.-^v ;•'%** 
 
 ■j\ 
 
 
 
 i^«» 
 
 tJ^m 
 
 ?r 
 
 '^ 
 
 

 
 ■?■■■ 
 
 
 a I B RA RY 
 
 OF THE 
 U N I VLRSITY 
 Of ILLINOIS

 
 MR. OSBOENE MORGAN'S BURIALS BILL. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Right Hon. BENJAMIN DISRAELI, M.P. 
 
 IN THE 
 
 HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 26, 1873, 
 
 ON MOVING THE REJECTION OE THE BILL ON IT8 
 
 SECOND READING. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 PRINTED FOR THE CHURCH DEFENCE INSTITUTION, 
 
 25, Parliament Street. 
 
 1873,
 
 SPEECH, &c. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli, on rising to move the rejection of the Bill, 
 said, — I am sorry, Sir, that I must divest this debate of the 
 pomp and ceremony with which the hon. gentleman has 
 clothed it in imputing to me that in the course which I have 
 taken I have been actuated by the highest considerations of 
 party and politics. The truth is, if the House will condescend 
 to recollect what passed last year upon the subject, so far as I 
 am myself concerned, they will see what a slender foundation 
 there is for the conclusion at which in this respect the hon. 
 gentleman has arrived. I was prevented from beitig present 
 at the debate on the second reading of the Bill last year. 
 
 Mr. Morgan : There were six amendments on the paper 
 last year. Was the right hon. gentleman prevented — 
 (Cries of '^ Order.") 
 
 Mr. Disraeli : And I took as early an opportunity as I 
 could of publicly announcing that I should ask the sense of 
 the House on the third reading. That was last year. My 
 opinion was and is that the measure is one of great importance. 
 My opinion was and is that it never had been adequately dis- 
 cussed, nor in an adequate meeting of the House, and this 
 year I found myself not only bound by honour, but impelled 
 by feeling, to fulfil the task which I undertook and sought to 
 fulfil last year. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman com- 
 plains of the manner in which this Bill was encountered 
 last year by midnight strangulation. Well, Bills are some- 
 times met by midnight strangulation, but they are also 
 sometimes assisted by morning manoeuvres. (Hear, hear, 
 and laughter.) Measures may be passed in a very thin 
 House, and by seizing opportunities of hurrying on a 
 
 t
 
 decision which both the House and the country may after- 
 wards regret. 
 
 Now, Sir, the hon. gentleman lias called our attention in 
 detail to the provisions of the Bill. I listened with great 
 attention to his comments upon those provisions, and I confess 
 it appeared to me that he slurred over their contents in a 
 manner which to me was not entirely satisfactory. The 
 Bill is distinguished, I think, by three peculiar circum- 
 stances. In the first place, it is an attempt — and an attempt 
 made in the latter part of the 19th century — to invest with 
 exceptional and exclusive jDrivileges certain religious bodies 
 and their ministers. The second remarkable circumstance 
 connected with this Bill is that they who are exempted from 
 these privileges are no less considerable a portion of the nation 
 than those who are in communion with the Church of Eng- 
 land, and no less important a body than the clergy of that 
 Church. And the third remarkable circumstance is that such 
 a measure should be introduced by an hon. gentleman who 
 professes to be a Liberal. Now, Sir, -notwithstanding the 
 manner in which the hon. gentleman referred to, and, as it 
 appeared to me, slurred over, the provisions of his Bill, I 
 think he will agree with me that I have not misrepresented 
 its contents when I state that there are distinctions made be- 
 tween the Nonconformist body and the Church, and that they 
 are all in favour of the Nonconformist body. In the first 
 place, all Nonconformists will have a right to ofiiciate with 
 the mere consent of the relations of the deceased, while on 
 the other hand the incumbent alone will, as at present, have 
 a right to officiate. In the next place, every Dissenter may 
 under the Bill enter a churchyard and officiate by right, while 
 on the other hand no other clergyman but the incumbent can 
 officiate except by permission. The third privilege which it 
 is proposed to grant to Dissenters is this, that all laymen 
 among them may officiate, while no layman may officiate in 
 the Church. The fourth feature of this character is this, that 
 a Dissenter may enter and officiate in any churchyard in his 
 parish, while the right of the clergyman to officiate is con- 
 fined to the churchyard of his own parish. The fifth pri^ ilege 
 
