The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-20 00:00:00

than Lord Stanley ? His lordship was for the abolition of
church-rates, and so were Lord Ashley, Lord Grosvenor, and
the Marquis of Hartington. (A laugh.) Were those enemies
of the establishment, or were theynot as sincere friends to the
Church as any or their lordships could be ? (Hear, hear.)
He trusted that if he had not been able to carry conviction
to their lordships' mind he had said nothing calculated to
offend their religious feelings. Before he sat down, perhaps
he might be allowed to address one word in the way of re-
monstrance to the right rev. bench. If he were addressing
an assembly of attorneys who strained to the utmost every
possible technicality of the law, he would deserve to be
laughed at if he engaged in my Quixotic endeavour to induce
them to give up any right, however uncertain, for the sake of
peace and good will. (Laughter.) Buthe was now speaking
to men who knew there was no exercise of the Christian
virtues equal to that of self-sacrifice, and who had for the
benefit of the Church and the advancement of religion con-
sented to be shorn of some portion of their episcopal
revenues. He entreated them, then, not to raise their hands
to strike their Dissenting brethren; but, in the words of
Mr. Secretary Stanley in 1834, to consider whether the in-
terests of the Church were advanced by the desecration of
the house of God by squabbles about church rates; or, in
the words of Sir R Peel, whether social harmony should
be allowed to be interrupted by these discussions. (Hear.)
In the sincere and solemn conviction that the present mea-
sure would tend to make the Church more popular and to
promote the interests of religion itself, he moved the second
reading of the bill. (Hear.)

The Duke of MARLBOROUGH said that with regard
to the first ground on which the noble lord had based his
motion—the ground, namely, that all attempts at a com-
promise on this question had failed—he had to remark that
those attempts failed because the Dissenters expressed a
clear and positive determination to stop short of nothing less
than the entire abolition of church rates. The second
ground on which the noble lord urged his motion was that
the church rate was a bone of contention, and that it tended
to promote and keep alive the odium theologicum. But, on
the other hand, he would ask the noble lord to consider
what must be the feeling of the members of the Established
Church when they saw these persistent attempts of the
Dissenters to deprive the Church of its revenues, and all
attempts at compromise rejected because they were the ad-
vocates of the voluntary principle. The noble lord in the
course of his speech had giver utterance to many fallacies.
He told them that church rates were a legal obligation
without a legal remedy for their enforcement. But why was
the sta'e of the law such that there was a legal obligation
without a legal remedy ? There used to be a legal remedy in
the ecclesiastical courts, when men's minds and consciences
quailed before the censures of those courts. It was true that
this was no longer the case ; but the noble lord, if he were
logical in his reasoning, instead of asking for the abolition
of church rates, should have proposed to find some other
remedy or substitute. The noble lord endeavoured to lead
the house to suppose that the Wesleyan Methodists, who
amounted to one. half the Dissenting community in England
were in favour of his measure, whereas the fact was that
the Wesleyan Conference never sanctioned this agitation.
The noble lord had said that the amount of church rate col-
lected had fallen, and he argued from that fact that the rate
had fallen in the general sympathies of the people. But the
cause of that diminution was to be found in the opposition to
the rate, and the disposition of the church to make compro-
mises, and not to ask for more than was absolutely required
for the repair of the church fabric. The noble lord had com-
mitted a great error in putting this question on the same
grounds with the important questions of reform, the corn
laws, and Jewish disabilities. With regard to reform there
was an acknowledged evil, an acknswledged necessity ; and
it was carried repeatedly by increasing majorities. The
same with regard to the cam laws ; the famine in Ireland
was a sufficient reason why the corn laws should then have
been repealed. The question of Jewish disabilities was one
which peculiarly affected the other house, and it was not
likely that their lordships would long oppose the wish of
that house. In a case where the interests of religion were
concerned there was an instance in which their lordships
had made a stand, and had refused to pass a measure for
the appropriation of Irish ecclesiastical property. He hoped
that they would now pursue the same course. He would
ask, who were really in favour of this measure ? Was the
noble lord himself really anxious that it should pass ? If so,
why was it that, though the bill was brought up from the
Commons on the 13th of April, he di I not give notice to
move the second reading till 24 days afterwards ? The
Church of England was not in favour of the measure. The
noble lord had mentioned some attached members of the
Church in the other house who were in favour
of it, but no one would say that they represented the
Church at large. The noble lord himself had described
members of the other house as apt to be swayed
more by the wishes of their constituents than by '
their consciences, especially as a dissolution approached.
