The Sun. — London, England, 1858-04-22 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT, HOUSE OF COMMONS.—YESTERDAY.) The SPZAKICRPR to IVATEok the ch BUSINESS.air at twelve o'clock. The Barnstaple Water Works bill was read a third time and passed. PETITIONS. A large number of petitions were presented praying for the abolition of church rates by Mr. Hadfield, Mr. Edward Ball, Mr.Liddell, Mr. Deedee, Mr. Ayrtoo, Mr. Briscoe, Mr. Phillips, and others. Several petitions were also presented against the abolition of church rates. 01JDE. General P. THOMPSON said he had a petition to present from the Dewsbury Debating Club, praying for the - restoration of Oude. Mr. WALPOLE doubted if a petition could be re ceived from a debating club in its collective capacity. General P. THOMPSON said the petition was signed by many individuals. Mr. WALPOLE suggested the amendment of the petition, so as to make it as coming " from the under signed members of the Dewsbury Debating Club." General P. THOMPSON said the petition should be so amended. An Hon. Member said that petitions from Chambers of Commerce had been frequently received signed only by the Chairman of such bodies. CHRISTIANITY IN INDIA. Mr. HUNT presented a petition from a place in Huntingdonshire, praying that Christianity may be made the basis of the future Government of India. INCOME TAX. Sir J, V. SHELLEY presented petitions from the inhabitants of the Metropolis, praying for such an adjust ment of the income-tax as shall make a distinction be tween fluctuating and precarious incomes, and incomes derives from realised property. CHURCH RATES ABOLITION BILL. On the motion for going into committee ' Mr. PACKE moved an amendment that the bill be committed this day six months. No one respected con scientious objections, in matters of religion, more than . he did, but he apprehended that in this case the objec tion to pay ehurch rates resulted from a less elevated feeling than that of conscientious scruples. He cited the evidence of a number of witnesses examined before the Church Rate Committee, to' show that the principal objections hitherto advanced against church rates did not arise from conscientious feelings. He denied that there was any general desire for the abolition of church rates, and he cited in support of his assertion the rejec tion of the champion of the cause (Sir W. Clay) by the Tower Hamlets ; and Mr. Miall, a great writer as well u speaker on the subject, by Rochdale. Mr. K. SEYMER seconded the amendment. Mr. HUGGESSON cordially supported going into committee on this bill. He considered the amendment oame with a bad grace from the ministerial side of the house, beoaese, if the present government had not been in power the future charge of the bill would have been handed over to the noble lord (Lord Stanley) secretary for the colonies. There was a great and growing feeling in the country against church rates, though the returns might not show it. Thousands who ob• jected on principle to church rates paid them on account of the smallness of the sums generally levied. Church rates were undoubtedly wrong in principle. They were a grievance to the dissenter, and so far from this objection to them being made a breeches pocket question, they were contested on principle. (Hear, hear.) He contended that church rates were an occupiers tax, and that they ought not to be en• forced on dissenting occupiers, and he denied that the abolition of the church rate would. benefit the landed interest. As a zealous churchman, he felt humiliated when he heard it said by churchmen that if the rate was abolished the fabric of the church, in many instances, would be allowed to fall into decay. (Hear, hear.) Where parishes were too poor to pay a rate, he thought the fabric of the church should be repaired out of the funds in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Com missioners. To take the money out of the pockets of dissenters was a disgrace to the church. (Hear, hear.) Dissenters were worthy of their consideration, for we owed much of our liberties to them. The church ought to be freed from this tax, and rest cn the affections of the people for her support. Mr. PUGH (Carmarthenshire) supported the motion or going into committee. It was high time for the peace of the country this question should be settled The sacred cause of Christianity also required that the question should be set at rest f ;r ever. England was the only country in which these scandale c3eid arise about repairing the fabric of the Church. Mr. K. SEYMER was anxious to give relief to dissenters to church rates, but not in the manner proposed. He thought the house ought to be very careful how they admitted the principle that no man should contribute towards anything from which he dis sented. (Hear, hear.) He wished to relieve Di-sentere from the tax, but in return they must abstain from voting fur churchwardens, and other matters relating to the Church. Such a compromise was proposed on a former occasion by Mr. R. Pailiimore, but rejseted on the ground, as he believed, that the abolition of the Church-rates, as now proposed, would he the first instal meat towards separation between Church and State. The opponents of such a change were ready to meet that question openly in that house and defeat them. (Hear, hoar.) He objected to it; being attempted by a side wind Ile the present. Sir. G. GREY objected to the continuance of the de bate. The principle was confirmed on a former occasion by a majority of 53 in a house of 400 members, and it was inconvenient to renew the debate on going into committee. Loud J. MANNERS could not join the right hon. gentleman in his implied censure upon those who thought that the principle of the bill ought to be rediscussed upon this wage. On the contrary, he believed it alone. lutely essential that that principle should be further and more gravely considered by this house than it had been upon the occasion referred to. The debate on the second reading was not sustained fcr any considerable period ; and, looking at the momentous in erests which were at slake, he was of opinion that further consideration ought to be bestowed upon the principle before they settled the deteols of this measure. Its supporters, as the house should remember, declared that it was susceptible of n o improvement whatever. The simple proposal they made was for the total and immediate abolition of church rates, and they would be the first to repudiate altogether the grounds upon yin h the right hon baronet (Sir G. Gray) had j .st expressed his r a liness,to vote fur going into committee. Now, it would be generally admitted, with regard to this question, that whatever idea might be popularly associated with the abolition of church- Wee, they could only in justice and in equity be col n - plaiued of by the Dissenters. N o one would contend that any Churchman had a moral right to complain of the continuance upon that property which he bad either inherited or purchased of an obligation to maintain the fobric and support the services of the church. Tee ques tion was one which affected Dissenters alone. Now the peapla of this country were jealously sensitive on the subject of the rights of conscience, and you had nothir to do but to say that any particular institution aggrieved your conscience in order to secure for your statement a most attentive and favourable consideration. His obj,c tion, however, to this bill—and it was one which went to the root of the proposed legislation—was, that it re lieved the consciences and the pockets not only rf Seaters, but of rich and iofluentihl Churchmen. (Hear, hear.) For his part, he had always held that Dissenters should not be taxed for the support of other forms of religion. He had always been ready to meet the grievances of Dissenters in the most amicable spirit, and his complaint against this bid was that it tonally set aside the possibility of entering into any such amicable settlement of the question. What were the grounds upon which it: was brought forward ? In and out of doors, the great allege ion in its favour was tha' it was necessary in order to sot free the consciences of Dis senters. No such allegation, however, was contained in the preamble of the bill. The first ground there stated was, " Whereas church-rates have for some years ceased to be made or collected in many parishes by reason of the opposition thereto." Now, he should have thought that the refusal of church-rates in these instances would have put an end to ill-feeling and litigation, and that as their number increased, so the necessity for legislation would have diminished; but because in 500 parishes church-rates by the will of the majority bad ceased to be collected, was it therefore right to enforce their abolition upon the vast majority of parishes, counted by thousands, in which the inhabitants were willing to be taxed for the support of the fabric and the maintenance of. the services of the church ? He could not understand how gentlemen who in this house sand up for the rights of the majuirty could answer such a question as this iu the affirmative. Then the preamble set forth that "ia many other parishes where church-rates have been made the levying thereof has given rise to litigation and ill-feeling." The question which the house had to consider, however, was the amount of id-will and litigation thus produced. In how many parishes, if any, had it been engendered ? What was the counterbalancing advantage which the poor obtained by the continuance of church-rates ? And what would be the effect of the abolition of that system I Now, he was certainly bound to admit that if the ansouut of ill-will and litigation were trifling, it was not the fault of those who were engaged in the agitation of this que stion. There had been a most extensive organisation for the purpose of this agitation, and if the crop of ill-will and litigation had been small, it was owing rather t the sterile nature of the soil than to any want of industry on the part of those who cultivated it. In spite of that agi tation, however, he did not believe that any con,ider able number of parishes which heretofore bad granted church rates had since refused them; and, indeed, the re sult of the best researches he bad been able to make into had die been n estion was, that during 1357, while chur c h-rates proposed and