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

I),

,Jerty.—( Hear, hear, bear. ) This authority may not have
weight with gentlemen opposite, but it is one on which I rely—
it is that of Lord Spencer.--( Hear, and cheers.) The case
tee make out is this, that we give a new value to the existing
Church leases, and I contend that we have a right to apply the
funds derived from this new value as Church-rates.—( Loud
cries of Hear, hear,.) I have the authority of Lord
Spencer for this—that Noble Lords, in 1833, in introducing
this measure, said that "even those who declared that it
was unjust to interfere with the revenues of the Church,
agree, that if by an Act of Parliament a new value is given
to benefices, it does not properly belong to the Church, and
the amount raised by it ought to be appropriated to the State."
That was said by Lord Spencer. In introducing his Bill he said
that " those gentlemen who th ought it was unjust to interfere
!vith Church property agreed to the proposition." But, Sir, I
have now another authority on the subject—that of my Noble
Friend opposite—nay, he goes beyond what I contend for.—
(pear.) My proposition is not that you should apply the sur..
Pius to the purposes of the State generally, but to the purposes
of Church-rates; but my Noble Friend has gone further, he
litaintains the doctrine that it should be applied to the other
purposes of the State, and therefore let it not be said that my
plan interferes with and is inimical to the Church and to the
Property of the Establishment, for it is founded on principles
more moderate than those of my Noble Friend, whose attach-
recut to the Established Church has never been questioned.—
( Hear.) My Noble Friend, in proposing the Irish Church
TeMporalities Act, proposed to increase the value of Church
P's'oPerty, but proposed to devote it to State purposes; whereas
Nye propose to devote it to purposes that are entirely definite.
He said that the land should be subject to a corn rent, and
that the Bishop or the tenant should not have the power to
alter the arrangement. He also asked to whom it should go.
lie was replying to the Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for
Tamworth. The Right Hon. Baronet said—to the Church.
1 say—to the State.—( Loud cheers.) I say it is not compe-
tent for my Noble Friend to object to the principle we pro-
Pose. He may not agree in our plan—he is not bound
to assent to it ; but then he is not at liberty
to say we violate any principle when we propose to increase
the value of the land, and then apply it, not to the State but
to the Church. The Bishops, the Noble Lord then said,
could not grant leases for more than 21 years, the value of
which was about 21 years' purchase. If you pass an Act which
increases the value of the leases to the extent of 8 or 9 years,
are you to give that increased value to the Church, or should
you not rather when, by an Act of the Legislature, you in-
crease the value, give the benefit of it to the State by ap-
plying it to secular purposes? I use the high name and the
great authority of the Noble Lord, not for the purpose of
throwing any difficulty in his way. I admit there is a diffe-
rence between the cases of England and Ireland, and no
doubt I will be told so, but Lst us hear that argument when
the Irish Church Bill is under consideration. I repeat
I do not use the high character of the Noble Lord, and the
Weight of his authority, for the purpose of annoying him ; but
to meet the charge and the gross invectives brought against
us out of doors that we are actuated by a spirit prejudicial to
the Established Church. I contend this is strictly an Ecclesias-
tical purpose. Now, in that discussion, the Hon. Bart., the
Member for Tamworth, said he would not object to appropriate
a part of the revenues of the Church to what were strictly ec-
clesiastical purposes. I therefore have the authority of both
the Noble Lord and the Right Hon. Baronet, for my line of
argument. lam not about to refer to historical facts, or to
detain the House by quoting from antiquarian lore ; but to
those who love antiquity, I say look at the times of Queen
Elizabeth. She wished for funds for the repair of a
cathedral—what did she do ? Why, she at once went to the
Clergy, and by pretty severe taxation upon the Clergy, she
laid down the principle that the Church must contribute to its
own repairs.—( Cheers.) Again, in the time of Charles the
Second a vast number of the leases of Church lands
had run out in the time of the Commonwealth, and
a great mass of property in the shape of fines was
undoubtedly the property of the clergy of that day. The
Church had an undoubted right, fairly and honestly, to
these fines—the lessees were fairly entitled to the re-
?;wal of their leases. But did either- of them get it ?
"10, not one of them. Part of the money was taken for
re-building St. Paul's, and a great portion of the money
Was certainly diverted from ecclesiastical purposes.—( Hear.)
