The Sun.
London, England, 1858-07-03 00:00:00

the religious services of the Church. (Hear.) For the
interest of the Dissenters themselves and of all those
who wished the matter settled on fair ground, it was
most important not only that the bill should be rejected
by a considerable majority, but that the majority should
be so large and overwhelming as to render it manifestly
hopeless to carry a bill for absolute and unconditional
repeal. (Cheers.) He would venture to say to the Dis-
senters on the part of the Church and on the part of her
Majesty's Government that they should be met in the
most friendly and conciliatory spirit ; otherwise they
must stand by the present law. (Hear.) He was con-
vinced that the larger the majority against uncondi-
tional repeal the better prospect there would be of
bringing ad parties to a reasonable and fair settlement
of this great and most important question. (Hear.)
Ihc L1J1.13 en-1 c.)-elmied by moving that the bill be read
a second ti me that day six mouths.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY, who spoke very
indistinctly, was understood to say that some legal pre-
vision was absolutely necessary for the support of
the fabric and the religions services of the church, and
he believed that nine•tenths of the parishes of the coun-
try entertained that opinion. Under the voluntary
system the clergy would be placed in a situation the
most distressing and galling. He believed that the
change now proposed would, if carried out, be produc-
tive of very great evil, and that the result would be that
the next generation would see many of our churches in
a state of decay and ruin. (Hear, hear.)

Earl GRANVILLE observed that it bad been said,
and said truly, that a great majority of their lordships
had not been committed to any opinion on tins question
at all. There were some exceptions—those who had
belonged to the governments of the last twenty years,
and especially to the two last governments, who were
so far committed that they might be supposed to be in-
fluenced by the opinions given by their colleagues in
another place. But the question now assumed another
phase, for they found that for the first time a bill for the
total abolition of church rates had been passed by the
other house. He had carefully and conscientiously con-
sidered the course it was his duty to take, and he had
come to the conclusion that he should vote for the
second reading of this biil, and he believed that the
passing of this bill would be most advantageous for the
church itself. The law had been laid down by great
authorities that evening. Lard St. Leonards laid it
down, to his great surprise, that thochurch had the same
title to church rate 3 that their lordships had to their pri-
vate property. There was no doubt that by the com-
mon law of England there was the right and the duty to
repair the fabric of the church, and that the mode of
doing so was by church rates. But, on the other band,
there was no remedy. To.' being the state of the law,
what was the state as regarded the facts ? As their lord-
ships were aware, in a large number of parishes church
rates were practically and completely abolished.

