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

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, MARCH 19, 1841

a sum of 21. ss. for Church-rates Would the Hon,
Member ( Mr, Easthope) deny that this tenement
was subject to pay this sum long before Mr. Baines occu-
pied it, perhaps long Wore Mr. Baines was ben, and
would he deny teat it would pay the same sum if be him-
self (Me. Easthopc) should. occupy it tomorrow ? Over
and oVer again he ( Sir I. H. Inglis) had said that this
was net a question of creed but of property. It was the
property which paid and net the creed; and if they re-
leased the property from this imposition, they would give
a premium to all persons to dissent from the Established
Church. The only ground of nat:onality in the Church
was that the nation paid in this way for its support. The
nation paid nothing in respect of titbea. Tithes were
given ante:edently to the possession of any Hon. Member
in his property. The only act by which the nation conse-
crated its substance in any degree, small as that degree
was, to the support of the Church, was that by which the
land was made liable to repair and maintain the fabric of
the Established Church. The Hon. Member (Dr. Nichol)
appeared to deny such enactment ; he ( Sir R H. Inglis)
would hardly presume to contradict any statement made
so authoritatively, but all his (Sir Robert H. Inglis')
reading led him to the conclusion that the fact, that, from
the earliest Saxon times, Church scot was distinctly bind-
ing upon all property in England to maintain the fabric
of the Church, was as clear as any fact connected with
our history. The oldest landed proprietor in England did
not inherit-his broad acres or his castellated mansion on
any other tenure than this, and, in stating this, he (Sir
R. Inglis) was only stating what he was sure every lawyer
in the House was prepared to maintain. The law might
be a bad one ; if so, alter it ; but while it remained un-
altered every acre of land and every tenement in England
was held subject to this imposition, varying, it might be,
according to the incidents and necessities of each parish,
but still subject to such, and, as he again repeated, having
no more reference to the creed of the occupant than it bad
to the colour of his skin or the height of his stature.
For these reasons he (Sir R. H. Inglis) hoped that the
decision cf the House would be on the present occasion,
and hereafter on further discussions on this subject, to re-
ject the proposition which the Hon. Member (Mr. East-
hope) hod advanced in defence, perhaps, of his friend and
of the township with which be was connected, but still in
defence of a proposition which was utterly untenable by
him or by any other person..—( Hear, beer.)
Dr. NICHOLL said he did not agsee with his Hon.
Friend ( Sir R. li. Inglis) that this imposition was one
imposed by any positive statute, because it was one estab-
lished by the commas law of the lond, and not by that
authority only, but also by that of the Court of Exchequer
in the Braintree case, in wbich a Court, composed of e'ght
of the most distinguished Judges that ever adorned the
bench, laid down the law in tie following manner:--
" We are all of opinion that the obligation by
which the parishioners, that is the actual residents
within, or the owners of lands or tei ernents in, every pa-
rish, are bound to repair both the par i-h church, whenever
it may be necessary, and to provide all things essential to
the service therein, is an obligation imposed upon them
by the common law of the land." He supposed, therefore,
the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Easthope) would not dispute
the law of the Court of Exchequer, though he had thought
fit to dispute that of the Hon. Member for Oxford. But
in this case the sum being ender 101. the Ecclesiastical
Courts had no jurisdiction, and Mr. Baines was summoned
before the Magistrates. He did not appear, but was re-
presented by a gentleman named Davis, who declared
that he appeared for him, and that the Magistrates
had no power to proceed in the matter, inasmuch
as Mr. Baines objected to the validity of the rate, and in-
tended to do so in the Ecclesiastical Court, and that it
was on the ground of this alleged invalidity that the pay-
ment of the rate was refused. The House would recol-
lect that under the 53d George 111., a person who used
this plea ousted the jurisdiction of the Magistrates, and
called into exercise that of the Spiritual Courts. These
being the facts of the case, let Mr. Baines reconcile it if he
could to his own sense of honour ,and duty, and plain deal-
ing to plead the invalidity of the ra'e in the Ecclesiastical i
Courts, when he had determined never to appear to con-
test its validity. He was sure the Hon. Member for Leices-
ter would not vindicate such conduct. Lie (Dr. N.) was
sure that he was a man of too high honour and too high
principle to say that any man was justified in throwing off
by false pretences the jurisdiction which properly attached
to his case. He (Dr. Nicholl) might respect-a man who
resisted a law which he thought to be unjust, if he did so
boldly and openly, but he could feel no respect or sympa-
thy for a man who put forward an intention to dis-
pute the validity of a rate in the Ecclesiastical
Court which he afterwards said he had never entertained.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then recited the facts
of the case, and traced the proceedings against Mr.
Baines through their several stages, as they have been
frequently before the public, and proceeded :—.Now, again,
he asked, was there any hardship, was there any "gross
personal wrong," as 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 for enforcing
payment of it. But Mr. Baines had thought proper to
throw it off and to say that he would appear in the Eccle-
siastical Court ; yet when cited there he had refused to
appear, and consequently having thrown up the remedy
provided by law against his property, a remedy neces-
sarily attached itself against his person. It might
be a convenient thing to remain a martyr. The Hon.
Member for Leicester seemed surprised, but he (Mr. E.)
could not be made a martyr of, for, being a privileged
person, he would come under the operation of Lord
Brougham's Act. The 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 tbo'Noble Lord should think fit to pro-
pose such an alteration, he (Dr. Nicholl) would give it his
best attention, but he thought in this particular case, to
which he had strictly confined himself, and not as he
thought the Hon. Member for Leicester bad done " kept
the word of promise to the ear and broke it to the tense,"

