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

nate them by name, as that might appear to be invidious ;
but these would .be amply sufficient to show the manner
in which first fruits and tenths were administered at pre-
sent. The livings he would designate by numbers one,
two, three, four, and five. Number one was of the actual value
of 1,0701. a-year, as returned to the Ecclesiastical Com-
missioners, and so stated in the Report. Now, the clergy-
man ought to pay within a certain time of his induction to
his living the full value of the first fruits ; but instead of
paying 1,0701., he (Mr. Baines) found that he only paid
into the First Fruits Office the sum of 361. 3s. I Id. Was this
an administration of the first fruits which could be satisfactory
or just to the poorer clergy ? With respect to the tenths of
this living, he found that only 31. 12s. 4d. was paid yearly,
instead of 1071. a-year. The second living, and he took the
return of the Rector in the Ecclesiastical Report for his au-
thority, was of the value of 1,2301. a-year. The sum paid for
first fruits, instead of being 1,230/., was only 46/. 4s. 9d. The
deficiency between these two sums was the amount with-
held from the poor clergy. The sum paid for tenths every
year was only 4/. 12s. 5d., instead of 1231. a-year. The
annual income of the third living was 1,4071., the -payment
for first fruits was only 26/. ; the sum paid for tenths was
21. 13a. 4d., instead of being 1401. a-year. The annual value
of the fourth living was 2,2301., the sum paid for first fruits
was only 801. 10s. Bd., the annual payment for tenths was
8/. 10s. Bd., whereas it ought to be 223/. a-year. The last
case which he should mention was that of a living the value
of which was 3,616/. a-year ; the sum paid for first fruits
was 1021. 9s. 9d., the sum paid for tenths was 10/. 4s. lid.,
whereas it ought to be 361/. a.year.—( Hear, hear.) He was
sure that it was a subject which should be brought under the
serious attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he
trusted that some steps would at once be taken to ensure a
better administration of these funds, so that the charge of
Chuich-rates might be defrayed out of them ; and, at the same
time the condition of the poorer clergy be bettered. He had
heard a great deal from the other side of the House as to the
sympathy they entertained for the poorer clergy ; but if they
were sincerely anxious to improve the situation of that excel-
lent body of men, they had the means of doing so by support-
ing a different and better administration of these funds. He
was satisfied that with an improved administration these funds
would be found to amount to 350,000/. a-year. Supposing
that of this amount they devOted 250,000/. in the payment of
Church-rates, they would have 100,000/. left for the improve-
merit of the condition of the poorer clergy. He confessed that
unless he heard a satisfactory reason for not taking up this sub-
ject he should feel it to be his duty to do so without delay.
Nothing, he was convinced, could satisfy the country but a com-
plete alteration of the present system. With respect to the
measure under the consideration of the House, he would only
say, that lie should feel it to be his duty to support it.
Mr. W. GLADSTONE said it was quite true that Mr.
Justice Blackstone stated, that in ancient times the quadri-
partite application of Church property had prevailed, but the
Learned Justice did not say at what time it prevailed ; and the
only period when the repair of Churches could have fallen upon
Bishops, was when the Church was in a mi.4siona,ry condition.
What was the opinion of Chief Justice Coke on this subject?
Why, explicitly, that " by the peculiar law of the nation,
parishes were chargeable with the repair of the body of the
Church."—( Hear.) To come to the question immediately be-
fore the Committee. What was the proposal of the Govern-
ment ? To transfer the sum of 250,0001. a year from the estates
of the Church to the owners of land and houses in the country.
This was the practical proposition. Now, he would ask, were
the majority of these lands Dissenter'? Certainly not.
the Dissenters altogether form a majority of those who were
called upon to pay Church-rates—or a moiety ? Certainly
not. Yet here was the House called upon to sanction the
proposition, that while two millions of poisons were languish-
ing from the total want of spiritual assistance and pastoral
care, the Dissenters should be relieved from a payment which
they themselves admitted to be in no material degree bur-
densome. But it was said, the Dissenters resisted this pay-
ment from scruples of conscience. Without meaning airy dis-
respect to the Dissenters, without ascribing to them motives
of w factious cr discreditable nature, he (Mr. Gladstone) must
confess that he did not conceive their motives entitled to so
sacred a designation as scruples of conscience.—( Hear, hear.)
