[BILL 15.] SECOND READING. (Hansard, 20 March 1867)

§ MR. NEWDEGATE

, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said ^*: Mr. Speaker—I beg to move the second reading of this Bill, and I do so, not in contravention of the decision at which the House has just arrived, so far as it exempts all persons from personal liability to the payment of church rates. This Bill has been prepared in accordance with a 251 Resolution which the House adopted only five years ago; for in the year 1862 after mature consideration of the whole question involved in the proposal totally to abolish church rates, this House, when 559 Members were present, came to the following Resolution by a majority of 17:— That it is unjust and inexpedient to abolish the ancient customary right, exercised from time immemorial by the ratepayers of every parish in England, to raise by rate amongst themselves the sums required for the repair of their Church, until some other provision shall have been made by Parliament for the discharge of those obligations, to which, by custom or statute, the churchwardens, on the part of the parish, are liable. Now, Sir, there are at this time three Bills before the House, but neither by the Church Rates Abolition Bill, the second reading of which the House has just sanctioned, nor by the Church Rates Regulation Bill, which stands third on the Orders of the Day, in the names of the hon. Member for Stoke and the hon. Member for Buckingham, is any substitute whatever for church rates proposed. The Church Rates Regulation Bill proposes that every person who chooses to say that he objects to pay church rates shall be exempt from liability to pay them, and that every owner of property upon which church rates have hitherto been paid shall, if he objects, exempt that property; it may be, during his life-time. It is with this second clause of the Bill that I quarrel; for, with the permission of the House, I can show upon indisputable authority that, although church rates are levied on the person, they are imposed only in respect of the occupation of that person; that is to say, the land or house which he holds. A person may live in an hotel until the year of jubilee, or the extreme age of man, and never be liable to the rate; but if he occupies any tenement then he becomes liable, and I think I can show the House beyond all dispute that this church rate is, in fact, a tax upon property. The measure I propose, thus, provides a substitute for church rate. It abolishes all personal liability; but reserves, as a substitute for the present rate, a charge upon property; not a new charge, but one to which property has always been subjected. That church rate is a tax upon property I will now proceed to show by reference to authorities upon the subject. Church rate, as we all know, is variable in amount. In some years 4d. is levied, and in some years 2d. is levied; but the average of church rate, I believe, is about 2d. in the pound. Well, in the year 1848 I moved for the 252 appointment of a Committee, which this House was pleased to grant, to inquire into the agricultural custom of tenure prevailing in England and Wales. That Committee went county by county through all the agricultural counties of England and Wales, and took evidence as to the agreements upon which property was let; and they found that in almost every lease there was a distinct clause, which bound the tenant to pay the rates and taxes, or "outgoings," as they were termed is many cases, on account of the landlord. And wherever that clause was not inserted the evidence shows that the clause was implied, though not expressed. I should be sorry to detain the House at any length by reading the evidence on this subject; but I regret, how. ever, that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary now sanctions the proposals contained in the Bill of the hon. Member for Stoke and the hon. Member for Buckingham, to exempt the owner of property at his pleasure from a charge which has attached to that property from time immemorial, since the right hon. Gentleman has declared that he recognises church rate as a charge upon property. Yet, although the right hon. Gentleman recognises church rate as a charge upon property, he is prepared to exempt property from that charge. A tenant calculates that he will have to pay a church rate, say of 2d. in the pound; he offers a rent diminished by that amount to the landlord; but if at any time a rate of 4d. in the pound happens to be imposed, the tenant has then to pay the extra 2d. out of his own pocket. Thus the excess above the average gives a personal character to church rate. I am told that by this Bill I propose a new charge upon the land. The evidence to rebut that allegation, however, is most abundant; and, if the House will allow me, I will read a few extracts from high authorities which, I think, will be conclusive upon that point. The first authority that I will quote is that of the late Sir Robert Inglis, who, when a Bill was introduced in 1834 for the purpose of appropriating the sum of £250,000 out of the public revenue as a substitute for church rates, made the following remarks:— It was precisely and strictly