lists in 1859, 1860, 1861, 1862, and 1863. However, whilst disclaiming any change of opinion; whilst declaiming, in fact, against the wrong and injustice of abolition, the Whig leaders in 1859 changed their votes in favour of abolition. The Whigs, indeed, may claim to have discovered a new principle in morals. They are the only penitents in whose case conviction is not the forerunner or the concomitant of conversion. With them the latter change anticipates and supersedes the former. But notwithstanding this wholesale apostasy of the Whig chiefs, Sir J. Trelawny's majority was less than before. On the former division it was 74; on this occasion it had dropped to 70. Thus the same year which saw the flood-tide of abolition at its height, saw also the waves receding. From that division on the second reading in the second Session of 1859, the ebb-tide has set in more and more strongly, till the majority on Sir J. Trelawny's Bill has faded away faster than it rose. In supporting that measure in 1859, I may add, that Mr. Baines confessed that "in discussing the question of abolition, he thought it only fair and right to say that he stood up avowedly as a Dissenter, and as one of those who did not approve the union of Church and State."

One of the means most effective to the change just remarked was doubtless the appointment this

year of a Select Committee of Peers, on the motion. of the Duke of Marlborough, to inquire into the operation of the law and practice of Church Rates. Preposterous as it would be to affirm that any new light was cast upon the question by this committee, in presence of what has been advanced in this narrative, it is quite certain that to the majority of persons the disclosures made before the select committee by Dr. Foster and Mr. S. Morley, the Chairmen respectively of the Parliamentary and Electoral Committees of the Liberation Society, were entirely novel and equally astounding. Still, nothing was elicited which had not been professed again and again within the House of Commons, from the first session of the first Reformed Parliament, in 1833, downwards, and nothing half so startling as much that was published on authority in the "Proceedings of the first Anti-State-Church Conference" in 1844. In fact, to those who have read the extracts before given from the Nonconformist, the evidence of Dr. Foster and Mr. S. Morley before the Select Committee of the Peers, in 1859, will read as something altogether stale and flat, if not unprofitable. But as the latest confession, and from the lips of two of the chief potentates of democratic Dissent, the subjoined extracts may possibly repay perusal.

The Duke of Marlborough, Chairman; July 18th, 1859-Mr. Samuel Morley, examined :

"Q. 756. In fact, this question of Church Rates, as you present it, is but a small point altogether, as compared with the great question of the separation of Church and State?-[Answered in the affirmative.]

Q. 763. You have stated that there is a strong opinion on the part of Dissenters that Church Rates ought to be abolished, even as applicable to Churchmen ?-YES, CLEARLY.

Q. 764. Would that apply to all Dissenters ? -With very few exceptions, probably it would.

Q. 772. Still, do you look upon the abolition of Church Rates as taking off one link in the connection of Church and State?-UNQUESTIONABLY.

Q.773. And a step in the direction of that ultimate object which it is desired to attain for the promotion of the interests of religion ?—I quite think so.

A. to Q.797. I have no hesitation in saying that, if a Bill were introduced into the House of Commons to-night, the object of which would be to charge upon Churchmen the support of their own places of worship, there would be opposition to it commenced to-morrow which would be fatal to the measure.

A. to Q. 842. I merely meant to refer to the fact that there is in every constituency a representative body of the views which I have put before this Committee. The particular Society to which reference has been made, has correspondents in every constituency, and there is a degree of cooperation with them, not on behalf only, I beg the Committee to believe, of mere noisy talkers, but of earnest, thoughtful persons, in every constituency and in every moderately large town; and there is a course of action which candidates understand perfectly well, and which is found to be operative on this particular question.

Q. 844. Does your Society send down individuals into different parishes in the country? -Not frequently."

The Duke of Marlborough, Chairman; July 26th, 1859;-Charles James Foster, LL.D., examined :

"Q. 1507. May I ask what the objects are which your Society have in view?-We wish to what is commonly called separate the Church from the State. We wish to take away all funds and property with which the State has endowed any religious denomination whatever. We wish also to free all denominations of persons who may happen to be under special legislation, on religious grounds, from such special legislation.

Q. 1511. Do you include tithes ?—YES.

Q. 1519. Suppose that persons not conforming to the Church were exempted from the payment of Church Rates, would that satisfy the body of Dissenters ?-I THINK NOT.

Q. 1522. Do you think it is consistent with the principles of civil and religious liberty, for one part of the community who entertain one view, to force that view upon another portion of the community who do not entertain it ?—No; certainly not.

Q. 1523. Is not that the course taken by your Society?-Hardly that.

Q. 1551. Then, in fact, all endowments for Dissenting meeting-houses are quite as much public property as endowments of the Church of England ? -Under that condition they would be.

Q. 1613. Is it your impression that in the election of Members of Parliament there was any particular activity in the Parliamentary Committee as to those elections ?-Undoubtedly; it is part of our duty.

Q. 1664. I understand the Society for the Liberation of Religion have formed no definite idea as to what would be the objects to which the property of the Church should be applied ?-I do not suppose that the Society considers that any part of its business.

Q. 1667. In fact, it is rather an object which