The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 27, 1853.

the consideration of tit ha proposed by the hon. and
learned gentleman which, in the first place, was only the
repetition of a measure repeatedly proposed and rejected
in that house. So long ago as 1840 it was brought forward
by Mr. Duncombe, and subsequently by Mr. Page Wood,
when it was supported only by twenty members,
lord
and
resisted by Sir R. Peel, Sir G. Grey, and the noble
(Lord J. Russell). Any measure more injudicious or
injurious it would be hard to conceive. It would tend
to excite the utmost ill-will and ill-feeling, dividing
the parishioners compulsorily into clams, and com-
pplling men to define their opinions, who, perhaps, pre-
viously hardly knew that they differed. Thep rinciple of
the measure was to relieve only dissenters, exacting a
declaration of conscientious objection on the grounthed of
Rol-conformity. But how could the sincerity of de-
claration be ascertained or tested ? (Hear.) After a man ?
had made it was he to be excluded from the parish church
the
pa
the beadle to stand at the door to prvent him from
entering—(a laugh) ;orif he entered was he to be sub-
jected to a suit in the ecclesiastical d
couromrts
ent And if
the
he
had a family were they to be preclude fering

Church
Mr. PHILLIMORE.—No—(a laugh).
Sir W. CLAY.—Then a man of more ingenuity than
sincerity might easily let his whole family at
an d tend church
and escape paying for its support ? (Hear, a laugh.)
Would such a course be satisfactory to such as were sin-
cere on either side. (Hear, hear.) And why should it be
assumed that the members of the Church of England were
satisfied with the present state of things or desire church
rates ts be continued? He believed that they wero not.
For himself, as a member of the Church of England, he
would abolish church rates, iu the firm belief by that
course the Church would be strengthened and not weak-
ened. Within the last 20 years more churches had sprung
up than for centuries past, and considering the present posi-
tion of the Establishment, and the multitude of churches
which abounded. he saw no reason to anticipate a falling-off
in the exertions in its behalf. Mr. Edward Baines, on the
authority of Dr. Hook, had stated that since church rates
were refused in Leeds the parish church had been rebuilt,
at an expense of 30,0001., and six other churches and
thirty-seven schools established at a cost of 100,0001.
The dissenters, in the meantime, had raised 35,0001.
for the same purpose. In the face of such facts could there
be any doubt that the zeal of members of the Establish-
ment would fail to supply the necessary funds for Church
purposes ? As, however, the total abolition of church
rates was not deemed an acceptable proposal, he was pre-
p ired with a substitute, which he held to be unobjection-
able in principle and easy of application. Nothing could
better attest the imperfection of the present system than
the large increase of dissenting places of worship' which
exceeded the places of worship belonging to the Establish-
ment, and were most likely attended by a larger aggregate
congregation. Under these circumstances, should they,
the members of the Church of England, be so dead to all
feeling of self-respect, and he might say of common
honesty, as to permit the dissenters to contribute to the
support of the Church as well as of their own places of
worship ? If the reasons for the abolition of church rates
ware stronger since 1837 (which he contended to be the
case', the facilities for carrying it out had also increased.
The substitute, then, he proposed, was a system of pew
rents, which should be devoted to defraying the charges
of the minister and the celebration of Divine worship.
The people were already familiarised with this plan,
which, in its more extended application, would in no way
interfere with the provision of gratuitous seats for the
poor. But the source to which he chiefly looked for the
necessary funds was that of the surplus revenues of the
Church of England. (Hear, hear) Last year, in an
address to the Crown by the prelates, members of the
Privy Council, and others, they stated it had been also
shown that by a better system of managing Church pro-
perty not less than half a million a year could be obtained
within a few years for the support of additional clergymen
in the new churches to which it was proposed to direct the
surplus ; and the noble lord the member for the city of
London had said on the occasion of the proposal of 1837,
that it was quite as necessary to provide for the establish-
ment of religious peace and harmony in the Church as to
provide for the dignity of the Church and hierarchy. He
(Sir W. Clay) would not dwell upon the revelations of the
last few years, although he might, perhaps, excite a smile
were he to refer to the complaints of some of the episcopal
bench that their already large incomes were insufficient ;
to the sums which had been retained out of the produce of
the episcopal revenues •, to the large sums laid out on epis-
copal palaces ,• and to the items for gamekeepers and watch-
ers. He might excite a smile, perhaps, by such revelations
concerning those meek and lowly descendants of the apostles;
but he preferred resting his case on the broad ground of
justice. The surplus of half a million a year was twofold
greater than the sum which Lord Althorp thought it aeces-
sary to charge on the general revenue for the purpose of
extinguishing church rates. Even without pew rents the
surplus revenues of church property, if that property
were properly managed, would provide an ample sub-
stitute for the present church rates. By maintaining
the present system, injustice and a wrong were done
to their nonconforming brethren. In fact, it was spolia-
tion in disguise. He, therefore, placed his resolution
in the hands of the house, earnestly entreating it not to
reject it. That there was an imperative necessity for legis-
lation of some kind, was admitted on all hands. Church
rates could not long remain upon the statute book. He
earnestly implored the Government, and more especially
the noble lord the member for the city of London, to un-
dertake the good work of abolishing this odious and unjust
impost. By so doing the Government would earn a fresh
title to the gratitude and respect of the great Liberal
party, and establish a lasting claim upon the confidence of
all those to whom the principles of religious liberty were
dear. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. PETO, in seconding the motion, said he thought
it a happy omen for the dissenters, that both the reso-
lution and the amendment had been brought forward
by liberal mod consistent members of the Establishment.
The dissenters paid not only for the support of their
own edifices, but of the churches of the Establishment.
(Hear, hear.) If it was necessary to give an example of
what had been effected by relying solely on the voluntary
principle, he might instance the result of the Rev. Mr.
Dale's exertions in London, who, by making an appeal
to the good feelings of the inhabitants, had been met with
such a hearty response as had enabled him to overcome
every difficulty. Ho might also mention the success
attendant upon the Rev. Mr. Bickersteth, of St. Giles's,
exertions, who contrived, without in any way interfering
with his dissenting brethren, to accomplish the largest re-
sults. He (Mr. Pete) could not but feel that for the
Church's own sake legislation was required on this sub-
ject. Indeed, if the hon. gentlemen wished to stop what
was termed the turbulence of dissent, they could only do
so by acting justly toward the Church of England herself.
