The Express.
London, England, 1853-05-27 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 27, 1853.

intention of withdrawing his objections, ha should be re-
stored to the church and to the obligations of other parish-
ioners. lie proposed also that dissenters should cease to
kayo any right to appear in church vestries, or to vote on
my question of church rates, or the management of church
Impiety. Thee,' ith regard to the law which was left ia4
operettas in relation to churchmen, who were to pay church
rates. It had been said that it would be desirable that
the payer of adjudicating on smith questions should be
transferred to the magistrates in quarter sessions. From
this he dissented. The law required alteration. At the
preesat time there might be • suit brought in the Bishops'.
0-eart, from whence it could be taken to the Court of
Arches, and thence on appeal to the Privy Council. But
that was not all. A case might, like the Braiutree case, be
brought by prohibition before the Court of Queen's Bench,
sad taken thence by writ of error to the Exchequer Cham-
ber, and on appeal from thence to tte House of Lords ; so
that there might be no less than six suits carried on about •
question of as. Gil. (Hear, hear.) Now that was •
state of the law that was wholly indefensible, tad
which required alteratioq. The question was whether that
should be done by improving the present jurisdictlea
fir traesferring it to another tribunal. lie thought that It
was sot desirable to transfer the jurisdiction to magi,-
trete, at quarter sessions. The law stow gave great power
to the bishop, to vestries, and parish officers. it was coca.
petent to the churchwarden to make a rate without the
vestry for providing bread and wine, the washing of the
minister's surplice and other things necessary for the decent
performance of divine service: but for everything beyond
that, and which partook of the ornamental, it was necessary
that a rate should be consented to by the vestry ; and they
might reject the rate. Even after • rate was agreed to
for such purposes the ordinary might prevent the
placing of improper ornaments in the church, and in
these days ornaments might have a doctrinal character
which it would be inexpedient to admit into the church.
He proposed that the law should remain as it was, but that
the Consistorisl Court, when disputes arose, should decide
them summarily, and rice veer; and that there should be
only one appeal on points of law. If the jurisdiction was
given to the magistrates they would often have very difli•
cult questions to decide, questions of an ecclesiastical cha-
racter. anti with regard to which they might be called on to
kneelers with the discipline and order of the elan& He
AM not see why the Bishop's Consistorial Court dwelt met
be nada • fitting tribunal for the trial of these q
salon it was said that there was to be no Co
Osart at all, and that the bishop was to be
left without a legal adviser in his diocese, and also that be
abeald be allowed to exercise an arbitrary power owe lie
dergy. He thought it would be better to enable them
enurts to perform their functions cheaply and readily rather
than to transfer the lie
to others. That was an
outline of his plan. wished to draw attention to the
evidence given by Mr. Baines and Mr. Offer before the
committee of 18.51, which would show that such a plan
would not be un•atisfeetory to the dissenters they represented.
(The hon. gentleman then read the statement of Mr. Offor,
which was to the effect that if the dissenters were re-
lieved from the payment of church rates they would be
ready to give a quid pro quo similar to that now proposed.)
One great objection which had been urged against this
scheme was that it tended to a dissolution of the church and
the state. He wished to take this opportuoity of saying
openly that he for one would witness with regret the propo-
titian of any scheme which would deprive the state of the
valsable assi•tance in the maintenance of religion, order,
and loyalty, which she derived (and long might she derive
it) from her connexion with the church of England. (Hear,
bear.) It was curious that those who were the instigators
•f opposition to church rates were of a different opinion, and
bald that the best mode of separating church and state
was the continuance of the present system of church

rates. What was stated by Mr..Courtalres his opinion
He said—" I do not know that I should be at all opposed
to the law of eturels rate, so far as it devolves upon a
parish the power of dealing with that church rate. I am
not the leas opposed to any imposition of church rates upon
dissenters ; and moreover, I would say, for myself and
others, that we should deprecate above all things any legis-
lative settlement of this vexed question of church rates
which would throw any portion of the church rate charges i
upon the public revenues, having, in our own mind, the
separation of what I call church and state, and believing
that we have in these church-rate battles the very best
vantage ground for advancing that question, which, of all
others, is, in our estimation, the question of the age."
It could not, after that, be reasonably alleged that his (Dr.
Phillimore's) proposition had • tendency to do that which
was called a dissolution of church and state. He was aware
that he had exposed himself to criticism, and perhaps the
censure and animadversion from various quarters. There
was something satisfactory to one's self-esteem in confessing
and deploring an evil, cavilling at any remedy proposed for
it, and sitting down without proposing a substitute for such
remedy. That observation was certainly not applicable to
the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets; but he bad
already dealt with that hon. gentleman's amendment,
and he would not trouble the house again with •
repetition of what he had said. But there was another
class of objectors, whom, though he differed from them, he
respected. They saw no evil in the existing state of things,
they could not conceive that one friendly towards the
church could propose such a boon to the dissenters without
being • traitor to her establishment and an enemy to her
institutions. He was not ashamed to own that to that im-
putation he was extremely sensitive. In ability to serve
the church he was exceeded by most men, but in attach-
ment to her by none ; but because he desired that the bless-
ings of the church should be extended in this country, be
deprecated the evil which would arise • from the
separation of church and state—it was because
he was most anxious that she should regain by
legitimate (and by that he meant spiritual) means
her empire over the hearts of the people, that he implored
those to whom he had alluded to consider well a state of
things which although unquestionably prescribed by law, yet
brought odium on her institutions and her doeuines, and
which excited a fierce party spirit against her very exist-
ence. (Hear, hear.) He had proposed a measure which
in his conscience he believed would promote the religious
peace of the church. He had no other object, whatsoever,
and he thought he might without profaneness apply to this
01,1151170 the beautiful language of the incomparable ritual
of the church when it invoked a blessing (and long might
it do so) on the proceedings of parliament, when he said it
was • measure which laid the foundation on which truth
and butiee, religion and piety, would be established in this
nelm, he would fain hope and earnestly prayed, for all
generations. (Cheers.)