that he had shown that Mr. Baines was not entitled to the
respect or sympathy of the House, and he trusted, there-
fore, the House would without hesitation negative the
motion.—( Hear, hear.

Sir R. INGLIS explained. His Hon. Friend (Dr.
Nicholl) had misunderstood him. Ho 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. HAW E S 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
was 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 had been subjected to great injustice and hard..
ships, he could not have found one more powe:ful or more
conclusive in support of the truth of that allegation than
the statement of tho Hon. and Learned Gentleman who
had last addressed the Houle, because, without raising
the question of conscientious scruples at all, tie descrip-
tion of the legal steps which had bean 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 had been treated with harshness and injustice. The
Hon. and Learned Gentleman had said, that if his Bill of
last year had boon assented to, this could not have bap..
pened. He (Mr. Hawes) would admit, that if the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman's Bill had passed, Mr. Baines
would not have been in gaol, but he would have had his
goods seized, which would have been a.s great a violence
against him as the incarceration of his person. Undoubtedly
thrt Bill would have mitigated the expenses; but when
he relerrod to his own effcrt., he should have recollected
the recommendations of the Eccle'isstical 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, he believed, been a Member of
the House of Commons, and was, if ho recollected
arigkt, a Member of that Commission, yet, with the ex-
ception of his abortive effort of last Session, he had made
no attempt whatever to mitigate the enormous expenses in-
flicted by those Courts upon those who opposed Church-
rates.

Dr. NICHOLL 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 13;11s 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 ether measure on the subject. It
was a reproach to the House tl'at no steps had been taken
to carry their recommendations into effect. As a general
maxim, he perfectly agreed wilt what bad 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 for the
support of a religion from which the majority dissented,
and could not conscientiously contribute to the mait.te-
dance of a sectarian church. With regard to bridges and
highways, the people, uithout rale-once to religion, derived
benefit from them, 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 ilte
common lair, regarding as he did the common law to be
nothing more than what any Judge at any time might de-
clare to be his interpretation of former uses and customs.
But the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had never told
them how the common law, which required all parties to
aid in the steeectetion of the Church, was to be
carried into
the difficulty.—(cieweet.—(Loud cheers.) That was
to decide the ".)
Was the majority of the parish
question, and that question the Learned
Judge; hal left totallynnntouclied. Again, how could the
enforce Ecclesiastical Courts
orcethe common law ? They had
no means of enforcing it hir. Baines wes not in prison
for a violation of the common
had been
means law; he was either in prison
for contempt or as a debtor for
costa, and the Ecclesiast;eal
Covets generally seize their victim by runnir.g up an im-
mense bill of costs ; that was a,
abuse,
no
and it was a disgrace to the House that and cr.l ju g
taken to remedy it. The Hon. Member
for Oxford had
said that Church-rates were a necessary incident of pro-
perty ;
if so how came it thet parish Vestries had the power
i
of deciding whether prof city should pay Cr not ?and
was a necessary incident then he must contend the Church-
rates must last as long as property lasted.—(Hear, bear.)
The fact was that Church-rate was a kind of contr
i
bution in aid of the tithes for the snppert of the
Church, to be paid or withheld as might seem best
to the majority of the parish ; and if they were withhold
there was no means of enforcing them by means of
the
Statute or Common Law. He regretted the Noble Lord
had not taken that opportunity of throning some light on
the views of the Government as to the general question.
Were Church-rates to be allowed to be continued in their
present state? Was the law, according to the recommen-
dation of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, to be made
Learned Gentleman
more stringent ? The lion. and

