The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-22 00:00:00

blishment in providing for religion and religious ordinances
My hon. friend, the member for Maidstone, said the other
day that England can now reach all the greatness and all
the power and prosperity, materially speaking, of the Roman
Empire, and he added a eaution lest when you get to this
culminating point you fall into the corruption and laxity
of principle which led ,to that empire falling. My hon.
friend has classical skill, and no doubt will recollect that
even a heathen poet reminded his fellow •citizens that
unless they took care of their temples and kept them in
a proper condition ;their prosterity would have cause for
regret. Even a heathen poet could say that the greatness
of Rome was owing to the constant acknowledgment, with
all humility, of a higher Power, and that the neglect of
this duty had been followed by calamity :
" Delicta majorum immeritus lues,
Romano, donee temple refeceris,
/Edesque labentes Deorum, et
Feeda nigro simulacra fumo.
Diis to minorem quad geris, imperas.
Hine omne principium, hue refer exitiun.
Dii multa neglecti dederunt
Hesperia] mala luctuosie."
(Hear.) Sir, I trust that no Christian poet will ever say
of this country what the heathen poet wrote of his. (Hear,
hear.) I trust that Parliament may avert such a calamity,
that the fabrics of our churches may not be allowed to fall
into decay ; that the ordinances of religion may be secured
for the benefit of all ,• that this may be accomplished by
voluntary means and by voluntary efforts ; that you may
thus respect the rights of conscience while you uphold the
rights of property; and that yo p. may effect all this by
allaying agitation, by recognising duties, by satisfying
scruples, by reconciling differences. (Cheers.) These are
the objects, the only objects, which her Majesty's Govern-
ment have in view in making this proposition. It is a pro-
position which, from my soul, I believe to be a just, a fair,
a reasonable settlement of this complicated question.; and,
having submitted it, we must leave to you the pleasure of
adopting, or the responsibility of rejecting it. The right
hon. gentleman concluded, amid loud cheers, by moving
for leave to bring in the bill.
Sir J:TRELAWNEY said that, after the able, courteous,
and conciliatory speech of the right hon. gentleman, he
would state the course which he proposed. to take with re-
ference to the somewhat complicated plan just submitted.
He felt the great importance of settling this question, and
had never thrown cold water on any plan, by whomsoever
proposed, which had that end in view. He felt, too, that if
another year were lost they, as administrative reformers,
would be the laughing-stock of the country. Under these
circumstances, he asked the right hon. gentleman to allow
him to read his (Sir J. Trelawney's) bill on this subject a
second time pro forma on Wednesday next, and in the mean-
time they would have an opportunity to consider the details
of the Government measure, and to judge of their practica-
bility. He was disposed, if possible to meet the right hon.
gentleman half-way, and hoped, therefore, that his propo-
sition would be acceded to. There were one or two obser-
vations in the speech just addressed to the house which he
felt bound now to answer. In the first place, those who
thought with him believed that the Church of England was
disposed to make such sacrifices as were necessary for the
support of the fabrics throughout the country, and certainly
the right hon. gentleman when he cited the numerous in -
stances of the liberality of Churchmen seemed to be of the
same impression. It was said that to abolish church-rates
would only be to transfer so much money into tho pockets
of the landlords, which would be quite preposterous; but
the right hon. gentleman seemed to forget that in the case
of the sister country Lord Derby proposed and succeeded in
carryings measure which confiscated one-fourth of the
Church revenue, and transferred it to the Irish landlords
who showed themselves perfectly free from prejudice on this
point, and accepted the gift. (Hear, hear.) He would
suggest whether the proper mode of keeping up the church
fdbrics would not be by selling the Crown livings and by
applying the proceeds in this way. Now, with respect to
the plan which has been submitted to the house by the
right hon. gentleman who had just spoken, he wished to
observe that it contained one proposition—that of consti-
tuting the churchwardens andincumbent a corporation for
certain purposes—which, in his opinion, were open to
serious objection. He took that view, because he thought
if carried into effect, that part of the right hon. gentleman's
scheme would be extremely likely to bring clergymen into
a constant state of hot water with their flocks, and because
he could perceive no advantage likely to result from the I
proposed corporation which could not be secured by adher-
ing as far as possible to the ancient machinery and institu-
tions of the country. (Hear, hear.) So also with regard
to the system of ticketing Dissenters, to which the right hon.
