BX 
 
 5165 
 
 M764c 
 
 MONTEAGUZ 
 
 A 
 A 
 
 
 ^^^^^— r~> 
 
 so 
 
 
 
 UT 
 
 
 
 
 HERN RE 
 
 llilill 
 
 CHURCH RATES
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 C H U RCH RATES. 
 
 SUBSTANCE OF A SPEECH 
 
 DELIVERED IN 
 
 THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, 
 
 On the 3d of March, 1837, 
 
 BY THE 
 
 RIGHT HON. T. SPRING RICE, 
 
 CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, 
 AND M. P. FOR CAMBRIDGE. 
 
 Can we consider the heart-burnings, the acrimonious reviling?, the constant 
 quarrels, the jealousies, the recrimination, the profanation of the Church itself, 
 where these meetings take place, by which, year after year, the cause of true 
 religion is violated and profaned, the house of God desecrated, and the very 
 worst possible spirit excited among the majority of the people at large ? I think 
 that such a state of things imperatively calls for relief. 
 
 Lord Stanley. 
 
 EXTRACTED FROM " THE MIRROR OF PARLIAMENT," 
 (Part 406.) 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PRINTED BV PERMISSION OF THE 
 
 PROPRIETORS OF "THE MIRROR OF PARLIAMENT. 
 
 1837.
 
 
 HOUSE OF COMMONS, 
 
 Friday, March 3. 
 
 CHURCH RATES REGULATION. 
 
 On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX- 
 CHEQUER, the House resolved itself into a Committee 
 on Church Rates Regulation,— (King's recommendation 
 signified). 
 
 The Speaker having left the Chair, Mr. Bernal 
 presided as Chairman of the Committee. 
 
 The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER. — Mr. 
 Bernal : I shall not occupy your time, or that of the Com- 
 mittee, by soliciting your kind consideration, or by ad- 
 vancing any peculiar claim to your indulgence. Sir, I 
 shall simply say, that under no circumstances have I ever 
 risen to address the House with so deep a sense of the 
 responsibility that attaches to me, whether as a Member 
 of Parliament, or as a Member of the Government. The 
 important question which I am now about to propose 
 to the House, I consider to be one of that character 
 which absorbs all ordinary considerations. It is a ques- 
 tion in which the speaker not only forgets himself, 
 and all political or party connection, but in which he 
 loses sight of all considerations whatsoever, except the 
 great and mighty interests that are involved, not in the 
 discussion, but in the solution, of this subject. We are 
 about to trv to give religious peace throughout the 
 land. We s'eek to extend farther the liberal principles 
 upon which this House has, in later times, acted. Sir, 
 the difficulties of discussing this question are greatly 
 aggravated by the circumstances of the times in which 
 we live. If I entertained a hope that we could approach 
 the discussion without passion, without prejudice, with- 
 out party excitement, then, indeed, I should not hesitate 
 A 2 
 
 o> 
 
 012-188
 
 in anticipating a successful issue to the debate ; but when 
 we seethe character of the times in which we live, — when 
 we see the disposition that exists, upon all occasions Life 
 the present, to excite a prejudice, to raise a cry. to per- 
 suade certain parties that the Church is in danger, — I 
 feel that the difficulties which would exi-t even under 
 ordinary circumstances become in the present instance 
 overpowering. 
 
 Sir, 1 1 i.i\ be allowed to state, hi reference to the spirit in 
 which this measure is recommended to Parliament, that 
 the Government propose it in no spirit of hostility to the 
 Established Church: on the contrary, we feel persuaded 
 thai the settlement of the question is that measure, above 
 all other-, which, at the present moment, will give peace 
 and Becurirj to our Establishment, sir. Let not Honour- 
 able Gentlemen think, that, in thus anticipating danger 
 ami difficulty, I am drawing purelyfrom mj imagination. 
 It i- no such thing. Within a very Bhort period of time, 
 before the intentions of iris Majesty's Governnm nt on this 
 subject had been communicated to Parliament I Baw 
 it proclaimed, — and that on the authority of an in- 
 dividual who is valued, respected, and Loved by his 
 friends, — that the public at large were to anticipate a 
 measure i alt ulated to rob < rod 01 hi< glory and the poor 
 of their rights. Such was the character given of our mea- 
 sure bj anticipation. s ir, I allude to this for the purpose 
 of dein ing the assertion ; and of entreating the House to 
 believe that the intention- of those who have framed this 
 measure, — the intentions of him who humblj proposes 
 it, — are to advance the cause of religion : to give peace — 
 to give stability — to the Church ; and that, so far from 
 robbing the poor of their rights, we seek to affirm those 
 rights, and to establish those rights more particularly in 
 reference to the subjecl of religious instruction. Sir, it 
 was hut a short time since, that, in a debate upon another 
 question, a noble friend of mine animadverted on the 
 absence of petition-. No individual can make a similar 
 
 ,. lion oil the subject of < huivh Kate-. On the 
 
 contrary, what subjecl has excited throughout the land 
 so deep and earnest an attention i No person, who has a 
 Large da-- of constituents, can venture to say, — and, 
 
 thank- to the Reform Bill, mOSl of US may now appeal 
 
 to a large classs of constituents, — there i- no Honour- 
 able Gentleman, I repeal it, <>n either side of the House, 
 
 who can he prepared to -a\ that this Bubjecl i- not .me 
 
 which comes recommended to the House a.- having 
 
 excited the strongest public inter, -t Nay, I may almost
 
 put it whether this is not a subject which we may ap- 
 proach within the walls of Parliament upon the admission 
 that a great evil exists, and that the evil calls for an 
 immediate and an effective remedy ? I hope I may 
 assume within this House, though I know a contrary 
 opinion has been entertained without these walls, that a 
 remedy, prompt and decisive, is called for — I hope I 
 may assume that the question at issue between the two 
 sides of the House, and which we must decide, is not 
 whether we can remain as we are ? but, what is the course 
 that it behoves the Legislature to follow? 
 
 .sir, I should wish, in the first branch of my argument, 
 to refer to certain high authorities on this subject, be- 
 cause the House would feel thai I neglected my dirty if I 
 did not strengthen my position as far as possible, and 
 more especially when I* appeal to authorities which cannot 
 but have weight with the Honourable Gentlemen oppo- 
 site. I shall not argue merelj to satisfy gentlemen who 
 are disposed to support me; hut I shall argue, if possible, 
 to convince those Honourable Gentlemen also who are 
 prepared to oppose my Resolution. I may assume, that 
 Honourable Gentlemen who have already presented pe- 
 titions in favour of the measure, from this side of the 
 House, are prepared to support me. It is therefore 
 from the other side that I must seek to make converts. 
 I seek to influence votes, bj calling the attention of Ho- 
 nourable Gentlemen tothe fatal consequences which may, 
 or rather which must, arise from allowing this question 
 to remain unsettled. The first authority to which I shall 
 allude is the authority of a < k>mmission proceeding from 
 the Crown, issued during the government of the Duke 
 of Wellington. I do not allude i<< this Report in support 
 of the particular remedy which I propose, hut as esta- 
 blishing the preliminary fact, that the present state of 
 the law i- one which we* cannot allow to continue ; — that 
 some remedy is called for, and that such remedy it is the 
 dut\ of this" House to provide. In the extract which I 
 shall quote from the Report of the Commissioners, I find 
 it set forth, that the whole subject of church rates de- 
 mands immediate attention; as the mischiefs arising 
 from the present state of the law are rapidly spreading. 
 To prove the correctness of this statement, it is only 
 necessarv to refer to the actual state of the law. It is 
 clearly indisputable in practice, and I believe it to be 
 equally so in point of law, that if a vestry is assembled 
 to consider the proposition of a church rate, that vestry 
 has full means of refusing its assent to the rate. I do 
 a 3
 
 not anticipate that there are any Honourable Gentlemen 
 in this House who will defend the present state of the 
 law ; but if there are, let them not defend it upon the 
 ground that there now exists any fixed, permanent, or 
 satisfactory mode of providing for the repair and main- 
 tenance of the churches of the Establishment. That, 
 surely, cannot be considered as a fixed, permanent, and 
 established income, to which the majority of any parish 
 vestry may refuse or postpone its assent. You may de- 
 fend the present state of things on any other ground you 
 please; but to defend it on the ground of its affording a 
 permanent and stable support for the maintenance of the 
 parish churches, is a complete misapprehension of all 
 the facts of the case, and is contradicted by the events 
 which are passing before our own eyes. Let the Com- 
 mittee recollect, that the vestries of England (and I 
 rejoice that they are so) are not confined to any particular 
 sect or denomination of his Majesty's subjects. In Ire- 
 land that is not the case; but in England you invite, 
 at the commencement of the year, all the King's subjects 
 to meet in vestry, and determine whether there shall or 
 shall not be a church rate. Qpon the vote of the vestry 
 so assembled, the imposition and levy of thai rate are de- 
 termined. Let us ask, Sir. to what has tins Ledf It 
 has led, in numberless cases, not only to conflicting opi- 
 nions, but a determined spirit of resistance ; — it has 
 arrayed the Dissenter against the Churchman, — it has 
 produced annual bickeringB, and annual divisions. It 
 has led to results that, in a greal Dumber of parishes and 
 cities and towns, have heeii anything but favourable to 
 the stability of the Church, to the promotion of christian 
 knowledge, or the extension of Christian charity. Let 
 it not, therefore, be said, that this present state of things 
 does furnish any efficient support to the Church Esta- 
 blishment ; on the contrary. 1 maintain that it leads to 
 results of the most opposite character. On the first dis- 
 cussion of this subject, some years back, I think my 
 Honourable Friend the Member for the University of 
 Oxford (Sir Robert Inglis) stated, that there had not then 
 been manifested a resistance to the payment of church 
 rates in more than 50 parishes. Upon the authority of 
 another Honourable Member of this House, it was, on a 
 subsequent occasion, stated that the number of recusant 
 parishes had doubled, and then amounted to more than 
 100. Hut, for my argument, I care not whether there 
 are 50 or 100 parishes in which a determined stand is 
 made against these rates : I should be blind indeed to
 
 the interests of the Church Establishment, and to the 
 interests of all who are connected with it, if I thought 
 the danger would be confined within the limits of these 
 30 or 100 parishes, if I did not attempt to correct what 
 I consider must be a progressive evil. It cannot be 
 said that this resistance is confined within particular 
 localities; on the contrary, it resembles a plague-spot 
 breaking out in one place, but which, in a very short 
 time, will spread its contagion generally. I shall take 
 the liberty of describing to the House what that spirit of 
 resistance, and its consequences, have been in certain 
 cases. I have many examples which I might state to 
 the House, but I shall select only a few as specimens. 
 First, I shall take the case of Sheffield. In Sheffield, 
 the opposition to church rates commenced in 1817 or 
 1818. On that occasion, the adjournment of the vestry 
 was moved, and the same scene followed year after year, 
 until, in th? year 1822, there was a decided contest, the 
 effect of which was ^ocai'se an evident separation between 
 the Churchmen and the Dissenters between the years 
 1817 and 1822. The meetings were held in the church, 
 where scenes took place disgraceful to all parties, — scenes 
 which were fit illustrations of the working of the system. 
 The writer, from whom I derive my information, pro- 
 ceeds to say, — 
 
 One scone I shall never forget ; — an actual trial of personal 
 strength between two gentlemen, each trying to eject the other 
 from the chair, the partisans on each side backing and encouraging 
 the combatants. There was no further attempt made to obtain a 
 church rate until IM'24 ; and in that year, the active opponents of 
 the rate on the former occasion being dead, the church rate party 
 called a vestry meeting to lay a rate ; and so disgusted had I been 
 at the scenes at former meetings, where the rate was only got rid 
 of by a quibble, that I proposed a resolution negativing the grant- 
 ing of a rate, on the ground of its injustice. This was carried, 
 and there has been no attempt to lay a rate since then. 
 
