HC Deb 18 March 1841 vol 57 cc360-90
Mr. Easthope

said that when, on a former night, he moved that the petition of Mr. Baines should be printed, he stated that it was not his intention, in bringing it under the consideration of the House, to go into the general question of the abolition of church-rates, but, as much as he possibly could do so, to confine himself to the grievance complained of by the petitioner. He was aware, and he was sure the House would be aware, that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to state the case of William Baines, who was now immured in prison for the non-payment of church-rates, without making some reference to that question; but he would redeem the engagement which he had made with the House, and keep as closely to the case of William Baines, and abstain from going into the general question as much as possible. This petitioner stated, that he was an inhabitant of St. Martin's, in the borough of Leicester, and That, on the 17th of May, 1838, the inhabitants of the said parish laid a church-rate of sixpence in the pound; payment of which rate, amounting to two pounds five shillings, was demanded of your petitioner, on the 13th of August, 1838, and was by him refused. That your petitioner, besides having a conscientious objection to church-rates as such, objected to this rate in particular, as being, in his judgment, illegal; and that, when summoned before two of the borough magistrates, your petitioner disputed the validity of the rate, and required them to withhold giving judgment in his case; and the case was thereupon dismissed. That your petitioner received a 'citation' from the Arches Court of Canterbury, dated November 15, 1838, to which your petitioner gave no attention; that your petitioner was thereupon pronounced in contempt. That your petitioner was afterwards served with a 'decree to see further proceedings,' of which your petitioner took no notice. That your petitioner subsequently received a 'monition' for the payment of the rate and costs, amounting to 127l 3s., which your petitioner declined to obey; and that, in consequence, a writ for the attachment of your petitioner's body was issued, June 6, 1839, from the Court of Chancery, on a significavit from Sir Herbert Jenner, official principal of the Court of Arches. The petitioner went me to say, That your petitioner immediately applied to the Court of Queen's Bench for a rule nisi, on the grounds that the evidence given in the Court of Arches had been clandestinely taken, and that your petitioner ought to have been cited before the court of the bishop of the diocese: that the court granted the rule applied for by your petitioner, in consequence of which proceedings against your petitioner were stayed; that the case having been heard on the 27th of April, 1840, judgment was subsequently given against your petitioner, and the rule nisi discharged. That your petitioner was arrested on the 13th of November last, by the sheriff's officer, was taken from his family and business, and has now been for eleven weeks a prisoner in the county gaol of Leicester, He proceeded:— Your petitioner respectfully submits to your honourable House, that injustice has marked every step of these proceedings against him. That it is unjust to make a demand upon your petitioner for the support of a form of worship which his conscience repudiates. That it is unjust, when your petitioner has good ground for believing that demand to be bad in law to send him for his remedy to an ecclesiastical court, and call upon him to recognise the authority of the dignitaries of a church of which he is not a member; and to seek at an enormous expense the decision of a question involving your petitioner's rights at the hands of parties interested in giving judgment against him. That it is unjust that your petitioner should, for no valid reason and without his consent, be cited before the Arches Court of Canterbury instead of before the Court of the bishop of the diocese in which he resides; whereby the expense is increased fivefold, and is rendered intolerably oppressive. And that it is unjust to take the person of your petitioner, and confine him in a gaol, when he his been guilty of no crime against society, and has merely carried out his principles, as a dissenter from the established religion, choosing to obey God rather than man. Now he (Mr. Easthope) did not mean to urge that this case had been dealt with differently from other cases which had come formerly under the consideration of the House but he did mean to present this case to the House as one of those which were ill calculated to serve the interests of the Church. In the case to which the attention of the House was now requested, it should also be observed that, before the proceedings were commenced in the Ecclesiastical Court, the churchwardens of the parish in which Mr. Baines resided called a general vestry, to take into consideration the propriety of further proceedings. That vestry came to the unanimous determination that it was inexpedient to proceed in the business. They stated, as the ground of that determination, that they expected that Parliament: would alter the state of the of the law, and prevent any further litigation on the subject. This was the decision formed in the very parish in which Mr. Baines resided, by the vestry who had engaged in making the church-rate, by parties who were to benefit if he paid the rate, by those who were intimately acquainted with all the circumstances. The House had also had that evening presented to them petitions from the town of Leicester; first, from the congregation of religious persons with whom Mr. Baines worshipped, in which that person was described as a person of exemplary worth, as a man fulfilling all the relations of life with great propriety; esteemed, and justly esteemed, as they stated, by all who knew him. They had also received a petition, signed by no less than 6,000 persons, inhabitants of Leicester, without reference to religious persuasion, signed, among others, by nearly all the municipal authorities. An address had also been conveyed to the throne, expressing the prayer of 7,000 of the females of Leicester. In short, he believed that never was there an interest more intense, with reference to a case of grievance, than that which had now so long prevailed in that town on this subject. He had said that the parish meeting which assembled on the subject came to the unanimous determination, that it was inexpedient to proceed further in this case; he believed that they came to that determination, under the impression—indeed it was stated at the meeting that they entertained the full expectation—that there would be an alteration in the law, and that, therefore, it was thought it would be inexpedient to proceed with the case; and he (Mr. Easthope) felt, on looking over the debates which had taken place in that House in reference to this subject, that it could be no matter of surprise with any person that these parties should have come to such a determination under such an impression. For instance, in the course of the debate, on July 24th, last year, he found that the noble Secretary for the Colonies stated that— He thought that those persons who, from a conscientious feeling, sought to make the laws respected by enforcing the punishment of imprisonment against those who violated the laws, did no good whatever in the way of maintaining a respect for the law when they acted not in accordance with the general feeling of the community. These parties, then, he (Mr. Easthope) thought, made a very discreet use of the language which the noble Lord so appropriately and fitly used in that House. They knew that not only was there a general sympathy with Mr. Baines, and not with this law, but that the means taken to enforce the payment of these rates were a violation of all the sympathies and all the feelings which prevailed in the community where the process was instituted. If he were to attempt to describe the excitement which had prevailed, and still continued to prevail, the general feeling which strongly pervaded the minds of all classes in that community, he should fail in the attempt; but he would ask the noble Lord whether he thought it possible that the interests of any Church, or of religion in any shape or form, could be advanced by any such means, or by the recurrence of such cases as this? They had already discussed in that House, in various forms, this question of punishment and imprisonment for church-rates. They had had it discussed in cases where the Government of the country had proposed plans for the abolition of these rates—they had had it discussed in a case in which an individual of an humbler class was, like Mr. Baines, incarcerated in prison; and the general sentiment of the House had been, that such imprisonments and such enforcements of payment were ill adapted to promote the cause of religion, and very ill adapted to advance the interests of the Established Church. He was sorry that it was his duty to have to describe the peculiar situation of the individual who was now labouring under this imprisonment. Mr. Baines was not an individual in an humble class of life; he was a person engaged in a large and profitable business; who, up to this affair, was surrounded by all the comforts of home, with a wife and family, from whom he was now severed, and from whom he had been severed since the month of November last, undergoing privations and discomforts which no man would be prepared to endure from a mere theory or fancy, or from anything short of a religious conviction, impressed on his feeling and conscience. And what position did the House occupy in connection with this subject?