The Aberystwyth Times Cardiganshire Chronicle and Merionethshire News

The Bishop of Peterborough has sent a contribution towards the fund for erecting a statue of the great nonconformist, Robert Hall, at Leicester. Heterodox philosophy" has formed the most recent subject of discussion in the Ecumenical Council, but the resolutions come to by the Fathers with reference to it are not to be made known before Easter Monday. In the meantime, the public suspense will not be very painful. The Rev. Newman Hall has written a letter, dated rarch 2, from Jerusalem, announcing his arrival in the Holy City, and describing his camp life outside. After giving a vivid descrip- tion of the surroundiug country, the rev. gentleman concludes 1 am thankful to say my health has improved beyond my ex- pectations." A telegram published by the Augtburgcr Allgemeine Zeitung states that on Dr Strossmayer's declaring, at a sitting of the Council, that a new dogma of faith could not be estab- lished without a moral unanimity of the Fathers, he was ordered by the President to leave the Council, and thereupon a most tumultuous scene took place in the assembly. A remarkable man has just landed on our shores—the leader of the religious reformers of Bengal. The small body of monotheists left in Calcutta forty years ago by Rajah Ram- niohun Roy have increased of late under the guidance of Iveshub Chu:ider Sen, till they are to be counted by tens of thousands, and their churches are to be found from Madras to the Punjaub, and from Calcutta to Bombay. The name which they adopt of the lirahmo Somaj, or Church of the One God," marks their leading teaet, but in addition to the entire repudiation of Hindoo polytheism and idolatry, Keshub and his followers labour hard to bring about many social and moral reforms, the abolition of caste and of child marriages, and the introduction of education for women, &c., &c. George Payne, the huntsman, according to the Court Jonmd, does not-leave Wynnstay, as has been frequent- ly rumoured. At the close of the season, however, both the "whips" are to leave. ADVICE TO MOI'KEKS.—Are you broken of your rest by a sick child, suffering with the pain of cutting teeth go at once t, i a chemist an<I get bottle of Mrs Winslow's Sooth- ing Syrup. It will relieve the poor sufferer immediately it is perfectly harmless; it produces natural quiet sleep, by relieving the child fnm pain, and the little cherub awakes "as bright as a button." It has been long in use in America, and is highly recommended by medical men. It is very pleasant to take it soothes the child it softens the gurr.s, allays all pain, relieves wind, regulates the biiv/fjis, and is the best known remedy for dysentery and diarrlii.M, wuetaor arising from teething or other causes, .Be :r- as c tor Mrs Winslow's Soothing Syrup. No :r;:I> r ,1 ,:ul be without it.—Sold lsv all Medicine JK'aVrs at 1- 1,i. per bottle. Loudon Depot, 2Ú;\ High J o.b< ru.

'i-Tfee Queen went to Claremont on Saturday. The National Temperance League have presented a memorial to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, praying that the Malt Tax be neither repealed, reduced, nor transferred. Lady Lopes, mother of Sir Masse}- Lopes, Bart., 31.P- has .been burnt to death, through her dress igniting wliilst she was standing near a fireplace in her house. Two hundred houses aud a darge guautity of cotton haw been destroyed by lire at Bombay, the loss being estimated at Jd'ilP.OOO. The executive of the Binnicghaia League have decided that the whole of the League's amendments shall &e rawed in committee. A placarll appears in the widow of a public-house in Camden Town, with the following announcement:—"On view fus: a few days only, the head of Tropinann, preserved in spirits The Queen, who is displaying an omwonted activity in public concerns, visited South Kensington Museum last week, in company with the president and .vice-president of the council. Tkle religious clauses of the Education Bill were condemned at a great meeting of noaconfonaaists, in Birmingham, on Thursday evening. The story that the City of Boston had taken on bosrd the crew of the Advance turus out to -be uutrue. Another vessel rescsed them. Tue woman who was taken into custody, at Darlington, on Sunday week, on suspicion of having caused her husband's deattii, has had a verdict of wilful murder returned against her by tfee coroner's jury, They were a drunken couple. We learn by telegraph that the British Indian cable has now been successfully laid between Bombay and Suez, and tkat the Great Eastern has retimed to Aden on her way home to England. Sentence of death was passed at Ipswich assizes, on Saturday, in the case of James Rutterford, a labourer, who had, 111 a poaching affray, killed a gamekeeper in the sen ice of the .Maharajah Duleep Single The .placards of the Weekly Xetrs and the Flagnf Ireland newspapers, placed outside the windows of the different ygents in Ennis, were torn down by the police on Saturday. It is sup- posed tfcat the papers contained seditions articles. The Cuban insurgents still keep the field. A New^Vork tele- gram states that they have engaged the Spanish troops near Lastunas, with a result so doubtful that the victory is claimed by both spdes. Miss Morgan, of London, lately passed the Doctor disputation at Zurich ivith great tclat, before an audience of more than 400 per"on. She is the second lady who has obtained the M-D. diploma of that University. The guardians of West Mailing, Kent, at their weekly meet- ing, were waited upon by an officer of the Sheriff of Kent, who had taken possession of the workhouse, at the suit of one Graham, for a debt of nearly £ 170. A cheque for the amount, with £ 10 costs, was, after a short diseussion, handed to the officer. At the Tuileries the other day the Emperor received a number of the old soldiers of the First Empire, the Prince Imperial and the Empress being present. When the question was asked whether any were present who had been at the battle of Marengo, which was fought in 1800, two of the veterans replied iu the affirmative. The minonty of thirteen, who voted against the second read- ing- of the Irish Peace Preservation Bill consisted of Mr Bag- weji, Mr G. L. Bryan, Mr Alderman Carter, Mr D'Arcy, Mr Digty, Mr M'Carthy Downing, Sir J. Gray, Mr Heron, Mr M'Msioii, Mr Maguirc, Sir P. O'Brien, Mr D. M. O'Conor, and Sir Syean. The telleri were Mr Moore and Mr Callan. Johli Aindow, of Formby, was last week brought up at the Ormskirk police court, charged with having at Altcar, on the night of she 19th inst., unlawfully taken two hares and a rabbit from a warren used for the breeding of hares and rabbits. He was committed for trial at the next Kirkdale