SECOND NIGHT.

HC Deb 27 April 1860 vol 158 cc259-301

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [19th April], "That the Bill be now read the third time."

Question again proposed.

Debate resumed.

MR. WHITESIDE

The hon. Baronet is entitled to a fair consideration of his measure this evening, and I do not wish that we should take leave of it for the Session without a parting word. I say for the Session, because, although the hon. Baronet has pursued this Question with industry and zeal, it has been with varied success. As far as I can understand the speeches of the hon. Baronet on this subject, which I have had the good fortune to hear him deliver in this House for some years past, he entertains the belief that there is some great practical grievance connected with church rates pressing on a large class of Her Majesty's subjects of which it his duty to obtain the redress. While we have a Reform Bill, a Budget, a Commercial Treaty before us, the hon. Baronet concentrates his energies upon a measure that is to strip his countrymen, in a Christian nation, of the power of imposing on themselves, if they should think fit, an assessment for the support of the fabric of the Church, devoted to the religion of the State. I have sometimes been disposed to ask the hon. Baronet at what period of our history did this injustice first arise? By what Sovereign, in a reign of ignorance and darkness, was the law enacted? By what Parliament was it passed? I find that the establishment of this right was not the act of King, Parliament, or even Bishop, but that it owes its existence to and springs from the common law of England. And what is the common law of England—for no country but England possesses such a blessing? If you asked any other European nation what was the law, they show you their code in a little red book that might be bought for half-a-crown, but might be dear at 6d., as the laws it contained rest on the will of a despot who may abolish them by a word. But the common law of England has existed from time immemorial. It is the result of the wishes, the interests, the hopes, desires, and deepest convictions of the people. Such I understand and believe to be the origin of this rate. What is it? Not, as it has been described by the hon. Baronet, a tax that exists, and which he seeks to take away; but a power that certain persons, being the majority of a parish, possess, in conformity with the principle on which the whole constitution rests, to affirm a church rate that can be assessed on those who are summoned to attend and do not choose to do so. A petition in favour of the abolition of the rate has been presented by an active body, called a Society for Liberating the Church from State Control. This Society has been well advised outside the walls of this House. It has presented an elaborate statement by way of petition in which the church rate is represented as an ecclesiastical extortion, which could never be recovered before the common law courts, or by any common law process known in this country. That is very ingeniously put forward, and for a certain purpose. The society thinks it can appeal to those who are called—sometimes very erroneously—the friends of religious liberty. Here is a tax, imposed only by ecclesiastical power, that to certain classes is a grievance, and ought to be removed. Those views are put forward also in The Liberator, a paper devoted to the Liberal purpose of abolishing the Church of England. The other House of Parliament has instituted a very interesting inquiry into the subject of church rates, and one of the questions investigated by that Committee is the very one on which, in a great measure, the advocate of this Bill rests his case. Two witnesses were called before that Committee, to whose evidence I would ask the hon. Baronet's attention, because I believe him to be a candid man, and, though he has brought forward this Bill repeatedly, he says he is a Friend of the Church. I can hardly believe, after he has examined the question with the care and caution that become every man who seeks to overset a law and custom that have existed for ages, he will not be convinced, withdraw his Bill, and leave the Church of England where he found it. The two witnesses examined were Mr. Toulmin Smith and Dr. Lushington. The last is one of the most eminent persons in the country, and was long an ornament to the Liberal party in this House. When I read the evidence of Mr. Toulmin Smith I concluded he had been put forward as a strong orthodox Episcopalian witness; but to my great surprise, I found that this learned and candid person is a Dissenter. I beg to acknowledge my obligation to him; I have been instructed by his learning, and he has convinced me that moderation, justice, and fairness may exist in the Dissenting body. I believe he is a religious, not a political Dissenter. But though a Dissenter, he has devoted his time and attention to ascertaining in what source this power of imposing a church rate took its rise. He differs in some respects from Dr. Lushington, but, substantially, scarcely at all. The main difference is that Dr. Lushington traces the rate up to Saxon times; Mr. Toulmin Smith thinks it less by ten years than 500 years old. He states that in 1350, 1376, and 1379, it was shown by the statutes and rolls of Parliament that complaints were made of endowments devoted to the church fabrics being diverted from their purpose, and as a consequence the churches were in ruin. In the old year books he found that in 1370 "a suit was brought against one A. touching goods taken by way of distress for a rate." A. avowed the taking, for there had been a meeting of the parishioners of the church of E. to repair defects in their church, and because there was a de- fect in the roof they made a tax upon themselves of the sum of £10 to repair the defects. What did this prove to any candid man? That nearly 500 years ago, it was an ancient custom for the parishioners to be summoned together, and for those parishioners, when assembled, to impose a rate, which rate was levied from even a reluctant parishioner, who was bound to pay it. Mr. Toulmin Smith observes that this case was a very important one with reference to one objection—namely, that based on the supposition that church rates could be levied only through the Ecclesiastical Courts. This opinion he pronounces to be "a complete mistake." It is, perhaps, true that in modern times there have been some encroachments, and that the Ecclesiastical Courts have got possession of the means of enforcing the rate; but that does not disestablish that for which I contend—namely, that church rates took their root in the common law of England, and were capable of being enforced by the principles of common law. The learned Gentleman proceeds to say that the parish had a right to bind the parishioners for other purposes connected with the parish just as effectually as if a rate were made for the purpose. The answers of Dr. Lushington are full of kindness, courtesy, and good feeling towards the Church of England. He will not resign his privileges as a member of that Church; he does not wish to be exempted from the payment of the rate; he has satisfied himself of its legality and justice; he has proved its antiquity, as springing from the old common law of the country; and I cannot conceive a piece of testimony more interesting, or that commends itself more to the impartial consideration of the Legislature. Some person has said that, except by vote, the parishioners could not apply the church rate to any other purpose than the repair and maintenance of the church fabric and the preservation of the churchyard. But that question has been investigated by Mr. Toulmin Smith, who says that, if the parishioners have notice of the purpose to which the rate is to be applied, and, knowing it, approve its application in that manner, the proceeding is as good and valid as if a rate were specifically raised for repairing the roof of a church. Dr. Lushington, in his evidence, says he has no doubt whatever this privilege arose in Saxon times. I stop at that word "Saxon," because I think it has a great bearing on the argument. Those who laid the foundation of our liberties, of the constitution under which we live, and of our common law, had no notion of the existence of a State without having in every district a church that might be suitable, in which the nation acknowledged the God that conferred such blessings on it. They had no idea how a nation was to be governed and to prosper if the men who enjoyed the fruits of the earth were not to have a building in which to give their Creator thanks for the blessings he showered on them. But, if they were to have a national worship, it was also necessary that they should have a fabric in which to render it, and therefore it followed that they got power to make assessments which were to be applied to the sustentation of that fabric. Dr. Lushington says the Saxons decided in ancient times by the vote of the majority, and all that the minorities could do was to submit and to turn themselves as speedily as they could into majorities, which is sometimes a difficult matter. I do not see any difference between a member of the minority in old times refusing to pay the rate, and a Quaker who refuses to pay taxes in time of war. In fact, it would be much more reasonable for a man conscientiously opposed to war to refuse to contribute than it would have been for any well-regulated mind to refuse to pay his penny in the pound in support of the old parish church. Dr. Lushington explains the case referred to so much of late, and shows the error of the decision had its origin in the neglect of the law of the majority, for the churchwardens having only the minority to support them failed in their attempt. Consequently the decision of the House of Lords affirming that the majority only can bind the minority has only brought the matter back to the rule laid down by the old common law. The hon. Baronet says the church rates have ceased to be collected in many parishes; that is a matter to be regretted; but he follows that up in the preamble by saying that they should not be collected in any place. I confess I do not perceive the sequence of the conclusion to the premises in that argument. Because it is not paid in some parishes it does not follow that it should be refused in all. It may be said that the progress of enlightenment, of reason, and of liberality has a tendency to change all those old ideas. Listen to the opinion of one who has written many things with which I do not agree—and I only quote a writer where his sentiments agree with my own—but whose name will possibly carry weight with some. Mr. Cobbett, writing of the prosperity of England, and of one of its most flourishing counties, says,— Suffolk is the crack county of England; it is I think the best, the most carefully, and the most skilfully cultivated piece of land of the same size in the whole world. Labourers are most active in the culture of the land; the farmers' wives and women employed in agriculture are as frugal, adroit, and cleanly as any in the world. They are a most frank, industrious, and virtuous people"—[we really ought all to settle in Suffolk]—"and their houses are models of cleanliness, neatness, and good order. Then Mr. Cobbett puts the practical question—what is the reason of all this? The reason is this:— There is a parish church in every three square miles or less, and the district is divided into such numerous parishes that the persons residing in it may be said to be constantly under the eye of the resident parochial minister. I want to know whether, in proceeding against church rates the right hon. Baronet intends to subvert the parochial system. We must understand the steps of this social revolution, which comes in a new light before us since the evidence given before the Committee of the House of Lords. Does he intend that, the parochial system being upset, we shall have the country divided into districts in which roving clergymen shall get together congregations wherever they may find persons willing to attend to them? I confess that I have been puzzled to understand the meaning of this Bill. When were church rates first complained of? By the old Dissenters, who differed, I deeply lament, from the Church on religious grounds? Never! I could quote authority after authority among eminent Dissenters, all showing that the Dissenters as a body were in favour of maintaining the Church, from which, on certain grounds of conscience, they did dissent; but they were too candid, too learned, and too just, to invent a pretended scruple of conscience in order to carry out a deep political design. Their Lordships seem not to have understood the character of some of the men whom they were dealing with, and to whom they gave credit for liberal and enlightened views. These witnesses said, "We desire to think as we like." Good; but