as an element charge upon his property, as he had bought it, that a Dissenter, as well as every other man, was called upon to pay his proportion of church rates, If the amount had been raised by a poll tax then the Dissenters might have complained of being included in its operation; but he could not understand 253 how any person, upon the principles of honesty, as between man and man, he having purchased a house or land with certain liabilities calculated in its value, could come forward and claim to be relieved from those liabilities upon the ground of holding certain opinions upon points on which he had, perhaps, changed his mind since the period of making his purchase. He thought those remarks disposed of the question of right and justice. He contended that the church rate was a tax upon property, not upon individuals, and that the Dissenters acquired their property liable to the payment."—[3 Hansard, xii. 1026.] Then, what said the representative of the Dissenters, Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey, in the same debate? He said— It was well said by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford that the church rate was not less a charge upon property than tithe. This is no fallacy. The church rate affects property in the same manner as any other charge. The other day I was called upon to pay £14 for my house in Great George Street for the repair and maintenance of a neighbouring church. Now if I were to sell my house, would not the purchaser inquire after the church rates as well as the parish rates, the sewer rates, and all other charges affecting property; and, having taken them into consideration, would not the amount of them influence the price?"—[3 Hansard, xii. 1046.] And now, with the permission of the House, I will quote the authority of the late Sir Robert Peel. He was supposed and generally admitted to be a person well conversant with the incidence of taxation. In 1837, Sir Robert Peel said— If to meet these necessities a sum were taken from the Consolidated Fund, it would relieve the landowners of the country from the duty of supporting the Church. Whether there should be any new apportionment of this charge on the land, making the owner and not the occupier contribute (a plan which he owned would, in his judgment, be justice), thus continuing the connection between the landowner and the Church—whether it would be possible to reconcile such a plan with some means of giving relief to the Dissenters without any invidious test being imposed—whether it would be possible to draw a distinction between the cases of the town parishes and the rural parishes, in the latter of which the House might be assured the people did not wish to see the Church degraded—whether it would be possible to do these things he was not prepared to say, but at least they were deserving the best consideration."—[3 Hansard, xxxvii. 326.] This, Sir, is precisely what the Bill before the House proposes. It proposes to abolish the personal liability of every Dissenter, and of every other man; but it also proposes to reserve as a substitute for church rates a charge upon property; and that not a new charge, but a charge upon property to which it has been liable from time immemorial. I will now shortly cite the opinion of the Poor Law Commissioners 254 as to the incidence of this tax. In their Report of the year 1843 I find the Poor Law Commissioners saying this— These rates are essentially taxes upon the rent of the landlord, not taxes upon the occupier's profits. No legal declarations, no limitations of legal remedies to the poison and goods of the occupier, however much they may disguise the aspect of the tax, or make its burden operate unequally on rent, can make it fall permanently on anything but rent. For perhaps the greatest abuses which ever prevailed in the administration of the Poor Laws arose from this fact—that the tax fell, and that it was found out by the occupiers that it did fall, upon the landlord, while the administration, expenditure, and appropriation of the tax were given exclusively to the occupiers, who did not really bear the burden. Let we now address a few words to the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield). I saw at once that it would be unjust to allow the occupiers assembled in vestry to tax the land and the owners of property, unless the Legislature assigned some limit to their action. Accordingly, in former Bills, I proposed that the amount to which the property of the landlord might become chargeable should not exceed 2d. in the pound. Well, the hon. Member for Sheffield very much astonished me on one occasion by stating that I was about to propose a charge of £800,000 or £900,000 a year upon real property by my Bill. Surely, the hon. Member must have forgotten the provisions of the Bill. Under this Bill the charge was not to tax any parish in which no church rate had been levied for seven years, or where the rate hail been refused three times ea a poll. All such parishes are to be exempt from the charge I propose to substitute for church rate; and if the House will permit me, I will show the effect of the exemptions upon the amount of the charge. In