The Press.
London, England, 1854-05-27 00:00:00

CHURCH RATES.

Leave to bring in a bill enacting the total abolition
of church rates was asked on Tuesday by Sir W.
CLAY. Past discussion, he insisted, had sufficiently
ventilated the question, and had resulted in establish-
ing the principle that the church rate system us it
existed was unjust and intolerable :
" The House of Lords, by their anal judgment on the
well-known Braintree case, recently decided after sixteen
years' litigation, had settled the legal doubt that a church
rate was not an indefeasible charge upon property, but
simply a tax levied by a majority of ratepayers, or, as had
happened in many places, of which Liverpool was the last
and most memorable instance, refused by such a majority.
Looking at the result from a national point of view, he cited
a variety of statistical calculations from the lut census
tables, showing that out of the whole number of places of
worship in England very nearly a moiety were constructed
and filled by members of the Nonconformist body. Under
these circumstances the continuance of a tax levied upon
the whole community for the purpose of maintaining the
churches of a section was utterly impossible. The rate
must be abolished, and there remained only to provide a
substitute. Sir W. Clay then described and criticised the
various schemes which had been proposed for that object,
suggesting finally that ample funds could he furnished from
the surplus revenues of the Church, aided as to certain places
and purposes by a moderate pew rent. This provision of
a substitute was, however, he declared, a matter which con-
cerned Churchmen only. The Nonconformists and the
Legislature which represented the nation in its entirety had
nothing to do with it ; nor was there any just reason why
his bill, simply declaring the church rate abolished, should
not become law. There could be no fear that churches
should fall into decay, even though the compulsory sources
of income for their sustentation were stopped up, seeing
that within the last fifty years there had been 22,400,(X)0/.
raised by voluntary contributions for the building of sacred
edifices."

The hon. baronet concluded by remarking upon the
disputes and discordance which the church rate con-
troversies were perpetually exciting in different
localities, and earnestly recommended the house to
close that perennial spring of strife and bitterness.
Mr. Prro, as a Dissenter, rejoiced that the bill
had been brought in by a Churchman, and contended
that the abolition of the rate would prove of essential
benefit to the Church. He then detailed to the
house a variety of facts elucidating the statistics of
dissent.

Mr. WIORAM opposed the bill, urging, among other
practical objections, that there were many places so
poor that the churches in them could never be kept
In repair except by a compulsory impost. On the
legal question he argued that the church rate was a
common-law obligation on property, with which the
house ought not to interfere except upon much stronger
grounds than had been shown by the opponents of
the tax. The churches were built for the benefit of
all, and opened to their attendance. They apper
tained to the national Establishment, and should be
supported by the nation.
Mr. CiminNEn believed that the Churchmen them-
selves would be most eager to abolish the rate if
they had the interest of the Establishment really at
heart.

Mr. PACKE confessed that legislation was most
desirable on the subject, but could not approve of
the present measure. The Established Church was
emphatically the church of the poor, and it was the
duty of the nation to preserve its fabrics for their
benefit.

Mr. BIGGS related several anecdotes showing the
circumstances under which the church rate was
sometimes enforced, and supported the bill.
Captain SCOBELL wished to abolish the church
rate as such, but would not leave the churches un
provided with special funds for their maintenance.
He enforced the expediency of redistributing the
property of the ecclesiastical establishment. Believ-
ing that the impost now levied as a church rate had
become fairly engrafted upon the land, he threw out
the suggestion that the tax should still be raised, but
transformed into a school rate.

Lord STANLEY was convinced that if the question
were left untouched for a few years the country
would practically decide it. The Nonconformists
would not long have cause to complain of injustice,
even if the Legislature declined to interfere. He
pointed out, however, another reason why such inter-
ference was most desirable, and another party who
suffered under the present law:—
" There was always great public disadvantage in retain-
ing noon the statute hook a law which the state of public
feeling rendered inoperative, and therefore there wes a
great hardship on those who were bound officially to sup-
poet the Church by the levying of such a rate. (Hear,
hear.) In many of the most Conservative boroughs of
this country in which the feeling of attachment to the
Church of England was very strong he knew that they
refused to lay a rate. Though he believed, therefore, that
the question would be ultimately settled in the wane of a
few years by the general refusal to pay *Orate, at least in
every borough of the wintry, still tbat %ash would be ob-

tamed only after a great deal of disputing, ill-will, and
discontent. (Hear.) It could not be denied by any one
who had considered this subject that it involved a great
anomaly ever since the existence of dissent was recognised
by the civil power. (Hear.)"
The question, as Lord Stanley afterwards reminded
the house, was never raised as one of money:—

