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

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

BRITISH POSSESSIONS.

in Close• ,
Share Railways. Paid. &• Businessdone
1 Frice.
100 (Atlantic &St Lawrence all 85 87 --;
C I Bom.,Baroda&.ent Ind'
stk 100 964 971
Gu. 5 psr cent..
18 Do, Do. B 131 4d 1 d
201 Buffalo and Lake Huron all 41 41d
201 Do. New
10 Do. Preference ...... all 61 64
100
Buffalo, Brant,&G od rich!
1
I 6 p. et. bds. Aug. 1, 1872, 100 75 80
100 Do. do. July 1, 1873 100 70 75
100 Do. do. June 1, 1871 100 6S 73
5 Clcutta.&S.Eastn. (Lim) 1. 30.4 (1 II)
20 Cape,Eastn.Prov. (Lim.) 2s.
20 Cape Town & Dock Scrip Is. 21 14 d
20 Ceylon Guarantd. 6p. c 74 14 1 d
171 Demerara all
20 Eastn. Bengal g,u. sp. c 5 1 4 d
stock East Indian, gu. sp. c. 100 102 1021 1021 4
20 Do. F Shares Ext lO par 417
20 Do. Jubbulpore lO par 1 p
100 Do. 41 pc. Debentrs all 99 991
stock Do. sp. c. Deb., 1864 all 101 1014
20 Geelong & Melbourne all 21 22
sto. Geelong Corporation 6 100
per cent. Bonds ...
stock Grand Trunk of Canada 100 30 31 301 i 4
100 Do. 6 per cent. Pref all 91 93 94
100 Do. 6 per ct. Debentr all 60 62 604 e 0
100 Do. 7 per cent. 1862
100 Do. do. 1867
100 Do. do. 1872
stock GLlndiarenin.gua.sp.e lOO 994 1001 991
20 Do. New gua. sp. c 6 4 d 1 d i
20 Gt. South.of India (Lim) n , li lid
guaranteed 5 per cent. '`"
204
Gt. W. of Canada Shares all 114 114 114
20/ Do. New
100 Do. Bonds pay. '76, with all 97 99
opt, till '6O
100 Do. do. '7:l till '6O all 97 99
100 Do. do. '73 without opt all 97 99
100 Do. 51 p. c. do. '77 do.
stock Madras, guar., 44 p. C lOO 88 90
stock Do. do. 5 per cent lOO 981 991
stock Do. 44 p. c. Extension 100 92 93
20 Do. Fourth do lO 11 4 d
20 Do. d 0.....
stock Melb.Corp. 6p. c. Bnds lOO
Newßrunswick & Canda
20 Ry.&Land(Lim.)g,.6pc an 5 7
Class A Capital Share
▪ Do. do. Land do
20 jDo. do. B Capital do.
Do. do. Land do.
20 Oude (Limited)
stock Scinde .......... ~.1...z 100 100 101 'lOO4
20 Do. Punjaub .... :?: „z all 11 d 1 d 3/
20 Do. Do. ..... .. a 9 5 d
stock i Do. Indus. St. Flo. _ ?r",, 100 954 964
/
20 IS t.A ndrews & Quebec 18
10 (Trinidad (Lim.) Scrip 1 1 1 d
FOREIGN RAILWAYS.
19 Antwerp & Rotterdam all 41 41
20 Ardennes.....
20 Bah.&S.Fran..Lim.7p.o ; 7 4 id
5 Belgian East. Junction all 4 1
20 Beziers to Graissessac.. all
10 Buen.Ayres &S. Ferndo, 2.4 p
6 Carmeaux Mine & Rail all 21 24
100 ICopiabo .... .... ,'_-...... all
10 Ditto Extension .... all 14 14d
20 Dutch Rhenish ........ 15 54 5141
20 Eastern of France .... all 231 24/
20 Grand Rus. Guar. 6p. c. 6 1
20 Do. do. all
20 Great Central of France all
20 Gt. Luxem., Con. shs... all 61 7
20 Italian Junction .. ... all
1
20 Lake Constance & Bale. all
20 Lierre & Turnhout all I
20 Lyons & Geneva ...... all 2
334 Maria Antonia ... all
10 Do. New ............ all 1
20 Namur & Liege ........ all 84 81 1
20 Do. 6p. c. Pref......... all 194 191
16 Northern of France.— all 384 394 f
20 Do. New Shares . —... 12 —— p i
10 Norwegian Trunk Pref all 8 9 84 ,
20 Paris,Lyons, & Mediter. all 3t4 35
20 Paris & Orleans.. .... all 53 55
1
20 [Recife & S. Fran. (fern.)
gua. 7p. ct. Bin...—. 13 11 14 d 1
20 Riga & Dunaburg...... 10 (
10 Rome & Frascati
20 Royal Dani5h.......... all 13 15 ,
5 Royal Swedish ........ all
4 Do. 7 per cent. Pref.... all 1
20 Sambre & Meuse ...... all 54 54 51 1 1
10 Do. 54 per cent. Pref..... all I 84 81
20 San Paulo, lim, g.. 7p. c. 2 4 4d I
20 S.Aust.&Lomb 'Wile tin 12 pr 4p 3 1
20 Southern of France.... all 20 2t
1
81 West Flanders . ...... . all 54 64
10 Do. 61 p. c. Preference.. all 91 94 1
20 W. & N.W. of France .. all 22 23 1
23 Western of Austria.... 6
20 Western of Switzerland all f
6 Wiesbaden
6 Do. 8 per cent. Pref all
20 Zealand

