The Sun. — London, England, 1837-05-24 00:00:00

for the payment of mouse ministers in the Church of Irelaed, and that would be as n-ood an opportunity for the Hon. Mem ber for Dundalk to bring on his motion as the present. The lion. Member for Worcester had an important motion also on the paper, but he hoped he would bow to the sense of the House. The Honourable Member for Bath also had a very important question to bring on ; but as he was one of those who was most anxious to go on with the public business, lie apprehended that he would threw no obstacle in the way of their proceeding with the adjourned de bate. If it met with the general assent of the Houle, he hoped those Hots. Members would allow them to reaume the adjourned debate. Mr. S. CRAWFORD'S only object was, to study the con venience of the House. He would not press his motion, on the understanding that Government would assist him in getting a hearing. Mr. B. HOY would not stand against the feeling o the House, but he considered his question of so meth importance that he would move it on the fiest Order of the Day on Friday. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then moved the Order of the Day for resuming the debate on the Church rate Resolutions. Mr. ROEBUCK would take that opportunity of asking a question of the Hon. Under-Secretary for the Colonies. There were a number of Bills then expiring in Lower Canada, in consequence of the non-sitting of the Assembly, and among them were many Charters of Banks. He wished to know whether any Royal charter or charters were to be granted to those Banks, or whether any Royal charter was to be granted to the North American Bank. If the Royal charters were to be granted then, was there to be a clause in them, allowio e them to be done away with, if a general law were passed by the Legislature of the country ? Sir G. GREY said that applications had been made by three Banks for a renewal of their charter, to enable them to carry on their business ; that charters would be given to those three banks for a limited period only, to carry them over the time during which the provincial Legislature would b e able to decide whether th e c h arter s h ou ld b continued or nut. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE. Mr. HUME wished to know what was the intention of his Majesty's Ministers with regard to the House meeting- to morrow ? ( Hear. ) Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, th it as the adjourned de bate on Church-Rates would probably last till a late hour, it would be better to adjourn till Thursday.—( Hear.) IRISH POOR LAW BELL. Lord JOHN RUSSELL, in answer to a question from Mr. Shaw, said that he proposed to go on with th 6 Com mittee on the Irish Poor-law Bill on Thursday next. Mr. AG LIONBY said, in consequence of the adjournment of the House over to-morrow, a Bill of which he had had charge for the last two Sessions would be also thrown over. As he quite despaired of being able to carry the measure himself, which was a most important one, beine a Bill for the recovery of tenements after notice to quit, he begged to ask the Noble Lord whether, in the event of his giving it up, his Majesty's Government would take up the question ? Last session he had charge of the Bill, and for six successive Wednesdays the House had been counted out.--( Laughter.) The House had now adjourned over to-mor row, and he would submit to the Noble Lord whether the sub ject should not be taken up by the law advisers of the Crown. Lord JOHN RUSSELL was unable, in the absence of the Attorney-General, to answer the Hon. and Learned Mem ber's question. Mr. ESTCOURT hoped the Hon. Member would net abandon the Bill. Mr. WAKLEY suggested that the Bill ought to be re ferred to a Committee. Its object was to supersede trial by jury in many cases, and it was therefore a fit snbject for the consideration of a Committee. Mr. ROEBUCK begged to suggest to the Noble Lord (J. Russell), as the House had adjourned over to-morrow, and as it was very unlikely that there would be any House on Thursday, the Derby day,_ whether it would not be advisable to give them two holidays ?—( Hear, hear.) CHURCH-RATES —ADJOURNED DEBATE. The Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate having been read, Mr. BROTHF,RTON, as the representative of a large constituency, would take the liberty of offering a few obser vations to the House. In Nlane ) sester there were no less than 30 Churches belonging to the Eetablishment which were sup ported by their own resources, while the whole of the rates went to the support of only one es? them. The measure, therefore, proposed by Ministers vas not only a relief to the Dissenters, but to the Members of the Church themselves. In the same town there were 'no less than 100 Dissenting places of Wor ship, and the persons attending them am ounte d to no l ess than 100,00 P,. It had b ee n said there was not a sufficiency of Church 'accommodation in Manchester; he denied that such ``'as the case, and asserted that there was twice the accommo datir,d that was requ i re d. ,slr. A. TREVOR and Mr. FITZROY rose at the same moment, 'but the former gave way. Mr. FITZROY had the honour to represent a large con stituency, and he had been sent to that House by parties who professed various political and religious opinions. Those who had returned him, and they were of all parties, Dissenters as well as Churchmen, had requested him to state to that House that they not only considered Church-rates no burden, but that they paid no tax imposed upon them so willingly and cheer fully.___( Hear.) They concurred with him in deprecating the Ministerial plan. It had been said that this measure was brought forward in'eompliance with the general wishes of the Dissenters, and that it would be a healing measure. If this worn the 'seem I t... , ., l; tLc uviln eumptathea of-1r it would relieve the Dissenters from grievances which they were anxious to be relieved from--why, he asked, was not the table of that House greening with petitions? He believed that the result of the petitions presented on this subject, if they were to be taken as the criterion es an argument for the adoption or rojection of any given measure—would show a mo-t overwhelming majority opposed to the plan of his Majesty's Ministers,—(Cries of " Hear," and " No, no.) Mrs A. TREVOR concurred in what his Hon. Friend had mated with respect to the petitions presented to that Reuse ; and he also believed that the voice of the country generally was hostile to this measure. He should now call the attention of the House to another point. The Honourable Member for North Durham had, in his speech of last night, alluded to the subject of Church leases. Now, the conster nation and alarm which existed in the county of Durham on this subject, it would be impossible to describe. He held in his hand a communication which he had received from a highly respectable gentleman residing at South Shields on this part of the case. [The Hon. Gentleman read a passage from this communication : it stated that the proposed interference 'with this species of property in the diocese of Durham was likely to involve the most serious consequences to all those who held Church leases', and that already the mortgagees of such property had given notice to the mortgagors for payment of the p: incipal and interest due on their securities. It was utterly im possible these payments could be made, because no person would no w lend money on such property, and the consequence would be ruinous loss to the owners of Church leases.j— -( Hear, hear.) Such was the condition to which the county of Durham was reduced by the introduction of this measure. The Hon. Member for North Durham had also stated that there were in the county of Durham only 110 places of wor ship connected with the Established Church, while the Dis senting places of worship amounted to 246. Ile did not know whether in this calculation the flon. Member had included the chapels of ease, a number of which, to his knowledge, had recently been erected in different parts of that county. Now, in the diocese of Durham, which comprehended the eourities of Durham and Northumberland, there were 152 benefices, and, consequently, if there were 110 churches in the county of Durban's, the number left for the county of Northumberland would only he 42. This certainly could not be right. The Hon, Member for North Durham had likewise made a com pasison between the schools connected with the Established Church and those belonging to the Dissenters in the county of Durham. On referring to a return on this subject, he (Mr. Trevor) found that in the Schools, Sunday and daily, in that county, connected with the Established Church, the number of children instructed was 55,000, while in the whole of the schools of the Dissenters, according to the same document, only 10,012 children attended for the purposes of education, lf,, then, any reliance was to be placed on this return, the numbers of children in the schools of the Established Church greatly exceeded that in the schools of the Dissenters.—(Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman said he supported this measure because he considered it would be beneficial to the Church ; but how he made good such an argument he (Mr. A. T revor ) cnu ' d not conceive. Th e Hon. Member for Salford told them that the feeling of the people of Lancashire was against the con-. tinuation of Church-rates. He (Mr. A. Trevor) did not believe this, because he had been informed - by a party in whose verneity be placed the highest confidence, that both at War rington and at Liverpool petitions against the Ministerial plan for abolishing Church -rates had been carried by a majority of 700.