The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-17 00:00:00

CHURCH-RATES.

Sir JOHN EASTHOPE rose to bring forward the
motion of which he had given notice, with regard to
Church-rates. He expressed his extreme r egret that this
question had not been taken up by her Majesty's
Government; he was surprised that it had not been one
of the questions considered by the present Government,
as the Right Hon. Baronet had himself avowed, in
former discussions on this subject, that it was
a most important one ; and he was, therefore, jus-
tified in supposing it one likely to engage the attention
of the Government at the earliest moment
it could give to its consideration. In the session of
1835, the Right Hon. Baronet had borne witness to the
importance of the question, and it was from that con-
sidered that this would have been one of the questions
that he would have brought before Parliament, had not
his stay in office been cut short. It was naturally, then,
a cause of regret and surprise that the Right
Hon. Baronet, with all the power to execute his own
will, had not brought it forward ; and it was difficult to
conceive what causes could make it less important now
than at that time. In a speech delivered on that
occasion,- the Right Honourable Baronet said that,
without undervaluing the importance of the Municipal
Corporations Bill, he roust observe that the Church-rates
question was fully equal to it in emergency, and for the
sake of the continuance of harmony, and the pro-
motion of satisfactory feelings among the great body
of the Dissenters, there was no single question, with
the exception of that of the Irish Church, which so
immediately pressed for settlement.—(Hear, hear.)
He hoped he did not unnecessarily take up the time of
the House in ealling its attention to what were the
opinions of the Right Hon. Baronet on former occasions.
When the subject was brought forward by Lord Althorp,
the Right Hon. Baronet told the Noble Lord that he was
b mud to proceed with the subject, and ought not to
leave it a matter of contention for years. The Right
Honourable Gentleman, in the year 1825, said
it almost amounted to a dereliction of duty to
allow the matter to proceed for such a length
of time without a remedy; and yet, year after year, it had
gone on without a remedy. And, perhaps, it would be
a waste of time to go through the reasons which pre-
vented it being settled. It had been the desire of the
Noble Lord, the Member for London, and those who
acted with him, to have this question settled, but
he had obstacles to meet him which were not in
the way of the Right Honourable Baronet, who
had powerful majorities in both Houses of Par-
liament. But it was no part of his duty to defend
any course that might have been pursued With regard to
this question. He only wished to ask whether the sub-
ject was not as important now as when the Right llon.
Baronet made those statements ? It had been declared
also by parties in the House that Church-rates were a
grievance on the Dissenters ; and the only question was,
what was to be substituted for them. In 1834, Lord
Spencer, and, in 1837, Lord Monteagle, brought for-
ward measures or the abolition of Church-rates,
which were lost in both Houses of Parliament.
Every Government for the last ten years made and
sanctioned the efforts of others, to remove the grievance
of Church-rates, and different substitutes were pro-
posed •, but it must be felt by the Dissenters to be a
great hardship that, while the grievence was admitted
and proclaimed, it was still continued,' because a substi-
tute could not be agreed on. Those proposed by Lords
Althorp and Monteagle may be bad substitutes, but still all
agreed that the abolition of Church-rates was desirable.
They had had recommended from the Throne in 1837
the consideration of the question of Church-rates, and
in the debate on the Address a general understanding
Trevailed that there was to be an abolition of
Church-rates, and that some substitute would be
sought and found for the maintenance of the Church.
In the course of the debate in the Session
of 1834, on Lord Althorp's motion, no individual
1 Member of the House more severely characterised
Church-rates than the present Noble Secretary of the
Colonies ; and with the strong feeling that the Noble Lord
had expressed. he could not help believing that he and
other Members of the Government would think it de-
sirable to see the termination of this irritable and
disturbing question.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member,
after referring to the statements of the Noble Lord,
in the debate, observed that he was afraid the House
would "think he was almost needlessly taking up their
time by alluding to this subject ; but he would ask the
House, what must the feelings of the Dissenters be,
when they heard from the Throne that their griev-
ances were to be removed ; when all parties con-
curred that it was a most serious grievance,
and an impost that ought not to be borne ; and
that, up to the present, time, nothing had
been done ? Upon the point of its being a grievance,
an unjustifiable and unnecessary grievance, there
was authority almost amounting to universal concurrence.
