The Sun. — London, England, 1837-03-04 00:00:00

!the decision of the Standing Orders Committee, and to op- , by the events which have passed within our own view. pose the reference back. Let the Committee recollect that the vestries of England • Mr. AGLIONBY wished to be informed as to the course I (and I rejoice that they are so) are not confined to any parti followed by the Standing Orders Committee, because he had cular class or sect of religion cf his Majesty's subjects. In .always understood that they confined themselves simply to , Ireland that is the case, but in England you invite at the 'the question whether or not the Standirg Orders were t commencement of every year all the king's subjects to meet in .complied with. He supposed witnesses were not exa- ' vestry, and determine whether there shall or shall not be a :mined by them as to the merits of the case before them) Church-rate, and upon the vote of the vestry so assembled the .at either side, and that they merely made their report, i legality of that rate is determined. Why Sir, what has this led ;stating, however, if any special circums tance had come to to ? It has led in many cases not only to conflicting opinions their knowledge which would justify a departure from the but a determined spirit of resistance against Church-rates— rules required by the House. He also wished to know if they lit has arrayed the Dissenter against the Churchman—it has had ever taken into consideration facts not contained in the produced annual discussion and annual dissension, and it has report from the other Committee. led to results that in a great number of parishes and cities After a few words from Mr. GREENE, which were inaudi- and towns throughout the country has been anything but Me in the Gallery, favourable to the stability of the Church, or favourable Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY said the Standing Orders to the promotion of Christian knowledge or Christian religion. Committee had invariably adhered to the facts stated by the Let it not, therefore, be said that this present state of things other Committee. In many cases, without the examination of does give an efficient support to the Church Establishment age nts, and other parties, it would be impossible for the —on the contrary—l maintain that it leads to dissension and Standing Orders Committee to come to any satisfactory con- confusion among parties. On the first discussion on this subject elusion. I think my Hon. Friend, the Member for the University of After a few words from Sir J. BECKETT, Oxford ( Sir R. Inglis) stated that there had not been Sir EARD L E Y WILMOT moved, as an amend- a resistance to Church-rates in more than very few parishes. rment, that, with the concurrence of the Standing Or- Upon the authority of another Hon. Member of this House it ders' Committee, the petition of the promoters of the was stated that the recusant parishes amounted to more Tarnworth and Rugely Railway be referred back to the Stand- than a hundred ; but Sir, when I find—l care not in,g Orders Committee, in order that they may inquire into whether it is fifty or a hundred parishes in which there all the allegations of the petitioners, and report thereupon to is a determined spirit against these rates, I should be the House. blind indeed to the interests of the Church Establishment, and Sir R. INGLIS said, as it was then so near the hour for to the interests of all connected with it, did I not attempt to cor public business, and as it was likely that there might be a dis- rect what I consider a great evil. It may be said that it is cussion even upon the amendment of the Hon. Baronet, he confined to particular localities, but I consider it a plague spot would suggest that the debate be adjourned. which is breaking out in one place, but which in a very short Sir JOHN WROVESLE Y said there was much good time will overspread the land. Sir, I shall take the liberty of sense in the observations which had fallen from the Right Hon. describing to the House that spirit of resistance, and its con- Member for the University of Oxford. He would, therefore, sequences. I have many cases which I might lay before the move, as an amendment, that the debate be adjourned till House, but I would select only a few as specimens—first of all Monday.—Agreed to. I shall take the case of Sheffield. In Sheffield the opposition NORTH MIDLAND RAILWAY. to Church-rates commenced in 1817 or 1818. On that occasion an Mr. HARDY presented a petition from certain individuals, adjournment of the meetiug was moved, the same scene fel praying to be heard by counsel against this Bill. lowed year after year, until the year 1822, there was a de- PA RLIAMENTARY AGENTS. clded contest, the only effect of which was effecting a decided The SPEAKER said that he had, in obedience to the separation between Churchmen arid Dissenters, between the Orders of the House, prepared resolutions with reference to years 1817 and 1822. The meetings were held is, the Church, the Rules and Orders to be adopted by Parliamentary where scenes were enacted frequently which were disgraceful Agents and Officers of the House which he would lay to all parties—scenes which were a fit illustration to the upon the table. The Right Honourable Gentleman also working of the system. The writer goes on to say, informed the House that he had received from the liana- " There was one scene I shall never forget—there was an per Office a petition complaining of an undue return for the actual trial of personal strength between two gentlemen, each borough of Dungarvon. trying to eject the other from the Chair, which created a scene CHURCH-RATES. of the utmost confusion." There was no further trial till 1824, On the Order of the Day being moved for the House going and in that year, the active opponents of the rate on the into Committee, to consider that part of his Majesty's Speech former occasion being dead, the Church-rate party called a relative to Church -rates, several Hon. Members rose with Vestry Meeting to levy a rate, and there was the petitions in their hands. same truly disgusting scene as on the former occasion, when The SPEAKER—One at a time.—(Laughter.) a resolution was proposed to negative the rate on the ground Sir JOHN CAMPBELL presented petitions from various of the injustice of it. This was carried, and there has been Dissenting Congregations in the city of Edinburgh, praying no attempt to lay a rate since then, and the consequence has fur the entire abolition of Church Rates, and against the re been, that in Sheffield no rate has existed since 1817 or 1818. yium donum. Here was a meeting in the Church, in the face of the whole Mr. C. WOOD presented a petition signed by 4,000 inha- community—here were the Dissenters and Churchmen arrayed bitants of the town of Halifax in favour of the abolition of against each other—the contest resolved itself into personal Church Rates. violence, and this occurrence took place in the face of the Petitions were presented in favour of the abolition of Church- whole assembled parishioners. All this had taken place, and rates by Lord Ebrington, by Mr. Robert Steuart, and by what was the end ?—not in getting a rate, but in the extinc- Lord John Russell, and against the abolition by Sir W. Follett. tion of that rate—the utter extinction of it during the time I INDIA. have referred to.—( Cheers.) The next case to which I Lord DUDLEY STUART wished to know from the shall refer is the case of Manchester. I refer to these great P re sident of the Board of Control whether any information hail towns, because I wish to show the magnitude of the evil— been received relative to the death of Reject Chief, and of (Cheers)—because I know that public feeling is more alive distutbances on the frontiers of our Indian possessions, which in these great towns, and because I know that the excitement would render it necessary for this country to wage war on there—whether of a political, of a religious, or an intellectual the inhabitants of those districts. character extending itself first in all the great towns—is Sir J. HOBHO USE had not yet received any intelligenc sure to extend itself afterwards throughout the whole cornmu of the death of the Prince alluded to. lie could say that the nity at large. At Manchester 1 find that the Dissenters in attention of the Government of India had been directed to the 1832 resisted Church -rates, and on a show of hands the rate proceedings on the frontiers, and he had no doubt that certain was lost. A poll was demanded, for which no preparation was negociatious now pending would be brought to a satisfactory made, and after five or six days' struggle, and after polling conclusion. between 7 arid 8,000 votes, the rate was lost by in majority of one.—( Cheers.) The churchwardens instituted a scrutiny, and I believe that on that scrutiny the majority was declared to be in favour of the rate. —( Hear, hear.) This is case in is rich the rate was successful ; but the cases in which the rate was successful are as strong for my motion as those where it has been unsuccessful.—( Hear.) To this, however, I shall ret:r hereafter. The churchwardens conducted the scrutiny, and they declared that the final majority was in favour of the rate ; but what has been the result ?—( Cheers ) My lion. Friend behind me ( Mr. Philips) knows. Was it levied ? —( Cheers.) Was it eclieeted ?