The Sun.
London, England, 1863-04-30 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOIIRNALS.

TIMES.—In a House of 560 members the Church-
rates Abolition Bill yesterday received its annual
quietus by a majority of 10. Compared with the
casting vote of the Speaker last year, this was a
very great triumph to those who conceive the exist-
ence of the Church to be staked on the question.
Unless Mr. Newdegate should succeed in carrying
his specific for its settlement, it will survive to next
year, and most probably many a year after. How
little this pertinacity is for the interest of the
Church we have often expressed our opinion. We
wish to see the controversy settled, by compromise
if possible, by abolition if it must be, but, if not, by
any other method. Were it in our power by a mo-
derate amount of violence and injustice to stop the
discussion of Church-rates by fixing them on the
country for the next fifty years, we should be sorely
tempted to do so. Our readers would be spared, at
least, one annual wrangle, in which all that can be
said has been said a hundred times. But, unfortu-
nately, in these days there are no meansof shutting
up Sir John Trelawny and a dozen of his colleagues
in the Lollards' Tower, and it has become next to
impossible to extract a Church-rate from a reluc-
tant ratepayer with money or friends. There is
not a hope of the question being thus set at rest.
Other questions come and go, shake Governments
for a season, and then are buried in old alma-
necks. he magicians who could once raise a tem -
pot on Parliamentary Reform have Bunk their
wands a thousand fathoms deep, and in the same
abyss lie controversies the names of which will not
even recur to the memory. But the Church rate
question is cursed with a longevity which bids fair
to carry it on beyond our time. So the question
must remain open, and as long as it remains open
the Cburch of England is placed in a thoroughly
false position, and suffers undeserved odium, and,
what is even worse, gratuitous injury.
POST.—The House of Commons yesterday re-
jected Sir J. Trelawny's bill for the abolition of
church rates, by a majority of ten. The House
was unusually full—no less than five hundred
and sixty members voting on the question. The
number who attended showed how important
the question was held to be on both sides of
the House. Indeed, ever since the Dissenters
openly avowed that their object in seeking the
repeal of church rates was not the removal of an
obnoxious impost, but the insertion of a wedge
which, when driven home, would split up the
Cherch, a great change has come over the mind of
Parliament, It is only four years since the majo
rity against church rates numbered seventy-three.
The ground of that majority was a belief in the
mind of many persons that the bill for abolition
would bring about a settlement which would get rid
of a vexatious annual motion in the House of Com-
mons. Many members who sincerely wished the
prosperity of the Established Church supported the
abolition of church rates merely to obtain a substi-
tute which should do well what had been badly done
before. But when they came to see that abolition
meant not the removal of a Dissenter's grievance—
not the substitution of a good measure for a bad
one—but the establishment of a principle which
in its development was contrary to the very notion
of an Established Church, and was meant to over-
throw it, they had no choice but to conclude that,
whatever modification the present state of the law
might admit of, abolition was certainly not the
principle which ought to be supported. Looking
at it altogether, in its history and antecedents, we
accept this important majority against the aboli-
tionists as an incontrovertible token that the
Church is gaining ground in popular estimation.
We believe that, as long as it pursues its present
active, useful course, it will strengthen its hold
upon the people; and we can scarcely doubt that
ere long even the most rigid Dissenters will feel
that it is their own interest, as well as that of the
whole community, to let the church alone.
HERALD.—A majority of 10 in a house of 560
members has ratified the sentence passed last year
by the bare majority of one against Sir J. Tre-
lawny's bill. The falling off is, we are happy to
say, on the part of our opponents mainly. Last
year they mustered 286 supporters, whilst only 275
were assembled on yesterday's division. Sir J. Tre-
lawny himself pointed out another fact of some sig-
nificance. Previous to this session, some alterna-
tive, some compromise or other, was always kept in
view, as a sort of makeweight to the Abolition Bill.
Need we add that every compromise was is turn
scornfully rejected ? Under these circumstances,
and with the confidence of past success, Mr. Hardy
met his antagonists with more than their own in-
flexibility. He moved the strongest amendment
known to the forms of the House of Commons, and
he carried it by a majority of 10, in a house of 560
members, exclusive of tellers. Such a blow has not
been dealt at the Liberation Society since the day
it came into existence, some 20 years ago. It will
reverberate through its whole frame, and the stag-
gering effects will be remembered if it survive twice
the time it has already lived.
ADVERTISER.—It will be seen from our Parlia-
mentary report, that the second reading of Sir John
Trelawny's bill for the abolition of Church-rates
was yesterday lost by a majority of 10, the numbers
being, for the motion 275, against it 285. The an-
nouncement was received with uproarious applause
by the Opposition. Nor need we wonder at this,
because they had a double triumph in the rejection
of the bill—tbe first victory being one over the
Dissenters, and the second over the Ministry, they
having voted in the minority. Every succeeding
session thus sees the Church-rate Abolition party in
the House of Commons " becoming small by degrees
and beautifully less." The fact is easily accounted
for. The extreme violence and vituperation of the
Liberation Society and its weekly organ could not
fail to do damage to any cause. And if this ultra
virulence be persisted in much longer, the result
will be to destroy Dissent altogether. If, indeed,
the Liberation Society and its weekly mouthpiece
were specially retained and liberally paid by the
friends of the Church, for the purpose of upholding
the Church and overthrowing the cause of Dissent,
they could not more efficiently do their work. Well,
indeed, may Dissent pray to be saved from its
friends—at least from such friends as the Libera-
tion Society and their hebdomadal organ.