carried in no less th a n 70 p ar i s h e s they had b een throughout England . d ed and defeated in no more than 24 and litigation whatever might he the ill willprodßut' account to abrogate the syst em ought they simply on that inquiry ? Could any one essatem altogether, and without highway rates, sewer-rates, did not sa y tha t poor-rates, tion ? In 1356 he found that no le s s e s t t o h and litiga tion in litigation in consequence of 114,0001. was u poor-law management support e d. by raoteer.sys(llema of) Surely, therefore, it was necessary to penetrate a r tt e more into the sum face before they abrog a t e d the ay:te o f church-rates on the grounds submitted. He shou ld m next proceed to ask what were the results which flowed from the maintenance cf the system of church -rates. It was impossible, he should contend, that any one could possess an acqua i n t a nce with the various rural parish es throughout the country and not feel that an immense amount of temporal as well a s spiritual good was effected by means of a tax which, without the necessity of iin popiog the smallest charge upon the poorer classes in the community, provided for the support of the fabric of tLe church and the due administration of the ceremonies of religious worship. His chief objection to the bill under discussion, then, was that it proposed—without creating any substitute for it whatsoever—to abolish at once a system which secured to 10,000 parishes in England the continuance of a state of things such as he had described, and which he felt assured every hon. member who had at heart the spiritual welfare of the poor must be anal us to uphold. (Hear.) The hon. member for Sandwich had observed that the Church of England was essentially the Church of the rich man, but from that proposition he (Lord it J. was a rs c ) hbuergeghedoienthtierelpyaatro man, an d itH be lievedewasbecause he was of opinion that it had a just claim to that chars cter that be stood up in his p lace in t h e house of Commons to raise his voice in favour o f a system under which the fair obligations of the realised property of the nation to contribute to the support or the fabric of its houses of religious worship were maintained. The argument drawn from the considerations which he had just urged was one, he might add, which was not appli cable to the case of the poorer classes belonging to the communion of the Church of England alone, but one I which might also be relied upon on the ground that it was a fact perfectly notorious that members of the Dis senting body avail-d themselves in considerable numbers of the services performed in places of religious worship connected with the Church of England, and that they would regard it as a great religious grievance if in con sequence of any legislative enactment they should be precluded from the enjoyment of that privilege. (Hear.) There was scarcely a country clergyman of the Esta blished Church who was not practically aware that the Dissenters in his parish looked up to him not only for support and advice in temporal matters, but also for aid in connection with their spiritual wants. (Hear) He had had, indeed, a letter from a clergyman residing in the country, in which he stated that he had upon various occasions during a period of 21 years officiated at the burial of members of the Dissenting body in his parish, and he (Lord J. Manners) should wish to know how it was proposed, if church-rates were abolished, to continue to Dissenters the enjoyment of those privileges. (Hear.) The question raised by the bill was whether property should continue to be bound by those obligations with respect to the support of the fabric of the Church which had been imposed upon it before the Conquest, or should be relieved from them by the adoption of a principle which would not only set free the consciences of Dis senters, but ease the pocket of the landlord. (Hear, hear.)] He spoke of .the landlord because he it was who would undoubtedly receive the benefit of that re mission which it was the object of the bill to accom plish. (Hear, hear.) He had not come to that con clusion without the aid of experience, and in support of his opinion upon the point he might state that a member of that house had assured him that if a proposition for the total abolition of church-rates should pass into a law he should feel him self authorised to make arrangements for a corresponding increase in the rental paid by the tenants upon his pro perty, and should put the amount thus realised in his own pocket. (Hear, hear.) The result of such a proposi tion, in short, would be, either that the landlord, being a pious and conscientious Churchman, would undertake to provide for the maintenance of the fabric of the church, reimbursing himself for any outlay which he might make in that respect by the imposition of an additional burden upon his tenants, or, being a person who was lax and careless in such matters, or a dissenter, would permit the necessary expenditure for the support of our places of religious worship to be thrown upon somebody else. (Hear.) And who, he wouldask, was that somebody else likely to be in nine-tenths of the parishes of England ? Why, in all probablity, the very man who would be least competent to bear the burden which would thus be thrown unon him—namely, the clergyman of the parish. (Hear.) Under those circumstances, while reeervieg to himself the right to give an impartial consideration to any propo sition which might have the effect of relieving the c n• sciences of dissenters from the grievance of which they complained, while it made due provision for the mail.- tenance of the fabric of the church—he should entreat the house not to lend its sanction to a scheme the ope ration of which would be to free the property of the country from obligations to which it had for centuries been liable, and which had been imposed upon it for the promotion of the spiritual welfare of the poor and the free and unfettered worship of Almighty God. (Cheers.) Lord H. VANE said he should not trespass upon the attention of the house by entering into a discussion of the various topics upon which the noble lord Lad touched, but he wished at the same time to state briefly the opinions with respect to the important subject under cerei leration which he entertained. He was aot prepared to deny that the question was beset with difficulties, but as the position in which it at present stood was extri mely uusitisfactory, he trusted the house would concur in framing a scheme by welch it would be placed upon a better footing. It was, he br!ieved, a fact that under the operation of the existing arrangements church rates, owing to various causes, were never levied in one-tenth of the parishes of England, while in the case of one severith of the remaining nine-tenths the property of Dissenters mainly contributed to the impost, Be that, however, as it might, there was no doubt that the Dis senting body was taxed to a considerable extent for the meintenace of the fabric of the church, and he might observe that he did not concur +kith the noble lord who had just spoken in the opinion that the effect of a change in the system under which that result had been brought about would be to throw the burden of the church rate upon men who would be unwilling to provide for the proper sopport of our places of religious worship. The fact was, he believed, that the sums which were now Reid by resident and absentee landlords, and other volun tary contributors, for the repairs of our churches were very large, so that the noble lord need be under no apt prehension tbat the landlords would evade the duty which attached to them in that respect. He quite agreed with those who thought that a certain portion of our churches should always be open free to the poor ; but then he was of opinion that nobody should be allowed to have a pew without paying for it a, certain sum, which might very fairly be applied to the maintenance of the fabric of the church. He might add that he saw no reason why facilities for creating endowments should not also be afforded. (Hear, hear.) The CHANCELLOR cf ha EXCHEQUER—AI though I entirely concur in the opinions which have been so clearly expressed by my noble fiend near me (Lord J. Manners), I cannot resist the conviction that this question has now arrived at a stage at which it is desir able that we should fully discuss any practical measure which may be submitted to us for the solution of the eifficulty which it involves. (Hear.) Having that ob ject in view, I feel there would be some advantage in assenting to the motion forgoing into committee, though I cannot, for my own part, give utterance to any very sanguine hope that the labours of the committee will have the effect of •materially improving the proposition embodi , d in the bill under discussion, or of removing those objections which have been urged against it by many hon. members upon bomb sides of the house. By going into co mm itt ee , incised, we may have the benefit of being alfmrdod an opportunity of considering those inafgestions which were made upon a former occasion in reference to the subject by the right hon. gentleman the member for Morpete, one of which is especially w rtby of n itice=l mean the proposal which he submitted to c.:r consideration last year to provide fur the commuta tiontheho w f s c ho of r tn c h n -r t a m t e a s i b . y ( e a ff t e a e r t !) ng i c l e e r r :a e in i,, a h lt o e w ra e t v io e n r, s a i n n areendinent which stands upon the paper in the name of the hon. member for Ilertfordshira (Mr. Puller), w hich appears to me to be well entitled to the attention of the house, and which cannot, I believe, in accordance with the forms of the h•,uso, be moved in committee. (Hear.) Noce, with all respect Lr my hen. fiiend the member for Leicestershire (Mr. Parke) I cannot help thinking that it is of more importance that the house should have an opportunity of discussing the amendment which I have jut mentioned than that we should, by putting his motion that the house resolve iteelf into a committee on this bill this day six months, merely repeat a division which has been taken in a similar form upon previous occactione. • (Hear.) I trust, therefore, that my hon. friend will withdraw his motion, in order that we may be efferded an opportunity of taking ieto