The Sun. — London, England, 1837-03-16 00:00:00

arranged that the debate on the Canada question should be ad. jonrned to Tuesday. He could not understand how any arrange ment of this kind could be entered into from which he was ex cluded. He was - not at all disposed to yield to Government in that matter, and thought it a very cavalier method of treating him. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that if the Hon. and Learned Member would put his question to morrow, he would get an answer. Mr. ROEBUCK begged it to he understood fully that be would not yield precedence on that day, Tuesday. COMMITTEES. After some conversation, in which Mr. FIUME stated that it would be a great advantage if the evidence then before Com. mittees of the House could be printed and distributed amongst Members, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that he would endeavour to provide for more expeditiously printing •• and distributing the evidence, if possible. ADJOURNED DEBATE ON CHURCH-RATES. On the Order of the Day being read for resuming the de bate, Mr. GISBORNE said that the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had the other night complained of what he called the ungenerous allusion made by some Mem bers to the course pursued by the Noble Lord the Mem ber for North Lancashire, relative to the teml o.alities of the ish Church. Now he was not aware that an ungenerous allusion had been made in any way to that Noble Lord. The allusion was not made to taunt the Noble Lord, nor any Hen. Member ; but it so happened that the proposition which the Noble Lord on that occasion laid down, not with regard only to the Church of Ireland, but generally, was identically the same as that on which the resolutions were founded. That proposition was, that the State had the right of stepping in between the lessors and lessees of Church pro perty, and if the State could give an additional value to that property which the Church could not give, than the State had the right to apply the surplus to secular purposes. That was the principle laid down by the Noble Lord, and when he gave up the 147th clause of the Irish Tithe Bill he did not give up that principle, and the House dealt with the surplus as they judged proper. He approved of such a principle, be cause he was convinced that all Church property, not abso lutely defined by law or set apart expressly for the payment of the Clergy was the property of the State. Church-rates now were given up ; the Right Hon. Baronet proposed that if it were found impossible to collect them generally, they should be paid by Churchmen, or levied only in country pn riihes. Tho Hon. and Learned Member for Exeter had given them up ; the Hon. and Learned Member for Ripon had also given them up, though in many of the petitions presented to the House the petitioners seemed to think it almost a privilege and a franchise to be allowed to pay Church-rates. The At torney-General bad denied the legal right of vestries to levy Church-rates, and had challenged all the common and equit:, lawyers on the onosite side to disprove what he said. In fist, the payment of Church-rates had ceased. The calcu lath us made cf the comperative numbers of Churchmen and Dissenters must necessarily be defective.--4 Hear, hear, Ther,e was a third, or central party, of which no ac count was rendered. The Honourable Gentleman here re ferred to his own county to show the hardships inflicted under the present system. Wh:, ap,:ty money to build new Churches? It would be much better to repair and fill the old ones. lion ever, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could find the moue). he (Mr. Gisborno) felt no difficulty as to the expediency o: the measure which the Right Hun. Gentleman proposed. Ii flee lti~hs Hon. Gentleman's calculations should untUrtunatel ) fail, he (Mr. Gisborne) was satisfied of the expediency of raiding the money on other Church property (fur from no oche; property should it proceed), and applying it, as he had already observed. to keep up the old Churches rather tli,n build new. Its Right Honourable Member for Tamworth had appeahA' 40 the Noblemen and Gentlemen of the country against re lieving their own estates from the burden of Church-rates. He (Mr. Giborne) said that he was prepared su to relieve his gnu estate; and when he had done that, he wes prepared to enter into a bond pith the Right Honourable Barmier, an ba% ing the Church-rate on his property—whether on land, fettles, cr houses—calculated on the averdge of the last three ve...w. he was prepared to enter into a bond r (tit the Rig!! Hilo. Baronet to pay thirty years' purchae.e of those rates ti nay society having fur its object the increase of Church ac conenodation, except a society, the name of which he did r; renumber. but which he would deser.he ; he meaht a soeiety. which, having got a large sum of the public money by virtue of the King's letter, quoted te) acts of Parliament 13 their justi firetion for declaring that they would net- apply any porioi (Atha money to the building of any Church the patronage o: vehicle wa.i nut to be ph..eed in the hands or the Bishop. Tie Riedit lion. Baronet talked also ;if the juflgrnent of pesterit. What would posterity say if they could address the present gr neration ? " Take your hands out of the pock(ts of i 11...! Di e teeters. If you cannot relieve them nithout also relieving you own estates, relieve your own estates ; and then give ten titne the amount for the support of your own Church. Who is to restrain you ?" That is what posterity would say. There W,F a Right flon. Gentleman who had given 1,000/. to ttn. Church Building Society, and other sums to other Societie, a a similar description. Posterity would say to them, " Tuhe WI this pitiful tax, and go and do likewise."—( Hear, hear.) That would be the advice of posterity ; and - very good tn!vie. at V.N.3.---( A laugh.) It had been said that a number or rtit alone had been presented against the abolition of the Church rtes. But were the petitioners axare of the real facts of c ? One of the petitions, he observed, was signed by some re' the far:hers of Tolliporcolan, in Derbyshire. But had the Li-niers of Tolliporcolan been informed of the nature of the proposed plan ? He was quite sure that if they had—he was quite sure that if the farmers of Tolliporcolan had been told that there was 9.0/., which would not come out of their or an% 'ether man's pockets, which could he got at only by the Legis . ilture and which would he applied to the repair of their Church--he was quite sure that if the farmers of Tolliporcolan had been told that, the fermers of Tulliporcolan would never have signed a petition against the abolition of Church-rates —( A laugh.) iii i would not presume to advert to anvthinp th::t had taken place on the suhject in the House of Lords. Indeed it was not necessary for him to do so. A meeting hat: been held in this town last week, composed of Bishops, libera! and illiberal— " Black spirits and white, Blue spirits and grey, Mingle, mingle, mingle, You that mingle may."—(A laugh.) The meeting unanimously instructed the Archbishop of Can terLary and the Bishop of London to state to the House o! Lor(ts their determined opposition to the plan of his :11;:jestv': Gov.emment—a plan not th en b e f ore t h e H ouse of Lords _ - hardly before the House of Commons, of which the latter hail hot got the calculations on which it was founded, and on the writs of which they had only heard one Minister of the Crotrri. Under such circumstances, it was, in his opinion. highly indecent; but the meeting thought it highly discreet to commission the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London to make the communication which they hai mad, to the other House of Parliament. Did he complain that Lii>eral Bishops should unite with Illiberal Bishops if they thought that it was for the interest of the Church the should do so ? Far from it. But he complained of their en tering into a vile oabal, and as contemptible as it was vile, for the purpose of upsetting a Liberal Ministry and a Liberal system of Government. Would any one tell him that the ob ject of those Bishops was not to influence a few votes in that House ? A few only he was sure they would be. Had there ever been such a proceeding before, or any thing like it ? The palpable object was to influence the decision of that House : at least, until any other object could be pointed out to him, he should believe that that was the object. He was persuaded, however, that this combination,would turn out to be as con temptible as it was vile, and that it would totally fail in effect iog its wishes. Mr. ANDREW JOHNSTON moved the amendment to the motion before the House of which he had given notice. TI ett is the opinion of this Committee that by a new system of management an increased value mt..y be given to Church hallos, and that with the funds to be thus obtained provision should be made for the supply of religious instruction where the same may be found deficient in proportion to the popu latiois." The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would take the liberty of submitting whether, with a view to the convenience of the discussion which had now been carried on for three nights—without prejudice to himself or the opinions which he entertained, or the proposition which be was about to .maker or the time and manner of advancing that proposi tioe--the Hon. Gentleman would not be disposed to acqui esce in the suggestion which (the Chancellor of the Ex chequer) ventured to throw out, that the Committee should et once proceed to the immediate object of debate ; the Hon. Gentleman giving his notice to move his resolution as an amendment when the matter before the House came to be reported. Mr. ANDREW JOHNSTON should feel it his duty to persevere. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had put Id a proposal to the Hon. Gentleman as a matter of courtesy, but k : , e would now put his objection on a point of form. The Right Hon. Gentleman here adverted to the proceedings of the Hotu'e when this subject was first introduced ; the passage i n t h e K3 n J's speech referring to Church-rates was then read, and this rOss'lution was then come to by the House—" Re solved that House will, on Monday next, resolve itself into a Committ,v , of the whole House to consider of tho pay ment of Church-r, - .tes , ," That resolution was come to; and upon that resolution the; ;vere now engaged. There being loud c r ;es Chair, chair"— Mr. BERNAL did not t h . ;els that in a Committee of the whole House upon Church-rates they could with propriety go to the question of appropriating the orojuce of Church-lands so educational purposes ; he saw no ieson :o depart from the oyinion which he had formed. He thought the Committee would do well in consid er i ng thi s po i nt as a pi elinatnary to their proceeding to the debate on the resolution. Mr. ANDREW JOHNSTON expressed his williegusess to subetit to the decision of the chair. There being repeated cries of " Chair 1" Mr. BERNAL wished the Committee to agree to what he had suggested. After a few words from Mr. CRESSETT PELHAM, Which did not reach us, .Lord STANLEY thought his Hon. Friend was out of or.ier, and tin.t they must proceed to the inquiry whether by the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Church rafts• should be abolished by means of substituting a sufficient fu n d from another source. If that should be decided in the negati ye, then it would be for his Hon. Friend to bring for ward h is proposition for a different application of the surplus re venue s; and he had no hesitation in saying (for he was not ant to bl, *nk his opinions), that if his Hon. Friend would find the fund with justice, such an application of the fund would be most const mant with his own feelings. Mr. m IpREW JOHNSTON ultimately withdrew his amendment. • Lord Viscount SANDON was understood to advert to the speech of the Hon. Membes for North Derbyshire (Mr. Gis borne), who had attempted to cast a slur on some of the petis Lions presented from various parts against the abolition of Church-rates, because they came from places the names of which were not so pleasing to the ear, in point of euphony, as they might be ; and that Hon. Gentleman, too, in talking of the farmers and others who had signed those petitioes, asked ;vhether they had been told the real state of the question-- had they been told that the plan of the Government would not take one farthing out of their pockets? Now, he would ask Hon. Gentlemen on the other side, whether they ever made an objection to petitions coming from Ireland—( Here the Noble Lord read the names of severat:places)—praying for the aboli tion of tithes, or for the passing of the Municipal Corporations Bill for Ireland, on account of the singularity of the name; of the towns or places from whence they emanated? Again, he would ask, had those who petitioned against tithes been told what was the real state of the question at issue ? Had they been told that if tithes were abolished, that though they might not pay tithes in name, they would pay their amount in rent ? So, in the instance of the' Municipal: Corporations Billi for Ireland, had the petitioners been made sensible of e what was really the point at issue ? What was the langute of the Hon. Member for North Derbyshire in reference to a meeting of Prelates, on the subject of the intention of his Majesty's Government with respect to Church-rates ? He had de nounced that meeting of Prelates as a vile cabal, and that it was as contemptible as it was vile. And for what? Why, for expressing their opinion in a manner which interested most deeply the permanent interests of that Church of which they were the distinguished members ; and the Hon. Gentleman had said that this was a cabal raised for the purpose of turning out a Liberal Ministry. Now how was this consistent with the declaration which preceded this denunciation of the Prelates assembled at this meeting as a cabal, that it was a meeting of Bishops of every denomination ? Many of these Right Rev. Prelates were bound to support the Government by tics of gratitude. Were the Bishops, he would ask, to have their mouths closed on questions affecting the Church, if they did not agree with Honourable Gentlemen opposite, many of whom did not hesitate to declare their hostility to Church , rates—many of whom had said in public i+liey would not rest till Church-rates were abolished? Were the Bench of Bishops not to speak on matters affecting the interests of the Church ? Were they to sit with their hands before them, and • their tongues tied, till the very Bill reached the House of Lords? He contended that these venerable Prelates dis charged their duties to the Church to which they belonged most faithfully. The Hon. and Learned Civilian the Member for the Tower Hamlets, in the report to which lie was a party some few years since, had held that Church-rates were a bur den upon the parish, and that in that opinion all ancient autho rities concurred. He ( Lord Sandon) could not conceive that the plan now suggested offered the only means of getting out of the difficulty with which the question was surrounded, when be remembered that only five years ago it was proposed by the Hon. Gentlemen opposite that Church-rates should be mingled with the Poor-rates. At all events, before a con cession of this hind were made, the House ought to be satis fied that it would lead to a float settlement of the point at issue between the Dissenters and the Church. Supposing it to be • granted, what security was there that a similar. de mand would not be made by the Dissenters to be freed from the payment of tithes ? What security was there that in an other year they should not be told that Church lands wets the property of the State, and therethre that the Dissenters ought to participate in the proceeds of them ? They were told that the abolition of Church-gets is as to put an end to all discontent and difficulty in Ireland. Had there been less agitation in that country since ? —had the security of the Church been in creased ?—bad its opponents been less active in their endea vours to subvert it ? Looking at the proposition of tte Go vernment in a financial point of view, he had no doubt but that a considerable surplus might be obtained from Church lands by an inyfoved inu,le of raenagement ; but at the same tims he was far from aelthowledging the correctness of the cal culations male by the Cliencellsr of the Exchequer.— ( Hear, heae. ) However goo the proposed change might be, it should be left to the voluntary adopti o n of the lessees, aid not be forced upon them. Ile ac knowledged that the rents derived from these !awls were no: a good source of Church revenue ; they varied in amount from year to year, 2fforded temptations to the Bishop to run his lice ag,lost the lives of others, and in varion3 cA view ...re calculated to place him in a dis agreeehle and often an invi lions situation. But. to correct that evil, did it follow that such a compulsory arrangement must be trade as that now proposed by his Majesty's Govern- Int'nt ? He should be happy to see a commutation of Church ,tenures proceciirg upon a voluntary system, left to the dis cretion of :he lyscit,, and not :nergc-1 in the hands of a ccfl ;rat, Commission with arberit, y power, as a selastitute fur Church rates ; but being of that opinion, it did not follow that he 5505 houi4ti to acquiesce in the proposition of the Go vernment as the only feasible mode of arrange rent that could be attoisted.—(C:ics of " Hoar, hear.") The Noble Lord ( tlowick) the meiober fur NortilumberUnd had d&- elated (hut tile declaration was neither made nor echoed by any other mender of the Government) that if this mea sure were adopted, he would support the Right Honour able Baronet the Member for Tamworth ( Sir Robert Pee!) in an antiaal vote of money to supply the deficiency of spiritual instrurtion which the Cscumi , sioncrs haul pointed out. But would the Noble Lord, upon rc;lection,. have the courage to come down to Parliament, and propose a vote out of the pre sent taxation of the country for the increase of spiritual instruc tion, at the very time that it appeared that the property of the 'Church, properly administered, was capable of, producing a surplus that might be applied to that purpose infinitely greater than any sum that Parliament would he disposed to grant ? He ( Lord Sandon) rested his opposition to this measure chiefly upon this ground—a ground conceded by the Govern ment themselves—that there was an immense deficiency in the spiritual instruction of the country, and that that deficiency ought not hs be left unsupplied. No sooner had the Noble Lord resumed his scat than up wards of 20 Hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side rose, and simultaneously exclaimed, " Mr. Bernal ! "--( Loud laughter.) The CHAIRMAN—" Mr. Baines." Mr. BA INES rose amidst loud cries of " Spoke, spoke I" Having bad the honour to present a large number of petitions upon this subject, and having, at the same time, had the op .portunity of communicating with the petitioners since the plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been brought under consideration, be was very happy in having it in his power to communicate to the House what appeared to him to be the sentiments of a large body of the people upon the subject of that plan. Ile had taken measures to obtain that information with as much accuracy as he could, and from those influential persons who were likely to form a correct opinion of what the sentiments of other persons of their own denomination were ; and. all the information he had acquired went to this point, that with the plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer there was perfect satisfaction.