The Sun. — London, England, 1849-03-14 00:00:00

STATE OF TRADE. (From the Manchester Guardian of !his day.) MANCHESTER, MARCH 13.—The ck.: that bu.inc-..5 , received last week, from the accounts i,rouOlt by the American packet and the overland mail have been felc in somewhat diminished degree to day. But though ootton has recovered much of what it then lost, th, re retains, on the whole, a strengthened impression that the pr.( ser:t range of prices must eventually be rasher lime:el by the Weight of the supply, and this impression tends to pri:duce caution in our market. Ia the let us received to .day from Italy, previous ordess are countermanded in con sequence of distrusted paper having beon put out by the Leghorn Bank, and of a depreciation of the Tuscan and rtoman currencies by forced issues of inconvertible paper on the part of the provisional govern- Meats. 'While, therefore, e slightly improve] feeling is Perceptible, as compared with last week, still business drags heavily, and not a little irregularity exists. The transactions of the day have been of very limited amount, buyers having shown no disposition to operate. Prices have consequently, been very imperfectly tested; but it is evident that, although the quotations are gene rftfly the same as those of a week ago, yet, in most things, sales coufd be effected only through some con cessions. Goods are, on the whole, firmer than yarns; and, of the latter, spinnings for home manufactures are better than those for exportation. ROCHDALE, MARCH 12.—We have had a quiet market today, and the merchants have purchased very sparingly, at last week's prices. In the wool market there is no change to report from that of the preceding Monday. HALIFAX, MARCH 10.—The state of trade, in our Piece Hall and in the warehouses, is about the same as last week. The demand is not brisk, and is chiefly for htatings, which go off at rates nearly equal to the ad vanced cost of the raw material. Yarns are ffrm, at late rates, and the spinners are fully employed on old orders; but the shipping houses are extremely shy of giving out new orders at the improved rates. There is no altera tion to quote in wool, which maintains its price with considerable firmness. _ _ HUDDERSFIELD, MARCH 13.—The market keeps up the character of the last few weeks, and everything indi cates a steady, improved state of trade. A good business is do:ng in the warehouses. I❑ vestings, we have not beard of many orders being yet received. LEEDS, MARCH 13.—We cannot report any material change in our cloth market since last week. The amount of business done at our halls to day was about the same as last Tuesday, and prices were unaltered. There is litle doubt the higher prices asked by the manufactu rers interfere with the business in some.clegree, and check the merchants in their purchases. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. HOME ClRCUlT.—Maidstone, March 13. (Before Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN.) Charles Ahleton, a boy, twelve years old, was indicted for feleniet.sty and maliciously setting fire to a stack of straw, tify6" property of James Russell, with intent to in jure him. The prosecutor in this case is a farmer at Horton Kirby, and it appeared that the fire in question occurred on the 6th November in last year, the day when it will be remembered, owing to the sth falling on a Sunday, the commemoration of the Gunpowder Plot was celebrated. L ille only actual evidence against the prisoner was that he was seen tear the place about the time the fire broke out. Sir Percival Dyke, the magistrate who committed the prisoner, proved his signature to the depositions, and also that be gave the prisoner the formal caution re quired by the late Act of Parliament before he made a statement which was then given in evidence. Mr. Russell, the prosecutor, proved that 80 leads of straw wero consumed by the fire. In cross-examination he said that, when the prisoner was under examination upon the charge, some questions were put to him by the magistrate, and among others he was asked if he had not set the stack on fire ? Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN ached the witness if he was Sure the magistrate put such a question as this to the prisoner? The witness replied that he forgot whether the Magistrate put the question, but he certainly was ques tioned while under examination. _ --- The prisoner's statement was then read. It was to the following effect :—I did it with a lucifer. I got the lucifer from home. I don't know why I did - it. I am sorry I did it. I never thought of doing it before that Morning. I carry lucifirs because the men some times want one to light their pipes with. I struck the Lucifer against the quick, and set fire to the stack un derneath. Mr. ADDIS N, in addressing the jury for the prisoner, Proceeded to comment upon the proceeding that bad been adopted of questioning a child like the prisoner, which he said was quite repugnant to the spirit of Eng lish law. The Learned Counsel concluded his address by calling upon the jury, under these circumstances, to dismiss the statement in question entirely from their Mind, and as their was nothing else against the prisoner, they would then feel it their duty to return a verdict of Not Guilty. Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN, in summing up, said, with regard to the observations that had been made as to the Prisoner being questioned while under examination, un doubtedly if a magistrate were to put questions to such a child to induce him to make a confession, it would not only be a dereliction of duty in that capacity, but also as a man ; bat he must remark that there was no evidence of the ma gistrate having so acted, and, on the contrary, the witness said he could not recollect who put the questions. The Learned Judge then explained to the jury that a person under seven years of age was altogether irresponsible, but between that age and fourteen a person might be convicted of this or any other offence, if the jury should be of opinion that he possessed what the law described as a mischievous discretion, or that he had understand ing enough to be aware of the mischievous nature of the act he was committing, and its dangerous conse quences. The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict of Not Guilty, and the Learned Judge gave directions that the prisoner should be at once placed in the charge of his father, who was in waiting to receive him. Alfred Humphrey, 18, and Iden Ellis, 18, were con victed of feloniously setting fire to a barn, containing a large quantity of wheat, oati, and barley, amounting in /nine to more than 5001., the property of Edward Monckton, and were sentenced to be transported for fifteen years. OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Stafford, March 12. Businessbegan this morning at ten o'clock, Mr. Justice Coltman presiding in the Nisi Prius Court, and Mr. Baron Platt in the Crown Court. There was an entry of 27 causes, of which seven were for special juries. The calendar contained the names of 19 5 prisoners, of whom three were charged with murder, one with attempting to murder, four with manslaughter, and 14 with cutting and wounding. DOUGLAS V. DOUGLAS. Mr. Sergeant — Talfourd and Mr. Grey were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Sergeant Allen and Mr. Wade for the defendant. This was an action of slander, for calling the plaintiff thief, and saying he had robbed a person who for inerly employed him. The parties were first cousins, and also married two sisters, but carried on the same sort of business, drapers, at Walsall. At the opening of the case, a compromise was suggested, but as the de. lehclant denied having used the language attributed to 4 1n1 he would not apologise. Several witnesses swore to the words complained of having been used, but it ap- Pears that the defendant was much excited at the time, and moreover that he afterwards would have apolo gised, if the plaintiff's attorney did not insist on getting the costs of the action. Mr. Sergeant Allen urged these topics on the attention of the jury, who, atter oaring the Learned Judge sum up with great care, re turned a verdict for the defendant. NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—York, March 12. CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.) James Holdsworth, aged sixty, who was tried on Sa• turday on the charge of murdering his wife, by adminis tering arsenic to her on the 12th of December last, at Clayton, in the parish of Bradford, and acquitted from a failure of evidence (the original deposition to which the dying declarations of the deceased was attached not having been produced), was again put on his trial this morning on the coroner's inquisition, to which he had pleaded " Not Guilty," on Saturday on his arraignment, immediately after he bad pleaded to the indictment. Mr. Hardy and Mr. Nicholson appeared for the prose cution; and Mr. J. Pollock and Mr. Campbell Foster for the prisoner. Mr. POLLOCK applied to his Lordship either to be al lowed to withdraw the prisoner's plea of "Not Guilty," and to plead autrefois acquit, pleading over to the felony, or to be allowed to add a plea of autrefois acquit to the plea of " Not Guilty," already on the record. HiS LORDSHIP—I am disposed to allow you to do that, but I will first ask Mr. Hardy what course he pro poses to take on the part of tho prosecution? Mr. LARDY said, on the part of the prosecution, he had looked into the authorities, and had found that both the law and the practice were against any further pro ceeding in such a case, where a prisoner had had his life placed in jeopardy by a previous indictment for the aarae offence. He, therefore, did not propose to offer any evidence on the charge in the coroner's inquisition, Which was the same offence, committed by the same per son, on the same day as that offence of which he had been acquitted. His LORDSHIP thought the course which the Learned Counsel proposed to take was the most advisable. In L this particular instance justice might have been defeated by an act of carelessness; yet if any other course were adopt e d this case might form a precedent very preju dicial to the interests of justice. Theretare ho thought it was better in the first instance to take the course • - --ael l i c h_m r _ii a raylaroposeel to- take. The prisoner was placed at the bar, and given in Charge to the jury on the coroner's inquisition; and Mr. HARDY, addressing the jury, said, in consequence or -the prisoner having already been acquitt e d on this Charge, he should offer no evidence on the coroner's inquisition. The jury would, therefore, say that he was • Not Guilty. Verdict, Not Guilty accordingly. The prisoner was then discharged. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSION-HOUSE. THE WACHORN TESTIMONIAL.— G. Butcher was ehllged with having obtained money under false pre tence,. Mr. R. Gibbs, tea-broker, said, on Saturday last the Prisoner came to me and asked for a subscription to the Foghorn Testimonial. Ho sdd that the subscription 1 14, h a d been kept open so long, the committee was very l'( , irons to close it, and they intended to settle an an nuity upon Mrs. Waghorn and her family, or her chil -I,,rrlin, as the East India Company had provided for Mr. ghorn. I gave him a cheque for 51. 55.; but I sus- Zted afterwards that it was not right. He showed me book • and I wrote my name in it. I sent round to THE SUN, several tea-brokers end ascertained that the pt isem r !eel been colleclete in the same way Inert many (Oat rs. 11 t; previously Led no reenututtication with the r. I had never pron3isrd any sub-senttien. J. Stokeman—l was secretary of the as:orti..tion ler the subscription to the Wag}torn Ttetitnenial, assembled at Cewper's- court, o.trnitill. Tice prisoner was appointed collector on behalf of the Waghorn Testimonial, aid was paid for his services by a corn mission of 2 per cent. We have completed the subscription. The money he received Le Vra3 nod r directions to take to Messrs. Glyn's beitkieg-houtte. On the 4th of F, bruary, 1848, I wrote to him to return his authority to collect. After he wrote the receipt I produce, dated the 29th rf April, 1848, he had no autho rity to rec ive any money fur the committee. I never heard of the formation of any fresh coretnittGe on behalf of Mrs. Waghorn and her family, or her children. Thu prisoner had no authority to receive the 51. ss. from Mr. Gibbs, and he never accounted to me for it. My name has been torn from the book. Mr. J. Saunders, clerk in the London Joint-Stock Bank, said the cheque produced, to the best of his belief, was presented by and paid to the prisoner. Mr. A. R. Cape!, tea broker—On Saturday the pri soner called on me, and said he was collecting subscrip tions for Mrs. Waghorn, and the committee were desi rous to collect 4,0001. for her, as the East India Com pany had provided for Mr. Waghorn. lie then opened the book and showed me Mr. Gibbs's name, which I knew to be in that gentleman's writing. I also observed the name of a Mr. Thompson, whom I knew, and I gave him 21. 2s. as. Another similar case having been proved, Mr. Gibbs informed his Lordship that a crossed cheque for 21. 2s. in the name of Mr. Ridgway was found upon the prisoner. The prisoner said he considered that he was to con• tinue collecting contributions until all that had been promised should be received. Several parties had pro mised to contribute, and ono establishment alone had put down the name of the principal for 501. There were several other sums to be received, and he considered that in collecting such money he was to be commended in stead of prosecuted. Amongst those gentlemen who he considered had promised was Mr. Gibbs, whom he had waited upon between two and three years ago. Mr. Gibbs declared that he had never seen the priso ner before he gave the five guineas' contribution, and he had never made any premise upon the subject. The Loan MAYOR, upon examining the subscription list, found that the name of Mr. Gibbs had been tarn out, and asked the prisoner how he could account. for tha' fact?—The prisoner did not know how to account for it. As to the appropriation of any money, it was neeeasary that he should state that money was due to him for col lecting at the rate of five per cent. He was well known in London. Sir George Larpent and other gentlemen would speak highly of him. He did not for a moment deny having received the 51. ss. from Mr. Gibbs. Many persons had paid in money since, upon which he (priso. ner) was entitled to commission. The LORD MAYOR refused to accept of bail, and re manded the prisoner. CLERKENWELL. ROBBERY OF GoLD.—A fashionably-dressed woman, who refused to give her name, was charged with stealing a banker's parcel, containing upwards of 3001. in gold and silver money. Mr. Bush, the solicitor to the Bankers' Protection So ciety, who appeared for the prosecution, said he should no doubt be able to ascertain her real name before many days had elapsed, and also show that she was connected with a well-organized gang of thieves. A. Brime, porter of the London Joint-stock Banking Company, of Lombard-street, proved that on Monday afternoon he received from that bank a brown•papet parcel to convey to the Cross Keys, in St. John-street, for delivery to a banker's at Luton, in Bedfordshire, and on arriving there he handed the same to the coachman of the vehicle running to that town. The coachman having given evidsnaa of its receipt and the deposit of it by him in the bar 01 the Cross Keys, the landlady, -Mrs. Mary Ann Griffin said, that on Monday after noon she first saw the prisoner, who applied to he ac commodated with a seat until the departure of the Luton coach. She invited her to take a seat in the coffee-room, to which she objected, on the ground of gentlemen being there, and on being offered a private sitting-room up stairs, she urged that it would be too lonely, and went away. In about five minutes afterwards she again pre sented herself at the bar, when she was asked to take a seat in the bar parlour, an offer which she readily ac cepted, and in a very short time the last witness left the banker's parcel in the same apart►nent on a desk two yards from the spot where the prisoner was sitting, Not long after this a " gentleman," who had for several weeks past been in the habit of visiting the establishment, and leaving in her care his great coat, presented himself in a hurried manner, and, after saying, " Oh, you have a lady here waiting for me," pushed rudely by her, notwith standing she objected, and entered the bar-parlour to the prisoner, who recognised him, and said something about his wib; at the same time the man called out for a glass of sherry. She went to serve him, when see ing, from the reflection on the glass doorway, the pri soner receive from her friend a paper parcel (produced) with red seals, and exchange it with that of the bankers, she ran up to the desk where the first one was placed, and at once perceiving that the changes had been effected, she challenged them with so doing, whereupon the " gentleman " seized her by the arms, endeavoured to throw her, and to take the packet that had been sub stituted for the banker's from her, but failing to do so, he escaped from the house. The prisoner was detained, and was observed to drop the banker's parcel. Tho parcel substituted for it contained sand. The prisoner was remanded. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 13. ABOLITION OF CHURCH-RATES._ --- - Mr. THORNELY presented a petition frem the Pro testant Dissenters, praying to be relieved from church rates. Mr. BRIGHT presented similar petitions from Ilitain and Derbyshire. Mr. OSBORNE presented a petition from Denbigh to the same effect. Mr. LOCKE presented a similar petition to the same effect; as also did Mr. G. THOMPSON. Mr. TRELAWNY then rose to move " that it is the opinion of this House that effectual measures should be immediately taken for the abolition of church-rates." He said he should first take a review of what had been done with respect to this important subject. In 1834 a measure was introduced for the abolition of church rates, and the substitution in lieu thereof of a land rate ; but it was opposed by the Dis senters, who considered that the proposition rather favoured the Church than the Dissenters, and, besides, the property of the Dissenter would have become liable for the payment of the rates, end after it had passed he would have had no opportu nity of escaping from it. In 1837 Mr. Spring Rice brought in a Bill on the subject, but it was open to the objections he had named. The rate was to have heel; paid upon that improved management of Church lands. —(Hear, hear.) Subsequent legislation had taken price, but, nevertheless, the question had been left in its present unsatisfactory state. It appeared to him that that state of things was very touch calculated to injure dissent. lie siscerely hoped he might induce Right Honourable Mem bers to agree with him, that something ought to be done. Lord Altherp, on one occasion said that church. rates were a tax luid on upon one class at the discretion of others, and the Dissenters n pre compelled to pay towards a system of worship of which they did not approve. That he (Mr. Tx ewlawny) thought was a strong expres sion of opinion from a Nobie Lord so moderate in his opinions, and so warmly attached to the Church of England.—(Bear, hear.) Lord Stanley had also said, when speaking on this subject, that " ho was ready to acknowledge that church-rates formed a serious and substantial inconvenience to Dissenters." Was it not lamentable after that, that years after years had passed away without any set tlement of this question? In July, 1839, when John Thorogood, a Protestant Dissenter, was committed to prison for the non-payment of church rates, the House of Commons came to a reso lution that it was highly expedient to make such an alteration in the existing law of church- rates, in the ensuing session of Parliament, as should prevent a recurrence of similar violence towards any of her Alajesty's sub jeets who conscientiously dissented from the Church. In the first case a rate was made, which the pa rishioners refused, and the rate was nevertheless levied. In the next case, the rate was carried with an amendment, that the money should be applied to other than church purposes. Eventually the cgs° came to!be argued before the Courts, and it was decided that the amendments were bad, but that the rate was good, for the vestry was held solely for the purpose of making a church-rate. — (Hear, hear.) He would then state some of the cases in detail: the first was that of a man of the name of Riddle, in Cambridgeshire, whose goods were dis trained, and who was himself subjected to an imprison ment for three months for the non-payment of the rate. The next sufferer was subjected to an imprisonment for six months. The Hon. Gentleman then went into a detail of a variety of cases in which the imposition of a church-rate had been oppressive to several members of the Society of Friends and other individuals. In thfiyesr 1837 there were petitions signed by no less than 674,715 persons, against the system of church-rates, preee nted to that House. The principle on which he took