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

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 thb

country without any legal security for the 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 lordshipato 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 reniain
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 shculd 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 C. e property. Therefore, if

they wire 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 'ewn 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 ha;i-e ohtained no secu-
rity that a reatenable 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 (aill which their lordships ought not to read
a second time. (Hear, hear.) He would not, however, rest
his argument upon such low grounds. He'Was prepared to
take a much highergroand for maintaining that the laW as
it stood was just and right: *He adnlitted that formerly
there was a grievance. Before'the famone decision of the
Braintree case, when it wai held that the minority of the
parish or the churchwardens might impose a tat on the
parish at large, he felt that there was a grievance that ought
to be removed; hut 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. Tullis opinion
the defeCts were simply these the first place there Was
a want of restrictive conditions in reepeet of the applicability
ef church' rates. His noble friend who introduced the bill
mentiefiedlitistanCes in which church rates had been impro-.
perly'aPPliecTr but that was simply an ahuee.' It would
hSwever3 be-right and proper 16 reetfiat the application •of
Church raters-telhe maintenance oftlieffahric ; and he be-
litniid 'the:Mei:os Of the Chnich were7perfeetly prepared-to
assenetO '•inich a restriction. (Mar; Again, great'
- changes had taken placed late years irCionie parisheS; So
that those'Wlib were now rated fecLurch 'rates were not
thosewl6 derived benefit *froth the Chiirch to which' they
contribilted. Sortie amendinent was 'required in each cases,
so that the rates should be Confined to those parts of
parislibilkWll6lf the churches really required to be main-
tained. • PastiY; it was a fault' in the existing law that those
who iniPosed church rates were liable to 'be defeated in the
carrying'inif of these desires by a 'email minority'Who could
avail themselves Of technical means tO4effeet their object.
that was a serious evil, and ought to- be reinedied'. (Hear,
hear.) - But -glinting that these" ainendments 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
bothlocal and that' the Peciple' bhould have the
right of faxing themselves for all purposes affecting them-
selves F 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 stieh'in argument
`apply to 'the -administration of government generallY?
'For example;'he was of opinion that the War in which 'we
:were now migieed in China Was' 'as 'unjust as it was
Jle believed it was'a great - sin' which' thenation
'had committed; `which soone-iiii' later" would 'bring pun-
'ishnient upon ; but he 'aid not- sap-'that upon that
,ground -he ought to be excised-Mink contributing
his share to the 'taxation WhiCh wai deeined necessary to
!defrai the cost of such a war. (Hear; hear.) So it might
be said with regard to sanitaryniiingementa, gas lights,
or any other' question involving an additional expenditure
, of the Public:money. -But such an argument was 'obviously
unjusi, and as to the particular grievant-o of this tag upon
'Dissenters,' it was at once disposed Of hy the fad 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 church
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 gall that the state of the laW.
was exceedingly' objectionable because it created so many
anomalies ; that church rates 'were levied in some places
land not in Others, and that there was no uniform practice.
This,' in his opinion, was the greatest' tjecommendation of
the tai. pTe thought it would be- highly inexpedient to
levy church rates in parishes where there wasan equal divi-
sion of different religious sects, or in large towns where the
sums neFeesarY tO maintain the church could be easily col.-
lected by pew rents. Pew rents, 'however,' were only ap-
plicable to' towne, and not to the rural distriets, where' the
majority of the 'congregation were labouring men. <llears'
It was said that the levying of "church rates was a great
grievance upon the inhabitants' of iiparieh;' bat What wai
said •upan that subject by the orponents Of church rates
theniseli,es ? Why, it was urged that the technical diffiL
culties in the way of collecting the taz were great that
in a Short time any person, if so deterin'ned; could get rid
of the rate altogether. If that were really so, the neces-'
saryinference- *is that in' the i6vying of church rates in
rural parishes were so entirely in accordance with the wishes
of the inhabitanti, that' any person inelinedfto oppose the
iinpoSitiOn of the tax was **tiled by mere shame to re-'
frain from carrying his deiirdi into ^effect.' It was further
said that the abolition would itenio've a geed deal of ill-Will,'
disputee, and dissensions. He admitted that it would, but
in all-free institutions differenceeof 'opinion prevailed, and
discussions were carried on with more Or less acrimony. Re
was hippy 'to note the change that was growing up on this
question in the feelings of the People'of this country ; he
observe& that they were vieing with each other in maintain-
ing the churches in a good and' proper- state: fnd'he' could
say that in his memory the Oland, in this respect teas" very
marked. (flear.) He 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 chnrch 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 choese he
should prefer abolishing church rates altogether to Such a
course as was suggaited by the tePort then upon theirlord
ships' table. But he contended that even 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 somewitnesses' 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 thernseNed or not, they would
be virtually conceding the principle uPon'which the Baal.-
Wished Chureh 'was founded. • •
The Earl'of AIRLIE supported ilia bill.` He said he 0b-
...
tonelsae rstv ebtidei tdohr
taeet n
tha
temper
me m
r
o.f.wtliaietrhkheredeu;change had taken place in the
regard
on this
ot question
the pecunpecuniary
which
it was said the' Church would sustain it church rates were
abolished;'hetelieved that
'the'
overrated.
No
doubt -a
(large majority of the' landowners of the Country
were members of the Church of tngland ; but supposing
this rate was abolished to-morrow, did 'their lordships- siip-
pOse they would pocket the money they had hitherto paid
for church rates and leave the churches. to tumble' down or
not ?' 'was a hbel upon the character of thegentleinen of
England to 'say so, and he was surprised that such an argu.•
meat shOuld come from the opposite benches. Another
argument used by those whO -supported the church rates
was that:the ulferfor object of those WhO wished to abolish'
them was to desfroy the Church 'itself; htit if that argu-
meat Waigood 'for anything it Would' go against reforms of
overy'leind,:heearise there were always a class Of men who,
wanted-to go fill-tiler inany reforni than others. lie had
no objection to 'a compromise on thie 4iies ion, but believing
that church rates could not be Much longer 'maintained,
and that their abolition would greatly tend to the peace of
so many parishe... e,he felt bound to'support the present bill
(Hear:)

The Mile-eel RUTLAND said, with reF ..ard 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 the
noble lo'rd visited. the church o'f' St. Gires's and oth( r
churches 'in Siinifai neighbourhoods he would find the poor
attend d.tkaie in large numbers', "and also in the country
churChes. The noble lord'had'alsa referred to. the Want of
church" acCoinitiodittioit for'the rsoor in Manchester, but if
they had chnich'rates in Manchester instead' of pew rents
they waulii have free sittings t:U.' the ' 'poor. It might be
that there were some Dissenters wliO.Wae not' hostile to the
Church establiffianient ; 'kit he lelre4ed on the other hand
that there was a gi, at body'of ' Dissenters WhO wished to
"Pihe Church in the position of `a religious-sect, and
lae _the abolition of the church rates the ground of ulte-
-4.3...' He sliould vote against the bill'df the 401)19

- L.