Wrexham Guardian

(BY TKLF.GUAPH). CORN MARKETS. LIVERPOOL, Friday. With a moderate attendance the market generally maintained prices. White wheat sold at Tuesday S rates. 10.. to 10s Gd, and red was rather easier, though quotable lower, to 10s 6d. Flour in better demand, andpricesii.m. Indian corn a fair business was done, good old beir.tr scarce and firm. Other sorts about late rates. Beans, flour, and peas held for an advance of Cd. Other article" inactive. LONDON, Friday. Wheat closed miietly but firmly for fine samples inferior samples were altogether irregular in value. Barley steady- fine qualities being quite as dear. Malt weak. Oats quiet, but steady troing to short supplv- Maize, beans, and peas quite unaltered. Flour dull.

PROPOSED BISHOPRIC FOR LIVERPOOL. Mrs Charles Turner, widow of the late member for South-west Lancashire, has promise i towards the scheme for creating a Liverpool j bishopric, an:1 Mr Torr, M.P. conditionally pro- mises £1.000 a year. The project may therefore be considered safe.

THE WALKING MATCH. LONDON, FR-JAV. ( At nine o'clock this morning Weston had walked 342 miles. He appeared much fatigued, and walked painfully.. At one o'clock he had made 3-1S miles, having rested two hours. He d es not intend stopping any more till he lie has finished. Xewman has completed 14G miles.

THE EMMA MINE. Philadelphia, March 9. A rumour comes from Washington that the Sec- retary of State anticipates an English claim for indemnity against the United States on behalf of Englishmen who suffered by the Emma Mine scheme, they being deceived into the belief that it ( had the endorsement of tiie United States Govern- ( ment through the appearance of the name of the E American Minister as a trustee. I t

THE PRINCE OF WALES. Indore, March 9. c The prince of Wales arrived here to-day. His d Royal Highness was met five miles from Indore by the Maharajah Holkar, who received him most. cordially. In the afternoon bis Royal Highness j paid some visits, and afterwards held a Durbar. A a grand banquet and ball were at night. The, Prince leaves tc-morrow for E'lora. r The Court of Common Council, on Thursday, j t resolved to offer to the Prince of Wales, on the oc- v casion of his return to Eng'and, a public reception f and a cordial welcome, and a committee was ap- t pointed to consult his Royal Highness's pleasure and convenience 11 relation to the reception.

litres, Carriages, anD Jkafbs. It -— V BIRTHS. j t EVANS—On the 5th inst., at Vron OfIa, Brymbo, the wife of Mr Evan Evans, of a daughter. s HGG RES-On the 29th 11It., the wife of Mr William Hughes, Oswald-road, Oswestry, of a son. a JOXES-On the 3rd inst., at 87, ilostyn-street, Llandudno, 0 the "ife 0f Mr JohnK. Jones, of a son. a MARSH -On the fiih inst., the wife of Mr F, Marsh, station- 1 master, Cambrian. Railways, Whittington. of a son. n PRICE—On the 4th inst., at Victoria-terrace, Minera, the h wife of Mr Edward Price, of a son. (_ ROWLAND—On the 4th inst., at Vron, Brymbo, the wife of Mr Davirl Rowland, of a son. v WILLIAMS—On the 4th inst., at Brymbo, the wife of Mr James llliam, or a daughter. e MARRIAGES. J; HALL-JORXSU-On the 2nd inst., at St. Jude's, South n Kensington, by the Rev. R. W. Forrest, Harry, only son of John Hall, Esq., of Bramall Lodge, Cheshire, and Min-y-garth, Anglesea, to Louisa, youngest daughter of the late William Johnson, Esq., of Hackney, and t Grosveuor-villas, Margate. j h HUGHES—WILLIAMS—On the 4th inst., at Upton Church, p Chester, William Hughes, Esq., National Provincial D Bank, Llangefni, to MidS Elizabeth Williams, High-street, a Llangefni. S JONES-JOXES-On the 29th ult., at Llanbeulan Church, B by the Rev. Robert Williams, M.A., rector of the parish, 11 Mr Thomas :onC6, farmer, Tvmoel, Ceirchiog, to Miss n Elizabeth Jones, Ceirchiog, Anglesey. v JONES—LLOYD—On the 3rd inst., at St. Peter's Church, ll Flint, by the Rev. D. W. Owen, Mr J. Jones, Compton d House, Flint, to Miss S. E. Lloyd, daughter of the late C Mr E. Lloyd, London House, Holywell. 1 SWINNERTON—OWENS—On the 15th ult., at the British t Consulate, Alexandria (Egypt), and afterwards at Grace r Church, by the Rev. Dr. Davies, John, eldest son of the C late Joseph Swinnerton, of Liverpool, to Margaret. daughter of the late Evan Owens, of Llanrwst. C DEATHS. c DAVIES—On the 5th inst., at Pentre, Broughton, Robert j Davies, aged 7 mùnth. ELLIS—On the 2nd inst., at Summerhill, Gwersyllt, Robert Ellis, aged 25 years. ] GRIFFITHS-On the 6th inst., at Nant, Bersham, Mary 1 Griffiths, aged 15. GABBETT—On the 29th ult., at Pentre Broughton, Hannah Garbetr, aged 75 years. ] HUMPHREYS—On the 9th inst., Edith Emily, the beloved ( child of Edwin E. and Caroline S. Humphreys, of Lower Berse, aged 9 years. JAMES—On the 2nd inst., at Pins Llyssyn, Carno, Mont- gomeryshire, Mary, widow of the Rev. David James, late Vicar ofLlanwnog, MORtg0meryshire, aged 79. JONES-On the 24th ult., at 5, Norfolk-street, Strand, Loudon, Griffith Jones, Esq., of Bangor. North Wales, deeply regretted. JONES-On the 6th inst., at 18, Orlando-street, Stanley-road, Liverpool, aged 31, Elizabeth, wife of David Jones, late of Dedwyddfa, Trefmint, near Rhyl. JONES—On the 4th inst., at her residenoe, Sam Bach, Llanenc;3.n, near Pwllheli, at an advanced age, Ellen, widow of Mr Griffith ones. JONES—On the 6th mat., Sarah Jones, Cae Coch Lane, Cefn Mawr, aged 7o. JONES—On the 7th inst., Mr Edward Jones, Regent-street, Llangollen, for many years omnibus driver at the Hand Hotel. MARTIN—On the 4th inst., at Talwrn, Bersham, Caroline Martin, aged 62 years. PARRY-On the 3rd inst., at the Alms-houses, Ruabon, Margaret Parry, aged 78. ROBERTS—On the 5th inst., at the Rectory, Llangynhafal, Denbighshire, the Rev. Robert Lloyd Anwyl Roberts, M.A., aged 78 years. ROWLANDS—On the 5th inst., Mr Edward Rowlands, Royal Oak, Llangollen, recently of Wrexham. SMITH—On the 4th inst., at Nant, Bersham, Ann Jane Smith, aged 18 years. STUBBS—On the 7th inst., Mary Stubbs, Tanylan, Ruabon, agoo 7S. STEW ART-On the 24th ult., at the residence of her broths --in-lii *v, Mr Joseph Jones, Summer-hill, Cambrian- view, Chester, Rachel, wife of the Rev. David Stewart, and third daughter of the late Mr George Powell, Rua.bon.

