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

ing the pressure of those local charges which bear heavily or,
the owners and occupiers of land, and for distributing the
burden of them more equally over other descriptions of pro-
perty.' An interpretation has been put upon the paragraph
which is by no means intended. No new mode of general
taxation is meant by•it. It has a speCial reference to the Re-
port of the Committee of last Session on County-rates, and
to the relief of the agricultural interest from certain local
burdens, of which the Church-rate is one."—( Hear, hear.)
If, Sir, we are to consider this question of Church-rates
with a view to do justice to all parties, I stand on higher
ground than merely affording relief to agriculture. But in
1835 the measure recommended by his Majesty's Government
of that period was not a relief, like that which we recommend,
to the consciences of the Dissenters, it was merely a relief
to the agricultural interest._(Hear, hear.) I will now,
Sir, endeavour to fellow my Noble Friend in some of his
observations. He asks to whom the surplus fund which we
expect to realise from the improved administration of the
Church estates belongs ;—to the Church, or to the State?
If we answer, to the Church, then my Noble Friend is pre-
pared to charge us with applying that which belongs to the
Church to other than ecclesiastical purposes. If, on the con-
trary, we answer, "to the State," my Noble Friend then turns to
the Dissenters, and wishes to know whether they will consent
to be so deluded ; for that they will then contribute as much
to the support of the Church of England as if the money were
paid out of the Consolidated Fund. But, Sir, Ido not think
the Dissenters will listen to my Noble Friend's suggestion.
They see the distinction between the two cases, and they arc
perfectly satisfied with the proposed plan.—(llear.) I have
heard it said that the plan which I have had the honour to
submit to the House is a sort of hocus pocus juggle ; and it
has been asked, not only in this House, but elsewhere, " Who
ever heard of a party of four persons sitting down to a game
at whist, and all winning ?" If I could appeal to an eminent
man of high mercantile character, of unsullied integrity—if I
could find such a character in the person of one who holds a
high station, would he contend that it was impossible for two
parties to rise winners from a game at whist ? I should like
to know on what principle trade is carried on between the
buyer and seller. So, in matters of a financial nature, is
not the repeal of a tax a case in which both parties may be
gainers ? Now, most Hon. Gentlemen are aware of the es-
tate of the Bishop of London in the neighbourhood of the me-
tropolis, called the Paddington Estate, Paddington Fields.
There was a property belonging to the see of London under
the existing law of the land. An Act of Parliament was sub-
sequently passed, altering the state of the law, which gave to
the Bishop of London greater and much better leasing powers.
That estate is now covered with good houses, squares are
built upon it, and improvements arc going on daily. Now, I
should like to know whether this increased value was not
given by an Act of Parliament ? Are not the tenants gainers ?
Arc not the public at large benetitted ? Then, I say, if my posi-
tion is to be dealt with as a mere hocus pocus affair, as it has
been called by the Hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. G. 11.
Vernon), I have some authority for the course which I
pursue. We wish to substitute a certain for an uncer-
tain provision for Church-rates. I take the liberty of ask-
ing one and all of the Learned Gentlemen whom I see
opposite, of all the Courts of Law, of Equity, and the Ci-
vilians, if they will be so kind, in their learning, and in
their great experience, only to produce me a single case since
the Reformation, in which a rate having been refused by the
vestry, there has been any interposition of a higher anthority
to compel the vestry to make such rate. If no such case
can be shown to me, my case is complete.
Dr. NI CHO L L here rose, and referred to a case which
had occurred in 1799 (the case of Gordon and another) when
an appear was made against a rate made by one Churchwarden,
after a vestry had refused to make the rate. The party was
sued in the Court of Peterborough ; the Court affirmed the
rate to be good, and ordered payment to be made.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was will-
big_then for the present to assume that fact ; but to his un-
learned ears there seemed a distinction to be made, if it
were an appeal against the legality of the rate, and the rate
being made.
Dr. NIC HO LI. recapitulated the facts.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER resumed.
Ile could assure the Hon. and Learned Gentleman that he
was perfectly satisfied lie would not, for a momentary triumph
in a debate, make a statement which he could not establish on
tlis best grounds. But he would allow him still to doubt the
application of this case, because it appeared that the rate was
made by the Churelr.varden, and that though the vestry re-
fused to make it, the Churchwarden did. Now whether this
is stance was to rule all other cases or not he could not pre-
sine to say ; but he must venture to say, and he wished to
bring the fact before the Committee, that this suit was the
only case of the kind which had occurred, and by an adjourn-
ment of the vestry the proceedings on that occasion co ild be
got rid of.—(No.) What must be the defect in the Courts
of the land, if there were this remedy, and it had not been re-
sorted to. How great must have been the negligence of those
who had the power to remedy the evil, and had allowed it to con-
tinue ! After having made some further observations which
did not reach us, from the impatience evinced by the House to
divide, the Right Hon. Gentleman contended it was too much
that this scheme should have been called one of sacrilegious
Jobbery. He rejoiced, however, that no such word had found
its way into the House in the course of this debate ; for, on
the contrary, the tone and temper in which the subject had
been introduced by the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for
Tamworth, gave an earnest and example which bad been fol-
lowed up throughout the whole of the debate ; and except for
the warmth displayed en the present occasion, if it had not
been for the tiistes Anzaryllidis iras which had charactenined
the debate for a time, no discussion could ever have reflected
more credit upon the House, from the absence of personalities
and excited passions. Ho hoped the House would show, by
the majority of that nigh r, that this measure was nut one
of sacrilege or robbery. It was a measure intended to pro-
mote religious peace. The Right lion. Gentleman beerged
in conclusion to say, that his Hon. and Learned Friend' the
Attorney-General had stated that he believed all the lessees
were satisfied with the plan. [lc believed that many were
satisfied ; but he should not think he was acting rightly if he
did not acknowledge that many of them had expressed their
decided disapprobation of it.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL believed it was the general wish
of the House that the debate should close that night,__
(Cheers.) If that were the wish of the House—a wish in
which he certainly concurred—he hoped that if any Gentle-
man, without entering.into the general question, desired to ex-
plain the grounds on which his vote would be given, the House
would allow him the opportunity of doing so.—( Hear.)
Mr. RIGBY WASON, who rose amidst loud and general
cries of " Divide," said that there was only one point to which
he wished to allude—a point that had been touched upon in
the course of the debate. It was this—that if the Bishops
would apply to these tenures the same rule that in their report
they recommended to be applied to the property of Deans and
Chapters, means of religious instruction would be afforded to
1,625,000 persons, according to the scale laid down by the
Commissioners.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord DUDLEY STUART, amid loud criesof " Divide,"
moved that the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to
sit again.—(Cries of " Oh, oh," and " Go on.")
LAMBTON (as we understood) seconded the mo-
tion.—( al, oh I)
After a few words from Mr. CRESSETT PELHAM and
Mr. G. F. YOUNG, which the confusion in the House ren-
dered totally inaudible,
Lord J. RUSSELL left it entirely in the hands of the
House, whether it would choose to continue the discussion or
not.—(Cries of " Divide," and " Go on.")
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had no
idea, when he rose to reply, that a general wish existed to
continue the debate.

