Commons Sitting of 16 May 1855

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Bills of Lading; Bankruptcy (Ireland); Absconding Debtors (Ireland).
2° Education of Pauper Children; Church-Rates Abolition (No. 2); Carlisle Canonries.

EDUCATION OF PAUPER CHILDREN BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
SIR WILLIAM CLAYsaid, he would appeal to the hon. Member for Malton (Mr. E. Denison) to allow the Church-Rate Abolition (No. 2) Bill, which stood next to the Bill for the Education of Pauper Children, to be taken before that Bill. In practical effect, the Church-Rate (No. 2) Bill was the same as that which he (Sir W. Clay) was about to withdraw, and the only reason for its introduction was to get rid of some errors which had crept into the first Bill.
MR. EVELYN DENISONsaid, he had no doubt it was the general wish of the House to proceed at once with the second reading of the important Bill for the abolition of church-rates. At the same time it would be a great sacrifice on his part entirely to let slip that opportunity of advancing his Bill for the education of pauper children one stage. The Bill was a very short one; there was no objection to its principle; and he might say, indeed, that
664
he had received very general assurances of support. In acceding, therefore, to the request of the hon. Baronet, he would venture to ask the House to allow his Bill to be read a second time without discussion, pledging himself to give hon. Members an opportunity of expressing their opinions upon the Motion for going into Committee.
MR. BAINESsaid, he hoped the House would agree to the proposition of the hon. Member for Malton. He was anxious that the Bill should be proceeded with, believing that it was calculated to do a great deal of good, and he would be happy to render his best assistance to the hon. Member for Malton, to whom the country was deeply indebted for introducing his measure for the education of pauper children. It was within his own knowledge that many boards of guardians, including some of the best—among others, that of the township of Manchester—had for years been anxious to possess the very powers which the present Bill proposed to confer upon them.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he did not think it would be fair or reasonable to call upon the hon. Member for Malton to give up the advantage to which he was entitled, his Bill standing first among the Orders of the Day; but, on the other hand, he for one was willing to accede to the proposal which the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Sir W. Clay) had made.
Bill read 2°.

CHURCH-RATES ABOLITION (No. 2) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
SIR WILLIAM CLAYsaid, that, in moving the second reading of this Bill, it would be his duty to state fully and clearly, however concisely, the scope, character, and objects of the measure, and the nature of the provisions by which those objects were sought to be attained. In one respect at least his task would be an easy one. In ordinary cases, when Members introduced a measure for the alteration of an existing law, they were expected, and justly, to state to the House the grounds upon which they rested the necessity of that alteration. From any such duty he was happily relieved, as partly from the frequent discussions which the question of church-rates had undergone, yet more, perhaps, from the progress of events, the debateable ground was much narrowed, and there was an almost entire unanimity of opinion as to

665
the necessity of some alteration of the existing law. The only doubt that remained was, as to the extent and character of the alteration. To that point, therefore, he would address himself, and after explaining to the House the nature of his measure, he should contrast it with the other schemes that had been devised for the same object. The first clause of the Bill provided—and that was its main principle—for the entire abolition of church-rates. The second clause, in conformity with the Bill of last year, continued church-rates, in so far as they were necessary for the liquidation of debt contracted on the security of rates levied under existing Acts of Parliament. The third clause provided, that to churchwardens should be confided, as heretofore, the entire power of providing for the repairs and maintenance of the church, and for defraying the charges incident to the performance of divine service. (Here the hon. Gentleman remarked on the absence of persons connected with the Government.) He had been in communication with several Members of the Government, and he certainly had the impression that the assent of the Government to his Bill depended upon the nature of the explanation which he was now addressing to the House. It was not his fault if no Cabinet Minister was present, and he could only say that he would do his best to persuade the House that the provisions of his Bill were such as ought to receive the sanction both of the Government and of Parliament. Returning to the third clause, he had a two-fold motive in retaining churchwardens in the discharge of their present duties. In the first place, he thought it most important to make as little change as possible in our existing laws and institutions. Change was itself an evil, only to be encountered upon some clearly proved necessity, and in this case he did not think such a necessity existed. It should not be forgotten, moreover, that churchwardens had other duties besides those of attending to the repair of churches; they were the ecclesiastical representatives of the parish; they were the officers of the bishop, to whom it was their duty to report any irregularity on the part of the incumbent, and to see that divine service was properly performed; and he believed that in the case of a vacancy it was their duty to take charge of the benefice. Their ordinary and especial duties—those, namely, connected
666
with the maintenance of the fabric of the Church and the celebration of divine service—were regulated alike by usage and by legal decisions, and it seemed to him highly inexpedient to vest their powers in any new functionaries, and thus, perhaps, add supererogatory difficulties to the first working of a measure, most necessary no doubt, but involving great change. He had interfered as little as possible with the status of churchwardens. He had adapted it merely to the altered state of things he contemplated. They would have the same powers and duties (with the single exception of imposing a compulsory rate), and be liable to the same censures and liabilities. They would have the power of receiving voluntary subscriptions and collecting pew rents, in cases were pew rents were imposed, and he had put into the clause words which would give a power large enough to cover any expenditure that might be necessary for the church. He had been asked what precaution he took against the appointment of churchwardens hostile to the church, and who might, therefore, be disposed to misapply the funds that were intrusted to their charge. His answer was, that he anticipated no practical difficulty on that score. The cases were very few in which the rector or minister did not himself appoint one churchwarden—there certainly were instances in which vestries appointed both, but these were exceedingly rare; but even where both were appointed by the vestry he had the most perfect confidence that they would never be found acting in the way some people apprehended. During the contests that took place with reference to church-rates, there might be some temptation to act from feelings of partisanship; but, when parishes were no longer subject to the imposition of these rates, it would be nothing but a mere feeling of gratuitous malignity that would lead people to elect churchwardens on the ground that they were hostile to the Church. Nothing could be more improbable than such an election; but were persons found to accept the office of churchwarden with such views, it should not be forgotten that they would be subject to the penalties for malversation provided at present by the law; and, in addition, the Bill made provision for auditors, whose duty it would be to review the expenditure of the churchwardens. The next section put it in the power of parishes,

667
if they so thought fit, to allot a certain number of pews, the rents of which might be applied to the objects to which church-rates are now applicable. He knew that objections, partly of a religious and partly of a popular kind, had been taken to this part of the Bill. The objections to pews he believed to be rather a Roman Catholic than a Protestant feeling. Protestant worship was essentially spiritual in its nature. Roman Catholic worship partook more of a ceremonial character. In Roman Catholic places of worship the congregation might almost be said to worship through the intervention of their priest, and the form of service in which they engaged required that the congregation should be, as it were, one with the priest, and separated from him by no barrier. On the other hand, Protestant congregations worshipped less through the intervention of their ministers. Their worship consisted in concentration of thought and homage individually offered, and the privacy of pews was not at variance with that spirit. The whole stream of practice and usage, at all events, was in favour of pews, and the principle had received the sanction both of the highest authorities of the Church and of that House. On this point, therefore, there could be no well-grounded objection to this part of the Bill. But those who took up what he might call the popular view of the question, said he was going to deprive the Church of England of the feelings and affections of the people, for it was the poor man's Church [Cheers]. Hon. Members opposite cheered that statement. It might be new to many, but it was not the less true that, though the poor man had a right to go into the Church, it was a barren right. He might enter its doors, but he had no assurance that he would find more room than he could place his foot upon. It was in the power of the bishop or churchwardens, with consent of the ordinary, to allot to individuals for pews or private sittings the whole area of the Church, and he begged to tell the House that by the Bill which he now proposed, the poor man would for the first time have a right to the free use and enjoyment of his parish church, because it was provided that one-third of the pews in every parish church should be reserved and remain for free sittings. The next section related to the appointment of auditors by the vestries. He left the nomination of auditors with the vestries, because
668
it would be the most open and popular way of appointing them, and would give, therefore, popular control over the expenditure, and tend to check any possible tendency to fantastic views in dealing with the Church or celebrating divine service. These auditors would be chosen from the owners or occupants of pews, and would meet twice a year to examine the estimates and pass the accounts of the churchwardens. It was provided also that the balance of all moneys in the hands of the churchwardens at the expiration of their tenure of office should be handed over to their successors, failing which, they were to be liable to an action for debt by the succeeding churchwardens. The House would see from the explanation he had given, that the two main principles of the Bill were the abolition of church-rates and the removal of all difficulties that lay in the way of obtaining voluntary subscriptions, &c. The questions for the House to decide were, first, whether any change of the law was necessary; and, secondly, whether the change he proposed was the best that could be made? On the former, as he had already said, there appeared to him but little room for remark. Since the decision in the Braintree case the law was, that a church-rate could not be levied unless agreed to by a majority of the ratepayers in vestry. There existed, therefore, no longer any impression that, apart from the determination of the vestry, there was on any one a legal obligation to pay church-rates. In every parish of the kingdom the obtaining a rate was by the law itself proposed as the object of contest, and success in the miserable strife was viewed by the parties opposed to the rate as a simple assertion of power on the part of a portion of the parish to tax for their own benefit the rest of their fellow-parishioners. It was easy to understand the bitter and hostile feelings which such a state of things was sure to engender. If the House wished to see these unseemly contests raging in parishes they would refuse to alter the existing state of things; but if, as he believed, they sincerely wished to put an end to all such scenes, they would consent to the total abolition of compulsory church-rates, as the only mode of putting a stop to contests injurious, not to the interests of the Church alone, but of religion itself. The nation was sick of the present state of things, and members of the Church, as well as Dissenters, felt it to be intolerably painful

