of confidence in the soundness of the Christian belief of the two highest functionaries in our Church," yet
shrank from doing it out of a silly feeling of tenderness and charity! He makes this amazing avowal in his
last pastoral letter; wherein he also informs his friends that he has faithfully kept the vow he registered at
the close of the Gorham case, to hold no more communion with his Grace of Canterbury. He declares, moreover
that he utterly denies the royal supremacy in matters ecclesiastical; that the statute which abolished the
Court of Delegates, and transferred its appellate functions to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,
shall never be obeyed by him; that, though the law has declared all clergymen holding Mr. Gorham's opinions'
on the subject of baptism entitled to regular institution, he shall steadily refuse, to all such, institution to
benefices in the see of Exeter; and finally, after announcing his determination to hold a synod of his clergy,
and declaring that no law or usage exacting the previous license of the crown shall have weight or authority
with him, he formally summons such synod to meet in the cathedral church of Exeter, lays down various
rules for the immediate election of its members, and winds up by proclaiming that no combined resolution
arrived at by them can or shall be definitely adopted without his episcopal concurrence. In short Doctor
Philpotts has at last, like Lord Grizzle, broken out into open war; and it simply remains to decide what
course shall be taken with the Right Reverend rebel.

Meanwhile there does not appear to be much energy or vigour on the more loyal benches of
the episcopacy, to oppose to the rebellion of Exeter (in which, by the way, he is seconded by
Bath and Wells), or to stem the current of apostacy and infidelity. Four-and-twenty bishops were
sending round an address to the general body of the clergy with the professed design of restoring
the peace of the church, and hoping to do it by a simple recommendation in case of difference to let
the bishop of the diocese settle the subject of disagreement, at the very moment when the Philpott's
defiance came forth, and contemporaneously with other acts of insubordination on the part of the inferior
clergy which their respective diocesans had been utterly unable to prevent, and are still too cowardly to
punish. Mr. Wagner refuses to baptise a child unless he may be permitted to "pour" as much water
over its head as he conceives necessary to give efficacy to the rite; Mr. Kenrick denies the last offices
of the church to the body of a dissenting minister of the highest character for piety and usefulness; and
both these gentlemen are defended on the score of good intentions, and mistaken zeal. Such are the practical
uses and restraints of our well-paid bench of bishops. While Rome is receiving into her fold Protestant
Archdeacons, "accomplished" Queen's counsel, and clergymen by half-dozens who have been sitting at
the feet of Dr. Pusey, not a single intelligible or earnest movement is made, or likely to be made, by the
recognised authorities of the Establishment, to strengthen or extend those only safeguards of vital Christianity
which were amply recognised, but most imperfectly carried out, at the period of the Reformation.

The Smithfield enormity is at last verging to extinction, but the other and more monstrous grievance of
Chancery is not likely to be materially lightened by the measure now before parliament. There appears to
be hope, however, of very important amendments in other directions of the law; and for this we shall
chiefly have to thank the zeal and energy of Lord Brougham, who appears honourably resolved to close his
life in the noble and useful labours with which it began.

NARRATIVE OF PARLIAMENT AND
POLITICS.

In the HOUSEof LORDS, on Monday the 31st of March,
Lord LYNDHURST called the attention of the house to
the bill for the Reform of the Court of Chancery about
to be introduced in the House of Commons, and to that
respecting the Appellate Jurisdiction of the House of
Lords, which would shortly be brought before their
lordships. He thought that these two bills were part
and parcel of the same measure, and he complained that
such a measure should have been first discussed in the
House of Commons. There had never been a precedent
for such a proceeding, and it was the more uncalled for
at the present time as the House of Lords had never been
so well furnished with eminent men capable of deliberating
on so grave a subject. The Lord CHANCELLOR
said that the question of Chancery reform was one of
immense difficulty, and discussions on it had often taken
place in their lordships' house. Under such
circumstances, he did not think it extraordinary that Lord J.
Russell should have brought forward a similar discussion
in the House of Commons.

On Tuesday the 1st of April, Lord TORRINGTON, in
moving that a message be sent to the Commons for the
evidence taken in reference to the affairs of Ceylon,
Defended his own Conduct as Governor of that Settlement.
He vindicated the taxes he had imposed, and
affirmed that he had greatly reduced the expenditure,
and placed the trade of the colony in a prosperous
condition. He entered into the history of the rebellion;
contended that the strong and successful measures he had
taken for its suppression were rendered necessary by the
circumstances of the case, and denied that he had in any
instance been guilty of oppression or inhumanity. In
regard to a letter which he had written on the 3rd of
May respecting an official person in the colony, he
admitted that there was a discrepancy between it and
other letters he had written. (His lordship was understood
to refer to the letters written by him to Sir Emerson
Tennent and Mr. Wodehouse.) He acknowledged
that he had committed an act of impropriety and
indiscretion for which he should ever be sorry.—
Earl GREY supported Lord Torrington's defence. He
said that Lord Torrington had brought the colony through
a commercial crisis and re-established its credit, and had
suppressed the rebellion with humanity as well as
firmness. Some abuse of martial law might have taken
place: but the noble Duke (of Wellington) knew
that to check such abuses great severity—wholesome
rigour—was necessary. (The Peers were leaving the
House, when they were recalled by observing the Duke
of Wellington about to speak.) The Duke begged to
make an observation in consequence of Earl Grey's
reference to himself on the subject of martial law—"I
don't mean (he said) to make any observation upon the
conduct of the noble Viscount; but I must say it is
absolutely impossible for this house at present to
pronounce any opinion upon the case brought under your
consideration by the noble Viscount. In the first place,
we have not a single paper before us, nor have we before
us the correspondence which the noble Viscount alluded
to in some detail. Until it comes regularly before your
lordships, you cannot have a notion to what it refers,
and therefore it is premature to make any observation
upon that correspondence until the house has the papers
in its hands. What I rose for particularly was to
answer the appeal made to me by the noble Earl. I say
that military law is neither more nor less than the will
of the general commanding the victorious army—it is no
law at all. The general who puts the law into execution
is bound to lay down absolutely the rules and regulations,
and limits, to carry it into execution. My lords, I have
in a foreign country carried on martial law; that is to
say, I governed a large proportion of the country by my
own will. What does that mean? Why, it means that
the country should be governed by national laws. I
governed the country by the laws of the country; and
governed it, I must say, with such moderation that the
political servants of the country and of the government