The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-19 00:00:00

duals in differeat parts of the country had been served with Ti c question eas not what were the personal opinions of
monitions, and were liable to be immured in piten. Ten Mr. W. Baines ; the question was what:her he occupied a
persons ante, actually summoned for the next day—( Hear, teserncre in tee parish of St. Martin's, in the borough d
hear)—and it was impossible that, such a state of subject to a Churelegate, and which, whether
things, producing strife and ill will, could be allowed to go it were occupied by Mr. David Selomotia, Mr. Joieph
on. What ilia Innings of Mr. Baines's fellow townemen Homo, Sir Robert Inglis, or Mr. William Btinos would be
were, might be idol-Add from the fact that, although he stbjet t it. The question had net the lea t reference to
had been four of the inclement months of vieter immured the present opinions of the individual, but to the value cf
in a gaol, he had been unanimously el seted a town coun- the tenement he occupied. It that tenement remained un-
cellor of his native borough, for one of the largest wards occupied it ;said nothing—hut if occupied, whether by
in it, containing a populte hail of 20 000.—( Hear, hear.) Jaw, Turls, hereec, or infitel, it paid the same sum. Mr.
Nothing could exhibit mere stroegly that there was no Baines ocouyi2d this tenement, knowing that it was liable
sympathy with such a law. Whatever might be raid of Ito this imposition, and knowing that on this account he
his obstinacy and contumacy in other quarters, it was felt paid. so much leas rent fur it, or if he bought it, that he
is Leicester that Mr. Brines was a martyr—a man of paid a gross arum so much the less ttan if it had not been
high courage and williechieg honesty. He hoped the subject to this imposition. The resolution on the table of
Noble Lord and the House would feel that the enforce- the House was that Mr. Baines had been sued for
went of such a law in a community where such fceliegs a sum of 21. ss. for Church-rates Would the Hon.
prevailed, could be of no advantage ; but was, on the Member (Mr. Easthope) deny that this tenement
contrary, almost a scandal to the Church—was rather was subject to pay this sum long before Mr. Baines occu-
adapted to work its decline, and to retard the great ob- pied it, perhaps long Moro Mr. Baines was lorrn, and
j eta which it was the duty of the Church to aim at, and would be deny that it would pay the same sum if he • Lim-
hich religion, when 1. ft to its own genial influence., self (Me Easthope) should occupy it to-morrow ? Over
would be sure to produce —( Hear, hear.) The Hon. and over again he (Sir R. H. Inglis) bad said that this
Member concluded by mov4ig a resolution, to the effect, was oat a question of creed but cf propeity. It was the
that the puni.hment of Mr. Baines, for refusing to pay ; roperty which paid and not the creed; and if they re-
Church-rates, was to punish him for acting in accordance leased the property from this impesition. they would give
with what he regarded as are igioue duty, end was a vio- a premium to a'l persons to dissent from the Estabsiihed
lotion of the principles 01 religion a:sd justice. Ceurch. The only ground d ntfonality in the Church
Lord J. RUSSELL said his Hon. Friend bad was that the nation paid in this way for its support. The
brought forward the present motion, havieg given notice nation paid nothing in respect of tithe. Tithes were
of a motion to take the petition of Mr. Bsines into cot:- ' given anie:e!eetly to the possession of any lion. Member
sideration. He was not aware, till it had beer, in his property. The only act by which the nation cense-
read from the Chair, of the nature of the motion, I crated its substance in any decree, small as that degree
which, consilering no notice had been given, was of a was, to the support of the Church, was that by which the
soniewl,at wi is ane sweeping character. Althoueh the 'a-id was made liable to repair and maintain the fabric of
particular grievance of Mr..Bei/es was made the ground- the Established Church. The Hon. Member (Dr. Nichol)
work of the motion, the caus-a of the " iavauee was one appeared to deny such enactment ;he (Sir R. H. highs)
affecting the gentral question of law, and the resolution wool I hardly presume to contradict any statement made
did net go so much to release Mr. Baines as to denounce so authoritatively, but all his (Sir Robert H. Inglis')
tee existine law, as one under which the subiect should no re seliett led him to the conclusion tht the fact, that, from
longer suffer. U.-in, that argument, and not saying that the earlies: Sixen times, Church scot teas distinctly bind-
the resolution was not a proper one under certain eircum- lag upon all property in England to maintaia the fab.ia
stances, he must soy that the notice should have been some- cf the Churco. was as clear as any fact connected with
what longer then the lion. Member had thought proper to our history. The oldest landed proprietor in England did
give.—( Hear, hear.) Woh respect to the particular case not inherit his broad acres or his castellated mansion on
of Mr. Seiner, he dii nut mean to elves any opieion as to any ottror tenure thaa this, and, in stating this, he (Sir
whether the parties were justified in the course they had R. Inglis) was only serving whet i.e was sure every lawyer
permed ; but with regard to that House, the question, as lie the it nee was prepared to maintain. The law might
the Hon. Gentleman had put it, was, whetbe- it was a be a bad oee ;if so, alter it ; but while it remained un-
violation of conscience to criforce the law of the land with altered eve:y acre cf land and every tenement in England
regard to the payment of Church-rates?--( Heir, hear.) , was held subject to this impmilon, varyiog, it might be,
He had no hesitation is tinswetimg thi,t questi.ari directly accordiag to the incidents and necessities of each parish,
in the ceaative. Ha (teed coecerve very well text it was ' but sell ttdajeet to such, and, as lie again repeated, having
intpest as Itch it was not desiraele to maintaire and that it no na re reference to the creed cf the oceul wit than it had
might bar expedirret to adopt sonic othm plan. Various to the colour of Isis skin or the height of his stature.
