The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-14 00:00:00

,1313 R.

IMPERIAL PARLIAME N T

HO USE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.
NEW MEMBERS.
Mr. LASLETT took the oaths and his seat for Worcester-
shire, and Colonel Steward for Cardiff.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The following bills were considered and 'ordered to be
read a third time :—Birmingham, Erdington, and Sutton
Coldfield Railway (Western Line) ' • Isle' of Wight RailwaY
(Eastern Section) ; Llanrwst and Abergele Roads ; Nor-
wich and Spalding Railway ; Oxford, Worcester, and
Wolverhampton Railway; South Durham and Lancashire
Union Railway ; and Waveney Valley Railway.
PETITIONS.
Several petitions were presented against the continuance
of church rates, against the Endowed Schools' Bill, and in
favour of the abolition of the duty on paper, &c.
CHURCH RATES ABOLITION BILL.
Mr. DILLWYN moved the second reading of this bill, and
said that the subject was so well understood in the house
and throughout the country that it would be unnecessary
to make any lengthened observations, and he would confine
himself merely to his motion. .e
Mr DU CANE moved as an amendment that the bill
be read a second time this day six months. Considering
that the present Parliament was a new one, ho thought he
was justified in stating his arguments against the mea-
sure now before the house. He ' considered that the bill
was one of spoliation, and a direct attempt to destroy the
State establishment of this country. It had been said that
they might allow the bill to go into committee, and then
graft on it such modifications as the majority of the house
might approve. He objected to that course, because he was
opposed to the principle of the bill, and ho was aware that
any alteration affecting the vital principle would be fatal to
the bill, and therefore would not receive the support of
those hon. members who were in favour of the bill.
(Hear, hear.) He contended that if the bill were
to be passed into law, a state of things would ultimately
arise in which the maintenance of the fabric of the Church
would be left dependent on the slender support of voluntary
contributions. With regard to one of the arguments in
favour of the bill, namely, that it was opposed to conscien-
tious feeling, the fact was that a very simple mode existed
in the different parishes throughout the country for obtain-
ing exemption from the payment of this rate; and in many
cases, without this church-rate, the fabric of the Church
must necessarily fall to decay. The hon. member for
Birmingham (Mr. Bright), in one of those statements
with which he had been in the habit of entertaining his
constituents during the last few months, said that
only one-third of the country was in connection with
the Church of England. It appeared, however, by
the census of 1851, that more than one-half the church
accommodation for those who attended places of worship
was supplied by the Church of England. It appeared fur-
ther that 84 per cent. of the educational establishments of
this country were in connection with the Church of Eng-
land, 74 per cent. of the children attending . these public
schools belonged to that Church, and that $4 per cent. of
the marriages within a given period were celebrated in the
churches of the State Establishment. Having cited a me-
morial from the clergy of Birmingham, to show that the
voluntary principle was inoperative to maint fin the fabric'
of the Church, he concluded by an earnest appeal to the house
to negative the further progress of this measure, or to so
modify its provisions as to divest it of its dangerous and
destructive provisions.
Lord R. MONTAGUE seconded the amendment, as he
believed the real object of the supporters of this bill was to
sever the Church from the State. They openly professed
that their ultimate object was to reduce the Church to the
position of an ordinary sect. They maintained that the
State had nothing to do with religion, and he warned this
house that it must be prepared to concede a much larger
question if they agreed to pass this measure.
Mr. E. BAINES, as a Dissenter, disclaimed any hosti-
lity to the Church of England ministers, but he con-
tended that it was unjust and indecent to compel
the Dissenters to pay an impost to which they conscien-
tiously objected. He argued also that the continuance of
this impost was injurious to the best interests of the State
Church. He referred to the West Riding of Yorkshire in
illustration of his position, for in that extensive district,
where church -rates were abolished, he had not heard of a
single instance in which the fabric of a church was per-
mitted to fall into decay. He had heard statements from
many clergymen of the Church of England that their posi-
tion was improved since the church-rates were done away
with in their respective parishes. ' He called on the Church
of England not to attempt to perpetuate an injustice, but to
place self reliance on its own means and energies, and then
it would flourish in pr, 'portion to the amount of the spiritual
merit it possessed. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. ADDERLEY opposed the bill, which he con-
sidered a most violent method of dealing with property.
He denied that there was any necessity for such a bill,
because as the law stood a church-rate could be levied only
by a majority of parishioners, so that its imposition could
not be regarded as an injustice, being the act of the ma-
jority. He thought it would be more unjust to allow the
fabric of churches to be dependent on voluntary contribu-
tions in those parishes where a church-rate was voluntarily
conceded. In some cases a church-rate was opposed be-
cause the clergyman of the parish was unpopular, while in
the same places that rate was freely granted when a
minister was appointed who succeeded in rendering his
teaching attractive. He alluded to the case of Coventry, in
which a church-rate was cordially voted, and would it not,
he asked, be a great injustice under the circumstances to do
away with a church-rate there ?
Mr. MELLOR denied the accuracy of the statement of
the last speaker, to the effect that this rate was so popular
in Coventry. Ho adverted to the situation of the churches
in Nottingham, which he represented, and in Leicester,
which were never in better order than at present, notwith-
standing that they were supported by voluntary contribu-
tions. The same was the case with regard to Liverpool
and other large towns throughout the country. He called
on those who had any apprehension as to the maintenance
of the fabric of the Church to refer to the history of reli-
gion in England to shiny what the voluntary Forinciple had
effected, and to place more reliance on the feeling of the
landed and propertied classes in this country, who
