The Sun.
London, England, 1837-03-14 00:00:00

CHURCH-RATES,

On the nintion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, the House
went into a Committee on the Church-rates Regulation Bill.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said, he rose thus early in the dis-
cussion, because he was desirous of having an opportunity of
submitting in a connected form the view he took of the
question which was invoked in the Resolution. ( Hear,
hear, hear.) And he knew from long experience, that by
postponing the part an individual took in a discussion to a
later period of the debate, it was exceedingly important to re-
frain from the temptation there was to notice observations that
had fallen from individuals who might have preceded the
speaker, and from the temptation there was to introduce into
the discussion that vehemence of debate, which might add
something to the animation of it, but ought to have no effect
in influencing the reason.—( Hear, hear.) It was his wish to
approach the discussion of this subject in the temper to ,vhic•.i
he had been invited to it by the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer the other tight.—( Hear.) It was his wish to divest
himself of party feeling, and to forget the iefluenee it might
have upon party connections, and to discuss it upon its real
merits. Those were the reasons which ,had induced
him to present, himself thus early in the debate.
He rose under a sense of the deep importance of the
subjact—( Cries of ‘• Hear, hear")—and of the importance
of corning, if possible, to some early and satisfactory set-
tlement. He knew how the difficulties naturally inherent
in it had been increased by a proposal made in the year
1834, which being made by the King's Government was
almost tantamount to the condemnati .n of the present
system—( Hear, hear)—and both on account of the in-
terval which had elapsed since that measure was pro-
nosed, and in consequence* of its subsequent abandon-
ment, he could say he was fully conscious of the dif-
ficulties with which the question was surrounded ; and he
knew it had assumed a different position, in consequence of the
proposal which had been made by the responsible Ministers of
the Crown. But notwithstanding those difficulties, he felt
it incumbent on him to state to the House the grounds on
which lie came to the conclusion, that not disguising any of
the difficulties accompanying the subject, there were none to be
compared in magnitude with those which arose from an
acquiescence in the proposal that had been made by his
Majesty's present Ministers.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.)
Ile would speak of the plan submitted by his Majesty's Minis-
ters ,of the proposal that henceforth Church rates shall be
entirely abolished—that the land and other property of this
" country, whether held by Dissenters, or by persons in
communion with the Church of England, should be
in future entirely free from all liability on this head—and that
the Church, not the State, shall in all times to come provide
for the repair of the fabric of the Church. That was the
proposition submitted to the consideration of the .House by
tke King's Government, and he should proceed to consider
it on separate grounds; first, as a merely financial measure;
secondly, on its conformity with authorities delivered in that
House on the subject ; and thirdly, on its conformity with
the principles of a sound political economy.—( Hear, hear.)
He wished to submit the subject, as one of finance, to the
test of calculation—as a plan in conformity with considera-
tions of justice and policy to the test of unimpassioned argu-
ment. It was of still greater importanee'to consider the mea-
sure in a financial point of view, because it had been distinctly
stated that, by the accuracy of the calculations made, the
measure should stand or fall. He ( Sir Robert Peel) was
aware of the extreme difficulty of following out and examining
closely, in a popular assembly, the nature and results
of an arithmetical calculation.— (Hear, hear.) The Right
Honourable Gentleman had stated that he had a certain
amount of charge to provide for--namely 261,0001., which
he had estimated as the amount of fines received by the
Bishops, and by the Deans and Chapters, on the average
of three years. That was the data upon which he had to rely;
but if the Hon. Gentlemen had taken a more extended period
he would find that the amount of fines was less ; but for
the purpose of examining the statement; he would suppose
that the Right Honourable Gentleman's estimate was
correct, and that 261,000/. represented the amount of fines ;
namely, the sum for which he had to provide a reimbursement of
the Deans and Chapters. The next permanent charge was a sum
of 250,0001. which he had proposed to allot for the re-
pair of the fabric of the Church, making in all a sum
of 511,0001.—(hear.) That was the permanent charge for
which he had in the first instance to provide. He had wholly
omitted the charge for the management of that fund. He pro-
posed that the Government should take upon itself the ma-
nagement of an immense landed property, consisting of mines,
houses, tithes, and lands.--( Hear, hear, hear.) He had com-
mitted that property to the charge of Archbishops and
Bishops who had no direct personal or pecuniary interest in it
—to official men who were occupied with other matters, and
to three lay Commissioners, on whom, he presumed, the ac-
tual practical duty was to devolve. That property was dis-
persed throughout the whole of England and Wales, and was
subject to various descriptions of management and settlement ;
and he apprehended the cost of the management of it, in pro-
portion to the rental, would be large indeed. From the nature of
the Board to which this property was to be submitted, and
from the general objection which applied to the State becom-
ing a great landed proprietor, and from the absence of those
inducements to good management which a direct per-
sonal interest always secures, it was evident that this
charge must be very high. The landed revenue of the
Crown was 240,0001. It was managed by a Board of that nature
—it was much less complicated—the surveys were infinitely less
expensive—yet he believed he was not over-rating the charge e.f
management when he stated it at 25,0001. per annum. In-
deed the estimate given him was 28,0001. Now, if he estimated
the charge of managing that property, the rental of which
was supposed to be 1,300,0001. and the actual receipt of which by
the Deans and Chapters and Bishops was 540,000/., the lowest
scale at which he could estimate it was 30,000/. per annum.
Now if 30,000/. represented the annual charge, he must add
that sum to the 511,000/., making 541,0001. as tho permanent
charge for which the Hon. Gentleman was to provide. He had
then stated the way by which he should provide for that charge.
He had said the 261,0001. was the amount of fines ; and by
a calculation, assuming the average subsistence of leases
for lives and for years to be 24 years, and asssuming the rate of
interest allowed to the tenant on renewal to be 7 per cent.—on
these assumptions, he inferred the landed property of the Church
to amount to 1,323,0001. He had then the deferred annuity,
which was to take effect after the lapse of 24 years. It would
appear from this there was a deficiency of 25,000/. per annum,
assuming the data of the Right Hon. Gentleman to be correct.
The loss of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be
621,0001., always assuming that the data of the Right
Honourable Gentleman was correct. He, however, doubted
its correctness ; and he hoped, however the House
might decide with regard to the principle of Church-
rates, he trusted they would not be prepared to make such an
important change upon such insufficient grounds. The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer calculated the average duration of leases
to be twenty-four years. It was a most difficult part of the
case, and unless they were made acquainted with tke proportion
of leases which were held under three lives, it was impossible
for them to make a safe average. He had had access to the ac-
counts of the Bishopric of Gloucester—he found there were 102
leases in that Bishopric upon lives; out of them 75 were held
upon three lives; and the average subsisting terms of these 75
was not less than 38 years. Now supposing the average was
to run to 26 in place of 24 years, that would at once destroy
the whole of the Hon. Gentleman's calculations—and if it
should run to thirty years, the loss to the public would amount
to many millions.—( Hear, hear.) But they could come to no
real knowledge of the value of the leases without a most minute
and difficult calculation of the nature of the lease; and of the
lives upon which they might depend.--( Hear.) 'I he next
assumption of the Right I-lon. Gentleman was, that twenty-
four years purchase was the average value of these leases.
That he ( Sir Robert Peel) should deny, for unless they were
able to take an account of the leases, and of the value of
the tithes in the manner he had described, they could
come to no safe inference on the subject. The value. of each
lease would depend on the number of years it had run—on the
fact whether the lives named in it were of children or of persons
of more advanced years, or whether they were of the male or
female sex. Without a full knowledge of all this, they could
never calculate the aggregate value,ot the leases. The next
assumption of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, that 7 per
cent. was the average rate of interest allowed on the renewal
of leases, and if 7 per cent. was not found to be the average rate of
interest, his calculations were wholly erroneous, and his plan
should entirely fall to the ground. The Right. Hon. Gentle-
man had gone into some calculations respecting the see of Dur-
ham. lie should protest against drawing any safe inference I

