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

CARDIFF IMPROVEMENT BILL.

Mr. PALMER brought up the Report of the Committee
on the Cardiff Improvement Bill, which was read a first time.

GLASGOW AND AYR RAILWAY.

Mr. DUNLOP presented a petition from Kilmarnock
against the Glasgow and Ayr Railway Bill. Referred to the
Committee.

CONDUCT OF MEMBERS.
Lord G. LENNOX had been desired by the Brighton
Railway Committee to state to the House that the Chair-
man had been instructed to call the attention of the House to a
resolution of the 26th of March, 1830, which prohibited a Mem-
ber of that House being in partnership with an agent, and
begged to give notice that he should to- morrow call the at-
tention of the House to the subject.
LONDON AND DOVER RAILWAY.

Sir W. GEARY presented a petition from Rochester
against the London and Dover Railway Bill.
SOUTH UNION RAILWAY.

Mr. WIL KS presented a petition from Manchester South
Union Railway.
MANCHESTER AND LEEDS RAILWAY.
Mr. GASKELL presented a petition against tho Man-
chester and Leeds Railway.
WESTMINSTER AND DEPTFORD RAILWAY.
Alderman WOOD presented a petition from the Directors
of the Wmtminster Bridge and Deptford Railway, denying the
allegations brought forward against them in a petition presented
last week by the Member for Finsbury. He hoped the House
would allow this petition to be printed and circulated with the
votes.

After a few words from Sir S. WHALLEY the petition
was ordered to be brought up and printed.
Mr. FORSTER presented a petition from the Borough
of Walsal against the Manchester South Union Railway Bill.
Mr. WALL ACE presented two petitions in favour of the
Edinburgh and Glasgow Rail 'say Bill; also two petitions
against the same Railway passing through Ayr, and a petition
against the Edinburgh and Newhaven Harbour Bill.
Mr. HALL presented a petition from the Cheltenham and
Gloucester Railway Company against the Trine. line.
WINFORTH AND WOOL INCLOSURE.
On the motion of Mr. H. HUGHES, this Bill was read
a third time and passed.
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY.
Mr. MORRISON moved the*second reading of this Bill.
Mr. WARBURTON said, that though generally friendly
to Railways, he felt that there was a strong objection to this
Bill, and an objection upon grounds the validity of which had
already been distinctly acceded to by the house. The House
had refused to pass the second reading of a Bill for a
branch Railroad proceeding from the Southampton Rail-
road to Portsmouth. The present was an application for a
branch or communication Railroad, leading from the South-
ampton Railroad to one proceeding westward from Northamp-
ton. In the former instance of the Portsmouth and South-
ampton Railway, of the two termini, one was distinct, namely
that of Portsmouth ; but as the Railroad was not yet com-
pleted, and as the other terminus was yet undefined,
the House refused to agree to the second reading of
the Bill. The same objection applied also to this Railway.
He thought until the terminus was defined, it would be most
unjust to proceed further with the Bill ; he should therefore
move that the second reading should take place that day six
months.
Mr. C. PELHAM thought that those who opposed the
Bill ought to allow it to go into Committee.
Mr. PO ULTE R thought that the argument that had been
urged, that the Bill ought not to proceed further until the
terminus as ascertained was extremely fallacious, inasmuch as
'such an ch;ection would necessarily apply to the case of every
Railway. The Southampton Railroad was certainly notyet com-
pleted, but any body that was aware of the large sum that had
been paid for compensation, and the works that were com-
pleted and the works that were going on upon the most ex-
tensive scale down to the latest moment, could have no hesi-
tation in saying that line would be completed. There coulal
be no reasonable doubt of that fact; and therefore it might
safely be considered as one of the termini.—( Hear.) The
Exeter and Bristol Railroad was in the same situation ;
and the objection which arose to the line by that Bill was,
that the distance from Exeter to London would be 20 miles
shorter than by the Great Western Railway. He hoped the
House would not consider the present like the Portsmouth
Junction Railway Bill, and would not allow it to be defeated
in this stage.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS said that on entering the House
a paper was put into his hand the contents of which he
would take the liberty of stating to the House--it con-
tained this allegation :—" The Bill to which the motion
refers is a Bill, in respect of which, out of a line of 87 miles, the
assents are only three, and the dissentients 6, making a propor-
tion of 1 in 20." Therefore he would contend that private interests
ought not to be sacrificed. But he would go farther and say, that
unless a strong, prima facie case were made out, the capital of
the nation ought not to be sacrificed in the way proposed. It
would be time enough to make this application when the ter-
mini were completed, and he should give his vote in support
of the motion of the Hon. Member for Bridport.—( Hear.)
Mr. SANFORD said he had a petition to present signed
by 250 owners and occupiers of land, all of whom were dissen-
tients from the Bill. He thought the objection of the Mem-
ber for Shaftesbury did not apply. That lion. Gentleman had
stated the case as an application to extend a line of railway,
whereas the present was a new operation, and neither of the
termini was as yet completed. He trusted the Bristol and
Exeter Railroad would be completed, but as yet there was not
more than ten or twelve miles of it even commenced, and
when he was aware of the great amount of damage to the pro-
prietors of land to be done by the Railway then under con-
sideration, he thought it unfair to drive a large body of pro-
prietors to the expence and annoyance of going before a
Committee to defend their interests.
Mr. BENETT thought the present railroad was one of
great public importance, indeed none towards the south-western
counties was of so much public benefit. The Southampton Rail-
way would shortly be in operation as far as Basingstoke, and this
would connect with London the vast district beyond Southamp-
ton. The liae would be of the greatest advantage to the agricul-
tural districts of Somerset, Dorset, Devon, &c., and he had the
authority of that eminent engineer, Mr. Stevenson, for saying
that it was the best line of railway he had ever been on.
Now it had been asserted that there was no probability of
the Southampton line being completed, but he had the assurance
of the Engineers and Directors of that Company, that that line
would be completed. It was absurd to object to a railway
because it terminated in a line not yet completed, but it did not
follow that the line in which it terminated would not hereafterbe
finished. Ile must complain of the system of papers being
put into the hands of Hon. Members coming into that House,
for the purpose of prejudicing their minds, and which con-
tained statements it was impossible to contradict, unless some
Hon. Members aware of the facts took the trouble of doing
so. Ho hoped that the statements in that paper were not true.
There was a gross perversion of the facts relative to the number
of assenting and dissentient landowners, and as regarded the in-
terference of the line with pleasure grounds and privateproper-
ty. Another falsehood was, that the Southampton line was four
years in progress, with no prospect of its being completed.
Why the Bill had been only obtained on the 25th July, 1834,
two years and a half ago, although the paper stated that it
was four years in progress. He hoped the system of putting such
documents into the hands of Hon. Members would be put a stop to.
All that he asked was for an investigation before the Com-
mittee, as be thought the adoption of that course was not
only due to the public, but to the parties themselves.
Mr. B. WALL opposed the Bill.
Lord EI3RINGTON had come down to the House to sup-
port the Bill, but unless the statement respecting the num-
ber of assents and dissents was contradicted, it was impossible
for him to vote in favour of the Bill. If that statement were
true they would be doing a great injustice to the proprietors
of land along the line if the House agreed to pass the Bill.
Captain BOLDERO saw no reason for rejecting this Bill
on the second reading. With regard to the assents and dis-
sents, if the statement were true the Committee was the proper
place to inquire into it. He would pledge himself in Com-
mittee, if he found that this Bill did injustice to any individual,
most strenuously to oppose its farther progress.
Mr. BENETT would vote against the motion of the
Hon. Member for Bridport, notwithstanding the line would go
over his property to the extent of four miles.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the Gallery
was cleared for a division.