LAW INTELLIGENCE-April 29.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
HARE V. HARE.

Dr. Spilka and Mr. Searle appeared for the peti-
tioner ; Mr. T. Atkinson for the respondent.
The respondent, Mr. John William Hare, the
clerk to Mr. Vice-Chancellor Kindereley, married
the petitioner, then Lydia Tester, a widow, on the
14th of October, 1852. They cohabited at 10, Liver-
pool-terrace, at 489, Oxford-street, and in Malden-
road, till August, 1861 ; and they had issue three
children. The petitioner sued for a judicial separa-
tion on the ground of cruelty. The respondent's
plea was simply one of denial.
Mrs. Hare said—l had a child named Alice, by
my first husband. She is now 13. My children
by the respondent are Herbert, aged 10; Selina,
aged 7 ; and Percy, aged 5. My husband has treated
me with great contempt and unkindness ever since
1854. His temper had been bad from the first. In
1855 we had some friends staying with us, and he
was angry about their being at our house although
he had asked them himself. He told me he was
tired of me. The next thing I remember was find-
ing myself lying on the drawing-room floor at about
four the next morning. I had evidently fainted, and
I,e had gone up stairs to bed, leaving me in that
state. 1 had a business in Oxford-street. We had
s.,t up in opposition to Mr. Charles Burton, the
dealer in perambulators. Burton's men often in-
sulted me, hut when I asked my husband for pro-
tection he would run out of the shop. At Christmas,
1859, my little girl had accidentally hurt her
brother's eye while at play. Mr. Hare's mother
insulted me in my husband's presence. She told me
that I was a " nasty long legged hussy ;" that I had
no business to " sculk" on her son, and that I ought
to get my own living. My husband patted her on
the check, and said that that was the way to talk
to me. She left two or three
days after. My hus-
band constantly called me "beast" and "serpent." At
that time we had a servant named Ellen Muchmore.
The respondent frequently told her not to mind me,
and said that my friends were not half so respectable
as hers. He has asked her in my hearing if " the sav-
age," meaning me, was at home. He has told her that
I was nothing but a poor needlewoman when he
married me, and that he had made me a lady. He
has told me to go on the stage, and said that they
would engage such as me at the Britannia. He
would have his dinner removed to the kitchen that
he might have it with the servant. I was only
allowed 255. a week to keep house for the whole
family—four children and a servant. He said that
if I wanted more money I might
go and earn it.
His income was £250 a year. He has several times
caught me round the throat, and has frequently put
his fist in my face. One day he
brought an Italian
home with him, end said 6, There's the beast ; you
not would think she was so bad to look at her."
In the spring of 1861 some negotiations took place
for a separation, but they came to nothing. In
tYlheayy.tl:3ok6l, the respondent burst into my room with
a man, named Champneys, while I was in bed, and
my boy Percy from me. I resisted, and
my night dress was torn. My wrists were dread-
fully bruised. The next morning two brickmakers
with immense sticks in their hands were brought
into my room. I was giving
day they attempted to come my youngest child
his bath. My husband insulted me before these,
men. They took my children from me. The next ::in again, but I had
bolts put on the door. Mr. Hare sent, however, for
a man with a crowbar. Clompneya remained in d

