The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-14 00:00:00

WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 14,

;rotting that the Honrurable and Learned Gentleman
Italnot brought his talents and abiliics to a better ac-
count than to present them with a reproduction of a
tau ti,,n v. hick had been repeatedly submitted to t:.e
[louse by the Ilououral,1•1 Member for Finsbury. when
he moved for have to bring in a Bill to effect that ob-
ject, and proposed, at the sime time, some system of
retristration and a declaration, by way of drawing the
line of demarcation between Churchmen and D•s-
senters. It appeared to him that such a measure
would be a premium upon d.syent, as it haa
been termed. Ha world not say that it would
be dote to avoid the payment of these rates ; but 1, t
them take the case of the north of England, in which
there were many Presbyterians mingled with Churchmen,
wi.h whom they lived in terms of intimacy and perfect
harmony, and who frequented each other's churches eit•
casemelly. If such a measure we re adopted, it would at
once draw a line of demarcation between those parties;
because if the one party found that by declaring them-
srlves Presbyterians, and not using the Church, they
should be exempt, they would throw the whole burden
upon the others, and the landlord would ultimately get
the benefit of the change. It would create invidious
distinctions, also, in the letting of land; as if the Church-
man got it it would be liable to church-rates, and if it
was let to a Presbyterian it would not be liable. He
regretted, therefore, that the Hon. and Learned Gentle•
man was not able to suggest some more feasible plan
than that which he had submitted to the House. Ho
could only reiterate the opinion he had expressed on a
former occasion, that it would be most desirable to apply
a remedy to these scandals, although of late years they
had been less frequent than formerly. If some means
could be pointed out by which funds could be provided
for maintaining the fabric of the Church, he should be
most happy to give his assistance in adopting it ; but
looking at the mode in which the proposition had been
brought forward, he was not very sanguine that it con-
tained anything like a remedy for the existing state of
things.—(Hear).
Colonel THOMPSON said he had been instructed to
support the motion of' the Hon. Member for Tavistock,
and he should shortly state the reasons upon which he
conceived those instructions to have been founded. The
instructions came from men of wealth and liberality un-
bounded—from men of great ability and intelligence—
and he thought them rather ominous. He was told by
those who instructed him that ever since the year 1836
they had in their own district practically abolished
church-rates, and they said that the liberty which they
had achieved for themselves they wished to extend to
others. Then it appeared that liberty from church-rates
might be achieved. But why were church-rates so
loudly complained of? Simply because they were
deemed an injustice to the Dissenters. In reply to that
it was alleged that the Dissenters had purchased their
properties subject to church-rates. But he would ask,
had all the Dissenters purchased all the estates which
they possessed? Surely some Dissenters inherited their
properties, their fathers saying to them, " This church-
rate was a robbery of me—it was a robbery of your
grandfather before me—it was a robbery as far as human
memory extended. I hand down this land with a protest
against church-rates, and I enjoin you to resist them to the
utmost of your power." Under such circumstances it
would not be denied that church-rates were a hardship
upon Dissenters. In reply to that, however, it had been
said, and often repeated, that church-rates were legal ;
doubtless, they were legal, but that was not the question.
All the heretics burnt in Smithfield were legally burnt.
The question was not whether church-rates were legal,
but whether they were just and expedient. In his opinion,
laws which excited so much discontent could not stand,
would not stand, and perhaps ought not to stand.
Mr. FIUME certainly had objected to placing the
burden of maintaining the fabric of the:Church upon the
Consolidated Fund, although he thought favourably, upon
the whole, of the plan submitted to that House by Mr,
Rice. Regarding church-rates as a source of religious
strife, he wished to get rid of them. It appeared to him
that the plan of the Hon. and Learned Member for Ox-
ford would give security and satisfaction by giving relief
to the Dissenters. Those who attended the public wor-
ship of of the Church of England ought to maintain the
fabric of the Church.
Lord 1). STUART said it appeared that every Hoe.
