The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-05-30 00:00:00

CHURCH RATES..

Sir W..CLAY moved for leave to bring in a bill for the
entire abolition of church-rates. His- bill would consist of
only two clauses, one abolished church-rates, and the
other provided that, where the rates were charged by act
of Parliament with a trust, they should subsist until the
trust ceased.

The motion' was seconded by Mr. PETO.
In the course- of the discussion which followed, Lord
STANLEY said he thought, if Parliament left this question
alone for kur or five years, it would settle itself. The
real hardship, he considered, was not felt by those who
objected to pay church-rates, but by those who, in conse-
quence of our retaining a law which public feeling ren-
dered inoperative, were compelled, by the obligation cast
upon then of maintaining the fabrieof the church, to re- '
sort to a rate, in preference to voluntary contributions.
He thought the time had come for abandoning the com-
pulsory principle. The country had. practically decided
the question,snd it was the duty of Parliament to acquiesce.
Mr. Dararstorin said, that every argument which had
been used in, favour of this proposition was equally valid
against thesupport of an established•church. It was very
easy to talk, about the delight of brethren dwelling to.
gether in unity, and, as Gibbon Wakefield had found that
all the prisoners in Newgate were entirely of opinion that
the only causes of trouble in the town were judge, magis-
trate, and policeman, so those gentlemen who objected to
church-rates thought this question would be amicably
settled if they were allowed to rob the church with im-
punity. Why, they talked about this question being
settled, and there was not a person who had talked of
any other settlement whatever than that of refusing to.
pay the church-rates. Would not this be letting them
have their own way in robbing the church ? People were,
very fond of talking about their consciences—and he had
no objection to their doing so if' they pleased—but there
was always, likewise, a secret insinuation that nobody else
had a conscience. Now, in all: countries in the world of
which we had any record, the Sovereign had established,
for the benefit of his subjects,, a national religion, audit
was the conscientious duty of every subject of that Sove-
reign to assist him in doing what was necessary for the
religious instruction of his. subjects. "Yes," they said,
" but then we have this blessed thing called ' dissent:"
Now, dissent was a luxury; and people must pay for their
luxuries. You could not keep a pack of hounds or have a
box at the Opera without paying for them, and why, were
you to have the luxury of abusing bishops and of attack-
ing chuich establishments, and not pay in return for it
the miserable pittance of a church-rate ? But this W 25 not
all. He said, with respect to the abolition of church-rates,
the same thing that he, said with respect to tithes. There
was a great outcry for the abolition of tithes, the meaning
of which was that every landlord wished to put one-tenth
more of church property into his pocket. He objected to
this, because, if tithes were to be abolished, he. said, let
the State take them. His opinion was the• same with
regard to these rates. You had bought every one of your
houses and rentcharges with the burden of these rates
upon them ; you should not put them into your pocket,
but let the Chancellor of the Exchequer take possession of
them. You had naright to them, and, if your' consciences
did not allow you to pay them to the State, he should
suspect that it was not a question of conscience, but of
money after all.
Lord J. RUSSELL, after adverting to various plans for
dealing with church-rates, and to the conflicting views
upon this question, acknowledged that he had no expecta-
tion, if this source of dissension were removed, that tran-
quillity would be established between the Dissenters and
the Church. He believed, he said, that this demand
would be followed by others of the same nature, and, if
the principle was to be concession, and nothing but con-
cession, he was not prepared to say how far parliament
might not be obliged to go. At the same time he was far
from being blind to the difficulties which beset this ques-
tion, to the unsatisfactory state of the law, and to the
scandal and illwill to which it gave rise. The subject
must, however, be considered with reference to the rights
of the church, and a settlement of the question must be
based upon that consideration, and he was disposed to
think it would be far better not to attempt during the
present session to find a solution of this great problem.
Church-rates should not be totally abolished without a
substitute, and he must, therefore, vote against the intro-
duction of this bill, which would give rise to a belief that
parliament was not disposed to continue that support to
the Established Church which it had hitherto given, and
be a symptom that other attacks upon the church would
be successful._

Upon a division, the motion for leave to bring in the
bill was carried by 129 against 62.
The Industrial and Provident Societies Bill passed
through committee.
The house adjourned at a quarter past ten o'clock.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 24.