 1^ ^V
 
 granted to Dissenters is, that under tlie Bill they are prac- 
 tically unlimited in the services they may use, while the 
 clergyman is rigidly tied up to a prescribed service. (Hear, 
 hear.) I am sorry I must trouble the hon. gentleman with a 
 sixth privilege, which he has provided for Dissenters, but 
 which is not to be assured to the clergyman. The Dissenter 
 has an option, and may leave ungodly and immoral Dissenters 
 to the clergyman (laughter) — the clergyman is compelled to 
 bury in all cases. Now, I must say, without touching the 
 principles of the measure, to which I will in a moment advert, 
 that it does appear to be a most remarkable circumstance 
 that a Bill — introduced with such a continued burst of elo- 
 quence as has distinguished the address of the hon. gentleman 
 to-day, inspired as all must feel by a conviction of the pecu- 
 liarly liberal character of the measure — should contain pro- 
 visions of a character so abstractedly unjust as those to which 
 I have called the attention of the House. (Cheers.) 
 
 Mr. Morgan rose to make an explanation, but was met 
 with cries of " Order." • 
 
 Mr. Disraeli : Well, but that is not enough. As if it 
 were not sufficient to point out in so marked and painful a 
 manner the different conditions under the intended law of the 
 Nonconformist and his minister and the Churchman and his 
 clergyman, there is a seventh provision which certainly is not 
 the institution of a new privilege, but which contains an 
 arrangement by which the clergyman is compelled to act 
 as clerk to the Nonconformists, to register all their doings, 
 and thus to occupy the inferior position of recording all 
 their proceedings, which, under this Bill, might at least be 
 eccentric. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) 
 
 Now, Sir, I think it would be interesting to try and 
 ascertain the association of ideas and the mental and intel- 
 lectual process by Avhich the hon. gentleman, who believes 
 that he is influenced by most liberal opinions, should have 
 arrived at a proposal which is, as I think I have pointed 
 out to the House, so essentially unjust. How did the hon. 
 gentleman arrive at this proposal? By the common law of 
 this country it would seem that the rights of all parishioners
 
 witli respect to burial, whether they be Churchmen or Non- 
 conformists, are identical. (Hear, hear.) The Nonconfor- 
 mist has a right to be buried in the parish churchyard on 
 the same conditions that the Churchman has a right to be 
 buried there. The Churchman enjoys no privilege which the 
 Nonconformist does not enjoy. But then it is said it is a 
 grievance to the Nonconformist that he cannot be buried in 
 the parish churchyard with the rites of his own communion. 
 Well, the Nonconformist has a right to enter the parish 
 church ; but what would be said if the Nonconformist, having 
 exercised that right, rose from his bench or pew and said, " I 
 am here in the enjoyment of my right, but I object to the 
 Liturgy which you are about to use?" (Hear, hear.) I 
 can find only one reason for the conclusion at which the hon. 
 gentleman has arrived, and I think I am not misrepresenting 
 him when I say that he himself alleged that reason, and that 
 is, that the fabric of the Church and its consecrated precinct 
 are in fact national property. (Hear, hear.) Although not 
 absolutely declared, I infer from the argument of the hon. 
 and learned gentleman that that is his view on the subject. 
 The nature of Church property is a subject which for genera- 
 tions has occupied the attention of some of the greatest minds 
 this country has produced. Perhaps there is no other subject 
 on which there has been lavished such profound erudition, 
 such deep antiquarian research, and which has excited such a 
 sharp and commanding controversial spirit. Every man who 
 has studied that controversy is fairly entitled to hold opinions 
 of his own on the subject ; but whatever may be our conclu- 
 sions, and however profound may be our convictions with 
 regard to it, it is a subject so vast and so grave, and of neces- 
 sity so difficult, that we might expect very opposite conclu- 
 sions to have been arrived at in relation to it. But, Sir, I 
 deny that there is any controversy on this subject between the 
 country and the Nonconformists. Forty years ago the Non- 
 conformists, by means of a new law, acceded to a great 
 increase of electoral power and a corresponding political in- 
 fluence ; and they thereupon commenced an agitation — I 
 may almost say " a thirty years' war " (hear, and a laugh)-—
 
