said, he rose to move an Amendment. The Bill proposed to make a railway from Ruabon to Llangollen, and in its course would pass through ornamental ground—a park belonging to himself, He had opposed the Bill by counsel both in this and the other House of Parliament, and in the Committee of the House of Lords an Amendment had been intro- duced, ostensibly to protect his interests, which really would afford him no protection whatever,

said, he wished to state that as one of the Committee which had considered this Bill he saw no objection to the proposed addition.

observed that he would resist the proposed addition, on the ground that the matter had been fully inquired into.

said, he thought it was not the practice of the House to revise the proceedings of its Select Committees, for to do so would take away all confidence in the decisions of those bodies.

said, he wished to call attention to a point of interest. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) had admitted that he had a personal interest in the subject under discussion. It was a rule of the House that no hon. Member could vote on any matter in which he had a personal interest. That being so, he would ask was it competent for the hon. Member to make a Motion in such a case?

said, there certainly was a rule of the House by virtue of which the hon. Member for Peterborough could not vote upon a subject in which he was personally interested, and he had received an intimation from the hon. Member that it was not his intention to vote upon the question. There was also a rule that hon. Members could not present petitions from themselves to that House, and it was certainly not at all in the ordinary course of proceeding that a matter of immediate personal interest should be conducted by the hon. Member actually interested; but, with the reservation of not voting, he (Mr. Speaker) could not say there was anything absolutely out of order in the course taken by the hon. Member for Peterborough.

said, he wished to explain that in moving himself in this matter he acted on the advice of his Parliamentary agents, who had cited high precedent for that course. In adopting it he did not do so for the purpose of influencing the House to a greater extent than they would be under other circumstances, but because he thought it would be more respectful to move the Amendment himself.

said, that in the absence of the hon. and learned Member for Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly) he wished to move that the Bill be recommitted to anew Committee, to be appointed by the Committee of Selection, and that the Committee have leave to sit and proceed on Friday. He founded the Motion on the ground that the Chairman of the Committee had prevented the continuance of a certain course of examination, the object of which was to show that, while the Gas Clauses Act of 1847 restricted other gas companies to a profit of 10 per cent, requiring that any further profit should be applied to the reduction of the price of gas, the City Gas Company had deprived the public of that advantage by increasing their capital by surplus profits from £200,000 to £300,000. The opponents of the Bill considered the course taken by the Chairman of the Committee as tantamount to a denial of justice, and he consequently moved that the Bill be recommitted.

seconded the Amendment.

said, that as the Chairman of the Committee by whom the Bill had been considered, he felt bound to oppose the Motion. He would acknowledge the courtesy of the hon. and gallant Member in giving him verbal notice of his intention to make this Motion; but at the same time he must complain that notice had not been given to the other Members of the Committee, who were therefore not present to oppose it. The Committee over which he had presided were perfectly unanimous in the decision to which they had come; as, he believed, were the Committee of the House of Lords, which had considered the question previously. The opponents of the Bill attempted before the Committee, by a cross examination of the first witness, to show that the company had received large profits and bonuses in bygone years, but the continuation of that line of examination was deemed irrelevant by the Committee, as they considered that the main question for their consideration was whether the sanitary condition of the metropolis would justify the retention of the gas works in the present locality within the limits of the City of London and in the midst of a dense population. The Committee had certainly declined at that stage to go into the secondary question of pounds, shillings, and pence. They had received the most satisfactory evidence from scientific men of the highest character that the works of the company were conducted in a most satisfactory manner, and that the health of the neighbourhood was not in the least degree affected; also that the police on duty in the district, who were said to be sufferers by gas works, were, on the contrary, the healthiest section of the City police. The Committee had reduced the maximum price of the gas, and had added clauses to ensure its greater purity; and, having taken such steps to protect the public interests they were of opinion that the Bill should pass. Under these circumstances he trusted the House would support the decision of their Committee.