 The consequence has been, that in Sheffield no rate has 
 existed since 1817 or 1818. Here was a meeting held in 
 the church itself, in the face of the whole congregation, 
 — here we find the Dissenters and Churchmen arrayed 
 against each other — the contest resolving itself into 
 personal violence, — and this as a lesson of peace and 
 charity to the assembled parishioners ! All this has 
 actually occurred; and with what result ? Why, not the 
 collection, but the extinction, of the rate, the subject of 
 contest ; — the utter extinction of the rate during the 
 period I have referred to. 
 
 a 4
 
 The next case to which I shall refer is that of Man- 
 chester. I refer to these great towns because I wish to 
 show the magnitude of the evil ; because I know that 
 public feeling is more alive in these great towns, than 
 elsewhere ; because the excitement that originates 
 there, whether it be of a political, of a religious, or of 
 an intellectual character, soon extends, — first, through 
 all the great towns, and, subsequently, throughout the 
 whole community. At Manchester, I find that the Dis- 
 senters, in 1833, resisted church rates, and a poll was 
 demanded, after a rate had been proposed in vestry and 
 lost. A poll was demanded, for which no preparation 
 was made ; and after five or six days' struggle, and after 
 polling 7000 and 8000, the rate was lost by a majority of 
 one. The churchwardens held a scrutiny ; the majority 
 was declared to be in favour of the rate. This is a case 
 in which the rate was successful ; but the examples of 
 cases in which the rate has been carried, speak as 
 strongly for my motion, as those of a different character. 
 The rate was carried ; but was it collected ? To this I 
 shall refer hereafter. The churchwardens conducted the 
 scrutiny, and declared that the final majority was in 
 favour of the rate : but what has been the result? My 
 Honourable Friend behind me, (Mr. Philips,) knows. 
 Was the rate levied ? Was it paid ? Was the church 
 supported by the produce ? No such thing; no step has 
 been taken to enforce this rate. No levy has been made 
 under it : the churchwardens have not judged it prudent 
 to attempt a levy; so that even when, in vestry, the rate 
 has been successful, it has failed for any real* good and 
 practical purpose. The subject has excited a storm, and 
 all for nothing. Confusion, and contest, and party dis- 
 sensions have been produced. The writer of a letter 
 which I hold in my hand proceeds to say. — 
 
 In 1834 a contest again took place in Manchester. The elec- 
 tion of the Members was nothing to it. The poll lasted five or six 
 days, ind nearly 15,000 votes were polled, and there was a majo- 
 rity against the rate of ll.ooo. It appears that a scrutiny was de- 
 manded; but what was the result.-' This large majority was 
 declared to be a minority ; but, though dared to do so, they de- 
 clined to try the case at law, 
 
 Was it politic, in such a community as Manchester, to 
 array 15,000 persons in controversy upon a church 
 question ? and I have stated that, when they had suc- 
 ceeded, the churchwardens did not dare to try the case 
 at law, or to collect the rate thus established. In the 
 year 1835, another parish meeting was called, and a very
 
 large assembly came together, but the show of hands 
 was so decisive, that the churchwardens declined to go 
 to a poll, and from that time to the present, in the town 
 of Manchester, there has been no attempt to raise a church 
 rate. Can, or ought this state of things to continue ? If 
 you depend upon the church rate for the maintenance of 
 the Church, can you depend upon the present state of the 
 law to enable you to enforce that payment ? It is not 
 sufficient to assert that the law must be strengthened : if 
 you wish to maintain such a proposition, you must carry 
 the House of Commons with you. Can you do so ? Can 
 you get any House of Commons to grant such new and 
 additional powers ? 
 
 COLONEL SIBTHORP. — Hear ! hear! 
 
 The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER. — The 
 Honourable Member for Lincoln, I know, holds, that if 
 the church rate cannot be collected under the present law, 
 nothing can be more easy than to persuade the Legis- 
 lature to give additional power. I confess, I should like 
 to see, not the person, but the party, however combined 
 in force or number, who could come down to this House, 
 and ask the Parliament — not to give the people of England 
 a settlement of this question, but — to grant additional 
 power for enforcing the payment of church rates, and 
 persisting in the present system. I will say, that, be 
 that individual who he may, who thinks he can obtain 
 from the Legislature additional powers to enforce the 
 payment of church rates, he will soon find that he mis- 
 calculates the character of the Legislature, as well as 
 miscalculates the people whom that Legislature repre- 
 sents. 
 
 There is another case which, as it establishes the first 
 part of my proposition, I must take the liberty of ad- 
 verting to. The case I allude to occurred in a township 
 in Yorkshire, called Applethorpe. In this case there had 
 been a large church built ; heavy rates were demanded 
 and were agreed to at the vestry meeting, and a rate of 
 2s. 9d. was actually ordered to be levied. I have already 
 shown you a case in wbich a rate has been refused by 
 the vestry ; I have also shown you a case in which a rate, 
 being made, was not enforced ; and the object of the 
 present illustration is to show you, farther, what, even 
 where a rate has been granted and enforced, some- 
 times are the consequences of that enforcement of rate, 
 and how strongly those consequences prove the incon-
 
 venience of the existing law. In this case the rate of 
 2s. 9d. was proposed to be levied on a certain Captain 
 Flower, a dissenter, who contested the rate. He was 
 summoned before a magistrate, again persisted in his 
 refusal, and denied the legality of the rate. The legality 
 of the rate being contested, the magistrate was deprived 
 of jurisdiction ; the case was taken to another and an 
 ecclesiastical tribunal, and the result was, that Captain 
 Flower had to pay the rate, with costs amounting to 250/ 
 
 COLONEL SIBTHORP. — Hear ! hear ! 
 
 The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER. — Of 
 this I do not complain. I admit, that if he, or any one 
 else, resists a demand, and goes to law to try the right, 
 if the law be against the appellant, he is bound to abide 
 by the consequences. I suppose that I have understood 
 the meaning of the cheer from the Honourable and Gal- 
 lant Colonel, and that I have answered his supposed in- 
 ference. Rut, without claiming for Captain Flower any 
 sympathy for the payment of his costs, there is an- 
 other circumstance, connected with this case, which, per- 
 haps, when the Gallant Colonel hears, he will not be 
 disposed to cheer: it is this, — that no rate ha- been granted 
 in that parish ever since. The ease therefore proves that 
 for the recovery of the rate of 2s.9d. contested on the 
 ground <>f its legality, costs of 250/. were inflicted on the 
 party, and the rate has Dot been repeated. If you read 
 that LessOB to the people <>!' England, depend upon it that 
 their Bympath] will be excited for the man who has paid 
 these enormous costs, and their feelings will rise against 
 
 the exi-lillLT law . 
 
 I trust that Honourable Gentlemen will see thai all 
 these illustrations, however tedious, are made for the 
 purpose of establishing the first point of mj argument 
 namely, that the law cannot he permitted to remain as it 
 is. u there In Honourable Gentlemen in this Souse 
 
 who think that the law tan stand as it is, let them come 
 forward in reply, and maintain that argument. But the\ 
 cannot do so it, as I hope I have been enabled to prove 
 to this House, the law is defective and needs amend- 
 ment. This is the tirst duty of every one who BUggi 
 any important change of the existing law. Until that 
 foundation be laid, I do not Conceive that I have a right 
 to come to Parliament and recommend an alteration. It 
 has been with that view that I have referred to the matters 
 ot fact I have brought before the House. But I rely not
 
 11 
 
 only on fact, but on opinion also. I may appeal to one 
 authority on the subject which cannot fail to have 
 great weight with those Honourable Gentlemen, on the 
 other side, who suppose that the present system can be 
 maintained. It is the authority of my Noble Friend 
 opposite, and I rejoice to have an opportunity of quoting 
 to the House any authority of his, in support of an opi- 
 nion of my own ; for, though we have differed on some 
 important questions, and on more occasions than I could 
 have wished, we have never been engaged in discussion 
 upon any terms but those of sincere and affectionate 
 friendship. When I appeal to his authority on this sub- 
 ject, I have no right to claim it in behalf of my specific 
 plan of remedy. But I know his high authority ; I appeal 
 to that authority in condemnation of the present system ; 
 and I therefore call upon the House to listen attentively 
 to the opinion which he eloquently expressed upon this 
 subject in 1834. My Noble Friend stated that " true 
 it was, that though church rates had been resisted, the 
 Church itself had been successful in overcoming the 
 resistance ;" and then he proceeded to state, with a truly 
 wise and statesmanlike view of the subject, what must be 
 the consequences even of that success : — 
 
 Suppose (said he) that, year after year, the Church should be 
 triumphant in maintaining the payment of these rates to the utter- 
 most farthing, and in maintaining every abuse connected with their 
 collection and distribution ; does my Honourable Friend (the Ho- 
 nourable Baronet the Member for Oxford) think that such a 
 course of proceeding would be advantageous to the interests of the 
 Church, or lead to the promotion of true religion ? * 
 
 My Noble Friend well knew on what grounds to ap- 
 peal to the Honourable Member for Oxford. He ap- 
 pealed to him on the grounds of the interests of the 
 Church itself, and the advancement of true religion. I 
 say, Sir, how can the interest of the Church itself, and 
 the advancement of true religion, be promoted or 
 maintained by the present system of making and en- 
 forcing church rates ? My Noble Friend, following out 
 the same course of argument, next asked, — 
 
 Does my Honourable Friend consider the heart burnings, the 
 acrimonious revilings, the constant quarrels, the jealousies, the re- 
 crimination, the profanation of the Church itself, where these 
 
 * See Mirror of Parliament, Sess. 1834, Vol. II. p. 1167 
 col. 2.
 
 12 
 
 meetings take place, by which, year after year, the cause of true 
 religion is violated and profaned, the house of God desecrated, and 
 the very worst possible feeling excited among the majority of the 
 people at large ? I say that such a state o? things imperatively 
 calls for relief;* 
 
 I do not appeal to him as an authority in favour of 
 my plan, of which he knows nothing ; but I do appeal to 
 him as a conclusive authority in fa\ our of my first prin- 
 ciple, which affirms that the present system cannot be 
 allowed to continue. If Honourable Gentlemen stand 
 up and tell us that the Church has been victorious, I 
 ask them, in the words of my Noble Friend, will not such 
 victories be fatal ? Or, if the Church continue to be 
 triumphant, can such dangerous triumphs be considered 
 as a set-off or counterpoise to the mischiefs which my 
 Noble Friend so eloquently described in the speech 
 which I have just quoted ? I feel that I must have occu- 
 pied the attention of the House for a longer period than 
 I could wish, even on this tirst part of the subject; and 
 I should not have done so, but that I feel and know that, 
 though not within these walls, yet without them, some 
 have maintained that no remedy is required, and that 
 no alteration of the law is called for. I know that 
 there is an opinion prevalent in certain quarters, and 
 more particularly among Churchmen, that we may strug- 
 gle on as we have done. I know that an opinion has 
 been inculcated, that the law, as it now stands, is 
 sufficient to enable the Church to enforce the rates; and 
 I have, therefore, thought ii necessary to prove — on 
 authority, to me, conclusive — that a change of the pre- 
 sent system is necessary to the interests of the Church 
 itself, — to the just feelings of the Dissenters, — and to 
 the maintenance of good order and pence throughout the 
 country. Now, Sir. if I am right, — and I may be per- 
 mitted to assume that I am so for the moment, — let 
 gentlemen remember that we are not called upon to 
 decide absolutely upon my plan : on the present occasion 
 1 am only bound to explain its principle, and to prove 
 that it is worthy of consideration. It is not so much the 
 question, at the present moment, whether a particular 
 remedy should be adopted, as whether any remedy is 
 called for, and whether my proposition may be enter- 
 tained. 
 
 Various remedies have been proposed from different 
 quarters ; to these, I shall proceed to direct my observa- 
 
 • See .Mirror of Parliament, Sess. 1834, Vol. II. p. 1167. 
 coL •_'.
 
