TION BILL-(No. 144.) (The Earl Russell.) COMMITTEE. not think we could complain. The ques- COMPULSORY CHURCH RATES Abolitions, however, which Dr. Colenso had started were quite beyond the province of this House; and he believed the best efforts of the noble Duke or of any other person were quite unable to settle the difficulty which had arisen. Dr. Colenso stood at this moment the spiritual and temporal Bishop of the diocese, and he exercised his right with great temper and judgment; and it was much to be regretted that he had not been treated with more brotherly friendship and kindness. He wished only to repeat his desire-the Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read. desire of all those who believed Dr. Colenso had been treated with great injustice that the spirit advocated by the noble Duke would in future animate all those in this country who concerned themselves in the matter. LORD LYTTELTON said, that while agreeing with the noble Lord that the subject could not be well dealt with until the Papers were before their Lordships, objected to the latter part of his observations, expressing an opinion that the position and proceedings in the colony were concurred in by only a very small minority. THE BISHOP OF OXFORD said, he had no intention of entering upon the general question, but could not refrain from saying a word upon what had fallen from the noble Baron (Lord Houghton), who took upon himself to lecture ecclesiastics and others for not having treated the person to whom he alluded with kindness and brotherly friendship. The fact, however, was as diametrically opposite to the statement of the noble Baron as it was possible for any fact to contradict any statement. Dr. Colenso had received private remonstrances, brotherly counsel the tenderest and kindest counsel-from bis brethren at home; but every attempt in the direction of counsel and remonstrance had only led him to some new outbreak of violence. He could not let the statement of the noble Baron go uncontradicted, though of course it had been made in that absolute ignorance of the subject which it was natural he should possess, and equally natural he should express. Motion agreed to. EARL RUSSELL: Before dealing with the alterations made by the Select Committee in this Bill, which I think are on the whole improvements, I will offer a word or two on the general subject. My impression is that a Bill designed simply to abolish church rates unconditionally would, in effect, differ very little from what will be entailed by the passing of this. A few cases will occur of parishes in which there are no resident landlords, but only poor farmers, having a large and expensive church to maintain; in such cases local contributions will be few; but here the Church Building Society and other societies will step in and advance necessary funds. This is merely my impression of what will occur, though of course the Bill makes no allusion to such cases. stated in the Preamble that It is "Church rates have for some years ceased to of the opposition thereto, and in many other pabe made or collected in many parishes by reason rishes where church rates have been made, the levying thereof has given rise to litigation and ill-feeling." This is, no doubt, perfectly true, and the 1st clause proceeds to enact that no proceedings shall hereafter be taken to enforce or compel the payment of any church rate made in any parish or place in England and Wales. To that 1st clause the Government agrees, and therefore in principle the prayer of Dissenters is, in fact, complied with. The object of the 2nd and 3rd clauses was to distinguish between ordinary church rates and rates the payment whereof is secured by Act of Parliament, or where money has been borrowed on the security of church rates. All will agree in the justice of reserving the right to make and collect rates for such purposes. There are some other cases which may be doubtful, and, no matter what arrangements we may make, it is impossible that we can absolutely prevent disputes. All that we can do is to reserve church rates which are really commuted tithes, and to take our chance as to any disputes that may arise; and as to the necessity of future legislation, which is not unlikely to arise, especially as there are no less than 700 Acts of Parliament, some of them of a very difficult and intricate nature, in which church rates are mentioned. So much with regard to that portion of the Bill which relates to the abolition of compulsory church rates. The other part of the measure relates to application and security of voluntary contributions for the repair of the fabric and for the other purposes for which rates have been levied. Now, the Bill allows vestries to continue the making and receiving of rates, the only difference being that the power of compelling payment is taken away. A vestry may decide that a certain sum is required, and persons may voluntarily pay at a certain rate in the pound. I think that in this respect the Select Committee have made an improvement, for they retain the vestry, the name and powers of which are well-known; and I can conceive that in numerous parishes where church rates are at present made no great change will occur in consequence of the absence of compulsion. Things are far more likely to go on as at present under these circumstances than if a new body were constituted, as was proposed by the other House. Then there is a clause empowering the incumbent and two householders, one appointed by the patron and one by the bishop, to act as trustees and receive any bequests, donations, or contributions for ecclesiastical purposes, which funds they may hand over to the churchwardens to be applied to such ecclesiastical purposes as they may specify. That is a provision which will come into operation in some cases, but I think that the Church Building Society or the churchwardens will generally apply the contributions they may receive. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has given Notice of a further clause, requiring the trustees to lay before the vestry an annual statement of their receipts and expenditure. Upon the whole this is a Bill which fulfils its object, for while abolishing compulsory rates it empowers the vestry to make voluntary rates, and it also empowers trustees to receive contributions. As to its general effect it is, I trust, the settlement of a controversy which ever since 1833 or 1834 has given rise to much ill-will and litigation, and therefore the termination of such a dispute is a consummation devoutly to be wished. Moreover, there is much greater anxiety than used to exist, not only to keep our churches in proper repair, but to preserve them in that ancient character which has long made them an object of reverence. Such feelings are not confined to members of the Church, for many Protestant Dissenters, members of whose families have been married in churches in past times, or have been buried within their precincts, would be most unwilling to see those edifices fall into decay, and when the obnoxious compulsory powers are removed I believe they will contribute voluntarily. I know a case, indeed, in which a Dissenter gave £100 each to two churches, and I believe such cases will be more numerous after the passing of this measure. I hope, therefore, your Lord. ships will adopt the Bill in its present form, and send it down to the House of Commons. Some question may be raised there on the 9th clause, but I believe Protestant Dissenters, both those who are Members of the House of Commons and others who have taken a leading part in the controversy, are satisfied with a measure of this kind, and I am sure it will be a great advantage if we can pass such a Bill by the general consent of both Houses and of both Churchmen and Dissenters. It is much better to settle the question in this way than to leave it open, to be settled, perhaps, hereafter with angry feelings, when one party will be elated by victory and the other will feel sore under defeat. I shall not myself propose any alteration in the Bill as settled by the Select Committee. itself into a Committee on the said Bill." Moved, "That the House do now resolve (The Earl Russell.) THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Iregret to be obliged to agree with the noble Earl, that the effect of this Bill as it now stands will not differ widely-I should scarcely say that it will differ at allfrom the effect of a Bill for total abolition of church rates. When it came up from the House of Commons, it contained some very valuable provisions for the protection of the Church. It contained a provision that if the churchwarden was a Dissenter and did not pay his church rate, he should not be allowed to administer the payments of those who did contribute, but that a Churchman should be appointed for that purpose. That provision has disappeared; and now it will be necessary for Churchmen who wish to give their voluntary contributions to place them, if there be a Dissenting churchwarden, in his hands, however bitter and hostile to the Church he may be. Again, there was a provision that those who had not paid the church rate one year should not form part of the vestry for the purposes of a church rate in the succeeding year. The result of that provision would have been that when once the first vestry had been held it would not be in the power of the Dissenters in any parish where they might be numerous and hostile to paralyze the action of the vestry, and to forbid altogether a voluntary rate from being raised. As the matter stands now it will remain in the power of the Dissenters, whenever they shall be irritated by some real or fancied grievance, to come to the vestry and prevent this voluntary rate from being made. Again, there was a third provision to this effect-that when any persons had promised to contribute to the maintenance of the Church, the churchwardens should have the power of going on with the church repairs, and afterwards of suing any person who, having promised to pay, had subsequently refused. It was obvious that the object was that the church wardens should be exone-rated from personal risk if they undertook repairs on the faith of being promised large sums which were afterwards refused. But that provision also had disappeared, and the effect of it would be this, that it would not be competent for any churchwarden, having any regard to his own safety, to spend a single farthing till he had it in his pocket. The statement of the noble Earl was, therefore, singularly just-that it scarcely differed, if it differed at all, from a Bill for the total abolition of church rates. He deeply regretted that in a Committee of their Lordships' House it should have assumed such a character. But as it was assented to by Her Majesty's Government he could only say that the views with which many persons in the House of Commons assented to the measure had been entirely departed from, and that their interest in the measure was quite defeated. this Bill. I believe that this is a Bill for the abolition of church rates; that is, for the abolition of the compulsory power of levying those rates. I do not look upon the Bill as a compromise. I do not look upon it as giving back anything to the Church in return for the power which you take away. Having said so much, I will now state the advantages which I conceive to be gained by the clauses now to be found in the Bill over those which were in the Bill as it came from the House of Commons. When this Bill went into Committee it was clearly understood that the 1st clause, doing away with the coercive power of levying church rates, was not to be altered in any substantial manner. If it was the intention of your Lordships to do away with that clause the proper way would have been to have