The Sun. — London, England, 1859-02-22 00:00:00

the maintenance of social harmony, and the preservation of obedience to the law, a Government fit to be trusted with the management of affairs was bound to take this question into considerstion at once, that it mightnot remain a subject for parochial meetings and parochial agitation. When we recollect that this statement was made by such a man ; when we recollect also that six Administrations have suc ceeded each other and 24 years have passed away since that time, and that nothing has been done except to renew controversy and agitation on the subject, I feel more than ordinary anxiety lest the Administration should neglect to prepare what might not have been the best settle ment of the dispute on the first agitation of the question, but which I believe now is the only practical mode of bring ing it to a conclusion. While alluding to what I have found calculated to discourage me, the house will recollect one circumstance which tends to give me confidence—l re fer to the tone and spirit in which this subject was discussed last session. (Hear, hear.) Even the right hon. baronet the member for Morpeth (Sir G. Grey) who proposed the abolition of church-rates, was anxious that some substitute should be found for them before the abolition was made. From every quarter of the house a strong desire was ex pressed to see if some substitute could be found. When the bill went up to the other House of Parliament, though the total abolition was strongly opposed, yet even the noble duke who introduced the measure, and the house generally, expressed a strong opinion in favour of finding a substitute. Such being the position in which we were placed, my noble friend at the head of the Government stated, no doubt in powerful language, that the measure as sent up to the other house was one that could not be accepted if we valued, as all ought to value, the rights derived from prescription from time immemorial—(hear, hear)—which have placed a charge or debt on the property of the countryfrom the pay ment of which it ought not to be absolved. (Hear, hear.) The equally powerful argument was used, that for the benefit of the poorer classes of the country the Established Church should not be deprived of the means of keeping up those edifices that are even a greater blessing to the poor than the rich. My noble friend, at the same time, inti mated the strong desire on the part of the Government to see how this controversy could be determined. He stated that the Church would meet the Dissenters on this question with the most conciliatory and friendly feeling; but added that some prospect must be held out that they would meet the Church in the same spirit, or the law must be main tained as it stands. (Hear.) Now, the law as it stands isplain and clear, and the inconvenience of the law is equally plain and equally clear. What the law is has been declared by the highest tribunal of the country—the law imposes an im perative obligation on every parish to maintain the fabric of its church. Those are really the very words of Lord Thur low in giving his judgment. On the ether hand, the law having been enacted when the whole population of the country was of one mind in matters of religion, it has this inconvenience—that it is not now the expression of the re ligious opinion of the time ; as many do not belong to the Church and do not derive any benefit from its religious or dinances, the principle that applied formerly no longer ap plies with the same force. I have said something of a satis factory settlement, or what may pave the way to such a settlement of this question; in reference to it I hope the house will allow me to refer to two returns—one made in Sept., 1852, the other in Sept., 1856—0 f the number of rates required, made or refused, for 18 and 15 years preceding those dates respectively. From these returns it appears that, from Easter, 1833, to Easter, 1851, out of the 1,047 parishes from which returns were sent in, there were only 216 in which church-rates were actually refused in the whole period of 18 years. The return of 1856 included 9,672 parishes ; of these, 8,280 parishes granted the rate ; 401 re fused it; from 444 dubious answers were returned ; in 544 parishes the funds were provided from other sources. Thus not one-tenth of the parishes included in the return have refused the rate in a period of 15 years. The right hon. ba ronet the member for Morpeth, when alluding to this re port two years ago, made an observation which produced great effect on the house at the time. He admitted it was perfectly true that not one-tenth of these parishes had re fused the rate ; but he asked, what is their population ? I think the test of population does not apply in this case. If the tax were spread over the whole country then that test might be applied. But when the tax is levied on the community in sections, each section having the power to give or withhold it, the number of parishes that have exer cised the right of withholding it or have refused to exercise it is important—(hear, hear)—and the number of parishes which have refused to exercise that right is only 408. It would certainly be an extraordinary thing if some 400 pa rishes which have refused to obey the law should deprive the remaining 8,000 parishes and upwards of the privilege of continuing to obey it. (Hear, hear.) It also appears from that return that 41 parishes, which had refused the rate before, have since paid it. This is an important fact whioh I wish you to bear in mind, and of which I shall make use in another part of my observations. I come next to the return for this year, which gives you the amount of tha expenditure under three distinct heads. Those heads are, first, the fabric of the church ; second, the celebration of Divine worship ; and, third, other purposes. It gives, also, under three heads, the money which has been applied to defray that expenditure—viz., first, what has been re ceived from rates ; second, what has been received from endowments; and, third, what has been received from volun tary contributions. Since that return was laid on the table I have had a subsequent return from 500 parishes. It will not make much difference to my argument whether I take the statistics from the blue-book, minus those 500 parishes, or whether I make my statement more complete by adding the 500 other parishes. The average annual ex penditure on the fabric of the church is, in round numbers, £321,000; for the celebration of Divine worship, £172,000; and for other purposes, £94,000. I find there has been re ceived from church-rates an annual average of £261,000 ; from endowments, £45,000 ; and from voluntary subscrip tions, £262,000. I stop here for a moment to remark the proportion between the voluntary subscriptions and the money raised by rate, the amount from the former source being £262,000 out of those 10,500 parishes, and that from the latter being £261,000. (Cheers.) lam extremely glad to hear that cheer, because the house will find, before I come to the conclusion, that I intend to make use of that circumstance as the foundation of part of the Government measure. There is another im portant fact to which I desire to call attention. The re turn gives you the number of Churchmen as compared with Dissenters, and also states whether the property in the different parishes is much or little subdivided. These two returns lam taking now from the blue-book ; for I have not obtained an analysis of the subsequent returns for the 500 parishes of which I have spoken. It appears that the land owners in 1,367 parishes were all Churchmen ; in 7,436 Parishes the landowners were Churchmen generally ; in 1,050 other parishes the Churchmen and Dissenters were about equal; and in 353 remaining parishes the numbers were not stated. So that out of 10,206 parishes there are 8,803 in which the landowners are generally Churchmen; in 1,050 more they are partly Churchmen and partly Dis senters ; and in 353 they are not stated. Observe, there fore, the enormous proportion of Churchmen among the landowners of those parishes. I take, then, the subdivision of property. It appears that in 5,750 parishes the property is in a very few hands ; in 1,480 it is subdivided ; and in 2,713 it is much subdivided. I mention these facts because I mean to rely on them later in my statement. Thus, taking a general view of this question, and speaking in round num bers, we h ave i n 10,500 parishes £261,000 per annum con tributed while by ro t as , £262 ,000 b y voluntary benefactions; the greater part of the lando wn er s are Churchmen, and th e es pro perty is proportionately few hands—circum s make.ranewhich w ill facilitate the proposition I shall hereafter And these results will, I think, suggest two infer ences. The fi rs t i nference is that since this 's is a burden upon persons in respect of prop e rty ,and those persons are princi pally Churchm en , the plea oconscience is not a strong plea for doing away with a charge Which has existed from time immemorial. The second inference is that since it appears that by volu n t ary contributions large ;urns are now rai se d f or be maintaining th e f a b ric, it will benefactions in Parliament, as far as it can, to look to voluntary in order to get rid can, to complaint which is mad e when the payment is compulsory. In discussing the t s whether any remedy can be applied, I must request the hou s e to to indulge me for a few moments while I endeavour to suggested, the different modes which have heretofore been Nvh ?.e. c d h to reduce it, as I think I shall do, to the onlplan properly be adopted. The first remedy sought to be apn nl7 ied was the proposition of Lord Althorp in 1834, by whi ch it was intended that the land-tax to the extent of £250,000 a-year should be ch ar g ed with the su pport of the fabr c of the church. The objection to that was obvious. After the land-tax was redeemed, if you devoted 1250,000 a-y ear of the unredeemed part of that tax to this purpose, you would be taxing oneportion of the landowners, and one only, to do that for which the whole were liable. That plan was so ob jectionable that it was given up. The second proposal was made by the present Lord Monteagle when Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was that you should arrive if you could at the improved value of church property, and charge that improved value to the extent of £500,000 for this purpose. The answer to that was twofold. First, it was unjust; se condly, it was improvident. It was unjust, because you would be in effect transferring a charge from the clergy to the laity, and would be giving to every landowner in the kingdom a receipt in full for a debt, not one shilling of which ho would have paid. It was improvident, because it would have been taking away the only available means which you h ave t o mee t the spiritual wants of the country by o nticipating the funds in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Co mmissioners, which funds at this moment are not equal to keep Pace with our ever increasing population ; and, un less you husband those resources for the purpose of aug menting the smaller livings su p erint endence and care, you will not be able to overtake the religious destittition of th e peop l e. (Hear, hear.) The third proposition made was that of the late Sir Robert Peel. That proposition was never a reduced into the