—that of carrying on and enforcing a state of law which operated against all the best principles by which man ought to be guided: that of depreciating that which they ought to advance, and discouraging that which they ought to promote. The noble Lord, on a former discussion, which took place on the 24th of July, 1840, said that— As to the general question of the state of the law, he was not one of those who wished the present system to be continued. He wished very much they had some substitute by which the sums now collected for the repairs of the Church could be raised in a less objectionable and onerous manner. He was confident that, much as that noble Lord was attached to the Established Church—and let him say that he yielded not to the noble Lord or any other person in attachment to the Church—he was confident that the noble Lord must feel that such continued sufferings as Mr. Baines was now enduring, could not be necessary, and ought not to be required for the maintenance of any worship, and could not advance the interests of any religious community. He felt, that having stated that he would confine himself to the case of Mr. Baines, he was necessarily precluded from going into the general question of Church-rates, and that he should be considered as offending against the House, if he extended his statements to a wider sphere. To describe the feelings which prevailed in the locality in which Mr. Baines was imprisoned was out of his power, and he was equally unable to express the deep sense of shame and regret he felt that such a case as that which had excited those feelings should arise in relation to the religion of his country. He was not disposed to hold forth the language of reproach, but he wished, most sincerely and anxiously, to hold forth the language of en-treaty, that those Members of the Established Church, who were more generally understood as its advocates and champions, would look to the effect of those occurrences; and, considering what their unavoidable consequences must be, what all such bitterness and strife must produce, what evil feelings and want of charity these continual conflicts must and did lead to, would apply themselves in good earnest to the consideration of a remedy, which, whilst it sustained, as it ought to do, the true principles of religion, should not inflict bitter sufferings on, or outrage the feelings of, those who differed from the Established Church in its forms of worship. In the town of Leicester there was no Church-rate levied, except in the parish of which Mr. Baines was an inhabitant, and in that parish there was no individual who more honestly and more sincerely lamented the effects produced by this unfortunate state of things than the clergyman who resided in it, the lion, and rev. Mr. Erskine, a name venerated by all lovers of liberty, That rev. Gentleman had told him that it was one of the greatest discomforts of his life, and that there was nothing he was more anxious for than to sec an end put to these embittering conflicts. Nor would it be long before this state of things in the town of Leicester would be extended beyond the case of Mr. Baines. There were now twenty-six individuals there who were under legal citation, and who were subject to be also immured in prison, and who were daily in expectation that such would be their fate. There were also no less than ten persons now under summons for tomorrow. Now, what would be the effect If this state of things were allowed to go on, and the House remained passive, after the repeated and strong declarations which had been made from all quarters against such a system? What would be the effect on the public mind if those twenty-six, or rather thirty-six persons, were also to be immured in prison like Mr. Baines? Nor was this all that had come to his knowledge. In an adjoining county there was a dissenting minister under citation, who daily expected to share the fate of Mr. Baines. It had been repeatedly stated in that House, and very emphatically stated in a former discussion by the right hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. W. Wynn), that He agreed with the noble Lord in think- ing that the disputes which had arisen on the subject of Church-rates in different vestries very likely, if allowed to continue, to prove prejudical not only to the peace of particular parishes, but to the general interests of religion. Was it not predicted in all the debates that were had in that House, that it would be quite impossible for these scenes of conflict avid dissension to be smothered or put an end to by enforcing Church-rates. Had not almost every public man who had taken any part in these debate given it as his opinion, that it was impossible that such strife and such bitterness, grounded as they were on differences in religious opinion, and festering as they did under the belief that the enforcement of the rates offended against conscience—was it not foretold by everybody that such a state of things must produce the results which were now becoming manifest, and which would become still more and more alarming if a remedy were not applied? And, let him seriously put it to the House, for what object—to what end—was all this? Would the Church benefit by it? Look at Leicester r every parish in that considerable town, except this particular parish, had its worship regularly and properly conducted, the fabric of its Churches sustained, and harmony among its inhabitants uninterrupted. Yet no Church-rates were levied; while in this parish, where there happened to be a majority who thought it to be their duty to pay Church-rates, there were continual uproar, schism, and conflicts; sales of goods, to pay Church-rates, were seen, which exhibited all the buffoonery of Merry Andrew shows; neighbour was arrayed against neighbour, and one set of persons against another, who would otherwise live together in a state of kindly and charitable feeling. What, he would ask, must be the feeling of the large majority of this town, when, as was matter of notoriety, this very individual, who was suffering under the sentence of the law, who had, during four of the severe winter months, been incarcerated in a dreary prison; when this very individual, while thus immurred, had been elected a town councillor, by the largest ward in the town, consisting of nearly 20,000 persons? Could anything exhibit more palpably and strongly, that there was no sympathy with such a law, that the law was repudiated, and that those who violated it were considered more to be honoured than those who obeyed it. Whatever might be said to the contrary, Mr. Baines was considered in Leicester as a martyr, as a man of high courage, and unflinching honesty; and this was unequivocally manifested by the evidence of near 20,000 persons, who not only him to be one of their corporation, but voted him such by an unanimous vote. There was not one man who voted against him; not one man who said that Mr. Baines was not a proper man to be elected; not one man who suggested a representative in the town council in preference to Mr. Baines. He (Mr. Easthope) was convinced that the noble Lord would feel that the continuance and the enforcement of such a law in a community where such feelings prevailed, could not in any way forward the objects for which the law was professedly employed; it was a scandal to the Church, admirably adapted to produce its decline, admirably adapted to work the work of those who were its enemies, but not at all adapted to advance those great and good results which the Church aimed at, and which its religion, if left to itself, to its own genial influence, would be sure to produce. He had said, that he would strictly confine himself to the particular grievance of Mr. Baines. He was aware that in doing so he could not do that justice to his case which he could wish, and that he might fail to produce that impression which he had desired to make; but limited as he was by the engagement which he had made, he would conclude by moving, That it appears by the petition of William Baines, a Protestant Dissenter, that he has been confined in the county gaol of Leicester since the 13th day of November last, for the non-payment of 2l. 5s., being the amount of a Church-rate assessed upon him for the parish of St. Martin, in the borough of Leicester; and also for the non-payment of 124l. 18s., being the amount of costs incurred by the proceedings taken against him in the Arches Court of Canterbury; and that thus to imprison William Baines for refusing to contribute towards the expenses attending the worship of the Established Church, from which he conscientiously dissents, is to punish him for acting in accordance with what he regards as a religious duty, and is, a violation of the principles of religious freedom.

