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

arranged that the debate on the Canada question should be ad.
jonrned to Tuesday. He could not understand how any arrange-
ment of this kind could be entered into from which he was ex-
cluded. He was-not at all disposed to yield to Government in
that matter, and thought it a very cavalier method of treating
him.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that
if the Hon. and Learned Member would put his question to-
morrow, he would get an answer.
Mr. ROEBUCK begged it to he understood fully that be
would not yield precedence on that day, Tuesday.
COMMITTEES.

After some conversation, in which Mr. FIUME stated that
it would be a great advantage if the evidence then before Com.
mittees of the House could be printed and distributed amongst
Members,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
he would endeavour to provide for more expeditiously printing
•• and distributing the evidence, if possible.
ADJOURNED DEBATE ON CHURCH-RATES.
On the Order of the Day being read for resuming the de-
bate,
Mr. GISBORNE said that the Right Hon. Baronet the
Member for Tamworth had the other night complained of
what he called the ungenerous allusion made by some Mem-
bers to the course pursued by the Noble Lord the Mem-
ber for North Lancashire, relative to the teml o.alities of the
ish Church. Now he was not aware that an ungenerous
allusion had been made in any way to that Noble Lord. The
allusion was not made to taunt the Noble Lord, nor any Hen.
Member ; but it so happened that the proposition which the
Noble Lord on that occasion laid down, not with regard only
to the Church of Ireland, but generally, was identically the
same as that on which the resolutions were founded. That
proposition was, that the State had the right of
stepping in between the lessors and lessees of Church pro-
perty, and if the State could give an additional value to that
property which the Church could not give, than the State
had the right to apply the surplus to secular purposes. That
was the principle laid down by the Noble Lord, and when he
gave up the 147th clause of the Irish Tithe Bill he did not
give up that principle, and the House dealt with the surplus
as they judged proper. He approved of such a principle, be-
cause he was convinced that all Church property, not abso-
lutely defined by law or set apart expressly for the payment of
the Clergy was the property of the State. Church-rates
now were given up ; the Right Hon. Baronet proposed that if
it were found impossible to collect them generally, they
should be paid by Churchmen, or levied only in country pn-
riihes. Tho Hon. and Learned Member for Exeter had given
them up ; the Hon. and Learned Member for Ripon had also
given them up, though in many of the petitions presented to
the House the petitioners seemed to think it almost a privilege
and a franchise to be allowed to pay Church-rates. The At-
torney-General bad denied the legal right of vestries to levy
Church-rates, and had challenged all the common and equit:,
lawyers on the onosite side to disprove what he said. In
fist, the payment of Church-rates had ceased. The calcu-
lath us made cf the comperative numbers of Churchmen
and Dissenters must necessarily be defective.--4 Hear, hear,
Ther,e was a third, or central party, of which no ac-
count was rendered. The Honourable Gentleman here re-
ferred to his own county to show the hardships inflicted under
the present system. Wh:, ap,:ty money to build new Churches?
It would be much better to repair and fill the old ones. lion-
ever, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could find the moue).
he (Mr. Gisborno) felt no difficulty as to the expediency o:
the measure which the Right Hun. Gentleman proposed. Ii
flee lti~hs Hon. Gentleman's calculations should untUrtunatel)
fail, he (Mr. Gisborne) was satisfied of the expediency of
raiding the money on other Church property (fur from no oche;
property should it proceed), and applying it, as he had already
observed. to keep up the old Churches rather tli,n build new.
Its Right Honourable Member for Tamworth had appeahA'
40 the Noblemen and Gentlemen of the country against re-
lieving their own estates from the burden of Church-rates.
He (Mr. Giborne) said that he was prepared su to relieve his
gnu estate; and when he had done that, he wes prepared to
enter into a bond pith the Right Honourable Barmier, an
ba% ing the Church-rate on his property—whether on land,
fettles, cr houses—calculated on the averdge of the last three
ve...w. he was prepared to enter into a bond r (tit the Rig!!
