HC Deb 08 June 1858 vol 150 cc1706-27

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [1st June], "That the Bill be now read the third time."

Question again proposed.

Debate resumed.

SIR JOHN TRELAWNY

said, he could not conceive that any great advantage would be gained on the part of the mover if he were to go into any arguments upon a question which had been so fully discussed as that which was before the House. But it had been charged against those who supported this Bill that they were not disposed to accept any compromise, and that they had shown no disposition to entertain proposals which came from the Ministerial benches. It was not their fault, but the fault of those who made proposals which were either useless or impracticable. He was satisfied the measure would work, as he believed that members of the Church of England had sufficient love and veneration for the establishment to support the fabric. He would suggest that if hon. Gentlemen opposite conceived there were any practicable means of meeting their views they should leave the House of Lords to exercise their powers of invention; and then, when the Bill came back, the onus would be cast upon its supporters of refusing that which might be a practical suggestion. He called upon Members to consider what their condition would be if they went on having debates upon the subject of church rates every day, morning and evening, till the dog days, and concluded by asking the House to assent to the third reading.

SIR BROOK BRIDGES

said, he must admit that every thing that could be said for or against the Bill was exhausted, but as he had never before addressed the House on this subject he would crave its indulgence while he put before them his notion of the position in which the question of church rates stood. To his notion our pious ancestors, in establishing a Church in this country, had declared that they would not leave the manner in which God should be worshipped a mere matter of chance, but that the whole of the landed property of the country should be liable to its support. Accordingly, they recognised the principle that those who were rich should maintain that Church for the benefit of the poor, and placed upon the landed property of the kingdom the impost of tithes for the support of the ministers of the Church, and the impost of church rates for the sustentation of the fabric of the Church. Was this an unreasonable, unjust, or unfair thing? He thought not. They did not admit the possibility of those who shared in the advantages of the Church ever neglecting it. They believed as little that a man could neglect his parish church as that he was capable of committing parricide; but they gave to the parishioners the right of saying when the church required repair, and to what extent repair was necessary: and this this appeared to him (Sir Brook Bridges) a just and necessary arrangement. It had been reserved for the present times, however—and the contrast was not a flattering one—to relieve a large portion of the land from all future charge for tithes, and to receive with favour the proposition then lying on the table. But who was the hon. Gentleman who had introduced that proposition? He (Sir John Trelawny) was the owner of large landed property, the representative of one of the oldest and most respected families in Cornwall, and he (Sir Brook Bridges) should not certainly have expected such a measure to emanate from him, seeing that if it were passed into law its immediate effect would be to relieve his property from a charge to which it had been legitimately subjected for ages. He could easily understand that the Bill would affect rich parishes in a degree comparatively slight; but what would be its effect in those parishes where the poor abounded? How were the poor who laboured for their daily bread to maintain a church, when the rich man who possessed the property of the district would no longer be bound to supply them with the means of worshipping God? It was said that many persons felt aggrieved at having to pay church rates, because they dissented in opinion from the Established Church; but if this argument were good for anything—if it were just and right and liberal on the part of those who founded the Church to place this charge upon the land—how could gentlemen say that their consciences were aggrieved by having to pay it when the land passed into their hands subject to the impost? Why, they might as reason- ably object to pay a quit rent to the lord of the manor. The hon. Member for Tavistock told them the other day of instances in which the destruction of foxes and sparrows had been charged to the church rate. Well, he (Sir Brook Bridges) did not stand up in that House for the purpose of defending abuses; and he did not hesitate to say that he believed the only charge that ought to be placed upon the rates was that which the honour and glory of God required—the maintenance of the fabric and the carrying on of Divine worship in a decent manner within its walls. With regard to the grievance which was said to be involved in the question, how did that really stand? Every encouragement had been given to the opponents of church rates to bring their case before the House. Yet what did it amount to after all? Why that church rates were refused in about 5 per cent of the parishes of the kingdom; and the House was now called upon for the sake of five parishes out of a hundred to do that which must result in deeply wounding the consciences of men. It was now proposed to substitute mere voluntary contributions for the long-established system of church rates; and he believed that if it were adopted, and the Church had to rest for its support upon what might be the whim of fancy of the public at the moment, we should have no right to expect the blessing of God upon us as a nation. If he could believe that the levying of church rates was either illiberal or unjust, he should be among the first to object to their continuance, and call for an alteration of the law. He was anxious that if there were any proved abuse, it should be rectified; and he should be happy to give his vote in support of a measure which would effect that object; and when a district church had arisen he had no objection that the new edifice should be kept up by the rates of those who resided in the district, who should then be relieved from contributing to the old church; but nothing he had yet heard had induced him to swerve from the opinion he had hitherto entertained—that the sustentation of the edifice of the church ought to be provided by means of church rates, and therefore, he should move as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.

MR. PACKE

seconded the Amendment. It had been said that no compromise had been offered by those who objected to the unconditional repeal of church rates; but he would appeal to the House whether many compromises had not been thrown out to hon. Members opposite, both in the present and former Sessions. But the fact was that every effort at compromise had been indignantly rejected by the opponents of church rates who were evidently resolved to carry their Bill without modification. It was also said that this measure would benefit the Church itself; but he was at a loss to see how a measure could benefit the Church which deprived it of the means of maintaining and repairing the sacred edifices. With regard to raising the amount required by voluntary contributions that was just as reasonable and practicable a proposal as if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to bring forward a voluntary budget for levying voluntary taxes. One measure would work, he apprehended, just as efficiently as the other. There were many Gentlemen in the House who would give their support to the Bill who were undoubtedly good members of the Established Church; but he was sure they could not be aware of the great difficulties in which they would place the Church by the votes they were about to give. The fact was, that the whole system at present in operation for the management of the Church would be upset by the Bill. His hon. Friend had alluded to the statement of the hon. Baronet (Sir John Trelawny) that in many parishes the rates had been applied to the killing of vermin and other unworthy purposes. Now, he (Mr. Packe) believed that very many persons did entertain conscientious objections to the maintenance of church rates; but he must say that he feared the great majority of persons were actuated in the opposition to those rates by no higher considerations than those which were connected with the pocket. If the Bill passed this House he should rejoice at its going up to the House of Lords, because in that assembly there had not been a discussion upon the subject since the year 1853, and we should probably have the advantage of hearing from some noble and learned Lords an explanation of the judgment of Lord Truro in that year, when that noble and learned Lord stamped the opposition to church rates as a stigma upon those who resorted to it, and declared that it reflected disgrace upon them. Their Lordships would also give the matter calm and deliberate consideration, unfettered by those influences which, more or less, warped the judgment of Members of this House.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."