If they really entertained scruples of so sacred a nitture, it
was monstrous, it was a political crime of the deepest die, that
those scruples had not been attended to long before this.—
( Hear, hear.) His (Mr. Gladstone's) principle was, that
when the Legislature had made a demand upon the sub-
ject to contribute a part of his property to the purposes of
the State, that circumstance at once relieved the subject
from any scruple of conscience as to paying it so long as
that law remained in force —( Hear, hear, hear.) 'The
Qa.kers, indeed, had throug;:out proved by their conduct in
reference to the Church-rates, that their refusal to pay them
arose from scrup:es of conscience ; but the existence of the
same motive for refusal had not been substantiated by the
conduct of any other dissenting bodies. Was it consistent
with sound scruples of conscience to refuse the fulfilment
of obligations which every man necessarily took upon him-
self in purchasing or acceding to land or other property ?
Look at the question as regarded Scotland. In England,
where the members of the Church were the large majority of
the population as well as of the landholders, it was proposed
to abolish Church-rates. In Scotland, where the Episcopa-
lians formed the large majority of land-holders, Church-rates
were to remain in full force. In Scotland, too, the obliga-
tion of the law was more extensive, and -the means of enfor-
cing it far more stringent than here. In Scotland, if a Church
fell into decay, or it' the population of a parish increased to
such an extent as to render the old fabric inadequate to the
accommodation of the so iucrea4l population, the heritors
were compelled by law to build a new Church, and on a scale
fully adequate to the wants of the population, and he recol-
lected the case of a parish in Stirlingshire, where this obliga-
tion was strictly enforced in the year 1827. guch was the state
cf the law in Scotland, yet it was not proposed to afford any
relief to the Scotch Episcopalian population. Not that they
called for it ; on the contrary, he was prepared to say that if
the proposition were made to them, the Scottish Episcopalians
would come forward as one man to repudiate the boon as a dis-
arace—as insulting to their religious feelings.—( Hear, hear.)
_lt was argued that those who had voted for the abolition of
vestry-cess in Ireland were bound, in consistency, to abolish
Church-rates here. He altogether denied the soundness of
the argument ; it appeared to him that those who had voted
for the abolition of Church-rates in Ireland were not a whit
the less free to resist the abolition here.—( Hear, hear.) In
, England the revenues of the Church were far from being suf-
ficient to fulfil the objects to which the Church-rates were ale_
plied. Indeed the lamentable fact was but too evident that its
means were utterly inadequate to the supply of spiritual assist-
ance of the millions who now stood in need of that assistance.
—( Hear.) It was stated on the best authority,that at this moment
two millions of persons were destitute of spiritual relief.
Within the last twelve months the most strenuous exertions
had been making on the part of individuals to raise a sum for
the purpose of, in some degree, supplying the lamentable defi-
ciency of Church accommodation ; and though private libe-
rality had done much, it had not done, it could not do, a moiety
of that which was expected to be done. The observation made
by the Noble Lord opposite last night, in reference to-a com-
mission of which the Noble Lord had himself been a member,
and on whose recommendation Ministers had approved and in-
troduced public measures, appeared to him (Mr. Gladstone)
most extraordinary, and calculated to lead to mischievous re-
sults. The Commission was appointed to ascertain how the
revenues of the Church could be best applied to the purposes
of the Church, and what was the result ? The House had not
forgotten the declaration of the Noble Lord, with respect to the
resources of the Church, that be they distributed how they
might, they would be found inadequate to the exigencies of
the case, and the utmost that could be done as hoped for, was
to mitigate the evil. To this sentiment he held the Noble
Lord (Lord John Russell) pledged, and was it consistent with
this sentiment that he should propose the present plan ?
(Hear' hear.) Was it consistent with this principle that he
should take 250,000/. from the Church, and throw it into the
pockets of the landowners ?—( Cheers.) Suppose this measure
carried, let them look to what in all human probability would
be the increase in the population, and then consider the situa-
tion in which the friends of the Establishment would be placed.