said, he must oppose the Amendment. He thought the proceeding suggested by the Amendment was as unprecedented as assuredly it would be inconvenient. The Committee to whom it was proposed to refer the Bill would not be vested with greater powers than those which the Committee who had considered the Bill were possessed of. He could understand a proposition to refer the Bill back to the same Committee, but it would be a reflection on that Committee to adopt the Amendment, while no satisfactory result could follow from such a proceeding. The appeal asked for was not one from an inferior to a superior jurisdiction, but from one jurisdiction to another on an equality with it. In his opinion, however, no case for a reference had been made out.

said, there was no imputation whatever sought to be thrown on the Committee by the present Amendment. All that was imputed was simply a mistake of judgment. When there was an appeal from the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, the matter was remitted back to the whole Court, and no imputation was thought to be cast on the Judge by that course of proceeding. He was greatly surprized to hear from the hon. Member that the making-of gas was not injurious to health. Any person who lived in the neighbourhood of King's Benchwalk would bear very different evidence. Hon. Members of that House complained of the bad smell proceeding from the Thames. He had no hesitation in saying that the bad smell of the Thames was greatly caused by the refuse of the gas companies flowing into it. He cordially supported the Amendment.

said, that that evidence had satisfied the Committee that no offensive refuse from the gas works was discharged into the Thames.

said, that three barristers, who lived within 150 yards of the works, and a number of chemical witnesses were examined by the Committee, and their evidence was to the effect that no disagreeable effects were experienced from the gas works, in consequence of the efficient way in which they were conducted. The surgeon of the police force in the neighbourhood likewise declared that the police suffered no inconvenience in respect to their health from the works. The refuse of the gas did not go into the Thames, but was carried away in close vessels. As a Member of the Committee he should strenuously oppose the Amendment.

said, that no less than seventy-eight barristers residing in the Temple, 453 householders in the neighbourhood, and 692 consumers of gas had signed a petition in favour of the company. He had been over the building, and thought it was impossible for anything to be better conducted. There was no smell of any description whatever, and he trusted the House would not allow the Bill to be referred back to a Committee.

said, he attributed the Opposition to the Bill to a rival company. It was an extraordinary proposition, after one Committee had been appointed by the House to try the matter, to refer the Bill to another.

thought it was hardly fair to say that the opposition to the Bill was wholly interested; for he believed that there was an opposition on the part of the Corporation of London founded on public grounds. At the same time he should support the decision of the Committee unless some extraordinary ground was alleged for referring the Bill to a new Committee. The ground in this case was that the company in going before the Committee for a renewal of their term, and seeking to convert it into a perpetuity, alleged the great expense they would be put to in removing their works, and that evidence was excluded by the decision of the Committee which would have shown that, great as that expense might be, the profits of the establishment had been proportionate, the Committee resolving only to listen to evidence on the question of the public health. He did not dispute that the Committee had a discretion so to decide, though he had considerable doubts whether they arrived at a correct decision, but he was not prepared to say that he would give his vote in favour of the present Motion.

observed, that when a new trial was moved for in a court of law, the Judges decided on that Motion by reference to the evidence previously given, but the House was now called on to decide in favour of a new inquiry without being in possession of the evidence taken by the former Committee. If there were any nuisance created, the company could be indicted. He was informed there had been an indictment and a conviction standing over, but that told in favour of the company, for if the nuisance had not been abated, the conviction could have been enforced at any moment.

said, that in rising to move that the House do go into Committee upon this Bill, he would appeal to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire not to press the Amendment of which he had given notice at the present stage, but to move it in Committee. That would be the more appropriate course.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock (Sir John Trelawny), that if I could propose the Amendments, of the substance of which I have given notice, in Committee on his Bill, consistently with the Rules of the House, I should not have adopted a course which seems to offer an unwonted obstruction to his proceeding with his Bill; but the hon. Baronet must be perfectly aware that it is not competent for me to make the proposal I desire after the House has gone into Committee on the Bill. The hon. Baronet asks, "Why do you not bring in a Bill of your own?" My answer to that is very simple. This House—this new House of Commons—had not decided upon the abolition of church rates until the Bill of the hon. Baronet was read a second time; therefore the occasion upon which I wished to act had not arisen. Immediately that it did arise, I gave notice that I should adopt the course which I am now pursuing. I am sorry to hear from the hon. Baronet that, as at present advised, he will oppose my having the opportunity of submitting the Amendment of which I have given notice to a Committee of the whole House. It is true that, in the event of my Amendment being acceded to, I should have to introduce a Bill founded upon it. I wish I could have his concurrence in doing so, for I beg the House to understand, and I beg the hon. Baronet to understand, that I am not now proposing to reverse the decision which has already been pronounced by the House; that I do not propose to touch one word in the hon. Baronet's Bill; and that, if my Motion is assented to, every word of that Bill will be re-introduced for the consideration of the House, but, of course, with the additions of that which I feel it to be my duty to submit. Sir, you have been kind enough to warn me, that, in moving the Amendment of which I have given notice, in order to conform to the rules of the House, I must propose that the House should go into Committee to-morrow. I must, therefore, move:—