consideration the amendment of the hoa. member fcr Hertfordshire, which, I repeat, is well worthy of our notice, and I beg the house to observe, cannot be discussed eec tpt it be brought before us at this stage of our proceedings. Lord J. RUSSELL—I quite agree with the right hen. gentleman opposite that it is desirable the hon. member for South Leicestershire should withdraw his motion, and that we should attempt at last to arrive at come settlement of this question. It is, I think, quite obvious from a consideration of the prospects which, according to the reports I have seen in the public press, her Ma j 3:sty's; Prime Minister holds out to us that this bill will, if it should go up to the House of Lords, be rejected by that assembly. Now, that is a result which would be extremely unsatisfactory—(bear) —and I should wish, therefore, to see whether some plan or another might not be devised by means of which we would be h,blenablediv..o,oevuoretin afaeol preventriNduvt s o ahhei a cidr r h.e r i v the e r h a e t Ga lt em s e n e e t or t rd l e e mn m oe e en nt of t o o f f t, th t e i rs hon.e q s n u e t m t t i o o e whichn al , he whi ch rf I r isseewmesllteoninti t e l eunder ourthose consideration circumstances would he will, perhaps, permit would be bette r to confine the objects which he proposes to attain to those for which the church-rates are levied under the existin g system, that n h e e w sh o o b jueldetsnwoittheinn deavour to embrace other ancl and entirely the scope of his resoluti on . ( Hear ,) So so far a h s et within h a cri amend ment e e e set n hk d . es ment provides for the repair of existing for the maintenance of churchyards, it lieseurches, and limits to which I refer ; but when t o h p e i h n o io n n .m beyond those in u is re carried to make "provision for the buildyninegwocfhnuerwchcame places" T h h e e tr b a n v i e ld ls i , n i g n o m f populous of the dioceean funds and constitutes an oolitcteibctil.°wllu(shHiacehaB,nh)owever desirable it may be to make pro vision fen it, is tohillt separated from that which we ought to have now in titer, and which mi g ht more pre. perly--if, indeed, it should be necessary to legislate with respect to it at all—be made the subject of a distinct pro posal. (Hear.) With this exception, I, for one, am cer tainly disposed to look with considerable favour upon the amendment of the hon. member for Hertfordshire. (Hear.) But, suppose that amendment ghoul I not be accepted by the house, what course do yeti then pro pose to take ? The observations which have fallen from my right honourable friend the member for Morpeth in the course of this discussion tend, I mist admit, to de away to a great extent w ith th e o bjections which I entertained to a proposal which he submitted to the house some years ago, and which was to the effect that we should be prohibited by legal enactment from raising church rates in those districts in which they happened thninokt,tio s have ap proposition pbo.,seintiolneviwedhicfhor is a c o e p r e ta n in to p s e tr i i o o n d g . objection upon the score of principle. It is hardly fair, in my °Pinion, that certain parishes should be subjected, I as it were, to a penalty because their inhabitants had c,mplied with the law by levying the Le iessary church rates, while those should escape with impunity whose r only plea was that they had not paid the tax within a given time. (Hear.) The proposition is also open, it appears to me, to objection in point of practice, inas much as it has sometimes happened that in districts in which church-rates have not been levied for a long period the inhabitants at length come forward perhaps under the leadership of a clergyman who is a Dissenter, or a member of the Established Church who has the interests of his parishioners at heart ; it is found that the church is out of repair ; a rate is consequently proposed,—it may be by the Dissenters,—in vestry, and is levied with the general assent of the whole body of the inhabitants. (Hear.) Surely, if you keep up a church-rate at all, you ought not to prohibit the occurrence of such a proceed ing at that—(hear)—and I am glad therefore to find that the right hon. baronet does not propose to adhere to the suggestion which he formerly made upon the subject. (Hear.) With respect to another proposal of my right hon. friend, which is to the effect that those who might be exempted from the payment of church-rates upon the ground that they were not members of the Established Church, should be deprived of the right of voting at the election of churcha ardens, I can only say that I think it also Is open to serious objection. I have always felt very strongly that in acting upon such a principle as that you would be taking a course which would tend to separate altogether from the Church a great body of persons, who, although they may not be regular attendants at divine service, yet upon certain occasions, such, for instance, as when a marriage takes place in their family, resort to the church. (Hear.) Now, that any such result as that should be produced would be in my opinion a great misfortune. (Hear.) For my own part, I think if yen entail any disqualification at all of this description, it ought to be one extending not to the right of voting at the election of churchwar dens, bat to the disposal of the money which may be raised by means of a church-rate. You might very fairly say to a man, "If you claim your exemption from this rate you cannot come into vestry and vote upon ques tions relating to the mode in which the money obtained from it is to be expended." I could; however, consent to the imposition of no other disqualification than that to which I have just adverted. (Hear, hear.) If we can possibly come to any agreement with respect to the amendment of the hon. member for Hertfordshire, that, I think, would be the wisest course to adopt. I am told that there has been a large majority of the House of Commons in favour of the proposal for the total aboli tion of church-rates. That is a statement which is un doubtedly true, but at the same time I have heard many men say, that while they were prepared to vote fort ha-. abolition, rather than maintain the existing system, yet they were disposed to give a favourable consideration to any reasonable proposition by which a compromise of the question could be effected. I therefore cannot quite concur with those whe think that the majority, in fa vour of the total abolition of this tax, without any provi- , sion being made to substitute some other means of securing the maintenance of the fabric of the church in its place, is quite so conclusive as some hon. members seem to imagine. (Hear.) Be that as it may, however, I think we shall do well to take into our earnest consi deration the amendment of the hon. member for Hert fordshire. (Hear, hear.) Mr. NEWDEGATE said he should not oppose the motion for going into committee upon the bill, but that in assenting to it he must not be supposed to waive one iota of the claim which, he contended, every poor man throughout the country possessed to the enjoyment of the advantages of being present at the service of th e Church of England. (Hear, hear.) Mr. PACKE said, after the appeal which bad been made to him by the noble lord the member for the city of London, he begged to withdraw his amendment. (Cries of no, no.) Mr. BRIGHT said ho thought those who were in favour of the passing of this bill had some ground for complaint against the hon. member for South Leicester shire (Mr. Packe) for the course he had just proposed to Lake. He (Mr. Bright) had listened—he would not say to exactly the same arguments—bus to much the same speeches from the hon. member's lips year after year upon this question of church-rates as the one they had heard that day. The hon. gentleman was not a young member ; he knew when he came down to the house he was going to object to this bill being proceeded with ; he had moved an amendment with that view, which the house had discussed for the last three hours, but all that time would be wasted if he was now permitted to with draw it. The truth was, it was found to be convenient to some members nut to have their names recorded in a division on this subjeet—(a laugb)—and therefore it was that the hon. gentleman sought to avoid going into the lobby. But he (Mr. Bright) would advise the suppor ters of the bill to go to a division on this question. (Cheers.) That, at least, was the course he himself was prepared to take. With regard to the observations which had fallen from the noble lord immediately below him (Lord J. Russeli)—whom he was happy to see sitting in that very wholesome part of the house—(laughter)— he did not think the noble lord could have well consi dered the points which he had placed befere the house. He (Mr. Bright) did not know whether or net the amendment of the hon. member for Hertfordshire could be brought forward at all, because it proposed to lay a charge on property, which was very like imposing a new tax, a thing that was more in the province of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At all events, if the hon. member did move such a resolution, those who were in favour of the bill would know how to meet it. (Cheers.) In fact, the noble lord, who was one of those who were only half-way between the wrong and the right of this question—(a laugb)—seemed to forget that those who contended for the abolition of church•rates understood their own (WO, and that they were likely to understand it a great deal better than the noble lord and those who acted with him. He (Mr. Bright) and those who supported the bill before the house had studied this question all their lives. They had submitted much too long to the impediments which had been thrown in the way of its settlement, and had seen themselves constantly treated with injustice and humiliatioe. They bad not taken up this question for the purpose ef getting up a debate on two or three Wed nesdays in a session. They were determined to get rid of church rates—(cheers) ;—and if any one thought that b. , proposing to make the owners pay towards the repair of churches instead of the occupiers, cr by calling on them to make humiliating declarations of ,tbeir religious opinions, he would settle this question, he was very much mistaken. Why, some hon. members now ap p o,ched the