669
and wearisome. There was, however, one exception to this feeling. He observed that a right rev. Prelate, in another place, had expressed his opinion that it was mere weakness and pusillanimity to talk of the abandonment of church-rates, because there was no law to enforce their being made; and he went on to state that parties refusing to do their duty in this respect of church-rates might be excommunicated, or, in lieu of excommunication, since the Act of 53 Geo. III., might be imprisoned. Now, just let the House imagine such a proceeding attempted in any great town such as Manchester, or Leeds, or Liverpool. It was lamentable to see men in high places so incapable of observing the signs of the times as to suppose it possible to roll back the tide of public feeling, or to think it decent, or even safe, to bring forth again from the dark recesses where they had reposed amid forgotten abominations the rusty weapons of religious intolerance and to burnish them up afresh for a warfare from which even Laud would have shrunk. If such were the sentiments of the Church of England, and if such sentiments were to be carried into action, great and venerable as she was, he would not promise her six months' existence. Happily, however, all the dignitaries of the Church did not hold such opinions, for the Archbishop of Canterbury had introduced a Bill into the other House for the alteration of the law relating to church-rates, and he (Sir William Clay) felt that he need adduce no further evidence as to the universal conviction of the necessity of change than the introduction of such a measure by such an authority. Considering, then, the necessity of change to be admitted, it remains to be considered in what mode that change could be best effected. Many efforts had been made to settle this question by legislation, but all of them had hitherto failed. He had, on a former occasion, given a statement of the several measures that had been within the last twenty years abortively brought forward, and need not now advert to them. No plans of a similar character to those proposed by Lord Grey's or Sir Robert Peel's Government—indeed, that was to say, any charge on the taxes of the country, would, he was certain, be ever again submitted to Parliament. It was only necessary to refer for a moment to the proposition brought forward last year by an hon. and learned Gentleman, to exempt from payment of church-rates
670
all who declared themselves to be Dissenters. The scheme was not favourably received either by the Church or the Nonconformists; and, as he (Sir W. Clay) thought, for very sufficient reasons. It would open a wide door to hypocrisy and fraud, whilst, by calling the attention of men to the differences of religious opinion between themselves and their neighbours, it would increase and exacerbate feelings which it should be rather the aim of legislation to obliterate or soften. Again, a scheme had been proposed by an hon. Gentleman opposite—the Member for Northamptonshire—by which it was proposed to charge the maintenance of the fabric of the church on the land by a separate rate, while, from the rate to be levied for the expenses of the performance of Divine service. Dissenters might be relieved by a declaration of dissent. This plan it was yet less necessary to discuss, as it combines all that was objectionable in all former plans, and would assuredly not obtain any support in that House. Another mode of altering the existing law had been pointed out in The Edinburgh Review, by some persons evidently friendly to the Church; and the plan was ingenious and in some respects new. The proposition was to abolish church-rates as respected the expense of the ministration of Divine worship, and to throw the expense of the repair and maintenance of the fabric of the Church on the county rates; the nature and necessity of any proposed repair to be decided on by the county surveyors. A separate account was to be kept of the money so expended on the Church, and every person, without being obliged to define his peculiar form of dissent, should be at liberty to relieve himself from the payment of that portion of the county rate, on stating that he had conscientious objections to the payment. The House would see that this plan resolved itself entirely into a reliance on the voluntary principle, and in that respect it resembled his; but the reliance was less secure. A man might take a deep interest in the maintenance of his own parish church, which he regularly frequented, which was connected probably with his earliest and most sacred associations of thought, but the same feeling was not likely to operate on his mind with respect to a church situate in a different part of the county which he might never have seen, and the care and preservation he might think himself quite entitled to leave to those by whom it was frequented.

671
He might be asked, why he did not propose to take, for the object he had in view, the surplus revenues of the episcopal and capitular estates. In the first place, he believed there was a growing indisposition to divert whatever surplus might arise from the better administration of the Church estates from the purposes of the spiritual instruction of the people. Moreover, while there should exist a fund to which the sordid and those unwilling to subscribe might apply, that circumstance would always operate as an excuse for their not coming forward with voluntary contributions. Therefore, though he admitted that the surplus revenue of the Church might fairly be applied to the object, yet he had not thought it right to introduce into the Bill a provision to that effect. If the Government, however, thought proper to engraft such a principle on the Bill, he should not object. Under these circumstances, he asked the House to assent to his Bill; he believed, in the first place, that it would give perfect contentment to those who had so long and so earnestly sought for the abolition of church-rates; no small merit in a measure of relief. With regard to the maintenance of the fabric of the Church, he could not for a moment bring himself to believe that its members, who in the aggregate formed the richest community in the world, having by far the largest portion of the land of England in their possession, would ever submit to make it manifest to the world, that without compulsion they would not pay even for keeping in repair those venerable structures which had been handed down to them from their forefathers, but would call upon the Dissenters to lend them assistance? Such an idea, if suggested by an enemy, would be considered an insult, and was, indeed, in direct contradiction to facts. During the last half century more churches had been erected than during the previous 500 years. In the last half century between 2,000 and 3,000 churches had been erected in England. In the first thirty years of that half century 500 churches were built, costing 3,000,000 l. Of that sum 1,152,044 l., or 35 per cent, came from the State, and 1,847,956 l., or 65 per cent, from private sources. In the last twenty years of the half-century there had been built 2,059 churches, costing 6,087,000 l.; and of that sum 511,385 l., or 8¾ per cent, came from the State, and 5,575,615 l., or 91⅔ per cent, from private sources. In Liverpool,
672
where recently there had been great excitement and fierce contests on the subject of church-rates, he found that while the two parish churches were capable of accommodating only 2,600 persons; there were fifty-six churches, capable of affording accommodation to 60,679, built by voluntary subscription; and the expense of maintaining and repairing the fabric, and of the ministration of Divine service, was wholly raised by subscription among the members of the Church. In addition, there were in eighty-seven Protestant Non-conformist places of worship, accommodating upwards of 55,000 persons. Yet, in such a place, a church-rate was demanded, as if it were probable in the very smallest degree, that the persons who had built those churches and chapels, would not also keep in repair the two parish churches? In point of fact, had it been found that in those places where church-rates had been abolished, the churches had fallen into decay from any want of funds? On the contrary, there was unvarying evidence to show that money for the repair of the churches was more readily raised than during the continuance of church-rates. In illustration of this statement, he might refer to a petition from Boston, which he held in his hand, setting forth that the refusal of church-rates in that town had not been found to cause any difficulty in meeting the expenses of conducting public worship in the parish church, but, on the contrary, those expenses were cheerfully met by subscriptions and collections, and a third Sunday full service had since been introduced; that whereas, during the time when church-rates were levied, extensive repairs and improvements in the fabric, although greatly needed, could not be executed for want of the requisite funds, since the time when church-rates ceased to be levied, extraordinary repairs, restorations, and decorations had been effected in that magnificent parish church at a cost amounting to upwards of 10,000 l., which large sum had been raised by voluntary contributions. Well, he said, ex uno disce omnes—the same was the case throughout the country. He was convinced that three years would not elapse, should the present Bill pass into a law before the whole country would wonder that there had been a moment's hesitation on the part of the Legislature in abolishing this most obnoxious impost. It had been said that the concession of this claim