—( Continued cheers.) Was the Church supported under this rate ? No such thing.— ( Cheers.) No step has been taken under this rate.— ( Cheers.) No levy has been made under it.—( Cheers.) The churchwardens have not dared even to make a levy— ( Tremendous cheering )—so that even when the rate has been successful it has been inoperative for any goad purpose.—( Loud cheers.) 11 has excited a storm, and all fur nothing.—( Cheering.) Confusion, and contest, and party dissensions have been excited—and have they succeeded in their object? No such thing.---( Cheers.) In 1834 a contest again took place in Manchester. The election of the Mem bers was nothing compared to it. The poll lasted five or six days, and nearly 15,000 votes were polled, and there was a majority against the rate of 11,000. Ic appears that a scru tiny was demanded, but what was the result ? This large majority was declared to be a minority, but, though dared to do so, they declined to try the case at law.—( Hear. Was it politic in such a community as Manchester to array 15,000 persons upon a Church question ? and when they had succeeded, it . was after such a fashion that they did not dare to try the case at law, or collect tire rate thus established. In the year 1835 another parish meeting was celled, and a very large assembly came together, bat the show of hands was so decisive that the churchwardens declined to go to a poll, and from that period to the present in the town of Man chester there has been no attempt whatever to raise Church rates. Can or ought this state cf things to continue ? —( Hear, hear, and cheers.) If you depend upon the Church rate for the maintenance of the Church, can you depend upon the present state of the law to enforce that payment ? Is it now sufficient to say you must give us stronger laws—more effectual laws—( Cheers)—if you wish to maintain the ques tion ? Do you think that you can get the House of Com mons to do that ?—( Loud cheers.) The Hun. Member for Sibthorp—(Great laughter)—l beg pardon, the Hon. Mem ber for Lincoln has said, that if the Church-rates could not be collected under the law as it at present existed, there was nothing to be done hut for the Legislature to give additional power.—( Cheers.) I should like to see not only the person, hut the party, however combined, whatever may he their force or number, who still come down to this House, and ask, not to giv e to th e p eo ple o f England a settlement of this question, but an additional power for enforcing the payment of Church-rates.—( Cheers.) I shall advert to that proposi tion hereafter ; but in the meanwhile I will say, that what ever indivilual thinks he can obtain from the Legislature additional powers to enforce the payment of Church-rates, miscalculates the character of the Legislature of this country, as well as miscalculates the character of the people whom that Legislature represents.—(Hear, hear.) There is another case which, as it establishes the first part of my proposition, I must take the liberty of adverting to. The case I allude to occurred in a township in Yorkshire, called Applethorp. In this case there was a large Church built; heavy rates were demanded, and were agreed to at the vestry m tetings, and a rate of 2s. 91. was levied. 1 have show a 3nu cases in which the rate was refused ; I have shown you cases in which a rate was demanded but not enforced; and the object of the present case is to show you that the rate was enforced—what the consequences of that enforcement were— and how strongly those consequences prove the inconve nience of the existing law. In this case the rate of 2s. 9d was proposed to be levied on a Captain Flower, a Dissenter, who resisted it. lie was summoned before a Magistrate—persisted in his refusal—and denied the legality of the rate. This calling in question the legality of the rate deprived the Magistrate of jurisdiction ; it was taken to another tribunal, and the result was that Captain Flower had to pay the rate with costs, amounting to 2501.—(" Hear," from Col. Sibthorp. ) I admit that if he resisted and went to law, and the law was against him, he was bound to abide by the con sequences. I suppose that is the meaning of the cheer from the Gallant Colonel. But there is another circumstance con nected with this case, which perhaps, when the Gallant Colonel hears, he will also cheer ; it is this—that no rate has been granted ever since.—( Cheers and laughter.) This case showed that for the recovery of a rate of 2s. 9d. contested on the ground of its legality, it cost the'party 2501. —( Hear.) If you read that lesson to the people of Eng land, depend upon it that their sympathy would be ex cited for the man who had paid the sum of 2501., and against the existing law. Now gentlemen will see that all these illustrations, which may be tedious or unprofitable, are for the pnrpose of establishing the first point in my argument, namely, that the law cannot stand as it is.—( Hear.) If there be gentlemen in this House who think the law can stand as it is, let them come forward and maintain that argument, but I wish to prove to the House, which is the first point that ought to be proved, when any change in the law is contem plated, that the existing state of the law is defective.— ( Hear.) Until you lay that foundation you have no right to come to Parliament for the purpose of changing it, and it is with that object I have referred to the facts I have brought before the House. But I have another authority on the subject. I h ave one au th or ity o n the su bj ec t w hi c h cannot fail to have great weight with those gentlemen upon the other side who suppose that the present system can be maintained. It is the authority of my Noble Friend opposite, and I rejoice to have an opportunity of quoting to the House any authority of his in support of my opinion. We have differed on many ques tions and on many occasions ; but we have never been engaged upon any terms but upon those of friendship.—( Hear.) When I appeal to his authority on this subject, I do not affect to know what his opinion may be upon the specific plan which I have to propose.—( Hear.) But I know that he is a high authority with the other side of the House, and I therefore call upon the House to listen atten tively to the opinion which he expressed upon this subject in 1834. My Noble Friend, stated that " true it was that though Church-rates had been resisted, the Church had been suc cessful in overcoming the resistance"—(Cheers)—and then he proceeded to state, with a truely wise and statesmanlike view of the subject, the consequences of that success.— (Cheers.) " Suppose," said he, " that year after year, the Church should be successful in maintaining the payment of Church-rates, even to the utter most farthing, and in maintaining every abuse connected with making and collecting, these rates, does the Hon. Member for Oxford think, that such proceedings are useful to the Church, or that they tend in any degree to pro mote the interests of true religion ?" My Noble Friend knew on what grounds to appeal to the Hon. Member for Oxford. —( Hear, hear.) He appealed to him on the greund of the interest of the Church itself—(Hear, hear)—and the advancement of true religion.--(Cheers.) I ask, Sir, CANADA. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said it was his intention to place certain resolutions before the house on the sub ject of Canada, that Members might be enabled to come to a vote upon them when this question was discussed. If the state of the public business permitted it, he would bring the subject forward on Monday next. CHURCH-RATES. Upon the Order of the Day being moved, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House upon the Connell-rates ; Abolition Bill, and Mr. Speaker leaving the Chair, Th 2 CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose and .aid—Sir, I shall not occupy sour time, and the time of the House, for any length of time, by apologizing for the grene clai n of indulL;ence I am about to make upon the Houk. I stall simply say, that under no circumstances have I „ever t isen to address the House with a deeper sense o f th•• responsibility that attaches to me, whether as a Mem be.r of Pa_liament or as a NlemLer of the Government, in re f,:re,,ice to the important question which I am now about t.. . . propose ao the house. Sir, it is a question of that character which absorbs cli ordinary considerations. It is a ques tio, . ,n which one not only forgets one's self, hut almost oat ss own recollection—one forgets alt considerations whet s a Jeer, except the great and the mighty interests that art i;.•ro!ved, not only in the discussion but in the solution of this bject. It is a question of giving religious peace to the land —l;;)car)—it is a question of extending farther the great priu -4 les upon which this House has heretofore acted, at d. it is a question which I think in its dis ctesaioti—in its discussion undoubtedly I feel it does—but in its consequences, it is a measure which is still more impor t int, ieesmuch as it involves considerations and interests of 'she very greatest possible importance. Sir, the difficulties of discussing this question are greatly increased by the cir, eentistances of the times in which we live.