his stand was that a tax which created more private pain than public good should be abolished, and that akw hich was impracticable ought to be repealed. Tire remedy he would leave in the hands of other Members to determine after his resolution had been adopted. It would be com petent for gentlemen on the opposite side of the House to add anything they pleased to his motion. The social evils of the system were of such a nature that they de manded redress, for nothing could be more unwise in a social point of view. The tribunals, too, before which prosecutions for the recovery of church-rates were de termined weee of an objectionable nature. Some time ago the Noble Lord at the head of the Government stated his willingness to introduce a measure different from that now in existence, but had not done so. He (Mr. Trelawny) had thrown the subject before the House, in the hope that it would be taken up, and he trusted that Hon. Members would come forward, and by the support they lent, put an end to the grievous litiga tion in connexion with the recovery of church-rates which existed throughout the country. The Hon. Gen tleman concluded by submitting his motion. Mr. P. WOOD had heard but very imperfectly Ides had fallen from the Hon. Member, but from what he could gather from the Hon. Member's speech, he was by no means sure that he could concur in his views. With every respect for the conscientious scruphs entertained by Dissenters, he must say that he himself should not LONDON, feel the slightest scruple of conscieme in contributin, t:.v ards the maintcounce rf n Wesiel an, e r Roman „lace of religious worship. if he ILL:i r-,- ceived property subject to such a charge. Unforuriotel ) there were but too many ways of avoichitg a rate. It way necessary that parties should 'wet to for the pur pose of assessing the amount of it, and a feeling was na turally generated in minds unaccustomed to view such [flattens with legal precision that the making of a rat-- was somehow a voluntary act; and this uomatis'actor) result often happened—that if the majority voted for no rate at all, then, having failed to do that for which they were met, they were held to have thrown away their votes, and the minority prevailed. But when marshalled with more tact and tiexterity. inst. ad of maltii , g no rate, they made a very small, and all but an evasive, rate; and the consequence was the the fabric of the church, unlesi saved by the production of more conclusive evidence on the part of surveyors, was allowed to fall into a disgraceful state—(Hear, hear) —a state in which they would never for a moment suffer their own private dwellings to remain. At the same time, no very great anxiety on this head could be ex pected to exist when a large preponderance of Dissenters was found, and he had long thought it absolutely neces sary, therefore, that steps should be taken to put the matter on a more satisfactory footing. Although he could not agree in the motion to abolish all church-rates, he saw no reason why the ancient mode of providing for the repair of the parish church should not be conti nued, in deference to all who partook of its advantages.— (Hear, hear.) There was a difference, however, in the case of the Dissenter. Although he could not go the full length of concurring in their scruples, still he thought it impossible, looking at the altered state of the country, to continue any longer the pre sent system.—(Hear, hear) The system of church rates was one of great antiquity, and founded entirely on the common law, and was established when the whole body of the community were of one faith. It was im possible to deny that at present there existed large num bers who would not avail themselves of the ministrations of the Church; and, on the other hand, they saw large numbers of the Dissenting community contributing on an extensive scale towards the erection of other buildings for public worship, which, at all events, showed no re luctance to contribute towards what they thought. deco rous and right towards the worship of the Su preme Being. From what source, then, were the funds to be provided? Some pointed to other church funds, but the result of debates which had taken place in that House bad shown that there were al ready abundant objects for those funds in sup • plying the wants of spiritual instruction and minis tration, and he should therefore be very averse from diverting any part of those funds towards maintaining the fabric of the church. There were, no doubt, large sums raised by voluntary contributions, and many churches had been built by such means. But there were some who had such imperfect notions of duty, that, although desirous of attending worship in the church, they were most unwilling to contribute a fair proportion towards maintaining the fabric, and he saw no reason why these should not be compelled to pay their just quota towards that object. Without going into a long discussion, he should satisfy his own feelings by putting his views in the shape of an amendment to the motion of the Hon. Member. He would therefore propose to sub stitute for the words which came after " that it is the opinion of this House that effectual measures should be immediately taken for," the following words:—"dis charging persons dissenting from the Church, as by law established, from contributing to church-rates, and from taking any part in levying, assessing, or administering the same. What he meant was, that parties might have an opportunity of registering themselves as wishing to claim the exemption, but that when so registered they should be incompetent to vote for any church-rate, or any sub ject connected with it.—(Hear, hear.) If this view were carried out at any future time in the shape of a Bill, there might be a provision prohibiting such persons from occupying pews in church. The difficulty which arose was this: is alight be said that a premium was held out to persons to declare themselves Dissenters. That, how ever, he held to be an exaggerated apprehension. lie hod often known those who had refused to pay a rate imposed by the vestry afterwards come forward volun tarily to contribute, and amongst these were found a number of Dissenters.—(Hear, hear.) Of course they would take care that there should be no more ex tempore Dissenters for the purpose of avoiding a rate ; and the disadvantages, after all, of losiug these lukewarm Churchmen, who, for the sake of 15s. or 20s. would register themselves as Dissenters, he, as a tiler - ober of the church, did not think of very great im portance. On the other hand, what would be the ad vantages of the system which he had recommended? lie thought they would be very great, for by adopting it they would at once get rid of all the beart-burnings, dis putes, and discussions which took place at the assess ment of church rates.—(Cheers.) Mr. HEADLAM seconded the amendment, regarding it as a satisfactory settlement of a complicated question. There wt re large numbers of persons who entertained conscientious objections to contribute towards the main tenance of the fabric of the parish church, and it would be no longer possible to maintain that system. In the town which he had the honour to represent many Dis senters had contributed in a voluntary form that which they had refused under a compulsory system. He saw no reason, however, why those belonging to the Esta blishment should not be compelled to contribute, and he thought the Church of England had a sufficiently strong hold on the community not to be prejudicially affected by limiting the contributions levied for the purpose of maintaining the fabric of the Church to those who did not choose to avow themselves Dissenters.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. RICE had listened to the speech of the Hon. and Learned Member for Oxford with great satisfaction, for it had relieved him from a very great difficulty under which he had always laboured in reference to this sub ject. He hoped the Hon. and Leartted Member would follow up his amendment by a Bill. lie would venture to throw out, merely as a suggestion, that a general rate might be made throughout the country for the mainte nance of religious edifices, the contribution to be applied to the church of the contributor. Mr. AGLIONBY could not say that the Hon. and Learned Member for Oxford had relieved him from any difficulty; on the contrary, he had placed him in a still greater one than before. The great objection to the re solution of the Hon. Member for Tavistock was that it was too vague, and many were disposed to say that it should have been followed up by some definite or spe cific proposal, by which means would be pointed out of supplying the defect that would be thereby occasioned in the funds for the maintenance and repair of the edifice of the church. His (Mr. Aglionby's) desire was, that such rates should no longer exist; but he certainly contemplated the substitution of some other mode of maintaining the edifice and performing the services of the Church. The Hon. Member for Oxford had, how ever, taken tho House by surprise, as he had proposed an amendment of the greatest importance, without having given the slightest previous intimation of his in tention. He found there was something wrong at the bottom of his amendment, and that it would not give satisfaction generally. He certainly was not prepared to vote for it, and was rather disposed to support the original resolution, ant have that followed up by some substitution. One objection to the Hon. Member for Oxford's amendment was, that it would be a premium upon dissent; but it had been urged by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman that such an allegation would be a reproach to dissent; and he had followed it up by say ing that the Dissenters as a body were too honourable to take advantage of such a plea to escape the payment. He added, that tie had known instances of Dissenters having refuted to vote for a church. rate, and after wards having made a voluntary rate among themselves for that purpose. He feared, however, that the proposition might operate in this way, that, many persons not being Dissenters, but members of the Church of England and landowners, might pretend to be Dissenters, in order to get their land freed from this payment. It was urged as an objection that the parties had purchased their land at a lower rate as being subject to that tax, but the objec tion would be still stronger if the Dissenter was allowed to go free and the Churchman still obliged to pay. For his part, he thought there might be an amendment upon that of the Hon. and Learned Member for Oxford— (hear and laughter)—and he hoped the Hon. and Learned Gentleman would exercise some judgment and discretion upon it, now that he was in a position to turn those sug gestions to account, as a member of the Committee ap pointed to inquire into Church property. He reminded the House when some years ago a Noble Lord (Monteagle), then Chancellor of the Exchequer, proposed to the House a substitute for church-rates, by which they would relieve not the Dissenters alone, but the Churchmen also. He proposed that the Church property itself sbould pay the rates—(Hear, hear)—and that the Church should ob tain the additional revenues for that purpose by the en franchisement of all leasehold ecclesiastical property. The proposition went off, not because the principle was ma a good one, but because the Chancellor of the Ex chequer chose to take down his books, and get his actu aries to make calculations by which the leaseholders would be charged 50 per cent. more than they were en titled to pay.