discussion of this question as they would have done some 30 or 40 years ago. He was amazed at the extraordinary want of observation shown by hon. , gentlemen when they fancied that any of those palliatives could do anything t swards settling this qucs i.m. There was only one way of settling it. If those were a ma ji rep who did not a ant to abolish cherlierate e the ques tion would not be Fettled ; but if, on the other hand, ' they whe supported the abolition e ere in the majority as well in that house as throughout the country, of which no man could doubt, let theta have the s,ttlieg of it. (Chem.) With regard to what might be done in "an other place," the noble lord the member for the City of L rndon well knew that the gentlemen who sat in that "other place" did not always take as much notice of the resolutions of the House of Commons as the noble Iwd would wish them to do. (A. laugh.) Those gentle men in "another place" had been the people in the drawing-room, while they iu the Commons had been the people in the kitchen (Laughter.) That ',vas about the way in which he ( Vire Bright) should characterise the treatment they had received in "another p'ace." (Cheers.) He would rern:nd the noble lord the member tor the City that there were many more a ersons zealous about this question of church-rates than there were aeons the Oaths Bill—(a laugh)—and although it might happen that those in "another place" might reject this b.ll once, twice, or thrice, it was desirable to bear in ivied that they would never have alla opportunity of re jee',ing it unless it passed the House f Commons. (dear.) He was theref, re anxious that it should pass io a Commons. The house was not to suppose that it was Dissenters oily who desired to see church-rates abolished. The hon. member for North Warwickshire talked about the "Dissenting interest." He (Mr. Bright) was not one of the Dissenting interest. (A. laugh.) But ' if he were a Churchman be would use muck stronger 1 mguage on this question than he had ever done. (Hear, h, al It was in the interest of public honesty, of public rurality, of public order, and of religion itself that he asked the house to abolish this unjust and irritating system. (Cheers.) If be were a Churchman he should be ashamed of le on. members who opposed this bill. They hail evidently no faith in their church. (Cheers.) Tney had no faith in the z al of their congregations, nor in the arguments or the eloquence of their pastors. They, believed their churches would fall into ruin if this bill were to pass. He had never said anything half so severe of the members of the Established Church as that. (Cheers, and a laugh.) They had been brought up to think that this question was associated . with the exis• tence of the E-tablislied Church, and, therefore, it had become a matter of sentiment rather than of argu ment with them. He had no doubt if church-rates were abolished to-morrow, all the parish churches In the country would eventual y be in a much better state of repair than they were at present. (Hear, hear ) In the interest of the Church itself he would ask the house to pass this measure. (Cheers.) They who brought it forward understood their wants, their claims, and their rights ; and they knew, from what had taken place in that house for years and years, that they would ! get what they wanted. (Cneers.) Tcere was on the Trea sury bench a Secretary of State who had written an ad mirable pamphlet and made several ablr speeches in fa vour of the abolition of church-rate'. (Hier, hsar.) Those who supported the existing system saw continual defections from their side, while those who lopposed it had as constantly accession to theirs ; and if there was any Biil passed to extend parliamentary franchise and to redistribute the seats, they wh r supported Aurch rziNnailsi:dtwseg,dmetahvnead who were already in a minority on the ques tion, would dwindle down to a small fraction. (Hear.) I al- Why should thoee who supported church-rater go oa whichtse la o h a u e r dgg laughter) —he arguments feeling year r_ e a fotif:ret meant t a c r t o i h u n :t:r o v y n o . h u armdof a ibl : ra y flo: c a o Ny n : d i e rito i li n n ;e ry d eud l rf,i : er V k li htirs y s e)i b Einu o c( uld the hon. member for is session after session n o on this was g sin cerity, Y h : e N e b yr ee )i gvimwwhjifhaing' hon, )Itvgll:::sr—fdpba in ar e o c h i e e m t he s i, tie respon e in that hon-o, asel je n c o t ' ae wh. lad country - (Cheers.) the member for lilorpeth (Sir G. the supporters of the bill as to desire that it s s o hOu r ld w go into committee. He (Jar. Brigh , ) wo u ld may to him and to every member in the least disposed ro as s i s t th en : Go with us as far as you can ; the further you go the pleasanter you will find the road ; and let us, with out further delay, proceed at once with this bill, the fate of which has been irrefragably decided." (Loud cheers.) Mr. STEUART followed in a brief speech, but such was the impatience of the house to proceed to a division THE SUN, LONDON THURSDAY E V ENING, APRIL 22, 1858 that the observations of the hon. member did not reach the gallery. Tie SPEAKER put the question in the usual way, tbat the words of the original motion for going at once into committee—which words were proposed to be omit• ted by the amendment—should stand part of the question. The " Ayes" made the customory response ; but either through inattention or misapprelension, the opponents of the bill expressed no dissent ; the SPEAKER declared that the " Ayes" had it ' • the mace was immediately re moved from the table in the ordinary way, and the house, which was very full at the moment, went at once into committee without a division, amid some little laughter. The result was that Mr. Puller was precluded from mov ing the amendment which stood on the paper in his name on the motion for going into committee. Sir A. ELTON movecitheinsertion of words "delay ing the coming into operation of this bill for threeyears." Sir J. TRELAWNY said he was desirous of adopt ing every feasible suggestion calculated to put an end to the existing system ; but he thought if the hon. baronet had read the evidence of Dr. Lushington he would have thought it necessary to propose this amendment, for Dr. Lushington had expressly laid it down that churchwardens were bound to go on disposing of any funds in their hands for the repair of the churches which had been raised for that purpose. The parochial autho rities, in fact, had nothing to do but to use the existing machinery in their hands to meet the state of things con templated by the hon. baronet. Besides, the amendment was the less called for when hs (Sir J. Trelawny) found that in places where it had been left to them as voluntary matter the Dissenters had contributed liberally towards the repairine' the fabrics of the Church of England. Mr. ROEBUCK wanted to know why the hon. baronet proposed to postpone the operation of the bill for 3 years. This question of the abolition of church-rates was not a new one. He (Mr. Roebuck) had been in Parliament fora quarter of a century, and it had been familiar to him as a member of that house for the whole of that period. What good, he asked, could be derived from keeping open the sore, and from not at once putting an end to all the irrita tion produced by the levying ofchurch-rates ? (Hear, hear.) If the thing was good, why not do it at once ? Whenever a change in the law was made great advantage resulted from its coming into immediate operation. The best thing they could do in this case was to bring the abolition into operation at the very earliest moment—(hear, hear) —and therefore he opposed the amendment. Sir G. GREY thought it would be very inexpedient to adopt the amendment, far if the proposed change was to take place it was very undesirable that it should be post poned for so long a period. (Hear ' hear.) The usual practice was to make a church-rate at Easter and if the bill passed into a law and came into immediate operation it would be necessary that some provision should be made to secure the proper application of the rates made at Easter in the present year. Mr. WIGRAM thought the amendment proposed by the hon. baronet would be an improvement to the bill. He was persuaded that the only possible way in which the churches in the country could be maintained would be by an unanimous effort on the part of the great body of churchinen—(hear, hear) —and time ought to be allowed for them to make the necessary preparations if that responsibility was henceforth to be borne by them alone, and the more so in cases where the churches had fallen into considerable dilapidation. Sir J. TRELAWNY said he could not believe that the members of the Church of England would not them selves readily make efforts to meet all the cases to which the attention of the Committee had been pointed. [rhe hon. baronet made some reference to the amendment before the Committee having been conceived in "the old Protectionist spirit," but the exact terms in which he did so did not reach the gallery, and the expression is only given h ere i n a general form because th e subsequent speech. of Mr. Gladstone to some extent turned upon it ] Lord LOVAINE said it was pretty clear to him that if this measure became law, by the end of three years afterwards the qtr. Atlas would be one, not of church rates, but of tithes. Mr. PALK reminded the Committee that if this bill pasard into a law the 350,0001. hitherto raised for the maintenance of the churches would be /est to the Established Church. They had no more right to deal with this 350,000/. 