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

said that a Government was not fit to be entrusted with the
management of public affairs unless it tried to make a set-
tlement of this question in a twelvemonth, never ventured,
in the plenitude of his power, and during tho3e five years
when he might have carried a measure, to grapple with the
subject again. And so it has fallen into weaker and inferior
hands, but with the same obligation to attempt to satisfy
the public expectations and effect a definitive adjustment.
(Cheers.) After that we come to the ye tr 1849, when the
hon. baronet the member for Tavisto ck (Sir J. Trelawney)
first began his career in essaying to deal with this difficult
question. In that year he moved a resolution, " That it is
the opinion of this house that effectual measures should Pe
immediately taken for the abolition of the church-rates."
To that motion an amendment was proposed by one who is
as good a man as he is liberal as a politician—l mean Vice-
Chancellor Sir W P. Wood. He moved the omission of
" the abolition of church-rates," and the substitution of the
words "for discharging persons dissenting from the church
as by law established from contributing to the church-rates
wind from taking any part in levying, assessing, or adminis-
tering the same." That proposition was in conformity
with one previously made by the hon. member for Fins-
bury. It was lost by an enormous majority, for only 20
members voted for the amendment, while 183 voted against
it. But, sir, that proposition gained ground afterwards, and
in the year 1853 Dr. Phillimore renewed it by laying a bill
on the table of the house with that object. That bill was
supported, as is best proved by the division, by my right
hon. friend the member for Carlisle, by the%oble lord the
member for the City of London, by the noble lord the mem-
ber for Tiverton, and by no less than 185 members of this
house; so that the proposition which, when first launched,
obtained the votes of only 20 members, had in four years
gained so much ground that it commanded a division of
185 members, all the first men in the house going into
the same lobby. (Hear, hear.) The bill, however,
was lost, for on that occasion the noes were 207 against
185 ayes. The next proposition which was made on this
subject emanated from the right rev, bench. I hold in
my hand a bill which was laid on the table of the House of
Lords in the year 1855. The right rev, bench then pro-
posed that a machinery should be framed for the purpose of
ascertaining whether parishes would or would not pay
church-rates in obedience to a monition, and that, if after
monition and citation they refused to pay them during two
or three years—l forget exactly which period—such rates
should cease in those parishes, and the parishes should be-
come subject to the provisions of that bill. The provisions
of the bill were that the incumbent, those who frequented
the church, and other parties who were friendly to it should
compose a vestry for the purpose of raising by voluntary
contributiwa the mum noooeoary support tbo lab:4o. Now,
that proposition, so made by the right reverend bench,
was, in my opinion, good in its object, but bad in its start-
ing point. It was good in its object, because it sought to
substitute for a compulsory payment a voluntary contribu-
tion. It was bad in its starting point, because it held out
a premium for agitation throughout the length and breadth
of the land. (Hear, hear.) It would have increased
the strife and ill-feeling which exist in the country upon the
subject, and it would have induced every parish to have made
every effort it could to get rid of the burden by any means
that could be devised. (Hear, hear.) That proposition I
believe received no countenance in the House of Lords, and
certainly was not responded to in this. In the following
year the right hon. baronet the member for Morpeth (Sir
G. Grey) to a certain extent adopted that plan. I regretted
it then, and I regret it now, although I think at the same
time he added one of those propositions for which he is
entitled to the gratitude of every man who thinks upon this
subject and who wishes to settle it. The right hon. baronet
proposed that where church-rates had not been levied for
five years there it should be declared in Parliament that
they should cease in future. I think he also proposed that
where they were not levied in prospective for two years,
they should not in future be imposed. Both these proposi-
tions were and are open to the objections which I have
urged, and I will not repeat them now. But the right hon.
baronet added to these proposals ono of his own—viz., that
you might, by repealing the mortmain law, obtain a charge
upon the land as a permanent charge, without renewing it
from year to year, and so exposing yourself to these annual
contests. That, I think, was the effect of the right hon.
baronet's proposition.
Sir G. GREY—A power was given voluntarily to make
a charge upon the property to a limited amount.
