Commons Sitting of 3 May 1838

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a third time:—Consolidated Fund.
Petitions presented. By Sir E. KNATCHBULL, from the county of Kent, to pay Constables as formerly out of the Poor-rates.—By Sir R. INGLIS, from places in the county of York, and the county of Bedford, by Mr. PALMER, from Hungerford (Berks), by Colonel SIBTHORP, from Lincoln, by Sir F. TRENCH, from Scarborough, by Mr. H. KEMBLE, from the parish of St. George, Camberwell, by Mr. A'COURT HOLMES, from the Isle of Wight, by Lord SANDON, from the county of York, by Sir GEORGE CLERK, from Stamford, and by Mr. F. KELLY, Lord ASHLEY, Mr. GOULBURN, Mr. PEMBERTON, Lord SANDON, and other hon. MEMBERS, from Droitwich, several parishes in Worcestershire, and several other places, for applying all the revenue derived from Church Property to Church purposes.—By Mr. MORRIS, from Carmarthen, and by Sir F. TRENCH, from 2,000 British Manufacturers, for the adoption of some measure to protect their trade.

YEOMANRY.
Lord John Russell, before he proceeded with the business appointed for that evening, wished to make a few observations upon another subject. He found, that, in consequence of the debate that had taken place with regard to the yeomanry, an impression had gone abroad, that it was the intention of Government, within some limited period, say within a year, to propose the reduction of the yeomanry of the country. Now, he could assure the House, that nothing that had come from her Majesty's Government tended at all to countenance such a proposition. His own opinion was, that it would be better to constitute a militia force on a basis more extensive than at present. Of course, if that militia force were consolidated by means of an Act of Parliament, it would hereafter come to be a question, whether it would be better to keep up that force, and the yeomanry together; but nothing that he had said tended at all to imply, that it was the intention of the Government to put an end to the yeomanry altogether.
Sir Robert Peelwas afraid, the explanation which the noble Lord had given, would not remove from the minds of many persons interested in the maintenance of the yeomanry, the impression under which they laboured, in consequence of the debate the other night. There might have been an apprehension that it was the intention of Government to dissolve that force after a twelvemonth had elapsed; but even if that apprehension was removed, there would still remain another unfortunate impression, because he thought the inference to be drawn from what the noble Lord had stated was, that, if in the case of an unforeseen disturbance, there should be an unfortunate necessity to apply for some stronger force, the yeomanry would not be that force.
Lord John Russell: What I stated the other night was, that I thought one of the great uses of a yeomanry was to prevent disturbances taking place, from the knowledge that that yeomanry existed in the neighbourhood. What I stated further was, that I thought in case of disturbance it was far more advisable to resort to a regular force. Of course, I do not mean to say, if a sufficient number of regular forces do not exist in the neighbourhood, it may not be advisable to resort to the yeomanry; but I must still entertain the opinion, that the calling in of the yeo-
820
manry is far more likely to continue the ill-will and dissension in different parts of the community, than the calling in of the regular force.
Sir Robert Peel: I beg leave to ask the noble Lord of what use will be the impression that there is a large yeomanry force in the neighbourhood, if there is to be another impression that such force will not be called out.
Lord John Russell: Now really what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, makes it necessary for me to state what I had hoped I had clearly stated before. I do not think it is the most desirable force to call out, if disturbance exists: but if there is not a sufficient force in the neighbourhood, then the yeomanry must be resorted to, although I wish another force should be in the neighbourhood.

CHURCH LEASES.
Lord John Russellrose for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to a subject of very great importance; and considering that he was then addressing a new Parliament, and that there must of necessity be many Members of the House who had not heard the previous discussions upon the question, he had had some doubt on his mind whether it might not be desirable on the present occasion to go generally through the measures of ecclesiastical reform to be proposed, whether on the part of the Church Commissioners and the Government in conjunction, or by the Government alone, upon the responsibility of the several select Committees which, from time to time, had given their attention to the subject; but, after mature deliberation, he had abandoned that intention, thinking it might be inconvenient to mix up a subject which called for the immediate and undivided attention of the House with other questions which must come at different periods before them for their discussion and deliberation. He, however, still thought that in bringing forward a question of the nature of the present, it would be necessary for him to state, in a few words, some matters which did not of right belong to the immediate appointment of the Select Committee he was about to move for, but to which some allusion was rendered the more necessary by the frequent appeals made to the public, seeking to represent the present ministry as disposed to deprive the church of the property which legally belonged to it, and to apply it to purposes other than those for

821
which it was originally intended. That was not the immediate subject before the House; but still he thought it necessary to state emphatically—and he gladly availed himself of the present opportunity to make the statement—that no proposition had ever emanated from the present Government which was calculated to deprive the church of the property it had heretofore enjoyed, or to affect the incomes belonging to its members, whether of its hierarchy or of its subordinate members down to the lowest curate. He would take the liberty of stating, in the first place, without going into all the details with respect to the distribution of that property, what, according to the most authentic records, which he conceived to be the returns under the ecclesiastical commission, was the amount of the revenues of the church. By those returns it appeared that the gross annual revenues of the several archiepiscopal and episcopal sees in England and Wales was 181,631 l., the gross annual revenue of cathedral and collegiate churches, 284,241 l.; the gross annual separate revenues of the members of the cathedral and collegiate churches, 75,854 l.; the gross annual revenue of the benefices, 3,197,225 l.; making altogether a gross annual revenue of 3,738,951 l. Then, with regard to the net revenues, the returns were to the following effect:—The net annual revenue of the several archiepiscopal and episcopal sees was 160,292 l., affording an average of 5,936 l.; the net annual revenues of the cathedral and collegiate churches, 208,289 l.; the net annual separate revenues of the members of the cathedral and collegiate churches, 66,465 l.; the net annual revenues of the benefices with or without cure of souls, 3,004,721 l.; making a total net revenue of 3,439,767 l. Now, although they had by an act of Parliament respecting tithe provided for the commutation of tithe into rent-charge, and although they had, by another act, with respect to the ecclesiastical revenues, ordered a different distribution of those revenues, yet by neither of those acts—neither by the act respecting the commutation of tithe, nor by the act providing for the different distribution of the episcopal revenues, nor by the proposition of last year connected with Church leases—was the gross annual income of the Church proposed to be diminished. Taking into account the various sources of the income of the Church—taking into account the increase which had occurred in several of the rent-charges by
822
the operation of the Tithe Commutation Act—taking into account, also, and above all, the fees which had been taken in places where small incomes had been returned to the Commissioners, he thought that the gross annual revenues of the Church might be stated at about four millions, or the net annual revenues at not less than three millions and a half. Now that was the property with which they had to deal, and however it might be distributed eventually, however right or wrong the Church Commissioners might be in their estimates of the amount of revenue, they found the Church to be possessed of that precise amount the Government proposed that the Church should be kept in possession of. Whether it were fit or right that the Archbishops of Canterbury and York should have an income of 22,000 l. a-year each, or that those incomes should be diminished, as the Church Commission had proposed, or whether it were right that the existing cathedral chapters should be maintained, or whether it were expedient that they should be reduced from the present number of twelve to four, according to the proposition which was made by the Government; this, at least, could not be doubted or disputed, that however the revenues of the Church were to be distributed, the annual income of the Church was, according to all the propositions which the present according had already or would hereafter bring forward, to remain to the Church, and to continue the property of the Church for those special purposes of religious instruction for which it was originally confided to it. Now, he must say, seeing this was the case, that some of those bursts of indignant vituperation which had been so lavishly aimed at the present Government might have been spared, and that those who, he contended, did but little honour to their clerical character by attending political dinners, might as well have stated to their listeners what the facts really were, instead of indulging in base and groundless harangues, imputing to the Government acts, motives, and opinions of which its members, both collectively and individually, knew nothing. He would abstain, however, from entering further upon this point, but proceed at once to the consideration of the general question to which he had to call the notice of the House. He might here observe, that those who had petitioned the House upon this subject did not, as far as he could collect, object to its being thoroughly in-

823
quired into. He held in his hand the petition from Scarborough, just presented to the House, and he found, that it by no means objected to an inquiry into whether Church property might not be improved by legislative interference, but stipulated that any increased revenue which might so arise should be applied to the purposes of the Church. The noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire, was not of the opinion of these petitioners. That noble Lord had said, that if any additional property could be acquired by an act of Parliament directed to the better management of Church lands, such property, being solely the creation of that act of Parliament, would belong, not to the Church, but to the state; an argument which, if adopted, would allow the sum got by such means to be applied to the payment of the war in Canada, or any purpose equally secular. Into that argument, it was quite unnecessary that he should enter, because, without attempting to say in what way the increased property to be derived from the better management of the Church lands, should be hereafter applied, he and his colleagues held it a fixed principle, that it should be devoted to a purpose clearly and deeply connected with the Church. Many hon. Members opposite, he believed, were of opinion that these funds should be applied to the education of the people. Her Majesty's Government, on the contrary, thought that the preferable application would be to devote them to getting rid of what had constituted for many years past, a subject of contest, dissension, and dispute—he meant church-rates; and with this view to dedicate them to a purpose which nobody could deny, was connected with the Church, namely, to the repairs of the fabric of the Church itself. Having stated thus much with respect to the general object he and his colleagues had in view, and presuming that it was neither necessary, nor indeed expedient, that they should then discuss or decide what should be the eventual application of the fund which it was expected would be created, he should at once address himself to what he considered were the two points for their immediate consideration—the one being, that some change in the system of leasing church lands was necessary, and that an inquiry with that view would be proper; and the other, that the most advantageous mode of inquiry would be by a Select Committee of the House of Commons. Now, with regard to the first of those objects, he thought
824
that no very long argument was necessary to show, that there were circumstances connected with the existing system of managing church property which conduced neither to the interest of the Church, to the interests of the immediate holders of that property, nor to the interests of the community at large. Between church property and other property in land there was this obvious difference, that persons holding it had only an immediate interest in it for their lives, and that after their lives it went, not to their heirs, but to the individual appointed to succeed them in the station in virtue of which they became entitled to its revenues. It, therefore, most naturally followed, that the bishop, or other owner for the time being, should seek, without any regard for the interests of those who should hold it next, to make as much out of it while in his possession as he could; while, on the other hand, it was obvious that on general principles a tenure which might be a short one was a tenure injurious to the improvement of the property. It was for this reason he conceived, that the Legislature in the reign of Henry 8th, gave power to let church lands with certain continuity for a period of twenty-one years or three lives. One might suppose from that condition, and, indeed, it might have then been the prevailing notion, that a lease for twenty-one years or for three lives was nearly similar; but, of course, they all knew that was not the case, and that a lease for three lives was equivalent to at least sixty or seventy years. But the Legislature that gave the power to which he alluded, at various times altered its conditions, making with regard to some of those leases rules and regulations which it did not extend to others. There was one of those rules which made a very essential regulation in respect to church property—namely, that which related to concurrent leases. If a bishop should suppose, that a sufficient fine had not been paid for a twenty-one years or three lives' lease, it was made competent for him, at the expiration of each seven years, or of the third life, to grant what was termed a concurrent lease, by which another life was put into the original lease. That rule was not extended to the case of lands held by deans and chapters. The consequence of that regulation was what might be expected—a great deal of doubt and difficulty on all sides—in many instances much disadvantage to the landholders under those leases; but, chief in

825
importance and extent, manifest disadvantage to the Church itself. It was obviously the advantage of the bishops, dean, and chapter, or any other ecclesiastic holding church lands in right of his temporary position in the Church, to obtain as large fines as possible, and hence was occasioned at various times very great detriment to the estates of the church, and in many instances it occurred, that the successor to a bishopric found, upon obtaining possession of his see, that its revenues were very much diminished from what they formerly were. He should beg leave to read to the House some instances which had occurred of property having been injured in the manner he had described. The first instance he should take dated so far back as the Restoration; and as it was detailed very clearly in two passages, the one extracted from Bishop Burnet's History of the Reign of Charles 2nd, and the other from the Life of Clarendon, written by himself, he should trouble the House by reading them. Bishop Burnet said—
"Almost all the leases of the church estates over England were fallen in, there having been no renewal for twenty years. The leases for years were determined; and the wars had carried off so many men, that most of the leases for lives were fallen into the incumbents' hands. So that the church estates were in them; and the fines raised by the renewing the leases rose to about a million and a half. It was an unreasonable thing to let those who were now promoted carry off so great a treasure. If the half had been applied to the buying of tithes, or glebes for small vicarages, here a foundation had been laid down for a great and effectual reformation. In some sees 40,000 l. or 50,000 l. was raised, and applied to the enriching the bishops' families. Something was done to churches and colleges—in particular to St. Paul's in London; and a noble collection was made for redeeming all the English slaves that were in any part of Barbary. But this fell far short of what might have been expected. In this the Lord Clarendon was heavily charged, as having shown that he was more the bishops' friend than the church's. It is true the law made those fines belong to the incumbents; but such an extraordinary occasion deserved that a law should have been made on purpose. And with this overset of wealth and pomp that came on men in the decline of their parts and age, they who were now growing into old age became lazy and negligent in all the true concerns of the church: they left preaching and writing to others, while they gave themselves up to ease and sloth."
The corresponding passage from Lord Clarendon's life was to this effect:—
826
"The old bishops who remained alive, and such deans and chapters as were numerous enough for the corporation, who had been long kept fasting, had now appetites proportionable. Most of them were very poor, and had undergone great extremities; some of the bishops having supported themselves and their families by teaching schools, and submitting to the like low condescensions; and others saw, that if they died before they were enabled to make some provision for them, their wives and children must unavoidably starve; and therefore they made haste to enter upon their own. They called their old tenants to account for rent, and to renew their estate if they had a mind to it; so the old tenants and the new purchasers repaired to the true owners as soon as the King was restored, the former expecting to be restored again to the possession of what they had sold, under an unreasonable pretence of a tenant right (as they called it), because there remained yet (as in many cases there did) a year, or some other term, of their old leases unexpired, and because they had, out of conscience, forborne to buy the inheritance of the church which was first offered to them, and for the refusal thereof, and such a reasonable fine as was usual, they hoped to have a new lease, and to be re-admitted to be tenants of the church. The other, the purchasers (amongst which there were some very infamous persons), appeared as confident, and did not think that, according to the clemency that was practised towards all sorts of men, it could be thought justice that they should lose the entire sum they had disbursed upon the faith of that government, which the whole kingdom submitted to: but that they should, instead of the inheritance they had an ill title to, have a good lease for lives or years granted to them by them who had now the right. But the bishops and clergy concerned, had not the good fortune to please their old or their new tenants. They had been very barbarously used themselves, and that had too much quenched all tenderness towards others. They did not enough distinguish between persons; nor did the suffering any man had undergone for fidelity to the King, or his affection to the Church, eminently expressed, often prevail for the mitigation of his fine; or if it did sometimes, three or four stories of the contrary, and in which there had been some unreasonable hardness used, made a greater noise, and spread farther than their examples of charity and moderation. And as honest men did not usually fare the better for any merit, so the purchasers who offered most money, did not fare the worse for all the villanies they had committed. And two or three unhappy instances of this kind brought scandal upon the whole Church, as if they had been all guilty of the same excesses, which they were far from."
Now, what occurred in the reign of Charles 2nd, might under the existing system of church leases, be very often the case, and

827
indeed instances were not wanting of something of the same kind having occurred during the reigns of late sovereigns. There were two similar instances on record of bishops having made inordinate fortunes, by availing themselves, to the great scandal of the Church, and to the great detriment of its interests, of the laxity of the law in regard to church leases. He might mention one instance in which, through the management of a bishop, a revenue of 11,000 l. a-year was reduced to one of between 4,000 l. or 5,000 l. a-year. Young lives were put in the leases, for which the present bishops received large fines, and though the lessees were not injured, the see was impoverished. In Somersetshire, in 1750, a case occurred of a lease granted on three lives of ten, eleven, and twelve years of age, which was of great injury to the succeeding bishops. According to the present law, that of Henry 8th, and which had been framed with very little knowledge of the subject, by the introduction of young lives into the leases, the property of the bishops might be much deteriorated. But it might be doubted, at the same time, whether anything were gained by this practice, and the law for the existing holders of the leases. Their interest in them was comparatively small, and the fines they paid, diminished their means of improving the estates they held. He believed, that the lessees were not much benefited, but in the end, the property of the Church was very much dilapidated, and then Parliament was asked to provide by means derived from the State for those purposes for which the property of the Church would have amply answered, if it had been properly husbanded. He could refer to several more instances in which this had been the case. He did not know the particular merits of those cases, and it was possible, that in many of them it was right that leases should take place, and that they should be extended to a period of ninety-nine years; but, at the same time, he thought it dangerous that these matters should be disposed of by private Acts of Parliament, whether in the cases of prebends with small incomes, which by this means might be doubled, or perhaps even trebled, or of other lessors, whose interest it was, to obtain as much as possible, and that there should be no controlling power to see, that those acts sufficiently provided for the interests of the Church. In many instances, where property had been so disposed of, there had been an increasing population;
828
and the Church Commissioners had lately told Parliament, that there ought to be a provision made for the purpose. But if any steps had been taken eighty or one hundred years ago, similar to those he now proposed, the spiritual wants of that increasing population would be duly provided for, and there would exist no reason for making such a complaint. ["Hear."] He was glad to hear the cheer, because, taking even the mode of appropriation of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, it was a proof that they did not object to an inquiry into this matter. Although they had ruled the country for so long a time on the established principle, that there was much ground for inquiry, yet that inquiry had never been made; but he must say, he was glad that the time had arrived when they thought it desirable to see better regulations with respect to this property. Now, in the period between the years 1750 and 1814, not less than thirty-five Acts of Parliament had been passed, which very greatly affected those estates, and their alienation. There was another instance, too, with respect to church property in coal mines, in the counties of Durham and Northumberland, when the fines paid, almost exceeded the value of the property. In one case, 40,000 l. had been paid by the Marquess of Londonderry, and since the year 1819, he had paid not less than 100,000 l. for fines which belonged to the dean and chapter of Durham. He thought it very wrong, that these large sums should be paid into the private pockets of particular bodies, without reference to the increasing demands of the public for religious instruction. He had stated these cases, to show the manner in which church property was held, and frequently disposed of; and he thought they sufficiently proved, that it was sometimes disposed of in a way not conformable to the original intention, and not desirable for the spiritual interests of the country. In his opinion, the best manner in which the inquiry could be effected was, by means of a Select Committee, and this opinion was principally founded on the occurrences of last year, when his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had brought forward his motion with respect to church leases, and church-rates. His right hon. Friend had made several calculations, by which he had shown, that not less than 250,000 l. per annum might be obtained

