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

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JUNE 20, 1860,

said that dissenters were the only persons who had never

proposed a compromise. The fact was that the party op-

posits had always opposed a compromise until now it had

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 boen 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 Divint 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 the noble lord could not be very eager about the mea-

sure, for while it was•brought up from the other house on
the 30th of April, he was moving the second reading on the
19th of June. But to that his noble friend had an obvious
retort—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 its recommenda-
tions.. (Hear, hear.) The fact was the noble duke and his
friends 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 queetion they did nothing.
(Hear.) Was there, then, any longer a comprofilise 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 vary 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 far more 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. Dissenters—not
because they did not like it (and they did not), but 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, (Hear, hear.) There remained
only to be considered the scheme proposed by their lord-
ships' committee—namely, to give up church rates Lind to
substitute voluntary rates in their room.
The Marquis of SALISBURY—No, no.
Earl DE GREY—Surely a rate from which a man might
if he pleased exempt himself was a voluntary one. (Hear,
hear.) Now a " voluntary rate" was a contradiction in
terms. Eeither they wanted to catch people and make them
pay because they had inadvertently omitted to sign the
schedule—a system which would not last three years—or
else they wished to establish a system of a purely voluntary
rating, which was not worth the trouble of enacting. At
the same time they would deprive the Church of the ad-
vantage which it would reap from its frank surrender of a
quarter of a million of revenue. He was not one of those
who 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 educallitm. Their lordships' committee, how-
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—
for he defied them to make it either consistent or workable
—or else they must consent to the abolition of church rates.
But the noble duke said that if they passed the bill they
would throw down an important outwork of the Church, and
that Dr. Foster would walk in and destroy the establishment.
Ho (Earl De Grey) was bound to confess that the evidence to
which the 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 opposition to 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
wore giving merely their individual opinions. The noble duke
had accused by implication those hon. gentlemen who voted
for the bill in the other house of having been actuated by a
fear of the hustings.
The Duko of MARLBOROUGH was understood to 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 ho (the noble earl) did not think
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 sele—weapon in the hands of Dr. Fos-
ter and the Liberation Society ; and thinking that the
existing law as to church rates tended to destroy that peace,
harmony, and communion of Christian feeling which ought

to exist between different rt. ligious denominations, he should
feel it his duty to suppot t 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 measure of conciliation to which they felt
they could consistently with their sense of duty agree. The
bill had been mainly supported on two grout' !s—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 greatl3 gain in popularity—and he gave
the noble lords who had used that argument full credit for
their sincerity ; but exactly the same reasoning had been re-
sorted to by the Liberation Society for another purpose.
They wore 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 st singular. (War.) As to the effects that
would follow the loss of church rates, its advocates had bet-
ter means of judging than i a opponents. They knew how
mach its ministers would suffer in influenel 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 most valuable 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
remembered 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 1 eyond their power,
for the support of educational and charitable institutions.
He 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 Church a rate ao far voluntary that
it should not be imposed upon Dissenters, but which should
be so far compulsory upon Churchmen that they should be
compelled to contribute their quota to the expense of main-
taming the services of the church. He was quite aware
mthaanty objections
a mode of dealing with the question to which
might be urged ; but it was the conclusion
to whic
the select committee appointed by their lordships
had arrived. Many people looked upon it as a concession ;
but it was a concession
end which circumstances justified with
the view of putting a
to a question which had been so
long debated, and which would,he believed, continue to be
debated so long as there remained any debateable ground.
He trusted that a measure to this
meeteffecttheir would be shortly
introduced, and that it would lordships' ap-
proval
present bil. In the meantime he hoped that
they would reject
Earl l:
Earl GREY said his noble friend who spoke last but one
(Earl da Gi cy and Ripon) and his noble friend who moved
the second reading of the bill had both rested their
Sup
mainly upon the argnment that as church rates
connlpdrnooipt
rtiribr6ee
gonorally paid under the present law, the only co
possible was to throw the maintenance of the fabric of the
Church at once upon the voluntary contributions of its sup
porters--that, in fact, the Church was to be supported hi
the same manner as the chapels of Dissenters were, by those
only who used them. If he were prepared to agree
in the main conclusions of his noble friend, ;till he would
venture to say that their lordships ought not to give their

assent to the second reading of this bill. If they were to

deprive the Church of the advantage of church rates, and
to defray the expense of maintaining the fabric of the

church—if they were to leave each of the parishes of the
country without any legal security for Oe maintenance of
those ancient fabrics which were so dear to the hearts of
the inhabitants, they were at all events bound to take care
that those who were anxious to make sacrifices in order to

provide the necessary charges should be enabled to do so.
(Hear.) He would ask their lordships to look at the pre-

sent bill, and observe the manner in which it was drawn.