sessions, but ad- mitted to hfil It is stated that Miss Garrett, the enterprising lady physician, has been admitted as a member of the medical staff of the East London Hospital for Children, and was appointed one of the physicians ou Wednesday last. This, we are informed, is the first hospital in Great Britain which has recognized in this manner the female medical movement. It is with great regret (says the Laic Times) we learn that Mr Cotterill, of the well-known and eminent firm of commercial lawyers, Messrs Cotterill and Sons, Throgmorton-street, has absconded. It is stated that a petition in bankruptcy will be presented against him, and that a warrant has been issued for his apprehension. Another theatre has been burned down. Late on Thursday night the i-lexan (Ira Theatre in Glasgow was discovered to be on tire, and as it was constructed chiefly of wood, the flames spread with amazing rapidity, and left scarcely a vestige of the building. The loss is e-itimated at about £6,000. Fortunately the audience had left, but only an hour before the fire broke out. An affray occurred at Pavia on Thursday week. A number of persons assembled in front of the barracks, and shouted Long live the Republic "Down with the Monarchy!" Some- one discharged a revolver in reply to the challenge of the sentry, and in a few moments firing commenced between the soldiers and the crowd. Three persons were killed, and a number were wounded, and the city is described as having been in conse- quence thrown into a state of surprise and consternation. The affair has turned out to be one of no moment. The owners of the Gnion line will institute a strict inquiry re- lative to the charge of inhumanity preferred against one of their captains by the cabin passengers of the steamer Samaria. The owners, however, feel some confidence that a good answer will be forthcoming to the allegations in question. The captain of the Manhattan, the vessel in question, disposes of the charge of inhumanity advanced against him, by declaring that he saw nothing in the appearance of the disabled steamer to indicate distress. The judge of the Dudley county court, Mr Kettle, has just delivered a judgment of importance to employers and workmen engaged in coal mining. The point at issue was, whether miners could carry on the getting of coal either by "cutting" or by "blasting," at their own discretion, or whether gunpowder could be used only at the discretion of those under whose super- vision they work. The judge decided that the discretion rested, not with the collier, but with the manager of the mine. A Toronto telegram reports that a Canadian named Scott has been shot by order of Riell, the president of the provisional government of the Red River territory. The statement is said to be given on apparently good authority, but several previous reports of a similar character which have reached Canada from Fort Garry have turned out to be unfounded. The fact, how- ever, that Scott was a prisoner on parole when he a second time took part in an attempt to overthrow the provisional govern- ment, gives colour to the report that he has been punished with death. The surgeon of the Oneida says the Bombay was bailed and asked to stop, but seemed to steam away as fast as she could. In an article on the collision; written after publishing this nar- rative, the New York Times expresses itself in very strong terms against the captain of the Bombay. "We have a right," it says, "to demand justice a«ainst this man. That he can ever again be put in command of a ship seems impossible—but a severer punishment than this must be his portion. If he is allowed to escape, farewell to all good feeling between the naval services of America and England. Another phase of the Godrich divorce case, which has been before the public for several years, was presented last week at the Guildhall Police Court. Mrs Godrich was charged with having committed perjury by swearing in an affidavit that she saw her two children leave the residence of her husband, whereas the fact was that the children were not in this country at the time. For the defence, it was contended that Mrs Godrich made the statement to the best of her belief, and with no corrupt motive, and the magistrate, taking this view, dis- missed the summons amid many manifestations of popular applause. The United States House of Representatives has at length undertaken a strong if not decisive measure against the poly- gamists of Utah. It has passed a Bill, not merely depriving them of their civil rights, but rendering them liable to imprison- 1180 ment and fine, and the majority in favour of this vote was nearly as three to one. There in an obstacle in the way of the Bill becoming law, which is, that the assent of the Senate has yet to be obtained, and if that be mastered there is an obstacle still more serious m the fact that the President will not be em- powered to carry out the law by force. A petition has been sent to the governor of New Zealand, for presentation to the Queen, by the Nagatiraukawa natives. They complain that 300,000 acres of land are being taken from them without their consent, and they pray her Majesty to re- store it. The only offence they have committed is a refusal to part with their own property but this they point out has been done ever since 1848 until last year, when it was taken from them by a legal process. They also complain of their exclusion from their supreme court. In conclusion, they state that if this petition is granted, the troubles of the island will come to an end, all wars will cease, and lands will not be taken away un- justly. Mr Lowe was last week waited upon by a deputation, whose members complained of the way in which the Income-tax was levied under Schedule D. It was argued that the manner in which the impost was raised was more objectionable than pay- ing the money, on account of the inquisitorial nature of the questions to be answered. Mr Whalley was the chief speaker and he said it was not so much of the money itself as of the mode of levying the tax that the deputation complained. The gentlemen for whom he spoke would be willing to pay any. licence in their business, or in any other form woiûd they con- tribute to the Exchequer; but he held such a tax as this should not be levied upon the industry of the country, and realized property should be made to bear the burden. The Chancellor of the Exchequer reminded his hearers that if he abolished Schedule D, the whole Income-tax, amounting to £ 7,500,000 a year, would disappear, aud although he knew it must be painful to commercial men to be interrogated respecting their incomes, he did not at present see an efficient substitute for the tax as now rai¡sed.

