The Sun. — London, England, 1837-03-14 00:00:00

till ider to b e rather ungenerous. `When that measure was about to b e b roug h t forward we were told in the speech from theo_ England, throne that I re l an d was i n a state very different from that upon gland, an d requ i red a peculiar line of administration this matter. The case was thus made out to be a special one, and d e f en d e d on grounds of necessity ; and the House, taking all these circumstances into consideration, passed the Bill for the r egu l at i on o f the temporalities of the Irish C ll iirch•—( Hear hear, hear.) But w h a t d oes the Chancellor of the Exchequer now ? He cornea down to the tohouse, quotes th e case o f t h e I r i sh Church as one applicable England, ma k es t h e exception the general rule, and this peculiar policy, which was applied to Ireland on account of a s trong case of necessity, the precedent for our dealings with the Church in England..—( Hear, hear.) Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer look to the preamble of the Church Tempo ralities (Ireland) Bill —can he say that in England it is con venient to dispense with ten bishops ? On the contrary, two have been very recently added to the number, in districts Where their services were required.—( Hear, hear.) Was not the case of the Dissenters precisely the same in 1834 as at present ? Yet in 1834 did you propose to follow the pre cedent of Ireland in respect to them ?—( Hear.) You brought forward a Bill totally different from the present tnea sure--a Bill for the purpose of abolishing the payment of C hurch -rates, but at the same time providing for a fund, for the supp ort o f the fabric of the Church, out of the funds of the ' t a,te.--(Oppo s iti on c h eers .) Wh en you spea k to me a b out authority, I shall attempt to show that, so far as argument oes, you have no authority to appeal 'to in the case of the nth Church in support of the present measure, whilst from Your own acts and declarations I can draw the most power ful arguments against it.—( Renowed cheering.) I shall quote fi rst the dclaration of him who proposed the Irish Te mporalities Act, and, in the following year, proposed a plan for superseding Church-rates by another :descrip tion of payment. Lord Althorn, in April 21, 1834, the Irish Temporalities Act having been passed in the Preceding. year, proposed a measure by which an annual t u n of 250,000/. was t o b e d rawn f rom t h e C onso lid ate d Fd, and applied to the repair and mainteriance of Churches as a substitute for Church-rates ; and in the course of the discussion which took place on that occasion he ex pressed himself as follows :—"The principal argument used this evening has been, that no contribution ought to he made by the S tate out of the public funds for the purpose of main taining the places of worship belonging to the Established Church Now, I entirely agree with my Hon. Friend (Mr. Wynn), that it is the absolute duty of the State to provide place s of worship for the poorer classes of this community." There is a positive recognition of the principle, that it is the absolute duty of the State to provide Church accommoda tion for the poorer classes. From what fell from the Chan cellor of the Exchequer the other night, we are left to infer that the plan now proposed is not at variance with this prin ciple. Now, on the occasion of this proposal by Lord Al thorn, t h e sH on. Member for Middlesex, not i n ignorance of t 1 0 Noble Lord's plan, but in open and difect opposition to It, Proposed as an amendment, that no payments should be shade out of the Consolidated Fund until it was ascertained that the Church property was inadequate to the purpose. I other Hon. Members supported Lord Althorn against that amendment, on which occasion we united 256 votes, a nd negatived the resolution of the Hon. Member for Middlesex by a majority of 116.—( Hear, hear.) Now, as it is the rule that the vote of the majority ought to bind the Minority, and as we have a recorded majority of 116, b y Which the Ilouse of Commons had declared itself against the very principle now proposed, and as coinciding with the principle of Lord Althorp, I think I have shown that the weight of authority is in favour of supporting the fabric of the Church out of the public funds, as distinguished Item tile funds of the Church.—; Ili ar, hear.) It may be said that this Principl e was net adopted by a reformed Parliaisot. But it was the first Pa, lia-meto returned after the pass.ing of the Reform Act. It eaenot he said either that this Parlia ment was returned under a Conservative Government. But this - au not the case either. The Parliament was returned Under the Government of Lord Grey, who was the Premier ; and this decree of the Parliament so assembled has never yet been reversed.—( Hear, hear.) As another authority on this st kbicct, I beg to refer the Right Hoe Gentleman to the Re- Port of the Church Commission bearing date tl.e 4th of March, 183 6—a Commission including among its members the names of five of the Members of his Majesty's Government—Lord Cottenham (the Lord Chancellor), Lord Lansdowne, Lord Melbourne, Lord John Russell, and Mr. Spring Rice.—( H ear, b ear.) Amongst other points to which this Commission di rected its attention, was this very question of raising addi. tional funds by means of a different administration of Church Property; and upon this the Report spoke as follows : " One mode or rendering these incomes less uncertain would be to allow the existing leases, both for lives and for terms of years, to expire. But any plan for accomplishing this ob ject must involve the necessity of borrowing money upon the security of the episcopal estates, in order to compensate the Bishops for the loss of the fines which accrue to them under the present system, and which form an important part of their in comes. The practical result of such an operation would be, to transfer to the parties lending their money that interest in the episcopal estates which is Dow possessed by the lessees. ..We are not, therefore, prepared to recommend the adoption of any general measure for allowing the leases for lives and terms of years to expire ; although, for the purpose of correcting, in some degree, the inconvenience now arising from the great variations in the annual amount of the episcopal incomes, we recommend that facilities should be afforded for the conversion or leases for lives into leases for terms of years." A few Months after this Report was brought in, namely, in June, a Nelale Friend of mine, Lord Stanley, took the opportunity of asking the Noble Lord a qu es ti on on thi s su bj ec t. L or d B ,,,'anley—l avail myself of this opp o rtunity t o as k m y N o bl e rriend whether it is his intention to bring in any measure this session on the subject of Church-rates? To this Lord John -Russell replied, that he had no such measure immediately in co ntemplation, and added, I think it is the duty of the State, tither by means o f t h e Church -rates, or of some other public A tli ", to m a int a i n the buildings set apart by the State for bdivine worship in good and efficient repair.—( Hear, hear, are) The 'lon. Member for Middlesex then expressed dssatisatio . on the subject, and this called forth fr ota the Noble Lord a still more explicit statement on the aolject. Lord John Russell on this occasion said, In an .nwer to the observations of the Hon. Member for Middlesex, 1 , 1 cin only add, that whatever may be the anxiety of the b4•Placenters, they cannot be in doubt as to the opinions of the o vernment.—( Hear, hear.) Two years ago Lord Althorp enght in a Bill on the subject, in which the principle was de clared that Church-rates should not be abolished unless the State provided a substitute. I have never said any thing in sistent with that principle, or at least any thing to lead th e Disse nters to suppose that Ministers intended to abolish ch urch -rates without an equivalent, or that that equivalent r topbe found in the revenues of the Church.--( Hear, hear.) that principle I have adhered, and to it I intend to adhere. :7( 1- leer, hear.) On various occasions I have explained my vi (Hear to the Dissenters, and they were satisfied that I did not . ss ill Ca L it to brin g f orwar d an y Bill that would ac com pli s h t h e i r tl: B : les at • I do not b e lieve, therefore, that they are at all anx i ous anY measure should be introduced this sessin part sh t l." So far for arguments upon authority. I have just a bs ° ' vn that have the authority of the Church Commissioners —° °l4' whom were five members of the Government; I have just s r commons, that I have the opinion of the majority of the House th e the majority amounting to 116, and that I have e'rpinion of his Majesty's Ministers, who unequivocally des OfatZd themQelvea opposed to any interference with the revenues c Church, in a dochment . daied Ju . ne 1836. Then what new st ances have arisen since which , require that Church ratesk Should be abolished, and that an equal amount should be Alt e h n fr"n Church lands? I voted for the proposition of Lord ° rP for making good the rates out of the Consolidated i s nd, and came to that conclusion, not insensible of the t 0 ocso nv eniences o f th e present system, an d b ecause I was rea d y aons ac rifiee certain political principles, out of respect fur the _„ cientious scruples of the Dissenters, and for the purpose of insuring harmony between the members of the Established e _ eh and those who conscientiously differed from them on l'Arrtelcular points. But are we sure that even if the principle a w d _ _ entirely ceded, and if the plan of the Ministers were Ev ' e F e te.