It abolished for ever the imposition of church rates, but in
doing so it made no provision whatever in reference to the
future property in the churches. The fabric would remain
as at present the property of the inhabitants, but the
Church would be deprived of all means of levying rates for
maintaining it, and if money were voluntarily subscribed
for the purpose the subscribers would have no assurance
that those who refused to join in the subscription and re-
fused to take part in the burden would not come forward
and control and overrule them as to the manner in which
the money should be applied. Even if it were assumed
that church rates ought to be abolished, the bill committed
this monstrous injustice—it placed the control of the parish
churches in the hands of persons of whom the majority
might be Dissenters. (Hear, hear.) He might be told
that this was a fault capable of being remedied in com-
mittee, and that it was easy to correct the evil by the intro-
duction of a carefully considered provision to secure to
those willing to take on themselves the burden of main-
taining the fabric of the church the proper control of it.
But they knew perfectly well that those who refused to be
taxed to maintain church rates refused equally to give up
their full right and share in t e property. Therefore, if
they w, re to attempt to introduce provisions to correct
the evil, the probability was that they would find many
difficulties in their way. If there were really a bona fide
desire to get rid of church rates, and, in getting rid of
them, to give to Churchmen the fair power and right of
managing the Church property for their own benefit—if
that were the sincere intention of the promoters of the
bill, there ought to have been introduced into the measure
some provision to that effect. If their lordships now gave
a second reading to the bill, they would give to the advo-
cates of the change this great advantage ; they would have
adopted the principle that church rates were not to be main-
tained, and at the same time would have obtained no secu-
rity that a reasonable adjustment of the question would be
assented to. (Hear, hear.) Therefore if his noble friend
were right and it was reasonable to abolish church rates,
this was still a bill which their lordships ought not to read
a second time. (Hear, hear.) lie would not, however, rest
his argument upon such low grounds. lie was prepared to
take a much higher groand for maintaining that the law as
it stood was just and right. He admitted that formerly
there was a grievance. Before the famous decision of the
Braintree case, when it was held that the minority of the
parish or the churchwardens might impose a tax on the
parish at large, he felt that here was a grievance that ought
to be removed, but as the case now stood the majority of the•
parish were at liberty, if they thought fit to tax themselves
for the maintenance of the ancient fabric of the church.
That was the real substance of the law. He was quite aware
that there were defects in it—defects which he should be
glad to see remedied ; but let them not run away hastily
with the notion that the law was so very bad. In his opinion
the defects were simply these :—ln the first place there was
a want of restrictive conditionsin respect of the applicability
of church rates. His noble friend who introduced the bill
-mentioned instances in which church rates had been imp: o-
perly applied; but that was simply an abuse. It would
however, be right and proper to restrict the application of
church rates to the maintenance of the fabric ; and he be-
lieved the friends of the Church were:perfectly prepared to
assent to such a restriction. (Hear, hear.) Again, great
changes had taken place of late years in some parishes, so
that those who were now rated to church rates were not
those who derived benefit from the church to which they
contributed. Some amendment was required in such cases,
so that the rates should be confined to those parts of
parishes in which the churches really required to be main-
tained. Lastly, it was a fault in the existing law that those
who imposed church rates were liable to be defeated in the
carrying out of these desires by a small minority who could
avail themselves of technical means to effect their object.
That was a serious evil, and ought to be remedied. (Hear,
hear.) But granting that these amendments of the law
were necessary, he for one was not prepared to say that
any further change should be made. He would ask if it
were not consistent with the whole spirit of government
both local and general, that the people should have the
right of taxing themselves for all purposes affecting them-
selves ? It was said that it was unjust on the minority
that they should be compelled to pay a tax imposed by the
will of the majority. But how would such an argument
apply to the administration of government generally ?
For example, he was of opinion that the war in which we
were now engaged in China was as unjust as it was im-
politic. He believed it was a great sin which the nation
had committed, which sooner or later would bring pun-
ishment upon it ; but he did not say that upon that
ground he ought to be excused from contributing
