The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-09 00:00:00

APRIL 9, 1851.

years 1845, 1846, 1847, 1848, 1849, and 1850, in and for
the counties of Clare, Cavan, Cork, West Riding, and
Longford, respectively; similar return of the number of
such processes heard and decided upon; similar return of
the number of civil bill processes for redemption, of copies
served, and of such processes entered, heard, and decided;
similar returns in replevin cases, and in I. gacy or dis-
tributive share of assets cases : and, similar return of
all other original civil bills, and of the number of copies
served, and the number of such cases entered, and the
number of such cases heard and decided; such returns
to distinguish the number of cases in which civil bills
were merely issued and served, from those cases in which
the civil bill was entered, and a decree or dismiss
was had; and also, to exhibit the average num-
ber of copies served in each class of civil bill process.
The Hon. Gentleman then asked whether it was the in-
tention of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite to pro-
ceed with the Bill.

Tho MASTER of the ROLLS said that he had only
taken charge of the Bill in the absence of the Hon. the
Attorney-General for Ireland, and that he meant to pro-
ceed with it as long as it was under his care.
ORDERS OF THE DAY AND THE EASTER
RECESS.

Lord J. RUSSELL moved that after the 30th inst.
the orders of the day should take precedence of notices
of motion on Thursdays.
Mr. 11. BAILLIE said that a motion stood on the
paper for the adjournment of the House, on Thursday,
the 17th, for the Easter recess. How did the Noble Lord
intend to deal with that?

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that as no notice of any
material question had bee❑ given for Wednesday, it was
hii intention to move the udjoutnment of the House tor
the Easter reee,s o❑ Monday for Tuesday, the 15th, in-
stead of Thursday, the 17th.—(Chuera.)
C HU RCH-RATES.

Mr. TRELAWNY then rose to move for the appoint-
ment of a Select Committee to consider the law of
church-rates, and the difference of practice which exists •
in various parts of the country in the assessment and
levy of such rates; and to report their obsersations to
the House. It was seventeen years ago since the subject
was last investigated, and since then men of the highest
character had from time to time pronounced against them,
while no less than three proposals bad been made for
their abolition. It might be objected to this, that at
the present moment the Dissenters were not agitating
the subject, and therefore there was no necessity for
this Committee; but it should be remembered that is
large towns the ratepayers managed to establish a no-
minal rate, or by the election of popular churchwardens
they got rid of many of the abuses that attached to
the system. He admitted that for some time past
little had been said on this subject, but that
in his opinion was precisely the reason why they
ought to institute the inquiry he asked tor, because in a
time of excitement they were not likely to arrive at an
impartial decision, whereas in a time of quietude and
peace they had not only ample opportunities of consider-
ing such questions as this, but of calmly and satisfac-
torily disposing of them. There was a wide difference
between tithes and church-rates—the former were levied
on land, and the latter on persons. When the House
considered what great social evils arose from the pre-
sent mode of levying church-rates, ho thought little ob-
jection would be offered to his motion for the appoint-
ment of a Committee to inquire into the subject, and to
devise a remedy for those evils.
Mr. HARDCASTLE seconded the motion. Looking
to events which had taken place lately, he rejoiced that
this question had come on for discussion this year in-
stead of last. A question of this natnre, involving as
it did the whole principle of church-rates, required, he
thought, much investigation, and was deserving of all the
trouble which it might occasion. As it affected the
Church of England, it could only have reference to the
security of the payment of tithes. It appeared that
the Dissenters who were liable to church rates
had about 10,000 meeting houses in England
and Wales. The members of the Church had on
the other hand about 12,000 churches. Well, then, if
they were to take into consideration the real facts of the
case, they must look to the amount paid by the Dis-
senters towards the church-rate, and the object
for which those rates were levied. It could
not be denied that the object really was to repair the
edifices; neither could it be denied that these edifices
had been built by our ancestors, eo that the present fre-
quenters of the church would not be op-
pressed even if they were obliged to sup-
port the edifices themselves. It appeared that
the Dissenters paid about one-sixth of the
church-rates, and he believed that if the compulsory
collection of church-rates were to be abolished no evil
would arise, for it was his impression that not only the
members of the Church, but the Dissenters also would
readily contribute to a voluntary rate for the preserva-
tion of ecclesiastical buildings. He did not see that
there could be any direct connexion in principle
between church-rates and church-tirhes.—(llear, hear.)
Tithes were a permanent and fixed charge varying only
with the average price of grain. Church-rates were the
most varied and unequal of all payments—scarcely alike
in any two parishes, and dependent mainly on the caprice
of the churchwardens. It would be remembered by the
House, that in consequence of a vary remarkable speech
of the Noble Lord the Member for Bath, the Govern-
went had appointed a Commission for inquiring into the
best mode of subdividing parishes into ecclesiastical dis-
tricts. In the report of that Commission, he found en
opinion very bristly expressed with regard to church-
rates, which was deserving of attention, considering; the
persons who composed that Commission. They were the
Archbishop of York, the Bishop of London, Lord Ashley,
Sir E. Buxton, Mr. Dale, Dr. Cooke, and a gentleman,
who, though he filled a private station in society, through
the medium of the press exercised extensive influence,
Mr. Robert Seeley. The Commissioners said in that
report, " the present state of the Jaw on the subject of
church-rates is vague, defective, arid unjust." That
opinion, he thought, amply bore out the object of his
Hon. Friend, who had moved for this Committee. The
Commission went further, and described the inequality
of the rates i❑ different parishes, as a very " grievous
' hardship," and a " serious grievance" to the members of
the Church. If so to them, how much greater a hard-
ship and greivance must it be to the Dissenters? The
levying of church-rates on them amounted, in fact, to
persecution, for they were made to pay for the mainte-
nance of doctrines and institutions to which, in many
cases, they were conscientiously opposed. He trusted
that the Committee would be appointed, and that it would
' be able to suggest a plan by which the principles of civil
and religious liberty would be vindicated, and this ques-
tion placed on a satisfactory basis in future. He con-
, eluded by seconding the motion of his Hon. Friend
, near him.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he would not then state how