 13 
 
 tions. Of these, the first is, the total abolition of church 
 rates : leaving the repair of the fabric of the Church to 
 be provided for by the voluntary contributions of the 
 members of the Establishment. This is, in point of fact, 
 no less than leaving the maintenance of the fabric of the 
 Church to depend on what we understand and refer to, 
 in our debates, under the name of the voluntary principle. 
 Now, Sir, I for one say, that to that principle I must 
 ever, and under all circumstances, express my decided 
 opposition, whether with regard to the maintenance of 
 the fabric of the Church, or to the support of the minis- 
 ters of the Establishment. I am a member of the Esta- 
 blished Church. I am sincerely attached to that Church 
 by conviction, no less than from birth and education. I 
 am not called to argue as against the voluntary system, 
 at the present. It is sufficient for my purpose to enter 
 my protest against it, in whatever shape or under what- 
 soever mollification it may appear. My Noble Friend 
 the SecrcLary of State has made this declaration on 
 various former occasions : I repeat it, and I state it the 
 more boldly now, because it is on the rejection of this 
 principle that I invite the House to the consideration of 
 my proposed remedy ; and, therefore, it need not pre- 
 clude any person from adopting my conclusion,^ and doing 
 that which I contend is just, not only to the Established 
 Church but to the Dissenters. I repeat it advisedly, — for 
 the plan I am about to propose, so far from having any 
 connection with the voluntary principle, and so far from 
 leaving no settled provision for the maintenance of the 
 fabric of the Established Church, proceeds upon a prin- 
 ciple the very opposite ; and it affirms absolutely, that of 
 the duty which is incumbent on the State of securing, 
 for ever, the means for religious worship within his 
 Majesty's dominions. If more were called for, and it 
 were considered as insufficient for me to record my dis- 
 sent from the voluntary principle, I might be tempted 
 shortly to add, that when any Honourable Gentleman 
 can satisfy me that the independence and honour of the 
 country can be defended — when our army and navy can be 
 supported — when public instruction can be provided for — 
 when the administration of justice can be maintained — upon 
 the voluntary principle, — then, and not till then, I shall 
 apply the voluntary principle to the Church : sooner it 
 cannot be applied, unless it be contended, indeed, that 
 religious instruction is, as a principle, less important to 
 the whole community than the other duties to which I 
 have alluded. In such an event, but in no other, can I
 
 14 
 
 admit that the voluntary principle in religious matters 
 may be relied on. But, inasmuch as I feel that it is 
 impossible to establish any one of these propositions, and 
 when I know that the religious Establishment of the State 
 is, at the least, as necessary to be maintained as the army, 
 navy, or administration of justice; then I must say that I 
 can never submit to leave the Church Establishment to 
 the chances and instability of the voluntary principle. * 
 
 Sir, a second proposition is, that the Church should be 
 left to the voluntary principle, but that a distinctive system 
 of taxation should be introduced, — these taxes being 
 levied exclusively from the members of the Church for 
 its maintenance. I think, Sir, this involves, though in a 
 minor degree, the objection to which I have already alluded, 
 as applicable in the former proposition. It is inconsistent 
 with the first principles of our Establishment ; and how, 
 Sir, are we to distinguish who is or who is not a church- 
 man ? Are we to establish a new test ? Are we to 
 renew the odious principle of the Test and Corporation 
 Acts, in order to know who is to be hereafter compellable 
 to contribute towards the Church Establishment ? But, 
 Sir, I need not pursue this line of argument further, — 
 the plan is too absurd, and manifestly objectionable, to 
 require further observation. 
 
 Another proposition is, that there should be a fund 
 created by a tax levied upon the clergy, by the imposition 
 of a rate of taxation levied by a graduated scale upon all 
 the benefices of the Church. It is suggested as a sort of 
 income tax, to be levied upon the clergy for the main- 
 tenance of the fabric of the Church. Neither to that 
 proposition can I agree. You have stated to Parliament, 
 in a Report laid upon your Table, what is the actual 
 amount of the revenues of the Church of England. After 
 considering that Report, I think no Honourable Member 
 will deem that an income tax upon the clergy is a 
 proper mode of meeting the expense. That Report 
 shows, that the average income of the clergy of the 
 Church of England amounts to no larger a sum than 
 285/. per annum. Sir, I am not now called upon to enter 
 into the question of distribution ; but, assuming, for 
 the sake of argument, that the distribution was equalised, 
 it will only yield an average of 285/. But then, some 
 exclaim " there are the bishops, deans, and chapters, — 
 why not abolish them ? " Sir, in answer to that, I say, 
 in the first place, that the proposal would be, in fact, 
 abolishing the episcopal character of our Church. It 
 would alter the whole system of the Establishment. But,
 
 13 
 
 again, — conceding, for argument's sake, that all these dig- 
 nitaries were swept away, and that their whole revenue 
 were thrown into the average, it would not yield, even 
 then, to each clergyman an average much exceeding 300/. 
 per annum. I am not, for one, prepared to say that this 
 income is in excess. On the contrary, I feel that it is 
 not an income from which I am prepared to make any 
 deduction, w T hen I consider the duties cast upon the 
 clergy, and the large means of usefulness which are open 
 to them ; when I think on their charity and their benevo- 
 lence, and the claims upon both. On these grounds, I 
 am not disposed to make any deduction from the income 
 now assigned to the parochial clergy of the Established 
 Church. 
 
 Another suggestion has been made, by which a fund 
 should be raised solely by pew-rents, and by which the 
 sittings in the church should be applied to maintain the 
 fabric of the church. Sir, 1 should be very reluctant to 
 acquiesce in this principle, stated without limitation. 
 Then, indeed, I must appear to justify a second part of 
 the urgent cry to which I have already alluded ; then it 
 might be said that I did propose to rob the poor of their 
 rights. Sir, I think, if all admission to our churches 
 were made dependent on money payment, we should rob 
 the poor of their rights ; which I will never consent to — 
 and, therefore, if there be any who impute such an in- 
 tention to me, — to his Majesty's Ministers, — or to those 
 who may support the plan we propose, such persons do 
 us a manifest injustice. Sir, I contend that it is the duty 
 of the Government, on the contrary, to provide, as far 
 as is practicable, seats for the poor ; and instead of limit- 
 ing or abridging their rights, I propose in my Bill to 
 confirm and extend them. If we were to place the 
 support of the fabric of the Church upon the system of 
 pew-rents, without regard to the rights of the poor, or 
 without providing adequate means of religious instruction 
 to the poorer classes, I say, that it would be a vicious set- 
 tlement of the question. Therefore I utterly and entirely 
 disclaim all intention of wishing to provide exclusively 
 by pew-rents for the support of the fabric of the Church ; 
 reserving to myself, in the further developement of my 
 plan, the right of suggesting the appropriation of pew- 
 rents, paid by the rich for the support of that fabric, and 
 thus extending the means of religious instruction to the 
 poor. 
 
 Another plan to which I shall advert is of a very dif- 
 ferent character ; and this is the scheme of those who are
 
 16 
 
 so surprisingly contented with our vestry system, that 
 they are anxious that church rates should remain in their 
 present condition, and only wishing to obtain a little 
 additional authority and control over those who vote the 
 rates, namely, the persons who are called on to pay 
 them. This plan is set forth in some resolutions entered 
 into at a meeting of the Archdeacons of England. I 
 entertain the deepest respect for these gentlemen ; but. 
 they will, I am sure, allow me to comment freely upon 
 their opinions, as expressed in these resolutions. One of 
 the resolutions is — " That this meeting earnestly depre- 
 cates all interference with the principle of church rates, 
 being persuaded that no other mode of attaining the 
 same object, equally safe and permanent, can be devised." 
 Now, Sir, if there be any force in the opinion of my 
 Noble Friend, — if there be any force in the opinion of 
 Lord Spencer, — or if there be any force in the opinion of 
 the Right Honourable Baronet the Member for Tamworth 
 in adverting to this subject, it is impossible to acquiesce 
 in this ecclesiastical judgment of the Archdeacons. But, 
 Sir, this is not all. Like the postcript to a lady's letter, 
 the most important part of the communication re- 
 mains for the last. The second resolution is — "That 
 nothing more is required than additional enactments 
 for better raising or making the rate, and for securing 
 the rate payer every possible satisfaction as to the faith- 
 ful application of the money so raised." Now, Sir, let 
 us inquire what may be these additional enactments ? 
 Either that power should lie given to churchwardens to levy 
 a rate without the consent of the vestry ; or to give to 
 the magistrates at quarter sessions the power to impose 
 a rate upon parishes, without the consent of the pa- 
 rishioners. Neither proposition can be maintained, or 
 even tolerated, for one moment, let it come from what 
 quarter it may. 
 
 I now proceed to another proposition, which I approach 
 with much more of respect as well as of doubt and he- 
 sitation ; the propositions made by Lord Grey's Govern- 
 ment, — the proposition made by Lord Spencer to this 
 House. I must be permitted to discuss that proposition, 
 and state to the Committee the reason why I think it is 
 open to objection ; and that the House, though admitting 
 that it contained an improvement of the existing law, 
 would not now be warranted in atlopting it. Lord 
 Spencer proposed that a sum of -200,000/. should be voted 
 by Parliament for the purpose of maintaining the fabric 
 of the Church. That proposition was submitted to the
 
 17 
 
 House. No one proposed, distinctly, to negative it, but 
 amendments were moved to this effect, — " That until it 
 was shown that the funds of the Church were inadequate 
 for the purposes of the Church, the House was not dis- 
 posed to entertain the proposition." My Noble Friend 
 did not persist in his plau. His Majesty's Government 
 feel the utmost respect, of course, for a plan in which so 
 many of them formerly concurred. But I shall take the 
 liberty of stating to the House the reason why I think 
 that proposition, though good in many respects, ought 
 not to be made, and why another and a preferable pro- 
 position ought to be adopted. In the first place, the 
 House is to recollect that the present system of church 
 rates is one which allows to the parishioners, in vestry 
 assembled, the power of saying aye, or no, to any pro- 
 position for a rate. It is, in point of fact, founded on 
 the constitutional principle of parochial government. I 
 object to this, not on the ground of any injustice, because 
 I think in all communities the majority must have a power 
 of governing on such subjects, but because these vestry 
 meetings lead, as they are calculated to lead, to perpetual 
 discord and contest. Still, I say, that if the parishes of Eng- 
 land have a free right, as at present they have, to say whe- 
 ther J 000/. or 500/. shall be levied from themselves and 
 expended, I am not surprised that they should say, " We 
 don't choose that our money should be expended upon 
 objects in which we are so deeply interested, without our 
 opinion having been once asked upon it." That is the 
 first objection which is fairly applicable to Lord Althorp's 
 plan. It would deprive the parishes of the control they 
 now possess. But there is another objection, which I 
 think is more powerful, and to my mind appears quite 
 decisive ; and I wish my Noble Friend, who was a party 
 to that proposition, to give me his attention while I state 
 this objection. In a publication which has recently issued 
 from the press, in defence of church rates, — and which 
 has obtained a circulation proportionate to the ability by 
 which it is characterised, — I find it stated that in 5000 
 parishes no rates are levied, and that more than one 
 third of the parishes of England are free from this bur- 
 den. I find it so stated, and, though I have no direct 
 evidence of it, I assume the statement to be correct. But 
 I know this confirmatory fact, — that, by the Charity Com- 
 missioners' Report, in very many instances in parishes, 
 there does not seem to be a necessity for the levying of any 
 church rates at all, because in those parishes provision is 
 already made, by the endowments of pious persons, for
 
 18 
 
 the maintenance and erection of churches. In the county 
 of Norfolk, for instance, there appear upwards of 100 
 parishes that have some endowments for their churches : 
 I do not affirm, nor do I know whether those endow- 
 ments are adequate ; but to take the extreme case stated, 
 that of .3000 parishes in which it is said that there are 
 now no church rates collected, and wherever there may 
 be an existing adequate endowment, is it fair to tax — 
 which you do if you raise the church rates from the 
 general taxation of the country, — is it fair to tax those 
 parishes who have funds adequate to maintain their 
 churches — is it fair to tax them for the support of other 
 churches in other parts of the country ? I contend that, 
 there being subsisting endowments in many parishes 
 connected with the established religion of the country, it 
 is unjust, because it is partial, to levy an indiscriminate 
 taxation throughout the kingdom for the general main- 
 tenance of the churches. I may be permitted to state 
 one instance in illustration. I find that in the reign of 
 Queen Mary a charter was granted, and considerable 
 property given to a corporation at Sheffield, called the 
 Church Burgesses ; that those persons have now adequate 
 funds for the maintenance of the church at Sheffield, that 
 they do maintain the church at Sheffield, and that all 
 church rates at Sheffield have ceased. Would it not be 
 rather hard, in this case, to say to the inhabitants of 
 Sheffield, " You are to make a provision for the mainte- 
 nance of churches in other places where no such endow- 
 ments exist " ? The difference of religion in the case of 
 Scotland and Ireland will give this argument additional 
 force. It was frequently asked, on the part of Scotland, 
 when Lord Althorp's plan was brought forward, " Why 
 •hould we be taxed for the support of the Episcopal Church 
 in England ? For, if funds tor the maintenance of that 
 church are taken from the general taxation of the coun- 
 try, you do, in fact, compel us to aid in its support." 
 And I think I could recognise something of the old 
 spirit of opposition to episcopacy by which the Scottish 
 covenanters were actuated, in the tone in which some 
 gentlemen echoed these sentiments. I say, then, of the 
 plan of Lord Spencer, that, though it was a great step in 
 advance, — though it tended to put a stop to the pernicious 
 conflicts which have so long raged between dissenters 
 and churchmen, — it was based upon a principle which I 
 cannot admit to be free from all just objection. Nor 
 were the objections entertained to this plan entirely con- 
 fined to dissenters. I find in The Quarterly Review —
 
 19 
 
 a publication certainly in no wise connected with the 
 dissenting body — the following ohservations : — 
 
 If the plan be adopted of upholding the churches cut of the 
 national purse, and the repairs be charged on the Consolidated 
 Fund, where is the relief to the Dissenter? for the principle by 
 which he is made — indirectly to be sure, but still substantially — 
 
 — to contribute to the maintenance of a building which he never 
 enters, is just in as full force as under a system of rates. 
 
