The Sun.
London, England, 1837-03-15 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, .1r137.

was a surplus, it cught to be applicable to the pu•poses of spi-
ritual instruction.
Mr. CAYL EY, though concurring in the propriety of re-
lieving the Dissenters from the burdens of Church-rate, he must
oppose the Resolution before the House. That Resolution in-
volved three principles. The last of these principles was one of
extortion from the lessees. The Attorney-General had said
that no complaints had been made by the lessees. How could
they complain before they knew the nature of the measure?
The Right Hon. Gentleman who introduced the scheme had
looked with one eye to the Dissenters, but he forgot the lessees
altogether. He (Mr. Spring Rice) had funds in his hands to
save the pockets of the Dissenters, but those funds were taken
out of the pockets of the lessees. He (Mr. Cayley) had no
confidence in the figures of the Right lion. Gentleman. He
was not himself a lessee to the extent of one shilling. He
held no Church lands whatever. He was solely guided in the
vote he intended to give by his views of the justice of the case.
The Hon. Gentleman then went into various statements to
show that the calculations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
were erroneous ; and proceeded to contend that the lessees, so
far from gaining, would be losers to zt very great extent by the
proposed scheme. It had been asked by the Hon. and Learned
Member for Exeter, whether this was to be a compulsory mea-
sure. If it were not injurious to the lessee there would be no
necessity for making it compulsory. The lion. Member here
read a passage from the Report of the Real Property Commis-
sioners, illustrative of the rights of Church lessees. He asked,
whether it was likely that Resolutions such as these could pass?
If Ministers possessed the power once poisessed by Mr. Pitt,they
could not effect the passing of these Resolutions hi their present
shape. He did not think the Dissenters would receive the boon on
those conditions. He did not think that those high-minded men
who would not submit to injustice themselves, will acquiesce
in its infliction on others. However, I shall vote for the Re-
solutions in their present stage.—(Laughter and ironical
cheers from the Opposition.) As to the second principle, if
some plan could be devised of so arranging between leasehold
and freehold property in the Church lands as to inflict no posi-
tive injustice on any party, he would willingly vote for that.
Therefore, while he approved of part of the plan of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, he would take another opportunity of
protesting against the principle embodied in the remaining Re-
solutions.

Mr. BENETT said that the subject was one of vital im-
portance, not only to the Church but to the country. He
yielded to no Gentleman in that House in a desire to uphold
the Church, or to secure an efficient provision fur the mainte-
nance and repair of its edifices, but he did not think the Reso-

lutions mow before the House likely to mar that, their com-
mon object. After the discussion in this House—after the

feeling excited on this subject through the country, it is evi-
dent that the collection of the rate will now be far more diffi-
cult than before. The Honourable Member for Exeter, though
he had displayed much eloquence, had certainly brought for-
' ward very little new on this subject. It was stated that there
were in this country two millions of persons in vain thirs-
ting for spiritual accommodation, and who had a prior
claim on any increase of the value of Church property that
might be effected. But might we not point to other means
of supplying this deficiency ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) For in-
stance might we not look for that purpose to the tenths and
first fruits, which by a new valuation would be considerably
raised in va7ue. He was of opinion that the plan now pro-
posed would confer the greatest possible good on the Church
of this country.
Mr. PEMBERTON could not agree with the Hon. Mem-
ber for Wiltshire. He was of opinion that the Dissenters
were liable to the payment of Church-rates by a stronger claim
than that of custom. The Hon. Gentleman opposite had
stated, that there was no legal right to Church-rates ; and he
stated his legal reputation on the fact. Now he would
oppose an authority to that opinion from the other side of
the House, from a high judicial character, the Hon. Mem-
ber for the Tower Hamlet s— (Hear, hear) when the
lion. Member was speaking coolly and deliberately in his
character as a judge. This is no House of Commons
opinion. It was given at a time when he bad no possible
motive to state the law incorrectly but every possible mo-
tive to state it without prejudice or bias.—[The Hon.
Member here read an extract from a charge given b 3
the Honourable Member for the Tower Hamlets, which
contained the admission that Church-rates had been
an immemorial charge on the land and, as we understood,
had acquired a sort of prescriptive legality, and that he saw
nothing in the case before him to afford grounds for the ex-
emption of the land from the charge.] Here the lion. Mem-
ber admitted the moral obligation of paying the Church-rates.
Ile (Mr. Pemberton) contended that the arguments urged
against the Church-rates were equally applicable against
Tithes. As for the plan introduced by Lord Althorp in i
1834, he bad never yet heard, until the Right Hon. Gentle-

