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

was used that Voluntaryism was equally available to tha
Church as to the Dissenters, the answer was that the
Church was as as much a Voluntary institution as any one
Dissenting sect in the country. But there was one great
difference between the Dissenters and the Church. Dis-
senting chapels were very small buildings ; the buildings
oonnected with the Established Church were large and .
expensive. Whenever a church was consecrated, it was set
apart, solemnly dedicated, perpetually and irrevocably ; to
the service of God. Not so with Dissenting chapels ; they
moved from place to place. If a congregation failed, the
chapel was shut up, sold, or disposed of. Dr. Hume men-
tioned the case of nine chapels in Liverpool which had oc-
cupied 26 different sites within his knowledge. Tbea the
Church :of England was essentially the church for the
poor man. The sustentation of the church could not be
rested on pew rents, for in many parishes the poor were
the sole occupants, and they had not the means of
paying. Those poor congregations had in many instances
been called into existence by large manufactories, the
owners of which did not live in the parish, but had trans-
ferred their residence to more salubrious and agreeable
localities. They subscribed to charities, schools, and per-
haps churches in their own neighbourhood ; bat where
there was no tax imposed by law, they would not feel them-
selves called upon to contribute to the expense of divine
worship for their workpeople. This was p_ owed by the evi-
dence of the Rev. W. Chsmpneys and Dr. Hume. r.
Miller, of Birmingham, stated that the restoration of the

spire of his church bad cost upwards of £7,000. That had
been raised by subscription, because he was a very popular
minister. But the ministers of the Church were not ap-
pointed by the people; the wishes of the congregations
were not.consulted in the selection of ministers; therefore
it was leaning on a broken reed to trust to the popularity
of ministers for the support of the church. (Hear.) The
case of the Rev. Mr. Yorke, of Birmingham, was one in
point. He stated that the efforts he was obliged to make for
the restoration of his church, at a cost of several thousand
pounds, became so painful to his parishioners, that he was
regarded by them as a nuisance, and his influence in the
parish was destroyed. He could go much further into the
effects of abolishing church rates in parishes. Their lord-
ships had evidence to show that a diminution of poor rates
was actually attributible to the voluntary contribution
made for the relief of the sick and poor in his parish. He
• had his district visiting societies, which were supported by
voluntary contributions. But once put another burden
upon the voluntary contributions of churchmen, and these
funds would suffer, and in a parish where church rates

were abolished and the support of the church left to volun-
tary contributions, these rates and burdens would again
arise in a more onerous form. He must advert to the
question which had been raised by the noble lord
in regard to the special nature of the evidence which
had been adduced to their lordships' committee as re-
garded the ulterior objects of those persona who had
united in the endeavour to carry a bill for the aboition of
church rates. He remembered that he mentioned some two
years ago their system and objects in that house. He stated
that there were ulterior objects in the minds of certain per-
sons with regard to the abolition of church rates, and he
was met by a reply from the noble lord opposite—if his me-
mory served him right—that he did not believe any one en-
tertained those views ; but that church rates were to be got
rid of merely as a question of funds. But Lord J. Russell,
in the year 1851, saw a little further. He said we had an
established church; we had an hereditary aristocracy; we
had an hereditary monarchy ; that all these things stood
together, and his opinion was that they would fall together.
He must therefore oppose this bill, as tending to subvert one
of the great institutions of the country. He (the Duke of
Marlborough) would advert to what had been stated to be
the Parliamentary action of these gentlemen. Dr. Foster
was asked to state generally what were his oljections to
church rates. He said, in reply, that perhaps he had better
preface that by saying, he did not encourage the abolition of
church rates any further than by assisting those who came
to him for advice, and by directing the conduct of the Par-
liamentary management. It appeared that these gentlemen
had a Parliamentary committee, of whom Dr. Foster was
chairman. Their object was to promote the carrying of what
they termed " our bill." Part of their system was to act
upon the constituencies ; and Mr. Morley, a member of the
society, said that there was a constituent part of every repre-
sentative body who had in view as an ulterior measure the
entire secularisation of church property. The society had
corresponded with every constituency in the country, and
there was not only a degree of compulsion which they could
bring to bear upon noisy demagogues, but there was also a
course of action which candidates understood perfectly
well. By these means, in a space of eight weeks, they
were enabled to prepare 4,000 petitions, containing half
a million of signatures, and get them presented to the
other house of Parliament, nor ould they rest con-
tented so long as a single broad gcre was left to the
possessions of the Church of England, or a single com-
muted tithe given to the support of her clergy. He had.
already called upon their lordships to observe that there was
no suggestion here whether there was any other plan which
might be proposed for the settlement of the difficulty.
Speaking for himself, he might say he desired nothing but
a fair, equitable, and just settlement of the question, and
no exertion should be wanting on his part if he could see
his way to any satisfactory solution. At the same time
with respect to the just and equitable view of the case, their
lordships' sense of justice would be too accurate to allow
them to believe that the arguments put forth by the noble
lord opposite would satisfy the demands of justice, or even
sound policy, upon this question. Their lordships knew that