—(Hear, hear.) If that proposition were put before the House in a just and satisfactory way, he thought those parties would be willing to accept it, and that it would meet the difficulty of the present question. If that were done by establishing an equitable valuation of th s property, the effect would be to set at rest the present disputed question, which had raised between Churchmen and Dissenters the most bitter controver sies, while it would give a largely increased revenue to the Church.—(Hear, hear.) He thought he had in that suggestion given the Hon. and Learned Member for Oxford a much better plan than his own, which would relieve all parties, and enable the Church to repair and keep in order its own fabric. He shoUld be prepared at all times to give his best attention to any plan which would continue the maintenance of the edifice of the Chusch, and at the same time relieve every man who had a cutiscientious objection to the payment of these rates. Sir G. GREY hoped the House would not be led into the discussion of a very intricate question on the present occasion. The management of Church property was not the question then before them. That had been referred to the consideration of a Committee. He thought it would be time enough to discuss that question when they had before them the report of that Committee.—(Hear.) He would confine himself to the tsvo propositions then before them. With regard to the first he was not pre. pared to give his assent to it. The Hon. Gentleman proposed at once the abolition of church-rates, but had not indicated any substitute, and he had gone so far as to say that no plan had yet been proposed that would be satisfactory to those who had conscientious objec tions or scruples to the payment of', these rates. With regard to the amendment of the Hon. and Learned member for Oxford, he certainly felt prepared to admit with him that it was most desirable to put a stop to the se s saelal and the scenes that had taken place in populous p a hes owing to the contests between Churchmen and Dissenters.—(hear, hear.) At the same time there were oa eat difficulties connected with it. Looking at the fai lure of every attempt that had been made to arrange the question satitLctorily in that way, be could not help re- WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 14, ;rotting that the Honrurable and Learned Gentleman Italnot brought his talents and abiliics to a better ac count than to present them with a reproduction of a tau ti,,n v. hick had been repeatedly submitted to t:.e [louse by the Ilououral,1•1 Member for Finsbury. when he moved for have to bring in a Bill to effect that ob ject, and proposed, at the sime time, some system of re t ristration and a declaration, by way of drawing the line of demarcation between Churchmen and D•s senters. It appeared to him that such a measure would be a premium upon d.syent, as it haa been termed. Ha world not say that it would be dote to avoid the paym en t of these rates ; but 1, t them take the case of the north of England, in which there were many Presbyterians mingled with Churchmen, wi.h whom they lived in terms of intimacy and perfect harmony, and who frequented each other's churches eit• casemelly. If such a measure we re adopted, it would at once draw a line of demarcation between those parties; because if the one party found that by declaring them srlves Presbyterians, and not using the Church, they should be exempt, they would throw the whole burden upon the others, and the landlord would ultimately get the benefit of the change. It would create invidious distinctions, also, in the letting of land; as if the Church man got it it would be liable to church-rates, and if it was let to a Presbyterian it would not be liable. He regretted, therefore, that the Hon. and Learned Gentle• man was not able to suggest some more feasible plan than that which he had submitted to the House. Ho could only reiterate the opinion he had expressed on a former occasion, that it would be most desirable to apply a remedy to these scandals, although of late years they had been less frequent than formerly. If some means could be pointed out by which funds could be provided for maintaining the fabric of the Church, he should be most happy to give his assistance in adopting it ; but looking at the mode in which the proposition had been brought forward, he was not very sanguine that it con tained anything like a remedy for the existing state of things.—(Hear). Colonel THOMPSON said he had been instructed to support the motion of' the Hon. Member for Tavistock, and he should shortly state the reasons upon which he conceived those instructions to have been founded. The instructions came from men of wealth and liberality un bounded—from men of great ability and intelligence— and he thought them rather ominous. He was told by those who instructed him that ever since the year 1836 they had in their own district practically abolished church-rates, and they said that the liberty which they had achieved for themselves they wished to extend to others. Then it appeared that liberty from church-rates might be achieved. But why were church-rates so loudly complained of? Simply because they were deemed an injustice to the Dissenters. In reply to that it was alleged that the Dissenters had purchased their properties subject to church-rates. But he would ask, had all the Dissenters purchased all the estates which they possessed? Surely some Dissenters inherited their properties, their fathers saying to them, " This church rate was a robbery of me—it was a robbery of your grandfather before me—it was a robbery as far as human memory extended. I hand down this land with a protest against church-rates, and I enjoin you to resist them to the utmost of your power." Under such circumstances it would not be denied that church-rates were a hardship upon Dissenters. In reply to that, however, it had been said, and often repeated, that church -rates were legal ; doubtless, they were legal, but that was not the question. All the heretics burnt in Smithfield were legally burnt. The question was not whether church -rates were legal, but whether they were just and expedient. In his opinion, laws which excited so much discontent could not stand, would not stand, and perhaps ought not to stand. Mr. FIUME certainly had objected to placing the burden of maintaining the fabric of the:Church upon the Consolidated Fund, although he thought favourably, upon the whole, of the plan submitted to that House by Mr, Rice. Regarding church-rates as a source of religious strife, he wished to get rid of them. It appeared to him that the plan of the Hon. and Learned Member for Ox ford would give security and satisfaction by giving relief to the Dissenters. Those who attended the public wor ship of of the Church of England ought to maintain the fabric of the Church. Lord 1). STUART said it appeared that every Hoe. Member who had spoken had admitted the necessity of making some alteration in the present state of the law regarding church-rates. He confessed that ho concurred in a great degree in the views expressed by the Hon. and Learned Member for Oxford, because he was ex tremely anxious that Dissenters should be relieved from the burden and grievance of paying church-rates. He thought, however, that they would be hardly justified in abolishing the provisions for maintaining the fabric of the Church, without providing a substitute. Although there was a very general feeling abroad that the law should be altered in this respect, he believed that there were very few who would wish to overthrow the Church altogether. His Honourable and Learned Friend, the Member for Cockermouth, threw out a suggestion which he thought was good, when he pro posed that they should add some words to the resolution before the House, pledging them to find a substitute for the church-rates, which they declared ought to be abolished. He, however, confessed he did not muoh like to agree to an amendment that was thus brought forward without any previous notice. He had some ides of moving an amendment himself—(Laughter)—but he felt that it would not be fair for him to do so without giving the House notice of his intention.