for themselves to this effect, that any appearance of doubt upon it is put down to cynicism. As we know that our successes were brought about by very different causes, and that there would be nothing so sure to undo all that we have done as a reliance only on the progress of liberal opinion, we are anxious to do our best to correct the error.

To suppose that the dissenting members in the House can maintain their ground there, unbacked from without, is an imagination which a single week in the lobby would be enough to dissipate. Consider what they have to do. To have weight in the House, it is obvious that they must not only know all that is going on, but they must exercise a judgment very distinctly independent of the government 'tellers' as to what is to be done in respect of it. The bills, reports, petitions, notices, whips, &c. &c., which every morning lays upon their breakfasttable in a profusion as inexhaustible and various as are the condiments of the meal itself, must be to them matters of actual information. Either by themselves, or by others for them, the facts must be got at and made ready for use, as required from day to day. As to doing it themselves, or among themselves, the thing is simply out of the question. We should judge that if all the 658 members were to resolve themselves into from fifty to one hundred small committees, for the purpose of conscientiously analyzing the pith of all the printed communications received daily by every one of them, they—well, they might do something for the delectation of posterity. The task is hopeless. Members of parliament, like other men of business, read only what they are obliged; and they are obliged to read nothing which is not brought specially under their notice. All the rest, and too much of that, goes into the waste-paper basket. To insure one vote from one member on one question, may well involve a week's time and a month's anxiety on the part of any who will try. And if this be so, let it be remembered that our task is something infinitely more serious. It is difficult to estimate it on any calculation of proportions with the case we are supposing. In that case, there need not be unusual, or even usual difficulties. The claim may be just and simple; the member honest, intelligent, and active; no party engagements may interfere; and there shall still be the labour and anxiety we have suggested in securing his actual vote. What, then, must it be to gain and keep the votes of between two and three hundred members, not on one question only, but, as the result has shown, on half the divisions of a session-questions of every shade of importance, and arising under every possible contingency as to previous announcement-the members thus kept together being all, no doubt, to a certain extent, practically reliable, but having

no sort of community in their grounds of action, and each one of them, moreover, daily subject to the delicately shaded influences of an acknowledged master of the art, in whose very touch there seems to lurk fascination? Will it not be said, that to secure from such a body an undeviating support to an advanced policy of mere principle, and to win for it, by their instrumentality, a signal success, in spite of the opposition of the cabinet, and the avowed wishes of the majority on both sides of the House, demands an organization powerful in the united support of all the leading minds in the metropolis and the provinces. We do not understand that the Liberation of Religion Society is generally considered to have received support quite of this character, but the work we have described is pretty much what it actually did last session.

It is unfortunately impossible for us adequately to possess our readers of our grounds for this assertion, inasmuch as we cannot here detail the entire ecclesiastical history of the late session. We will, however, do the best of which our limits allow. In the first place, it will be remembered that the bills, notices, and general parliamentary papers of which we have spoken are not (so far, at least, as the House of Commons is concerned) confined to members, but are obtainable at a small cost by any who choose to apply for them. All public bodies, therefore, have the means of knowing day by day and week by week all that is going forward in the legislature, and their power to affect the result depends entirely upon the manner in which they avail themselves of this knowledge. It may be of no more worth to them than, we have seen, it is to any unassisted member of parliament: skilfully used, and in the hands of a body in possession of independent force, it is a power by which any result may be obtained. To those of our readers who may not be personally conversant with these matters, it may be of use to explain that the noticepapers (which are the most important) consist of two sets, one of which is issued daily, and the other every Saturday. The first informs the members and the public of all that has been done in the House on the day preceding, and all that is down in the order-book for the day on which it is laid on his breakfasttable. It usually extends to a printed sheet (or perhaps two) of foolscap, and a sufficient acquaintance with its contents is consequently the work of a few minutes. The weekly notice is considerably more voluminous; and is in fact not to be fully understood without knowledge from other sources of the business to which it relates. It gives notice of every question, motion, bill, or amendment to be put or proposed by any member during the ensuing week. It states them simply in the terms in which they appear on the notice-paper, leaving the members to obtain

any necessary explanation from their own knowledge of the subject.

Assuming, now, that these sources of information have been turned to the best account by the Liberation Society, its next point is to act upon them with the most effect. Among other things to which we have just alluded, we named the whip.' This is a somewhat inexplicable, yet very well understood and effective instrument. It is a document signed by nobody, emanating from nowhere, and relating to nothing. It conveys no hint of what is to take place, but by some species of freemasonry which we have never entirely apprehended, it leads the members addressed to find themselves at the right moment in the Government or Opposition division lobby, as the case may be. It is known by them that the whip must have the sanction of the party-leader; and though in many cases it is probably not known till afterwards what it is all about, this suffices. When the Liberation Society began its parliamentary operations, the Dissenting M.P.'s were so far from having a leader, that they could hardly be called a party. There was nothing for it, therefore, but for the Society to adopt the suggestion of some influential members-establish a whip of its own. It was an extraordinary piece of impertinence, to be sure. On particular questions it is not uncommon-instances of it happen every session-for parties interested to send round circulars to members on whom they think they may rely, setting forth in eloquent indignation the wrongs they suffer, and humbly asking assistance in the emergency. This was all very well; but for a party out of doors to practice the thing systematically, and in a form betraying perfect acquaintance with the usages of the House and the habits of members individually, and while perfectly respectful, not betraying any consciousness at all that they were asking a very great favour, was something quite unknown to any theory of the Constitution.

