which is supposed to be a Danish term for the Western Isles of Scotland, was under the same bishop till the reign of Richard II., when the Isle of Man having fallen under the English sovereignty, the Islands withdrew themselves, and had a bishop of their own. The nomination of the bishop was in the house of Stanley, earls of Derby, from whom it passed by an heiress to the Murrays, dukes of Athol. This bishopric was declared by an act of 33 Henry VIII. to be in the province of York. The act 6 & 7 Wm. IV. c. 77, actually united (prospectively) the bishopric of Sodor and Man to that of Carlisle; but by 1 Vict. c. 30, it is to continue an independent bishopric. The bishop of Sodor and Man does not sit in the House of Lords.

The Isle of Wight is part of the diocese of Winchester; the isles of Jersey and Guernsey, with the small islands adjacent, are also in the diocese of Winchester; the Scilly Isles are in the diocese of Exeter.

In the colonies, where there are churches dependent on the English episcopal church, bishops have been consecrated and appointed to the several places following: namely, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Toronto, Newfoundland, British Guiana, Jamaica, Barbadoes, Antigua, Calcutta, Madras, Bombay, Australia, Tasmania, New Zealand, Gibraltar, and New Brunswick. Several of these bishoprics have been created by letters patent, and their revenues and jurisdictions are regulated by acts of parliament; but others, as those of New Zealand, Tasmania, Antigua, Gibraltar, &c., are not of royal or parliamentary creation, but have been established by the archbishops and bishops, in concert with or by consent of the ministers of the crown. In 1841 a meeting was held of the archbishops and bishops of England and Ireland at Lambeth Palace, when it was agreed to undertake the charge of funds then raising for the endowment of bishoprics in the colonies, and to become responsible for their application. In no case do they proceed without the concurrence of the government. In 1841, in pursuance of this resolution, the bishopric of New Zealand was created; in 1842, the four bishoprics of Guiana, An

tigua, Gibraltar, and Tasmania; and in 1844, Newfoundland and New Brunswick. As funds for endowments are raised, bishops will be consecrated for the Cape of Good Hope, Ceylon, and next for Sierra Leone, South Australia, Western Australia, Port Phillip, and for Northern and Southern India. British colonies or dependencies which are not within any diocese are considered to be under the pastoral care of the Bishop of London.

There are thirty-two Roman Catholic archbishops, bishops, coadjutor bishops, and vicars-apostolic in the British Colonies. At Sydney, Quebec, and in Bengal, the Roman Catholic prelates are of the rank of archbishops.

The pope is the bishop of the Christian church of Rome, and claims to be the successor of St. Peter, of whom it is alleged that he was the first bishop of that church, and that to him there was a peculiar authority assigned, not only over all the inferior pastors or ministers of the church, but over the rest of the apostles, indicated to him by the delivery of the keys. The whole of this, the foundation of that superiority which the bishop of Rome has claimed over all other bishops, has furnished matter of endless controversy; and it does not appear that there is any sufficient historical authority for the allegation that St. Peter did act for any permanency as the bishop of that church, or for the six or seven persons named as successively bishops of that church after him. It seems more probable that the superiority enjoyed by that bishop at a very early period over other bishops (which was not universally acknowledged, and strenuously opposed by our own Welsh bishops) resulted from his position in the chief city of the world, and the opportunities which he enjoyed of constant access to those in whom the chief temporal authority was vested.

BLACK-MAIL is the name given to certain contributions formerly paid by landed proprietors and farmers in the neighbourhood of the Highlands of Scotland, of the English and Scottish border, and of other places subjected to the inroads of "Rievers," or persons who stole cattle on a large scale. It was paid sometimes to a neighbouring chief engaging

space of seven years complete, from and after the term of Whit-Sunday next to come; and for that effect, either to return the cattle so stolen from time to time, or otherwayes within six months after the theft committed, to make payment to the persons from whom they were stolen, of their true value, to be ascertained by the oaths of the owners, before any judge ordinary [sheriff]; providing always that intimation be made to the said James Graham, at his house in Correilet, or where he shall happen to reside for the time, of the number and marks of the cattle, sheep, or horses stolen, and that within forty-eight hours from the time that the proprietors thereof shall be able to prove by habile witnesses, or their own or their herd's oaths, that the cattle amissing were seen upon their usual pasture within the space of forty-eight hours previous to the intimation."