673
would lead to further demands, that from church-rates Dissenters would proceed to tithe, and would not rest until they had destroyed the Church Establishment altogether. In his opinion, no true friend of the Church ought to desire to confound together, under the same character, church-rates and tithe. They differed in their nature as widely as possible. Church-rates had every characteristic of a tax, tithes every incident and character of property. It would, however, be un can did on his part, were he to express an opinion that, if the present claim were conceded, the question as to the best appropriation of tithe, and as to endowment for religious purposes, would never be raised. That question must come under discussion, and the time for its consideration would neither be hastened by the adoption of, nor retarded by the rejection of, the present Bill. The just solution of that great question might well task the highest powers of the statesman, the philosopher, and the divine; but come when it would, he trusted the discussion would be on a loftier arena and for nobler objects than a miserable attempt to retain the shillings and sixpences of their nonconforming fellow-citizens to aid in maintaining those churches into which they never came. He had brought forward this Bill with no desire to gain any party triumph, or to give indulgence to sectarian animosity, but for the purpose of restoring good-will between the different sections of the country, for putting a stop, if possible, at the fountain head, to this unfailing source of the bitter waters of religious strife, and promoting the welfare, prosperity, and happiness of their common countrymen.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. PACKEsaid, that in rising to oppose the Motion, although he was not unconscious of his want of power satisfactorily to deal with the question in an address to the House, he relied upon the strength and upon the justice of the cause he had undertaken, which was no less than that of upholding the interests of the Church of England. He could in no way admit, as had been argued during the discussion on this question, that the Church of England ought to be in any respect considered as a mere sect in common with others. Before a Bill was brought in to abolish church-rates, one of two things
674
was necessary to be done—either a Bill must be brought in to abolish all established religion whatever, or a Bill should be brought in to give pre-eminence to some other religion in lieu of that which was now established by the law of the land. Why did they not, as the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond) had said, abolish the Church of England at once, and then they would have a right to bring in any measure they pleased for the abolition of church-rates. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Sir W. Clay) said that churches might be kept in repair by voluntary subscription. They knew very well that churches had, to a very great extent, been built by private individuals, but such persons were not so ready to come forward to subscribe money to keep churches in repair. Indeed, it was the fact that many churches had been allowed to fall into ruin for want of subscriptions towards the fabric; therefore, to say that voluntaryism was sufficient to keep parish churches in repair was clearly a mistake. There was a feeling of pride at work when an individual built and endowed a church—there was the pride of establishing a new monument in the country—but there was no such feeling at work to induce a private person to advance the funds requisite to put a new roof on a building already in existence. The House had sanctioned a permanent income to the clergy; but the other part, which was equally important, they were now called upon to refuse to sanction, so that their churches would go to ruin. He did not consider that persons who did not go to church were any more exempt from contributing towards its maintenance than the persons who paid highway rates but never made use of the roads or bridges. He knew that a considerable agitation had prevailed on this subject, but the number of petitions presented in favour of this Bill assuredly did not warrant the impression that there was any great desire for it in the country. He would show what was the case when there was a strong feeling in the country. Up to the 9th of the present month there were presented 728 petitions for that object, with 69,238 signatures. Considering that the population of the country amounted to 18,000,000, that did not appear to be a very large number of names, and therefore he could not regard the petitioners as representing the general sentiments of the people. Of those 728 petitions, twenty-four

675
had been printed, and, as it was the habit to print every original petition, he had no doubt that all the rest of the petitions were duplicates of those printed. It appeared, that out of the twenty-four printed petitions, eighteen were in favour of the hon. Baronet's Bill, and the rest prayed in general terms for the abolition of church-rates. Referring to a subject on which some strong feeling had been excited in the country—the Act of the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. J. W. Patten), restricting the sale of beer on Sundays—he found the petitioners for its repeal amounted to a much greater number—namely, to upwards of 225,000, and therefore he could not regard the 69,000 petitioners for the abolition of church-rates as representing any strong feeling in the country. In respect to church-rates, there had been some inquiry already made, both by a Commission issued by the Crown and by a Committee of that House. The recommendation of the Commissioners, among whom were comprehended some of the dignitaries of the Church and of the most eminent men in the country, was not to abolish church-rates, but to place them on the same footing, in all respects, as the poor rates, so that the expenditure necessary both for the body and the soul should proceed from the same source. Subsequently, in 1851, Mr. Trelawney, a gentleman who had interested himself in this question, obtained a Committee of the House. Upon that Committee was the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), another member of the Society of Friends; Mr. Ellis, the late Member for Leicester; and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, no good friend to church-rates. The Committee sat for some time, but did they recommend the Bill of the hon. Baronet? Did they recommend that church-rates should be abolished? He (Mr. Packe) could find that they had done no such thing. They had made a sort of compromise, and made no Report at all; after having made themselves fully conversant with the question, they were contented to report the evidence which they had taken alone to the House. The two courses which had been usually taken before a new course of legislation was entered upon had been done in this case—the Queen had granted a Commission, and the House had appointed a Committee; but neither the Commission nor the Committee had reported in favour of the measure of
676
the hon. Baronet. He must also complain, with the hon. Baronet, that there was not a single Cabinet Minister present in the House. He must say, that when a measure was proposed materially affecting the existence of Church and State they ought to have the opinion of a Cabinet Minister, in order that they might know whether Her Majesty's Government agreed to the measure or not. He had intended to have proposed a Bill himself on this question. Although he was most anxious to conciliate the opinions of all, as far as his duty as a member of the Church of England would permit, he could not abandon the principle that every person in the country was bound to assist in keeping the churches in England in repair. Although he thought it right that every person should be allowed to worship God as he thought proper, still it was his duty to contribute thus far towards the Church of England, as long as it was the Established Church. He simply meant that it was their duty to keep the fabric in repair, a point which he did not think the Bill of the hon. Baronet effected. He had not introduced his Bill, partly owing to the advanced period of the Session, and partly because he understood that it was the intention of the Archbishop of Canterbury to introduce a measure in the other House of Parliament. The Church could be in no safer hands than those of her bishops, and he should be very glad if they could produce a measure which would be satisfactory to the country. The Bill which he had intended to introduce differed from his Bill of last year, inasmuch as he should not have proposed to require any declaration from Dissenters, but, at the same time, he should not have abandoned the principle, that every person in this country was bound to assist in keeping the churches in repair; for, it must be remembered, the church was the Church of England, and it was the duty of every Englishman, therefore, to assist in its maintenance. The hon. Baronet opposite, in this second Bill, proposed not only to abolish church-rates, but also to make some provision in lieu of them, and he (Mr. Packe) had no hesitation in saying, that by the 4th and 5th clauses of this new Bill Dissenters would be just as much obliged to pay church-rates as they were now. The 4th clause empowered the churchwardens to allot pews in the church to the inhabitants of the parish as they