—( Hear, hear. ) if I could have hoped that we could have approached the silscuseion of this question without passion, without prejudice, without party excitement, then, indeed, I should not have hesitated in anticipating a favourable reply ; but when one sees the character of the times in which we live, when one sees the dispositioa upon all occasions to excite a bias and a cry that the Church is in danger—( Hear, hear)—l feel that the difficulties which, under ordinary circumstances, would connect itself with the discussion of this question becomes great indeed. Sir, I wish to state. hi reference to the spirit in which this question is proposed to Parliament. that the Government in so proposing it, proposes it in no spirit of hus tility to the Established Church ; on the contrary, they are• persuaded that the settlement of this question is that measure, above all ethers, which at the present moment will give peace and security to the best interests of man kind.—( Loud cheers.) Sir, lot not Honourable Gentlemen think, that in this anticipation cf difficulty I am drawing purely on the imagieation—it is no such thing. Within a very sport pericd of time, during which the intentions of hi , "Majesty's Goveriiment have been brought to this subject, I have seen it proclaimed, and that on the authority of an indi vidual whom I value—whom I respect and whom I love—thst the public at large ought to anticipate a measure, which is to rob God of his glory and the poor of their rights. That iv the an ticipation with which this measure is met. Sir. I allude to that for the purpose of saying, that the intentions of those who have framed this measure—the intentions of one who humbly pro poses are intentions to advance the cause of religion—( Hear. hear)—to give peace—to give stability to the Church—and so far from robbing the poor of their rights, to establish the rights of the poor—( Great cheering)—and to establish those rights snore particularly in reference to the question of reli gious instructiem—( Hear, hear) Sir, it was but a short time since, that in a discussion upon another question a reference was made by a Noble Friend of mine to the absence of petitions on the subject.—(Hear, hear.) No individual would be inclined to say that the subject of Church-rates is not a subject which has excited througout the land the deepest possible attention. No person will say who has a large class of constituents—and we owe it to the Reform Bill at least that all amongst us now have a large class of constituents —I am sure there is no Hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House that can be prepared to say, this is not a subject which comes recommended to the House without having ex cited the deepest interest throughout the land. Nay, I may almost put it, that this is a subject which we must approach within the wails of Parliament under the impression that an evil exists, and that that evil calls for an immediate and for an effective remedy. I hope I may assume within the walls of Parliament—though I know a contrary opinion has been entertained without these walls that some remedy is called for hope I may assume that within these walls an evil exists, and that the question at issue between the two sides of the House is not—are we to remain as we are, but what the re medy is that behoves us to adopt ?—(Hear, hear.) Sir, I should wish, in the first instance, to refer upon this subject, because the House will feel it is my duty to strengthen myself in all respects, to authorities ; and above all, when I pet authorities that are authorities which have weight with the Hon. Gentlemen that are opposed to me, that I should bring forward these authorities ; that I should not argue for gentlemen who are disposed to support me, but against those gentlemen who are prepared to oppose me ; and teat I should assume that gentlemen who have already presented petitions in favour of the measure from this side of the House are those who are prepared to support me, but I wish to make converts. What I propose to do, is to call the attention of Hon. Members opposite to the consequences attending the leaving of this question unsettled ; and therefore it is with reference to their opinions that I think myself called upon to argue the question. The first authority I shall allude to is the au thority of a Commission proceeding from the Crown, which was issued during the Government of the Duke of Wellington, and I do not allude to it for the purpose of supporting my remedy, but of establishing the preliminary fact that the pre sent state of things is one in which we cannot allow the country to continue—that a remedy is called for, and that that remedy it is the duty of the House to propose. The Commie sioners in their report state that the whole subject of Church fates demanded immediate attention; for the mischiefs resulting from the present state of the law were numerous and compli. cated. Sir, I believe it is perfectly clear and undisputed in practice, and I believe that it is also so in point of law, that, if a rate is submitted to a vestry, and if a vestry is assembled to consider that rate, they have the entire and complete power of refusing their assent. I don't antici pate that there are any gentlemen in this House that will defend the present state of the law ; but if there are let them not defend it upon the ground of there being any permanent or satisfactory income produced for the repair and mainte nance of the established Church. That cannot be fixed, per manent, and established to which the majority of any Town Vestry can refuse its assent. You may defend the present state of things on any ground you please ; but defending it on the ground of its forming a permanent stable support for the fabric of the Church is a complete misapprehension of all the facts of the csse, a.nd which is controverted THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDA MARCH 4, ,537. now, can the interests of the Church itself and the ad . vancement of true religion be promoted or maintained by the present system of making and enforcing Church-rates ? My Noble Friend asked, " Did the Hon. Member for Oxford think that the heartburnings—the acrimonious revilings—the recri minations—the party and personal violence, vi high took place in the Church itself, and by which the cause of true religion was profaned, and the house of God desecrated, and ill-feeling generated amongst the people at large, could promote the interests of the Church ?" —( Cheers.) My Noble Friend added : " I say that such a state of things imperatively calls for an immediate remedy.--( Hear.) I do not appeal to him as an authority in favour of my plan, of which he knows nothing ; but I do appeal to him as a high authority for my first principle, that the present system cannot continue.---( Cheers.) If gentlemen stand up and tell us that the Church has been victorious, I ask them, in the words of my Noble Friend, can such victories be useful ? Or if the Church continued to be triumphant in this manner, can such triumph be a set-off or a counterpoise to the evils which my Noble Friend so eloquently described in the speech from which I have just quoted. I fear I have occu pied the House too long with this first part of the subject. I know there is an opinion prevalent in certain quarters that we can go on as we are.—(Hear, hear, hear.) I know that an opinion prevails that the law as it now stands, is sufficient to enable the Church to enforce the rates, and I have therefore thought it necessary to prove, upon such high authority, that a change of the present system is necessary in reference to the interests of the Church itself--(Hear)—the just feelings of the Dissenters, and in reference to the peace of the country. Now Sir, if I am right, we are not called upon to divide upon this point, or to discuss its principle.—( Hear, hear.) It is not so much the question as to whether a remedy should be given, but what that remedy ought to be. Various remedies have been proposed, to which I shall refer in the course of my observations, and the first of which is the total abolition of Church-rates, leaving the fabric of the Church to be provided for by the vo luntary contribution of its supporters—(Hear, hear, hear) — that is, in point of fact, putting the maintenance of the fabric of the Church to what we understand and refer to in our debates as the voluntary principle.— ( Hear.) Now, Sir, I for one say that to that principle I must ever, and under all circumstance, express my decided opposition (Tremendous cheers from the Tory benches)—whether with regard to the maintenance of the fabric of the Church, or to the support of the Church Establishment at large. I shall not attempt to argue the question at present, but I must enter my protest against any affirmance of the voluntary principle in any shape or modification whatsoever.