Where would they obtain the religious instruction which would
be required ? It was said they might come to Parliament and
ask for the erection of Churches ; but did -the Noble Lord
think that if they failed in maintaining their present position
they would succeed in an attempt to obtain fresh support for
the Establishment? If the Dissenters were disposed to admi
of such grants, why not follow up the measure of Lord Al
thorp ? But if they were to have their opposition on ever
occasion on which the question of an Established Church

was raised, how could die Noble Lord come forward and
ask the House to relinquish their certain funds and trust
to such a clouded future as that which was displayed
before them ?—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) Let the House
compare this plan with the plan of the Government for the re-
form of the Irish Church. Of the two he thought that the
best. If it was not the best in principle it was at least more
plausible. There they had for Church-rates a surplus. Why
was the Church of England to be placed in a worse situation
than the Irish Church ? He thought they had reason to com-
plain that the conduct of his Majesty's Ministers was not con-
sistent with their previous professions in 1834. When the
Hon. Member for Middlesex in that year opposed the adop
tion of a principle less objectionable than the one now under
the consideration of the House, the Noble Lord, in reply to
some observations made by him and by the Honourable and
Learned Member for Southwark, said—" He should be
wanting in candour if he did not state that the reason why the
Honourable and Learned Gentleman and his Honourable
Friend were continually disappointed at the proceedings of
Governaiout was this—there was a difference of principle
lietween them. The wish of the latter was to preserve and
reform—it never would be their object to destroy. The
Honourable Member for Middlesex stated his difference at
once. He did not think this a question simply affecting
Church-rates.—(Hear.) He did not disguise his views, but
declared that if the opinions of the people were prepared for
such a change, he would at once bring forward a measure for
the separation of the Church from the State.—( Cheers from
the Opposition.) The Hon. and Learned Member for South-
wark stated it as his opinion that if there were a Church Es-
tablishment there must be certain doctrines laid down to
which members of the State should conform. lie maintained
that there might be a Church Establishment in the State,
supported too by compulsory payments, and het there might
be the most perfect religious freedom. If the complaints of
the Dissenters were reasonable, how could they adhere to
their former propositions ; but if they adhered to these pro-
positions, they declared the complaints of the Dissenters to be
unreasonable, and then it appeared that what they were now .
doing was for the sake of satisfying unreasonable complaints.
—(Hear.) " While all contributed towards the support of
the Church Establishment, it could not be fairly stated that it
benefitted one class alone, viz., that which belonged to the
Establishment, but the whole community derived advantage
from it. The plan of Lord Altborp having been brought be-
foie the Houso, was postponed. In June Earl Grey left

the Government, and in July the Bill was finally postponed.
Then came 1835 and 1836 ; and did the Noble Lord, in
either of those years, venture an abandonment of the princi-
ple on which he had before acted ? No—in 1835, an inquiry
having been made as to whether it was intended to proceed
with the measure, the reply was, that there were other
measures of importance before the House ; and the Session
being so far advanced, the Bill of Lord Althorp would not be
proceeded with. There was time for other things, but not for
the consideration of this scruple of conscience. In 1836, the
Noble Lord was asked whether lie intended to bring in a Bill
relating to the Church-rates ? " Certainly," was the reply,
" but not before Easter." It was said to be desired that the
Report of the Commissioners should be first upon the table of
the House. The Session having further advanced, it was
discovered that there was no time for the introduction of the
Bill. The Noble Lord had not the courage to come forward
with a proposition in opposition to the views of the Dissenters,
or his attachment was still too strong to the principle of an
Established Church to allow him to desert it, and he adopted
a middle course. What was the consequence of this " palter-
ing in a double sense ?" If the Noble Lord had adhered to
the plan of Lord Althorp, the effect would have been bene-
ficial to the Establishment; but as the Noble Lord knew well
enough that it would prove injurious to the party to which he
belonged—(Much Opposition cheering)—he saw in the vista
the opposition which his perseverance in the plan of
Lord Althorp would excite on the part of the Dissenters,
is the event of an election, and not liking to meet the
array which such a course would have brought against him,
the principle he had before supported came to be " Sicklied
o'er with the pale cast of thought."—(Opposition cheering.)
