HC Deb 15 March 1837 vol 37 cc466-549

On the Order of the Day being read for resuming the debate.

Mr. Gisborne

said, that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had the other night complained of what he called the ungenerous allusion made by some members to the course pursued by the noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire, relative to the temporalities of the Irish Church. Now he was not aware that an ungenerous allusion had been made in any way to that noble Lord. The allusion was not made to taunt the noble Lord nor any hon. Member; but it so happened that the proposition which the noble Lord on that occasion laid down, not with regard only to the Church of Ireland, but generally, was identically the same as that on which the resolutions were founded. That proposition was, that the State had the right of stepping in between the lessors and lessees of Church property, and if the State could give an additional value to that property which the Church could not give, then the State had the right to apply the surplus to secular purposes. That was the principle laid down by the noble Lord, and when he gave up the 147th clause of the Irish Tithe Bill he did not give up that principle, and the House dealt with the surplus as they judged proper. He approved of such a principle, because he was convinced that all Church property which was not absolutely defined by law or set apart expressly for the payment of the clergy was the property of the State. Formerly both Church and State acted on the principle that the tenth of all property on the surface of the earth, as well as all Church lands, ought to be applied to no other purposes but the religious services, and that for all futurity. That doctrine had been admitted by all states, but so difficult was it found to adhere to it, that posterity had been obliged either to restrict it by law, or violate it by force. In this country, both before and after the Reformation, the Legislature had been obliged to do both. The best defence of that doctrine that he had seen was in The Quarterly Review, but it was generally given up; and if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer could, by any alchymy of his, create a surplus fund out of Church lands, or from any other source, it ought to be applied as a substitute for Church-rates. Church-rates now were given up; the right hon. Baronet proposed, that if it were found impossible to collect them generally, they should be paid by Church-men or levied only in country parishes. The hon. and learned Member for Exeter had given them up; the hon. and learned Member for Ripon had also given them up, though in many of the petitions presented to the House the petitioners seemed to think it almost a privilege and a franchise to be allowed to pay Church-rates. The Attorney-General had denied the legal right of vestries to levy Church-rates, and had challenged all the common and equity lawyers on the opposite side to disprove what he said. In fact, the payment of Church-rates had ceased. The calculations which had been made of the comparative numbers of Churchmen and Dissenters must necessarily be defective. There was a third or central party, of which no account was rendered. In Derbyshire many of the parishes were divided into townships, each having a Chapel, and some of them five and twenty miles from the mother Church. Now, the inhabitants of these townships felt it to be a great grievance that they had not only to repair their own Chapel, but to contribute to the repair of the mother, Church. The cases of Bakewell and Stockport were strong instances of the evil. Why apply money to build new Churches? It would be much better to repair and till the old ones. However, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could find the money, he (Mr. Gisborne) felt no difficulty as to the expediency of the measure which the right hon. Gentleman proposed. If the right hon. Gentleman's calculations should unfortunately fail, he (Mr. Gisborne) was satisfied of the expediency of raising the money on other Church property, (for from no other property should it proceed), and applying it, as he had already observed, to keep up the old Churches rather than build new. The right hon. Member for Tarn worth had appealed to the noblemen and gentlemen of the country against relieving their own estates from the burthen of Church-rates. He said that he was prepared so to relieve his own estate; and when he had done that, he was prepared to enter into a bond with the right hon. Baronet, and having got rid of the Church-rate on his property —whether on land, mines, or houses—calculated on the average of the last three years, he was prepared to enter into a bond with the right hon. Baronet to pay thirty years' purchase of those rates to any society having for its object the increase of Church accommodation, except a society, the name of which he did not remember, but which he would describe; he meant a society which, having got a large sum of the public money by virtue of the King's letter, quoted two Acts of Parliament as their justification for declaring that they would never apply any portion of that money to the building of any Church the patronage of which was not to be placed in the hands of the bishop. The right hon. Baronet talked also of the judgment of posterity. What would posterity say if they could address the present generation? "Take your hands out of the pockets of the Dissenters. If you cannot relieve them without also relieving your own estates, relieve your own estates; and then give ten times the amount for the support of your own Church. Who is to restrain yon?" That is what posterity would say. There was a right hon. Gentleman who had given 1,000l. to the Church Building Society, and other sums to other societies of a similar description. Posterity would say to them, "Take off' this pitiful tax, and go and do likewise." That would be the advice of posterity; and very good advice it was. It had been said, that a number of petitions had been presented against the abolition of the Church-rates. But were the petitioners aware of the real facts of the case? One of the petitions, he observed, was signed by some of the farmers of Tollyporcorner in Derbyshire. But had the farmers of Tollyporcorner been informed of the nature of the proposed plan? He was quite sure that if they had—he was quite sura that if the farmers of Tollyporcorner had been told that there was 20l. which would not come out of their or any other man's pockets, which could be got at only by the Legislature, and which would be applied to the repair of their Church—he was quite sure that if the farmers of Tollyporcorner had been told that, the farmers of Tollyporcorner would never have signed a petition against the abolition of Church-rates. He would not presume to advert to any thing that had taken place on the subject in the House of Lords. Indeed it was not necessary for him to do so. A meeting had been held in this town last week, composed of bishops, liberal and illiberal— "Black spirits and white, Blue spirits and grey, Mingle, mingle, mingle You that mingle may. This meeting unanimously instructed the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London to state to the House of Lords their determined opposition to the plan of his Majesty's Government: a plan not then before the House of Lords—hardly before the House of Commons, of which the latter had not got the calculations on which it was founded, and on the merits of which they had only heard one Minister of the Crown. Under such circumstances it was, in his opinion, highly indecent; but the meeting thought it highly discreet, to commission the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London to make the communication which they had made to the other House of Parliament. Did he complain that liberal bishops should unite with illiberal bishops if they thought that it was for the interest of the Church they should do so? Far from it. But he complained of their entering into a vile cabal, and as contemptible as it was vile, for the purpose of upsetting a liberal Ministry and a liberal system of Government. Would any one tell him that the object of those bishops was not to influence a few votes in that House? A few only he was sure they would be able to influence. Had there ever been such a proceeding before, or any thing like it? The palpable object was to influence the decision of that House; at least until any other object could be pointed out to him he should believe that that was the object. He was persuaded, however, that this combination would turn out to be as contemptible as it was vile, and that it would totally fail in effecting its wishes. Although he had not exhausted the subject, he believed that he had exhausted himself. Notwithstanding the enmity of the bishops he should vote for the resolution, as the only means by which a certain sum of money could be obtained for the repair of the Churches, reserving to himself, however, the right to differ from the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he should think that right hon. Gentleman dealt hardly with the lessees. When changes were forced upon persons in that condition, the least that could be done was to deal liberally with them.

Mr. Andrew Johnstone

rose for the purpose of moving the amendment to the motion before the House of which he had given notice, and which was to the following effect:—" That it is the opinion of this Committee that by a new system of management an increased value may be given to Church lands, and that with the funds to be thus obtained provision should be made for the supply of religious instruction where the same be found deficient in proportion to the population." He was not aware whether he was out of form in putting this amendment, but he was most anxious to have the opinion of the Committee on this point.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

as the person who had moved the original motion was not disposed to interfere with the conscientious feelings which dictated the amendment, though the hon. Gentleman might take the opinion of the Committee in a distinct shape upon the proposition which he meant to make. Neither would he ask his hon. Friend to take any steps which should place him to a disadvantage with reference to his own opinion. These were two points upon which he would not ask the hon. Gentleman to yield. But he would take the liberty of submitting to him whether, with a view to the convenience of the discussion which had now been carried on for three nights—without prejudice to himself or the opinions which he entertained, or the proposition which he was about to make, or the time and manner of advancing that proposition—the hon. Gentleman would not be disposed to acquiesce in the suggestion which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) ventured to throw out, that the Committee should at once proceed to the immediate object of debate; the hon. Gentleman giving his notice to move his resolution as an amendment when the matter before the House came to be reported. His hon. Friend would then have the full advantage of his proposition; he would lose nothing by adopting this course. If the hon. Gentleman asked him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) what he was to gain by it, he would say that they had now some chance of coming to the conclusion of a debate, which had occupied three nights; whilst in this stage, if they allowed the introduction of a new question, the effect could only be to create difficulty, delay, and inconvenience.

Mr. Andrew Johnstone

was at all times disposed to accede to the wish or opinion of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but on the present occasion, he submitted, the point he was about to raise was not a new point, it had been fully debated, and would not interrupt the progress of the debate beyond the period which it would otherwise last; and if he gave way on the present occasion without being told that he was out of form, he should be in this painful position, that he should not be able to vote for or against the motion, and it was with real regret that he was compelled to proceed with his amendment. He should, therefore, feel it to be his duty to persevere.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

begged to observe, that he had put his proposal to the hon. Gentleman as a matter of courtesy, but he would now put his objection on a point of form. The right hon. Gentleman here adverted to the proceedings of the House when this subject was first introduced; the passage in the King's Speech referring to Church-rates was then read, and this resolution was then come to by the House—"Resolved that this House will, on Monday next, resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House to consider of the payment of Church-rates." That resolution was come to; and upon that resolution they were now engaged.

Mr. Bernal

rose and said, that undoubtedly he could not say that this question came upon him by surprise that evening, because the hon. Member had told him a few minutes before he entered the House, of his intention to move this amendment. He had told him that he had a strong doubt, nay more than a doubt, that his amendment might not be regular; and he still thought so. He did not think that in a Committee of the whole House upon Church-rates, they could with propriety go to the question of appropriating the produce of Church lands to educational purposes; he saw no reason to depart from the opinion which he had formed. He thought the Committee would do well in considering this point as a preliminary to their proceeding to the debate on the resolution.

Mr. Andrew Johnstone

expressed his willingness to submit to the decision of the Chair.

Mr. Bernal

wished the Committee to agree to what he had suggested.

Lord Stanley

said, it appeared to him that the hon. Gentleman was placed in a technical difficulty. He thought it would be extremely difficult for him to bring forward his resolution in the Committee, as an amendment on the proposition of his right hon. Friend; for this reason, that the object of the Committee was to inquire into the present mode of collection of Church-rates, and how far it was practicable to find a substitute for them, which substitute was proposed to be taken out of certain supposed surplus funds now the property of the Church. He was not going to enter at any length into this question, as it would be his duty to do so at a later period of the evening; but the amendment of his hon. Friend was to the effect that, for the purposes of such application, it was not legitimate (and in that opinion he concurred with him) to apply the proceeds of such revenues to this purpose. But if there were such surplus revenue as was anticipated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that spiritual revenue was applicable to the state of destitution to which the Established Church was admitted on all hands to be reduced at the present moment, with regard to the means for promoting education. He was himself strongly of opinion, that these funds were not so applicable; and it appeared to him that the only course which his hon. Friend had to pursue was this: to allow the discussion to go on. If the resolution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer went to apply these funds (a principle which his hon. Friend and himself thought an extremely objectionable one) to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, he had no hesitation in saying he had no objection. Let them proceed, however, to inquire how, if there were any surplus revenue, it might be most beneficially applied to the means and object which his hon. Friend and himself had so much at heart. He thought his hon. Friend was out of order, and that they must proceed to the inquiry, whether by the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Church-rates should be abolished by means of substituting a sufficient fund from another source. If that should be decided in the negative, then it would be for his hon. Friend to bring forward his proposition for a different application of the surplus revenues; and he had no hesitation in saying, (for he was not apt to blink his opinions), that if his hon. Friend would find the fund with justice, such an application of the fund would be most consonant with his own feelings.

Mr. Andrew

Johnstone withdrew his amendment.

Viscount Sandon

The hon. Member for North Derbyshire (Mr. Gisborne), had attempted to cast a slur on some of the petitions which had been presented from various parts against the abolition of Church-rates, because they came from places, the names of which were not so pleasing to the ear, in point of euphony, as they might be; and that hon. Gentlemen, too, in talking of the farmers and others who had signed those petitions, asked whether they had been told the real state of the question—had they been told that the plan of the Government would not take one farthing out of their pockets? Now he would ask hon. Gentlemen on the other side, whether they ever made an objection to petitions coming from Ireland, praying for the abolition of tithes, or for the passing of the Irish Municipal Corporations Bill for Ireland, on account of the singularity of the names of the towns or places from whence they emanated? Again, he would ask, had those who petitioned against tithes been told what was the real state of the question at issue? Had they been told, that if tithes were abolished, that though they might not pay tithes in name, they would pay their amount in rent? So, in the instance of the Municipal Corporations Bill for Ireland, had the petitioners been made sensible of what was really the point at issue? What was the language of the hon. Member for North Derbyshire in reference to a meeting of prelates, on the subject of the intention of his Majesty's Government with respect to Church-rates? He had denounced that meeting of prelates as a vile cabal, and that it was as contemptible as it was vile! And for what? Why, for expressing their opinion in a manner which interested most deeply the permanent interests of that Church, of which they were the distinguished members; and the hon. Gentleman had said, that this was a cabal, raised for the purpose of turning out a liberal Ministry. How was that consistent with the declaration which preceded this denunciation of the prelates assembled at this meeting as a cabal, that it was a meeting of bishops of every party? Many of these right rev. prelates were bound to support the Government by ties of gratitude. Were the bishops, he would ask, to have their mouths closed on questions affecting the Church, if they did not agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite, many of whom did not hesitate to declare their hostility to Church-rates—many of whom had said in public, they would not rest till Church-rates were abolished? Were the bench of bishops not to speak on matters affecting the interests of the Church? Were they to sit with their hands before them, and their tongues tied, till the very Bill reached the House of Lords? He contended, that these venerable prelates discharged their duties to the Church, to which they belonged, most faithfully. And was it ever held or considered to be improper on the part of dissenting clergymen, or of the Dissenters' delegates, to express their opinions on questions connected with particular Bills on their passage through that House? Could they forget, that in the early part of the discussion on the Roman Catholic Emancipation measure, there were numerous meetings of Roman Catholic clergymen, as to the expediency or inexpediency of certain parts of the measure? Would any one complain of them, or charge them with being parties to a cabal? In the year 1834, hon. Gentlemen opposite carried a measure of this kind by a majority of two to one. They then received communications from the Dissenters, that they were dissatisfied, and those hon. Gentlemen immediately dropped the measure. When the objections of the Dissenters were made known, they were immediately attended to; but when the prelates of the Church objected to this proposition, how were they met? Why, by a declaration that this measure for abolishing Church-rates should be abolished in spite of their teeth. Was that fair dealing between the majority and minority? The hon. and learned Civilian, the Member for the Tower Hamlets, in the report to which he had been a party some few years since, had held that Church-rates were a burthen upon the parish, and in that opinion all ancient authorities concurred. He could not conceive that the plan now suggested offered the only means of getting out of the difficulty with which the question was surrounded, when he remembered, that only five years' ago it was proposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite, that Church-rates should be mingled with the Poor-rates. At all events, before a concession of this kind were made, the House ought to be satisfied that it would lead to a final settlement of the point at issue between the Dissenters and the Church. Supposing it to be granted, what security was there that a similar demand would not be made by the Dissenters to be freed from the payment of tithes? what security was there, that, in another year they should not be told, that Church lands were the property of the State, and therefore, that the Dissenters ought to participate in the proceeds of them? They were told, that the abolition of Church-cess was to put an end to all discontent and all difficulty in Ireland. Had there been less agitation in that country since?—had the security of the Church been increased?—had its opponents been less active in their endeavours to subvert it? He had not heard from any Gentleman in that House, neither from the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines), nor from the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Wilks), nor from any other Gentleman, who immediately represented the dissenting body in Parliament, that the concession now proposed would lead to a final settlement of the point at issue. He had not heard from any one of them, that, supposing the measure were granted, they would cease to agitate the separation of Church and State. Looking at the proposition of the Government in a financial point of view, he had no doubt but that a considerable surplus might be obtained from Chinch lands by an improved mode of management; but, at the same time, he was far from acknowledging the correctness of the calculations made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the great majority of cases he had no doubt but that it would be advantageous to the Church lessees to have their tenure turned into a freehold; but he was of opinion that the change ought not to be compulsory. He did not know what right Parliament had to compel an alteration of the tenure, which, though it would enrich some, might, at the same time, tend to impoverish others. However good the proposed change might be, it should be left to the voluntary adoption of the lessees, and not be forced upon them. He acknowledged that the rents derived from these lands were not a source of regular revenue for the bishops; they varied in amount from year to year, afforded temptation to the bishop to run his life against the lives of others, and in various points of view were calculated to place him in a disagreeable and often an invidious situation. But to correct that evil, did it follow that such a compulsory arrangement must be made as that now proposed by his Majesty's Government? He should be happy to see a commutation of Church tenures proceeding upon a voluntary system, left to the discretion of the lessees, and not merged in the hands of a central commission with arbitrary power, as a substitute for church-rates; but being of opinion that the value of Church lands might be enhanced, it did not follow that he was bound to acquiesce in the proposition of the Government as the only feasible mode of arrangement that could be adopted. But supposing that proposition to be adopted, and supposing a surplus to be obtained, did it follow that that surplus ought to be appropriated in the manner proposed, unless the right hon. Gentlemen opposite were disposed (and he fancied he had seen something like such a disposition in some of them last evening) to abandon altogether the Report to which they had attached their signatures, and in which they admitted the existence of an immense deficiency in the means of spiritual instruction throughout the country—a deficiency too large to be met by any money that they had at their command. Unless they were prepared to abandon that Report, he did not see how they could sanction or support any proposition for the alienation of a surplus of Church property to any other purpose than that of an increase of Church accommodation. The noble Lord, the Member for Northumberland, had declared (but the declaration was neither made nor echoed by any other Member of the Government) that if this measure were adopted, he would support the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, (Sir Robert Peel) in an annual vote of money to supply the deficiency of spiritual instruction which the Commissioners had pointed out. But would the noble Lord, upon reflection, have the courage to come down to Parliament, and propose a vote out of the present taxation of the country for the increase of spiritual instruction at the very time that it appeared that the property of the Church, properly administered, was capable of producing a surplus that might be applied to that purpose infinitely greater than any sum that Parliament would be disposed to grant? He rested his opposition to this measure chiefly upon this ground—a ground conceded by the Government themselves—that there was an immense deficiency in the spiritual instruction of the country, and that that deficiency ought not to be left unsupplied. Therefore, if within the property of the Church, resources were discovered capable of producing a surplus after the first claims upon it were discharged, that surplus ought in justice and in right to be applied to the removal of the deficiency admitted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and regretted by every member of the Establishment.