shape of a bill, but it suggest e d that thin charge should be th rown upon the Consolidated F un d . Objections to this w ere im mediately taken. Independently of the objection th a t th e landowners would thereby be relieved to the extent of many millions from a charge on theirlrinoperty, there house, tbat was the objection now con s t an tl y raise until it has almost become a un i versal axiomthis• we ought not to impose on the gen era l taxatio n of the - co untry a charge which is to be applied f or the rcn ance of any special religious services. That objection was deemed to ,be #0 stag tlat Si at reel, eye ga m e, h, said that a Government was not fit to be entrusted with the management of public affairs unless it tried to make a set tlement of this question in a twelvemonth, never ventured, in the plenitude of his power, and during tho3e five years when he might have carried a measure, to grapple with the subject again. And so it has fallen into weaker and inferior hands, but with the same obligation to attempt to satisfy the public expectations and effect a definitive adjustment. (Cheers.) After that we come to the ye tr 1849, when the hon. baronet the member for Tavisto ck (Sir J. Trelawney) first began his career in essaying to deal with this difficult question. In that year he moved a resolution, " That it is the opinion of this house that effectual measures should Pe immediately taken for the abolition of the church-rates." To that motion an amendment was proposed by one who is as good a man as he is liberal as a politician—l mean Vice- Chancellor Sir W P. Wood. He moved the omission of " the abolition of church-rates," and the substitution of the words "for discharging persons dissenting from the church as by law established from contributing to the church-rates wind from taking any part in levying, assessing, or adminis tering the same." That proposition was in conformity with one previously made by the hon. member for Fins bury. It was lost by an enormous majority, for only 20 members voted for the amendment, while 183 voted against it. But, sir, that proposition gained ground afterwards, and in the year 1853 Dr. Phillimore renewed it by laying a bill on the table of the house with that object. That bill was supported, as is best proved by the division, by my right hon. friend the member for Carlisle, by the%oble lord the member for the City of London, by the noble lord the mem ber for Tiverton, and by no less than 185 members of this house; so that the proposition which, when first launched, obtained the votes of only 20 members, had in four years gained so much ground that it commanded a division of 185 members, all the first men in the house going into the same lobby. (Hear, hear.) The bill, however, was lost, for on that occasion the noes were 207 against 185 ayes. The next proposition which was made on this subject emanated from the right rev, bench. I hold in my hand a bill which was laid on the table of the House of Lords in the year 1855. The right rev, bench then pro posed that a machinery should be framed for the purpose of ascertaining whether parishes would or would not pay church-rates in obedience to a monition, and that, if after monition and citation they refused to pay them during two or three years—l forget exactly which period—such rates should cease in those parishes, and the parishes should be come subject to the provisions of that bill. The provisions of the bill were that the incumbent, those who frequented the church, and other parties who were friendly to it should compose a vestry for the purpose of raising by voluntary contributiwa the mum noooeoary support tbo lab:4o. Now, that proposition, so made by the right reverend bench, was, in my opinion, good in its object, but bad in its start ing point. It was good in its object, because it sought to substitute for a compulsory payment a voluntary contribu tion. It was bad in its starting point, because it held out a premium for agitation throughout the length and breadth of the land. (Hear, hear.) It would have increased the strife and ill-feeling which exist in the country upon the subject, and it would have induced every parish to have made every effort it could to get rid of the burden by any means that could be devised. (Hear, hear.) That proposition I believe received no countenance in the House of Lords, and certainly was not responded to in this. In the following year the right hon. baronet the member for Morpeth (Sir G. Grey) to a certain extent adopted that plan. I regretted it then, and I regret it now, although I think at the same time he added one of those propositions for which he is entitled to the gratitude of every man who thinks upon this subject and who wishes to settle it. The right hon. baronet proposed that where church-rates had not been levied for five years there it should be declared in Parliament that they should cease in future. I think he also proposed that where they were not levied in prospective for two years, they should not in future be imposed. Both these proposi tions were and are open to the objections which I have urged, and I will not repeat them now. But the right hon. baronet added to these proposals ono of his own—viz., that you might, by repealing the mortmain law, obtain a charge upon the land as a permanent charge, without renewing it from year to year, and so exposing yourself to these annual contests. That, I think, was the effect of the right hon. baronet's proposition. Sir G. GREY—A power was given voluntarily to make a charge upon the property to a limited amount. Mr. WALPOLE—I am quite aware of that, but in stating this I was wishing to pay a compliment to the right hon. baronet—(a slight laugh)—and to give him the credit of that which will constitute a part of the measure which I am going to ask leave to introduce. Ido not desire to take any credit for any part of this measure which does not be long to the Government or to myself. It is the duty of the .Govdrnment to examine the propositions which have been made to Parliament, to see which are unreasonable and which are reasonable, to distinguish between the two, and to give the credit, as I most cheerfNy do, to those who were the first to originate them. (Hear, hear.) I have now, sir, gone through all the propositionswhich have been made to Parliament on this subject excepting one. That was the proposition made by my hon. friend the member for Hert fordshire (Mr. Puller). Those who were in the house last year will not fail to remember the powerful, argumentative, and convincing speech which he then made against the ab solute abolition of church-rates. I wish he had been more fortunate in the substitute which he proposed. To that substitute, unfortunately, I could not then, nor can I now agree. He proposed to the house that you should put upon the land of the country one charge, equal in amount upon all, which would raise the rates necessary to provide for the sustentation of the fabric. The objection to that plan was this—and it is similar to the objections to many plans which have been sent to me—plans for putting church. rates upon the county-rates and making them part of it— plans for putting them upon the poor-rate and making them part of it ;—the objection to that plan was this, — that by it you would transfer a charge which has always rested upon property in certain amounts and in certain proportions to other property which was not necessarily subject to that charge, and so would impose a compulsory obligation to pay the rate upon land which might previously not have been liable for it to that amount. Now, Sir, I have gone through these propositions for these purposes—first, to eliminate from them those plans which I am sure hon. members neither will, nor, according to the reasons which I have urged, ought to agree to ; and, secondly, to bring them to the only practicable and reason able solution of the question. I think the result of that examination may fairly be described as follows :—ln the first place, we shall agree to reject all plans which would transfer the charge from the property now liable to it to any property which is not liable to it at present. (Hear, hear.) In the second place, we shall agree to reject the plans which would attempt to throw the charge upon the public taxation of the country—(hear, hear)—because it would be acting contrary to that principle which now seems to be generally recognised—that we should not impose on the public taxation the burden of paying for any specific religious obligation or duty. (Hear, hear.) In the third place, I hope that we shall all, or at least most of us, agree in rejecting any plan which would attempt to transfer from the landed gentry of the country to the revenues of the Church a charge which that gentry have always paid, and I believe would willingly pay—(hear)—rather than dry up those resources still left to the Church, by means of which she may provide for the spiritual wants of the people, and which at this moment are not more than sufficient, or any thing like sufficient, to meet those wants to the full extent which is required. In the fourth place, we shall reject all plans which, like those proposed by Sir W. Clay—and, by the way, I have omitted to mention the propositions which he made to the house—attempt to substitute far this legal obligation a payment by means of pew-rents. Of all the plans ever yet devised, that is the most objectionable. (Cheers.) If an established church means anything, in every town, in every parish, in every hamlet in the kingdom it ought to be free and open to all. (Hear, hear.) The church-rate is that part of your establish ment, taken in connexion with another part of the sys tem—viz., the payment of tithes, which has hitherto fur- nished to every poor man in this country who wishes to re ceive them the blessings and ordinances of religion; and whoever may again propose the plan of substituting pew rents for this rate, I hope it will meet with the condemna tion which I see by your cheers it now receives, and that Parliament will never listen to or dream of such a thing (Cheers.) In the fifth place, we must exclude one other plan—that is, a plan which would declare that church rates were to be abolished as the result of a successful agi tation. We are attempting to 'settle the question peacefully; but if you leave the elements of strife and disorder—if you cannot make a pacific settlement, and if you attempt to make an arrangement which is only to increase the agitation and strife, infinitely better would it be for you to allow things to remain as they are than to attempt such a settlement with such prospects. (Hear, hear.) I believe we have now nearl y ex hausted every pl an w hi c h can be considered. We have not, h owever , quite exhausted them ; there are two which yet rem • aul. There is the proposition of the right mortmain laws, and, hon. baronet (Sir (-4 Grey)—that, by the repeal of the I will add, by other means, we should contributions to the support of endeavour to aid volunta ry the fabric; and, notwithst anding this plan by cir cumstances to which I shall rof in er g sonle there ,. is also, I think, a unfortunate relief to those who means of completing r th eh out offending ent intend toprolpotsistseutthpeoinr are no longer of the established retilonngagui watiththouetGinojvurinertung the. propositions. In the first place, then, We tthheesem't a n d w ob l