grouods had, been stare! by tire 11 ,noursbie Gehtleman, Fur these reasons he (Sir R. H. Inglis) hoped that the
on which it ought he rionsidared advisable to alter tee late; des pion of the House would be on the present occasion,
hut it was a totally did'erent question, as to whether Mr. and hereefter on further discussions on this subject, to re-
Baines was to set LID stars-lard as to what was to be the jam t prepoei.ion which the Hon. Member (Mr. East-
law for himself, and that what he thought oppressive to hoes!) hid advanced in defence, perhape, of his friend and
his conscieuce was no longer to be tilerated.—(ll. ar, of the township with which he was connt cted, but still in
hear.) Mr Baines hod stare I i,i. own case in his mad- defence of a proposition which was ueerly untenable by
lion. He did net de ry that the inhoietteta had made at him er by any other person.—( Hear, heir.)
Church-,ate, pad teerafor e it was clear that a rate had Dr. NICHOL L stud he did tot ag-e with his lime
been mace isy the paridi,ners, of which ilia legality Lad Friend ( Sir R. 11. 1,0.) that this imposition was OD9
not hem, qeettioae h He refused to pay ttie rate, aad was imposed by any positive statute, lucause it was one estab-
cited bd. re the Msp,isoetes. If he Ermaie to dispute the listed by the mutant m law of the land, anti not by that
rate, if he meant to say that that rate was not litgally authority only, but also by teat of the Court of Exchequer
posed, he could lievt had remurse to the Court cste- in the Braintree case, in which a Court, computed of Mght
blished by the law in such cases, a-rd endeavour to of the most diatingutdied Judges that ever adorned the
show thet it was not legally laid on. If he was proceed. bench, laid down the law in tl e following manner :
int; faely, such would nattrally be his course. There "We arc all of opinion that the ualigaitra by
with regard to the late, he (Lord John Russell) neeri which tl.e parishioners, that is the actual residents
not argue whether it was a wise or a politic one. within, or the owners of lands or tet ements in, every pa-
The place kr disputing the legality of the rite waa the risk, are bound to repair both the paii-h church, when( ver
Arches' Court at Canterbury, to the citation of which the it may be necessary, and to provide all things essential to
petitioner gave no atm.:thin. Nos', was that a justifiable the stivice therein, is an obligation imposed upon them
cause? Were they, the House, of Commons, to raj that, by the common law of the Lind." He supposed, therefore,
so long as there was a Court eapointed to try that care the Hum Gentleman (Mr. Easthope) would not dispute
and that that Court proceeded in the regal- course to berm the law of the Court of Exchequer, though he had thought
what the pea Lite; had to €aw, and Lim to appear—he- lit to dispute that of the Hon. Member for Oxford. But
cause of his disputieg t' e legality of the rate, the yeti- in this case the sum being under 101. the Ecclesiastical
tioner was himself to decide that that was a late which was Courts had no jurisdiction, and Mr. Baines was summoned
not to be obeyed? lie refu eel to pay any attention to the before the Magistrates. He did riot appea", but was re-
citation, and, therefore, Hen. Members wore to adopt a re- pre eisted by a geittleman Lamed Davis, who declared
solution that the law was a most oppressive and unjust oze, that he appeared for him, and that the Magistrates
Could they keep up any law by that means? William had no power to proceed in the matter, inasmuch
Barnet thought that the existence of Church rates to sup- as Mr Baines objected to the validity of the rate, and in-
port the Established Church—that decisi :n with respect to tended to do so in the Ece:esiasecal Court, .and that it
Church-rates according to the law of the land by the Ec- was on the ground of this allt•gad invalidity that the pay-
clesiastical Court, was unjust and oppressive, and a viola ion meat of the rate was refused. The House would lecol-
of the rights of conscience-. But another man might think lect that under the 53d George HI., a person who used
the same thing with regard to any other law—another this plea (mated the jurisdiction of the Magistrates, and