Mr. Baines

said, that it was not his intention to trespass long on the patience of the Committee, as he was aware there were upwards of twenty Gentlemen around him anxious to offer their observations upon the subject under consideration. He wished, however, to have the opportunity of explaining some points which had been frequently adverted to in the course of the debate; and he promised that he would at least give to hon. Gentlemen a clear and explicit view of those sentiments which he entertained upon the subject, but not, at the same time, describing himself or pretending to be the representative of any body of men except that body which he really represented—he meant his constituents. Having had the honour to present a large number of petitions upon this subject, and having, at the same time, had the opportunity of communicating with the petitioners since the plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been brought under consideration, he was very happy in having it in his power to communicate to the House what appeared to him to be the sentiments of a large body of the people upon the plan. He thought he should have betrayed the trust reposed in him if he had not endeavoured to inform himself upon that point. Therefore he had taken measures to obtain that information with as much accuracy as he could from those influential persons who were likely to form a correct opinion of what the sentiments of other person of their own denomination were; and all the information he had acquired went to this point, hat with the plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer there was perfect satisfaction. He ought, of course, to state that he had only communicated with those persons who had petitioned for the abolition of Church-rates; he had not had any opportunity of communicating very specifically with the opponents of such a measure; but every individual with whom he had conferred was of opinion that the plan marked out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be extremely conducive to the public peace and to the public interest. Me found that those persons entertained the opinion that the plan introduced this year was very much in accordance with another subject which obtained a very prominent place in the discussions of last year—that was the Tithe Bill. They believed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the government with the noble Lord at its head in this House, had for their object to produce in the country that which all men were aiming at, though not all in the same way, and that was religious peace and concord. They saw a Bill introduced last year, having for its object to reconcile all those who paid tithes with the pastors of the Established Church who received them; and they therefore conceived that this was a measure in accordance with the same principle. A great deal of stress had been laid on the relative number of the petitions presented for and against Church-rates. He was ready to admit that the petitions were much more numerous on the part of those who opposed the abolition of Church-rates than on the part of those who were in favour of their abolition. But there was another ingredient to be taken into consideration, namely, the number of the signatures. According to the last return published by the House, which was made up to the 21st February, the number of petitions for the repeal of Church-rates was 458, and which were signed by 186,133 persons, while the number presented against their repeal was ninety-six at that time (a much greater number having since been presented). Which were signed by 6,606 persons; so that the majority of the petitioners up to the 21st of February was 180,000 in favour of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's plan. Now, he admitted that since that time a considerable number of petitions adverse to that plan —if that could be said to be adverse to the plan (and he begged hon. Gentlemen opposite to mark the distinction) which arose out of the excitation that took place in this city before the plan was promulgated; for that was a true statement of the case. There was a meeting held in this city where the noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire presided, at which meeting two things were represented to the assembled throng—one was, that the plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was intended to suffer the Churches throughout the country to go to decay, and the other was, that by that plan it was intended to rob the poor man of his sanctuary. Could any man deny that these were most extraordinary statements? He did not wish to use strong language towards any person, but he must say that these were gross and flagrant misrepresentations. He would ask whether petitions presented under such circumstances were entitled to much attention or consideration? He had heard a great deal about the violence of the language held by persons in what was called the National Association in Dublin; but he did not recollect at any time having heard language attributed to that Association of a more violent nature, or language more calculated to agitate the public mind, than the language which was held in the city of London, at a meeting over which the noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire presided, and at which some hon. Gentlemen whom he had now the honour to address attended. Petitions signed under such circumstances did not express the genuine sentiments of the people. But it had been said that the Dissenters in this country were a very insignificant body. He was sorry not to see in his place the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford; because on the last occasion, when this subject was under discussion, he made this extraordinary declaration:—namely, that the Dissenters did not pay above one-fortieth part of the Church-rates. If not, what was the inference? Why all this contest? The sum asked for was only 250,000l.; the fortieth part of that was only 6,000l. Why have all this dispute when the sum required was only 6,000l.? But in reality the statement was an error. He did not wish to take advantage of any accidental mistake; but he was sure, on reflection, the hon. Baronet would find that that statement was a very strange misrepresentation of the fact. But there was another misrepresentation made by the hon. Baronet on that occasion of a nature so tangible that he had given himself the trouble to ascertain the state of religious instruction in the whole county, in order to bring himself acquainted with that fact. The hon. Baronet stated, that in the county of Lancaster there were not more than one-fourth of the people Dissenters, while three-fourths were attached to the Established Church. Now, in order to put this matter to the test, he had ascertained how many places of religious worship that county contained. That he might be perfectly accurate on the subject, he would read to the House the return he had obtained from the survey he had had made. It was this;—There were, in the county of Lancaster, at the beginning of 1836, 340 Churches and Chapels connected with the Established Church. There were in the same county 489 Chapels belonging to Dissenters, and ninety-three Chapels belonging to the Roman Catholics, making together 582. The relative proportion then was, that there were 310 places of worship belonging to the Church, and 582 not belonging to the Church. His persuasion was, that if they were to compare the congregations they would for the most part find the proportion to be the same. In some places more persons went to the Church than to the Chapels of Dissenters or Catholics; but taking the county generally, he thought it would be found that the numbers going to the different places of worship were pretty nearly equal. So that instead of the proportion among those who availed themselves of the opportunity of attending public worship, being as four to one in favour of the Churchmen over Dissenters, the fact really was, that the proportion was five to three of Dissenters over Churchmen. Why did he make this statement? There was a Parliamentary Return on the subject, but it contained very erroneous statements, and he did not wish to avail himself of them. That return stated, that there were 1,100 places of religious worship in the county of Lancaster belonging to Dissenters; but there were not half that number. The return was extremely incorrect, and not to be relied upon. Having made the statement which had been furnished to him, he would explain to the House why he had made it. It was this:—They had had a comparison made between the number of Churchmen and Dissenters,—he knew not why, except it were for the purpose of detracting from the importance of the Dissenters; he supposed it was to show that they were an insignificant body, and that their claims did not require that attention which was generally insisted upon for them. Now, upon that point, he had adduced facts, in order to establish an opposite conclusion; and he pledged himself that the statement he had made, would bear the strictest investigation. The right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge had made a statement which a good deal surprised him, because it was so much at variance with the fact. The right hon. Gentleman had stated, in relation to the revenues of the Church, that there were in Manchester eighteen clergymen, and that those eighteen Clergymen received only 2,700l. of revenue for their services. Now, what was the fact? Why, that there were clergymen belonging to one church only who received 6,000l. The right hon. Gentleman might have found the fact stated in the Report of the Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Inquiry, that there was a collegiate Church in Manchester receiving 6,000l. a year. Certainly one would expect that representations made by the right hon. Gentleman, as Member for the University of Cambridge, would be made with a greater regard to accuracy. Most unquestionably the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was altogether calculated to mislead the House—made, not with an intention to mislead, but in error; still he thought that some degree of reprehension must attach to the right hon. Gentleman for not having better informed himself upon the subject. Another statement made by the right hon. Gentleman was this: he said, that the population of Manchester consisted of 270,000 souls, and that there was only church accommodation for 40,000, thus leaving upwards of 200,000 persons without the means of obtaining religious instruction. Now, was that really the fact? The church accommodation perhaps was only what the right hon. Gentleman had stated, and that there were not means of affording religious instruction by the Church to more than 40,000 persons; but before drawing any inference from this, the inquiry ought to be made whether there were more people in Manchester who wished to receive that instruction from the Church. Because if they had Churches which were not filled, and if the estimate of the necessity of affording Church room were to be made, not from the number of persons who might go to church, but from the number who were disposed to go, the subject would appear before them in a very different light. But the right hon. Gentleman had left this consideration entirely out of view. Now he believed the fact to be, that although there was only church room for 40,000 persons, yet there was chapel room among the Dissenters for upwards of 60,000. He was rather the more disposed to meet this statement, because the right hon. Gentleman had said, that he (Mr. Baines), from some supposed religious principle, had made an observation calculated to detract from the necessity of erecting more churches. He had made no such observation. Let it be proved to him that more churches were wanted, and he would be the first to give his countenance and support to any measure to meet that want. Allusion had been also made to the fact that the inhabitants of Leeds were erecting a church at a cost of 12,000l. Now what he, on the occasion referred to, said was this: that he thought there was no reason to complain of the want of church room, not only in Leeds, for his observation was more extensive, but in the diocese of York, which had been particularly designated by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth. But what was the fact with respect to Leeds? In the town of Leeds there were eight churches. Of these, two had congregations pretty nearly as large as the churches would contain; in four of them the congregations, he might fairly say, did not occupy three-fourths of the room which the churches afforded; while the two other churches were never half filled. Was there not, then, sufficient reason for him to say, that there existed no ground for any urgent complaint of the want of church room in Leeds? But then it was said, that the people of Leeds were building a new church at an expense of 12,000l. That was true; but why were they doing so? Because it was in a central part of the town where persons of some degree of distinction resided, and where, perhaps, that description of persons could not be so well accommodated. But if they were to go into the more densely populated part of the town, they would find church room enough. He hoped in making this statement, he had not made it offensively. Having disposed of these two points, which he was very anxious to dispose of, he would now proceed to dispose of a point which involved somewhat more of the question of Church-rates. It had been argued in this House, and by a right rev. Prelate in another place, that Church-rates were of great antiquity. The hon. Member for Oxford had stated over and over again that they were of higher antiquity than any Gentleman's title to the estates he now possessed. He did not deny the antiquity of Church-rates; but he did deny that the parishioners were called upon in ancient times to maintain the edifices of the Church. He contended that in former days the Church-rates were paid by the bishops out of the tithes; and that when they ceased to be paid by the bishops, they were then paid by the rectors. He saw hon. Gentlemen turn their heads away; but he would assure them that he did not make this statement on his own authority, but on the authority of the first ecclesiastical lawyer that ever had existed in this country. He was sure that the learned Civilian would agree with him, that no higher authority could be quoted on that subject, than Sir Simon Degge. Dr. Burn, quoting this learned authority, put the matter in this way:—"Anciently the bishop had the whole of the tithes of his diocese, a fourth part of which in every parish was to be applied to the repairs of the church; but upon a release of this interest to the rector, they (the bishops) were consequently acquitted of the repairs of the church. And by the canon law, the repair of the church belongeth to him who receiveth this fourth part. This is to the rector, and not to the parishioners." Instead, therefore, of the bishops having to repair the churches, the charge fell on the rectors. There was, however, another great authority on this subject, and he was rather anxious to communicate authorities, as the argument of authority had been much insisted on during the discussion. The authority he meant to quote was that of Mr. Justice Blackstone, who said:—"At the first establishment of parochial clergy, the tithes of the parish were distributed in a fourfold division; one for the use of the bishop, another for maintaining the fabric of the church, a third for the poor, and the fourth to provide for the incumbent. When the sees of the bishops became otherwise amply endowed, they were prohibited from demanding their usual share of the tithes, and the division was into three parts only." He was a plain man, and unlearned in the law, but it appeared to him that these were authorities which no man could dispute; therefore the argument of antiquity would not only fail, but these authorities would establish the opposite point, that the people were not called upon to support the fabric of the church, but that this was a modern innovation. He trusted, therefore, that it would not be again urged on the House, that they could refer to high antiquity for the proof that the parishioners had to pay Church-rates; but, on the contrary, if antiquity were to be relied on, that it would furnish an argument of a directly contrary nature. The noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, inquired very significantly whether, when they had given the Church-races up to the Dissenters—when they had allowed these rates to be extinguished—the Dissenters would be contented. The hon. Member for Yorkshire had answered that question for him. The answer to the inquiry was, that the Dissenters aimed at the extinction of Church-rates, on the ground that they were for the maintenance of a religious service, and for the performance of divine worship, in a form in which they could not participate. They made a great and most important distinction between the payment of Church-rates and tithes. The Dissenters acknowledged that they had bought their estates subject to the payment of tithes, and therefore, only nine-tenths of the produce belonged to them. No man, however, would say, that he bought an estate subject to the indefinite payment of Church-rates. It could not be denied that Church-rates were to a certain degree a voluntary rate, for if the persons who had to pay the rates opposed it by a majority in the vestry, it was not a legal rate. The noble Lord said, that there was an undoubted right to enforce the payment of Church-rates. No doubt this was the case when they had a legal rate to enforce. It was only when the parishioners had consented to the rate that they had an undoubted right to enforce it. If, therefore, parishioners did not choose to impose this rate on themselves, it would be extremely difficult to compel them to pay it. The question was, whether the Dissenters would be contented or not with the abolition of Church-rates. He could not say that he was there as the representative of the Dissenters, but was merely the representative of his own opinions, and he would at once declare, that he thought that he never should be found pressing that House for the abolition of tithes. On this point, however, he had something stronger than assertion as regarded the great body of Dissenters. He begged the House to recollect, that when the tithe question was under discussion last year, not a single petition was presented from any body of Dissenters praying for a different appropriation of them. This was not a mere assertion, for the statement he had made had a weighty authority. Here was a distinct recognition that the tithe question was a matter to be settled between the Legislature and the country. It appeared, then, that although there were thousands and tens of thousands of Dissenters who were tithe payers, there were none who were prepared to oppose the payment of them. This was a direct answer to the assertion made on the opposite side of the House, that the Dissenters wished to prevent the payment of tithes. He was not quite satisfied that the plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the abolition of Church-rates, and providing a substitute, was the best that could be devised. On the contrary, he was inclined to think that the plan he would suggest would be better; but at any rate, he was sure that it would he more simple in its nature. He would not place himself in the situation which an hon. Baronet, formerly a member of that House—he meant Sir William Ingilby—took on one occasion, namely, to place himself in the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer for one night, and bring forward a budget; but he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman a mode by which he might extinguish Church-rates by a less cumbersome machinery than was prepared in the plan before the House. He was sure that it was known to many hon. Members that there was a fund connected with the church called the first fruits and tenths; and it was equally well known that this was an impost which always existed since the days of King John, and even at an earlier period. The House was aware that during the interval between the institution of first fruits and tenths and the Reformation they were paid to the Pope, and were made applicable to carrying on the secular Government of Rome. At the time of Henry the 8th that monarch wished to apply these tenths and first fruits to State purposes in this country; and having come to this determination, he, with the concurrence of the Legislature, passed an Act of Parliament, whereby it was directed that these funds should be applied to political objects. He mentioned this because these were funds over which Parliament had a just and legitimate control. At the period to which he alluded, he meant the 26th of Henry 8th., a return was made which gave a survey of all the ecclesiastical lands and revenues of the country at that period. This survey, or valuation, was contained in a book which had been kept up to the present time in the Remembrancer's-office. This work had recently been published, and was known by the name of Liber Regis or the King's Book, in which there was a valuation, at the time of Henry 8th of all the livings in the kingdom. In the third year of Philip and Mary the Act of Henry, 8th was repealed; but in the first year of Elizabeth an Act was passed again enacting the statute of Henry, and the funds were directed for the future to be applied to purposes of state. So matters continued to the time of Queen Anne, who, at the instigation of the Bishops, ordered that this fund should be devoted to increasing the value of small livings, and to other similar purposes, and it hereafter attained the name of Queen Anne's bounty. Formerly, however, this fund was paid to its full amount, but what course did the governors of Queen Anne's bounty pursue with regard to this fund? Instead of taking the amount which they ought to do from the rich clergy, and giving it to the poor and destitute clergy as they ought to do, in conformity with the liberal bounty of Anne, they neglected their duty in a shameful manner, and only enforced payment to the amount of the value of the living in the time of Henry 8th. He was satisfied that these funds, if duly collected would be found sufficiently ample to supply the place of Church-rates, and for those purposes to which they were now devoted, and if God gave him strength and the House its support, he would enforce the payment of these charges in such a way as to ensure every incumbent of a parish an income of 200l. a-year. With the proper collection and application of this fund they might also do away with Church-rates. He would state to the House some facts illustrative of the present negligent mode in which these funds were collected. He would take five livings, and he did not choose to designate them by name, as that might appear to be invidious, but these would be amply sufficient to show the manner in which first fruits and tenths were administered at present. The livings he would designate by numbers one, two, three, four, and five. Number one was of the actual value of 1,070l. a-year as returned to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and so stated in their Report. Now, the clergyman ought to pay within a certain time of his induction to his living the full value of the first fruits; but instead of paying 1,070l. he (Mr. Baines) found that he only paid into the first fruits office the sum of 36l. 3s. 11d. Was this an administration of the first fruits which could be satisfactory or just to the poorer clergy? With respect to the tenths of this living he found that only 3l. 12s. 4d. was paid yearly, instead of 107l. a-year. He might be told that the valuation of Henry the 8th was adhered to till the present time, but this was an argument for a new valuation. By the present system it was clear that the pious intentions of Queen Anne had not been complied with, and the poor clergy had not received the full benefit of her bounty. He thought this was a subject well worthy of the attention of the noble Lord, the Secretary of the Home Department, and he wished that he would direct his mind to the consideration of it. The second living, and he took the return of the rector in the Ecclesiastical Report for his authority, was of the value of 1,230l. a-year. The sum paid for first fruits, instead of being 1,230l. was only 46l. 4s. 9d. The deficiency between these two sums was the amount withheld from the poor clergy. The sum paid for tenths every year was only 4l. 12s. 5d., instead of 123l a-year. The annual income of the third living was 1,407l,. the payment for first fruits was only 26l.; the sum paid for tenths was 2l. 13s. 4d., instead of being 140l. a-year. The annual value of the fourth living was 2,230l. the sum paid for first fruits was only 80l. 10s. 8d., the annual payment for tenths was 8l. 10s. 8d., whereas it ought to be 223l. a-year. The last case which he should mention was that of a living the value of which was 3,616l. a-year the sum paid for first fruits was 1 02l. 9s. 9d., the sum paid for tenths was 10l. 4s. 11l., whereas it ought to be 361l. a-year. He was sure that this was a subject which should be brought under the serious attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he trusted that some steps would at once be taken to ensure a better administration of these funds, so that the charge of Church-rates might be defrayed out of them; and, at the same time, the condition of the poorer clergy be bettered. He had heard a great deal from the other side of the House as to the sympathy they entertained for the poorer clergy; but if they were sincerely anxious to improve the situation of that excellent body of men, they had the means of doing so by supporting a different and better administration of these funds. He was satisfied that with an improved administration these funds would be found to amount to 350,000l. a year. Supposing that of this amount they devoted 250,000l. in the payment of Church-rates, the would have 100,000l. left for the improvement of the condition of the poorer clergy. He confessed that unless he heard a satisfactory reason for not taking up this subject he should feel it to be his duty to take it up without delay. Nothing, he was convinced, could satisfy the country but a complete alteration of the present system. With respect to the measure under the consideration of the House, he would only say, that he should feel it to be his duty to support it. In conclusion, he begged pardon of the House for having so long detained them, and he trusted that in what he had said he had not given utterance to anything calculated to cause personal feelings of animosity, He could only assure the committee that in the observations he had addressed to them he was only actuated by a friendly feeling towards the Church, and by an anxiety to promote the cause of religion. He repeated that he would give the motion his most decided support. He was extremely glad at the manifestation of feeling displayed last night by the noble Lord, and he was equally pleased at reading his speech that morning. He could only on the part of his own constituents tell the government that acting on the principles set forward by the noble Lord last night would ensure their support; and he was also satisfied that the Government would receive the support of two millions of persons whom they were anxious to relieve from a vexatious grievance.