former years I made a calculation somewhat in this manner:—Taking the rateable value of property, subject to the county rate, as the guide—namely, £64,900,000—it would, for the purposes of this calculation, become necessary to deduct the value of the property in the 1,826 parishes and districts in which for seven years no church rates had been levied, which amounted to £21,014,382, which, being deducted from the former sum, left £43,885,618. Deducting, also, 13 per cent for the value of tithes and glebe lands, as not liable to church rate, and therefore not intended to be subject to the charge on 9,463 parishes and districts in which church rate is levied—this amounts to £5,705,123—there remains £38,180,495. The produce 255 of 2d. in the pound upon this sum would give £318,162 a year. That was the calculation which I made eight years ago. But I have sought this Session to ascertain what would now be the produce of ld. in the pound. Making the same deductions from the rateable value, by taking a rough estimate of the parishes in which no church rate has been levied, and deducting the value of the tithe and glebe, which comes to about £7,000,000, by this calculation I find that the utmost amount which ld. in the pound would now produce is £201,182, say £200,000 a year in round numbers. Now, under the Bill as it stands before the House the vestry is to decide in each parish, where church rates have been habitually collected, whether the charge shall be 1d. or 2d., or an intermediate suns in the pound; and, if throughout the whole of England and Wales the vestries decide on ld. in the pound, that would amount to a charge of £200,000 in round numbers. But the present church rate amounts altogether to from £250,000 to £300,000 a year; therefore, I retain the power in the hands of the vestry to levy 2d. in the pound, where they deem it to be necessary, under the new charge to be substituted fur church rate by the Bill, and 2d. in the pound is adopted, the entire amount would exceed the £200,000 a year, which the 1d. in the pound would yield, and would approach £300,000 a year, if 2d. in the pound, instead of 1d. in the pound were adopted on half the value, liable to church rate in England and Wales, and £300,000 is about the aggregate amount of the present church rate in England and Wales. If the hon. Member for Sheffield, or any other hon. Member, will refer to the local taxation Returns, he will see under the head of church rates that there is a balance in hand each year of about £60,000. That arises from the fact that in many parishes the practice is not to have a church rate every year, but to levy a sum equal to the requirements of two years in one year, and hold the balance over; if this amount is added to the church rate, the total approaches £300,000 a year. Having in the preparation of these calculations had the kind aid of Poor Law officers, of officers connected with Queen Anne's Bounty, and of officers connected with the Ecclesiastical Commission, I beg to assure the hon. Member for Sheffield that he did me an injustice when he imagined that I was submitting to the House a proposition so 256 extravagant as the levying of a tax of £800,000 or £900,000 in substitution for church rates. The utmost amount that would be levied under the Bill, in the first instance, after it came into operation, would be, as I have stated, between £200,000 and £400,000 a year. The object of the Bill is this—not to impose a new charge anywhere; but wherever the charge may not at first attach—that is to say, in parishes a church rate has not been levied for seven years together, to give an option with this reservation—that if the inhabitants shall hereafter determine to resume the exercise of their right to charge the property in that parish for the purpose of maintaining the fabric of the church—if three fourths of the inhabitants shall come to that decision in any parish, which is, at first, exempt under the operation of the Bill, that then the right of the inhabitants to have that which their forefathers intended them, shall be recognised by the court of quarter sessions. With the permission of the House, I will now continue the evidence in support of my assertion that church rate is a charge upon property. I have quoted the statement made by Sir Robert Peel in the debate of 1837. I have also quoted the opinion of the Poor Law Commissioners in the year 1843, and now I proceed to quote the opinion of Mr. Goulburn, who was for several years Chancellor of the Exchequer. What said Mr. Goulburn in the House in the year 1849? Mr. Goulburn said— Those who inherited land inherited it subject to church rates, and those who bought it purchased it at a lower price than would have been paid if church rates had not been leviable in respect of it."—[3 Hansard, ciii. 661.] Again, in the same debate, Sir Robert Peel said— What was the Resolution in effect but a Resolution that the land should be relieved from this burden..