the hoUse• and had some of his meals with Mr.
Hare. Once the respondent got my hand in the
door. I told him he was hurting me, but I think
he pushed the harder. My hand was very much
swollen. He has told me I was no more in the
house than a dead dog. In August, 1861, we were
in apartments at .Anerley ; and he told me that my
mother, who had been staying with us, should not
remain in the house any longer. I tried to go to
her, but he seized me round the throat. I have not
lived with my husband since then.
Cross-examined—l was a widow between three
and four years before I was married to the respon-
dent. I do not remember calling Mr. Hare "
crawling reptile." I never used abusive language
to him for taking his sister to a lecture, or at an)
time. I never abused his mother. In January,
1860, my father wrote a letter to my husband. 1
requested him to interfere, and it is very likely that
I requested him to write that letter. I very pos
sibly saw it before it was sent. (The letter was put
in. It was a notice to the effect that the writer in-
tended on the following Monday to lay a statement
of the respondent's "cruel. unmanly, and co war6l3
conduct before Sir R. Kinthrsley unless a satisfac-
tory arrangement was previously made.)
Sir C. Crebswell thought it was rather a pity that
Sir R. Kinderslcy had not been invited to interfere.

Mr. Atkinson said that Sir R. Kindersley had
been applied to by the petitioner.
Witness--Did not hear my father call my hus-
band a -- sneak. My friends did not on ont
occasion hunt him from room to room; but he did
leave the room in which my friends were. My
mother and I went to him and asked him to see her.
I cut the leaves out of my husband's account-book
containing the items of my housekeeping expendi-
ture. They are safe in the possession of my solicitor,
I can write, but did not think fit to take a copy.
He did not allow me two guineas a week. I did
tell him that I would not have any more children
by him, I never threatened to get him dismissed
from his situation. Once he gave the servant a
shilling for what be had eaten at home. I said I
would not have it, and told him to take it back. As
he would not do so I threw it into the fire. I took
lessons in singing and on the piano, but my father
paid for them. My father is clerk to Mr. Plowman
thel attorney. In August, 1860, I broke open a
drawer and two boxes. I did that to try and find
my account books, which were aljvays taken away
from me. I took away letters of my own which I
fouled in the boxes, and a bundle of other papers. I
took a chopper and destroyed my husband's portrait
which was hanging on the wall.
The Judge—That was cutting him up in effigy.
(Laughter.)
Witness—l also chopped up some chairs, but not
seven—not more than five. (Laughter.)
Mr. Atkinson (producing the debris of a music
stool)—Did you chop up this ?
Witness—l did not leave it in that state. I hope
you will spare me as much as you can on that sub-
ject, for I was so irritated that 1 was worked up to
a state of madness.

The Judge—But you cannot be spared ; for the
jury want to know what was the amount of irrita-
tionon both sides.

Witness—l took away some plated forks and
other articles, but I did it after my husband had
removed some things of mine.
The Judge—lt is a pity they did not settle the
whole matter in the same way—namely, by set-off.
(A laugh.)
Mr. Atkinson—Where are the things now?
Witness—l don't know that lam obliged to say ;
but I can tell you, if I must.
Mr. Atkinson—l won't press you, but a learned
friend suggests that you perhaps took them to your
uncle's.

Witness—Oh dear, no. My uncle would not re-
ceive them. (Laughter.) I burnt the fragments
of the portrait, but I did not say " many a better
man has been served so." I left his bed in October,
1860; but do you know why I did it ? He had
told me that I might lie there all day if I would go
out all night. After that I had a separate room ;
but Mr. Hare made no objection to it. Once I did
box Mr. Hare's ears; I ju,t tapped him, but he had
been daring me to strike him. I never sent my girl
to buy a cane to beat him with. (Lsught, r.) No,
sir, certainly not. It is dreadful to have such ques-
tions put to me. I was summoned before the ma-
gistrates for assaulting him, and fined. He had
told my Herbert not to mind such a worthless fag-
g►ot as me, and that my father was an imbecile old
fool. I told him if he used such language to my
child I would pot him out, and I tried to do so, but
I tailed. I was fined 6i. (Laughter.) After this
I withdrew from his table. During one of the al-
tercations that occurred I asked a person named
Hopkins to protect me, but I did not say to him,
" That's right, hit him again." (Laughter.) I
never addressed the mob, and the crowd did not pelt
the house with mud and stones—at least I was in
such a state of mind that I cannot say what took
place out of doors. I summoned my husband for
neglecting to maintain me, but the charge was dis-
missed.

Re-examined—l did not summon him myself—
it was the parish that did so.
A servant was called to corroborate the peti.
tioner's evidence, and the case was then adjourned