The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-03-03 00:00:00

CHURCH-RATES.

REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE OF
THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

The select committee of the •House of Lords
appointed to inquire into the present operation
of the law and practice respecting the assessment
and levying of church-rates have reported as
follows :

' " That the committee have met, and considered the
subject matter referred to them, and have examined
several witnesses in relation thereto.

"1. That it appears from the evidence that by the
, IL-A • 9
this country, the parishioners are bound to repair the
church, and to provide overything that is necessary for
the decent performance of Divine service,' and that for
the attainment of these objects recourse has, from very
ancient times, been had to a system of parochial assess-
ment, which assessment is still maintained in the great
majority of parishes throughout the country.
"2. That by the judgment of the House of Lords,
in the Braintree case, the law has been declared te be
that the church-rate is-only assessable on the ratepayers
by the vote of the majority of the vestry, and it appears
that for the neglect to vote a rate there is no penalty
at common law.

"3. That, therefore, in some places no rate is made, and
in some, though"made, it is not enforced against those
who refuse to pay.
"4. That where a church-rate has been refused, or
has not been assessed, it has generally been attributed
to One or other of the following causes, viz. :
" I. The abuse of the rate, in its assessment for, and
application to, improper objects, or in excessive charges.
"' 11. The assessment of new parishes and districts
having churches of their own to the rate of the mother
church.

" 111. The unwillingness of churchwardens to pro-
pose a rate the collection of which might be rendered
difficult or impossible by the uncertainty and inefficiency
of the law.

" IV. Local causes of irritation unconnected with
the rates.
"' V. The opinion entertained against church-rates by
certain classes of dissenters on religious or political
grounds.'
" 5. That a great obstacle to the enforcement of a
rate when made is, that a ratepayer summoned before
the petty sessions for nonpayment may then proceed to
dispute the validity of the rate on his own liability (53d
Geo. 111., c. 127, s. 7) ; that thereupon the justices
might forbear to give judgment, and the churchwardens
can only proceed in the ecclesiastical court.
--" 6.- That the entire abolition of the church-rate is
opposed to the general feeling of members of the church,
is not universally called for by dissenters of various deno-
minations, and especially not by that large and influential
body the Wesleyan Methodists, and would, in the case
of a great number of parishes, be attended with serious
and prejudicial consequences, by restricting the existing
means for the repair and maintenance of .the parish
church, by greatly increasing the labour and responsi-
bility of the clergyman, and otherwise materially imped-
ing-the ministrations of the church in those parishes.
"7. That, viewing the grounds of objection to the
payment of church-rates, as well as the impediments
which exist to their collection, it is expedient to alter
the law in the following respects :
" That for the future, persons desirous of being_
exempted from contrfbating to the church-rate in any
parish may give yearly notice to that effect to the
churchwardens prior to the meeting of any vestry for
the purpose of making a church-rae ; and that such
persons shall not be entitled to attend any such vestry,
or to vote upon the making or application of such rate,
or to act as churchwardens in any matter relating to the
church, or to retain any seat appropriated to them in
the church during the term of such exemption. •
" 11. That the rate, when voted by the vestry, shall
be levied upon all persons liable to it who have not
given such notice.
"'III. That the items for which a rate may be made
shall be definitively declared by law.
W. That the ratepayers in any new parish or
district shall be rateable for the purposes of their own
churoh, and for no other.
" V. That there shall be the same PoweP for the
recovery of church-r4es as exist for the
recoveryofee
poor-rates, and in case of ebjection to the
validity
t
rate, ar). appeal shall lie to thehgeenececrlaelsiqausiairctaeir
esoeurssitsonisn
such matters shall ceqs,e.,
and that the jnrisdietion of
the owner instead 9. That the principle of ossessing
so
ef r
itohues oecocuuspi
cii eel;
uttoi
otul the f c au
ihu-rur aetuet is winaenllydfuestewryemiglltliis:
lation on this subject.
"And the committee have directed the minutes of
evidence taken before them, together with an appendix,
to be laid before your lordships."