eirCUMStanCC.3 of Gildt see. pretty
see chiefly consiFted in mines, and there were special rea-
sons which affected the value of land, and made the rate
of interest for renewals larger than in all other dioceses.
I will not enter into details, but there is a specific reason con-
nected with what is called the " way charges," or permission
from the tenant to pass over his land, which has the effect of
increasing the value of the land in that diocese, for which rea•
son, in that diocese, a larger rate of interest is allowed in re-
newals than in any other diocese. But if the Chancellor of
the Exchequer is wrong in assuming that seven per cent. is
the rate of interest allowed in renewals, his calculation must
altogether fall to the ground. I apprehend that, in the case of
land, seven per cent. is not the rate of interest allowed. I
have attempted to ascertain what is the practice with respect
to the renewal of leases in the following dioceses, namely,
Canterbury, London, Winchester, Lincoln, Chichester, Ox-
ford, and Salisbury ; I asked the party who manages the re-
newal of leases this question :—‘. When a lease for lives or
for years is renewed, what measures do you take to ascertain
the nature and value of the property ?" The answer was,
that he employed in the first place a regular surveyor, in
order to ascertain what was the net annual value of the
property, clear of all deductions. I then asked the fulloW-
ing question :—" The value being thus ascertained, how do
you calculate what should be paid for a renewal of a lease of
lives ?" The answer was, that they calculated the value to-
gether with the number of years the lease had to run, and
made a calculation of interest at five per cent. It therefore
appears, that not seven per cent., but five per cent., is the
rate of interest allowed on renewals.—( Hear, hear.) But
then the Chancellor of the Exchequer may say that there are
many instances in which seven and eight, and even nine per
cent. interest is allowed—( Hear); that there are instances 10
which eight per cent. is allowed, and many in whiefefive per
cent. is allowed, but that the average is seven per cent. Now,
with respect to house property, I think that the average rate of
interest allowed is totally different from that allowed on land.
I admit that in cases of house property seven and eight, and
even nine, per cent. is allowed. But all those cases of house-
hold property were subject to conditions which reduced them
to not morosthan five per cent. An interest of eight per cent.
is allowed on household property, because the tenant indemni-
fies the Church in the first place in all cases of insolvency,
and from all attempts by legal means to recover the amount of
the rent; and secondly, the whole charge of the building and
the keeping it in repair is borne by the tenant; and thirdly,
the charge of the payment of 'insurance against fire also falls
on the tenant. It is therefore perfectly just that a distinction
should be made in the case of household property and the
eight per cent. allowed and the value of other property, on
which only five per cent. is allowed. The result of this is,
that if we grant that the present rental be 1,323,0001.,
and if we make allowance for the difference between
hoUsehold property and landed property, then the value of
this 1,323,000/. to be received 24 years hence will not be
any thing like even M 6,0001.—( Hear, hear, and cheers,) On
this point I put these questions to an eminent calculator.

" QUERIES.

" The average improved rental of Church leases is
1,323,0001. a-year. It is not estimated that, on the average,
in twenty-four years, all the Church leases will run Out ;
and, therefore, there is a reversionary interest of 1,323,0001.,
as a perpetual annuity, at the end of twenty-four years.
" Question the First—What annuity, to commence from
the present time, is equivalent in value to the perpetual an-
nuity of 1,323,0001., to commerce at the end of twenty-four
years ?

" Answer—The equivalent perpetual annuity, to commence
immediately, is five hundred and sixteen thousand and one
hundred and ninety pounds, computing the fee-simple at
twenty-five years' purchase.
" Question Second--If this sum of 1,323,0001. a-year is
derivable as to three-fourth parts thereof from the rents of
land, and one-fourth part from the rack-rents of houses, what
annuity, to commence from the present time, is equivalent to
the rent of 1,323,000/. a-year, having regard to the perishable
nature of household property, and the permanent nature of
land?

Answer--The equivalent perpetual annuity should, in
this ease, be four hundred and sixty-eight thousand seven
hundred and thirty pounds, computing the land, as before,
at twenty-five years' purchaSe, and the household property
at 16 2-sth years' purchase. Taking the household pro-
perty in fee-simple, however, to be worth fourteen and a
quarter years' purchase, instead of at 16 2-sths, which is •
very mcderate reduction as compared with the reduction br
land, from thirty to twenty-five years' purchase, the equivalent
perpetual annuity will be four hundred and fifty-two thousand
three hundred pounds.—(Heir, hear.)

" ARTHUR MORGAN.
" Equitable Assurance-cflice, March 10, 1837."
" But the true proportion for the household property—the
fee simple of the land being reduced from thirty years to
twenty-five years—is thirteen and a fraction years' purchase.
" N. B. Taking the land at thirty years' purchase, tho
equivalent—perpetual annuity on the whole property—is
602,0001."