mon opposite rose, that plan designated the ‘• thiniblerigging"
one.—(Cheers.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman held a
situation under Government at that time, and it is wonderful
that no conscientious scruple induced him to exclaim against
the proposed measure at that time.
Dr. LUSHINGTON—I had not a scat in the House of
Commons at the time.
Mr. PEMBERTON—Then we are to attribute the Hon.

Gentleman's silence to the unfortunate circumstance of his
failure at Dudley.—(Laughter.) The Hon. and Learned

Gentleman proceeded to state that though the arguments of
the supporters of the present measure were valid, still it
was liable to the same objections as a charge on the Conso-
lidated Fund. For his own part, with respect to the amount,
250,0001., it appeared a strange sort of thing to him (Mr.
Pemberton) if it could be conjured into the pockets of one
party without being conjured out of the pockets of another,
without, indeed, the conjuring party receiving part of the
advantage.—( Hear, hear.) Church-rates had been sanc-
tioned and acknowledged through 300 successive years.
Would Ministers now tell the House that there was a flaw
in the title conveying Church-rates, and strike out that title ?
There was a point which had been lost sight of by the
Speakers in favour of the present measure, and which was
identified with the alleged precedent of 1794) he alluded to
the caution then used in reference to the rights of property
which were taken into account.—( Hear.) Here buildings
may be raised, mines sunk, but no attention was paid to the
claims and interests of the parties so acting. No, only the
rent charge was looked to.—( Hear.) Look to the Irish
Church Temporalities Bill—did the Legislature, with res-
pect to it, prevent the Bishops from renewing a single lease ?
No, the Act was founded on the recognition of that very prin.
ciple.—( Hear.) The Commissioners under that measure
ware compelled to renew every lease.—( Hear.) But that
was now declared illegal. He believed that. the Church of

England was daily and hourly growing more identifi.Al
the feelings of the great bulk of the people of England, and
still more was their attachment strengthened to the paths pro-
mulgated by it.—(Hear.) Now was the time for the friends
of the Church Establishment to stand forth; let them assert
their rights, and they will prevail; if they now surrender, they
do so for ever.—( Hear.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose and said—.lt has been said,
and said upon high authority, and urged, as I shall presently
show, by the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir Robert Peel) him-
self, that this is a question which demands the interposition of
the Legislature.—( Cheers.) It is said by those who advo-
cate the cause of the Church, that the law in its present state
is unsatisfactory, and that unless the law is made more capable
of execution, we shall soon see a number of the churches fall-
ing into ruins. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman who has