Sr W. CLAY said, in rising to move the amendment
of which he had given notice, he assured the hon. and
1 d gentleman that he acknowledged his lull right to
avail himself of the priority which fortune had given him,
and that he was happy to accept his valuable amistancenpon
many polats in which he was happy to say they agreed.
He agreed with him as to the disgraceful state of the exist-
ing law respecting church rates. In fact, it would be
*triage if, after the 'eidetic* taken before the committee in
1851, there should be two opinions on that subject. No
language could aggravate the discreditable state of the law
on church rateo—nothin_g was certain with regard to it but
its utter uncertainty. From the very first inception of •
church:ate up to its final disposition, there was uncertainty.
It was doubtful what was a good rate ; it was doubtful by
whom it should be made, sad whether they could be com-
petent to make it; it was yet more doubtful when it was
made by wield proem it could be enforced ; and it was
meet doubtful of all whether by any process the payment
was worth enforcing. The whole thing would be ludicrous
if it were not for the great inconvenience and suffering it
occasioned. Truth in this particular ease was really stranger
than fiction: no satirist could suggest anything so bad. I.
point ef fast, though it was true, as the howsurable
and horned gentlemen said, that there was a common-
law obligation on the parishioners to maintain the
fabric of the church, yet there was no proems by
which the obligates"' mild be enforced. The result was,
that contests went on throughout the country in which the
ordinary animosity of strife was enhancedby the infusion
of Religious bigotry, and in many of our great towns the at-
tempts to levy • rate had been unsuccessful. He believed
that in Leeds, Bradford, Halifax, Wiikefield, Huddersfield,
Manchester, Leicester, Nottingham, Bath, Tavistock, Bir-
mingham, Sheffield, and some other towns, no church rate
had been levied for years. Where the aonoonformist duns
were numerous church rates had been got rid of, bat
where those classes were either few in number or poor, the
vexations attendant upon church rates still abounded.
In this sta's of affairs what was the remedy the hon. am:
learned gentleman proposed? He understood that he pro-
posed to continue church rata, but to ermine their opera-
tion to the members of the established church, and that any
dissenter by making a declaration before some stituted
authority, should theuceforward be relieved from them.
Another part of his plan was, to still retain the ecclesiasti-
cal court,. This scheme had been more than once brought
f rward in that house. In 1840 the hon. member for Fins-
bury, Mr. Buncombe, moved for leave to bring in a bill,
which was almost word for word the plan of the hon. pen-
tium, and the house rejected de by 117 to 62. The same
Um), in substance, was afterwards brought forward
Fa r. Page Wood, the present Viee-Chancellor, Sir W.
ge Wood, arid notwithstanding his high character, and
the esteem in which he was held, it found so little (senor
that only 20 members voted for it, and Sir Robert Peel,
Lord John Russell, and Sir Charles Orey, spoke against it.
The objections to the plan of the hon. and learned gentle-
On seemed to him so strong and so obvious, that he was
agtonished he should have thought it worth his while to
bring it on. Its inevitable tendency would be to make
more prominent those differences of religious opinion,
which it should be the aim of every wise legislator to soften.
Why the very fact of dividing a parish into chute, each
having • distinctive religious belief, would compel men who
would otherwise have been scarcely conscious that they dif-
fered, to divide themselves from their neighbours on doc-
trinal points, the very existence of which they would other-
wise hardly have dise.vered.e
couldßut
ensurehowci thidte valhehoidty of
hon. end
bashed gentleman suppose h
Weems Would he my that the mon who had made the
thogiereities was to be prevented from entering the church ?
Was the parish beadle to stand there and warn
him off? or if he entered the church, would
he be liable to a suit in the ecclesiastical
OEM? Then again it was the head of the family who was
Ice make the declaration. Supposing the head of a family
declared himself a dissenter, would the hon. and learned
faro prevent his family going to church ? (Mr.
ore—Certainly not.) Then an ingenious man might
sod his family and his friends who lived with him to
itharch and himself stop away and escape paying. But the
hon. and learned gentleman said he would reserve a locus
penittntia ; he would enable a man on going before the
churchwarden nod paying the rate to again enter the
church. Could anything equal the absurdity of
such a system Did the hon. tad learned gentleman
think his plan would be acceptable to the lay members of
the church ? Why, the evidence before the committee was,
that the lay members of the church were as dissatisfied with
church rates as the dissenters themselves. The amendment

he moved consisted of two parts: one for the abolition of
church rates, and the ether for staking provision for the
charges to which such rates are at present applicable
from pew rents, and from the increased value which
may be derived from church lands and property.