 I do not concur in all the arguments contained in the 
 paper from which I have read an extract ; but I have no 
 hesitation in asserting my conviction, that, by taking the 
 course here alluded to, we should but have adopted a 
 palliative, and a kind of half measure, which would not 
 nave been considered as satisfactory or final by a large 
 body of his Majesty's subjects. 
 
 Sir, I have thus endeavoured to prove that the present 
 state of the law is defective ; and, secondly, that the 
 various remedies which have been suggested would not 
 turn out to be effectual. I know I have occupied the 
 House at great length ; but I am resolved, even at the 
 hazard of trying their patience, to omit nothing that may 
 recommend the plan that I am about to introduce, or 
 may protect the supporters of that plan from misrepre- 
 sentation. Sir, the plan of his Majesty's Government — 
 the plan which I am now about to explain to the House 
 
 — proposes to abolish church rates altogether ; not for 
 the purpose of leaving the fabric of the Church unpro- 
 vided for, but with a view of providing for its repair, and 
 maintaining it in a manner equally permanent, equally 
 fixed, as before, but by a mode differing from the present 
 in this main and essential distinction, — that while the 
 present system seeks for its support through contests 
 painful in their prosecution, and doubtful in result — 
 while in levying rates it creates religious animosity — we 
 propose to maintain the fabric of the Church without 
 injury to the Church itself, or to any class of persons, 
 and under a system by which these heats and animosities 
 will be extinguished. Our Bill provides for church rates 
 out of a surplus to be created by a better management 
 of lands which are now the property of the Church, 
 and in the hands of the archbishops, bishops, deans and 
 chapters throughout England. Honourable Gentlemen 
 will understand that I do not propose to touch the income, 
 whether in glebe or tithe, of any one of the parochial 
 clergy throughout England ; neither do I mean to inter- 
 fere with the settlement of the income of any archbishop 
 or bishop as fixed and regulated by the Bill of last Ses- 
 
 B 2
 
 20 
 
 sion, and recommended by the Ecclesiastical Commis- 
 sioners. I do not propose to vary any ecclesiastical 
 arrangement made, or proposed to be made, last year. 
 My proposal is, that, out of the lands in possession of the 
 higher ecclesiastical corporations, means may be pro- 
 vided for supporting the fabric of the Church. I think 
 that by this means a sum of of 250,000/. a year, at the 
 least, may be secured. Such was the amount proposed 
 to be taken from the Consolidated Fund, by Earl Spencer. 
 If this can be done without injury to the Church, I be- 
 lieve that those who arc anxious for the abolition of 
 church rates will, and I know that they ought to, be 
 content ; and I hope also to satisfy all who are desirous 
 to put an end to contests, injurious alike to church- 
 men and dissenters — two classes who. notwithstanding 
 differences in faith and discipline, should he combined for 
 the attainment of the Common object of promoting im- 
 provement, religious, social, and political. Sir, I pro- 
 pose to create a commission for the management of the 
 Church estates. 
 
 COLONEL SIBTHOEP, and several Honourable 
 Mkmueks. — Hear! hear! 
 
 The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQL EE. — I was 
 
 sure that the word "commission" would be followed 
 
 by a cheer from the Gallant Member for Lincoln, — as 
 I am sure that lighl will, to-morrow, succeed to the rising 
 of the sun. Bui let Honourable Members hear a little 
 more. I propose, that there shall be a commission for 
 the management oftheChurcfa lands, to consist of eleven 
 persons; of these, five to be of high rank, ecclesiastical 
 rank, namely, the Axchbishop of Canterbury, the Arch- 
 bishop of York, the Bishop of London, the Dean of Si 
 Paul's, and the Dean of Westminster : the others to be, 
 the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of state for the Home 
 Department for the time being, the l'ir.-t Commissioner 
 of Woods aud Forests for the time being (for reasons I 
 shall presently explain), and, as in the Tithe Bill, I 
 propose that there be three paid commissioners, one 
 of them to be appointed by the Archbishop of Canter- 
 bury, and the two others to be appointed bj the Crown. 
 Such is the constitution of the commission that I re- 
 commend. Honourable Gentlemen will observe, that 
 the object of the appointment of this commission is solely 
 for the management of the Church lands. I do not pro- 
 pose that the legal estate shall be transferred to them ;
 
 21 
 
 on the contrary, 1 think the legal estate should remain 
 as at present,' but that the management of the Church 
 lands should, as in the case of the Crown lands, be 
 transferred to these commissioners. I then propose that 
 the present leasing powers of the Church shall altogether 
 cease. 
 
 Several Honourable Members. — Hear! hear! hear! 
 
 Members on the Opposition Benches. — Hear! hear! 
 hear ! 
 
 The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER. — Gen- 
 tlemen will, when they have followed me through my 
 arguments, be enabled to judge whether any injustice, 
 either to the Church or to individuals, is intended. I 
 need not refer to the present system of leasing — the 
 power of taking fines — of granting leases for lives, of 
 leases for years, and the power which the bishops, with 
 the approval of the deans and chapters, possess of grant- 
 ing concurrent leases. All these must be familiar to 
 Honourable Gentlemen who may have considered the 
 subject ; and, if not, in the course of my address, the 
 proposition I myself make will be sufficiently explained. 
 The greater portion of the income derived from the 
 Church lands is raised by fines upon the renewal of 
 leases. The rents are, for the most part, fixed, and they 
 constitute a comparatively small portion of the income. 
 The Church is thus in the state of a person who lives by 
 raising money upon a reversion, which, where the re- 
 newals are made as at present, is decidedly the most 
 improvident of all modes of proceeding. Every Honour- 
 able Gentleman, at all acquainted with the world, must 
 know, that such is exactly the conduct of a spendthrift. 
 I propose, therefore, that the system of levying fines 
 shall be entirely discontinued, and that the present leases 
 be allowed to run out, then to be renewed on certain con- 
 ditions in reference to their full value. It will be said, 
 no doubt, and said with justice, that if my plan stopped 
 here, — if the measure which I have to propose were 
 limited to this condition only, — a great injustice would be 
 done to the lessees. They have in many cases inherited 
 their leases from their ancestors — those leases have 
 been the objects of mortgage and of family settlements; 
 and they, therefore, may be considered to hold their 
 lands under a qualified species of right. It cannot, of 
 course, be considered as a strictly legal right, but one 
 which at least entitles the lessee to some equitable con- 
 b 3
 
 22 
 
 sideration. Our Bill is founded upon the admission of 
 such a principle. For, however great the inconveniences 
 which we wish to remove, we ought not, in endeavouring 
 to do so, to injure the rights of individuals. 
 
 The Bill which I propose to introduce is founded on 
 the principle of giving a reasonable consideration to the 
 rights of the present lessees. We not only propose that, 
 according to the improved value of the lease, the existing 
 tenants of the Church should be entitled to a right of 
 pre-emption, but that such right should be secured by 
 allowing his renewal at five per cent, below the improved 
 value. This is the principle adopted with the tenants 
 of Crown lands ; and I propose, with respect to the tenants 
 of the Church, to give them the same advantage. But 
 I am far from satisfied with this — I do not think it fully 
 meets tin equity of the case. If we merely continued the 
 system of leases, I think a great portion of our duty would 
 still be unperformed. Any one who has seen — not only 
 in agricultural districts, but in large cities — the course of 
 improvement which is interrupted, and great national un- 
 dertakings checked, by the uncertainty of church leases, 
 must admit that we could not be satisfied with the regula- 
 tions to which I have alluded. I propose, therefore, to 
 give the existing tenant not only the pre-emption of the 
 lease, but the power of purchasing the fee-simple of the 
 Church estate, subject to an increased rent payable to 
 the Commissioners. When I say a fixed rent, I mean, 
 that when the rent has once been ascertained, it shall 
 afterwards fluctuate according to the value of corn. It 
 may, therefore, be called a corn rent, and the fluctua- 
 tions will be calculated upon the principle laid down in 
 the Tithe Act of last Session. I propose that the Church 
 lessees shall be enabled to purchase the fee-simple of the 
 land at the rate of twenty-five years' purchase, the exist- 
 ing leases being valued at the rate of 4 per cent. If, for 
 instance, a tenant has a lease equal to fourteen years' 
 purchase, that interest shall be estimated at four per 
 cent. : the difference between that sum and twenty-five 
 years' purchase of the improved value of the fee-simple, 
 shall be the amount the tenant will be called upon to 
 pay for the enfranchisement of his land. Honourable 
 Members are not, however, to suppose, that the plan 
 which it is my duty to propose will make it imperative 
 upon every lessee to pay this amount of difference in 
 actual money. In order to facilitate the transaction, I 
 propose that the amount should be commuted into an 
 increased rent, to be added to the rents and fines which
 
 23 
 
 are now payable. I offer to the tenant the entire enfran- 
 chisement of his land — I offer to make that which is now 
 an uncertain and doubtful tenure a tenure fixed and cer- 
 tain — a tenure in fee simple — one which will secure to 
 the Church not only that which she now receives, but 
 also that surplus upon which I confidently rely as a sub- 
 stitute for the present church rates. There will also be 
 clauses to enable persons who are life renters to raise 
 money, as well as to effect the exchange of ;lands. By 
 these clauses the life renters will have power to exchange 
 church lands for others which may be more suitable to 
 his views and enjoyments. Sir, in cases in which persons 
 being sub-lessees hold leases under a covenant of perpetual 
 renewal, or renewal toties guoties, their rights will also be 
 regarded, and their interests will be regulated as in the 
 case in dealing with the sub-lessees of Crown estates. 
 The sub-lessee will have the power of appearing before 
 the Commissioners, of proving his interest in the land, 
 and obtaining from them such decision as the justice of 
 the case may demand. 
 
