The Sun.
London, England, 1858-04-22 00:00:00

are many arrangements connected with the repair of
churches that are not settled by the rate of a single
year. (Hear, hear.) It appears that the levying of
church-rates is considerably in arrear of the making of
church-rates ; and an Act of the Legislature declaring
that no church-rate should henceforth be levied or
made would undoubtedly have an effect which the hon.
gentleman does net desire—viz., the effect of breaking up
arrangements partly carried out, but not yet completed—
arrangements on the faith of which schemes have been
sanctioned and liabilities incurred. (Hear.) Then with
regard to the prolongation of the religious war in which
the country is said to be involved, surely a great deal
too much has been made of the horrors of this religious
warfare. (Hear.) Ido not think it is half so aggravated
as appears to be supposed. (Hear.) In the great propor-
tion of parishes where church-rates are made they are
levied with general satisfaction, or at least no ostensi-
ble symptoms of dissension. (Hear.) I think the people
of England, who generally contrive to solve awkward
problems by the exercise of practical good sense rather
than by theory, have attained the desirable object of
solving even the problem of church-rates in such a man-
ner that, though it does not obviate everything disagree-
able, yet removes all really unfriendly symptoms ; for I
commonly see that after there has been a motion for a
church-rate, an amendment against it, and a poll, the
meeting generally breaks up in good humour, and with
a vote of thanks to the chairman. (Hear.) It is all very
well to talk in Parliamentary speeches about religious
war being perpetuated in the country, but I must say
that it would weigh upon my conscience if I did not
sanction as far as I can the short continuance of the
present system proposed in the amendment of my hon.
friend. (Hear.) But, though I think it fair on the whole
to support the amendment of my hon. friend, it is more
a prudential question for the bon. baronet to consider
than for me; because, the church rates are abolished,
it should be done in a manner to mitigate as much as
possible the pressure of the charge. If it were not that
I am actuated by these feelings, I should be disposed to
say, leave the bill as it is and let it shift for itself. (Hear.)
After a few words from Sir J. rRELAWNY in explana-
tion,

Mr. DILL WYN (amid cries of "Divide") said it was
unfair to charge those who were opposed to church-rates
with being unfavourable to the connexion between Church
and State.

Mr. HENLEY said the right hon. gentleman tbe mem-
ber for Oxford University had so completely expressed
his views in what he said regarding churoh-ratee if abol-
ished being a direct present to the landlords that he would
not add a single word upon that subject. With regard
to the payment of church-rates being hurtful to the con-
science, he would mention a case that came under his
own knowledge. He happened to have the management
of an estate not his own, and it came to his knowledge
that one of the tenants felt the payment of church-rates
to be against his conscience. On hearing this he (Mr.
Henley) directed the agent to ascertain the average
amount of the church-rate for the last seven years, add
it to the rent, and ask the tenant to pay the rent ; but,
from whatever cause, the tenant did not think it right to
accept the offer. (A laugh.) With regard to the amend-
ment which would suspend the operation of the act for
three years, he could not give his assent to it, as he saw
no advantage that would be derived from the postpone-
ment, while it would be ad,rect admission of the principle
of the bill. (Hear.) He was against the change being
made at all, and could no more consent to it three years
hence than now. (Hear, hear.) They had heard a great
deal about the peace and good feeling of the country
being interfered with, but did any one believe that if the
operation of this bill were to be suspended for three years
it would be all peace ? (Hear.) During the whole of these
three years they would have parties arrayed egainst each
other, and perpetual attempts made ti upset the act.
(Hear, hear.) It would be equally objectionable in its
effects upon the country. It was natural for people to
postpone action upon a thing that was not to occur for a
considerable time, and nothing would be done in the
country on this matter, because nobody would believe in
its reality. (Hear.) There would be great inconvenience
caused in various ways by the delay, and, as he saw no
advantage that would flow from it, he should be com-
pelled to vote against it.
Sir A. ELTON would not press his amendment, and
asked leave to withdraw it.

