§ (Mr. Gladstone, Sir George Grey, Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. Attorney General.)
§ [BILL 43.] SECOND READING.
§ Order for Second Reading read.
MR. GLADSTONEIn moving the second reading of this Bill, I hope not to be under the necessity of detaining the House more than a few moments, for on introducing the measure I was permitted an opportunity of explaining its general provisions, and those provisions have now been before the House and the country for a considerable time, and I am not aware that anything has taken place which renders it necessary for me on the present occasion to make any further comments upon it; though if opposition should be offered it may be necessary for me to notice any arguments which may be used against it. I rise, therefore, simply for the purpose of stating the course at this period of the Session which I propose to take with reference to the Bill. It has been intimated to me that Her Majesty's Government are willing to accede to the principle of the Bill by voting for the second reading—of course reserving to themselves the power of proposing in Committee such Amendments as they may think compatible with the view that they may take on the matter. I do not intend to limit in any way the discretion which they are entitled to exercise. At the same time, I understood that that disposition upon their part was connected with an expectation that the Bill should not be pushed during the present Session beyond the second reading. 1030 I cannot at all deny that that is a fair expectation, under the circumstances, and considering the period of the Session at which we have now arrived. It may, perhaps, be thought that I take a course not altogether usual in asking the House to agree to the second reading of a Bill with which it is not intended to proceed further during the present year; but there are circumstances attending the position of this Bill which render it an absolute duty on my part to ask the House to decide upon its principle, and which will, I apprehend, have the effect of inducing the House to give that decision. It will be recollected that on the second reading of the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Hardcastle), a suggestion was made by me which forms the basis of this Bill, and which was tendered to my hon. Friend as a possible substitute for his Bill. The House affirmed the principle of the measure of my hon. Friend, and he would have been in a position, I have no doubt, to carry his Bill through Committee and obtain the final judgment of the House upon it on the third reading had he not, in a kind and conciliatory spirit, for which I wish to render him the tribute of my acknowledgments, refrained from pressing the advantage which be had gained by the early decision of the House on the second reading, in the expectation that it might be in the power of the late Government to proceed with this measure. This measure, like other measures in the hands of the late Government, has been subject to serious prejudice in consequence of circumstances with which we are all acquainted. But I have considered, and it is so considered by my late Colleagues, that this measure stands in a position different from other measures, inasmuch as it was originally a proposal not made by the late Administration, but by myself on my own individual responsibility. Still, the virtual pledge I gave to the hon. Member for Bury, by making a suggestion subsequently accepted by him, undoubtedly, as I think, remains in force, and renders it my duty to aim, as far as I can, at the fulfilment of my obligation by proposing the second reading of the Bill on the present occasion. With respect to the substance of the Bill, I think it only fair that hon. Members should have the opportunity of considering what additions or amendments the Bill may be susceptible of in Committee. The motives which should lead us to the adoption of 1031 such a course are, I think, imperative and conclusive in their character. Independently of Amendments to the arrangements I proposed, there may be other proposals which may be suggested, involving nothing compulsory in their nature, and therefore not inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, to make a more full and satisfactory provision for the maintenance of the fabrics of the Church. Therefore, though I should have wished to move the second reading of the Bill, under circumstances which would afford a hope of prosecuting the measure to a conclusion during the present Session, yet I cannot regret the delay which must now take place—particularly after the information conveyed to me that the Government received the proposal in a conciliatory spirit and acceded to its principle, it being understood that, in the event of the affirmation of the second reading, not only would full liberty be reserved for the proposal of Amendments in Committee if desired, but that no further proceeding should be taken after the second reading during the present Session, so that the fullest opportunity might be given for the consideration of the details connected with the question, in order that in the next Session we might approach this question under favourable circumstances, with a fair prospect of terminating a controversy which has hitherto involved impediments to the general progress of business.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI had no intention of troubling the House with my opinion so early in the discussion; but I fear some misconception may arise from the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, and I desire to offer a few remarks now. I was not in the House at the time, but I am informed that the right hon. Gentleman stated that the Government accepts the principle of the Bill, and will vote for the second reading on the condition that the measure should not be proceeded with this Session.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI fear that there has been some misconception on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, and I think it best to notice that point frankly at once, in order that his conduct may not be unduly influenced. 1032 What I understood was that it was—I will notsayarranged—butthought, on the whole, considering the period of the Session, and other circumstances, the best course that the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman should be now read a second time. The Government, however, do not accept the principle of the Bill, nor do they mean to vote for the second reading, but will not vote against it. It was also understood that the Bill was not to be proceeded with this year, but that opportunity should be given to the country during the recess for fully considering the measure. It, however, never reached me that the Government accepted the principle of the Bill or undertook to vote for the second reading, though they would offer no opposition to it, on the understanding that the Bill would not be proceeded with, and that a fair opportunity would be afforded to the country for considering the measure and all its details. No other understanding beyond that ever came to my knowledge, and I wish to repeat that I never heard that the Government had given their adhesion to the principle of the Bill, or that they were not perfectly free in another Session to oppose the principle. So far as I am concerned, I will not resist the second reading of the Bill this year, in order that the measure may be before the country and fairly considered, though not proceeded with further during the present Session. I shall not at this moment enter into a discussion on the Bill, but I thought not a moment should be lost in informing the House of the interpretation to be placed on the understanding with respect to the course to be taken by the Government. I am prepared myself not to resist the second reading of the Bill on the present occasion, and I think, considering the state of the Session, the long controversies on this question, and various other circumstances, which I need not now enter upon, it would be for the public convenience that the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman should be read a second time, though I reserve to myself the right to oppose it in a future Session.