—(Hear, hear.) He suggested to the Hon. and Learned Member for Oxford the propriety of withdrawing his amendment, when he would have no difficulty in supporting the original mo tion. If he should vote for this motion, it would be only for the purpose of opposing the principle therein in volved, and with the implied understanding that a sub stitute for these church-rates would be devised, so as not to leave the Church without any provision for its proper maintenance and support. Mr. C. W. MARTIN said that in the borough which he represented there bad been a struggle of many years' duration on the subject of church-rates; the Conserva tives considering it their duty to abstain from anything that might be supposed to savour of a surrender of the principle of church-rates. The principal church in the town at length fell into so dilapidated a condition that one of the churchwardens undertook the repair of the building out of his own pocket; his example was fol lowed by another churchwarden. It was then felt by the Churchmen of the town that they must either surrender the principle for which they contended so long, or allow the building to fall about their ears, for hardly any re pairs would suffice. Then a voluntary subscription was entered into for the purpose of building a new church; and the moment a proposition of that kind was an nounced, the list of subscribers was filled with conside rable alacrity, and they found no difficulty in raising 5,0001. or 6,0001. If the Established Church was to be considered one of the institutions of the country, then they ought to look about them carefully before they took any such step as that then proposed to them; for if the principle of voluntary subscription were once adopted in a few places, as it bad been in Newport, the example would rapidly spread. Sir W. CLAY observed, that the question was not as to the state of the law, but as to the justice of the case. Church-rates were just enough when all the people of England were of one faith, but there was a manifest in justice in taxing all for the benefit of some. The Irish got rid of church cess in 1833, and he saw no reason why the English should not get rid of church-rates. Fgt. his part, as a member of the Church, ho was ashamed of being a party to applying for the assistance of the poor on behalf of a most richly-endowed Church, which com prehended the wealthiest classes in this country, as well as many of the independent portion of the middle orders. Ho felt it a high imputation upon the Church to which he belonged that the public were called upon to pay for washing the clergyman's surplice, and for coals for warmieg the church. He was ready to exclaim— " Pudet htec opprobria nobis Et dici potuisse, et non potuisse refelli." He thought it disgraceful that the members of such 'a chtarch could not find the means of maintaing its fabric. He would support the motion of the Hon. Member for Tavistock; for he felt it - hisduty to protest most strongly against the continuance of a tax which, whit• it was of no importance to the Church, tended to keep, up a feeling of irritation and hostility towards that es- tablishment. Mr. GOULBURN would remind Hon. Members op posite, when they talked of the Church being so ricb, of the multitudes that had grown up in this country who have been rescued from ignorance and criese by its in strumentality—he would ask them to show him whether the wealth of that Church was more than adequate to supply the wants of the people for such instruction? They were all labouring to enable it to impart the most general and efficient instruction, and yet some Honour able Members wished to deprive it of those means which were so necessary to effect that object. The land had been subject to this impost from the earliest times, was stid subject to it, and could not be released from it with out the intervention of Parliament. If the land then was so subject, why was it now soug ht to relieve it from this impost more than from any of the other leg a l b ur d ens which were upon it? Having said so much, let it not be thought that he was opposed to a consid era ti on wheth e r means might not be supp l ied by which church rates might be placed upon a footing more accept able to all classes. He had no desire to press upon any particular class of persons, or to exact taxes of any kind that were unacceptable to such per sons. It was, however, in his opinion impossible to listen to the debate that had taken place without coming to the conclusion that it would be most unwise in the House to give its sanction to the resolution that had been pro posed. They were called upon to affirm distinctly the principle that church-rates should i be aboli s h e d. S ome Hon. Members had declared that in voting f or th e abo lition of church-rates they intended that some substitute would be found for them. But if they put such a reso lution on the journals of the House that church-rates should be abolished, that was the letter of the bond, and who n they came to consider the question of a substitute, they would be told that their time Was gone by, fur they had already agreed to abolish church-rates alto gether. But if they did come to deal with the question of a substitute, what would b e thei r difficulties? The lion. and Learned Member for Oxford proposed to ex empt the property of Dissenters altogether from the burden to which the members of the Established Church were subject. Was not this opinion open to all the objections urged by the Hon. Gentleman opposite, and to which no person as yet had attempted to give an answer? Was it not impossible to accede to such a pro position, when it was merely put before them in the shape of a resolution. Several ether suggestions were made in the course of this discussion. Some lion. Members were disposed to sacrifice the property o f th e Ch urc h, and to augment the interest of leaseholders at the ex pense of those by whcm those leases were granted. Now these were remedies upon the merits of w hi c h it wa s impossible to express an opinion, upon a mere reso l u ti on , without having all the details of the respective measures suggested before them, lie was opp ose d t o th e con sideration of such an important question, unless it came before tho House in the shape of a Bill. They could then sec whether they could abolish the church-rates without providing a substitute. He, therefore, called upon the House to require a completa inesiure, with all its details to be made known to it, before it wsuld pronounce On opin;on upon this subject.—(llear, hear.) 31r. 13HIGHT rejolied that this important question bs'ore the House had been so calmly and tcmprrately discussed. It was admitted on all sides that it was one which should be settled; and several projeeLs had been thrown before the House with the view of leading to an adjustment of it. With regard to the project of the lion. and Learned Member' for Oxford, he must say, from his knowledge of the condition of the parishes of the north of England, that he doubted extremely whether that plan could be worked in such a manner as even to mitigate the evils which existed with regard to the question of church-rates. It would be a most difficult and invidious proceeding to attempt to separate the populations of large parishes, and say who were the Churchmen and who were the Dissenters. But no matter what plan was adopted, he submitted that until this question was ulti mately settled, the Dissenters ought to have an equal interest in the funds which the State had intrusted to what was called the National Church.—(Hear, hear.) After all the consideration ho had been able to give to the subject, he had come to the conclusion either that the fabrics of the Church must be maintained by funds derivable from the improvement of Church property — and he believed that it could be increased four or five fold in value—or that the subject must remain as it is, and be the means of costinuing embitterment of feeling amongst Churchmen and Dissenters, until the Church people were forced to maintain their churches by volun tary contributions.—(Hear, hear.) In Manchester, some years ago, the most unseemly contests had been carried on in reference to the levying of church-rates ; and the consequence was that the collectors of the poor rates had a column in their books headed " Church rate optional," and no man could say-that the collegiate church of Manchester was at present in a worse condition than when there was a compulsory church-rate. In the parish in which he lived, Rochdale, it was found that a few years ago the churchwardens contrived to spend 700/. or 8001. a year of the parish money and it was more than hinted that a great portion of it was spent in " jovial living."—(Laughter.) The parishioners, however, thought it their duty to look after the matter, and,the result was, they had reduced the annual expen diture to 1501. per annum, thus showing that there ex isted great abuses in the management of parish affairs by the officers of the National Church. In his opinion, nothing could be more prejudicial to the Church than those contests which frequently took place in parishes on the subject of church-rates.—(Hear, hear.) The last scene of the kind at Rochdale was in 1840, on which occasion there were about 12,000 votes polled. The confusion and tumult was greater than at any Parlia mentary election he ever was present at; and so violent and excited did the people become, that the vicar and the magistrates felt it their duty to call out the military to preserve the peace. The poll was kept open longer than it ought to have been, and the vicar marched through the town at the head of about 8,000 or 10,000 people whom he called his flock, who hissed and hooted in a manner which must have been agonising to the feelings of any respectable members of the Church who heard and saw them.—(Hear, hear.) Nothing could be more unfortunate than that such things should happen. The House was aware that several persons had such strong objections to paying church-rates that they sub • mitted to be incarcerated for long periods rather than pay them; and he knew that the furniture of a dissenting place of worship in the metropolis was every year seized for church-rates, and the congregation were obliged to replace it at considerable cost, yet they would not con sent to pay the rates from conscientious scruples. Now, these things occurring so frequently, could not fail to be injurious to the Church; bat whether they were inju rious to the Church or not, he asked the House whether they were not injurious to religion?—(Hear, hear.) Men did not like to be forced by the law to do that which was against their conscience. —(Hear, hear.) He should give his vote in favour of the resolution proposed by the Hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Trelawny), because he thought it desirable that the House should express a clear opinion upon the question; and he also thought it would become the Government to bring forward some measures to settle the whole matter, by appropriating the increased funds belonging to the Church to the maintenance of the fabrics, which he should be sorry to see going into decay.—(Hear, hear.) Sir R. PEEL said the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down stated with great truth that this discussion had hitherto proceeded without any asperity, and with great moderation, and there appeared to be an evident desire on the part of the House to consider this important matter with calmness and deliberation.