piers he had, he said, followed a principle adopted by the House of Lords.

The amendment was seconded by Mr. Cross.

Mr. Horsman observed that the House had admitted that a settlement of this question was desirable, and that it could only be effected by a Government measure; why, then, he asked, should it be allowed to go into the hands of a private member? While some regarded this as a question of principle, others looked upon it as rather a political clap-trap. The time, however, had come when some settlement ought to be made, and he thought Sir J. Trelawny ought to appeal to the Government to bring in a measure for that purpose, it being a loss of time to leave the matter in the hands of a private member.

Sir J. Trelawny said he had from the beginning urged the Government to deal with the subject, but their measures would not have settled the question, nor would Mr. Newdegate's proposition, his objections to which he stated.

The amendment was supported by Mr. Henley, and opposed by Lord Henley, who considered that total abolition was the only satisfactory mode of settling the question.

Mr. Philips, though deeming Mr. Newdegate's plan open to some objections, in the absence of any preferable amendment would vote for it.

Sir S. M. Peto said that nothing short of total repeal of the rate would remove the conscientious objections of the Dissenters.

Mr. Worthington said that the Bill, while it gave relief to a few, would inflict injustice on the many.

He could not, however, support the amendment.

Mr. Evans supported the Bill for the sake of putting an end to a vexatious conflict and agitation.

Lord J. Manners said, retaining all his objections to the principle and details of the Bill, he must oppose, though reluctantly, the amendment, considering that, as that House had assented to the principle of the Bill, it would be better that it should be sent up to the House of Lords as they found it. He should prefer the Bill in its naked simplicity to taking it with the amendment proposed by Sir G. Grey, to substitute pewrents for Church-rates, which would affect the rights of the poor.

Sir George Grey said he should be prepared in the Committee to demonstrate to Lord J. Manners that his fears in relation to his proposal were unfounded.

Mr. Mellor denied that Churchrates were a charge upon property in the correct sense of the term. The amendment would never satisfy the scruples of Dissenters. He thought the Church would sustain no injury from the abolition of Church-rates.

Mr. A. Mills supported the amendment.

Mr. Walter thought there were but two alternatives open, viz., to repeal the law as settled by the Braintree decision, or to abolish the rate. The former measure would be impracticable. amendment was founded on a principle inapplicable to Churchrates. He did not see why a limited recourse should not be had to pew-rents.

A division took place, w amendment was nega: to 49.

The clauses then passed through Committee, upon which Sir George Grey moved three new provisions, authorizing the charging of appropriated pews with rents, to be applied to the repairs of the fabric of the church, and to other purposes to which Church-rates would be applicable.

These propositions encountered a strong opposition from Mr. Estcourt, Mr. Walpole, Lord John Manners, Mr. Horsman, and other members, and the first clause being negatived, the others fell with it.

On the third reading of the Bill being moved, the opponents assembled in great force and made a vigorous effort to reject the mea

sure.

Mr. Whiteside began the debate with a motion to postpone the Bill for six months. After examining the evidence respecting the origin of Church-rates, which showed, he said, the antiquity of the custom, springing out of the old common law, and the manner in which the rates were enforced by the will of the majority, he asked whether Sir J. Trelawny, who professed himself a member of the Established Church, in proceeding against Church-rates, intended to break up the parochial system, which, he insisted, was at the foundation of the social system of the country. He cited the testimony of Mr. Bunting, a Wesleyan, on the subject of Churchrates, who stated that there was a misapprehension as to the number of Nonconformists who objected to their payment from conscientious scruples. The opposition to the rates, Mr. Whiteside contended, rested not upon religious but political grounds; the petitions were got up by an organized body, and

signed by women and by children under 10 years of age. Active agents in a parish worried the Minister, and excited the minority against the majority; it avowed that the ultimate object was the separation of the Church from the State; tithes were to follow Church-rates, and even the edifices were to be treated as public property. The House, therefore, had to determine a different question from what had been brought before it at first, now that the instigators of this movement had disclosed their real views and projects. He opposed the Bill because it involved the question whether or not an Established Church should continue to exist in this country.