Member who had spoken had admitted the necessity of
making some alteration in the present state of the law
regarding church-rates. He confessed that ho concurred
in a great degree in the views expressed by the Hon.
and Learned Member for Oxford, because he was ex-
tremely anxious that Dissenters should be relieved from
the burden and grievance of paying church-rates. He
thought, however, that they would be hardly justified in
abolishing the provisions for maintaining the fabric of
the Church, without providing a substitute. Although
there was a very general feeling abroad that the law
should be altered in this respect, he believed
that there were very few who would wish to overthrow
the Church altogether. His Honourable and
Learned Friend, the Member for Cockermouth, threw out
a suggestion which he thought was good, when he pro-
posed that they should add some words to the resolution
before the House, pledging them to find a substitute for
the church-rates, which they declared ought to be
abolished. He, however, confessed he did not muoh like
to agree to an amendment that was thus brought forward
without any previous notice. He had some ides of
moving an amendment himself—(Laughter)—but he felt
that it would not be fair for him to do so without giving
the House notice of his intention.—(Hear, hear.) He
suggested to the Hon. and Learned Member for Oxford
the propriety of withdrawing his amendment, when he
would have no difficulty in supporting the original mo-
tion. If he should vote for this motion, it would be only
for the purpose of opposing the principle therein in-
volved, and with the implied understanding that a sub-
stitute for these church-rates would be devised, so as not
to leave the Church without any provision for its proper
maintenance and support.
Mr. C. W. MARTIN said that in the borough which
he represented there bad been a struggle of many years'
duration on the subject of church-rates; the Conserva-
tives considering it their duty to abstain from anything
that might be supposed to savour of a surrender of the
principle of church-rates. The principal church in the
town at length fell into so dilapidated a condition that
one of the churchwardens undertook the repair of the
building out of his own pocket; his example was fol-
lowed by another churchwarden. It was then felt by the
Churchmen of the town that they must either surrender
the principle for which they contended so long, or allow
the building to fall about their ears, for hardly any re-
pairs would suffice. Then a voluntary subscription was
entered into for the purpose of building a new church;
and the moment a proposition of that kind was an-
nounced, the list of subscribers was filled with conside-
rable alacrity, and they found no difficulty in raising
5,0001. or 6,0001. If the Established Church was to be
considered one of the institutions of the country, then

they ought to look about them carefully before they
took any such step as that then proposed to them; for
if the principle of voluntary subscription were once
adopted in a few places, as it bad been in Newport, the
example would rapidly spread.
Sir W. CLAY observed, that the question was not as
to the state of the law, but as to the justice of the case.
Church-rates were just enough when all the people of
England were of one faith, but there was a manifest in-
justice in taxing all for the benefit of some. The Irish
got rid of church cess in 1833, and he saw no reason
why the English should not get rid of church-rates. Fgt.
his part, as a member of the Church, ho was ashamed of
being a party to applying for the assistance of the poor
on behalf of a most richly-endowed Church, which com-
prehended the wealthiest classes in this country, as well
as many of the independent portion of the middle orders.
Ho felt it a high imputation upon the Church to which
he belonged that the public were called upon to pay for
washing the clergyman's surplice, and for coals for
warmieg the church. He was ready to exclaim—
" Pudet htec opprobria nobis
Et dici potuisse, et non potuisse refelli."
He thought it disgraceful that the members of such 'a
chtarch could not find the means of maintaing its fabric.
He would support the motion of the Hon. Member for

Tavistock; for he felt it-hisduty to protest most
strongly against the continuance of a tax which, whit•
it was of no importance to the Church, tended to keep,
up a feeling of irritation and hostility towards that es-

tablishment.
Mr. GOULBURN would remind Hon. Members op
posite, when they talked of the Church being so ricb,
of the multitudes that had grown up in this country who
have been rescued from ignorance and criese by its in-
strumentality—he would ask them to show him whether
the wealth of that Church was more than adequate to
supply the wants of the people for such instruction?