"That this House will, to-morrow, resolve itself into a Committee, to consider the propriety of establishing in lieu of church rates, thenceforth to be abolished, a charge on all hereditaments 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 deduct from his rent the amount of the charge levied on his occupation."

That, Sir, is the substance of my proposal. It is true that the notice which I have given proceeds further to indicate the mode in which that proposal may be most conveniently carried out; but my object is to accept the decision of the House, that church rates should be abolished—that they should he totally abolished, and un- conditionally abolished, wherever they have not been levied for a series of years. I grant that in this metropolis: I acknowledge that in Birmingham, in Leeds, in Manchester, and in many other large towns, church rates have been so long discontinued, that property in these places has gained a sort of prescription in support of its exemption. I will not now enter into all the reasons why the inhabitants of these places have abandoned their right to levy church rates, and have thereby increased the value of property to the owners; but the simple fact is, that the inhabitants of a number of these populous places have opposed church rates, because the great body of them were without church accommodation, and therefore derived no benefit from the impost. They simply refused to pay for accommodation which they had not. But the cases with which I contemplate dealing are totally different. The Bill of the hon. Baronet, if carried out in its present shape, would not only sanction the abolition of church rates in those large towns and populous parishes, but would wrest from 80 per cent of the parishes of the country, including all the rural districts, the right of their inhabitants to levy upon property—for they are a charge upon property—the rates which provide the means of maintaining the churches, in which they worship; and in the rural districts especially the Church of England is the "poor man's church." It is for the "poor man's church," then, that I contend; it is for the means of the religious instruction of the poor, and of the great body of the inhabitants of the rural districts of England, chiefly, that I, on the part of the landlords of England—and I hope I speak their sentiments in this matter—reject the advantage of our property which we might derive from the total abolition of church rates without the provision of a substitute. I shall not now go deeply into the question whether church rates are a charge upon property. Legal questions and legal quibbles have been raised upon the point, but the plain fact, which is well known to every landlord in the kingdom, is, that these rates are considered in every agreement for letting his property. It was stated by the late Sir Robert Peel in 1834, in most emphatic terms, that the incidence of this burden is considered in every sale of property. Sir Robert Peel was a man of wide experience, and he declared to this House, as a matter of his own knowledge, and from evidence that the value of every property when it went into the market, was affected by the question, whether there are or are not church rates levied upon the occupation of it. I say, therefore, that although my tenants and the tenants of many hon. Members in this House pay the rates, practically they are considered in our rent, and form a portion of the annual value which never did belong to the landlord, but which does belong to the poor and to the Church. But I have said that I am ready to accept the decision of the House that church rates should be abolished. I repeat it. What I propose is a substitute; and my substitute is this: that a charge should be created upon all property, upon the occupation of which church rates have been levied within the last seven years. If the House will allow me to go into Committee on this question, I should propose that this charge should be at the rate of 2d. in the pound, which, after long inquiry, I have ascertained is the average charge for church rates, where they have been levied for a series of years. This charge which I propose, then, in lieu of church rates, would be levied with the county rate. But I know that some misunderstanding exists upon this point. I am told, "Oh, but there is no separate collection of county rate! The county rate is levied by the collectors with the poor rate, and the county rate is only separated from the poor rate when it reaches the officers of the union, who then transmit it to the county treasurer." That is quite true. But I intend that this process should be pursued:—That the magistrates in counties and boroughs should issue precepts, under the authority of which the collectors should receive from the churchwardens a list of those occupiers, who are liable to church rates, and should then mark the names of these occupiers in the parish rate-books. The collectors would then, while collecting the rates, collect whatever poundage the House may decide upon for the church charge, in addition to the rates from the occupiers, who have paid church rates. Having done this, the collectors would make a list of the names of those persons from whom they had received sums on account of the church charge, with the sum thus received, appended to each name, and transmit these lists to the officers of the union, who in turn would transmit them and the amount levied as church charge, together with the county rate, to the clerk of the peace in counties, or the corporation treasurer in boroughs; and these officers would forward the amount of the church charge, and the accounts which accompanied it, to the governors of Queen Anne's Bounty. Thus the account of each parish would be kept separate. I wish the House to observe that one of my objects is, that I desire to remove and put an end