MR. AKROYD

said, he was opposed to the total and unconditional repeal of church rates, and must therefore vote against the Bill of the hon. Baronet; but at the same time, he was as much in favour as any one could be of relieving Dissenters from a rate to which they conscientiously objected, in a manner consonant with their views and feelings, but so as not to raise an impassable barrier between church and dissent. It was not so much upon doctrinal points as upon questions of Church government, that Dissenters and Churchmen differed; and hence, he did not lay that stress which some might be disposed to do upon the religious objections to the payment of church rates. In the manufacturing districts it was not uncommon for Churchmen and Dissenters to aid each other in their respective labours. But the Dissenters might justly claim exemption from the imposition of church rates, on the ground that having their own places of worship to build and maintain, they ought not to be called on to contribute towards the maintenance of the parish Church. The inhabitants of the new districts which had been carved out of the original parishes sought exemption from payment to the parish Church, in order to relieve themselves from a double burden; and the Dissenters with greater justice might urge the same argument. At the same time, while they did justice to the Dissenters they must take care they did not do so in a manner to inflict a perpetual injustice upon the Church. The Church had a right to raise its funds in its own way; and if it chose to adopt the old and constitutional form of levying a rate, it ought not to be prevented from collecting such a rate from its own members. Moreover, the Bill could not be expected to prove a permanent settlement of the question, because it left untouched a serious grievance under which Churchmen laboured—it left Dissenters at liberty to interfere in the appointment of persons who had important functions to perform in relation to the services and discipline of the Church—he meant the churchwardens. Surely those only who paid church rates ought to be allowed to meddle with the election of church officers. No doubt churchwardens had secular duties to perform as well as those which were purely ecclesiastical; but he thought that the parishioners might elect a parish warden, leaving to the members of the congregation the privilege of choosing their own church officers—and this was no more than what the Dissenters themselves enjoyed. He had hoped that some compromise would have been offered which would have carried out his views, and some had been proposed which he would have supported; but they had fallen through from want of preconcerted arrangement and organization. Looking at the influence and character of many Members, both of the late and the present Government, he was surprised that none of them had proposed any Amendment calculated to settle the question in a spirit of justice to all parties. The difficulties in the way of a settlement had been greatly aggravated by the suicidal policy of the Church herself. By her very constitution she ignored the existence of Dissenters, she forgot that they were the descendants of the stern old Puritans, who would never forego their rights, and the consequence of a policy which refused to yield to the altered circumstances of the age had been to raise an organization throughout the whole kingdom, which was felt at every election, and influenced Members in their conduct in the House. Still that was no reason why the just rights of the Church should in turn be encroached upon. The Braintree case was regarded by Dissenters as the foundation of their rights in reference to church rates; but it seemed to him that they were in danger themselves of departing from the principle which was asserted in the final decision upon that case. For what was that principle? It was that the minority should have no power over the majority to make a rate against their will; but this Bill proposed to take away the power of the majority in those parishes which now granted church rates, and to prevent rates being granted at all. It seemed to him that the principle of the Braintree case being now established, the question might easily be settled. As the law stood a majority could make a rate; and all that was to be accomplished was, that they should have the power to levy them, at the same time respecting the rights of the minority by exempting the Dissenters. The mode which Dissenters uniformly adopted for the purpose of raising funds for the maintenance of Divine worship, was by a pew rate; but even they were beginning to doubt the propriety of that plan, and to substitute in many places a voluntary weekly contribution from the members of the congre- gation. But if they did not dictate to Dissenters as to the mode in which they should raise their funds, so neither ought the Dissenters to dictate to the Church. In places where church rates had been long discontinued, they ought to leave churchmen to impose a voluntary rate upon themselves, but in rural districts they might leave the present system in operation, only preserving the rights of individuals. Certainly he could never consent to transfer £300,000 a year from the Church to the landowners, who for the most part neither asked for it nor desired it. Just reverse the operation—talk of transferring £300,000 a year from the landowners to the Church, and see the outcry that would be made. And was the Church of England so passive that she would tamely submit to such injustice? Having thus examined the position in which the question stood with regard to members of the Church and to Dissenters, he had now to consider the subject in so far as it affected the people. The Church of England had a right to be called a national Church, because there were certain rites which she still performed for the bulk of the people—baptism, burial, and the visitation of the sick. These constituted her claim to be considered a national Church; and until they entirely upset the parochial system they could not abolish her right to the title. She might also lay claim to it on another ground—the right which the entire population had to accommodation within the walls of their parish churches, without money and without price, whenever they chose to attend. He remembered seeing that right asserted during the Chartist agitation, and a most impressive and affecting sight it was. Never did he see a more earnest or devout congregation; and his only regret was that the right which those Chartists claimed had not been more frequently asserted. There could be no permanent settlement without preserving the rights of all three parties—Churchmen, Dissenters, and the people; for if they encroached on the rights of any, they would only sow the seeds of future discord and agitation. He augured well for the future settlement of the question from the spirit of forbearance and moderation which had been displayed, and he could not altogether disguise his wish, although perhaps it was unconstitutional to anticipate what the decision of the other House might be, that they might have an opportunity of legislating in another Session under the Chris- tian feeling of mutual respect for the rights of all parties interested in the settlement of this question.