Mr. Bright said he felt indebted to Mr. Whiteside for having infused some new life into this question; but he had not done much to satisfy that great portion of the people who objected to Church-rates, that they ought to be permanently maintained. Mr. Whiteside had attached extraor dinary importance to the opinions of the Wesleyan sect on this question; but the large majority of Wesleyans united with the great body of Dissenters in opposition to Church-rates. Moreover, no inconsiderable number of regular attendants upon the Church of England joined the Dissenters in the endeavour to put an end to them. He wished Mr. Whiteside had told them why, year by year, there had been a growing power in that House in opposition toChurchrates, and why there was a secession from their advocates throughout the country. There were only two courses with reference to this most mischievous impost,-either

to leave the law exactly as it was, with all its irritating incidents, or to adopt this Bill. In Ireland, the vestry cess-the Church-rate of that country-had been abolished, and what had been the effect upon the Protestant Church of Ireland? In all human probability, that Church would have been absolutely uprooted, but for the large measures of reform applied to it; and the Church of England, without Church-rates, would be as great and as useful as now. Examples in Wales and in Scotland showed the impulse that might be given to voluntary efforts. Property in Scotland had not gone with the Free Church; yet what a vast result had been produced by religious zeal, fervour, and munificence! He should slander the Church of England, he said, if he were to pretend that it would not be as liberal as any other religious body, while its congregations would be as united as those of Dissenters, and its action would be greatly strengthened. Church-rates violated every law of justice and mercy written in the Bible, and could never be of advantage to the Church of England, if it were a true church.

Mr. Disraeli invited the attention of Mr. Bright, who had dwelt upon the success of the voluntary principle at Rochdale, to the recorded representation of its utter failure at Birmingham. His eulogy of that principle was, he observed, out of place, for this was not the question before the House; but his illustrations of the principle were illusory. In England the voluntary principle had always been. at work. Mr. Bright had asked why the opponents of Church rates had increased. He answered that there had been on both sides

of the House an anxiety to meet a complaint and remove a grievance; but Mr. Bright had avowed an object of his own. The Church of a nation, he had said, ought not to be supported by a part of the nation. He (Mr. Disraeli) demurred to accepting a Bill which converted this abstract opinion into a practical policy, which was not one which the House could sanction. It laid down the doctrine that, because a portion of the nation obeyed the spiritual influence of no particular body, therefore the national Church, the only body that could exercise any such influence, should be abolished. He dwelt upon the evil consequences, social and moral, of such a policy. If, he observed, the House believed the existence of the Church of England to be one of the strongest elements of society, one of the most powerful of our institutions, and the best security of our liberties, they would not sanction the theories of Mr. Bright and the rash and ruinous proposition of Sir J. Trelawny.

After a short reply from Sir J. Trelawny, and a few remarks by Mr. T. Duncombe, the House divided, when Mr. Whiteside's amendment was negatived by the small majority of nine, the numbers being:

For the Amendment
Against it...

226 235

9

The Bill was then read a third time and passed.

As in former years, the most severe ordeal which the measure had to encounter was in the House of Lords, and the narrow majority by which it had escaped rejection

at the last stage in the Lower House, afforded encouragement to opponents and diminished the responsibility which the Peers incurred in rejecting the Bill. The second reading was moved on the 19th of June by Lord Lyveden. After repudiating the notion that in wishing to abolish Church-rates he was actuated by any hostility to the Church, he proceeded to discuss the legal aspect of the question. The present position of affairs, in his opinion, was much worse for the Church than for the Dissenters, because wherever the rate was contested it strengthened the ranks of the Dissenters. In conclusion, he called attention to the number, position, and weight of the statesmen who were averse to Church-rates in the present day, and appealed to the bench of Bishops to wipe off from the Church the unjust reproach of seeking unlawful gains, assuring them that, if the measure were passed, it would make the Church more popular, the Dissenters more peaceful, and tend to the better consideration of the highest interests of the community.