rejected the Bill on the Second Reading. The attention of the Committee, therefore, was addressed to the other parts of the Bill. The real difference between the clauses as they were before and as they are now is this-By the clauses of this Bill as they stand now, the Committee had it in view to leave the whole parochial machinery exactly as it stands at present minus the one power of the coercive levy of church rates. Their object in other respects was to leave the machinery untouched, so that in those parishes, of which there are a vast number, in which church rates are levied and coercive proceedings in the Courts of Law are unknown the course of making and levying the rate should go on just as at present. My Lords, I venture to entertain a hope that if this Bill becomes law the expectations of its supporters in that respect will be realized. I believe that, though by no means universally, yet in a very large number of parishes in the country, where from conscientious motives or otherwise, church rates have been refused, henceforth THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My the vestries will assemble, church rates Lords, as I had the honour of serving on will be voted, and many persons will pay the Select Committee to which your cheerfully and willingly who would refuse Lordships committed this Bill, and took if they were levied compulsorily. If this an interest in the progress of the Bill be so the views which led to the introducthrough the Committee, perhaps your tion of those clauses will be fully acLordships will allow me to say a few complished. words with reference to some of the was this, that the best hope of obtainchanges which have been made in it. I entirely agree in one respect with the observations of the noble Marquess who has just sat down. Nothing could be more unfortunate than that there should be any misconception as to the character of The view of the Committee ing that result was by leaving the old machinery untouched; because if you introduced a new machinery you would put the present machinery out of gear. You would lose your old system without, perhaps, getting any other system in re turn. My noble Friend (the Marquess to the voluntary system, the working of of Salisbury) referred to the clauses which it depends entirely upon your doing nocame up from the House of Commons. I thing which would have an alarming effect quite agree with him as to the plausibility upon those who are asked to come in and of some of those clauses. For instance, accept the voluntary system. If, therenothing can be more plausible than to say, fore, you speak of actions at law, I am "Do not let anyone who does not pay greatly afraid you will frighten many church rate vote either as to the expendi- persons, who will say, "No doubt compulture of that rate or as to the making of a sory church rates have been abolished, but new rate next year." But, my Lords, church wardens may go to law with us if let us observe what the consequences of we promise, and therefore we will keep that would be. The noble Marquess said away from the vestry altogether." Now that if you once had a church rate made that is a reason of the value of which your then those who did not pay would not be Lordships may judge; but it was one entitled to vote about a rate next year. which influenced me in suggesting that But the effect of such a clause would be the clause as it came from the House of that you would furnish the strongest pos- Commons should be omitted. The only sible inducement to those who were op- other point in the Bill as it came from the posed to the Church to resist the making House of Commons which was different of a rate the first year. As the clause from the Bill in its present shape was as stands now a strong Dissenter would say to the mode of treating churchwardens. "If you are going to make a church In the Bill as it came from the other rate which cannot be levied coercively House, if a churchwarden did not pay the against me, I shall have an opportunity of rate there was a power to elect a treasurer appearing next year and objecting, and I in his place, who was to have the power would not mind interfering now." But if of disbursement over the rates collected. you tell him that if he allows a rate to be If this treasurer is to be elected by those made this year he will be excluded for who pay the church rate, you run exactly the future from voting on the question, he into the danger I have attempted to dewill say, "Now is my time. This is the scribe; you have a diminishing consti only opportunity I shall have. I must tuency, which may never be called into get all my friends to come. Now is the existence, and you introduce a new officer time the battle must be fought, and fight altogether unknown to the parochial syswe will to prevent the church rate being tem. If a provision had been introduced made." Well, what would the next con- that the vestry at large, in default of the sequence be? Suppose you make your churchwarden paying his rate, should be church rate the first year; there may be at liberty to elect a successor, the difficulty 100 persons who ought to pay, but only might have been avoided. Otherwise, you fifty of them do pay. Next year instead get into a new channel of operations to of a constituency of 100 you get only fifty. which no parish is accustomed. These are The fifty make a new rate, and twenty the reasons which weighed with the Comfall off and do not pay. The third year mittee, and induced them to amend the you get a constituency of thirty, and per- Bill and introduce the clauses which your haps ten of them would not pay. Thus Lordships now find there. I hope that by degress you get to a constituency so with this machinery the Church even in small and ridiculous that the thing must country parishes will not suffer, and that die out. In fact, the whole course of the fabrics of the Church will continue