as h e ° s P t e h power should be given to the owners of land, netwithstan h d ! standing the mortmain laws, to charge their lands with the amount of church-rates which thoie lands have paid within a PeT • d specified in the bill. In the second place we pro pose, since church-rates are a charge which has e x i sted upon, property from time immemorial, that those who hav e limited estates in their lands should have power to make that perpetual which is now annual; in other words, we propose to give a power of charging their lands not merely to . owners of fee, but to tenants for life. In the third place, we Propese, in order that the: charges thus imposed upon property should not be wasted, to make the incumbent and churchwardens in every parish a corporation for this purpose, with perpetual succession. In the fourth place we propose to aid • these rent-charges by encouraging voluntary subscriptions and benefactions. In the next place we propose, not merely that these subscriptions and benefactions may, at the will of the donor, be kept as 1 411 4 4.044 el the charge,' in the nottstatio, vZ tho church, but also that those who contribute them shall have the power of declaring that they will apply their subscrip tions and benefactions in exoneration of their lands from the payment that is now due from them. Lastly, with reference to this part of the subject, we propose that when the charges so put upon property voluntarily, with the voluntary subscriptions and benefactions to which I have adverted, shall together equal the amount of the church rate which has been raised in any parish within a certain number of years from the time the rate was last raised, the Queen shall be empowered by order in Council to declare that church-rates in that parish are for ever abolished. (Hear.) Let me stop here for one moment. You will ob serve by this, the first part of our proposition, that we do not abandon the legal obligation which rests upon property to answer the debts to which it is liable, but we encourage the owners to pay those debts in a voluntary manner, and as soon as the payment is made complete church-rates are for ever swept away ; in other words, you have the com pulsory payment done away with, and you have a volun tary charge supplied in its place. (Hear, hear.) I know that many people have thought that these voluntary charges will not be made, or that voluntary benefactions will not be given. A word or two upon each of these points. I told you, at the commencement of my observations, reading from an analysis of the returns of the number of churchmen who were landowners in the parishes to which those returns related. I told you also how little their properties were subdivided. Take these two facts together, and can you believe that landlords who are churchmen will not impose upon their lands a charge which is only a substitute for that which they now pay? Can you believe that they will refuse to do that which will, in point of fact, put an end to a strife which they all desire to see 'terminated as much as we do ourselves ? My own impression is, that the 8,000 landowners in the 10,000 parishes from which returns have been made, being churchmen, will un hesitatingly charge their properties to the extent of the church-rates which they now pay, so that almost a sufficient fund will be forthcomingfrom that source alone. But I own I set even more store by the voluntary contributions and benefactions which we propose. (Hear, hear.) I believe that when these contributions and benefactions are allowed to be made there are many who will come forward to relieve their poorer fellow-parishioners by exonerating their lands from the payment that is now due from them. lam not now speaking upon mere conjecture. Let the house bear in mind that the voluntary contributions made on behalf of the Church during the last 50 years, and especially during the last 10 years, are enough to encourage us in broaching a plan like that I have proposed. Is the house aware that from 1800 to 1850 there has been contributed bythe State towards Churob purpnaos about £1,000,000; and that, to meet those grants so made by the State, voluntary subscriptions, amounting to nearly £9,000,000, have been offered for the benefit of religion ? (Hear, hear.) Is the House aware that every year £lO,OOO is applied from the Queen Anne's Bounty for the benefit of the Church, and that the benefactions which are made to meet it are four times the amount, or £40,000 per annum. (Hear.) In the diocess of Winchester alone £200,000 has been contributed by the Church for Church purposes ; and it has been met by benefactions vo luntarily offered to the extent of £1,500,000. (Hear, hear.) When the right hon. gentleman the member for Carlisle and myself sat in the Ecclesiastical Commission, it was proposed that we should give £37,000 for erecting parsonage houses and other Church purposes. The Ecclesiastical Commis sioners applied that sum in the manner stated, but at the same time resolved to ask for benefactions to meet their con tribution, and the result was that voluntary offers were made to the extent of four times the original grant. Again, when the Ecclesiastical Commissioners found themselves with a surplus they took advantage of the experience which they had acquired in the matter of the parsonage houses, and determined upon applying their surplus only in con sideration of voluntary benefactions being made to meet it. What was the result? In 1857 their surplus was £5,000, t an io d u th of e s y m w au ere livi ena ng b a led to t t o h c e on ex ttb n u t £so,ooo.overstate the n t e e if te 2 v l2 e , rd oo B o. tbe ln a li : •:: etteeir fe fact when wa s I say llB they and wer e I belie v e able to the present year their surplus amounts to £50,000, and I am credibly informed thatit is likely to be increased to the extent of 75 per cent. by voluntary contributions, the whole to be expended upon the augmentation of poor benefices. (Hear, hear.) I say, then, you have everything to en courage you in seeking to apply the voluntary principle in aid of the Establishment. But this is not all. By another clause in the bill we propose, with reference to contracts to be hereafter made, to enable a tenant or occupier of land to deduct any church-rate that may be paid by him in respect of such land from the payment due to his landlord ; in other words, to transfer to the man who is legally bound to pay the rate the actual duty of discharging it, and to free the occupier who may not agree with his landlord in religion. (Hear, hear.) These are two of the propositions which we have to offer to the house. But these propositions would be incomplete if we did not meet the only practical griev ance that exists—viz., the grievance felt by the conscien tious Dissenter. (Hear, hear.) lam one of those who think that the claim of the Dissenter to be exempted from the payment of a charge resting uponhis property stands, strictly speaking, neither upon reason nor upon law. (Hear.) To ad mit that principle would be to admit that in the general taxa tion of the country, if persons like the members of the Society of Friends objected to the application of the public revenues to warlike purposes they should be held to be entitled to exemption upon conscientious grounds. (Hear, hear.) If you once admit that principle, you could not deny the other persons, such as Protestants who have a charge upon their property in favour of the Roman Catholic religion, or Ro man Catholics who have a charge upon their property in favour of the Protestant religion, the same benefit which, upon the plea of conscience, you are now asked to confer upon Dissenters in the matter of church -rates. (Hear.) The claim made on behalf of the Dissenters is one, there fore, to which I could not assent—not, that is, as a matter of strict law or right; but when I look at the circumstances under which church-rates were originally given, when I know that all the people in the country were then of one mind in respect to religion, when I remember that they equally had the benefit of the rate and equally subjected themselves to the obligation to pay, and when I further recollect that all these things are so much altered that the benefit and the obligation do not go together, I will not say that the Dissenter has a right to exemption, but I do say that the churchman may as a matter of favour extend to him an ex oneration from the obligation of contributing to a fund from which he now derives no advantage. (Healy.) Then, that being so, I am perfectly willing to subscribe to the amend ment moved by Sir W. Page Wood and to the motion made by Dr. Phillimore, and supported by several men of eminence in this house. I am perfectly willing by some such means to abstain from calling on those for payment to church-rates who stated that they conscientiously objected to such payment. Dissenters object, it is said, to this plan because it brands them with a stigma; I think that a most unfortunate declaration, because I should not have ima gined that the historical descendants of the old Reformers— the successors of those who felt pride in avowing their opi nions openly and frankly, and were not ashamed to suffer for their opinions, would have turned round when it was proposed to relieve their consciences by an exemption from a legal obligation to say that a stigma was attempted to be placed on them. But, however unfortunate this state of feeling may be, I still must recognise it, and therefore it is our duty to see if we can so frame this objection as not to hurt and wound the feelings of the Dissenters. We hope we can do it in one way. We propose that when the rate has been imposed the collector shall take round certain papers, one of which shall contain a form, wherein a person may simply declare that he conscientiously objects to the payment of this rate. We propose that whoever makes this declaration shall be exempted, and be from that time free from the obligation of Flaying the charge. But, as a consequence of this, we also think that any person who claims the benefit of exemption from that oblig ation should take no part in vestry mee ti ngs w h ere the rat is imposed until he consents to pay some rate. (Hear, hear.) That is the mode in which we propose to deal with this part of the question. The summary is this—that we turn the compulsory into a voluntary payment, and we hope by these means to satisfy the Church and conciliate the Dis senters—that we give to the occupier the right of charging against his landlord the payment of the rate, and we relieve the Dissenters in a manner which we believe the least in jurious to the Church and the least offensive to their own feelings. (Hear, hear.) I said at the beginning that I feared the time was come when the settlement of this ques tion in the best manner that could be devised was no longer practicable ; but I think I have submitted to you a proposition which, at all events, considering the difficulties under which we labour, does offer a practicable solution of the question in a simple, just, and comprehensive form. (Hear, hear.) I have only one or two words to add, and they are in the way of appeal to the hon. baronet the mem ber for Tavistock. There are now two propositions before the house— one for the absolute abolition of church-rates, without substitution, and the other which offers a volun tary substitute, and does violence to no one. These two issues are before you, and I ask you,which will you choose ? Will you choose to sacrifice all those obligations which rest on property merely because you wish to urge a conscien tious plea which no longer applies, or will you meet us in the spirit in which we endeavour to meet you—.