failed he should no longer stand in the way of the total abolitionists. To Dissenters the Bill offered an abandonment of the principle of compulsion, while to Churchmen it offered the advantage of retaining and extending the existing machinery by which, in many cases, voluntary rates were now levied, without the smallest idea of resorting to compulsion. Explaining the machinery of the clauses, he showed that agreements to pay a voluntary assessment, if any expenditure had been incurred upon them, would be in the same position as contracts to subscribe to a hospital, to a religious society, or a Dissenting place of worship, and could be enforced in a court of equity. To those who objected to the principle of total abolition, he pointed out that but for Lord Derby's abolition of vestry cess in Ireland, more than thirty years ago, the Established Church of Ireland would have ceased to exist long since.

Mr. Henley asserted that the Bill would be an aggravation of the evils of total abolition, and would put so many difficulties in the way of collecting voluntary subscriptions, that he preferred Mr. Hardcastle's Bill. Mr. Gladstone had made it quite clear that any man who agreed to pay a rate might be made a party to a Chancery suit if somebody else failed to carry out their agreement, and this was not a prospect likely to stimulate voluntary contributions.

Mr. Gilpin promised to support the Bill provided it was accepted by the Conservative party as a satisfactory compromise.

Colonel Barttelot did not wholly approve of the Bill, but supported it as containing materials for a settlement of the question.

Lord Cranbourne said Mr. Henley adopted the tone of "all or nothing," but he could not forget that from the same hand from which this Bill came another measure on another subject was offered which was rejected, and in consequence a much more extensive measure had been carried. He thought it wise to accept this offer, because they might go farther and fare

worse.

After some further observations from various members the Bill was read a second time.

The other three Bills were on a subsequent day passed through the same stage, but with the understanding that they should then be postponed for a time while that of Mr. Gladstone was proceeded with in Committee. The first clause of this Bill contained the pith of the measure, the abolition of compulsory Church-rates. Mr. Henley insisted on dividing the House on this clause, which was carried by an overwhelming majority-167 against 30. The other clauses underwent some amendments, chiefly of a formal kind, and the Bill passed through Committee. The third reading was affirmed, a division being called for by Mr. Newdegate, by 131 to 28.

On its being sent to the House of Lords it was proposed by Lord Malmesbury that the Bill should be referred to a Select Com

mittee. Earl Russell, under whose care it was placed, professed his willingness to assent to this course, but on the understanding that the principle was admitted, and that there would be no attempt to shelve the measure for the Session. Lord Malmesbury having assented that the Committee should not enter into the general question of abolishing Church-rates, the House agreed to the motion.

The result of the reference to the Committee was that although the abolition of the compulsory Church-rate was retained, considerable modifications were made in the machinery of the Bill, the Lord Chancellor taking an active part in the process of amendment. The effect of these alterations was clearly stated by Earl Russell upon the occasion of the House resolving itself into a Committee on the Bill as amended. His lordship said, "My impression is that a Bill designed simply to abolish Church-rates unconditionally would, in effect, differ very little from what will be entailed by the passing of this. A few cases will occur of parishes in which there are no resident landlords, but only poor farmers, having a large and expensive church to maintain; in such cases local contributions will be few, but here the Church Building Society and other societies will step in and advance the necessary funds. This is merely my impression of what will occur, though of course the Bill makes no allusion to such cases. It is stated in the preamble that Churchrates have practically ceased in a great many parishes; this is, no doubt, perfectly true, and the first clause proceeds to enact that there shall be no power whatever to compel payment of Churchrates. To that first clause the Government agrees, and therefore in principle the prayer of Dissenters is, in fact, complied with. The object of the House of Commons was to distinguish between ordinary payment and payment compelled by Act of Parliament, in which latter case all will agree payment should continue, because such payments are not properly Church-rates, but are equivalent to commutation of tithe. There are some other cases which may be doubtful, and no matter what arrangements we may make, it is impossible that we can absolutely prevent disputes. All that we can do is to reserve Church-rates which are really commuted tithes, and to take our chance as to any disputes that may arise, and as to the necessity of future legislation, which is not unlikely to occur, especially as there are no less than 700 Acts of Parliament, some of them of a very difficult and intricate nature, in which Church-rates are mentioned. So much with regard to that portion of the Bill which relates to the abolition of compulsory Churchrates. The other part of the measure relates to voluntary contributions for the repair of the fabric and for the other purposes for which rates have been levied. Now the Bill allows vestries to continue the making and receiving of rates, the only difference being that the power of compelling payment is taken away. A vestry may decide that a certain sum is required, and persons may voluntarily pay at a certain rate in the pound. I think that in