Mr. W. E. Gladstone

said, the hon. Member who had just sat down had indulged his ingenuity in one part of his speech, by going into details of a project which, whatever its abstract recommendations, was certainly not before the House; and it really seemed as if in so doing be had felt there was a paucity of matter for immediate consideration. If such had been the feelings of the hon. Member for Leeds, his (Mr. Gladstone's) were, he confessed, of quite a contrary description. He should not therefore follow the hon. Member into the principle or details of that plan; but he should endeavour to reply to that part of his speech in which he attempted to maintain a position which, if successfully made out, would undoubtedly exercise a most material influence on the opinions of many gentlemen in that House. The hon. Member had quoted Degge and Blackstone in support of the quadripartite division of tithes, and to prove that under the law of that division the repairs of the Church fell originally on the bishop, and afterwards on the rector. Now, with respect to the bishops, the statement carried its own explanation along with it; because when they were told that of the tithes of the diocese one entire fourth-part went to the share of the bishop, it obviously referred to the period when the Church was in a missionary state—when it first made a settlement in a district, and when the bishop received the amount of contribution, and his clergy itinerated throughout the district. He left the hon. Member then to derive all the benefit he could from the admission that Judge Blackstone did allege that division to have prevailed in the darkness of the middle ages. With respect to the other authority—Sir Simon Degge—he wished the hon. Member had read a little further. He wished to know whether his authority contradicted this broad proposition, that during a period of more than five centuries throughout the whole period comprehended in what is legally denominated the memory of man, since the reign of Richard 1, it had been a matter of common law right in this country to throw the expenses of repairing the fabric of the Church on the rated lands. He would read a short passage on this subject from Chief Justice Holt, an authority entitled to the utmost respect:— "By the civil and canon law the parson is obliged to repair the whole Church, and it is so in all Christian kingdoms but England; but by the peculiar laws of this country the parishioners are charged with the repairs of the body of the Church." But to come to the subject immediately under the consideration of the House, the Government proposed to transfer a sum of 2,50,000l. a-year from the Church estates to the pockets of the holders of land and houses in the country. It was true there was an intermediate party, and that what was taken from the Church estates was in the first instance to be devoted to the maintenance of the fabric of the Church. But it was also true, that what was now assigned for that purpose was put into the pockets of the landholders. He therefore contended that it was the same in point of principle as if they took it directly from the estates of the Church and gave it to the land. Were the majority of landholders in the country Dissenters? The ludicrous, though not the most objectionable, part of the plan was this,—that it would remit nine-tenths of the amount to Members of the Church of England, the Dissenters paying but a very trivial sum of the 250,000l. now required for Church-rates. But it was said that the Dissenters were actuated in their resistance to Church-rates by a scruple of conscience. He would not speak of them with any species of disrespect, or accuse them of factious or discreditable motives; but this he would say, he did not think the motive of their resistance was entitled to so sacred a name as a scruple of conscience. A scruple of conscience was a sacred thing, and brought with it claims which could not be resisted. If there had been a scruple of conscience in the matter, it was monstrous, it was a political crime of the deepest dye, that it was not attended to before, and that Government had treated it as a matter of policy and expediency. It might be a matter of dislike, objection, or opposition, and it might be right or wrong in that respect, but it was no scruple of conscience. His principle was this—when the Legislature made a demand on its subjects for a part of their property, whatever might be the pur- pose to which it was applied, the demand of the Legislature absolved the conscience of its subjects. They might use every means of getting rid of it, but as long as the payment was law, no scruple of conscience could fairly resist it. Every kind of suffering and hardship, as in the case of the Quakers, should rather be endured, than that they should be entitled to absolve themselves, under a scruple of conscience, from its payment. Was it a scruple of conscience to depart from an obligation which had been voluntarily undertaken, when the property was purchased under that obligation? Did not the scruple of conscience rather command them to fulfil it? What, he asked, would be the state of the law in Scotland, if this plan were adopted? The Dissenters in England were a small minority, and to relieve them from supporting the fabric of the established Church, Church-rates were to be abolished. But in Scotland, where a great portion of the land was held by Episcopalians, they (the Episcopalians) were still bound to contribute to the support of the Church there. The application of the law in Scotland was far more extensive, and its means of enforcement far more stringent, than in this country. In Scotland, if a church had fallen into decay, and the population required increased accommodation, the heritors were not only compellable by law to build a new church, but to build it on a scale adequate to the increased demands of the population. Nor was this the dead letter of the law. He knew a case of a parish in Stirlingshire, where the church being capable of seating only 350 persons, it was rebuilt by the heritors to accommodate 1,600. They did not afford aid to the population of Scotland, and he believed if they did, so far from clamouring for it, or being desirous of receiving it, he solemnly believed they would come forward as one man, and repudiate the boon as an insult to their honour and conscience. An argument was advanced against hon. Gentlemen who sat on that side of the House, from the remission of the vestry-cess in the Irish Church Bill, He felt that those who had voted against that Bill, were nevertheless committed by the principle of the remission of vestry-cess. Gentlemen on that side, with some individual exceptions, did not object to that principle, and were not now disposed to shrink from it; but, adhering to that principle, they were still free to resist such remission of Church-rates as was proposed by the present plan. The remission of vestry-cess was urged and granted on two grounds. The first was, that the revenues of the Church were more than sufficient for the "purposes which the Established Church was intended to accomplish; the second, that cess was not a fixed properly, like tithes. Whether this opinion were correct or not, it was one which had been promulgated in this House by the highest authorities, and received and acted upon in the course pursued on the Irish Church question. The noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, who then sat on the other side, and who was acknowledged by the Government as their organ in the House, had expressed himself in a speech which he delivered on that subject, to the following effect:—"I admit the distinction which must be taken by every man, that the nature of the right of the Church to this cess, and the mode in which it presses on the occupying tenant, and affects the interests both of himself and of his landlord, are so opposed to the nature of tithes, that it is impossible to argue on the same principle as to the application of the one and of the other." Lord Althorp also said, in an address which he delivered on that occasion, "The Catholics have thus not only to submit to the payment of a tax (for this rate is a tax), but are also precluded from all control over it. … I repeat, that this rate is a tax very different in its nature from tithes: tithes are a certain burden on the land, of which a man is aware at the time he purchases it; but the Church, rate is an uncertain lax, which varies according to the purposes to which it is applied." Now it having been assumed that Church-rate was different in its nature from tithe, and it being likewise alleged that the revenues of the Church in Ireland were sufficient to supply funds for the purposes of the rate, he was justified in saying, that the abolition of the impost was conceded on a two-fold ground, that none of the property of the Church would be surrendered by taking that step, and that it would not at all interfere with the full accomplishment of the purposes for which the Church was established. But was that the case in England? Were the purposes of the Church accomplished, and if they were not, could the remission of vestry-cess in Ireland be alleged as a precedent for the remission of the sums now levied by way of Church-rate? He had asked if the purposes of the Church were satisfied, and he would now ask, what was the principles of a Church establishment, of which they heard so much? He did trot think this question had received the attention which it merited. There was a disposition in many minds to believe, that the principle of an Established Church would be fully maintained, by preserving to a particular form of religion, the fixed endowments of which it was in possession, and which might, and in this country accidentally did, belong in the mass to a single community. He would assert that the maintenance of a single community in its endowments, was not the main principle of an established Church; and this he said, because the law guaranteed to all the dissenting chapels in the country, the possession of all the revenues with which they might be endowed, and with which many of them, it was well known, were largely endowed. The hon. Member for Leeds was well aware of the existence of this class of chapels, supported almost wholly by endowments, which were as fully secured to them as the Church property was to the Establishment. He would suppose a case, which was said to exist in England, and which, beyond all doubt, did exist in Scotland at the time of the Reformation, when one-half of the land of the country was in the hands of the Church. Would it then be inconsistent with the principle of an established Church, to modify or change the existing state of that property? He did not believe that it would; for he thought that the possession of such an enormous amount of property would tend rather to cramp the energies and to stifle the active vigilance of the Church, than to increase and extend its utility. But he would suppose a case of a contrary description, where the endowments of the Church were too small rather than too ample, where a great mass of the population was destitute of spiritual instruction, and shut out from the ordinances of religion. Would any man maintain that the principle of an Established Church would be fully recognised and satisfied by merely continuing to it its endowments, unless the funds of which it stood in need in order to fulfil the great objects for which it was intended were supplied by the State? The principles of an establishment was this, to carry home to the door of every man in the country who was willing to receive them, the blessings of religion, and the ordinances which its Ministers were appointed to dispense. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side contended that the supply of religious instruction should be proportioned to the demand, as if the demand for it could ever be commensurate with the extent to which it really was required. Those who were friendly to the principles of an Established Church thought that there were two great bodies of the population who were never likely to be adequately provided for by-Dissenting communities. In the first place, those who from want of will did not go to Church, because they were not trained up in habits of piety, and impressed with the spirit of devotion; and, secondly, those who could not go to Church. Those who would not attend Church, who had no fixed religion, some men wished to leave entirely out of consideration; but it was not because these persons had reflected on the subject and arrived by a train of reasoning to the conclusion that there was no truth in religion that they neglected its ordinances and remained careless of its precepts. These persons were irreligious because they had not reasoned, and therefore those who wished to consult their welfare by bringing them to a sense of the duties of religion wished to bring its Ministers into communication with them; not merely to erect churches, and to appoint pastors, but to place them in districts where they must go from house to house to bring them into relation with congregated masses of misery and ignorance. When this was accomplished they might say that they had acted on the principle and fulfilled the purposes of an Established Church; but not till then. If these purposes were accomplished, he did not mean to say that he would now be found objecting to the plan brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—he did not mean to say that he would hold the principle of the inviolability of Church property to such an extreme degree as to say that the whole of its revenues should be maintained to the Establishment, whether they were required or not. Where any tax which pressed heavily on the community could be remitted without injury to the efficiency of the Church, and when funds could be spared from the ecclesiastical revenues to accomplish the objects for which it was imposed, no one could object to its remission; but where, as in this country, the revenues of the Church were scarcely sufficient for those great purposes to which it was destined, the mutilation of any branch of its revenues or the curtailment of its resources would be an infraction of the most sacred duty of the Legislature. The supporters of the measure proposed by Government might object that the principle of an establishment in the sense in which he understood it, had never been acted upon by Parliament, or recognised by the country up to the present time. He knew that not only the Government of the country and its Parliament, but all the members of its Church and the whole body of its people, had not been alive to the destitute condition of a multitude of the people, or attended with sufficient alacrity and promptitude to the pressure of those wants which so loudly called for relief. The principle of an Established Church, he grieved to say, had not hitherto been acted on; we had not had a due or adequate sense of our obligations; but, because that had been the case up to the present period, did it therefore follow that men were to perpetrate that injustice —that we were to commit a crime of so deep a dye as to renounce these obligations, and to refuse to observe the duties to which they bound us. Was there no difference between temporary forgetfulness and entire neglect of them? Would the moralist make no difference between the man who failed to perceive the whole breadth and scope of these duties, and the man who, when they were impressed on his attention, refused to discharge them? Surely this would be an offence of a class widely different indeed from any which had been committed by us heretofore; and the only consideration which was necessary to induce him to oppose that plan which was now before the House was the determination in the affirmative of the question, whether the revenues of the Church were insufficient to the purposes of its establishment. What were the fact of the case? The Bishop of London had stated that sittings in churches for 370,000 persons were required before the whole population of the metropolis could have an opportunity of attending public worship; and the researches of Mr. Aitch led him to conclude that the whole population of London beyond the reach of religious ordinances amounted to 600,000. There was a delusion abroad that this amazing deficiency of spiritual instruction could be supplied by voluntary exertions. He wished he could suppose that this conjecture was likely to be realised, but he was afraid it was little else than chimerical. It must be within the knowledge of many hon. Members that within the last twelvemonths great efforts had been made, under the superintendence of the ecclesiastical authorities of the diocese, to supply the lamentable deficiency which was so deeply felt in the metropolis. During nine months of that period private liberality had been put to the test. He did not mean to say that it had yet done all that could be effected, but he maintained that after what it had done no reasonable man could have the slightest ground for imagining that it could supply either the whole or the greatest part of the defect, or that its efforts could extend beyond giving relief to a very inconsiderable fraction of the population. The funds subscribed might be adequate to the erection of twenty churches, but what was the accommodation of 20,000 persons, when compared with those appalling deficiencies which met the eye in every part of the country, and which he was willing to believe, had not been supplied only because their existence and amount had never been fully understood. How, then, he would put it to the House, could a Christian Legislature with propriety consent to pass a measure which would cut off every resource from which the Church could hope to mitigate this enormous evil, to inform the ignorance, to enlighten the religious darkness, and to prevent the crimes of its destitute members? He wished now to make some allusion to a statement which the noble Lord (J. Russell) had made last night on the subject of the Ecclesiastical Commission. As to the general expediency of the course which the noble Lord had pursued, it did seem to him (Mr. Gladstone) not only extraordinary in its nature, but likely to be mischievous in its results. If those who had been permanently members of a Commission appointed for a most important purpose, who had investigated the subjects brought before them in all their bearings, and formed their opinions deliberately, who had affixed their names to the Report, without any notice of dissent, and who had introduced into Parliament measures founded on the conclusion to which their inquiries had conducted them, were to say "It is true such and such measures are recommended by the Commissioners, but they were not suggested by me, I bow to their opinions,"—if such a course as this were to be taken, he for one must express his decided disapprobation of it. Did the noble Lord suppose, that he could, or if he could he ought, thus to escape all responsibility for the measures recommended by the Commission? He admitted that it would be illiberal to consider the noble Lord as tied down to particular items. He did not wish to consider the noble Lord as irrevocably pledged to assign every specific sum to a specific purpose; but he thought that the noble Lord was bound not to depart from the main features and outlines of these measures. The object of the Commission was to ascertain in what manner the revenues of the Church could be best applied, to the fulfilment of the ends for which it was instituted. And what was the result of their inquiries with reference to the extent of its means? The House could not have forgotten that emphatic speech in which the noble Lord had declared (such high and unquestionable authority, he hoped, would receive the full assent of the other side) "the resources which the Established Church possesses, and which can properly be made available for its purposes, in whatever way they may be husbanded or distributed, are evidently quite inadequate to the exigency of the case, and all that we can hope to do is gradually to diminish the intensity of the evil." To these sentiments he held the noble Lord pledged. "Was it consistent, then, with these sentiments, that the noble Lord should now propose to them the adoption of the plan under consideration—that he should take from the Church 250,000l., (assuming the correctness of the right hon. Gentleman's calculations) which might relieve the spiritual wants of many thousands of the people, and transfer it to the landowners? Suppose this measure carried, and that a surplus equal to the anticipated amount were obtained, it would be utterly inadequate to supply the spiritual wants of the increased population which must grow up in the country within the period when the plan would come into practical operation. He entreated the House to reflect, that notwithstanding all which had been effected by voluntary exertions, the population had continued to increase at a rate so rapid as to set at defiance the efforts of private liberality. Let the House consider the position in which the friends of the Established Church would be placed if this measure were granted. The noble Lord or some of his colleagues had told them, that they might come to Parliament and ask a grant for the erection of the additional churches required. Did the noble Lord think, if they failed in their present argument, that they would be likely to meet with success in such an application? If, now that they were contending for a principle, recognised during many centuries, they were called on to relinquish its advocacy, did the noble Lord think that they would be enabled to establish a new claim, which could not be supported by any of the arguments urged in favour of that which he was now pressing on the consideration of the House, and which could not be recommended by those considerations which pleaded so powerfully for the case he had endeavoured to state? The only contingency in which such claim could be made with any probability of success, would be that it should, be entirely unopposed. If the Dissenters were inclined to admit of such grants, why had they not supported the measure brought forward by Lord Althorp on this subject? If they denounced the principle on which they were made, and would oppose them on future occasions, how could the noble Lord call on them to relinquish part of the funds which the Church already possessed to meet her own wants, to abandon the advantages of the position they now occupied, and trust to the dangers of such a clouded future as he depicted? He wished hon. Gentlemen to compare the plan now before them with the plan proposed by Government for the reform of the Irish Church. Of the two measures, the latter, in his mind, was the more plausible, he did not say the more sound, for both were lamentably deficient in rectitude of principle. What was the ostensible principle on which it was founded? The appropriation to Church purposes of a surplus of Church property. Some words were introduced into the Bill, whether in mockery or not, providing that no alienation of property shall take place until the claims of the Church be fully satisfied. In that Bill Government kid down the principle, that full provision should be made for the wants of every congregation of Protestants existing in Ireland. He asked them, then, to apply to England the same principle which they recognised in Ireland. Could any reason be alleged that Protestant congregations should be left destitute of pastors in this country, where the bulk of the people were attached to the Established Church, when that evil was to be prevented in Ireland even by the mischievous measures which were proposed for that country? But most of all had they reason to complain of the Government plan, when they compared it with the previous professions of Ministers. In 1835 the noble Lord (J. Russell) did not occupy the same prominent station he now held, and only lent his Colleagues his occasional assistance. But when the hon. Member for Middlesex attempted to establish by a resolution a principle far less objectionable than that which was embodied in the resolution before them, the noble Lord was so struck with its impolicy, that he said:—"I feel it incumbent on me to come forward to declare the opinions I entertain in opposition to those of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Harvey) who has just sat down."‖."I should be wanting in candour if I did not say that the reason why the hon. Gentleman and his Friends are continually disappointed is this, that there is a difference of principle between us—a difference of opinion which, I am afraid, never can be reconciled."….."I maintain that there may be a Church Establishment maintained by the State, by means of compulsory payments, and yet that there may be the most perfect religious freedom."….. "With these opinions I have gone along with the Protestant Dissenters, whilst religious disabilities were to be removed; but I go no further in the line proposed by the hon. Gentleman."…. The noble Lord, he was aware, still adhered verbally to this declaration; but if he really did hold the principle of a Church Establishment, he must admit the demands of the Dissenters to be unreasonable, and would refuse to sacrifice to them the spiritual wants of the population. He must say that the moral history, of Lord Althorp's measure on Church-rates was a curious subject for retrospection. It was introduced while the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire (Lord Stanley), formed the principal support of Government in that House. When that noble Lord left the Government it was postponed from day to day. Lord Althorp was asked when the Bill would be brought in, and he replied that it would be undoubtedly introduced, but that he could not name the day. At length it was brought in, and the second reading was repeatedly deferred. Lord Grey was still at the head of the Administration., but in June he left the Government, and the Bill was suffered to fall to the ground. It was really instructive to reflect how the brightest ornaments of the Government had left it—how it had been deserted by those distinguished men in whom its Members reposed most confidence. Would the noble Lord venture to avow his abandonment of the' principles by which he had formerly professed to be guided? No, the noble Lord had not boldness or courage for that. In 1835, the introduction of the measure was put off on the plea that the Session was too far advanced, when Government came into power, to allow them time to bring it in. In 1836, the noble Lord (J. Russell) stated in answer to a question, that the Bill would be introduced, but not before Easter, as it was necessary that the House should first be in possession of the opinions of the Commissioners on the distribution of ecclesiastical property. The Session passed away, and in June the noble Lord was again asked when the Bill would be introduced, and replied that there was no time to bring it in at that period. The noble Lord was afraid to avow his real principles, and was at the same time averse to declare open war on the Established Church. But was this paltering with principles worthy of a Statesman? Was it consonant with the regard to the dictates of uncompromising rectitude which ought to govern his conduct? The noble Lord was afraid to introduce a Bill similar in its provisions to that proposed by Lord Althorp, because though its effect would be beneficial to the Church, it would be injurious to the party to whom he belonged. The noble Lord foresaw that the consequence would be the falling off of the Dissenters, and the loss of the influence which that body could exercise in the elections, and could not venture to run the risk of losing several votes in that House by the introduction of such a plan. The first native hue of his resolution was sicklied over with the pale cast of thought. The reluctant hesitation, the repeated deliberations of Government, their successive postponements of the question, coupled with the nature of the plan before the House, compelled him to charge them with being actuated, in the course they had taken on this measure, more by a regard for party considerations, than f r the real interests of the Church and the country. It was painful to him to be obliged thus to characterise the policy of Ministers; but he felt that he should not be doing his duty if he refrained from speaking his sentiments. He was convinced, that by agreeing to the plan of the Government, they would subvert the Established Church. It was plain, from the recorded admissions of the organs of Dissenters in that House, that all future attempts to act on the principle of an Establishment would be resisted to the utmost by that which styled itself the popular party. Were they prepared to surrender that principle which was the strength and glory of this empire? The hon. Member for Liskeard, in a speech delivered by him on another question than that which now occupied them, had ascribed the grandeur of ancient Rome to her municipal institutions. He thought that they must look to some higher and more powerful principle for the cause. He would take the liberty of reading the opinion entertained on this interesting subject by an ancient historian, a Greek by birth, but a Roman in spirit and temperament, one of the most acute and sagacious observers who ever applied his mind to human affairs—who had examined with curious accuracy, the ground work and fabric of Roman greatness. The opinion of this historian was thus given in the part of his works which treated of the Roman constitution. After recording his sentiments of all those monarchies of which the world had been most proud in the successive ages of its existence, and describing their various merits and defects, he said:— The most remarkable peculiarity of the Roman policy, and that which is attended with the most salutary and beneficial effects, is to be found in their conception of the gods. That which is elsewhere a source of opprobrium, is the sustaining principle of the Roman constitution; for among them piety and devotion to the commands of heaven are held in the highest estimation; religion has taken deep root, and exercises an important influ- ence on the lives of individuals, and a powerful sway over the affairs of the State. It was not by the active strength and resistless prowess of her legions, the bold independence of her citizens, or the well-maintained equilibrium of her constitution, or by the judicious adaptation of various measures to the various circumstances of her subject states, that the Roman power was upheld. Its foundation lay in the prevailing feeling of religion. This was the superior power which curbed the license of undivided rule, and engendered in the people a lofty disinterestedness and disregard of personal motives, and devotion to the glory of the republic. The devotion of the Romans was not enlightened by a knowledge of the precepts of Christianity; here religion was still more deeply rooted, and firmly fixed. And would they now consent to compromise the security of its firmest bulwark? No Ministry would dare to propose its unconditional surrender; but with the same-earnestness and depth of feeling with which they should deprecate the open avowal of such a determination, they ought to resist the covert and insidious introduction of the principle.

