The Express.
London, England, 1866-08-02 00:00:00

THE CNUECH-BATZ QUESTION.

Referring to yesterday's debate on the church-
rate question, the Timer remarks that Mr. Gladstone must
surely be convinced by this time that whatever else may
be the virtue of his Church-rate Bill, it will certainly
not be accepted as a compromise. A measure proposed
with this object must be considered a failure when
it is reprded by one of the parties to the dispute as
we,., than the original proposition. Such, however, is
the tone now adopted towards Mr. Gladstone's bill
by those who represent the real church party. When Mr.
Henley pointed out the extreme difficulty of exactly distin-
guishing between ecclesiastical and secular interests in
the admink 'rn of a parish, he hit a blot in the very
conception

of the scheme. This impracticable dirtinaties,
however, in one form or another, is implied in every part
of the bill. It assumes the ex'stence of a radical division
between churchmen and dissenters, and then proposes to
sharpen and consolidate the division by a legal enactment.
Such a supposition is, the Times believes, as false in fact as
the consequent proposal is mischievous in principle.
It is the fatal objection to Mr. Gladstone's Bill, that
it seems almost to be framed on the principle that dissent is
neither to be forgotten nor, so long as it lasts, forgiven.
The bill has been read a second time, by an arrangement
between Mr. Gladstone and the gover.iment which was not
very clearly understood, but which appeared to amount to
no more than a truce. The conservative speakers have
made demonstrations against every part of the measure

but have abstained from • formal attack, and the two
hostile forces have now gone into winter quarters. It was
never intended that the MI should proceed beyond the
second reading ; and it is hard to see what purpose Mr.
Gladstone expected to answer by " obtaining the judg-
ment of the house," when the judgment wig to go by de-
fault. The Times trusts he will think better of the subject
during the recess, but should the measure reappear it
shall be surprised if the conservative, are the only preens
found to oppose so ungenerous and so shortsighted a pro-
Byacceding to the second reading of Mr. Gladstone's
bill the government, says the Daily News, escaped a
defeat, but having secured that advantage, they opposed
it in debate. The house had previously carried the second
reading of Mr. Hardcastle's b'" for the absolute and un-
conditional abolition of church rates, so that the principle
of abolition has been affirmed in two forms in the present
session. Mr. Gladstone exprose_d a hope that he
should receive sufficient support next year to
enable him to carry the measure ; andl Mr. Hard-
castle, in withdrawing his bill, resin red to himself
the right to bring it forward again in another session.
Lord John Manners enunciated the singular opinion that
Mr. Gladstone's bill would prove more injurious to the
church than that of Mr. Hardcastle. The Daily News
would suggest to the defenders of the rate that they had
better make up their minds on what ground to take their
stand, for time is not fighting for them. Their conduct
much resembles that of the petty Ger.rian pi.nceswho have
been these 20 years disag.eeing about the details of a federal
reform which should satisfy the people without diminishing
one of their privileges, and, neglecting to adjust their pre-
tensions to the changed state of public op* lion, find them-
selves suddenly dispossessed by the power s which
they had trifled, and are now in consternation and dismay,
having lost mach more than they ever believed to be in
danger. The strong probability is that they %." caip at
details until they have convinced even Mr. Gladstone that
in view of their obstinacy the best thing that far-seeing
c'airchmen can do is to vote for immediate and uncon-
ditional abolition. _

On the very eve of their taking office Mr. Gladstone's
bill for the settlement of the parochial controversy placed
the government, says the Telegraph, in an awkward
position. It involved a compron•ise, but not such • com-
promise as they could consistently favou-. In opposition,
they had bitterly assailed the principle on which the
measure was founded; what, then, were they to do when
in office? To accept it frankly would have been wise,
statesmanlike, liberal—but they could not do so without
confessing that they had for a generation been committing
an enormous blunder, to which the influence of the
Treasury bench had miraculously opened their eyes. To
oppose the motion before the bout., world have bxen
honest but not safe, as it would have subjected them—
an infant government—to certain detest. Hence the
tortuous genius of Mr. Disraeli suggested, • third
COMM