1000

29 31
4 5

37 39
19 21
13 15
120 125
6 8
2 2 27
241 251
31 33
99 100
104 106
106 198
2 1

32
10
stock
25
stock
stock
stock
stock

ip

11 ld
1 Oid
1i It
21 3 p

1i did
1 d,

10 151

1
4
i pr

stock

100
stook

45 48
73 75
11 13 p
d p
20 22
5
501 4 56 1
120 130
341 351

91 101

carried into effect. It was one that he believed would have
satisfied all reasonable Dissenters ; but the effect of that
bill was to abandon the high ground taken up by Church-
men. (Hear.) Infidelity prevailed most in the urban
parishes, and there, too, Dissenters were most numerous.
It was, therefore, there that the Church required all the

resources it could command, and yet in these urban parishes
the most rev. prelate proposed to give up church rates, be-
cause they:could no longer be raised there. The bill which
he (Lord Lyvedon) now proposed had been introduced into
their lordships' house in 1858, when it was rejected by a
very large majority, but the noble earl opposite (Earl Derby)
who was then in power, thought the subject was of such
importance that he undertook that a bill should be intro-
duced by the Government. A bill was introduced by Mr.
Walpole, which proposed that any one should be relieved
from the obligation of paying church rates who chose to say
that he was a conscientious Dissenter. The bill contained
other provisions modifying the law of mortmain, and autho-
rising the rate to be levied upon the owner, instead of the
occupier. But the compromise failed to obtain the sanction
of the House of Commons, and the next step was the intro-
duction of Sir J. Trelawny's Bill, which was passing rapidly
through the other house when their lordships adopted their
usual course when the Commons were pressing an unpala-
table measure upon them, and 'appointed a committee to
consider the subject. He found no fault with the proceed-
ings of that committee, but would only remark that, being
appointed at the end of the session, the attendance was
scanty and the evidence incomplete. Three witnesses were
examined whose evidence produced great effect—Dr. Foster,
Mr. Morley, and Mr. Osborne. The two first-named gen-
tlemen frankly avowed that the abolition of church rates
was not their ultimate desire, but that they wished to de-
stroy the whole Church establishment. That avowal ought
not to have caused much surprise, for it had repeatedly
bee' made by Mr. Hume, Mr. Pellatt, and others in the
House of Commons. It was, however, made a ground of
argument against the abolition of church rates that those
who chiefly advocated that proceeding were anxious to go
still further. He did not think there was any force in that
argument, because it had not been shown bow, if church
rates were abolished, the position of the Dissenters to attack
the Church would be strengthened. He believed it would
be just the contrary, for the country could never be
agitated upon a merely theoretical question. Only a real
grievance such as church rates were could sustain agitation,
and he thought that by yielding an unequivocal, uncertain
right the position of the Church would be greatly strength-
ened. The committee also examined Mr. Osborne, a Wes-
leyan Methodist, who, speaking individually, did not object
to church rates, but said there were no means of ascertain-
ing the general sentiments of the body to which he be-
longed. That opinion, however, was expressed in the 815
petitions that had been presented to Parliament from Wes-
leyan methodists in favour of the abolition of church rates.
The evidence of the witnesses whom he had mentioned had
a certain effect, and was, no doubt, one of the causes of the
diminished majority in the other house. But there was
another cause for the decrease in the majority. If it was
desired to pass liberal measures through the House of
Commons the first and last sessions of a Parliament were
the most auspicious periods. In 1859, when fresh from
the hustings, hon. gentlemen were ready to vote for the
abolition of church rates, but in 1860 their fervour had
