The Sun.
London, England, 1854-05-24 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WtDNESDAY EVENIN:G, MAY 24,14.

r A

themselves. (Hear, hear.) Was that any reason why
they should be exonerated from providing that which was
for the common benefit of all ? (Hear, hear.) He th might
it would be quite as reasonable that a particular division
of a county should disclaim the use of a particular county
bridge, and expect to be exempt from contributing to-
wards keeping it in repair. (Hear, hear.) Church rates
were a charge upon the land. (Hear, bear.) Nothing but
the merest quibble could represent it otherwise, and as the
present owners of the lands of this country had acquired
them subject to the charge, they had not, either in law or
in equity, anything like a claim to be relieved from it.
Mr. G..kRDNER was of opinion that this vexed ques-
tion could never b:: satisfactorily settled by any measure
in the nature of a compromise. It appeared that the ob-
ligation of which the hon. member opposite had spoken
rested on the common law, or on custom, and this
might have been all very well when the Established
Church was really, and not nominally, the Church of the
nation. It was all very well to say that the churches
were open to all, if all chose to attend therm ; but all did
not choose to attend them, and how were they to compel
them to do it ? Church rates, he believed, were unknown
in any other country, yet the Church of England was the
richest establishment in the world, anti was very far in-
deed from deserving, at the last census had shown, the
name of a national establishment. Was it worth the
while of the Church to keep alive a feeling of irritation,
not only among dissenters, but in the country generally,
for the sake of this paltry sum ? (Hear, hear.) He was
afraid that churchmen forgot their own interest, that they
thought to have a perpetual lease of power and pre-emi-
nence, and that they were like the jovial clergymen de-
scribed by Goldsmith, who met together and resolved that
they would go on preaching to the world, and that the
world should go on paying for their preaching, whether
they liked it or not. (Hear, hear.) He thought our
whole ecclesiastical system was rotten at the cote—that it
would be wholly impossible to maintain it on its present
foundation—that it was very unwise to go on irritating
the dissenters—and that the opplisition which he antici-
pated would be offered on all sides to the introduction of
this bill was an indication OM blindness and infatuation
which precipitated the downfall of every institution which
had outlived the necessities and the circumstances of the
times in which it was founded, and had ceased to be
in harmony with the spirit of the age. He hoped his hon.
friend, although he might be beaten now, would persevere
until his object was attained.
Mr. PACKE admitted the necessity of legislation on
this subject. (Hear, hear.) If this were simply a question
between one set of people worshipping in one place, and
another set of people worshipping in another place, he
might be inclined to vote with the hon. baronet for the
total abolition of church rates. (Hear.) But this was not
the question. (Hear.) The real question was this—here
was an establishment which had existed now for above a
thousand years, for the benefit of all classes of the
people—a national establishment—by which he understood
an establishment supported by the nation for the national
good. (Hear, hear.) The difference between a clergyman
of the Church of England and a dissenting minister was
this--that the clergyman had the cure of all the souls in
his parish. (Hear, hear, and oh, oh.) Whether they
chose to avail themselves of his ministrations or not was
another point ; but this was the duty for which he was
paid—for visiting the sick, for burying the dead, for
solemnizing marriages, and for performing religious offices,
in every way, fur the whole pariah, whereas a dissenting
minister was attached only to a particular congregation.
(Hear, hear.) It was the duty of the nation to provide
places of worship for those who were too poor to provide
them for themselves ; and he apprehended that every per-
son in the kingdom derived benefit from the existence of
establishments in which these poor people might be taught
some principles of religion. (Hear, hear.) There were
some, also, who did not attend any place of worship, not
because they were poor, but from causes within their own
control ; and it was the duty of a Christian nation to pro-
vide the means of worship for such as these, whether they
chose to avail themselves of them or not. In the parish of
Marylebone, alone, he had learnt that there were more
people attending public-houses ois the Sunday than the
aggregate congregations of all the places of worship in the
parish. (Hear.) According—to the census, on the par-
ticular Sunday for which the returns relating to religious
worship had been obtained, the number who attended no
place of worship, who were not hindered by age, or occu-
pation, or illness, was 5,288,294. (Hear, hear.) Now
for these the nation ought to make such provision as that
the means of religious worship should, at all events, be
placed within their reach. (Hear.) In the bill which he
had prepared upon this subject, he disclaimed all inten-
tions of insulting the Nonconformists, in endeavouring to
ascertain who were Dissenters and who were churchmen.