He thought it would be scarcely said that, whatever
difficulties there might be in the way of a remedy, they
were ready to perpetuate injustice. What he recom-
mended would be to contribute to the advantage of the
Church, the religion of the Church, and the happiness of
the people. These are not to be violated because there
were difficulties to contend with in consultin2. the in-
terests of certain parties He r membered on a former
occasion the Honourable Baronet, the Member
for the University of Oxford, said, in the
course of the debate on Lord Auckland's motion,
that the Dissenters bore an inconsiderable portion of the
amount of Church-rates. The Hon. Baronet then said
that the whole amount of Church-rates was 566,0001.
per year, and that he believed that the Dissenters did
not pay more than one quarter of that amount.
For the abuses that he had mentioned, it could be by no
means difficult for a strong Government, like the present,
to devise a remedy. He believed that the remedy he
proposed would be amply sufficient to m eet all the diffi-
culties of the case. No one could be more anxious than
he was to guard against any injury to the interests of the
Church. The measure which he should propose to the
House was, in the first place, the abolition of Church-
rates, excepting as far as regarded the arrears of debts
for the payment of which Church-rates had been pledged.
In all cases, where endowments and voluntary subscrip-
tions were insufficient for keeping churches in repair, he
would give power to the churchwardens to levy pew
rents for that purpose. In several large parishes
Church-rates had fallen into decline, and he ap•
prehended that no difficulty arose from that
circumstance in maintaining churches in repair. If
those who were identified with public worship were
found jobbing and manoeuvring with the money with
which they were entrusted, it must not only excite anger
on the part of those who witnessed it, but must bring reli-
gion itself into contempt, and produce many other evils
which they must all desire to prevent. Let them con-
sider the continual' anti-social differences which cha-
racterised the vestry system, the legal controversies
which were proceeding in all parts of the country, the
fines inflicted on tender consciences ; humble individuals
being exposed to difficulties, which pressed much upon
their own comforts and the comforts of their families.
Surely no man could contemplate the continuance of all
these mischiefs, without asking again and again what
were the objects for which the system was continued ?
Recollecting the paltry sum which was contribed by Dis-
senters, it was impossible that the strongest supporter of
the Church could fail to perceive that the miseries en-
tailed were unequal to the advantages desired.
The Hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of
Oxford, and others had stated that that was felt to be a
question of property. But he (Sir J. Easthope) koped
that that doctrine was now exploded. The decision
in the Ecclesiastical Courts must have gone far
to destroy such a notion. How was it possible
that anybody could seriously contemplate, as a
question of property, that which depended upon the num-
ber of individuals attending the Parish Vestry at Easter,
and upon the accidental circumstances whether there
happened to be more Dissenters or Churchmen present
—more friendly to the continuance of the rate
or inimical to it ? How any person contemplated
it as a question of property, at the same time seeing
that it depended upon such a contingency, he was
utterly at a loss to imagine. Then, if it were looked
upon as a question of privilege rs'...• zerzig the pre-eminence
and authority of the Church what possible advantage
he would ask, c. uld the Church derive from
saying to those who differed from her—" We
have the power of makirg ou pay for ur support
and we shall exercise that power ?" Such an assumption
was totally at variance with every Christian and
benevolent feeling. It was so fraught with mischief,
and with all those inconveniences which had been so
often deprecated in that House, that he hoped he
should hear no more of it. He could scarcely think
any individual in thot House would now attempt to
justify a continuance of Church-rates on the ground
either of its being a question of property, or on the still
more important ground of its being a question by which
the Church could exhibit her principles and power.
He felt that he should best consult his own
feelings upon the question by not taking up
any longer the time of the House. The subject had
been so often debated—the merits and demerits of the
question were, he was persuaded, so fully and so generally
understood—the belief was so universal that the tax
was a grievance upon Dissenters, unredeemed by
any positive good to the Church—the rate was so
violently and so bitterly disputed, that he only
felt it necessary to conclude at once by moving for leave
to bring in " a Bill to abolish Church-rates, and make
other provisions for the maintenance of Churches and
Chapels in England and Wales."
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

The debate was interrupted by a Message from the
Lords, bringing down several private Bills, and the Wit-
nesses Indemnity Bill, which had been agreed to without
any amendments.
CH URC H-RATES.