somewhat abated. Probably in 1861, 2, or 3, as the case
might be, they would again vote against church rates before
reappearing upon the hustings. It was to be regretted that
the noble duke who presided over the committee had not
thought fit to introduce a bill founded on the report, or to
have met the present bill by resolutions in accordance with
that report. The principal recommendation in the report
was that persons desirous of being exempted from the pay-
ment of church rates should give notice of their objections to
the churchwardens, and such persons should not be per-
mitted to take part in any vestry called for the purpose of
making or applying such rate. There was no requirement
of a religious or conscientious objection, but any ground of
objection whatever was to exempt a man from the rate.
Objections had been made to the voluntary principle that
it would be humiliating to clergymen to require them to go
round their parishes to beg subscriptions. But there would
be just the same humiliation if the recommendation of the
committee were carried out, for the clergyman would have to
go round and invite persons not to object to the rate. A
more complete voluntary system could not be conceived
than the plan set forth by the committee. He had now
mentioned the various compromises that had been suggested
upon this subject. It was clear that compensations, com-
promises, and substitutes had all been exhausted, and no-
thing was left but to deal boldly with the question. He
hoped their lordships would not, because the majority in
the other house was slightly diminished, back out of the
pledges which they had heretofore given on this subject, or
vote for the continuance of a law which they had admitted
could not be maintained. A majority of nine was, he
allowed, a small one, and the number was also ominous, but
he trusted that this would not therefore be fatal to the suc-
cess of the bill. He believed the existence of church rates
tended much more to the disadvantage of the Church than
of Dissent, and he did not advance this opinion on his om n
authority. Mr. Gladstone said :
" Now, I say, in the first place, that the state of the law
of church rates is a very great grievance to the Church
itself. In a multitude of parishes the church rate is con-
tested. If it is obtained among tuiimostieß and heat tburn-
ings, where it is so contested it inflicts the greatest evil,
misfortune, and impediment on the Church than it confers
benefit on it ; and it the rate is lost what again happens ?
Why, that the Church is left entirely without support from
the rate, and so far is put on the same footing as the fabrics
belonging to other denominations of Christians; but only
so far, because it is left to those denominations who are
connected with other fabrics to associate themselves as a
body of private individuals for the maintenance of their
own fabrics, and to take into their own hands exclusively
the management of the funds they may please to vote for
such a purpose ; but that it is not competent for members
of the Established Church to do. Take the case of a parish
where the bulk of the ratepayers were indisposed to support
these rates, but where a portion of them were disposed to
do so. It is not competent for that part of the parishioners
who are so disposed to constitute themselves into a body for
the purpose of applying their means to that object, and it
is beyond all doubt that if, notwithstanding these difficulties,
gentlemen belonging to the Church of England choose to
subscribe for the maintenance of their Church, the applica-
tion and disposal of the money they thus raise is not placed
under their own control, but they are open to be run in upon.
and to have the control of the application of their money
taken out of their hands and put into the hands of the very
men who perhaps the week previous had voted against the
levying of a church rate. That, I say, is a great grievance
to the Church."