During our exclusion from the gallery, we understood the
House divided on a motion for postponing the further consi-
deration of the second reading for a week.
Ayes
Noes 76
Majority for the postponement — 6
Petitions were presented relative to Railway Bills by Mr.
Sanford, Lord Dalawny, Mr. Baines, Mr. Kelly, and several
other Honourable Members ; but from the great confusion
prevailing in the House we were unable to catch the particulars.
CHURCH-RATES.
The SPEAKER inquired if there were any Church-rate
petitions ; when about 100 Members rose, amid cries of
" Order, order," and great laughter. Petitions relative to
Church-rates were then presented by Mr. V. Smith, Mr.
Gaily Knight, Mr. Wilks, Sir A. Leith Hay, Mr. Miles,

Mr. A. Trevor and other Hon. Members. About 40, from the
Opposition benches, here rose, and proceeded to the table
with petitions on the same subject. The unusually crowdcd
appearauco of the floor of the House, occasioned much
laughter.

BORTHWICK presented petitions from Evesham,
and other parts of Worcestershire against the abolition of
Church. rates.

Similar petitions were also presented by Captain Alsat er,
from different parts of Surrey ; by Sir C. B. Vere from Fr; in-
lingham, and other places in the county of Suffolk ; and by
Sir W. Geary from different places in the county of Kent.
Mr. GROTE presented petitions from different parishes in
the city of London, praying for the total abolition of Chui ch-
rates.

Lord G. SOMERSET presented petitions from Mon-
mouth against the abolition of Church-rates.
Mr. B. HOY presented petitions from Southampton against
the abolition of Church-rates.

Sir R. VYVYAN presented a petition from Bristol, signed
by upwards of 5,000 persons, against the abolition of Church-
rates. The petition had received that vast number of signa-
tures within two days after the Government plan for the re-
duction of Church-rates had been brought forward.
Mr. PEASE presented a petition from certain lessees in
Durham, praying the House to be careful of their interests.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Lord J. RUSSELL would take that opportunity of stating
to the House the course he meant to pursue in respect to the
public business. It would be necessary his Hon. Friend should
move the Navy Estimates on Friday, and it was his intention
to move that the House should go into Committee on the
Irish Municipal Bill on Monday, for which day the Bill stood
fixed. An Hon. Gentleman opposite had yesterday put a
question to him as to the resolutions on the ailbirs of Canada.
He ( Lord John) was as anxious as that Hon. Gentleman
could be, to have an early day for the further consideration of
that question, and he hoped the House would allow bins to
bring it on upon Tuesday next.--( Hear, hear.)
Mr. ROBINSON had a motion which stood first in the paper
for Tuesday next; but he considered it of such paramount im-
portance that the House should come to a determination on
these resolutions, that he would willingly give way to the
Noble Lord.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL then moved that the Order of
the Day for the consideration of the Canada question be
postponed till Tuesday next.--Agreed to.
DUBLIN AND KILKENNY RAILWAY.
On the motion of Mr. MORGAN O'CONNELL, the
Dublin and Kilkenny Railway Bill was read a second time and
ordered to be committed.

MANCHESTER AND LEEDS RAILWAY.
Mr. HARDY presented a petition against the Manchester
and Leeds Railway Bill.
ADJOURNED DEBATE.
On the motion of the day, for the House resolving itself
into a Committee of the whole House on the adjourned debate
relating to Church-rates,

Mr. G. PA LIVER having referred to the sentiments ex-
pressed by Lord J. Russell on the passing of the Bill relating
to the see of Durham, and to the assurance that a certain amount
should be paid over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in the
event of the income becoming reduced to 11,0001. per an-
num, wished to know from the Noble Lord what had induced
his Majesty's Government to alter the determination then ex-
pressed, upon the assurance of which he and other Hon. Mem-
bers consented to the passing of the Bill.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the lion. Gentleman was right
in the fact stated by him, respecting the obligation on the
Bishop of Durham to pay over a certain sum to the Eccle-
siastical Commissioners. As to the reasons which induc©d
the Government to take their present course, that was a ques-
tion which could best be answered by argument in the course of
the debate.

CORONERS (DURHAM).
In answer to a question from Mr. ARTHUR TREVOR,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said it was under the considera-
tion of Government what might best be done with regard to
the change in the condition of the Coroners of the county of
Durham, which had been effected by the passing of the Bill of
last year respecting the see of Durham.
Sir ROBERT PEEL wished to state that consi-
derable anxiety existed to know the determination of
Government on the subject of maps and surveys con-
.nceted with the arrangements for a voluntary commuta-
tion of Tithes.—( Hear.) Considerable uncertainty was felt
as to the nature of these maps and surveys, and he knew that
the intention to enter into a voluntary commutation was for
some time suspended, until the determination of Government
had been known.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
question was under the consideration of the Lords of the
Treasury. The Commissioners had laid certain papers before
them, with the viewof inducing the Government to come to some
determination. On receiving the deputation he explained to
them the best courso to be pursued, which, in his opinion, was
to move for a Select Committee, to consider the papers,
and to have them printed.—( Hear, hear.) The inquiry
would not be a protracted one; it would simply be respecting
two or three plain questions, and the Lords of the Treasury
did not feel themselves justified in deciding upon the ques-
tion, without submitting it to the consideration of the
House. He would, therefore, now give notice of his inten-
tion to-morrow to move the appointment of such a Committee,
and he hoped in a few days to have the opinion of the House,
upon which they could act.
THE MISSING WHALERS.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said it would be in the recollection
of the House that a few evenings since a conversation took
place, on the occasion of presenting a petition from
Dundee, respecting the missing whalers, and certain papers with
the correspondence which had taken place with Government
were promised. There was a strong feeling in the country
on the subject, and lie hoped there would be no delay in laying
the papers on the table of the House.
Mr. BARING said he had already moved for the produc-
tion of the papers, and he thought they had been already laid
upon the table ; if not, they should be so without delay.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee on the
Chancellor of the Exchequer's resolutions respecting Church-
rates.