The House then resumed, and
Sir B. H. INGLIS rose. He said be believed no
speech that had been delivered in that House during the
session had been so easily made as the speech
just delivered by the Hon Member. He believed
if any other Honourable Gentleman had taken up the
volume of Hansard for the 25th of May, 1841, he would
have found not merely the same arguments that had
just been offered, but the same ornaments and the same
quotations from the speeches delivered by others, and

11(` ~'_

_n the saute words. i'o o he
eotthi riot do othere.ise than state old Pe
plies. Notwithstanding the attempts of Lord AMOY
in 1834, and of Lord Monteagle, in 1837, nothing
practical had ever been done on this subject'
The first Bill was thrown out almost without
discussion, and the proposal to take the
pense of repairing the Church out of the Celli
solidated Fund, was totally rejected by the great
body of the Dissenters, of, whom he believed the
Honourable Baronet was the not unwilling orgia
The Hon. Member for Leicester had asked him, ho
sci
with his views refusing to contribute towards the
Dissenters, he could be willing to impose a tax upon con:
science ? Now, he would ask him, in return, if he should
contend, as he had done, that Church-rates were notecal
tax on property, because they were fluctuating and fix
by vestry, how he could distinguish them from -Poor'
rates ? and unless the Honourable Baronet could prove
that Poor-rates, because they were fluctasta,g!
were not a tax upon property, his asserts=
would go for nothing. Formerly there certainly `did
great opposition to Church-rates, but he a
not think that was the case at Peesea
He 'believed the amount of opposition to the Chuth,,'
rates was greatly diminished. He believed the nurc-rtt
of cases against the rate now existing in any Clit
was less than when the subject was first brouf,
of
forward. At all events they had not incre° - f
The Hon. Gentleman referred to the small amount 0,
the rate paid by Dissenters, and used it as an aurgli„
ment ad verecundiam. How could he, said the '11,,,t
Gentlemen, consent to such a burden fur the sh"oft
of 14,000/. ? But that told two ways, and he (Sir Rob
Inglis) never made the question one of pounds,
and pence. His claim was that the Church-rates tve
a national tribute to the national Church, and it teas
on that ground he argued for their continuance.—(Hen
best
And so far from the people of England thinking the pal "-es;
of the rate a burden, they considered it one of the higbti,
privileges to pay it; and only a feW years ago 3,188 Pee.
tions were presented in favour of them. Nor were these r".„
tions for vague generalities, in which the petitioners were t 0
terested, but they spontaneously flowed into the House "
persons asking to he allowed to contribute to the rate....,„
would be the same thing to the conscience of an honest
senter whether the rates were paid from the consolidated Necra
for it would be only a mere transference of the payment !rim
one body to another of Dissenters. The tax was one
oldest in England. The Church-rate was a rate paid by her
Thompson in respect of such a house or field ; and `Oct
John Smith or John Thompson held the house or field it led
be precisely the same. It was not apoll-tax ; it was not k
on the individual, but on the wrson in respect of his proper,!le
With this conviction he could not understand—he did net 'D'at
to use in private or in public harsh language—but he ennidicp
ss
understand the honesty of the man who having purchased !ta
auctioneer property, with deductions, in respect of land the
church-rates, &c., all coming in regularly the one ee
lot
other—deducting these, by which the value of a house sn
estimated, he could not understand the honesty of that-tis
who having made the deduction turned round and sae
conscience refused to pay the amount because it had refere
to certain uses. He had not to consider the use to chi` og
money would afterwards be applied in his payment of a debt- ,tit
had to pay his debt however profligate the expenditure hem ee
encourage in his creditors. The Hon. Baronet bad no ohit:c
to the Church-rate being levied upon pews or sittings of the
Church. In the first place, one of the great privileges ° es,
people of England was—and which he wi,hed to free
tend instead of diminish—that they would have the
access to their parish church. He would not wish to see e
ft
people obliged to pay to go into their parish church the saulfs,"
they would to go into a theatre--( Hear)—he would thereto
not consent to a proposition which would have the err
of keeping the poor people out of their parish churchas' 1,0
proposition of the Hon. Baronet was, that taxes should be 1,
tr
on seats in parish churches, in rural districts, for the Inantiiiei
nance of the fabrics. He (Sir R. Inglis) thought thatro
ought not to deprive the poor of the benefit of attending n°,, fete
by any such burden, to which at present- they were eoein es
jected. He (Sir R. Inglis) objected to the propositi
principle. He contended, then, that it was inexpedient to e•i.g
the permission which Honourable Gentlemen sought- „ion'
thise reasons, and believing the Bill to be founded on a T!'not,
principle, he thought it not only more convenient for the take
but more respectful to the Hon. Gentleman, himself t° for
the sense of the House upon the question, without orai!ingrin'
further opportunitiy to discuss that which was wrong l° llre is
ciple. He would therefore venture to oppose the mess
the first instance. fpnde)
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD said that having c°n: fer
much against Church-rates he might be allowed to saY
words on the present occasion. The real question at lot the
the connection of Church and State, in other words. wu.ed by
there should be a Church established in England and 141 did
the State.--( Hear, hear.) If they had a right to tithe„sthose
had a right to Church-rates, but Ins opinion was that 11'glei
practices should be abolished—that no man should be cenncrie'
to pay for the religion of another man. It was upon tbst P.
