The Sun.
London, England, 1837-05-24 00:00:00

eel4-----,seaseresaisse-eiee •
pled
revenue of the Church a• stiS-plus which, whether ap
fed to secular or ecclesiastical purposes, was still rah )71_ provided out. oi the prerty of the thiliech for the
n the landed proprietdr spreete legally bound to sus
21°.---(1-lear, hear, hear.) And was the Church rich enough to provide this surplus?—( Hear, hear.) That this had been
asserted there was no denying—that it had been asserted, even
to teeth of direct evidence to the entrary, must be in e ite ection of the House. The Hon. Member fer Llskeerthd
bad been trying to find re ;sons for the a
the eChurch,
t he was
also trying to show that the Church was too
quite Hear, ;-,ear, from Mr. C. Buller)—and that it had
htv'' rk Andas enough to increase the means of divine worship.
4 Wiiat said the Report of the Church Commissioners?—
of tt tpert signed last year by five or six of the supporters
theequivalent present measure for compelling the Church to provide an
for Church-ates. Why, the Report stated that such
'llls the destitution of the Church, as regarded the means of
Public worship, that it presented ne funds whatever fee the
provision of those means, and a grant for the purpose was ne-
:te"arY'---( Hear. ) The case of the metropolis had been ,
aged—the ease of large manufacturing towns—it was admit-
d that in all these the population had outgrown the means of
religious instruction, and that some provision was necessary ;
Yet heyt now proposed to divert from its legitimate purpose,
;land pto this new purpose the fund for which the
andecl Property of the country was already liable. -.( Hear.)
rld thee pamphlets were put forward, proving that although
was true that the liability existed, yet that there were no
I,l°ltos of' enforcing it. Would that excuse avail ? The Right
".'°o• Gentleman had referred to the Report of the Eccle-
siastical Commission, stating the law upon this subject :
i
sh hat it was the duty of the Church to see that Divine woe_
ttiP forswa duly performed, and accommodation provirled; and
;hatthese purposes a Church-rate was ieeposed." Now
,!.4t Report, which bore the signatures of Lord Tenterdeh,
!;Jr. Lushingten, and the present Jnage- Advocate, Mr. Cut
,s 1 Pergusson, all most eminent legal authorities, thus estab-
,,l hed the principle that there was a legal obligation on the
Property of England to contribute to the maintenance of the
• refl. Were not all inherited estates received in accord-
ance with that principle, and with that liability to the payment
0,,a
irChurch-rates hanging upon them ? Were not all pitr-
ed estates liable to bear the same burthen ? When Hon.
• in.elbers purchased their estates were they satisfied with trust-
. ae to the defective means of enforcing-the obligation so ela-
-"retelYdisplayed in the pamphlets on the other side Did
• 11!? vendors say, There is no sure remedy for the recovery of
I..tiureh•rates—there is no necessity for our making any pecu-
crY arrangement with reference to them?" No. The
answer was the authority of Lord Tenterden, and Dr. Lush-
Ct °lt) and Mr. C. Fergusson : " All these eminent men de-
clare that such an obligation does exist, and we will not be
41es leilabby as to seize on a mode of evading them because the
tt siastical Court is dilatory in its proceedings?" No,"
Th Purchaser would say, " I insist on a fair abatement.
IreChurch-rates are 251., and I must deduct twenty-five
a' purchase on that account."—( Hear, hear, hear.)
tut, then,
the Right Honourable the Chancellor of the
frz°llequer had referred to the case of Ireland ; but, so far
o
Pln that instance being an inducement to acquiesce in this
easure it was, on the contrary, the strongest possible ground
• t?l' resisting it.—( Hear, hear, hear.) On the occasion of
0;41 Irish Church question being mooted they admitted that
Le Churches of England and Ireland were united by one
~alv and constituted one Church ; but the Right Honourable
etnan opposite was also a party to a declaration then
st
by the King, that the circumstances of the Church of
Tire,landwere so peculiar as to call for separate legislation.
he House were then told that the Church of Ireland had
!!'eater resources than were required for the spiritual instruc-
?.son of the people ; yet the very peculiarity on which Hon.