Mr. Cayley, Mr. Gisborne, and Mr. Brotherton, then rose
to address the House, each gentleman insisting upon his right
of precedence; ultimately, however, all of them gave way,
for the purpose of allowing
Sir W. FOLLETT to address the House. The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman said that he felt himself indebted to the
kindness of the Hon. Members for allowing him a precedence
to address the House. rt was not his intention, in entering
into the present discussion, at all to embark in any obser-
vations upon the financial statement of the Right Hon. Gent.
opposite. He should abtain from doing that for two reasons,
partly because it was impossible for him, or any other
man, to add anything to the clea • and convincing
statements of his Right Hon. Friend which remained un-
answered, and he believed them to be unanswerable ; and
also because the objections he felt to this resolution would be
equally strong, even if the financial statements were as accu-

rate and correct as he believed them to be incorrect and in-
accurate. His objections were founded upon higher consi-
derations, because he thought that this measure involved a
principle which, if carried out to its full extent, would be dan-
gerous, and, he might say, destructive, to the basis on which
the National Establishment rested. If the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman brought forward this plan on principles of anxiety for
the interests of the Established Church which he was so
anxious to get credit for, surely, then, there would be no oc-
casion for taking so much trouble to convince or conciliate
that side of the House. The Right Hon. Gentleman was a
member of his Majesty's Government in 1834, when Lord
Althorp brought forward his plan for the abolition of Church-
rates. That plan was a portion of the present proposition,
in so far that it proposed to put an end to the present system
of collecting Church-rates ; but it had this distinct variance
from the plan of 1834, namely, that in that measure it was
proposed to provide an equivalent, and that the sum should be
paid out of the Consolidated Fund by a vote of Parliament.
Now, did the Right Hon. Gentleman find that side of the
House opposing the plan containing the principle of an equi-
valent ? No such thing. The opponents of that plan were
some of the foremost supporters of that now before the House.
Indeed, the Hon. Member for Middlesex boasted that the
plan was his.—( Hear, hear.) Nay, even more, the very
arguments by which the present plan was supported were the
very same arguments which the Hon. Member for Middlesex
had unsuccessfully urged against Lord Althorp's plan in 1834.
The Hon. Member for Middlesex boasted that his Majesty's
Ministers were his converts. Might not those on his ( Sir W.
Follett's) side of the House be pardoned if they refused to be-
come converts also, and did not consent to accompany the
Chancellor of the Exchequer into the camp of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Middlesex ?_( Cheers.) The avowed principle of the
supporters of this measure was hostility to the Established
Church. The Hon. Member for Middlesex stated that he
had converted his Majesty's Ministers three years ago ; but
until he had heard the speech of the Noble Lord the Member,
for Northumberland last night, he thought the conversion of
his Majesty's Ministers was of a more recent date. He did not
know whether the Noble Lord was in the House when a ques-
tion was put by the Noble Lord the Member for North Lan-
cashire to the Noble Lord, who was a Member of his Majesty's
Government when Lord Althorp's plan was brought forward,
and in answer to that question that Noble Lord stated that he
would never yield to the demands of the Dissenters for the
abolition of Church-rates, unless upon the principle that the
State should be bound to provide an equivalent.—( Cheers. )
Yes, the declaration was that no alteration would be con-
curred in unless an equivalent was provided, not from the re-
venues of the Church, but from the revenues of the State.—
( Cheers.) The impression, both in and out of the House, cer-
tainly was that his Majesty's Government still adhered to Lord
Althorp's plan of 1834, and that they (lid not intend making
any alteration in the present system of Church-rates, unless on
this condition, that the repairs of the edifices of the Church
were to be provided for by the State. Such was the general
impression. He would ask, if the plan now proposed was in
conformity with that generally received notion ; and if not, if
it must not be in entire hostility to it ? He ( Sir W. Follett)
must declare himself most emphatically to be altogether op-
posed to the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
that Church-rates were not compulsory, or that any body of
men could legally enjoy the privilege of taxing themselves or
not, as they thought fit.—( Hear.) It was on the non-recog-
nition of that principle that the Opposition to Lord Althorp's
proposition had been founded—for it was expressly denied that
the repairs of churches ought to be paid out of the revenues of
the State. The Noble Lord the Member for Liverpool
(Lord Sandon) had denied that the assertion of the Hon.
Gentleman could be correct, and he appealed to the Hon. and
Learned Member 'for the Tower Hamlets ( Dr. Lushington)
for the truth of his denial. That Learned Gentleman did not
reply; but the Noble Lord oppOsite ( Lord Howiek), rising
from the side of the Chancellor of the Exphc•quer, adopted
that Hon. Gentleman's assertion—nay, repeated and defendetl,
and gave it as his own opinion also, that " it was not compaz