they added to that, "We desire to make every other man think as we like also." They were asked, "Supposing we abolish church rates altogether from Dissenting congregations, will you be satisfied?" "Certainly not" was the reply, "because, though you prevent Churchmen from imposing payment on Dissenters, you would still give to Churchmen the power of making rates on Churchmen, which we cannot submit to." But when did these objections commence? Certainly not with John Wesley. I am not going to trouble the House with statistics. I think for the last twenty years we have suffered under a load of statistics. The Wesleyans constitute half the orthodox Dissenters in England, but no man will now be justified in saying that the Wesleyans as a body have taken up this movement against the Church. Such an allegation has been put an end to by the testimony of Mr. Bunting—a name that ought never to be mentioned without respect—and the Rev. Mr. Osborne. Mr. Bunting was examined before the Committee of the House of Lords, and the evidence which he gave is of the most valuable character. He confirmed entirely the evidence of Mr. Osborne, an eminent member of the Wesleyans, as to the favourable light in which that body regards church rates and the Established Church, and the very small number of persons belonging to the body who had ever objected to the rate or refused to pay it. As to anything like concentrated action against the rate, he states in his evidence that if it were attempted seriously it would meet with resolute opposition, and probably imperil the unity of the body. During the agitation which took place in 1857 against the rate, Mr. Bunting states that a minister of the connection, of considerable influence in the body, wrote a letter against church rates and circulated it, but his conduct was noticed at the ensuing Conference, and a vote of censure passed on all such proceedings. In Mr. Bunting's opinion, judging from the tone of the discussions in Parliament and of the public press, there is considerable misapprehension existing as to the number of Nonconformists who entertain any conscientious objections to pay the rates. The opposition, he told the Committee, proceeds principally from three bodies—the Baptists, the Independents, and the various sects of Methodists who have seceded from the original body; but they are a minority of the whole Nonconformist body, and even among them the number of opponents to the rate is comparatively small. This shows that Parliament has mistaken noise and bluster for something substantial and real. It turns out, according to the testimony of these good and excellent men, that a large ma- jority do not object to church rates. The reason why the Wesleyans look with favour on the rate, according to Mr. Bunting, is, that they would be sorry to see any injury done to a great religious agency. To use his own words— There is a general feeling that the Church of England is a power of essential importance to the religion of the country, and increasingly so, and we should be sorry to destroy anything in which there was a blessing. The whole tenour of this gentleman's evidence proves that the influential community to which he belongs would be unwilling to strike a blow at the Church of England. He acknowledges most frankly that the Church of England is the only Church which makes any permanent religious provision for the poor. The tests of Christianity were, I may remind the House, that the blind saw, the deaf heard, the leper was cleansed, and even the dead raised; but the climax of the whole was, "that the poor had the Gospel preached to them" Again, when questioned by the Archbishop of Canterbury, whether the Dissenting body generally sufficiently provided for the maintenance of religion in the rural districts, and the less populous parts of the country, Mr. Bunting replied— Certainly not. I think all experience is against that. I am glad to say that the Wesleyan Methodists do all in their power; but it is impossible for us to provide for populations as the Church of England can do. I should extend that observation also to large towns. I think that portions of large towns will never be provided for except by the parochial system. Dissenters never have done this; and I think there are insuperable difficulties in the way of their doing it. Then he was asked when the last church rate contest took place in Manchester. He replied:— About two years ago. It was a serious contest, and the powers of both sides were put to the test. The Methodists, generally, supported the rate; and the result was a majority for the church rate. I am inclined," he added, "to think that church rates have failed from neglect rather than anything else. If Manchester were now polled," [and this raises Manchester vastly in my estimation] "I think, the Church having exerted itself there so much of late, that the result would be in favour of church rates. And why was this? Because an active minister of religion, sincere, zealous, not indulging in vagaries, but adhering to the doctrines and practices of the Reformed Church, is always respected. And it is on such grounds that this gentleman is of opinion that if a church rate were now proposed in Manchester it would be carried. Having, then, proved the antiquity of church rates, and the feeling of the Pro- testant Nonconformists, such as John Wesley, one of the best men that over lived, I proceed to inquire, where did the opposition to church rates begin? The opposition originally began at Birmingham, in a political union, very much about the same time as the Reform agitation was urged by these unions. That political confederacy was very formidable. About the same time that church rates were to be abolished the constitution of the country was also to be abolished. It happened to me to be engaged in a trial for high treason, and one of the most distinguished soldiers that England ever produced—the late Sir W. Napier—appeared as a witness. He had declared that if any man were prosecuted for high treason he would state that it was proposed to him at the time these political unions existed that he should march on London with 100,000 men to intimidate and overawe the House of Lords. The Judges thought the evidence not relevant, and Sir William Napier was not heard; but that did not alter the fact he was prepared to prove. My argument is, that the movement against church rates was not on religious, but on political grounds. The first movement was not against the existence of the rate, but against the amount of the rate. Other unions were formed, opposition was fomented, and so it went on until the agitation was changed into an Anti-Church and State Society, for the avowed purpose of destroying the Church and breaking down the connection between Church and State. The name was an awkward name, and it was therefore altered to a Society for the Liberation of Religion from State Control, under which it now flourishes. It has its newspapers, its pamphlets, its collectors, its Parliamentary committee, active agents outside and innocent instruments within the walls of this House. Complaints have been made against the manufacture of petitions, and when a debate was about to take place, the society issued a document of this kind:— 'Up, friends, and at 'em!' is the word. The moment for action has arrived. Pass the summons round through every district to the remotest corner of the kingdom! Be quick—let no grass grow under your heels! Lose not a day—if possible to avoid it, do not postpone your preparations for an hour. In towns assemble forthwith for concerted movement. In villages draw up your petitions without a moment's delay. From every separate congregation let two petitions be sent up within the next fortnight—one to the Commons and one to the Lords. Both will be required. Two petitions—short, sharp, and decisive—praying for instant, uncompensated abolition. Get every signature to them that can be got by industry and zeal—real, bonâ fide, legitimate signatures. Don't be content with merely letting the petitions lie in the vestry on Sunday—sweep the congregations for signatures—male and female. The petitions are of one stereotyped form, prepared by the same hand, and in favour of unconditional repeal. From some places too, there are more petitions than there appear to be inhabitants. I hold in my hand a set of instructions in the form of a circular marked immediate and important, in which it is directed that petitions should be sent to Conservative Members of Parliament, with a view to influence their personal feelings. It is a mistake to suppose that these people petition of their own accord, or that the petitions express their feelings in the exercise of a great and noble privilege. It is another man who thinks for them, and concocts the petition for them. Among the instructions one is that the person who gets up the petition may ask adults of both sexes, and others besides ratepayers, for their signatures. Two letters from clergymen have been handed to me by my noble Friend behind me, who is unable to speak in this debate, which show how these petitions are manufactured. In one case the names of all the members of a congregation were entered without their being asked by the person who had the care of the petition. In another the congregation were requested to remain after a prayer meeting to sign the petition. The names of men, women, and infants were entered indiscriminately. One woman had a child at her breast. She was asked his name. She said, "John." "Then," said the agent, "let John's name be put down." An old man offered to sign, but was told his signature was already affixed. In another instance the petition was signed in a great proportion by children of both sexes under ten years of age. One of these gentlemen who wrote to my noble Friend found a man very busy under a railway arch getting signatures to a paper, and he found it was likewise a petition against church rates. There is now a petition before the House from the parish of St. Simon and St. Jude, Manchester, complaining of the abuse of the right of petition. The petitioners state that they have seen a petition signed by boys of tender age in the public streets, and they feel it their duty to bring it under the notice of the House. The Committee who investigate petitions have also drawn attention to the fact of the great number of those petitions which are manifestly the concoction of the same hand. In this way it is possible to get up almost any number of petitions. Since the Church has been provoked by this agitation a committee of laymen has been formed, and now we have petitions in favour of power being reserved to impose church rates equal in number to those against the existence of that power. The number of signatures to the latter is greater, but it arises from rectors and churchwardens supposing they could sign for those who authorized them, and in another year that error will be corrected and we shall see a different result. The committee of laymen have handed me the following statement, with permission to lay it before the House, as the question of church rates is not a clergyman's question. It is a question for all members of the Church; and I hope the laymen of that Church will be as enthusiastic in preserving the institutions of the country as some are in their desire to destroy them. The committee of laymen, immediately on its formation, in the spring of 1850, applied themselves to an analysis of the existing Parliamentary Returns, with a view of ascertaining in how many of the parishes of England the rates had been actually refused. Up to this time an opinion had prevailed that a very largo proportion of the parishes were in this condition. The Returns analysed were those of Lord Robert Cecil and Sir William Clay, made to the House in 1856. Parishes not included in the former being searched for in the latter. By this means as many as 9,672 parishes were reached with the following results: Parishes in which the rate has been granted, 8,280; parishes in which there is no provision by church estates and otherwise, 544; parishes which have given dubious replies, 440; parishes which have refused church rates, 408. With that state of facts it baffles my comprehension how any Gentleman can argue that the people of this country are in favour of the abolition of church rates. I can understand how in some large towns, where there are active agitators and complete organization for political purposes, the rate may be refused; but here is decisive proof that the majority of the thousands of parishes in the country are in favour of church rates. The tactics of the opponents of church rates, as Mr. Osborne stated before the Committee, are to reduce the rate when they cannot overthrow it. They say that in places where there may be only a few dissentients they make it their business to worry the clergyman of the parish, to disturb the vestry, and to perplex the parishioners, and