any accidental majority of ratepayers (and they terms: "To my mind it is one of the saddest thoughts that has pressed upon it during my residence in this place, that when people built these churches they were so selfish they built them for themselves, or those who could pay for them. But for those who cannot pay what accommodation do they make? Nothing, I will venture to say, but what is an insult to working men. I thank God that the Church of England is awakening to her senses in this matter-to break down the barriers, and throw open her churches, that the Gospel may be preached as free as air. The shabby resort of supporting the clergyman by letting the pews is the most beggarly contrivance that ever entered the minds of men. This is the reason why we have lost so many excellent and worthy Members from our Church; and if, as I become more and more acquainted with the working men of this place, I recommend them to go to the house of God, where are they to go to? I do not know where to send them. They are locked out, they cannot come in." I trust, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not seriously advocate his proposition. I will not stop to discuss other proposals in the same direction which are not now before the House; but I cannot help thinking, that whilst the ingenuity of man has been employed in devising schemes more or less objectionable and far-fetched, the simplest, the most natural, and the most satisfactory remedy has been, most unaccountably overlooked. That remedy is, I believe, to be found in the plan suggested by Mr. Coode, in his evidence before the Committee of the House of Lords (evidence which every Member of this House who has not already done so would do well most attentively to read), whose proposal, though occasionally referred to, has never been seriously discussed in this House. Mr. Coode, as is well known, was engaged as an officer of the Poor Law Board from the day of its appointment, in 1834, until 1848, and is, perhaps, the first authority in this kingdom on all subjects connected with rating or local taxation of any kind. He had a large part in the proposal of the new Irish Poor Law; he framed the measure whereby half the rate was placed upon the owner, and had the fullest and most satisfactory experience of its working. He proposed in his evidence to apply a remedy for the church rate difficulty, somewhat similar to that which had been attended by such beneficial results in Ireland with regard to the Poor Law, as also in England with regard to tithesnamely, to substitute for the present system, not a voluntary occupiers', as Mr. Cross proposed, but a voluntary owners' rate; that is, a rate to be voted by owners, in an owners' vestry, specially constituted pro hac vice, to be collected from the occupiers and deducted by them from their rent to their landlord, just as land or income tax is now deducted. Now, hon. Members must not confuse this plan with that of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, who proposed to establish, in lieu of church rates, a charge to be levied with the county rate at a uniform rate of poundage, to which various objections, not applicable in this case, were, I think, rightly urged. But I think I may claim the authority of a great statesman, whose recommendation on any subject is deservedly respected on both sides of this House, I mean the late Sir Robert Peel, who having in 1835 described this question to be one "so pregnant with the seeds of discord and collision that the Government were bound not to leave it unsettled for another year," did in 1837 sketch out the remedy to which his own mind inclined -namely, a transfer of liability from occupiers to owners. Here are the words of Sir Robert Peel in 1837 "If to meet these necessities a sum was to be taken from the Consolidated Fund, it would relieve the landowners of the country from the duty of supporting the Church. Whether there should be a new apportionment of this charge on the land, making the owner and not the occupier contribute (a plan which he owned would, in his judgment, be justice) thus continuing the connection between the landowner and the Church —whether it would be possible to reconcile such a plan with some means of giving relief to the Dissenters, without any invidious test being imposed . whether it would be possible to do these things, he was not prepared to say, but at least they were deserving the best consideration." [3 Hansard, xxxvii., 326-7.] And, Sir, if it should be argued that Sir Robert Peel, when he returned to power backed by a powerful majority, proceeded no further with this scheme, and therefore he had abandoned it, I say that his real reason was that he imagined that the question had died out and the agitation come to an end. If so, experience has proved how completely he was deceived in that idea, and hon. Members on this side of the House should take a lesson from the past, and not allow a second time the golden opportunity to escape for settling the question on fair and satisfactory terms to all parties. But, Sir, whatever might be the opinion of Sir Robert Peel, it is of more consequence to us to inquire-1st. What would be gained by thus limiting the rate to owners? 