both by the Church and by the State.' There is every reason to believe that, if the subject is properly introduced to Parliament and Convocation, it will meet with the readiest and the most respectful attention. Parliament has already shown itself anxious to obtain such mitigations as are here proposed, and the Convocation of Canterbury has even outstripped Parliament, in having suggested direct alterations of the existing law. Both, we doubt not, will legislate in the same spirit, and with the desire to perfect what both honestly desire to retain. Upon this question the weighty words of Mr. Burke have been often quoted; but coming as they do amongst our present strifes from the calm repose of that honoured tomb where from Burke's 'sepulchral urn, To Fancy's eye the lamp of truth shall burn; Thither late times shall turn their reverent eyes, Led by his light, and by his wisdom wise,' we will once more set them before our readers. In opposing the prayer of the Feathers Tavern petitioners, he says: 'A church, in any legal sense, is only a certain system of religious doctrines and practices fixed and sanctioned by some law, and the establishment is a tax laid by the same sovereign authority for payment of those who so teach and practise. For no Legislature was ever so absurd as to tax its people to support men for teaching and acting as they please but by some prescribed rule. . . . . The matter does not concern toleration, but establishment. . . If will have reliyou gion publicly practised and publicly taught, you must have a power to say what that religion shall be which we will protect and encourage. ... The petitioners are so sensible of the force of these arguments that they do admit of one subscription, that is, to the Scripture. I shall not consider how forcibly their arguments militate with their whole principle against subscription. . . . The subscription to Scripture is the most astonishing idea I ever heard, and will amount to just nothing at all. Gentlemen so acute have not, that I have heard, even thought of answering a plain obvious question, what is that Scripture to which they are content to subscribe?. Therefore, to ascertain Scripture you must have one article more, and you must define what that Scripture is which you mean to teach. There are I believe very few, when Scripture is so ascertained, who do not see the absolute necessity of knowing what general doctrine a man draws from it, before he is sent down authorised by the State to teach as pure doctrine. . . If we do not get some security for the doctrine which a man draws from Scripture, we not only permit, but we actually pay for, all the dangerous fanaticism which can be produced to corrupt our people, and to derange the public worship of the country." 米 *Speech of Mr. Burke on Act of Uniformity,' vol. x. pp. 11-20, ed. 1818. PARTICULARS PARTICULARS of Appeals in Spiritual Causes brought before the Court of Delegates, A.D. 1609-1823, with the names of the persons sitting on each Commission, distinguishing the Judges who were present when the sentence was pronounced, and those who were nominated on each Commission. The attendance of the general body of delegates was not expected save at the opening of the Appeal, at the hearing of the case, and the delivery of the sentence. No. 525. BISHOP OF S. DAVID'S v. Lucy (2 Appeals). Office of Judge promoted by Lucy for simoniacally collating his nephew to the Archdeaconry of S. David's. Delegates named in the Commissions of Appeal :— I. Dated 13th March, 1699, on the John, Earl of Bridgwater. Owen Wynne, LL.D. II. Dated 19th August, 1699, on the Sir George Treby. Sir Charles Hedges. The names of those Delegates who on either Appeal were not present when Sentence was pronounced, are marked with an asterisk*. The names of those who were nominated on one only of the two Commissions are printed in italics. No. 626. SALTER v. DAVIS. Office of Judge promoted by Salter against Davis, Vicar of Penn, for omitting to read the 39 Articles, for preaching in favour of Popery, for neglecting cure of souls, with other offences. Delegates named in Commission of Appeal, dated 10th December, 1691 :- Sir William Holben, Justice of Common Pleas; Sir Thomas Rokeby, Justice Hedges, Master Edisbury, Littleton, Bramston.--Civilians. None None but the Civilian Members of the Commission were present at the Proceedings in this Case; but it did not come on for hearing. No. 788. PELLING V. DR. BETTESWORTH (Dean of the Arches). I. Delegates named in the Commission of Appeal, dated 16th May, 1713 :— Thomas Lord Trevor, C. J. of Common Pleas; Robert Tracy, Esq., Justice of Wood, Pinfold, Parke, Phipps, Strahan.-Civilians. On the 1st of July, 1713, when all the above-named Delegates, except the Bishop of Chester, were present, sentence was pronounced in favour of the Appeal, and a Citation decreed for Whiston to appear before the Court, which then proceeded to hear the Cause on the merits. II. On the 7th July, 1715, a Commission of Adjuncts' issued, which included all the Delegates above-named (amongst whom was now the Archbishop of York, lately Bishop of Chester). and in addition and John, Bishop of Bangor; William, Bishop of Lincoln; Charles, Bishop of Sir Peter King, C. J. of Common Pleas (Lord Trevor having been removed on the accession of George I.); Sir Samuel Dodd, C. B. of Exchequer. Of these Delegates there were present on the first day when the Commission of Adjuncts sat (7th July, 1715). and The Archbishop of York. Bishop of Winchester, Bishop of Bath and Wells, Bishop of St. David's. Pinfold, Parkes (or Paske), Phipps, Strahan.