this was an ancient tax, involvingancient-rights,which were
of the highest importance to the interests of the clergy, and
to the interests of the poor who were committed to their
charge. He had pointed already to the extent of the orga-
nisation of those whose avowed object it was to promote the
bill for the abolition of church rates ; and not only that,
but also to bring about the secularisation of the entire mass
of the p• operty of the Church, which was subservient to the
benefit of the poor, and to the Church of the people of this
land. Their lordship shad these things in evidence, and
they would therefore conclude it to be their wisest policy to
accept no compromise whatever. They would not, be be-
lieved, consider it consistent with fairness, wisdom, justice,
sound policy, or even with religious duty itself, to pass the
second reading of tlais bill. He therefore begged to move
that it be read a second time that day three months.

Lord WENSLEYDALE said he wished to detain their

lordships a few minutes only whilst he endeavoured to give
a more correct statement of the existing state of Ole law
with regard to church rates than had been presented to their
lordships. It was an error, which as widely entertained by
the people of this country, to suppose that a majority of
the parishioners in vestry assembled had a right to say
whether there should be a church rate or not. That was
a complete mistake : the law had not been so laid down in

the celebrated Braintree case. Every parish was undoubt-
edly under a legal obligation to provide a church rate. The
only question was as to the mode of carrying that obliga-
tion into effect. One of these modes was by making a bye-

law, in order to make which it was necessary that a majo-
rity of the parishioners in vestry assembled should consent.
At the same time the obligation to make a church rate was
considered to be a spiritual duty, and its enforcement was
left to the operation of the spiritual court. The penalty
provided by the ecclesiastical court for not making a church
rate was to put the parish under an interdict, a remedy
which of late years was virtually impracticable. What
their lordships decided in the Braintree case was, first, that
it was not possible for the churchwardens of a parish to
make a rate in the absence of the parishioners; and secondly,
that a majority of the parishioners in vestry assembled
could make a rate which was binding on the minority of the
ratepayers of the parish. The omission to make a rate was
nevertheless punishable by ecclesiastical censure to this
day. It was an error to suppose that the majority of the
parish in vestry assembled had a right to decide whether
or not they were legally bound to make a church rate.
Earl DE GREY and RIPON said he was surprised to
find that the noble duke, instead of discussing the various
compromises which had been proposed by himself, as ap-
peared by the report upon their lordships' table, had rested
his argument upon the principle which led directly to the
maintenance of church rates as they now existed. The
noble duke did not speak of a compromise, except in a single
instance. But he distinctly made clear throughout the whole
of his speech that what he wished to be done was, that the
law should remain as it now was. The noble duke had gone
as far back as Magna Charta, and had said that if church
rates were to be abolished, it would be a violation of Magna
Charta ; because Magna Charta declared that the Church
of England should retain all the rights and privileges it
possessed at present. If that were so ho was afraid that
and the
great charter had already been frequently violated,
a. d
Be du
tt
then th
hloen shouldlist
fhe
which
alarmh
hadepdr
oi
of
etdhoids vi
ti.o 1 a(thiioena
r, wereea r
,
said the noble duke,
as a
the ntoibglhettradle(gaVlednustlye3; but there
(Wensleydale) had
also said—" You have,
is no remedy by which you can enforce that duty " 44 Tnie,„
said the noble duke, " but there was a time when the viola•
tion of this duty could be actively prevented, in the hal-
cyon days of ecclesiastical jurisdiction." But he (Earl de
Grey) thought their lordships must not go back to the days
of the great charter, or even to the days when ecclesiastical
jurisdiction prevailed. They must look at the question as
it stood at the present mupomtoent,
the apnrdesNevuitthyearerfe. reference to all
that had taken place
and learned lord had given a statement of the law of the
case, which he (Earl de Grey) would not venture to dis-
pute, but he was quite content to take the view given in the
r. port upon their lordships' table, namely, that a church
rate could only be made assessable upon the parish by a
majority of the parishoners ; that there was no remedy to
enforce its imposition at common law, whilst, as the noble
duke admitted, penalties against a non-ratepaying parish
could not be enforced in the ecclesiastical courts. The noble
duke appealed to Magna Charta, and seemed to think there
was no reason at all why any person should be relieved from
the payment of church rates. He did not mean to say that

the noble duke would not be willing, as a measure of justice,
to relieve those who were not members of the church from
this payment, but he did not seem to think it was any
grievance, or that there was any substantial ground for the
active agitation which had been carried on by the Society for
the Liberation of Religion from Church Control. But
whilst this society was a recent one, the question had been
in agitation fully 30 years ago. k There had teen
In numerous
1834 a
attempts to settle it by way of a compromise.
bill was brought in by which it was provided that church
rates should wholly cease and determine. The noble duke