sory on the people to pay Church-rates, but that they legally
possessed the privilege of taxing themselves."—( Hear, hear.)
If it could be asserted that the law of the country gave coun-
tenance to that declaration, no doubt it would be a strong
argument in favour of the plan now brought before the House ;
but he (Sir W. Follett) would maintain that such was not the
law, and that it never had been.—( Hear.) Ile would main-
tain that by the common law of the land Church-rates had
been always imposed. It was true that, in order to obtain
payment, it was sometimes necessary to enforce the decrees
of the Ecclesiastical Court. —(Cries of " Hear, hear," from
the Ministerial benches.) When Honourable Gentlemen
cheered so loudly were they aware that the mode of recover-
ing Church-rates, by an application to the Ecclesiastical
Courts, had been expressly provided by Parliament itself ?
Did they know that, by the 13th of Edward 1., it was
enacted that the Ecclesiastical Court should take jurisdiction
over Church-rates, and that though they were slow in their
operations, they possessed the power of compelling a rate to
be levied, for repairing the Church, should the parish refuse ;
or to compel another if that which had been levied was in-
sufficient ?—( Hear, hear.) The law of the land, therefore,
was distinctly in favour of the Establishment and enforcement
of Church-rates. Once indeed the Court of King's Bench
had refused to interfere by mandamus in order to enforce a
Church-rate ; not because it was not strictly legal, but be-
cause another mode of recovering it should be resorted to,
namely, the ecclesiastical Courts. The collection of Church-
rates was certainly attended with great difficulty ; but it surely,
was an illogical conclusion to come to, that because the pre-
sent system was bad, therefore the plan of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer should be adopted. It should not be forgotten
that the Right Hon. Gentleman did not trouble himself to
prove that his plan was a good one. He directed all his
arguments to show that the present system was objectionable.
—(l:ear.) He (Sir W. Follett) would ask, was there no
other mode except that suggested by the Right Ilonourable
Gentleman by which the evils of the present system might
be removed ?—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") He would put that
question in particular to the Hon. Member for the Tower
Hamlets, if he were now in his place. He would ask him
if he thought no other plan could be brought forward to settle
the Church rate question. That Learned and Hon. Gentle-
man's conversion to his present opinions must be of recent
date, for, in the year 1832, he recommended on paper, in an
opinion given by him and the Hon. Member for Kirkcud-
bright, that " Church-rates should be enforced in the same
manner as Poor-rates—( Hear, hear)—that he saw no distinc-
tion between the Poor-rates and Church-rates, which called
for a difference of collection ; nor did he anticipate any incon-
venience from that mode of proceeding."—(Cheers from the
Opposition.) Such was'the course then recommended by the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman, and whether it was good or
bad he (Sir W. Follett) would not say; but it was the opi-
nion of one who had long studied the question, who had long
held a seat in that House; and who, in 1832, was not averse
to having Church-rates collected in the same manner as Poor-
rates. But what was the opinion of the same Hon. Gentle-
man in 1834, when Lord Althorp's plan was brought forward?
Did he vote for or against that measure? He voted for it.—
(Hear, hear.) Did he now mean to that the opinion
he entertained in 1834 was to be 'aected in 1837 ?
( Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman in his
speech last night had said, that "if the plan which provided
for the payment of Church-rates out of the Consolidated
Fund had been carried into a law they would have had the
same part to play over again ere long, as was the case with
the Test and Corporation Acts." He (Sir W. Follett) would
ask if the Hon. and Learned Gentleman really thought that
the Dissenters would make the vote which ordered the pay-
ment of Church-rates out of the Consolidated Fund a question.
of disapproval ; or that they would demand its repeal ? He
could not suppose that the Dissenters, who did not oppose the
grants made to Maynooth or to the Church of Scotland, could
make a test and corporation matter of a vote for the repairs
of churches; or, if they did, he did not believe that their con-
duct wculd meet with the concurrence of the country at large,
as it might do if they were afflicted by a real grievance. Ile
must say that, conceiving that the Dissenters would not have
objected to Lord Althorp's plan, the Government of that day
were responsible for the evil consequences of not having car-
ried that measure.—( Hear, hear, hear.) The Noble Lord
opposite ( Lord llowick) said that he would not consent to
any plan for the abolition of Church-rates unless a full equi-
valent was to be forthcoming. By the present plan, the equi-
valent was not to be furnished by the State, but from a better
mode of managing the Church property. Now, how was
this to be effected ? It was proposed to take from the Bishops
all control over the Church property, and vest it in a body of
Commissioners appointed by the Crown. If lie understood the
plan aright, it was to apply to the present bench of Bishops as
well as to their successors. He would object to any Com-
mission for such a purpose ; but here was one appointed
by the Crown, in whom all funds were to be vested, and who
were to pay those funds as Parliament should direct. The
Noble Lord opposite (Lord Howick) told the House that he
did not disapproie of this vesting the Church property in the
hands of Commissioners, for he thought it wise and good to
deprive the Bishops of all worldly cares.—( Cheers from the
Ministerial side)-:--and leave them only their religious duties
to attend to.--(Renewed cheers from the same quarter.)
But lie would ask the Noble Lord if it was a good plan to sti
the Bishops of their property and rights ? If it was advisseble
to take away by the Bill the ostensible grievances of the _Dis-
senters, was it also his intention by the Bill to alter the whole
constitution of the Established Church ?—(Cheers.) But,
speaking for himself, he had a decided objection to the plan.
The Commissioners were directed to apply and pay the sum
of 250,0001. to purposes not before intended. He should
like to know what security he had that, if in one session
the sum of 250,000/. was paid, the Government might not
in another direct a larger sum to be appropriated, and for
far different purposes ?—( Hear, hear.) He could not see
where the plan was to end. He did not know that this
English appropriation clause, supported as it was by Govern-
ment, might not, like the Irish appropriation clause, pro-
ceed session after session increasing in demands,iuntil it stripped!
the Church altogether of its property, and left it to depend
for support on that voluntary system which was so strongly re-
pudiated by the Honourable Gentlemen opposite. The con-
duct of the Bishops in objecting to this Bill at so early a.
stage had been termed indecorous._( Hear, from the Ministe-
rial benches)--but he thought it might with more propriety be
applied to the King's Ministers, the servants of the Crown,
who had come down to Parliament and proposed a plan for
altering the whole constitution of the Church, and to strip the-
Bishops of their property.—(Loud cries of " Hear.") He
would ask, as the Hon. Member for Middlesex had already
done, how were debts to be paid ? If 800,0001. were left a
charge on all parishes in the kingdom for debts, were not the
Dissenters as much aggrieved as before ?—( Cries of " No.")
No I If the Dissenters had to contribute to the payment of
debts already due by the parish, were they not still to suffer
—(" No," from Mr. Baines.) Well, he would be glad too
hear the seeming contradiction explained by the Honourable
Gentleman. The debts now due were, it was said, to fall on
the Poor-rates and not on the Church-rates--in fact, on a. !dif-
ferent species of property. In many parishes these two taxes
did not fall on the same person. If the transfer took place
how was the difficulty arising from this to be surmounted ?
(Hear.) It was said that lessees had no right to compel the
renewal of their leases, and that they were subject to the op-
tion of the Bishops whether the lease should be renewed or not.
He (Sir W. Follett) admitted that a lessee had no right to go
into a Court of Equity in order to compel a renewal of his
lease. This he admitted ; but looking a little further into
the position in which he actually stood, it would be found
that although against the lessor the lessee had no legal.
right, he was in a very secure position as against all the rest
of the world- Let them look at past experience, and th,;:y
would find that Church leases had been held for centuries
by the same families by clearer titles in many instances
than freehold ; that in this light they had been made mat-
ters of settlement from generation to 'generation, and that
they fetched in the market a price very little inferior to that
of the fee-simple of the land.—( Hear, hear.) But not this
only. Was the Right Hon. Gentleman aware that, ley the
statutes restricting leases, lessors might be bound and com-
pelled to renew, and that the deans, arid prebends, and dig-
nitaries of the Church, if they wished to retain the profits of
their lands, bad no other alternative but to do so ? But
again : if the lessee lead no legal right to compel a renewals
of his lease, bad we a right to step in between the lessor and
the lessee to prevent the lessor from renewing, and thus 'in-
terfering with the rights and prospects alike of the lessor
and the lessee ?—( Hear, hear.) Was it pretended that the
case of the Crown lands was any precedent here ? The
Crown was the landlord, and had a right to do as it thought
proper with its leases as they fell in, and it came down to
this House for its assistance in making a more beuefissial ar-
rangement on the subject. But in the case of Church-lands
the House had no such assent from either party ; neither
the lessees nor the lessors were before them ; and yet the
House, in their absence, proposed to compel them to do what
Parliament thought right and beneficial—beneficial not to
themselves, but to another party who had no claim nor in-
terest otherwise in the property in question. He did not mean
to say that this property was always to remain in the same
state ; he was aware of the disadvantages of the present sys-
tem, but he did not think there would be any insurmountable
difficulty in altering a plan so as to remedy the existing de-
fects, but at the same time not bs the adoption of any com-
pulsory regulations in their stead. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer asserted that the new plan would operate to the
advantage of the lessees. If so, what necessity was there:
for making it compulsory? The fact was, however-10d
it could not be denied—that whilst the proposed plan would
tend to the advantage of the lessees in some districts, it
would have a contrary effect in others.—( Hear, hear.) Was
the Right Hon. Gentleman aware that there was no property
in the country on which money could be so easily obtained a!
on Church lands ?—( Hear.) He could assure the Noble Lord
and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there was no bet!!:
security—at least till this measure was brought forward. tie. .
had put a question to the Right Hon. Gentleman, and from,
the courtesy which he usually displayed he was quite sure erg
answer would have been given, could it have been given co.e
sistently. The question was whether fines arising from the
' renewal of leases of mines were to be included in the 250,0001
The Noble Lord the Member for Northumberland said net
but surely the Right Honourable Gentleman ought to tell mg!"
really was his intention on that point. He confessed that
position in which the lessees would be placed was a decidedo
objection to the measure. He did not deny that the valueeeet
the land might be increased ; and by doing so both the lessee
and the lessor might be benefited ; but what he denied was the-
right of the Legislature to make such a change by compsa 2S
means.—( Hear.) He wished also to have some explanation_
with respect to another part of the plan—that by which part
_0:
the money was to be raised out of the pew-rents. !1 was
sure if any part of that plan was to extend to country parishes,s
It would create more dissatisfaction among the friends of the
Established Church than satisfaction among Dissenters. Ha
would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who admitted that-
it was the duty of the State, nay, a. higher and more important'