gentleman adverted, he (Sir J. Trelawney) was afraid that
in practice it would be found to be prejudicial to the interests
of the Church. For his own part, he could not help think-
ing that the best way of dealing with those who objected
to the payment of church-rates on conscientious grounds
was to act towards them in a kindly and liberal spirit,
and in support of the soundness of that view he might
state that in the borough which he had the honour to
represent, where church-rates had been abolished 12 years
ago under the pressure of the agitation against them, no less
than £1,500 had since been raised by voluntary subscrip-
tions for the repair of the church, one Dissenter—who
under a system of compulsion would rather suffer himself to
be cut to pieces than pay the church-rate—having contri-
buted no less a sum than £25. (Hear, hear.) He should
not upon that occasion enter further into the merits of the
propositions which the right hon. gentleman had laid before
the house, but should conclude by expressing a hope that
due time might be afforded for their consideration. (H ear,
hear.)
Sir G. GREY—I think the general wish of the house
must be that the right hon. gentleman should be allowed to
lay his bill upon the table this evening, so that it may as
soon as possible be placed in the hands of hon. members in
a printed form. It would not be desirable, it seems to me,
until we have thus been afforded an opportunity of con-
sidering it, to discuss its several provisions in detail, or to
express any opinion upon the general scheme which the
right hon. gentleman has submitted to our notice. For my
own part, however, I must say that I entirely concur with
my hon. friend who has just sat down in the testimony
which he bore to the conciliatory tone and spirit by which
the speech of the right hon. gentleman was pervaded—
(hear, hear)—sand which I must also say marks the propo-
sitions which he has laid before us, go far as I can form a
judgment upon their general purport and tendency. (Hear,
hear.) lam extremely happy to find that the right hdn.
gentleman has not taken counsel of those who are desirous
of re-imposing a church-rate in any form, however modi-
fied, in those parishes, comprising as they do a large
population, in which it has been practically abolished.
I have always felt in dealing with this question the neces-
sity of recognising the fact of such abolition in a great por-
tion of the large towns and parishes throughout the coun-
try ; while, upon the other hand, it appears to me that to
interpose in the case of those parishes in which a church-
rate is levied by the inhabitants fer the necessary repair of
the fabric of the church, and to say that they should not
at their own option have recourse to the machinery of a
church-rate in order to raise the required sum, would be
a very arbitrary step for Parliament to take. Now, with
respect to the first class of parishes to which I have
referred, the right hon. gentleman has stated that he
objects to all legal abolition of church-rates, even in those
cases in which they have already been practicallydone away
with, contending that the inhabitants of those parishes are
Under a common law obligation to maintain the fabric of
the church. Now, I fully admit that it has been held by
one of our highest tribunals that such an obligation upon
the owners of property does exist; but it has at the same
time been decided that the obligation is an imperfect one,
and that in the case in which a vestry refuse to enforce a
rate upon the parishioners of a particular locality there is
no means of compelling them to do so. Now the right hon.
gentleman, if I have not misunderstood him, proposes to
leave the law in that respect unaltered, while in those cases
where a rate is at present imposed bythe vestry he would
give to landowners the power of making it a voluntary
charge upon their property. I shall not say one word
which should induce the right hon. gentleman to imagine
that I do not concur with him in the hope that his scheme
may prove acceptable to Churchmen upon .the one hand,
and to Dissenters upon the other. On the contrary, I shall
give to it a fair and candid consideration, in the earnest
desire that the right hon. gentleman will be found to have
framed a measure by which this long-agitated question may
at length be satisfactorily settled. (Hear, hear.) I may,
perhaps, before I sit down, be permitted to call the attention
of hon. members to the returns upon that question: which,
by command of her Majesty, have been laid upon the table
of the house. In the discussions which have taken place
out of doors as well as in this house as to the amount of
church-rates there has been exhibited upon the part of
those by whom the tax was. supported, as well as by the
advocates of its abolition, a tendency to magnify upon the
one hand or to diminish upon the other that amount. Now,
I hold in my hand a return which shows that the total
amount of the church• rate received in 1854 was £314,000.