SIR JAMES GRAHAM

Sir, I cannot give the vote which I am about to give without asking permission of the House to explain the reasons which will guide me in giving it. And although, Sir, this is not the place or the opportunity for the profession of a religious creed, yet I must be permitted to preface what I am about to say with a single sentence upon that subject. I was born and educated within the pale of the Church of England. With my deliberate judgment I have adopted its creed, I wish from my heart that its doctrines were more embodied in my life; and I hope to die in its communion. Therefore, Sir, there is no more attached friend of the Church of England than he who has the honour of addressing you. And, being an attached friend of the Church of England, I am bound to consider the position of this question as it now stands with reference to the interests of the Church. I have listened to the speech which has been just addressed to us with the greatest interest, and to many of the propositions I give a ready assent. I am not one of those who think this question of church rates a question of religious liberty, and I am not prepared to admit the right of Dissenters to claim the abolition of this rate; I am disposed rather to consider the question with reference to the interests of those two other classes to which the hon. Gentleman has adverted—the interests of the Church and of the people at large. Viewing it in this light, with respect to the interests of the Church, I would gladly have seen a compromise if a just one could have been effected. All compromise has hitherto failed, and I must regard the question as it now stands. With the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, I do not think it right to speculate upon the possibility, or even the probability, that the Bill will be rejected elsewhere, and that we may see it again in another Session. But if I could allow myself so to speculate, I should boldly consider what is the best prospect, if this measure should not succeed in the present Session; and I should come to the conclusion that, with the view of arriving at a reasonable compromise, it would be better to send up the Bill to the House of Lords by a commanding majority. I have taken a part in various attempts to arrive at a compromise of this question. In the Government of Lord Grey I was associated with Lord Althorp—and my noble Friend opposite (Lord J. Russell) was a party to the proposition—in a plan by which it was hoped we might have effected even then a compromise of this matter. That Government, in the height of its popularity and power, proposed a measure which appeared to them a reasonable settlement: but so little even then was there a disposition to come to a compromise that the Government yielded to public opinion and withdrew the measure. My hon. Friend has alluded to attempts more recent to effect this same object: however paradoxical it may appear, I think the existing state of the law, though anomalous, is better than any compromise which has yet been proposed. For what is the practical working of church rates? In populous districts and in the large cities of this kingdom practically the rate has fallen into desuetude: no rate is levied, speaking generally, in large and populous districts; but though the rate has fallen into desuetude no difficulty is found in providing funds for sustaining the fabric of the churches. The rate is most wanted in the rural parishes, where the population is scanty, where the burden of maintaining the church is comparatively heavier, and there, as the law stands, the majority decide whether the rate shall be levied or not; and, generally speaking, in these rural parishes there is no opposition to the rate. But I must say it is fallacious to endeavour to institute a comparison between the number of parishes where the rate is granted and the number where it is refused. The only proper comparison is between the proportion of the population who are unwilling to bear the rate and the proportion of the population who are willing to bear it. I will refer again to the different compromises that have been proposed. I have a most decided objection to the imposition of pew rents as a substitute. The great principle for which the hon. Gentleman contends is the legitimate principle—the principle of a national church, the principle that the poor shall have church accommodation. It is difficult enough, with every influence which can be used by the parochial clergy, to induce the population, even without money or price as the hon. Gentleman expresses it, to attend divine worship; but to institute as a rule in the rural parishes that pew rents should be received from the congregation would have an effect which Churchmen least desire. Shame would prevent the very poor from coming and not contributing, and the compulsion to contribute would increase the disinclination to attend the service. It has been suggested to mark, to brand, the Dissenters—that if they think fit to declare themselves Dissenters they shall be exempt from payment of the rate. I have the greatest objection to any such course. I regret the unhappy religious differences which prevail in this land, and the proposal of ticketing the Dissenters tends greatly to perpetuate those differences. There are many attractions in the Established Church which are inherent in our common nature. If the daughter of a Dissenter is about to be married, she naturally wishes that the marriage shall be solemnized at the same altar where her parents exchanged their marriage vows. If a man is about to die, the voice of nature cries within him, "Let my bones be laid beside his bones. Let me be buried in the churchyard where my forefathers lie, where worldly anxiety and religious differences are buried in the same grave." These are attractions which operate upon Dissenters, and frequently lead the children of Dissenters to return to the bosom of the Church. But if you once fix what is termed the "ticket" on a Dissenter—if he is to be marked by some overt act as a Dissenter—if he is required to put his hand and seal, as it were, to his dissent, it will become a point of honour with his family to adhere to that form of dissent to which their father gave a fixed and firm adherence, and all return to the Church will be for them very difficult, if not impossible. These are some of the compromises which have been proposed, and I confess I have heard no compromise suggested which is either judicious or acceptable. Elsewhere it will be for the heads of the Church, if the Bill should go up by a commanding majority, to devise, in their wisdom, that which may be acceptable. I sincerely desire to see a reasonable compromise. But, not seeing it, I am bound to exercise my option, and decide whether, on the whole, it is not for the benefit of the Church to deal with this impost, with all the heart-burnings attending it, and all the evils generated by it. In the remote valleys of Cumberland and Westmoreland, where there exists a population which I know well, and which is the most peaceable, the most orderly, and the most virtuous—in those most remote valleys this unhappy question has begun to start up from the root of bitterness and strife. And is it unreasonable that there should be disgust in this matter? The question has been stated with great fairness by the hon. Member for Kent (Sir Brook Bridges) and the hon. Member for South Leicester (Mr. Packe). The hon. Member for Kent