Nonconformist, on the other hand, would give up the untenable position that he had no common interest in the maintenance of the fabric of the church and the preservation of the churchyard. What did the Nonconformist gain? Exemption of the great body of occupiers in this country from all penal consequences whether they paid church rates or not. He knew how strong a feeling was excited by allusions to religious scruples or constitutional principles, and he also knew that these two great moving principles were very much interested in the solution of this question. But what better or more favourable result could either party hope for than that which he now proposed? Parliament, in the present case, seemed to him to be a court of arbitration between contending parties. The arrangement that would be assented to would therefore be in the nature of an award with which neither party would probably be altogether satisfied. No scheme would be acceptable to persons of extreme views, except that which gave an entire victory to one side or the other. There were, however, many gentlemen both in and out of Parliament who were most anxious that this matter should be settled, and who were, he believed, ready to listen to any fair terms of settlement. He had read many pamphlets and received many letters on this subject. The writers had not, however, suggested any plan that was not open to grave objections, and he was certain that not one of the plans that had hitherto been before the public would receive the sanction of the House. A settlement of this question, to be permanent, must be applicable to every part of the kingdom, and hon. Members would do well to examine, as he had done, what was going on in different parishes by arrangements between the parishioners. Of course, if he were to be responsible for his Resolution, the whole of it must be passed in its integrity. If the House took away one part and altered another, the Resolution would no longer be his. He was not willing, for instance, to charge the owner with a liability unless the House made the rate a voluntary one. Nor, on the other hand, was he willing to make the rate voluntary unless the House gave him a power to go to the owner to discharge the liability if necessary. It might be said that his proposal was a compromise and a concession, and therefore hateful and objectionable. A compromise of doctrine or principle was, no doubt, treason and heresy, and a thing not to be thought of. But this was a question of pounds, shillings, and pence. It did not deal with the Church as a spiritual and moral agent, but only provided for the actual sustentation of the Church in its services. A compromise in such a matter was therefore not only pardonable, but the only solution that was likely to receive the sanction of Parliament. He did not regret that at the present late period of the Session he had done his best to offer to the House a mode of settling this question, which at a future time could be worked out in a measure which might then receive the sanction of Parliament. If he had it in his power to carry his Resolution by a bare majority, he should decline to do so. It was by the general consent, not only of the large body of Members of that House, but of the country at large, that this long-contested question could alone be settled. He ventured therefore to lay before the House a plan, which might not receive their assent, but which, at all events, would be talked about in the country; and if the country did not approve it, a better plan might be suggested. He offered it honestly, as affording a settlement which, in his opinion, could not be objected to on one side or the other. He would not despair of success if people were to fix their eyes on the main consideration-namely, how to remove the grievances complained of, on the one hand by the Nonconformists, on the other by the Church. When he asked Churchmen to give way, it was because he asked Nonconformists to give way also. What was said in country parishes now? "I will resist the rate to the last, because I see no concession made on the other side." He was most anxious to restore that harmony which in so many parishes was disturbed by the church rate question. He knew that clergymen were as anxious to see that done as any Member of that House. How could that result be arrived at? By discussing the matter. Nothing did more harm, or set neighbours against neighbours more, than the long-unsettled state of the question. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hodgkinson), or his hon. Friend near him (Mr. Heygate), would think it necessary to divide on the subject; he could not but think their object would be attained by discussion. However, he for one could not consent to adopt a portion only of his Resolution, and he hoped it would be taken as a whole. Thanking the House for the attention with which he had been heard, he begged, with some confidence, to submit the Resolutions to the House of which he had given notice : Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Law relating to Church Rates may be beneficially settled by combining in one measure provisions for each of the following objects: "1. To enable vestries specially summoned, and in which owners shall have a vote by proxy, to transfer from occupiers to owners so much of their liability as regards the repair of their Parish Church and Churchyard; and to make such special Rate, if voted by a majority, recoverable by the same process as a Rate for repairs of Highways." SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE beg. ged to second the Motion. MR. HODGKINSON (who had given notice of the following Amendment : what they considered right and just, simply because there were some persons to be found who coupled with that right and justice other measures to which objections might fairly be made-objections not depending upon the same principle as the objections to that measure which they believed to be right? It seemed to him that this question ought to be settled without any reference whatever to the Society to which he had alluded, and which he believed had very few supporters even upon that side of the House. In the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman, which he stated should be treated as a whole, they had, as it seemed to him, two principles enunciated which were decidedly opposed to one another. The right