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYobserved that the Bill was already before the country, and it was certainly understood, in consequence of what passed during the discussion on the measure proposed by the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. Hardcastle), that the Government would offer no opposition to the affirmation of the principle of the Bill.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEhad stated when the Bill was introduced that he, although having serious misgivings as to 1033 the measure, felt grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, so much did he (Mr. Newdegate) desire some solution of this question, but now that he was more fully informed, he could in no sense consent to be committed to the principle of the Bill by what then took place. He objected to the principle of the measure, for he had always contended that there should be no exclusion by law of any person from the Church. He concurred with the hon. Member for Bury so far as that personal liability for church rates should cease, but he differed from him in this, that he thought the people of this country, especially the poor, ought not to be deprived of what he considered was their inalienable right of having the means for Divine service provided out of the property of the country. This Bill would make the means for maintaining Divine service depend upon voluntary contributions. That was not an adequate security, and was far from being an equivalent for the positive right which they were asked to give up. There were other reasons why he was opposed to the Bill, and one of them was that it would aggravate and establish the existing divisions in the Church. These differences of religious opinion within the Church were already sufficiently marked. There was the High Church party, the extreme of which touched Roman Catholicism. There was the Broad Church opinion, the exaggeration of which was represented by Dr. Colenso. There was the Evangelical or Low Church party, who verged towards Puritanism. These parties in the Church differed from each other, and from the great body of the Church. The Bill would facilitate the obtaining of power by these parties within the parishes of this country. If power was given to a certain party in every parish to control the externals of worship, the arrangement of rites, and of seats in the church, it was inevitable that the most fanatical or the most wealthy would be the persons who would by purchase obtain the control. The proposal that a parishioner who did not pay should not have a seat was at variance with the right of the poor to access to the Church; and if they divided the duties of Churchwardens in the manner proposed by this Bill, and gave the exclusive control of the accommodation to the Churchwarden, who was to be called the Ecclesiastical Churchwarden, but who was not elected by the majority but by 1034 the minority of the parishioners, they invalidated the right of the parishioners, the majority of whom would elect the person described as the secular Churchwarden. He could not conceive any principle more vicious. It was, in fact, putting the management of the fabrics and services of the parish churches up to auction. Upon this point he might cite the opinion of the late Sir James Graham on the subject of pew rents, considering that this principle of voluntary payment stood on the same sort of footing as pew rents. Sir James Graham, on the 8th June, 1858, said—
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."—[3 Hansard, cl.1714.]He (Mr. Newdegate) objected to the principle of the Bill, which was that of voluntary payment, or payment by parties in each parish, and of exclusion, as being totally antagonistic to the principles on which the Church of England was founded. 1035 He said at once that he preferred the Bill of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. If the Church of England was to be cast on the voluntary principle, which was that of absolute freedom, it was only fair that the members of the Established Church should have the strength also which freedom gives. This Bill provided for the establishment of differences —religious differences within the Church, but it contained no provision for controlling these. Every Member knew the lapsed condition of those differences. The differences would be exaggerated in the Ecclesiastical Courts, and there was no provision for their improvement. This would become absolutely essential, if any similarity, he would not say uniformity, in the manner in which the services were to be conducted was to be observed; that some authority should control those differences which he maintained this Bill would establish. Surely it was not the object of that House to promote religious indifference. Conscience, uncontrolled by religion, became lax; and it should never be forgotten that if the conscience of a nation once became dead, that nation must lose its capacity for freedom. If they could not rely on the great majority being fit to govern themselves in matters social and political, freedom rested on a foundation of sand. He believed that the purity of the religion established with the Church of this country had contributed essentially to the maintenance of the free institutions of this country. The principle of this Bill would exclude the principle of the measure which stood in his name; a principle which affirmed a permanent provision. It was in this sense that Sir James Graham was prepared to relax the Statute of Mortmain, so as to enable the owners of land in fee, or even for life, to charge their estates for the maintenance of the parish church. Sir James Graham said—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 George Grey). There are some points in his plan with which I did not agree, but I cordially agree with him in 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."—[3 Hansard, cl. 1716.]Provision was made in the Church Rate Commutation Bill for carrying out that recommendation of Sir James Graham; 1036 but in the Bill before the House not only were there provisions for the control of existing endowments by the Ecclesiastical Churchwarden only, who might, and probably would, only represent the minority of the parish, but the Bill would enable the representatives of the minority to dispose of those endowments, and get rid of them, subject only to the discretion of the Charity Commissioners. In this respect the Bill was diametrically opposed to the suggestion of Sir James Graham and to the principle of the Bill under the title of the Church Rate Commutation Bill, which stood in his (Mr. Newdegate's) name. He felt obliged to the House for having allowed him to express the apprehensions with which this Bill had inspired him; he could not, as an honest man, consent to the second reading of a Bill which he believed to be fraught with the deepest danger, greater even than any that could be anticipated from the Bill of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. If the House consented to the second reading of this Bill, even on the supposition that it would not become law this Session, he must be forgiven if he expressed his belief that they would on further consideration regret that course. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire would not urge the House to place itself in a position, from which on mature consideration he (Mr. Newdegate) was convinced they would desire to recede.