Hilo. Baronet to pay thirty years' purchae.e of those rates ti
nay society having fur its object the increase of Church ac-
conenodation, except a society, the name of which he did r;
renumber. but which he would deser.he ; he meaht a soeiety.
which, having got a large sum of the public money by virtue of
the King's letter, quoted te) acts of Parliament 13 their justi
firetion for declaring that they would net- apply any porioi
(Atha money to the building of any Church the patronage o:
vehicle wa.i nut to be ph..eed in the hands or the Bishop. Tie
Riedit lion. Baronet talked also ;if the juflgrnent of pesterit.
What would posterity say if they could address the present gr-
neration ? " Take your hands out of the pock(ts of i 11...! Di e
teeters. If you cannot relieve them nithout also relieving you
own estates, relieve your own estates ; and then give ten titne
the amount for the support of your own Church. Who is to
restrain you ?" That is what posterity would say. There W,F
a Right flon. Gentleman who had given 1,000/. to ttn.
Church Building Society, and other sums to other Societie,
a a similar description. Posterity would say to them, " Tuhe
WI this pitiful tax, and go and do likewise."—( Hear, hear.)
That would be the advice of posterity ; and-very good tn!vie.
at V.N.3.---( A laugh.) It had been said that a number or rtit
alone had been presented against the abolition of the Church-
rtes. But were the petitioners axare of the real facts of
c ? One of the petitions, he observed, was signed by some
re' the far:hers of Tolliporcolan, in Derbyshire. But had the
Li-niers of Tolliporcolan been informed of the nature of the
proposed plan ? He was quite sure that if they had—he was
quite sure that if the farmers of Tolliporcolan had been told
that there was 9.0/., which would not come out of their or an%
'ether man's pockets, which could he got at only by the Legis.
ilture and which would he applied to the repair of their
Church--he was quite sure that if the farmers of Tolliporcolan
had been told that, the fermers of Tulliporcolan would never
have signed a petition against the abolition of Church-rates
—( A laugh.) iii i would not presume to advert to anvthinp
th::t had taken place on the suhject in the House of Lords.
Indeed it was not necessary for him to do so. A meeting hat:
been held in this town last week, composed of Bishops, libera!
and illiberal—

" Black spirits and white,
Blue spirits and grey,
Mingle, mingle, mingle,
You that mingle may."—(A laugh.)
The meeting unanimously instructed the Archbishop of Can-
terLary and the Bishop of London to state to the House o!
Lor(ts their determined opposition to the plan of his :11;:jestv':
Gov.emment—a plan not then before the House of Lords_-
hardly before the House of Commons, of which the latter
hail hot got the calculations on which it was founded, and on
the writs of which they had only heard one Minister of the
Crotrri. Under such circumstances, it was, in his opinion.
highly indecent; but the meeting thought it highly discreet
to commission the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop
of London to make the communication which they hai mad,
to the other House of Parliament. Did he complain that
Lii>eral Bishops should unite with Illiberal Bishops if they
thought that it was for the interest of the Church the
should do so ? Far from it. But he complained of their en-
tering into a vile oabal, and as contemptible as it was vile, for
the purpose of upsetting a Liberal Ministry and a Liberal
system of Government. Would any one tell him that the ob-
ject of those Bishops was not to influence a few votes in that
House ? A few only he was sure they would be. Had there
ever been such a proceeding before, or any thing like it ? The
palpable object was to influence the decision of that House : at
least, until any other object could be pointed out to him, he
should believe that that was the object. He was persuaded,
however, that this combination,would turn out to be as con-
temptible as it was vile, and that it would totally fail in effect-
iog its wishes.
Mr. ANDREW JOHNSTON moved the amendment to
the motion before the House of which he had given notice.