referred to certain abuses, such as the charge on the church rates for the destruction of vermin, which are altogether ridiculous. But there are other abuses which, I am sorry to say, greatly disgust Churchmen. There are charges included which, as it appears to me, are altogether indefensible. The dignitaries of the Church, through the medium of the church rates, pay their officers. At every visitation of the bishop or archdeacon, fees payable to themselves are paid out of the church rates. Then we have officers who get paid, but who ought to be paid by the dignitaries themselves. Then we have the apparitor and procuration fees, and every species of impost, which, as I think, are abuses, also paid out of the church rates. The churchwardens, the parish clerk, the officers of the church have to attend visitations at considerable expense, all at the charge of the church rates. Again: it is not only the simple requisites of divine worship which the ratepayers are called upon to provide—there are what may be termed the luxuries of worship, the organ, organist, even pensions to parish officers, charged on church rates. These matters are well known, much canvassed, and of course very odious to Dissenters, but they also create considerable disgust even in the minds of Churchmen. It may be asked why has all this not been remedied? Lord Althorp proposed a plan for maintaining the fabric of the church, and confining the rate to that legitimate object; but his proposal, although reasonable, was not accepted by the public, and Lord Althorp, with great discretion and knowledge of this House, did not persevere in it. I am asked if this Bill should pass how the necessary expenses for maintaining the service of the Church can be raised? I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that the country gentlemen and the nobility will scorn to pocket the £300,000 which is a charge on their estates. The remedy which has occurred to me, and which I have long entertained has been announced by the Right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Sir G. Grey). There are some points in his plan with which I did not agree, but I in cordially agree with him n the wish to relax the Statute of Mortmain to a limited extent, so as to enable the holders of land either in fee or even for life to charge their estates for the maintenance of the parish church within certain limits. That proposal appears to me to be perfectly unobjectionable. I have spoken before of the luxuries of religious worship—the music, the choral service, &c.—and I cannot conceive any subjects for the offertory which come more entirely within the rubrics of the Church, and are more entirely in accordance with them, than such expenses. With regard to the other charges, the fees to officials, it is the duty of the dignitaries of the Church—of the bishops and archdeacons—out of their ample funds themselves to bear those charges. I am bound, however, to say that I should have hesitated to give this vote if it had not been for an important circumstance. A Bill has come down to us from the House of Lords which has been quietly withdrawn, but which was introduced by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and which received the support of the great body of the Bishops. Now, what is the principle of that measure? I am not one of those who think that it is imprudent on the part of the Church of England to rely upon the voluntary principle; on the contrary, I think there is too much distrust on the part of the Church of the voluntary principle An hon. Gentleman has referred to the origin of tithes, but I must remind him that a very large portion of the property of the Church was the voluntary offering of our pious forefathers. In more modern times has the Church any reason to regret the trust she has reposed in the liberality of her sons? Upon what does the colonial episcopate rest at this moment? What are the resources of the Christian Knowledge Society and the British and Foreign Bible Society? The funds of those societies are enormous. The Christian Knowledge Society is a branch of the Church of England; the British and Foreign Bible Society may be said to be supported mainly by Dissenters, but it is largely supported by churchmen. But the Church of England has never called on her members to contribute to her necessities and found the members of her community—and they are probably the most wealthy portion of society—slow to answer the appeal. At this moment the Church of England seems imbued with a new principle—I hope it may be for good—but there seems to be just now something like a revival in the heart of the establishment. By the Bill to which I have alluded every Bishop was to have the power, by this Bill, of licensing, in any town where the population exceeded 5000, any building where any portion of the liturgy of the Church might be performed—not excluding, as I understood, the Sacraments. That certainly seems to me to set aside the principle on which of old churches were required to be consecrated. But the matter does not rest there. What have we all seen and heard? A most amiable and excellent Bishop has been enthroned in St. Paul's Cathedral, and has taken possession of the palace at Fulham and of London House in St. James's Square. His first act was to attend a meeting at Islington in aid of building a new church, and he then declared that he had heard with satisfaction that prayer meetings were held on Sunday morning in the yard of a hackney-man. He said that divine worship there performed was as acceptable to the Most High as any divine service that might be celebrated, with all the solemnity of cathedral worship, under the fretted vault of the most gorgeous temple. I cannot deny the truth of this assertion. But if that be the case, and if the Church of England is about to become a missionary Church, and is about to descend into the arena with the Dissenting Churches, we cannot surely with justice continue to tax the Dissenters for church rates. Is that all? We have Bishops preaching in the open air. We have Deans "Spurgeonizing" at Exeter Hall. We have dignitaries of the Church advertised and paraded on the stages of music halls, and we have priests evangelizing on platforms throughout the country. An Evangelical Alliance has been held in Lambeth Palace, and Dr. Bunting has offered up family prayers in the presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury. I pray that this movement may be favourable to the interests of piety and religion; but this is, to say the least of it, a great departure from the principle of an Established Church. I hope it may be for good, and I do not venture to predict what its effect may be; but it is certain that this is at variance with all the doctrines that have hitherto been considered the recognized doctrines of the Establishment. I am against carrying on a "war to the knife" against the Dissenters. The time has arrived when the policy of the Established Church is not to fight this desperate battle to the last extremity, but to make timely concessions in the hope of peace. It is said that the sum raised by this impost does not exceed £320,000 a year, and I, for one, having hitherto always opposed the abolition of church rates, call upon the friends of the Church not to continue the contest further for an amount so inconsiderable compared with the wealth of the endowments. For these reasons my vote will be given in favour of the present Motion.