§ MR. NEATEsaid, he was glad that the second reading of this Bill was not to be carried sub silentio, and that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not forgotten a pledge which he had given on a memorable occasion three years ago at Oxford, when he occupied a conspicuous place at a great ecclesiastical revival, that when it was in the power of himself and his party he would inangurate what he was pleased to call a Church policy. After that declaration it would have been surprising if the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to accept a Bill which, if it meant anything, meant the establishment of the voluntary principle in relation not merely to the expenses of daily worship or the ordinances of the Church, but to the house and home, the very roof which covered the fabric of the Church. What the right hon. Gentleman meant by accepting the principle was best known to himself; but if he only meant it as a personal compliment due to the position of the right hon. 1037 Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone), he should make it clear. It was with considerable regret and compunction that, following the right hon. Gentleman from the opposite Benches, and being still faithful in his allegiance, he felt bound to bear with his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Newdedate) the brunt of opposing this Bill, as he had always considered it one of the leading characteristics of his right hon. Friend, that he endeavoured to harmonize legislation with the interests of the Church. But he could not shrink from the task of showing that the hasty establishment of the principle of the Bill would be objectionable. There might appear some inconsistency in his conduct in this matter, as he had supported the Bill of the hon. Member for Bury; but he had done so, not thinking the country ripe for the practical acceptance of that Bill, but with the idea of declaring the desirability that at an early period there should be no such thing as a compulsory church rate. To that he adhered; and he might observe that in 1860 a Committee of the other House, presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury, entirely gave up the principle of compulsory taxation in this matter. The only practical question was whether the exemption from payment of church rates should be partial, or, to prevent a distinction between those who paid and those who did not, universal. He did not think that full justice was done to the motives of Dissenters by stating that they objected to be "ticketed." The objection on the part of the Dissenters was, that they wished to participate in the whole of the parochial advantages without participating in their burdens, and that special exemptions could not be granted to them without subjecting them to some special disability. But the Church did not wish it to be apprehended by any division that it did not occupy the whole ground it ought to occupy. The Church considered Dissenters as erring members of the Church who might some day come back to the fold from which they had departed. The Bill of the right hon. Member for South Lancashire, while dividing parishes into two camps, did not secure to the Church the benefit which might accrue from the right of taxing itself. In that respect he greatly preferred the proposed Bill of the Solicitor General, which appeared to be intended to carry into effect the recommendations of the Lords' Committee. To such a 1038 Bill he was prepared to give his most willing assent. The point he wished to insist on was that while they renounced, either partially or totally, the right of taxation in the Church, some provision for the maintenance of the fabrics should be established. He could not conceive it possible that, so long as the principle of an Established Church was recognized, so long as the connection between Church and State was considered a part of the constitution of England, so long as the Sovereign took an oath to preserve the rights of the Church, so long as some millions of Church property were devoted to the maintenance of the Church of England—he could not conceive how the House of Commons, or even a Minister of State, could agree to abandon the fabric of the Church to the precarious chances of voluntary contributions. As well might they leave the maintenance of the fabric of the House of Commons to voluntary contributions. He appeared as an Erastian in this matter; and if he differed from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), it was not because he had any pretension to be in a higher or in the same degree a defender of the Church; but he did not see how the substitute was to be provided, except by a contribution from the funds of the Church. The fund was a secondary thing; the State must make some public provision. They could never allow a clergymen to plead as an excuse for not performing the duties incident to his cure that his church had no roof, and that he could find no funds to put a roof on it. If this Bill passed, such a state of things might occur, without any violation of the law, or any means of remedying the evil. He did not see why they should not tax the owners of advowsons and of rectorial tithes. There was another source to which they might apply, which he was sorry to say was not so fruitful as some people thought—he meant the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commission. If those funds had been dealt with as they ought to have been in past years the funds now available would be vastly larger than at present. This was more a question of principle than one of amount. He did not exclude the principle of voluntary contributions. The Church had a double character; she retained somewhat of her old Apostolic character, in so far as she depended upon the contributions of the faithful, and he should be glad to see the carrying out of this principle properly 1039 supplemented. There was one thing he should like to add. If, ten years ago, those who now specially advocated the interests of the Church had been willing to assent to the principle of exemption, there could be no doubt that the Dissenters would have thankfully accepted any law which would have freed them from the payment of church rate contrary to their conscience, and they would not have thought of interfering with the right of Churchmen to tax themselves. He thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite should take warning from this, and should observe how the claims they put aside had gained strength by time. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not urge this measure to a second reading in the face of the almost contemptuous assent which had proceeded from the other side, because, if there were a majority in its favour, it would serve no useful purpose, but was rather calculated to exercise a contrary influence. He begged to move as an Amendment—
That no scheme for the total, or partial, or absolute, or qualified abolition of Church Rates will be satisfactory to this House which does not contain some legal and certain provision for supplying any deficiency which may ensue from such scheme, in the funds applicable to the maintenance of the fabric of Church.