And he must say it was quite as painful to him (Mr. Peto)
and his friends as it ever could be to members of the
Church of England, to see accusations brought against a
prelate in the most influential journal in Europe, which, if
they had remained without denial, would have excluded
any merchant inLondon from the Royal Exchange—accusa-
tions which cast a foul blot upon our common Christianity.
(Hear.) If the noble lord the member for the city of Lon-
don—the author of the Test and Corporation Act—would
immortalise his name, let him place himself at the head of
the movement for the reform of the Church. But there
was another aspect in which the question was to bo viewed.
The prelates of the Church of England were members of a
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts,
Well, they ought to know that in the city of Calcutta alone
there were no less than fourteen prints published for the
use of the natives alone ; and yet in those very papers all
such matters as he had just referred to were carefully held
up for the inspection of a fellow-subjects there. At the
present moment there was one person resident in the city
of Lucknat who had subscribed 80,0001. for the building of
a temple there, and another gentleman in Calcutta had
given 150,0001. for a similar purpose. Well, was it pos-
sible, in the face of such instances of generosity, to witness
our own prelates held up to public reprobation without
bringing a blush of shame into the face of every Christian
—without bringing the principles of religion into disrepute?
The dissenters only asked to be loft to themselves, and to
be relieved from charges which pressed alike painfully upon
churchmen as upon themselves. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. COLLIER was exceedingly happy to find that at
length the objections to church rates had penetrated even
to that venerable and ancient abode, Doctors' Commons
itself. On, however, balancing the respective merits of the
two propositions before the house he must confess that the
proposition of the hon. baronet the member for the Tower
Hamlets was far more suited to the exigencies of the case
and the wants of the country. Of all the taxes levied off
the community, he believed church rates were the most
objectionable. They were objectionable because they were
levied upon all for the benefit of the few—because they
were uncertain as to the property from which they were
raised—because they were uncertain as to the purposes to
which they could be applied—and, lastly, because they
were enforcible only in the ecclesiastical courts of this
country—courts whose method was so tedious, expensive,
and dilatory, as to tax to the very utmost the funds of the
suitors and the patience of the public. (Hear, hear.)
The hon. and learned member for Tavistock proposed that
church rates should be leviable as at present, excepting
that a remission was to be made in the case of any person
who came forward and said he was a dissenter. His chief
objection to the proposition was that it left all persons
who did not make declarations that they were dissenters
liable to pay church rates, subject to all the doubts and
difficulties which surrounded the law. He was, then,
quite in favour of the proposal of the hon. baronet the
member for the Tower Hamlets, which would throw the
maintenance of churches upon the funds which were origi-
nally devoted to that purpose, and which ought to have
continued devoted to that, inasmuch as ho believed such
an arrangement would conduce to the benefit of the public,
but above all to the interests of the Church. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. E. BALL could not think that though there might
be very strong objections to church rates, still it could be
considered a violation of conscience to pay them, in accor-
dance with law, which if it enforced church rates from dis-
senters, on the other hand protected them and their pro-
perty, however,
If, there had been any doubt as to the
necessity of coming to a decision upon this question, what
bad been advanced by the hon. and learned gentleman
must perfectly satisfy every one that a settlement could no
longer be delayed. He must say, however, that ho ob-
jected to the I reposition of the hon. and learned member
for Tavistock, because he considered it to be a premium
upon dissent, and he seemed to have recourse to such
means to propagate. sectarian views. He thought also
that it would tend to produce a clashing of various inte-
rests ; for suppose the case of a Dissenter having a child to
bury—he came to the clergyman to ask for burial, but the
latter turned round and told him he could have no such
claim, as he paid no rates. He hoped that upon the pre-
sent question some understanding would be arriveci
at
which would remove those feelings of discord, and promote
akindlier spirit amongst e all parties than had existed here-
tofore. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME said, as Parliament had come to the deter-
mination of abolishing church rates in Ireland, he could
tentp.nd_ersotalid Why it should not abolish them in Eng-
cb,:rckilhohull always maintained that the property of the
respect to
church
iaintaiii the Church. The present law in
and disunion. elnraitBe.ms had ever been a source of discord
a proposition t when Lord Althorp brought for-
wardabolish church rates in England as
well as in Ireland, hoe
lord wanted to throw opposedt it simply because the noble
dated Fund. The hon. anl
whole burden upon the Consoli-
dated
the subject to the houseea,rhnaeda gentleman, in intro-
made no doubt a most
convincing speech as to the evils
the< the present system. In
the first paragraph of his speech
tleman said that the Church should hea, and learned gen-
tleman
he (Mr. Hume) did not h
gentle-
man look to
Lear the honn.ukke a sacrifice ;but
ii4cioanietr.s had
man propose any sacrifice at all. Let tIV
her own resources. The (,11,clzaare_
so large a money surplus that they had
hoped that the Government would take tine matter into
their own hands, and put an end to it at ones. Hel
hewed that the remedy proposed by the hon. and l • 1-
member for Tavistock would but add to the disunion eianet.
discord that
the
resent existed in respect to this subject'''.
upon
He came to ouclusiwonasthtoatptlahcee
ratesbthesetcahnudreshiraplest way
of settling the question
the Establishment. He would ad-
the funds belonging to
vise the bon. baronet h rates should cease
(Sir W_ . Clay) to alter his amendment
into a simple declaration that crheauruicr
henceforth, and that the money wed for the repairs of

churches and other objects should be paid from the funds
now belong to the Church. He would, however, vote for
the amendment of the hon. baronet rather than for the
proposed bill of the honourable and learned member for
Tavistock.
Sir R. H. INGLIS said that when a proposilion was
made by an hon. and learned member sitting immediately
behind the Treasury bench, and when' an amendment to
it was moved by an lion. baronet who stated that he gave
his general support to the Government, he (i:r R. H.
Inglis) thought he might have been accused of presumption
if he had urged his objections to both propositions before
any member of the Government had spoken. Having
waited until that moment, in the expectation of hearing the
opinion of the Government upon the question, he thought
that he might now fairly claim the attention of the house.