2 provided for the maintenance of the Church, than they had to deal with the interest on the national debt, or any other similar charge ; but they had a right to deal with any law that pressed isjuriously upon the cousciences of Dissenters. This fund was as much the property of the Dissenters as of the Cherub, and if it was dealt with in an unjust and inconei lerate spirit injustice was done both to the Church and to Dissenters. The Dissenters, he admitted, had a perfect right to object to all those embelOshment3 of the Church that were hurtful to their consciences ; but un less they jibed to be branded as spoliators of property which they had no right to touch, they were bound to fine some substitute for the means now provided for repairing the edifice of the church. He would, on the bringing up of the report, propose a proviso, which in the mean time he would read to the house. Mr. AYRTON spoke to order. The hon. gentleman was not in form in introducing another amendment in addition to the ono before the Committee. Mr. PALK did not intend to move another amend ment He only meant to read a proviso which he gave notice he weal move on the bringing up of the report. Sir. G. GREY was not prepared to say the hon. gentleman was out of order, but it would be very incon venient t , bring before the Committee at present any proviso while there wag an ati3vndment undieposed of. Mr. PALK. woald ne k t now bring the proviso before the committee if it was not the general wish. With re ' gard to the amendment, which would suspend the opera tion of the bill for three years, he thought the delay might give time f r the preparation of some plan for maintaining the fabric of the church. There were large funds in the possession of the Caurch, and it was vs sinle tl at luring the delay these might in some way be made available, or voluntary meats might be provided for maintaining fabrics which, apart from religion alto gether, were on architectural and scientific grounds wurthy the support of the country. (Hear.) Mr. GLADSTONE—I cannot help observing that whatever may be the merits or demerits of the amend ment proposed by the hon. member for Bath, it has received no answer- from the hon. baronet (Sir J. Tre lawny) of any weight or value. The hon. baronet accused my hon. friend of acting on the principle of the effete and extinct system of protection. I must say I can see no ground or colour for such a charge ; I see a great deal o what used to be considered one of the cardinal articles of protection in the bill of the hon. baronet himself, for a very prominent doctrine of those most versed in the articles of protection was, that a great part of the claim for protection rose out of the burdens on land, and that some at least of the local rates ought to be remitted and a present of them made to the landlords. (Hear, hear.) And undoubtedly this s bill, if it passed, will offer the first instalment of that relief from the burdens en land. (Cheers and laughter.) The bill, indeed, presents a very remarkable instance in which the principle of protection that has been long dead has undergone a galvanic revi val at the hands cf a gentleman from whom it could have been least expected, in that with respect to the whole of the rural parishes of the country he has proposed to make over to the londtords a large and distinct pre sent of several hundreds of thousands a year. (Rear, and laughter.) I will, illustrate what he has now said by a case in point. A gentleman--a friend of mine, whose name, it I were to mention it, would elicit from every one au expression of respect and approbation-- applied to his tenants—not in a tone of dictation, of which he is incapable, but as between friend and friend —and expresso:l his wish that they should support the granting of a churclerate in the parish ; on which ono of the tenants said "It is surly impossible you can wi-h , us to support a church-rate, for if the rate is refused it will be 171. a-year in your pocket in this township alone," (Hear, hear.) Whet is true in this particular mete is equal y true in other cases. Tne ohurch-rates, if abolished, will go into the pockets of the landlords. I hope, teerefore, we shall not again hear it said that the principle of protection is i nvolved i n the opposition to this measure. (Hear, hear.) Th e h on. b aronet pro .. cerleit to say that, however magnificent the churches might be in the rural parishes, it would be unfair to the Dissenters to continue, even for a p e ri o d o f th re e years, t r tax thorn for the maintenance of those fabrics. There i s a f a ll acy in that part of the reply of the h jn, baronet, because in so far as regards many of the opponents of this bill, they have not the slightes-t desire that any Dis senter ebould be taxed against his will for the main tenaeca of the fabric of the church. (Hear, bear.) Ido not as k whether a case can or cannot be made out to show that the Dissenters mightjustly be expected to pay. I sa y, as a matter of eqeity, of prudence, and considera tion, that I believe it to be for the interests of the Church end the country that Dissenters should not be called upon to pay church-rates; and, believing that to bi the eentitnent of an immense majority of the house, I protest against the assumption involved in the speech of Vie right hon. baronet, that whoever supports an amend ment like that before the house does so because he thinks it is r ght that for three years more Dissenters ought to be taxed for the support of the fabric of the church. (Hear, hear.) My belief—and it is founded on expe rience—is that there are large numbers of Dissenters in this country wh ose position-in regard ti the Church is an anomalous one, because it is neither complete reli gious union nor complete religious separation, and that Caere are many of these Dissenters who do not in the smallest degree object to tie payment of church-rater. ar, hear.) S o f ar as my local knowledge goes (f that portion of the country which of all others is perhap s the least inclined to the payment of chin ch-rates—l mean the principality of Wales, I may say that there are Dissenters there who would be per fectly satisfied with an exemption in their favour from compulsory payment. (Hear, hese.) However, that is not the question noel before us. I only wanted to point out that the hon. baronet ha', unintentionally I am sure inisrepre•eited the vie es of those who support the amendment now before tie House. The real question as regards the amendment appears to me to be something different from that which the hon. baronet has appre hended it to be. I cannot say I think that even with this arnen 'orient the bill would bo one which it would be wise or just fir the Legislature to adopt. At the same time I frankly own that the arneednient of my hon. friend is not only proposed in a spir it of good faith—be• cause no man v. ould for a moment ieepute to him the passibility s f taking any other than a straightforward course—but that it is a proposition which it is more for the iaterest of the Minds of the Bill than for its op- ponents to accept. I cannot doubt that this amendment will improve the prospects of the Bill, for I cannot but be of opinion, already expressed by an hon. friend, that , it would be a considerable mitigation of the change. On the whole it appears to me to be an amendment couched in a spirit of equity and fairness—not intended to defeat the Bi 1, but a tiuly straightforward, candid proposition. Thr,ugh it is true you make your arrangements for church -rates from year to year, it is also true that there are many arrangements connected with the repair of churches that are not settled by the rate of a single year. (Hear, hear.) It appears that the levying of church-rates is considerably in arrear of the making of church-rates ; and an Act of the Legislature declaring that no church-rate should henceforth be levied or made would undoubtedly have an effect which the hon. gentleman does net desire—viz., the effect of breaking up arrangements partly carried out, but not yet completed— arrangements on the faith of which schemes have been sanctioned and liabilities incurred. (Hear.) Then with regard to the prolongation of the religious war in which the country is said to be involved, surely a great deal too much has been made of the horrors of this religious warfare. (Hear.) Ido not think it is half so aggravated as appears to be supposed. (Hear.) In the great propor tion of parishes where church-rates are made they are levied with general satisfaction, or at least no ostensi ble symptoms of dissension. (Hear.) I think the people of England, who generally contrive to solve awkward problems by the exercise of practical good sense rather than by theory, have attained the desirable object of solving even the problem of church-rates in such a man ner that, though it does not obviate everything disagree able, yet removes all really unfriendly symptoms ; for I commonly see that after there has been a motion for a church-rate, an amendment against it, and a poll, the meeting generally breaks up in good humour, and with a vote of thanks to the chairman. (Hear.) It is all very well to talk in Parliamentary speeches about religious war being perpetuated in the country, but I must say that it would weigh upon my conscience if I did not sanction as far as I can the short continuance of the present system proposed in the amendment of my hon. friend. (Hear.) But, though I think it fair on the whole to support the amendment of my hon. friend, it is more a prudential question for the bon. baronet to consider than for me; because, the church rates are abolished, it should be done in a manner to mitigate as much as possible the pressure of the charge. If it were not that I am actuated by these feelings, I should be disposed to say, leave the bill as it is and let it shift for itself. (Hear.) After a few words from Sir J. rRELAWNY in explana tion, Mr. DILL WYN (amid cries of "Divide") said it was unfair to charge those who were opposed to church-rates with being unfavourable to the connexion between Church and State. Mr. HENLEY said the right hon. gentleman tbe mem ber for Oxford University had so completely expressed his views in what he said regarding churoh-ratee if abol ished being a direct present to the landlords that he would not add a single word upon that subject. With regard to the payment of church-rates being hurtful to the con science, he would mention a case that came under his own knowledge. He happened to have the management of an estate not his own, and it came to his knowledge that one of the tenants felt the payment of church-rates to be against his conscience. On hearing this he (Mr. Henley) directed the agent to ascertain the average amount of the church-rate for the last seven years, add it to the rent, and ask the tenant to pay the rent ; but, from whatever cause, the tenant did not think it right to accept the offer. (A laugh.) With regard to the amend ment which would suspend the operation of the act for three years, he could not give his assent to it, as he saw no advantage that