2nd. Would such a limitation be just? And 3rd. Would it give the relief sought for by those who now object to the payment of the rate? In answer to the first question, I submit that what is most needed to effect a settlement of the question is a reconstruction of the vestry for the purposes of church rates, and its reconstruction upon such a basis as would include those only who wish to pay and desire to continue the machinery for paying the rate, and that a vestry of owners would effect that object. I believe, Sir, there exists no exact statistics as to the relative number of owners to occupiers; but Mr. Coode, having analysed the lists of places in thirteen different counties, and having personally scrutinized the claims in several towns (amongst them he mentions Hertford and Cambridge), arrived at the conclusion that in all the places taken there were 9,713 owners as compared with 160,908 occupiers, or, as near as may be, seventeen occupiers to one owner; and, Sir, let us see of whom would this owners' vestry be composed? It would include all those who have the most permanent interest in the maintenance of the parish church, owners not being a fluctuating body like occupiers, here today and gone to-morrow, and who, not only on the ground of interest (as affecting the value of their property), but also by reason of affection and attachment, are anxious for the continuance of this provision for its support. In proof of this I would refer to the Returns obtained by the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole) in 1859, whereby it appears that out of 10,026 parishes there were in 1859 Or, in round terms, it may fairly be said that the landowners were churchmen in 8,803 parishes; in fact, nearly nine-tenths of the parishes which answered the Return. And, Sir, I would ask any one the question which has been repeatedly asked before, whether, when the occupiers refuse a rate in vestry, the owners thank them for it? I think no one will answer that question in the affirmative; and if further evidence be required to prove that the owners, as a class, recognise their interest in this case, I would point to the Scotch heritors, who are to a great extent dissenters from the Established Church of Scotland, from whom objections to the charge upon their properties have, I believe, never yet been heard. Thus, Sir, by the transfer proposed the incidence of the rate would fall, in name as well as in reality, upon those who are most interested both pecuniarily and by attachment in the maintenance of the church; and by the limitation of the vestry all those tumultuous proceedings would be avoided which have been in some places a scandal to religion and a disgrace to a Christian country. And, Sir, I think it is equally easy to prove the justice of such a scheme. It would be just to the occupiers; for I would not propose to deprive the class whom I would thus exclude from a church | question, whether by the plan suggested rate vestry, of a single right or privilege the relief sought for would be gained by as regards the Church to which they are those who desire it; and I think that this now entitled; and, if in obedience to the is the fact is proved to some extent by the desires of a large class of occupiers, they facts I referred to concerning the feelings are to be henceforth relieved from the pay- of owners generally, and the extent to ment of the rate, it follows as a matter of which they are members of the Estab. justice that the owners alone should de- lished Church; but doubtless there are cide as to what the rate should be. To Dissenting owners as well as Dissenting limit the rate to owners, and to allow occu- occupiers (though in a much smaller propiers to vote, it would be a gross case of portion, as I have shown), and some of taxation without representation; and it these might not recognise the advantages would be equally just as regards the and obligations which a church confers or owners, for it would be as clear as day- imposes on their property. And I grant light that the letting value of their pro- that the relief would not be perfect or perty would be increased in exact propor- complete so long as there was a single intion to the amount of burden removed. voluntary compulsory payment. To meet The real fact is, that the owner already this difficulty, Mr. Coode proposes (and I pays the rate indirectly, so that the change should not fear the result of the experiwhich I propose is rather one to remove a ment, although I have purposely avoided statutory fiction, and to satisfy tender con- encumbering my Resolution with any consciences, than to transfer an obligation from ditions which are rather matters of detail) one class of persons to another. The evi- that any objecting owner should have the dence of Mr. Coode on this point is so power of self-exemption without the impoclear that, by permission of the House, I sition of any test; and this is what Sir will read a short extract from it. Mr. Robert Peel hinted at in the passage alCoode is asked by the Chairmanready quoted, and would not be liable to the same objections when applied to owners as might be urged in the case of occupiers; at all events, it would leave no tender conscience unrelieved. Such, Sir, would I venture to think, be the general results of a measure based on the principles contained in the Resolution which I hope this House will, sooner or later, sanction. I am not sanguine enough to suppose it will satisfy all; it will not satisfy those whose aim and object is neither justice, nor equality, nor the relief of conscience, but who merely seek a triumph at the expense of the National Church; but in the firm conviction that such a measure is practicable, and would be just, as well as conducive to what we all profess to wish to serve - the interests of religion, I believe it would be accepted with gratitude by the reasonable and intelligent of all parties throughout the country: I beg to move, Sir, the Resolution which stands in my name— "Is it the case that the incidents of the rate, though they primarily fall upon the occupier, invariably