Lord John Russell

begged to explain. The hon. Gentleman, in referring to that portion of his speech of last night in which he spoke on the subject of the ecclesiastical commission, seemed to impute to him that he shrunk from the responsibility which attached to him as a member of that commission. He begged to say, he did not wish to shrink from his responsibility, but, on the contrary, adopted it in the way proposed by the hon. Gentleman. Though he differed in some particulars from the report, as for instance, concerning the arrangement recommended respecting the deans and chapters, yet with regard to the general principle of the commissioners' plan he agreed with them. He had given his assent to those propositions in the commission, and he had no objection to state in the House, as he had stated elsewhere, that he had so given his assent. He thought the question for this House and for Parliament to consider, was, whether the plan proposed by that commission was on the whole prudent, safe, and efficient as a measure of reform; thinking it a safe and efficient measure of reform, he agreed to it, but he thought himself at liberty, in saying this, also to state that the propositions were not made by him, but chiefly by the ecclesiastical commissioners. The hon. Gentleman had also referred to his reply to an observation made in a former debate, by the hon. and learned Member for Southwark. The hon. Gentleman, however, appeared to have misunderstood the purport of his reply, which was intended to be an answer to the argument that religious freedom could not coexist with a church establishment.

Mr. P. Thomson

would not have risen on that occasion, had not the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, imputed to those who opposed the motion, an attachment to the voluntary principle and a hostility to all religion. He had some right to deny that imputation; for he believed, that in no place there existed so strong a feeling in favour of the voluntary principle as in that which he represented, and he had refused to support the views of his constituents. A petition had been sent from that town, signed by 36,000 persons, who prayed for the adoption of the voluntary principle. He, however, had not hesitated to declare to the petitioners that he could not support their petition. He was prepared to contend that so far from the present measure embracing that principle, it was founded on a principle directly the reverse. The principle on which it was based was unquestionably that of the established church. If he understood what was meant by the voluntary principle, it was this, that the state was not bound to afford religious instruction to the King's subjects. It involved, not merely the question of the abolition of church-rates; but whether any payment whatever was to be made for the support of a state religion, and whether, therefore, there should be taken away from the church the whole of its present endowment. That was what he understood by the voluntary principle, and to that principle, he, for one, was most distinctly opposed. Did the ministers ever propose, in abolishing church rates, to leave the fabric of the church to be repaired by private individuals? No such thing. They proposed to take from that which he contended was a fund belonging to the state—to take from that which was a national fund—the means for supporting the fabric of the church instead of maintaining it by the tax at present collected for the purpose. The hon. Member for Newark agreed with him as to what the endowment of the Church should be, and what should be that national Church. He had admitted that, if the endowment of that Church could be shown to be too large, he would not refuse to diminish it. He would for his part admit, that, if the present endowment of the Church should turn out to be too small, he would not object to augment it. He took the endowment of the Church to be a provision necessary to the support of religion. If they were taking from the revenues of the Church for the purpose of supporting the fabric of the Church,—if even the proposition to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded were made out, he should contend that the House had a perfect right to do so. But he repeated, no such thing was proposed, but it was proposed to appropriate the full amount of the existing revenue of the Church to the same objects as at present, and to appropriate an increased revenue to repair the fabric of the Church. He was quite aware, that, in going thus far with the hon. Gentleman opposite, he exposed himself to remarks of this kind,—"What, then, becomes of your principle of resistance to the Church-rates; that voluntary principle of which we have heard so much?" He must allow, that if this principle were pushed to its full extent, that no contribution should be paid towards the support of the Church from national funds, or rather, from Church funds being national, he would oppose it. But all he proposed to do in voting for this measure was, that whereas he found that they could raise the Church revenues, by a certain process, to their full value, he did not consider it necessary to come upon the other national funds to provide for the Church. The hon. Gentleman said, that there had been some inconsistency on the part of Ministers, in coming forward with this measure at the present time, and in not having persevered with the measure which they brought forward in 1834. He maintained that there had been no such inconsistency. He voted for the measure of 1834, because he was not then aware that any funds existed in the Church from, which he could draw a sufficient amount to defray the charges of repairing the fabric of the Church. He was now aware that such funds existed, and, of course, he preferred to apply them in this way, to drawing from other national funds, which he should not be justified in attempting. But the hon. Gentleman greatly misunderstood the grounds upon which the reso- lution was founded. The hon. Gentleman limited his dissent chiefly to the objections he entertained to the proposed disposal of these funds,—not to the mode in which we intend to raise them. In that case what became of the argument of those hon. Gentlemen who had spoken so very harshly of its principle. The measure had been characterised in that House as one of spoliation; and in another place, they called it sacrilegious spoliation. These two arguments could not stand together. Gentlemen might adopt the one or the other; but they were inconsistent the one with the other, and could not subsist together. He was not surprised that the hon. Gentleman went lightly over this part of the subject, because he must have expected that he would be answered by the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire. Would that noble Lord tell him, that there was any spoliation committed when he extinguished vestry-cess in Ireland, by a plan very similar to this for abolishing Church-rates? The noble Lord would not tell the hon. Gentleman any such thing. He might object, as the hon. Gentleman did, to the principle of appropriation; but not to the means by which Ministers proposed to obtain the funds. But it had been said, that the plan was objectionable on principle, because it would tend to make the Bishops of the Church of England stipendiaries. That objection was forcibly discussed by the hon. Member for Oxford, in opposing the Church Temporalities Bill, and he might renew it, but since that Bill had passed into a law, which the hon. Gentleman said would have the effect of making the Bishops stipendiaries, he could not understand how the argument could be sustained, that their utility, their respectability, or their authority, could be diminished by the present proposition. Passing, however, from the anxiety manifested in an early part of the evening, upon a different principle, about the probable amount of these funds, he came to the question of their disposal. He concurred with the hon. Member for Newark, unsupported though he might be by his own Friends, in this particular, in what the hon. Member had said as to the distribution of any surplus funds. He agreed that it was most desirable to augment the means of affording religious instruction, and he should act upon the principle, by lending his humble aid to effect that object, let the proposal to that end come from what quarter it might. There had, however, been some exaggeration in the statements which had been made in reference to this part of the subject; and to some of those observations that have been made in the course of to-night's debate, he would proceed to advert. The right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) said, that he could produce many instances of the excessive and manifest deficiency of the means of religious instruction; and among those, he stated, that there were 250,000 people in Manchester, who had among hem only eighteen clergymen of the Establishment — whose united incomes did not amount to more than 2,700l. a-year. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say,—for which he scarcely had any adequate authority—that the people were, of course, very ignorant and criminal, because they were without any adequate number of the clergy of the Establishment. If the right hon. Gentleman knew the people to whom he alluded better than he did, he would find that there were few comparative of that character among them. But the facts of the right hon. Gentleman were not correct; and, of course, his inferences were proportionably incorrect. The right hon. Gentleman had not distinguished between the "town" and the "parish" of Manchester. He would take the parish of Manchester, because it contained the larger population. The population of the parish was 270,000; the number of the churches of the Establishment is forty-four: the population of the town of Manchester is 143,000; the number of the churches, eighteen. But had the right hon. Gentleman any right to leave out of his calculation, altogether the number of that population who, as Roman Catholics or Dissenters, had the means of religious instruction? Why, that population comprised between 50,000 and 60,000 Catholics. The number of the chapels in the parish of Manchester was 106, to be added to the places of worship of the Establishment. He mentioned these matters, not to disprove the fact that religious instruction might be very deficient, and extended means for administering it much required there; but as a proper and needful correction of the errors of statement into which the right hon. Gentleman had fallen. There was another matter to which he must advert. The right hon. Gentleman excited and obtained the sympathy of the House by his descriptions. "Imagine," said he, "the situation of these eighteen clergymen, with only 2,700l. a-year among them." He agreed, that that amount of stipends was far too little. But the right hon. Gentleman totally omitted from his statement the fact, that there was in Manchester a collegiate church, having an income of about 8,000l. a-year. Allow him to ask, since the Ministry had been so fiercely accused of neglecting to provide religious instruction for the poor, what did the Commissioners of Ecclesiastical Inquiry do with respect to this collegiate church? Why, it appeared that, on the scale Upon which the other clergymen were paid, this 8,000l. would have provided sixteen additional clergymen, at 500l. a-year each. The Commissioners provided a new bishop, indeed; but they left the eighteen unfortunate clergymen, alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman, just as they stood before. Now, it was a little too bad, to taunt the Ministers with the neglect of making provision for religious instruction, when there was this mass of wealth which might be distributed among sixteen additional clergymen, at 500l. a-year a-piece, and the Commissioners had not distributed it. But the right hon. Gentleman must have fallen into these mistakes unwittingly; and he wished to assure the right hon. Gentleman, that he did not deny the necessity of providing the means of religious instruction. But the question before the House was, did it mean to sanction a proposition which provides a substitute for church rates? And the next question he had to put to those who differed as to the principle of appropriation was, "what do you mean to do with the church rates?" In the course of this debate, he had heard three or four suggestions glanced at, but no specific proposition hazarded, in lieu of the plan before the House. He had heard it said, "leave the Church-rates as they are;"—"don't relieve the land;"—"enforce the existing law, and compel the country parishes to pay." Was there any Gentleman who would come forward and say, that he would recommend that practicable plan,—which had not been definitively propounded, but only glanced at? But he had a right to look at the practical state of the law, as it existed, and from that to judge of the relative advantages of "standing still," or moving on to some point, at which the working of the present system should cease. It would be idle to follow the hon. Gentlemen opposite in any attempt to trace the origin of Church-rates, and that legal power which slept —if, indeed it existed—to enforce the payment of Church-rates. He looked to the practical operation of the law, and in the town of Manchester, which he had the honour to represent, he found that no Church-rates had been paid for three years. What was the reason of that? Had it arisen from any indisposition on the part of those interested in their collection, to enforce the law? No. If the rates could have been got at, depend on it, the law would have been enforced long-since. He would here take leave to refer to a petition which was presented, last night, in another place: from certain parties seeking not merely for the enforcement—but for an alteration—of the law of Church-rates. They complained that their church was falling into ruins; that the parishioners, under the influence of a certain noble Lord and his connexions, had refused to allow any rate to be made; that that opposition was successful; and that these petitioners, wishing to see the proper and necessary repairs done to the Church, had found themselves reduced to present that, their petition, through the hands of their bishop, with this view. If there really were a dormant power to levy these rates—if there were this law which "only slept," and could be awakened— how came it, that that petition was presented? The right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter), who presented it, would not be backward in putting in motion the legal power to compel, if it existed, unwilling parishioners to provide for the due repairs of the Church.

Mr. Arthur Trevor

wished to ask the right hon. President of the Board of Trade, whether the petition to which he referred, and the speech with which, upon his showing, it would appear to have been introduced, appeared upon the printed Votes of the House of Lords?

Mr. Poulett Thomson

could only tell the hon. Gentleman, that he knew the facts through the usual sources of information. The law being in this state, he would ask hon. Gentlemen whether they were prepared to introduce any measure to enforce the payment of Church-rates? He did not think they were. He might upon this part of the question, quote the language of the right hon. Baronet, or of his noble Friend who sat behind the right hon. Baronet; for it was impossible to condemn—in stronger language than they had used—the existence of Church-rates; or to show, more clearly than they had shewn, that no question more urgently called for a settlement, on some permanent and practical basis, than the law concerning Church-rates. Then he asked what they meant to do? They could not leave the law on its present footing;—that was avowed on all hands; and what step did they propose to take in this matter, if they objected to affirm the proposition? Were they prepared with any new Bill, to enforce the old law? Supposing under the new law that we wish to introduce, these funds, once realised, were to be distributed according to the desire of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and not in the manner suggested by his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer; let him ask those hon. Gentlemen how they meant in that case, to dispose of this question of Church-rates? It was because he saw no other efficient plan—no substitute for that proposed that he was quite willing to say— that if it were so imperatively necessary to provide for the people additional means of religious instruction, he would, for one, afford these out of the remainder of the increased income, to be raised so far as it would extend. But, in the first instance, it was their duty to put an end to the present distressing state of this Church-rates question. He firmly believed that in settling the question of Church-rates he should obtain no small advantage, and secure as he believed, in no small degree, religious peace and harmony in the country. With respect to the observations made by the hon. Member for Yorkshire (Mr. Cayley), all he should say of his hon. Friend's speech was, that it proceeded on an entirely erroneous assumption. Although that hon. Member's calculations were correct, the basis upon which he founded them was erroneous, and the result that he came to was in the same condition. That hon. Member had assumed, as the ground of his calculations, that the lessees could renew at one year and a half's purchase. Admitting that to be the case, it was certainly impossible to hold out advantages to them by which means could be derived to supply this rate. It was impossible for them to offer better terms. But he denied entirely the assumption of the hon. Member. He denied that such could be the case; and if the hon. Member wished to be convinced of this, he had only himself to apply to any of the lessees. Let the hon. Member look to what had been done in 1790, when the terms were raised from one year to one year and a quarter's purchase; and in 1799, when they were raised to one year and a half's, at which they had remained, in many cases. The fact was, that these advantageous terms remained to the lessees just so long-as the bishops, and the deans, and chapters remained in ignorance of the calculations that had been made on the subject. When the Bill was in Committee, or rather after the Bill was introduced, as he hoped it would be, they should then be better enabled to judge whether or not these terms were advantageous to the trustees, and they would have a better opportunity of seeing the objections that could be made and the reasons that could be urged on both sides. He should trouble the House with no further observations. He had expressed his opinion on the subject, feeling, as he did, the deep importance of settling this question. He ventured to submit this measure to the consideration of the House as one which was eminently calculated to produce peace and harmony among the different classes and sects of this country. He was satisfied that this was the only practical means of putting an end not only to that state of things that existed, but of preventing a state of things that might be much worse than the present. He left the resolution in the hands of the Committee, confident that the Committee would come to a decision favourable to his view of the subject.