knew that the law, as it stood at present, was a scandal ;
ttnd with his legt,l and ecclesiastical subtlety proposed to
simplify the law, to cheapen the prceess, but to make it
more stringent, and that he thought would please the
Dissenting body. Why that was the recommendation of
tie Ecclesiastical Commission, and the reason why it had
not bodu adrpted3 was that the Government, calling itself
Liberal, dared not to introduce a measure so severe in its
operation. Did they forget that Church-rates were
abolished in Ireland, and did not exist in Scotland ?
Was the peace of the Church in every parish in the kingdom
to be disturbed, and the House constantly to receive p:tit►ons
complaining of their vexations for the paltry considera-
tion of what might be levied from the people for the sup-
port of the wealthiest Establishment in the world? In or-
der to settle the question of Church•ratee, he thought
that all parties must concede a little to the general peace
of society. He did not believe that the Dissenting body
entertained those hostile feelings to the Church, or was
actuated by that jealousy of the property of the Church,
or the anxiety to possess it themselves, which was some-
times ascribed to them. They know that the principle
by which they were upheld was a stronger one, and that,
as the Church adopted the voluntary principle, so would
it would become more strong and powerful likewise. He
begged pardon if he had trespa.,sed on the House, but he
felt strongly on the subject ; and, without wishing to injure
the Church, he could not consent to force the consciences
of those who dissented from it.
D. NICHOLL explained.

Sir ROBERT PEEL raid the question was not as to
any al oration of the law as to our jurisdiction of the
Ecclesiastical Courts, or as to any alteration in Church-
rates, but it was whether the House of Commons would
lend its sanction to the principle that there were certain
exceptions to the duty, wl,ieh every man owed, of obedi-
ence to the law of the land ; and that provided a man
could allege conscientious scruples, that man slrould be
allowed to violate the law.--(Loud cheers.) If this prin-
ciple were once apented to, where would they limit it?
Who would decide what was a conscientious scruple?
The Hon. Memb:r for Kilkenny said, if any man would
g.) to prison rather than pay, his scruple was a conscier:-
t'ous ore; and another flon. Member had stated that re-
ligious scruples wore conscientious ones. But suppose a man
disapproved of them, and prefered going to prison rather
than pay taxes, how would they act in that case ?
(Cheers.) 'I he Hon Member said that Scotland had
no Church-rates. Now be apprebendo:l that if the Hon.
Gentleman or any member of the Episcopal Church
purchased or inherited a large estate in Scotland, he would
be called upon to pay his quota to the support of
the Preebyterian Church established, and if he objected
on the ground of his being an Episcopalian, that that
would be no exemption from the payment of Church-rates,
or from the consequences of the violation of the law. If
this resolution were assented to, they might have every
wealthy Episcopalian in Scotland alleging conscientious
scruples as an excuse for the payment of their duet, and
coming to the House for relief. Suppose Mr. Baines had
objected to pay tithes, would they relieve him there ? The
Hon. Gentleman had said Church-rates were ancillary to
tithes, and certainly if he was entitled to relief in the
one case he was in the other. But where would they draw
the limit as to religious scruples ? He found petitions pre-
sented against the New Poor-law on the ground that Dis-
senters were deprived of their religious rights in union-
workhouses; and others stating that the system of relief
under the Poor-law was contrary to humanity, justice, and
Christianity. Again, in Scotland there were petitions de-
scribing patronage as a lording of it over God's people
contrary to Scripture, and he rather thought that when cer-
tain persons in Scotland alleged conscientious scruples on
that subject, he had heard it said on the benches opposite
that if the law were wrong it ought to be altered, but that
while it existed no one belonging to a Church established
by the State ought to be permitted to act in violation of it.
Supposing that parties in Scotland were ready to go to
prison for their disobedience to the law, would the Hon.
Member for Kilkenny then say, in a resolution of the
House of Commons, that they were justified by their reli-
gious scruples? Ho (Sir R. Peel) thought the only true
principle was, that whilst the law remained in force it
should be obeyed.—( Hear, hear.) If it was wrong, let it
be altered. It would be an utter violation of all respect
for the authority of the Legislature if the House of Com-
mons, which was only one branch of that Legislature,
should sanction a violation of laws which the other
branches in concurrence with itself had enacted. With
respect to the Poor-laws, were there not many men who
had conscientious scruples respecting that, and denounced
it as a violation of the laws of God ? How could Hon.
Gentlemen presume to determine whether their allegations
were true or not ?—(HeAr, bear.) Mr. Baines did not
ask the House to pass such a resolution as the present.
All he asked for was an alteration of the law.—( Hear,
hear.) He (Sir R. Peel) thought the question of the
policy or justice of the law was quite foreign from the pre-
sent question. He asked the House of Commons to consider
that if it took upon itself to determine in what case the law
should •be respected, its own authority would be con-
demned. The Courts of Law were bound to enforce the
law, and if this resolution were agreed to, the law would
not be altered, and Mr. Baines would not be liberated.