(l, that there is a certain prospect of restoring harmony? re gaet if j bad that hope, still I should view with the utmost h o w ' il ° exemption from this pecuniary charge of those who landed property, and particularly those who arc members of th toher 4, to di i t Possessing such property. I will not stop now for the plan S what measures might be expedient as a substitute ht b nof Lord Althorp.—( , ' Why not ?") Why, what fotwar re Ito do it? If his Majesty's Government brought a plan, to and aster withdrawing it allowed three years elapse without makir new proposition what reason have to Infer that they sve 'g uld adopt such a ' plan as that pro- Posed 18 37, with the knowlede of the fact that the Noble Lord had entered hisprotest a g ainst it in 1836 ?—( Hear, 2 ".) Does the object e P tion of the Dissenters arise from con yamentious etes to scruples, which induce them to refuse payment of i t __ . , se a Church with which they are not connected, or does st" from their objection to a Church Establishment ? near coosid'e hear.). If the objection arose from the pecuniary t•tion of being called on to contribute to Church.rates, e l l u r if it were limited to that, an d if exem pti o n from the wouldge all the i indeed assuage all animosities, and do away with of differences existing between Dissenters and members acquiescence Church—if that was the basis on which a permanent in the principle of an Established Church was .."_erefoounded, then, no doubt, it would be wise to make any a i t fi es for that end, so far as the Dissenters are concerned." 0 - `,n t. does not necessarily apply, however, to those members te Church who hold lands purchased devised on eon ,.,'_looll that these fabrics are kept P up out of these lands, and _n. have no conscientious scruples. lt cannot apply f 1 1 1 1 ‘ 1 I admit the difficulty of the pointof making a distinction; to them, co las I see still greater difficulty and a greater evil likely to the separation altogether of landed property in the leoni the ch arges to which i n ti mes past it had been bat he ro .f,,t01! and perticularly that held by members of the Church. oa D , i h sse , n . t . e . rs object, not from pecuniary .considerations, o.tiiity to the principle of a Church Establishment, ua lean see no prospect of tranquillity or concord from the '‘citazire, . or ea p_ _ anse their objection to the Establishment will re- Jee_',loo. altered. I wish to know what are the particular ob- ,f.;land what arc the particular grievances they complain e e , y because when we know the real grounds of objection we .en be prepared to provide a remedy. The Honourabl.e. em Midulesex said the Dissenters would abandon all othe relator . ll ltr e i s 1 111 ! __if the principle were conceded. Now it a ppears semeis (Ig-4h-once in opinion on this subject. In a workt. i s a. a i real O , old my hand, I find it stated what alone will a e din as regards the abolition of Church-rates. taletneht is to the following effe c t Let us suppose :Lealitevl'elliffreolrai.tateS are .abolished, and that the Dissenters are which thev, a any share in the cost of maintaining Churches lerVices of r! not allowed to occupy, and of the religious e san sfied which they decline to avail , themselves, will they nOth' :n ? g short Our reply is explicit. They will be satisfied. of the recognition of the principle of resist- ing all ecclesiastical imposts—on that they make their stand."—( Hear.) Now that implies a perfect equality between Dissenters and Churchmen ; and if the Dissenters will not be satisfied till all ecclesiastical imposts are removed, they of course will not be satisfied till Tithes as well as Church-rates are removed. Though the origin of the one is of a later date than that of the other, the principle of the objection is the same, and if they object to Church -rates, they must in consis tency object to tithes. In answer to a question from an Hon. Member, the Right Hon. Baronet said the Eclectic Rev;ew is the publication from which I have have read the ex tract. But now (he continued) it may be roper to inquire what is the proportion of the amount of Church-rates paid by Members of the Church and Dissenters ; and it could not be denied that Dissenters, as compared with Mem bers of the Established Church, held a very small portion of landed property. I will take one place of considerable popu lation--Stroud, the borough represented by the Noble Lord; and I find that the proportion of Church-rates paid there by the Dissenters is just one-twelfth of that paid by Members of the Established Church; and in smaller towns, and particu larly in rural parishes, the proportion would no doubt be consi derably less. It should be borne in mind also that the Dis senters were not called on to pay the expense of the Church yards. But supposing the Dissenters do not pay more than one-tenth, or any assignable quantity, what, after all, would be the result as regarded landed proprietors who were Mem bers of the Church, and who had no conscientious scruples ? Were they also to be exempted from the payment of rates, and was the Church to bear the whole?—(Hear, hear.) Doubt ful as it was whether the measure would give satisfaction to the Dissenters, let me ask what the effect of the measure will be as regards the Church ? If, as is proposed, the Church lands arc to be taken out of the hands of th e Bi s h o p s an d Deans, and the whole Church property is to be at the disposal of a Board over which the Government of the day must have paramount influence, what will be its effect on the lessees ? And will not the Bishops and other posses sors of Church property be merely annuitants of the State, and receive a fixed annual sum in place of the incomes new derived from Church property ? But you are not sure what political changes may be the result of such great alterations. Is it possible to foresee what effect these alterations may have on the state and the very existence of the Church of England? May not the Church be endangered by thus separating it from landed property ? By th e propose d measure, will not the whole of the tenures of the Bishops' lands be altered, and the Bishops themselves become State annuitants, receiving, as they must do from the Government Board, a fixed quarter's salary. The Noble Lord, when a motion was made to expel the Bishops from the House of Lords, made a vigorous speech in defence of their rights ; but let me ask him if it will be so easy to maintain their claims to sit in the Upper House when they are reduced to the condition of State annuitants?—( Hear, hear.) And does he believe that by thus taking the Church property out of the hands of those entitled to possess it, and paying the Bishops and Deans only a certain fixed amount when they are entitled to the whole, does he believe that such a plan will not be striking a --heavy blow at the hide pendence and stability of the Church ?—( Loud cries of Hear, hear.) Apply the same principle to other possessors of land. Suppose a nobleman who derives an income of 20,0001. a year from leases on certain terms of re newel, and the State were to interfere, and say that an improved system should be adopted, and that they would assure to him 20,0001. a-year, but the whole management of the pro perty must be tali en nut of his hands, would not that be an act of great injustice, and will you not then apply the same rule to the Bishops which you will apply to the other possessors of landed property ? On that ground I object to a measure which will interfere so materially -with the rights of property ; but ray ground of of jectioo is, that if by any means the value of property can be raised by altering the mode of leasing land, the ;Advantage should go to those who have a prior re cognized claim.--( Hear, hear.) I wish now to call the atten tion of the Committee to statements not derived from private information, but from the report of the Church Commissioners, in order to show to what purposes any surplus Church revenue might be applied. "It appears from the report of the Ecclesi astical Revenues Commission, that there are no less than 3,528 benefices under 1501. per annum. Of this number 13 contain each a population of more than 10,000 ; 51 a population of from 5,000 to 10,000 ; 251 a population of between 2,000 and 5,000 ; and 1,125 have each a popula tion of between .500 and 2,000.