MR. BALL

was understood to say that he should support the Bill; but that he was far from inimical to the Establishment. He thought indeed that the abolition of the church rates would be a positive benefit to the Church; for if, instead of exacting money from unwilling contributors, she distributed the bread of life with a free hand to the people at large, she would be regarded with far more respect, and would obtain a larger degree of affection. When it was considered how liberal the Dissenters were in respect to their chapels, schools, and missionary enterprises, it was absurd to impute to them that they looked upon this as a mere breeches-pocket question. He wished to see the Church descend into the common arena, and work hand to hand with the Dissenter in the service of their common Maker.

MR. WALPOLE

said, he hoped his right hon. Friend (Sir James Graham) would forgive him if he said that there was some inconsistency between different parts of his speech. At one time his right hon. Friend appeared to be opposed to the abolition of church rates, while at the conclusion he said he should vote for their abolition, and for sending the Bill up to the House of Peers. His right hon. Friend scorned the notion that the landed gentry would put a sum of £300,000 in their pockets, and yet he was going to vote for a Bill that would necessarily have that effect, although a great portion of those hon. Gentlemen did not wish to save themselves from the payment of what was due. His right hon. Friend had alluded to certain novelties introduced by the dignitaries of the Church, tending to place Churchmen and Dissenters on the same level; but was there anything inconsistent in an attempt to preserve the consecrated buildings of the Church and to supplement them by allowing for a temporary purpose prayers to be offered up in other buildings? His right hon. Friend had also alluded to certain proposals for the compromise of this question. Lord Althorp had made a proposal to commute church rates by transferring them to the land tax, or rather by applying a portion of the land tax in paying the amount now levied by church rates. [Lord JOHN RUSSELL: £250,000 a year.] Such a proposal was clearly not just, since half the land tax had been redeemed, and the effect would have been to exonerate those landlords who were still liable to land tax, to the whole of the rate which was due from others as well as from them. Another proposal was made by Lord Monteagle to apply to this purpose the surplus revenues in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The answer was that the funds in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were devoted by Parliament to as great a purpose as church rates, namely, the augmentation of those small benefices in which the Ministers of religion were so ill-paid. That proposal also failed. The next was a proposal made by the late Sir Robert Peel. When twenty-three years ago, that right hon. Baronet first announced that in his opinion this question ought to be settled, he proposed that the maintenance of the sacred edifices should be provided out of the Consolidated Fund. His right hon. Friend (Sir James Graham) was a Member of the most powerful Government this country had had for years. That Government might have settled the question of church rates during the years 1841 and 1845; but during the five years his right hon. Friend was in office nothing was accomplished towards this end. The argument pressed upon the Government of that day was, that if church rates were made good out of the Consolidated Fund they would still be taxing the Dissenters for the support of the Church. After that proposition was mooted, but not attended to, a proposition was made, first by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) and afterwards by Dr. Phillimore, to exempt the Dissenters, upon the ground that those who did not share the privileges of the Church should not bear the burdens. But it required the counter proposition to make it just,—that those who did not share the burdens of the Church should not be entitled to claim, as a matter of right, the privileges of the Church. When he came to this part of the case the right hon. Gentleman (Sir James Graham) said "It will not do to brand the Dissenters." He believed that no desire had been felt or expressed to do anything in the shape of "branding the Dissenters." He believed that it was an honest proposition, made to satisfy the Dissenters whose consciences were aggrieved by the payment of those rates. But the inference which he drew from the refusal to accept that offer was, that the plea of conscience raised by the Dissenters was not the only plea which they had to urge, and that there were some other reasons why they would not accept even that kind of settlement. A settlement just in itself and equitable to the Dissenters was freely and frankly offered by the Church, and, therefore, when that proposition was so refused, the right hon. Baronet ought not to say that since no means of settling the question were offered on the part of Her Majesty's Government, they had arrived at a point when there was no remedy except to abolish that which had existed from time immemorial. If that were the position of the question he wished to ask the right hon. Baronet, who was desirous to send the Bill into the other House by a "commanding majority," whether in voting for the abolition of church rates he was or was not prepared to acquiesce in the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Sir G. Grey) of which he had expressed his approval, that there should be some means of commuting or redeeming those rates, by repealing the mortmain law so far as to enable the owners of land to charge their land to that extent. The regret which he should feel at his right hon. Friend voting for the abolition of the rates would be much diminished if he could find that some such settlement as that could yet be effected. But he could not help feeling that a settlement of the question was not the object which the Dissenters had in view. It appeared from the general tenor of the Non-conformist press, and from the evidence of an eminent Non-conformist, which was taken before the Select Committee, that no settlement would satisfy the Dissenters, because they had the ulterior object of fighting their battle with the Establishment upon that ground. He did not quarrel with the Non-conformists for having their own views with regard to the Establishment, but he was surprised to see the right hon. Baronet join in a proposition which must not only have the effect of abolishing church rates but of breaking up the parochial system and ultimately severing the connection between Church and State. In saying that, he was not against a settlement of the question, for he hoped it might yet be effected; but the very identical arguments which were used for the abolition of church rates would equally apply to the abolition of tithes, which were an obligation similarly imposed by our ances- tors for the maintenance of the minister. If they gave up church rates without a fair settlement it would be a stepping-stone to further advances, until they ultimately arrived at the voluntary principle through out the country. He thought the voluntary principle an admirable ally of the Establishment, but he denied that it could ever be a substitute for it. In places where the people were congregated together, whether acted upon by Nonconformists or Churchmen, the voluntary principle would be largely beneficial; but when they came to apply the voluntary principle to places where by reason of poverty or some other reason the people would not pay their money for such purposes it must fail. They were not asked to found an Establishment for the first time; and, after all, the churches were the churches of the poor more than of the rich. The great object of an Establishment was to have a church in every hamlet and village where the poor man could without obstruction, or as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Akroyd) expressed it, "without money and without price," receive all the blessings and ordinances of religion by means of a charge on the property of the country which did not affect the poor. He was perfectly confident that the voluntary principle never would be able to supply that which the Establishment had supplied, and for these reasons he thought the best course to take on the present occasion was not, as the right hon. Baronet recommended, to pass the Bill by "a commanding majority," but to get such a division on the question as would show that, though prepared to settle it iu a reasonable spirit, they were not prepared, for the benefit of those who were the owners of land subject to the rate, to abolish the means by which the poor of this country had brought home to their very doors the blessings and the ordinances of our holy religion.