MANUFACTURE OF COCOA.—"We will now give an account of the process adooted by Messrs James Epps and Co., manufacturers of dietetic articles, at their worKs n tile Euston-road, London."—See article in Casse/Ts Household iruide. 6721 THEOAT AFFECTIONS AND HOABSENESS.—All suf- ering from irritation of the throat and hoarseness will be agreeably surprised at the almost immediate relie. afforded by the use of Brown's Bronchial Troches,' These famous "lozenges" are now sold by most re- spectable chemists in ihis country at Is lid per box. People troubled with a hacking cough," a slight cold." or bronchial affections, cannot try them too soon, as similar troubles, if allo ed to progress, result in serious Pulmonary end Asthmatic affections. See that the words" Brown's Bronchial Troches" are on the Government Stamp around each box.—Manufactured by JOHN 1. BROWN & SONS, Boston, United States Depot,t93,Oxford-street, Loi don. ADVICE TO MOTHERS!—Are you broken in your rest by a sick child suffering witn the pain of cutting teeth? Go at once to a chemist and get a bottle ot MRS. WINS LOW'S SOeTHING SYRUP. It will relieve the poor sufferer immediately. It is i erfectly harm less anJ pleasant to taste, it produces latural, quiet sleep by relieving the child from pain, a d the little cherub awakes as bright as a button." It ^cothesthe child, it softens the gums, allays all pain, relieves wind, regulates the bowels, and is the best known remedy for dysentery and diarrhoea, whether arising from tecihinj; or causes. Mrs Wins'.aw's Soothing Syrui is sold Medicine ;¿3. e"ervwnere at la 1.11-<1 per bet:iv.— -VuuaulacturoO.No* *«•«:, and at k \>xiorc- treet Lonuon.

FRIDAY. In the Lord-, Lord Don man complained of the in- j a-liquate and inaccurate reports of Ins ?peechos which .•ippeartd in the newspapers. Speaking with reference to f J it; Peninsula question. Lcnl Stauley of Ald^ri?y objected to Lotd Carnarvon's construction or his remarks hut that noble lord said be considered that what lie had ",i,1 vas justifiable, and declined to withdraw them After some remarks ircu. Lord K»desdale on the subject of the Appeili'e Jurisdiction Bill in regard to life peer- ages, the House weut into committee on the measure, and agreed to the clauses.