The Duke of Marlborough could not concur with the views of Lord Lyveden, and did not think that the failure of previous compromises was any argument for the total abolition of Church-rates and the introduction of the voluntary principle, nor could he understand why, to conciliate a few, the many should be offended. The numerous petitions which had been sent up to Parliament against Church-rates were merely the result of an active organization of the opponents of the present state of things. He admitted the great results produced from the voluntary efforts of the Church of Eng

land, to which much of the influence of the Church and spread of religious education were owing; but if another item were added to those voluntary efforts it would greatly lessen the funds now raised for those and other purposes. The arguments which had been put forth in favour of this measure were scarcely, he thought, calculated to satisfy their lordships' sense of justice, and he therefore trusted that on grounds of public policy they would not consent to the second reading of the Bill. He concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

Lord De Grey and Ripon thought the Duke of Marlborough wrong in imagining the agitation which existed on this question had arisen from the efforts of the "AntiState Church Society," as the agitation was at least thirty years' old. The existence of a grievance had been admitted by statesmen of all parties, and various compromises had been proposed, but rejected. If, however, the Duke of Marlborough wished to make any compromise, why did he not consent to the second reading of the Bill, and so modify it in Committee as to accomplish that object? He denied that the opponents of Church-rates were influenced by any ulterior motives. In his opinion, Church-rates were a hardship to the Dissenters, inflicted an injury on the Church, and tended to destroy that harmony which ought to prevail among Christian communities. He should therefore support the motion for the second reading of the Bill.

The Archbishop of Canterbury did not believe the voluntary system would be a benefit to the Church, as stated by the Church

of England supporters of this Bill. It was a strange coincidence that the Liberation Society, whose objects were far more violent than those of the supporters of the present Bill, should have used exactly the same argument. The voluntary system ought properly to be called the begging system. It was a system which would much degrade the character of the clergy, as it would put them in a less independent position. For these reasons, although he admitted there were some grounds for complaint, he should oppose the second reading of the Bill.

Lord Grey was opposed to compromise on the matter, as he thought that by so doing they would be admitting the principle of the abolition of Church-rates. The law, in his opinion, as it now stood, was just, right, and proper. Formerly this was not so, but the decision of the highest legal authority, that the majority of a parish may tax themselves for the repairs of the church, had made the law perfectly just. He knew that Church-rates gave rise to acrimonious discussions, but was of opinion that those very discussions occasioned a more lively interest to be taken in the affairs of the Church. The law as it stood at present answered its purpose in the great majority of parishes, and he therefore would not, especially after the revelations of the designs of the Dissenters, made before the Committee, be a party to the alteration of that law.

The Duke of Rutland supported the amendment, as he did not think the Bill would produce peace, but would encourage increased opposition to the Church, and would deprive the poor man of

a right transmitted to him from time immemorial.

The Duke of Somerset would vote for the second reading, as the agitation and ill-will produced by the law were not worth the paltry sum involved. It would be unwise to maintain a tax which could not be enforced, and year after year to give every town in the kingdom an opportunity of using the question as a test of political strength, and as setting the two Houses of Parliament at conflict with one another.

The Duke of Newcastle had intended to vote as he did two years ago, but his former convictions had been much shaken by what had taken place in the other House and in their Lordships' House during the present Session. The Select Committee had at length taken the highest ground, and contended that Church-rates ought to be maintained without any material alteration; and he was sorry to observe, from the speech of the Archbishop of Canterbury, that he seemed to have abandoned his former opinions, and to have become a convert to the permanent maintenance of Church-rates. The Bill did not appear to him at present to be in a satisfactory condition. Still, if Church-rates were to be maintained as at present, he saw no other remedy but to pass the second reading of the Bill, and to amend it afterwards in Committee.

Lord Derby, having criticised the change of vote which the Duke of Newcastle had stated his intention of making, denied the imputation that the supporters of Church-rates had not pursued a conciliatory course, and thought that that reproach ought to be on