He sought for an expedient—where there was a will there
was a way—he found one, and that expedient was now before
them.--( Cheers.) On these facts he would say that his Ma-
jesty's Ministers had been governed more by party considera-
tions than by a regard for principles. If they adopted this
measure all future attempts to act on the principle of an
Establishment would be resisted to the utmost by those who
called themselves the popular party in this country. They
were now called on to sacrifice a principle which he would
contend was the bulwark of the State. In this country the
religious principle lay deeper in the national character than
any other, and should they surrender it ?—( Opposition
cheers.) The day was not come when a Minister of the
Crown would dare openly to propose its surrender; but with
the same consistency of character, and with the same depth of
feeling with which they would resist that proposition, he called
on them to oppose the present measuse as affording. the only
chance of securing themselves against such a proposition being
made to them hereafter. —( Cheers. )
Lord JOHN RUSSELL begged to explain. The Hon.
Gentleman, in referring to that portion of his speech of
last night in which he spoke on the subject of the Ecclesi-
astical Commission, seemed to impute to him that he shrunk
from his responsibility which attached to biro as a member of
that Commission. lie begged to say he did not wish to
shrink from the responsibility, but, on the contrary, adopted it
in the way proposed by the Hon. Gentleman. Though he
differed in some particulars from the Report, as for instance,
the arrangement recommended respecting the Deans and
Chapters, yet with regard to the general features of the pro-
posals of the Commission he agreed with them. lie had
given his assent to those propositions in the Cornmissian, and
he had no objection to state here, as he had stated elsewhere,
that he had so given his assent. He thought the question
for this House and for Parliament to consi.ler was, whether
the plan proposed in that Commission was on the whole
prudent, safe, and efficient as a measure of Reform ;
thinking it a safe and efficient measure of Reform, he
agreed to it, but he thought himself at liberty, in
seyin, this, also to state that the propositions did not arise
from him, but chiefly from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
The lion. Gentleman had also referred to his reply to en ob-
servation made in a former debate by the Hon. and Learned
Member for Southwark. The Hon. Gel:demise, however,
appeared to have misunderstood the purport of his reply, which
was intended to be an answer to the argument that religious
freedom could not co-exist with a Church Fe-tablislimeut.
Mr. P. THOMSON believed in no place there existed so
strong- a feeling in favour of the voluntary principle as in that
which lie represented A petition had been presented from
that town, signed by 31,000 persons, who prayed for the adop-
tion of the voluntary principle. Ide, however, never had hesi-
tated to declare his hostility to the principle, and lie would now
say that he never would give his consent to it. He wan
prepared to contend that so far from the present measure
embracing that principle, it was founded on a principle di-
rectly the reverse. The principle on which it was based was
unquestionably that of the Established Church. If he un-
derstood what was meant by the voluntary principle, it was
this, that the State was not bound to afford religious instruc-
tion to the King's subjects. It was not involved in the ques-
tion as to the abolition of Church-rates; but as to whether any
payment whatever was to be made for the support of a State
religion, and whether, therefore, there should be taken away
from the Church the whole of its present endowment ? What
was proposed to be done was to take from that which he con-
tended was a fund belonging to the State—to take from
that which was a national fund—the means for sup-
porting the fabric of the Church, instead of attempting- to
maintain it by the present mode.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon.
Gentleman agreed in what were his notions of the proper
endowment of the Church, and whit a national Church
should be. The Hon. Gentleman admitted that if the en-
dowment was found to be too large he would not refuse
to diminish it, and he (Mr. 'Poulett Thomson) agreed with
the lion.• Gentleman, that if the endowments were too
small, lie would not refuse to augment Hear, hear.)