As a member of the church of England, he bad no beaks-
Von in declaring that be was prepared to support the entire
abolition of church rate., without any substitute for them;
and he said this in the full conviction both that such a

course would strengthen rather than weaken the church,
and that her members would cheerfully contribute towards
her maintenance. (Hear, hear.) To doubt that would be
disgraceful to the members of that church. (Cheers.)
'hen they remembered that they had nothing to pay for
the support of their ministers, who were already richly en-
dowed, and that they had the exclusive possession of p.l
those edifices which had been devoted to the worship of
God by the piety and munificence of our ancestors, it was
incredible that they would grudge the comparatively
speaking, mere pittance required to keep them in repair.
(Clues...) Certainly the members of the church had shown
no such niggard spirit. They had built within the last few
years more new churches than had been erected for centu-
ries
previous • and they had dons so in most eases by the
unaided certa of individuals. (Hear, hear.) He hod
tried in vain to procure any precise statistic* epos this
point, but Mr. Edward Baines, of Leeds, hat stated to the
committee, on the authority of the Rev. Dr. Hook, the
well known vicar of that twin, that since church rates had
been abolished at Leeds the parish church had been rein&
at a cost of 30,0001., six new churches bad been consecrated,
and 37 schools had been erected at an outlay of 10,0001.,
making a total expenditure of 100,0001. (Cheers.) So
much for the voluntary principle at work in the church of
England. (Hear, boar.) But in the meantime what bad
the dissenters done ? Mr. Baines stated that the congrega-
tion to which he himself belonged raised about 6701. a year
for the purpose of paying their general expenses; besides
which they had spent 14,0001. upon their chapels and
schools and had contributed a large sum for missionary and
other purposes, making in all an aggregate of 38,3001. in
ten years and a half. (Hear, hear.) ?dr. Baines had esti-
mated
the sum raised by the dissenting congregations
throughout the country at the low sum of 801. each, and
their number at 14,300, so that the total sum raised by
dissenters of all denominations would amount to no less than
1,147,2001. per annum. (Cheers.) Surely, then, the
members of the Church of England could not, with any
regard to their dignity and self respect, end, let him add,
with any regard to common honesty, allow the dissenters to
contribute to the maintenance of their places of worship u
well as their own. (Cheers) The pew rents would afford
ample means from which to draw those expenses which
were defrayed by that impost. Everywhere in the me-
tropolis, and throughout the great towns, where new
churches had been built large revenues were Used in this
manner for the support of the minister and to defray the
expenses of conducting Divine worship. He believed that
a vast majority of churchmen would infinitely prefer pew
rents to church !gee ; nor need there be any fear lest by
adopting such a contra they would be depriving
the poor from gratuitous seats in places of worship.
He knew no churches where rented pews were reserved
in which a large number of free seats were not also pro-
vided. (Hear, hear.) As for the abolition of pews, be con-
sidered that with the present feelings of the people of Eng-
land that would be impossible. Pews bad become a part
of our manners, cur habits, and customs ; and he did
not believe that churchmen would ever consent to the abo-
lition of the custom of having separate pews. (Hear, bear.)
If a substitute for church rates, then, were necessary,
(which be did not admit), let them look to the pew rents;
but there was another and a more important source of

means even than that, namely, the sepias revenues of the
church. (Cheers.) He implored this government, and
specially :the noble lord the member for London, to
undertake the work of abolishing this odious and
unjust impost ; by doing which they would earn a fresh
title to the respect of the great liberal parts of this country,
and they would establish a lasting claim upon the coati-
deuce of all to whom the principles of religious liberty
were dear. (Loud cheers.) The hon. baronet then moved :
" That this house do resolve itself into a committee to con-
sider whether church rates should not be abolished and
provision made for the charges to which such rates are at
present applicable—from pew rents, and from the increased
value which inquiries instituted by authority of the crown
had shown might be derived, under better management,
from church lands and property."
Mr. PETO seconded the amendment. As a nonconformist
he begged to tender his warmest thanks to the hon. gentle-
men who had moved both amendments as consistent and
liberal members of the churcti of Ragland. (Hear, hear.)
The supporters of every tax must be prepared to show that
it was a good public tax ; but church rates, both in their
origin and their effect, altogether failed to answer that test.
