The Sun.
London, England, 1858-06-08 00:00:00

PAPER DUTY.

General TIIONIPSON prezented four petitions from
printers in the metropolis praying for the repeal of the
paper duty.
CHURCH-PATES ABOLITION BILL.
The adjourned debate on the third reading of this
bill was resumed.

S.r J. TREL A.WNEY asked the house to read this
bill a third time. Ile insisted that if the Church had any
rights in the matter that ought to be reserved by the bill,
it should be lefc to the judicial mind of the House of
Lords to determine in what manner it should be made.
Ike therefore declined to accept any proposal for a cern-
promise and should press the third rea ling.
Sir BROOK BRIDGES said he believed everything
had been said that. could be said on this question.
(Hear, hear.) He contended the erigion of church-rates
were neither unreasonable or unjust, and he opposed
the landed property of the country being increased in
value at the expense of the Church. It the rich man
was not bound to support the Church by a church-rate,
tne poor man would be deprived of the benefits cf
church accommodation. The only charges which
should be defrayed by Church-rates were those which
the honour and glory of God regardee—viz , the suston-
tation of the fabric of the Church, and for providing
the decent requisites for the worship of God. He was
anx:ous every abuie should be rectified. He moved the
third reading of the bill this day six months.
Mr. PACKE ex2ressed his regret that the reason-
able compromises offered by the opponents of the
bill had net been accepted. It appeared the pro-
moters of the bill would have nothing but the bill, and
it was the duty of the opponents of the bill to take care
that a subAitute should be provided. There could be
no doubt there were many instances where the rate had
been improperly applied, but that was no argument for
the entire abolition of the rate.

Mr. ACKROYD was opposed to the abolition of
Church rates, and he sheull vote against the third read-
ing of the measure. He thought Dissenters shoald be
exempted from the payment of the rates and
he believed they could be relieved from pay.
ing them without any offensive distinction.
whilst he wished to do justice to Dissenters, he could
not do it by perpetrating an injustice on the Church,
which this bill woe]. I inflict. He objected to the bill on
that ground, and also see the g. ound that D:ssent ere, by the
abolition of the hill would still retain the right to inter-
fere in the election of churchwardens. Where there
was a majority in favour of a church-rate, they ought
to have the power of taxing themselves, omitting dissen-
ters. Pew rents be thought objectionable, and also
voluntary contributions fcr raising a fund for the
sustenance cf the fabric of the Church. No compro-
mise had as yet been provided which was calculated to
settle this et-testi= in a spirit of justice to all parties.
The compromise he should be prepared to agree to was,
this—first, that all Dissenters should be exempt from the
payment of church secondly, that Churchmen
a majority cf their own
rates;
should be left to determiue by
body whether a church rate should be levied either
voluntarily, compulsory, or not at all.
Sir J. GRAHAM, as an attached friend of the Church,
would have been glad to have seen a compromise of this
C though compromises rarely effected their otject.
Teea
of the present law he thought un•
mater,
working
objectionable, because in populous and large districts
church-rates had fallen into disuse, but it was in rural
parishes the rate was most needed. Ha ()ejected to
peer-rates, as it would give the poor a disinclination to
attend the church. He had the gravest objection to
branding Dissenters; as such, to exempt thew from the
rate, because it would perpetuate those feelings it was
so desirable to got rid of as speedily as possible.
He was, as he had sal!), desirous of a reason-
able compromise, but he regretted to say he saw no
chance of their arriving at a satisfactory compromise on
the question. There were charges en the rate that were
disgueting to Cnurchmen, and ought not to be con-
tinued. The dignitaries of the Church had certain of i
cers paid out of church-rates which they ought to pay
themselves cut r.f their ample funds ; and ha thought
the luxuries ci wership, such as singers, organist, &c.,
ought not to be paid out of church-rates. Ali that was
r Tiered was the maintenance of the fabric, and the
remedy he proposed was to relax the statute cf molt-
main to a liaited extent, and enable landowners,
whether holding is fee or tenants for life, with
proper precautions to charge their estates e ithin the
maintenance of the parish church within certain limits
and safeguards. The luxuries of religion should be dis-
charged through the voluntary contributions of the mem-
bers of the Church. If the Clrereh of Eoglarid was to
become a missionary church, and descend into the arena
of contentitn with Dissenters, the lath r ought not to be
taxed for the support of the fabric of the Church. The
right hon. Bart. referred to tee course row pursued by
the dignitaries of the Church in preaching in unconse-
crated piacee to the Sput-geotiite meetings at Exeter-
hall, and an evangelical alliance being held at Lam- %

