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

01JDE.

General P. THOMPSON said he had a petition to
present from the Dewsbury Debating Club, praying for
the-restoration of Oude.
Mr. WALPOLE doubted if a petition could be re-
ceived from a debating club in its collective capacity.
General P. THOMPSON said the petition was signed
by many individuals.
Mr. WALPOLE suggested the amendment of the
petition, so as to make it as coming " from the under-
signed members of the Dewsbury Debating Club."
General P. THOMPSON said the petition should be
so amended.
An Hon. Member said that petitions from Chambers
of Commerce had been frequently received signed only
by the Chairman of such bodies.
CHRISTIANITY IN INDIA.
Mr. HUNT presented a petition from a place in
Huntingdonshire, praying that Christianity may be made
the basis of the future Government of India.

INCOME TAX.
Sir J, V. SHELLEY presented petitions from the
inhabitants of the Metropolis, praying for such an adjust-
ment of the income-tax as shall make a distinction be-
tween fluctuating and precarious incomes, and incomes
derives from realised property.
CHURCH RATES ABOLITION BILL.
On the motion for going into committee'
Mr. PACKE moved an amendment that the bill be
committed this day six months. No one respected con-
scientious objections, in matters of religion, more than
. he did, but he apprehended that in this case the objec-
tion to pay ehurch rates resulted from a less elevated
feeling than that of conscientious scruples. He cited the
evidence of a number of witnesses examined before the
Church Rate Committee, to' show that the principal
objections hitherto advanced against church rates did
not arise from conscientious feelings. He denied that
there was any general desire for the abolition of church
rates, and he cited in support of his assertion the rejec-
tion of the champion of the cause (Sir W. Clay) by the
Tower Hamlets ; and Mr. Miall, a great writer as well
u speaker on the subject, by Rochdale.
Mr. K. SEYMER seconded the amendment.
Mr. HUGGESSON cordially supported going into
committee on this bill. He considered the amendment
oame with a bad grace from the ministerial side of the
house, beoaese, if the present government had not been
in power the future charge of the bill would have been
handed over to the noble lord (Lord Stanley) secretary
for the colonies. There was a great and growing feeling
in the country against church rates, though the
returns might not show it. Thousands who ob•
jected on principle to church rates paid them
on account of the smallness of the sums generally levied.
Church rates were undoubtedly wrong in principle.
They were a grievance to the dissenter, and so far from
this objection to them being made a breeches pocket
question, they were contested on principle. (Hear,
hear.) He contended that church rates were an
occupiers tax, and that they ought not to be en•
forced on dissenting occupiers, and he denied that the
abolition of the church rate would. benefit the landed
interest. As a zealous churchman, he felt humiliated
when he heard it said by churchmen that if the rate was
abolished the fabric of the church, in many instances,
would be allowed to fall into decay. (Hear, hear.)
Where parishes were too poor to pay a rate, he
thought the fabric of the church should be repaired
out of the funds in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Com-
missioners. To take the money out of the pockets of
dissenters was a disgrace to the church. (Hear, hear.)
Dissenters were worthy of their consideration, for we
owed much of our liberties to them. The church ought
to be freed from this tax, and rest cn the affections of
the people for her support.
Mr. PUGH (Carmarthenshire) supported the motion
or going into committee. It was high time for the
peace of the country this question should be settled
The sacred cause of Christianity also required that the
question should be set at rest f ;r ever. England was
the only country in which these scandale c3eid arise
about repairing the fabric of the Church.
Mr. K. SEYMER was anxious to give relief
to dissenters to church rates, but not in the manner
proposed. He thought the house ought to be very
careful how they admitted the principle that no man
should contribute towards anything from which he dis-
sented. (Hear, hear.) He wished to relieve Di-sentere
from the tax, but in return they must abstain from
voting fur churchwardens, and other matters relating to
the Church. Such a compromise was proposed on a
former occasion by Mr. R. Pailiimore, but rejseted on
the ground, as he believed, that the abolition of the
Church-rates, as now proposed, would he the first instal
meat towards separation between Church and State.
The opponents of such a change were ready to meet
that question openly in that house and defeat them.
(Hear, hoar.) He objected to it; being attempted by a
side wind Ile the present.
Sir. G. GREY objected to the continuance of the de-
bate. The principle was confirmed on a former occasion
by a majority of 53 in a house of 400 members, and it
was inconvenient to renew the debate on going into
committee.
