GRIEVANCES OF DISSENTERS.

HC Deb 05 May 1834 vol 23 cc506-14

Mr. Wilks

presented a petition, signed by upwards of one hundred of the deputies of the different congregations of the metropolis, and within twelve miles of it, praying for relief. The petition was agreed to at a meeting where the utmost unanimity prevailed, and the firmest declarations of their full intention to demand their rights; and the petitioners found a difficulty in repressing the expressions of their indignation at the line of conduct pursued by his Majesty's Government towards them. In fact, there was scarcely a town or parish in the kingdom in which the Dissenters were not prepared specifically to petition for the removal of their disabilities, and especially for relief from Church-rates. If they were disregarded and disappointed, they would be compelled to come forward in a more decided manner, because they would naturally be led to inquire into the source of the evils of which they complained; and, on discovering that the source of all their grievances was the intolerance of the Church, it would not be wonderful if they were heard in united millions demanding the separation of Church and State; and he, in fact, was quite sure, that numerous petitions with that prayer would soon be poured into the House.

Lord John Russell

said, he would not enter into the objections which the petitioners had made to the measures of relief which had been proposed to the House by his Majesty's Government on the present occasion; but, as the hon. Member had thought fit to take that opportunity of making another declaration of his sentiments on the subject, perhaps he might be permitted to state in a few words, what he conceived to be the plain question for the consideration of that House, whenever the subject should come before it. Two grounds of objection had been made to the Ministerial measures of relief. The first was, that the Church had sufficient means to support itself and keep the fabric in repair out of its own funds. That was a fair question for argument; and when it came before the House, he should be prepared to meet it. He should endeavour to prove, that it was not expedient, that it was not wise, and that it was not just, to insist that the Church, out of the funds it now possessed, without the aid of the State, should keep in repair the places of worship. The second objection was of a different kind; it was not, that the money which was necessary for the repair of the Church, should not be paid, but it was an objection of principle, and it went the extent of saying, that persons differing in religious opinions from an established Church, ought not to be called upon to contribute in any shape to its support. It might be a right principle, it might be a proper principle, for the Dissenters to argue, but he hesitated not to say, it was a principle utterly subversive of the Church Establishment; and he considered, that if ever the Legislature should consent to admit the doctrine, that any man who said he did not agree to the religious tenets and opinions of the Established Church, should be thereupon for ever exempt from any contribution towards the maintenance of the Church, it would, in fact, declare, that no Church Establishment should any longer exist at the expense of the State. That was a position he was not prepared to take. He was sorry to see the Dissenters endeavouring, by their petitions, to push the Government on to the question of a separation of Church and State; but his own line of conduct had been taken; he was desirous to relieve all the practical grievances of Dissenters; but if it came to a struggle, whether or not the Established Church should exist in alliance with the State, he should be for supporting the Church; and whenever a severance should be proposed, he was resolved firmly to oppose it.

Mr. Hume

said, the complaints against the Established Church were now becoming so loud and numerous, that it would be impossible for the House long to resist them. He had petitions from all parts of the realm on the subject. Some prayed for a total separation from the State; some complained of the tithe system; and others were against the payment of Church-rates. He had heard the noble Lord say, that his line of conduct was chalked out with much concern, because he thought that course ought to be taken with great care and caution. He, for his part, had always been of opinion, that a Protestant Church ought to exist in this country, founded on the religious opinions of the Majority; that a Protestant Church ought also to exist in Scotland, but a Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. The last, however, in his opinion, ought not to be an establishment. He thought the Dissenters had little to expect from the present Government, nor was there much hope to be entertained of a Reform in the Establishment. He confessed, that when he saw one Government determined to support the acknowledged abuses of the Church at all hazards, succeeded by another equally inclined to follow in the same steps, it became the duty of the House to consider, whether it would not take upon itself the arbitration of the question between the Government and the people. The consequence of the Government refusing to concede the just claims of the Dissenters, must be to promote a sectarian warfare in all parts of the country, which, if it was suffered to proceed, would end in the destruction of true religion in England. The hon. Member then referred to the origin of the alliance between the Church and State, and said it could not be defended by the arguments originally used in support of the connexion. The circumstances had totally changed; the power that brought the State to the assistance of the Church having totally disappeared, and now nothing was to be apprehended from Popery. He believed, if pluralities and the other abuses of the Church were any longer maintained, a question would soon be asked—of what use was the Established Church? Let it only be decided, that the State was necessary to the support of religion, and then there could be no difficulty in the question. The Dissenters formed nearly a majority of the population of the country. From returns in his possession, it appeared, that in twenty-nine large manufacturing towns in England, the members of the Established Church formed only one-fifth of the population. If that were the case, could any man in his senses imagine, that the Dissenters, with such a strong numerical power, would tamely submit to the domination that had existed so long? If the abuses of the Church were removed, he did not wish to see any separation; but if no alteration took place, he trusted an inquiry would very shortly be made into the tenure by which the property of the Church was held. He entreated Government to come forward with some measure of relief in favour of the Dissenters, to prevent that revolution which must necessarily take place if justice were withheld.

