retort by which our opening remarks might be encountered. The Whigs may be the constitutional party, but circumstances may have occurred to render necessary a reconsideration of the rank which the Church holds in the constitution. Because the Whigs do not support the Church, it might be argued, it does not follow that they do not support the Constitution. This is plainly far too wide a question to enter upon in these columns. What we do wish to point out is this, that boldly to take up the position here indicated is the only way of justifying the behaviour of the Whigs in Parliament during the last thirty years. To have either tacitly connived at, or openly supported, propositions of which the manifest tendency, to say nothing of the avowed design, is the separation of Church and State, is painfully dishonest conduct on the part of any body of men who still contend that Church and State ought not to be separated. It is impossible to evade this conclusion. It is not a question about which there can be two opinions, as there may be about the reduction of the franchise or the extent of the prerogative. No one even affects to doubt that the anti-Church agitation which has been recently sustained in the House of Commons under Mr. Bouverie, Mr. Baines, and Sir John Trelawny must terminate, if successful, in the dissolution of the union between Church and State. Yet this agitation has the support of Whig speeches and Whig votes.

thusiasm and aching hearts, and has left them no resource but submission when summoned to make war upon the Church.

We beg to call the attention of our Conservative friends to this aspect of the question. If the Conservative party had the whole of that motley aggregate which calls itself the Liberal party honestly opposed to them on Church questions, there might indeed be some plausible pretext in favour of concession and compromise; but when they know that this is not the case, when they know that they have only to stand firm, and that the ranks of their opponents must melt away by degrees for want of that real sympathy which can alone hold men together for any length of time, it seems infatuation under these circumstances for the Church's friends to cede one inch. We may depend upon it that the Whig-Radical alliance has, as far as the Church is concerned, done its worst. The tide has turned, and but a little more patience and firmness is required on the part of the Conservatives to relegate Clergy Relief Bills, Religious Worship Bills, and Nonconformist Burial Bills to the limbo of forgotten absurdities, there to rest peacefully alongside "the Rights of Man," "the Wrongs of Ireland," and "the Five Points of the Charter."

If the Whigs had come forward honestly and declared of the Church, as they declared thirty years ago of Parliament, that her position in the country required a complete reform, they would have been, however much opposed to our own views, honourable, consistent, and not improbably victorious. Now, however, they have lost the confidence of both parties. The Radical Church reformers will long remember their late speeches. The Tory Church defenders will long remember their late votes. The one will see that they cannot trust them in prosperity, and the other that they cannot trust them in adversity. No doubt it is better for the Church of England that the Whigs have acted as they have done, than that they should have really united with the Dissenters. But how much better than either would it have been if that considerable body of English gentlemen who still represent the old Whigs had had the courage to act on their convictions, and so prevent the hope of fundamental changes from taking root in the minds of Nonconformists.

Such conduct, unhappily, is what every party is liable to which is unable to stand by itself and on the inherent strength of its own principles. The Whigs had long ago exhausted the vitality of the old Whig creed, which meant the redress of abuses combined with the preservation of the Constitution. Everything which a pure Whig considered to be an abuse had been destroyed by 1833; and henceforward the whole existence of the party has depended on the success with which they could simulate a reforming spirit, when it was really dead within them. This This desperate position has driven them to patronise revolutionary measures against their own most cherished convictions; has forced them anew into the arena of Parliamentary Reform with sickly en

Durate, et vosmet rebus servate secundis.

If, however, for the sake of speculation, we go a little deeper than the above remarks which affect exclusively the posture of affairs at the present moment, we shall be interested in observing the tenacity of political associations. We think it is quite possible that though any quiet Whig old gentleman, when not baited by a Radical, or otherwise exercised in his mind, may be practically just as fond of his church, his parson, and his prayerbook as any other man, yet in the inmost recesses of his brain there does lurk a vague idea that these are his natural antagonists. His party was linked with them for a short time, as the Dissenters were, in opposition to absolute monarchy; but when the temporary necessity had passed away the rank and file of each relapsed into their old attitude. Addison's Tory foxhunter congratulated himself that there was not a presbyterian in the county except the bishop. And the bishop was of course a Whig. The Whigs kept the Church quiet during the first half of the eighteenth century by their unscrupulous exercise of patronage, but they felt instinctively that they had no friends beyond the Bench. Thus dislike of a "priest" came to be a kind of fashionable sentiment with the Whig aristocracy; and, in one form or another, it has been handed down to the present day. We see it strong in Lord Macaulay; we see it strong in Sydney Smith; we see it strong even now in the Edinburgh Review. Through these various influential channels the idea has been sedulously propagated that a priest is either an ignorant and sensual bigot, "fat with the crackling of tithe pig;" or a dark, dangerous, and narrowminded intriguer. Macaulay's picture of the clergy of the seventeenth century is not only in itself unjust, but is purposely drawn in the most coarse and insulting language. The chaplain at the Great House" might fill himself full with the corned beef and carrots, but he was expected to retire, &c.;"

