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

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDA MARCH 4, ,537.

now, can the interests of the Church itself and the ad-
.

vancement of true religion be promoted or maintained by
the present system of making and enforcing Church-rates ? My
Noble Friend asked, " Did the Hon. Member for Oxford think
that the heartburnings—the acrimonious revilings—the recri-
minations—the party and personal violence, vi high
took place in the Church itself, and by which the
cause of true religion was profaned, and the house of
God desecrated, and ill-feeling generated amongst the
people at large, could promote the interests of the Church ?"
—( Cheers.) My Noble Friend added : " I say that such a state
of things imperatively calls for an immediate remedy.--( Hear.)
I do not appeal to him as an authority in favour of my plan,
of which he knows nothing ; but I do appeal to him as a
high authority for my first principle, that the present
system cannot continue.---( Cheers.) If gentlemen stand up
and tell us that the Church has been victorious, I ask them,
in the words of my Noble Friend, can such victories be useful ?
Or if the Church continued to be triumphant in this manner,
can such triumph be a set-off or a counterpoise
to the evils which my Noble Friend so eloquently described
in the speech from which I have just quoted. I fear I have occu-
pied the House too long with this first part of the subject. I know
there is an opinion prevalent in certain quarters that we
can go on as we are.—(Hear, hear, hear.) I know
that an opinion prevails that the law as it now
stands, is sufficient to enable the Church to enforce
the rates, and I have therefore thought it necessary to
prove, upon such high authority, that a change of the
present system is necessary in reference to the interests of
the Church itself--(Hear)—the just feelings of the Dissenters,
and in reference to the peace of the country. Now Sir, if I
am right, we are not called upon to divide upon this point,
or to discuss its principle.—( Hear, hear.) It is not so much
the question as to whether a remedy should be given,
but what that remedy ought to be. Various remedies have been
proposed, to which I shall refer in the course of my observations,
and the first of which is the total abolition of Church-rates,
leaving the fabric of the Church to be provided for by the vo-
luntary contribution of its supporters—(Hear, hear, hear)—
that is, in point of fact, putting the maintenance
of the fabric of the Church to what we understand
and refer to in our debates as the voluntary principle.—
( Hear.) Now, Sir, I for one say that to that principle I
must ever, and under all circumstance, express my
decided opposition (Tremendous cheers from the Tory
benches)—whether with regard to the maintenance of the
fabric of the Church, or to the support of the Church
Establishment at large. I shall not attempt to argue the
question at present, but I must enter my protest against
any affirmance of the voluntary principle in any shape or
modification whatsoever.—( Cheers from the Tory benches.)
My Noble Friend has stated this upon various occasions
before ; and I the more boldly state it now, because the affir-
mance of the point is not necessary in the consideration of the
present question ; but I say; that the plan I am about to pro-
pose, so far from any connection with the voluntary principle,
leaves it altogether untouched. The maintenance of the
fabric of the Church of England does not necessarily
depend upon the question of the duty of the State
to provide means for religious worship thrOughout
Great Britain and Ireland—l shall not argue that
question. I shall simply enter my protest against the vo-
luntary principle. I shall say that when Gentlemen can
show me that the country at large can be defended—
that the army and navy can be supported—that public
education can be carried on and that the ad-
ministration of justice can be maintained—( Hear, hear)_
upon the voluntary principle, and that religious instruction
is of a nature less important and binding upon the commu-
nity—then the voluntary principle can alone be established.
But inasmach as I know that it is impossible to establish the
voluntary system in governing the country, and when I
know that the religious establishment of the State is as necessary
to be maintained as the army, the navy, or the administra-
tion of justice, then I cannot say I am prepared—l will
never submit—to leave the Establishment to the vo-
luntary principle. —( Cheers from the Opposition.) Well,
Sir, another proposition made is that the Church should not
be left to the voluntary principle, but that a system of taxation
should be planned—that taxes should be levied on the members
of the Church for its maintenance. I think, Sir, this
involves the objection to which I have already alluded, as
contained in the former proposition. But how, Sir, are we
to know who is a Churchman ?—(Cheers)—are we to
establish a new test ?—( Continued cheering)—are we to
renew the Test end Corporation Acts, in order to
know who is to pay towards the maintenance of the
Church Establishment ?—( Loud cheers.) But, Sir, I need
not pursue such a line of argument farther--it is too ab-
surd —((Hear, hear.) Another proposition which has been
propounded is, that there should be a fund created by a tax
levied upon the clergy—by imposing a rate of taxation upon
all the benefices of the Church. I suppose it is to be a sort of
income tax to be levied uj.en the Clergy for the maintenance
of the fabric of the Church. To that proposition also I cannot
agree.—( Hear, hear.) You had it stated in a Report which
was laid upon your table, what the actual amount was
of the revenues of the Church of England. After
considering. that Report, I think no Gentleman will consider
that a proper mode of meeting the expense. That Report
showed that the average income of the Church of England
amounted only to 285/. per annum. Sir, lam not now
called upon to enter into the question of distribution ;
but taking it for the sake of argument that the dis-
tribution was equal, it only gave an average of 285/.
'l hen, again, it. is said by some—there arc the Bishops,
the Deans and Chapters—why not do away with them ?
Sir, in answer to that I say, it would be, in fact,