Then again, as to the lessees, so far from any preference being
given to them, the lessees, who have suffered for their King
and their Church, were, I am sorry to say, set aside, and the
hew incumbents looked merely to the land, and set aside all
the obligations of others.—( Hear, hear.) Before I sit
'lown I will take the liberty of referring to an
authority on this subject, well worthy the consideration of the
,House. It will be urged that the petitions which have
°cell presented, praying for the abolition of Church-rates
are entitled to less weight than I think they ought to
have • but I find I have an authority on this subject,
one of the dignitaries of the Church-_a Gentleman of great
learning and eminence in the University in which he lived.
I allude to Dr. Burton, late Regius Professor in the Uni-
versity of Oxford—he says with respect to Church-rates, that
he thought it hard that persons not Members of the Church of
England should be obliged to pay for the repair of a place of
worship in which they too no part. At the close of his report he
says " that the payment of Church-rates by Dissenters
ought to be abolished, if they deem it to be a grievance
to their conscience to pay them." I have therefore the authority
of the Regius Professor of Oxford for the course I am pur-
suing. I will just say one word in explanation before I sit
down. if the alternative fails, viz, of converting the leases
into perpetuities, I have another mode of raising the
Money. I propose that we should have the power, if
these funds be deficient, of advancing from the Treasury upon
the security of the Church lands, repayable out of' the Church
lands, just as if the advance had been made to any public body,
such sum as should be adequate to the deficiency.
!I believe that power will not be wanted.—( Hear, hear.)
, do not believe it will be necessary in the slightest
degree ; but I know perfectly well how our argument would be
dealt with if 1 had not this power. I know it would have been
Said, all your calculations are matter of doubt and uncertainty__
we won't leave it to them, because they will leave the provision
for the Church dependent upon a contingency. I think I
l'ave proved to demonstration that I have the means of meeting
every necessity, but if I should be wrong, and it should become
euisite to make an advance from the Treasury, in order to
give peace to the country and peace to the Church, it is but
right that that principle should be adopted. I thank the House
rpost sincerely for the attention they have paid me.--( Cheers. )
know the statement I have made has been extremely
Irksome to listen to. I have endeavoured to make it as plain
44_1 Possibly could.—( Cheers.) There are many who might
os
hilaY they had heard no argument at all ; but, for the pur-
e of avoiding misconception out of doors, I have thought
rt.ecessary to go thus fully into the matter.—(
will not allow Gentlemen who are inclined to supportme—l
ll
tWhi not allow my Colleagues in the Government—to be open to
de
pi imPutation that the plan which I have introduced is to
e God of his honour, or the poor of their rights.—
(Tremendous cheers. ) The measure is founded on the most
Aconscientious regard to the interests of religion. I have shown
Ihe Dissenter that it will give him a full and effectual relief,
°1
t,1.1 I have shown to the persons who have lent their money,
eat their rights will be protected, and that the debts of the
It3„arties will be adequately secured. I have done this ; but
high"ohas been necessary to fortify myself with
ii, authorities, to refer to names that I never al-
ti;"„e to. and which never ought to be alluded to for
po's_ Purposes of taunt or vituperation ; but for the pur-
e of thereby supporting my own argument by the
tio of their authority, and the arguments they advance. I
har"°Pe we shall approach this subject without a contentious or
tY feeling, and consider it simply on its own merits.
Sir, I don't quarrel with the course suggested he other night
ti 3; the Right Hon. Nlember for Tarnworth ; It rather rejoice
Plan after the resolution has been read, and the ex-
In'itu.ation given, people should have an opportunity of exa-
thth_nleg their details—that there should not be a cry raised
at we have forgotten the lessees—that we have forgotten
ore Church itself—that we have disregarded the claims
.Chubth he Dissenters,
these circumstances, or overlooked our obligations to the
will Under I rejoice that time
be afforded for the full consideration of the question. At
present, I know that it is difficult to follow a statement like
Mine,
even if it had been made in a very different manner.
fullw-2lear, hear.) It embraces a vast variety of matter on
n°
Hen:
Member could wisely pledge himself without
conthani,isideration, and I shall conclude by humbly and earnestly
listenendg the House for the very kind manner in which it has
to roe.
The (Loud and continued cheering.)
