I beg to ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes while I make a personal explanation. The hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bagge) last night asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer—

"Whether Mr. William Henry Leatham is the same Mr. Leatham who was found personally guilty of bribery by an Election Committee of this House after the General Election of 1859, and ordered by this House to be prosecuted by Mr. Attorney General?"

Sir, my answer to that is that I was not found personally guilty of bribery by a Select Committee of this House. A Resolution directly the contrary was come to—

"That it was not proved that such bribery was committed with the knowledge or consent of the sitting Member."

That paper I placed in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I hoped that my honour was safe in his hands. However, he did not choose to refer to the letter which I had placed in his hands, but in a jocose vein answered the question of the hon. Member for West Norfolk. I had no opportunity, in the hurry of the moment, of stating what I wished to say on the subject, and I hope the House will excuse me if I come before it on this occasion, because the House was excited last night and passed a Resolution which may affect me personally in a different way. All I say is, that the only accusation made against me from the beginning to the end of all the persecutions and proceedings connected with the Wakefield election was, that I wrote a letter to my brother-in-law, in London, asking for money to be sent down to my agent. That was the only act I ever committed. That letter is now in my hand—or rather a copy of it—and I think it only due to myself to read it to the House. This letter, by a great misfortune, was torn in two by my brother-in-law, and it was only on one half of that letter that I was convicted at York. I think that a more unfortunate thing could not possibly have happened to a gentleman who writes a confidential letter to his brother-in-law in London than that such a letter should afterwards be published to the whole world. That brother-in-law, being a man of business, tore the letter in halves, and gave one half to his clerk, putting the other half into his pocket, expecting to find time to acknowledge the letter. He never could afterwards find that half of the letter. That gentleman was examined before the Commission at Wakefield. I was present on the last day of the Commission sitting at Wakefield. I was waiting expecting to be called to supplement that part of the letter which was not in court. I was not, however, called. The Commission was closed, and I knew nothing of the impression which that letter created in the minds of the Commissioners until I saw their Report. I wrote to the Commissioners begging to be examined. They declined to examine me, and the prosecution went forward. The writing of that letter was the only accusation against me. What I did I did under the best of all motives, and I do not regret that I wrote it, but I do regret that it was torn in pieces, and that I did not bring it before the Select Committee of the House. This has placed me under a considerable disadvantage. When the Committee sat I had resigned my seat. I saw what the election agents had done, and did not expect to be examined. The room was cleared, and I was sent for in a great hurry. Three or four questions only were put to me, but none of them referred to this letter. I said to Sir William Hayter in private that if I had been asked if my relative sent down money from London to the Wakefield election I should at once have said that he had. I was not there as a voluntary witness, the question was not put to me, and the matter did not come before the Committee. That is the only point I regret. It has placed me under a great disadvantage. But I cannot think that this House, with this explanation before the whole world, will receive it in any other way than as the explanation of an honest man, placed in circumstances over which he had no control. Taunts having been thrown out on the other side of the House to this side about personal acts of bribery having been committed, I declare that I never was in that position; and some of my nearest friends who are Conservatives have told me that I never was in that position. But because that letter was torn in pieces the Commissioners took an unfavourable view of the matter. One of them said I had made a clean breast of it, and deserved an indemnity; but the other two refused, and kept from me my certificate. The matter was talked about in the House and made public, and the Chief Commissioner, who is now one of the Judges of the land, said that, in his opinion, I had earned my certificate. After seven years of endurance I come before the House to state what I believe to be the truth. It is not for me to throw dirt upon my own party, but under certain circumstances I must say I was victimised. I do not wish to blame the agents. We know what they are when we have had experience of them. I had not before that time had that experience. I have now had better experience of them, and I took precautions at the last election which saved my election, and I will take the same precautions at every future election. My agent told me on the election in question that he was not a monied man, and that he wanted a sum of money to conduct the election. He told me about the number of watchers, clerks, and people about the place who would be required, and I arranged to supply the money. This is the letter I wrote—

"My dear Edmund,—I was glad to see your kind note this morning with good wishes for the election at Wakefield. I am obliged to find some money for ways and means immediately, and rather than draw the money out of the bank, where there are some clerks who might talk"—

There were two clerks who voted for the hon. Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay), who, at his first election, was returned for Wakefield. These clerks were Conservatives, and I did not wish them to know what was going on upon the Liberal side of the question. I respect these men, but I knew their opinions, and how they had recorded their votes for the hon. Member for Stamford when he came forward at Wakefield. The letter goes on to say—

"I have been thinking that you would not mind my asking you (that is O. G. and Co.) to lend me £1,000 for a short time, so as not to be known at Leatham, Tew, and Co's. If you see no Objection to meet my wishes I would thank you to send the money in four divisions, in registered covers, waiting the acknowledgment of each packet, in small Bank of England notes (£5, £10, and £20), to Joseph Wainwright, Esq., Solicitor, Wakefield."

Let me say, having been a banker, that no man in his senses going to commit bribery would have sent for Bank of England notes, for every Bank of England note sent into Yorkshire is endorsed, and can be followed into every part of the country. There was clearly no intention at that moment to commit bribery. The letter goes on—

"This money is wanted for legitimate purposes, as my agent is not a monied man, as well as for"—

There the letter is torn in two, but it went on—

"payments to watchers and runners, of a somewhat doubtful character."

Mr. Gurney had no recollection of what followed. That is the whole of the matter, and I now leave it with the House. Before I sit down, let me say that the proof of the truthfulness of my examination before the Commissioners came out at the trial at York, and every word I said was proved to be as true as it possibly could be. If a Gentleman can go before Commissioners and be examined to the extent of 260 questions, and when the statements made by him on such examination are proved to be true before a legally authorized tribunal, no Gentleman has a right to taunt him with untruthfulness. There was a prejudice—an immense prejudice—against me. I have no business to defend what went on at Wakefield; I am not here to throw stones at others; but I think that after all this persecution it is rather hard that the House should come to a Resolution that every Gentleman who has been convicted of bribery before a Commission or a Committee of this House shall be removed from the commission of the peace. I thank the House for the kindness with which it has received this explanation. I thought it my duty to make this candid and free statement, and to leave it with the House, and I trust that hon. Gentlemen opposite will look with a little more charity on the acts of those who sit on this side of the House.

, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he would not trespass long on the attention of the House—the subject had been so fully and so frequently discussed in that House, and the arguments on both sides had been so frequently repeated, that he would only make a few observations on the present position of the question. He had been accused, on the one hand, of omitting to press his measure through all its stages last Session, and on the other hand of showing an excess of zeal in bringing forward the same measure again this Session. After the intimation given last year by the right hon. Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) as to his intention to introduce other Amendments, or a substantive measure of his own, the next stage of the Bill was postponed to enable him to do so; and therefore, after last year's debate on the subject, it was of great importance that he (Mr. Hardcastle) should introduce his Bill again at as early a period as possible this Session. Since the debates of last year the occupants of the opposite Benches had changed places. Last Session some of the right hon. Gentlemen who then sat on the Opposition side of the House—he might mention two of them; the present Secretary of State for War and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—expressed their views that this question was one of such a character as ought to be taken in hand by the Government, and that it was beyond the strength of any private Member to carry. These Gentlemen were now sitting on the Ministerial Benches, and he thought it but right that they should in office have the opportunity of expressing their opinions upon the subject, and of introducing a measure if they liked; a course from which they would not be deterred (if they might be judged from their conduct on other questions) by the fact that some Members of the Cabinet entertained diametrically opposite views to the rest. In most great controversies—and this, which had lasted for more than a generation, and which had occupied so much attention, might fairly be considered a great controversy—in most great controversies there was a certain tendency on the part of the disputants to shift the ground which they at first occupied. In the old days of church rate martyrs—Thorogood and others—what was most heard on one side was the argument based on conscience, and on the other the assertion that common honesty required the payment of church rates so long as they remained the law of the land. By degrees the question assumed greater prominence, while the well-known Braintree case was dragging its slow length through the courts. About the time of the close of that case, when the House of Lords had finally declared how the law stood, a Committee sat in another place and took evidence which again tended to alter very much the line of argument pursued by those who defended the church rate. The opponents of the rate were told that they had ulterior objects in view—that they did not care so much to abolish the church rate as to destroy a much more important institution, the Church of England. That was the stock argument up to the debate of last year, when some remarkable speeches were made, and one in particular, by an hon. Gentleman who, he regretted to say, was no longer a Member of that House (Mr. Morley), but who he hoped before long to see again amongst them. They seemed then to have reached the last stage of the argument; and the chief remaining difficulty appeared to be how to provide for the maintenance of the fabric and services of the Church. Since that time it appeared to him that there was a feeling on the other (the Ministerial) side of the house to consult amongst themselves and with those on this side as to the best means of providing for those objects. The question was therefore no longer a mere attack on the church rate on the one side, or of defence on the other. They had had many schemes of compromise suggested, but he believed they had all now been abandoned. They had long passed the time when such proposals would be made as that the expenses of the Church should be paid out of the Land Tax or the Consolidated Fund, or out of the improved value of ecclesiastical property. We had had at all times proposals for exemptions—proposals to exempt Dissenters as such, and persons who had conscientious scruples as such, as well as those who gave notice of their desire or intention not to pay the rate. There had also been a suggestion that no compulsory church rate should be applied to any purpose except that of the repair of the fabric, and the question seemed to have been narrowed almost to that. At present somewhere between £50,000 and £60,000 was expended yearly for the repair of the fabrics of our churches—he believed the exact amount was £59,000—and the proportion of that which was raised by church rates was probably between £35,000 and £40,000. He would simply ask, could not the raising of that small sum, which stopped the way, be left to be raised by that voluntary munificence which had never failed when appealed to? There was one consideration which he thought would weigh strongly with hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that was the argument that if they abolished church rates altogether, a very heavy charge would be thrown upon the working clergy in some small parishes in the kingdom. They were by no means an overpaid body, and their expenses had been greatly increased during the last twenty years by the increased price of consumable articles. He wished to state that objection strongly, because it had some weight, and he did not know that anything was lost by stating objections strongly. But there was something to be said on the other side. The heavy charge falling upon the clergy would be only a temporary one, and would apply only to the present holders, and any man who, after the abolition of church rates, should accept a living would be fully aware at the time of the effect of what he did. Again, the hardship would only exist in a very limited number of parishes, the populations of which were very poor, and where there were few or no resident gentry. He believed that if a clergymen lived in the affections of his people, as he ought to do, he would find no difficulty in raising the comparatively small sum necessary for the repair of his church. The Nonconformist body not only defrayed the expenses of their places of worship, but also maintained their ministers. This was even done by the Primitive Methodists, who consisted almost entirely of the poorest classes; and he did not believe that the Church of England would find any difficulty in doing what had been constantly done, for a series of years, by her poorer neighbours. If this Bill passed the second reading Amendments would have to be considered when it came, as he trusted it would do, before Committee. His (Mr. Hardcastle's) position now was different from his position last year. There was a reason last year for delay; now there was every reason to press the matter forward as quickly as possible. He should therefore, if the Bill was read a second time to-day, endeavour that its future stages should not long be delayed. He would strongly urge upon the House to pass—in this which might probably be the last Session of the last middle-class Parliaments—an Act which would do away with great irritation, and he trusted that they would do so by so large a majority as would not only justify, but almost enforce upon those in "another place" the propriety of agreeing to this measure. The hon. Member concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time.