He would consistently object, as he always had done, to
the proposition before the house. What was the pressure
to produce this result ? His hon. and learned friend said,
if the house wanted repair they ought to repair it in a
time of calm, and not wait until a storm should arise.
But he (Sir R. H. Inglis) asked, did it want repair, as
the hon. and learned member assumed, and made the
basis of his argument? The hon. and learned member
for Plymouth stated that the tax was a unique
tax which combined every possible evil existing in every
other tax. But who felt the evil? He defied any
hon. member who sat on the back benches to produce
a single instance of a tax in favour of which so many
petitions had been presented. He (Sir R. H. Inglis)
felt ho was justified in saying that . the hearts of the
people were identified with the Church, and would
gladly support it voluntarily in the way the law now
supported it. For 14 centuries this property had been devo-
ted to the maintenance of the Established Church. He
trusted that this house would still represent the feeling of the
great body of the Church of England by rejecting the pre-
sent proposition. The proposition of the hon. baronet (Sir
W. Clay) sought in a more open and intelligible mode to get
rid of the impost. He maintained that from time imme-
morial this property had ever been looked upon as the ap-
panage of the Church, which was essential to the existence
of the nationality of the Church. This was an impost upon
property. Items a mere quibble to say that it was a tax upon.
individuals. This was a rate imposed upon persons rela-
tively to the property which they held. If it were other-
wise, every pauper would be equally taxed. When this
subject was first introduced into the House of Commons,
Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey, on the 21st of April, 1834,
said :—" The church rate affect property in the same way
as any other charge. The other day I was called upon
to pay 141. for my house in Great George-street, for the
repair and maintenance of a neighbouring church. Now,
if I were to sell my house, would not the purchaser in-
quire after the the church rates as well as the parish rates,
the sewers rates, 'and all other charges affecting property ;
and having taken them into consideration, would not
the amount of them influence the price ?" But surely
if this be the case, had not this gentleman purchased
the property in like manner? (Hear, hear.) Where was
the honesty of endeavouring to get rid of this impost
for the purpose of putting the amount into the pockets of
individuals ? Ho had the greatest respect for an honest
conscientious man ; but he had none whatever for that
conscience which resided in a breeches pocket. (Hear, and
laughter.) Let them take care that it was not the bare
money question to which they objected. It was not the
amount of ship money which John Hampden resisted—
Hampden resisted the impost upon principle. The pro-
position was, as he had already described it, neither more
nor less than to render the Church of England one of the
many sects supported by voluntary contributions. It was
to denationalise the National Church, for Dissenters had
over and over again said within the last twenty years,
" Get rid of church rates, and we shall get rid of the
Church." (Hear, hear.) Whether they were right or wrong
it was not his present purpose to inquire. His purpose was
rather to show the animus which prompted them to desire
to get rid of church rates, and it was against this animus
he wished to contend. Ho felt that, upon every ground,
this house was not called upon to adopt either of the propo-
sitions before it. It was not called on to adopt the amend-
ment of the hon. gentleman the member for the Tower
Hamlets (Sir W. Clay), because that proposed to destroy
the system of church rates without providing any adequate
equivalent. Indeed he (Sir R. Inglis) believed there was
no equivalent which could be adequate, either in point of
amount or of principle. With respect to the reference
which had been made to Church property, that had been
a perpetual claim made by every ecclesiastical reformer
during the last twenty years ; and he believed that it was
now thoroughly exhausted. When it was stated that
500,0001. remained blithe hands of the Ecclesiastical Corn-
misioners, he begged to remark that that sum was already
pledged to objects which were infinitely more im-
portant than that of getting rid of church rates. Church
rates were applied to build up the external fabric of the
Church. But that 500,0001. was applied to the providing
spiritual instruction for the people —.(Hear, hear)—
and from that purpose he for one would never consent to
divert it. Then as to the motion of his hon. and learned
friend the member for Tavistock (Mr. Phillimore), that, he
contended, was still more objectionable than the amend-
ment, for-it went to withdraw national support from the
Church altogether. (Hear, hear.) Upon all these grounds,
therefore, he should oppose both motion and amendment.
Mr. A. PELLATT could assure Mr. Phillimore that if
he supposed his proposition would give satisfaction to tho
dissenters, he was very much mistaken. So far from that,
they felt that this proposal for putting them, as it were,
in forma pauperis, and compelling them to go to the
churchwarden of the parish in which they resided to make
a declaration of their religious creed before they could
obtain relief from the tax, was a degradation to which, as
conscientious men, they could not submit. (Hear, hear.)
The hon. baronet the member for Oxford University (Sir
R. Inglis) had alluded to the necessity which existed for
maintaining the nationality of the Established Church.
He (Mr. Pellatt) would suggest to the hon. baronet a mode
by which he would do that, and at the same time give sa-
tisfaction to the dissenters in the matter of church rates.
He had been informed upon the best authority that if the
present system of leases of ecclesiastical property, which
being carried out upon the principle of fines for renewal,
prevented the improvement of that property, were altered,
and the fines capitalised and reduced to a rent-charge,
church rates might be abolished altogether, and 20 per
cent. gained on the rental of such property. He (Mr.
Pellatt) understood the hon. member for Tavistock (Mr.
Phillimore) to propose that the bodies of dissenters were
not to be interred in the burial grounds of the church, and
were to be excluded from the rites of the church.
Mr. PHILLIMORE made a remark as if in correction
of the hon. gentleman, which was not heard in the gallery.
Mr. PELLATT—WouId the hon. member introduce a
clause into his bill, not only to receive the body of the
dissenters, but to allow the friends of the deceased person
to employ their own minister to perform those religious
duties over the grave which they thought necessary and
proper ? As the hon. gentleman was aware, the laws of
country were at present adverse to that. (Hear, hear.)
Milton wrote that the Church would never cease to per-
secute until she ceased to be mercenary. (Hear, hoar.)
There was no doubt of it—no one could deny it. And he
agreed with the hon. member for Oxford (Sir R. Inglis),
when he said that the whole question—he (Mr. Pcllatt)
would add, so far as the Established Church was concerned
was one of the breeches pocket. (Hear, hear, and a
laugh.) The hon. member then proceeded to contend that
the church-rate system was a most unjust one ; that it
gave rise to feelings of animosity, and was the cause
of much that was unseemingly and unchristian ; and
that the voluntary system, where it had been tried in the
case of the Church of England itself, had operated most
beneficially for that Church. The Church had already an
amount of property which, if wisely managed, would
enable her easily to dispense with that compulsory rate.