TI ett is the opinion of this Committee that by a new system
of management an increased value mt..y be given to Church
hallos, and that with the funds to be thus obtained provision
should be made for the supply of religious instruction where
the same may be found deficient in proportion to the popu-
latiois."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would
take the liberty of submitting whether, with a view to the
convenience of the discussion which had now been carried on
for three nights—without prejudice to himself or the opinions
which he entertained, or the proposition which be was about
to .maker or the time and manner of advancing that proposi-
tioe--the Hon. Gentleman would not be disposed to acqui-
esce in the suggestion which (the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer) ventured to throw out, that the Committee should
et once proceed to the immediate object of debate ; the Hon.
Gentleman giving his notice to move his resolution as an
amendment when the matter before the House came to be
reported.
Mr. ANDREW JOHNSTON should feel it his duty to
persevere.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had put
Ida proposal to the Hon. Gentleman as a matter of courtesy,
but k:,e would now put his objection on a point of form. The
Right Hon. Gentleman here adverted to the proceedings of
the Hotu'e when this subject was first introduced ; the passage
in the K3n J's speech referring to Church-rates was then read,
and this rOss'lution was then come to by the House—" Re-
solved that House will, on Monday next, resolve itself
into a Committ,v, of the whole House to consider of tho pay-
ment of Church-r,-.tes,," That resolution was come to; and
upon that resolution the; ;vere now engaged.
There being loud cr;es Chair, chair"—
Mr. BERNAL did not th.;els that in a Committee of the
whole House upon Church-rates they could with propriety go
to the question of appropriating the orojuce of Church-lands
so educational purposes ; he saw no ieson :o depart from the
oyinion which he had formed. He thought the Committee
would do well in considering this point as a pi elinatnary to
their proceeding to the debate on the resolution.
Mr. ANDREW JOHNSTON expressed his williegusess to
subetit to the decision of the chair.

There being repeated cries of " Chair 1"
Mr. BERNAL wished the Committee to agree to what he
had suggested.
After a few words from Mr. CRESSETT PELHAM,
Which did not reach us,

.Lord STANLEY thought his Hon. Friend was out of
or.ier, and tin.t they must proceed to the inquiry whether by
the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Church-
rafts• should be abolished by means of substituting a sufficient
fund from another source. If that should be decided in the
negati ye, then it would be for his Hon. Friend to bring for-
ward h is proposition for a different application of the surplus
revenue s; and he had no hesitation in saying (for he was not
ant to bl, *nk his opinions), that if his Hon. Friend would find
the fund with justice, such an application of the fund would be
most const mant with his own feelings.
Mr. m IpREW JOHNSTON ultimately withdrew his
amendment. •

Lord Viscount SANDON was understood to advert to the
speech of the Hon. Membes for North Derbyshire (Mr. Gis-
borne), who had attempted to cast a slur on some of the petis
Lions presented from various parts against the abolition of
Church-rates, because they came from places the names of
which were not so pleasing to the ear, in point of euphony, as
they might be ; and that Hon. Gentleman, too, in talking of
the farmers and others who had signed those petitioes, asked
;vhether they had been told the real state of the question--
had they been told that the plan of the Government would not
take one farthing out of their pockets? Now, he would ask
Hon. Gentlemen on the other side, whether they ever made
an objection to petitions coming from Ireland—( Here the Noble
Lord read the names of severat:places)—praying for the aboli-
tion of tithes, or for the passing of the Municipal Corporations
Bill for Ireland, on account of the singularity of the name; of
the towns or places from whence they emanated? Again, he
would ask, had those who petitioned against tithes been told
what was the real state of the question at issue ? Had they
been told that if tithes were abolished, that though they might
not pay tithes in name, they would pay their amount in rent ?
So, in the instance of the' Municipal: Corporations Billi for
Ireland, had the petitioners been made sensible ofewhat was
really the point at issue ? What was the langute of the
Hon. Member for North Derbyshire in reference to a meeting
of Prelates, on the subject of the intention of his Majesty's
Government with respect to Church-rates ? He had de-
nounced that meeting of Prelates as a vile cabal, and that it
was as contemptible as it was vile. And for what? Why, for
expressing their opinion in a manner which interested most
deeply the permanent interests of that Church of which they
were the distinguished members ; and the Hon. Gentleman
had said that this was a cabal raised for the purpose of turning
out a Liberal Ministry. Now how was this consistent with the
declaration which preceded this denunciation of the Prelates
assembled at this meeting as a cabal, that it was a meeting of
Bishops of every denomination ? Many of these Right Rev.