—( Hear, hear.) They believed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government, with the Noble Lord at its head in this House, had for their object to produce In the country that which all men were aiming at, though not all in the same wai, and that was religious peace and concord throughout the land. They saw a Bill intro duced last year, having for its object to reconcile all those who paid tithes with the pastors of the Established Church who received them ; and they therefore conceived that this was a measure in accordance with the same principle. A great deal of stress had been laid with respect to the relative numbers of the petitions presented for and against Church-rates. He was ready to admit that the petitions were much more numerous on the parts of those who opposed the abolition of Church-rates than on the part of those who were in favour of their abolition. But there was another ingredient to be taken into considera tion, namely, the number of the signatures. According to the last return published by the House, which was made up to the 21st February, the number of petitions for the repeal of Church-rates was 458, and which were signed by 186,133 per sons, while the number presented against their repeal was 96 at that time (a much greater number having since been pre sented), which wore signed by 6,606 persons ; so that the ma jority of the petitioners up to the 21st of February was 180,000 in favour of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's plan. Now, he admitted that since that time a consider rabic number of petitions adverse to that - plan—if that could be said to be adverse to the plan (and he begged (lon. Gen tlemen opposite to mark the distinction) which arose out of the excitation that took place in this city before the plan eras promulgated; for that was a true statement of the case.-- ( Hear, hear.) There was a meeting held in this city where the Noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire presided, at which meeting two things were represented to the assembled throng— one was, that the plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was intended to suffer the churches throughout the country to go to decay, and the other was that by that plan it was in tended ha rob the poor man of his sanctuary. Could any man deny that these were most extraordinary statements ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) He did not wish to use strong language towards any person, but he must say that these were gross and flagrant misrepresentations.—( Haar.) He would ask whether peti tions presented under such circumstances were entitled to much attention or consideration ? He had heard a great deal about the violence of the language held by persons in what was called the National Association in Dublin; but he did not recollect at any time having heard language attributed to that Association of a more violent nature, or language more calcu lated to agitate the public mind, than the language held in the city of London, at a meeting over which the Noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire presided, and at which some Honourable Gentlemen whom he had now the honour to address attended. Petiti;ns presented under such circumstances did not express the genuine sentiments of the people. But it had been said that the Dissenters in this country were a very insignificant body. He was sorry not to see in his place the Hon. Baronet the Member for the Uni versity of Oxford ; because on the last occasion, when this subject was under discussion, he made this extraordinary de claration. He said that the Dissenters did not pay above one fortieth part of the Church-rates. If not, what was the in ference ? Why all this contest ? The sum asked for was only 250,000/. ; the fortieth part of that was only 6,000/. Why have all this dispute when the sum required was only 6,0001. ? But l ' a e reality that was an error. He (Mr. Baines) did not wish to ta ke advantage of any accidental mistake ; but he was sure, on relit: ction, the Hon. Ba rone t wou ld- fi n d t h at t h at statement was avt rt strange misrepresentati on of the fact. But there was "" another 114 ;sro‘presentation mule by the Hun. Baronet on that occasion of stature so tangible that h e (M r . B a i nes ) h a d given himself the trouble to ascertain the state of reii giou3 instruction in the whole county, in order to bring himself ac.ivainted 'with that fact. The Honourable Baronet stated, that in the cestinty of Lancaster there were not more than - one-fourth of the people that were Dissenters, while three-fourths were ratite:led to the Established Church. Now, in order to put this matter to the test, he (Mr. Baines) had had a survey taken, in order to ascertain how many places of religious worship that county contained. That he might be perfectly accurate on the subject, he would read to the House the return he had oOtaiucd from that survey. It was this There were in the county of Lancaster, at the beginning of 1836, 340 churches and chapels connected with the Esta blished Church. There were in the same county 489 chapels belonging to Dissenters, and 93 chapels belonging to the Ro man Catholics, making together 582. The relative propor tion then was, that there were 340 places of worship belonging to the Church, and 582 not belonging to the Church. His persuasion was, that if they were to compare the congrega ticas they would for the most part find the proportion to be the same. In some places more persons went te the Church than to the chapels of Dissenters or Catholics ; but taking the county generally, he thought it would be found that the numbers going to the different places of worship were pretty nearly equal. So that instead of the proportion among those who availed themselves of the opportunity of attending public worship being as four to one in favour of the Cifurchmen over Dis senters, the fact really was that the proportion was five to three of Dissenters over Churchmen. Why did he make this statement ? [The Hon. Gentleman was here interrupted by Mr. Hume handing to him another return.] No ; that was a Parliamentary return ; it contained very erroneous statements, and lie did not wish to avail himself of them. The Right Hon. Member for the University of Cambridge had made a statement which a good deal surprised him (Mr. Baines), because it was so much at variance with the fact.— ( Hear, hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had stated, in relation to the revenues of the Church, that there were in Manchester eighteen clergymen, and that those eighteen clergymen received only 2,7001. of revenue for their services. Now, what was the fact? Why, that there were clergymen belonging to one Church only who received 6,0001. The Right Hon. Gentleman might have found the fact staged iu the Report of the Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Inquiry that there was a collegiate Church in Manchester receiving 6,000/. Certainly one would expect that representations made by the Right Hon. Gentleman as Member for the University of Cambridge would be;made with a greater regard to accu racy. Most unquestionably the statement of the Right Hon. Gentleman was altogether calculated to mislead the House— made, not with an intention to mislead, but in error ; still he thought that some degree of reprehension must attach to the Right Hon. Gentleman for not having better informed himself upon the subject.—( Hear.) Another Etat ement made by the Right Hon. Gentleman was this; he said that the populatiou of Manchester consisted of 270,000 souls, and that there was only Church accommodation for 40,000, thus leaving upwards of 200,000 persons without the means of obt a i n i n g religions edification and instruction. Now, that was really the fact? The Church accornanodation perhaps was only what the Right Hon. Gentleman had stated, and that there were not means of affording religious instruction to more than 40,000 persons ; but before drawing any inference from this, the inquiry ought to be made whether there were most people in Manchester who wished to receive that instruction from the Church.