Mr. ELLIOT said, without giving any opinion in fa-
vour of Church-rates, he would not vote for this resolu-
tion, which would go to sanction an opposition to the laws.
Mr. E ASTHO PE in reply said that Mr. Baines came
before the House on the authority of a resolution to which
the House had come in a similar case. He had not riot-
ously or violently resisted the law • but on the contrary
had patiently submitted to its penalties, although he pa-
tiently, though firmly, declined to comply with its de-
mands. He was supported in his determination to suffer
rather than yield to demands which his conscience rejected,
by 30,000 inhabitants of Leicestershire.
Mr. HALFORD denied that the inhabitants of Lei-
cestershire would countenance a resistance to the law.

Mr. EASTHOPE said that 20,000 inhabitants of Lei-
cester bad elected Mr. Baines a Member of the Council
whilst he was in prison—(Hear, bear)-7,000 women
signed the pe.tition for biii liberation—( Hear, and a laugh)
—and 4,000 signed a petition in favour of the resolution
now before the House.

The House then divided. The numbers were—
For the resolution
Against it 45

large bill transacthns of the Bank of England there mu-t
be some bills protested, but the amount during the last
nalf-year was not such as to call for any remark.—( Hear.)
Mr. THOMPSON mark some remarks upon the gentle-
mail who had preceded the present Governor in that
chair (Mr. T. A. Curteis), and wished to know whether
there had not been a loss of 100,000/. by the failure of
the house with which that gentleman was connectel ?
The Govitargon replied that the amount was nothing
like that sum. The amount proved under the estate was
upwards of 14,0001., and of that it was probable 5,000/.
would be paid in bills, besides a dividend.
Mr. HAMMOND—Then the Bank would lose about
I 0 000/.
Mr. SALOMONS seconded the amendment moved by Mr.
Thompson.
On the amendment being put,
Mr. BLACKBURN rose to address a few words to the
Court. He said that in a great commercial city like this
it was impossible to conduct business without some losses
—without meeting with some insolvencies.—( Hear.) But
he was afraid they (the Bank Proprietors) bad more than
their share of them. _ _ _

Mr. FIELDER regretted that the amendment had been
brought fcrward, and said he thought they ought not to
impugn the unfortunate gentleman who had held the post
of Governor by any act of theirs or the Court of Direc-
tors, in relation to the circumstance alluded to by the
mover of the amendment. It was necessary that they
should repose confidence in their management, and that
confidence the present Governor and Directors certainly
had. It was their (the Proprietcrs') duty, however, to
ascertain the basis upon which their affairs stood, and with
this view he should like to have the sth by-law read by
the Secretary.
The by-law was accordingly read : it was that which
orders that a Court of Directors shall be holden once a
week, at least, for the despatch of business.
In answer to a question, the GOVERNOR said that no kind
of preference was ever given to the bills of a Director
—in fact, they were more strictly scrutinized than others.
Mr. BARNES HAMMOND expressed his suprise that there
was not a larger increase.in the "rest," and cmld not tell
how to account for it. He heard that they were cluing ne a. ly
all the business of London at 5 per cent., and yet there was
only an increase of about 2,0001. on the " rest." Ha
feared it was to be attributed to the continual alterations in
the building.—( Hear.)
The amendment was then put, and negatived; and the
question for the dividend carried with only three diss'n-
tients, being the number of hands held up for the amend-
ment.