 Sir, I have already stated that, by my plan, the rights 
 of the present dignitaries will not be at all affected ; and, 
 in order to provide more especially for such cases, we 
 propose, that if a bishop pleases, he may continue to keep 
 up his receipts as under the present system of fines and 
 rents. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent his con- 
 tinuing that practice, so far as he is concerned ; though 
 we hope he may find it more to his advantage to accept 
 the provisions of this Bill at once. But the moment 
 that the present incumbents' interest ceases, their suc- 
 cessors will come absolutely under the provision of the 
 Act. Sir, I believe that the funds which the Bill pro- 
 vides will be more than adequate for all the purposes for 
 which this is intended. It is our intention, by the Bill 
 we are about to introduce, to enact that the surplus, after 
 paying the present fines to the bishops and ecclesiastics, 
 and after providing, in addition, for the charge of church 
 rates, shall form a reserve fund, and shall be applicable 
 to the endowment of small livings. Next, I have already 
 stated that in many parishes there exist local funds 
 applicable to the repairs of churches. I am decidedly of 
 opinion that these funds ought to be brought under the con- 
 sideration of the Commissioners intrusted with the adminis- 
 tration of the Church estates. Those funds we accordingly 
 propose to bring under the control of the Commissioners, 
 though not to vest them in their hands. I have omitted 
 to state that the commission to which I have alluded 
 b 4
 
 24 
 
 will be charged with the primary duty of paying over 
 to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, as at present con- 
 stituted, the sum of 250,000/. per annum, to provide for 
 the maintenance of the Church, the amount of the exist- 
 ing fines. Another source of income which will be brought 
 under the notice of the Commissioners will be the pew- 
 rents. I am very far from being desirous of limiting the 
 attendance o*f the people on the service of the Established 
 Church, to those who will pay a sum of money for their 
 sittings. Nothing can, in my mind, be more unjust, no- 
 tbing more injurious, and, therefore, nothing deserving 
 to be more strongly deprecated. It would be most im- 
 proper to raise, between the poorer classes and their reli- 
 gious duties, obstacles of this description. But, un- 
 doubtedly, where pew-rents have been received, — and in 
 all ca-e> where thej can justly be demanded from the rich, 
 they ought to 1>«' received, — fhej should be employed for 
 the support of the church. This is already the ease in 
 many parishes of the metropolis. In the parish <>f St. 
 James the pew-rents produce a sum fully adequate to 
 the maintenance of the church; and the church rates in 
 that parish have consequently ceased to be collected. 
 There are many other parishes in which a similar prac- 
 tice prevails. I propose intrusting the management of 
 these pew-rents, first to a committee elected by the pew- 
 renters themselves, reporting to the hhthop and the 
 commissioners: the former wul l>e enabled to take care 
 
 that these pew-rents shall not be collected in the parish, 
 
 nnless upon the condition that free sittings shall be 
 provided for the poor on a scale more liberal than the 
 pre -cut. I know net whether -nme Honourable Gentle- 
 men opposite, who have been taking notes, may be in- 
 clined to quarrel with me on thi> Bubject : the) may pos- 
 sihK object on the ground thai they consider the levy of 
 such rents unjusl in all eases; hut they certainly cannot, 
 with an\ pretension to truth and fairness, find objection 
 on the -core thai we leave the wants of the poor unpro- 
 vided for: on the contrary, it is of the very essence of 
 the Hill that a provision should be made for the aecom- 
 dation of the poor, and a provision far larger than that 
 which at presenl exists. The Bill will enact that the 
 minister and churchwardens, with the consent of the 
 bishop, shall reserve, at the least, one fifth part of the 
 seats as free for the poor; and if the same have been 
 usually let previously, then one third, as if the church 
 had been erected under the ( fourcb-building Acts ; or one 
 half, if pews have not been usually let before. As I ob-
 
 •2J 
 
 served in the outset, it has been imputed to me, and to 
 those with whom I act, that we are disposed to rob the 
 poor of their rights. The House will now, I think, be 
 satisfied that this accusation is most unfounded. I feel 
 that I am compelled to press this point, because there is 
 none upon which a strong feeling can be more easily, 
 nor, if true, be more justly, excited. The provision which 
 it is proposed to introduce into this Bill upon the subject 
 of free sittings in the churches, is, I believe, of a larger 
 and more liberal nature than that which at present exists ; 
 and if the only difference which subsists between Honour- 
 able Members and myself has relation to the subject of 
 extending a greater degree of accommodation to the 
 poor, I do not believe that they can justly quarrel 
 much on this score. They will find me, upon this 
 subject, at all events, ready to carry my principle as far 
 as they may desire. It is also proposed by the Bill 
 which I shall ask leave to introduce, that the whole of 
 the present system of visitation fees, and fees upon the 
 swearing in of churchwardens, shall be abolished. In 
 this respect my proposition is the same as that of Earl 
 Spencer. For my part, I cannot see how any benefit 
 can possibly be derived from the perpetuation of the pre- 
 sent foolish system of swearing in churchwardens, when 
 all that is required may be done, without expense, either 
 before magistrates or neighbouring surrogates ; and, by 
 the alteration I propose, a saving of from 150,000/. to 
 180,000/. per annum will at once be effected. 
 
 I now proceed to a point of very considerable im- 
 portance. Honourable Gentlemen must be aware that a 
 very large debt has been already contracted on the se- 
 curity of the church rates. Public and private money 
 both to a very great extent has been advanced. How is 
 this to be provided for ? I must say, as one most friendly 
 to the reform of the existing system of church rates — I 
 will say, as one feeling deeply convinced of the ne- 
 cessity of maintaining the Established Church, — that 
 it would be unjust to seek to attain these objects, 
 however useful, by proposing that a debt, contracted 
 under the sanction of the ordinary laws of the land and 
 warranted by Acts of Parliament, should be in any the 
 slightest degree affected or impaired in its security of 
 repayment. Well, then, Sir, as by my Bill there will be 
 an end put to church rates absolutely for the future, it 
 will be necessary that the whole amount of debt already 
 incurred by the parishes should be secured on the 
 parochial rates. It would not be just that we should
 
 26 
 
 relieve property from engagements already contracled. 
 Those debts should still be made good out of the funds, 
 and by the persons by whom they are now owing. I will 
 not bring forward a proposition founded on any other 
 
 {>rinciple ; I should shrink from making any which I be- 
 ieved to be practically unjust, or which contained within 
 itself the elements of injustice. It would be surely most 
 unjust to transfer to one man's shoulders a burthen 
 which has been contracted by another. The parties who 
 now owe this debt, are the parties who are bound to pay 
 it. 
 
 Sir, it is now necessary to state, for the satisfaction of 
 the Committee, that, out of the income of archbishops 
 and bishops and other ecclesiastical functionaries, which 
 amounts to 541,000/., my measure only affects that 
 portion which is represented by fines, and which amounts 
 to 200,000/. I do not mean to diminish, in any degree, 
 the actual receipts of any one archbishop, bishop, dean, 
 or other dignitary. I have already alluded to the mode 
 by which I expect to obtain an adequate surplus ; and, 
 to make a subject which is complicated in itself some- 
 what more intelligible, I shall explain it by an illustra- 
 tion. My object will be to prove, that the Committee 
 may rely on obtaining an increased revenue of 250,000/. 
 by the introduction of an improved system of managing 
 the estates of the Church. In the first place, I shall be 
 asked on what authority my reasonings rest. I cannot 
 hesitate to name my authority, more particularly when I 
 can refer to a gentleman for whom I have a great respect 
 and regard, and to whose official assistance, on the pre- 
 sent and on former occasions, I owe great obligation. I 
 mean Mr. Finlayson — a gentleman whose authority 
 will not be objected to on either side : indeed, on the 
 other side of the House, when Honourable Gentlemen 
 wished to oppose our Irish Church Bill, the authority of 
 Mr. Finlayson was, to them, all and every thing. Their 
 calculations were laid upon the Table of the House, and 
 they endeavoured to prove, from the conclusions to 
 which they led, that our proposition was indefensible. 
 Mr. Finlayson is the authority to which I now appeal. 
 As the question is an abstruse one, I shall rather state 
 Mr. Finlayson's conclusions, than endeavour to follow his 
 reasoning* in much detail ; but, as I am bound to prove 
 that this sum of 250,000/. can be obtained in the way I 
 suggest, those who are prepared to oppose, or to support, 
 my plan are equally interested in giving me their atten- 
 tion. I shall come to the result without going through
 
 27 
 
 all the calculations. The point to be discovered by Mr. 
 Finlayson was — the improved rental of the Church lands. 
 This was to be inferred from the value of the fines 
 received ; the average subsisting terms ; and the rate of 
 interest allowed to the lessees on renewal. From these 
 elements the rental is inferred. Now, taking the leases for 
 lives and the leases for years together, the average 
 subsisting term may fairly be estimated at twenty-four 
 years : the average rate of interest allowed upon re- 
 newals may be assumed at 7 per cent. : the amount of 
 fines is 260,360/. From these data the deduced rental 
 would, I feel confident, be considerably within the mark ; 
 and I am satisfied that the fullest investigation would 
 confirm this suppostion. 
 
 The computations to which I am about to refer are 
 founded on the best data within my reach, and will, I 
 am convinced, be fully confirmed by the actual facts. 
 I have endeavoured to ascertain the real value of this 
 property of the Church from the following elements : the 
 amount of fines received ; the average duration of the 
 subsisting terms ; and the rate of interest allowed to the 
 Church lessees. Results deduced from thence, by a close 
 and scientific inquiry, have afterwards been brought to a 
 test derived from the actual examination of church leases 
 in particular dioceses ; and the comparison has given a 
 complete confirmation to the theoretical discovery. The 
 fines received are as follow : — 
 
 £ 
 
 Archbishops and bishops . . . 74,812 
 
 Deans and chapters . . . 164,059 
 
 Prebendaries, &c. . . . 21,760 
 
 .£260,631 
 
 These fines are calculated to be distributed in the fol- 
 lowing proportion : — 
 
 £ 
 Fines on lives . . .150,671 
 
 Fines on terms of years . . . 109,960 
 
 ,£260,631 
 
 Now I am fnclined to estimate the subsisting leases as 
 leading to the following results : — 
 
 Years. 
 Average subsisting leases for lives . .29*6 
 
 Average subsisting leases for years . 15 - 7
 
 •28 
 
 giving a general average of twenty-four years. I assume 
 the average rate of interest allowed at 7 per cent. ; 1 
 believe that the closest investigation would bear out this 
 hypothesis : and from these facts Mr. Finlayson is enabled 
 to deduce the value of the rental of these estates. That 
 rental may be assumed to be, at the very least, 1,3-23,000/. ; 
 and in stating this amount I feel satisfied, from Mr. Fin- 
 layson's calculation, that I am placing the estimate very 
 considerably below the mark : but even at this rental I 
 can show what is my probable surplus. Assuming the 
 total rental to be 1,323,000/. subject to the existing term 
 of twenty-four years, that sum will be represented by an 
 annuity of the amount stated, deferred for twenty-four 
 years. This deferred annuity, turned into an annuity in 
 possession, will be equal to 516,000/., and the amount 
 will consequently stand as follows : — 
 
 £ 
 Immediate income . . . 516,000 
 
 Deduct the tines . . . . 261,000 
 
 Surplus applicable to church rates and re- 
 
 ceivedfund . . £255,000 
 
 being .5000/. a year more than is required for my imme- 
 diate object. This operation maybe wholly effected, as 
 1 anticipate, by the sale of the reversions to the tenants 
 at the rate or twenty-five years' purchase; valuing the 
 subsisting terms at the same rate, by allowing interest at 
 4 per cent. But it will be asked me how I can feel cer- 
 tain that the tenants wiM purchase? Sir, my conviction 
 arises from my belief thai it will be the tenants' interest to 
 do so. Let me entreat the leaseholders to consider the 
 proposition which 1 make them. I propose that, on the 
 conditions I have stated, they -ball Ik- permitted to con- 
 \ert their present most uncertain and unsatisfactory 
 tenure into a fee-simple title, subject to a perpetual rent. 
 
 [have stated the computed rental at 1,323,1 /. subject 
 
 to the annual tine- of 261,000/. The tenants' existing 
 interest during the present bases would therefore be 
 1,062,000/. Supposing that the increased commuted 
 rental amounted, as has been shown, to 516,000/., the 
 
 tenants' perpetual interest would amount to 807, </. 
 
 But what is the actual value of the terminable interest in 
 the perpetual estate? From the best inquiry I have 
 made, 1 am led to conclude that the highest average 
 value of these church leases cannot be taken at more 
 than twenty-one years' purchase. Now. a net rental of 
 1,062,000/. at twenty-one years' purchase amounis to 

 
 ■2 J 
 
 22,302,000/. But the perpetuity of 807,000/. held in fee- 
 simp'e may be valued at thirty years' purchase : 807,000/. 
 at thirty years' purchase amounts to 24,210,000/. Tims 
 it would appear that although the tenants should lose in 
 income, their gain in exchangeable value would amount, 
 to 1,350,000/. These figures are taken as affording the best 
 illustration of my principle ; and the practical result will, 
 I feel convinced, bear out the reasoning. Though thirty 
 years' purchase may not be obtained in certain cases for 
 the fee-simple, neither will twenty-one years' purchase be 
 given for the terms ; and it is the difference between the 
 one and the other which will determine the question. 
 