beth-palace, and said it was not for him to say
the course pursued by them was a wrong one, but he
looked upon it as a departure from the strict principle of
an Established Church—(hear, hear)—and was at vari-
ance with all the doctrines that had hitherto been con
siklored and recognised as belonging to an Established
Church. He was against their carrying on longer a war
to the knife with Dissenters. The time had arrived
when it was not politic for the Church of England to
fight this desperate battle to the last extremity, but to
make timely concession in the hope of obtaining peace.
(Hear, hear.) He could not sanction the contiauasce
of the contest longer, and he should give his vote in
favour of the third reading of the bill.
Mr. E. BALL supported the bill.
Mr. WALPOLE considered there was an ;,neonsist-
ency in the arguments of the right hon. baronet (Sir J.
Graham) that ought to have led him to a, different con-
clusion on this subject. The right hon. gentleman then
rdferred to the proposition made by Lord Althorp to
pay for the sustaining of the fabric out of the land tax—
to that of Lord Monteagle, for its payment out of the
surplus funds in the hands of
ecclesiastical commis-
sioners, and lastly, to the late Sir Robert Peel's propo-
sition for its payment P..-at of the consolidated fund. The
next proposition wa.':s to exempt dissenters, but to all of
them there wo"a grave objections—more to the three
first than to the last, which would have been just to the
dissents-es—it was an equitable arrangement and freely
offerod by the Chucrh. There was, then, no remeily
but to abolish the tax altogether, and relieve property to
the extent of 300,0001. a-year, without in any way re-.
lieving the consciences of dissenters more than by Vete
proposition to exempt the dissenters from the tax. He
found, however, that the dissenters did not simply seek
relief of conscience, but an ulterior object—that of lead-
ing, step by step, to the parochial system and the break-
ing up of the connection between the State and Church,
and the adoption of the voluntary system throughout
the country. In saying that, he wished it to be under-
stood that he was desirous of settling the question
by' a relief from church-rates. The voluntary system
was an admirable ally to the Establishment, but
it never could be made an adequate substitute for it. He
was for maintaining the Establishment and encouraging
the voluntary principle by which they would be able to
supply the necessary requisites for the celebration of re-
ligion in which their puorer brethren could take part.
He considered the present bill would not effect the set.
tlement desired.

Mr. AYRTON said there was to be no compromise,
and there could be no compromise of the question. Its
nature did not admit of it.

Mr. GLADSTONE said difficulties had increased in
the settlement of this question from there being a dispo-
sition more entertained than avowed, but explicitly found
in the evidence of important personages.,before a committee
of that house to fight the question of a church establish-
ment on the ground of churcherates. (Hear, hear.) He
denied there was any desire in that house to tax Dis-
senters for the benefit of the Church. He was most
anxious to give them relief from church-rates, and if
they were not relieved from them, it did not arise 80
much from the acts of those who were friendly
to ',the maintenance of church-rates as from
the acts of those who were determined not to ac-
cept any measure of relief. He had no desire to widen.
the differences between Churchmen and Dissenters, but
he was at a loss to understand how they branded or
stigmatised a man by describing him to be that
which he is. (Hear.) The present law was fixed on a
popular basis, and was required more for the rural pops•
lotion than the urban population. It was a popular
law, because it left to the majority the enforcing of its
provisions. It was an ancient law, and enforced super-
vision in a form most agreeable to the English feeling,
and looking to the rural parishes the law worked
well, and was one, in the main, both generous
and just, because it imposed an hereditary and tradi-
tional burthen on the owner of property, the principal
benefit of which was reaped by the poor rural population.
of the country. It was a just and fair proposal to relax
the law of mortmain for the support of the fabric of the
Church on the abolition of church-rates, but he was
afraid it would be found not to work effectually whets.
put in practice. The bill would certainly destroy tile
incomes of many clergymen. The stipend for the living
of Poplar, on the abolition of all the usual parochial
obligations in the parish for producing an income for
the clergyman was fixed at 4501. a-year, payable
usually from the olaurclurate, and he asked
the right hon. baronet how that income was to be de-
rived if church.rates were abolished. He agreed as
time had come when such a measure should be submitted
to the greatest landowners in the kingdom, and that
house should know how the members of the House of
Lords proposed to deal with a measure that affected
their property.

Sir J, -TR,IfiLAWNEY having addressed the house
in raply,

The lime divided, when the numbers wore—
Fer the third reading .
Against it
Majority for the third reading -63
The bill was then read a third time and passed.
The house suspended its sitting at a quarter to four
o'clock, and resumed at eix o'clock.
(LICU SITTING.)