… The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Page Wood) stated that both by the common law and the statute law the land had always been chargeable with a payment for the maintenance of the parish church. He said there was a distinction between tithes and church rates in several respects, but admitted that a payment from the land for the maintenance of the fabric was sanctioned by the common law; was it fitting, then, that they should exempt the land from this charge by a Resolution hastily passed by the landowners themselves?"—[Ibid. 667.] Thus you perceive that Sir Robert Peel not only expressed the opinion himself, but cited that of Sir William Page Wood in support of the proposition that church rate 257 is a charge upon property. In the same debate Lord John Russell, now Earl Russell, said— In the first place, there was no shame in levying church rates on Dissenters who bought lands, because they had bought them subject to that charge, and it vas considered in the price."—[Ibid. 674.] But the strongest evidence of all, perhaps, on this particular point, is that which was given by Mr. Coode, a gentleman who was long employed on the Poor Law Board, and was more conversant with local taxation and the incidence of taxation upon property than almost any person living. And what did Mr. Coode say before a Committee of the House of Lords in 1861? The Question put to him was— Is it the case that the incidence of the church rate, though it primarily falls upon the occupier, invariably rests upon the owner in the long run? And Mr. Coode's answer was "invariably." He then goes on to say— It is not by a mere consequence—it is by an arrangement that anticipates all payment of rent whatsoever. No rent is ever set but upon the consideration of all the outgoings that the tenant will have to pay or provide for. No tenant yet in his senses ever made an agreement for rent, who did not consider, before the figure at which the rent was fixed, all these outgoings. Amongst those, and some of the most conspicuous and the most easily calculated of all, are the rates and faxes which the tenant will have to pay. He further says— It is not a question whether the incidence of such rates upon the rent is a mere consequence that may attach to it, or may be avoided; it is an inevitable result, anticipated and provided for beforehand, and inextricably involved in the very fixing of the terms of the tenancy. And any merely legal device you may adopt for fixing the rate on the tenant must inevitably fail, for the more stringently you fix the occupier the more certainly will you fix him with that outgoing, which would become a necessary deduction from the rent he would otherwise pay. And now I beg the attention of the House to what follows. Mr. Coode proceeds to say— I have seen in the last discussion which has taken place upon this subject in the House of Commons (referring to the debates of 1859 or 1860) an argument about the legal incidence of the rate, in which it is alleged that such and such an authority has said that the church rate charges the land, and that such another authority has said that it has not charged the land. That is merely a question as to the verbal terms in which the law may be made. You may make a rate upon the occupier or upon the owner, or say that it shall be on land and tenements; but you cannot by any device avoid this certain effect—that if the subject in respect of which the assessment is 258 to be made is the subject of occupation, nobody will come into occupation as a payer of rent without taking that obligation into his calculation as an outgoing, and having the rent reduced accordingly. I feel surprised at this time of day to see a discussion which turns only upon the mere words of legal precedents, and not on the real practical and economical operation of any such imposition as all the local taxes are, church rates amongst the number. Such evidence as this I could multiply ad infinitum. I might quote, for example, the authority of that learned Judge, Sir John Lushington, who gave evidence before the Committee of the house of Lords, and has repeated the substance of it in his judgment on the Tamworth church rate case. He is asked— That being the state of the case, is it the fact that the majority who refused to make the rate are still in law censurable, and liable to a penalty for not making it? And he replies— By the common law—that is to say, by immemorial usage in this country—the parishioners are bound to repair the church, and to provide everything that is necessary for the decent performance of Divine service; and, of course, they refuse to do so they are guilty of a breach of duty; but there is no penalty that I am aware of that could possibly attach upon them; and for this reason, in former days, if such a thing occurred, the fear of an interdict would have been quite sufficient to have forced a church rate—I mean in Catholic times. But perhaps your Lordships should know exactly how the matter really stands. There is no doubt as to the extreme antiquity of church rates in this country; it is impossible to say satisfactorily when they began, but in Saxon times beyond all doubt. That, however, is a controversy I shall not trouble your Lordships with; but I could point out to your Lordships where you could find it, in case it was necessary to examine it minutely. The church rate was this—a rate upon the person with