Mr. MULL said, that previously to having come down
to the house he had looked at a pamphlet which had been
published a few days ago by the noble lord the member for
Lynn (Lord Stanley), and he begged to return to the noble
lord his sincere thanks for the kindly spirit in which he
had, in that pamphlet, endeavoured to deal with the ques-
tion. (Hear, hear.) If he did not entirely agree with the
praCtical solution of the difficulty which had been suggested
by the noble lord, he did not in the slightest degree doubt
that he had, in perfect good faith, intended to relieve Dis-
senters from what he believed to be an injustice, and, at
the same time to free the Church of which he was a mem-
ber from a reproach which still attached to it. He (Mr.
Miall) could not help thinking that they were then engaged
in the consideration of a difficulty which it was very easy
to solve. They were asked how sacred edifices could be
maintained, and how Divine service could be suitably per-
formed, if that charge were discontinued. But it should be
remembered that the dissenters found no difficulty whatever
in providing without church rates for the due administra-
tion of their religious rites. According to the census of
1851, the dissenters maintained not less than 17,000 separate
buildings for the performance of Divine service. The
Church had, in the earliest and purest ages, been enabled
to meet all her material wants by means of the voluntary
contributions of her children. Since that period the system
of church rates had gradually been established by a series
of • priestly encroachments on the right of the lolly. But
it was alleged that property had been bought subject to
that charge, and that there could at present be no valid
reason for objecting to its continuance. Now, ho denied
the truth of the statement on which that argument was
founded. In thousands of cases the property which was
assessed to church rates had come into existence, within
the last few years. There was one subject upon which ho
wished to trouble the house with a few words as regarded
the mode of dealing with the question. Hero were two
modes proposed, one by the hon. baronet the member for
Tower Hamlets, and the other by the hon. and learned
member for Tavistock. Respecting the proposition of the
hon. baronet he should say "aye" to it in case of a division,
although he should do so with more satisfaction if he
simply proposed to abolish the impost, leaving the main-
tenance of the Church to be effected out of such funds
as had previously accrued. As to the proposition
of the hon. and learned member for Tavistock, ho
(Mr. /flail) entertained not the slightest doubt
or suspicion of his motives ; but he still believed he
was more anxious to benefit the members of his own
church than to free the dissenters from the payment of
church rates. In a word, the effect of the proposition
would be simply to denationalise the Established Church,
and convert that which was at present a national institu-
tion into a religious association invested with public funds.
Under these circumstances, and unless ho was assured by
the promoters of the bill that such was not their intention,
and that ecclesiastical affairs would still continue to be re-
gulated by the legislature, he could not vote for the bill.
But with such au assurance he should certainly sustain the

measure.
Mr. WIGRAM could only see in this measure, as con-
tained in the amendment of the hon. baronet opposite, the
forerunner of another measure to attack the tithe system.
(Oh, oh, and hear, hear.) What was the position of church
rates ? The law of the land required that in every parish
there should be a church especially accessible to the poor,
and for the maintenance of which church the property
with which Providence had blessed the wealthy should be
made to contribute. (Hear, hear.) The amendment of the
hon. baronet was calculated to abrogate that wise provision
of maintenance. (Hear, hear, hear.) He contended the
charge was upon the land, and not on the the individual.
He was of opinion that a measure might be framed which
would entirely remedy all the defects that at present ex-
isted in the law, so far as the levying of church rates was
concerned, and which would remove that uncertainty of
which so much had been said in the course of the debate.
In conclusion, he would state, that it was his intention to
oppose both the amendment and the original motion be-
fore the house.
Sir G. GREY said that he entirely differed from the
hon. and learned member for Tavistock and the hon.
member for Oxford University with regard to the import-
atnhcoeugol; church rates to the established church. (Hear,
hear.) He thought they greatly exaggerated the import-
bt.celtecuumerreeelft cthourch rates when the y said that they regarded
arlamteoss.t vital to its. existence. (Hear, hear.) He
rates
stootdliaintllit was injudicious in any friend of that
bind up its existence with the maintenance of
he be(lilieevarea, hear.) He thought that church
was now,
beittadaLheiate
trustedefferent relation to the church from
tithes—(hear) ougheihtuer:ehrrwatoeusldwere abolished to-
morrow,t.
btein aitntthhee churchileart s
ofw otohled
grreemata remain
balkas
oit
f
• remain, rooted,
the people of this country. (Hear, hear.) lie thought

the objections to the proposition of the hon. and learned
member for Tavistock were unanswerable. And it was
curious that though they had been debating this question
now for six hours, no single member rose to support his
proposition. (Hear, hear.) He had read the pamphlet of
the noble lord with great interest, but neither the propo-
sition of the hon. and learned gentleman, nor that con-
tained in the pamphlet of the noble lord was original, for
twelve years ago the hon. member.for Finsbury, and in
1819 Mr. Page Wood, then member for Oxford, brought
forward propositions for exempting dissenters from the
payment of church rates, and throwing the whole burden
on the members of the established church. He opposed the
proposition on that occasion on the ground that it drew a
line of distinction between the churchman and the dissenter
which he considered to be objectionable; and that objec-
tion was increased now that he heard the details of the plan
of the hon. and learned member for Tavistock. He stated
then that in the north of England, with which he was more
particularly acquainted, the dissenter and the churchman,
notwithstanding the difference of the form of their wor-
ship, lived on terms of good fellowship with each other ;
and he was afraid that if a line of distinction was drawn
by registering dissenters who claimed to be exempted from
the payment of church rates, many persons would claim to
ba so exempted. And this he firmly believed would tend
to the injury of the church itself, and would impair that
good feeling and fellowship which prevailed amongst
different denominations of Christians, who although they
might differ in their formularies, were agreed on the great
leading doctrines- of their common Christianity. (Hear,
hear.) He believed that access to the parish church would
become a loss desirable object than was now the case—he
believed that dissenters would not seek it, as of his own
knowledge he knew they constantly sought it now, and that
having once declared themselves dissenters, they would not
think it right to intrude themselves amongst the members
of the established church. But if this plan were agreed
to, or if the plan of the noble lord were agreed to, dis-
senters would thereafter be for ever debarred from any of
the rights and privileges of the Established Church. (Hear.)