§ COLONEL BARTTELOTseconded the Amendment in order to enable him to express his disapproval of this Bill. He believed he stated the opinion, if not of a majority, of a large portion of the House, when he said it was fully understood that a compromise of some sort should be attempted by any Government that introduced a Bill of this kind. Now, the Bill proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire was no compromise at all; it was a giving up of the whole question by those who had fought it, and, he hoped, honourably, on both sides of the House. They were asked to take a Bill which enabled them voluntarily to contribute towards the National Church, hampering their voluntary contributions by clogs which were totally uncalled for. He had always thought that a compromise meant giving and taking on both sides, and the friends of the Church had been most anxious for some compromise which should settle this much-vexed question. The Solicitor General had laid such a Bill on table; but how was it met on the other side? The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Hardcastle) gave notice of his intention on 1040 the second reading to move that it be read a second time that day six months. Being met in that spirit, how could they accept such a Bill as that now proposed by the right hon. Gentleman?—for they had always contended that the Church should be supported by a rate derived from the landed property of the country. Considering the state of the poor, especially in the agricultural districts, it could not surely be contended that, if the State failed to provide church accommodation, it was acting in pursuance of its duty. It was perfectly true that in the early part of the Session they had been beaten on the Bill for the total abolition of church rates brought on by the hon. Member for Bury; but it was equally true that in the last Parliament they had a majority against them of seventy-four to commence with, and they finished with a majority of ten in their favour. This showed that in the interval the opinion both inside the House and outside had come to be in favour of some fair and equitable substitute, instead of a compulsory abolition of church rates. The grievance in this matter did not exist which existed a few years ago. In large towns church rates were almost entirely abolished; while in small towns the vestry, instead of carrying a rate by a small majority, generally carried it by a much larger majority than they did ten years ago. He might instance the case of Horsham, where the majority had increased from nineteen in 1856 to 179 in 1865. If this Bill passed, in large and poor parishes where there was no resident squire the whole burden would be thrown on the clergy, and they had already enough to do. In his own district there were two parishes which almost exclusively belonged to Roman Catholics where church rates were not objected to and would not be so long as the law remained as at present; but if the law were altered and it became a matter of conscience whether the Roman Catholics of Arundel and Slindon should subscribe to the repairing of the parish church, it would be a very different matter. There were 10,000 agricultural parishes in which there was a desire to maintain the rate, and he protested against a proposition which would undermine the strength of the Church which had proved so great a blessing to the nation. It would be alike unfair and unjust to assent to the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman, and he should therefore heartily oppose it.
§ Amendment proposed,
§ To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "no scheme for the total, or partial, or absolute, or qualified abolition of Church Rates will be satisfactory to this House which does not contain some legal and certain provision for supplying any deficiency which may ensue from such scheme, in the funds applicable to the maintenance of the fabric of Church,"—(Mr. Neate,)
§ —instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ MR. BERESFORD HOPE,having his name on the back of the Solicitor General's Bill, and having also a Motion on the Paper to refer this Bill, if it passed a second reading, to a Select Committee, would briefly state why he did not think it necessary to oppose the second reading, while at the same time he should not ask the House to appoint a Select Committee which could not, at that late date, meet and report, and could only, therefore, be a mockery. His right hon. Friend the Member for South Lancashire had, in a former debate, paid him the compliment of referring to some expressions he had dropped in vindication of his going on with the Bill; he must, therefore, be allowed to explain that, while he heartily sympathized with what he believed to be a genuine zeal on the part of the right hon. Member for the interests of the Church, which had prompted him to bring forward this Bill, and while he admitted that a compromise of the church rate question would on various accounts be of incalculable benefit, he must guard himself against being supposed to give his assent to the present Bill in various details. What, in his humble position, he had encouraged his right hon. Friend to go on with, was a Bill to continue church rates minus the compulsory element. That, he thought, was a correct summing-up of what the right hon. Gentleman had proposed early in the Session, on the second reading of the Bill of his hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds — namely, that the church rate was to be maintained; but that the compulsory element, or according to the figurative expression of the hon. Member for Birmingham—whom, by the way, they had not yet seen in his new place—the bailiff, and the process of the Court of Law, should disappear. But the Bill of his right hon. Friend did not carry out what he had proposed—it carried out something further 1042 and different. The Bill, as it stood, was for the abolition of compulsory church rates—that is, for the compulsory abolition of a thing which had time out of mind possessed its legal identity and recognizable character, an identity and character which were not changed or mitigated by the idle prefix of a descriptive adjective. What the right hon. Member promised was, the retention of this traditionary impost, accompanied