-Civilians. [Appeals from the Ecclesiastical Courts in Ireland came before the High Court of Delegates in England apparently until 1783-in which year the Act 23 Geo. III. c. 28-declared that no Writ of Error or Appeal should be received or adjudged. . . . in any of His Majesty's Courts in this kingdom, in any Action or Suit at Law, or in Equity, instituted in any of His Majesty's Courts in Ireland. ... This Court was appointed under 28 Hen. VIII. c. 6.] No. 1240. HAVARD (of Tewkesbury) v. Rev. EDWARD Evanson (Vicar of Tewkesbury, &c.). (Heresy). Office of Judge promoted inter alia for maintaining Doctrines re pugnant to the 39 Articles. Delegates Delegates named in the Commission of Appeal, Dated 27th June, 1775. James Marriott, Andrew Cotton Ducavel, William Macham, Francis Simpson, Havard appealed against the decision of the Court of Arches, which refused to admit certain Depositions-the Court of Delegates confirmed their suppression, but instead of confirming the acquittal of Evanson retained the cause for further hearing. Havard finding it impossible to obtain success without these Depositions abandoned the Appeal. The Court did not sit on its merits. No. 1252. HARFORD v. MORRIS (a Case of nullity of Marriage). Delegates named in Commission of Appeal, dated 19th April, 1777 (two years after the preceding case). Lord Hillsborough and two other Peers; Archbishop of York and two other Bishops; three Common Law Judges; five Civilians. The last cause in which Bishops were summoned or sat. ART. VIII.-Travels in Central Asia. By Arminius Vámbéry. London, 1864. THE past year will be memorable in the annals of the Geo graphical Society for two of its greatest and most legitimate triumphs. On the first occasion, an Oxford first-class man told a stirring tale of adventure in an absolutely new and virgin country, hitherto unvisited except under conditions which reduced the traveller to the category of a mere senseless corpse in a coffin. He told his tale, too, more as Herodotus would have recited at Olympia than like a commonplace voyager of the nineteenth century. He spoke with all the spirit and picturesqueness of the old Greek combined with the careful eloquence of a trained orator, and his crowded audience admired and applauded the accomplishments of the speaker no less than they appreciated the interest of the primeval Eastern country thus brought before their eyes. The severest stickler for science unalloved by popularity-hunting, clamorous for pure geography, then felt and admitted that the Society had fully retrieved its character since its last great field-day in 1861, when its proceedings, to say the truth, were not of a truly geographical, so much as of a more or less authentically pithecological, character. Doubtless the great pleasure felt by all Mr. Palgrave's listeners was derived from the thorough sense and conviction brought home to them by his command of language, of the intellectual power and acquirement which enabled him to guide and control all the various various changes and chances of travel. The hearer's perception of a strong mind and will riding safely on the whirlwind of fanaticism and directing the storm of opposition was infinitely quickened by the manifest gifts of the able orator. Yet when, on the second of these occasions, the slight and delicate figure of our Hungarian dervish, worn and wasted by toil and hardship, first confronted his London audience, the power and resources of a resolute and cultivated mind were at least made equally clear, and that, too, in spite of his defective power of speaking a foreign language, rather than by the help of any management of its beauties and its artifices. Extra-Chinese Central Asia cannot, it is true, be called a virgin and unknown country in the same way as the centre of Arabia, nor can a visit to it be held to constitute a real epoch in the history of discovery like a visit to the Wahhabi kingdom; but it is, if possible, even more hermetically sealed to the traveller from Western Europe. In the one country such a traveller is but a mere nondescript stranger, one whose habits and manners are hardly known and cannot be tested by comparison; one whose race would be assigned to Europe through default of knowledge rather than through actual knowledge, and he can take his chance in this way. In the other country he is not only a hated object, but a dreaded object and a familiar object as well. No European can possibly retain a disguise undetected in Turkistan owing to this very familiarity, unless his disguise be so perfect as to have become to him a second and Asiatic nature; and even then, to all intents and purposes an Asiatic, he will have to run the gauntlet of a thousand chances of ultimate detection and its consequences. It was not to be expected, therefore, that our Dervish should have any English at his disposal beyond the merest waifs and strays of school recollections, when his whole recent life had been a struggle for existence, such as to press every idea out of his brain but that of self-preservation, under the sheer necessity of concentrating his thoughts every day and hour on that one subject amid the horrors of Turkistan. Yet his oral narrative was very amusing and entertaining, bringing forcibly to light the constant danger in which he stood and the chesslike game of insidious attack and dexterous defence in which he played his part so well. Before we proceed to follow his career, as set forth in his written narrative now before us, it will, perhaps, be considered not unnecessary if we say a word br two respecting the regions which formed the scene of his enterprise, the objects of his journey, and the conditions under which he carried it out, as compared with those under which the same quarter had been previously visited by Englishmen. The geographical names by which we are wont to distinguish the |