After a few words from Mr. WASON and Mr. LAMB-
TON,

Mr. D. W. HARVEY did not intend to enter into the ge-
neral question. All that he wished to do on that occasion
was to guard himself against the suppcmition, that in voting
for the proposition then before them, he was committing him-
self to both the propositions brought forward by the Govern-
ment.--( Hear. )

Lord bUDLEY STUART, with the greatest pain and re-
luctance, felt himself bound to vote against the measure then
brought forward by a Government with whom he was in the
general habit of acting.—(Hear, hear.) After explaining
that his motive in moving the adjournment arose from the cir-
cumstance of his not having been allowed to speak upon the
subject before, although he had repeatedly risen for the pur-
pose, the NOble Lord proceeded to read a passage from the
Report of the Church Commissioners, to show the vast de-
ficiency that at present existed in Church accommodation and
spiritual instruction, and to express his surprise that any Go
vcrnment who had signed that-report could bring themselves to
support a proposition which would at once cut oil all means of
supplying that great and lamentable deficiency.—(Hear.)
Yet if he thought that the measure would produce religious
peace, he would consent to it.--( Hear, hear.) But he felt
satisfied it would not.
Mr. LA MBTO N would not persevere in his opposition on
this occasion, hoping, when the Report was brought up, to
have a full and fair opportunity afforded to him of expressing
his sentiments upon the measure._( Hear, hear.)
Mr. G. F. YO UNG felt it his duty to follow the example of
the Noble Lord.
Mr. INGHAM would confine himself to the • statement of a
single fact, which ought to be known to the Committee before
coming to a vote. The Noble Lord the Member for North-
umb,:rland, in making his statement as to the insecurity of
the property held umkr the Church in the county of Dur-
ham, stated that there was, from his own personal know-
ledge, a most striking contrast between the two banks
of the river Tyne; that on the north side there were to, be
seen nothing but stately buildings, whereas on the south
side, which was_ Church leasehold property, in spite of the
great commercial opportunities in that part of the country,
het, saw no such buildings, because the property was
he'd upon a precarious tenure. Now he begged to say,
that the town which he had the honour to represent—
South Shields—containing a commercial population consist-
ing of 23,000 souls, had been built upon land, held on a
tenure of only twenty-one years.—( Loud Opposition cheers.)
Another statement of the Noble Lord was not more appli-
cable to that town than the ono he had just noticed. The
Noble Lord had said that in the county of Durham dissent was
so rife that it was known that the Establishment was in no
part of the country so littlo recognised. Now, in South
Shields, at the beginning of the present century, there was
only one church, whereas, at the present time there were four.
Two of the additional churches were built and endowed by
tie munificence of the Dean and Chapter of Durham ; and
the other by the voluntary contributions of the inhabitants.
Mr. PEASE said it was a notorious fact that the
very town of South Shields would have been one
universal ruin if it had not been for the passing of the
University of Durham Acct, by which much of the land of that
town was enfranchised. Whatever might have been the trade
of South Shields before. that Bill was passed? it had been in•