the Church of England I have no fear of her. It is not the trumpery £270,000 a year on which the Church depends. We have been told that this is not a question between Church and State, that it is but a stepping-stone in that direction, and that it will require enormous strides to get to a more distant place. But it is a step; and I now call upon hon. Members who know and who feel that the abolition of church rates would not advance the cause of truth and righteousness to advocate in the House of Commons the principles which they advocate in their own homes and in their own hearts.

granted that at no previous period had the Church of England a greater hold on the affections of the people, but this he attributed not to external ornament, but to her intrinsic worth, to the beauty of her Liturgy, the comprehensiveness of her Articles, and he would add to the piety and activity of her clergy. The House might feel interested in hearing a few statisties connected with the county which he had the honour of representing (Cardiganshire.) The population of the county of Cardigan was for the most part poor, and numbered 97,614. There existed religious provision for 97 per cent; of that the Dissenters provided 70-4 per cent, the remaining 27'8 being provided by the Church of England. The proportion of Dissenters to Church people was nine to one; the number of chapels 192, the number of churches 68. The free-will offerings of the Nonconformists for religious purposes might be fairly estimated at an annual sum of £13,000. He merely cited these figures to prove the zeal of his countrymen for their religious belief. There had been of late rumours of approximation between the Church of England and the Greek and Roman Churches, but a much more praetical approximation might be effected at home, and if Parliament decided to abolish church rates, a great barrier would be removed to the union of the various Pretestant communities in this great country.

SIR THOMAS LLOYD said, he must apologize for trespassing, however briefly, on the attention of the House. He wished to say, however, that if he were apprehensive that the vote he was about to give would be prejudicial to the interests of the Church of England, of which he was an attached member, no political considerations, however urgent, would induce him to do so. If, moreover, he believed that this measure was but a step towards the separation of Church and State, he should be the last man in the House to consent to it. But there were two considerations which influenced him on the present occasion-first, the interests of the Church herself; and, next, the question of justice to the Nonconformists of the kingdom. It was an anxiom of sound legislation that for the maintenance and well-being of ex- MR. MORLEY said, he desired to say & isting institutions Parliament must be pre- few words to the House as he had been pared to redress any well-grounded griev-particularly alluded to during the debate. ances which might be shown to exist. The question then arose whether church rates were really a grievance? In his opinion they were. He admitted that this had not always been the case, for, at the remote period when church rates were first instituted, there was a practical uniformity of belief throughout the kingdom. Some millions of our fellow-subjects now dissented from the Church of England, and he would ask the House whether it was for the interests of the Church that they should allow a rankling sense of injustice to remain in the minds of this numerous class, and from want of timely concession number among the Church's foes those who, under different treatment, might have been retained as friends? There were those who regarded church rates principally as an honourable badge of distinction in connection with the State, and who maintained that if church rates were abolished the Church would be ruined. Now, he

Mr. Gathorne Hardy

He earnestly desired that the olive branch held out might be accepted. The vast majority of the Dissenters of this country regarded this subject, not as a political, but purely as a religious question, and thousands of the Nonconformists throughout the country would, he believed, hail with pleasure such a settlement of the question as that proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Allusion had been made to the evidence which he gave before the Committee of the House of Lords, and he might state that when summoned before the Committee he had no knowledge of the precise subject upon which he was to be examined. He was met on appearing before the Committee by the Bishop of London with the report of the Liberation Society in his hand, and, without desiring to impute any motive to that distinguished personage, the whole thing appeared to be done for a purpose. A great number of the Dissenters of this country regarded,

that might be made embodying what had been foreshadowed in more that one direction that day. If the second reading of the Bill were passed and the principle of the Bill affirmed he would be glad to take into consideration any suggestion which might be made to him.

MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I only rise to warn hon. Members not to fancy they are voting on one issue when they are really voting on another. The question before the House is the second reading of a Bill for the total, immediate, and unconditional abolition of church rates. That is the real and only issue. The speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Morley), which, for its frankness, does him great credit, acknowledges that there is another issue before the House worthy of consideration, and, from the cheers that expression received from the friends of the hon. Member, I assume that they adopt that interpretation of the position in which the matter stands. If that be the case, the consistent course for the hon. Member for Bury to adopt is to move the adjournment of the debate, and take an oppor

as he did, the property of the Church as the property of the nation-property with which the House was entitled to deal, but he did not believe that one Dissenter in a thousand desired to touch a shilling of the Church property. The question that not only Dissenters were asking, but others, too, with an emphasis which could not long remain unanswered, was, How, with a Church confessedly the richest in the world, millions of our population were living beyond the influence of religion? He was glad to acknowledge that at no former period in the history of the English Church had she among her clergy so many true-hearted and earnest men as were now preaching her doctrines and ministering to the spiritual and religious welfare of the people. But such men for the most part knew little, and cared little, about church rates; they were men who loved the flock more than the fleece, whose sole aim was to preach the Gospel, and tend to the religious instruction and guidance of the people, and who in furtherance of that object had, by invoking the co-operation of the laity, resorted to organizations which might almost be re-tunity that the sense of the House may garded as non-ecclesiastical. Dissenters be had on the real proposition before it, would be delighted to see the Established and not on one which, at the very time Church taking the lead in efforts for pro- when the question is called to a division, moting the spiritual good of the people. is explained with so many versions that Religion had been marred in this country there exists a variety of opinions as to its by the interference of the civil power, and exact import. I will not offer my own init was a great question that was being dis- terpretation of the observations of the cussed by the public, whether the Church Chancellor of the Exchequer, because they was to continue her work through organ- really have nothing to do with the question izations, the outgrowth of her own re- now before the House. If the scheme of ligious life, or through organizations pro- the Chancellor of the Exchequer be worthy vided for her by the civil power. The a decision of the House, let it be placed House would excuse his speaking warmly before the House in a manner which cannot upon a subject in which he felt deeply in- be mistaken, and, coming from such a terested. He would accept with pleasure quarter, I am sure it will meet with a full the proposal of the Chancellor of the Ex- consideration and adequate discussion. But chequer, and if hon. Members were honest I protest against schemes of that chain desiring to see an end to the conflicts racter proceeding from the highest auwhich had continually arisen upon this sub-thority in the House being introduced to ject they would support the second reading of the Bill, and so secure for themselves an opportunity of considering the proposal which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. HARDCASTLE said, he would consent to no proposal which should in the slightest degree interfere with the main principle of his Bill. That principle was, the abolition of church rates; but if that were sanctioned he would, at a future stage of the Bill, entertain, with the greatest respect and consideration, any proposal