-the spirit of conciliation, peace,_ and goodwill—being desirous to terminate the controversy which, unfortunately, has existed too long ? (Hear, hear.) If you adopt the proposition of the hon. baronet you will, in point of fact, be asking Parliament to sanction the proposition that there should be given up without "it, substitute a legal obligation not only on your property, but on the property of those who first imposed it and made-it subject to the maintenance of the fabric of the church where they heard inculcated the ordinances of the Church and of religion. (Hear, hear.) Give up that, and you cannot distinguish, between church rates and tithes in principle, and must give up the obliga tion similarly imposed on property for the ministers of religion throughout the country. Give up these, and you , give up the .religious part of your parochial system, the existence of an Establishment, and sever the connexion between Church and State. (Some cries of " Hear," on the Opposition side.) That cheer shows that there are some—very few, I believe—who would wish to sever the connexion between Church and State. (Cheers.) There is a vely small body, I knoW, who would trust everything to the voluntary principle. I also would trust the volun tary principle taken in aid and in conjunction with the obligation due to the Establishment; but, take it alone, I am confident it never will or can reach every part of the country—it never can get into the remote , districts, nor meet the wants of the immense population who, I am sorry to say, are at this moment without the benefits of religion and education to an extent which ought not to be. (Hear, hear.) I ask those who support that principle, which, remember, I am not gainsaying, for I am an advocate of it in conjunction with the establishment, do they think it would supply religion, as anything else may be supplied, in the ordinary way of supply and demand ? (" Hear, hear," from Mr. Hadfield.) The hon. member for Sheffield is one of those who have immense confidence in their own principles, but he does not always extend to others the same confidence as to the sincerity of their opinions ; but I would put it to the hon. member for Sheffield whether he can apply the ordinary principles which regulate the distribu tion and acquisition of wealth to the higher matters of education and religion ? (Hear.) The hon. member is nod ding his head—(laughter) —and I suppose thinks so ; but alwa ys Mill desi re moa t let me t e ll hi m that so long as you deal with the physical_ wants of men you will always find the principle of demand man ir the less and he and s upply su ffi ciently s t rong t o meet t h ose wan t s ; b u t has b ween' you deal with t h e higher parts of nature it always b t e h , e th a a d t van th t e age mo o r f e kn ign ow or l a e n d t ge. a , and the mor e deeply s un k in folly and hi vice, the less he is liable to be m ove d b y gher feelin s For this reason it is that Dr. Chalmers said, • g his own forcible lan guage, that Christianity in must go forth in quest of human nature, for human nature,• unprovided and unin structed, would never go forth • • • in quest of Christianity. (Hear, hear.) Therefore it is that according to your in- Otatllooo Y2l Always iwiistcd ))3 , ratmu 9f an, otti,- THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 22, 1859. blishment in providing for religion and religious ordinances My hon. friend, the member for Maidstone, said the other day that England can now reach all the greatness and all the power and prosperity, materially speaking, of the Roman Empire, and he added a eaution lest when you get to this culminating point you fall into the corruption and laxity of principle which led ,to that empire falling. My hon. friend has classical skill, and no doubt will recollect that even a heathen poet reminded his fellow •citizens that unless they took care of their temples and kept them in a proper condition ;their prosterity would have cause for regret. Even a heathen poet could say that the greatness of Rome was owing to the constant acknowledgment, with all humility, of a higher Power, and that the neglect of this duty had been followed by calamity : " Delicta majorum immeritus lues, Romano, donee temple refeceris, /Edesque labentes Deorum, et Feeda nigro simulacra fumo. Diis to minorem quad geris, imperas. Hine omne principium, hue refer exitiun. Dii multa neglecti dederunt Hesperia] mala luctuosie." (Hear.) Sir, I trust that no Christian poet will ever say of this country what the heathen poet wrote of his. (Hear, hear.) I trust that Parliament may avert such a calamity, that the fabrics of our churches may not be allowed to fall into decay ; that the ordinances of religion may be secured for the benefit of all ,• that this may be accomplished by voluntary means and by voluntary efforts ; that you may thus respect the rights of conscience while you uphold the rights of property; and that yo p. may effect all this by allaying agitation, by recognising duties, by satisfying scruples, by reconciling differences. (Cheers.) These are the objects, the only objects, which her Majesty's Govern ment have in view in making this proposition. It is a pro position which, from my soul, I believe to be a just, a fair, a reasonable settlement of this complicated question . ; and, having submitted it, we must leave to you the pleasure of adopting, or the responsibility of rejecting it. The right hon. gentleman concluded, amid loud cheers, by moving for leave to bring in the bill. Sir J:TRELAWNEY said that, after the able, courteous, and conciliatory speech of the right hon. gentleman, he would state the course which he proposed. to take with re ference to the somewhat complicated plan just submitted. He felt the great importance of settling this question, and had never thrown cold water on any plan, by whomsoever proposed, which had that end in view. He felt, too, that if another year were lost they, as administrative reformers, would be the laughing-stock of the country. Under these circumstances, he asked the right hon. gentleman to allow him to read his (Sir J. Trelawney's) bill on this subject a second time pro forma on Wednesday next, and in the mean time they would have an opportunity to consider the details of the Government measure, and to judge of their practica bility. He was disposed, if possible to meet the right hon. gentleman half-way, and hoped, therefore, that his propo sition would be acceded to. There were one or two obser vations in the speech just addressed to the house which he felt bound now to answer. In the first place, those who thought with him believed that the Church of England was disposed to make such sacrifices as were necessary for the support of the fabrics throughout the country, and certainly the right hon. gentleman when he cited the numerous in - stances of the liberality of Churchmen seemed to be of the same impression. It was said that to abolish church-rates would only be to transfer so much money into tho pockets of the landlords, which would be quite preposterous; but the right hon. gentleman seemed to forget that in the case of the sister country Lord Derby proposed and succeeded in carryings measure which confiscated one-fourth of the Church revenue, and transferred it to the Irish landlords who showed themselves perfectly free from prejudice on this point, and accepted th e g ift. (Hear, hear.) He would suggest whether the proper mode of keeping up the church fdbrics would not be by selling the Crown livings and by applying the proceeds in this way. Now, with respect to the plan which has been submitted to the house by the right hon. gentleman who had just spoken, he wished to observe that it contained one proposition—that of consti tuting the churchwardens andincumbent a corporation for certain purposes—which, in his opinion, were open to serious objection. He took that view, because he thought if carried into effect, that part of the right hon. gentleman's scheme would be extremely likely to bring clergymen into a constant state of hot water with their flocks, and because he could perceive no advantage likely to result from the I proposed corporation which could not be secured by adher ing as far as possible to the ancient machinery and institu tions of the country. (Hear, hear.) So also with regard to the system of ticketing Dissenters, to which the right hon. gentleman adverted, he (Sir J. Trelawney) was afraid that in practice it would be found to be prejudicial to the interests of the Church. For his own part, he could not help think ing that the best way of dealing with those who objected to the payment of church-rates on conscientious grounds was to act towards them in a kindly and liberal spirit, and in support of the soundness of that view he might state that in the borough which he had the honour to represent, where church-rates had been abolished 12 years ago under the pressure of the agitation against them, no less than £1,500 had since been raised by voluntary subscrip tions for the repair of the church, one Dissenter—who under a system of compulsion would rather suffer himself to be cut to pieces than pay the church-rate—having contri buted no less a sum than £25. (Hear, hear.) He should not upon that occasion enter further into the merits of the propositions which the right hon. gentleman had laid before the house, but should conclude by expressing a hope that due time might be afforded for their consideration. (H ear, hear.) Sir G. GREY—I think the general wish of the house must be that the right hon. gentleman should be allowed to lay his bill upon the table this evening, so that it may as soon as possible be placed in the hands of hon. members in a printed form. It would not be desirable, it seems to me, until we have thus been afforded an opportunity of con sidering it, to discuss its several provisions in detail, or to express any opinion upon the general scheme which the right hon. gentleman has submitted to our notice. For my own part, however, I must say that I entirely concur with my hon. friend who has just sat down in the testimony which he bore to the conciliatory tone and spirit by which the speech of the right hon. gentleman was pervaded— (hear, hear)—sand which I must also say marks the propo sitions which he has laid before us, go far as I can form a judgment upon their general purport and tendency. (Hear, hear.) lam extremely happy to find that the right hdn. gentleman has not taken counsel of those who are desirous of re-imposing a church-rate in any form, however modi fied, in those parishes, comprising as they do a large population, in which it has been practically abolished. I have always felt in dealing with this question the neces sity of recognising the fact of such abolition in a great por tion of the large towns and parishes throughout the coun try ; while, upon the other hand, it appears to me that to interpose in the case of those parishes in which a church rate is levied by the inhabitants fer the necessary repair of the fabric of the church, and to say that they should not at their own option have recourse to the machinery of a church-rate in order to raise the required sum, would be a very arbitrary step for Parliament to take. Now, with respect to the first class of parishes to which I have referred, the right hon. gentleman has stated that he objects to all legal abolition of church-rates, even in those cases in which they have already been practicallydone away with, contending that the inhabitants of those parishes are Under a common law obligation to maintain the fabric of the church. Now, I fully admit that it has been held by one of our highest tribunals that such an obligation upon the owners of property does exist; but it has at the same time been decided that the obligation is an imperfect one, and that in the case in which a vestry refuse to enforce a rate upon the parishioners of a particular locality there is no means of compelling them to do so. Now the right hon. gentleman, if I have not misunderstood him, proposes to leave the law in that respect unaltered, while in those cases where a rate is at present imposed bythe vestry he would give to landowners the power of making it a voluntary charge upon their property. I shall not say one word which should induce the right hon. gentleman to imagine that I do not concur with him in the hope that his scheme may prove acceptable to Churchmen upon .the one hand, and to Dissenters upon the other. On the contrary, I shall give to it a fair and candid consideration, in the earnest desire that the right hon. gentleman will be found to have framed a measure by which this long-agitated question may at length be satisfactorily settled. (Hear, hear.) I may, perhaps, before I sit down, be pe rm itt e d to call the attention of hon. members to the returns upon that question: which, by command of her Majesty, have been laid upon the table of the house. In the discussions which have taken place out of doors as well as in this house as to the amount of church-rates there has been exhibited upon the part of those by whom the tax was. supported, as well as by the advocates of its abolition, a tendency to magnify upon the one hand or to diminish upon the other that amount. Now, I hold in my hand a return which shows that the total amount of the church• rate received in 1854 was £314,000. The return quoted by the right hon. gentleman strikes an average of the last seven years, including the year 1854, and how do the figures come out ? The receipts from church • rates, instead of being £314,000, were, according to the blue book, £248,838 ; but, according to the statement of my right hon. friend, including the 500 parishes omitted from the other return, the amount is £262,000. Here, then, we have evidence that the annual amount raised by church-rates is continually and rapidly decreasing, and I have no doubt, if we could have a return for the lost year, 1858, we should be still more conscious of that fact. So rapidly is the annual amount raised by church-rates diminishing that I have little doubt, if Parliament were to abstain from doing anything, church-rates would soon become practically extinct. The right hon. gentleman has alluded to the possible effects upoi?, our future history if we abandon our duty of main taining the churches of the land, but what are the facts as we fmd them here ? The total expenditure in 1854 for the maintenance of the fabric and providing for the service of the church was £464,550, while the average expenditure of the last seven years for the same purposes has been no less than £594,000. Thus, while we have the income from church-rates continually decreasing, the general expendi ture, derived chiefly f rom voluntary contributions, had largely increased—(hear)—showing that the attachment of the people of this count r y to the Church of England had not diminished, and that they were willing to contribute for the maintenance of the fabrics, and for the performance of Divine worship. Therefore, looking at the elasticity of the voluntary principle, I cannot share the apprehensions of those who think that, if church-rates were abolished the churches would be ruined. I believe they would be main tained—(hear)—but still I think it would be a harsh and arbitrary act to prevent those numerous parishes which are willing to tax themselves from doing so. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman last year gave, as the result of the returns moved for by Sir W. Clay, that the parishes where church rates had been refused were about 5 per cent, of the whole number; but those returns were exceedingly defective, and I ventured to assume, from other data, that it must be more like 10 per cent. But what do the returns produced by the right honourable gentleman himself show ? In one of the summaries ho has appended a note, that 8,115 out of 10,206 parishes the r a t es were sanc ti one d, w hi c h shows' that in 20 per cent. of the whole number of parishes the church is supported by other means than church-rates. In another column of these returns, which states the condi= tion of the churches in each parish, you will find, I think, as often as not, that where the church is out of repair, it is in a parish where the church-rate has been levies], and which has, perhaps, stood in the way of voluntary efforts, but which has not been sufficient for the repair of the fabric. (Hear, hear.) If we refer to Bradford, where not a shilling is raised by church-rates, we find that the state of the churches is " good, and " excel lent." So in the deanery of Manchester, where the amount raised by church-rates is only £22,000, and the voluntary contributions are £120,000 0r£130,000. There the churches are in good repair; and such is the case, also, in Leeds and Newcastle. I trust, therefore, that we shall escape the p co e n ci se wi qi il ien fi c o e w w s fro hch m i th t e he ne ri g g le h e t hon. ttom maintain the m seems t o o e t. the catch, Thee© returner aro Very instractive, and Will repay any gentleman who chooses to devote some attention - to them, and I think the house is indebted to the right hon. gentleman for producing them so early in the session. '(Hear, hear.) I shall not now discuss the provisions of the bill. As I have said, I think it would be inexpedient to express any opinion until we have had an opportunity of considering it. I will only say one word as to the subject of pew-rents. In the scheme which I proposed pew-rents were to be levied to a very modified extent and under certain circumstances. lam not about to contend for the adoption of the principle of pew-rents, but I would remind the house that to a ver y great extent—an enormous extent I may say—that system does already prevail in the Church. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman gave an eloquent description of the provision made for the poor in every parish to hear the Gospel preached, but what is really the case in this city, in London ? (Hear, hear.) In the parish in which is St. George's, Hanover-square, where do we find the poor, or in any of the numerous district churches of that parish ? Where are they ? To say that those churches afford opportunities for the poor to hear the Gospel preached without ' the 'payment of money is, I think, rather a poetical description. In almost every city an d town in this country pew-rents exist to a greater extent than they ought. (Hear.) The Church Building Acts which have been passed from time to time, and to some of which the right hon. gentleman himself has been a party, have nearly all contained authority for raising funds from pew-rents, subject to certain restrictions, such as the consent of the ordinary and - the provision .0. a certain amount of free accommodation. The system may or may not be one which ought to receive the sanction of Parliament, but I must protest against the description of the Church as given by the right hon. gentleman. (Hear.) As I have spoken of the churches &tendon arid large towns and cities, where the seats are occupied by the rich and those who pay for their sittings, I cannot avoid expressing the satisfaction, in which all must share who are interested in the welfare of their fellow-countrymen as well as of the Church, at the move ment which has taken place, by which the .magnificent ecclesiastical edifices of the metropolis have been thrown open to all classes of the people. (Hear, hear.) All who have witnessed the throngs which have attended to hear the words of truth and peace preached in those temples must rejoice that at last those splendid buildings were ap plied to a proper purpose. (Hear.) I can only hope that in every cathedral throughout the land these examples will be followed, and the evils of the want of accommodation for the poor in our churches be removed by the same zeal which has led to such beneficial results as we have wit nessed here. At present I shall say no more upon this sub bect, as it is desirable that we sh ou ld see th e bill in print efore we give any opinion upon it. (Hear, hear.) Mr. BALL was happy to recognise the cordial spirit with which the right hon. gentleman had introduced his measure, and thought the proposals he had made were very fair to all parties. (Hear, hear.) He was bound to say that the proposal of the right hon. gentleman bad been presented in such a shape he thought it the duty of those who were in favour of the abolition of church-rates to express their willingness to assent to it. (Hear, hear.) He had no hostile feeling towards the Church of Eng land ; and, in order to carry out the principles he had advocated in that house, he felt compelled to say on this occasion that he was very much disposed to accept the pro posal, which, with certain amendments, he hoped might be the means of putting an en d t o the unhappy dissensions to which church-rates had given rise. (Hear.) At the same time, he hoped it was not intended that Dissenters were to be precluded from attending parish meetings at which the rates were imposed, if they desired to do so. It did not much matter what the Dissenters were called ; a rose was still a rose, call it by what name they would ; and he thought the exclesion of the Dissenters from the vestry meetings would tend to create bitterness of feeling and to retard the object which the bill sought to accomplish. He had only risen to say that he recognised in the proposal made by the Government an earnest of their good intention to terminate, so far as in them lay, that ill-feeling which had so long existed between the different classes of reli gionists and done so much harm to religion itself, and he gladly accepted it. (Hear, hear.) Sir A. ELTON said the measure propounded by the Home Secretary was a valuable one and deserved the best consideration of the h ouse ; b ut he regretted that the right hon. gentleman had not boldly crossed the Rubicon and made the complete abolition of church-rates the starting point of his proposal.. (Hear, hear.) He would h ave d one more towards quickenng the iberality and benevolence of the public in this matter by at once putting an end to church-rates than by the course he had taken. It was im possible to destroy the notion among the mass of the people that the produce of church-rates went into the clergyman's pocket, and hence his ministrations often became unaccept able. Under these circumstances it would be conferring a benefit to take away such a frightful source of discord, and by doing so he believed they would enable the Church of England to do her duty, to recover the affections of those who were temporarily estranged, and to continue in the career of usefulness which had marked her history in all times. (Cheers.) Mr. PACKE said it was gratifying to find from all sides of the house _every disposition to give a favourable con sideration to the project of the right hon. gentleman the Secretary of State. It was hardly fair to ask the house to pledge itself to total abolition until they had time to give due consideration to the measure of the right hon. gentle man. (Hear, hear.) Sir G. C. LEWIS said he quite concurred with his right hon. friend (Sir G. Grey) that it was not desirable that they should go into a discussion of the bill at the present stage. At the same time he thought it desirable that the house should be put in full possession of all the material parts of the Government plan, in order that, there and else where, it might be fully considered before the time arrived for discussion. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Walpole) had not clearly explained, in his very lucid statement, whe ther it was intended that in future the vestry should be composed of landowhers and not of occupiers as at present. The principle of the bill being, as he understood, that the rate should henceforth absolutely and by force of the bill be a landlord's rate, and cease to be an occupier's rate he wished to know whether it was intended that the vestry should consist exclusively of landowners ? (Hear.) There was another point upon which it was desirable some expla nation should be given. If the rate should become a land lord's rate, what regulations would be made in case of more than one landlord—that was to say, when, as often hap pened, there were, in respect of a house, a ground-landlord, a medium-landlord,:rand an occupier{-which would pay, and which would sit in the vestry ? (Hear hear.) Mr. HOPE wished to make as much concession to the conscientious feelings of Dissenters as he could, but giving up the name of church .rate, and all the machinery of a most ancient obligation, which existed long before the Norman conquest, was, he thought, being liberal at other people's expense. The hon. member for Bath drew a touching pic ture of the poor men crowding with their pence for the sus tentation of the. Church, and at the same time talked of the unwillingness of the rich to alienate their property for ever; but surely the two acts were correlative. If the Church relied on the mite of the poor she might also call upon the spontaneous piety of the rich man to endow his parish church for ever out of his land. Great objections had been made to what was called "ticketing" people as Dissenters, but the Government measure would avoid that, as a man would only have to write on his paper that he con scientiously objected to pay the rate, and he would hear no more of it. The right hon. baronet the member for Mor peth had dwelt on the large area in which church-rates had been refused, and on the increase in pew-rents, but it did not seem to have occurred to him that it was precisely in those parishes where the odious system of pew-rents had gained ground that church-rates were refused. (Hear.) It was the building of those obnoxious castles of selfishness, where the poor were crowded away in dark corners or under the galleries, out of sight, exposed to the contumely of the beadle in blue and gold, that incensed people and brought them up to the vestry to vote against church-rates. If there were a clause in the bill to abolish pew-rents in every parish of above 5,000 inhabitants, church-rates would be willingly paid henceforth in half or' two-thirds of the parishes in which they were now refused. He hoped by the end of the session the question would be entirely set at rest. (Hear.) Lord J. RUSSELL—I think, Sir, that the measure which has been propounded by the right hon. gentleman has been framed with a great deal of care, and that a con siderable amount of labour has been expended in its prepa ration; and if I now state some few objections which occur to me, it is not that I think there was any other course open to the Government so obviously better than that which they have proposed that they ought to have adopted it, but that I wish the right hon. gentleman to consider, when he proceeds further with this measure, what may be its effect. With regard to the former part of the preposi tion, which seems to be taken from the bill of my right hon. friend the member for Morpeth, I think that there can be no objection to it. It may provide more or less well for the future maintenance of the church, but, at all events, the principle involved is unobjectionable. (Hear.) But, as I followed the right hon. gentleman's argument, I could not but perceive, with respect to the second part of his measure, by which he proposes to relieve from the payment of church-rates all Dissenters who state that they have a conscientious objection to their payment, that he was impairing the principle upon which an Established Church rests, and I think that the right hon. gentleman must have felt this himself. The right hon. gentleman said more than once that it was fit that those who had not the benefit of the Established Church should not bear the burden of main taining it. Now, it has always seemed to me that the whole defence of an Established Church must stand upon this- not that it is of immediate and direct benefit to those who attend its services and hear its preachings, but that it is a general benefit to the community at large. (Hear, hear.) I have always considered that, placing in every parish a mi nister who is not only to preach the Gospel but who is to hold forth an example of religion and morality in that parish—who is to tell the people what is in conformity with the morality of the Gospel, and what is not—who superin tends and fosters the schools in which the youth of the parish are educated—who upon every occasion when Chris tian charity can be exerted, is ready with his hand to ad minister to the wants of those who are deserving objeets among whom he lives—l have always, I say, considered that it was a benefit, not to churchmen exclusively, but to all those who dissent from the Church as well as to all those who conform to it, that there should be in every parish, inde- pendently of the caprice, of the generosity, or of the wealth of the persons living in the parish, such a minister of the Gos . _ _ pel. But if that view—which Ido not claim as an original one of my own, but which I have borrowed from other and wirr persons—be correct, what logic or reason is there in saying, " You, the churchmen, have a benefit from the Church, because you go there en a Sunday and listen to Divine service read from the Common Prayer-book, and hear the clergyman deliver a sermon, but your neighbours who live next door or in the adjoining street, being Dis senters, have no benefit at all, because they do not attend the ministration of that clergyman ?". That appears to me o be placini the Church upon too narrow and too low a ground: (Hear.) And it is not the argument alone, but it is the proposition, because you obviously say, "You ars to pay for the repairs of the church because you have the bene fit ; but you, who live next door, are not to pay because you have no benefit from it whatever." By this proposition you at once change the character of the Church, for you no longer maintain it as a national Church. You may main tain it as a powerful Church, as a State Church, as a wealthy Church, nay, as. a Church that is diffusing religion and morality among a vast number of people, but you only maintain it after all as the strongest sect of the community. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman, I dare say, differs from me in that ; but I cannot but consider that when Lord Derby placed the charge of the re airs of church es i n I re l an d upon the Church reven ues of Ireland, he took a measure much . better calculated to support. the Established Church in that country than if he had adopted a proposition similar to the present. (Hear.) A second . part of this question relates to the practical effect of this measure. If you are unable to imulzt 4 44 church -rates; 4 Parliamenta of opiiziort cannot be maintained and church-rates are abolished—in that way disiensions will cease and there will be no more ill blood. You may maintain your churches not so well, per haps, as you have done, but at all events you put an end to quarrelling. But here, by this bill, you go, say, to 40 or 50 farmers in a parish, and you permit some 20 of them not to pay church-rates because they have a conscientious ob - jection, while the other 30 are to go on paying in a some what aggravated form, and of course to an additional extent. Now, I can't help thinking when this begins to operate in a parish that those farmers will be very apt to say—" This is unfair towards us, there are our neighbours who paid church-rates formerly for what we all thought a common benefit—we all imagined that the Established Church was good for us all,—but they are relieved, and we have to pay more'on their account. The Legislature is acting unfairly towards us, and we shall not go on paying this charge much longer." This is one consequence that may arise. (Hear, hear.) Then, the hon. member for Cambridgeshire said very truly that Dissenters will hardly be satisfied when, in consequence of their not paying church-rates, they are refused admission to the vestry. Do you not think that you must of necessity create ill blood when you refuse to admit Dissenters into the parish vestry, and thereby make a distinction which has never been made before? And in making that distinction you again mark that your Church is not a national Church—that you have divested it of that character. It appears to me that these considerations are df some value, and it further appears to me if this bill passes —and it is perhaps the best course that you can adopt at present—(cheers)—yet, in the difficulties which surround the question, and which the right hon. gentleman stated very fairly, it is, I believe, the best resource that you have at present ; but I feel convinced that in a very few years after this bill has been passed church-rates will not continue to exist in any shape whatever. (Cheers.) I ought not to conclude, after making so man y objections to the measure, and proposing nothing in its place, without saying that, in spite of the contests that have taken place of late years, in spite of the ill blood that has been excited in some places by these church-rate contests, and by others of a more polemi cal and doctrinal nature, my belief is that there never was a time when the Church. of England might rely with more confidence upon the increase of her strength than the pre sent. It is quite remarkable how much zeal and spirit there have been of late years in building new churches, in providing endowments for ministers, in separating districts from populous parishes, and generally in increasing the efficiency of the Established Church. (Hear, hear.) I have seen those symptoms with very great satisfaction; and I feel, whatever may be our legislation here, that in this country, where at all events there is perfect freedom for en dowments of this nature, the Church is sure to increase in power and in efficiency for the great purposes which it has ni view. (Hear, hear.) I should say in additi