Loud J. MANNERS could not join the right hon.
gentleman in his implied censure upon those who thought
that the principle of the bill ought to be rediscussed
upon this wage. On the contrary, he believed it alone.
lutely essential that that principle should be further and
more gravely considered by this house than it had been
upon the occasion referred to. The debate on the second
reading was not sustained fcr any considerable period ;
and, looking at the momentous in erests which were at
slake, he was of opinion that further consideration ought
to be bestowed upon the principle before they settled
the deteols of this measure. Its supporters, as the house
should remember, declared that it was susceptible of no
improvement whatever. The simple proposal they made
was for the total and immediate abolition of church-
rates, and they would be the first to repudiate altogether
the grounds upon yin h the right hon baronet (Sir G.
Gray) had j .st expressed hisr a liness,to vote fur going
into committee. Now, it would be generally admitted,
with regard to this question, that whatever idea might
be popularly associated with the abolition of church-
Wee, they could only in justice and in equity be coln -
plaiued of by the Dissenters. No one would contend
that any Churchman had a moral right to complain of
the continuance upon that property which he bad either
inherited or purchased of an obligation to maintain the
fobric and support the services of the church. Tee ques-
tion was one which affected Dissenters alone. Now the
peapla of this country were jealously sensitive on the
subject of the rights of conscience, and you had nothir
to do but to say that any particular institution aggrieved
your conscience in order to secure for your statement a
most attentive and favourable consideration. His obj,c-
tion, however, to this bill—and it was one which went
to the root of the proposed legislation—was, that it re-
lieved the consciences and the pockets not only rf
Seaters, but of rich and iofluentihl Churchmen.
(Hear, hear.) For his part, he had always held that
Dissenters should not be taxed for the support of
other forms of religion. He had always been ready to
meet the grievances of Dissenters in the most amicable
spirit, and his complaint against this bid was that
it tonally set aside the possibility of entering into any such
amicable settlement of the question. What were the
grounds upon which it: was brought forward ? In and out
of doors, the great allege ion in its favour was tha' it was
necessary in order to sot free the consciences of Dis-
senters. No such allegation, however, was contained in
the preamble of the bill. The first ground there stated
was, " Whereas church-rates have for some years ceased
to be made or collected in many parishes by reason of the
opposition thereto." Now, he should have thought that
the refusal of church-rates in these instances would have
put an end to ill-feeling and litigation, and that as their
number increased, so the necessity for legislation would
have diminished; but because in 500 parishes church-rates
by the will of the majority bad ceased to be collected, was
it therefore right to enforce their abolition upon the vast
majority of parishes, counted by thousands, in which
the inhabitants were willing to be taxed for the support
of the fabric and the maintenance of. the services of the
church ? He could not understand how gentlemen who
in this house sand up for the rights of the majuirty could
answer such a question as this iu the affirmative. Then
the preamble set forth that "ia many other parishes
where church-rates have been made the levying thereof
has given rise to litigation and ill-feeling." The question
which the house had to consider, however, was the amount
of id-will and litigation thus produced. In how many
parishes, if any, had it been engendered ? What was the
counterbalancing advantage which the poor obtained by
the continuance of church-rates ? And what would be
the effect of the abolition of that system I Now, he was
certainly bound to admit that if the ansouut of ill-will
and litigation were trifling, it was not the fault of those
who were engaged in the agitation of this
question.
There had been a most extensive organisation for the
purpose of this agitation, and if the crop of ill-will and
litigation had been small, it was owing rather t the
sterile nature of the soil than to any want of industry on
the part of those who cultivated it. In spite of that agi-
tation, however, he did not believe that any con,ider-
able number of parishes which heretofore bad granted
church rates had since refused them; and, indeed, the re-
sult of the best researches he bad been able to make into
had
die
been
nestion was, that during 1357, while church-rates
proposed and carried in no less than 70 parishes
they had been
throughout England.