677
might think fit, and the 5th clause gave them power to recover the pew rents from the persons to whom they had so allotted them, but not a word was said as to the willingness of the allottees to receive the pews, or to attend church; so that the churchwardens of a parish would thus be able, if they chose, to make Dissenters pay church rates, notwithstanding the passing of this Bill for their abolition. This, he thought, must have escaped the notice of those who had petitioned in favour of this Bill, not a few of whom stated in their petitions that they had examined its provisions and entirely approved of them. A petition had been presented by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield), praying for the abolition of church-rates on religious grounds; but the arguments of those who brought forward their consciences to save their pockets ought to be received, he thought, with great caution. He would read an extract, which appeared some time ago in a local paper, having a large circulation amongst Dissenters, which showed what the feelings out of the House were upon this question. It was as follows—
"Let no person mistake the church-rate question for the Church question. The Church question is not yet mooted, but we give notice to all churchwardens that we shall not the least earnestly, as far as we are concerned, seek for the total separation of Church and State. It is neither the abolition of church-rates nor the exclusion of bishops from the peerage which will satisfy us. We require that the Church of England should be reduced to what she is—one of the sects."
This, it would appear, was what the Dissenters were looking for, or this paragraph never would have been inserted in a paper of large circulation amongst them, unless it was in accordance with the opinions of its readers. The hon. Baronet held out a sort of threat that if this Bill did not pass the Church of England had not six months to live. He, on the contrary, thought that, if it did, the Church might not retain her vigour and efficiency for so long a period, and on that ground he should oppose the Bill. He should conclude by moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
MR. LLOYD DAVIESsaid, he thought the House would be perfectly unanimous upon one point, namely, that some change in the law was absolutely necessary; but the change that was really required was one of a very different character from that
678
proposed by the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Clay). The hon. Baronet said he intended to make very little alteration; but in point of fact the alteration which he proposed would make all the difference in the world. As for the justice of his measure, why there was not a man in England that had bought land who had not done so subject to the payment of church-rates, and who had not fully taken that into his calculations when he made the purchase. To attempt, therefore, to get rid of the liability would be an act so dishonest and so dishonourable to the party of whom he had bought the land, and to the Church of which he was, perhaps, himself a member, that he (Mr. Davies) scarcely knew any terms too strong in which to character such conduct. But what call was there, he would ask, for the Bill? Out of the 14,000 parishes and the 18,000,000 inhabitants of England and Wales, only 857 parishes had petitioned, and the number of signatures to those petitions only amounted to 69,238 persons who had petitioned in its favour. He (Mr. Davies) did not believe that a fourth of the parishes of the country were opposed to the continuance of church-rates, and it was therefore impossible to say that this was a popular demand. The hon. Baronet had dwelt upon the bitterness of feeling and the animosities that were stirred up by church-rate contests; but his measure, if passed into a law, would not diminish those evils; on the contrary, it would only augment them, for it would convert the small section who were opposed to church-rates, and who now considered themselves the aggrieved party, into the triumphant one, and it would convert the vast body of churchmen into the aggrieved party. The hon. Gentleman had described the machinery by which he proposed to make voluntary contributions supply the place of rates. Now really he would recommend the hon. Gentleman to study the famous culinary maxim of Mrs. Glasse—"First catch your hare." Let him first show that there would be any voluntary contributions, before he talked of his machinery for dealing with them. The whole of this part of the hon. Baronet's Bill was founded upon a pure delusion. The answer the churchwarden who attempted to collect voluntary contributions would receive would be, "You have chosen to take this charge off the land, which had a right to pay it, and why do you come to us, the poor householders?"

679
In many and many a parish, the church which was surrounded by so many holy and endearing associations would become a ruin, and a jeer to the enemies of the Establishment. Again, if the Bill passed, they would practically close the door upon the poor. He knew many cases in which persons were desirous of attending divine worship, but who refrained from doing so because they had not suitable and decent clothing to go in; and could any one doubt that it would not be an additional obstacle if such persons felt that they could not afford to contribute even to a voluntary collection like their neighbours? He would undertake to say that in the twelve counties of Wales they would not get one per cent by means of voluntary subscriptions, except in the towns. Besides, the churches in Wales were so small, that, after the squire and two or three of the principal inhabitants had had pews allotted to them, there would be no space left for the other parishioners. The hon. Baronet had made a boast that he took care to reserve one-third of the whole area for free sittings. Why, a larger proportion than that was reserved in almost every new church that was built, so that the proposal of the hon. Baronet was no great boon after all. He (Mr. Davies) knew a case in which a parish, in which a majority were Dissenters, had granted a church-rate almost unanimously, when it was explained to them that it was virtually a charge upon the land, and that they were allowed it out of their rents. The Dissenters did not object so much to pay for the support of the fabric which had been from time immemorial a charge upon property; what they did object to was, being compelled to defray expenses connected with the ministrations of the Church. He thought that was a reasonable objection, and he was prepared to admit that charges of that description ought to be borne by the communicants, who, he had no doubt, would be glad to show by their acts, that they really valued the spiritual privileges which they enjoyed. He thought that a measure on this subject ought to have been brought in by the Government itself, and not by a private Member. He considered that the Minister of the day, knowing the diversity of opinion that prevailed, and the amount of discontent there was in the country, ought to have wrested this question from the hands of private Members, and to have brought in a Bill upon public grounds. If the
680
noble Lord at the head of the Government, instead of lying by to see whether the Bill of the hon. Baronet was popular in the House, had come forward and taken such a step, he would have earned for himself a reputation that would not soon have passed away. The present Bill would benefit none but the landed proprietors, who within a very short time after it became law would raise their rents. He could fancy the indignation of the hon. Baronet when that was done; but why should they not? Church-rates were a charge upon the land which had been imposed by their pious ancestors, and if the Legislature chose to relieve property of that burden, why should the landowner not reap the benefit as well as the tenant? The hon. Baronet had not been just to the right rev. Prelate to whose speech in the House of Lords he had referred; for the real object of the right rev. Prelate had been simply to elicit from the highest legal authorities a statement to the effect that the law remained unchanged, and thus to counteract a statement to the contrary effect—and a most incorrect one it was—which had been extensively circulated. The hon. Baronet talked of the exertions of churchmen in building new churches. He (Mr. Davies) never heard of such an argument as that. Why the hon. Baronet would convert their very virtues into a pretext for laying upon them an unjust burden. If benevolent persons had come forward and supplied the grievous lack of spiritual destitution which had prevailed, it would surely be a poor return to burden them with an obligation which had hitherto been borne by the whole landed property of the country. In conclusion, he could only say, that there was something to him positively horrible in the idea of churches becoming desolate. If they destroyed the means provided by the law of the land for the decent celebration of divine worship, he could not but fear that it would react upon religion itself; and on these grounds he should give his cordial support to the Amendment of his hon. Friend.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. COWPERsaid, he could not altogether concur with the views which the hon. Gentleman who proposed the Amendment