to the unhappy causes and occasions of discord which have so long existed upon this subject. Nearly all the difficulties connected with church rates have occurred in the assessment or levy; but if the House should think fit to sanction the plan which I propose, you would have no longer any separate assessment, while the levy being conducted by the same officers who are employed in the collection of the other rates would proceed smoothly. My scheme would tender to the whole body of occupiers, whether they be farmers, whether they be merchants, whether they be artisans, whether they be professional men, whether they be operatives, the means of exemption from this tax. If any one or all of the great body of occupiers feel conscientious scruples against paying for Church purposes, he or they would at once have the right to deduct the amount levied for those purposes from their rent, and so could secure their exemption from this charge as completely as they are now exempt from the payment of the property tax under Schedule A of the Act of 1842. So completely, indeed, do I go with the spirit and intention of the House with respect to conscientious scruples that I propose to give the means of exemption from this charge, which I suggest as a substitute for church rates to the whole body of occupiers in England and Wales, and thereby completely to annul all cause of complaint on the ground of conscientious scruples. That is one means which I recommend for the purpose of restoring peace. Then, let the House observe, that so far as the collection of the proposed poundage is concerned, previous to the transmission of the amount to the governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, the whole process is a civil one. Up to this point I would have nothing to do with ecclesiastical authorities or ecclesiastical process except this: the rate collectors would receive the names of those who are liable from the churchwardens, and not until after the money has been collected into the hands of the clerk of the peace for counties, and into those of the borough authorities, will it be sent to the governors of Queen Anne's bounty, who, I believe, are the body best adapted of any now existing for the purpose of ecclesiastical distribution. It is one great object of my scheme not to create a new machinery; therefore I have selected the governors of Queen Anne's bounty to perform this function. Let the House consider of whom that body consists. It consists of the principal officers of State, of the Judges, of the Bishops, of the Lord Lieutenants of counties in England and Wales, of the Mayors of towns, and of Her Majesty's Counsel learned in the law. Now, that is by no means an exclusively clerical body; but it is a body which, ever since the reign of Queen Anne, has most honourably and efficiently dealt forth her bounty, and the funds placed at their disposal to the poorer parishes and poorer incumbencies of England and Wales, and has therefore an amount of information, applicable to the object I have in view, which is not possessed by any other body in the country. I consider, therefore, that this body is well qualified in every way to judge of and to administer the appropriation of the fund I propose to create for ecclesiastical purposes. I propose, then, that the governors of Queen Anne's bounty should receive this fund; and further, in order to supplement, to strengthen, and to enforce the parochial system, that the incumbent and churchwardens of every parish or district, whether this charge applies to it or not, should be incorporated for the purpose of receiving benefactions and subscriptions applicable to the purposes of church rates, either in lieu of or in addition to the church charge I propose to create, or in commutation of that charge. I would give to the incumbent and churchwardens so incorporated a right to demand from the governors of Queen Anne's bounty in each year a sum equivalent to the amount which may have been paid upon the property within the parish or district for which they act. I have been told that difficulties might be raised by the inhabitants and landowners of some parishes, who would say, "We have never levied so much as 2d. in the pound for church rates. Our expenses do not require so much. We have hitherto been asked to raise only 1d. in the pound. Why, then, impose upon us a heavier burden than we are now called on to bear?" I have no wish to follow too closely the Scotch system; but in Scotland the Pres- bytery levies upon the heritors, that is to say, a body composed of clergy and laity levies upon the landowners whatever sum is necessary for the maintenance of the churches, chapels, and schools. Here, then, you have a precedent in force. Here is a precedent in practice to support the view, which I hope the House will adopt in reference to English property. But I propose that no uncertain sum shall he levied on the property of this country by those who are not interested in it by possession. I propose a fixed sum of 2d. in the pound only should be leviable. Supposing, however, that it may be urged by some parishes, "We do not spend so much as 2d. in the pound annually." My answer is, "If you do not. spend 2d. in the pound, then the surplus will be placed to the credit of your parish, and will be available at any time in case heavy repairs are required for your church, or the need for increased means of accommodation should arise in your parish; and, if no case of that sort arises, then this surplus will still remain to the credit of your parish in the hands of the governors of Queen Anne's bounty, and will form a fund which, as soon as it is sufficient either of itself or in conjunction with other means, shall be available for creating an endowment for the purposes of your church; and no sooner will that endowment have been created—and it will be the duty of