disturb the debate and distract the House. from the real issue-an unwise issue, I believe, on the part of those who raise it, but, being raised, it must be accepted and met-namely, the proposition for the total and immediate abolition of church rates. That is a policy to which I am entirely opposed, and it is the only question before the House.

Question put, the House divided :-The Tellers being come to the Table, Mr. Walpole, one of the Tellers for the Noes,

Cavendish, Lord F. C. Gridley, Captain H. G.

Leeman, G.

Lefevre, G. J. S.
Lewis, H.
Lloyd, Sir T. D.
Locke, J.

Lowe, rt. hon. R.
Lusk, Alderman A.
MacEvoy, E.
Mackie, J.

Mackinnon, Capt. L. B.
Mackinnon, W. A.
Maguire, J. F.
M'Laren, D.
Marjoribanks, D. C.
Marsh, M. H.
Marshall, W.
Martin, C. W.
Martin, P. W.
Merry, J.

Mills, J. R.
Milton, Viscount
Mitchell, A.

Mitchell, T. A.
Moffatt, G.

Monk, C. J.

O'Reilly, M. W.
Otway, A. J.
Owen, Sir H. O.
Padmore, R.
Parry, T.

Peel, A. W.

Pelham, Lord

Select Committee on Mines [Feb. 15] nominated :-Mr. BRUCE, Mr. LIDDELL, Mr. NEATE, Mr. GREENALL, Mr. FAWCETT, Sir PHILIP EGERTON, Mr. KINNAIRD, Mr. POWELL, Mr. AYRTON, General DUNNE, Mr. CLIVE, Mr. FERRAND, Mr. HUSSEY VIVIAN, Viscount CRANBOURNE, and Mr. WOODS:

it had been so altered in the Committee of the House of Commons and in the Select Committee, that the clauses relating to the primary object of the Bill were inconveniently scattered.

Several clauses, the omission of which was proposed by the Select Committee, were struck out; several new clauses proposed to be inserted by the Select Committee, were agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill :-Clauses struck out.

Clause 14 (Penalty for moving contrary to Act).

EARL GREY instanced a case of pecu liar hardship, in which a boy charged with infringing the law in reference to the cattle plague was fined, the master, although the boy had acted by his directions, refusing to pay the penalty. He therefore proposed the insertion of words giving the magistrates power under such circumstances to summon the master, and impose the penalty upon the person by whose orders the

-Power to send for persons, papers, and records; law was infringed, instead of on the person

Five to be the quorum.

House adjourned at Five o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS,

Thursday, March 8, 1866.

actually committing the offence.
Clause postponed.

Clause E (Continuation of Part I. of
Cattle Diseases Act).

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND said, their Lordships had recently passed an Act by which the slaughter of infected cattle was rendered compulsory until the 15th of April. The effect of the clause now before the House was to repeal the powers of the MINUTES.-Several Lords took the Oath. PUBLIC BILLS-First Reading-Consolidated Fund Privy Council given under the 12th section (£1,137,772)*; Princess Helena's Annuity of the previous Act. He therefore pro (39); Prince Alfred's Annuity (40); Qualifi-posed to amend the clause by giving power cation for Offices Abolition (41); Salmon Fisheries (Scotland)* [H.L.] (42). Committee-Cattle Plague (33). Report-Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Cattle Plague* (43). Third Reading-Cattle Plague (43); Savings Banks and Post Office Savings Banks* (31).

(17);

CATTLE PLAGUE BILL. (The Lord President.) (Nos. 27, 33, 33*). COMMITTEE. [The Amendments made by the Select Committee, by the omission, alteration, and insertion of clauses, were so numerous, that it is difficult to follow the exact course of the discussion in the Committee.]

House in Committee (according to Order). EARL GRANVILLE said, he should ask the House to consent to the re-arrangement of the clauses of the Bill, because

to the Privy Council to continue the com pulsory slaughter clause of the previous Act after the 15th of April, in case they should think fit to do so, with certain qualifications; so that instead of giving the Privy Council a discretionary power a once to discontinue compulsory slaughter, in the terms of the clause, his Amendment would defer that discretionary power unt after the 15th of April.

Amendment proposed.

In Clause E., added by the Select Committee, moved to leave out ("Notwithstanding anything in The Cattle Diseases Prevention Act, 1866, 5 shall be lawful for the Lords of Her Majesty Privy Council from Time to Time by Order to and insert (" Her Majesty may in continuing fr Time to Time, or renewing if expired, the Pre

visions of Part I. of The Cattle Diseases Preve tion Act, 1866, relating to the Slaughter of seased Animals.")-(The Duke of Richmond.)