duty to provide for the religious wants of the
provide for the national defence—he wouli
In justice, or consistently with such an admi
divert in any possible way the revenues of the C
purposes than those of religious instruction ?—i
Noble Lord (Lord Howick) said he was
pressing necessity, he allowed that the spiritual
agreefor; with the Right Hon. Baronet in any proposition by
Which their wants could be provided for by Parliament. But
did not the Noble Lord see that the very principle on which
the Dissenters grounded their objections to contribute to the
repair of Churches, would also prevent them from agreeing to
the
Proposition for the erection of new Churches, or supplying
Lno religious wants of the people ?—( Hear, hear.) Why
;Iwould not the religious scruples be as strong against erecting
:v : Churches, as against the repair of old ones ?—( Hear.)
re his Majesty's Ministers aware of the extent of the sacri-
rceciO they were making ? Did they know that the party for the
nof of whom this measure was intended would push their
demands
to a greater extent, and to an extent nothing short
of i the recognition of the voluntary principle.—( Hear, hear.)
He was the more induced to dwell on that point, because lie
e
onsidered it of importance to show that the admission of
the Noble Lord and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the
State ought to provide fer the religious wants of the people,
and the principle embodied in the resolution were directly op-
Posed to each other. —( Hear, hear.) He had only one obser-
t\otion more. His Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for
13Ile Tower Hamlets last evening said it has been the almost
r,evailing opinion of the House that the evil of the present
f}stcul was great, it was daily and hourly increasing, and that
;1) ._ell an extent that some remedy must be applied to it.
"'• he admitted the difficulties of continuing the present sys-
sem, and he would willingly concur in some measure for al-
ereing it, but he would not agree to the present plan. 'Ms
asure was at variance with the principle of an Establihshed
%Cherebe and he believed no one would vote for it who was
o.t disposed to adopt the voluntary principle.—( Hear.) He
objected to it on these grounds ; but he must say the paramount
"Ilhe Retion was the danger to the Church.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL would vote for the mea-
!,ure because he believed it would be a security for the peace of
IL° Church, and a great benefit :to the public. His Hon. and
Learned Friend had been carried away by his zeal, and bad
liPpeared rather as an advocate in the cause. Now, he would
tot yield to him in affection to the Established Churches of
411gIsetd and Scotland. He was attached to that Church—he
the
bell been born in the bosom of the Scottish Church—and felt
er highest respect for the Church of England, because he
t e loved it was of great advantage to the country ; lie wished
io see it enjoy all its rights and privileges, and his great object
,esuPporting that measure was that its security and utility
b.`".ght be extended. He was not in favour of the voluntary
reirineiPle, and could not see how the resolution before the
tn9use could be placed on the same footing. In great towns it
F..Ain be of great benefit, but in remote districts, unless reli-
u. In were provided by the State, he was afraid great
-gtlerance would prevail. He allowed that there ought to be
ni Established Church, and that provision should be made for
eiainteining the Church, and for the decent performance of reli-
ens worship ; but the question was, whether the present
Veil) had proved satisfactory in that point of view. In his
11°4411", it was totally inefficient, and a change of the law was
111-essarY• His Hon. and e' rued Friend began by taunting
thetebers on his side of the House with inconsistency. Hu
pieught he would have acted a more consistent part had he
'elleecod at those sitting at his right hand on the same bench,
considered whether they were altogether free from incon-
citielleies as regarded the Church, or the Temporalities of the
t arch. The Noble Lord (Lord Stanley) had cheered his
tee•
%• and Learned Friend very loudly, and he was, therefore,
-,,11! to know how lie would maintain his consistency by
utaeng the Resolution, when it was remembered what part he
making alterations in the Temporalities of the Irish
r.
ts-uirch ? His' Hon. and Learned Friend said that land was
tic, to Church-rates by law. Ile differed with him entirely
°nthat point. What the Right lion. Baronet, the Member
" Tan worth said with respect to Scotland was correct. The
rel'air of Churches and glcbe.houses, or manses, as they were
ciWed i
held n Scotland, was chargeable on thelan.d.. Land there was

