claims should be satisfied. The question was again
discussed at some length, and the motion was negatived
by 82 against 67.

On Wednesday, June 21, the second reading of the
Church Rates Abolition Bill was moved by Mr. MIALL,
in the absence of Sir W. Clay, who had charge of the
measure.—Mr. A. PELLATT supported the motion,
observing that the people were rapidly relieving
themselves of the burthen arising from the impost, and that
it was time the legislature interfered to recognise and
adjust the new condition of the public feeling with
relation to church rates.—Mr. GOULBOURN saw in the
measure the beginning of a total severance between
church and state. He pointed out the danger which
the poor rate, and even the general revenue of the
country, might incur, if the house once admitted the
principle that persons might be exonerated from paying
taxes, on the plea of ''conscientious scruples." He
moved, as an amendment, that the bill be read a second
time that day six months.—The amendment was
seconded by Mr. LIDDELL (Liverpool), who, however,
admitted the necessity of devising some measure to
rectify the existing law relating to church rates.—Mr. E.
BALL contended that the church rate system should be
abolished, as an act of justice to dissenters, and of
prudence with regard to the church itself. The impost
now furnished a cause for deplorable strife, which it
was most desirable to annihilate.—Dr. PHILLIMORE
confessed that the church rate should not be levied
upon dissenters, but was not prepared for a total
abolition of the system.—Mr. HORSMAN also
recommended a middle course, and urged the government to
attempt to settle the question. If, however, this was
impossible, and no measure could be contrived for the
relief of dissenters, he preferred to see the church rates
abolished rather than prolong the evils and bitterness
which they now occasioned.—Mr. V. SMITH, observing
that the grievance had endured for many years without
producing any attempt to remedy it on the part of the
government, supported the second reading of the bill,
which swept away the system altogether.—The CHANCELLOR
of the EXCHEQUER admitted that an irresistible
case had been made out for the dissenters, and the time
must shortly come when government would feel bound
to provide some means of relief. He nevertheless
denied that the case was so urgent as to require the
immediate extinction of a system which was susceptible
of improvement, remarking that church rates were still
paid without demur in the great majority of instances.
There were 11,000 parishes in the country, and only
500 church-rate contests had taken place. In the
prospect of an early adjustment of the system upon a
satisfactory basis, he could not consent to adopt a
proposal for its summary abolition.—Mr. PACKE also
recommended the withdrawal of the bill, in anticipation
of the promised government measure next year.—Mr.
BASS supported the motion.—Mr. BRIGHT reminded
the house that when the bill was first introduced Lord
John Russell had enlarged upon the difficulties, and
almost confirmed the impossibility of contriving any
equitable settlement of the question. He urged them
therefore to pass the present measure, without being led
away by the prospect of the compromise held out by
Mr. Gladstone.—Lord J. RUSSELL recapitulated the
conditions on which, in his opinion, any satisfactory
settlement of the church rate question should be based.
He could not permit the voluntary system to supersede
the Establishment, nor could he consent to abolish
church rates without first providing some fund for the
maintenance of the fabrics now belonging to the church.
He wished to relieve the protestant dissenters, to whom
the cause of civil and religious liberty was much
indebted, from their present grievances, but could
sanction no measure that did not recognise the justice
of drawing from the land money for the support of the
parochial churches of the country. Those churches, he
argued, did not belong to a sect, but to the nation, and
should find national support. No substitute of which
he could approve had been suggested in the room of the
church rate; and, failing that provision, he thought it
most advisable to retain the impost.—Sir W. CLAY
having declined to withdraw the bill, a division took
place, when there appeared—For the second reading
182; for the amendment 209. The majority against
the bill 27, which, for the present session, is consequently
lost.

On Thursday, June 22, on the order of the day for
considering the report on the Oxford University Bill,
Mr. HEYWOOD moved the insertion of a clause rendering
it unnecessary for a person upon matriculation to make
or subscribe any declaration or take any oath save the
oath (or declaration) of allegiance, his object, he said,
being to place the University of Oxford upon the same
footing in this respect as that of Cambridge. He
discussed at some length the history and character of the
thirty-nine articles, and urged the inexpediency of
requiring subscription to them as a test from young men
entering the university.—The motion was seconded by
Mr. COLLIER.—Mr. S. HERBERT admitted that it was
impossible at the present day to maintain the existing
exclusive system at Oxford, and that, looking at the
subject in the interests of the Church of England, it was
impolitic to do so; but the question was how the object
could be best attained. Although the bill was not what
he wished it to be, he should deeply lament the
introduction into it of an element that might materially
affect its chance of success. That portion of the bill
which changed the constitution of the governing body
at the university had been adopted by the house; that
body, he trusted, would be willing to carry out other
reforms indicated in the bill as originally framed; and
he thought it would be wrong at this moment to take
out of their hands so important a question. Knowing
that there existed at Oxford a strong feeling in favour
of practical reform, he wished to let them have an
opportunity of discussing this question, and, if the
authorities at Oxford should of themselves consent to
admit dissenters into the university, more would be
accomplished than by forcing upon them his clause,
which might then be adopted unwillingly, and perhaps
indirectly defeated. If the university should not act in
this direction, parliament would be free to legislate upon
the matter hereafter: at present, although he concurred
in the object in view, he hoped the house would not
adopt this clause.—The motion was supported by
Mr. M. Gibson, and Sir J. Ramsden, and was opposed
by Sir W. Heathcote and Mr. Henley.—The CHANCELLOR
of the EXCHEQUER observed that the university
stood upon the footing of this principle—that education
must be a religious education, and, while the church
occupied the position of a national establishment, the
connexion between religion and education being
maintained, the church was entitled to expect that the
instruction, discipline, and government of the university
should be moulded in conformity with that specific form
of religion which is taught in the church. In providing
for the admission of dissenters to the universities the
title of Roman Catholics must be considered, whose
admission was necessarily involved in that of dissenters.
With due regard to religious teaching, he should consider
it a great advantage, not only to dissenters but to the
church and to the nation, if provision could be made
for the admission of dissenters to the university. Mr.
Heywood, however, insisted upon making this measure
a part of the bill, with the scheme of which it was wholly
discrepant, the government having carefully kept the
matters distinct. He (Mr. Gladstone) believed it was
not politic to coerce the university upon this head, nor
would the clause secure the admission of dissenters, which
would depend upon the free will of the university. Was
it not, then, the wisest course to trust that free will
generously, rather than to seem to interfere, and expose the
authority of parliament to contempt by a futile provision?
It was entirely in the power of the authorities of the
university, by judicious arrangements, to admit dissenters to-
day without insulting them to-morrow.—Lord STANLEY
could not help saying that the course taken by the
government upon this question was precisely that which
they had pursued with regard to almost every other
question of principle, and especially of religious principle,
indefinite delay being apparently the policy of the Cabinet.
If the house had a right to legislate at all for the universities,
it was entitled to give such a direction as this. He did
not say whether it was or not expedient for parliament to
take upon itself the management of academical offices;
but this was a question of national interest, and, if the