THE BURIALS BILL. Last week we gave an abbreviated report of Mr Osborne Morgan's speech. This week we give it in full. The second reading of the Burials Bill was under dis- cussion the whole of the sitting. It was moved by Mr OSBORNE MORGAN, who said—In rising, Sir, to move the second reading of the Burial Laws Amendment Bill, I desire, in the first place, to express my regret that that duty should have passed out of the hands of my hon. friend the member for Sheffield (Mr Hadfield), whose name has been so long and so intimately associated with that measure. I am happy, however, to feel that I have not only the name of my hon. friend upon the back of my Bill, but that I have also his cordial and active co-opera- tion and support, and I can truly add that should the Bill pass into law, as I hope and trust it will, that result will be largely due to the honest zeal and the unflagging energy with which, in former years, he has advocated its prin- ciples. Sir, it is perhaps unnecessary that I should remind the House that by the laws of England-iiiilike, in this respect, the laws of either Scotland or Ireland-the parish churchyard, although the property of every parish- ioner in this sense, that every parishioner, whatever may be his religious opinions, has an indefeasible right to be interred there, is absolutely closed against the ministra- tions of nonconformist clergymen, and against the services; of any other church than the Church of England. AtJj this exclusion is not, as is often supposed, a matter'Hf privilege upon which the incumbent may or may jpot insist, as he pleases; it is a matter of obligation which the law compels him to enforce. Again, the same law Ifrhich excludes the dissenting minister from the cllvfbyards compels the incumbent to read the same form of burial service over eveiy baptized parishioner—not being afeto de se, or an excommunicated pen;oll-whatever mav have been the tenour ot his life, the circumstances of his" death, or the nature of his religious opinions. And when I speak of baptized persons, I must not be understood as meaning merely those who have been admitted by baptism into the pale of the Church of England for the law as now clearly settled—with some inconsistency, I admit—recognises for this purpose the validity of baptisms administered by dis- senting clergymen, by laymen, and even by women. I use the word inconsister,cy deliberately, for can anything be more inconsistent than that a man should be required" on one day of the week, to devote a heretical parishioner to everlasting perdition, and, on another day of the week, to commit the same man's body to the ground in the sure and certain hope of a blessed resurrection ? (Hear, hear.) On the other hand, in the case of unbaptized persons— from whatever cause or accident the omission to cele- brate the rite may have arisen—the law absolutely pro- hibits any funeral service whatsoever. In fact, it "treats the unconscious infant who dies before the rite can be administered, and the conscientious dissenter, who from religious scruples objects to its administration, with less tenderness than the malefactor who perishes by the hand of justice, or tthe reprbbftte who has lived and died in I avowed defiance 6f all laws of God and man. In this respect, indeed, I believe that this country stands almost alone among 'civilized nations, for in countries long the strongholds ef .priestly intolerance—in France, certainly, and even: in Italy and Spain-the legislature has lately sanctioned, nay, epjoined, the performance of certain religious ceremonies over the graves of unbaptized persons; so that, in this srespect at least, it would seem that even Italy—benighted and Catholic Italy-is more tolerant thr.n enlightened and Protestant England. (Hear, hear.) Sir, that such a state of things should have continued down to the present day is, I believe, mainly due to the fact that a considerable proportion of our population-and that the portion least rtolerant of grievances-is practically un- affected by it. -In the towns of England, small as well as large, the parish churchyard has long given way to the parochial cemetery—in the unconsecrated portions of which dtssentere may be-and, of course, constantly are- buried by their-awn ministers and with their own religious rites. I have myself attended funerals so conducted, and I can bear my personal testimony to the fact that they are conductedas solemnly, as decorously, and as reverently as those of the Church of England herself. (Hear, hear.) But in rural parishes where the parish churchyard still is, and is long liksly to be the sole place of interment, the pressure of the present law is felt in all its severity.; and lest it should be thought that the area of the grievance of which I complain is but limited, and its operation but slight, I may perhaps usefully remind the House that the parishes unprovided with parochial cemeteries are to those so provided in the proportion of 16,000 to 600, or about twenty-five to «ne. Take the case of the large eounty which I have the honour to represent-the county of Denbigh. That county contains about 100 parishes, cer- tainly not more than six or eight of which are provided with parochial cemeteries. In every other parish in that county the funeral of a dissenter must be conducted by a man who was a stranger to him in creed and in feelings, and probably in the daily intercourse of life, and with ceremonies which may or may not be entirely repellent to the feelings of his surviving friends. Now, when it is borne in mind that at least five-sixths of these persons are dissenters, I think the House will readily comprehend the deep dissatisfaction which the present state of the burial laws has excited in that county, and indeed in every county of Wales similarly circumstanced-a dissat isfaction which found its -expression in the enormous number of petitions presented last year from that part of the country in favour of a Bill in principle identical with that which is now before the House. Now, sir, far be it from me to say one single word in disparagement of that beautiful burial service ef the Church of England, which few churchmen can listen to without emotion but it must be borne in mind that these things are matter of associa- tion and temperament, and that language which to me, a churchman, may appear all but inspired, to a dissenter may appear cold, meaningless, and conventional. And putting these considerations quite out of the question, there is surely something very natural in that desire, so common in every age and in every country, and which is so largely shared by the dissenters of this country, that the religious ceremony which is performed over a man's grave should be performed by the minister who instructed him in health, who adviaed him in tribulation, and con- soled him in death, and that the closing scene of his career on earth should be in harmony and in keeping with the dearest and most cherished associations of his life. (Hear, hear.) I myself never knew how strong and how deep this feeling was among the dissenters of my own country, until it was brought home to me by a very painful incident which occurred at a funeral in my own neighbourhoodabout a year ago. Many of my honourable friends will understand that I am alluding to the funeral of the Rev. Henry Rees, for many years one of the brightest ornaments of the Welsh Calvinistic community, who died, as he had lived, respected-I had almost said venerated-not only by the members of his own communion, but by good men who knew him of every communion. (Hear, hear.) A man more deserving of that respect it never was my privilege to know. The funeral of that excellent and gifted man presented one of those remarkable spectacles which are rarely seen out of Wales. The funeral procession was swelled by thousands of poor country people—many of whom had walked 20 and even 30 miles to pay this last tribute to his memory. When the procession arrived at Llandysilio churchyard, where the interment was to take place, the rector of the parish, standing, no doubt, on his strict rights, positively refused to allow any ex- pression of feeling an the part of the vast multitude assembled except the singing of a hymn selected by himself, and this being declined, the body was deposited in the grave amid that enforced