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

the maintenance of social harmony, and the preservation of
obedience to the law, a Government fit to be trusted with
the management of affairs was bound to take this question
into considerstion at once, that it mightnot remain a subject
for parochial meetings and parochial agitation. When we
recollect that this statement was made by such a man ;
when we recollect also that six Administrations have suc-
ceeded each other and 24 years have passed away since
that time, and that nothing has been done except to renew
controversy and agitation on the subject, I feel more than
ordinary anxiety lest the Administration should neglect
to prepare what might not have been the best settle-
ment of the dispute on the first agitation of the question,
but which I believe now is the only practical mode of bring-
ing it to a conclusion. While alluding to what I have
found calculated to discourage me, the house will recollect
one circumstance which tends to give me confidence—l re-
fer to the tone and spirit in which this subject was discussed
last session. (Hear, hear.) Even the right hon. baronet
the member for Morpeth (Sir G. Grey) who proposed the
abolition of church-rates, was anxious that some substitute
should be found for them before the abolition was made.
From every quarter of the house a strong desire was ex-
pressed to see if some substitute could be found. When
the bill went up to the other House of Parliament, though
the total abolition was strongly opposed, yet even the noble
duke who introduced the measure, and the house generally,
expressed a strong opinion in favour of finding a substitute.
Such being the position in which we were placed, my noble
friend at the head of the Government stated, no doubt in
powerful language, that the measure as sent up to the other
house was one that could not be accepted if we valued, as
all ought to value, the rights derived from prescription
from time immemorial—(hear, hear)—which have placed a
charge or debt on the property of the countryfrom the pay-
ment of which it ought not to be absolved. (Hear, hear.)
The equally powerful argument was used, that for the
benefit of the poorer classes of the country the Established
Church should not be deprived of the means of keeping up
those edifices that are even a greater blessing to the poor
than the rich. My noble friend, at the same time, inti-
mated the strong desire on the part of the Government to
see how this controversy could be determined. He stated
that the Church would meet the Dissenters on this question
with the most conciliatory and friendly feeling; but added
that some prospect must be held out that they would meet
the Church in the same spirit, or the law must be main-
tained as it stands. (Hear.) Now, the law as it stands isplain
and clear, and the inconvenience of the law is equally plain
and equally clear. What the law is has been declared by
the highest tribunal of the country—the law imposes an im-
perative obligation on every parish to maintain the fabric
of its church. Those are really the very words of Lord Thur-
low in giving his judgment. On the ether hand, the law
having been enacted when the whole population of the
country was of one mind in matters of religion, it has this
inconvenience—that it is not now the expression of the re-
ligious opinion of the time ; as many do not belong to the
Church and do not derive any benefit from its religious or-
dinances, the principle that applied formerly no longer ap-
plies with the same force. I have said something of a satis-
factory settlement, or what may pave the way to such a
settlement of this question; in reference to it I hope the
house will allow me to refer to two returns—one made in
Sept., 1852, the other in Sept., 1856—0 f the number of rates
required, made or refused, for 18 and 15 years preceding
those dates respectively. From these returns it appears
that, from Easter, 1833, to Easter, 1851, out of the 1,047
parishes from which returns were sent in, there were only
216 in which church-rates were actually refused in the
whole period of 18 years. The return of 1856 included 9,672
parishes ; of these, 8,280 parishes granted the rate ; 401 re-
fused it; from 444 dubious answers were returned ; in 544
parishes the funds were provided from other sources. Thus
not one-tenth of the parishes included in the return have
refused the rate in a period of 15 years. The right hon. ba-
ronet the member for Morpeth, when alluding to this re-
port two years ago, made an observation which produced
great effect on the house at the time. He admitted it was
perfectly true that not one-tenth of these parishes had re-
fused the rate ; but he asked, what is their population ?
I think the test of population does not apply in this case.