829
from this property for such purposes as Parliament might consider the best for the interests of the Church; but those calculations had been disputed by Gentlemen on the other side of the House, almost all of whom denied, that they were legitimate. But what was most remarkable was, that his right hon. Friend, who had time to consider this question, had stated, that if this property were calculated after the manner of deferred annuities of thirty years, instead of twenty-four years, several millions would be lost by the country. The reverse was his opinion; and he had little doubt that, by proper arrangements, an annual surplus of 300,000 l. would accrue. When such, however, were the differences of opinion, it was but just and fair that some inquiry should be instituted, in order to ascertain the actual facts of the case. Her Majesty's Ministers might be wrong in their calculations; the hon. Gentlemen opposite might be right in theirs; but, at least, this was clear, that it was very inconvenient to enter upon any consideration of the ultimate arrangement of the subject while the facts on which alone that arrangement could be advantageously founded were in doubt or denied. There were many other statements which were made by his right hon. Friend, that were likewise disputed, with respect to leases being granted at seven per cent. when money was borrowed at five and five and a-quarter per cent.; and those statements also ought to be made the subject of inquiry. It might be said, that it would be better to make that inquiry in another manner than by a Select Committee of that House. But if it were made by Government, or by any persons acting under the authority of Government, the whole proceeding would be liable to cavil, and the accuracy of the result would at once be denied by the other side. If it were made by the Church Commissioners, it would be influenced by the great discrepancy of opinions which, as he had already stated, existed among the members of the Church Commission as to the mode of managing the property in question. Left, therefore, in such Lands, all chance of a satisfactory result might be relinquished. There was also another consideration. The House might like some account of the past, to see whether anything like a provident attention to the real interests of the Church had been manifested, or whether, on the contrary, those interests had been entirely abandoned for the purpose of providing for the members of certain families. If such
830
an inquiry as that were to be referred to the Church Commissioners, they could not enter into it without subjecting themselves to great odium; for they would be bound to institute an examination into cases in which Bishops, and Deans, and Chapters were concerned. It was not fit, therefore, that the subject should be referred to the Church Commission. Ought any other Commission to be appointed? In general the House did not seem to think, that the appointment of Commissions, where it could be avoided, was desirable. At least, he was sure, that if the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln were present, that hon. and gallant Gentleman would oppose the appointment of a paid Commission. If, therefore, there was a necessity that an inquiry of the kind should be instituted; if that inquiry could not be advantageously referred to the Church Commission, or to any other Commission; if, were it undertaken by Government, the correctness of the report would lead to endless disputes, what could be better than to appoint a Select Committee of that House to inquire into the facts of the case; thus laying a safe foundation on which Parliament might afterwards legislate? He begged leave to observe, that the motion with which he intended to conclude, would not, in the slightest degree, determine the future application of any increased value which it might be found practicable to give to church leases. Undoubtedly his own opinion still remained what it was last year; namely, that if an annual increase could be obtained of 250,000 l. or 260,000 l., it would be better to apply it to putting an end to all the heart-burnings and jealousies which at present existed on the subject of Church-rates; and to prevent those disputes and conflicts which now annually took place in vestry meetings. A right hon. Gentleman opposite had stated, that he had conferred on the subject with several of the prelates of the Church Commission, and that it was their opinion, that, if an increased value could be given to the property in question, it ought to be devoted to the increase of the spiritual instruction of the people. He did not deny, that that was an object which deserved the consideration of Parliament, and that, if it could be accomplished, it was very desirable that that instruction should be extended to the whole community. It was, however, a question of preference, and the answer to it must depend, in a great degree, on the amount that might be obtained, and on the situa-

831
tion of the country at the time, If the amount should be as large as he supposed it would be, and if the excitement in the country, produced by the opposition of the Dissenters to the Church-rates, were not exceedingly violent, a portion of the amount might be so applied. But, otherwise, he thought the application, recommended by his right hon. Friend last year, was the best that could be adopted. Of this, however, he was sure, that, after the present year, Parliament ought to apply itself to the establishment of some definite legislation on the subject. It would be exceedingly unjust to the lessees of church property, if the question were to be kept several years in suspense. Even in their present state, their property was not so valuable as that of persons holding in fee simple. "Attempts have been made," said Mr. Butler, in his edition of "Coke upon Littleton," "to establish an obligation on landlords to renew, but they have not succeeded. The renewal, therefore, is still a matter of favour and of chance; but is so far valuable, that it enhances the price of property on sales." His object and his wish were, for the sake of the Church, for the sake of the lessee, and for the sake of the community, that this state of things should be altered. He was, therefore, prepared, in moving for a Committee, to propose that every possible light should be thrown by that Committee on the nature of Church property, with a view that, after the Committee had ascertained all the facts of the case, Parliament might take into consideration the best mode of legislating with reference to the application of any increased value that it might be found practicable to create. He had stated to the House what was the application which he should prefer; but it would be most inexpedient and unwise, in appointing a Select Committee, to bind them at all upon that point. When the Committee had made their report, then would be the time for considering what further step to take. All that he now wished for was, a fair, full, and honest inquiry, with a view of coming subsequently to a wise and deliberate determination. The noble Lord concluded by moving the appointment of a "Select Committee to inquire into the mode of granting and renewing leases of the landed and other property of the Bishops, Deans, and Chapters, and other ecclesiastical bodies of England and Wales; and into the probable amount of any increased value which might be obtained by an improved manage-
832
ment, with a due consideration of the interests of the Established Church, and of the present lessees of such property."
Mr. Liddellrose to give a distinct negative to the proposition of the noble Lord who had just spoken, and he assured the House that he did so with an unfeigned sense of the difficulty in which such a course would place him. His connexion with Durham rendered him as anxious to promote the interests of the lessees of church property, as he was to protect the interests of the church. He wished to do justice to both, and it was for that reason that he felt desirous to state his opinion in regard to the conduct of the Government relative to the important question before the House. The present Government was charged on strong grounds with having unsettled many things, and it was certainly true, that they had settled but a few. When, therefore, the noble Lord opposite came forward to propose a Select Committee to inquire into the mode of granting and renewing leases of the landed and other property of the bishops, deans, and chapters, and of the other ecclesiastical bodies of England and Wales, and into the probable amount of any increased value which might be obtained by an improved management—and when he considered the importance of the subject of that inquiry, and reflected on the previous conduct of the Government in relation to other great questions—when he considered all these things, he felt that he had a right to ask what the object was which the Government had in view. That object he had had some difficulty in distinguishing from the speech which the noble Lord opposite had just concluded, and it was only towards the termination of that speech he had been able to form any idea in regard to the object of the noble Lord and of the Government. The noble Lord did not ask the House to give any pledge in regard to the disposal of the amount he anticipated from an improved management of church property, nor did he state with much distinctness how he himself wished the sum which might be derived to be applied; yet he had stated with sufficient plainness his own view of the matter to be, that the money should be applied to the abolition of church-rates. As, however, the question of church-rates had not been brought formally before the House, he should not trouble the House with many observations

833
on that important question. It was sufficient for him at the present time to say, that he objected to the plan brought forward by the Government for the settlement of the question of church-rates last year; and though his mind was open to the consideration of any safe and judicious scheme which might be brought forward to satisfy the wishes of those who complained of the burden of church-rates, yet to the proposal of the Government, he decidedly objected, and would oppose it to the utmost of his power. He opposed the present proposal of the Government on two grounds,—first, because he wished justice to be done to the Church; and, secondly, because he wished to see justice done to the lessees of church property. He considered, that the revenues of the Church were far from being adequate to provide spiritual instruction for the wants of the people, and that they would be totally inadequate to meet the wants which would yearly increase with a rapidly increasing population. With the increased demand which would be made upon the revenues of the Church by a vast population, yearly increasing at a rapid rate, they would not be found too large by any addition which might be made to their amount by any mode of management which should be adopted. In introducing a subject so important, he did expect that the noble Lord opposite would have applied himself a little more particularly than he had done to those abuses which were stated to exist in regard to the management of the property of the Church. The noble Lord had, indeed, carried them back to the time of the Reformation, and to the period of Charles 2nd, and Clarendon, and had referred the House to numerous Acts of Parliament in support of the views which the noble Lord had advanced. But the instances advanced by the noble Lord had little bearing on the question before the House, and when the noble Lord called on them to appoint a Select Committee on a subject so vast and important, he did expect that the noble Lord would have given them present instances, showing where an improved management of Church property was necessary. He might be willing to admit, that the manner of granting leases of Church property was not the most judicious for improving the property of the Church; but the noble Lord had not applied himself to the subject, and had
834
confined his remarks to a few general principles which he had advanced. He might be willing to admit, that some abuses in some instances existed, and that a primâ facie case might be made out by the Government; and the noble Lord, the Member for Northumberland, had last year come to the assistance of the Government, and in support of the general principles they had advanced, brought forward some cases drawn, he believed, from the state of Church property in the county of Durham. To the cases brought forward by the noble Lord, the Secretary at War, on the occasion to which he alluded, he would take leave shortly to call the attention of the House. The noble Lord last year said, "I would ask any Gentleman to look at the two banks of the river Tyne—at the aspect of the north bank, and the south bank of that river. I see on one side the enormous improvements in value which have been effected—wild lands reduced into a state of cultivation, and the face of the whole country wearing an aspect of prosperous industry, and successful enterprise." He presumed the noble Lord alluded in these remarks to his own side of the Tyne, where the condition of the country was that of high cultivation, and where agriculture was prosperous; but the noble Lord went on to say:—"On the other side of the river, I see not only no improvement as regards the value of the property, but a positive deterioration in all the property upon its shores." Now, with all respect to the authority of the noble Lord, he felt himself obliged to say, that as far as his experience went, and he had some knowledge of the county of Durham, to which the remarks of the noble Lord had reference, that the statement of the noble Lord in regard to the condition of the country on the south bank of the Tyne, was a statement for which there was no foundation. From his own experience, he could declare that there was nothing in the condition of the property on the south bank of the river, and belonging to the see of Durham, injurious to the interests of the Church, or to the interests of the lessees. But one assertion was as good as another, and he would therefore appeal to other evidence in proof of the erroneous position advanced by the noble Lord, and in support of the opinion which he himself had expressed. He could hardly imagine that the noble Lord had

835
viewed the country he had alluded to with his own eyes, and he was inclined to believe, that the noble Lord had obtained his information from, and made his statement on the authority of others. In answer, however, to the observations of the noble Lord, and in corroboration of his own statement, he begged leave to read an extract from a memorial from the leaseholders of South Shields, which had been prepared in consequence of the apprehensions created by the proposal brought forward in that House by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year in reference to church leases. They stated—"that they were lessees of lands or tenements under the right rev. the dean and chapter of Durham," and that "they view with great alarm the scheme for enfranchising Church leaseholds contained in the proposition recently brought forward for the abolition of church-rates, as the terms of that scheme, as they have been explained to the country, would be ruinous to many of your memorialists, and injurious to all; that your memorialists have to observe, that the owners of the fee have themselves derived great benefit from the mode in which the lands held by your memorialists have been improved; that in the parish where their property lies, the soil is intrinsically of an unproductive character, and would yield but a small return, whereas by the expenditure of capital, the agricultural land is under the highest cultivation." They further stated, and he begged to call the attention of the noble Lord opposite to this part of the memorial, that "many proprietors of leaseholds were incumbered by mortgages or settlements whose entire unappropriated income would be absorbed by the proposed rent-charge, and who, without funds at hand to apply to speculative improvement of their property, would be reduced to beggary; whereas if the measure were optional great panic amongst incumbrancers would be allayed, and it is to be hoped, that within a period inconsiderable in extent even these leaseholders would eventually be enfranchised by the progressive savings of the present tenants, or by voluntary transfers into wealthier hands." The memorialists then went on to pray, that any measure for the enfranchisement of Church property might be optional. But what distinguished those tenures of property held by the memorialists was, the certainty
836
of their renewal, and that certainly had conduced, in a very high degree, to the improvement of the town and of the surrounding country. The certainty of renewals under the present system inspired confidence in the leaseholders, and the effect of that confidence was the erection of extensive glass-works, and other important undertakings, at once beneficial to individuals and to the country generally. As an instance of the confidence inspired by the certainty of renewals, he would take leave to mention the formation of an extensive railway passing through the property belonging to the see of Durham, and which must have cost a sum not less than 150,000 l.; and could it be imagined, he would ask, that any speculators would lay out their money on such expensive undertakings if the certainty of a renewal of their leases was destroyed? A deep responsibility, therefore, attached to the Government, whose conduct had unsettled the confidence which existed; for previous to their measures relating to Church leases the most perfect confidence as to renewals existed. Had any party—had either the Church or lessees petitioned the House on the subject, and asked the Legislature to interfere; or was there any dispute between the parties till the plans of the Government were brought forward on the subject of church-rates? No; no one had petitioned; none had asked for the interference of the Legislature, nor were there any disputes between the Church and its lessees. In a country like England the Government ought to be ever foremost in giving support to the tenures by which property was held, instead of being the first to disturb those tenures, and to weaken the confidence which they inspired. But he would leave this part of the question—he would leave the case of the leaseholders of South Shields; and it now became his duty to offer a few observations in regard to the tenure by which coal-mines were held. This was a part of the question which, although of the highest importance to the whole of the north of England, and to the county of Durham in particular, had not received that attention which it deserved. The noble Lord opposite had indeed adverted to this part of the question, but in a very superficial manner, and he had made no observations in regard to the difficulties which would have to be encountered in effecting an alteration in

837
the management of this species of property. As this was a most important part of the question to be investigated by the Committee, he trusted the House would allow him to refer to documents, which he would do as briefly as possible. In regard to collieries, a great portion of those on the north side of the Tyne were exhausted, and the greater portion of those which were now worked lay in the county of Durham. Of these, one-third, as regarded extent, was in the possession of the Church, and that third, as respected value, was equal to one-half of the whole. The Church was also in possession of several lead-mines, but he would not particularly advert to those, as the arguments applicable to the coal-mines were applicable also to the lead mines. For the proper working of the collieries the erection of expensive steam machinery was necessary, and it might fairly be stated, that the expense of the preparations required for the working of coal-pits was from 100,000 l. to 200,000 l. At the very outset of such undertakings there was an enormous expense to be encountered for sinking the pits. Formerly, when coal was to be found near the surface, that expense was trifling; but now it was necessary to sink the pits down to the seam, and it frequently happened, notwithstanding great experience and the most judicious advice, that the proprietors of coal-pits were obliged to shift their ground from not finding coal in the position first attempted, while not one quarter of a mile from the first position the seam wished to be arrived at would be found. Great additional expense was thus incurred, and all in the very outset of the undertaking. These collieries were generally worked by companies, and the first object was to secure a sufficient quantity of coal to produce a return for the capital expended, and that capital could only be prudently laid out when there was a fair prospect of its being reimbursed within the period of the lease. Assuming, therefore, that they were secure of the lease, and that the field of coal could be advantageously worked, the next object was, to secure a conveyance for the coal from the mouth of the pit, or, as it was termed, the right of way. The length of the conveyance frequently extended eight or nine miles, and the Bishop of Durham possessed the power of granting a right of way in a great many cases. The charge for that right of
838
way was not directly made, but an additional charge was made upon the lessees in the shape of rent for the conveyance of the coal through the property of the Church. Here, then, was an important point for the consideration of the Committee which the noble Lord proposed to appoint, and whatever changes in the management of Church property were to be made, justice to the bishop, and to the dean and chapter of Durham, required that those charges for right of way ought to be considered and respected. He would not detain the House by any observations on the rent paid for those collieries, but would proceed at once to another part of the subject. He alluded to the case of coalfields taken from the Church as remote speculations, and not from the prospect of any immediate emolument. There were many cases where leaseholders of collieries found it necessary to provide against the time when the coal-fields worked by them at present should become exhausted. It would, therefore, require infinite consideration to protect the lessees from injustice. (The hon. Member read a statement respecting the township of Wallsend, which had given its name to so large a proportion of the coals now sent to London, and which stated, that the mines there had been worked for many years on the faith of the existing leases.) On the coal lands, he continued, depended the prosperity of the North of England, and anything which shook the confidence of the parties concerned in them would affect that prosperity. The disfranchisement of Church property in that neighbourhood might have that effect, and no measure could be satisfactory and effectual which was not left to the voluntary adoption of those parties, on principles of mutual interest. He did not, however, understand that a free choice was to be left by the noble Lord. It was true, the noble Lord asked for a Committee; but was it not the object of Government to obtain possession of this property? The Government had shown a determination to avail itself of the proceeds of this valuable property, stimulated by the clamorous demands of those who had been their active supporters, and who were distinguished for anything rather than an attachment to the Church or Constitution of the country. With these observations he would leave the case of the lessees, only entering his protest, as the guardian of their interests in that House,