—( Hear, hear, hear.) On every one of these benefices it is desirable that there should be a resident clergyman ; but unless their value be aug. mented, it will in many cases be impossible to secure this advantage. The necessity of such augmentation will be greatly increased by the changes which we are about to re commend in the laws relating to pluralities and residence. The means which can be applied to effect the improvement are very far short of the amount required. Even were no ad dition to be made to the income of benefices having a popu lation below 500, it would take no less a sum than 235,000/. per annum to raise all benefices having a population of be tween 500 and 2,000 to the annual value of 200/. ; those having a populati on o f 2,000 an d upwar d s, to 300 / . ; and those having 5,000 and upwards, to 4001. par annum." And of all the benefices in England there arc no less than 4,603, where there are either no glebe houses, or glebe houses that require repair. But the Church Commissioners say that these are not the most urgent of the claims of the Church for aid. They observe_." The most prominent, however, of those de fects which cripple the energies of the Established Church, and circumscribe its usefulness, is the want of churches and ministers in the large towns and populous districts of the kingdom. The growth of the population has been so rapid as to outrun the means possessed by the Establishment of meet ing its spiritual wants ; and the result has been that a vast proportion of the people are left destitute of the opportunities of public worship and Christian instruction ; even when every allowance is made for the exertions of those religious bodies which are not in connection with the Established Church. It is not necessary in this Report to enter into all the details by which the truth of this assertion might be proved. It will be sufficient to state the following facts as examples :—Looking to those parishes only which contain each a population exceeding 10,000, we find that in London and its suburbs, including the parishes on either bank of the Thames, there arc four parishes or districts, each having a population exceeding 20,000, and containing art aggregate of 166,000 persons, with Church-room for 8,200 (not quite one-twentieth of the whole) ; and only eleven clergymen." But I will not trouble the House with going through all the details of the Report. The Commissioners subsequently remark :—" The evils which flow from this deficiency in the means of religious instruction and pastoral superintendence greatly outweigh all other inconveniences resulting from any defects cr anomalies in our ecclesiastical institutions ; and it unfortunately happens, that while these evils are the most urgent of all, and most require the application of an effectual remedy, they are pre cisely those for which a remedy can be least easily found. The resources which the Established Church possesses, and which can properly be made available to that purpose, in what ever way they may be husbanded or distributed, are evidently quite inadequate to the exigency of the case; and all that a e can hope to do is, gradually to diminish the intensity of the evil." The Commissioners proceed to state what has been done by Parliament, by societies, and by individuals, and add:— " Upon the whole we may state, that within the last 20 years additional Church-room has been secured for at least 600,000 persons, and some hundreds of additional clergymen have been stationed in populous districts, which were before destitute of the advantages of pastoral care and instruction. But all that has been hitheito done in this way falls very far short of the necessity of the ease." Now, on this report I take my stand. ( Hear, hear.) I say that this report of these Church Com missibners, made in March, 1836, contains a crying case, for which it is the indispensable duty of the Legislature to make provision.—( Hear, hear.) I say the fact stated in that re port, that the sum of 235,0001. is necessary to raise the sti pends of the existing clergy to a moderate adequate amount— I say that the fact stated in that report, that there are no less than 3,528 benefices under 1501. per annum—l say that the fact stated in that report, that in a population of 166,000 per sons in a portion of London and the suburbs there is Church- room for only 8,200, leaving above 158,000 without the means of religious worship or instruction—l say that these, and the other facts stated in the report of the Church Commissioners, render it incontrovertibly manifest that if we - are able to re alise any surplus from the Church -rates, there are no claims for the employment of that surplus to be put for a moment into competition with the claims which the C o mmissioners describe. —( i-lear.) At any rate, we who belong to the Church Estab lishment can in no way escape from the odium with which the proposed measure, if adopted, will overwhelm us. I should like to know what you mean to do in the case of Scotland ? If you say that the Dissenters, who now contribute to support a Church from the doctrines of which they differ, have a right, in a conscientious point of view, to be relieved from that bur den—if you say that the Dissenter of England has a right to be relieved from contributing to the maintenance of the Church Establishment of England—what answer will you give to the great landed proprietors in Scotland vc ho dissent from the Es tablishment of that country, but whose property is taxed to support that Establishment, when they ask to be relieved fr)m the burden ?—( Hear.) What will you say if they tell you that they have as conscientious a scruple against contributing to the support of the Scottish Churches, as the Dissenters of England have against contributing to the support of the Eng lish Churches? And why ought not their claim to be listened to as well as the claim, of the English Dissenters ?---( Hear.) Let it be also recollected, Sir, that a large and most respec table class of Christians in this country, who are separated from the Church, have nevertheless never urged any objection to the continuance of Church-rates. The whole Wesleyan body—or at least a great part of that powerful and influen tial body—influential from the strongest of all grounds of influence, that of character—although dissenting from the' Church of England, and • not joining with it in com munion, still feel so strongly the common interest which they have in maintaining the Church Establishment—still re j:A,..e so much at witnessing the improvement which of late years had taken place iu the character and zeal of the ministers of the Church Establishment— still are so deeply sensible that the general cause of Christianity is aided by the welfare of the Church Establishment, that they come forward with no such proposition as that submitted to you by his Majesty's Ministers.—( Hear, hear.) Let us recollect, too, that the time will shortly come when these acts of ours will be sub jected to the rigorous scrutiny of posterity. If posterity dia cover that thousands and tees of thousands of Christians in this country were without the means of religious worship and instruction; that the Churches were exceedingly inadequate to the population ; that many of - the glebe-houses were in a state of great dilapidation ; that numerous parishes were with out clergymen; and if posterity discover that, under such cir cumstances, we consented to sell the property of the Church, to , alienate it for ever,' to cut off all h o p e now and for ever of its aErding, the means or remedyi ng so many ev i ls—above all if they find that, in inflicting tins irreparabl e . calamity on t h e Church, we also relieved ourselves from the obligation of con tributing to its support, depe n d upon i t t h at a severe and a not unrighteous judgment hill be passed upon our conduct.— (Hear, hear.) if any other course were pursued—if we wer, to take the sum required from the Consolidated Fund, the would at least be to call upon the owners of landed property to contribute. Whether the desired object might be best ob . tained by that means ; by a new apportionment of the land (continuing, however, the existing connection between the lane and the Church); by making some distinction, for the relief of the Dissenters, between town parishes, where there wen numerous Dissenters, and rural parishes, where there was n, wish to put down the,Church, or by any other course, I wil' not now say. My present object is to implore you who are iu communion with the Church of England, not, by consentin;: to this proposition, to cut off for ever the hope of supportirq: the Ecclesiastical Establishment, of relieving the wants of th( ministers.of the Church, and of supplying the different pa rishes of the kingdom with adequate means of religions wor ship and instruction. But, above all, I implore you to avert the judgment which posterity will inevitably pronounce upon you, if, from this transaction, you contrive yourselves to derive any pecuniary advantage.—( Hear, hear.) Lord HO WICK must first advert to the financial objec tions which the Right Hon. Baronet had made to his Ri to Hon. Friend's proposition. On that part of the subject. how ever, he thought it better to abstain from going into details. In the first place, the Right Hon. Baronet contended that if the average had been taken for a shorter period of years the re sult of the calculation would have been different. All that lit , (Lord Howick) wished to say on that topic was, that the cal culations were made front returns to the Ecclesiastical Corn missioners, founded on principles which the Commissioners themselves laid down. Now, lie did not conceive it that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would be disposed t( estimate the property of the Church too highly. Now, on this point, he would contend they might find that, instead o ' having over-rated the annual amount of fines derivable fron4 Church leases, that property of the Church under this head was much more considerable then had been stated,—( Hear.) He knew that all the private information which had reached him, and all the facts which at various times he had become acquainted with, had Invariably led him to the consideration that it was undisputed that the whole property of the Church, as shown in the papers which had been laid on the table, so far from being overstated, had been largely under-estimated. But then the Right Hon. Ba ronet argued that in hVinging forward this resolution, his Ma jesty's Government had altogether omitted to make an impor tant deduction from the whole amount of available property; that whilst they reckoned upon an income of 250,000/., they proposed to raise it by an improved system of management, but had not allowed for the expenses of that management. Now, he (Lord Howick) 'mist confess he was surprised the Right Hon. Baronet should have fallen into this mistake, be cause the amount of fines of renewals on leases, and the in come of the bishops from that source, as