--( Hear, hear.) At Manchester also it had been found, upon a scrutiny, that there was a majority in favour of Church-rates ; and, with such facts before them, he would put it to the House to say whether they could give credence to the Hon. Gentleman when he said that the people of Lan cashire were inveterately opposed to, and entertained an in corrigible detestation to Church-rates. lie would tell the Hon. Gentleman opposite that, if they were prepared to be lieve that the feelings which they entertained towards the Established Chinch were responded to throughout the coun try they acted under a very gross delusion. Let a return of the number of signatures be moved for, and he would be pre pared to prove that the signatures to the petitions in favour of Church -rates, and against the plan proposed by his Majesty's 3 1h - deters, far outnumbered those presented on the other side. --( Cheers. ) He did not know to what extent the petitions at the other side had been signed by rate-payers, but this he was prepared to say, that the greater number. if not all, of the pe titions presented at his side were signed by rate-payers alone. —( Hear, hear.) In taking any step to lower the Established Church they were laving the foundation of the worst evil that could by possibility afflict the country. If the Clergy of the Established Church were reduced to a position in which they could no longer mi-intain their present weight and station in society, a great evil would befal the country.—( Hear, hear.) They were told that it was unjust to call on the Dissenters to contribute to the support of a Church from which they conscientiously dissented. On the same ground the Hon. Member opposite (Mr. O'Connell) might say that he had no right to pay tithes. On the same ground a man might refuse to pay taxes, because he differed • from the principle in support of which the tax was applied. The time at which these hostile measures towards the Church were introduced was most ill-chosen, for there never was a period in the history of the Church when greater exertions were made by the Clergy 01 the Church for the benefit of their flocks and of their fellow men than the present period. At no period had a greater number of schools been erected, or more benefit conferred bs the Church upon the public. This, then, was a time when such an attempt ought not to be made to injure the Church. By whom was this attempt to injure the Established church mede ? By a body of men who , were at present, unfortu nately, at the head of affairs, and who only looked to the meene by which they could retain their places.—( Hear, hear.) Let thorn come'down honestly, and avow that they supported the present measure because they felt it would raise the Ca tholic and the Dissenter at the tipeese of a Church which was the object of their detestation, red which they were anxious to destroy.=se Hear, hear, from Mr. O'Connell ) The Hon. and feeerned Member for Kilkenny cheered, but that was in his (Mr. Trevor's) opinion, and his opinions on any subject h .. had never shrunk from aVowing.—( Hear, he:t-; , 3 t vs . s l t the greeted!: nil which the tereent reesseure nitre ? Bret/gilt fdr wea, because he believed there te) be 'Unfounded in fact, and pernicious in principle. Ile denied that the Church property was private property, for if they were once to establish so ha at fol a principle it might he extended to private propeetee He was desirous to !Tined the Established Churen usses sese h e was convinced that a purer or a better et,tl - ,:t. could nee here be Pelrel. lie opposed the .S.SSSsnt measure because he be lieved it injurious tee n body of men whom, in the perfeemance of their sacred duties, he looked upon en the hest friends of their fellow-men. lie did not r.:TY,isider himself presumptuom when lie stated that in eisposing this measure he was hiquenced by still higher reolives, for he considered that if he voted for the support of this measure ho teonia be sanctioning- the de secration of property devoted to the services of Aleel.gtity Go:l.—s( Loud einem-111g. ) Mr. C. BUIL L E R said, that they haul had the happiness of having heard that night twe eiovel arguments in support of Church -rates, and perhaps their novelty arose fesen their hay_ ing been made use of by a new menther (the Hon. Member for Lewes.) These nrgumettle were—first, that the Hree ehr able Member hi mse lf had a seat in the Houser etti, secondly, that the majority of the signatures to the petitions presented to. the House were in favour of Church-rates. He would. ttel vise the Honourable Member to learn to count reore accu rately before he again hazarded a celculation, fur he (Mr. Buller) had looked into the authentic reports on this subject ; and found, from examination, that there were twice as many petitions in favour of the Ministerial plan as had been pre sented altogether at the other side of the House. Amongst those who objected to the proposed arrangements respecting Church -rates, some objected to the plan itself and others o h. jected to the proposed application of the funds capected to be raised. appeared that the Honourable Member fur Cupar had so worded his motion to put the first objection out of view altogether, and to afford a full oppertunity for the distinct discussion _of the latter. It always ap peared to him desirable to discuss any particular matter separately, and still more desirable that the discussion should be confined to the question in debate ; but it appeared that some lion. Members found it impossible to keep their mighty minds from ranging over every kindred topic eonnected with the question in debate. The debates last night were not confined to the question before the House, but embraced every topic at an connected with the subject. He did not think that much good had been done by turning the debate on the amendment of the Hon. Member for Cupar into a debate on the whole question. lis knew that Hon. Members at the other side of the House entertained a nsVoit that any property devoted to ecclesiastical purposes could not be ap plied to secular uses. But when they complained of turning the property of the Church to purposes foreign from the Church, what property did they speak of ? The present plan did not purpose to take any of this property, but to give an increased value to property already existing. The Hon. Member for Cupar came forward with an amend ment which embodied his argument, and contended that they had many prior claims within the Church which ought to be satisfied before they attended to external claims, and that the wants of the Church might first of all be supplied. He was glad that the Hon. Member had brought that subject fully under discussion, for he believed that such an opinion was prevalent in many parts of the country, and that many men who would wish to support the Government, and who felt an interest in its success, were induced to oppose the present measure from a mistaken feeling on this point. He did not doubt that it would be fully pr o v e d th a t a d e l us i on more gross than this had never been attempted, and he was glad that the Hon. Member had perilled this delusion upon the present dis cussion. As to the building of new Churches, when they were built how did they propose to support them ? Would they have new Church -rates, or would they have the former rate in one place and a different system in another?—( Hear, hear.) They certainly could not contemplate to make any addition to the present amount of Church-rates, even suppos ing their propositions to be fully carried into effect.—( Hear.) He could not agree that there was the slightest necessity for new Churches in the metropolis. It was evident to any per son who took the trouble of making observations that not half the churches were half filled. Some, certainly, were crowded to excess, but it was owing to the attraction of some popular preacher, and not from ally habitual desire in the parishioners to attend Divine worship. It was not the inhabitants of the parish, who earn. quietly together to derive consolation from the pastoral care of the Clergyman, but a multitude drawn to gether from various quarters of the town to hear the sermon of the preacher then in fashion. He would not ask if those per sons who might by chance be deprived of Church accommoda tion imitated the Covenanters of old, and sought for instruction in the open air, nor would he demand if they took the trouble of walking two or three miles to hear Divine service; but he would inquire if they imposed on themselves the easy task of going only two hundred or three hundred yards to some Church which might lie invitingly open, with full accomo dation for hundreds. The plain fact was, that there was but little religion in the hearts of the people. They pre ferred the gin shop to the House of God. Did Hon. Gen tieitsen suppose that by raising new Churches they could in duce the people to attend divine worship, when they habitually deserted those which were already erected ? He recollected a simple-minded man complaining of the vast number of gin shops which had been opened in all quarters of the metropo lis, and assigning as a reason why they were so much fre quented that a plentiful supply was not within the reach of the unhappy beings whose thirst was so excessive. If pumps with ladles were placed in frout of the gin-shops the people would quench thou thirst, he supposed, with pure water, and the giu-shops would be at once deserted. That opinion, every one would acknowledge, was preposterous, and yet the recorn mesdation to build new Churches, in order to induce the people to flock to them, was just as foolish. The population of London at present was constantly varying, particularly of late years; and to build a Church in a parish where a den:a id was raised for it, simply because an increased population might for the time be found there, would, in his opinion, be on. wise and wasteful.