 If I am asked why I have fixed the rate of purchase at 
 twenty-five years, I reply, that I find that the Legislature 
 has, in an analogous case, acquiesced in this rate. An 
 Act passed in 1827, at the instance of the Bishop of Bath 
 and Wells, to enable him to sell the reversion of an epis- 
 copal estate ; and it was enacted that the reversion should 
 be sold at the rate of twenty-five years' purchase. It, 
 therefore, cannot be said that I am doing any injustice to 
 the bishops, or the lessees, in adopting this principle, 
 which has already been sanctioned by King, Lords, and 
 Commons. I may be asked, upon what authority I con- 
 sider 7 per cent, as the average rate of interest allowed 
 upon renewals of church leases ? For the present I shall 
 not appeal to other witnesses, but shall content myself to 
 answer this question by reading an extract from a pub- 
 lication of a dignitary of the Church, the Reverend Sydney 
 Smith, bearing on this subject : — 
 
 The Legislature lias not 'always taken the same view of the 
 comparative trustworthiness of" bishops and chapters as is taken by 
 the commission. Bishops' leases for years are for twenty-one 
 years, renewable every seven. When seven years are expired, if 
 the present tenant will not renew, the bishop may grant a con- 
 current lease. How does his lordship act upon such occasions ? 
 He generally asks two years' income for the renewal, when 
 chapters, not having the privilege of granting such concurring 
 leases, ask only a year and a half; and if the bishop's price is not 
 given, he puts a son, or a daughter, or a trustee, into the estate, and 
 the price of the lease deferred is money saved for his family. But 
 unfair and exorbitant terms may be asked by his lordship, and 
 the tenant may be unfairly dispossessed; therefore the Legislature 
 enacts, that all those concurrent leases must be counter-signed by 
 the dean and chapter of the diocese, making them the safeguards 
 against episcopal rapacity, and, as 1 hear from others, not making 
 them so in vain. 
 
 I may state more generally that the proposition I have 
 made is not without a conclusive legislative precedent ; 
 I allude to the precedent afforded by the Statutes for the
 
 30 
 
 management of the Crown lands. In 1794, the case of 
 the Crown lands was brought under the consideration of 
 Parliament. A Report on the subject was made by the 
 Surveyor General of the Woods and Forests, in the year 
 1797 ; in which Report it was set forth, as it might be 
 now with regard to the Church estates, that the Crown 
 lands were greatly mismanaged ; that there was a great 
 check to all improvement in consequence of the system 
 of leases renewed on fines ; and that by such means the 
 rental was wholly inadequate. A proposition was made 
 that the whole of the leases should be allowed to run out 
 — that they should then be re-let ; a preference being 
 given to the lessees in possession, at a deduction of one 
 eighth, in consideration of their supposed tenant rights. 
 When this proposition was considered, two statesmen, 
 whose names are entitled to the highest respect, attended 
 as members of the Treasury Board. They took this 
 Report into consideration ; — and, to give the utmost 
 weight to the resolution adopted, I need only mention 
 that the members of the Government to whom I allude 
 were Mr. Pitt and the present Marquess Wellesley. So far 
 from having any doubt as to the policy of carrying into 
 effect the recommendations of Mr. Fordyce, the Surveyor 
 General, Mr. Pitt and Lord Wellesley entirely agreed 
 with him ; and, indeed, in one point went beyond him. 
 Mr. Pitt thought it unreasonable to give a reduction of 
 one eighth to the tenant in possession. He decided that 
 he could only allow one twentieth, or 5 per cent. ; and 
 this was all the favour which was granted to the Crown 
 lessees in consideration of their claim for renewal. The 
 first principle upon which we now propose to act was 
 thus adopted by the Treasury of 1797, although the same 
 objections were then made by the Crown lessees as may 
 generally be now ads anced by the tenants of the Church. 
 A memorial was laid before the Treasury, on the part of 
 the lessees of the Crown, which, from the signatures to 
 it, was not likely to have been considered as undeserving 
 of the most serious and respectful consideration. This 
 memorial set forth that their leases were taken, or pur- 
 chased, under an expectation of renewals, upon the pay- 
 ment of the releasing fine, and a small reasonable increase 
 of rent, in the same manner as the renewals under the 
 Crown were usually granted. The memorial added, that 
 the tenants had acted under the expectation that they had 
 a clear tenant right ; that, in reliance on the right, they 
 had laid out large sums of money, in the improvement of 
 the land; and that, by the mortgage of these lands,
 
 Lord Balcarras, the Duke of Richmond, and many other 
 persons of influence and importance. I mention this to 
 show that a memorial more entitled to attention, from the 
 names affixed to it, is seldom addressed to the Treasury. 
 But to what did that memorial lead ? Did it lead to the 
 result of setting aside the arrangements of Mr. Pitt ? 
 On the contrary, these arrangements were persevered in ; 
 and the result has been the extraordinary improvement 
 of the Crown lands, as, under the new system, those who 
 possessed the property as tenants, acquired a far more 
 permanent tenure than they had formerly enjoyed. It 
 may be well to mention, before I pass to another subject, 
 that in this memorial the parties state that the terms 
 imposed upon the Crown lessees are so very hard that 
 the lessees will never acquiesce. Now, I have had the 
 curiosity to obtain a return of the number of persons 
 who signed this petition, the number of the Crown 
 tenants interested, and the number of those who after- 
 wards renewed on the terms of Mr. Pitt. From this 
 account I deduce the following curious result : — there 
 were eighty-five lessees represented by the memorialists ; 
 and those who refused to renew, amounted to the small 
 number of fifteen only. Fifty-one renewed ; and the 
 eighteen remaining were only prevented from renewing, 
 solely because their lands were taken for public uses. I 
 have, therefore, in my favour the authority of the Le- 
 gislature in the steps taken deliberately for the more 
 productive management and improvement of Crown 
 lands ; and I have a proof that this step was taken with- 
 out real prejudice to the Crown lessees themselves. But, 
 in addition to the terms granted by Mr. Pitt, I propose 
 to the Church lessees the more important advantage 
 of purchasing their lands at a fixed and advantageous 
 rate. 
 
 Now, Sir, I 9hall endeavour to bring my concluding 
 observations within as narrow a compass as is practicable. 
 I have first sought to prove that the present state of tha 
 law is wholly indefensible. I have endeavoured to show 
 that various remedies have been suggested, to which 
 objections, more or less powerful, exist. I have en- 
 deavoured to describe to the House the nature of the 
 remedy which I propose ; and I have finally proved that 
 my proposition comes recommended, not only by reason,
 
 8-2 
 
 but by precedent and authority. I am not one to under- 
 value the rights of the Church in this matter, — far from 
 it. But will Honourable Gentlemen carry their opposition 
 so far as to say that the Church, in reference to its 
 temporal interests, is to be considered as being more 
 sacred and inviolable than the Crown ? Will Honourable 
 Gentlemen say that the lessees of the Church are entitled 
 to more consideration than the lessees of the Crown ? 
 Surely, both stand precisely on the same footing. The 
 Church property I view in the same light as I view the 
 Crown property. The Church lessees I consider in the 
 same condition* as the Crown lessees. And if this be so, 
 we then have got the authority of the Legislature in favour 
 of my proposition. We are entitled to say, that our re- 
 medfal measures are adapted to the nature of the case, 
 and are supported by the highest precedent. Are we not 
 entitled, therefore, to claim a fair consideration for our 
 measure ; and. above all. are we treated justly if it be 
 denounced as adverse to the ( ihurch ? I know that, when 
 any one from this side of the House expresses his attach- 
 ment to the Established Church, there is too frequently a 
 disposition manifested by our opponent? to signify their 
 distrust of that declaration. Sir, it will be for this measure 
 to speak for itself. It will be for Honourable Gentlemen 
 to weigh well the probable consequences of this measure. 
 I well know the difficulty as well as the importance of 
 all Chureh subjects at the present time. I feel the diffi- 
 culty and danger of approaching them. So far back as 
 the year 1297, one of our ancient statutes begins by a 
 solemn warning circumspecte agatis, in rebus tangentibus 
 Episcopum. If this warning was necessary six centuries 
 since, it is at the least as necessary in 18:37, in reference 
 to the politics of our times; because, if any person, and 
 more espcciallv a Whig, presumes to touch this subject, 
 except with the greatest circumspection and care, he is 
 exposed to be stigmatised as an enemy to the Church, and 
 as one who wishes to overthrow that establishment. I 
 assert that, though all will be benefited, it is the Church 
 that will derive the greatest advantage from the proposed 
 arrangement. Is it nothing, that rest and peace should 
 be given to the Church ? Is it nothing to the Church of 
 England that a time should arrive when there shall be 
 no more of these annual meetings, at which discord and 
 strife predominate, and at which theological asperities are 
 embittered by a union with questions of money payments ? 
 I think all theological controversies are dangerous when 
 thev are not approached in the spirit of moderation and
 
 33 
 
 charity. But if you seek to add to that danger in the case 
 of any particular church, bind up your theological argu- 
 ment with the imposition of taxation ; select as the place 
 of discussion a popular meeting, to which all parties are 
 freely admitted. Continue this system if you wish to en- 
 danger, and finally to overthrow, any institution, however 
 sacred. Continue this system if you wish to pervert all 
 Christian charity into hatred and fanatical malignity. If 
 such be your object, perpetuate a system of distraction, 
 which it is the object of my Bill to destroy. 
 
 Again, I contend, the Church would have a further 
 and most essential benefit from my proposition. The 
 management of these lands would be taken out of the 
 hands of the bishops and other dignitaries ; and every 
 thing which tends to raise the character of the heads of 
 the Church must improve the condition, and extend the 
 usefulness, of the parochial clergy also. I wish to touch 
 this part of the subject very lightly ; but, have we never 
 heard of suspicions that proceedings occur with regard 
 to fines and renewals of church leases, which lower the 
 clergy of this country in public estimation ? Does not 
 the mode in which the bargains have been struck, — and 
 further, does not the power which a young bishop, or 
 young dignitary, possesses, of running his life against the 
 interest of the lease, — do not these causes introduce a 
 collusion and a jealousy far from being useful or credit- 
 able to all parties ? I find the following passage in this 
 pamphlet of the Reverend Mr. Sydney Smith, to which I 
 have already referred. The author is discussing the mode 
 in which the patronage of bishops is disposed of : — 
 
 The worst case is that of a superannuated bishop. Here the 
 preferment is given away, and must be given away, by wives and 
 daughters, or by sons, utterly unacquainted with ecclesiastical 
 matters ; and the poor dying patron's paralytic hand is guided to 
 the signature of papers, |the contents of which he is utterly unable 
 to comprehend. 
 
 If this be true with respect to the church patronage of 
 bishops, is it not equally true with respect to the grant 
 of ecclesiastical leases ? Will not a plan which puts the 
 leasing power of the bishops upon a better principle, and 
 removes from our prelates — I will not say all temptation, 
 but — all suspicion, — will not such a plan be eminently 
 beneficial to the Church? Further, if there be an 
 advantage in this to the bishops, I humbly contend there 
 is also an enormous benefit to the lessees. Let it not. be 
 asserted, for the purpose of raising an argument here — 
 or let it not be said elsewhere, for the purpose of raising
 
 34 
 
 obstacles to the passing of this Bill — that the Church 
 lessee has a defined, legal, tenant right of renewal capable 
 of enforcement, and one for which he is entitled to claim 
 compensation. He has no such right — he stands pre- 
 cisely in the same position with the Crown lessee. 
 Though almost afraid of the charge of pedantry and 
 presumption in venturing to quote a high legal authority, 
 I must ask permission to refer to the observations of Mr. 
 Butler, in his edition of Coke upon Littleton, upon the 
 question of tenant rights, as bearing on this subject. 
 Mr. Butler observes that — 
 
 The favour which is shown to old tenants, by granting them a 
 renewal of their leases, preferably to a stranger, has given them, 
 in the eye of the law, an interest-beyond their subsisting term, and 
 this interest is generally termed their tenant right of renewal. 
 This is particularly applicable to leases from the Crown, from the 
 Church, from colleges, or from other corporations. These circum- 
 stances have produced what is called tenant right. Attempts have 
 been made to establish an obligation in landlords to renew, but 
 they have not succeeded. The renewal, therefore, is still a matter of 
 favour and of chance; but is so far valuable, that it enhances the price 
 of the property on sales. 
 
