the other side, as the opponents of the Church-rates had rejected all compromise. If Lord Lyveden had only seen the overwhelming majority of their Lordships against this Bill last year, or had consider ed the decreasing majorities of the House of Commons, he would have hesitated before he had asked the House to again express their opinions by voting on this subject. Repelling the attacks of the Duke of Newcastle against the decision of the Select Committee, he denied that the Committee had practically abandoned the principle of Churchrates, by acknowledging the principle that the majority of the parish should have the right of taxing themselves to maintain the parish church. They had by that course endeavoured to maintain the principle, but to modify the practice a vast difference from practically assenting to the principle of abolition. The supporters of the existing law, then, had not been backward in conciliation, but had been met in the most uncompromising spirit by their opponents.

After a few words from Lord Lyveden, in reply, their Lordships divided, when the numbers wereContent .31 Non-Content 128

and to remove a grievance of which Dissenters complained, in being excluded by the rule of decision adopted in such cases by the Court of Chancery, from participation in the management. Lord Cranworth moved the second reading of a Bill which he had prepared on this subject on the 10th February, and he explained its nature and objects.

The measure was intended to remedy a grievance felt by Dissenters. Up to a recent period Dissenters were trustees of endowed schools, and their children shared the benefits of those schools without being compelled to attend the Church services or receive Church instruction. A few years ago the question was raised whether this was legal, and it was found not to be so. This unexpected state of the law created the grievance. Lord Cranworth went minutely into the legal history of the question. The remedy he proposed was, that unless Dissenters were expressly excluded by the trust deed, the trustees should be enabled to introduce and act upon the "conscience clause;" and that Dissenters might be elected trustees without any restriction as to usage. This latter provision was the point in which the Bill differed from a measure recommended in 1859 by a Committee of the Lower House. Their proposal was that the ap. pointment of Dissenters as trustees should be limited to cases where there had been a usage of Dissenters acting as trustees for five-andtwenty years. This, however, might act injuriously, since five-andtwenty years might elapse without the appointment of a trustee.

Lord Cranworth traced the origin and progress of the schools, which

he stated to be nearly 700 in number, explained the scope of the various clauses proposed, and strongly urged the adoption of the measure, which, he said, had been rendered necessary by recent decisions of the Courts.

Lord Chelmsford said, the Bill was one of the greatest importance, and if adopted, it involved principles of the most serious consequence. The Dissenters had made many efforts to obviate their precarious position in regard to these endowed schools, especially since the decision in the case of the Ilminster School, which he proceeded to detail at some length, and gave it as his opinion that, looking to the intention of the founders of these schools, the judgment of the Court of Chancery was perfectly correct. As far as Dissenters had already, for a period of twenty-five years, enjoyed the privileges of trusteeship, they ought to be left to enjoy those privileges, but he could not go further than that. The Bill before the House struck at the very root of those rules of prescription by which the greater part of the property of this country was held. Having examined the Bill clause by clause, Lord Chelmsford concluded by expressing his opinion that it was too much for the Dissenters to deny the benefit of prescription to the Church, while they asserted it for themselves. Unless, however, some other member should oppose the second reading, he himself should refrain from doing so.

The Lord Chancellor hoped that, as it was universally admitted that legislation on the subject was necessary, there would be no op. position to the second reading.

He asked whether a slight alteration in one clause was sufficient ground for rejecting the Bill.

The Bishop of London said that he thought that upon the principle of the Bill depended very much the number of the schools which would be affected by it. He trusted that Lord Cranworth would inform the House whether the Bill proposed to include the National Schools as well as the endowed schools. The measure was indefinite as to the nature of the schools to which it was intended to apply. If it were intended only to affect what were commonly called endowed schools, he should not oppose the second reading.