(Hear, hear.) Nor could much weight be attached to the
opinions of members of the church in those places where
rates had been refused. The right rev. prelates must be
allowed to be more accurate representatives of,the church
than those to whom the noble lord had referred. As to
the country being in favour of the bill, it was only neces-
sary to look at the retitions that had been presented. When
the bll was read a second time in the other house, on the
Bth February, only 12 petitions with 407 signatures had
been presented in its favour. It passed the second reading
by a very diminished majority. Last session it was up-
wards of 70. In the intervening period the inquiry by
their lordships' committee had produced a great result; the
evidence had been made widely known; it had removed the
mistaken impressions of many, and had shown that the
measure would be fatal to ,the institutions of the Church.
The majority in this session diminished from upwards of 70
to 29. That was a significant fact for the supporters of the
measure. They felt that they must bo up and doing, and
they resorted to a settled organisation for working up peti-
tions and obtaining signatures. The vast number Fent up
in a short time showed that there had been some such
spasmodic effort, and was no proof of the settled convic-
tion of the country. By the the 28th of March, the bill
having been read a second time on the Bth of February,
there had been presented 4,972 petitions, with 546,000
signatures. That was the result of the organisation of the
Society for the Liberation of Religion from State Control,
and was no test of the feeling of the country. But was the
Government itself in favour of the passing of this measure
of abolition? Lord Palmerston, in 1855, speaking on a similar
measure, had said that he certainly could not bring himself
to think the measure was likely to receive the sanction of
both branches of the legislature ; nor did he think that the
support of the fabrics of the church was sufficiently pro-
vided for thereby. He added that he would not support the
measure for the sake of any momentary popularity out of
doors ; a person in his position ought not to support such a
measure unless he felt that it was demanded by the inte-
rests of the country at large. Different measures of com-
promise had been alluded to, which it was not necessary
then to discuss ; the question now before the house was one
simply of abolition, pure and total. The question was, had
any case been made out for absolute abolition ? (Hear, hear.)
He contended that no such ease had been shown. Such a
measure would be a violation of one of the most essential
charters of English liberty—namely, Magna Charts itself,
which contained these words : " That the Church of Eng-
land shall be free, and have all her whole rights and lil er-
ties inviolable." If this was not one of the rights of the
Church of England, perhaps the noble lord would inform
them what was. The recent decisions of their lordships'
house had materially altered the views of the country on
this question. Those decisions had settled the right of the
vestry to levy a rate ; and whether the rate was granted or
refused, the same right inhered in thek-Church. Dr. Lush-
ington stated in his evidence that in consequence of those
decisions disputes on church rates had been very great y
diminished within the last seven years; and, in fact, within
the last few years, scarcely any such disputes had been
brought before the courts. He (the noble duke) denied that
this measure was necessary for the sake of peace. There
was no question of peace ; disputes were materially lessen-
ing. They might abolish municipal elections for the sake
of peace, or elections made at any public meeting whatever.
(Hear, hear.) But the bill was recommended on another
ground, because its supporters were unable to find
a substitute for church rates, or to suggest a compro-
mise. Because they were unable to amend the law they
would destroy it. This was like the conduct of the
physician who, having a very difficult case to treat, which
baffled all his skill, gave directions on leaving the house to
put an end to the sufferings of his patient by a very sum-
mary process. If the parishioners wished to oppose a rate
they could do so now in vestry. The noble lord had talked
of churchmen staying their uplifted hand, and not striking
their dissenting brethren. But their dissenting brethren
were not by any means defenceless ; they had useful little
tracts and manuals placed in their hands, whereby they
were taught how to defeat a rate, and with such aid their
advisers told them that it was almost impossible to levy a
legal rate. (Hear, hear.) Much stress had been laid on
the sacred principle of voluntaryism. The noble lord said
" destroy church rates, and you will increase voluntaryism
tenfold ; the pockets of Churchmen will be opened ; their
Christian sympathies will be enlarged; and contributions
will flow in from every quarter for the purposes of the
Church." But were-there no contributions now flowing in
for those purposes P Did not the Church of England at
present rest on a voluntary basis to a far greater extent than
any other religious body in this country ? Look at the
efforts for building churches. The Incorporated Society
had made grants, in 1858, to the amount of £13,000, which
were met by local contributions of £175,000. In 1859, the
society had made grants of £17,000, to meet local funds of
£195,000; and in 1860, grants of £22,000, to meet local funds
of £240,000. (Hear, hear, from the Government side.) He
presumed the meaning of that cheer was, that as so much
had been done, more might be done. He would prove that
the contrary would be the case. The last straw broke the
camel's back; and they could not, year by year, rely upon
voluntary effort to raise such an amount as was now de-
rived from church rates. Look at what the Church of
England was doing in education. In 1854, the grants of
the Privy Council to meet corresponding contributions by
the Church of England were £209,000 ; while the grants to
all the Dissenting denominations in the country were only
£116,000. In the two following years the figures stood thus:
To the Church. To Dissenters.
1855 £240,000 ..........£129,000
1856 268,000 .......... 155,000
The Church was doing its work well ; its members were
not reposing on their past efforts; and when the argument