The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-26 00:00:00

The parish of Dover had been in the habit of voting the
stipend of the Minister in the form of Church-rates.
The result was, that an individual had been cited before
the Ecclesiastical Court, and was undergoing all its at-
tacks. Could any advantage be derived to the Esta-
blished Church from such a state of things ?—(Hear;
hear.) A Church so wealthy, so amply endowed and
sufficient for the purposes of religious instruction, ought
never to have resorted to such means of support ; it was
altogether indefensible. He deeply regretted that neither
the proposal of Lord Althorp in 1834, nor that of Lord
Monteagle in 1837, had received the sanction of the
House. Nothing was more necessary to the peace of so-
ciety, or to the prosperity even of the Established Church,
than an administration of its funds, by which it would be
enabled to maintain with dignity and propriety all that
was requisite for its conduct. It was stated by Lord Al-
thorp in 1834 that the amount collected by way of assess-
ment was about 360,0004 and that there could be
no doubt that one-half of that was of a very equivo-
cal and needless character, and might have been avoided.
The Hon. Member for the University of Oxford, on the
proposal of a grant to the College of Maynooth, had
stated that he would not voluntarily or willingly pay for
the support of a system from which he conscientiously
differed. Surely that ought to form a reason with the
Hon. Member for relieving the Dissenters from this in-
tolerable grievance. It had been confidently predicted
in that House, that unless this question was equitably ad-
justed, it would continue to be the subject of strife and
of conflict. He would ask the House whether those pre-
dictions had not been fulfilled. The Hon. Member for
Kilkenny had presented a petition that night from an
individual who was suffering incarceration for
the nonpayment of this impost. That had been
followed by the incarceration of another indivi-
dual in the town which he (Mr. Easthope) had the
honour to represent. He had formerly stated to the
House that that individual was an object of deep and
general sympathy in the town ; and, as a proof of this, in a
ward comprising 20,000 inhabitants, he had been una-
nimously elected a member of the corporation. The
ministers of that town felt it to be one of the greatest
hindrances, and one of the most aggravated difficulties
with which, as ministers, they had to contend. It had
been stated to him by a gentleman whose name was well
known in the history of this country, and who was nearly
connected with the great man who had made that name
memorable, the Rev. Mr. Erskine, that during the
whole course of his Ministerial career nothing had ever
Afforded him more pain or more deeply afflicted him in
the discharge of his ministerial functions than the ques-
tion of Church-rates.—(Hear, hear.) Now, was it pos-
sible that could arise out of such a conflict ? At the
present time there were legal proceedings taken in the
following places :—Braintree, Bradford, Encomb, Hack -
ney, Brentford, Portsea, Weymouth, Dover, Ringwood,
Lancaster, Great Yarmouth, Abergavenny, and several
other places. Not only were Church-rates annihilated in
many large towns, but the strife of legal proceedings
was at this moment in operation. Many families were
kept in a state of uncertainty, their feelings worked
up to desperation by the fear of imprisonment
because they would not contribute to that which
their consciences repudiated. He was aware that
he might be told by the Honourable Member
for the University of Oxford, that individuals were
not entitled to consider Church-rates as a grievance upon
their conscience, for that it was simply a question of
property. Such had been the argument of the Hon.
Member on former occasions. But how could it be a
question of property, when it was made to depend upon
the will of the voters? If it were simply a question of
property, the question would be how much they should
vote, but it was a question whether they should vote any
sum whatever.—(" No, no," from Sir R. Inglis.) The
Hon. Baronet said No., Hp supposed the Hon. Baronet
referred to the judgment of Chief-Justice Tindal in the

Braintree case, in which it was stated by way of impli-
cation, that the parish church must be maintained; but
it was also stated in that judgment, that if the case came

on in another form, it might possibly receive another
adjudication. In a pamphlet addressed by the Attorney-
General to the Noble Lord, the Member for North Lan-
cashire, it was distinctly affirmed that it was not a ques-
tion of property, and that no rate could possibly be
made except by a majority of the voters in parish vestry;
and that any rate, levied otherwise than in that form, could
not be maintained either in the courts of common
law or in the ecclesiastical courts. The civi-

liens and common lawyers had never supposed
that the churchwardens could make a rate by their
own authority, unless none but themselves attended
the vestry. The opinion of Lord Holt was cited in suppor of
that view. He would now state what he had to propose to the
House on this subject. In the first place he proposed to
abolish that which was the chief cause of the dissension, namely
Church-rates. Should he be told that the Church would
not be able to maintain its fabrics ; that the members of the
Established Church, comparatively so numerous, comparatively
so wealthy, he would not say comparatively so indifferent to
the cause of religion, would not subscribe like the Dissenters
for the maintenance of their own places of worship ? The
Bill which he proposed would empower those who attended the
Established Church to rate themselves in respect to pews and
seats for their families. He was aware that a difficulty would
arise where churches had been rebuilt by funds provided from
mortgage. Of course, in all such cases no Act of Parliament
should apply until all the monies had been repaid. The Biil
he had to propose was simply for the abolition of Church-
rates, and to empower the inhabitants to rate themselves with
respect to pews in the church, which, he believed,
would be found at no distant period to be more than
sufficient for the maintenance of the fabric of the
church. In confirmation of that he had a letter
from a member of the Church, not from a party indifferent to
interests, but from a clergyman of the Established Church, the
Rev. J. Lowry, vicar of Burley, near Carlisle. That gentleman
stated that he was a friend to the Established Church, and he
believed that unless an alteration was made relative to Church-
rates, the congregation would soon fall off from the church.
That letter
-was evidence not to be slighted, as it was not the