would be derived from the postpone ment, while it would be ad,rect admission of the principle of the bill. (Hear.) He was against the change being made at all, and could no more consent to it three years hence than now. (Hear, hear.) They had heard a great deal about the peace and good feeling of the country being interfered with, but did any one believe that if the operation of this bill were to be suspended for three years it would be all peace ? (Hear.) During the whole of these three years they would have parties arrayed egainst each other, and perpetual attempts made ti upset the act. (Hear, hear.) It would be equally objectionable in its effects upon the country. It was natural for people to postpone action upon a thing that was not to occur for a considerable time, and nothing would be done in the country on this matter, because nobody would believe in its reality. (Hear.) There would be great inconvenience caused in various ways by the delay, and, as he saw no advantage that would flow from it, he should be com pelled to vote against it. Sir A. ELTON would not press his amendment, and asked leave to withdraw it. Lord R. CECIL entered his protest against the prin ciple which he understood to have been laid down by the right hon. gentleman the member for Oxfordshire as one that would ba most fatal if acted on by a party defend ing conservative institutions. He understood him to say that when a bill was brought forward which he did not like he would do nothing to mitigate its pro visions. Now, in his opinion there was nothing to pre vent him voting for an amendment in a clause and afteto v ards voting against the clause on the whole bill. Mr. HENLEY said the noble lord had misunderstood him. (Hear, hear.) He gave his reasons for disliking this particular amendment, but hal not said a single wor l that could be construed into the meaning now stated by the noble lord. (Hear.) He would support any amendment that he thought reasonable in any bill. Lord R. CECIL did not wish to attribute to his right hon. friend anything that he was not willing to accept, but he certainly understood him to say that if he did not like a bill he would not vote for an amendment upon it. (No, no.) Mr. SPOONER (amid cries of "Divide") said he would not consent to do that in three years which he was not willing to do now. The poor of this country would be the chief sufferers if church rates were abolished. Mr. BRIGHT said, if the noble lord intended to com pel a division, it was desirable that he should offer some explanation as to the reasons for the vote he should give. He was free to confess that, if there were any disposition oe the part of hon. members opposite to accept the solu tion of the question proposed by this bill, he shou:d not raise any difficulty upon the point whether it should come into operati n in 12 months or three years hence. (Hear.) He did not believe the difficulties into which the Church of England would be plunged by the abolition of church rates would prove to be so extensive as some hon. members appeared to imagine ; but in the settlement of a long disputed question, if there were any concession which would facilitate that end without interfering with the effect of the settlement, it would be advisable to make it. The tone in which the amendment had been spoken of on the other side, however, did not lead him to believe that the adoption of this amendment would be at all an approach to a settlement of the question. The right boo. member for Oxford University had gone found and about the subject, but be had not come at it —(a laugh)—and he had sat down without riving the house to understand that he was more favourable to the principle of this bill than he had been to procediog bills having the same end in view. The right hun. gentleman did not say that at the end of three years he would sup pact the bill, nor did the noble lord (Lord R. Cecil) hold out any hope that at the expiration of that period he would be lags opposed to the bill than he was at the pre sent time. Indeed he (Hr. Bright) did not see how it could be otherwise, for all the arguments of the sup porters of church-rates were based upon principles which were not affected by time. (Hear.) He did not perceive how any ono who favoured church-rates could be per• auaded by the amendment to change his views. If he believed the adoption of the amendment would at all tend to a solution of the question he would advise his hon. friend to accept the amendment, but as he did not entertain that belief he thought it better the clause should be passed in its original shape. (Hear, bear.) After a few words from Sr H. WILLLUUGHBY and Nir. WIGRAII, which were almost inaudible amid ud calls for a division. The atoendment was put ant Legatived without a di vision. Lerd R. CECIL moved as amendment in clau-e 1, before the words England and Wales, to insert " in any city, Parliamentary or municipal borough in." S;r J. TRELAWNY said, he could not consent to the propo3ed amendment. Sir G. LE WIS.—I hope the co nmittee will deal with this question with a determination, if possible, to get rid of the grievances which the present system of church rates give rise to. It is difficu:t to find out in what those grievances consist. (Hear, bear.) Ali th e infor mation I have leads me to think that the essential grievance cf the present system is not that there is a compulsory tax levied for the support of the fabrics of the established church, but because it is levied upon property w bich involves in its operation persons who differ from the tenets of that chtirch. It is not a statu tory rate - it is a common-law rate, dating from a period ant-as dent to the Reformation, where there was no dif ference of opinion upon religious matter's. Since that event differences of religious opinion have sprung up, and discords have arisen from the imposition of church-rates. The rate is a voluntary rate. It is competent fo: the majority of a vestry to refuse it, and the t po xer has been exercised in a large number of parishes, amounting, I believe, to about 10 per cent. of the whole number of parishes, but comprising about one•half of the whole population of the kingdom. It is in large towns where the greatest discords have prevailed, and the result has ' been that under the operation of the present system church-rates in those towns have practically been ale!). lished. It is also in large towns that there is the greatest accumrnulat:ou of property, and where are to be found the greatest facilities for raising subscriptions in order to maintain the fabrics of the church. At present it may be said that there are two distinct systems in operation ' under the existing law. In large towns the parishes have f it the most part practically abolished church-rates and eubsii utod voluntary arrangements, which have been found to answer well. But that state of things only ap piies to towns. In rural parishes for the most part church-rates ate made without opposition—(hear, hear) —and even where there have been objections raised they have been overruled by the majority of ratepayers. In 90 per cent. of the parishes of England and Wales the churches are supported by church-rates. That is the way in which the present system works, and it appears to me it would be not a compromise, but a reason able and practical solution of the question, if the house would adopt the plan that was proposed by my right hon. friend the member for Morpeth (Sir G. Grey) —viz., to ab, lish church.rates in those towns or parishes where practically they bad ceased for a series of years, say four or five eo trs. and in those towns where church rates continued is be levied to aibw those who differed from the established church, upon a mere declaration or statement of that fact, to be exempted from liability on account of them. By that means church-rates would only be compulsory upon members of the established church. (Hear, hear.) wi,ul I satisfy a real want and would overcome a real difficulty, for in rural parishes no obji °time is new made, and the facilities which the aggregation of wealth in large towns affords for raising voluntary subscriptions in largo towns do not exist in small rural parishes. I urn not prepare- to share the fears of those who think that if church rates are abolished our churches will be permitted to fall to the ground. (Hear.) I believe that funds . would be raised by c illectiov, subscriptions, and otner modes which in large parishes would meet the wants of the church, but in poor, small, and remote7parishes, if you do not allow the ratepayers to tax themselves, you will ; introduce a system far less fair and equal than the pre- sent. lam favourable to the principle of the amend ment proposed by the noble lord, but it seems to me that its terms would not carry out that principle. It is at once too wide and too narrow. It would exclude many cases which the noble lord would wish to incuie, and it would include many places which ought to be EX eluded. For instance, the parish of Chelsea, and other large parishes in the neighbourhood of London not in cluded in any Parliamentary borough, would nut fall within the terms of the amendment. On the other hand, small Parliamentary boroughs, or parishes included in such boroughs, where no objection had been made to church-rates, would be deprived of the power of volun tarily rating themselves. I think the best plan is that of my right hon. friend to which I have referred, and which I believe would be found the boat and most satisfactory solution of this long -vexed question. (Hear, hear.) Mr. BALL begged to assure the committee that if he believed the abolition of church-rates would be injurious to the Church of England he would not give his support to any measure having that object. He, however, be lieved the removal of that ground of difference let weea Dissenters and Churchmen would tend to augment the numbers of the latter, and to diminish the number of the enemies of the church. (Hear, hear.) The question had now reached a stage in which it would be desirable for the government to devise some fair and reasonable motLod of settling it, and if there was a disposition to relieve the consciences cif Dissenters he thought the lat ter ought not to refuse all concession on their parts. (Hear, hear.) Mr. PACKE, in reference to a remark which had fallen from the right