The Press.
London, England, 1858-07-03 00:00:00

z 4) t 10 rtg g•

LONDON, SATURDAY, JULY 3, 1858.

POSTSCRIPT.

LAST NIGHT'S DEBATE.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
A lengthened discussion took place respecting the
Wellington Monument and the Victoria and Pimlico
Railway.

CHURCH-RATES.
The second reading of the Church.rates Abolition
Bill was moved by
The Duke of SOMERSET, who urged in much detail
various arguments against perpetuating an impost
which had now become altogether obsolete, and
which, while it did not afford means for the mainte-
nance of churches, proved a constant source of dis-
pute and controversy in a multitude of parishes
throughout the country.
Lord ST. LEONARDS opposed the bill. No one, he
said, was more anxious thin himself for the settle-
ment of the question, but the plan proposed was
simply the demand on a creditor to sign a receipt
without giving the amount in payment. He moved
as an amendment that the bill be read a second time
that day three months.
Lord Wodehouse and the Duke of Newcastle sup-
ported the bill, which was opposed by the Duke of
Marlborough and Lord Wensleydale.
The Earl of DERBY contended that the bill de•
prived the Church of a right and exempted the
payers of the rate from a duty imposed upon them
by the law. The impost fell altogether upon the
land, which had been purchased or inherited subject
to the charge, and the proprietors could there-
foie establish no claim to its remission. Under the
voluntary system he doubted whether sufficient
means could he provided for• the regular maintenance
and repair of the churches. Contributions could
be easily obtained for any sudden and pressing
purpose, but it was almost impossible to cbtain
regular subscriptions for a permanent object
year after year. The agitation in favour of
repeal was, he believed, essentially due to a
political motive, its advocates, under pretext of
removing an obnoxious impost, designing to strike a
blow against the Establishment, to level the dignity
and impair the power of the Church of England.
Admitting, however, that the subject had given rise
to much dispute, and was surrounded with many
difficulties, Lord Dei by proceeded to examine the
possibility of devising some equivalent for the
Church-rate, and among the measures of this
description suggested that a substitute might be pro-
vided l* enabling the landowners to effect a
voluntary commutation of the rite into a rent
charge on their estates, or to invest an amount of
capital sufficient to provide the requisite income for
the purpose to which the Church-rate was at present
applied.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY also opposed the
bill, being unwilling io leave the Church dependent
upon charity for the maintenance of its fabrics.
Earl GnixviLLE argued that the retention of the
Church-rate was an injury to the Church Establish
ment, as furnishing its enemies with a powerful
weapon of attack. Ile rejoiced to hear a proposal
from the Prime Minister for providing some means
of commuting the impost, and recommended the
house to agree to the second reading, with the
view of introducing into committee amendments to
carry that proposition into effect.
The Bishop of LONDON stated that although large
sums had been raised without difficulty for building
churches in Bethnal Green, the greatest possible
difficulty was experienced in getting funds to keep
them in repair.
Earl GREY, who opposed the bill, maintained that
the abolition of the rate constituted a robbery on the
Church, and an injury to the poorer classes, who
enjoyed a prescriptive right to the free enjoyment of
the privilege afforded by their parochial churches.
Lord PORTMAN supported the bill.
After S9IIIC remarks from the Bishop of Oxr•or.n,
n opposition to the measure, and from Lord STAN-
LEY of ALDERLEY, in its favour, their lordships
idivided