The Sun.
London, England, 1856-03-06 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMEN T,

HOUSE OF COMMONS. —(YESTERDA Y.)
CMURCH RATES ABOLITION BILL,
The following is a more extended report of the con-
clusion of the debate ou the above subject than appeared
in Ottr late edition of yesterday :
Mr. DRUM MOND said the amendments proposed
by the Government to this measure would so alter it that
it would be but fair if it were withdrawn and the Go-
vernment to bring in another. He objected to all
of the proposed alterations in the law of church rater,
(Hear.) He referred to the establishment of church
rates, which were as old as the establishment of Chris-
tianity in this country, and that of church wardens, which
dated so far back as 1147. A national church was that
church which a sovereign supported, and the reason why
the people had dissented from the Church was
from the heads of the Church depriving them of
the necessary accommodation by the introduction of
pews. The heads of the Church were the enemies of
the Church, and not the Dissenters. The Braintree case
was now settled by the decision of the House of Lords,
who had reversed the judgments of learned judges on
the luestion. Tne House of Lords would not allow
God's house to be repaired, and they were now about to
pull down their own. (Laughter.) Every owner
of a house held it on the understanding that it should
contribute towards church rates, and it the Government
abolished church rates the property should be valued and
compensated accordingly.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL addressed the house
in consequence of the noble lord, the mover of the
amendrneut, saying, in the course of his speech, that the
hon. members who voted last session in favour of a
similar measure were headed by a "reckless Attorney-
General," and defended his conduct from such a personal
attack.
Lord J. RUSSELL—I have listened with great atten-
tion to the speech of the Secretary for the Home Depart-
ment, and I had hoped that, when there ware measures be
fore the house on the subject of church rates, my right
bon, friend might have been enabled, on the par- of the
Government, to indicate some course which, if it did not
meet with general or universal assent, might at least have
satisfied the majority of this house, and have smoothed the
difficulties which attached to the ot-oestion before us. That
there are difficulties connected with this question I cer-
tainly must be one of the fore host to admit, because, hav-
ing often endeavoured to frame a measure which would
satisfy others as well as rayeelf, I cannot say that I have ever
been successful in the 'attempt. With respect to the propo-
sal which my right hoe, friend the Home Secretary has
made on behalf of her Majesty's Movernment, he has cho-
sen the incenYeelent course, as I think, of not bringing into
this louse a *measure founded upon the principles he has
indicated—(cheers from the Opposition)—but while pro-
posing to sanction by his vote and by the votes of his col-
leagues a bill framed in a very- different spirit—(renewed
cheers)—he holds out the hope that he will be able to in-
troduce in committee, not souse simple alterations merely,
oat material and somewhat complicated provisions. I
must say that, however I may object to the bill introduced
by nay hon. friend (Sir W. Clay), I think the course he has
taken and the proposal he has made are in themselves very
intelligible. (Cheers.) I have understood my hen, friend
and other hon, members, whose names are upon the back
of his bill, to have said repeatedly that they think it is a
great hardship to compel Dissenters front the Church of
England to contribute to the maintenance of the fabric of a
church which they do not attend, and to pay for the support
of a form of worship from which they conscientiously dis-
sent ; and that from such a hardship Dissenters ought to
be reieved. Ido not agree in that proposition ; but the
proposal itself is a perectly clear one, and one that I
ehualci be prepared, if neceseary, to argue at this moment
with my hoe. friend. But then comes the `Secretary of
State, who makes, on the part of the Government, a props.
sal whichl places us in this position :—We must consider
whether it would be advisable to accept, as it at present
stands, the bill of my hon. friend, to which, as I have said,
I object ; or to accept the proposal of the right hon. the
dome Secretary ; or, lastly, whether it would net be bet-
ter, rather than accept either of those proposals, to leave
the law in its presort state, oven admitting that state to
be unsatisfactory. (Cheers from the Opposition.) I con-
ceive that the case as it stands at present is this : —Here is
an ancient law, declared to be so by the most•
eminent
judges of the land, which imposes on each parish the local
obligation of repeiriug the fabric of the parish church,
and providing for the celebration of divine worship in
that church. Chief Justice Tindal and Lord Truro, aroolig
other learned judges, have maintained that this legal obli-
gation exists ; but they have said at the same time that it
is an obligation which could not be enforced against the
will of a majolity of the parishioners. They have asserted
not that the obligation ceased or that the law was abro•
gated, but that the obligation is one that can be evaded.