ded and defeated in no more than 24
and litigation whatever might he the ill-
willprodßut'
account to abrogate the system ought they simply on that
inquiry ? Could any one essatem altogether, and without
highway-
rates, sewer-rates, did not say that
poor-rates,
tion ? In 1356 he found that no lessesttoh
and litiga-
tion
in litigation in consequence of
114,0001. was
u
poor-law management supported. by raoteer.sys(llema of)
Surely, therefore, it was necessary to penetrate a rtt e
more into the sum face before they abrogated the ay:te
of church-rates on the grounds submitted. He shouldm
next proceed to ask what were the results which flowed
from the maintenance cf the system of church-rates. It
was impossible, he should contend, that any one could
possess an acquaintance with the various rural parishes
throughout the country and not feel that an immense
amount of temporal as well as spiritual good was effected
by means of a tax which, without the necessity of iin-
popiog the smallest charge upon the poorer classes in the
community, provided for the support of the fabric of tLe

church and the due administration of the ceremonies of
religious worship. His chief objection to the bill under
discussion, then, was that it proposed—without creating
any substitute for it whatsoever—to abolish at once a
system which secured to 10,000 parishes in England the
continuance of a state of things such as he had described,
and which he felt assured every hon. member who had at
heart the spiritual welfare of the poor must be anal us
to uphold. (Hear.) The hon. member for Sandwich had
observed that the Church of England was essentially the
Church of the rich man, but from that proposition he
(Lord
it
J.
was
arsc)
hbuergeghedoienthtierelpyaatro
man, and
itH be-
lievedewasbecause he was of opinion that it had a just claim to
that chars cter that be stood up in his place in the
house
of Commons to raise his voice in favour of a system
under which the fair obligations of the realised property
of the nation to contribute to the support or the fabric
of its houses of religious worship were maintained. The
argument drawn from the considerations which he had
just urged was one, he might add, which was not appli-
cable to the case of the poorer classes belonging to the
communion of the Church of England alone, but one
I which might also be relied upon on the ground that it
was a fact perfectly notorious that members of the Dis-
senting body avail-d themselves in considerable numbers
of the services performed in places of religious worship
connected with the Church of England, and that they
would regard it as a great religious grievance if in con-
sequence of any legislative enactment they should be
precluded from the enjoyment of that privilege. (Hear.)
There was scarcely a country clergyman of the Esta-
blished Church who was not practically aware that the
Dissenters in his parish looked up to him not only for
support and advice in temporal matters, but also for aid
in connection with their spiritual wants. (Hear) He
had had, indeed, a letter from a clergyman residing in
the country, in which he stated that he had upon various
occasions during a period of 21 years officiated at the
burial of members of the Dissenting body in his parish,
and he (Lord J. Manners) should wish to know how it
was proposed, if church-rates were abolished, to continue
to Dissenters the enjoyment of those privileges. (Hear.)
The question raised by the bill was whether property
should continue to be bound by those obligations with
respect to the support of the fabric of the Church which
had been imposed upon it before the Conquest, or should
be relieved from them by the adoption of a principle
which would not only set free the consciences of Dis-
senters, but ease the pocket of the landlord. (Hear,
hear.)] He spoke of .the landlord because he it was
who would undoubtedly receive the benefit of that re-
mission which it was the object of the bill to accom-
plish. (Hear, hear.) He had not come to that con-
clusion without the aid of experience, and in support
of his opinion upon the point he might state
that a member of that house had assured
him that if a proposition for the total abolition
of church-rates should pass into a law he should feel him-
self authorised to make arrangements for a corresponding
increase in the rental paid by the tenants upon his pro-
perty, and should put the amount thus realised in his
own pocket. (Hear, hear.) The result of such a proposi-
tion, in short, would be, either that the landlord, being
a pious and conscientious Churchman, would undertake
to provide for the maintenance of the fabric of the church,
reimbursing himself for any outlay which he might make
in that respect by the imposition of an additional burden
upon his tenants, or, being a person who was lax and
careless in such matters, or a dissenter, would permit
the necessary expenditure for the support of our places
of religious worship to be thrown upon somebody else.
(Hear.) And who, he wouldask, was that somebody else
likely to be in nine-tenths of the parishes of England ?
Why, in all probablity, the very man who would be least
competent to bear the burden which would thus be thrown
unon him—namely, the clergyman of the parish. (Hear.)
Under those circumstances, while reeervieg to himself
the right to give an impartial consideration to any propo-
sition which might have the effect of relieving the c n•
sciences of dissenters from the grievance of which they
complained, while it made due provision for the mail.-
tenance of the fabric of the church—he should entreat
the house not to lend its sanction to a scheme the ope-
ration of which would be to free the property of the
country from obligations to which it had for centuries
been liable, and which had been imposed upon it for the
promotion of the spiritual welfare of the poor and the free
and unfettered worship of Almighty God. (Cheers.)