might have just the same opinion, that it was a called into exercise that of the Spiritual Courts. These
violation of the rights of conscience, to ask him to con- being the facts of the case, let Mr. Baines reconcile it if he
tribute anything to the payment of the army and navy, could to his ()an sense of honour ,and duty, and plain deal-
which were used, as they sometimes must 100, to produce ing to plead the invalidity of the ra ein the Ecclesiastical
bloodshed, Any payment that might be required to sup- Courts, when he had determined never to appear to con-
port the lete or the State might be refused, on the ground test its validity. He was sure the Hon. Mernb,r for Leices-
that the particular individual refusing felt that it was a ter would not vindicate such conduct. He (Dr. N.) was
violation of conscience to contribute to its existence, sure that lie was a man of too high honour and too high
Where was the distinctioa to be drawn ? How could they principle to say that any man was justified in throwiag cuff
say that Mr. Baines had the sight of deciding for himself ? by false pretences the jurisdiction which properly aeathed
Was he to lay down what was lawful, or what was unlaw- to hid case. He (Dr. Niehell) might respect a man who
ful? Ought not every individual in the United Kingdom to resisted a law which he thought to be unjust, if he did so
have the seine power and right as Mr. Baines to apply to boldly and openly, but he could feel no respect or sympa-
that Howe to make a resolution in his favour, that such thy for a man who put forward an intention to dis-
and such laws were oppressive, and a violation of con- mite the validity of a rate in the Ecclesiastical
science ? It was not, therefore, on the ground merely Court which he afterwards said he had never entertained.
of Church-rates, but upon the general question as to The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then recited the facts
the suppcat of the law?, that hile (Lord John Russell) of the case, and traced the proceedings againat Mr.
thought it impossible that that House could give its Baines through their several stages, as they have been
sanction, to the resolution of his Honourable Friend. frequently before the public, and proceeded :—Now, again.

With regard to the general question of Church-rates, he
did not know that his Hon. Ft iend had entered much
into it; and he (Lord J. Russell) did not conceive that it
was necessary for him to enter into it now. He certainly
regretted that there was not a mode for providing for the
support of the Church Establishment iii a less objection-
able way than the present mode was. It was very
different, however, to establish by any resolution, or by
any Bill that might be brought iato that House, to give
countenance to the opinion stated by several assenters,
both with re Acct to that case and Church-t.aees geoe-
ray, that is was act proper to contribute to the support
cif the EA,ashed Church. He would be sorry that, by.
any commutation or any other mode, they shoul.l give
any support to that opinion—air optaiora wh•en, though
held by many respectable persons, was, however, incom-
patible with the existence of the Established Church, and
could not he defended by any sound argument. The
early Christi.tns were commanded to pay tri-
bute to the Roman Emperors, which were applied
to such purposes as ihe erection of temples to Jupit 'r
and the otter heathen gods, where their superstitious
and abominable rites were performed Yet those early
Christians were told by the highest authority to pay taxes.
Now he could not really understand that it was a violation
of the lights of conscience to pay sums of money which
wee to go to the support of places of worship equally
Christian with the form of Christianity which the ifirlivi-
dual paying felt I- itnaelf bound solely to believe. That
did not seem to him ( Lord John Russell) sufficient
grounds to say that they had a conscientious repug-
nance and feeling against such a contribution. He wished
as far as possible to respect all conscientious feelings.
but they should not allow en unlimited decision to
every iadividual in that respect, and that they bad
merely to pronounce the word " conscience" in order
to relieve their elves from. the pay ins ut deraanded.