 against the levying of rates for the maintenance of the fabrio 
 of the Church and of the consecrated precincts of the Churcli. 
 It is unnecessary for me to remind the House of what is a 
 considerable incident in the history of this country — the 
 agitation conducted against the Church-rates by the Non- 
 conformist body. Well, they succeeded at last in their great 
 object. Their case, as it was originally stated, as for years it 
 was sustained with almost matchless energy, with first-rate 
 organisation, and with great eloquence, was this — they said, 
 " The Church is a building which really is devoted to the 
 purposes of only a portion of the nation " — a portion which 
 they then called an Ecclesiastical Sect — *^ the churchyard is 
 a ground consecrated, which we hold to be a superstitious 
 practice, and we believe that it ought not to be maintained ; 
 and, therefore, what can be more unjust than that we should 
 be called upon to pay taxes for the maintenance of a fabric that 
 we don't use, and of a churchyard the character of which we 
 don't approve ? and, under these circumstances, we call upon 
 Parliament and the country to relieve us from such 9 grievance 
 and from such an injustice." Their appeal was ultimately 
 successful. After a struggle of, as I said before, thirty years. 
 Parliament acceded to their wishes. Parliament acknow- 
 ledged that there was a religious grievance, that it was in- 
 tolerable, that the Nonconformists were not interested in the 
 maintenance of the fabric of the Churcli or of the churchyard, 
 and relieved them from the payment of the taxes they com- 
 plained of With their relief from those taxes the contro- 
 versy between the country and the Nonconformists as to the 
 character of Church property ceased (loud cheers) ; and if 
 ever there took place what I believe would be one of the 
 most unfortunate events that ever occurred in this country — 
 I mean the dissevering of the State from its connection with 
 religion — so far as the position of the Nonconformists is con- 
 cerned, they can make no objection whatever — they are 
 estopped from ever making any objection — to Churchmen 
 taking their sacred edifices and their churchyards. (Cheers.) 
 I, with many on this side of the House, and I believe with 
 some on the opposite side, opposed the abolition of Church-
 
 8 
 
 rates. I did so because I did not wisli to see a source 
 of revenue necessary to the maintenance of tlie Church 
 aboKshed, whereby great embarrassment would arise, and 
 injury would result to the Church fabrics in many parts of 
 England, and especially in the rural districts. (Hear, hear.) 
 Of all taxes which were ever imposed upon the nation, the 
 Church-rate was the least unbearable. It was imposed 
 for a public, not to say common object, and by a most popular 
 method — namely, by the decision of the majority. But 
 doubtless it was some compensation to us to think, Avhen the 
 abolition of Church-rates was carried, that it was a public 
 recognition by the State that, whatever might happen here- 
 after, the churches and the churchyards belonged to Church- 
 men. Neither did the Nonconformists during that great 
 struggle act without a full knowledge of the consequences 
 that their success would entail. A most eminent member 
 of their body, a very learned lawyer, was so impressed with 
 the folly of their conduct in the position they took up 
 in seeking to relieve themselves from the payment of 
 Church-rates, on the ground that churches and church- 
 yards should be maintained by those who used them, and 
 for whose purposes they alone existed, that he in more 
 than one learned work impressed his convictions upon them, 
 and supported those convictions by ample erudition. I refer 
 to Mr. Toulmin Smith, who, although he may not have been 
 a Selden or a Spelman, was a learned legal antiquary. 
 Upon this subject I hold that he took the right view, 
 and that his conclusions upon it were sound. It cannot, 
 therefore, be said that the Nonconformists rushed into 
 the contest with precipitation, or that they were blind to 
 the necessary consequences of their success in seeking for 
 such a long series of years to obtain the abolition of Church- 
 rates. Having taken up their position, they must abide by 
 its consequences. If the churchyards are national property, 
 let the nation support them. (Cheers.) If they are national 
 property, re-impose the Church-rates (loud cheers), and let 
 the dissenters pay up all arrears which unquestionably are 
 due to the country. (Cheers and laughter.) I am perfectly
 