, in seconding the Motion, said, he did not intend to enter into the great question of church rates, which had been debated over and over again; but he confessed to a great feeling of disappointment at finding that the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Beresford Hope) had upon the paper an Amendment that the Bill should be read a second time that day six months. He had thought that the hon. Gentleman was a party last year to an arrangement which would have superseded the necessity for any further controversy. The Dissenters were desirous that this question should be settled; but, as a mere party man, he himself should be desirous to keep it alive, for it was really a very convenient question, and it was not without a pang that he should part with it. Nevertheless, he felt at the time that he would be quite willing to accept the compromise which he understood to be assented to by the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent last year. It was a question of the clearest justice. The compromise proposed last year by the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) contained three principles—first, the abolition of compulsory church rates; secondly, power given to members of the Church voluntarily to assess themselves, and to collect the rate through the agency of the churchwardens; and thirdly, that Nonconformists and others who objected to church rates, and refused to contribute towards them, should have no share in the administration of the funds thus raised for the support of the fabric or the celebration of Divine worship in the Church. The Dissenters, who at present had a right, being parishioners, to attend the vestry and vote, were quite willing to make that concession and give up that right. They had no moral right to interfere with the affairs of the Church, and it would be an impertinence upon their part if they, after the unconditional abolition of church rates, attempted to do so. So long as other people respected his rights, he wished to respect theirs. He should be glad to hear how the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent could explain what certainly seemed to be an inconsistency in his conduct—namely, how it was that he could no longer support the compromise into which he was willing to enter last Session. He thought that if the hon. Member objected to the Bill brought in by his hon. Friend (Mr. Hardcastle) the least he could do would be to bring in one himself. The Dissenters were at least half the population of the kingdom; they supported with liberality their own system of religious worship, and they did not feel that the Church was justified in calling upon them to contribute towards its support. The general question of church rates, however, had been so often debated that he would not make another observation upon it; but, seeing the Bill of last year, although read a second time, was not carried, end that to that Bill, which was one for the abolition of compulsory church rates, the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent had given his assent as a fair compromise, he hoped that he would not now stand in the way of the settlement of the question proposed by this Bill;—because he assured him that if compulsory church rates should be abolished Dissenters would not interpose any obstacle to the adoption of arrangements between the Church and its supporters which did not compromise the rights of Nonconformists. The hon. Member concluded by seconding the Motion.

acknowledged with gratitude the candour and evident sincerity of the appeal made to him by the hon. Member for Leeds, and his answer to that appeal should be a very simple one. As far as he understood his own position, he stood precisely where he did when he made some remarks last year following the speech of the right hon. Member for South Lancashire on the then second reading of the present measure, and any approval which he gave to that speech he was prepared to give now. The scheme to which he expressed his readiness to assent last year was now embodied in the Bill for the Regulation of Church Rates, brought in by his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and himself, and which stood for its second reading that day. He was bound to say that the Bill of his right hon. Friend the Member for South Lancashire, in the formal shape in which it appeared, fell short of what he (Mr. Beresford Hope) had hoped it would have turned out from the speech of its author. Some considerable time elapsed between the delivery of that speech last Session and the introduction of the Bill which was the fruit of it, and in the interim the right hon. Gentleman showed his measure to several Members on that side of the House, including the one now addressing it, who were Churchmen like himself, and they candidly told him where they thought the Bill defective, and indicated the points in which they believed it failed to effect a full and satisfactory settlement of the question. Accordingly, when the measure was introduced last year, those Churchmen in that House who were honestly desirous of a settlement or a compromise which would let off on the easiest terms possible those who had conscientious objections to church rates, and yet preserve church rates, placed their views on the table of the House in the form of a Bill which was brought in by the present Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, and on which his name also appeared. Being still in favour of a compromise, but not satisfied with the right hon. Member for South Lancashire's mode of effecting it, he gave his adhesion to the Bill of Sir William Bovill. The present Bill of the hon. Member for Buckingham proceeded on the same principle as Sir William Bovill's, though it was longer and contained more businesslike details than that rather hastily prepared measure. He trusted that explanation exonerated him from any charge of inconsistency. He had for many years past differed from those of his friends who were in favour of a no-surrender policy on that matter, and had frequently been the subject of severe remark from strong advocates of that view; and however necessary he felt it was to maintain church rates as an existing impost, he thought there was an equal necessity for fairly meeting the views of those who had conscientious scruples against paying them. The Bill brought in by the right hon. Member for South Lancashire last year proposed to sweep away church rates, but went on to leave those persons who liked to meet together and voluntary assess themselves; and for the concession made to the Dissenters the Dissenters were to make the countervailing concession that the money thus raised should be disposed of only by those who paid it. Now, he thanked the hon. Member for Leeds for the candid way in which he had spoken on the latter point; and he trusted that in dealing with that question, whether they were Nonconformists or Churchmen, they would, as religious men and not as partisans, try to find points of agreement rather than of difference between them. But the Bill of the right hon. Member for South Lancashire was seriously defective, because, while it enabled Churchmen to meet together and assess themselves—a provision of which it might be said was only the enabling people to do what they had the full power of doing without Act of Parliament—yet if a man once agreed to pay, and afterwards harked back from it, it contained no provision to compel him to pay that which he promised. Yet the assessment all round would have been based on the supposition that he intended to advance his promised quota, without which the church would either go unrepaired or an additional burden would be thrown on the honest portion of the vestry. That was preposterous, for the payment in that case was not a question of conscience, but one of common honour and honesty. He did not wish to compel a man to pay against his conscientious opinion, but he said that if a man made a bargain he ought to be kept to it. He appealed to hon. Gentlemen opposite whether they did not prejudice the cause of civil and religious liberty if, while attempting to relieve those who conscientiously objected to church rates, they prevented honest Churchmen from having a remedy in their own hands against their dishonest brethren. That was one not to promote religious liberty, but to facilitate fraud. Therefore he could not support a measure which would let off shuffling and dishonest Churchmen. He could not help feeling that proposals like the present for the abolition of church rates pure and simple only drove the amicable settlement of that controversy further off, and tended to discourage those who sincerely desired that it might not be fought out to the bitter end. It should not be forgotten that if there were susceptibility, honour, and conscience among Dissenters, so also these feelings existed among Churchmen; and if the latter saw the abolition of an ancient impost mainly resting on and very convenient to them, though it might be inconvenient to Nonconformists, pertinaciously pressed year after year as a necessity antecedent to a compromise, they would look on those who acted in that manner not so much as well-wishers to Nonconformity as evil-wishers to the Church. Any such feeling would tend to make the amicable adjustment of that question impossible. No doubt, in a town like Leeds, through the zeal of that distinguished man the present Dean of Chichester, and his no less worthy successor, Dr. Atlay, the good work of the Church of England might be sustained without the aid of church rates. But every clergyman was not a Dr. Hook or a Dr. Atlay; and in many less populous parts of the country, where all the wealth, the industry, and the intelligence which existed in places like Leeds were absent, that impost was greatly wanted. It was a remarkable circumstance that, while many advanced politicians were becoming the advocates of compulsory education rate (among whom he might by the way state he did not range himself, in regarding as he did the strength of denominational zeal for religion which made general secular education impossible as one of the safeguards of the land) yet they would not admit the necessity of a compulsory church rate upon Churchmen. He did not profess, as some conceived themselves able to do, to trace back the origin of church rates to Saxon days. It was enough for him that the arrangement had existed for centuries, and was part of the Reformation settlement. As an historical fact, the Church was the tenant in possession, and had been in possession for centuries before Nonconformity even existed. At first Nonconformity was prohibited. In later and wiser days, beginning from the Act of Toleration, its privileges were further and further confirmed till at length it was raised to a position of such perfect equality and consideration on the part of the government and law of this country, and in having risen to so much opulence, that it was hardly an exaggeration to say that Nonconformity had become the second Established Church of England. But that was surely no reason why they ought to abolish church rates as far as they concerned Churchmen. The position of the Church of England might, indeed, be considered unique; for where could they see in any other part of the world the spectacle of an Established Church existing with great privileges and position, and alongside of it perfect civil and religious liberty? Anywhere else the establishment relied on the secular arm, or else there was no establishment at all. But he looked on this anomaly as a distinguishing advantage, although possibly indefensible by the strict rules of political logic. It was, however, a marked peculiarity of British institutions that the people generally gave the preference to practical common sense rather than to rigorous logic. The scheme which he had always upheld would relieve from the payment of church rates those who objected to the tax, but promote its continuance in those cases where no feeling of opposition existed; and in such cases there was no reason why, while it afforded protection to Dissenters, the Church should find itself deprived of the protection of the law for the recovery of the rates from those who had agreed to pay them. A good deal had been said with respect to what had been called the "ticketing" of members of nonconforming denominations. In his opinion, the objection offered on that ground to the adoption of a fair and moderate compromise on the church rate question partook much more of the character of a sneer than of an argument. There was no man in this country who was not ticketed in some way or other—every Member of Parliament, every deputy lieutenant, every graduate, was ticketed; every man who made himself prominent in any church, or Dissenting society thereby ticketed himself. No one could apply for the suffrage, or any other right in this country, without "ticketing" himself in some way or other, and it was time that they should cease to employ such a pitiful epithet for the purpose of serious discussion—until they did so the question would never be rightly settled. Then his hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmund's fell back upon what he must take leave to term the argumentum ad invidiam—why should Churchmen refuse to keep up their churches when the Nonconformists could always do so? But they might just as well say why should one man be richer than another when a man who was poorer could pay his way. As to another argument of his hon. Friend—that the alleged hardship on the clergyman of having to find out of his income money to keep up the church which might now be supplied by the rate was only one upon life-tenants, as the next incumbents would take their livings with their eyes open to the loss—all he had to say was that this was the advocacy of mere and absolute confiscation. The question to which he returned was, what grievance there could be if Nonconformists were not asked to contribute to the rate, in making it compulsory upon those who had agreed to pay it. If there were any grievance to Dissenters in that let them point it out; but he must say he thought that they would have a difficulty in doing so. lf, however, all fair and reasonable terms of compromise were unhappily rejected by the advocates of the unconditional repeal of church rates, the Church would go forth to the conflict, cruelly indeed despoiled, but conscious of her own integrity, conscious that she had done all that Christian charity required her to do for the sake of peace and conciliation, and confident in the strength of her Divine Founder, to fulfil her sacred mission. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the Bill be read the second time that day six months.