The return quoted by the right hon. gentleman strikes an
average of the last seven years, including the year 1854, and
how do the figures come out ? The receipts from church •
rates, instead of being £314,000, were, according to the blue-
book, £248,838 ; but, according to the statement of my right
hon. friend, including the 500 parishes omitted from the
other return, the amount is £262,000. Here, then, we have
evidence that the annual amount raised by church-rates is
continually and rapidly decreasing, and I have no doubt, if
we could have a return for the lost year, 1858, we should be
still more conscious of that fact. So rapidly is the annual
amount raised by church-rates diminishing that I have little
doubt, if Parliament were to abstain from doing anything,
church-rates would soon become practically extinct. The
right hon. gentleman has alluded to the possible effects
upoi?, our future history if we abandon our duty of main-
taining the churches of the land, but what are the facts as
we fmd them here ? The total expenditure in 1854 for the
maintenance of the fabric and providing for the service of
the church was £464,550, while the average expenditure of
the last seven years for the same purposes has been no less
than £594,000. Thus, while we have the income from
church-rates continually decreasing, the general expendi-
ture, derived chiefly from voluntary contributions, had
largely increased—(hear)—showing that the attachment of
the people of this country to the Church of England had
not diminished, and that they were willing to contribute
for the maintenance of the fabrics, and for the performance
of Divine worship. Therefore, looking at the elasticity of
the voluntary principle, I cannot share the apprehensions
of those who think that, if church-rates were abolished the
churches would be ruined. I believe they would be main-
tained—(hear)—but still I think it would be a harsh and
arbitrary act to prevent those numerous parishes which are
willing to tax themselves from doing so. (Hear.) The right
hon. gentleman last year gave, as the result of the returns
moved for by Sir W. Clay, that the parishes where church-
rates had been refused were about 5 per cent, of the whole
number; but those returns were exceedingly defective, and
I ventured to assume, from other data, that it must be
more like 10 per cent. But what do the returns produced
by the right honourable gentleman himself show ? In one
of the summaries ho has appended a note, that 8,115 out
of 10,206 parishes the rates were sanctioned, which shows'
that in 20 per cent. of the whole number of parishes
the church is supported by other means than church-rates.
In another column of these returns, which states the condi=
tion of the churches in each parish, you will find, I think,
as often as not, that where the church is out of repair, it
is in a parish where the church-rate has been levies], and
which has, perhaps, stood in the way of voluntary efforts,
but which has not been sufficient for the repair of the
fabric. (Hear, hear.) If we refer to Bradford,
where not a shilling is raised by church-rates, we
find that the state of the churches is " good, and " excel-
lent." So in the deanery of Manchester, where the amount
raised by church-rates is only £22,000, and the voluntary
contributions are £120,000 0r£130,000. There the churches
are in good repair; and such is the case, also, in Leeds and
Newcastle. I trust, therefore, that we shall escape the
pcoencisewiqiilienficoe w
ws
frohch mithtehenerigglehet hon.
ttom maintain the
m
seems too e
t.
the
catch, Thee© returner aro Very instractive, and Will repay

any gentleman who chooses to devote some attention-to
them, and I think the house is indebted to the right hon.
gentleman for producing them so early in the session.
'(Hear, hear.) I shall not now discuss the provisions of the
bill. As I have said, I think it would be inexpedient
to express any opinion until we have had an opportunity of
considering it. I will only say one word as to the subject
of pew-rents. In the scheme which I proposed pew-rents
were to be levied to a very modified extent and under
certain circumstances. lam not about to contend for the
adoption of the principle of pew-rents, but I would remind
the house that to a very great extent—an enormous extent
I may say—that system does already prevail in the Church.
(Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman gave an eloquent
description of the provision made for the poor in every
parish to hear the Gospel preached, but what is really the
case in this city, in London ? (Hear, hear.) In the parish
in which is St. George's, Hanover-square, where do we find
the poor, or in any of the numerous district churches of
that parish ? Where are they ? To say that those churches
afford opportunities for the poor to hear the Gospel preached
without ' the 'payment of money is, I think, rather a
poetical description. In almost every city and town in
this country pew-rents exist to a greater extent than they
ought. (Hear.) The Church Building Acts which have
been passed from time to time, and to some of which the
right hon. gentleman himself has been a party, have nearly
all contained authority for raising funds from pew-rents,
subject to certain restrictions, such as the consent of the
ordinary and- the provision
.0. a certain amount of free
accommodation. The system may or may not be one which
ought to receive the sanction of Parliament, but I must
protest against the description of the Church as given by
the right hon. gentleman. (Hear.) As I have spoken of the
churches &tendon arid large towns and cities, where the
seats are occupied by the rich and those who pay for their
sittings, I cannot avoid expressing the satisfaction, in which
all must share who are interested in the welfare of their
fellow-countrymen as well as of the Church, at the move-
ment which has taken place, by which the .magnificent
ecclesiastical edifices of the metropolis have been thrown
open to all classes of the people. (Hear, hear.) All who
have witnessed the throngs which have attended to hear
the words of truth and peace preached in those temples
must rejoice that at last those splendid buildings were ap-
plied to a proper purpose. (Hear.) I can only hope that
in every cathedral throughout the land these examples will
be followed, and the evils of the want of accommodation
for the poor in our churches be removed by the same zeal
which has led to such beneficial results as we have wit-
nessed here. At present I shall say no more upon this sub-
bect, as it is desirable that we should see the bill in print
efore we give any opinion upon it. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BALL was happy to recognise the cordial spirit
with which the right hon. gentleman had introduced his
measure, and thought the proposals he had made were very
fair to all parties. (Hear, hear.) He was bound to say
that the proposal of the right hon. gentleman bad been
presented in such a shape he thought it the duty of those
who were in favour of the abolition of church-rates to
express their willingness to assent to it. (Hear, hear.)
He had no hostile feeling towards the Church of Eng-
land ; and, in order to carry out the principles he
had advocated in that house, he felt compelled to say on this
occasion that he was very much disposed to accept the pro-
posal, which, with certain amendments, he hoped might be
the means of putting an end to the unhappy dissensions to
which church-rates had given rise. (Hear.) At the same
time, he hoped it was not intended that Dissenters were to
be precluded from attending parish meetings at which the
rates were imposed, if they desired to do so. It did not
much matter what the Dissenters were called ; a rose was
still a rose, call it by what name they would ; and he
thought the exclesion of the Dissenters from the vestry
meetings would tend to create bitterness of feeling and to
retard the object which the bill sought to accomplish. He
had only risen to say that he recognised in the proposal
made by the Government an earnest of their good intention
to terminate, so far as in them lay, that ill-feeling which
had so long existed between the different classes of reli-
gionists and done so much harm to religion itself, and he
gladly accepted it. (Hear, hear.)
Sir A. ELTON said the measure propounded by the
Home Secretary was a valuable one and deserved the best
consideration of the house ; but he regretted that the right
hon. gentleman had not boldly crossed the Rubicon and
made the complete abolition of church-rates the starting
point of his proposal.. (Hear, hear.) He would have done
more towards quickenng the iberality and benevolence of
the public in this matter by at once putting an end to
church-rates than by the course he had taken. It was im-
possible to destroy the notion among the mass of the people
that the produce of church-rates went into the clergyman's
pocket, and hence his ministrations often became unaccept-
able. Under these circumstances it would be conferring a
benefit to take away such a frightful source of discord, and
by doing so he believed they would enable the Church of
England to do her duty, to recover the affections of those
who were temporarily estranged, and to continue in the
career of usefulness which had marked her history in all
times. (Cheers.)
Mr. PACKE said it was gratifying to find from all sides
of the house _every disposition to give a favourable con-
sideration to the project of the right hon. gentleman the
Secretary of State. It was hardly fair to ask the house to
pledge itself to total abolition until they had time to give
due consideration to the measure of the right hon. gentle-
man. (Hear, hear.)
Sir G. C. LEWIS said he quite concurred with his right
hon. friend (Sir G. Grey) that it was not desirable that
they should go into a discussion of the bill at the present
stage. At the same time he thought it desirable that the
house should be put in full possession of all the material
parts of the Government plan, in order that, there and else-
where,
it might be fully considered before the time arrived
for discussion. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Walpole)
had not clearly explained, in his very lucid statement, whe-
ther it was intended that in future the vestry should be
composed of landowhers and not of occupiers as at present.