Mr. WALPOLE—I am quite aware of that, but in
stating this I was wishing to pay a compliment to the right
hon. baronet—(a slight laugh)—and to give him the credit
of that which will constitute a part of the measure which I
am going to ask leave to introduce. Ido not desire to take
any credit for any part of this measure which does not be-
long to the Government or to myself. It is the duty of the
.Govdrnment to examine the propositions which have been
made to Parliament, to see which are unreasonable and
which are reasonable, to distinguish between the two, and to
give the credit, as I most cheerfNy do, to those who were
the first to originate them. (Hear, hear.) I have now, sir,
gone through all the propositionswhich have been made to
Parliament on this subject excepting one. That was the
proposition made by my hon. friend the member for Hert-
fordshire (Mr. Puller). Those who were in the house last
year will not fail to remember the powerful, argumentative,
and convincing speech which he then made against the ab-
solute abolition of church-rates. I wish he had been more
fortunate in the substitute which he proposed. To that
substitute, unfortunately, I could not then, nor can I now
agree. He proposed to the house that you should put
upon the land of the country one charge, equal in amount
upon all, which would raise the rates necessary to provide
for the sustentation of the fabric. The objection to that
plan was this—and it is similar to the objections to many
plans which have been sent to me—plans for putting church.
rates upon the county-rates and making them part of it—
plans for putting them upon the poor-rate and making
them part of it ;—the objection to that plan was this,—
that by it you would transfer a charge which has
always rested upon property in certain amounts and
in certain proportions to other property which
was not necessarily subject to that charge, and so would
impose a compulsory obligation to pay the rate upon land
which might previously not have been liable for it to that
amount. Now, Sir, I have gone through these propositions
for these purposes—first, to eliminate from them those plans
which I am sure hon. members neither will, nor, according
to the reasons which I have urged, ought to agree to ; and,
secondly, to bring them to the only practicable and reason-
able solution of the question. I think the result of that
examination may fairly be described as follows :—ln the
first place, we shall agree to reject all plans which would
transfer the charge from the property now liable to it to
any property which is not liable to it at present. (Hear,
hear.) In the second place, we shall agree to reject the
plans which would attempt to throw the charge upon the
public taxation of the country—(hear, hear)—because it
would be acting contrary to that principle which now seems
to be generally recognised—that we should not impose on
the public taxation the burden of paying for any specific
religious obligation or duty. (Hear, hear.) In the third
place, I hope that we shall all, or at least most of us, agree
in rejecting any plan which would attempt to transfer from
the landed gentry of the country to the revenues of the
Church a charge which that gentry have always paid, and
I believe would willingly pay—(hear)—rather than dry up
those resources still left to the Church, by means of which
she may provide for the spiritual wants of the people, and
which at this moment are not more than sufficient, or any-
thing like sufficient, to meet those wants to the full extent
which is required. In the fourth place, we shall reject all
plans which, like those proposed by Sir W. Clay—and, by
the way, I have omitted to mention the propositions which
he made to the house—attempt to substitute far this legal
obligation a payment by means of pew-rents. Of all the
plans ever yet devised, that is the most objectionable.
(Cheers.) If an established church means anything, in
every town, in every parish, in every hamlet in the
kingdom it ought to be free and open to all. (Hear,
hear.) The church-rate is that part of your establish-
ment, taken in connexion with another part of the sys-
tem—viz., the payment of tithes, which has hitherto fur-
nished to every poor man in this country who wishes to re-
ceive them the blessings and ordinances of religion; and
whoever may again propose the plan of substituting pew-
rents for this rate, I hope it will meet with the condemna-
tion which I see by your cheers it now receives, and that
Parliament will never listen to or dream of such a thing
(Cheers.) In the fifth place, we must exclude one other
plan—that is, a plan which would declare that church-
rates were to be abolished as the result of a successful agi-
tation. We are attempting to 'settle the question peacefully;
but if you leave the elements of strife and disorder—if you
cannot make a pacific settlement, and if you attempt to make
an arrangement which is only to increase the agitation and
strife, infinitely better would it be for you to allow things
to remain as they are than to attempt such a settlement
with such prospects. (Hear, hear.) I believe we have now
nearly exhausted every plan which can be considered. We
have not, however
, quite exhausted them ; there are two
which yet rem •
aul. There is the proposition of the right
mortmain laws, and,
hon. baronet (Sir (-4
Grey)—that, by the repeal of the
I will add, by other means, we should
contributions to the support of
endeavour to aid voluntary
the fabric; and, notwithstanding
this plan by
cir-
cumstances to which I shall rofinerg sonle
there,. is also, I think, a
unfortunate
relief to those who
means of completing
rthehout offending
ent intend toprolpotsistseutthpeoinr
are no longer of the established retilonngagui
watiththouetGinojvurinertung the.