silence. Sir, it is im- possible for me to describe the painful impression created by this incident, not only in the neighbourhood where it occurred, but throughout the whole of Wales. I am quite sure—and I commend the fact to the attention of the hon. gentleman who intends, I presume, to oppose the second reading of this Bill in the avowed interests of the Church, of which both he and I are members-no single circumstance which has occurred within the last ninety years has done more to widen the gulf already wide enough between churchmen and dissenters in that locality, or to shake the already weakened and tottering fabric of the church in Wales. (Cheers.) But, sir, there was in this case, at least, no actual breach of the peace or other unseemly demonstration. But just to show what scenes may and do occur under the present law, let me read to the House an account extracted from a local newspaper, which occurred at the burial of a dissenter, in a rural parish in the very centre of England. On the 2.5th ult. (September, 1863), a poor man named John Alcock, a parishioner of and residing at Cauldon, died from age and paralysis, after having been in a very helpless state for years. On the following Sunday the body was taken by his friends and relatives to be interred in the usual way at the parish church, when the Rev. Rowland Henniker, the incumbent of Cauldon, refused to perform this solemn duty, and this without assigning any reason for his strange behaviour. This, of course, created great excitement. The body still remained unburied on the 30th ult.; information of the fact was sent by the parish clerk to the Bishop of Lichfield, who wrote an eX- postulatory letter to Mr Henniker. His lordship wrote to the clerk, requesting him, with the churchwarden, to endeavour to get the body interred. With the bishop's letter in hand, they, with some friends of the deceased, appealed to the clergyman to bury the body; Mr Henni- ker, however, still refused, giving "permission to the clerk to put the body in thfe grave, but refusing himself to read the burial service. His continued refusal was again made known to the bishop, who wrote to the clerk and church- wardens, requesting them to get the nearest clergyman to bury the body, and promising to indemnify them from any consequences which might result. The Rev. W. C. Ward, the clergyman of Calton, volunteered to perform the service, and fixed a time, but Mr Henniker, who had got possession of both keys of the church doors, positively told Mr Ward he should not do so, still refusing to read the burial service over the body himself. On Sunday, the 4th instant, Mr Henniker tried by offers of beer and money to get some persons to remove the body out of the church but, as the inhabitants were determined that the body should have Christian burial, he was unable to ac- complish his object, and the churchyard was described as being on that day more like the scene of a riot than consecrated ground. As the friends of the deceased were afraid that the body would be clandestinely removed at night into the grave without Christian burial, a watch was kept by sixteen men. After repeated endeavours to ob- tain Mr Henniker's consent to give the body a Christian burial, the Rev. W. C. Ward, and the friends of the deceased, determined to do so without his consent. Ac- cordingly, on Thursday, they all proceeded to the church, And, in the presence of a very large number of people, forcibly obtained possession of the body. They were pro- ceeding to bury it when Mr Heimiker arrived, and after taking the surplice off Mr Ward, locked himself up in the church. The burial service was then read by Mr Ward in the churchyard without a surplice, and the corpse was thus interred after remaining above ground fourteen days." A clergyman battling with his parishioners for the possession of a corpse, tearing the surplice by main force from the back of his brother clergyman, and finally hurling defiance at his own congregation from behind the bolted doors of his own church—what a position for a man charged with a message of peace and good will towards men! (Hear, hear.) Well, in that case, the clergyman took the law into his own hands. In another case the majesty of the law was vindicated in a manner which will, I "think, surprise the House. At the petty sessions, at Smallburgh, Norfolk, the Rev. E. P. Neale, vicar of Horsey, charged Joseph Fish and Ann Nockolds, two of his parishioners, with having, on the 29th August, 18G0, been" guilty of indecent behaviour in the churchyard of the said parish of Horsey, by then and there singing on the way to and at the grave of an unbaptized child, by which singing the said E. P. Neale was then and there vexed and troubled." The House will probacy be curious to know what was the act of indecency which vexed and troubled the sensitive soul of this revetted gentleman. The defendants, whrfj hi, the words of thfr1 solicitor who defended them, "were religious, God-StaMng-people," without wishing to finnoy the vicar, ca^itd the child to the churchyard, and feeling it hard that they should not be allowed to go in, not understanding Mr Neale's reasons, knelt down outside in the road, and there offered up prayer. They then rose, and in orderly procession walked to the grave, where they sang the hymn commencing Alas how soon the body dies The Bench, how- ever, -held that an act of indecency" had clearly been mmitted, and thought they acted leniently in inflicting a <1fne of Is. only, and 26s. costs, or in default three days' im- 'prisonnient! Sir, my honourable friend, the member of South-West Lancashire (Mr Cross), knows more about "ju -justice ".thhn I do, but, to my mind, the charge of indecency would have been more easy to sub- stantiate, and the decision more easy to understand, if the prosecutor" and*1 the -defendants could have been made to charge pta^es. Sir, another case I must quote, because it' shows to what a shocking length the law may 'be?.' Strained without being broken. It is taken from a'Stockton paper of contemporary date. At Hinderwell, near Guisborough, a woman was deli- vered of twins. One of them died in a few minutes, and the doctor, seeing that the other would not live, baptized it. It also died in a few hours, and then both the little ones were placed in the same coffin. The fact, unfortun- ately, came to the knowledge of the clergyman, and he insisted that the body of the unbaptized should be placed in one, and of the lay-baptized infant in a second coffin. When the interment took place, the person carrying the coffin containing the unbaptized infant was ordered to stand at a little distance from the grave, and when the service had been read over the other child, and the clergy- man had got a proper distance, the other child was placed in its last resting-place And this ghastly exhibition of clerical intolerance occurred not in the fifteenth century- not in the country of the Inquisition, but in the year of grace one thousand eight hundred and sixty, in one of the wealthiest and most highly favoured counties of England. Well, in these cases, it seems the clergyman had the law on his side, but very often the case is reversed—the tables are turned, and it is the clergyman who violates the law. I am referring to those easels—unfortunately n-jt uncommon—where incumbents, notwithstanding the ex- press rule of law to the contrary, have refused to read|the funeral service of the Church over baptized dissenters. J am, of course, quite aware that, as a general mile, it is not fair to charge the responsibility of breaches of the law upon the law itself; but there are exceptions even to this rule, and the canon law of England is so fearfully and wonderfully made-it is so difficult to construe and so enormously expensive to litigate, that it generally happens that the clergyman who chooses to defy it does so with impunity. No doubt in the case I have put the aggrieved relatives, like all other aggrieved persons in this country, have their remedy. But just observe what that remedy is. They may cite the offending incumbent before the Court of Arches—they may appeal from thence to the Privy Council—they may spend some thousand pounds, and several years of their lives in that useful and exhilara- ting process—(laughter)—and, by that means, they may obtain a decision of two archbishops, three