his share to the taxation which was deemed necessary to
defray the cost of such a war. (Hear, hear.) So it might
be said with regard to sanitary arrangements, gas lights,
or any other question involving an additional expenditure
of the public.money. But such an argument was obviously
unjust, and as to the particular grievance of this tax upon
Dissenters, it was at once disposed of by the fact that no
man was charged with the impost who had not acquired
property which he knew at the time he acquired it was
subject to the burden. It was a burden which had existed
from all times, and in taking it away it was the poor of the
country who were plundered, inasmuch as they had in-
herited from their ancestors the right of having a cluirch
maintained for their benefit. By depriving them of church
rates the Legislature would, as far as they could deprive
them of that right. It was said that the state of the law
was exceedingly objectionable because it created so many
anomalies ; that church rates were levied in some places
and not in others, and that there was no uniform practice.
This, in his opinion, was the greatest recommendation of
the tax. He thought it would be highly inexpedient to
levy church rates in parishes where there was an equal divi-
sion of different religious sects, or in large towns where the
sums necessary to maintain the church could be easily col-
lected by pew rents. Pew rents, however, were only ap-
plicable to towns, and not to the rural districts, where the
majority of the congregation were labouring men. (Hear.)
It was said that the - levying of church rates was a great
grievance upon the inhabitants of a parish; bit what was
said upon that subject by the opponents of church rates
themselves ? Why, it was urged that the technical diffi-
culties in the way of collecting the tax were so great that
in a short time any person, if so determ'ned, could get rid
of the rate altogether. If that were really so, the neces-
sary inference was that in the levying of church rates in
rural parishes were so entirely in accordance with the wishes
of the inhabitants, that any person inclined to oppose the
imposition of the tax was compelled by mere shame to re-
frain from carr3 ing his desires into effect. It was farther
said that the abolition would remove a good deal of ill-will,
disputes, and dissensions. He admitted that it would, but
in all free institutions differences of opinion prevailed, and
discussions were carried on with more or less acrimony. Ile
was happy to note the change that was growing up on this
question in the feelings of the people of this country ; he
observed that they were vieing with each other in maintain-
ing the churches in a good and proper state : and he could
say that in his memory the change in this respect was very
marked. (Hear.) lie believed it would be a very great evil
if the people were prevented from meeting together as they
now did for the purpose of levying a church rate, He could
not help concurring to a great extent in what had been said
with respect to the proposal contained in the report of their
lordships' committee, and if he was driven to choose he
should prefer abolishing church rates altogether to such a
course as was suggested by the report then upon their lord-
ships' table. But he contended that oven if the law remained
as it was it would be found that practically in a great ma-
jority of cases it answered its purpose, and he for one would
not consent to surrender the principle, especially after the
revelations which had been made by some of the witnesses
before that committee. In this case the house was consider-
ing a principle, and if they surrendered that principle and
left persons at liberty to tax themselves or not, they would
be virtually conceding the principle upon which the Esta-
blished Church was founded.
The Earl of AI RLI E supported the bill. He said he ob-
nrveeda
ntdhtaetmapve err yo
fmthaerkhe9duseehoanngtehtha aridnetaatkioenn
spilaaecee
iitnwthase
ob-
served
last before them. With regard to the pecuniary loss which
it was said the Church would sustain if church rates were
abolished, he believed that was very greatly overrated. No
doubt a large majority of the landowners of the country
were members of the Church of England ; but supposing
this rate was, abolished to-morrow, did their lordships sup
pose they would pocket the money they had hitherto paid
for church rates and leave the churches to tumble down or
not ? It was a libel upon the character of the gentlemen of
England to say so, and he was
surprised that such an argu •
ment should come from the opposite benches. Another
argument used by those who supported the church rates
was that the ulterior object of those who wished to abolish
them was to destroy the Church itself; but if that argu-
met t was good for anything it would go against reforms of
overy kind, because there were always a class of men who
wanted to go further in any raform than others. He had
no objection to a compromise on this question, but believing
that church rates could not be much longer maintained,
and that their abolition would greatly tend to the peace of
,so many parishes, he felt bound to support the present bill.
(Hear.)

