Upon the second reading being moved, several Peers suggested objections to the scheme. Lord Abinger disapproved of the imposition of additional charges upon the ratepayers.

The Earl of Airlie, in dealing with the assumption that a system of rating for schools discouraged voluntary exertion, contended that this was a fallacy, as the proportion of voluntary effort in Scotland, where rating was in force, clearly showed.

Lord Denbigh complained that the Bill had not taken sufficient care of the 300,000 Roman Catholics in Scotland, whose educational matters it left at the mercy of a despotic board, which might be exclusively Protestant. He hoped it would be so altered in Committee as to apply only to Presbyterians.

The Duke of Marlborough said the Bill, though really the Bill of the Royal Commissioners, ignored some of the most important of their recommendations. He doubted the accuracy of the statement that the Bill was satisfactory to the great body of the Scotch people.

The Duke of Argyll discussed seriatim Lord Abinger's and Lord Airlie's criticisms. He desired that all possible precautions might be taken to secure a sound elementary instruction in Scotland. The Duke of Marlborough had also misunderstood his views respecting denominational education. The general nature of the results of the proposed new system would, he anticipated, not differ materially from those of the existing one.

Lord Cairns pointed out a difficulty in the Bill arising from the powerlessness of that House to deal with the amount of the rates, or the persons to be authorized to levy them, and he was completely at a loss to understand the grounds of the Duke of Argyll's assertion of the general approval in Scotland itself of the proposed abolition of the existing system.

The Bill was read a second time without division, but before going into Committee,

The Duke of Richmond expressed his dissent from the Bill in its principles and its details, which from his unavoidable absence on the second reading he had been prevented from discussing. The change from the present system-a combination of the parochial and the voluntary with a rating system, which, he maintained, must abolish the voluntary system-would increase the burden. Nor had the necessity of a change been proved, as indeed appeared from the report of the Commission of which the Duke of Argyll had himself been chairman. He objected, moreover, to the maximum threepenny rate, which was, he considered, of the essence of the system, but which in many districts would not cover the expense of education. He denied that the feeling of Scotland was in favour of the Bill, which, providing a non-denominational system of education, would lead naturally, he feared, to secularism.

The Duke of Argyll refused to discuss the general principles of the Bill in its present stage, and pressed for going into Committee. Lord Cairns thought the Duke of Argyll's original pledge, that

the Bill would be accepted by the various sections in Scotland as a compromise, had not been redeemed. At all events he argued that before going into Committee the House ought to have before it the statistics on which the Government had persuaded itself that a threepence-in-the-pound rate, on which the whole Bill turned, would be sufficient. Certainly in some parishes where the rate was most necessary it was proved that it would be inadequate; but he objected particularly to the objects of the Bill, which seemed to be to reduce all the Scotch schools to the level of the new National Schools in Scotland, and to the machinery for accomplishing this, which was one of reward and punishment.

In the Committee a prolonged discussion took place on an amendment moved by Lord Colonsay, and supported by the Archbishop of Canterbury, in favour of the retention of the denominational system. This amendment was strongly resisted by the Duke of Argyll, but it was carried against the Government by 68 to 23, and another amendment moved by the Duke of Marlborough, bearing in the same direction, was carried against the protest of the Government, but without a division.

On the conscience clause the Duke of Argyll again expressed his full conviction of the inexpediency of inserting such provisions, and repudiated all responsibility of the Government for them.

The Bill thus underwent considerable alteration at the hands of opponents from the shape in which it had been originally proposed. Though sent down to the House of Commons in good time, the pressure of other and more important business prevented it being proceeded with for many weeks, and August had arrived before time was found to entertain it. Mr. Bruce then announced that, in order to facilitate the passage of the Bill, the Government had agreed to make certain concessions. One of the most important of these was that parochial schools should be excepted from the operation of the Bill. The proposed modifications did not, however, meet with a cordial acceptance. Much division of opinion was manifested among the Scotch Members, some of whom preferred to throw over the Bill rather than pass it in its existing form; others urged the importance of not letting the Session go by without legislation. The management of the Government was severely criticized by Mr. Disraeli and his supporters, and serious complaint was made of the inconvenience of pressing important measures like this in the last days of the Session. Much time was consumed in these contentions over the details of the Bill, which was at last got through and returned to the Lords but a few days before the time fixed for the prorogation.

On the consideration of the amendments being moved on the 9th of August, Lord Redesdale moved an amendment deferring the consideration of them for three months. He described the repeated postponements which had attended the Bill in the House of Commons, strongly condemned the pro formá committal, whereby the measure

sent down by their lordships had never been really submitted to the Lower House, and urged that the authority and independence of their lordships would be at an end if important Bills were forced upon their acceptance at the fag end of the Session.

The Duke of Argyll, in reply, contended that in consideration of the Bill having been first submitted to the Lords, of the urgent business which had retarded its progress in the Commons, and of the willingness of the Lower House to enter upon its consideration at so late a period of the session, their lordships were bound to proceed with the Bill. He attributed the pressure of business at the close of the session to the growing tendency of Governments to initiate important Bills in the other House, and, reviewing the amendments, he pointed out that the Commons had made considerable concessions to their lordships' views.

Earl Granville also urged that the amendments should be considered, which might well be done in a single sitting; but on a division Lord Redesdale's amendment was carried by 55 to 43. The Bill thus fell to the ground.

