The Sun.
London, England, 1858-04-20 00:00:00

THE CII URCH-RATE QUESTION.

Yesterday afternoon a deputation, consisting of
members of parliament and others, waited on the
Earl of Derby, the First Lord of the Treasury, at
his official residence in Downing street, in depre-
cation of the bill new before the House of Commons,
introduced by Sir John Trelawny, for the abolition
of church rates.
The Duke of MARLBOROUGH introduced the
deputation, and in doing so said be bad under-
taken to place before his lordship the object of the
deputation, which he would not trouble him with
reading through. He then handed in the state-
ment, and said that what was asked by the bill
(Sir J. Trelawny's) was a serious radical change in
the law of the country, and contended that there
was no real grievance to justify such a change.
The Earl of DERBY said he hardly knew vast it
was that they wished Lim to reply to on the subject
which they had brought before him. He felt sure
swhy Church.the
rate
to
none of them could have any doubt as to his wish
should not be continued, as he agreed with those
had addressed him that it was necessary to
Establishedreason
maintain the right of the Established Church. He
(Hear.) support
Therefore and uphold
h esaw
the
no eo
intended to pursue the same course with regard to
church-rates as hitherto, unless he saw a solution
which might be adopted without sscrificiu g the main
principle. He believed the feeling was that both
parties agreed in refusing, to accept anything like a
compromise ; one party will have it as at present,
while another would have nothing less than its
entire abolition. He sh, uld not, therefore, depart
from his present course until he had laid down a
solution which would not sacrifice the main prin-
ciple of the question, but which would finally put
au end to the struggle. He believed the feeling
in the House of Commons was in favour of the
abolition of the rate, and if he remembered rightly
the see nd teading of the bill introduced by Sir J.
Trelawny was carried by a large majority. (Mr.
Knott stated the number to be 53.) He could have
wished that the bill should not go into uommittee,
but it wculd now do so, and then it would unfortu-
nately be added to those questicne that pass one
house without passing the other. It was true, he
believed, that in many parishes the rate was
collected without any difficulty ; but it was opposed
by a few vexatious individuals, and in some cases
the minority contrived successfully to defeat the
majority. He r epeated that he saw no such solution
at present as he should think fit to adopt, and until
he saw some such solution he should continue to
oppose any measure for the abolition of the rate
which he did not think was justifiable.
The Duke of MARLBOROUGH said the deputation
only wanted his lordship to repudiate any attempt
that would affect the rights of the established
church.
The Earl of DERBY wished to know if it bad ever
occurred to any of the members of the deputation
to adopt a system of volun'ary commutation o
church rates, to give permission to parishes to buy
the rate, or, in other words, to give power to land-
holders to charge their estates with a certain sum
annually to meet that objdet. He believed that if
fpearTrmi
isihe theop
I\l
ai aikaseri sy
looeffbao „n(AroolAotdßhLepßrroiani
tt principle.
ae
s.
any thing of that kind could be worked it would
H smaiedrgetdhaitntion the
parish of Marylebone the rate was merged into the
poor rate. He believed it came to about ld.,in the
pound. That was obtained by a local act.
The Earl of DERBY—You will not find it easy, [
think, to get such an act now.
Mr. PACKE, M.P., said he had very great plea-
sure in hearing from Lord Derby a suggestion for
the voluntary commutation of church-rates. He
should hare great confidence in its success if the
noble lord at the head of the Government would
give it the weight of his influential position.
The Earl of DERBY retninded the deputation that
what he said was merely a suggestion.
Viscount DUNGANNON said, what the deputation
wanted was that the bill introduced by Sir J. Tte-
velyan should be thrown out.
The Earl of DERBY said, in reply, that no doubt
it would be thrown out, but not in the House of
Commons, if his knowledge of that house was
correct.
After some further conversation, the deputation
retired.