Resolution, was then read by the CHAIRMAN as
follows :

" That it is the opinion of this Committee that, for the re-,.
pair and maintenance of parochial Churches and Chapels
England and 'Wales, and the due celebration of divine
therein, a permanent and adequate provision be madewooutopf
an ised value given to Church lands, by the introductiono,.,
of anew system of management, and by the application of the
Proceeds of pew-rents, the collection of Church-rates ceasing
altogether from a day to be determined by law ; and, that in
order to facilitate and give early effect to this Resolution, the
Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury be authorized to make
advances on the securit_
and repayable out of the produce, of
Such Church lands." Y'
Mr. HUME understood from the Right Hon. Gentleman's
statement that Church-rates should hereafter :entirely cease.
f f Q'''''
he wished to know what would be done where arrears o
ormere
rates were still outstanding ?
badTh CHANCELLOR of tile EXCHEQUER said he
explained this fully. Where a rate was outstanding, it
W a. to be raised by a new levy on the parish, to be collected
Wlth the Poor-rates.
Mr. HUME said that would be a compulsory payment.
1, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL explained that it was not
1, Mr.
a rate imposed by the King's Bench which was compulsory
but, in the case of a rate levied by the Vestry, it should be
With the consent of a majority of the parishioners.
Sir E. INGLIS was fully sensible of the disadvantages
under which he rose after the speech just delivered by his
Right Hon. Friend. There were some points in that speech
in which he fully concurred, and there were others upon which
no widely differed from him. His Right Hon. Friend had
stated as one of his propositions that under no circumstances
Would he consent to a separation between Church and State
1 this country. He ( Sir R. Inglis) confessed he was glad to
Merithave the authority of his Right Hon. Friend for this state-
, because, although he believed that these were his indi-
v,ln 1 sentiments, yet it was satisfactory to have this public
rat claration upon the subject, inasmuch as it must be regarded
,s ad pledge on the part of Government that they would- never
Ileitis i.h •r
sanctions to such a measure.--(Hear.) Another of
Right
too Friend's propositions was, that he would never
ceonsent he voluntary principle. This declaration also,
voeming as it did from the representative of his INlajesty's Go-
rnment, met his warm probation His third
Go-
ners t
, hat the poor should anpot be denied access to the benefits
proposition
t,f_.the religion of their country, and in none of his Right Hon..
“lentl's propositions did be more cordially concur than in

that.—( Hear.) He, fourthly, relied on the immense import-
ance of the subject, and he stated that the evils of the exist-
ing system were undeniable. Now, he (Sir R. Inglis) was
not disposed to deny the existence of evils ; but it by no means
followed that he must therefore approve the remedies which
the doctor had proposed. He for one could never approve a
remedy which must lead to the destruction of all Government,
ecclesiastical and civil—a remedy founded on this principle,
" Resist the law, and the law must yield to you."—(Hear,
hear.) He was not opposed to modifications and improvements
of the existing laws, but he never could admit resistance to a
law as ground for repealing it.—( Hear.) But, even admitting,
for a moment, for the sake of argument, the validity of the
doctrine laid down by his Right Hon. Friend, he begged to
ask whether the resistance of a small minority of the nation (for
the proportions were as one to one hundred) would justify,
even on his oNn• grounds, the adoption of his measure ?
( Hear, hear.) His Right Hon. Friend had referred to the
case of Sheffield, where he said the rate had been extinguished ;
but did not this only go to prove the necessity of adopting the
recommendation contained in the report of the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners, by giving a more summary power for its en-
forcement ? It could not have escaped the memory of his
Right Hon. Friend that there was a period (during the great
rebellion) when this rate was enforced on the principle recom-
mended in that report, and that the plan had been found suc-
cessful in its operation. His Right Hon. Friend had expressed
a hope that no unfair opposition should be resorted to by the op-
ponents of his plan, and that he should not be met with a cry
of " The Church in danger." He begged, however, to ask
his Right Honourable Friend if he had read the petitions
presented to that House by the opponents of Church-rates;
and whether those petitioners did not state, unequivocally,
their hostility to the. Church as an Establishment, and that
their objection was, not to the amount of Church-rates, but
to the principle ?—( Hear, hear.) The measure of his Right
Hon. Friend went to destroy the nationality of the Church
Establishment of England, because it would be no longer a
Church supported by the nation at large, but by a particulur
sect.—( Hear, hear.) He now begged the attention of the
House to the authority on which Church-rates hitherto rested.