(Hear.) The hon. baronet's proposition he understood to
be a proposition to abolish church rates, and not to propose
any substitute or modification of the law. A division of
the Church property had been suggested ; but supposing
the revenues of the Church to be equally divided, the
amount for each clergyman would not exceed 3001. a
year, and no one would consider that too large an amount
for a gentleman of education; and as the population in-
creased, the churches must increase also, so that, according
to that scheme, the provision for the clergy would diminish
year by year. Another remedy suggested was that of pew
rents. Now that would strike at the root of the object of
the Church of England, for the establishment of pew rents
in small parishes would altogether prevent the poor from
frequenting the church. Although Parliament had secured
the clergy their incomes, and voted sums for the building
of churches, it was now proposed to stop short, and say,
" We will not keep in repair the churches which have been
built out of the funds of the nation." The hon. member
fo- Norwich said that many persons were obliged to pay
towards the support of a religion of which they did not ap-
prove. He (Mr. Packe) admitted that many persons did
not approve of the doctrines preached in the Church, but
how many of the different dissenting denominations dis-
sented from each other ? The largest denomination next to
the Church were the Wesleyana, and they were not averse
to church rates, and not considering their abolition desir-
able, he should vote against the introduction of the bill.
Mr. BIGGS said the dissenters considered the church
rate an unjust impost and an abstraction of money from
one set of religionists for the support of the worship of
another. The levying of church rates was a source of con-
stant annoyance. Two years ago,,,wheu he was Mayor of
Leicester, it became his duty to issue a number of distress
warrants, but he solved the difficulty bypaying the church
rates himself. He was glad to say that in five of the
parishes in Leicester church rates had been abolished, but
this had not been done without a great struggle and the
manifestation of much ill feeling amongst different parties.
To show the inconvenience sometimes occasioned by the
imposition of church rates, he might mention that on
one occasion, when he was lining with a party, a num-
ber of distress warrants were brought to the table for
the signature of a magistrate, and that magistrate actually
had to affix his name to a distress warrant against
the host at whose table he was sitting. (Hear, hear.) Two-
thirds of the population had escaped from the pale of the
Church of England, and the moral loss to that Church
from the enforcement of the church rate law was greater
t han was generally imagined. When the Church of Eng-
land was the richest Church in the world, was it worth
while to continue an impost which tended to increase the
alienation from the Church which already existed? (Hear,
hear.) If he were a Churchman, he would support the
entire abolition of church rates. He maintained that
those who supported the abolition of church rates were the
best friends of the Church, and he felt convinced that the
Dissenters of Leicester would erect a monument to the
memory of the man who should succeed in procuring them
their abolition (Hear, anti laughter.)
Captain SCOBELL supported the motion of the honour.
able member for the Tower Hamlets, being desirous to see
church rates abolished as church rates. It had been said
that the churches were open to the rich and the poor. That
was true. But if the poor went to church, where were
they to sit? (Hear, hear.) In one half. of the churches in
the kingdom there were no seats for them, anti it was,
therefore, worse than a deception to talk of the Church of
England as a national Church. Nothing would be so
beneficial to the Church as the redistribution of its wealth
for the good of the Church. The great blot on the Church
was the unequal distribution of that wealth. (Hear, hear.)
He should like to see the pious man put forward rather than
the man possessing the greatest influence, and the resources
of the Church so employed as to produce the greatest
amount of good to the country and to itself. (Hear, hear.)
With respect to church rates he saw no way so short, so
effectual, and so certain of arriving at a desirable result as
their total abolition as church rates, and he thought they
might be dealt with in a way which he had never yet
heard suggested. He could not forget that the land had
for centuries been bought and sold subject to church rates,
and that they were ingrained into the value of the land,
and he did not see how they could be severed from the
land ; and those who advocated their total abolition ought
to remember that those who had the most land would re-
ceive the most benefit from such a measure. (Hear, hear.)
Now he would abolish church rates as such, but would
appropriate the sum thus raised to the purposes of educa-
tion, either in an aggregate sum as a fund for the whole
nation, or for the support of the schools in the particular
places where the rate should be collected. All parties
would thus benefit from the rate, and he believed that
those who grudged the payment of a sum for church rates
would cheerfully pay it in the shape of a school rate
(Hear, hear.)