839
against the proposition of the noble Lord. There were, however, some other points to which he should feel it his duty to advert. But in the first place he would state, that it was his intention, in case his first motion of a direct negative did not succeed, to move an amendment in accordance with that moved by his right hon. Friend, the Member for the University of Cambridge, last year, the effect of which would be to direct the application of any available funds to the diminution of the evils arising from the want of adequate religious instruction to the people. This led him to another branch of the subject, to which he begged to direct the attention of the House. Admitting the great wealth of the Church in the county of Durham, he must remind the House and the country of the charities which had emanated from ecclesiastical bodies in that district. There was the great Bamborough charity, and many others, from which a large portion of the community obtained the highest advantages, all of which had their rise in the benevolence and liberality of the Church. He must remind them, also, of the great munificence of the late bishop of that diocese, and of the dean and chapter, in the establishment of the University of Durham, of the increase of the income of small livings to a higher amount, and of the public charities of the two late bishops, Barrington and Van Mildert. A great deal more, too, remained to be done in this respect in that neighbourhood. He held in his hand a statement of the condition of the benefices in the diocese of Durham under 300 l. a-year, and of its wants as regards new churches. From this statement it appeared, that there were in that diocese twenty-two bishops' livings under the value of 300 l. a-year, exclusive of surplice fees, and which were in the patronage of the bishop, or so situated, by his having property in the parishes, as to raise them to the amount of 300 l. a-year, exclusive of surplice fees, under the Act of the Archbishop of Canterbury, passed in 1831. From this statement it also appeared, that there were thirty-four dean and chapter livings under 300 l. a-year, to which the same circumstances were applicable with respect to the dean and chapter's power of raising them to 300 l. a-year; and that there were no fewer than eighty livings, not in the bishop's or the dean and chapter's patronage, and under the annual
840
value of 300 l. If the just and imperative claims of the livings in the patronage of the bishop and the dean and chapter on the surplus funds were granted to the full amount required, and if half the amount necessary for augmenting livings in other patronage than that of the bishop or dean and chapter were granted, on condition that lay-patrons or lay-impropriators furnish the remaining half, a principle now acted on by the Queen Anne's Bounty Board in augmenting poor livings, the total annual amount required would be 21,323 l., according to the Archbishop's Act, and according to the plan suggested, 2,067 l. With respect to new churches in the diocese, the bishop had promised an endowment to the new church at Shildon of 300 l. a-year, and the same sum to a new church at Stockton. There were churches ready to be consecrated, in the course of building, or in contemplation of being built, at Gateshead, North Shields, Seaham Harbour, Darlington, and other places, to the amount of eight churches, at 300 l. a-year each. Besides these, there were many new churches wanted in various other parts of the diocese, where the population was rapidly increasing; so that, on a moderate calculation, a reserve should be made from the episcopal or chapter revenues for the endowment of new churches still wanted of an annual sum of not less than 2,000 l. The whole summary of this statement showed, that on a moderate scale of augmentation, there ought to be a reservation of an annual sum of not less than 21,000 l. out of the alleged surplus ecclesiastical revenues of the diocese, and it was but common justice, that the ecclesiastical wants of the diocese of Durham should be fully provided for, both as regards the inhabitants and the right disposition of the revenues left for its specific ecclesiastical requirements, before any portion of those revenues was applied to any other purpose whatever. The poverty of the population in the places where churches were required rendered it necessary to come to the see for money for these purposes, and that population increased in an extraordinary manner. With regard to what the noble Lord (Howick) had last year said as to the amount of dissent in that part of the country, and who had attributed it to no better reason than the collision which he stated was constantly taking place between the Church and the holders of its leases

841
he must say, he was astonished at any such statement on the part of the noble Lord, and he could give, he thought, a much better reason for the prevalence of that dissent than the dislike of church-rates. The cause of it was, in fact, to be found in the increased amount of spiritual want, the natural result of so great an increase of the population by the opening of coal mines in many parts of that country, where there had only been before uncultivated and unprofitable wastes. It was among this population that the want of spiritual instruction was felt; and how was it possible, that it should be otherwise than that dissent should be the consequence? Did he blame the dissenters for trying to reclaim this moral waste? Assuredly not; but, at the same time, he thought he had given a better reason than the noble Secretary at War for the increase of dissent in the county of Durham. The hon. Gentleman enumerated many parishes in which the population had increased by thousands, and said, that if he found a county which, like this, stood in need of more spiritual assistance than its own Church could give it, he would never consent to any appropriation of any part of the revenues of that Church, except to the satisfaction of those spiritual wants. He had the good fortune to be present at the delivery of the first charge of the present Bishop of Durham—not a Tory bishop, let it be remembered, but a liberal Whig bishop—and, in speaking of the abstraction of a great portion of the income of the see for the purpose of supporting other bishoprics, the right rev. Prelate took occasion to complain of that Act of the Legislature in the following terms:
"Neither can I disapprove of the alienation of a portion of the revenues of the see, large as they were in amount, and of late years even increased. A reasonable deduction might be made with great good to the Church, and yet leave a sufficiency for personal and necessary domestic expenses; yet I think a larger sum might have been appropriated, considering the urgent claims which the diocese presents on his fostering care and assistance, to the liberality of the bishop. Perhaps this diocese differs from most others, if not in peculiar features of country, yet in the singular and most appalling frequency with which changes of population take place in it. There is no diocese in which so many thousands are found to lie so scattered as to be thrown at a most inconvenient distance from existing places of worship;
842
nor is there perhaps any diocese in which such numerous instances occur of the inhabitants so rapidly increasing, or being so suddenly created, Where a barren moor lately presented the appearance of a desert, never inhabited, and but rarely visited by man, a railroad may perhaps be formed, or a coal pit opened out; and suddenly a swarthy people flock around; cottages are built, and men, women, and children appear diligently employed in gaining their daily bread, but seeking in vain for that bread which sustains the vital principle even to everlasting ages. Lastly, I fear there is no diocese which presents so many instances of redundant population and scanty endowment; for it should be remembered, that, in large parishes, the care of one man, however zealous and active, will not suffice. The united exertions of two or more are probably required, while the income may not afford adequate remuneration even to the laborious and conscientious incumbent. Hence it appears that in many cases a necessity exists for the erection of chapels and providing for the due discharge of sacred duties in them. In other cases it must be apparent that schools should be built, and diligent and well-qualified masters appointed to superintend over them. In some parishes, again, however urgent may be the want of assistance to the incumbent, his income is so limited, or his family so circumstanced, that it cannot provide him with that aid of which he is so deeply sensible his parishioners, as well as himself, stand in need. Now, in all these cases, the late splendid amount of episcopal income in this diocese enabled the bishop to apply immediate, and often sufficient, aid. If the repair of an old chapel or the building of a new one became necessary, if a school were to be erected or a schoolmaster paid, or if the deficient income of a parish created a necessity for some additional means of income, application was made to the Bishops of Durham; and I am bound in justice to them, and more especially to my immediate and lamented predecessor, to say, that they seem to have held their almost princely revenues as good stewards of the manifold grace of God, and freely imparted to all as all had need. With these ready resources for pressing emergencies, with these ample funds, they were able to supply at once new wants, and to remedy existing inconveniencies, and the peculiar situation of the diocese attracted less observation. Indeed, the very pressure of the wants apparently secured their being but little known beyond the limits of the diocese itself. But when a change was propounding, and it became certain that no small portion of the episcopal income would be withdrawn, it was natural and proper that the state of the case should be represented to those with whom rested the effecting of the proposed change, and that the urgent necessities of the diocese should be proclaimed. I confess to you that I was not one of those who felt any anxious disposition to object to the arrangement which was then

843
proposed and confirmed; and though not without considering that a very large reduction was made in the revenues of the see, nor without reflecting on the heavy and inevitable expenses which were entailed upon its possessor, I yet trust I acted in this matter with a judicious eye, not to parsimony, but to becoming retrenchment, leaving the bishop enough at the same time for domestic and family purposes, and something to afford to charities and other public uses. Nevertheless, I cannot help thinking that it would have been more useful to the diocese if some greater latitude had been left to the bishop for supplying the extraordinary wants of the clergy. And I have only to express an earnest wish that, in any future arrangements which may be made, whether in revising such as have now received the force of law, or in any other contemplated changes, all the resources which are drawn from one part of the ecclesiastical fund of the diocese, may, as much as possible, be devoted to the assistance and improvement of the others."
This quotation he considered to be of importance, as it expressed the opinions of a right. rev. prelate who had been appointed by the present Government. This language, on the part of a bishop who was appointed by the noble Lord himself, must place the noble Lord in this dilemma. He must either admit the justice of the right rev. prelate's opinions, or he must give up all claim to be considered a friend of the Church. He had now performed his duty. He had been desirous to state to the House of Commons what he considered to be the true interests of the lessees of ecclesiastical property in the county of Durham. Except in a few instances no complaint existed with respect to the nature of the present tenure, or with regard to the effects which it produced. When he called the attention of the House and the Government to the state of the county of Durham, and the immense quantity of manufacturing property that might hereafter be employed therein, he hoped he had been able to show sufficient grounds to make the course taken, with respect to all these interests, a safe and a wise course. He trusted, whatever change her Majesty's Ministers might be desirous to make, that such change would be carried into effect with a due regard and a just consideration of all the important interests involved. This could not be done unless a voluntary agreement were continued instead of any attempt at a compulsory arrangement. He thanked the House for the attention with which he
844
had been listened to, and would conclude by moving as an amendment to the motion of the noble Lord, to leave out the words that a Select Committee be appointed; and by stating, that should the motion for a Committee be carried, he would then move the addition of the following words:—"With the view of applying such amount to the gradual diminution of the evils which flow from the deficiency in the means of religious instruction and pastoral superintendence by ministers of the Established Church."
Mr. Humesaid, that if any stranger had entered the House at any time during the delivery of the hon. Gentleman's speech, he would have supposed that the proposal of the noble Lord was to deprive the Church of a part of her revenues. The whole speech of the hon. Member seemed to be a series of complaints against some one individual or the other, who had intentions hostile to the interests of the Established Church. He had no doubt that the hon. Member considered himself to be a good son of the Established Church; but for his part he could not regard the hon. Gentleman to be an honest son of that Church if he sought to support it at the expense of those who were not connected with it. Why did not the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) who was now sitting beside the hon. Gentleman, or the other right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) who was on the other side of the hon. Gentleman, why did not they, when in power, bring forward a proposition to appropriate the surplus revenues of the Church for the benefit of the inferior clergy. Was it ever done? If it ever was done it had not come to his knowledge. He did not know of any appropriation of the revenues of the bishops for the benefit of the inferior clergy. However, that had nothing at all to do with the question before the House. The hon. Member for North Durham had expressed great solicitude for the maintenance of the Established Church. Now, if the hon. Gentleman entertained any real respect for religion, and was anxious to support that Church which he conscientiously believed to be the best, ought he not to evince his sincerity by proposing to give it that support by means which were already in his own power? Was it just and proper to put his hands into the pockets of the dissenters, and rob them of their property, in order to maintain

845
that Church from which they conscientiously dissented? What was the proposition of the noble Lord? Not to rob the Church; this he most distinctly denied; but to require it to support its own fabrics out of its own resources. There was every inducement for men to belong to the Established Church: honours and emoluments were connected with it. Was it fair, then, that men, in number almost equal to those who belonged to the Church itself, who, from conscientious motives, withdrew themselves from that Church, and made a sacrifice of all those honours and emoluments, should be compelled to contribute to the support of the fabrics of that Church from which they derived no advantage, or be designated the despoilers of that Church, because they objected to contribute to the augmentation of its already excessive resources? Robbers of the Church indeed! Why, all history proved, that if there were any robbers of the Church, they were to be found within its own fold. The bishops themselves had been its greatest spoliators. There was not a single dissenter in the country who had ever had one farthing of the property of the Church, while, on the other hand, there was hardly a clergyman of the Church who had not received some portion of the dissenters' property. But this was a system which was incompatible with a state of quiet or satisfaction among that greatly increasing part of the community. They willingly supported their own places of worship, but they most loudly complained of being required to support, also, those of the Established Church. If, indeed, the members of the Church were to come forward as paupers and make an appeal to the dissenters for their contributions, he knew not what they might be disposed to do towards assisting their fellow Christians, though of a different denomination; but when it was notorious that the Church had ample wealth to maintain its own establishment, it was too much to expect that those who had their own places of worship to uphold, should pay towards the maintenance of churches to which they did not belong. The complaints of the hon. Gentleman against the Ministers who had stepped forward as mediators between the dissenters and the members of the Church, with a view to do justice, if possible, between them, were most ungenerous. He had seen nothing in the conduct of the noble Lord which
846
showed the least desire on his part to trench on the property of the Church. On the contrary, he considered the noble Lord to be one of the greatest friends of the Church, by endeavouring to provide a fund for its maintenance out of its own means, and thereby relieve it from the hostility of the dissenters, who had hitherto been obliged to support it. He had already declared it to be his opinion, that the greatest robbers of the Church were those whose duty it especially was, to uphold it in all its integrity. As a proof of the justice of his assertion, he would refer the House to the way in which the manor of Tottenham, formerly belonging to the Church, had been wrested from it, and appropriated to a noble family, a member of which was, when the act of spoliation was committed, prime minister of this country. By a private Act of Parliament, all the property from St. Giles's up to Hampstead, worth nearly two millions of money, was alienated from the Church, reserving only to the dean of St. Paul's the paltry sum of 300 l. a-year. To this act of spoliation it was proved, that those who were called the guardians and protectors of the Church lent their aid. Could the hon. Member for North Durham name any dissenter who had ever robbed the Church of one farthing of money, or one acre of land? This was not the only instance that could be brought to justify him in asserting that the most professing friends of the Church had been her greatest spoliators by appropriating large portions of Church property to the benefit of private families. With these indisputable facts before them, was it not too much that the hon. Gentleman should charge the Ministers with bringing forward the present measure for their own peculiar and party purposes? What was the object which the Government had in view? They were anxious to put down the discontent now prevailing among large bodies of men towards the established Church, deeming it neither fitting nor seemly that the existing contest between the dissenters and members of that Church should be allowed to continue and extend. It was time that the dissenters should no longer be subjected to the burden which they had for a century past been compelled to sustain. He was told, indeed, that it was the beginning of a great change. Granted, but they were in a constant state of change, and it was the duty of the Government to adapt the laws to the circumstances of the

847
time. It was not intended that one single lessee should be injured by the present measure; but he would affirm, that the present leases had very often been improperly made, and that an inquiry ought to be instituted with a view to ascertain whether any surplus revenue could be realised for the purposes contemplated by the Government. He believed, that the result of such an inquiry would be a conviction on the part of those hon. Members who objected to the present motion that there were means within the Church itself for upholding its own fabrics, and thereby affording an opportunity to the members of that Church of rescuing it from the stigma now fixed upon it by the system of extortion pursued towards those who did not belong to it. Let that be done, and an end would at once be put to those heart-burnings and jealousies which existed between the dissenters and the established Church, to the real detriment of all parties.
Mr. Goulburnobserved, that whether the hon. Gentleman and his Friends, or whether those who entertained views different from him and them, were the truest friends of the Church was a question he did not intend to enter upon. It was one upon which it was impossible that either he or the hon. Gentleman could arrive at a just and similar opinion; but he did claim the right to entertain an opinion as to the force of the arguments of the hon. Gentleman, and with respect to some of them he was anxious to offer a few observations to the House, In the first place, he thought it was not quite consistent in the hon. Gentleman to expect that the House would accede to his opinion upon this subject, when he had shown himself to be utterly uninformed of a fact which must be within the knowledge of every other Member in the House. The House would hardly concur with the hon. Gentleman in the assertion that his right hon. Friend (Sir Robert Peel) had, when in office, forborne to adopt measures for curing the evils arising from the unequal distribution of ecclesiastical revenues, because the House would recollect that his right hon. Friend was the minister to propose that a commission should be appointed specially to inquire into the ecclesiastical revenues, with a view to remedy those enormous evils which prevailed in the country, namely, the destitution of the people of spiritual instruction
848
and pastoral superintendence. The hon. Gentleman rested assured that his right hon. Friend was one of those who had never taken any measures to remedy the evils which previously existed in the Church. However, he would not on this occasion enter into a contest with the hon. Gentleman upon that part of his statement. The speech which the hon. Gentleman had delivered, appeared to him to have no bearing upon the subject before the House, and he should therefore rather address himself to the observations of the noble Lord who opened this debate. The question with which they had to deal was, as the noble Lord had stated, whether it were fitting that a committee should be appointed to inquire into the management of Church property; and whether, if such an inquiry were to take place, the surplus revenues which might be derived from it, ought to be applied to the religious instruction of the people, or to other public purposes. In urging his views of this question upon the House, the noble Lord had commenced his speech by an attempt to defend the Ministers upon whom he said the general imputation had been cast of their having a disposition to invade the property of the Church, and to misappropriate its revenues. The noble Lord stated, and stated truly, that that was the general imputation cast upon the Government throughout the country. In making that admission, he quite concurred with the noble Lord, that he had stated what was the general feeling; and if he were asked whether he considered that that feeling was a correct one, he could not deny that there was in it a great deal of truth. The manner in which the noble lord was dealing with the property of the Church, was well calculated to create an impression that he did not view that property as being in its nature strictly confined to the purposes for which it was originally intended; namely, ecclesiastical purposes, according to the wants of the Church. The argument by which the noble Lord defended himself against what he thus stated to be the general and popular feeling, was this: he first detailed the gross amount of the revenues of the Church, and then stated, that the Government had afforded protection to that portion of Church property consisting of tithes, by commuting tithes into a rent-charge; that they had secured adequate incomes to the bishops; and that no mea-