propositions. In the first place, then, We
tthheesem't and
w oblashe°sPteh
power should be given to the owners of land, netwithstanhd!
standing the mortmain laws, to charge their lands with the
amount of church-rates which thoie lands have paid within
a PeT
• d specified in the bill. In the second place we pro-
pose, since church-rates are a charge which has existed
upon, property from time immemorial, that those who have
limited estates in their lands should have power to make
that perpetual which is now annual; in other words, we
propose to give a power of charging their lands not merely
to.owners of fee, but to tenants for life. In the third place,
we Propese, in order that the: charges thus imposed upon
property should not be wasted, to make the incumbent and
churchwardens in every parish a corporation for this
purpose, with perpetual succession. In the fourth place
we propose to aid • these rent-charges by encouraging
voluntary subscriptions and benefactions. In the
next place we propose, not merely that these subscriptions
and benefactions may, at the will of the donor, be kept as
14114 4.044 el the charge,' in the nottstatio, vZ tho

church, but also that those who contribute them shall have
the power of declaring that they will apply their subscrip-
tions and benefactions in exoneration of their lands from
the payment that is now due from them. Lastly, with
reference to this part of the subject, we propose that when
the charges so put upon property voluntarily, with the
voluntary subscriptions and benefactions to which I have
adverted, shall together equal the amount of the church-
rate which has been raised in any parish within a certain
number of years from the time the rate was last raised, the
Queen shall be empowered by order in Council to declare
that church-rates in that parish are for ever abolished.
(Hear.) Let me stop here for one moment. You will ob-
serve by this, the first part of our proposition, that we do
not abandon the legal obligation which rests upon property
to answer the debts to which it is liable, but we encourage
the owners to pay those debts in a voluntary manner, and
as soon as the payment is made complete church-rates are
for ever swept away ; in other words, you have the com-
pulsory payment done away with, and you have a volun-
tary charge supplied in its place. (Hear, hear.) I know
that many people have thought that these voluntary charges
will not be made, or that voluntary benefactions will not be
given. A word or two upon each of these points. I told
you, at the commencement of my observations, reading from
an analysis of the returns of the number of churchmen
who were landowners in the parishes to which those returns
related. I told you also how little their properties were
subdivided. Take these two facts together, and can you
believe that landlords who are churchmen will not impose
upon their lands a charge which is only a substitute for that
which they now pay? Can you believe that they will
refuse to do that which will, in point of fact, put an
end to a strife which they all desire to see 'terminated
as much as we do ourselves ? My own impression is,
that the 8,000 landowners in the 10,000 parishes from
which returns have been made, being churchmen, will un-
hesitatingly charge their properties to the extent of the
church-rates which they now pay, so that almost a sufficient
fund will be forthcomingfrom that source alone. But I own
I set even more store by the voluntary contributions and
benefactions which we propose. (Hear, hear.) I believe
that when these contributions and benefactions are allowed
to be made there are many who will come forward to relieve
their poorer fellow-parishioners by exonerating their lands
from the payment that is now due from them. lam not now
speaking upon mere conjecture. Let the house bear in mind
that the voluntary contributions made on behalf of the
Church during the last 50 years, and especially during the
last 10 years, are enough to encourage us in broaching a plan
like that I have proposed. Is the house aware that from
1800 to 1850 there has been contributed bythe State towards
Churob purpnaos about £1,000,000; and that, to meet those
grants so made by the State, voluntary subscriptions,
amounting to nearly £9,000,000, have been offered for the
benefit of religion ? (Hear, hear.) Is the House aware that
every year £lO,OOO is applied from the Queen Anne's Bounty
for the benefit of the Church, and that the benefactions
which are made to meet it are four times the amount, or
£40,000 per annum. (Hear.) In the diocess of Winchester
alone £200,000 has been contributed by the Church for
Church purposes ; and it has been met by benefactions vo-
luntarily offered to the extent of £1,500,000. (Hear, hear.)
