In the following year (1810) Dr. Herbert Marsh, then Margaret Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, and subsequently Bishop of Peterborough, in the first edition of his _Lectures_ wrote: “It is probable that our authorised version is as faithful a representation of the original Scriptures as _could_ have been formed at _that period_. But when we consider the immense accession that has _since_ been made, both to our critical and philological apparatus;” “when we consider that the most important sources of intelligence for the _interpretation_ of the original Scriptures were _likewise_ opened after that period, we cannot possibly pretend that our authorised version does not require _amendment_.”[103] In 1816 Thomas Wemyss, a learned layman, who had devoted himself to Biblical studies, called attention, under the title of _Biblical Gleanings_, to a number of passages which were generally allowed to be mistranslated; and in 1819 Sir James Bland Burges published _Reasons in favour of a New Translation of the Scriptures_. During a few years after this, the subject remained in abeyance, but in 1832 there was published, at Cambridge, a calm and scholarly pamphlet, entitled _Hints on an Improved Translation of the New Testament_, by the Rev. James Scholefield, A.M., Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Cambridge. A second edition was issued in 1836, and a third, with an appendix, in 1849. Through these and other publications a widely-spread conviction was produced that the work ought at length to be attempted, and in the years 1855-57 the question was in a very emphatic form brought under public notice. In the _Edinburgh Review_ of October, 1855, in a notice of a certain Paragraph Bible then recently published, there appeared the following words: “Surely it is high time for a further revision. It is now almost 250 years since the last was made. During that long period neither the researches of the clergy nor the intelligence of the laity have remained stationary. We have become desirous of knowing more, and they have acquired more to teach us. Vast stores of Biblical information have been accumulating since the days of James I., by which, not merely the rendering of the Common Version, but the purity of the Sacred Text itself, might be improved. And it is essential to the interests of religion that that information should be fully, freely, and in an authoritative form, disseminated abroad by a careful correction of our received version of the Sacred Scriptures.” In the following year, 1856, the Rev. William Selwyn, Canon of Ely, and Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, sent forth his _Notes on the proposed Amendment of the Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures_, in which he states: “I do not hesitate to avow my firm persuasion that there are at least one thousand passages of the English Bible that might be amended without any change in the general texture and justly reverenced language of the version.”