The GOVERNOR informed the Court that the dividend
warrants would be delivered and payable on Tuesday, the
sth of April.
Mr. Coerce then called the attention of the Proprietors
to the omission which had been made when the Bank
Charter had been renewed, in not obtaining some com-
pensation to the Proprietors fir the privileges which they
had been deprived of—compensation to which even the ene-
mies of the Bank admitted they were justly entitled.
Mr. Tnomesois brought forward a motion relative to the
election of Directors. He thought the election ought to
be as open as that at the East India House. He believed
that his list was the only one that was defaced, and in
order to prevent his conduct from appearing invidious, ho
should submit the motion—That the Goveraor, Sc , do, at
all future elections of Directors, furnish a list of 100
names, out of which 24 Directors shall be chosen.
After a short discussion, the GOVERNOR said the sug-
gestion of the Hon. Proprietor should be complied with.
The GOVERNOR then said, that before the meeting ad-
journed, he was anxious to avail himself of the last oppor-
tunity he would have of addressing the Proprietors, and
to return to them, individually and generally, his grateful
and sincere thanks for the kindness he had experienced at
their hands since he had had the distinguished honour of
filling that chair. He would not be doing justice to his
own feelings, if he did not take that opportunity of re-
turning thanks. They were all aware, that, since he
had the honour of filling that chair, the Bank of England
had had many difficulfea to contend with. He was de-
lighted to inform them that those difficulties had all been
overcome; and, in transmitting the chair to his excellent
friend by his side (the Deputy Governor) he would ex-
press his conviction that it was impossible to entrust the
interests of the Corporation to a more honest, worthy,
or deserving man. Most sincerely and truly grateful as
he was to the Proprietors for their kindness, he should
not have done his duty had he not acknowledged it; and
the considerate manner in which they had made allowances
for his incapacity to fill the situation he had the honour
to hold.

Mr. WILLIAMSON said he was happy to hear that the
Bank had overcome all its difficulties ; and felt great plea-
sure in moving a vote of thanks to the Governor, Deputy_
Governor, and Directors.

Mr. MARRYATT, on seconding the motion, said the Pro-
prietors were greatly indebted to the Governor for the
ready and satisfactory manner in which he had answered all
the questions that had been put to him.
Tho motion was then put and carried unanimously.
The Court then adjourned.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

ROLLS' COURT, MARCH 18.
•RIFFIN V. WOOD.-FOWLER V. WOOD.

These cases wore similar to that of Jew v. Wood,
heard on Wednesday.
The MASTER of the ROLLS said he should consider
the whole of them together.
Bovlsms V. ORIENTAL AND PENINSULAR STEAM NAVI-

CATION COMPANY.
The further arguments in this part-heard motion wore
then resumed, but not concluded when the Court rose.

SHERIFFS' COURT, MARCH 18.
SHELL V. APPLETON.

This was an action brought to recover 101. 6i. Gd., the
amount of a sailor's bill. The plaintiff was stated to resido
at Great St. Helen's, and the defendant was described as
the son of the proprietor of the Heroules Tavern in Lead.
enhall-street.

Mrs. Appleton, the mother of the defendant, was called,
and proved that her son had no resources beyond certain
pocket-money allowed him by his father, and that he was
not of age when the principal part of the work was done.
They had a contra-account against Sheil, and if the ac-
counts were balanced, the sum of 73. 3d. only would be
due to him.

After hearing other evidence, the jury found a verdict
for the defendant.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Illdncn 18.
Ttie Learned Chief Commissioner was unable to resume
the sittings, and W. NICHOLLS, Esq., has been appointed
a Commissioner pro tern. by the Home Secretary.