In the House of Lords, last night, there was
laid on the table the correspondence relative to
the annexation of Nice and Savoy. It was
intimated that, in the present state of the army
estimates, it was not considered advisable to
incur the expense of assembling the yeomanry.
In the House of Commons, as in the Upper
House, the Nice. and Savoy correspondence was
tabled, and Lord John Russell said that, as far as
he knew, no treaty was in existence between
France and Sardinia, providing for the annexa_
tion. The Emperor had declared that he wauid
not proceed to the annexation without consulting
the Great Powers of Europe. He would not, of
course, say what the Emperor would do in case
the Great Powers disapproved of the annexation.
He believed that if the opinion were clear and
unanimous among the Great Powers, France
would not require what would give alarm and
disquietude to Europe; he believed that France
would not proceed to the annexation. Mr•
Bright asked the Government not .to either
countenance or oppose the transfer, as being a
matter over which they had no control, and in
which we had no real interest ; a sentiment which
was protested. against by Lord. J. Manners, Lord J.
Ruisell, and others. Lord Palmerston intimated
that, although the reward offered by Parliament
for the discovery of the remains of Sir J. Franklin
had been long exhausted, yet if it was the inten-
tion of Parliament to vote a further sum, the
Government would offer no opposition. The
report on the Customs Act, was then brought up
ad gave occasion to a long debate, especially on
the articles of cork and silks. On the article of
silks, Mr. Newdegate moved the amendment,
that the -present duty be continued till Octo-
ber Ist, 18:61, which, after a lengthened
discussion, was rejected by 179 to 51.
The report was then agreed to. Resolutions 4,
5, and 6 were agreed to. On resolution 7, reduc-
ing the spirit duties, Mr. T. Duncombe moved an
amendment, that the duty on imported spirits
be 98., instead of Bs. 6d., the gallon, which
upon a division was negatived by 191 to 48.
Mr. Byng gave notice that on Monday, after the
WerP renorted. he ghnnid rnrwo AP
humble address to her Majesty, expressing the
approval of the House of the commercial treaty
I with France.

The Pope's reply to the last message of the
French Emperor—conveyed through M. Thouye-
nel—has probably not yet reached his Impciial
Majesty ; but the fact is already known, that
" the Cardinals convoked by his Holiness to a
special congregation, have unanimously decided
that the preservation of the patrimony of the
is too intimately connected with the general
interests of the Church to be treated simply as a
political question." This is the ground which
.the Bishops and Clergy of France have from the
first taken ; and they seem determined to stand
firmly upon it, in resistance of the Imperial
policy.
The conclusions that are drawn from the
Imperial Speech to the French Chamber are
undeniable, that it contains " the declaration
of the Emperor of the French that he intends
to annex to France a portion of the dominions of
a neighbouring and friendly Power,"—that "it is
no longer a rumour,"—that " it is now an avowed
fact that Napoleon 111. intends to take to him-
self all that portiou of the Savoy Alps which
slope from the watershed line towards the French
frontier,"—all this, we say, is incontrovertible.
" He declares it to be his duty, for the sake of
the safety of his frontiers, to proceed to this
slight aggrandisement." How or when he will
perform this duty, remains to be seen. France,"
he says, " menaces no one." Yet he will do what
he has set his mind upon interfere with him
who may. It is true, as we see it well observed,
that " it would be a curious and an easy task -to
calculate how many words in this paragraph of
the Speech would require alteration in order to
make the declaration as to Savoy apply to one o
the banks of the Rhine." But never mind that
One thing at a time. Savoy first,—" one of the
banks of the Rhine " at another, and a more con,
venient season. The question is, will the other
Powers of Europe tolerate such a spirit of ambi-
tious aggrandisement; and if they will
what -next ?