Lord Stanley

said: Sir, at the present time of the night, and after the discussion has been protracted to the unusual period, upon a preliminary question, of not less than three nights, in which whatever could be brought to bear upon the subject, in point of legal investigation and of political and statesmanlike inquiry, has been already furnished by both sides of the House, but especially by my right hon. Friend, the Member for Tamworth, in his opening speech, and by those convincing arguments which the House heard with so much pleasure, in the course of last night's debate, from the hon. and learned Gentle- men, the Members for Exeter and Ripon— to attempt to add anything to the novelty of the argument would be, on my part, at any time, but more particularly on the present occasion, a vain and hopeless task. I should have spared the House the trouble of hearing any observations from me, had it not been that, from first to last in the course of this debate, I have had the honour done me, in various tones, and various manners, and from various Members of this House, of having my previous opinions and statements appealed to, partly as tending to confirm, as far as my humble authority could confirm, the opinions of those who support the present measure, and partly for the purpose of taunting me with inconsistency for the course which at present I feel bound to take. I have been appealed to by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in tones which he always uses to those Friends whom he sincerely esteems. I have never heard an expression of his towards me, politically opposed as we are on many questions, of which, on public or private grounds, I have had the slightest cause to complain. I have been appealed to in terms of courtesy and kindness by my noble Friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and I have been appealed to in terms, I will take the liberty of saying, neither of courtesy nor of kindness by the King's Attorney-General. In the course of last evening's debate, that hon. and learned Gentleman, in following, not replying to, the speech of my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Exeter, thought it necessary to make a gratuitous and unprovoked attack upon me, who have given him no provocation whatever. His Majesty's Attorney-General told my hon. and learned Friend, that "before he spoke of inconsistency, he ought to have had the delicacy to look at his right hand, where he might see the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire; and in his presence," continued the Attorney-General, "I wish to know how the hon. and learned Gentleman could venture to speak of inconsistency." What pretence, what provocation, have I given for this attack? Who is he that taunts me with inconsistency? Have I ever shrunk, since I have had the honour of a seat in this House, from manfully and frankly stating my opinions, whomsoever they pleased or displeased? I call upon any man to show whenever I have blinked any question? I call upon any man to show if, at any time, I have held different language out of the House from that which I have held within it? I call upon any man to say, when I have ever vituperated and calumniated a body of men, and afterwards solicited to be permitted to become one of that body? I ask, when a main question was depending, which was not displeasing to those with whom I held office, whether I have ever avoided expressing my opinion, or sheltered myself under a neutrality by a convenient absence? And, finally, I ask whether it is not in the knowledge of the King's Attorney-General himself, and every Member of this House, that when I did differ from my colleagues holding office, I abandoned office to maintain my principles? And now, Sir, whenever the Attorney-General shall think fit to answer these questions with regard to himself, as I have answered them, I will, and not till then, place myself on the level to discuss the question of consistency with him. The hon. and learned Gentleman, the Attorney-General, last night, following up this attack, told me, in terms, indeed, complimentary as he meant them, that he knew my ingenuity too well not to be satisfied that I should be able to effect all but impossibilities, to satisfy the House with regard to my supposed change. Sir, I accept no compliment to my ingenuity at the expense of my principles. But this I will say, that without the exercise of the smallest portion of the ingenuity for which the hon. and learned Gentleman has given me credit, and without the slightest sacrifice of those principles which the Attorney-General assumes that I possess, I will demonstrate, if not to the satisfaction, I think at least to the conviction, of the Attorney-General, that there is no inconsistency on my part; I repeat, there is no inconsistency on my part, in having supported, in having introduced, (and I give the Attorney-General the benefit of the admission), with having been the main support of the Church Temporalities Bill, and, upon the present occasion, standing up in determined opposition to the principles embodied in this measure. Can any man say, that there is not a wide difference between that Bill and the present measure, both in its details and in its principle? I own that it is difficult, in spite of the ejaculations of my noble Friend, the Secretary at War (Lord Howick), to understand how any roan who supported that measure, under the impression that it was founded on justice and good faith— how any man who had supported that Bill, can support the principles maintained in the present measure? In the first place, I will offer a few observations with regard to some preliminary questions raised upon the main question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his opening speech, said, that the question embodied in his resolution was this:—"Would we, or would we not, pledge ourselves to maintain the existing system of Church-rates, and, if we were not prepared to do so, would we agree to a substitute?" The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the statement which he made some time ago, appealed to me on this subject, and did me the honour to quote a speech of mine, when I was a Member of the Cabinet, in 1834. In that year, Lord Althorp introduced a plan for the commutation of Church-rates, on which I expressed myself strongly, because I felt strongly; and I feel as strongly now the extreme difficulties and the manifold objections which occur in the present mode of enforcing Church-rates. I entertained these opinions most strongly in 1834, and I stated them as strongly; and if my right hon. Friend wishes, I will express my opinion now against the present plan, by repeating the very words to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done me the honour to refer. I feel that there are objections to the present system of Church-rates, I feel that it is objectionable in point of most of its details, I feel it is objectionable in point of the irritation that exists, and in point of the difficulties of its collection; but does it follow, that whatever proposition the Government thinks fit to offer, that proposition we at once are to take without any consideration of its merits or discussion of its principle? But, said my noble Friend (Lord John Russell), "Why not allow us to lay our resolution on the table of the House? It is nothing more than a resolution to found a Bill upon; we may afterwards discuss its principle and its details." Did the noble Lord want to have an opportunity of putting in practice the motto of "divide et impera?" The noble Lord promises that the claims of the various interests shall be fairly considered, or any objections that can be urged in Committee; but if this Bill be allowed to go into Committee, I will not give much for the chance any Gentleman has of these objections being listened to. Is this only a question upon a preliminary resolution? The question was raised in the course of this debate, by my right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel), who distinctly asked across the table of the House—at all events, I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer has too much candour not to admit that he distinctly understood the question — whether this resolution was merely to enable him to bring in a Bill; because, if it were one of mere form, no difficulties would be thrown in his way? But the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, and said truly, that this was not dealing fairly with the House; that we must act upon the broad principle, and affirm the resolution; and if we refuse—having affirmed the principle of the resolution, on the ground that it is merely preliminary — to agree to the Bill, then he would turn round and tell us that we had already affirmed the principle of the measure, and that all that remained was to consider the details. This was the position in which the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) also was desirous of placing us when he piteously complained of our entering upon a discussion upon a mere preliminary resolution. It is not the duty of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, to furnish a remedy for the evils complained of by the noble Lord. It is the duty of his Majesty's Ministers to find this remedy. I, in supporting the introduction of Lord Althorp's Bill, in March, 1834, gave no support to the proceeding by which that Bill was dropped in the June following. Nay, more; I will venture to say, that if Lord Grey's Government had continued unbroken, we should have seen that Bill carried through by the Cabinet of Lord Grey, and by the consent of both Houses of Parliament. And if the Attorney-General had been so fortunate as then to have obtained a seat in this House, I do not doubt but that we should have had the advantage of his legal acumen and support. The Attorney-General has been kind enough to say, I know not why, that this is the only measure of Lord Grey's Government, that as far as he knew, partook of the thimble-rig character. I was a Member of that Government, and I want to know what right the hon. and learned Gentleman has to make this statement? The hon. and learned Gentleman was a Member of the Government at the time, but he had no hand in framing that Bill; he might, however, satisfy himself by applying to the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets. The learned Doctor (Lushington) would inform the Attorney-General who it was that gave instructions in drawing up the Bill. And further, if the Attorney-General would look through the Parliamentary proceedings, he would see the names on the back of that Bill of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I am not standing up here to defend the measure of Lord Althorp, or to defend this or that measure, but I must say, that I do consider that the evils of 1834 have been greatly aggravated by the course pursued by the Government in the meantime, by their indecision and inactivity, by their holding out hopes to this party, and promises to that, of the principles on which they had intended to act, calculated to delude both one and the other with the expectation of their supporting the respective views of the different parties. [Cheers.] I am cheered by some hon. Gentlemen opposite as if this were not the case. Did you not tell us last year, that it is the duty of Government to provide for Church-rates out of the funds and property of the State? Did you not make this the excuse or pretext for not proceeding with the Bill in June, 1834? Did you not make it a pretext for not proceeding with the Bill, that the funds must be found out of the property of the State, and that if it were the pleasure of the House to provide for these Church-rates out of the ways and means, there would be no further obstacle to the operation of this plan? This was in June last. These were the expectations held out by Government. We shall, perhaps, be told that these funds belong to the State. Shall we, or shall we not? I should like to have this question answered. [A cry of "Go on!"] I will not go on: I should like an answer. We were told by his Majesty's Government last year, that the first duty of the Legislature of a Christian country was to provide for the maintenance of the fabric of the church, at the expense and out of the funds of the State. When we are called upon to vote for the principle of a resolution which makes no such provision, is it too much to ask the Government, whether they intend afterwards that this measure shall be a fulfilment of that engagement, and that these funds shall be taken from the funds of the Church. If I cannot get an answer, I must argue the question without one. In the course of his opening speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer used various arguments respecting the plan of Lord Althorp, and in asking the Committee what settlement they should propose, he stated, in the broadest terms, in the first instance, as an objection to the measure of Lord Althorp, that it deprived vestries of their indisputable power of saying "ay" or "no" as to whether there should be a Church-rate or not. This was one of the main arguments urged by the right hon. Gentleman against the measure of Lord Althorp. To that doctrine, so stated, notwithstanding the astonishment with which it was received, and the arguments of my hon. and learned Friend (Sir W. Follett), the Attorney-General, with the gallantry of a Scot and the zeal of an Independent, came to the rescue, and, not content with affirming the proposition, he staked his professional reputation as a lawyer upon the soundness of the doctrine advanced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Yes, in the face of Parliament and the country, the Attorney-General staked his professional reputation on this case, that the right to levy Church-rates depended by law upon the caprice of a majority of the vestry. I must say, I think it is a pity that the Attorney-General did not consult my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for the Tower Hamlets, before he advanced this doctrine, which I am certain that hon. and learned Gentleman would have repudiated, if his judicial decisions in the court over which he presides—if his recorded opinions as a Member of the Church Commission—and if his language even in this House the other night, may be taken as criteria of his sentiments upon this subject. Dr. Lushington, in the very last term, in a case which was brought before him, said, that "as Chancellor of the diocese of London he would issue a monition against the churchwardens of the parish in question to repair the Church; and that if the churchwardens said that they were willing to do so, but that the vestry refused the necessary rule, then would be the time to consider which of these three courses to adopt"—and I think that by the hon. and learned Gentleman's admitting that he was bound to take one of these three courses, he admitted the validity and the necessity of making the rate,—"whether the church wardens should be admonished to make a rate upon their own authority—which, he admitted, might be a matter of considerable difficulty; or whether to admonish the parishioners individually; or whether—which he was inclined to think was the best course—an application should be made to the Court of King's Bench for a mandamus to compel the making of the rate." This is not my opinion, but the opinion of Dr. Lushington, sitting as a judge; and I am sure the House will now receive with respect, not what I urge, but what was written in a document bearing, amongst other signatures, those of Dr. Lushington and the Judge Advocate in their capacity of Church Commissioners. "This property," they say, "being a part of the rectory, is exempted from Church-rates, whoever may be the occupier. With this exception, Church-rates are imposed on principles so closely resembling the rules enforced for the making of Poor-rates, that no other substantial distinction can be discovered;" and they express an opinion that, "providing for this exemption as to Church property, we think it may be expedient that the Church-rates should, in future be made on the same assessment as the Poor-rates." I am sure that the House will receive with respect that, which is not matter urged by me, but deliberately written in a document laid upon the table of this House. I say that this is not my recommendation. It was a recommendation which bears attached to it the names of Chief Justice Tindal and some of the principal law authorities, together with the respectable names of the hon. and learned Dr. Stephen Lushington and the right hon. R. C. Fergusson. But if the hon. and learned Gentleman is still disposed to dispute the matter upon a point of law, although supported by these high authorities, I beg to read to him the opinion of another very high legal authority upon this subject. I allude to Lord Stowell, who in the month of November in the year 1809, spoke as follows upon a matter of Church-rates which was brought before him; and if it is possible for one form of words to lay down the law more clearly and indisputably than any other, I think that it is to be found in what I am about to read to the House. The noble Lord then read a paper to the following effect:— "When a presentation was made by one of the churchwardens of the Church of Shad- well, that the Church required to be rebuilt. Lord Stowell directed a monition to issue against the other churchwarden that the Church should be put into a proper state of repair;" and in March 1810, when this was not done, he said, "that the parishioners were bound in law to sustain the fabric of the Church, and that if this were not in a state fit to be preserved, another should be provided. This was an obligation which the law of the country laid upon them, and from which they could not be exonerated." Now I want to know whether the Attorney-General still adheres to the opinion he has laid down upon this subject, or whether he is prepared, in deference to these authorities, to abandon the position which he took up the other night? I am anxious to be satisfied upon this point, because I believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman is the only legal authority who has in this House laid down similar principles upon this subject. I now come to make a few observations upon something which fell from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets, the other night; and I must say it struck me as a rather singular fact, that without disputing the law of the matter, the hon. and learned Gentleman thought it necessary to go back to the prescriptive right of Church-rates, which will carry us back to a very early period. I believe even that in the time of King Canute a sanction is on record to the levying of a Church-rate. But without going back to so early a period of history I come to the period before the Reformation, when the hon. and learned Gentleman tells us that the payment of Church-rates was looked upon as a type of adherence to the Church, and the refusal to pay them in the light of heresy. So important and indefeasible were these rates considered at that time, says the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the recovery of them was not intrusted to the ordinary courts of law, the proceedings in which were then feeble and dilatory, but to the Ecclesiastical Courts, which were most effectual and powerful. After the Reformation, my hon. and learned Friend observes, and apparently with surprise, there was no alteration made in the laws respecting Church-rates; he seemed to think that because Church-rates originated in Catholic times, it was quite inconsistent that they should be allowed to continue when the Protestant religion was the religion of the land. Now, so far from concurring in this feeling of surprise, I would ask, what stronger argument could we wish to adduce in supporting the indefeasibility of Church-rates than this, that whatever the religion of the country for the time being whether Catholic or Protestant, the State felt itself bound to maintain the fabric of the Church at the general expense of the county? What can we say stronger than this that the Protestant Legislature has always admitted the same claim which their Catholic predecessors established? I admit that proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts have become in late years feeble and cumbrous in enforcing the law in this particular; and because this is admitted on all hands, I say that we ought to apply ourselves to consider, not what the law is, but the difficulties which stand in the way of enforcing it. Yet, if there is one proposition out of all that have been submitted in this House which has been more sneered at than another, it is that which has been suggested for establishing a more effective state of the law for the levying of Church-rates. Gentlemen may talk of consistency; but really they should, before they do so, be a little more careful to look back, if but for one short year, to the acts of the Government to which they belong. Sir, I bold in my hand a Bill, the title of which is a Bill for the Consolidation and Amendment of the Ecclesiastical Courts. This Bill contains, amongst others, the following clauses, namely, first, a clause, declaratory, that from the passing of this Act the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts in matters relating to Church-rates should cease and determine, provided always, that all laws, canons, and customs now in force as to liabilities to Church-rates shall continue in force in the same way as if this Act had not passed, and putting the execution of those laws and customs into the hands of justices of the peace, as hereinafter to be mentioned and defined. The next clause gives no parties who may fancy themselves aggrieved by the decision of the justices of the peace an appeal to the quarter sessions. The following clause gives the justices of the peace powers to amend the Church-rate and adopt means to levy it more effectually; and this is followed by a clause authorising justices of the peace to issue warrants of distress for the levying Church-rates. I will not trouble the House with further details of this Bill, but I ask when was it introduced —by whom was it introduced? It was introduced at a time when this question of Church-rates was still pending before the House and the country—when the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was in the hands of his Majesty's Government. This Bill, giving an explicit sanction to Church-rates, giving additional force in their collection, was introduced, was discussed, was put through Committees in the House of Lords, and was brought up to this House last year; and who introduced it? The Lord High Chancellor of his Majesty under the present Government. There the Bill is; the facts connected with its history are on the journals of the House. Look at them if you please, and you will find that this Bill was brought up from the House of Lords, that it was read a first time, that its second reading was postponed seven limes, and that it never went through any of its further stages, and was dropped.

The Attorney-General

took the liberty of rising to remind the noble Lord that as he remembered, the Bill in question did not contain one word about making a Church-rate, but only as to the levying of it when made. There never had been a doubt as to the existence of a legal remedy for the levying of a Church-rate when once made, but he believed that there was no means to compel the making of a Church-rate.

Lord Stanley

Then I should like to hear from the Attorney-General whether he was carrying out the intentions of this Bill, whether he was a party to the introduction of this Bill, providing a more effectual mode of levying Church-rates, the legal validity of which He denies.

The Attorney-General

rose, amidst cries of "Order, order! Chair, chair!" and cheering. Having at length obtained a hearing, he said: I rise to order. The noble Lord has misrepresented what I said. I never denied the validity of a Church-rate when made by a majority of the vestry in a legal manner.

