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

/II

.ionish the parishioners individually; or whether—which he
Was
inclined to think was the best course—an application
should be made to the Court of King's Bench for a
mandamus
to compel the making of the rule.—( Opposition cheers.)
This was not my opinion, but the opinion of Dr. Lushington
sitting as a judge. But if the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
is still disposed to dispute the matter upon a point of law, I
beg to. read to him the opinion of another very high legal
authority upon this subject. I allude to Lord Stowell, who
n
1809 spoke as follows upon a matter of Church-rates
Which was brought before him ; and if it is possible for one
form of words to lay down the law more clearly and indis
putably than any other, I think that it is to be found
in what I am about to read to the House.—( Hear.)
The Noble Lord then read a paper to the following effect :-
1 When a presentation was made by one of the Church-
Wardens of the Church of Shadwell that the Church required to
be rebuilt, Lord Stowell directed a monition to issue against
the other Churchwarden that the Church should be put into a
Proper state of repair; and in 1810, when this was not done,
he said that the parishioners were bound in law to sustain the
fabric of the Church, and that if this were not in a state fit to
be Preserved, another should be provided. This was an obli-
gation which the law of the country laid upon them, and from
which they could not be exonerated."—( Loud Opposition
cheers.) Now I want to know whether the Attorney-Gene-
ral still adheres to the opinion he has laid down upon this sub-
ject, or whether he is prepared, in deference to these authori-
ties, to abandon the position which lie has taken up ? I be-
"eve even that in the time of King Canute a sanction is on
record to the levying of a Church-rate. But without going
back
to so early a period of history, I come to the period before
the Reformation, when the Hon. and Learned Gentleman tells
as that the payment of Church-rates was looked upon as a type
adherence to the Church, and the refusal to pay them in the
light of heresy. So important and indefeasible were these
rates considered at that time, says the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman, that the recovery of them was not entrusted to the
ordinary courts of law, the proceedings in which were then
feeble and dilatory, but to the Ecclesiastical Courts, which
Were most effectual and powerful. Gentlemen may talk of
consistency,- but really they should, before they do so, be a
little more careful to look back, if but for one short year, to
the acts of the Government to which they belonged.—( Op-
position cheers.) Sir, I hold in my hand a Bill, the title of
Which is a Bill for the Consolidation and Amendment of the
Ecclesiastical Courts.—( Hear, hear.) This Bill contains,
amongst others, the following clauses, namely, first, a clause
declaratory that from the passing of this Act the jurisdiction
of the Ecclesiastical Courts in matters relating to Church-
rates should cease and determine, provided always that all
laws, canons, and customs now in force as to liabilities to
Church-rates shall continue in force in the same way as if
~this Act had not passed, and putting the execution of those
laws and customs into the hands of justices of the peace, as
hereinafter to be mentioned and defitied.—( Opposition
cheers.) The next clause gives to parties who may fancy
themselves aggrieved by the decision of the justices of the
Peace an appeal to the quarter-sessions. The following
elause gives the justices of the peace powers to amend
the Church-rate and adopt means to levy it more ef-
fectually - and this is followed by a clause, authorising
justices of the peace to issue warrants of distress for the
°vying Church-rates.—( Loud Opposition cheers.) Now he
would not trouble the House with further details of this Bill,
but would ask when was it introduced—by whom was it
introduced ?—( Renewed cheers.) It was introduced at a time
when this question of Church-rates was still pending before
the House and the country—when the Report of the Ecclesi-
astical Commissioners was in the bands of his Majesty's Go-
vernment.—( Heer, hear.) This Bill, giving an explicit sanc-
tion to Church-rates, giving additional force in their collec-
tion, was introduced, was discussed, was put through Com-
mittees in the House of Lords, and was brought up to this
Mouse last year—( Hear, hear)—and who introduced it? The
Lord High Chancellor of his Majesty under the present Go-
ternment.—( Loud cheering.) There the Bill is ; the facts
connected with its history, are on the Journals of the Ilouse.