Lord J. Russell

said, that the hon. Gentleman who brought forward this motion having given notice of a motion, that the petition of Mr. Baines should be taken into consideration, he was not at all aware, till he heard it read from the Chair, what was the nature of the motion which the hon. Gentleman had proposed to conclude with; and he must say that, considering no notice had been given of its intended character, the resolution now proposed, appeared very wide and sweeping. The question brought before the House was stated to be the particular grievance of Mr Baines; and the imprisonment of that individual was, no doubt, the ground-work of the resolution; yet the whole case of the grievance was a case bearing upon the general law, and the enforcement of that law, and the resolution now read, did not so much go to release Mr. Baines, as to denounce the existing law, and to declare, that the system under which his grievance arose, ought no longer to remain. He was using this argument, not as saying, that it might not be a proper resolution enough to be brought forward for the consideration of the House, but as expressing his opinion, that when such a resolution was brought forward, it ought to be brought forward with a great deal more notice than the hon. Gentleman had thought proper to give on this occasion. With reference to the particular circumstances which induced the parties in question—he knew not who they were—to take these proceedings against Mr. Baines, which ended in his imprisonment, he (Lord John Russell) did not think it necessary, not being fully acquainted with the particulars, to give any opinion on the subject, whether they were justified in pursuing that course, or whether there was anything at all excessive in their method of proceeding. But with reference to the question as it came broadly before them, whether or not a party was to be sanctioned in his violation of the law of the land respecting the payment of Church-rates, be could have no hesitation in answering that question directly in the negative. He could conceive very well, that this might be an impost which it was not very advisable to maintain, if it were shown that a better kind of rate, or an improved mode of providing for the fabric of the Church, could be adopted; presuming, as the hon. Member stated, that the present law created schisms and conflicts in communities, and set neighbour against neighbour, it might be a question whether it were not desirable to alter such a law; but this was a totally different question from that, whether Mr. Baines, or any other individual, was to set up a standard of his own as to what should, and what should not, be the law for him, and to declare that what he thought oppressive to the conscience was no longer to be observed, Mr. Baines stated the case clearly enough in his petition: he himself admitted that the inhabitants of his parish made a church-rate of six-pence in the pound; that was the rate laid by the parish; there was no question as to the power of making the rate. Mr. Baines not paying the rate, was cited to appear before the Borough magistrate, and he disputed the validity of the rate, a proceeding which necessarily implied that he was prepared to show, in the proper court, that it was not legal. Then, according to the law of this country, he did not say whether it were a politic law—the place for deciding this dispute was the Arches Court of Canterbury. The petitioner stated that he had received a citation from the Ecclesiastical Court, to; which he had given no attention. Now, was that a justifiable course? Was the Lords or Commons to say, so long as there was a court appointed to try such causes, that when that court, proceeding in the regular course, cites a party who questions the validity of the rate to appear and justify his conduct, the party should himself be permitted to decide that the law was not one to be obeyed, and that he would pay no attention to the citation? Was the House, in such a case, to come forward and pass a resolution in favour of such a person, on the ground that the law was oppressive? Could they keep up any law, if such a principle were sanctioned? What would be the rule of obedience? Mr. Baines thought the existence of rates for the support of an established church oppressive, and the decision of a court appointed by the law of the land to decide in such cases, was a violation of the rights of conscience. Another man might think the same thing of some other law. Another man might think it a violation of the rights of conscience, to be asked to contribute to the expenses of the army or the navy, or any tax to be used for the purposes of war or in a way to produce bloodshed. Another might deny the right to imprison, or take away life, according to the provision of the criminal law, and refuse to pay taxes for its enforcement. In this way the payment of any tax required for the support of the law, might be refused, on the ground that the particular individual felt it a violation of conscience to contribute to the expense of what he thought unlawful, unjust, or un-Christian. Where was the distinction to be drawn? How could they say that Mr. William Baines should have the right of deciding for himself, and of laying down what ought to be law, and that this or that law ought not to be obeyed, and that every other individual in the United Kingdom should not have the same right, and should not be equally entitled to come to the House for a resolution in his favour? It was not, therefore, because the question referred to the support of Church-rates, but because it concerned the support of the general laws of the kingdom, that he thought it impossible for the House to give its sanction to the resolution which his hon. Friend proposed. With respect to the general question of Church-rates, his hon. Friend had not entered much into it, and he did not think it necessary for him to go into it. He certainly regretted that there was not a mode of providing for the repair of churches which was less objectionable. But it was a very different thing to establish, either by a resolution, or by any bill brought forward in that House, the principle, or countenance the opinion, though held by several among the dissenters, that the payment of Church-rates ought to be refused, and the law of the land disobeyed, on the ground of conscience. He thought that opinion, though held by a great many respectable men, was not only incompatible with the existence of an established church, but with the maintenance of the general law of the land; neither was it an opinion countenanced by the early Christians. They paid tribute to the Roman Emperors, who, as they well knew, in many instances, devoted the money to the erection of temples to the heathen gods. The early Christians knew well that the most superstitious and abominable rights were often performed in those temples, and yet they were told by the highest authority that it was their duty to pay tribute. He could not understand how it could be a violation of the rights of conscience to be obliged to pay a sum of money for the support of a worship with which the individual did not agree. He wished to respect all conscientious feeling; but it was absurd to lay down a principle such as that a man would have only to pronounce the word "conscience" to be freed from the payment of legal demands. The petitioner spoke of its being unjust to confine him in a gaol for being guilty of no crime against soci- ety, but for merely carrying out the principles of a dissenter from the Established Church, and choosing to obey God rather than man. He (Lord J. Russell) had no doubt that such was the feeling of the petitioner, but he could not say that he exonerated him from being guilty of a crime against society. He thought that, in setting an example of disobedience to the established laws of the country, Mr. Baines was acting in a way to shake the authority of the law and the confidence and respect which ought to belong to it. With respect to adopting another mode of enforcing church-rates, that was a different question. There was one alteration of the law, which nothing but what appeared to him indifference on the part of dissenters with respect to the change had prevented from taking place—he meant an alteration which would transfer the enforcement of the law, such as it was, from the ecclesiastical to the civil courts. He (Lord J. Russell) could not see the propriety or advantage of such questions going before an ecclesiastical court, while, on the other hand, there was very great disadvantage attending it, and parties thought it a greater hardship to be summoned to appear before the ecclesiastical Courts than before others. If church-rates were levied by a court of quarter sessions, with appeal to the superior courts of common law, he thought they would form as fit a tribunal with regard to the payment of church-rates or tithes as any other. He trusted the House would not sanction the principle contained in this resolution. If it was thought better to abolish church-rates as altogether onerous and oppressive, let it be done upon the general grounds; but let them hot agree to a resolution, which, in sanctioning the refusal of church-rates, went to justify disobeying any law whatever. Mr. Hume said, the noble Lord had stated, with great propriety, that the mode in which church-rates were levied and resisted, tended to shake confidence in the law. There was no doubt that such was the case, and it was one of the arguments for abolishing them with every one who had attended to the question. It did shake the authority of the laws, and why? Because everything unjust and partial was liable to be shaken, and when a law was unjust and unequal, it ought to be shaken off. The noble Lord complained that individuals took the law into their own hands, and refused to sanction such proceedings; but it was the mode in which oppression had been shaken off in all ages. The noble Lord himself had concurred in that mode of proceeding. He was sorry to hear the noble Lord refer to the conduct of the Romans against the early Christians as a sanction for the collection of church-rates. He thought the noble Lord's own eloquent speeches had for ever silenced that argument when brought forward on the other side. He was sorry to find the noble Lord take up the exploded arguments of his adversaries. The noble Lord seemed to forget that the individual complained of the rate being levied at all. He prayed the House totally to abolish church-rates, or to exempt dissenters from the payment of them, and put an end to ecclesiastical jurisdiction, which, though sanctioned by law, was repudiated by religion. That was the ground on which they came before the House. The maintenance of the present law was inconsistent with declarations that had been made on the other side of the House. In alluding to the case of David Salomon, the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, had lately said that no man could be an honest man who contributed a portion of his substance to the maintenance of a temple devoted to worship of which he did not approve. What was the present law but a tyrannical attempt to make men guilty of this dishonesty? The hon. Baronet was consistent in everything that tended to the maintenance of the privileges of the Church; why was he not so far consistent as to come forward and exempt the dissenters from being called on to do what he said no honest man could do? He would leave the hon. Baronet to explain the agreement between his late declaration and his maintenance of church-rates. He had heard with great regret the noble Lord doubt how this could be a question of conscience with Mr. Baines. How could Mr. Baines give a stronger proof of his sincerity than by undergoing punishment? He had given the best possible proof of his character by his manner of acting. He preferred submitting to severe privation, rather than pay a tax for a purpose of which he could not conscientiously approve. But he begged to call the attention of the noble Lord to what the noble Lord himself had done in 1833. When Lord Althorp brought forward a motion for abolishing church-rates altogether, did not the noble Lord support the motion? Did not the whole Cabinet support it, and thereby declare that the tax ought to be abolished? Did they not make a proposition that church-rates should be abolished, and dissenters no longer pay a farthing of them? And did not the House adopt it by a large majority? He believed that 268 Members voted for that motion. The noble Lord calculated that, after certain deductions, 265,000l. would be necessary to maintain the fabric of the Church; and he proposed that that amount should be paid out of the consolidated fund. What was the meaning of that motion, if it was not condemnatory of the payment by dissenters of rates for the support of places of worship belonging to the Church? But the Government were not pledged by that alone. What had they done in Ireland? When it was complained that 76,000l. were paid as church cess by Catholics for maintaining the fabric of the Protestant. Church in Ireland, did not the noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire bring forward and carry a measure for the abolition of that tax? Was it not fair and just, after such a measure, to expect that no time would be lost in doing a similar act of justice to the dissenters of England? His hon. Friend had referred to the anxiety of feeling at Leicester upon the point. He (Mr. Hume), too, could vouch for it. He had attended at Leicester one of the largest and most important public meetings at which he had ever been present, and he never heard a more strong, decisive, and unanimous condemnation of the injustice of church-rates than that meeting expressed. He thought that, as the law stood, an individual suffering from it had no other way of seeking a remedy for the grievance than that which Mr. Baines had taken. His hon. Friend had made out a strong case, and he trusted the House would support the resolution, which proposed to put an end to the injustice. On these grounds he begged to second the motion.