The Duke of RUTLAND said, with regard to the state-
ment of the noble lord who introduced the bill that the poor
were not able to find accommodation in the churches, if thc:
noble lord visited the church of St. Giles's and oth r
churches in similar neighbourhoods hep would find the poor
attended there in large numbers, and also in the country
church-es. The noble lord had also referred to the want of
church accommodation for the r oor in Manchester, but if
they had church rates in Manchester instead of pew rents
they would have free sittings for the poor. It might be
that there were some Dissenters who were not hostile to the
Church establishment ; but he believed on the other hand
that there was a gr at body of Dhsenters who wished to
keep the Church in the position of a religious sect, and
made. the abolition of the church rates the ground of ulte-
rior objects, lie should vote against the bill of the noble

lord, because he believed it would not produce peace, but
encourage the Dissenters to proceed in their opposition to
the Church ; because he felt that he should be relieving his

own property from a charge to which it was fairly liable,
and, above all, because he felt it would deprive the posr man
of a right that had been handed down to him from time im-

memorial. (Hear.)
The Duke of SOMERSET said it was admitted on all
hands that the present state of the law affecting church rates
was unsatisfactory and required amendment ; and accord-
ingly, many suggestions had been made for modifying and
amending the law, though as yet none had been put for-
ward that had proved generally acceptable. The noble duke
(the Duke of Marlborough) gave as a reason for not abolish-
ing church rates, that the parish churches were expensive,
and that clergymen did not like to go round among Church-
men for subscriptions to maintain them. He did not think
that a good reason for insisting on the retention of the
rates, but, after all, what was it that the Church was asked
to give up ? From a return made last year it appeared
that the average rate raised during seven years in
10,000 parishes was .E 218,000. Divide that sum by the
parishes, and it would be found that the amount was
only £24 in each parish. (Hear, hear.) Surely such a
sum as that was not worth disputing for, and not worth the
labour of collection. (Hear, hear.) They were told that the
remission of church rates would just put so much money into
the pockets of the landlords. What an enormous sum this
£2l a-year would be to the landlords of any parish I (Hear,
hea .) They might, surely, put aside altogether the idea
that the fabric of the Church would be in danger if this sum
of £24 were lost. He did not say there might not be in
some places some inconvenience, but it must be after all,
very immaterial. The noble earl (Earl Grey) said he would
keep up the rate for the maintenance of the fabric, but not
for the small, continually recurring expenses, but it was
with regard to those small expenses that the greatest diffi-
culty existed. (Hear, hear.) He thought the existence of
the rate caused ill-will among the different classes of society,
an evil which the money obtained would never compensate
for. (Hear, hear.) It was said the opposition to church

