The Sun.
London, England, 1837-03-16 00:00:00

Now, with regard to the security of Church property ; but
indeed it is only a waste of time to speak of that. In Ireland,
it was well know the Bishops' leases were in a lamentable
state, and the land was so ill cultivated, that it was easily dis-
tinguished from land belonging to laymen, and there was an
absolute necessity for some change. The security was con-
sidered so bad, that little money was expended in improving
the property. But is that the case in England ? Do the
lessees hero consider the possession so insecure that they
could not risk laying out money in improving the land ?
( Hear.) Why, the Attorney-General told us that the pos-
session was considered insecure, and if he staked his reputa-
tion as a statesman on that point, as he had staked his reputa-
tion as a lawyer on the question as to the power of the
vestry to levy rates, I am inclined to think not much weight
will be attached to it. The Attorney-General said the inse-
curity of Church property was such, that trees were not plant-
ed on it, and that the British oak wes too noble a tree to flour-
ish on a servile soil..—( Hear, hear, hear.) I admit that in
some instances that may be the case ; but I apprehend
that in most cases the security is considered so good,
and that it is so intermixed with fee-simple property, that
the tenant hardly knew the different limits.—(oh, oh I ) The
Hon. and Learned Member for Kilkenny dissents from this.
Mr. O'CONNELL—I have not said one word.

Lord STA NL E Y—l beg the Hon. and Learned Member's
pardon ; but I see so imperfectly across the House that I trust
that badness of sight will be admitted as an excuse for the
error.—( Hear, hear.) I now come to the last point, and that
is the most important point, the application of the surplus, if
surplus there should be. The great question was whether
the Church ought to be maintained out of the general funds
belonging to the State. One Hon. Gentleman on that side of
the House said no doubt it ought to be maintained out of the
general funds, if funds could be found to answer the purpose,
but he objects to have it maintained out of the Consolidated
Fund, on account of the conscientious scruples of the Dis-
Senters. Will the Government agree to that? They say,
" We will not take money out of the Consolidated Fund,"
and turn round and say, " Why not take money from
Church-lands for ecclesiastical purposes ?"—( Hear, hear.)
Why, that reminds me of an American story. A person,
according to that story, went into a shop to purchase
biscuits, and after getting the biscuits without paying for
them, he asked for something to drink to the amount of
three cents. On being asked for the money he said he had
not three cents, but he would rive the biscuits in payment,
and he thought good payment, because he had not eaten them.
—( A laugh.) That was exactly the argument of those who
advocated the present measure. My Noble Friend (Lord
John Russell) admitted that it was the duty of- the State to
maintain the Established Church; and the Hon. Member for
Weymouth pointed out in strong terms the necessity of sup-
plying religious instruction to the people. Now, is there
any man who will say that there are adequate funds to be de-
rived from Church revenues for such a purpose ? What was
the Church accommodation, an lion. Member had asked the
other night, in the neighbourhood of St. Paul's ? What was
it in other places? 1 will not speak of Manchester, because
my Right Hon. Friend had defended that town, and described

it as containing the most moral population in existence—(A
laugh); but, putting Manchester aside, I know large districts
where there is not Church accommodation for one in twenty-
three of the inhabitants, and that was particularly the case
in manufacturing districts, where sometimes additional
hands to the number of 80,000 were required in a town
whose population amounted to between 200,000 and 300,000
And here I must say that my Noble Friend last night in dis-
cussing the plan adopted a course which I think showed any-
thirtg but decorum ►n a Minister of the Crown towards the
heads of the Church associated with him in the Commission.

--(Hear, hear.) He reprobated the dignitaries of that body
because they did not concur with him in reducing the incomes
of the Bishops to the level which my Noble Friend wished.
What did my Noble Friend mean by all the allusions to

15,0001. a year, and 10,0001. a year, as large sums for the pay-
ment of ti.e Hierarchy? What else did he mean than to point
out that these were funds on which he had his eye, and which
he would lay hold of the first opportunity, and that he could
not sanction the application of any of the general revenues of
the country till these incomes were reduced ?—( Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Member for St. Andrew's proposed an amend-
ment to the effect that it would be expedient to apply any
surplus of Church property to spiritual purposes. And I
thought I understood the Hon. Member for Weymouth to
say, that if such a Resolution as that proposed by the
Hon. Member for St. Andrew's were acquiesced in by this
side of the House he would support it, rather than the
ResAutions proposed by the Right Honourable the Chan-.
cellar of the Exchequer. Sir, I speak only for myself. I
am not prepared to affirm all the propositions contained in the
resolution of the Hon. Member for St. Andrew's. lam not
prepared to affirm that there is the surplus revenue which that
resolution declares there is ; but if there be that revenue, I
am quite prepared to say that there is no object to which I
would sooner apply that revenue than to the purpose intended
by the Hon. Member for St. Andrew's ; and that if it be pos-
sible to frame his resolution so as not absolutely to affirm the
existence of that which we are not prepared to affirm—at least
which lam not prepared to affirm—l am prepared to affirm,
that if that revenue can be obtained it should be so applied.—
( Hear, hear, hear.) Let me guard Hon. Gentlemen who are
friends of the Church from being wheedled by the proposers
and supporters of the Resolution under our consideration, until
the match is applied to the National Establishment. I warn
them not to vote fur a principle which they must feel to be in the
highest degree objectionable, in the hope that by subsequent ne-
gotiation they may obtain an advantage in their individual cases.
The measure is an unjust measure. I deprecate the attention
of parties to their own individual interests. I entreat them to
look at the general interest. If the friends of the Church
Establishment think that that Establishment is in danger—
if they believe that the fabrics of the Church arc exposed to
the risk of falling to ruin without any means of repair—if they
sec the probability of an attempt to introduce the voluntary
principle—if they are satisfied that the course adopted by his
Majesty's Ministers will lead to the infliction of these and
other evils on the community, I call upon them, as I called
upon the lessees of Church property, not to look at individual
interests, but to combine their efforts for tile purpose of pre-
venting the separate injustice with which all parties are
threatened.—( Hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said—l
should be most unwilling, after the speech of my Noble Friend,
if the House were to go to a division on the question, without
an attempt on my part to remove some of the misrepresenta-
tions into which my Noble Friend has been betrayed. My
Noble Friend has stated that he considers this to be the last
opportunity that will be afforded to the friends of the Church
to defend the Establishment. My Noble Friend will at least
recollect, that if in his judgment this is the last opportunity
that will be afforded to the friends of the Church to defend

