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

OITDE.

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
he basis of the future Government of India.
INCOME TAX.
Sir J. V. SHELLEY presented petitions from tli
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
derived 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 c f religion, more than
he did, but he apprehended that in this case the objec-
tion to pay ehurch rates resulted from a le.zs 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 wai 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. Mialt, a great writer as well
as 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
came with a bad grace from the ministerial side of the
house, becanie, 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
thone;ht 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 on the affections of
the people for her support.
Mr. PUGS (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 for ever. England was
the only country in which these scandals could arise
about repairing the fabric of the Church.

Mr. S. 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 ma❑
should contribute towards anything front which he dis-
sented. (Hear, hear.) He wished to relieve Dissenters
from the tax, but in return they must abstain from
♦oting for churchwardens, and other matters relating to
the Church. Such a compromise was proposed on a
former occasion by Mr. R. Phillimore, but rejected on
the ground, as he believed, that the abolition of the
Church-rates, as now proposed, would be 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, heart) lie objected to its being attempted by a
side wind like 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.

Lord 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
npoi this sage. On the contrary, he believed it abao.
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 for any considerable period ;
and, looking at the momentous in. erests which were at
stake, he was of opinion that further consideration ought
to be bestowed upon the principle before they settled
the detalls 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 wik.h the right hoe. baronet (Sir G.
Grey) had jest expressed his r a liness to vote for 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-
rates, they could only in justice and in equity be com-
plained 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 had either
inherited or purchased of an obligation to maintain the
fobric and support the services of the church. The ques-
tion was one which affected Dissenters alone. Now the
people of this country were jealously sensitive on the
subject of the rights of conscience, and you had nothing
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 objec-
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 rot only of Di--
'enters, but of rich and itiguential Churchmen.
(Hear, hear.) For his part, ho bad al ways 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 bill was that
it totally 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 that it was
necessary in order to set 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 had 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 stand up for the rights of the majoirty could
answer such a question as this in the affirmative. Then
the preamble set forth that "in 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 and litigation thus produced. In how many
parishes, if any, bad it been engendered ? What was the
acianterbalancing advantage which the poor obtained by
the continuance of church-rates ? And what would be
the effect of the abolition of that system? Now, he was
osrtainly bound to admit that if the amount 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 and
litigation bad been small, it was owing rather to 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 consider-
able number of parishes which heretofore had granted
church-rates had since refused them; and, indeed, the re-
sult of the best researches he had been able to make into
this question was, that during 1857, while church-rates
had been
had pbreoposed and carried in no less than 70 parishes
they
been opposed and defeated in no more than 24
throughout
and litigietigoirde. d But, whatever might he the ill-
willaccount to abrogaa the system ought they simply on that
altogether, and without
inquiry ? Could any one sap that
. poor-rates, highway-
did not give rise to ill-will and litiga-
tion ? In 1856 he found that nolessthan 1.14,000/. was
expended in litigation in consequence
Luc system of
poor-law management supported hOf
yease
Surely, therefore; it was necessary to penet;:e e
at (Hear.)
more into the surface before they abrogated the systemlitt
le
of church-rates on the grounds submitted. He should
next proceed to ask what were the results which fiswed
from the maintenance of the system of church-rates.. It
was impossible, he should contend, that any. nne could
possess an acquaintance with the '
various rural parishes`
throughout the country and
no?feel that an immense
amount of temporal as well as spiritual good was effected
by means of a eels_ which, without the necessity of
posing the smallest charge upon the poorer classes in the
community, provided for the support of the fabric of the