MR. AYRTON

thought there could be no compromise upon this question, the principle of the Bill being the total abolition of the right of a majority to levy upon the minority a rate for the support of any particular form of religious belief. Considering the number of parishes in which church rates had been abolished, there seemed to be very little difficulty in applying the voluntary principle to the sustentation of churches; but if any difficulties were experienced it would be for Churchmen hereafter to bring forward measures for the purpose of providing a remedy. The best thing the House could now do was to pass the Bill as it stood.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that if it were true that much difficulty had been experienced in arriving at a settlement of this question on account of the differences in detail on the part of those who were not unfriendly to the principle of church rates, it was certainly also true that no inconsiderable differences of opinion existed among those who were prepared to vote for the abolition. It was to be recorded, to the honour of the hon. Baronet who had brought in this Bill, and of other Gentlemen—among whom he could not refrain from mentioning the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Fox) that the speeches which they had delivered in favour of the Bill were by no means of a character to prevent any one entertaining the hope that, under favourable circumstances, they might arrive at some judgment which would give general satisfaction. But the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken told them that the very nature of the question would not admit of any compromise, and that the Bill contained an authoritative declaration of the principle, that the majority had no right to obtain any support for any particular form of religion. If that really were the principle for which not only the hon. Gentleman, but all who voted in favour of the measure contended, for his part, although he bad no wish to attach exaggerated importance to this important question, he thought the argument of the hon. Gentleman was good for a great deal more than the abolition of church rates. If they asserted that the majority had no right, under any circumstances, to obtain support for any particular form of religion, there was no principle remaining upon which the present payment of tithes could possibly be maintained. He could not but feel that a portion of the difficulties of this question had arisen from the disposition which was entertained, and entertained, perhaps, more extensively than it was avowed, though it was explicitly avowed in the evidence to which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had referred, namely, to fight the question of a Church Establishment upon the ground of church rates. In his opinion, the question assumed an entirely different aspect, according as they proposed a measure with the sincere intention of making it a cure for a practical grievance, and according as the claimants of abolition used it to cover and screen ulterior objects for which they thought the time was not yet arrived more explicitly to avow. With respect to the removal of a practical grievance, he had, at least, some satisfaction in thinking that the discussions in that House had removed some misconceptions which existed out of doors. It was very common to hear out of doors the law of church rates designated as a law which taxed Dissenters for the benefit of the Church, and those who were at all friendly to church rates were said to wish to tax Dissenters for the benefit of the Church. That doctrine could hardly be advanced in that House. He did not know whether any one entertained the desire that Dissenters should be taxed for the benefit of the Church. He would not enter into the question whether there was not a fair and legitimate claim on Dissenters as holders of property to meet charges which were incumbent on that property. It was a doctrine which had its limits, and he did not wish to enter into it. He thought the right and title of the Church in respect to Dissenters, if it existed, was not worth the contention which the attempt to maintain it must necessarily entail; and, for his part, ever since the proposition which Sir William Page Wood made some ten years ago, to exempt Dissenters from the payment of church rates, he had never scrupled to declare himself favourable to that exemption. As regarded many of those who were not willing to consent to abolition, they had no desire to maintain the principle of taxing Dissenters for the support of the Church, and if the Dissenters were taxed for the support of the Church, it was not so much the act of those who were friendly to the maintenance of church rates as it was the act of those who were determined not to accept any measure which established a legal exemption. Then a question arose which appeared to him a question of difficulty. His right hon. Friend stated his objection in vivid language to what he said, was a proposal to brand the Dissenters—that was to say, to brand the Dissenters by describing them as Dissenters. He was bound to say that he did not know how they could "brand" a man by describing him as that which he was. He did not understand that they "branded" an Englishman by calling him an Englishman. He did not understand that they "branded" a soldier by putting on some part of his dress the number of the regiment to which he belonged. But still he granted that it was a question of feeling. He did not see why, if a man were a Dissenter, he should wish not to be designated as a Dissenter, but he admitted fully the reasons why it was not desirable to widen the line of separation between Dissenters and members of the Church. An hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lygon) sometime ago proposed terms so liberal and so large that every Dissenter might have avoided the payment of church rates without classing himself as a Dissenter. The true principle was, that those who objected to the payment of church rates ought not to take part in the appropriation of church rates or the election of the officers who appropriated that money. But the hon. Gentlemen proposed by this Bill to abolish church rates through the length and breadth of the country, and the arguments upon which they founded their case, were not those derived from universal experience, but from the experience of parishes in which church rates had been abolished. His right hon. Friend (Sir James Graham) had declared that for the sake of £320,000 a year it was not for the interest of the Church to prolong these heartburnings; but the state of things he had described was, that church rates were abolished in populous parishes, and were paid without heartburning in the great multitude of the rural parishes. There could be no sensible view of this question which declined to notice the state of the church rate question in the rural parishes. The population in these parishes was fixed, and church rates were a small fixed charge on the real property of the parish. In return the Church provided space in which the entire population, including the poor, could attend divine service, at the cost mainly of the landowners of the parish. Was the law of church rates bad? He contended that it was founded upon a popular basis, because it intrusted to the majority of the parishioners the business of satisfying their local wants. Was it a novel principle? On the contrary, it was founded on an ancient law, and it established a local supervision in a manner most agreeable to English feelings. In the rural parishes the law worked well, and was generous and just, because it imposed an hereditary and traditional burden upon the owners of property, while the benefits were reaped by the poorer classes. But then it was said, why not trust to the voluntary principle? He had nothing to say in disparagement of the power and efficacy of that principle, but he was not prepared to make a whole sale importation of that principle to displace an old and long established system which worked well for an important purpose. The labourers and traders of a rural parish had not been accustomed to the voluntary principle. Those whom the Bill proposed to exempt had been accustomed to pay, and those who had not been used to pay they were going to call upon. The rural population had certainly undergone improvement, but they were not yet in such a position that the House could remove a burden from the landowners, who did not want to have it removed from them, in order to impose it upon the peasantry and the poor. His right hon. Friend had spoken of valleys in Cumberland and Westmoreland where synodals and fees of officials were defrayed out of church rates. It must be as novel to the House as to himself if his right hon. Friend meant to say that these fees were a great practical abuse, or had given rise to an alarming amount of popular dissatisfaction in the vales of Cumberland and Westmoreland. It was in the power of a majority of the vestry to disallow those charges, and perhaps his right hon. Friend might restore content to those smiling valleys by the simple means of making known to the ratepayers the actual state of the law. It had been asked, with much truth, if they abolished church rates on the ground of the efficacy of the voluntary principle, why they should not abolish tithes on the same grounds. His right hon. Friend had looked forward to a relaxation of the law of Mortmain as a necessary sequel of removing church rates in the smaller districts. That would be a first measure; but how far was it to go, and would it be a better principle for the maintenance of the fabric than church rates? In the enormous majority of cases that privilege would remain a dead letter. A certain number of landowners would charge their lands with the payment of a sum for the maintenance of the fabric of the church; but many of them would be unable, some would be unwilling, and others would have conscientious objections to such a course. A Roman Catholic landowner might, for instance, submit to the payment of church rates; but it would be a different matter for him to impose that burden afresh upon himself and his heirs for ever by a voluntary act. The church rates might be adapted to the need of the Church, but a provision arising from the repeal of the law of Mortmain would be sometimes too much, sometimes too little, sometimes jobbed, and at other times insufficient. It was useless to disguise that the Bill would in many cases throw a heavy burden upon the clergyman. Its direct effect would be to destroy the maintenance of the church in certain cases, and in others to take their daily bread out of the mouths of the incumbents. The parish of Poplar, for example, was regulated by a local Act of Parliament, which had abolished small tithes, Easter offerings, and other ordinary sources of maintenance, and had left the incumbent a fixed stipend of £450, which had been mainly derivable from church rates. The House ought, no doubt, to recognize the rights of the majority to dispense, if it pleased, with any rate; but it ought, also, to provide facilities in parishes where no rate was made, whereby the machinery of the Church of England might be made applicable to the collection and expenditure of the sums voluntarily raised. Upon principles such as these, and with a disposition to arrive at an amicable settlement of the question, he believed that the difficulty might be satisfactorily arranged. But it was impossible that such a settlement could be arrived at if they were told that church rates must be abolished, and that no compromise or settlement would be listened to. He agreed with his right hon. Friend that the time had arrived when the Bill might well proceed to the other House; they would then see whether the greatest landowners in England would relieve themselves and their posterity from ancient and hereditary taxation. It was possible the House of Commons might have to resume the consideration of this question, when, instead of discussing an abstract Resolution upon the narrow ground of this Bill, the House might approach the discussion in a spirit of conciliation. if it did so, he felt convinced that the House would have its reward in arriving at a satisfactory conclusion.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 266; Noes 203: Majority 63.