" If I take the total amount that is raised from the Non-
conformists, I believe that, at the very highest computa-
tion, it has never exceeded 200,0tX11. rile amount, there-
fore, becomes a totally insignificant one when the question
of feeling is taken into account. (Ilear, hear.) The
question throughout, it cannot be concealed, has not been
one of money, but one of principle. (Hear, hear.) And
that being so, I believe that if we continue to uphold oar
old law—if we are still to resort to the old machinery of
imposing a rate—although we may diminish its amount—
although in other ways w•e may alleviate the amount of
the pecuniary hunlen—that the daily objection on the
ground of principle will not be removed, and that all
that will have been done will be to render our rate
less productive in amount, though no way less objection-
able on the ground of feeling. (Hear, hear.)"

The noble lord admitted that, so far as his own
opinions were concerned, he thought a fair com-
promise possible, yet be apprehended that it was
impossible to persuade the public to accept of any.
He described the attempts made by the bill which
Mr. Macke had just proposed, and by a former mea-
sure brought forward by Dr. Phillimore, and ex-
plained the causes which led him to believe that
neither of them afforded a solution of the difficulty.
On the whole, therefore, he preferred the simple
proposition of Sir W. Clay, by which the church
rate was abolished and the question of a substitute
left in abeyance.
Mr. CROSSLEY spoke in favour of the bill, and Mr.
PHILIPPS, as r. presenting a poor Welsh distiiet, on
behalf of maintaining the church rate.

Dr. R. 13FirrximoRE thought that fair adjustment
very possible upon the principle which he had him-
self embodied in a bill last year. This was con-
trived by exempting all dissenters from the compul-
sory payment of the rate, upon their making a formal
declaration that they did not attend the church ser-
vices.

Mr. DkrmatoND considered that the abolition of
church rates was equivalent to robbing the Church.
He looked on the proposal as opening the whole con-
troversy between the voluntary system and the es-
tablishment, and, after contending for the necessity
of maintaining an established church, declared that
if rates and tithes were abstracted from the Church
they should justly belong to the State.

Lord J. RUSSELL referred to the opposition which
previous attempts at legislation had encountered
alternately from the supporters of the Church and
of Dissent. He feared that the obstacles in the way
of a compromise were still insurmountable. Nor
had he any hope that, even if the church rate were
surrendered, contention would finally cease. On
the contrary, he believed that this was one of a
series of attacks that would be rapidly followed up
against the Church if a precedent of concession were
once set:—

" I cannot be content with an assurance that if church
rates are abolished all will be well, that dissenters will re-
gard all the other privileges and prerogatives of the Church
with perfect contentment, and that the Church way look
forward to nothing but a happy and prosperous state of
tranquillity. I have no such expectations. The Church
has, independently of this question of revenue, various ex-
clusive privileges: she occupies a high position in the
country, is favoured by Parliament, is herself connected
with Parliament, and her prelates alone have seats in one
of the Houses of Legislature, and occasions will be found
when those who differ from the Church will complain of
those exclusive privileges. I do not say that those privi-
leges should be maintained, and I am nut arguing that
they are unreasonable, but all that I am arguing, and all
my experience supports me in that opinion, that if you
remove this cause of discontent you will not have all t hat
tranquillity which my hon. friend promises."
Lord John Russell went on to explain the diffi-
culties of the case, and to lament the failure of all
his own attempts to compromise this and other ques-
tions between the Church Establishment and the
Nonconformists. He confessed that the state of the
law of church rates was most unsatisfactory, and
that the system was attended with many scandalous
practices. Yet he could not consent to waive all the
rights of the Church, and felt assured that the dis•
puce could never he properly settled except upon a
basis of fairness to both sides. Thence he proceeded
to show the impracticability of finding such a fair
basis' or of inducing both sides to accept it if found ;
and finally could offer the house no better advice
than to leave the difficulty where they found it, and
not at all events to attempt its solution this session.
The Government had a measure of their own under
consideration, but could not tell what it would be,
whether it would snit, or when it could be brought
forward. Certainly not just yet. And when brought
forward he had strong doubts whether it could ever
be passed. For the present he was anxious to get
the bill now before them thrown over, chiefly because
he feared that if the house entertained such a propo-
sition it would Muse nn impression throughout the

"I

I

486

country that the bond of union between the Church
and the Legislature was becoming weaker.
A division followed this speech of the noble lord,
when the house decided on allowing the bill to be
brought in by a majority of 129 to 62—.437. The bill
was read a first time that same evening.

