The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-06 00:00:00

BILL.

Mr. M. 'MILNE S, in moving the second reading of this
bill, said he believed that the principle of the measure could
not be impugned. It was most unjust to treat this class of
officials to whom the bill referred in a position different
to other public functionaries who received retiring allow-
ances.' He did not consider that there was any body of
men in the civil service who were more deserving of the
gratitude of the country than these men, wile rendered the
most important services in the arduous position in whieh
they were placed. The time had gone by when the prison
officer formed the subject of portraiture by the novelist,

and was hold up to the ridicule and abhorrence of the

humane and enlightened members of society. He did not
propose the remuneration to these men on retirement to be
paid out of the Consolidated Fund, but out of local taxation.
After a short discussion, the house divided—
For the motion
Against it
Majority _79
The bill was consequently lost.
QUALIFICATION FOR OFFICES BILL.

This bill passed though committee, Mr. SOTHERON
ESTCOURT reserving his threatened opposition until the
third reading.
CHURCH RATES ABOLITION BILL.

On the motion that the house go into committee on this
bill,

Mr. NEWDEGATB rose and
.moped the following
amendment :
"Thatthis house will, to-morrow, resolve itself into Com-
mittee, to consider the propriety of establishing in lieu of
church-rates, thenceforth to be abolished, a charge on all
hereditarnents, in respect of the occupancy of which church-
rates have been paid within the last seven years ; such
charge to be levied with the county-rate at an uniform rate
of poundage, the occupier being in all cases entitled to de-
duct from his rent the amount of the charge levied on his
occupation."

He said he had been induced to adopt this course
in order to allay the agitation which had so long
existed on this subject ; and in the interests of
peace, the interests of religion, he hoped the house would
grant him the committee he asked for. He objected alto-
gether to exempt any person from the payment of church
rates on the ground of religious scruplds. He contended
that what he proposed was consistent with the opinions of
some very eminent men, who looked altogether on church
rates as a tax on property. He proposed to fix the rate of
church charges at 2d. in the pound, which was to be col-
lected in all parishes where church rates had been levied
during the last seven years, and paid over to the Clerk of
the Peace, and by him transferred over to the Governors
of Queen Anne's Bounty, and he selected that body be-
cause it was not exclusively clerical. The governors
would be required to act as treasurers of this fund, and in
the event of more being collected than was required for
Church purposes, then the surplus was to be allowed to
accumulate for the benefit of the parish in which it was col-
lected, and so become a fund liable for any extraordinary
demand. In the event of the surplus fund being expended
in the creation of an endowment, then all further charges
were to cease and determine. In the event of this commit-
tee being appointed, he should move a resolution accepting
the whole bill as it stands, but expressing an opinion that
church rates ought to be commuted for a church charge at
the rate of - pence in the pound. He hoped the house
would accept the course he proposed, and thus remove a
great source of discord.
Mr. SELWYN seconded the motion.

Mr. ALCOUK objected to the amendment.
Mr. BALL said he could not agree to the resolution of
the hon. member for Warwickshire. He looked upon it
as an emblem of strife, and an opening of a new controversy
in a question which now so greatly divides Churchmen
and Dissenters. He objected to it on the ground that it
was opposed to the determination the house had already
come to, viz., that church rates shall be abolished, and
also because it would entirely preclude the possibility that
now appeared to exist ofputting an end to the heartburnings
that had existed for so many years between Churchmen
and Non-conformists. The hon. gentleman was about to
reply to certain observations that had been made in refer-
ence to "Essays and Reviews," when
Sir G. C. LEWIS rose to order. The right hon. gentle-
man was out of order in referring to that subject, as it was
not for the purpose of throwing any new light on the sub-
ject under discussion, but, on the contrary, would intro-
duce a theological question into the debate.
Mr. BALL said he thought it unfair to take the objection
at that moment. It ought to have been done when the
subject was introduced, and not when a reply was about to
be made to those observations. (Hear, hear.)
Sir G. C. LEWIS said he was not in the house when
the subject was first referred to.
Mr. BALL would not pursue the subject further—(hear,
hear)—as he was prevented referring to that book which
he was very glad had been reprobated by the whole Bench
of Bishops. He trusted the amendment would be rejected.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said he should not go into the gene-
ral subject of church rates, but should confine himself to
the amendment before the house. To him there appeared
two extreme parties at variance on this question. One was
the extreme or no-surrender-party, and the other, which
simply advocated the abolition of church rates, and between
them there was an intermediate class who, finding the pre-
sent law could not be maintained, were anxious to devise
some scheme of a compulsory kind. He could not but look
upon the amendment of the hon. member for Warwickshire
as a proposal that would strengthen the law as it existed
on the subject, and tended to revive all those bitter differ-
ences which now seemed on the point of being reconciled.
(Hear, hear.)
Lord R. CECIL considered that the proposed amend-
ment belonged to the no surrender class, and therefore it
ought to be rejected.