Look at them if you please, and you will find that this Bill
was brought up from the House of Lords, that it was read a
first time, that its second reading was postponed seven times,
and that it never went through any of its further stages, and
was dropped.—( Loud cheers from the Opposition.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL took the liberty of rising
to remind the Noble Lord that, as he remembered, the Bill in
question did not contain one word about making a Church-
rate, but only as to the levying of it when mede.—( Ministerial
cheers.) There never had been a doubt as to the existence of
tt legal remedy for the levying of a Church-rate when once
made, but he believed that there was no remedy to compel the
making of a Church-rate. —(Hear, hear.)
Lord STANLEY—Then I should like. hear from the
Attorney-General whether he was carrying out of the inten-
tions of tide Bill—whether he was a party to the introduction
of this Bill, providing a more effectual mode of levying Church-
r
_ates, the legal validity of which he denies ?—( Loud cheers
rem the Opposition.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL again rose, amidst cries
Order, order 1 Chair, chair 1" and cheering. Having at
Length obtained a hearing, he said—l rise to order. The
Noble Lord has misrepresented what I said. I never denied
the validity of a Church-rate when made by a majority of the
vestry in a legal manner.—( Loud Ministerial cheers. )
Lord STANLEY resumed—l must say this is the oddest
Ray of enforcing order I ever experienced. But as this part
of the subject does not appear to please the Attorney- General,
I
Will turn to another.—( Cheering from the Opposition, and
Ironical cries of " Hear, hear, hear, from the Ministerial side,
Which resolved into laughter as the Noble Lord turned over
the. Papers before him.) The Attorney-General was probably
Instrumental in framing this Bill. Now it is rather remark-
able Justices nd amongst its provisions a clause empowering
~th° of the Peace in certain cases to set aside the
1,14', and to make an order on the Churchwardens for the
iijahing Of a new rate ; and the Churchwardens are,
ereupon, hereby required to make the same accord-
rellYs--(Opposition cheers). But really I have been
1, into the consideration of this point by the inter-
e9lni°l4 I have experienced—( Oh, oh, from the Ministe-
Thial side)—perhaps Hon. Gentlemen will allow me to finish
e,Y,, sentence ?—at greater length than I should have done—
ar)—and, in point of fact, I do not think it bears
esthue," upon the arguments for or against this question, inas-
e "eu as I have the admission of the Attorney-General, what-
ever
the provisions of this Bill, that there is a legal obligation
what-
up the : :
parishioners throughout the country to provide a
ehtl,rell-rate, and that the only difficulty is in the enforcing of
Middlesex
No, no," from Mr. Hume.) The Hon. Member
tfr setiddlesex says no. I shall leave him to argue that ques-
sit? with the Attorney-General, and proceed to the propo-
tV new before the House. The Attorney-General rests
fun Measure upon three grounds, in the propriety of which I
at Y concur. These grounds which we have to decide, then,
sce--first, whether there is any available fund of the sort de-
thr_ibed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer ; secondly, wise-
liner that fund can be raised without committing an injustice to
her a the parties concerned; and, thirdly, whether, this fund
by ,nig raised, the most proper application of it is that proposed
kir!o Chancellor of the Exchequer ? The Attorney-General
lime ns that the argument in favour of this measure failing in any
lies °f these Particulars, falls to the ground. The A ttorney-Ge-
Paint dne3 not think it necessary to say any thing on the first
of itr he "takes that for granted, he does not think it viorthy
VeregollMnt. w, I must say that to me this point is one of
of ns eiderablNe o
interest. As it appears from the statement
ste " Chancellor of the Exchequer that in the event of this
rewed available fund failing the burden of Church-rates is
Zv thrown upon the Consolidated Fund, it becomes a matter
aileab, great Importance and interest to me whether such an
elext e fund be actually in existence or not.—( Hear.) The
question at all, is whether the fund, supposing it to be available
elluresells be raised with justice to all parties concerned, The
been d emporalities Act for Ireland, to which allusion has
kents as to a precedent, I beg to observe in the arrange.
