ruary? Whatever else they have lost, they have not lost honour. Whenever they have been defeated, it has been in the open field, and not in tortuous defiles and political back alleys. For the most part, too, they have had the whole Liberal party on their side, undistracted by Adullamite cabals or Tea-room plottings; while they have also the satisfaction of believing that they have pushed the party forward into new lines of action, all tending— however unconsciously to some of the actors-to that happy consummation, when Parliament will cease to burden itself with affairs of Church-craft, as well as State-craft, and will leave Episcopalians, and all others, free to engage in fair and holy rivalry for the promotion of the common good. Acting on the principle that there is "a time for all things," they were prepared this year, as they were last, to waive questions of special interest to themselves, should the passing of a Reform Act make such abstinence necessary. But, like the "irrepressible nigger" of American politics, the Establishment question is not to be kept down, and so the Reform Bill has not proved the Aaron's rod swallowing up all others; seeing that this session the ecclesiastical measures submitted to Parliament have been as numerous as in ordinary years, and have called into the division lobbies as many members as in days when party-fights and critical divisions were rare enough to produce the impression that they would be known no more.

Nor, tried by the practical test, so dear to the heart of average Englishmen, can it be doubted that the recent labours of the champions of religious equality have been rewarded with adequate, if not with large and brilliant, success. We inake haste-or we have, until quite lately-made haste very slowly in this constitutional country of ours; and as we know that

Many strokes, though with a little axe,

Hew down and fell the hardest timbered oak,

we are thankful for seemingly small mercies, in the shape of small measures; being convinced that others of the like kind, and of wider scope, are as certain to follow as the sunrise of to-day is sure to be followed by the sunrise of to-morrow. The last Parliament did nothing to extend the religious liberties of Englishmen. The present Parliament last year showed its superiority to its predecessor by passing the Qualification for Offices Bill and the new Parliamentary Oath Bill; and this year it has passed three other measures, based on the same principles, and giving something like completeness to its earlier work.*

1. The Dublin University Professorships Act. 2. Transubstantiation Declaration Act. 3. Oaths and Offices Act.

We are, we admit, not moved to ecstasy by the comprehensiveness of these bills, or the probable largeness of their results. It cannot affect many persons to have the Professorships of Anatomy, Chemistry, and Botany in the University of Dublin opened to "all duly-qualified persons, irrespective of their religious creed." It is what some politicians would scornfully term a "sentimental grievance," that many persons, before entering upon a public office, have hitherto been obliged to repudiate the doctrine of transubstantiation, and to declare the worship of the Virgin Mary, and the sacrifice of the Mass, to be "superstitious and idolatrous." The admission of the right of Roman Catholics to hold the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland cannot benefit many Irish lawyers. Nor will the substitution of an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty for other oaths, which either hurt the feelings, or exposed to disability Irish Roman Catholics, do much to improve the general condition of the Irish people. And, certainly, we hope that no Nonconformist will ever appear at his own place of worship in all the "pride, pomp, and circumstance" of civic office, because it is now authoritatively declared that "every person holding any judicial, or civil, or corporate office may attend, and be present at any place of public meeting for religious worship, in England, Ireland, or Scotland, in the robe, gown, or other peculiar habit of his office, with the ensign or insignia of or belonging to the same, without incurring any forfeiture of office, or penalty, for such attendance."* But all these measures are right-right in what they actually accomplish, and right in the principles which they involve; and therefore we are glad that English voluntaries have given to them generous support, and are as well pleased at their receiving the Royal assent, as though they would benefit English Protestant, as well as Irish Catholic Nonconformists.

It will be noted that it is the Irish Liberal party which has won all the sessional laurels, and that even these measures were not enough to satisfy their aspirations. For Mr. Monsell brought in-though he could not press forward for discussion—a bolder Nonconformist bill for Ireland than has yet been introduced for the relief of English Nonconformists. Mr. M'Evoy had daring enough to propose the repeal of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and Sir Colman O'Loghlen would have secured for Roman Catholics facilities for acquiring sites for churches, schools, and glebes, such as are not possessed by other unestablished bodies.

These facts suggest a moral, no doubt; but they are not surprising, and the inference to be drawn from them is-not that English voluntaries should have nothing to do with Irish Catholics,

* 4th clause of the Office and Oaths Act, 1867.

but that they should take care to keep free from entanglements which would paralyse their own action, in adhering to principles avowed with no arrière-pensée, and advocated in no selfish spirit. "Wear your eye thus-not jealous; not secure," is the injunction best adapted to their present attitude, as necessarily allied with men who, it may be, accept their aid, without sympathy with their ulterior aims. For this reason, we remember with satisfaction that, while the "Liberation Society" helped Sir Colman O'Loghlen to carry his Oaths and Offices Bill, it set its face like a flint against the worst feature of the same gentleman's Roman Catholic Sites Bill, and, by its vigilant action, excited an opposition which, we have no doubt, led to the rejection of the

measure.