, in seconding the Amendment, said, he was disposed to view the question more particularly in its connection with the rural districts. There were a large number of poor rural parishes where, for a very long time past, church rates had been collected without any opposition or agitation, and in which it was productive of a great amount of direct and indirect benefit. He would take the case of a village with which he was acquainted as an illustration of what would occur in a vast number of those places if church rates were abolished. In that village there was collected annually, in the shape of church rate, about £50, and out of that sum was defrayed the whole expense of the church services. But there was also an offertory collection made on each Sunday, which realized another sum of about £50, and the whole amount was distributed among the rural poor, among the sick, the aged, young orphans, and other destitute persons. That distribution was effected by means of the parochial clergy. From their personal knowledge of the people those gentlemen were peculiarly well qualified for the performance of such a duty, and the sum was, upon the whole, most judiciously expended; it was a source of great advantage to the poor; it relieved a large amount of misery which the Poor Law did not touch—it softened and alleviated many sorrows and afflictions in life which, perhaps, no other means could reach—and it saved many persons from the necessity of entering the workhouse during periods of temporary distress. But if the church rate in that parish were abruptly and suddenly abolished, it was clear that the first charge on the offertory collection must be the maintenance of the church services. In that case, if, by means of voluntary contributions and increased exertions on the part of the clergyman, the amount of the offertory collection was largely augmented, it was possible that these destitute people might not suffer. But if, as was far more likely, the amount raised at the offertory was not sufficiently increased, it was obvious that the poor would be the first to suffer from the abolition of church rates. It might be said that it was for churchmen to meet the requirements of the case by additional liberality; but he asked those who had experience on these subjects whether it was not a difficult thing to induce the public to add to the amount of their regular and constant contributions. He should further say that he regarded it as one of the misfortunes of the Church of England that its members were not properly educated in the habit of giving. He believed that in that respect the Dissenters were much in advance of Churchmen, and that fact was peculiarly visible in the operations of the members of the two denominations in the colonies. Now, if the voluntary contributions were not largely increased in such parishes as those to which he had referred, the people which would lose most by the abolition of church rates would be the rural poor, and there was no class whose interests they were bound to consider more attentively than those of the rural poor. That class was not represented in that House, and had no political influence; but for that reason he believed its case always received generous consideration from them. Under that Bill the relief of the rural poor would be the second, instead of the first, charge upon the voluntary collection in such villages as that to which he had referred; and he appealed to the House whether the condition of that class was such that any injury, however slight, ought to be inflicted on their interests. If for that reason alone, he must oppose any Bill for the abolition of church rates which would inflict such injury; and therefore he cordially seconded the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent.

said, that the subject of church rates had been so repeatedly discussed in that House, and the opinion of the House had been so frequently expressed on the principle of their abolition, that it was difficult to find anything new to say on the question; and he should certainly occupy the attention of the House for a very few moments. But before he proceeded any further to deal with the general question, he must make a remark upon the state of the Treasury Bench. That discussion, which was one of great importance, had now been going on for a considerable time in the absence of any single occupant of that Bench, except an hon. and gallant General (General Forester), who held an office in the Royal Household. [At this moment Mr. WALPOLE and Mr. ADDERLEY entered and took their seats.] He was only sorry that the two right hon. Gentlemen who had just entered had not been present to hear the speeches which had already been delivered, and in the course of which some statements were made that might have influenced the decision of the Government. He hoped that this was not one of those subjects on which the House would be left to express an opinion without hearing any opinion from Her Majesty's Government. He should regret to be driven to the conclusion at which he understood the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Beresford Hope), who had moved the Amendment, had arrived—namely, that they were now in a less favourable position than at the close of last Session in regard to the satisfactory settlement of this question. Towards the close of last Session he thought a general hope was entertained that an arrangement might be come to which would be acceptable to all parties concerned. The Bill of his right hon. Friend the Member for South Lancashire was not now before the House; but it was read the second time before the close of last Session, and there was a very general expression of opinion that it contained the germ at least of a settlement which might remove that subject from the field of repeated annual discussion. They had not therefore before them the Bill to which the hon. Member for Stoke addressed a considerable part of his speech; but if he correctly understood the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines), his hon. Friend was now prepared, although seconding the Motion for the second reading of the present Bill, to agree to the proposal made last year, which would, in fact, have abolished compulsory church rates, subject to certain provisions for preventing persons who had not paid those rates from taking part in the administration of the funds raised by that impost. The principle of that Bill was one to which he cordially assented; although he thought the details of the Bill, if it were again presented to the House, would require some modification. He was prepared to admit, with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Gorst), that it might be inexpedient and harsh in many instances to abolish a rate levied with the general assent of the inhabitants of a parish, and applied to the useful purposes which had been mentioned, and he regretted that the present Bill was not limited to the abolition of a compulsory rate. Notice, however, had been given of Amendments in that sense, and the provisions which might be necessary to give effect to the views of the hon. Gentleman in that respect might very well be discussed in Committee. He should cordially support the second reading of the Bill, reserving to himself the right to vote for any Amendment afterwards which might be proposed with the object of bringing about a compromise which might make the measure more generally acceptable. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Gorst), he might add, had expressed his regret that members of the Church of England were not so well educated as Dissenters in the principle of voluntary contributions; but surely, if that opinion were correct, it furnished an argument in favour of the second reading of the Bill, inasmuch as the inference was that the abolition of compulsory rates would supply that defect, and, by stimulating voluntary exertions, recommend itself to the hon. Gentleman's approval.

said, he should not enter at length into the history of the question, or the arguments as applicable to the continuance of church rates, but rather confine himself to the actual condition in which the question now stood. He thought they had much to congratulate themselves on the tone with which the question of church rates was now dealt with in that House. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines) had expressed his readiness to meet the susceptibility, if such it could be said to be, of certain Churchmen with regard to certain concessions which were discussed last year. The friends of the Church had prepared a Bill which they thought would meet the case in the best manner; but the House was asked to anticipate it by affirming the principle of this Bill. He was not then going to assume that his hon. Friends were right; but he had a right to ask that the House might be allowed to consider their propositions before the House was called upon to take a decided step in a contrary direction by the second reading of this Bill, which was in favour of the absolute and unconditional abolition of church rates. If they affirmed the principle of this Bill, it would appear as if they were acting somewhat inconsistently to immediately afterwards consider the provisions of a Bill of an entirely different character. The present state of the law, he might add, already established a sort of compromise, which it might or might not be desirable for the Legislature to put on a clearer and better footing; but it was no answer to anticipate a legal arrangement of this compromise by the direct affirmation that they would first put an end to the whole thing, and then afterwards be willing to listen to a compromise. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury (Mr. Hardcastle) declined to postpone, under the circumstances, the consideration of the Bill for a month, but he had elected to take issue upon whether the rate should or should not be absolutely abolished; and therefore he(Sir William Heathcote) should vote for the Amendment.

said, that if this rate could be divested of its national and religious importance, he, as a tenant farmer, should say that it was more of a landlord's than a tenant's question. The tenants took their land subject to the payment of church rates, and although they were glad to get rid of rates and taxes whenever they could, they had no right to shirk this responsibility which they had engaged to pay. He had purchased land subject to the payment of church rates, and he did not think that he was justified in getting rid of that burden unless some substitute was provided. As an independent Member, he heartily wished to see this question settled; and he submitted to the House whether it would not be possible to read a second time the three Bills that had been introduced with reference to church rates, and then refer them to a Select Committee, by which means they might arrive at some legitimate and equitable compromise.

said, that the national and religious importance of the question no doubt greatly added to their embarrassment in dealing with it; and another great difficulty was that a number of persons would be sorry to see it settled because it would be so much loss to them of political capital. As a member of the Church of England, he could not assent to the total and unconditional abolition of church rates. He could not disguise from himself the fact—and in expressing it he knew he was treading on very tender round, and was pulling a hornets' nest about his ears—that the declamations of the Free Church party had imported a great difficulty into the settlement of this question. Churches must be repaired, and were it not for church rates the churches in London would collapse. He thought also that the question of pew-rents, introduced by the Free Church party, had greatly embarrassed the subject. He admitted that the direct payment to the church for seats ought to be coupled with the strongest conditions as to the number and character of free sittings to be reserved, so as to avoid invidious distinctions. It was possible to prescribe the conditions on which the public should subscribe their money. What he most feared for was the actual repairs of the church. The voluntary principle was more or less a sensational one, and the clergymen found it was more easy to rebuild or restore a church than it was to get persons to contribute a small annual sum for its repair, because there was nothing picturesque about the ordinary repairs of a church. He thought that under proper regulations the payment of pew-rents, or an assessment for that purpose, with the preference of occupation in the church, would in a measure meet the difficulty. He was ready to come to some reasonable settlement of the question, but he could not agree to the entire and total abolition of the rate.

asked why—as the hon. Member for East Norfolk had said the maintenance of the Church was a charge upon lend—the landlords did not take the burden of repairing the church on themselves, and let their lands free of church rates? That would satisfactorily settle the question. He had been unable to find that any real or practical grievance would arise from the abolition of the rate. The late Mr. Divett, the Member for Exeter, brought in a Bill thirty-three years ago for the abolition of church rate, and ever since that time there had been a constant agitation against it, and every new church that was built produced fresh opposition to the rate. It was remarkable that during all that time there was not an instance where a church had fallen into decay and had not been repaired. Where churches had been rebuilt or restored by voluntary contributions it had been done in a more elegant and elaborate manner than was the case previously, and the churches generally were in good repair. It was useless to say that the Church would suffer from the abolition of the rate. The landlords should voluntarily pay the rate, and let their lands accordingly. It was a libel on the members of the Church to say that nothing but a compulsory rate would compel them to keep the fabric in repair Dissenters ought not to be called on to pay the rate, and the Bill of the right hon. Member for South Lancashire was as unsatisfactory as other Bills for settling the question had been. The hundreds of thousands subscribed by Churchmen for the rebuilding and restoration of churches in the last thirty years showed that there was no difficulty in the way of their maintenance. He hoped the House would do an act of justice to those who were not Churchmen by passing the second reading of the Bill.