or four law lords, and heaven knows how many privy councillors in their favour, and they have the satisfaction of going down to posterity as the plaintiffs in a leading case. (Renewed laughter.) Weli now I think it is hardly to be wondered at that poor ignorant people, without friends and without funds, shrink from invoking the aid of so terrible a remedy as that. Or they may write to the bishop of the diocese, in which case they will probably get the stereotyped an- swer that his lordship is very sorry, but that it is not in his power to interfere. Or lastly, they may write to the newspapers and invoke the aid of the press. And what are they likely to gain by this ? Why everybody who has the misfortune to know a clergyman of this stamp knows that he does not care a rush for public opinion. He holds it to be part of his duty to defy public opinion, and he revels in doing so—and as for making him amenable to public opinion, you might as well try to wound a rhino- ceros with a pea-shooter. (Much laughter ) Well now, am I right or wrong in saying that a clergyman who chooses to defy the law in this respect, practically does so with impunity ? Mr Carvell Williams (a gentleman who has taken great interest in this question, in a very able pamphlet entitled A plea for Free Churchyards,' which ought to be in the hands of every hon. member who in- tends to vote to-day) has given several remarkable in- stances of this practice which, as they have been before the public for six weeks, and have never been contradicted, I may fairly assume to be correct. He says In June, 1861, a youth of seventeen, and a member of the Wesleyan society, died at Haven-street, near Ryde. The Rev. Dr Knowles told the parents that they might bury their son in the churchyard, but, as he understood that he had not been baptized, his (Dr K.'s) conscience forbade his officia- ting. It was replied that the deceased had been baptized by a Wesleyan minister. To this the learned doctor re- plied that that was no baptism at all, and that he was de- termined to discourage such wickedness in every possible way, and had long since made a vow that he would never bury a Dissenter.' Ultimately, 'the poor parents, worn out with grief and anxiety, and anxious to be relieved from further suspense,' gratefully accepted an offer to bury their son in a dissenting burial ground a few miles off." Again :—" When the incumbent of Colyton refused to bury John Pavy (1869), a baptized person, he declared that he did it conscientiously, and was prepared to submit to penal consequences. In the same parish (in 1864) there was a similar refusal, the deceased being a Unitarian, and the defence being that 'Unitarians were not Christians At Milford, in Surrey (1857), the refusal was based on the fact that the deceased, though baptized, and the son of Episcopalians, was a dissenter. At East Garston, Berks, the vicar expressly admitted the validity of baptism by a Wesleyan minister, but stated, in writing, I felt con- scientiously bound thus to protest against the evil of the undervalued sin of schism, and for that purpose to use, as I did, the power with which in this instance the law in- vested me." In this case the deceased person although baptized was not a parishioner, so that no doubt the incum- bent was technically right. Occasionally the freaks of the clergy are of so grotesque a character that, not only is the public mind irritated to a degree which is dangerous to the public peace, but both law and religion are brought into cm tempt. At Norton, near Daventry (1860), prior to a funeral, the curate sent for, and was supplied with, the baptismal register; but not until the procession reached the churchyard were the parents informed that the certificate was not a proper one, and that burial would be refused While the father went away to obtain advice, the clerk was instructed to put the child in the grave, on the ground, that, as the body had been left in his freehold it had become the clergyman's property." Rather a sin- gular application of the well known rule of law that that which is affixed to the soil becomes the property of the free- holder. (A laugh.) Well now, I think it is apparent from what I have stated that, whatever maybe the merits or demerits of any Bill, the law which it seeks to amend is not only unsatisfactory but intolerable. (Loud cries of "hear, hear.") And this has been expressly admitted in this house in former debates by speakers on both sides of the house. In 1863, in particular, a speech was made on the second reading of Sir Morton Peto's Burial Bill—a Bill similar in purpose to that which I have introduced-which both from the position and authority of the speaker and the value of the sentiments it contains deserves the attention of the house. I will quote a short extract from it.—" If the Dissenter has access to the churchyard, it is subject to the condition of having the service of the church read over the remains and I must confess that that is not a state of the law that is consistent with the principles of civil and religious freedom on which, for a series of years, our legislation has been based. I don't know any reason why, after having agreed most properly that the entire community should have the power of pro- fessing and practising what form of faith they pleased during life, we should say to their relatives, after they are dead, we will at last lay hands upon you, and not permit you to enjoy the privilege of being buried in the church- yard where the remains, perhaps, of your ancestors repose, at all events where you are parishioners, unless you ap- pear there as a member of the Church of England, and have the service of the Church of England read over your remains. That appears to be an inconsistency and an anomaly in the present state of the law, and is in the nature of a grievance." Those are the words of the right hon. gentleman, the present Prime Minister of England. (Cheers.) I am glad to see my right hon. friend, the Home Secretary, in his place. I hope he comes here to endorse the sentiments of his chief. Sir, I told the house that the law of England differed in this respect from the law of Ireland. The burial laws of Ireland, as the house is aware, have recently been altered. But, even before that alteration, the burial laws of Ireland were far more favourable to nonconformists than the burial laws of Eng- land for by an Act passed in 1824 (Lord Plunket's Act), Roman Catholic priests and dissenting ministers were ad- mitted to officiate in parish churchyards, provided they obtained the permission of the incumbent-a. permission which, as a gen eral rule, was readily granted. But, because, at a time when religious feeling ran high, a few clergymen in Ulster refused this permission, the legislature thought a grievance had been made out, and it passed only two years ago an Irish Act exactly similar in principle to this Bill; so that, in fact, in asking the House to assent to this Bill, I am only asking the House to assimilate the burial laws of England to those which already prevail in Ireland. The hon. gentleman then went minutely through the first six clauses of the Bill, pointing out that the notice re- quired by the first section of the Bill was intended to pre- vent unseemly conflicts and collisions in churchyards which, from the want of some such provision in the Irish Act, occasionally occurred in Ireland, and explaining that the length of the notice required and the times at which burials were required to take place were matters of detail which, if necessary, could be altered in committee. Ad- verting to the 7th clause, which secures the payment of the burial fees to the incumbents, he said, For the in- sertion of this provision (which, by the bye, is also to be found in the Bill of last year) I have been very severely, and, I believe, somewhat unfairly attacked by those from whom I expected support. It has been assumed that the clause creates a right to new fees, where they did not exist be- fore whereas it must be clear to any one who reads the clause attentively that it simply leaves existing rights un- touched. It has been argued, indeed, that if you relieve the incumbent from performing the service you ought not to pay him for the work which he no longer does. But the fee is paid him—not for the performance of the burial