the governors of Queen Anne's bounty to see that it is created— than the charge which I propose in substitution of church rates in respect of your parish will lapse." If, therefore, a parish is economical and spends little, the sooner will it be entirely relieved from this charge, while it will not be left without provision for the sustenance of the fabric of the Church and the conduct of public worship, but they will be supplied by means of the endowment created as I have described. Sir, I know I may be told, "Yours is a very good scheme; but the House of Commons has determined upon the total and unconditional abolition of all such public funds available for the purposes of church rates." I am afraid that there is a certain number of Members of this House who have come to that decision; but my belief is, that it consists only of those who are altogether adverse to the continuance of an Established Church. I further believe their number to be small, though I know them to be able, energetic, and united. In the course of years that I have watch- ed this question I have seen them induce Members, one by one, particularly on the other side of the House, reluctantly to join them in their propositions for the total abolition of church rates, not, however, without remonstrance. Only four years ago the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey), who, I am sorry to find, has an engagement which precludes his presence here to-day, proposed to Sir William Clay, who at that time had the management of the church-rate abolition question in this House, that church rates should he retained to those parishes which desired to keep them, and Sir William Clay accepted that proposal. I regret that the majority of this House should now have receded from that decision; but I see that a change has occurred, and I see also that the proposal which was then made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth, might be offensive to those who have voted for the second reading of the Bill before the House. I say, then, abolish church rates; abolish the source of disquiet and discomfort which is incident to the levy of church rates; get rid of these questions which occasion the disturbance of religious feeling; meet all religious scruples; but, I pray you, do not deprive the inhabitants of eighty per cent of the parishes of the kingdom of those means which they now hold with the full consent of the landowners of those parishes for the maintenance of the fabric of the Church, and the conduct of public worship therein, without substitute and without equivalent. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth, has said, and repeated over and over again—I have his words here—that if this House were to wrest the power of levying church rates from the majority of the people in the vast majority of the parishes who desire to retain that power, it would be a most arbitrary act. I also say that it would be an arbitrary act; but I say more. I say that the unconditional abstraction of this right, this privilege, this power, this possession from the inhabitants of parishes who desire to retain it, would be a most tyrannical proceeding; and my object is to provide that this shall not be clone without a substitute. I have endeavoured to frame one, which I hope is not unworthy the consideration of the House. I see the hon. Member for Hertfordshire (Mr. Puller) in his place. I shall never forget the ability with which, two years ago, he introduced a proposal somewhat analogous to this, but to which fatal objections were raised, that it included a uniform poundage over the whole property of the country, that it did not acknowledge the exemption of those places which can plead prescription against liability to church-rates, and that it would have invalidated the parochial system of the country, by aggregating the fund it would have levied into the hands of diocesan Boards, who would have administered it without the slightest reference to vestries, or the will of the respective parishes. I own I was not surprised at the feeling which found expressions in these objections; I entertained it myself. These were held to be objections fatal to the scheme of the hon. Member. The parochial organization of this country is just above the organization of the family, and, next to the organization of the family, is the most important element in our social system. Now, by my proposal, I do nothing to invade the parochial organization of this country; on the contrary, I propose to strengthen it. I would retain the function of the vestry in exercising their discretion and their choice with regard to the appropriation of this fund. I will not incur the danger of some fanciful landowner, or some misguided clergyman, dressing up the parish church at their will, contrary to the feelings of the inhabitants, in a manner offensive to their religious convictions. No, I would retain the right and the voice of the vestry in the appropriation of the fund, I would create, so as to retain the house of God suitable to the feelings of His worshippers. I have now touched upon most of the points which are necessary to elucidate the scheme which I propose. I know it may be said that it is presumptuous on my part to undertake the settlement of a matter which has defeated many abler men; but I feel this: I am an independent Member of this House, and Bills for the abolition of church rates have ever been in the hands of independent members; and if the House has sanctioned on one side proposals for the abolition of church rates, when Bills for that purpose have been in the hands of an independent Member, why should they not sanction on my part, as an independent Member, a proposal which is equivalent to an Amendment upon the Bill of the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock? I know that some hon. Members will say: "Why all