PETITIONS were presented by Mr. 0. STANLEY, from the
attorneys and solicitors of Chester, praying that all the
originals of wills be retained within the district in which
they are proved ; and by Mr. MOWBRAY, from the Society
for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts ; from
the Church Building Society ; and from the Society for
Promoting the Employment of Additional Curates in
Populous Places, against sections 13 and 10 of the Mort-
main Bill. _ _

PROPERTY DISPOSAL BILL.—The order of the day for
the resumption of the adjourned debate (sth of April) on
the question of the second reading of this bill, having been
read, Mr. MALINS rose to support the motion, the object
of which was to prevent women who had professed them-
selves nuns from executing deeds or other instruments for
the disposal of property in favour of the conventual estab-
lishments of which they have become members.—ln the
course of the discussion, in which many Irish members
took part, Mr. H. T. LIDDELL regretted the bitter reli-
gious animus which was always forced into these discus-
sions, so much so that even a place of refuge for destitute
children could not be proposed to the house without
members seizing it as a battle-field for their disputes ; but
he trusted that the prophecy as to these discussions lead-
ing eventually to the severance of Church and State would
not be verified. In considering this question, he thought
that it ought to be borne in mind that the very establish-
ment, of these monastic institutions was of questionable
legality, and was, in fact, forbidden by the Emancipation
Act. He considered that the attacks constantly made
upon the member for Hertford as very unjust, inasmuch
as that member by his motion never intended to drag
Romanist ladies before the country, but merely to direct
the attention of the house to the present position of these
convents, the great increase in their numbers and great
augmentation of their revenues, which there was little
doubt must, some day or other, be seriously considered.
He protested against the notion that members who sup-
ported this measure had any desire to violate or offend the
feelings of the Romanist, and he referred with pleasure to
the vote he had given in 1829 on the Emancipation Act,
as a proof that he was then, and had always been, averse
to dealing narrowly with the free opinions of any party.
The real question was—were there any persons in these
institutions who were in a state of spiritual and moral
subjection so as to be deprived of their civil rights. He
thought there were such persons, and, also, that there
were others so circumstanced as to be subject to an undue
influence in the disposition of their property for the benefit
of these convents, and to the injury and exclusion of their
friends. These were the reasons why he would support
the present measure. He thought, however, that the first
part of the bill was worded too stringently, so much so
that he should certainly suggest its amendment in com-
mittee, because his only object was to protect the interests
of the Romanists, not to offend their feelings.—A quarter
to six o'clock having arrived, the debate stood again
adjourned. •
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.—The Cruelty to Animals Bill
was read a second time, and ordered to be committed.
The house adjourned at five minutes to six o'clock.

THURSDAY, MAY 25.

The Chester, Farndon, and Worthenbury Road Bill, and
the East Lancashire, Lancashire and Yorkshire, and Man.

chester and Southport Railways Bill were read a third time
and passed.
PETITIONS for the closing of publichouses and beershops
on Sundays were presented by Mr. ADDERLEY, from St.
Chad's, Shrewsbury, Mr. L. HEYWORTII (6,) from congre-
gations of chapels in Wrexham, and (3) from adjacent
hamlets, and by Mr. MosryN, from the guardians of the
poor of the Holywell 'Union, in Flintshire ; and also the
inhabitants of the town of Buckley, in Flintshire.
SKIPPING BONDS.—In answer to a question, Mr. Wm-
son said, a proposal had been made to the Treasury to
allow one common bond to be taken for the whole of the
goods shipped on board a given vessel, notwithstanding
that they belonged to a variety of proprietors, but one
bond would be insufficient for the purposes of which it was
required, as it was impossible that the captain of a ship
could answer for the use which was to be made of warlike
stores when they had been removed from this country.
After careful consideration the Government had, there-
fore, come to the conclusion that it would be impossible
to accept a common bond, but that each individual ship-
per on whose good faith a shipment of goods took place
should be made answerable.

BANKRUPTCY LAws.—To a question whether it was
the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce
any measure during the present session founded on the
recent report of the Bankruptcy Commission. Lord J.
RUSSELL replied that the Government had determined not
to introduce any measure on the subject in the course of
the present session.