Lord H. VANE said he should not trespass upon the
attention of the house by entering into a discussion of the
various topics upon which the noble lord Lad touched,
but he wished at the same time to state briefly the
opinions with respect to the important subject under
cerei leration which he entertained. He was aot prepared
to deny that the question was beset with difficulties, but
as the position in which it at present stood was extri mely
uusitisfactory, he trusted the house would concur in
framing a scheme by welch it would be placed upon a
better footing. It was, he br!ieved, a fact that under
the operation of the existing arrangements church rates,
owing to various causes, were never levied in one-tenth
of the parishes of England, while in the case of one-
severith of the remaining nine-tenths the property of
Dissenters mainly contributed to the impost, Be that,
however, as it might, there was no doubt that the Dis-
senting body was taxed to a considerable extent for the
meintenace of the fabric of the church, and he might
observe that he did not concur +kith the noble lord who
had just spoken in the opinion that the effect of a change
in the system under which that result had been brought
about would be to throw the burden of the church rate
upon men who would be unwilling to provide for the
proper sopport of our places of religious worship. The
fact was, he believed, that the sums which were now
Reid by resident and absentee landlords, and other volun-
tary contributors, for the repairs of our churches were
very large, so that the noble lord need be under no apt
prehension tbat the landlords would evade the duty
which attached to them in that respect. He quite agreed
with those who thought that a certain portion of our
churches should always be open free to the poor ; but
then he was of opinion that nobody should be allowed
to have a pew without paying for it a, certain sum, which
might very fairly be applied to the maintenance of the
fabric of the church. He might add that he saw no
reason why facilities for creating endowments should
not also be afforded. (Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR cf ha EXCHEQUER—AI-
though I entirely concur in the opinions which have been
so clearly expressed by my noble fiend near me (Lord
J. Manners), I cannot resist the conviction that this
question has now arrived at a stage at which it is desir-
able that we should fully discuss any practical measure
which may be submitted to us for the solution of the
eifficulty which it involves. (Hear.) Having that ob
ject in view, I feel there would be some advantage in
assenting to the motion forgoing into committee, though
I cannot, for my own part, give utterance to any very
sanguine hope that the labours of the committee will
have the effect of •materially improving the proposition
embodi, d in the bill under discussion, or of removing
those objections which have been urged against it by
many hon. members upon bomb sides of the house. By
going into committee, incised, we may have the benefit
of being alfmrdod an opportunity of considering those
inafgestions which were made upon a former occasion in
reference to the subject by the right hon. gentleman the
member for Morpete, one of which is especially w rtby
of n itice=l mean the proposal which he submitted to
c.:r consideration last year to provide fur the commuta-
tiontheho
wf
sc ho
of
rtnc hn-rtamt easi b. y
(eaffteaert!)ngicleerr:aeini,,ahltoewraetvioenr,sainn
areendinent which stands upon the paper in the name of
the hon. member for Ilertfordshira (Mr. Puller), which
appears to me to be well entitled to the attention of the
house, and which cannot, I believe, in accordance with
the forms of the h•,uso, be moved in committee. (Hear.)
Noce, with all respect Lr my hen. fiiend the member for
Leicestershire (Mr. Parke) I cannot help thinking that
it is of more importance that the house should have an
opportunity of discussing the amendment which I have
jut mentioned than that we should, by putting his
motion that the house resolve iteelf into a committee on
this bill this day six months, merely repeat a division
which has been taken in a similar form upon previous
occactione. • (Hear.) I trust, therefore, that my hon.
friend will withdraw his motion, in order that we may
be efferded an opportunity of taking ieto consideration
the amendment of the hoa. member fcr Hertfordshire,
which, I repeat, is well worthy of our notice, and
I beg the house to observe, cannot be discussed eec tpt it
be brought before us at this stage of our proceedings.