681
seemed to entertain with reference to the question before the House. The hon. Member had stated church-rates to be an essential foundation of the National Church, and that before they were abolished it would be but expedient, graceful, and proper to abolish the National Church itself. He (Mr. Cowper) did not agree with the hon. Member in thinking that the law was an advantage to the Church of England which compelled persons to contribute reluctantly to its fabrics who dissented from its dogmas; on the contrary, the state of the law which excited difference of opinion and strife in a parish, which gave rise to hostility and enmity against the Church, could not be an advantage, but was clearly an evil to the Church of England. It was not seemly that the Church should be dependent upon the exaction of that which there was no due and sufficient means of enforcing. He thought, however, that it was desirable, with a view to the interest of the Church, that such a change of the law should take place as would bring the law more in accordance with the circumstances which had arisen since that law was made. He believed it was admitted that from time beyond the memory of man there had been an obligation upon the parishioners to maintain the fabric of the church; and in early periods, when all of the parishioners were accustomed to frequent the Parish Church, nothing could be more reasonable or natural; but a change had since then taken place, and in many parishes a very small portion of the parishioners went to the Parish Church, or felt an interest in its condition or support; consequently, this obligation to support it had become unnatural and inconvenient. The measures for increasing the number of places of religious worship had not been carried out by the subdivision of parishes, but by the erection of new churches, although, for the purposes of levying a rate, those new churches still continued to remain within the limits of the original parishes. The consequence had been, that those who frequented the new churches became reluctant to contribute to the maintenance of the Mother Church with which they had no connection, particularly when, in addition to such contribution, they were obliged to support their own particular places of worship. That observation applied not alone to those persons who were Dissenters from the Established Church, but to those also, who,
682
being members of that Church, were not members of the congregation of the Mother Church, to keep up which they were obliged to contribute. How that state of things could be effectually remedied was a question which confessedly involved many points of considerable difficulty, and although his hon. Friend (Sir W. Clay), in his opinion, deserved great credit for the manner in which in his Bill he attempted to grapple with that difficulty, yet he felt bound to say that he did not think his hon. Friend had arrived at anything like a satisfactory solution of the question before the House. In fact, he believed that the measure of his hon. Friend, if carried into operation, would rather tend to the increase than to the diminution of the difficulties by which the subject was beset. He contended that if his hon. Friend wished to substitute a voluntary for a compulsory payment of church-rates he ought to have provided some sort of machinery, in the first place, to enable the congregation of any particular church to contribute what they deemed to be necessary for its support, and that he ought, in the next place—they having made such contribution—to give them some effective control over the mode in which it should be expended. For the attainment of these objects the measure of his hon. Friend was in his opinion a failure. He had proposed, it was true, that the disposal of the rate, when collected, should be placed in the hands of the churchwarden; but in the election of that officer the congregation of a particular church would have no paramount voice, and he could not help feeling that the members of a congregation would not regard the expenditure of their property by one who might not be their chosen representative as at all satisfactory. His hon. Friend, however, seemed to be of opinion that any difficulty which might arise in that case might be obviated by the appointment of an auditor, but inasmuch as those auditors were not to be nominated by the congregation, he (Mr. Cowper) did not think that that proposition would afford a solution of the question with which the members of the congregation would be likely to be contented. Nor was he of opinion that his hon. Friend had succeeded in meeting the difficulties of the question when he proposed that the money to be devoted to the maintenance of our churches should be raised by means of pew-rents. The churchwarden could not

683
compel anybody to take a pew, or pay for it against his will; and while pew-rents were voluntary the whole scheme might fail owing to the opposition which in many parishes was entertained to the arrangement which the hon. Baronet proposed to introduce. In rural parishes, where the right of the parishioners to sit in their Church had always been recognised, the attempt to impose a payment on admission would be resented and opposed, and would be obnoxious to the feelings of the members of the Church. There were many objections to this measure which he need not dwell upon. But his hon. Friend had been ingenious in suggesting that the objection to pew-rents was a Roman Catholic objection. He (Mr. Cowper) considered that the hon. Baronet had confounded pew-rents with pews. It was true that it was not the custom in Roman Catholic countries to have the seats in the same form of pews in which they were in England; but all who had entered Roman Catholic churches abroad would be aware that a penny, or a sum according to the part of the church they went into, was demanded for a seat; so that the principle of payment existed as in the Church of England. In many churches the wealthy were fenced off from the poor by high partitions and exclusive distinctions, and he should be sorry to perpetuate such a scandal by legally enacting distinctions between those seats which were paid for and those which were not. Another objection to the proposed system of pew-rents was, that in district churches and proprietary chapels the pew-rents went towards the payment of the ministers, and, in many cases, from the want of endowments, this became a necessity; and the effect of the present measure in such cases would be to starve the minister for the repair of the church, and, of the two, he would prefer that the building should decay and that the minister should be kept. It was most desirable that the difficulties of this question should, if possible, be remedied; but he could not agree with the argument of the hon. Member who had seconded this Motion—that, as this question was difficult of solution, the Government ought to prepare a measure and force it on the attention of the House. He thought it was a wise maxim, when they could not clearly see their way, to stand still and not to move until the way was distinctly seen. A number of measures had been brought
684
forward on this question, but none of these had met the difficulties felt by both parties, and he should not like to see a measure forced upon the country which would please either Dissenters or Churchmen, and which would not satisfy both parties. He agreed with the general principle of the Bill—that it was desirable to abolish church-rates, and to trust more than at present to voluntary contributions. He thought, however, that the measure was in many respects so objectionable that he felt compelled to vote for the Amendment, though he did not agree with the principles expressed by its mover, and he hoped that ere long a measure would be introduced and adopted in accordance with the principles which he had laid before the House.
MR. LUSHINGTONsaid, that this subject had so often been debated that it was not necessary for him to go into the origin of these rates, as he thought it must be admitted that the Church had a legal right to them. This was one of the most ancient laws of England, and he was astonished that it had been allowed to remain so long in such an unsatisfactory state. It should have been settled immediately after the Revolution of 1688, when the Nonconformists were first recognised as a body. Twenty years ago the late Sir Robert Peel declared his opinion that the question ought to be settled within the year, but although frequent attempts had since been made at legislation, from that time down to the present the matter had been allowed to remain open. Last year the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord John Russell) announced the intention of the Government to introduce a measure on the subject, but the Government had since failed to do so. Now, it was quite hopeless to think that the question could ever be settled while it remained in the hands of a private Member, and therefore he called upon the noble Lord to fulfil his promise. They had heard of a Bill introduced in the other House on this subject, and he thought that they ought to see whether it would not afford them an opportunity of settling it this Session. He admitted that this question had been most fertile in producing heart-burning and discord, and it therefore behaved the Government to come to some conclusion on it, and in this opinion he was strengthened by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, last Session, said on this subject, "It is hardly possible to exaggerate the strength of the obligation incumbent on

685
the Government to take this question into its view." He thought that the present measure would act unjustly towards both the Church and the poor. They must recollect that in the meeting-houses of Dissenters there was no accommodation for the poor—they were all on the system of proprietary chapels, and the seats were let—and such was the system which it was now proposed to carry into the Church of England. It was clear that if they did adopt this system they would preclude the poor from any free places of worship. When they went into the churches in this metropolis, and in the large manufacturing cities, they saw large numbers of well-dressed people; but the number of the poor was small in comparison, for there was not at present sufficient accommodation provided for them; and would not this Bill take it away from them altogether? He thought that either the Government ought to say that they would bring forward this Session a measure on this subject, or they ought to wait and see whether the Bill introduced by the Archbishop of Canterbury would not enable them to settle this question, which had given rise to so much contention and discord.
MR. LABOUCHEREdid not think that the conclusions arrived at by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Cowper) tallied exactly with the arguments he had employed. The present Bill consisted of two parts; it first dealt with the Dissenters' grievance—it abolished church-rates; it next met that which, if left undealt with, would, as had been stated, become a churchman's grievance, and then went on to provide the machinery by which the voluntary contributions of churchmen should be made available to maintain the fabric of the Church. The hon. Member for Hertford agreed with the principle of the Bill, but he objected to the machinery. No doubt there was much to be objected to, but this could be remedied in Committee; and could such objections to the machinery of the Bill justify the hon. Member in voting against the second reading? He (Mr. Labouchere) hoped the House would not be led away by the hon. Gentleman, but would, by a decided majority, declare that the time was arrived when this question was not to be trifled with, but dealt with in a practical manner, and that the foundation and corner-stone of such alterations should be that the levying of church-rates on those who dissented
686
from them should no longer be insisted on. If the Government did not introduce a measure of their own, they might affirm the principle of this Bill by supporting the Motion for the second reading, and then deal with its provisions as they pleased; for it was within the province of the Government rather than of individual Members of the House to devise machinery by which the contributions of members of the Church of England should be applied to maintaining the fabrics of churches. He should not object to any scheme that would be satisfactory to the heads of the Church, and, if the Government did not bring forward a scheme, he should greatly regret it, without presuming to censure them. Could they not settle this question? He thought they would do so, if by a good majority they carried his hon. Friend's Bill. He had no apprehension that the Bill would cause such a national disgrace and a calamity as the decay of those beautiful fabrics which were an honour and a blessing to the land, nor did he think that in dealing with this question they would be guilty of an act of spoliation. On these grounds he should cordially support the second reading of the Bill, hoping that, in the course of the Session, Government would introduce a measure which would bring the question to a conclusion satisfactory to those who believed that at present Dissenters had a grievance to complain of, while, at the same time, it provided proper machinery for the application of the voluntary contributions which would, no doubt, be forthcoming in abundance for the maintenance of the fabrics of churches.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I certainly, Sir, agree entirely with those who have expressed an opinion that it is most desirable to have this question settled; but it is one thing to express a wish that a great question should be settled, and it is another thing, either to frame in one's own mind a mode by which a satisfactory settlement can be obtained, or to adopt at once any proposal that may come from any quarter professing to effect that settlement. That this is a question surrounded by great difficulties is proved by the statements made by both those who support and by those who oppose the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets, because we have heard recited the various attempts which for many years past have been made either by individuals or by Governments with a view to settling it in a manner that

