Estcourt's Resolutions had been very materially altered since he first gave notice of them on the 23rd of May. He could not conceive anything more calculated to breed ill-feeling between owners and occupiers in a parish than the first Resolution. To the two other propositions, by themselves, he would have given his most cordial support; but he feared the discussion would show that there were but two settlements of the question-total abolition, or that embodied in the two latter Resolutions without the first.

Mr. Disraeli strongly urged the Government to take up this subject, with a view to its settlement. It could only be brought to a satisfactory solution in the hands of the Ministry.

After a brief reply, Mr. S. Estcourt withdrew his Resolution, and the amendment also was withdrawn.

The last attempt made this Session to deal with the subject of Church-rates, was by a Bill, introduced by Mr. Newdegate, to authorize the commutation of the rate for a rent-charge to be levied on the proprietors of land. In moving the second reading of this Bill, on the 9th of July, the hon. member explained that it was his object to have it referred to a Select Committee. He then, in a speech of considerable length, argued that Church-rates were, and had been admitted to be, practically, a charge upon real property, and he proposed by the Bill to do away with all personal liability in respect of Church-rates, and to charge them upon the property, making them payable by the owner. This, he said, was the principle of the

Bill, and he explained its main provisions, and the machinery by which he proposed to assess the amount of the rate, and to levy it. This part of the measure, he said, could be considered and modified by the Committee.

Alderman Sidney said the errors on the face of the Bill, which dealt with only a moiety of the property and population of the country, were so patent, that the House should reject the Bill. He pointed out some of the errors to which he referred, and moved to defer the second reading for three months.

Mr. Heygate recommended the withdrawal of the Bill, which was urged also by Sir George Grey, who showed that it was impossible for a Select Committee to deal with it during the present Session.

The Bill, after some further discussion, was given up.

Early in the Session Mr. E. P. Bouverie obtained leave to bring in a Bill for the relief of persons in Holy Orders of the Church of England, declaring their dissent therefrom, from the restrictions and penalties to which they are now by law made subject. In moving the second reading of this measure on the 9th April, the right hon. gentleman explained his reasons for proposing it. Many persons, he said,owing to scruples on theological points, were desirous of freeing themselves from the obligations imposed upon them by their ordination and by the canons of the Church; and when he considered what the subscriptions were which were required from clergyman, he did not wonder at a person, in afterlife, feeling scruples upon the subject. Yet the law held him to his obligations, and forbade him.

to engage in any lay pursuit, though he might become a Roman Catholic priest. He asked the House whether it was just and right that the law should be in such a state, imposing, in fact, a temporal penalty for religious opinions. He insisted that the relief his Bill proposed would be not only just to individuals, but for the interest of the Church of England, it being to the prejudice of the Church forcibly to retain dissatisfaction within its pale, instead of suffering, and even inviting, it to go out. He should not object, he added, to the Bill being referred to a Select Committee.

Sir W. Heathcote, who had given notice of a motion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, observed that there was some confusion in Mr. Bouverie's argument. He had not distinguished the cases of beneficed and un

beneficed clergymen. He was not aware that a clergyman, unless holding a benefice, was under any disability. There was, however, a residuum of grievance which he desired to relieve, and he was ready to assent to the second reading of the Bill with the understanding that it would be referred to a Select Committee; but unless it came out of the Committee in a very different state, he should be disposed to resist the passing of the Bill.

Mr. M. Milnes thought the Bill, in its present state, might offer a premium upon heresy, and place persons in an inconvenient and even immoral position. He, however, desired that some measure should be devised to liberate persons who had taken Orders in the Church at an early age from their obligations without stain upon their character or degradation.

Lord Stanley, after quoting in favour of the principle of the Bill a pamphlet written in 1849 by the present Bishop of Exeter, said he supported its principle upon two grounds; first, that it was for the interest of the Church of England; secondly, that it would be an act of justice to individuals. He, however, suggested various points of detail which, in his opinion, would require consideration.

Mr. Walter was prepared to support the second reading of the Bill; at the same time he agreed with Mr. Milnes and Lord Stanley that there were many details in the Bill which required serious and grave consideration. thought there was force in the remark of Mr. Milnes that the Bill would offer, to a certain extent, what amounted to a premium upon heresy.

He

Mr. Hubbard did not deny that there was a certain small amount of grievance, but he demurred to the title of the Bill and to the spirit in which some of the clauses were drawn. He was ready to relieve the grievance, but not by throwing a slur upon the clergy.

Mr. Newdegate considered the measure to be crude and partial. He thought it inconsistent with the character of the Church of England that persons who had taken priest's orders should be at liberty to abandon them at their own mere will, without the sanction of any tribunal.