be i:4)11 condition that the Churches and glebe-houses should
I,tnd's,V.t in repair out of that land, exactly in the way that some
t4i, 'it? England were held on the condition a keeping
Rteeniges in
_repair._ Church-rates in England were

to the Committee to
, - on a different footing ; they were a personal tax. It
Gould he neither instructive nor amusing,,
rates,i
n a l
ly
enter into an investigation of the origin
But there could be no doubt thati the
were divided into four
CinhoufrethheessewCerhenroerlig-
t'ePaired out of the tithes.
The tithes
to the repair of the Churches.
Portions, one of which was
When the Church threw
merely a personal ob-
oafprp thisil burden did not appear. But
es were
it
Ras clear that the Church-rates
tgation. They were exactly
like the Poor-rates, which, by
were
.imposed upon the
tile statute cf the 434 of Elizabeth,
Per,onal estate ; although that being found inconvenient, they
Were almost in all cases levied on. the land. That they were
Co a.! been determined in 183
by the highest Ecclesiastical
• oart in England. It
iwas not just, therefore,. that those should
l taxed to pay them w lo .
had no interest in the application.
T their origin they were equal ; for, then all men entertained
tl'e same religious creed.
it was unjust to the
But nou,. when there was so great
4tl,'' • t of opinions in matters of religion,
worship, they
''assreletnYers to be taxed to support our places of 1
analogy w iat-
-1 There was no
Itaving to support t.le.r o .
e''er between Church-rates and tithes. Tithes were a burden
edge land ; they were not a tax or
the tithes were put up to auction separately , .
• and the pur-
an impost. The land
• er of the tithes for the
~lliaser of the land was only a receiver
(Ithe-ovrner. The inequality which arose from the existence
of different religious opinionsabsolutelyintolerable.
would render Church-rates more
end More odious ; and, in some cases,
was especially
It %las the principle, and not the amouni%
whichfriend the Member for
liected to. His Hon. and Learned.
which they payment of
44tingdon said he knew of cases
thousand pounds.
Ihree or four pounds levied as Churicnh:rates had been resisted
I,IL, Cpur.t of Law at an expense of several , .
`s hersfe of repugnance became
the repair of Churches
stronger eves) day, and if
"rat ottno.de were not provided for .
tilt .
k„ •Y would, ere long, see those
it as on that account
- * vet►L •
w
Churches in utter ruin. Such
that , it Lie strongly deprecated,. and
1-10, 'le he
the plan of his
her for Exeter thought
Right Hon. Friend. His
that - Ind Learned Friend the Mem
dlat thud 't law might be made more stringenth on those who
"lined. to the Church-rates. st_, . pay . law might be made
Friend leased,
• the :flok. ent as his Honourable .
r at
andes.
-
ted to. Let the refusal be
LearnedTep
11,5,1rnik irt would not be submit
1), te It f eiony without benefit
b of
ld remain unpaid. As
clergy, let the punishment
to ,t`lBl mr tation, the Church-rates would
the -vbraF ellino. parishes to levy a
d Friend the Member
Church-rate, he utterly denied
fer, Rat entent of his Hon, and
pie ...rter on That point. WhenL
rate
Court to compel
aearne had been imposed ap-
ei4tril(4._4l might be made to an Ecclesiastical
of Kinrr's Bench
4 h 4-
But there was no lel de'Of compelling
tvollaira'eal to levy. a Church-rate. The Court• .
4 Iwugh at his Hon. and Learned Friend if he ;plied for
A mandamus might he
4,4l2:olreenius for such a purpose.
A tiett)d for the payment of a Poor-rate, or for the payment of
d on the Church,rate.
/3 t cbte to an individual, and fig tai ith reference to the repairsseocfurCehurches, there was no
hit lesol compelling the parishes levytomeya Church-rate. In
d for the refusal of a
Pkri,,t, ('lnr:t times, there was no
eith ...4 to it.i:ipose tithes. It could not be compelled to. do. so,
That he maintained. ;
kticCvt: by Civil or by ecclesiastical law. to be challenged the Hon. and Learned Civilian opposite
se u d
h
pitaL,. p an say ow suc could b.e aecom-
aa "'" h a n ol) j e ct
There were no means of.
.
, the
those who accomplishingz.-
it. Now,
itt 1 nu here
were constantly multiplying of
Learned Friend
iii• 'lt?`' t° pay Church-rates, it was clear that there must be
pa l. alteration in the law. His Hon. and .
"'l il should be made more stringent.
hints
It
hb,..e ieinber for Tamworth last night threw someoutnp
The Right Honour-
issenters
' :---4t making a distinction, in the matter between
also about
Th-rlolembers of the Church of England ;
€o,l„ing a difference between town and country parishes.
whom he
always ating from the Right Honourable Baronet, . ,
4,. felt the greatest respect, he was astonihocrid to hear
lent
impracticable suggestions. It was to provide a perma-
oletnrt system to be applicable to that which was varyingi)
not work,
k 4 • It was to construct machinery which wou - ' every
for
11(1 which would be wholly inapplicable to the purpose
What
NII„, hic it was intended. 'What, then, was to he done?
ashlggesed in 1834 by Lord Althorp, when the Noblel
,Ta)rd opposite, the Member for South Lancashire, was a
con_
1 ter of the Cabinet ; although what share he had in theit
vv.
( action of the plan he (the Attorney_ General) did
1 Were was something in that plan which,
neverh
Lord
,; were the only instance of a public measure in w
h e
liked.nn
lc
in
his
`J Thorp had exhibited any thing like thimble-riggery
r::‘4 tr4cter. —( Hear, haar.) It was proposed by that measure
ia a the Church -rates should be charged on the English
the ihtax. The object of that proposition %vas to reconcil
.Dissentera of England, Scotland, and Ireland, to a mea-
t
:,_ by which they would be apparently relieved. But way
i°,' '..1 at proposition exactly the same thing as proposing to pay
, hem age position out of the Consolidated Fund ? And was it n.o
,',lttifl ered as affurdina• a solid grou omplaint by the DB-
ata- -
at bs,r! of England, Scotland, and Ireland ? His constituents
4,111.1 'burghrevoltedat 't for they were taxed not only for
the_ 1 ,
the r'tli airs of the English churches, but he was sorry to say for
an Si 41 port of the Nlinisters. In England the grievance was
1164,4,1" 4 felt. In Ireland it was felt still more sensibly ; for the
%,e'', vere also subject to the vestry cess and other rates. It
.
th:eut intended generally by the Dissenters that to tax them for
wer% ?portp of the Ministers of another Church while
.they
elv:. iject to the expense of supporting the Ministers of. their
11,e wi a; unjust. lie, for one, might not have been sorry if the
145% aa he alluded to had been carried into effect, if it had
wiill •eonsidered conciliatory ill its character. But
,:kt en lie found that it was not so -- be found that, in-
1C:r421
o.f 'being a measure of peace, whenwould turn out a mea-
-1,:v11 .exasperation, he could no longer give it his support.
01 evident now, however, that the law on the subject
Vas.,ast be changed, and that being the case, he knew of no
aa that promised to be so advantageous as the plan now pro-
m° sad by his Majesty's Government. Into the financial part of
pro-
1i plan he would not enter, further than to express his convict
that the result would be still more favourable than had
hey
of
theandweticipatllinged
o by
thion. Friend.
et llon. Instead, how-
f n his s Right lion.
point, he would refer to the admission
114, , and Learned Member for Bassetlaw, who had
more practical experience than he had; and who said
1,/,1114(il no doubt that the produce of the improved leases
11 _ be t
least equal to that anticipated by the Right Hon.
1111: i=zliancellor of the Exchequer. As to the calculations of
ere 1 'Ott Hon. Member for Tarriworth, he was convinced that
the_.unng they would be proved utterly fallacious. Supposing,
ti,rl, upon the authority of the lion. and Learned Member
ke„l:,iaeßs.etlaw, that a fund would be produced sufficient for the
1441 r% a purpose, be would ask if the manner in which that
tie were to be raised would do injury to any one? It could
iL " injury to tho Bi,hops. It n be uchb
'le Bishops should b -
of their
„I'i4:t"ral detit,s inste7lnloy?d solely in the discharge.
task
of
rums leases and being perplexed with the k
ter that
concluding bargains about the Church

