BUILDING OF NEW CHURCHES.

HC Deb 09 April 1824 vol 11 cc328-61

The House having resolved itself into a committee on the Building of Churches acts,

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

observed, that he had not anticipated that it would have been necessary for him to have prefaced his motion with any introductory observations, were it not for some remarks that had followed his original proposition, as to the grant for building churches from some hon. members on the opposite side. He confessed he felt not a little surprised at the opposition that was manifested to the proposition, and much more so at the reasons which were given for hostility to the proposed application. That persons who dissented from the doctrine and faith of the church of England—that persons who were indifferent to the religion of the state at all—that such persons should entertain a disinclination to such an application of the public funds was not surprising; but he must own, that in the legislature of a country which possessed a church establishment, and which establishment it was bound to maintain, he did feel considerable astonishment in observing an opposition to a plan, having for its object to afford facilities to the professors of the established religion to attend divine service. To give to the humbler classes of the community such a facility, was, in his opinion, not only unobjectionable, but prima facie, a great good. But, of all the objections that it was possible to anticipate, he did confess that he was not prepared for the objection, that to accede to a grant for facilitating the religious intercourse of the professors of the church of England was something almost amounting to blasphemy. He knew that, in legal minds, there was great difference of opinion with respect to the definition of the word "blasphemy," and he would not undertake to say what its precise meaning was; but certainly it was the first time he had ever heard it said, that the attempt to give religious knowledge to any portion of the people, approached to blasphemy. He knew that that observation was coupled with this statement—that the proposition for building churches ought to be united with the repeal of some particular taxes. If those taxes bore heavily on the community, it might be cited as a proof of inconsistency in the individual, that he refused to consent to their repeal at the same moment that he proposed to build churches. It might even be argued, that it proved something of hypocrisy in the individual; but such reasoning could not form a ground of objection against the proposition itself. No one could deny, looking to the situation in which he, as proposer of the plan stood, but that two objects were placed before him—first to give people an opportunity of attending the service of the church; and second, to remove particular grievances. It might be desirable that those grievances should be first removed; but it could not be denied that practical good would be effected by the course which had been taken; and there was nothing connected with that course which could possibly call for such a remark as that to which he alluded. If this argument were tenable, it would go to deprive the country of an established church altogether; for no established church could be maintained otherwise than at the public expense. The dissenters paid their tithe and their parochial church rate, whether they went to church or no; and if we were to have any established church, that church must take contributions from the dissenter as well as from its own members. The object to be accomplished—the principle upon which the House must proceed—was, not the specific right of the individual, but the general advantage of the community. He thought it impossible that the general advantage of a regular attendance at places of worship could be denied; and, how could the people enjoy this advantage unless churches were built to accommodate them? The objection as to the contribution of strangers, too, was novel; and, indeed, the same principle would go to put a stop to half the proceedings of the House. Parliament had, last year, voted a sum for the education of the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland. The English Protestants certainly gained nothing by this grant; but it had not been resisted. Again, 50,000l. had been voted for Presbyterian churches and ministers in the Highlands; and no one had complained of that tax upon the members of the established church. He really thought there was nothing whatever in either of the two objections to which he had alluded; but he must say a few words as to the assertion, that the grant demanded was not necessary. The hon. member for Westminster would admit, that if a necessity for the churches asked could be made out, it would be imperative upon government to administer to that necessity as far as possible.

Mr. Hobhouse

. —To find some mode of administering to it.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

. —Well! he knew of no mode except applying to the public purse. But, the fitness of meeting the necessity being granted, he came to prove the fact; and it would be found, upon inspecting the papers before the House, that in 179 places, containing 3,548,000 inhabitants, there was only church accommodation for 500,000 persons, which was for about one individual in seven, upon the bulk of the population. He admitted, that there must be deductions from this estimate of 3,548,000 souls; some would be sick, or old, or infants, and consequently persons not attending church; but still the amount of accommodation fell far below what was required. And, what was it that left it so far below? Why the increase in population of some parishes, to a degree which, as regarded providing places of worship, entirely overpowered all their means. It was utterly impossible—and the House would find it so—to leave matters in such a situation. Here were people most anxious to go to church, and who, so far as the means were within their reach, had done so, and still did so, with infinite benefit and consolation; and it was impossible to deny them the extended use of that privilege which they felt to be such a blessing. But, honourable gentlemen said—"500,000l. will not accomplish this." Why, certainly, it would not do all; but it would do something. It appeared, upon reference to the report of the commissioners for building churches, that the million already granted had done incalculable good. It had been supposed that it might build perhaps 85 churches, and find church accommodation for 140,000 people; and, instead of that, it had sufficed to build 98 churches, and to provide accommodation for 153,000 people. In fact, the example set by parliament had excited the zeal and the emulation of the professors of the established church; and already more than 200,000l. had been subscribed for building places of worship, and further subscriptions might be expected. Those who contended for the inutility of the present grant, had said that the government was building churches into which no one would go when they were finished. But this was a heavy mistake indeed; for, according to the papers before the House, all the new churches which had been built so far, were attended by overflowing congregations. The right hon. gentleman then proceeded to read a variety of reports respecting the state of those parishes in which new erections had taken place. At Blackburn, in Lancashire, half the pews in the new church were let, and the remainder would be let but for the great convenience of the "free seats," The returns, stated, that the attendance was considerable both at the morning and evening service, and that the congregation was steadily increasing. The accounts from the city of Bath were equally satisfactory. From Hawarden, in Wales, the report announced the greatest benefit from the increasing accommodation. At Birmingham, a most populous town, and where, from the nature of the manufactures, a great number of the poor dwelt the communications afforded the highest satisfaction. In Nottingham, where there was a numerous body of dissenters, the new church had been attended by crowds. The free seats, according to the paper he held in his hand, were actually taken by storm. These were facts which demonstrated that the money applied to such a purpose had been well bestowed, and that the effect amply repaid the liberality of parliament. These were manufacturing districts. He should, however, advert to what had occurred in wilder parts of the country, and shew from documents, that even in such places the results were equally satisfactory. In the parish of Ring wood, in Hampshire, a material change had taken place in the religious demeanour of the inhabitants since the new church had been erected. The great body of the people there had heretofore consisted of smugglers and poachers; the Sabbath was con- sidered rather as a carnival than a day set apart for religious devotion. A great moral change had since been effected. All these results proved, that the good produced was more than commensurate to the expense incurred. It might be objected to him, that if one million thus applied produced so much benefit, why did he stop at a limited grant of 500,000l.? To that objection he should answer, that did the public circumstances allow an increased grant, he, for one, should say most truly and conscientiously, that such an application of the public means would not be misapplied. He never could believe that the professors of the church establishment were so cold in their attachment, as to deny the means calculated to produce such beneficial results, or that the legislature could, when the religious improvement of the humbler classes was the object, act upon the niggardly principle of stinting such a legitimate exertion. The right hon. gentleman concluded by moving, "That his majesty be authorized to direct Exchequer bills to an amount not exceeding 500,000l., to be issued to the commissioners for building and promoting the building of additional churches and chapels, to be by them advanced under the regulations and restrictions of any acts passed or to be passed for that purpose."

