The Sun.
London, England, 1840-07-01 00:00:00

paßsed, providing for the erection of fifty churches for the
metropolis alone. A similar necessity existed, he believed,
at the present day. It was a remarkable fact, that those
parts of the country which stood most in need of adddi.
tional church accommodation, were those which
showed the least desire for obtaining it. That
was a fact which he regretted, but which he
could not deny. The single county cf Mon.
mouth, with a population of only 100,000 inhabitants, had
presented more petitions in favour of Church Extension
than the four metropolitan counties with a population of
2,300,000 souls. He would, however, leave that subject,

as he did not think it could militate against the motion
which he was then submitting to the House. He would
pass to the main objections to that motion. In the first
place there were some who said that religion was an atrair
bet seen man and his God, and that it was a matter in
which the State had no right to interfere. It was said

by others that ti!e members of the Church of England
formed a minority in the country, an I that it would be
unjiht to tax Dis,enters for the support of such a Church.
OtherF, again, said that the building of churches should

be left to individuals, and that if they were wanted there
would be found means of erecting them. With respect to
the first objetion, could it be contended that individuals
had an obligation which the State had not? Indi-
viduals were buupd to use every means in their power
to do the greatest goed—all power was given by God, and
should be used for his glory—and if that was true of men
in their private capacity, it was true of them when filling
public situations. That was a doctrine which appeared to
him to be indisputable. With regard to the as,icrtion that
the members of the Church of England were in a mino-
rity in the country, he thought it was nrmilestly an error.
lie was sorry he had not been able to obtain accurate data
on the subject, bat be would submit such data as he could
collect for the purpose of ;hoeing the comparative num-
ber of Churchmen and of Dissenters in England. He
found in the first place that the numb,r of Dissenting
chapels in the country were stated by his Noble Friend
opposite ( Lord J. Russell) to amount to no more than 10,000
which fact alone would, if true, show how small a portion
they muQt form of the population. It was true that ac-
cording to another return which had been made by a
NAL: Frond of his, the number of Dissenting chapels
amounted to 26,260; but it should be observed, in the

first place, that in that return were not included all
species of licensed rooms, and in addition that the returns

extendcd over a period of many years. Besides, many
Dissenting meeting houses did not include ten
householders. Ile would next refer to calculations
of suhscriptins for Infirmaries in various parts of the
country. Ile found that in Gloucester thirty-seven mem-
bers of the Church of England had contributed for one
Di•r•cnter ; in Bedford clove❑ to one ; and is Leeds,

where the numbers approached each other most nearly,
four to one Dissenter. lie also found that Dissenting
marriages throughout the ent:re country amounted to no
mare than 4,088, in a period during which 6 032 members
of the Church o!' England wer., mTied in London alone.

It appeared-that in Lancaster the number of Dissenters
amoJnted to no more than 22.5,000, out of a popuhtton of
more tha❑ a million ; and, lastly, according to Mr.
M' CulLch there were but about three millions of Dis-

senters in England. If there were any truth in these
statement, he would ask whether a Government would
dis.eliar;e its duty if it refused to pass a measure for fear of
diTleasing a minority of the subjects of the State. If a
minority were allowed to oppose itself to the wishes and
the wants of a majority, there would, in his opinion, be an
end to all government, lie was aware that he might be
met on that subket by an opinion he had expressed the
other night. Ile would not shrink from that ()pinion, and
lie would still say that he would never voluntarily give a
sixpence to what he believed to be contrary to the
word of God. 13tit still while he lived in a country,
he should think himself bound to obey its laws.