Sir R. Inglis

said, the House could not have expected to be called upon so soon to; discuss this question after the recent assurance of the hon. Mover, that he would postpone the question of Church-rates until after Easter. He did not mean to say anything personally discourteous to that hon. Member, but he must remark that, in direct violation of the understanding of the House, the whole subject of Church-rates was now brought forward without the House having the opportunity of discussing any particular measure relating to it. With regard to the charge of inconsistency made against him, he was almost ashamed to repeat what he had so often said, that the distinction which he made was this, that, while he would do nothing voluntarily to contribute to education or worship alien from that which he believed to be the word and the doctrine of the Gospel, he would submit to the Jaw of the land, and so far as in him lay he would make his fellow-subjects submit to it, where it bound not themselves, but their property, to the support of a school or form of worship to which they might be as conscientiously opposed as he was to this proposition. The question was not what were the personal opinions of Mr. W. Baines; the question was, whether he occupied a tenement in the parish of St. Martin's in the borough of Leicester, subject to a Church-rate, and 'which, whether it wore occupied by Mr. David Salomons, Mr. Joseph Hume, Sir Robert inglis, or Mr. William Baines, would be subject to it. The question had not the least reference to the present opinions of the individual, but to the value of the tenement which he occupied. If that tenement remained unoccupied it paid nothing; but if occupied, whether by Jew, Turk, heretic, or infidel, it, paid the same sum. Mr. Baines occupied this tenement, knowing that it was liable to this imposition, and knowing that on this account he paid so much less rent for it, or if he bought it, that he paid a gross sum so much the less than if it had not been subject to this imposition. The resolution on the Table of the House was, that Mr. Baines had been sued for a sum of 21. 5.s. for Church-rates. Would the hon. Member deny that this tenement was subject to pay this sum long before Mr. Baines occupied it, perhaps long before Mr. Baines was torn, and would he deny that it would pay the same sum if he himself should occupy it to-morrow? Over and over again he had said, that this was not a question of creed bat of property. It was the property which paid and not the creed; and if they released the property from this imposition, they would give a premium to all persons to dissent from the Established Church. The only ground of nationality in the Church was, that the nation paid in this way for its support. The nation paid no thing in respect of tithes. Tithes were given antecedently to the time when any hon. Member could trace the possession of his property in the hands of those from whom he derived it. The only act by which the nation consecrated its substance in any degree, small as that degree was, to the support of the Church, was that by which the land was made liable to repair and maintain the fabric of the Established Church. The hon. Member (Dr. Nichol) appeared to dissent from his opinion; he (Sir R. Inglis) would hardly presume to contradict any statement made so authoritatively, but all his reading led him to the conclusion, that, from the earliest Saxon times, Church scot was distinctly binding upon all property in England to maintain the fabric of the Church, was as clear as any fact connected with our history. The oldest landed proprietor in England did not inherit his broad acres, or his castellated mansion on any other tenure than this; and, in stating this, he was only stating what he was sure every lawyer in the House was prepared to maintain. The law might be a bad one; if so, alter it; but while it remained unaltered every acre of land and every tenement in England was held subject to this imposition, varying, it might be, according to the incidents and necessities of each parish, but still subject to such; and, as he again repeated, having no more reference to the creed of the occupant than it had to the colour of his skin or the height of his stature. For these reasons he hoped, that the decision of the House would be on the present occasion, and hereafter on further discussions on this subject to reject the proposition which the hon. Member (Mr. Easthope) had advanced in defence, perhaps, of his friend and of the township with which he was connected, but still in defence of a proposition which was utterly untenable by him or by any other person.