Prelates were bound to support the Government by tics of
gratitude. Were the Bishops, he would ask, to have their
mouths closed on questions affecting the Church, if they
did not agree with Honourable Gentlemen opposite, many of
whom did not hesitate to declare their hostility to Church-
,
rates—many of whom had said in public i+liey would not
rest till Church-rates were abolished? Were the Bench of
Bishops not to speak on matters affecting the interests of the
Church ? Were they to sit with their hands before them, and
• their tongues tied, till the very Bill reached the House of
Lords? He contended that these venerable Prelates dis-
charged their duties to the Church to which they belonged
most faithfully. The Hon. and Learned Civilian the Member
for the Tower Hamlets, in the report to which lie was a party
some few years since, had held that Church-rates were a bur-
den upon the parish, and that in that opinion all ancient autho-
rities concurred. He ( Lord Sandon) could not conceive that
the plan now suggested offered the only means of getting out
of the difficulty with which the question was surrounded,
when be remembered that only five years ago it was proposed
by the Hon. Gentlemen opposite that Church-rates should
be mingled with the Poor-rates. At all events, before a con
cession of this hind were made, the House ought to be satis-
fied that it would lead to a float settlement of the point at
issue between the Dissenters and the Church. Supposing it
to be • granted, what security was there that a similar. de-
mand would not be made by the Dissenters to be freed from
the payment of tithes ? What security was there that in an-
other year they should not be told that Church lands wets the
property of the State, and therethre that the Dissenters ought
to participate in the proceeds of them ? They were told that
the abolition of Church-gets is as to put an end to all discontent
and difficulty in Ireland. Had there been less agitation in
that country since ? —had the security of the Church been in-
creased ?—bad its opponents been less active in their endea-
vours to subvert it ? Looking at the proposition of tte Go-
vernment in a financial point of view, he had no doubt but that
a considerable surplus might be obtained from Church lands
by an inyfoved inu,le of raenagement ; but at the same tims
he was far from aelthowledging the correctness of the cal-
culations male by the Cliencellsr of the Exchequer.—
( Hear, heae. ) However goo the proposed change might
be, it should be left to the voluntary adoption of
the lessees, aid not be forced upon them. Ile ac-
knowledged that the rents derived from these !awls
were no: a good source of Church revenue ; they varied in
amount from year to year, 2fforded temptations to the
Bishop to run his lice ag,lost the lives of others, and in
varion3 cA view ...re calculated to place him in a dis-
agreeehle and often an invi lions situation. But. to correct
that evil, did it follow that such a compulsory arrangement
must be trade as that now proposed by his Majesty's Govern-
Int'nt ? He should be happy to see a commutation of Church
,tenures proceciirg upon a voluntary system, left to the dis-
cretion of :he lyscit,, and not :nergc-1 in the hands of a ccfl-
;rat, Commission with arberit, y power, as a selastitute fur
Church rates ; but being of that opinion, it did not follow
that he 5505 houi4ti to acquiesce in the proposition of the Go-
vernment as the only feasible mode of arrange rent that
could be attoisted.—(C:ics of " Hoar, hear.") The Noble
Lord ( tlowick) the meiober fur NortilumberUnd had d&-
elated (hut tile declaration was neither made nor echoed
by any other mender of the Government) that if this mea-
sure were adopted, he would support the Right Honour-
able Baronet the Member for Tamworth ( Sir Robert Pee!) in
an antiaal vote of money to supply the deficiency of spiritual
instrurtion which the Cscumi,sioncrs haul pointed out. But
would the Noble Lord, upon rc;lection,. have the courage to
come down to Parliament, and propose a vote out of the pre-
sent taxation of the country for the increase of spiritual instruc-
tion, at the very time that it appeared that the property of the
'Church, properly administered, was capable of, producing a
surplus that might be applied to that purpose infinitely greater
than any sum that Parliament would he disposed to grant ?