But even he would say that if they were taking from the
revenues of the Church for the purpose of supporting the
fabric, and if the proposition of the lion. Gentleman were
made out, then, in his opinion, they would only be doing that
which they had a right to do.--( Hear, hear. ) But what
they proposed to do was no such thing. They had now re-
venues which hitherto had been unavailable, and which could
now be appropriated for the purposes of the Church. He had
voted for the measure of 1834, because he was not at that
time aware that there were any fund existing in the Church
from which they could draw a sufficient amount for the sup-
port of the fabric of the Church. Now that he was aware
that such sp, fund was in existence, he should of course prefer
taking from that fund, rather than drawing upon the national
fund.—( Hear.) The Noble Lord the Member for North
Lancashire could not regard this measure, as it had been called
by some lion. Members, an Act of sacrilegious spoliation.
The Noble Lord certainly did not consider that any act of
spoliation had been committed in the Irish Church Tempo-
ralities' Act. The Noble Lord did not consider that there
was any sacrilegious spoliation in doing away with the vestry
cess in Ireland, when the' Noble Lord adopted a plan similar
to that now proposed on the subject of Church-rates. lie
did not believe that the Noble Lord would tell them any such
thing.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord, the Member for
North Lancashire might object to the appropriation of the
fund, but he could not object to the means proposed to raise
that fund.—( Hear, hear.) The plan, however, was said to
be objectionable, because it would make stipendiaries of the
Bishops. That was an argument which could, he conceived,
be used by the lion. Member for Oxford with perfect consis-
tency, for that Hon. Member had opposed the Bill of last Ses-
sion ; but since by that Bill the Bishops had become in a great
measure stipendiaries, and be could not understand how Hon.
Gentlemen supposed that their utility could he diminished by
any such proposal. lie agreed with Hon. Gentleman oppo-
site that there were, not means sufficient for diffusing reli-
gious and moral education ; he thought that there was a
great want prevailing in this respect ; but still it was his
opinion that there had been great exaggeration upon the
subject. For instance, the Right Hon. the Member for the
University of Cambridge had a few evenings since referred to
Manchester, where, amidst thousands of persons, it was stated
there were only eighteen clergymen, and to maintain them
was but the small sum of 2,7001. a year. The Right lion.
Gentleman, in making his statement, had not made a distinc-
tion between the parish and the town of Manchester. The
population of the parish of Manchester was 270,000, and the
number of Churches 44. The population of the town was
142,000 or 143,000, and the number of Churches 18, But
then the Right Hon. Gentleman in his calculation threw en-
tirely out of his consideration the Catholics and Dissenters.
—( Hear, hear.) Of the population of Manchester there were
between 50,000 and 60,000 Catholics, and the number of
Dissenting chapels in the parish was 106.—(Cheers.) The
Right Hon. Gentleman said there were only 18 clergymen,
and that they had amongst them not more than 2,700/. a year;
but then the Right Hon. Gentleman left out altogether the
Collegiate Church of Manchester, with 8,0001. a year.—
(Cheers.) The question was whether they would accept
the plan before the House for the substitution of Church-
rates. Supposing that Honourable Members opposite differed
from Ministers as to the proposed appropriation, what were
they do as to Church-rates.—( Hear, hear.) In the course of
the:debate he had heard three or four points glanced at, but
he heard no proposition made.—(llear, hear.) It was, he
thought, idle to argue at this stage as to the origin of Church-
rates. The legal power, which they were told now. only slept,
would, if exerted, be found to be unsuccessful for the collec-
tion of Church-rates. Let them look to the practical condition
of the law. In the very place that he had the honoar to re-
present, for three years past no Church-rates had been levied.
—(Hear, hear.) Did that arise from any unwillingness to
carry the law into effect ? No such thing I lie believed that
every power that could be used would be employed, if it were
thought there were even a probable chance of success.---( Haar,
hear, hear.) Honourable Gentlemen, he hoped, would tell
him what it was they were inclined to do, if they objected
to the disposition of the fund proposed to them. Supposing
that the wish of lion. Members opposite was gratified, and that
there was a disposition of the fund such as they desired, then
how were they to dispose of the question of Church-rates ?
( Hear.) It was upon the ground that they had no other sub-
stitute than that which the Government proposed to them that
he was willing to support it—he wished out of the income
which was proposed to afford the means for religious worship.
