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

HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 6.

CHURCII-RATES. *st'
Mr. TRELAWNY then rose to move for the apP°' 01
is
meat of a Select Comm ttee to consider the Jew. ti
church-rates, and the difference of practice which eit
in various pima of the country in the assessment 610
levy of such rates; and to report their observatioes,eol
the House. It was seventeen years ago since the sulliel;
was last investigated, and since then men of the higo,
character had from time to time pronounced against thefoi
while no less than three proposals had been wade, 61
their abolition. It might be objected to this, th°".ng
the present moment the Dissenters were not agitant
the subject, and therefore there was no neceasitY '?l%
this Committee; but it should be remembered that 0,
large towns the ratepayers managed to establish 0?0;
minal rate, or by the election of popular churchwer,ueto
they got rid of many of the abuses that attached „„:
the system. Ho admitted that for some time Phy:
halo had been said on this subject, but th"ei
in his opinion was precisely the reason why
ought to institute the inquiry he asked for, because ""0
time of excitement they were not likely to arrive et 0,1
impartial decision, whereas in a time of quietude fie
Ivaco they had not only ample opportunities of considf:c,
lug such questions as this, but of calmly and 8°65 -ce
torily disposing of them. There was a wide differ°l),,d
between tithes and church-rates—the former were ler',
on land, and the latter on persons. When the o°°:,,,
considered what great social evils arose from the P'fr
sent mode of levying church-rates, he thought little s,
jection would be offered to his motion for the aPPnrilllto
Tent of a Committee to inquire into the subject, en"

