Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

cited testimonies in favour of the object aimed at in the Resolution; he showed likewise the partial and unsatisfactory manner in which the grant was administered, and explained the plan by which he proposed that the object should be carried into effect. This resolution was seconded by Mr. Thompson, and supported with some reservation by Sir S. Northcote, and also by Mr. Deedes and Mr. Henley. Mr. Adderley, on the other hand, dissented from it.

Mr. Lowe pointed out what he considered would be the effect of adopting the Resolution. The principle of payment for results existed no longer; a collateral security was to be done away with, and an imperfect security of an examination substituted; and he put it to the House whether, if it adopted the Resolution, there would be adequate security for the expenditure of the public money.

Mr. Walter's Resolution was rejected by 163 to 156.

Mr. Baines then moved"That it is expedient that the managers of a school, before receiving capitation money from the Committee of the Privy Council, should satisfy the inspector that the circumstances of the parents of the children are such as to require public assistance for their education."

This Resolution was supported by Mr. Barrow and Mr. Barnes, and opposed by Lord John Manners and Mr. Hardy. Mr. Lowe recommended that it should not be pressed, as it only affirmed a principle upon which the Code was based. The Resolution was negatived, as was an

other moved by Mr. Baines asserting the inexpediency of making grants for evening schools.

Mr. H. A. Bruce moved the following Resolution:-"That, as the great majority of children in Wales are, on their admission to schools, ignorant of or imperfectly acquainted with the English language, in which their examination is conducted, such examination shall not, in any school in the Principality, be commenced until the children have attained the age of seven years.'

This also was opposed by Mr. Lowe, and rejected by 139 to 61.

The Bill for the Abolition of Church Rates, which had now for several years continuously been brought in by Sir John Trelawny, and in the last preceding Session had been defeated by the casting vote of the Speaker, was now once more introduced by the same honourable baronet. The debate on the second reading took place on the 14th of May, when Sir J. Trelawny, in a short speech, justified the re-introduction of the measure in the face of a diminishing support in the House, and explained the difficulties in the way of a compromise. He insisted that in cases where the voluntary principle was relied upon, it had never failed, and expressed his belief that not a year would elapse before a machinery would be set in action that would make up what was lost by the abolition of Church Rates, which, after the concessions made to the Dissenters, were out of date, and would be regarded in after-ages as a political monstrosity.

tion.

Mr. Buxton seconded the mo- to offer some substantial plan for that object. The question then was, how some amendment of the existing law was likely to be arrived at; and, looking at the history of the debates on this question, he despaired of any such amendment while the present law was in existence. He should therefore vote for the second reading of the Bill. After stating and defending the plan he had proposed last year for exempting Dissenters from Church Rates without "ticketing" them, he argued that the Resolution was inconsistent, partly with facts and partly with law, and would be, therefore, nugatory and unmeaning.

Mr. S. Estcourt, after noticing the logical antagonism between the speech of Mr. Buxton and the vote he proposed to give, replied to Sir J. Trelawny, pointing out certain fallacies in his argument. He reviewed various schemes of exemption and compromise, and pointed out their radical defects, observing that the question should be so dealt with that the settlement would be of a permanent character and based upon a principle; and he moved, as an amendment, the following Resolution, embodying a proposition that could not be disputed, upon which, he observed, action might be taken :-" That it is unjust and inexpedient to abolish the ancient customary right, exercised from time immemorial by the ratepayers of every parish in England, to raise by rate among themselves the sums required for the repair of their church, until some other provision shall have been made by Parliament for the discharge of those obligations to which, by custom or statute, the churchwardens, on the part of the parish, are liable."

Sir G. Lewis said, it seemed to be admitted that the existing operation of the law, the rates being refused in some parishes and imposed in others upon a reluctant portion of the parishioners, was not satisfactory. There were two propositions before the House-one to abolish the existing law and trust to the voluntary principle; the other, to make some alteration of the law-and he understood that Mr. Estcourt was prepared

Mr. Macdonogh disputed Sir G. Lewis's interpretation of the law, and stated various objections to the Bill, which set out, he said, in its preamble, with a logical fallacy in arguing from particulars to universals, that because rates due by law were refused in some parishes, they should be abolished in all without equivalent or substitution. A customary, immemorial right. could not be thus summarily annihilated.

Mr. R. Mills supported the Bill, arguing that the population had outgrown the common law. The churches did not now afford accommodation for the people.

Mr. Bright observed that Mr. Estcourt, having repudiated and rejected every scheme, including his own, did not give the House good and encouraging advice in asking it to agree to his Resolution. He had argued that it was founded upon a constitutional principle; but things had totally changed in the last 700 or 800

years, and these rates were now incompatible with the rights and interests of the people. All he asked was, to a certain extent, a complement of the Toleration Act. Would Churchmen refuse to do what the humblest sect of Dissenters did? Would a body that held the great bulk of the land, boasted of its wealth, and had the seats of learning at its disposal, be the only sect not liberal enough to support its own churches? He believed that these rates could not be maintained, and Mr. Estcourt himself did not think that any scheme which had been submitted to the House could do anything material to settle this question, except Sir J. Trelawny's. If this question was to be finally settled, he agreed that it ought to be taken up by the Government, who should submit to the House a measure based upon a principle satisfactory to the country, and stake their existence upon carrying it.