Church-rates must be considered an estate held by the Church,
founded on a better and more ancient title than any other de-
scription of property whatsoever, and he (Sir IL Inglis) held
that the rights of the Church to impose a rate for the repairs
of the Churches, and the maintenance of proper temples for
the celebration of religious worship, was older than the rights
and privileges of the House of Commons itself.—( Hear,
hear.) He also maintained that there was not an estate or
house in England, which was not bought or sold subject to
Church-rates. How, then, could any man who purchased
property, with a full knowledge that it was subject to this
charge, now set up a plea of conscientious scruples against
payment of the rates ; and he put it to Hon. Gentlemen,
whether such a plea could be consistent with common sense or
common honesty ?—(flear, hear.) It was well known that
when an auctioneer put up a house or land for sale, he always
enumerated the Church-rate amongst the taxes and encum-
brances with which the property was burdened ; and what
difference, he would ask, was there between this and any other
description of mortgage ?—( Hear.) Let not, therefore, op-
position to Church-rates be put on religious grounds, or let
not the plea of conscientious scruples be set up against them.
Such an objection was, on the face of it, to say the least, un-
reasonable ; and he trusted the House would not on such a
ground consent to a measure which must have the effect of
placing the Church in jeopardy, and compromising its in-
terests as a national Establishment. His Right Hon. Friend
had stated that it was not his intention to adopt either of the
propositions of placing the burden of Church-rates on the
Clergy or the Consolidated Fund, although he had reserved to
himself the latter alternative in case of the failure of' his pre-
sent plan. But must not his Right Hon. Friend know that
the conscience of the Dissenter would still be violated if he
placed the burden on the Consolidated Fund, the objection,
as he before stated, being, not to the amount, but to the prin-
ciple? The Dissenters would, therefore, be compromised if
one-sixteenth of a farthing of the impost was continued in
any shape.—( Hear, hear, hear.) There was one point referred
to in the plan of his Right Hon. Friend which, although of
minor importance, ought not to be overlooked. He alluded
to the renewal of leases. Now he ( Sir R. Inglis) did ,not
mean to contend that those leases were entitled to renewals,
but, having held this property for so many years as to give
it almost the semblance of real estate, he thought that claims
of this nature were deserving of some consideration —( Hear,
hear.) There was another point of minor importance (if any
could be said to be so,) to which he deemed it necessary to
advert. His Right Hon. Friend proposed that this fund
should be paid to the Commissioners, and not to the existing
functionaries. This, in his judgment, also tended to destroy
the nationality of the Church, and must be productive of
most injurious results. His Right Hon. Friend, however,
considered the measure a great boon to the Church, but it
would be very difficult to convince him that it would give it
that increased stability which his Right Hon. Friend so confi-
dently anticipated.—( Hear, hear.) He believed that a large
number of the Dissenters themselves were opposed to this mea-
sure. He had himself presented a petition signed by all the
Dissenters of a parish except one in favour of Church-rates,
and none of the parties whose signatures had been attached to
that petition had any conscientious scruples against them. The
Right Hon. Baronet then adduced the authority of Matthew
Henry, to show that in the opinion of Dissenters " the Church
should be maintained notwithstanding Church corruption."
He objected to the principle on which the measure was founded
—a principle which was simply this, " Resist the law, and the
law must yield to you." If such a principle as this were sanc-
tioned by the House, it would soon extend to the payment of
rent, and every other species of legal obligation, and it would
be difficult to say where the evil would stop. He, therefore,
warned the House to interfere in time, and prevent the con-
sequence which the recognition of so dangerous a principle
must lead to.—( Cheers. )
Mr. GA LL Y KNIGHT rose to express his astonishment
at the measure of spoliation introduced by the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was far
from saying that things should remain as they were. He had
always been anxious to relieve his Dissenting brethren from
any grievances under which they laboured ; but, at the same
time, he never could go the length of saying that it was not
the duty of' the State to provide for the religious education of
the people.—( Hear, hear.) He thought that if there should
be found any surplus it ought to be devoted to the augmen-
tation of small benefices, and that any other appropriation
would not be consistent with common honesty.—( Hear,
hear.) Lord Althorp had been far outsteppcd yby his col-
leagues, as was clearly shown by the mearure of the Right
lion. Gentleman, and it was clear that the present Govern-
ment were determined to advance with fearless intrepidity.
