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

House to require a complete measure, with all its details
to be made known to it, before it would pronounce an
opinion upon this subject.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT rejoiced that this important question
before the House had been so calmly and temp, rately
discussed. It was admitted on all sides that it was ono
which should be settled; and several projects had been
thrown before the House with the view of leading to an
adjustment of it. With regard to the project of the Hon.
awl 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 lied intrusted to
what was called the National Church.—(hear, hear.)
After all the consideration he 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 SOUL 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 150/. 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 pr•judicial 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; but 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 before 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 opinion 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 proposqd 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.—(flear, hear.) The lion. Gentleman
the Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) admitted that
the fabrics ought to be maintained, but vv hy 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 or them.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that
the objection taken by the Right Hon. 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 then 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 bad 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 Filed would give to the objections of
those who complain of having to pay church-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 bi 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
mattar—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:es 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
ultimately be able to carry 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 maintenance
of the fabrics of the Church was a burden on the land.
He (Sir R. Peel) admitted that there might be some
distinction between tithes and church•rates, but he
thought it would be a bad example with respect to the
burdens to which the land was liable, under the common
law to exonerate that land from these burdens, not by an
Act of Parliament, but by a resolution passed by a
majority of those who were landowners.—(Hear, hear.)
In what state would they leave the law after they passed
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-,
puc the country, by those parties who already had au

objection to the tax. They would invite opposition to
it by adopting the resolution.—(Hear,
ear, hear.) Was it
wise on the part of the House of Commons to con
demn the law without substituting any other law in
its stead ? Yet they would condemn it if they
agreed to the resolution of the Hon. Member for
Tavietock.—(Hear.) With reference to the character
of the House of Commons, he thought it would beim-
politic for them to condemn a law by a resolution—
(Hear, hear)—and upon all the grounds he 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
au enemy to his country; and a Bill, founded upon the
resolution, was afterwards introduced, but it was de-
feated, and that breach of the Legislature was conse-
quently placed in considerable difficulty with respect to
its character for a consistent course of action. A similar
difficult), 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 bad,
he thought, given a proof of his disposition in that re-
spect, by haring 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 i
would still remain demands upon
it for addition spiritual nstructior.—(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 couldgtre 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. Se.farets try question can
be important to the maintenance of social harmony, to
blofut the
to come to too Right Hon.
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
Bimamroendeitawteass afraidettlementht.'—C House e
was about
a
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-
e (
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 ifit were agreed
to. Now, that might be very good Parliamentary tactic,
but it is not true. Only 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.—( Hear, hear.) Therefore Hon. Gentlemen
need not be deterred from voting for the resolution on
that ground. He did not think the House was bound to find
a substitute for 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 mg • ht 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 be wanted, of taking what he could get.
Mr. GLADSTONE 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 he was the first who had given
expression to the opinion that it was the duty of the
House of Commons to abolish the ehurch.rate, but that
it was no part of the duty of the /louse 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
given 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.
Lord J. RUSSELL—The Eon. Nfember 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 en 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 agree 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 it
immediately
abolishing House were ready to pass a Bill
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 up
its mind to that course.—(Cries,of " Hear, bear.")
I quite concur in the observations . made as to the evils
of the church-rates as at present existing. I have more
than once assisted in plans intended to produce a better
mode of providing for the objects for which church-rates
are required, and I should be very glad
now if any plan
were before the House by which the objections stated
against the church-rates might be got rid of. With re-
spect to what has fallen from the Hon. Member for
Manchester, I think he was, to a great degree, justified
in his description of the disturbances and contested elec-
tions in connexion with church-rates, and the hooting
and hissing at clergymen which he said took place, and
were a disgrace not only to the law as now existing, but
reflected blemish on all professing Christianity. I
think the plan Lord
proposed by L Althorp, of placing
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 its 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
porous who two Ole to pay considerable sums for their

seats in the church, and who appear there respectably
dressed ; making it difficult for others to obtain places,
and thereby there is almost a practical exclusion of the
poorer classes.—(Hear, hear.) That, I agree with him.
is a great misfortune ; but the remedy for that evil
would not be by abolishing church-rates, but by apply-
ing the funds the Church may be found to posteas in
order to afford more room and better means by which
those classes may be able to attend Divine worship.—
(Hear, hear.) Now, agreeing that it is desirable, if a
mode could be pointed out, to make other provision with
respect to the repair of churches, I must say that I do
not concur with the Honourable Member for the Tower
Hamlets (Sir W. Clay) and others who have spoken,
who said they really felt ashamed, as members of the
Church, that these sums should be collected in the shape
of church-rates, from persons who dissent from the
Church. In the first place Ido not feel that there is
any shame on that account, because it is obvious that
whether with regard to the person who has bought land
he has bought it subject to this charge—(hear)—or
whether with regard to the occupier holding under that
person, he has probably, before agreeing to pay his rent,
calculated how much will be the charge for the poor-rate,
what he will have to pay for highway-rate, and what for
church-rate, as part of the outgoings, by which his rent
would be diminished—(Hear, hear)—and therefore I
cannot think that there is any injustice in the demand
made upon him for the church-rate.—(Hear, hear.) But
neither can I agree that the Established Church is a
benefit solely to those who belong to it.—(Hear, hear.)