respect to his ability, whether it was in land or in personal property; but in those days, there being very little personal property, if any, capable of being taxed, it was, in fact, a tax upon land in possession Of this occupier. I am really ashamed of trespassing upon the attention of the House to such an extent with these quotations; but the evidence is so wonderfully conclusive on the point, and the authority so indisputable, that I am sure the House will forgive my doing so. In January last the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth made a speech, from which I gather that he is inclined to the opinion that church rate is not a tax upon property; and in support of that view he cited the authority of the late Lord Campbell. I can hardly imagine that the right hon. 259 Baronet could have read the letter of Lord Campbell to Lord Stanley, now Lord Derby, whence I suppose he quoted, and which was written in the year 1837. But permit me to read to the House a passage from that letter. Lord Campbell wrote, and he wrote deliberately, in these terms— From the difficulty in getting at the amount of personal property, the general practice has long been to confine the church rate as well as the poor's rate to real property. Why, Sir, Lord Campbell was much too sound a lawyer to be found differing from Sir John Lushington and the other high authorities to whom I have referred. Lord Campbell then proceeds— But there seems no doubt that originally personal as well as real property was subject to both, and that both were meant to impose a tax upon the parishioners, according to their substance and ability. So late as the year 1823, in the Poole case, it was decided by the High Court of Delegates that by custom a church rate may lawfully be assessed upon shipping and stock-in-trade. As he had said, however— From the difficulty of getting at the amount of personal property the general practice has long been to confine the church rates, as well as the poor's rate, to real property. The fact is that you cannot adduce the opinion of any competent lawyer, of any competent surveyor, or of any practical man in favour of the idea that church rate is not a charge upon property. And, being a charge upon property, as I believe it to be, I entreat the House not to inflict upon the class to which I belong so severe a temptation as would be implied in transferring to them that which belongs to their neighbours. I say that the proposal to give to the landowners the power of robbing their neighbours by putting into their own pockets the amount of the church rate, is placing before them a temptation of which ill-advised persons—persons who dissent from the Church of England, persons of extreme opinions, trustees for minors, and persons not having a due interest in the welfare of their successors—will not be slow to avail themselves. Besides, if you enable the owners of real property to appropriate this charge of £300,000 a year, think you that successive Chancellors of the Exchequer will be so negligent as not to reclaim this public property from them? Why, Sir, it would furnish an excuse for increasing the direct taxation on real property, of which any Chancellor of the Exchequer would be bound to avail himself. As I deprecate the idea of taking any sum from the public revenue awl giving it to 260 the Church, so do I deprecate the idea of giving to the landowner that which belongs to his neighbours—the parishioners; because I am quite certain that the justice of the Legislature would soon vindicate itself by exacting from his property for the public service a much larger amount than he could have thus unjustly appropriated. Having disposed of that part of the subject, I will now explain the general provisions of the Bill, which I ask the House to read a second time. And first, instead of proposing 2d. in the pound absolutely as the amount of the charge to be substituted for church rate in the sense of the Resolution which was adopted by a full House in the year 1862—instead of placing it at 2d. absolutely, I propose by this Bill to give the vestry a discretion to levy, as the circumstances may necessitate, a charge of ld. or 2d. in the pound, or any intervening amount. If you refer to the last Return made to this House respecting church rates in two dioceses, you will find that in parishes where the amount of the value of the property is not above £3,000 a year, the yield of 1d. in the pound is scarcely sufficient for the purposes of the church rate; whilst in those cases where the property in a parish amounted to £7,000 or £8,000 a year, 2d. in the pound was more, perhaps, than would be required; and that 1d. in the pound upon the richer parishes would be ample for all the purposes of a church rate; and the House will bear in mind that it is to provide for the purposes of church rate that the Bill imposes the charge. When hon. Members vote for the unconditional abolition of church rates, I think that where they act as representatives of Dissenters, they are hard upon us Churchmen. Except through the vestries, we have over the services of the Church no control whatever. Now, the Dissenters are in this position. They can, if