to the voluntary principle, to disown legal | Estcourt's majority of one, the determinainterference, to give no cause of collision tion to abolish was stronger than ever. with Dissenters, and, instead of vain at- How is it, then, that the minority of 74 tempts to force a tax, to appeal, not as an in 1859 became a majority of 1 in 1862 ? Establishment, but as a Church to your own The answer is in the fact, that so long as members. All schemes involving com- the question was an open one on both promise of principle will fail; for while it sides of the House, it was treated by both may be wise to compromise in matters of only on its merits; the force of reason expediency and detail, all attempts to com- alone prevailed, and large and increasing promise where religious feelings and prin- majorities were the consequence; but in ciples are concerned, will only end in con- 1860 that ceased to be the case on one fusion. Such plans cannot satisfy those side. The course taken by the leader of Churchmen who uphold church rates, ima- Gentlemen opposite, in and out of the gining danger and loss of power to the House, made it a party question with Church without them; and those of the them, while it is still an open one with Church who advocate religious freedom, the Government. With a Cabinet divided who prefer to rely on the first examples of on the question, how could Gentlemen be Christianity for its support rather than to brought up by the influence of the Govestry squabbles and power of the law, vernment to support the Bill? cannot support them; while Dissenters, Sir Charles then proceeded to notice the distrusting your professions and despising proposal of Lord A. Churchill, which he your toleration, can never in such plans was prepared to say, on the part of many acknowledge any settlement of their griev-influential Dissenters, would be accepted if ance. Has the question of abolition " gone back"? The way to ascertain that is to refer to the Petitions presented to the House on the subject. The last time that any exertion was made respecting Petitions the total number of signatures in support of church rates amounted to 197,000, and against church rates 610,000. I am quite aware, that may not be considered conclusive, and that it is alleged that the Petitions were got up by the Liberation Society; but if the Liberation Society do not interfere, as I am aware they have not for some time, then it is urged that public opinion has changed. I do not think it has changed, but that can only be tested at a general election. I think it would be found at a general election that public opinion does not coincide with the views of the hon. Gentleman opposite. In 1859, 242 Members voted in favour of the Bill; in 1860, 263 Members voted for it, showing an increase of 21. As long as the question was discussed without reference to party spirit, it progressed; but in 1861 a great exertion was made to get up a state of party feeling on the subject, and then for the first time the majority for the Bill was reduced; but even on that occasion 281 Members voted in favour of the Bill, showing an increase over the number that voted before. Though they were defeated last year, 286 Members voted for the Bill-five more than voted for it in the previous year, and 44 more than voted in favour of the Bill in 1859-clearly proving that whatever was the cause of Mr. S. carried without alteration. He thought it had been unfairly described by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Gathorne Hardy), and he begged, therefore, to describe its intention and effect in Lord Ebury's own words; namely In is, in fact, giving up church rates altogether.' To is maintained." He thought the Bill as it stood the best, but he was ready to accept the noble Lord's proposal as a settlement of the question. He had no other object, personal or political, than to see the question fairly and honourably settled; but there were unfortunately many hon. Gentlemen who did not desire to see any such settlement during the present Parliament. Wishing to preserve to the Church of England all the privileges which she could reasonably require, while at the same time he gave to Dissenters that full religious liberty and equality which ought to exist in this country-professing his attachment to that liberty which was the foundation of the Church of England, and being anxious, therefore, to give the fullest and It ap widest scope to the voluntary principle, | in the excellent speech which he had adhe should give his cordial support to the dressed to the House, expressed his surBill of his hon. Friend. prise that those who were in favour of the voluntary principle should object to such a system. But he (Mr. Whiteside) did not share that surprise, because he understood those Gentlemen to contend that a person favourable to the voluntary principle might do what he liked; and that it was only what he liked that should be done by every other person also. Well, if a ratepayer attended a vestry and heard a rate proposed which he had an objection to, he was at liberty to make his protest and walk away. When he did so, what right had he to complain of those who remained, because they chose to impose a rate? How was the rate, when levied, disposed of? It was not paid to the clergyman; it went towards maintaining the fabric of the church, which belonged to the parish, and which even every Dissenter ought to be ready to keep up; for if he did not attend it himself, his forefathers had done so, if they were