Lord STANLEY said—Sir, I confess I do not quite un-
derstand the proposition of the hon. and gallant gentle.
man that has just addressed us. (Hear, hear.) He says, I
believe, in effect, that he does altogether desire the aboli-
tion of church rates, but that they should be transferred to
another purpose. However, it is not my intention to occupy
the attention of the house for more than a few minutes, be-
cause all the arguments used have been very much of one
kind. I must say, so far as the Nonconformists and those
who object to church rates are concerned, I do not think
that the legislation of this house is of very much import-
ance, because if Parliament were only to leave the public
alone for fouror five years more I believe it would be found
at the end of that time that the question had settled itself.
The real hirdship, therefore, is not with those who object
to paying rates, but it lies rather here, that there is always
a great public disadvantage in our maintaining upon the
statute book a law which the stateof pub'ic feeling renders
inoperative. (Hear, hear.) And in addition to this there
is involved the great hardship of throwing upon those who
are officidly responsible for the maintenance of the
churches the necessity of resorting to a rate, and of adopt-
ing a course which can only be taken at the risk of creating
great disturbance and ill feeling. Still, in many cases, not-
withstandinc, such consequences, they were compelled to
have resort to a rate, because if they merely proposed a
voluntary assessment they would be told, "you need not
come upon us in this way, for you have a legal provision
to meet your wants." Now, what is the present state of
the church rate law? We cannot deny that the po-
' sition of the question had changed since last year, in
consequence of the decision in the Braintree case. Up
to that time it was supposed there was a power to
compel parishes to maintain their churches, and of
punishment in case of its non performance. That led
to rates being granted without any dispute in many
parishes, where otherwise disputes and differences would
infallibly have occurred. That state of things is now,
however, at an end, and the consequence is, that the dis-
cussions which for some years had been checked are
now revived in many parts of the country. Indeed
many of the most Conservative boroughs of the country
—many whose feelings of attachment to the Church
are very strong, have, nevertheless, refused to im-
pose church rates. (Hear, hear.) Such, then, is the
present state of things; and there appears every proba-
bility of its lasting, although I believe the question will be
ultimately settled in some few years in every borough of
the kingdom. That, however, is a result not to be attained
without a great deal of disputation and discontent. (Hear.)
For as to the church rate law in itself, I do not suppose
that any one will deny that it involves a great anomaly, and
has done so ever since the existence of dissent was recog-
nised by the civil law. And I have no doubt that so far as
the exemption of dissenters is concerned that the majority
of this house is in favour of such a proposition. But when
we discussed the question last, it so happened that two
different
plans wereproposed—one resembling that which
the hon. baronet has this evening revived ; the movers of
each, however, dim *
pprovinu of the other's proposal. In
consequence, therefore of the difference of opinion pre-
Tailing, the whole queetiou fell to the ground. At present

1 i i

f'

rr TaT.

• we have again two plans !ail before us, not precisely, how-
-1 ever, those of last year. One of them originates with my
hon. friend (Mr. Backe), and I am quite sure he hring•s it
. forward with an earnest and sincere desire to satisfy all
• classes of the community. (Hear, hear.) But I confess,
• looking at his proposition, which provides an exemption
from the payment of certain temporary expenses—l con-
fess it appears to me that the distinction drawn is too
minute to give satisfaction to those who object to b!, taxed
at all. For I would impress upon the house that this
• question has never been raised as one of money. If I
take the total amount that is raised from the noneon-
formists, I believe that at the very highest computation
it has never exceeded 200,000/. Tne amount, therefore,
becomes a totally insignificant one when the question
of feeling is taken into account. (Hear, hear.) The
question throughout, it cannot be concealed, has not been
one of money, but one of principle. (Hear, hear.) And
that being so, I believe that if we continue to uphold our
old law—if we are still to resort to the old machinery of
imposing a rate—although we may diminish its amount—
although in other ways we may alleviate the amount of
the pecuniary burden—that the daily objection on the
ground of principle will not be removed, and that all that
will have been done will be to render our rate less produc-
tive in amount, though no way less objectionable on the
ground of feeling. (Hear, hear.) Well, then, the propo-
sition brought forward last year by the hon. and learned
member for Tavistock (Mr. Phillitnore) was founded, in
some respects, upon a different principle. It proposed the
entire exemption from church rates of those who did not
belong to the Church. Now, I believe that there was
nothing in that proposal which could be called unfair
or unreasonable. I confess I cannot see anything of
the character of hardship or persuasion in simply
calling upon men—not so much to make a declaration
of their religious opinions—hut to declare whether
they intend to use the church or not, and if they do they-
must pay for it. So far as my own opinions are concerned,
I think that a compromise might be effected ; but the re-
sult will be, whetheresuchl meaFtire be passed or not, that
in a few years the principle' of 'collecting those rates will
be abandoned, and a different system will be resorted to.