they choose, remove their ministers. They can do what they like as regards the manner in which the services in their places of worship are conducted. But once destroy the action of the vestry, and what is the consequence? Why, that you leave us, the laity of the Church, at the mercy of the clergyman. You virtually take the parish churches from us, the laity of the Church of England, to whom they have always hitherto belonged, and vest them in the clergy who are irremovable by law. This, Sir, is a very serious consideration. For I know that the total abolition of church rates is not demanded 261 by the representatives of Dissenters only. There are extreme ritualistic clergymen who ask for the unconditional abolition of church rates for the sake of destroying the vestry; for the sake of becoming absolute masters of the Church of England; and I have by me here a pamphlet written by the Rev. Mr. Bennet of Frome. He is one of those clergymen who are so spiritually proud that he has in plain terms declared that he esteems it unworthy of his position as a clergyman to preside at a vestry meeting. Well, he advocates the abolition of church rates in the sense of the Bill which has just been read a second time. And why does he do so? Because he wants to have sole possession of the parish church, and to oust the vestry altogether. Sir, I claim on the part of the laity of the Church of England that that which Mr. Bennet himself admits to have been our duty and our right from time immemorial—from Saxon times—I mean the duty to maintain the fabric of the Church, and the right, according to law, to regulate the services of the Church, shall not be taken from us. If any hon. Member will take the trouble to look into Burns' Ecclesiastical Law, he will there find that the law of the Church Catholic, of the Church generally, especially the Roman Catholic portion of the Church, has always been that the fabric of the Church belongs to the clergy, and not to the laity; and that it is out of the provision made for the clergy that the expense of maintaining the fabric is to be provided. But it is laid down by Blackstone, who quotes "Ayliffe and Lynwood," that ever since the Saxon times it has been a peculiarity of the Church of England, a peculiarity that extended over the whole period during which the religion of England was connected with the Papacy, that the laity, the parishioners, always asserted their right in the fabrics to the possession of them, and performed the duty of making provision for their maintenance by the imposition of a rate according to property and substance, which, although in Saxon times it was levied jointly with tithe, the provision for the clergy since the reign of Edward III. it has been as church rate has been levied separately for the maintenance of the fabrics of the Church, which, by the ancient laws and customs of the Church of England, are vested in the, parishioners. Now if you do not take care—if the House passes the Church Rate Abolition Bill without nothing some provision for enabling the 262 vestry to maintain the fabric and services of the Church—you will break through this ancient right and this ancient custom, and virtually change the possession of the fabrics of the Church, by taking them from the laity and vesting them in the clergy. As an Englishman, as a Protestant, and as a member of the Church of England, I object to any such transfer as that being indirectly effected by a Bill, which is justifiable only so far as it would relieve Dissenters from personal liability to church rates, relieve Roman Catholics from the payment of church rates, relieve every occupier in this country from personal liability on account of the expenses necessary for maintaining the fabric and conducting the services of the Church. Sir, I have used strong language on the appropriation of the amount of the church rate by the landowners, and perhaps the hon. Member for Sheffield may think that I am reflecting unduly upon the owners of property in large towns; but I can assure him that I have no intention of the kind. I do not deny that in the case of some large towns resistance to church rates was justifiable. In Birmingham, for instance, there are no church rates. My late friend, Mr. Muntz, who first suggested to me the principle of this Bill, was prosecuted and imprisoned for non-payment of church rate in Birmingham. The rejection of church rates there was quite just. Church rate is a payment, due in consideration of a benefit received; that benefit is church accommodation; but if accommodation is not provided for the people in the fabrics, there can be no claim in justice for a church rate. I say, therefore, that the people of Birmingham had a perfect right to resist and to abolish the church rate, because the Church did not provide them with the accommodation, which was the consideration for the payment they were expected to make. It is with that view that I propose to extend the special right to all such places to remain exempt from the charge the Bill would impose, unless three-fourths of the parishioners in any parish should choose to claim the imposition of the charge; and no one can suppose that three-fourths