which prevented Sir Robert Peel from making that attempt were of the most palpable and tangible character. There was no man who had a better eye for measuring the chances of the success of a measure in Parliament than Sir Robert Peel; and I apprehend that it was his conviction of his inability to prepare a measure which, consistently with his sense of justice, he could carry through this House that deterred him from engaging in that attempt, even at the period of the greatest strength of his Government. And let it be observed, that with the single exception of the Government of 1837 no Administration for more than thirty years has made what I would call a serious or determined attempt to arrive at a solution of this question. I think, however, that it is hardly creditable to this country-that it is hardly creditable to the Legislature, or to our good sense, and that it is not in conformity with the mode in which practical questions are usually dealt with by the people of this country that the subject should continue from year to year to be battered about and tossed backward and forward without our arriving at any practical result. I am not able, as I said before, to vote for a simple abolition of church rates, and if my hon. Friend means-which, however, I do not gather from his speech-that this is and will continue to be a mere Bill for the abolition of church rates, I am not prepared to vote for it in that sense. My right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge having moved an Amendment, it will of course be competent to my hon. Friend to address the House again, and, I hope, that as the speech he has already made seemed to open a door for the settlement of the question, he will consider himself under a certain obligation to modify his proposal. It appears to me that if the compulsory powers are abolished in this case, the first effect will be that the fund can only be administered by those who contribute to its creation. In the second place authority ought, in my opinion, to be given to the vestries to determine that if the churchyards are to be maintained solely at the expense of one portion of the community they should have the power of compensating themselves by ordering that other persons who may think proper to use the churchyards should be liable to some equitable charge for the accommodation which they would thus receive. I do not think that I need detain the House any The Chancellor of the Exchequer longer. I hope the suggestion which I have ventured to make will be taken for what it is worth. I trust that hon. Members will believe it has been offered simply from a desire to attain that which may be the best practical solution of this muchvexed question. It is evident that we have to deal with a country where an immense difference of circumstances in different parishes creates the greatest difficulty in devising a system which would be adapted to our general requirements. The proposal I have made, including that of abolishing the compulsory power of collecting church rates, while provision is made for obtaining the amount required for making all necessary repairs from those who are willing to give it, appears to me to involve on the part of the Church a sacrifice of little beyond the enjoyment of a power which is at once vexatious and ineffective, while it promises great practical good, will conciliate a numerous and influential body, and offers the hope of a settlement of this question more satisfactory than, so far as I can see, can be obtained in any other mode. I see no reason, therefore, why it should not meet with the general approval of the House. MR. BERESFORD HOPE said, he could scarcely express the pleasure with which he had listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer since in it he saw, or at least he thought he saw, daylight breaking on this vexed and cloudy question. In that speech was a declaration of a desire on the part of the right hon. Gentleman that this question should be settled fairly and equitably for the Church, and fairly and equitably for Dissent. He rejoiced to hear such a declaration from one who possessed not only the goodwill but the power to carry such a settlement into effect. Similar settlements had often been proposed before, but they were advocated by those whe possessed the will but not the power to induce the House to assent to them. They must not forget that the right hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill that morning had himself, in 1859, when on the Treasury Bench, moved a Church Rate Settlement Bill, which involved the exemption of those who were undesirous of paying the rate. But the Government of which, if the right hon. Gentleman was not the leader, he was, at all events, a most prominent Member, had not a majority of the House at the time, and his Bill.contained, unfortunately, certain provisions of of that settlement to assume that the other side had an equally good case. He was willing to admit that there was a great deal in the objections of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmund's and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the terms of the Notice which stood on the Paper a few days ago in his name. He did not stand to those words, which he had merely put down as a short and clear method of expressing the kind of settlement of the question which he believed was the only proper and commutation, which prevented the clear issue being tried. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard) and the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Viscount Cranbourne) had also brought in a Bill upon the subject for a like exemption early in the following Parliament, but it also fell through; while in the same year, 1859, in which the hon. Member for the University moved his Bill, a Committee of the House of Lords-the Duke of Marlborough's Committee-sat, before which the now historic evidence of the hon. Mem-possible one. But the definition of the ber for Nottingham and of Dr. Foster was given, to which he would not then allude, as his object was peace and not war. That Committee having itself just heard that evidence, and having no doubt been much struck with it, for all that inserted the following recommendation in its Report, dated on the 19th of February : "That for the future persons desirous of being exempted from contributing to the church rates in any parish may give yearly notice to that effect to the Churchwardens prior to the meeting of any vestry for the making of a church rate, and that such persons shall not be entitled to attend any such vestry and to vote upon the making or the application of such rate, or to act as Churchwardens, in any matter relating to the Church, or to retain any seat appropriated to them in the Church during the time of such exemption." Chancellor of the Exchequer of the same proposition was quite satisfactory to him, and he was willing to adopt the words of the right hon. Gentleman as the exponents of his meaning, and he was willing to adopt them as the basis of a negotiation such as they never yet had had the opportunity of carrying out. He believed no other terms than those would be successful. He looked upon pew-rents, which some persons had thought of introducing even in parishes in which they had not been levied before, as mere impediments, and as adding to the existing confusion and vexation of the question. The instincts of the House revolted against pew-rents, which appeared to have been instituted for the purpose of making the Church an easy place of worship for the genteel middle-classes to the exclusion of the poor, whose ancient right in their common church was thereby imperilled or lost. Again, he very strongly objected to That was identically the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That clause in the Report did not pass without a division. The Peers who were "content" were the late Archbishop of Canterbury, the compromise which confined the impost the present Bishop of London, the Duke of Marlborough, the Marquess of Salisbury, the Earl of Derby, Earl Stanhope, the Earl of Romney, the Earl of Powis, and Lord Wensleydale. Those were great and weighty names no doubt, and all of them with the exception of the two Bishops and the last noble Lord belonged to the side of the House on which he sat, so let it not be said that the proposal of a compromise on this question equitable to the Dissenters had not been upheld by those who felt themselves bound to vote against a Bill for the total abolition of church rates. He was sorry to hear the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Du Cane) say that he had held out the olive branch until his arm ached-in a work of peace and justice the arm should never tire. He desired to see a settlement-he would not call it a compromise, but rather a fair treaty between two equal belligerent parties, each of which was conscious of the strength of its own cause and was willing in the course to a fabric rate, exclusive of any payment for the worship, whereby it was in effect declared that the fabrics were not the property of the community who worshipped therein, but were rather the property of the State itself which would thereby acquire a contingent right to hand them over to any body of Christians, or, indeed, to any one. They all knew the tyranny which bureaucracies abroad exercised over every form of Christianity, Protestant and Roman Catholic alike, and if that system were adopted in this country, we should soon have cause to repent its introduction, of which the fabric rate might be the insidious commencement. He was, therefore, glad not to have heard one word uttered in the course of the debate on the subject of the fabric rate, as it would be far better at once to abandon the church rates altogether than to attempt to levy a rate on terms that would be a practical surrender of the property of the Church to the Executive power. After all, the most valuable thing which was left to the Establishment was its own clear right to its property; and it was better to secure that property at the sacrifice of all rates, than make good the name of rate with peril to the property. Another of the palliatives proposed, that of crystallizing the extinction of church rates in parishes in which they had for a certain term of years ceased to be levied, would also be very objectionable, as this would tend to divide the country by hard geographical lines into two provinces, containing respectively two establishmentsthe one an establishment which embraced, and the other an establishment which rejected church rates; this would be but the prelude to the speedy abolition of the rate all over the land. The best solution in an ideal commonwealth would be the religion tax, in which each man was rateably assessed, but had the power of saying to which form of worship he desired his money to be paid over. But that arrangement he did not think practicable as things stood in this country. He then came to the last and most practical proposition that had been suggested, which kept the machinery of the now non-compulsory church rate as it then was in the parishes wherein it was still levied, and where, from a point of honour, the existence of old traditions, and other circumstances, it would be likely to be retained; even if it were not revived in parishes where it has been lost, which he was willing to think possible, as in them the Dissenters could have no motive for objecting to such a revival, which left them out. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said emphatically that those who did not pay must not interfere with the conduct of divine worship in the Church of the use of which they had voluntarily deprived themselves. On this principle hinged the acceptability of the scheme among Church men. That proposition had been thrown down on the table by the leader of the House, and it had certainly been received with very great favour on that (the Opposition) side of the House. Each Member would, doubtless, support his own principles, but no one who had noticed the cheers with which the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was received could say that that proposition had not obtained a more than candid consideration from the hon. Members on both sides of the House. But, unfortunately, there stood in the way of a peaceful solution of the question the Bill which they were now considering. He was quite satisfied that the hon. Gentleman who Mr. Beresford Hope introduced it was not one of those who would be content to act as the "cat's-paw" of the Liberation Society. The hon. Gentleman was a Churchman, an earnest and a liberal man, and he was sure he had brought forward this Bill with the sincere hope of remedying that which he considered to be undesirable for the interests of the Church. He therefore appealed to the hon. Gentleman, in the face of the opinion that had been expressed from the Treasury Bench, and after the manner in which that opinion had been received by Members on both sides, not to throw discord where peace was about to come by forcing the House that day to a hard and dry "Aye" and "No" division upon a Bill of which the principle was the total, the immediate, and the unconditional abolition of church rates. Of course, before the day was over the hon. Gentleman would rise and state his intentions upon the subject. But he put it to the hon. Member's good feeling as to what was right and beneficial for the Church, whether he would not at the proper time, if not altogether, withdraw his Bill["No, no!"]-which, he must say, appeared to him to be the fairest and most equitable step that could be taken-[" No, no!"]-at least postpone it to some later day-[No, no!"-so that both sides of the House might have an opportunity of weighing the statesmanlike words that had fallen from the Treasury Bench and from the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge in his most admirable speech, and of seeing whether they could not agree to a Bill which, if not carried unanimously, would at least pass after one of those sham divisions which naturally followed in the tail of a moderate settlement of a great question which had for many years distracted the attention of the House. He trusted that the question would now be settled once for all, and saying that, he would not trouble them with many more words, for he did not envy the man who came into the House to take part in a church rate debate without a wish that the subject should be put at rest. tion was never before so nearly being settled as it was that day, and it could be only by violence on one side or on the other, by indulging political passions instead of bonestly endeavouring to heal the great breach of Christian charity-it could only be by the interference of the extreme section of either party, that a fair and just settlement of this question would now be frustrated. MR. BRIGHT: I had no intention of offering any observations to the House, but after the course which the debate has taken, and after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I should like to occupy the time of the House for a few minutes only. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not in the House at the present moment, and he perhaps may not come back. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen are unfair if by this expression they suppose I mean to insinuate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be here at the division; because in his speech he has stated explicitly the course he intends to take, and the conditions under which he will vote, and the conditions on which he will not vote for this Bill. The hon. Member who has just sat down says we are nearer the settlement of this question than we ever were before. As a matter of time I presume that is the truth. I recollect our being exactly at this point some three or four years ago. When on the Motion of the late Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt) we were discussing this matter we thought we were almost entirely agreed. But from some cause or other the parties drew apart again. I believe hon. Gentlemen opposite found on a division they could get a majority of one or two, which made them less disposed to compromise than when the majority was the other way. However, I am very glad to observe that now nobody wishes much to retain church rates. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge, who made as good a speech as could be made on the subject, evidently felt a great deal of difficulty in defending his case. He admitted the grievance that this tax is to Dissenters, but he laboured under this great difficulty: he wanted to maintain in this matter the present supremacy of the Church and at the same time to do justice to the members of the free churches and the dissenting bodies in this country. For my part I believe the two things simply impossible, and I would advise the right hon. Gentleman not to attempt it. I am prepared to say in the most express manner possible that anything like compromise of the principle upon which this Bill is brought forward is absolutely impossible. But without compromising principle there may be a mode of dealing with the question which may be convenient for the country, may be satisfactory to us, and in no degree offensive to hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not myself understand very clearly the plan proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Beresford Hope) appears to have understood it most clearly, because I think he says it agrees with his own views as set forth in the Amendment he proposed some days ago to move to this Motion. Three or four years ago I made a proposal to the House on this subject which I think is not a long way from that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has proposed. I find the Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench in a few years generally come up to something very nearly the same in principle to what I propose. The same may be said of Gentlemen opposite, only they take a longer period. Now, what I proposed to do was this, that in regard to church rates, and the law of church rates, we should abolish the magistrate, the summons, and the bailiff. In point of fact, the compulsory power of collecting should be abolished. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey) knows how I have argued this question before. There are many instances Manchester is one, Rochdale another, with which I am particularly familiar-where after incessant squabblesfights at elections of Members of Parliament are merely times of pleasant recreation in comparison-it has been found impossible to collect the rate even after it was voted by the vestry. The result in Rochdale was that the Church party said to the other party, "If you will allow us to appoint our own Churchwardens we won't trouble you for church rates." There were two parties amongst the Church people, each with a list of Churchwardens, and each party appealed to the Dissenters, saying they would never again enforce the collecting of the church rate from those who objected to it. From that time I believe Dissenters have taken no interest in the matter. The Church people collect whatever they think right from the friends of the Church, and anybody who will give, and I can assure the House that the Church has been in very much better repair than it was before, and the peace of the parish has never since that period been disturbed. Now suppose we were to allow the Bill of the hon. Member to be read a second time. Such a course would be quite compatible with the view of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Beresford Hope), and also with the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and when the Bill comes into Committee it can be so changed as to get rid of the compulsory power of collecting, leaving all were not a bit more burdened than now, and we should get clearly a valuable result so far as this House is concernedwe should not have to spend some half-adozen days every Session as we have done for the last five or six years in discussing this, in some degree, miserable question, and which if we were a little more reasonable we should have got rid of a long time ago. I was glad to observe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer dwelt very little to-day on what formed his principal argument once before. I believe it was the last time he spoke on this matter. He now has no fear of the towns, but he has great fear with regard to rural parishes. I believe that is the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Well, I will not trouble the House with what has been done in Scotland and in England on the voluntary principle; but I was looking this morning over an admirable letter in reference to the educational and social condition of Wales, and the facts stated therein are so extraordinary, and apply so exactly to the case of the rural parishes, that I think the House will forgive me if I re-produce them. The population of Wales, according to the Census of 1851, is about 1,100.000. The places of worship belonging to the Church number 1,180; to the Noneonformists, 2,826; the sittings of the Church, 302,000; of the Nonconformists, 692,000 the other powers as they now are-that is. the vestry could meet and determine upon the sum proper to expend, and the rate also could be fixed. Those who were interested in the question of course would attend and manage the affair, and then they would collect a rate from all the ratepayers of the parish who thought fit to contribute. I am not at all certain that there would not be a good many Dissenters that now pertinaciously refuse to pay the rate who, if such a plan were adopted, would be willing to do something in contributing towards the sustentation of the fabrics of the Church. We know there are many men in this country who go to Church and who give regularly to other places of worship, to schools and so forth; and no doubt there are many Dissenters having surplus means who would contribute to the support of the Church. I have no doubt such an arrangement as this would change all that bitterness of feeling of which we hear so much; and the very fact of Churchmen giving to a Baptist or Independent Chapel, and a Baptist or Independent giving a similar contribution to the building or repair of a church, would have a very excellent effect upon Churchmen and Dissenters alike. It would lead them to find out that although they call themselves Churchmen, and Baptists, and Independents, after all these are but temporary and unimportant divisions, and that they that was 30 per cent of the population are all brethren in the same common and Church, 70 per cent of the population Nonuniversal Christianity. And I believe no- conformist. Now, when Mr. Horace Mann body would gain more by it than Church-made his calculation as to the number of men themselves. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made an observation on the subject of graveyards. But cemeteriesI mean public cemeteries-have been established very extensively in the neighbourhood of the towns. His objection could not apply to them. With regard to churchyards in the rural parishes, the population is generally very thin. I should suppose there would be no difficulty there. There are great numbers of the chapels having graveyards. Therefore, I would not advise the House to mix up the question of graveyards with this church rate question, as it affects Dissenters. There would be no greater difficulty than has existed in times past. If you simply abolish the compulsory power of collecting the rate, I have not the slightest doubt -I was never more certain of anything in my life-you would all admit five years hence that your churches were in as good condition as before, that your clergymen Mr. Bright sittings necessary for the population to make full provision for public worship. be estimated them at 58 per cent. The Church in Wales is short of that number by 387,000, while the Nonconformists have exceeded it by 2,770 sittings. The Church, therefore, is only provided with accommodation to the extent of 25 per cent of the population while the Nonconformists provide 59 per cent. On the 31st of March, 1851, the Church worshippers amounted to 134,000, or 21 per cent of the population; the Nonconformist worshippers were 490.000, or 75 per cent. There is only one other fact to which I would call attention, and then I will leave the subject to the consideration of the House. The writer of this letter gives an account of the number of places of worship existing in Wales at different periods; and I beg the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to it, because I am very anxious to strengthen his faith as to |