The Sun.
London, England, 1858-04-22 00:00:00

that the observations of the hon. member did not reach
the gallery.
Tie SPEAKER put the question in the usual way,
tbat the words of the original motion for going at once
into committee—which words were proposed to be omit•
ted by the amendment—should stand part of the question.
The " Ayes" made the customory response ; but either
through inattention or misapprelension, the opponents
of the bill expressed no dissent ; the SPEAKER declared
that the " Ayes" had it ' • the mace was immediately re-
moved from the table in the ordinary way, and the house,
which was very full at the moment, went at once into
committee without a division, amid some little laughter.
The result was that Mr. Puller was precluded from mov-
ing the amendment which stood on the paper in his
name on the motion for going into committee.

Sir A. ELTON movecitheinsertion of words "delay-
ing the coming into operation of this bill for threeyears."
Sir J. TRELAWNY said he was desirous of adopt-
ing every feasible suggestion calculated to put an end to
the existing system ; but he thought if the hon. baronet
had read the evidence of Dr. Lushington he would
have thought it necessary to propose this amendment,
for Dr. Lushington had expressly laid it down that
churchwardens were bound to go on disposing of any
funds in their hands for the repair of the churches which
had been raised for that purpose. The parochial autho-
rities, in fact, had nothing to do but to use the existing
machinery in their hands to meet the state of things con-
templated by the hon. baronet. Besides, the amendment
was the less called for when hs (Sir J. Trelawny) found
that in places where it had been left to them as voluntary
matter the Dissenters had contributed liberally towards
the repairine' the fabrics of the Church of England.
Mr. ROEBUCK wanted to know why the hon. baronet
proposed to postpone the operation of the bill for 3 years.
This question of the abolition of church-rates was not a
new one. He (Mr. Roebuck) had been in Parliament fora
quarter of a century, and it had been familiar to him as a
member of that house for the whole of that period. What
good, he asked, could be derived from keeping open the
sore, and from not at once putting an end to all the irrita-
tion produced by the levying ofchurch-rates ? (Hear, hear.)
If the thing was good, why not do it at once ? Whenever
a change in the law was made great advantage resulted
from its coming into immediate operation. The best
thing they could do in this case was to bring the abolition
into operation at the very earliest moment—(hear, hear)
—and therefore he opposed the amendment.
Sir G. GREY thought it would be very inexpedient to
adopt the amendment, far if the proposed change was to
take place it was very undesirable that it should be post-
poned for so long a period. (Hear' hear.) The usual
practice was to make a church-rate at Easter and if the bill
passed into a law and came into immediate operation it
would be necessary that some provision should be made
to secure the proper application of the rates made at
Easter in the present year.
Mr. WIGRAM thought the amendment proposed by
the hon. baronet would be an improvement to the bill.
He was persuaded that the only possible way in which
the churches in the country could be maintained would
be by an unanimous effort on the part of the great body
of churchinen—(hear, hear) —and time ought to be
allowed for them to make the necessary preparations if
that responsibility was henceforth to be borne by them
alone, and the more so in cases where the churches had
fallen into considerable dilapidation.
Sir J. TRELAWNY said he could not believe that
the members of the Church of England would not them-
selves readily make efforts to meet all the cases to which
the attention of the Committee had been pointed. [rhe
hon. baronet made some reference to the amendment
before the Committee having been conceived in "the
old Protectionist spirit," but the exact terms in which he
did so did not reach the gallery, and the expression is
only given here in a general form because the subsequent
speech. of Mr. Gladstone to some extent turned upon it ]
Lord LOVAINE said it was pretty clear to him that
if this measure became law, by the end of three years
afterwards the qtr. Atlas would be one, not of church-
rates, but of tithes.
Mr. PALK reminded the Committee that if this bill
pasard into a law the 350,0001. hitherto raised for the
maintenance of the churches would be /est to the
Established Church. They had no more right to deal
with this 350,000/.2 provided for the maintenance of the
Church, than they had to deal with the interest on the
national debt, or any other similar charge ; but
they had a right to deal with any law that pressed
isjuriously upon the cousciences of Dissenters. This
fund was as much the property of the Dissenters as of
the Cherub, and if it was dealt with in an unjust and
inconei lerate spirit injustice was done both to the Church
and to Dissenters. The Dissenters, he admitted, had a
perfect right to object to all those embelOshment3 of the
Church that were hurtful to their consciences ; but un-
less they jibed to be branded as spoliators of property
which they had no right to touch, they were bound to
fine some substitute for the means now provided for
repairing the edifice of the church. He would, on the
bringing up of the report, propose a proviso, which in
the mean time he would read to the house.

Mr. AYRTON spoke to order. The hon. gentleman
was not in form in introducing another amendment in
addition to the ono before the Committee.
Mr. PALK did not intend to move another amend-
ment He only meant to read a proviso which he gave
notice he weal move on the bringing up of the report.
Sir. G. GREY was not prepared to say the hon.
gentleman was out of order, but it would be very incon-
venient t , bring before the Committee at present any
proviso while there wag an ati3vndment undieposed of.
Mr. PALK. woald nekt now bring the proviso before
the committee if it was not the general wish. With re-
' gard to the amendment, which would suspend the opera-
tion of the bill for three years, he thought the delay
might give time f r the preparation of some plan for
maintaining the fabric of the church. There were large
funds in the possession of the Caurch, and it was vs-
sinle tl at luring the delay these might in some way be
made available, or voluntary meats might be provided
for maintaining fabrics which, apart from religion alto-
gether, were on architectural and scientific grounds
wurthy the support of the country. (Hear.)