returned to the Ec clesiastical Commissioners, were, as he believed, calculated with this necessary exception or deduction ; and, therefore, the amount returned was the net income, and not the gross. Nay, he did rot speak ftom mere belief, for he had had the good fortune to arrive at the actual state of the case, in re spect to the see of Durham,- when returns having a reference to a period of three years were given in. In those returns, which formed the basis of his calculations, it appeared that the income of the see was 17,000/. a year. But it since ap- . peered that the income of the see was net 17,000/. a year from fines, but 23,0001. ; of which 2,0001. was deducted for the amount of expenses. Let the House, then, judge from these facts ; and if they judged of the matter in dispute by the see of Durham, it must be admitted that the Government had un derrated their case ; because the whole property of the see of Durham, instead of being 17,0001. was 21,0001., to which was to be added the amount quoted for expenses, 2,0001., making the gross income 23,000/. This, then, was the prin c;ple upon which the Right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham had made his return or his emoluments (and a most exemplary prela:e he was); and they had no right to suppose • the other dignitaries would not make the same kind of returns. Then, he contented, they (the Government) had a right to assume that the amount of income given in was the actual sum arising from fines from the renewal of bishops, and deans, and chapters' leases. The returns made, then, were not below the amount, because they did not give the gross, but the net in cc:rae ; and if it were th e net amoun t, wou ld an y one t e ll him that the whole expense of management divided amongst a large number would approach the present amount under the projected united and central system, when they would have a few persons of super 7 or description and station giving up all their time in promoting the object in carrying out which they were to be employed ; and he Would say, that whether it were in the case of the union of parishes, of an individual parish, or of wholesale merchants or retail dealers, a good result gene rally followed from a combined movement in conducting af fairs on a great scale. Therefore the Right lion. Baronet had no right to make the deduction for expenses of management, which he had assumed. Then the Right Hon. Baronet said that they had no right to assume twenty-four years' purchase as the existing value of property. Very extensive inquiries had been instituted into this part of the subject, and the result had been to confirm all the opinions which the Government had originally entertained ; and to show that the real amount of Church property was underrated. So with respect to the rate of interest, the Right Honourable Baronet assumed the rate of interest of 7 per cent. was only applicable to property of a particular description, and not to land. He admitted that as to house property the case was somewhat different as to the value. But with reference to the question of fines upon re newals of leases, he happened to have heard of a case in point, fi-om the best authority, and he would state it to the House. An Archdeacon in the central part of England informed his lessee that he could not give bins a renewal of his lease unless he paid bins the sum of 1,5001. The party complained of these terms, and intended to resist the demand thus made upon him; but before doing so, he thought it proper to consult an actuary, to know what the - value of his interest was. The actuary having looked at the documents furnished lsins by the lessee, made a calculation, and said, " Renew by all means—close at once; because the real value for which you will obtain your renewal, if calculated upon the strictest rule- of arithmetic, would be not 1,500/. but 2,9001." This case occurred in a central county of England ; and he thought he might mention this as a strong fact to show that under the existing laws of Church property, those who held these leases expected terms as advantageous as in the calculation which his Right Hon. Friend had assumed. But there was ano ther point to which the Right Hon. Baronet had adverted when he stated that in those calculations which had been made, it had been assumed that the mines weft: an improving pro perty, and that they bad made no calculation for the large proportion of Church property which was contained in this description of property. Sir R. PEEL was understood to state that what he had said was, that the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had reserved himself upon this point, and had not given an explanation on this head. Lord Viscount H 0 WICK resumed. He was astonished at the statement made by the Right Hon. Baronet, because it was obvious from the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet, that he had been getting access to information which those on his side of the House were anxious to see, but were refused all ac cess to ; and he certainly was much astonished that the Right Hon. Gentleman, under all the circumstances, should not have been informed that the sum of 260,0001.,up0n which they proceeded, was independent of Church property in mines ; and if the Right Hon. Gentleman would refer to the returns of ecclesiastical property laid before the Church Commission ers, he would find that whatever was received from fines, be riots, &c., was made a distinct head. The sum of 260,000/. referred to fines on real property, and there was a further item of 33,000/. additional, being the average amount of three years' fines received from mines, copyrights, and harlots. So that if the property were improvable, the whole of that improve ment was in addition to an available surplus, and therefore, in stead of making a deduction, this was to be added to the cre dit side of their plan. After this statement, without fol lowing the Right Honourable Gentleman through his figures—which he thought he could show tb . be very er roneous—yet upon the great points of that statement he would ask the House whether he had not shown so much inaccuracy to hare pervaded it, that the Right Hon. Baronet had no right to assume that they should be losers to the amount of very many thousand pounds. There could be no doubt that there was an immense value to be realised with out any loss to the lessees. The Right Hon. Baronet had further endeavoured to show that they were wrong in all their calculations, and that he objected to the plan on the eternal principles of justice, and the important principles of 'policy. If the resolution, or the plan to be founded on it, were not-to be entertained, let the House reject it. But if, as he antici pated, the case were established, he hoped the House would\ support the resolution, and allow the Bill to be brought in. • If, on the contrary, the calculations which forthed the ground work of the proposed measure failed, the Bill must also fail. If, on the other hand, the principle on which they proceeded was a just. one, the proper course for the House to pursue was to give the Government the resolu tion as the ground-work for the Bill ; and when the Bill should once be introduced, let the House scrutinize every provision which it might contain, and let Hon. Mem bers throw light upon the vast question to which it referred. Let them come to the principle of the plan in the first place. The Right Hon. Baronet had adverted to the distinc tion which he (Lord Howick) had attempted the other even-. ing to establish between Tithes and Church-rates. He (Sir R. Peel) no longer attempted to establish the principle of the Noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Sandon), but admitted that there was an obvious distinction to be drawn between them. But he still said that all property was subject to Church-rates; but he (Lord Howick) must go further, and. would say, that in many cases this was not the fact; and here was a case accidentally made known to him only yester day, which he thought, as bearing on the question under dis cussion, was well worthy of the attention of the House. It showed, in his opinion, that the doctrine of immemorial usage and of Church-rates bring a deduction to which property was always subject was sometimes pushed too far. This was a case which actultly took place in the instance of an individual friend of his, on whotri he placed implicit reliance, and thcrs fore of the correctness of the facts stated he had no doubt. whatever. This person built a house within the last few years, 1.1 a parish in the immediate vicinity of London. Subsequently to doing it (it was but a small property) the parish in which it was situated chose to build two new churches. For raising the amount for building these edifices (which did not ex:st when he acquired his property), by was subjected to the payment of the rate levied, which - was sixperice in the pound. \V'as that immemorial usage? True it was that the evil was the effect of the Churches Building Act ; and he woul,l tell the Right Hon. Baronet, that if it wei-e not for the im:olitic and incau tious manner in which the provisions of that Act were applied, they never would have b..en placed in the present difficulty— they would never have heard this cry for the abolition of Church-rotes. Parliament, by its own deed—by coupling tl.ese charges with Church-rates; had created all the feeling which existed in the country, •and caused those evils which were complained of; and now, unfortunately, they could not retrace their stops. But he would pursue the ease a littic fur- THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 1837 her to which he had adverted. It