they give as their reason that it often happens that a small and active minority, by steady and persevering efforts, overrides the opinion of a majority, which is perfectly true of more places than a parish. In 1859 a Return was obtained by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, who was then at the Home Office and endeavouring to settle the question, he having the true interests of religion at heart. Replies were received from 10,749 parishes, showing that in the disturbed state of the law some increase had been made in the parishes dependent on voluntary rates. These amounted to 835, no doubt including parishes formerly returned dubious. The parishes returned as supported by endowments alone amounted to the number of 451; and parishes in which wore endowments, voluntary rates, and subscriptions, were returned at 320, amounting in all to 771. Prom 504 particulars were not clearly stated, but it was reported that church rates in 1859 existed in 80 per cent of the entire parishes. It does not follow that there was a material increase of rates refused, though churchwardens had accepted voluntary rates pending a more distinct confirmation of the law. It may be remarked, too, that voluntary contributions for church restoration, repair, and otherwise, may safely co-exist with rates. The parishes of England and Wales are estimated at 12,000. In 1856 rates had only been refused in 408 parishes, which is less than 5 per cent. Mr. Walpole's Return of 1859 shows that there were 835 parishes dependent on voluntary rates and subscriptions alone. This would include parishes where the rates had been refused; but, still, making allowances for that increased number, the fact remains that upwards of 9,000 parishes approve the rate, and that only a small minority disapprove it. Upon what principle, therefore, is it that hon. Gentlemen contend that they have a right to ask this House to abolish the rate? They represent, I admit, very active and intelligent communities; but what is the actual strength of those communities? It is of the greatest possible use to ascertain this, because the grossest delusion ever entertained is that of supposing that a majority of the people belong to those particular bodies of Nonconformists who are against the rate. I have already disposed of the Wesleyan Methodists, and there is a Return which shows that all the denominations of Dissenters who are the objecting parties to the rate, do not, taken together, represent more than 15 per cent of the sittings provided for Christian worshippers in this country. According to the analysis of the Census Return of 1851 by Mr. Mann, the total provision for the population by sittings amounted to 57 per cent. The provision by the Church of England is given as 29.7 per cent, the Wesleyans as 12.2 per cent. This portion of provision may be considered as favourable to the rate, and the principle of the Church of England. The Baptists furnish sittings in the proportion of 4.2 per cent; the Independents, 6 per cent; Scottish Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, and all other sects, including Calvinistic Methodists, 4.9 (say 10) per cent—equal to 15 per cent. This sum of 15 per cent may be taken as a near approximation to the total of the entire bodies—men, women, and children; and of the heads of families, ascertained in the usual manner by dividing by 5, the total would he 3 per cent. This is the entire religious section taken up by the Liberation Society, and on whose behalf Great Britain had been agitated with a call for church rate abolition. But is it true that what is wanted is merely to get rid of the church rate? That, in truth, is but a small part of the question before us. Some years ago, when the noble Lord the Member for the City of. London was more mindful of the course that, as a Minister, he ought to pursue, and of the principles that formerly were supposed to actuate his conduct, he was asked to vote for a Bill for the abolition of church rates, and he refused to do so, saying he could not understand a general surrendering the outworks if they were to be surrendered only to be made the prelude to an attack on the citadel. The real objects of our opponents have been more fully developed since the noble Lord used that expression. It is a fact that the members of the Church Liberation Society are the concoctors of the petitions in favour of the present Bill, the active agents by whom, the anti-Church agitation is conducted, and what is it they aim at? They say, "Let no one mistake the church rate question for the Church question. The Church question is not yet mooted; but we give notice to Churchmen that as far as we are concerned we shall not the less earnestly seek for the separation of the Church from the State because we have got rid of church rates. We want the Church of England to be reduced to what she is, one of the sects, because we believe it will diffuse a greater amount of truth and righteousness." I do not want you to believe the latter part of that passage. The first part I do believe. They go on to say, "Radical politicians dislike spending their strength on ecclesiastical questions. They will have to conquer that dislike, for ecclesiastical questions will furnish the chief subjects for popular conflict for years to come. But for the strange and anomalous position occupied by the State Church, its hatred of all change, its tenacious adherence to all abuses, its monopoly of honours, its indifference to justice, its encroachments and exactions, we question whether the middle classes could be got to take an interest in politics. Upon no other subject can excitement be so easily awakened!" They conclude by stating that the Liberation Society pledges itself always to labour for the separation of the Church from the State. I have other evidence to the same effect. Dr. Foster, the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of the Liberation Society, was called as a witness before the Select Committee of the other House on this subject. Upon being asked what the objects of that Society were, he replied that they wished to separate the Church from the State, to take away all the funds and property with which the State had endowed any religious denomination whatever, and to free all denominations of persons who might happen to be under special legislation on religious grounds from such special legislation. He explained that they wished to take away, for instance, that property which belonged to the Church at the time when this country was Roman Catholic, and which by virtue of the Reformation was vested in the Church since it became Protestant. That is a fair slice. He also stated that he included tithes. Well, if you abolish church rates, seize the tithes, and confiscate the landed property, what remains? The edifices; and accordingly Dr. Foster was asked what he and his friends intended to do with the edifices, whereupon he replied that the edifices of the Church are likewise to be considered national property, and may be diverted from their present uses to some business of public utility. That is the nature of the evidence, which shows the design of the Liberation Society, and I dare say the members of that body represent the political opinions of that great Puritanical party which formerly overthrew, not merely the Church, but the Crown, and which so abused the power they acquired that they were more cordially hated and detested than any other class of men who ever governed in England. But it has been said that the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock is no party to the machinations of this revolutionary confederacy. The hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. B. Osborne), in a recent speech, sought to rescue the hon. Baronet from the imputation of having any connection with the Liberation Society. He stated that he had himself voted for the abolition of church rates, not, however, from any hostility to the Church, because he was himself a Churchman. He stated that the last division exhibited the largest minority that had ever voted against the question for some time. I hope that that will not continue to be the case, but that there will be a still larger one. He tells us that the hon. Baronet had lost ground; but the reason was evident, because, before the Committee of the Lords last year, some evidence was given by highly respectable and conscientious men connected with the Church Liberation Society, of their intentions, and they went further than the abolition of church rates, stating that they wanted to do away with all tithes, and desired the separation of Church and State. He then declared that the hon. Baronet, the Member for Tavistock, was altogether disconnected with that party; but since that speech was spoken, the recognized organ of that party has published the speech with a commentary, remarking that the hon. Member for Tavistock has been aware of the objects of the Liberation Society for years, and long before he consented, at the instance of the Society, to take up the church-rate abolition question in Parliament, and that party abide by their opinions. The hon. Baronet, therefore, is in this position—that he has, innocently, no doubt, brought forward a measure to strike down church rates, it being avowed by the political body, whose agent he innocently is, that their object is to proceed steadily and energetically until they can lay their hands on all tithes, appropriate the land belonging to the Church, and finally the edifices of the Church. As the matter now stands, the House has now to determine a very different question from that which was originally brought forward. It was then represented as a teasing question of a penny in the pound levied in parishes where the majority was in opposition to the church rate; and that it would be a service to the best interests of the Church to get rid of that grievance. But when the matter is probed a little more deeply, and when the instigators of the movement are brought up as witnesses, then the whole truth is disclosed; and now you understand what their object is. They say they throw down the gauntlet. Then we had bettor take it up, and fight the battle out bravely. However the Ministers may shuffle off their responsibility, I believe that the great body of the Protestant people of the country are attached to the Church. In answer to the idle and hypocritical pretence that the abolition of the church rate would be of service to the Church, I will refer to certain parishes mentioned in the blue-book. I will take two large Metropolitan parishes densely inhabited by the poor, while the rich men, who draw their wealth from them, go elsewhere to inhabit better houses and to breathe purer air, leaving the parochial minister to struggle with the difficulties of his position as he best may. I will take first the parish of Whitechapel, containing a population of 30,000, chiefly of the poorer classes. What does the minister of that parish say? He gets the church rate. This is exactly one of the cases which the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury was intended to meet. The church rate there is collected along with the poor rate, by Act of Parliament; and the Amendment of the hon. Member for Finsbury was intended to take it away, though it is at present collected without difficulty and without objection. That church rate amounts only to £350 a year, and it is applied to the best purposes to which it was possible to conceive that a tax could be applied. If it were not collected the expenses of the churches must be defrayed by local contributions. But as the church rate covers that expense, the local contributions are applied to the keeping open of six or seven other churches, for which, by the zeal and vigilance of the minister, contributions are received from those manufacturers who have left the district; and they are thus maintained for the poor residents, for whom the church exists as their consolation, their blessing, their birthright; though now it is proposed to deprive them of its advantages; advantages which the church dispenses not in religion only, but in education, and all the blessings of good order in society. Take next the parish of Rotherhithe. The churchwarden of that parish is a nonconformist Wesleyan Methodist. He stated before the Committee that his parish contained a population of 20,000 chiefly poor, and that the rate was levied with very slight objections. How was it applied? he was asked. "For the benefit of the Church." "But you are a Dissenter?" "Yes, but I am in favour of the Church and of the rate." "Can you collect it?" "Yes, with very slight difficulty; for the religious Dissenters, when they are fairly dealt with, and the case is fairly stated to them, withdraw their opposition and consent to the rate." And never was money more wisely laid out, or applied more to the benefit of the people. Though there are a number of persons in