The Express.
London, England, 1862-02-12 00:00:00

1101 WAT/3 AT LONDON BAIDOt

TI 071T-1114.I‘nd 01.
T0411111310W —Manly, Aftersood td 401 id

L)NDON, WEDNESDAY, YEE. 12.

LANT night Sir JOHN TALLAWNY re-introduced
his (till for the Abolition of Church Bates. Few
will be surprised at this, even after what occurred
last year at the third reading of the Bill. The
object which the Member for Tavistock has in
view, in common with sober-thinking and practical
politicians on both aides of the House, is to secure
an early and equitable settlement of this much-
vexed and irritating question. And the experi-
enoe of the last few years has certainly tended to
show that this can only be accomplished in one
way. Opinion has steadily gravitated towards
Abolition as the simplest and most satisfactory
solution of the problem that could be devised.
For a time, indeed, compromises were attempted
by Liberal members. Various schemes of
partial exemption were brought forward by
the opponents of the rate, but none of
them received any support, and eventually they
were, by common consent, abandoned as futile.
Meanwhile Sir JOHN MIL...WHY'S measure re-
ceived every year a growing amount of parliamen-
tary support, not only from the rank and file of
the Liberal party, but from its responsible states-
men and foremost representatives. The cause of
Abolition was moreover openly espoused by Lord
STANLEY, the most independent and open-minded
amongst the leaders of the Opposition. The ex-
tent to which the Liberal party are united on this
measure may be judged of from the votes of last
year. More than four-fifths of the members on
the Ministerial benches, including the great ma-
jority of the Ministry, voted for the third reading
of the Bill. Under these circumstances Sir
JOHN TRELAwNY naturally brings in his BM
again, not only as the plan for settling the ques-
tion agreed upon by the Liberal members, but as
the only plan for effecting his purpose which has
yet been supported by any considerable section of
the House.

If there is any other, or any better plan, for 1
securing a settlement, let it be brought forward '
by all means and without delay. No doubt the
question of Church Rates is in a different position
now from that which it occupied at the commence-
ment of last session. Then the Abolition scheme
commanded, as it had done for slx years, a large
majority, but this was lost towards the end of the '
session by the Sraiissa's casting vote on the third
reading of the Bill. This result was undoubtedly
due to the strenuous exertions of the Tory party.
After having been for years wonderfully apathetic
and divided on the subject, the leaders of the
opposition decided that political capital might
be realized by raising the old cry of the
" Church in danger," and making a stand against
the abolition of the rate. This organized political
resistance was aided by the local action of ecclesi-
astical societies in various parts of the country.
No means of influence, central or local, poli-
tical or religious, were left unemployed in
order to secure the rejection of the Bill
on the third reading. The combined political
and ecclesiastical effort was successful. The
Conservative and Clerical party achieved a
parliamentary triumph, the obnoxious Bill being
lost by the casting vote of the Srzeizz. This I
undoubtedly alters the parliamentary position of
the question. The duty of dealing with it now
devolves on the Opposition. With the honours
they have also inherited the responsi-
bilities of success. While asserting their
earnest desire for an early settlement, they

scheme of settlement which they are prepared to
introduce and support. Instead of this he measly
intimates, in vague and general terms, that on. the
second reading of Sir JOHN TRILAWNY'S Bill
ho will submit to the consideration of
the House a resolution embodying a prin-
ciple which, if accepted, may form the basis
of future legislation. We must say, that after
Church Rates have been actively debated in the
House of Commons for more than twenty years,
and almost every foundation on which they could
be made to rest discussed and rejected in turn, it
is rather late in the day to talk of submitting a
principle of possible legislation on the sub-
ject. Nor do we see how any such prin-
ciple is ►ikely to unite the divergent
opinions which have hitherto paralysed the
action of the pro-rate party. The diviaiona
amongst the party have all turned on questions of
principle. But this is a matter of internal ar-
rangement. What Parliament and the country
want now, and what they expect from the Con-
servative party, is not the discussion of an abstract
principle, but a practical measure for settling the
question. One such measure is already before the
House. If the Conservatives have a better Mea-
sure to propose, let it be introduced by all means.
If no such measure is brought forward, they will
practically confess their inability to meet the re-
sponsibility they have assumed, and Sir J. THE-
LARHY will of course go forward with his Bill.