was not the mere paying •xpence in the pound for rates for Churches built since he had ►cquired property that the party in question complained of. He complained (perhaps he did not sympathise in it) that the Church-rates which were in existence when he acquired t'lis house were the old Church-rates ; but then he said that Church-rate was incurred for a new churchyard, and yet vhen a person died in his (complainant's) house, he was • !harged 62/. for burying him, The whole amount went to he Rector. As he had contended on a. former evening, the Church-rates were, in common sense, nothing more than a ix upon property—a tax totally distinct in its character .. rom tithes. Tithes were a deduction from property every me knew, but they would now be converted into a positive ixed amount, which, if not received by the Church, would :o to the landlord, and not benefit the country at large. Tithes tnd Church-rates were two things so distinct that there was no sort of analogy between them. An objection to the pay ment of tithes on the part of the landowner had no better foundation than the objection an individual would have, who, 'laving bought a property subject to a rent-charge, afterwards thjected to pay that rent-charge. The Right Hon. Baronet had admitted that the present system was deeply injurious to he utility of the Church ; he had admitted that in the year 1834, so convinced was he of the necessity of adopting some !change, that be was prepared to assent to the measure at that Cate brought forward by Lord Althorp. " But still," said the tight Hon. Baronet, " the State, under any circumstances, oust provide for the Church, and therefore it is that I object o the measure at present brought forward ; because, under he operation of that measure, the Church will be made to naintain itself." He (Lord Howick) begged to dispute the tatter proposition of the Right Hon. Baronet. He maintained :hat, under the proposition of his Right Hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the State wouid still continue o support the Church ; at all events it would continue to support it quite as much as it could have' done under the measure proposed by Lord Althorp. The Right Honourable Baronet, adverting to what fell from an Honourable Gen lemon on tint (the Ministerial) side of the House on a former evening, when the subject of Church-rates was unde'r discussion, said, " The argument used on that oc casion was quite unfair, the precedent of the Irish Church .foes not apply to the English Church—there is no analogy between vestry cess in Ireland and Church-rates in England —there is a vast difference in the circumstances of the Church n the two countries." He ( Lord Howick) wished that when :hey were discussing other topics the Right Hon. Baronet could as distinctly see the difference that existed between the two Churches.—( Hear, hear.) It was, however, unnecessary to introduce the-subject of the Irish Church on that occasion. Seeing a practical evil existed in England—seeing that the keeping up the existing system interfered materially with the usefulness of the Church—seeing that it impaired its popu larity in the estimation of the country generally—seeing that it tended to injure the cause of religion, itself—seeing also, from another source, the means of making an adequate end , atisfactory provision for what he admitted to be very essen tial purposes, he for one was fully prepared to adopt the change then proposed to them —( Hear, hear.) The Right lion. Baronet said, " If you arc prepared to do this, why was the It.port laid before the House, signed by five Cabinet Mi nisters, in which it w as s t a t e d th at i n t h e op i n i on o f t h e Commissioners it would be inexpedient that episcopal property should be improved in the manner proposed ?" If the Right Hon. Baronet looked well at the Report he would see that the grounds assigned for not attempting the p-oposed improvement of episcopal lands was, that it would transfer the whole interest of that description of property into the hands of the then-holding lessees. The Noble Lord here entered into a statement of some length to account for the vote given by hire and his Noble Friend in common with the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) last year against the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Middlesex ; but in this, and indeed in several other parts of his speech, the Noble Lord's voice was so extremely low as to be scarcely audible in the gallery. The Right Hon. Baronet had stated that he did not thi n k it necessary t h at h e s h ou ld propose any alternative to the measure proposed. It certainly was not ex pected that Gentlemen, acting in opposition to the Govern ment, should bring forward any matured measure to supply the place of one to which they objeeted ; but, at the same time, it was usual that they should state some general principles upon which their objections rested, or unon which they should wish te see the measure proceed. The. Right Hon. Baronet, how ever, on the present occasion, had confined himself strictly to a general and sweeping objection, advancing no general principle upon which he could wish to see the Bill Fro coed. The Right Honourable Baronet told them that the measure would not satisfy the Dissenters ; that they would demand a great deal more ; and that this concession once made, would lead the way to many more. He ( Lord Howick) confessed that this was a mode of argu ment that always created a great deal of suspicion in his mind. Ile Niel(' never regard it as a sound argument to say, " I will not do this thing, even though it be good, because hereafter, perhaps, other things may be asked that I shall not wish to grant." He ( Lord Howick) had never known one instance where the concession of what was just and right had led to evil aftersvards.—( Hear, hear.) It was true that the lion. Mem ber for Middlesex might have ellutled to other measures which the Dissenters would wish to see adopted ; but the Hon. Mem ber for Middlesex, they all knew, was apt—be was sure the Hon. Gentleman would excuse hire for saving so—to be ex. ceedingly indiscreet in the language he held.—( Hear, hear, awl laughter.) All that he (Lord Howick) entreated was, that the present measure might be considered on its own se parate merits, and without any reference to the fancied mea sures that were to follow it. If it were good in itself, it ought to be adopted. What was the real justice or in justice of the case ? In most of the large towns it ap peared the Churchmen and Dissenters were both of opinion that the- system of Church -rates was not the most expedient means of maintaining the fabric of the Church ; they were both of opinion that it was highly injurious to the cause of religion Was not this a sufficient ground for interference, and for the introduction of some such measure as that then proposed ?—( Hear, hear.) The Right lion. Baronet said it would be dangerous to the Church, because it would reduce the Bishops to mere annuitants. No Church could be built so:idly upon any other foundation than the affections and respect of the people, a general sense of its importance to the best interests of the inhabitants of the country, and a feeling of gratitude for the service it had performed. If that were the real foundation on which the Church of England rested, and which he for one believed it did, there could be no doubt that it would stand unshaken for ages yet to come. —( Hear, hear.) If so, then, if there were no other object in this measure than the taking from the Bishops those func tions which were now :mposed upon them, of immediately ma naging the property from which their incomes were derived, it Vvould, in his opinion, be conferring an immeasurable ad vantage as well upon them as upon the Church itself.— ( Hear, hem) They had often heard of the extreme weight of the Bishops' duties. Some, indeed, of the greatest orna ments of the Church had gone so far as to say that, looking at the duties to be performed, the number of Bishops was very insufficient ; and they had over and over again been told that the sacred functions of the Bishops were amply sufficient for the greatest mortal strength and greatest mortal ability. [Upon this point the Noble Lord quoted a passage from a pamphlet written by a distinguished member of the Church, in which the arduous labours of the Bishops were elaborately de seribed.] The pamphlet, he said, went on to show, in a manner that he thought quite conclusive, that it' any additional leisure could be granted to the Bishops for the discharge of their sacred functions, an immense advantage and benefit would be conferred upon the Church ; and further on it was argued, in a very able and masterly, but temperate tone, that one of the chief faults of the Church of England was that it partook too much of a worldly and secular character. He ( Lord Howick) wished he could honestly say that he thought" there was no ground for that argument.—( Hear, hear, hear.) If the Bishops, instead of having their time, their thoughts, and their attention distracted by the management of their landed estates ; if, instead of being in a situation full of temp tation, even to the very best of men—if, instead of this, they received a well-assured, permanent income, and had leisure af. forded them, apart from all wcrdly concerns, to devote their whole energy and talent to their pastoral duties, it would, in his opinion, be an immense benefit to them.