Lord J. RUSSELL—I quite agree with the right hen.
gentleman opposite that it is desirable the hon. member
for South Leicestershire should withdraw his motion,
and that we should attempt at last to arrive at come
settlement of this question. It is, I think, quite obvious
from a consideration of the prospects which, according
to the reports I have seen in the public press, her Ma-
j 3:sty's; Prime Minister holds out to us that this
bill will, if it should go up to the House of Lords, be
rejected by that assembly. Now, that is a result which
would be extremely unsatisfactory—(bear)—and I should
wish, therefore, to see whether some plan or another
might not be devised by means of which we would be
h,blenablediv..o,oevuoretin afaeolpreventriNduvt
soahhei acidrrh.er i v
the er ha
et
Galt
emse
nee tor trdl
eemnmoe een nt
oft
o of ft,
tht
ei
rs
hon.e qs nu e t
mtt i
ooe
whichnal,he which
rf Ir
isseewmesllteoninti tel
eunder
ourthose
consideration circumstances
would he will, perhaps, permit
would be better to confine the objects which he proposes
to attain to those for which the church-rates are levied
under the existing system,
that
nheewshoob
jueldetsnwoittheinn-
deavour to embrace other ancl and
entirely
the scope of his resolution. (Hear,) So
so far ah s
et
within
hacri amend-
ment
eee
setn
hkd.
es-
ment provides for the repair of existing
for the maintenance of churchyards, it lieseurches, and
limits to which I refer ; but when tohpeihnoionn.m
beyond thosein
uisrecarried
to make "provision for the buildyninegwocfhnuerwchcame
places"Thheetrbanvieldlsi,nignomf
populous
of the dioceean funds and constitutes an
oolitcteibctil.°wllu(shHiacehaB,nh)owever desirable it may be to make pro-
vision fen it, is tohillt separated from that which we
ought to have now in titer, and which might more pre.
perly--if, indeed, it should be necessary to legislate with
respect to it at all—be made the subject of a distinct pro-
posal. (Hear.) With this exception, I, for one, am cer-
tainly disposed to look with considerable favour upon
the amendment of the hon. member for Hertfordshire.
(Hear.) But, suppose that amendment ghoul I not be
accepted by the house, what course do yeti then pro-
pose to take ? The observations which have fallen from
my right honourable friend the member for Morpeth in
the course of this discussion tend, I mist admit,
to de
away to a great extent with the objections which I
entertained to a proposal which he submitted to the
house some years ago, and which was to the effect that
we should be prohibited by legal enactment from
raising church rates in those districts in which they
happened
thninokt,tio
s have
ap proposition
pbo.,seintiolneviwedhicfhor
isa coepretanintopsetri ioondg.
objection upon the score of principle. It is hardly fair,
in my °Pinion, that certain parishes should be subjected,
I as it were, to a penalty because their inhabitants had
c,mplied with the law by levying the Le iessary church-

rates, while those should escape with impunity whose r
only plea was that they had not paid the tax within a
given time. (Hear.) The proposition is also open, it
appears to me, to objection in point of practice, inas-
much as it has sometimes happened that in districts in
which church-rates have not been levied for a long period
the inhabitants at length come forward perhaps under
the leadership of a clergyman who is a Dissenter, or a
member of the Established Church who has the interests
of his parishioners at heart ; it is found that the church
is out of repair ; a rate is consequently proposed,—it
may be by the Dissenters,—in vestry, and is levied with
the general assent of the whole body of the inhabitants.
(Hear.) Surely, if you keep up a church-rate at all, you
ought not to prohibit the occurrence of such a proceed-
ing at that—(hear)—and I am glad therefore to find that
the right hon. baronet does not propose to adhere to the
suggestion which he formerly made upon the subject.
(Hear.) With respect to another proposal of my right
hon. friend, which is to the effect that those who might
be exempted from the payment of church-rates
upon the ground that they were not members of the
Established Church, should be deprived of the right of
voting at the election of churcha ardens, I can only say
that I think it also Is open to serious objection. I have
always felt very strongly that in acting upon such a
principle as that you would be taking a course which
would tend to separate altogether from the Church a
great body of persons, who, although they may not be
regular attendants at divine service, yet upon certain
occasions, such, for instance, as when a marriage takes
place in their family, resort to the church. (Hear.)
Now, that any such result as that should be produced
would be in my opinion a great misfortune. (Hear.)
