favour. Among these were Mr. Henley, who declared that "in this matter we should do as we would be done by," a sentiment which, as bearing upon this matter, was echoed by Sir John Pakington, who supported the Bill on a subsequent stage. Mr. Disraeli advocated it on the same grounds, combating with much pains the objections which some of his own party had urged against it. Two great objections, he said, had been urged against this Bill. First, that it would affect the security of the Established Church. If he could suppose that it had a tendency to impair that security, he should oppose the Bill; but he had no such apprehension. Then it was said that the measure was dangerous to the Protestant spirit of the country. But who could suppose that the magistracy of the country would desire to depress that spirit, of the power of which Roman Catholics had had sufficient proof? Looking, therefore, at the influence which this Bill would exert upon the status of the Church of England, or upon the Protestant spirit of the country, it was, in his opinion, to have a very poor and mean conception of that Church and of that spirit to suppose that the Bill could endanger the one and lessen the other.. He did not entertain these visionary apprehensions as to the effects of this permissive Bill,—a measure which he hoped the House would pass, as in harmony with the legislation which it had sanctioned upon the subject.

In the House of Lords, a similar conflict of opinion was manifested, the leader of the Conservative party speaking without reserve in favour of the Bill, while other noble lords, who usually voted with Lord Derby, on this occasion opposed his arguments. The Earl of Harrowby and Lord Berners were on the adverse side, regarding the measure as unnecessary and mischievous, impairing the rights of the Established Church, and calculated to create a spirit of discord in the country. The Bishop of London also opposed the Bill, alleging that he did not know where, if this measure were passed, the principle it laid down would stop, as the same arguments would be used for introducing Roman Catholic priests into workhouses. The present state of the law gave every facility to Roman Catholic prisoners, and he could not understand why the status of a prison chaplain should be given to Roman Catholic priests in order to do that which they could do now.

Lord DERBY said his opinion of the policy and justice of the Bill was so strong that, however much he lamented to differ from many of his friends, he felt bound to give a vote in its favour. Having appealed to the life-long support he had given to the Established Church as a proof that he would not consent to any measure mischievous to its interests, he denied that the Bill was the commencement of placing the Roman Catholic Church on an equality with the National Establishment, or of endowing the Church of Rome in this country. The state of the law was unjust to Roman Catholic prisoners, and was only rendered not intolerable by the good sense of the magistrates who proprio motu

allowed prisoners to send for ministers of their own persuasion. Considering, however, the previous lives of prisoners, they were not likely to avail themselves of this permission; and the natural consequence was, that Roman Catholic prisoners, unless they themselves sent for a priest, obtained no ministration of any clergyman whatever. He could not for one moment admit a proposition of Lord Berners that, because the teaching of Roman Catholicism was considered erroneous, therefore no Roman Catholic chaplain should be provided; because, whatever he might think of the errors of the Roman Catholic Church, there was no doubt that the ministrations of that Church were alone acceptable to those who believed in it. He exposed the injustice of the proposition that Roman Catholic priests, if allowed to attend their coreligionists, should do so without payment. In conclusion, the noble Earl said-" It appears to me that the Bill is one which meets the justice and the equity of the case, and does not go beyond it. It does not place the Roman Catholic Church in a position different from that of other denominations. Still less does it place it on a footing in the slightest degree of equality with the Established Church. I should regret very much if the Bill had that effect; but it has not. What it provides is, that where duties are to be performed-laborious, painful, and responsible duties-you shall not, if they are services to the State, insist on their performance without remuneration; that you shall make a fair return for services which you may deem valuable, in carrying out the work of prison reformation. I am well aware not only that I differ on this question from several of my noble friends around me, but that this measure has met with much misapprehension and prejudice-honest prejudice, no doubt-and that it is not likely to be popular in the country. But where I have clearly seen my way with regard to the justice and policy of a measure, I hope that I never have shrunk, and that I never shall shrink, from incurring the risk of unpopularity; and I think I make a much greater sacrifice than in taking a course which connects me with unpopularity out of doors, when I find myself differing on this question from noble friends around me, with whom, on most occasions, it has long been my happiness to act. All considerations of this sort, however, must give way to those of policy and justice; and believing the measure to be founded not only upon policy and justice, but upon the higher principle of Christian charity and religion, I deem it my duty to give a conscientious and a cordial vote in favour of the second reading.'

The Bill passed its second reading in the House of Commons by a majority of 152 to 122, and the third reading by about an equal majority. In the House of Lords the numbers for the second reading were 65, against it 35. It ultimately received the Royal Assent.

A Bill, introduced by Sir Morton Peto, for removing alleged grievances of the Protestant Dissenting bodies did not meet with

a like success. It was called the Dissenters' Burials Bill, and had for its object to enable Nonconformists to have their funerals celebrated with their own religious rites and services and by their own ministers, in the graveyards of the Established Church. Sir M. Peto had brought in a Bill with this object in the preceding session, which had been referred to a Select Committee, and underwent considerable amendment, and it was the Bill so amended and re-introduced to which he now sought the consent of the House of Commons. He explained the nature of the grievance which it was intended to remedy, and disclaimed any design hostile to the Established Church, his only object being, he said, to promote Christianity.

The second reading was warmly opposed by Lord Robert Cecil, who was followed on the same side by Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Newdegate, Mr. G. Hardy, and Mr. Hunt. Lord Robert argued that the alleged grievance was confined to one sect of Dissenters-the Baptists-whose children, by a rigorous interpretation of the rubric, might be considered as falling within the rule of exclusion; and he contended that, while the grievance was small, the remedy was large, and that the proposed alteration of the law would produce more evils than it would remedy. There was, he said, unconsecrated ground in numerous cemeteries, and he pointed out other limitations of the area of the grievance, dwelling upon the objections to which the measure was open, and upon the evil consequences which would, in his opinion, result from its adoption.

Sir JOHN TRELAWNY opposed the Bill on the special ground that it would put Dissenters in a wrong position in regard to Churchrates. At present their allegation was that they derived no benefit from the expenditure of Church-rates, but if this Bill was passed they would lose the benefit of that argument.

Sir GEORGE GREY declared his intention to vote for the second reading of the Bill, though he could not approve of certain provisions it contained.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, remarking in the outset that this was a matter which should be discussed with care and reserve, and that he was far from saying that the course of proceeding last year bound the House as to the mode of dealing with the Bill, said he should feel the greatest hesitation in refusing his assent to the second reading of the Bill, though he admitted that parts of it were open to exceptions, and to one clause in particular he was opposed. But the question was whether it contained matter for useful legislation, and whether the Dissenters had a prima facie ground of objection to the law as it stood. "The statement," continued the right hon. gentleman, "which has been made in the course of this debate, that Dissenters, under the present law, have not access to our churchyards, has been objected to by some hon. gentlemen. Well, in all its breadth, I am not prepared to support that statement, because, as I understand, Dissenters have access to our churchyards subject to two conditions-viz., subject, first of all, perhaps to the condition

of being baptized; and, secondly, without doubt, subject to the condition of having the service of the Church of England read over their remains by the appointed minister of the Church of England, whatever their objection either to that service or to the communion of the Church as a whole may be. With regard to the matter of baptism, I do not understand it to be clear law whether the unbaptized have a right to sepulture in the parish churchyard or not. If they have not, I cannot deny that it seems to me to be a question worthy of the consideration of the House, whether or not the law should be altered in that respect. I speak now simply of sepulture, and not of religious rites, nor do I presume to give a very confident opinion on that point. But the other point, which is subject to no doubt at all, is one on which I venture to express a very confident and very strong opinion, that it gives the Dissenter some title to come before this House and ask for an alteration of the law. If he has access to the churchyard, or has access to it subject exclusively and absolutely to the condition of having the service of the Church read over his remains, I confess I do not think that that is a state of the law which is consistent with those principles of civil and religious freedom on which for a series of years our legislation has been based. I do not see that there is sufficient reason, or, indeed, any reason at all, why, after having granted, and most properly granted, to the entire community the power of professing and practising what form of religion they please during life, you should say to themselves or their relations when they are dead, We will at the last lay our hands upon you, and not permit you to enjoy the privilege of being buried in the churchyard, where, perhaps, the ashes of your ancestors repose, or, at any rate, in the place of which you are parishioners, unless you appear there as members of the Church of England, and, as members of that Church, have her service read over your remains.' That appears to me an inconsistency and anomaly in the present state of the law, and is in the nature of a grievance." On these grounds he should vote for giving the Bill a fair consideration upon its merits by approving the second reading.

The House, however, came to a different decision, rejecting the motion by 221 to 96.

Of all the political controversies of the time, that of Churchrates appeared to present the most insuperable difficulties, and after many years of struggle to be as remote as ever from a satisfactory solution. Of the possible alternatives which the conditions of the case admitted, there was none which was not liable to serious objections. To retain Church-rates, to abolish them, or to adopt a substitute, appeared to be alike impracticable or unwise. The present condition of things,-under which the obligation of making a rate was recognized by law, yet not enforceable; prescribed as a duty, yet contingent on the fluctuating and precarious vote of a majority; operative in one parish, invalid in another; imposed this year, refused the next;-was justly

regarded as anomalous and intolerable. The simple remedy of abolition, desiderated by Dissenters and by others, who naturally wished to free their property from a burden, was strenuously resisted, on the grounds of prescription and justice, by that large and influential part of the community who were represented by a powerful minority in the House of Commons and a staunch majority in the House of Lords. As for compromises and substitutes, though many and various had been the proposals, no scheme had been suggested which was not declared, by either the one party or the other, more objectionable than the existing system with all its evils and anomalies. Political sagacity was at fault to discover any mode of escape from the difficulties of the problem. The Government cautiously abstained from offering any plan of their own; but such caution was as much a matter of necessity as of wisdom. For the Ministers themselves were far from being unanimous in opinion; nor did it seem likely that any Administration which could be formed would be of one accord upon the question, except as to the policy of leaving it undisturbed. It had consequently been made an open question in Lord Palmerston's cabinet; and while some members of that body and holders of office voted annually for the abolition of the rate, others in the same situation both voted and spoke against that measure. At present the tendency of Parliamentary support seemed to be inclining in favour of the maintenance of the rate. In 1855 the second reading of the Bill for abolishing the rate was carried in the House of Commons by a majority of 28; in 1856 by 43; in 1858 by 53; in 1859 by 74; in 1860 by 29. In 1861, the votes being equal, the Bill was lost by the casting vote of the Speaker; and in 1862 it was negatived by a majority of one. In the present Session Sir John Trelawny, who had for so many successive years brought in the repealing Bill, again obtained leave to introduce it, and moved the second reading in a tone of singular moderation, but which betokened no very sanguine hope of a prosperous result. Though unchanged in his opinion, he avowed himself somewhat weary of his annual task, and intimated a wish that some other hands should now undertake the office.

There was, as was naturally to be expected, little novelty in the arguments urged on either side in this debate. In favour of the repeal it was contended by the author of the Bill and Sir C. Douglas, who seconded his motion, that the Church-rate, so long as it was maintained, would be a perennial source of grievance and discontent, and a cause of weakness rather than of strength to the Establishment. They denied that the question at issue involved the principle of a National Church. According to the law, as declared by the highest authorities, the right to impose a Churchrate depended upon the act of a majority in each parish. To stake the existence of the Church of England upon the right to exact this impost, was to place it on the most narrow and precarious