(Hear, hear.) Dr. Lushington bad admitted that the exist-
ence of dissenters bad introduced a completely new element
into the matter, and one which did not exist when the im-
post was established. The only argument in favour of church
rates was that all p. rsons derived good from the beneficial in-
fluence of the ministers of the church. Well, he admitted
that meet cheerfully, but surely churchmen derived as much
advantage from the existence of an equal number of non-
conformist ministers as the dissenters derived from the '
clergymen of the church? (Hear, heat.) If the noble
member for London (Lord J. Russell) who bad
already so distinguished himself in the cause of religious
toleration, would yet further distinguish himself, he might
do it in a manner which would not readily be forgotten, by
reforming the church with no sparing hand, and by em-
, the vest sums thus placed, as it were, at his dis-
Sin the erection of places of worship in those districts
they were not few—which, notwithstanding the
liberality to which he (Mr. Pete) had already referred,
were still almost spiritually destitute. And, before he
quitted the subject, he would remind the homes that there
were in Calcutta fourteen native printing presses, furnish-
ing matter for fourteen millions of people. The prints
which issued from these presses spoke continually of these
charges against the English prelates, and referred to them
as an argument in favour of the supeiiirity of the Hiodoo
religion over Christianity. That these arguments were not
altogether without effect, the following facts would testify.
A sem of 80,0001., and another of 160,0001., had lately been
given for the purpose of erecting pagan temples. In con-
cluding, he would venture to say, that when the die
seaters saw the members of the church take the course
which, in truth, was the only one to preserve it, then they
would be found to have no wish to place the hand of spolia-
tion upon its property. All that they &shod was, to do
their own work their own way, because they thought that
way better than other people's. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. COLLIER was extremely indebted to the hon. and
learned member for Tavist,ck (Mr. Phillimore). His
speech showed that the reforming spirit bad at iength pene-
trated into the regions of Doctor's Commons—a spot long
held sacred from such an intrusion. (" Hear," and a laugh.)
But while thus far he (Mr. Collier) gave the hon. and
learned member his thanks, he was bound to say that
be thought that he (Mr. Phillisnore) did not go
far enough, and that the proposition of the hon. member
for the Tower Hamlets (Sir W. Clay) was more suited to
the case. It had been shown that the revenues of
the established church were more than suMeient for the per-
poise contemplated, and the principle had already been once
alarmed by the house. The amendment would receive hie
support, for, while it relieved all, it did not fail to provide
for the interest and safety of the established church.
Mr. B. BALL did not think that conscientious dissenters
ought W object to the payment of church rates so long as
they wen required to do so by the laws of their country. It
was the first duty of every man to obey those laws
to whit& he himself owed his safety. However,
the preset law upon this subject had undoubtedly failed
in its peeper effect, and it was of the utmost importance to
th i emestey that the subject should be decided. For him-
self be might say that he considered his position by no
MON an seedinari or a pleasant one, and he felt that were
he be ennemie his own convenience he would not have voted
1 ass spoken vipea that occasion. Upon former occasions he
Imil express* *pinions contrary to those of many who had
and him then, and he felt that he might do so now.
NemeWasee he elmsedd not shrink from what he felt to be
his duly.
_Althea& a dissenter he avowed his liking for an
established church; he liked it because he felt that it was
the moms of inducing many to be religious who would
under Mbar eireametasses be far otherwise. The object,
thereto*, shish be imegitt the house should keep in view,
would be, neither to injure the one party nor the other, but
to strengthen both. That object he did not think the mo-
tion of the hon. and learned gentleman opposite (Mr. Phil-
timers) would fulfil. Many a man, caring neither for
church nor dissent, would only consider hie pocket. He
would argue to himself, " Ob, Ball is a dissenter, he saves
201.. by it; I will be a dissenter too." This was not the
spirit which he (Mr. Ball) thought ought to be encouraged.
It was, however, for the hours to decide, and that decision
ought to be arrived at speedily.
Mr. HUME urged the house to follow the same course
they had adopted in the case of the Irish church sea, which,
like the church rate in England, bed been long a source of
religious bitterness and rancour, and which parliament had
at length wisely determined to abolish. He could have
wished his hon. friend (Sir W. Clay) had omitted from his
amendment any reference to pew rents, and had confined it
es the simple proposition that church rates should cease,
leaving the void to be supplied out of the surplus funds
del church in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commis-
dosses. (Hear, hear.) The hon. and learned gentleman
who bought forward the motion said the church must be
E. to make a sacrifice for the sake of peace; but he
r Hams) could not understand, from the hon. and
gentleman's explanation of his own scheme, in what
that sacrifice consisted. (Hear, hear.) Ins own opinion
was that the simple and just way of settling this ques-
tion was, to place the charge of repairing the
eimarch, and providing the articles necessary for the
bond conduct of divine service on the surplus funds of
the church. He should be Wad if his hon. friend would
limit his amendment, as he (Mr. Hume) had suggested ;
, bat if the question should be pressed to a division, he
should vote tor it as it was in preference to the motion of
the hoe. and learned member for Tavistock ; he hoped
however that the noble lord (J. Russell) would render it
unnecessary to divide, by declaring that the government
were prepared to take up the question.
Sir R. INOLIS expressed some disappointment that no
comber of the government had risen to say whether they
preferred the proposition of the hon. and iearned member
who sat immediately behind them, or of their general sup-
porter (Sir W. Clay) ; to him, however, the question,
viewed either in the light of the original proposition or the
amendment, was equally objectionable. The first propo-
sition was, in effect, to destroy absolutely the nationality of
the church, and to reduce it to the position of ono of the
many dissenting sects which were tolerated by thostate. The
dir inction between the established church and those various
sects now was that the former was the church supported bythe
state and upheld by thelaw, and if even as much money were
raised for the maintenance of the fabric by voluntary con-
tributions as was produced by means of the church rates, to
deprive her of the means which that impost gave, would be

to deprive the elmedlli writseharactu as the national church,
and to place her tapes an equality with the dissenting sena.