it was irapossibe that the State could adopt such
a principle. The pe itioner said that it was
unjust to confine him is gaol when guilty cf no
crime against society, but he merely carried out the principle
of dissenting from the Church, wishing to obey God
rather than ma'. lie (Lord J. Russell) had no doubt
that the latter portion of the statement was true, but he
could not completely exonerate the petitioner from any crime,
for he was giving a bad example. It was a mode of act-
ing which would go to shake confidence in the law, and
therefore it was in itself a crime against soci, ty to act in
that manner. With respect to another mode of contri-
buting to the Church-rates it was totally, a different ques-
tion. `rids was one alteration in the law which he had
before spoken of, namely, to make the enforcing of the
law take place in a Civil and not in an Ecclesiastical
Court. if a Church-rate were levied and enforced at the
Quarter Sessions, from which there was an appeal to a
superior Court, such a tribunal must be a competent one,
he thought, to decide either upon Church-rates or upon
tabu. With regard to altering the law in that or in any
other respect it was quite a different question from an
individual assuming, at a sacrifice to himself, but assuming
the responsibility ef deciding what law ought to be obeyed,
and ghat rates and taxes ought to be enforced. He
thought the House would cot sanction that each . indivi-
should decide for himself. If the House thought it better
to abolish Church-rates altogether, let them decide so on
general grounds, but let them not agree to a resolution
which was in favour of refusing the Church-rates that
were legally claimed—a resolution which might be also '
used in favour of disobeying- any law whatever.
Mr. HUME was opposed to the sentiments uttered by
the Noble Lord who had just sat down. The claim for
Church-rates with respect to Dissenters was an unjust
olio. The Noble Lord complained of any man taking
the law into his own hands. The Noble Lord well knew
that that was the mode in which oppression dad been met
in all ages. He ( Mr. Hume) was sorry to hear the Noble
Lord refer to the Roman Emperors to support his argu-
ments. The other night the Hon. Member for the Ulft-
verrity of Oxford, said that no man could be an honest
man eh° would pay for the support of a religion in which he
did i of believe. He (Mr. Hume) wished the Hon. Ba-
ronet was now present to hear what was advanced in the
present instance. He ( Mr. Hume) would call the
Noble L(rd's recollection to what he did in
1833, when Lord Althorp brought forward the ques-
tion of abolishing Church-rates a together. Did not the
Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) support that measure,
and did not the House decide by a large majority-266 he
thought—that assentors ought not to pay Church-rates?
The Noble Lord then took off 55,0001., and left the sum
of 265,0001. to support the fabric of the Church, and that
sum, the Noble Lord deelared,he purposed, on a future ocea-
mon, to propose to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund.
The Rernari Catholics of Ireland were alsoat the same period
• relieved of the payment cif 76 0001. Aft r such votes had
been given in that House—.such decisions cone to—after
the declarations of the present Ministers on this heaal—
was it not fair to expect that Government would not allow
any longer period to claieoe without proposing some remedy
for the abuse ? After a few further observations on the
great importance of a meeting at which he was present
in Leicester, convened for the purpose of opposing the
impost of Cherch-rateQ, the Hon. Member concluded by
seconding !he motion.
Sir ROBERT ING LIS would not enter at leng h
into the subject of Church-rates, as the lion. Member
( Mr. Eastliope) said he would postpone the consideration
of the general question. The distinction which he ( Sir
It. Inglis) made on the subject to which the Honourable
Member opposite ( Mr. H.) referred, was that a man ought
not voluntarily to contribute to the support of a Church
which he did net believe to be the true one according to the
Word of God, yet that he ought. to submit to the ka.v; ; are!
• cc fer as he ( Sir Po leglia) 0001c1 be il.oold rnaa all I,,ii
i'llow subject; bul.;c2it to tti, lass whicll liour,:c: oat,.;!,czy
st:lveB boa t:,.i.. ill'c,T,riic:..i to ?le '..,1T(,,rt 'li•f c.',:.-:c,14: nr,,l
1 places of worship belonging to a creed in whia,
1
as individuals, they might nut believe.—(Hear.)

he aske i, was there any hardship, was there any "gross
pet sont.l wrong," a. it had been termed, inflicted upon
Mr. Baines? There was a sum which by the common
law of the land was binding upon all the property of this
country, and there was a summary remedy fur enforcing
payment of it. But Mr. Baines had thought paoper to
throw it off and to say ihat he would appear in tin. Ecele-
siastieal Court ; yet when eised there he had refused to
appear, and consequently having thrown up the remedy
provided by law against his property, a remedy neces-
sarily winched itself egaiest his person. It might
be a cenvertient thing ta remain a martyr. The lion.
