LEAVE. FIRST READING. (Hansard, 8 February 1859)

§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITH
said, he must protest against the title of the Bill, which, if it were introduced in so rapid and unobserved a manner, might prejudice the entire question, and render any Amendment of the measure afterwards inadmissible. The Bill ought to be introduced under a neutral title, such as "to amend the law relating to Church Rates;" this would allow the discussion to proceed fairly; but under this title, as "a Bill to abolish Church Rates," it would admit but one way of settling the question. It was not likely 200 that either House of Parliament would allow church rates to be thus summarily swept away, without any consideration of the interests involved in them. He could understand that such a proposal suited the political purposes of hon. Gentlemen anxious to win the applause of popular constituencies, but he did not believe the country would approve of it, or that the honest religious Dissenters wished to carry into effect so intolerant a design. He would not offer any impediment now to the introduction of this Bill, but only protest against the free judgment of the House being fettered by the title of the Bill.

§ MR. PACKE
asked if the Bill was similar in its provisions to that of last Session?

§ SIR J. TRELAWNY
said, that it was precisely the same as that which he introduced last Session, and which was carried through the House by a great majority. Having understood from the Government, that if he did not ask for the second reading of his Bill until they had had an opportunity of laying their own measure upon the table, they would not oppose his having leave to bring it in, he had deferred all explanation of its provisions, and proposed to fix the second reading for to-morrow (Wednesday) fortnight. He wished that this question should be settled, and that every one should have a fair opportunity of being heard with regard to it. If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Griffith) objected to the title and scope of the Bill, it was quite open to him to introduce under another title such a measure as he should prefer to it.

§ MR. H. DRUMMOND
said, that if the title of this measure were "A Bill to amend the Law relating to Church Rates," no objection could be raised to its introduction, because there could be no doubt that the application of the machinery of the ecclesiastical courts to the raising of these rates ought to be done away with. At the same time they must remember what occurred last year, when a periodical of great circulation and conducted with some talent, said, "Gentlemen, do not be cheated by sounds; we do not care a farthing about church rates themselves, we want to get rid of tithes." Hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted the abolition of both church rates and tithes. He did not know whether they meant to put tithes into the landlord's pockets, but they certainly intended to put the church rates into their own. As this Bill received the sanction 201 of the House last year some deference ought to be paid to that decision, and as there had been an understanding between the hon. Baronet and the Government, he would not, although most determinedly hostile to its principle, oppose the introduction of the Bill. Members, however, who were opposed to the object of it had a right to stipulate that no advantage should hereafter be taken of the title.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, that there had been no particular understanding between the hon. Baronet and the Government. The hon. Baronet asked him a question without notice, which he answered, and answered advisedly. The Bill for the abolition of church rates had passed through all its stages in that House last year and went up to the other House. He had answered, therefore, that if the Bill to be brought in were the same as that of last Session, no opposition would be offered to it by Government at this stage. He had himself given notice of his intention to bring in a Bill which he thought would provide a better settlement of this question than that of the hon. Baronet, but he thought that the fairest mode of dealing with the subject was, that all propositions likely to be made upon it, should be before the House, and then they would be in a position fairly to discuss them. In assenting to the introduction of this Bill he did not assent to its principle. He had only informed the hon. Baronet that, provided the Government had a fair opportunity of laying their own measure before the House, before he asked for the second reading of his Bill, he would not oppose his having leave to bring it in.

§ SIR J. TRELAWNY
explained, that he had not said that there was any understanding between himself and the Government.