—( Hear. ) Because if they had Churches which were not filled, and if the estimation of the necessity of affording Church room were to be made, not from time number of persons who might go to Church, but from the number who were disposed to go, the subject would appear before them in a very different light. But the Right Hon. Gentleman had left this consi deratiOn entirely out of view. Now he (Mr. Baines) be lieved the fact to be, that although there was only Church room for about 40,000 persons, yet there was Chapel room among the Dissenters for upwards of 60 ; 000. —( Hear, hear.) He was rather the more dispos©d to meet this statement, be cause the Right lion. Gentleman had said that he (Mr. Baines), from some supposed religious principle, had made an observation calculated to detract from the necessity of erect ing more Churches. Ile had mad e no suc h observati on . L et it be proved to bins that More Churches were wanted, and he would be the first to give his countenance and support to any measure to meet that want. Allusion had been also made to the fact that the inhabitants of Leeds were erecting a Church at a cost of 12,000/. Now, what he, on the occasion re ferred to said was this—that be thought there was no reason to complain of the want of Church room, not only imi Leeds, for his observation was more extensive, but in the diocese of York, which had been particularly designated by the Right Honourable Baronet the Member - for Tainwortin Bat what was the fact with respect to Leeds? In the town of Leeds there were eight Churches. Of these, two had congregations pretty nearly as large as time Churches would contain ; in four of theirs the congregations, he might fairly say, dimi not occupy, thence-fourths cf the room which the Churches afforded ; !simile the two other Churches were never half filled. Was there not, tleen, sufficient reason for him to say that there existed no ground for any urgeut complaint of tug want of Church room in Leeds? But then it was said that the people of Leeds were building a new Church et an expeese oi twelve thousand pounds. Tint was true.; but -why were they doing so? Because it was in a central part of the town wli.ee per of some degree of distinction resided, and where, perhaps, that description of persons could nut be so well accommodated. But if they were to go into the more d e nsely-p o p u l a t e d part of the town they would find Church-room enough. It had been argued in that House, and by a Right Rev. Prelate in another place, that Church-rates were of great antiquity. Ile did not deny the antiquity of Church-rates ; but he did deny that the parishioners were called upon in ancient tinier to-main tain the edifices of the Church. He contended that in former days the Church-rates were paid by tl:e Bishops out ef the tithes; and that when they ceased to be paid by the Bishops, they were then paid by theßectors. He saw lion. Gentlemen turn their heads away; but lie would asoure them that he did not make this statement on his own authority, but on the authority of the fiat ecclesiastical lawyer that ever had existed hi this country. He was sure that the Learned Civi lian would agreo with lihn, that no higher authority could be quoted on that subject than Simon Degge (as we understood the lion. Gentleman). Dr. Barney, quoting this learned authority, put the matter in this way :—" Anciently the Bishop had the whole of the tithes of his diocosu, a fourth part of which in every parish was to be applied to the repairs of the Church ; but upon a release of this interest to the Rector, they (the Bishops) were consequently acquitted of the repairs of the Church. And by the Canon Law the repair of the Church belongeth to him who receiveth this fourth part. This is to the Rector, and not to the parishioners." Instead, there fore, of the Bishops having to repair the Churches, the charge fell on the Rectors. There was, however, another great autho rity on this subject, that of Mr. Justice Blackstone, who said—" At the first establishment of parochial clergy the tithes of the parish were distributed in a fourfold division ; cite for the use of the Bishop, another for maintaining the fabric of the Church, a third for the poor, and the fourth to provide for the incumbent. Whoa the sees of the Bishops became otherwise amply endowed, they were prohibited from demanding their usual share of their tithes, and the divi sion was into three parts only." Ile was a plain man and un learned in the law, but it appeared to him that these were authorities which no man could dispute; therefore the argu ment of antiquity would not only fail, but these authorities would establish the opposite point,: that the people were not called upon to support the fabric of the Church, but that this was a modern innovation. The Noble Lord the Mem ber for Liverpool inquired very significantly whether, when they had given the Church -rates up to the Dissenters—when they had allowed these rates to be extinguished—the Dis senters would be contented.—( Hear, hear, from the Opposi tion.) The Hon. Member for Yorkshire had answered that question for him. The answer to the inquiry was, that the Dissenters aimed at the extinction of Church-rates on the ground that they were for the maintenance of a religious ser-. vice, and for the performance of divine worship, in a form in which they could not participate. They made a great and most important distinction between the payment of Church rates and tithes. The Dissenters acknowledged that they had bought their estates subject to the payment of tithes, and therefore only nine-tenths of the produce belonged to them. No, man, however, would say that he bought an estate subject to the indefinite payment of Church-rates. It could not be denied that Church-rates were to a certain degree a voluntary rate, for if the persons who had to pay the rates opposed it by a majority in the vestry, it was not a legal rate. The Noble Lord said that there was an undoubted right to enforce the payment cif Church -rates. No doubt this was the case when they had a legal rate to enforce. It was only when the parishioners had consented to the rate that they had an un doubted-right to enforce it. The question was, whether the Dissenters would be contented or not with the abolition of Church-rates. He could not say that he was there as the re presentative of the Dissenters, but was merely the representa tive of his own opinions, and lie would at once declare that he thought that he never should be found pressing that House for the abolition of tithes. On this point, however, he had some thing stronger than assertion as regarded the great body of Dissenters. He begged the House to recollect that when the tithe question was under discussion last year,not a single peti tion was presented from any body of Dissenters praying for a different appropriation of them. This was not a mere asser tion, for the statement he had made had a weighty authority. Here was a distinct recognition that the tithe question was a matter to be settled between the Legislature and. the country. It appeared then, that although there were thou sands and tens of thousands of Dissenters , who were tithe payers, there were more who were prepared to oppose the payment of them.—( Hear.) This was a direct answer to the assertion made on the opposite side of the House, that the Dissenters wished to prevent the payment of tithes. He was not quite satisfied that the plan of the Chancellor of the Ex chequer for the abolition of Church -rates, and providing a substitute, was the best that could be devised. On the con trary, he was inclined to think that the plan he would sug gest would be better; but at any rate he was sure that it would be more simple in its nature. He was sure that it was known to many Honourable Members that there was a fund connected with the Church called the first fruitsand tenths ; and it was equally well-known that this was an impost which always existed since the days of King John, and even At. an earlier period. The House was aware that during the interval between the institution of first fruits and tenths and the Reformation they were paid to the Pope, and were made applicable to carrying on the secular Government of Rome. At the time of Henry the Eighth that monarch wished to apply these tenths and first fruits to State purposes in this country ; and having come to this determination, he, with the concurrence of the Legis lature, passed an A c t o f! Parliament, whereby it was directed - . that these funds should be applied to political objects. llenier: tioned this because these were funds over which Parliament had a just and legitimate control. In the third year of Philip and Mary, the Act of Henry VIII. was repealed; but in the first year of Elizabeth, an Act was passed again enacting the statute of Henry, and the funds were directed for the future to be applied to purposes of ,State. He was satisfied that these funds, if duly enforced, would be found sufficiently ampl e for Church-rates, and for those purposes to which they were now devoted ; and if God gave him strength and the House its support, he would enforce the payment of these charges i n such a way as to insure every incumbent of a parish an income of 2001. a year. With the proper collection and application of this fund, they might also do away with Church-rates. lle would state to the House some facts illustrative of the pre sent negligent mode in ohich these funds were collected. Ile would take aye livings, and he did not choose to dcsig- THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 1837. nate them by name, as that might appear to be invidious ; but these would .be amply sufficient to show the manner in which first fruits and tenths were administered at pre sent. The livings he would designate by numbers one, two, three, four, and five. Number one was of the actual value of 1,0701. a-year, as returned to the Ecclesiastical Com missioners, and so stated in the Report. Now, the clergy man ought to pay within a certain time of his induction to his living the full value of the first fruits ; but instead of paying 1,0701., he (Mr. Baines) found that he only paid into the First Fruits Office the sum of 361. 