The principle of the bill being, as he understood, that the
rate should henceforth absolutely and by force of the bill be
a landlord's rate, and cease to be an occupier's rate he
wished to know whether it was intended that the vestry
should consist exclusively of landowners ? (Hear.) There
was another point upon which it was desirable some expla-
nation should be given. If the rate should become a land-
lord's rate, what regulations would be made in case of more
than one landlord—that was to say, when, as often hap-
pened, there were, in respect of a house, a ground-landlord,
a medium-landlord,:rand an occupier{-which would pay, and
which would sit in the vestry ? (Hear hear.)
Mr. HOPE wished to make as much concession to the
conscientious feelings of Dissenters as he could, but giving
up the name of church .rate, and all the machinery of a most
ancient obligation, which existed long before the Norman
conquest, was, he thought, being liberal at other people's
expense. The hon. member for Bath drew a touching pic-
ture of the poor men crowding with their pence for the sus-
tentation of the. Church, and at the same time talked of the
unwillingness of the rich to alienate their property for ever;
but surely the two acts were correlative. If the Church
relied on the mite of the poor she might also call upon
the spontaneous piety of the rich man to endow
his parish church for ever out of his land. Great objections
had been made to what was called "ticketing" people as
Dissenters, but the Government measure would avoid that,
as a man would only have to write on his paper that he con-
scientiously objected to pay the rate, and he would hear no
more of it. The right hon. baronet the member for Mor-
peth had dwelt on the large area in which church-rates had
been refused, and on the increase in pew-rents, but it did
not seem to have occurred to him that it was precisely in
those parishes where the odious system of pew-rents had
gained ground that church-rates were refused. (Hear.) It
was the building of those obnoxious castles of selfishness,
where the poor were crowded away in dark corners or under
the galleries, out of sight, exposed to the contumely of the
beadle in blue and gold, that incensed people and brought
them up to the vestry to vote against church-rates. If there
were a clause in the bill to abolish pew-rents in every parish
of above 5,000 inhabitants, church-rates would be willingly
paid henceforth in half or' two-thirds of the parishes in
which they were now refused. He hoped by the end of the
session the question would be entirely set at rest. (Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—I think, Sir, that the measure
which has been propounded by the right hon. gentleman
has been framed with a great deal of care, and that a con-
siderable amount of labour has been expended in its prepa-
ration; and if I now state some few objections which occur
to me, it is not that I think there was any other course
open to the Government so obviously better than that
which they have proposed that they ought to have adopted
it, but that I wish the right hon. gentleman to consider,
when he proceeds further with this measure, what may be
its effect. With regard to the former part of the preposi-
tion, which seems to be taken from the bill of my right
hon. friend the member for Morpeth, I think that there
can be no objection to it. It may provide more or less well
for the future maintenance of the church, but, at all
events, the principle involved is unobjectionable. (Hear.)
But, as I followed the right hon. gentleman's argument,
I could not but perceive, with respect to the second part of
his measure, by which he proposes to relieve from the
payment of church-rates all Dissenters who state that they
have a conscientious objection to their payment, that he
was impairing the principle upon which an Established
Church rests, and I think that the right hon. gentleman must
have felt this himself. The right hon. gentleman said more
than once that it was fit that those who had not the benefit of
the Established Church should not bear the burden of main-
taining it. Now, it has always seemed to me that the whole
defence of an Established Church must stand upon this-

not that it is of immediate and direct benefit to those who
attend its services and hear its preachings, but that it is a
general benefit to the community at large. (Hear, hear.) I
have always considered that, placing in every parish a mi-
nister who is not only to preach the Gospel but who is to
hold forth an example of religion and morality in that
parish—who is to tell the people what is in conformity with
the morality of the Gospel, and what is not—who superin-
tends and fosters the schools in which the youth of the
parish are educated—who upon every occasion when Chris-
tian charity can be exerted, is ready with his hand to ad-
minister to the wants of those who are deserving objeets
among whom he lives—l have always, I say, considered
that it was a benefit, not to churchmen exclusively, but to
all those who dissent from the Church as well as to all those
who conform to it, that there should be in every parish, inde-

pendently of the caprice, of the generosity, or of the wealth
of the persons living in the parish, such a minister of the Gos-
. _ _

pel. But if that view—which Ido not claim as an original
one of my own, but which I have borrowed from other and
wirr persons—be correct, what logic or reason is there in
saying, " You, the churchmen, have a benefit from the
Church, because you go there en a Sunday and listen to
Divine service read from the Common Prayer-book, and
hear the clergyman deliver a sermon, but your neighbours
who live next door or in the adjoining street, being Dis-
senters, have no benefit at all, because they do not attend
the ministration of that clergyman ?". That appears to me

o be placini the Church upon too narrow and too low a

ground: (Hear.) And it is not the argument alone, but it is

the proposition, because you obviously say, "You ars to
pay for the repairs of the church because you have the bene-
fit ; but you, who live next door, are not to pay because you
have no benefit from it whatever." By this proposition you
at once change the character of the Church, for you no
longer maintain it as a national Church. You may main-
tain it as a powerful Church, as a State Church, as a wealthy
Church, nay, as. a Church that is diffusing religion and
morality among a vast number of people, but you only
maintain it after all as the strongest sect of the community.