;:pentitainem_evnizo„pposite then relied as constituting a case of ez-
that the vestrymen in Ireland were exclusively
Protestant—did not, nor did its parallel, exist in the present
ell'ie` In England, so far from the exception arising, the Dis-
11?titers themselves had a voice in imposing or withholding
ge rate.--(Hear.) Why, what security was there that if the
oose now agreed to accede to the principle of this measure,
ilss
regarded Church-rates, they might not be told, five years
• that they had established a principle fatal to the ex-
;Lenee of an Establishment when they gave up Church-
byates ? (Hear, hear, from the Opposition Benches, answered
th.eheers from the Ministerial side.) How did he, or how did
,- House know, that it might not then be said that tithes
Zais were public property—that they were a. burthcn on the
ieeoPier of land—and that it was also a, grievance to persons
;here from the Establishment to pay Tithes? What was
.Oere to prevent his being afterwards called upon to acquiesce
I,,t,lthe arguments that then would be brought forward by the
'Assentors, who would then cite the case of the abolition of
Church-rates as the best authority they could have for their
sew demands ? (Renewed Ministerial cheers.) And, after
411, what was this 'conscientious scruple ? It was on this
ground that tlsey were called on to make this great change;
• and if the ground were once honestly taken up, and pursued
Lie a strP:ight-forward manner, it was a broad one, and could
grappled with. But he denied that it was really the ground
tcrie upon by the supporters of this measure. (Hear, hear,
eat) It must be borne in mind that part of this plan was to
retain so much of the old Church-rate machinery as was re-
quired for the payment of existing debts ; so that a distinc-
tion was thus Created between Church-rates levied for the pay--
. Thent of a debt already contracted and those hereafter to be
levied for general purposes. With the latter it was proposed
to do away. The debt which it was proposed to consider sa-
, ted might have been incurred by the fiat of a majority, and
the Dissenter indisposed now to pay might have been one of a
reluctant minority on that occasion—he might have done all its
ills power to resist the incurring of the debt. Yet 'the Right
• be Hoo. Gentleman was for holding such_ debts sacred. Now
was at a loss to see what conscientious scruples could have
t 0 do with the matter under this view of the case.—( Hear.)
again, supposing the principle of conscientious scruples once
4firnitted, how would the House deal with the Dissenters of
Scotland? Upon the Dissenter in Scotland was imposed the
tY of maintaining the Established Church, even though he
• ellight have strong differences from its members on religious
Vets. He inherited no property subject to that charge.
bett,t suppose the case of a large landed proprietor in Scotland
IN' at the same time a member of the Church of England,
•end entertaining conscientious scruples to the payment of any
money for the support and relief of the Church of Scotland.
e eottr (Sir R. Peel) .would venture to say that were this case to
_, and were Hon. Gentlemen opposite free from the fear of !retaliation of the argument upon themselves, they would say
that this conduct of the Scottish landed proprietors was of the
111_0a t frivolous and dishonest kind.—( Hear, hear.) But
:'era was another reason why the principle of conscientious
-eruldes was not admissible. The Noble Lord the Secretary
w
ar, had on a former evening, admitted the weight of the
• eh'le made out on behalf of an Establishment, and that it
"'Rht become the duty of the Government to bring foward a
aProposition to provide increased Church accommodation. In
er'teloplating that proposition the princile of conscientious
efruPles became negatived ; for there wasp a greater violation
4e that principle in proposing a new grant for Church
anc°l-omodation than there would be in proposing to continue
',lopost already existing.—( Hear.) The proposed plan
, hetuld almost entirely dissolveb the connection which existed
13e„wlett Church and State.—( Hear, from the Liberal
see;eues.) Look at the broad principle involved in the mea-
ow • It almost literally proposed to make the Bishops an-
, Acre
of the new State Commission, the majority of whom
Jetito be laymen, removable at the pleasure of the Crown.