rates proceeded from an organized society established for the
separation of Church and State. Even if it were so, he did
not think it a good argument. There were many organized
societies in this country, but they generally failed if they
did not take up some question that was popular. (Hear.)
It appeared that within a period of eight weeks not fewer
than 400,000 people subscribed petitions for the abolition
of church rates, and surely that showed great strength on
the part of the opponents of the rate. His belief was that
the repeal of church rates would strengthen the Church.
The question was now put as a test to candidates for seats in
Parliament in all the great towns, and the result was that
the members of great constituencies were placed in a posi-
tion injurious to the Church. He believed, therefore, that
the repeal would be an advantage to the Church. (Hear.)
It was manifestly absurd to proceed year after year with a
law that could not be enforced. Tht it lordships might re-
ject this bill, but practically the question was settled in
towns, and was gradually settling itself in country town-
ships. Still he thought it was unwise to give constituencies
the continued opportunity of making this question a test of
candidates for Parliament, and therefore he hoped the house
would agree to the second reading. ( hide.)
The Duke of NEWCASTLE—I would not have risen
to protract this debate but that I wish to say a few words
in explanation of the vote I am about to give. I came
down to the house with my mind prepared to repeat the
vote which I gave two years ago, but my confidence in my
ability to do so had been shaken by what had since taken
place. I have found an altered tone in the House of Com-
mons. Many of those who in former years have been anx-
ious to devise a course which should be agreeable to Dis-
senters and at the same time in accordance with the feel-
ings of the members of the Church, now exhibit a different
spirit, and all compromise is repudiated ; they voting
against the bill avowedly with the intention of making it
impossible to pass this house. (Hear, hear.) Then, when
I looked to this house, I found that a committee had been
moved for by the noble duke, the result of which was a pro-
posal that is described by the noble earl near me (Earl
Grey) as worse than entire abolition, but which still gives
up completely the principle upon which church rates have
hitherto been supported. I come to the conclusion of voting
for the second reading of this bill with great pain and hesi-
tation, and I came down to the house, as my noble friends
near me are aware, hoping that the debate would take such
a turn as to enable me to vote against the second reading.
But I find that the noble duke the author of the resolution
on the report of the committee, not only moves the rejec-
tion of the bill, but does so in a speech in which he places
the maintenance of chuich rates on the highest pinnacle of
principle, and quite abandoning that conciliatory tone which
on former occasions he has exhibited both in this house and
in the other. (Hear.) I have again the pain to hear from the
most reverend Primate—to differ from whom is always a
source of pain, both on account of his high position, his
eminent abilities, and his estimable character—(hear,
(hear—a speech the tone of which was quite dif-
ferent from that of former speeches upon this question. The
most rev. prelate on a former occasion himself brought in a
bill abolishing church rates in parishes where the levying
of a rate had been successfully resisted for two consecutive
years ; but now he holds that church rates should be held
inviolable. Reference has been made to what fell from me
on a former occasion. What I said then was that a great
majority of those who opposed church rates were not op-
posed to the existence and prosperity of the Church. I see
now the position in which this question is now placed. I
see in my own neighbourhood the progress which the spirit
of opposition to these rates is making; that, while a few
years ago Dissenters were the only opponents in rural dis-
tricts and small towns of 5,000 or 6,000 inhabitants, mem-
bers of the Church are now opposed to the levying of these
rates, although I know Dissenters who not only support
but cheerfully pay them. While I should regret that the
bill in its present shape should pass into law—(hear)--that
cheer is premature, for I will give a reason for supporting
the bill—when I find noble lords prepared to say that they
will not adopt any other mode of settlement if this bill is
rejected, but will maintain church rates as at present, then
I see no other practical way of bringing the question to a
speedy solution than by passing the second reading of this
bill, and endeavouring in committee to introduce such
amendments as shall rec,ncile the abolition of church rates
with the interests of the Church of England itself. There-
fore I am prepared to vote for the second reading.
The Archbish, pof CANTERBURY—I said that while
I objected to the abolition of church rates, which I believed
to be essential for the maintenance of the churches, I wished
that the rate should be compulsory on members of the
Church alone.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE—Then, if church rates are
abolished as regards Dissenter s, and are compulsory upon
members of the Church alone, it seems to me that it will
be a penal tax imposed upon them. (Hear.)
The Earl of DERBY --I feel well convinced that your
lordships will adhere to the ordnions which you have for-
merly expressed on this question, and I should therefore
have been perfectly content to go to a division without
troubling your lordships with any remarks of my own if it
had not been for one or two statements from the noble duke
which it is impossible to pass without observation. The
noble duke has explained the change of vote, not of opinion,
which we are about to see recorded, and he has justified this
course on grounds wholly irrespective of the merits of the
question. Now, as far as I can judge, there is no founda
tion for such a course. The noble duke says that he still
disapproves the .measure; that he should be extremely un-
willing to see it passed into a law; but in the vague expec-
tation that some amendment may be moved in this house
which may be adopted by your lordships, and in the san-
guine belief, I suppose, that it willbe subsequentlyaccepted
by the other house, he proposes to vote for the wend read-
ing of a bill which he considers dangerous in principle and
hostile to the interests of the Church. The noble duke pro-
ceeds to say, " I ground my change of opinion upon the al-
tered course pursued by the House of Commons." Now, the

altered course of the House of Commons indicates, I am

happy to say, a very considerably increased feeling in favour
of maintaining the existing law. (Cheers.) When I see ma-

jorities successively diminishing from 74, I think, to 59,
then to 29, and finally to what the noble baron (Lord Lyve7
den) called the " ominous number" of 9, I think it indicates
a considerable change in the feeling of the House of Com-
mons in favour of maintaining the principle of the existing
law. And I must say I think if the noble lord who opened
this discussion had been a member of this house last year,
and had seen the overwhelming expression of opinion of
which the division on this measure was then indicative, and
if he had been a member of the other house this year and had
seen the dwindling and the meagre majority by which the
bill was lately passed, he would have exercised the better