sensible people, and his children certainly would attend it hereafter. Much had been said with respect to the object of those who advocated the abolition. The House was told that those Gentlemen had no wish to injure the Church. On that point he begged to refer to the opinion of a Gentleman who had argued the question very ably in that House. He alluded to Mr. Miall. That Gentleman was reported to have made use of these observations, at a soirée of the Liberation Society, held on the 24th of November 1858 MR. WHITESIDE said, he was happy that it was in his power to compliment the hon. Baronet on the tone in which he had brought forward the question on that occasion. He gave the hon. Baronet every credit for sincerity, though he was wrong; and for persevering steadily and consistently in the erroneous views which he had adopted in reference to church rates. He thought the discussions on the question which had taken place in that House had been of considerable service, for they had cleared away many of the doubts and difficulties which had presented themselves to the minds of hon. Gentlemen. peared to him that there were two parties interested in abolishing church rates. One of those parties acted on principle; the other aimed at effecting a compromise. It was worth while to consider the question as it was viewed by each of those parties. The hon. Baronet who had last addressed the House had spoken in some. what triumphant terms of the progress made of late years by those who were opposed to church rates. He had told them that the supporters of a measure for abolishing the present system had never been as influential and numerous as they were at that moment. He had argued the question satisfactorily, and proved that the abolitionists never held so many votes in that House as on the day they were defeated. If that was a subject of triumph to those gentlemen, he hoped they might always have to be congratulated on a similar position of prosperity. What was the true character of the church rate? It struck him that an attempt had been made to throw a good deal of confusion on a question which was a very simple one. Five hundred years ago, if a hole displayed it self in the roof of a church, the parishioners, like sensible and practical people as parishioners were in those days, met together and levied a moderate rate to enable them to stop it. When he heard that there was a grievance in such a course being adopt ed at the present day, he was at a loss to know in what the grievance consisted. The churchwarden, who was the representative not so much of the clergy as of the laity, was obliged to call a meeting of the ratepayers, and it was for the latter to decide whether they would have a rate or not. His hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Gathorne Hardy), Their object was not to get rid of church rates merely. They were going further than the church rate question, which was only as a grain of sand that lay before them, but let it not be forgotten to a mountain. Church rates was a question that a much wider and broader question remains behind." He respected the sincerity of gentlemen who spoke thus clearly. They were no hypocrites. They showed, in the most manly and decided manner, that their object was to separate the Church from the State; and the supporters of the Church declared, in an equally manly and decided way, that they would not suffer that separation, if they could help it. Again, at a meeting of the Liberation Society held on the 7th of June 1859, the Rev. W. Robinson had moved— hope that the executive Committee will find it practicable to bring the great question of Church and State before the Legislature at an early day." "That this Conference would express an earnest On which Mr. Miall said "There is a difference of opinion between some members of the conference with respect to the wisest mode of accomplishing the great object of the society, namely, the separation of the Church from the State. Our friend (Rev. W. Robinson) wishes us to take a faggot bound up; we wish to take the faggot stick by stick." permit men of great experience, high cha- Again, one of the witnesses before the former occasions, that this is a question of prin"We have heard to-day, as we have heard upon ciple; that it is a question between an Establishment and the voluntary principle, and that this is only one part of the proposal of those who wish us to exchange an Establishment for a voluntary principle. It is not my fault, therefore, if following the hon. Member for Southwark, and following the hon. Member (Mr. Bright), I say that this unqualified and unconditional repeal of the present law is a proposal intended to forward the scheme of those who are the enemies of an Establishment be it observed, I do not make it a charge against and are in favour of the voluntary principle. Now, them that such are their opinions. I only say that not holding these views-not partaking the opinion that the destruction of the Church establishment and the admission of all sects to an equality in respect of the voluntary collection of funds would be advantageous-they cannot expect me to consider it as any inducement to vote for this Bill; but it will lead us, step by step, to that total destruction of the Established Church which I deprecate." "No scheme of compromise had been or could be submitted to the House which would not be objectionable to Dissenters, and which they would not consider as degrading. He believed, indeed, that all schemes of compromise