hon. baronet the member for Rad nor (Sir G. Lewis), cited the ease of a church situated in a parish where a rate had been refused, which was falling into decay, there being no means of raising the necessary funds for its repair. Mr. SPOONER observed that the effect of the amend. merit would be to take away all power of voluntary rating from large towns. It was true that in those large towns many parishes had refused church-rates ; but a time might come when the vestries would repent and would desire to make rates for the maintenance of their churches ; but the amendment would leave them no power to do so. Sir G. GREY —I cannot support the amendment of the noble lord, although I agree with him in principle. What I wish to do is to remove a sense of injustice which exists in all cities and towns, without at the same time causing a feeling of injustice in the minds of a large body of members of the established church in the coun try. The amendment of the noble lord is sound in principle, but if adopted it s t erms wou ld no t carry out the principle. In nearly all large towns and cities of late years district churches have been built, which are quite independent of church-rates, those funds being applicable to parish churches alone. I think the experience we have had of those district churches teaches us that even if church-rates are abolished in large towns the parish churches will not be allowed to fall into decay. (Hear.) I should advise the noble lord not to press his amend ment upon this occa,ion, but to consider whether upon the next stage of the bill he cannot propose words which would more effectually carry out the principle which he has in view. I think the plan I suggested would be the best mode of dealing with the matter, but lam not wedded to my own words, and if he can devise any arrangement by which the same end can be attained I shall be happy to give it my support. (Fl ear, hear.)j Mr. HENLEY thought he should be ustified in put ting to the hon. member for Birmingham a similar ques tion to that which the hon. gentleman himself had put to the right hon. member for the University of Oxford, and in asking him how far he considered the amendment proposed would settle the question with him. At the same time it had been cl ear ly p o i n t e d out by the right hon. gentleman (Sir G. Leeds) that the words of the amendment would not carry out the oljeci; that the noble lord had in view. He should be glad te know from the hon. members who had charge of the bill whether the passing of any such measure would make the slightest approach to a settlement of the question ? He should like to know also from the hon. member for Birmingham whether any reciprocity would be held out on that side I of the house such as would induce hon. members on his (`dr. Henley's) side to assent to the general proposition of the Bill ? M. BRIG LIT said that the progress of the discussion had shown so touch difference of opinion between the supporters cf the bill and those who would stop at a half-way house like this that it was scarcely worth while discussing a proposition which seemed like one of those straws that men clung to when they were going down. (A. laugh.) Upon his side of the house such a proposition would not be entertained for a moment. (Hear, hear.) Movements like those of opposition to church-rates were very contagious. If a pariah within a borough were exempt, the adjoining parish without the borough would become the focus of a much stronger agitation. (Hear.) He doubted whether the town of Braintree, which had immortalised itself by its opposi tion to this impost, would be exempted by the amend ment of the noble lord, which he should think met the views of no human being who was honestly opposed to church-rate 4. He would tell the right hon. gentleman that the amendment would not mitigate the hc.stility entertained to the impost on his side of the house. (Cheers.) Mr. GLADSTONE—The sentiment of the committee, or at least a large portion of it, appears to be that there is much substantial reason in the proposal of my noble friend, but that the form in which it is presented to us is inadtaissible. (Hear.) My right hon. friend (Sir. G. Grey) embodied his views in a bill when ho was the organ of the Government, but as an independent mem ber, ,there is, I think, in the propoSal of ray noble friend much that might become the basis of an arrange ment of this question. (Hear.) At the same time Ido not think that we have to-day made much progress to wards any practical result. Motions have been with drawn one after the other, and the progress of the de bate does not give my noble friend much encouragement to take the sense of the committee upon his motion. The proposition, however, is of great importance, because it appears to have the sanction of the Government, and I do not think it can ever be refused or extinguished by a vote of this house. lam certain that my noble friend will be doing a public service if he puts us in a condition to give a positivejudgment upon his proposal. ([sear.) There appears to me t o be great to say the least it offers a less hopeless prospect of a practical result than any other plan that has been sub mitted to us. I do not think that a question of this kind can be settled by a bargain in this house. (Hear, hear.) But there is a spirit of moderation abroa l— a desire for peace—and a disposition to f irego ex treme views where practical results can be at tained, which, independently of any bargain in this house will insure practical success and permanency to any plan which appears to be founded in moderation and good sense. (Rear, hear.) Sir J. TRELAWNY must adhere to his principle, and could not agree to the amendment. Lord R. CECIL, having met the usual fate of those eh attempted to reconcile opposite parties, and hating drawn down upon himself the combined censure of the bon. member for Birmingham and the hon. member for North Warwickshire, had no alternative but to with draw his amendment. (Hear, hear.) The amendment was then withdrawn. On clause 1, declaring that from and after the passing of the Are; no chureb--ate shall be made or levied in any parish in England or Wales, Ur. LYGON moved that the Chairman report pro gres,. (Cries of " Hear, hear," and "Divide.") Mr. WIGRAII (who rose amid calls for a division) thought that the motion was a reasonable one, because if the clause was passed church-rates would be abolished throughout thm country. Mr. MALINS (who was greeted with cries of "Oh!" and " Divider) reminded the house that he had never yet addres ed it upon the subject of church-rates. (Laughter.) He wished to see the question settled, but it was in vain to attempt to maintain the present law, and some compromise, it was clear, must be entered into. The proposal of his noble friend would not settle the question, and the suggestion of the right hon. baronet (Sir G, Grey) that he should reconsider the subject, and make a proposal at a future stage, seemed to be worthy of his noble frien'i's consideration. Lord J. RUSSELL—As the house has been favour able to the principle of the mea=ure, I think it is on•y fair to the proposer and supporters of the bill that we should divide to-day upon this clause, which contains the principle of the bill. (Cheers.) I am ready to accept the clause for mpelf, and I think it fair that we should come to a division upon it. (Cheers.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I c in cur with the noble lord. It appears to me that•there is sufficient time to come to a division to-day, and that would be the fairest, as I think upon refiaction it would be the most satisfactory, ccurAe to all parties. (Che..re.) The committee then divided— For reporting progress Against it Majority against reporting progress --242 When toe numbers were announced the clock pointed to 10 minutes to 6. No division upon the first clause eould therefore take place, and further proceedings upon the bill were consequently necessarily adjminecl. WAYS AND NIEANS. Oa the inotiOn4 the CHANCELLOR of the EX CHEQUER, the house resolved itself into committee of ways and means, when a res elution was agreed to au thorising the r lising of a sum, not exceeding 2,000,000/., on the issue of Exchequer bonds. A bill founded on the resolution was afterwards brought in and read a first time. The Excise Duties Bill was also read a first time, S r E. ICERRISON brought in a bill on County Management. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE brought in a bill to amend the Patar:t Law Amendment Act (1852). Toe houe adjourned at six o'clock. REGIMENTAL ESTABLIBLIMENTS.—The estimated total charge of the regimental eetabliebments of her Maje,ty's lacd forces at home and ah. - oad from the let April, 1858, t) the 31st March, 1559, is 4,259,8881., including 762,1741. for the pay and allowances of 222,238 men of all ranks, 93,0241. for annual allowances to field cffi ceN, captains, and riding masters, 3 4,572/. for agency, and 371,3431. for cloLiiing, [ADvitalesiniENT.]—The Recent Changes of Tempera ture.--It is very iwportant that such changes as have recently taken place in the temperature of the atipos phere should not be treated with indifference. The pub-, lic should be watchful of he elf cts which they frequently have on the bxly. Toe skin and the nervous system suffer sevEr,ly —Erysipelas, blotches, boils, rheumatism, colds, sore th roats, and the many other complaints of this nature being generated through the above cause. When symptoms of the above diseases show themselves they should be promptly attended to. Holloway's pills and ointment are wonderful remedies, and eradicate the above attacks, immediately they show themselves. Sold by alt medicine vendors throughout the world, and at Prof,ssor Holloway's Establishment, 244, Strand, London. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION. HOUSE OF COMMONS—Amu, 21. CHURCH R t TES ABOLITION BILL. Question proposed, " That clause one stand part of the bill;" —Whereupon motion made, and question put, " That the ehairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again." The committee divided ; ayes 104, 11003 346. AYES-104. Adderley, C. B. Forde, Colonel Mills, Arthur Alexander, J. Forester, Col. Morgan, 0. ..4.nnesley, Hon. Hugh Gard, R. Mowbray, J. R. Baillie, H. Goddard, A. Naas, Lord Bernard, T. Gurney, I. li. Neeld, John Batt: urst, A. A. Hall, General John Newdegate, C. Bentinck, G. Heathcoate , Sir W. Nisbet, R. P. Boldero, Col. 11. G. Henley, J. Ossulston, Lord Boyd', W. Hill, Hon. R. Packe, C. Brainston, T. W Hodgson, William Palmer, R. Bridges, Sir B. Holford, R. Pevensey, Viseount Brace, Major Hopwood, John Itepton, O. Burghley, Lord Hornby, W. Robertson, P. Cairns, H. llorsfall, T. Rolt, P. Carden, Sir R. W. liotham, Lord Scott, MaJor Cartwright, 11. Hunt, G. W. Shirley, E. Cecil, Lord .11. Ingestre, Viscount Smyth, Col. Child, Smith Jolliffe, 11. Spooner, R. Close, H. King, J. Stanhope, J. Cobbold, J. C 1 Knatchbull, W. Steuart, A. Codrington, Sir C. W. Knight, F. Tollemache J. Cole, H. A. Knightley, R. Trefusis, C. Cooper, E. J . Langton, W. G. Trollope, Sir J. Cubitt, W, Lefroy, Anthony Vance, John Dalkeith, Earl Long, W. Verner, Sir W. Dobbs, W. C. Lopes, Sir M. Waddington, H. Du Cane, C. Lovaiue, Lord Walcott, AdmiraL Duncombe, A. Lyall, George Warren, S. Dunconabe, Hon.W E. Macartney, George Whiteside, J. Dundas, G. Macaulay, Kenneth Wyndham, General Du l're, C. M`Clinteck, John Wynn, Col. East, Sir J. Matins, Richard Wynne, W. Egerton, Sir P. Manners, Lora J. Elm ey, Viscount March, Earl of TELLXIII. Farnham, E. Miller, Taverner Wigram, Loftus T. Fellowes, E. Miller, Stearne Lygon, Hon.F. NOES-346. Adair, U. Farquhar, Sir M. O'Connell, D Adeane, H. Fenwick, H. O'Donoghoe. The Agnew, Sir A. Fergus, John Ogilvy. Sir J. Akroyd, E. Ferguson, Colonel Paget, C. Alcock, T. Ferguson, Sir Robert Paget, Lord C. Anderson, Sir J. Fitzwilliam. C. Pakington, Sir J. Antrobus, E. Foley, J. H. Palk, L. Ashley, Lord Foley, li. W. Palmerston, I/Limn:lt Atherton, W. Foljambe, Francis Patten, Col. Ayrton, A. Forster, Charles Paull, Henry Bagshaw, Robert Foster, W. 0. Paxton, Sir J, Bagwell,"John Fortescue, Hon. F. Pease, Henry Bailey, Sir J. Fox. W. J. Pechell, Sir G. Bailey, C. Freestan, Colonel Pennant, Col. Z. Baines, Rt. Hon. M. French, Colonel Percy, J. Ball, E Gallwey, Sir W. Perry, Sir IL Baring, 11. Garnett, William Philips, R. Baring, Sir F. Gaskell, J. Pilkington, J. Baring, T. Gifford, Earl of Pinney. Col. Baring, T. G. Gilpin, C. Portman, W. Barnard, ThomaS Gladstone, W. Potter, Sir J. Bass, M. Glyn, G. Powell, Francis Baxter, W. Glyn, G. Price, W. Beach, W. Goderich, Viscount Pryse, E. Beale, S. Greenwood, Johu Pugh, D. Beaumont, W. Greer, Samuel Puiler, Christopher Beecroft, G. Gregson, Samuel Ramadan, Sir J. Bennet, Capt. P. Grenfell, Charles W. Rawilnson, Sir H. Berkeley, Hon. II F. Grey, It. RaYilliam, Viscount Berkeley, F. Griffith, C. Rebow, J. Bethell, Sir R. Grogan. Edward Ricardo, J. Biddulph, Col. It. M. Grosvenor, Earl Ricardo, 0. Biggs, John Gurney, Samuel Richardson, J. Black, Adam Hadfield, George Ridley, George Blackburn, Peter Hall, Sir Benjamin Itobartes, T. Make, J. Hamilton, Lord Claud Roupell, W. Bland, L. H. Hamilton, G. A. Rushout, Capt. G. Bonham-Carter, J. Hamilton, Capt. Russell, Lord J. Bowyer, G. Banbury, Robert Russell, H. Brady, J. Ilankey, T. Russell. A. Itrainley-Moore,J.. Hammer, Sir John Rust, James Brand, lion. IL Ilardcastle, Joseph Salisbury, Enoch Bright, John Hardy, G. Schneider, Henry Briscoe, John Har ris, J. D. Scholedeld, W. Brocklehurst, J. liar Wigton, Marquis Sclater, George Brown, W. Ilassard, Michael Scott, F. Browne, Lord John liatchell, John Seymer, 11. Bruce, Lord E. Hayes, Sir E. Seymour, Danby Bruce, 11. A. Headlam, T. Shafto, R. Buchanan, Walter Ileathcote, G. Shelley, Sir J, Buckley, Gen. Henchy, D. Sheridan, H. H. Bu ler, J. W. Heneage, Geo. F. Sibthorp, Major Bury, Viscount Herbert, S. Smith, J. B. Butler, C. S. Hodgson, K. Smith, V. Buxton, C. Holland, E. Smith, A. Byng, G. 11. C. foreman, E. Smith, Sir F. C aird, J. Hudson, G. Smallett, A. Campbell, R. Ingham, It. Somerville, Sir W. Cardwell, E Jackson, W. Stanley, Lord Carnac, Sir J.R. Jermyn, Rt. Iln. Earl Stanley, W. Cavendish, W. Johnstone, H. B. Stapleton, John Cad ley, E. S. Johnstone, Hope Steel, John Charlesworth, J. C. D. Johnstone, Sir J. Stirling, W. Cheetham, John Joiliffe, Sir W. Stewart, Sir IL Cholineley, Sir M. Kendall, N. Stuart, Lord J. Churchill, Lord A. Kerrison, Sir E. Stuart, Colonel Clark, J. Kershaw, J. Sturt, H. Clay, James King, L. Sullivan, Michael Clifford, C. C. Kinglake, A. Sykes, Colonel Clifford, LL-Col. H. M Kinglake, J. Talbot, C. Ciive, George Kingscote, Capt. H. Tay:or, S. Cobbett, J. M. Kinnaird, A. Tempest, Lord A. V. Codrington, Gen. Kirk, W. Thompson, General Colebrooke, Sir E. Kuatchbull-Bagnesien Thornely, T. Collier, It. I'. Knox, Col. B. W. Thornhill, W. Coningham, W. Labouchere,Rt.lion.ll Tite, W. Conyligharn, Lord F. Langston, J. H. Tollemache, F. Cowper, W. F. Langton, El. G. Tomline, G. Curbally, M. E. Laslett, W. Traill, G. Cox, W. Legh, G. C. Truman, C. Craufurd, E. H. J. Lennox, Lord U. G. Turner, J. A. Crawford, R. W. Leslie, C. 1. Tynte, Col. K. Crook, J. Levinge, Sir It. Vane, Lord H. Cross, R. A. Liddell, 11. G. Vansittart, W. Crossley, k'. Lindsay, W. Verney, Sir H. Dalglish, R. Locke, John Villiers, C. Darner, L. D. Lowe, R. Vivian, 11. 11. Dashwood, Sir G. Luce, T. Walpole, S. Davie, Sir 11, It. F. Macarthy, Alex. Wegeelin, T. Deasy, R. M`Cann, J. Wel by, W. Deedes, William MacEvoy, E. Western, S. Denison, W. IL Mackie, J. Westhead, Joshua Dent, John Mackinnon, W. Whatman, J. De Vere, S. E. Maguire, J. F. Whitbread, S. Dill wyn, L. L. Mangles, It. D. White, James Disraeli, B. Marjoribanks, D. Whitmore, H. Divett, E. Marsh, as, Wickham, 11. Dod, J. Martin, C. Willcox, B. Dodson, J. Martin, J. Williams, Sir W. Duff, M. Massey, W. Willyams, E. _. Dunbar, Sir W. Maxwell, J. Willoughby, Sir Is. Duiicombe, Thomas Melgund, Lord Willoughby. J. Dundas, F. Mellor, John Wingfield, It. Dunkellin, Lord Mills, T. Dunlop, A. Moncreiff, J. Wise , J. ton, Sir T. y Dutton, Hon. R. H. Montgomery, Sir G. Woodd, B. EbAngton, Viscount Moody, C. Wood, W. Edwards, Henry Morris, D. Woods, Henry Egerton, Edw. C Napier, Sir C. Wyld, James Ellice, E. Newark, Viscount Wyndham, H. Elton, Sir A. H. Newport, Viscount Wyvill, 11. Estcourt, T. NieJll, D. Young, A. Evans, Sir Do Lacy Noel, G. Evans, T. W. Norris, T. T. Ewart, W. North, Col. J. Ewart, J. North, F. EN, ing, Crum O'Brien, P. TELLS'S. Trelawny, Sir 3. Martin, Y. Country Markets. EDINBURGH HAY AND STRAW MARKET APR L 20. Supplies of all kinds these last six days large. Oat straw, from lOs Od to 12s Od per kemple o f 16 stall: tioa ; wheat do., 83 Oct to lOs Cd ; b ar l e y d o ., 7s Oct to 0,1. Hay from 10d to 12d. EDINBURGH MEAL—APnu. 20. There were in the market to-day 6 sacks oatmeal, es s i b weighing 2801 b imperial, which sold at 40s Od and —o* DALKEITH MEAL MARKET—APRIL 19. oof There were in the m ar k e t t o -d ay 24 b ags of oatmea l. barleymeal, and 0 pot barley. Sales ready. d • Oatmeal, per sack o f 2801b s Fi rst. Second. Th i n • 0 1 impenal Barloymeal, per ditto -s Od —s Od —a ta• Peasemeal, per ditto Flour, now, per ditto —s Od —s Od -- 1 o i Pot-barley, new, pe r ditt o — a Od a Od ---1 DUBLIN —Aram 20. White wheat, 27s 01 to 29.8 0(1 ; red ditto, 24s Od to 2 6 ; 61; ditto new, —sOd ; b ar l ey, malting, to 18s Od; gel o ing, —s to —is ; oa.s, old, 138 to 15s 61; ditto, nor. 01 to —s 01; oatmeal, 138 to 15s 6d; bere, new, 14i to 01; riposeed, 23s Od to 25s Od per brl ; bakers' flour, 61 to 19s Od per cwt ; Indian corn. 33s 01 to 34a 641 410 ltma BRISTOL SUGAR—APRIL 21. There has been but little offering in the market the week, except Ba r b a d oes , w hi c h h ave met a ready 5 4 0 a t full prices, especially for the finer and grocery descriptil: for which there is a good demand. Rum ;s in fair reque s and all offering bas been taken at full rates. COAL MAR Prices of Coals per ton at a. d. Tanfiold Moor Butes 12 9 Huddle W. Hartley l7 0 Holy well ..... ..... ...... l6 0 Wylaui Wallsend, &o. Hough Hall - 16 9 Wayne's Merthyr 20 0 Ships at marke [. .-APRIL 21. the close of. the market Wsllsend, 4103. , il. ~14 6 Whitworth Brown's Moor llaigh l4 6 Main 15 6 flarton Sh l5 9 6 'South Kelloe 17 Birehgroye Gralgola „AO , l9 ; sold 16. THE STATE PROSECUTIONS Or THE Paß33.—Subsorig, tions have been entered i n t o at M anchester in aid . f t; defendants in th ese prosecutions, and the committee report a fair amou n t o f success both among the mid and workin g c l asses. Efforts making in the surrottod, ing towns are also said to have been well responded r_4,' BIRTHS. FOLKESTONE-0a the 19th inst., Viscountess Folkston"' of twine, boy and girl. LASCELLRS —On the 20th inst., at Harewood Leads, the Hon. M rs . EgrarnontLascelles, of a daugh te r, MUNDY—On the 13th inst. at Hollybank, Hantos wife of Major R. M. Mandy, of 3 daughter. Aft* WARD—On the 20th inst., at Blackheath-park, Ward, of a daughter. MARRIAGi E S. COBBOLD —DTP uiS —On the 20th inst., at Eto n , in the _ m g — College Chapel, John Patteson Cobbold, Esq., eldest of John Chevallier Cobbold, Esq., M. P. f or Ipswich, .1 ; Adela Harriette, second daughter of the R ev . Geo. Dupuis, Fellow of Eon College, and recto r o f Creetl" ,"' St. Mary, Suffolk. DEATHS. COK ER—On the 9th inst., at Pridean x , Cornwall, W 2 4., dontally drowned, Lewis Coker, Esq., of Biagi"; House, Bicester, Oxon, late Brev e t-M a j or 29th Itelf " aged 38. FALLOFEILD —On the 20th inst., at his residence! 49, . , Warren-street, Fitzroy-square, the Rev. W. Follefeiw A ' M A., aged 70. FOWLER—On the 20th inst., at Victoria-terrace, IV 0 : water, George Fowler, Esq., formerly of Cullonlf,, Davon, author o f several works on Russia and the DP HAGGARD—On the Ist ult., on board of H.M.S. off the coast of Brazil, of yellow fever, Henry v °ti l ts Haggard, Commander R.N., eldest son of the late 0° Haggard, LL.D , of Doctors'-commons, aged 3 6 . WILSON—On the 19th inst., at the Grove, ShroPg' John Edwa r d s Wilson, Esq. —.Olll — Trlgh LONDON: Printed and Published by KURD° Y O -- ,,r 0 , of No. 112, St rand, Printer, at The Sun Oniee. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the " I " — of Iliddlesex, Thursday, April 22, 1858. adm lntrc num corm Ban need SICI] ones Gall 33,( 3. TI Dile X band duct, Vale great Cam Tray ands at th marls , Equ( Hutu ALA &ttee! Etgh Sent: prov( with and I Foi 22. C, light those man❑ diate plain YOU' Atant Me place, loans N.l Assul Of grt Ir Itshed has b, Pullet cunt annu. the d at gr: ....,_ Pol tit) out natal ........ Tal Jul tem t ray, nrir oOrt de e Pt V