The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-10 00:00:00

CHURCH RATES BILL.

Lord CASTLEROSSE seconded the amendment. He
contended that the present bill was the worst that had yet
been brought before the house, and combined all the defects
of the previous measures that had been introduced on the
subject. The Dissenters paid £300,000 annually to the
State Church ; and at the same time contributed a sum ex-
ceeding £1,000,000 to their own ministers. He thought,
therefore, any measure like the present would inflict on that
body a great injustice, and that it could not fail to excite
great dissatisfaction.
Mr. SOTHERON-ESTCOURT supported the bill. He
said it contained two most important objects, namely, the
provision for commutation and personal exemption. (Hear,
hear.) They should recollect that they were dealing with
a custom that had been in existence for 1,400 years, and
they should not act in a manner that was at variance with
customs of such long standing. They were all aware that
when a church-rate was proposed it was the signal for
agitation, and the parish church became the arena of strife,
a state of things which he was satisfied well-conducted Dis-
senters as well as Churchmen would desire to see abolished.
He suggested that the churchwardens should post on the
church door a statement of the repairs requisite for the
building, as well as an estimate of the expense, and then
that any person having a conscientious objection to paying
the rate should signify the same before the next vestry, and
be exempted from the impost. (Hear, hear.)
Sir G. GREY opposed the bill. He proposed that the
statute of limitations should be made applicable to those
rates, and when they had been discontinued in a parish for
such a term of years as would indicatp this feeling,
they should then be finally discontinued. He was
not aware that any petitions were presented in favour
of this bill, though he knew that there were several
against its provisions. He considered the scheme
of the right hon. gentleman totally inapplicable to parishes
where the landlord had taken on himself the payment of
those rates. In regard to the proposal to transfer the rate
from the occupier to the owner he did not think it would
work well, and that portion of the measure he therefore
objected to. In regard to those who had consciencious ob-
jections to the payment of these rates he thought something
ought to be done. His principal objection to the bill was
that it left untouched parishes which, in his opinion, should
have been included, and he thought the only effectual
means of settling the question and terminating the unplea-
sant feelings that existed on the subject was to abolish the
impost altogether, and he had little doubt that the Church
would not be placed in a worse position than it was at
present. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON said that the speech of the right
hon. gentleman (Sir G. Grey) forced on him the painful
conviction that the spirit of party was paramount in that
house to the spirit of peace. (Cries of " 01, oh," and
hear, hear.) He trusted he would be allowed to express
the conscientious convictions of his mind, and would repeat
what he had said. He accused the right hon. gentleman
of acting with the greatest inconsistency in opposing the
second reading, and referred to the part he had
taken on former occasions when the subject was
before the house. He (Sir George Grey) should
have reserved his opposition until the bill got into com-
mittee, and he had even admitted that he approved of some
portions of the bill. Now, there were only two principles
involved in the bill, the one providing for a prospective
commutation of rates, and what was conceived in a most
friendly spirit, the exemption of Dissenters. (Hear.) He
certainly approved of the amendments in the bill which
had been suggested, and that persons residing in one dis-
trict should not be charged for the maintenance of a church
in another ; and, as far as he was concerned, he would con-
sent to an alteration to that effect. He referred to the
circular of the " Society for the Liberation of the Church
from State Patronage and Control," a copy of which he had
1 received. That document stated that the question of
church-rates involved injustice, an assertion which could
not be logically maintained. The church-rate was one of
the most ancient imposts in this country, and had been
levied for the most sacred object to which any impost could
be appropriated. (Hear, hear.) Every one who had pro-
perty in this country held it subject to this impost, and
could not justly complain of being called on to pay it. He
agreed in what had been said by one speaker as to
what the country owed the Dissenters, and he had
not been one of those who ever spoke disrespect-
fully of that body. But, in settling this question,
he should wish to know, if they abolished the
Church-rates, from what other source they could
maintain their churches, and he confessed he could not see
any such. The bill was conceived in a conciliatory spirit,
and he trusted it would not be met in a spirit of faction.
(Hear, hear.)
Sir G. GREY explained that he voted for the second
reading of the bill brought in on this subject
on the distinct understanding that it should embody
in committee the amendments which he proposed. The
present bill could not embody such alterations, and on that
ground he opposed its second reading.
Sir R. BETHELL said he did not know what hon.
gentlemen on the opposite side of the house understood
by conciliation, but he certainly did not think
the speech of the right honourable baronet (Sir
J. Pakington) was of a very conciliatory character.
That right hon. gentleman was ignorant of the first element
requisite to understand the subject. (Laughter.) He (Sir J.
Pakington) had said that this was-an impost on land, but
that was not the case, for it was levied on the occupier.
(Cries of " Oh, oh," and "Hear, hear.") The objec-
tion of the Dissenters to church rates was founded
on the fact that they considered that impost as a remnant
of that ancient spirit of intolerance which had endeavoured
to make all conform to one set of doctrines and
to one formula of worship. (Hear, hear.) So long
as this impost continued the Dissenters of this country,
would not consider that they enjoyed entire religious free-
dom. He concluded by denouncing strongly the measure as
being unjust, oppressive, and calculated to excite the
greatest hostility amongst the Dissenting body. (Hear.)
Mr. DRUMMOND opposed the bill, and objected to all
abolition, tampering with, or modification of, the impost.
He considered that the Dissenters had no right to complain
of these rates, and there was no rate in the country to which
the party who paid it could object. The attempt to abolish
church -rates was an effort made by a great body in this
country to do do away with the Established Church
altogether.
Mr. BALL supported the second reading.
Mr .LOWE said the present law with respect to church
rates was both injurious to Dissenters and prejudicial to
Churchmen. He, however, objected to the bill, because he
believed it would rather tend to increase the strife occa-
sioned by the payment of church rates than to allay any ill
feeling.
Mr. WALPOLE said the principles of his bill had been
very freely stated. Of the two principles contained in the
measure, namely, voluntary commutation and exemption
on account of conscientious reasons, he did not think the
right honourable baronet (or some of the other
gentlemen who had spoken against the bill)
would object to either proposition, and yet they were
going to oppose the bill. The only real objection he had
heard to the bill was that made by the hon. gentleman the
member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe), viz., that the bill
would not allay strife; but the object of this measure
was to remove a pressure, which was surely not a principle
that could give rise to strife. (Hear, hear.) He had been
told that in excepting Dissenters from church rates, he
was giving up the principle of an Established Church,
but his proposbition was to remove a burden which was
imposed in consideration of a benefit which was now
no longer received, all people not being now of the
same opinion about religious matters. He did not doubt
the voluntary principle, but he was not prepared to give up
endowments while the Church could havethe benefit both of
endowments and voluntary aid. There were parts of the
country where the voluntary principle could not reach,
and if they gave up what their ancestors provided, they
could not maintain the fabric of the church. He did not de-
spair of the fate of his measure, but in the event
of failure, however much he might regret it, he had