In connection with Irish topics, we may place among the most important ecclesiastical events of the session the advanced position which the Establishment question now occupies in the estimation, and in the programme, of the Liberal party. For the first time since 1856, it has been found possible to obtain a division on a motion on the subject, and, instead of being defeated, as was Mr. Miall, by a majority of 70, Sir John Gray's motion was lost by but 12 votes. The 121 members who voted or paired for disestablishment in 1856, have swelled to 236; and whereas 36 Liberals voted against Mr. Miall, only 9 voted against the motion of 1867. That the Irish Establishment should on this occasion have been, as its supporters assert, saved "by the narrow majority of 12," is a fact of no small significance, and that it is so regarded by both the great political parties is evident from subsequent events. A Conservative government has consented to the appointment of a commission of inquiry, in the hope of being able to save the Irish Establishment by means of timely reform. Earl Russell has pronounced-somewhat hesitatingly, we admit-in favour of either three establishments-Episcopalian, Roman Catholic, and Presbyterian-or disestablishment, with a tripartite division of the ecclesiastical property of Ireland; his views not being expressed with either fulness or perspicacity. Mr. Gladstone has declared definitely against the Irish Establishment, but is understood to be in a state of indecision in regard to the property. The Roman Catholic hierarchy, inspired, it is stated, by the Pope, with whom they have lately sat in conclave at Rome, have definitely resolved on the cry, "No State-endowment"-not, we may be sure, from love to voluntaryism, but from motives of expediency, which we can understand, if not appreciate. Here, then, are the elements of a struggle, the severity and interest of which will make it one of the most memorable of our time. And the "Liberation Society," wisely taking time by the forelock, "deems it to be of vital importance that there should be no

delay in the adoption of measures which may so influence public opinion, and especially the action of the constituencies at the next general election, as to ensure the defeat of any such design" as the extension of the endowment system, and "to hasten the adoption of the only effectual substitute-the disestablishment of the Church of England in Ireland; the impartial disendowment of all religious bodies in that country, and the application of the ecclesiastical property of the nation to national and unsectarian purposes."

It is not unlikely that, if the House of Lords had not had to accept a distasteful Reform Bill, it would have passed the Bill for abolishing Ecclesiastical Tests in the two Universities. As it is, University reformers, as well as anti-state churchmen, can be congratulated on the substantial progress which their cause has made in the lower House, and on the certainty that their day of triumph is at hand. It is something that Mr. Coleridge's Bill should have gone up to the Peers: it is more that its opponents should not have ventured to oppose it at any stage; and, most of all, is it matter for congratulation that, by so large a majority as 87, it should have been resolved to make the bill a more thorough measure, by including Cambridge, as well as Oxford, within the scope of its provisions. Mr. Fawcett's Bill, which repeals so much of the Act of Uniformity as requires subscription to the liturgy from the holders of College fellowships, has made corresponding progress; the majority on the second reading having been doubled, though an unfortunate accident prevented its being read a third time. We, however, hope that the party at Oxford and Cambridge who are responsible for these measures will, before next session, see their way to adopt the advice of Mr. Lowe, by the preparation of one comprehensive scheme. It is more needful now that Mr. Ewart has obtained a majority for a third bill, which, as a practical matter, is a corollary of the other two; since the cheapening of the University system, by the abolition of the college monopoly, is absolutely essential to the wider enjoyment of the advantages which that system is capable of affording. The majority of the House of Commons is so evidently bent on the nationalizing of the Universities, that what would have been temerity once will be prudence now; and, if the newly-enfranchised masses are to be appealed to, the question of University Reform must be presented to them with a degree of breadth and of simplicity which will commend it to both their intelligence and their feelings.

What shall we say of the Church-rate Abolition Bill, which this session has passed the Commons by the largest majority yet reached, and has also, by the largest majority, been rejected by

the House of Lords? There are, we know, Dissenters who rejoice at, rather than regret, such an issue-who think the sore better kept open than healed, and who will almost feel a pang when Church-rates are consigned to the grave of buried abominations. We begin to doubt the soundness of such a view, and to wish for the end of a war which has well-nigh done its work. Other questions of greater breadth and importance now demand attention, and these annual demonstrations against a system doomed, though not yet destroyed, absorb energies which might be expended with greater effect in other directions. We shall, therefore, not regret if, next session, the House of Lords has the opportunity of voting "Aye" or "No" on Mr. Gladstone's already-promised Bill. We rather think the "Ayes" will have it. The recent debate was redolent of compromise; and, if their Lordships will practically put an end to Church-rates-as they assuredly will do-by abolishing all compulsion, the rose will smell as sweet under the name of "Compromise" as of "Total Abolition;" and, as Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli have been hewers of wood and drawers of water for Mr. Bright and Mr. Gladstone, so may Mr. Gladstone put the top-stone on the work in which a Divett, a Duncombe, a Clay, a Trelawny, and a Hardcastle have, in succession, had a share.

So far as ecclesiastical questions affecting the colonies are concerned, it seems to matter but little whether Liberals or Conservatives are in office; both the "ins" and the "outs" having displayed a faculty for going right, which is as novel as it is satisfactory. Lord Carnarvon has followed in the footsteps of Mr. Cardwell, in insisting that, whatever happens to the Church of England at home, it must be self-supporting and self-governed in the colonies; and, in assenting to Mr. Mills's Bill for extinguishing grants, amounting to £20,300, now made from the Consolidated Fund to bishops and clergymen in the West Indies. Mr. Adderley did not hesitate to say that it was to the interest of the taxpayers and of the Church in the West Indies that this charge should gradually cease, for "he did not believe any church throve on extraneous support." Next session, therefore, it may be hoped that this bill will pass, and then a new argumentative weapon will be forged against the "extraneous support" afforded to religious bodies, not in the West Indies only, but in islands this side the western main.

Here our review, so far as it relates to the efforts of our own friends, must close; but, lest it should be thought to be of too roseate a hue, we will compare notes with an observer from the opposite stand-point. The quasi-organ of the Church Institution may be expected to put the best face upon matters re