jest sat down, among others, has objectelioChtirch:rates,
and has said that he does not wish to retain them ; and yet
when we propose, on our part, merely to agree to a resolution
which shall enable us to place a plan before the House in the
shape of a Bill, the Right lion. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel)
and those who support him say, " We allow there are ob-
jections to Church-rates; we allow the vexation they cause;
we allow the heart-burnings ; we allow the inefficiency ;
we do not deny any one of these things ; we only say
that we will not permit you to bring a Bill into this
House in order to enable you to explain your plaa to the
House."—( Loud cheers, and cries of " Oh, oh.") The resolu-
tion proposed will lead to this step ; we only ask the House
to bring in a Bill founded upon that resolution. The Bill of
course will be regularly printed ; it will wait for some time ;
it will be the subject of further discussion ; and it may con-
tain many of those provisions which the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman says will be absolutely necessary, and of which he
has chosen to suppose the absence ; and because be has not
seen the Bill, he will not allow us to bring it in, but supposes
it will contain all the defects which he chooses to inngine.—
( Cheers.) But upon the other point Hoa. Gentlemen op-
posite leave us equally in doubt. This Bill proposes to give
a substitute for Church-rates, and we were told yesterday by
a Right lion. Gentleman that if any fund can be obtained for
this purpose, there in e millions in want of spiritud instruc-
tion, and that to provide this spiritual instruction those funds
ought t., be devoted. But what say the Hon. and Ldarned
Members for Exeter and Ripon ? They say that we ought
not to change the tenure ; and that it would be spoliation.
not indeed of the Church, but of the lessees, and that it would
be better to allow things to remain as they are. But we
have a right to ask to be enlightened on some of these
points.—(Cheers.) If you say that the present state of
Church-rates is unsatisfactory, will you allow us to propose
a substitute ? If you like not this plan With res;)cct to
Church-rates, either say that you will devote the surplus
fund to the supply of instruction to the people, or that )du
will leave the lessees on their present footing. Are we to
have no answer on these points, but merely general objec-
tions upon every possible ground, and a general negative of
the resolution, leaving the whole subject as unsettle] as it is
now, and with every danger of its remaining unsettl ? The
Right Honourable f3aronet (Sir R. l'eel) was some time ago,
in the year 1835, so anxious on this point, that when we
brought in the Bill for the Regulation of Municipal Corpora-
tions, he stated " that the subject of Church-rates did not
yield to any other in emergency—that it was as far as any
question important in the maintenance of social harmony_
that there was not a single question except that of the Irish
Church, that pressed for such immediate practical settlement
as the question. of Church-rates."—( Loud cheers.) But the
Right Honourable Baronet stated further, "that in considera-
tion of the interests of the Church, for the satisfaction of a
large body of the public, for the promotion of subordination
and obedience to the law, the
Government ought not to suffer
the law respecting Church-rates to be made the theme of discus-
sion at public meetings, and the subject of angry comment
from parochial martyrs for another twelve months." We have
it curred the censure of the Right Honourable Baronet, not
only for twelve mouths, but for, as I admit, two years that we
have allowed this stute of things to go on; and parochial mar-
tyrs to be sacrificed. But when now, at length, we bring in a
plan, what is the result ? The Right Honourable Baronet (Sir
R. Peel) does not tell the House that our scheme is in-

judicious: and that he has another to propose, buihe—th;o;s
out certain suggestions as to the separation of Dissenters and
Church:nen ; and he is willing to make this distinction, that
Dissenters in towns should not be obliged to pay, but that
Dissenters in the Country should be obliged to pay Church-
rttes ; in other wyrds; tip% the landed interest should be still

burdened with the payment of Church-rates, but that the
towns should be relieved. This was the suggestion of the
Right Hon. Baronet. But it may be collected easily from
these expressions that the object is to leave the question in
such a state that we shall not be able to bring in this Bill or
any other, and that the question shall be left for future agita-
tion and discontent. Before I proceed to other parts of the
question on which the Right Hon. Baronet addressed the
Committee on a former evening, I must allude to one point on
which the Right Hon. Baronet did me the honour to quote,
among others, what I said in this House. The Right Hon.
Baronet introduced it in that part of his argument in which
he endeavoured to show that this plan is contrary to the prin-
ciples of sound policy and justice. If the Right Honourable
Baronet has shown that this plan is contrary to the princi-
ples of justice and sound peliey—if it can be shown that it is
inconsistent, as the Honourable and Learned Gentleman has
said, with the nature of a Church Establishment, of course
I must admit that the plan is not fit to be adopted by this
house, and that all matters of calculation of profit and advan-
tage must sink at once before this paramount objection. But
in quoting what I said in this House—and I have no doubt but
that the Right Hon. Baronet has quoted fairly what was re-
ported—be hardly gave that sense to what I said, which, on
some reflection, lam sure he will be induced to give. The
Right lion. Baronet supposed me to have laid down this pro-
position—" That it is absolutely essential to a Church Esta-
blishment that the repairs of the Church shall be defrayed
either out of the general taxes, or by seine special tax levied
on the public for that purpose." That proposition, in the first
olace, is contrary to what I have myself supported respecting
Ireland. It is contrary to the declarations of my Noble Friend
on the opposite bench (Lord Stanley). But not only is it
contrary to his declarations, but it is contrary to the declara-
tions of the Right Hon. Gentlemen the Members for the Uni-
versities of Cambridge and Dublin. The Right Hon. Gen-
tleman the Member for the University of Dublin had main-
tained with us the principle of this Bill with respect to Ire-
land. We have been reminded to-night of the united Church
of England and Ireland, because it suits the purposes of the
night. That Right Hon. Gentleman admitted that, on the
part of the United Church, it was fit that Church-cess should

