The Sun.
London, England, 1837-03-04 00:00:00

for the difference between his measure and that of Lord
Althorp. He says, " I abandon that part of Lord Al-
thorp's measure," though, be it remembered, it is entirely
in unison with his proposition that the State should provide
free sittings and Church accommodation, generally, for the
poor; and he adds, "the groat merit:of my measure is, that the
Church, and not the State, shall provide these requisites."—
( Hear, hear.) It is not my desire to create any undue pre-
judice against the measure on the part of the Church lessees,
but I cannot help saying that I much doubt the accuracy of that
statement of the Right Hon. Gentleman which goes to say
that their interests will not alone be uninjured, but will, on
the contrary, be benefitted by it. I take the subject on higher
and broader grounds of objection, As it is according to the
statement of the Right Honourable Gentleman, and the show-
ing of the ecclesiastical Commissioners, the Church lessees
are the parties who will be mainly affected by the measure—
they will have to bear the expense of it. Why should it be
so ? Why are they alone to be burthened ? Why are the
landholders of England at large to be exempt from this taxa-
tion ? I fully concur in the proposition of the Right Hon.
Gentleman that the State should provide an Established
Church, and all its appurtenants; but on what principle of
justice or right, taking that proposition for granted, can the
landholders of the country, who are themselves members of
the Established Church, be exempted from supporting it ?
By the measure of the Right Hon. Gentleman, the whole
charge of supporting the Church will be thrown on the lessees
—while those only will be relieved who, inheriting with their
property the claim for the support of the Church, on the ex-
press understanding of discharging it, have therefore an un-
doubted right to do so.--( Hear.) I agree with the Right Hon.
Gentleman that differences on the subject of Church-rates
have arisen ; and I think with him that it is very unfor-
tunate that such things should have occurred. lam quite wil-
ling to lend myself to any plan which will have the effect cf
making a satisfactory settlement of them. But there is
something to be said on the other side also. Great dif-
ferences as to the principle of abolishing Church-rates exist

.
in many parts of the country. In the large towns, and in
the suburban parishes, the population is, perhaps, generally
opposed to them ; but in the vast mass of the, rural parishes—
the entire agricultural population—the feeling is as strong,
aye, stronger, in favour of their continuance. " Let us
alone," they say, "do not touch us. We are content to
remain as we arc, and as we have been." Not only do that
important portion of the population not wish to be relieved
from the payment of Church-rates, but I firmly believe that
when they look on the grey tower f the venerable fabric which
rears its head above the graves of their fathers for many gene-
rations, when they see that building, associated in their minds
with all that their simple lives know of pleasure—the plea-
sure of youth and innocence—in place of relieving tender
consciences by abolishing the rate levied for its repair
and sustainment you are absolutely offending them with
your measure.—( Hear, hear.) In waiting for the mo-
ment of consideration when it shall be decided whether

this charge is to be laid on the church lessees or not, if
the conclusion be come to that we can extract 1.50,000/., or
160,0001. a year from them without detriment or injury to their
interests, I shall then contend that there are prior claims for
the application of that sum than that which arises out of the
support of the fabric of the Church. I shall contend that