Lord Stanley

resumed: I must say this is the oddest way of enforcing order I ever experienced. But as this part of the subject does not appear to please the Attorney-General, I will turn to another. The Attorney-General was probably instrumental in framing this Bill. Now it is rather remarkable that I find amongst its provisions a clause empowering the justices of the peace in certain cases to set aside the rate, and to make an order on the churchwardens for the making of anew rate; and the churchwardens are, thereupon, hereby required to make the same accordingly. But really I have been led to dwell on this point by the interruptions I have experienced at greater length than I should have otherwise done; and in point of fact I do not think it bears much upon the arguments for or against this question, inasmuch as I have the admission of the Attorney-General, whatever the provisions of this Bill, that there is a legal obligation upon the parishioners throughout the country to provide a Church-rate, and that the only difficulty is in the enforcing of the law ["No, no?" from Mr. Hume.] The hon. Member for Middlesex says no. I shall leave him to argue that question with the Attorney-General, and proceed to the proposition now before the House. The Attorney-General rests this measure upon three grounds, in the propriety of which I fully concur. These grounds which we have to decide, then, are—first, whether there is any available fund of the sort described by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; secondly, whether that fund can be raised without committing an injustice to any of the parties concerned; and thirdly, whether, this fund being raised, the most proper application of it is that proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? The Attorney-General admits that the argument in favour of this measure, failing in any one of these particulars, falls to the ground. The Attorney-General does not think it necessary, to say anything on the first point, he takes that for granted, he does not think it worthy of argument. Now, I must say that to me this point is one of very considerable interest. As it appears from the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that in the event of this supposed available fund failing the burthen of Church-rates is to be thrown upon the Consolidated Fund, it becomes a matter of very great importance and interest to me whether such an available fund be actually in existence or not. The next question is whether the fund, supposing it to be available at all, can be raised with justice to all parties concerned. The Church Temporalities Act for Ireland, to which allusion has been made as to a precedent, I beg to observe in the arrangements which it brought about was framed with especial regard to the interests both of lessors and lessees of Church property. Acting on the resolution of 1832, the Church cess was abolished in Ireland, and upon several grounds. One powerful reason was that it was levied upon a population the great majority of which dissented from the religion in support of which it was raised, and who by the law of Ireland were excluded from any share in voting, whether the rating should take place or not; another more powerful reason was, that this rate was absolutely not required by reason of the state of the funds of the Church of Ireland; but the most powerful of all considerations was, that there was this distinction between the state of the Irish Church, as by law established, and that of England, that it was subject to a specific charge from which the English Church was wholly exempt. In relieving the people of Ireland, therefore, from the payment of the Church cess, we abolished also the payment of first-fruits and tenths, and substituted a graduated-tax on benefices to meet the same charge. There was this distinction then, at any rate, between the Bill for the temporalities of the Church of Ireland and the present measure, which it would have been candid to have mentioned. Another remarkable fact is, that the Bill of Church Reform for Ireland was wholly unconnected with any compulsory restrictions about bishops' leases. I am aware that I have already trespassed at considerable length upon the patience of the House; and also that the point upon which I am now about to enter is one of long and wearisome detail. I am aware, therefore, that I stand much in need of the indulgence of the House, and I would not trouble them but that this is a point upon which I have been personally called upon to vindicate myself, and that it is important to see how far this resolution which is now proposed to us is borne out in principle by the Church Temporalities Act for Ireland. In passing that Act we took especial care to regard the interests and privileges both of lessees and lessors of church lands. With regard to lessors, we declared that they should be free to act according to their interests, and to renew the leases to their lessees on the present footing if they thought proper. We did not interpose between the lessors and the lessees another body dependant upon the Crown. We enabled lessees to accept the renewal of leases, and the Church to grant them on a fixed rate of payment if they chose, and left them between themselves to the ordinary remedies between landlord and tenants, without attempting to set up any pretence, or controlling authority, or interference. With regard to the lessees, the course which was then pursued was not only different but diametrically opposed to that proposed in the present resolution—we made no attempt to impose compulsory terms of renewal upon them. The Irish Temporalities Bill was framed upon the principle of the strictest adherence to the rights of the lessees, and with a cautious abstinence from anything which could tend to place them in a worse condition than they were before the passing of that Act. Now, I ask, whether this is not a very marked distinction between the principle which was adopted in the framing of that measure and that involved in the scheme now proposed to us by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and I ask whether I can fairly be accused of inconsistency because I acquiesed in the former measure, and refuse to agree to that now before us. But no one who attended to the question carefully and impartially could fail to see that there was a manifest difference between the principle on which the Irish Church Temporalities Bill was founded and the principle involved in the resolutions before the Committee. No one could avoid seeing, that by removing the lessees from under the control of a permanent ecclesiastical body, and placing them under a board of Commissioners, the lessees would be placed in a worse state than before. When the Irish Bill, therefore, was introduced, the Government of the day saw the difficulty; they saw the injustice which might be caused to the lessee by such a change, and they determined that the tenant should have the option of renewing the lease or not as he might see proper; but the present proposition was founded on no such principle, and to a certain extent destroyed the rights of the lessee. What did the Government propose by the present measure? They said, "We give the tenant the option of renewing the leases; but having taken the leases out of his hands, the first step will be to allow the lessor to run his life against yours, or you shall come to the terms we propose." That was the difference between the measure which had been adopted for Ireland and the plan now proposed for England, My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, the Church lands, by the proposed change, would be so much improved that a considerable surplus might be anticipated. Let me go to the question of surplus revenue, and see how that can be realised in England as it has been in Ireland. The premium on the rack-rent in England has been reckoned at seven or eight per cent.; and supposing a property worth 100l. at rack-rent, and the lease being run out, and the tenant applies for a renewal of the lease, he is now entitled to renew it on paying a fine calculated at twenty years' purchase; that is 5l. for twenty years? and my right hon. Friend calculates that on a perpetuity of 1,324,000l. by the new arrangement he will realise the sum of 516,000l. yearly, and that this sum may be raised without injury to the Church or the lessee. But how can this be effected? The Chancellor of the Exchequer says, he will allow the tenant four per cent. on the capital; while if the lease were allowed to run out it would be worth seven or eight per cent. But my right hon. Friend steps in and says, "No; the lease is not run out but on the condition that the tenant accepts four per cent. in place of seven per cent," to which he is entitled. And that is the way in which an increase on the perpetuity is to be produced? Why, that is no increase at all. He tells us the perpetual annuity at present amounts to 334,000l.; he charges the lessees 316,000l. more, and if they accept the terms the consequence will be, that they can enjoy the property only on the condition of paying 650,000l. in place of 334,000l. Yet my right hon. Friend says, there is not a tenant who would not willingly agree to the proposition. One word more with regard to surplus revenue, because I have been told that I entered on the plan adopted for Ireland on the principle of raising a surplus by the improvement of bishops' lands. I did; but on a very different principle from that on which this measure is founded. The surplus revenue then was to be raised on the Church property, by letting the land at a marketable price, and on the voluntary free offer of the tenant to pay a certain increased rate on the renewal of the lease. The plan, as regarded bishops' lands, was precisely the same as that adopted on leasing other property of any description. The valuation was made in the regular usual way; it was a mere cal- culation of the value of the property, of what the tenant could afford to give, and while the rent was raised there was still a certainty of his keeping possession of the property; but there is nothing of that kind in the present scheme, because the calculation is founded on the difference of the price for a perpetuity at four per cent. and a perpetuity at seven per cent. In bringing forward the Irish Temporalities Bill, a question arose as to whether the rate should apply to Church lands as to other property. I contended that it should not, and that a power should not be granted to the lessee, which the lessor had not the right of giving. I raised the argument on discussing the probability of increasing the value of the land, and was not aware that an improper use would have been made of the arguments which I adduced. Those arguments at the time were lauded to the skies by Gentlemen on the other side of the House, because they were interpreted to convey admissions which Lord Grey's Government never intended; and what did Lord Grey's Government intend to do? We said, we differ from your opinion, and because that part of the plan might be made a handle of accusation against us, we will not subject ourselves to it, and sooner than run the risk we will withdraw it; and it was withdrawn because I would not sanction the principle, for having sanctioned which I have been denounced by the Attorney-General. Now, with regard to the security of Church property; but, indeed, it is only a waste of time to speak of that. In Ireland, it is well known the bishops' lands are in a lamentable state; the land is so ill cultivated that it was easily distinguished from land belonging; to laymen, and there was an absolute necessity for some change. The security was considered so bad that little money was expended in improving the property. But is that the case in England? Do the lessees here consider their possession so insecure that they will not risk laying out money on improving the land. Why, the Attorney-General told us, that the possession was considered so insecure, that the Church lands cannot be sold in the market, and if he staked his reputation as a statesman on that point, as he had staked his reputation as a lawyer on the question as to the power of the vestry to levy rates, I am inclined to think not much weight will be attached to it, The Attorney-General said, the insecurity of Church property was such that trees were not planted on it, and that the British oak was too noble a tree to flourish on a servile soil. I admit that, in some instances, that may be the case; but I apprehend that, in most cases, the; security is considered so good, and that it is so intermixed with fee-simple property, that the tenant hardly knew the different limits. The hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny dissents from this. [Mr. O'Connell: I have not said one word.] I beg the hon. and learned Member's pardon; but I see so imperfectly across the House, that I trust my badness of sight will be admitted as an excuse for the error. Why, the property was considered so secure that freehold property intermixed with it was often purchased by the same tenant for the purpose of joining them into one estate. But there is no meeting Gentlemen on that side of the House. The security of the property is denied. The Attorney-General admitted, that the drawing-room of the lessee was not un-frequently on Church lands, and the dining-room on other lands: while the noble Lord, the Member for Northumberland, contended that by this plan the lessee would be delighted with the acquisition which he should obtain by increasing the security of the property. I now come to the last point, and that is the most important point, the application of the surplus, if surplus there should be. The great question was, whether the Church ought to be maintained out of the general funds belonging to the State. One hon. Gentleman on that side of the House said, no doubt it ought to be maintained out of the general funds, if funds could be found to answer the purpose, but he objects to have it maintained out of the Consolidated Fund, on account of the conscientious scruples of the Dissenters. Will the Government agree to that. They say, "we will not take money out of the Consolidated Fund," and turn round and say, "why not take money from Church lands for ecclesiastical purposes?" Their answer is, "why this is an ecclesiastical purpose." Now really this reminds me of a story which I heard, last evening, from an American gentleman, and which, with the permission of the House, I will repeat. He was walking at New York near a store. He saw an American go into this store. The American wanted some biscuits which he saw, "What's the price?" said, he, "Three cents," was the answer. Well, he took the biscuits. Then he called for a dram: "And what," said he, "may be the price of this?" (when he had drank it). "Three cents," was again the answer. "Well; but you have not yet given me the three cents for the biscuits." "But I have not got three cents," said the American; "so I'll give you your biscuits." "Why," said the storekeeper, "you never paid for the biscuits." "No," was the rejoinder; "and why should I? I have not yet ate them." There really is an analogy between the two cases; and this is what is called providing for the funds of the Church out of the funds of the State. This is exactly the argument of those who advocate the present measure. My noble Friend (Lord John Russell) admits, that it is the duty of the State to maintain the Established Church; and the hon. Member for Weymouth points out, in strong terms, the necessity of supplying religious instruction to the people. Now, is there any man who will say, that there are adequate funds to be derived from Church revenues for such a purpose? What is the amount of Church accommodation, an hon. Member had asked the other night, in the neighbourhood of St. Paul's? What is it in other places? I will not speak of Manchester, because my right hon. Friend has defended that town, and described it as containing the most moral population in existence; but, putting Manchester aside, I know large districts where there is not Church accommodation for one in twenty-three of the inhabitants, and then let the House think that in the manufacturing districts, sometimes additional hands to the number of 80,000 are required in a single town, making the population amount to 300,000. Yet while there is such a demand for religious instruction the Government said, "We will not grant any money out of ecclesiastical property for that purpose, but we will take a portion of the ecclesiastical revenues to repair Churches, in order to relieve the landed proprietors of burthens to which the land is liable." And here I must say, that my noble Friend last night in discussing the plan adopted a course which I think showed anything but decorum in a Minister of the Crown towards the heads of the Church who were associated with him in the Commission. I must say my noble Friend let fall some expressions which I hope he did not seriously intend. He reproached the dignitaries of that body because they did not concur with him in reducing the incomes of the bishops to the level which my noble Friend wished. What did my noble Friend mean by the allusions to 15,000l. a-year, and 10,000l. a-year, as large sums for the payment of the hierarchy? What else did he mean than to point out that these were funds on which he had his eye, and which he would lay hold of the first opportunity, and that he could not sanction the application of any of the general revenues of the country till these incomes were reduced? My noble Friend said, he had assented to the arrangement for the sake of peace and harmony, and then proceeded to speak of the change which had been made in the see of Durham, merely using that as a peg on which to hang his argument for applying a similar rule to all other dioceses. I will, in conclusion, say that the whole plan is impolitic as regards the Church; that it is unjust towards the lessees, and that the calculations are doubtful; and that on these grounds I have no hesitation in giving a decided negative to the resolution—as strongly as I negatived the proposition for appropriating any of the Church property in Ireland to secular purposes. The hon. Member for St. Andrew's has proposed an amendment to the effect that it would be expedient to apply any surplus of Church property to spiritual purposes. And I thought I understood the hon. Member for Weymouth to say, that if such a resolution as that proposed by the hon. Member for St. Andrew's were acquiesced in by this side of the House, he would support it, rather than the resolutions proposed by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Sir, I speak only for myself. I am not prepared to affirm all the propositions contained in the resolution of the hon. Member for St. Andrew's. I am not prepared to affirm that there is the surplus revenue which that resolution declares there is; but if there be that revenue, I am quite prepared to say, that there is no object to which I would sooner apply that revenue, than to the purpose intended by the hon. Member for St. Andrew's; and that if it be possible to frame his resolution so as not absolutely to affirm the existence of that which we are not prepared to affirm—at least which I am not prepared to affirm—I am prepared to affirm, that if that revenue can be obtained it should be applied according to his resolution. Let me observe, however, that if the hon. Member for St. Andrew's votes for the application of the revenue comprehended in the resolution proposed by his Majesty's Ministers, he will vote for that which, through all time and eternity, will prevent the application of the revenue to the purpose which he recommends. I must say, that on this point the hon. Member for Weymouth manifests some inconsistency. He contends that the application proposed by the hon. Member for St. Andrew's is the right application, and yet he admits that he will vote for the resolution of his Majesty's Ministers, which renders that application for ever impossible. But that inconsistency is nothing compared to the inconsistency of the Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire. The hon. Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire argued at considerable length, that the resolution pro posed by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer involved the grossest injustice to the lessees of Church property, and was founded on the most erroneous calculations; and he finished his speech by saying, "I support the proposition of his Majesty's Ministers." With a confusion of metaphors, as inconsistent as the conclusion of his speech was with the whole of his argument, the hon. Gentleman talked of wheedling and of blowing up. Let me guard hon. Gentlemen who are friends of the Church from being wheedled by the proposers and supporters of the resolution under our consideration, until the match is applied to the national establishment. I warn them not to vote for a principle which they must feel to be in the highest degree objectionable, in the hope that by subsequent negotiation they may obtain an advantage for the furtherance of some particular political object about which they are anxious. The measure is an unjust measure. I deprecate the attention of parties to their own individual interests. I entreat them to look at the general interest. If the friends of the Church Establishment think that that establishment is in danger —if they believe that the fabrics of the Church are exposed to the risk of falling to ruin without any means of repair—if they see the probability of an attempt to introduce the voluntary principle—if they are satisfied that the course adopted by his Majesty's Ministers will lead to the inflic- tion of these and other evils on the community, I call upon them, as I called upon the lessees of Church property, not to look at individual interests, but to combine their efforts for the purpose of preventing the separate injustice with which all parties are threatened. Sir, I most distinctly say to the friends of the Church Establishment, that I firmly believe this to be the last opportunity for making a stand in defence of that establishment. I am firmly convinced, that if they yield on this point, concession after concession will be extorted from them, until not a shadow will remain of the national establishment; until persons of all religious persuasions will be placed precisely on the same footing; until a perfect equality is established in the endowment and support of all religions and no religion. If, therefore, the people of England are determined to maintain inviolate the institutions to which they have been so long and so warmly attached, they will re-echo the no with which I meet the resolution proposed by his Majesty's Government.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Wason

rose together. After a few minutes of confusion, mingled with loud cries of "Adjourn, adjourn!" and "Divide, divide!"

Mr. Wason

stated, that he must put in his claim to be heard after the right hon. Gentleman had concluded. If that claim were denied, he would move the adjournment of the debate.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

The hon. Gentleman will pursue whatever course may seem to him most proper; but as I am anxious to reply to some of the observations which have been made on the measure I have brought forward, I will now, with the leave of the Committee, proceed to do so. Hon. Members need not be apprehensive that my speech, on this occasion, will be a long one. The House may be perfectly sure, that I am too sensible of the indulgence which I am continually experiencing from the House. But, undoubtedly, I should be most unwilling, after the speech of my noble Friend, that the House were to go to a division on this question without an attempt on my part to remove some of the misrepresentations into which my noble Friend has been betrayed. My noble Friend has stated, that he considers this to be the last opportunity that will be given to the friends of the Church to defend the Establishment. My noble Friend will at least recollect, that if in his judgment this is the last opportunity that will be afforded to the Friends of the Church to defend the Establishment, it is far from the first time that it has been extended to them. It was given on the Occasion of the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts—Acts which, at the time, were said to be the bulwarks of the Church. It was given in the various discussions on the question of Catholic Emancipation. It was given during the debates on the Reform Bill. It was given during the progress of my noble Friend's own measure, the Irish Church Temporalities Bill. On each and all of these occasions, but especially the last occasion, the friends of the Church were brought forward, not by my noble Friend, indeed, but against him, to "make their stand." On that, as well as on former occasions, both my noble Friend and myself, disregarding the cry, voted together, and we triumphed. He must excuse me, therefore, if I now maintain that this resolution is one which does not damage or endanger the Church; that the cry as to her danger is not more reasonable now, than it was at that period; and if I take the liberty to persevere in the motion which I have proposed for the adoption of the House. Towards the close of his speech, my noble Friend adverted to the principles on which he founded his opposition to my resolution. My noble Friend said (and if he could make out his proposition, I should concur with him in denouncing this resolution), that the effect of it would be, that the Church would be abandoned; that the fabrics will be allowed to fall in ruin; that the voluntary principle will be affirmed. Those were my noble Friend's three propositions on which he grounded his resistance to my resolution. I appeal to the House whether every one of them is not expressly negatived by the very terms of that resolution? How can my noble Friend contend that it menaces the Church Establishment, when the first half of it is devoted to affirm the principle, that a fixed and permanent allowance must be made to maintain the Church? Again, how can my noble Friend contend that' it is intended to allow the churches to fall into ruin, when the resolution substitutes for their maintenance and repair a certain and permanent charge, for a charge which I shall presently show is uncertain, doubt- ful, inapplicable, and in every way inferior? How, I again ask, can my noble Friend contend that the voluntary principle is about to be introduced? If so, then the resolution would be, "that Church-rates should be abolished." But, Sir, what becomes of my noble Friend's argument if the three propositions on which he founded that argument, are thus shown to be utterly groundless? What becomes of my noble Friend's appeal to the friends of the Church? But, Sir, this appeal has already been made to the country; and it has been found that an appeal is not always made to quarters in which it can be regarded. This appeal has been the cause of the numerous petitions which have been presented against the measure. It was made before the nature of the plan was known. Before the nature of the plan was known, meetings for the purpose of opposing it were called by the Archdeacons all over the country. At those meetings resolutions were passed approving of the principle, but founded on the unjust assumption, that it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to abolish the Church-rates without providing any substitute for them. I will not say a word against the petitions which we have received on the subject; but which some hon. Gentlemen have challenged us with manifesting disrespect to, by persevering in our measure. Founded, as those petitions are, on mistaken views of our intentions, I heartily rejoice at their prayer —a prayer against a proposition which has no existence. Founded, as they are, on the supposition that it was intended to abolish the Church-rates, without providing any substitute—so far from condemning, I heartily rejoice at witnessing, their number. It is obvious that the feeling of the people of England is in favour of maintaining the security of the Established Church. But, Sir, whatever may have been said about Church-rates out of doors, it has not been said within these walls. It appears, upon the admissions of almost every body here, who has spoken on the subject, that the present state of the law on the subject cannot advantageously be allowed to continue. The system of Church-rates cannot be defended within the walls of Parliament. In the early part of his speech, my noble Friend imputed to us that we had, during the last two years, been practising a delusion on the people, and especially on the Dissent- ers. What delusion did we hold forth to the Dissenters? Did we not tell them, that we could not adopt their principle in the repeal of the Church-rates? Did we not hazard losing the support of that powerful body by the declaration? If we are charged with creating delusions on this subject, we may defend ourselves by answering that similar imputations may be thrown on the conduct of the Gentlemen opposite. If we are stigmatised with having held out fallacious expectations respecting the Church-rates, let me ask if the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, did not, in the speech which he advised to be made from the Throne, and in his own speech, in the year 1835, hold out expectations to the Dissenters of relief from the grievances of which they complained? If the right hon. Gentleman was justified in holding out such expectations, were not we? An appeal has been made by the right hon. Baronet to the nobility, and other landed proprietors of this country, not to remove the burthen of Church-rates from their own shoulders. If the House will favour me with their attention, I will show them the grounds on which the question of Church-rates was placed in the year 1835. The noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool (Lord Sandon), in moving the address at the opening of the Session of that year, said:— With regard to Church-rates, I conclude, from the language which the right hon. Baronet now at the head of his Majesty's Government, has recently held to his constituents, as well as from the sentiments expressed by him upon that subject in the last Session of Parliament, when he ranked among the Members of the Opposition, that the only difficulty that can occur to him as to the mode of achieving a settlement of the question, must be mere difficulty of detail. It must be remembered, that Church-rates constitute one of those burthens which press particularly upon the land; and as the burthens which bear more exclusively upon the agricultural interest have been especially alluded to in his Majesty's speech, it is not improbable that the burthen of Church-rates is included amongst them. I cannot take upon myself to say that it is so; but, knowing that the burthen of Church-rates is one of which the agriculturists greatly complain, I cannot help regarding it as one that will come under the consideration of his Majesty's Government."* Now, observe, we have been challenged * See Hansard, Vol. xxiv (Third Series), p. 156, with practising a delusion in dealing with this matter. Yes, it thus appears, Sir, that in the year 1835, relief from the burthen of Church-rates was held out by the Gentlemen opposite, as a measure of relief to agriculture. It was not spoken of as a measure of relief to the Dissenters, but wholly as a measure of relief to the agriculturists. I know perfectly well, that the right hon. Baronet was not responsible for the speech of the noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool. But in the right hon. Baronet's reply, on the same occasion, I find the following passage:— It is well known that I supported the measure brought in by the late Government for the transfer of the Church-rates to the public revenue. That measure has met with great opposition from the Dissenters. I, for one, cannot agree to the extinction of Church-rates. I think that there is an obligation on the State to provide for the repair of churches. So do I. But I also think that the charge of providing for that repair, bears very unfairly on the land, and that subject is one which I had in view when, in the King's speech, reference was made to 'a method for mitigating the pressure of those local charges which bear heavily on the owners and occupiers of land, and for distributing the burthen of them more equally over other descriptions of property.' An interpretation has been put upon that paragraph, which is by no means intended. No new mode of general taxation is meant by it. It has a special reference to the Report of the Committee of last Session on County-rates, and to the relief of the agricultural interest from certain local burthens, of which the Church-rate is one."* If, Sir, we are to consider this question of Church-rates with a view to do justice to all parties, I stand on higher ground than merely affording relief to agriculture. But, in 1835, the measure recommended by his Majesty's Government of that period, was not of relief, like that which we recommended, to the consciences of the Dissenters; it was merely a relief to the agricultural interest. I will now, Sir, endeavour to follow my noble Friend in some of his observations. He asks, to whom the surplus fund, which we expect to realise from the improved administration of the Church estates, belongs: to the Church, or to the State? * Ibid., p. 237. If we answer "to the Church," then my noble Friend is prepared to charge us with applying that which belongs to the Church, to other than ecclesiastical purposes. If, on the contrary, we answer "to the State," my noble Friend then turns to the Dissenters, and wishes to know whether they will consent to be so deluded; for that they will then contribute as much to the support of the Church of England as if the money were paid out of the Consolidated Fund. I will answer my noble Friend in his own words. But, Sir, I do not think the Dissenters will listen to my noble Friend's suggestion. They see the distinction between the two cases, and they are perfectly satisfied with the proposed plan. I am not going to the question of the voluntary principle. I hope, however, that my noble Friend will not deny this to me, that the effect of altering the terms of leases, will be to give an increased value to that property by the Act of Parliament. With these premises, in reply to the question, whether this property or increased value belonged to the State or to the Church, my noble Friend, in February of the year 1833, said:—"Whatever the increased value is, you give it to the Church. She does not possess it without an Act of the Legislature; and I ask, if you, by your Act, give an increased value to Church property, has the Church any right, or can she have any claim to say,—it is to me you must pay this increased value?" And then my noble Friend said, "To whom, then, shall be the benefit of the payment? The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, says, to the Church; I say, to the State." Now, I contend, upon the premises, that as we are going "to give an increased value to the property," and "by an Act of the Legislature," the conclusion necessarily follows, that it "does belong to the State." The House have declared their assent to that principle, and hon. Gentlemen are not to be deterred from following out that principle in giving their support to this measure, by anything that has fallen from hon. Gentlemen opposite. But I consider, that a great delusion has been created by the use of the word "State," for hon. Gentlemen seem to think that there is no State provision for the wants of the Church, unless in the shape of Church-rates. I deny that proposition altogether; and I say, that there is as much a State provision for the repairs of the Church, as for any other object. I will take the case of the administration of justice. At the present moment, the whole bench of our judges are paid by fixed salaries (not by fees) chargeable on the Consolidated Fund. That, then, is a State establishment. But, suppose you were to abolish all those courts, and pay them by fees under an Act of Parliament, levied from suitors in the courts established in their stead, will any man tell me that that would not be a State provision for these judicial functionaries in the one case as well as in the other? I have heard it said, that the plan which I have had the honour to submit to the House, is a sort of hocus pocus juggle; and it has been asked, not only in this House, but elsewhere, "Whoever heard of a party of four persons sitting down to a game at whist and all winning?" If I could appeal to an eminent man of high mercantile character, of unsullied integrity, known and respected all over Europe— if I could find such a character in the person of one in high station, and I found that he would contend that it was impossible for the two parties to rise winners from the same game, I should like to know on what principle commerce was founded—how trade is carried on between the buyer and seller? So, in matters of a financial nature, is not the repeal of a portion of a tax, and the drawing an increased revenue from the increased consumption of the article taxed, a case in which both parties may be said to be gainers? Now, most hon. Gentlemen are aware, that there is a large estate in the vicinity of the metropolis, belonging to the see of London, and called the "Padding-ton Estate," Paddington Fields. There was a property belonging to the see of London under the existing law of the land. An Act of Parliament was subsequently passed, altering the previous state of the law, and giving to the Bishop of London greater and much better leasing powers. How does that case now stand? That estate is covered with good houses, squares are built upon it, and improvements are going on daily. Now, I should like to know, whether this increased value was not given by an Act of Parliament? Are not the tenants gainers? Are not the public at large benefited? Then, I say, if my position is to be dealt with as a mere hocus pocus affair, as it has been called by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. G. H. Vernon), I have some authority for the course which I pursue. There is one point to which my noble Friend referred, and to which I beg leave to revert, even after his denunciation of the plan, and after the advice that he spoke under high professional authority; I say it goes to the essence of the thing. The question is, whether there is any power, residing anywhere, of compelling a vestry, which has refused to make a Church-rate, to make that rate? We wish to substitute a certain for an uncertain provision for Church-rates. I take the liberty of asking, with all humility, one and all of the learned Gentlemen whom I see opposite, of all the courts of law, and equity, and the civilians, if they will be so kind, in their learning, and in their great experience, only to produce me one single case since the Reformation (for I give him the whole period), in which a rate having been refused by the vestry, there has been any interposition of a higher authority to compel the vestry to make such rate? Does any such case exist on the books? If no such case can be shown to me, my case is complete.