When the right hon. gentleman the member for Carlisle and
myself sat in the Ecclesiastical Commission, it was proposed
that we should give £37,000 for erecting parsonage houses
and other Church purposes. The Ecclesiastical Commis-
sioners applied that sum in the manner stated, but at the
same time resolved to ask for benefactions to meet their con-
tribution, and the result was that voluntary offers were
made to the extent of four times the original grant. Again,
when the Ecclesiastical Commissioners found themselves
with a surplus they took advantage of the experience which
they had acquired in the matter of the parsonage houses,
and determined upon applying their surplus only in con-
sideration of voluntary benefactions being made to meet it.
What was the result? In 1857 their surplus was £5,000,
tanioduthofesymwauerelivienangbaledtottohceonexttbnut
£so,ooo.overstate then
teeifte2vl2e,rdooBo.tbelnali:•:: etteeir-
fe fact when was
I sayllB they andwer e I believeable to
the present year their surplus amounts to £50,000, and I
am credibly informed thatit is likely to be increased to the
extent of 75 per cent. by voluntary contributions, the whole
to be expended upon the augmentation of poor benefices.
(Hear, hear.) I say, then, you have everything to en-
courage you in seeking to apply the voluntary principle in
aid of the Establishment. But this is not all. By another
clause in the bill we propose, with reference to contracts to
be hereafter made, to enable a tenant or occupier of land to
deduct any church-rate that may be paid by him in respect
of such land from the payment due to his landlord ; in other
words, to transfer to the man who is legally bound to pay
the rate the actual duty of discharging it, and to free the
occupier who may not agree with his landlord in religion.
(Hear, hear.) These are two of the propositions which we
have to offer to the house. But these propositions would
be incomplete if we did not meet the only practical griev-
ance that exists—viz., the grievance felt by the conscien-
tious Dissenter. (Hear, hear.) lam one of those who
think that the claim of the Dissenter to be exempted from the
payment of a charge resting uponhis property stands, strictly
speaking, neither upon reason nor upon law. (Hear.) To ad-
mit that principle would be to admit that in the general taxa-
tion of the country, if persons like the members of the Society
of Friends objected to the application of the public revenues
to warlike purposes they should be held to be entitled to
exemption upon conscientious grounds. (Hear, hear.) If
you once admit that principle, you could not deny the other
persons, such as Protestants who have a charge upon their
property in favour of the Roman Catholic religion, or Ro-
man Catholics who have a charge upon their property in
favour of the Protestant religion, the same benefit which,
upon the plea of conscience, you are now asked to confer
upon Dissenters in the matter of church -rates. (Hear.)
The claim made on behalf of the Dissenters is one, there-
fore, to which I could not assent—not, that is, as a matter
of strict law or right; but when I look at the circumstances
under which church-rates were originally given, when I know
that all the people in the country were then of one mind
in respect to religion, when I remember that they equally
had the benefit of the rate and equally subjected themselves
to the obligation to pay, and when I further recollect that
all these things are so much altered that the benefit and
the obligation do not go together, I will not say that the
Dissenter has a right to exemption, but I do say that the
churchman may as a matter of favour extend to him an ex-
oneration from the obligation of contributing to a fund from
which he now derives no advantage. (Healy.) Then, that
being so, I am perfectly willing to subscribe to the amend-
ment moved by Sir W. Page Wood and to the motion
made by Dr. Phillimore, and supported by several men of
eminence in this house. I am perfectly willing by some
such means to abstain from calling on those for payment to
church-rates who stated that they conscientiously objected
to such payment. Dissenters object, it is said, to this plan
because it brands them with a stigma; I think that a most
unfortunate declaration, because I should not have ima-
gined that the historical descendants of the old Reformers—
the successors of those who felt pride in avowing their opi-
nions openly and frankly, and were not ashamed to suffer
for their opinions, would have turned round when it was
proposed to relieve their consciences by an exemption from
a legal obligation to say that a stigma was attempted to be
placed on them. But, however unfortunate this state of
feeling may be, I still must recognise it, and therefore it is
our duty to see if we can so frame this objection as not to
hurt and wound the feelings of the Dissenters. We hope
we can do it in one way. We propose that when the rate
has been imposed the collector shall take round certain
papers, one of which shall contain a form, wherein a person
may simply declare that he conscientiously objects to the
payment of this rate. We propose that whoever makes
this declaration shall be exempted, and be from that time
free from the obligation of Flaying the charge. But, as a
consequence of this, we also think that any person who
claims the benefit of exemption from that obligation should
take no part in vestry meetings where the rat is imposed
until he consents to pay some rate. (Hear, hear.) That
is the mode in which we propose to deal with this part of
the question. The summary is this—that we turn the
compulsory into a voluntary payment, and we hope by
these means to satisfy the Church and conciliate the Dis-
senters—that we give to the occupier the right of charging
against his landlord the payment of the rate, and we relieve
the Dissenters in a manner which we believe the least in-
jurious to the Church and the least offensive to their own
feelings. (Hear, hear.) I said at the beginning that I
feared the time was come when the settlement of this ques-
tion in the best manner that could be devised was no
longer practicable ; but I think I have submitted to you a
proposition which, at all events, considering the difficulties
under which we labour, does offer a practicable solution of
the question in a simple, just, and comprehensive form.