the
i.erhieb it brought about was framed with especial regard to
ba'ye"!
eeests both of lessors and lessees of Church property. I
it • o personal' called uon to vindicate myself, and
poslesi important to Ysee how fpar this: resolution now pro-
Poralities A is borne out in principle by the Church Tern-
et for Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) In passing that
Aet we to
Vileges both especial care to regard the interests and pri-
rega d of lessees and lessors of Church lands. With
to lessor
act acco 5, we declared that they should be free to
their lessees on to their interests, and to renew the leases to
We did not interpose present footing if they thought proper.
Other body depeeiril2dose between the lessors and the lessees an-
en If sees to ant upon the Crown.—(Hear, hear.) We
to grent them on
accept the renewal of leases, and the Church
a fixed rate of payment if they chose, and
left them between themselves to the ordinary remedies be-
tweennlceandierds and
prete tenants, without attempting to set up any
at controlling authority or interference?—With re-
ard to thc i
ferent but treeSSeeg' the course then pursued was not only dila
irnetrically opposed to that proposed in the pre-
sent Resolution—we made no attempt to impose compulsory
teems of
Was fr
merenewal upon them. The Irish Temporalities Bill
eie.h.saos d upon the principle of the strictest adherence to the
thlatg e lessees, and with a cautious abstinence from any
lbws
,which could tend to place thorn in a worse condition
tneY were before the passing of that Act. Now, I ask,
'Whether PrioeiPe ado
this is
adopted
dnoitn athvery marked distinction between the
o framing of that measure, and that
Mrolved in the scheme now proposed to us by the Chan-
aesekllorvv.of the Exchequer—(Cries of
Hear, hear")—and- I
beaa whether I am fairly to be accused of inconsistency
e. ee
r__ose I acquiesced in the former
measure, and refuse to
gien,lotliat now before us ?—( Cheers.) My Right Hon.
lams , ,the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said the Church
by the proposed _ change, would be so much improved
"at a considerable surplus might be anticipated. Let me go
to
alined i
° the question of surplus revenue, and see how that can be re-
thei vac F Agiand as it has been in Ireland. The
premium on
;Pak-rent in England has been reckoned at about 7or 8 per
. ; and
beingpposing a
'"l5 leaseproperty worth 1001. at rack-rent, and
®f the lease . rune
. out, and the tenant applies for a renewal
is now entitled to renew it on paying a fine cal-
%At 4111!ujears purchase ; that is 5/. fur 20 years ; and my
lc
by ,bei.ine.,,kriend calculates that on a perpetuity of 1,324,000/.
Yeeiarly;. and- arrangement he will realise a sum of 516,000/.
that this sum ma • be raised without injury to the
riliurels or the lessee. But may
can this be effected ? The
lien cent.
of the Exchequer says he will allow the tenant four
euo •'m the capital ; while, if the lease were allowed to
Diciislut, it Would be worth seven or eight per cent. But my
t Hon. Friend steps in and says, 1g
*o
centt but ; the lease is not
on the condition that the tenant accepts four
Per
, in place of seven per cent.," to which he is entitled.
eu teat is
Ico be r the way
tells
oduced
in which an increase on the perpeqty is
Why, that is no increase at all.—( Efear.)
aa'4,o`ololBl.
;II the. perpetual annuity eat present amounts to
e cnarges the lessees 316,000/. more, and if they
acct
jr,yl.l ne terms, the consequence will he that they can en-
/Ake 6_,FroPerty only on theq condition of p'aying 650,0001. in
4 "1 334;000/ Yet •
tenant who my Right Hon. Friend says there is not
would' not wiiiingly agree to the proposition.