with no more certain clue of origin than those common necessities of social life and intercourse which belong to the species. These, however, are necessities in the strongest sense of the word. They compel the formation of language, and even of the more essential grammatical forms which it assumes. To explain its multiplied varieties we can do no other than admit, what is probable indeed on other grounds, the early separation of the human race into distinct communities, and the dispersion of those into localities so far detached as to give cause and scope for the formation of new languages; some of them retaining obvious traces of a primitive root, and collaterally connected more or less closely with other tongues; others, again, seemingly insulated in origin and independent of all such connexion. The latter case is obviously the one most difficult to conceive, compatibly with a single origin of mankind; and in seeking for explanation we feel ourselves forced backwards upon periods of time which may well alarm the imagination and discourage inquiry. Recent research, however, has done a good deal to abate these difficulties; and it is important to remark here, as we have done in respect to the physical diversities of mankind, that the more minute the inquiry, the more do all differences and anomalies disappear from view. mere superficial regard to words and sounds often leaves widely asunder what a rigid analysis of methods and roots will exhibit as closely related in origin, and dissevered only by successive steps, which are sometimes themselves to be traced in existing forms of speech. The philosophy of language thus becomes a guide to ethnology, the best interpreter of the history of nations. A Were we not limited here to a mere outline of the subject, many instances might be given of these recent discoveries in philology which have removed old barriers of time and space, and thrown their light forwards upon fields of knowledge still unexplored. It is interesting to note how much these discoveries, as well as the classification and nomenclature of languages previously adopted, connect themselves with the recorded tripartite division of mankind into three great families after the Scriptural deluge. Some of the most remarkable results recently obtained are those which disclose relations, hitherto unsuspected or unproved, between the language of Ancient Egypt and the Semitic and Japhetic languages of Asia; thus associating together in probable origin those three great roots which, in their separate diffusion, have spread forms of speech over all the civilized parts of the world. Taking the Japhetian, or Indo-Teutonic branch, as it has lately been termed, we find these inquiries embracing and completing the connexions between the several families of language which compose this eminent division of mankind : already already dominant in Europe for a long series of ages, and destined apparently, through some of its branches, to still more general dominion over the globe. We may mention, as one of the latest examples of the refined analysis of which we are speaking, the complete reduction of the Celtic to the class of Indo-Teutonic Janguages, through the labours of Bopp, Prichard, and Pictet; whereby an eighth family is added to this great stock, and the circle completed which defines their relations to one another, and to the other languages of mankind. In closing our remarks on this subject we must again repeat that we have almost exclusively limited them to what regards its general connexion with the primitive history of man;-unable to include that vast body of knowledge which has given philology a place among the sciences, and associated it with ethnology by relations which serve to illustrate and verify both. Yet we have said enough to show how closely the history of human language is connected with that of the human species-and, further, how strongly these researches tend to the same conclusion as that already deduced from physiology, viz. that man is of one species, and derived from a single pair primitively created on the earth. There yet remain two inquiries, to which, notwithstanding their interest, we have only slightly adverted-those, namely, which regard time and place in their relation to this great event. But, to say nothing of the intrinsic difficulty of these questions under any circumstances, we consider that they cannot reasonably be brought into view until we have first mastered, as far as it may be done, this preliminary science of human languages. Our physical knowledge of man, as a part of the animal creation, is wholly inadequate to such inquiries; and he must, in truth, be an adventurous reasoner who expects to draw from either source any certain solution of them. We may possibly at a future time resume this important subject in the greater detail it requires. Meanwhile, we hope to have already justified the assertion with which we prefaced this article, that there is no subject of science of deeper interest than that which regards the natural history and original condition of man. Even were the questions it involves less remarkable, and less important in regard to the present and future condition of the species, the methods of argument and sources of evidence are such as may well engage and engross every scientific inquirer. The evidence is drawn from all parts of creation-from the mind, as well as from the bodily conformation of man himself. The argument is one of probability; always tending to greater certainty, though, it may be, incapable of ever reaching that which is complete. But this is a method of reasoning well understood to to be compatible with the highest philosophy, and peculiarly consonant to our present faculties and position in the universe. And if in this ocean of disquisition fogs have been often mistaken for land,' as in so many other regions of science, we may at least affirm that the charts are more correctly laid down than ever before; the bearings better ascertained; and that our reason can hardly be shipwrecked on this great argument, if common caution be observed in the course we pursue. ART. II.-1. Toleration Act Amendment Bill. Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed. 9th August, 1848. 2. Clergy Relief Bill. Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed. 5th March, 1849. 3. Clergy Relief Bill, as amended by the Select Committee. Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed. 3rd April, 1849. 4. Clergy Relief Bill. Brought from the Commons, and ordered by the House of Lords to be printed. 