Now, I have shown, supposing all the assumptions of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to be undoubtedly correct,
that he will have an annual sum of 541,0001. to provide for,
and that he will only have 516,0001. to meet it. In these as-
sumptions, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has
been working entirely upon false calculations, and especially
upon the erroneous idea that all the Church property is worth
twenty-five years' purchase. But it would be vain to hope to
induce the occupier of household property to purchase at 23
years' purchase, when he knows that the value of what he
holds is only 16 years' purchase ; and therefore, in proportion'
as the Church revenues are derived from household property',
must a reduction be made from the whole value, which reduc-
tion, as I have said before, taking household property to be
about one-fourth of the whole, would reduce the equivalent
perpetual annuity from 516,0001. to 452,000/. Convert this
annuity into present capital, and it will be found that instead
of a gain, we have a clear loss, by means of this financiak
speculation, to the extent of several millions.—(Hear.)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer says he expects to derive
some profit in this arrangement, from the improved value
which land will acquire—and consequently that the State
will come in for a' share of that improved value. All this
notion, however, is a complete fallacy ; the Chancellor of the
Exchequer will not get a shilling of any of this improved
value.—(Opposition cheers.) He is going to allow the tenant
to purchase at twenty-five years' purchase, and therefore the
whole improvable value of the land, whatever it may be, must
go, not to the State, but to the tenant.—( Hear.) TheChan'
cellor of the Exchequer, hoping to make the plan exceedingly
popular, in the next place promises himself a reserve fund, 0°
of which he is to procure the means of providing for the in-
crease of small livings.—( Hear.) He said, "I am the friend
of the poor; you who come forward to oppose this measure
endeavour to prejudice the people against it by representing it'
to be destructive of the rights and claims of the poor." No'
I should like to know what any Gentleman would give for the
Right Hon. Gentleman's reserve fund after the sale of the
Church lands for perpetual annuities in the way I have de'
scribed, and when we find that the Chancellor of the Exete-
quer has a charge of 541,000/. per annum to meet out of an
income of 452,0001. —(Hear.) Instead of a reserve fund, pre
here here appear to ha've an absolute present deficiency.—( Hear-f
It cannot escape the notice of the House that the principle of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer's plan is to sell a remote
interest in certain lands and property belonging to the
Church, and to sell it in perpetuity. Now I happen to have
heard a very high authority make the following observations
upon this very practice:—" The great bulk of the propertY,
derived from Church lands was at present levied by means °I
renewal fines. The rents were, for the most part, fixed and
certain, and constituted but a small portion of the income. The
Church was, therefore, exactly in the position of an individual
who was continually selling a reversion, which was just the
most unprofitable of all means which an improvident peesol
could resort to for the management of his property. He trusts:cs
that Hon. Gentlemen bad not become aware of this fact fool;
their own experience ; but those who were at all acquainted
with the world must know that such were precisely the acts of
a spendthrift."—( Opposition cheers.) I have protitted by
my experience. I have heard the Chancellor of the Exch.;
quer speak upon this very subject.—( Hear, bear, and,
laugh)—and what is the whole plan now submitted to us but „
proposal to sell a distant reversion of the lands of the Church?
It is this, and nothing more nor less. He offers to sell all Oa
reversions of the several portions of his property at one fix„ee
rate of 25 years' purchase ; and does he flatter himself that 7,
can do so, and derive a profit at the same time ? It is, I thing*
on the outset, a most mistaken and unfair proposal, that
the various holdings, whatever be the nature of their tenur,7
whatever the valae of their leases, whatever their improvabl
nature, are to be sold at one unvarying rate of purchase..:
(Hear.) I maintain that this is in itself manifestly unitv
There are four sources of Church property ; namely, I"be
which is the only description of property touched upon bY/
Chancellor of the Exchequer—houses—mines, about 'which
the Right lion. Gentleman offered no explanation_what
he propose to do with respect to mines ?—( Hear, hear)--mod
tithes which are not of an improvable nature, their valve bey.
e,
ing already been permanently fixed at a corn-rent, by th,
Commutation Act of last year? I say it is unjust to saY ,
all the tenants of Church lands, without any regard to the
value of their respective leases,_ that they may purchase at to
rate of twenty-five years' purchase. I never can consent e,
see the property of the Church disposed of in this wboleseo
manner. I can see no means, based upon just and equitali)e
principles, by which the reversions of Church lands Can b,
disposed of, except by fairly estimating the value of the p.„,
perty, and dealing with cad.; individual case on its merits-
(Hear, hear.) So much for the financial part of the Chun
cellor of the Exchequer's measure. I come now to disc e
the subject in a point of view which I, and I trust many other
Hon. Gentlemen in this House, must consider of much deePo
interest. I come to discuss the principle of this measure
it concerns the eternal principles of justice and sound p°ertyy„
—(Hear.) This measure proposes that all rateable pr°l3,oo
whether held by Dissnters or not, should be discharged belle
the payment of a due which, from time immemorial, be! dot
derived from it for the maintenance of the Church, an" ro-
an equivalent for this sum should be procured out of theltiie
o
petty of the Church. Now, I apprehend that this is aP° hoe
which cannot be denied—that whatever difficulty. rneYimoe-
been found in collecting this rate, the law from tune eeiee
morial has been that parishes should maintain their resP,coty,
Churches. Neither can it be denied that whatever (I%sl'!fit, of
whatever opposition, may have been made to the pay me' par-
Church-rates, the conditions under which people havenieet,
payeati.
chased property have been trained subject to their
under the consideration that their payment was to II" riec•
cued, and, of course, with a proportionate reduction or pre to
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in stating this Inees,,,t it
the House the other night, said that he should suPtsiare
upon good authorities—that he should found his conent be
upon a weight of authority which he knew we shoulde
ht
able to dispute. The single precedent which th
Hon. Gentleman adduced was the case of the tenil3°! cot'
of the Irish Church, the allusion to which, I must say,

