The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-18 00:00:00

The reason of the defeat of Mr. WALPOLE'S bill
is now evident. It was defeated because, as almost
every speaker confessed, the time for compromise
is past. Great numbers of Churchmen are as eager
as Dissenters to put an end to the useless struggle.
The latter will never, as Mr. DEEDES, in seconding
the motion to throw obit the Bill, acknowledged,
consent to any compromise. They have it
in their power to inflict an annual debate
most damaging to the Church itself, on the
house; they have the power of harassing half the
clergy in the kingdom in parish parliaments ;
they have the advantage of a law, by which they
are triumphant if in a vestry majority ; and by
which, if in a minority, they can vex the rate-
collector with technical difficulties, which will cost
him more than the rate is worth to overcome.
Dissenters, therefore, are masters of the situation.
They gain, indeed, more in some respects by the
delay of abolition than they would do by carrying
it. The thorough-going Anti-State-Churchmen, as
their own organs let out, will regret the loss of so
good a point of attack on their antagonist. They
do not at all conceal it. They tell us that it is like the
question of a fixed duty on corn ; the longer it is
discussed, the more it will open the eyes of
the public to the merits of Voluntaryism, and
the needlessness of an Establishment. But a
few years ago, indeed, half the honourable mem-
bers, if asked who and what Voluntaries were would
have had to confess their ignorance. Now they
hear the praises of Voluntaryism from almost every
Churchman who opposes the abolition of compul-
sory rates. To be sure he does not so far commend
it as to think he can do without Endowment and
Rates ; but we strongly suspect that such Church-
men are further on the road than they think, that
they will very soon question the utility of their
crutches, and begin to wish to getrid of them and:of
theological debates in Parliament, for ever.
And now, with a majority of 83 against Mr.
WALPOLE'S kindly-meant compromise, and one of
74 in favour of abolition, what will the Lords do ?
Will they this year also hold out against what the
House of Commons has decided for the fourth time ?
True they will have been asked formally but twice
to abolish Church rates; and it generally
has taken very much more asking than
that to teach them a liberal discretion. It seems
to be pleasant to them to have one or two of these i
annual ecclesiastical squabbles with the House of
Commons, by way of showing that they are a
House of Lords. So little they have to do, that
were they not to put themselves in our way every
year we might, forget that there was a House of
Lords. Better be the stumbling-block to religious
liberty than be forgotten. Well, we must leave
the Lords to settle the question for themselves ;
we know, and they know, how it will be settled at
last ; but if they prefer to have a few more years of
conflict with the country, well and good. Well
and good for the country and religious liberty, we
mean. Every good cause is a great gainer by pro-
longed discussion, and by the self-exposure of per-
verse resistance. Lords may lose the respect
of the people, but Church-rate abolition, and
some other ecclesiastical abolitions, will assuredly
lose nothing. Nothing, indeed, so successfully
exposes prejudice and bigotry to deserved
contempt, as their own endeavours to prevent
the increase of religious, social, and political
light. It would be a pleasure certainly, to see
that our House of Peers had become as en

lightened as the people and their representatives,
but should the Peers prove too faithful to their
nature it will be only too pleasant a task to try
another battle with them next year and the next
also. We are happy to see that some peers' sons
are wiser than we fear their fathers will be. It will
however be matter for regret if Lord DERBY cannot
give his vote on the same side as his son. Aboli-
tionists, of course, have noticed that Lords JOHN
RUSSELL and PALMERSTON did not vote at all.
We cannot respect this shirking of public questions
by men who insist so strongly on the poor elector
being compelled to register his vote openly.
Keeping it out of the division lists, and hiding it
away in the lobby of the House of Commons, or in
a member's own private dwelling, is quite as un-
English and cowardly as the poor elector's Ballot
Box.

Once upon a time, according to Lord CLARENCE
PAGET, a vessel was laid down by somebody, or by
" THE SYSTEM" in our Dockyards. But while she
was building, which took a long time, years we
believe, to accomplish, improvements in a ship's
lines were discovered, and steam asserted its naval
claims, and so the good ship on the stocks was first
improved in her bows, then touched up at her stern,
and finally was cut open and lengthened, and the
steam let into her amidships. At last a right good
ship she went forth ready to cruise in the Channel,
or keep watch over Cherbourg, or to sail or steam
round any French frigate—in fact, quite up to the
times.

Now, to us this all reads like a parable. For a
long time, for these five or six years at least, our
political dockyards have seen the good ship Reform
Bill laid down and building. Many unforeseen
hindrances have delayed her completion. Mean-
time some slight alterations have been made in her,
under the surveyorship of Lord JOHN RUSSELL. As
the Fates would have it, however, it became a ne-
cessity that she should be launched for the public
service, under the administration of quite
another surveyor, one whose views of political
shipbuilding have not changed since 1832, and who
is not ashamed to say so. He has therefore brought
the v
rvoesed,sel as nearly as possible to the model then
approved,
and says that she is ready to be
launched.

Meantime, the old surveyor and a new one, late

quite amusing on Tuesday to witness the hopeless
looks, and to hear the ad misereeordiunz appeals of
those faithful sons of the Church, who thought me-
dhoval extortions one of her most blessed privileges
and dearest rights. They spoke as to hardened
sinners and unsentimental men of business; as for
Dissenters, dear good people, erring as they were,
they respected their scruples (they did not respect
them much till Dissenters first got an overpowering
majority to respect them) ; they wished them to be
exempted ; they even admired Dissenters like the
admirable member for Cambridgeshire ; but how,
then, could these pitied and bepraised Dissenters
want to abolish the venerable church-rate ? Why
not write themselves off Dissenters P Or why not
send a notice to the churchwarden that they were
Dissenters, and intended to take no part in either
laying or paying a rate ? Vain, however, was all
the wooing of Mr. BERESFORD HOPE, Mr. SIDNEY
HERBERT, and others. Sir J. TRELAWNY, on behalf
of his clients, sat on the back benches immoveable;
before him, on the left hand of the Speaker, sat
the closely--packed rows of abolitionists ; on
this question he was their acknowledged leader;
he adhered to abolition pure et simple ; and two
hundred and forty-four votes, and forty-one pairs,
supported him in his adherence ! When four
hundred and ninety-six members have thus voted
on a question—and the same number within two
voted last year—and when the votes and pairs in
its favour are nearly half the entire members of the
House, it is surely time that the matter should be
settled.