said, that allusion had been made in the earlier part of the discussion by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) to the absence from the House on the present occasion of all Members of the Government. None were more averse to the total and immediate abolition of church rates than Her Majesty's Government; but it might happen that on Wednesday afternoons the Government had to attend important duties in "another place." The late Government were invariably absent from the House on Wednesdays during part of the day; and if a Cabinet Council were held at two or three o'clock, before Ministers could arrive in the House, the important part of a debate had generally arrived. They had therefore thought it better to hold the Cabinet early, and to come to the House immediately afterwards. He felt a difficulty in discussing this Bill. He could quite understand that, on the question of the total and immediate abolition of church rates, the House should come to a distinct and positive issue; and if that were the only legitimate issue, the Government had a decided objection to a total and immediate abolition. But the mixing up of questions of compromise with that of total abolition confused the subject. If the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. Hardcastle) did not press the second reading of his Bill, this and the other Bills might be referred to a Select Committee, and a settlement thus be attempted; but after a vote in favour of total abolition, it would be absurd to consider the question of compromise. He could not understand how the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth could year after year give his countenance to a mode of proceeding which rendered compromise impossible, and which tended more to confuse and obstruct time settlement of the question than almost any other he could conceive. An hon. Member (Mr. Remington Mills) had said that for thirty-four years the question of the abolition of church rates had been agitated more or less in the country and debated in the House of Commons. There had certainly been no abolition of church rates during that period; and he denied that in that interval the feeling in the country had gained ground in favour of abolition. Every year Returns were published of the parishes in which church rates were levied; and year after year it appeared that church rates were levied and collected in an increasing number of parishes, and the sum total raised by the rates was on the increase. What, then, was the meaning of the statement that church rates were becoming more and more unpopular? He maintained that there was less and less difficulty experienced in the collection of church rates; and that year after year they became a more valuable and more reliable source of Church revenue. District churches had been referred to. Years ago district churches might have felt church rates to be a grievance; but since the Duke of Marlborough's Act and the decisions upon it, in a course of years that difficulty had vanished. When a compromise was talked of, it should be remembered that a compromise was like a quarrel—it required two parties to it. Now, on that (the Ministerial) side of the House Bills and Resolutions had been introduced with a view of settling the question on an equitable basis; but these proposals had been invariably resisted by hon. Gentlemen opposite representing what he might call the Dissenting interest. If the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. Hardcastle), as the accredited organ of that interest, retreated from his position, and the Dissenters would consent to some compromise, then there might be some hope for the various proposals under the consideration of the House. But the hon. Member (Mr. Remington Mills) had told the House that the measure of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire last year, rejected as it was with singular unanimity by Churchmen, was regarded with no favour at all by the Dissenters, The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth admitted that that measure of last year would require great alteration. [Sir GEORGE GREY: Modification.] At all events, he (Lord John Manners) objected to the Government being called upon to express an opinion upon a question which put all compromise out of court altogether. So long as this Bill for the total and immediate abolition of church rates remained in the way, the Government had but one course to pursue, and that was to vote for the rejection of a measure from the principle of which they heartily and entirely dissented.

supported the Bill, because he, as a Churchman, thought there was sufficient energy among the members of the Church to keep up its fabric without the aid of church rates. Church rates in large towns might be said to have vanished; only in the small parishes were they retained; and he believed that in the smaller parishes where church rates had been abolished the churches were not out of repair, and that a large amount of voluntary contribution was obtained for their maintenance. He could not admit the statement that Churchmen were not so well educated in the voluntary principle as Dissenters; for a very large amount of money had been subscribed by Churchmen for the erection of new churches, and he believed that a fund for their repair was also provided by voluntary contributions. Only recently the Bishop of Manchester, in laying the foundation-stone of a new church in Lancashire, referred to the work which had been effected by voluntary contributions, stating that in the course of the nineteen years of his episcopal ministration he had consecrated 100 churches, and that probably he would be called on in the present year to consecrate seventeen more. The whole of these churches had been, he believed, provided for by voluntary contributions, and more than £1,000,000 had been raised for the purpose. He had therefore confidence in the earnestness and zeal of Churchmen, who, he was sure, would support their parish church, though the compulsory power of raising a rate were abolished.

said, he was prepared to disclaim and condemn any legislation on this subject which was at variance with the principles of civil and religious liberty. What was the position of the church rate case? The country was now divided into two portions, in this way:—There was the minority of parishes, with a majority of population, collected in the great seats of commerce and industry, and containing a great many Dissenters from the Church, which had negatived the principle of church rates; and there was the majority of parishes with a minority of population, who exercised their privilege of rating for church rates. The principle of rating was an old constitutional principle in this country, and the levying a rate was the act of the majority, in which the minority were bound to acquiesce. He looked on rating as a great evidence of civilization, as a principle by which society raised itself out of the anarchy of savage life, and put upon every man a burden according to his power. Why, the principle of rating had been carried so far that there was actually a library rate, to defray the cost of books for the use of the working classes. It was the majority which ruled the minority with regard to the library rate, and why should that principle be tabooed when applied to church rates? The voluntary principle had been extolled as all-sufficient. But in what cases had it been successful. People were willing to make great sacrifices for the building of churches, because they had a great sympathy with the object, and felt that the successful erection of the structure would be identified with their own efforts. They saw the results. But they would not be so ready to make yearly payments for a purpose which produced no immediately visible results, and excited no especial interest or sympathy on their part. It would be absurd to propose to provide for the Consolidated Fund of the country on the voluntary principle; but if that was absurd he should like to be told where it was that the absurdity stopped in respect of raising funds by voluntary means. The hon. Proposer of the present Bill had said that he brought forward the measure with the view of allaying irritation. Whose irritation did the hon. Member allude to? Was it the irritation of the 8,500 parishes which paid church rates, or of the 1,500 parishes which were emancipated from the payment of the rate? This was a question in respect to which he thought that those who were interested might be left to act for themselves. As had been truly said by the hon. Member for East Norfolk (Mr. Read), this was really a question of burden on property, and the occupier, when he had to pay church rates, paid proportionally less rent than another occupier, who paid no church rates. Property had always borne the burden of church rates, and the question was whether the mode of disposing the burden should be interfered with. He contended that it should not be interfered with. Where a majority in a parish decided against a rate no rate was levied; but where a majority were in favour of a rate as the most equitable and convenient mode of raising the necessary funds from those only who were willing to contribute, was it an unfair or unreasonable request that their right to tax themselves should not be interfered with? The Bill which his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Beresford Hope) and himself had laid on the table—a Bill which, while it respected the rights and liberty of Englishmen, effected the object of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds—the abolition of the compulsory payment of church rates. The measure of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire was for the abolition of what he called compulsory church rates. Now, as all church rates, leviable under the law, were compulsory, that measure necessarily implied the abolition of all church rates entirely; whereas the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent and himself intended by their Bill to retain the power of rating for those who were willing to pay church rates, but provided in the simplest way a power of exemption for those who were disinclined to pay them. He should like to ask what it was precisely that was wanted by those who opposed the present mode of levying church rates. Was it simply that they wanted to give relief from a compulsory payment of church rates, or did those who supported the Motion of the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. Hardcastle) do so for the further reason that they desired to strike a blow at the connection between Church and State? Was it their desire to remove the Church from the status she had occupied from time immemorial. If the Bill for the abolition of church rates were carried, a very severe blow would be struck, so far as it went, at the principle of Church and State. The hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines) had spoken of the large proportion of the inhabitants of England and Wales who were Dissenters; but any assertion that the Dissenters formed a majority of the population was in entire defiance of all statistics. He was aware that there was a volume called a "Religious Census," which might seem to lend some countenance to this opinion; but its allegations were unauthorized and unofficial, and its statistics were utterly worthless. He had some years since moved for a Copy of the Instructions under the authority of which the so-called "Religious Census of 1851" was compiled, and after waiting some time he was informed by the then Secretary for the Home Department (Sir George Lewis) that no Return of such instructions could be made, for that no such instructions were ever given. On the other hand, there were Returns in existence connected with marriages, burials and workhouses, and there was a religious census of both the army and the navy; and if such documents were taken as authority, a very different conclusion would be deduced from that of the hon. Member for Leeds, and the Church would be seen to have a considerable preponderance of the population. He (Mr. Hubbard) believed that the Churchmen in England and Wales numbered between 75 and 80 per cent of the population. But this was not a question of the proportion of Churchmen and Dissenters; it was a question of simple liberty for those who wished to carry on the system of church rates in their own interest, without affecting those who differed from them, and they claimed that as one of the inherent rights of Englishmen. The noble Lord who spoke on behalf of the Government (Lord John Manners) gave the House to understand that while, on the one hand, Her Majesty's Government were prepared to resist the total and unconditional repeal of church rates, they were willing to consider the measure proposed by the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Beresford Hope) and himself, with a view of coming to a compromise. Thus the House had an advantage which they had never possessed before, for a Government had never said before that they would look at a measure proposed for the adjustment of this question with a favourable eye. This discussion did not merely involve the maintenance of the principle of self-government by the majority, which had always been respected by that House; but it involved the maintenance of the Church of England as a national Church, without the infliction of any oppression upon those who differed from her. He trusted the House would not let this opportunity of settling the question escape, but would pass over the proposition now before them with the view of coining to the consideration of a measure dictated by the most honest desire of meeting every reasonable scruple of those not connected with the Church of England. He should, therefore, offer his opposition to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.

said, he did not agree with the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. Hardcastle) that the present time offered a peculiar opportunity for settling this question, and thought that this was a question on which, of all others, they should have waited for that increased constituency which was impending over them. If there was any institution more than another which must throw itself on the support of the whole people it was the National Church. Unless the Church of England could regain some of the ground she had lost during the last 100 or 200 years she could not lay claim, with any justice, to the position of the dominant ecclesiastical establishment. The House was placed in a position of embarrassment by the way in which the question had come before them. There was the principle put forward by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) that the majority should have the right to tax the minority in these matters; but the principle that the majority had a right to bind the minority, though applicable to cases whole the majority and minority assembled for a common purpose, did not apply to such a matter as that under the consideration of the House; and, as the State had recognised the full right of any one to dissent, he maintained that if there were only one Dissenter in a parish, that Dissenter had an absolute right to be exempted from contribution to a Church to which he did not belong. Then there was the principle embodied in the Bill of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard), which asserted the right of the Church of England to tax its own members. He (Mr. Neate) should be prepared to assent to the second reading of that Bill, because beyond that there was no step till total abolition was reached. He would ask the Government why they had not come forward with a proposition for the settlement of the measure?