part of valour and would have refrained from inviting your-
lordships to any new expression of opinion upon this sub-
ject. (Hear.) The noble duko gives as a reason for his
altered vote on this bill that its opponents in the House of
Commons have shown an absence of the conciliatory spirit
which they formerly displayed. Now, I ask confidently
upon which side is it that there has been an absence or a
presence of conciliation ? Why, the very groundwork of
the legislation which we are now invited to undertake con-
sists, according to the noble lord, in this,--that concession
and compromise are impossible, and that it is necessary to
choose between the maintenance of the existing law and
the absolute and entire abolition of church rates. (Hear.)
This has been the language of all who have supported the
abolition of church rates, whereas what has been the course
pursued by us? One after another we have proposed this
and that concession, this and that compromise, in favour of
those who conscientiously object to the payment of church
rates; but the result has only been that every attempt
which we have made at compromise, for the purpose of
establishing a good feeling and in order not to push our
principles to extremity, has been met by the allegation that
we were sacrificing our principles, were abandoning the
whole case, and were bringing forward measures which, in
fact, were worse than the total abolition of church rates.
That has been the spirit in which our attempts at concilia-
tion and compromise have been met; and, that being the
ease, it is a little too much for the noble duko now to
justify his altered vote on the ground of the total absence of
conciliation displayed in the other house. (Hear.) But
I must also protest against the statement that in the recom-
mendation of the select committee of the House of Lords
we have practically abandoned the principle of church
rates. What we have done is this—we have maintained the
right of the majority of the parishioners to tax themselves,
and for their own purposes to levy an equal rate, as opposed

to a voluntary contribution ; and we have, in the same re-
port a point which has been altogether passed over to-night
—recommended that, in consideration of our taking that
course, the law should be strengthened for the recovery of
the compulsory rate so imposed. (Hear, hear.) If we have
consented for peace sake to the exemption of persons who
claim exemption upon rights the abstract justice of which we
do not recognise—if we have assented to their relief under
those circumstances from the general burden borne by the
parish, we have at the same time provided that the persons
so exempted shall in no degree be entitled to take part in the
administration of the funds to which they refuse to contri-
bute their share. (Hear, hear.) Perhaps this is an extreme
concession, but it is one which I am quite ready to justify ;
it is one of which I am not ashamed, though it may not be
consistent with strict justice. We have not proposed that
persons who decline from conscientious or from other motives
to pay this rate should thereby be deprived of the benefits and
advantages which are conferred by the existence of the
Church on a whole parish. We do not deprive them of their
rights as parishioners, but we do take away from them the
ri:ht of regulating or administering the funds from the pay-
ment of which they wish to be exempted. (Hear.) Thus
we have endeavoured to maintain the principle, though we
have modified the practice; but that is widely different from
the proposition now made of leaving to every person the
option whether he will contribute at all, or how much he
will contribute, and to leave every parish church in this
country liable to be closed or abandoned at the caprice of
those whose bounden duty it ia to maintain the fabric.
(Cheers.) I repudiate the idea that wo concede the prin-
ciple by the exceptions we have consented to introduce, and
on the other hand, I contend that if there has been an ab-
sence of conciliation and concession it is not against us, the
supporters of the existing law, that such charges should
be made. (Hear.) We have endeavoured to meet our op-
opponents half way, and more than half-way; but we are
told by them that there shall be no alternative between ab-
solute abolition and maintenance of the existing law. Now,
great as are the objections which I see to some of the pro-
visions of the existing law, and desirous as I should be to
amend the law, if our opponents should permit us to do so,
yet, if there be no alternative between the maintenance of
the existing law and the absolute abolition of the provision
made from time immemorial for the support of the fabric of
the church, and for bringing home the blessings of religiox
to every poor man in every parish in the kingdom, I am
without hesitation for maintaining the existing law with all
its imperfections as against the entire abolition of church
rates. (Cheers.)
Lord LYVEDEN said the debate had been se satisfactory
to him that after the speeches of the noble earl (De Grey)
and the two noble dukes below him he felt that nothing re-
mained for him to answer. The noble earl who had just
spoken had addressed a short lecture tohim for not showing
more discretion than to bring this bill again before their
lordships after its defeat last year. That, however, was
quite a new doctrine to him. He had been bred up in the
same political school as the noble earl, and there he had
always been taught that the smallest minorities were en-
titled to respect, and the principle which had been affirmed
by small minorities had eventually triumphed by large ma-
jorities. (Hear.) He should never be deterred, therefore,
if, when convinced that a measure was right in principle,
he pressed it forward, whether backed up by small or large
majorities. (Hear.) The noble earl did not consider the
report of th select committee an abandonment of the com-
pulsory scheme. Now, could anything be more voluntary
than a system which allowed any man to object, whether
with reason or without reason? (Hoar.) He was surprised
that the noble earl, who was so powerful a reasoner, should
attempt to justify the report on that ground. He wished
that he could feel as satisfied with the probable result of
the division as he did with the debate, but nothing which
had been said led him to abate his confidence in the volun-
tary system.
The house then divided, when there appeared :
For the bill .. 3l
Against it..
Majority —97
The bill was consequently lost.
The Fisheries (Scotland) Bill passed through committee.
The Ecclesiastical Courts and Registries (Ireland) Bill
was reported.
HIGHLAND ROADS AND BRIDGES BILL.