ciple that he would support the proposition of the 11°°,' o
eft
ronet, but in his opinion the Hon. Gentleman bad n°'',7
far enough. The people of Ireland had contended not rf,;rrtei
against Church-rates, but against tithes, and they had be
their object. He requested that the Hon. Baronet, vt'A- 03e
again brought forward the question, would put forvear",o be
claim which all men not belonging to the Church bad,siesse6
exempt from the payment of Church-rates. Having
these opinions, he would not further trouble the House. eta
Mr. GALLY KNIGHT said the Hon. Gentleman sch°o its
just sat down appeared to him to have put the question osf
preper light when he stated that the question at isg-neite
the very existence of the Established Church.—( Hear.)rlerci,
agreed with the Hon. Gentleman, that if the Established Cfor- iti
was to be maintained there must be adequate provision depend
support. The Hon. Baronet would say "Leave it to lost
upon the voluntary principle." He was willing teddni(leteoll
that was an important auxiliary, but they could dot tbeins
upon it as a permanent means of support. He could 0° tee to
himself to believe that the pew-rents, or any other soLeet
which the Hon. Baronet had referred,' would afford sow' '
cop funds. After long consideration he had come to the e
that nothing could be so advantageous to the Va. tbst
Church as the old parochial system. It appeared to Inn% of
they should not make such a concession as the abolit',°"tbe
Church-rates to one particular class. He admitted tbta't
no
time was when the Church was asleep--(Latightek)--,.°,5h tO
complaints could now be made of the manner in ,on'fcie.)
ministers discharged their duties.—(Cries of "lily,' eriP
There had not been so many Church-rate contests as, I°,;'"jette'
(The last part of the Hon. Member's address was tl"e,t snot
dible from the great impatience of the House, and the log'
of divide. and question.) en
Lord J. RUSSELL said he could not, after the
of the two Hon. Gentlemen, give his vote without OP a
ve it•
in a few words, the motives from which he should g there,
Both the Honourable Members seemed to think that and
01'
could not be an Established Church without Church-rte'f the,
that the existence of one must depend on the existence the,
other. Now, with respect to two portions of the a ttoere,
Kingdom, they did not exist. In Ireland and Sedtlnblishe"
were no Church-rates, and still there was an Dsw gear'
Cnurch ; there was another kind of rate on the land--ierch'
hear.) Therefore it was not true that there must be sro
rates. In order to maintain an Established Church, isaft Pr
necessary was, that some provision should be made 1)1 ,e et'
the maintenance of the fabric of the church, and for the krs
formance of public worship ; but it was not necessary tint 110'
should be this particular form of Church-rates which thhee
Gentlemen were so eager to promote. If that were t el,
of the case, the question was, whether there was Whiter • the
or grievance existing as would induce the House to alt fl• et
form in which the Church should be maintained. too;
Gentleman who spoke last said that the old and present 0'1,"
was the best, but still he suggested that there should :hew'
alteration in the law, and admitted that there Or ntsil!;
burnings. That was admitting a great evil with respect Itaros,,
taming the Church. This and other evils the Hon. balP
proposed to remedy. He did not propose simpli t°
Church-rates, but to make other provision ht
the Church. He (Lord John Russell) then'titi°.°
was fair to make some proposal for the
sumoi:re
of Church-rates, provided care was taken that sufficib,
sion was secured for the maintenance of the Cher no
would not say whether the provisions the Hots. Mein nroe he,
posed were sufficient or not; if he found they o'er° as e°,,
should vote against the second reading of the Bill. It carr,,
very likely that the Hon. Gentleman would be able '
his measure, but he trusted that this grievance of Churn tiPor
would not be of many years' duration. He should otete i,e
proposal made by: Lord Althorp, to provide a subse,ite-r
Church-rates out of the public revenue, would be be: 're Ise
the present proposition. He hoped if the present raea-° to IP
not carried the Government would turn their attentiler Pry
