The Sun.
London, England, 1866-03-08 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.---There is probably no question upon
which the country is more sincerely desirous to ob-
tain a permanent settlement than that of church
rates, which was yesterday discussed in the House
of Commons. For more than 30 years, as Mr.
Hardcastle reminded his hearers, has the subject
been debated, and as many as 36 distinct attempts
have been made to settle it. It has been discussed
with equal vehemence out of the house and in the
house. The nature of the right has been brought
before courts of law until it has been reduced to a
mere skeleton of legality. Governments, Parlia-
mentary committees, and private members have all
endeavoured to bring the struggle to a conclusion,
and every form of settlement has been proposed.
Compromises of all sorts, commutation, transmuta-
tion, personal exemption, have each had their turn,
and each, so far, has failed. Total abolition, to
which the question was finally narrowed, appeared
to share at length the fate of all other proposals.
The majority in favour of that measure gradually
dwindled during the seven years' existence of the
last Parliament, and at last became a minority.
Upon this the proposals of compromise again reap-
peared, but, it was evident, with no better chance
of success. The struggle has hitherto resembled
the early phases of the American war, in which it
seemed that either party was strong enough to de-
feat the attacks of the other, and neither was able
to gain a decisive victory. The question has, in
fact, been in abeyance during the last two sessions,
for Mr. Newdegate's Commutation Bill scarcely re-
ceived or deserved serious discussion. The strong
feeling, however, which had prompted the struggle
was by no means allayed by the temporary armistice,
and the opening of the present Parliament was
anxiously looked forward to as the period for re-
commencing the war. The debate, accordingly, was
reopened yesterday on a motion by Mr. Hardcastle
for the total abolition of the rate, and the dis-
cussion afforded ample evidence that the interest
taken in the subject was by no means diminished iu
warmth. We wish it were possible to add that
the division holds out a favourable prospect of a
settlement. A majority of 33 in a very full house
furnishes unquestionably a distinct decision infavour
of total abolition, but it is scarcely so overwhelming
a victory as might have been expected in the new
House of Commons. The strange uncertainty,
moreover, thrown over the point at issue by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, who spoke on one side
but voted on the other, renders the significance of
the division somewhat obscure. As Mr. Gladstone
declared he could not consent to an unconditional
abolition of church rates, it must be supposed that
he voted in favour of the bill with the idea of intro-
ducing some compromise in committee, and, as Mr.
Bright spoke in something of the same sense, it is
impossible to say how far a similar feeling may have
affected the votes of other members. Before the
house rose, Mr. Waldegrave Leslie gave notice of
his intention to propose in committee some clauses
to this effect, and we can hardly expect, therefore,
that the division of yesterday has advanced us very
far in the solution of the difficulty. Whether or no,
however, the question be at length approaching its
practical solution, it is clear from the debate that
there is one point on which all parties are at length
agreed. Almost every one confesses that those who
conscientiously object to the payment of the rate
ought to be exempted from it. The Conservatives
who spoke yesterday were anxious to take credit for
having held out the olive branch to Dissentersuntil,
as Mr. Du Cane said, " their arms ached ;" but if the
Dissenters would clutch it they profess their readi-
ness to hold it out again. Every one, in short, pro-
fessed his wish for a compromise ; and every one
knows that a compromise means, in some form or
other, the exemption of Dissenters. One would have
thought that, with this point settled, there could
be no practical difficulty in coming to a conclusion.
To say that no one should be taxed against his will
is to say that compulsory taxation ought to be
abolished ; and it is difficult to see how those who
accept the former proposition can refuse to admit
the latter. The debate seems to be reduced to a
question of " what's in a name ?" The subtle pro-
posal which suspended Mr. Gladstone on a razor's
edge, and which Mr. Bright claims the credit of
having originated, would abolish the reality, but
leave the name. Mr. Bright would be content to
have the rate rendered no longer compulsory ; he
would " abolish the magistrates, the summonses,
and the bailiffs," but would leave to church people
the power, which they would equally possess were
there no law on the subject at all, of taxing them-
selves. Mr. Gladstone, it seems, would go somewhat
further than this, and would not be content with-
out " a definite enactment" that those who did not
contribute to the rate should have no right to inter-
fere in the management of the money that was col-
lected. It must be obvious that such a provision
would be more significant than the simple abolition,
on the brink of which Mr. Gladstone hesitates. The
Legislature has hitherto most carefully abstained
from any act which would involve a denial that all ,
Englishmen are members of the National Church ;
but legally to exclude half the inhabitants of a
pariah from interfering in Church matters would prat- 1