3s. I Id. Was this an administration of the first fruits which could be satisfactory or just to the poorer clergy ? With respect to the tenths of this living, he found that only 31. 12s. 4d. was paid yearly, instead of 1071. a-year. The second living, and he took the return of the Rector in the Ecclesiastical Report for his au thority, was of the value of 1,2301. a-year. The sum paid for first fruits, instead of being 1,230/., was only 46/. 4s. 9d. The deficiency between these two sums was the amount with held from the poor clergy. The sum paid for tenths every year was only 4/. 12s. 5d., instead of 1231. a-year. The annual income of the third living was 1,4071., the -payment for first fruits was only 26/. ; the sum paid for tenths was 21. 13a. 4d., instead of being 1401. a-year. The annual value of the fourth living was 2,2301., the sum paid for first fruits was only 801. 10s. Bd., the annual payment for tenths was 8/. 10s. Bd., whereas it ought to be 223/. a-year. The last case which he should mention was that of a living the value of which was 3,616/. a-year ; the sum paid for first fruits was 1021. 9s. 9d., the sum paid for tenths was 10/. 4s. lid., whereas it ought to be 361/. a.year.—( Hear, hear.) He was sure that it was a subject which should be brought under the serious attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he trusted that some steps would at once be taken to ensure a better administration of these funds, so that the charge of Chuich-rates might be defrayed out of them ; and, at the same time the condition of the poorer clergy be bettered. He had heard a great deal from the other side of the House as to the sympathy they entertained for the poorer clergy ; but if they were sincerely anxious to improve the situation of that excel lent body of men, they had the means of doing so by support ing a different and better administration of these funds. He was satisfied that with an improved administration these funds would be found to amount to 350,000/. a-year. Supposing that of this amount they devOted 250,000/. in the payment of Church -rates, they would have 100,000/. left for the improve merit of the condition of the poorer clergy. He confessed that unless he heard a satisfactory reason for not taking up this sub ject he should feel it to be his duty to do so without delay. Nothing, he was convinced, could satisfy the country but a com plete alteration of the present system. With respect to the measure under the consideration of the House, he would only say, that lie should feel it to be his duty to support it. Mr. W. GLADSTONE said it was quite true that Mr. Justice Blackstone stated, that in ancient times the quadri partite application of Church property had prevailed, but the Learned Justice did not say at what time it prevailed ; and the only period when the repair of Churches could have fallen upon Bishops, was when the Church was in a mi.4siona,ry condition. What was the opinion of Chief Justice Coke on this subject? Why, explicitly, that " by the peculiar law of the nation, parishes were chargeable with the repair of the body of the Church."—( Hear.) To come to the question immediately be fore the Committee. What was the proposal of the Govern ment ? To transfer the sum of 250,0001. a year from the estates of the Church to the owners of land and houses in the country. This was the practical proposition. Now, he would ask, were the majority of these lands Dissenter'? Certainly not. the Dissenters altogether form a majority of those who were called upon to pay Church-rates—or a moiety ? Certainly not. Yet here was the House called upon to sanction the proposition, that while two millions of poisons were languish ing from the total want of spiritual assistance and pastoral care, the Dissenters should be relieved from a payment which they themselves admitted to be in no material degree bur densome. But it was said, the Dissenters resisted this pay ment from scruples of conscience. Without meaning airy dis respect to the Dissenters, without ascribing to them motives of w factious cr discreditable nature, he (Mr. Gladstone) must confess that he did not conceive their motives entitled to so sacred a designation as scruples of conscience.—( Hear, hear.) If they really entertained scruples of so sacred a nitture, it was monstrous, it was a political crime of the deepest die, that those scruples had not been attended to long before this.— ( Hear, hear.) His (Mr. Gladstone's) principle was, that when the Legislature had made a demand upon the sub ject to contribute a part of his property to the purposes of the State, that circumstance at once relieved the subject from any scruple of conscience as to paying it so long as that law remained in force —( Hear, hear, hear.) 'The Qa.kers, indeed, had throug;:out proved by their conduct in reference to the Church -rates, that their refusal to pay them arose from scrup:es of conscience ; but the existence of the same motive for refusal had not been substantiated by the conduct of any other dissenting bodies. Was it consistent with sound scruples of conscience to refuse the fulfilment of obligations which every man necessarily took upon him self in purchasing or acceding to land or other property ? Look at the question as regarded Scotland. In England, where the members of the Church were the large majority of the population as well as of the landholders, it was proposed to abolish Church-rates. In Scotland, where the Episcopa lians formed the large majority of land-holders, Church-rates were to remain in full force. In Scotland, too, the obliga tion of the law was more extensive, and - the means of enfor cing it far more stringent than here. In Scotland, if a Church fell into decay, or it' the population of a parish increased to such an extent as to render the old fabric inadequate to the accommodation of the so iucrea4l population, the heritors were compelled by law to build a new Church, and on a scale fully adequate to the wants of the population, and he recol lected the case of a parish in Stirlingshire, where this obliga tion was strictly enforced in the year 1827. guch was the state cf the law in Scotland, yet it was not proposed to afford any relief to the Scotch Episcopalian population. Not that they called for it ; on the contrary, he was prepared to say that if the proposition were made to them, the Scottish Episcopalians would come forward as one man to repudiate the boon as a dis arace—as insulting to their religious feelings.—( Hear, h ear .) _lt was argu e d th at t h ose w h o had voted for the abolition of vestry-cess in Ireland were bound, in consistency, to abolish Church-rates here. He altogether denied the soundness of the argument ; it appeared to him that those who had voted for the abolition of Church-rates in Ireland were not a whit the less free to resist the abolition here.—( Hear, hear.) In , England the revenues of the Church were far from being suf ficient to fulfil the objects to which the Church-rates were ale_ plied. Indeed the lamentable fact was but too evident that its means were utterly inadequate to the supply of spiritual assist ance of the millions who now stood in need of that assistance. —( Hear.) It was stated on the best authority,that at this moment two millions of persons were destitute of spiritual relief. Within the last twelve months the most strenuous exertions had been making on the part of individuals to raise a sum for the purpose of, in some degree, supplying the lamentable defi ciency of Church accommodation ; and though private libe rality had done much, it had not done, it could not do, a moiety of that which was expected to be done. The observation made by the Noble Lord opposite last night, in reference to-a com mission of which the Noble Lord had himself been a member, and on whose recommendation Ministers had approved and in troduced public measures, appeared to him (Mr. Gladstone) most extraordinary, and calculated to lead to mischievous re sults. The Commission was appointed to ascertain how the revenues of the Church could be best applied to the purposes of the Church, and what was the result ? The House had not forgotten the declaration of the Noble Lord, with respect to the resources of the Church, that be they distributed how they might, they would be found inadequate to the exigencies of the case, and the utmost that could be done as hoped for, was to mitigate the evil. To this sentiment he held the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) pledged, and was it consistent with this sentiment that he should propose the present plan ? (Hear ' hear.) Was it cons i s t ent w i t h t hi s pr i nc i p l e t h at h e should take 250,000/. from the Church, and throw it into the pockets of the landowners ?—( Cheers.) Suppose this measure carried, let them look to what in all human probability would be the increase in the population, and then consider the situa tion in which the friends of the Establishment would be placed. Where would they obtain the religious instruction which would be required ? It was said they might come to Parliament and ask for the erection of Churches ; but did -the Noble Lord think that if they failed in maintaining their present position they would succeed in an attempt to obtain fresh support for the Establishment? If the Dissenters were disposed to admi of such grants, why not follow up the measure of Lord Al thorp ? But if they were to have their opposition on ever occasion on which the question of an Established Church was raised, how could die Noble Lord come forward and ask the House to relinquish their certain funds and trust to such a clouded future as that which was displayed before them ?