Mr. GLADSTONE—I cannot help observing that
whatever may be the merits or demerits of the amend-
ment proposed by the hon. member for Bath, it has
received no answer- from the hon. baronet (Sir J. Tre-
lawny) of any weight or value. The hon. baronet accused
my hon. friend of acting on the principle of the effete and
extinct system of protection. I must say I can see no
ground or colour for such a charge ; I see a great deal
o what used to be considered one of the cardinal articles
of protection in the bill of the hon. baronet himself, for
a very prominent doctrine of those most versed in the
articles of protection was, that a great part of the claim
for protection rose out of the burdens on land, and that
some at least of the local rates ought to be remitted and
a present of them made to the landlords. (Hear, hear.)
And undoubtedly thissbill, if it passed, will offer the first
instalment of that relief from the burdens en land.
(Cheers and laughter.) The bill, indeed, presents a very
remarkable instance in which the principle of protection
that has been long dead has undergone a galvanic revi-
val at the hands cf a gentleman from whom it could
have been least expected, in that with respect to the
whole of the rural parishes of the country he has proposed
to make over to the londtords a large and distinct pre-
sent of several hundreds of thousands a year. (Rear,
and laughter.) I will, illustrate what he has now said
by a case in point. A gentleman--a friend of mine,
whose name, it I were to mention it, would elicit from
every one au expression of respect and approbation--
applied to his tenants—not in a tone of dictation, of
which he is incapable, but as between friend and friend
—and expresso:l his wish that they should support the
granting of a churclerate in the parish ; on which ono of
the tenants said "It is surly impossible you can wi-h
, us to support a church-rate, for if the rate is refused it
will be 171. a-year in your pocket in this township
alone," (Hear, hear.) Whet is true in this particular
mete is equal y true in other cases. Tne ohurch-rates,
if abolished, will go into the pockets of the landlords.
I hope, teerefore, we shall not again hear it said that
the principle of protection is involved in the opposition
to this measure. (Hear, hear.) The hon. baronet pro..
cerleit to say that, however magnificent the churches
might be in the rural parishes, it would be unfair to the
Dissenters to continue, even for a period of three years,
t r tax thorn for the maintenance of those fabrics. There
is a fallacy in that part of the reply of the h jn, baronet,
because in so far as regards many of the opponents of
this bill, they have not the slightes-t desire that any Dis-
senter ebould be taxed against his will for the main-
tenaeca of the fabric of the church. (Hear, bear.) Ido
not ask whether a case can or cannot be made out to
show that the Dissenters mightjustly be expected to pay.
I say, as a matter of eqeity, of prudence, and considera-
tion, that I believe it to be for the interests of the
Church end the country that Dissenters should not be
called upon to pay church-rates; and, believing that to
bi the eentitnent of an immense majority of the house, I
protest against the assumption involved in the speech of
Vie right hon. baronet, that whoever supports an amend-
ment like that before the house does so because he thinks
it is r ght that for three years more Dissenters ought to
be taxed for the support of the fabric of the church.
(Hear, hear.) My belief—and it is founded on expe-
rience—is
that there are large numbers of Dissenters in
this country whose position-in regard ti the Church is
an anomalous one, because it is neither complete reli-
gious union nor complete religious separation, and that
Caere are many of these Dissenters who do not in the
smallest degree object to tie payment of church-rater.
ar, hear.) So far as my local knowledge goes
(f
that portion of the country which of all
others is perhaps the least inclined to the payment of
chin ch-rates—l mean the principality of Wales, I may
say that there are Dissenters there who would be per-
fectly satisfied with an exemption in their favour from
compulsory payment. (Hear, hese.) However, that is
not the question noel before us. I only wanted to point
out that the hon. baronet ha', unintentionally I am sure
inisrepre•eited the vie es of those who support the
amendment now before tie House. The real question
as regards the amendment appears to me to be something
different from that which the hon. baronet has appre-
hended it to be. I cannot say I think that even with
this arnen 'orient the bill would bo one which it would be
wise or just fir the Legislature to adopt. At the same
time I frankly own that the arneednient of my hon.
friend is not only proposed in a spirit of good faith—be•
cause no man v. ould for a moment ieepute to him the
passibility s f taking any other than a straightforward
course—but that it is a proposition which it is more for
the iaterest of the Minds of the Bill than for its op-
ponents to accept. I cannot doubt that this amendment
will improve the prospects of the Bill, for I cannot but
be of opinion, already expressed by an hon. friend, that ,
it would be a considerable mitigation of the change. On
the whole it appears to me to be an amendment couched
in a spirit of equity and fairness—not intended to defeat
the Bi 1, but a tiuly straightforward, candid proposition.
Thr,ugh it is true you make your arrangements for
church-rates from year to year, it is also true that there