This was, in point of fact, a great grievance to the Church,
and it was a giievance which, as long as this impost re-
mained, it would be impossible to remedy. If, on the other
hand, the rate were got rid of, a measure might be at once
introduced and carried, enabling the Church to tax its own
members, and no Dissenters could offer plausible objection
to such a bill, or if they did they would be laughed out of
Parliament. But on what ground were the conscientious
objections of the Dissenters now divegarded ? Could any-
thing be said against the Dissenting body on the ground of
immorality or irreligion ? The names of Bunyan, Baxter,
Lardner, and Robert Hull would rise to every one's lips in
conjunction with the names of other men whom the Church
would be to glad to receive into her bosom. He would not
enter into any statistics to show the relative numbers of
Dissenters and Churchmen in this country, or the exact
number of petitions presented on one side or the other. He
would even assume the truth of the calculation made
by that very sanguine friend of the establishment, Dr.
Hume, of Liverpool, that the members of the Church com-
prise 67 per cent. of the population. But were there nat in
every town large numbers of Dissenters who were anxious
to be relieved from this rate? Why was it that Parlia-
ment did not impose an education rate ? Because they
thought that a compulsory impost would diminish the vo-
luntary subscriptions. The same principle applied in the
present instance, and he would ask where religion had ever
been advanced by compulsory levies ? Probably a Dissen-
ter would have no great cbjection to contribute towards the
repair of a structure which he venerated and an edifice he
admired ; and if the compulsory rate were abolished he be-
lieved the Dissenters would be most willing to subscribe
towards such an object. Sir Morton Peto, for example,
had subscribed £5OO towards the erection of a parish
church at Plaistow, and this would be the case with many
other Dissenters if the support of the Church edifices were
left to depend on voluntary efforts. It was for the in
terests of the Church itself, then, that the removal of this
impost was most to be desired, and it was Dissent which
gained most by its continuance. At all events, if the bill
were not passed, care should be taken to lay down what
were the legal charges to be defrayed out of a church rate.
The Rev. Mr. Champneys said these charges comprised the
repairs of the edifice, the washing of the surplice, and the
cost of the communion wine. Now it was only natural that
Dissenters should object to the two last items. Mr. Champ-
neys had stated that when he first succeeded to his present
charge he found that the washing of the surplice cost 12
guineas, and the communion wine 18 guineas, there being
only 16 communicants. In that case wine appeared to have
been given to the churchwardens, clergyman, and other
persons ; and was it surprising that, with such abuses, the
Dissenters complained of paying church rates ? These were
the grounds upon whichhe asked their lordships to pass this
measure. He should prefer a substitute if one could be
found, but a substitute had been looked for in vain, and the
supporters of the bill therefore had been compelled to resort
to entire abolition. It appeared to be hoped that the agita-
tion on this question would subside. That reminded him of
the man in the play whose house was on fire, and who
it was
proceeding to assist in extinguishing the fire, when he
ex-
claimed, " A sudden thought strikes me. Perhaps will
go out of itself." Now this agitation would not go out of
itself, and he entreated their lordships not to relax in their
endeavours to make it subside by reasonable legislation.
True it was that from various causes the majority had dimi-
nished in the other house, but none of the remarkable men
who had given in their adhesion to the bill failed to support
it still. It should be steadily borne in mind that the chief
supporters of the measure in the other house were net Dis-
senters, whose wish it might be to destroy the establishment
—churchmen were its leading advocates. (Hear.) The
majority comprised seven Cabinet Ministers, one ex-
Premier, and the present Prime Minister, of whom it
would not be said by the right rov. bench that
he was an unworthy son of the Church, or that his
recent appointments to the episcopal bench had
been prejudicial to the establishment. (Laughter.) Among
other members in that majority he recognises the rising
hopes of the country. Who stood higher in public esteem

than Lord Stanley? His lordship was for the abolition of
church-rates, and so were Lord Ashley, Lord Grosvenor, and
the Marquis of Hartington. (A laugh.) Were those enemies
of the establishment, or were they not as sincere friends to the
Church as any of their lordships could be? (Hear, hear.)
He trusted that if he had not been able to carry conviction
to their lordships' mind he had said nothing calculated to
offend their religious feelings. Before he sat down, perhaps
he might be allowed to address one word in the way of re-
monstrance to the right rev. bench. If he were addressing
an assembly of attorneys who strained to the utmost every
possible technicality of the law, he would deserve to be
laughed at if he engaged in any Quixotic endeavour to induce
them to give up any right,however uncertain, for the sake of
peace and good will. (Laughter.) Buthe was now speaking
to men who knew there was no exercise of the Christian
virtues equal to that of self-sacrifice, and who had for the
benefit of the Chureh and the advancement of religion con-
sented to be shorn of some portion of their episcopal
revenues. He entreated them, then, not to raise their hands
to strike their Dissenting brethren ; but, in the words of
Mr. Secretary Stanley in 1834, to consider whether the in-
terests of the Church were advanced by the desecration of
the houso of God by squabbles about church rates; or, in
the words of Sir R Peel, whether social harmony should
be allowed to be interrupted by these discussions. (Hear.)
In the sincere and solemn conviction that the present mea-
sure would tend to make the Church more popular and to
promote the interests of religion itself, he moved the second
reading of the bill. (Hear.)