Mr. Hobhouse

observed, that it was quite unnecessary, on the part of the right hon. gentleman, to state the importance of the subject to which he had been directing their attention. Of that importance the House of Commons must be fully aware. If the fact really was, that any deficiency existed in the country in the means of obtaining accommodation for religious worship, he was sure that it was impossible that any hon. gentleman could be found, who would not assist his majesty's government to the utmost of his power in devising a method of supplying that deficiency. He must also remark, and he was sure the right hon. gentleman would acknowledge the truth of his observation, that in the line which he was about to pursue on this subject, he was treading on very delicate ground. He was not, as had been imputed to him on a former occasion, representing the sentiments of any dissenting class, or of any persons hostile to the church establishment: he was representing the interests, the wishes, and the feelings of his constituents, the people of Westminster; and he firmly believed, that he was also representing the interests, the wishes, and the feelings of the people of England generally. The right hon. gentleman had expressed his surprise, that any individual could object to such a grant as that now proposed, at a time when the country was so extremely rich as it was at present. Indeed, when the right hon. gentleman opened his financial statement to the House some weeks ago, he seemed quite overwhelmed with the amount of our superfluous wealth, and still more of that which we should possess at the end of four or five years; so much so, indeed, that he had asked the House, what they should do with it. The right hon. gentleman appeared rather perplexed upon the subject; but he could tell the right hon. gentleman, that the people of England would feel no embarrassment whatever in the disposal of the anticipated surplus. The people of England would be very ready, if it were left to them to do so, to point out how to dispose, not only of the 500,000l., the application of which the right hon. gentleman had just moved, but of a much larger sum, if they might be permitted, for the relief of their immediate wants. But it was contended by the right hon. gentleman, that one of the immediate wants of the people of England was religious instruction. Let that be shewn, and he would unhesitatingly vote for the right hon. gentleman's proposition. But the right hon. gentleman had not shewn any such thing. Although he felt the difficulty of the undertaking, he would endeavour to follow the right hon. gentleman through his statement. In the first place, the right hon. gentleman had asserted, that there did not, at present, exist any means of providing for the deficiency in the accommodation for the religious worship of the Church of England. He (Mr. H.) begged leave to say, that there were means in existence; there were certain funds in the possession of the church, which might fairly be applied to that purpose. Of course, he meant that those funds might be applied by degrees to the remedy of the evil; not that a large sum should be taken at once from the church property to be so applied. But, he repeated, that as the occasion arose, there were certain funds belonging to the church, which, in many respects, was highly beneficed, and could well afford such an application. What the right hon. gentleman had said of the grants to the Scotch Church had no bearing on the present question. Between the grant of last year of 50,000l. to that church, and the proposed grant of 500,000l. there was no analogy. Had the established church in Scotland any funds which could enable it to afford to do without such assistance? None whatever. If, therefore, it were required to add any thing to the extent of that establishment, the only way in which it could be done, was by a parliamentary grant. But, it did not follow, because there existed a necessity of voting a sum for the assistance of the Presbyterian church of Scotland, which possessed no funds, that it was therefore just or expedient to vote a sum for the assistance of the Episcopalian Church of England, which possessed very extensive funds. Would the right hon. gentleman say that the grant was required by any call on the part of the people of England for additional accommodation for the purposes of religious worship? There had been no such call. There had not been a single petition presented on the subject. Would the right hon. gentleman say that any deterioration had taken place in the religious feeling of the country? So far from it, that, according to the right hon. gentleman's own statement, on the occasion to which he had already alluded, the people of England were "a religious people." He (Mr. H.) was convinced that the religious feelings of the people of England had very much increased [cries of hear, hear!]. The right hon. gentleman seemed to think that he (Mr. H.) had fallen into a contradiction. What he meant was, not that the religious feeling of the people had increased, by the building of churches, in consequence of the act of 1817, but that it had increased, during a period beginning much earlier. He was persuaded that the religious feeling of the people of England had materially increased since the beginning of the French revolutionary war. Since that period he was convinced that their improvement, in point of religion and morality, had been much beyond what was generally imagined. Those who had the best means of judging, and who had attended to the subject, all acknowledged the vast improvement that had taken place, especially in the metropolis, where it was least to have been expected. All that improvement, however, occurred without any call for new churches. It was true that, according to the parliamentary papers, it appeared that since the passing of the million act in 1817, there had been forty-three applications for new churches. That was very natural. When the people knew that a certain sum had been voted by parliament for a particular purpose, it was not surprising that there should be plenty of persons desirous of sharing it. Indeed, forty-three was a very trifling number of applications, considering the number of districts, and the amount of the population in which, and by whom, according to the chancellor of the Exchequer, the want of accommodation was felt. It was alleged by the right hon. gentleman, that there were a great many places in the country, in which the inhabitants were totally without the means of resorting to churches of the national establishment. He (Mr. H.) believed that there might be some places in that situation; and certainly he agreed with the right hon. gentleman, that whenever the people were totally without the means of resorting to churches of the national establishment, something ought to be done to put them in possession of that benefit. But, he begged leave to observe, that the papers on which the right hon. gentleman founded his observations, were not at all to be relied on. In proof of this, he would mention what was the fact, within his own experience, in the city of Westminster. When he had last addressed the House on this question, he had expressed his doubts of the propriety of the proposed grant. Upon going home he had looked at the parliamentary papers, and summed up the number of persons who were stated to be without the means of religious instruction in the city of Westminster; when he found it stated, that in six parishes out of eight there were 133,000 individuals without any church accommodation, he became alarmed, and thought he had acted on wrong grounds, and must eventually vote for the right hon. gentleman's proposition. Thus feeling, he had conceived it his duty to make as extensive an inquiry as time would permit, into the state of the case in the city of Westminster. If hon. gentlemen would have the goodness to turn to the page of the papers which contained the returns respecting the city of Westminster, they would find it stated, that in the parish of St. George's Hanover-square, there was a deficiency for 33,447, individuals. This was calculated from the population census of the year 1321, including every living being. Of course therefore, there were many individuals in that number, infants, the sick, the lame, the aged, &c. who could not be reckoned among those in want of church accommodation. On the face of the statement, therefore, there was great exaggeration. It should be observed also, by the way, that there were certain churches which, owing to peculiar circumstances, were extremely thronged. The church of St. James's for instance, in consequence of the popular preaching of one of the most exalted members of the Christian church, was so crowded, that any one wishing to engage a pew must expect to wait seven years before he could obtain it. So attractive was the sacred eloquence of the dean of Canterbury, that applicants for seats in that church, were told that their names might be put on the list but that it was impossible to predict when their wishes could be complied with. To go hack to St. George's, Hanover-square. On inquiry, he found that that church was quite full, and that it was impossible to obtain a place in it. It appeared however that there were three chapels of ease in the parish. Into the state of those chapels he had made as diligent an inquiry as he could. In the very first he found that here was no want of accommodation whatever. He went to another, and understood that that was full. A third, was not full; at least accommodation might be had in it. It appeared, then, that the church was full, and that one of the chapels was full; that another of the chapels was not quite full; and a third not full at all. It was evident, therefore that implicit reliance could not be placed upon the returns. Hewould go next to St. Anne's parish. The deficiency of accommodation in that parish was stated to extend to 14,215 individuals. He had made a strict inquiry into the amount of accommodation in that parish. It contained no chapel of ease. There were, however, only 1,400 houses in the parish, and he found that there was plenty of room in the church. When, therefore, it was stated, that there were 14,215 individuals unaccommodated, it was evidently a most incorrect statement, and proved that the papers could not be trusted. He would now proceed to