THE OATHS BILL.
After many postponements Lord JOHN RUSSELL
had consented to bring forward his Parliamentary
Oaths Bill for second reading on Thursday at such
time as to allow of a deliberate discussion. The
discussion accordingly began early, and occupied the
entire night, and terminated at past one o'clock in
a division by which the measure was effectually
crushed for the present session. The debate opened
with a vigorous denunciation of the bill by Sir F.
THESIGER. He remarked upon the shifting forms
under which proposals for admitting Jews to Parlia-
ment had been presented to that house—of the regu-
larly.diminishing majorities by which they had passed
the Commons, and the as regularly-increasing majo-
rities by which they were rejected in the Lords. He
noticed, also, that public opinion was absolutely dead
in behalf of the measure out of doors, while a vast
number of petitions had been prepared and pre-
sented against it. Sir F. Thesiger then viewed the
measure in its present aspect, when comprehending
not merely the admission of the Jews—though that
was its chief and covertly second object—but also
changing the whole tenor of the parliamentary oaths,
and levelling the defences which had been erected at
different times against aggression from the Papacy
and other quarters upon our religious libel ties, our Pro-
testant Establishment, and the royal supremacy. He
exposed the inconsistencies of conduct and language
exhibited by Lord John Russell, and then, comparing
the tenor of the single oath now proposed with the
principles heretofore advocated by various members
of the Cabinet, drew the inference that a Coalition
Ministry had drawn up a coalition oath. Lord John
Russell's colleagues, who had opposed his Ecclesias-
tical Titles Bill, had given up their objections against
the Jews, and the noble lord himself had surrendered
the supremacy of the Crown. Addressing the non-
conformist members of the house, Sir Frederick
warned them of the danger they incurred in weaken-
ing any of the securities of the Church, which formed
the most efficient barrier against the encroachments
of Rome. The little finger of the Papacy would be
found thicker than the loins of the Establishment.
He concluded by moving as an amendment that the
bill be read a second time that day six months.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER prefaced his
speech by entering into a vindication of hie noble
colleague, whose life-long and consistent advocacy of
religious liberty was acknowledged by the present,
and would be admired by a future, generation. As
the inconsistency of Lord J. Russell was an imagi-
nary fact, so was the alleged compromise between
himself and his colleagues an imaginary conclusion.
There were no discordances in the Cabinet on the
question of Jewish disabilities, although, he remarked,
the Opposition could not boast of equal unanimity.
Adverting to the question of the royal supremacy,
Mr. Gladstone confessed that the new oath omitted
all recognition of the supremacy of the Crown over
the Church. But the oath as it stood was equally
silent on the subject. In fact, the so-called oath of
supremacy had contained nothing relating to supre-
macy ever since the original oath, framed in the
reign of Queen Elizabeth, had undergone altera-
tion after the Revolution of 1688. Subsequently to
that time the oath had become one merely abnega-
ting the jurisdiction of the Pope. For the doctrine
of the royal supremacy they must look to the articles
of the Church of England. Respecting other omitted
phrases, such as that denying the doctrine that
princes could be deposed or murthered at the com•
mend of the Pope, or binding the taker of the oath
to defend the legal settlement of property in the
country, Mr. Gladstone declared that all such obli-
gations were now valueless, and should be removed
from the statute book. The Sovereign was defended
by the love and loyalty of her subjects ; and property
by the principle of moral rectitude among the people.
The oath obliging Roman Catholics to respect the
Protestant Church Establishment was to be included
in the same category. It might, indeed, impose
some trifling restraint upon individual action in a
few instances, but offered no security that was not
far overbalanced by the mischief of the inequalities
which it signified, and of the heartburnings which it
perpetuated. In its relation to questions of property,
that oath constituted a trap to consciences, since it
constructively prohibited Roman Catholics from
touching subjects trenching on the possessions of
the Church, with which, as the anti church-rate vote
of Tuesday night sufficiently showed, the Protestant
members considered themselves entitled to deal.
The opposition to the bill was renewed by Mr.
NAPIER, who declared that the measure was dis-
honest. Instead of openly proclaiming its object, it
burglariously broke through the barriers of the con-
stitution, to enable the Jew to enter ; by Mr. J. G.
PHILLIMORE, who considered that the protection
afforded by the oath of supremacy was still indis-