hon. Gentleman first proposed to sanction the abolition of all compulsory process to recover payment of To leave out all the words after the figure 1, church rates, making church rates a volunand to add the following words: To authorize the tary tax, and he next proposed to give levy of a rate or rent in respect of the appro- additional facilities for the collection of the priated portion of seats in churches, but so that no voluntary rates. In those two parts of the appropriation of seats in any church shall be made Resolution he entirely agreed, and he did to a greater extent than now actually exists") not believe that for the sake of a mere said, that he thought the House would party victory Members on that side of the agree with him that the right hon. Gen- House would object to the right hon. tleman opposite had brought this question Gentleman settling this question upon the forward in a fair and conciliatory spirit-basis of the two first branches of his Resohe gave credit to the right hon. Gentleman lution. But the right hon. Gentleman for being one of those true friends of the would do away with the whole of the virtue Church who wished to see this question of those propositions, for he proposed, in settled, even at some sacrifice of his own the other part of his Resolution, to reindividual opinion; but he was sorry to say enact church rates with additional strinthere were many, and some of them claim-gency in compelling payment, and without ing to be champions of the Church, who any exemption in the case of dissenters. would rather see the peace of the Church It was proposed also that owners as well continually disturbed than by any con- as occupiers should vote at the vestry cession, however small, promote the set- meetings, sanctioning the objectionable tlement of a question which afforded a principle that a person who was not to convenient election war-cry, and a strong bear any share in the payment of the tax rallying-point in the conflict of party. He should have the power of taxing others. He yielded to no Member in that House in his gathered from the speech of the right hon. attachment to the Church of England, of Gentleman that he had no objection to the which he was a Member; but he could not principle of the Amendment, and that he find it consistent with his convictions to would not resist it if it appeared as an show that attachment in the same manner addition to instead of as a substitute for in which some hon. Gentlemen did. He the third Resolution. When the right must, however, dispute the proposition hon. Gentleman first gave his notice, it that church rates were a charge upon the included much the same thing that the real property of the country. A habit Amendment now proposed. At that time, was springing up in debates upon this he simply gave notice to move an omission subject of evading the real issue, and of of the fourth Resolution, which now apdiscussing the subject, not on its own peared as the third; and it seemed to him, merits, but with reference to the programme that if the first two Resolutions, together of the Liberation Society. There was no with the Amendment, were adopted, no doubt that this cause had done much to injustice would be really done to any one, frighten timid people out of their propriety. and certainly no injustice would be done But were they to be deterred from doing to those who dissented from the Church. were appropriated. But did hon. Gentlemen suppose, that if this plan were adopted, the present extent of the appropriation of seats would continue? There were, no doubt, many persons now who, having a preferential right to seats, retained them simply because it cost them nothing to remain. These seats were, perhaps, empty fifty-one weeks out of the fifty-two, and the poor parishioners were excluded from them; whereas if they adopted the system of seat rates, those persons would give up the seats, and they would be available for others. He understood that it was not the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to divide the House upon his proposition, and under these circumstances he would abstain from moving the Amendment of which he had given notice. MR. BUXTON said, that he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had felt it necessary to move the first of his Resolutions, as the second and third would have carried out the desire for compromise which had been freely expressed, and would have effected a settlement of this disputed question. He believed that some such settlement would ultimately be agreed The principle of the Amendment was that While relieving the consciences of Dissenters, and putting an end to every practical grievance because any one who deemed the system a grievance would be relieved from payment of the impost-it would at the same time avoid any sacrifice of principle on the part of conscientious Churchmen, or anything that could damage the position of the Church of England, all the existing machinery being retained. He thought they had practical proof, that if the present system were done away with, the churches of this country would be maintained as well as they were now, for there was scarcely any instance in which church rates had been enforced of late. There was almost invariably something illegal in the way in which the rates were levied, and which could not be sustained if any one objected to pay them. His own persuasion was, that to adopt such a compromise as he had suggested would tend greatly to increase a feeling of interest in their parish churches on the part of the people. They would learn to regard them as something in which they had a personal interest-as something which it remained with them to determine whether they should be allowed to fall into decay, or whether they should be handed down to their posterity intact. With regard to pew rents, he knew something of the feelings of work- Government have not thought fit to take ing men, and he felt no doubt that what up this question with a view to its solution, induced many respectable workmen to go and to grapple manfully with its difficulties; to chapels was that in them they could for, assuredly, if ever there was a question take seats to which they might bring their which, in Parliamentary language, was ripe families, and feel as independent as any for legislation, this one of church rates has gentleman did in his pew in the parish arrived at that