for fourteen years; the church was rebuilt by voluntary subscription in 1837; there is no church-rate in the chapelries of Golcar, Lindley, and Longwood. In Sheffield there has been no church-rate for thirty years, nor in any of its chapelries. In Wakefield there has been no church-rate for five or six years. There is no church-rate in Otley; none in Barnsley, and in many of the large villages.'

Mr. Baines assured the committee that he had never heard of any difficulty in keeping the churches of these towns in repair, or in maintaining their worship. 'The Dissenters,' he remarked, 'who are much less wealthy than the church, not only maintain their own chapels and worship, but have been constantly increasing the number of their places of worship, notwithstanding that they are subject to the payment of church-rate.' Besides these towns the rate has been discontinued, as was stated by Mr. Peto in the recent debate, in Nottingham, Newcastle, Stockport, Rochdale, Plymouth, Brighton, and many other places. The number of parishes refusing the rate may be proportionably small, but, said the Rev. Dr. Burgess, If you take the population, it is considerable' (3571). Indeed, so extensive has been the opposition as very seriously to diminish the total amount of the rate, while the maintenance of religious services, notwithstanding this fact, clearly shows that the rate is not needed for its avowed object. If one thing be more obvious than another, it would seem to be this, that, if religious services can be maintained without the introduction of coercion, it is most inexpedient and worse than folly to recur to it. The advocates of the church are accustomed to allege that a rate is needful in order to prevent their ecclesiastical structures from falling to ruins, and their worship from being discontinued. That they should take such ground is most marvellous. We hold strong views on the church question, yet we confess that we have never hazarded a statement which reflects so fatally on the Establishment. Were it as is alleged, then we say that the sooner the system is abolished the better. The Church of England is confessedly the richest establishment in Europe. For three hundred years, with a very brief interval, it has been patronized by the State. It is the church of the aristocracy; it is the pet of fashion. Its higher clergy rank as barons, and its inferior offices are scattered through the length and breadth of the land, supported by state-pay, and hedged round by whatever legislation can do on its behalf. Is it then true that a church so long established, so richly endowed, with its ramifications so universal, and its clergy so multitudinous, would sink into neglect and desuetude, if the law did not compel a reluctant contribution to its service? Tell it not in Gath; publish it not in the streets of Askelon.' In the name of our fellow

countrymen, professors of a faith from which we dissent, we protest against the assertion. It is a vile libel on churchmen, -a calumny which no dissenting lips would utter. Strongly as we condemn the system, we free its abettors from the suspicion of such indifference, and are surprised that they do not rise en masse to record their indignant protest against it. The case of Leeds, to which we have adverted, is a practical refutation, and Tavistock furnishes additional evidence of the safety with which church-rates may be abolished. They were first opposed in that town in 1833, and an adjournment was then carried (2783, 4). The same was done in 1834, by a majority of 13,-284 voting for the adjournment, and 271 for the rate. In 1838 the vicar, for the first time, took part in the contest, and being in the chair at the vestry meeting he refused to put the amendment for an adjournment, and also a motion that he should leave the chair (2794). A minority of 14 then made a rate, about 200 voting for the adjournment. Only about two-fifths of this rate were levied. In 1840 and 1845 attempts were again made to levy a rate, but without success. In the latter case two only voted for the rate, and about 150 against it. A poll was demanded and kept open for three days, when the result was 286 against and 36 in favor of a rate. analyzing the poll it was found, that of the opponents 56 were churchmen, leaving a clear majority of 20 church votes against the rate (2813). Since then no rate has been attempted, and on Mr. Flamank being asked if it would not be thought preposterous to propose a church-rate in Tavistock, he replied, This is totally out of the question' (2814). In the meantime about £2600 were expended in 'repairing and beautifying the parochial edifice,' which was raised by voluntary subscriptions, towards which some dissenters contributed liberally (2805-8).

On

Having entered more largely than we designed into these preliminary questions, we must necessarily restrict ourselves in noticing the debate of May the 26th. The publication of Lord Stanley's pamphlet on the previous day gave special interest to the question by awakening the inquiry, What course would be taken by the political party with which his lordship is associated? What might otherwise have failed to secure attention, and would possibly have been disposed of in a perfunctory style, became in consequence the topic of much speculation. Curiosity was awakened, and party tactics were put in requisition. Lord Stanley's pamphlet is altogether a remarkable production. We were not prepared for it. It took us by surprise, and the more we reflect on it, the deeper is our conviction that it betokens a very advanced stage of the churchrate discussion. The question cannot be far from settlement

when the son of Lord Derby-himself a political aspirantadvocates a plan substantially similar to Mr. Phillimore's, and that, too, not in a passing speech, but in a separate, wellconsidered, and able pamphlet. The spirit of the publication may be correctly inferred from the following extract printed on its title-page, from a speech of Earl Derby in April, 1834— I am ready to acknowledge that church-rates, as they stand, prove to the Dissenters a serious substantial grievance.'

The question was introduced to parliament by Mr. Phillimore, M.P. for Tavistock, in the shape of a motion for leave to bring in a bill to alter and amend the law respecting churchrates.' His plan was substantially similar to that of Mr. Duncombe, in 1840, and of Mr. Page Wood, in 1849, and will be readily understood from his own exposition.