the* increase of Church accommodation has the precedence;
and I shall prove it by facts. In the diocese of Chester there
are, according to the last report of the Commissioners, thirty-
eight parishes. The average population of each of these
parishes is about 10,000, which makes the aggregate very
nearly 380,000 souls. Yet in that diocese I find it stated there
is only Church accommodation for 90,000 persons. Thus more
than seven-eighths of the population of the diocese are abso-
lutely without Church accommodation. Again, in the diocese
of York there are twenty parishes, the average population of
which is 22,000 each, making an aggregate of 440,000 souls.
Now, the Church accommodation in that diocese is only equal
to forty thousand—being, or about, one-eleventh of the whole.
Then, again, there is the diocese of Lichfield and Coventry.
In that diocese there were sixteen parishes, with an average
population to each of 10,000, and an aggregate population of
235,000, while 'there is only Church accommodation for
29,000.—(Cheers.) From what fund, let me ask, is this great
deficiency in Church accommodation to be supplied ? If it
can be proved to me that, without any deduction from the re-
venues of the Bishops, and without any injury or injustice to
the lessees, the sum of 250,000/. a-year can be raised, how can
the claims of those districts which I have named to better
Church accommodation be neglected?—( Hear, hear, hear)—
or if the accommodation cannot be afforded in this way, let me
ask, from what other source is this deficiency to be supplied ?
—( Hear, hear, hear.) I will not now enter further into
this part of the subject, nor shall I now enter upon the justice
of alloting pews and charging the affluent with a rent for their
occupation. I hope, however, that this allotment of pews to
the affluent alone is not to be understood as extending to
the rural parishes, and that paupers alone are not the only
persons who arc to be exempt from payment for a seat in
the church. I hope that no rigid scrutiny will be instituted
either into the legal right by which pews are held in
rural parishes by farmers and other respectable parishioners.—
( Hear, and cheers.) I say this, because the Noble Lord said
that a strict inquiry should be made into the title by which
pews were held. It must have the effect of exciting great
alarm in the minds of respectable farmers to learn that after
their family pews have been possessed by their ancestors for
centuries, the right by which they held them is now to be in-
quired into.—( Loud cheers.) Why, those persons have been
accustomed to look upon their pews in their parish church as
freeholds—(Cheers)—and nothing could excite in their minds
a greater or stronger feeling of disgust than to have their
right now dispute, or pew-rent charged upon them.—
(Cheers.) I will not enter more into the subject at present
than to say, that the first claim upon the fund of 250,000/. a
year, should such a fund arise, is either to augment the small
livings of 2001. a year, or to afford to the manufacturing dis-
tricts better church accommodation, when some eight or nine
tenths of the population of those districts arc now without the
means of attending to their religious duties.—( Cheers. )
Mr. BA IN E S did not disapprove of the general principles
of the measure ; but the details, he thought, were open to much
observation. The Right Hon. Baronet opposite had said that
one-eight of the population of the diocese of York were without
accommodation. Now he (Mr. Baines) lived in that diocese,
and he did not think there was a town in it that had any reason
to complain in that respect. The question was not how many

there were in certain districts, but how many were disposed to
go to church ? ( Hear.) He could not at all understand why
the landed gentry were to be exempted by this measure from
the charge of Church Rate, any more than the landed gentry
of Ireland. He was really surprised at the comparison which
the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made between the Church

Establishment and the army' and navy, and also the observa-

tions he made as to the volUntaryprinCiple Why, it was well
known that:in America the voluntary principle prevailed as to the
payment of the Clergy, but the army and navy were, notwith-
standing, paid by the State. It was dangerous to draw ana-
logies in argument which were not fit and aptly applied.
The House then resumed.
The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and asked leave to
sit again on (as we understood) Friday next.
DUTIES AT JAVA.
Sir IL PEEL having been very mach pressed to ask a
question of the Noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs,
who was not then in his place, respecting the duties levied by
the Government of Holland at Jaya, under the treaty of 1824,

was desirous of knowing when it would be convenient that he
should make this inquiry ?
Mr. P. THOMSON said Monday next.
SHERRIFFS' COURT (SCOTLAND).
On the motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, the House
resolved itself into a Committee. when certain resolutions

were agreed to for granting compensation to officers connected
with the Sheriffs' Court of Scotland, whose fees were about

to be abolished.

The House having resumed,
Mr. FIE L DEN moved for certain returns connected with
the regulation of factories, which were agreed to.
The House again went into Committee, when
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved a resolution, to
the effect that the Treasury should be empowered to grant
compensation, to be hereafter regulated, to the Marshal of
the King's Bench, the Warden of the Fleet, and other Go-

vernors of gaols who had their appointments by Parliament, or
for life.

After a desultory conversation, in which Sir R. Peel, Sir
J. Graham, Mr. Hume, and the Attorney-Genera/ took part,

the resolution was agreed to, with the understanding that a
clause founded on it should be open to future discussion.
The resolution having been reported to the House,
Lord HO WICK gave notice that on Monday he should
move that the Committee on the printed papers of the House
should be allowed to report their opinion.
Adjourned at Twelve o'clock.