the curate thought himself lucky if asked to share the servants' Sunday dinner; and during the rest of the week he loaded dung-carts for the farmers. Sydney Smith was never tired of pointing his sarcasms against Church dignitaries, who were all, to trust him, sunk in sloth, self-indulgence, and indifference. This general idea of the clergy is what the Church owes to the Whigs. But it is in perfect harmony with the most ancient Whig traditions: so that although the separation of Church and State is very far from being a Whig theory, yet an habitual depreciation of the clergy has become so intertwined with Whiggism, that our old gentleman aforesaid is unable entirely to forget it, and no doubt often finds himself in a state of curious distraction between the force of personal sympathy and that of traditional prejudice. We are willing to admit, therefore, that underneath and behind the influence of party exigencies, which drives him into the arms of quakers, jumpers, and ranters, there may, in the breast of many a good old Whig, be still found a substratum of anti-clerical feeling the sediment of bygone folly, which deemed it fine to be a free-thinker. In the place where the buff waistcoat ought to be he may still at times become conscious of a feeble pulsation against 'priestcraft," testifying to his true descent from Sidney, Shaftesbury, and Wharton; as sometimes through an old man thrill momentary beats of youthful passion. The curse of his origin is upon him. The poison yet works in his veins. Like Holmes's Elsie Venner, he struggles painfully with a mysterious instinct. He is drawn by an uncontrollable impulse away from what he really loves towards the haunts of the ancient serpent which are situated below the gangway. Doubtless, with age he is gradually wearing out the taint. When tranquil, as we have already said, he is almost unconscious of its influence, and delights, as others do, in the solemnity and majesty of a church. But he is not yet wholly dispossessed. And while the necessities of his position are calcu lated to aid the expiring efforts of the old sentiment, he probably never will be.

For it is a necessity of which we speak. The Whig knows well enough that if he is not to surrender that cherished name, and amalgamate those time-honoured colours with those of his hated rivals, he must keep up the show of an assault upon some institution or another. It is the tenure of his political existence. Lord Palmerston is not a Whig, nor is he the slave of Whig traditions. But he is absolutely indifferent, and on such subjects as these is at the mercy of men who are Whigs. We ought to be thankful that these are fast diminishing, as their presence on the political battle-field tends to obscure the true issue, and to mislead us as to friends and foes. But enough yet remain to be exceedingly mischievous in their way; and to cause the agitation against the Church to be protracted for some time longer.

With these two influences at work to override their better feelings, it is not to be expected that the Whigs should not support the Radicals. Parliamentary weakness, and hereditary vice, nearly worn out though it be, conspire against that respect for the English Church in which few landholders

are deficient. As long as their parliamentary position can be secured by a support which produces no result, no doubt the better pleased they will be; for we believe that their liking for the Church is in itself stronger than any other feeling. But if the Conservatives do not at once take such steps as may demonstrate the futility of further agitation on the subject, there is no saying what pressure may be placed upon the Whigs, or how much trouble they may yet cause to the champions of the Church of England.

Mr. Estcourt.

HERE are a good many members of both Houses whose position upon the Churchrate question it is not easy to understand, and who probably have no clear understanding of it themselves. But there is no one of them to compete with Mr. Estcourt.

Mr. Estcourt some two years ago was a great advocate for self-exemption; and it was upon his evidence more than upon anything else that the conclusions of the Lords' report, in 1860, were founded, giving power to every man, Churchman or Dissenter, who did not like to pay Church-rate, to exempt themselves from such payment without further ado. In a country which professes to respect rights and vested interests, and to be governed by equal laws, this is about one of the most curious legislative propositions on record.

This year Mr. Estcourt, in moving his amendment to the second reading of Sir John Trelawny's Bill, threw self-exemption overboard. Just as he relied upon it before to cure everything, so now he would have nothing to say to it at any price.

