The Press. — London, England, 1858-05-29 00:00:00

510 church is the common property of all the pa rishioners. If, therefore, the parish church is the property of all the parishioners, the next proposition must, of necessity, be sound—viz., " that every person, from the squire to the peasant, has a right to the free use of his parish church during the times of Divine service." For, if the parish church really be. longs to the people, it necessarily follows that they have a right to the free use of it, for ali spiritual purposes. I now proceed to consider the third and fourth propositions—" That all the parishioners have a right to occupy any seats in their parish church that may happen to be vacant; and that no person has a right to occupy more than one seat at a time, during Divine service, to th 3 exclusion of others :" and " That all persons, while within the walls of the church, are equal in the sight of God and of the congregation ; and that all, high and low, rich and poor, have an equal right to the free and undisturbed use of their parish church, and of any portion of the same that may be at the times of Divine service un occupied." I would in the first place ask, are the people (inclusive of all classes) ever, under any circumstances, on an equality? I would reply that they are frequently so. For example, when they meet on a railway platform they are, so far as social position is concerned, on a perfect equality. There is, indeed, a money distinction, but nothing more. The humble mechanic who has made a fortune may aspire to a first-class place, and even an "ostler," if he had the means, might if he chose " seat him self by the side of the earl"; and the "frequenter of the Saloons " and the " dashing blade " of the "swell-mob" fraternity may, whenever it may please those disreputable members of society, annoy by their presence in the railway carriage the fair ladies of " Belgravia." Again, in places of public amuse ment, such as the Crystal Palace, the Polytechnic, &c., all persons who have once been permitted to enter while there are on an exact equality, having for the time being equal rights and equal privileges. This is sufficient to show my meaning, that, under certain circumstances, all persons are equal, sharing in common an equality of rights and privileges. But this is taking low ground. The point I wish to maintain is, that, within the church, all men, no matter what their rank or social position may be, are equal ; and this I think is implied by the Apostle St. James, in the second chapter of his Epistle. He commences by exhorting the brethren, saying, " Have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory, with respect of persons." This is certainly not very clear, but nobody can doubt what it implies, for in the next versa he blames them for making any distinction in their assemblies between " a man with a gold ring," in " goodly apparel," and a "poor man in vile raiment "; and the Apostle proceeds to condemn the principle that to the former may be said, "Sit thou here in a good place" (as in the comfortable and carefully-inclosed boxes in St. George's, St. James's, and other fashionable churches in London and elsewhere), and to the latter, " Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool" (as in the above-named churches, whcre the poor do lite rally "sit under the footstool" of the rich, in com fortless seats, which seem to have been designed in order to mark in the most striking manner possible the immeasurable distance between the rich and the poor). Can any one, after due consideration of what is written on this subject, doubt that the poor have equal rights with the rich in the free use of their parish church, and that the low as well as the high have the right to occupy any seat they may choose that may be vacant during the times at Divine service ? But you say that the " total abolition of all restric tions, and the recognition of the right of any one to take any vacant seat, would shock existing prejudices so severely that Mr. Lindsay may assure himself of the impossibility of obtaining so great a concession." I cannot but think that you have unintentionally misrepresented the true fee,ings of the upper classes. 1 cannot believe that when they go to church they ever consider who is likely to be seated next them, or before or behind them. I believe that their minds are, upon the whole, free from all such irreligious and vulgar thoughts. Doubtless there are some, who are known as fine ladies, but they are few in number, and their prejudices are not worth a mo ment's consideration. I cannot but believe that those kind ladies of all ranks who deem it a privilege to visit the poor in distress, who do not think they demean themselves when they sit in the kitchen of the poor " ostler " or by the bedside of some invalid in the close and ill-ventilated chamber, will really object to the " total abolition of all restrictions," and to the "recognition of the right of any one to take any vacant seat," even in such churches as St. George's and others, provided always that the aboli tion of the exclusive pew system be really and truly complete. I confess I have the temerity to believe that this " concession " is by no means impossible ; and for this reason, that the upper classes are even now gradually learning