St. James's parish. The deficiency in St. James's parish was stated in the papers to amount to 26,319 individ- uals. It was very true, that the church was quite full. But he had inquired respecting chapels of ease; and he found, in the first place, that in the new church of St. Philip, although it was nearly full, there were seats to let, and that there were several other chapels of ease in the parish, in which places could be obtained. He now came to St. Martin's parish. The deficiency in that parish was stated at 23, 752 individuals; but he found that it was very easy to obtain accommodation in the church itself. In the parish of St. Margaret's the deficiency was stated at 20,887 individuals. It was true that the church itself was completely full; but there were three chapels of ease in the parish, in which accommodation could be obtained without any difficulty. In the parish of St. John's the deficiency was stated at 14,839 individuals. In that parish the church was not at all full, and he had been informed by one of the sextons, that even on a late occasion, when a sermon was preached there, which it was supposed would attract a crowd, there was abundant room for a hundred persons. The same person also told him, that he had never heard any complaints of a want of accommodation in the parish. Thus he had gone through six of the parishes of Westminster, and proved, that no deficiency of accommodation existed in any of them; and he understood, that the same was the case in the parishes of St. Paul's, Covent-garden and of St. Clement Danes. There were other points, however, which it was desirable to ascertain. He had certainly found, upon inquiry, that in some of the fashionable churches when any celebrated preacher officiated, those churches were completely filled. The same complaint was however made in the Dissenting chapels. In the parishes, of St. James's Westminster, the Orange-street chapel, for instance, was thronged to excess. But was that any argument for building Dissenting chapels? He had also made it his business to inquire whether, in the city of Westminster, there was any apparent deficiency in the attendance on church worship. Every authority that he had been able to consult on the subject, assured him that there was no such tiling. There was hardly a respectable shopkeeper or other householder, who did not go to a place of worship every Sunday morning. It would even be reckoned disgraceful; and he would be pointed at by his neighbours if he did not do so. He trusted, therefore, that he had proved, that, in the place which he had the honour to represent the want of accommodation represented as existing by the right hon. gentleman, was not at all felt. He would now beg to direct the attention of the House to the probable effect even of the right hon. gentleman's own proposition. He certainly was not one who, because all could not be done that it was desirable to do, would have nothing at all done. But if the deficiency alleged in the paper were well-founded, the proposition of the right hon. gentleman would scarcely amount to do any thing. He (Mr. H.) was willing to allow that there were certain isolated districts, particularly in the manufacturing parts of the country, and in which perhaps many of the parishioners were very distant from the church. in which the erection of new churches might be very expedient. But he was talking now of the general effect of the proposed measure on the country at large. It appeared that the million of money which had already been expended in the building of churches, had only provided for the accommodation of 153,886 persons. The 500,000l. therefore which the right hon. gentleman now proposed to vote would only provide for about 77,000 persons. But had the chancellor of the Exchequer calculated the sum that would be necessary to give accommodation to the 3,024,148 individuals, who, according to the papers, were in want of it? If parliament went on providing accommodation for those individuals—and, according to the right hon. gentleman it would be proposed to do so by degrees—if he knew any thing of arithmetic, it would cost twenty millions of money. It was a simple rule of three. If to provide accommodation for 153,886 individuals required a million, what would it require to provide for 3,024,148 individuals? The answer was, nearly twenty millions of money. What part of the population of the whole country was 3,024,148? Not one fourth. If the right hon. gentleman's statement was true, and there was a real crying want in the country of religious instruction, it was undoubtedly a matter of primary importance, and parliament must give the money. It was absurd to suppose that accommodation in the churches should not be provided for the people if it were wanted. But, if it would cost twenty millions to provide accommodation for the number of individuals to which he had adverted, it would cost sixty millions to provide for the whole population of the country. To go on, therefore, building churches in this way would be to embark the country in an expense which nothing but a matter of vital necessity could justify. Before he agreed to vote this sum, therefore, it was expedient to ascertain from the right hon. gentleman, whether he meant to proceed on the present scale? If the want really existed, parliament could not, on the right hon. gentleman's own principles, refuse to provide for it. He (Mr. H.) had before stated, that if the necessity existed, any one who objected to the proposed grant was bound to show how the deficiency might otherwise be supplied. Now, he thought he could find a way of supplying it much less objectionable than the way proposed by the chancellor of the Exchequer. Where could be the objection to institute double services, or, if required, treble services, in the present churches? He could see none. Those who were acquainted with the modes of religious worship on the continent, knew that the churches were open at six in the morning for the purpose of commencing the services of the day. He knew very well, that the difference between the Roman Catholic and the Protestant religion prevented any close analogy between them. He knew that the masses of the former were very short, seldom exceeding a quarter of an hour, and that several masses were celebrated at the same time, in different parts of the church. He still maintained, however, that our churches might open at a much earlier period than at present, and that two services might be performed instead of one, and if two were not enough then three. Of course the individual by whom those additional services were performed, would be entitled to additional remuneration. But that would be a very different thing from taking from the people 500,000l. at once; and that, too, on what he must call a speculation. There was also another plan which had been mentioned the other evening by the hon. member for Midhurst. That plan was, that where a community was so large as to be unable to find room in the parish church, they should themselves erect a new building for religious worship, and choose a pastor of their own. There was great liberality in the country, especially on all matters connected with religion; and he had no doubt that there were many communities, who, if they had the opportunity given them of choosing their own pastor, would acquiesce in this plan. Indeed, such a thing was frequently done as a profitable mode of employing capital. Curzon-street chapel had been built, he believed, by the Curzon family; it was well filled, and answered extremely well. The more genteel the neighbourhood, of course the more lucrative such a speculation became. He had a friend in his eye, who had told him that having lately let a piece of ground for the purpose of building a house upon, he was much surprised to find that, instead of a house, a chapel had been built upon it. What was thus done in a few cases might be done very extensively. He was persuaded that if there was a general understanding that communities would be allowed to choose their own pastors, there would be no difficulty in procuring the erection of as many new places of worship as could possibly be required. There was one danger against which it would be necessary to guard, and that was, lest the congregation of these new places of worship should degenerate into schismatics. Otherwise there would be as many various forms of worship in the country as there were places of worship. What he should propose, therefore, was, that where the community built a new place of worship and as a consequence chose their pastor, he should be liable to the approbation of his diocesan. The bishop of the diocese ought assuredly to have a veto on his appointment. That was his view of the subject. It might appear to some to be illiberal, and to be too favourable to the church of England doctrine. But he owned he was desirous that that doctrine should be maintained; and therefore it was that he wished the bishop of the diocese to possess a veto not to elect the pastor but, if he thought proper, to declare his disapprobation of him. To such a plan as this he could see no objection whatever. The right hon. gentleman had talked of a paltry regard for pounds shillings and pence. He was sorry to hear such language from a chancellor of the Exchequer, and especially at the commencement of his career. Unquestionably the saving of such a sum as 500,000l. was well deserving of the right hon. gentleman's attention. To all that was to be added the fact, that no complaints had been made by the people of a want of accommodation. Since he had had the honour of a seat in that House his doors had of course been open to his constituents. He had received from them all kinds of complaints: there was scarcely an occurrence on which he could lay his finger respecting which some complaint had not been made. There were complaints of acts of omission; there were complaints of acts of commission. But, never had he heard a single complaint of the want of religious instruction. Looking at the subject, therefore, in the point of view in which he had considered it, he was bound in honour and honesty, to propose to the committee the result of that consideration in the shape of several resolutions. These resolutions, which had a strict reference to the facts stated in the paper on which the right hon. gentleman had founded his motion, were as follow:—

