The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-16 00:00:00

BELFAST ELECTION.

On the motion of Mr. O'CONNELL the followity,
Members Were appointed a Select Committee on the
Belfast election :—Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Beckett
Denison, Mr. Cripps, Mr. East, Mr. Liddell, Mr. Ellice,
jun., Mr. Protheroe, and Sir Benjamin Hall. Power to
send for persons, papers, aud records.

Mr. OCONNEEL then moved that the .Committee
have the power to inquire into alleged bribery and
treating at the said election.
Sir J. GRAHAM inquired (as we understood) what
the motion of the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman was.
' Mr. O'CONNELL said he had given notice that
he should move that the ComMittee should have the
power of inquiry into alleged bribery and treating, but
instead of that it was taken on the notice paper, that
they should have power to send for persons, papers, and
records. If, under those circumstances, the motion
• should remain as it was, he would not offer any objection.
Mr. HATTON hoped that the -same precautions
should be taken to secure attendmice'of the members of
the Committee, us had been in the case of the Commit-
tee appointed on the motion of the Hon. and Learned
Member for Bath.

Mr. O'CONNELL bail understood from gentlemen
connected with the Government that five out of the
nine would attend. He (Mr. O'Connell) had ascertained
that ti:ree out of the remaining'four would attend, and
he had every reason to believe that there would be a full
attendance of the Members.

Sir R. INGLIS would not trouble the House by
pressing the matter to a division, but his opinions were
the same on this matter as he 'had expressed on
former occasions. When the Right Honourable Ba-
ronet, at the head of her Majesty's Government, con-
curred in the :measure, it would be but giving the
House unnecessary trouble to divide ; but he wished
merely to record his opinion.:
Mr. DARBY thought that the customary and proper
notice should be given in this matter.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that the fact was, that he had
given the notice he had mentioned, btit that it was taken
down inaccurately. As the period of inquiry must be
much later than he.could wish, it was desirable to have
as much expedition as possible. He should then hope
that the motion, as now proposed, would be agreed to.
Sir R. PEEL said his Hon. Friend had again referred
to him, and he, therefore, 'had again to repeat that all
he asked was to be allowed to -exercise his own indi-
vidual judgment.—(Cheers.) He did not in any way
wish to influence any one. He hal not asked any man
to vote for him, bat he claimed the right of deckling
what course he should take.---(Cheers.) Consider-
ing the appearances of compromiSe, and consider-
ing that considerable bribery . prevailed, he then
stated his deliberate opinion that he did not
think it would be to the character or credit of the
Huuse.of Commons to put this question on one side
solely on account of technical objections.—(Lord cheers.)
He wished to maintain the House of Comthons as he
found it, he wished to prevent the recurrence of these
compromises, which were constitutional changes ; and if
the House of Commons were to refuse this inquiry in
cases of this nature he was perfectly persuaded that they
would find more eifficulty to refuse further consti-
tutional changes, when one person said, if you will
protect my friend I will protect yours. He did
not think this would be upholding the character of the
House of Commons. He gave public notice that he never
would act on that principle. If the parties were guilty
of corrupt compromises for- -the purpose of concealing
inquiry into practices of bribery, he.would not use the
influence. of party to prevent that inquiry.—(Oh.) He
did not say that. any party then had committed bribery,
but he
.would say for one, that he never would
use • the influence of party for the purpose of
preventing inquiry into prima facie. cases of bribery.—
(Loud cheering.) He thought that such a course would
have a great tendency to diminish the character of the
House of Commons.—(Cheers.) Those who were
guilty of bribery, if there were any, must take the con-
sequences, for he gave them public notice that he would
not exercise his influence for the purpose of preventing
inquiry.—(Great cheering.)
Sir R. INGLIS said his Right Hon. Friend had quite
misapprehended his meaning. He did not accuse his
Right Hon. Friend of using the influence of his office for
this or that purpose. He had stated simply the fact,
that in a case in which his Right Honourable Friend
and the . Noble Lord at the head of the Opposition
,concurred, it was in vain to expect to divide success-
fully against them; and that for that-reason, though he
retained the opinion which he had expressed in con-
junction with those who voted with him, in the case of
Belfast and Nottingham, it would be. painful to be
found again in fruitless opposition.
Mr. O'CONNELL then moved for leave to bring in a
Bill to indemnify witnesses who may give evidence before
the Committee to be appointed by. this. House, to inquire
whether a corrupt compromise has been entered into for
the purpose of avoiding investigation into gross and ex-
tensive bribery, and gross. and corrupt. personation of
voters, and consequent perjury,:. alleged to have been
practised at the late election fur Belfast. •
Sir R. PEEL said he had stated, yesterday that he
thought the House of Commons ought to rely, in the
first- instance, upon its own constitutional powers. If
they found those powers insufficient, it would be time to
make alterations.. He hoped the Right. lion. Gentleman
would not, at present, ask for additional powers.
Mr. O'CONNELL said he had been apprehen-