687
would be satisfactory to all parties concerned. We have been reminded that all these attempts have more or less failed, and it is upon that very ground that my hon. Friend would press upon us the measure which he has now proposed to the House to adopt. I cannot for myself, as a Member of a Government responsible to the country for any steps which they take, think that I should be performing my duty if I were to go headlong in support of a particular mode of accomplishing a particular object unless my mind was satisfied that such a mode would accomplish the purpose for which it was intended by a probability of its passing into law, and also by a likelihood that, if it did not pass into law, it would effect the object for which it was proposed. Looking at the Bill of my hon. Friend, I confess I cannot see that it contains either of those two features. It is all very well for us to limit our views to the result of a division upon a particular stage of a Bill, but when we are talking of a measure which deeply affects great interests, and, I may almost say, universal feelings, in the country, we must cast our eyes a little further than the door of this House, and we must consider whether a measure which is brought under our discussion is one which is likely to pass into law if we approve of it. I certainly cannot bring myself to think that this measure, as it is now proposed by my hon. Friend, is likely to receive the sanction of both branches of the Legislature; nor do I think that it does contain such arrangements for providing for the support of the fabrics of churches as would be sufficient to secure their maintenance. My right hon. Friend who has just sat down expressed in eloquent terms his conviction that we might rely entirely upon the religious feeling of the country for the support of our churches, and I have no doubt that in many parishes there would be found persons of sufficient wealth and religious feeling to provide the means necessary for that purpose; but I am also apprehensive that in many parishes this would not be the case. I cannot altogether think that those ancient fabrics which are portions of the national property, and have existed for centuries past, ought to be placed in the same category as other places of religious worship which have sprung up in more recent times, and which, from their construction, are not only less expensive in their erection, but are also more easily and
688
more cheaply kept in sufficient repair; and I cannot think that it would be for the credit and honour of the country any more than it would be for the advantage of its religious feeling that those fabrics should be allowed to fall into decay. Now, this question of church-rates undoubtedly resolves itself into two different elements, between which a marked distinction is to be observed. What I mean is, that church-rates are applicable to two purposes which stand on different grounds, at least as regards the conscientious feelings of those who are called upon to contribute to them. One portion of the church-rates is applied to the ministration of worship, while another portion is applied to the maintenance of the fabrics; and I think that one defect in the Bill of my hon. Friend, and in the plans which have been suggested, has consisted in this distinction not being kept sufficiently in mind. I can quite understand, and I can make allowances for that religious feeling, which may render persons not belonging to the Church averse, from conscientious motives, to contribute to the ministration of worship in which they do not partake; I think it is a feeling which is entitled to consideration, and for which it would not be difficult to make a provision that would relieve the persons who entertain it from that necessity. I certainly do not equally understand the scruple that prevents persons from maintaining places of worship which have from time immemorial belonged to the religion of the country. It is all very well to say that those persons make no use of them, but I think there is much force in the argument that they are national property, and that persons contribute to the maintenance of many things which they do not use, and from which they do not directly derive any particular advantage. Viewing them, therefore, not as emblems of sectarian division, but as national fabrics applicable to the Christian worship of God, it really appears to me that there is no ground for this objection against contributing to their maintenance, although, at the same time, I am far from impugning the sincerity of the motives of those who put forward the objection. But the view I entertain of this objection is not the opinion only of a single individual, because it is a well-known fact that in many parts of the kingdom the Dissenters, acting upon the enlarged principles which I have taken the liberty of shadowing out, do contribute cheerfully,

689
and without repugnance, to the maintenance of these fabrics, in the existence of which they take a pride, and which they honour as monuments belonging to the places where they live. The objection to the maintenance of the fabrics is not, therefore, in point of fact, so universally felt and acted upon as has been represented in the debates which have taken place in this House. At the same time, undoubtedly, if it were possible to devise some scheme which would provide adequately for the maintenance of the churches of the country, and which should, by its arrangements, not offer any violence to the consciences of those who differ from the Established Church, I should be most happy to concur in such a scheme. It was upon this general principle that I concurred in the Motion of my hon. Friend for the introduction of this Bill, being desirous to see what measures he would propose for our consideration; but I do not think the measure has succeeded sufficiently in accomplishing the object for which it was intended to justify me in supporting its further progress through the House. Many Gentlemen say it is the duty of the Government to propose a measure. It is very easy to say so. It is exceedingly easy for hon. Gentlemen who are themselves unable to frame any measure which will obtain the assent of Parliament—although I do not say that this measure will not obtain its assent; I am speaking of the past, not of the present—who have puzzled themselves to solve an enigma, to say, "Government must find out the secret of the riddle." My reply to them is, that Governments have in former years undertaken the task, proposals have been made by Governments upon their own responsibility, but those proposals have failed to obtain the assent of Parliament for the concurrence of those great bodies of men whose interests are involved in the question they were intended to solve. I can only say that at the present moment the Government have no proposal to make which can be added to the Bill of my hon. Friend, or which would be calculated to afford a satisfactory solution of the difficulty. No doubt the importance, and, I may say, to a certain degree, the urgency of the matter, have not escaped the attention of the Government, and most happy should I have been if I had been able, instead of stating objections to the measure of my hon. Friend, to propose on behalf of
690
the Government a substitute for it; but, not being at present in a position to make such a tender, and having to deal with the Bill before the House, and to judge of it by the provisions it contains, I am bound to say, however reluctantly, that, as far as I am personally concerned, I cannot support its further progress. I feel that this is a question upon which it would be unbecoming a Member of the Government to trifle with the House. If I was prepared to support the measure of my hon. Friend with some trifling alterations, I should consent to go into Committee to propose those alterations; but as I do not see in this Bill any substantial foundation upon which a measure could be framed that would be satisfactory, I think I should be acting in a manner of which the House and the country would have a right to complain if I were to support it for the sake of any momentary popularity out of doors, or of a few cheers from this side of the House. A person in my position ought not to support a measure unless he thinks that measure is likely to be successful in its future stages, especially when it deals with a question of such importance as this is to the interests, the feelings, and the deepest religious sentiments of the community. With great regret, therefore, and acting under a sense of duty, I must, as far as my personal vote is concerned, oppose the second reading of the Bill.
MR. E. BALLsaid, he had heard with regret the statement just made by the noble Lord, because he could not help thinking that that statement would tend to add to the difficulties of a question already more than sufficiently difficult of solution. He thought the Dissenters had peculiar claims to the favourable consideration of the House in that case. When the provision for the payment of church-rates had originally been made, the people had all been of one religion—they had received the ministrations of the same clergy, and they had, therefore, been fairly called upon to contribute to the maintenance of the same religious edifices. He certainly was far from wishing to witness the destruction of our great churches; he should regret their destruction, if for no other reason, because he hoped that the dissenting form of worship might one day be celebrated in them. He admitted, too, that the Church of England afforded one great medium for the diffusion of morality