—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) Let the House compare this plan with the plan of the Government for the re form of the Irish Church. Of the two he thought that the best. If it was not the best in principle it was at least more plausible. There they had for Church -rates a surplus. Why was the Church of England to be placed in a worse situation than the Irish Church ? He thought they had reason to com plain that the conduct of his Maje s ty' s Mi n i sters was not con sistent with their previous professi ons in 1 834. W hen the Hon. Member for Middlesex in that year opposed the adop tion of a principle less objectionable than the one now under the consideration of the House, the Noble Lord, in reply to some observations made by him and by the Honourable and Learned Member for Southwark, said—" He should be wanting in candour if he did not state that the reason why the Honourable and Learned Gentleman and his Honourable Friend were continually disappointed at the proceedings of Governaiout was this—there was a difference of principle lietween them. The wish of the latter was to preserve and reform—it never would be their object to destroy. The Honourable Member for Middlesex stated his difference at once. He did not think this a question simply affecting Church-rates.—(Hear.) He did not disguise his views, but declared that if the opinions of the people were prepared for such a change, he would at once bring forward a measure for the separation of the Church from the State.—( Cheers from the Opposition.) The Hon. and Learned Member for South wark stated it as his opinion that if there were a Church Es tablishment there must be certain doctrines laid down to which members of the State should conform. lie maintained that there might be a Church Establishment in the State, supported too by compulsory payments, and het there might be the most perfect religious freedom. If the complaints of the Dissenters were reasonable, how could they adhere to their former propositions ; but if they adhered to these pro positions, they declared the complaints of the Dissenters to be unreasonable, and then it appeared that what they were now . doing was for the sak e o f satisfying unreasonable complaints. —(Hear.) " While all contributed towards the support of the Church Establish men t, it cou ld not b e f a irly stated that it benefitted one class alone, viz., that which belonged to the Establishm en t, b u t th e w h o l e commun i t y derived advantage from it. The plan of Lord Altborp having been brought be foie the Houso, was postponed. In June Earl Grey left the Government, and in July the Bill was finally postponed. Then came 1835 and 1836 ; and did the Noble Lord, in either of those years, venture an abandonment of the princi ple on which he had before acted ? No—in 1835, an inquiry having been made as to whether it was intended to proceed with the measure, the reply was, that there were other measures of importance before the House ; and the Session being so far advanced, the Bill of Lord Althorp would not be proceeded with. There was time for other things, but not for the consideration of this scruple of conscience. In 1836, the Noble Lord was asked whether lie intended to bring in a Bill relating to the Church-rates ? " Certainly," was the reply, " but not before Easter." It was said to be desired that the Report of the Commissioners should be first upon the table of the House. The Session having further advanced, it was discovered that there was no time for the introduction of the Bill. The Noble Lord had not the courage to come forward with a proposition in opposition to the views of the Dissenters, or his attachment was still too strong to the principle of an Established Church to allow him to desert it, and he adopted a middle course. What was the consequence of this " palter ing in a double sense ?" If the Noble Lord had adhered to the plan of Lord Althorp, the effect would have been bene ficial to the Establishment; but as the Noble Lord knew well enough that it would prove injurious to the party to which he belonged—(Much Opposition cheering)—he saw in the vista the opposition which his perseverance in the plan of Lord Althorp would excite on the part of the Dissenters, is the event of an election, and not liking to meet the array which such a course would have brought against him, the principle he had before supported came to be " Sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought."—(Opposition cheering.) He sought for an expedient—where there was a will there was a way—he found one, and that expedient was now before them.--( Cheers.) On these facts he would say that his Ma jesty's Ministers had been governed more by party considera tions than by a regard for principles. If they adopted this measure all future attempts to act on the principle of an Establishment would be resisted to the utmost by those who called themselves the popular party in this country. They were now called on to sacrifice a principle which he would contend was the bulwark of the State. In this country the religious principle lay deeper in the national character than any other, and should they surrender it ?—( Opposition cheers.) The day was not come when a Minister of the Crown would dare openly to propose its surrender; but with the same consistency of character, and with the same depth of feeling with which they would resist that proposition, he called on them to oppose the present measuse as affording. the only chance of securing themselves against such a proposition being made to them hereafter. —( Cheers. ) Lord JOHN RUSSELL begged to explain. The Hon. Gentleman, in referring to that portion of his speech of last night in which he spoke on the subject of the Ecclesi astical Commission, seemed to impute to him that he shrunk from his responsibility which attached to biro as a member of that Commission. lie begged to say he did not wish to shrink from the responsibility, but, on the contrary, adopted it in the way proposed by the Hon. Gentleman. Though he differed in some particulars from the Report, as for instance, the arrangement recommended respecting the Deans and Chapters, yet with regard to the general features of the pro posals of the Commission he agreed with them. lie had given his assent to those propositions in the Cornmissian, and he had no objection to state here, as he had stated elsewhere, that he had so given his assent. He thought the question for this House and for Parliament to consi.ler was, whether the plan proposed in that Commission was on the whole prudent, safe, and efficient as a measure of Reform ; thinking it a safe and efficient measure of Reform, he agreed to it, but he thought himself at liberty, in seyin, this, also to state that the propositions did n o t ar i se from him, but chiefly from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The lion. Gentleman had also referred to his reply to en ob servation made in a former debate by the Hon. and Learned Member for Southwark. The Hon. Gel:demise, however, appeared to have misunderstood the purport of his reply, which was intended to be an answer to the argument that religious freedom could not co-exist with a Church Fe-tablislimeut. Mr. P. THOMSON believed in no place there existed so strong - a feeling in favour of the voluntary principle as in that which lie represented A petition had been presented from that town, signed by 31,000 persons, who prayed for the adop tion of the voluntary principle. Ide, however, never had hesi tated to declare his hostility to the principle, and lie would now say that he never would give his consent to it. He wan prepared to contend that so far from the present measure embracing that principle, it was founded on a principle di rectly the reverse. The principle on which it was based was unquestionably that of the Established Church. If he un derstood what was meant by the voluntary principle, it was this, that the State was not bound to afford religious instruc tion to the King's subjects. It was not involved in the ques tion as to the abolition of Church-rates; but as to whether any payment whatever was to be made for the support of a State religion, and whether, therefore, there should be taken away from the Church the whole of its present endowment ? What was proposed to be done was to take from that which he con tended was a fund belonging to the State—to take from that which was a national fund—the means for sup porting the fabric of the Church, instead of attempting - to maintain it by the present mode.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman agreed in what were his notions of the proper endowment of the Church, and whit a national Church should be. The Hon. Gentleman admitted that if the en dowment was found to be too large he would not refuse to diminish it, and he (Mr. 'Poulett Thomson) agreed with the lion.• Gentleman, that if the endowments were too small, lie would not refuse to augment Hear, hear.) But even he would say that if they were taking from the revenues of the Church for the purpose of supporting the fabric, and if the proposition of the lion. Gentleman were made out, then, in his opinion, they would only be doing that which they had a right to do.