Dr. Nicholl

did not concur in the opinion of his hon. Friend, the Member for Oxford, that this was an impost laid on by any fixed or definite statute, but it was one authorised and enforced by the common law of the land. It was an obligation imposed from time immemorial, and in saying this, he was supported by the authority of the Exchequer Chamber, in the Braintree Church-rate case. That bench, composed of eight of the most learned judges who ever graced any seat of judgment—men, too, differing from each other in political opinions, had expressed a unanimous opinion on the subject. They said, And we are all of opinion, that the obligation by which the parishioners, that is, the actual residents within, or the occupiers of lands or tenements in every parish, are bound to repair the body of the parish church whenever necessary; and to provide all things essential to the performance of Divine Service therein, is an obligation imposed on them by the common law of the land. Such then, being the law of the land, it follows, as a necessary consequence, that the repair of the fabric of the church is a duty which the parishioners are compellable to perform—not a mere voluntary act which they may perform or decline at their own discretion; that the law is imperative upon them absolutely, that they do repair the church, not binding on them in a qualified limited manner only, that they may repair or not, as they think fit; and that where it so happens that the fabric of the church stands in need of repair, the only question upon which the parishioners, when convened together to make a rate, can by law deliberate and determine, is not whether they will repair the church or not (for upon that point they are concluded by the law), but how and in what manner the common law obligation so binding them, may be best and most effectually, and at the same time most conveniently, performed and carried into effect. The parishioners have no more power to throw off the burden of the repair of the church, than that of the repair of bridges and highways, the compelling of the performance of the latter obligation belonging exclusively to the temporal courts, whilst that of the former has been exercised usually, though perhaps not necessarily exclusively, by the spiritual courts from time immemorial. He hoped the hon. Member for Leicester would not dispute the law of the Exchequer Chamber, however he might dissent from that of his hon. Friend. On the 28th August, Mr. Baines was summoned, but did not appear, and a Mr. Davies appeared for him. He was in the same situation as Thorogood was, and the magistrates had no power to proceed further, because he objected to the rate, and stated that he would object to its validity in the ecclesiastical court. The House was aware, that by the 53d Geo. 3., in reference to the summary jurisdiction of magistrates, it was enacted, that if the defendant attended and objected to the rate, and satisfied the bench that he intended to contest it in the ecclesiastical court, the summary jurisdiction of the magistrates, as against the goods of the party, was ousted, and the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical court established. Let Mr. Baines then reconcile it to his own conscience, if he could, to prove that fair honest, or plain dealing—let him reconcile it, if he could, to his own good sense, duty, or truth, to go before the magistrates and say, "I object to this rate, and intend to contest its validity in the ecclesiastical court," when at that very moment he had determined never to appear in that court, and never there to contest the validity of the rate. He was sure that the hon. Member for Leicester himself would not stand up and attempt to justify such a course. He was sure that that hon. Gentleman was a man of too high honour and principle to say that a man could thus, by a sort of false pretence, throw off the jurisdiction which properly attached to him. He could entertain a high respect for a man who was mistaken, or who resisted a law which he believed to be unjust; but he could have no sympathy with a man who did not boldly come forward, but who set forth an intention to dispute the validity of a rate in the ecclesiastical court, which at that time, he now told them, he never entertained, and that he could not even reconcile it to his conscience ever to go into that court. This gentleman was then cited by letters of request into the Court of Arches. He refused to appear. Written notices, extra-judicial notices, and letters were then sent him, that if he did not appear, he would be pronounced in contempt, and that in default proceedings would go on to trial. But after this he would not appear—he took no notice of it—the judge still held his hand he still delayed. He then directed a decree to stay proceedings, and delivered a formal notice. The judge gave him every opportunity to appear; he continued to delay three or four courts. At last the libel was admitted—witnesses were examined—the rate for the repair of the church made by the parish in vestry assembled, was proved—all the circumstances of the case were established that were necessary to constitute the validity of the rate, and at length he was condemned in the amount of the rate and costs. Again the judge held his hand for three or four court days—notice was given to him, that if he did not appear and pay the rate and costs, he would be pronounced in contempt. This went on from the middle of February to the end of the month of May, he believed, though he was not certain, and at last he was pronounced in contempt. His contempt was signified into the Court of Chancery. A writ was issued by that court. Mr. Baines went out of the way, and was not to be found; but on the last day of term, he applied to the Court of Queen's Bench for a rule to arrest proceedings. That hung up the case until after a long vacation and then the question was argued, when the judges decided that the proceedings had been regular, and refused a prohibition. He was then taken under a writ de contumace capiendo. He applied for a writ of habeas corpus, under which he was released. Again, the Court of Queen's Bench, after an argument of the case, refused the application. He then went to the Court of Chancery, and applied there for a writ of habeas corpus. Again, it was argued and determined before the Lord Chancellor; and, again, the Lord Chancellor decided that the whole of the proceedings had been regular. Now, he asked, if there could be any such gross personal wrong committed on this individual as had been stated?—Here was a sum of money which, by a law binding on all the inhabitants of this country, he was bound to pay. He had a remedy to throw it off; but he did not do so, and he chose to say, voluntarily, that he would appear in the ecclesiastical court. He refused there to appear, and then, necessarily, as he had prolonged the remedy against his property, the remedy attached against his person. Perhaps it was a convenient thing to be made a martyr of—perhaps the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Leicester, had no objection to become a martyr; but he assured him that he could not, for Lord Brougham's bill gave the power of proceeding against his goods, so that he could not enjoy the privilege. He thought that he had not "kept the word of promise to the ear and broke it to the hope," as the hon. Member (Mr. Easthope), did when he said he should confine himself to the case of Mr. Baines, instead of which he had spoken upon the general question of Church-rates; and he also thought he had shown that Mr. Baines was not entitled to the sympathy of this House; and he believed that, under the circumstances, the House would, without hesitation, negative the motion of the hon. Member.

Sir R. Inglis

explained, His hon. Friend (Dr. Nicholl) had misunderstood him. He had not referred to the statute law at all, but had said that the right of the Church of England was an antecedent right. But although he did not say it was created, he believed the right was confirmed by statute.