(Hear, hear.) I have only one or two words to add, and
they are in the way of appeal to the hon. baronet the mem-
ber for Tavistock. There are now two propositions before
the house— one for the absolute abolition of church-rates,
without substitution, and the other which offers a volun-
tary substitute, and does violence to no one. These two
issues are before you, and I ask you,which will you choose ?
Will you choose to sacrifice all those obligations which rest
on property merely because you wish to urge a conscien-
tious plea which no longer applies, or will you meet us in
the spirit in which we endeavour to meet you—.-the spirit
of conciliation, peace,_ and goodwill—being desirous to
terminate the controversy which, unfortunately, has existed
too long ? (Hear, hear.) If you adopt the proposition
of the hon. baronet you will, in point of fact, be asking
Parliament to sanction the proposition that there should
be given up without "it, substitute a legal obligation not
only on your property, but on the property of those who
first imposed it and made-it subject to the maintenance of
the fabric of the church where they heard inculcated the
ordinances of the Church and of religion. (Hear, hear.)
Give up that, and you cannot distinguish, between church-
rates and tithes in principle, and must give up the obliga-
tion similarly imposed on property for the ministers of
religion throughout the country. Give up these, and you,
give up the .religious part of your parochial system, the
existence of an Establishment, and sever the connexion
between Church and State. (Some cries of " Hear," on
the Opposition side.) That cheer shows that there are
some—very few, I believe—who would wish to sever the
connexion between Church and State. (Cheers.) There is a
vely small body, I knoW, who would trust everything to
the voluntary principle. I also would trust the volun-
tary principle taken in aid and in conjunction with the
obligation due to the Establishment; but, take it alone, I
am confident it never will or can reach every part of the
country—it never can get into the remote , districts, nor
meet the wants of the immense population who, I am sorry
to say, are at this moment without the benefits of
religion and education to an extent which ought not to be.
(Hear, hear.) I ask those who support that principle,
which, remember, I am not gainsaying, for I am an advocate
of it in conjunction with the establishment, do they think it
would supply religion, as anything else may be supplied, in
the ordinary way of supply and demand ? (" Hear, hear,"
from Mr. Hadfield.) The hon. member for Sheffield is
one of those who have immense confidence in their own
principles, but he does not always extend to others the same
confidence as to the sincerity of their opinions ; but I would
put it to the hon. member for Sheffield whether he can
apply the ordinary principles which regulate the distribu-
tion and acquisition of wealth to the higher matters of
education and religion ? (Hear.) The hon. member is nod-
ding his head—(laughter)—and I suppose thinks so ; but
always Mill desire moat
let me tell him that so long as you deal with the physical_
wants of men you will always find the principle of demand
man ir the lessand
he
and supply sufficiently strong to meet those wants ; but
has bween'
you deal with the higher parts of nature it always
bteh,ethaadtvanthteagemoorfe
knignoworlaendtge.a,
and the more deeply sunk in folly and hi vice, the less he is
liable to be moved by
gher feelin s
For this reason it
is that Dr. Chalmers said, • g
his own forcible lan-
guage, that Christianity in
must go forth in quest of
human nature, for human nature,•
unprovided and unin-
structed, would never go forth • • •
in quest of Christianity.
(Hear, hear.) Therefore it is that according to your in-
Otatllooo Y2l Always iwiistcd ))3, ratmu 9f an, otti,-