 How, then, can that be considered a right, which, in the 
 words of Mr. Butler, is thus left to " favour and chance" ? 
 I will say, further, that those who are interested in 
 ecclesiastical leases well know to what they are now 
 exposed, and to what they are also compelled to submit. 
 They know not only the amount of renewals, but the 
 charge of fees ; and they know, to their cost, that every 
 lease is a matter of heavy costs, payable to the secretaries 
 and ofl&cers of the bishops. All this will be necessarily 
 abolished under the proposed Bill. They will also have 
 the power of exchanging Church lands for other lands of 
 equal value, a power which at present they do not possess. 
 In anticipation of some of the objections which may be 
 urged on the part of the lessees, I ask permission of the 
 Committee to read an instructive passage from a speech 
 which was delivered upon this subject in the House of 
 Commons so long since as the year 1600 ; which may 
 give to the 'shrewdness of modern times some aid from 
 what is called the " wisdom of our ancestors." A Bill 
 was introduced in the reign of Elizabeth, to prevent 
 bishops from giving leases in reversion, until within 
 three years of the expiration of the existing tenure. A 
 country gentleman then stood up, as country gentlemen 
 may now do, and opposed the Bill, contending, that it 
 would be prejudicial to the Church, to the bishops, and
 
 35 
 
 to their tenants. His argument was to the following 
 effect : — 
 
 This Act would be prejudicial both to the bishop present, and 
 the successor, and their servants, and to the bishop's own farmers 
 and tenants. To the bishop present, in the maintenance of his 
 estate, which cometh only by continual fines ; which, if they be 
 taken away, then are they not able to maintain that hospitality, or 
 keep that retinue either belonging to their place, or answerable 
 to their living ; for consider the revenue of the greatest bishop in 
 England, — it is but 2200/. per annum. 
 
 Observe, the greatest income then enjoyed by a bishop 
 was 2200/. a year. 
 
 Several Honourable Members. — Hear ! hear ! 
 
 COLONEL SLBTHORP. — That was 200 years ago. 
 
 The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER. — Very 
 well. But this is not all ; let me proceed. This gentle- 
 man thus continued : — 
 
 Whereof he payeth for annual subsidy to the Queen, 500/. per 
 annum. 
 
 Now, the Honourable Gentleman opposite, by his re- 
 mark, implied that the income of 2200/. was, at that time, 
 equal to what the income of a bishop is at present. 
 
 COLONEL SIBTHORP. — Hear ! 
 
 The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER. — The 
 
 Honourable Member agrees with me. Very well. But 
 if he contends that the income of the bishops should be 
 raised in reference to the altered value of money, he 
 cannot object to raise the nominal amount of the subsidy 
 on the same principle, and in the same proportion. What 
 bishop now pays one fifth of his income as a subsidy to 
 the State ? The speech from which I have quoted, goes 
 on to argue that it would be a great hardship if the 
 bishops, who were so poorly endowed, and who had a 
 heavy subsidy to furnish, — if they were disabled from 
 providing for their old and faithful servants, by granting 
 them leases in reversion. But the chief ground on which 
 this gentleman opposed the Bill was the following : — 
 
 And what damage we shall do both to the bishop and to his 
 successor, his revenue being so beneficial to her Majesty, I refer 
 to all your judgments. To the successor it must needs be more 
 hurtful ; for, when he first cometh in, he payeth first fruits, and 
 yet is not allowed to make his benefit by fines, which all bishops' 
 farmers are contented to do, so that he is cast one whole year's 
 revenue behind hand ; and, perhaps, hath no power, neither, to 
 c 2
 
 36 
 
 make leases in twelve or sixteen years. This, Mr. speaker, will be a 
 cause to induce the ministers of the Word not to seek bishoprics, 
 whereby we may bring the clergy both to poverty and contempt 
 from which they have ever been carefully defended and provided 
 for even by the most ancient statutes and laws of this realm now 
 extant Hurtful it is to their servants, for this may be every 
 man's case. We know many good gentlemen's sons served 
 bishops ; and how can they reward their long and faithful service, 
 but only by means of granting over of these fines, or some other 
 means out of the spiritual functions. But this Act is good for 
 the courtier ; but I must speak no more of that. Lastly, Mr. 
 Speaker, mvself am farmer to a bishop ; and I speak this as in my 
 own case, (on my knowledge) to the House ; that it is ordinary 
 upon everv grant, after four or five years, ever to fine and take a 
 new lease.' But, 1 refer it to the consideration of the House to 
 do their pleasures herein ; only this I certify, that I have the copy 
 of the Bill the last Parliament exhibited to this purpose, which I 
 havin" compared, together with the present Bill, do find them to be, 
 word for word, all one ; and that was rejected ; —and so, 1 doubt 
 not, if the reasons be well weighed, but this will have the like 
 success. 
 
 Thus it appears, that it was not because the interests of 
 the Church, or because the principles of public justice, 
 would bo compromised by the Bill, that this good Member 
 of Parliament opposed it, but because he was the farmer 
 of a bishop. 
 
 Several Honourable Members. — Hear ! hear ! 
 
 The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER. -lam 
 rejoiced that Honourable Gentlemen, on both sides of 
 the House, cheer this suggestion ; they, therefore, dis- 
 avow an opposition which rests on these selfish grounds 
 Those who say that the whole of this property should 
 belong- to the Church, and those who maintain that it 
 should be the property of the lessee, unite in their cheers. 
 But if there be any who maintain that this reversionary 
 value is the property of the Church, then they ought to 
 take it from the lessees ; and if the lessees have a legal 
 right to keep it for themselves, then they must not unite 
 with their opponents to give it to the Church. There- 
 fore I may have some chance of the votes of each ot 
 these cheerers against the others ; and they may support 
 me in sanctioning a vote for the application of their 
 funds to provide for church rates ; but they cannot, with 
 any consistency, confederate together. Let not those 
 who wish to get this property for the Church, and those 
 who wish to regain it for the lessee, unite ; for it cannot, 
 without a miracle, be applied to these, two and opposite 
 objects.
 
 37 
 
 The Right Honourable Gentleman opposite cheers me 
 Sir this brings me to consider whether it can be argued 
 that this surplus does or does not belong to the Church. 
 Sir I maintain that it does not belong to the Church, 
 but that it does belong to the State, though I only con- 
 tend for its application to a strictly ecclesiastical use. 1 
 have an authority to that effect on my side and I entreat 
 the attention of the Committee to this authority. I call 
 your attention to this authority, in order that I may pro- 
 tect myself and the Government from the accusation 
 that we are sanctioning or recommending any misappli- 
 cation of church property. My first authority may not 
 have weight with gentlemen opposite, but it is one on 
 which we at this side rely, — it is the authority of Lord 
 Spencer. The case we seek to make out is this ; — that 
 when we give, by law, a new value to church lands, we 
 acquire a right to apply the funds derived from this new 
 value to such purposes as the Legislature may sanction 
 I have the] authority of Lord Spencer for this, lhat 
 Noble Lord, in 1833, in introducing this measure, said,— 
 
 Even those who declared that it is unjust and improper to inter- 
 fere with the revenues of the Church will agree with me, that it 
 bv the Act of Parliament which will be introduced on this 
 subiect any new value is given to benefices, that new value, so 
 createa, would not properly belong to the Church; and whatever 
 [sra sed by it may be immediately appropriated to the exigencies 
 of the State . . . I feel, therefore, that those gentlemen who object 
 to any interference with Church property will fully and readily 
 agree to this proposition. If, therefore, as I have already ob- 
 served, an increased value will be created by the contemplated 
 Act of Parliament, then I have a right to assume that that in- 
 freased value cannot be claimed by the Church. I therefore feel 
 that even those individuals who object to the interference with 
 Church property, or the appropriation of it to any other than 
 Church purposes, may, without any scruple, agree with me in the 
 proposition that, whatever additional proceeds are realised by the 
 new system may be applied to such purposes as Parliament may 
 think fit.* 
 
 But, Sir, this is not the only authority to which I can 
 appeal on this subject. I am entitled to claim that of 
 my Noble Friend opposite, also (Lord Stanley). Nay, he 
 eoes beyond what I contend for. My proposition does not 
 imply that you are authorised to apply the increased value 
 to the purposes of the State generally. I only ask the 
 House to affirm that it may be applied to the purposes of 
 church rates, —that is, to an admitted ecclesiastical pur- 
 pose. My Noble Friend has gone further: he maintains 
 
 * See Mirror or Parliament, Sept. 1833 p. 178. col. 1. 
 c 3
 
 3« 
 
 the doctrine, that the surplus may be applied, without 
 limitation, to the uses of the State. Then let it not be 
 said that my plan interferes with, and is inimical to, the 
 interests or the property of the Establishment ; for it is 
 founded on principles more moderate and limited than 
 the principles of my Noble Friend, whose attachment to 
 the Established Church has never been questioned. My 
 Noble Friend, in proposing the Irish Church Tempo- 
 ralities Act, proposed to increase the value of church 
 property, but he also proposed to devote the increased 
 value to State purposes ; whereas, we propose to devote 
 it to purposes that are definite as well as eccle- 
 siastical : — 
 
 What is it we propose ? That the land shall remain charged 
 with a certain corn-rent; and that the tenant shall have no power, 
 nor the bishop either, to alter that arrangement. The tenant 
 shall pay a regular sum — a larger sum — the amount to be calcu- 
 lated by a public accountant. To whom, then, shall be the benefit 
 of this payment? The Right Honourable Baronet the Member 
 for Tamworth says, " to the Church." I say, " to the State." 
 
 And again : — 
 
 "Why do I sav that this is applicable to the State ? What is 
 the present value of Church property? The bishop, by the con- 
 ditions which you — the State — have imposed upon him, and on 
 which he holds his land, cannot grant a lease for a longer period than 
 twenty-one years. The lease, subject to this condition, if brought 
 into the market, is worth about twelve years and a half purchase. 
 You pass an Act which increases the value of those leases to the 
 extent of seven, eight, or, it may be, nine years' purchase. What- 
 ever the increased value is, you give it to the Church. She does 
 not possess it without the Act of the Legislature ; and I ask if 
 you, by your Act, give an increased value to Church property, 
 has the Church any right, or can she have any claim, to say, — 
 " It is to me you "must pay this increased value, which my pro- 
 perty never had, and never could have had, but by your act." I 
 say it is perfectly consistent with the principle that the revenue of 
 the Church ought not to be appropriated to other purposes, that 
 you should appropriate to secular, or any other, purposes the 
 increased value you now give to Church property, convertible 
 into pounds, shillings, and pence, which it never would have 
 been without your own act.* 
 
 I say, it is not competent for my Noble Friend to object 
 to the principle on which we act. He may not agree in 
 our plan, — he is not bound to assent to it ; but then he 
 is not at liberty to say that we violate any principle, 
 when proposing to increase the value of church lands. 
 We propose to appropriate the new funds, not to the 
 State, but to the Church. "The bishops," the Noble 
 
 * See Mirror or Parliament, Sept. 1833, p. 189. col. 2,
 
 U9 
 
 Lord then truly asserted, " cannot grant leases for 
 more than twenty-one years, the value of which lease 
 is about twelve and a half years' purchase. If you 
 pass an Act, which increases the value of the leases to 
 the extent of eight or nine years, are you to give that 
 increased value to the Church; or should you not, rather, 
 when by an Act of the Legislature you increase the 
 value, give the benefit of it to the State, by applying it 
 to secular purposes ? " I do not use the high name, and 
 the great authority, of my Noble Friend for the purpose 
 of throwing any difficulty in his way. I admit there is a 
 difference between the two cases of England and Ireland, 
 and, no doubt, I shall be told so. Let us hear that argu- 
 ment when the Irish Church Bill comes under consider- 
 ation. I repeat, I do not use the high name of the 
 Noble Lord, and the weight of his authority, for the 
 purpose of embarrassing him ; but to meet the charge 
 and the invective directed against us out of doors, and the 
 suggestion that we are actuated by a spirit prejudicial to 
 the Established Church. I contend, on the contrary, 
 that we seek to apply this property to what is strictly an 
 ecclesiastical purpose. Now, in the discussion to which 
 I allude, the Right Honourable Baronet, the Member for 
 Tamworth, said, he would not object to appropriate a 
 part of the revenues of the Church to what were strictly 
 ecclesiastical purposes ; and he admitted, further, that 
 the repair of the Church is an ecclesiastical use. I, 
 therefore, have the authority of both my Noble Friend 
 and the Right Honourable Baronet for my line of argu- 
 ment. I am reluctant to refer to historical facts, or to 
 detain the House by quoting from antiquarian authorities ; 
 but to those who love antiquity, I say, look to the origin 
 of church rates. Even so late as the reign of Queen 
 Elizabeth, when funds were required for the repair of 
 St. Paul's Cathedral, — what was done ? Why the Queen, 
 at once, had recourse to the clergy, and, by imposing a 
 heavy taxation upon the Church, she produced funds, and 
 laid down the principle that the ecclesiastical estates 
 might justly be made to contribute to the repairs of the 
 fabric. The account of the transaction is as follows : — 
 
 In the year 1561 a fire happened in St. Paul's Cathedral, which 
 burnt down the lofty spire and otherwise damaged the edifice. 
 The Queen, Elizabeth, resolved to have the damage speedily re- 
 paired ; and what steps did the Queen take to effect this object? 
 " Being," as Strype observes, "church work, she reckoned the bishops 
 and clergy should especially be contributors thereto." She sent a 
 letter, therefore, to the archbishop, "that he should consult with 
 c 4
 
 40 
 
 the bishops of his province, and the chief of the clergy, to devise 
 among them some convenient way for collecting money from 
 them for that use." The archbishop accordingly issued his order 
 to the Bishop of London, and the other bishops of his province, 
 " that they should contribute the twentieth part of their promo- 
 tions in the diocese of London, and the thirtieth part elsewhere, 
 with the exception of stipendiary curates and beneficed men ex- 
 empt by statute from first fruits, unless they should be brought to 
 contribute by good persuasion of the bishops, and to pay one for- 
 tieth." Some of the clergy being backward with their payments, 
 Queen Elizabeth's council issued a letter to the archbishop, desir- 
 ing him to collect the arrears, and informing him that "further 
 orders " would be taken if the clergy should refuse to pay. Such 
 was the mode adopted by Queen Elizabeth for repairing St. Paul's. 
 