"That it appears to this committee, that the sum of one million sterling has already been granted out of the public revenues for the building of churches; and that the number of individuals provided, and about to be provided, with church accommodation by the expenditure of that sum, does not exceed 153,886 persons.

"That it appears to this committee, that a further sum of 500,000l. is now required by his majesty's chancellor of the Exchequer for the same object.

"That it appears to this committee, that in 179 places or parishes only, more than three millions of individuals are stated by the parliamentary returns to be unprovided with church accommodation; and that, according to the rate of the sums already granted, and the accommodation thereby procured, it would cost the nation nearly twenty millions of money to provide for the deficiency above stated in 179 parishes or places only, besides what would be wanted for other parts of the kingdom.

"That it appears, therefore, to this committee, that some other mode than that proposed by his majesty's chancellor of the Exchequer should be adopted, for providing for whatever deficiency may exist in educating the people of this country in the doctrines of the established church; and that it is inexpedient to make any further parliamentary grant for the building of churches."

Mr. Secretary Peel

felt himself bound to acknowledge, that nothing could be more fair than the principle on which the hon. member for Westminster rested his proposition, and nothing more liberal and more becoming the dignity of the subject than the mode in which the hon. gentle- man had conducted his argument. The hon. member admitted, and very properly, that the maintenance of the national religion was, and ought to be, the paramount object of the legislature. All the hon. gentleman required was, ample proof of the necessity of making the exertion now proposed. The hon. gentleman admitted, that if the church establishment stood in need of support, he would be one of the foremost in affording it. But the hon. gentleman had endeavoured to reduce the force and weaken the validity of the arguments of his right hon. friend, and it would now be his duty to show that the hon. gentleman had not been successful in that attempt. The first position assumed by the hon. gentleman was, that there was no immediate want of religious instruction; and that it was clear there was not, otherwise there would have been a call for it on the part of the people of England. Now, in the first place, he would observe, that even if the people were indifferent on the subject, that was no reason why they should not be supplied with the means of obtaining religious instruction. But, that was not the fact. Previous to the passing of the act of 1817, applications were made from various parts of the country, calling for assistance. In that year, parliament appointed a commission to superintend the application of a million voted for the erection of new churches, and since that period all calls, which would otherwise have been made on parliament, had been made on that commission. Let not the hon. gentleman suppose that if that commission had not been appointed, calls for aid would not have been made on the House; The hon. gentleman had founded a great part of his argument on the state of the churches, and chapels of ease, in the city of Westminster. It did not appear to him, however, that any conclusive inference could be drawn from the hon. gentleman's statements on that subject. The hon gentleman said, that he had never heard a complaint in Westminster of a want of accommodation, and that there was abundant room in the churches and chapels of ease. He would ask the hon. gentleman whether the latter were chapels of free admission? The object of his right hon. friend's present proposition was, to provide free admission into places of public worship for the poor. If the hon. gentleman had visited only chapels which were attended by the rich, whose pews were frequently left empty by them, surely he would not thence argue that there was accommodation for the poor? The object of the present grant, he repeated, was to provide the means of free religious instruction and worship for the poor. The hon. gentleman had also mistaken the nature of the returns on which his right hon. friend had argued. They referred only to parishes in which the population exceeded 4,000 individuals, and in which there was a deficiency of church accommodation. In the parishes of Westminster, in which a call for accommodation had not been made, the commissioners under the act of 1817 had expended little or none of the money entrusted to their management. Let the House look at St. Margaret's parish. The deficiency in that parish was stated at 20,887 individuals; yet the commissioners had not expended a single shilling in it. Not being able to supply all the deficient parishes, they had supplied only those the cases of which were the most urgent. In all the parishes of the city of Westminster the commissioners had not provided accommodation for more than 5,000 persons. He was sure the hon. member would not argue that it was impossible accommodation could be needed in Manchester, in Birmingham, in Walsall, because no demand had been made for it in Westminster. And, was it an argument against doing all the good we could, that it was impracticable to do all the good we wished. Was it nothing for parliament to shew a disposition on the subject? Would it be no advantage that even one member of every family should have the means of attending divine worship? If the hon. member would inquire, he would find that the attendance on divine worship of even a single member of a family was highly desirable. It frequently happened, that the profligate and vicious habits of those members of a family who did not attend divine worship, were corrected by the moral and religious habits of a member who did attend; and that the virtuous member of a family, frequently succeeded in converting the criminal part of it. Even where a child of the tenderest years had been brought up morally, it often happened that it shamed its parents from a vicious course of life, and became the instrument of reclaiming them. He could not concede, therefore, that the benefit of the vote should be Homed to those to whom it would give the means of obtaining religious instruction. He would draw the hon. member's attention to a document, which, however, was not on the table of the House, to show that it was not likely the proposed vote would be so useless as the hon. gentleman seemed to suppose. Supposing a parish contained 6,000 persons, and that 1,000 at present attended divine service, it by no means followed, that the remaining 5,000 were in want of accommodation. From that number must be deducted the sick, the aged, and those of tender years. He was not sure that, in every case, the whole number of the dissenters ought also to be deducted. God forbid that in a free country like England any man should be prevented from adopting the system of religion which he preferred. But, where dissenters were dissenters only because there was a deficiency of accommodation in the churches of the establishment, that was another question. Such persons, if accommodation were afforded them, would doubtless attend the service of the established church, and thus the desirable object of diminishing the amount of schism in the country would be gained. He could not, therefore, in his calculation, exclude those who were dissenters, not from conscientious motives, but for the sound reason that any mode of divine worship was preferable to none. On the whole, therefore, he would calculate the probable number of attendants on the service of the church, provided there were accommodation for them, would be about a fourth of the population. That was, supposing there were ten thousand inhabitants in a town, it was not unreasonable to say, that if means were afforded for their attendance in the church of England service, 2,500 would so attend. If that were a just calculation there was certainly reason to hope that the good to be done by voting the sum of 500,000l. on the present occasion would not be so remote as the hon. gentleman supposed. Let the hon. gentleman examine the state of some of the large towns. The population of Manchester for instance, was estimated at 187,000 souls. A fourth would be 46,750. There was at present church accommodation for 22,468; so that there only remained 24,282 to be provided with accommodation. The population of Birmingham was estimated at somewhat more than 100,000 souls. A fourth would rather exceed 25,000. There was at present church accommodation for 16,000 so that there remained scarcely 10,000 to be provided with accommodation. Now, could any one doubt, that with the means allowed, a great portion of those 10,000 might be accommodated? The population of Leeds was estimated at 84,000. A fourth was about 20,000. There was at present church accommodation for 10,000; so that there remained about 10,000 to be provided with accommodation. Nothing could be more fallacious than the hon. gentleman's argument, that if the House were not prepared to vote twenty millions for the purpose of providing church accommodations for the three million and odd who needed it, they should not vote the 500,000l. now required of them. Let them do as much good as they could; and he trusted they would with that sum of 500,000l. sow seed, which would be productive of an abundant and valuable harvest.—But, the hon. gentleman had asked, "why the services at the present churches were not doubled?" He admitted, that they ought to be so. It was a mode of advantageous co-operation with the grant proposed. But, the fact was, that, in many churches, the services were already doubled and trebled. Nay, in some, there were as many as five services in a day.—With respect to the choice of a clergyman, the hon. member for Westminster knew, that where the consent of the bishop and the patron was procured, there was no difficulty upon that head. The hon. gentleman had referred to the state of the churches in Westminster; but what was the state of the churches in other places? In the manufacturing districts; in Halifax, in Walsall, and Frome? In Frome the number of inhabitants was 12,400; there were accommodations in the church for only 950. In Walsall the number of inhabitants was 12,000; the accommodations were only for 700. In Halifax the population amounted to 92,850, and out of that number 85,480 had no means of attending religious worship. Having made that statement to the House he would ask, was it right that such a state of things should go on? Was it not right that the legislature should provide for the religious accommodation and comfort of those who, though poor, were yet, he might say, the sinews and strength of the country? There could be no rational objection to laying out half a million of money on this object. As to the million already granted, there was no pretence of there being any thing wrong in the application of it. Of the churches the ex- penses of which were voted in the reign of queen Anne, only eleven were built in all; but out of the one million voted by the present parliament there had been nearly a hundred churches built. The 500,000l. if granted, would enable them to build fifty more. This would excite the liberality of individuals; and if together they could succeed in providing the means of religious worship for one member only out of every family in. 80,000 families, they would effect a greater good than they could achieve by any other application of the same sum of money.