There is a great deal of significance in the
remark of the Times, with reference to the French
Emperor's speech to the Legislative Chamber,
OW such 14, speecii, "in an unlimited Govern-
ment, a declaration of absolute resolves ; " and
that "we look, therefore, to this speech in order
that we may know what Napoleon 111. and his
60Q,Q00 soldiers have resolved to do with Franco
alld with the 5 grrolincliqg natiqns."
This it is that
distinguishes sucha Government, more especially,
from that of this country. And it is a distinction
which, in 41 our 'dealings with it, ought
never to

WELL may it be asked, as it is on every hand,
whether it was for such a measure of 'reform, MI
Lord JOHN RUSSELL has thought at to bring
forward, that a ministry like that of Lord
DERBY'S was turned out of office ? And well,
indeed, may the "advanced Liberals" complain

that such a measure "barely keeps faith with the
expectations of the people,"—that is, with the
populace to . which they pander—and 01414
miserably short of their just demands !" As to
the Ministerial party, why they, of course, must
take it as they find it, however they may feel. in
their hearts how imperfect it is. And yet, even
in that quarter, we observe it is already declared
that the measure " fails to admit those whose
proper place is within the pale of the Constitu-
tion"—only, we suppose, as in their estimation it
is pre-eminently simple, safe and practical, and
for these reasons not likely to provoke much
opposition from the Conservative ranks, Ivhep
opposition is most dreaded, they are con,
tent to make a virtue of necessity, and.

take it for what it is worth. The irony
of the BRIGHT section of Parliamentary
Reformers, however, is already being somewhat
severely expressed. One of their organs declares,
for instance, that " those tender lambs of the poli-
tical fold who were apprehensive that the next
reform debate would tear to pieces the venerable
fabric iu which they and their progenitors have
long been housed, may now cease their piteous
bleatings. The Constitution is safe. There will
still be a House of Lords. The Throne will not
be abolished just yet. No new peril threatens
the rights of property. The reversion of a coro-
net may continue as heretofore to captivate. thq
imagination of an heir in his teens. No landlord
need be in haste to sell his estates lest the prospect
of confiscation should speedily lessen their value."
Now were this said in sober seriousness would
certainly be sconetning to congratulate the country
upon ; but, as a piece of Radical sarcasm,
it has a significance which only goes to
show how glad they would have been, had Lord
JOHN RUSSELL'S Bill really done all which ft is.
here so ironically proclaimed that it does not do.
It is not uninteresting, or uninstructive, to
contrast this Bill, for which so much has been
sacrificed, with that of Lord DERBY'S Adminis-
tration, which provoked, so ungovernably, the
wrath of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, about this time
last year. That Bill, it will be remembered,
proposed a £lO franchise for the counties; and
even a Liberal Ministry could scarcely propose
less,—nor has it done so ; while as respects the
boroughs, in the words of one of our Liberal coo'
temporaries, " instead of £lO, say £6, and feu
have it all !" No—not all either,—not all the
difference, certainly, betwen tie 1.0141 lotgt
frfiTlPilistl of AIP, Dlsit4Eas Bill, and tntded
Lord .10111‘T RUSSELL ; fqr tke former li' ,
Q
for the admissien of large body of peCIP 4
upon other quali4cations than that
of a £lO
rental. And therein we confidently assert, con-
sisted—if in nothing else—
the vast superiority
of the Conservative Bill of lest year, over the
0 know are odious.
b
Liberal one that is nowefore the House of Com-
mons. Comparisons w
And
yet is it necessary
of parliamentary Reforth, that it
that we should compare the-se
two measures
not hiboeNiv.atisheincotuhnist
ry may be seen,
Whig-Liberals
nt
tricked by the
itt
to obtain
. erably inferior a measure of Parliamen-
how rn" likely matter,has be eu
itOform
9 compared with that Which was offered to it by
at- their hands,
tahe Administration of Lord DERBY.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S sneer, at what he called
the." fancy franchises " of the Reform Bill of last
year, was, of course, to be expected ; but one was
not altogether prepared for such an objection to
them, from such a
chiscs quarter, as that they were " fran-
chises unknown to the Constitution."
Such a plea, in the first place, were untenable ;
because the Constitution undoubtedly contem-
plates just such an intelligent constituency as
those franchises were calculated so materially to
secure; while, in the next place, it came with a
very bad grace from one who has himself not
hitherto been restrained by any such considera-