Dr. Nicholl

bagged to refer to a case which had occurred in 1799 (the case of Gordon and another) when an appeal was made against a rate made by one churchwarden, after a vestry had refused to make the rate. The party was sued in the Court of Peterborough; the court affirmed the rate to be good, and ordered payment to be made. This rate, be it observed, was made by the churchwarden after the vestry had refused to make it. An appeal was then made to the Court of Arches, and the late Sir William Wynn (a high authority upon all ecclesiastical law) affirmed the sentence of the court below, with costs, and ordered the rate to be levied and paid.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

I am willing, then, for the present to assume the law to be as stated by the learned Civilian; but, to my unlearned ears, it seems a distinction should be drawn of this sort. I rather apprehend that there is a great difference between an appeal against the legality of the rate when made, and an appeal to compel the making of a rate.

Dr. Nicholl

recapitulated the facts. Application was made to the vestry for a rate, and they refused to make it. The churchwarden then made the rate on his own authority. After the rate was made he applied for the payment of it to a certain individual, who refused to pay it. The party was held liable to the rate in the Court of Peterborough; and upon the appeal being made to the Court of Arches, the Dean of the Arches affirmed the sentence.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman, that I am perfectly satisfied that he would not, for a momentary triumph in a debate, make any statement, except in the perfect conviction of his own mind, as to its application. Will he, however, allow me still to doubt the bearing of the precedent he has quoted on the proposition I have so broadly advanced? In that case, it appears that there was a rate made by one churchwarden; that, though the vestry refused to levy it, it had been made by that individual. My proposition regards the absolute absence of any legal power to compel the making of a rate, and the Arches Court held the churchwarden a competent authority to make it. Now, whether that case applies to rule all other cases of this nature or not, I must beg to reserve for future consideration; but, at present, I wish the Committee to observe that, even assuming this to govern the question, as far as it goes, it is yet the only one on the books; and, from the facts of that case, it appears that, by the adjournment of the vestry, the whole question of the making of the rate was got rid of. Again, if there be this remedy, how great must be the defect of the administration of the law which supplies it, or how great the negligence of the courts which apply it, if it has never been resorted to! How great must have been their remissness, who, having the power to remedy the evil, have allowed it to continue! Then, Sir, I have another authority as to the power of vestries. I could mention another case, in which the question was, whether persons inhabiting the King's palace were bound, or not, to pay this rate. But I have one authority more to show the power of a vestry to refuse the rate. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, on the discussions on the Irish vestry cess, said, "that he considered that impost to be of a very different character from that of church-rates; because the latter is dependent on the volition of somebody else besides the Church." The right hon. Baronet said, that this volition was, most properly, in the rate-payers. At this hour of the night I shall certainly not trouble the House by going, at length, into an examination of the figures with which the right hon. Gentleman illustrated his statement, though I could have desired to do so; but I trust that the majority of to-night will afford me future opportunities of discussing them. I could, nevertheless, have wished, with very great respect to him, to have pointed out one or two errors which the right hon. Gentleman has fallen into. It was very natural that he should do so, seeing if it be not presumptuous in me to say so much, I should certainly have fallen into it myself, if like the right hon. Baronet, I had only had the papers put into my hands on the morning of the day on which I was to make use of them. At any rate, I have the high authority of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Harcourt Vernon) to justify my anticipations as to the productive nature of the fund which I propose to the House to deal with on this occasion. My noble Friend (Lord John Russell) has been charged with manifesting an unbecoming and disrespectful manner, in adverting to the Church Commission, of which he was, himself, a Member. If the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) had recollected, however, that what my noble Friend said of it, was said in reply to an attack which had been made upon him, I think the noble Lord would have somewhat moderated the expression of his displeasure. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw has accused my noble Friend of having "made an utensil" of this Commission: to which my noble Friend replied, that he thought himself entitled to complain that the Commission had made an utensil of him. I must acknowledge, that I could have wished more moderation had been displayed by our opponents in speaking of the measure now before the House, than they have evinced in recent instances. I allude, more particularly to certain statements, relative to it, which have been printed and widely circulated; statements calculated to produce an untrue, but a deep and lasting, impression on the minds of the people of England, and put forth under the authority of names to which I must suppose that they are erroneously attributed. My noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) has been censured by the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, on the ground of having submitted two plans to Parliament, fraught with the principles of destruction to the Established Church. Is it not too much that we should be told, that this scheme which we now bring forward, is a scheme of "sacrilegious robbery"? Yet such are the aspersions that have been incessantly heaped upon us out of doors. I rejoice, however, that no such words, and no such imputations, have found their way into this House, in the course of this debate; for, on the contrary, the tone and temper in which the subject has been introduced by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, gave an earnest and example of the tone and temper observed by the learned Recorder, and by other hon. and learned Gentlemen who have followed him; and, had it not been for the warmth which has been displayed on the present occasion, if it had not been for the tristes Amaryllidi iras which characterised the debate for a time, the mode in which the whole of this question has been discussed, has been one that, in every respect, has reflected much credit on all parties concerned. I do hope that, in the opinion of, at least, a great majority of this House, it will be shown, to-night, that this measure is not considered to be one of sacrilege or robbery; for, I am convinced that, if it had been so, nothing would have prevented the Commission from being stigmatised as, in that case, it would have deserved to be. It was not intended, and I deny its being intended, as a bribe to the Dissenters (for such it was said to be in the course of the debate). The pacification of the Dissenters (in respect of an undoubted grievance, which had naturally excited much irritation among them) was only one of the objects we contemplated. Our great object in this measure was to promote, among all classes of the people, religious peace. I do not believe that, if the people of this country were all members of the Established Church, the system of church-rates, and the noise and disturbance which it creates, could go on unmitigated or uninterfered with by the Legislature. I believe that the annual discussion of money votes, in open vestry, is a test to which we ought not lightly to expose the Established Church. I, therefore, supported this measure not only in justice to the Dissenter, but in justice to the Established Church. The right hon. Baronet has thrown out various suggestions, and especially as to the postponement of our decision till the calculations and other papers to which I have adverted shall have been laid upon the Table. But I do hope that the Committee will now support the plan submitted to them, and that this will, by their aid, be carried into effect, in the spirit in which it was framed, and has been propounded. I trust it will give to the great people of this land, of all religious denominations, if not that blessing "the unity of the spirit," yet, at all events, "the bond of peace," and insure unity of feeling.

Lord J. Russell

would only detain the House a single moment. It appeared to him to be the wish of the House, that the debate on this Resolution, should close that night. If that were the wish of the House, to which he was very ready to accede, he hoped that if there were any hon. Members who wished to explain the reasons on which they gave their vote of that night, the House would permit them to enter into that explanation.

Mr. Wason

endeavoured, unsuccessfully, to obtain a hearing. We understood him to contend, that the conclusions of Sir R. Peel, were not justified by the calculations into which that right hon. Baronet had entered on a former night, and to promise the House that, on a future occasion, he would show that if the bishops would apply to their own enormous tenures the same rule which in the Ecclesiastical Report they had proposed to apply to the property of the deans and chapters, a fund would be provided whereby the spiritual wants of 1,625,000 persons might be supplied upon the scale laid down by the bishops in their own report.

At the close of this speech, there were reiterated cries for the division, and much confusion.

Lord Dudley Stuart moved, that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. George F. Young

seconded the motion, stating that he should not be performing his duty to his constituents, if he did not lay before the Committee their opinions and his own upon this Resolution. He had risen frequently to address the Committee, but had not been successful in obtaining a hearing, and he knew that not only were all the Members connected with the county of Durham anxious to be heard on this question, but also many other hon. Members from other parts of the country, whose constituents were lessees of Church property. The noble Secretary for the Home Department, wished to put a restraint upon the freedom of debate, by not granting to hon. Members, who had the right, permission to speak on this question.

Lord J. Russell

had no wish to restrain any Member's right of speaking; but seeing that it was the general wish of the Committee to close the debate that evening, and knowing that there were many hon. Gentlemen most anxious to explain the grounds on which they were going to vote that evening, he had wished to persuade the Committee to give them the hearing which they required. He had not wished to put any restraint on their speaking. Quite the reverse. He left it completely to the Committee to decide, whether they would adjourn the debate, or take the further discussion of it now.

Mr. Hedworth Lambton

declared, that he was anxious to state the case of his constituents to the House, and to explain the reasons of the vote he was about to give. He had attempted to obtain a hearing several times during the discussion of the last four nights, but had always been unsuccessful. He knew the difficulty of attempting to gain a hearing for his constituents at that late hour, and therefore he had adopted his present course.

Mr. Harvey

said, he felt most anxious to address the House upon this great question, and had frequently attempted without success so to do. At the same time, he felt he could not do so with any advantage or satisfaction at that hour of the morning, and after a debate which had already extended over four entire nights. Nor could he venture to support the motion of adjournment, upon the plea that he had something altogether new to advance. That was a kind of arrogance he was not prepared to assume—yet, if he did so feel disposed, he should confidently rely upon the support of all the Gentlemen who had spoken, scarcely one of whom had not repeated what had been before, if not better, said. This they would do as a compliment to the attention he had paid to them. Indeed, so far as novelty was a guide, he thought that at least three hours of every four had been completely wasted. He hoped, therefore, hon. Gentlemen would agree to proceed to a division, and as consistency had once more, judging from the debate, become a political virtue, and being anxious to preserve his own, he desired it to be expressly understood, that in voting for the Resolution of the Government, he only gave his support to that portion of it which affirmed the speedy and total abolition of Church-rates; the mode of providing a substitute remaining an open question.

The Chairman

said, that before the Committee went to a division, it was only fitting that it should be informed that the question before it would be the noble Lord's proposition, that the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again. [Cries of Go on.]

Lord Dudley Stuart

proceeded to address the Committee. We understood him to explain the grounds on which he had made the motion which had just been put from the Chair. He was anxious to state the reasons for the vote he was about to give; and he thought that he could do it in a few words. The debate had now lasted four nights, and on three of them he had endeavoured, but unsuccessfully, to address the Committee. He had also endeavoured to explain his sentiments in presenting a petition from his constituents, from whom he had the misfortune to differ upon this subject; but on that occasion the Speaker had interfered, and had told him, when he attempted to explain wherein he differed from, and wherein he agreed with his constituents, that he must sit down and reserve that explanation for another opportunity. Doubting much his power to attract the attention of the House for many minutes at that late hour, and feeling it to be his imperative duty to himself and his constituents, to state the opinions which he entertained on this subject, he thought that the best course he could pursue to accomplish that object was to make the motion, which he had done; and he had been the more inclined to pursue that course, from seeing the Chancellor of the Exchequer rise to reply after the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich had given notice, that he (Mr. Wason) was anxious to speak before the right hon. Gentleman. He was compelled by a sense of duty to inform the House, that he must, on this occasion, record his vote against the party with which he had so long and so cordially acted. The noble Lord then read a long extract from the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, for the purpose of showing that there was a vast deficiency of Church accommodation for the poorer classes of the community. He then expressed his surprise, that those Members of his Majesty's Government who had signed their names to that Report, could reconcile it to their honour and conscience to support a Resolution which would cut off every means of supplying that deficiency. It was said, that this Resolution would promote religious peace. If he could be convinced that it would have any such effect, and he was sure that it would not, he would support it; but instead of promoting peace, it would promote religious discord and dissension. When the Dissenters had gained this point, they would seek others, and would never be contented until they had destroyed the Church Establishment. He looked upon this measure as the first step to the voluntary principle, and he should, therefore, meet it with the most strenuous opposition.

Mr. Hedworth Lambton

said, that from the deference he felt to the wishes of the Committee, he should not press his opposition. He hoped, however, that he should have an opportunity of explaining the situation of his constituents in the county of Durham when the Report was brought up. It would be impossible for him to do justice to their cause at that late hour of the night, and he, therefore, would not injure it by commencing it.

Mr. Ingham

wished to bring under the notice of hon. Members a simple fact, which he thought ought to be known to them before they proceeded to a division on this question. The noble Lord, the Member for Northumberland, in making a statement the other night for the purpose of showing the insecure tenure of Church property under the see of Durham, observed that there was a most marked contrast between the towns on the north and those on the south bank of the Tyne. On the north bank of the Tyne, he said there were stately buildings, large manufactories, progressive improvements of every description; whilst on the south bank, owing to the leasehold tenure of the land under the Church, all the same opportunities for improvement were neglected and thrown away. He had the honour of representing the great commercial town of South Shields, which was situated on the south side of the Tyne, and he could say, that all the houses and public buildings of that great and flourishing town were built upon land held under the Church on leases for twenty-one years. The noble Lord had also made another assertion with respect to that town, which was as destitute of foundation as that which he had just exposed. The noble Lord had said, that in consequence of the Church being the landlord of that town, the Church had become so odious to the people that the number of Dissenters in it had increased prodigiously. He would mention one circumstance to the House which would show how the case really stood. At the beginning of the present century there was only one Church in South Shields. Now there were four. Two of them had been built and endowed by the singular munificence of the dean and chapter of Durham. The third had been built by voluntary contributions among the inhabitants, and had been endowed in a similar manner. The Church of Durham had exercised its functions as a landed proprietor with great moderation and fairness; and when land belonging to that Church was built on, no fine was taken from the party so improving its value at the two first periods of renewal. He also contended that all the elements of commercial prosperity were found in as active a state on the south as they were on the north bank of the Tyne. Indeed, he was prepared to assert that they were found in greater activity. On the north bank of the Tyne, there were no great manufactories, but on the south bank there were the glass manufactories, the alkali manufactories, and others which he would not weary the House by enumerating. Such being the case, was it not strange, that the noble Lord should have ventured upon a statement which was scarcely correct in a single particular?