849
sure which they intended to pursue, was calculated to diminish the present amount of the income of the Church. By thus showing, that the object of the Ministers was the maintenance of the present income of the Church, the noble Lord conceived, that he had satisfactorily defended himself and his colleagues from the charge of having the disposition to invade that property. He would, however, on the other hand say, that the object of the noble Lord's measure was to prevent the possibility of making any improvement in Church property for the benefit of the Church; that in all time to come, whatever might be the improvements in other species of property, or however great might be the want of religious instruction by the growth of the population and the increase of knowledge, there should, nevertheless, be no power for improving the property of the Church, and of increasing the means of affording religious instruction to the people, and further he would say, that the noble Lord, in proposing such a meaure, and making such a declaration, sufficiently showed, that he was not sensible of the real objects for which Church property was originally created, and that by doing away with the possibility of increasing it by improvement he did as effectually invade the property of the Church, and destroy its usefulness as if he had proposed to deal with the actual income which the Church at this moment possessed. His hon. Friend (Mr. Liddell) had adverted to the property which the Church possessed in mines in the county of Durham, and had pointed out the impediments which would be thrown in the way of its improvement, if the Church were not allowed to take advantage of the increasing value of such a description of property. What hope could be entertained, when this measure should be brought into full operation, that there would be any means of preventing the population of that district from becoming barbarised and uncivilized for want of religious instruction. He should like to know what would have been the situation of this country now, if previous ministers had acted upon a scheme similar to that now proposed by the noble Lord. The noble Lord, in the course of his speech, adverted to the reigns of Henry 8th, and Queen Elizabeth. If the minister of that day had come forward and said, "I am a friend of the Established Church—I will
850
limit its income to the amount which it at present possesses—think not that I for a moment wish to lessen that amount; no, I will secure to it for ever all that it now enjoys;" though, by the by, they had no assurance of this kind from the noble Lord. But, supposing this language to have been held by such a minister, what, he would ask, would have been the situation of this country at the present moment? Why, instead of having to deplore as they now had, that there were towns and cities, counties and districts in which the evil of a deficiency of religious instruction now prevailed, they should have had to lament, that throughout the whole of Great Britain, there were no adequate funds for providing any kind of religious instruction; and that this country, instead of being what he was happy in believing it to be, one of the best-conducted countries in the world, would have held a far different station among the nations of the earth, and would have been found in that state of weakness and wickedness which was the necessary consequence of the absence of all spiritual instruction of the people. But was this all that the noble Lord proposed to do with the property of the Church? No. The noble Lord might flatter himself, that he was maintaining its amount, but he would unquestionably diminish its security. The present measure involved the principle of converting the dignitaries of the Church into the holders of rent-charges upon the estates they themselves at present possessed. The mode by which the noble Lord proposed to augment the means which were to be at his disposal for public purposes was, that the clergy in future, instead of being territorial possessors, should be the mere holders of a rent-charge issuing out of the estates heretofore their own property. In so doing, the noble Lord would materially change the security of that property. The hon. Member for Kilkenny had said, that the dissenter had a right to object to pay money out of his own estate, which was to be made applicable to religious purposes which he did not approve of. If this argument were well founded, he would ask the hon. Gentleman, supposing a dissenter to be the party by whom this rent-charge was to be paid, whether he thought that such a rent-charge would not be considered a greater grievance than the petty charge now imposed upon him in the form of church-rates? In the first place,

851
then, he contended, that the noble Lord was, by the present measure, invading Church property, inasmuch as he deprived the Church of all future increase of that property, by its gradual improvement; I and, in the next place, he invaded it by diminishing its security and altering its character. It was for these reasons that he should now meet, as he had met before, the motion of the noble Lord, with a direct negative. He thought, as a general principle, that an inquiry by a Committee of that House was not the mode in which a question of this description ought to be dealt with. The noble Lord had told the House—and he entirely agreed with him—that the facts brought under consideration last year by the motion of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, ought, at least, to be ascertained before any further proceeding was taken. He quite agreed with the noble Lord, that the consequences of the proceeding of the Government had been, to produce considerable confusion with regard to this species of property, and to injure the interest of the lessor as well as of the lessee. The effect was, to interrupt the regular progress of the negotiations relative to Church property, to the amount of many hundreds a year, and to alarm those who had entered into engagements and settlements. Not knowing the changes of all sorts, which could not be anticipated, and which were likely to occur, it was not wonderful that they should fear, that the security of their property would not be advanced by the violation of agreements which were likely to occur. He agreed with the noble Lord, that this question ought to be settled; but was it likely to be satisfactorily determined by the appointment of a Committee? The noble Lord had said, that he would not enter into the question of appropriation. Oh, no, that was open to the consideration of the Committee; "and if," said the noble Lord (and he perfectly agreed with that opinion), "after the Committee shall have reported, the House of Commons continues perpetually debating the question of appropriation, without coming to any decision, it will prove fatal to the interests of the country." What, then, was the obvious course of proceeding? If the differences with regard to appropriation must be ultimately settled in order to ensure the tranquillity or the interests of the parties concerned, was it
852
not plain and obvious, that they ought to settle first the question of appropriation, which was indispensably necessary, according to the noble Lord's own views, to the final settlement of this question, and then enter into the inquiry, not by a Committee, but through the ordinary channels of the responsible advisers of the Crown, as to the best mode in which the surplus should be appropriated? What must be the necessary consequence of an inquiry before a Committee, what were the facts to be inquired into, and what were the reasons on which the noble Lord grounded his application for such a tribunal? He thought the first reason which the noble Lord had stated was, that his right hon. Friend near him (Sir R. Peel) had disputed the correctness of certain calculations made as to the value of reversions by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. To clear up the doubts on this point, it was necessary, it was said, to appoint a Committee. Why, of whom did the noble Lord mean to constitute this Committee? Was it to be composed of senior wranglers, men habituated to the calculations of annuities, or did he mean, that it should include those only whom he seemed disposed to nominate in the course of the last Session? Did he think that the opinion of sixteen Gentlemen of a Select Committee as to the correctness of arithmetical calculations could add to the value of statements made to that House? Surely the noble Lord would not maintain, that a Committee of that House ought to be appointed simply for the purpose of ascertaining the accuracy of calculations, and saying whether or not reversions were of a certain value. But another important object was, to ascertain the doubtful point, whether the bishops should be allowed to take five or seven per cent., which the parties paid to them for renewal, But even if the Committee, when formed, should be able to clear up the doubt as to the value of annuities, and to report the facts relating to the question (which any man, with ordinary ability, who was willing to take the trouble might solve) as to whether five or six per cent. was taken on fines, these were questions with which that House had now nothing to do. When the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, came forward, and wanted 250,000 l. last year for church-rates, it was important to know whether his calculations were accurate or

853
not. But the question now was, as to the better management of Church lands and property, through means of a Committee. It had ceased to be matter of calculation, and it had now become a question of principle, whether, by the appointment of a Committee, an inquiry of this kind would be best conducted. The noble Lord had also told them, that it was necessary to go into Committee, because certain Acts of Parliament had been passed, dealing with Church property in a manner of which he did not quite approve. He could not agree in the opinion, if Parliament had interposed to give relief from the restraints of the law, when found inconvenient to the party possessing this property, and this after it had been entailed—he could not, he repeated, concur in the view that this interference afforded any ground whatever for instituting an inquiry as to the circumstances under which it took place. Though these Acts might or might not have been judicious, they were like other Acts affecting private property; entails were broken, and family arrangements rendered it necessary that agreements should be departed from, in order that the property itself might be improved. The two kinds of property stood exactly on the same principle, and he never could believe, that Parliament gave the property of the Church the facilities which it had afforded to private property, that an inquiry ought therefore to be made by Committee, in which not only that property which was the subject of former legislation, but all other of similar description must be inquired into, and those transactions brought to light which, with respect to private property, had hitherto been held sacred, and which never would, he hoped, be brought under the cognizance of Parliament. But another ground for this inquiry, stated by the noble Lord was, the great misappropriation of the large income which the deans and prebends of Durham derived from that see. The noble Lord told them, that large fines were received on the renewal of leases, and that these were not applied to the religious instruction of the people. Now, whether that were the case or not, he was not prepared to determine; but, if he were to believe the statement made by his hon. Friend the Member for Durham, who spoke after the noble Lord, he should say, that if there was any one see more than another in which the income of the prelates had
854
been applied to the purpose of promoting the cause of religion, the see of Durham was the bishopric by which it would be found, that the greatest advantage had been conferred. But with this they had nothing to do. Was the Committee to inquire into the legal and ordinary application of the income enjoyed by the bishop, and was it to be a question of inquiry, how far the deans and prebends spent their incomes in promoting the purposes of peace, charity, and benevolence? If these were the questions in which this Committee was to be employed, he should say at once, that its inquiries would be endless, but that it must, while it continued, involve questions of a delicate and painful consideration, and disclose affairs without a knowledge of which it was impossible to come to a just conclusion. He would tell the noble Lord what course Government ought to take. If they deemed the management of Church property capable of improvement, they ought to look into the statutes connected with the subject, and see in what way it might hereafter be regulated. Let them see how the altered circumstances of the times required, that regulations should be adapted to the present state of the property, and let them, having made up their minds as to the necessity of a change, come down and propose to Parliament, on their own responsibility, the measures which they might think necessary to remedy the evil they had discovered. But the Government shrunk from that task; they had neither the ability nor courage to undertake it, and they preferred throwing the inquiry on a Committee, and trusting to a chapter of accidents to see whether the termination of the inquiry, after three or four Sessions, might be such as to enable them afterwards to take advantage of it. He knew perfectly well that to a Committee, constituted by the noble Lord's recommendation, a prepared plan might be submitted, and their assent to it gained; but then this was a cloak for doing that under their authority which should rest on his own responsibility. But if the noble Lord sincerely believed that the inquiry which he had sketched out should be thoroughly gone into, he would tell him, that so far from settling the question this year, that the Committee must continue to sit for many years to come, and be ultimately dissolved without leading to anything but danger and confusion. The noble Lord admitted

855
that the commission of which he was a Member did not think it right to enter into the question of Church leases, and for that reason the Committee now appointed would have to investigate what were the advantages and disadvantages of Church property, with a view of deriving increased means to assist the Established Church in the quarters in which it was found most deficient. The noble Lord thought the Commission unfit for the consideration of such topics, as an inquiry into private concerns, and was unwilling to impose on it so invidious a task. What, then, was the Committee to inquire into matters which were considered of too invidious a character to be submitted to the Commission? Were they to have dragged before the Committee those private concerns which the noble Lord refused to allow to be investigated by a Commission of which he was a member, in common with several prelates? The noble Lord had entered into a discussion of the question which had been much debated in the last Session, as to how far the property of the Church, not previously in existence, might be applied to those purposes to which it was considered expedient to devote it. He would not now enter into the consideration of that subject; but he begged the House to look back to the early periods of the history of Church property, and they would see, that tithes were originally as much the property of the corporation to which they belonged as any other species of private property; and after restrictions had been imposed by Parliamentary enactments, first on the property of the Church, and next on that of the Crown, to prevent dilapidations to the injury of the successor, it was not competent to the noble Lord, when he discovered that these restrictions prevented improvement, to claim a right to the surplus which might result from this course of Parliamentary interference and injustice being discontinued. He would not detain the House by further arguing against a Committee. He should only offer a few observations as to the second motion, which referred to the appropriation of the surplus which might ultimately result from the improved management of this property. He did not think it necessary on that occasion to discuss the question whether ecclesiastical property ought to be devoted to the general purposes of the State. His opinions on
856
that point were well known and remained unaltered; but this he thought, that every man in the House who ever addressed it on this subject admitted, that if there were demands on the part of the Church itself, they ought in the first instance to be satisfied. He asked the noble Lord, then, if he were determined to undertake the hazard of an inquiry, at least let the manner be defined in which the money was to be appropriated, and let it be strictly applied to the uses of the Church, if it were found to stand in need of it. The noble Lord's resolutions, though they entered into a variety of other topics, entirely omitted any reference to the interests of the country at large in the appropriation of religious instruction to the people. He asked the noble Lord whether he had forgotten the statements which he himself made with respect to the wants and necessities of the people? He would not go into details, but he would show the House, from the noble Lord's own statement, what were the religious necessities of the country. It appeared that in one diocese there were four parishes, with a population of 166,000 souls, for the care of which there were only 11 clergymen, and in which there was church accommodation for little more than 8,000 persons. In another diocese, in 24 parishes, containing a population of 730,000 there were but 45 clergymen, and church accommodation for only 60,000. In a third diocese, 9 parishes, with a population amounting to 230,000, had only 19 clergymen, and was provided with church accommodation for only 27,000, making a total in only three dioceses of 37 parishes containing 1,200,000 persons, in which not one-tenth of the population was provided with Church accommodation, and in which there were but 75 clergymen of the Established Church. Here, then, was but one instructor to every 17,000 of the population, and he would ask, how it was possible under these circumstances to exercise that pastoral care and superintendence which formed an essential part of the system of religious instruction pursued by the Church of England. If, then, when they were told, that even with all the exertions of the dissenters, who were labouring in one common field with the Church to rescue the population from ignorance and vice, six or seven-tenths of the people were destitute of religious instruction, surely there was not a man in

857
the country who would not say, that these urgent wants of the country must be supplied. The hon. Member for Kilkenny had said, that to provide for the spiritual wants of the people was all very well, but the getting rid of Church-rates was a preeminent point, because the payment of church-rates by the dissenters was a grievance of which they had a right to complain. But was it possible that the noble Lord could hesitate when called on to make his election between relieving the dissenters from a payment of 50,000 l. a-year, and providing a million of the population with the means of religious instruction? This was the preference which the noble Lord was called upon to show. The hon. Member for Kilkenny could not say, that the amount annually paid by the Dissenters, in Church-rates exceeded 50,000 l., and the noble Lord could not deny, that one million of the people were without the means of religious instruction. He would say, then, that without any feeling of hostility against the dissenters, he could not consent to apply the property of the Church to the purpose of relieving them from a payment which the state called upon them to make, while by applying it in another direction he could insure for so large a body of the population the knowledge of religious truth, and the practice of a virtuous life. He maintained, that the House had no right to apply Church property in any other manner. He knew, that he was addressing a House in which many of its Members dissented from the Church of England; but he appealed to them with as much confidence as others when he addressed them on behalf of a population so lamentably deficient in the means of obtaining religious instruction, and he was sure that, however much they might desire to be relieved from a payment of which they did not approve, they would rather live in the midst of a people adequately provided with religious instruction, even though that instruction were afforded by ministers of the Church of England. He should certainly, in the first instance, vote for the amendment proposed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Liddell), and against the appointment of a Committee; and if that part of his hon. Friend's Amendment were unfortunately lost, he should then certainly vote for that second part of his hon. Friend's resolution, which called on the House to define strictly the manner in
858
which the property of the Church should be applied, if by an improved method of managing its property any increase of revenue might be obtained.
Mr. W. Evanssaid, that the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down seemed to have forgotten what was the real object of inquiry. That object was, to obtain such information as would enable the House to frame some measure for the more advantageous leasing of Church lands. It was only by an inquiry that such an object could be promoted. The right hon. Gentleman pretended to wish for such an object, and still he opposed the inquiry. When the inquiry was completed the property could be applied to the purposes of the Church of England, or perhaps of any other Church. He certainly thought the most rational mode was first to ascertain the value of the property, and then to deliberate as to its disposal. The right hon. Gentleman objected on the grounds that the property vested in the Bishops was their own. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentlemen meant to assert that they had the power to dispose of it. If they had such right he hoped it would be made to assist the welfare of the Church. He thought this inquiry was very desirable on many points. In Durham the Church was supposed to have enormous property, and as there were many misapprehensions respecting it, it was right that the public should have the correct account. He believed, that the Dean and Chapter did not receive one-fourth of the income; this inquiry would set them right. Some Gentlemen might call the supporters of this motion enemies of the Church—he denied that they were. If he had only entered the House while the Member for North Durham was speaking, and had not known at what side he stood, he should have thought he was making a speech in support of the inquiry, and for the alteration of the manner of leasing the Church property. He would trouble the House with a few details as to the manner in which leases of collieries were affected by the Dean and Chapter. The mines were let at 101 l. a-year, the applicant paid a fine of 150 l. and an annual rent of 1l. a-year, and by renewing the fine at the end of seven years, he could get a lease for twenty-one years. Thus, in seven years what had he paid? In seven years 157 l. for a property which he believed was