The object, therefore, of the proposition was to constitute
the church of England a sect depeading for its support upon
the wealth of its individual professors; and to that he oh.
jetted, as be had always objected. (Hear, hear.) The
hon. and learned member for Plymouth had stated that the
tax was unique, inasmuch as it combined every evil 011
every other existing tax. But who felt those evils ? He
defied any boo. member on the treasury bench to produce a
single instance of a tax in favour of which so many pen-
dons bed been presented to the house from those who paid
it. 3,198 petitions had come in from the different parishes
in England, preying that those who now paid this tax
might be permitted to continue to pay it. (" Hear," and a
laugh.) He was justified in saying that the hearts of the
people of England as • body were identified in their
church, and that they were anxious to continue to support
it voluntarily in the way the law now enabled them to do
so, but that they would not be parties to a proposal to re-
duce that church to the level of a dissenting sect. (Heir,
hear.) For fourteen centuries had these funds been de-
voted to the maintenance of the fabric of the church, and
he trusted the house would hesitate long ere it gave its
assent to any proposition for abolishing them. The other
proposition—the amendment of the hon. baronet the mem-
ber for the Tower Hamlets—was • more open and (he
would use no offensive phrase) a more intelligible mode of
getting rid of the Impost, and it differed from the proposal
of his hon. and learned friend in so far that it suggested a
substitute. His objection, however, to both propositions
rested upon the same ground. He maintained that it was
necessary to maintain the impost to preserve the nationality
of the church, and that no substitute—no other mode that
bad been or could be presented to the house, could fulfil
the conditions that were applicable to church rates. It was
a mere quibble to say that church rates was a tax upon
persons; it was in all respects a tax on property. It was
not a tax in respect of the creed or person of the payer,
otherwise paupers would be liable to it, but it was a tax
in respect to the property held. Ile recollected Mr. D. W.
Harvey, in a speech he made on this subject man
years ago, saying that he had been called upon to pay 14
church rates for his house in George-street, and he asked
whether hon. members did not think that if he wanted to
sell his house the purchaser would not inquire about that
141. as well as about what was paid for sewer rates, land
tax, and all the other burdens, and make a deduction in the
purchase money in proper:ion ? This was no doubt true ;
but, on the other hand, did not Mr. Harvey buy his pro-
peny on the tame conditions, and did not he pay so much
km for it in consequence of its being subject to this impost?
I (Hear, hear.) Those who objected to pay church rates
wished to avoid an obligation for which they had received
en equivalent in the price paid for the property which was
liable to the impost ; and, though he had the greatest re-
spect for honest and sincere conscience, of all things com-
mend him not to a conscience that resided in the breeches
pocket. When he first saw the proposition of his hon. and
learned friend, he thought the age of bounties had not alto-
gether passed—and it certainly struck him with astonish-
ment that, in a free-trade parliament, a gentleman should
stand forward seriously to propose a bonus or premium on
dissent. (Hear, hear.) They were told that if they did not
surrender now they would soon hove no time to capitulate
and make terms; but so far back as 1831 he re-
membered Mr. Harvey telling them that church rates
could not possibly last more than a year or two.
TM proposition of his hon. and learned friend was
neither more nor less than to denationalise the church of
England, and render it ono of the religious sects of this
country. The dissenters Eel Raid all along get rid of
church rates, and yon would got rid of the church. He felt
that on every point the house was not called o• to adopt
either of the propositions before it. As to church property.
and any funds in the hands of the Educational Commis-
sioners, that was pledged to the purpose of the spiritual
teaching of the people, and he would not consent to its
misapplication. He should oppose both propositions.
Mr. A. PELLATT assured the hon. member
for Tavistock that he was mistaken if he thought
his proposition would satisfy nonconformists. They
never asked for themselves anything in religious
or civil matters which they did not ask for others. They
thought that to go informs patiperis to the churchwardens
and say that they were dissenters, and ask for exemption
from church rates, was • degradation to which they could
not submit. Besides this, it opened the door to deceit, and
a man, in order to avoid the payment of a church-rate
ought, perhaps, to be a dissenter, and when the
necessity for paying was past, return to the church.
He assured the honourable member for .the University
of Oxford, that noncouformisto repudiated the term tolera-
tion as quite inconsistent with the liberality of the times.
In 1835, Sir Robert Peel observed, that there was not a
single question except that of the Irish church, which so
much pressed for a practical settlement as that of church
rates; and after the lapse of several years since that decla-
ration was made, he (Mr. A. Pellatt) called upon the pre-
sent government to deal with the church revenues as the
only means of providing a complete and final remedy for
the evil. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MIALL said he must confess that he was a little at
fault; for, having prepared Airmen fur an encounter, he
found scarcely anything in the way of argument to oppose.