It should be remembered that no man was taxed as a
Dissenter; he was taxed as a subject only, and he was
taxed according to his property and not according to his
creed. He denied, therefore, that any one should say that
on the ground of his being a Dissenter he should say that
his conscience was violated when the Parliament of the
United Kingdom passed an enactment to which only were
Dissenters opposed. The wealth of the Church was a topic
with those who were unfavourable to such a mation as that
which he had introduced. It was said that that wealth
was sufficient for every religious purpose if it were duly
applied. He believed, however, that the resources of the
Church were much exaggerated. Besides those resources
were net all in reality in the hands of the clergy. He
would give as en instance the case of the Abbey of Glas-
tonbury, the income of which, if received, would amount to
near 500,000/. But that income could not be recovered, and
it was so in other cases. Ile would state as a prof that
the weahh of the clergy of the Established Church was
not immoderate, the fact that the average of their incomes
did not amount to more than 242/. Undoubtedly the
wealth of the Church was unequally distributed ; but that
was an evil with which Parliament could not in many cases
interfere. Three-fourths of the livings were in the hands
of private individuals, and they were as much their property
as any thing else they could claim. He woulal, however,
make one remark on that subject, namely that the question of
Church Extension and of Church Reform were en-
tirely distinct. With regard to the voluntary principle he
would have no hesitation in saying that it could not meet
the religious wants of a great community. Let them
see how that system had worked in America. Had it
supplied a minister to each church there ? By their own
returns it had not, for there were in America 15 000
churches, and there were but 10,800 ministers. There
were other facts which would prove how ill the voluntary
system had worked in America, as appeared from the work
Of Mr. Mills, who had given a deplorable description of
the spiritual destitution which prevailed there. The
voluntary system had not lately succeeded to any extent
in London, notwithstanding the zealous appeals of the
present Bishop ; and it had equally failed in Chester and
in York. But the worst feature in that system was that
it failed in the poorer districts were assistance was most
required. In Liverpool and in Sheffield there were but
few free sittings ; indeed it was sometimes the boas: of
Dissenters that their chapels were not in low neighbour-
hoods but in-more respectable parts of towns. All that
hod been done by them had yet left a great deal to
be done, and therufore it was'that he called upon the
House and the Noble Lord, the representative of the Go-
vernment in the House, to grant means for providing spi-
ritual instruction for those who were destitute and in want.
In the diocese of Ripon, the population was 106,000, the
number of sittings was 41,000, but the free sittings
amounted to only 15,856, All other persons wire denied
accommodation in the National Church. In the A! eh_ !
deaconry of Creighton the population was 23,326, and
there was not one free sitting; the Poor, who ought to be
provided for were totally neglected. What would have
been the situation of England had it not been for the
voluntary exertions of the followers of Wesley and Whit-
field ?—(Cheers). The Dissenters generally did not op-
pose the scheme which he proposed ; the Wesleyans nobly
supported it, and in the neighbourhood of London, if there
had not been approval, at all events there bad been no
hostility shown to his measure, for out of the vast number
of Non-con'ermist congregations in the district only 38
ha.. petitioned against it. The voluntary liberality of
many gentlemen had on many occasions been nobly exerted;
amongst others he must first name the Hon. and venerable
Member for Middlesex.—( Hear, hear,)—end the Earl of
Lonsdale ; but the voluntary principle was quite inadequate
to the necessities of the country. After showing the want of
church accommodation as compared to the population. he
said the destitution was even greater within a radius of
three or four miles from where they then were. lb four
parishes within that district, allowing a church to every
3 000 inhabitants. there ought to be 379 churches, while,
in fact, there were no more than 69 in all. So also was it
in many dioceses in the country. The revenues of the
Church could not possibly meet the evil. The evil was
admitted even by the Prime Minister, yet not one of the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners had even hinted that the
present property of the Church, by any means of distri-
bution, could possibly meet the evil. Then he contended
that it was the duty of the country to make provision for
the evil, and it was to be done by that House, for every
one held his property subject to the demands and taxes im.
hosed by that House. In France the estimates for 1841
had been printed, and they contained a payment of
1,128,000/. for the payment of the clergy, and 26 000/. for
building churches ; and that, be it borne in mind,
was to be provided for by taxation. The House
would betray their duty if they talked of a Na-
tional Church, while they left three-fourths of
the people in involuntary ignorance. It was the
duty of the House to provide accommodation fur all tire
oeuele. Looking at the measure in its lowest view—
looking at it as a measure of police, it would prove a boon
to the economists. By returns, he found that, in one year
alone, in six counties, the money spent in building and re-
pairing gaols amounted to 1,514,0001., and the test of
England spent for the same purpose 1,805,0001. Now he
did not mean to say that Church accommodation for all
would altogether prevent crime, but his position was that
wherever churches were easily acce,sible crime was lower
in amount than in parishes where the church was far off,
and there was not a resident clergyman. There were
many returns to prove that crime was much higher in
neglected parishes than in those where the people were
afforded tho means of attending the worship of God. (The
Right Hon. Baronet read several extracts to show that the
building of new churches in the neighbourhood of London
had led to a greater demand for spiritual instruction--for
education, and had greatly incressed the charitable in-
stitutions of all the parishes.) He was afraid, althotieh it
was not said, but he thought the opposition to the
measure arose from an apprehension that it would strengthen
the Church of England; for it was proved that wherever
it was planted it quickly obtained the love and reverence
of the people. They expected from the people moral con-
duct, they expected from them respect and obedience to
the laws—but what had they done to teach there to become
such good subjects? What, as a nation, had they done to
teach the people to become Christians? All voluntary
efforts had been found ineffectual in the gre it work of
Church Extension, and large as had been the grants that
had been made, they had not supplied the wants of one
town in ten. Such being the ease, lie would ask whether
it did not become the imperative duty of the Legislature to
interfere ? Only last night it was admitted by the Noble
Lord that the want of church accommodation was felt in
several parts of the country. Her Majesty's Ministers
were committed to the principle that it was the duty of the
Government to provide for the Christian wants of the peo-
ple. There were various modes in which this might be
done, but he was willing to leave that to the Govern.
went. All he wished was that the principle should
be recognised.—( Hear, hear.) It was the duty of an
individual to circumscribe his expenditure to his means,
but it was the duty of a nation to raise it t expenditure
according to its duties. They had the means before them,
and they had only to call them out. Considering the large
sums that had been thrown b ck upon the people in the
shape of the remission of taxes in the last twenty-five
years ; and considering also, that in the shape of the
property tax alone, upwards of three hundred thousand
millions had been thrown back on the people, he thought
there could be no doubt they had the means to carry on
the great work. He contended that, to build churches
alone would snot be sufficient ; if they did not endow them
they would but inadequately perform their
_duties.—
( Hear, bear.) Now, who were the opponents of the
grant ? It was flu unholy allianc.o between the Roman