The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-19 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(THis DAY.)
The SPEAKEIL took the chair at twelve o'clock.
NEW WRIT.

On the motion of Colonel FRENCH, a new writ was
ordered for the county of Longferd, in the room of Colonel
White, who has accepted the Chiltern Hundreds.
WINDOW CLEANING BILL.

Sir C. BUB.RELL moved the second reading of this
bill, and explained that its object was to prohibit the clean-
ing of windows from the outside.
Sir F. GOLDSMID moved, as an amendment, that the
bill be read a second time this day three months. He con-
sidered that the 'subject was not one for further legislation.
The bill, as it stood, carried interference between the em-
ployer and the employed to a most inconvenient extent.
Mr. CAVE said the bill had been introduced from
motives of humanity, and he trusted that it would be read
a second time, so that any imperfections it contained might
be amended in committee.
Sir G. LEWIS admitted that the hon. baronet deserved
credit for the good intentions which hal induced him to
introduce the bill, but he did not think that legislation on
the subject was necessary, and should therefore vote against
the second reading. It had never been the practice of the
legislature to interfere with the labour of adults, 'although
engaged in what were undoubtedly dangerous occupations.
Mr. S. ESTCOURT saw nothing in the bill which could
not be remedied in committee, and under those circum-
stances he trusted that the house would consent to read the
bill a second time.

Mr. MALINS said he had carefully ex9mined the pro-
visions of the bill, all of which were of a benevolent cha-
racter. He certainly felt that many measures had been
passed by the Legislature which were of a much more mis-
chievous and objectionable character.
After a short discussion the house divided, when the
numbers were—

For the second reading
Against it
Majority.
The bill was accordingly lost.
CHURCH RATES' ABOLITION BILL.

Sir J. TRE LAWNY moved the third reading of this bill.
He denied that there was any difference of opinion amongst
those who had voted for the bill, while amongst Churchmen
there was some difference, as appeared from a letter which
had recently been published by the Rev. Mr. Bennett, the
vicar of Frome.

Mr. COLLIER, in seconding the motion, expressed his
satisfaction that Sir John Trelawney had not consented to
postpone the third reading of his bill. The right hon.
gentleman opposite (Mr. S. Estcourt) had submitted a plan
for compromise, but he did not consider that it contained the
elements of success. The learned gentleman criticised at
some length the proposals recently made by Mr. Estcoutt,
remarking that if carried it would tend more than ever to
embarrass the question. So far from being a bill for reliev-
ing from church rates it was a bill for, rendering church
rates permanent. He believed that the only way of settling
the question was by passing a bill for total abolition.
Mr. S. ESTCOURT rose to move as an amendment
that the bill be read a third time this day three months.
He bore the highest testimony to the fairness and courtesy
which he had experienced from the hon. baronet during
the receat negotiations. (Hear.) He should not refer to
his own plan, inasmuch as it having proved a failure,
there would be no use in wearying the house with details
about it. By adopting the bill of the honourable baronet
they would deprive the people of this country of a
right a thousand years old, without proposing any
other provision as a substitute. Such a course would
tend very m aterially to interfere with the true constitu-
tional rights of every community throughout the land.
A Church-rate in its origin did not differ from a Highway-
rate or Poor-rate, or any other rate so far as the consulta-
/ton and decision of the parishioners was concerned. The
bill stated no grievance, and laid down no provision for
the future maintenance of Churches. The real dispute was,
the opponents of this measure were resolved not to give up
their constitutional right to make a rate, while he admitted
the principle of personal exemption. He believed if the
measure were abandoned there would be no real obstacle to
a fair, easy, and equitable adjustment of the question, in-
volving a personal exemption from Church- rates, and he
believed that a large majority of the house was of that
opinion. He hoped, notwithstanding the animus that ap-
peared to exist between the Liberation Society, whose
avowed objectwas the destruction of the Church of England,
and the great body of dissenters, this bill would be rejected.
(Hear, hear.) The hon. baronet who brought in the bill
threatened them that in the event of their not accepting the
present bill he should hand them over to the " secular
arm." Ho did not know what was meant by the secular
arm, unless it was the hon. member for Birmingham. (Hear.)
But if such was to be the case, he for one should not
so much object to the change. He looked upon the bill as
ono of pains and penalties, depriving parties of a right
which they might exercise at their pleasure, and one which
would enable a number of persons to enjoy the luxury of
dissent in secresy and security. The main object of the
bill was not toleration nor the relief of conscience, but
to pull down the Church of England from the position
which she at present occupied, and therefore he trusted the
house would reject it.
Mr. H. LEWIS thought that both sides of the
house must be thankful to the right honourable
gentleman who had addressed the house so admir-
ably on the subject of a compromise. If church rates
had lasted 1,000 years, he thought the time had now come
when they ought to be abolished. The Church ought to
live in the hearts of the people, which it could not do if
these dreadful bickerings were allowed longer to continue.
If church rates were abolished he believed a festering sore
would be removed, and the greatest good would follow such
determination. (Hear.) He was highly in favour of the
voluntary principle, from a feeling that true Protestants
would never allow their ancient fabrics to fall into decay
through want of repair. Some of the noblest and
grandest works in the country were the result of that
principle, and therefore he should give his vote in favour
of the second reading of the bill of the hon. member for
Tavistock.
Mr. CROSS thought that a majority of the people were
in favour of a settlement of this question. (Hear.) Ho did
not think the proposahfor the entire, immediate, and un-
conditional repeal of church rates on the feeling of no sur-
render which prevailed with some members, was the proper
way to settle the disputed question. He thought that par-
ties who entertained these opinions were in the minority,
and that the true way to settle the question was by personal
exemption. He should vote against the second reading of
the bill.
Sir G. LEWIS said the obje: tion to the payment of church
rates was not owing to the pecuniary pressure of the tax,
but solely as a pressure on conscience, and he thought that
a final settlemont of the question could not be much longer
delayed. The vestry cess of Ireland was analogous. on the
ground of conscience. The argument that the abilition of
the rate destroyed the nationality of the Church was aban-
doned in the case of Ireland. While ready to give his vote
for the third reading of this bill—(hear, hear)—he was
still prepared to discuss the proposition of a substitute for
church rates, as was proposed by the other side. Refer-
ring to those plans, he contended that personal exemption
did away with the principle of a national rate, and admitted
that of abolition. He was in favour of neither of the plans
that had been submitted to the house. If the bill passed it
would leave the law in an unsatisfactory state, and his idea
of the settlement of the question was that, in t
stance, a charge should be mad? upmoadnny,
a who
church, upon a list of whom being attendedcompulsory
ireacttei
omni gtoh tthbeo :Iptipcokseedttinognutohfemp.isseTntsrsruld meet the ob-
Alr. NEWDEGtA TmEaktehtohueghstupthpeorptroofpethr
ewfaaybroife seotftltihnge
this question was o
national church a charge on property.
Mr. BUXTON thought the time had come for an equi-
table compromise. He thought that the proposal of the
right hon. gentleman opposite was a very liberal proposal,
and he had no doubt that it would eventually lead to the
total abolition of church rates. _ _