Sir G. Grey said he retained the opinions he had expressed upon a former occasion, that it was desirable some provision should be made to relieve clergymen of the Church of England, who had conscientiously changed their opinions, from the obligations they had contracted, and

from liability to proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court. There were provisons in this Bill, however, especially those contained in the 7th clause, which required careful consideration. He agreed with the suggestion that it would be better if deacon's orders were not irrevocable.

The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be referred to a Select Committee, where it underwent considerable modifica tions, devised to meet the objections of those who apprehended mischief to the Church from certain of its provisions. Upon the motion being made for the third reading on the 9th of July, the opponents of the Bill mustered in some force against it, and the attendance in the House being thin, its supporters had to fight the battle at a disadvantage.

Sir L. Palk moved that the third reading should be deferred for three months, alleging that the principle of the measure, which would relieve persons from the most solemn vows and obligations, was so objectionable that he felt bound, even at this late stage of its progress, to resist the Bill.

Lord Henley expressed an earnest hope that the House would not stop the Bill at this stage. He did not approve of all that it contained, but it was confined to the Church of England, and only relieved those who differed from its doctrines, and objected to its discipline.

Mr. Bouverie thought he had a right to complain of the course adopted by Sir L. Palk, in calling upon the House, at the last moment, to reject this Bill, the object of which was to give to clergymen

of the Church of England liberty of conscience, and to exempt them from temporal penalties. He repeated, in support of the Bill, the arguments he had urged on its earlier stages.

Mr. Roebuck, after exposing in very plain and free terms, the two ideas whence he considered the opposition to the Bill to spring, observed that it merely said that one who had taken priest's orders, and afterwards dissen ed from the Church of England, shall not be followed by the penalties of the law for so doing.

Sir George Grey observed that it seemed to be admitted that cases of hardship might arise under the existing law, and he trusted that the House would adhere to its previous decisions in favour of the Bill.

On a division, the amendment was carried by 98 to 88.

The Bill was consequently lost. Another attempt, attended with a still smaller measure of success, was made by Lord Ebury in the House of Lords, to relax the Ecclesiastical Law, by making certain amendments in the Act of Uniformity. Two Bills with this object were laid by the noble Lord on the table of the House of Lords, the provisions of which he explained at length upon moving that they be read a second time.

Two years ago, the noble Lord said, he had moved for a Royal Commission to inquire into the Liturgy and the Acts of Uniformity, with a view to adopting such changes as might be requisite after the lapse of two centuries. Though the motion was negatived it met with support, which had led him to introduce two Bills at the commencement

of this Session: the first, to give greater elasticity to the celebration of divine service than the present rubric allowed; and the second, which he then moved should be read a second time, to relax the extreme severity of the terms of subscription imposed by the Act of 1662. Besides the Act of Uniformity, however, the Act of 1st Elizabeth was still in force, with all the tremendous penalties of the age, and requiring an "unfeigned assent and consent to everything contained in and prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer," on admission to a benefice. The effect of this subscription had been to drive out hundreds of excellent and valuable ministers when first enacted, and to keep out thousands of similar ministers ever since, while no compensating advantages what ever had been received by the Church. Neither piety, unity, nor even uniformity had been really promoted, and he called upon the House to do away with a superfluous form of subscription, and thereby promote that best of all things, Christian harmony.

The Bishop of London pointed out that, as the declaration proposed to be abolished applied solely to persons taking possession of benefices, and persons in the highest position in the Church even Bishops had never been called upon to make it, the number relieved by the Bill would be comparatively but small. He did not believe at all in the gradual deterioration of the standard of candidates for ordination, and was convinced that the proposed change would not really conciliate any Dissenters. He should oppose the motion.

The Earl of Shaftesbury hoped the motion would not be pressed to a division, as the clergy and public were hardly yet prepared for a decision of the question. At the same time it was one of vital importance to the Church, and he believed that it would be hard to maintain the integrity of the Church unless something in the way of liturgical revision, and something analogous to the proposal before the House was adopted.

Earl Russell joined in hoping that Lord Ebury would not press the motion. The question was one which it was desirable should be fully discussed at the Universities, and wherever men took an interest in the well-being of the Church. Such discussion would be conducive to its peaceable settlement, and he hoped it would be left to that discussion for the present.

The Bishop of Oxford denied the alleged necessity for any measure of relief, and ridiculed the arguments and facts brought forward by Lord Ebury. Unless their lordships were prepared to give up the principle of subscrip tion entirely, they could not pass the Bill before them.

After some further debate, the Bill was by leave withdrawn.

Mr. Monckton Milnes brought the long-contested question of Marriages of Affinity again before Parliament this year by a Bill to legalize marriage with a deceased wife's sister. He supported his case by the arguments against the restriction which had been repeatedly adduced in the Legislature, and obtained leave to introduce the measure, though not without a protest from some members, and an intimation that