859
well worth 100 l. a-year. Thus the Church lost nearly 700 l. He did not think the country was sufficiently acquainted with this mode of leasing. He did not think it conducive to the glory of God or the increase of the revenues of the Church. But this was a part of the subject he would not pursue farther. He believed that the Dean and Chapter of Durham had done a great deal of good; that they had raised the stipends of many Ministers, and built several new churches. They had also done a very generous and munificent thing in alienating from themselves 100,000 l. worth of property for the purpose of building an university in their city. He wished, certainly, that that university had been less exclusive; but they had made it as open as Cambridge, and permitted all men to attend lectures although none but churchmen could obtain degrees. He would support the motion with great pleasure; he thought it was one that would be exceedingly useful to this country.
Sir R. Inglissaid, that the hon. Member for Kilkenny—to whom, as his old opponent on such subjects, he would, with permission of the hon. Member for North Derbyshire (Mr. Evans), first advert—had observed, that if any one had entered the House during the speech of the hon. Member for North Durham he would have supposed, that the intention of her Majesty's Ministers was to rob the Church. Now, he would tell those hon. Members who had entered the House since the hon. Member for North Durham addressed it, that the tendency of his observations was to prove, that the lessees had a qualified independent property in the leases which they enjoyed; that they were subjected to considerable expense from the peculiar nature of the property; and that they were disturbed in the exercise of their rights by the continual agitation of this question; and that negotiations for the renewal of the leases which would have been concluded long before this time, had been in consequence suspended; and to prove also, that great spiritual destitution existed in the county which he represented, and in which the great lessees resided. He did not deny what his noble Friend who introduced the subject had stated, that however the intention of Government might have been concealed by the form in which the motion was couched, there was a general feeling in the country that the question the House had now to
860
decide was, whether a portion of the property now belonging to the Church should be diverted from the objects to which it had been appropriated by the Church. The hon. Member for North Derbyshire had said, they ought first to consider what was the value of the property before they proceeded to appropriate it. But he would submit, that there was a primary question to which the hon. Member had not given a satisfactory answer—namely, what right they had to meddle with it at all. If it were public property, as the hon. Member for Kilkenny contended, then the simple question was, to what objects would it be best to appropriate it; but if, as he held, it was property with which the State had no right to meddle, inasmuch as the State had no more given it to the Church than it had given to the hon. Member for Kilkenny the large property he had amassed, then he maintained they had no more right to investigate its condition or management than they had to inquire into the private affairs of the hon. Member. The noble Lord had stated distinctly, that his own wish would be, to appropriate the property resulting from an improved administration of ecclesiastical revenues to the redemption of church-rates. Now, he put it to his noble Friend, whether, if he obtained the Committee for which he had asked, he would not take pretty good care, in naming the Committee, that the majority of it should consist of persons who were pledged to such an appropriation of the expected surplus as he himself desired. Therefore, he trusted that no hon. Member would vote for this Committee who was not prepared to accede to such a conclusion as that to which he was sure the Committee nominated by the noble Lord would arrive. He knew it was a very popular argument to say, "We want only to inquire, we do not wish at all to pledge any one, we only wish to know the exact amount and nature of the property; but he would remind the House, that the noble Lord who invited them to this inquiry had himself prejudged the issue, by stating what his own individual preference would be; having, at the same time, the power of giving effect to it by appointing the individuals who should conduct the inquiry. He believed, however, the noble Lord would be very willing to suffer the decision to be suspended, not for six weeks or for six months only, but for six years, and he did not think the supposition an uncharitable one, when he recollected, that on the 12th of June,

861
1837, the noble Lord had found an opportunity of taking the sense of the House on this question, Parliament having then been assembled, he believed, as long as five months, and that the noble Lord had, in the present Session, not chosen to make the proposition till the ninety-third day of the meeting of the House, when it had been announced in the most formal manner, that the coronation would take place on the 28th of June, beyond which event it was not likely that the Session would be long protracted. The noble Lord, in fact, had told the House, that he did not propose to legislate on this subject during the present year. Was there any prospect that, the field of the proposed inquiry being so extensive, the interests at stake so vast, it could be concluded before a considerable portion of another Session had elapsed? He did not anticipate that the Committee would investigate the butchers' and bakers' bills of the prebendaries of Durham, as the hon. Member for North Derbyshire expected, but the materials of the inquiry were so plentiful that it might easily run through two entire Sessions. All the arguments which the noble Lord had adduced in reference to the right of property of the present possessors of cathedral interests would apply with quite as much force to any other species of life tenants. He admitted there was a distinction between ecclesiastical and lay property, but it was not a distinction which could authorise them to rob the one while they protected the other. The interest of the bishops and the deans, the noble Lord said, was a life-interest, descending not to their heirs, but to their successors; but in what did this case differ from the case of tenants of any entailed property whatever? All the abuses on which the noble Lord had dwelt were created by Act of Parliament. The noble Lord had argued throughout as if the bishops and prebendaries, in their individual character, and by their individual authority, had alienated church lands; but he (Sir R. Inglis) said, that the Parliament of England was responsible, since without their authority the transactions of which the noble Lord complained could not have been effected. The abuses referred to by the noble Lord were abuses chargeable on individuals; and what justification could they form for depriving parties, who had faithfully discharged their trust, of powers which they had not abused? Let them punish the wrongdoer, and deprive him of the power of doing wrong
862
for the future; but why punish innocent men, who were not even suspected, and were certainly not accused? Admitting, for the sake of argument, that a great proportion of the leases had been improvidently granted, though, from some inquiries he had made, he believed the proportion of cases to which suspicion attached was very small, compared with those which were entirely unexceptionable, still the objections he had on a former occasion urged against the plan of the noble Lord remained entirely unchanged. The noble Lord's motion would convert the proprietors of what was called the first estate of this realm, who possessed property of as ancient date as any class of men, into annuitants. This, he contended, would, under present circumstances, be a gross violation of law and of right. It was a measure to which nothing but the gravest abuses, not suspected but proved, not proved against a few, but against a great majority, could justify a legislature in consenting. The hon. Member for Kilkenny had asked the House why the establishment was to be supported at the expense of other religious sects. He would meet that question by another. Did the Established Church ask to be thus supported? Did it wish for more than to be allowed to possess the full produce of its own property, and appropriate it in its own way? The hon. Member for Kilkenny had no grounds for accusing the Church of robbing any other portion of the community, or depriving the dissenter of anything which he had a right to retain. He had over and over again shown, in answer to this charge, that the church-rate was a tax, not on the dissenter as such, but on the property held by him, and that the same amount of property, whether held by Turk, Jew, infidel, or heretic, would be burdened with precisely the same amount of rate as if held by the most orthodox churchman who ever held a pew. The hon. Member for Kilkenny had adverted to a minor point, which, though in strictness it ought not to influence their decision on the present question, he was yet unwilling to pass unnoticed. The argument of numbers had often been pressed by that hon. Member to induce them to comply with an unreasonable demand, and he now told them that the number of the dissenters was almost equal to that of churchmen. He would require to have this fact established by the testimony of one in whose accuracy and information he had more confidence; for from all the inquiries he had been able to make, par-

863
ticularly from the information furnished to the House respecting the county of Lancaster, he was convinced the hon. Member was greatly in error, and that so far from being equal in number to the churchmen, the dissenters, including even those who did not wish to be so considered, the Wesleyan Methodists, did not amount to one-seventh part of the population, allowing the largest proportion consistent with truth. No man, he was sure, possessed of an ordinary acquaintance with the statistics of England would say, that they amounted to one-half. Before he sat down, he must beg the noble Lord to consider how much more might have been done by a different application of his principle in respect to Church propecty. If he had given the proprietors of Church property, whether bishops, or deans and chapters, the power of managing their property on more liberal terms than at present, the result would have been more advantageous than could be expected from the proposition of the noble Lord. The principle which the noble Lord had evoked—the principle of interfering with property against the holders of which no allegations were brought—would apply, and with increased effect, wherever there were allegations made. The noble Lord would have the same grounds as those now alleged for taking into his hands all the corporation property in England. The noble Lord could not apply this principle to one class of property without exposing every other class of property whatever to be similarly dealt with. He concurred with the hon. Member for North Durham in the arguments he had used in answer to the noble Lord; he concurred also in the second of the propositions now before the House, which, if he and his Friends should have the misfortune to be beaten on the first, would go to appropriate the improved value of this property, if any, to the purposes of spiritual instruction; and he supported it, because it did not pledge the House to any particular mode of distribution of the surplus—because it did not state, that the administrators of that surplus should be this new Commission. Objecting, as he did, to the appointment of a new Commission, he could not have consented to intrust to it the power of dealing with and administering the property of the Church; and as that second proposition did not propose to take the property of the Church out of the hands of its present masters, he gave it his most cordial concurrence. If he might say so, he must express his hope that no hon.
864
Gentleman who did not concur with the noble Lord's plan for the disposal of Church property would be induced to give his vote in support of the present motion, notwithstanding that, in appearance, it went only to institute an inquiry on the subject. Let no man deceive himself into the belief that the Committee nominated by the noble Lord would be a Committee for any other purpose than that the noble Lord had in view, to take away its property from the Church—property which might better have been applied for the improvement of the people, and to convert it to the relief of the landed proprietors of England. But, he would say, this change was not desired by the landed proprietors of England, because there never was such a display of right feeling and attachment to religion as was manifested last year, when thousands petitioned the House not to be relieved from a tax, but to continue to pay it. Never before, he believed, in the history of England, had it been known, that the petitions for the payment of a tax were as numerous as those against it. Believing, then, that the proposition of the noble Lord was hostile to the security, not only, of the property, but of what he considered still more essential, the stability and influence of the Church, he should give his vote against it.
Mr. Peasecordially concurred with the hon. Member who had just sat down in the sentiments which he had just expressed to the House, that the signatures of the petitioners did represent the opinions of those by whom they were affixed to the petitions; but, at the same time, there was another class of equal importance who complained that they were not fairly dealt with, and that their interests and the interests of the country were not properly cared for. With regard to the remark which had fallen as to the state of ecclesiastical property, he was much surprised to find that any doubt should be entertained on the subject. No person who was acquainted with the state of the county which he had the honour to represent, could be ignorant of the fact that it laboured under very great disadvantages on this subject of ecclesiastical property, and there was no man, he was persuaded, who was not desirous that it should be placed in a position by which justice could be obtained both to the lessors and the lessees. It was said, that no petitions had been presented on the subject, but he had

865
had the honour to present one from Durham, praying the House to take into consideration the whole subject, the petitioners stating themselves to be followers of the doctrines of the Church, but alleging, that nothing would redound more to its credit than that some alteration should be made in that particular. These persons, too, were placed in a position which would enable them to take a just view of the case, and their opinion was, in consequence, entitled to more weight, for they held their lands from ecclesiastical landlords. In those lands, the amount of septennial fines per annum was 2,247 l. 17 s, 5½d., the amount out of rents 337 l. 13 s. 11½d., the amount of corn tithes 793 l. 7s. 10 d., and the amount of modus in lieu of hay tithe 2l. 14 s. 10½d., while the sum of 2,228 l. 3s. 6d. was received for other rents of lands and small tithes; so that the annual income which was derived by the dean and chapter of the cathedral was 5,609 l. 17 s. 7½d. No person who went through the lands, situated in the parish of Billington, could avoid remarking the striking difference between the state of the farms and farm buildings there, in those which were held under lay landlords, and those held under the Church; and he was fully prepared to say, that it would be infinitely more advantageous to the farmers, that they should hold under a tenure different from that under which their lands were demised to them, and that an alteration in the law in this particular would be advantageous both to the lessors and lessees, for both parties were now frequently brought into collision with each other, in a manner highly unsatisfactory; feelings of disrespect being thus induced in the minds of the lessees in reference to those whom it was their duty to honour and obey. He knew that, in most instances, churchmen could not be considered as had landlords, but in many instances sentiments such as he had described were produced by their conduct. In a letter written by Mr. Gregson to Lord Dungannon, in reference to this subject, after referring to the Acts which had been passed for imposing restrictions on the renewal of leases by ecclesiastical persons, he said,
"To all this, I take it for granted, you will answer, that the Acts to which I have referred were intended for the benefit of the Church; be it so, and in my opinion so would a proper adjustment for the redemption of the leaseholds. I apprehend that no man of common
866
sense, who has purchased or become entitled, by descent or otherwise, to a leasehold estate under the Church, is absurd enough to imagine that he is to have his property enfranchised without paying an adequate consideration; for my own part, as a leaseholder, and I may venture to say, that in this respect I speak the sentiments of many others, it is only desired to have a fair and equitable consideration of our position, and that we are ready to meet the matter in a reasonable manner, and would be glad to come into such terms for redemption as Parliament may deem alike advantageous to the church and the lessees; for I have no hesitation in stating, that it will be more acceptable to the public that the scale of adjustment should be fixed by Parliament, than under the schemes of any set of Commissioners."
Reference had been made to the subject of dormant leases, and on this he would read an extract from the same letter. Mr. Gregson said,
"Can it then be doubted, that it is most desirable for the Church, for the lessees, and, above all, for the country, that this dormant capital should be brought into play? We hear and read enough of the advantages of emigration to Van Diemen's Land, to the Swan River, &c., where it is stated, that the surplus capital of England may be so beneficially employed; and are we not constantly taunted with our delays in rendering justice to the unfortunate sister kingdom, where English capital would instantly find its way, if the finest country in the world was tranquillised. Now, I would ask you, Sir, whether it is not quite as reasonable to expect, that this English capital should be brought into action in our own country? What great improvements and advantages would not instantly accrue to England by the enfranchisement of the leaseholds! Every one would have an inducement to adopt a more advantageous system of cultivation, to drain, plant, build, and effect permanent improvements, which have never been applied to the leasehold properties in England, except to a trifling extent, where the property happens to be situated in some thriving commercial district."
Most of the Church property in the county of Durham was situated in the very best part of the county; but it was by no means the most improved property. That, however, in the neighbourhood of South Shields was an exception to this; but on this point, he would read a further extract from the letter of Mr. Gregson:—
"I have been induced particularly to refer to this part of the subject from the circumstance that, during one of the discussions in the late Parliament, the improved state of the property of the dean and chapter of Durham at and near South Shields was instanced as a

867
proof of the statement to which I have just alluded; and this fact was particularly referred to, and relied upon, by a Gentleman in Parliament, for whom I have the greatest respect; but every one at all acquainted with the locality of South Shields knows very well that it falls exactly within the exception I have referred to. South Shields is near the mouth of the Tyne, one of the finest rivers in England, and where the coal trade, manufactories, and almost every branch of commerce, are carried on to an amazing extent; the whole of the property, for a considerable distance to the south and west of that town, except that which has been enfranchised of late years, is leasehold under the Church; and, therefore, any man desirous of connecting himself with trade there, has no other choice than the buying or leasing dean and chapter property; thus its present state of value and cultivation is accounted for."
He did not mean to say, that the Church was a bad landlord; but he denied the assertion that had been made on the opposite side, that leasehold property held under the Church, and renewable every seven years on a fine, was equivalent to freehold. He was convinced, at any rate, that the people of Durham could not be convinced that such was the case. The fact, however, was, that the nature and amount of the fine levied varied very much, and in many instances within his own knowledge had greatly increased within the last few years. It was contrary to common sense to suppose, that men would lay out their money in improving land when they had not a permanent or, at least, a long interest in it. With reference to this subject he would read a further extract from the letter he had just quoted:—
"But let any one go through the country generally, and he will soon find the leasehold lands are very far short of those in fee-simple in respect to every improvement, and it must inevitably be so. Are men likely to employ their money in improvements whilst their interests are liable to be so affected by increasing fines for renewals? I have no doubt, however, that persons interested in the continuance of the present system will be found to come forward and state it to be their belief that the Church property is as beneficially employed as it could be under any change of management; nor is it to be wondered at that such persons should take this narrow view of the question."
He trusted, that the House would give him credit for not wishing to bring forward the statements which he had felt it his duty to make on this subject from anything like sectarian views. With regard to the establishment, he dissented from it on
868
conscientious grounds, but he had never there or elsewhere said anything with respect to it which he had not felt it to be his duty to his constituents to state. On every ground, both of security to the esblishment itself as well as of justice to the dissenters, he thought it essential, that the present system of levying church-rates should be got rid of. The hardships experienced under the present system were most oppressive to many who conscientiously dissented from the establishment. An instance of this had recently come under his own knowledge. He held in his hand an account of the expenses attending a levy that was made on the property of a Member of the Society of Friends at Gateshead for the sum of 12 s. 6d. due for church-rates, for which a cart was seized of the value of 10 l. He would read the details as they were specified in the bill of costs:—

£

s.

d.

Cart sold for

4

10

0

Church-rate, 1834–5

12 s.

6d.