this machinery? why not trust to the voluntary system?" But those hon. Members must forget how much in this country already is entrusted to the voluntary system. In the Report with respect to the means of religious worship, which accompanied the last census, Mr. Mann, after consulting many writers on the subject, (and he is quoted in the Report of the Committee of the House of Lords on Provision for religious worship,) states that if the people are to be duly provided with the means of religious worship, there must be sittings for 58 per cent of the population. Now, are there sittings for 58 per cent of the population in the whole of England and Wales? No. The sittings provided by all denominations, including the Church of England, are only equal to 29 per per cent of the population, where they should be equal to 58. You rely, therefore, on the voluntary system to provide the difference between these proportions. Now, let the House take the case of London alone. What provision is there in the churches of the metropolis for its population? Why for little more than 18 per cent of the population. The Committee of the House of Lords have reported that there are required for the diocese of London alone, for the accommodation of the people, and for providing them with proper religious instruction, no less than 350 new churches, and provision for no fewer than 527 new pastors. It appears, also, in that Report, that since the commencement of the century, £11,000,000 sterling has been spent in the erection of 3,150 churches, which makes the average cost of each church £3,490, or in round numbers £3,500. If, therefore, this diocese of London is to be supplied with church room, and it must be supplied by the voluntary system, this cannot be effected at a less expense than £1,222,000; and if the additional number of clergy is provided which the Committee of the House of Lords think necessary for the spiritual instruction of the people, and only £100 a year is secured to each of them, the endowment required for those clergymen would amount to £1,581,000. Thus, the voluntary system, in this one diocese alone, would, according to the Report of the Committee of the House of Lords, have to provide no less a sum than £2,803,000. While to provide the funds required to relieve the spiritual destitution of the whole kingdom would not fall far short of £6,000,000, an amount almost overwhelming. Now, what I suggest is, that where church rates have been long extinguished, to sanction their abolition; to confirm it wherever prescription is against their continuance. But I trust that the House will not go beyond that, and saddle the means which can be elicited by the voluntary system, in addition to provision for the already accumulated necessities of the population, with the burden of also providing for the maintenance of the churches, that 80 per cent of the parishes, including more than 60 per cent of the population, in which church rates have hitherto been levied. That is what I ask. It is not as if there were no sphere for voluntary exertion in the country. I have looked into the matter attentively, and the fact is, that the cost of providing the present ascertained deficiency which the voluntary system has left unsupplied in England and Wales cannot he estimated at less than £6,000,000. Is it reasonable, then, that to this deficiency, which is itself almost overwhelming, you should add the further necessity of providing for the maintenance of 80 per cent of the churches of England and Wales, while you reject the prayer of the population of the parishes in which church rates continue to be levied, who petition that you will not insist upon the abolition of their church rates, without giving them some equivalent for the means which are now leviable by law, in recognition of their ancient rights? I hope I have now shown to the House that I do not propose to violate its decision: on the contrary, that what I propose is, to accept its decision. But I ask the House to give some compensation for the injustice which the abolition of church rates, without a substitute, would inflict upon two-thirds of the people, by the abstraction, the arbitrary abstraction of the means which they have ever enjoyed, and the enjoyment of which they value. It is unnecessary for me to go into the question of the amount of the charge which should be created; for the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary concurs with me that the average of church rates, taken over some years, amounts to twopence in the pound. I will therefore conclude by appealing to the House not to agree to that which they have been told by the late Sir Robert Peel, by the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth, by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, by the leaders of the Liberal party, would he an arbitrary act; not to allow the people of this country to believe that this House, once set upon adopting a particular course, becomes the blind creature of faction, and deaf to the claims of justice on behalf of the great majority of the people. Depend upon it, that, if it once goes forth that this House will not consider the claims of justice, that it allows itself to be dictated to by faction, to be governed by extreme opinions, the period is not far distant when the majority of the people will seek a remedy, either in soma sweeping change in the constitution of this House, or in some still wider, deeper, and, as I think, more damaging and lamentable change in the constitution of the country. I humbly and respectfully tender my Amendment to the House; moving it in the first instance only so far as the word "occupation," for I am not presumptuous enough to ask the House, at the present stage of the question, to sanction more than the main principle of the scheme which I have ventured to submit for its consideration.