He was anxious to do this, because he believed that in settling
the question of Church-rates
he would obtain no small advan-
tage, and secure, as he believed, in no small degree, religious
peace and harmony in the country.--( Cheers.) With respect
to the observations made by the Hon. Member for Yorkshire
(Mr. Cayley), all he should say of his speech was, that it pro-
ceeded on an entirely erroneous assumption. Let the Hon.
Member look to what had been done in 1790, when the
terms were raiscl• from one year to one year and a quarter's
purchase; and in 1799, when they were raised to one year
and a half's, at which they had remained, in many cases.
The fact was, that these advantageous terms remained to the
lessees just so long as the Bishops and the Deans and Chap-
ters remained in ignorance of the calculations that had been
made on the subject. When the Bill was in Committee, or
rather after the Bill was introduced, as he hoped it would be,
they should then be better enabled to judge whether or not
these terms were advantageous to the trustees, and they would
have a better opportunity of seeing the objections that could
be made and the reasons that could be urged on both sides.

He ventured to submit this measure to the consideration c!
the House as one eminently calculated to produce peace and
harmony among the different classes and sects of this country.
Lord STANLEY then rose and said—Sir, I should have
spared the House the trouble of hearing any observations that
shall fall from me, had it not been that from first to last in the
course of this debate I have had the honour done me in various
tones, and various manners, and from various Members of this
House, of having my previous opinions and statements appealed
to, as tending to confirm, as far as my humble authority cattalo
confirm, the opinions of those who support the present mea-
sure ; I tit partly by other s for the purpose of taunting 111 e
with inconsistency for the course which at present I fee;
bound to take.---(Cheers from the Ministerial benches, aud
counter cheers from the Opposition.) I have been appealed
to by my Right Hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer
in toms which he always uses to those friends whom ho
sincerely esteems.— (Cheers.) I have never heard an expres-
sion of his towards me, politically opposed as we are on many.
questions, of which, on public or private grounds, I have had
the slightest cause to complain.—(Cheers.) I have been ap-
pealed to in terms of courtesy and kindness by my Noble
Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and
I have been appealed to in terms, I will take the liberty of say-
ing, neither of courtesy ncr of kindness by the King's Attor-
ney-General.—(Loud cheers.) In the course of last even-
ing's debate that lion. and Learned Gentleman, in following,
not replying to, the speech of my lion. and Learned Friend
the Member fur Exeter, thought it necessary to make this gra-
tuitous and unprovoked attack upon me, who have given hint
no provocation whatever.—( Loud cheers.) His Majesty's
Attorney-General told my Hon. and Learned Friend that
" before he spoke of inconsistency he ought to have had the
delicacy to look at his right hand, where he might sec the
Noble L )1d the Member for North Lancashire—(Great cheer-
ing from the Ministerial benches, and counter cheers from the
Opposition)—and in his presence," continued the Attorney-
General, " I wish to know how the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman could venture to speak of inconsistency ?—( Renewed
cheers from the Ministerial benches and from the Opposition.)
What pretence have I given for this attack ?—( Cheers.) Who
is he that taunts me with inconsistency ?—(Cheers.) Have I
ever shrunk, since I have had the honour of a seat in this
[louse, from manfully and frankly stating my opinions, whom-
soever they pleased or displeased ?—(Continued cheering.)
I call upon any man to show whenever I have blinked any
question ?—(Loud cheers.) I call upon any man to show if
at any time 1 have held different language out of the House,
and different language within it?—(lmmense cheering.) I
call upon any man to say when I have ever vituperated and
calumniated a body of men, and afterwards solicited to attach
myself to that body of men ?—( Continued cheers.) I ask,
when a main question was depending which was not displeasing,
to those with whom I held office, whether I have ever avoided
expressing my opinion, or sheltered myself under a neutrality
by a convenient absence?—(Great cheering.) And, finally, I
ask whether it is not in the knowledge of the King's Attorney-
General himself, and every Member of this House, that when
I did differ from my colleagues holding office, I abandoned
office to maintain my principes ?—( Immense cheering.) And
now, Sir, whenever the Attorney-General shall think fit to
answer these questions with regard to himself as I have 'an-
swered them—(Great cheering)—l will not till then place my-
self on the level to discuss the question of consistency with
him.---( Immense cheering, and cries of " Oh, oh !") The
Hen. and Learned Gentleman the Attorney-General, last
night, following up this attack, told me, in terms indeed com-
plimentary, as he meant them, that he knew my ingenuity too
well not to be satisfied that I should be able to affect all but
impossibilities, to satisfy the House with regard to my supposed
change. Sir, I accept no compliment to my ingenuity at the
expense of the principles which I profess.—(Loud cheers.)