in the long run rest upon the owner?" He answers "Invariably; it is not by a mere consequence, it is by an arrangement that anticipates all payupon the consideration of all the outgoings that the tenant will have to pay or provide for. Amongst these, and some of the most conspicuous, and the most easily calculated of all, are the rates and taxes which a tenant has to pay. I do not know whether the Committee have had before them the evidence on this subject, but it is very accessible, namely, in the practical experience of every surveyor and of every house or land agent, who would tell your Lordships that he never, in the whole course of his business, attempted to agree or set a rent without first considering all the rates which a tenant would have to pay, and deducting those from the estimate of the natural or gross rent that the property was worth." ment of rent whatsoever. No rent is ever set but And again "Wherever the occupier is made liable as such to any rate, there can never be a question as to the eventual economical operation of that legal liability. You may make a rate upon the owner, or upon the occupier, or say it shall be on lands and tenements; but you cannot, by any device, avoid this certain effect, that if the subject in respect of which the assessment is to be made is the subject of occupation, nobody will come into occupation as a payer of rent without taking that obligation into his calculation as an outgoing, and having the rent reduced accordingly." Then, Sir, there remains the important "That in order to effect a satisfactory settlement of the Law relating to Church Rates, it is expedient in the first place to transfer their direct charge, together with all powers of imposing the same, from the occupiers to the owners of property." Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words “in order to effect a satisfactory settlement of the Law SIR GEORGE GREY: I shall offer but a very few observations to the House on the question before it, inasmuch as no practical issue has in reality been raised during the course of this discussion. Indeed, the question, as it has been brought under our notice to-night, has assumed a shape rather better suited to the recent meetings of the Social Science Association than to the House of Commons. But, however that may be, nobody can doubt the sincerity of the motives which have induced my right hon. Friend opposite to draw again our attention to the subject, while I think the observations which have fallen from him clearly show the difficulty of effecting any satisfactory settlement respecting it. My right hon. Friend gave notice of his Motion on the 23rd of May, and, as the notice then stood, it was of a character very distinct and definite. It proposed that pew rents should be more extensively collected by means of voluntary arrangement, and then, but only in the event of voluntary contributions failing, that there should be a special meeting of the vestry convened, and a special rate levied to make up the deficiency in those contributions. The right hon. Gentleman, however, very soon altered that proposition materially. The Resolutions of my right hon. Friend have undergone other alterations, and now they are submitted to the House in a shape very different from that in which they were first put upon the paper. I am bound to say that to the first Resolution I think there are very grave objections. That Resolution, if carried into effect, so far from leading to an amicable settlement of the question, would open a new source of discord in every parish. It is to be presumed that the vestry which is to decide the question whether the liability as regards the repair of the parish church and churchyard should be transferred from occupiers to owners is to be composed of both classes of persons. We all know that in an ordinary country parish the occupiers are far more nume rous than the owners. As a matter of course, therefore, the latter would be out voted; and, upon the whole, I can conceive of nothing better calculated to create bad feeling between owners and occupiers than such a process as that embodied in the first Resolution of my right hon. Friend. Again, as I infer from the statement of my right hon. Friend, the rate payable by owners is not to be the only rate in a parish; on the contrary, there is to be a voluntary rate agreed to at an ordinary meeting of the vestry, payable by occupiers, which rate is to be applied to the general purposes to which church rates are now applicable, the rate payable by owners being devoted exclusively to the repair of the parish church and churchyard. My impression is that such a scheme, as it contemplates two rates and two vestries, instead of simplifying the process by which church rates are now imposed and collected, would intensify and perpetuate the evils produced by the existing system. The question of pew rents has dropped out of the Resolutions, but my right hon. Friend in his speech argued in favour of his original proposition; and I must say that it is very difficult to understand the objections which are made to pew rents, especially when one considers that these objections are advanced by the same gentlemen who acquiesce, apparently with satisfaction, in the exclusive appropriation of certain seats to men of property and their families. It is not pew rents, but the exclusive appropriation of certain seats that prevents the poor having free use of their parish church. Of course, I do not wish to increase the facilities for appropriating pews; but if an exclusive right to certain seats exists in owners of property, why should such an outcry be raised when it is said that