(Cheers.) Well, it appears to me that the persons who
have a grievance on this subject are, in fact, the members
of the Established Church—(Cheers from the
Opposition)—
beceuse they may say—here is an ancient law imposing an
obligation, which was confessedly intended for and neces-
sar
y to the sustentation of the Established Church, but that
obligatiou cannot be enforced. Some persons may say, as
my right hon. friend has said to-night —" If wo were to
attempt to give force and validity to the law and to com-
pel persons to fulfil the obligation, which great judges
have said attaches to them, we should disturb the pews of
the country, we should create a greet deal of ill feeline,
and we should provoke hostility to the church itself."
think the church may fairly answer, " That is a question
for Ministers of State ; we accept your allegation ; we ale
willing to acquiesce iu what you say ; we will not attempt
to enforce oblwati,ms, which, in your opinion, mightaff‘ Cl
the peace of the community ; but do tell us in what other
way you propose to provide for the maintenance of the
church." (Cheers.) My sight hon. frien , says, we propose
a measure which will legalise what is admitted to be a
practical evasion, a successful defeat of the law, anal we ask
for this resistance to the law the sanction of the Legislature.
In my opinion, this pr iposal iscrestaes the claim of the
church to some substitute fur that which you propose to take
away—(cheer;)—but does my right hen. friend ge on to pro-
pose that substitute—does he attempt to do what the hon.
member for the Tower Hamlets proposes to do, and I have
no doubt sincerely belteves he will accomplish, though I think he may fail—with the view of effecting complete
and universal peace on this subject? My right hon, friend
does no such thing. (Cheers.) I understand that he pro-
poses to continue this impost in parishes where the rne.jority
of the ratepayers chooie to carry the law into effect, but
he says to the opponents of the impost : —" If you can get
a majority; if by contest, by repeated agitation, by discus-
sions in the vestry year after year, by hot and vehement
and even riotous debate's you can make it unpleasant to
Churchmen to attend .the vestry, and so gain a majority
against the rate, then you will have your reward." Is this
pr emeal one that is likely to satisfy the church? Is it one
that will meet the claims of those who allege their con-
scientious objections against the payment of this impost
Is it one that is likely to establish peace? I venture to
say that it will do no one of these three things. If we give
up the rights of the church, let us satisfy the Dissenters
and gain the peace they promise us. If we refuse to satisfy
the Dissenters, then let us in some way or other provide
for that which is a fair claim for the church. But that a
Government should do neither of these things, but should
in the mi Ist of a conflict interpose with a measure which
would not still the waves, but add fresh violence to the
storm, is a commie which I think will hardly receive the
sanction of this house. My right hon. friend, ia order to
make the matter still more complicated, proposes that
those persons who object to paying church rates, and who,
being the minority iu the parish, might be coerced by the
vote of the majority into such payment, shall be at liberty,
when the rate-book is carried round, to state their objec-
tions thereto—
Sir G. GREY—No, to state that they aro not members
of the Church of England.