of the parishioners would claim the charge until the corresponding benefit in church accommodation has been amply and adequately provided for them. I do not know that there is any other point in this Bill on which I need now touch. I can only say that I have sought the best counsel on all sides, and have received 263 it. This Bill, therefore, is no mere crotchet of my own. It is a measure which is approved of by men of the highest, authority, though their names I am not at liberty to mention, It is a Bill that in their opinion will furnish a substitute; that will render the abolition of church rates just, expedient, and consistent with sound policy; whilst the abolition of church rates without some such substitute would manifestly strike directly at the parochial system of the country—that system upon which all other institutions, and particularly our representative institutions, are based. I believe that you could inflict no greater injury than some ill-considered measure (such as I think the abolition of church rates without compensation would be) must entail upon the parochial system of England. Suppose that the Abolition of Church Rates Bill passes without the provision of a substitute. Take the case of some poor country parish, the property of which belongs to indifferent absentee landlords. The Churchwardens meet and lament that they have no longer the sanction of the law to levy this ancient payment. It may be that the owners of the property in the parish are not members of the Church of England. They may be Dissenters, or they may be Roman Catholics. The Churchwardens do not like to go about asking for contributions. But some wealthy man comes to them and says, you need not go about begging; I will make a proposal to you that will have the effect of relieving you from all difficulty. Then he says, "If you can get such a curate employed I will give a sum sufficient to relieve you from begging for money to keep up the fabric and the services"—or, perhaps, the first year he makes no condition, but the next says, "Yes, I'll give you the same sum as last year if the services are conducted in the way I think most edifying"—and thus services, alien to the feelings of the parishioners, might be introduced. The adults might refrain from attending the church; but the school children must attend. Need I comment further upon the mischief that might ensue? I say, Sir, that if the House has any respect for the independence of the vestries in many of the country parishes in this country, it will not, by depriving them of the means they have had for centuries of providing for and regulating the services and maintaining the fabric of the Church, render them mere begging institutions. It would be hard upon the clergy to be compelled 264 to collect this amount. I am sorry to say that in many parishes their income is not adequate to maintain them in the position which they ought to hold. I know many cases of poor clergymen with large families. And I say that it would be most unjust to lay upon them the burden of begging for the funds which are requisite to keep up the fabric. In principle, it would be most vicious to transfer either the cost of maintaining or the possession of the fabrics of the Church from the laity to the clergy; to do this in violation of the ancient laws and customs of England. I hope the House will excuse me if I have been somewhat eager on this subject. I have endeavoured to state plainly why I think that church rates, as a personal impost, should be abolished. I have shown, from the evidence that I have adduced, that church rate is a charge upon property. To me it appears that it will be inconsistent with sound policy and dangerous to the parochial system of this country if the House does not act up to its own Resolution of 1862—that Resolution being in substance that it would be unjust and inexpedient to abolish church rates without providing a substitute. Of the three measures before the House this is the only one which contains a substitute for church rate, and is therefore consistent with the decision of a very full House, after ample debate, in 1862.

AYES.
Arkwright, R.	Hay, Sir J. C. D.
Baggallay, R.	Hildyard, T. B. T.
Bagge, W.	Hodgson, W. N.
Barrington, Viscount	Hogg, Lt.-Col. J. M.
Bateson, Sir T.	Karslake, Sir J. B.
Bowen, J. B.	Kavanagh, A.
Brooks, R.	Knightley, Sir R.
Bruce, C.	Langton, W. G.
Bruce, Sir H. H.	Lindsay, hon. Col. C.
Burrell, Sir P.	Lopes, Sir M.
Cave, rt. Hon. S.	Mainwaring, T.
Clinton, Lord A. P.	Neville-Grenville, R.
Cobbold, J. C.	Paget, R. H.
Cole, hon. H.	Ridley, Sir M. W.
Cooper, E. H.	Selwyn, C. J.
Cox, W. T.	Severne, J. E.
Dick, F.	Seymour, G. H.
Dickson, Major A. G.	Stuart, Lieut.-Col. W.
Dimsdale, R.	Treeby, J. W.
Dyott, Colonel R.	Wise, H. C.
Fellowes, E.
Floyer, J.	TELLERS.
Garth, R.	Newdegate, C. N.
Goddard, A. L.	Barrow, W. H.
Gore, J. R. O.
NOES.
Adair, H. E.	Cowen, J.
Adam, W. P.	Craufurd, E. H. J.
Agar-Ellis, hn. L. G. F.	Crossley, Sir F.
Agnew, Sir A.	Davey, R.
Amberley, Viscount	Dawson, R. P.
Annesley, hon. Col. H.	Dillwyn, L. L.
Anstruther, Sir R.	Doulton, F.
Ayrton, A. S.	Dundas, F.
Baines, E.	Dundas, rt. Hon. Sir D.
Barnes, T.	Egerton, Sir P. G.