—( Cheers from the Tory benches.) My Noble Friend has stated this upon various occasions before ; and I the more boldly state it now, because the affir mance of the point is not necessary in the consideration of the present question ; but I say ; that the plan I am about to pro pose, so far from any connection with the voluntary principle, leaves it altogether untouched. The maintenance of the fabric of the Church of England does not necessarily depend upon the question of the duty of the State to provide means for religious worship thrOughout Great Britain and Ireland—l shall not argue that question. I shall simply enter my protest against the vo luntary principle. I shall say that when Gentlemen can show me that the country at large can be defended— that the army and navy can be supported—that public education can be carried on and that the ad ministration of justice can be maintained—( Hear, hear)_ upon the voluntary principle, and that religious instruction is of a nature less important and binding upon the commu nity—then the voluntary principle can alone be established. But inasmach as I know that it is impossible to establish the voluntary system in governing the country, and when I know that the religious establishment of the State is as necessary to be maintained as the army, the navy, or the administra tion of justice, then I cannot say I am prepared—l will never submit—to leave the Establishment to the vo luntary principle. —( Cheers from the Opposition.) Well, Sir, another proposition made is that the Church should not be left to the voluntary principle, but that a system of taxation should be planned—that taxes should be levied on the members of the Church for its maintenance. I think, Sir, this involves the objection to which I have already alluded, as contained in the former proposition. But how, Sir, are we to know who is a Churchman ?—(Cheers)—are we to establish a new test ?—( Continued cheering) —are we to renew the Test end Corporation Acts, in order to know who is to pay towards the maintenance of the Church Establishment ?—( Loud cheers.) But, Sir, I need not pursue such a line of argument farther--it is too ab surd —((Hear, hear.) Another proposition which has been propounded is, that there should be a fund created by a tax levied upon the clergy—by imposing a rate of taxation upon all the benefices of the Church. I suppose it is to be a sort of income tax to be levied uj.en the Clergy for the maintenance of the fabric of the Church. To that proposition also I cannot agree.—( Hear, hear.) You had it stated in a Report which was laid upon your table, what the actual amount was of the revenues of the Church of England. After considering . that Report, I think no Gentleman will consider that a proper mode of meeting the expense. That Report showed that the average income of the Church of England amounted only to 285/. per annum. Sir, lam not now called upon to enter into the question of distribution ; but taking it for the sake of argument that the dis tribution was equal, it only gave an average of 285/. 'l hen, again, it. is said by some—there arc the Bishops, the Deans and Chapters—why not do away with them ? Sir, in answer to that I say, it would be, in fact, abolishing the Episcopal Church.—( Cheers.) It would alter the whole system of the Establishment. But sup posing, for argument sake, they were swept away, and that the is mile revenue were thrown into the average, it would not give more than an average of three hundred and twenty or three hundred and thirty pounds per annum to each clergyman, and I am not yet prepared to say that that is a sum too large. Sir, I say, that it is nut an income from which I am prepared to make any deduction—( Cheers)—when I consider the duties cast upon them, and the large means of usefulness open to them—their charity and their benevolence, and the claims upon both—l ant not disposed to make any deduction from the income- now assigned to the parochial clergy of the Estab lished Church. Another proposition has been made to raise the whole aura by a tax upon pew rents, and to let the sittings of the Church maintain the fabric of the Church. Sir, I am very reluctant to acquiesce in that principle. Then indeed I should be countenancing that second part of the cry which I have heard raised, when it was said would you rob the poor of their rights ?—( Opposition cheers.) Sir, I think it would do so, and, therefore, I will not consent to it--( Ministerial cheers)_. and, therefore, those who impute this to me, who impute to the Government or to those who are about to propose the plan we have now in view, do an injustice to us. Sir, I con tend, that it is the duty of the Government, on the contrary, to provide scats for the poor, amid so far from limiting or abridg ing the rights of the poor we seek to extend them.— ( Loud cheers.) If we were to place the support of the fa bric of the Church upon the system of pew rents, without regard to the rights of the poor, or without providing, proper religions instruction to the poorer classes, I say that would be a vicious settlement of the question.—( Hear, hear.) Therefore I utterly and entirely disapprove of wishing to raise the whole support of the fabric of the Church by pew rents, reserving to myself in the further development of the plan the right of appropriating the pew rents paid by the rich to sup port that fabric, and to extend the means of religious in struction to the poor. The next plan to which I will ad vert is one of a very different character ; and this is the plan of those who are so amazingly contented with things as they are, and who are anxious that Church-rates should remain in the present condition, and who only wish to add a little additional force, power, and control over those who pay, than the force, power, and control now possessed by them. This is contained in two letters of Archdeacon Bathurst, which I hope the House will permit me to read.—( Hear, hear.) They relate to a meeting which was held to consi der the subject of Church -rates, and one of the resolutions passed there is " That this meeting deprecates any interfe rence with the present system of Church -rates, and feels per suaded that there is no other mode in which the object for which they are levied can be procured."—( Hear.) Now, Sir, if there be any force in the opinion of my Noble Friend— if there be any force in the opinion of Lord Spenser, or if there be any force in the opinion of the Right Bon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, in adverting to the measure, there is on our part at least no disposition to remain so contented with the present system that we can allow the present law to remain. —(Hear, hear, and cheers.) But, Sir, this is not all ; for in another—a mcst important part of this communication—he says that "there is nothing more required than an additional enactment, in order to render the Church-rate secure and satisfy its opponents."—( Hear.) Now, Sir, what is this additional enactment ?—( Hear.) It is either that the power should be given to the churchwardens to levy a rate without the consent of the vestry—(Hear, hear) —or to give to the magistrates at quarter sessions the power to impose a rate upon parishes, without the consent of the parishioners.—(Hear, hear.) That pro position never can be maintained, let it come from what quarter it may, for one moment. I now come to another proposition, which I approach with much more doubt and in decision. I admit the force of it, having been disposed to support it individually, as a Member of Lord Grey's Govern ment, considering it to contain within itself the elements of great good.—( Cheers.) I refer to the proposition which was made by Lord Spencer. I intend to discuss that proposition, and to state to the Committee the reason why I think that proposition is untenable, and that the House would not be warranted in supporting it.---(Cheers.) Lord Spencer proposed to vote that a sum of 250,0001. should be raised for the purpose of maintaining the fabric of the Church, and that that sum should be supplied from the Consolidated Fund.—( Hear, hear.) That proposition was brought forward in this House. It was not distinctly ne gatived, but amendments were moved upon it to this effect, that until it was shown the funds of the Church were inadequate for the purposes of the Church, the House was not disposed to entertain the proposition. The Noble Lord did not persist in that proposition. His Majesty's Government feel the utmost respect of course for the proposition in which so many of them concurred, but I shall take the liberty of showing the House the reason why I think that proposition oug h t no t now to be made, and why another and a more preferable proposition should be brought forward. In the first place, the House is to recollect that the present system of Church ' rates is a system in which the parishioners in vestry assembled have the power of saying " aye or no." It is, in point of fact, founded on that principle of parochial government—to that principle there were objections—as it related to Church-rates. I object to that principle, not on the ground of injustice, because I think that large communities ought to have a voice on such subjects ; and I object to Church-rates on the ground that they are calculated to lead to discord and ill will. Butl say, that if the parishes of England have a free right, as at present they have, to say whether 1,0001. or NU should be expended, I am not surprised that some should say we don't choose that this money should be expended in which we are so deeply interested, without our opinion having been once asked upon it. That is the first objection which I think is fairly applicable to the subject. But there is another ob jection, which I think is more powerful, and to my mind ap pears quite decisive ; and I wish my Noble Friend, who was a party to that proposition, to have the goodness to give me his attention while I state this objection. I find it is stated in defence of Church-rates, that no Church-rates are levied on much more than 5,000 parishes in England, and that in the other parishes, no Church-rates are levied at all. I find that so stated, but I have no evidence of it. But I know this, that by the Charity Commissioners' Report, in an immense number of parishes in England, there is no possible necessity for the levying of any Church-rates at all, because in those parishes there is an abundant provision already made fur the endowment of the Churches. Now in the county of (we believe the Right Hon. Gent. said) Cornwall there are upwards of a hundred parishes which have endowments for their Churches ; I do not know whether those endowments arc quite adequate to all, but to take the more extreme case to which I have already adverted of there being 5,000 parishes in which there are no Church-rates at all, or where there is an inadequate endowment, is it fair to tax those persons which you do if you take it upon a general taxation of the country?