devise a remedy for those evils. ipQ
Mr. HARDCASTLE seconded the motion. Leokilo
to events which had taken place lately, he rejoiced tip/
thin question had come on for discussion this year of
stead of last. A question of this nature, invialvl°'te
it did the whole principle of church-rates, requir°7o
thought, muchinvestigation, and was deserving of a," to
trouble which it might occasion. As it affected 00
Church of England, it could only have reference tetol
security of the payment of tithes. It appeared "te
the Dissenters who were liable to church 003
had about 10,000 meeting houses in Ellesti
and Wales. The members of the Church hi'"„ if
the other hand about 12,000 churches. Well, thoothe
they were to take into consideratioa the real facts °for
ease, they must look to the amount paid by the .ocl
centers towards the church-rate, and the
for which those rates were levied. It COtie
not be denied that the object really was to repsi!osi
edifices; neither could it be denied that these er°
had been built by our ancestors, so that the present or
quenters of the church would not be ige
pressed even if they were obliged to stesl
port the edifices themselves. It appeared to
the Dissenters paid about one-sixth °f sti
church-rates, and he believed that if the conirt4fil
collection of church-rates were to be abolished n° "oe
would arise, for it was his impression that not onliA"lti
members of the Church, but the Dissenters also °vole
readily contribute to a voluntary rate for the preseibsl
tion of ecclesiastical buildings. He did not eo°
1.
there could be any direct connexion in Pri,ll;6t)
between church•rates and church-tithes.—(Hear,
Tithes were a permanent and fixed charge varying "Oil
with the average price of grain. Church-rates war like
most varied and unequal of all payments—scarcoli 7,010
in any two parishes, and dependent mainly on the cti Ilf
of the churchwardens. It would be remembered hY
House, that in consequence of a vary remarkable sPe
of the Noble Lord the Member for Bath, the Gel„ettio
ment had appointed a Commission for inquiring lot die'
best mode of subdividing parishes into ecclesiastical by
tricts. In the report of that Commission, he fouedtell'
opinion very briefly expressed with regard to el.'" the
rates, which was deserving of attention, considering the
persons who composed that Commission. They vlrehlef'
Archbishop of York, the Bishop of London, Lord ilsrlf
Sir E. Buxton, Mr. Dale, Dr. Cooke, and a gende'4o
who, though he filled a private station in society, ihr°,;oll
the medium of ihe press exercised extensive ieflueibil,
Mr. Robert Seeley. The Commissioners said l° tOl
report, " the present state of the law on the subjecoll
church-rates is vague, defective, and unjust." f
opinion, he thought, amply bore out the object
Hon. Friend, who had moved for this Committee.
Commission went further, and described the lrleclue:00/
of the rates in different parishes, as a very `'grtroo
hardship," and a `• serious grievance" to the rnerwie-etd.
the Church. If so to them, how much greater 'Ole
ship and greivance must it be to the Dissenters? t ii
'
levy bee of church-rat, son them amounted, in hifipti°
persecution, for they were made to pay for the r°;ooi,
nance of doctrines and institutions to which. in Tatouj
cases, they were conscientiously opposed. He, tr-000,
that the Committee would be appointed, and that 4
be able to suggest a plan by which the principles °f flat'
and religious liberty would be vindicated, and ibis '00;
tion placed on a satisfactory basis in future. Piverleo'
eluded by seconding the motion of his lion. ""
near him.
Lord J. RUSSELL said be would not then state
n to
far he might be disposed to differ from the argtint, se,
his Hon. Friend who made the motion, and of tl'ooeP
condor also, with respect to church-rates; but itliffeoo
to him, from the statements which had been read um'
the reports of the Commissioners, and from eTrol7l6
stances well known to them all, that it was (199: tho,
that there should be some attempt made to Settivood,
question of church-rates, and some improvemonliffli
in the existing law on that subject—(Hear.) P:401 Cl
these opinions, he really thought that that prof's' 00"
•oso
~e
his Hon. Friend felt a Committee to inquire ies
consider that matter, would lead to much practice
vantage.—(Hear, hear.) , h ore'
Mr. HUME called attention to the state of Eche,i,llle;;
where the attempt to collect annuity-tax from JP
time had led to acts of violence, and cbliged the e"„d to
out of the military. The Noble Lord had nrollni°oe,lo/
,
bring in a Bill to settle the question of ministers 401
in Ireland. The amount of that tax there was yilrerti‘
11 MU It was about the same in Scotian°, pe
Edinburgh contributed nearly the entire anien°ooo:l
the case was nearly similar in Montrose, where
rates were compulsory under an Act of Charles P;Il ws
was quite sure that the welfare of the Church wc)" thr
more dependent on the settlement of that questio° ill
most others. There could not be any difficulty 913,°, SS°
as there were ample funds already belonging •-
Church which would supply any deficiency.
Lord J. RUSSELL said it seemed to him to hecsil
sirable, and he hoped it might be practicable, tee
some measure for amending the present 831', .tr,
ministers' money. But with respect to the annniefl"
he should observe that every effort that had Ilitivotr
been made to arrange the matter in a satisfactorf
ner had proved utterly unavailing.
Sir R. H. INGLIS said that whatever °Wei
might entertain to the proposal for a Committee. tat f 0
quire into that subject, he certainly could not objefive to
it so strongly as to a resolution pledging the 14etive0
any particular course of action in the matter. Theile f4l
been told that 600,000 persons bad petitioned for t
03
moval of those rates. But in his opinion that inci:eolo;
stance had very little to do with the merits of Cuti-etere,zi
He believed that three times that number of si"
might be procured for any petition having for its °
the removal of a tax of any description whatevefe.o s
the Hon. Gentleman who had seconded the inr4A'-iselh
told them that these 600,000 individuals formeuhf fraig
small portion of the persons who were affectedZotl•l
them that theyl
th grievance.p one portion of his speech the Hon. .".1,(4
man had said that the Dissenters constituted one"',li to,
ticgo landnstit
u; itne
constituted
oneanother
.touprothr tioofn ot
the
ei t
ph:phqositelioe:t!
and the Bon. Gentleman had further stated that, ee'.ocl.„'''
ing the manner in which the payment of the tair
tributed, he thought the sum paid in the form of et c/0,1"
rates by Dissenters might fairly be taken e(511:0'
sixth of the whole amount collected. But he 'ion 111
Inglis) contended that conjectures of that deecriPt
no way affected the real bearing of the quesli°li'd iOO,
the property of this country had been bought .--of Pr W
subject to that charge, and the present oweers oeliao
perty could not be fairly exempted from its 110 tPr,
On a former occasion the Honourable Gentlet fV,"
Member for Manchester had complained that th' of tot
Mr. Russell, the rector of the parish churc"ouse,
Bishopsgate district, had entered a meeting-13 000,
the Society of Friends, and had there seized tbetisrot,c,el
and benches in liquidation of a claim fur chur,e, store
But the Honourable Gentleman had incorrectuhal P);
the facts of the case. The tithes of that parish P-eggfrt,
merly amounted to 2s. 9d. in the pound, and thetbist,ts
gate of the sum which would be raised under Pp
rangement was between 5,0001. and 6,0001. a-Ye" eitiOi
in the year 1835 an Act of Parliament had becil rower
under which those tithes were abolished, andel:01;
were given to raise a certain sum for church P"obje-e,
That sum amounted to 8 5001. a-year, and vostho Prod
to certain deductions. The amount at which retell 0,
mises to which the Right Hon. Gentleman had to :lt3o
were rated for that tax varied from 1/. 143. 9d. oft
a-year ; and in the case in question the seize etlet;
tne be
seats and benches had not been made in the d t sr
le et
house, as the Honourable Member would have e.
to suppose, but in the adjoining dwelling-h°,osto fle;
should be remembered that that tax did not attacnof poel,l
particular individuals or to any particular pinne9 esrd
es an individual grievance; and yet the or° noes „
ship, but to property, and could not therefore be :::$ 013 r
wealthy body of which the Hon. Member for Ita.ho
WWI crutuueut had thought proper W refiit4