This I will say, that without the exercise of the smallest por-
tion of the ingenuity for which the Hon. and Learned Ge.n-
tlernan has given me credit, and without the slightest sacrifice
of those principles which the Attorney-General assumes that
I possess, I will demonstrate, if not to the satisfaction, I think
at least to the conviction of the Attorney General, that there
is no inconsistency on my part.—(Cheers, and loud cries of
" Oh, oh !")—I repeat there is no inconsistency on my part
—( Loud cries of " Oh, oh 1 and cheers)—in having supported,
in having introduced (and I give the Attorney General the
benefit of the admission), with having been the main support
of the Church Temporalities Bill, and upon the present oc-
casion standing up in determined opposition to the principles
embodied in this measure.—(Loud cheers, and cries of" Oh,
oh I") Can any man say that there is not a wide difference
'between that Bill and the present measure, both in its details
and it-, its principles?—(Cheers.) I own that it is difficult, in
spite of the ejaculations of my Noble Friend the Secretary at
War (Lord Howick), to understand how any man who sup-
ported that measure, under the impression that it was founded
on ju,tice and good faith—how any man who had supported
that Bill can support the principles maintained in the pre-
sent measure.—( Hear, and cheers.) In the first 'place,-
I will offer a few observations with regard to some preliminary
questions raised upon the main question. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer in his opening speech said that the question'
embodied in his resolution was this, " Would we or would we
not pledge ourselves to maintain the existing system of Church--
rates, and, if we were not prepared to do so, would we ;,greet
to a substitute ?" The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the
statement which he made some time ago appealed to sue on
this subject, and did me the honour to quote a speech of mine
when I was a member of the Cabinet in 1834. In diet year,
Lord Althorp introduced a plan for the commutation la
Church.rates, on which I expressed myself strongly, because f
felt strongly, and I feel as strongly now the extreme d,ffied-
ties and the manifold objections which occurred in the prereet
mode of enforcing Church-rates. I feel that there are obe.:-
dons to the present system of Church rates—l feel that it is
objectionable in point of most of its details—l feel it is obje•-
tionable in point of the irritation that cxistt, and in point of
the difficulties of its collection ; but does it follow that who:-
ever proposition the Government thinks fit to offer, that prop -
sition we at once are to take without any consideration of its
merits or discussion of its principle ?—( Cheers.) But said
my Noble Friend (Lord J. Russell), " Why not allow us to
lay our Resolution on the table of the House? It is nothing
more than a Resolution to found a Bill upon ; we may af.e.ea
wards discuss its principles and its details." Did the Noble
Lard want to have an opportunity of puffing in practice the
motto of " divide et impera '.—(Cheers.) The Noble L( rd
( Rus:.e 1) promises that the claims of the various interests
shall be fairly , considered, or any objections that can be
urged in Committee ; but if this Bill be allowed to go into
Committee, I will not give much for the chance any gen-
tleman has of these objections being listened to.—(Hear,
hear, hear.) It is not the duty of Hon, Gentlemen 00
this side of the House to furnish a remedy for the evils
complained of by the Noble Lord. It is the duty of his Majesty's
Ministers to find this remedy: I, in supporting the intro.-
doction of Lord Althorn's Bill in March, 1834, gave no sup-'
port to the proceeding by which that Bill was dropped in the
June following.—(Loud cheers.) Nay, more ; I will ventu re
to say that if Lord Grey's Government had continued 'an-
broken we would have seen that Bill carried through by the
Cabinet of Lord Grey, and by the consent of both Houses of
Parliament.—(Cheers.) And if the Attorney-General were
so fortunate as again to obtain a seat in this House, Ido net,
doubt but that we should have had the advantage of his legs'
acumen and support.—( Loud laughter.) The Attorney-Ge-
neral has been kind enough to say, I know not why, that this
is the only measure of Lord Grey's Government that, as far
as he knew, partook of the thimble-rig character.—(Cheers
from the Ministerial benches.) I was a member of that ,
Government, and I want to know what right the Hon. anti,
Learned Gentleman has to make this statement ?—(Louti
cheers.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman was a Member
of the Government at the time, but he had no hand in framing
that Bill; he might, however, satisfy himself by applying. to
the lion. and Learned Member for the Tower Hamlets. The
Learned Doctor (Lushington) would inform the Attorney-Ge-
neral who it was that gave him instruction in drawing up the
Bill. Have you not told us last year that it is the duty of GO-
vernment to provide for Church-rates out of the funds and pro-
perty of the State?—( Immense cheering from the Opposition.)