far ho might be disposed to differ from the arguments of
his Hon. Friend who made the motion, and of the se-
conder also, with respect to church-rates; but it seemed
to him, from the statements which had been read from
the reports of the Commissioners, and from circum-
stances well known to them all, that it was desirable
that there should be some attempt made to settle that
question of church-rates, and some improvement made
in the existing law on that subject.—(Hear.) Holding
these opinions, he really thought that that proposal of
his Hon. Friend fur a Committee to inquire into and
consider that matter, would lead to much practical ad-
vantage.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME called attention to the state of Edinburgh,
where the attempt to collect annuity-tax from time to
time had led to acts of violence, and obliged the calling
out of the military. The Noble Lord had promised to
bring in a Bill to settle the question of ministers' money
in Ireland. The amount of that tax there was about
18,000/. It was about the same in Scotland, where
Edinburgh contributed nearly the entire amount; and
the case was nearly similar in Montrose, where those
rates were compulsory under an Act of Charles. He
was quite sure that the welfare of the Church would be
more dependent on the settlement of that question than
most others. There could not be any difficulty about it,
as there were ample funds already belonging to the
Church which would supply any deficiency.
Lord J. RUSSELL said it seemed to him to be de-
sirable, and he hoped it might be practicable, to pass
some measure for amending the present system of
ministers' money. But with respect to the annuity-tax
he should observe that every effort that had hitherto
been made to arrange the matter in a satisfactory man-
ner had proved utterly unavailing.
Sir R. 11. INGLIS said that whatever objection he
might entertain to the proposal for a Committee to in-
quire into that subject, he certainly could not object to
it so strongly as to a resolution pledging the House to
any particular course of action in the matter. They had
been told that 600,000 persons had petitioned for the re-
moval of those rates. But in his opinion that circum-
stance had very little to do with the merits of the case.
He believed that three times that numbsr of signatures
might be procured for any petition having for its object
the removal of a tax of any description whatever. But
the Hon. Gentleman who had seconded the motion had
told them that these 600,000 individuals formed but a
small portion of the persons who were affected by the
grievance. In one portion of his speech the Hon. Gentle-.
man had said that the Dissenters constituted one third of
the people of England; in another portion of it he had told
them that they constituted one•fourth of the population;
and the Hon. Gentleman had further stated that, consider.
ing the manner in which the payment of the tax was dis-
tributed, he thought the sum paid in the form of church-
rates by Dissenters might fairly be taken at one
sixth of the whole amount collected. But he (Sir
Inglis) contended that conjectures of that description
in
no way affected the real bearing of the question. All
the property of this country had been bought and sold
subject to that charge, and the present owners of pro-
perty could not be fairly exempted from, its payment.
On a former occasion the Honourable Gentleman the
Member for Manchester had complained that the Rev.
Mr. Russell, the rector of the parish church of the
Bishopsgato district, had entered a meeting-house of
the Society of Friends, and had there seized the chairs
and benches in liquidation of a claim for church-rates.
But the Honourable Gentleman had incarreetly stated
the facts of the case. The tithes of that parish had for
merly amounted to 2.5. 9d. in the pound, and the aggre-
gate of tho sum which would be raised under that ar-
rangement was between 5,0001. and 6,000/. a-year. But
in the year 1835 an Act of Parlismsiit had been passel
under which those tithes were, abolished, and powers
were given to raise a certain sum for church purposeb.
That sum amounted to 8,500/. a-year. and was subject
to certain deductions. The amount at which the prey
miser to which the Right Hon. Gentleman had referred
were rated for that tax varied from 11. I,ls. 9d. to 21. ss.
a-year ; and in the case in question the seizure of the
seats and benches had not been made in the meeting-
house, as the Honourable Member would have led them
to suppose, but in the adjoining dwelling.house. It
should be remembered that that tax did not attach to any
particular individuals or to any particular: places of wor-
ship, but to property, and could not therefore be regarded
as an individual grievance; and yet the eminent and
wealthy body of which the Hon. Member for
.Manchester
was tin ornament had thought proper to zeaist the pay-