Lord R. CECIL entered his protest against the prin-
ciple which he understood to have been laid down by the
right hon. gentleman the member for Oxfordshire as one
that would ba most fatal if acted on by a party defend-
ing conservative institutions. He understood him to
say that when a bill was brought forward which
he did not like he would do nothing to mitigate its pro-
visions. Now, in his opinion there was nothing to pre-
vent him voting for an amendment in a clause and afteto
v ards voting against the clause on the whole bill.
Mr. HENLEY said the noble lord had misunderstood
him. (Hear, hear.) He gave his reasons for disliking
this particular amendment, but hal not said a single
wor l that could be construed into the meaning now stated
by the noble lord. (Hear.) He would support any
amendment that he thought reasonable in any bill.
Lord R. CECIL did not wish to attribute to his right
hon. friend anything that he was not willing to accept,
but he certainly understood him to say that if he did not
like a bill he would not vote for an amendment upon it.
(No, no.)
Mr. SPOONER (amid cries of "Divide") said he
would not consent to do that in three years which he
was not willing to do now. The poor of this country
would be the chief sufferers if church rates were abolished.
Mr. BRIGHT said, if the noble lord intended to com-
pel a division, it was desirable that he should offer some
explanation as to the reasons for the vote he should give.
He was free to confess that, if there were any disposition
oe the part of hon. members opposite to accept the solu-
tion of the question proposed by this bill, he shou:d not
raise any difficulty upon the point whether it should
come into operati n in 12 months or three years hence.
(Hear.) He did not believe the difficulties into which
the Church of England would be plunged by the abolition
of church rates would prove to be so extensive as some
hon. members appeared to imagine ; but in the settlement
of a long disputed question, if there were any concession
which would facilitate that end without interfering with
the effect of the settlement, it would be advisable to
make it. The tone in which the amendment had been
spoken of on the other side, however, did not lead him
to believe that the adoption of this amendment would be
at all an approach to a settlement of the question. The
right boo. member for Oxford University had gone
found and about the subject, but be had not come at it
—(a laugh)—and he had sat down without riving the
house to understand that he was more favourable to the
principle of this bill than he had been to procediog bills
having the same end in view. The right hun. gentleman
did not say that at the end of three years he would sup
pact the bill, nor did the noble lord (Lord R. Cecil) hold
out any hope that at the expiration of that period he
would be lags opposed to the bill than he was at the pre-
sent time. Indeed he (Hr. Bright) did not see how it
could be otherwise, for all the arguments of the sup-
porters of church-rates were based upon principles which
were not affected by time. (Hear.) He did not perceive
how any ono who favoured church-rates could be per•
auaded by the amendment to change his views. If he
believed the adoption of the amendment would at all
tend to a solution of the question he would advise his
hon. friend to accept the amendment, but as he did not
entertain that belief he thought it better the clause
should be passed in its original shape. (Hear, bear.)
After a few words from Sr H. WILLLUUGHBY
and Nir. WIGRAII, which were almost inaudible amid
ud calls for a division.

The atoendment was put ant Legatived without a
di vision.

Lerd R. CECIL moved as amendment in clau-e 1,
before the words England and Wales, to insert " in any
city, Parliamentary or municipal borough in."
S;r J. TRELAWNY said, he could not consent to
the propo3ed amendment.

Sir G. LE WIS.—I hope the co nmittee will deal with
this question with a determination, if possible, to get
rid of the grievances which the present system of church-
rates give rise to. It is difficu:t to find out in what
those grievances consist. (Hear, bear.) Ali the infor-
mation I have leads me to think that the essential
grievance cf the present system is not that there is a
compulsory tax levied for the support of the fabrics of
the established church, but because it is levied upon
property w bich involves in its operation persons who
differ from the tenets of that chtirch. It is not a statu-
tory rate - it is a common-law rate, dating from a period
ant-as dent to the Reformation, where there was no dif-
ference of opinion upon religious matter's. Since that
event differences of religious opinion have sprung up, and
discords have arisen from the imposition of church-rates.
The rate is a voluntary rate. It is competent fo: the
majority of a vestry to refuse it, and the t po xer has
been exercised in a large number of parishes, amounting,
I believe, to about 10 per cent. of the whole number of
parishes, but comprising about one•half of the whole
population of the kingdom. It is in large towns where
the greatest discords have prevailed, and the result has '
been that under the operation of the present system
church-rates in those towns have practically been ale!).
lished. It is also in large towns that there is the greatest
accumrnulat:ou of property, and where are to be found
the greatest facilities for raising subscriptions in order to
maintain the fabrics of the church. At present it may
be said that there are two distinct systems in operation
' under the existing law. In large towns the parishes
have f it the most part practically abolished church-rates
and eubsii utod voluntary arrangements, which have been
found to answer well. But that state of things only ap-
piies to towns. In rural parishes for the most part
church-rates ate made without opposition—(hear, hear)
—and even where there have been objections raised they
have been overruled by the majority of ratepayers. In
90 per cent. of the parishes of England and Wales the
churches are supported by church-rates. That is the
way in which the present system works, and it appears
to me it would be not a compromise, but a reason-
able and practical solution of the question, if the house
would adopt the plan that was proposed by my right
hon. friend the member for Morpeth (Sir G. Grey) —viz.,
to ab, lish church.rates in those towns or parishes where
practically they bad ceased for a series of years, say
four or five eo trs. and in those towns where church-
rates continued is be levied to aibw those who differed
from the established church, upon a mere declaration or
statement of that fact, to be exempted from liability on
account of them. By that means church-rates would
only be compulsory upon members of the established
church. (Hear, hear.) wi,ul I satisfy a real want
and would overcome a real difficulty, for in rural
parishes no obji °time is new made, and the facilities
which the aggregation of wealth in large towns affords
for raising voluntary subscriptions in largo towns do
not exist in small rural parishes. I urn not prepare- to
share the fears of those who think that if church rates
are abolished our churches will be permitted to fall to
the ground. (Hear.) I believe that funds. would be
raised by c illectiov, subscriptions, and otner modes
which in large parishes would meet the wants of the
church, but in poor, small, and remote7parishes, if you
do not allow the ratepayers to tax themselves, you will ;
introduce a system far less fair and equal than the pre-