He thought that the right to purchase admission to those
rights and privileges by the payment of a miserable
sum of money—for that was what the proposition amounted
to—was a proceeding which the house would not entertain
fora moment. (Hear.) It appeared to him that a plan
which would debar persons who once declared themselves
dissenters from partaking of the communion in the parish
church, from having their marriages celebrated in the
parish church, and from burial after death in the church-
yard—though the hon. and learned gentleman declared
that he had no serious objection—nor did it much improve
the matter that they would be permitted to enjoy their
right and privilege, according to the plan of the noble lord,
on the payment of additional fees—to be asked, he sup-
posed, as compensation for the non-payment of the church
rates. (Hoar, hear.) He could not think -with the hon.
member for Oxford University, that this would be a mea-
sure of occasional conformity, but that it would be a
measure to prevent occasional conformity. (Hear, hear.)
It proceeded on the assumption that the whole popula-
tion of the country was to be divided into the members
of the established church and all those who dissented
from it. He thought that would be a great error. He
believed that many dissenters, so far from regarding
the established church as an abomination, looked upon
it as a church which had been the means of conferring in-
estimable blessings on the country. Ho therefore thought
that any measure which would divide them by a strongly
marked lino would be fraught with prejudicial conse-
quences. (Hear, hear.) He agreed with the hon. and
learned gentleman who spoke last, that this measure if
carried would not produce peace, quiet, and contentment
in many parts of the country, and particularly in those
places where disputes and contentions took place on the
subject of church rates. This question of church rates had
much changed since the last 20 years. The heats and con-
tentions which then existed to a violent degree had for the
most part passed away, owing, he believed, in a great de-
gree, to the good sense of the members of the established
church, who, in their desire to promote peace and unity,
did not seek to enforce the church rate ; and the churches
were now for the most part repaired by voluntary contri-
butions. (Cheers.) But if, as the hon. and learned
member proposed, more stringent means were to be
taken to recover the church rate from the members
of the established church in future, he was afraid
it would lead to a renewal of those scenes to which he had
referred as having happily passed away. The hon. and
learned gentleman then proposed to leave the decision of
these church rate matters to the ecclesiastical courts.
This he considered would be a most unwise proceeding,
and would lead us, in the repair of the churches, to a kind
of Churchwarden Gothic in the administration of the law.
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) With regard, therefore, to
the proposition of the hon. and learned member for Tavis-
tock he should have no hesitation in voting against it.
With regard to the other proposition, that of the hon.
member for the Tower Hamlets, ho admitted the full force
of his objection ; and if he was prepared with a bill on the
subject embodying his views, he would vote for it. But
if he were asked to vote for a mere abstract resolution he
would not vote for a proposition of that kind, which was
to lead to no practical consequences. (Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—I cannot say that there is any-
thing very satisfactory in the propositions made to the
house, or in the debate, in which they have been discussed.
The house must feel that the subject is a most important
one, and therefore its decision ought to be deliberately
made. I agree with my right hon. friend in the opinion
that a church establishment may well exist without church
rates, as we see that it does in Ireland. At the same time
we, looking at this as a practical question, must consider
in the first place that this church rate amounts to a consi-
derable sum. Those who have put it least, put it down at
300,0001. And in the next place we must bear in mind
that this sum of 300,0001. is in many parts of the country
raised without any opposition, that in many parishes there
is no opposition whatever to the payment of this money,
and that the sum so raised is applied to the keeping in re-
pair and maintaining those ancient edifices which have be-
longed to the worship of the country from the first intro-
duction of Christianity. To part with that sum of money,
therefore, becomes a serious question. But then, likewise,
we ought not to omit from our consideration that though a
church establishment may exist and flourish without a
church rate, the ground of objection to a church rate is
not so much that it is a peculiarly vexatious burden, but
that it forms a fund for the repair of churches. The hon.
member for Southwark stated before the committee in
1851 that the principle on which Dissenters objected to
church rates was an objection to the union of Church and
State, so that the objection was one of a civil as well as a
religious character. Now, that is an objection not against
this particular rate or tax, but against rate as forming
part of the fund with which the church is endowed and
established, and which, as being established, is considered
to place Dissenters in a position of inferiority. (Hear,
hear.) lam not going to argue the question of church
establishments and of the voluntary principle. They are
very great and important painciples, no doubt ; but at
this hour of the night I am not going to debate them now.
What I wish the house not to lose sight of is that this is not
a separate tax that is considered odious and oppressive, but
it is a part of to system which is looked on in that light ;
and if you were to remove this objectionable impost you
would only open the ground to some fresh attack upon
some other part of the church establishment. (Hear, hear,)
Well, it may be wise policy or it may not to abandon
these church rates ; but, generally speaking, a general
who has to defend a fortress does not say, " I will abandon
the outworks and then the citadel will be safe." (Hear,
hear.) With respect to the propositions which have been
laid before the house by the two hon. gentlemen, I must
say that I was more struck with which each attacked the
proposition of the other than the skill with which he
defended his own. (A. laugh.) The hon. member for
Tavistock said with respect to the proposal of my hon.
friend the member for the Tower Hamlets, " I object to
pew rents being universally established ; for to make the
poor pay for admission into our country churches, or to
exclude them from those churches, would be a very great
hardship. (Cheers.) It would likewise be inconsistent
with the principles, and would prove injurious to the well-
being of our church. That is one strong objection to the
lion, baronet's proposition, and I object to his other pro-
position because I think there is not much need of addi-
tional means of religious worship and instruction, and that
whatever funds can be raised or added to the value of
church property ought to be applied to the relief of that
spiritual destitution." Now I think all we have heard
very much confirms the objection of the hon. and learned
member, and I cannot but feel that it strengthens me very
much in my opinion against the proposal of the hon.
baronet. But then comes my hon. friend to deal with the
proposal of the hon. member for Tavistock. He says that
it will be a very great evil to separate the whole commu-
nity into two bodies of churchmen and dissenters, and that
a person who is once registered as a dissenter will probably
become more hostile than if you leave him in his present
state, in which, although frequenting a dissenting chapel,
he may occasionally attend the services of the church.
Well, I think that in that argument the hon. member for
the Tower Hamlets had the best of the disputo—(hear,
hear)—aud that, as the hon. member for Tavistock had
almost demolished the proposition of the hon. baronet, so
the hon. baronet, on his part, had fired his battery with
such effect that the wall of his opponent was exceedingly
damaged. (Laughter.) The proposition of the hon. and
learned member has been considered on several former oc-
casions. It was objected to in 1849 by my right hon.
friend, and by Sir It. Peel, who also pointed out the,
disadvantage of formally, and by act of Parliament, sepa-
rating churchmen from dissenters. It was also objected
to by myself, who took a very brief part in that debate ;
and it seems to me that if carried into effect, it would not
only place persons in a state of hostility to the church
which they do not now occupy, but it would also
act as a penalty upon churchmen. (Hear,. hear.) Be-
cause, although the noble lord the member for Lynn
in his pamphlet says, that While there may be
about 600,0001. a-year collected as church rates, only
60,0031. are paid by dissenters, no one can say what will be
the effect if this bill should pass into law. (Hear, hear.)
There is many a man who belongs to the church generally
whose affection for it is not so great that he would continue
to do so if he could procure exemption from church rates
by merely ranking himself a: a dissenter. (Hear.) Nor is
this all, the man that remains would say—" Last year I
paid 21., and this year I am charged 41. ; what is the rea-
son ?" " Oh, sir," the answer would be, " the reason is
von remain attached to the church, while two or three of
your neighbours have gone over to dissent. They have
now nothing to pay, and therefore you must pay twice as
much." Surely, then, we should expose the Established
Church to some danger by taking such a step. At
the same time, I shall not object to the hon. and learned
gentleman laying his bill upon the table. (Hear.) I can
conceive its being so altered that it may be safely enter-
tained by the house ; but unless very much altered I can-
not consent to its passing int* law. (Hear, hear.) Well,
then, the question is what aro we really obliged to do with
respect to this question of church rates? For one, I think
that the evil, as at present existing, has been very much.
exaggerated. (Hear, hear.) In 1835, no doubt, we con-
tinually heard of battles and contests in parishes and ves-
tries, and of many very scandalous scenes. Many persons,
and no doubt most persons in the House of Commons,
thought that a remedy was necessary. Different remedies
were proposed, but none were sanctioned by Parliament.
Parliament, on the contrary, chose to remain still upon this
subject ; and I must say that from 1840 to 1853 I don't
think that many great practical evils have resulted from
the present state of the law. (Hear, hear.) Now, mind, I
am not saying that the law might not be improved. It
might, for instance, be improved by sweeping away the
jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts with regard to
church rates. (Hear.) With respect to the act of the 10th
Geo. IV., I think that instead of taking away the autho-
' rity of the magistrates where the question of the rate's
validity is disputed, it might be allowed to extend to
those cases, although it might be desirable to have some
civil court of appeal which might deal with them without
the expense and delay of the present mode of litigation.
(Hear, hear.) That I think is desirable, and that, as has
been observed by the right hon. gentleman the member for
the University of Cambridge, might be done without in-
fringing upon the general state of the law. I do not think,
however, that we are in a state for legislation even upon
that subject, because I think it is desirable that the long-
disputed and famous Braintree case should first be decided,
and the law laid down by the highest judicial authority iz.
the country. (Hear, hear.) In almost all the large towns

where church rates have bgsni opposed, that opposition
has been successful and no church rates are now obtained.
On the other hand. where there is a willingness, as in the
rural districts, there they are paid. lam told that the
effect of the voluntary principle is likely to be in such
districts what it has been in large towns where church
rates have been refused ; and that there is nothing more
easy and simple than to part with this 300,0901.' or
600,000/.—whichever it may be—a year, for you will find
all your wants supplied by churchmen as liberally as is
done by dissenters. But I wish the house and the Pro-
testant dissenters themselves to consider that the case is
very different from those which are cited as examples. The
dissenters raise for themselves places of worship sufficient
to accommodate all those who form the respective congre-
gations and not difficult to be kept in repair. But with
regard to the chUrches it must be considered that they were
not originally intended for a small portion of the commu-
nity, for a single sect, or even for a majority of the com-
munity. They were places of worship intended for the
nation at large, and I do think it would be a hardship as
regards churchmen, and a shame and disgrace as regards the
country, if a small number of persons were obliged to keep
up national edifices which required great sums to be spent
upon them for repairs. (Cheers.) You provide against
that by the present system, and you have a remedy so
long as the law at present stands. (Hear, hear.) Ido re-
quest the house to beware how they give their authority
and sanction to doctrines which, although they may not
appear on the face of the proposition itself, would be
and will be carried by votes of this house, if you agree to
the proposition of the hon. baronet. I have read, certainly
with great interest, tho pamphlet of the noble opposite ;
but the noble lord states principles that would go much
further than ho would himself be disposed to go. For in-
stance, he says, "As a matter of justice it is felt to be
wrong to call upon men to pay for the propagation of opi-
nions in which they do not share." (Loud cheers.) No
doubt the argument is good when used against a more ri-
gorous enforcement of church rates ; but if you carry it
out to its full extent it will sap the foundations of the es-
tablished church. (Cheers.) The subject of establishments
is far too wide and important to enter into in the present
state of this debate, but let not hon. gentlemen conceal
from themselves the importance of the principle laid down
by the noble lord, because in it was involved the whole
question of the established churches of England and Scot-
land. Ido trust, therefore, that this house will always be
ready to listen to any practical remedy which may be pro-
posed to lessen the evils attendant upon church rates, that
if they would maintain the principle of an establishment
they will countenance(eheers to doctrines which are in-
consistentgiwviet hnit.