Lord Derby considered that the question was one of serious importance, and required the greatest consideration. He expressed him. self as strongly opposed to the power of the Court of Chancery in questions of this kind, as the Lord Chancellor was guided by no precedent, but by the bias of his mind alone. He objected to what was termed the "conscience clause" as being far too vague and unlimited, and said that he should prefer to invest the trustees of these schools with a discretionary power to exempt children of Dissenters, under certain circumstances, from that portion of the education which included the doctrines of the Established Church, to authorizing the Court of Chancery to pass rules and regulations to bind the present trustees. He would not oppose the second reading, but he thought the Bill would require the greatest supervision and discussion in Committee.

Earl Granville agreed with Lord Derby's views in regard to the Court of Chancery, and suggested

to Lord Cranworth the propriety of referring the Bill to a Select Committee.

The Bishop of Oxford said, that if the Bill did not trench upon the rights of the Church of England, he should be most happy to remove an acknowledged grievance by not opposing the second read ing. But he considered that the principle involved in what was called the "conscience clause" was very dangerous, especially as those Dissenters who wished to destroy the national church owned that one of the deadliest thrusts was to be dealt by enabling Dissenters to become trustees of endowed schools. He agreed with the suggestion of Lord Granville, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. After a few words from Lord Donoughmore, Lord Cranworth replied to the various objections which had been made, and the Bill was read a second time.

Concurrently with Lord Cranworth's measure, two other Bills on the same subject were introduced into the House of Commons early in the Session. One of these, originated by Sir Hugh Cairns, did not get beyond its first stage; the other, of which Mr. Dilwyn was the author, gave rise to a rather interesting discussion upon the motion for reading it a second time on the 28th of March. Mr. Dilwyn on that occasion entered fully into the objects of his measure, explaining that it was intended to remove the disqualification which prevents Dissenters from acting as trustees of endowed schools in those cases where the endowment specifies no particular religious teaching. The three Bills then before Parliament showed how much in

terest the question excited out of doors. But Mr. Dilwyn preferred his own Bill to that of Lord Cranworth, and that of Sir Hugh Cairns. He proposed by his Bill that all schools founded prior to the Reformation, should not be deemed to have been founded for the purpose of affording religious instruction in the doctrine of the Church of England exclusively, but that any schools founded in the reign of Edward VI. and subsequently, in which the deed of endowment expressly required the doctrine of the Church of England to be taught, should not be interfered with. He denied the right of the Church of England to arrogate to itself the exclusive control and management of the education of the country, and, though a member of the Church himself, he believed the Dissenters had a just claim to the concessions which the present Bill proposed to make. Mr. Hadfield seconded the mo

tion.

Mr. Lowe regretted that Mr. Dilwyn, in the latter part of his speech had assailed the Church of England instead of dealing with the measure before the House on its own merits. In all cases of endowed schools the Courts of Equity had endeavoured to discover the will of the founder, and when there was no special provision, looking to the time and circumstances of their origin, they had come to the conclusion that the tenets of the Church of England should be taught in these schools. Mr. Dilwyn proposed that the religious teaching of the schools should not be exclusively that of the Church of England without stating what it should be. But in the second part of his Bill

he over-rode the first, by proposing that the will of the founder should be respected. There were two grievances connected with the subject. The first was, that as the law now stood there was no power to compel trustees to admit the children of Dissenters to the schools without their being required to conform to the Church of England. The second grievance was, that Dissenters were now excluded from the office of trustees. But the Bill before the House would not improve the position of Dissenters, while it would touch the property of the Church of England. The schools which were to be resumed were originally Roman Catholic foundations. Dissenters could not claim them; the claim to them would come from a different quarter. Mr. Lowe showed at great length that the Bill would not do what Mr. Dilwyn proposed, while it would raise a number of important questions relating to the property of the Church.

Mr. Selwyn moved, and Mr. Longfield seconded the motion, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. The Bill was supported by Lord Fermoy and Mr. Baines, and the Amendment by Mr. Mills and Mr. Walter. On a division the Bill was rejected by 190 against 120.