The Duke of MARLBOROUGH said that with regard
to the first ground on which the noble lord had based his
motion—the ground, namely, that all attempts at a com-
promise on this question had failed—he had to remark that
those attempts failed because the Dissenters expressed a
clear and positive determination to stop short of nothing less
than the entire abolition of church rates. The second
ground on which the noble lord urged his motion was that
the church rate was a bone of contention, and that it tended
to promote and keep alive the odium theologicum. But, on
the other hand, he would ask the noble lord to consider
what must be the feeling of the members of the Established
Church when they saw these persistent attempts of the
Dissenters to deprive the Church of its revenues, and all
attempts at compromise rejected because they were the ad-
vocates of the voluntary principle. The noble lord in the
course of his speech had given utterance to many fallacies.
He told them that church rates were a legal obligation
without a legal remedy for their enforcement. But why was
the state of the law such that there was a legal obligation
without a legal remedy ? There used to be a legal remedy in
the ecclesiastical courts, when men's minds and• consciences
quailed before the censures of those courts. It was true that
this was no longer the case ; but the noble lord, if he were
logical in his reasoning, instead of asking for the abolition
of church rates, should have proposed to find some other
remedy or substitute. The noble lord endeavoured to lead
the house to suppose that the Wesleyan Methodists, who
amounted to one• half the Dissenting community. in England,
were in favour of his measure, whereas the fact was that
the Wesleyan Conference never sanctioned this agitation.
The noble lord had said that the amount of church rate col-
lected had fallen, and he argued from that fact that the rate
had fallen in the general sympathies of the people. But the
cause of that diminution wasto be found in the opposition to
the rate, and the disposition of the church to make compro-
mises, and not to ask for more than was absolutely required
for the repair of the church fabric. The noble lord had oom-
mitted a great error in putting this question on the same
grounds with the important questions of reform, the corn
laws, and Jewish disabilities. With regard to reform there
was an acknowledged evil, an acknswledged necessity ; and
it was carried repeatedly by increasing majorities. The
same with regard to the elm laws ; the famine in Ireland
was a sufficient reason why the corn laws should then have
been repealed. The question of Jewish disabilities was one
which peculiarly affected the other house, and it . was not
likely that their lordships would long oppose thle wish of
that house. In a case where the interests of religion were
concerned there was an instance in which their lordships
had made a stand, and had refused to pass a measure for
the appropriation of Irish ecclesiastical property. He hoped
that they would now pursue the same course. He would
ask, who were really in favour of this measure ? Was the
noble lord himself really anxious that it should pass ? If so,
why was it that, though the bill was brought up from the
Commons on the 13th of April, he di I not give notice to
move the second reading till 24 days afterwards ? The
Church of England was not in favour of the measure. The
noble lord had mentioned some attached members of tho
Church in the other house who were in favour
of it, but no ono would say that they represented the
Church at large. The noble lord himself had described
members of the other house as apt to be swayed
more by the wishes of their constituents than by
their consciences, especially as a dissolution approached.
(Hear, hear.) Nor could much weight be attached to the
opinions of members of the church in those places where
rates had been refused. The right rev. prelates must be
allowed to be more accurate representatives of the church
than those to whom the noble lord had referred. As to
the country being in favour of the bill, it was only neces-
sary to look at the retitions that had been presented. When
the bill was read a second time in the other house, on the
Bth February, only 12 petitions with 407 signatures had
been presented in its favour. It passed the second reading
by a very diminished majority. Last session it was up-
wards of 70. In the intervening period the inquiry by
their lordship' committee had produced a great result; the
evidence had been made widely known; it had removed the
mistaken impressions of many, and had shown that the
measure would be fatal to :the institutions of the Church.
The majority in this session diminished from upwards of 70
to 29. That was a significant fact for the supporters of the
measure. They felt that they must be up and doing, and
they resorted to a settled organisation for working up peti-
tions and obtaining signatures. The vast number sent up
in a short time showed that there had been some such
spasmodic effort, and was no proof of the settled convic-
tion of the country. By the the 28th of March, the bill
having been read a second time on the Bth of February,
there had been presented 4,972 petitions, with 546,000
signatures; That was the result of the organisation of the
Society for the Liberation of Religion from State Control,
and was no test of the feeling of the country. But was the
Government itself in favour of the passing of this measure
of abolition ? Lord Palmerston, in 1855, speaking on a similar
measure, had said that he certainly could not bring himself
to think the measure was likely to receive the sanction of
both branches of the legislature ; nor did he think that the