 
 
 willing myself to rest the whole of my opposition to this mea- 
 sure upon that case. By the abolition of Church-rates, and 
 by throwing the maintenance of the fabric of the churches 
 and of the churchyards uj^on Churchmen, the Nonconformists 
 have placed themselves in such a position that they are not 
 justified in interfering with the conditions upon which they 
 are allowed to use churchyards. If I pursue the sub- 
 ject further it is only because I do not wish to avoid any 
 topic which has fairly been brought before the House. I 
 must say in passing that there is not merely a legal incon- 
 sistency in the conduct of the Nonconformists in their treat- 
 ment of the question, but there is a sentimental one 
 which I think ought to be noticed. The Nonconformists 
 originally objected to churchyards because they were con- 
 secrated, which they said was an act of superstition ; and, 
 no doubt, making every allowance for the great increase in 
 the population of the country, and other circumstances, it 
 is mainly to the energy of the Nonconformists, and to their 
 prejudices against burial in consecrated ground, that the 
 institution of public cemeteries in this country on so large a 
 scale has taken 2:>lace. But, having established these great 
 public cemeteries, the Nonconformists want* to go back to the 
 consecrated grounds (cheers) ; and on what plea ? It is a 
 plea that touches every heart — it is that they may be 
 buried in the same locality where their fathers and their 
 relatives have been buried. But they quite appear to 
 forget that in coming back to the consecrated ground 
 they leave the unconsecrated ground of the cemetery 
 which they have used for a generation, and in which also 
 lie the remains of their relatives. This appears to me to 
 be an inconsistency on the part of the Nonconformist body 
 which it is not easy to explain. 
 
 But, passing on, I wish uoav to consider the question 
 w^ithout reference to what I have urged, and in its more 
 abstract character as a religious grievance. If there be a 
 grievance, the House of Commons ought to consider it ; 
 and if there be a religious grievance, a wise statesman 
 will not disregard it. But, in the first ^^l^ce? we must
 
 10 
 
 satisfy ourselves as to what we are doing. It is no use 
 for an hon. member to come down here and to tell us 
 stories, which may be true or untrue, which he has read 
 in the Twihridge Wells Gazette (hear, hear, and laughter), 
 aiid to ask us to alter the ancient laws of England upon an 
 authority like that. So far as I could collect from the narratiA^e 
 contained in the Tunhridge Wells Gazette^ it relates, if true, 
 to what would only be the act of a foolish clergyman doing 
 something which was essentially illegal ; and are we to be 
 asked to change the whole laws of this country because a 
 foolish clergyman does something illegal ? (Hear, hear). If 
 there be a grievance, let us ascertain in the first place what 
 it is, and then let us ascertain its extent. If we are 
 to change the laws of this country on a subject of some 
 magnitude, let us have before us ample and authentic 
 information. If I were to adopt the statement, and if I 
 were to be guided in my vote by the statement, of the hon. 
 and learned gentleman I should believe that, out of 18,800 
 parishes in England, in 12,400 there is no accommodation 
 for the burial of any Dissenter. Is it possible that such 
 is the case ? Is it possible that society- could exist or 
 civilization could go on if such a fact were correct ? 
 In such a matter we ought to have adequate returns. The 
 hon. gentleman says he has been four years engaged in 
 the enterprise of changing the law upon burials. He says 
 that during that tim.e I have generally been absent, and always 
 silent. But if I had been here on every occasion and listened 
 with the utmost attention to the hon. and learned gentleman, 
 so far as I can judge from his speech to-day, I should not 
 have obtained much information on the subject. (Much 
 laughter.) I came down here to pay the utmost attention to 
 his statement; but, though the hon. and learned gentleman 
 quoted all sorts of anonymous authorities, from The Times 
 down to the Tunhridge Wells Gazette (renewed laughter), 
 I have been able to obtain no information whatever of an 
 authentic character. Now, I apprehend if the Noncon- 
 formists represented by the hon. and learned gentleman 
 who has been engaged in an enterprise, which, accord-
 
