a Defence of the Bishops and the Memorialists; in a Letter to the Rev. G. Wild, LL.D. By Francis Bodfield Hooper. London: Rivingtons. 1861.

JUST

upon the eve of our last publication a very important step was taken in the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury, on the subject of "The Essays and Reviews." In conformity with a demand from the Lower House, the bishops resolved that "a committee of the Lower House should be appointed to examine and make extracts from the book entitled 'Essays and Reviews,' and to report thereupon.'

To the party of orthodoxy generally in the Church, and especially to the party of authority, this resolution was a subject of much gratulation and hope. It was confidently affirmed that at length the truth was about to vindicate itself; and that the Church had at last, after so many days. of darkness, resumed her true character, and would speedily drive away the strange doctrines by which for a time her teaching had been deformed.

There were many, nevertheless, even of the party of authority whose anticipations were by no means so assured. There was quite enough in the proceedings of the very meeting from which this resolution emanated, to make the further results even more than problematical.

In the first place, upon an exact scrutiny of the component elements of the Lower House of Convocation, from which the call for synodical censure proceeded, it appeared that it represented but very imperfectly the great body of English Churchmen. Many of the greatest, or at least most popular names, among the dignitaries of the Church were missing the Dean of St. Paul's, the Dean of Canterbury, the Deans of Westminster, of Chichester, and of Christ Church. The Dean of Ely, in the discussion, took the side favourable to the Essayists. Many others of the leading dignitaries adopted the same course; and the resolution ultimately taken was not agreed to without a protest from a strong and influential minority against its justice and expediency.

A still more significant indication of the temper of Convocation was presented in the discussion which ensued in the Upper House. Notwithstanding the apparent unanimity of the adhesion of the Episcopate to the well-known archiepiscopal Letter referred to in our last Number,* it appeared, upon the actual discussion, that, whether some

new light had meanwhile arisen, or whether it was felt that the published protest was in itself a sufficient condemnation, a considerable section of the body was strongly opposed to any synodical censure. The Bishop of London especially urged many objections to such a course. It turned out that, to use the language of one who seems to be thoroughly informed, "the names of the bishops had been appended so carelessly to the archiepiscopal Letter, that one of them, that of H. Exeter, is now known to have been added without his knowledge, and against his wish; two at least of the most distinguished of the body had published opinions exactly coinciding with those which they had condemned; and two others on the first public occasion after the manifesto had been issued, had the good sense and feeling to avow that they exempted from their censure, three at least, and these the most important, of the five persons whose position and character the vague anathema had been intended to blast."* And hence, when the question as to appointing a committee to examine the book was finally proposed, it appeared that, of the thirteen out of the seemingly unanimous Episcopate who were present in Convocation, but eight voted in favour of the motion, four being decidedly hostile, and the Archbishop of Canterbury declining to vote either way!

Although, therefore, the Committee was appointed to report on Essays and Reviews,' the moral effect of the measure was marred in the very outset by this marked want of unanimity in the Upper as well as in the Lower House. An animated controversy sprung up as to the constitutional competency of Convocation, to consider such questions at all, and still more as to the expediency of reviving at this particular crisis functions of that body which had so long lain in disuse. It was remembered that the measure which had led to the suspension of these functions in 1717, had been very similar in its character to that which it was now prepared to take. Then, as now, a committee of the Lower House had been named to report on the well-known work of Bishop Hoadley; but with this great difference, that, while the present Convocation was so divided, the former proceeding had been unanimous, and unhesitatingly

Edinburgh Review, Vol. cxiii. p. 469.

adopted. And it was argued that any formal censure from such a source would be but an attempt to stifle free discussion, and to outrage the traditional rights of private judgment; and that, as in the case of Bishop Hoadley, considerations of state expediency had led to the interposition of the authority of the crown, so in the present instance it would be the duty of the public feeling and public sense of free England, of the educated laity, and especially of the young generation, to resist and to disregard the arrogant pretensions of a bigoted and fanatical section of a body whose rights, even if united, were far more than questionable.

These principles, put forward in many forms in the daily or weekly journals and in various ephemeral publications, took a substantive shape in an article in our great Whig contemporary, which public rumour ascribes to a distinguished professor of the University of Oxford, one of the very highest names in the modern ecclesiastical literature of England. It is beyond our present purpose to discuss the tenor and tendency of that article; and we only refer to it as one of the main elements of the reactionary movement which followed the last session of the Convocation. Describing the recent ferment in the Church as but one of the many religious panics' which from time to time have agitated the public mind, the writer endeavours to show its utter groundlessness in point of fact, and at the same time to account for its violence, and for the extent to which it pervaded the clerical body in England. In the view of this able writer, which coincides in this respect with that put forward by ourselves in our last Number, it is a prodigious mistake to suppose that the volume contains anything new. He points out the identity of the doctrines of the Essayists with those, not only of Herder, Schleiermacher, Lücke, Neander, De Wette, and Ewald, but even of the less rationalizing names of Tholuck, Hengstenberg, and Olshausen. He indicates cursorily the names of several living writers in England, whose opinions tical with those of the writers now menaced with denunon most of the points to which exception is taken, are idenciation. In a word, he lays down as his thesis the confident assertion, that, "with the possible exception of liams and Mr. Wilson, there is no statement of doctrine Professor Powell's Essay, and a few words of Dr. Wilor facts in this volume which has not been repeatedly set