They were all labouring to enable it to impart the most
general and efficient instruction, and yet some Honour-
able Members wished to deprive it of those means which
were so necessary to effect that object. The land had
been subject to this impost from the earliest times, was
stid subject to it, and could not be released from it with-
out the intervention of Parliament. If the land then was
so subject, why was it now sought to relieve it from this
impost more than from any of the other legal burdens
which were upon it? Having said so much, let it not
be thought that he was opposed to a consideration
whether means might not be supplied by which church-
rates might be placed upon a footing more accept-
able to all classes. He had no desire to press upon
any particular class of persons, or to exact
taxes of any kind that were unacceptable to such per-
sons. It was, however, in his opinion impossible to listen
to the debate that had taken place without coming to
the conclusion that it would be most unwise in the House
to give its sanction to the resolution that had been pro-
posed. They were called upon to affirm distinctly the
principle that church-rates should
i be abolished. Some
Hon. Members had declared that in voting for the abo-
lition of church-rates they intended that some substitute
would be found for them. But if they put such a reso-
lution on the journals of the House that church-rates
should be abolished, that was the letter of the bond, and
who n they came to consider the question of a substitute,
they would be told that their time Was gone by, fur
they had already agreed to abolish church-rates alto-
gether. But if they did come to deal with the question
of a substitute, what would be their difficulties? The
lion. and Learned Member for Oxford proposed to ex-
empt the property of Dissenters altogether from the
burden to which the members of the Established
Church were subject. Was not this opinion open to all
the objections urged by the Hon. Gentleman opposite,
and to which no person as yet had attempted to give an
answer? Was it not impossible to accede to such a pro-
position, when it was merely put before them in the shape
of a resolution. Several ether suggestions were made in
the course of this discussion. Some lion. Members
were disposed to sacrifice the property of the Church,
and to augment the interest of leaseholders at the ex-
pense of those by whcm those leases were granted. Now
these were remedies upon the merits of which it was
impossible to express an opinion, upon a mere resolution,
without having all the details of the respective measures
suggested before them, lie was opposed to the con-
sideration of such an important question, unless it came
before tho House in the shape of a Bill. They could then
sec whether they could abolish the church-rates without
providing a substitute. He, therefore, called upon the

House to require a completa inesiure, with all its details
to be made known to it, before it wsuld pronounce On
opin;on upon this subject.—(llear, hear.)
31r. 13HIGHT rejolied that this important question
bs'ore the House had been so calmly and tcmprrately
discussed. It was admitted on all sides that it was one
which should be settled; and several projeeLs had been
thrown before the House with the view of leading to an
adjustment of it. With regard to the project of the lion.
and Learned Member' for Oxford, he must say, from his
knowledge of the condition of the parishes of the north of
England, that he doubted extremely whether that plan
could be worked in such a manner as even to mitigate
the evils which existed with regard to the question of
church-rates. It would be a most difficult and invidious
proceeding to attempt to separate the populations of
large parishes, and say who were the Churchmen and
who were the Dissenters. But no matter what plan was
adopted, he submitted that until this question was ulti-
mately settled, the Dissenters ought to have an equal
interest in the funds which the State had intrusted to
what was called the National Church.—(Hear, hear.)
After all the consideration ho had been able to give to
the subject, he had come to the conclusion either that
the fabrics of the Church must be maintained by funds
derivable from the improvement of Church property—
and he believed that it could be increased four or five-
fold in value—or that the subject must remain as it is,
and be the means of costinuing embitterment of feeling
amongst Churchmen and Dissenters, until the Church
people were forced to maintain their churches by volun-
tary contributions.—(Hear, hear.) In Manchester,
some years ago, the most unseemly contests had been
carried on in reference to the levying of church-rates ;
and the consequence was that the collectors of the poor-
rates had a column in their books headed " Church-
rate optional," and no man could say-that the collegiate
church of Manchester was at present in a worse
condition than when there was a compulsory church-rate.
In the parish in which he lived, Rochdale, it was found
that a few years ago the churchwardens contrived to
spend 700/. or 8001. a year of the parish money and it
was more than hinted that a great portion of it was
spent in " jovial living."—(Laughter.) The parishioners,
however, thought it their duty to look after the matter,
and,the result was, they had reduced the annual expen-
diture to 1501. per annum, thus showing that there ex-
isted great abuses in the management of parish affairs
by the officers of the National Church. In his opinion,
nothing could be more prejudicial to the Church than
those contests which frequently took place in parishes
on the subject of church-rates.—(Hear, hear.) The
last scene of the kind at Rochdale was in 1840, on which
occasion there were about 12,000 votes polled. The
confusion and tumult was greater than at any Parlia-
mentary election he ever was present at; and so violent
and excited did the people become, that the vicar and
the magistrates felt it their duty to call out the military
to preserve the peace. The poll was kept open longer
than it ought to have been, and the vicar marched through
the town at the head of about 8,000 or 10,000 people
whom he called his flock, who hissed and hooted in a
manner which must have been agonising to the feelings
of any respectable members of the Church who heard
and saw them.—(Hear, hear.) Nothing could be
more unfortunate than that such things should happen.