Viscount ENFIELD said he had invariably, although a
member of the Established Church, voted against the re-
tention of church rates, but he protested against the opi-
nions expressed by the hon. member for Birmingham (Mr.
Bright) on the question.
Mr. STBUART objected to the amendment.
Sir J. TRELAWNY said the proposition of the hon.
gentleman opposite would make the rate quite a compul-
sory one. The sum proposed to be collected as a church
charge was ill defined and very unsatisfactory, for it did not
state whether it was levied on the owners or occupiers of
the property. He thought a fixed charge would
greatly aggravate the grievance ; and while that
was the case he had not stated why he
did not impose the same oharge in parishes that had sue
cceded in gettin.; rid altogether of church-rates. He could
only look upon the proposition as one that was well calcu-
lated to perpetuate the injustice which had been so long
and so loudly complained ef.
Mr. SELWYN hoped the hon. member, seeing that the
feeling of the house was against him, would withdraw the
amendment. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. NE WDEGATE said, after the opinions that had
been expressed, he would not attempt to divide. (Hear,
bear.) With the permission of the house, he would wish
to withdraw the clause. (Hear, hear.)
The amendment was then, by leave, withdrawn, and the
house then went into committee.

On clause 1 being proposed,.
Mr. CROSS moved, in line 12, the omission of the words
"in any parish in England and Wales," and in its
place to insert the following :—" No church-rate
shall be made or levied in any parish in which no
church rate has been made or levied during the seven years
previous to the passing of this act; and no chureh rate
shall be levied upon any person who shall have delivered
or sent by post to the churchwardens during the
month of January in such year a declaration,
under his hand, that he bona fide objects to the
payment of church rates : provided always, that no person
so exempted shall be entitled during such year to vote or
act in vestry in the parish in reference to the mak-
ing, levying, or application of any church rate, or the
application of any money applicable to like purposes ; and
no church rate shall be made for other than the following
purposes :—Repairing and maintaining the fabric of the
parish church ; and repairing and maintaining the church-
, and or burial-ground of the parish church."
Sir J. TRELAWNY, although he thought the amend-
ment unnecessary, should not object to the proposal of the
hon. gentleman opposite.
Sir W. HEYGATE advised the house to accept the
present compromise. He had lately returned from the
canvass of a very extensive county town, and he could
assure the house the opinion of nonconformists was not at
all fairly represented in that house. They were disposed to
compromise, and it would be exceedingly unwise to longer
delay the settlement of this question.
Mr. ADDERLEY opposed the amendment. He was
quite content with the law as it at present stood.
Mr. B. STANHOPE was favourably disposed towards a
compromise of this question ; but it was not, as had
been observed by the honourable member for Birmingham,
because he considered his side of the house had been con-
quered, that therefore they were willing to give up every-
thing.

Arr. HENEAGE supported the amendment.
Sir J. PAKINGTON could not help congratulating the

house on the tone the debate had taken. He' perfectly
recollected the difficulties that had met all attempts at com-
promise that had been made. His opinions on this
question had not been changed by the argiments"of the
hon. member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright.) His opinion
remained precisely what it was in 1858, when he expressed
a desire that the question should be considered ;with a view
to arrive at some settlement upon the principle of fair and
moderate concession. The present state of the law, he was
convinced, did an injury to the Church, as well as unaccept-
able to Dissenters. The annual squabble on church rates
brought a scandal on religion, but he thought that the efforts
now making would terminate in such a way as to be ac-
ceptable to both parties. He thought, however, that the
best course the hon. member for Preston could pursue
would be to withdraw thearnendment which he had moved,
and introduce it as a specific proposition.
After a short discussion,
Mr. CROSS said he would conform to the course pro-
posed by the hon. baronet. He would therefore with-
draw the amendment on the understanding that on
an early day he should introduce a separate bill embodying
the proposals of those amendments. (Hear.)
The amendment was then withdrawn.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE then moved the following amend-
ment to the first clause : After " Wales," add "nor
shall any money raised under any other rate be, applied
to any of the purposes for which a church rate is levied."
His great object was to prevent money raised in parishes
as poor or other rates to be applied as a substitute
for church rates. The amendment, he considered, could do
no harm.