the lesson of humility and charity, for they (inclusive of many of my own rela tives to whom you alluded in your remarks) are to be THE PRE S S, MAY 29, 1858. seen in St. Barnabas, Pimlico ; St. Andrews, Wells street; St. Mary Magdalene, Munster-square ; All Saints, Margaret street, Sze. (in which churches the pews are all free and unappropriated), occupying various parts of the c'intl2.ll, and often in company with persons far below them in social p9sition, and no person ever heard them complain of any loss of dignity in consequence of having been seated next to a shopkeeper or a housemaid. Be this, however, as it may, one thing is certain—viz., that the parish churches of London are the property of the pa rishioners, and that the rich have no right to appro priate them to their own almost exclusive use ; and if they cannot, like their brethren of like degree in foreign lands, make up their minds to pray in com mon with those below them in the social scale, let them build for themselves chapels, where they may perform their devotions after their own hearts and in accordance with their own tastes. _ Having made these observations, I would in conclu sion make a few remarks on your plan. You say you are "opposed to all systematic distinctions between the rich and the poor ; but not congregation and strangers." This distinction is, strictly speaking, a very novel one, and utterly un known to the law. There are not, or there ought not to be, any strangers in a parish, for all the parishioners form, or are supposed to form, the con gregation of the church—all being supposed to be present at Divine service. Strangers are only those who intrude into churches which do not belong to the parish wherein they live: these of course the church wardens have power to exclude. There are no other strangers' than these ; they are all sheep belonging to some pasturage, from which they have strayed, no doubt, because it vas too small to contain them. This is an argument for multiplying the folds, and not for making distinctions between rich andjpoor, or between a congregation and strangers. You say you are much pleased with the arrangement in Boston Church, where the " whole ' middle aisle,' as it is absurdly called, was free : the side aisles were appro priated to the families of the town." If the " middle aisle," why should not the side aisles be free also? Why should the side aisles be the exclusive property of the "families of the town"? Is not the whole area of the parish church the common property of the parishioners? And if the " families of the town " should be absentees from church, or should be out of town, why should not their seats be occupied by other parishioners? And, besides, this plan which you approve of is in direct opposition to your own expressed disapprobation of "all systematic distinc tions (which Boston Church is an example) between rich and poor." Once more,—you advise us to apply ourselves "to raise funds, and to give a fair exem plification of our views," and you add "you feel no doubt of our rapid success." This has been done, not by the committee, but by many true and faithful servants of the Church. I could point to St. Bar nabas, Pimlico; to St. Andrews, Wells-street; to St. Mary Magdalene, Munster-square; to St. Matthias, Stoke Newington ; to All Saints, Margaret-street (temporary church), &c. &c., where all the pews are free and unappropriated, and which are all, Sunda) after Sunday, crowded to excess. These churches have had a " rapid success ;" and a still more "rapid success " will attend the " ministration of the Word and Sacraments," amongst the people, as soon es the hideous boxes in the London churches are pulled down and new seats set up, in such a form as will, by their being open and unexclusive, invite all who come to church to take a seat, and that too without the assistance or the interference of that most odious of all church officials, the pew.opener.—Apologizing for the length of my letter, I remain, yours, &c., THE PRESIDENT OF THE GENERAL COMMITTEE ON THE PEW SYSTEM. SINKING FUNDS. No. 11. TO THE EDITOR OF " THE PRESS." Sir,—ln yours of Saturday last, " Charles Aldrich" maintains that the National Debt " ought more pro perly to be called the public ab►lity than the public debt; being a vast ideal capital, the interest of which is kept in constant circulation and actual use, instead of being unproductively hoarded, by means of the Funds." Not being versed in transcendental philo sophy, I confess I do not exactly understand this. As a plain man, if I wished to speak antithetically, I would have been inclined to call tile public debt the public disability ; and if I could have reached the climax of supposing debt an ideal capital, my imagination could not have conjured any other than an ideal interest, susceptible only of an ideal circu lation. Nor can I agree with Mr. Aldrich when he says that " paying off a great part of the debt would render the payment of the taxes that remained much more an object of complaint than before," for I am stupid enough to suppose that the difficulty of taxa tion bears some proportion to its magnitude. But, although I cannot follow your correspondent in his views, I should be happy to think they were generally entertained, fur I could conceive nothing more calculated to bring on the