by the removal of its compulsory element, but saving its identity. The introduction of that word "abolition" in the title and body of the measure was very unlucky, if the intention was to conciliate the clergy and laity of the Church of England, who had for so many years been flogged up hill and down hill, attacked, placarded, spoken against, vilified, by organization actively working with the intention of destroying the Established Church behind the breastwork of church rate abolition. Abatement, cessation, determination, or any other word, might have been used without having such obnoxious savour about it. The argument on the other side, in answer to these remarks, would be that this was not a Bill for the abolition of church rate, but only for the abolition of compulsory church rate. But that was drawing their points rather fine— that was a distinction which, no doubt, could be perceived by the acute intellects which it was well known had been engaged in drawing this Bill—a distinction which was very logical, but which it would be rather hard to assume was one that 10,000 clergy and 20,000 churchwardens in England, who would be affected by it, were likely to appreciate. By the first clause, compulsory church rate was abolished, while under a subsequent clause leave was given to set up a new voluntary rate after the fashion of the old one. This clause, recognizing as it did some shade or spectre of continuing church rate, would justify those who wished exemption and not abolition, to read the Bill a second time, with the view, if they had time, of sending the Bill to a Select Committee. That would be a peace-offering to meet the just grievance of Dissenters; but when he granted the desirability of so much indulgence towards the measure, he had, he feared, drawn largely on the amount of commendation which he felt justified in bestowing on the Bill. During the process of putting in action the new system, the Bill would do what Churchmen were bound to resist—it would create a certain vacuum, 1043 a certain space of time between the abolition of the compulsory rate and the creation of the new voluntary one, wherein the identity of the two would be lost, and so that prestige of continuity, on which those who advocated the exemption compromise relied, would be lost. That was his great objection to the Bill. He would exempt Dissenters, but save withal the continuous identity of the rate. What he wanted was, the same old rate, made and collected in the old way, though not from all the same old persons. The principle of continuity was essential, and why did Dissenters object to granting it? The plea of conscience could not be urged, for the remedy which he offered would—perhaps to the large material damage of the Church—let off every person who had, or who professed to have, a conscience in the matter. The truth was that the political Dissenters who had in the resistance to exemption wished to get rid of the fact patent in all history, that the Church was an institution of the country, interwoven in our system, so that while those who dissented from it suffered no civil disability, yet the fact remained patent that the Church was the rule, and Dissent the exception. It was not the ticketing that was objected to, but the recognition of the truth that while individuals, one by one, or hundreds by hundreds, might be let off from paying church rates, yet that the Church, with all its accidents, was to remain a normal institution of the land. He would like to say a word about this phrase ticketing. He was compelled to confess that he had no great belief in the reality of the dislike felt to it. He never knew of any man who could get off any other tax, or any other inconvenience, by making a declaration—that is, by ticketing himself—prefer to remain subject to it from any objection to putting his name to a bit of paper; and so, unless human nature was different in the case of church rates, he was quite unable to realize the Dissenting position, and therefore compelled to deal with it as a further proof of that state of mind which he had just endeavoured to explain to the House. Besides, under such a compromise as that of the Solicitor General, no one was called on to ticket himself as a Dissenter. Any measure of compromise — and the more liberal the better, saving only the principle of which he had spoken—it was their duty as Christian men to meet half-way, and all the way if they could. Such was the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend the 1044 Solicitor General, which contained the one cardinal merit to which he had just called attention—namely, that the absentee was not called upon to declare himself a Dissenter. It gave an exemption to those who, from whatever cause, would be exempted; and when a man wished to return he was as complete and thorough a Churchman as before, by a simple process of paying up. But he had not exhausted his objection to the Bill of his right hon. Friend— not only was the new payment to be a purely voluntary rate, but there was not even any power given to enforce it against those who had assented to it, and who had by their assent contributed to fix its ratio for their co-assenting neighbours as well as themselves. The injustice of this provision was palpable, for of course if the old rate were distributable over fifty and the new one over thirty-five, then to raise the requisite sum each of them would have to pay in the ratio of fifty to thirty-five of what they would have had to contribute under the old system of church rates. Was it not then monstrous that when they had so agreed among themselves there should not be provided a power—not by the old cumbrous machinery of the ecclesiastical law, but by the tribunal which so sharply looks after good faith between man and man, the County Court—to keep them to their word? The former clause made the new impost a voluntary rate; by the present one it would become in mathematical language "voluntaryism square." He could not help hoping that for very shame Gentlemen on the other side would come forward to repudiate so damaging a deficiency, and to concede that which would be no limitation of the rights of conscience, but a simple recognition of common good faith among persons who had without compulsion passed their word to each other.