On the motion to go into committee on this bill, the house
divided :

For the motion
Against it..
Majority for the motion —l
The bill was then passed through committee.
The house adjourned at 20 minutes after 10.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-(YESTERDAY.)

The SPEAKER took the chair shortly after twelve o'clock

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The West Cork Railway Bill was read a third time and
passed. The Auchterarder Common Muir Bill (Lords),
Portadown, Dungannon, and Omagh Junction Bill
(Lords'), and Symington, Biggar, and Broughton Railway
Bill (Lords') were considered and ordered for third reading.
The Forest of Dean Railway Bill was read a second time.
PETITIONS.

Several petitions were presented against the Highways
Bill, against the alleged aggression on the rights of the
House of Commons by the rejection of the Bill for the
Repeal of the Paper Duties by the House of Lords, and
praying the house to preserve its privileges intact ; from
females, against the Aggravated Assaults Bill, &c., &c.
TENURE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (IRE-
LAND) BILL.

The house went into committee on thiS bill, resuming al
clause 10.

Lord NAAS moved an amendment to the effect that the
Landed Estates Court should be substituted for the chair-
man of the Quarter Sessions as a tribunal fer appeals in
differences arising respecting improvements proposed to be
made by landl3rds having a limited in' crest in their estates.
The noble lord contended that the duties of the chairman of
Quarter Sessions were already too onerous, and they could
not consequentlrdischarge efficiently the jurisdiction which
this bill endeavoured to impose on them. He believed the
adoption of his amendment would afford considerable satis-
faction to the landlords in Ireland.

Colonel FRENCII opposed the amendment, on the
ground that the Chairman of Quarter Sessions enjoyed the
confidence of the country, and there would be a large and
unnecessary expens2 in conveying witnesses to Dublin in-
curred if the proposed substitution were adopted. He
denied that the Landed Estates Commission had given
satisfaction in dealing with a large number of estates,
though he admitted that there had been an improvement in
that Court lately.

Mr. BRADY congratulated the house on the temperate
tone of members in reference to this question, and trusted
that nothing would arise to delay its settlement. He
thought it would be unjust to compel a landed prop, ietor
to go to Dublin and remain there for days, besides incur-

ring the expense of bringing witnesses to prove his title.
He believed the adoption of the amendment would entirely
paralyse the operation of the bill.
Mr. MOORE O'FE RRALL supported the amendment,
as he considered that although there were some able law-
yers amongst the thirty assistant-barristers in Ireland,
there were others who were not, and ho certainly preferred
the Landed Estates Commission as a tribunal of appeal.
Mr. DAINION opposed the amendment.
Mr. H. ITERBERT followed on the same side, as he
considered that a lawyer of ordinary capacity would be
competent to decide any question brought before him under
the jurisdiction conferred by this bill.
Mx. GEORGE supported the amendment, and expressed

his pleasure at the manner in which the bill had been dis-
cussed by both sides of the house, and the general desire
exhibited on the part of honourable members to pass

this measure.