(Hear.) The right hon. gentleman, I dare say, differs from
me in that ; but I cannot but consider that when Lord Derby
placed the charge of the re airs of churches in Ireland upon
the Church revenues of Ireland, he took a measure much.
better calculated to support. the Established Church in that
country than if he had adopted a proposition similar to the
present. (Hear.) A second.part of this question relates to
the practical effect of this measure. If you are unable to
imulzt444 church-rates; 4 Parliamenta of opiiziort

cannot be maintained and church-rates are abolished—in
that way disiensions will cease and there will be no more ill
blood. You may maintain your churches not so well, per-
haps, as you have done, but at all events you put an end to
quarrelling. But here, by this bill, you go, say, to 40 or
50 farmers in a parish, and you permit some 20 of them not
to pay church-rates because they have a conscientious ob -
jection, while the other 30 are to go on paying in a some-
what aggravated form, and of course to an additional extent.
Now, I can't help thinking when this begins to operate in
a parish that those farmers will be very apt to say—" This
is unfair towards us, there are our neighbours who paid
church-rates formerly for what we all thought a common
benefit—we all imagined that the Established Church was
good for us all,—but they are relieved, and we have to pay
more'on their account. The Legislature is acting unfairly
towards us, and we shall not go on paying this charge
much longer." This is one consequence that may arise.
(Hear, hear.) Then, the hon. member for Cambridgeshire
said very truly that Dissenters will hardly be satisfied
when, in consequence of their not paying church-rates,
they are refused admission to the vestry. Do you not think
that you must of necessity create ill blood when you refuse
to admit Dissenters into the parish vestry, and thereby
make a distinction which has never been made before? And
in making that distinction you again mark that your Church
is not a national Church—that you have divested it of that
character. It appears to me that these considerations are
df some value, and it further appears to me if this bill passes
—and it is perhaps the best course that you can adopt at
present—(cheers)—yet, in the difficulties which surround
the question, and which the right hon. gentleman stated
very fairly, it is, I believe, the best resource that you have
at present ; but I feel convinced that in a very few years
after this bill has been passed church-rates will not continue
to exist in any shape whatever. (Cheers.) I ought not to
conclude, after making so many objections to the measure,
and proposing nothing in its place, without saying that, in
spite of the contests that have taken place of late years, in
spite of the ill blood that has been excited in some places by
these church-rate contests, and by others of a more polemi-
cal and doctrinal nature, my belief is that there never was
a time when the Church. of England might rely with more
confidence upon the increase of her strength than the pre-
sent. It is quite remarkable how much zeal and spirit
there have been of late years in building new churches, in
providing endowments for ministers, in separating districts
from populous parishes, and generally in increasing the
efficiency of the Established Church. (Hear, hear.) I have
seen those symptoms with very great satisfaction; and I
feel, whatever may be our legislation here, that in this
country, where at all events there is perfect freedom for en-
dowments of this nature, the Church is sure to increase in
power and in efficiency for the great purposes which it has
ni view. (Hear, hear.) I should say in addition to this—
and without it all else would be as nothing—that the minis-
ters of the Gospel, though they are unfortunately in many
cases divided into different schools, all of them evince a de-
gree of zeal, an amount of devotion to the administration
of the Gospel, and, above all, an attention to the religion of
the poor, which in my younger days certainly was not the
general character of their ministration. (Hear, hear.) That
is the best symptom of all, and with that symptom I cannot
but look with the greatest confidence to the future of the
Church. Perhaps I may be allowed to add, and it arises
out of what was said by the hon. member for Leicestershire,
and immediately appertains to the subject of church-rates,
thit it will be a matter for the consideration of these who
are charged with the revenues of the Church that, while in
almost all towns there are ample means by subscriptions
and donations for the repairs of the church, yet that in our
rural parishes there are many edifices of great architectural
beauty, monuments of the piety of our ancestors/ and in
some few eases memorable for their historical antiquities,
the fabrics of which local subscriptions will not be adequate
to maintain. I think that the Ecclesiastical Commissioner
might, supposing they did nothing else, contribute one-
half, or perhaps more, of the sums necessary to maintain
these churches. lam sorry if what I have said respecting
this bill is not in such terms of praise as the right hon. gen-
tleman could wish it to be. At the same time he will be
quite right in thinking 'that this is the very best measure
which, under the circumstances, could be framed. (Hear.)