TIIE BURIALS QUESTION*. In the Commons, Mr Sclater-Booth told Lord G. Cavendish that it. was his intention to bring in a bill for the better management of highways as scon as the i state of business would admit of it. On the order for going into convnittee of supply, Mr Olwne Morgan rose to move his resolution on the jubjeci of the burial laws, which in these termsi "That the parish churchyards of England and Wales having been by the common law of England appropri- ated to the use of the entire body of the parisnioners, it is just and right, while inking proper provision for the maintenance of order and decency, to permit. interments in such cburchvards, either without any burial services or with burial services other than those of the Church of England, and performed by peisons other than the 1 ministers of that Church." Having explained that he had been compelled to proceed by resolution owing to the thiist fur legislation on the part of private members, Mr Morgan said that th« number of churchyards now open in England and Wales in round numbers 10,0u0, those closed amounting to 794. There were at present in England and Wales only oo'J cemeteries con- taming uncoasecrated ground. In Wales there were 786 churchyards open, 25 closed. and 21 cemeteries. Thus they lud 21 cemeteries Lr a scattered population of a million and a half. The number of burial grounds attached to chapels amounted to 20 per cent. and I chuchy ards were to the churches in the proportion of 8b percent. He objected entirely to classing those burial: grounds which were privete property in the same category with parish churchyards, in which every parishioner had a vested riyht of interment (hear, hear). I He must ask the House to separate entirely the right of interment in the parish churchyard and the right of using the service of the Church of England. The one was acivilorcommonlawright,triable by a common law court, :and the other was an ecclesiastical right, triable in an ecclesiastical court. It was one thing, as In Roman Catholic ages, to refuse those services of the, Church which were demanded as a right and another thing to impose those services on those who did not want: them—(hear, hear)—or, in other words, to force the corpse into the church which the living man had abjured. He took it to be quite clear that no man, by any law, natural or human, was compelled to enter his parish cbl1.ch: but, unfortunately, there were several thousands of parishes, containing millions of inhabitants, in which every poor man was sooner or later compelled to enter his parish churchyard. He had put this question upon I the footing of religious equality, but it was consistent with religious toleration. By his resolution he proposed optional silent burials. It wa said that this bill was an ( outbreak of political dissent. Such an assumption was 1 an outrage on common sense. It was also said that his resolution was a one-sided one because it relieved the Dissenting minister and bound the parson. But he was j no more responsible for that than the three articles in the Athanasian Creed. In his bill of 1870-71 he had 1 accepted an amendment requiring that the services either should be silent or consist of hymns, prayers, or the ( reading of Scripture but the Prime Minister denounced 1 that. Why should not Dissenters behave themselves with decorum in a churchyard ? If was libelling their feliow Christians to suggest otherwise. Then it wasjsaid S that this was disestablishment under disguise, but if his bili had been accepted in 1843 it would have kept down 1 this question for many years. The language held by s the Church Defence Association on thi* question fur the last two years had done more to pull down the Church I of England than the Burials Bill would do in the next c twenty years. There was a large body of Churchmen r who did not care for doctrine, who were alienated from the Church by the attitude taken on this question. He s knew this bill would be defeated by the aid of a mechani- 1 cal majority, but in the end he knew that common sense would prevail, and he was sure, as of his own v existence, that, strong as the Church of England was, c and he granted it to be deeply rooted in the affections) of the people—(cheers)—she could not mnch longer r afford to be defended by such opinions as these (cheer"). ) That was not the question on which they had to pro- 1 nounce to-night. The question on which they would e have to pronounce was not the disestablishmen' of the 1 Church of England. It was a question infinitely smaller [ —it was a 'n this age of universal toleration he was almcsi eSEnied to submit, to the H >use of Commons H —whether they would tolerate tIns remnant ot an old I L ecclesi;istical law. which, although perfectly suited to the age which saw its birth, had become so ill-suited 11 to the changed condition of the country, that it could not be held without afflicfion or enforced without injustice (cheers). 1 Mr Wykeham Martin having seconded'the resolution, 1 Mr Cross (who was received with loud cheers) said I that the hon. member who had introduced the motion 1 had "tated tliat he would not in any way, if he could s possibly avoid it, offend the susceptibilities of any 1 member on whatever side of the House he might sit; and he would give the hon. member credit for having, h so far as he could, kept faith in the declaration he had | made. But he could not helo remarking that the hon. c member had severely wounded the susceptibilities of many per-ons who sat on that side of the house and else- f where, not by what he said, but bv a great deal which he left unsaid for he did not in any way show that he v duly appreciated the arguments and the feelings of t Churchmen with regard to the measure (hear, hear), c The hon. gentleman had apologised to the House for having brought toward the matter in the shape of a r resolution, instead of that of a bill, acd he quoted pre- 1 cedents. But if these precedents were looked at it t would generally be found that the resolution was at the commencement of the debates on the subject, and that it ( was almost unheard of that, after a subject had been j debated year after year, not simply by resolution, but by i an actual bill, that the bill should be thrown over. and tne resolution resorted to (cheers). Suppose the resoln- 1 tion were passed, what object could be gained, and how S much nearer the object of the resolution would they bf ? t If the hon. member found, from accidents over which he had no control, nor had he—(more cheers)—himself, that he could not have an early day for the second read- < ing of the bill, he would have gained just as much by s having the second reading at the end of July as b. the 1 discussion of his motion for neither would do any good (hear, hear). Therefore, the House might have been spared the discussion for the present, and have taken it in the ordinary course, when the bill was brought forward for the second reading. But, when the hon. member brought forward his resolution, lie said that the preamble was too menacing, and, therefore, if it was tbe wish of the Ilous", he would throw over the preamble altogether. The resolution started with a proposition. not of expediency, but of absolute right, on which some- thing else was to be founded, and that was that the par sh churchyards were for the use of the entire body of the parishioners, without limitation or restriction, but absolu ely and entirely. He would venture to say, in spite of all that had fallen f'om the hon. member, that the absolute right of burial in churchyards was precisely the same as the absolute right of the parishioners to have worship in the body of the church (hear, hear). Then, if this resolution was passed, and it was afterwards pre- posed to substitute the word "currh"for "churchyard. it would be absolutely impossible, if they were consistent in their votes, to resist the one when they had passed the other (cheers). He knew it might, he said th;\t every- body must die and be buriedj but that they need not go to church but they were now discussing the actual question of right. Every parishioner had tiie right to worship in the church, but only according to the service to be performed there by law. The hon. member would make out just as strong a case if he could show that in some town where no land coull be had. and there was only a pari,-h church, a Nonconformist might say, I have a rght as a parishioner to service in that church. I cannot find land for a church for myself, and I have, therefore, the right to say that NoncanformiV ministers shall go in and prrforu. the service for me (cheers). Another po.nt arose on the first, words of the resolutior. lnd it was quite neces- sary to see to what extent it uight be pushed in that case also. The hon. member stated that the parish churchyards were appropriated to the entire body cf the parishioners, and therefore he (l^tned a right to service in them; but he should like to what church- yards the hon. member wished resolution to apply, for on that point the resolutii was practically silcn'. Did he mean to confine it to too ancient parish church- yards scattered up and down England, or to all 'he churchyards in all districts opeu at present; and if he meant the former, then this resolution in the course of a few years would be of little use, and, if the latter, let them look what it would lead to. The number of church- yards in England had been multiplied enormously in late years, not formed by the rates or the State, but by money voluntarily subscribed by members of the Church for the good of the community. Yet the hon. member, where ever those churchyards might be placed, would say, Although you have given them for your own servics. for your own church, for the benefit of those who worship there, with a rude hand 1 will take them away." Thut meant that for all time to come no member of the Church cf England, whatever his wishes, or however zealous tIe might be in the cause of bis religion, shouii be able to say that he could give a churchyard for the exclusive use of those who worshipped with him (bear, hear). And it would come to this, that members of the Church of England would be the only p ons in these realms who could not appropriate a chureuyard for this purpose. They m ght talk as they would about liberty and about freedom of conscience, but he ould talk of this as the greatest tyranny that could exercised (cheers). It might be that the charchyardo were approprattd to tbe entire body of the parishioners so long-as they existed but when they ceased to exist, what then ? What be- came of the common-law right when there was no common-law obligation on the parish to provide a church- yard (cheers). A case had happened in the last year, which bore this out, in the borough of Northampton. By the order of one of his predecessors, all the church. I y¿rds were closed. There was no power, either by common or statute iaw, to compel anj one or the p -.risnes in the town to provide a fcurinl-place for anyone in the borough, and the only place was in a private cemetery, in unconiterated ground. If they wanted a grievance, there was oue; therc was n* one who could be buiied in crated ground. n., wouM like to ask how long this g;C¡it. grievance had b-.eu {el.—this terrible state of tyrajny and oppression ? Fdteëll or twenty years ago, what was the grievance of the Nonconformists ? Simply nothing. It was never named, yet the Nonconformists were not less then, or less earnest or less enthusiastic, then than they are HOW. till, the Nonconformists were then alive, and very properly alive, to everything con- cernmg tbeir interests. Nor were they likely to have overlooked such a grievance, if they had felt it a griev- ance. How much less grievance was there at the present time ? Why, in the last ten years the whole cemetery system bad been brought into existence. Between 18GG and 1875 there were 235 cemeteries formed, and in 187o-l87ti there were oti fresn cemeteries formed. Those iacts quite changed the deductions made by the hon. member tor Denbigh from the figures he brought out. There was another thing which he wanted to point out, and that was that in thooe burial g.ouuds wheie there was consecrated and uncousecrated ground, the larger proportion of burials took place in consecrated ground, and the fact was that many Nonconformists not only did not object to have the Church service, but iiked to have it read over their bodies (cheers). And while much was said about the grievance of Dissenters in tne House, very little was said about it by themselves (cheers). In Scotland there was a common law obliga- tion, which in England there was not. that the burial J ground siiouid be provided, and the ground was vested m the heritors, and was absolutely and always fieefrom ecclesiastical domination altogether, and burial had been looked upon as a civic right. There no service was read at the grave, and in xingland service was always read at the giave. In Ii eland a very different practice prevailed, and the whole question there depended upon a totally different stute ot things to what prevailed in England. There was a stioug feeling in England with regard to the mode of worship to be used in the church- yard, and he would like to know what Nonconformist body had invited o'her denominations to bury with what services they liked. The right hon. member for Birmingham, upon a recent occasion, made a very interesting and eloquent speech upon the subject. He (Mr Biigntj was a member of a body of Christians for whom he had great respect for the conscientious way in which they ever maintained their principles. The Quakers had discussed the question then before the House, and they had come to the resolution that other persons not belonging to their sect might be interred in their burialground. The matter was discussed in 1832, and again in HiCl, and the same opinion was expressed "Burials of persons not memtjeis of our religioussacietv may take place in our burial ground and then the resolution went on to say, "provided they,by in all respects conducted as the burials of friends are con- ductea" (cheers). That was precisely the point they were discussing then, and he claimed, on behalf of the Church of England, the same rights and privileges as the Quakers did (cheers). Supposing this resolution passed, the question with which they had to deal might be remedied. The real evil in the law of English, was that there no common law liability to provide I 1 burial grounds. It this resolution were passed, it would t inflict great pain on a large number of persons through 1 the country, while at the same time it would, at the end of 20 years, be found that they had really done c nothing. D.d the House forget the great increase of the