on t o this— and without it all else would be as nothing—that the minis ters of the Gospel, though they are unfortunately in many cases divided into different schools, all of them evince a de gree of zeal, an amount of devotion to the administration of the Gospel, and, above all, an attention to the religion of the poor, which in my younger days certainly was not the general character of their ministration. (Hear, hear.) That is the best symptom of all, and with that symptom I cannot but look with the greatest confidence to the future of the Church. Perhaps I may be allowed to add, and it arises out of what was said by the hon. member for Leicestershire, and immediately appertains to the subject of church-rates, thit it will be a matter for the consideration of these who are charged with the revenues of the Church that, while in almost all towns there are ample means by subscriptions and donations for the repairs of the church, yet that in our rural parishes there are many edifices of great architectural beauty, monuments of the piety of our ancestors / and in some few eases memorable for their historical antiquities, the fabrics of which local subscriptions will not be adequate to maintain. I think that the Ecclesiastical Commissioner might, supposing they did nothing else, contribute one half, or perhaps more, of the sums necessary to maintain these churches. lam sorry if what I have said respecting this bill is not in such terms of praise as the right hon. gen tleman could wish it to be. At the same time he will be quite right in thinking 'that this is the very best measure which, under the circumstances, could be framed. (Hear.) We must make the measure suit the opinion of the public, and cannot expect that the best measure which could be framed would be likely to pass. (Hear, hear.) Mr. NEWDEGATE said h e did no t rise to express any opinion on the proposition of the right hon. gentleman, but merely wished to know whether the right hon. gentleman intended that the property of any Dissenter who might assert that his conscience objected to the payment of church rates should be perpetually exempt from church-rates. Mr. MELLOR said that, notwithstanding the favourable manner in which the statement of the right hon. gentleman appeared to have been received, many parts of his measure were very objectionable, and would require grea t considera tion. He was afraid that if those objections were not re moved it would be difficult to pass the measure. He denied that church-rates were in any case a charge upon the land. What did the right hon. gentleman propose to do with re spect to those towns in which for some time church-rates had not been levied. (Hear, hear.) Did he mean to treat the rates there as if they had been practically abolished ? Mr. D. GRIFFITH congratulated the Government on the introduction of this measure. It was wisely framed on the give and take principle, for it would be vain to expect that it could pass if it were framed on a principle of rigid justice. He trusted that the hon. baronet (Sir J. Trelawney) would postpone his bill until time had been given for consi dering the Government measure. If the hon. baronet carried his bill on Wednesday next the Government proposal would -have no footing. That would be a despotic use of a majo rity, which would not carry with it the opinion of the coun try at large, or even of the right-minded portion of the Dissenters. (Hear.) Mr. Alderman GU BITT trusted that the bill of the Go vernment would be fairly and impartially considered, so that the house might perfect a measure which would pass during the present session, and be satisfactory to the country. (Hear, hear.) Mr. HADFIELD said he rose to express his dissent. (Ironical cheers.) He believed that the bill would find more objectors within the Establishment than without. The thing could not work. To give a man a premium to express his conscientious objection to a task was giving a bounty to dissent. (Hear, hear.) He objected to the machinery, and thought that th e bill would do no earthly good what ever. Take the rate off altogether and the Church would flourish more than ever. (Hear, hear.) There were 15,000 churches in England and Wales, but of these only the 8,000 that were parish churches could demand a rate ; there were at least 5,000 chapels of ease not entitled to the support of a rate, which were as well repaired as the parish churches themselves. The congregations of these parish churches were among the richest portion of the community ; let them pay their own expenses ; and if their servants attended. the Church also, let their employers think it no hard ship to pay for them. If the expenses were confined to the strictly legal charges, he did not believe more than £150,000 a-year would be required. Was it not time for the Church, from very shame, to put an end to this impost ? He ob jected to any partial suspension of the law of mortmain in favour of the Church, and he believed when the plan, with all its details, came before the public, it would be received with general dissatisfaction. Sir B. BRIDGES thought it important the statement of the hon. member for Yarmouth (Mr. Mellor) that church rates were not a charge on the land, should not go forth uncorrected. The contrary opinion had been expressed by the greatest lawyers ; they_had declared that the land was responsible for the maintenance of the church; that the charge was inalienable, and more ancient than any title deed of any holder of land in the kingdom. After a few obseivations from Mr. KERR, Mr. WALPOLE would not have thought it necessary again to address the house had it not been that in the course of the evening one or two questions had been put on matters of detail which he had not sufficiently explained in his opening speech. The hon. member for Yarmouth asked whether it was intended to alter the law with refer once to places where church-rates had not hitherto been levied ; and the hon. member for Sheffield maintained that, if it were not so altered, the agitation which had beenraised on the subject would only be increased. He thought he had explained that it was the intention of the Government not to interfere unnecessarily with, the law as it now stood, believing it to be a right law in itself, though one that, by the force of circumstances and the alterations brought about by time, had become in some cases oppressive to those who no longer belonged to the Church. (Hear, hear.) It was, therefore, not the intention of the Government to alter the law with regard to those places ; and he thought there existed good reasons why they should not do so. In the first place, it would be wrong to deny to those places which had hitherto disobeyed the law an opportunity of obeying it; and, in the second place, he thought no hardship could accrue to them by leaving the law as it was, because a ma joritycould determine, as at present, to impose the rate if volurtary contributions were not raised by the parishioners. (Hear, hear.) A question had been put with reference to the effect of the clause which enabled occupiers to charge the rate against the landlord, In explaining this part of the bill he omitted to mention the subsequent clause, which provided that in cases where the landlord was required to pay the rate—in other words, when the tenant deducted the rate from the rent—the voice which the tenant formerly , possessed in the vestry would be transferred to the land lord. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Warwickshire asked whether it was proposed, in giving exemption on account of conscientious objections to the payment of the rate to give the exemption to the land, or only to persons. Certainly only to persons, and only to persons during the years in which the rate was levied—(hear, hear)—for it was not desirable to prevent those who had conscientious ob jections to the payment of the rate at one time from coining back at another, and subjecting- themselves to the charge, as in many cases might be done. (Hoar ' hear.) He thought that when a person had bee n relieved from the rate for one year it was but reasonable that he should have an oppor tunity of saying whether or not he would pay the rate in a future year. (Hear, hear.) But the most serious objec tion raised against the bill was that stated by the noble lord the member for London. The noble lord had always been a most consistent opponent of the abolition of church-rates. For the course he had taken on this subject the friends of the established church owed him a deep debt of gratitude— (hear, hear)—and nothing would give him greater pain than to find that the Government were amenable to the imputa tion which the noble lord imagined stood against them when they proposed an exemption in favour of Dissenters. The noble lord argued in forcible language that the principle of an established church was really involved in that propo sition. Now, the noble lord himself, in a subsequent part of his speech, showed distinctly that this exemption of Dissen ters had nothing whatever to do with the principle of an establishment. He said, the principle of an establishment was that they should have throughout the country and in every part of the country places of worship and nainistersW religion to meet the spiritual wants of the people. Butt he noble lord could hardly argue from his own premises that the mere fact of exempting one man,:or a number of men, from the payment of church-rates was a destruction of the prin ciple of an establishment, unless the principle meant this,— th.at it was right to enforce on those who did not belong s to the Church a compulsory payment of the rate. (Hear, hear.) Ho thought the noble lord was unduly hard on the measure in this respect. (Hear.) At the end of his speech he admitted the difficulties that existed, and seemed almost to think that these difficulties were nearly insurmountable. In such circumstances it became a grave question whether some such proposition as he (Mr. Walpole) had submitted to the house should be adopted, or whether matters should be allowed to remain exactly as they were. If things were to remain as they now were, there would necessarily be a continuance of all the agitation which they wished to put an end to ; but if it was possible to rectify some of the evils that existed he preferred that to leaving the law in its pre sent state of uncertainty. (Hear.) The noble lord said he foresaw that church-rates were gone, and he (Mr. Walpole) would say so too ; but he and the • noble lord applied to these words a different meaning. The noble lord meant to infer that church-rates would be gone because it would be impossible any longer to levy them. He (Mr. Walpole) believed that church-rates would be gone because, by the voluntary efforts of those who belonged to the Church, it would be found possible to maintain the sacred fabrics with out haying reCyFse to “ system that had so long been' a source of strife and contention in many parts of the country. (Hear, hear.) Before sitti n g d own he wished to make an appeal to the hon. baronet the member for Tavistock. The second reading of his bill on church-rates stood for Wed nesday next. It would be impossible for the Government to bring forward their bill for the second reading on that day. What he would propose was, that the second reading of the bill should be put nominally for Monday next, and that the hon. baronet should