the Establishment, it is not the first time that such an appeal
has been made.—( Hear, hear.) It was made on the repeal
of the Test and Corporation Acts, which were characterised
as the bulwarks of the Church. It was made in the various
discussions on the emancipation of the Catholics. It was
made during the debates on the Reform Bill. It was made
when my Noble Friend's own measure, the Irish Church Tem-
poralities Bill, was brought forward.—( Hear, hear.) To-
wards the close of his speech my Noble Friend adverted to the
principles on which he founded his argument, that the Church
is in danger from my resolution. My Noble Friend said (and
if he could make out his proposition he would be justified in
his opposition to my resolution), that the Establishment was
threatened, that the Churches were to be allowed to fall into
ruin, and that the voluntary principle would be affirmed.
Those were my Noble Friend's three propositions. I appeal to
the House whether they are not all negatived by the very terms
of my resolution ? flow can my Noble Friend contend that
it menaces the Church Establishment, when the first half
of it is deVoted to affirming the power and stability of the
Church Establishment ?—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") Again,
how can my Noble Friend contend that it is intended to allow

the churches to fall into ruin, when the resolution substitutes
for their maintenance and repair a certain and permanent
charge for a charge which, I shall presently show, is uncer-
tain, doubtful, inapplicable, and in every way inferior?—
( Hear, hear.) How, I again ask, can my Noble Friend con-
tend that the voluntary principle is about to be introduced ?
If so, then the resolution would be that Church-rates should
be abolished.—( Hear, hear.) But, Sir, what becomes of my
Noble Friend's argument if the three propositions on which he
founded that argument are thus shown to be utterly ground-
less ?—( Hear, hear.) What becomes of my Noble Friend's
appeal to the friends of the Church ? But, Sir, this appeal

already been made to the country ; and has been the
cause of the numerous petitions which have been presented
against the measure. It was made before the nature of the
plan was known. Before the nature of the plan was known,
meetings for the purpose of opposing it were called by the
Archdeacons all over the country.—( Hear.) At those meetings
resolutions were passed, founded on the unjust assumption that
it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to abolish
the Church-rates without providing any substitute for
them.—( Hear.) I will not say a word against the petitions
which we have received on the subject. Founded as they are
on mistaken views of our intentions, I heartily rejoice at their
prayer—a prayer against a proposition which has no existence.
The system of Church-rates cannot be defended within the
walls of Parliament. In the early part of his speech my Noble
Friend imputed to us that we had, during the last two years,
been creating a delusion on the subject. What delusion
did we hold forth to the Dissenters? Did we not tell them that
we could not adopt their principle in the repeal of the. Church-
rates? Did we not hazard losing the support of that powerful
body by the declaration ?_( Hear.) If we arc charged with cre-
ating delusions on this subject, we may defend ourselves by an-
swering that similar imputations may be thrown on the con-
duct of the Gentlemen opposite. If we are stigmatised with
having held out fallacious expectations respecting the Church-
rates, let me ask if the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for
Tamworth did not, in the speech he advised to be made from
the Throne, and in his own speech, in 1835, hold out expec-
tations to the Dissenters of relief from the grievances of which
they complained? If the Right Hon. Gentleman was justified
in holding out such expectations, were not we ?—( Hear.)
In 1835 relief from the burden of Church-rates was held out
by the Gentlemen opposite as a measure of relief to agricul-
ture. It was not spoken of as a measure of relief to the Dis-
senters, but wholly as a measure of relief to the agricultu-
rists.—( Hear, hear.) I know perfectly well that the Right
Hon. Baronet is not responsible for the speech of the Noble
Lord the Member for Liverpool. But in the Right Ho-
nourable Baronet's reply, in 1835, I find the following
passage :—" It is well known that I supported the measure
brought in by the late Government for the transfer of the
Church-rates to the public revenue. 'That measure has met
with great opposition from the Dissenters. I, for one, cannot
agree to the extinction of Church-rates. I think that there
is an obligation on the State to provide for the repair of
churches." So do I. " But I also think that the charge
of providing for that repair bears very unfairly on the land,
and that subject is one which I had in view when, in the
' King's Speech, reference was made t 9 a method.of mitigat-