—(Hear, hear.) They had two propositions be!ore them. In the first place they were asked to affirm a resolution which, in point of fact, was condemnatory of the existing law with respect to church-rates. Now it was easy to give ex pression to an opinioa upon any subject by a resolution; but it was not so easy to deal with matters of a compli cated nature by a similar process. The introduction of a Bill upon any subject afforded an opportunity to Hon. Members of examining into and considering its details, and of forming a judgment upon the nature and probable effect of the measure. And by giving their assent to the first reading or the second reading of a Bill, they did not commit themselves to the adoption of it; but when a resolution was once passed it involved a pledge on the part of the House of Commons—a pledge which they could not readily rescind—to abide by the principle of that reso lution. The question before the House was a most im portant one, and had only been discussed for one or two hours, and he thought that without more mature delibe• ration they ought not to agree to a resolution pledging themselves to an opinion which they could not retract without affecting their character for consistency, and which opinion they might ultimately find themselves unable to act upon.—(Hear.) Now, what would be the position of the House of Commons, supposing they passed this resolution? They would immediately pro ceed to consider the question by a Bill, and in case the substitute proposed in lieu of church-rates was not deemed satisfactory, and they failed in passing the Bill, there would remain their resolution in favour of the ab solute abolition of church-rates, and they would, accord ing to his assumption, have failed in carrying out a prin ciple which, in point of fact, they had pledged them selves to adopt.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) admitted that the fabrics ought to be maintained, but why did he not tell them from what source? Mr. BRIGHT—I did tell them. Sir R. PEEL—Yes, the Hon. Gentleman suggested that they ought to be maintained out of a fund to be created by improving the .property of the Church; and there had been various other suggestions of a similar kind made, all of which amounted to admissions that church-rates ought not to be abolished without finding a substitute for them.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that the objection taken by the Right lion. Baronet the Se cretary for the Home Department to the proposal of the Hon. and Learned Member for Oxford, had great force in it, and was conclusive against the adoption of that proposed; for he (Sir R. Peel) could not conceive any thing more objectionable than to call upon the parishes throughout the country to register the members of the various religious denominations resident in them — (Hear, hear)—to call upon the parishes to separate the churchmen from the other religious bodies in their localities, in order That the latter might escape the pay ment of a small tax. The very strong reasons which the Right Hon. Gentleman had urged against both the resolu tion and the amendment would, he had no doubt, prevent the adoption of either by the House. A substitute for church-rates had been proposed some years ago by Lord Althorp. That Noble Lord brought forward a proposi tion for charging the maintenance of the fabrics of the Church upon the Consolidated Fund. Now, so far as religious scruples were concerned, he thought that tak ing the money for keeping the churches in repair from the Consolidated Fund would give to the objections of those who complain of having to pay chureh-rates much greater force. At present those rates were mainly paid by those who concurred in the doctrines of the Church —the burden was chiefly borne bj the owners and occu piers of the land, the majority of whom belonged to the Church of England. And if the charge was made upon the Consolidated Fund, it would be a common burden on the Dissenters and the members of the National Church. If he were called upon as a Minister to abolish church-rates, and he thought that he ought to respond to the call, he would have no alternative but to transfer the charge to the Consolidated Fund, but such a pro ceeding could by no means satisfy those who objected to pay the rates upon the ground of religious scruples, be cause a contribution on their part of a single shilling to wards the fund from which the charges was paid, would be as great a violation of those scruples as a contribution of 201. Then came another proposal—namely, that the maintenance of the Church fabrics should be left to vo luntary subscriptions. Now he could conceive nothing would be more unjust than making it a discretionary matter—leaving it to those who were actuated by a sense of duty, and trusting to their religious feelings without any obligation. The Hon. Member who spoke last said that in Manchester the payment of church-ra . .cs was optional, and that the churches there were in as good repair as when the rates were compulsory. Mr. BRIGHT—I said that the Manchester collegiate church was as well maintained as when church-rates were compulsory. Sir R. PEEL thought the Hon. Member had included all the churches in Manchester in his statement. Mr. BRIGHT—No; I only spoke of one. Sir R. PEEL would not detain the House by attempt ing to solve the many difficulties which surrounded the question, but at once give it as his opinion that if the House of Commons, as a branch of the Legislature, thought that the question of church-rates should be con sidered with a view to an alteration of the system, let it do its duty, and bring in a Bill on the subject, and not commit itself by passing a resolution after, a few hours' discussion, the principle involved in which it might not ultivately be able to cat ry out.—(Hear, hear.) So far as they were Members of Parliament, he hoped that they would not hastily come to a resolution, the effect of which would be to exempt the land, and other property they possessed, from church-rates. What would be said of them if they relieved themselves from the burden ? If they did so on the ground of religious scruples, what guarantee had they that a similar claim might not be made next year for exempting dissenters from tithes? — The statute law with regard to tithes, and church-rates , was nearly similar. The Hon. and Learned Member for Oxford said that by the common law the maintenancei of the fabrics of the Church was a bur den on the and. He (Sir R. Peel) admitted that there might be some distinction between tithes and church-rates, but he eti s g ► ht tot woul dhich btehealabnadd ewxaasmlipalhele,wnitnliderrestpheecetnnttointhene law to exonerate that land fro m these burdens, not by an b ti e lo rd u Act of Parliament, but by a resolution passed by a In what state would t he y leave t e law after they passed majority of those who were landowners.—(Hear, h hear.) this resolution ? They would have virtually condemned it, and not have provided any other in its place. And before they had an opportunity of considering a Bill founded on the resolution, an increased unwillingness to pay church-rates would doubtless be manifested through out the country by those parties who already had an 1849. objeCTlTin to the tax. - Therii - 6uld it by adopting the resolution.—(lloar, hear) Wa:; it wiie on tlte part of the 1I use of C.AUMOnStoe"" deny the law w thout iiubstituting any other law iu its stead ? Yet they would cond,ran it if tht:y agreed to th, resolution of the Hen. Member for Tavistocla—(Hear.) With reference to the character of the House of Commons, he thought it would be im • politic for them to condemn a law by a resolution — (Fleur, hear)—and upon ail the grounds ho had stated he must deprecate sincerely the sudden adoption of the proposal of the Hon. Gentlemen opposite. (Hear, hear.) Upon one occasion the Irish House of Commons passed a resolution which turned out to be a very in convenient proceeding, condemnatory of the law under which tithes of agistment were levied. It was considered that any man who subsequently paid those tithes was an enemy to his country; and a Bill, founded upon the resolution, was afterwards introduced, but it was de feated, and that branch of the Legislature was conse quently placed in considerable difficulty with respect to its character fora consistent course of action. A similar difficulty might present itself in the present case. — It was said that the fabrics of the Church ought to be maintained out of the increased revenues derivable from Church property, instead of by church-rates. Now, in his opinion there were such demands upon the Church funds on account of an increase of population, and the consequent demand for addition spiritual instruction, that no matter how much they could add to the Church revenues, the claims for spiritual instruction were such as to require the absorption of the whole of them.—(hear, hear.) He was not one of those who was opposed to the redistribution of the revenues of the Church. He had, he thought, given a proof of his disposition in that re spect, by having made a division of sinecures and cathe dral revenues to assist in relieving the increased spiritual wants of the people.—(Hear, hear.) And his opinion was, that no matter what increase they could make in the value of the Church property, by effecting im provements, there would still remain demands upon it for addition spiritual instruction.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped never to see the day when the gentlemen of England would consent to relieve themselves from bur dens to which their estates were properly subjected.— (Hear, hear.) He would not now enter into any details upon that point, but he intreated the House to reserve this important matter for more mature consideration than they could give to it after such a short debate, and, for the sake of its own character, not to take steps to night which it might be compelled to retrace from an inability to proceed.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. OSBORNE confessed that it was with surprise he had heard the Right Honourable Baronet the Member for Tamworth calling upon the House not to come to a hasty decision upon that question. It would almost have made one unacquainted with what had been done upon the subject fancy that the question of church-rates had been brought under discussion for the first time. Why, in 1835, the Right Hon. Baronet himself said, " The question of church-rates is one that does not yield in urgency to any one that can came under the consideration of this House. So far as any question can be important to the maintenance of social harmony, to the promotion of satisfaction amongst the great body of the Dissenters, there is not a single question, except that of the Irish Church, which so presses for a practical and immediate settlement."—(Cheers.) If the Right Hen. Baronet was afraid the House was about to come to too hasty a decision upon the question, why did he not bring in a Bill to settle the question;and so save their consis tency? He quoted those words of the Right Hon- Baronet, and called upon the House to come to some im mediate decision upon the subject. The Right Hon. Baronet objected to the simple form of the motion, and said the House would be bound by it if it were agreed to. Now, that might be very good Parliamentary tactic, but it is not true. Oily last session the House had voted that at all elections votes should be taken by the ballot—(Cheers)—yet vote by ballot was not esta blished.