this respect the Select Committee have made an improvement, for they retain the vestry, the name and powers of which are well known; and I can conceive that in numerous parishes where Church-rates are at present made no great change will occur in consequence of the absence of compulsion. Things are far more likely to go on as at present under these circumstances than if a new body were constituted, as was proposed by the other House. Then there is a clause empowering the incumbent and two householders, one appointed by the patron and one by the bishop, to act as trustees and receive any bequests, donations, or contributions for ecclesiastical purposes, which funds they may hand over to the churchwardens, to be applied to such ecclesiastical purposes as they may specify. That is a provision which will come into operation in some cases, but I think that the Church Building Society or the churchwardens, will generally apply the contributions they may receive. The noble and learned lord on the woolsack has given notice of a further clause, requiring the trustees to lay before the vestry an annual statement of their receipts and expenditure. Upon the whole this is a Bill which fulfils its object; for while abolishing compulsory rates, it empowers the vestry to make voluntary rates, and it also empowers trustees to receive contributions. As to its general effect, it is, I trust, the settlement of a controversy which ever since 1833 or 1834 has given rise to much ill will and litigation, and therefore the termination of such a dispute is a consummation devoutly to be wished. Moreover, there is much greater anxiety than used to exist to preserve ancient fabrics which are objects of reverence. Such feelings are not confined to members of the Church, for many Protestant Dissenters, members of whose families have been married in churches in past times, would be most unwilling to see those edifices fall into decay, and when the obnoxious compulsory powers are removed I believe they will contribute voluntarily. I know a case, indeed, in which a Dissenter gave 1007. each to two churches, and I believe such cases will be more numerous after the passing of this measure. I hope, therefore, your lordships will adopt the Bill in its present form, and send it down to the House of Commons. I believe Protestant Dissenters, both those who are members of the House of Commons and others who have taken a leading part in the controversy, are satisfied with a measure of this kind, and I am sure it will be a great advantage if we can pass such a Bill by the general consent of both Houses and of both Churchmen and Dissenters. It is much better to settle the question in this way than to leave it open, to be settled, perhaps, hereafter with angry feelings, when one party will be elated by victory and the other will feel sore under defeat. I shall not myself propose any alteration in the Bill as settled by the Select Committee."

The Marquis of Salisbury complained that the Committee had struck out several of the provisions which had been originally in the Bill for the protection of the Church; for instance, the pro

vision by which a Dissenting churchwarden was restrained from administering the voluntary rate, and the compulsory collection of the contributions when once promised to the rate.

The Lord Chancellor thought that although the compulsory levying of Church-rates was abolished, yet the Bill left untouched the parochial machinery-minus that power-for making Church-rates in those numerous parishes where no objection was made.

Lord Derby expressed his willingness to accept the measure as a compromise. "Although," he said, "I retain my objections to doing away with the compulsory power of levying Church-rates, yet, at the same time, the principle of the first clause having been adopted by your lordships, and accepted also by a large majority of the House of Commons, I think it would be useless to struggle against such a majority in both Houses. That point being settled, I will further say that it is my earnest desire that this question should be brought to a satisfactory issue in the present Session, and should not be left open for any further agitation or to be any cause of bitterness among the new constituencies. In many respects I think the Bill has been amended by the Select Committee."

The Archbishop of York approved of the changes which had been made by the Select Committee, as did Lord Lyveden; but the Bishop of Oxford expressed a different opinion. The right reverend prelate, after protesting against the notion that the imposition of a tax upon property could be regarded as a persecution of Dissenters, expressed his opinion as to the amended Bill as follows:-"It is admitted that the compulsory payment of Churchrates is to be given up, and the question before us is the Bill. Although considerable improvements have been made in it, especially in its earlier portions, in one or two of its principal provisions it has been seriously injured, and I shall feel bound to propose amendments upon the report. First, as to the question concerning the settling of future rates by those who have not paid the last. The Lord Chancellor seemed to think that it would be a provocation to Dissenters to object to a voluntary Churchrate being made if those who had not paid the rates would not be parties to settling the way in which a new voluntary rate should be made. The Bill that contained that clause was a compromise and a compact between the Dissenters and the House of Commons, and the representatives of the Church of England there. It was most thoroughly considered by the Dissenting members of the House of Commons, who, I must say, in this matter seem to have kept faith in the most praiseworthy manner with those who had the management of this Bill, and they agreed that it was a clause to which Dissenters had not any right to object. Neither do I think it is possible to say they have. Any person can come again into the voluntary Church-rate vestry by paying his own share of the rate for the year past; he does not

At

lose any right; it is not that he must pay it now or never. any time he can join that body which settles whether there shall or shall not be a voluntary rate by paying a subscription equal to the amount of the last rate. The main objection always taken to Church-rates has been the compulsion, and not the amount. Those who objected to pay them have often said they would willingly give double the amount as a free gift, but they objected to the power to compel them to pay any thing. That is entirely taken away by the Bill, and therefore there is no temptation to come the first time and object to the starting of the machinery. On the contrary, their representatives in Parliament have agreed to start it, and I think the probability is that, receiving this as a sacrifice on the part of the Church, and gratified that it has given up the power of compulsion, they will be more ready than others to start the new machinery fairly. But the objection that it is new machinery I deny, for in nineteen cases out of twenty the vestry will be precisely the same, and the rate will be made as before, with this one difference, that the payment of it cannot be enforced. The transition from the existing to the future legal state is, therefore, a simple matter. I believe that the vestry will be an increasing rather than a dying-away constituency, especially in country parishes, where farmers will not like to be left out. But suppose the number of payers diminishes every year, you will realize a state of inanition just as you would if opponents prevented the starting of the machinery. It does seem to me it is a fundamental error in the Bill, as altered by the Select Committee, that it takes away the one thing which would work well. Whilst in the country parishes there would be very little change, how would the Bill work in the towns where the rate has been refused? If the Bill passes through Committee I shall feel bound to move several amendments on the report being brought up."

In pursuance of this notice the right reverend prelate, on the next stage of the measure, moved to insert a clause providing that no person should be allowed to vote upon the expenditure of any money for Church purposes who had not contributed to the rate levied for the same.

The Archbishop of York opposed this amendment as calculated to alienate waverers from the Church, and it was rejected by a majority of forty-six peers against thirteen.

On the question that the Bill do pass, certain amendments having been made at the instance of the Bishop of London and the Lord Chancellor, some parting words were uttered at the last stage of this long-pending controversy.

The Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol wished, in a few sentences, to enter his protest against the passing of this measure. In saying "( non-content he was uttering the sentiments of others as well as his own. He protested against the passing of the Bill, because it was the giving up of a great principle. By passing this Bill they were giving up a portion of the heritage of the Church. He knew