We must make the measure suit the opinion of the public,
and cannot expect that the best measure which could be
framed would be likely to pass. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE said he did not rise to express any
opinion on the proposition of the right hon. gentleman, but
merely wished to know whether the right hon. gentleman
intended that the property of any Dissenter who might
assert that his conscience objected to the payment of church
rates should be perpetually exempt from church-rates.
Mr. MELLOR said that, notwithstanding the favourable
manner in which the statement of the right hon. gentleman
appeared to have been received, many parts of his measure
were very objectionable, and would require great considera-
tion. He was afraid that if those objections were not re-
moved it would be difficult to pass the measure. He denied
that church-rates were in any case a charge upon the land.
What did the right hon. gentleman propose to do with re-
spect to those towns in which for some time church-rates
had not been levied. (Hear, hear.) Did he mean to treat
the rates there as if they had been practically abolished ?
Mr. D. GRIFFITH congratulated the Government on
the introduction of this measure. It was wisely framed on
the give and take principle, for it would be vain to expect
that it could pass if it were framed on a principle of rigid
justice. He trusted that the hon. baronet (Sir J. Trelawney)
would postpone his bill until time had been given for consi-
dering the Government measure. If the hon. baronet carried
his bill on Wednesday next the Government proposal would
-have no footing. That would be a despotic use of a majo-
rity, which would not carry with it the opinion of the coun-
try at large, or even of the right-minded portion of the
Dissenters. (Hear.)
Mr. Alderman GU BITT trusted that the bill of the Go-
vernment would be fairly and impartially considered, so
that the house might perfect a measure which would pass
during the present session, and be satisfactory to the
country. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HADFIELD said he rose to express his dissent.
(Ironical cheers.) He believed that the bill would find
more objectors within the Establishment than without. The
thing could not work. To give a man a premium to express
his conscientious objection to a task was giving a bounty to
dissent. (Hear, hear.) He objected to the machinery,
and thought that the bill would do no earthly good what-
ever. Take the rate off altogether and the Church would
flourish more than ever. (Hear, hear.) There were 15,000
churches in England and Wales, but of these only the 8,000
that were parish churches could demand a rate ; there were
at least 5,000 chapels of ease not entitled to the support of
a rate, which were as well repaired as the parish churches
themselves. The congregations of these parish churches
were among the richest portion of the community ; let them
pay their own expenses ; and if their servants attended.
the Church also, let their employers think it no hard-
ship to pay for them. If the expenses were confined to the
strictly legal charges, he did not believe more than £150,000
a-year would be required. Was it not time for the Church,
from very shame, to put an end to this impost ? He ob-
jected to any partial suspension of the law of mortmain in
favour of the Church, and he believed when the plan, with
all its details, came before the public, it would be received
with general dissatisfaction.
Sir B. BRIDGES thought it important the statement of
the hon. member for Yarmouth (Mr. Mellor) that church-
rates were not a charge on the land, should not go forth
uncorrected. The contrary opinion had been expressed by
the greatest lawyers ; they_had declared that the land was
responsible for the maintenance of the church; that the
charge was inalienable, and more ancient than any title-
deed of any holder of land in the kingdom.