ment of a tlx on th&r property which never amounted
to more than 21. ss. a year, and had by that means nil-
detect necessary the unseemly scene to which the Hon.
Gentleman had acivi red. He (Sir R. Inglis) should
have resisted that motion if it had assumed the form of
a resolution; and even in its present shape he could riot
give to it his appreval. The only ground on which such
a Committee could be considered necessary was,
that it
would be desirable to put an end to some uncertainty in
the law upon the subject. But no such uncertainty. At
present existed. The law upon the point, after having
been brought under the consideration of several inferior
courts, had been finally settled by the highest court of
judicature in the kingdom, which had decided in favour
of the legal existence of churceee•etss for the repair and
maintenance of parish churches. At the present moment
church-rates differed from tithes in this respect only. that,
they were fluctuating in amount from the very nature ot
their case. He should grieve to think that that question
was in any way to be unsettled by the inquiries of a
Parliamentary Committee. He could not understand why
there should he such a Committee, towards which should
gravitate all the complainte and all the plans of all pis.'
centers in the kingdom for the removal of a charge
which was a positive obligation on them, not as Dis-
senters, but as owners of property. He certainly thought
it would have been wiser not to have raised the question.
But, at the same time, as the motion was no longer a re'
soiWiOn pledging the House to a particular course ef
action, he should not meet it by a direct negative. He
earnestly hoped, however, that her Mejesty's Govern-
ment, while they assented to the proposal, would telt°,
care that the Committee should be a fair and impartts;
ewe and should not consist of Members pre-determine"
on arriving at a conclusion unfavourable to the Church
upon the subject.
Mr. BRIGHT said he did not think the Hon. Baronet
who had just addressed the House had made out a geed
cease with regard to the Bishopsgate-street aggression.
The Hon. Baronet was aware that the church for which
those benches and seats bad been seized was placed in
the immediate neighbourhood of the Friends' meeting'
house which had beers so despoiled. It might be true
that those effects had not been seized immediately
in the meeting-house, but they bad been
seized in the adjoining premises, and that was
precisely the same thing. The Society of Friends eh'
not hold that there was anything sacred in seats or
benches, and in their view there was no such crime se,
sacrilege in connexion with places of worship. He would
ask the Hon. Baronet himself whether he thought, that,
in this country and at the present day, such a state
things as that of which he himself had admitted the
existence, ought any longer to be tolerated—that on ono
side of a street they should have a large place of wore
snip in connexion with the Church of England, and that
on the other side of the street they should have a place
of worship erected by the voluntary contributions or
sect whose members, while they professed essentially the
same religious doctrines, were compelled to contribete,
to the maintenance of the church of their more favourea
neighbours? He said that such a system was inconsis;
test with the general laws of a country which professed
to have long ago done away with persecution, penalties,
and disabilities, on the ground of religious differences. Ile
admitted that there vies the sanction of an Act of Perlis'
ment for such proceedings as those which had taken pleas
in the case of the Friends' meeting-house inthe Bishop's'
gate-street district; hut he complained that such an,
Act of Parliament should exist, and he thought that "
ought at once to be repealed. He believed that the in;
diction of church-rates was unjust to Dissenters, and that
it was a disadvantage to the Church itself. The 1100'
Baronet had said that that question had of late bee°
finally settled. It was true that a majority of the judges
had decided that any minority, however small, in e
parish, could strike a church-rate; but some of the In°s",
eminent of the judges bad arrived at a contrary coneltv
lion. That church•rate law, as it stood at present, wea!
very like what the Duke of Wellington had said tu°
other day of martial law—it wai no law at all. It gale
.
a right of taxetion to a minority in a parish such as wee'
not enjoyed by a minority of that House. He believed
that all the best Churchmen regretted the contentions
and scandalous scenes to which the exaction of those
church-rates gave rise. That system might
receive the approval of the political Churchmen
who used the Church for party purposes; but
all sincere, high-minded, and charitable membersf
of the Church must deeply regret the consequences
the present law upon the subject. And let it be remelt'
bored that the whole amount of those ichurch-rates wee
not more than between 200,000/. and 250,0001. a eltilf.
In Manchester no church-rates have been collected del:
leg the last fifteen years; the parish church there 0'
maintained by the voluntary contributions of the met
bers of the Established Church, and by that system
much contention, violence, and animosity had fortunately
been avoided. In Rochdale the same system was Par,
sued, and with the same happy result. He believed tba"
the church-rate system had long been undermining tb:
Church of England in the affections of the people. 111-
present was a very peculiar time for the Church of Ent,:
land. They had heard speeches from Hon. Gentlemen
opposite, which showed that among the members
of the Church very different feelings prevailed with reci
gard to many of those questions from those which hs
prevailed in former times. He should advise the 11°1/,:,
Baronet (Sir R. 11. Inglis) to try to " set his house '''
order."—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) If there was to be
a stress of weather for the Church, it would be better,
that it should be prepared to meet it, than that it shoo
h`e
have all that damaging lumber on board. He hopedilio
proposed Committee would sift that question, and wued
they should have pres,nted their report the Noble Lor
would not allow that report to be laid idly on the shelf
until he should again come into office. 11, believed tbe,"
no Minister could adopt a wiser measure than one whtel
would put an end altogether to those church-rates, an"
remove ase stem which was an injustice to Dissenters
and an injury to the. Church of England.—(Hear.)
Mr. A. B. HOPE said he did not share in the aPPre.
hensions which his Hon. Friend the Member for tbed
University of Oxford (Sir R. 11. Inglis) had expree'eo
of the consequences of the proposed inquiry. It should
be remembered that the system of church-rates bat.
been imposed at a very different period rota the proser).6
They had been imposed at a time when the people of Ohio
country had all professed but one religion, and when
system was not liable to the same objection which eon,
at present be urged against it. He thought it advisab;
that when other rights were inquired into, the questied,
of church-rates should not be considered as the intn,
table foundation of the faith of the people of Englo
—(Hear, hear.) But, as a Churchman, he should sjd
that he did Lot think a Committee of that House Wan,
he likely to he the tribunal best adapted to investigail
any question which related to the ecclesiastical affairs 11
tnemeers of all religious denominations, because, as eay
denominations were represented in that House, it
equally unfit to legislate for any one of them in particula.'.s
Still, however, on the broad ground that churchsrat•,
should not be considered immutable, he should not 'l'.
ject to that motion. The proposal, however, of the lie;
Gentleman the Member for Manchester, like the Pre,
posal of the Solicitor-General last year, was open to td,
great objection that it would attach a pecuniary 60
vantage to religious indifferentism, by exempting fr° 11
all contributions for the maintenance of churches is,
those who did not profess to belong to any partice'ei
religous denomination. He was aware of the difilealta
of dealing judiciously with that question. But he hello
heard of a scheme which existed in one or. two of t
states of America, and which had some broad advantsgo
on the face of it, although he could not undertake
decide whether or not it would be found applicable tot
country. Under that scheme a " religion rate" Aar
struck; then a schedule was sent round to each ratePaY:o
who was required to enter himself under some religi°o
denomination or another; and, after that, a sum /i
raised. which was handed over to the hierarchy or tot,
governing body of each sect. After all, the members es
the Church of England, though every day most desirc.w,
to afford fair play to their fellow-citizens not beloties;
to bar communion, claimed that liberty of consciel;
should be accorded to themselves, which he feared, froth'
the tenor of legislation which had prevailed of late, they
were not very likely to obtain. • st
Mr. HEYWORTH said the argument used egiol
the removal of church-rates might be urged with Wit
justice against the window-tax or any other impost, for ,
might be argued that a man had bought his house 1010
ins, that if was subject to the window duties.
r. LENNARD thought some legislation requisite ee
the subject, for there was nothing which caused mat
hearthurning in the community. The law had not beoo
quite fairly stated, for the decisions had only gone to lb
o
extent, that if the vestry met and refused to make,. r
church-rate, the churchwardens
.might make one iea
them, inasmuch as they were supposed to have abdicates
their duties. But if, instead of utterly refusing to make
a rate, they made one of 6d. instead of 95., such are t
would be perfectly good, though the result might be thicj
the church would get a little out of repair. He quite agrtej
with the Hon, Member for Manchester in thinking tPh",,
the enforcement of these rates was prejudicial to tt
Church itself, and he believed that the Church was n,.""0
rendered more wealthy by it. Indeed, if the rate We'
voluntary many Dissenters would contribute,
Mr. COWAN expressed a hope that Edinburgh an
Montrose would be included in the investigation. „,10
Mr. F. MAULE could not agree with the Honouraube
Member in thinking that the state of Scotland should edi
referred to the same Committee. Inquiries had be-es
already made, and Government had endeavoured to nga
gutiato between the parties. These negotiations h'f,
not terminated successfully; but hopes were still at°
tabled that they would be brought to a favourable jostle'
ST. ALBAN'S ELECTION.
The Sergeant-at-Arms appeared at the bar, and fl°e.
nounced to the House that ho had made a return to ,0
writ of habeas corpus which had been served upote
in the case of William Lynes.
LODGING-HOUSES FOR THE WORKING'