"ear, hear )---Why, was it possible that he could be told
At
Or th-uct. a measure did not materially alter the position
aed ci P.Piscopal order, when their property was taken away,
ptaced under the controul of a Commission, so that
thee). were virtually told that they were unable to manage it
their ?—( Hear.) Ministers might quote Ireland, but
their °PPonents could quote again ; and quote to the purposs cf
tionrjePeated declarations, that the Irish measure was an excel) -
did ; ineasure, grounded on pecularities of cicumstances that
what-ct ,affect the Church of England.—( Hear, hear.) And
the ulß•nified reason had been given by the Chancellor of
tg s
Thent ()critter for dispossessing the Bishops of the manage-
„ °I their lands ! The Right lion. Gentleman satiated
IDnuoca.eTt ia
lolsity by searching into Hansard. In this he had fol-
example of the lion. and Learned Member for Tip-
with y; Caine'Aim down to the House on the previous night
Thente result of ten years' search in these records of Parlia-
h
434r01,4 i7occedings. "No one," continued the Right Hon..
irlir•olee ' Could be more alarmed than I was by the preli-
m Thome;;Nrade of the Hon. and Learned Member." The
P. the Hon. Baronet on that (the opposite) side ( Sir
totter;,..''ett) rose, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman came in,
laid i 'older the weight of Hansard. —( A laugh.) He had
1824* ois instruments from the armoury of Hansard. From
be tcl 1834 he had searched, and culled, and, as be came in,
to IneYied the Honourable Baronet as though he were about
Ile al'e a victim of him.—(Cries of " Hear, and laughter.")
tioe roefall,e reminded me at the moment of Burke's descrip-
the t, ,the manner in which the philosophical Jacobins eyed
UKe of Bedford, • • little dotted
-oes in imagination pricking w inr,„ hia carcase, and marking out the portions for ste -
tato or v.._
_..
on. ,antrig, or boiling.—( Renewed laughter.) The_
. sa()..t•aronet was evidently to have been made the victim of
e 0142 tremendous effort of sarcastic eloquence. But that
ae the tretrple, of which the lion. and Learned Member spoke
for birds of ill omen, is still erect, and its pillars
remain e
la unshaken by the puny efforts of the pickaxe."—(Cheer-
the and 1
p• aughter.) The lion. Baronet continued :—" But
fired
w'lght lion. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not satis-
reetb,lth Hansard, would have recourse to more lugubrious
. not ii"g still. He has gone over the public Acts, and there
"'ale ring anything to his purpose, had recourse to the pri-
Nett e--( .
A laugh.) At last he has found ono Act of
ueshks rs-t, which, by the negligence of the clerk, some
Which head been left; and this was the sort of evidence on
Would dispossess the Bishops and the Church of their
-estaksa: ancient ei
gb
ts•—(Hear, hear, hear.) Why, many similar
Propere-` had been made in Acts of Parliament relating to lay
eat tt •tY.---( Hear, heer, ) He himself ( Sir Robert Peel) had
take tals session on, a Ra.ilroad Committee, where, by the mis-
Posse!tol?e clerk in reading one figure for another, certain
beau _
aeetrxrt the Company were limited to one year, instead ff
i_e ended to three. And he remembered the case o
men. er Act of Parliament, wherein the penalty
f was i of imprison-
°rtnee loPosed " half to the King and half to the in-
there 13.,----(Loud laughter.) Why, what security would
emission for landed estates, if these verbal inaccuracies or
hetteTcs'vere deemed of sufficient weight ?—( Hear, hear,.
Well Let those who valued their landed property loots
1, Fund
.Mer argument of the Chancellor of the Exche-
don the blanks in the Act of Parliament. What
viseirnenthe sentiments of Lord Al h with respect to the pro-
t orp th '3l. suitable religious accommodation for the poor? On
e 21st
• eiPal ar Aprit, 1834, that Noble Lord said, " The prin-
ba nn terument used this evening has been that there ought to
ptace;eo2tribution out of the
public funds to maintain the
. th
t worship of the Established Church. Now I agree
of th He 1. Friend (Mr. Wynn) that it is the absolute duty
of the '')tatot e to Provide places of worship for thep
vinniunity." !ac the Noble Lord (John Russell)
oorer classes

in