Within a very few years after the practice had been thus systematized, it was swept away by the proceedings following on the rebellion of 1745. Captain Burt, whose amusing Letters from a gentleman in the north of Scotland to his friend in London,' though bearing date in 1754, refer to a period immediately before the rebellion. Troops were stationed in the district to which he refers, the marauders were kept in check, and he describes the isolated acts of depredation then committed as requiring great caution and cunning, the cattle taken in the west being exchanged within the Highlands for those which might be captured towards the east, so that officers of the law, or others in search of them, might have to traverse a vast district of mountain-land before the stolen cattle they might be in search of could be identified (ii. p. 208, et seq.). In the Statistical Account already referred to there are many allusions to black-mail and the state of society co-existent with it, which seem to be founded on personal recollection. In the account of the parish of Fortingal in Perthshire there occurs the following sketch:-"Before the year 1745 Ranoch was in an uncivilized, barbarous state, under no check or restraint of laws. As an evidence of this, one of the principal proprietors never could be compelled to pay his debts. Two mes

sengers were sent from Perth to give him a charge of horning. He ordered a dozen of his retainers to bind them across two hand-barrows, and carry them in this state to the bridge of Cainachan, at nine miles distance. His property in particular was a nest of thieves. They laid the whole country, from Stirling to Coupar of Angus, under contribution, obliging the inhabitants to pay them black-meal, as it is called, to save their property from being plundered. This was the centre of this kind of traffic. In the months of September and October they gathered to the number of about 300, built temporary huts, drank whiskey all the time, settled accounts for stolen cattle, and received balances. Every man then bore arms. It would have required a regiment to have brought a thief from that country."

BLACK ROD, USHER OF THE, is an officer of the House of Lords. He is styled the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, and is appointed by letterspatent from the crown. His deputy is styled the yeoman usher. They are the official messengers of the Lords, and either the gentleman or yeoman usher summons the Commons to the House of Lords when the royal assent is given to bills. "He executes orders for the commitment of parties guilty of breaches of privilege and contempt, and assists at the introduction of peers and other ceremonies." (May's Parliament, p. 156.)

BLA'SPHEMY (in Greek Bλaonuía, blasphemia), a crime which is punished by the laws of most civilized nations, and which has been regarded of such enormity in many nations as to be punished with death. The word is Greek, but it has found its way into the English and several other modern languages, owing, it is supposed, to the want of native terms to express with precision and brevity the idea of which it is the representative. It is, properly speaking, an ecclesiastical term, most of which are Greek, as the term ecclesiastical itself, and the terms baptism, bible, and bishop. This has arisen out of the scriptures of the New Testament having been written in Greek, and those of the Old having in remote times been far better known in the Greek translation than in the original Hebrew.

Blasphemy is a compound word, of which the second part (phe-m) signifies to speak: the origin of the first part (blas) is not so certain; it is derived from BλάTтw (blapto), to hurt or strike, according to some. Etymologically therefore it denotes speaking so as to hurt; the using to a person's face reproachful and insulting expressions. But others derive the first part of the compound from Bλág. (Passow's Schneider.) In this general way it is used by Greek writers, and even in the New Testament; as in 1 Tim. vi. 4, "Whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings," where the word rendered "railings" is in the original "blasphemies." In Eph. iv. 31, "Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil-speaking be put away from you," where "evil-speaking" represents the "blasphemy" of the original. In a similar passage, Col. iii. 8, the translators have retained the "blasphemy" of the original, though what is meant is probably no more than ordinary insulting or reproachful speech. Thus also in Mark vii. 22, our Saviour himself, in enumerating various evil dispositions or practices, mentions "an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness," not meaning, as it seems, more than the ordinary case of insulting speech.

Blasphemy in this sense, however it is to be avoided as immoral and mischievous, is not marked as crime; and its suppression is left to the ordinary influence of morals and religion, and not provided for by law. In this sense indeed the word can hardly be said to be naturalized among us, though it may occasionally be found in the poets, and in those prosewriters who exercise an inordinate curiosity in the selection of their terms. But besides being used to denote insulting and opprobrious speech in general, it was used to denote speech of that kind of a peculiar nature, namely, when the object against which it was directed was a person esteemed sacred, but especially when against God. The word was used by the LXX. to represent the of the original Hebrew, when translating the passage of the Jewish law which we find in Leviticus xxiv. 10-16; this is the first authentic