said, that he had never denied that the present system of church rates had great defects; but he denied that those defects were of such a nature as to render indispensable the abolition of church rates. The great defect was that the fund raised by church rates was employed for two purposes—one being the maintenance of the fabric of the Church, and the other the maintenance of the ceremonial of the Church; and the Dissenters felt it a grievance to be compelled to pay for the maintenance of a worship in which they did not share. He believed, however, that the Dissenters would willingly pay for the maintenance of the ancient fabrics of the Church, for which they manifested an interest, and had in some instances contributed largely; but it could not be expected they would contribute with any degree of willingness to the maintenance of a worship of which they did not approve. The present system, by which the rates were levied on the occupier, instead of the owner of the property, was another matter which required correction. He thought the grievance upon the Dissenter and the Roman Catholic might be very much removed if the rate, instead of being levied on the occupier, were placed to the charge of the owner of property. He did not think it would be prudent to accept any Bill which did not contain some clause, distinguishing between the maintenance of the fabric of the Church and the maintenance of the ceremonial, and he did not see any such clause in the different Bills presented to the House. To the Bill of the hon. Member for Bury he should certainly give his unqualified opposition; and he trusted that before the end of this Session some measure which would satisfy the fair and equitable claims of the Church and of Dissenters would be presented to the House.

said, that hon. Members should make up their minds whether they would maintain the church by a compulsory rate or on the voluntary principle; any attempt at a compromise between the two principles must necessarily and inevitably fail. It was difficult to understand how the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire last year could be called a compromise. It was as much a measure of abolition as the present Bill—the only conceivable reason for calling it a compromise seemed to be that it contained many elaborate provisions to the effect that people might pay a subscription to the Church if they liked. The Bill of the hon. Members for Stoke and Buckingham did not propose abolition, but only the exemption of such persons as chose to give notice of their desire to be exempted from the payment of church rates on the 1st day of January in each year. Whatever compromise of that kind might be carried would never work for the benefit of the Church. No reason need be assigned by the parties claiming exemption; and Churchmen as well as Dissenters would give notice of objection. In what position would the Church then stand? It now rested on the intelligible ground that it was the Established Church—the law recognised only one church, and imposed on all owners and occupiers a rate in proportion to their holdings. This was a position of great advantage; but this Bill once passed, that position would be entirely altered. The Church would be standing not on an ancient law imposing a rate on all owners and occupiers for the support of the establishment, in which position it is in antagonism only with Dissenters, but its attitude hereafter would be that of opposition, not only as against Dissenters, but as against Churchmen also, by giving them the means and opportunity of claiming exemption from the payment of rates for its support. How would they be able to maintain a compulsory rate in such circumstances? What was intended to break the fall of the Church from a compulsory to a voluntary system would then turn out to be the most disastrous sort of compromise, at once yielding to its foes and alienating many of its friends. Such a compromise would be far worse than simple abolition by the Bill of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. In parishes where church rates had already been abolished enthusiasm for the Church had revived—church extension had made great progress; many beautiful specimens of church architecture had been built, and there was no difficulty in maintaining them in a most excellent condition. In many of the country parishes where the rate has been continuously imposed, on the other hand, the fabrics were not generally maintained in a very creditable manner. The reason was that two or three farmers set the rate, and having to pay the greater part of it, they set it as low as possible. His belief was that if the Church would have the courage to throw itself on the enthusiastic sympathy of its friends, there would be found a plethora of wealth for maintaining and extending the Church system throughout the country. The existing law was such that its effect was to stop the liberality of Churchmen. For his own part he should prefer, what he had always advocated, a real compromise of this nature—that the maintenance of the fabric should be separated from the expenses of worship, and that the public national buildings should be supported by a rate, and the expenses of worship be defrayed by the worshippers. But he feared such a proposition was now too late.

said, he was prepared to relieve all who objected to the payment of church rates, not by their absolute abolition, but by abolishing the compulsory payment of them. He did not recommend that proposal to the house without having had some experience of its successful results. In a parish with which he was connected about fifteen years ago, there were incessant disputes yearly on the question of church rates—quarrels between neighbours and friends, between Dissenters and Churchmen. There was no peace in the parish. The incumbent, a very sensible man, was determined to put an end to that state of things. He said there should be no more compulsion, while every year there should be a rate, and it should be collected only from Churchmen who were willing to pay, leaving others alone. What was the result? Since 1855, there had been, without objection or opposition, a rate levied of from £200 to £350 a year, to which great numbers of Dissenters contributed. That parish, too, paid higher rates than any other in the diocese; the churches were kept in admirable repair, and the clergy were on the best terms with their congregation, and with the Dissenters in the parish.

was understood to say that he was prepared to abolish the compulsory charge upon persons, but not to exempt property from the liability which had been so long placed upon it. He could not, however, go beyond this, for he could not consent to put the charge, which was really now upon the land, into the pockets of the landlords; and he felt that to abolish it altogether would be inconsistent with the maintenance of the parochial system.

said, that instead of the Bill being a Bill for the abolition of compulsory church rates, it was rather a Bill for taking away from parishioners the power which they now possessed of taxing themselves for the maintenance of their parish church. The Bill in this sense interfered with self-government and with the principle that the majority should determine whether there should or should not be a church rate; in fact, it would impose upon the majority the will of the minority. It seemed to him that the provisions introduced into the Bill of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard) took away all ground of objection on the part of Dissenters; and he apprehended that upon no principle of civil or religious liberty could any one religious body claim to interfere in the government of another religious body. The mode which the Church of England had for centuries adopted of raising funds was church rates; and unless there was some injury shown to Dissenters, he ventured to claim for the Church her own mode of raising funds. He should wish to ask the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Hardcastle) in the event of church rates being repealed, what substitute would be proposed for them? The only other modes of raising money for the repair of the fabrics were pew-rents and the offertory collections. The objections against pew-rents, however, were much stronger than those against church rates. The average annual charge in the shape of pew-rents, whether in church or chapel, was about 10s. for each sitting; and if payment were made general it would exclude all the poor parishioners, or they would be put in some out of the way place where they could neither see nor hear. Pew-rents could be collected by process of law—an operation which would be extremely objectionable. At present the fabrics were the property of the whole of the parishioners, and they being the owners had the power and the duty of keeping them in repair. What would the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Hardcastle) do with the ownership of these churches? Was he prepared to confiscate them, or hand them over in perpetuity to that section of the parishioners which was attached to the Church of England? Or, on the other hand, did he expect Churchmen to be at the expense of repairing the common property of the parish? His hon. Friend appeared hardly to have considered on what footing he would leave the ownership of parish churches if church rates were violently and unconditionally abolished. Much of the animosity between Churchmen and Dissenters had died away. There was a disposition on both sides to settle this question. Mr. Morley, who he regretted had no longer a seat in that House, had delivered a speech on this subject which found favour on both sides of the House. For himself he must say they could hardly settle the question, except on the principle embodied in the Bill of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard). In his opinion the persons who were to be exempted from church rates by that Bill were not sufficiently defined; but that defect could easily be remedied. He ventured to claim for the Church her old mode of Church government and of raising fund; and he thought that if this principle were admitted, it would give to Churchmen and to Dissenters free scope to carry out their own views, and promote common Christianity in the modes they each considered best.

said, he did not wish to detain the House by going into the arguments which had been used on either side: he rose simply to make an appeal to the Government whether they would not be induced to support the second reading of this Bill. He thought that the Liberal party, and especially the Liberal Church party, had every reason to be satisfied with the progress of this question and of this debate. A very different tone had been taken to-day from that which had characterized church rate debates on previous occasions. If this was at all owing to the fact that hon. Members who used to sit on that side of the House had gone over to the other, he thought that those on his own side had every reason to congratulate themselves on the change. This was the first occasion on which they had any declaration on any question connected with the Church from the Government. He had watched them with great interest in their addresses to their constituents on their election, but hitherto they had been silent on the subject. That day, however, the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works (Lord John Manners) had addressed them as the organ of the Government on the question of church rates; and, on the whole, they had reason to be satisfied with his statement; because, although he said he should vote against the second reading of this he spoke of what he called a compromise in the most promising terms. For years and years, he said, they had been expressing a wish that there should be a compromise; and what was the compromise of the noble Lord? Exemption of Dissenters from paying this charge. Well, he trusted that was the view not only of the noble Lord, but of the whole of his Colleagues, including the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House of Commons. A few years ago that certainly was not time view of the right hon. Gentleman. He pronounced himself very clearly and distinctly on this subject. He said this—"some of our friends would go further—they would exempt the Dissenters from the charge; that is not compromise, it is surrender." He said further—"What the Dissenter would is, in fact, an oligarchical privilege." Was the right hon. Gentleman prepared now to yield that point—that which the right hon. Gentleman had formerly called a surrender? If the Government were prepared to sanction the compromise that Dissenters should not be obliged to pay the rate, they would have taken a great step in advance and proved that it was not only on the question of Reform that they had very considerable elasticity of convictions. He thought the Government might very well vote for the second reading of the Bill, and adopt the compromise contained in the clauses of which notice had been given by the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Waldegrave-Leslie). He trusted to see a compromise satisfactory to the majority of the House, and he hoped the Government would in this question repeat the example of the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, who a few Wednesdays ago, on the second reaching of a Bill also involving the principle of religious toleration, first declared that he could not support it unless certain alterations were agreed to, but though these alterations were refused, voted for the second reading nevertheless.