evidence of a Dissenter, but a Member of the Established
Church. He had also a letter from Mr. Bone, the church-
warden of St. Andrew's, Plymouth, to a similar effect. He
had also a letter from an individual who signed himself as " A
Sincere Enemy to Church-rates," deprecating in strong terms
the present system of Church-rates. These letters showed a
case which he hoped would convince the House that not only
Dissenters, but even Churchmen, were of opinion that Church -
rates were an impost that ought not to be tolerated. The So-
ciety of Fi iends had submitted to those imposts for upwards of
200 years, but they had led to discontents and strife. He
would read to the House a letter he had received from
a member of the Society of Friends, in which he detailed the
course pursued in the collection of durch-rates from members
of that body. He believed the facts he should furnish from the
Society of Friends would show the House that there was jobbery
and robbery in the collection of Church-rates, which the 1
House would not tolerate. The Hon. Member then read a

letter from a member of the Society of Friends whiciistaTedari
instance where, for a Church-rate of Is. 21/2d, property worth
30s. was taken in execution. It appeared to him drat the
House had neglected its duty to the country in allowing the
question to remain for so long a period in the unsettled state in
which it at present was. In the case to which had alluded the
individual had sustained a loss of not less than 351. 14s. 9d.
He could scarcely imagine it possible that there was any Mem-
ber in that House who did not feel with him that it was most
desirable that some Member of the Government, or some of the
great party opposed to the Government, should take up the
question and bring it to a satisfactory conclusion,—( Hear.)
He could however scarcely hope that, under the circumstances
in which he brought the question forward, that it could be
carried to any satisfactory issue at present, but he trusted that
another year would not be allowed to elapse without its being
taken up by the Government of the day, and thereby put an
end to the bitterness and acrimony that unfortunately prevailed
with regard to it. The Hon. Member eoncluded by moving
for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish Church-rates.
Mr. GOULBURN said the Hon. Member had not distinctly
stated how he intended to meet the deficiency which the aboli-
tion of Church-rates would create ; and before the question
was put, he wished to suggest to the Speaker whether the
motion of the Hon. Member was not informal, inasmuch as he
i proposed fhe (Mr. Goulburn) understood him correctly, to
levy a tax upon pews_and sittings, for the maintenance and re-
pair of churches, and that was such a measure as must origi-
nate in a Committee of the whole House.
Mr. EASTHOPE begged to explain that he had followed
the precedents which,had been adopted in similar Bills ; and,
further, that it was not intended by his Bill to make the levying
of the tax upon pews and seats compulsory, but to leave it
optional with the vestries.—( Cries of " Chair, chair.")
The SPEAKER said it was quite true that no Bill impos-
ing a tax for the repair of churches could originate unless in a
Committee of the whole House, but he thought the explanation
of the Hon. Member removed the objection.
Lord MORPETH did not mean to offer any opposition to
the introduction of the Bill; but the principle to which the
Government were not prepared to give its acquiescence, was
that of leaving it to chance or option as to whether the tax
should be imposed or not. No man was more alive to the im-
portance of the subject than himself, and no man was more
anxious to see the litigations and imprisonments, the heart-
buntings and which the present system gave rise to
put an end to. He was therefore friendly to any well-con-
sideredenactment which would provide a aubstitute for Church-
rates. The Governments of Lord Grey and Lord Melbourne
had introduced propositions with that object; but upon being
introduced and laid before the House, it did not appear to
them that they would have commanded that degree
of acquiescence which would inspire them with a
hope of bringing them to any satisfactory termination.
He understood that his Hon. Friend proposed some method to
supply the deficiency that would be occasioned by the total
abolition of Church-rates ; it remained to be seen whether
this would be anything more thin chance.—( Hear, bear.)
But, so long as it was so, he could not give his consent to
abolish the compulsory powers that nosr existed. But as it
was most desirable that this matter should be duly considered
and properly settled, without taking on himself to pronounce
any opinion whether the substitution proposed was adequate in
amount, or satisfactory in its application, without giving any
opinion except as to the general princitles of the present mo-
t ow, on the part of the Government he should give his sanc-
tion to its introduction.---( Hear, hear. )
Sir R. H. INGLIS said that when a similar measure to the
present was brought forward a short time ago, it was opposed
by the Government en the ground of the pressure of other
business, in consequence of which it could not be properly
considered. This objection applied still more strongly to the
present motion, and he was therefore surprised that the Go
v discretionernments
houldofgtihvee tchoeuinrtraysseto the
assent to it. The present mea-
sure was to transfer the ancient method of taxing by the po-
pular Vestry—a system more
illusory could not be well conceived. It was on the ground
that there was a slight distinction be tween the present mo-
tion and that of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, that the
Government were ieduced to give their consent to it. He
could only accouut for their conduct on the ground
that the present measure contained some extraordinary
emcee for the various evils complained of, or that they
could not now afford to give it s negative.—(oh, oh, and
hear, hear.) So far as he understood the decision of the Court
of Queen's Bench, it was that the extreme measures had not
been exhausted by which the law as it stood might be vindi-
cated. Before, therefore, they introduced a measure which
would completely overturn the fabric of the church, let them
first see whether the present law was not sufficient for every
desirable purpose. The power of the country to provide for
the rr pair of churches could not, in his opinion, he denied ; and
property was fairly subjected to such an impost. It was in
order to prevent the Church of England from being starved
thatout— i(leLosuudppl7ed laughter)--opfrethseen means sesynssteomf
.meeting the spiritual
wants of the people, which was their best inheritance,
The measure they
were called upon to sanction ss asto be adopted optionally, but
that would remove from the Church the solid grounds on
which her claims now rested. For these reasons he felt bound
to oppose the motion.
Mr. HUME said that the time of bringing forward this
measure was agreed to in December last, so that there could I
be no allegation more unfounded than to state that the motion
was submitted to the House for the convenience of the day. '