account of the act of blasphemy being noticed as a crime, and marked by a legislator for punishment:-"And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel, and this son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp: and the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name of the Lord, and cursed. And they brought him unto Moses, and they put him in ward, that the mind of the Lord might be showed them. And the Lord spake unto Moses saying, Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp, and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him. And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin, and he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him; as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death." It is said that the Hebrew commentators on the law have some difficulty in defining exactly what is to be considered as included within the scope of the term "blaspheme" in this passage. But it seems from the text to be evidently that loud and vehement reproach, the result of violent and uncontrolled passion, which not unfrequently is vented not only against a fellow-mortal who offends, but at the same time against the majesty and sovereignty of God.

Common sense, applying itself to the text which we have quoted, would at once declare that this, and this only, constituted the crime against which, in the Mosaic code, the punishment of death was denounced. But among the later Jews, other things were brought within the compass of this law; and it was laid hold of as a means of opposing the influence of the teaching of Jesus Christ, and of giving the form of law to the persecution of himself and his followers. sacred things or places was construed Thus to speak evilly or reproachfully of into blasphemy. The charge against Stephen was that he "ceased not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place

and the law" (Acts vi. 13); and he was punished by stoning, the peculiar mode of putting to death prescribed, as we have seen, by the Jewish law for blasphemy. Our Lord himself was put to death as one convicted of this crime: "Again the high-priest asked and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the son of the blessed? And Jesus said, I am; and ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high-priest rent his clothes and said, What need we any further witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death" (Mark xiv. 61-64). It was manifest that there was here nothing of violence or passion, nothing of any evil intention essential to constitute such a crime, nothing, indeed, but the declaration of that divine mission on which he had come into the world, and of which his miracles were intended to be the proof.

There are some instances of the use of the term in the New Testament, in which it is not easy to say whether the word is used in its ordinary sense of hurtful, injurious, and insulting speech, or in the restricted, and what may be called the forensic sense. Thus when it is said of Christ or his apostles that they were blasphemed, it is doubtful whether the writers intended to speak of the act as one of more than ordinary reviling, or to charge the parties with being guilty of the offence of speaking insultingly and reproachfully to persons invested with a character of more than ordinary sacredness: and even in the passage about the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, it appears most probable from the context that blasphemy is there used in the sense of ordinary reviling, though the object against which it was directed gave to such reviling the character of unusual atrocity.

Among the canonists, the definition of blasphemy is made to include the denying of God, or the asserting of anything to be God which is not God,-anything, indeed, in the words of the Summa Angelica," voce "Blasfemia," which implies "quandam derogationem excellentis bonitatis alicujus et præcipue divinæ;" and this extended application of the term has

been received in most Christian countries, and punishments have been affixed to the offence.

In our own country, by the common law, open blasphemy was punishable by fine and imprisonment, or other infamous corporal punishment. The kind of blasphemy which was thus cognizable is described by Blackstone to be "denying the being or providence of God, contumelious reproaches of our Saviour Christ, profane scoffing at the Holy Scripture, or exposing it to contempt and ridicule” (Commentaries, b. iv. c. iv.). All these heads, except the first, seem to spring immediately from the original sense of the word blasphemy, as they are that hurtful and insulting speech which the word denotes. And we suspect that whenever the common law was called into operation to punish persons guilty of the first of these forms of blasphemy, it was only when the denial was accompanied with opprobrious words or gestures, which seem to be essential to complete the true crime of blasphemy. Errors in opinion, even on points which are of the very essence of religion, were referred in England in early times to the ecclesiastics, as falling under the denomination of heretical opinions, to be dealt with by them as other heresies were. There is nothing in the statute-book under the word blasphemy till we come to the reign of King William III. In that reign an act was passed, the title of which is "An Act for the more effectual suppressing of blasphemy and profaneness." We believe that the statute-book of no other nation can show such an extension and comprehension as is given in this statute to the word blasphemy, unless, indeed, a statute of the Scottish parliament, which was passed not long before, viz. the Act of 1695, c. 11. The only other Scottish act is of Charles the Second's reign. The primitive and real meaning of blasphemy, and we may add of profaneness also, was entirely lost sight of, and the act was directed to the restraint of all free investigation of positions respecting things esteemed sacred. The more proper title would have been, "An Act to prevent the investigation of the grounds of belief in Divine revelation, and the nature of the