(Hear, hear.) But the proposition of the hon. and learned
member for Tavistock was not received by this house ; and
inasmuch as it was not brought forward again this year,
I regard it as being entirely out of the question. The only
alternatives we have to consider are these—we may keep
the law as it ; but that, I apprehend, is not desired by
anybody. Well, then, we may adopt the proposition of
the hon. and learned member for Tavistock, to which I
have referred ; but I confess I think that this proposition
would not prodece the effect he anticipates—that of
satisfying the claim of nonconformists. There is, then, a
third course—namely, that which is proposed by the hon.
baronet. It is proposed to settle this question for all
interests in the way in which one-half of England has
already settled it. Sir, I think that the hon. baronet
has exercised a wise discretion in not attempting to de-
termine from what sources these funds are to be taken
which are to replace church rates. In regard to the ex-
penses of the Church, it is proposed that they should be
defrayed from the lands of the Church. Now, that is a
plan which I think is surrounded with considerable diffi-
culty. Iu the first place, we hardly know the amount or
value of that property. In the next place, it is wanted for
many other ecclesiastical purposes. And, lastly, and in
my mind the most important consideration is—it appears
to me a very objectionable principle to say that you will
provide for local wants and local circumstances out of the
general central fund. Whether the contribution be volun-
tary or obligatory, I think that it is a sound principle to
say that every place shall pay the expenses of its own re-
quirements. (Hear.) The proposed measure of the hon.
baronet omits to deal with this part of the question. It
simply declares the abandonment of the principle of a com-
pulsory rate. Well, sir, I think that the time has come
when that abandonment is necessary. (Cheers from the
dissenters.) I do not say that the doctrine of the new
system, of this voluntary system, is altogether free from
risks and difficulties. Those risks and difficulties have
been alluded to already. I see them as cLarly as any hon.
member here ; but I believe that there is no option now
left us. I believe that the country has already decided
this question ; and I arnof opinion that it is our duty and
best wisdom to acquiesce in that decision. (Cheers.)
Mr. CROSSLEY said he thought that the measures
should not only relieve dissenters from the payment of
church rates, but also infidels, who would perhaps be in-
duced to return to the faith if those unjust exactions were
given up.
Mr. PHILIPPS said, he had a great wish to see this
question amicably settled. He had great faith in the volun-
tary principle for
suchfoi•
faith in that principlethebuildingofchurche for the sbutheconfe
confessed
that he had u
repairs
of churches. Living in a country where the Church was
not only exposed to moral difficulties, but where dissenters
were very numerous, and churchmen very poor, when the
churches were going rapidly to decay, he felt it impossible
to overrate the enormous advantages of having a fund ap-
plicable to the dilapidations of churches which were con-
tinually occurring. That was a difficulty for which he sa
no remedy in any alteration of the law. Under those cir-
cumstances, he could not support the measure of the hon.
baronet.

Mr. R. PHILLIMORE, who was met by loud cries of
" divide, divide," said he had heard the speech of the noble
lord opposite with great pleasure. As the noble lord had
made allusion to the motion he (Mr. Phillimore) made last
year, he felt that he was called upon to make a few obser-
vations. He thought that honourable members should be
cautious in voting for a measure abolishing church rates
altogether without providing any substitute for them.
They should remember that, upon the other side of the
Tweed, church rates were paid by a large body of dissen-
ters who had made no appeal to Parliament.. He had not
the slightest intention in his proposition of inflicting the
least degree of pain upon the conscientious convictions
of those who differed from the Established Church.