Cost of summons, order, and warrant of distress, and service of summons and order

8

6

Church-rates, 1835–6

11

5½

Cost of summons, order, and warrant of distress, and service of summons and order

8

6

Levying distress in both cases and possession

8

6

Appraisement

2

3

Stamp for ditto

2

7

Auctioneer's expenses, advertisements, &c. and expenses of sale

14

3

3

8

6½

Balance to return to Mr. Oliver

£1

1

5½

The continuance of such a state of things must necessarily lead to a state of considerable excitement, and produce a degree of animosity and ill will which every sincere Christian must deeply deplore. He trusted, that the House would have regard to the peace of the country, and would consent to the inquiry which was proposed by the noble Lord, with a view to the regulation of the interest of both the lessors and the lessees of this property, and that the result would be the getting rid of the evils which were now experienced.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that there was two questions before the House, and although it might be necessary to take a division on

869
both these questions, it was expedient that the first should be disposed of before they involved themselves in the decision on the second. Feeling that this would be the most convenient course, and also, that it would coincide with the general feeling of the House, he should proceed to discuss the two propositions involved in that night's debate. The first proposition was, that a Select Committee of the House of Commons should be appointed to inquire whether by a better system of management they could not give an increased value to Church property; and supposing the House to assent to this proposition, and agree to the appointment of a Committee, then they would have to consider whether they would not attach to it the co-ordinate proposition, that if it should appear that any improved value could be obtained by a better system of managing Church property, the amount so obtained should be devoted to supplying the deficiency of the means of religious instruction and divine worship in connection with the Church. He should, however, resist the proposition for inquiry, as he was satisfied that it could not lead to any beneficial or satisfactory result: but, if the House should assent to the proposition, he trusted that it would be convinced that both for the interest of the people and for the satisfaction of those attached to the Church it was necessary to adopt the further proposition, that they should require that provision should be made that any improved value given to the property of the Church should be devoted strictly to spiritual purposes. Before they could come to a satisfactory conclusion on this point they must listen to the evidence that would be brought forward to show that imperative demands existed for supplying increased means of accommodation and religious instruction in connection with the Established Church; and if they were satisfied by the evidence so adduced that such absolute necessity existed, he was convinced, that they would not relieve themselves nor the landed property of the country—for that was the question—from the obligations under which the owners inherited their estates, or from the obligations under which the purchasers acquired their estates, when it was well known that such landed property at the time of inheritance or acquisition was liable to the support of the fabric of the Church. The question was not merely
870
that of relieving the conscientious scruples of dissenters, for a very small amount of the church-rates was contributed by the dissenters themselves; but whether the great landed property of the country, the owners themselves being members of the Church of England, should be relieved from the charge of maintaining the fabrics of the Church, and the burden be thrown upon the Church itself. The matter must not be determined by reference to the formal words of the proposition, not by merely looking to the terms of the motion, but by historical reference to past proceedings, and by observance of the conduct of those who now made this application. This was not the first time that they had had propositions made to them on that subject. In the year 1834, the Government, then presided over by Lord Grey, but to which most of the present Members of the Government were attached, made a proposition to the House on the subject of church-rates. They thought it expedient to make a proposition with a view of putting an end to the present system of church-rates, and in lieu of it they offered a system which substantially in principle was a fair one; it was, not that the burden of church-rates should be thrown on the ecclesiastical revenues of the Church or on any description of ecclesiastical property, but that the State should take upon itself the expense of maintaining the fabrics of the Church. The proposition was, that they should relieve the conscientious scruples of the dissenters by taking from them the charge of church-rates and making an accurate calculation of the amount of these rates and the charge to which the people were liable on this account, that in lieu thereof they should make a grant from the consolidated fund. Lord Althorp, who made the proposition on this subject in the House of Commons, said that it was founded upon the principle of a Church Establishment, to which it was essential that either the community or the State should maintain the fabric of the Church. The noble Lord said, that he was most anxious to relieve the conscientious dissenter from this charge; but he contended that if the community did not bear this charge the State must. This proposition was carried by a large majority. He believed it was carried by a majority of 116; but the proposition was afterwards abandoned by the Government.

871
250,000 l. was the sum that Lord Althorp proposed to advance from the consolidated fund in lieu of these rates. Thus the proposition was made and the system of levying church-rates was condemned; and whatever might have been the opposition to them before, it was greatly increased by the course taken by the Government, who took upon themselves to make a substantive proposition to put an end to church-rates. After this plan was abandoned, the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, took upon himself to propose another mode of getting rid of them, and made a number of calculations respecting the value of Church property, with a view of showing, that by a different system of management an improved value could be given to it. The right hon. Gentleman did not then call for inquiry; he did not call for the appointment of a Committeee to inquire into the subject on the mere shallow pretence that a difference existed between himself (Sir Robert Peel) and the Government as to the valuation being taken at twenty-five or thirty years' purchase. This was also a matter which no Committee of inquiry was competent to settle satisfactorily; but which any person accustomed to calculations could settle in a very short period. The right hon. Gentleman brought forward his plan without stating, that there was the pretext for inquiry, and in support of his proposition he endeavoured to satisfy himself and the House that he should gain by the improved management of ecclesiastical property a clear income of 255,000 l., and that thus he should have 5,000 l. to spare beyond the amount required in lieu of church-rates. Some fortuitous agency appeared to interfere in this matter, for wanting 250,000 l. a year, he came down to Parliament and said, that he had found the means of getting 255,000 l. a year. This plan was not only brought forward, but the resolution was agreed to by the House by a majority of twenty-three. Leave was given to bring in the bill, founded on the resolution, the report of which was adopted by a very small majority; but this subject was abandoned in that shape by the Government. They then heard for the first time of the proposition to move for a Committee. Lord Althorp proposed that 250,000 l. should be granted out of the consolidated fund in lieu of church-rates, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, imagining that he had found
872
a mode of getting 255,000 l. from the improved management of Church property, his plan was adopted by the Government, and could any man then say, that the object of this inquiry was not to get a substitute for church-rates? Look at the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, and contended for by him and by the rest of her Majesty's Ministers, and although they had the disclaimer of the noble Lord of any intention on his part to bind Parliament to any specific measure by the present proposition, they also heard it distinctly stated, that the opinion of the Government on the subject remained unchanged; and after this, would any person say, that he did not believe, that the object of the noble Lord in his Committee of Inquiry was, to find a substitute for church-rates out of the property of the Church? Would those, then, who were adverse to removing this burden from the landed property of the country and throwing it on the Church—would those who regarded such a proposition as being fraught with injustice, allow a Committee of Inquiry which had this object in view? Would they, by appointing this Committee, excite such hopes in the minds of those who were unfriendly to the Church? And if, however, they did succeed in showing, that they could realise 250,000 l. a-year out of the improved management of Church property, would it not be urged, that the only way of removing the discontent of the dissenters was by devoting this amount as a substitute for church-rates. The noble Lord said, that in the next Session they must come to some settlement of this subject, as the matter could not be longer delayed; the question of appropriation would become so great, that they must settle it. If such were the feelings of the noble Lord, how was it that this proposition for even a Committee of Inquiry was not made until the 3d of May. What possible reason could be assigned for not proposing the nomination of the Committee within a week after the meeting of Parliament in November last? The Committee was appointed last year in July, but they did in reality nothing. The Parliament met again in November, and although the present system of church-rates had been condemned in 1834 by a resolution to which her Majesty's Ministers were parties, although it had been since then twice condemned—

873
why not, he would ask, with the view to prevent discussion and ill-blood, allow them an opportunity to shape a measure, or to bring in a bill with all its details of proceeding with the inquiry before the Select Committee. He did not bring any charge as to what were the intentions of the noble Lord, for he dared to say, that his intentions were pure; but if ever there was a proposition calculated to deceive both parties, both dissenters and churchmen, he was satisfied that this was. The coronation was to take place on the 28th of June, and the proposition was not made till the 3d of May, and the noble Lord said, that the inconveniences of the present system were so great that they must be settled next Session. The noble Lord must have some measures either in contemplation, or had adopted the principle of some measure in his mind. If the noble Lord had adopted the principle of some measure, why not at once openly announce it. It was the duty of the Government not to remain passive, and let the battle respecting Church-rates be fought in every vestry-room in the country, and thus aggravate the evils which had been so much complained of by him. If the noble Lord thought that the question must be settled next year, how was it that the Committee was not appointed until the 3d of May, when it was impossible that it could, before the termination of the Session, make a satisfactory report or arrive at any result, when they would have to examine persons holding property under the Church from all parts of the kingdom—from Durham, from Somersetshire, and from Middlesex? But was the Committee to be left to its own unaided efforts without the assistance of Government? If her Majesty's Ministers had no plan to propose and no principle to announce, and admitting, that the question must be settled next Session, was that not a conclusive reason for appointing the Committee at an earlier period? The noble Lord had announced, that the matter must be settled next year, but he had laid down no principle to govern the inquiry of the Committee which he proposed. It was absolutely necessary, however, if the House of Commons should allow the inquiry to be proceeded with, that it should have distinctly before it the principle which was to be acted upon on the result of its proceedings being known. His objection to inquiry, however, was,
874
that it was the ready means of escaping from a difficulty, and getting rid of responsibility; and also it enabled the Government either to adhere to their own opinions or to abandon them as they thought fit, and thus leave the question in a hopeless state. But supposing his objections to the appointment of the Committee to be overruled, would the House allow any residue of Church property that might be obtained to be applied to other than spiritual purposes? By that he meant the increase of the stipends of Ministers of the Church in places where they were at present inadequate, and also the increase of the means of attendance at religious worship. However desirous he might be of relieving the conscientious scruples of dissenters, he was sure that those whom he addressed, the gentlemen of England, and the peers of England, would not consent that their property should be relieved from the burden to which it had always been liable for the purpose of throwing it upon the revenues of the Church. He trusted, that the House would listen to the authorities which he should quote on this subject, to show the imperative claims the Church had. If he were to quote the authorities only of ministers of this Church, or of those of kindred opinions, and who were most friendly to the Establishment, many might be disposed to attach little weight to them; but the authorities which he was about to quote were above all cavil and objection; for he would not refer to any document on the subject which did not bear the signatures of Melbourne, J. Russell, and T. Spring Rice. If he proved the wants and the claims of the Church on such evidence, he believed there could not be any doubt on the subject. The hon. Member for Kilkenny had charged the noble Lord with being a utensil in the hands of the Conservatives. If this were the case, the utensil had now been moulded by others to opinions far removed from those of himself and friends. Before he proceeded to the evidence he alluded to, he would remark, that the noble Lord had stated, that he had never instituted inquiry into ecclesiastical matters for the purpose of removing any evils that existed in the Establishment, and of making an improved distribution of ecclesiastical revenues—lopping off surplus revenue that might exist in one place, and making a

875
new appropriation in another—during the time that he and his Friends were in office. Now this was a very ungracious observation of the hon. Member, for all the measures that the noble Lord had introduced respecting the Church had been the result, and had been founded on, the reports of the Commissioners appointed during his administration. He appointed this Commission in February, 1835, when he was at the head of the Government, for the purpose of inquiring into and considering the state of the several dioceses in England and Wales, with reference to the amount of their revenues and the more equal distribution of episcopal duties, and to the prevention of the necessity of attaching by commendam to bishoprics, benefices with cure of souls—that the state of the several cathedral and collegiate Churches in England and Wales should be also taken into consideration, with a view to the suggestion of such measures as may render them most conducive to the efficiency of the Established Church; and that the best mode should be devised of providing for the cure of souls, with a special reference to the residence of the clergy in their respective benefices." Thus was this Commission instituted, and its inquiries were directed to be made into the topics he had just described, and he was happy to say, that these suggestions that he had made had been found effectual, by carrying the good will of the Church with him. He took a double guarantee for effecting the reforms which he proposed, by carrying with him the friends of the Church. The noble Lord, by the course which he had proposed, had alienated from him the friends of the Church, and the Commission had been broken up because the inquiry was proceeded with against that implied good faith in which it was supposed to have been carried on. The result of these proceedings had been what he should naturally have expected to follow, namely, increased agitation with respect to church-rates, merely in consequence of keeping these matters in suspense, and by shaking with a palsied hand that which they had not strength or courage to use. By these means the edifices of the Church had been kept from repair in many districts, and the property of the lessees in Durham and Cumberland and Middlesex and other districts had been lessened in value. Another result of these proceedings had been to alarm the friends of the Church, and to
876
induce them to abandon their reforms; and the legislature had now no longer the highest and gravest authorities in support of plans of reformation. He would say, with respect to the Establishment, that although there had only been a lapse of three or four years, that the Government was no longer able to make alterations, nor could they command the passing of those measures of reform with respect to the Church, and this was the reason for their seeking refuge by their moving to refer the matter to a Select Committee. He agreed that the time had come when they might review the condition of the Church, and they had a fair right to propose a new distribution of the revenues of the Church; but he would at once tell the noble Lord and his colleagues that they were now no longer masters of questions with respect to the Church. There was a powerful party in that House, and there was a party in the House of Lords, and, above all, there was a party more powerful than either, he meant public opinion, which rallied round the Church in sufficient strength to prevent the Establishment suffering. If the noble Lord did not think so, why was he now content with merely moving for a Committee. Why not at once introduce the measure which was introduced last year with respect to this subject, and which was introduced in the following resolution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—
"That it is the opinion of this Committee, that for the repair and maintenance of parochial Churches and Chapels in England and Wales, and the due celebration of divine worship therein, a permanent and adequate provision be made out of an increased value given to Church lands by the introduction of a new system of management, and by the application of the proceeds of pew rents, the collection of church-rates ceasing altogether from a day to be determined by law, and that in order to facilitate and give early effect to the resolution, the Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury be authorised to make advances on the security, and repayable out of the produce of such Church lands."
The Ministers then said, that they would not wait for inquiry, as their minds had been made up by the evidence before you; but you proposed at once to issue the sum required for the temporary payments out of the consolidated fund, and, in short, get rid at once of church-rates, and make up the deficiency by the improved value to be given to Church property. The

877
noble Lord, however, now said, that he would not at present propose or say anything with reference to future appropriation, but that he would first have inquiry and see whether there was a surplus before he determined how it should be appropriated—that he would catch his hare before he determined how it should be dressed, and before he invited the guests. Now, the question was, whether the Government were not bound to specify the conditions on which they proposed to enter upon this inquiry, and the appropriation which they contemplated making of any revenues which might be shown under it to be available. The noble Lord had found it convenient on the present occasion to confine his line of argument to a few, he must say, rather invidious reflections upon the conduct of certain members of the Church Establishment, and to instances of misconduct for which he thought it must be admitted, that Parliament had been more responsible than the parties themselves. It was far from his intention to screen the conduct of those who had contributed to the mismanagement of Church property. Instances of parsimony and penury on the part of those placed in high stations, were very reprehensible; but, at the same time, he must contend, that a wholesale system of spoliation by those who were bound to protect property devoted to sacred purposes was infinitely worse. In questions of this nature, in which a great number of persons were concerned, two or three instances of misconduct were not conclusive against the whole body. Let them throw the blame upon those to whom it was due, but, at the same time, let them not include a general body in their inculpation who were free from the imputation. In the first place, the instances of abuse to which the noble Lord had referred were committed many years ago; and moreover, and above all, they were acts for which Parliament was itself responsible, and who would now more closely adhere to its duty by watching narrowly every private bill which tended to alienate Church property from ecclesiastical purposes. But what had been said of the general body of the deans and chapters by the Church Commissioners, including the noble Lord himself, in their report? Why, that "they had exhibited great liberality in embellishing and improving the fabrics of the Church, to the
878
evident diminution of their own incomes. With this testimony to the general conduct of the clergy as a body, he would say, that a few instances of abuse, which occurred some years since, and which could not now be remedied, were not sufficient grounds for an inquiry of this kind. Now, with respect to the conditions under which they were to enter upon the present inquiry. The report which he held in his hand was signed, amongst others, by "Melbourne, T. Spring Rice, and John Russell;" and from that report it appeared, amongst other statements, that there were no less than 3,528 benefices under 150 l. per annum, and, that on many of them were no glebe-houses, and on many others the houses were not fit for residences. The same report also stated, that there were many poor livings for which it would be very difficult to provide except by appropriating them to the clergymen of the neighbouring parishes. Now, this was the evidence upon which he (Sir R. Peel) relied, and he begged the attention of the House whilst he read the extracts:—
"It appears from the report of the Ecclesiastical Revenues Commission, that there are no less than 3,528 benefices under 150 l. per annum. Of this number thirteen contain each a population of more than 10,000; fifty-one a population of from 5,000 to 10,000; 251 a population of between 2,000 and 5,000; and 1,125 have each a population of between 500 and 2,000. On every one of these benefices it is desirable that there should be a resident clergyman; but unless their value be augmented, it will, in many cases, be impossible to secure this advantage. The necessity of such augmentation will be greatly increased by the changes which we are about to recommend in the laws relating to pluralities and residence. The means which can be applied to effect the improvement are very far short of the amount required. Even were no addition to be made to the income of benefices having a population below 500, it would take no less a sum than 235,000 l. per annum to raise all benefices, having a population of between 500 and 2,000, to the annual value of 200 l.; those having a population of 2,000 and upward, to 300 l.; and those having 5,000 and upwards, to 400 l. per annum."
Again:—
"The most prominent, however, of those defects which cripple the energies of the Established Church, and circumscribe its usefulness, is the want of churches and ministers in the large towns and populous districts of the kingdom. The growth of the population has been so rapid as to outrun the means pos-