- -is it fair to tax them who have already enough for their Churches, in order to compel them to contribute to the support of other Churches in distant parts of the country. I say that there being a sufficient endowment in many parishes for their Churches, that that makes it unjust that you should make an equal taxation. I could give you instances in support of this. I find that in the reign of Queen Mary, a Charter was granted and considerable property given to a Corporation at Sheffield, called the Church Burgesses ; that those personshave adequate funds for the maintenance of the Church at Sheffield, that they do maintain the Church at Sheffield, and that all Church-rates at Sheffield have ceased. But is it not rather hard to say that you are to make a provision for the mainte nance of Churches in other places, where no such endowment exists ? Well, then, it was said on the part of Scotland, why should vou tax us for the purpose of maintaining the Episco palian Church of England ? The plan of Lord Spencer was a great step in advance. It put an end to contests among Dissenters, and put an end to the contests at vestries ; but still it was based on a principle which, on fair reasoning, you could not justly defend.—( Hear, hear. ) The objection to Lord Spencer's plan was altogether con fined to the Dissenters, because he found in a work opposed to the doctrines he had advocated, " The Quarterly Review," a statement that if this plan were adopted of upholding the Church out of the national purse, and if the repairs be charged on the Consolided Fund where is the relief to the Dissenters ? —( Prolonged cheering.) I do not quite concur in the arguments used by that writer, but I say, if you adopt that course, you only give a half-remedy. Now I have endeavoured thus to prove that the present state of the law is defective, and that the various plans which have been suggested would not turn out to be satisfactory. I know I have occupied the House at great length ; but I am resolved even at the hazard of trying the patience of the House to omit nothing that will recommend the plan I am about to introduce, and to protect the supporters of that plan from misrepresentation Those are the duties I am about to perform, and I am about to detail that plan to the house.—( Cheers.) Our plan is to abolish Church. rates altogether, not for the purpose of leasing the fabric of the Church unprovided for, but with a view of providing for it in a manner equally permanent, equally fixed, and equally secure as before, and in a manner differing from the present by this great distinction, that while the present system derives its sup port through turmoil, in difficulty, and through the creation of religious animosity, we propose to maintain the fabric in ano ther way, and in a manner without injury to the Church itself. We propose to make a new and a better settlement of this question.—(Hear, hear.) Our Bill provides that in a better manner, which was provided Kith difficulty before— namely, out of the lands which are now the property of the Church, and in the hands of the Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, and Prebendaries throughout England. Gentlemen will understand me—l do not propose to touch any of the pro perty in the hands of the parochial clergy throughout Eng land, nor do I mean to interfere with the settlement of the income of any Archbishop or Bishop as fixed and regulated by the Bill of last Session, and recommended by the Eccle siastical Commissioners. I do not propose to meddle with any ecclesiastical arrangements made or proposed last year ; but I state my proposal to be, that out of the lands of the Established Church, means shall be provided for supporting the fabric of the Church. I think that by this means a sum of 250,0001. a year can be procured, which was the amount proposed to be taken from the Consolidated Fund by Earl Spencer.—( Hear.) If this can be done without injury to the Church, I believe that those who are anxious for the abolition of Church-rates will be content, and that the Dissenter and the Churchman, who should be combined and confederated together for one common good object—that all who wish to put an end to this contest—will join with me in carrying my plan into effect.—(Great cheering.) Sir, the plan I propose will be a Commission for the manage inent.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear," and much laughter, from the Opposition benches.) I was as sure that the word " Commission" would be followed by a cheer, as that light follows the rising of the sun.—( Hear, hear.) But let Hon. Members hear a little more. I propose that there should be a Commission for the management of the Church lands, to consist of eleven persons ; of these five to be Churchmen of high rank, Ecclesiastics—namely, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of London, the Doan of St. Paul's, and the Dean of Westminster. The others to he the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the time being, the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests, for the time being (for reasons I shall presently explain); and that as in the Tithe Bill, there shall be three Lay Commissioners, one of them to be appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the two others to be ap pointed by the Crown. That is the constitution of the Commission that I propose.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Gentle men will observe, that the object of the appointment of this Commission is for the management of the Church lands. I do not propose that the legal estate should be transferred to them ; on the contrary, I think the estate should remain as at present, but that the management of the Church lands, as in the Crown lands, should be in these Commissioners. I then pro pose that the present leasing powers of the Church should altogether cease.— ( Loud cheering, and cries of " Hear, hear.") Gentlemen will hereafter sec whether any injustice is intended. I need not refer to the present system of leasing —the power of taking fines—of granting leases for lives and leases for years, and the power which the Deans and Chapters possess of granting concurrent leases. All these must be familiar to Finn. Gentlemen who may have considered the subject ; and if not, in the course of my address the mat ter will be sufficiently explained.—( Cries of hear, hear. ) The greater portion cf the income derived from Church lands is raised by fines upon the renewal of leases. The rents are for the most part fixed, and they constitute a comparatively small portion of the income.—( Hear. ) The Church is thus in the state of a person who lives by raising money upon a reversion, which is decidedly the most improvident of all means.—( Hear.) Every gentleman at all acquainted with the world must know' that such is exactly the life of a spendthrift.—( Hear, hear.) I pre/pose therefore, that the system of levying fines shall be entirely done away with, and that the present leases be allowed to'run out, then to be renewed upon their full value.—( Hear, hear.) It will be said, no doubt, and with justice, that if my plan stopped there—if the measure which I have to propose were limited to that—a great injustice would be done to the present lessees. They have had their leases from their ancestors—those leases have been the subjects of mortgage and settlements—( Hear, hear)—and therefore there is a sort of qualified right in them —( hear)—and however great the evils which we wish to re move, we must not do so to the injury of one particular class. —( Hear, hear.) The Bill which I propose to introduce is founded on the principle of regarding the rights of the present incumbents ; so that, according to the improved value of the lease the tenant of the Church shall be entitled to a right of pre-emption ; that is, the tenant of the Church shall have his lease renewed at five per cent. below its im proved value. That is the case with the tenants of Crown Lands—(Hear)—and I propose with respect to the tenants of the Church to give them the same advantage, and no more. lam far from being satisfied with this-1 do not think it meets the justice of the case.—( Hear, hear.) If they continued the system of year leases, I think that a great portion of their duty will be left unperformed. Any one who saw not only in agricultural districts, but in large cities, the course of improvement interrupted, and great national municipal im provements anticipated, must admit that lie would not be sa tisfied with existing regulations to which I have referred. Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") I propose, there fore, to give the tenant in possession the power of purchasing the fee-simple of the Church lands, subject to a fixed rent, payable to the Commissioners. When I say a fixed rent, I mean, when it has been ascertained, it shall fluctuate accord ing to the ordinary value of money. Ido this upon the prin ciple of that Bill which met the sanction of the Legislature in the last session—l mean the Tithe Act. I propose that the Church lessees shall be enabled to purchase the interest of the land at the rate of twenty-five years' purchase—the existing leases being valued at a rate equal to the interest of money at four per cent. If, for instance, a tenant has a lease equal to 14 years' pur chase, that shall be estimated at 4 per cent., and the diffe rence between that and 25 years' purchase shall be the amount the tenant shall have to pay for the enfranchisement of his land. Gentlemen are not to suppose that the plan which it is my duty to propose, makes it imperative upon every lessee to pay the amount of difference in actual money. No Sir, I propose that the amount should be commuted into an increased rent to be added to the rent and fines which he now pays—l propose for him the entire enfranchisement of his land—to make that which is now an uncertain and doubtful tenure, a tenure fixed and certain—a tenure in fee simple—one which will se cure to the Church not only that which she now receives, but also that surplus upon which I confidently rely, and also a better system of Church-rates. There are also clauses which enable persons who are life-renters to raise money for the exchange of lands. By these clauses the life-renter will have power to exchange Church lands for others that he may want nearer his dwelling.—( Hear.) Sir, these are cases in which people having leases in covenant under the Crown these rights will be regarded in the same manner as in the case of Crown property; they will have the power to come before the Commissioners, to prove their interest in the land, and from them they will obtain such a decision as the justice of the case demands. Now, Sir, I have shown that the present dignitaries' rights have not at all been affected, and consequently, and in order to provide more especially for such cases, we propose that if a Bishop pleases, he may con tinue to keep up the present system of fines and rents. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent his continuing that practice, but we propose to give him an advantage by accepting the provisions of this Bill at once. If the Bill should pass tho Legislature, the moment that the present Incumbent's inte rest ceases every thing will come under the provisions of the Bill. Sir, I believe the funds which the Bill provides will be more than adequate for all the purposes. I have told the House that it is our intention, in the Bill we are about to in troduce, that the surplus, over and above paying the fines to the Bishops and Ecclesiastics, and after paying, in addition to that, the amount of Church-rates, there will be a reserve fund, the income of which will be applicable to the endowment of small livings.—( Cheers. ) I wish to show that in this new arrangement, whilst we seek to make provision for the Church, we wish also to make provision for __ the proposition of Lord Spencer, that any surplus should be applied for the purposes of the endowment of small livings. Then with a view to the application of parish estates. I have already stated that in a great number of parishes considerable funds exist applicable to the endowment of Churches. They ought to be brought under the consideration of those who have to administer the funds provided for Church-rates. Those funds we propose to place under the control of the Commissioners.—( Hear, hear.) I have already stated that the Commissioners hold their Commission for the purpose of the management of Church property ; but they will also be charged with the duty of paying over a sum of 250,0001. to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the purpose of the maintenance of the Church. That will be one of the obligations which the Commissioners will have to perform. A further source of income which would come under the notice of these Commissioners would be the pew rents.—( Hear, hear.) Where pew rents were received, and ought to be re ceived, and were justly received, they ought to be applied for the purposes of the endowment of the Church.--( Hear, hear, hear.) That is the case already in the parish of St. James, where the pew-rents amount to no less a sum than 1,1001. a year. Consequently there the Church-rates are applied for the purposes of the Clergy. In many other parishes such is also the case. I propose, therefore, to put the manage ment of pew-rents under the controul of a Committee of the pew-renters themselves, and, finally, of the Commissioners. I do so, however, upon the understanding that free seats for the poor are to be provided upon a far more liberal scale than at pre sent. I say that gentlemen who have been taking notes on the subject of pew-rents may or may not quarrel with me on this subject—they may quarrel with me on the ground that it is unjust to make the wealthy contribute by paying for the pews, but they cannot quarrel with me for providing for the poor ; and it is the essence of our Bill that a pro vision for the accommodation of the poor shall be made larger than that which now exists under the present law. —( Hear.) It is that the managers arid churchwardens, with the consent of the Bishops, shall leave one fifth part of the free seats for the poor, if the same have been usually let; one-third if the churches have been built under Church Building Acts, or one half of the pews have not been let before. Sir, as I said at the outset, it was alleged that we were disposed to rob the poor of their rights. Now I think that the House will be satisfied that that was not a true accusation. I pressed this because there is no feeling that would more easily excite, and more justly, if true, than an impression that we were about to deprive the poor of their rights.—( Hear, hear.) I say that the provision I have proposed for free sittings is a terser provision than that which exists at present, and if Gentlemen only differ with me upon that, and propose to have a greater extension of accom modation for the poor, that is a point upon which we shall not be disposed to quarrel with them. They will find that we shall be disposed to go as far in that respect as they like. But it is proposed by the Bill lam about to introduce, as it was proposed by Lord Spencer, that the whole of the present system of introduction and swearing-in of churchwardens should be abolished. I cannot conceive how any benefit can be derived from the swearing-in of church wardens, in the way in which it has been carried on before justices of the peace, or otherwise; and by this alteration 180,000/. will be saved.—( Hear, hear.) lam now coming to a very important point. There has been a very large debt contracted on the securities of Church-rates. Both public and private money to a very great extent has been advanced upon them ; but I should say, as one most friendly to the abo lition of Church-rates—l should say for myself, as one con vinced of the necessity of upholding the principles of the Es tablished Church— ( Hear, hear)—that no one can con tend that a debt contracted under the ordinary law of the land—under Acts of Parliament—should be in any, the slightest degree, affected or impaired in its security, by reason of the alteration I make in this law. Well, then, Sir, I propose that the security which has been given should put an end to the Church-rates absolutely for the future ; that the whole amount of debt which has already been incurred should be levied as parochial rates for the payment of that debt.—( Hear, and a laugh.) Why it is not just that we should take the property from the engagements it is already subject to ; but it is right that those engagements should still be made good out of the funds, and by the persons who have entered into that engage ment. I would not bring forward a proposition founded on any other principle. I would never bring forward a proposi tion which I believed to be unjust, or which contained in itself the elements of injustice; and it would be unjust to tranfer on one man's shoulders a debt which had been contracted by another. The parties who have contracted this debt are bound to pay the debt. Now, Sir, I wish to state, for the satisfaction of gentlemen, that out of the income of the Arch bishops and Bishops, and other ecclesiastical functionaries, which amounts to 541,0001., I only intend to meddle, directly or indirectly, with that portion which is represented by fines, and which amounts to 260,0001. Ido not mean to diminish in any degree the receipts on the part of any one Arch bishop, Bishop, Prebend, Archdeacon, Dean, or Canon, but I mean simply to obtain the surplus in the way I have described. I shall endeavour, as shortly as possible, to make a statement to the House, which will illustrate this proposition—it is rather a complicated matter. But I shall endeavour to show that the sum of 250,000/. can be obtained out of an altered system of Church lands. In the first place, my authority, and I like to name it when I have an authority, is a gentleman for whom I have a great respect and regard, and to whom I owe great obligations—l mean Mr. Finlayson —a gentleman whose authority will not be objected to on the other side, because when Hon. Gentlemen wished to oppose us on the subject of the Irish Church Bill, the authority of Mr. Finlayson was all and every thing.