—( Hear.) Had the Right Hon. Baronet considered the temptations that the best of men were exposed to from, the manner in which Bishops' lauds were at present administered ? A Bishop entering upon his see found hie income totally unsettled, and might at first be in the receipt of absolutely nothing ; he found at the same time, a natural disposition on the part of the lessee to drive the hardest possible bargain with hitn. Here at once was a ground of dissension, of discontent, perhaps of discord. Again, as every lease fell in there was a contest about the amount of the fine to be paid for its renewal. Here was an other ground •of discontent. Here there were temptations to provide for a family by taking advantage of the temporary power attached to the see. Here was the temptation to the young Bishop to run his life against that of tie lessee. There was the temptation to the old Bishop to conclude on any terms with time lessee, and to make a renewal rather than run the chance of leaving the profit of the fine to be reaped by his suc cessor. Would any man tell him that these details of worldly business were not great temptations in the way of men whose thoughts and energies should be wholly devoted to their pasto ral duties ? More than that, would any man tell him that the Bishops of the English Church had never been suspected of going beyond an honest and decent regard to their own inte rests and the interests of their successors? Would any man tell him that there had not been accusations against the:Bishops of providing for their families in a manner not creditable to them either as Christians or honourable meal ? He did not say that these accusations were true—he trusted and be lieved that if in some instances there might have been a foundation for them, in the great mass they were altogether groundless.—( Bear, hear.) But the very circumstance that such things could he said and believed even for a moment, was Most deeply injurious to the whole of the Church, and, more than anything, perhaps, would teal to alienate the affections, of the people rim their clergy. He maintained, then, that it was not an advantage to the Church that the present. state oP things should continue. The Right,linn. Baronet said, that under the existing system the Bishops had an opportunity of acquiring, the affection of their tenantry, by the lenity they showed towards - them. The Bishops, no doubt, had opportuni ties of evincing their lenity and liberality, bat what was tilt result ? Did they thereby gain the af f ections of their te uaitts ? Were the lessees generdly s A tia j j w i t h t h e terms on which their leases were retie fed ? In nine casoi out of ten he would venture to say the Chureb l essee complained of th e t er ms on w hi c h he held his lease, He was- aware, that the Right Han. Baronet had pointed out ios , ane s in which great improveMents had taken place ; and he (Lord Howiek) believed that to be the ease; but he t Liught that if ever a system was ingeniously contrived for makilig parties quarrel, and sctting them bv the ei‘ra,: it was the system of leasing Church p . aperfy, ma by lessees, renewable on payment of tins. But he would say more o4t with refervnec tv thl Risher, indeed, bccaktse hid cbtcr. vation would not apply so particularly to them—but in refe rence to Ecclesiastical Corporations, he would say, that le had known cases in which the power held by them had heel used in a mateier which made the Church most unpopular. Was any Gent; 'o an ignorant of the fact that there was no county in Engiand probably in which dissent was more pre valent than in the county of Durham?—( Hear, hear.) Wit) was dissent so prevalent in that county ? Nut because there was any deficiency of wealth on the part of the Church. one would tell him that the Church in Durham was deficient in wealth:. No; the great p revalence of dissent, and the Brea unpopularity of the Church in that county, arose merely fro.,. this circumstance—that there was an immense mass of pro perty which belonged to the Church, and that there was a per petual collision between the lessees and the owners of that pro perty a?ising from the unfortunate tenure on which the pro perty was held— a tenure that formed a perpetual source of irritation. He for one—not being altogether ignorant of that county—firmly believed that this to a considerable degi'er explained the extent to which dissent had proceeded there. He came now to the last argment of the Right Hon. Baronet, which was, that if we realized any surplus, to that surplus there was a prior claim ; and the Right lieu. Baronet men-1 tioned, as ,eonsti:uting that prior claim, the necessity of pro viding further means for affording religious instruction to the poorer eittiscs of this country, and for the augmentation uf small livings: Now he (Lord Howick) believed there did exist a necessity for much being done- to furnish religious in struction to the poorer classes of society, and he was very fa, - indeed from withholding his /assent to any proposition fur that purpose. 0 the contrary, be was not less anxious titan the R'ght Her. Bar met himself, that\ steps should be taken to ex tend generally that religious instruction which was so essential to the well-being of the people. But he begged to remind the Right Hon. Baronet that, even supposing nothing more were done in the way of removing the sinecures of the Church than what was proposed by the Noble Secretary of State ( Lord J. Russell) last session, yet in that case a very considerable fund might be found for that purpose. But beyond that, the Right lion. Baronet himself had shown that Parliament, anti society generally, by private subscriptions, had already done much. The Right Hon. Baronet had read the Report of the Commissioners, showing that a great number of churches had been built, and ministers provided : and that great sue cuss had attended the efforts which had been made to extend religious instruction amongst the people. lie ( Lord ilowick) rejoiced that this had been attained. What was the inference to be drawn from this ? Why, that neither Parliament nor the country, when a case of necessity were shown, would be backward to come forward—( A laugh)--to subset ibe. He for one would promise elle Right Honourable Baronet that when ever he would digest the means of removint , what he con ceived to be a crying evil in this country, and would bring for ward a plan for extending reLgiens irstruc i n in the three kingdems, he ( Lord Howick) was perfectly prepared to con sider those means, and adopt whatever might appear to be re quired. But since the Report of the Commissioners was written, much more had been accomplished by private contri butions. He believed that in the metropolis alone a sons ex ceeding 100,0001. had been raised by private subscription for the purpose of Church building—a subscription to which the Duke of Bidford and the Hon. Member for Middlesex had most magnificently contributed; a circumstance which ought eot to be.kept out of view; especially when Gentlemen on his (the Ministerial)-side of the -House were accused of holdieg opinions inimical to the Church.—( Cheers.) But if private means were insufficient, let the Right lion. Baronet make out a case, and propose other means to supply the deficiencies, and if the means proposed were not liable to any serious oh; jection, he (Lord Howick) would promise the Right Hon. Baronet his support. But before they applied any additional revenue for the purpose of extending religious instruction' among the people, they were bound in justice to the Church - itself to show that the) had done what was possible in the way of correcting existing abuses.—( Hear.) He ( Lord Hosviek) felt that he had no case to go to tile country with and demand a grant in substitution of Church-rates before he had done whatever was p etsible in the way of r emovin g those existing. ahuses, by the application of a surplus; merely because there was another purpose to which that surplus might be applied. He a,greed in the prineiple laid down by his Noble Friend the Member for North Lancashire with reference to the Irish Church Temporalities Bill, that any surplus derivable from Church property was applicabl e for any purposes by Par. liar-pent. He ( Lord Howick) did not consider the sum of 260:0001.• surplus to be a diversion of the existing revenues of the Church, because it was by the means proposed to be adopted a positive augmentation of those revenues to that mount. His Noble Fsiend, in the case of the Irish Bill, thought it would be exceedingly wrong to apply any surplus in any other manner than for the benefit of the Church-; bat at the same time lie was of opinion that Parliament had a right to consider how that surplus might be applied to some Church object. So, when he (Lord Howick) bolted at the question n .)w before them with the same view, namely, that of opply mg the surplus to some Church object, it struck him that there was to object to which he could so usefully apply that surplus fund as to the abolition of Church-rates ; because it appeared to-him that the continual agitation no the sulsjeet of Church-rates, not only in, but out of Parliament, the bitter ness of feeling it excited both in .Churchmen arrri Dis-enters, the animosities which it created, were such an injury to the Church that it was absolutely necessary it should be remove(. —( Cheers.) But he did not think it could be effectually re moved by their now adopting (whatever might hare been the case in 1834) the plan of his Noble Friend on the opposite side. He was afraid that the time was gone by when they could hope for that measure to be successful. 1,1 cases like this they all knew that time made the %%hole difference. Circumstances since 1834 rendered it impossible, with a view to the real interests of the Church, that the plan of 1834 could be successful. Then there was no other resource to which they could turn, except that to Which his right Hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) proposed to turn, and he did think that applying to that resource he should he doing a benefit to all parties.