service—but for the right of breaking open the ground, which, undoubtedly, is his freehold. But there is a more serious argument in favour of retaining the clause for, is it not obvious that, if you take away the incumbent's burial fees, you do to a limited extent, it is true, and by a side wind, disendow the church, and however anxious many of my hon. friends may be to see the question of the disendowment and disestablishment of the church raised at the proper time, and in the proper shape, few, I apprehend, would care to see so great a question raised in so piecemeal and fragmentary a manner. The fees to which I refer ate very small. They vary from one shilling to five shillings, and are determined entirely by custom; and in Wales, where this Bill is likely to have the widest operation, they have been superseded by voluntary offer- ings and do not exist at all as of right. Now, under these circumstances, I put it to my honourable friends whether it is worth while for the sake of so small a matter to raise a question which, when raised, will be one of momentous proportions. (Hear, hear). I come now to the 8th clause, which requires a little more detailed consideration. I mean that which throws upon the poor rates the expense of maintaining the parish churchyards—putting them, in fact, entirely upon the same footing in this respect as parochial cemeteries. Now, I confess that it seemed to me that this clause met the only valid objection which I had heard urged against the Bill of my honourable friend, the mem- ber for Sheffield, that it was not just that dissenters should use the ground for which they did not pay, and that if all enjoyed a common benefit, all might fairly be expected to bear the burden of this benefit. And, accord- ingly, when I obtained leave to bring in the Bill, I siated, somewhat rashly, as the event showed, that I thought this was a clause to which no one on either side of the house, could object. But I had no sooner done so than my honourable friend, the member for the University of Cambridge (Mr B. Hope), who is too honest a foeman to accept even a gift from an enemy, rose in his place, and avowed his objection to the clause upon the ground that it revised the obsolete and exploded question of church rates. Now, sir, I had not the honour of a seat in this house during the period of the church rate agitation. But if I remember rightly, the main objection to church rates was grounded upon this, that it was unjust to com- pel a dis-entcr to contribute to the cost of a. building, which he not only never entered, but could not conscien- tiously enter But how does this reasoning apply if churchyards are thrown open to dissenters upon equal terms with churchmen, and how can parish churchyards so thrown open be put, logically, upon a different footing from parochial cemeteries? However, as the clause seems to be as unpalatable to my nonconformist supporters as it is to hon. gentlemen opposite, and as it in no way affects the principle of the Bill, I shall certainly not think of pressing it, if the Bill goes into committee. But, in that case, it" will be necessary to provide some other means for keeping churchyards in repair; for since the abolition of church rates, I am told that, in many places, they have fallen into a state which is a positive scandal to the country, and which no dissenter who is admitted to the benefits of this Bill would wish to see perpetuated. (Hear, hear). Well, sir, that is the whole of the Bill; for the ether two clauses are only formal. I do not say that it .is a perfect Bill. I do not say that it is not a Bill which may not be usefully amended in committee, but I do say that it is an honest attempt to settle a vexed ques- tion upon a just basis. (Hear, hear). It has been called by clerical organs a one-sided Bill because it only relieves dissenters without relieving the clergy. That is quite true. The Bill is what it purports to be-a Bill to relieve dissenters from certain disabilities. If hon. gentlemen opposite wish to bring in a Bill to relieve the clergy also, let them introduce a Bill to that effect, to which we shall certainly not object. But they can hardly expect us to wait until it suits their pleasure to move in the matter. And having said this much, let me express a hope that as I have endeavoured to avoid introducing any party ele- ment into this Bill, hon. gentlemen opposite will not re- ceive it in that spirit. No doubt it is very natural, par- ticularly after the turn which legislation took last year, that hon. gentlemen opposite, when the rights, or sup- posed rights, of the church are attacked, should rally in a body to the rescue. And yet I very much doubt whether this mode of looking upon these questions—not upon merits, notuponthe broad ground of whether the thing is right or whether the thing is wrong, but simply as a rallying ground for a party struggle, is conducive to the true interests of the Church of England. (Hear, hear.) Of course I ask for nothing for my Bill but a fair and honest examination both of its principles and details, and I make that appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite with more confidence because I know that that is a kind of appeal which when it is made to English gentlemen is very seldom made in vain. And perhaps it may be desirable at this point to say a word about a proposal which I understand is about to be made by several gentlemen who are friends to the prin- ciples of the Bill, that it should be referred to a select committee. Sir, I frankly avow that I have no faith in select committees, as a means of dealing with such bills as these. In cases where intricate legal rights are involved, as in the case of the Bill which stands next on the paper- the Married Women's Property Bill—select committees may do much good. But for this purpose its members must have a common stand point, and must be able to meet upon a common ground. Now, this is exactly what I am afraid no select committee could do in this case, and unfortunately we have a precedent which is not at all favourable to such a course. In 1802 Sir Morton Peto's Bill, which was similar in principle to this Bill, was re- ferred to a select committee, and it came out of that ordeal so changed that its best friends hardly knew it again, and those who did scarcely cared to recognise its features. (Laughter.) Nor do I see anything which a select committee could do for this Bill which could not be done in a committee of the whole House. If obj ections are brought against the Bill, I will endeavour to meet them, and if I cannot meet them, I will yield them; but let the matter be fought out here, in open day, and let us not be sent up- stairs to be slaughtered in the dark. (Hear, hear.) And now I come to the objections taken to the Bill, which are four in number. First, there is of course the old argument about the Bill being an invasion of the rights of the incumbent, in whom, no doubt, the freehold of the churchyard is vested; but this argument is founded upon an entire fallacy. It is quite true that the freehold of the churchyard is vested in the incumbent; but for whose benefit? Not for his own benefit. Nobody contends that he is entitled to a monopoly of the whole churchyard. (Laughter.) Not for the purpose of the Church generally. (No.) Well, if honourable gentlemen dispute my law I shall be happy to read them the judgment of Sir John Nicholl in 'Kemp v. Wicks,' which is exactly in point; but I warn them that it is 142 pages long, and that I can- not well read part without reading the whole. (Laughter.) I hope therefore they will not drive me to that extremity. (No.) Sir, the fact is the churchyard is vested in the rector for the use and behoof of all his parishioners, irrespectively of their religious opinions; and that trust, being a public trust, may of course be varied and modified by the legislature as they thought fit. The incumbent has, indeed, certain rights of his own in the churchyard-he has a right to receive his accustomed burial fees; which right this Bill carefully preserves to him, and he has also the right, if you can call it a right, the barren-I had almost said the odious right—of insisting upon reading over the grave of a dissenter a form of service which is, perhaps, the most touching message of peace and consol- ation ever composed by