The Sun.
London, England, 1854-06-22 00:00:00

on there were those who said that they could noetcoinn:
scientiously resort to churches, although they _ were
te eoni
edneode floe rd thethe
mn a t
ti oo n a
al
different worship,
fbour tm thate
etr
vh theire oaonnd-
h teh e
erected. r e fore t hAe yt
wishedu r tchha t g oovt ehrenr mbe nu
ti
Id i nagn sd s htohual tcl:,
tthheey t
werei m e c apme
ren:sl vi
tht ee nd
first, under Charles and Jmamthese,
ttohweynew;ertehepyerwseecruetendot;
they were driven forth from
aobnuddto u b t
was their right.
thetoallowedhAa
vcet libertyoft h
aTt o l
libertye ro Toleration t i on
which passed,conscience
n;
But the dissenters of those days, having got those rights,
did not consider, like the hon. member and many dis-
senters of the present day, that they were debarred, as
he says, by the Georges from the exercise of their rights
of conscience. I happened the other day to be looking
at a book, which is now before me, the life of a most
distinguished, pious, and learned man—Calamy; and so
complaining of the existence of church rates, he
thus frusaoni announces the accession of George I. : "He began
h
with a noble declaration for liberty of con-
science,isreign
and never could be charged with acting incon-
sistently with it. At his first appearance in council,
September 22, he made a declaration, in which he ex-
pressed himself in the following words—' I take this occa-
sion to express to you my firm purpose to do all that is
in my power for supporting and maintaining the churches
of England and Scotland as they are by law established,
which I am of opinion may be effectually done without
in the least impairing the toleration allowed by law to
Protestant dissenters, so agreeable to Christian philan-
thropy." He then sets forth the addresses presented to
the king by the dissenting ministers of the several deno-
minations, in which they declared that "Your Majesty's
wise and gracious declaration, for which we render our
unfeigned thanks, does sensibly relieve us under our
present hardships, and gives us ground to hope that, as
we are inseparably united in interest, and even in
safety, with the succession to the monarchy, as by law
established, so -we shall share in that protection and
, favour which will make us happy with the rest of your
I subjects." So little was this eminent man—this emi-
nent dissenter —disposed to find fault with a declaration
which began by saying that the King intended to do
all in his power for supporting and maintaining the
Churches of England and Scotland. The dissenters
of those days considered the Church of England as a
great support to the Protestant interest, and continually
expressed their wish to see it maintained on that ground.
And let me here say that I believe that-to the dissenters
of those days we owe very great benefits ; to them we
owe the constant support of the House of Hanover, so
inseparably connected with the liberty of this country ;
and to them we owe enlightened views of toleration and
of civil and religious liberty, for which we cannot be
sufficiently grateful. For my own part, therefore, in
consideration of the character of Protestant Dis-
senters in those days, as well as of the efforts
they have made in our own day to advance re-
ligion and to promote education, and many other
good works, I should be most anxious that any con-
cession should be made to them which would be con-
sistent with the safety of the Established Church. But
we now come to that which has been the quarrel
of late days ; indeed, -we may say for the last quar-
ter of a century, and, in some degree, for half a cen-
tury before that. That has arisen not, I believe, with
respect to those ancient parochial churches of which I
have spoken, but in consequence of the great number
of new churches which have been built in towns
where the Dissenters are very numerous, and of the
attempt which has been made to increase the church
rates. On that account a very natural resentment has
been felt by Dissenters ; and from this has arisen a great
struggle which we have to deplore. The preamble of this'
bill sets forth that " whereas church rates have for some
years ceased to be made and collected in many parishes
by reason of the opposition thereto, and that in- many
parishes where they are laid, their levying has given rise
to litigation and ill-feeling, &c." Now, so far as that
goes, I agree with the statement in the preamble, and I
think it desirable, not specially for the sake of the Dis-
senters or of the Church, but for the sake of the com-
munity generally, that some remedy for this should be
found. The whole dispute at the present day is not
with regard to the evil, and t 9 the social calamity,
caused by church rates, but with respect to the remedy
we should apply. Now, I have spoken of those
ancient churches which were intended for all.
