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

CHURCH RATES.

The Duke cf SOMERSET presented petitions in favour
of the abolition of church-rates.

Earl DE GREY and Lord TAUNTON presented similar
petitions.

The Earl of DERBY presented petitions from the Uni-
versity of Oz ford and places in Lancashire against the
abolition of charch-rates.
Viscount DUNGANNON presented similar petitions.
The Duke of MARLBOROUGH presented similar peti-
tions.

The Bishop of LONDON presented 50 petitions with a
similar prayer.

A great number of petitions, both for and against the
abolition, were presented by Earl Granville, the Duke of
Rutland, Lord Stanley of Alderley, Earl Nelson, Lord
Lyvedon, Lord Teynham, the Earl of Shrewsbury, and
Lord Redesdale.
Lord LYVEDEN, in rising to move the second reading
of the Church-rates Abolition Bill, said that he must crave
more than a usual portion of their lordships' indulgence.
He was aware he should be obliged in the discharge of the
duty he had undertaken to utter opinions adverse to those
of many noble lords, and, fearing that he might say some-
thing uncongenial to their lordships' tastes, he had cause to
apprehend that they might visit upon the cause the awk-
wardness of the advocate. When the noble duke below
him brought this subject forward in 1858, the noble earl
apposite (the Earl of Derby) said he should like to see the
peer who would be bold enough to undertake the task he had
now risen to perform. But so far from being a reproach to
him that he now came forwarl to declare his opinions, it
would be rather a reproach to him if he failed to advocate an

object dear to those with whom during 30 years of public life
he had acted, and in whom he had placed unlimited confi-
dence. He could not also but remember the ups and downs
that had befallen all political questions in the present ge-
neration. A few years before the passing of the Reform Bill
of 1832 it was impossible to excite public interest in the sub-
ject of reform, and Parliament refused to transfer the fran-
chise from East Retforl to Birmingham. The Government
of Lord Melbourne were expelled from office in 1841 for
proposing a fixed duty on corn, and in 1846 the corn laws
were swept away from the statute book. The conduct of
Parliament upon the admission of the Jews was even more
analogous to the present case. In 1841 the Jewish Civil
Disabilities Removal Bill was introduced and thrown out.
In 1848 the second reading was carried in the other house
by a majority of 70. In 1851 the bill was read a second
time by a majority of 25. It was re-introduced in 1853,
and in 1858 the bill was again brought up again to their
lordships' house. The door was then left a-jar by their
lordships by which the Jews were allowed to gain admis-
sion into the other house. The present bill might also
meet with repeated rejections, for the admission of the Jews
was not only a question affecting the Church of England,
but even the ark of Christianity itself was said to be in
peril. The result of admitting the Jews had been that four
or five gentlemen of undoubted character and position
had taken their seats in the other house. Yet the Church
was not in danger from their presence, and the ark of Chris-
tianity was still carried about in safety. This led him to
hope that at some time or other something might be done to
relieve Dissenters from the payment of church rates. It
might be said of him that in coming for ward to propose this
bill, be was an enemy of the Church. He could assure their
lordships that by early education and mature convietion he
was a sincere friend to a Church establishment, and that in
asking their lordships to agree to this bill he was by no
means the enemy of the Church, but was really promoting
its continuance and popularity. (Hear.) The law, as it had
been declared by the highest legal authorities and by the
report of the committee, declared that the payment of church
rates was a legal obligation, but that it was supported by
no legal remedy. This was not a right of any great value.
He could understand either a moral, religious, or pecuniary
obligation. But a legal obligation, without a legal remedy,
puzzled him, and he should like to know what such a right
would fetch in the market. At the first blush it might not
sc:ern clear why a church rate should not be levied as well as
a poor rate or a highway rate. But the difference had been
well stated by Mr. Sotheron-Estcourt, the late Home Secre-
tary, in his evidence before the committee, to consist in the
religious element. No man's religion led him to assert that
no roads should be made, but there were numbers of persons
who said that there ought to be no compulsory rate for the
church. The legal duty of asking for the rate might be dis -
charged by the churchwardens and the clergyman, but no
moving power existed of compelling a church rate to be made.
He would not go into the antiquarian branch of this sub-
ject, which had been fully expounded by one of the wit-
nesses examined before the committee. He would, therefore,
only remark that if the tax were obnoxious and odions, it
was of very little consequence whether it existed in the