—( Hear, hear, hear.) These calculations were laid upon the table of the House, and it was proved beyond doubt that our proposition was indefensible, because Mr. Finlayson had argued so and so. He, then, is the authority to which I now appeal, and as the question is rather an abstruse one, I shall not enter into much detail ; but as I intend to show by it that this sum can be ob tained out of an improved system of managing the Church lands, those who wish to oppose or to support. my plan, will give me their attention. I shall come to the result without going threugh the calculations. Two points were submitted to Mr. Finlayson—the one was, that the average subsisting term of the Church leases, taking the leases for lives and the leases for years together—that the average subsisting term is twenty-four years; next, that the average rate of interest al lowed upon renewals is 7 per cent. I may observe, that both the one and the other of these are taken within the mark, and I pledge myself that the fullest investigation would prove the facts to be as I state them. The two points on which I rest are these—that the average of the leases, taking the leases for years and the leases for life together, is 24 years ; and the average rate of interest allowed upon renewals is 7 per cent The average amount of fines, as now received, tak ing together the leases from Bishops, Deans, Chapters, and Prebendaries is 260,631/. Now, I find upon calculation, and I am satisfied that the closest investigation would disclose the same facts, that such is the actual value of the rental of the Church. Thus working it out, I shall have a perpetual an nuity of 261,0001., which will represent the present rental ot' property 1,323,000/. ; that is the actual rental of the property, and I have the authority of Mr. Finlayson bearing me out in this (although I have no doubt that I am within the mark), that I shall have sufficient,' taking it at that mark.---( Hear.) Now, Sir, I propose to convert these perpetual annuities into an annuity of possession from the present time, and that is altogether a matter of arithmetic. The sum which I shall obtain altogether is 561,0001., for the perpetuity of 1,300,0001. Well, Sir, if the fines revert, and if by the reversion of the value of the property of the Church, you con vert it to a perpetual annuity of 561,0001., and deduct from it the amount 1 have alluded to, it will leave an amount of 265,000/. surplus, which I intend to apply to the payment of the charges now defrayed by Church-rates— (hear)—but it may be asked how the sum is to be provided ? —by the sale of the reversion to the tenant—but it may then be asked, will the tenants buy ?—I consider they would. Let me entreat the leaseholders to consider the proposition I make. I propose to them that for four per cent, to have their leases converted, subject to the rental into a perpetuity. [The Right Hon. Gentleman here went into a calculation to show that by the plan proposed, the value of Church leases and of Church property, if brought into the market, would be considerably increased] and, continued—l have it from the best authority that the highest value of Church property is at pre sent at an average of twenty-one years' purchase. I believe that is too much, but by the proposition I now make they would be raised to the value of thirty years' rental. If I am asked why I have fixed upon this rate of purchase I tell you that I find that the Legislature has acquiesced in this rate. An Act was /passed in 1827, at the instance of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, to enable him to sell the reversion of an estate, and it was enacted that it should be sold at the rate of twenty-five years' purchase. It therefore cannot be said that I am doing any injustice to the Bishops or the lessees in taking this scale. lam taking a scale which has been sanctioned by King, Lords, and Commons.—( Hear, hear.) I may be asked upon what authority I consider seven per cent. should be allowed on church leases. I will an swer this question by reading an extract from a publication of the Rev. Sidney Smith on this subject. [The Right Hon. Gentleman, after reading the extract, which went to support the proposition laid down, proceeded as follows] Now, Sir, I have stated that the proposition which I have made is not without a precedent acquiesced in by the Legisla ture—that precedent is with respect to the Crown Lands. Let it not be said that we are proposing any thing with respect to the Church lands which has not a precedent. There is not one principle in our Bill but what has already been acted upon. In 1794, the case of the Crown lands was brought under the consideration of Parliament. A Report on the subject was made by the Surveyor-General of the Woods and Fo rests in the year 1797, which Report stated, as we do now with regard to the Church lands that the Crown lands were greatly mismanaged—that there was a great want of improvement in them in consequence of the system under which they were let. A proposition was made that the whole of the leases should be allotted to run out—that they should be re-leased, a preference being given to the lessees in possession of one-eighth in consideration of their tenant rights. Two men, whose names would carry great weight, attended at the Treasury when this Report was under consideration-- there were four Lords present—but he need only mention the names of Mr. Pitt and the present Lord Wellesley. So far from having any doubt as to the policy of carrying into effect the recommendations of Mr. Fordyce, the Surveyor- Geeeral, Mr. Pitt entirely agreed with him except in one.. point. He thought it unreasonable to give a p retereneeof one-eighth to the tenant in possession. He said he cou l d allow no more than one-twentieth or five per cent., and that was all the favour which was given to the leases then under the Crown. The principle upon which we wish now to act was acted upon by the Treasury of that day ; and I have no doubt the same objections were then made by the Crown leases as are now made by the Church.—(Cries of Hear.) A memorial was laid before the Treasury on the part of the lessees of the Crown, which, from the signatures to it, is en titled, in my opinion, to no small weight and consideration. They set forth that their leases were taken or purchased under an expectation of renewals upon the payment of the fine, and a small reasonable increase of rent, in the same manner as the re newals under the Crown were granted. They say, that they have been under the expectation that they had the tame rights as the Crown leases, which had induced the tenants of the Crown to lay out large sums of money in the improvement of the land, and they state further, that securities were given foe the .for tunes of childeen on the faith of these engagements. This memorial is signed by the Duke of Marlborough, the Duche,34 of Dorset, Lord Essex, the Duke of Leeds, Lord Balcarras, the Duke of Richmond, and several others. I mention this memorial to show that one more entitled to weight, from the names affixed was never addressed to the Treasury. But what did that lead to ? Did it lead to the result of setting aside the ar rangement of Mr. Pitt? On the contrary, these arrangements were preserved, and the result was an improvement in the Crown lands, as it gave to those who possessed the property a far wore permanent tenure. It may be well to mention before I pass this subject by, that in this memorial they stated that the terms imposed upon the Crown lessee are so very hard that parties will never accept them. Now, I have had the curiosity" to get a return of the number of persons who signed the peti tion, which stated that the Crown dealt in so very harsh a manner, and I find this to be the result—that there were 85 persons represented by the memorial, and those who refused to renew amounted only to the small number of 15. Fifty one renewed, and the 18 remaining were only prevented from renewing because the land in question had been bought IV , I have, therefore, first the authority of the Legislature of the country in taking this step in respect to the improvement of Church lands, as it was taken in the improvement of Crown lands, and that too without any injury whatever to the lessees themselves. Now, Sir, I shall endeavour to bring my concluding observations within a narrow compass. I have endeavoured first to show to the House that the present state of the law is that which cannot be defended. I have endeavoured to show that various remedies have been suggested, to which in my mind objections more or less existed. I have endeavoured to describe to the House the nature of the remedy which I propose ; and then I bring that forward, recommended by the fact of the result being produced in money, and next, that it is supported by direct precedent. lam not one to undervalue the rights of the Church in this matter—far from it. But will Gentlemen carry their opposition so far as to say that - the Church in its temporal matters is more sacred and inviolable, and to be viewed as of greater importance than the rights of the Crown ? Will Gentlemen say that the lessees of the Church are entitled to more consideration than the lessees of the Crown? They stand precisely on the same tooting. The Church property I view in the same light as I view the Crown property. The Church lessees I view pre cisely in the same ratio of importance as I view the Crown lessees. And if that be so, we have got the authority of the Legislature for our proposition. We are entitled to say that our remedial measures are adapted to the evil, and supported by precedent.