be altogether abolished ; and the Right lion. Gentleman also
said that there was this difference between Church-cess and
Tithes, that the Tithes depended on the Statutes, and the
Church-cess might be refused by the victims. Now, I cannot
be supposed with respect to a Church Establishment to go
the length of the Right lion. Gentleman and the others on
his side of the House; but I must ask, does it stand to reason,
or can any one presume, that if the Church had three, or
four, or five millions, in addition to its present endowment,
that still it would be necessary, for the purpose of a Church
Establishment, that there should be a special tax to meet the
expenses of the repairs of the fabric of the Church ? This
was the meaning which lion. Gentlemen opposite attempted
to fix on what I had said. lam ready, however, to declare
the full extent of what I really did say. What I intended to
say was this, that " it was the duty tsi the State, in maintain-
ing a Church Establishment, to provide for the repairs of
that Church." And I said, moreover, with respect to the
Established Church of Erigland, " that if Church-rates were to
be abolished, and the repairs of the Church were to be pro-
vided for out of the public funds, I did not think that these
funds could be provided out of the revenues of the
Church." This was my o”inion on the subject, it was

my opinion respecting a question of fact, and I urged it in
opposition to what was continually pressed upon me by man✓
Dissenters in this House, and when the Hon. Member for
Middlesex (Mr. Hume) stated that the revenues of the Deans
and Chapters were sufficient to provide a substitute for
Church-rates. I said, in opposition to that proposition, that
I thought that those revcnus were not sufficient. But I added

that any surplus that might be obtained by diminishing the
expenses of Bishops, Deans, and Chapters should be and
might properly be applied to the increase of small livings and
the augmentation of spiritual instruction, and that I thought
there would not he a sufficient surplus as a substitute for
Church-rates. But is there anything to prevent me changing
my opinion if I find that greater sums can be obtained from
an improved mode of collecting the property of the Church
--when I find that there is sufficient for all the objects of the
Church, giving to the Church that revenue which is neces-
sary for its Bishops, giving that revenue which is .necessary
for Deans and Chapters, and giving three millions to the paro-
chial clergy—when I find, upon further and more correct in-
quiry, that this is the case, is there any thing inconsistent in
my changing my opinion ?—( Cheets from the Ministerial side
of the [louse.) Now I have begun on this part of the subject, I
will argue a little further as to what the Church Commissioners
propose with respect to that surplus of 130,0001. What I say
is this ; the surplus obtained, supposieg it to be obtained, from
this revenue of Church lands is to secure peace and harmony in
the country by the abolition of Church-rates. The Commis-
sioners say that this sum of 130,0001. a year may be given to
the promotion of religious instruction in the country. But it
"was argued by the lion. Member for Weymouth (Mr. F
Buxton), who spoke last night, that there were matters of
more pressing urgency which demanded a greater supply from
the funds of the Church. The Commissioners say we think
that the sums we propose coull be given to the maintenance of
these sees ; and they recommend that not less than 15,000/. a
year should be given to the Archbishop of Canterbury, that
not less than 10,000/. a year should be given to the Bishop of
London, and they think that these sums should be given for
tile sake of supporting the dignity of the Church and for the
maintenance of the Hierarchy. They would reserve no greater
surplus to supply the spiritual demands of the people. The.
Commissioners calculate the probable extent of the fund appli-
cable to the purpose of increasing the provision for the
parochial clergy at not less than 30,000/. ; and they say
Tile alterations which we have proposed, with respect
both to the arrangement of dioceses and the constitution of
Deans and Chapters, appear to us to render it expedient that
a change should be made in the exercise of the patronage
which is now vested in the last-mentioned bodies. We recorn-