, occupation was not befitting a Bishop. Sup-
,rd Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice of the
ng's Bench, the Lord Chief Justice of the Court
Pleas, and the Chief Baron of the Exchequer, in-
,neir judicial salaries, had estates from which their in-
-nes were derived, would it not be better, instead of involv-
iing those dignified individuals in all the embarrassments and
contests in which the mansgernent of such estates must ne-
cessarily involve them, to hand the estates over to Com-
missioners who would manage them, and pay the proceeds
to those who were entitled to them ?—( Hear, hear.) There
was a case in point which proved this. To the office of
Master of the Rolls an estate was formerly attached; and
his Honour had all the annoyance of letting land upon leases,
of renewing leases on fines, &c. This was found so incon-
venient, that at length the estate was made over to trustees,
and the Master of the Rolls now received a fixed salary.
There was no reason, therefore, to fear that the Bishops
would be at all sufferers by being relieved from the embar-
rassment of managing the Church lands. They would not be
deprived of the estates—they would only be exonerated from
the trouble of managing them. Who would say that that
could occasion them the slightest inconvenience ? It would
give them more time fur the due discharge of their episcopal
functions ; fur the fulfilment of all their pastoral duties. His
Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Exeter then came
to the case of the lessees of Church-lands ; and expressed
great compassion for the state into which he said the proposed
measure would throw them. He (the Attorney-General) had
not yet heard a syllable of complaint from the lessees. On
the contrary, all the accounts which he had received repre-
sented the lessees as exceedingly well pleased with the propo-
sition.—( A laugh.) The worst tenure of land was that of
Church-property. In his time he (the Attorney-General)
had busied himself in endeavouring to reform the tenures of
land. He had been specially anxious that copyhold tenures
should be improved. Why ? Because they resembled the
tenures of Church property. They were renewable on the
payment of fines, which fines were estimated by the improve-
ments which had been made by the tenants. This of course
prevented improvement; for who would plant a tree, or build
a house, when the only result would be that the fine on the re-
newal of his tenure would be increased ? So it was with the
tenure of Church property. The only consequence of improve-
ment of Church lands was, that the fines or, the renewal of leases
were increased. This gave rise to the proverb in Sussex,
" that the oak was too noble a tree to grow on servile land ;"
the real meaning of which was, that no one would plant such a
tree on copyhold or Church land; as, instead of deriving any
advantage from it, it would merely give a pretence for an in-
crease of fine, on the renewal of his tenure or lease. But it

was said that the adoption of this resolution would inflict a
great hardship upon the lessees. Was it not known that the
one half of Londou was built on Church lands? But there
were particular Acts of Parliament with regard to the build-
ing of this town on the lands of the Bishop of London and
the Dean of St. Paul's, which made, perhaps, more advan-
tageous terms to the lessees. He contended that the les-
sees must rejoice at the prospect of this resolution being
carried into effect, because they were now in a state of great
uncertainty. One thing to be considered was the fact that
the difficulty of effecting the renewal of leases was becoming
greater every year; and the Hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr.
G. H. Vernon) agreed to that proposition. He allowed the
deficiency of the means of religious instruction in the country,
which he deeply regretted to see ; but he believed that a most
. .