Barron, Sir H. W.	Enfield, Viscount
Barry, C. R.	Erskine, Vice-Ad. J. E.
Bass, A.	Evans, T. W.
Baxter, W. E.	Ewart, W.
Bazley, T.	Ewing, H. E. Crum-
Beaumont, W. B.	Eykyn, R.
Berkeley, hon. H. F.	Fawcett, H.
Blake, J. A.	Fildes, J.
Bonham-Carter, J.	Finlay, A. S.
Brady, J.	Fitzwilliam, hn. C. W. W.
Brand, hon. H.	Foley, H. W.
Bright, J.	Foljambe, F. J. S.
Briscoe, J. I.	Forster, C.
Bruce, Lord C.	Forster, W. E.
Bruce, rt. hon. H. A.	Fortescue, rt. hon. C. S.
Bryan, G. L.	Fortescue, D. F.
Butler, C. S.	Freshfield, C. K.
Calcraft, J. H. M.	Gaskell, J. M.
Calthorpe, hn. F. H. W. G.	Gavin, Major
Cave, T.	Glyn, G. G.
Cavendish, Lord G.	Goldsmid, Sir F. H.
Chambers, T.	Goldsmid, J.
Cheetham, J.	Gorst, J. E.
Childers, H. C. E.	Graves, S. R..
Clive, G.	Gregory, W. H.
Cochrane, A. D. R. W. B.	Greville-Nugent, Col.
Cogan, rt. hn. W. H. F.	Gray, Sir J.
Colvile, C. R.	Gridley, Captain H. G.
Courtenay, Lord	Grosvenor, Capt. R. W.

Grove, T. F.	Onslow, G.
Hadfield, G.	Otway, A. J.
Hamilton, E. W. T.	Padmore, R.
Hankey, T.	Pease, J. W.
Hardcastle, J. A.	Pelham, Lord
Harris, J. D.	Potter, E.
Hartington, Marquess of	Potter, T. B.
Hartley, J.	Price, W. P.
Henderson, J.	Repton, G. W. J.
Henley, Lord	Robertson, D.
Hodgkinson, G.	Russell, A.
Hodgson, K. D.	Russell, Sir W.
Holden, I.	St. Aubyn, J.
Hope, A. J. B. B.	Samuda, J. D' A.
Hornby, W. H.	Samuleson, B.
Horsman, rt. hon. E.	Scholefield, W.
Hubbard, J. G.	Scott, Sir W.
Hughes, T.	Sheridan, H. B.
Jervoise, Sir J. C.	Sherriff, A. C.
Kendall, N.	Simeon, Sir. J.
Kinnaird, hon. A. F.	Smith, J. B.
Knatchbull-Hugessen, E.	Speirs, A. A.
Laing, S.	Stacpoole, W.
Lawrence, W.	Stansfeld, J.
Lawson, rt. hon. J. A.	Stock, O.
Leader, N. P.	Stone, W. H.
Leatham, W. H.	Sullivan, E.
Leeman, G.	Sykes, Col. W. H.
Locke, J.	Talbot, C. R. M.
Lusk, A.	Tite, W.
Mackie, J.	Torrens, W. T. M'C.
M'Laren, D.	Turner, C.
Majorribanks, D. C.	Vanderbyl, P.
Martin, C. W.	Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.
Meller, Colonel	Vivian, H. H.
Milbank, F. A.	Waterhouse, S.
Miller, W.	Watkin, E. W.
Mills, J. R.	Weguelin, T. M.
Milton, Viscount	Western, Sir T. B.
Mitchell, A.	Whalley, G. H.
Moffatt, G.	Whatman, J.
Montgomery, Sir G.	Whitbread, S.
Morris, W.	Williamson, Sir H.
Morrison, W.	Winnigton, Sir T. E.
Murphy, N. D.	Woodd, B. T.
Neate, C.	Wynne, W. R. M.
Nicol, J. D.	Young, R.
Norwood, C. M.
O'Beirne, J. L.	TELLERS.
O'Conor Don, The	Candlish, J.
Ogilvy. Sir J.	Gaselee, Serjeant
Oliphant, L.