 11 
 
 ing to the lion, and learned gentleman's account, has taken 
 up four years (a laugh), desired, they might have obtained 
 this information: — 1. Returns as to the number of Noncon- 
 formist burial-grounds in each jDarish ; 2. As to the number 
 of public cemeteries with unconsecrated ground in each parish ; 
 3. As to the number of Dissenting chapels in each parish, and 
 in what parishes there are none. (Hear, hear.) If the hon. 
 and learned gentleman had given that information, we should 
 have been able to arrive at some conclusion. The returns on 
 the table of the House in connection with burials are ^^ery 
 incomplete and extremely partial in the slight information 
 which they afford, and I think that both sides of the House 
 will agree in this, that we should be able to legislate with 
 much greater satisfaction to ourselves, and I am sure to 
 the country, if we had the information before us which I have 
 indicated in the three returns I have named. It so ha2:>pens 
 that there is a body in this country who have endeavoured to 
 make these researches. I am not going to found any argu- 
 ment, so far as the principle of the Bill is concerned, upon 
 these researches, the result of which is in my possession, 
 because they are not complete and they are not official. 
 Therefore, so far as the principle of the Bill is concerned, or 
 any principles involved in it, I base no argument upon them. 
 But these returns, from the respectable character of the body 
 that instituted the queries, and the official character of the 
 persons who answered them, are extremely valuable. I think 
 they will show that there is upon this subject a great deal of 
 information of which we are ignorant, and, therefore, that 
 it becomes incumbent on Parliament to take steps to obtain 
 complete and official returns. I place those which I possess 
 before the House with no other view than that. I ask no 
 gentleman to arrive at any conclusion from these returns; 
 but I ask him respectfully to listen to them. I shall put 
 them very briefly before the House, which I am sure will 
 see that in this matter we are called on to act with that ample 
 information which Parliament should always possess. Now, 
 these returns were made under the three heads which I have 
 mentioned, and were obtained by the Church Defence Instil
 
 12 
 
 tution — a body whiclij though there may be many persons 
 who will not agree with it, all will acknowledge to be com- 
 posed of most respectable persons, animated by a high sense 
 of duty. They have applied themselves to the effort of obtain- 
 ing authentic information, and have addressed three queries, 
 which 1 have put under the form' of returns, to the rural deans 
 of England, a body between 700 and 800 in number. They 
 have succeeded in obtaining a great many returns, and the 
 House will regret that they have not obtained more. They 
 have returns from 6,200 parishes out of 13,800. By these it 
 appears that there are in these 6,200 parishes 8,200 dissenting 
 chapels with 1,627 burial-grounds — i.e., one chapel in five 
 has a burial-ground. And yet the hon. and learned gentle- 
 man argued the whole case to-day as if there were nothing 
 but churchyards and public cemeteries, which last are of 
 modern institution. (Hear, hear.) But, besides these, there 
 are in these parishes 42 1 public cemeteries with unconsecrated 
 groimd, increasing every year wuth more extended areas, and 
 now averaging one for every 14 parishes. (Hear.) Now, 
 the House will see at once this represents a state of affairs 
 which, so far as the speech of the hon. and learned gentleman 
 is concerned, — and we know he has been been considering his 
 speech for at least four years (laughter), — appears to have 
 been completely veiled. (Hear, hear.) The question of Non- 
 conformist graveyards seems never to have occurred to the 
 hon. and learned gentleman, although we may fairly presume 
 that at this ratio there cannot be less than 4,000 places of 
 dissenting sepulture in England. 
 
 But what I think very important in connection with this 
 matter are the returns from the Principality in which the 
 hon. and learned gentleman has ]:)eculiar interest. I come 
 first to the diocese of Llandaff. There are returns from 132 
 parishes in that diocese, showing that there are 103 burying- 
 grounds for 238 chapels, the deficiency being supplied by 11 
 public cemeteries. That is the state of affairs in the diocese 
 of Llandaff, with which if I were a Nonconformist and con- 
 templated my burial I should be tolerably content, (Much 
 laughter.) In the diocese of St. David's there are 165 parishes
 