population which had taken place during the Jast c 2U years? Couid they doubt, that there would he a similar increase for the next 20 years and then, when we had at last to provide cemeteries for our teeming popu- latiou, we should regret that we did not do it before ( stirring up feelings which would be stirred up by pass- 1 mg this resolution, and legislating in accordance with it. 1 In considering the returns with regard to the closino-of n churchwards, to which the member for Denbigh had ] referred, they must recollect what was meant by ( partially closed." In U9 cases out of 100, when it was 1 said that a churchyard was "partially closed," what was t meant was that it was closed, excent that owners of vaults were allowed :0 bury their dead in those vaults 1 wi hout applying to the Home Secretary; but for all 1 other purposes and for interments generally the church- r yard was closed. They must, therefore, to get at the) real state of the case, add to the number of churchyards £ wholly closed during the last 20 years the number of s 1,0-15 partially closed in the country, and we should then get 2,000 churchyards, or something like it, closed since e the Act was passed in 1832-3. He would ask hon. c members who came from the country whether they had v looked at their own churchyards? Did they know their 1 state ? Had. they ever talked to the sexton about it, or t observed the way in which the bones were turned up? s ead they noticed, moreover, how many churchyards s were in situations where they hid no right to be with a houses or wells clustejed about them ? Well, within the ( last 2U years we had made great advances in sanitarv ( matters, and the more this matter was looked into the ( more it would be seen to be necessary to deal with it. t He had for his own part, ever since he had held bis present office, tegretted that the inspection of cemeteries 1 should be placed under the Home Office rather than under the Local Government Board, by whom it might I be much more effectually conducted. He should like to 1 see the duty transferred from the one office to the other. f hat they had now to consider was how far they could clear away these miserable ecclesiastical disputes—how ( they could, not for the past or the present, but for the ( future, take care that this question should be dealt with in a broad, intelligent, and statesmanlike spirit, which would provide not only for the interment of the dead, c but lor the health and happiness of the liviag (loud cheers). 1 Mr Knatchbull-Hugessen spoke in support of the resolution, and contended that the argumentsJf the 5 Home Secretary reahv reduced the National Church to 1 the level of a stct. The debate was continued by Mr W. C. Brooks, Mr Grantham, Mr Sackville (who opposed the motion), Mr ] Alien, Mr Walter, and Sir R. Anstruther (who supported 6 it) < Mr J. Talbot, who had given notice of an amendment, which by the forms of the House he could not propose, ( sa d no oue desired to settle the question more ardently than he did; and he believed that it could be settle«-l but that, was only by recognising—first, the position which the Church of England occupied; next, the posi- tion of the Nonconfoimists themselves, and also the s mitary aspect of the question. The more he considered the matrtr, the more he was convinced that the condi- tion of our churchyards was such that for the sake of the public health the majority of the older ones ought to be closed, and more genera t provision made for the supply of graveyards by a cheaper and simpler method than was afforded by the Burial Acts. Sir W. Harcourt followed with a speech in favour of the resolution, a'guing that the Dissenters had a sub- stantial gnevauce, and challenged the Government to say whether toey objecttd ,0 it on principle, and to eclare what was their policy. Were Ministers, he asked, going .0 raise the standard 01 "No surrender ?" That CI v was always the loudest, on the eve of capitulation, and sitting on 'he Treasury Bench at that moment was a sagacious and prescient statesman, who was only revol- ving in his imnd the means 01 escape from a situation A bich he knew to be untenable. Mr Kaikes i-aid they were told that many hon. gentle- men up-ported this lesolution from their attachment to the Chu ch The hon. and learned gentleman (Sir W. Haiconrt) thought that. if he lollowed the member for Denbighshire into the lobby he would prolong the existence of the institution of which he had told them he was such a devoted and faithful member (hear. hear). It would be well if the hon. meuiber for Oxford would look at the source from which this resolution pro- ceeded. for though the member for Denbighshire was a member of the Church of England, he had never concealed that he was a friend to disestablishment. The hon. and learned nr-ruber for Oxford migot ,11 of this as his via pi ill/a salutis, but it became those who had reJcare for the interests of the Church to be aie how they trusted in the tender mercies of the hon mem- her for Denbighshire. With regard to the law of the he (Mr Kaikes) thought it was still open to them to hold that there was no such thing as a common law right of sepultuie apart from the question of the burial service cf the Church of England. The two rights together. He was not one of those who saw no d fference between the position of the Church and the churchyard. All that he had intimated with reference to the resolution was, that if the word Church were reíld tor churchyard, and the word worship for burial, it would seem to go far towards laying the ground for disestab- li hment. If the resolution were adopted that night it would be adopted by those who were friends of disestab- lishment (cheers). It was not the first time that the principle had been put forward. He found from a re- solution passed by some leading members of the Noncon- formist body in 1872 that they claimed equal rights for all citizens in 'he national or parochial churches and churchyards, and a protest was entered against any exclusive privileges being enjoyed by any part of the community in the burial of the dead. That amounted to the assertion of equal rights and privileges and sacerdotal authority on the art of other denominations and bodies. He wished to refer to one or two matters in reference to the state of public opinion out of deors. They h-id been told a great deal in reference to the exclusiveness and rdgotry of clergymen of the Church of England in not allowing Discerning ministers to bury ia their church- jards. But how was it ou the other side. He had a letter from the vicar of Eton, near Bradford, who, in 1873, wrote that he lived in a parish which was two or three miles from any cemetery, and he had no burial giound attached to his church; but within 200 or 300 yards of his chu:ch there wa, a Baptist chapel with a cemetery attached to it. He could not bury here; he had offered to do so with; he sanction of the bishop, and the offer had been declined. He therefore had to hold a service for the dead apart from the churchyard. He did not say that the Dissente-s were wrong in this, but when they complained of the Church they should re- member that charity should begin at home. There was the case of another clergyman in Lancashire, not far from Manchester, who said that they had had to conse- crate a part of the cemetery in order to induce people to go there to be buried (alaugh), so that it did not seem to be so serious a grievance to Dissenters that they should be buried in consecrated ground. This, however, it used to be said, was their grievance. lie had a communica- tijii from Bala,, in Merionethshire, which was a sort of metropolis of Nonconformity in North Wales. It was there that the principal Dissenting college was. The Calvinistic Meth jdists, the most numerous and powerful sect, in Wales, had there their college, of which Dr. Edwards was the president. The Nonconformists had four graveyards in the parish., whilst the Church had only two. In 1874 there were eight, and in the following year 13, buried in the Dissenting graveyards, whilst in i,s75 no less than 38 were buried in the churchyards. It had been urged that the parishioners were perhaps attached to the old churchyards; but the fact was that more were buried in the new church- yard than in all the Dissenting graveyards. The president of the Dissenting college al-o had recently had prepared for himself a vault within the parish church- yard. Alluding to the statistics furnished by the fVrer- hum Guw dÙm last year, Mr Raikes said there had been an inquiry among the clergy and laity members of the Church in North Wales as to the view taken with regard to this question in their parishes, and the Rev Stephen Gladstone, who was vicar of a church, wrote that he had never hea-d expre-se-- any wish that Noncon- formist ministers should perform service in the church- yards. He added thnt he believed that Dissenters there peferred Chuich burial, as they universally did Church baptism and Church marriage. Now this was the state- ment of a gentleman who had an honoured name (hear, hear"), and whose testimony was worthy of attention. He (Mr Raika,) had never been one of those who said there wns no grievance, though he did not think it seriously affected the Nonconformist body. It did affect the Nonconformist ministers, who were jealous of the position of the clergymen (hear, hear). He did not blame them the feeling was natural to their position. It was not, however, because this feeling existed shat they were to change the law. For the last 300 years the same words of consolation and hope had in our churchyards sounded over every grave, and they were now asked, on account of some hardship of Dissenting ministers, to break that continuity of service, that unanimity of pro- ceeding in our churchyards in order to gratify the jealousy of a small minority (cheers). Mr W. Williams remarked that this question, which had been before the House and the country in various forms since 1857, had now assumed the shape of a clear intelligible issue as to whether the inhabitants of a parish ought to possessthe right to bury their dead .according to those rights and ceremonies which were dearest to them, and which they believed to be right on so solemn an occasion. He should unhesitatingly answer the in- quiry in the affirmative and further he believed it could be shown that the Nonconformists were only asking for the restoration of an ancient right. iie did not agreo in their opinions, but was convinced that they were subject to injustice and oppressions in this matter (oh, oh, and hear, heal). A golden opportunity which presented itself a short time ago of compromising this matter was lost by the clergy, who, following the worst traditions of the Church, would learn nothing, forget nothing, and give up nothing (hear, hear). He wished to call particular attention to this passage in a judgment by Lord Stowell "In what way the mortal remains are to be conveyed to the grave and there deposited I do not find any positive rule of law or religion that prescribes, Thj authority under which the received practice exists is to be fcund in our manners rather that in our laws. They have their origin in natural sentiments of public decency or private affection." He denied that the right of burial in the churchyard existed only in connection with the ceremony which attended it (hear, hear). The cases of Scotland and Ire,and had only been alluded to for the purpose of refuting the argument that this change would lead to indecency, irreverence, or distutbance. Russia, Germany, Austria, and other foreiga countries might have been alluded to in the same way. In fact, it was nearly true that England stood alone on this subject; and we had the Established and Reform d Church of England that set an example of bigotry and intolerence (oh, oh) to the rest of Europe in a manner which touched tne hearts and consciences of the people to the quick lhear, hear). Mr Disraeli rose, amid loud cheering. He admitted that the question at issue was an interesting one, but to him it did not appear to be one of general, and certainly not of universal interest. The condition of the church- yards of the count'y was no doubt to a large extent dis- graeeiul, and those who had given attention to their sanitary s ate knew how inadequate were the means of the Government to cope with the evil. Hut he was entirely oppo-ed to dealing with the churchyards in any ] other way than by plaaing them in a position whicn 1 would b0 favourable to the public health, and shutting up all those the condition of which was hopeless. From that point of view, then, this was not a sectarian, but a sanitary question. In aa-other sense, however, it was sectarian, for the motion before the House was part of an avowed and systematic determination of a well organised and able party to seve the connection between j Church and State, a result which would be destructive of the best interests of the country. On that ground. therefore, he met the proposal with a decided opposition. He ri gretted the controversies between Churchmen and Nonconformists, because he thought they might live :n harinoav, and in the full possession of civil and religious liberty, without attempting that religious equality which, would be the subvers on of the existing political as well as religious settlement of the State. Although it was with regret that he gave a vote which might savour of religious bigotry and exclusiveness, he must take the question out of the ingenious and eloquent representa- tions and misrepresentations which he had listened to, and to a measure which he believed to be insidious and dangerous, he must give his uncompromising opposition. The Marquis of Hartington said it was clear from what had been stated bv the Premier that the Govern- ment were prepared, at he command of their clerical supporters, to maintain to the fullest extent the privi- leges of the clergy of the Established Church, however well grounded was the dissatisfaction which those privileges caused to their Nonconformist countrymen. In act, they were only disposed to deal with it as a sanitary question, and in the futiie hope that, by diminishing the churchyards in which the grievance existed, they would get rid of the agitation. In that expectation they would find themselves mistaken, and the solution which the House would in the end be com- pelled to adopt would be the proposal now under dis- cussion. Mr Neviil endeavoured to address the House from the M.nisteri J side in support of the resolution, but was not heard in the impatient cries for a division. The house then divided— For the resolution 248 Againstit. 279 Majority. 31 The announcement of the numbers was received by loud and long continued cheers.