Previously to coming down to the house he had looked
through a pamphlet published a day or two since by the
noble lord the member for Lynn (Lord Staeley), and he
begged to tender to the noble lord his thanks for the spirit
of justice in which he had striven to deal with the whole
question. (" Hear, hear," from Mr. Bright.) If he did
not concur in the noble lord's solution of the difficulty, he
did not in the slightest degree doubt that he intended to
relieve dissenters from an injustice, and the church from
a reproach. (Hear, hear.) Hitherto, with the exception
of the hon. baronet the member for the University of Ox-
ford (Sir R. Inglis) there had been scarcely any opposition
to the bill ; and the strongest asseveration in support of the
church-rate principle—the principle, that was, of an estab-
lished church—came from the hon. member for Cambridge.
shire (Mr. B. Ball), who was himself a dissenter. (Hear,
hear.) Several hours had been spent that evening iu con-
sidering how the fabrics and the service of a certain church
were to bo maintained. That was no difficulty with the
great body of dissenters, who, as appeared from returns
made in 1851 supported no less than 17,000 buildings for
religious worship. (Hear, hear.) They found uo diffi-
culty in maintaining weir fabrics indict carrying on service ;
and it struck him as odd, not to say condemnatory of the
whole system, that there should be the slightest difficulty
in the minds of hon. members who belonged to the esta-
blished church u to the mode in which this guinea ought
to be dealt with. (Hear, hear, hear.) The honour-
able baronet, the member for Oxford, said that church
rates were • charge upon property, and that property
having been from time immemonal 'seemed, • demand to
have church-rates abolished was equivalent to a demand to
have so much money transferred from the coffers of the
church to the hands of the owners of property. It was
easy to make such an assumption; but was it not
the fact that there were hundreds and thousands
of cases in which property was n assessed to
church-rates until within a very few years ? (Hear, hear.)
It was clear this was • tax on the person and not on pro-
perty, and they might therefore bona fide seek to get rid of
it as soon as possible. There were two modes proposed of
dealing with the question—one by the hon. baronet the
member for the Tower Hamlets, and the other by the hon.
and learned member for Tavistock. Respecting the propo-
sition of the hon. baronet he should, if it were put to the
house, say " aye," though he should say so with more sa-
tisfaction if he had simply proposed to abolish the impost
and had left the maintenance of the church to be upheld
out of the funds which might accrue from the better
management of church property. He did not like the syr
tem of pew rents being recognised by law, and that those
who wished to be exempt from this tax should lend their
strength and influence to impose a tax on churchmen
themselves. Then came the proposition of the hon. and
learned gentleman (Mr. Phillimore). He would not for •
miemmit suggest the slighbet suspicion as to the motives
id& which he had made that proposition, The hon. and
leased gentleman was no doubt more anxious to relieve
Ye sum church than to relieve dissenters from an injustice.
Um hes. and learned gentleman would put the church in
a polliss la which it could manna its own affairs. Ia
ilist di die objects he had in view were highly laudable in
sedgiess point of view, but, he (Mr. Miall) thought, were
deaprous to dissenters in reference to the established
Awe. The hon. and learned member would make the
established church instead of a national institution a religi-
ons association invested with public funds. If that were
the object, at all events it should be well expressed, and not
adopted without full discussion. It appeared to him that
the proposition thoroughly carried out would merely
transfer that which was now a national institution into a
private sect possessed of public funds. Under these cir-
cumstances, and unless he warassured by the promoters of
the bill that such was not their object in any way, and that
the national ecclesiastical affairs would continue to
be as completely under legislative management as they
are at this moment, he could not vete for the bill. But:with
each an assurance as that, and giving to the house dis-
tinctly his own determination not to do that which would
denationalise the present ecclesiastical institutions of the
country until they could separate them entirely from the
state—thas protesting, and taking the statement that the
bill was not intended in the slightest degree to interfere
with the right of parliament to deal with the whole ques-
tion of the ecclesiastical affairs of the country, if they
should fail on the vote of the hon. baronet; then, under
these circumstances, and with the qualifications he had
stated, he should vote for the proposition of the hon. and
learned gentleman.
Mr. WIGRAM said he considered the motion and the
amendment of very great importance indeed, especially
the amendment of the hon. baronet ; because when
he looked at the ground for resisting church rates,
he could not regard these motions, aimed at church
rates, in any other light than • similar attack on tithes.
("Oh ! ") The church rate was a tax on land as much as
tithe was. He did not wish to make any alteration. He objected
to the imposition of pew rents, especially in the rural dis-
tricts, because there the pews could not be let. He thought
therefore there was no ground for the motion. The only
argument he had heard for it was the condition of the great
towns. There was the greatest difficulty in raising a church
rate, hut was that a reason for abrogating church rates ?
What he should propose in reference to this question of
church rates was that • power of commutation should be
given where the property had been improved ; and that
the land) .rd should be the party liable to the rate, which
would to a great extent remove the objection that persons,
not members of the established church, paid the rate, be-
cause the great bulk of the landlords of the country were
members of the neablished church. (Hear, hear.) Dr.
Lushin:ton himself had suggested these practical points
which he thought would place the law in a more satisfac-
tory state than it was now. (" Ilear, hear," and cries of
"Divide."