He had on the 27th of March voted conscientiously upon
the question that the Roman Catholics of Ireland should
be exempted from the payment of ministers' money, and
there was hardly ono nonconformist in that house who did
not vote for the same proposition. By the measure which
he proposed last year a man was not called upon to declare
his religious tenets or doctrines, but simply to declare
whether ho made use of the church or not ; and in case he
did make use of it, he was bound to pay for it. Could
anything be more fair, just, or reasonable ? He was so
anxious to have this matter settled, and was so desirous
for the peace and welfare of the Church, and that it should
not receive any support from the dissenters, that he would
consent to any proposition that was likely to relieve it from
that difficulty. Although he was anxious to exempt from
this burden all such as entertained conscientious objections
to the church rates he could see no reason whatever why
church men should not pay those rates. So far from con-
gratulating
ourselves that so many churches had been built,
we ought to take shame to ourselves that double the num-
ber had not been built, and that double the amount of
twhee:ll wealthy churchmenthel as fromwoll theas their obligationon
c im-
posedtin-
money had not been subscribed. He was one of the last
men to consent to any part of that money being applied to
relieving
uponthe
sciences. The Church should, however, be the place in
which all distinctions should be forgotten, and the last
place in which those distinctions should be kept up in the
most offensive manner. For those reasons he was ready to
relieve dissenters, but not churchmen, from the payment
of church rates.
Mr. H. DRUMMOND believed it was of much less im-
portance whether a few more or a few less belonged to the
respective sects than that they should really understand
the essence of the question upon which they were going to
vote. It was impossible after what they had heard, and es-
pecially after the speech of the noble lord (Stanley) not to
see that this question was far more extensive than the
payment of a few pounds in the shape of church rates by
dissenters. It was perfectly plain from the language held
this night, that every argument used against the payment
of church rates was equally valid against the support of the
Established Church (Hear) It was very easy to talk about
the delight of brethren dwelling together in unity and peace
When Edward Gibbon Wakefield was iu Newgate, he found
amongst the thieves there was the same opinion as to the
origin of their trouble. And that origin was the magis-
gtreanttelse,mtehn who
the
judges,
the church rates think that the , and the police. (Laughter.) Now, hon.
mat-
ter could be amicably settled if they were allowed to rob
the church with impunity. (No, no, from the dissenters.)
Why they talked of the necessity of this matter being ami-
cably settled, and yet there was not one of them who
talked of any other settlement whatever but an absolute
refusal to pay. (Hear, hear.) Well, if that was not having
their own way and a robbery of the Church withimpunity,
he confessed he was at a loss to understand anything.
People were very fond of talking of their consciences, and
he had no objection to their indulging themselves in such a
way, but there was always a secret insinuation made that
no one else had a conscience. (Hear, hear, and laughter).
In all the countries in the world of which we have any
record we find that the Sovereign of that country diti
establish, for the benefit of the subjects, a national reli-
gion. That national religion was necessarily the religion of
the Sovereign. That was their conscientious duty to do,
and the conscientious duty of every subject of the Sove-
reign was to assist that Sovereign in upholding all that was
necessary for the religious instruction of the subjects gene-
rally. (Hear.) But hon. members said that this blessed
thing called dissent should be exempted from the payment
of church rates. They should, however, recollect that peo-
ple must pay for luxuries. They could not keep a pack
of hounds or a box at the Opera without expense. (Laugh.
ter.) How could they expect to have the luxury of amus-
ing sermons from the bishop, or of attacking the Church
Establishment, without paying the miserable pittance of
a church rate. (Cries of "Oh, oh.") But this was not all.
He said, with respect to church rates, what he had said
with respect to tithes, that there was a great cry for
their abolition, but the meaning of that was that every
landlord should put one-tenth more pr. perty into his
lished tithe let the State take it. He said the same in re-
pocket than he had a right to. (Hear, hoar.) If they abo-
their lands subject to those burdens, and they should not
spect to church rates ; for they bought their houses anti
put these monies into their own pockets. Let the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer take them—they belong to the
State. If their consciences would not allow them to pay
this money to the State, he should still suspect that these
were not questions of conscience, but of money after all.