condition of maturity. Why, church. If there existed a graduated Sir, it is notorious that on both those scale of charges for pews in churches-a occasions to which I have referred many number of free sittings being, of course, hon. Members voted as they did, not from preserved the working classes would avail a desire to effect the total, immediate, and themselves of the opportunity of acquiring unconditional abolition of church rates on seats for themselves. the one hand, or to maintain exactly the MR. HEYGATE: Sir, in submitting status quo on the other, but with the hope to the consideration of the House the Re- of compelling a speedy settlement of this solution which now stands in my name, I odious, long-standing controversy. Now, can assure the House that I am by no Sir, before I proceed to examine my own means insensible to the difficulties inher-Resolution (which I should wish it to be rent in the question with which it proposes to deal a question which has long puzzled many wiser heads than mine, and which has already received at the hands of all the eminent statesmen of the country every kind of treatment, and every variety of argument and illustration of which the subject is capable; and, Sir, mindful of the old saying that "fools rush in where angels fear to tread," I should have shrunk from the responsibility of again disturbing the question this year but for the fact that the propositions which the right hon. Gentleman has laid before the House necessarily involved a discussion of the whole question of church rates, and that thereby a fitting opportunity was afforded to any one who imagined he saw a possible solution of the question to submit his ideas to the consideration of the House; and, Sir, I think it cannot be necessary to seek far for excuses for any one who proposes any solution of this painful and ever recurring question. All must allow that the law relating to church rates is in an anomalous condition, and most of us will allow that as the matter stands it produces religious animosities, and is accompanied by constant inconvenience and occasional injustice, and has produced in some instances effects injurious to the best interests of religion. I, Sir, am one of those, and I believe they are numerous on both sides of this House, who have never given a vote upon the Bill of the hon. Baronet opposite with unqualified satisfaction; and I cannot but express my deep regret that after the memorable occasion of last year when 274 Members of the House walked into either lobby, followed as that event was by a division this year on the same subject hardly less extraordinary, Her Majesty's understood I do not propose as a settlement, but merely as the basis of a settlement of this question), let me say a few words on the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman on my right, whose conciliatory endeavours I think entitle him to the gratitude of the House, as well as on that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark. The right hon. Gentleman has proposed three Resolutions, of which, as they at first stood, I may say that the first amounted virtually to an abandonment of the position for which we have been so long contending; the second, though it might be harmless, did not seem to contain in it the elements of the settlement of the question; and the third, although founded on a principle identical with my own, yet seemed to my mind unnecessarily to complicate the question, instead of laying down a broad, clear, and intelligible position from which legis. lation should proceed. As the right hon. Gentleman has reversed the order of these Resolutions, and taken the last first, and dwelt principally upon it, I will confine myself to the reasons which induce me to prefer my own proposal to his. Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to enable special vestries to agree to that, which, if it is a just and equitable and desirable thing to do at all, should, I maintain, be done once and for all by the action of the Legislature; for, not only is it objectionable on the ground of its raising a question to be discussed and debated in every vestry in the kingdom, which would result in the establishment of two different kinds of church rate in different parts of the country, according as a vestry might or might not agree to avail itself of this enabling power; but I also think that it is too great a power to concede to be decided by the accidental majority of ratepayers (and they principally occupiers) in each parish in any one year; so that, instead of settling the question, it would have the effect of raising a new question, which might be the source of endless discussion and debate-the very thing we are anxious to avoid; and, for these reasons, whilst I cordially concur in the general principle of transferring the liability from the occupier to the owner, I cannot think it either right or advisable to carry out that principle by the means proposed by my right hon. Friend. But, Sir, if I am unable to concur altogether with my right hon. Friend, still less am I able to agree in the desirability of the proposal of pew rents, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark; for if there is one thing more than another about which there is an agreement amongst Churchmen, it is this that the exclusive appropriation of seats in the house of God had done more than anything else to drive the poor from church (especially in town parishes), and to loosen their feeling of respect and attachment towards the national establishment; and whatever, directly or indirectly, shall tend to perpetuate or extend the existing evil will, I am certain, not meet with the approbation of those for whose benefit it is proposed. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for War, who seemed a short time since to be an advocate of this measure, appeared to think that it was objected to only by a certain party in the Church, whom he designated as "the AngloCatholic Party;" but I will venture to read a short extract from the writings of one who will certainly not be suspected of be longing to the party referred to by the right hon. Baronet, I mean Dean Close, who is reported in a sermon, in a Carlisle church, to have referred to the present system of pew-letting in the following 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 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 |