Sir G. GREY said that he entirely differed from the
boa. and learned member for Tavistock and the hon.
member for Oxford University with regard to the import-

ance of church rates to the established church. (Bear;
hear.) He thought they greatly exaggerated the importl
anus of church rates when they said that they regarded
them as almost vital to its existence. (Hear, hear.) He
thought it was injudicious in any friend of that
church to bind up its existence with the maintenance
of church-rates. (Hear, hear.) He thought that church.
rata stood in a very different relation to the church from
tithes--(hear, hear)—for though church-rates seers
abolished to-morrow, he believed that the church would
remain as firm as it was now, and u he:trusted it ever would
remain, rooted, as he believed it to be, in the hearts of the
great bulk of the people of this country. (Rear, hear.) He
thought that the objections to the proposition of the
boo. and learned member for Tavistock were %loan-
swerable. And it was curious that though they had
been debating this question now for six hours, nu single
member ram to support his proposition. (Rear, hear.) Ha
had read the pamphlet of the noble lord with great interest,
but neither the proposition of the hon. and learned gen-
tleman, nor that contained in the pamphlet of the noble lord
was original, for twelve years ago the hou. member fur Fins-
bury, and in 1849 Mr. Page Wuud, then member for Oxford,
brought for a aril propositions for exempting dissenters from
the payment of church rates, and throwing the whole bur-
den on the member, of the established church. Ile opposed
the proposition on that occasion on the ground that it drew
• line of distinction between the churchman and the dis-
*enter which li-considered to be objectionable; and that
objection was increased now that he heard the details of the
plan of the hon. and learned member for Tavistock. lle
stated then that in the north of England, with which he was
more particularly acquainted, the dissenter and the church.
man, notwithsteuding the difference of the form of their
worship, lived or. teems of good fellowship with each other;
and be was afraid that if a line of distinction was drawn by
registering dissenters who claimed to be exempted from
the payment of church ratio, many persons would
claim to be so exempted. Aud this he firmly
believed would tend to the injury of the church itself', and
would impair that good feeling ant fellowship which pre-
Tailed amongst different denominations of Christians, who,
although they might differ in their formularies, were agreed
on the great leading doctrines of their common Christianity.
(Hear, hear.) He believed that access to the parish church
would become a less desirable object than was now the
case—ho believed that dissenters would not seek it, as of
his own knowledge he knew they constantly sought it now,
and that, having once declared themselves dissenters, they
would not think it right to intrude themselves araciogst the
members of the established church. But if this plan were
screed to, or if the plan of the noble lord were agreed to,
dissenters would thereafter be for ever debarred from any
Of the rights and privileges of the established church.
(Hear.) lie thought that the right to purchase admission
to those rights and privileges by the payment of a miserable
sum of money—for that was what the proposition amounted
to—was a proceeding which the house would not enter-
tain for a moment. (Hear.) It appeared t r him that •
plan which would debar persons who once declared them.
selves dissenters from partaking of the communion in the
parish church, from having their marriages celebrated in
the parish church, and from burial alter death in the
churchyard—though the hon. and learn. d gentleman de-
clared that he had no such intention with respect to the
burials—was open to serious objection—nor did it much im-
prove the matter that they would be permitted to enjoy
their right and privilege, according to the plan of the noble
lord, on the payment of additional fees—to be asked, he
supposed, as compensation for the nun-payment of the
ahurch rates. (Hear, hear.) He could not think with the
boo. member fur Oxford University, that this would be a
measure of occasional conformity, but that it would be a
measure to prevent occasional contormity. (Hear, hear.)
It proceeded on the assumption that the whole population
of the country was to be divided into the members of the
established church and all those who dissented from
it. He thought that would be a great error. Re
believed that many dissenters, so far from regard-
ing the estabished church as an abomination, looked
upon it as a church which had been the means of confer.
ring inestimable blessings on the country. He therefore
thought that any measure which would divide them by a
strongly marked line would be fraught with prejudicial
consequences. (Hear, hear.) Ile agreed with the hon.
and learned gentleman who spoke lasi, that this measure if
carried would not produce peace, quiet, and contentment in
many parts of the country, and particularly in those places
where disputes and contentions took place on the subject of
church rates. This question of church rates had much
changed since the last 20 years. The heats and con-
tentions which then existed to a violent degree
had for the most part passed away, owing, be
believed, in a great degree, to the good sense
of the members of the established church, who, in their de-
sire to promote peace and unity, did not seek to enforce the
church rate ; and the churches were now for the most part
repaired by voluntary contributions. (Cheers.) But if, as
the hon. and learned member proposed, more stringent
means were to be taken to recover:the church rate from the
members of the established church in future, he was afraid
it would lead to a renewal of those scenes to which he hail
referred as having happily passed away. (Hear, hear.)