Mr. James

read an extract from a letter he had received from a Dissenting clergyman in Carlisle, for the consideration of the noble Lord; it stated, that the Dissenters had been disappointed and astounded by the mock relief of Lord John Russell and Lord Althorp's Church-rate Bill, and said, it was a proof the Dissenters had not much to expect from the present Government, but that they must look to their Representatives. He (Mr. James) was a friend to the Established Church, because he wished to see the Establishment rest on its own resources. The sooner the connexion between Church and State was done away with the better, for if the people of England continued to be taxed for the support of any particular creed or doctrine, the Establishment must very soon fall. People might talk of the Established Church being the ancient religion of the country, but the Roman Catholic was the oldest religion, except Paganism; one half the country was Dis- senters, therefore their rights ought to be respected.

Mr. Finch

was in favour of a Church Establishment. It was erroneously argued, that because the Saviour had said, "My kingdom is not of this world, else would my servants fight," it was not the duty of States to support a national religion; but if he read the Scriptures rightly, he learned that "kings were to be the nursing fathers, and queens the nursing mothers" of the Church. He agreed, that the kingdom of our Saviour was not of this world, but he knew of no connexion between Church-rates and religion. The Church was not opposed to improvement which would tend to promote its religious interests. Its members were opposed to the taxation of the clergy and the destruction of bishoprics; but if any plan of real and substantial improvement was introduced, whether it related to pluralities or non-residence, or any matters of that nature, he (Mr. Finch), and those who thought with him, would, instead of opposing it, give it their cordial sanction and support. The tax of which the Dissenters complained did not average 3d. per head on the whole population of the empire. He believed, that no measure introduced by Government would satisfy the Dissenters. Nothing would satisfy them but a separation between the Church and the State. At future elections the cry would no longer be "Whig" or "Tory," but "Church, or no Church." If the hon. Member knew anything of the principles upon which a Church Establishment was founded, it was, that the Government, believing a religion to be true, should endeavour to promote and protect it. If the Roman Catholic religion was true, could the Protestant be at the same time true? If the Protestant religion was true, must not the Roman Catholic be founded in error? He (Mr. Finch) must, therefore, protest against such observations proceeding from the mouth of an hon. Member professing the Protestant religion. [Mr. O' Connell made an observation.]—He was not arguing with the hon. and learned member for Dublin, for he thought, that House should not be the arena for theological discussion. It was a fact, that in many places the Protestant population had not church room, and he hoped, that one of the first measures the Government would bring in, would be one for the multiplication of churches. The hon. member for Middlesex said, he wished to see the Roman Catholic religion established in Ireland, but before he ventured to make such an observation, he would do well to read over the creeds of the Roman Catholic and Protestant faiths.

Mr. O'Connell

agreed, that the Catholic Church ought not to be the Established Church of Ireland, for a very different reason from that given by the hon. Member—namely, because he thought it the true Church, and he was convinced, that the true Church was always injured by any connexion with the State. As to the rights of the Dissenters of England, he thought their demands ought to be conceded; they had as good a right to be Dissenters, as the hon. Member had to be a Protestant. The hon. member for Stamford said, that it was not honest in the Dissenters to ask for the separation of Church and State. It was a new maxim in morals, that honesty was not the best policy. Men, he thought, were to be honest whatever might be the consequences. He was convinced, that the Dissenters would never get anything granted unless they asked for it, and boldly too. He would vote for every relief for which the Dissenters asked, but he was ready to condemn their conduct, and he had a right to do so, with respect to the Sabbath Observance Bill. Their principle was, that the Church and State should be separated; that the State should not interfere with religion; that there should be no Act of Parliament piety; and yet they called upon that House to legislate for the better observance of the Sabbath. What could be more inconsistent than that—they objected to the principle of a connexion between Church and State, and, in the same breath, they called for the interference of the State in a matter that should be wholly religious. Shame upon the Dissenters for supporting any legislative enactment interfering with religious faith or practice! They disgraced their sacred cause, and came down from the high ground of solemn and fixed principles. The Dissenters should command his support so long as they were consistent with themselves, but when they sought to compel the consciences of others, he would oppose them.