The House was aware that several persons had such
strong objections to paying church-rates that they sub •
mitted to be incarcerated for long periods rather than
pay them; and he knew that the furniture of a dissenting
place of worship in the metropolis was every year seized
for church-rates, and the congregation were obliged to
replace it at considerable cost, yet they would not con-
sent to pay the rates from conscientious scruples. Now,
these things occurring so frequently, could not fail to be
injurious to the Church; bat whether they were inju-
rious to the Church or not, he asked the House whether
they were not injurious to religion?—(Hear, hear.) Men
did not like to be forced by the law to do that which was
against their conscience.—(Hear, hear.) He should give
his vote in favour of the resolution proposed by the Hon.
Member for Tavistock (Mr. Trelawny), because he
thought it desirable that the House should express a
clear opinion upon the question; and he also thought it
would become the Government to bring forward some
measures to settle the whole matter, by appropriating
the increased funds belonging to the Church to the
maintenance of the fabrics, which he should be sorry to
see going into decay.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir R. PEEL said the Hon. Gentleman who had just
sat down stated with great truth that this discussion had
hitherto proceeded without any asperity, and with great
moderation, and there appeared to be an evident desire
on the part of the House to consider this important
matter with calmness and deliberation.—(Hear, hear.)
They had two propositions be!ore them. In the first
place they were asked to affirm a resolution which, in
point of fact, was condemnatory of the existing law with
respect to church-rates. Now it was easy to give ex-
pression to an opinioa upon any subject by a resolution;
but it was not so easy to deal with matters of a compli-
cated nature by a similar process. The introduction of
a Bill upon any subject afforded an opportunity to
Hon. Members of examining into and considering its
details, and of forming a judgment upon the nature
and probable effect of the measure. And by giving
their assent to the first reading or the second
reading of a Bill, they did not commit themselves
to the adoption of it; but when a resolution
was once passed it involved a pledge on the part of
the House of Commons—a pledge which they could not
readily rescind—to abide by the principle of that reso-
lution. The question before the House was a most im-
portant one, and had only been discussed for one or two
hours, and he thought that without more mature delibe•
ration they ought not to agree to a resolution pledging
themselves to an opinion which they could not retract
without affecting their character for consistency, and
which opinion they might ultimately find themselves
unable to act upon.—(Hear.) Now, what would be the
position of the House of Commons, supposing they
passed this resolution? They would immediately pro-
ceed to consider the question by a Bill, and in case the
substitute proposed in lieu of church-rates was not
deemed satisfactory, and they failed in passing the Bill,
there would remain their resolution in favour of the ab-
solute abolition of church-rates, and they would, accord-
ing to his assumption, have failed in carrying out a prin-
ciple which, in point of fact, they had pledged them-
selves to adopt.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman
the Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) admitted that
the fabrics ought to be maintained, but why did he not
tell them from what source?
Mr. BRIGHT—I did tell them.

Sir R. PEEL—Yes, the Hon. Gentleman suggested
that they ought to be maintained out of a fund to be
created by improving the .property of the Church; and
there had been various other suggestions of a similar
kind made, all of which amounted to admissions that
church-rates ought not to be abolished without finding a
substitute for them.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that
the objection taken by the Right lion. Baronet the Se-
cretary for the Home Department to the proposal of the
Hon. and Learned Member for Oxford, had great force
in it, and was conclusive against the adoption of that
proposed; for he (Sir R. Peel) could not conceive any-
thing more objectionable than to call upon the parishes
throughout the country to register the members of the
various religious denominations resident in them—
(Hear, hear)—to call upon the parishes to separate
the churchmen from the other religious bodies in their
localities, in order That the latter might escape the pay-
ment of a small tax. The very strong reasons which the
Right Hon. Gentleman had urged against both the resolu-
tion and the amendment would, he had no doubt, prevent
the adoption of either by the House. A substitute for
church-rates had been proposed some years ago by Lord
Althorp. That Noble Lord brought forward a proposi-
tion for charging the maintenance of the fabrics of the
Church upon the Consolidated Fund. Now, so far as
religious scruples were concerned, he thought that tak-
ing the money for keeping the churches in repair from
the Consolidated Fund would give to the objections of
those who complain of having to pay chureh-rates much
greater force. At present those rates were mainly paid
by those who concurred in the doctrines of the Church
—the burden was chiefly borne bj the owners and occu-
piers of the land, the majority of whom belonged to the
Church of England. And if the charge was made upon
the Consolidated Fund, it would be a common burden
on the Dissenters and the members of the National
Church. If he were called upon as a Minister to abolish
church-rates, and he thought that he ought to respond
to the call, he would have no alternative but to transfer
the charge to the Consolidated Fund, but such a pro-
ceeding could by no means satisfy those who objected to
pay the rates upon the ground of religious scruples, be-
cause a contribution on their part of a single shilling to-
wards the fund from which the charges was paid, would
be as great a violation of those scruples as a contribution
of 201. Then came another proposal—namely, that the
maintenance of the Church fabrics should be left to vo-
luntary subscriptions. Now he could conceive nothing
would be more unjust than making it a discretionary
matter—leaving it to those who were actuated by a sense
of duty, and trusting to their religious feelings without any
obligation. The Hon. Member who spoke last said that
in Manchester the payment of church-ra..cs was optional,
and that the churches there were in as good repair as
when the rates were compulsory.