were vain, mischievous, and dangerous. Compromise was impossible." He commended those words from an hon. Gentleman now in the Government to those who thought that the abolitionists were willing to settle the question by a compromise. With regard to the Amendment of which the noble Lord (Lord Alfred Churchill) had given notice, he did not think it was practicable. It imposed a duty on church wardens, but it gave them no means of performing that duty. He next came to another class of opinions with reference to church rates. He never could which formerly certain persons were in the habit of using. Certain gentlemen used to employ the word "Americanize" in reference to designs to change the character of our institutions. Of course, no one would now think of using that phrase; but when speaking on the 21st of June 1854, the noble Earl, in the same speech as that from which he had just read a quotation, said that a national church, an hereditary aristocracy, and an hereditary monarchy all stood together. He therefore argued that those who were in favour of universal suffrage and a republic might be for doing away with church rates, but that those who were in favour of a monarchy and of the British Constitution should take an exactly opposite course, and vote against a Bill, which would produce the consequences that he anticipated from a measure for the abolition of church rates. What had been said in favour of the abolition of church rates by the noble consequence that they sat on the same Lord at the head of the Government? bench; but it was of very great conseWere the House aware of the date of the quence that men who held opinions so noble Lord's conversion? He was about irreconcilably adverse should be combined to give them the day. It was on the 13th in the same Government; and it was for of July 1859 the noble Lord announced them to explain how they could act tohis conversion. He told the House that gether with honour to themselves and he had never before that time voted for advantage to the country. If there was doing away with church rates, but he any question on which the Chancellor of should do so on that occasion. He did the Exchequer should feel deeply internot enter historically into church rates, ested, it was on one which affected the nor argue the question on the grounds of maintenance of the Established Church justice. The noble Lord had been too and the support of her fabrics. But whatlong a political Epicurean for that. He ever might be the course which the Gowas a philosopher who saw all questions vernment would take, those who held with an equal political eye; and, accord- Conservative opinions regarded the Church ingly, he said that he should have pre- as a great institution of the country, which ferred the old system if it had been pos- was inseparably bound up with the State sible to continue it, but that he could and the monarchy; and, whatever the not set his individual opinion against the form under which a proposition like that majority. Such was the reason assigned contained in the Bill might be brought by the noble Lord the Prime Minister for before the House, it was their duty to having changed his views on that question. meet it with a direct negative. Pitt and Chatham were in the habit of resisting majorities when they believed them to be wrong; but was, he would ask, that kind of doctrine to be accepted by the country-that the Prime Minister was to alter his opinion in deference to a temporary majority? The Constitution would not be worth a farthing if it depended on a Prime Minister who considered that fundamental institutions were to be affected by the majority of the hour. In accordance with the noble Lord's doctrine, the supporters of church rates were entitled to ask for his vote that day. They would be in the majority, and they ought to have the noble Lord's support, if the vote of the Prime Minister was to depend, not on the merits of the case, but on the quarter from which the Parliamentary wind blew. The hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Douglas) had observed, that as there was a divided Cabinet, it was not easy to bring up supporters of a Bill to abolish church rates. That was an interesting suggestion. Was there a divided Cabinet? It was true that in it was a right hon. Gentleman, whose name must be mentioned with respect, and whose inventive powers in taxation had never been equalled by any Minister of Finance. That right hon. Gentleman had been educated in one of the noblest institutions in the world, and he must be an admirer of the glorious literature of the Church of England. That right hon. Gentleman now sat on the same bench with the hon. Member for Halifax. It was of very little VOL. CLXX. [THIRD SERIES.] SIR GEORGE GREY said, he remembered, that during the Government of Sir Robert Peel, when there was a great objection to the renewal of the income tax, and before that impost had been extended to Ireland, much amusement was excited in the House by an Irish Member who asserted that it was one of the best taxes that had ever been levied. It was on the same principle, he supposed, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside) had got up that day to maintain church rates, because it was well known, that more than thirty years ago church cess, which was analogous to the church rates in this country, had ceased to be imposed in Ireland. [Mr. WHITESIDE: Another arrangement was entered into.] It was quite true that another arrangement had been entered into, one by