The Express.
London, England, 1867-03-21 00:00:00

Mr. Weimar, remarked that the principle of
imposing rates by majorities was the great principle
of this country, and he wanted to know why it was
to be cavilled at when applied to church rates. If
the voluntary principle were to be applied to church
rates, why not apply it to all other taxes ? The
Church Rates Regulation Bill practically effected
the abolition of compulsory church rates, but those
who voted for the bill now before the house would
do so because they wished to strike a blow at the
church.

Mr. NESTE thought this was not a time at which
any compromise could be effected on this question.
On the contrary, he thought it ought to be post-
poned until the new constituencies had had an
opportunity of pronouncing an opinion upon it.
So far from agreeing to the principle that a majo-
rity had the right to tax a minority, he maintained
that if there was a single dissenter in a parish he
had a right to be exempted. He should not vote
for the second reading of this bill, because he
wished to see whether they could not effect a com-
promise under the Church Rates Regulation Bill.
Sir E. LEctutzus thought the rate ought to be
levied not on the occupier but on the owner. He
opposed the bill because he could not agree to any
measure which did not draw a distinction between
the repairs of the fabric and the expenses of main-
taining_public worship.
Mr. T. CHAMBERS remarked that the arguments
for a compromise between the compulsory and the
voluntary systems must necessarily fail, and any
attempt to combine the two systems must fail also.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said he was in favour of exempt-
ing dissenters, but nothing would induce him to
relieve the land from the burden under which it
now lay to support the church.
Mr. AKltt.lib opposed the bill.
Mr. nosettew congratulated liberal churchmen
on the tone of this debate. For the first time a
member of the government had declared himself
in favour of a compromise, and he asked if that
was the general opinion of the government.
Mr. W.o.rotat replied to this appeal by stating
that when they were last in office they brought in
a bill to effect a compromise, and they still adhered
to the principle of that bill. He thought that the
Church Rates Regulation Bill would be a fair com-
promise ; but when they wore asked to consent to
the total abolition of the church rates they should
offer to such a proposal their determined opposi-
tion. They would be willing to consider any mea-
sure to throw the rate upon the landlord instead
of the occupier, and to exempt those who did not
belong to the church from contributing to its
maintenance.

Mr. GLAD:4I'O.Ni said he had not introduced a
bill to carry out the proposition he made last year,
because the member for Hastings had placed
amendments to this bill on the paper which would
carry out his object. The point really remaining
was whether compulsory powers should remain, to
be put in force not against those who were unwil-
ling, but against those who were willing to pay ;
and as no disinclination had been expressed by the
supporters of this bill to consider such a proposal
in committee he should vote for the second reading
of the bill.

On a division the second reading of the bill was
carried by 263 to 187. The announcement of the
numbers was received with great cheering by the
opposition.
Mr. NEWDEGATS then rose to move the second
reading of the Church Rates Commutation Bill.
Church rates, he said, were a burden on property,
to which it had been subject from time innuemo-
rial. He proposed to give parishes the power of
levying a rate of 2d. in the pound, which would be
a charge on property, and paid by the landlord.
This rate he calculated would yield about 300,0001.
a year. The only means by which the parishioners
could exercise a control over the fabric or worship
of the church was by means of the church rate, and
if the rate were abolished, they would virtually take
that control from the laity and vest it in the clergy,
a result which clergymen with high ritualistic ten-
dencies would be glad to see. He proposed, how-
ever, to provide that in parishes where church rates
had not been levied for a number of years there
should be no power to impose them, but the parishes
might, if two-thirds of the ratepayers consented,
resume their right to levy the rate.
Mr. Serjeant Osamu thought they had wasted
too much time in discussing compromises, and he
moved that the bill be read a second time that day
six months.

On a division, the second reading was negatived
by 17 to 45.

-Mr. HUBBARD then posted the second read-
ing of the Church Rates Regulation Bill to that
day week.
The Religious Sites, &c., Bill passed through
committee.

The house then went into committee on the Sale
and Purchase of Shares Bill, the discussion on
which, and a division on an amendment, occupied
tho remainder of the sitting.
The house adjourned at ten minutes to 6
o'clock.

----
PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION.

THE CHURCHWARD CABE.

PAIRS.

P.r. me MoTION.
11. O. Caringtow
Slr T. Western.
:Or T. Winnbartoa.
hark:ant Gaselee,
Mr. K Holland.
Lord erernorne.
Mr. J. Plata

Ana Din THE RoTIOn.
Captain Jerela.
Mr. Walrond.
Mir K. Lechraere.
Mr. 0. Du Pre.
Mr. W. Meller.
Mr. A. Walsh.
Mr. E. Buckley.
Mr. Cubitt.
Mr. F. Stanley.
Mr. Smollett.
Fir W Verner.
Mr. Wynne.
Colonel Tottenham.
Mr. Bollard
Mr. Paull.
Sir J. Bolt.
Mr. J. R. Yorke.
Sir W. Ileathcote.
Mr. Seourlield.
Admiral Seymour.
Mr. Adderiey.
Mr. C. W. Wynn.
Mr. Bonito&
Colonel Vase;ibutipshlre;.
Mr Algernon Egerton.
Mr. W. Patten.
Colonel Knox.
Mr. T. Baring.

T. ii. FUtter.
Mr. ilibbert.

Hoe. P. Calthorpe.
Mr. C. Waring.
Mr. M. Norwood.
Mr. C. Gilpin
•

Mr. C. Buxton.
Mr. It. H. GrentelL
cobmel Sykes
Mr. Borman.

Mr. R. Davey
Captain Grosvenor.
Captain Gridley.
Mr. J. More.

Sir H. W. Barron.
Sir A. Agnew.
Lord F. Cavendish.
Colonel Paeke.
Mr. F. I onn.las.
Mr. G. Itebow.

SOOT IKING CASE OF CEUET.TY TO A CHILD.-At
the Lincoln assizes yesterday Alfred Blow, 20, labourer,
and Sarah Blow, 22, man and wife, were charged with the
wilful murder of Elizabeth, otherwise Eliza Hannah
Glover, at Gainsborough, on the 14th of January. The
medical evidence showed that the poor child bad been
virtually starved, and was covered with marks of brutal
ill-treatment, which w.is spoken to by several
news. The prisoners were found guilty, and each
sentenced to 14 years penal servitude.