support of the fabrics of the church was sufficiently pro-
vided for thereby. He added that he would not support the
measure for the sake of any momentary popularity out of
doors; a person in his position ought not to support such a
measure unless he felt that it was demanded by the inte-
rests of the country at large. Different measures of com-
promise had been alluded to, which it was not necessary
then to discuss ; the question now before the house was one
simply of abolition, pure and total. The question was, had
any case been made out for absolute abolition ? (Hear, hear.)
He contended that no such ease had been shown. Such a
measure would be a violation of one of the most essential
charters of English liberty—namely, Magna Charta itself,
which contained these words : " That the Church of Eng-
land shall be free, and have all her whole rights and liber-
ties inviolable." If this was not one of the rights of the
Church of England, perhaps the noble lord would inform
them what was. The recent decisions of their lordships'
house had materially altered the views of the country on
this question. Those decisions had settled the right of the
vestry to levy a rate ; and whether the rate was granted or
refused, the same right inhered in the Church. Dr. Lush-
ington stated in his evidence that in consequence of those
decisions disputes on church rates had been very great.),
diminished within the last Seven years; and, in fact, within
the last few years, scarcely any such disputes had been
brought before the courts. Ho (the noble duke) denied that
this measure was necessary for the sake of peace. Then
was no question of peace ; disputes were materially lessen-
ing. They might abolish municipal elections for the sake
of peace, or elections made at any public meeting whatever.
(Hear, hear.) But the bill was recommended on another
ground, because its supporters were unable to find
a substitute for church rates, or to suggest a compro-
mise. Because they were unable to amend the law they
would destroy it. This was like the conduct of the
physician who, having a very difficult case to treat, which
baffled all his skill, gave directions on leaving the house to
put an end to the sufferings of his patient by a very sum-
mary process. If the parishioners wished to oppose a rate
they could do so now in vestry. The noble lord had talked
of churchmen staying their uplifted hand, and not striking
their ;dissenting brethren. But their dissenting brethren
were not by any means defenceless ; they had useful little
tracts and manuals placed in their hands, whereby they
were taught how to defeat a rate, and with such aid their
advisers told them that it was almost impossible to levy a
legal rate. (Hear, hear.) Much stress had been laid on
the sacred principle of voluntaryism. The noble lord said
"destroy church rates, and you will increase voluntaryism
tenfold ; the pockets of Churchmen will be opened ; their
Christian sympathies will be enlarged; and contributions
will flow in from every quarter for the purposes of the
Church." But were there no contributions now flowing in
for those purposes ? Did not the Church of England at
present rest on a voluntary basis to a far greater extent than
any other religious body in this country ? Look at the
efforts for building churches. The Incorporated Society
had made grants, in 1858, to the amount of £13,000, which
were met by local contributions of £175,000. In 1859, the
society had made grants of £17,000, to meet local funds of
£195,000 ; and in 1860, grants of £22,000, to meet local funds
of £240,000. (Hear, hear, from the Government side.) He
presumed the meaning of that cheer was, that as so much
had been done, more might be done. He would prove that
the contrary would be the case. The last straw broke the
camel's back; and they could not, year by year, rely upon
voluntary effort to raise such an amount as was now de-
rived from church rates. Look at what the Church of
England was doing in education. In 1854, the grants of
the Privy Council to meet corresponding contributions by
the Church of England were £209,000 ; while the grants to
all the Dissenting denominations in the country were only
£116,000. In the two followingyears the figures stood thus:
To the Church.
o.
00000000000000000000
1855
£240,000 .........
1856 268,000 ......... 155,000
The Church was doing its work well ; its members were
I not reposing on their past efforts ; and When the argument