He ( Lord Sandon) rested his opposition to this measure
chiefly upon this ground—a ground conceded by the Govern-
ment themselves—that there was an immense deficiency in the
spiritual instruction of the country, and that that deficiency
ought not hs be left unsupplied.
No sooner had the Noble Lord resumed his scat than up
wards of 20 Hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side rose, and
simultaneously exclaimed, " Mr. Bernal ! "--( Loud laughter.)
The CHAIRMAN—" Mr. Baines."
Mr. BA INES rose amidst loud cries of " Spoke, spoke I"
Having bad the honour to present a large number of petitions
upon this subject, and having, at the same time, had the op-
.portunity of communicating with the petitioners since the plan
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been brought under
consideration, be was very happy in having it in his power to
communicate to the House what appeared to him to be the
sentiments of a large body of the people upon the subject of
that plan. Ile had taken measures to obtain that information
with as much accuracy as he could, and from those influential
persons who were likely to form a correct opinion of what the
sentiments of other persons of their own denomination were ;
and. all the information he had acquired went to this point,
that with the plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer there
was perfect satisfaction.—( Hear, hear.) They believed that
the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government, with
the Noble Lord at its head in this House, had for their object
to produce In the country that which all men were aiming at,
though not all in the same wai, and that was religious peace
and concord throughout the land. They saw a Bill intro-
duced last year, having for its object to reconcile all those who
paid tithes with the pastors of the Established Church who
received them ; and they therefore conceived that this was a
measure in accordance with the same principle. A great deal
of stress had been laid with respect to the relative numbers of
the petitions presented for and against Church-rates. He was
ready to admit that the petitions were much more numerous
on the parts of those who opposed the abolition of Church-rates
than on the part of those who were in favour of their abolition.
But there was another ingredient to be taken into considera-
tion, namely, the number of the signatures. According to the
last return published by the House, which was made up to the
21st February, the number of petitions for the repeal of
Church-rates was 458, and which were signed by 186,133 per-
sons, while the number presented against their repeal was 96
at that time (a much greater number having since been pre-
sented), which wore signed by 6,606 persons ; so that the ma-
jority of the petitioners up to the 21st of February was
180,000 in favour of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's
plan. Now, he admitted that since that time a consider-
rabic number of petitions adverse to that -plan—if that could
be said to be adverse to the plan (and he begged (lon. Gen-
tlemen opposite to mark the distinction) which arose out of
the excitation that took place in this city before the plan eras
promulgated; for that was a true statement of the case.--
( Hear, hear.) There was a meeting held in this city where
the Noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire presided, at which
meeting two things were represented to the assembled throng—
one was, that the plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
was intended to suffer the churches throughout the country to
go to decay, and the other was that by that plan it was in-
tended ha rob the poor man of his sanctuary. Could any man
deny that these were most extraordinary statements ?—( Hear,
hear, hear.) He did not wish to use strong language towards
any person, but he must say that these were gross and flagrant
misrepresentations.—( Haar.) He would ask whether peti-
tions presented under such circumstances were entitled to
much attention or consideration ? He had heard a great deal
about the violence of the language held by persons in what
was called the National Association in Dublin; but he did not
recollect at any time having heard language attributed to that
Association of a more violent nature, or language more calcu-
lated to agitate the public mind, than the language held in
the city of London, at a meeting over which the Noble
Lord the Member for Dorsetshire presided, and at
which some Honourable Gentlemen whom he had now
the honour to address attended. Petiti;ns presented under