—(llear, hear.) Therefore Hon. Gentlemen need not be deterred from voting for the resolution on thatground. He did not think the House was bound to find a substitute fur church-rates. As a churchman he felt very sure that nothing could be so much against the welfare of the Church as to continue the present system of keeping up the fabrics of the Church. The simple reason why the question did not press at present was, that clergymen did not now press the law into force. In Blackburn the Rev. Dr. Whittaker did not press the law, and consequently there was peace in his parish, and the same wise course was followed by many of his brethren. When he saw members of the Church giving their thou sands and tens of thousands for the purposes of the Church, it was useless to tell him that the fabric of the Church would be allowed to go to destruction; and when he saw that the Church Commission could find 143,000/. to spend in the erection of eight bishops' palaces, he felt ashamed that his Dissenting brethren should be called upon to contribute their mite towards the repair of the fabrics of the Church. When he heard the arguments which had been used against the motion, he almost fancied that the Church could not be founded upon a rock, but upon sand. He would first vote for the motion, and if that were lost, he would then give his vote in favour of the amendment of the Hon. Member for Oxford, on the principle of his willingness, if he could not get what he wanted, of taking what he could get. Mr. GLAI)STONE said the Honourable Member for Middlesex had very frankly avowed that he would give his vote for the resolution, without the intention of pro viding a substitute for church-rates—that he would leave the fabric of the Church to shift for itself.—(No, no.) The Hon. Gentleman had said so in so many words. He said, to leave the fabric of the Church to the voluntary contributions of the people would be per fectly satisfactory. In that the Hon. Member was per fectly consistent ; but ho was the first who had given expression to the opinion that it was the duty of the House of Commons to abolish the church-rate, but that it was no part of the duty of the House to find a substi tute. They could have no reason for complaint against all who agreed with the Honourable Gentleman voting for the resolution, but they would have grave reason to complain of all who voted:for it who were of opinion that some substitute for church-rates ought to be found. What had fallen from the Right Honourable Baronet the Member for Tamworth was not to be gainsaid, and there was no inconsistency whatever between the quoted speech and the sentiments he had liven utterance to that night. The Hon. Gentleman had confounded the two courses, proceeding with expe dition and proceeding by abstract resolutions. The affirmation of abstract resolutions did not advance a question a single step—indeed, it was always the slowest method of proceeding with any question—and therefore he hoped the House would have too much respect for itself and the country to take such a rash step upon a question of so much importance. He felt as strongly as any one the desire that the question should be settled as speedily as possible. The evils attending it were enormous. They had deviated in practice from the ori ginal principle and intention of the law. That intention was not to impose upon any one an uncompensated burden while every person in the community was to be compelled to pay his quota for the main tenance of the fabric of the Church, every one was to be entitled to go to the churchwarden and demand space in the church for the purpose of worshipping his Maker. But when they saw the way in which the floors of the churches, especially in large towns, were monopolised by pews for the wealthy ; when the poor working man was, as it were, in jealousy excluded ; when it appeared that he was called upon to go to church only to be branded with his inferiority, it was clear the law was in a very unsatisfactory state, and that it was their duty to give their consideration to any plan that would extricate them from the difficulty. While he would vote against both the motion and the amendment, yet if the Hon. Member for Oxford would embody his plan in a Bill, he should not think himself entitled to vote against its introduction. It would only be fair to give him the opportunity of laying his plan on the table of the House, because, although it was liable to many objections, still those objections were not so insurmountable as to preclude all hope of arriving at a satisfactory settlement. For the dignity of Parliament he trusted they would do nothing whatever upon that occasion. Their giving their consent to an abstract re solution would only remain as a monument of their hasty conduct. Lard J. RUSSELL—The Hon. Member for Middle sex gave the House rather an unsatisfactory reason for proceeding by resolution, in stating that last year we came to a resolution in favour of the ballot; for the con sequence of that is, that there is on the journals of the House a resolution in favour of the ballot, but no one step has yet been taken in that direction, and the probability is, that were a Bill brought in on the subject, in some stage or other there would be a majority against it.— (Hear, hear.) Thus there would be a resolution in fa vour of the ballot, and a decision of the House against it. —(Hear, hear.) I cannot, therefore, think it desirable to ague to the present resolution unless the House has made up its mind that there should be a total abolition of the church-rates, without any provision for the building and repair of churches. I certainly should think that if the House were ready to pass a Bill immediately abolishing church-rates, it would not be a matter of very great consequence whether the House proceeded by re solution in the first instance, or by motion to introduce a Bill. But I cannot believe that the House has made y its mind to that course .—(C r i es : o f " H ear , hear.") I quite concur in the observations made as to the evils of the church-rates as at present existing. I have more r than once assisted in plans intended to produceeahl!ra mode of providing for the objects for which church-rates p l an are required, and I should be very were before the House by which With re against the church-rates might be gotthgeladoidbl"°eoritions stated Don. Member for spect to what has fallen from Manchester, I think he was,. to a thegreat degree, justified in his description of the disturbances and contested elec tions in connexion with church rates, ides, and the hooting he said took place, and and hissing at clergy to the law as now existing, but were a disgrace not o w nl e y ° reflected blemish all professing Christianity. I think the plan proposedonplacing by Lord Althorp, of the provision of m aintaining the fabric of th e Church on the Consolidated Fund, would have proved a remedy for these public disputes and contests; but although that remedy would have been sufficient for the prevention of such squabbles, it soon became obvious that the Dissenters felt as strong an objection to rates imposed in that form as in any oth er, an d we s h ou ld h ave had continual dissension in this House and the country as to whether that tax should be imposed or continued. —(Hear, hear.) It certainly was not worth while to get rid of one cause of dissension and to substitute another. Well, we proposed to defray the maintenance of the fabric of the Church out of the funds of the Church, and an inquiry took place; but from subsequent investigation and experience I do believe that any funds that may be made available for the purposes of the Church will be required for that subdivision of parishes to which the at tention of the House has been directed, and for the ex tension of spiritual instruction.—(Hear, hear.) I quite agree with the Right Hon. Gentleman who spoke last, that it is very much to be lamented that in ma n y o f our churches in this metropolis and in th e great towns , t h e whole space is occupied with pews—(hear, hear)—by persons who are able to pay considerable sums for their S levy J - SOUS in lee church, and o ZprratritilitiNgligeptur dress( d ; making it difficult for others to Obtain placest-ria and thereby there is almost a practical excliteinn e of -We' p ,00rer clas4ei.—(liear, hear.) Th at , I ag • , Ref4e l " IP i s a great misfortune ; but the remedy ould not he by abolishing church-rates, butlay apply ing the funds the Church may be found to possess in order to afford more room and better means by which t h ose classes may bo able to attend Divine worship.— Hear, hear.) Now, agreeing that it is desirable, if a mode ceula be pointed out, to make other provision with respect to the repair of churches, I must say that I do tee coneur with the Honourable Member for the 'Tower Hamlets (Sir W. Clay) and others who have spokes, who said they really felt ashamed, as members of the Church, that these sums should be collected in the shape of church-rates, from persons who dissent from the Church. In the first place Ido not feel that there is any shame on that account, because it is obvious that whether with regard to the person who has bought land ho hue beught it subject to this charge—(hoar)--or whether with regard to the occupier holding under that person, he has probably, before agreeing to pay his rent, calculated how much will he the charge for the poor-rate, what he will have to pay for highway-rate, and what for church-rate, as part of the outgoings, by which his rent would he diminished—(hoar, hear)—and therefore I cannot think that there is any injustice in the demand made upon him for the church -rate.—(Hear, hear.) But neither can I agree that the Established Church is a benefit solely to those who belong to it.—(Hear, hear.) I have always considered, omitting the point of the par ticular form in which ehurch•rates ar e l ev i e d , wh i ch i s open to great objection, that the general ground upon which church-rates can be justified is, that an E s t a bli she d Church, end the Established Church of this country in particular, is not a benefit solely to those who belong to it, but is a great tribute and a great homage on the part of the Legislature---(Much cheering, in whichjthe' next few words of the Noble Lord were inaudible)—and that the country would not be benefited, would not be improved, but would be degraded by its abolition.