was used that Voluntaryism was equally available to the
Church as to the Dissenters, the answer was that the
Church was as as much a Voluntary institution as any one
Dissenting sect in the country. But there was ono great
difference between the Dissenters and the Church. Dis-
senting chapels were very small buildings; the buildings
connected with the Established Church were Dirge and
expensive. Whenever a church was consecrated, it was set
apart, solemnly dedicated, perpetually and irrevocably; to
the service of God. Not so with Dissenting chapels ; they
moved from place to place. If a congregation failed, the
chapel was shut up, sold, or disposed of. Dr. Hume men-
tioned the case of nine chapels in Liverpool which had oc-
cupied 26 different sites within his knowledge. Then the
Church of England was essentially the church for the
poor man. The sustentation of the church could not be
rested on pew rents, for in many parishes the poor were
the sole occupants, and they had not the means of
paying. Those poor congregations had in many instances
been called into existence by large manufactories, the
owners of which did not live in the parish, but had trans-
ferred their residence to more salubrious and agreeable
localities. They subscribed to charities, schools, and per-
haps churches in their own neighbourhood ; but where
there was no tax imposed by law, they would not feel them-
selves called upon to contribute to the expense of divine
worship for their workpeople. This was p:oved by the evi-
dence
of the Rev. W. Champneys and Dr. Hume. Dr.
Miller, of Birmingham, stated that the restoration of the
spire of his church had cost upwards of £7,000. That had
been raised by subscription, because he was a very popular •
minister. But the ministers of the Church were not ap-
pointed by the people; the wishes of the congregations
were not consulted in the selection of ministers ; therefore
it was leaning on a broken reed to trust to the popularity
of ministers for the support of the church. (Hear.) The
case of the Rev. Air. Yorke, of Birmingham, was one in
point. He stated that the efforts he was obliged to make for
the restoration of his church, at a cost of several thousand
pounds, became so painful to his parishioners, that he was
regarded by them as a nuisance, and his influence in the
parish was destroyed. He could go much further into the
effects of abolishing church rates in parishes. Their lord-
ships had evidence to show that a diminution of poor rates
was actually attributable to the voluntary contribution
made for the relief of the sick and poor in his pariah. He
had his district visiting societies, which were supported by
voluntary contributions. But once put another burden
upon the voluntary contributions of churchmen, and these
funds would suffer, and in a parish where church rates
were abolished and the support of the church left to volun-
tary contributions, these rates and burdens would again
arise in a more onerous form. He must advert to the
question which had been raised by the noble lord
in regard to the special nature of the evidence which
had been adduced to their lordships' committee as re-
garded the ulterior objects of those persons who had
united in the endeavour to carry a bill for the abolition of
church rates. He remembered that he mentioned some two
years ago their system and objects in that house. He stated
that there were ulterior objects in the minds of certain per-
sons with regard to the abolition of church rates, and he
was met by a reply from the noble lord opposite--if his me-
mory served him right—that he did not believe any one en-
tertained those views ; but that church rates were to be got
rid of merely as a question of funds. But Lord J. Russell,
in the year 1854, saw a little further. Ho said we had an
established church ; we had an hereditary aristocracy ; we
had an hereditary monarchy ; that all these things stood
together, and his opinion was that they would fall together.
He must therefore oppose this bill, as tending to subvert one
of the great institutions of the country. He (the Duke of
Marlborough) would advert to what had been stated to be
the Parliamentary action of these gentlemen. Dr. Foster
was asked to state generally what were his objections to
church rates. He said, in reply, that perhaps he had bettor
preface that by saying, he did not encourage the abolitionof
church rates any further than by assisting those who came
to him for advice, and by directing the conduct of the Par-
liamentary management. It appeared that these gentlemen
had a Parliamentary committee, of whom Dr. Foster was
chairman. Their object was to promote the cariying of what
they termed " our bill." Part of their system was to act
upon the constituencies ; and Mr. Morley, a member of the
society, said that there was a constituent part of every repre-
sentative body who had in view as an ulterior measure the
entire secularisation of church property. The society had
corresponded with every constituency in the country, and
there was not only a degree of compulsion which they could
bring to bear upon noisy demagogues, but there was also a
course of action which candidates understood perfectly
well. By these means, in a space of eight weeks, they
were enabled to prepare 4,000 petitions, containing half
• million of signatures, and get them presented to the
other house of Parliament, nor would they rest con-
tented so long as a single broad acre was left to the
possessions of the Church of England, or a single com-
muted tithe given to the support of her clergy. He had
already called upon their lordships to observe that there was
no suggestion here whether there was any other plan which
might be proposed for the settlement of the difficulty.
Speaking for himself, he might say he desired nothing but
a fair, equitable, and just settlement of the question, and
no exertion should be wanting on his part if he could see
his way to any satisfactory solution. At the same time
with respect to the just and equitable view of the case, their
lordships' sense of justice would be too accurate to allow
them to believe that the arguments put forth by the noble
lord opposite would satisfy the demands of justice, or even
sound policy, upon this question. Their lordships knew that,
this was an ancient tax, involvingancient-rights,which were
of the highest importance to the interests of the clergy, and
to the interests of the poor who were committed to their
charge. He had pointed already to the extent of the orga-
nisation of those whose avowed object it was to promote the
bill for the abolition of church rates ; and not only that,
but also to bring about the secularisation of the entire mass
of the pi operty of the Church, which was subservient to the
benefit of the poor, and to the Church of the people of this
land. Their lordship s had these things in evidence, and
they would therefore conclude it to, be their wisest policy to
accept no compromise whatever. They would not, he be-
lieved, consider it consistent with fairness, wisdom, justice,
sound policy, or even with reliious duty itself, to pass the
second leading of this bill. He therefore begged to move
that it be read a second time that day three months.

