The Sun.
London, England, 1861-02-28 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER :cok the chair at twelve o'clock.
CHURCH RATES.
An rTormous number of petitions were presented in op-
positicn to Sir John Trelawny's bill. Few proceeded
from the Liberal side of the house, the opponents of
Church-rates having abstained from encouraging petitions
during the present session.
CHURCH-RATE ABOLITION BILL.

Sir J. TRELAWNY rose to move the second reading of
this bill. He said that he had suffered extreme obloquy in
consequence of his exertions in reference to Church-rates,
but he hoped that in time his opponents would come to a
better mind upon this matter. He had endeavoured to
obtain a compromise on this question, and wished to settle
it, but he had been prevented from doing so by his oppo-
nents. Besides there was another circumstance which, in
his opinion, rendered it a great hardship on Dissenters to
be called on to contribute towards the maintenance of an
Established Church—namely, that want of uniformity in
its doctrines, as was shown by recent events, including the
publication of " The Essays and Reviews," which had
been thought worthy of being brought before Convocation.
He cited the authority of Dr. Lushington to show the objec •
tionable character of the existing lawas respects church rates.
From what had taken place on this subject it was evident
they could not stand still and what were they prepared to
do? Would they pass a more stringent law and
introduce a uniform measure to apply equally
to the whole country, and extend it to such places
as Manchester. If they did he believed the result
would be that they would have to increase their estimates
and enlarge their prisons. He drew the attention
of the hon. members to the state of the Episcopal
Church in America, which was supported by a
small pew rent, to show that the establishment
had nothing to fear from the application of
the voluntary principle when it was allowed to develope
itself fully. He concluded by an earnest appeal to the
house to settle this question, and by this mewls set at rest
the heartburning and excitement which this impost caused
throughout the country, to an extent of which some hon.
members had no idea.

Lord FERMOY seconded the motion. He said where
there was a majority of Dissenters no church rate
was imposed, but the reverse was the case when
the majority was on the side of Churchmen, and
the inference was that they must either main-
tain it by compulsory means, or abandon it altogether.
In common with other hon. members he had received a
circular from the Archdeacon of London, in which the
reveread writer placed the question on a most unfair foot-
ing, for he said,that the abolition of this rate would lead
to the admission of Jews and Roman Catholics to
offices from which they were originally excluded, to the
expulsion of the BiShops from the House of Lords, and to
the appropriation by the State of the revenue of the
Church of England, Church of Ireland, and Kirk of
Scotland. He referred to the Church in Ireland to prove
the absurdity of any danger to the establishment, for that
Church was stronger than ever. He deprecated making
this question a party cry, and warned hon members oppo-
site that if they did so they would have to assume the
responsibility of more sweeping measures with reference to
the Church.
Sir W. HEATIICOTE defended the church-rates as a
Churchman, and on the ground of constitutional principle.
He asserted that it would be a most dangerous precedent,
both with reference to the question of right and principle,
to adopt a measure of this nature. He contended that the
arguments in support of the motion were not logical or in
conformity with the dictates of justice. At the same time
he would advise his hon. friends who agreed with him in
opposition to this bill not to push their principles, in respect
to this question, to an extreme limit, but make concession
to necessity. He trusted they would consider whether
the time had not arrived when they might fairly
take steps towards conciliation, and settle a question whose
continuance was so much at variance with the best in-
terests of the Church, and so gratifying to the feelings of
Churchmen. He concluded by moving as an amendment
that this bill should be read a second time this day six
months.
Mr. PACKE seconded the amendment, and complained