It was a wise act-rather it would have been a wise act if it had been complete. But Mr. Estcourt deceived himself. Self-exemption was not struck out of his list, as he supposed it to be: it had only retired a minute from the stage to put on another dress. In a few days Mr. Estcourt gave notice of a resolution, or string of resolutions, the burden of which is to get rid of Church-rate as it is, and to make it voluntary. So much as this was plain upon the face of the resolutions. For the rest no man could clearly understand what they meant and what they did not mean; and it now appears that Mr. Estcourt did not understand this himself, because he has materially altered them. Having employed ourselves all the time we could conveniently give, and to the best of our poor abilities, we have no clear perception of what the meaning and extent of the altered resolutions may be. Then, again, having, we suppose, had it pointed out to him that the order of the resolutions was dangerous, Mr. Estcourt changes the order.

Now all this is very amiable and very like the man: but the question is whether it be statesmanlike, or fair or respectful to the Church and to Parliament to propose for adoption from day to day in a matter of the utmost gravity-quicquid in buccam venerit. It might have been thought that changes and vacillations in policy such as Mr. Fstcourt has exhibited would have been accompanied with some

measure of distrust of grasp of the subject and of power to deal with it. But there is no symptom of any such distrust. Mr. Estcourt goes to his work just as if he had always been of one mind about it, and was doing it on a principle. But what one expects to see every morning in the daily papers is some change of purpose. Perhaps it may be that this sort of mind is not capable of self-distrust.

Further, it has come to be generally allowed that if Church-rate is to be legislated about at all, it can only be upon the responsibility of the Queen's Government. Accordingly, Mr. Estcourt, a distinguished member certainly, but a private member, of Parliament, produces his own plan, with about as many editions of it as Mr. Lowe's Code, and about as intelligible and satisfactory. But the principal thing remains. Mr. Estcourt does not appear to see that the resolutions he proposed on Tuesday last are not only inconsistent with, but are contradictory to, the resolution which he carried against Sir J. Trelawny, May 11. In that resolution the House of Commons, following Mr. Estcourt, declared it to be unjust and inexpedient to abolish Church-rate without provision made by Parliament to enable churchwardens to meet the liabilities incident to that office. No man could read the resolution and say that any one of the liabilities attaching to that office was excepted. If Mr. Estcourt meant to except any, he should have said so. In these resolutions Mr. Éstcourt asks the House of Commons to sweep away half the liabilities -all those of the worship-and, under new conditions, to provide for an occasional fabric and yard rate only. This is, to say the least of it, a very curious way of doing business. Mr. Estcourt, unconsciously to himself, has done a thing which, in most men, would be considered dishonest. Nemo fuit unquam sic impar sibi.

So it is that good men go blundering on because they do not grasp principles: alienating friends: helping none but enemies: harassing the Church: digging pitfalls for simple and half-informed men. And, in these days of "the manhood of the world," "advanced intellect" and little knowledge, the number of half-informed men is alarmingly on the increase. Every man has his opinion, not always very lasting, but very strong so long as it lasts, because every man can read a newspaper; and some men must have their resolutions and their bills upon the gravest matters of Church and State. But few men look beyond their noses, and, if a man has a long nose, not so far.

Mr. Estcourt has withdrawn his resolutions. It was foreseen, from the first, that they could have no other issue. But the House of Commons gains nothing by being turned-to use Sir George Grey's expression-into a social science gathering. For our part, we say what we have said before, but which, like the other remark repeated above, will bear repeating, that there is no middle course between abolishing Church-rate and maintaining it in its entirety. There are many reasons why no compromise can be had; but one will suffice, as it did for the French disputant,-Monsieur, il y a sept raisons; d'abord c'est impossible.

Clergy Relief and Burial Bills.

ORACE'S rule about making money-si

possis rectè, si non, quocunque modo-has been largely applied this year to legislation in the House of Commons. Somehow or other, in the dearth of good and useful things, other things, neither good nor useful, must be made law. It cannot be said of the House, as is said somewhere of a man in one of Hood's stories," he had nothing to do and he did it :" it would be better if it could. This appetite for meddling and mischief has left deep traces, whatever may in the end become of the several attempts, in such examples of statesmanship and reverence as "Clergy Relief" and "Burial" bills, Church-rate bills and resolutions. These things are incident to Church and State, and it is better they should come than be suppressed: because it is mainly by the discussion they receive in Parliament that their real character is brought to the knowledge of the people at large; and, as the principles which they all, more or less, invade happen to be true, the more discussion, the more safety. But the process is painful from many causes, private and public.