--( Hear, hear. ) But what they proposed to do was no such thing. They had now re venues which hitherto had been unavailable, and which could now be appropriated for the purposes of the Church. He had voted for the measure of 1834, because he was not at that time aware that there were any fund existing in the Church from which they could draw a sufficient amount for the sup port of the fabric of the Church. Now that he was aware that such sp, fund was in existence, he should of course prefer taking from that fund, rather than drawing upon the national fund.—( Hear.) The Noble Lord th e M em b er f or N orth Lancashire could not regard this measure, as it had been called by some lion. Members, an Act of sacrilegious spoliation. The Noble Lord certainly did not consider that any act of spoliation had been committed in the Irish Church Tempo ralities' Act. The Noble Lord did not consider that there was any sacrilegious spoliation in doing away with the vestry cess in Ireland, when the' Noble Lord adopted a plan similar to that now proposed on the subject of Church-rates. lie did not believe that the Noble Lord would tell them any such thing.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire might object to the appropriation of the fund, but he could not object to the means proposed to raise that fund.—( Hear, hear.) The plan, however, was said to be objectionable, because it would make stipendiaries of the Bishops. That was an argument which could, he conceived, be used by the lion. Member for Oxford with perfect consis tency, for that Hon. Member had opposed the Bill of last Ses sion ; but since by that Bill the Bishops had become in a great measure stipendiaries, and be could not understand how Hon. Gentlemen supposed that their utility could he diminished by any such proposal. lie agreed with Hon. Gentleman oppo site that there were, not means sufficient for diffusing reli gious and moral education ; he thought that there was a great want prevailing in this respect ; but still it was his opinion that there had been great exaggeration upon the subject. For instance, the Right Hon. the Member for the University of Cambridge had a few evenings since referred to Manchester, where, amidst thousands of persons, it was stated there were only eighteen clergymen, and to maintain them was but the small sum of 2,7001. a year. The Right lion. Gentleman, in making his statement, had not made a distinc tion between the parish and the town of Manchester. The population of the parish of Manchester was 270,000, and the number of Churches 44. The population of the town was 142,000 or 143,000, and the number of Churches 18, But then the Right Hon. Gentleman in his calculation threw en tirely out of his consideration the Catholics and Dissenters. —( Hear, hear.) Of the population of Manchester there were between 50,000 and 60,000 Catholics, and the number of Dissenting chapels in the parish was 106.—(Cheers.) The Right Hon. Gentleman said there were only 18 clergymen, and that they had amongst them not more than 2,700/. a year; but then the Right Hon. Gentleman left out altogether the Collegiate Church of Manchester, with 8,0001. a year.— (Cheers.) The question was whether they would accept the plan before the House for the substitution of Church rates. Supposing that Honourable Members opposite differed from Ministers as to the proposed appropriation, what were they do as to Church-rates.—( Hear, hear.) In the course of the:debate he had heard three or four points glanced at, but he heard no proposition made.—(llear, hear.) It was, he thought, idle to argue at this stage as to the origin of Church rates. The legal power, which they were told now. only slept, would, if exerted, be found to be unsuccessful for the collec tion of Church-rates. Let them look to the practical condition of the law. In the very place that he had the honoar to re present, for three years past no Church-rates had been levied. —(Hear, hear.) Did that arise from any unwillingness to carry the law into effect ? No such thing I lie believed that every power that could be used would be employed, if it were thought there were even a probable chance of success.---( Haar, hear, hear.) Honourable Gentlemen, he hoped, would tell him what it was they were inclined to do, if they objected to the disposition of the fund proposed to them. Supposing that the wish of lion. Members opposite was gratified, and that there was a disposition of the fund such as they desired, then how were they to dispose of the question of Church-rates ? ( Hear.) It was upon the ground that they had no other sub stitute than that which the Government proposed to them that he was willing to support it—he wished out of the income which was proposed to afford the means for religious worship. He was anxious to do this, because he believed that in settling the question of Church-rates he would obtain n o sma ll advan tage, and secure, as he believed, in no small degree, religious peace and harmony in the country.--( Cheers.) With respect to the observations made by the Hon. Member for Yorkshire (Mr. Cayley), all he should say of his speech was, that it pro ceeded on an entirely erroneous assumption. Let the Hon. Member look to what h a d b een d one in 1790, when the terms were raiscl• from one year to one year and a quarter's purchase; and in 1799, when they were raised to one year and a half's, at which they had remained, in many cases. The fact was, that these advantageous terms remained to the lessees just so long as the Bishops and the Deans and Chap ters remained in ignorance of the calculations that had been made on the subject. When the Bill was in Committee, or rather after the Bill was introduced, as he hoped it would be, they should then be better enabled to judge whether or not these terms were advantageous to the trustees, and they would have a better opportunity of seeing the objections that could be made and the reasons that could be urged on both sides. He ventured to submit this measure to the consideration c ! the House as one em i nen tly ca l cu l ate d to p ro duce peace and harmony among the different classes and sects of this country. Lord STANLEY then rose and said—Sir, I should have spared the House the trouble of hearing any observations that shall fall from me, had it not been that from first to last in the course of this debate I have had the honour done me in various tones, and various manners , an d f rom var i ous M em b er s of this House, of having my p rev i ous op i n i ons an d statements a ppealed to, as tending to confirm, as far as my humble authority cattalo confirm, the opinions of those who support the present mea sure ; I tit partly by other s for the purpose of taunting 111 e with inconsistency for the course which at present I fee; bound to take.---(Cheers from the Ministerial benches, aud counter cheers from the Opposition.) I have been appealed to by my Right Hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in toms which he always uses to those friends whom ho sincerely esteems.— (Cheers.) I have never heard an expres sion of his towards me, politically opposed as we are on m any . questions, of w hi c h, on p u bli c or pr i vate groun d s, I h ave had the slightest cause to complain.—(Cheers.) I have been ap pealed to in terms of courtesy and kindness by my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and I have been appealed to in terms, I will take the liberty of say ing, neither of courtesy ncr of kindness by the King's Attor ney-General.—(Loud cheers.) In the course of last even ing's debate that lion. and Learned Gentleman, in following , not replying t o , th e s p eec h o f my lion. and Learned Friend the Member fur Exeter, thought it necessary to make this gra tuitous and unprovoked attack upon me, who have given hint no provocation whatever.—( Loud cheers.) His Majesty's Attorney-General told my Hon. and Learned Friend that " before he spoke of inconsistency he ought to have had the delicacy to look at his right hand, where he might sec the Noble L )1d the Member for North Lancashire—(Great cheer ing from the Ministerial benches, and counter cheers from the Opposition)—and in his presence," continued the Attorney- General, " I wish to know how the Hon. and Learned Gen tleman could venture to speak of inconsistency ?—( Renewed cheers from the Ministerial benches and from the Opposition.) What pretence have I given for this attack ?—( Cheers.) Who is he that taunts me with inconsistency ?—(Cheers.) Have I ever shrunk, since I have had the honour of a seat in this [louse, from manfully and frankly stating my opinions, whom soever they pleased or displeased ?—(Continued cheering.) I call upon any man to show whenever I have blinked any question ?—(Loud cheers.) I call upon any man to show if at any time 1 have held different language out of the House, and different language within it?—(lmmense cheering.) I call upon any man to say when I have ever vituperated and calumniated a body of men, and afterwards solicited to attach myself to that body of men ?—( Continued cheers.) I ask, when a main question was depending which was not displeasing, to those with whom I held o ffi ce , w h e th er I h ave ever avo id e d expressing my opinion, or sheltered myself under a neutrality by a convenient absence?—(Great cheering.) And, finally, I ask whether it is not in the knowledge of the King's Attorney- General himself, and every Member of this House, that when I did differ from my colleagues holding offic e , I a b an d o ned office to maint a in m y principes ?