SECOND READING DEFERRED. (Hansard, 23 February 1859)

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, he would beg of the hon. Gentleman to postpone the second reading of this measure until the Government Bill on the same subject came on, so that the discussion upon all three Bills might be taken together.

§ MR. ALCOCK
said, he was sorry that he must decline to accede to the suggestion. His Bill was identical with one which he introduced last Session and which was read a first time, but he had never said a word with respect to it. He (Mr. Alcock) was one of those who for years had voted for the abolition of church rates, and he was still prepared to do so if there was any chance of such a measure passing; but as he thought that hopeless, he was of opinion that such a Bill as he now proposed, being purely voluntary and permissive, was desirable. The Bill held out no premium to Dissenters to increase their opposition to church rates, or any inducement to tenant farmers to agree to their abolition. Nor was it open to many objections which he thought applicable to the plan of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. The chief objection he felt to the Government Bill was the nature of the machinery employed—the incumbent and the churchwardens—whom the Govern- 739 ment wished to erect into a corporation with perpetual succession. Again, he could not suppose how the Government could entertain the idea that they would be able to set at rest at once and for ever a question they had been unable for so long a period to settle from year to year. It was wholly impracticable. How could they settle what the rates had been for the last ten or twenty years, seeing that in many instances half of the rates were voluntary, while the other half had been compulsory? It would be also necessary to see how the fabrics of the church had been maintained. How could they now strike an average for fifteen or twenty years, when in some parishes the fabric was neglected, and others spent thousands upon it? In addition to this the Government Bill did not satisfy him as to the period when there would be a discharge of the parish from church rates, as it depended on the Government to advise the Queen in Council at what period that discharge should be given. In his Bill he preferred to make use of the machinery of the Charity Commissioners who already had under their administration property to the value of £1,200,000. They administered more than 20,000 charities, varying in value from 10s. to £35,000. Those Commissioners would have the judgment and the discrimination to use such powers as he proposed to confer on them. The body which would have to deal with such a subject ought to be in possession of a very large margin, in order to deal justly with the fabric of the Church and with the ratepayers, His Bill was entirely permissive; he asked for no change in the law, but only (he repeated) the establishment of permissive provisions. No Churchman, therefore, ought to object to it. He proposed that persons should be allowed to charge their estates, or to give money, for the repair of churches; and, although it might be said that they could do so now, it must be remembered such liberality was checked by the possibility of a legal church rare being also imposed. He did not propose to touch the Mortmain Act, but he thought it might be relaxed a little, as had been done with respect to the gift of tithes. He adopted a provision in the Charity Act, which would allow of a charge on land, made for the repair of a church, being extinguished by the investment of money in the Funds, to meet the case of land so charged afterwards passing into the possession of a Dissenter, who might have con- 740 scientious objections to its continuance. He thought it a very reasonable thing to allow lords of manors to give waste land, but had omitted from his Bill a clause drawn with that object.

§ MR. COLLINS
said, he should move as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time on Monday next.

§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITH
said, he also would recommend postponement, which would tend much to the convenience of the House, for then the discussion upon the three Bills might come on together. He had no doubt that the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir J. Trelawny), in the course he had taken, fully intended to give the Government measure a fair consideration.

MR. FITZROY
said, he rose to order; the hon. Member was discussing a Bill not before the House.

§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITH
only meant to say that he should persist in the Amendment of which he had given notice if the hon. Baronet's Bill was pressed.

MR. SOUTHERON-ESTCOURT
said, he also must urge postponement until the other two Bills on the same subject were brought forward. It would be most inconvenient, under such circumstances as these, to allow the Bill to go through any stage by which the House might be compromised as to its principle.

§ MR. ALCOCK
said, he would consent to a postponement of the second reading of his measure.