Government should act between contending parties in the cha-
racters of umpires and not of partisans. To exhibit a reci-
procity all on one side was not the becoming course which a '
Government should pursue.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. L ENNA RD heard the proposition of the Right Hon.
the Chancellor of the Exchequer with unqualified satisfaction,
and hailed it as a measure calculated to put an end to the pa-
rochial strifes and hearthurnings which existed to a far greater
degree than the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford
seemed willing to admit. indeed, many of those attached to
the Establishment were opposed to the present system of
Church-rates, and would hail this proposition as a measure
rendered necessary for the safety of the Church itself. The
Hon. Gentleman then quoted from one of Mr. Fox's speeches
to show that the system of Church-rates struck at the very
root of toleration, and continued to argue that even for the
adherents of the Established Church it was most desirable
that some adjustment of this question should immediately take
place. The proposed measure was, in his opinion, the very
best which could be adopted, and it was one which he thought
would have been received by Hon. Gentlemen with far greater
favour than it had met with.

Mr. GO RING then rose on the Ministerial side of the
House, and said—Sir, it is with extreme reluctance that I find
myself compelled, on the present occasion, in opposition to
those Gentlemen I generally find myself able to support; but
considering that in the measure now brought forward, not-
withstanding the manner in which the Right Hon. Gentleman
has varnished his tale, a most unjust aggression is made on
Church property, and that I am called upon to make a sacri-
fice of principle to expediency—( Hear)—l shall not one mo-
ment hesitate. lam anxious, as far as possible, to relieve the
Dissenters from any real grievances, but will never consent to
do it to the injury of the Established Church.—( Hear.) I
supported the measure brought forward in 1834 by Lord Spen-
cer, because I thought it would relieve the Dissenters from
those grievances of which they complain with justice, and pro-
vide for the prover maintenance of the Established Church.
By the present proposition you are depriving the Established
Church of one source of emolument without giving any ade-
quate equivalent except from its own resources—(Hear)—in-
fringing on that alliance which exists, and which I trust will

„„.
never be dissolved, between Church and State.--(Loud
cheers.) Ido not think the Church possesses much more
than an adequate sum for its support, and that the money you
now take is required to afford a more sufficient maintenance to
the working clergy ; and i❑ this argument I am borne out by
the speech of the Right lion. Gentleman—(Cheers)—and,
therefore, I cannot consent that it should be applied in lieu of
Church-rates to enable you to give, however you may disclaim
it, what I consider a first instalment to those who advocate
the voluntary principle..—( Loud cheers, )
Mr. PLUMPTRE could not agree with the Hon. Member
for Maldon in his estimate of this measure. If the House
were to grant this, where was the guarantee that those who
called for the extinction of Church-rates would not go still
further in their demands ?—( Hear, hear.) If a conscientious
objection on the part of the Dissenters were deemed a sufficient
ground for doing away with Church-rates, why might not the
same objections be considered as of equal weight when urged
against tithes ?—( Hear, hear.) Indeed, the speech of the
Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer wculd seem to
give countenance to a resistance of any and of every tax.—
( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for the
University of Oxford showed from the petitions which had
been presented against Chnrch-rates, that the petitioners did
not intend to rest there, but went to the very root of a Church
Establishment. The Hon. Gentleman then, in furtherance
of this view, proceeded to read an extract from a letter which
appeared in a provincial newspaper, and, as we understood,
from a Dissenting Clergyman ; but the extract was read in
so low a tone, that we could not catch a single sentence. As
well as we could collect it, the substance was, that national
establishments were greatly injurious to the propagation of
true religion. From this and other circumstances, it was
evident that not the abolition of Church-rates, but the
abolishion of the Established Church itself was the object
in view.

Mr. AG LIONBY merely rose to put one or two questions
to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as it was necessary that
the measure should be as fully understood by the country as
possible. He wished, first, to know whether in the calcula-
tions made by Mr. Finlayson, or by Government, any dif-
ference was made as to the leases held under Bishops and
those held under Deans and Chapters; for, as he understood