the persons so exclusively situated should be required to pay something towards the repair of the church? I therefore regret that my right hon. Friend has abandoned that portion of his Resolutions as they originally stood which related to pew rents. Of the second and third Resolutions I am bound to say that, in my opinion, they embody the only expedient by which, short of total abolition, the question of church rates can be satisfactorily settled. If church rates are not absolutely abolished, what is objectionable in them can be removed only by the repeal of the existing legal process for enforcing their payment, and by making the payment of the rate voluntary. To allow vestries, as at present, either to make a rate or to refuse it, and to exempt objectors | dominance of the majority, on which the without requiring them to declare them whole of our social system in this country selves Dissenters, would practically amount depends, were all really involved in what to the abolition of church rates in the ordi- was brought before us at first merely as nary sense; but it would have the advan- a sectarian grievance and a parish quarrel. tage of removing every possible objection It is the greatness of those principles, and on the part of Dissenters, while it would it is the importance of these interests, that retain the existing machinery for the rate, have so developed themselves in our pubwhere a parish is willing to continue it. lic and Parliamentary discussions as really If my right hon. Friend had submitted to have produced the difficulties which to us his second and third Resolution have prevented any settlement of the alone, I should have given him my cor- limited question first brought under disdial support; but, taking his scheme as cussion. When I remember this, I feel whole, I must say that the objections to that it is not possible, in a rapid and easy the proposed transfer of church rates from manner, to arrive at any conclusion on a occupiers to owners are so strong that I question that involves considerations of do not see how they are to be overcome. such immense importance. I would not The best course would be for my right follow the example of my hon. Friend tohon. Friend to endeavour to embody these night and say that this is a question on proposals in a Bill; and then, when we which the existing Government of this have the Bill before us, we should be able country ought to form an opinion, and to judge better of their effect. Upon the stake their existence in case their soluwhole, I am afraid that the present dis- tion is not adopted. Still, I will say that cussion can only tend to show the insupe- there is no question more worthy of the rable obstacles which exist to the adoption consideration of a Government, and that of any expedient short of abolition for the more requires the authority and responsatisfactory settlement of the church rate sibility of a Government for its solution; question, with the exception of that em- and, except by a Government, I am conbodied in the second and third Resolutions. vinced that no solution of this great diffiMR. DISRAELI: Sir, I shall refrain, on culty can ever be arrived at. Sir, I do the present occasion, from entering into any not myself despair that the time will ardiscussion of the principle of church rates; rive when, with a due regard to all the but I think it due to my right hon. Friend great principles involved, some solution the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. S. satisfactory to the country may be accomEstcourt), however I may differ from him plished; yet I am satisfied it never can be on points of detail, to bear my testimony to accomplished except with a due regard to the highly honourable and straightforward the ancient institutions of this country, manner in which he has acted throughout and to the habits, customs, and privileges this controversy. It is very advantageous of the people of England. that a Gentleman of his intelligence and position in the House should take such opportunities as the present, on a question which has so long been the subject public controversy, to urge us to express an opinion upon the means by which ultimately some satisfactory arrangement may be made. Hitherto, the only conclusion at which I have arrived is the conviction that when the question of church rates was first brought forward for public discussion much too narrow and limited a view was taken of it by Parliament. The truth is, we have discovered, after the discussion of the question for a quarter of a century, what important interests and what great principles are involved in it. The principle of a National Church, the practice of local government, the privileges of the great body of the population, and, above all, that principle of the pre MR. NEWDEGATE said, that as reference to the Bill which he had brought in on this subject had been made by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Heygate), who seemed to think that the proposal he should have to make would interfere with the rights of the vestries in providing for the maintenance of their parish churches, he begged to assure the hon. Member, that if he would examine the Bill which stood in his (Mr. Newdegate's) name, he would find that it was framed with caution, and that it provided effectual machinery for preserving the rights of the parishioners in vestry assembled to control the arrange. ments of their own churches. He had been highly gratified with the course of this debate; for although he could not agree with the proposal of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt), on account of several of the objections that had |