of Canterbury, the Duke of Gloucester, the Duke of Wellington, and the Bishop of Exeter; and even the new premier, Lord Melbourne, who supported the second reading, avowed that he did not entirely approve of the measure. In his opinion its objects might be better effected by a good understanding and a compromise between both parties, than by the force of an Act of Parliament. The bill was refused a second reading by a majority of one hundred and two.1 1836. Not long afterwards, however, the just claims of London University dissenters to academical distinction were met, without established trenching upon the church, or the ancient seats of learning,—by the foundation of the University of London, - open to students of every creed." Some years later, the education, discipline, and endowments of the older Oxford and Cambridge universities called for the interposition of Parliament; Univerand in considering their future regulation, the claims of sities Act. dissenters were not overlooked. Provision was made for the opening of halls, for their collegiate residence and discipline; and the degrees of the universities were no longer withheld from their honourable ambition.3 Bill, 1844. The contentions hitherto related have been between Dissenters' the church and dissenters. But rival sects have had Chapels their contests; and in 1844 the legislature interposed to protect the endowments of dissenting communions from being despoiled by one another. Decisions of the Court of Chancery and the House of Lords, in the case of Lady Hewley's charity, had disturbed the security of all property held in trust by nonconformists, for 1 Contents, 85; Non-Contents, 187. Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., xxv. 815. 2 Debates, March 26th, 1835; Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., xxvii. 279; London University Charters, Nov. 1836, and Dec. 1837. 3 Oxford University Act, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 81, s. 43, 44, &c. ; Cambridge University Act, 19 & 20 Vict. c. 88, s. 45, &c. These degrees, however, did not entitle them to offices hitherto held by churchmen. Endowed Act, 1869. religious purposes. The faith of the founder,- not In the same spirit, Parliament has empowered the trustees of endowed schools to admit children of different religious denominations, unless the deed of foundation expressly limited the benefits of the endow 1 Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., lxxiv. 579, 821. 2 Ibid., lxxv. 321, 383; lxxvi. 116; 7 & 8 Vict. c. 45. ment to the church, or some other religious communion.1 on re Long after Parliament had frankly recognised com- Repeal of plete freedom of religious worship, many intolerant penalties enactments still bore witness to the rigour of our laws. ligious worship. Liberty had been conceded so grudgingly,—and clogged with so many conditions,-that the penal code had not yet disappeared from the statute-book. In 1845, the Criminal Law Commission enumerated the restraints and penalties which had hitherto escaped the vigilance of the legislature.2 And Parliament has since blotted out many repulsive laws affecting the religious worship and education of Roman Catholics, and others not in communion with the church.3 rates. The church honourably acquiesced in those just and Church necessary measures which secured to dissenters liberty in their religious worship and ministrations, and exemption from civil disabilities. But a more serious contention had arisen affecting her own legal rights, -her position as the national establishment, and her ancient endowments. Dissenters refused payment of church rates. Many suffered imprisonment, or distraint of their goods, rather than satisfy the lawful demands of the church. Others, more practical and sagacious, attended vestries, and resisted the imposition of the annual rate upon the parishioners. And during the 1 23 Vict. c. 11. First Report of Crim. Law Commission (Religious Opinions), 1845. 3 See 2 & 3 Will. 4, s. 115 (Catholic Chapels and Schools); 7 & 8 Vict. c. 102; Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., lxxiv. 691; lxxvi. 1165; 9 & 10 Vict. c. 59; Ibid., lxxxiii. 495. Among the laws repealed by this Act was the celebrated statute or ordinance of Henry III., 66 pro See debates, July 30th, 1839; Principles involved. progress of these local contentions, Parliament was appealed to by dissenters for legislative relief. The principles involved in the question of church rate, while differing in several material points from those concerned in other controversies between the church and dissenters, may yet be referred to one common origin,-the legal recognition of a national. church, with all the rights incident to such an establishment, in presence of a powerful body of nonconformists. By the common law, the parishioners were bound to maintain the fabric of the parish church, and provide for the decent celebration of its services. The edifice consecrated to public worship was sustained by an annual rate, voted by the parishioners themselves assembled in vestry, and levied upon all occupiers of land and houses within the parish, according to their ability.1 For centuries, the parishioners who paid this rate were members of the church. They gazed with reverence on the antique tower; hastened to prayers at the summons of the sabbath bells; sate beneath the roof which their contributions had repaired; and partook of the sacramental bread and wine which their liberality had provided. The rate was administered by lay churchwardens of their own choice; and all cheerfully paid what was dispensed for the common use and benefit of all. But times had changed. Dissent had grown, and spread and ramified throughout the land. In some parishes, dissenters even outnumbered the members of the church. Supporting their own ministers, building and repairing their own chapels, and shunning the services and clergy of the parish church, they resented the payment of 1 1 Lyndwood, 53; Wilkins' Con- letter to Lord Stanley, 1837; Report of Commission on Eccl. Courts, 1832. church rate as at once an onerous and unjust tax, and an offence to their consciences. They insisted that the burden should be borne exclusively by members of the church. Such, they contended, had been the original design of church rate; and this principle should again be recognised, under altered conditions, by the state. The church stood firmly upon her legal rights. The law had never acknowledged such a distinction of persons as that contended for by dissenters; nay, the tax was chargeable, not so much. upon persons, as upon property; and having existed for centuries, its amount was, in truth, a deduction from rent. If dissenting tenants were relieved from its payment, their landlords would immediately claim its equivalent in rental. But, above all, it was maintained that the fabric of the church was national property,an edifice set apart by law for public worship, according to the religion of the state,-open to all,-inviting all to its services-and as much the common property of all, as a public museum or picture-gallery, which many might not care to enter, or were unable to appreciate. Althorp's of com mutation, 1834. Such being the irreconcilable principles upon which Lord each party took its stand, contentions of increasing scheme bitterness became rife in many parishes,-painful to churchmen, irritating to dissenters, and a reproach to April 21st, religion. In 1834, Earl Grey's ministry, among its endeavours to reconcile, as far as possible, all differences between the church and dissenters, attempted a solution of this perplexing question. Their scheme, as explained by Lord Althorp, was to substitute for the existing church rate an annual grant of 250,000%. from the consolidated fund, for the repair of churches. This sum, equal to about half the estimated rate, was to be distributed rateably to the several parishes. |