improper criterion had been adopted in respect to the question
of new endowments. lie believed that in Cheshire, where it
was supposed there was a deplorable insufficiency of places of
worship, there were numerous chapels and places of worship
where persons might go and worship their God without there
being any call for fresh endowments. But the question
which they were called upon to consider was, whether the
Church could he benefited and its interest most promoted by
fresh endowments, or increasing the utility of those which
now existed ? For his own part, he should say that it would

be monstrous to create new endowments when it was a no-
torious fact that so many Churches were going to ruin and
falling into decay. Therefore, unless he found that some
other fund could be devised by which Churches could be
repaired and the means of religious worship increased, not
only in great towns but through the country generally, it
would be found ere long that the most lamentable conse-
quences must ensue. Supply this fund in the cases of pa-
rishes which were now endowed, and then see how they
would extend the means of religious instruction. He allowed
the great importance of this branch of the question, and lie
should be glad indeed to assist in any scheme by which re-
ligious instruction could be diffused throughout the land.
On the samu principle that education should be taken care of
by the State, so should religious instruction be supported
and maintained ; and he should be rejoiced to see this prin-
ciple carried out in England, in Scotland, and in Ireland.
But it seemed to him better to do good in supplying the
means to do away with Church-rates in the first instance ;
and he looked forward to the happy effects of this healing
measure, now that Church-rates were to be abolished, and
the fabric of the Church, and the decent performance of re-
ligious worship, were to be derived from another fund ; and
he hoped that the cause of discontent on the part of the Dis-
senters would be done away with, and that Churchmen and
Dissenters would henceforth become united in brotherly love.
It seemed to him that the most salutary effects might be an-
ticipated from the adoption of the proposal now made ; and
do not let Hon. Members refrain from doing justice in this
case, because they are afraid of some possible ulterior de-
mand. Let them do what was just, and not shrink from re-
sisting that which was unreasonable, whenever such a demand
might be made. He would ask Hon. Gentlemen opposite,
would they be disposed to adopt the sentiments of all those
who took the part of the Established Church ? Would they
answer for, and hold themselves responsible for the opinions
or proceedings of every dignitary of the Church ?—(Hear.)
Had they read the visitation charge of the Right Rev. the
Lord Bishop of Exeter ?—( Hear, hear.) Did they approve
of the assertion made by that Lord Bishop, when he stated
that his Majesty's attorney-General had been very remiss in
not prosecuting libellous publications?—(Cheers.) He must
say, that of all the publications which had ever come before
him, that same visitation charge of the Right Rev. the Lord
Bishop of Exeter was the most libellous.—( Cries of " Hear,"
and cheers, from the Ministerial benches.) If, indeed, he
• were disposed to file an ex otficio information, he should be
disposed to file one against the Right Reverend the Lord
Bishop of Exeter.--( Cheers.) Since he had held office he
had not been called upon to file a single ex officio information,
and he did not believe that the circumstance of his having re-
frained from the exercise of that power had been prejudicial
to the public ; nor did he apprehend that be should be blamed
for not having prosecuted the Lord Bishop of Exeter. He
would leave it to those who had read the charge to judge of its
character, not thinking that they would be convinced or con-
verted by it, and believing that it would not produce any con-
siderable sensation (as we understood). But did Hon. Gen-
tlemen think it was decent to say that an Act which had passed
the Legislature, such as that of the Dissenters' Marriages Bill,
was an Act which no sane man would have had the hardihood to
propose ? Was it decent to accuse a considerable part of that
House of treachery, aggravated by perjury ? Did they say that
it was decent to charge his Majesty's Ministers with seeking the
support of an Infidel faction? These were only a few specimens
of the statements contained in the publication to which he had
called the attention of the House. He respected the high
talents and acquirements, but he condemned the sentiments,
of the Right Rev. Prelate, and above all he condemned
them the more strongly, looking to the occasion upon which
they were made. And do not let Hon. Gentlemen draw
conclusions from the particular statements of any individual,
however high his station might be. He had now only one
more observation to make to allay the apprehension which had
been excited as to the censure of posterity. Now he be-
lieved that posterity, so far from condemning, would applaud
their conduct in making the attempt to put an end to an un-
just impost. Our forefathers never would have laid oil such
an impost ; and nothing could be more unjust than to consider
the evil as one emanating from the wisdom of our ancestors.
The resolution had his unqualified sanction and support;
and he trusted that when the Bill to be founded on this
resolution was understood, and when those misrepresenta-
tions which had overspread the measure should be removed,
and the Bill should be submitted to the good sense of the
country, its true character would be made apparent.—( Hear.)
Ile trusted that from the admission of this proposed measure,
peace and concord would follow, and that all animosities
would cease as between Churchmen and Dissenters.—( Cheers.)
Mr. HARCOURT VERNON said a few words in expla-
nation, the tenor of which did not reach us.

Mr. LAW said that the question had been debated as if it
were a plan ripe for adoption, however fatal it would be if
carried into execution, yet be had reason to believe it would
never be accomplished—( Hear and " Oh I")—nay, he thought
that those Hon. Members who advocated it so strenuously on
the other side of the House, nevertheless did so in despair of
its passing.—(Loud cries of " Oh," and " hear.") Was he
to learn by those cheers that a ray of hope still existed on
'the part of the Government, that at some future time, and
in a modified shape, they would be able to carry the mea-
sure ?—( Hear.) He would assume, that even the calcula-
tions made on the other side were correct ; but this was no
ground- for the abolition of Church-rates—for he would first
ask, if the principle of the Bill were just, were the means
of carrying it out safe. or did they not involve results fatal
to the °Church Establishment ? On the conviction that the
measure would be fatal to the Establishment, he would rest his
opposition to it.—(Hear.) It would seem that the rapid pro-
gress the Irish Appropriation Clausebad made in securing the
disgust of the Protestants of the empire, had induced Minis-
ter; to change the field of battle, but to direct their attack still
on the Church- Establishment. He contended that the mea-
sure involved the voluntary principle. If the Dissenters
scrupled to pay the present rates they would equally scruple
to pay any other charge for the maintenance of the Establish-
ment.—(-Hear. ) He would say also that those who had been
bred up as inembers of the Church, ought not to be the first to
lay their spoiling and sacrilegious hands on its property, but
whatever doubt there was as to the passing of the measure in
that House, he had no doubt as to how it would be treated
elsewhere. —( Hear.) Was it from any disrespect, or from his
exalted respect, that he hoped the torrent would be stopped
there ?—( Hear, hear.) It was because he knew it to be an
assembly of Gentlemen and hereditary Noblemen. He would
be glad to support any measure which could conciliate the
feelings or the religious scruples of the Dissenters, provided
lie could preserve the Church at the same time.—( Hear.)
would He ask; also, in whom was 4. be trust of the Ecclesiasti-
cal revenues to be now reposed ? The Bishops who had been
designated trustees had renounced this trust, and had given
the most unequivocal demonstration that they would not be
parties to it. 7--( Hear, bear.) The Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman then continued to say that Government would doubtless
have the support of the representatives of the sister island,
but'
where would it he without them ?—( Hear, hear.) That House
lie contended, had the power to increase the value of Char&
property, but could not alienate any portion of it. If there