691
and religion, and he was desirous of seeing that Church reformed and not overturned. He believed that it would gain immensely in real stability and usefulness by three great reforms—namely, the abolition of church-rates, an alteration in the form of prayer, and the exclusion of laymen from Church patronage.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, he would not have troubled the House if it had not been for the speech of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, which he had heard with deep regret, because, instead of advancing the settlement of the question, it had tended to throw it back for years, and to keep alive feelings of heart-burning and animosity in the country. During the discussion on the subject last year the noble Lord, now Colonial Minister, took a very different view from that which had just been taken by the First Lord of the Treasury, because, when his right hon. Friend the present President of the Board of Control (Mr. V. Smith), was urging on the Government the necessity for a settlement of the question, the noble Lord interrupted his right hon. Friend in the middle of his speech, and said, "We do propose to settle the question—we propose to settle it next Session." But the noble Lord at the head of the Government now said it was not the business of the Government to settle the question, and, by his speech, threw another difficulty in the way of its settlement. No doubt it was an open question, upon which Members of the Government might vote as they pleased, because no Member could be returned for a large town who was not opposed to church-rates. The noble Lord said he did not wish for momentary popularity. Now, he (Lord Seymour) complained that the Government had used this question, not for momentary, but for permanent popularity; they had used it on the hustings, and defeated it in that House. The noble Lord divided the rate into two parts. Let them not quarrel about such trifles as that; but, if they dealt at all with the subject, let them settle it manfully and at once. This measure was not supported, as it had been stated, in order to get rid of a charge upon the land, because, if it got rid of one charge, its immediate effect would be to throw another upon the land. A Bill on this subject had been laid upon the table in another place, and had, no doubt, been submitted to the Government by the head of the Church.
692
They ought, therefore, to be prepared to say whether they would support it, and he should like to know from some Member of the Cabinet whether it had their concurrence, and was likely to settle the question.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 217; Noes 189: Majority 28.

List of the AYES.

Acton, J.

Duke, Sir J.

Adair, H. E.

Duncan, G.

Adair, R. A. S.

Duncombe, T.

Alcock, T.

Dundas, F.

Anderson, Sir J.

Dungarvan, Visct.

Atherton, W.

Dunlop, A. M.

Ball, E.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Barnes, T.

Ellice, E.

Bass, M. T.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Baxter, W. E.

Evans, Sir De Lacy

Beaumont, W. B.

Ewart, J. C.

Bell, J.

Feilden, M. J.

Berkeley, A.

Fenwick, H.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Fergus, J.

Berkeley, hon. C. F.

Ferguson, J.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

Fitzgerald, W. R. S.

Bethell, Sir R.

FitzRoy, rt. hon. H.

Biddulph, R. M.

Foley, J. H. H.

Biggs, W.

Forster, C.

Bonham-Carter, J.

Forster, J.

Bowyer, G.

Fortescue, C. S.

Brady, J.

Fox, W. J.

Bright, J.

Gardner, R.

Brocklehurst, J.

Glyn, G. C.

Brockman, E. D.

Goderich, Visct.

Brotherton, J.

Goodman, Sir G.

Bruce, H. A.

Gower, hon. F. L.

Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W.

Grace, O. D. J.

Butler, C. S.

Greene, J.

Byng, hon. G. H. C.

Gregson, S.

Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

Grenfell, C. W.

Caulfield, Col. J. M.

Greville, Col. F.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Grey, R. W.

Cavendish, hon. G.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Challis, Mr. A.

Hadfield, G.

Chambers, M.

Hall, Sir B.

Chaplin, W. J.

Hankey, T.

Cheetham, J.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Clifford, H. M.

Harcourt, G. G.

Cobbett, J. M.

Hastie, Alexander

Cobden, R.

Hastie, Archibald

Coffin, W.

Henchy, D. O'C.

Cogan, W. H. F.

Heneage, G. F.

Collier, R. P.

Hervey, Lord A.

Craufurd, E. H. J.

Heywood, J.

Crook, J.

Heyworth, L.

Crossley, F.

Horsman, rt. hon. E.

Currie, R.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Dalrymple, Visct.

Hudson, G.

Dashwood, Sir G. H.

Hutchins, E. J.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

Hutt, W.

Deasy, R.

Ingham, R.

Denison, J. E.

Jackson, W.

Dent, J. D.

Johnstone, Sir J.

De Vere, S. E.

Keating, H. S.

Dillwyn, L. L.

Kennedy, T.

Duff, G. S.

Keogh, W.

Duffy, C. G.

Kershaw, J.

693

King, hon. P. J. L.

Reed, J. H.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Ricardo, O.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Rice, E. R.

Laffan, R. M.

Robartes, T. J. A.

Laing, S.

Russell, F. C. H.

Langston, J. H.

Sadleir, J.

Langton, H. G.

Scholefield, W.

Laslett, W.

Scobell, Capt.

Layard, A. H.

Scrope, G. P.

Lee, W.

Scully, V.

Lemon, Sir C.

Seymour, Lord

Lindsay, W. S.

Seymour, W. D.

Littleton, hon. E. R.

Shafto, R. D.

Lowe, R.

Shelley, Sir J. V.

Luce, T.

Sheridan, R. B.

Mackie, J.

Smith, J. B.

MacGregor, J.

Smith, M. T.

Maguire, J. F.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Mangles, R. D.

Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W.

Marshall, W.

Stanley, Lord

Martin, J.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Massey, W. N.

Steel, J.

Milligan, R.

Strickland, Sir G.

Mills, T.

Strutt, rt. hon. E.

Milner, Sir W. M. E.

Swift, R.

Mitchell, T. A.

Thompson, G.

Molesworth, rt. hn. Sir W.

Thornely, T.

Morris, D.

Thornhill, W. P.

Mowatt, F.

Tomline, G.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Townshend, Capt.

Murrough, J. P.

Traill, G.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Tynte, Col. C. J. K.

North, F.

Uxbridge, Earl of

O'Brien, P.

Vane, Lord H.

O'Flaherty, A.

Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

Oliveira, B.

Vivian, H. H.

Osborne, R.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Otway, A. J.

Walter, J.

Paget, Lord A.

Watkins, Col. L.

Palk, L.

Watson, W. H.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Wells, W.

Pellatt, A.

Whatman, J.

Perry, Sir T. E.

Whitbread, S.

Phillimore, J. G.

Wilkinson, W. A.

Phinn, T.

Willcox, B. M'G.

Pigott, F.

Williams, W.

Pilkington, J.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Pollard-Urquhart, W.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Portman, hon. W. H. B.

Wyvill, M.

Power, N.

TELLERS.

Price, Sir R.

Clay, Sir W.

Price, W. P.

Miall, E.

List of the NOES.

Alexander, J.

Bramley-Moore, J.

Annesley, Earl of

Bruce, C. L. C.

Bagge, W.

Buck, L. W.

Bailey, Sir J.

Buck, G. S.

Baillie, H. J.

Bunbury, W. B. M'C.

Baird, J.

Burroughes, H. N.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F.T.

Butt, G. M.

Baring, T.

Cairns, H. M'C.

Barrington, Visct.

Campbell, Sir A. I.

Barrow, W. H.

Cayley, E. S.

Bateson, T.

Child, S.

Beckett, W.

Cholmondeley, Lord H.

Bentinck, G. W. P.

Christopher, rt. hn. R. A.

Beresford, rt. hon. W.

Christie, S.

Bignold, Sir S.