Lord J. RUSSELL—I was coming to that. When the
ratcsbook is carried round they are to say, not that they
are Dissenters of a particular persuasion, or Roman Ca-
tholics, but that they are not members of the Church of
England, mot thereupon they may claim exemption. Now
this proposal seems to sae to einbarress the quettion still
further. I have on for Mer occasions stated my objectione
to such a proposition, and I certainly think that the ex-
emption of persons who merely say that they are not Church.
men would have a t 011,1011,7 to create groat discord in pa-
rishes. I may be forgiven for ss,;.•ing that upon this subject
I have always been afraid of two classes of men. The first
class are those who, Having very fairly that they object to
an Established Church, and thet they do net think it right
that the church of a portion of the purple 'should be called
a national church, wish to resort to the voluntary system
and propose to attack this work, thinking it to be, as it
certainly is, much weaker than the citadel, iu hop,
that in time they will carry citadel itself. (Cheers.)
There is another class ef Inen to whom I fear that
most reverend Prelat'e the Archbishop of Canterbury has
listened rather too much, who, being not only Church.
men, but very high Churchmen, are most anxious to sepa•
rate the clergy aod laity of the Eatablishe•l Cho rch frons the
community in general, to cut eff those who are Protestant
' Dissenters, and whose doctrines they do not deem orthodox,
front any concern in the affairs of the ch itch, and thereby
in the end to create a sectarian establishment, which I
think would net lung maintain the dignity or the poe-
m:lesions of the national establishment. My right hon friend
proposes that men shall be exempt from the payment of
church rates because they aro not Churchmen, and that
such persons shall not have a voice in the parish vestry
whenever any question arises in which a vote is taken. I
think this proposal, which would fix a mark oa these per-
sons, and in all probability on their children and descend-'
ants, as not belonging to the church, is calculisted to give
a sectarian character to the Church of England, which I
trust will still continue to be the national church of the
great mass of the people. There is many a man who at one
time of his life does not much like the Church of Eugland,
who entertains objections to the church services, and who
will not attend church, but who, perhaps some three or
four years later forms different opinions, who becomes an
attendant at church, and who maintains his right to attend
the vestries. Now, I think it is not desirable to put a mark
on three men, or to alienate them from the church. I am
desirous that they should attend the vestries and take such
part in tho proceedings as they may think proper, and I,
therefore, object to that part ofmy right hon. friend's mea-
sure which might affect their right to do so. But, let us
consider this rate, in itself of very tiifling amount, in the
light in which it is regarded by the farmers in country
parishes. They say that this rate is levied by a very
aacicnt law, that the fabric of the church is much respected,
and that everybody who has property should pay towards
the repair of that fabric. The rate may bee half-penny, a
penny, or perhaps three half-pence in the pound, and it is
paid by the great majority of the farmer s, but then they are
told that Farmer Such-a-one add Farmer Such-another,
and the baker and the taller in the village, have all ob-
jected to pay the rate, on the allegation that they are not
Church n with ,ut making any particular declaration of
faith, and that Therefore the payments of these who con-
ti
ibute to the rate will be proportionately increased. Of
course if the; e are 200 persons in the parish liable to the
rate, and 50 object to its payment, it will fall so touch more
!mayfly on the other 150 ; and in this way you will cause
,rash dissensions in parishes. I have had letters without
end, from different parts of the country, from persons con-
versant with t his subject who sky that there has hitherto been
no quarrel ordissensionsaboutchurchratesie theirrespective
localities, but that the rates have been peaceably ordered
and collected ; but when you have a certain number of men
objecting to the rate, an i thereupon released from its pay-
ment, do not expect that peace will any longer prevail.
(Hear.) Instead of liviug in their present strata, parishes,
where no rates are paid but where peace exists, and other
parishes where rates are paid, and where harmony likewise
prevails, my hon, friend proposes to introduce a now ele-
ment of dissension and disunion, and, in fact, to disturb
that very peace which now exists, and which it is the
object of any measure on this subject to promote.' For
these reasons I do not think the proposition which has
been submittal to the house on the part of the Govern-
pant i 8 Waiely to lead to a satisfactory settlement of this
vottiita. (Qom) I timid bo Toy glad if I won alplJ