MONDAY. In the Lords, Lord Stratheden and Campbell moved for copies of the firman on reforms in Turkey and oi the Austrian note hy which it had been followed. The Earl of Morley expressed a hope that the Gov rnment would also furnish the answer of the British Government to the Andrassy note, the communication to the Por'e in snpport of that note, and the replies received from the Porte. The Earl of Derby admitted that the English Government had supported the Andrassy note, with some reservations, but they had given no pledge, and now stood as before, absolutely free to act as circumstances might require. He had no objection to furnish the papers. In the Commons, the Speaker called attention to the rule by which strangers may be excluded from the House which rule was enforced on Friday night, and a resolu- tion passed last session on the subject. Mr Disraeli said he would take an early opportunity of consulting the House on the subject.—The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the third reading of the bill to provide the funds for the payment of the Suez Canal shares, by the crea- tion of Exchequer Bonds to the amount of i4,080,000, bearing interest at 3 per cent., and issued not to the public generally, but to the Na'ional Debt Commissioners. He expressed a hope that the odd XSO,000 might be ptovided out of the surplus of the present, year Mr G!a stone criticised the Prime Minister's scheme to send out a commissioner to Alexandria, and also the publica- tion of the letters of Sir Daniel Lange, which be attri- buted to an inadve tence. He did not blame the Government for it,, but he naively suggested that they might exercise the taewlv-acquired influence with the Suez Canal Company to procure that gentleman's rein- statement in the office of which he had been deprived. Mr Disraeli said Mr Gladstone had dwelt upon an imaginary project for sending a commissioner to Egypt; but he might rest assured that the Government would not enter upon any such project unless they believed the course they were taking was for the public advantage. They bad not received any communication from Sir D. Lange as to the publication of his letters, so they could not tell what were his feelings on the subject. The bill was read a third time.—On the motion for going into Committee of Supply, Sir Wilfrid Lawson moved an amendment against any increased expenditure upon the land forces. It was rejected by 192 to 63.