Mr. Hawes

said, that undoubtedly, it was exceedingly difficult to offer any observations upon the question now before the House, without taking the course, which the hon. Member for Leicester had been reminded of having taken, and mixing it up with the general question of Church-rates. It was extremely difficult; and while he wished on the one hand to keep closely to the case of Mr. Baines, on the other hand, he1 was aware that he might not, in the course of his observations, confine himself strictly to that question, apart from the subject of Church-rates. In noticing the remark of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Dr. Nicholl) he would say that, if he wished any arguments to furnish him with grounds to support the allegation of the petition, the the petitioner had been treated with harshness and injustice, he would wish no other grounds than the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman—because be considered that the party here suffering, however mistaken he might be,—and without raising the question of conscientious scruples, and how far these scruples were to be respected by the State, raised by the noble Lord,—he must say, when he saw a conscientious man in gaol for doing that which he believed to be his duty, the very steps taken in proceeding against him were sufficient to convince him that the petitioner had been treated with harshness. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that, if his bill of last year had been passed into a law, Mr. Baines would not be in prison; but, by that measure, had it been law, his goods would have been seized. Now a seizure of his goods would have been as much a violence to him, as a conscientious man, as the incarceration of his person. Undoubtedly, the hon. and learned Gentleman's measure might have mitigated the law and lessened the steps taken for the vindication of the supremacy of the law, ant) certainly, whatever he did in that direction, he (Mr. Hawes) should be found and happy to support him. But when he referred to his efforts, he would reply that the ecclesiastical commission, which sat ten years ago, recommended far better measures for that purpose than the bill which he (Dr. Nicholl) had recommended. He had no doubt, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman were not a Member of that commission, he had read their report. That report recommended much more than the hon. and learned Gentleman did; and though he had been in office since that time, and had sat a considerable time in the House of Commons, save and except his one effort of last Session, he had done nothing to relieve men who suffered from a conscientious objection to pay Church-rates. [Dr. Nicholl: Look at the bill of 1835.] It was of no use to refer him to that bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman should point out an Act of Parliament. He must say, whether it was to one Government or to another—and he thought the report dated further back than 1830, he believed 1829,—it was a reproach to them and to this House, that from that time to this, no steps had been taken to carry any of the recommendations of that report into effect. The noble Lord (Lord ohn Russell) had said, that any scruples of conscience which an individual entertained were not to be considered, because it might happen that he contravened some law of the State, and any individual might take it into his head to have this or that scruple of conscience; this was not to be considered, because the general interest of the State demanded that the law should he supreme. To that, as a general maxim, he (Mr. Hawes) perfectly agreed; but he drew a distinction between the laws which were necessary for the security of the State, for the protection of property, and for the preservation of order, and those laws which were enacted for the maintenance of a religion. He did not connect the security or stability of the State with the maintenance, by national taxation, of a sectarian church. He did not connect the two—he did not see their necessary connexion—he had never seen their necessary connexion—and when he had referred to the laws relating to the repairs of bridges and highways, or any other common object, the answer had been, that the people generally, without distinction of sect, derived benefit from these objects on which a portion of the national fund was expended. But that was not the case with respect to the Church. He did not wish to say anything that was calculated to bring that Church into disrepute, or to injure it, but he must frankly state to the House, that he never connected its stability with the taxation of those who conscientiously differed from its creed; and he must, therefore, take leave to say that, with regard to civil and religious institutions, there was a broad and clear line to be drawn; and as to the reference which the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had mad to other and higher authority, he met that by saying, that that "tribute," so far as we had any information, was not exclusively applied to the maintenance of the Pagan religion, but generally to the purposes of the state of Rome. Therefore, so far as that was the case, he took leave, with the greatest deference to the noble Lord, to say that his reference did not carry with it a perfect and entire conviction. The hon. and learned Member (Dr. Nicholl) had made a distinction between what he called mere statutary law and mere common law. He owned that he preferred, on all occasions, statutary law to common law. He was quite aware that he was an ignorant and unlearned man; but he admitted that he had a kind of English preference for statute law in contradistinction to common law, which, as far as he knew anything about it, was what any judge might, at any time, declare to be his interpretation of former usages and customs. As compared with that sort of law then, he preferred statute law. His opinion was, that the observation of the hon. and learned Member rather indicated the prejudices which belonged to his profession than the matured conviction of the judgment. The hon. and learned Gentleman would bind all parties to the sustentation of the Church; but there was this omission in that part of his argument—he never told the House how the common law was to be carried into effect. And that was precisely the whole difficulty of the ease. According to the practice, a majority in any parish deckled the question that was touched upon with the greatest possible discretion but extreme delicacy. How, if it be the common law of the land, was it to be en forced by reference to the ecclesiastical courts? How were these courts to enforce what were deemed to be the provisions of the common law 'Why, they had no means of enforcing them. Mr. Baines was not now in prison for violating the comment law. He was in gaol for one of two things—either for contempt, or for a common debt and costs. In such cases, the ecclesiastical court treated men as debtors, created enormous costs, and then placed them in gaol for not paying the debt and these costs. He contended that that was a gross and crying abuse—one that called for a remedy—and one that this House had on more than one occasion expressed a decided opinion upon, and yet it had never met the least attention from the noble Lord, the leader of this House. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis), had, in his opinion, taken a most extraordinary and baneful argument. He said, that Church-rates were a necessary incident to property. Now, he would say, in reply to that, that if they were a necessary incident to property, it was strange that it should depend on the decision of the majority of a parish whether the property in that parish should bear them or not. How could this argument be applied to Church-rates? For property had always endured, and it followed, from a logical deduction, that Church-rates must always endure; whereas, the fact was that the majority of a parish could refuse them, and the great majority of the population of the three kingdoms believed them to be founded in injustice. There must be a fallacy then in the argument which necessarily connected Church-rates with property; whilst there was much troth in this, that a Church-rate was a kind of contribution in aid of tithe for the support of the Church, and dependent entirely on the will of the majority of a parish—which might be paid or withheld; and if withheld there was no means of enforcing its payment, either by the statute or the common law. [An hon. Member: "No, no."] The hon. and learned Gentleman must feel, of course, that an argument of this sort coming from him (Mr. Hawes) could have no weight whatever as against the arguments which the hon. and learned Member's knowledge of the law had enabled him to advance; but all he could say was, that, from the best attention he had been able to give to the subject, this was the view he entertained, and which he knew was entertained by a large majority of people out of doors; and, if he were not very much mistaken, it was the opinion entertained, and that in print, by as hon. and learned Gentleman who now occupied a high legal and judicial station. Were church-rates to be allowed to continue as at present? Was the law to be made more stringent and more bitter, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said? The law as it stood was a disgrace and scandal to the country. The ecclesiastical commission had recommended making the law more stringent. He knew why that recommendation was not adopted. The remedy was so severe that a Government calling itself Liberal dared not adopt it. Did they forget that church-rates had been abolished in Ireland? Did they forget that they did not exist in Scotland? Why were not Scotland and Ireland to pay for what was called a national Church; were we one or three nations? Was the peace of the Church—was the peace of every parish, to be ruined in favour of the wealthiest establishment known to exist on the face of the earth? If this state of things continued, you might do all you could by the learning, piety, and activity of your clergy—you might do all you could by a powerful party in this House, but you would still have the seeds of discord and unhappiness which would one day do much injury to the Church. He therefore believed, that the interests of the Church were bound up with this question. He did not believe, that Dissenters were so bad as to entertain those feelings hostile to the Church which had been ascribed to them. He did not believe, that they were jealous of the property of the Church. They knew of a principle which was a stronger foundation for their faith than that on which the Church relied, and never until the Church of England adopted the principle on which other churches had risen to greatness, would she become more powerful. He did not wish to injure the Church, as a Church, but to remove every just ground of complaint.