But the thing took. Our Dissenting friends were well pleased to find themselves gathering together in the House and in the lobby with a regularity to which they had been strangers. Church members, who had never understood Anti-StateChurchism in the abstract, were not displeased to find themselves doing the same thing. Thorough men of business, having no particular love for us, perhaps, neverthless saw what was coming, and prepared themselves, out of respect sometimes for Dissenting constituencies, for this new element in party tactics. But there were other members who viewed it with sore discomposure. Not a few government subordinates were driven by it to make an election between their superiors and their constituents, for which they will no doubt be able to account, better or worse,

There are also

as the case may be, at the next general election. about 100 members,-rather above that number, we think, than otherwise,-who up to last session had best suited their inclinations or convenience by not voting on ecclesiastical questions. Besides all these, there is a class of members, not very numerous and not very influential, but which certainly ought not to be overlooked in this enumeration: they are in general of high blood and breeding, and they discharge with fidelity a task which they do not desire. They do not like the House nor the requirements of party. They have always regarded both with those feelings of aversion naturally due to what 'Punch' appropriately designates on their behalf as a 'horwid baw,' and have only allowed themselves to be elected on an understanding with 'Haytaw' that they were never to be summoned until the government were driven to contemplate a dissolution. They had 'got in' more or less easily, and having got in, they had done their duty, and it would be a most unprincipled thing to call upon them for anything more. It would: but there was one body of some slight importance who were not parties to the compact. Just at the time when the Liberation whips' were getting into full play, the constituents of these and of many other honourable gentlemen were infected apparently with quite new notions of their relations with their representative. To say nothing of petitions, every post brought all sorts of hints, queries, suggestions, and sometimes positively information of what was going on in the House. It was of no use not to notice these communications: they were too business-like, and the writers too influential. The only thing was to put them off with sympathetic replies and contingent promises. In a general way this is successful, as gentlemen who will resort to these evasions are their own prophets, and can regulate their own contingencies. In this case it failed utterly. The members thus acting found themselves receiving in reply cordial thanks for their sympathy, and full information as to the contingencies they had suggested. The result was, that even on Sir W. Clay's second division, two out of three of the government 'tellers' sat still, absolutely checkmated, on the Treasury bench; and but for the obstinate disbelief of some of our friends in the possibility of so daring a policy succeeding, a Church Rate Abolition bill would not only have been introduced for the first time in the history of Parliament, but would have been carried through a second reading. The absent Anti-Church-rate votes were about twice the number of the government majority. On Mr. Heywood's clauses the effect was still more marked: Forty Conservative members, following Lord Stanley into the Dissenters' lobby, neutralized the whole force of the cabinet and its immediate satellites, and

found themselves only adding to a majority already larger than their own contingent. We were not present when the numbers were declared. The scene is described to us as having rivalled the most exciting moments of the Reform bill era. Even Lord John Russell's 'pluck' gave way. The Dissenters had passed at a bound the point reached in 1815, and were now to share in the actual government as well as in the titular honours of the University of Oxford. At this crisis Mr. Walpole rendered a service to his party, which may well cover a larger multitude of deficiencies than its exigencies have ever attributed to his official career. For the moment he recovered the position. It was instantly disputed by Mr. Bright, and a postponed discussion allowed of negotiations being initiated by friends of the whig chiefs. It was too late now for the grace of concession; and the cabinet, at length reduced to accept Mr. Heywood's terms, taken avowedly as a first instalment, were only too glad to hurry the measure through the Lords, while a bill which did no more was still possible.

It is no breach of confidence to speak now of the first meetings of a few members of Parliament and others, at which the course to be taken respecting the Oxford bill was discussed. It was agreed on all hands, that to allow the occasion to pass by without some distinct assertion of the claims of the Dissenters was impossible, if only as a matter of self-respect. But the opinion was also equally clear, that no actual advantage could result. 'It will be done,' said a member, who we trust will live to disprove more than this prophesy,' it will be done some time or other, there is no doubt of that: but you and I shall not live to see it.' Fifty Fifty or sixty petitions, it was said, not numerously signed, but having a few names of known respectability, would answer all purposes. No great hope was entertained of obtaining so many, but it was thought likely to have a good effect upon the House if they could be had. It would make the movement quite respectable, and give a position to be used at some future time. We believe we run no risk of contradiction in saying, that it is due entirely to the courage of the Liberation Society, in resolving to conduct the movement on its own responsibility, on the principle of going in to win, that we are not now sitting down contented with no better result. Within a fortnight about 4000 circulars, containing forms of petition and the members' Memorial to Lord John Russell, had been forwarded to nearly every Baptist, Independent, and Unitarian minister in England and Wales. Communications were at the same time opened with the Congregational and Baptist Unions, a stream of private letters was poured continuously into every borough and leading county town where any influential