TUESDAY. In the Lords, a petition was presented by Lord Cardwell from the general body of the dissenting ministers of the different denominations in London and Westminster praying for a withdrawal of the recent slave circular. Lord Cardwell contended that the circular ought to be withdrawn, in which ho was supported by Lord Selborne, Lord Hatherley, and others; the Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Derby, and others, contended that the government ought to take no further action till the royal commission on the subject made a report. The discussion ended in the petition being ordered to lie on the table. In the Commons, in reply to Mr Samuelson, the Premier said he was not prepared to state what was the additioH to the royal titles which her Majesty's ministers would advise in the event of the passing of the Boyal Titles Bill. Mr W. Cartwright moved for a select committee to enquire into the present system of levying the Customs duties on wine. The motion having been seconded by Mr S. S. Lloyd, Mr Bright said the re- duction ot the duties on the stronger .vines woul 1 have the effect of introducing better and purer wines and stimulating the trade 01 the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer having spoken, the'mofion was negatived without a division. Mr Sergeant, Spinks called at.ten- 1tion to the manner in which the railway passenger duty injuriously affects the interests of the railways and the public, and moved a resolution in favour of the tax with a view to its ultimate repeal. As an amendment, to the motion, Mr Rodwell moved for the* appointment of a select committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer having recommended the amendment to the acceptance of t'lle house, it was adopted upon a division, the motion having been previously negatived.