man, when it falls upon softened and sympathetic hearts, but which becomes a cold and cruel mockery when addressed to unwilling ears. (Hear, hear.) But beyond this he has no interest whatever in the churchyard except what we lawyers call the dry legal estate, and I suppose nobody would wish to hear this question argued as if it was an action of ejectment at common law, between John Doe and Richard Roe, in which the title to possession depended upon the devolution of the legal estate. No, sir, the question if agued at all must be argued on broader grounds. But then, it is said, that dissenters ought to provide themselves with grave- yards of their own; but, surely, such a suggestion is upon the face of it unpractical. Would it be a seemly thing- would it be desirable upon sanitary or pecuniary grounds, that every thinly populated rural parish should be fur- nished with two or more graveyards ? In town districts, perhaps, such a proposal would be feasible; but, in town districts, this Bill will have no operation. Again, it is said, that if the Bill is passed you would have no safeguard against the occurrence of riotous and unseemly scenes at funerals; but the fifth clause does provide such a safe- guard and, what is more, I do not believe such a safeguard will ever be needed. (Hear, hear.)' As I have already pointed out, dissenting ministers officiate both in Irish churchyards and in parochial cemeteries, and in no case has it ever been suggested that anything of the kind has occurred; and even if the case were otherwise, I think some of the scenes which I have described as happening at Hinder- well and Cauldon, and other places, may fairly be set off against any consequences which the most timid imagin- ation might conjure up as likely to flow from the passing of this Bill. (Hear, hear.) The last objection is one with which I find it somewhat difficult to deal It is said that the churchyard is ground consecrated by the bishop, and that all loyal churchmen would resent as a descration its invasion by the minister of any dissenting connexion. If this argument were worth anything at all, one would think it might be used against the burial of a dissenter in a churchyard, to which, however, no reasonable man thinks of objecting. But, sir, instead of bandying these kind of arguments, which are scarcely becoming the im- portance of the subject, I think it best to rest my answer to the objection upon the feeling which is growing up in favour of such a measure as this-not only among church- men, but among a considerable portion of the English clergy themselves. Of course I am not speaking now of clergymen like the Rev. E. P. Neale, whose thin-skinned soul was vexed and troubled by the singing of a hymn composed by a dissenter;" nor am I speaking of clergy- men like the Rev. Rowland Henniker, who tried by promises of beer and money to bribe his parishioners to steal a dead body from his church-I am speaking of those earnest and hard-working clergymen, who for the most part are as tolerant as they are hard-working—for, depend upon it, the same causes which nerve a man to his work also soften and enlarge his heart—I am speaking, I say, of those earnest hard-working clergymen who are the heart and the brain of the Church of England, and but for whom the Church of England, would, long ere this, have been swept into the sea. (Loud cries of "hear, hear.") But let me come to facts. In June, 1851, 3,814 clergymen memorialized the episcopal bench for a change in the burial laws, declaring them to be "the occasion of a grievous scandal to many Christian people." Again, on the 1st April, 1863,3,014 clergymen petitioned the other House for the same purpose, and Lord Ebury moved for the appointment of a Royal Commission to consider the subject. These men, no doubt, felt that the law placed them in a false and eruel position-that they were blamed where the law ought to be blamed—and they demanded a change in the law, not only as an act of justice to Dis- senters, but as an act of justice to themselves. Since this Bill was printed I have received several letters from clergymen, written in this spirit. I will take the liberty of quoting one which comes from one of the most eloquent and hard-working clergymen in Wales—a man eminently qualified, from his position and experience, to express the sentiments of churchmen on this subject—The Rev. Mr Griffith, the rector of Neath. Mr Griffith, in a letter to me, says :—" I have carefully considered the provisions of your Bill, and the conclusion I have arrived at is that they are as expedient as they are just, and such as the altered circumstances of the people of the Principality, especially, give them a right to ask for. Such concessions I consider most reasonable the further withholding of which will be as prejudicial to the interests of the Church itself as unfair to the moderate demands of those whose wishes the Bill represents. Kindness, courtesy, respect, and becoming consideration for the religious predilections of the people of Wales, coupled with a proper recognition of the important services conferred by the nonconforming portion of them, suggest the most becoming disposition and supply the most suitable attitude for the'Chufch to adopt, if she wishes to strengthen, her position or even maintain her own. There can Sli-i-ely be no cowardice, no dereliction of duty, no abandonment of principle in con- ceding that which simple right asks for." Now, sir, I am convinced that the sentiments expressed in that letter are gradually gaining ground in this country. I am persuaded that the time is rapidly coming—nay, I believe it has already come—when "ood and earnest men of all religions are beginning to look rather to that which unites them than to that which divides them- rather to the spirit which makes them one than to the letter which keeps them asunder. (Hear, hear.) And if there is a moment in life which ought to be identified and bound up with those higher and nobler feelings—surely it is that solemn moment when, standing as it were on the border land of life and death, we are met together over the newly opened grave of one whom we loved in life and mourn in death, to forget for a while the bitterness of -a common wss in the consolations of a common hope. Sir, it is to that better, that higher—that more Christian spirit_ that I appeal on behalf of this Bill—the spirit which bids the petty discords, and the jealousies, and the animosities of fleeting life be hushed in the presence of death—the spirit which 0 prompted that noble epitaph which, in > our great national mausoleum, marks the spot where, side by side, repose the two greatest of England's statemen 11 Hi motus auimoruir. atnue hrec cert- i ina tanta Pulveris exigui jactu composta quicscunt. And now, sir, I leave the Bill in the hands of the House. It is certainly not a measure like those we have lately been discussing—a measure fraught with political sig- niligancc—or big with social reforms. And yet I think it is a"measure not unworthy the attention of legislators and statesmen. For it is a measure which has for its object to soothe the severity of sorrows which, God knows, are hard enough to bear without being aggravated by cruel laws— to minister peace and consolation at times and in places where peace and consolation are most grateful and most needed, and to make the parish churchyard once more that which our forefathers in their homely but expressive language loved to call it, "the acre of God." (Cheers.)

HOI.LOWAY'S OINTMENT AND PILLS.Coughs, Influenza. —The soothing properties of these medicaments render them well worthy of trial in all diseases of the respiratory organs.. In common colds and influenza the Pills, tak-ert internally, and the Ointment rubbed over the chest ani throat, are exceedingly efficacious. When influenza is epidemic, this treatment is easiest, safest, and surest. Ilolloway's Pills purify the blood, remove all obstacles to its free circulation through tha lungs, relieve the gorged air tubes, and renrkrrespiratiol1 free,withoutreducir £ the strength, irritating the nerves, or depressing the spirits, such are the ready means of saving suffering when any one is affected with colds, coughs, bronchitis, and other chest complaints, by which so many persons are seriously and permanently afflicted in most countries.