879
sessed by the Establishment of meeting its spiritual wants: and the result has been, that a vast proportion of the people are left destitute of the opportunities of public worship and Christian instruction, even when every allowance is made for the exertions of those religious bodies which are not in connexion with the Established Church."
"The evils which flow from this deficiency in the means of religious instruction and pastoral superintendence, greatly outweigh all other inconveniencies resulting from any defects or anomalies in our ecclesiastical institutions; and it unfortunately happens, that while these evils are the most urgent of all, and most require the application of an effectual remedy, they are precisely those for which a remedy can be least easily found. The resources which the Established Church possesses, and which can properly be made available to that purpose, in whatever way they may be husbanded or distributed, are evidently quite inadequate to the exigency of the case; and all we can hope to do is, gradually to diminish the intensity of the evil."
Some time since a reform was proposed of this precious state of things by a curtailment of the income of bishops, but even that was found to give only a surplus of 130,000 l., whilst no less than 235,000 l. was required to raise a certain number of livings to any thing like a decent income. The question, therefore, which he had to submit was this: Supposing they were to be able to realise an improved value of 200,000 l. or 250,000 l. on Church property, would they apply it to relieve the land from the payment of church-rates, or would they attempt to remedy the deficiencies which were described in this report, inadequate as those resources, according to this very report, would be, to do more than diminish the intensity of the evil? Under the circumstances he would submit, that it was their imperative duty, before they entered upon this inquiry, to state the views and objects with which it was undertaken. When the House considered, that in the diocese of Lichfield and Coventry "there were sixteen parishes or districts, each having a population above 10,000, the aggregate being 235,000, with church room for about 29,000," and admitting the distinction which was urged between church-rates and tithes, he would ask whether the House was prepared to proclaim that because men dissented from the Established Church they should be relieved altogether from the support of its fabric? He entreated the House to reflect whether,
880
if this principle were admitted, they might not find another conscientious scruple to start up against the payment of rent-charges upon land. Wherever property had come into the present possessor's hands by inheritance, had he not received it subject to this charge? Wherever he had obtained it by purchase, his religious scruples had not prevented him from submitting to an abatement in price proportionate to these burdens; and this was a condition of property which he who was born in Scotland, and who dissented from the Established Church of this country, was equally bound to submit to. If this new principle were adopted, why might not the Duke of Buccleugh, or any other great landed proprietor, insist that his religious scruples prevented his payment of these charges, and urge a claim against the support of a Church with which he did not communicate, with equal justice with the dissenters? The House should, in his opinion, consider that this was a tax, not upon individuals, but upon property, and whether Lord Althorp was not justified when he said, that the State, and not the Church, should provide for the maintenance of the fabric of worship; but, above all, the House should consider whether it was not their imperative duty, under the circumstances detailed to them in these reports of the Church Commission, to apply any surplus which might become available towards providing the means of religious worship in districts which were so destitute of it; and he hoped, that with all these considerations in their minds the gentlemen of England would pause before they sanctioned a measure which, with whatever view or object it might be propounded must have the effect of discharging their own estates from charges to which they had been hitherto subject, and depriving the Church of those revenues upon which they had heard, upon the highest and most undoubted testimony, it had the most urgent and imperative demands.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had, with great convenience to himself, and perhaps to the House, also, combined in his speech two questions which were not necessarily combined in the motion now before them. The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Oxford had both assumed that no individual could vote for this Committee of Inquiry

881
without he also proposed to sanction the appropriation of any funds which might become available by an improved management of Church property towards the repairing of the church. It might, perhaps, be very convenient to these honourable Gentlemen to take this course on the present occasion; but, at the same time, he must be allowed to appeal against it, as he had a precedent in the conduct of the House of Lords for a different principle. In the House of Lords, on the occasion to which he referred, many individuals differed as to the ultimate appropriation of any surplus of Church property, but who were, at the same time, unprepared to defend the present management of it. What he would ask now was, whether those Gentlemen, who had just heard the speech of the right hon. Baronet, and the statements which he had cited from reports, corroborating, as all these statements would, their own knowledge and experience of the management of Church property—would these Gentlemen, however they might have voted on former occasions on the subject of church-rates, refuse to take any step which might lead to an improved value of Church property? But, at the same time, he would not consent to go into Committee with a pretence, disguising the object which he had in view in taking up this inquiry. The first proposition which he wished to prove before the Committee was one which he had already on a former occasion ventured to state, namely, that it would be possible, equally to the advantage of the lessor and the lessee, to give an improved value, a value which was not now existing, to Church property. The second object which he had in view as a friend of the Church, not by any means undervaluing its claims, was, that it might experience that first of all advantages, of existing in peace and concord with the world. The right hon. Gentleman, for the purpose of argument had stated, that if the property of the Church were proved to be susceptible of the improvement he contemplated in it, he would not suffer that improvement to be applied to any but strictly spiritual purposes. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to maintain the position, that the maintenance of the fabric of the Church was not a strictly spiritual purpose? If so, he could quote the authority of the right hon. Gentleman against himself, for in speaking of the temporalities of the Irish Church, the right hon. Gentleman stated, that he had no objection to applying the property of the
882
Church to the maintenance of its fabric. The right hon. Gentleman should be prepared to apply the same principle to two precisely similar cases, and not turn round upon the Ministry now and accuse them of wishing to divert the property of the Church to purposes not ecclesiastical. But then the right hon. Gentleman had made an appeal to the generosity of the Gentlemen of England—an appeal which he trusted would never be made in vain. The right hon. Gentleman reminded the gentlemen of England that they had purchased or inherited their estates subject to these burdens, and he asked them whether they would now come forward to free their estates from these liabilities at the expense of the Church? In 1835 be apprehended that the right hon. Gentleman's notions of the generosity of the Gentlemen of England were not quite so high. When the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister of the Crown, what were the words which he put into the King's Speech, and what the explanation which he gave of them to the House? In the King's Speech the gentlemen of England were not represented to be so calmly resigned to these burdens upon their property as to disdain being relieved from them; on the contrary, a paragraph was purposely framed, holding out a promise of "relieving the land from the burdens to which it was at present subject;" and in order that there might be no doubt at all upon the subject, the noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, got up in his place, and asked the right hon. Gentleman whether, amongst these local burdens upon land, that of church-rates was intended to be included? and the right hon. Gentleman answered in the affirmative. These promises were then held out with a view of conciliating the country gentlemen to the right hon. Gentleman's Government, for the right hon. Gentleman had not just then discovered their generous feeling which their conduct in reference to the malt-tax enabled him more thoroughly to appreciate. But, really, the House should know a little how these things were managed sometimes; and, in describing it, he believed he was not guilty of any betrayal of confidence, as such things occurred at times to themselves as well as to the right hon. Baronet. The manner and order of the proceeding was this: the Minister of the day, and the mover and seconder of the address, were, of course, on an extremely amicable and good understanding upon all matters in reference to the spirit and the

883
topics to be particularly touched upon in the course of moving the address; but it frequently happened that there were one or two little matters of too delicate a nature to be so prominently thrust forward; and then a more cautious and unobtrusive mode of proceeding was deemed desirable. Accordingly, it was, doubtless, agreed upon by the right hon. Baronet and the noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, that the subject of church-rates was one which had better not be too distinctly treated of, for fear of awaking the alarm of the hon. Member for Oxford, and putting the friends of the Church in a commotion, and laying themselves open to a charge of truckling to the demagogues and foes of the clergy. These were the considerations, which, doubtless, had their due weight on that occasion; and, accordingly, it was resolved, as the safer course, to thrust a general observation about the "local burdens on the land" into the King's Speech, and then get the noble Lord to put a question as to whether it was intended to include that of church-rates. But to come to the immediate subject before the House, he and the right hon. Baronet were agreed upon one point, namely, in a wish to relieve the land from the payment of church-rates. But the right hon. Baronet's objects were to free the landed gentry from a local assessment, which would be a direct and immediate relief to the agricultural interest. The object, on the other hand, of her Majesty's Government, and he would state it boldly, was not to relieve the present payers of church-rates, but to put an end to a contest between the Church and Dissenters, and restore cordiality and concord between them. In speaking of the proposition of Lord Althorp in 1834, the right hon. Baronet had said, that he considered it would effect a very great improvement upon the present state of the law, and that it would put an end to a great deal of heart-burning; yet the right hon. Baronet, who, at the time, voted for that proposition, had, to-night, if his ears had not deceived him, spoken of that proposition as one which had tended to shake the foundations of the Church.
Sir Robert Peel: No, not so. I said that condemning, as that proposition did, the present system of church-rates, the fact of its having been permitted to continue so long without the substitution of a better system for it, had led to agitation which had struck at the root of all Church property.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer: If the right hon. Baronet had really any doubt as to what had struck most forcibly at the root of all Church property, and more especially of church-rates, he would refer the right hon. Baronet to the eloquent denunciation of church-rates, delivered in 1834, by the noble Lord (Stanley) who was then sitting by the side of the right hon. Baronet, who had spoken of them as productive of evils innumerable and of discords interminable. He was prepared to contend, that the confusion and agitation which now prevailed on this subject, was not produced by the measure of 1834, or by any conduct of the Ministers, but by the inherent nature of the system. The many evils involved in it had worked out its condemnation, a long time previously to the introduction of any measures to put an end to it. He admitted frankly, even at the hazard of losing some votes, that his wish to go into Committee proceeded from an expectation that by its inquiries they would be enabled to devise a remedy for the evils which prevailed at present, and to find funds for the extinction of church-rates. He admitted that fairly and openly, for he should be sorry to gain a single vote under false pretences. Even if he were not in favour of the plan now proposed by her Majesty's Government, he should say to any Gentleman in whose neighbourhood the present evils of the church-rate system were known, "You may differ from me as to the purposes for which these funds are to be applied, but will you refuse to go into an inquiry which will enable you to ensure a better management of all Church property?" The right hon. Member for Oxford had told the House, that it had no right to inquire into the management of that property, for it belonged to the Church, and to the Church alone. Now, he put it to the House whether it were possible for any man seriously to maintain that argument. Had not the House legislated upon Church property over and over again? What had been the whole course of their legislation from the days of Henry 8th down to those of George 4th? Was it not shown by the long series of enabling and disabling statutes, which had been passed for the purpose of preventing the abuse of the leasing powers of the Church? and would the House now gravely tell him that it had a right to legislate on such subjects without inquiry, and that it had not a right to inquire into them in order to legislate the better upon them after-

885
wards? The right hon. Baronet seemed to think, that this question of a Committee was brought forward as a miserable subterfuge, and as a means of protection to the Administration. Now, that charge had been frequently made against the Government out of doors, but had never been openly preferred against it within the walls of Parliament. He would deal first of all with the case then before the House, and would afterwards proceed to give precedents for the present inquiry. Now, what was the justification of this inquiry? He did not propose it for the sake of settling the arithmetical view of it, for that had been settled already, and the mistake into which the right hon. Baronet had fallen was so natural, that after his confession of it, he would not say a word further respecting it; but he had brought the measure originally forward as a large proposition, not only large in its principles, but also most complicated in its details. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that both sides of the House were agreed as to the propriety of carrying the principle of these resolutions, was there any man—and here he would appeal to his hon. Friend, the Member for South Durham—who had spoken on the third night of the debate last year, and who had moved a negative on the resolution then proposed—was there any man who did not know that, even after they were agreed as to the principle of the measure, it would be impossible to work out its details satisfactorily, as between lessor and lessee in different parts of England, with all the differences which must be made between house property, and arable property, and mining property, without going into Committee to prevent injustice being done to some one? He therefore said, that he was not advocating the appointment of a Committee by way of a subterfuge, or as a means of procuring protection for the Government. No, he was advocating it for the sake of reconciling various and conflicting interests; he was advocating it, not for the purpose of working out and verifying Mr. Finlaison's calculations, but for the purpose of seeing justice done to all parties, to the Church as well as to the lessee, and of ascertaining whether a better management of Church property might not produce a surplus of income capable of being applied to the extinction of church-rates, if the House should think with him that it should be so applied, or to the providing more extensive means for religious instruction, if the House should be of opinion that that was
886
a more legitimate appropriation of it. If hon. Members had any doubts on that subject, let them think of the consequences to which the present leasing system almost of necessity led. Let them only refer to the description which had been recently given in print of the last hours of certain Protestant bishops, who at that awful period were called upon not to think of the eternal concerns of that world which they were approaching, but of the temporal concerns of that world which they were on the point of leaving. Let them think, of their calculating fines with their dying breath, and of their signing new leases with a tremulous and expiring hand. That was not his statement, but the statement of a rev. clergyman, who had spoken of the pen having been forced into the hand of a paralytic dignitary of the church, in order that he might sign some leases of a beneficial nature to his family. Let them think of these things. And here let him express his surprise at what had fallen from the hon. Member who had spoken second in this debate, and who had said, with great naiveté, "What! do you attach so little importance to the light of a religious truth, as to consider it possible that any pastor of a Christian church could have his mind influenced at such a moment by any fleeting temporal concerns?" Now, with all deference to that hon. Member, he must say, that the hon. Member could not value more highly than he did everything that related to spiritual concerns, but that man must know little of human nature who did not know that even when the heart was elevated to the highest thoughts, it might be diverted from them by a regard for temporal concerns? Did not the hon. Member know, that tithe was a consideration which was sometimes suspected of having affected the thoughts even of the most meritorious churchmen? And had he not heard it stated, that sordid views and grasping bargains had often been mentioned—he did not say justly—as imputations against the clergy, which impeded them in the performance of their duties, and curtailed their proper and legitimate influence over their flocks? He appealed to Gentlemen who lived in the neighbourhood of Church property, and saw it lying sometimes ungranted, and frequently unimproved, because the Church did not afford a proper premium for the labour and capital which might be expended upon it—he appealed, he said, to them whether it would not be a great boon to the country if some

887
mode could be devised of placing such property under better management? Look at ancient times—look at the monastic buildings planted in places which appeared to be thriving and flourishing under their protection. Look, on the other hand, at the desolation which seemed to involve all kinds of property which now belonged to the Church. Did that arise from any superiority of the monastic orders over the clergy of our Church? Far from it. No, it arose from the bad laws which now regulated Church property—from those laws which Government now asked the House to correct. The right hon. Baronet had that night warned them against pursuing any such course. The right hon. Baronet had warned the Members of her Majesty's Government that they were not strong enough to command the carrying of any measures that were injurious to the Church; and in giving that warning he had been cheered loudly by the Friends behind him. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not regret that cheer; for neither his colleagues nor himself stood there to propose any measure that was injurious to the Church. The hon. Gentlemen who were then cheering might take every precaution that enactments could afford them to prevent her Majesty's Government from carrying such measures. They might exert such powers to the utmost. They would not injure her Majesty's Government by them, for her Majesty's Government would never be parties to any one such injurious measure. No; it might be the policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite to insinuate such intentions against the Government; but those insinuations, or rather those denunciations as to their intentions, were made more readily at festive meetings and in hustings' speeches for party purposes, than on the floor of the House of Commons, where Ministers were present to answer for themselves. He believed, that the hon. Gentlemen who dealt so lavishly in such denunciations did not partake of that overweening confidence which they publicly professed. His reason for entertaining that notion was, that the right hon. Baronet had declared that evening, with an indiscretion which did not naturally belong to him—which was contradicted by the whole previous tenour of his useful and honourable public life—which was contradicted by the declaration which he had publicly made in that House, to the unutterable regret of the party with whom he usually acted, that no Government could
888
be sustained in future except it acted on the principles of the House of Commons which was returned by the Reform Bill—his reason, he repeated, for entertaining that notion was, that the right hon. Baronet, forgetful of his former declaration, had that evening said to his opponents in the Ministry, "You cannot command success for any measure that is injurious to the Church, for there is a party in this House, and a party in the country, and, above all, a party in the House of Lords, which will prevent you." He did not blame the right hon. Baronet for talking of a party in that House, and of a party in the country—for the right hon. Baronet was then speaking of the constituencies which they represented—but he did blame the right hon. Baronet for saying, in the face of the Representatives of the people, with respect to measures which were to be submitted to their consideration, "there is a party in the House of Lords which will prevent you from commanding their success. That was an avowal which he did not think that an hon. Member of such great experience and such general caution would coolly repeat on another occasion. Returning, however, to the immediate question before the House, he would merely remark, that her Majesty's Ministers did not ask the House to do any wrong to the Church; they only asked the House to take the same course with regard to the Church, and the lessee of the Church, as had been resorted to in the best times of Tory Government by a Tory Administration, for the Crown on the one hand, and for the lessees of the Crown on the other. The hon. Gentlemen opposite were in the habit of talking much about Church and State, and, in the well-regulated sense of those words, that was his cry too. But they were in the habit of setting up the Church above the State; for they said, that it was sacrilegious to apply to the Church and to the lands of the Church the same rule which Mr. Pitt had not scrupled to apply to the Crown and to the lessees of the lands of the Crown. Let the House approach this subject with firmness, but with kindness—let us go into the Committee, not for the purpose of supporting the Government, but for the purpose of discovering the truth—of reconciling not antagonist, but conflicting interests—of seeing whether, independently of any question of extinguishing church-rates, they could not improve the condition of the land, and the value of property vested