Some alteration was made in Lord Cranworth's Bill in Committee in the House of Lords. A clause was agreed to, requiring trustees to admit the children of Dissenters into all schools, not expressly founded for the benefit of the Church of England. On the motion of Lord Chelmsford, an important change was made by striking out the clause which proposed to make Dissenters eligible to act as trustees of all endowed VOL. CHI.

schools, where the endowment did not expressly require the trustees to be members of the Church of England. Thus altered, the Bill passed unopposed through the House of Commons and became law.

Mr. Spooner's annual motion for a repeal of the Act securing an endowment to Maynooth College passed over this year with a very short discussion. The resolution moved by the hon. member was in these terms :

"That this House do resolve itself into a Committee, to consider the Acts for the Endowment of the College of Maynooth, with a view to the withdrawal of any endowment out of the Consolidated Fund, due regard being had to vested rights and interests." He renewed this motion, he said, under the continued conviction that the endowment of Maynooth was a national sin, which, in his opinion, was now bringing forth fruits in Ireland in the mischievous proceedings of the priests educated at the College against the Protestant reformed religion as by law established, and unless steps were taken to stop them, he warned the House that the consequences would be far more serious. Ho proceeded to cite speeches and evidence of Roman Catholic prelates and others, with the view of showing that the priests educated at Maynooth were virtually paid for disseminating doctrines and opinions subversive of alle giance and the loyalty they owed to the Throne. He charged them with teaching these and other mischievous doctrines, challenging any one to deny the facts he stated. He had always said that the fruits of our false policy would be seen. and he reproached both sides of

the House with a backwardness in repressing the evil through a subserviency to the Roman Catholics of Ireland.

Mr. R. Long seconded the motion. One main reason, he said, why he advocated the withdrawal of the grant, due compensation being given, was, the prosperous condition of the Roman Catholic interest in this kingdom, which was well able to dispense with this insignificant endowment.

Mr. O'Brien insisted that this question ought to be considered on political grounds alone. As the Roman Catholics of Ireland shared the burthen of taxation, they were entitled to this moderate grant for the education of their priests. If the tithes in Ireland were given up and the Regium Donum also, he would be ready to resign this grant. Mr. Hennessey repudiated the charges made by Mr. Spooner against the Irish priesthood.

Mr. Cardwell, in a very few words, urged the inexpediency of disturbing an arrangement which had for some time subsisted, and of unsettling religious institutions in Ireland.

Mr. Newdegate supported the motion, enforcing Mr. Spooner's arguments as to the dangers attending the diffusion of ultramontane doctrines, inimical to good government, among the Roman Catholic priests.

After a few words from Mr. Hadfield, and a short reply by Mr. Spooner, the House divided. For the motion. Against it

Majority

128

186

58

A debate of considerable interest took place in the House of Lords, early in the Session, upon the motion of LordDungannon,

who called the attention of the House to the recently-introduced practice of holding religious services on Sunday evenings in some of the metropolitan theatres, and proposed a Resolution to the effect that such services, being highly irregular and inconsistent with order, were calculated to injure rather than advance the progress of sound religious principles in the metropolis and throughout the country. He supported his motion by dwelling upon the incompatibility between the associations of the theatre and those of religion, and concluded by declaring his opinion that the present movement was fraught with danger to the Church of England.

The Archbishop of Canterbury stated in a few words the reasons why it would, in his opinion, be injudicious to adopt Lord Dungannon's motion.

The Earl of Shaftesbury entered fully into the subject, and laid before the House many curious and interesting facts bearing upon the question. He said, that, as the chief originator of this movement, he was bound not to justify, but to explain, the motives by which he had been influenced. This he proceeded to do at some length, assuring their Lordships that every step had been taken to procure other buildings sufficiently large for the purpose of prayer and preaching before hiring the theatres, but without success. He denied in the most unqualified terms the assertion that disturbances had occurred and refreshments been sold during these services, and declared from personal observation that a more orderly and decorous set of persons than those who had attended these services could not have been