The Bill, however, had its good side in the provision which laid down that the person who would not pay should not have his share in the management of Church affairs. He gladly admitted the value of this compensation, and he was not afraid to say that its presence in the measure was the chief cause of his giving it so much of support as he had done to it. He was the more anxious to do so as there was one particular in it, which had, he believed, been much misunderstood, and had given rise to much of the opposition offered by earnest Churchmen—he meant the words which prohibited the allotment of sittings to those who refused their voluntary rate. 1045 If this implied, as many seemed to think, that these persons were to have the church door shut in their faces when they went to worship, he could thoroughly agree in the objection. But he read it quite differently, and believed that it simply meant that the householder who had wilfully refused should have no right to a share in the periodical allotment which, by old usage, the churchwarden was accustomed to make, but must take his chance with the worshipping non-parishioners who might frequent that church. In this he saw no unfairness.
Now, having done with the Bill, he would say a few words on the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for the city of Oxford. His hon. Friend's speech was characterized by great personal zeal for the Church, but then he advocated his plan upon grounds which ought to make other Churchmen cautious in accepting it. His non. Friend said he himself was an Erastian; this was candid: but as he (Mr. Beresford Hope) had a particular dread of Erastianism, he was bound, on the faith of those words, to be very cautious in accepting his hon. Friend's proposition. The hon. Member had laid down that the Church and her possessions were public property. He, on the contrary, believed that the Church was a corporation and held her property like other corporations, in fee for her own use, under the protection of the laws of the land: nor would he accept that mess of pottage so eagerly tendered to induce the Church to give up her birthright—her own enduring right to her own property. By the proposal of his hon. Friend the churches of the land would be assumed by the State, and once that was done what guarantee had they that those churches would not in a short time, at the arbitrary will of the majority, be let out at different times to different denominations? They had the example of the way in which this principle had been worked on the Continent since the cataclysm of 1789—for instance, in many parts of Germany the same building was used by the Protestants and Roman Catholics at different hours, while in other countries the whole mass of Church buildings had in one sweep been usurped, to be regarded on no more abiding tenure than the letter of that fresh grant. Now, he should utterly resist, as he hoped all Churchmen would do, the introduction of that system into England, and therefore was compelled to state that the proposal of a fabric rate was, in his opinion, most insidious and dange- 1046 rous, for it would be the thin edge of the continental practice. That was the reason he was so strongly in favour of the exemption compromise, notwithstanding all the faults it undoubtedly possessed. He was not blind to the material injury which it might inflict on many country parishes, he recognized to the full the illogical character of a voluntary tax. And yet, with his eyes open, he advocated the exception compromise mainly for fear that if it were rejected, the fabric tax might be set up, and with its establishment, the knell be struck of the Church of England as an independent corporation. Earnestly, therefore, he appealed to Gentlemen on both sides of the House not to let the opportunity go by, but to come forward while there was time, and make a reasonable compromise which should preserve the form of the rate, while freeing from it those who only paid it grudgingly and unwillingly. Under these circumstances he was heartily glad of the decision at which the Treasury Bench had arrived of not dividing against the Bill on the second reading, as this would be a guarantee of good feeling and the foundation of a friendly understanding upon which, during the recess, they might consult the clergy and laity, including Nonconformists, with a view to arriving at some decision upon the subject next Session. He did not suppose that at that period of the Session the Solicitor General would press his measure, while he should certainly not move for the Select Committee of which he gave notice now many weeks ago.
§ SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he should have been glad if the House had come to a decision upon the second reading of the Bill without any long debate, but as some discussion had taken place, and there appeared symptoms of a desire to continue it, he might be permitted to say a few words which might possibly be useful as tending to assist in the future settlement of the question. The present measure embraced three principles—the abolition of compulsory church rates, the continuance of the existing machinery for voluntary purposes, and the making it a condition that those who declined the ecclesiastical burdens of vestrymen should likewise relinquish the ecclesiastical powers of vestrymen. With regard to the abolition of compulsory church rates, he would say that he had always been most unwilling to see the question settled without accomplishing the object 1047 to which the hon. Member for the city of Oxford (Mr. Neate) had referred—namely, that of securing by law the permanent and sufficient maintenance of the fabrics of the Church. He yielded to no man in the value which he set upon the Established Church. He believed it to be a national institution which conferred inestimable benefits upon the country, and which was so interwoven with all our other most valued institutions that he could not contemplate with anything like equanimity any circumstances tending to its subversion. That being so, he had always been strongly impressed with the truth of the proposition which had been advocated by some of those who had taken part in the debate—that if there was to be an Established Church, the fabrics must be maintained; and if he thought there was no reasonable ground for believing that the fabrics of the Church would continue to be maintained under a change of the law, he should have had no hesitation in saying that he should still be unwilling to see the law changed. He could not, however, bring himself to believe that that would be the case, if either of two things were done—if they either substituted some other legal provision for the purpose, which was not proposed, or if they left the Church a free and fair opportunity of meeting the deficiency by her own resources; and he had acceded to this Bill on the ground that it offered a reasonable prospect of attaining that end. Whether it would be perfect or not, he believed it would be valuable in a high degree: and the Church possessed resources and energies quite sufficient to enable her, if all obstructions were taken out of her way, and if she were permitted the use upon voluntary principles of the old machinery, to meet her wants in every parish in the kingdom. At all events, he was sufficiently convinced of the probable efficacy of the system to be willing to see it tried. He could not shut his eyes to the difficulty of justifying in principle the present law, or to the dangers to the Church and the country, as far as it was identified with the interests of the Church, in the continuance of the present state of things; nor could he see his way to any other practical remedy which was better than the one now proposed. What did he mean when he said that he could not justify in principle the present state of the law? He meant that the law did not simply impose this tax for the maintenance of the churches as other taxes were imposed—by 1048 the authority of Parliament, or by purely secular machinery. It was true, in a certain sense, and it had been said over and over again, that church rates were a burden upon the land, imposed by the common law; it was undoubtedly true that the common law established the particular method by which, according to the peculiar custom of this country, the churches were maintained out of the land. But the common law only gave its authority to the bare abstract proposition, that this was a legal liability: it left all the consequences to be carried out by ecclesiastical machinery. If it were merely a common law obligation—if the common law did not proceed upon the footing of an ecclesiastical obligation—there must have been in this, as in all other cases, a remedy at common law. No doubt the common law did, on the ground of the ecclesiastical law and the national custom which it recognized, say that the land should be liable for the maintenance of the Church; but it left the ecclesiastical machinery of vestries to work it out by imposing the rate, and, what was more important still, it left the Ecclesiastical Courts to compel the payment. The common law did not step in to take off any part of the burden from the ecclesiastical law; and therefore the true conclusion was, that though the common law established the burden, it did so upon the theory that all citizens of the State were members of the Church of England, and that all participated in the ecclesiastical duty of contributing to the support of the Church; and, treating all citizens as churchmen, it left the Ecclesiastical Courts to impose or enforce the obligation. He was at a loss to reconcile the continuance of that state of the law with the advance which had been made in the principles of toleration and religious liberty. To say that Dissenters might for every other purpose separate themselves from the Church and free themselves from ecclesiastical control, but that this burden should nevertheless be imposed upon them really on ecclesiastical principles, and enforced, not by common law, but by ecclesiastical law, appeared to him to be an anomaly tending to two mischievous results—to keep up constant discontent on the part of Nonconformists, on the ground that the Established Church was not maintained on the principles of religious liberty, and that ecclesiastical machinery was made use of to their oppression: and, at the same time, to force Nonconformists, in their own defence, to inter- 1049 fere in the vestries and administrative machinery of the Church, rendering that machinery inapplicable to its proper purposes. It invited and encouraged Dissenters to offer obstructions to the internal management and administration of Church affairs, for which they would have no motive and no inclination if this burden were not cast upon them. The present state of the law, therefore, could not be justified on principle. Could it be justified by its practical effects? The law was that in every parish the church should be thus maintained. The obligation was as great in large cities and boroughs as in the smallest rural parish. But the Nonconformists had been able to exclude the operation of the law from most of the large places, and it was attempted to maintain it, not upon the large and general basis of a national law, applicable for a national purpose, but upon that of a law of partial, uncertain, and exceptional application, in particular parishes. This state of things was most unsatisfactory and dangerous. It invited Nonconformists to take part everywhere in the vestry for the purpose of exerting their power on every opportunity; it encouraged religious animosities; it produced conflicts between the Church and Nonconformists, which must be prejudicial to the Church and to society; and, at the same time, it tended to stir up great questions with reference to the Church and State, which without this opportunity of keeping up a constant agitation, might not arise, and which, if persisted in, must by-and-bye prove formidable. This state of things also formed an obstacle to those progressive measures which might contribute to the prosperity of the Church; they would be much better able to obtain the assistance of Parliament for any re-arrangements which it might be desirable to make for the temporal welfare of the Church, if they were relieved from this perpetually