Sir J. Pakington, after remarking that Mr. Bright, as well as others, forgot that the Church of England was essentially the poor man's church, into which he could enter without payment, admitted that the time had arrived when this question ought to be settled, and agreed that it ought not to be settled by the legis lation of private members, but should be undertaken by the Government, who seemed, however, he said, to shrink from this duty. He adverted to the doctrines and language with refer-ence to Church Rates held by opponents of the Rates out of doors, expressing his regret that the question should be embarrassed by the promulgation of VOL. CIV.

such opinions, and by language so acrimonious towards the Established Church. He defended the course taken by the Conservative party upon this question; their attempts at a compromise having, he said, been defeated, owing to the real motive of some of the opponents of the rates being to destroy the Church.

Mr. Disraeli said, that if legislation had been urgently required, the House would not have wasted thirty years upon it, and made twenty-three fruitless legislative experiments. On the contrary, the history of the question proved that it was not ripe for legislation. The fact was, that the pretext for legislation was not the object of the agitation; but it was clear that it was the existence of the Church of England which was at stake. He agreed with several previous speakers, that it was the duty of Government to deal with the question, but their system was to leave every question in the hands of private members. Sir G. Lewis had indeed suggested the adoption of a plan which had been recommended by the Archbishop of Canterbury; but he (Mr. Disraeli), with all respect, did not attach any great weight to the Archbishop's opinion. The question was not ecclesiastical, but simply political. Church rates were imposed in the ancient and constitutional manner of the country, by a majority, and to object to the system, was as if a constituent were to say he felt degraded and enslaved by being represented by the member elected by the majority in his borough. Government by the majority, was the rule and spring of our [D]

[blocks in formation]

Mr. Sotheron Estcourt's Resolution was then adopted by 288 to 271.

Another attempt was made by Mr. S. Estcourt to settle this long-pending controversy. On the 24th of June, that right hon. gentleman moved a Resolution, which he said he considered necessary, in order to follow up the Resolution already passed by some practical step. He moved "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; 2, to repeal the existing legal process for enforcing a compulsory Church-rate; and 3, to give facilities for collecting a voluntary rate." Mr. Estcourt explained that the reason why he brought this subject forward was, that he was certain matters could not remain as at present, nor ought Parliament to allow them to remain so, and his proposition was a step in the same direction, and for the same object as the

Resolution to which the House had already come upon his motion. He stated what he understood to be the grievances, under the existing law, of the Nonconformists on one hand, and of Churchmen on the other, and he examined and discussed various substitutes which had been sug gested for the present system of providing for the repair of parish churches, pointing out their objectionable features. His own proposal was based upon these grounds,-that the present law ought to be altered, but that Parliament ought to make provision for the sustentation of the churches of the land, if a voluntary rate was insufficient for the purpose. He offered his plan as a compromise, the only one which he thought likely to receive the sanction of the House, and which he believed could be worked out into a satisfactory measure. He was not prepared to assent to any separation or modification of the Resolution.

Mr. Hodgkinson, though approving of the conciliatory manner in which Mr. Estcourt had introduced his Resolution, objected strongly to what appeared to him to be a gross inconsistency

that while the plan would abolish compulsory recovery of church-rates, and give increased facility for the collection of voluntary ones, it made no exemp tion in favour of Dissenters, and introduced greater stringency than ever.

Mr. Heygate thought no settlement possible until the direct charge was completely transferred from the occupier to the owners of property, and moved an amendment to that effect.

Sir G. Grey observed that Mr.

Estcourt's Resolutions had been very materially altered since he first gave notice of them on the 23rd of May. He could not conceive anything more calculated to breed ill-feeling between owners and occupiers in a parish than the first Resolution. To the two other propositions, by themselves, he would have given his most cordial support; but he feared the discussion would show that there were but two settle ments of the question-total abolition, or that embodied in the two latter Resolutions without the first.

Mr. Disraeli strongly urged the Government to take up this subject, with a view to its settlement. It could only be brought to a satisfactory solution in the hands of the Ministry.

After a brief reply, Mr. S. Estcourt withdrew his Resolution, and the amendment also was withdrawn.

The last attempt made this Session to deal with the subject of Church-rates, was by a Bill, introduced by Mr. Newdegate, to authorize the commutation of the rate for a rent-charge to be levied on the proprietors of land. In moving the second reading of this Bill, on the 9th of July, the hon. member explained that it was his object to have it referred to a Select Committee. He then, in a speech of considerable length, argued that Church-rates were, and had been admitted to be, practically, a charge upon real property, and he proposed by the Bill to do away with all personal liability in respect of Church-rates, and to charge them upon the property, making them payable by the owner. This, he said, was the principle of the

Bill, and he explained its main provisions, and the machinery by which he proposed to assess the amount of the rate, and to levy it. This part of the measure, he said, could be considered and modified by the Committee.

Alderman Sidney said the errors on the face of the Bill, which dealt with only a moiety of the property and population of the country, were so patent, that the House should reject the Bill. He pointed out some of the errors to which he referred, and moved to defer the second reading for three months.

Mr. Heygate recommended the withdrawal of the Bill, which was urged also by Sir George Grey, who showed that it was impossible for a Select Committee to deal with it during the present Session.

The Bill, after some further discussion, was given up.

Early in the Session Mr. E. P. Bouverie obtained leave to bring in a Bill for the relief of persons in Holy Orders of the Church of England, declaring their dissent therefrom, from the restrictions and penalties, to which they are now by law made subject. In moving the second reading of this measure on the 9th April, the right hon. gentleman explained his reasons for proposing it. Many persons, he said, owing to scruples on theological points, were desirous of freeing themselves from the obligations imposed upon them by their ordination and by the canons of the Church; and when he considered what the subscriptions were which were required from clergymen, he did not wonder at a person, in afterlife, feeling scruples upon the subject. Yet the law held him to his obligations, and forbade him

« ForrigeFortsett »