The Sun.
London, England, 1866-08-02 00:00:00

BILL.

The adjourned debate on Mr. Neate's amendment to the
second reading on this b'll was resumed by
Mr. HENLEY, who believed that the two main provi-
sions relied upon by Mr. Gladstone, as embodying the
principle of the bill, would be found to be most mischievous
in their operation, and he considered that they would inflict
a great blow upon the voluntary system. It would be the
greatest curse to the voluntary system to saddle it with a
machinery of taxation which, though so highly vaunted by
the right hon. member for South Lancashire, would be an
act of the greatest injustice in the agl 'cultural districts. He
proceeded to substantiate this assertion by figures, which
he contended could not be controverted, and ho opposed
the bill on the ground that it would introduce a machines;
which would not only be mischievous, but which would
prove woi ',bless for the purpose for which it was introduced.
Mr. A. PEEL hoped to see a settlement of this much
vexed question, and said he would wept and vote for this
b'll because he saw in it an earnest symptom of that which
he believed we must came to—and which he believed the
sooner we came to it the better—namely, an unconeitional
and untrammelled abolition.
Mr. HUNT would be sorry to see a broad lino of de-
marcation drawn between Churchmen and Dissenters by the
system of ticketing, and he confessed that this bill ticketed
Dissenters by exclusion, because the proposal was that no
person was to vote unless he had previously his name in a
book, stating his willingness to pay church rates. The
principle of the measure lay at the root of the question of
Church and State. He maintained that there could be no
connection between the State and the Church unless there
was legal provision for the repair of the church. He be-
lieved that the signatu•e of the book would afford the
means of putting the screw on conforming ministers, and
he thought this would 1:3 a great ev:l. He should vote for

the second reading of the bill, but ho at the same time
reserved the i:ght to vote against the bill in any future

session.

Mr. GOLDNEY said, as he understood, it was propesed
to allow the bill to pass the second reading, but if they did
so he did not think there was any reason why a clause
might not be introduced in committee similar to what the
hon. member (Mr. Neate) proposed in his amendment.
The object of the WI; as he read it, was that the votes
should be compulsory, but that they should not be com-
pulsm:ly raised by a legal process, and as some such clause
as that to which he had referred might be introduced, he
would vote for the second reading.
Mr. T. CHAMBERS alluded to the great change of sen-
timent in regard to this bill, many of those members who
had at first thanked the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Glad-
stone) and spoken in favour of the bill now coming for-
ward, and expressing themselves entirely in au opposite
sense, and absolutely one or more of them putting their
names on the back of other bills introduced into this
house, entirely inconsistent with the bill of the right hon.
gentleman. They objected to the clause which closed the
courts of law, but that was the veiy clause which he ap-
proved of. He entirely disapproved of all the others, believ-
ing that any attempt at compromise would be hopeless and
unsuccessful. It was an impossible compromise. He be-
lieved that the Church would be as well if not better sup-
ported under the voluntary system than under the com-
pulsory system, but by attempting a compromise they
would lose all the grace of voluntaryism by having that
form of law, and they would lose the form of law by the
rates not being compulsoi;.
Lord J. MANNERS said if the principle of this bill was
accepted it would be better to go the whole length and
adopt the bill of the member for Bury St. Edmunds. He
deprecated the taleng away from the poorer classes of the
country the pHs 'lege hithet Lo guaranteed to them free of
cost, and contended that the bill. would invalidate the
existing relations between the Church and the State.
Alluding to the preamble of the bill the noble lord said the
second clause of it was a charge against a large number of
the people of England—an assumption that they cou'd not
discuss and settle a penny, twopenny, or threepenny rate
without ill-f-eling• He defended the character of his coun-
tiymon against the assault of the i:ght hon. gentleman,
and said that it was a libel on the people of Etikland—
whether Churchmea or Dissenters—to say that they could
not decide in theirproperlyconstitutodlocal courts the very
simple question of the rate which it was desirable to levy.
Further, the bill would divide every parish into two hostile
camps—those who world pay and those who world
not ; and he could not conceive anything more calcu-
lated to lead to local sti'te. He characterised the proposal
as an arrow from the quiver of the hon. member for Bir-
nflgham, and that it would not settle the question. Con-
nected as he (Lord J. Manners) had been with this ques-
tion for several years, he never remembered of any bill
on the subject with regard to which so universal condom;
nation had been expressed has had been expressed out
hon.
gentleman. house with reference to the bil b
l of the right .
gentleman.
character
Sir G. GREY affirmed that the compulsory
of church rates had been done away
• yferable to that
believed the b' Pro
centres of population, and that it Was
,I,Voillt hl
very small parishes. Ho because it left the
nds,
of the member for Bury St. Etonluwhile it did away with
icaon ttihneu large
i n
romle;
jylipnagytmh.cennsrtaabyyi,n
a ltehgaalt process. He
con-
curredgehtbeg
emr mweaasn
manlyTh e
tmhae
machinery
nwweeriryt with ofoe
Mr. Goldney i
the spirit of the amendment of Mr. Neate,
the surplus funds in the hands of
einitthreordubcyedappinropi
aulsogir°dneWshoorpryecaendyedothhi
directed against the abolition of rates, but that question had
Enceclehsiasftitchate cnoornbirnaleti
already been settled by the house, the only diversity of
opinion being on matters of detail, which could be settled in
detail.

—iir.'SELWYN said the bill was a mere repetition of the
proposition made over and over again by the hon. member
for Birmingham and others, and believed it to be destl ac-
tive of tho nationality of the Church. He never could assent
either to its pr!nciples or details, and would far rather ac-
cept a total abolition of church rates. He hoped the mea-
sure would be withdrawn, and that (hiring the recess some
one more worthy of the name of a compromise would be
proposed.

The discussion was continued by Mr. Holden, Mr. sew-
degate, the Solicitor-General, and Mr. Hadfield, after
which

Mr..GLA.DSTQSE said therix4t CQminissioner of Works