Mr. John Smith

said, that no man could feel more strongly than he did the importance of the present subject; but he was not one of those who thought that the building of churches was alone sufficient to improve the morals of the population. He was of opinion, that a grant of the public money, to be applied towards the purposes of education, would be much more desirable. He was by no means against the building of churches: but, might not churches be built without the aid of parliament? There might be some places which required churches, and, from local considerations, required the aid of parliament. In those particular cases, he would be the last to resist a vote for the building of churches. In Lancashire, and in some other places, it might be found necessary to build additional churches; and, for that purpose, he would have no objection to vote a sum of 100,000l., or 150,000l.

Dr. Lushington

said, he could not accede to the arguments which had been used against the proposition before the committee. On the contrary, he thought the grant was not only required by the necessities of the people, but was demanded from the House, no less as a measure of justice than of expediency. The principal object in erecting new churches ought to be to provide seats in them for such persons as were unable, from their poverty, to pay any thing for such accommodation. To this point he had particularly directed his attention, and in considering it now he besought the attention of the House to the ancient law and principle by which it bad been governed. It must be in the knowledge of many honourable gentlemen, that there still remained unrepealed upon the statute books, several acts of the reign of queen Elizabeth, by which all persons who absented themselves, from the ap- pointed times of divine worship were subject to penalties. He knew that these acts were not now enforced; but it was enough for his purpose, that they manifested the sense formerly entertained of the duty and necessity of all persons attending public worship. Nothing could, therefore, be more unjust than to leave the requisition remaining on the Statute-book, while the possibility of fulfilling the duty it enjoined was taken away. He would even go further; for he had heard, from the highest authority in the law, an opinion expressed, that the inhabitants of any place might now be compelled to enlarge the several places of worship it contained, so as to provide every individual who pleased to attend them with a seat. He mentioned these circumstances to shew the justice of the proposed vote. But, when he considered the consequences which the dearth of places of public worship must occasion to the establishment of the church of England, he was further convinced of its necessity. Those consequences were, that the poor were driven to the alternative of absenting themselves entirely from the public service of God, or of taking shelter in dissenting chapels. Did the members of that House, almost all of whom were members of the established church, think that either of these alternatives should be presented to the choice of the poor? For his own part, he was decidedly of a different opinion. Let the House consider what was taking place. It was not his Object, in the statement he was about to make, to hold up in an invidious light the religious sentiments of persons who differed from him; but he wished the church of England to have fair play, and that the dissenters should not have their doors open, while those of the former were shut. At that moment there was a society called the Home Missionary Society, which was almost exclusively employed in sending its agents to every part of the kingdom, for the purpose of collecting subscriptions, and increasing the numbers of those who were no longer to belong to the established church. To the operations of that society he felt reluctant that the field should be left open. And, what the nature of those operations were, the House might gather from a pamphlet which he held in his hand, and which purported to be the society's third report. Some agent of the society, who had been pursuing his labours through the county of Worcester, described it in these terms: "I shall here attempt a description of the very deplorable state in which I have found the people of this dark county. It puts me at my wit's end when I think of the depravity of its thoughtless inhabitants. I shall only touch upon the manner in which they profane the Holy Sabbath." Here the learned doctor said, he feared the House would be lost in horror when they should hear of the enormities which were committed by the people of this "dark" county. "They play against each other at foot-ball, and at hurling in a field adjoining to the church. Some of them play at fives, some at ball, some with sticks upon the green, some go to the river with lines and nets, and the youth of both sexes" (Oh, monstrous!) "assemble together, and spend the evening in social mirth." The zealous agent recommended that a march should be immediately commenced, and that, invested in gospel armour, they should go from house to house (and this was literally done) to collect subscriptions, the object of which was to spread the progress of dissent through the benighted county of Worcester. He was sorry that these labours should go on uninterrupted. He deplored the manner in which doctrines were propagated, which, if they gained a fast hold upon the minds of the people, would be productive of infinite mischief. He would not compare such doctrines with those of the established church; and it was because he wished to see the establishment upon a proper footing, as regarded the dissenters, that he should support the present vote. There was another paper which purported to be an account of the monthly-prayer meetings. One preacher was appointed to begin, another to go on, and a third to conclude; and the end of all this was to obtain subscriptions. The mischief which had been already done by these practices was infinite; and with his goodwill they should do no more. It had been asked, why did not the members of the church of England subscribe and build churches as the dissenters had built chapels? He replied because they had been accustomed, and moreover were entitled, to the enjoyment of places of public worship without subscribing. Although it would be easy for the rich to subscribe, it was beyond the power of the less affluent to do so. To the proposition which had been thrown out for vesting in the in-habitants the right of electing the clergymen of the new churches, he decidedly objected. He had had the honour of being counsel in the case of a parish in the city of London, where the election was disputed. A regular scrutiny of votes ensued, and the litigation occupied five whole years. Without, however, entering into the details of all the mischiefs with which this mode was fraught, his objection to it was mainly, that the necessary canvass was degrading to the dignity of the establishment; and, after all, it did not tend to place in the pulpit that clergyman who was most fit for the situation. It had rather the effect of appointing what was called a popular preacher"—one of those who made no scruple of sending his hearers to the lowest part of the other world—a doctrine, which, however comfortable it might be to some persons, by no means suited his (Dr. L's) notions. It was, as he humbly apprehended, the duty of a clergyman of the church of England to abide by the doctrines he had sworn to maintain, and to court the favour of no one. It had been asserted by the hon. member for Westminster, that there was a sufficient number of chapels in that city. This he denied. He lived in Westminster, and he was obliged to pay not only for his family, but for his servants. He did not complain of this for himself: it was his duty to pay, and he did it cheerfully. But, how could the poor afford to do it? Let the House consider how many poor persons there were within a mile of the house, who out of their earnings could afford nothing for such a purpose, and from whom, too, nothing ought to be required. He had one objection to make to the operations of the commissioners for building churches; it was, that their expenditure was on too large a scale. He thought that at least they should furnish one free sitting for every 5l. they expended. He objected, too, that the bill, while it provided that the livings of the new churches should not be held by the incumbent of the mother church, had not also provided against their being held by persons already in possession of other benefices. He appealed to the good sense of the House whether, if the sum of 150l. was not enough to ensure a competent discharge of the duty, 75l. (and no more would be paid to stipendiary curates) would effect the purpose. This he proposed to remedy in the committee. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded by observing, that the people of this country, in many places, stood much in need of places of worship; and that it was the bounden duty of parliament to provide such places. For so long as the want of churches was felt, so long would crime increase; and, the more the service of the established church was enforced, the greater would be the security for the morals, the comfort, and the happiness of the people.