WEDNESDAY. In the Commons, Mr W. Lagan moved the second reading of the Game Laws (Scotland) Bill. He ex- plained that the bill embraces important provisions for the protection of tenants from depredations by game. The Scotch members were almost unanimous in sup- porting the measure, but many expressed the hope that Government would take up the subject, as the bill did not go far enough. Some few members objected to the clauses which interfered with freedom of contract, and Sir Selwin-Ibbetson, on behalf of the Government, said that he would not object to the second reading if those clauses were withdrawn. On a division, the second reading was carried by 172 against 150. Some discussion took place on the Homicide Law Amendment Bill. The Attorney-General opposed the bill, being of opinion that the matter was too im- portant to be dealt with by private members. He promised to biiug in a bill on the subject, if possible. The debate was adjourned. r

THURSDAY. In the Lords, the royal assent was given by commis- sion to the Exchequer Bonds and the Consolidated Fund Bills. The Cross Cheques Bill passed through com- mittee, and the University of Oxford Bill was, after a protracted debate, read a second time. In the Commons, Mr Brocks, one of the members for Dublin, asked i; it were true that the occasion of the assumption yf the new title of her Majesty was to be signalised by a gracious act of mercy towards any prisoners suffering puuishment for offences against their allegiance to her Majesty. The Premier replied that the Act to which the question referred had not yet been passed, but when it was he would have the honour of answering the question. Mr Disraeli afterwards moved the second reading of the Royal Titles Bill, explaining that it proposed to enable her Majesty to assume the title of Empress of India, her full title then being Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith, and Empress of India." Mr Samuelson opposed tho bill, arguing that it was impolitic. He moved the ad- journment of the debate. Mr Gladstone argued to the like effect, and stated that if no better arguments could be urged than those he had yet heard, be should feel it his duty to oppose the measure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer supported the bill. The Marquis of Harting- ton urged the withdiawal of the motion for adjournment, and Mr Samuelson consented, but it was pressed to a division with the following resuit :—For the adjourn- ment, 31 against, 284. The bill was then read a second time.

THE BURIALS QUESTION. The following voted for Mr Osborne Morgan's resolution on Friday nightMessrs A. Brogden, C. C. Cotes, David Davies, J. G. Dodson, T. W. Evans, W. E. Gladstone, W. H. Gladstone, S. Holland, W. B. Hughes, M. Lloyd, W. E. Price, W. Rathbone, E. J. Reed, H. Richard, H. Robertson, G. H. Whalley, and W. Williams, the Hon. Hanbury Tracy, Col. Stuart, and the Hon. A. Walsh. Mr G. 0. Morgan course, one of the tellers. There voted against the resolution—Messrs E. Bates, W. C. Brooks, J. Jones, W. J. Legh. D. Maclver, T. W. Mellor, J. H. Pules ton, H. C. iRaikes, J. Torr, Sir E. Buckley, Hon. A. F. Egerton, Sir P. G. ;gei-ton, Hon. W. Egertou, Viscount Emlyn, Hon. F. Morgan, \iscount Newport, Hon. G. D. Pennant, Captain Price, Sir J. II. Scourfield, and the Hon. W. F. Tollemache. Sir W. W. Wynn and Mr C. W. W. Wynn paired against the resolution. The majority numbered 279. It was composed of 262 English, 12 Irish, and 5 Scotch representa- tives—all of whom were Conservatives. The minority numbered 248. Of these 169 were English, tl Irish, and 30 Scotch members. Of the English representatives 1S6 were Liberals and 2 Conserva- tives of the Irish members, 30 Home Rulers, 8 Liberals, and 3 Conservatives and of the Scotch, 33 Liberals and 5 Conservatives. Had the division, upon which rested an issue affecting England and Wales alone, been confined to English and Welsh members, the majority against Mr Osborne Morgan would have been, not 31, but 93. Even if we deduct from the majority all the Irish and Scotch votes which it included, and allow the minority to retain the whole of the 71 votes obtained from those countries, the English members who voted against the resolution would still have out-numbered all their opponents by 1-i. The English Conservative members who voted for the resolution were Mr C. W. Neviil (Carmarthen District), and the Hon. A. Walsh (Eodnorshire). The Scotch Conservative members who went into the same lobby were Sir G. Douglas, Mr Orr Ewing, Sir A. H. Gordon, Sir W. Stirling-Maxwell, and Mr M. J. Stewart. The Irish Conservative members who supported the resolution were Mr James Chaine, Mr J. P. Corry, ond. Mr C. E. Lewis. Last year 4S6 members, inclusive of the tellers, took part in the division upon the Burials Bill, viz 257 Conservatives, 201 Liberals, and 25 Home Rulers. Ag rinst the bill there were 249 Conserva- tives and 1 Liberal; in favour f it 203 Liberals, 8 Conservatives, and 25 Home Rule members. The second reading was. therefore, rejected by a majority of 14. Mr W. H. Foster, the only Liberal who voted against the second reading, took no part in the division. For the Resolution. 187G. I Against. Scotland 37 Scotland 6 Ireland 40 Ireland n Wales IS W,tl..s r. England Jr. England j, Total 24,s Total 279 For O. Morgan's Bill, 1S75. Against. Scotland :!4 | Scotland 4 Ireland 34 Ireland y Wales 17 Wales 7 England 149 England 228 Total 234 Total 248 England I England 228 Total 234 Total 248 A return of the burial-grounds partially open and closed by orders in Council from 1854 to 1875 (in- elusive) just presented to Parliament shows the following facts :—Consecrated, 660 closed and 1,045 partially closed, total 1.705. Unconsecrated, 533 closed and 610 partially closed, total 1,143. The following is a copy of the return, so far as applies to Waits, moved for by Mr Osborne Morgan, relative to the population and burials places cf the various counties of the principality Number of Church- Number of Uuncon- yards or Consecrated secrated Burial Number or Burial Grounds, Grounds Attached to Burial Grounds pro- n? adjoining to or separa- Unconsecrated Places vided under cro ted from of Worship in the Burial Act?. Number of Population of Number Churchyards. Number Parish, or otherwise. 3 Parishes. Parishes. of of if Con- Closed Uncon- Closed y1?11" Contam- PptnniQ TJpfnriiq secrated by secrated by taming- ing Keturns. Ketmns. Order Places Order Unconse- Unconso- N COUNTY Not Not of i** envted citited ft: Received. Received. Received. Received. Worship. Open. Council. Total. Worship. Open. Council. Total. Ground. Groun*. iotal Anglesey 26 15 26,904 24,136 29 28 2 30 71 21 0 21 0 0 0 S-Brecknock 37 16 48,685 11,216 58 55 1 56 123 65 2 67 2 0 2 £ 5 Cardial a 48 19 64,614 8,927 C2 60 1 <M ••• 155 62 1 63 3 1 4, a Carmarthen 59 9 105,253 10,457 82 77 2 79 204 131 3 134 0 ( 0 H Carnarvon 43 Its 74,320 31,801 73 72 5 ,7 2l2 o4 0 34 1 1 Denbigh 62 12 99,067 6,035 83 85 7 92 290 63 3 66 3 0 3 >3 Flint 18 15 61.614 14,698 34 38 1 39 78 4 0 4 1 1 2 « Glamorgan 80 27 284,015 113,844 99 87 « 93 293 88 14 102 4 0 4 Merioneth 19 12 26,232 20,366 25 26 0 26 85 19 0 19 1 0 1 5 Montgomery 44 17 51,287 10,330 61 53 0 53 132 31 ^1 I- Pembroke 88 30 76,544 15,454 94 97 0 97 141 68 2 70 2 0 -J 3 Radnor 27 15 14,760 10,670 31 30 0 30 29 16 J3 _16 _2 Total. 541 205 933,195 283,94g 731 70S 25 733 1,813 602 25 627 20 2 22 T I Mr Osborne Morgrn is reported to have said in the House of Commons, when speaking on his Burial Bill on Friday night, In Anglesey there is not a single cemetery.' It may be for him to know that for many years th« re have been public cemeteries at Beaumaris, Holyhead, Llan- gefni, and Amlwch, and it rn iy add t his informa- tion to learn that the above places are in the Isle of Anglesey. It would be esay to show that his statistics are equally false, and his arguments radically rotten, as regards other counties in North Wales."