 13 
 
 with 345 chapels and 209 burial-grounds. In one of the 
 rural deaneries the proportion rises as high as 17 burial- 
 grounds for 18 chapels, and to complete this wealth of 
 burial-grounds there are 16 public cemeteries. (Hear, 
 hear, and a laugh.) We could hardly suppose from the 
 speech of the hon. and learned gentleman that was the 
 state of the Principality with which he is so familiarly ac- 
 quainted. Unfortunately, the returns from the other Welsh 
 dioceses are very meagre ; but I beg the House to remember 
 what I said, that I am not founding any argument against 
 any principles of the Bill on these returns. But I think 
 they show that it is our duty to obtain complete and official 
 information. (Hear, hear.) But although the returns from St. 
 Asaph are meagre, still here is one which is striking, 
 and that is from the Eural Dean of Welshpool. In the 
 rural deanery of Welshpool there are 14 j^arishcs, con- 
 taining 59 chapels, 11 Nonconformist burial-grounds, and 
 two public cemeteries. The whole population of these 
 parishes is only 15,000, and deducting, according to the Non- 
 conformist principle, one in five for the Church, we have 
 a probable death-rate among Nonconformists of 250 per 
 annum, and as many as 13 graveyards to receive their dead. 
 (Laughter.) Now, I do maintain that if these returns be 
 accurate — and the inquiry was instituted by a body of noblemen 
 and gentlemen whose character is above all reproach, and the 
 returns made by gentlemen in a high official position — namely, 
 the rural deans of Englanrl and Wales — I say if these returns 
 are accurate, and no one can doubt them — I could almost pledge 
 myself to their accuracy, although the House knows as much 
 about them as I do — the result is entirely contrary to the 
 impression which the speech of the hon. and learned 
 gentleman was intended to produce ; and proves that, before 
 we make a change of this character, we should have infor- 
 mation to guide the House of Commons and satisfy the 
 country that we were not acting in the dark and accord- 
 ing to the transient passion of a minority of the population. 
 (Cheers.) 
 
 Let me refer to one other subject. I confess a con vie-
 
 14 
 
 tion has been produced in my mind by tlie information I 
 have quoted that, if a grievance exists at all, it must be a 
 very minute grievance, and that it does not warrant the 
 vast change which the proposition of the hon. and learned 
 gentleman involves. But is there even a minute grievance ? 
 I wish to discuss the matter with my Nonconformist 
 friends with the utmost fairness. Now, view it in this way. 
 Even if a minute grievance is alleged, it is founded on 
 the abstract assumption that there is a prejudice among 
 Dissenters against the occasional use of a Church Service. 
 Now, that is a pure assumption. I won't appeal to the 
 individual experience of gentlemen on either side of the 
 House ; if I did I am sure they would tell me that in their 
 parishes there is not the slightest difficulty in the matter. 
 Dissenters raise no objection, and often even express a wish for 
 the offices of th« Church. We know, notwithstanding what the 
 correspondent of the Tunhridge Wells Gazette wrote (a laugh) , 
 that there is generally a feeling of mutual respect and affection 
 between the incumbent of the parish church and the Dis- 
 senters ; that there are relations of intimacy and con fidence 
 between them, and offices are rendered social and even reli- 
 gious of inestimable character. Look at the evidence upon 
 our table, as to the occasional use by the Dissenters of the 
 offices of the Church. Look at the returns of marriages in 
 England. (Hear, hear.) Observe that 75 per cent, of the 
 marriages are solemnized according to the rites of the Church 
 of England. (Hear, hear.) It is perfectly clear that of these 
 75 per cent, a very large proportion must be Nonconformists. 
 We all know that a Dissenter is generally by choice married 
 in Church. (Hear.) Is the Burial Service more calculated to 
 give umbrage to the Nonconformist than the Marriage ? Of all 
 Church services the Burial Service would seem of most general 
 and solemn sympathy. Therefore, I cannot admit that Non- 
 conformists have even a minute grievance to complain of. But 
 I have argued the case with regard to grievance totally 
 irrespective of the principles on which I have objected to this 
 measure. I object to this measure because I think after the 
 Nonconformist body, by a ceaseless agitation and a per-
 