ABOUT BEING BURIED. No Welsh constituency ever did a better day's work than the electors of Denbighshire, when they sent W OSBORNE MORGAN to Parliament; for, although a church* man, and the son of a clergyman, there is no man in tb« House who represents the Principality more thoroughly or more effectively. Indeed, being a man of really liberal sentiments, he is, perhaps, all the more effective a repre" sentative because he is a churchman and can, therefore, appeal to the House from a broader platform than that upon which nonconformist members are, often most- erroneously, supposed to stand. How much more absurA for instance, do the strictures of the Standard on the Burials Bill appear, when we remember who introduCL4 the measure. "No one can doubt," says our intensely reo spectable contemporary, what is the ultimate purpose of those who have set this measure on foot. We have nO hesitation in expressing our belief that this Burials Bill is, part of a scheme for eventually securing to dissenters the use of our churches and cathedrals. Every session seeIXl to bring with it a fresh crop of dissenting grievances and exhorbitant requisitions-some new device for weakening the influence of the church and crippling her efficiency- With some dissenters it seems to be a religion to vex and hamper the church; and as we have seen in the Educa- tion Debate, they are even ready to make common cause with infidelity itself, if by so doing they may work her hurt and damage." And so on, with increasing energy, to the end of the article from which we have selected a felf sentences here and there. Reading the Standard, one might imagine that a rabid enemy of the church led this attempt to plant their standard, as it were, within her gate andilw der her very walls," and that it was the arrogant dis- senters, insatiable as the horse-leech," who carried the second reading of the Bill by an overwhelming majority; when, of course, the fact is, that a good churchman directed "the attempt," and the majority was largely composed of members of the communion upon which this insult á5 well as injustice" is perpetrated. The Saturday ReviQO treats the arguments of the Standard with the respect which they deserve. "If the dissenter gets into the churchyard he will next try to get into the church. But there would be force in the reply that the live dissenter may walk to a distant chapel or stay at home, but the dead dissenter must be buried somewhere soon. ManV churchmen would be unwilling to force the churcJ1 services on those who object to them, and at the safflff time they would admit that when dissenters die they must be btiried." The fact is, the struggle is not betweeP churchmen and dissenters, but between those who-, from one motive or another, want to keep up sectarian dis- tinctions even on the borders of the tomb, xad those who want to abolish them. Many, of our readers will be glad of the opportunity which we are able to give them, of reading Mr MORGAN'S speech just as lie delivered it, and no unprejudiced person can rise from its perusal without being convinced that the Bill seeks to remove a very substantial grievance. Mr MORGAN abTV discharged his part, in what the Daily News calls h £ very excellent speech," by skilfully arranging a mass of telling facts, and forcibly showing the House that it waS the law as it stands at present, and not as it would be altered by the Bill, which causes scandal and strife. It is difficult to comprehend the mania of prejudice which must affect men who can read the story of -the twinsr or of the Rev. Mr HENNIKER, the gentleman who tried to bribe his own parishioners to steal a dead body, without- wishing for a change in the law in the interests of thø" church itself. The story of the twins is a strange illus- tration of the lengths of cruel bigotry to which supersti- tion will lead men who often are estimable enough out of the range of theology. One of the twins, Mr MORGAN tells us, was dead before it could be baptized, but the doctor fortunately performed the ceremony upon the other ere the last spark had fled, thus rescuing it, in what seems to profane minds a marvelously easy manner, from the terrible fate of the first. The parents, who must have been heathens-or dissenters-apparently failed to recog- nize the important distinction between the lifeless bodies, and both were placed in one coffin. The clergyman, of course, knew better. It was impossible for him to read the blessed words of hope and consolation over an unbaptized baby a new coffin had to be made, and while the service was duly performed over the infant member of the church, the little deceased pagan was carefully carried to a convenient distance, beyond reach, we presume, of the pious gentleman's voice. This ghastly exhibition of clerical intolerance" as Mr MORGAN properly called it, occurred in the year 1860, and not, as our readers will suppose, three or four centuries ago. But the case which touches the hearts of Welshmen most is that of the Ret. HENRY REES, also quoted by the hon. member. The cir- cumstances of that case are fresh in the memories of our readers, who will recollect the strong feeling of indigna- tion which it raised throughout the Principality. One of the opponents of the Bill complained that there was no reciprocity in the demand but surely there is At pre- sent clergymen are compelled to read the burial service over dissenters, and since many of them conscientiously object to perform the task which the law requires, they ought to hail an alteration that will virtually, though not nom- inally, relieve them of the duty. It is hard to think kindly of the reverend gentleman who seemed to suppose that one of the twins was going to heaven and the other some- where else just because it died a few minutes too soon, though the same charity which is extended to all the victims of superstition may well be exhibited towards him but of other clergymen, who sometimes cause "strife and scandal," we may easily believe that they are only acting up to the demands of the law, with which they consider themselves bound to comply; and some amongst them, we cannot help thinking, will be glad to see Mr MORGAN'S Bill carried into effect. In dealing with this question of reciprocity, it was argued on Wednesday, as an objection to the Bill, that no churchman can demand to be buried in a dissenters' graveyard but as we showed last week, and as the Spectator said on Saturday, there is literally nothing in the point. The dissenters' grave- yard is private property; the parish graveyard is the property of the community." There was, in fact, no ob- jection of any weight urged against the Bill. Mr MORGAN made out his case completely, and almost all the Opposition attempted to do was to suggest that the dissenters should not have quite as much as they demanded. By this the Opposition greatly weakened their case, because, once admitting that dissenters have a grievance, and that they may reasonably ask to be relieved from the ministrations of the parish priest, it is very difficult to discover a prin- ciple of any kind upon which the demand in its entirety can be resisted. Mr CROSS, the leader of the Opposition, was willing to let the interment take place on a mere certificate that a religious service had been performed elsewhere; even Mr BERESFORD HOPE was ready to accept a compromise somewhat similar; and Mr HARDY wished to "say his no to the Bill very quietly." As much as. possible was made of the fact that there are secularists, and recreative religionists, and a great variety of religious and non-religious sects in the country, who would all be permitted to bury their dead in the parish yard in the way that seemed good to them. We confess ourselves unable- to see the force of the objection. Unless we are prepared to embalm the recreative religionists-for which, perhaps, posterity would be grateful-they must be buiied some- where, and why they should be subjected to the pain of thinking that they will be buried like ordinary Christians, or the clergyman should be compelled to enact what he micht consider a farce over their graves, it is exceedingly difficult to understand. The division on the second read- ing was a conspicuous triumph—contrasting forcibly with the fate of Sir MORTON PETO'S measure in 1861, when there were 23G noes to 155 ayes-and we are glad Mr MORGAN persisted in dividing again against the special committee. The hon. gentleman carried nearly two-thirds of the liberals into the lobby with him, a fact which may be said to have sealed the success of the Bill, for the Government will most probably take care, after this demonstration, that the measure shall not be materially modified, and that it shall, as Mr BRUCE promised, speedily come downstairs. It is satisfactory to add that all the Welsh liberal members except three or four voted with Mr MORGAN in the second division. Mr STANLEY and Mr JONES-PARRY, we believe, were not with him, and Mr W. B. HCGHES and Lord RICHARD GROSVERNOR are amongst those who paired for the second reading of the Bill. The excitement that prevailed in the House during the divisions is an instance of the keen interest taken in all ecclesiastical disputes. There was almost as much excitement, says a daily contemporary, as if the fate of a ministry or the destiny of an institution hung upon the result. The interest is shared out of doors, and the further progress of the Bill will be eagerly watched by a large body of our readers.—Oswestry Adrertizer.