till

ider to be rather ungenerous. `When
that measure was
about to be brought forward we were told in the speech from
theo_ England, throne that Ireland was in a state very different from that
upon
gland, and required a peculiar line of administration
this matter. The case was thus made out to be a special
one, and defended on grounds of necessity ; and the House,
taking all these circumstances into consideration, passed the
Bill for the regulation of the temporalities of the Irish
Clliirch•—( Hear hear, hear.) But what does the
Chancellor of the Exchequer now ? He cornea down to the
tohouse, quotes the case of the Irish Church as one applicable
England, makes the exception the general rule, and this
peculiar policy, which was applied to Ireland on account of a
strong case of necessity, the precedent for our dealings with
the Church in England..—( Hear, hear.) Let the Chancellor
of the Exchequer look to the preamble of the Church Tempo-
ralities (Ireland) Bill—can he say that in England it is con-
venient to dispense with ten bishops ? On the contrary, two
have been very recently added to the number, in districts
Where their services were required.—( Hear, hear.) Was
not the case of the Dissenters precisely the same in 1834 as
at present ? Yet in 1834 did you propose to follow the pre-
cedent of Ireland in respect to them ?—( Hear.) You
brought forward a Bill totally different from the present tnea-
sure--a Bill for the purpose of abolishing the payment of
Church-rates, but at the same time providing for a fund, for
the support of the fabric of the Church, out of the funds of the
'ta,te.--(Opposition cheers.) When you speak to me about
authority, I shall attempt to show that, so far as argument
oes, you have no authority to appeal 'to in the case of the
nth Church in support of the present measure, whilst from
Your own acts and declarations I can draw the most power-
ful arguments against it.—( Renowed cheering.) I shall
quote first the dclaration of him who proposed the Irish
Temporalities Act, and, in the following year, proposed
a plan for superseding Church-rates by another :descrip-
tion of payment. Lord Althorn, in April 21, 1834,
the Irish Temporalities Act having been passed in the
Preceding. year, proposed a measure by which an annual
tun of 250,000/. was to be drawn from the Consolidated
Fd, and applied to the repair and mainteriance of
Churches as a substitute for Church-rates ; and in the course
of the discussion which took place on that occasion he ex-
pressed himself as follows :—"The principal argument used
this evening has been, that no contribution ought to he made
by the State out of the public funds for the purpose of main-
taining the places of worship belonging to the Established
Church Now, I entirely agree with my Hon. Friend (Mr.
Wynn), that it is the absolute duty of the State to provide
places of worship for the poorer classes of this community."
There is a positive recognition of the principle, that it is the
absolute duty of the State to provide Church accommoda-
tion for the poorer classes. From what fell from the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer the other night, we are left to infer
that the plan now proposed is not at variance with this prin-
ciple. Now, on the occasion of this proposal by Lord Al-
thorn, thesHon. Member for Middlesex, not in ignorance of
t 1 0 Noble Lord's plan, but in open and difect opposition to
It, Proposed as an amendment, that no payments should be
shade out of the Consolidated Fund until it was ascertained
that the Church property was inadequate to the purpose. I
other Hon. Members supported Lord Althorn against
that amendment, on which occasion we united 256 votes,
and negatived the resolution of the Hon. Member for
Middlesex by a majority of 116.—( Hear, hear.) Now, as
it is the rule that the vote of the majority ought to bind the
Minority, and as we have a recorded majority of 116,
by Which the Ilouse of Commons had declared itself
against the very principle now proposed, and as coinciding
with the principle of Lord Althorp, I think I have shown that
the weight of authority is in favour of supporting the fabric of
the Church out of the public funds, as distinguished Item tile
funds of the Church.—; Ili ar, hear.) It may be said that this
Principle was net adopted by a reformed Parliaisot. But
it was the first Pa, lia-meto returned after the pass.ing of
the Reform Act. It eaenot he said either that this Parlia-
ment was returned under a Conservative Government. But
this- au not the case either. The Parliament was returned
Under the Government of Lord Grey, who was the Premier ;
and this decree of the Parliament so assembled has never yet
been reversed.—( Hear, hear.) As another authority on this
stkbicct, I beg to refer the Right Hoe Gentleman to the Re-
Port of the Church Commission bearing date tl.e 4th of March,
1836—a Commission including among its members the names
of
five of the Members of his Majesty's Government—Lord
Cottenham (the Lord Chancellor), Lord Lansdowne, Lord
Melbourne, Lord John Russell, and Mr. Spring Rice.—( Hear,
bear.) Amongst other points to which this Commission di-
rected its attention, was this very question of raising addi.
tional funds by means of a different administration of Church
Property; and upon this the Report spoke as follows :
" One mode or rendering these incomes less uncertain would
be to allow the existing leases, both for lives and for terms
of years, to expire. But any plan for accomplishing this ob-
ject must involve the necessity of borrowing money upon the
security of the episcopal estates, in order to compensate the
Bishops for the loss of the fines which accrue to them under the
present system, and which form an important part of their in-
comes. The practical result of such an operation would be,
to transfer to the parties lending their money that interest in
the episcopal estates which is Dow possessed by the lessees.
..We are not, therefore, prepared to recommend the adoption of
any general measure for allowing the leases for lives and terms
of years to expire ; although, for the purpose of correcting, in
some degree, the inconvenience now arising from the great
variations in the annual amount of the episcopal incomes, we
recommend that facilities should be afforded for the conversion
or leases for lives into leases for terms of years." A few