Mr. Pease

had also been most anxious to address the Committee on this Resolution, but had hitherto been unsuccessful in obtaining a hearing for his constituents. On former occasions, he had had to congratulate the House on its passing from intolerance to toleration; now he had to congratulate it upon passing from toleration to complete religious freedom, Had he been successful in obtaining the attention of the Chair, he should have felt himself bound to show the Committee, that whatever might be the representation respecting the prosperity of the town of South Shields made by its hon. and learned Member, there was no part of the country in which the enfranchisement from leasehold tenures had given such great and universal satisfaction. It was a notorious fact in South Shields, that the elements of decay and ruin were in full vigour in that town, and would have produced their usual melancholy results, had it not been for the University of Durham Act, by which the land of that town was enfranchised from leasehold tenure. Whatever might have been the prosperity of South Shields before the passing of that Act, it was not to be denied that it had increased fivefold since. He could further state, that that enfranchisement, by which 240,000l. was gained to the University of Durham,—an establishment of which he did not intend to complain, though he considered it far too much restricted—was accomplished upon the very terms now proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that those terms were accepted by a great majority of the parties to whom they were offered. Among other persons, he had availed himself of the provisions of that Bill; and he could say, from his own personal knowledge of its results, that whereas before its passing every farthing laid out on the land was matter of much doubt and deep consideration, the reverse was the case now, and the land was covered with buildings of every description. Adverting to the statement of the hon. and learned Member for South Shields that the Church was considered a liberal landlord in the county of Durham, he said that he would read a short extract from a petition which he had recently presented from his own constituency, and which he thought would throw a considerable doubt upon that statement. The hon. Member then read part of a petition signed by 117 leaseholders under the Church, in the parish of Bellingham. After stating that they were ardently attached to the doctrines of the Church, the petitioners entered into a statement to prove that, owing to the change of the currency and the fall in the value of agricultural produce, the septennial fee, which they formerly paid on the renewal of their leases, now amounted to two, and sometimes to three years' rent of the premises leased to them. They furthermore declared, that the consequence of this procedure was, to prevent the application of capital to the land, and to put a stop to the improvement of its value by planting or building upon it. Nor did the evil, according to the petitioners, stop there; for they entertained fears lest their fines should be further increased, and lest the value of their property should be proportionably decreased. Having made this statement, he might perhaps be asked — "did he assent to the terms of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the way in which he proposed to carry them into execution?" To that question, he would reply by another. "Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean to say, that twenty-five years' purchase was the value of all leasehold property?" If the right hon. Gentleman meant to lay that down as an invariable rule, he would say, that the foundation of his project was based on injustice, and that the superstructure reared upon it could never stand. He was prepared to state, that though the principle of the resolution was not unfair, it might be made unfair in its application in practice. He would give his support to the resolution on two grounds—he would support it, first, because it was calculated, in his opinion, to promote peace, to advance religion, and to secure the good of the Church of England; and, secondly, because it was an arrangement beneficial to the community at large, and calculated to produce funds of which the amount would be sufficiently ample for the objects for which they were intended, whatever doubts might now be expressed on that part of the subject.

Mr. Hodgson Hinde

would not, at that late hour of the night, state any argument in support of the vote he intended to give against this resolution. He merely rose to mention the fact, that a public meeting had been convened in the town of Newcastle, in which it had been determined to petition against this plan for abolishing Church-rates. He would mention one fact of importance. In the county of Durham, within the space of a few years, a very extensive railway had been laid down, on which a company had expended 300,000l.to complete the work, and great part of this railway went over land, the tenure of which was under bishops' leases, and so confident were the parties in the security of the tenure that they had not applied to Parliament for its protection.

Mr. Harland

observed, that as a remark had been made in the course of the debate, that tenants had a legal right to a renewal of their leases, he agreed to this; and he would show that it was under the sanction of Parliament. In 1649, a Committee of Parliament was appointed for the purpose of removing obstructions in the sale of Church lands; and the Report was so strongly in favour of these leaseholders, that, with the leave of the House, he would read it. It set forth, That the Committee, having taken into consideration the petition of the dean and chapter tenants in the county of Durham, and the certificate from the contractors for the sale of these dean and chapter lands, it fully appears to this Committee, that the said dean and chapter lands, in the time of the prior and convent of Durham, were held by the tenants as estates of inheritance, according to the custom of copyhold lands, and so continued for some time after the dissolution of the said priory, and after the lands thereof were vested by Henry 8th, in a dean and chapter, till afterwards, by their many endeavours, some of the said tenants were prevailed on, and others constrained, to take leases in writing, and so to forego their accustomed way of holding. And whereas, it further appears that the respective tenants to the said lands, their heirs and assigns, had and have a right to renew their several leases from twenty-one years to twenty-one years for ever, paying three years' fine at the renewing of every lease. … It is therefore resolved by this Committee, and hereby ordered, that the said respective tenants have an abatement and reprize in their respective purchases of the said lands allowed to them by the contractors for the sale of the said lands valuably proportionable, and according to their present holdings.

Mr. Arthur Trevor

returned his thanks to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ingham) for his speech, which would do much to remove the false notions which had gone forth to the public. As to what had fallen from the hon. Member for South Durham respecting the enfranchisement of the town of Shields, it should be recollected, that that enfranchisement was the spontaneous act of the dean and chapter, in order to lay the foundation of one of the most splendid and munificent monuments that ever did honour to any body of men. The measure in question was one which never could pass into a law; it was not founded on the common sentiment of the country, and was a violation of the most sacred rights of property.

Sir Charles Burrell

said, that, having been intrusted with petitions from his constituents in opposition to the measure, he was bound, as far as he could, to support their views.

Sir Hedworth Williamson, with reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Hinde), who had stated that a railroad company had had such confidence in the security of the tenure under bishops' leases, that they had not applied to Parliament, observed that the hon. Member must be aware that another railroad company had so little confidence in them, that they did apply to Parliament.

Mr. Aglionby

could not let the leaseholders labour under the impression, which they might reasonably adopt from the tenour of the discussion during the last half hour, that their interests would be compromised by the decision of the House. He took the same view of the subject as the hon. Baronet, the Member for North Durham, and felt bound to assure his Majesty's Government that the details of that measure could not be carried into effect. Entertaining, however, as he did, this opinion, he was not led to the same conclusion as the hon. Baronet; for he (Mr. Aglionby) could net bring himself to vote against the resolution, the principle of which was to confer on the country one of the greatest boons that had been conceded for several years. He protested against the statement and figures on which the right hon. Gentleman relied; for he felt satisfied, that those who made the calculations on which he acted, consulted mere figures and theory, and not matters of practice.

The Committee divided:-Ayes 273; Noes 250: Majority 23.

List of the AYES.
Acheson, Viscount Berkeley, hon. G.
Adam, Admiral Berkeley, hon. C.
Aglionby, H. A. Bewes, T.
Ainsworth, P. Biddulph, R.
Alston, R. Bish, T.
Angerstein, J. Blake, Martin Jos.
Anson, Colonel Blunt, Sir C.
Anson, Sir George Bodkin, J.
Astley, Sir J. Bowes, J.
Attwood, T. Brabazon, Sir W.
Bagshaw, John Brady, D. C.
Bainbridge, E. T. Bridgeman, H.
Baines, E. Brocklehurst, J.
Ball, N. Brodie, W. B.
Bannerman, A. Brotherton, J.
Barclay, D. Browne, R. D.
Baring, F. T. Buller, C.
Barnard, E. G. Buller, E.
Barron, H. W. Bulwer, H. L.
Barry, G. S. Bulwer, E. L.
Bellew, Richard M. Burdon, W.
Benett, J. Burton, H.
Bentinck, Lord W. Butler, hon. P.
Berkeley, hon. F. Buxton, F.
Byng, G. Hastie, A.
Byng, G. S. Hawes, B.
Callaghan, D. Hawkins, John H.
Campbell, Sir J. Hay, Sir A. L.
Carter, J. B. Heathcoat, J.
Cave, Otway Hector, C. J.
Cavendish, hon. C. C. Hindley, C.
Cavendish, hon. G. H. Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J
Cayley, E. S. Hodges, T. L.
Chalmers, P. Hodges, T. T.
Chetwynd, Captain Holland, E.
Chichester, J. P. B. Horsman, E.
Churchill, Lord C. Howard, R.
Clay, William Howard, P. H.
Clayton, Sir W. Howick, Viscount
Clive, E. B. Hume, J.
Codrington, Admiral Humphery, John
Collier, John Hurst, R. H.
Conyngham, Lord A. Hutt, W.
Cookes, T. H. James, W.
Cowper, hon. W. F. Jephson, C. D. O.
Crawford, W. S. King, E. B.
Crawford, W. Labouchere, rt. hon. H.
Crawley, S. Lambton, H.
Crompton, Samuel Langton, Wm. Gore
Curteis, H. B. Leader, J. T.
Curteis, E. B. Lefevre, Charles S.
Dalmeny, Lord Lennard, T. B.
Denison, W. J. Leveson, Lord
Denison, J. E. Lewis, Wyndham
D'Eyncourt, C. T. Lister, E. C.
Dillwyn, L. W. Loch, J.
Divett, E. Lushington, Dr.
Donkin, Sir R. S. Lushington, C.
Duncombe, T. Lynch, A. H.
Dundas, J. C. Mackenzie, S.
Dundas, hon. T. M'Leod, R.
Dundas, J. D. Macnamara, Major
Dunlop, J. M'Taggart, J.
Ebrington, Viscount Maher, J.
Edwards, Colonel Mangles, J.
Ellice, E. Marjoribanks, S.
Elphinstone, H. Methuen, P.
Etwall, R. Molesworth, Sir W.
Evans, G. Moreton, A.
Ewart, W. Morpeth, Viscount
Fazakerley, J. N. Morrison, J.
Ferguson, Sir R. Mostyn, hon. E. L.
Ferguson, R. Mullins, hon. F. W.
Fergusson, rt. hon. R. C. Murray, J. A.
Fielden, J. Musgrave, Sir R., Bt.
Fitzgibbon, hon. R. Nagle, Sir R.
Finn, W. F. O'Brien, C.
Fitzroy, Lord C. O'Connell, D.
Fleetwood, Peter H. O'Connell, J.
Gaskell, D. O'Connell, M. J.
Gisborne, T. O'Connell, M.
Gordon, R. O'Ferrall, R. M.
Grattan, J. Oliphant, Lawrence
Grey, Sir George Ord, W. H.
Grote, George Oswald, James
Guest, J. J. Paget, F.
Gully, J. Palmer, General
Hall, B. Palmerston, Viscount
Handley, H. Parker, John
Harland, Wm. C. Parnell, Sir H.
Harvey, D. W. Parrott, Jasper
Pattison, J. Stuart, V.
Pease, J. Talbot, C. R. M.
Pechell, Captain R. Tancred, H. W.
Pendarves, E. W. Thomson, C. P.
Philips, M. Thompson, P. B.
Philips, G. R. Thompson, Alderman
Phillips, C. M. Thompson, Colonel
Pinney, W. Thornley, T.
Ponsonby, W. Tooke, William
Ponsonby, J. Tracey, Charles H.
Potter, R. Trelawney, Sir W. L.
Poulter, J. S. Troubridge, Sir T.
Power, J. Tulk, C. A.
Price, Sir R., Bt. Turner, W.
Pryme, G. Tynte, C. K. K.
Pryse, Pryse Tynte, C. J. K.
Ramsbottom, J. Vigors, N. A.
Rice, rt. hon. T. S. Villiers, Charles P.
Rippon, Cuthbert Vivian, J. H.
Robarts, A. W. Walker, R.
Robinson, G. R. Wallace, R.
Roche, William Warburton, H.
Roebuck, J. A. Ward, H. G.
Rolfe, Sir R. M. Wason, R.
Rooper, J. Bonfoy Wetnyss, Captain
Rundle, J. Westenra, hon. H. R.
Russell, Lord J. Westenra, J. C.
Russell, Lord Whalley, Sir S.
Russell, Lord C. Wigney, I. N.
Ruthven, E. Wilbraham, G.
Sanford, E. A. Wilde, Sergeant
Scholefield, Joshua Wilkins, W.
Scott, J. W. Wilks, John
Scrope, G. P. Williams, W.
Seale, Colonel Williams, W. A.
Seymour, Lord Williams, Sir J.
Simeon, Sir R. Winnington, Sir T.
Smith, J. A. Winnington, H. J.
Smith, hon. R. Wood, C.
Smith, R. V. Wood, Alderman
Smith, B. Worsley, Lord
Stanley, W. O. Woulfe, Sergeant
Stewart, P. M. Wrightson, W. B.
Strangways, hon. J. Wyse, T.
Strickland, Sir G. TELLERS.
Strutt, E. Stanley, E. J.
Stuart, Lord J. Steuart, R.
List of the NOES.
Alford, Viscount Beresford, Sir J. P.
Alsager, Captain Bethell, Richard.
Arbuthnot, hon. H. Blackburne, I.
Archdall, M. Blackstone, W. S
Ashley, Viscount Boldero, Capt. H. G.
Bagot, hon. W. Boiling, W.
Bailey, J. Bonham, R. F.
Baillie, H. D. Borthwick, Peter
Balfour, T. Bowles, G. R.
Barclay, C. Bradshaw, J.
Baring, F. Bramston, T. W.
Baring, H. B. Brownrigg, S.
Baring, W. B. Bruce, Lord E.
Baring, T. Bruce, C. L. C.
Bateson, Sir R. Bruen, Colonel
Beckett, rt. hon. Sir J. Bruen, F.
Bell, M. Buller, Sir J. B. Y.
Bentinck, Lord G. Burrell, Sir C. M., Bt
Campbell, Sir H. Harcourt, G. S.
Canning, rt. hon. Sir S. Hardinge, rt. hon. Sir H.
Cartwright, W. R. Hardy, J.
Castlereagh, Visc. Hawkes, T.
Chandos, Marquess of Heathcote, G. J.
Chaplin, Colonel Henniker, Lord
Chapman, A. Herries, rt. hon. J. C.
Chisholm, A. W. Hill, Sir R., Bt.
Clive, Visc. Hillsborough, Earl
Clive, hon. R. H. Hind, J. H.
Codrington, C. W. Hope, H. T.
Colborne, N. W. R. Hotham, Lord
Cole, A. H. Houldsworth, T.
Cole, Visc. Houstoun, G.
Compton, H. C. Hoy, J. Barlow
Conolly, E. M. Hughes, Hughes
Copeland, W. T. Ingham, R.
Corry, H. Inglis, Sir R. H., Bt.
Cripps, J. Jermyn, Earl
Dalbiac, Sir C. Johnstone, Sir J.
Darlington, Earl of Johnstone, J. J. H.
Dottin, A. R. Jones, W.
Duffield, Thomas Jones, Theobald
Dugdale, W. S. Kerrison, Sir E.
Dunbar, G. Kirk, P.
Duncombe, W. Knatchbull, Sir E.
Duncombe, hon. A. Knight, H. G.
East, J. B. Knightley, Sir C.
Eastnor, Viscount Law, hon. C. E.
Eaton, R. J. Lawson, Andrew
Egerton, Sir P. Lees, J. F.
Egerton, Lord Fran. Lefroy, A.
Elley, Sir J. Lefroy, T.
Elwes, J. Lemon, Sir C.
Estcourt, T. G. B. Lennox, Lord G.
Estcourt, T. Lennox, Lord A.
Fancourt, Major Lewis, D.
Farrand, R. Lincoln, Earl of
Feilden, W. Lowther, Col. H. C.
Ferguson, G. Lowther, Lord
Finch, G. Lowther, J. H.
Fleming, J. Lucas, E.
Foley, Edw. Thomas Lushington, S.
Follett, Sir W. Lygon, hon. Gen.
Forester, hon. G. Mackinnon, W. A.
Forster, C. S. Maclean, Donald
Fremantle, Sir T. W. Mahon, Viscount
Freshfield, J. W. Manners, Lord C.
Gaskell, James Milnes Marsland, T
Geary, Sir W. R. P. Martin, J.
Gladstone, T. Mathew, Captain
Gladstone, W. E. Maunsell, T. P.
Gordon, hon. W. Maxwell, H.
Goring, H. D. Meynell, Captain
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Miles, William
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. Miles, P. J.
Grant, hon. Colonel Miller, Wm. Henry
Greene, T. Mordaunt, Sir J., Bt.
Greisley, Sir R. Mosley, Sir O., Bt.
Grimston, Viscount Neeld, J.
Grimston, hon. E. H. Neeld, John
Hale, R. B. Nicholl, Dr.
Halford, H. Noel, Sir G.
Hamilton, G. A. Norreys, Lord
Hamilton, Viscount North, F.
Hanmer, Henry Ossulston, Lord
Harcourt, G. G. Packe, C. W.
Palmer, R. Stanley, Lord
Palmer, George Stewart, J.
Parker, M. Stormont, Viscount
Patten, J. W. Stuart, Lord D.
Peel, right hon. Sir R. Sturt, Henry Charles
Peel, Colonel J. Tennent, J. E.
Pelham, J. C. Thomas, Colonel
Pemberton, Thomas Tollemache, hon. A.
Pigot, R. Townley, R. G.
Plumptre, J. P. Trench, Sir F.
Polhill, F. Trevor, hon. A.
Pollen, Sir J., Bt. Trevor, hon. G. R.
Pollock, Sir Fred. Twiss, H.
Powell, Colonel Tyrrell, Sir J.
Praed, Winthrop M. Vere, Sir C. B.
Price, S. G. Vernon, G. H.
Price, R. Vesey, hon. T.
Pusey, P. Vyvyan, Sir R.
Rae, rt. hon. Sir W. Wall, C. B.
Reid, Sir J. R. Walpole, Lord
Richards, J. Walter, John
Richards, R. Welby, G. E.
Rickford, W. Wayland, Major
Rushbrooke, Col. Whitmore, T. C.
Russell, C. Wilbraham, B.
Sanderson, R. Williams, Robert
Sandon, Viscount Williams, T. P
Scarlett, hon. R. Wilmot, Sir J. E.
Scott, Sir E. D. Wilson, H.
Scott, Lord J. Wodehouse, E.
Scourfield, W. H. Wood, Colonel
Shaw, F. Wrottesley, Sir J., Bt.
Sheppard, T. Wyndham, Wadham
Shirley, E. J. Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.
Sibthorp, Colonel Yorke, E. T.
Sinclair, Sir G. Young, G. F.
Smith, A. Young, J.
Smyth, Sir H., Bt. Young, Sir W.
Somerset, Lord G. TELLERS.
Spry, Sir S. Clerk, Sir G.
Stanley, E. Ross, C.
Paired Off (not official).
Dobbin, L. Verner, Colonel
Grey, C. Smith, T. A.
Heneage, E. Corbett, Thomas G.
Martin, John Chichester, A.
Clements, Viscount O'Neill, General
Fitzsimon, Nicholas Coote, Sir C.
White, Samuel Perceval, Colonel
Sharpe, General Pringle, Alexander
Gillon, William D. Hope, J.
Heron, Sir Robert Hanmer, Sir John
Fergus, John Charlton, E. L.
Fitzsimon, Christoph. Barneby, John
Sheil, Richard L. Agnew, Sir A.
Beauclerk, Major Ashley, A. H.
Talfourd, Sergeant Goulburn, Sergeant
Blackburne, J. Wortley, J.
Maxwell, J. Herbert, Sidney
Marsland, H. Ryle, John
Fellowes, N. Lopes, Sir R.
Speirs, A. Goodricke, Sir F. H. H.
O'Connor, Don Cooper, E. J.
Chapman, M. L. Mandeville, Viscount
Talbot, J. H. Plunkett, R.
Childers, J. W. Glynne, Sir S. R.
Campbell, W. Forbes, W.
Power, J. West, J. B.
Belfast, Earl of Hay, Sir John
Maule, Fox Pollington, Viscount
Vivian, Major Peel, Edmund
Grattan, H. Hayes, Sir E.
Marshall, W. Irton, S.
Jervis, J. Jackson, Sergeant
Lee, J. L. Owen, H.
Hallyburton, D. G. Damer, D.
Baldwin, Dr. Longfield, R.
Buckingham, J. S. Kearsley, John H.
Poyntz, W. S. Somerset, Lord E.
Fort, John Davenport, John
Wakley, Thomas Penruddocke, J. H.