The state of the English Episcopate was a subject which at this time attracted a good deal of public attention. It happened by a rather singular coincidence that several of the Bishops, especially those whose dioceses comprised the southern and western counties, were by age, or severe bodily infirmities, wholly or partially disabled from work. This was performed either by Archdeacons, or by retired colonial prelates, of which some happened to be in this country and capable of duty. But these imperfect and provisional arrangements were justly deemed unsatisfactory, and it was thought by many that even assuming unimpaired health and strength in all the occupants of the existing sees, the present episcopal force was unequal to the proper discharge of the functions of the office, especially in the larger and thickly-peopled dioceses. Of the latter opinion was Lord Lyttelton, who in former sessions had endeavoured, though without success, to procure the assent of Parliament to an increase of the Episcopate. His lordship again this year brought forward his measure, which he stated to be in its general effect the same which he had proposed on former occasions. He explained that by its provisions the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would be empowered to frame schemes for the foundation of new sees, which, besides requiring the assent of the Queen in council, would have to be laid on the table of each House of Parliament. The incomes, which might be fixed at a minimum rate perhaps of 25007. a year, would be raised by voluntary contributions; for if people refused to pay for a Bishop, he was ready to admit that they probably did not deserve one.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, though he would not oppose the second reading, regretted he could not give the Bill a very hearty support. Three additional sees were certainly required, but not an indefinite increase in the Episcopate. If successful, the Bill

would go beyond what was needed; and if not successful it would do nothing at all. He objected particularly to the establishmentwhich the Bill favoured-of two different classes of Bishops. It was also to be apprehended that, under a voluntary system like this, the patronage would virtually be in the private founders, as had been the case with various colonial bishoprics. He thought the nomination should be solely and actually in the Crown.

Lord Carnarvon feared the Bill was clogged with provisions which would render it nugatory. In the first place, it depended too much upon large voluntary contributions, which, under present circumstances, persons would scarcely feel secure in providing for ecclesiastical foundations; but, at the same time the Bill did embody a sound principle, viz. that the Episcopate ought to grow with the population, for whose needs the Church was answerable. He would not share the responsibility of rejecting the opening which this Bill afforded for carrying out that principle.

The Archbishop of York maintained that the Bill must be nugatory. Its machinery required an amount of contributions which would hardly be forthcoming, particularly at the present time, for such an object. But, if inoperative, it was worse than nothing, since it would tend to hinder any thing being attempted for the supply of the real need of three or more new bishoprics which was admitted to exist.

Lord Portman expressed objection to "subscription bishops.' He thought that 25007. was inadequate to the proper support of a Bishop, who might become a Peer of Parliament. The Duke of Somerset expressed similar objections, and the Bishop of Gloucester intimated bis dislike to the project of instituting bishoprics by voluntary subscriptions. Earl Stanhope urged Lord Lyttelton to withdraw the Bill.

Lord Nelson dissented from certain provisions of the Bill, especially the rota system with regard to seats in the House involved in the Bill, but was cordially in favour of it, as substantially a Bill for the increase of the Episcopate. He was personally of opinion that every large town ought to have a Bishop. He did not suppose, however, the rest of the House would share his views.

The Bishop of London, from the circumstances of his former and his present diocese, would be likely to accept gratefully any alleviation of Episcopal responsibility. But this Bill would not be of any utility. Excessive complications must arise from having, for instance, more than one Bishop in a single town, however vast. The new dioceses to be created by the Bill would themselves, too, he feared, be placed at a disadvantage, although the Bishops, whose incomes were in any case, whether large or small, held only on trust, might not be.

Lord Cairns was in favour of an increase of the Episcopate, but he opposed this Bill-1, because he thought it would be inoperative on account of the expense; 2, because it would create two distinct

classes of Bishops; and 3, on account of difficulties connected with the provision for laying any scheme before Parliament.

The Lord Chancellor, who declared himself very friendly to the objects of the Bill, added his earnest recommendation that it should be withdrawn, and Earl Granville seconded the advice, intimating that certain defeat would be the alternative. Lord Lyttelton, however, declined to withdraw it, and the Bill was rejected on a division by 43 to 20.

Another measure, the necessity for which was grounded on the peculiar circumstances of the Episcopal Bench at this time above referred to, was the Archbishop of Canterbury's Bill for making provision for facilitating the resignation of aged or incapacitated Bishops. This measure was introduced by the most rev. prelate at a late period of the Session, but it met with little obstruction in its passage through the two Houses. The Archbishop, on moving the second reading, explained that his Bill consisted of two parts, one relating to the resignation of Bishops, and the other to an amendment of the 6th and 7th Victoria, chapter 62. The first part of the Bill provided that the revenues of the see should be employed at once for the benefit of a retiring Bishop and his successor, it having been found impossible to obtain any income for a retiring Bishop from any other source; and though temporary inconvenience might arise from the division of the revenues between the retiring Bishop and the Bishop exercising full jurisdiction, it would not be so great as that which attended the absence of any provision for resignations. The second part of the Bill followed as nearly as possible the precedent of the former Act, applying compulsory powers in cases of mental incapacity. Under that Act a Commission might issue in such cases, and on the report of the Commission another Bishop holding a see in England and Wales would be appointed to administer the diocese. Such a Bishop being fully occupied with the duties of his own diocese, the Act provided that a fifth part of the revenue should be assigned to him, in order to meet the new expenses which he would incur; but it was undesirable to impose the charge of a second diocese on a prelate who had already quite enough to do. This it was now endeavoured to meet by providing that, instead of a person who already had a see in England and Wales being entrusted with the charge of a second diocese, a Bishop coadjutor should be appointed, with the right of succession at the next vacancy. There were various clauses for securing this, which their lordships would no doubt consider carefully in committee, and, having regard to the inconveniences arising from the present state of things-inconveniences felt by none more keenly than by those charged with the administration of the several dioceses he hoped their lordships would give the Bill a second reading.

Lord Nelson regretted the necessity of such a Bill, which arose, he believed, from the excessive size of the present dioceses. He censured the provision of the Bill which left the see-house to the