Bill were rejected, he would be prepared to introduce a Bill founded upon the suggestions which he had made in 1856." And Sir G. C. Lewis, whilst agreeing in that compromise, declared that, "if Parliament were to abolish Church Rates by a compulsory process, the gain would accrue, not to the ratepayer, but to the landlord." On a motion of Mr. Puller, however, Lord John Russell was even more explicit, expressing himself as follows:"With regard to the subject itself, he had only to say that he really could not understand how they could have a National Church Establishment without some provision or other for repairing its places of worship. They had such a provision both in Scotland and Ireland, and it did seem to him that it was unreasonable to say that they should have a provision to maintain the minister, but no provision to maintain the churches. He was ready to listen to any reasonable proposal for a substitute for Church Rates; although he felt great objections to the proposal of his right honourable friend the member for Morpeth (Sir G. Grey), he would be ready to consent to it rather than leave the matter as it had been, an occasion of strife. He was willing, he repeated, to consider any fair proposal on the subject, but if they came to the question of an absolute abolition of the rate, he must vote against that, as a

violation of the principle of a Church Establishment." But the most singular episode of the year in connection with Church Rates, was the precipitate renegadism of Sir J. Graham. On the second reading in February, and under the Whig Ministry, Sir James voted as usual, against Sir J. Trelawny's Bill. Before the third reading in June, Lord Derby, for the second time, had assumed the reins of office, and then Sir J. Graham at once deserted the post he had held so long, and which, as in 1837, he had defended so manfully. What was still worse, he abandoned his post contrary to his own sense of rectitude and justice; for, whilst voting for the third reading of Sir J. Trelawny's Bill, he proclaimed, "I am not one of those who think this question of Church Rates a question of religious liberty, and I am not prepared to admit the right of Dissenters to claim the abolition of this rate." Unhappily, the infection of perfidy spread, and therefore ceased to excite amazement. In the records of 1859 we shall meet with many such renegades, whose treachery, if did not save Sir James's reputation, at all events helped to keep it in countenance. The year 1858 was also remarkable as witnessing the first appearance of Sir J. Trelawny's Bill in the House of Lords, where, however, it was effectually stifled, by 187 votes against 36. But the

speeches delivered on the occasion add more than even the majority of votes to the verdict of that assembly. Lord Wensleydale said:-"In the full and satisfactory judgment on the Braintree Church Rate Case, it was distinctly laid down that there was at common law not an option, but an absolute and binding legal duty on every parish to repair its church; and no judge, in the course of the long discussions which have taken place in these late years, has even intimated a doubt on this subject. This legal obligation is analogous to that on parishes to repair all highways within their limits, save such as individuals are bound to repair ratione tenuræ, or a township by custom, or others specially exempt. Every one ought to obey the law, and is not morally excused from obedience by the chance of impunity, any more than a person would who should chance to commit a more serious crime, when he knew it would be easy to escape punishment."

The Duke of Newcastle:-" This question was treated by many as one of religious liberty, and by others as a violation of Church property. I cannot regard it as a question of religious liberty, for no man had a right, on religious grounds, to object to the payment of taxes. The Dissenter had no more right to refuse to pay Church Rates, when legally imposed, than the Quaker had to

refuse payment of taxes because a portion of them went for warlike purposes." Even Earl Granville, though stultifying himself by voting for the measure, was constrained to admit that "there appears to be no doubt whatever that, by the common law of England, there is a right on the part of the Church to the maintenance of the fabric of the Church by Church Rates." Earl Grey, however, in memorable words, declared-"I must express my great satisfaction at finding that, even among the noble lords who support the second reading of this Bill, there has not been one who has ventured to say that it is a just course to pursue, that a provision which has been made from a time beyond legal memory for the maintenance of churches, should be swept away, to the profit of the landowners of England. I should describe this Bill as a measure of injustice and robbery towards the labouring poor of the land. The labouring poor of this country are entitled to have their churches maintained by the land of the country; and yet that legal obligation is now proposed to be swept away without any compensation or substitute being provided. What is this but undisguised spoliation of the poor by the rich?" Equally pointed and forcible was Lord St. Leonards' judgment upon Church Rates-"It is the right of the poor at

the expense of the rich; not depending upon bounty, but upon actual legal liability. He who improperly withholds his assent, robs the poor. Your Lordships are asked to commit this spoliation for your own benefit. Your Lordships' estates are all charged with the payment of Church Rates for the benefit of the poor as well as the rich, and you are not at liberty to divest yourselves or your property of that obligation. If you did, the landowners of England would put millions of money into their own pockets at the expense of the poor throughout the country."

Finally, Lord Derby, then Premier, summed up the argument thus:

"Church Rates are a tax which the Church of England has a right to receive upon the one hand, and which every landlord throughout the country is bound to pay upon the other, as a debt upon his estate, from the liquidation of which he must not hope to escape, upon the plea of conscience. I cannot, in point of principle, concur with those who contend that a Dissenter, as a Dissenter, has a right to be relieved from it. On a portion of my property the great tithes are owned by a Roman Catholic, but what would be said if I were to declare that I had conscientious scruples against paying tithes to a Roman Catholic, and should