Mr. BRIGHT—I said that the Manchester collegiate
church was as well maintained as when church-rates
were compulsory.
Sir R. PEEL thought the Hon. Member had included
all the churches in Manchester in his statement.
Mr. BRIGHT—No; I only spoke of one.
Sir R. PEEL would not detain the House by attempt-
ing to solve the many difficulties which surrounded the
question, but at once give it as his opinion that if the
House of Commons, as a branch of the Legislature,
thought that the question of church-rates should be con-
sidered with a view to an alteration of the system, let it do
its duty, and bring in a Bill on the subject, and not
commit itself by passing a resolution after, a few hours'
discussion, the principle involved in which it might not
ultivately be able to cat ry out.—(Hear, hear.) So far
as they were Members of Parliament, he hoped that
they would not hastily come to a resolution, the effect of
which would be to exempt the land, and other property
they possessed, from church-rates. What would be said
of them if they relieved themselves from the burden ?
If they did so on the ground of religious scruples, what
guarantee had they that a similar claim might not be
made next year for exempting dissenters from tithes?—
The statute law with regard to tithes, and church-rates
, was nearly similar. The Hon. and Learned Member for
Oxford said that by the common law the maintenancei
of the fabrics of the Church was a burden on the and.
He (Sir R. Peel) admitted that there might be some
distinction between tithes and church-rates, but he
eti s g►ht tot wouldhich btehealabnadd ewxaasmlipalhele,wnitnliderrestpheecetnnttointhene
law to exonerate that land from these burdens, not by an
btielordu
Act of Parliament, but by a resolution passed by a
In what state would they leave t e law after they passed
majority of those who were landowners.—(Hear,h hear.)
this resolution ? They would have virtually condemned
it, and not have provided any other in its place. And
before they had an opportunity of considering a Bill
founded on the resolution, an increased unwillingness to
pay church-rates would doubtless be manifested through-
out the country by those parties who already had an

1849.

objeCTlTin to the tax. -Therii-6uld
it by adopting the resolution.—(lloar, hear) Wa:; it
wiie on tlte part of the 1I use of C.AUMOnStoe""
deny the law w thout iiubstituting any other law iu
its stead ? Yet they would cond,ran it if tht:y
agreed to th, resolution of the Hen. Member for

Tavistocla—(Hear.) With reference to the character
of the House of Commons, he thought it would be im •
politic for them to condemn a law by a resolution—
(Fleur, hear)—and upon ail the grounds ho had stated
he must deprecate sincerely the sudden adoption of the
proposal of the Hon. Gentlemen opposite. (Hear,
hear.) Upon one occasion the Irish House of Commons
passed a resolution which turned out to be a very in
convenient proceeding, condemnatory of the law under
which tithes of agistment were levied. It was considered
that any man who subsequently paid those tithes was
an enemy to his country; and a Bill, founded upon the
resolution, was afterwards introduced, but it was de-
feated, and that branch of the Legislature was conse-
quently placed in considerable difficulty with respect to
its character fora consistent course of action. A similar
difficulty might present itself in the present case.—
It was said that the fabrics of the Church ought to be
maintained out of the increased revenues derivable from
Church property, instead of by church-rates. Now, in
his opinion there were such demands upon the Church
funds on account of an increase of population, and the
consequent demand for addition spiritual instruction,
that no matter how much they could add to the Church
revenues, the claims for spiritual instruction were such as
to require the absorption of the whole of them.—(hear,
hear.) He was not one of those who was opposed to the
redistribution of the revenues of the Church. He had,
he thought, given a proof of his disposition in that re-
spect, by having made a division of sinecures and cathe-
dral revenues to assist in relieving the increased spiritual
wants of the people.—(Hear, hear.) And his opinion
was, that no matter what increase they could make in
the value of the Church property, by effecting im-
provements, there would still remain demands upon
it for addition spiritual instruction.—(Hear, hear.) He
hoped never to see the day when the gentlemen of
England would consent to relieve themselves from bur-
dens to which their estates were properly subjected.—
(Hear, hear.) He would not now enter into any details
upon that point, but he intreated the House to reserve
this important matter for more mature consideration
than they could give to it after such a short debate, and,
for the sake of its own character, not to take steps to-
night which it might be compelled to retrace from an
inability to proceed.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. OSBORNE confessed that it was with surprise he
had heard the Right Honourable Baronet the Member
for Tamworth calling upon the House not to come to
a hasty decision upon that question. It would almost
have made one unacquainted with what had been
done upon the subject fancy that the question of