have an opportunity of put ting the second reading of his bill next on the orders for that day. He proposed this in order that the two bills might be debated together and the time of the house saved, and it must be evident that by this means no undue advan tage would be taken of the hon. baronet. (Bear, hear.) Sir J.' TRELAWNEY WAS quite willing to, accede to the proposition of the right hon. gentleman, with the under standing that as early an opportunity as possible would be taken after Monday for proceeding with the bill. Leave was then given to bring in the bill. EAST INDIA LOAN. On the bringing up of the report on the India loan, Sir G. C. LEWIS thought it would be mo,”e convenient that whatever discussion might arise on this subject should be taken on the second reading instead of at the present stage. If that arrangement met the views of the' Govern ment he hoped they would fix the second reading for a day when the house would have an opportunity for a full discus sion. (Hear, hear.) Mr. SLANEY dissented from the gloomy views taken bY the right hon. member for Halifax and others of the pro spects of Indian finance. The debt of India amounted be fore the mutiny to but two years' revenue—a state of thilll3 3 calculated, when they considered the boundless and unde veloped resources of that country, to inspire confidence rather than despondency for the future. The people of India, who had been ground down for many centuries bY successive conquerors, only required fair play and good government to render them happy and prosperous and to secure their attachment to our rule. Essentially an agri cultural people, no less than three-fourths of the produce of the land was exacted from them in the shape of rent whereas in this country the landlord's share did not exceed one-fourth or one-fifth. The introduction of good govern ment into India would lead to employment of much capital which was now hidden away, and would also open a field for investments, which was now much needed by that coun b'At the same time the condition of the natives would much improved ; they would produce many . ldnds of raw material required by our manufacturers, and in return for it would take large quantities of our manufactures. Uncle!' such circumstance we should hold our empire, not by fraud and force, but by the ties of mutual interest and gratitude our revenue would matdrially increase, and the people India would rise through material and moral improvement to that religious advancement which all must wish them. The report was adopted, and leave given to bring in a bill. MARKETS (IRELAND) BILL. This bill was read a second time. LUNATIC POOR (IRELAND) BILL. This bill was read a seeonCtime. On the question that it be committed that day fortnight, Mr. BAGWELL moved that it bereferrodto a select com mittee, but after some discussion the amendment was with drawn, and the bill was ordered to be committed that daY fortnight. SUPERANNUATION BILL. This bill went through committee pro forma. MEDICAL ACT (1858) AMENDMENT BILL. This bill was read a Second time. - - LUNATICS (CARE AND TREATMENT) EJLL. This bill was read a second time, and ordered to be re ferred to the Committee on Lunacy. LUNATIC ASYLUMS, &c., BILL. This bill was read a second time, and ordered to be re" ferred to the Committee on Lunacy. BURIAL PLACES BILL. This bill was read a second time. MARRIAGE LAW AMENDMENT BILL. The third reading of this bill was ordered to be postponed to Thursday, March 3. INCLOSURE OF LANDS. On the motion of Mr. HARDY, leave was given to bring in a bill to authorise the inclosure of certain lands in pur - , suance of a report of the Incl osure Commissioners I ° l. England and Wales. The bill was brought in and read a first time. LOCAL ASSESSMENTS EXEMPTION ABOLITION BILL. Mr. S. ESTCOURT, in moving for leave to bring in a to abolish general exemptions from local assessments, est‘h that the question was referred to a select committee last year, whose recommendations had been carried out by the bill: The bill would make public establishments now exemP t liable to rates; public property to the amount of £2,ooo t o o ° would be brought within the compass of parochial retail' Taking the average annual rating at 2s. 6d. in the pourut the bill would entail a yearly additional expenditure of no less than £250,000. But the principle of the bill was an equitable one, and he hoped the house would sanction it. , Mr. WILSON approved of the bill; and as it would add two millions of property to the assessment, it would pro' bably reduce the rat e t o I s . 6d . I t did not so much create tb new public burden as distribute one already borne by dif ferent localities over the whole nation. Mr. LOCKE asked if other than the Government este* blishments, such as hospitals and scientific institutiene• were to be included in the bill, and made liable to rating. Mr. COX wished to know if the rating was to be to the poor only, or to all parochial rates. Mr. FITZGERALD inquired if the measure extended to Ireland. Mr. S. ESTCOURT stated that the bill extended to Ire land ; that it included public establishments not occupy l by the Government, such as scientific i ns tit u tions; and that the assessment would be to all parochial rates. General CODRINOFON and Sir F. SMITH supported the bill, which was brought in and read a first time. POOR LAW GUARDIANS. Mr. ESTCOURT brought in a bill to define the period of limitation for payment of debts, by boards of g uardians, which the present law left uncertain. The bill would em power boards of guardians in future to pay legally incurred debts within 12 months, and in certain cases the period might be extended to ' six months more. With regard to debts incurred before the passing of the bill, they would be allowed to pay them within a period of six years ; and he might state that it would be 'applicable to debts incurred I/ the city of London Union referred to a few evenings ago ill the house. Leave was then given, and both bills were brought in and read a first time. The house adjourned at 10 minutes past 1 o'clock. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—HoIIoway's Pills the most Effee" tual Remedy for Bowel Complaints and Disorders of the Stomach.—At this season of the year when these corn' plaints are so prevalent, there is no better remedy than Holloway's Pills, whether as a preventive or cure. When taken in moderat e d oses , an d s t r i c t attent i on paid to diet, the worst cases will be relieved. The strengthening pro perties of these pills restore the impaired tone of the ' stomach, and cleanse the liver. Nothing so good has been discovered for the cure of persons suffering from a long re' sidence in hot climates, and they Surpass every other in' tine for general family use. In the nursery, as on ' toilet table, these corrective pills are now properly !co t dered indispensably necessary. [ADVERTISEMENT.] SIGHT AND HEARING..-- SPEC"' TACLES. — POWERPUL TELESCOPES.—OPERA, RACE, AND PERSPECTIVE GLASSES.— Meisrs. S. and B. Solomons , opticians, 39, Albermarle-Street, Piccadilly. Observe — * opposite the York Hotel, W.—Opera, Race-course, Field, and general Out-doOr Day and Night Perspective Glasses; very small, for the Waistcoat pocket, each containing 12 an 18 lenses, constructed of German glass. Will show dis tinctly a person to know them at two-and-a-half and thren miles, and an object from eight to ten miles distant. Her Majesty's Coast Guards are making use of them as day end night glasses in preference to. all others ; they are also pre; ferred for deer-stalking by sportsmen, gentlemen, and gamekeepers. Telescopes 3f inches long, by which a per son may be clearly seen and known at 3f miles' and an object at 12 to .14 miles'. distance.; and with an extra astro nomical eye-piece, Jupiter's moons, Saturn's rings, and the double stars are distinctly seen. All the above can be, had of larger and all sizes, with inc reas i ng p owers , and are secured by her Majesty's Royal Letters Patent. The Royal Exhibition, 1851. A valuable, newly invented, very small, powerful Waistcoat-pocket Glass, the size of a walnut, by which a person can be seen and known one and a half mile distant. They answer every purpose on tit(' Race-course and at the Opens' houses. Country scenery and ships are clearly seen at four to six miles. They are invaluable for shooting, deer-stalking, yachting, to sportsmen, gentlemen, game keepers, and tourists. Price 30s.—Spectacle Lenses of the, greatest transparent power. Th e grea t a d van t age derive(' from this invention is, that vision becoming impaired h i preserved and strengthened, and very aged p ersons are enabled to employ their sight at the most minute occupation. —can see with those lenses of a much less magnifying power, and they do not require the frequent changes to the dangerous effects of further powerful assistance. Persons can be suited at the most remote part of the world by send ing one of the glasses out of their spectacles in a letter, and stating the distance from the eyes they can read small print with it, and those who have not made use of spectacles by statingtheirage. Deafness.—New Discovery.—The Organin Vibrator, an extraordinarily powerful small newly-invented instrument for Deafness, entirely different from all others/ surpasses anything of the kind that has been, or probably ever can be, produced. Being of the same colour as the skin, is not perceptible. It enables deaf persons to hear distinctly at church and at public assemblies ; the unplea sant sensation of singing noises in the ears is entirely re moved, and it affords all the assistance that possibly could be desired.-39, Albemarle-street, Piccadilly. Observe—• apposite the York Hotel, W. • BIRTHS. . . AYRTON.—On the 19th inst., at St. John's-terrace, Re' gent's-park, the wife of Alfred Ayrton, of Doctor's-com mons, of a daughter.. CARRUTHERS.—On the 21st inst., at East End, Finchley, the wife of James Carruthers, Esq., M.D., of a son. GARDNEIL—On the 19th inst., at Montfort House, Leam ington Priors, the wife of Richard Gardner, Esq., solici tor, of a son. WILLOUGHEY.—On the 20th inst., at 18, Weatbourne terrace, the wife of J. P. Willoughby, Esq , of a son. MARRIAGES - - BREWSTER—PARSONS.—On the 19th inst., at St. James's ! Piccadilly, Joseph, son o f th e l ate Mr. Brewster, of Bond street, to Enna Eccles, sister to Mr. Parsons, of Regent street and Burlington-arcade. MACKERLIE—MACWHIRTER.—On the 21st inst., at All Souls', Langham-place, John Mackerlio, Esq., to Harriet Seton, the eldest daughter of the late John Macwhirter, M.D., H.E.I.C.S. DEATHS. ADDISON.—On the 18th inst., the Rev. John Addison, LL.B., rural dean, and rector of Ickenham, Uxbridge. If AWKES.—On the 20th inst., at South Lambeth, Samuel Hawkes, Esq., aged 71. H ICKMAN.—On the 14th inst., at 206, Euston-road, Euston square, Edward Hickman, Esq., F.R.C.S., aged 63; and on the 17th inst., at Elm-grove, Lower Norwood, Chas. C Hickman, youngest son of the above, aged 18. HONYWOOD.—On the 20th inst., William P. Honywood, Esq., of Mark's Hall, Essex, and Sibton, Kent, aged 36. P.texEnNELL.—On the 20th inst., at his residence, Hyde' vale, Blackheath, Commander P. G. Pickernell, aged 87. PRITCHARD.—On the 21st inst.,'at 5, The Cedars, Putney, William Pritchard, Esq., High Bailiff of Southwark, aged 67: LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the county of Middlesex, Tuesday, February 22, 1869,