Months after this Report was brought in, namely, in June, a
Nelale Friend of mine, Lord Stanley, took the opportunity of
asking the Noble Lord a question on this subject. Lord
B,,,'anley—l avail myself of this opportunity to ask my Noble
rriend whether it is his intention to bring in any measure this
session on the subject of Church-rates? To this Lord John
-Russell replied, that he had no such measure immediately in
contemplation, and added, I think it is the duty of the State,
tither by means of the Church-rates, or of some other public
Atli", to maintain the buildings set apart by the State for
bdivine worship in good and efficient repair.—( Hear, hear,
are) The 'lon. Member for Middlesex then expressed
dssatisatio. on the subject, and this called forth
frota the Noble Lord a still more explicit statement on the
aolject. Lord John Russell on this occasion said, In an-
.nwer to the observations of the Hon. Member for Middlesex,
1,1 cin only add, that whatever may be the anxiety of the
b4•Placenters, they cannot be in doubt as to the opinions of the
overnment.—( Hear, hear.) Two years ago Lord Althorp
enght in a Bill on the subject, in which the principle was de-
clared that Church-rates should not be abolished unless the
State provided a substitute. I have never said any thing in-
sistent with that principle, or at least any thing to lead the
Dissenters to suppose that Ministers intended to abolish
church-rates without an equivalent, or that that equivalent
r topbe found in the revenues of the Church.--( Hear, hear.)
that principle I have adhered, and to it I intend to adhere.
:7(1-leer, hear.) On various occasions I have explained my
vi (Hear
to the Dissenters, and they were satisfied that I did not
.ssillCaLit to bring forward any Bill that would accomplish their
tl:B:lesat • I do not believe, therefore, that they are at all anxious
anY measure should be introduced this sessin part
shtl." So far for arguments upon authority. I have just
abs°'vn that have the authority of the Church Commissioners
—°°l4' whom were five members of the Government; I have
just s
r commons,
that I have the opinion of the majority of the House
the the majority amounting to 116, and that I have
e'rpinion of his Majesty's Ministers, who unequivocally des
OfatZd themQelvea opposed to any interference with the revenues
c Church, in a dochment.daied Ju.ne 1836. Then what new
st
ances have arisen since which, require that Church-
ratesk Should be abolished, and that an equal amount should be
Altehn fr"n
Church lands? I voted for the proposition of Lord
°rP for making good the rates out of the Consolidated
is nd, and came to that conclusion, not insensible of the
t 0
ocso nveniences of the present system, and because I was ready
aonsacrifiee certain political principles, out of respect fur the
_„ cientious scruples of the Dissenters, and for the purpose
of insuring harmony between the members of the Established
e_ eh and those who conscientiously differed from them on
l'Arrtelcular points. But are we sure that even if the principle
awd_ _ entirely ceded, and if the plan of the Ministers were
Ev'eFete.(l, that there is a certain prospect of restoring harmony?
regaetifj bad that hope, still I should view with the utmost
how 'il° exemption from this pecuniary charge of those who
landed property, and particularly those who arc members
of th toher 4,
to di it Possessing such property. I will not stop now
for the plan S what measures might be expedient as a substitute
ht b nof Lord Althorp.—(,' Why not ?") Why, what
fotwarre Ito do it? If his Majesty's Government brought
a plan,
to and aster withdrawing it allowed three years
elapse without makir new proposition what reason have
to Infer that they sve'guld adopt such a 'plan as that pro-
Posed 18
37, with the knowlede of the fact that the Noble
Lord had entered hisprotest against it in 1836 ?—( Hear,
2".) Does the object
ePtion of the Dissenters arise from con-
yamentious
etes to scruples, which induce them to refuse payment of
it
__.,se a Church with which they are not connected, or does
st" from their objection to a Church Establishment ?
near
coosid'e hear.). If the objection arose from the pecuniary
t•tion of being called on to contribute to Church.rates,
ellur if it were limited to that, and if exemption from the
wouldge
all the i indeed assuage all animosities, and do away with
of differences existing between Dissenters and members
acquiescence
Church—if that was the basis on which a permanent
in the principle of an Established Church was
.."_erefoounded, then, no doubt, it would be wise to make any
aitfi es for that end, so far as the Dissenters are concerned."
0-`,nt. does not necessarily apply, however, to those members
te Church who hold lands purchased devised on eon-
,.,'_looll that these fabrics are keptP up out of these lands, and
_n. have no conscientious scruples. lt cannot apply
f 1111‘1 I admit the difficulty of the pointof making a distinction;
to them,
colas
I see still greater difficulty and a greater evil likely to
the separation altogether of landed property in the
leoni the charges to which in times past it had been
bathero
.f,,t01! and perticularly that held by members of the Church.
oaD,ihsse,n.t.e.rs object, not from pecuniary
.considerations,
o.tiiity to the principle of a Church Establishment,
ua lean see no prospect of tranquillity or concord from the
'‘citazire, .
oreap_ _ anse their objection to the Establishment will re-
Jee_',loo. altered. I wish to know what are the particular ob-
,f.;land what arc the particular grievances they complain
ee,y because when we know the real grounds of objection we
.en be prepared to provide a remedy. The Honourabl.e.
em Midulesex said the Dissenters would abandon all
othe relator.llltre is 1111! __if the principle were conceded. Now it appears
semeis (Ig-4h-once in opinion on this subject. In a workt.
isa.ai real O,old my hand, I find it stated what alone will a
e din
as regards the abolition of Church-rates.
taletneht is to the following effect Let us suppose
:Lealitevl'elliffreolrai.tateS are .abolished, and that the Dissenters are
which thev, a any share in the cost of maintaining Churches
lerVices of r! not allowed to occupy, and of the religious
e sansfiedwhich they decline to avail, themselves, will they
nOth' :n ?
g short
Our reply is explicit. They will be satisfied.
of the recognition of the principle of resist-