 15 
 
 severing energy which does them credit, induced the Parlia- 
 ment of England to free them from the obligation to pay 
 Church-rates, on the ground that they had no connection 
 with the fabric or the churchyard, all necessary connection 
 between the Church and the churchyard, so far as Dissenters 
 are concerned, ceased ; and if they will use them — I wish they 
 would use them more — they must use them, upon every prin- 
 ciple of law and equity, on the conditions imposed by those 
 to whom they belong. (Cheers.) And now, before sitting 
 down, I would make one remark to my Nonconformist fellow- 
 countrymen on this matter. About forty years ago an Act 
 was passed in this country — the Reform Act of Lord G-rey — 
 which invested the Nonconformist and Dissenting bodies in 
 this country with great power. Whether it was intended or 
 not it is unnecessary now to consider, but there is no question 
 that they gained a preponderance of electoral and political 
 power under that Act — I must say out of proportion to their 
 population and their wealth — I will not say to their intelligence 
 and public spirit, for they have always been distinguished in 
 those respects. That power which they gained forty years 
 ago they have used with great energy and with admirable 
 organisation. I do not for a moment pretend to say that 
 there have not been many instances in which they have used 
 it wisely. So long as they maintained toleration, so long as 
 they favoured religious liberty,- so long as they checked 
 sacerdotal arrogance, they acted according to their traditions, 
 and those traditions are not the least noble in the history of 
 England. But they have changed their position. They now 
 make war, and avowedly make war, upon the ecclesiastical 
 institutions of the country. (Hear, hear.) I think they are 
 in error in pursuing that course. I believe it is not for their 
 own interest. However ambiguous and discursive maj be 
 the superficial aspects of the religious life of this country, 
 the English are esentially a religious people ; and I am much 
 mistaken if there be not, even among those who may be 
 apparently in careless communion with its rites, a feeling 
 of reverence and affection for the Church. (Cheers.) They 
 look upon it instinctively as an institution which vindicates the 
 spiritual nature of man, and as a City of Refuge in the strife and
 
 16 
 
 sorrows of existence. (Loud cheers.) I want my Nonconfor- 
 mist friends to remember that another Act of Parliament has 
 been passed affecting the constituencies of England since the 
 Act of 1832. It appeals to the heart of the country. It aims at 
 emancipation from undue sectarian influence ; and I do not 
 think that the Nonconformist body will for the future exercise 
 that undue influence upon the returns to this House which 
 they have now for 40 years employed. (Much cheering.) I 
 address gentlemen of great acutenesSj and, though they may 
 not touch upon the subject themselves, I dare say there is 
 more than one member present who has, perhaps, the same 
 opinion as myself upon that subject. (Hear, hear.) Let 
 them not be misled by the last General Election. The vast 
 majority arrayed against Us was not returned by the new con- 
 stituencies. It was the traditional and admirable organiza- 
 tion of the Dissenters of England that eflected the triumph 
 of the right hon. gentleman. (Cheers.) They were animated 
 by a great motive to enthusiasm. They saw before them the 
 destruction of a Church. (Hear, hear.) I do not think 
 that at the next appeal to the people the Nonconformist body 
 will find that the same result can be obtained. (Cheers.) I 
 say not this by way of taunt, certainly not in a spirit of 
 anticipated triumph. I say it because I wish the Noncon- 
 formist body to pause and think, and to feel that for the 
 future it may be better foi:_them, instead of assailing the 
 Church, to find in it a faithful and sound ally. (Cheers.) 
 There is a common enemy abroad to all Churches and to all 
 religious bodies. (Hear, hear.) Their opinions rage on the 
 Continent. Their poisonous distillations have entered even 
 into this isle. (Cheers.) We see ancient dogmas, thrice 
 refuted, dressed up again in the garb of specious novelty, and 
 again influencing the opinions of men. What I want to see is 
 a cessation of this war between the Nonconformist body and 
 the Church of England. (Cheers.) Let them be allied 
 against the common enemy, and resist the influence of those 
 who, if successful, will degrade man and destroy civilization. 
 (Great cheering.) 
 
 The right hon. gentleman concluded by moving that the 
 Bill be read a second tim^ this day six months.
 
 i 
 
 ♦ =4
 
 '/ »1 
 
 4 J \ fl H If** 

 
 
 ■m 
 
 r^
 
 '"^J:: 
 
 \-