time of Alfred the Great or Edward the Confessor, when
the rate was perhaps paid willingly, and when there were no
Dissenters. Their lordships were now asked to deal with
an acknowledged evil. Lawyers, divines, statesmen, and
politicians had, for the last 20 years, agreed in declaring that
church-rates were a great and crying evil, and that matters
could not long remain in their existing state. Looking back
to the course of legislation during the last half century, it
was painful to think how little had been yielded to reason,
and how much to fear. In 1829, when he first entered Par-
liament, the claims of the Roman Catholics had just been
yielded to the fear of Irish insurrection. The Reform Bill
was granted from the fear of English commotion. The Corn
Laws were repealed from the fear of a famine in Ireland.
He did not mention these facts by way of menace. Their
lordships might reject this bill without any fear of Birming-
ham Unions and marchings to London. But its rejection
would cause heart-burnings and hatred, the odium theolo-
gicum, animosities in parishes and brawlings in church.
Compromises on this question had been proposed by such
men as Lord Althorp and Mr. Walpole ; and if any two
men were ever formed by nature to carry out a compromise
they were the men, for they were friends of the Church, and
enemies to no class, but both completely failed. Lord Al-
thorp proposed to take £250,000 out of £550,000 which
formed the church rates, and put it on the land-tax, leaving
the rest to be raised in the old way; but his proposel was
not accepted either by Churchmen or Dissenters, and it fell
to the ground. If they compared the two proposals of Lord
Althorp and Mr. Walpole together, they would see how
much the state of the cass had altered. Lord Althorp stated
the amount of church rates at £550,000, whereas Mr. Wal-
pole stated the amount to have fallen to £250,000, while the
voluntary subscriptions were £260,000. So that while there
was a great falling off in the church rates, the voluntary
rate raised co supply the deficiency had risen to £260,000.
(Hear, hear.) The next compromise attempted to which he
would refer was that of Sir J. Easthope, who proposed t 3
throw the maintenance of the fabric of the church on the
pew rents. He wished to call their lordships' attention par-
ticularly to this proposal, because it was opposed by the
members of the Church of England, on the ground that the
Church of England was the church of the poor man, and
that pew rents would interfere with his privilege. That
was, no doubt, a beautiful theory, but was it a matter of
fact ? The same thing was said of the law as they were ac-
customed to read in Blackstone and other writers on the
constitution; and it reminded him of the saying of Horne
Tooke, that so was the Loadon Tavern if they paid for it."
(Hear, and a laugh.) On the subject of the Church being
open to the poor without pew rents, he would refer to the
report of the committee on religious destitution. In that
report special reference was made to three of the principal
churches at the West-end of the metropolis ; St. James's,
St. George's, Hanover-square, and the parish church of St.
Marylebone. In St. James's the report stated the seats were
all let, producing a rental of £1,400 a-year, though there
was no legal authority to raise more than £3O per annum by
pew rents. The same state of things existed in the other
two churches ; and he might observe that it was st in all the
great towns of England. No doubt there were what were
called free seats, but he believed these were occupied by
any but the poor. He asked their lordships if they ever
saw at church in any large town more than one or
two persons who could be strictly called poor ? (Hear,
hear.) Those who occupied the free seats were well
dressed persons, who could easily afford to pay 6d. or Is.
for the accommodation if they chose to do so. That was
not making the Church of England the church of the poor.
He believed it was the original intention of the Church of
England to do so, but it was not acted upon, and he must
say that nowhere had the principle been carried out, except
among the Roman Catholics. In the churches abroad it
was a common thing to see the poor and the rich ad-
mitted together—the beggar and the noble worshipping side
by side. (Hear, hear.) The transference of the church
rates to pew rents was one mode of settling this question
which had been proposed. He did not, however, recom-
mend it now, and he only mentioned it to show that there
were other means besides the present of raising the funds
necessary for the maintenance and repair of churches.
There were various other plans which had been introduced
by persons of different religious persuasons, and by men of
all political opinions ; but every one of them had failed
That being the case, it appeared to him hopeless to endea-
vour to substitute anything in tho place of the existing
church rates. (Hear, hear.) In 1855 there appeared as a
reformer of church rates the most eminent individual who
had ever acted in that capacity. He meant the most rev.
prelate below him (the Archbishop of Canterbury.) He in-
troduced a Church Rate Bill in that year, and his only rea-
son for not proceeding. with it was that he was given to
understand such a bill could not originate in their lordships'
house. That bill aimed at a compromise ; but it was not a
measure founded entirely on the principles of the Church
of England, though it contained the most practical propo-
sal ever made on the question. It was that after the rejec-
tion of a church rate twice by a parish it should cease for
ever—(hear, hear)—and he made a distinction that had
never been proposed before. The most rev. prelate pro-
posed to exempt all the metropolitan and urban parishes,
and to leave church rates to be collected exclusively in the
rural parishes. (Hear.) He could not conceive a more
Ipractical scheme, and he much regretted that it was not