Member fir Leicester se, reed surprised, but he (Mr. E.)
could net be made a martyr of, fur, being a pr vile god
person, he would come under the operation of Lord
Brougham's Act. Tie Noble Lord (J. Russell) had
alluded to an alteration in the law and to the expediency
of removing these matters from the Ecclesiastical to the
Civil Courts. If the Noble Lord should think fit to pre-
pose such en alteration, Le ( Dr. Nicholl) would give it his
best attention, but be thought in this particular caeca to
which he had strictly confined himself, and not as he
thought the Hon. islembcr for Leicester had done "kept
the word cif promise to the ear and broke it to the 'ease,"
that he had shown that Mr. Baines was not entitled to the
respect or sympathy of the Home, and he trusted, there-
fore, the House would without hesitation negative the
motion.—( Hear, hear.)
Sir R. INGLIS explained. His Hon. Friend (Dr.
Nichol') had misunderstood him. He had not referred to
the statute law at all, but had said that the right of the
Church of England was an antecedent right. But al-
though he did not say it was created, he believed the
right was confirmed by statute.
Mr. HAWES said it was difficult to make any observa-
tions on this question without alluding to the general ques-
tion of Church-rates. He would, however, in what he
tees about to address to the House, endeavour to keep
strictly to the question of the allegations in Mr. Baines'
petition, without diverging into the question of Church-
rates generally. If he had wished any argument in sup-
port of the general allegation of that petition, that the
petitioner bad been subjected to great injustice and hard-
ships, be could not have found one more powerful or more
conclusive in support of the truth of that allegation than
the statement of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who
had last addressed the Howe, because, without raising
the question of conscientious scruples at all, the descrip-
tion of the legal steps which had been taken, and which
had been detailed by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
with such minuteness, was one of the strongest grounds of
the truth of the allegation in the petition, that the peti-
tioner bad been treated with harshness and injustice. The
Hon. and Learned Gentleman had said, that if his Bill of
last year had bean assented to, this could not have hap-
pened. He (Mr. Hawes) would admit, that if the Hoe.
and Learned Gentleman's Bill had passed, Mr. Baines
would not have been in gaol, but he would have had his
goods se,zed, which would have been as great a violence
against him as the incarc ration of his person. Undoubt-Ally
that Bill would have mitigated the expenses; but when
he re erred to his own efforts, he should have recollected
the recommendations of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners
ten years ago, which were infinitely better than the Bill of
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman ; and although, since
that report. had been made the Hon. and Learned Member
had been in office, and had, be believed, been a Member of
the House of Commons, and was, if he recollected
arigkt, a Member of that Commission, yet, with the ex-
ception of his abortive effort of last Session, he had made
no an empt whatever to mitigate the enormous expenses in-
flicted by those Courts upon those who opposed Church-
rates.
Dr. NIC H OLL referred the Hon. Member to the Bill
cf 1835.
Mr. HAWES wished to refer to:an Act of Parliament
and not a Bill.—(Cheers.) What would all the B:118 in
the world do to remedy the sufferings thus inflicted ? Let
them only look to the Statute Book, and see whether there
was one Government or other measure on the subject. It
was a reproach to the House tat no steps had been taken
to early their recommendations into effect. As a. general
maxim, he perfectly agreed with what had fallen
from the Noble Lord, that conscientious scruples could
not be attended to when they interfered with the exe-
cution of the law; and that if they were attended to
it would be in many cases impossible to carry any law into
effect; but he thought a clear distinction might be drawn
between cases in which the maintenance of good order
in society was concerned, and those which were fur the
suppert of a religion from which the majority dissented,
and eou:d not conscientiously contribute to the maiete-
eance cf a sectarian church. With r. Bard to bridges and
h;ghsvays, the people, e ithout refereace to religion, derived
benefit from thorn, but not so from the Church ; and with
regard to the high authority to which the Noble Lord re-
ferred, he would remind them that the contribution so
levied was not applied to maintenance of the Pagan reli.
gion, but to the support of the State generally. He must
say, that on all occasions, he preferred the statute to the
common law, regarding as be did the common law to be
nothing more than what any Judge at any time might de-
clare to be his interpretation el' tcrater uses and customs.
But the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had never told
them how the common law, which required ell parties to
aid in the sustentation of the Church, was to be
carried into effect.—( Loud cheers.) That was
the difficulty.--(Cheers.) Was the majority of the parish
to decide the question, and that questionthecLelad therned
Judges had left totally untouched. Again, how could
Ecclesiastical Courts enforce the common law ? They had
no means of enforcing it: Mr. Baines was not in prison
as
co i
Et heecri
ei ns
apstani
for a violation of the commofnorlacwos;ts,haenwd
for contempt or as a debtor
Courts genersliy seize there sectun b running of. an
reense bill of costs; that was 2 gross end crying abuse,
land it was a disgrace to the House that no means had been
taken to remedy it. The Hon. Member for Oxford had