_
CLASSES.
Lord ASHLEY, in rising to move for leave to intro
duce a .Bill to encourage the construction of lotlgi"r
houses for the worku g classes, observed that whatec,:vi
might have been the case '2O years ago, it was not ll'of
necessary to make a lengthened statement in supPert,be
the motion. Still he was anxious briefly to set before ‘,l
House the results of his own experience and thet, 1
others upon the subject. He had studied it for selelo
years, and thought measures might be devised to rcrOt,
a great many of the evils which oppressed a large Vin
lion of the laouring community. lie would not tiPt!de
the House by any lengthened statement. He would dill/A
the objects of the Bill into two classes—the stationary 6'ho
migratory poor. With respect to the stationary class, 'of
held in his hand a return in reference to the parrs in'
St. George, Hanover-square, and the result of the.ii.e,
quiry was that there were in that parish 1,465 flinildof
of the labouring classes who occupied 2,174 I'oool9' hcio
these families 999 had but one room, in which a vvwf,- g,
family resided; 408 had 2 rooms, 94 had 3 r2"i 7
17 had 4 rooms, 8 had 5 rooms, 4 had 6 rooms, / be-
rooms,and 1 had 8 rooms. He referred to this parish
tbe
cause it was a favourable instance; and it this wee
in
condition of the families in one of the best parishes
London, what must bo the condition of those in the
populous and mere neudyparishos ii the eastern &sta.—