ing all ecclesiastical imposts—on that they make their
stand."—( Hear.) Now that implies a perfect equality between
Dissenters and Churchmen ; and if the Dissenters will not be
satisfied till all ecclesiastical imposts are removed, they of
course will not be satisfied till Tithes as well as Church-rates
are removed. Though the origin of the one is of a later date
than that of the other, the principle of the objection is the
same, and if they object to Church-rates, they must in consis-
tency object to tithes. In answer to a question from an Hon.
Member, the Right Hon. Baronet said the Eclectic Rev;ew
is the publication from which I have have read the ex-
tract. But now (he continued) it may be roper to inquire
what is the proportion of the amount of Church-rates paid
by Members of the Church and Dissenters ; and it could
not be denied that Dissenters, as compared with Mem-
bers of the Established Church, held a very small portion of
landed property. I will take one place of considerable popu-
lation--Stroud, the borough represented by the Noble Lord;
and I find that the proportion of Church-rates paid there by
the Dissenters is just one-twelfth of that paid by Members of
the Established Church; and in smaller towns, and particu-
larly in rural parishes, the proportion would no doubt be consi-
derably less. It should be borne in mind also that the Dis-
senters were not called on to pay the expense of the Church-
yards. But supposing the Dissenters do not pay more than
one-tenth, or any assignable quantity, what, after all, would
be the result as regarded landed proprietors who were Mem-
bers of the Church, and who had no conscientious scruples ?
Were they also to be exempted from the payment of rates, and
was the Church to bear the whole?—(Hear, hear.) Doubt-
ful as it was whether the measure would give satisfaction to
the Dissenters, let me ask what the effect of the measure will
be as regards the Church ? If, as is proposed, the Church
lands arc to be taken out of the hands of the Bishops and
Deans, and the whole Church property is to be at the
disposal of a Board over which the Government of the
day must have paramount influence, what will be its effect
on the lessees ? And will not the Bishops and other posses-
sors of Church property be merely annuitants of the State,
and receive a fixed annual sum in place of the incomes new
derived from Church property ? But you are not sure what
political changes may be the result of such great alterations.
Is it possible to foresee what effect these alterations may have
on the state and the very existence of the Church of England?
May not the Church be endangered by thus separating it from
landed property ? By the proposed measure, will not the
whole of the tenures of the Bishops' lands be altered, and
the Bishops themselves become State annuitants, receiving,
as they must do from the Government Board, a fixed quarter's
salary. The Noble Lord, when a motion was made to expel
the Bishops from the House of Lords, made a vigorous speech
in defence of their rights ; but let me ask him if it will be so
easy to maintain their claims to sit in the Upper House when
they are reduced to the condition of State annuitants?—( Hear,
hear.) And does he believe that by thus taking the Church
property out of the hands of those entitled to possess it, and
paying the Bishops and Deans only a certain fixed amount
when they are entitled to the whole, does he believe that
such a plan will not be striking a --heavy blow at the hide-
pendence and stability of the Church ?—( Loud cries of Hear,
hear.) Apply the same principle to other possessors of
land. Suppose a nobleman who derives an income of
20,0001. a year from leases on certain terms of re-
newel, and the State were to interfere, and say that an
improved system should be adopted, and that they would assure
to him 20,0001. a-year, but the whole management of the pro-
perty must be tali en nut of his hands, would not that be an act
of great injustice, and will you not then apply the same rule to
the Bishops which you will apply to the other possessors of
landed property ? On that ground I object to a measure
which will interfere so materially -with the rights of property ;
but ray ground of of jectioo is, that if by any means the
value of property can be raised by altering the mode of leasing
land, the ;Advantage should go to those who have a prior re-
cognized claim.--( Hear, hear.) I wish now to call the atten-
tion of the Committee to statements not derived from private
information, but from the report of the Church Commissioners,
in order to show to what purposes any surplus Church revenue
might be applied. "It appears from the report of the Ecclesi-
astical Revenues Commission, that there are no less than
3,528 benefices under 1501. per annum. Of this number
13 contain each a population of more than 10,000 ; 51 a
population of from 5,000 to 10,000 ; 251 a population of
between 2,000 and 5,000 ; and 1,125 have each a popula-
tion of between .500 and 2,000.—( Hear, hear, hear.) On
every one of these benefices it is desirable that there should
be a resident clergyman ; but unless their value be aug.
mented, it will in many cases be impossible to secure this
advantage. The necessity of such augmentation will be
greatly increased by the changes which we are about to re-
commend in the laws relating to pluralities and residence.
The means which can be applied to effect the improvement
are very far short of the amount required. Even were no ad-
dition to be made to the income of benefices having a popu-
lation below 500, it would take no less a sum than 235,000/.
per annum to raise all benefices having a population of be-
tween 500 and 2,000 to the annual value of 200/. ; those
having a population of 2,000 and upwards, to 300/. ; and
those having 5,000 and upwards, to 4001. par annum." And
of all the benefices in England there arc no less than 4,603,
where there are either no glebe houses, or glebe houses that
require repair. But the Church Commissioners say that these
are not the most urgent of the claims of the Church for aid.
They observe_." The most prominent, however, of those de-
fects which cripple the energies of the Established Church,
and circumscribe its usefulness, is the want of churches and
ministers in the large towns and populous districts of the
kingdom. The growth of the population has been so rapid as
to outrun the means possessed by the Establishment of meet-
ing its spiritual wants ; and the result has been that a vast
proportion of the people are left destitute of the opportunities
of public worship and Christian instruction ; even when
every allowance is made for the exertions of those religious
bodies which are not in connection with the Established
Church. It is not necessary in this Report to enter
into all the details by which the truth of this assertion might
be proved. It will be sufficient to state the following facts as
examples :—Looking to those parishes only which contain each
a population exceeding 10,000, we find that in London and its
suburbs, including the parishes on either bank of the Thames,
there arc four parishes or districts, each having a population
exceeding 20,000, and containing art aggregate of 166,000
persons, with Church-room for 8,200 (not quite one-twentieth
of the whole) ; and only eleven clergymen." But I will not
trouble the House with going through all the details of the
Report. The Commissioners subsequently remark :—" The
evils which flow from this deficiency in the means of religious
instruction and pastoral superintendence greatly outweigh all
other inconveniences resulting from any defects cr anomalies
in our ecclesiastical institutions ; and it unfortunately happens,
that while these evils are the most urgent of all, and most
require the application of an effectual remedy, they are pre-
cisely those for which a remedy can be least easily found.
The resources which the Established Church possesses, and
which can properly be made available to that purpose, in what-
ever way they may be husbanded or distributed, are evidently
quite inadequate to the exigency of the case; and all that a e can
hope to do is, gradually to diminish the intensity of the evil."
The Commissioners proceed to state what has been done by
Parliament, by societies, and by individuals, and add:—
" Upon the whole we may state, that within the last 20 years
additional Church-room has been secured for at least 600,000
persons, and some hundreds of additional clergymen have been
stationed in populous districts, which were before destitute of
the advantages of pastoral care and instruction. But all that
has been hitheito done in this way falls very far short of the
necessity of the ease." Now, on this report I take my stand.
( Hear, hear.) I say that this report of these Church Com-
missibners, made in March, 1836, contains a crying case, for
which it is the indispensable duty of the Legislature to make
provision.—( Hear, hear.) I say the fact stated in that re-
port, that the sum of 235,0001. is necessary to raise the sti-
pends of the existing clergy to a moderate adequate amount—
I say that the fact stated in that report, that there are no less
than 3,528 benefices under 1501. per annum—l say that the
fact stated in that report, that in a population of 166,000 per-
sons in a portion of London and the suburbs there is Church-