—(Hear, bear.) He said to all parties, because, although the Right lions Baronet had very sliyhtly touched upon the subject, he thought it neces sary to sae a few words with reference to the interest of the lessees. He did not collect from the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet whether he proposed to avail himself_ of the means by which Church property might be improved or not. It was a point which he (Lord Howick) was peculiarly desirous te know, whether the Right Hon. Baronet intended to avail himself of this property in any manner or not. He ( Lord Howick) was upon the whole disposed to consider that, as related to the property of the Bishops, the Right Hon. Gentleman did not ; because th e o bj ect i ng t o m a ke the Bishops annuitants implied that it was not intended to adopt any means of appropriating any of that property for their benefit. Bet perhaps with respect to the property of the Deans and Chapters it might be different. He ( Lord Howick) . ' thought it would be for the interest of the lessees holding property under - the Deans and Chapters to consider whether there was any prospect whatever of obtaining a mea sure more calculated to promote their interest than the pre sent. Let the lessees reflect, that if the measure proposed last session with respect 'to ecclesiastical sinecures were passed into a law, the effect would he that there would be no longer that interest in the lessors which now compelled them to' grant renewals of leases of Chapter property ; be cause that property would then come into the hands of a Car. poration which, instead of having an immediate personal in terest at stake as to the disposal of the property, would have no such interest ; the probability, therefore, would be, that very speedily some mode of management 'would be adopted which would have the effect of deprivin g the lessees of those advantages which they now possessed. But-independently of that, he (Lord Howick) was prepared to contend, however paradoxical it might s'und, that the lessees would be gainers by the measure of his Right Hon. Friend; in common with -the Church and• with the State.—( Cheers.) It had been stated,. indeed, in another place, that it was quite impossible that four gentlemen should sit down at a whist table and all rise up winners. Certainly Olt seemed to be a very clear and very obvious proposition. But notwithstanding the appa rent inconsistency of the assertion, he did believe that in- this case that proposition did not hold pod. He was quite con vinced that there was a very large value of property lying dormant, which might be realized by the measure proposed— that without prejudice to the lesaces, but with positive ad vantage to them, and with advantage to the country, a large surplus might be realized and appropriated with beneficial effect to the Church itself. He would appeal to any Gentle man who was acqeminted with .Church property held under lease, whether they did not find that the buildings were dila pidated, that there was no planting, no draining, no permanent improvement—whether, in short, the land was not'almost unit versally a century behind other lands with regard to its state . of cultivation ? fie would say, then, that it was most practi ' cable, without injury to the lessees, by following an improved system of cultivation, to derive a large sum to the benefit of all parties. He felt that be bad trespassed upon the attention of the Committee much too long--(Hear)---and he was perfectly sensible that he very inefficiently attempted to follow the Right Hen. Baronet through all the details of his able speech— ( Cheers from bath sides of the House)—but before I conclude (said the Noble Lord) I cannot avoid calling upeu lion. Ger . _ tlemen not to judge et' the measure proposed by his Male so as Minister§ from the character given of it by the W.' Baronet in the very eloquent conclusion of his se let the inhabitants of th e co un t r y be. tonne- • .' eetch. Loy 110 t which he has drawn of churches Wine deserted, of a total cessation of' re ~ (I°'vnt of eted byparishes e t i ul t income of srnell livings, or sup' - very the . of that religious instruct' eaY the means of removing tae wart; attempt to increase towns. Do not le' by this -character. th " o " co lv u h n !th .y u j o *. w d n- c e lis o t t s ' o i! tr ' oa m r ea a s r u g re e it rather as a pl7a, w al c h i s ' Hear h • t 2 a het them regard cient means_ ' pro e n d oe r' ' I ( l l ea b r y . way of affording effi for maintaining the r - brigs e- of the Church, and of compleki.. • y and satisfactorily in luring all those objects to which Church-rates are now appl led ; at the same time of re moving the serious and continual contentions and disputes that now exist in all the cities and tons its of this country, and which; I am sorry to say, aro %Nitwits - I; to take place in not a feW nu r agricultural disc-',ets.—( Hem hear.) Let there regard it as a measure, also, for adv:.n eine; the natinnal wealth, by Galling into . tatay the dormant reo ?abilities of Church property, and , inereasiag to an estee 'sus extent the value of C.aseeseele lap'.,,_ Cheers. Cheers.) Let them zew7ard it as a meaetwe Sox rest-- el" ting t s h e ei r n e c° Z lQ t h n e t n . he free from e ae'.esiastieal digriit:sri©e a riee this country cu all suspieiee of improper iractices—fiect from all teml ation to consult their own inte rest% et the expertee of those .of their successors, or those of the lessees; a measure to coahl I them to devote their whole time to the diseflarge of thu :me orient duties which are entrusted to thene.—..(Cheers.) Let the House and let the country, in short, regard thie measure as one which is honestly and sin g u ely intended. for the wed' 'aro of the country, and for the wed fare, and for permanently e xtending the mility, of the Chur , .n. Sir ROBERT PEEL begged to explain one point. The -Noble Lord, in the court , Ut . his speech, had paid him (Sir Rebert Peel) the cornplim ent to suppose that ho was its atsos sessioa of a great deal of's nformvtion which had been wititivela 'rum hid Naj'l!;'3 Min.i2t errs, HQ dared wl'sci4 he IlJuld get puss: scion cf addition a l information he should b..: able to ina:,e a better than he had done; but lie was really not aware of pos., -:qing nie tittle of inform:l:ion which ,vas not in possession of his M;j-sty's Govern.nent, and with respect to the leFsees, which a mit. in the street migi,t-no:- M. GRANVILLE HARcourcr W 3.3 CU3I) Ot=3:l ta i 's; livve that there was a disposition 0:1 the port of the lessees to of the terms oo Church-lands were leascil to them. lie would mention an instance. Sir Joseph . Banks held land under a lease to the Archbishop of York. Th.? sano lernanded for rene4l 9(31'4. ••!ir Joscp!) a ft3 r ,„,d that on the last renewal he only paid 6001. r= was agreed to ref r tne co. to Air. Alorgaa, acttrtry of . !o Equitable In .urance-office, and that .. ,, ,nalernan said t. 0t7.,e proper sum to be received by the Archbishop of York. at :I.e per cent. in t,rest, was 1.800/ —(ll ar. hear, and i.aztitcr.) Now this was a matter which had not been adverted to by any Gentleman on . either side of the House.—(hear, hoar. ) rho, fact was, that the Archbishop was now invariably in the habit of afplying to Mr. Moran for his calculations.— ( Laughter. and cries of .‘ Hear.") The Archbishop, how ever, made an exception—( Hear)—for he never referred cases to Mr. Morgan wnere the lives in being were under the age of 60. In Sir Joseph Banks's case there were too bath b‘youd3O. With regard to leases for I:vr:.s, the gaieral -practice was for the prelates to renew upon sit alloxance of five per cent. interest ; and with r:7/rii to leases for years, udon an allowance of nine per vont. interest. His co..vietion was, that a very considerable fund could be rcalized the mea,ure proposed by his M:jcsty's Government—( Ministerial cheers)—but did ha say that that measure was, therefore, politic or ju,o...._(Oppoition cheers.) Did he say, t xeept by some hocus poet's nick which be could nut undorstand, that any property so crested could he justly taken aw a y f,- om the Church? Suppose, with refrrsalee t i the*eace of the Archbishop of York and Sir J.isepli LLtMin e this measure had passed pri -r to the difference b , tweeo tlp.7 9001. and the 1,8001. had .been ascertained, would. not ArchLishop still have been entitled to that ditTer:!nce ? The cioarch in fact had always possessed the po.ver of getting the full aalul,, although they had never enforced it.—( Ucar.) pout to which the Nohle Lord had referred, Rm.! tees en lee '(Mr. Harcourt) did nut dissent from, was. with re:72rd to the management of the property held under the Church. Two years ago he should have said that Parliament had no more right to interfere between the Bisirps and their leseeS, or the Deans and Cnapters and their lessees, than it lied be tween the Dake of Devonshire or Earl Fitz William and their tenants; that it had no right to say. because those two no blemen were not good landlords, or because they for the sake of some Parliamentary object refused to grant leaes, an d thereby presented an improved system of culthation on th. i t ei,tates, Parliament should create a capital out of their property which did not before exist, and have the appropriatiol ,f it. But he must now confess that he felt himself under some d,ffi catty upon the sul,j , et, and thought that some measure—c er tainly not the 111043ilre proposed by the Government—sit-43 be resorted to in order to relieve the Bishops from thy ! , .ituaCton into which they hat been thrown be the Citaoceli,r of the Exchequir.