The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) having appealed to Her Majesty's Government as to whether they are prepared to support such a compromise as that suggested by my noble Friend the First Commissioner of Works—namely, to exempt Dissenters from the payment of church rates—the best answer I can give to the right hon. Gentleman is one which will not be simply confined to words. Eight years ago, when the Government of Lord Derby was in power, and when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, as he is now, Leader of the House, he proposed a measure in which that identical compromise, as it is called, was included; and that measure was not rejected by those hon. Members who sat on the Ministerial side of the House, but by the combined movement of those who sat on the opposite side. In reference to this question, I have only to say that Her Majesty's Government are perfectly prepared to abide by that compromise, as it is called, by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, which they themselves proposed when they were last in office. But more than that—I think that the proposition of the hon. Member for Stoke, and of the hon. Member for Buckingham, do furnish us with the means of arriving at a very effectual compromise on this question, which the House will do well to examine. But when we are asked now, as we were asked last year, to consider not any such compromise as that, but to consider whether a rate which has existed for many centuries should not be absolutely and totally abolished without any compromise whatever—then, I say, it is utterly impossible that Her Majesty's Ministers, or those who concur with them, can assent to any such proposition. When the Bill, which was nearly identical with the present one, was introduced last year by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, then the Leader of the House, in the course of the discussion upon the second reading he gave an intimation to the House—which intimation was subsequently followed up by a distinct and specific proposition—that if the compulsory abolition of church rates were not insisted upon, he would introduce a measure which would enable those who now desired to contribute to the maintenance of the fabric of the Church to obtain their object. I said then what I say now—I think that such a mode of dealing with the question would hardly give satisfaction. If a compromise of any kind be intended I think it ought to be by a distinct provision inserted in the Bill to be submitted to our consideration; because if we once assent to the second reading of a Bill without such compromise being included in its provisions, we shall be precluded afterwards in fair argument from objecting to the abolition of church rates absolutely, and it would be a more chance, after absolute abolition, whether any substitute that would be considered satisfactory will be afterwards proposed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) at the beginning of this debate took very nearly the same view on this question as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, only with this difference—the right hon. Baronet thought that certain modifications might be made in the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire last year, and, as I understood, he seemed to think that some such machinery as that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire might be introduced into the present Bill. Now my answer to the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet is this—that it would be useless going into Committee upon this Bill, with that view, inasmuch as the introduction of such machinery into it would make it an entirely new Bill, and would not be an amendment in it. Let there be no mistake about the matter. What we think is this. Here is an old customary rate which has existed for centuries, and which has enabled parishes by self-governing action to contribute towards the repairs of the fabric of the National Church. About 5 per cent of the parishes have exempted themselves by reason of the votes of the majority of their populations from the obligation of contributing to the church rates, leaving 95 per cent of them perfectly willing to contribute to the payment of those rates required for such purposes. On what grounds then—for what reason I ask—are you to do away with that which is found to be the available practical machinery of this country for preserving the fabric of our churches, when it is evident that 95 per cent of the parishes do not object to it? There may be a few parishes, or a few individuals in a parish, who have not exempted themselves from the payment of those rates, but who wish to be exempted because they do not belong to the Church. Now, if any persons really desire to be exempted, Her Majesty's Ministers will agree to any proposition to effect that object; but they cannot consent to do away with that old and legitimate charge upon property in the hands of those belonging to the Church merely because a sentimental feeling as to this payment being a grievance exists in the minds of Dissenters. For these reasons we cannot agree to the absolute abolition of church rates. We are, however, prepared to consider any measure having for its principle the throwing the burden upon the landlords instead of the occupier, or of honestly relieving persons from the obligation of contributing to the support of the fabric of a church to which they do not belong. There is not any reason, we think, why a fund established for the maintenance of the Church should be abruptly destroyed. For these reasons I certainly cannot assent to the second reading.

Sir, I wish in a brief compass to offer a few observations upon the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and then to state the course which I intend to pursue in respect to the present question. The right hon. Gentleman says that church rates ought to be considered a charge upon property and not a tax upon the person who is called upon to pay them; and yet he is willing to exempt the Dissenters from the payment of them. But does not the right hon. Gentleman see that what is really involved in the whole question is this—whether church rates are really a charge upon property? The moment you consent to exempt the Dissenter from a charge inherited with his property that moment it becomes useless to assert that church rates are a charge upon property. The right hon. Gentleman says he objects to go into Committee upon this Bill because it is an inconvenient and objectionable practice to go into Committee, not for the purpose of amending a Bill in the ordinary sense of the word, but in order to make it a new Bill. Well, I confess I very much agree with him in that view. But still there are two points to be considered. The one is the point of form, the other the point of substance. As regards the point of form there is no question; because from the simplicity of the structure of the Bill it is perfectly consistent with its principles to engraft upon it provisions to maintain the present parochial machinery without establishing the compulsory powers. In regard to the point of substance, the question is one of words, because it is this—whether the substance of the Bill does not really reside in its destroying the power of compulsory taxation. And if it resides in that effect of it, then I say it is an alteration in the Bill in respect to substance to introduce provisions into it recognising the voluntary principle. As regards myself, I will only say what my object was in the Bill of last year, and what I felt to be the duty it imposed upon me. I do not think I should have been justified in pressing upon the House a compromise, however well intended, after the House had signified its disinclination to entertain it. Last year I confess I was disappointed in the course taken not only by some Members of the Government, but by several hon. Gentlemen of weight in the House on account of their personal qualities and experience, as well as of their knowledge of this subject. Those hon. Gentlemen not only opposed the Bill which I introduced, but on several occasions they declared the measure to be worse than a Bill for the total abolition of church rates. Although that was the case, yet, on the other hand, my Bill received a considerable support from hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is true we had not the advantage of ascertaining the extent of their support in a division, because no division took place on the second reading; but certainly the circumstances attending the passing of the Bill through a second reading without a division, and the assurances of support which I received, were such as to induce me to refrain from pertinaciously pressing such a compromise upon the House as I should have felt it my duty to do if the facts were otherwise than such as I have described. I have not thought it necessary to introduce the Bill a second time to the House for this reason—that my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Waldegrave-Leslie) had placed certain Clauses on the paper which, if agreed to, will substantially effect the object which I have in view. I confess I think it desirable to support these clauses in Committee and I hope that the House will fairly consider them. The point, then, remaining in doubt between the proposition of the hon. Member for Buckingham and the clauses given notice of by my hon. Friend is, whether the compulsory power of enforcing church rates shall be retained not for the purpose of putting it in action against the unwilling parties, but against those who are willing to pay. Now, the whole head and from of our proposition is this—that besides giving up the compulsory power against those who are not willing to contribute to the fund for the maintenance of the fabric of the Church, it is also proposed to give up the compulsory power as against those who are willing to pay the church rates. That, I think, is a question deserving of consideration in Committee; and inasmuch as no disinclination has been expressed by the promoters or supporters of the present Bill to afford a fair opportunity of discussing the question in Committee, I shall certainly have no hesitation in giving my vote for the second reading.

, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said ^*: Mr. Speaker—I beg to move the second reading of this Bill, and I do so, not in contravention of the decision at which the House has just arrived, so far as it exempts all persons from personal liability to the payment of church rates. This Bill has been prepared in accordance with a Resolution which the House adopted only five years ago; for in the year 1862 after mature consideration of the whole question involved in the proposal totally to abolish church rates, this House, when 559 Members were present, came to the following Resolution by a majority of 17:—

"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 amongst 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."

Now, Sir, there are at this time three Bills before the House, but neither by the Church Rates Abolition Bill, the second reading of which the House has just sanctioned, nor by the Church Rates Regulation Bill, which stands third on the Orders of the Day, in the names of the hon. Member for Stoke and the hon. Member for Buckingham, is any substitute whatever for church rates proposed. The Church Rates Regulation Bill proposes that every person who chooses to say that he objects to pay church rates shall be exempt from liability to pay them, and that every owner of property upon which church rates have hitherto been paid shall, if he objects, exempt that property; it may be, during his life-time. It is with this second clause of the Bill that I quarrel; for, with the permission of the House, I can show upon indisputable authority that, although church rates are levied on the person, they are imposed only in respect of the occupation of that person; that is to say, the land or house which he holds. A person may live in an hotel until the year of jubilee, or the extreme age of man, and never be liable to the rate; but if he occupies any tenement then he becomes liable, and I think I can show the House beyond all dispute that this church rate is, in fact, a tax upon property. The measure I propose, thus, provides a substitute for church rate. It abolishes all personal liability; but reserves, as a substitute for the present rate, a charge upon property; not a new charge, but one to which property has always been subjected. That church rate is a tax upon property I will now proceed to show by reference to authorities upon the subject. Church rate, as we all know, is variable in amount. In some years 4d. is levied, and in some years 2d. is levied; but the average of church rate, I believe, is about 2d. in the pound. Well, in the year 1848 I moved for the appointment of a Committee, which this House was pleased to grant, to inquire into the agricultural custom of tenure prevailing in England and Wales. That Committee went county by county through all the agricultural counties of England and Wales, and took evidence as to the agreements upon which property was let; and they found that in almost every lease there was a distinct clause, which bound the tenant to pay the rates and taxes, or "outgoings," as they were termed is many cases, on account of the landlord. And wherever that clause was not inserted the evidence shows that the clause was implied, though not expressed. I should be sorry to detain the House at any length by reading the evidence on this subject; but I regret, how. ever, that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary now sanctions the proposals contained in the Bill of the hon. Member for Stoke and the hon. Member for Buckingham, to exempt the owner of property at his pleasure from a charge which has attached to that property from time immemorial, since the right hon. Gentleman has declared that he recognises church rate as a charge upon property. Yet, although the right hon. Gentleman recognises church rate as a charge upon property, he is prepared to exempt property from that charge. A tenant calculates that he will have to pay a church rate, say of 2d. in the pound; he offers a rent diminished by that amount to the landlord; but if at any time a rate of 4d. in the pound happens to be imposed, the tenant has then to pay the extra 2d. out of his own pocket. Thus the excess above the average gives a personal character to church rate. I am told that by this Bill I propose a new charge upon the land. The evidence to rebut that allegation, however, is most abundant; and, if the House will allow me, I will read a few extracts from high authorities which, I think, will be conclusive upon that point. The first authority that I will quote is that of the late Sir Robert Inglis, who, when a Bill was introduced in 1834 for the purpose of appropriating the sum of £250,000 out of the public revenue as a substitute for church rates, made the following remarks:—

"It was precisely and strictly as an element charge upon his property, as he had bought it, that a Dissenter, as well as every other man, was called upon to pay his proportion of church rates, If the amount had been raised by a poll tax then the Dissenters might have complained of being included in its operation; but he could not understand how any person, upon the principles of honesty, as between man and man, he having purchased a house or land with certain liabilities calculated in its value, could come forward and claim to be relieved from those liabilities upon the ground of holding certain opinions upon points on which he had, perhaps, changed his mind since the period of making his purchase. He thought those remarks disposed of the question of right and justice. He contended that the church rate was a tax upon property, not upon individuals, and that the Dissenters acquired their property liable to the payment."—[3 Hansard, xii. 1026.]

Then, what said the representative of the Dissenters, Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey, in the same debate? He said—

"It was well said by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford that the church rate was not less a charge upon property than tithe. This is no fallacy. The church rate affects property in the same manner as any other charge. The other day I was called upon to pay £14 for my house in Great George Street for the repair and maintenance of a neighbouring church. Now if I were to sell my house, would not the purchaser inquire after the church rates as well as the parish rates, the sewer rates, and all other charges affecting property; and, having taken them into consideration, would not the amount of them influence the price?"—[3 Hansard, xii. 1046.]

And now, with the permission of the House, I will quote the authority of the late Sir Robert Peel. He was supposed and generally admitted to be a person well conversant with the incidence of taxation. In 1837, Sir Robert Peel said—

"If to meet these necessities a sum were taken from the Consolidated Fund, it would relieve the landowners of the country from the duty of supporting the Church. Whether there should be any 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 draw a distinction between the cases of the town parishes and the rural parishes, in the latter of which the House might be assured the people did not wish to see the Church degraded—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.]