Lord J. RUSSELL—Sir, I have not much addressed
the house upon this subject. It has been very frequently
brought before us, and I think the ground of it is hardly
changed in the. course of the various discussions that have
taken place. It was during the Government of Lord Grey
a proposition was made to abolish church rates, but at
the same time to give the sum of 250,0001. from the Con-
solidated Fund for the repairs of the churches ; and like-
wise that there should be the means found for what is
called the furniture of the Church. In 1837 a bill was pro-
posed by the Government to which I belonged, by which
a certain portion of the revenue of the Church was to
be taken for the repairs of churches instead of the church
rates. Both of those measures were, however, violently
opposed. The first was violently opposed by the Dissenters,
who got up au agitation on the subject, and Lord Althorp
found it impossible to proceed with it. The second mea-
sure was opposed by much vehemence and pertinacity,
and the archdeacons throughout the country got petitions
circulated everywhere which were numerously signed
against the measure. A division upon the subject took
place in this house, and there being only a majority of five
in favour of the measure, it was given up. I confess that
the rejection of both of those proposals, which appe red
to me to have been framed in a fair and impartial
spirit, has given me but very slender hopes of any fair
adjustment of this questiOn being effected. (Hear.) It
appears from what I heard to-night that there is as little
disposition as there ever was at any former time to con-

sent to what is called a compromise upon this subject.
Some hon, gentlemen approach the Church with everykind
of blandishment with a view of inducing it to consent to
to give up the church-rates. They say " Your church has the
prettiest voice in the world ; and if it exerted it for the
purpose ofpersuasion, every one would at once yield to its
influence " Theyfsay " If you would only drop that which
you have got in your beak, the body that is opposed
to you be happy to -take it." (Laughter.) There
are others who approach the church in another tone alto-
gether. They say it is an institution that is rotten to
the core ; it was opposed to the spirit of the age, and no-
thing but the blindness of the members of the Church pre-
Mtn them from geeing that that Church ii dooraod to de•

struction, and from consenting at once to any steps that
they think may avert such destruction. Now, I cannot
but consider that these prognostics are of a serious nature,
and I cannot confide in the assurances hon me,n hers give us
that if church rates were abolished all sorts of and of
dissension would cease; and that with regard to all other
prerogatives and privileges of the Church there w0u..,1 he
perfect acquiescence and contentment, and the Church
might look forward to a state of h tppy and prosperous
trap !utility. I confess I have no such ant ici ations. The
Church has various exclusive privileges. It has the privi-
lege of a high position. It is established in the country,
and is protected by Parliament. Its prelates have alone
the right of seats in one of the houses of Parliament, and on
every occasion we find that those who differ from that
Church complain of its exclusive privileges, and its high
position in the country. Now, lam not saying that
those feelings are unnatural, nor am I arguing that they
are unreasonable at this moment. But all I do venture
to argue, and all experience supports me, is, that you can-
not expect when you remove this one source of dissen-
sion to have that tranquillity and contentment which have
been prophesied by my hon. friend. On the contrary I be-
lieve that this is one of a series of attacks that will be fol-
lowed by other attacks of the same nature. (Hear.) If
your principle is concession and nothing but concession—
if on every occasion you purchase peace by adopting this
course—l must say that lam not prepared to say how far
you will be obliged to go in this direction. At the same
time lam very far from being ignorant of the difficulties
that beset this question of church rates. We cannot deny
that the state of the law is most unsatisfactory, and that
the remedies which prevail under that law give rise to scenes
scandalous in themselves, and occasion amongst
the various religious sects in this country. Well,
this is practically true. While no man can deny
that such is the state of the law, I do not myself see that
you are likely to obtain any settlement of this question
which shall be at all satisfactory unless you take it into
your consideration what are the presentrights of the Church,
and that you make your, Settlement upon a fair basis.
(Hear.) I have heard of -a'settlement on this basis and an
hon. gentleman opposite, who has introduced a bill upon
the subject, has adopted such basis—namely, that those
who dissent from the Church should be registered as Dis-
senters, and, being so ret.istered, that there should be a
certain portion of the church rates to which they should not
be obliged to contribute. Such was in a great part the mea-
sure of ley hon. and learned friend behind me (MtePhillitnore).
Well, I admit there is much to tempt one in this principle.
I own, however, I cannot but think that very serious evils
would follow hereafter from the distinctions that would be
thus set up between Churchmen and Dissenters. (Hear.)