I have always considered, omitting the point of the par-
ticular form in which church rates are levied, which is
~pen to great objection, that the general ground upon
which church-rates can be justified is,:that an Established
Church, and the Established Church of this country in
particular, is not a benefit solely to those who belong to
it, but is a great tribute and a great homage on the part
of the Legislature—(Much cheering, in which; the: next
few words of the Noble Lord were inaudible)—and that
the country would not be benefited, would not be improved,
but would be degraded by its abolition.—(Cheers.) If
that were not so, I know no argument for the abolition of
church-rates that would not be equally good for the abo-
lition of tithes. If it is not true that the maintenance of
the Church is for the benefit of the whole community, I
know not how any of these compulsory charges can be 111
justified.—(Hear, bear.) Then, I say, it is very dan-
gerous to assent to a proposal of this kind, because' while
some argue that church-rates are a great practical evil,
and that in order to prevent dissensions and unseemly
quarrels, you had better put an end to these rates, others
contend that in point of principle they are not to be
justified, and that you should proceed at once to abolish
them for the sake of relieving all who dissent from the
Church from a compulsory payment. I say that this last
argument has in it much more than appears at first sight.
—(Hear, hear.) And therefore I should be sorry on
every account to agree to a resolution of the kind pro-
prosed by the Hon. Member (Mr. Trelawny). If any
Member shall ask leave to bring in a Bill proposing any
substitute for church-rate, I certainly should not oppose
the introduction of it. I could not vote for such a mea-
sure as the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Wood) pro-
poses; I opposed it when brought ferward by the Hon.
Member for Finsbury. I think the reasons stated by
the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) are conclusive
against it.—(Hear, hear.) I must oppose this resolution
as dangerous upon principle, and leading to consequence
which I think to be deplored.—(Hear.)
Mr. G. THOMPSON complained of the most dis-
couraging and significant speech of the Noble Lord; one
more calculated to chill the hearts of those who were
seeking to be relieved from these unjust impositions
could not have fallen from the Treasury bench.—(Hear,
hear.) The resolution proposed by the Hon. Member
(Mr. Trelawny) only pledged the House to adopt " effec-
tual measures" for the abolition of a grievance; and,
when that resolution was passed, any Member migt sug-
gest an equitable substitute for this rate. That being
so, surely more encouragement might have been ex-
pected from that Treasury bench; for there voted for
leave to bring in a Bill to abolish church-rates and to
make other provision for the maintenance of the sacred
edifices of the country—(Hear)--the present Chancel•
for of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary,
and President of the Board of Control, besides the Under-
Secretary fbr the Colonies, the Secretary to the Admi-
ralty, the Secretary for Ireland, and several others, now
members of the Government.—(Hear, hear.) If there
were not now Dissenters incarcerated for church-rates,
nor those disgraceful scenes to which reference had been
made, it was because there was a disposition to provide
the church funds by means more in accordance with the
feeling of the people; there was no diminution in the
hostility that ten or twelve years ago was manifested to
this impost. On the contrary, every hour that the mea-
sure now proposed was delayed there was a strengthen-
ing of hostility to the Establishment; and it would one
day compel Parliament to sweep away church-rates and
other ecclesiastical imposts. No substitute would be ac-
cepted by the Dissenters unless it freed them entirely
from the liability to keep the churches in repair.
Mr. HENLEY believed that the cause of the altered
state of matters in the country in relation to church-rates
was, that the law had been settled by the proper tribunals
and when the law was settled and known, the people of
England were inclined to obey it. He begged to thank
the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) for his manly decla-
ration.—(Cheers.) It was difficult to avoid contrasting it
with the statement of the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr•
Gladstone.) Both agreeing that a large proportion of
the floors of our churches were occupied so as to exclude
a great portion of the people from them; the Noble Lord
said the remedy was to increase the church accommo-
dation; while, as far as one could collect the sentiments
of the Right Hon. Gentleman, he was ready to support
the motion of the lion. Member for Oxford (Mr. Wood),
and by way of opening the churches relieve Disenters
from paying church •ra.tes.
Mr. GLADSTONE dissented from this statement.

Mr. HENLEY—The. Right Hon. Gentleman said he
would support such a Bill, and it followed his declara-
tion about the floors of churches.—(No, no.) Well, if
he (Mr. Henley) had misunderstood the Right Hon.
