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

cannot be maintained and church-rates are abolished—in

that way dissensions 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
60 flumers 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 Cambridgeshh e
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
of 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
in 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,
that 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 cases 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. I am 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 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. lithe 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 CUBITT 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 observations 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-
ence 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 Chiirch. (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 dehy 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-
jority could determine, as at present, to impose the rate if
voluntary 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
tha 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 coming
back at another, and subjecting themselves to the charge, as
in many cases might be done. (Hear, 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 lard 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, Ile 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 minister*/
religionto meet the spiritual wants of the people. But the
noble lord could hardly argue frees his own premises that the
mere fact of exempting ene man,:or a number of' men, from
the payme* ef phureli-rates was a destruction of the prin-
ciple Of an establisnmont, unless the principle meant this,—
that it was right to enforce on those who did not belong to
the Church a compulsory payment of the rate. (Hear,
hear.) He thought the noble lord was unduly hard on the
measure hi this respect. (Hear.) At the end of his speech
he admitted the difficulties that existed; and seemed almost
to think that these difficulties, werenearly insurmountable.
In such circumstances it became a grave question whether
some such proposition as ho (Mr. Walpole) had submitted
to the house should be adopted, or whether ,natters should
be allowed to remain exactly as
,they WM, if things were
to remain as they now were, tnere would necessarily be a
continuance of all the asAtatiOn which they wished to put
an end tot tit if it was possible to rectify some of the Dille
that existed he preferred that to leaving the law in its pre
sent state of uncertainty.
(Rear.) The noble lord said he
would say
foresaw techch- too ; braut tes were gol3ox and ho
(Mr Walpole)
tt% the noble lord '
applied to
The noble lord meant to
tes would be gone because it would be
inferhes t t words
.“I.
impossible any longer to levy them. He (Mr. Walpole)
believed that church-rates would be gone because,
voluntary efforts of those who belonged to theChurch,a.e' bYthe
voluntary be
it
would be found. possWe 'to, maintain the sacred fabrics, with-
kavVl W 494169 tg a system that had so' long been a

source of strife and contention in many parts of the country
(Hear, hear.) Before sitting down he wished to make an
appeal to the hon. baronet the member for Tavistock. The
second reading of his bill on church-rates stood for Wed-
nesday next. It would bo impossible for the Government
to bring forward their bill for the second reading on that
day. What he would propose was, that the second'reading
of the bill should be put nominally for Monday next, and
that the hon. baronet should have an opportunity of put-
ting the second reading of his bill next on the orders for
that day. He proposed this in order that the two bills
might be debated together and the time of the house saved,
and it must be evident that by this means no undue advan-
tage would be taken of the hon. baronet. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J.ITRELAWNEY was quite willing to accede to the
proposition of the right hon. gentleman, with the wider-
standing that as early an opportunity as possible would be
taken after Monday for proceeding with the bill.
Leave was then given to bring in the bill.