Have you not made this the excuse or pretext for not proe -
ceeding with the Bill in June, 1834?—(Continued cheering.)
Have you not made it a pretext for not proceeding with the
Bill, that the funds must be found out of the property of the
State, and that if it were the pleasure of the House to pro'
vide for these Church-rates out of the Ways and Means, there
would be no further obstacle to the operation of this plan ?
This was in June last. These were the expectations held out
by the Government.—( Cheers.) We shall perhaps be told
that these funds are funds belonging to the State.—(Cheell
from the Ministerial benches.) Shall we or not ?_(Loud
cheers from the Opposition.) I should like to have this ques-
tion, answered.—( Renewed cheering, and a cry of " Go on•
I will not go Oil ; I should like an aaswer.—( Immense cheer-
ing.) If I cannot get an answer, I must argue the question
without one. In the course of his opening speech the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer used various arguments respecting tile
plan of Lord Althorp, and in asking the Committee what
settlement they should propose, he stated in the broadest
terms in the first instance, as an objection to the measure
of Lord Althorp, that it deprived vestries of their iodise
putable power of saying " Aye" or " No" as to whether
there:should be a Church-rate or not. This was one of the
main arguments urged by the Right Honourable Gentleman
against the measure of Lord Althorp. To that doctrine
so stated, . not notwithstanding the astonishment with
which it was received, and the arguments of my Honourable"
and Learned Friend ( Sir W. Follett), the Attorney-Gene" r
with the gallantry of a Scot and the zeal of an Independa..t
—( Great laughter)--leame to the rescue, and not contenb,
with affirming the proposition, lie staked his professional repo'
tation as a lawyer upon the soundness of the doctrine 4,_13
vanced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Yes, ill
face of Parliament and the country, the Attorney-Generilet
staked his professional reputation on this case, that the rif, a
to levy Church-rates depended by law upon the caprice 01
majority of the vestry. —(Laud cheers.) I must say, I think
it my
is a pity that the Attorney-General did not consult
Hog,. and Learned Friend the Member for the Tower Mire;
lets before he advanced this doctrine, which I am certain tro
Han. and Learned Gentleman would have repudiated, if hie.
judicial decisions in the Court over which he
presides--ii
recorded opinions as a member of the Church Commissie,
and if his language even in this House the other night, n'
Dr.
be taken as criteria of his sentiments upon this subject.
et
Lushington in the very last Term, in a case which was brought
before him, said, that "as Chancellor of London he would issilo,
monition against the Churchwardens of the parish in question.eit
repair the Church ; and that if the Churchwardens said
they were willing to do so, but that the vestry refusedc.wot
necessary rate, then would be the time to eonssider
these three courses to adopt"—and I think that by the
to
and Learned Gentleman's admitting that he was bound te.etb
oare of these three courses, he admitted the validity fund 0,0
necessity of making the rate—(hear hear)—wheth-- er evir
Churchwardens should be admonished to make a rate upon "
own authority—which, he admitted, might be a matter ofc(de
siderable difficulty—(Ministerial cheers)—or whether tes 4