The Clergy Relief Bill may probably pass the House of Commons. There we hope it will stop. No attempt at legislation at once more futile and more injurious will, at any time, have been put upon record. It is futile because there will hardly be a man found in a century to avail himself of its provisions. It is injurious because it suggests many things that are wrong, and disparages many things that are right. A Bill of one clause, getting rid of the civil pains and penalties attaching to a clergyman "relieving" himself of his orders, would have met with no objection and with much approval. But this is not the character of Mr. Bouverie's Bill, even as it has come from the Select Committee and has been received favourably by the House. It is strange that the House of Commons, Churchmen and Nonconformists alike, should have yet to learn that it is not by depreciating and lowering the status of the Church of England that they will do their part in guarding against the unhealthy and dangerous influences of the Church of Rome.

There are four principal reasons why the Burial Bill should not become law, and no reason why it should. If the clergy and the churchwardens, whose special concern it is in the first instance, are indolent about opposing it, and it should become law, they may blame Parliament, if it relieves their minds to do so, but much more justly would they blame them

selves.

The first reason is, because what is proposed to be done by the Bill is wholly unnecessary and uncalled for, there being no grievance to be redressed, except such as is included in the great standing grievance of a National Church; and, even supposing there were a grievance independent of this general and comprehensive grievance, the particular grievance alleged is so infinitesimal and exceptional

The second reason is, that the Bill is an invasion of the trusteeship of every incumbent of a parish, and of every churchwarden in respect of the parish churchyard. It would not be possible under the Bill for either incumbent or churchwarden to ensure public order and decency. Ancient rights entrusted to the keeping of the clergy and churchwardens of the Church, established by law for the general good, ought not to be interfered with, except in a clearly-ascertained case of a paramount public necessity.

Thirdly, this Bill would not only give opportunities for, but will stimulate, scenes of excitement and scandal in parish churchyards shocking to the feelings of all religiously-minded people, whether Churchmen or Dissenters.

Fourthly, it is a step, and a very decided step, towards the entertainment and ultimate concession of a like claim on the part of Nonconformity to the joint use of the parish churches.

It is easy to understand that the last of the four reasons here enumerated, being the principal reason against the Bill, is just that which, in the eyes of its promoters, is most in its favour. We do not doubt, indeed, that it is in this view that the Bill has been conceived; and that the alleged grievance about burial is only a pretext to be laid aside, as occasion serves, when it has done its work. But, as it is easy to understand this, it is, on the other hand, very hard to understand that any man, who cares for the Church of England and its national existence, can deceive himself into thinking that he has anything to do with such a Bill but to reject it. We say again here what we have said before, but which will bear repeating, that no man can do at once two opposite things, maintain a building, and pull out its foundations. But, nevertheless, this is the exact account of the parliamentary action of a great many members of both Houses, from whom the Church of England has a right to expect better things. There is one advantage growing out of all this mischief. At the next election we mean to know a little more about our men-about, that is, the men we are going to have. Many an elector who has never canvassed will canvass then-many an elector who has concerned himself hitherto very little about his vote, will then take any amount of trouble to prevent his Conservative member, who has voted for, or has not voted against, such Bills as these, from finding himself in his old place in a new Parliament. As for the Whigs, it has long been with them that it is only by their promises at the hustings to join with political Dissenters and Roman Catholics to

Mexico.

HE name of Mexico stinks in the nostrils of Englishmen. They know that the country is inhabited by a people who profess to rulfil a sacred duty in not paying their debts, and whose chosen amusements are to cut each other's throats, to shoot the strangers who develope the resources of the land, and to invent, every six months, some new form of anarchy, which is dignified with the name of government, and which is always the result of "an effort to establish the rule of reason and morality." Very sensibly, therefore, it has been determined by common consent to be as ignorant as possible of everything connected with such a race, and the feeling of momentary interest which was compelled by our intervention in its affairs gave way to one of blank relief when the disagreement with France cleared us of all further responsibility. The check, however, which General Lorencez has received before Puebla again changes the aspect of things. We shall, therefore, however little we may like it, be obliged to think and to read about what will certainly become, if it be not already, a first-rate political question.

Ever since the fall of Santa Anna, whose government was the last tolerably strong one that Mexico has seen, the Reactionists and the Liberals have been, almost without interruption, at open war with one another. Both have succeeded at different times in raising a temporary preponderance ; neither have at any time secured the acquiescence of the nation as a whole; and latterly, at any rate, it would be difficult to say whether the Governments formed by the one or the other have rested on more unsound foundations. In 1860 a legally constituted Government repudiated the accepted constitution of the Republic at its seat in the city of Mexico itself, while the constitution was upheld by another Government, irregularly constituted, at Vera Cruz. Both were equally lawless in their acts. If that which harassed the interior robbed and murdered with a freer hand, it was only because