SECOND READING. (Hansard, 4 July 1860)

§ MR. HUBBARD

said, he trusted that the House would not consider that he had been guilty of presumption in having introduced a Bill on the subject of church-rates. They all knew that in parishes where Dissenters were in a minority, they were compelled to pay church rates; and, that in parishes where dissenting influence was predominant, Churchmen were prevented from rating themselves for the maintenance of the fabrics and services of their churches, while in other parishes in which parties were nearly balanced, a perpetual warfare was carried on, most destructive to religion and social order. For that state of things the remedy proposed during successive Sessions had been the total abolition of church rates. The Bill introduced with that purpose was directed not merely to remedying the grievance under which they laboured, but with the ulterior object of effecting an entire severance between Church and State. The measure which he had introduced, on the contrary, was based on the double principle, that the House was bound to maintain the nationality of the Church of England, and that, as far as was compatible with the maintenance of a national Church, 1347 perfect civil and religious liberty should be secured to all men. It entirely relieved from liability to church rates Dissenters, who, upon their own showing, had no wish to avail themselves of the advantages offered by the Established Church. It affixed no stigma to them; and, on the other hand, it left Churchmen free to tax themselves in the way they found most convenient for their own purposes. Owing to the delay which had taken place in bringing the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir John Trelawny) before a Committee of the whole House, and to the neglect which that Bill had subsequently met with in the House of Lords, his measure had been unavoidably deferred to such a late period of the Session that unless it were cordially assented to by nil sections of the House it would be impossible to pass it in the brief interval that yet remained. He should, therefore, move that the order for the second reading be discharged, and he hoped during the recess that the principle of the Bill would engage the attention of hon. Members, and that in the commencement of another Session, they might be able to pass some measure which would put an end for ever to this fertile source of contention.

§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

said, he was quite unprepared for the withdrawal of the Bill, which he thought contained the elements of a measure that would have given satisfaction. The supporters of the total abolition scheme, by an ingenious system of party tactics, had diverted the attention of the country from the question really at issue; but he thought it unworthy of the House of Commons to imitate the conduct of schoolboys in a debating society, and to continue sending up Bills to the House of Lords which by overwhelming majorities they had intimated their intention never to accept. If the question were fairly put before the country, respectable Dissenters, he believed, would be willing to accept an intermediate measure, by which they would be exempted from all liability in respect of church rates. He knew, also, that many hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House regretted that they had pledged themselves to their constituents for the total abolition of the tax, but for which they would gladly support a moderate compromise. He thought the Church had hitherto been at a disadvantage in never having brought forward a distinct plan of their own. The best mode of so doing 1348 would be for the other House, if it were possible, to originate a Bill, and he did not believe this House would undertake the responsibility of rejecting it. But he understood that the forms of the Constitution, of which they were all so extremely jealous of late, prevented such a course. The next best course, then, would be to originate a moderate measure in this House. The first Bill introduced this Session had been constitutionally dealt with, and now, therefore, was the time to take away from the adversaries of the Church, if he might use that term without offence, the advantage of originating every measure, by offering a moderate proposition from the Conservative side. He thought the Bill of his hon. Friend did afford something like a distinct but moderate proposition, and, therefore, he deprecated its withdrawal. It was, he could not help thinking, a grievous mistake for hon. Gentlemen on his own side of the House to refuse their assent to any compromise by which the settlement of a long-vexed question would be effected, and those who took that course were, he believed, following out a line of policy which was more prejudicial to the interests of the Church than even the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Trelawny) and those by whom he was supported. And if there was to be no compromise—if the only alternative was to be between keeping things as they are, and the total abolition of church rates, he did not hesitate to say that of the two he would prefer to vote with the hon. Baronet opposite. But, as he had said, he thought this Bill offered something of a compromise, and therefore he was in favour of its going up to the Lords.