 Again, in the time of Charles II., many of the leases 
 of church lands having been allowed to expire in the 
 time of the Commonwealth, and a vast sum, by way of 
 fines, being due, and most undoubtedly the property of 
 the clergy of that day, a course somewhat similar was 
 taken. The Church had an undoubted right to these 
 fines in law and justice — the lessees, too, were fairly 
 entitled to be considered in the renewal of their leases. 
 But was either of these principles strictly adhered to? 
 No such thing. Part of these funds were applied in 
 rebuilding St. Paul's, and another portion of the money, 
 was wholly diverted from ecclesiastical purposes. Then, 
 again, as to the lessees ; so far from any preference being 
 given to those who might have been entitled to consider- 
 ation, the lessees, who suffered for their attachment to 
 their King and to their Church, were, I am sorry to 
 say, in many cases, set aside ; and the incumbents are 
 said to have looked more to their profits as landlords 
 than to any other consideration. An account of these 
 transactions is to be found in the writings both of Burnet 
 and of Clarendon, and may be referred to as most curious 
 illustrations of the subject now before the Committee. 
 
 Before I sit down, I will take the liberty of referring 
 to one further authority on this subject, well worthy of 
 our consideration. It may be urged, that such of the 
 petitions for the abolition of church rates as come from 
 dissenting bodies are entitled to less weight than if they 
 came from members of the Establishment. But the 
 prayer of those petitions I find to be supported by an 
 authority of the most unquestionable orthodoxy — the 
 authority of one of the dignitaries of the Church — a 
 divine of great learning and great eminence in the Uni- 
 versity of which he was a member and an ornament. I 
 allude to the late Dr. Burton, canon of Christ Church and
 
 41 
 
 Regius Professor in the University of Oxford. His words 
 and arguments are most emphatic, and, indeed, they war- 
 rant conclusions going far beyond my resolutions. The 
 following is an extract from his " Thoughts on the 
 Separation of Church and State" : — 
 
 If a person is not a member of the Church of England, I can 
 hardly think it right to make him pay for the repair of the fabric, 
 or for any of the appendages of a worship in which he takes no 
 part. I am aware that there is a practical difficulty in admitting 
 this doctrine ; because, when the churchwarden goes to collect the 
 rate, it holds out a pecuniary inducement to every person to say 
 that he is not a member of the Church of England ; and thus not 
 only will many parish churches go without repair, but hundreds 
 and thousands of persons may be tempted to tell a falsehood in a 
 matter of religion : it will, in fact, be a man's interest (in a worldly 
 sense) to attend no place of public worship. I have sometimes 
 thought, that the Legislature might reasonably call upon every per- 
 son in the country, who is now liable to be rated to church and 
 poor, to pay a small annual rate (and it need be but very small) to 
 the maintenance of some place of public worship. It would 
 hardly be intolerant in a Christian Legislature to require that 
 every person in the country should declare himself to belong to 
 some form of Christianity. In parishes where there are no 
 Dissenters, the whole of this rate would be expended, as now, for 
 the repair of the parish church, or for uses connected with the 
 ritual of the Church of England. In parishes where there are 
 several sects, the money would be divided in proportion to the re- 
 lative members belonging to each sect : and it might be made im- 
 perative upon each sect, as upon the Church of England, to 
 appoint some responsible officer, who should account publicly for 
 the expenditure of the money. If it should happen that the 
 Church of England, or any of those sects, did not want that exact 
 sum in any particular year, I can see no objection to its being put 
 by as a fund in case of need ; but the rate should be collected 
 every year, and thus no pecuniary inducement given to any person 
 to declare himself a member of the cheapest church. There may be 
 difficulties in the plan, of which I am not aware, and I only put 
 it forward to be considered by others ; but, at all events, the pay- 
 ment of church rates by Dissenters ought to be abolished. If they 
 feel the payment to be a grievance, it is one. 
 
 I have, therefore, the authority of the Regius Professor 
 of Oxford for the course I am pursuing. 
 
 I will just say one word, in explanation, before I sit 
 down. If the alternative I propose should fail, viz. — 
 if the lessees should decline to convert their tenures into 
 perpetuities, or if that conversion should produce a sum 
 below my estimate, this contingency is provided for by 
 another mode of raising money. In such event, though 
 I do not anticipate its occurrence, I propose that we 
 should have the power of advancing from the Treasury, 
 upon the security of the Church lands, repayable out of
 
 4-2 
 
 the produce of these Church lands, on the same principle 
 on which advances are frequently made to other public 
 bodies for public purposes. These advances, if required, 
 will meet and supply every possible deficiency. I do not 
 believe that this power will ever be exercised. I do not 
 believe it will be found necessary to resort to such col- 
 lateral security ; but I know perfectly well how our pro- 
 position would be dealt with if I had not proposed this 
 collateral security. I know it would have been said, — 
 "All your calculations are matter of doubt and uncertainty 
 — we cannot rely upon the realisation of the increased 
 fund you promise us — we will leave the support of the 
 Church dependent upon a mere contingency." I think I 
 have proved to demonstration, that the proposed Bill 
 would supply the means of meeting every necessity ; yet, 
 to obviate all cavil and objection, if it should become 
 requisite to make an advance from the Treasury, to give 
 effect to a measure formed for the purpose of giving 
 peace to the country and security to the Church, it is 
 but right that such an application of the resources of the 
 State should be sanctioned — should be adopted. 
 
 I thank , the House most sincerely for the attention 
 they have given me. I know the statement I have 
 made has been extremely long and tedious. But I have 
 had much to explain. I have endeavoured to make that 
 explanation as intelligible as I possibly could. It has 
 been with the view not only of convincing the Com- 
 mittee, but for the further purpose of avoiding mis- 
 conception out of doors, that I have thought it necessary 
 to go thus fully into the argument. If, by any effort of 
 mine, I can prevent it, I will not allow Honourable 
 Gentlemen who are inclined to support me — I will not 
 allow my colleagues in the Government — to be open to 
 the imputation that the plan which I have been authorised 
 to introduce, shall be stigmatised as a plan of persons who 
 seek " to deprive God of his honour, or the poor of their 
 rights." The measure is founded on the most conscien- 
 tious regard to the interests of religion. I have shown 
 to the Dissenter that it will give him a full and effectual 
 relief ; and I have shown to the persons who have lent 
 their monev, on the security of church rates,that their right 
 will be protected, and their claims adequately secured. 
 I hope that I have done all this ; but, to do it, it has 
 been necessary to fortify myself with many high autho- 
 rities — to refer to the former opinions and names of 
 gentlemen opposed to me. I never allude to names and
 
 43 
 
 opinions for the purpose of taunt or vituperation ; I 
 have made these references for the purpose of support- 
 ing my own argument by the weight of their authority, 
 and the arguments they have advanced. Would that I 
 might hope we could approach this subject without the 
 bias of contentious or party feeling — would that it 
 might be considered simply on its own merits ! 
 
 Sir, I do not quarrel with the course suggested, the 
 other night, by the Right Honourable Baronet the 
 Member for Tarn worth ; I rather rejoice that the sug- 
 gestion was made by him. It has been readily adopted 
 by me. I rejoice, after the resolution shall have been 
 read, and the explanation given, that the people will have 
 an opportunity of examining their details. I think the 
 interval that must elapse will prevent a cry from being 
 raised, suggesting either that we have forgotten the fair 
 claims of the lessses, or that we have forgotten the 
 permanent interests of the Church itself; — that we have 
 undervalued the petitions of the Dissenters, or over- 
 looked our obligations to the established clergy. Under 
 these circumstances, I rejoice that time will be afforded 
 for the full consideration of this important question. I 
 know that it may be difficult to follow a statement like 
 mine, even if it had been recommended by powers supe- 
 rior to those I possess. It embraces a vast variety of mat- 
 ter, on which no Honourable Member could wisely pledge 
 himself, without full consideration ; and I shall conclude 
 by once more humbly and earnestly thanking the House 
 for the very kind manner in which it has listened to me ; 
 and by repeating my earnest hope that a candid ex- 
 amination of my proposition may prove to the two 
 parties whose interests and feelings must be con- 
 sidered, that it is the earnest desire of his Majesty's 
 Government, if it be impossible to produce between 
 Churchmen and Dissenters the "unity of the spirit," that 
 it may at least combine them by the " bond of peace." 
 
 I conclude by moving the adoption of the resolution 
 I hold in my hand. 
 
 The CHAIRMAN then put the resolution as follows : 
 — " That it is the opinion of this Committee, that for 
 the repair and maintenance of parochial churches and 
 chapels in England and Wales, and the due celebration 
 of divine worship therein, a permanent and adequate 
 provision be made out of an increased value given to 
 church lands by the introduction of a new system of
 
 14 
 
 management, and by the application of the proceeds of 
 pew rents ; the collection of church rates ceasing alto- 
 gether, from a day to be determined by law : and that, in 
 order to facilitate and give early effect to this resolution, 
 the Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury be author- 
 ised to make advances on the security, and repayable 
 out of the produce, of such church lands."
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Extract from Bishop Burnet's History of the Reign of King 
 Charles the Second. 
 
 Almost all the leases of the Church estates over England were 
 fallen in, there having been no renewal for twenty years. The 
 leases for years were determined ; and the wars had carried off so 
 many men, that most of the leases for lives were fallen into the 
 incumbent's hands. So that the Church estates were in them ; and 
 the fines raised by the renewing the leases rose to about a million 
 and a half. It was an unreasonable thing to let those who were now 
 promoted carry off so great a treasure. If the half had been ap- 
 plied to the buying of tithes or glebes for small vicarages, here a 
 foundation had been laid down for a great and effectual reform- 
 ation. In some sees, 40,000/. or 50,000/. was raised, and applied 
 to the enriching the bishops' families. Something was done to 
 churches and colleges— in particular to St. Paul's, in London ; and a 
 noble collection was made for redeeming all the English slaves 
 that were in any part of Barbary. But this fell far short of what 
 might have been expected. In this the Lord Clarendon was 
 heavily charged, as having shown that he was more the bishops' 
 friend than the Church's. It is true, the law made those fines be- 
 long to the incumbents ; but such an extraordinary occasion de- 
 served that a law should have been made on purpose. 
 
 And with this orerset of wealth and pomp, that came on men in 
 the decline of their parts and age, they, who were now growing 
 into old age, became lazy and negligent in all the true concerns of 
 the Church : they left preaching and writing to others, while they 
 gave themselves up to ease and sloth. 
 
 Extract from the Life of Clarendon, written by himself. 
 
 The old bishops who remained alive, and such deans and chapters 
 as were numerous enough for the corporation, who had been long 
 kept fasting, had now appetites proportionable. Most of them 
 were very poor, and had undergone great extremities ; some of the 
 bishops having supported themselves and their families by teaching 
 schools, and submitting to the like low condescensions : and 
 others saw that, if they died before they were enabled to make 
 some provision for them, their wives and children must unavoid- 
 ably starve; and, therefore, they made haste to enter upon their 
 own. They called their old tenants to account for rent, and to
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 41584 
 
 Lo.vdon : 
 
 Printed by A. Spottiswoode, 
 
 New-Street-Square.
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 AA 000 765 925 3