seconded the Amendment.

said, he must oppose the scheme which had been sketched out by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. Other modes of arriving at an adjustment between conflicting opinions might have been proposed. The landowners might have been called on to redeem church rates by the payment of a fixed sum; but they would have been chary of supporting a proposition which would lead them into an expenditure which they desired others to share. He could never understand in what sense church rates could be said to be property belonging to the church. They only resulted from a power given to the people to tax themselves for certain objects. He would not enter upon the question of whether the rates were a charge upon property; but, even if they were, the charge was of so uncertain a character that it could not be estimated. The old arrangement that people should make a rate upon themselves was right when there was but one religion among them; but, now the Dissenters were legally acknowledged, the real effect was that some people voted a tax for others to pay. The question had come to such a point that it must either he settled as the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock proposed, or it must be enacted that the payment of church rates should be voluntary on the part of individuals.

observed that the remedy proposed by the hon. Member for North-Warwickshire was worse than the disease it professed to cure. The imposition of a certain charge upon property would be a greater burden and cause more dissatisfaction than the present church rates. As a sincere Churchman he did not think the interests of the Church would be promoted by such a course, and believed it would be better to abolish church rates at once, after which it would be the duty of those who were attached to the Church of England to devise the best means of supporting her fabrics and conducting her services. When the Bill passed and this awkward question was set at rest, then the time would come for the sons of the Church of England to meet together, and fix upon some plan by which, through voluntary efforts, the fabric of the church might be maintained.

said, that the hon. Member proposed to alter the nature of the burdens, which was now a charge on the person, into a charge upon land. He must therefore oppose the Amendment, which, while it practically threw obstruction in the way of going into Committee, introduced a vicious principle of "counter irritation," the effect of which could only tend to occasion additional discontent. On the other hand his (Sir J. Trelawny's) object was to put an end to the excitement on this subject once and for ever, and by the agency of the voluntary principle in this matter, he believed that the Church would be placed in a better position. At present if an attempt were made to enforce a general payment of church rates all the gaols in the kingdom would not hold the defaulters, and the standing army would have to be doubled.

said, that though anxious to see the question of church rates settled, he could not support the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, to make that compulsory which was now somewhat voluntary in its nature. He believed that a large portion of the community was prepared to listen to a voluntary compromise on the question, and, considering the period of the Session and the fact that a Committee was sitting in the other House on the subject, he thought the hon. Baronet would do well to withdraw his Bill for the present. He was ready to meet the hon. Member in a liberal spirit, but he would not support a measure to do away with church rates without any equivalent whatever.