This, Sir, is precisely what the Bill before the House proposes. It proposes to abolish the personal liability of every Dissenter, and of every other man; but it also proposes to reserve as a substitute for church rates a charge upon property; and that not a new charge, but a charge upon property to which it has been liable from time immemorial. I will now shortly cite the opinion of the Poor Law Commissioners as to the incidence of this tax. In their Report of the year 1843 I find the Poor Law Commissioners saying this—

"These rates are essentially taxes upon the rent of the landlord, not taxes upon the occupier's profits. No legal declarations, no limitations of legal remedies to the poison and goods of the occupier, however much they may disguise the aspect of the tax, or make its burden operate unequally on rent, can make it fall permanently on anything but rent. For perhaps the greatest abuses which ever prevailed in the administration of the Poor Laws arose from this fact—that the tax fell, and that it was found out by the occupiers that it did fall, upon the landlord, while the administration, expenditure, and appropriation of the tax were given exclusively to the occupiers, who did not really bear the burden."

Let we now address a few words to the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield). I saw at once that it would be unjust to allow the occupiers assembled in vestry to tax the land and the owners of property, unless the Legislature assigned some limit to their action. Accordingly, in former Bills, I proposed that the amount to which the property of the landlord might become chargeable should not exceed 2d. in the pound. Well, the hon. Member for Sheffield very much astonished me on one occasion by stating that I was about to propose a charge of £800,000 or £900,000 a year upon real property by my Bill. Surely, the hon. Member must have forgotten the provisions of the Bill. Under this Bill the charge was not to tax any parish in which no church rate had been levied for seven years, or where the rate hail been refused three times ea a poll. All such parishes are to be exempt from the charge I propose to substitute for church rate; and if the House will permit me, I will show the effect of the exemptions upon the amount of the charge. In former years I made a calculation somewhat in this manner:—Taking the rateable value of property, subject to the county rate, as the guide—namely, £64,900,000—it would, for the purposes of this calculation, become necessary to deduct the value of the property in the 1,826 parishes and districts in which for seven years no church rates had been levied, which amounted to £21,014,382, which, being deducted from the former sum, left £43,885,618. Deducting, also, 13 per cent for the value of tithes and glebe lands, as not liable to church rate, and therefore not intended to be subject to the charge on 9,463 parishes and districts in which church rate is levied—this amounts to £5,705,123—there remains £38,180,495. The produce of 2d. in the pound upon this sum would give £318,162 a year. That was the calculation which I made eight years ago. But I have sought this Session to ascertain what would now be the produce of ld. in the pound. Making the same deductions from the rateable value, by taking a rough estimate of the parishes in which no church rate has been levied, and deducting the value of the tithe and glebe, which comes to about £7,000,000, by this calculation I find that the utmost amount which ld. in the pound would now produce is £201,182, say £200,000 a year in round numbers. Now, under the Bill as it stands before the House the vestry is to decide in each parish, where church rates have been habitually collected, whether the charge shall be 1d. or 2d., or an intermediate suns in the pound; and, if throughout the whole of England and Wales the vestries decide on ld. in the pound, that would amount to a charge of £200,000 in round numbers. But the present church rate amounts altogether to from £250,000 to £300,000 a year; therefore, I retain the power in the hands of the vestry to levy 2d. in the pound, where they deem it to be necessary, under the new charge to be substituted fur church rate by the Bill, and 2d. in the pound is adopted, the entire amount would exceed the £200,000 a year, which the 1d. in the pound would yield, and would approach £300,000 a year, if 2d. in the pound, instead of 1d. in the pound were adopted on half the value, liable to church rate in England and Wales, and £300,000 is about the aggregate amount of the present church rate in England and Wales. If the hon. Member for Sheffield, or any other hon. Member, will refer to the local taxation Returns, he will see under the head of church rates that there is a balance in hand each year of about £60,000. That arises from the fact that in many parishes the practice is not to have a church rate every year, but to levy a sum equal to the requirements of two years in one year, and hold the balance over; if this amount is added to the church rate, the total approaches £300,000 a year. Having in the preparation of these calculations had the kind aid of Poor Law officers, of officers connected with Queen Anne's Bounty, and of officers connected with the Ecclesiastical Commission, I beg to assure the hon. Member for Sheffield that he did me an injustice when he imagined that I was submitting to the House a proposition so extravagant as the levying of a tax of £800,000 or £900,000 in substitution for church rates. The utmost amount that would be levied under the Bill, in the first instance, after it came into operation, would be, as I have stated, between £200,000 and £400,000 a year. The object of the Bill is this—not to impose a new charge anywhere; but wherever the charge may not at first attach—that is to say, in parishes a church rate has not been levied for seven years together, to give an option with this reservation—that if the inhabitants shall hereafter determine to resume the exercise of their right to charge the property in that parish for the purpose of maintaining the fabric of the church—if three fourths of the inhabitants shall come to that decision in any parish, which is, at first, exempt under the operation of the Bill, that then the right of the inhabitants to have that which their forefathers intended them, shall be recognised by the court of quarter sessions. With the permission of the House, I will now continue the evidence in support of my assertion that church rate is a charge upon property. I have quoted the statement made by Sir Robert Peel in the debate of 1837. I have also quoted the opinion of the Poor Law Commissioners in the year 1843, and now I proceed to quote the opinion of Mr. Goulburn, who was for several years Chancellor of the Exchequer. What said Mr. Goulburn in the House in the year 1849? Mr. Goulburn said—

"Those who inherited land inherited it subject to church rates, and those who bought it purchased it at a lower price than would have been paid if church rates had not been leviable in respect of it."—[3 Hansard, ciii. 661.]

Again, in the same debate, Sir Robert Peel said—

"What was the Resolution in effect but a Resolution that the land should be relieved from this burden..… The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Page Wood) stated that both by the common law and the statute law the land had always been chargeable with a payment for the maintenance of the parish church. He said there was a distinction between tithes and church rates in several respects, but admitted that a payment from the land for the maintenance of the fabric was sanctioned by the common law; was it fitting, then, that they should exempt the land from this charge by a Resolution hastily passed by the landowners themselves?"—[Ibid. 667.]

Thus you perceive that Sir Robert Peel not only expressed the opinion himself, but cited that of Sir William Page Wood in support of the proposition that church rate is a charge upon property. In the same debate Lord John Russell, now Earl Russell, said—

"In the first place, there was no shame in levying church rates on Dissenters who bought lands, because they had bought them subject to that charge, and it vas considered in the price."—[Ibid. 674.]

But the strongest evidence of all, perhaps, on this particular point, is that which was given by Mr. Coode, a gentleman who was long employed on the Poor Law Board, and was more conversant with local taxation and the incidence of taxation upon property than almost any person living. And what did Mr. Coode say before a Committee of the House of Lords in 1861? The Question put to him was—

"Is it the case that the incidence of the church rate, though it primarily falls upon the occupier, invariably rests upon the owner in the long run?"

And Mr. Coode's answer was "invariably." He then goes on to say—

"It is not by a mere consequence—it is by an arrangement that anticipates all payment of rent whatsoever. No rent is ever set but upon the consideration of all the outgoings that the tenant will have to pay or provide for. No tenant yet in his senses ever made an agreement for rent, who did not consider, before the figure at which the rent was fixed, all these outgoings. Amongst those, and some of the most conspicuous and the most easily calculated of all, are the rates and faxes which the tenant will have to pay."

He further says—

"It is not a question whether the incidence of such rates upon the rent is a mere consequence that may attach to it, or may be avoided; it is an inevitable result, anticipated and provided for beforehand, and inextricably involved in the very fixing of the terms of the tenancy. And any merely legal device you may adopt for fixing the rate on the tenant must inevitably fail, for the more stringently you fix the occupier the more certainly will you fix him with that outgoing, which would become a necessary deduction from the rent he would otherwise pay."

And now I beg the attention of the House to what follows. Mr. Coode proceeds to say—

"I have seen in the last discussion which has taken place upon this subject in the House of Commons (referring to the debates of 1859 or 1860) an argument about the legal incidence of the rate, in which it is alleged that such and such an authority has said that the church rate charges the land, and that such another authority has said that it has not charged the land. That is merely a question as to the verbal terms in which the law may be made. You may make a rate upon the occupier or upon the owner, or say that it shall be on land 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. I feel surprised at this time of day to see a discussion which turns only upon the mere words of legal precedents, and not on the real practical and economical operation of any such imposition as all the local taxes are, church rates amongst the number."

Such evidence as this I could multiply ad infinitum. I might quote, for example, the authority of that learned Judge, Sir John Lushington, who gave evidence before the Committee of the house of Lords, and has repeated the substance of it in his judgment on the Tamworth church rate case. He is asked—

"That being the state of the case, is it the fact that the majority who refused to make the rate are still in law censurable, and liable to a penalty for not making it?"

And he replies—

"By the common law—that is to say, by immemorial usage in this country—the parishioners are bound to repair the church, and to provide everything that is necessary for the decent performance of Divine service; and, of course, they refuse to do so they are guilty of a breach of duty; but there is no penalty that I am aware of that could possibly attach upon them; and for this reason, in former days, if such a thing occurred, the fear of an interdict would have been quite sufficient to have forced a church rate—I mean in Catholic times. But perhaps your Lordships should know exactly how the matter really stands. There is no doubt as to the extreme antiquity of church rates in this country; it is impossible to say satisfactorily when they began, but in Saxon times beyond all doubt. That, however, is a controversy I shall not trouble your Lordships with; but I could point out to your Lordships where you could find it, in case it was necessary to examine it minutely. The church rate was this—a rate upon the person with respect to his ability, whether it was in land or in personal property; but in those days, there being very little personal property, if any, capable of being taxed, it was, in fact, a tax upon land in possession Of this occupier."

I am really ashamed of trespassing upon the attention of the House to such an extent with these quotations; but the evidence is so wonderfully conclusive on the point, and the authority so indisputable, that I am sure the House will forgive my doing so. In January last the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth made a speech, from which I gather that he is inclined to the opinion that church rate is not a tax upon property; and in support of that view he cited the authority of the late Lord Campbell. I can hardly imagine that the right hon. Baronet could have read the letter of Lord Campbell to Lord Stanley, now Lord Derby, whence I suppose he quoted, and which was written in the year 1837. But permit me to read to the House a passage from that letter. Lord Campbell wrote, and he wrote deliberately, in these terms—

"From the difficulty in getting at the amount of personal property, the general practice has long been to confine the church rate as well as the poor's rate to real property."