that a return for which he had moved had not been supplied
him. If that document had been produced he would have
been in'a position to show that the Voluntary principle would
not do for the maintenance of the Established Church.
Mr. MARSH sail that, as a Churchman, he deplored
very much the agitation which prevailed on this question,
which he believed had the effect of keeping from the Esta-
blishment many persons who were partly Dissenters
and partly Churchmen. (Hear, hear.) He suggested
a compromise based on the recommendation of the licuso
of Lords, namely, that in cases where persons objected to
pay the rate, and were summoned to the Ecclesiastical
Court, they should not be required to pay it, but should
not be permitted to vote on any question affecting the
Establishment.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER congra-
tulated the house on the growing feeling in favour of
bringing this question to a conclusion. No re-
verse of opinion had taken place in his mind in
reference to this question, and therefore he felt bound
to vote against the second reading of this bill. He
strongly denied that there was a genuine feeling-
country against the union of Church and State, and he re-
ferred to the petitions presented by Dissenters in favour of
the maintenance of this rate to show that amongst that
body there was not uniformity in opposition to this im-
post. He contended that the illustration of the noble
lord (Fermoy) of the Church of Ireland did not apply to
the Established Church in this country. He said the
question divided itself into two—namely, its application of
church rates to rural and to town parishes. In town
parishes there were rumbers of persons not in communion
with the Church, but the case was entirely altered as
regarded rural parishes, for there the majority
necessarily belonged to the Established Church.
In the former, also,the value of property rapidly increased,
while in the country its growth was slow ; and it must be
remembered, with regard to the maintenance of the Esta-
blished Church, that it was a legitimate and well-known
charge on land. He contended that it was quite impracti-
cable to suppose that the fabric of the churches in rural
parishes could be maintained by the voluntary principle,
the tendency of which would be to secularise the clergy,
on whom would devolve the duty of maintaining
those fabrics. Those who advocated the introduction
of the voluntary principle generally were not aware of the
danger that existed in changing the' traditional religion or
the practices in regard to it that prevailed amongst the
people of a nation. He should be happy to see the matter
satisfactorily settled, but he would not consent even to such
a result effected by a comprimise of a principle. There were
8,000 or 10,000 rural parishes which, if left to the voluntary
principle, would be unprovided with church accommoda-
tion. After some further observation the right hon. gen-
tleman said he felt bound to record his vote against the
second reading of this bill. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT thought that if the new plan of the right
hon. gentleman was to be carried out, he must begin by
adopting the bill of the hon. baronet who proposed aboli-
tion. If they were not prepared to adopt that bill he
thought it would be better to let the matter alone
altogether. He could assure hon. members that
none of the schemes for compromise which had
been proposed would satisfy those who promoted the
motion for abolition, and that if such a measure did pass the
House of Commons it would not allay the agitation which
existed. (Hear, hear.) This was a question of supremacy
on the part of a large Establishment. The Church of Eng-
land was the only one in Christendom in which the Minis-
ter of the day appointed the bishops. There was not long
since a Prime Minister who was a Presbyterian, and he had
the appointment of bishops of the English Church. The
present Prime Minister had had, it was said, the appoint-
ment of half the bishops on the bench, and although many
would be inclined to say that the noble lord was a great
statesman, there were few who would contend that he had
any peculiar fitness to discharge the duties of a divine or
ecclesiastic. Adverting to the sale of church livings, the
hon. gentleman contended that it was contrary to reason
and offensive to the eye of heaven. (The hon. gentleman
read some amusing anecdotes in connection with this
subject.) He proceeded to speak of the "Essays and
Reviews," as showing the divisions which existed in the
Church of England. The writers had been denounced as
" The Sevgb. Champions of un-Christendom," in a style
which, if it was not just, was extremely violent. He con.
eluded by assuring the house that the Nonconformists
would never rest until they had achieved this victory.
Mr. DISRAELI contended that Sir J. Trelawny's
bill involved an assault upon the independence of pa-
rishes and the integrity If the Church. He thought the
decision the house came to, that it was advisable, totally and
unconditionally to abolish church rates, was an unfortunate
one, because such a resolution stood in the way of an im-
provement of the law. Such was the statement he had
lately made to his constituents and neighbours, and
it had been made a charge against him that he
had made a speech for party purposes. Such ea
Chu
ared
charge
he denied. The right hon. gentleman de
of England against the attacks of Mr. Brfiegnhdted, and decl
the intention of his party to maintain its integrity.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought the question was of great
importance, whether it was poss.ible to plat® the Church
; n with regard to church
in the same Pos."
rates as the Church enjoyed with regard to
tithes and landed property. If that could be done he bad
no doubt the Church would enjoy a career
of uninterrupted usefulness. He remembered the agitation
by Dissenters against the slave trade first, and then
against slavery itself—he remembered their agitation
against the Test and Corporation Act, and many other
agitations, and they all knew how those agitations had
ended. (Hear.) If Parliament were now to refuse to
settle this question once for all, they would see the same
machinery put in motion—they would find the question
brought forward at every election—it would be constantly
brought forward, and they would either carry the question
or be defeated, with the certainty always that the contest
would be renewed after every defeat. (Hear, hear.) But
was it an advantage to the Church that this should be so ?
(Ministerial cheers.) Would it strengthen the Church
pr promote the best interests of the country at largo, that