Mr. BRIGHT said, the noble lord had told them that the
hon. member for Tavistock and the hon. baronet the mem-
berwill
for the Tower Hamlets had answered each other's
arguments - but the noble lord himself was open to a charge
quite equal that. In 1837 the noble lord was a party to
a proposition precisely the same with that which had been
submitted by the hon. baronet the member for the Tower
Hamlets. In 1849, if he recollected rightly, he stoutly
opposed a proposition made by Sir W. P. Wood, which
adopted the principle involved in the bill of the hon. mem-
ber for Tavistock, and that night he opposed altogether
the proposition of the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets,
and was going to admit the introduction of the bill pro-
posed by the hon. member for Tavistock. (A laugh.) It
appeared to him that the noble lord had not made much
progress on this question. (Hear, hear.) If the objections
he bad raised were to be taken as grave, and serious, and
insurmountable objections, then they would have to go on
for ever with the church rate question unsettled, He
thought, however, that the tone of the discussion generally
that night showed that the house was coming calmly to a
decision upon the subject. (Hear.) All attempts at a
settlement had been opposed by the hon. baronet near him
(Sir R. Inglis), and no doubt he would continue to do so ;
but he might be permitted to say that, if this country had
been governed according to the opinions of the universi-
ties, we should have been Roman Catholic in our religion
and Austrian in our politics at this day. (Laughter.) He was
willing to admit that there were objections to both plans be-
fore the house. Asto the question of pew-rents, all he would
say was, that he did not think Churchmen who went to
church from "(rood motives,as he hoped they all did, would
abstain from doing so because payments were asked from
them for the support of the church, in the same way as
was done among the Dissenters. (Hear, hear.) There
were very serious objections to the bill of the hon. and
learned gentleman the member for Tavistock ; but there
was a plan for which they had a precedent, and which the
Government would do well to consider. They all recollected
church-cess in Ireland and.the evils attending it, and how the
the Government found a plan to abolish the church-cess
by a better management of church property, and by pla-
cing the funds in the hands of a commission, to be by
them applied to the building and repairs of churches in
Ireland, He did not see why such a plan should not be
adopted here. (Hear.) The noble lord said the funds of
the church were allowed to accumulate for other purposes,
and the hon. baronet (Sir R. Inglis) said they were re-
quired for extending the spiritual instruction of the church;
'but so long as enormous funds were appropriated to erect-
ing gorgeous residences for the episcopal bench—(hear)—
far more than was required for such purposes, and more
than was consistent with the moderation and simplicity
which he thought Christianity required to be provided for
for its professors—so long as money was thus expended,
and so long—as was stated by the noble lord some years
ago—as 15,0001. a-year was not considered too much for
an archbishop, being three times more than was received
by the Prime Minister or a Chief Secretary of State—so
long would it be thought possible to save from the revenues
of the church sufficient sums to keep in repair the edifices
for public worship. (Hear.) These church rates were
found to be very unequally distributed over the country.
In his parish they had been reduced from 7001. to 1501. a-
year. Manchester, out of about 50 churches, there was
only one that was not supported by the voluntary contri-
butions of the people. In Scotland the Free Church had,
as was stated by a gentleman in Edinburgh some time ago,
done more in 6 years for the education and religious teach-
ing, by the voluntary principle, of the people than the
Establishment principle has done in three centuries. (Hear.)
In Ireland they saw that that portion of the population
which was the poorest, and had suffered most, had built
chapels in the most out-of-the-way places, where there was
a very spare population, so that it had been always a puzzle
to him where they had found the funds. In Wales, where
eight-tenths of the population were connected with tine
Dissenting body, there was scarcely a valley or hill-side in
which they did not find a chapel of one denomination or
another built by the people, and, as an example, he might
instance the town of Merthyr, whore 20 dissenting chapels
were open, supported by voluntary contributions, and
only one church in the Establishment. His conclusion
from all these facts was, that the question was very sim-
ple if the house would really grapple with it. The
mode of doing so was that which had been proposed
by the noble lord a member of the late Government,
to provide a fund of 250,0001. by means of improved
management of the revenues of the church. If a
bill passed the house for the one purpose of abolishing
church rates, and without any other provision whatever,
he would undertake to say that by the voluntary contri-
butions of persons attending the churches of England and
Wales they would receive as much as would be necessary
for the support of the fabric of the church. (Hear.) The
church was not worth supporting an hour if it had so
deadened the zeal and destroyed the vitality of its people
that they would not do so. (Hear, hear.) Let them see
what the Dissenting interest haj done in Wales, what the
Free Church had done in Scotl, and what the trampled
and insulted Roman Catholics of Ireland had done for
their church for centuries past. (Hear.) The funds of
the fabric of the church in [this country must come either
from a better administration of church property, or from
the voluntary contributions of Churchmen. Did any mem-
ber in that house believe a vote would ever pass for the
support of the fabric of the church, or that any one would
ever get up from the Treasury bench to propose it? He
thought, then, they must have recourse to the voluntary
principle. The noble lord said the question was settled
in the large town; and it was assumed that because those
fierce contests which had prevailed were not now going on,
the house ought not to decide it. If the question was settled
it was settled against the law—(hear, hear)—by the Dis-
senters uniting with the liberal Churchmen to put an end
to the system altogether. But though there were no
longer any contests in the large towns, there Vier- Dissen-
ters in almost every ono of these parishes, and whenever
one of them was forced to contribute the grievance re-
maimed, and was as great as ever. The house was not to
think that because the minority was crushed, and because
the clergy and churchwardens bad their heel,
on them, the
question had not great interest for the people. He was no
great favourer of an establishment for religious purposes.
He believed the principle to be exceedingly bad both for
civil and religious liberty, but he would ask Churchmen,
for their own sakes, if they wished the establishment to
last, be it long or short, ii it would not be better to get
rid of the question of church rates at once and for over.
He was satisfied the house was more disposed to settle the
question on fair principles now than it had ever been be-
fore ; and he was sure the pleasure they would give by
doing so would not be less to Churchmen themselves than
to Dissenters. If they went to a division he supposed the
hon. baronet would withdraw that portion of his amend-
ment which related to pew rents, in deference to the wish
of the house, but if the bill of the hon. and learned mem-
ber was introduced, he must say he would like to have
some time between that and the second reading to make
up his mind respecting the principle, which might be good,
Ibut was attended with difficulties in some points on which
he had not yet come to any decisive conclusion. (Hear.)
After a few words froin Mr. P lIILLIMORE in reply,
The house then divided on the question that all the
words after the word " that" be omitted, when there ap-
peared-
10K

Ayes....
Noes ....