After a few obseivations from Mr. KERR,
Mr. WALPOLE would not have thought it necessary
again to address the house had it not been that in the
course of the evening one or two questions had been put on
matters of detail which he had not sufficiently explained in
his opening speech. The hon. member for Yarmouth
asked whether it was intended to alter the law with refer-
once to places where church-rates had not hitherto been
levied ; and the hon. member for Sheffield maintained that,
if it were not so altered, the agitation which had beenraised
on the subject would only be increased. He thought he had
explained that it was the intention of the Government not
to interfere unnecessarily with, the law as it now stood,
believing it to be a right law in itself, though one that, by
the force of circumstances and the alterations brought about
by time, had become in some cases oppressive to those who
no longer belonged to the Church. (Hear, hear.) It was,
therefore, not the intention of the Government to alter the
law with regard to those places ; and he thought there
existed good reasons why they should not do so. In the
first place, it would be wrong to deny to those places which
had hitherto disobeyed the law an opportunity of obeying
it; and, in the second place, he thought no hardship could
accrue to them by leaving the law as it was, because a ma-
joritycould determine, as at present, to impose the rate if
volurtary contributions were not raised by the parishioners.
(Hear, hear.) A question had been put with reference to
the effect of the clause which enabled occupiers to charge
the rate against the landlord, In explaining this part of
the bill he omitted to mention the subsequent clause, which
provided that in cases where the landlord was required to pay
the rate—in other words, when the tenant deducted the
rate from the rent—the voice which the tenant formerly,
possessed in the vestry would be transferred to the land-
lord. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Warwickshire
asked whether it was proposed, in giving exemption on
account of conscientious objections to the payment of the
rate to give the exemption to the land, or only to persons.
Certainly only to persons, and only to persons during the
years in which the rate was levied—(hear, hear)—for it was
not desirable to prevent those who had conscientious ob-
jections to the payment of the rate at one time from coining
back at another, and subjecting- themselves to the charge, as
in many cases might be done. (Hoar' hear.) He thought
that when a person had been relieved from the rate for one
year it was but reasonable that he should have an oppor-
tunity of saying whether or not he would pay the rate in a
future year. (Hear, hear.) But the most serious objec-
tion raised against the bill was that stated by the noble lord
the member for London. The noble lord had always been
a most consistent opponent of the abolition of church-rates.
For the course he had taken on this subject the friends of
the established church owed him a deep debt of gratitude—
(hear, hear)—and nothing would give him greater pain than
to find that the Government were amenable to the imputa-
tion which the noble lord imagined stood against them
when they proposed an exemption in favour of Dissenters.
The noble lord argued in forcible language that the principle
of an established church was really involved in that propo-
sition. Now, the noble lord himself, in a subsequent part of
his speech, showed distinctly that this exemption of Dissen-
ters had nothing whatever to do with the principle of an
establishment. He said, the principle of an establishment
was that they should have throughout the country and in
every part of the country places of worship and nainistersW
religion to meet the spiritual wants of the people. Butt he
noble lord could hardly argue from his own premises that the
mere fact of exempting one man,:or a number of men, from
the payment of church-rates was a destruction of the prin-
ciple of an establishment, unless the principle meant this,—
th.at it was right to enforce on those who did not belongsto
the Church a compulsory payment of the rate. (Hear,
hear.) Ho thought the noble lord was unduly hard on the
measure in this respect. (Hear.) At the end of his speech
he admitted the difficulties that existed, and seemed almost
to think that these difficulties were nearly insurmountable.
In such circumstances it became a grave question whether
some such proposition as he (Mr. Walpole) had submitted
to the house should be adopted, or whether matters should
be allowed to remain exactly as they were. If things were
to remain as they now were, there would necessarily be a
continuance of all the agitation which they wished to put
an end to ; but if it was possible to rectify some of the evils
that existed he preferred that to leaving the law in its pre-
sent state of uncertainty. (Hear.) The noble lord said he
foresaw that church-rates were gone, and he (Mr. Walpole)
would say so too ; but he and the • noble lord applied to
these words a different meaning. The noble lord meant to
infer that church-rates would be gone because it would be
impossible any longer to levy them. He (Mr. Walpole)
believed that church-rates would be gone because, by the
voluntary efforts of those who belonged to the Church, it
would be found possible to maintain the sacred fabrics with-
out haying reCyFse to “ system that had so long been' a