Mr. Hume

said, he was sorry to obtrude himself upon the attention of the House, but really, after the speech of the hon. and learned gentleman, he could not sit silent. He confessed he had never heard a speech with more regret, and at the same time a speech so little applicable to the subject. A more unfair allusion had never been made, than that of his hon. and learned friend to previous acts of parliament. He was greatly surprised to have heard a reference made to the acts of Elizabeth, by which Protestants were compelled to attend divine worship. Surely his hon. and learned friend must have forgotten the principle upon which those acts were founded. They were passed, in point of fact, to preclude persons of all denominations, from attending any place of divine worship, except the church of England. Did not his hon. and learned friend know that those acts were passed in support of the acts of Henry 8th after his separation from the church of Rome; and that they were directed against the church of Home alone? He was at a loss to discover how those statutes could be made to apply in the present day, unless his hon. and learned friend meant to resort to compulsion to procure attendance at divine worship. His hon. and learned friend had been equally unfortunate in a subsequent proposition which he had laid down. He said, that he wished the church to have fair play; and, in pursuance of that opinion, he had read some extracts from a pamphlet, or letter, for aught he knew, written by his hon. and learned friend himself. He did not mean to. say that that was the case in the present instance, but he really was at a loss to know for. what purpose that document had been read, unless his hon. and learned friend meant to commence a crusade against all dissenters. Had his. hon. and learned friend read what had been written of John Wesley by Mr. Southey? Mr. Southey had attributed all the reformation which Wesley had achieved, and all the good which he had accomplished, to his unremitting perseverance and exposure of abuses. If his hon. and learned friend would go to Scotland, he would there see ball-playing of a Sunday, and other amusements which, in fact, were nothing but the remnants of usages which were at one time in common practice, and which still had an existence in Catholic countries. But he was sure the House would agree with him, that that man must be illiberal indeed who would object to the amusement on a Sunday of those poor persons who had been laboriously employed during the other six days in the week. He had himself been educated as strictly as any man ever was in the principles of the Church of Scotland; but he had lived long enough to know that the practice of sound morality, and the exercise of the best charities of the heart, could exist in perfection without coldness and severity. For what purpose had his hon. and learned friend read that extract, if not to draw a contrast between the dissenters and the members of the establishment, and to show that the former were exerting themselves to obtain proselytes? Had he not said, that a Home Missionary office had been established, from which agents were dispatched from town to town, and from village to village, to disseminate their doctrines? If he understood the meaning of that passage, it was intended to expose the over-heated, but still the honest zeal of the dissenters. But it was most unfair to call on the House to believe that the opinions contained in that pamphlet were the opinions of the whole body of the Methodists. He had been anxious, before he had come to the House, to make himself acquainted with the proportion which the dissenters bore to the Protestant population of the country, with a view to see how far the present vote was warranted, by what had been called, a paramount necessity. The only parliamentary document he could find, was a return which had been laid on the table in 1812; from which it appeared, that, out of 1,881 parishes, there were 2,533 churches and chapels, belonging to the establishment, and 3,428, belonging to the dissenters; making for the dissenters, one third more than for the establishment. Here, then, on the one hand, we had zeal and perseverance opposed to indolence on the other; and, if they wished to give the church of England fair play, they roust match them with men of like zeal, talent, and assiduity. But, instead of this, how was it proposed to proceed? Why, by building stone walls; as if they could impart zeal or talent, or inculcate the doctrines of the church of England. He had seen churches enough—he had seen them tolerably well built, well furnished, and, no doubt, well endowed; but very ill filled. And why? because they were superintended by men who had been selected, not on account of their qualifications to teach, but with a view to patronage. The right hon. gentleman opposite had said, that whenever a good preacher was found, the church was taken by storm; and, yet, the mode which his hon. and learned friend would propose to give the church fair play, was, not to please the congregation, but to continue that patronage which, under the present system, was most offensive. Greatly superior to that was the proposition of his hon. friend near him (Mr. J. Smith), to educate the people. He thought that the system of election, instead of being injurious, would be attended with the most beneficial consequences.—But, to come to the real point before the committee, and which had been too much overlooked. He would ask, were we now about to establish a new system? The chancellor of the Exchequer had said, that the churches of England and Scotland were very different in this respect. It was quite true. In Scotland the parishioners and land-owners were bound to erect the church, and to maintain it and provide for the clergy; and, before the House consented to vote 500,000l. for building churches in England, in addition to the million which had been already voted, he would ask, were there no funds allotted for the express purpose of building churches; or were we to be told, that every appropriation of money made by the clergy was just and proper? He should wish to hear from some of the gentlemen who supported this proposition, for what objects tithes were originally destined. He could quote the highest authority on this subject, he meant Mr. Seldon, who had said, that tithes were originally dedicated to four purposes. The first was, to maintain the church, the second was, to maintain the clergy, the third was, to provide relief for the poor, and the fourth object was, to support the bishop. Now, he conceived, that the revenues of the church of England, looking especially to the amount received in tithes, were so large, so much larger than those of any other church, except that of Ireland, that it was highly proper that such an inquiry as was called for should be instituted on the present occasion. The right hon. gentleman had spoken of the riches of the country as fairly authorizing the grant of public money proposed. Why, the fact was, that in this kingdom there were thousands of artificers who were working hard for the pittance of from 5s. to 7s. a week for the sustenance of themselves and their families. Such being the case, he must be allowed to doubt whether the country could be properly called rich. The money-market, indeed, might be full, owing to the redundancy of capital in particular hands; but he totally denied that the great mass of the people, the lower classes, could be considered rich. At this moment there were three committees sitting up stairs, whose object was inquiry into the condition of those classes; and he would venture to affirm, that whenever the reports of those committees should be laid before the House, they would exhibit nothing but details of poverty. The right hon. gentleman had little reason to describe the people generally as being rich, when so large a portion of them were employed from twelve to fourteen or fifteen hours a day for so small a pittance per week. Did the right hon. gentleman forget, that out of the population he spoke of, amounting to sixteen or seventeen millions, there were seven millions at least who were not very comfortably off. What could be said, for example, of the Irish peasantry? A sounder suggestion had not been often made in that House, than the alteration of the vote before the committee, which had been just proposed by the hon. member for Midhurst. His hon. friend had very sensibly and feelingly observed, that it was impious to appropriate 500,000l. to the building of bare walls that could be of little or no use when built, when the money might be applied for the purposes of instruction to be given to the poor, especially in Ireland; and to which purposes the hon. member, therefore, desired to see the money applied. The right hon. gentleman opposite had asked, whether any objection was made by parliament at the time that the million of money was asked of it for the building of churches? He