sive, from what had formerly passed, tliat the
great powers were insufficient, but after what had fallen
from the Right Hon. Baronet, he would withdraw his
motion. '
Mr. lIAWES said as the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R.
Inglis) had given notice of his intention to bring the sub-
ject or Church Extension under the consideration of the
House, he begged to ask him whether he intended to
do so ?

, .
Sir R. INGLIS said it was his intention—

his fixed intention—to call the attention of the House to
the subject of Church Extension. If he might be per-
mitted to add one word in reply to the question, it was
this, that if the Hon. Member for Lambeth would pro-
miSe him his support, he would then take his counsel as
to the time and manner of bringinz the' subject forward ;
otherwiso, he must be allowed to bring it forward at that
time and in that manner which he should think best.
Mr. HAWES did not understand the Right Hon.
Baronet to state whether he intended to bring the matter
forward before the end of the session.
Sir R. INGLIS said it was his fixed intention to bring
the subject forward before the close of the session.
SOUTHAMPTON ELECTION.
Mr. W. 0. STANLEY moved for a Select Committee,
to inquire into the matters contained in the several pe-
titions hereinafter mentioned, viz. .the petitions of the
electors of Southampton, presented to this House on the
9th day. of May and the Ist day 'of June ; the petition
of John Wreil, presented to the House and, printed with
the Votes, on the 30th day of May ; the petitions of
Abraham Abraham and William Henry Mackey, pre-
sented to the House on the 13th day of June, and
printed with the Votes ; and to report thereupon. The
Hon. 'Gentleman took that opportunity of expressing his
sense of the obligations of the House and the country
to the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Govern-
ment for the assistance he had given towards raising the
character of that House by the course he had taken
respecting the alleged cases of bribery and corruption at
the late elections.
After a few observations from Mr.-HonsoN HINDS and
Mr. MACKINNON, the motion was agreed to.
Mr. W. 0. STANLEY stated that be was not pre-
pared with, a list cf the Committee, but he would give
no-ice of them during the evening. -
CHURCH RATES.

Sir JOHN EASTHOPE rose, to bring forward the
motion of which he had given notice with regard to
Church-rates. He exprest d his extreme r egret that this
question had not been taken up. by. her Majesty's
Government ; he was surprised that it. had not been one
of the questions considered by the present Government,
as the Hetiouroble Baronet had himself avowed in
former distussions on this subject ; that it was
a most important one ; and he was, therefore, jus-
tified in supposing it. one likely to engage the attention
of the Government at the earliest moment
it could give its consideration. In the Session of
1835, the Right Hon. Baronet had borne witness to the
importance of the question, and it was from that con-
sidered that this would have been one of the questions
that he would have brought before Parliament had not
his stay in office been cut short. It was naturally, then, •
a cause of regret and surprise that the Right
Hun. Baronet, with all the power to execute his own
will, had not brought it forward ; and it was difficult to
conceive what causes could make it less important now
than at that time. In a speech delivered on that
occasion, the Right Honourable Baronet said that,
without undervaluing the importance of the Municipal
Corporations Bill, he must observe that the church-rates
question was fully equal to it in emergency, and for the
sake of the continuance of harmony, and the
..pro-
motion of satisfactory feelings among the great body
of' the Dissenters, there was no single question, with
the exception of that of the Irish Church, which so
immediately pressed for settlement.—(Bear, hear.)
He hoped he did not unnecessarily take up the time of
the House in calling its attention to what were the
opinions .of the Right Hon. Baronet on former occasion:.
Nv hen the subject was brought forward by Lord Althurp,
the Right Hun. Baronet told the .s.oble.Lord that.he was
bnuid to proceed with the subject, and ought not to
leave it a matter of contention for years. The Right
Honourable Gentleman, in the year 1825, said
it almost' amounted to a dereliction of duty to
allow :the matter to proceed for such a length
of time:witlrout a remedy, and yet, year after year; it had
gone.on without a remedy. pi,rhaps,' it would be
a waste. of time to. go through the reasons which pre-
vented it being settled. It had been the desire of the
Noble Lord, the - Member for London, and those who
acted with him, to have this question settled, but
he had obstacles to meet him Miich were not in
the way of the Right Honourable Baronet, who
had powerful Majorities in both Houses of Par-
liament. But it was no part of his duty to defend
any course that may have been pursued with regard to
this question. He only wi.hed to ask whether the sub-
ject was not as important now as when the Right lion.
Baronet made those statements. It had been declared
also by parties in the Honse that Church-rates were a
grievance on the Dissenters, and the only question wee,
what was to be substituted for them. In 1834, Lord
Spencer, and, in 1837, Lord Monteagle, brought for-
ward measures lor the abolition of Church rates,
which was lust in both Houses of Parliament.
Every Gov'ernment for the last ten years made and
sanctioned the efforts of others, to remove the grievance
of Church-rates, and different substitutes were pro-
posed. But it must be felt by the Dissenters to be a
great hardship that, while the grievance was admitted