For my own part, I think if yen entail any disqualification
at all of this description, it ought to be one extending
not to the right of voting at the election of churchwar-
dens, bat to the disposal of the money which may be
raised by means of a church-rate. You might very fairly
say to a man, "If you claim your exemption from this
rate you cannot come into vestry and vote upon ques-
tions relating to the mode in which the money obtained
from it is to be expended." I could; however, consent
to the imposition of no other disqualification than that
to which I have just adverted. (Hear, hear.) If we can
possibly come to any agreement with respect to the
amendment of the hon. member for Hertfordshire, that,
I think, would be the wisest course to adopt. I am told
that there has been a large majority of the House of
Commons in favour of the proposal for the total aboli-
tion of church-rates. That is a statement which is un-
doubtedly true, but at the same time I have heard many
men say, that while they were prepared to vote fort ha-.
abolition, rather than maintain the existing system, yet
they were disposed to give a favourable consideration to
any reasonable proposition by which a compromise of
the question could be effected. I therefore cannot quite
concur with those whe think that the majority, in fa-
vour of the total abolition of this tax, without any provi- ,
sion being made to substitute some other means of
securing the maintenance of the fabric of the church in
its place, is quite so conclusive as some hon. members
seem to imagine. (Hear.) Be that as it may, however,
I think we shall do well to take into our earnest consi-
deration the amendment of the hon. member for Hert-
fordshire. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE said he should not oppose the
motion for going into committee upon the bill, but that
in assenting to it he must not be supposed to waive one
iota of the claim which, he contended, every poor man
throughout the country possessed to the enjoyment of
the advantages of being present at the service of th e
Church of England. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. PACKE said, after the appeal which bad been
made to him by the noble lord the member for the city of
London, he begged to withdraw his amendment.
(Cries of no, no.)
Mr. BRIGHT said ho thought those who were in
favour of the passing of this bill had some ground for
complaint against the hon. member for South Leicester-
shire (Mr. Packe) for the course he had just proposed to
Lake. He (Mr. Bright) had listened—he would not say
to exactly the same arguments—bus to much the same
speeches from the hon. member's lips year after year
upon this question of church-rates as the one they had
heard that day. The hon. gentleman was not a young
member ; he knew when he came down to the house he
was going to object to this bill being proceeded with ;
he had moved an amendment with that view, which the
house had discussed for the last three hours, but all that
time would be wasted if he was now permitted to with-
draw it. The truth was, it was found to be convenient
to some members nut to have their names recorded in a
division on this subjeet—(a laugb)—and therefore it was
that the hon. gentleman sought to avoid going into the
lobby. But he (Mr. Bright) would advise the suppor-
ters of the bill to go to a division on this question.
(Cheers.) That, at least, was the course he himself was
prepared to take. With regard to the observations which
had fallen from the noble lord immediately below him
(Lord J. Russeli)—whom he was happy to see sitting
in that very wholesome part of the house—(laughter)—
he did not think the noble lord could have well consi-
dered the points which he had placed befere the house.
He (Mr. Bright) did not know whether or net the
amendment of the hon. member for Hertfordshire could
be brought forward at all, because it proposed to lay a
charge on property, which was very like imposing a new
tax, a thing that was more in the province of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. At all events, if the
hon. member did move such a resolution, those who
were in favour of the bill would know how to meet
it. (Cheers.) In fact, the noble lord, who was one
of those who were only half-way between the wrong
and the right of this question—(a laugb)—seemed to
forget that those who contended for the abolition of
church•rates understood their own (WO, and that they
were likely to understand it a great deal better than the
noble lord and those who acted with him. He (Mr.
Bright) and those who supported the bill before the
house had studied this question all their lives. They
had submitted much too long to the impediments which
had been thrown in the way of its settlement, and had
seen themselves constantly treated with injustice and
humiliatioe. They bad not taken up this question for
the purpose ef getting up a debate on two or three Wed-
nesdays
in a session. They were determined to get rid
of church rates—(cheers) ;—and if any one thought that
b., proposing to make the owners pay towards the repair
of churches instead of the occupiers, cr by calling on
them to make humiliating declarations of
,tbeir religious
opinions, he would settle this question, he was very
much mistaken. Why, some hon. members now ap-
p o,ched the discussion of this question as they would
have done some 30 or 40 years ago. He was amazed at
the extraordinary want of observation shown by hon. ,
gentlemen when they fancied that any of those palliatives
could do anything t swards settling this qucs i.m. There
was only one way of settling it. If those were a ma-
ji rep who did not a ant to abolish cherlierate e the ques-
tion would not be Fettled ; but if, on the other hand,
' they whe supported the abolition e ere in the majority
as well in that house as throughout the country, of
which no man could doubt, let theta have the s,ttlieg of
it. (Chem.) With regard to what might be done in "an-
other place," the noble lord the member for the City of
L rndon well knew that the gentlemen who sat in that
"other place" did not always take as much notice of
the resolutions of the House of Commons as the noble
Iwd would wish them to do. (A. laugh.) Those gentle-
men in "another place" had been the people in the
drawing-room, while they iu the Commons had been
the people in the kitchen (Laughter.) That ',vas about
the way in which he ( Vire Bright) should characterise
the treatment they had received in "another p'ace."