such circumstances did not express the genuine sentiments of
the people. But it had been said that the Dissenters in this
country were a very insignificant body. He was sorry not to
see in his place the Hon. Baronet the Member for the Uni-
versity of Oxford ; because on the last occasion, when this
subject was under discussion, he made this extraordinary de-
claration. He said that the Dissenters did not pay above one-
fortieth part of the Church-rates. If not, what was the in-
ference ? Why all this contest ? The sum asked for was only
250,000/. ; the fortieth part of that was only 6,000/. Why have
all this dispute when the sum required was only 6,0001. ? But
l'ae reality that was an error. He (Mr. Baines) did not wish to
take advantage of any accidental mistake ; but he was sure,
on relit: ction, the Hon. Baronet would- find that that statement
was avt rt strange misrepresentation of the fact. But there was
""
another 114 ;sro‘presentation mule by the Hun. Baronet on that

occasion of stature so tangible that he (Mr. Baines) had
given himself the trouble to ascertain the state of reii-
giou3 instruction in the whole county, in order to bring
himself ac.ivainted 'with that fact. The Honourable Baronet
stated, that in the cestinty of Lancaster there were not more
than- one-fourth of the people that were Dissenters, while
three-fourths were ratite:led to the Established Church. Now,
in order to put this matter to the test, he (Mr. Baines) had
had a survey taken, in order to ascertain how many places of
religious worship that county contained. That he might be
perfectly accurate on the subject, he would read to the House
the return he had oOtaiucd from that survey. It was this

There were in the county of Lancaster, at the beginning of
1836, 340 churches and chapels connected with the Esta-
blished Church. There were in the same county 489 chapels
belonging to Dissenters, and 93 chapels belonging to the Ro-
man Catholics, making together 582. The relative propor-
tion then was, that there were 340 places of worship belonging
to the Church, and 582 not belonging to the Church. His
persuasion was, that if they were to compare the congrega-
ticas they would for the most part find the proportion to be the
same. In some places more persons went te the Church than
to the chapels of Dissenters or Catholics ; but taking the county
generally, he thought it would be found that the numbers
going to the different places of worship were pretty nearly equal.
So that instead of the proportion among those who availed
themselves of the opportunity of attending public worship
being as four to one in favour of the Cifurchmen over Dis-
senters, the fact really was that the proportion was five to
three of Dissenters over Churchmen. Why did he make
this statement ? [The Hon. Gentleman was here interrupted
by Mr. Hume handing to him another return.] No ; that
was a Parliamentary return ; it contained very erroneous
statements, and lie did not wish to avail himself of them.
The Right Hon. Member for the University of Cambridge
had made a statement which a good deal surprised him (Mr.
Baines), because it was so much at variance with the fact.—
( Hear, hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had stated,
in relation to the revenues of the Church, that there were
in Manchester eighteen clergymen, and that those eighteen
clergymen received only 2,7001. of revenue for their services.
Now, what was the fact? Why, that there were clergymen
belonging to one Church only who received 6,0001. The
Right Hon. Gentleman might have found the fact staged iu
the Report of the Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Inquiry
that there was a collegiate Church in Manchester receiving
6,000/. Certainly one would expect that representations made
by the Right Hon. Gentleman as Member for the University
of Cambridge would be;made with a greater regard to accu-
racy. Most unquestionably the statement of the Right Hon.
Gentleman was altogether calculated to mislead the House—
made, not with an intention to mislead, but in error ; still he
thought that some degree of reprehension must attach to the
Right Hon. Gentleman for not having better informed himself
upon the subject.—( Hear.) Another Etat ement made by the
Right Hon. Gentleman was this; he said that the populatiou
of Manchester consisted of 270,000 souls, and that there was
only Church accommodation for 40,000, thus leaving upwards
of 200,000 persons without the means of obtaining religions
edification and instruction. Now, that was really the fact?