said, that as at that hour (half-past three o'clock) it was impossible to make any progress in Committee he would appeal to the hon. Baronet to postpone the Bill. It was perfectly clear that legislation on the subject could not be brought to a satisfactory conclusion in the present Session. A Select Committee of the House of Lords was inquiring into the whole subject, and that Committee had been appointed with the consent of the Government, some of the members of which were upon it. How could the hon. Baronet expose his new allies on the Treasury bench to the humiliating and mortifying position they must occupy if they were assenting parties to send up to the other House a Bill for the total and immediate repeal of church rates, when they themselves, by their colleagues in that House, were assisting in an inquiry on the subject? It would be treating not only the other branch of the Legislature but the Government and the question itself with great want of decorum if now, at the end of July, they proceeded, without due discussion and proper inquiry, to send the present Bill up to the other House. If these reasons were not sufficiently cogent he thought a glance at the host of Amendments on the paper would be sufficient. A principle Member of the Administration in that House alone had placed a "code" of Amendments on the paper, all of which it would be quite impossible to consider before the end of the Session. Moreover, it was not proper that this great question, which clearly ought to be in the hands of the Government, should be taken up in this piecemeal fashion, and that this gigantic inroad upon one of the oldest institutions of the country — the parochial system— should be made in the absence of most of the responsible Ministers of the Crown.

said, that about twenty hon. Members who had been engaged in the Committee-rooms and in the library, had not heard the division bell before the division just taken and were thus prevented from taking a part in it.

said, that as an independent Member he did not think he was called on to withdraw his Bill on the grounds put forward by the noble Lord. He had been at all times ready to proceed with it, and it was not his fault that they were now at the end of July. It would be unwise in the House to lose further time in discussing whether they would go on with the Bill, instead of considering the Bill itself. He did not bring forward the Bill as a delusion or a sham, and it would be his duty to propose proceeding with it, from night to night, and hour to hour, until he got a decision on it.

observed, that in the Committee-room in which he had been engaged no division bell was heard.

said, that this was matter for complaint to the Speaker and not to the Committee.

said, he would propose in line 12, after the word "levied" to leave out "in any parish in England or Wales," and insert

"Respectively in the following cases in any parish in England or Wales:—First. 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 next previous to the passing of this Act. Second. No Church Rate shall be levied upon any person who shall deliver to the churchwardens, within one week after the rate shall have been demanded of such person, a declaration under his hand that he bonâ fide objects to the payment of Church Rates, provided always that no person so exempted from the payment of any Church Rate shall be entitled to vote or act in vestry in the parish in reference to the making, levying, or application of any Church Rate, or the application of any money applicable to the like purposes, unless after signing such declaration he shall have paid a Church Rate subsequently made in such parish. Third. No Church Rate shall be made for other than the following purposes (that is to say):—1, repairing and maintaining the fabric of the parish church; 2, repairing, fencing, and maintaining the churchyard or burial ground of the parish church; 3, providing what is necessary for the decent celebration of Divine Service and the offices of the parish church."

He thought that the question of church rates must be settled, but he did not think it could be fairly arranged by taking every- thing from one side. It ought to be settled by mutual concessions.

said, he must oppose the Amendment.

observed, that he could not see the grievance of church rates in parishes where they were unanimously levied. Why should it be rendered illegal for parishes to levy them if they liked to do so? He believed that if the Bill passed, the burden of maintaining the churches would fall upon the worst-paid men in the country, namely, the clergy of the Established Church. The right hon. Baronet ought to be too happy to adopt the Amendment.

rose to inform the Speaker that on the last division, the bell by which hon. Members should be summoned to a division was not sounded so as to be heard by a large number of hon. Members, who were consequently prevented from voting.

said, that in the Committee-room, where he was at the time, no bell rung at all. Some thirty or forty hon. Members, accidentally heard from a policeman that a division was going on, but they arrived in the House too late to vote. He supposed it would be found that "nobody" was to blame.

observed, that he could state from his own experience that while he was sitting in Committee-room No. 8, within the last fortnight, on several occasions divisions took place and no bell was rung.

said, that he would cause inquiry to be made into the circumstance, and he hoped the proper officer would take means in future to prevent the recurrence of such a fault.