Mr. SELWYN opposed the amendment. It was
framed for the purpose of repealing a number
of Meal acts and set aside certain customs without the house
hnviag the slightest knowledge as to what they were.
After a few words from Mr. DUNCOMBE, the amendment
was withdrawn.

The clause was then agreed to.
The remaining clauses, 2,3, and 4, were also agreed to,
amidst loud cries of " Hear, hear."
The house resumed.

The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the house adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-(YESTERDAY.)
ADMIRALTY COURT JURISDICTION BILL.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the second reading
of this bill, which be said, was one of much importance
to the mercantile marine of this country, and its object
was to enlarge the jurisdiction and improve the
proceedings in the High Court of Admiralty. The
causes tried in the court last year amounted to 1,618, and
the average cost of each suit was £974. With respect to
the jurisdiction of the court, it was at present somewhat
circumscribed, but the present bill was to extend the juris-
diction to owners of all ships not residing within the juris-
diction of the court. The bill also, in his opinion,
made other great kuprovements in the law with respect to
salvage and the mode of proceeding with causes
in the court. If the bill received the sanction of Parlia-
ment he had no doubt it would be hailed by all parties
interested as a great improvement in the law as it stood
previous to the passing of the bill.
Lord CRANWORTH agreed with the Lord Chancellor
in holding that the introduction of trial by jury into the
Admiralty Court would be productive of the most mischiev-
ous effects. At present the judge of the Admiralty Court
was assisted by two nautical persons, and the witnesses
might be examined viva voce. The Judicial Committee of
the Privy Council were also assisted by two other nautical
men, but they had no power of examining witnesses, and
could not judge of the value of the witnesses by their de-
meanour. He, therefore, did not see any probability of the
appeal court arriving at a better conclusion than the origi-
nal tribunal. As the bill stood, there was a right of appeal
on all interlocutory proceedings, with the consent of the
judge, and he suggested that an appeal on matters of fact
should notbe allowed, unless the judge thought fit to autho-
rise it. (Hear, hear.)
Lord CHELMSFORD said that in the great majority of
cases the proceedings in the Admiralty Court were carried
on by depositions, and in 99 out of every 100 collision cases
the plaintiff was sure to gain. He should like to know the
number of appeals in collision cases, and in how' many.
in-
stances the decree of the Admiralty Contt , beta re;
versed. The questions involved werl`e oft60141:411001151T:
tante to ;the- 11AiOnt,arties,„: the/ eftie*:-.71-grte rilt-'
contradictory, the p6ints were frequently of a ProfeSsional
nature, and he thought that the commercial classes would
view with alarm any proposal to abolish appeals alto-
gether. (Hear.)

After a few words from Lord WENSLEYDALE,
Lord KINGSDOWN said he had always held it to be
necessary that in all.proceedir4s,,.in order to secure the
fullest and most deliberate invOfigit'fan,lfheie should be a
court of appeal, whicn should, when necessary, review the de-
cision of the courts below, and settle the law. This was more
particularly necessary in regard to the Court of Admiralty,
No one could bear stranger testimony to the ability and
care displayed by the learned.judge who presided over this
Court, but it was impossible altogether to avoid mistakes.
Those who supported the amendment scarcely understood
the mode of procedure in the court. It would, in fact, be
utterly impossible to carry out the bill as it stood now with-
out altering the whole procedure of the court. There was
always great contradiction in the evidence, and when, after
considerable difficulty, it had been settled what the facts of
the ease were, and their bearing had been explained, the
judge retired with the nautical assessors, consulted with
them apart, and then returned anil gave judgment at once,
without ever stating which particular facts had been found
and which had not. It was impossible, therefore, with such
a procedure to separate facts from law, or to say which were
matters of law, of fact, or of seamanship. Without the bill
was altered, therefore, it would be necessary to alter the
procedure of the court.
After few words from the Earl of Powis,
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, he wished it to be
generally known that the clause taking away the right of
appeal was not suggested by the learned judge of the court,
who would most willingly allow his decisions to be re-
viewed. The suggestion was his own ; but he had becoffe
a convert to the opinions which had been expressed in the
course of this discussion. He would, therefore, in commit-
tee move that this clause be struck out; so that things
would remain as they were.

The bill was then read a second time:
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following bills were read a second time :—Devon
Central Railways ; Edinburgh, Perth, an -I Dundee Rail-
ways (Queensferry Branches) ; Merionethshire Railway ;
Great Dover Road; and Wexford Harbour Commissioners.