The Church accornanodation perhaps was only what the Right
Hon. Gentleman had stated, and that there were not means of
affording religious instruction to more than 40,000 persons ;
but before drawing any inference from this, the inquiry ought
to be made whether there were most people in Manchester who
wished to receive that instruction from the Church.—( Hear. )
Because if they had Churches which were not filled, and if
the estimation of the necessity of affording Church room were
to be made, not from time number of persons who might go
to Church, but from the number who were disposed to go,
the subject would appear before them in a very different
light. But the Right Hon. Gentleman had left this consi-
deratiOn entirely out of view. Now he (Mr. Baines) be-
lieved the fact to be, that although there was only Church
room for about 40,000 persons, yet there was Chapel room
among the Dissenters for upwards of 60; 000. —( Hear, hear.)
He was rather the more dispos©d to meet this statement, be-
cause the Right lion. Gentleman had said that he (Mr.
Baines), from some supposed religious principle, had made an
observation calculated to detract from the necessity of erect-
ing more Churches. Ile had made no such observation. Let
it be proved to bins that More Churches were wanted, and
he would be the first to give his countenance and support to
any measure to meet that want. Allusion had been also
made to the fact that the inhabitants of Leeds were erecting a
Church at a cost of 12,000/. Now, what he, on the occasion re-
ferred to said was this—that be thought there was no reason to
complain of the want of Church room, not only imi Leeds,
for his observation was more extensive, but in the diocese of
York, which had been particularly designated by the Right
Honourable Baronet the Member-for Tainwortin Bat what
was the fact with respect to Leeds? In the town of Leeds
there were eight Churches. Of these, two had congregations
pretty nearly as large as time Churches would contain ; in four
of theirs the congregations, he might fairly say, dimi not occupy,
thence-fourths cf the room which the Churches afforded; !simile
the two other Churches were never half filled. Was
there not, tleen, sufficient reason for him to say that there
existed no ground for any urgeut complaint of tug want of
Church room in Leeds? But then it was said that the people
of Leeds were building a new Church et an expeese oi twelve
thousand pounds. Tint was true.; but -why were they doing
so? Because it was in a central part of the town wli.ee per of some degree of distinction resided, and where, perhaps,
that description of persons could nut be so well accommodated.
But if they were to go into the more densely-populated part of
the town they would find Church-room enough. It had been
argued in that House, and by a Right Rev. Prelate in another
place, that Church-rates were of great antiquity. Ile did not
deny the antiquity of Church-rates ; but he did deny that
the parishioners were called upon in ancient tinier to-main-
tain the edifices of the Church. He contended that in
former days the Church-rates were paid by tl:e Bishops out
ef the tithes; and that when they ceased to be paid by the
Bishops, they were then paid by theßectors. He saw lion.
Gentlemen turn their heads away; but lie would asoure them
that he did not make this statement on his own authority, but
on the authority of the fiat ecclesiastical lawyer that ever had
existed hi this country. He was sure that the Learned Civi-
lian would agreo with lihn, that no higher authority could be
quoted on that subject than Simon Degge (as we understood
the lion. Gentleman). Dr. Barney, quoting this learned
authority, put the matter in this way :—" Anciently the Bishop
had the whole of the tithes of his diocosu, a fourth part of
which in every parish was to be applied to the repairs of the
Church ; but upon a release of this interest to the Rector,
they (the Bishops) were consequently acquitted of the repairs
of the Church. And by the Canon Law the repair of the
Church belongeth to him who receiveth this fourth part. This
is to the Rector, and not to the parishioners." Instead, there-
fore, of the Bishops having to repair the Churches, the charge
fell on the Rectors. There was, however, another great autho-
rity on this subject, that of Mr. Justice Blackstone, who
said—" At the first establishment of parochial clergy the
tithes of the parish were distributed in a fourfold division ;
cite for the use of the Bishop, another for maintaining the
fabric of the Church, a third for the poor, and the fourth to
provide for the incumbent. Whoa the sees of the Bishops
became otherwise amply endowed, they were prohibited from
demanding their usual share of their tithes, and the divi-
sion was into three parts only." Ile was a plain man and un-
learned in the law, but it appeared to him that these were
authorities which no man could dispute; therefore the argu-
ment of antiquity would not only fail, but these authorities
would establish the opposite point,: that the people were not
called upon to support the fabric of the Church, but that
this was a modern innovation. The Noble Lord the Mem-
ber for Liverpool inquired very significantly whether, when
they had given the Church-rates up to the Dissenters—when
they had allowed these rates to be extinguished—the Dis-
senters would be contented.—( Hear, hear, from the Opposi-
tion.) The Hon. Member for Yorkshire had answered that
question for him. The answer to the inquiry was, that the
Dissenters aimed at the extinction of Church-rates on the
ground that they were for the maintenance of a religious ser-.