25th July, 1849. Α AS it is sufficiently well known that there are various matters, civil and ecclesiastical, with respect to which the clergy are looking for relief by legislation, it is easily to be conceived that many a member of that body may have had his curiosity agreeably excited during the past Session, by observing in the newspapers certain parliamentary discussions from time to time under the inviting title of Clergy Relief Bill.' Nor is it more difficult to imagine his feelings of disappointment, when, upon examining a little further into the matter, he may have found, that the clergy relief proposed to be granted was not a relief of any sort to clergymen continuing such, but simply a relief, to those disposed to accept of it, and so far as this depends on legislation, from being clergymen at all. We trust, however, that the choice of this title, infelicitous at best, and degrading if it had been made with full knowledge and consideration, is to be ascribed not to the mover of the Bill, Mr. Bouverie, but to some officer of the House of Commons, whose duty it may be to dress the outside of bills, and to know nothing of what is within, and especially to select for what we understand is termed, under a recent regulation, the 'short title' of a Bill, some designation not running beyond a very limited number of syllables. Such a proceeding is doubtless recommended by convenience, with a view to the frequent repetition of the title of Bills required by the rules of the House at their various stages; but it has led in the instance before us to a misnomer. Members of parliament, however, however, have had to use this title in default of a better, and we must follow their example. The clergy then, whom Mr. Bouverie proposes to relieve, are, as appears from the longer or statutory title of the Bill, Persons in Holy Orders of the United Church of England and Ireland, declaring their dissent therefrom.' The subject thus offered to our view is indeed limited in scale, but of the very highest importance and it is one to which we now the more earnestly desire to draw the attention of all persons interested in the permanent and essential welfare of the Church, because its importance is rather latent in the principles it involves, and in the ulterior application of those principles, than betokened by notes lying upon the surface. The general sentiment with regard to clergymen who have been seduced from their loyalty, in whatever direction they may have wandered, is undoubtedly a desire that, if they cannot see their error and repent of it, the Church should be relieved from all further connection with them; and, finding that the reported purpose of Mr. Bouverie's Bill is coincident with this wish of their own, most men are content to pass it by with a sentiment of favour as to its end, which leaves not much room for jealousy as to the means employed in attaining it. Nor is it our intention at all to detract from the value justly attaching to any measure which, without incurring greater evils, should clear up and disentangle the ambiguous relations now subsisting between the Church and her seceding ministers. On the contrary, we utter from the heart our fervent aspirations for the success of such a measure: and do not hesitate to affirm, that the more clear and trenchant the line of demarcation drawn, the more complete and absolute for all purposes the legal liberty bestowed, the better for all parties concerned. The primary purpose of Mr. Bouverie's Bill was to obtain the release from prison of a certain Mr. Shore, who recently officiated as a clergyman of the Church of England, and who now acts as a dissenting minister in the same parish, district, and chapel. It is perhaps on the whole fortunate that that weak and ill-advised person has regained his liberty by the discharge of the bill of costs, the non-payment of which was the sole cause of his confinement: because the knowledge that a gentleman in holy orders was in prison, with the prevailing ignorance and the frequent misstatement of the cause, was unfavourable to the dispassionate discussion of the questions involved in the Bill. We shall not turn aside from our purpose, which is to promote such consideration, by entering upon the merits of the case of Mr. Shore. No man need hereafter attempt, on the part of the Bishop of Exeter, that which he has performed so effectually for himself in his Letter to the Primate: and we shall only offer, in justice to that prelate, a single remark upon a matter of fact in connection with it. Before the appearance of the Letter, we observed that it was usual with many of the liberal members of the House of Commons to make Mr. Bouverie's Bill an occasion for inveighing against the vindictive, bigoted, and tyrannical proceedings of the Bishop; but from the day of its publication the whole crowd of acrimonious critics at once became silent and abashed. Ut videre virum, fulgentiaque arma per umbras, Ingenti trepidare metu. Or let us rather say, it was the force of facts which brought about this change in the tone of critics in some sense responsible: abuse and falsehood were left to a meaner order of assailants out of doors; but the debates in parliament from that moment lost their personal aspect, and turned upon the general merits of the measure. We must add with pain, that the perusal of the documents contained in the Bishop's letter left upon many minds a conviction that, of the parties engaged, not the Bishop, not Mr. Shore, but an individual of higher temporal rank and name than either, had by far the greatest reason to deprecate any further controversy respecting the causes which separated Mr. Shore, and the chapel in which he officiates, from the Church of England. Turning then to the more general aspect of the question, we have to remind the reader that the proceedings in the case of Mr. Shore brought fully before the public the state of the law in regard to clergymen desiring to separate themselves from the Church. Numerous as had been the cases of such clergymen during the long period since the passing of the Toleration Act, the public at least, and the parties concerned-though we presume it was not so with lawyers-had up to the present day remained in very general ignorance of their legal position. It was indeed well known what the effect of the Ecclesiastical Law must be in regard to that class of persons. In the view of the Church, a character had been impressed upon them at their ordination to the priesthood, which, strictly understood, was altogether indelible by schism, by heresy, or even by apostacy. As a baptized person remains under the obligations incurred at baptism, and retains in a certain sense and for certain purposes the powers and qualifications which it conferred-so a priest, renouncing (with whatever aggravation) the vows which he has made and the gifts which he has received, is not absolved from the one, but remains under his whole responsibility, and cannot lose the possession of the other, though he may forfeit the right to any exercise of his sacerdotal functions. Upon repentance and return to duty, |