and prticlaimed, it was still continued, because-a sub-Sti-
iute cotild- not be agreed on. -'Those proptised by Lords
Althorp and Monteagle maY be badsubstitutes, but still all
agreed that the abolition of Church-rates was desirable.
They had had recommended fee".. the Throne in 1837
the consideration of the question of Church-rates, and
in the debate on the Address a general understanding
prevailed that there was to be an abolition of
Church-rates, and that some substitute would be
sought and found for the maintenance of the Chutch.
In the course of the debate in the Session
of 1834, ori Lord Althorp's motion, no individual
Member of the House more severely characterised
church rates- than the present Noble Secretary of the
Colonies ; and with the strong feeling that the Noble Lord
had expressed. he could not help believing that he and
other Members of the Government would think it de-
sirable to see the termination of this irritable and
disturbing question.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member,
after referring to the statements of the Noble Lord,
in the debate, observed that he was afraid the House
would think he was almost needlessly taking up their
time, by alluding. to this subject ; but he woald ask the
House what must the feelings of the Dissenters be,
when they heard from the Throne that their griev-
ances were to be removed ; when all parties con-
curred. that it was a most serious grievance,
and an impost that ought not to be borne ;
that, up to the present time, nothing had
been done ? Upon the point of its being a grievance,
an unjustifiable and unnecessary grievance, there
was authority almost amounting to universal concurrence.
He thought it would be scarcely said that whatever diffi-
culties there might be in the way of a remedy, that they
were ready to perpetuate injustice. What he recom-
mended would be to contribute to the advantage of the
Church, the religion of .the Church, and the happiness of
the people. These are not to be violated because there
were difficulties to contend with in consulate; the in-
terests of certain parties He r -membered on a tomer
occasion the Honourable Baronet the Member
for the University of Oxford, said in the
coufte of the debate on Lord Auckland's motion,
that the Dissenters bore an inconsiderable portion of the
amount of Church-rates. The lion. Baronet then said
that the whole amount of -Church-rates wus 566,0001.
per year, and that he believed that the Dissenters did
not pay more than one quarter of that amount.
For the abuses that he had mentioned, it could he by no
means difficult for a strong Government like the present
to devise a remedy. He believed .that the remedy he
proposed would be amply sufficient to meet all the diffi-
culties of the case. No one could be more anxious than
he was to guard against any injury to the interests of the
Church. The Measure which he should propose to the
House was, in the first place, the abolition of Church-
ratee, excepting as far as regard( d the arrare of debts
for the payment of which Church-rates had bt en pledged.
In all cases where endowments and voluntary subscrip-
tions were insufficient for keeping churches in repair, he
Would give power to the Churchwardens to levy. pew,
rents for that purpose. In several large parishes
Church-rates had fallen into decline, and he ale.
prehemled that no difficulty arose from that
circumstance in maintaining churches in repair. If
those who were identified with public worship were
found jobbing and manceuvring with the money with
which they were entrusted, it must not only excite anger
on the part of those who witnessed it, but must bring reli-
gion itself into contempt, and produce many other evils
which they must all desire to prevent. Let them con-
sider the continual anti-social differences which chits
racterised the vestry system, the legal controversies
which were proceeding in all parts of the country, - the
fines inffictee on tender consciences ; humble individuals
being exposed to difficulties, which pressed much upon
their own comforts and the comforts of their families.
Surely no roan could contemplate the continuance of all
these mischiers, without alting again and again what
were the objects for which the system was continued.
Recollecting the paltry sum which was contribed by Dis-
senters, it was impossible that the strongest supporter of
the Church could fail to perceive that the miseries en-
tailed were unequal to the advantages desired.
The Hon. Baronet the Member for the University of
Oxford and others had stated that that was felt to be a
question of property. But he (Sir J. Easthope) hoped
that that doctrine was now exploded. The decision
in the Ecclesiastical • Courts must have gone far
to destroy such a notion. How was it possible
that anybody could seriously contemplate as a
question of property that which depended upon the num-
ber of individuals attending the Parish Vestry at Easter,
and upon the accidental circumstances whether there
happen to be more Dissenters or Churchmen present
—more friendly to the continuance of the rate
or inimical to i.t ? How any person contemplated
it as a question of preperty, at the same time seeing
that it depended upon such a contingency, he was
utterly at a loss to imagine. Then if it were looked
upon as a question of privilege, :lowing the preminence
and authority of tne C • urch. What possible advantage
he would ask, ceuld the Church derive from
saying to those vi ho differed from her—" We
have the power of makihg you pay for cur support
and we shall exercise that power." Such an assumption
was totally at variance with every Christian and
benevolent feeling. It was so fraught with mischief,
and with all those inconveniences which had been so
often depricated in that House, that he hoped he should
not hear no more of it. He could scarcely think
any individual in that House would now attempt to
justify a continuance of Church-rates on the ground
either of its being a question of property, or on the still
more important grow ,d of its being a question by which
the Church could exhibit her principles and power.
Ile felt that he should best consult his own
feelings upon the question by not taking up
any longer the time of the House. The subject had
been so often debated—the merits and demerits of the
question were, he was persuaded, so fully and so generally
understood—the -belief was so universal that the tax
was a
.grievance upon Dissenters, unredeemed by
any 'positive good to the Church—the rate was so
violently and so bitterly disputed, that lie only
felt it necessary- to conclude at once by moving for leave
to bring in " it Bill to abolish Church-mates, and make
other previsions fOr the maintenance of Churches and
Chapels in England and Wales."
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