The hon. and learned gentleman then proposed to leave the
decision of these church rate matters to the ecclesiastical
courts. This he considered would be a most unwise pro-
ceeding, and would lesd us, in the repair of the churches,
to a kind of Churchwarden Gothic in the administration of
the law. (" Hear, hear," and laughter.) With regard,
therefore, to the proposition of the hon. sod learnedmember
for Tavistock he ahonld have no hesitation in voting against
it. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the other proposition,
that of the hon. member for the Tosser Hamlets, he ad-
mitted the full force of his objection ; and if he was pre-
pared with a bill en the subject embody ing his views, he
would vote for it. But if he were asked to vote fur a mere
abstract resolution he would not vote fit a proposition of
that kind, which was to lead to no practical consequences.
(Hear, bear.)
Lord J. HUSSEI.L.—I cannot say that there is any-
thing very satisfactory in the propositions made to the
house, or in the debate, in which they have bees discussed.
The house must feel that the subject is a most important
one, and therefore its decision ought to be deliberately
made. I agree with my right hon. friend in the opinion
that a church establishment may well exist without church
rates, as we see that it does in Ireland. At the same time we,
looking at this as a practical question, must consider in the
first piece that this church rate amounts is a considerable
sum. Those who have put it least, put it down at 300,0001.
And in the next place we must bear in mind that this 61101
of 300,0001. is in many parte of the cow-dry raised without
any opposition, that in many parishes there is no opposition
whatever to the payment of this money, and that the sum
so raised is applied to the keeping in repair and maintaining
those ancient edifices which have belonged to the worship
of the country from the first introduction of Christianity.
(Cheers.) To part with that sum of money, therefore,
bemeases a serious question. (Cheers.) But then, likewise,
swie ought not to omit from our consideration that though a
shuck establishment may exist and flourish without a
church rate, the ground of objection to a church rate is
not so mach that it is a peculiarly vexatious burden, but
that it forms • fund for the repair of churches. The hon.
member for Southwark stated before the committee in
1851 that the principle on which dissenters objected
to church rates was an objection to the union
of church and state, so that the objection was one
of a civil as well as a religious character.
Now, that is an objection not against this particular rate or
tax, but against this rata as forming pert of the fund with
which the church is endowed and established, and which,
as bring established, is considered to place dissenters in a
position of inferiority. (User, hear.) I am not going to
argue the questions of church establishmente and of the
voluntary principle. They are very great and important
principles, no doubt ; but at this hour of the night I am
not going to debate them now. What I wish the house not
to lose sight of is that this is not a separate tax that is con-
sidered odious and oppressive, but ig Ul a part of • system
which is looked on in that light; and if you were to remove
this objectionable impost you would only open the ground
for some fresh attack upon some other part of the church
establishment. (Hear, hear.) Well, it may be wise policy
or it may not to abandon these church rates; but,
generally speaking, a general who has to defend a
fortress does not say, "I will abandon the out-
works and then the citadel will be safe." (Hear, hear.)
With respect to the propositions which have been laid be-
fore the house by the two hon. gentlemen, I must say that
I was more struck with the force with which each attacked
the proposition of the other than the skill with which he
defended his own. (A laugh.) The hon. member for
Tavistoek said with respect to the proposal of my hon.
friend the member for the Tower Hamlets, object to
pew rents being universally established ; for to make the
poor pay for admission into our country churches, or to ex-
clude them from those churches, would be a very great
hardship. (Cheers.) It would likewise be inconsistent
with the principles and would prove injurious to the well-
being of our church. That is one strong objection to the
hon. baronet's proposition, and I object to his other propo-
sition because I think there is not much need of additional
meant of religious worship and instruction, and that
whatever funds can be raised or added to the
value of church property ought to be applied
to the relief of that spiritual destitution." Now
I think all we have heard very much confirms
the objection of the hon. and learned member, and I can-
not but feel that it strengthens me very much in my own
opinion against the proposal of the hon. baronet. But
then comes my hen. friend to deal with the proposal of the
hon. member for Tavistock. Re says that it will be a very
great evil to separate the whole community into two bodies
of churchmen and dissenters, and that a person who is
once registered as a dissenter will probably become more
hostile than if you leave him in his present state, in which,
although frequenting a dissenting chapel, he may occasion-
ally attend the services of the church. Well, I think that
in that argument the hon. member for the Tower Ham-
lets had the best of the dispute—(hear, hear)—and that, as
the hon. member for Tavistock had almost demolished the
proposition of the bon. baronet, so the hon. baronet, on his
part, bad fired his battery with such effect that the wall of
hie opponent was exceedingly damaged. (Laughter.) The
proposition of the hen. and learned memoer has been con-
sidered on several former eccasions. It was
objected to in 1519 by my r ght hon. friend, and by Sir
R. Peel, who also pointed out the disadvantage
of formally, and by act of parliament, separating church-
men from dissenters. It was also objected to by myself,
who took a very brief part in that debate; and it seems to
me that if carried into effect, it would no: only plate persons
in a state of hostility to the church which they do not now
occupy, but it would also act as a penalty upon churchmen.
(Rear, hear.) Because, although the noble lord the mem-
ber for Lynn in his pamphlet says, that while there may be
about fe'd,oool. a year collected as church rates, only
60,0001. are paid by dissenters. no one can say what will be
the offset if this bill should pats into law. (Hear, bear.)
Tnere is many a man who belongs to the church generally
whose affection for it is not so great that he would continue
to do so if he could procure exemption from church rates