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Now, Sir, what will be the consequence? I know that Gentlemen are very apt when any one from this side of the House expresses his attachment to the Established Church—as a Member 0 1 that Church—l know there is too frequently a disposition from gesture, or from interruption, to signify a distrust of that de claration.—( Hear.) Sir, it will be for this measure to speak for itself. It will be for Gentlemen to weigh this measure in reference to the effects it is likely to produce, and see whe ther it will be likely to produce them.—( Loud cheering.)-- Judging from events, and the importance of those events, I believe it is as far back, though certainly in a different sense, as far back as the year 1237, that one of our ancient statutes, begins by a warning to adopt circumspection. If circum spection was necessary in 1237, it is above all necessary ill 1837 ; because, if you do ,not touch this subject with the greatest circumspection and care, you will be sure w be stigmatised as an enemy to the Church and as on( who wishes to overthrow that Establishment.—( Hear, hear.) I say then the Church will derive great benefit from this ar. rangement. Is it nothing that the Church should arrive at a time of rest and peace on the subject of Church-rates ? ( Hear, hear. ) Is it nothing to the Church of EnglaM to say that there shall be a time when there shall be ne more annual meetings at which discord will arise, ant at which theological arguments are mixed up with the eees . time of money payments. I think theological argument are bad things when taken up with a spirit of virulence They are dangerous to religious sects, and if you warn to bring a particular sect into derision, have recourse t( a theological argument connected with a money payment — let the place of discussion be a popular meeting, t which all persons arc admitted—if you wish to endanger are Institution, if you wish to change Christian security into hatre , and malignity, continue that system of distraction ; but it is the system which it is the object of my Bill to terminate.—(Lote and continued cheering.) Again, I say, the Churcl would have a direct benefit in the improvement which would le given to the Church lands of this country, and I say that ever thing which improves the condition of the Church would int' prove the condition of the Clergy.—( Hear, hear, hear. Now, I wish to touch this part of the subject veil lightly ; but arc there no such things as suspicions of proceedioki with regard to Church leases that bring the clergy of this coup try into contempt ? I say the mode in which the leases hay, been granted, the mode in which these leases have been pro vided, and further, I say, the power which a young Bisho] or young Dignitary has of running hii life against the inte rest of the lease, introduced a collusion, and introduced jealousy which was any thing but creditable to all parties I find in this pamphlet of Sidney Smith, to which I befor referred, in speaking of the mode in which the patronage ° Bishops is disposed of, these words :—" The worst case i that of a superannuated Bishop ; here the preferment is give away by the wives, daughters, or sons, persons utterly una( quainted with ecclesiastical patronage, and the poor (Vin man's hand is guided to the signature of papers, the conten' of which he is unable to comprehend."—(Hear.) But if tb be true with respect to the patronage of Bishops in the Churcl does it not become equally true with respect to the leases Bishops ? And will not any plan which puts the leasing pow , of the Bishops upon a better principle, and removes, I tvi nut say the temptation, but the suspicion of yielding to tin temptation, be beneficial to the Church ?—( Hear, hea r. New, if there be an advantage in this to the Bishops, I hum bly contend th ere is an enormous benefit to the lessees. L c it not be said, for the purpose of raising an argument here -- or let it not b e sa id e l sew here, for the purpose of raisin , o f stacics to the p ass i ng o f this Bill—that the Church lessee has defined legal right capable of enforcement, and one for which h is entitled to receiv e c o mpensation. lie has no such thing-- -b stands precisely in the same position as the Crown Less e does, and I am almost afraid of being guilty of the appearan o of pedantry in referring to a legal authority. I will take t h liberty of referring to the observations of Mr. Butler in - h i edition of Coke upon Lyttleton, upon the question of TTitherights. Ile says that the granting of tenants a preference beycit that of strangers, or the giving them a preference which is cal ls the tenant's right of renewal, is peculiarly applicable to leas' from the Church, or leases from the colleges. These lii produced what was called the tenants' rights, but although al tempts bad been made to establish the right of the landlord I renew, it was still a matter of favour and chance. Sir, I will so further, that those who are concerned in the ecclesiasti c, leases know what they have now to submit to, not onlY the shape of renewals but fees, and they know that every 1 0 is a matter of great charge for Bishops, secretaries and officer All this will be abolished under the proposed Bill. They sv, i , also have the power of exchanging Church lands i` others, which at present they arc unable to do. IWe Sir, to read to the House an instructive passage from a spec ( which was delivered upon this subject in the House of Coo mons so lung ago as the year 1600; and may serve as a f: specimen of what is called the wisdom of our ancestors. An is was introduced into this House to prevent Bishops from giv it leases in remainder, until within three years of the expiration ; current leases. A country gentleman stood up and oppose d t Bill, contending that it would be prejudicial to the Churc h, the Bishops, an to their servants. The Bishops, he said, i 4 l e hardly dealt with. They had a great deal to pay and but l it ! to receive.—(" Hear, hear," and a laugh.) The greateet ° come enjoyed by any of the Bishops was 2,5004 a yea r. (Cheers from the Ministerial Benches.) Colonel SIBTHORP—That was two hundred years . ail' The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER-4: h ' well. But this is not all. Let me go on. Gentleman proceeded : " The highest income ° 1 Bishop is no more titan 2,5001. a year; and out that he has to pay a subsidy of 5001. a-year to the Crown' „ (Cheers.) Now if the Hon. Gentleman opposite whoso mark implied that the income of 2,5001. was at that e a equal to what the income of a Bishop is at present--( f e l hear)—the Hon. Member agrees with me. Very well. But ts cannot object to raise the nominal amount of the subsidy e ll froi same principle.—(Cheers, and a laugh.) The speech ' re - : which I have quoted goes on to argue that it would be a g an hardship to the Bishops who were so poorly provided ib r h ' o al who had that heavy subsidy to furnish, that they 56 1 not be able to provide for their old and faithful vants, by granting them those leases in remainder. bis, the chief ground on which he opposed the Bill w as t o p. For, Sir," said he, " I am myself the father of a 13 ' s e - tt _( Cheers.) Thus it was not because the interests • °f t ics Church or of the tenants of the Church, or public P os e would be injured by the Bill that he opposed it, hot bc ,e e e• he was the father of a Bishop.—( Hear, and ch ee i-eo! Gentlemen on both sides of the House cheer this• who say that it should belong to the Church, and the se c eei maintain that it should be the property of the less ee pe t this; but if those be right who maintain that it is the prc°oo of the Church, then they take it from the lesse e k ee p hear, hear)—and if the lessees have a right to o f for themselves, then the Church must be depri ve° to ti Therefore let those who consider that it should belong fit t Church and the lessees vote with me for the application °; Church-rates, but let them not confederate ; let no t th° t it 1( wish to get it f o r th e Ch urc h, and those who wish to ge the lessee u n it e , f or it can not be applied to two °nPtilraa objects.—( Hear, hear, hear.) The Right Hon• thi ng s opposite cheers me.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, this br,buee to the consideration whether this surplus belongs to the riot 1,1 not.—( Hear, hear.) Sir, I maintain that it doe: therm long to the Church, but to the State, and I ha ve an “ of tb to that effect, on which—and I intreat the attenti.onfooodet House to this authority—on which this supposition L ent , (re! in order that I may protect myself and the Gove2n u ' rc h pfc the accusation that we are interfering with the (-43