things I have described is so new and so to be decently maintained. contrary to experience that the moment THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY you begin to work it in a parish it would said, that he originally thought, and was be opposed because it was a new system. still of the opinion, that the best solution There was another provision in the Bill of the difficulty would be to abolish the as it came from the House of Com-compulsory collection of church rates, and mons to this effect-that an action at law leave the existing machinery as it is. might be brought against persons who THE EARL OF DERBY said, it was not upon the making of a church rate held out his intention to oppose the going into a promise to pay and would not. I, for Committee; and although he retained all one, expressed my own opinion against his objections to doing away with the that clause in Committee. I believe, com- compulsory power of levying church rates, ing down as you are now obliged to do yet, at the same time, the principle of the T 1st clause having been adopted by their Lordships, and accepted also by a large majority of the House of Commons, he thought it would be useless to struggle against such a majority in both Houses. That point being settled, he would further say that it was his earnest desire that this question should be brought to a satisfactory issue in the present Session, and should not be left open for any further agitation or to be any cause of bitterness among the new constituencies. He must confess, however, that on one point, notwithstanding the statement just made by his noble and learned Friend, he was strongly inclined to agree with the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury). In many respects he thought the Bill had been amended by the Select Committee. As he understood it now, retaining all the existing powers of the vestry and all the existing machinery, the Bill simply provided that there should be no compulsory enforcement of rates. Clause 8 provided that no defaulter should have the opportunity of speaking or of raising any objection or discussion as to the mode in which church rates should be applied in the year during which he was a defaulter. But he (the Earl of Derby) thought that principle ought to be carried further. This was to be a voluntary rate, levied by a voluntary machinery. If so, surely the persons who paid the rates were the persons who should say whether the rates should or should not be levied. If persons objected to rates and threw the charge upon their fellow-parishioners, surely they ought not to have the opportunity of saying next year whether a similar charge should or should not be thrown upon those who had borne the charge in the last year. If the measure was a voluntary one, he thought it ought to be left to Churchmen alone to say whether the rates should be levied or not. He confessed that, clear as his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) usually was, he did not understand the force of his argument when he said that if they restored the clause as it came from the House of Commons, they would furnish an inducement to persons to abstain from paying the rates. THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did not say that it would be an inducement to abstain from paying the rates, but that it would be an inducement to persons unfriendly to the Church to come forward the first year and prevent the church rate being made, because if they succeed in that, the working of the system would have no beginning. THE EARL OF DERBY said, he misunderstood his noble and learned Friend, and indeed it was not always easy to hear what passed in the House. But what he said was that, year after year, you will have persons refusing to pay, so that gradually the non-payers will absorb the payers. Then his noble and learned Friend assumed that no person had a right to qualify himself by payment; but, as he (the Earl of Derby) understood it, in each year during which the church rate was levied, it would be demanded from each occupier, Churchman or Dissenter. It was perfectly open to anybody to refuse to pay; but though defaulters would be deprived of a voice in the expenditure, still, upon paying the rates when demanded, they might be restored to all the rights of Churchmen. It seemed to him that this was the only effectual mode of dealing with the question. On the other hand, he confessed that he did not lay much stress on the argument that Dissenters might be induced to put a stop to the machinery for levying a rate, more especially as they were told that this was a Bill for satisfying the Dissenters. THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK said, it was not wonderful that a great difference of opinion should prevail about these clauses. But their Lordships should remember that the system which this Bill proposed to introduce was already in existence. There were thousands of parishes in which church rates were now levied upon the voluntary principle recognized in this Bill-namely, that though rates were voted, no compulsion should be resorted to. In thousands of parishes this principle exists already and works well. No doubt great inconvenience might arise in a few parishes where Dissenters persisted in coming to the vestry, though not subject to any tax, and where vestries made a point of electing Dissenting churchwardens. But were they to legislate for these few hostile cases or for the general body? He believed that the policy of fear and jealousy expressed by such clauses would be very mischievous to the Church, especially at that moment. He was in favour of a policy of greater generosity and of assuming that Dissenters would not go to the vestry to discuss rates and expenditure which did not affect their pockets, and that Churchmen would be elected as churchwardens. He believed that that would be the case in a majority |