subject, and put an end to Church-rates by making c't
vision for the Church. ot4
spool
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER sal
he differed from the Noble Lord in the vote which he
or pri,iee
give on the present occasion, he agreed with him in t t%
ciple he laid down, that the essential point was to see not' ho
maintenance of the fabric of the Established Church•
was not satisfied with the measure proposed, as -one ntleo,e
answer that object. He gave the Honourable ueecieflii,
opposite credit for his sincerity to provide 'char
means for the maintenance of the fabric of the gesrt.e
but he failed in his application of those means,-iti on tea
He had before acquiesced in the introduction of a stela
subject, but now the provisions of the previous Bill wer, 100
in detail, and he was now in a situation to say that the yet?,
defeat the object which the Noble Lord said ought to festos
in view. The Hon. Gentleman would levy a rate 00, „,;
and pews except those belonging to the ehurchwarle,: lel
that was at variance with the Noble Lord's princiP -roe' to
doctrine of their religion was,-that the Gospel should be ligeinger
to the poor, and they ought not to be prevented from r°ht hep,
church. He knew it would be said that free seats twg char it
•vided. That might apply very well to some modern. , but i,,
where provision was specially made for that purl'e'„esrish,,to
would not do in others. He lived himself is a g 0
which the owners of cottages had pews, and they did nt.'obloortie,
them as paupers, but with an honest pride that, asp ar Oeiiber
they had a right to them. Now, he asked the WI"; numb
man, in the case of a church needing repairs, and:l Vt's°„ee
of .pews being very limited, what was to be don • the ,ie,
churchwarden to estimate the amount to be levied relleo"
holders ? Supposing the church needed 200/. a-Year• to
and there were twenty pews, was the churchtrrtil). eller:01J
104 a-year on each for the purpose of the repairs° oe-eer corcb
Such a plan he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) do chi„so
support. He would not consent to exclude from the
ser;eti
those who had a right to a seat there. There would' ase
evils which would give rise to a great degree ofteel,
complaint on the part of those who would be air.,, f Chiette
far from relieving the complaints on the sukien, those ,ratil
rates, those walls would ring with the petitions oiLes, and
would thereby be excluded from their parish chum°ro
on the House for interference.
what had fa ha
Mr. O'CONNELL did not agree with where onl
from the Hor.ourable Gentleman, particularly fie the
gave an historical account of the Church' behind 410
that in modern churches there was
aapacehee sce"n''so'
pews for tree seats, but that the ancient char
gas
with pews. Now he must be totally mistaken2...necGosre
110,0
cient times churches had no pews at all. Tn.eue p00.1.,_ the
then preached without any distinction betweettZ entPeelar
and the rich man. He (11r. O'Connell) differ ,amts
Hon. Gentleman in the principle of supporting an e
Church by Church-rates. In Itelan
enlist' Chu
d there ,`" Ther rch
blished Church where Church-rates did not a
a stronger case than this in Ireland. Thera was„rovisniad
ruledwitho without
rcehbuyreah
rieartea
srchoyr withoutlegal
p
wealthy Bishops and Archbishops. They rer settee!' bite
the feu
archy ; they did not require the support
we eld they provision—an
silted
crutch of the State to bear them up. -° ile It scs'
that the Protestant Church was able to dos -,,o„htsv• he re'
that Church-rates were a tax, but not in cow% mighete;enito
a tax created by Act of Parliament, and as '
hunrche° '4..0 there
pealed. Chureh-rates for the building
°f c agora:11'1"o were
a modern invention. At the time of the church mere s
All the._.l there There
were no rates for such a purpose.
gbureilattec,nntuhme
number
rluonf tcahruyrpch7iensciinpleE.
ngAlatnhtaii.%lsoariti,""perehasneirti;eunntaanr;l,
were 55,000 churches, and no less than 4.7 t on the. this re..
d resen 't w" 1,0
ic,hrianperilpsleo.f ease,Nl,h aatndaevceoryntornats.toEf
nthgeiam.il_bputto
;teal in otbn:
epect now. But .to return to ta,7_, ever) , were
imposed for a limited purpose,.. u`i'vrid wh%
a right to seek to be freed from 3.___,,oienee ot
objections to it? It was against the cum"