'What he proposed,' said Mr. Phillimore, was, first, that all Dissenters should be exempt from the payment of church-rates by the simple process of stating in writing that they were dissenters from the church of England, and handing that statement to the churchwardens. . . . He next proposed that that statement should be kept by the churchwarden, and that a copy of it should be evidence in any court of law in support of the exemption. . . . He then proposed that a person who made this statement, and who thereby obtained an exemption from any charge upon his property for the support and maintenance of the church, should cease to have any right as a member of the church-that was to say, that he should not be able to call upon the clergyman to perform over him any religious rite; for it was not reasonable that a Dissenter should at one time say he conscientiously objected to contribute to the church because he dissented from her doctrines and discipline, which were an abomination to him, and at the same time insist that the church should perform her rites over him notwithstanding. He further proposed that there should be a mode to admit a person who had withdrawn from the church to return to it.

. . He also proposed that a person who gave in a statement that he was a Dissenter should cease to have any right to appear at the church vestry or to vote on any question of raising a rate or the management of church property.'

In proposing his plan, the honorable member was specially careful to guard himself from any suspicion of being hostile to the church. This was scarcely needful; but knowing the sensitiveness of some around him, the assurance was not, perhaps, unnatural.

To Mr. Phillimore's motion an amendment was moved by Sir W. Clay, to the effect' that this House do resolve itself into a committee, to consider whether church-rates should not be abolished, and provision made for the charges to which such rates are at present applicable from pew rents, and from the increased value which inquiries instituted by authority of the

6

6

Crown had shown might be derived, under better management, from church lands and property.' The disgraceful state of the existing law' was affirmed to be placed beyond question by the evidence taken in 1851. The only difficulty,' said Sir William, was to find language to express one's sense of the absurdity of the law. Nothing was certain about it but its uncertainty-every step in the progress of a church-rate was involved in hopeless perplexity and surrounded by doubts as to results which no authority could solve.' Having stated the objections which lay against Mr. Phillimore's plan, pointed out its identity with that of Mr. Duncombe in 1840, and Mr. Page Wood's in 1849, alluded to the fact of twenty votes only having been recorded for the latter, and of Sir Robert Peel, Sir George Grey, and Lord John Russell having spoken against it; he exhibited the marvellous results of voluntary efforts both within the Establishment and amongst Dissenters, pleaded the sufficiency of the means he proposed, asserted its legality, defended the members of his church from the indifference with which they were charged, and begged the House to proceed to the abolition of a system repugnant to the principles of civil and religious liberty, and injurious to the prosperity of the Established Church.'

The amendment was seconded by Mr. Peto, in a speech eminently distinguished by admirable temper, strong confidence in the soundness of his cause, extensive knowledge of the practical results of the voluntary system, and a clear apprehension of what was due to the spirituality of religious truth. Dissenters,' he remarked, 'objected to this tax on the ground that they had 15,000 congregations, and that they raised a sum exceeding £1,400,000 for paying the stipends of their ministers, and defraying the expenses of their chapels; and they consider it unfair to be compelled to contribute towards the support of a minister of another denomination. If they were told of the number of persons receiving benefits from the clergymen of the church, and that this was a reason for contributing to their support, they would justly reply," We admit the benefits, but we find an equal number of ministers doing the same work whom we pay for doing it, and it is hard to compel us to pay for yours at the same time." By an appeal to facts, Mr. Peto demolished the arguments in support of the church-rate system founded on its alleged necessity. Anything more conclusive than his reasoning on this point cannot well be imagined, and if the House had been open to conviction, he could scarcely have failed to command its votes. Referring to the districts of Yorkshire, Lancashire, Cheshire, and Derbyshire, the honorable member stated that,' In the year 1800 in those districts there were 178 chapels,

containing 176,752 sittings, while in the year 1843 there were 383 chapels, with 377,104 sittings. Out of the 205 chapels, built during the course of 43 years, 57 only were built by parliamentary grant, while the remaining 148 had been erected by voluntary contributions. In the year 1800 there were, belonging to other denominations, 228 chapels, containing 135,036 sittings, and in 1843 these had increased to 1258, capable of holding 617,479 persons. Thus, there had been an increase in the number of dissenting chapels of 1030, and accommodation provided for 482,443 additional persons.'

It was also shown by Mr. Peto that a large number of ecclesiastical structures were already supported by pew rents, and that such clergymen as were disposed to exert themselves for the extension of their church, found no difficulty from the absence of a legal provision. This class of facts is specially valuable, and will go far ultimately to determine the question in dispute. The operation of voluntaryism amongst Dissenters is suspected, and the truth of our statements is challenged. But, in the meantime, there is accumulating within the bosom of the Establishment, under the charge of our ecclesiastical opponents, and with a view to the interests of the church itself, a mass of facts, before which incredulity must finally give way. Alluding to these, Mr. Peto observed, There are many churches in London now supported by pew rents, among which he might mention the churches in Woburn-square, North Audley-street, St. Peter's, Pimlico, Hanover Church, Regent-street, three churches in Marylebone, and Dr. Burgess's church in Chelsea. The Rev. Dr. Dale, of St. Pancras, found no difficulty in the absence of a church-rate. New churches were rising in every direction; no church-rate was necessary for their support; and voluntary appeals for the maintenance and support of these churches were responded to with kindness and without difficulty. The Rev. Mr. Bickersteth, the excellent minister of St. Giles's, could bear the same testimony. He had eleven Scripture readers going round in his parish, and he found no difficulty in getting preaching rooms, and in obtaining the voluntary assistance of his parishioners in carrying out his views.'

In conclusion, the honorable member for Norwich adverted to the princely benefactions made by some wealthy Hindoos towards the erection of idol temples, and triumphantly asked, 'Could it be that Christianity, which ought to guide and influence all our actions, was unable to accomplish what these Hindoos were willing to do for the maintenance of their religious faith, while some of our prelates were doing things which brought a blush of shame to all who professed Christianity? The Dis