which the funds to be expended in the maintenance of the fabrics were to be paid out of the monies in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Would the supporters of the present system of church rates agree to a similar arrangement for this country? He would remind the House that the arrangement to which he had just referred, as having been made thirty years ago in Ireland, was effected by a distinguished statesmen who now occupied a seat in another House. The son of that nobleman had been himself a Cabinet Minister, and was a distinguished ornament of the party opposite. He was a noble Lord whose opinions were always heard 2 I bers who said that church rates and the Established Church must stand or fall together, whether they were prepared to maintain that the Irish branch of the United Church stood now in a worse position than it did thirty-five years ago, before church cess was abolished? Having said so much on that point, he felt bound to confess that it was not without reluctance he was about to vote for a Bill for the total and unconditional abolition of church rates. He had always held that however desirable it might be to abolish church rates, in order to prevent the recurrence of those disputes and discussions which took place, yet in those parishes where for many years there had been, by general consent of the inhabitants, a small rate levied for the purpose of maintaining the Church, it would be a hard thing to say that no such rate should be levied in future. This brought him to the question of what was called a compromise. The hon. Member for Leominster seemed to think that a compromise was wholly inadmissible, and that it would be an insult to propose it. He would remind hon. Members that proposals for particular exemptions had come from both sides of the House at various periods. The difference was this:-The exemptions generally proposed on the opposite side of the House were exemptions to be granted on special application, after stating a conscientious objection, or that the person to be exempted was not a member of the Church of England; while, by the proposal now suggested by those who were opposed to the present system, no special case was to be made, but merely a simple refusal to pay by the parties wishing to be exempted. He wished to add, that he thought the discussions on the subject had been useful, for their result with deference in the House of Commons, | They had been abolished in most of the and with consistency and ability he had populous towns of the kingdom. He askalways advocated the abolition of church ed whether the principle of the Established rates. He thought, that if the right hon. Church had been weakened in those places? and learned Gentleman had borne this Again, the district churches which had in mind, he might have spared some of risen in such numbers within the last few his taunts as to a divided Cabinet. years were maintained in an efficient state He had listened with great attention to without church rates. Then he took the the speeches of the hon. Baronet the Mem-case of Ireland. He asked hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir John Trelawny) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leominster (Mr. Hardy). The speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock was characterized by good temper and moderation; and it was impossible to doubt his sincerity in promising, that if the principle of his Bill should receive the assent of the House, he should be willing in Committee to adopt any modifications which, while not rendering church rates compulsory, would allow of their being levied in parishes where there was a desire to levy and pay them as a means of supporting the fabrics of the Church. Though he could not agree with the hon. Member for Leominster, he was ready to bear testimony to the excellent tone as well as the ability with which that hon. Gentleman had opposed the second reading of the Bill. As to the question, it seemed to him that there had been an exaggerated importance attached to it both by those who advocated the abolition of church rates, and by those who were for the retention of the present system. He agreed with the hon. Member for Leominster as to the exaggerated state ments made by some of the advocates of the Bill. He could not concur with those who went the length of saying that church rates were an intolerable grievance; and, on the other hand, he could not think that the principle of the Established Church was at all connected with the retention of church rates. Allusion had been made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin to a speech delivered by his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He had always expressed his opinion that it was unwise in the friends of the Church to stake its existence on church rates. He thought that the great difference between the existence of the Church and the main-had been that persons of different opinions tenance of church rates was shown by the fact that in very many parts of the country no church rates were levied. In many of the large and populous parishes church rates had practically been abolished, so that about one-half the population was exempted from the payment of those rates. had been brought nearer together. He still hoped to see some arrangement made which would meet the necessity of country places, and he hoped that such a plan would yet meet with the consideration of the hon. Gentleman. He thought the discussion of that day had been con |