room for only 8,200, leaving above 158,000 without the means
of religious worship or instruction—l say that these, and the
other facts stated in the report of the Church Commissioners,
render it incontrovertibly manifest that if we-are able to re-
alise any surplus from the Church-rates, there are no claims
for the employment of that surplus to be put for a moment into
competition with the claims which the Commissioners describe.

—( i-lear.) At any rate, we who belong to the Church Estab-
lishment can in no way escape from the odium with which the
proposed measure, if adopted, will overwhelm us. I should
like to know what you mean to do in the case of Scotland ?
If you say that the Dissenters, who now contribute to support
a Church from the doctrines of which they differ, have a right,
in a conscientious point of view, to be relieved from that bur-
den—if you say that the Dissenter of England has a right to
be relieved from contributing to the maintenance of the Church
Establishment of England—what answer will you give to the
great landed proprietors in Scotland vc ho dissent from the Es-
tablishment of that country, but whose property is taxed to
support that Establishment, when they ask to be relieved fr)m
the burden ?—( Hear.) What will you say if they tell you
that they have as conscientious a scruple against contributing
to the support of the Scottish Churches, as the Dissenters of
England have against contributing to the support of the Eng-
lish Churches? And why ought not their claim to be listened
to as well as the claim, of the English Dissenters ?---( Hear.)
Let it be also recollected, Sir, that a large and most respec-
table class of Christians in this country, who are separated
from the Church, have nevertheless never urged any objection
to the continuance of Church-rates. The whole Wesleyan
body—or at least a great part of that powerful and influen-
tial body—influential from the strongest of all grounds of
influence, that of character—although dissenting from the'
Church of England, and • not joining with it in com-
munion, still feel so strongly the common interest which
they have in maintaining the Church Establishment—still re-
j:A,..e so much at witnessing the improvement which of late
years had taken place iu the character and zeal of the ministers
of the Church Establishment— still are so deeply sensible that
the general cause of Christianity is aided by the welfare of
the Church Establishment, that they come forward with no
such proposition as that submitted to you by his Majesty's
Ministers.—( Hear, hear.) Let us recollect, too, that the
time will shortly come when these acts of ours will be sub-
jected to the rigorous scrutiny of posterity. If posterity dia-
cover that thousands and tees of thousands of Christians in
this country were without the means of religious worship and
instruction; that the Churches were exceedingly inadequate
to the population ; that many of - the glebe-houses were in a
state of great dilapidation; that numerous parishes were with-
out clergymen; and if posterity discover that, under such cir-
cumstances, we consented to sell the property of the Church, to
,
alienate it for ever,' to cut off all hope now and for ever of its
aErding, the means or remedying so many evils—above all if
they find that, in inflicting tins irreparable. calamity on the
Church, we also relieved ourselves from the obligation of con-
tributing to its support, depend upon it that a severe and a
not unrighteous judgment hill be passed upon our conduct.—

(Hear, hear.) if any other course were pursued—if we wer,
to take the sum required from the Consolidated Fund, the
would at least be to call upon the owners of landed property
to contribute. Whether the desired object might be best ob.
tained by that means ; by a new apportionment of the land
(continuing, however, the existing connection between the lane
and the Church); by making some distinction, for the relief
of the Dissenters, between town parishes, where there wen
numerous Dissenters, and rural parishes, where there was n,
wish to put down the,Church, or by any other course, I wil'
not now say. My present object is to implore you who are iu
communion with the Church of England, not, by consentin;:
to this proposition, to cut off for ever the hope of supportirq:
the Ecclesiastical Establishment, of relieving the wants of th(
ministers.of the Church, and of supplying the different pa-
rishes of the kingdom with adequate means of religions wor-
ship and instruction. But, above all, I implore you to avert
the judgment which posterity will inevitably pronounce upon
you, if, from this transaction, you contrive yourselves to derive
any pecuniary advantage.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord HO WICK must first advert to the financial objec-
tions which the Right Hon. Baronet had made to his Ri to
Hon. Friend's proposition. On that part of the subject. how-
ever, he thought it better to abstain from going into details. In
the first place, the Right Hon. Baronet contended that if the
average had been taken for a shorter period of years the re-
sult of the calculation would have been different. All that lit,
(Lord Howick) wished to say on that topic was, that the cal
culations were made front returns to the Ecclesiastical Corn-
missioners, founded on principles which the Commissioners
themselves laid down. Now, lie did not conceive it
that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would be disposed t(
estimate the property of the Church too highly. Now, on
this point, he would contend they might find that, instead o '
having over-rated the annual amount of fines derivable fron4
Church leases, that property of the Church under this head
was much more considerable then had been stated,—( Hear.)
He knew that all the private information which had reached
him, and all the facts which at various times he had
become acquainted with, had Invariably led him to
the consideration that it was undisputed that the whole
property of the Church, as shown in the papers which
had been laid on the table, so far from being overstated, had
been largely under-estimated. But then the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet argued that in hVinging forward this resolution, his Ma-
jesty's Government had altogether omitted to make an impor-
tant deduction from the whole amount of available property;
that whilst they reckoned upon an income of 250,000/., they
proposed to raise it by an improved system of management,
but had not allowed for the expenses of that management.
Now, he (Lord Howick) 'mist confess he was surprised the
Right Hon. Baronet should have fallen into this mistake, be-
cause the amount of fines of renewals on leases, and the in-
come of the bishops from that source, as returned to the Ec-
clesiastical Commissioners, were, as he believed, calculated
with this necessary exception or deduction ; and, therefore,
the amount returned was the net income, and not the gross.
Nay, he did rot speak ftom mere belief, for he had had the
good fortune to arrive at the actual state of the case, in re
spect to the see of Durham,- when returns having a reference
to a period of three years were given in. In those returns,
which formed the basis of his calculations, it appeared that
the income of the see was 17,000/. a year. But it since ap- .
peered that the income of the see was net 17,000/. a year
from fines, but 23,0001. ; of which 2,0001. was deducted for
the amount of expenses. Let the House, then, judge from these
facts ; and if they judged of the matter in dispute by the see
of Durham, it must be admitted that the Government had un-
derrated their case ; because the whole property of the see of
Durham, instead of being 17,0001. was 21,0001., to which
was to be added the amount quoted for expenses, 2,0001.,
making the gross income 23,000/. This, then, was the prin-
c;ple upon which the Right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of
Durham had made his return or his emoluments (and a most
exemplary prela:e he was); and they had no right to suppose •
the other dignitaries would not make the same kind of returns.