Sir Robert Peel

hoped, that the House would not allow itself to be diverted, by any observations that had been made, into the consideration of any matter extraneous to that which was properly the subject before it. The question before them was not whether there ought to be an alteration in church-rates; it was not whether it was to substitute any maintenance for the Church in lieu of that which existed; it was not whether the ecclesiastical courts' jurisdiction in these matters should be abolished; it was not whether the amount of fees exacted in these cases were excessive; but the single question before them was this: whether the House of Commons would lend its sanction to this proposition—that there were to be certain exceptions allowed to a due obedience to the law of the land, provided a man alleged a conscientious scruple—whether that would entitle him to violate the law, for that was the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, when he called upon them to sanction by their acquiescence this resolution:—"That to imprison William Baines for refusing to contribute towards the expenses attending the worship of the Established Church, from which he conscientiously dissents, is to punish him for acting in accordance with what he regards as a religious duty, and is a violation of the principles of religious freedom." Thus is was that the House of Commons, one branch of the Legislature, which did not apply itself to an alteration in the law, was called upon to' sanction disobedience to the law by William Baines. Where was there to be a limit to this principle? Who was to decide what was a conscientious scruple? The hon. Member for Kilkenny had given them his test, for he had found how difficult it was to dive into the human heart, to penetrate all its secret workings, and trace out all its motives, and thus to determine whether or not a man felt a conscientious scruple, and thereupon the hon. Member supplied them with a test; for he said, that provided a man went to prison and remained there for four months, they might believe that he had a conscientious scruple. But how would they limit that test? Was it to be referred only to matters of religion, or was it to go further? Taxes were necessary to be provided for carrying on war. Some men objected to war, and might object to pay taxes to be applied to that object, and a man might prefer going to prison, rather than pay such taxes. According to the hon. Gentleman's lest, by his doing so, he would give a decided proof of the sincerity of his opinion, and therefore would it be contended, that he ought to be relieved from the payment of taxes? But then the h n. Gentleman said, he could draw another distinction. He said, that conscientious scruples may apply to matters of religion, and the hon. Gentleman said, that in Scotland property was exempted from church-rates. He apprehended that was not the case. He apprehended, that if the hon. Gentleman, being a member of the Episcopalian Church, purchased a large estate in Scotland, he would find himself called upon to contribute to the Presbyterian form of worship. Having then purchased the property, and made a handsome deduction from the purchase, as he had no doubt the hon. Member would, on account of the payment of church-rates, and if he then said, that he had a conscientious scruple to the payment of them, why, in that case, they might be called upon to affirm, that the imprisonment of Benjamin Hawes for refusing to contribute towards the expenses attaching to the worship of the Presbyterian Church, from which he conscientiously dissented, was to punish him for acting in accordance with what he regarded as a religious duty, and was a gross violation of the principle of religious freedom. Why, lie asked, was not the resolution to apply as well to Episcopalians who alleged a conscientious scruple, as well as to others? But supposing that Mr. Baines made an objection to tithes. The hon. Gentleman said, religious scruples ought to be protected, and that he would draw a clear distinction between that, which being contributed for the State, was for the benefit of all, and that which was contributed for religion, and, therefore, for the benefit of a few. The hon. Gentleman made an exception on account of religion. Let them suppose, then, that Mr. Baines was now a prisoner because he had a religious objection to the payment of tithes—what, then, would be said by them. Why not, then, declare that it was a violation of religious freedom to insist upon his payment of tithes? for if the hon. Gentleman were right in his principle as applied to Church-rates, why not also extend it to tithes? That was a matter of religion, Church-rates were ancillary to tithes, and it was difficult to distinguish where it was that the conscientious scruple was to be respected, and where disregarded. But were they quite sure that they would limit their conscientious scruples to religious matters merely? He turned to some petitions that had been presented on the subject of the poor-law, and he found in them conscientious scruples put forward very prominently; and he wished to know, if these were to be made the palliation for a disobedience to the law? He found, for instance, in a petition that had been presented a few days before, that it was stated that under the New Poor-law a new system of persecution had been commenced against the Dissenters—that they were by it deprived of their religious riles, and that, as their ancestors had been imprisoned in gaols, they, their descendants, were now imprisoned in the workhouse. Another said, that it was against religion—"adverse to justice, humanity, and the principles of Christianity." There were, too, a great number of persons who objected to patronage in Scotland, and designated it "a lording over God's territory." If the law were complained of, the law ought to be altered, and no person belonging to the Established Church ought to set himself in violation of the law; for that, he thought, was the sentiment expressed by one hon. Gentleman. Suppose those parties had conscientious scruples. How was it that the hon. Member for Kilkenny who was ready to concur in this resolution giving perfect impunity on account of religious scruples, was so intolerant last Session, when certain parties in the Church of Scotland claimed the right of violating the law on the ground of religious scruples? Suppose those parties were ready to go to prison, and thus supply that test of sincerity which the hon. Member for Kilkenny said was clear and unerring, would that hon. Member concur in supporting a resolution that those persons who thus supplied him with a proof of their sincerity were justified on the ground of their religious scruples? He apprehended the true and only safe principle to be, that while the law remained in force, it must be obeyed. Alter the law if they pleased: but while it remained in force there would be a dissolution of the bonds of society if, upon the allegation of religious scruples, individuals should presume to violate it. It would, again, be a violation in all respects of authority if the House of Commons—one branch of the Legislature—were to sanction the principle that a man who urged conscientious scruples as a reason for violating the law was justified in such violation. But suppose the House of Commons to be willing to make an exception, what would be the result? Let them look at it with regard to the New Poor-law. Were there not many men who felt conscientious scruples with respect to that law? Were there not men who thought, or at least alleged, that it was a violation of the law of God to compel persons to go into the workhouse as a condition of relief? How could they presume to determine whether the allegation was true, whether the scruples were conscientious, and, after passing a resolution, that, in a particular case, they would refrain from punishing disobedience to the law because the violator acted in accordance with his sense of religious duty, how could they invoice the power of the law in other cases where conscientious scruples were alleged? The resolution proposed was perfectly indefinite in its application. It ran thus:— That thus to imprison William Baines for refusing to contribute towards the expenses attending the worship of the Established Church, from which he conscientiously dissents, is to punish him for acting in accordance with what he regards as a religious duty, and is a violation of the principles of religious freedom. Mr. Baines did not ask the House to pass this resolution. He prayed the House to abolish Church-rates or to exempt Dissenters from the payment of them, and to put an end to the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts. He only prayed for an alteration of the law. Let the House, then, attempt an alteration of the law if they thought fit, but to pass a resolution vindicating one individual for a violation of the law, and sanctioning that violation, was perfectly different from condemnation of the law and attempting to alter it. As to the question of the policy of Church-rates, he had, on a former occasion, given his opinion, and he would not enter upon a discussion of it now, as he considered it perfectly distinct from the present question. He entreated the House to bear in mind the danger of the principle they were called upon to establish. He asked them 10 do so for the sake of their own authority; for if the House of Commons assumed to itself the right to determine in what cases the law should be violated, and in what respected, their own authority would be questioned and condemned, and they would not be enabled to support their own decrees. The courts of law were bound to submit to the law, and not to the orders of the House of Commons; and if they passed this resolution, they would, in the first place, be setting a precedent pregnant with the most dangerous consequences; and, in the second place, they would prove the inefficacy of their own power; for when they had passed this resolution, it might indeed lead to an alteration of the law; but while the law remained, it must be obeyed, if they would secure the liberty of the subject.