If the tax were spread over the whole country then that
test might be applied. But when the tax is levied on the
community in sections, each section having the power to
give or withhold it, the number of parishes that have exer-
cised the right of withholding it or have refused to exercise
it is important—(hear, hear)—and the number of parishes
which have refused to exercise that right is only 408. It
would certainly be an extraordinary thing if some 400 pa-
rishes which have refused to obey the law should deprive
the remaining 8,000 parishes and upwards of the privilege
of continuing to obey it. (Hear, hear.) It also appears
from that return that 41 parishes, which had refused the
rate before, have since paid it. This is an important
fact whioh I wish you to bear in mind, and of which I shall
make use in another part of my observations. I come next
to the return for this year, which gives you the amount of
tha expenditure under three distinct heads. Those heads
are, first, the fabric of the church ; second, the celebration
of Divine worship ; and, third, other purposes. It gives,
also, under three heads, the money which has been applied
to defray that expenditure—viz., first, what has been re-
ceived from rates ; second, what has been received from
endowments; and, third, what has been received from volun-
tary contributions. Since that return was laid on the table
I have had a subsequent return from 500 parishes. It will
not make much difference to my argument whether I
take the statistics from the blue-book, minus those 500
parishes, or whether I make my statement more complete
by adding the 500 other parishes. The average annual ex-
penditure on the fabric of the church is, in round numbers,
£321,000; for the celebration of Divine worship, £172,000;
and for other purposes, £94,000. I find there has been re-
ceived from church-rates an annual average of £261,000 ;
from endowments, £45,000 ; and from voluntary subscrip-
tions, £262,000. I stop here for a moment to remark the
proportion between the voluntary subscriptions and the
money raised by rate, the amount from the former source
being £262,000 out of those 10,500 parishes, and that from
the latter being £261,000. (Cheers.) lam extremely glad
to hear that cheer, because the house will find, before
I come to the conclusion, that I intend to make
use of that circumstance as the foundation of part
of the Government measure. There is another im-
portant fact to which I desire to call attention. The re-
turn gives you the number of Churchmen as compared with
Dissenters, and also states whether the property in the
different parishes is much or little subdivided. These two
returns lam taking now from the blue-book ; for I have not
obtained an analysis of the subsequent returns for the 500
parishes of which I have spoken. It appears that the land-
owners in 1,367 parishes were all Churchmen ; in 7,436
Parishes the landowners were Churchmen generally ; in
1,050 other parishes the Churchmen and Dissenters were
about equal; and in 353 remaining parishes the numbers
were not stated. So that out of 10,206 parishes there are
8,803 in which the landowners are generally Churchmen;
in 1,050 more they are partly Churchmen and partly Dis-
senters ; and in 353 they are not stated. Observe, there-
fore, the enormous proportion of Churchmen among the
landowners of those parishes. I take, then, the subdivision
of property. It appears that in 5,750 parishes the property
is in a very few hands ; in 1,480 it is subdivided ; and in
2,713 it is much subdivided. I mention these facts because
I mean to rely on them later in my statement. Thus, taking
a general view of this question, and speaking in round num-
bers, we have in 10,500 parishes £261,000 per annum con-
tributed
while by rotas, £262,000 by voluntary benefactions;
the greater part of the landowners are Churchmen,
and the
es property is proportionately few hands—circum-
s
make.ranewhich will facilitate the proposition I shall hereafter
And these results will, I think, suggest two infer-
ences. The first inference is that since this 's is a burden upon
persons in respect of property,and those persons are princi-
pally Churchmen, the plea oconscience is not a strong plea
for doing away with a charge Which has existed from time
immemorial. The second inference is that since it appears
that by voluntary contributions
large ;urns are now raised for
be
maintaining the fabric, it will
benefactions
in Parliament, as far
as it can, to look to voluntary in order to get
rid can,
to
complaint which is made when the payment is
compulsory. In discussing the t
swhether any remedy
can be applied, I must request the house to to indulge me for
a few moments while I endeavour to
suggested,
the different
modes which have heretofore been
Nvh?.e.
cdhto reduce
it, as I think I shall do, to the onlplan
properly be adopted. The first remedy sought to be apn nl7ied
was the proposition of Lord Althorp in 1834, by which it
was intended that the land-tax to the extent of £250,000
a-year should be charged with the support of the fabrc of
the church. The objection to that was obvious. After the
land-tax was redeemed, if you devoted 1250,000 a-year of
the unredeemed part of that tax to this purpose, you would
be taxing oneportion of the landowners, and one only, to do
that for which the whole were liable. That plan was so ob-
jectionable that it was given up. The second proposal was
made by the present Lord Monteagle when Chancellor of
the Exchequer. It was that you should arrive if you could
at the improved value of church property, and charge that
improved value to the extent of £500,000 for this purpose.
The answer to that was twofold. First, it was unjust; se-
condly, it was improvident. It was unjust, because you
would be in effect transferring a charge from the clergy to
the laity, and would be giving to every landowner in the
kingdom a receipt in full for a debt, not one shilling of
which ho would have paid. It was improvident, because it
would have been taking away the only available means
which you have to meet the spiritual wants of the country
by
onticipating the funds in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, which funds at this moment are not equal to
keep Pace with our ever increasing population ; and, un-
less you husband those resources for the purpose of aug-
menting the smaller livings
superintendence and care, you will not be able to overtake
the religious destittition of the people. (Hear, hear.) The
third proposition made was that of the late Sir Robert
Peel. That proposition was nevera reduced into the shape of
a bill, but it suggested that thin charge should be thrown
upon the Consolidated Fund.
Objections to this were im-
mediately taken. Independently of the objection that the
landowners would thereby be relieved
to the extent of
many millions from a charge on theirlrinoperty, there
house,tbat
was the objection now constantly raise
until it has almost become a universal axiomthis•
we ought not to impose on the general taxation of the-
country a charge which is to be applied for the
rcn
ance of any special religious services. That objection was
deemed to ,be #0 stag tlat Si at reel, eye game, h,