embarrassing question. That conclusion was brought home to him in this way. A noble Duke (the Duke of Marlborough), when a Member of the House of Commons, had in perfect good faith brought in a Bill to enable new parishes to be created by the subdivision of old parishes, stating his belief that the effect would not be to enable church rates to be levied where they were not levied before; but he said for all ecclesiastical purposes new parishes were to be separated from old. The law, however, had since determined that church rates were an ecclesiastical purpose, and therefore that they might be 1050 levied in the new parishes. The effect of the natural discontent and resentment of the Nonconformists at this unexpected result had been, that they had rendered hitherto impracticable the very desirable work of amending and consolidating the law with reference to the building of churches and the creation of new parishes. Having stated his reasons for thinking it expedient to put an end to compulsory church rates, he would briefly explain what, in his opinion, should be provided instead. The suggestion made by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate) was, at the present time, absolutely impracticable, and it could not be expected that the House would by any chance agree to it. Then came the principle of exemption, which had been proposed to the House in two forms. The proposition that Dissenters should be allowed to decline payment of rates had been objected to on the ground that they would thereby be "ticketed." He had never appreciated that argument when offered by Dissenters themselves, as he had never found them ashamed of declaring their opinions. But, on the other hand, the Church did not wish to draw the line wider than it was at present between herself and the Dissenting body; and to give a pecuniary motive for a declaration of Nonconformity was not for the interest of the Church. Then came the proposal embodied in the Bill of the Solicitor General, about which, at first sight, there was something plausible. It was proposed that a man should declare beforehand his desire to be exempted; and that at the same time he should give up all right to interfere in ecclesiastical matters. But Nonconformists would not be satisfied with that. If all Nonconformists would send in the notice of objection the difficulty would be at an end; but the majority would not give up their influence, upon terms which did not altogether, without reference to precautions to be taken by each man for himself, put an end to the grievance of which, as a body, they complained. That Bill, if it were passed, would probably prove a dead letter, and would not effect any final settlement of the question. What was proposed by this Bill? In the first place, that the power of using the old machinery should belong to the Church in every parish as before; and he believed that in the great multitude of parishes where the people had gone on contentedly under the old machinery, where it had not been necessary to put in distresses, where 1051 ecclesiastical suits had not been required, where owners and occupiers of land were members of the Church, they would continue voluntarily to use that machinery, and that the cases would be few where any difficulty or confusion would arise. He and those who thought with him were ready, therefore, to adopt this principle, relying at the same time upon the further resources of diocesan funds, and other forms of voluntary contribution. They thought that, the compulsory church rate once got rid of, there would be no inducement to Dissenters to interfere in the affairs of the Church; but as there might be apprehension of even a voluntary rate being frustrated, and of obstruction being offered to the expenditure of funds voluntarily contributed in accordance with the wishes of the contributors, it was thought that, for the seourity of the Church, those who were relieved from the burdens of the vestry should also relinquish the powers of the vestry. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) seemed to apprehend that under the provisions of the Bill persons with extreme ideas would be able to introduce into parish churches ceremonies and ordinances that ought not to be introduced. Nothing that was illegal could be done under this Bill any more than it could under the existing law, and any one who was willing to pay the rate might go to the vestry and object to anything that might be proposed. He thought, therefore, there was no solid ground in that objection, and if there were it was matter of detail, with respect to which precautions might be taken in Committee. He trusted the House would accede to the principle of the Bill, and that when considered in detail it might lead to a satisfactory settlement of this vexed question.
§ MR. HUBBARDsaid, that five years ago he had himself introduced a Bill to amend the law of church rates; and when he heard the late Chancellor of the Exchequer promise to introduce certain clauses into his Bill with a view to adjust existing differences of opinion, he listened with great pleasure, believing that he proposed to embody in his Bill the principle which he (Mr. Hubbard) had laid down. He had proposed in his measure of five years ago to give the most unqualified liberty to Dissenters as to paying or withholding their contributions to those rates; but he asked them at the same time to refrain from interfering in any way with the 1052 members of the Church when they were willing to raise amongst themselves the necessary funds for the support of the services of the church. But the very title of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill was ambiguous and suspicious. It was called "The Compulsory Church Rates Abolition Bill." Why, no such thing existed as a law of church rate under such a title. If the right hon. Gentleman simply called his measure a Church Rate Abolition Bill there would be no objection to the name, for it would harmonize with its purpose. But it was a misuse of words to call it as he had done. By the provisions of the Bill, when church rates had been abolished liberty was to be given to raise a private subscription, which every one knew could be done without Parliamentary licence. It was necessary, in his opinion, that churchwardens should know the amounts and the persons upon whom they could levy their rate; else they would not know how much it would produce. The Bill of the Solicitor General, which was similar to a proposal made by himself five years ago, would enable this to be done, and at the same time relieve Dissenters from liability without in the slightest degree doing violence to their feelings. Where the Dissenters simply declined to contribute, the churchmen could set about making their own rate, and they would know what it would yield, for they would know the value on which it would be assessed. The hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) had said Dissenters would decline exemption on the terms proposed, because those terms involved the surrender of a power of interference. His answer to that was that the only places where church rates were now levied were those in which Dissenters were in a helpless minority; and what power they had was useless to them. One great objection to the Bill under consideration was that it forbade the poor man's entry to the church if he did not pay his rates. The Bill of the Solicitor General would allow him full liberty to enter.
§ SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, the Bill of his right hon. Friend did so too.
§ MR. HUBBARDsaid, he was very glad to hear it. The hon. Member was proceeding, when it being a quarter to six of the clock, debate adjourned till Tomorrow.