889
in mines and manufactures, thereby improving the general condition of the people themselves; and of ascertaining whether they could not give to the Church, by an improved management of its property, the means of affording additional religious instruction to the people, as hon. Gentlemen opposite contended, or, as her Majesty's Ministers suggested, the means of restoring peace to the community, and of putting an end to the turmoil and confusion which had so long prevailed on the subject of church-rates. Her Majesty's Ministers proposed this inquiry, not as enemies, but as friends of the Church, in a just and kindly manner. If the facts to be elicited before the Committee should not support him in the assertions which he had advanced that evening, there was an end to the whole of his argument; but if the facts should support his assertions, then, whether hon. Members should or should not be prepared to support the Ministers in their second resolution, great good would be accomplished; for it would soon become apparent that a measure which would add greatly to the peace and comfort of the community would also add greatly to the respectability and wealth of the Church
The House divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 277; Noes 241: Majority 36.
Mr. Liddellmoved, at the end of the question, to add the words "with a view of applying such amount to the gradual diminution of the evils which flow from the deficiency in the means of religious instruction and pastoral superintendence by Ministers of the Established Church."
Lord John Russellsaid, that it was his intention, after the able speech of his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not to have said one word in reply; but as hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to think, that the proposed application was a desecration of Church property, and that any surplus could not lawfully be applied to the abolition of church-rates, and as this great principle was directly involved in the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman—an Amendment intended to fetter, not the Committee, but the House itself. He (Lord John Russell) would read a few passages from the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite. In the debate on the Church Temporalities Act for Ireland, the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire had said, that
890
"The bishop was entitled to let his land by Act of Parliament. He was sure that the hon. Member would not deny, that it was from an Act of Parliament that the Church derived its power over these leases, and that the Act enacted, that it should not be lawful for any bishop to grant a lease for more than twenty-one years. It had been said, that this provision was intended to prevent the alienation of the property of the Church but what had been the practical effect of it? The practical effect had been, that from a remote period the bishops had been in the habit of anticipating the revenues which, in point of right, belonged to their successors."
And the noble Lord had added,
"That this bill proposed to add to the Church the power of granting leases in perpetuity, instead of confining them to grant leases for twenty-one years only. This would be a great advantage to the tenant, as it would enable him to sell his lease in perpetuity; and it was this very property, which was neither the property of the Church nor the tenant in fee, which the Government were now prepared to sell under this Act of Parliament."
So that, according to the noble Lord's statement, leases might be granted in perpetuity, and the increased value was not the property of the Church. And what said the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, on the same subject? He said, that
"He did not object to the appropriation of some portion of the revenue of the Church of Ireland to a purpose which he considered to be strictly ecclesiastical; and which, he believed, would tend to increase its utility. He was prepared, and he now only repeated those sentiments which he had expressed in the last Parliament; he was prepared, he repeated, to admit, that he thought that no settlement of the question relating to the Church would succeed, which did not involve an arrangement on the subject of church-cess, and vestry rates."
It may be expedient, or it may not be expedient, continued the noble Lord, it may be wise, or it may not be wise, to apply any portion of the funds arising from the better management of the property of the Church as a substitute for church-rates; but I cannot understand how, after the words which I have read, delivered by the hon. Gentleman opposite, and fully admitting the principle, they can now maintain that those additional funds ought not to be so applied. I have not another word to say.
Sir Robert Peel: But I have another word, and I appeal to high authorities—I appeal especially to the authority of the

891
noble Lord himself in the discussion relative to the church-rates in England, which took place, be it remembered, after the precedent which he now says had been set in Ireland. The noble Lord, then
"Declared that his opinion remained unchanged; and he thought it the duty of the state, by means of church-rates, or of some other public fund, to maintain the buildings set apart for the performance of divine worship in a state of repair"
And, in reply to the hon. Member for Kilkenny, the noble Lord added, that
"Whatever might be the anxiety of the Dissenters, they could not have been in ignorance or doubt as to the opinions of the Government. Two years ago Lord Althorp brought in a bill on the subject, in which the principle was declared that Church-rates should not be abolished, unless the State provided a substitute. He had never said anything inconsistent with that principle, or at least anything to lead the Dissenters to suppose that Ministers meant to abolish Church-rates without an equivalent." "or that such an equivalent was to be found in the revenues of the Church." "To that principle he had adhered, and to it he intended to adhere. On various occasions he had explained his views to the Dissenters, and they were satisfied that he did not intend to bring forward any bill that would accomplish their wishes."
At the same time that this alteration of Church property is under consideration, we have the report of the Church Commismission, signed by the noble Lord, by Lord Melbourne and by Mr. Thomas Spring Rice, in which it is said,
"One mode of rendering these incomes of the bishops less uncertain, would be to allow the existing leases, both for lives and for terms of years, to expire. But any plan for accomplishing this object must involve the necessity of borrowing money upon the security of the episcopal estates, in order to compensate the bishops for the loss of the fines which accrue to them under the present system, and which form an important part of their incomes. The practical result of such an operation would be to transfer to the parties lending their money that interest in the episcopal estates which is now possessed by the lessees. We are not, therefore, prepared to recommend the adoption of any general measure for allowing the leases for lives and terms of years to expire; although, for the purpose of correcting, in some degree, the inconvenience now arising from the great variations in the annual amount of the episcopal incomes, we recommend that facilities should be afforded for the conversion of leases for lives into leases for terms of years."
892
And now I have not one word more to say,
The House again divided on the Amendment:—Ayes 254; Noes 265: Majority 11.

List of the AYES.

FIRST DIVISION.

Abercromby, G. R.

Craig, W. G.

Adam, Sir Charles

Crawford, W.

Ainsworth, P.

Crompton, Samuel

Alston, Rowland

Curry, William

Andover, Viscount

Dalmeny, Lord

Archbold, Robert

Dashwood, G. H.

Baines, Edward

Davies, T. H.

Ball, N.

Denison, W. J.

Bannerman, Alex.

Dennistoun, J.

Barnard, Edward G.

D'Eyncourt, C. T.

Barron, H.

Divett, E.

Barry, G. S.

Duckworth, S.

Beamish, F. B.

Duff, James

Bellew, Rich. M.

Duke, Sir James

Benett, J.

Duncan, Viscount

Berkeley, hon. H.

Duncombe, T.

Berkeley, hon. G.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Dundas, Capt. D.

Bernal, R.

Dundas, Fred.

Bewes, T.

Dundas, hon. J. C.

Blackett, C.

Dundas, hon. T.

Blake, Martin Jos.

Easthorpe, John

Blake, W. J.

Ebrington, Viscount

Blewitt, R. J.

Eliot, Lord

Blunt, Sir C.

Elliot, hon. John E.

Bowes, John

Erle, William

Brabazon, Lord

Etwell, Ralph

Bridgman, H.

Evans, G.

Briscoe, J. I.

Evans, W.

Brocklehurst, J.

Fazakerley, J.

Brodie, W. B.

Fenton, John

Brotherton, J.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Bryan, G.

Fergusson, R. C.

Buller, E.

Ferguson, Robert

Busfield, William

Finch, F.

Byng, George

Fitzgibbon, hon. R.

Callaghan, D.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Campbell, Sir J.

Fleetwood, P. H.

Campbell, W. F.

Fort, John

Carnac, Sir J.

Gillon, W Downe

Cave, R. O.

Gordon, Robert

Cavendish, hon. C.

Grattan, J.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Grattan, Henry

Cayley, E. S.

Greene, T.

Chalmers, P.

Greenaway, C.

Chapman, Sir M. L.

Grey, Sir C. E.

Chester, H.

Grey, Sir G.

Chetwynd, Major

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Grote, G.

Clay, William

Guest, J.

Clayton, Sir W.

Hall, B.

Clements, Viscount

Hallyburton, Lord

Clive, Edward Bolton

Handley, Henry

Collier, John

Harcourt, G. G.

Collins, W.

Harland, W. Chas.

Colquhoun, Sir J.

Hastie, A.

Coote, Sir C.

Hawes, B.

893

Hawkins, J. H.

Palmer, C. F.

Hayter, W. G.

Palmerston, Viscount

Heathcoat, John

Parker, J.

Heathcote, G. J.

Pattison, J.

Heneage, E.

Pease, J.

Hill, Lord A. M.

Pechell, Captain R.

Hindley, C.

Pendarves, E. W.

Hobhouse, Sir J. C.

Phillips, Sir R.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Philips, Mark

Hodges, T. L.

Philips, G. R.

Holland, R.

Phillpotts, John

Horsman, E.

Pinney, William

Hoskins, Kedgwin

Ponsonby, hon. J.

Howard, F. J.

Power, James

Howard, P, H.

Protheroe, E.

Howick, Viscount

Pryme, George

Hume, J.

Pryse, Pryse

Hurst, R. H.

Pusey, P.

Hutton, R.

Redington, T. N.

Ingham, R.

Rice, E. R.

James, William

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Jervis, John

Rich, Henry

Jervis, S.

Rippon, Cuthbert

Johnson, General

Roche, E. B.

Johnstone, Hope

Roche, William

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Knight, H. G.

Rumbold, C. E.

Labouchere, H.

Rundle, John

Lambton, Hedworth

Russell, Lord J.

Langdale, hon. C.

Russell, Lord

Lefevre, C. S.

Russell, Lord Chas.

Lemon, Sir C.

Salwey, Colonel

Lennox, Lord George

Sanford, E. A.

Leveson, Lord

Scholefield, Joshua

Lister, E. C.

Scrope, G. P.

Long, W.

Seale, Colonel

Lushington, Dr. S.

Seymour, Lord

Lushington, Charles

Sharpe, General

Lynch, A. H.

Sheil, Richard L.

Macleod, R.

Slaney, R. A.

Macnamara, Major

Smith, J. A.

Maher, John

Smith, Robert W.

Marshall, William

Somerville, Sir W.

Marsland, Henry

Speirs, Alexander

Martin, J.

Spencer, hon. F.

Maule, hon. Fox

Standish, Charles

Maule, W. H.

Stanley, W. M.

Melgund, Viscount

Stanley, W. O.

Mildmay, P. St. John

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Milton, Viscount

Staunton, Sir G.

Moreton, A. H.

Stewart, James

Morpeth, Viscount

Stuart, Lord J.

Morris, David

Stuart, V.

Murray, rt. hon. J.

Strangways, hon. J.

Muskett, G. A.

Strickland, Sir G.

Nagle, Sir R.

Strutt, E.

O'Brien, Cornelius

Stile, Sir C.

O'Brien, W. S.

Talbot, J. Hyacinth

O'Connell, D.

Talfourd, Sergeant

O'Callaghan, C.

Tancred, H. W.

O'Connell, J.

Thomson, C. P.

O'Connell, M. J.

Thorneley, Thomas

O'Connell, Morgan

Troubridge, Sir T.

O'Connell, Maurice

Turner, E.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Turner, William

Ord, W. H.

Verney, Sir H. Bart.

Paget, Frederick

Vigors, N. A.

894

Villiers, Charles P.

Wilde, Sergeant

Vivian, Major

Wilkins, W.

Vivian, J. H.

Williams, W.

Vivian, Sir R. H.

Williams, W. A.

Wakley, T.

Wilshere, W.

Walker, C. A.

Winnington, T. E.

Walker, Richard

Winnington, H. J.

Wall, C. B.

Wood, C.

Wallace, R.

Wood, G. W.

Warburton, H.

Worsley, Lord

Ward, H. G.

Wrightson, W.

Westenra, J. C.

Wyse, Thomas

White, A.

Yates, J. A.

White, Luke

TELLERS.

White, Samuel

Stanley, E.

Wilbraham, G.

Steuart, R.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T.

Cole, Viscount

Acland, T. D.

Colquhoun, J. C.

A'Court, Captain

Compton, H. C.

Adare, Viscount

Conolly, E. M.

Alford, Viscount

Corry, H.

Alsager, Capt.

Courtenay, P.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Cresswell, C.

Archdall, M.

Cripps, J.

Ashley, Lord

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Attwoods, W.

Darby, G.

Bagge, W.

Darlington, Earl

Bagot, hon. W.

De Horsey, S. H.

Bailey, J.

D'Israeli, B.

Bailey, J., jun.

Dottin Abel Rous

Baillie, H. D.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Baker, Edward

Douro, Marquess of

Baring, Francis

Duffield, T.

Baring, W. B.

Dunbar, George

Barneby, John

Duncombe, hon. W.

Bell, M.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Bethell, R.

East, J. B.

Blackstone, W. S.

Eastnor, Viscount

Blackburne, I.

Eaton, R. J.

Blair, James

Egerton, W. T.

Blakemore, R.

Egerton, Sir G. B.

Blannerhassett, A.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Boldero, Henry G.

Estcourt, T. N. S.

Bolling, W.

Farnham, E. B.

Bradshaw, J.

Farrand, R.

Bramston, T. W.

Fector, John Minet

Broadley, H.

Fellowes, E.

Bruce, Lord E.

Filmer, Sir Edmund

Bruges, W. H. L.

Fleming, John

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Foley, Edw. Thomas,

Burr, H. D.

Follett, Sir W.

Burrell, Sir C.

Forester, hon. G.

Burroughes, H. N.

Fox, G. L.

Calcraft, J. H.

Freshfield, J.

Canning, Sir S.

Gaskell, Jas. Milnes

Cantalupe, Viscount

Gibson, Thomas

Castlereagh, Viscount

Gladstone, W. E.

Chandos, Marq. of

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Christopher, R. A.

Godson, R.

Chute, W. L. W.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Clerk, Sir G.

Gore, Ormsby J. R.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Gore, Ormsby, W.

Codrington, C. W.

Goulburn, H.

Cole, A. H.

Graham, Sir J.

895

Granby, Marquess of

Mordaunt, Sir J., bt.

Grant, hon. Colonel

Neeld, John

Grimsditch, T.

Nicholl, John

Grimston, Viscount

Noel, W. M.

Grimston, hon. E. H.

Norreys, Viscount

Hales, R. B.

Northland, Viscount

Halford, H.

O'Neill, General

Halse, J.

Ossulston, Lord

Hardinge, Sir H.

Owen, Sir John

Hawkes, T.

Packe, C. W.

Hayes, Sir Edm. B.

Pakington, J. S.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Palmer, R.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Parker, M.

Herbert, hon. Sidney

Parker, R. T.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Parker, T. A.

Hill, Sir R.

Patten, John Wilson

Hillsborough, Visct.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Hodgson, F.

Pemberton, Thomas

Hodgson, R.

Perceval, Colonel

Hogg, James Weir

Perceval, G. J.

Holmes, hon. W. A.

Planta, Joseph

Holmes, Wm.

Polhill, Frederick

Hope, G. W.

Pollock, Sir F.

Hotham, Lord

Powell, Colonel

Houldsworth, T.

Powerscourt, Viscount

Houstoun, G.

Praed, W. M.

Hughes, W. B.

Price, Richard

Hurt, F.

Pringle, A.

Ingestre, Viscount

Rae, Sir Wm., bart.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Richards, Richard

Irving, John

Rickford, W.

Jackson, Sergeant

Rolleston, L.

James, Sir W. C.

Rose, Sir George

Jenkins, Richard

Round, C. G.

Jermyn, Earl of

Round, J.

Jones, John

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Jones, Theobald

Rushout, George

Kelly, F.

St. Paul, H.

Kemble, H.

Sanderson, R.

Ker, David

Sandon, Viscount

Kirk, P.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Knatchbull, Sir Edw.

Scarlett, hon. R.

Knightley, Sir C.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Law, hon. C.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Lefroy, Thomas

Smith, Abel

Liddell, H. T.

Smyth, Sir G. H.

Lincoln, Earl of

Somerset, Lord G.

Lockhart, A. M.

Stanley, Lord

Lowther, Colonel

Stewart, John

Lowther, J. H.

Stuart, H.

Lucas, Edward

Stormont, Lord

Lygon, General

Sturt, Henry Charles

Mackenzie, T.

Sugden, Sir E.

Mackenzie, W. E.

Teignmouth, Lord

Mahon, Viscount

Tennent, J. E.

Marsland, T.

Thompson, Ald.

Marton, George

Thornhill, G.

Master, T. W. C.

Trench, Sir Frederick

Mathew, G. B.

Trevor, hon. G.

Maunsell, T. P.

Tyrell, Sir J.

Maxwell, Henry

Vere, Sir C. B.

Meynell, Capt.

Verner, Colonel

Miles, W.

Villiers, Lord

Miles, P. W. S.

Walsh, Sir John

Miles, R. M.

Welby, G. E.

Miller, W. Henry

Whitmore, Thos. C.

Monypenny, T. G.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

896

Williams, Robert

Wynn, Sir W. W.

Williams, T. P.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Wodehouse, E.

Young, Sir W.

Wood, Colonel T,

Young, J.

Wood, Thomas

TELLERS.

Wyndham, W.

Baring, H. B.

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

Fremantle, Sir T, W.

Paired off.

FOR.

AGAINST.

Aglionby, Major

Stanley, E.

Anson, Sir G.

Howard, W.

Anson, Col.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Bentinck, Lord W.

Dugdale, W. S.

Brabazon, Sir W.

Vernon, G. H.

Byng, right hon. G.

Peel, John

Bulwer, E. L:

Dick, Q.

Childers, L. W.

Irton, S.

Codrington, Sir E.

Hope, H.

Conyngham, Lord A.

Tollemache, F.

Currie, Raikes

Henniker, Lord

Dunlop, J.

Pigot,—

Edwardes, Col.

Cartwright, W. R.

Ellice, right hon. E.

Broadwood, H.

Ellice, A.

Damer, G. E.

Fitzpatrick, B.

Palmer, G.

Fitzsimon, N.

Dungannon, Visc.

Hecton, C. J.

Mackinnon, W.

Howard, R.

Thomas, Colonel

Jephson, C. D.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Leader, J. T.

Kerrison, Sir E.

Loch, J.

Egerton, Lord F.

Mactaggart, J.

Copeland, Ald.

O'Conor, Don

Campbell, Sir H.

Parnell, Sir H.

Lowther, Viscount

Ponsonby, C.

Chapman, A.

Potter, R.

Fielden, W.

Price, Sir R.

Shirley, E.

Ramsbottom, J.

Harcourt, Bart.

Roche, D.

Bateson, Sir R.

Shelburne, Lord

Maidstone, Visc.

Townley, R. S.

Manners, Lord C.

White, H.

Cooper, E. J.

Wood, M.

Ellis, J.

Woulfe, S.

Litten, J.

SECOND DIVISION
The following Members voted in the First Division with the Ministers, and in the Second against them.

Coote, Sir C.

Knight, G.

Eliot, Lord

Lemon, Sir G.

Greene, T.

Long, W.

Harcourt, G. G. (Oxfordshire).

Pusey, P.

Slaney, R. A.

Heathcote, G.

Verney, Sir H.

Ingham, R.

Wall, C. B.

Johnstone, H.

Left the House after the First Division.

Acland T. D.

Williams, R. (Dorsetshire).

Glynne, Sir S.

As these additions supply all the information which could be obtained by repeating the whole of the lists on the second division we suppress them.