Now, thoSe franchises, be it remembered,
were created in favour of lodgers, or occupiers of
'part of any houSe, whether furnished or unfur-
nished, at the rate of eight shillings per week,—
of persons in the receipt of an income, from, per-
sonal property invested in the funds, of £lO per
annum,—of depositors in a savings bank to the
extent of £(io,--and also of graduates of the uni-
versities, clergymen, and ministers of all denomi-

nations, barristers and pleaders, solicitors and
proctors, medical men, and certificated school-
masters. Such franchises, therefore, would have

added many thousands to the constituencies of
the country--and thousands of the . intelligent
and educated classes of persons—who, on these
grounds, as well .as from their social position,
respectively, would have been eminently qualified
to exercise the elective franchise ; yet most, if
not all of whom, will actually remain 'excluded
from the pOsseSsion of such a, privilege, under
the Bill of Lord JOHN 'RUSSELL. For they

are just those persons who are not necessarily in-
cluded in a rental franchise. They' are not house-
holders, but lodgers ; and therefore even a
rental qualification will not admit them within
what the Liberals are so fond of calling " the
pale of the Constitution.". We think, moreover,
that in the Bill of last year there were iniportant

provisions to prevent fictitious creation of votes,
which the present measure does not contain ;
at the same time that it provided an increase in the
number of polling places, and a system of " voting
papers," which would have given many
advantages in the exercise of the elective
franchise.

And what have we in the place of franchises
-which would thus have made such. valuable
additions to the constituencies of the country ?
Why, just a lower rental franchise in towns.
Instead of limiting that franchise to £lO, it is
now to be lowered to £6. So that we. have to
place those who rent houses between £lO and.£6
a year, in contrast with those who would have
been admitted to the franchise under the former
Mill, either as lodgers, or as persons having
investments in the funds, or deposits in savings'
banks—or who are graduates, or clergymen, or
ministers, or barristers, or solicitors, or medical
men, or certified schoolmasters—and all, or most
of whom, we may take it for granted, would be
intelligent and respectable persons,we ..have
but to contrast, we say; those lower classes
of our population Who inhabit houses .below
with such superior classes as these,.
in order to see the difference there is between •
the measure of the present and that of the former
Alinistry. We mean no disrespect to those
classes of the population of our large towns, who
are to be enfranchised under the present Bill,
'when we point out that, in places like Liverpool
and Manchester, they will of necessity be the
inferior classes of ,workmen ; and generally they
will, of course, be classes of the people altogether'
much inferior to the present £lO householders in
those qualifications which are most desirable for
such as are to
be entrusted with the elective
franchise. Those more respectable, because more
intelligent persons,—and persons, too, who had
on every account a higher claim to be en-
franchised—on whom the Bill of Lord Derby's
_Ministry conferred the elective franchise, will,
under the present Bill, be excluded from the
franchise; and, in their stead, we repeat, it will
be conferred upon the classes below the present
£lO householders, and therefore inferior, it may
be fairly presumed, in the qualifications that are
most desirable in a Pariliarneutary Elector.'" "" '
Without going further, then, into details, we
.tbink it is evident that the Bill brought in by

•0A•. JOHN RUSSELL is, in every point of view,
a measuye much inferior to 'that submitted to
Parlicaue4 Fast year by Mr. DISRAELI. And one

would really think that, when the country comes
to reflect upon this, it will see how grossly it
pas-been imposea upon 'hy that coalition faction
which displaced Lord Diln;y's Administration,—
gm Administration in whose hands, it was Mid,
yersally admitted,
.the .great interests of the
country were perfectly safe,—on the pretence of
furnishing a better measure of Parliamentary
liefti'rm. Sure we are, that the more the two
measures are compared together, the more
evident will it become. to every impartial mind;
that the Bill of last year was much more likely
to give the country a good "House of Commons
than the present measure holds out any prospect
9f doing,—a House of Commons that would
reprpsent the opinions, and reflect .the wishes, of
904sti,t4tional majority of the people, and that
Would be prepged to improve, in order to main-
tain in their ef4ciency, those time-honoured insti-
tutions to which the L:ingdors, Tinder Providence,
owes all its greatness and prosperity,. •