the parish who are not members of the Church, yet the rate has been levied without disapprobation up to the present hour, and it is applied to the purposes of education and religion. But, it is said, if the rate were abandoned, can you not fall back on local contributions? All the witnesses answer no. They say it is a very different thing with some persons to pay a legal demand, and to comply with a call for a voluntary contribution, and they all state that if you take the money away you take from the usefulness of the Church. There are many parishes in which the poor exclusively live; there the money is paid, not by them, but for them, and if you deprive them of it you deprive them of that which administers to their comfort and consolation, and you would do for the Church what its bitterest enemies desire. It is said that the opponents of the present Bill ought to propose some plan. I have no plan to propose, and I think with Dr. Lushington that the existing law is both an old and a good law. When the advocates of abolition say that they will not be satisfied, although Dissenters should not be called on to contribute, and that they will refuse to allow Churchmen to have a law whereby Churchmen may be enabled to assess each other, then I must, however reluctantly, say that there is no middle course, and that I am compelled to vote for the Bill or against it. But a greater question remains. I have read the papers of this society very attentively, and I am bound to say that I do not believe in their opinions, or that the history and experience of the world bears out their assertion that the State ought to have no connection with the Church. What State ever existed in power, greatness, and glory, that did not as a nation acknowledge an overruling Providence? Look to the people of antiquity. Not a ceremony, procession, or triumph, took place in ancient Rome that was not consecrated by religion; and we now look with delight at the remains of the temples which they built to their gods; nay, more—so far is history from proving that separation of religion from the State to be the advancement of liberty and of morals that we find a great but indignant patriot, when he would recal the glories of ancient Rome, saying, "While your forefathers were wise, free, and virtuous, they lived in modest habitations, and spent their wealth in decorating the temples of the gods. You now, being corrupt and contemptible, live in luxury and riot, and you refuse to sustain the edifices of religion." The same rule holds good in modern history. Prance, in the hour of her revolution, ceased to recognize a national religion, and set up a goddess of Reason. What became of her? I will answer the question in the clear and forcible words of one of our ablest divines:—"When the rulers of a nation desert the national recognition of Christianity, the God of the Christians will desert them." That conveys his reason for maintaining the national Church, and it is a sound and a sufficient reason. The forms of our indictments and the proceedings of our public bodies prove that the principle of Christianity pervades our laws and our institutions; the Established Church is intertwined and inseparably connected with our political system, and to separate them is not to reform or amend, but to revolutionize the State while you destroy the Church. When revolutions have occurred in other countries we have been quiet, because the people of this country are a believing, and in the main a religious people, because they are taught daily and weekly all the duties of life by ministers of religion who are supported by the State, not merely because they teach the moral duties and preach the Scriptures, but because they promote order, peace, and security throughout the country. I oppose this Bill, not only on the ground that it is a bad Bill, but because there is at stake a much greater question, as avowed by the witnesses examined elsewhere—namely, whether or not the Established Church shall continue to exist in this country. The Nonconformists have asserted that the Church is careless upon this question. The Church has now copied from them, and will now call on the people to express their opinions. When mischievous men combine good men may unite, and I have little doubt that in the struggle which awaits us the Church of England will come out of it stronger than she has ever been before, stronger in the opinion of the people, stronger in the affections of the nation, and stronger in the support of a Christian Parliament. The right hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."

MR. BRIGHT

Sir, I feel somewhat indebted to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for having come forward as a new advocate upon this Question, as he has infused, by that physical force oratory, of which he is so great a master, some new light upon a question which has been worn almost threadbare. But I do not think that when his speech is read tomorrow it will satisfy that great portion of the people of the country who object to church rates, that the system now existing should be permanently continued. I was not present at the opening of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, but when I entered the House he was telling the House that the Nonconformists of the olden time wore a much better class of men than the Dissenters of the present day; that they made no objections to the equity of church rates. That was a sentiment which was received with great enthusiasm by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who for the first time have appeared as decided admirers of the Nonconformists of that time. In answer to that it may be said from the time of Queen Elizabeth down to the Act of Toleration the principles of religious freedom were little understood in this country. We know that not the Church only when it had the power, but many of the Nonconformists themselves, admitted that it was right not only to raise taxes for the support of a particular Church—their own Church—but that it was positively right to coerce those persons who held religious opinions different from their own. They had not advanced as far as the great body of the English people, including hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the party they represent, have now advanced, and therefore the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument goes for very little. But he has treated the House to a public reading of a large portion of the evidence of, I think, two gentlemen who were witnesses before the Committee of the House of Lords. I shall refer only to the evidence of one of these Gentlemen—Mr. Bunting. I suspect that when the name of Bunting was mentioned there was a general impression that this was the evidence of a very distinguished man who, although not nominally, yet actually, was Bishop or Archbishop, and almost Pope, in the sect of which he was so distinguished a member. But that is not the case. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, not for the first time in his life as a counsel learned in the law, has been beholden for his brief to an attorney practising in Manchester. Mr. Bunting is not a minister of the Methodist Church, as I understand, but is in the profession of the law, and therefore I must strip him of any authority he has upon this matter in connection with the Methodist Church in consequence of his bearing the name of Bunting. I must say, further, that this Gentleman, although in some sort a Nonconformist, inasmuch as I presume he attends a Methodist Chapel, is a politician of a peculiar kind, such as is not found very frequently among the dissenting body. I dare say he agrees with the most obstructive, if I may use the term, Conservative or Tory among hon. Gentlemen opposite, and if we had taken his opinion upon all those questions of policy which this House has decided in favour of popular rights and justice to the people of this country during the last twenty years, I have not the least doubt that Mr. Bunting would have been as conclusive against all those concessions as he appears to have been upon the question of church rates. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not treat the House quite fairly in stating the evidence of this Gentleman, because he did not feel himself courageous enough to say that the Wesleyan body was in favour of church rates. I find he says, in answer to a question whether there was any likelihood of petitions being sent by them:— No: from a fear on the part of those who sympathize with the Church of England of eliciting an opinion to the contrary, There is among us a general agreement not to disturb questions which we do not consider essential. The opposition would, I believe, be from a minority in our own body A distinct minority?—I think I should call it so. The House will see from this that although Mr. Bunting is not remarkable for great hesitation generally in his opinions upon this matter, yet he does hesitate to say that the Wesleyan body was with any sort of unanimity in favour of church rates. And I can give my testimony, living as I do in a neighbourhood where they are very numerous, and where their services have been very great, to the fact that when the question of church rates is mooted and contests take place, although a few leading men are anxious to keep the question quiet, because it is one which might disturb their body, as far as my observation goes, a very large number—I think a majority—who attend their chapels, have generally acted with the party by which church rates were opposed. But it must be borne in mind that the Wesleyan body is of a peculiar character, that its government is more strictly priestly than anything that exists in the Church of England and almost beyond anything in the Church of Borne. The Conference, composed of 100 ministers, dominates not only over the private opinions and individual action of the members, but also over what I may call the corporate or sect action, and throughout their numerous chapels in this country, unless the Conference were to give the order or its permission, we should not find from any of these congregations petitions presented to this House. But from this fact may be traced an important series of circumstances—that there have been from that body numerous secessions of very noteworthy character, secessions which have not arisen from any difference as to the doctrine, but simply as to the absolute Government of the Conference. Notwithstanding all this, as I have said, great numbers of them—I believe a very great majority—vote in opposition to church rates whenever a contest takes place, and do unite in sympathy upon this question with the great body of Dissenters belonging to other sects. I should not have said so much about this particular body had it not been for the extraordinary importance which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given to this part of the subject. I find, however, that even from the Conference Methodists there have been 135 petitions presented lately to the House: from the Methodist New Connexion 97, from the Methodist Free Church 164, from the Primitive Methodists 265, from the Calvinistic Methodists 108, from the United Methodists, the Methodist reformers, and the Wesleyan Association, 47; making a total of more than 800 petitions which have been presented from that body in favour of this Bill. Now, as to the other sects of Dissenters, I believe right hon. and learned Gentleman has not been able to make out any kind of case or to show any difference of opinion among them upon this question. I think he will admit that they arc, with as much unanimity as can ever be expected upon public questions, in favour of a repeal of church rates. But if it be, as he says, that this movement is merely the movement of a few busy, meddling agitators belonging to those sects—whose numbers by the way he has not given very accurately—if that be so, how comes it that throughout the country and in this House they have obtained so large a share of support? That fact is a very ugly one, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman passed it over. Even the Church, on whose behalf the hon. and learned Gentleman professes to speak, is itself not unanimous upon this question, and in all the parishes in towns and cities where church rates have been abolished, every Member who has been engaged in this question will admit that no inconsiderable number of those who regularly attend the services of the Church have joined those agitating, meddling Dissenters in their attempt to put an end to the system of church rates. I should say in those districts a large minority—I will not say a majority—of Churchmen have been as willing to get church rates abolished as the Dissenters themselves. I live in a town in which contests about church rates have been carried on in past years with a vigour and determination, and, if you like it, with an animosity which has not been surpassed in any other part of the kingdom. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who profess to be in favour of what is called a stand-up fight, will be glad to hear that nothing could exceed the activity of their friends in that parish, nothing could exceed the profuseness with which they were willing to pay for a contest, in order that all might have to contribute to a Church which at that time they themselves were not willing adequately to support. The very last contest of this kind cost the Church party in the parish as much money as, if invested at the common rate of interest, would have supported the fabric of the church for ever. [A cry of "How much?"] I can tell the hon. Gentleman what was the estimate formed, which I believe was never disputed, and which, judging from the expenditure on the other side, was not, I should say, very inaccurate. I believe that the expenditure would not be less than from £3,000 to £4,000. It is a large parish, probably ten miles square, and contains nearly 100,000 inhabitants; and I need not tell hon. Members that there is no class of people in England more determined and more unconquerable, whichever side they take, than are the people of the county from which I come. What was the result of that struggle? The result was that the church rate was for ever entirely abolished in that parish. I have since seen several lists of candidates for the churchwarden ship put forth by Churchmen, each of which claimed support upon the ground that they would never consent to the reimposition of a church rate; and the parish has been for many years upon this question a model of tranquillity. It would not be enough that it should be a model of tranquillity if the result had followed which the hon. and learned Gentleman foretold in such dolorous language, that religion would be uncared for, and that the Gospel would no longer be preached to the poor; but I will undertake to say that since this contest that venerable old parish church has had laid out upon it, in repairing and beautifying it, from money subscribed not altogether, but mainly by Churchmen, ten times, aye, twenty times as much as was ever expended upon it during a far longer period of years in which church rates were levied. During that period there were discussions about the graveyard, about the hearses, about the washing of the surplice, about somebody who had to sweep out the church. There were discussions of all sorts, of a most irritating and offensive character. The clock which was there for the benefit of the public no longer told the time, and, in fact, there was evidence of that sort of decay to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has pointed as the inevitable result of the abolition of church rates. Since the rate ceased to be levied the clock has kept time with most admirable fidelity, and to such an extent has the liberality of Churchmen gone, that very lately they have put up another clock in a neighbouring church. I believe that in the parish of Rochdale the Church people have received far more benefit from the abolition of the church rate than the Dissenters have. They have found out, what they never knew before, that when placed upon the same platform as Dissenters, and obliged to depend upon their own resources, they are as liberal and zealous as other sects. I wish that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had told us, and I hope that some one who follows him will do so, how it happens that year by year there has been growing in this House a power in opposition to church rates, while at the same there has been less animosity throughout the country upon this question. I believe it has arisen from the growth of a better feeling on both sides, and from the fact that year by year there have been secessions from the supporters of church rates throughout the country, and that more and more without the action of Parliament the principle embodied in the clauses of the Bill of my hon. Friend has come to be acted upon. Now what is the real point between us?—because I believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree with me that if it could be done it would be better that this question should be for ever disposed of. What is the question at issue between us? Does any man dispute the evils that have arisen? The right hon. and learned Gentleman has, in a speech of great vigour, endeavoured to throw ridicule and contempt upon the great body of the Dissenting population of this country. ["No, no!"] Well, at any rate, he has not refrained from expressions of harshness towards those whom he charges with being the movers in this question. But does he believe, or do any of you believe, that if those persons did not in the main possess the confidence of the great body of the Dissenters, they could in a week, a fortnight, or a month, stir them up from one end of the country to the other, and bring to your table the signatures of 500,000 of your countrymen? [Cries of "600,000."] I am reminded that the number is 600,000, but in a matter of this kind I am not particular to 100,000 more or less. I say, then, is there any one here who disputes the evils which have arisen from these discussions r I confess that I have sometimes wished that I could speak in this House, even if it were for only one half hour, in the character of a Member of the Church of England. If I could have done that I should have appealed to the House in language far more emphatic and impressive than I have ever been able to use as a Dissenter, in favour of the abolition of this most mischievous and obnoxious impost. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has no plan. I think he was right in making that admission. I believe there are only two courses which can be pursued. One is to leave the law exactly as it is, a course which if this matter did not touch a ques- tion of religion, I should not complain of, because it leaves the majority in every parish to decide for itself. The other plan is that of my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock. You have tried every kind of contrivance. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) proposed a plan. The right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin was a Member of the Government by which that plan was proposed; and, as he now says that he has no plan, I presume that he has abandoned the plan of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, and the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, also tried plans. Indeed, there are in the House many who have aspired to legislate upon this subject, but have failed in these attempts at conciliation; and I think we must all feel conscious that we must either remain as we are, or adopt the Bill which is now before us. I confess that I am altogether against any kind of dodge by which this matter may be even temporarily settled. I think that if this Church be a national establishment, you cannot by law insist that its support shall be drawn from only a portion of the population. I agree with you altogether in that. If I were a Churchman I would never consent to it, and, not being a Churchman, I wholly repudiate it. The dissensions to which I have referred have prevailed, prevail still, and cannot terminate as long as this imposts exists. What is its natural and inevitable result? It must be to create and stimulate the pride of supremacy in the dominant Church, and at the same time produce what I shall call the irritation of subjugation and injustice on the part of that great portion of the people who support their own ministers and places of worship, and who think that they ought not to be called upon to support those of any other sect or church. Now, is it necessary that this should continue? I often have occasion in this House to give hope to hon. Gentlemen opposite. They are probably the most despairing political party that any country ever had within its borders. They despair of almost everything. They despaired of agriculture. Agriculture triumphs. They despair of their Church, yet whenever that Church has been left to its own resources and to the zeal of its Members its triumph has been manifest to the country and to the world. Are you made of different material from the five millions of people who go to the Dissenting chapels of England and Wales? You have your churches,—I speak of the old ones, not of those recently erected by means of votuntary contributions,—you have your churches, which you call national, and you have them for nothing. You have your ministers paid out of property anciently bequeathed or intrusted to the State for their use. In that respect you stand in a far better position for undertaking what, if church rates are abolished, you must undertake, than do the great body of your Dissenting brethren. Have you less zeal, have you less liberality, than they have? Do not you continually boast in this House that you are the owners of the great bulk of the landed property of the country? Are you not the depositaries of political power, and do you not tell us that when a Dissenter becomes rich he always walks away from the chapel into your church? If this be so, am I appealing in vain to you, or reasoning in vain with you, when I try to encourage you to believe that if there were no church rates the members of your church and your congregations would be greatly improved, and that, as has taken place in the parish in which I live, your churches would be better supported by your own voluntary and liberal contributions, than they can ever be by the penny per pound issuing from the pockets of men who do not attend your church, and who are rendered ten times more hostile to it by the very effort to make them contribute to its support. I believe that church rates must before long be abolished. Hence I wish to afford some hope and consolation, if I can, to hon. Gentlemen opposite. Why, Mr. Osborne and Mr. Bunting, from whom the right hon. and learned Member so largely quoted, themselves belong to a body that has done marvels in this country in erecting chapels, paying ministers, establishing schools, raising the dead, if you like—for men who were dead to religion have been made Christians; and they have preached the Gospel to the poor in every county, I might almost say every parish, in the kingdom. Yet they have not come to Parliament for grants of money; and, although they have often come to me and others for contributions to their chapels and schools, they have never had any force of law to enable them to raise their funds. Throughout England and Wales what would be the condition of your population, your religious establishments, your education, if it were not for the liberality of those sects of whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks fit to speak in disparaging terms. But I pass to his own country, and though I should like to see Irish Members more frequently taking part in the discussion of questions affecting England and Wales than they do, I was surprised to find that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made no reference whatever to what has taken place in the island from which he himself comes. In the year 1833 you abolished the vestry cess, the church rate of Ireland; you abolished one-fourth of the tithe—that is, you took it from the Church and gave it to the landlord; you did a good many things with the Irish Church at that time which many Gentlemen of the same party as the right hon. and learned Member denounced, just as you denounce the present Bill. Of course it will be said that the Earl of Derby has since then changed his opinions, and therefore the views he held at that period will have no authority with his followers now. But what has been the effect on that Church? Is there a man in this House with the slightest knowledge of what has occurred in Ireland during the last thirty years, who will not admit that the Irish Protestant Establishment would have been absolutely uprooted and separated from the State for ever long before now but for the large measure of change—I will say of reform—to which the Earl of Derby, as a Minister of that day, was a party? If that be true, what right has anybody to charge the hon. Member for Tavistock with a deadly hostility to the Church of England? I do not believe there is a man in this country at this moment who has any hostility to the Church of England as a Church. I never met with such a man. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to a friend of mine who not long ago had a seat in this House, although he did not mention him by name. I allude to Mr. Miall. Why, there is no man in England whose character for religion, morality, intelligence, or a persistent devotion to what he believes to be right stands higher than that of Mr. Miall. But Mr. Miall has not the smallest objection to the Church of England as a religious body, any more than he has to the Methodist Conference or any other denomination which teaches its own peculiar views of Christianity. What he objects to is that the Church should be, as it has been, so much of a po- litical institution. And there can be no doubt but that among the clergy of the Establishment and the most thoughtful of her sons there is throughout the kingdom at this moment a deep sentiment at work which, altogether, apart from Mr. Miall and the Liberation Society, is destined before many years are over to make great changes in the constitution and condition of that Church. And I undertake to say that, if their views, or those of Mr. Miall, were carried out by Parliament, the Church would still be a Church at least as great, as powerful, and as respected as it ever was at any period of its history. I believe it would, as effectually as it ever has done, raise to life those who are religiously dead, and, at the same time, more extensively than it does now, preach the Gospel to the poor. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman might have given us another lesson from Ireland. There the great body of the people—not the possessors of wealth—are in connection with the Roman Catholic Church. Many of us have been in Ireland. I have myself spent several weeks there, travelling from one part of the country to another. I saw chapels everywhere, that great cathedrals had been built, that there were evidences of great zeal and wonderful liberality among a people at that time poor and dejected, and in a lower physical condition, I undertake to say, than could have been found in any other population in any Christian country of Europe. The Irish Catholics, without any assistance from the State except a paltry grant, which I believe many of them would gladly forego, have provided amply for all the religious wants of their people. And I venture to assert that religion—not now speaking of particular doctrines or forms—has there permeated even to the lowest class of society in a manner that is not equalled in this part of the kingdom, where your Church Establishment has for ages reigned almost supreme. But if you are not satisfied with the case of Ireland, let us go to Wales. There you have a poor population of Methodists. The Welsh Dissenters do not own the great estates. They have no ancient endowments, no grants from Parliament. They do not even send representatives to this House—["Oh!"]—representatives I mean of their peculiar views. Eight-tenths of the people of Wales have no connection with the Established Church. Yet, poor as they are, compared with the population of England, there is not a nook or corner of the Principality in which there are not a chapel, a school, and a minister, or in which you do not constantly sec the influence of religious teaching on the character and habits of the people. But go a little further north, to a land where men are not supposed to misunderstand their own interests. I refer to the country on the other side of the Tweed. You have an Established Church there. Many years ago you had two considerable secessions from its pale who became powerful sects. They have since united themselves, and their power has proportionately increased. But lately, within the recollection of every Member in this House, for it is but seventeen years ago, there was another great secession; and from what men fancied was the ruin of the Established Church of Scotland there arose a new Church, offering, I will say, to the world, an example of zeal and munificence such as has not been witnessed in this country during the lifetime of the present generation. Not long ago, while in Scotland—a country to which I am very glad to flee when we are liberated from attendance in this House—I took the pains to make some inquiry upon this question; and I found that the Free Church, which comprises probably not more than one-third of that portion of the population who pay any attention to religious matters, raised voluntarily, during the year when I made the inquiry, a larger sum than the whole annual emoluments of the Established Church of Scotland. It has built, I think, something like 700 churches throughout that part of the kingdom, and as many manses or dwellings for its ministers. It has also established schools in almost every parish. And I tell the House with the utmost sincerity that I believe I never questioned any man in Scotland as to the effect of the disruption who did not admit that, painful as it was, and utterly as he and many others might have opposed it, still it has been full of blessings to the people of that country. I believe the number of persons who frequent places of worship, the number of schools, and the number of scholars who attend them, are all far larger than ever they were before the last great secession. Bear in mind that, with the exception of a very few persons of high station in society, including one or two Members of the other House and two or three of this, the property of Scotland, as far as property is to be measured by the possession of the soil, has not gone with the Free Church at all. Yet you find throughout the whole of that country those vast results from a zeal, a religious fervour, a munificence, which are not a whit greater than would be exhibited under the same circumstances by Members of the Church of England. But such a state of things, I say, must raise the character of the people of Scotland, high as it was before, still higher in the estimation of the Christian world. Only one other point with regard to this voluntary question. Apart from the discussions and divisions, from Bills and clauses in this House, if I were to ask any hon. Member on the other side whether he believed that the Church of England was not, or would not, become as liberal as any other sect, I have no doubt he would at once say that to assert the contrary would be to slander and misrepresent the members of that Church. Well, I think so too, and the evidence lies in what the Church has been doing of late years. If you stand upon any eminence in the neighbourhood of any large town or city in England you will see everywhere towers and spires indicating the temples that have been raised in recent days for the worship of God; and so also, if you travel over the country, as you now rapidly do, you will see through the glass of the railway carriage one spire here, another there, and a third yonder. I do not always admire their architecture, but some of them are beautiful objects in the landscape of which they form part. Well, this has all been achieved, not by the votes of Parliament, for they have ceased, but by exactly the same religious zeal, the same Christian benevolence, which have distinguished the rest of your countrymen, and which you, the richest and proudest of them all, would surely, under the like circumstances, equally display. I want to persuade you that this is a good Bill for the Established Church. I am not about to try to take you in by allowing you to suppose that I agree with you as to a State Establishment for teaching religion. I agree on that abstract question with Mr. Miall and the Liberation Society. I believe it is an evil to the State and to religion; but that is not a question for us to discuss now, or one which probably this generation will ever be called on to decide. I say, the abolition of these irritating levies of money in Ireland has been of great advantage to the Established Church of Ireland. I say, the more you remove your question of an Establishment from that constant and irritating contest and discussion which are inseparable from the continuance of these rates, the more probably, for a long period of time, you will consolidate your Church; and I am inclined to believe that its fall as a State establishment will never come from the assaults of those who are without it, but will rather come from the strong differences of doctrine among those within its pale. I should like to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to look to a point in respect to which their Church is at a great disadvantage as compared with Dissenting congregations. I am in a position to observe both of them with great impartiality, because I belong to a sect which is very small, which some people say is decaying, although I believe its main principles are always spreading. I have no particular sympathy with Wesleyans, Independents, or Baptists, any more than I have with the congregations which assemble in your churches. But have you not observed in London, and more particularly in the country, where you are more minutely acquainted with circumstances—have you not observed, that among the congregations of Dissenting bodies there is a greater activity in all matters which belong to their Churches, and to objects which they unite together in promoting as a religious community? Don't you find that from the richest and the most influential man who enters a chapel on a Sunday to the humblest of the congregation there is, as it were, a chain of sympathy running through them all, which gives to them a great strength, which combines them together, which influences the humblest and the highest for good, and which gives to that congregation a power which is found to be greatly less existent in a congregation of the Established Church? I have spoken of this to many persons who differ from me on all those questions of church establishments, church rates, and the like; but I never spoke to any man in the habit of attending the Established Church who did not admit to me that it is one of the things they most deplore, that among the 500 persons more or less who attend any particular church there was infinitely less sympathy, co-operation, union, and power of action than was evidenced among the various Dissenting communities in this country almost without exception. But if you had none of these rates to levy by law you would be placed—and it would be a most material advantage—in the same position as are the congregations of Dissenting bodies. You would be obliged, of course, in the management of your congregational affairs, to consult the members in general; you would have your monthly or quarterly meetings; and thus you would know who were your neighhours in church, and you would be united together, as Dissenting congregations are. And I maintain that your religions activity and life for all purposes of missionary work at home and abroad would be greatly increased and strengthened; and so far your congregations, your ministers, and your churches would be great gainers. Some hon. Gentlemen will say that I am a violent partisan on this question, and that I have partaken of the animosity which I stated to have existed in the parish in which I live. I do not deny that in times past I have taken a warm, and it may be, occasionally, a too heated part in the contents and discussions on this question; but, so far as I am concerned, the feelings engendered by these strifes have been swept away; I am older than I was then; I make great allowance for men's passions, as I ask that they should make allowance for mine. This question has come to a crisis; and I ask the House to consider whether it would not be to the advantage of the Church, of morality, religion, and the public peace, that this question should now be set at rest once and for ever. The right hon. and learned Gentleman—it is one of the faults of a high classical education—following the example of the right hon. Gentleman who delighted us all with a most brilliant but most illogical speech last night, affrighted us with an account of what took place under the democracies of Greece, and asks us to follow the example of those who were believers in the Paganism of ancient Borne. He says, did not the Roman emperors, consuls, and people go in procession after the vile gods and goddesses which they worshipped? It is true they did, and 1 hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman feels sorry by this time that he asked us to follow an example of that kind. Rome has perished, and the religion which it professed has perished with it. The Christian religion is wholly different, and if there be one thing written more legibly than another in every page of that book on which you profess that your Church is founded, it is that men should be just one to another, kind and brotherly one to another, and should not ask of each other to do that which they are not willing themselves to do. I say that this law of church rates is a law which violates, and violates most obviously and outrageously, every law of justice and of mercy which is written in that book, and it is because I believe it does so that I am certain that it never can be of advantage to your Church, if your Church be a true Church; and, believing that, and feeling how much the interests and sympathies and wishes of millions of our countrymen are in favour of the abolition of this impost, I ask you to do what I am now ready to do—to give a cordial support to the third reading of this Bill of my hon. Friend.