would not suffer the churches to become dilapidated.
Looking to the origin of this impost, it appeared that it
was levied on the parishioners for keeping in repair those
churches which they frequented. That was at a period of
intolerance, but when different sects were established, was
it not most unjust to call on those who derived no benefit
from the State Church to repair and decorate fabrics which
they never used, while at the same time they were obliged
to build as well as maintain their own religious edifices ?
He denied that there was any analogy between, this rate
and tithes, which were placed on a totally different basis.
He concluded by supporting the second reading of the bill.
Mr. PACKE said that as there was a committee sitting
in the other house on this subject he thought there was an
efficient reason' for not proceeding further with the present
bill. There was no security for maintaining the fabric of
the church if this rate were abolished ; and he alluded to a
speech delivered by Lord John Russell in 1856
deprecating the passing of a measure like the
present. He could not understand what spell there was
which had induced the noble lord to alter his opinion, for
there was no reason assigned for such an alteration.
Mr. STANIL AND said that recently he had an oppor-
tunity of ascertaining the opinion of the clergy of Lincoln,
which he believed coincided with that of the majority of
the clergy, who would not be satisfied with any substitute
for a church rate. There was one-third of the community
at least who dissented from the Church, and therefore he
`denied that the State establishment could be considered as
a national church. In Boston, which he represented, the
fabrics of the church were efficiently supported by volun-
tary contributions, and he believed there was Mae ground
for supposing
that in large towns the result would be dif-
ferent ; and it should be borne in mind that in rural dis-
tricts five-sevenths of the property belonged to members of
the Church of England.
Mr. J. P. HENNESEY, as a Roman Catholic, opposed
the bill, which he denounced as a direct attaok by the dis-
senters on the Church of England. He thought that
Roman Catholics could not consistently support this bill,
and those who voted for the Maynooth grant were bound to
maintain church-rates, for though the details of the two
were different, the principle involved was the same.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that no doubt in a great number
of the town parishes churei-ratcs were not collected, but
the case was different in rural pa-Ashes, and in any attempt
to arrange the question relative to the rate, that difference
should be considered. As the law at present stood there
was no obligation on a vestry to levy this rate, and as the
law was in an anomalous state, vatious attempts had been
made to remedy the existing defect. The right hp. gentle-
man haying adverted to the different bills introduced on this
subject, and some of the most prominent objections to any
alteration in the present system, contended that, if the
£263,000 a-year, compulsory rate, levied on the population
of England and Wales, were abolished, it would have little
effect either on the maintenance or the continuation of the
fabric of the Church in this country. He based his opi-
nions on the feelingof the country generally, and the revived
taste for promoting church architecture which existed.
He certainly saw some objections to the voluntary prin-
ciple ; but, on the whole, as he considered that in endea-
vouring to maintain this rate they were only continuing a
fruitless struggle, he would vote for the second reading of
this bill. (Hear, hear.)
Lord J. MANNERS said that the bill introduced by the
late Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. Walpole)
would have effected everything that was necessary to
satisfy the conscientious scruples of Dissenters, but
it was rejected by the Dissenters of that house, and
by some of those hon. members who were members of the
present Ministry, He thought the present bill was sot a
bill to meet the case of tender consciences, but to subvert
one of the fundamental principles of the existing constitu-
tion of the country. He maintained that it was most illo-
gical to argue that by changing the present system, and
abolishingtheimpost of £630,000 for the maintenance of the
fabric and the services of the Church, that the same result
would follow.
Lord FERMOY said that in doing away with this im-
post they would strengthen and not weaken the Church.
(Hear, hear.) What was the case in Ireland ? No less
than ten bishoprics were done away with in that country,
as well as church-rates, and there was a considerable re-
duction in the revenues of the clergy. The
instead result was that
instead of its efficiency being impaired, there never was a
period
when that church stood so high or was so deeply
rivetted in the affections of their congregations.
Mr. H. DRUMMOND said that in the origin of Chris-
tianity a conscience was found to be a very troublesome
possession ; but the conscience of Dissenters was very
convenient. For that conscience he confessed he had
no respect or deference. The Dissenters had been candid,
and told them that this bill was an attack, a l'outrance, on
the State Church, and he called on the supporters of that
church to resist the attack.
rord PALMERSTON said that he would vote for the
second reading of this bill, though he had not hitherto
voted for a bill of that description. (Laughter, and cries
of "Oh, 0/1.7) He thought it was essential to
the interests and honour of this country, and for the
maintenance of religion that the church fabrics should be
sustained, and if it had been possible to continue the
present system he would have been prepared to
adopt that course. (Hear, hear.) But when that
system was repudiated not only by public opinion outside,
but in Parliament, he did not think that ho should set
himself up in oppdsition to that opinion. Ho was
bound, therefore, to see how the object of main-
taining the fabric of the church in repair could
be accomplished by means the least objectionable.
Looking at the state of district churches in this country—
which were capable of containing very large numbers, and
suited to all the purposes of such edifices, were erected, it
appeared to him that a provision might be made for the
maintenance of parish churches in the same way. (Heart
hear, and "No, no.) With regard to the motives imputed
to those who promoted this movement, he was sure, in many
cases, Dissenters would contribute to the maintenance of
the tate Churches voluntarily when they would not do so
on compulsion. He trusted that in committee some, pro-
vision would be made to meet the case that had arisen. Ife
believed the Church waa too deeply rivetted in, the attachment