The Sun. — 1865-05-10 (London, England)

NEWDEGAT-E moved the second reading of this bill, the object of which was to throw the payment of church-rates upon the landlord instead of the occupier ; in fact to render the owner of property liable for the rate when the occupier had conscientious objections to the payment of church-rates. He could not see that there could be any valid objection to the principle of his bill, except from some parties who desired to make the constitution of this country in this particular respect like to that of the United States, where there was no form of Christianity recognised by the State. When they looked for a moment at the condition of affairs in that country, where the President had been murdered and the life of the Prime Minister attempted, he did think there would be some hesitation before they adopted the proposals of those whose distinct object was to remove the character of the constitution, of this country. The object he sought to effect by his bill was by no means new. He had last year endeavoured to obtain the sanction of Parliament to the principle of his hill, which was to substitute a charge of 2d. in the pound on real property in lieu of existing church rates. The bill was only to extend to property at present assessed to church rates within the last seven years, and not to places where church rates had been opposed and a poll taken for three successive years. The tax he proposed was to be levied as laid down in schedule A of the income tax, which he thought more equitable and convenient than the system at present pursued. He felt the best result would follow from the passing of the bill, as it would remove that bitterness which prevailed for so long a period. Ho only sought to enact that which the Poor Law Commissioners recommended in 1843—viz., that the burden of church rates be treated as a charge upon property instead of on the person. He hoped his motion would not be rejected, especially as ho only asked the house to assent to the principle of the bill by reading it a second time, in order that it might be referred to a select committee, who would make it the basis of inquiry. Sir C. DOUGLAS moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months. The objection ho urged last year against the bill he offered on the present occasion. The feeling of the house appeared to be, after the repeated discussions that had taken place, that the question of church rates should be submitted to the next general election on the hustings, and for that purpose he took the course he did.  Sir G. GREY advised the hon. member not to press the house to a division. Ile thought the same course should be adopted by the house as on a former occasion, that the matter should rest until after the general election. Mr. SCHOLEFEELD supported, and Mr. KINGLAKE objected to the bill.  Mr. COLLINS hoped his hon. friend would adopt tho course recommended to him, and withdraw the bill. Ho would by that means receive the support of both sides of the house. (Laughter.) If ho pressed it to a division ho hoped it would be rejected by a large majority.  After a few words from Mr. NEALE, Mr. IVHALLEY, and Mr. HEY GATE, •  Lord JOHN MANNERS advised the hon. member for North Warwickshire not to press his motion to a division. Mr. GILPIN said no measure would be acceptable to a great number of persons in this country which did not entirely abolish compulsory church rates. Mr. Alderman ROSE thought there was no sincerity in the advocacy of the pasties opposite with respect to the abolition of church rates. They used it as a convenient hustings cry, and there the matter ended. He objected to a minority in the countryi dictating to a majority on the subject of the abolition of church rates.  The house then divided, when there appeared— For the second reading 42 Against it Majority —B4 The bill was consequently rejected.