He approved of the reasons which

induced the framers of the bill .to select the chairman
of Quarter Sessions in preference to the Landed Estates
Commission—in the first place, the former was a
local tribunal, cheap, expeditious, easily accessible, and
capable of being appealed to on every occasion. This bill
dealt with small as well as large estates, and the proprie-
tors of the former would be deterred by the expense from
availing himself of an appeal to the Landed Estates Court.
Powers similar to those proposed to be given to the chair-
man of Quarter Sessions had been conferred on Sheriffs'
Courts in Scotland, an analogous tribunal, and the result
had been very satisfactory. A chairman of Quarter Ses-
sions would be quite able to decide on any question arising
out of this new jurisdiction, and ho would also have the
advantage of being able to inspect all property personally.

Mr. HASSARD referred to tho amendment he had
placed on the paper, and contended that the Board of
Works would be the proper triLunal of appeal.

After some discussion,
Mr. CARDWELL said that the bill was framed most
carefully, and he believed that its operation would prove as
beneficial in Ireland as the Enclosure of Land Act had done
in this country. He did not consider that, whichever tribunal
was decided on, much expense would be incurred by suitors,
and as the majority of speakers seemed in favour of the se-
lection of the Landed Estates Commission, he would make
that cencession, though ho was in favour of the chairman
of Quarter Sessions.
After some further discussion, _

The committee divided, and the numbers were—
For the amendment
Against
Majority —76
Colonel FRENCH•considcred that after the adoption of
the amendment the bill would be a dead letter, and there-
fore he would move that the chairman should report

progress.
After some discussion tho hon. and gallant ruemlnr with-
drew his motion.

Mr. LONGFIELD moved the following amendment :

" Line 21, after outlay,' insert 'to a charge upon the lands
upon which such improvements shall be made, not exceed..
ing four years' rent of such lands, or shall be entitled as he
may elect."

Some conversation ensued, and tho amendment was with-
drawn.

Mr. V. SCULLY moved a series of resolutions having
for their object giving the Lynded Estates Court the power
to use the machinery of the Board of Works and the Gene-
ral Valuation Office, and also to avail themselves of the
services of the assistant barrister in the discharge of their
daty as an ultimate court of appeal, Re stated, however,

that if the Government were opposed to his view he would
not press his amendment.

After a few words Mr. CARDWELL, the clause, as
amended, was agreed to.

On clause 11,
Mr. M'MAHON suggested the omission of paragraphs
2 and 3, in order to prevent landlords claiming as their pro-
perty land covered with tidal water.

Mr. CARDWELL said it was not 1 roposed by these
paragraphs to confer any power other than that which was
exercised daily, and merely enabled a landowner to spend
money on his own land.
After a short discussion, the clause as amended was

agreed to.
Clause 12 was also amended and agreed to.
The clauses from 13 to 20 were agreed to, with some
verbal amendments.
The house suspended its sitting at four o'clock.

The house resumed at six o'clock.
THE BUDGET.

Mr. AYRTON asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I
whether the means proposed by him in the budget would be
sufficient to meet the supplies required for the current year,
including the war in China and any other contemplated ex-
penditure, and if the means were insufficient, when he in-
tended to make a statement of the manner in which he pro-
posed to make good the deficit.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
was not prepared to give any information, because he did
not know what were the supplies for the present year.
There were two sobjects which st.ll remained open, namely
the vote for fortifications, which had been reserved subject
to any correction that might be required, and the war with
China, respecting which his hon. friend had promised to lay
estimates on the table. Having regard to the advanced
period of the year, it would be the duty of the Government
to produce that estimate, and then he would make a state-
ment to the house.
THE CHANNEL FLEET.

Mr. MILLER asked the Secretary to the Admiralty why
the Channel fleet were made to encounter the risks of a diffi-
cult navigation and to remain out of sight at St. Margaret's
Hope, 12 miles from Edinburgh, instead of being brought to
anchor in Leith-roads.

Lord C. PAGET explained that the fleet was composed
of a number of very large vessels, and it was believed that
St. Margaret's Hope afforded a safer anchorage.
SAVINGS' BANKS.

Sir 11. WILLOUGHBY asked the Chancellor of the
Exch!quer whether it was the intention of the Government
to irceecd with the Savings Bank Bill.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Yes.
ANNEXATION OF SAVOY AND NICE.

S:r ROBERT PEEL inquired whether any congress
was about to be held with reference to the annexation of
Savoy and Nice to France. .

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said despatches were expected,
and until they arrived no information on the subject could
be given.