Lord WENSLEYDALE said he wished to detain their
lordships a few minutes only whilst he endeavoured to give
a more correct statement of the existing state of t'ae law
with regard to church rates than had been presented to their
lordships. It was an error, which was widely entertained by
the people of this country, to suppose that a majority of
the parishioners in vestry assembled had a right to say
whether there should bo a church rate or not. That was
a complete mistake : the law had not been so laid down in
the celebrated Braintree case. Every parish was undoubt-
'edly under a legal obligation to provide a church rate. The
only question was as to the mode of carrying that obliga-
tion into effect. One of these modes was by making a bye-
law, in order to make which it was necessary that a majo-
rity of the parishioners in vestry assembled should consent.
At the same time the obligation to make a church rate was
considered to be a spiritual duty, and its enforcement was
left to the operation of the spiritual court. The penalty
provided by the ecclesiastical court for not making a church
rate was to put the parish under an interdict, a remedy
which of late years was virtually impracticable. What
their lordships decided in the Braintree case was, first, that
it was not possible for the churchwardens of a parish to
make a rate in the absence of the parishioners; and secondly,
that a majority of the parishioners in vestry assembled
could make a rate which was binding on the minority of the
ratepayers of the parish. The omission to make a rate was
nevertheless punishable by ecclesiastical censure to this
day. It was an error to suppose that the majority of the
parish in vestry assembled had a right to decide whether
or not they were legally bound to make a church rate.
Earl DE GREY and RIPON said he was surprised to
find that the noble duke, instead of discussing the various
compromises which had been proposed by himself, as ap-
peared by the report upon their lordships' table, had rested
his argument upon the principle which led directly to the
maintenance of church rates as they now existed. The
noble duke did not speak of a compromise, except in a single
instance. But he distinctly made clear throughout the whole
of his speech that what he wished to be done was, that the
law should remain as it now was. The noble duke had gone
as far back as Magna Charta, and had said that if church
rates were to be abolished, it would be a violation of Magna
Charta ; because Magna Charta declared that the Church
it
of England should retain all the rights and
s afraid
privilegesthat
the
possessed at present. If that were so he wa
great charter had already been frequently violated, and
he should feel alarmed if this violation were added to the
long list which had preceded it. (Hear, hear.) But then,
said the noble duke, as the noble lord (Wensleydale) had
also said—" You haves legal right—a legal duty ; but there
enforceas
a timeth a that duty,"
ht ye .n"
the viola..
" True,"'
isaidsnotrhe
ch
tion of this duty could be actively prevented, in the hal:-
emne noble eb by
uwkhei, "buyout theree i
w
cyon days of ecclesiastical jurisdiction!' But he (Earl. de
Grey) thought their lordships must not go back to the Jaye
of the great charter, or even to the days when eotlesiastical
jurisdiction prevailed. They must look at the, question as
it stood at the present moment, and with reference to all
that had taken place up to the present year. The noble
and learned lord had given a statement of the law of the
case, which he (Earl de Grey) would not venture to dis-
pute, but ho was quite content to take the vi-aw given in the
report upon their lordships' table, namely;, that a church
rate could' only be made assessable upon . the parish by a
majority of the parishonerg ; :that there was no remedy to
enforce its imposition at common law, whilst, as the noble
duke admitted, penalties against a no n-ratepaying parish
could not be enforced in the eeelesiasti4 ;al courts. The noble
duke appealed to Magna Charta, and F ;earned to think there
Was no reason at all why any person sl iould be relieved from
the payment of church rates. He did , not mean to say that
the noble duke would not be willing, a a a measure of justice,
to relieve those who were not membe rs c,f the church from
this payment, but he did not seem t o think it was any
grievance, or that there was any subsf Tantial ground for the
active agitation which had been curie( 1 on by the Society for
the Liberation of Religion from Cl torch Contro]a
beile:
whilst this society was a recent one, t
question
had
in agitation fully 30 years ago. LThet had te
attempts to settle it by way of a copeproovinaiss• In 1834 a
that chlirell
bill was brought in by which it was IF ded
The noble duke
'rates should wholly cease and deternairo