The debate was interrupted by a Message from the
Lords,-bringing down several priv!ite Bill, and the Wit-
nesses Indemnity Bid, which had been agreed to without
any amendments.

CHURCH RATES.
Tice Home then resumed, and
Sir R. IL INGLIS rose He said be believed no
speech that had been t:elivered in that House during the
Session had been SO try-4 made us the speech
just delivered :by the Hon. Member. Ho believed
if any other Honourable Gentleman had taken up
the volume of Hansard for the 25th of May, 1841, would
have found not merely the same arguthents that had
just been offered, but the same ornaments and the saute
quotation from the speeches . deliveresl by others, and
nearly in the same words. To old arguments he
certaialy could nut do otherwise than state old re-
plies. Notwithstanding the attempts of Lord Althorpe
in 1834, and of Lord Monteagle, in 1837, nothing
practical had ever been done on this subject.
The first Bill was thrown out almost u ithout
discussion, and the proposal to take the ex-
pense of repairing the Church out of the Con-
solidated Fund, was totally rejected by the great
body of the Dsssenters, of whom he believed the
• Honourable Baronet was the not unwilling organ.
The Hon. Member for Luiceseer had asked him, how,
with his views refusing to contribute towards the
Dissenters, he could be willing to impose a tax upon con-
science. Now he would ask him, in return, if he should
contend, as he had done, that Church-rates were not a
tax on property, because they were fluctuating, and fixed
by vestry how he could distinguish them from Poor•rates,
and unless the Honourable Baronet could prove
that Poor-rates, because they were fluctuating,
were not a tax upon property, his assertions
would go for nothing. Formerly there certainly was
great opposition to Church-rates, but he did
not think that was the case at present.
He believed the amount of opposition to t e Church-
rates was greatly diminished. He believed the number
of cases against the rate now existing in any Court
was less than when tho subject was first brought
forward. At all events they had not increased.
The Hon. Gentleman referred to the small amount of
• the rate paid by Dissenters, and used it as an argu-
ment ad verecundiam. How could he, said the Hon.
Gentlemen, consent to such a burden for the sake
of 14,0001., but that told . two ways, and he (Sir Robert
Inglis) never made the question one of pounds, shillings,
and pence. His claim was that the Church-rates were
a national tribute to the national Church, and it was
on that ground he argued for their continuance.—(Hear.)
(LEFT SPEAKING.)