Gentleman, of course he would pursue the remark no
further.--(Hear, hear.) As to the plea of conscientious
objection, how far was it meant to allow that? Many
had religious scruples about carrying on war; were they
to be relieved from maintaining the army and navy 2
(Hear.) We should find conscience very much en-
larged if those pleas were admitted; we should soon get
no taxes at all.—(Hear, hear.) Did any of the gentle-
men who objected to pay church rates ever say to their
landlord,—" I will pay you so much more rent if you
will pay the church-rate?"—(A laugh.) The Hon. Mem-
ber for Oxford (Mr. Wood) said that there would not be
the same objection to pay if the payment were volun-
tary; but surely conscience would just as much object in
that case.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. COBDEN hoped that the opinion which the Hon.
Gentleman had just expressed with regard to Church-
merr in this country did not apply to Oxfordshire. He
said there were Churchmen who would claim exemption
from the payment of church-rates because they had con-
scientious scruples against them, and that therefore the
fabric of the church would not be supported at all, be-
cause no one would pay the tax. (Mr. HENLEY—" No,
no!"] He certainly understood the Hon. Gentleman to
say that if Dissenters were allowed to be exempted from
payment of church-rates there was such elasticity of
conscience in the country that nobody would pay the
tax. He therefore thought he had not misrepre-
sented the Hon. Gentleman; and he repeated, that he
hoped he did not on this matter truly represent the con-
science of Oxfordshire. He began his speech and ended
it by complimenting the Noble Lord at the head of the
Government; but, if the Noble Lord had pleased the
Hon. Gentleman and those around him on this point, he
must be prepared to please them on a great many other
questions, because he (Mr. Cobden) thought it was
likely he would lose some of the approbation of those
who bad formerly been his friends.—(Hear, hear.) The
lion. Gentleman stated that the law had now defined the
character of church-rates, and he went on with a tri-
umphant air, as if he was conscious he had the strong
arm of the law on his side, and was prepared to bring
down its might on those who were not prepared to pay.
But he counted without his host. It was true the courts
had decided that the minority could impose a rate; but
it was also decided that the majority could say how much
the rate should be.—(Hear.) In Rochdale a meeting was
called lately to impose a rate, and the church was filled
with people almost to a man opposed to church-rates. It
was explained to them that they must levy a rate, but
it was also explained that they had the power of
fixing the amount. One of the opponents of the
rate proposed a farthing in the pound, because, as was
stated, it could never be collected. They all held up
their hands accordingly for a farthing in the pound; but
they had never been able to collect it ; indeed, it was
not worth collecting.—(Hear, hear.) This question,
after all, resolved itself into one of pounds, shillings, and
pence. It had been made a money question throughout;
and he was not inclined to let this occasion pass without
reminding the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire that
they had had it from both sides of the House, from
his friends around him as well as from every other part
of the House, that these church-rates were an ancient
charge upon the land—(Hear, hear)—that it was not a
local tax pressing upon the present generation as an ex-
clusive burden, from which the land should be relieved.
—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Cobden) couldeiot deny that
the church-rate was an ancient burden on property ;
but ho did not put it along with tithe. Tithe was
a rateable property, but church-rate was a variable
tax.—(Bear, hear.) Still, he was prepared to admit
that it was a charge on property ; but it was a different
thing to put it on the Consolidated Fund and to re-
move the church-rates from Dissenters, on the ground of
conscientious scruples. These rates were originally
made for the purpose of maintaining the Christian re-
ligion, for supporting the church in which the Christian
religion was to be taught. But what was the ground of
exemption for Dissenters ? It was that, being Chris-
tians, but having a different form of doctrine and prayer
from the Christian church that was established, they
claimed to be exempted from paying for the support of
these churches, because they had their own places of
worship to maintain for themselves.—(Hear, hear.) In
that sense it was not an exemption from church-rates for
the support of the Christian religion; it was merely that
they should not be compelled to pay two rates—(Hear,
hear)—to support their own place of worship and
yours also. The great difficulty in the debate had
been—how to find a substitute for church-
rate. The Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had
told them, that if some Member would bring
forward a proposition for raising the rate in anothere
way he would give it his best consideration. Now,
had
proposed Gentleman the Member for the city of Oxford
_ad
proposed a plan by which the money coulldd bbee rbarloseugdht
the only just and consistent plan that cou
Church of England, and excluded forward—he left it to be raliaseddedby
was the proper way of settling this question. As a
Dissenters. That
England,
to ask it from Dis-
inemthbeerdsiffiofeutlhtye
pay his own church-rate,
and Dis-
senters at all.—(Hear,
In the manufacturing districts
of raising these rates?
d h
the majority of the churches were supporte on t e vo-
luntary of the Church of he was prepared to
herertehewraes
Was
only
Quo