List of the AYES.
Adair, H. E. Ashley, Lord
Agar-Ellis, hn. L. G. F. Atherton, W.
Agnew, Sir A. Ayrton, A. S.
Alcock, T. Bagshaw, J.
Anderson, Sir J. Bagshaw, R. J.
Antrobus, E. Bagwell, J.
Bailey, C. Dutton, hon. R. H.
Baines, Rt. Hon, M. T. Ebrington, Viscount
Ball, E. Egerton, E. C.
Baring, H. B. Ellice, rt. hon. E.
Baring, T. G. Ellice, E.
Barnard, T. Elliot, hon. J. E.
Bass, M. T. Ennis, J.
Baxter, W. E. Euston Earl
Beale, S. Evans, Sir De L.
Berkeley, hon. H. F. Evans, T. W.
Berkeley, F. W. F. Ewart, W.
Biddulph, R. M. Ewart, J. C.
Biggs, J. Ewing, H. E. C.
Black, A. Fenwick, H.
Blake, J. Finlay, A. S.
Bland, L. H FitzGerald, W. R. S.
Bonham-Carter, J. FitzGerald, Rt. Hon. J. D.
Bouverie, rt. hon. E. P. FitzRoy, rt. hon. H.
Bouverie, hon. P. P. Fitzwilliam, Hon. C. W. W
Bowyer, G. Foley, J. H.
Brady, J. Foley, H. W.
Brand, hon. H. Forster, C.
Bright, J. Foster, W. O.
Briscoe, J. I. Fortescue, hon. F. D.
Brown, J. Fortescue, C. S.
Bruce, Lord E, Fox, W. J.
Bruce, H. A. Freestun, Col.
Buchanan, W. Garnett, W. J.
Buckley, General Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.
Butler, C. S. Gifford, Earl
Buxton, C. Gilpin, C.
Byng, hon. G. Glyn, G. C.
Caird, J. Glyn, G. G.
Calcutt, F. M. Goderich, Visct.
Campbell, R. J. R. Graham, rt. hon. r
Cardwell, rt. hon. E. Greene, J.
Cavendish, hon. W. Gregson, S.
Cheetham, J. Grenfell, C. W.
Cholmeley, Sir M. J. Greville, Col. F.
Clay, J. Grey, R. W.
Clifford, C. C. Hadfield, G.
Clifford, Col. Hall, rt. hon. Sir B.
Clive, G. Hamilton, Capt.
Codrington, Gen. Hanbury, R.
Cogan, W. H. F. Hankey, T.
Colebrook, Sir T. E. Hanmer, Sir J.
Coningham, W. Hardcastle, J. A.
Conyngham, Lord F. Harris, J. D.
Copeland, W. T. Hartington, Marq.
Cotterell, Sir H. G. Hatchell, J.
Cowan, C. Headlam, T. E.
Cox, W. Heneage, G. F.
Craufurd, E. H. J. Hodgson, K. D.
Crook, J. Horsman, rt. hon. E.
Crossley, F. Howard, hon. C. W. G.
Dalglish, R. Hudson, G.
Dashwood, Sir G. H. Ingham, R.
Davie, Sir H. R. F. Jackson, W.
Deasy, R. Jervoise, Sir J. C.
Denison, hon. W. H. F. Johnstone, Sir J.
Dent, J. D. Kershaw, J.
De Vere, S. E. Kinglake, A. W.
Dillwyn, L. L. Kinglake, J. A.
Divett, E. Kingscote, R. N. F.
Duff, M. E. G. Kinnaird, hon. A. F.
Duff, Major L. D. G. Kirk, W.
Duke, Sir J. Knatchbull-Hugessen, E
Dunbar, Sir W. Labouchere, rt. hon. H.
Duncan, Visct. Langston, J. H.
Duncombe, T. Langton, H. G.
Dundas, F. Lindsay, W. S.
Dunkellin, Lord Locke, Joseph
Dunlop, A. M. Locke, John
Lowe, rt. hon. R. Scrope, G. P.
Macarthy, A. Seymour, H. D.
M'Cann, J. Shafto, R. D.
Mackinnon, W. A. Sheridan, R. B.
M'Mahon, P. Sheridan, H. B.
Maguire, J. F. Smith, J. A.
Marsh, M. H. Smith, J. B.
Marshall, W. Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Martin, C. W. Smith, Sir F.
Martin, P. W. Smyth, Col.
Massey, W. N. Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.
Matheson, A. Stanley, Lord
Mellor, J. Stanley, hon. W. O.
Mills, T. Stapleton, J.
Mitchell, T. A. Steel, J.
Moffatt, G. Stuart, Lord J.
Morris, D. Stuart, Col.
Napier, Sir C. Sullivan, M.
Nicoll, D. Sykes, Col. W. H.
Norreys, Sir D. J. Talbot, C. R. M.
Norris, J. T. Tancred, H. W.
North, F. Taylor, S. W.
O'Brien, P. Thompson, Gen.
O'Connell, Capt. D. Thornely, T.
O'Donaghoe, The Thornhill, W. P.
Ogilvy, Sir J. Tite, W.
Osborne, R. Tollemache, hon. F. J.
Paget, C. Tomline, G.
Paget, Lord C. Townsend, J.
Paxton, Sir J. Trueman, C.
Pease, H. Turner, J. A.
Pechell, Sir G. B. Vane, Lord H.
Perry, Sir T. E. Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.
Philips, R. N. Vivian, hon. J. C. W.
Pigott, F. Watkins, Col. L.
Pilkington, J. Weguelin, T. M.
Pinney, Col. Westhead, J. P. B.
Power, N. Whatman, J.
Pryse, E. L. Whitbread, S.
Pugh, D. White, J.
Ramsden, Sir J. W. Wickham, H. W.
Ramsay, Sir A. Wilcox, B. M'Ghie.
Rawlinson, Sir H. C. Williams, W.