---( Hear, hear, hear.) In a short time the tide of concourse might flow elsewhere, and the Church would, like so many of its fellows, be but of little use. Let Honourable Gentlemen look to the state of London as a proof of this statement. There were in the City 67 Churches. Of these it was no exaggeration to assert, that not the four fifths were habitually attended by one hundred persons. The decreased attendance was caused by the decrease of the popu lation. In 1790 the inhabitants of the city amounted to 140,000, while in 1821 the numbers only reached 56,000. At the former period, those e ho carried on their commerce in the city were accustomed to reside there, and their warehouses and their habitations were under the same roof. In the pre sent day, they spent their business time only in the City, while in the evenings and on the Sabbath they flocked to their houses in the country or the environs of London. The pa rishes, therefore, were on the Sunday nearly deserted, and the Churches, of course, but little frequented. To build new Churches, under such circumstances, would exhibit a most startling contempt of exiierinects, and any anticipations of their being filled might prove as fallacious as those which at tended the Churches erected in the reign of Charles II A simple plan ef supplying the place of fresh erections had been been overlooked by Honourable Gentlemen opposite, which hs should take the liberty of mentioning.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Why ehould they not by time make up for the al leged want of accommodation ? Why should not divine worship be performed more frequently in the Churches which existed now, rather than erect others ? He did not d.sire to make any change in the Sabbath, but he saw no ob jection to the service being repeated during the whole day, as in Catholic countries, to accommodate the numbers or the con venience of the people. By this plan treble and quadruple numbers could be accommodated, and the only additional ex pense would be the sums paid to a greater number of curates, who must be employed. This plan was too simple and unex pensive to strike the Hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Hon. Member for Kirkcudbright had last night referred to the want of working clergy in the Church. In the metropolis many were certainly required; but it would be strange if the large endow ments granted to the Church all over England were not ade quate to provide additional spirituel assistance, if necessary. The best mode of ascertaining if these endowments were sufficient was to calculate what were the relative values 9f the beneficem, and the number of clergymen to whom they were committed. The benefices in England and Wales might he stated, in round numbers, to contain about 14,000,000 of parishioners. The number of benefices amounted to 10,718. The average numb, r of .parishioners in each, including Dissenters, would emou..t to 12,089, exclusive of Dissenters to 1,026. Dr. Chalmers, in his report, had laid down 2,000 or 3,000 persons as the number to whose spiritual comfort a clergyman could well attend. Now, taking the mean of these two numbers, namely, 2,500, as the proper number, it would appear that iii the Church of England there were twice as many bene ficed clergymen as there ought to be. The number of bene fices in some dioceses was really extraordinary. In Norwich and Ely there were snore than could be found in the whole of Scotland. In Norwich there were not less than 189, and the average income was about 9001. The whole amount of revenue was about 164,000/., and the number of parishioners was 133,000. The average number of souls in each parish was about 700, which gave 1/. ss. a soul, while in London the average amounted to not more than from 2d. to 4d. In the diocese of Ely the number of parishioners was 33 ; 980, while the revenue amounted to 41,580/., which gave 1/. 2s. 3d. a soul. Its the revenues of the clergy it was clear there was no defi ciency, and of all professions that of the clergyman was the cheapest. lie had his house and grounds ; and no other pro fession had so much leisure, and leisure that was profitably employed; for they had, in addition to their livings, chapels of ease, and other sources of emoluments, which added consi derably to their incomes ; and yet, from their own report, they admitted that the average amount of their incomes was 3001. per annum. Now, this, he contended, was infinitely be yond the incomes of all other professions, because the expen diture attached to it was as nothing when compared with others. With regard to his own profession, it was difficult to ascertain the average amount. It had been stated that it did not cover the expenditure; but, although he knew this was the case in a great number of instances, still he did not think it held good as regarded the average amount. But certainly the average of all other professions did not exceed Ma a year, while the profession of the Clergy, which was attended with an expenditure that bore no proportion to the others, was worth, by their own admission, 3001. per annum. Not q when it was taken into consideration that the number of the Clergy far exceeded the necessities of the Church, the intsomes, if the benekes were reduced to a scale proportionat„ pa the mem- THE SUN, LON DON - , WE DNI-41SDA V, MA` 7 24, 1831 i hers of the Church, would be at least 6001. a year. In Wake the average was admitted to be 2851; and if half the number .1f benefices were done away with the amount would be 570/. At all events if this reduction took plate they could give each Clergyman 500/. a-year, and have a surplus of 480,0001. to appropriate to Church purposes. Was it not, therefore, a shame for so enormously wealthy a body , to . ,- ti,c , rt, ,,. diet House in the character of - ~,,, also ees - _ . - - “is'llglttnis S And kO.s. it. WA w -wetra.r inKka'S'At .'f!::n 4ivir , pit-i 4 to iiSCsiiote a aetset;:ay i'p'to tl'ite"extt let of ,'their , st4.lth ?—( Ise sr, hear, hear. ) The first thiag the `CnUie l n of England should do in order to stand well with the country was, to take their hands °et of other people's pockets. This sentiment ,wag well eaktil'eo - the Right Hen,,,Merehet f-!'r TainSvorth, who knew much better then tl4 iaan in that House how to express himself on points of this nature, but when he (Mr. Buller) was on that (the Opposition) side of the House, end.when the Right lien'. Baronet had not that late, ininerlte behind kiln, l': self', with rcgtst to the qu'estien of Irish 1 / 4 "),ger'S:hwisies, it would be for the interest Of the 'Cras\eci to abandon them altogether, for it was 1) ,, t W`als while, for the amount, to keep alive,the hdstl , lily which existed towards the churelr. Was it then worth while for the insignifieart slltn of threepence per head, as it hed been tet.'.ll',S'Aed by one of the Right lion. Baronet's sup rzii-erF, to keep up this hostility to the Church in Rnglend —( Hear, hear.) But then Hon. Gentlemen oh the other iidd had attempted to mislead the House by arguing that ChUrch , rites were property, and that the smite resistance might be made against tithes if it was' found successful in the case of Churcirsredea. Now, Church-rates were not preaert.vt but it f tax. The owners of property could net be henctitted by the abolition of tithes, bet it WaS their interest t o di m inish the amount of Pekoe alrecting property. He begged Hon. t,lentle men lo consider the predicament in which they plaieed the Church by the course they were persuirtee They would have not oily the Dissenters but Chtir'ehnien against them ; and he thought they Would find few of the latter to thank them fur allowing the. Osurches to tumble about their ears e and for imposing on thent a new tax to re-lust; le! the ruined edi fices. He could not help thinking that the opponents of this measure had More the interests of their party at heart thee. the interests of the Church ; but even en this ground they would find themseleei mistaken. —( Hear, hear. ) Mr. STUART WORTLEY was glad that ho followed the Hen, Member for Liskeard, because he had divested the question of the mystery in which it appeared to be enveloped; fur, if he had understood his speech rightly, he had avowed himself a plain, open, and Undisguised enemy of the Church Establishencitt..-se(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Was lie not an undisguised enemy when he said of the said it should take its hands out of other people's pockets? This was the language of the Hon. Gentleman, and no one could infer from it that he at least was friendly to the Church.