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

lord, because he believed it would Apt produce pettegt but
encourage the Dissmiteti to proceettin their opposition to
the Church ;•becanse he.felt_thathe should.be relieving his-
oivn property from a _charger 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 thneitn-
Memorial. (Hoar.) . .
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 =Kielcr 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
/0,000 parishes was £248,000. 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
£24 a-year would be to the landlords of any parish I (Hear,
heat.) They might, surely, put aside altogether the idea
that the fabric of the Churchwould 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. (Heat', hear.) ' He thought the existence of
the rate caused ill-will among the different classes of society,
an evil which the money obtained wor2d never compensate
for. (Hear, hear.) It was said the opposition to church
rates proceeded from an Organized society established for the
sepalation 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 pit 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 aditantage to the Church. (Hear.)
It was manifestly absurd to proceed year after year with, a
law that could not be enforced. Their 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
candidatenfor Parliament, and therefore he hoped the house
would agree to the second reading. (Divide.)
• The Duke of NEWCASTLE—I would not have risen
to protract this debatehut 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 thy 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 tithe in accordance with the feel-
ings of the members of the Church, 'miff 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, r 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 tates'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 enabld me to vote against the second reading.
But I find that the noble duke the author of the resolution
on the report of the cbmmittee, not only moves 'the rejec-
tion of the bill, hut•doetr so in a speech in which he places
the maintenance of church' rates on the highest-pinnacle -of
principle, and quite abandoninglhat conciliatory tone which
on former occasions he has exhibited both in this house and
;in the other. (Hear.) I hivengain the pain to hear froth 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—at 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 bronghtin a
bill abolishing 'church rates" in parishes Where the Iw:tying
'of a rate had been auccesSfully resisted for two consedutive
years; but now he holds that-church rates should be held
inviolable. Reference has been-made to what fell from ins
on a former occasion.'- What I said then was that a'great
majority of those who opp Oped church rates were not opl
Iposed to the existence and nrosiperity 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-
i tricts and small towns of 5,000 or 6,000 inhabitants,' mem-
bers of the Church are now opposed to the levyingef. these
rates, although I know Dissenters who not' only support
Ibut cheerfully pay them. While I should regret 'that the
{bill in its present shape should pass into law—thear)7-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 qu4tiim to 'a
speedy solution than by passing the second reading 'of this
bill; and endeavouring in committee to introduce such
amendments as shall> rec melte 'the abolition of church rates
with the interests of the Chnech of England ifself. There-
fore I am prepared to Vote for the second reading.'
The Archbishop of 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' compulsory on members bf the
Church alone.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE—Then, if church'iiifes are
abolished as regards Dissenters,' and are compulamit Upon
members of the Church alone; it seems to me that it will
be a penal tax imposed upon thein. (Hear.) '
The Earl of DERBY-:--I' feel 'well convinced that your
lordships will adhere to-the opinion's 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 parte 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' cou'r'se. The -noble duke says that he still
disapproves the measure'; that he should be extremely un-
willing lo see it passed into a law; but in the vague expec-
tation that some amendinent 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 hot-Ise/he proposes to vote for the second read-
ing of a bill which he considers dangerous in principle and
hostile to the interests of the Church. The noble duke pro-
e,eeds to say, "I ground my change of opinion upon the al-
tered course pursued bythe House of Commons." Now, the
altered course Of the House of Commens 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 Lyve-
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 discusiion- had been'a member of this house last year,
and had seen the Overwhelming expressionOf opinion of

which the diiision on this uleasureyas then indicative, and
if he had beentt member ok 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 expressiau of opinion. npon. this "sub
ject. (Hear.) The noble duke gives as a reason for 'his
altered vote on this bill that its opponents in the House of
Commons harve shown an absence of the conciliatory spirit
which they formerly ;displayed.' :Novi,, I ask conOdently.
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-
and compromise are impossible,sists, according to the noble lord, in'this, -that Concession
and that it is necessary to.
choose between the maintenance of the existing law and,
the absolute and entire abolition of church rates. (Ilear'.)
This has beep the languake of all who have supported, the
abolition Orehut:chratO, whereasWhathas been the course
pursued by Mt? One after another we have Proposed this
and that concession, this and that coroproni6e, in favour of.
those who conicientiouely object to the payment of church.
rates.; but the result has- only been that every attempt
which we have made at oompromise, for the purpose of
establishing a good feeli.ng, and in ,order not to push our
principles to extremity, has been met by the tilleiatiou that
we were sacrificing our principles, were abandoning the
whole case, and. were bringing for ward measures which, in
fact, were wOrk 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
case, it is a 'little too much fOr the noble duke now to
justify his altered v ote .on the ground of tbe. total absence of
concilfation displayed in the other house. (Hear.) . •
I must,alseprOteit againsi the statement that in the recom-
mendation Of the seleet committee of the ilouse of Lords
we haVe Practically abandoned the. principle of church,
rates. . What We have clops is this--we have maintained the
right of the majority Of the
o. ,PlFishieners to tax themselves,.
and for their own. purpOses t levy an equal rates as oppose.