Mr. BRIGHT said he was heartily tired of these Church
rates, as he had taken part in their discussion for the last
17 years. He could not accept the compromise proposed,
but he thought the proposition showed that some progress
had been made in the subject, although we were a slow
people, with a slower Parliament. Ho thought that,
in the course of next year, in the event of
nothing being done this, that some plan would be
devised for the amicable solution of church rates. It was
already agreed that only Churchmen ought to pay church
rates. Why is it that the different plans do not succeed ?
Why, because they don't hit the particular gievance—which
was, that they did not get rid of the appearance of legal
supremacy in Churchmen over Dissenters in this matter.
He also had a plan. (Laughter) He did not offer it as an
original one, but as so many persons had offered their plans
he did not see why he should be precluded from offering one
to the house. His plan was that which had been
in operation in Manchester ever since he had known
it, viz., to levy an optional rate, which might be levied by
the existing machinery, only abolishing the legal compul-
sion to pay. If it was proposed that the present bill should
pass, with a proviso that it should not come into operation
for three or five years, he believed that such a proposition
would not be rejected by the advocates of the abolition of
church rates. If the house had only taken his
advice years ago, what a deal of the unpleasant-
ness that now existed would have been prevented.
He should vote for the third reading of the bill.
_ _

After a few observations from Mr. HUBBARD,
Mr. STAN SFELD altogether denied that the
operations of the Liberation Society were identi-
fied with the abolition of church rates, or that
the abolition of those rates was a step towards the content
plated destruction of the Church. He thought all scanhety
00
of compromise vain, mischievous, and dangerous,
come
believing ho did think that the Church would soon
to
to a like conclusion. He preferred the voluntary system
Pthe obser-
Mr. WIIITESIDE having commented upon
ded him said there
all the schemes and compromises that had been 'reposod. I
vations of the several speakers that preeirenanifeste,d_,
did not appear to be much conces io because
the rate. Tie thought
direct bill for the total abolitione
bpractically settled by an
that the question could onlyt.
they had met the compromise thaoftsb:d been offered with a
equitable and just arrant
•274
For the third reading 274
The house then divided,
there appeared—
Against it .......... ceived with tremendous cheer-
inga tie a tie."
and cries of " ,
waosccruerred in an earlier stage
then rose, and having declared
it '
The SPE AK b
..
theTheannoun
numbers, said, if the equality of voices on
comhendt
his' measure a
oft the question he should have followed the ordinary practice,
and given his vote in such a manner as to give the house
another opportunity of considering the subject. But that
did not necessarily prevail on the third reading of a bill.
As far as he could gather the opinion of the house it ap-
peared to him that there was an opinion favourable to some
settlement different to that contained in the bill then before
them. He thought he should be best doing his duty
if he gave the house an opportunity of considering the
subject, Rd JAQ §1191,1,1d tlavoi9re giyQ Aits y9tQ F.P/A6t