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

said that dissenters were the only persons who had never
proposed a compromise. The fact was that the party op-
posite had always opposed a compromise until now it had

4.4
become impossible. The government of Earl Grey, of Lord

Melbourne, even the short Ministry of Sir R. Peel, had

each endeavoured to deal with this Measure and had failed,

but since then a compromise had been proposed, which
gave up the whole principle upon which a church rate
rested. The noble duke had himself laid on the table a bill
the preamble to which began,..." Whereas it is expedient to
abolish church rates for the maintenance of Divine ser-
vice." (Hear.) It was true that the noble duke proposed
to retain church rates for the sustentation of the fabric ; but
in which he gave up the whole principle for which he had
been contending, and admitted the whole grievance of which
the supporters of the bill complained. The noble duke said
that tl4e noble lord could not be very eager about the mea-
sure, lor while it was brought up from the other house on
the 30th of April, he was moving the second reading on the
19th online. But to that his noble friend had an obvious
retor?—the report of their lordships' committee was dated
on the 28th of February, and the noble duke had not yet
brought in any measure to give effect to it recommenda-
tions. (Hear, hear.) The fact was the noble duke and his
Mends thought there was a temporary change of opinion in
the other house, and they wanted to make the most of it.
But it was surely not a wise policy to adopt with regard to
a question which had been so long agitated. It was ad-
mitted that church rates could not much longer be levied
from Dissenters, and the only question they had to consi-
der.? therefore, was how they could best remedy the grie-
vance that existed, and set the matter at rest, for unless
they altogether disposed of the question they did nothing.
(Haar.) Was there, then, any longer a compromise that
was possible ? There had been two proposed, to which he
supposed the opponents of the church rates could not Ob-
ject. The one was that a substitute should be provided out
of other funds that were at the disposal of the Church.
The other was a proposal of his right'hon. friend the Chan-
cellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Sir G. Grey), and it had
been treated in a very singular manner. It was that
a substitute, should be provided by the legalisation
of pew rents. To that plan there was no doubt a great deal
of objection. He quite agreed that it was a characteristic
of the Church of England to be the church of the poor man,
and he should be the last person in the world to consent to
any measure by which the poor would be excluded. In
fact his own individual opinion was that there ought to be
no appropriation of seats in churches at all. (Loud cheers.)
But they all knew that if they attempted to make seats
everywhere free, it would in many places meet with the
strongest opposition, and would drive many persons from
church altogether. If, then, seats were appropriated, not-
withstanding that by the theory of the Church they ought
all to be in common, the appropriation was a privilege fOr
which those who enjoyed it-might very fairly be expected
to pay towards the sustentation of the buildings in which
they held appropriated seats. (Hear, hear.) But, as he
had said, the friends of church rates had met the proposal
of his right hon. friend in a very singular manner. They
first of all received a proposal of Mr. Newdegate, which
must surely have been conservative enough, with such dis-
favour, that the hon. gentleman declined to divide upon it,
and then they joined with Sir J. Trelawny to defeat the
plan of Sir G. Grey. There were other suggestions for a
compromise which were farmore objectionable. One was to
register the Dissenters, or, at all events, to make people sign
a schedule, after which it was proposed that they should be
exempt from the payment of church rates. He (the noble
earl) had always objected to ticketing: Dissenteii7e-:not
because they did not like it (and they did not), brit because
such a plan would put an end to occasional conformity from
which the Church derived great benefit; "and because it
would really, as. the noble duke said, reduce the Church of
England to the.level of a sect,, and get rid to a:great extent
of its national character. (Ilear, hear.) There remained
only to be considered the scheme
.proposed by their lord-
ships' committees—namely, to give up church rates and to
substitute voluntary rates in their room.
The Merquis of SALISBURY—No, no.
Earl, DE GREY—Surelya rate from which a plan might
4he pleased exempt himself was a voluntary one. (Hear,
hear.), Now ae",voluntary rate" was a contradiction in
tFrtas. Eeither they wanted to catch people and make them
pay because they had, inadvertently omitted to sign the
schedule—a sy,stem whio.h would not last three years—or
else they. wished to establish a system of a purely voluntary
ruling, which was not worth the trouble of enacting. At
the same time they would deprive the Church of the ad-
Niantage which it would reap from its frank surrender of a
quarter of a million of revenue. He was not one of those
Van thought that voluntary exertion and endowments
were incompatible; for they. had a striking example of the
way in which both might work together in the existing sys-,
tem of public education. Their lordships' committ.eahowe
ever, had proposed an irritating and annoying machinery,
for raising, voluntary contributions, and one that would .pre -
vent the fair development of a principle which, if they relied
wholly upon it, he felt confident would be found quite ade-
quate. • (Hear, hear.) The question came, therefore, to
this—they must either retain the existing law as it was
fig he.defied them to make it either consistent or workable.
-70,r else they must consent to the abolition of church rates.
4u.t the noble duke said that if they passed the bill they