vice, and for the performance of divine worship, in a form in
which they could not participate. They made a great and
most important distinction between the payment of Church-
rates and tithes. The Dissenters acknowledged that they
had bought their estates subject to the payment of tithes,
and therefore only nine-tenths of the produce belonged to
them. No, man, however, would say that he bought an
estate subject to the indefinite payment of Church-rates. It
could not be denied that Church-rates were to a certain degree
a voluntary rate, for if the persons who had to pay the rates
opposed it by a majority in the vestry, it was not a legal rate.
The Noble Lord said that there was an undoubted right to
enforce the payment cif Church-rates. No doubt this was the
case when they had a legal rate to enforce. It was only when
the parishioners had consented to the rate that they had an un-
doubted-right to enforce it. The question was, whether the
Dissenters would be contented or not with the abolition of
Church-rates. He could not say that he was there as the re-
presentative of the Dissenters, but was merely the representa-
tive of his own opinions, and lie would at once declare that he
thought that he never should be found pressing that House for
the abolition of tithes. On this point, however, he had some-
thing stronger than assertion as regarded the great body of
Dissenters. He begged the House to recollect that when the
tithe question was under discussion last year,not a single peti-
tion was presented from any body of Dissenters praying for a
different appropriation of them. This was not a mere asser-
tion, for the statement he had made had a weighty authority.
Here was a distinct recognition that the tithe question was
a matter to be settled between the Legislature and. the
country. It appeared then, that although there were thou-
sands and tens of thousands of Dissenters, who were tithe-
payers, there were more who were prepared to oppose the
payment of them.—( Hear.) This was a direct answer to
the assertion made on the opposite side of the House, that the
Dissenters wished to prevent the payment of tithes. He was
not quite satisfied that the plan of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer for the abolition of Church-rates, and providing a
substitute, was the best that could be devised. On the con-
trary, he was inclined to think that the plan he would sug-
gest would be better; but at any rate he was sure that it
would be more simple in its nature. He was sure that it
was known to many Honourable Members that there was
a fund connected with the Church called the first fruitsand
tenths ; and it was equally well-known that this was an
impost which always existed since the days of King John,
and even At. an earlier period. The House was aware
that during the interval between the institution of first
fruits and tenths and the Reformation they were paid to
the Pope, and were made applicable to carrying on the
secular Government of Rome. At the time of Henry the
Eighth that monarch wished to apply these tenths and first
fruits to State purposes in this country ; and having come
to this determination, he, with the concurrence of the Legis-
lature, passed an Act of! Parliament, whereby it was directed

- .
that these funds should be applied to political objects. llenier:
tioned this because these were funds over which Parliament
had a just and legitimate control. In the third year of Philip
and Mary, the Act of Henry VIII. was repealed; but in the
first year of Elizabeth, an Act was passed again enacting the
statute of Henry, and the funds were directed for the future
to be applied to purposes of ,State. He was satisfied that
these funds, if duly enforced, would be found sufficiently ample
for Church-rates, and for those purposes to which they were
now devoted ; and if God gave him strength and the House
its support, he would enforce the payment of these charges in
such a way as to insure every incumbent of a parish an income
of 2001. a year. With the proper collection and application
of this fund, they might also do away with Church-rates. lle
would state to the House some facts illustrative of the pre-
sent negligent mode in ohich these funds were collected.
Ile would take aye livings, and he did not choose to dcsig-