(Cheers.) He would rern:nd the noble lord the member
tor the City that there were many more a ersons zealous
about this question of church-rates than there were
aeons the Oaths Bill—(a laugh)—and although it might
happen that those in "another place" might reject this
b.ll once, twice, or thrice, it was desirable to bear in
ivied that they would never have alla opportunity of re-
jee',ing it unless it passed the House f Commons.
(dear.) He was theref, re anxious that it should pass
ioa Commons. The house was not to suppose that it
was Dissenters oily who desired to see church-rates
abolished. The hon. member for North Warwickshire
talked about the "Dissenting interest." He (Mr. Bright)
was not one of the Dissenting interest. (A. laugh.) But
' if he were a Churchman be would use muck stronger
1 mguage on this question than he had ever done. (Hear,
h, al It was in the interest of public honesty, of public
rurality, of public order, and of religion itself that he
asked the house to abolish this unjust and irritating
system. (Cheers.) If be were a Churchman he should
be ashamed of le on. members who opposed this bill.
They hail evidently no faith in their church. (Cheers.)
Tney had no faith in the z al of their congregations, nor
in the arguments or the eloquence of their pastors.
They, believed their churches would fall into ruin if this
bill were to pass. He had never said anything half so
severe of the members of the Established Church as that.
(Cheers, and a laugh.) They had been brought up to
think that this question was associated. with the exis•
tence of the E-tablislied Church, and, therefore, it had
become a matter of sentiment rather than of argu-
ment with them. He had no doubt if church-rates
were abolished to-morrow, all the parish churches In
the country would eventual y be in a much better
state of repair than they were at present. (Hear,
hear ) In the interest of the Church itself he would
ask the house to pass this measure. (Cheers.) They who
brought it forward understood their wants, their claims,
and their rights ; and they knew, from what had taken
place in that house for years and years, that they would !
get what they wanted. (Cneers.) Tcere was on the Trea-
sury bench a Secretary of State who had written an ad-
mirable pamphlet and made several ablr speeches in fa-
vour of the abolition of church-rate'. (Hier, hsar.)
Those who supported the existing system saw continual
defections from their side, while those who lopposed it
had as constantly accession to theirs ; and if there was
any Biil passed to extend parliamentary franchise and
to redistribute the seats, they wh r supported Aurch-
rziNnailsi:dtwseg,dmetahvnead who were already in a minority on the ques-
tion, would dwindle down to a small fraction. (Hear.) I
al-
Why should thoee who supported church-rater go oa
whichtse la
ohauer
dgg
laughter)—he
arguments
feelingyearr_ ea fotif:ret
meant
ta cr
toihun:t:rovyno
.hu armdof a
ibl:rayflo:caoNyn:dieritoilinn;erydeudlrf,i:erVklihtirsy se)ibEinuoc(uld the hon. member for
is
session after session
no on thiswas g sincerity,
Yh:eNebyree)i
gvimwwhjifhaing'
hon,
)Itvgll:::sr—fdpba
in
areoc
hieemthesi,
tie respon e in that hon-o, aseljencot'aewh.
lad
country - (Cheers.)
the member for lilorpeth (Sir G.
the supporters of the bill as to desire that itssohOurldw go
into committee. He (Jar. Brigh,) would may to him
and to every member in the least disposed ro assist then:
Go with us as far as you can ; the further you go
the pleasanter you will find the road ; and let us, with-
out further delay, proceed at once with this bill, the fate
of which has been irrefragably decided." (Loud cheers.)
Mr. STEUART followed in a brief speech, but such
was the impatience of the house to proceed to a division