Then, he contented, they (the Government) had a right to
assume that the amount of income given in was the actual sum
arising from fines from the renewal of bishops, and deans, and
chapters' leases. The returns made, then, were not below the
amount, because they did not give the gross, but the net in-
cc:rae ; and if it were the net amount, would any one tell him
that the whole expense of management divided amongst a
large number would approach the present amount under the
projected united and central system, when they would have a
few persons of super7or description and station giving up all
their time in promoting the object in carrying out which they
were to be employed ; and he Would say, that whether it were
in the case of the union of parishes, of an individual parish, or
of wholesale merchants or retail dealers, a good result gene-
rally followed from a combined movement in conducting af-
fairs on a great scale. Therefore the Right lion. Baronet had
no right to make the deduction for expenses of management,
which he had assumed. Then the Right Hon. Baronet said
that they had no right to assume twenty-four years' purchase
as the existing value of property. Very extensive inquiries
had been instituted into this part of the subject, and the result
had been to confirm all the opinions which the Government
had originally entertained ; and to show that the real amount
of Church property was underrated. So with respect to the
rate of interest, the Right Honourable Baronet assumed the
rate of interest of 7 per cent. was only applicable to property
of a particular description, and not to land. He admitted that
as to house property the case was somewhat different as to the
value. But with reference to the question of fines upon re-
newals of leases, he happened to have heard of a case in point,
fi-om the best authority, and he would state it to the House.
An Archdeacon in the central part of England informed his
lessee that he could not give bins a renewal of his lease unless
he paid bins the sum of 1,5001. The party complained of
these terms, and intended to resist the demand thus made upon
him; but before doing so, he thought it proper to consult
an actuary, to know what the- value of his interest was.
The actuary having looked at the documents furnished lsins
by the lessee, made a calculation, and said, " Renew by
all means—close at once; because the real value for which
you will obtain your renewal, if calculated upon the strictest
rule- of arithmetic, would be not 1,500/. but 2,9001." This
case occurred in a central county of England ; and he thought
he might mention this as a strong fact to show that under the
existing laws of Church property, those who held these leases
expected terms as advantageous as in the calculation which
his Right Hon. Friend had assumed. But there was ano-
ther point to which the Right Hon. Baronet had adverted
when he stated that in those calculations which had been made,
it had been assumed that the mines weft: an improving pro-
perty, and that they bad made no calculation for the large
proportion of Church property which was contained in this
description of property.
Sir R. PEEL was understood to state that what he had
said was, that the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of
the Exchequer had reserved himself upon this point, and had
not given an explanation on this head.
Lord Viscount H 0 WICK resumed. He was astonished
at the statement made by the Right Hon. Baronet, because it
was obvious from the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet, that
he had been getting access to information which those on his
side of the House were anxious to see, but were refused all ac-
cess to ; and he certainly was much astonished that the Right
Hon. Gentleman, under all the circumstances, should not
have been informed that the sum of 260,0001.,up0n which they
proceeded, was independent of Church property in mines ;
and if the Right Hon. Gentleman would refer to the returns
of ecclesiastical property laid before the Church Commission-
ers, he would find that whatever was received from fines, be-
riots, &c., was made a distinct head. The sum of 260,000/.
referred to fines on real property, and there was a further item
of 33,000/. additional, being the average amount of three years'
fines received from mines, copyrights, and harlots. So that

if the property were improvable, the whole of that improve-
ment was in addition to an available surplus, and therefore, in-
stead of making a deduction, this was to be added to the cre-
dit side of their plan. After this statement, without fol-
lowing the Right Honourable Gentleman through his
figures—which he thought he could show tb. be very er-
roneous—yet upon the great points of that statement
he would ask the House whether he had not shown so
much inaccuracy to hare pervaded it, that the Right Hon.
Baronet had no right to assume that they should be losers to
the amount of very many thousand pounds. There could be
no doubt that there was an immense value to be realised with-
out any loss to the lessees. The Right Hon. Baronet had
further endeavoured to show that they were wrong in all their
calculations, and that he objected to the plan on the eternal
principles of justice, and the important principles of 'policy.
If the resolution, or the plan to be founded on it, were not-to
be entertained, let the House reject it. But if, as he antici-
pated, the case were established, he hoped the House would\
support the resolution, and allow the Bill to be brought in. •
If, on the contrary, the calculations which forthed the ground-
work of the proposed measure failed, the Bill must also
fail. If, on the other hand, the principle on which they
proceeded was a just. one, the proper course for the House
to pursue was to give the Government the resolu-
tion as the ground-work for the Bill ; and when the Bill
should once be introduced, let the House scrutinize every
provision which it might contain, and let Hon. Mem-
bers throw light upon the vast question to which it referred.
Let them come to the principle of the plan in the first place.
The Right Hon. Baronet had adverted to the distinc-
tion which he (Lord Howick) had attempted the other even-.
ing to establish between Tithes and Church-rates. He (Sir R.
Peel) no longer attempted to establish the principle of the
Noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Sandon), but
admitted that there was an obvious distinction to be drawn
between them. But he still said that all property was subject
to Church-rates; but he (Lord Howick) must go further, and.
would say, that in many cases this was not the fact; and
here was a case accidentally made known to him only yester-
day, which he thought, as bearing on the question under dis-
cussion, was well worthy of the attention of the House. It
showed, in his opinion, that the doctrine of immemorial usage
and of Church-rates bring a deduction to which property was
always subject was sometimes pushed too far. This was a
case which actultly took place in the instance of an individual
friend of his, on whotri he placed implicit reliance, and thcrs-
fore of the correctness of the facts stated he had no doubt.
whatever. This person built a house within the last few years,
1.1 a parish in the immediate vicinity of London. Subsequently
to doing it (it was but a small property) the parish in which it
was situated chose to build two new churches. For raising the
amount for building these edifices (which did not ex:st when he
acquired his property), by was subjected to the payment of the
rate levied, which-was sixperice in the pound. \V'as that
immemorial usage? True it was that the evil was the effect
of the Churches Building Act ; and he woul,l tell the Right
Hon. Baronet, that if it wei-e not for the im:olitic and incau-
tious manner in which the provisions of that Act were applied,
they never would have b..en placed in the present difficulty—
they would never have heard this cry for the abolition of
Church-rotes. Parliament, by its own deed—by coupling
tl.ese charges with Church-rates; had created all the feeling
which existed in the country, •and caused those evils which
were complained of; and now, unfortunately, they could not
retrace their stops. But he would pursue the ease a littic fur-