abolishing the Episcopal Church.—( Cheers.) It would
alter the whole system of the Establishment. But sup-
posing, for argument sake, they were swept away,
and that the is mile revenue were thrown into the average, it
would not give more than an average of three hundred and twenty
or three hundred and thirty pounds per annum to each clergyman,
and I am not yet prepared to say that that is a sum too large.
Sir, I say, that it is nut an income from which I am prepared
to make any deduction—( Cheers)—when I consider the duties
cast upon them, and the large means of usefulness open to
them—their charity and their benevolence, and the claims
upon both—l ant not disposed to make any deduction from
the income- now assigned to the parochial clergy of the Estab-
lished Church. Another proposition has been made to raise
the whole aura by a tax upon pew rents, and to let the sittings
of the Church maintain the fabric of the Church. Sir, I am very
reluctant to acquiesce in that principle. Then indeed I should
be countenancing that second part of the cry which I have
heard raised, when it was said would you rob the poor of their
rights ?—( Opposition cheers.) Sir, I think it would do so,
and, therefore, I will not consent to it--( Ministerial cheers)_.
and, therefore, those who impute this to me, who impute to
the Government or to those who are about to propose the
plan we have now in view, do an injustice to us. Sir, I con-
tend, that it is the duty of the Government, on the contrary, to
provide scats for the poor, amid so far from limiting or abridg-
ing the rights of the poor we seek to extend them.—
( Loud cheers.) If we were to place the support of the fa-
bric of the Church upon the system of pew rents,
without regard to the rights of the poor, or without providing,
proper religions instruction to the poorer classes, I say that
would be a vicious settlement of the question.—( Hear, hear.)
Therefore I utterly and entirely disapprove of wishing to raise
the whole support of the fabric of the Church by pew rents,
reserving to myself in the further development of the plan the
right of appropriating the pew rents paid by the rich to sup-
port that fabric, and to extend the means of religious in-
struction to the poor. The next plan to which I will ad-
vert is one of a very different character ; and this is the
plan of those who are so amazingly contented with things
as they are, and who are anxious that Church-rates should
remain in the present condition, and who only wish to add a
little additional force, power, and control over those who pay,
than the force, power, and control now possessed by them.
This is contained in two letters of Archdeacon Bathurst, which
I hope the House will permit me to read.—( Hear, hear.)
They relate to a meeting which was held to consi-
der the subject of Church-rates, and one of the resolutions
passed there is " That this meeting deprecates any interfe-
rence with the present system of Church-rates, and feels per-
suaded that there is no other mode in which the object for
which they are levied can be procured."—( Hear.) Now,
Sir, if there be any force in the opinion of my Noble Friend—
if there be any force in the opinion of Lord Spenser, or if
there be any force in the opinion of the Right Bon. Baronet,
the Member for Tamworth, in adverting to the measure,
there is on our part at least no disposition to remain so
contented with the present system that we can allow the
present law to remain.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) But,
Sir, this is not all ; for in another—a mcst important part
of this communication—he says that "there is nothing
more required than an additional enactment, in order to render
the Church-rate secure and satisfy its opponents."—( Hear.)
Now, Sir, what is this additional enactment ?—( Hear.) It is
either that the power should be given to the churchwardens to
levy a rate without the consent of the vestry—(Hear, hear)
—or to give to the magistrates at quarter sessions
the power to impose a rate upon parishes, without
the consent of the parishioners.—(Hear, hear.) That pro-
position never can be maintained, let it come from what
quarter it may, for one moment. I now come to another
proposition, which I approach with much more doubt and in-
decision. I admit the force of it, having been disposed to
support it individually, as a Member of Lord Grey's Govern-
ment, considering it to contain within itself the elements
of great good.—( Cheers.) I refer to the proposition
which was made by Lord Spencer. I intend to discuss
that proposition, and to state to the Committee the reason
why I think that proposition is untenable, and that the House
would not be warranted in supporting it.---(Cheers.) Lord
Spencer proposed to vote that a sum of 250,0001. should be
raised for the purpose of maintaining the fabric of the
Church, and that that sum should be supplied from the
Consolidated Fund.—( Hear, hear.) That proposition
was brought forward in this House. It was not distinctly ne-
gatived, but amendments were moved upon it to this effect, that
until it was shown the funds of the Church were inadequate
for the purposes of the Church, the House was not disposed to
entertain the proposition. The Noble Lord did not persist in
that proposition. His Majesty's Government feel the utmost
respect of course for the proposition in which so many of
them concurred, but I shall take the liberty of showing
the House the reason why I think that proposition ought not
now to be made, and why another and a more preferable
proposition should be brought forward. In the first place,
the House is to recollect that the present system of Church-
' rates is a system in which the parishioners in vestry assembled
have the power of saying " aye or no." It is, in point of fact,
founded on that principle of parochial government—to that
principle there were objections—as it related to Church-rates.
I object to that principle, not on the ground of injustice,
because I think that large communities ought to have a
voice on such subjects ; and I object to Church-rates on the
ground that they are calculated to lead to discord and ill will.
Butl say, that if the parishes of England have a free right, as
at present they have, to say whether 1,0001. or NU should