would throw down an important outwork of the Church, and,
Oat Dr. Foster would walk in and destroy the establishment.
He (Earl De Grey) was bound to confess that the evidence to
which tho noble duke had referred produced on his mind a
wholly different impression. He (the noble earl) denied
that the great body of Dissenters had any ulterior object in
their oppositionto church rates •; and in spite of the inge-
nuity with which Dr. Foster and Mr. Morley had been cross-
examined, nothing of the sort could be inferred from their
testimony, for they both-had distinctly stated that they
were giving merelytheirindividualopinions. The Wale duke
bad accused by implicationthose hon. gentlemen who voted
for the bill in the other house of having been actuated by a
fear of the hustings, • . _
The Duke of MARLBOROUGH was understoockto say
that he had merely quoted the expression of Lord Lyveden.
, Earl DE GREY—The noble „duke had at all events
adopted the statement ; but he (the noble earl) did notthink,
that, as regarded the great majority of the hon. gentlemen,
there was any ground for such an imputation, or for sup,
posing that they were actuated by any spirit of animosity
towards the Church of England. He believed that the
admitted grievance which existed constituted the chief
and indeed the seleerweapon in the hands of Dr. Fos-
ter and the Liberation Society ; and thinking , that the
existing law as to ohurch rates tended to destroy that peace,
harmony, and communion of. Christian feeling which.ouglit
to exist between different religious denominations, he should
feel it his duty to support -the second reading. He should do
so, not only because he had always regarded it as, an act of
justice to Dissenters, but because he felt confident that it
would be found beneficial to the Church of England itself.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY assured their lord-
ships that the right reverend bench would not be unwilling
to yield to any measureof conciliation to which they felt
they could consistently with their sense of duty agree. The
bill had been mainly supported on two grounds—lst, its
beneficial effects upon the Church; and, 2dly, its being an
act of justice to. Dissenters. They were told that if it passed
the Church would greatly gain in popularity—and he gave
the noble lords• who had used that argument full credit for
their sincerity ; but exactly the same reasoning bad been re-
sorted to by the Liberation Society for another purpose.
They were told by that society that the Church would be so
much raised in spirituality and power by the entire sever-
ance of its connection with the State, that it would be
greatly benefited by a dissolution of the tie which. bound
them together. The coincidence between the two arguments
was certainly m• at, singular. (Hear.) As to the effects that
would follow the loss of church rates, its advocates had bet-
ter means of judging than is opponents. They knew how
much its ministers would suffer in influence and position if
they were made dependent on their flocks; and they did not
hesitate to say the Establishment would lose what was now
one of its meet valuale/e characteristics. In 90 eases out of
100—to speak within the mark—the church rate was paid
without any further complaint than was generally made
when the tax gatherer came to a man's door ; but it would,
be different if the force of law were removed. In theory the
voluntary system was perfect, but in practice it might rather
be called " the begging. system." The result of its adoption
would be to throw upon the clergy a great portion of the
expense now defrayed by the church rate; and it should be
membered that while there were 7,000 clergymen whose
incomes did•not exceed £2OO a year, they already taxed them-
selves to the utmost-of their power, ,and t eyond their power,
for the support of educational and charitable institutions.
Ho would now say a few words• upon another subject—
namely, the injustice which was said to be inflicted upon
Dissenters by the existing-state of the law. His answer to
that argument was simply this, that such was the condition
upon which they held :whatever property belonged to them.'
(Hear.) At the same time, he should not be unwilling to
see • some measure adopted which 'might relieve them
from the imputation of inflicting a -hardship upon any
Person. He should be glad to see a measure introduced
which would give the Churoh a rate so far voluntary that
it should not be imposed upon Dissenters, but which should
beso far compulsory upon Churchmen that they should be
taibelled to contribute their quota to the expense of main-
that that
tile services of the church. He was quite aware
.was a mode of dealing with the question to which
manyobject
lone might be urged ; but it was the conclusion
butdwahnichedthe, let Committee appointed by their...lordships
but it was a col:I:People looked upon it as a concession
the view of ptititi:4ou which circumstances justified with
long debated, and whzehnd to a question which had' been so
would, he believed, continue to be•
debated so long a,
there
tee
to
ained any debateable ground.
,Ife trusted that a ,neaeur
would meet
effect would be shortly-
introduced, and that it
meet their lordships' tip-
Ire present bill. urea uti me
he hoped that they would reject
proval. In the.
„
, Earl GREY said hos noble friend who spoke last but One
,(Earl de Osey and Ripon) and his noble.
friend
the second reading of the bill had both restedthwhe moved
their support
mainly upon the argument that as-church rates
could
n
generally paid under the present law, the only corepro°nt;ise
be
.possible was to th /vier the enaintenance of the fabric of
the
,C4hurch at once upors, the voluntary contribution aof its sup
.parlars—that, in fact; the Church was to be supported in
ets4(esame manner as t he chapels of Dissenters were, by those
Only who used the m. If he were prepared to agree
his
.noble friend, .still would
in the main conchal. Ina of
'venture to say that rtii4r lordshlps ought not to, give their
A ! -