The Sun.
London, England, 1854-06-21 00:00:00

CHURCH RATES ABOLITION BILL.

Mr. MIALL, in the absence of Sir W. Clay, who had
charge of this bill, moved that it be read a second time.
Mr. PACKE hoped as neither the lion. bart. who had
charge of the bill nor any member of the Government
was present the second reading would be postponed until
after the other orders of the day. He therefore moved
that the debate be adjourned until then.
Mr. A. PELLATT said the hon. bart. would be in
the house shortly, while the noble lord the President
of the Council had come in since the motion for ad-
journment. . .

J "
Mr. PACKE under those circumstances withdrew
his amendment.

Mr. A. PELLATT supported the second reading of
the bill, and contended that it was too late to offer any
compromise, for no less than a third of the peopto
of England had already relieved themselves from
the burden of majorities in their respective
parishes, another third were still subjected to
the evil for the benefit of the remaining
third, who ought to be placed on the same footing as
their fellow-countrymen, who maintained their own
churches upon the voluntary principle—the only prin-
ciple upon which religious teaching, based upon the
Holy Scriptures, could proceed. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MURROUGH characterised church rates as un-
just in principle and oppressive in operation. He there-
fore gave the bill his cordial support ; believing, at the
same time, that it was neither for the interest of the
Established Church itself nor the Dissenters that there
should be any compromise on this question.
Mr, GOULBURN regretted that the bill had ever
been brought in, because he considered it was unjust in
principle, while it was as inconsistent with political wis-
dom as it was with Christian charity. He was not one
who would say that the law of Church rate's did not
require alteration and amendment ; but the bill went
far beyond that. It dissevered the State from the
Church, and the house might depend upon it that
if they once passed this bill the entire abolition of the
existing connection between the two would speedily fol-
low. He had a decided objection to substituting pew
rents for church rates, and he warned the house that,

if they abolished church rates on the ground of the con-
scientious objections that were entertained against their
payment, they might hereafter be asked to abolish poor
rates and war taxes upon the same ground. He moved
that the bill be read a second time this day six months.
Mr. LIDDELL (Liverpool), seconded the amend-
ment, though he admitted that it would be the duty of
the Government hereafter to bring in a measure to amend
the law of church rates, and to place them upon a more
satisfactory footing than they rested on at present. He
argued that it was the province of the State to provide
religious instruction for the poor, and under these cir-
cumstances it would be highly unjust to abolish the legal
claims of the Established Church to its just dues and
rewards.

Mr. E. BALL approached this question with anything
but a feeling of sectarian bitterness, as he was one of
those Dissenters who was warmly attached to the Esta-
blished Church, and who believed that nothing would be
more disastrous to dissent than its downfall. But, at
the same time he thought Church , rates rested upon a
most unsatisfactory basis. They were not legal unless
sanctioned by a majority of the parishioners in vestry
assembled, and hence they gave rise to much heart-
burning and ill-blood. (Hear, hear.) The large towns
had already succeeded in virtually abolishing Church
rates, and, as time advanced, they would bring
their influence to bear upon small towns to
the great detriment of the Established Church itself.
He therefore advocated their abolition, because he felt
that it was high time that this great cause of strife in
the country should be put an end to. Besides, consi-
dering the benefits which the dissenters had conferred
upon the country, they were entitled to some considera-
tion in this matter. They were the originators of the
Sunday school system which had effected so much good
in reforming and educating the people, while their num-
bers, as shown by the last census, attending their
places of worship exceeded those of the Established
Church by at least half a million, and upon that ground
they were entitled to have this question conceded to
them. He implored the house then, as much for the
sake of the Established Church as the Dissenters, to
pass this bill.

peatILLI
his O
voteß E
of last
preparedy
ear .
He
eo
admittedv e and over
that
agaDinr. toPrHe
Dissenters had an equitable right to be relieved from
church rates, but that was no ground for passing a bill
totally to abolish church rates. There was no reason
whatever why members of the Established Church
should be relieved from the burden, but he did sincerely
hope that Government would shortly be prepared with
a measure to remove this hateful cause of dispute between
Dissenters and Churchmen.
Mr. HORSMAN adopted the tone of the last speaker.
The question, he insisted, was ripe for settlement, but
the Government appeared to be reluctant to move in it.
In justice to the dissenters, however, a bill of relief
should be brought in, which, while it removed this irri-
tating source of dispute between the Church and the
Dissenters should also place the law of Church rates and
obligation to pay them upon a safe and certain footing.
He advocated this course in the interest of the
Established Church itself, and he sincerely hoped
it would be adopted. At all events, if this
middle course were not adopted, he should prefer
the total abolition of church rates to the continuance of
the existing system of doubt and uncertainty, giving rise
as it did to so much heartburning and ill-blood in the
country. The Church lost more in influence and in cha-
racter from these distressing contests than it gained in a
pecuniary point of view, from the continuance of church
rates ; and, therefore, on the whole, he could not do bet-
ter, as a member of the Church of England, than advise
the house to pass the second reading of this bill.
Mr. V. SMITH wished this question to be treated
not as a dispute between Dissenters and Churchmen, but
a question of expediency. What they should ask
themselves was this, viz., Was it expedient to continuo
a law which allowed continual attacks to be made on
church rates at the expense of considerable acrimony
and ill feeling / Ilia answer would be in the pegatiye.