from Lords Portman and Berners, Lord BROUGHAM
pointed out several anomalies in the the tax, in which
line he was followed by the Marquis of Clanricarde.
—After some further discussion, the bill was read a
second time.

The Encumbered Estates (Ireland) Bill was also read
a second time.

On Thursday, June 23, the Charitable Trusts Bill
and the Income Tax Bill, severally passed through
committee.

The Bishop of OXFORD introduced a hill to facilitate
The Exchange of Livings by archbishops, bishops, and
ecclesiastical corporations, which was read a first time.

On Friday, June 24, the Earl of CARDIGAN moved
for the Correspondence between Lord Aberdeen and the
Irish Members of the Government who had lately
tendered their Resignations; attacking the government
for their administration of Irish aftairs, particularly in
relation to the riots at Six-mile Bridge, and other places,
during the elections. In this course he was followed
by the Earl of DERBY and the Earl of EGLINTON. The
Earl of ABERDEEN, the LORD CHANCELLOR, and the
Duke of NEWCASTLE, defended the government;
showed that the cabinet had resolved to prosecute the
priests in the spring, but that the Lord Lieutenant, in
the exercise of his discretion, had overruled their
decision; and that the evidence of the election
committee contained nothing new, as was shown by their
not recommending a prosecution. After a long debate
the motion was withdrawn.

The Bishop of SALISBURY justified himself against
certain allegations in the Times and other publications,
accusing him of retaining more of the proceeds of his
see than was his due, and of a "selfish malversation of
funds dedicated to the highest purposes." He showed
that his yearly revenue had been uncertain, but that
the average of fourteen years was £6737; and that he
had been the first to accept the fixed income of £5000.
offered by the act of 1850. He feelingly but manfully
asserted that he had neither hoarded his revenue nor
spent it for his personal gratification, but had devoted
it to promote the interests of religion. If he died
tomorrow, his family would not have a shilling beyond his
private property; and his son would only have his patrimony,
and that greater blessing an unblemished name.

In the HOUSE OF Commons, on Thursday, May 26,
Dr. R. PHILLIMORE moved for leave to bring in a bill
to alter and amend the Law Respecting Church-rates.
He premised that there could be no question now that,
under the existing law, it was the bounden duty of
every parishioner to contribute to the repair of the
fabric of the parish church; and that this obligation,
which extended over lands, goods, and stock in trade,
could be legally enforced. He then reviewed the
condition of the law in respect to the enforcement of church-
rates, since the commencement of the well-known
"Braintree case," showing that it operated not only
with great hardship upon dissenters, but with great
injustice upon churchmen. After recapitulating the
measures which had been proposed in parliament for
adjusting this vexed question, and adverting to the
plan suggested in the amendment moved by Sir W. Clay
—his objections to which he explained—he proceeded to
expound his own. He impressed upon the house, in the
outset, that the real objection of dissenters to church-
rates was founded upon conscientious scruples; he
proposed, therefore, that a dissenter should be exempted
from the payment of church-rates by simply stating in
writing that he is a dissenter from the Church of
England, and handing that statement to the church-
warden, relinquishing thereby his right to attend
vestries and to meddle with church property—provision
being made for his readmission, if desired, into the
church. With regard to churchmen, he proposed that
the law should remain as it was, but that the Consistorial
Court should decide summarily, viva voce, and that
there should be only one appeal therefrom on a point of
law.—Sir W. CLAY moved his amendment, that the
house, in committee, do consider whether church-rates
should not be abolished, and provision made, for the
charges to which they are applicable, from pew rents,
and from the increased value which may be derived
from church lands and property. After dwelling upon
the history of the "Braintree case," the still uncertain
state of the law for enforcing church-rates, and the
vexatious proceedings which it permitted, he stated the
obvious objections to which he considered Dr. Phillimore's
scheme to be open, which, he said, would
produce ill-will and angry feelings in every parish. He
then argued in support of his own proposal for the
abolition of church-rates, the principle of which had
been already assented to by the house in 1837, while its
justice had become more apparent since the multiplication
of religious edifices supported by the voluntary
contributions of dissenters, who ought not be taxed for the
service of another church, which was as great a wrong
as if money were taken out of their pockets to build new
churches. An ample substitute for this odious and
unjust tax, he contended, might be found in the
admitted surplus of church property, under a better
management, even without any aid from pew rents.—
The amendment was seconded and supported by Mr.
PETO.—Mr. COLLIER, balancing the two plans, was of
opinion that Sir W. Clay's was most suited to the
exigency of the case.—Mr. E. BALL, although a
dissenter, felt bound, for reasons he assigned, to maintain
the Church of England; but he feared that Dr. Phillimore's
plan, instead of settling, would more unsettle
a question which he would willingly lend his assistance
to adjust.—Mr. HUME wished that Sir W. Clay had left
out of his amendment any reference to pew rents, and
cast the repairs of the church upon church property.
He preferred the amendment to the original motion;
but he recommended the government to take the subject
into their own hands.—Sir R. INGLIS considered both
propositions to be equally objectionable; for the
original motion would destroy the nationality of the
established church, and degrade it to the level of a sect,
supported by voluntary contributions. The amendment
was a more open and intelligible mode of getting rid of
what had been, from time immemorial, an appanage of
the church. The impost was said to bear upon the
consciences of individuals; but they had purchased their
property subject to it, and the resistance to church-rates
upon conscientious grounds had been much magnified.—
Mr. PELLATT and Mr. MIALL argued at length against
church-rates, and considered that the remedy proposed
by Dr. Phillimore would be a degradation to which no
dissenter would submit—Mr. WIGRAM regarded the
motion, and especially the amendment, as of very great
importance, because he could not but look upon this as
the forerunner of similar attacks upon tithes. He was
ready to concur in any practical remedy for the
objections alleged against church-rates, although he
believed that the necessity of a remedy had been a good
deal exaggerated.—Sir G. GREY considered that the
question of church-rates in no degree affected the
existence of the church, and only ill-advised friends of
the church staked its existence upon such a question.
Tithes and church-rates stood upon a totally different
footing, and if the latter were abandoned, the church
would remain as firm as ever. But he agreed that there
were unanswerable objections to the proposition of
Dr. Phillimore, who came very near that of allowing
admission to the church to be purchased by the payment
of a miserable sum of money, while it would not attain
the end of promoting peace and unity. The church-
rates would fall with increased weight upon churchmen,
and it was intended to leave their enforcement in the
hands of those objectionable tribunals, the ecclesiastical
courts. He must vote against the original motion; and
with respect to the amendment, he would be no party
to the application of pew rents to the objects of a
church-rate, and before he assented to the throwing
this rate upon church property, he should wish to see
the mode in which the proposal was intended to be
carried out in the shape of a bill.—Lord J. RUSSELL
agreed with Sir G. Grey that the church would exist
without church-rates; at the same time, looking at this
as a practical question, a very considerable sum, about
£300,000 a year, was raised and applied to the repairs
of the ancient sacred edifices, and to part with this sum
at once would be a very serious consideration. The
ground on which church-rates were objected to was, not
so much that they were an odious and vexatious burden,