was very sorry to reply, that certainly no objection was made at the time. He would confess, that 1,000,000l. was granted then, and 100,000l. annually, from a period commencing in 1809, and continuing until about three years since, when he (Mr. H.) had the good fortune to prevent its further duration by a motion which he had had the honour to submit to Parliament. But really the question propounded by the light hon. gentleman furnished no argument for the vote which he called upon the committee to come to. He would readily admit that there were many among our own clergy who were exceedingly ill paid; but he must repeat, that the revenues of the church were sufficiently ample to provide for them, and for this grant. It should never be forgotten, that this 500,000l. was part of what had been denominated a "God send"; repaid, however, as an acknowledgment of a debt, principal and interest, due to the people of England, amounting to 21,000,000l.; and that this 500,000l. was one whole fourth of all that England had received on account of that debt. To apply it to such a purpose as this, did appear to him perfectly unjustifiable. His majesty's ministers were at present in very good grace with the public [hear hear]; at least they themselves said so, and he supposed they had some reason for the assertion. If they were so, however, it was only in virtue of the comparison offered by those who had preceded them. Before they thought of building churches with this sum of 500,000l., he would recommend them to examine into the income of the bishoprick of Durham [hear]. If the hon. gentleman who cheered admitted that that vast income was given originally for religious purposes, he must beg to be informed whether it was not too much for the services actually performed. If it was, let the excess of such income be appropriated to the building of new churches. In the course of the last year, 50,000l. had been voted for building churches in Scotland; and he had been asked, why he had not opposed that grant? The reason was this. When the million of money had been voted for building churches in England, the sum of 100,000l. had been voted for Scotland-; and it surely would have been very illiberal and unjust in him to have acquiesced in the one, and opposed the other, particularly when only one half of the sum voted was proposed to be given. But, how stood the question with regard to Ireland? If ever an argument had been misplaced, it was that of the chancellor of the Exchequer on this subject. He said, "will you refuse the sum of 500,000l. to build Protestant churches, when you vote a sum of money annually for the Catholics in Ireland?" Now it was very true, that the small sum of 10,000l. was voted annually for the college of Maynooth; but, let it not be forgotten, that the people of that country are saddled with tithes to the amount of two millions and a half, and that the Bum of 700,000l. had been levied on them for building Protestant churches, so that really he thought the right hon. gentleman, in using this argument, was catching at straws, for he could not suppose it would have any weight with the House. Now, then, he came to the disposition of the people, and, upon this point, he quite agreed with his hon. and learned friend, that if the people wanted churches it was fitting they should have them. He knew very well that some of the dissenters paid very liberally—and, he also knew, that some did not—for the building of churches. The Quakers were a class of people who would not pay unless they were compelled. But the course which he would pursue was this: if churches were required, he would, in the first instance examine whether there were not sufficient funds arising out of church property to build them; and, if the House were not disposed to go along with him in that course, he would next try, whether the necessary sums could not be raised amongst those who required the new church, without calling on the people at large to contribute. He would undertake to say, that if a clause were introduced in the bill, enabling persons to build churches under certain regulations; such as that one-third of the seats should be free, and that a committee of the parishioners should have the power of nominating the clergyman; he was persuaded that many would be found to come forward, and that it would not be necessary to apply to parliament for a grant. What was the use of an establishment if it did not pass men properly qualified for the discharge of the duties to which they were appointed. He well knew that the church possessed some excellent and valuable members; but at the same time he must say, that through the fingers of these very scrupulous gentlemen there sometimes did pass men, to judge from whom, the qualification could not be very difficult. They found many individuals who, after having run a gay life in the army, navy, or marines, were now entered in to holy orders. He had no objection to any person who was properly qualified, but when they found that the examination was exceedingly lax, he could not consent to have it said, that he, or those who thought with him, were desirous of having in the church ill-qualified persons. All that he wished was, that the person appointed should have gone through all the required forms, and obtained the bishop's certificate. His hon. and learned friend had asked, "Would you call on the poor man to pay for his seat?" Certainly not. On the principle to which he had adverted, accommodation would be provided for all; but patronage should not be allowed to stand in the way. By returns made in 1810,1811,1812,1813, and 1814, relative to the church of England, it appeared that of 10,600 parsons 6,804 incumbents were non-residents; 3,798 were residents. Parliament had heard a good deal about the absentees and non-residents in the church of Ireland; but they bore no proportion to the absentees in the church of England. In Ireland the proportion was about 800, residents to 400 absentees. In England, according to the return of 1814, which was similar to that of 1817, almost to a fraction, the non-residents were thus stated—exemptions from residence 2,545; ditto by licences, and various other causes 2,758; exemptions, sinecures, and sequestrations 1,306; ditto miscellaneous causes 195; making a total of 6,804. The right hon. gentleman opposite would confer a great benefit on the country, if he could abolish this practice altogether, as well as the system of pluralities. If a man wished to be idle let him get no pay. Let those only receive a compensation who attended to their duties. Let every man pursue his own vocation: for then and then only would the national establishment have fair play. There was one point more which he had nearly forgotten. He was persuaded, that if the right hon. secretary had considered more attentively the subject, he would not have adduced Manchester as an instance of the necessity of granting this vote. In Manchester there were, as it appeared from the return, 186,941 inhabitants; accommodation in the churches was only provided for 14,300, so that there was a deficiency of room for 172,641; and "so great was the desire," said the right hon. gentleman, "to provide additional accommodation, that they would consider the building of some additional chuches as the greatest blessing." Now he could state a few facts relating to Manchester; which really was a religious community. There were few places in which there was more devotion, and although the population was poor, there was a very regular attendance on divine worship. However in the month of June, 1820, in consequence of a proposition made by the commissioners for building churches, a public meeting was called of the inhabitants of Manchester by the borough-reeve, and it was attended by all the respectable residents. The clergyman Mr. Mallory who was a zealous and conscientious advocate for the building of churches, presided over the meeting and brought with him every one whom he could either directly or indirectly influence. When the question was proposed—"Shall we accept the offer of the commissioners to build the church?" great opposition was made, and a division having been called for, an overwhelming majority was found against the proposition, and the resolution was negatived. A copy of the proceedings of the meeting was sent to the commissioners and another to lord Sidmouth. However notwithstanding the representation, the commissioners determined to persevere in their intention of building, and the consequence was that the church was not half full. He was warranted in stating, that these allegations could he distinctly proved, and he thought that if he took this case of Manchester as an example, which had been particularly dwelt on upon the opposite side, he was justified in saying that no case of necessity had been made out. He must repeat his determination, although a friend to the established church, to give the present vote every opposition in his power.