MR. DISRAELI

It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman has somewhat mistaken the arguments and the views of my right hon. and learned Friend who moved the rejection of this Bill. I do not pretend to defend the character of Mr. Bunting. The hon. Gentleman says that he is not a Pope, but an attorney, and that he has given a brief to my right hon. Friend. There is an old story, too stale almost to refer to, that when you have no case—the House recollects the rest. The hon. Gentleman misses the entire argument of my right hon. and learned Friend, and finds it very convenient to abuse Mr. Bunting, a gentleman who I have every reason to believe is of high respectability and influence among the estimable sect to which he belongs. Nor will I enter into the question of the church rate contests and controversies of Rochdale. They are well known, and have been related to-night with sentiments of epical exultation. The hon. Gentleman has talked of the immense sums of money expended in those contests, and I have no doubt, whenever the hon. Member engages in controversies—such is his spirit and such his talent for producing and promoting resistance—that the contest on both sides is conducted with great animation. And when the hon. Gentleman congratulates himself on the result, and assures the House that the condition of the fabric of the church at Rochdale is quite satisfactory, I only wish that to prove his case he had given us some information respecting the condition of the churches in Birmingham. I recollect a petition being presented to the House within the last few years, by the late colleague of the hon. Gentleman, which did not present so satisfactory an account of the churches in Birmingham under the influence of the voluntary principle as the hon. Gentleman has given us to-night of the condition of the church at Rochdale. That petition, in favour of church rates, was presented four years ago by the late Mr. Muntz, and it emanated from the clergy of the rural deanery of Birmingham. It states that, Your petitioners have had painful experience of the evils attending the long suspension of the legal means of maintaining and repairing the fabrics of their churches, as well as of providing for the proper observance of Divine service, and are enabled to say that the voluntary system, after a trial of twenty-five years, has proved inadequate to supply the wants of the church. Indeed it will be seen from the evidence taken by the House of Lords that several of the churches in Birmingham are in a stale of great decay and dilapidation. It was not my intention to refer to the circumstance had not the hon. Gentleman founded his argument on the individual instance of Rochdale. I do not want this great question to be decided on mere instances, taken here and there; but when he refers to the state of the ecclesiastical fabric in his native town, I think I have a right to refer to the state of the fabrics under the voluntary system in the still more considerable town which the hon. Gentleman represents, and if any conclusive argument on a question of such gravity can be drawn from the circumstances, I think the House will agree with me that the weight of evidence must be more on my side from the state of the churches of Birmingham than on that of the hon. Gentleman from the single instance he has referred to in the town of Rochdale. Throughout his speech the hon. Gentleman was delivering, not an argument, but a eulogy in favour of the voluntary system; but that really is not the question before the House. The hon. Gentleman, as always in this case, has dealt in views which are purely speculative, and must necessarily be such, referring as they do to a condition of society which does not obtain in this country; and he has attempted to illustrate and prove his assumptions by instances which I can show him are entirely fallacious. For, after all, when the hon. Gentleman at such length dwelt on the efficacy of the voluntary system in Scotland, and the non-necessity of any compulsory legislation in order to support the ecclesiastical fabrics in that country—what did it amount to? Why, to this—that, no doubt, there has been a great expenditure from a feeling of religious zeal in Scotland in favour of new manses, and new kirks, and new endow- ments; but the hon. Gentleman quite forgot that all this time, simultaneous with this great burst of religious feeling, and this remarkable investment for spiritual purposes without compulsion, there is an established Church of Scotland, maintained by the most rigid and inflexible church rate that can be devised—not the church rate that exists in this country, which depends on the decision of the majority, but one which no majority can influence, and which, under every circumstance is raised. All the time this remarkable investment was taking place, and this ebullition of religious feeling was evinced in Scotland, he forgot to remember that a church rate was not only in existence but levied with the utmost rigidity and strictness. So, with the picturesque view the hon. Gentleman gave us of himself when mounted on an elevation in the neighbourhood of a large town, and taking a survey of the ecclesiastical architecture, which he was careful to tell us did not always accord with his own taste; whenever he sees a new church, he says all this is done by the voluntary principle, why do you adhere to the ancient and barbarous principle which I recommend you to abolish? But he forgets that such exertions of the voluntary principle in the raising of churches are not of new introduction. The voluntary principle has been always at work in raising churches; and it would be very difficult to fix on any church in England that has not been raised by that same influence. The question is, whether the voluntary principle will keep churches in repair. The two illustrations, therefore, which the hon. Gentleman took from the present state of Scotland and England, in so far as we find a great expenditure in favour of sacred objects which the law does not compel, are really quite illusory, and do not in the least enforce the argument he wishes to impress on the House. Then, Sir, the hon. Gentleman says if there be such a feeling in favour of levying church rates in England—if there be among the Dissenters such a partial adhesion to that system, why has there been of late years so much interest on the subject in this House, and why is there a considerable party in it anxious that some legislation should take place on the subject? Now, I think, I can tell the hon. Gentleman the reason, No doubt there has been on both sides of the House a great unanimity to meet this subject, but that has arisen from an impression very prevalent in the country and in this House that there had been vexations complained of which might be remedied; that there have been scruples of conscience which have been urged, and which like all scruples of conscience have been at once listened to with sympathy and respect; but during all the period when there has been a considerable interest and even excitement on this subject in this House, the object has not been that which the hon. Gentleman now frankly confesses to be his object; but it has been an anxious desire of Gentlemen on both sides of the House to meet a complaint which they thought might efficiently be met, and to remove a grievance which they thought might be practically encountered. But, Sir, thirty years have passed since this matter of church rates has been a public question of large interest; and how have these thirty years been occupied? Why, Sir, they have been occupied in pleas which time has proved to be insincere, and in plans and projects of adjustment which, because the pleas for abolition were insincere, have necessarily proved fallacious and inadequate. That is the reason why there has been so much interest in this House, and why all our efforts have been futile. But the hon. Gentleman, the self-appointed representative of the school of abolition, has, in his speech to-night, told us frankly what is his object, and we cannot help observing that the object he now eulogizes is not that we have been considering and desiring to remedy during the last thirty years. He tells us that the Church of the nation ought not to be supported for merely a portion of the nation. He tells us that this is only an abstract opinion, but, if only an abstract opinion, we demur assenting to a Bill the object of which is to convert a mere abstract opinion into a very definite and practical policy. He says that the Church of this nation is supported only for a portion of the nation, and that is a state of affairs that ought not to be endured. We have brought the question, then, to a very clear issue. I do not wish at all to diminish its importance, but it is a very great advantage that we have it clearly expressed in language no one can misunderstand, and that we know really what we are about. Well, then, before we assume that it is a verity on which we are called to legislate, let us be at once sure that we are acting safely in accepting the dogma of the hon. Gentleman as an axiom. The Church of the nation, he says, is only the Church of a portion of the nation, because there are some dissenting from its doctrines and discipline, or not within its pale. Let us consider who those persons are. It is of great importance that we should treat this subject with calmness. It is not a subject of the moment only, it will affect the future, and it is imperative that every step we take should be a safe one. Let us examine briefly the position of the Dissenters. The Dissenters of this country range under two heads—there are first the descendants of the old Nonconformists, persons exercising considerable influence from their property, and, I willingly admit, from their high character and integrity. Well, these are the descendants of generations back which had a decided quarrel with the Church. They separated from the Church because the Church in the days of their separation was, as they alleged and believed, conducted in a spirit of superstition and oppression. But we must remember this—the hon. Gentleman has reminded us to-night of the circumstance—that there is no difference between the descendants of the old Nonconformists and the members of the Church of England in doctrine. The Church of England is otherwise as much changed from the Church of the days of the quarrel with the Nonconformists as the Nonconformists themselves are changed. There is, in what venerable Hooker would call Ecclesiastical Polity, something which, if conducted with temper and due humility, recommends itself to tender and refined minds. It is perfectly true, as the hon. Gentleman has represented, that many of the most distinguished Nonconformist families are absorbed in the national Church at the present moment, and therefore the hon. Gentleman can hardly contend that the old quarrel with Nonconformity is in the 19th century a ground on which you should put an end to the Established Church of England. Then there is the second class of Dissenters more considerable in numbers, but more recent in origin and growth. They are Dissenters who have become so from the circumstance that the population of this country has outgrown the Church of the country. It is not superstition or oppression that has driven this considerable body of men from the Church; at the worst, it was negligence. But if you admit the principle of an established national Church, if you admit the fact that, during the end of the last century and the beginning of the present, the popula- tion of this country greatly outgrew the Church, will you, as a consequence, adopt the conclusion of the hon. Member for Birmingham that the Established Church ought to be abolished, because from negligence and inefficient means it has not met the spiritual requirements of a vast population? That would be hardly a wise and statesmanlike course to pursue. On the contrary, you should rather increase the means and extend the influence of the Church in such circumstances, than reduce its power and diminish its efficiency. When we recollect—what no one can deny—that the exertions of the Established Church of this country during the last quarter of a century, and especially at this moment, show that it is mindful of the population which had so much outgrown the sphere of its influence, and that it is endeavouring to compensate for this want of diligence and efficiency, that is an additional argument why we should not follow the policy of the hon. Gentleman. There is a third portion of the population not under the influence of the Church, but it is a portion that is not under the influence of any other religious community; and that is a consideration which, when questions of this kind are under the consideration of Parliament, we must meet. If there be a considerable portion of the