church-rates had been brought under discussion for the
first time. Why, in 1835, the Right Hon. Baronet himself
said, " The question of church-rates is one that does not
yield in urgency to any one that can came under the
consideration of this House. So far as any question can
be important to the maintenance of social harmony, to
the promotion of satisfaction amongst the great body of
the Dissenters, there is not a single question, except that
of the Irish Church, which so presses for a practical and
immediate settlement."—(Cheers.) If the Right Hen.
Baronet was afraid the House was about to come to too
hasty a decision upon the question, why did he not bring
in a Bill to settle the question;and so save their consis-
tency? He quoted those words of the Right Hon-
Baronet, and called upon the House to come to some im
mediate decision upon the subject. The Right Hon.
Baronet objected to the simple form of the motion, and
said the House would be bound by it if it were agreed
to. Now, that might be very good Parliamentary tactic,
but it is not true. Oily last session the House had voted
that at all elections votes should be taken by the
ballot—(Cheers)—yet vote by ballot was not esta-
blished.—(llear, hear.) Therefore Hon. Gentlemen
need not be deterred from voting for the resolution on
thatground. He did not think the House was bound to find
a substitute fur church-rates. As a churchman he felt
very sure that nothing could be so much against the
welfare of the Church as to continue the present system
of keeping up the fabrics of the Church. The simple
reason why the question did not press at present was,
that clergymen did not now press the law into force. In
Blackburn the Rev. Dr. Whittaker did not press the law,
and consequently there was peace in his parish, and the
same wise course was followed by many of his brethren.
When he saw members of the Church giving their thou-
sands and tens of thousands for the purposes of the
Church, it was useless to tell him that the fabric of the
Church would be allowed to go to destruction; and when
he saw that the Church Commission could find 143,000/.
to spend in the erection of eight bishops' palaces, he felt
ashamed that his Dissenting brethren should be called
upon to contribute their mite towards the repair of the
fabrics of the Church. When he heard the arguments
which had been used against the motion, he almost
fancied that the Church could not be founded upon a
rock, but upon sand. He would first vote for the motion,
and if that were lost, he would then give his vote in
favour of the amendment of the Hon. Member for Oxford,
on the principle of his willingness, if he could not get
what he wanted, of taking what he could get.
Mr. GLAI)STONE said the Honourable Member for
Middlesex had very frankly avowed that he would give
his vote for the resolution, without the intention of pro-
viding a substitute for church-rates—that he would
leave the fabric of the Church to shift for itself.—(No,
no.) The Hon. Gentleman had said so in so many
words. He said, to leave the fabric of the Church to
the voluntary contributions of the people would be per-
fectly satisfactory. In that the Hon. Member was per-
fectly consistent ; but ho was the first who had given
expression to the opinion that it was the duty of the
House of Commons to abolish the church-rate, but that
it was no part of the duty of the House to find a substi-
tute. They could have no reason for complaint against
all who agreed with the Honourable Gentleman voting
for the resolution, but they would have grave reason to
complain of all who voted:for it who were of opinion
that some substitute for church-rates ought to be
found. What had fallen from the Right Honourable
Baronet the Member for Tamworth was not to be
gainsaid, and there was no inconsistency whatever
between the quoted speech and the sentiments he had
liven utterance to that night. The Hon. Gentleman
had confounded the two courses, proceeding with expe-
dition and proceeding by abstract resolutions. The
affirmation of abstract resolutions did not advance a
question a single step—indeed, it was always the slowest
method of proceeding with any question—and therefore
he hoped the House would have too much respect for
itself and the country to take such a rash step upon a
question of so much importance. He felt as strongly as
any one the desire that the question should be settled
as speedily as possible. The evils attending it were
enormous. They had deviated in practice from the ori-
ginal principle and intention of the law. That intention
was not to impose upon any one an uncompensated
burden while every person in the community was
to be compelled to pay his quota for the main-
tenance of the fabric of the Church, every one
was to be entitled to go to the churchwarden and
demand space in the church for the purpose of
worshipping his Maker. But when they saw the way
in which the floors of the churches, especially in large
towns, were monopolised by pews for the wealthy ;
when the poor working man was, as it were, in jealousy
excluded ; when it appeared that he was called upon to
go to church only to be branded with his inferiority, it
was clear the law was in a very unsatisfactory state,
and that it was their duty to give their consideration to
any plan that would extricate them from the difficulty.