Rebow, J. G. Willoughby, Sir H.
Ricardo, J. L. Wilson, J.
Ricardo, O. Winnington, Sir T. E.
Ridley, G. Wise, J. A.
Robartes, T. J. A. Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Roebuck, J. A. Wood, W.
Roupell, W. Wyld, J.
Russell, H. Wyvill, M.
Russell, A. Young, A. W.
Russell, F. W.
Salisbury, E. G. TELLERS.
Schneider, H. W. Trelawny, Sir J.
Scholefield, W. Shelley, Sir J.
List of the NOES.
Adams, W. H. Bennet, P.
Adderley, rt. hn. C. B. Bentinck, G. W. P.
Akroyd, E. Beresford, rt. hon. W.
Alexander, J. Blackburn, P.
Annesley, hon. H. Blakemore, T. W. B.
Arbuthnott, hon. Gen. Boldero, Col.
Baillie, H. J. Botfield, B.
Baring, A. H. Bramley-Moore, J.
Baring, T. Bramston, T. W.
Bernard, bon. Col. Browne, Lord J. T.
Barrow, W. H. Bruce, Major C.
Bathurst, A. A. Bruen, H.
Beach, W. W. B. Buller, Sir J. Y.
Bective, Earl of Burghley, Lord
Beecroft, G. S. Burrell, Sir C. M.
Cairns, Sir H. M'C. Hotham, Lord
Calcraft, J. H. Hume, W. W. F.
Carden, Sir R. W. Hunt, G. W.
Carnac, Sir J. R. Jermyn, Earl
Cartwright, Col. Johnstone, hon. H. B.
Cavendish, hon. G. Johnstone, J. J. H.
Cayley, E. S. Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Charlesworth, J. C. D. Jolliffe, H. H.
Child, S. Jones, David
Clive, hon. R. W. Kendall, N.
Close, M. C. Kerrison, Sir E. C.
Cobbold, J. C. King, J. K.
Codrington, Sir W. King, E. B.
Cole, hon. H. A. Knatchbull, W. F.
Collins, T. Knightley, R.
Conolly, T. Knox, Col.
Coote, Sir C. H. Langton, W. G.
Corry, rt. hon. H. L. Lefroy, A.
Cross, R. A. Lennox, Lord A. F.
Curzon, Visct. Lennox, Lord H. G.
Dalkeith, Earl of Leslie, C. P.
Damer, L. D. Lewis, rt. hn. Sir G. C.
Deedes, W. Lockhart, A. E.
Disraeli, rt. hon. B. Lopes, Sir M.
Dobbs, W. C. Lovaine, Lord
Dod, J. W. Lowther, hon. Col.
Drummond, H. Lowther, Captain
Du Cane, C. Lyall, G.
Duncombe, hon. A. Lygon, hon. F.
Duncombe, hon. Col. Macartney, G.
Du Pre, C. G. Macaulay, K.
East, Sir J. B. Mackie, J.
Edwards, H. M'Clintock, J.
Egerton, Sir P. G. Mainwaring, T.
Egerton, W. T. Manners, Lord J.
Elmley, Visct. March, Earl of
Emlyn, Visct. Maxwell, hon. Col.
Estcourt, rt. hon. T. H. Miles, W.
Farquhar, Sit M. Miller, T. J.
Fellowes, E. Mills, A.
Ferguson, Sir R. Montgomery, Sir G.
Foljambe, F. J. S. Moody, C. A.
Forde, Col. Morgan, O.
Forester, rt. hon. Col. Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R.
Forster, Sir G. Naas, Lord
Galway, Visct. Neeld, J.
Gard, R. S. Newdegate, C. N.
Gilpin, Col. Newport, Visct.
Gladstone, rt. hon. W. Nisbet, R. P.
Goddard, A. L. Noel, hon. G. J.
Gore, W. R. O. North, Col.
Greaves, E. Ossulston, Lord
Greenwood, J. Pakenham, Col.
Gray, Capt. Palmer, R.
Griffith, C. D Pennant, hon. Col.
Grogan, E. Pevensey, Visct.
Haddo, Lord Philipps, J. H.
Hall, Gen Pugh, D.
Hamilton, Lord C. Puller, C. W. G.
Hamilton, G. A. Robertson, P. F.
Hamilton, J. H. Russell, Lord J.
Hardy, G. Rust, J.
Hayes, Sir E. Sclater-Booth, G.
Heathcote, Sir W. Scott, Major
Heathcote, hon. G. H. Seymer, H. K.
Henley, rt. hon. J. W. Shirley, E. P.
Hill, Lord E. Sibthorp, Major
Hill, hon. R. C. Smollett, A.
Hodgson, W. N. Somerset, Col.
Hope, A. J. B. B. Spooner, R.
Hopwood, J. T. Stanhope, J. B.
Hornby, W. H. Stirling, W.
Horsfall, T. B. Stewart, Sir M. R. S.
Sturt, H. G. Whitmore, H.
Taylor, Col. Williams, Col.
Tempest, Lord A. V. Willoughby, J. P.
Tollemache, J. Wilson, A.
Trollope, rt. hon. Sir J. Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.
Vance, J. Wrightson, W. B.
Vansittart, G. H. Wyndham, Gen.
Vansittart, W. Wyndham, H.
Verner, Sir W. Wyndham, W.
Waddington, H. S. Wynn, Colonel
Walcott, Adm. Wynne, W. W. E.
Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.
Walsh, Sir J. TELLERS.
Warren, S. Bridges, Sir B.
Welby, W. E. Packe, C. W.
Whiteside, rt. hon. J.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read 3°, and passed.