—( Immense cheering.) And now, Sir, whenever the Attorney-General shall think fit to answer these questions with regard to himself as I have 'an swered them—(Great cheering)—l will not till then place my self on the level to discuss the question of consistency with him.---( Immense cheering, and cries of " Oh, oh !") The Hen. and Learned Gentleman the Attorney-General, last night, following up this attack, told me, in terms indeed com plimentary, as he meant them, that he knew my ingenuity too well not to be satisfied that I should be able to affect all but impossibilities, to satisfy the House with regard to my supposed change. Sir, I accept no compliment to my ingenuity at the expense of the principles which I profess.—(Loud cheers.) This I will say, that without the exercise of the smallest por tion of the ingenuity for which the Hon. and Learned Ge.n tlernan has given me credit, and without the slightest sacrifice of those principles which the Attorney-General assumes that I possess, I will demonstrate, if not to the satisfaction, I think at least to the conviction of the Attorney General, that there is no inconsistency on my part.—(Cheers, and loud cries of " Oh, oh !")—I repeat there is no inconsistency on my p a rt —( Loud cries of " Oh, oh 1 and cheers)—in having supported, in having introduced (and I give the Attorney General the benefit of the admission), with having been the main su pport of the Church Temporalities Bill, and upon the present oc casion standing up in determined opposition to the principles embodied in this measure.—(Loud cheers, and cries of" Oh, oh I") Can any man say that there is not a wide difference 'between that Bill and the present measure, both in its details and it - , its principles?—(Cheers.) I own that it is difficult, in spite of the ejaculations of my Noble Friend the Secretary at War (Lord Howick), to understand how any man who sup ported that measure, under the impression that it was founded on ju,tice and good faith—how any man who had supported that Bill can support the principles maintained in th e pre sent measure.—( Hear, and cheers.) In the first 'place,- I will offer a few observations with regard to some preliminary questions raised upon the main question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his opening speech said that the question' embodied in his resolution was this, " Would we or would we not pledge ourselves to maintain the existing system of Church-- rates, and, if we were not prepared to do so, would we ;,greet to a substitute ?" The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the statement which he made some time ago appealed to sue on this subject, and did me the honour to quote a speech of mine when I was a member of the Cabinet in 1834. In diet year, Lord Althorp int ro d uce d a p l an f or t h e commutation la Church.rates, on which I expressed myself strongly, because f felt strongly, and I feel as strongly now the extreme d,ffied ties and the manifold objections which occurred in the prereet mode of enforcing Church-rates. I feel that there are obe.: - dons to the present system of Church rates—l feel that it is object i onable in point of most of its details—l feel it is obje•- tionable in point of the irritation that cxistt, and in point of the difficulties of its collection ; but does it follow that who:- ever proposition the Government thinks fit to offer, that prop - sition we at once are to take without any consideration of its merits or discussion of its principle ?—( Cheers.) But said my Noble Friend (Lord J. Russell), " Why not allow us to lay our Resolution on the table of the House? It is nothing more than a Resolution to found a Bill upon ; we may af.e . ea wards discuss its principles and its details." Did the Noble Lard want to have an opportunity of puffing in practice the motto of " divide et impera '.—(Cheers.) The Noble L( rd ( Rus:.e 1) promises that the claims of the various interests shall be fairly , considered, or any objections that can be urged in Committee ; but if this Bill be allowed to go into Committee, I will not give much for the chance any gen tleman has of these objections being listened to.—(Hear, hear, hear.) It is not the duty of Hon, Gentlemen 0 0 this side of the House to furnish a remedy for the evils complained of by the Noble Lord. It is the duty of his Majesty's Ministers to find this remedy: I, in supporting the intro.- doction of Lord Althorn's Bill in March, 1834, gave no sup-' port to the proceedin g by w hi c h t h at Bill was dropped in the June following.—(Loud cheers.) Nay, more ; I will ventu re to say that if Lord Grey's Government had continued 'an broken we would have seen that Bill carried through by the Cabinet of Lord Grey, and by the consent of both Houses of Parliament.—(Cheers.) And if the Attorney-General were so fortunate as again to obtain a seat in this House, Ido net, doubt but that w e s h ou ld h ave h a d t h e a d vantage of his legs' acumen and support.—( Loud laughter.) The Attorney-Ge neral has been kind enough to say, I know not why, that this is the only measure of Lord Grey's Government that, as far as he knew, partook of the thimble-rig character.—(Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) I was a member o f that , Government, and I want to know what right the Hon. anti, Learned Gentlem an h as t o ma k e t hi s statement ?—(Louti cheers.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman was a Member of the Government at the time, but he had no hand in framing that Bill; he might, however, satisfy himself by applying . to the lion. and Learn e d M em b er f or t h e T ower Hamlets. The Learned Doctor (Lushington) would inform the Attorney-Ge neral who it was that gave him instruction in drawing up th e Bill. Have you not told us last year that it is the duty of GO vernment to provide for Church-rates out of the funds and pro perty of the State?—( Immense cheering from the Opposition.) Have you not made this the excuse or pretext for not proe - ceeding with the Bill in June, 1834?—(Continued cheering.) Have you not made it a pretext for not proceeding with the Bill, that the funds must be found out of the property of the State, and that if it were the pleasure of the House to pro' vide for these Church-rates out of the Ways and Means, there would be no further obstacle to the operation of this plan ? This was in June last. These were the expectations held out by the Government.—( Cheers.) We shall perhaps be told that these funds are funds belonging to the State.—(Cheel l from the Ministerial benches.) Shall we or not ?_(Lou d cheers from the Opposition.) I should like to have this ques tion, answered.—( Re newe d c h eer i ng, an d a cry of " Go on• I will not go Oil ; I should like an aaswer.—( Immense cheer ing.) If I cannot get an answer, I must argue the question without one. In the course of his opening speech the Chan cellor of the Exchequer used various arguments respecting tile plan of Lord Althorp, and in asking the Committee what settlement they should propose, he stated in the broadest terms in the first instance, as an objection to the measure of Lord Althorp, that it deprived vestries of their iodise putable power of saying " Aye" or " No" as to w hether there:should be a Church-rate or not. This was one of th e main arguments urged by the Right Honourable Gentlema n against the measure of Lord Althorp. To that doctrine so stated, . n o t no t w i t h stan di ng the astonishment w ith which it was received, and the arguments of my H o nourabl e " and Learn e d F r i en d ( Si r W. F o l lett), the Attorney-Gene" r with the gall an t r y o f a S cot an d the zeal of an Independa..t —( Gr ea t l aug hter)--leame to the rescue , an d not contenb, with affirming the proposition, lie staked his professional repo' tation as a lawyer up on th e soun d ness of the doctrine 4,_13 vanced by the Chancellor o f th e E xc h equer. Yes, ill face of Parliament and the country, the Attorney-Gene r il e t staked his professional reputation on this case, that the rif, a to levy Church-rate s d e p en d e d b y l aw upon the capr i ce 0 1 majority of the vestry. —(Laud cheers.) I must say, I think it my is a pity that th e A ttorney- G eneral did not consu l t Hog,. and Learned Friend the Member for the Tower Mi re ; lets before he ad vance d t hi s doctrine, which I am certain tr o Han. and Learned Gentleman would have repudiated, if h i e . judicial decisions in th e C ourt over which he presides--ii recorded opinions as a mem b er of the Church Commissie, and if his language even in this House the other night, n' Dr. be taken as crit er i a o f hi s sentiments upon this subject. et Lushington i n th e very last Term, in a case which was b ro ught before him, said, th at " as C hancellor of London he would issilo, monition again s t th e Ch urc hw ar d ens of the parish in ques tion.eit repair th e Ch urc h ; and that if the Churchwardens sa id they were willing to do so, but that the vestry re fused c .w o t necessary rate, th en wou ld b e th e ti me to eonss ider these three courses to adopt"—and I think that by the to and Lea rne d G ent l eman ' s admitting that he was bound te . e tb oare of these three courses, he ad m itt e d t h e va lidity fund 0 , 0 necessity of making the rate—(hear hear)—wheth-- e r e v ir Churchwardens should be admonished to make a rate upon " own authority—which, he admitted, might be a matter ofc ( de siderable difficulty—(Ministerial cheers)—or w h e ther tes 4