Mr. Elliott

begged, in giving his vote, to say, that he must not be understood to compromise himself upon the subject of Church-rates, while giving a vote in opposition to a motion made in favour of a person who had set himself against the law of the land.

Mr. Easthope

said, that the country would be likely to imagine, from the manner in which Mr. Baines, and those who, like him, had resisted the payment of Church-rates, and suffered for that resistance, had been designated by the House, that those who supported the resolution were exerting themselves in behalf of a capricious individual who alleged that he had conscientious scruples, and, therefore, demanded to be excused from obedience to the law. Now, he asked was that a fair statement of the case? Mr. Baines acted in strict pursuance of the spirit of a resolution agreed to by that House, a resolution which the House had pronounced in a similar case, and which resolution asserted, in effect, that the punishment to which Mr. Baines was subjected was undue, unmerited, and improper. Mr. Baines had not violently, captiously, or riotously infringed the law; on the contrary, he had yielded obedience to the law. He was at that moment suffering one of the severest penalties of the law, and he came to that House to tell them that he was suffering such penalty, and to appeal to their justice and consideration, and to ask whether it was a proper penalty for that which, although the law pronounced to be an offence, he had a right to consider not opposed to the expressed sense of that House. He further told the House that he had acted under the impulse of conscience. He was not a capricious, captious, disobedient individual, but he was a conscientious—a really conscientious man. He had not resisted a claim as a mere question of money, but he questioned the principle on which the money was demanded, and so he (Mr. Easthope) ventured to tell that House, backed by the avowal of 30,000 persons, in one form or another—the majority of Mr. Baines's neighbours. Now, he (Mr. Easthope)would ask whether, in a British House of Commons, the conduct of Mr. Baines ought to be described to the world as the act of a capricious man, under a fancied notion that he had scruples of conscience, and improperly asking, in consequence, to be exempted from obedience to the laws? Mr. Baines had told them, as he had a right to tell thorn, that the state of the law had subjected him to grievous oppression. He told them, as they had been told by all the large town? in the kingdom, that the state of the law was such that it could not be enforced. He should like to see it attempted to In-enforced according to the interpretation put upon it by the hon. and learned Member for Cardiff. lie felt himself placed in some difficulty by the pledge he had given not to go into the gem-rat question of the abolition of Church-rates; and here, in reference to what had been said by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis) he begged leave to state, that he had most faithfully adhered to his pledge. What ever inconvenience it had caused him, he had adhered to the specific question of the case of Mr. Baines, and had carefully avoided entering into the general question, He did hope that the Dissenters, and all those who felt with the Dissenters, for they were not alone in their feeling respecting this impost, and of this fact he could adduce the town of Leicester as a strong proof—he did hope, notwithstanding what had been stated in that House, notwithstanding that they might subject themselves to the character of capricious individuals who sought to disobey and oppose the law, that entertaining as they did conscientious objections, to this impost, they would manifest those objections, that they would represent respectfully, obediently, but firmly and unflinchingly, the sorrow and suffering they experienced under the law as it stood, until that House yielded to the expression of that sorrow and suffering—suffering and wrongs which at present prevailed, to the oppression of conscience, the injury of society, and the danger of the Church itself.

Mr. Halford

begged to vindicate the people of Leicester from the imputation of partaking of the spirit in which the opposition to Church-rates was carried on. He felt himself entitled on the part of the great proportion of the people of Leicester to repudiate the assertion.

Mr. Easthope

said, that be had not spoken of the entire town of Leicester, He had stated that 30,000 of the inhabitants concurred in opinion with Mr. Baines, and he had evidence of the fact. Twenty thousand of the inhabitants had unanimously elected Mr. Baines a town-councillor since he had been thrown into prison. Seven thousand females had signed an address in his favour; and he had presented a petition, containing four thousand signatures, praying for his release; and he thought, under these circumstances, that he had not overstated the number of those who concurred with Mr. Baines in opinion.

The House divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 45:—Majority 5,

List of the AYES.
Barnard, E. G. Pechell, Captain
Berkeley, hon. H Philips, M.
Brocklehurst, J. Salwey, Colonel
Brotherton, J. Scholefield, J.
Dennistoun, J. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Duke, Sir J. Strickland, Sir G.
Duncombe, T. Strutt, E.
Dundas, C. W. D, Style, Sir C.
Ellis, W. Tancred, H. W.
Evans, G. Thornley, T,
Fielden, J. Turner, R.
Greg, R. H. Warburton, H,
Hector, C.,J. Ward, H. G.
Hindley, C. White, A.
Johnson, G, Williams, W.
Lushington, C. Wood, G. W.
Marsland, H. Wood, B.
Martin, J. Yates, J. A.
Morris, D.
Muskett, G. A. TELLERS.
O'Connell, J. Easthope, W.
Pease, J. Hume, J.
List of the NOES.
Adam, Admiral Inglis, Sir R. H.
Alston, H. James, Sir W.C.
Baldwin, C. B. Jones, J.
Bolling, W. Mahon, Lord Visct.
Broadley, H. Maunsell, T. P.
Bruges, W. H. L, Melgund, Viscount
Burr, H. Miles, W.
Campbell, Sir, J. Miles, P. W.S.
Chetwynd, Major Morgan, O.
Darby, G. Morpeth, Viscount
Drummond, H. H. Nicholl, J.
Estcourt, T. Packe, C. W.
Farnham, E. B. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Gisborne, T. Pusey, P.
Gladstone, J. N. Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Rolleston, L.
Grimsditch, T. Rose, rt, hon. Sir G.
Halford, H. Round, C. C.
Hope, hon. C. Russell, Lord J.
Hope, G. W. Seymour, Lord
Howard, P. H. Teignmouth, Lord
Trotter, J. TELLERS.
Troubridge, Sir E. T. Stanley, E. J.
Worsley, Lord Elliott, hon. J. E.

Resolution negatived.

Adjourned.