A NOBLE LORD—In not more than five per cent.
Earl GRANVILLE said the noble lord was referring
to the number of parishes rather than to the popu-
lation. It was not necessary for him to refer to the
bickering and the strife occasioned by this state of
things. He Ibelieved that at this moment there was
an organisation which was likely to increase the num-
ber of parishes in which no rate was levied, and by which
the opposition would be extended even to the rural
parishes. Therefore he considered that the longer the
settlement of this question was deferred the more diffi-
cult would they find it to deal with. Printed papers were
circulated showing the best way of opposing the levying
of a rate, and he believed it had arrived at this point. A
calculation was made at the time—he believed it was
three years—during which they might successfully op-
pose the payment. He appealed to their lordships whe-
ther this was a state of things which it was desirable
should be continued. Different modes of getting rid of
the difficulty had been proposed. The one proposed by
his noble friend was to abolish church rates altogether,
and to leave the maintenance of the fabrics to voluntary
efforts. He was not so much afraid of the voluntary
principle as some of their lordships who had spoken.
He found the parish churches wherecburch rates were no
longer levied, and the district churches to which church
rates were not applicable, had been better supported than
the chur sues in parishes where the rates were still levied,
and he could not believe that a great and wealthy esta-
blishment like the Church of England, comprising
amongst its raenabers the most wealthy in the land, would
suffer the churches to fall into decay for want of repair.
As to the character of the opposition to church rates, it
was admitted on all hands that hostility to the established
church did not characterise the whole of the opponents
to church rates, and he believed that a great number of
the dissenters were friendly, and not hostile to the esta-
blished church. He admitted, however, that a portion of
them were diametrically opposed to the established
church, and that they supported this measure as a means
of subverting it. If their lordships rejected this bill, they
would promote the views of the latter party he had re-
ferred to. He did not agree with his noble friend that it
was advisable to pass this measure and suspend its opera-
tion. The speech of the noble earl (Derby) showed him
that he had carefully considered the subjecr, and he (Lord
Granville) thought the best course was that their lord-
ships should agree to the second reading of the bill, and
that they should go into committee of the whole house
upon it or refer it to a select committee, and if govern-
ment would then take upon themselves to introduce
amendments, that would be a more satisfactory way of
cowing to a conclusion on the subject than rejecting the
bill, and waiting for the pledge of the noble lord that he
would bring in a bill next year. He should therefore
vote for the second reading of the bill, firmly believing
that the sooner they could arrive at a settlement of this
question the better it would be for al parties concerned.
The Bishop of LONDON said in reference to the
voluntary system that many churches had of late been
built in his dioceso by voluntary subscriptions. There
was no difficulty in raising money for building them,
but experience had shown there were infinite difficulties
in maintaining them after they were built. Many of
them were now in anything but good repair, and the
curates of them had to supplicate assistance for keeping
them open. In poor districts the difficulties were the
greatest, and the impression amongst the poorer daises
was that the abolition of church rates would not benefit
' them but the saving would go into the pockets of those
above them. lie believed Dissenters bad no real hos-
tility to the Established Church ; they knew she was
now as she had been in times past—the bulwark that
defended them against what they feared more than they
did the Established Church ; and when they were
threatened some time since with papal aggression, the
Dissenters of this country looked up to the Established
Church as the protector of religious freedom. All wore
agreed it was desirable to settle this question, and he re-
gretted it could net be done this session ; but the bill
before the house he thought was not likely to attain that
object, and he asked their lordships not to take a step
that would be injurious to the Established Church. With
regard to the committee referred to by the noble duke
who moved the second reading of the bill, the right rev.
prelate said that the noble duke had not given a
correct statement of the decision they came to. It was
true they were in favour of the voluntary system to as-
sist them in providing for spiritual destitution, but it was
not looked to as a means of taking away 300,0001. a
year from the Church, but as a subsidiary to the present
means. (Hear, hear, and "Divide.")
Earl GREY said the labouring population and the
poor had a right to have the churches of this land and
the established religion maintained by the rich.
Lord CAMPBELL thought that to abolish church
rates without a compensating equivalent being proposed,
would be both unjust to the poor and to the Church.
The Earl of GALLOWAY opposed the bill. It would
damage the Church, and introduce great confusion into
the country.

Lord PORTMAN supported the bill. The present
system had failed to support the fabric of the Church ;
therefore, some new system ought to be introduced. He
believed that the time had come for the framing of some
such bill as that now before their lordships.
The Bishop of OXFORD opposed the bill, and warned
their lordships that the true object of those who bad op-
posed the church rates was the destruction of the Church
establishment.

vV
Lord
STANLEY of ALDER LEY supported the bill,
and reminded their lordships that the noble earl at the
head of the Government bad formerly extended the very
relief to the Roman Catholics of Leland which he now
refused to the Dissenters of England.
After a few words from the Duke of SOILEBSET,
Their lordships divided—

Content—Present
Proxies
—36
N.J1.•:3:-..,:nt3 —Present lO9
Proxies
—lB7

Majority against the second read-
of the bill
Their lordships then adjourned at a quarter past one
o'clock.

ROUSE OF COMMONS—YESTERDAY.
The SPEAKER took the chair at twelve o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The lArdi.' amendments to the following bills were
considered and agreed to—Cornwall Railway, London
and South-Western Railway, Mersey Docks and Har-
bour (Consolidation of Acts), Mersey Docks and Har-
bour (New Works), Halifax Park and Improvements.
The Great Southern of India Railway Company Bill
and the Warrington and Stockport Railway (Capital)
Bill were read a third time and passed.

The Holroyd Estate Bill was read a second time.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL (No. 2).
The house went into c..nnmittee on this bill, lemming
at clause 13,

Mr. COLLIER moved art an amendment that the
members of the council should have 5001. a year ewer
instead of 1,2001., as propo ed in the bill. The council
would have great patronage, and with such men as those
who would compose the council a desire to serve their
friends would be a greater inducement than mere
salary.
Lord STANLEY Ppposed the amendment. He
thought 1,2001. a year was not too much for men who
would have to pass the greater part of their time in
London. He took that opportunity of stating that he
intended inserting a proviso to the effect that no member
of the council should be entitled to a pension who had
riot served ten year,,.
Mr. GREGSON did not think the whole time of the
members of the council would be required. They would
only have to attend the board once a week, and he
thought 5001. a year would be sufficient. For that
and the patronage attached to the officio, he thought
efficient men would be found. •
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that, although the members of the council would have
to meet once a week in a council, a daily attendance of
many hours would be required of them it, addition.
There were many men who were not habitually resident
in London, who would be very (Orient memhers of the