Sir Eardley Wilmot

was not one of those who thought the Church should be sup- ported by a tax upon land; but he thought, that instead of twenty-five years' purchase given to the present incumbents of parishes by the Tithe Bill, they should get twenty-six per cent to keep the Church in repair.

Mr. Gillon

disagreed with the hon. member for Stamford when he said, it was Church or no Church; also, when he said, that kings and queens were the best supporters of the Church. If they were, they ought and would advance the small sum (250,000l.) annually to keep up the Church. The hon. Member also stated, that the majority of the country was in favour of a Church Establishment and that the whole amount of the rate was 3d. a-head upon the population. Now, if the friends of the Church formed a majority, and the amount was so small, why did they not pay 6d. or 7d., and prevent the Church from tumbling about their ears? He trusted, that the Dissenters would not rest until they had obtained a complete severance of the Church and State.

Sir Daniel Sandford

said, that what the Dissenters wanted was, to abstract from the Church its property for the purpose of applying it to secular affairs. That was simply the amount of their prayer. He warned the hon. member for Dublin, and other hon. Members, how they supported their claims. Their advocacy of the cause of the Dissenters must naturally deter that House from making concessions, because, if Parliament dared to do so, it would only open the door to those whose wish was, to deprive the Church of its all. But this he would be able to show on the proper occasion. He repeated, that what the Dissenters asked for was, to be allowed to plunder the Church of its property; and he asserted, that to recognize such a right, would be to endanger the whole of the property of the kingdom, and place the country under the worst species of religious despotism. He challenged any hon. Member to show him any two points in which the Dissenters agreed, unless it was in their repugnance to the Church Establishment. He disagreed with the hon. member for Middlesex's calculation, that the Dissenters in England exceeded one-half of the members of the Church of England; in Scotland they certainly did not amount to more than one-sixth of the population. He was himself a speaking proof of the truth of his assertion, because he came from a city more unfavourably inclined than any other in Scotland, to the Established Church of that part of the empire.

Mr. Aglionby

protested against the question being discussed as a question of theology. He denied, that the Church and religion were synonymous terms.

Mr. William Evans

said, that the Dissenters had been much misrepresented in that House; they had no desire to touch the property of the Church. If he thought such was their intention, he should withdraw his support from them.

The Petition was laid on the Table.

Mr. Mark Philips

presented a petition from the Dissenters of Manchester and its vicinity, praying for the separation of Church and State. It was agreed to, the hon. Member said, at a very numerously-attended meeting, which was marked by protracted debate, and then by adjournment. He had not heard one dissentient vote. The petition declared, that an establishment was an infringement of the right of conscience; and it therefore prayed for an entire severance of Church and State. The hon. Member read the petition. It prayed, that there might be, with as little delay as possible, a separation of Church and State—that the Bishops might be relieved from attendance in the House of Peers—and for registration, &c. This petition was signed by 32,000 persons. It was honest, frank, and undisguised. It was open and clear. What was required was distinctly avowed, and reasons were given for every demand made; and the petitioners being thus open and candid, as well as numerous, deserved the serious consideration of the House. This open avowal of sentiments, the taking of such high ground, must, in the estimation of some, injure their cause; but though that course might scare the timid, he could not help thinking that their open and manly course was the better one, and the more likely to be ultimately successful. In common with the petitioners and many others, he could not but grieve that the Government had brought forward such inefficient measures for the relief of the Dissenters. The last measure, respecting rates, was particularly reprehensible, because, as the Dissenters resisted on principle, how could they be satisfied with a measure which threw the charge into the general taxation of the country, instead of fixing it on the members of the Church Establishment exclusively. He concurred in the opinion so well expressed by the petitioners, that the forced support of an establishment was an encroachment on conscience. He considered, that the connexion between Church and State had been productive of infinite mischief, as the disgraceful proceedings of "Church and King" mobs in Birmingham, and even in Manchester, on former occasions, had proved; but he trusted, that such very disgraceful scenes were not likely ever to be repeated. He trusted, that the question would be discussed with calmness and temper, the best proofs of conviction of the honesty and purity of the cause supported. The Church had been a political engine. Its advantages had been almost wholly enjoyed by the scions of the aristocracy, which was a distinct proof of the political and unhallowed character of the union.

Petition laid on the Table.