One hon. gentleman has gone through some statistics in
regard to the Church. He has, however, I think, shown
not exactly that which he intended. It may no doubt be
true that the Church has no very great absolute majority
in the country, but it is quite evident that it has a very
considerable majority over every other religion. The hon.
member has no doubt shown that there are great bodies
frequenting dissenting places of worship ; but there are
many of those dissenting places of worship attended by a
most numerous and respectable sect called Wesleyans, who
profess no hostility to the Church, and who, while they
purchase their lands and build their churches out of their
own resources, declare that they have no desire to injure
the Established Church. They think that Divine service
upon the Sunday should be attended to by the members
of the Established Church ; but they also think
that they ought to have dissenting chapels built for
their own particular form of worship. (Hear, hear.) I
think it would be a very great calamity if you obliged those
parties to say whether or not they were Dissenters, and
thereby put them in a position of antagonism to the
Church, which they did not themselves wish to occupy.
Such being the case, I am disposed to think it would be
far better that we should not now attempt during the re-
mainder of this session to find a solution of this very diffi-
cult problem. Ido not think it would be wise—l do not
think it would be consistent with the position which the
Established Church holds in this country that you should
totally abolish church rates. (Hear, hear.) My hon. friend
says—" Let me abolish church rates, and you are at per-
fect liberty to find some 'pr ;vision afterwards for the re-
pair of churches." That is-a very convenient proposal for
my hon. friend's purpose; but I cannot forget that, what-
ever may be the present division of religious opinion in
this couutry, those churches are, after all, national struc-
tures. They were intended to serve the purposes of a
national church ; and the maintenance, at all events, of
those fabrics appears to be a national object. I think it
ought to be your first provision, and not your last, to en-
deavour to find some mode of maintaining those churches,
and having found that mode, it would be most agreeable to
every one to see that this particular species of support—
namely, church rates —which is the cause of vexation and
ill-will, being no longer necessary, was by common consent
to be abolished. But as the question stands at present I
certainly am not prepared to give my willing consent to
the total and entire abolition of those church rates with-
out any suustitute, ant without any compensation. (Hear.)
If a division should now take place upon the subject, I
must, in consistency with my opinions, give a vote against
the introduction of this measure. (Hear.) The house is
not very full, and it may be that my hon. friend may be
successful in'his motion for leave to introduce his bill; but
as his principle is clearly declared I should feel more at
liberty, if lie were to succeed upon this occasion, in
opposing the second reading of the measure, after having
declared my objections to it in the beginning, than if I
had silently allowed it to be introduced. It is not, after
all, of vital interest to the Church that this amount of
revenue should be collected in the way in which it is
now collected, or that it should be applied exactly in
the way in which it has hitherto been applied. Notwith-
standing all that has been said of the falling fortunes of
the Church, I have that belief in the attachment of the
majority of the people of this country to that Churcu,
that even if it pleased Parliament totally to abolish these
church rates, I think means would be found (cheers and
counter cheers) by the landowners, by the gentry, and by
men of all orders who belong to the Church, to supply the
revenue which would then be wanted. (Hear, hear.) It
is not, therefore, from a belief that the Church would by
the mere abstraction of so much revenue fall into decay,
that I am opposed to legislation of this kind ; but I do
think that if such a bill were to pass both Houses of Par-
liament, it would be a symptom that Parliament was
not disposed to give that support to the Established
Church which it has hitherto afforded it. I think that a
concession upon this point, without the smallest considera-
tion of other means of settling the question—of what was
the state of the law—of what was due to the Church—l
think that such a concession —that such an a tsolute sur-
render of the claims of the Church, would be a symptom
that in ally future attacks on the same establishment the
assailants would be likely to obtain the support of Parlia-
ment. (Hear, hear.) I cannot, therefore, assent to the
proposal that is now before us. Whether or not my oppo-
sition to this motion may be successful to-night, I feel
assured that a bill of this kind cannot pass through
Parliament in the present session. (Hear, hear.) I
think that the question, surrounded as it is with
difficulty, requires further consideration. I have no
dout)t that a measure 'night be framed —and such a mea-
sure has already been repeatedly under the consider diou of
governments in this country —which would meet thejustice
of the case, and which, if it were passed, would greatly
tend to diminish, at all events, the popular complaints
which are made against church rates. But that such a
measure would pass through Parliament I own I have very
great doubts. lam aft aid that no measure could be found
which would not meet with the opposition either of the
Church on the one side or of the Dissenters on the other.