HUXTING. r! SIR W. W. HOUXDS WILL MKKT OX WILL MKKT OX Saturday March 11 Ba*cburcl, Station Monday, Marcu 13 Kernel-. Wednesday, March 15 \hS Friday, March 17 ™ Satui-da3-, INI:ireli Is Perniiiii At 10-30. THE B. C. C. HOUNDS WILL MEET ON Tuesday, March 14 Prestatyn At 11. Friday, March 17 Gtorae At 10-30. THE NORTH SHROPSHIRE HOUNDS WILL MEET ON Mondaj-, March 13 Kpnnels Friday, March 17 FiVtis Milestone At lo-4o. THE SHREWSBURY HOUNDS WILL MEET ON Monday, March 13 Buildw^s Bridge (Wrekin Side) At 11-4.5. Thursday, March If; Montford Bridge At II. THE ALBRIGHTOX HOUNDS WILL MEET ON Saturday. March U Plough Inn, Weston Heath Monday, March J3 Tht* H<km luetday, March 14 Churchill station lliursday, March Hi 1 on/H'onl Saturday, March IS ^Spread EaX At II. 0 THE LUDLOW HOUNDS WILL MEET ON Tuesday, March 14 Wigmore Rolls Friday, March 17 Shakenlinrst At THE WHEATLAND HOUNDS WILL ON Tuesday March 14 ..Deuxhiil I" rillay, 31ureli 1/ Weston Toll Bar At 10-30. THE UNITED PACK WILL MEET ON Monday, March 13 Tyroit Gate J.h(Ur!da?''ar(j!1 ..Church Stretton Saturday, March is Astou-on-Clun At 10-30. THE VALE OF CLWYD HARRIERS WILL MEET ON Saturday. March 11 HeilU VV ednesday, Mirch 19 l^or-edd Saturday, March IS G,yn Artliur WedDesdaj, Match 22 Newmarket Saturday, March -'5 Cefyn Beryn At 11. THE FLINTSHIRE HARRIERS WILL MEET ON Saturday, March 11 pias Teg Wednesday, March 15 Nannerch Station Saturday, March is Holly Bush At 11. THE NORTH MONTGOMERY HARRIERS WILL MEET ON Saturday, March 11 Tanvfron At 11. THE CARNARVON HARRIERS WILL MEET ON Monday, March 13 Thursday, March Hi .V p',„r ivnn su.urj, Marcus, (i-0 Uuish the season). At 11-30.

The funeral of Lady Augusta Stanley took place on Thurs- J nooa> Westminster Abbey, in the presence of a large aud distinguished c >ncourse of mourning fr ends and sym- P at hi ers. The remains were interred tu the Chanel of Henry VII., beside the monument to the Dukt1 of itfontpensier. Among tnose present were her M jesty, Princess Beatrice. Princes, Christian, and Princess Louise. Printed and Published on Fridays and Saturdays, at the fStuardian Steam Printing Offices, 26, Hope- street, Wrexham, by WILLIAM G-AUKATT JOHRS, 5, Earl-street, Wrexham and JOHN HAMLTK LAKEMAN, 7, Derby-road, Wrexham; famd also Published at the Guardian Office, 5, Vale-skeet Denbigh; Guardian Office, 84, Wellington-road, Rhyl, in the county of Flint; and at the Estab- lishments of Messrs. Pring and Price, High- street, Mold, and Mr Owen He as, Old Parliament- street, Doigelley, in the county of Merionem.— Marchll 1876.