---(l4ear, hear.) He could net support the amendment of the lion. Member for St. An drew's, although one point he fully agreed with him, namely, that the means of religious instruction should be increased. , He, however, doubted many of the facts stated by the Hon. Member for Liskeard, and more particularly his statement with regard to the condition of the Churches in the town which lie represented. He agreed with him in thinking that the regu lations respecting pews ought to undergo revision, and that, under the present system, there was not sufficient accommo dation reserved for the poor.__( Hear.) But when his Learned Friend stated that there were too many clergymen in proportion to the population he was at a loss to conceive on what data he had formed that opinion. He admitted that curates were want ihg, but he said they should be paid out of the incomes of the Bishops. Was not this, however, an argument against Epis copacy, and would the Noble Lord, and those who sat on the same benches with him, sanction this doctrine of his Hon. and Learned Friend ?—( Hear, hear.) His firm belief was that there were many amongst the Dissenters who entertained the most liberal and enlightened views with regard to the Church of England. He fully admitted that the present law of Church-rates was extremely unsatisfactory, and he had often deeply to deplore the dissensions and bickerings to which it had given rise.—( Hear, hear.) Feeling as he did that some change was necessary, and that it was of the most paramount importance that the question should be speedily and satisfacto rily adjusted, it was with the utmost reluctance he felt himself obliged to resist the present measure. He would show to the House that some Bills were prepared in 1835 by members of the present Government, by which it was proposed to remedy all the grievances of which the Dissenters complained of. He would show it by the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet oppo site ( Sir J. C. llobliouse), on his return for Nottingham, as reported in the Morning Chronicle of January 7, 1835. The Right Hon. Gentleman was reported to have sail that the Government of which he had formed a part was prepared, before the late dissolution, with " a measure of full relief for all practical grievances under which Dissenters la boured." This, of course, must have included the Church rates ; and the Right Hon. Baronet added, according to the report in the Chronicle, that " he was one of a section in the Cabinet to suborn the preparation of those Bills had been entrusted, and he had them i ow at home."—(Cheers.) Why had not those Bills which were to prove so satisfactory been brought in ?—( Hear, hear.) Had they been delayed for the purpose of ascertaining the wishes and humouring th e followers of Minist e r s ? If - that were so it was one of the chief causes which raised the present ill feeling towards the Church, for Ministers by not bringing forward those de cisive measures—by allowing the adjustment of the question to be so long in abeyance—had raised a spirit which would not be satisfied with anything short of the total subversion of the Church.—(Cheers.) Ministers knew that the revenues of the Church were barely sufficient to minister to its uses. This was admitted, and therefore it was their duty t o se t t l e as early as possible every question connected with those revenues. The truth was, that the Opposition side of the House was misled by the statement made in 1835 with respect to the intention which was then said to exist of reme dying fully all the grievances complained of by the Dissenters. —( Hear.) Whilst he accused Ministers of increasing the dif ficulties with wlech this question was surrounded, he did not mean to deny that there were many and great difficulties in herent in it, and that its adjustment would be a matter of the greatest utility.—( Ministerial cheers.) He, however, did not think that the mode proposed by Ministers was the one which would insure its proper adjustment. He had carefully read the pamphlet written by the Hon. and Learned Attorney-General upon this subject, but could not concur with him in opinion that the Church-rate was one the collection of which could not be enforced. He fully concurred, in this respect, in what had been urged last night by the Hon. Member for Bridport. A distinction had now been made with regard to the law as re garded Church-rates between England and Scotland ; but he found betvveers the two a curious coincidence. The latter, by the law of Scotland, was appropriated to the maintenance of the poor, of the clergy, and of the fabric of the Church. The rule, however, was one arising out of the Roman Canons, which were not adopted by the Church of England unless they were engrafted on the common law ; and that these had been so en grafted, was a matter of extreme doubt. The law of Scotland, by a St ttute of .Vlary, required one-third of the rate to be paid by the clergy, and two-thirds by the parishioners ; but in Scot land the construction of the word parishioners meant the land lords. The parishioners in England meant all the inhabitants. If the opinion of the Attorney-General was right, why was he not supported by the other law authorities ?—( Hear.) It was true he had the support of one of his colleagues in office, but it was given in a strange manner—( Hear)—for he admitted that parishioners might be sued individually ;or the amount of the rate when it was made by the Chu chwardens, but he, at the seine time argued that this mode was so cumbrous and incon venient as to do away altogether with the right.—(Hear.) Now, this was the state of the law as respected the enforce ment of building bridges before the time of Henry the VIII., and yet the tight of enforcement was not done away with. The Highway Act had the same difficulties to contend with, and yet the enforcement of its provisions was not found in convenient or cumbrous.—(Cheers.) If the Church-rates now paid were to be remitted, and to go into the pockets of those who paid them, a transfer would be made from the people cf funds peculiarly and immemoriably appropriated for their use. He would not then enter into the question as to how private rights would-be affected by the proposed measure, but he knew of one instance in which it would operate with great severity. Another objection to the proposed measure was, that if the principle upon which it was founded were to be carried thoroughly out it would prevent the making of public grants to all other Churches. The amount thus granted at present, as appeared from the miscellaneous estimates,. was 37,966/. For his own part he was elways'glad to see religious instruction disseminated. He was rejoiced to see the Dissenters engaged in such a work, and he would be happy to afford tl.em every assistance in his power.— ( Hear, hear.) He held in his hand a recommendation from Australia, to give to the Catholic Clergyman there 500/. In Australia the Roman Catholics. did not recognise the scruples which were expressed at the other side, for they hailed the coming amongst them of a Protestant Bishop to assist in the dissemination of Christianity. In Van Diemen's Lend a grant of 2001. was given by Government to the Roman Catholic Clergyman. This was in the true spirit of Chris tianity. Mr. F. BUXTON said, there were two clauses in th e mo . _ tiers of his Hon. Friend the Member for St. Andrew's which he (Mr. F. Buxton) should support ; the one for raising cer tain moneys, and the other for their application to the religious destitution of the people. In one of these the Hon. Member would have the co-operation of the side of the House on which he (Mr. F. Buxton) sat ; in the other he would have the support of the opposite side. He (Mr. F. Buxton) besought the Right Honourable Chancellor of the Exchequer not to suppose for a moment that he had changed a single portion of his opinions on. the subject of Church-rates. The country was under a great obligation to that Right Honourable Gentleman for having discovered the fund in question.—( Laughter.) Ht; would now turn to the most difficult part of the subject. He was not of opinion that he could convince the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he would confess he should be rather surprised, after hearing the sentiments of the Hon. Gentle met, on the other side of the House, if the motion of his Hon. Friend did not receive their support. What was the never failing topic of their speeches, particularly of the speech of the Right Honourable Baronet opposite on a former occasion ? The religious destitution of the people. Nay, there was a positive pledge given on that occasion by the Right Hon. Member for Cambri dge, who said that funds might be raised from the Church for the purposes of the religious instruction of the poor, without injuring in the slightest de gree its property. Mr. GOUL BURN said he had never made such a speech. Mr. F. BUXTON said his argument then .fell to the ground, as he thought he read the Right Hon. Member had made such observations. At all events lie was quite sure that all Hon. Gentlemen who spoke on that side of the House had agreed that, if there was any surplus of Church property, it should be applied to the relief of the religious in stitutions of the people.—( Hear, hear.) TLat was the object of the motion of his Hon. Friend. Sir J. GRAHAM should express his regret that all poli tical subjects of paramount importance which now came before Parliament were usually mingled with the higher and more serious subject of religion.—(liar, hear:) That unhappy rnixturt deoccrated the tree while it added to the arseehity of the It thee lin,Ling the Wokse tor the —( Hear.) lie meant io say nothing harsh or offensive, tut that was his deliberate and sincere conviction, A etin, he osieicelerle oed ' ' ' to e praetiee pr e vellee al , so t)siL lA' their relessieies elp,lt!ortsee 'rer4rd tit. 4 thni tiouse.—( Hear, hear ) The Honourable Member cheer , d ----(we could not perceive to whom the lion. Baronet alluded, but beFeve it to be the Hun, Member for St. Andrew's) —elm wh e t . w er iell l e . terms tHypli94 by, the lleU..tind . Iscafned e iteeeeary lasi meet to the s the " Calvanistic Member ?"—(Hear, hear, hear.) Yet who was put forward to defend the Government from the imputa tion of his lion. Priced the Member for Weetenieeter, tlest in :lit dtei• the disseeteie; Chareh ? Was it one of the Cabinet ? Was it one of the responsible adviser e of his Md4sty 5. No; it was the lionotseable and leeerne4 Member .or TlOpetelry-se Ilbs. r,:ot Catholic himself—who was actuated, no doubt, by the noblest zeal, to rush forth and throw the shield of his protection over them.—(Hear : hear.) The charge of the Hen, Member for Westrniheter against liis iklajesty'e Mi nietere Wee, that in all their trarisattione Cotineeted With the r~lttrrt It ttihiF leaning. Weh to the liisserders i and that their hostility, not avowed, but covert, and theref. ra the more daft; gerous, was unceasingly directed against those religious instie tutionsof the conntre , whielt their rrniStdie do his it,ori;riation, swore to protect, defend, and uphold.—(' That was the charge of his Hon. Friend against them. It would be worth the trouble to trace their proceedings since they came int(' powei_'. for Pie pOrtioati of Peeing he* fat that ehargo was susteined by them. First, in regard to the Church of Ireland. He ( Sir J. Graham) could not, he admitted, put the matter so briefly or so tersely as the Hon, and Learned Member fur Tipperary. He should, therefore, use his words rather than his own. That Hon. end Learned Member an= flounced that his Majesty's Ministers, or rather the Whigs as a party, were irrevocably bound to the alienation of Church property in Ireland for sander phrposcs. That the Hon. and Learned Member declared, was the real purport of the appro priation clause in the Irish Church Bill. ( Hear, hear.) So much for the police of his Majesty's Ministers and their party towards the gstablished Church of Ireland. He (Sir J. Graham) would next pass on to Scotland. What was their policy with regard to the Established Church of Scotland? It was a Church perfectly different in its constitution and cite meter from those of England and. Ireland, - There was no one could talk of its " bloated Bishop," its " idle dignita ries," its " pvtipered pluralists." It was a Church of almost republican plainness and simplicity—a Church holding a high place in the affections of a religious and moral people, whose fathers had fought and bled for its establish ment. What was the fact? Since the union with England the population of Scotland had doubled, while the increase of Church accommodation was only equal to one-tenth. That ' was proved, and the want of a further increase so forcibly shown, that in less than two years a sum of 165,9001. was raised by private subscription for building additional churches. —( Hear, hear.) On that occasion application was made to his Majesty's Ministers by the people of Scotland. They said, " we will build the churches, but, as the sum we have is in sufficient to endow them, will you apply to Parliament for a grant for the trifling funds necessary for that purpose?" What said his Majesty's Ministers in reply? They affected to know nothing of the want, though it was all but officially proved to exist, and they answered, " No, we will not do that, we will institute an inquiry; we will issue a Commis sion." A Commission, one of that countless crowd which originated :with them, wan accordingly issued. At first it was a gtneral Commission, and its object was to include the entire country; but, on its being strongly represented to them hat with such an object there was no chance of the Commis sion ever having an end, it was made by their consent a local one. A report was made from the city of Edinburgh, and in that city alone it was shown that, though the population was little more than one hundred and sixty, thousand inhabitants, those destitute of religious instructions in that number amount ed to no less than sixty-four thousand. Another local Com mission was sent to Glasgow in the beginning of 1636, but though the middle of 1837 had already arrived no report from it had been laid on the table of the House. Yet that commission up to the present time cost the country 20,0001., one moiety of which would have been amply sufficient to sa tisfy all the wants and wishes of the applicants for endow ment. So far Ireland and Scotland : now for England. Lie (Sir J. Graham) cordially agreed with his Hon. Friend the Member for Westminster.—( Ironical cheers from the Trea sury benches.) The Right lion. the President of the Board of Controul cheered that observation ; but there was a time when he ( Sir J. Graham) did not agree with his Hon. Friend, while the Right Hon. the President of the Board of Controul did.—( Cheers from the Opposition side of the House.) And he (Sir J. Graham) could further remind the Right Hon. Gentleman, that a time was when he had assisted him in canvassing Westminster in favour of the brother of the Prime Minister, under whom he served—the Hon. Mr. Lamb—against the lion. Baronet. He (Sir J. Graham) had, however, had the satisfaction in the present Session of Parlia ment of voting consistently—( Ironical cheers from the Trea sury benches)—aye, of voting consistently—(Cheering)---for that, in favour of which he had always contended against the Right Hon. President of the Board of Controul—for that, by virtue of which he supported the Hon. Mr. Lamb in 1820— against Annual Parliaments, Vote by Ballot, Universal Suffrage, and the abolition of corporal punishment in the Army. So much for his consistency.—(Cheers.) The Hon e Member for Halifax, wh os e speech ho had heard with mum' pleasure, had quoted a " remarkable" speech of the Right Hon. the President of the Board of Controul, delivered at Nottingham in 1835. The Right Hon. Gentleman had said on that occasion that his Majesty's Ministers had, at the time they left office, a measure propared on the subject of Church rates, which would be perfectly satisfactory to the Dissenters. That was in 1835. Fortunately there was also on record a speech of the Noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, delivered on the 20th of June, 1836, in which he not only declared himfelf fully on the principle of the measure he should support for the settlement of Church-rates, but also on its details. He (Sir J. Graham) should read the " re markable" words of the Noble Lord—equally remarkable in every respect as the speech of the Right Hon. President of the Board of Controul : " My opini to on the subject is exactly the same as it has hitherto been. I think it the duty of the State, either by means of Church-rates (the Noble Lord did not say anything about Church property), or out of some other public fund, to maintain those buildings set apart by the State for the par. poses of public worship in repair. And whatever may be the opinions of the Dissenters on the subject these are those en tertained by the Government. That was the principle of the measure introduced by Lord Althorp. The principle, then, is declared, that Church-rates shall not be abolished without a substitution if something equivalent in their place. I have never said it should be otherwise. I have never countenanced their abolition without an equivalent. To that principle I have adhered—to that principle I mean to adhere." ( Sir J. Graham)now thought that he had satisfied the House that on the 20th June, 1836, the Noble Lord was de cidedly of opinion that the State should find support for the fabric of the Church, whatever might be his opinion on the subject at present. With respect to the alleged conscien tious scruples of the Dissenters against the payment of Church rates, he could only say that when he heard such scruples urged against the payment of imports established by law, and reflected on the injustice and hypocrisy of mankind, he could not entertain much respect for alleged religious scruples in such a case. If such a plea were once admitted as the ground for the non-payment of a legal tax, it would go far to dissolve all the bonds of society, to strike at the security of all property, and destroy the power of all civil government.— ( Cheers.) He had before him a document, signed by Lord Tenterden, Chief Justice Tindal, Dr. Lushington, and the present Judge Advocate-General, giving it as their joint opi nion,: that " the churchwardens were hound by their duty to a e that the Church was kept in a proper state of repair for the decent performance of divine service, and that the law im poses the burthen of such repairs on the parishioners."_. (Cheers.) Note this was the opiniOn of the first law au thorities, including a Member of his Majesty's present Govern ment.—( Cheers.) It was true that the Attorney-Genernl said on a former occasion, but said it very cautiously, that " Difficulties might arise in the enforcing of payment which it might not be easy to surmount."—(Cheers and laughter.) But the Honourable and Learned Gentleman himself after wards showed that the difficulties would be very easily sur mounted, for he suggested-that Church-rates might be col lected and assessed as Poor-rates, from exempting Church property.—( Loud cheering.) Now, instead of exempting Church property, as the Honourable and Learned Gentle man proposed, the present measure went to throw the burden exclusively on Church property—(Cheers)—while the people of England did not ask to he relieved from it. It was his firm conviction that, if the Established Church were once restricted in its present influence and wealth, within five years the Bishops would be driven from the House of Lords, and in five years more Episcopacy would be abolished in England.—(Cheers.) Viewing this measure as it affected the lessors and lessees, he could not but look upon it as a measure fraught with illegality and injustice towards these parti e s. It had been stat e d that there was a desire on the part of his Majesty's Government to augment the smaller livings of the Clergy, but the effect of the present measure would be to repeal, in fact, a Bill fir the augmentation of small li v i ngs b roug ht i n by th e A rc hbi s h o p of Canterbury, and now in operation. He should now advert to the last topic, which he looked upon as the most important of all, connected with this measure. The Hon. Member for Weymouth said that he should vote for the amendment. Now, that was not the question before the House. The ques tion was, that the words proposed by his Majesty's Govern ment stand part of the motion. But the Hon. Member had made two propositions :--First, that a certein sum should he raised from the property of the Church ; and, secondly, that the sum so raised should be applied to the wants of the Church itself, or those who were destitute of religious in struction. Now, upon these two points he (Sir J. Graham) would speak frankly. If it could be shown to him that a fund could be raised from. the property of the Church, without de triment to the interests of either lessors or lessees, he would be favourable to the creating of such a fund, and no man would be more ready that he would be to apply that fund to relieve the destitution of the Church. But he would warn the House to be cautious how they laid their hands for any other purpose upon those funds which might be applied to the religious wants of those who were now perishing and destitute. (The Right Hon. Baronet sat down amidst lend cheering.) Mr. HARVEY and the CHANCELLOR of the EX CHEQUER rose together, and the call was very general for Mr. Harvey ; but after continuing on his legs for a short time he gave way to The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, who perfectly concurred in the observations made by the Hon. Baronet who had just spoken, in the outset of his speech, for no wan could regret More than ho did the frequent cO4nCctioP tt re'*!de with p . oliiice that occurred is the discussions in that House. But he thdtigiit it si;ee toe , ' , inch for the Hon. to charge hie. (the Chancellor of tilt! teehequer's). Puiciiiiiige :welt a Course, for it ever there w a epecch that exempli!l.ed 0-4! trtitli of the inconve nience from the course which lie depie:eaieel et the the Hun. Baronet himself eat beginning it was the speech of t .e."Theeee.) Pon: Peotlernen,eppoeite eriect v et that the Bill was subversive or the Charm L!liette,? That cry, how ever, was spoiled by an alteration in the Bill, aild el.J.lcts of Hon. Gentlemen opposite were foiled. Whatever Subject Uecupied the attention of the ilous,) , whether it referred to ,qcotle;rid or to Ireland, the whole policy 0* the Government, aceoielie#tsi flan!, Gentlemcn opposite, was the overtlitelre of the Church —(Clieere. Tile' Right Hon. Baronet was at liberty to make that assertion if lie picaedel hat neither thet Per otty etlTr oesertion would lead him (the Chancellor Of the Exchequer) ici liir;e4l eso. eet teoent against one with whom he was once intimate in political t!elerleetlon end friend snip:— (C. ears.) But, on the part of thotd efleoret he acted, lie Weil a Y.) own, he gave the proud deft:lett that neither in the scope, tenor, or iiite?tb was any one measure they proposed calculated to affect religion in genteel, or the J3stabliehed Church in particular. —( Cheers. ) It was Wile that belt eAptleeti fbeee teho polluted w holy and just cause, by prostituting it to the Ofteret iieseione of the help:in heart. Ile would appeal to that test, as Lotti CirertVille had appealed when he proettroel, the first relief for the He would appeal to that test; as the Bight lion. Baronet the Member for Tdni , Worth had justly appealed, when he was held up for his opinione a 5 the? eiteney of the Church, but fret. which iin putation lie now stood free, add entitled to the gratitude of a whole nation.—(Cheers ) The slay: Baronet ( Sir .1. Grallate) lied tepronehed the members of the Oevernment with not having replied td the lion. Baronet the Member for Westminster, but left their defence to I.lle Him. and Learned . Member for Tipperary. Might not the lion. ileree , et have attriisuted the silence of the members of the Government, on that occasion, to some better motives ?—(Great cheer ing.) if the Hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster felt what it was to be severed from these with whom lie had acted through life, lie must feel Chet a generous and a just spirit would not wish to carry political fehog into private friendship_.( Cheers)-wand he would not be see need that none of his Majesty's Ministers rose to answer him.—( Chats, ) The Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had attempted to vindicate his own consistency, but he did this according to a very Irish system of logic. He said that he had formerly op posed the lion. Baronet the Member for Westminster, and that he now agreed with him ; and this he called his consis tericy. The lion. Baronet the Member for Westminster was considered as a convert; tint converts were generally received with open arms, whereas this nett convert had met with bitter sarcasm in the defence of the Right lion. Baronet. It was something like Mr. Canning's good-humoured observations upon the Whigs at a Westminster election. He said that the Whirrs had ribande at their heads and mud at their heels.—( Laughter.) This was the way in which the Right Hon. Baronet had decorated his new convert. The Right lion. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge, in 1821, brought in a Bill to provide additional Church accommoda. tion. That very measure was opposed by the Right lion. Baronet the Member for Cumberland, who en that occasion stated that he "objected to it altogether—( Hear)--.and al though he was ready to support the Church in all its rights, yet he could not support any measure which the unwise friends of that Church might bring forward to enable her to grasp more revenues than she then had."—(Cheers.) Here the question was not to increase the wealth of the hierarchy, and to enable the Church to grasp at greater power, but merely to build additional Churches for the spiritual benefit of the com munity, and yet the Right Hon. Gentleman spoke of the " unwise friends" of the Church.—( Hear, hear,) But Gentle men on his (Mr. Rice's) side of the House were not the " un wise friends" on that occasion.—( Cheers.) It was the Hon. and Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite wits were then, and in his opinion were now, the " unwise friends" of the Church EstebLshment.—(He r, bear.) Toe Bill to which - he had re ferred was their Bill—(Cheers)—and, in addition to the opposition given to it by the Right Hon. Baronet, he found that on the same occasion Sir Francis Burdett al!o said " that there was not a clause in the Bill to which he did not object"—( Cheers and laughter) —so that it appeared that both these armed knights came down to wage war against the measure. He (Mr. Rice) had then been of great service to those lion. Baronets, for, at the hazard of great sacrifices of friendship, he had brought in a Bill against which it was made matter of accusation that it would have anything but the effect of which they had. expressed their disapprobarion. He thought then that he had upon this' point given a sufficient answer to the Right Hon. Gentleman. But the Right Hon. Gentle man also spoke of the close union existing between the Go vernment and the Roman Catholics, and of a compact of al liance which he stated was maintained between the Catholics and the Protestant Dissenters.—( Hear.) Now, he was by no means surprised that such a reciprocity of feeling should subsist between them, for it was impossible that the Pro- testant Dissenters could ever forget the assistance they had met with on the part of the Roman CAtholics with regard to the Test and Corporation Acts—(Hear, hear)—and if they could they were far from being the men he took them for. It was equally impossible that the Catholics could forget how much they owed the Dissenters, for if they could they would be altogether unworthy of that freedom which tpe Dissenters had been so instrumental in obtaining for them —(Cheers.) But, as to any compact existing between those bodies of hostility to the Established Church (for the pre sent measure was designated as hostile to the Establishment), he would say, and by that assertion be would abide, that if there was not one Dissenter in the land, and if the country was peopled by men among whom no difference upon reli- gious matters existed, yet the proposed measure was a good measure—(Cheers)—that it was not only good in itself, but that it was also good as regarded the interests of the Estab lished Church.—(" Hear, hear," ironically replied to from the Opposition side.) But Hon. Gentlemen opposite said that the hostility to Church-rates was confined to the Dis senters.--( Hear, hear.) Why, it was only that very day that an Hos. Friend of his had informed him that in a cer tain borough in England, where the Dissenters were in a considerable minority, the hostility to the rates had been greater than in any other place.—( Hear, hear.) His Hon. Friend, he believed, the Member for the University of Ox ford, had stated that there had been 1,659 petitions laid on the table of the House in favour of the abolition of Church rates, but 2,746 in favour of the continuance of the rate. But if the signatures to these petitions were taken into considera tion it would he found that there was a majority of 212,000 names of those who were hostile to the rates over those who were in favour of them.—( Hear, hear.) Were all those, then, the sienatures of the Dissenters, or were they the signa tures of Churchmen and Dissenters combined ?—( Hear, hear.) They were, he would assert, of both.—( Hear, hear.) He would now briefly refer, in answer to what had fallen from the Hon. Member for Bradford last night. The Hon. Gen tleman had stated that the general body of the Dissenters did not object to the payment of Church -rates, and that those who did object were only a small portion of the Dissenters, and de aired to see the separation of Church and State.—( Hear.) But he might be allowed to tell the Hon. Gentleman that of the petitions presented there were 112 containing 21,465 sig natures in favour of the abolition of Church -rates, and saying nothing of such separation—( Hear)---while at the same time there was one from Chatham, which certainly did pray for the separation of the Church from the State, but which contained only 332 signatures.—( Hear.) He was not, then, of opinion, that one person thinking differently from another upon matters of religion was likely to be a fair interpreter of that person's opinions, either upon religion or politics.—( Cheers.) With respect to the proposed measure lie was not prepared to argue that as it had been proved to be good in Ireland, therefore it must of necessity be so in England ; but this he would say, that if the principle of the measure was good in one country, then it must he undeniably good in the other.--( Cheers. ) But it was said that it had been tot injury to the Irish Church, and that the English and Irish Churches were indissolubly connected and united with each other. But in Ireland Church rates had been abolished.—(Cheers)—and his argument was not that they should, therefore, be abolished in England; hut that if the principles of the measure which abolished Church rates in Ireland was good then that the Honourable Gentle men opposite had introduced that principle themselves— ( Hear, hear, hear) —and could not consistently oppose its in troduction, as they now slid, into England.—( Cheers.) If the proposed measure was to leave the Church without sup port--if it provided that the repairs of those buildings which, while they afforded a proof of the piety of their Catholic ancestors, were, perhsps, the cause of piety in the present day, were to be left to the chance of voluntary contribu tions—then he would say there would be some reason for the course pursued by the Honourable Gentlemen who opposed it.—(Hear, hear, hear.) But when a certain, a 'defined, and a well-secured provision was given, and that provision was sanctioned by the State—( Hear, hear)—he must contend that a greater perversion of facts was never presented to the understandings of reasonable men than had been brought for ward in opposition to this measure.—(Cheers.) Now, it had been said early in the debate that the House knew not what artifices had been employed in procuring petitions in favour of this measure, and that if the House was aware of the full extent of those artifices it would see that the petitions of the country, if left to itself, would be against the measure.—( Hear, from the Opposition benches.) But did the Hon. Gentleman who made that remark know that the first petitions in favour of the proposed plan had emanated from one of the largest meetings which had ever been held upon the subject of Church-rates ? --(Cheers.) Those against the measure had been also intro duced to the public through the medium of a large meeting in London.—( Hear.) He was not going to rest on this simple as sertion, but ho was further prepared to prove the way in which many of the petitions against his plan were got up. He held in his hand a paper written by Doctor Bowen, a man of great literary merit, after the details of the measure proposed acre made known to the public. [The Right Hon. Gentleman then read the contents of the paper, which were to the follow ing effect:—" That the projectors of this measure of the movement had at heart the destruction of the Protestant Established Church. Let them only once declare the reve nues of the Church liable to the purposes of the State, and the downfal of the Monarchy and the Establishment would follow as a matter of course. It was impossible to touch any of the revenues of the Church for State purposes without committing an act of the grossest injustice. Be it remem bered that the principle of our national Church could not be violated without robbing God of his honour and man of his rights."] (Cries of " Hear, hear,") God forbid, if such was to be the effect of the proposed measure, that the people of England should not petition against any Bill having fer its object the settlement of this question !—( Hear, hear.) [The Right Honourable Gentleman then stated, that as the House appeared lately to have exhibited an extraordinary predilection for poetry, he perhaps might be allowed to quote some verses in support of the Church Establishment, and quoted a couple of stanzas, the exact purport of which did not reach the gallery, and we consequently kit the applica- • tion the Right Hon. Gentlemen made of them.] lthadhg stated by the Right Hoe. Baronet opposite that he c ( e of Rice) had iteked who would dare to enforce the l aw in se a refusal to pay Church-rates. Now, he had ne ver asks el a such question but what he did say was that the pres:et sta r c%. the law was sm.') that no effectual means existed to enforeFostelc payment of the rate in any case where the vestry had ref _us Hear.) He said ~w here was the House of Conirneneo. that tvouls: 'lee a Government the power of makin g a " s uch' abling the churchteettlen to enforce the payment sp a C o h ,d tale 9" He said that, and he wou l d repeat that it we the derig-erotie in the highest degree to give a sing le afi c e e c e r ere) power of taxing the public without their con..gent•—( ouch 60 Where was the Minister who would dare to pre:P°sei Dares esrerintent ?—( Hear. ) Would the Right flonouraiee ble uet oppelite do so ?—( Hear, hear.) The Right 1-10°,',,, -e5O Baronet had made rypeal to the gerterpity of the ittbose in fee-us of the claims which the Church had UP I : , b e ar, xho property subject to them.— ( lc a hor p'i hear.) But he scorned to have forgotten that Lord Alt th e plan, of nhich he spoke en favourably, was simila t b e present in that particular—( Heel., hear)—and now that be was eringirtg to the Right Hon. Baronet's recollection th supported the same principle in that measure which .the serif mentained, he could not help saying that the Right s of Gentleman seas practising a delusion upon the 11°II: e _' d aipg merely brought allusion forward for the purpose 01: (the a further party feature to the debate.—( Cheers.) 11 Hom Chancellor of the Exchequer) might mention the Righ t t ee Gentleman the Member for Tamworth as his authority fo r he part of his measure relating- to landed proprietors ; l e e ei himself, when in office, had stated upon other quest inn s the I wh:eh the same principle with regard to the burdens 0!,.05e land v' oestiers was concerned, that he wished to lighten t h ose burdens as reuels possible.—( Hear.) Such , thethfthi, the arguments by which the ease of the o pponents measure was supported. Hut further, were Hon. Gent o, op , opposite aware that very many of the suggestions they . 0 0 w of posed were those of most eminent Churchm en ? " w ho them venture to attack Dr. Barton, the Regius Professor, an d had, in fact. suggested a total extinction of Church-rat e : l ' os of proposed that that object should be effected by Zile W isest , a graduated tax upon the property of the Ch u rch.- --( wit s s hear.) Another eminent Churchman recommended, boo similar view that a general valuation of Church properti P lat be made. ( Hear, isear.) Lord Henley also proposed a r oi ,e somewhat similar in its nature', coupling with it the aPP. f be ment of ten unnaid Commissioners, and woe unto hill i ge set came under the lash of the Honourable and Gallant A"o3ote for Lincoln.—(A laugh.) But he need not M o ' 6° , o F N . cases ; su ffi ce it to say that there had been scarcely e t t b ' so OC position upon the subject which had not originated tyi the high Church authority.—( Cheers.) He would 04,1 die House a practical proof of the ignorance of those who ' 1 pill present management of the Church-lands. In 18 17, t e . Pf was introduced into that House with reference to sl o p the Church property connected with the see of Canter ftbe and the House would scarcely believe such an example „r e s• way of drawing bills with respect to letting lands h ad ever re, isted. In that Bill all the blanks with reference to tbeeeeS pairs of the property, &c., were left unfilled, and this sbewrie, the manner in which these sort of things were done. / c o ne of " They left it to Parliament to till them up.") but it ment f Yes, they no doubt left it to Parliarrien t th i e f sufficed to show the want of practical information ri,"'" t tb owners of Church-lands had upon such matters. y n d pita Act, while it gave him one illustration, also afford „ st int' the means of Illustrating another branch of the quesoolt Hon. Gentlemen opposite were sceptical of the facts , sa d which the measure was founded, and they asked atg ai- Tt y s° again how it wee possible to improve the Church prePe o,eo as to leave the surplus proposed to be created by the fr, a . des of this! plan. This act of the Archbishop supplied all net sired answer ; for he found in it a recital to the effee t i e teJ the remaining lessees (alluding to the lessees to be 8 °oh by the Act) had only a temporary interest in the leases, 14 or was not sufficient to induce them to lay out money i n tbe ripg provement of the lands, and that some stronger and more lajost inducement was necessary in order to make them d c Tien which was required for the purposes of that Act." „ It was another recital, involving the very principle itSe"a eso was in the Church Temporalities (Ireland) Bill, an to the effect, " That whereas the tenure of Church laeost Ireland was such as did not lead to the improvement, figs land or the profit of the tenant, and therefore tha t ' t heir ( become desirable to have another mode of tenure for t ) l e „ r iot° security of the Church, and for the advantage of Pvirsble holding therefrom." Then what did the Right 1 - 10 0 ° c ,,i10 0 Gentleman mean when he said that the additiona l ; fie could not be given without doing injustice to the lessee s ; : e tice (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) denied that any ' nl Bill' was done to the lessees of Church property under th is 0 10 He bad had many interviews and much comm unicatio a 00 0 persons in that situation, and he denied that any injustiee,_t tie be done them, or that they were possessed of the idea fu,a,felt justice was intended towards them. They were perfeett/..,61 satisfied that a surplus might be produced without any ini,`",,p) being done either to them or to the Church.—(Hear , f loes Nay, more, he was quite ready to receive any comMtle i° , 3 , on this subject, and he hoped that should any such coet'i s ts cations be made they would come before the House w e , a cOr Committee en the Bill, when they would have full and it t- i ser portunity of' considering the cases of the lessees, and 0 10 there was any foundation for the assertion that injustice t°„ . ' for was intended by this Bill. These were all very fit s ubjee"is, the Committee. But he begged the House to conside r , o id they were not now considering the Bill with reference ' is of details. The question before the House was the prineiP; r ett the 13111. They had before them petitions from the 10 1 1 mass of the people favourable to the principle o f this 40 1 though at the same time he did not deny that there were 010,,a petitions from those adverse to it. But he again 1 31.e t lei on the House, that it was the principle of the measure that dc' were now about to decide on. They were now about toglit tide on the question, whether or not a Bill \should be bt° tbre ir in upon a certain principle, which they would affirm s s vote that night. Would they give the country the o ° 7 e• S Ol judging of the principle of the measure about to be introo ll b at as well as of its details ; or would they, by joining W it c o , ' Hon. Gentleman, with whom they had few principles in Id° mon, to whom they said that they would go so far wit h Oi l but no farther, to intercept the progress of the measa re : o r deprive the Government of the means of settling a gres!,tyess' tated question ?—( Hear.) He (the Chancellor of the 0° quer) trusted, nay, he felt assured, the House would "-fee such thing, but that they would give him an opportun it le a n est i troducing the Bill. If the Right Hon. Gentleman wu;,,liti last addressed the House entertained any doubt as to th eir the of the proposed surplus—as to the facts, that is, on r"br.' 0• et measure proceeded—why, let the Night Hon. Gentleroso‘ once say that he would consent to a full, cOreP lete 'sti °s searching inquiry into the mode in which the lands itt ( l ag rtf ; had been administered, and into the value of the P rnP e r -°$ and let an opinion thus be formed of the desirableness ;cen t of improving that system. He had no fears as to th e be - rf ° of such an inquiry.—( Hear.) Let not the Hon. Me n l - sCli r f St. Andrew's imagine that he (the Chancellor of the ' - ', P e t° quer) was, for one, indifferent to the question of the el,!' r the religious education, or of the accommodation provided ° n eer' people in places of worship. It had been well and Plb 6 fully said by one of the greatest ornaments of Dissent-step' need scarcely say how cordially concurred in the observiratios that he who would weaken the force of religious 0 1)14 , 0 0 1 ; must be a fool, while he who would destroy it must he ° Fr e man.—( Hear, hear ) He was as eager as his Hon' gl ee': could be to see the utmost possible extent given to the ia of religious instruction, but at the same time he ena coa l ' help feeling that the best and most appropriate use t o bs e t herd: fundsderived from the property of be made of th was one that would bring about the restoration of re did a re ° peace and harmony.—( Hear, hear.) He for onc, We re think that the words of the preacher on the Sabbath-Ives' much aided and enforced by acrimonious and sectarian Ives, sions, carried on during the week, or by political 0 11 5 re' arising out of the relative positions of different sects ;bar garded these funds.—( Hear.) Our religion was 00. 0 0 in mony and peace, and it did seem to him that discuss fly which political hatreds mixed themselves up were tota et' reign to its nature.—(Cheers.) Sir R. PEEL then rose, and was received with lou d ch s rs' ing from all sides of the Hous e . As soon as Filene's: w'YoutcS stored the Hon. Member proceeded t—Thirty-live he had the Right Hon. Gentleman consumed before ho p) Tit the reel subject under discussion.—( Lan e fuclioe Tairty-ftve minutes had he expended in graceful P r ; 1 8 14"; before coming to the burthen of his song.—( Renewc" re o f ter.) She same seece of time should not be constitirl-rges him (Sir R. Peel) : in stating the whole substance of hi s n , e es' ment.—( Hear, hear.) What was the real state of the ;0 05 tion ? Here was one of the richest and most Pr ° l s i P s ted countries visited by the light of heaven, in wh iehe- Ch tnc f direct contribution for the support of the Establishe d iiurs —that direct contribution being only through the Ineue, r e d Church-rates—one by which time out of mid originlVeasee landed and personal, but during the last three or fo ur t o years chiefly the landed property, had been c alled 00 ,_ . tribute to the maintenance of the Established Ch uran rsoe s tenths of that property were in the possession of Pe on 0 11 emmunion with that Church. Yet this prof' R i ds that their estates should be relieved from the bath' s , 0 0 4 they so cheerfully bore, and that an e quivalent fo r t e 'Cbtr l ;,. so abstracted fim this source should be found from thcosCier, itself, on the single pretext of relieving the r.s'"en ve to Outs scruples of those who paid towards that bu oloora haps one-tenth only.—( Hear, hear.) Argue the g u il e hef°,l they would, that, and that only, was the proposito_orai.ere the House.—( Hear, hear.) And where wa s th ej ege is to be found? The framers of this measure fatljur:tit tviT o s the fabrics of the Church must be sustained." a old ! ie d the last six months they had said more—theY I , t e s sta' s es the equivalent out of schich those fabrics vvere to 11 0 .0 e rne must be provided by the Stt.te. But now tbc.Y roP rict etc with a proposition that nine-tenths of the landed l' of . t his f o ie who had no conscientious scruples to the paYel en % t v bich n or should be relieved from a contribution 50 ,, e0r ehre e t i o n estates were now subject, for which, w hether 4 -,1" o „ red !veer Dissenters, they had stipulated for a correspona hv then as t he° in the price of those estates, were purchasee se m. - t o and to whieh their estates were liable if they rerc_irossiolt of by descent ; and that an equivalent for this c the fun ds os the landed proprietors should be obtained front La sv the Church.—( Hear.) Could it be denied .o t r u o f the te itg substantially the proposition of the Ckancell looe p re so it chequer ?—( Heer, hear.) All sorts of inge o n e, becaa jot' were sought for in defence of this propositi;of meet 00 was well known what must be the jedgme.ratises of partial man upon it. They had heard the intl)," the tit' s ' be et the Irish Parliament for -basing abolishect , bat 10; t t f c0 agisttnent ; they had heard the condeinnatriooti:ed the Lsoft issued against those lay legislators who had b_ D oes i s es. 14e ste in order to increase the value of their own p a o s s t a ance ?e-( l ivs d what were they going to do in the pre sent tion ciee thc roe hear.) Did they deny the liability of the vet t hey P 01:1 tion that had existed time out of mind ? d I an prete nded to relieve the land from that liability,