•
Majority
An amendment was thou moved by Mr. HUME, but
afterwards withdrawn, and the house divided on the main
question, as amended by Sir W. Clay, when the numbers
wore—

For the motion..
Against it ...... .

Majority 43
The original motion and the amendment were therefore
lost.

CATHEDRAL APPOINTMENTS BILL.
The Lords' amendments to this bill wore agreed to.
ENTAILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On the motion of the LORD-ADVOCATE, this bill was read
a third time.
BANKRUPTCY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
NEW WRIT FOR PLYMOUTH.
Sir J. Y. BULLER moved that Mr. Speaker do issue his
warrant to the clesk of the Crown, to make out a new writ
for the electing of a burgess to serve in this present Parlia-
ment for the borough of Plymouth, in the room of Charles
John Mare, Esq., whose election has been determined to be
void.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the motion seemed rather pre-
mature when a committee was sitting under the act of
Parliament to inquire into the bribery and corruption
alleged to have taken place within the borough.
Sir F. THESIGER believed the act provided that the
committee wore not to interfere with the issue of the

writ.
Mr. AGLIONBY said the committee did not recom-
mend that the writ should issue. They left the decision
with the house. The feeling of the committee was, how-
ever, that the writ ought to issue, and he should vote for
the motion of the hon. baronet.
The motion was then agreed to.
BERWICK-UPON-TWEED ELECTION PETITION.
Mr. T. MITCHELL moved that the following members
bo appointed a select committee on the Berwick-upon-
Tweed election petition :—Mr. Thomas Mitchell, Mr.
Edmund Denison, Mr. Bankes, Mr. Mullings, and Mr.
Collier.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE moved as an amendment, "That it be
an instruction to the goneral committee of elections to se-
lect a chairman and four other members to be the select
committee ; and that the members so selected do constitute
the said committee and that they have power to send for
pasono, papers, anh records," He assured, the house that

he moved this amendment totally independent of anything
in the shape of private feeling with regard to any of the
names which had been proposed by the hon. member for
Biidport, and simply with the view to remove the smallest
suspicion of partisanship on the part of the committee from
the minds of all the parties who were interested in theques-
tion. He begged to remark that he was only following the
same course as had. been followed in the case of the Derby
inquiry during the present session, and the Stamford inquiry
in 1848 ; and that he had shaped his motion in accordance
with that of Lord J. Russell on the 22d of May, 1848.
Mr. BRIGHT thought that, in a case of this kind,where
the personal honour of gentlemen who were not in the
house was concerned, it was important that a member who
appeared partly in the character of an accuser should not
be appointed upon the committee. He considered, how-
-1 ever, it was desirable that some gentlemen who had paid
attention to the case should be placed upon the committee,
and ho would suggest that the hon. member for Bridport
shout be a member of this committee.
Sir J. GRAHAM agreed with the hon. member for Man-
chester, that it was almost unseemly that a member who
had preferred grave accusations against persons who were
not present in the house should form one of that tribunal
appointed to try the case ; but on the other hand, if justice
was to be done, he thought there was very great disadvan-
tage in establishing a tribunal in which there was no per-
son cognizant of the facts of the case, who might elicit the
truth. He remembered that in the case of an inquiry into
an Irish election two hon. members, one of whom was a
friend of each of the parties particularly concerned, were
added to the committee for the purpose of examining wit-
nesses, but he did not know whether they voted en the
questions raised in committee. He would suggest that a
similar course might be adopted in the present instance.
After a few words from Mr. S. WORTLEY,
• Mr. MITCHELL said, he was quite willing to adopt the
suggestion of the right hon. baronet ; and,
The motion and amendment having been withdrawn, it
was agreed that a select committee, consisting of seven
members, should be appointed to inquire into the Berwick-
upon-Tweed election petition.
-- •

MANNING THE NAVY.
Admiral WALCOTT moved an address to the Crown for
copies of the scheme of Lieutenant Brown, R.N. (referred
to in page 7), also of the scheme of Rear-Admiral Sir
Charles Napier, K.C.B. R.N. (referred to in page 29), and
of Mr. C. H. Pennell (referred to in page 30), all alluded to
in the report on the subject of the manning of the Royal
navy recently laid on the table of this house by her Ma-
jesty's command. The gallant officer observed, that this
subject was regarded with great interest both by the naval
profession and the country generally, owing to the growing
repugnance which was felt to the system of impressment.
The schemes to which the motion referred had all been con-
sidered peculiarly worthy of attention, and as it was most
important that effectual provision should be made for man-
ning the navy, and for its maintenance in a state of effici-
ency, he was desirous that the house should have the fullest
possible means of forming a sound judgment on the subject.
It appeared that the actual number of men employed in
British registered ships was in 1851, 175,000, including
53,600 protected from impressment. About 80,000 men
were left available for service, and of this number it was
estimated that not more than 21,000 would be found in the
United Kingdom at any one time. He hoped there would
be no objection to the production of the documents for
which he moved.
Sir J. GRAHAM could assure the gallant Admiral that
ample opportunity would be afforded for the discussion of
this very important question. It would be his (Sir J.
Graham's) duty, in a very short time, in consequence of
the report to which the motion of the hon. and gal-
lant officer referred, to move for leave to introduce two
bills founded upon that report, and an opportunity would
then be given for the most full discussion. Two of the
documents referred to in the motion were already in the
possession of the house. The report of Lieutenant Brown
was contained in paper No. 84, presented February 18,
1852, which contained a great deal of information on the
subject. Another document to which the gallant officer
referred was a paper founded upon the opinion of Sir C.
Napier, to which reference was also made in that report.
The document in question was a bill introduced by Sir C.
Napier in 1848, when ho was a member of that house.
That bill did not, he believed, go beyond a second reading.
It was, however, upon the records of the house, among
the bills which had been introduced, and it would be
found in the library of the house. There remained,
therefore, only the third document, which was a confi-
dential report, prepared by a clerk in the Admiralty, who
had officiated as secretary to the commission. He was a
very able gentleman, certainly, but he was not a pro-
fessional gentleman ; and he was sure the gallant officer
would see that it was hardly consistent to move for the
production of a confidential report which had been drawn
up by a clerk in the Admiralty.
The motion was withdrawn accordingly, and the house
adjourned at a few minutes before 2 o'clock.