Cocks, T. S.

Blackburn, P.

Codrington, Sir W.

Blandford, Marq. of

Coles, H. B.

Booth, Sir R. G.

Colvile, C. R.

694

Coote, Sir C. H.

Long, W.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Lovaine, Lord

Davies, D. A. S.

Lushington, C. M.

Denison, E.

Macartney, G.

Dering, Sir E.

MacGregor, J.

Disraeli, rt. hon. B.

Maddock, Sir H.

Dod, J. W.

Malins, R.

Drummond, H.

Manners, Lord G.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Manners, Lord J.

Duncombe, hon. A.

March, Earl of

Duncombe, hon. O.

Masterman, J.

Duncombe, hon. W. E.

Miles, W.

Dundas, G.

Michell, W.

Dunne, Col.

Montgomery, H. L.

Du Pre, C. G.

Montgomery, Sir G.

East, Sir J. B.

Morgan, O.

Egerton, E. C.

Mowbray, J. R.

Elmley, Visct.

Mullings, J. R.

Emlyn, Visct.

Mundy, W.

Euston, Earl of

Naas, Lord

Evelyn, W. J.

Napier, rt. hon. J.

Farnham, E. B.

Neeld, J.

Farrer, J.

Newark, Visct.

Fellowes, E.

Noel, hon. G. J.

Ferguson, Sir R.

North, Col.

Filmer, Sir E.

Northcote, Sir S. H.

Floyer, J.

Oakes, J. H. P.

Follett, B. S.

Ossulston, Lord

Forester, rt. hon. Col.

Pakenham, T. H.

Forster, Sir G.

Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.

Freshfield, J. W.

Palmer, R.

Frewen, C. Hay

Palmerston, Visct.

Galway, Visct.

Peacocke, G. M. W.

George, J.

Peel, Sir R.

Gilpin, Col.

Peel, Gen.

Gladstone, rt. hon. W.

Pennant, hon. Col.

Gooch, Sir E. S.

Percy, hon. J. W.

Gore, W. O.

Phillips, J. H.

Graham, Lord M. W.

Phillimore, R. J.

Greene, T.

Pritchard, J.

Grogan, E.

Repton, G. W. J.

Guinness, R. S.

Robertson, P. F.

Gurney, J. H.

Rushout, G.

Gwyn, H.

Russell, Lord J.

Halford, Sir H.

Sawle, C. B. G.

Harcourt, Col.

Scott, hon. F.

Hawkins, W. W.

Seymer, H. K.

Hayes, Sir E.

Shirley, E. P.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Smith, W. M.

Heathcote, Sir G. J.

Smollett, A.

Heathcote, G. H.

Spooner, R.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Stafford, A.

Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

Stanhope, J. B.

Herbert, Sir T.

Starkie, Le G. N.

Holford, R. S.

Stirling, W.

Hotham, Lord

Stuart, W.

Hughes, W. B.

Taylor, Col.

Hume, W. F.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Irton, S.

Tollemache, J.

Jermyn, Earl

Trollope, rt. hon. Sir J.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Tudway, R. C.

Jones, Adm.

Tyler, Sir G.

Kendall, N.

Vance, J.

King, J. K.

Vansittart, G. H.

Knightley, R.

Verner, Sir W.

Knox, Col.

Vernon, G. E. H.

Langton, W. G.

Vyse, Col.

Lascelles, hon. E.

Waddington, H. S.

Lennox, Lord H. G.

Walcott, Adm.

Liddell, hon. H. G.

Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

Lisburne, Earl of

Waterpark, Lord

Lockhart, A. E.

Welby, Sir G. E.

Lockhart, W.

West, F. R.

695

Whiteside, J.

Wyndham, W.

Whitmore, H.

Wynne, W. W. E.

Wigram, L. T.

TELLERS.

Woodd, B. T.

Davies, J. L.

Wyndham, H.

Packe, C. W.

Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 2°.

CARLISLE CANONRIES BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. FERGUSONsaid, that, in moving the second reading of the Bill, he would explain the circumstances which had led to its introduction. The City of Carlisle, which contained a population of 30,000, was divided into four parishes, the dean and chapter were the lay impropriators of the tithes of these parishes, and derived a very large income from them, the dean about 1,600 l., and the four canons about 750 l. a year each; the only payment made by them out of these various revenues to the four incumbents who discharged the parochial duties was a sum of 21 l. 6s. 8d. a year, and the incumbents were obliged to depend for their support on what they could get from pew rents and some other sources, but in no case did any of their incomes exceed 150 l. a year. The cathedral church of Carlisle had formerly been a priory, and when it was erected into a cathedral the incomes of the canons was fixed to 22 l. 5s. a year, the sum allowed to the incumbents of the four parishes was 21 l. 6s. 8d.; that miserable stipend had never since been increased, whilst the incomes of the canons had advanced to 750 l. each; the incumbents had a right to have received a proportionate advantage from the increase of the revenues of Church. The Bill had been prepared in pursuance of resolutions adopted at a public meeting of the citizens of Carlisle; it proposed to suspend one of the canonries at the next avoidance, and divide the income between the four incumbents. The Act of 1840 had recognised the principle of suspending canonries and devoting their revenues to other purposes, and there could, therefore, be no objection to the Bill on that ground; if the Bill was adopted it would remove one of the greatest nuisances that now disfigured the Church, and provide for the spiritual wants of a large and increasing population. He begged leave to move the second reading.
Motion made, and Question proposed—"That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. COWPERsaid, he trusted the hon. Gentleman would not press the second reading of the Bill. The subject had been, by an Address of that House, referred to a Commission which was now sitting to inquire into ecclesiastical property. That Commission, he believed, would shortly present their Report, and it was natural to assume that they would recommend some mode of dealing with the canonries with which the present Bill purposed to interfere. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member would acquiesce in the Amendment which he moved that the Bill should be read a second time that day six months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. LIDDELLsaid, he should oppose the second reading of the Bill, as he considered it a direct attack on the entire system of cathedral institutions. The chapter of Carlisle possessed the great tithes of the town of Newcastle-on-Tyne, and the inhabitants of that town had quite as much claim on the funds as the people of Carlisle.
MR. HOWARDsaid, he thought a strong case was made out for this Bill, and did not believe the chapter of Carlisle had paid sufficient regard to the spiritual wants of the City. He must, however, except from this censure the dean, as he was aware of his experience in teaching and his zeal as a minister to do good in the city. The Bill was a very moderate one, and there were pressing reasons why it should pass.
MR. INGHAMsaid, that if the House should agree to the second reading the Committee might be postponed for a fortnight, until the Cathedral Commissioners had made their Report.
MR. ROBERT PHILLIMOREsaid, he thought it an act of rashness to decide upon the principle of suspending canonries in an isolated case. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ferguson) appeared to be against all canonries. He was against all idle canons and pluralist canons, but he was not against canons who devoted themselves to the regular ministrations of the cathedral and the spiritual instruction of the people. The hon. Member had pronounced what seemed to be a censure upon pew rents as a source of revenue in great towns, and he, therefore, thought the hon.

697
Gentleman had committed a little inconsistency in having supported the Bill of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Sir W. Clay).
MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, he should support the Bill. The tithes were set apart for the spiritual instruction of the people, and a case of hardship had been made out in Carlisle which he thought justified the Bill.
MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he must contend that if they legislated upon the principle of this Bill for Carlisle they must be prepared to pass similar measures with respect to other cathedral cities. It could not be said, with any truth, that the dean and chapter of Carlisle had done little for the spiritual interests of the people under their charge, as he happened to know that no curate exerted himself more for the benefit of those under him than did the dean of Carlisle for the benefit of the inhabitants of that city.
MR. HOWARDsaid, he must explain that he had endeavoured to make an exception in favour of the dean, from the sense he entertained of the laudable efforts of that dignitary.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 102; Noes 98: Majority 4.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 2°.
The House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock.