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

basis. The Dissenters objected to Church-rates, because they contended that the Church had no right to tax them against their will, nor would they consent to any measure which appeared to place them in a subsidiary position as regarded the Church. Within the last fifty years Nonconformists had been recognized by law, and had acquired one after another legal rights, which now people wondered had ever been denied them. Notwithstanding, however, all this progress, justice was still incomplete. Church-rates by compulsion still formed a link in the chain, which the present century had done so much to unloose, and complete religious equality had still to be established.

The maintenance of the fabric of churches, and the needful means of public worship, might, if the Bill should pass, be safely left to the spontaneous liberality of the members of the Church of England, who had within the last thirty years raised such prodigious sums for the building and restoration of churches. throughout the country.

On the other hand, it was argued by Mr. G. Hardy, who moved the rejection of the Bill, by Mr. Whiteside, and Lord John Manners, that the issue before the House was, whether the Church of England should continue to be the Church established by law. There was nothing unjust or intolerable in the operation of the tax upon Dissenters. In this country there had always been an Established Church, and Church-rates had been levied for 1000 years, with the consent of the possessors of the land, and civil advantages resulted from an establishment for which it was fair and reasonable that all should pay. As to a compromise, every offer which had been made that would relieve tender consciences had been refused. This was not a question of money; it was a question of supremacy, whether it was right or wrong that we should have a State establishment at all. Voluntary efforts could not be relied upon for sustaining the fabric of a church, since they were uncertain, spasmodic, requiring stimulants; and the difficulties of the clergy, already great, ought not to be increased. The discord and heart-burnings occasioned by the Church-rate contests were, indeed, to be lamented; but it was satisfactory to observe that there had of late been a marked decrease in the number and acrimony of these contests. Never since the controversy had been agitated had there been more Church-rates levied than in the present year. The declining Parliamentary support which the Bill had met with since 1858 was another evidence of the altered state of the public mind upon this question. Let the House reject this Bill, as the indispensable step to that safe and temperate improvement which all admitted that the law of Church-rates required.

Occupying an intermediate position between the two opposite views thus declared, Sir George Grey stated the course which he, as an individual member of the Government, anxious in the

interests of the Established Church for an equitable settlement of this controversy, intended to adopt.

It seemed to him that there had been an exaggerated importance attached to it by those who advocated the abolition of Churchrates, and by those who were for the retention of the present system. He could not concur with those who went the length of saying that Church-rates were an intolerable grievance; and, on the other hand, he could not think that the principle of the Established Church was at all connected with the retention of Church-rates. It was unwise in the friends of the Church to stake its existence on Church-rates. The great difference between the existence of the Church and the maintenance of Churchrates was shown by the fact, that in very many parts of the country no Church-rates were levied. In many of the large and populous parishes Church-rates had practically been abolished, so that about one-half the population was exempted from the payment of those rates. They had been abolished in most of the populous towns of the kingdom. He asked whether the principle of the Established Church had been weakened in those places? Again, the district churches, which had risen in such numbers within the last few years, were maintained without Church-rates. Then he took the case of Ireland. He asked hon. members who said that Churchrates and the Established Church must stand or fall together, whether they were prepared to maintain that the Irish branch of the United Church stood now in a worse position than it did thirty-five years ago, before Church cess was abolished? Having said so much on that point, he felt bound to confess that it was not without reluctance he was about to vote for a Bill for the total abolition of Church-rates. He had always held that in those parishes where for many years there had been, by general consent of the inhabitants, a small rate levied for the purpose of maintaining the church, it would be a hard thing to say that no such rate should be levied in future. This brought him to what was called a compromise. Some hon. members seemed to think that a compromise was wholly inadmissible, and that it would be an insult to propose it. He would remind hon. members that proposals for particular exemptions had come from both sides of the House at various periods. The only difference was this-that the exemptions generally proposed on the Opposition side of the House were exemptions to be granted on special application, stating conscientious objection, or that the party was not a member of the Church of England, while, by the proposals coming from those who were opposed to the present system, no special case was obliged to be made, but merely a simple statement from the parties wishing to be exempted. Holding the views which he did. on the subject, he should vote for the second reading of the Bill; but, in doing so, he felt it right to say that he should hold himself at liberty to abstain from voting for the third reading, should

the Bill reach that stage, and in the mean time no modification had been introduced which would reduce the measure to one for the abolition of compulsory payment of Church-rates. He hoped a system would be adopted under which Church-rates might be made by general consent even in those places where they had long been practically abolished.

Mr. WALTER said, that looking at the question from a Churchman's point of view, and not admitting that Church-rates constituted any grievance, or inflicted any injustice on Dissenters, he believed that they were a source of weakness to the Church, and that it was her interest to get rid of them. He thought that a Church should be maintained by those who used it, and that a modified system of pew-rents would be the best substitute for the

rate.

The debate was not a long one, though it took place in a very crowded House; and the division, which was to decide the fate of the Bill, was anticipated with the most lively interest. It resulted in a majority of 10 against the second reading, the majority being 285, and the minority 275. The announcement was received with enthusiastic cheering on the Conservative side of the House.

After the rejection of Sir J. Trelawny's Bill, the idea of a compromise or substitute was again taken up, and two Bills with this object were introduced into the House of Commons. The first of these, called "The Church-rate Commutation Bill," was proposed by Mr. Newdegate, who, founding his scheme, as he stated, upon a suggestion of the late Sir R. Peel, embodied in his measure the idea of imposing the burden, not upon the occupier, but upon the land, making the land liable to the obligation of supporting the fabric of the church. Assuming that the rate was now in law a charge upon the land, he sought to remove the personal liability now existing, and thus to relieve Dissenters from an invidious test. The Bill also contained some other provisions, partly founded upon the report of the House of Lords' Committee on Church-rates. It met, however, with little or support from any party in the House. Sir C. Douglas declared that it would afford no satisfaction to Dissenters, and moved its rejection, which was seconded by Lord Henley. Sir George Grey gave Mr. Newdegate credit for his good intentions, and for some valuable features in his Bill, but he feared it would prove, as a working measure, impracticable. One or two valuable provisions it certainly contained, as, for example, the power given to landowners to discharge their property from any Church-rate, and the exemption of parishes where the rate had not for a certain time been levied, or had been for a certain time refused. This was a provision which must find its place in any Bill which recognized the continuance of Church-rates. But its value in this instance was lessened by the clause which enabled parishes, in certain cases, to revive Church-rates, because he

thought it better that where the tax was put an end to at all, it should be permanently extinguished. The principle of the Bill was the proposed transfer of the charge from the rate-payer to the owner. Mr. Newdegate proposed a uniform charge of 2d. in the pound, and that, subject to the exemption of certain parishes, the charge should be levied upon property, the occupier being called upon in the first instance to pay the charge, but being entitled to deduct it from his rent, in the absence of any special agreement to the contrary between landlord and tenant. Now, he quite admitted that Church-rates were a charge upon real property, but too much had been made of the argument that, because they were such a charge, purchasers paid less for real property than if Church-rates did not exist. The fact was that the tax was so small in amount that it did not enter into consideration. Then the Bill proposed to bring in the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty in several capacities-to make them the trustees of all the funds that would be raised under the Bill, to make them to a certain extent administrators of the fund, and also a judicial tribunal, for they were to sit as a court of appeal to decide upon every minute article of expenditure to which a landowner might object. He presumed that this was proposed because, as the vestry would be constituted as before, landowners, unless they were also occupiers, would not be represented there, and were, therefore, considered entitled to an appeal. If they were dissatisfied with the decision of the court he had just mentioned, they might then carry the case before the Lords Justices. But all this sort of machinery was utterly inadequate for the objects which were in view, and he thought, therefore, upon the whole that the hon. gentleman would do well not to press this Bill upon the House.

Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE enforced this recommendation, while he did full justice to the motives which had led to the production of the Bill. Upon a perusal of its clauses, some of which were of a complicated nature, and involved questions on which great differences in principle would be found to exist, it seemed hopeless to expect that the Bill could pass this session, and in a friendly spirit to the mover he counselled its withdrawal. Other members urged the same advice. Mr. Newdegate, however, felt himself bound to those he represented, forming a numerous part of the community, to persevere with his Bill, which he was willing, if read a second time, should be referred to a Select Committee. A division was therefore taken on the second reading, which resulted in the defeat of the Bill by 94 to 56.

The second attempt was made by Mr. Alcock, who proposed a scheme of a less ambitious character. The object of his Bill was simply to give persons an opportunity of redeeming the Churchrates of their particular parish, just as an existing law allows the redemption of the land tax. At present, if persons wished to redeem the Church-rates of their parish, it would be necessary