While he would vote against both the motion and the
amendment, yet if the Hon. Member for Oxford would
embody his plan in a Bill, he should not think himself
entitled to vote against its introduction. It would only
be fair to give him the opportunity of laying his plan
on the table of the House, because, although it was liable
to many objections, still those objections were not so
insurmountable as to preclude all hope of arriving at a
satisfactory settlement. For the dignity of Parliament
he trusted they would do nothing whatever upon that
occasion. Their giving their consent to an abstract re-
solution would only remain as a monument of their
hasty conduct.

Lard J. RUSSELL—The Hon. Member for Middle-
sex gave the House rather an unsatisfactory reason for
proceeding by resolution, in stating that last year we
came to a resolution in favour of the ballot; for the con
sequence of that is, that there is on the journals of the
House a resolution in favour of the ballot, but no one step
has yet been taken in that direction, and the probability
is, that were a Bill brought in on the subject, in some
stage or other there would be a majority against it.—
(Hear, hear.) Thus there would be a resolution in fa-
vour of the ballot, and a decision of the House against it.
—(Hear, hear.) I cannot, therefore, think it desirable
to ague to the present resolution unless the House has
made up its mind that there should be a total abolition of
the church-rates, without any provision for the building
and repair of churches. I certainly should think that if
the House were ready to pass a Bill immediately
abolishing church-rates, it would not be a matter of very
great consequence whether the House proceeded by re-
solution in the first instance, or by motion to introduce a
Bill. But I cannot believe that the House has made y
its mind to that course.—(Cries:of " Hear, hear.")
I quite concur in the observations made as to the evils
of the church-rates as at present existing. I have more
r
than once assisted in plans intended to produceeahl!ra
mode of providing for the objects for which church-rates
plan
are required, and I should be very
were before the House by which With re-
against the church-rates might be gotthgeladoidbl"°eoritions stated
Don. Member for
spect to what has fallen from
Manchester, I think he was,. to a thegreat degree,
justified
in his description of the disturbances and contested
elec-
tions in connexion with church rates, ides, and the hooting
he said took place, and
and hissing at clergy
to the law as now existing, but
were a disgrace not ownley°
reflected blemish
all professing Christianity. I
think the plan
proposedonplacing by Lord Althorp, of
the provision of maintaining the fabric of the
Church on the Consolidated Fund, would have proved
a remedy for these public disputes and contests; but
although that remedy would have been sufficient for
the prevention of such squabbles, it soon became obvious
that the Dissenters felt as strong an objection to rates
imposed in that form as in any other, and we should have
had continual dissension in this House and the country
as to whether that tax should be imposed or continued.
—(Hear, hear.) It certainly was not worth while to get
rid of one cause of dissension and to substitute another.
Well, we proposed to defray the maintenance of the
fabric of the Church out of the funds of the Church, and
an inquiry took place; but from subsequent investigation
and experience I do believe that any funds that may be
made available for the purposes of the Church will be
required for that subdivision of parishes to which the at-
tention of the House has been directed, and for the ex-
tension of spiritual instruction.—(Hear, hear.) I quite
agree with the Right Hon. Gentleman who spoke last,
that it is very much to be lamented that in many of our
churches in this metropolis and in the great towns, the
whole space is occupied with pews—(hear, hear)—by
persons who are able to pay considerable sums for their