millennium than a belief that the National Debt is an advantage to the nation—a capital, ideal or real, and not a burden. If this were generally believed, the tax-gatherer would be a public benefactor, and to be a Custom-house officer would he the same as being a member of the Evangelical Alliance. But I cannot believe my countrymen so much more enlightened than myself, and must claim for them and for myself the privi a debt a debt, and p utt i ng o ff the mil- I leg en e of niu ea tnt i i l l i l n t g axes come to be agreeable. I fear, then, that Mr. Aldrich's scheme for paying off the National Debt, by calling it public ability and an ideal capital, is premature, and that in the meantime we must discuss more prosaic ways of meeting what is generally supposed to be an evil. The Economist of last Saturday observes that, owing to the increasing difficulty of taxation, there is an almost irresistible tendency to provide for extra ordinary expenditure by loan instead of by taxation ; and that, since it is probable war will be ever recut ring, ' there is reason to fear that the National Debt, unless some check be provided, will go on increasing. But, having come to this conclusion, the Economist has nothing better to suggest than the old remedy of a sinking fund, desiderating only that it should be maintained in its simplest shape—namely, the appli cation of a fixed sum every year to ►he extinction of the debt, the sum so to be applied being provided for every year in the Budget, or else by the issue of Exchequer Bills, involving ar. undertaking on the part of the nation to redeem them when they be come due. All other varietiss of the " Pitt " Sinking Fund the Economist considers inadmissible, as presenting temptations of appropriation to succeeding Chan cellors of Exchequer which in practice have been found irresistible. So far we agree with him; but when be also declares against terminable annuities, we think we can show he does so on insufficient grounds. It is quite true, as he alleges, that large sums cannot be raised by this method on an emer gency, and that terminable annuities are not favourites on the Stock Exchange; but it does not follow that large sums could not be raised in this way, if raised deliberately and with sufficient time to allow the public to understand the arithmetical ad vantages such schemes involve. Now, the scheme which I had the honour to suggest in my last letter contemplated such a deliberate operation ; for my proposal was not to raise money in a hurry—for which purpose the elegant simplicity of the Three per Cents. is unequalled—but to deal with the eight hundred millions of the National Debt by making it the interest of the holders to accept terminable annuities in place of consols--a scheme which does not imply the raising of any money whatever, but merely a transfer of securities, and which, being purely voluntary, can only be successful if full time be allowed the parties interested to master the calcula tions on which it is based. As an illustration, I stated that inasmuch as an annuity of three and a half per cent. for sixty-six years is equivalent to three per cent. for ever, an annual charge of four millions sterling—equivalent to an income tax of fourpence in the pound —sub. mated to fcr sixty.six years, would suffice to extin guish the whole National Debt. Still retaining for precision's sake this illustration, I have now to point out one most important advantage the method of ter minable annuities possesses over the sinking fund, propounded by the Economist. The conversion of the National Debt into terminable annuities makes the public creditor a party to the arrangement, and his claim for an increased annuity is one which the national faith is pledged to redeem. Against such a claim neither the patriotic cupidity of Chancellors of Exchequer, nor the ignorant impatience of taxa tion on the part of the public, can he heard; for the obligation to pay the annuity of three and a half per cent. would be precisely the same as the obligation to pay the present three per cent.—an obligation not to be evaded, save by repudiation or bankruptcy. Now, in the Economist scheme there is no jut exigendi on the part of the creditor, but all is volun tary on the part of the debtor; and, so far as I can see, it presents the same temptations to budget making and taxation-eschewing Chancellors as the good old system of William Pitt ; for surely it will always be more popular to apply a surplus revenue to the reduction of next year's ta xation than to apply it to the benefit of posterity by p a y ing off an infinitesimal fraction of the National Debt And, even supposing this temptation resisted, it would be going against all experience to e xpect that the country would long submit to this additional impost, the continuance of which is so perftly voluntary. As to Exchequer Bonds, we know very well it is much more agreeable to renew than to pay them. On the whole, unless we can take Charles Aldi.ich's view, or unless we can get over our superstitious belief in the magic of compound interest—twoust th!ngs I think equally unlikely—l consider myself j in recommending my scheme for paying off the National Debt, if not to the public, at lea st to I . once ified Posterity, who has a deep interest in the quesuon. I am, Jce., J. A. G.