Dr. Lushington

, in explanation, begged most distinctly to disclaim every species of hostility to the dissenters, and to say, that it would be most painful to him if any misconception entertained by the hon. member for Montrose, should go forth to the public; but there had not been one word in his speech which, being justly interpreted or rightly understood, would bear any such construction as the hon. gentleman had put upon it. The paper he had read from was the third report of the Home Missionary Society, which he did not quote in any ill feeling towards the dissenters, but to show the necessity that existed for the church of England receiving her poorer members into her own congregation. He thought there was a great difference between hostility to the dissenters, and attachment to one's own religion. He had always given his vote in favour of the most extended toleration, and, only a few nights ago, had paid the humble tribute of his applause to the exertions of the missionaries in the West Indies. In rising to correct a misconception on the part of the hon. gentleman, it might happen that he himself was mistaken, owing to the difficulty which was sometimes experienced in making out what it was that the hon. gentleman really meant to say.

Mr. George Bankes

said, it had been stated by his hon. friend, the member for Westminster, that since the new church at Marylebone had been built, the price of pews in the old church had considerably risen. Now, to him this really seemed the oddest argument in the world against the necessity for new churches. The hon. member for Aberdeen had spoken of churches as being composed merely of four stone walls, and had asked, of what use could they be to religion? Why, he had heard of religious service having been performed in tubs in open fields; but he certainly thought that the government of every state was bound to provide for the decent performance of the religious rites which it professed to uphold. As for the general principle of building new churches, it certainly ought to be a main object with government to provide for the union of sexes (sects) [laughter]. That union had been an object much attended to in Ireland. It was an union that it was of the greatest consequence to keep up [renewed laughter]. He apprehended, from the laughter in which hon. gentlemen indulged, that he had inadvertently committed some verbal inaccuracy. He need hardly say that, on such a subject, he had no intention to speak with levity, and he begged to give his cordial support to the motion.

Mr. W. Smith

expressed his inability to support the grant until it should be ascertained whether the necessary funds could not be furnished out of the revenues of the established church.

Lord Palmerston

regretted the change which seemed to have taken place in the opinion of the House upon this subject. At a period when the finances of the country were not in so flourishing a state, they had concurred in voting a million for the same purpose: but now that they had a surplus revenue, and the circumstances of the nation were in every respect improved, they were called upon to pause before they granted half that sum. What could be the reason of such a change? Was it that the necessity did not still exist? The opponents of the measure would hardly advance such an assertion, when they recollected that, from the year 1801 to 1821, the population had increased three millions. It might be necessary for him, after what he had heard that night, to disclaim all hostility to the dissenters. He was not one of those who wished to see political distinctions established between religious sects, as he had often proved by his votes in that House; but at the same time he regretted to see the increasing number of the dissenters. It was his wish that the established church should be the predominant one in this country; for nothing, he was persuaded, could tend more to the general tranquillity and happiness of a people, than a community of sentiment, as far as it could be obtained without intolerance to any party, in matters of religious doctrine. If they denied to the people the means of attending divine worship according to the practice of the established church, how could they expect that the members of the establishment would continue to increase? It had been said, that this defect ought to be remedied by voluntary contribution, and the case of the dissenters was alluded to in support of the opinion. But, there was a difference between the two cases. The dissenters, both rich and poor, were under a necessity of providing themselves with places of worship for which the state made no provision, and it was easy for the rich dissenters to make up the sum required. But with respect to the church of England, it was the poor alone who felt the want of church accommodation. The rich could purchase pews, and they were always certain of finding sufficient room; but it would be most preposterous to say that the poor should subscribe for churches out of their small earnings. It had been said, that the application of this fund to churches was a wanton expenditure of the public money, and that it would be much better if it were laid out in giving them the benefit of education. No man could have a stronger feeling of the advantages of having the poor educated than he had; but it must be recollected, that education did not consist in merely learning to read and write. These were the means, and not the objects of education; the objects were moral and religious instruction. Let the committee look at the difference between the inhabitants of Scotland and those of Ireland. In the former there was a peaceable and orderly disposition to obey the laws: in the latter, a constant tendency to outrage and disorder was manifest. What was the cause? It was that the Scotch were better educated than the Irish. He did not mean to say that there were more in one country who knew how to write than in the other, for the difference in this respect would be found to be less than was generally imagined; but the fact was, that one people had the advantages of moral and religious education in a much greater degree than the other. The noble lord concluded by expressing his cordial approbation of the resolution.

Mr. Gordon

said, that when the chancellor of the Exchequer first proposed this measure, he had thought it a misapplication of the public money; but on reflection, he had found reason to alter his opinion, particularly when he found from the papers, that there was such a want of church accommodation. He was induced to alter his opinion after hearing the speech of the learned civilian, and more particularly was he convinced of the necessity of it after having heard the speech of the hon. member for Aberdeen. Since he had had the honour of a seat in that House, he had never heard a speech with which he was more dissatisfied. [Hear, hear, from some members on the opposition side.] He always found that when a member happened to differ from those with whom he usually acted, they were much less tolerant to him than those whom he usually opposed. This, however, should not prevent him from giving his conscientious opinion on every occasion, whether it was in unison with, or in opposition to, that of his political friends. It had been truly stated by the hon. and learned gentleman, that a set of peripatetic missionaries were going about the country, from house to house, endeavouring to infuse what they called stricter notions of religion into the people. He feared that this was a canting and hypocritical age; and it was because he saw less of that cant and hypocrisy in the established church, than amongst the evan- gelical missionaries, that he was anxious to support that church, by voting for the resolution.

The committee then divided on the resolution, when the numbers were: For the motion 148; Against it 59. Majority 89.