The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-20 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,

HOUSE OF COMMONS—YESTERDAY.
The SPEAKER took the chair at twelve o'clock.
NEW WRIT.
Oa the motion of Colonel FRENCH, a new writ was
ordered for the county of Longford, in the room of Colonel
White, who has accepted the Chiltern Hundreds.
WINDOW CLEANING BILL.
Sir C. BURRELL moved the second reading of this
bill, and explained that its object was to prohibit the clean-
i ing of windows from the outside.
Sir F. GOLDSMID moved, as an amendment, that the
bill be read a second time that 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 had induced him to
introduce the bill, but ho 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 examined 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 79
Majority.. —4l
The bill was accordingly lost.
CHURCH RATES ABOLITION BILL.
Sir J. THE 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 Trelawny 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 ho did not consider that it contained the
elements of success. The learned gentleman criticised at
some length the proposals recently made by Mr. Estcourt,
remarking that if carriedthey 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 that day three months.
He bore the highest testimony to the fairness and courtesy
which he had experienced from the hon. baronet during
the recent 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 materially 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-
tion and decision of the parishioners were 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 ho 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." He 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 ehange. He looked upon the bill as
one 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 secrecy 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.) He did
not think the proposal for the entire, immediate, and un-
conditional repeal of church rates, or 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 satle the question was by personal
exemption. He should vote against the second reading of
the bill.
Sir G. LEWIS said the objection 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 thougiit that
a final settlement 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 abolition 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 tors 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 the first in-
stance, a charge should be made upon those who attended
church, upon a list of whom being made out a compulsory
rate might be imposed on them. This would meet the ob-
jection to the " ticketing" of Dissenters.
Mr. NEWDEGATE thought the proper way of settling
this question was to make the support of the fabric of the
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, es he had taken pert in their discussion for the last
17 years. He could not accept the compromise proposed,
but he thought the proposition sho red that some progress
had been made in the subject, although we were a slow
people, with a slower Parliament. He thought that,
in the course of next year, in the event of
nothing being done this year, 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 machine:y, only abolishing the legal compul-
sion to pay. If it was proposed that the present bill should
pass, with a proviso that it shor'd 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 reeling of the bill.
After a few observations from Mr. HUBBA.RD,
Mr. STANSFELD 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 wewet a step towards the contem-
plated destruction of the Church. He thought all schemes
of compromise vain, mischievous, and dangerous, and so
believing, he did think that the Church would soon come
to a like conclusion. He Keferred the voluntary system to
all the schemes and compromises that had been proposed.
Mr. WHITESIDE having commented upon the obser-
vations of the several speakers that preceded him, said there
did not appear to be much concession manifested, because
they had met the comnromise that had been offered with a
direct bill for the tota. abolition of the rate. He thought
that the question cor-d only be practically settled by an
equitable and just arrangement.
The call for a division now became loud and general.
The SPEAKER having put the question, the " Ayes"
and "Noes" were enunciated with nearly equal volume.
The "Noes," however, prevailed. Tb e SDaono. amaared
the "Noes" had it.

A number of members on the Ministerial side exclaimed
" The Ayes' have it;" whereupon the house divided, the
"Ayes" proceeding to the right, the "Noes" to the left.
As soon as members voted they proceeded to resume their
places in the house ; and so great was the anxiety to hear
the numbers that every seat and the main entrance up to
the bar were crowded. The tellers for both sides having
completed their tale and entered the house from opposite
lobbies, to hand in the numbers to the clerk at the table, at
precisely the same moment—a very unusual circumstance,
indicating that the division must have been extremely
close—increased the excitement, which had now become
very general. When the teller for the " Ayes" (Sir John
Trelawny) received the numbers from the clerk to announce
them to the 11011,80--4 duty always asginod tp the

the majority—the impression was that, of course, the third
reading of the bill had been carried, and a loud triumphant
shout immediately arose from the Ministerial benches,
which for some time prevented the declaration of the
numbers.
The numbers were—
Aye 5........
........................ 274
Noes ................................ 274
The announcement was received with loud resonant cheers
from both sides. The excitement which bad prevailed now
became still more intense and eager to know on which side
the Speaker would give his casting vote.
The SPEAKER, who spoke amid profound silence, said
—lf the equality of voices had arisen in an earlier stage of the
bill, I should have had no difficulty in the course to be pur-
sued; because, guided by a rule which has been established
by many able men who have preceded me in this chair, I
should have desired so to vote as to give the house another
opportunity of deciding the question for itself, rather than
to have taken that decision into my hands. But that rule
does not prevail on the third reading of a bill. We have
now reached the third reading of this bill, and I find that
the house hesitates, and is unable to express a decision or to
give any determination whether this law shall stand or
shall be changed. As far as I can collect the opinion of
the house from the course of the debate, I think the gene-
ral opinion of the house is in favour of some settlement of
this question different from that which is contained in the
bill—(loud Opposition cheers)—and I think I shall best
discharge my duty by leaving to the future and deliberate
determination of this house the question whether a change
in the law should be made, if the house should think right
so to do, rather than by taking upon myself the responsi-
bility of that change. I therefore give my voice with the
"Noes." (Loud and continued cheering from the Opposi-
tion benches.)
The third reading of the bill was accordingly negatived.
COUNTY VOTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill, and con-
tinued so until the chairman was compelled, in accordance
with the standing order, to report progress.
The bill was ordered to be proceeded with on Wednesday
next.
EAST INDIA COUNCIL AND HIGH COURT OF
JUDICATURE (INDIA)
The resolution agreed to on this subject. yesterday was
reported to the house.
VANSITTART asked whether it was proposed
to proceed with the India Civil Service Bill (No.
3) tomorrow.
Sir C. WOOD said it was his intention to proceed with
bills 1 and 2 to-morrow, but not with No. 3 bill.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the house adjourned.