—( Bear, hear.) The Government proposed to confer upon the Bishop of London a duty which ma,: he ex tremely objectionable, to that Right 1?. , .5v. Prelat e , an d to t h e other Commis tuners similar!y sit,.ated to . that he should nave to supertntend the administratioa and col- oction of portion of Iti.4 present yeventv‘, after it aken from into. He could not coneeite how they ceeld con_ shier each an errangement to be either just or pre e es. lie cordially-alp:eyed of the course w Itieh Lord Grey's Gatern ment proposed to take on this subject. He supportel the mea sure of Church-rates b: ought as by Lord Althorp, because be thought it a measure based on sound and just principles; but the present was a measure which was b s ased merely on She prin ciple of popularity. In te - ery ssese—and he did not mean to use the expression cams: ely—e: was a peace-offsring to the Dissenters at the experee of the Church. it was, in point of fact, giving away the eaJeerty of the Chure.li for the ry. 1 r.... pace of obtaining popularity. They had heard much ee specting a certain hackneyed quotation—"that a man might do what .he liked with, his own ; " but the Governetent were now going to the opposite extreme, and seemed to art on the maxim, " tbat.they might do what they liked with that which was not their own." Ile recollected meeting with a story in some book of memoirs, the name of stitch lie at that ma. merit forgot; which was very apropos of this sulj , et. Two Bishops were conversing with Jetties I..... „ respecti ng t h e r i ght of' the Sovereign to take possession of l:uarel, property, and Neale, Bishop of Winchester, being aseed ey t h e Ki,,, • to state his opinion, replied, " Gel forhid that your Majesty should not take it, for you are the breath of our nostrils." The ether prelate, Bishop Williams, of Lincoln, was then &lied upon to state what he thought of thiS doctrine, and he answered, " That he could not tell what might be done with other property ; but his M-ijesty, at any rate, mieitt take his reverend brother's property, as he was the breath cf his nostaiisa" —( A laugh.) There was'aamething of this mode of proceed- - ing in the present measure. He knew that recently seats in Parliament had been obtained by influencing the passions of the people against the Church. The Chancellor of t h e , Ex chequer referred to Sheiliald as a place where the system of ehureh-rates bad worked extremely ill. % Now it so liappenea that in that place a number of new churches had been erceted, and the amount of money received from the rental of the paws was so lirge, that the incumbent of each Church received a huge stipend. The Right Hoinurable Gentle mie quoted this as an instance of opposition to the pay_ ment of Church-rates before the passing of the Reform Act. The fact was, that this mole from the peculiar ci . curnstances of the place; it appeared that. certain funds for the purpose ' of building and repairing Churches were in the hands of a number or persons called Church-burgesses, and it was stated, that the money was nut properly embed. It was not only that Dissenters, but nearly all the Church-rate payers, said the these Church-burgesses should not be allowed to erect organs and to adopt all sorts of plans as regarded the Church with out control ; they therefore resisted the imposition of Cent-cit rates. There was also the case of Attercliffe, where a most conscientious - Dissenter, namely, the Duke of Norf . , lk, had, given the site of ground- for the Church and burial-ground_ The clergyman of this - place was a most excellent and oxen a_ glary lean, and the service of the Church of England was becoming more and more popular every day under his iniris tration. The reason why the Church-rates had been refosisd in this place was, because some years ago a personal difference arose between the churchwarden and certain persons present at the vestry. If they had got the measure of Lord Althurp some years ago, they would have soon got rid of all those feelings of excitement which now unhappily prevailed ; aryl if it had been passed alien it was introduced, there would, by this time, have been universal ' peace throughout 'tlae country on this subject.—( Hear, hear, hear.) The princi ple on which the opposition now rested to the payment c;1 these rates was of a singular character. There would 6. 1 nn end to the opposition to the payment of taxes if any pee-so k might be allowed to refuse payment on the ground th at hc• • thought that the tax was not just or sound in principle. - The, Government could not be justified in relieving part;.es from, this tax, to which they - had been legally liable ever since the. • Conquest, and to which they were still liable but for certaint forms of proceeding in the vestry which neutralised the law for a time, but which did not destroy it. The Right Hone Gentleman quoted an extract from a pamphlet written by a vet" , able and learned Divine, a friend of his, who stated that Bishops demanded a fine of two years' rent for the renewal of a lease, while the Deans and Chapters only required a fine of' one and a half year's rent. He did not know what might be the case with all the Bishses, latt he knew that in the dioceses of Carlisle and York, in, the renewal of leases, there was a fine of one and a half year's rental. On this part of the sub ject he would say that he believed that, with regard to Deane' leases ; there would be a greater surplus than had been antiei - pater' by the Right lion. Gentleman or the Noble Lord-- ( Hear.) The Hon. Member for Leeds declared the other te en ing that the difficulty in Leeds was not to find Gl:droller, but to find people to fill them ; whereas the fact - A ra, li m a ,either, the last two months a subscription for buildi - eg a new church had been raised- in Leeds to the extent of not less than 12,0P0L Mr. F. BUXTON had great satisfaeciou in finding, front the statements of the Right Hon. Geatlernan near him, that there was a latent fund whine bad hitherto : - .sseseed notice, from - which so large a sum con'et he realised fer toe advantage .o' the State, with this novel feature in it, too, that whild by alt former contributions to the State some class or other had ocen sufferers, here there would ho no sufferers at all ; for I'm , n ., a ll that had appeared the measure - would operate espial' Y benefi cially for the leasaers,_for the lessees, and for th e color ~unity at large.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member said, k' coe d not understand by what hocus-pacus the measure' coa l'', b e ma l e to benefit the community.—(Hear, hear.) -v' four, it riot throw open a door hitherto closed for the outl iay vast dom by i Passingaies of the Chur c h, an d thus , weak!, of the country? cultiva tion and increasing produce., add to, va„ mprovine 'sL r n , e n w e l t i_at f ar' tem p erate l anguage o f t h e Right lion v o e t r irab the ile - make an oarsato en wl O , (ear, bear)—lac wished to former - evening. It had been said on this subject on a' set" been declared that this measure waj only I, se '. i n - H Di a piece '''tt the conduct of Ministers in sill! Eases that it. was a plar, having for its object, r'n7:tettl.llPe.g e ee r ti l n i re7 4 ; or Church-rates, but the destruction of the F,s!sblishcd r etturch, end the people generally were taught t:s look upon on - tt as a project for the extinction of religion ;throve -- I ther. l , Hear, hear.) - New lie (Mr. Bustton) should be geed , so know in what way this treasure could be made to :Imam_ pilsh this immense and terrible evil ? What did the mea -1 sure do ? Did it touch the doctrines of the Church ? 'Cer tainly not. Did it touch the ideo - mes of the Church? No 1 For - what bad been the income of the Church foe the last century would he the income of the Church for the next . century. So far fro;:, the property of the Church - , heing de- teriorated int value, it would be improved. The alarm note, mast loudly SOLllide'l to the people, however, was, that the Measure vvoeld leave the ed;tleee of the Church ins rein, and this was a delusions wnital one of the ceucluding. real elee of the hie-lit' Hoe. Baronet tendtel to en cettrage.--L( Hear, leear, bear.) Now, could it be main-, tante(' cast tie measure was calculated to br;ag about. such. a cataatroobe ? Not in the slightest- dege e e, It was se:A. therel43:i no danger at present becaur a , the law enforeed the iseyaieet of Church-rates. ' 'The-,et., indeed, might., be strong enough to contend vvith 4 ,,idividual yes:sten:T. nut it remained to b seen wheth e r it was stroae ettouolt ali eon . tend with cameined res' e tance.--( Hear. ) Bet it sea; sail, there is no ce:ebine,'s resista..e.e—the resistance is eotifined to wens. Now , ; Mott, -nr 'woe; was so contagious 'as the indisposi tion, grounded on /religious serupies, to pay a evoney-rate, and thoagh i t was exce edingly poealble Or; up to Co prese•At sesement the resistance to C,tureitecates had leers tirelted te• towna, yet when its was found by the rural re-- pulatior chat thin resis:ance on the p irt of the organ popule-- the - , hallbeen sereistful, le? (MI-. Fowell Bertten) waa• efraiit tint s ma disease anneal eaten I very rapidly among the sun,' p puiation a 150..-( heat', hear. bear.) Cortrieerine a tinite c:-is eneasere„ while providing for the due mainteeer(e. t r the fabrics of the Church without cost to tle core-teals vse . , 'sell ealenlated to put an end to the unhappy , :thleseai -, 11 . 0' illSVesiens which generally prevailed, Inc shou'et testa 't hi,