mend that such regulations should be adopted as may leave it
in the power of Deans and Chapters, under certain restric-
tions, to give preferment to the members of their own body,
and to the Minor Canons, who may reasonably look to them
for reward after a certain period of service; and that where
a presentation to any benefice in their gift is not required
for these purposes, it should pass, in some cases, to the
Crown, and in others to the Bishop of the diocese, in which
either the cathedral or the benefice may be respectively si-
tuate." I think, Sir, I have shown that with respect to the
matter of the spiritual demands of what I am told are two
millions of the people, though the Church Commissioners
thought it right to provide for that, yet, in the first place, they.
did not think it right to trench on what was due to the dignity
of the hierarchy of this country ; and in the second place, they
did not think it right to treuch on what was due to the patron-
age of the Crown and of the Bishops and the expectations
of the clergy. Why, if this was the opinion of the Church
Commissioners, and I humbly bowed to their opinion--
Cheers)—if it was their opinion that the demands for spi-
ritual instruction were great, but great as they were they
should be postponed for the sake of providing what might
be considered:a munificent income for the llierarchy—( Cheers)
if the Church Commissioners say this, is it not to be per-
mitted to us, simple as we arc—(A laugh)—while we admit
that the spiritual demands for the instruction of these unin-
structed millions are great, also to feel that the demands which
are made on us for the establishment of religious peace arc of
a most urgent description, and that we are as fully entitled to
provide for that object as the Church Commissioners were en-

titled to provide for the dignity of the hierarchy and the pa-
tronage of the clergy ? But I venture to say with regard to
the justice of the principle, we have left, and propose to leave,
everything that is thought necessary to be provided for the im-
mediate wants of the Church: we have left about three mil-

lions and a half of the revenues of the Church to be disposed
of in the manner, as to income, which the heads of the Church
thought necessary. But if a new income is to be provided arc
_we not to avail ourselves of dist new income to provide against
that which proclaims itself aloud as aigrievance to the State,
whether or not it be a grievance to the Dissenters? • Having
spoken of this preliminary objection on a point of principle, I
Kill now speak of the entire of the plan, as I think it will
affect the various interests of the Church; and fearful as I
am of detaining and fatiguing the House, I must beg to be
allowed to advert to the general principle on which I consider
the proposed Bill to have been framed. In a country like this,
where there is an Established Church, but where there is
likewise established, as was very properly said by Lord Mans-
ti tld, freedom for the Dissenter," it i;right, in my opinion,
in the first place, to take care that the revenues of the Church
should be kept as clear as possible from bringing the clergy
into collision and quarrel with those who have to make the
payments ; and with respect to the Dissenter, it was right to
give him every opportunity of carrying on his religious wor-
ship without being excited to hostile feelings against the Es-
tablishment. I say that the furtherance of those principles is
essential fur the interests of the Church and these of the Dis-
senter alike. These are principles which tend to make the
Church secure, and tend to make the Dissenter free : these
are principles which tend to make bofh the Church and
the Dissenter unite in- the promotion of the Christian
and not interrupt their labours in this regard by
unseemly quarrels and disturbances. Now, my Honourable
Friend the Member for Oxford will tell me whether (I
don't expect him to agree to the plan I propose)—but he
will tell me whether there is anything wrong, or destruc-
tive, or hostile to religion, in entertaining such a project.
With these objects in view, it was our care last year
to endeavour to make such a settlement of tithes as would
leave the clergyman no longer to dispute his income with the
farmers or occupiers, but it would give him the opportunity of
settling fairly with the occupiers of land. With the same
view an attempt was made to allow the Dissenter to register.
the birth of his child, or to perform the marriage ceremony in
his own chapel, without being compelled to have recourse to
the Church. Those Bills were both in furtherance of this
object ; and in furtherance of the same object is the measure
we now propose, which, by providing for the repair of the
Churches in a different manner, will prevent those assemblies
and vestries throughout the country where the Dissenter attacks
the Church. where the Dissenter is supported by the Church-
man who wishes to save his money, and where, in the first
place, angry feelings are excited, and, in the second place,
the Church is too frequently left without the means of repair.
Let it not be said that this is only the case in those town-
parishes in which great contests have arisen. I find in a
pamphlet which maintains a principle very different from
that of this Bill, which maintains that the law ought to be
streagthene3, this statement made by an Archdeacon fully
qualified to speak to that point.—( Hear.) (The Noble Lord
here read a passage from the pamphlet, which de
scribed the difficulties experienced in certain ru-
ral districts in attempts to get vestries to make Church-
rates.) To the same effect I have a letter, in which the
writer states, that though persons in the country are ready to
sign petitions against the abolition of Church-rates, yet the
Churches are in so bad a state of repair that the gentry In the
neighbourhood dread having to visit them in the winter season.
bow come !go that portion of the speech pf the Right Ann,