I am afraid that it will be, not only difficult, but almost
impossible to frame a measure which, founded on prin-
ciples of justice and impartiality, would meet with general
approval and support. I know the pains that are taken
by those who agitate the country, whether they belong to
the Church or whether they belong to the dissenting bodies
—I know the pains that are taken to defeat measures
which seem measures of compromise and of equal justice to
both parties. I have found with regard to measures which
I thought most beneficial to the Church, that a hot oppo-
sition has been offered to them on the part of the Church,
and that those measures have been almost defeated by
that opposition ; and I am bound to confess, on the other
hand, that measures which I thought beneficial to the
Dissenters, but which in their opinion tended to give too
much to the Church, have been vehemently opposed on
their parts. In fact, we live in times when these differ-
ences—differences sometimes on points of Church govern-
ment which are not very considerable in themselves, and
differences at other times on questions of the greatest im-
portant e with regard to religious belief—l say wo live in
times when differences of one or other of these characters
divide this country and produce the most violent excite-
ment, and an exhibition of the greatest array of party
passion and antagonism. Such being the case, I am not
sanguine with regard to the success of any measure which
the Government might frame, and which they might hope
to introduce in another session of Parliament. But this I
will say, that I should think that if I were to give
my willing assent to a bill for totally abolishing church
rates, without any sort of compensation or any sort of mo-
dification, I should be setting the example of a concession
very dangerous to the Church Establishment, and when I
say the Church Establishment, I believe I may say to the
general interests of the country. (Cheers.)
The house then divided—

For the introduction of the bill
Against it
Majority
The announcement of the numbers was followed by con-
siderable cheering.
Leave was then given to bring in the bill, and it was
subsequently read a first time.
The Industrial and Provident Societies Bill passed
through committee.
The Church-building Acts Amendment Bill, as amended,
was considered and agreed to.
The report of the committee of ways and means was re-
ceived.

STAMP ACTS.
The report on this bill was brought up and received.
INCOME TAX (No. 2) BILL.
The Income Tax (No. 2) Bill, and Consolidated Fund
(8,000,0031.) Bill, were severally brought up and read a
first time ; the latter being ordered for second reading
to-morrow (this day).
The house adjourned at a few minutes after 10 o'clock.

[ADVERTISEMENT.] -- EPSOM RACES. SPORTS-
MEN.—Her Majesty's Royal Letters Patent, for valu-
able and extraordinary improvements in the most
powerful and brilliant Telescopes, Camp, Racecourse,
Opera, and Perspective Glasses, to know the dis-
tances of objects viewed through them—of great im-
portance to the army, navy, and others. Messrs. S. and
B. Solomons, opticians, 39, Albeinarle-street, Piccadilly.
Observe—opposite the York Hotel.- -These telescopes pos-
sess such extraordinary powers that some, 3i inches, w:th
an extra eye-piece, will show distinctly Jupiter's moons,
Saturn's ring, and the double stars ; with the same tele-
scope can be seen a person's countenance three miles
and a half distant, and an object from 12 to 14 miles.
They aro of larger and all sizes, with increasing powers
accordingly.-- The Royal Exhibition, 1851. - Valuable,
newly invented, very small, powerful waistcoat-pocket
glass the size of a walnut, by which a person can be seen
and known 7. mile distant ; they answer every purpose
on the race-course, at the opera-houses, country sce-
nery, and ships are clearly seer at 12 to 14 miles. They
are invaluable for shooting, deer-stalking, yachting, to
sportsmen, gentlemen, gamekeepers, and tourists. Opera,
race-course, camp, and perspective glasses, with wonderful ,
power; an object can be clearly seen from 10 to 12 miles j
distant. Newly-invented Spectacles ; immediately they
are placed before extremely imperfect vision, every
object becomes clear and distinct; the most aged, de-
fective eight is brought to its youthful, natural, and ori-
ginal state. Deafness—New Discovery—The Organic Vi-
brator, au extraordinary powerful, small, newly-invented
instrument, for Deafness, entirely different from all others,
to surpass anything of the kind that has been, or pro-
bably ever can be, produced. Being of the same
colour as the skin, is not perceptible ; it enables deaf
persons to hear distinctly at church and at public as-
semblies ; the unpleasant sensation of singing nooses in
the ears is entirely removed ; and it affords all the assist-
ance that possibly could be desired.-39, Albemarle-street,
Piccadilly, Observe, opposite the York Hotel.