population that are practically without the pale of the National Church, can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether any of those sects he admires so much, are acting in a missionary spirit towards that population? He cannot pretend to say so; and are we, who in this House desire to maintain the Constitution of this country, to lay down the principle that because there is a considerable portion of the population over whom no religious body is exercising any spiritual influence, therefore we are to abolish the National Church, which is the only corporation that can offer us any means by which that want may be supplied? I say, therefore, that the argument of the hon. Gentleman, that if the Church of a nation is supported only by a portion of the nation it ought not to be maintained, is not an argument that the Members of this House can accept or sanction. That appears to me, totally irrespective of all higher considerations, to be the most imprudent and impolitic course that we could pursue. The hon. Gentleman has spoken to-night sometimes, apparently, in a tone of derision, and sometimes with considerable respect and appreciation, of the influence of the Established Church. [Mr. BRIGHT: Not with derision.] I certainly thought that the churches supported by church rates were made objects of derision by the hon. Gentleman, while he spoke of those supported by the voluntary efforts of the communicants in terms of respect and commendation. But I have no wish to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman, or to offer to the House anything but serious argument, of the truth of which I am convinced. One observation on this subject of the influence of the Church. It appears to me that the very marrow of this question, so far as Parliament is concerned, lies in a due appreciation of that influence. We have been of late years very unwilling that questions connected with the Church should be introduced to the consideration of this House, and, in a certain limited point of view, that was a very proper and reasonable course. No doubt, after the great changes that have taken place in this House during the last thirty years, after you admitted Roman Catholics, Dissenters, Jews, and indeed all subjects of Her Majesty, without reference to their religious opinions, the position and character of this House, as regards the Church of England as a religious body, had considerably changed. Before you consented to these changes in the elements of our assembly the House of Commons was a species of lay convocation; and it was very natural and reasonable that we should have before us the condition, discipline, and even the doctrines of the Church of which all were members. But when this great change in our character occurred I can easily understand why the doctrines of the Church should never be brought under the consideration of an assembly, the members of which did not belong to that Church, and even the discipline as rarely as possible. But though the spiritual influence of the Church of England is not a matter that should be introduced into our debates, it is impossible to shut our eyes to the social and political influence of that Church. And any man who attempts to shut his eyes to the social and political influence of the Church of England will, in his speculations on public affairs, omit one of the most important elements that can enter into the government of the country. I will not merely say that the social and political influence of the Church of England must necessarily operate beneficially for the community, for that may be said truly of every Church. I will not merely say that the tenour and character of its doctrines naturally lead to tranquillity, peace, and order, for that may be said truly of every Church. That may be said truly of the Church of France. No one doubts that the 36,000 curés of France are men generally devoted to the welfare of the people of that country, and that they exercise a beneficial influence on society. No one doubts that the general tenour, character, and tendency of the higher members of the hierarchy of every Church on the Continent are favourable to tranquillity and order. But there is one peculiarity in the Church of England which we should take into consideration when the opinion that we ought to separate Church and State is enforced, not merely as an abstract position, and it is this—that though the Church of England is connected with the State, it is independent of the Government. It is the boast of England that though our Government is weak our society is strong. It has been said of continental nations, and very truly, that there Governments are strong, but society weak. The consequence of having a strong society is, that you have local government and public liberty. You have that national character, which is the peculiarity of England, and which is a consequence of local government and public liberty. I cannot contemplate without apprehension the consequences to our society if you were to withdraw the influence of the Established Church, as one of its most important elements. The change that it would produce in our peculiar society and in our national character would be such, that I doubt whether the most far-seeing and profoundest men most versed in public affairs could possibly anticipate it. What would be the result of following the policy now recommended in so off-hand a way? If hon. Gentlemen believe, as I believe, that this Church, which, though connected with the State, is independent of the Government, is one of the strongest elements of our society, and one of the best securities for local government and public liberty, they will hesitate before they sanction with such facility as heretofore the theories which are recommended by the hon. Baronet who promotes this Bill. Is this a time of all others when it can be the interest of Parliament to weaken the social elements of this country? I do not want to indulge in alarming views of the future. They are so serious that there is no man in this House and no think- ing man out of it, who is not impressed with the contingencies that may arise. Sir, I trust in Providence that our affairs may be guided with such wisdom and discretion that, whatever may occur, whatever changes may happen, this country will long avoid sharing in those dangers and struggles that may arise. But I am sure that the younger Members of this House will meet during the last portion of this century a period of time which will contrast with that in which we have lived. That has been a period of reaction from former struggles—a period of tranquillity, prosperity, and progress. Happy should I be if I could think that the future half of this century will resemble it. But no thinking man can shut his eyes to what may be the impending struggles of the world; and, Sir, are we at such a moment to tamper with one of the most powerful of our institutions, and to which, contrary to the opinion of the hon. Gentleman, I believe the great body of the people of this country are wedded with deep affection, with the conviction that it has operated for four centuries greatly to the advantage and benefit of this country? The hon. Member has contrasted the action of the Church with the very meritorious efforts and influence of some sects of recent origin. But we must remember that to-night we are considering the position of an institution that has existed for centuries, and the prescription that surrounds it proves the deep root it has taken, and the wisdom that has hallowed its existence for countless generations. Is the House prepared to take a step that may weaken and shatter the social fabric of this country? I do not believe that, when the House considers this question in a deeper and maturer spirit than it has hitherto done, it will sanction the rash and ruinous proposition of the hon. Member for Tavistock; and I trust that in the division we shall come to we shall be able to reassure the mind of the country, and not reduce those means by which in the hour of danger we may be best enabled to show that firm and constant spirit which has before preserved this land.

SIR JOHN TRELAWNY

, in reply, said, at that late hour (twenty minutes to twelve) he would not detain the House by replying at length to the arguments which had been adduced on the other side; but a personal appeal had been made to him with respect to the Liberation Society Which he felt it right to notice. He was not a member of that society. Were he living in an entirely new country, or were he abount to found a colony, he certainly would have no connection between the Church and the State; but in this country he found an ancient system in existence, and he could not be a party to releasing the power which the State had over a religious trust fund; otherwise, how would it be known what the clergy would do with respect to education? He did not identify himself with the Liberation Society, nor did he concur in all the views which had been expressed by Dr. Foster and Mr. Samuel Morley, before a Committee of the House of Lords; but he believed that the association comprised men who sought honestly and openly a certain end, and he had every reason to respect, and the House and the public ought to respect Dr. Foster, for his outspoken sentiments; the expression of which, however, had undoubtedly increased his (Sir John Trelawny's) difficulties in conducting his case. Whatever might be the result of this Bill, practically speaking he believed church rates were gone. It could not be supposed that Dissenters would allow them to be imposed, whenever fortune placed within their reach the means of succesfully resisting them. The House would do well to send this measure to the House of Lords. He believed the opponents of the measure were chiefly influenced by a desire to stand well with the clergy, which they would not do unless they once more divided the House. Possibly the House of Lords would not accept the Bill; but if they did not, they certainly might do worse. They would probably have another measure embodying substantially the principles he enforced; and that House would then be asked to consider them in another form. Far better would it be to pass the present Bill, and settle the measure once and for ever.

MR. T. DUNCOMBE

said, it had been his intention to have proposed a clause to the effect that church rates should not be defrayed out of the poor rates, and he believed that the hon. Baronet, to a certain extent, approved of the principle of the Amendment; but, owing to the rules of the House, he was prevented from proposing the clause on that occasion. He was informed that at the present moment there were 400 parishes in England and Wales which paid their church rates out of their poor rates. In the Metropolis there were between forty and fifty parishes—some of them, it was true, under the protection of local Acts— which did the same. He maintained that this was not only a robbery of the poor, but it was a fraud upon the law itself, and it was with that conviction that he wished to propose the clause. In point of fact, the Bill would not effect the abolition of church rates unless such a clause were introduced into it. The right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside) had stated that it was the Birmingham Political Union and the Liberation Society which had produced and sustained the church-rate agitation throughout the country. He did not know whether he should shock the right hon. and learned Gentleman or not by making the avowal, but he could only say that in 1831 he was a Member of the Birmingham Political Union, and he was at that moment a Member of the Liberation Society. He would take upon himself to say that the Birmingham Political Union never interfered with the question of church rates at all. The real cause of the agitation lay in the stringent measures which were taken to enforce them some years ago. The imprisonment of Messrs. Thorowgood and Baines called the attention of the public to the matter. The former was imprisoned in Chelmsford gaol for three years, and the Bishop of London would not release him till he had purged himself of his contempt of the spiritual court. The Member for Oxford at that time (Sir B. Inglis) would hardly believe that Mr. Thorowgood could be sincere and conscientious in the matter, but having gone down to Chelmsford gaol and convinced himself to the contrary, he came back to the House and stated that he believed the man's imprisonment to have been caused by a conscientious objection to the payment of church rates, and the consequence was, that a Bill was brought in to prevent people who refused to pay them having to purge themselves of their contempt of the spiritual court.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 235; Noes 226; Majority 9.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read 3°, and passed.