—(Cheers.) If that were not so, I know no argument for the abolition of church-rates that would not be equally good for the abo lition of tithes. If'it is not true that the maintenance of the Church is for the benefit of the whole community, I know not how any of these compulsory charges can be justified.—(Hear, beer.) Then, I say, it is very dan gerous to assent to a proposal of this kind, because,while some argue that church-rates are a great practical evil, and that in order to prevent dissensions and unseemly quarrels, you had better put an end to these rates, others contend that in point of principle they are not to be justified, and that you should proceed at once to abolish them for the sake of relieving all who dissent from the Church from a compulsory payment. I say that this last argument has in it much more than appears at first sight. —(Hear, hear.) And therefore I should be sorry on every account to agree to a resolution of the kind pro prosed by the Hon. Member (Mr. Trelawny). If any Member shall ask leave to bring in a Bill proposing any substitute for church -rate, I certainly should not oppose the introduction of it. I could not vote for such a mea sure as the Hon. Member fur Oxford (Mr. Wood) pro poses; I opposed it when brought forward by the Hon. Member for Finsbury. I think the reasons stated by the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) are conclusive against it.—(Hear, hear.) I must oppose this resolution as dangerous upon principle, and leading to consequence which I think to be deplored.—(Hear.) Mr. G. THOMPSON complained of the most dis couraging and significant speech of the Noble Lord; one more calculated to chill the hearts of those who were seeking to be relieved from these unjust impositions could not have fallen from the Treasury bench.—(Hettr, hear.) The resolution proposed by the Hon. Member (Mr. Trelawny) only pledged the House to adopt " effec tual measures" for the abolition of a grievance; and, when that resolution was passed, any M em b er migt sug gest an equitable substitute for this rate. That being so, surely more encouragement might have been ex pected from that Treasury bench; for there voted for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish church-rates and to make other provision for the maintenance of the sacred edifices of the country—(Hear)--the present Chancel lor of the Exchtquer, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary, and Presideni, of the Board of Control, besides the Under- Secretary for the Colonies, the Secretary to the Admi ralty, the Secretary for Ireland, and several others, now members of the Governinens.—(Haar, hear.) If there were not now Dissenters incarcerated for church-rates, nor these disgraceful scenes to which reference had been male, it was because there was a disposition to provide the church fungi' by means more in accordance with the feeling of the people; there was no diminution in the hostility that ten or twelve years ago was manifested to this impost. On the contrary, every hour that the mea sure now proposed was delayed there was a strengthen lag of hostility to the Establishment; and it would one day compel Parliament to sweep away church-rates and other ecclesiastical imposts. No substitute would be ac cepted by the Dissenters unless it freed them entirely from the liability to keep the churches in repair. Mr. HENLEY believed that the cause of the altered state of matters in the country in relation to church-rates was, that the law had been settled by the proper tribunals and when the law was settled and known, the people of England were inclined to obey it. He begged to thank the Noble Lord (Lord .L Russell) for his manly decla ration.—(Cheors.) It was difficult to avoid contrasting it with the statement of the Right lion. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone.) Both agreeing that a large proportion of the floors of omit churches were occupied so as to exclude a great portion of the people from them; the Noble Lord said the remedy was to increase the church accommo dation; while, as far as one could collect the sentiments of the Right Hon. Gentleman, he was ready to support the motion of the lion. Member for Oxford (Mr. Wood), and by way of opening the churches relieve Disenters from paying church Tates. Mr. GLADSTONE dissented from this statement. Mr. HENLEY--The Right Hon. Gentleman said he would support such a Bill, and it followed his declara tion about the flours of churches.—(No, no.) Well, if he (Mr. Henley) had misunderstood the Right Hon. Gentleman, of course he would pursue the remark no further.—(Hear, hear.) As to the plea of conscientious objection, how far was it meant to allow that? Many had religious scruples about carrying on war; were they to be relieved from maintaining the army and navy?— (Hear.) W e should find conscience very much en larged if those pleas were admitted; we should soon get no taxes at all.—(llear, hear.) Did any of the gentle men who objected to pay church-rates ever say to their landlord,—" I will pay you so much more rent if you will pay the church-rate?"—(A laugh.) The Hon. Mem ber for Oxford (Mr. Wood) said that there vs mild not be the same objection to pay if the payment were volun tary; but surely conscience would just as much object in that case.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. COI3I)EN hoped that the opinion which the Hon. Gentleman had just expressed with regard to Church men in this country did not apply to Oxfordshire. He said there were Churchmen who would claim exemption from the payment of church-rates because they had con scientious scruples against them, and that therefore the fabric of the church would not be supported at all, be cause no ono would pay the tax. rMr. HENLEY—" No, no!"] He certainly understood the Hon. Gentleman to say that if Dissenters were allowed to be exempted from payment of church-rates there was such elasticity of conscience in the country that nobody would pay the tax. He therefore thought lie had not misrepre sented the Hon. Gentleman; and he repeated, that he hoped he did not on this matter truly represent the con science of Oxfordshire. lie began his speech and ended it by complimenting the Noble Lord at the head of the Government; but, it' the Noble Lord had pleased the lion. Gentleman and those around him on this point, he must bo prepared to please them on a great many other questions, because he (Mr. Cobden) thought it was likely he would lobe some of the approbation of those who had formerly been his friends.—(Hear, hear.) The lion. Gentleman stated that the law had now defined the character of church-rates, and he went on with a tri umphant air, as if he was conscious he had the strong arm of the law on his side, and was prepared to bring down its might on those who were not prepared to pay. But he counted without his host. It was true the courts had decided that the minority could impose a rate; but it was also decided that the majority could say how much the rate should be.--(hear.) In Rochdale a meeting was called lately to impose a rate, and the church was filled with people almost to a man opposed to church-rates. It was explained to them that they must levy a rate, but . it was also explained that they had the power o the fixing the amount. One of the opponentsuse as was rate proposed a farthing in the pound, hem stated, it could never be collected. i n the pound; but atihnlesaes w ell ch presentu generation their heads accordingly for a farthing i indeed, it was it all 'held qp they had never been able to coll e ec ar t ) This question, not worth collecting.—alcoanae ofh pounds, shillings, and after all, resolved itself made pence. It had been tt money question throughout; the House, from and he was not H inclin ed ue m Memberto let f t e h r i s Buckinghamshireo eeasieowvneerrpyeas an l other h a n cienter w i thou t tphaar t t a d h s e - s f r r a o o t from s they had had aides of the House, t reminding the i t irom both the laud --( Hear , hear)—that it was not a charge upon his friends aroun d him as an ex lusive burden, from which the land should be relieved. c —Meer, hear.) lie local tax pressing upon the (Mr. Cobden) could.not deny that the cburch-rate was an ancient burden on property ; but he did not put it along with tithe. Tithe was a rateable property, but church-rate was a variable tax.—(llear, hear.) Still, ho was prepared to admit that it was a charge on property ; but it was a different thing to put it on the Consolidated Fand and to re move the church -rates from Dissenters, on the ground of conscientious scruples. These rates were originally made for the purpose of maintaining the Christian re ligion, for supporting the church in which the Christian religion was to be taught, But what was the ground of exemption for Dissenters ? IS was that, being Chris tians, but having a different fort - I - aof doctrine and prayer from the Christian church that was established, they claimed to bo exempted from paying for the support of these churches, because they had their own places of worship to maintain for themselves.—(Hear, hear.) In that sense it was not an exemption from church-rates for the support of the Christian religion; it was merelLthat they should not be compelled to pay two rates . --(Hear' hear)—to support their own place of worship and yours also. The great difficulty in the debate had been—how to find a substitute for church rate. The Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had told them, that if some Member would bring forward a proposition for raising the rate in another er way he w o uld g i ve i t hi s b est consider ation. f Now , Oxford had lion. Gentleman th e M em b e r for the cit y o that could be brought be proposed a plan by which the mo ney could raised— the only just and consistent plan raised by members of the forward—ho left it to be Dissenters. That Church of England, and exc lude d .. of settling this question. As a was the proper way Where member of the Church of Enan I d f he was prepared to pay his own chu rch-rate, an d not to ask it f rom Dis senters at alL—(flear, hear.) was the difficulty of raising these rates? In the manufacturing districts ilia ma j or ity of the churches were supported on the vo luntary principle. In Manchester there was , only ,one bad s his :gri )car, ices, bur year ;ome rely and 'Wed not and eted Jpon han icul- it of tson, anion pro one, Lever re of west, loot nself midi ; was El fell if I the arms f hit La& of ), in" F the state' tbe, l e oi the )Uncl' 11 39 fe to P re' - pot alba ,b a te :000