Why, Sir, Lord Campbell was much too sound a lawyer to be found differing from Sir John Lushington and the other high authorities to whom I have referred. Lord Campbell then proceeds—

"But there seems no doubt that originally personal as well as real property was subject to both, and that both were meant to impose a tax upon the parishioners, according to their substance and ability. So late as the year 1823, in the Poole case, it was decided by the High Court of Delegates that by custom a church rate may lawfully be assessed upon shipping and stock-in-trade."

As he had said, however—

"From the difficulty of getting at the amount of personal property the general practice has long been to confine the church rates, as well as the poor's rate, to real property."

The fact is that you cannot adduce the opinion of any competent lawyer, of any competent surveyor, or of any practical man in favour of the idea that church rate is not a charge upon property. And, being a charge upon property, as I believe it to be, I entreat the House not to inflict upon the class to which I belong so severe a temptation as would be implied in transferring to them that which belongs to their neighbours. I say that the proposal to give to the landowners the power of robbing their neighbours by putting into their own pockets the amount of the church rate, is placing before them a temptation of which ill-advised persons—persons who dissent from the Church of England, persons of extreme opinions, trustees for minors, and persons not having a due interest in the welfare of their successors—will not be slow to avail themselves. Besides, if you enable the owners of real property to appropriate this charge of £300,000 a year, think you that successive Chancellors of the Exchequer will be so negligent as not to reclaim this public property from them? Why, Sir, it would furnish an excuse for increasing the direct taxation on real property, of which any Chancellor of the Exchequer would be bound to avail himself. As I deprecate the idea of taking any sum from the public revenue awl giving it to the Church, so do I deprecate the idea of giving to the landowner that which belongs to his neighbours—the parishioners; because I am quite certain that the justice of the Legislature would soon vindicate itself by exacting from his property for the public service a much larger amount than he could have thus unjustly appropriated. Having disposed of that part of the subject, I will now explain the general provisions of the Bill, which I ask the House to read a second time. And first, instead of proposing 2d. in the pound absolutely as the amount of the charge to be substituted for church rate in the sense of the Resolution which was adopted by a full House in the year 1862—instead of placing it at 2d. absolutely, I propose by this Bill to give the vestry a discretion to levy, as the circumstances may necessitate, a charge of ld. or 2d. in the pound, or any intervening amount. If you refer to the last Return made to this House respecting church rates in two dioceses, you will find that in parishes where the amount of the value of the property is not above £3,000 a year, the yield of 1d. in the pound is scarcely sufficient for the purposes of the church rate; whilst in those cases where the property in a parish amounted to £7,000 or £8,000 a year, 2d. in the pound was more, perhaps, than would be required; and that 1d. in the pound upon the richer parishes would be ample for all the purposes of a church rate; and the House will bear in mind that it is to provide for the purposes of church rate that the Bill imposes the charge. When hon. Members vote for the unconditional abolition of church rates, I think that where they act as representatives of Dissenters, they are hard upon us Churchmen. Except through the vestries, we have over the services of the Church no control whatever. Now, the Dissenters are in this position. They can, if they choose, remove their ministers. They can do what they like as regards the manner in which the services in their places of worship are conducted. But once destroy the action of the vestry, and what is the consequence? Why, that you leave us, the laity of the Church, at the mercy of the clergyman. You virtually take the parish churches from us, the laity of the Church of England, to whom they have always hitherto belonged, and vest them in the clergy who are irremovable by law. This, Sir, is a very serious consideration. For I know that the total abolition of church rates is not demanded by the representatives of Dissenters only. There are extreme ritualistic clergymen who ask for the unconditional abolition of church rates for the sake of destroying the vestry; for the sake of becoming absolute masters of the Church of England; and I have by me here a pamphlet written by the Rev. Mr. Bennet of Frome. He is one of those clergymen who are so spiritually proud that he has in plain terms declared that he esteems it unworthy of his position as a clergyman to preside at a vestry meeting. Well, he advocates the abolition of church rates in the sense of the Bill which has just been read a second time. And why does he do so? Because he wants to have sole possession of the parish church, and to oust the vestry altogether. Sir, I claim on the part of the laity of the Church of England that that which Mr. Bennet himself admits to have been our duty and our right from time immemorial—from Saxon times—I mean the duty to maintain the fabric of the Church, and the right, according to law, to regulate the services of the Church, shall not be taken from us. If any hon. Member will take the trouble to look into Burns' Ecclesiastical Law, he will there find that the law of the Church Catholic, of the Church generally, especially the Roman Catholic portion of the Church, has always been that the fabric of the Church belongs to the clergy, and not to the laity; and that it is out of the provision made for the clergy that the expense of maintaining the fabric is to be provided. But it is laid down by Blackstone, who quotes "Ayliffe and Lynwood," that ever since the Saxon times it has been a peculiarity of the Church of England, a peculiarity that extended over the whole period during which the religion of England was connected with the Papacy, that the laity, the parishioners, always asserted their right in the fabrics to the possession of them, and performed the duty of making provision for their maintenance by the imposition of a rate according to property and substance, which, although in Saxon times it was levied jointly with tithe, the provision for the clergy since the reign of Edward III. it has been as church rate has been levied separately for the maintenance of the fabrics of the Church, which, by the ancient laws and customs of the Church of England, are vested in the, parishioners. Now if you do not take care—if the House passes the Church Rate Abolition Bill without nothing some provision for enabling the vestry to maintain the fabric and services of the Church—you will break through this ancient right and this ancient custom, and virtually change the possession of the fabrics of the Church, by taking them from the laity and vesting them in the clergy. As an Englishman, as a Protestant, and as a member of the Church of England, I object to any such transfer as that being indirectly effected by a Bill, which is justifiable only so far as it would relieve Dissenters from personal liability to church rates, relieve Roman Catholics from the payment of church rates, relieve every occupier in this country from personal liability on account of the expenses necessary for maintaining the fabric and conducting the services of the Church. Sir, I have used strong language on the appropriation of the amount of the church rate by the landowners, and perhaps the hon. Member for Sheffield may think that I am reflecting unduly upon the owners of property in large towns; but I can assure him that I have no intention of the kind. I do not deny that in the case of some large towns resistance to church rates was justifiable. In Birmingham, for instance, there are no church rates. My late friend, Mr. Muntz, who first suggested to me the principle of this Bill, was prosecuted and imprisoned for non-payment of church rate in Birmingham. The rejection of church rates there was quite just. Church rate is a payment, due in consideration of a benefit received; that benefit is church accommodation; but if accommodation is not provided for the people in the fabrics, there can be no claim in justice for a church rate. I say, therefore, that the people of Birmingham had a perfect right to resist and to abolish the church rate, because the Church did not provide them with the accommodation, which was the consideration for the payment they were expected to make. It is with that view that I propose to extend the special right to all such places to remain exempt from the charge the Bill would impose, unless three-fourths of the parishioners in any parish should choose to claim the imposition of the charge; and no one can suppose that three-fourths of the parishioners would claim the charge until the corresponding benefit in church accommodation has been amply and adequately provided for them. I do not know that there is any other point in this Bill on which I need now touch. I can only say that I have sought the best counsel on all sides, and have received it. This Bill, therefore, is no mere crotchet of my own. It is a measure which is approved of by men of the highest, authority, though their names I am not at liberty to mention, It is a Bill that in their opinion will furnish a substitute; that will render the abolition of church rates just, expedient, and consistent with sound policy; whilst the abolition of church rates without some such substitute would manifestly strike directly at the parochial system of the country—that system upon which all other institutions, and particularly our representative institutions, are based. I believe that you could inflict no greater injury than some ill-considered measure (such as I think the abolition of church rates without compensation would be) must entail upon the parochial system of England. Suppose that the Abolition of Church Rates Bill passes without the provision of a substitute. Take the case of some poor country parish, the property of which belongs to indifferent absentee landlords. The Churchwardens meet and lament that they have no longer the sanction of the law to levy this ancient payment. It may be that the owners of the property in the parish are not members of the Church of England. They may be Dissenters, or they may be Roman Catholics. The Churchwardens do not like to go about asking for contributions. But some wealthy man comes to them and says, you need not go about begging; I will make a proposal to you that will have the effect of relieving you from all difficulty. Then he says, "If you can get such a curate employed I will give a sum sufficient to relieve you from begging for money to keep up the fabric and the services"—or, perhaps, the first year he makes no condition, but the next says, "Yes, I'll give you the same sum as last year if the services are conducted in the way I think most edifying"—and thus services, alien to the feelings of the parishioners, might be introduced. The adults might refrain from attending the church; but the school children must attend. Need I comment further upon the mischief that might ensue? I say, Sir, that if the House has any respect for the independence of the vestries in many of the country parishes in this country, it will not, by depriving them of the means they have had for centuries of providing for and regulating the services and maintaining the fabric of the Church, render them mere begging institutions. It would be hard upon the clergy to be compelled to collect this amount. I am sorry to say that in many parishes their income is not adequate to maintain them in the position which they ought to hold. I know many cases of poor clergymen with large families. And I say that it would be most unjust to lay upon them the burden of begging for the funds which are requisite to keep up the fabric. In principle, it would be most vicious to transfer either the cost of maintaining or the possession of the fabrics of the Church from the laity to the clergy; to do this in violation of the ancient laws and customs of England. I hope the House will excuse me if I have been somewhat eager on this subject. I have endeavoured to state plainly why I think that church rates, as a personal impost, should be abolished. I have shown, from the evidence that I have adduced, that church rate is a charge upon property. To me it appears that it will be inconsistent with sound policy and dangerous to the parochial system of this country if the House does not act up to its own Resolution of 1862—that Resolution being in substance that it would be unjust and inexpedient to abolish church rates without providing a substitute. Of the three measures before the House this is the only one which contains a substitute for church rate, and is therefore consistent with the decision of a very full House, after ample debate, in 1862.

said, that the hon. Gentleman had raised a new cry—instead of raising the old cry about the Church being in danger—he now had represented the interests of the laity as those which were liable to injury. After the decision which the House had arrived at, he could not see how the hon. Gentleman could expect his Bill to be read a second time, and he therefore moved its second reading that day six months.

said, in order to enable hon. Members to make themselves better acquainted with the provision of his Bill, he would postpone the second reading till that day week.

moved the insertion of other words in the same clause, requiring that the numbers of the shares sold should be designated in writing or printing in the token or contract of sale.

said, the Amendment would prevent any business being done by telegraph.

answered that a man could make his bargain by telegraph, and the message would be followed by a letter with the token next morning.

said, the offence which it was proposed to create by the Bill would be completed on the moment the telegraph was acknowledged, and the parties concerned would be liable to punishment.

said, the numbers of the shares could be sent by telegraph.

replied that the numbers would make the message too expensive, and stop sales in that way.

insisted that agreement by telegraph did not constitute a contract, and that therefore the offence contemplated could not be committed by telegraph.