The Dissenters; however, have left those churches.
They have their own places of worship, erected
according to their wants—large where there is a large
congregation, small where there is a small congregation,
but in no instance requiring those expensive repairs
which are necessary when you have an ancient building
with a great deal of ornamental architecture, and erected
of a size not in proportion to the wants of the particular
congregation, but such as the whole parish necessarily
requires. Well, the theory of the law is that the parish
is bound to repair that church ; the practice of the law—
and it is one for which there is no remedy—is, that a
majority of the parishioners may refuse the church rate.
The remedy proposed by the hon. baronet for the exist-
ing state of things is to abolish church rates altogether.
I do say that in that case a hardship will be imposed
upon those who attend church. They have not, like
dissenters, built places of worship to suit their own wants,
and it certainly appears to me that if the existing paro-
chial churches are left without some means of legal sup-
port, it will, in the first place, be inconsistent with
the principle of an Established Church, and in the
next place it will throw a hardship upon those who attend
church. There are, however, various other remedies
suggested. One is that there should be a voluntary col-
lection on the part of the Church. Now I think that
in many parishes that voluntary collection would not be
sufficient. I think it is possible that if a voluntary col-
lection were made over the whole Kingdom, sufficient
means would be raised for the repair of the fabrics of
the churches. But then comes the question to which
my right hon. friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
adverted—that when that money was collected, every
person who belonged to the parish, whether they had
contributed to it or not, whether they attended the Es-
tablished Church or some other place of worship, would
have a right to a voice in the disposal of the money.
There, again, is a case of hardship to the Church. Then
it is proposed to separate Dissenters from others, and to
make all contribute to church rates who do not de-
clare themselves Dissenters. To that, however, I
must strongly object. Another method proposed is to
levy pew rents. I think that objectionable in the first
place, because it would be repugnant to the feelings
of the agricultural population generally, who ever have
been accustomed to enter a church as a free and open
place. Besides, I think the poor generally would have
a right to complain if you establish pew rents. My right
honourable friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) has
stated another plan, which I think was not understood
by the honourable member for Manchester, and perhaps
not by the house. I understand his suggestion to be
this—that there should be the same power as now of
imposing church rates, and that that rate should con-
tinue to be imposed in the rural parishes, because the
great majority there approve of church rates. It would
not, however, be imposed there for ever, but in
those parishes, as well as in others, the parishioners,
would have the power of acting either according to the
old or according to the new law. When, however, they
' decided to act according to the new law, and not to
levy rates, there would be a provision that those alone
who contributed to the repairs of the church should
have the disposal of the funds raised for that pur-
pose. There is one principle, indeed, to which I
think the house should adhere in any legislation on this
subject. Whatever plan (may be proposed, I think we
should retain for the church, or rather for the nation,
the right to call upon the land to maintain the parochial
church in repair. (Hear, hear.) I consider these edi-
fices not as belonging to a sect but as a national pro-
perty ; and so considering them, I think they should be
inseparably connected with the land, by which the
Church has hitherto been supported: I believe that it
would be the worst possible policy on the part
of the land to consent to any law by which we should
incur any hazard that our village churches should fall
into decay. Such is the principle which, as against my
honourable friend, I am disposed to maintain. The
honourable gentleman the member for Manchester says,
in opposition to this principle, that great effects have
been produced by the voluntary principle in the United
States of America. lam not disposed to question that
assertion. I know that great effects have been produced
by the voluntary principle alone in the United States of
America. I know that great effects have been pro-
duced in this country by the voluntary principle, in
connection with the principle of an established church.
The institutions of the United States are, however,
wholly different from ours. While they adopt the
voluntary principle as to the church—while they have
universal suffrage—while they have no primogeniture
as to the land, and while they have an elective Senate
and an elective President, all their institutions harmo-
nise together, and produce a free and great nation,
whose greatness and whose freedom I should be the last