The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1878-04-13 00:00:00

THE STOURBRIDGE OBSERVER.

7—Mr. Billingham withirevf his motion for the ap-
pointment of two unpail survt.yore and proposed
that they had one paid surveyor. Tilts was
seconded by Mr. Burton. Mr. Kelley proposed
Mr. Wakefield as surveyor for the ensuing year,
at a salary of ..£2o.—This was seconded by Mr. B.
Shakespeare. Mr. Burton proposed and Mr.
Hows: seconded, the app )intment of Mr. B. Ford.
—On the amendment being put to the meeting
only four or five voted for Mr. Ford, and Mr.
Wakefield was then appointed without a single dis-
sentient.--Mr. Pearce was appointed collector.

a s.'reat deal to alleviate the poverty and distress
iof thos around th in. A church where a work-

nag man may njoy all the benefits of religious
worhip without being calleil upon to sacrifice a
great part of his earnings which he needs for his

family.
What would he the effect of disestablishment
upon the state and the constitution ? One result
w. uld be this. The ecclesiastical coronation of

U e Sovereign must necessarily cease. The stipula-
tion as to Protestant succession to the throne of
this country would be rendered null and void.
What does that mean? It means that the
Sovereign of this country would be under no
obligation to join any religious communion. At
the same time he would have full liberty to join
any communion he thought proper. He would be
just ae fees to join the Roman Catholics as the
Independents, and more likely to do so because
there is that in Roman Catholicism which would
be more attractive and congenial than the less
refined and less gorgeous service of the Indepen-
dents. What a popish King or Queen might do
on the throne of England by example only. I
will leave the libera,tionistsito estimate. lf the
church were disestablished there would be no such
thing as a chaplain of a ship, a regiment, a gaol,
an asylum, a workhouse, or the House of Coin-
mons itself. Let us ask ourselves in the language
of Macaulay whether "An institution so deeply
fixed in the hearts and minds of millione could be
subverted without shaking and loosening all the
foundations of civil society.' Or (to quote
from another quarter) whether it would be wise
to tear up by the roots any part of the institutions
of an old county which have grown up with it
from the beginning and become parts of its very
being.
By disendowment we understand the proposal
t 3 take the property in the possession of the
church, and apply to it any purpose the nation
may think proper. It is alleged by the libera-
tionists that these endowments are the property of
the nation, that the clergy are state paid and that
therefore the state may resume its own and
apply it to the benefit of the nation in any way it
thinks proper. Now I contend that it is only by
an elaborate and sophistical process of reasoning,
by suppression or distortion of the facts of history
and the presentation of half truths that even the
semblance of a case can be made out in support of
this theory. Indeed when the advocates are
driven in a corner they are called to admit that
it is a fiction. John Bright has admitted it to be
so. The Daily Post in answer to a correspondent
has said that the church receives no support from
th. state. And Mr. R. W. Dale when called upoa
to prove it was so after makine• a statement to
that effect, in public, said he was too busy to
write to the papers to discuss the question. He
was not too busy to make a false statement, but
lie was too busy even to attempt to prove it was
true or to explain it away. And thus in spite of
the fact that the statement has been challenged
andldisproved over and over again, it is still per-
sisted in, with a want of principle and fairness
altogether unbecoming the position and reputation
of some- of those who make it. The strongest
argument that the Rev. J. G. Rogers, one of
champions of the liberationists movement who has
written an article in the March number of tie
"Nineteenth Century" in answer to a speech by
Mr. Forster, the strongest argument he could
bring forward was the idea that it was extremely
probable, if the property in the possession of the
church really belonged to her, she would not have
submitted as she has done to the interefence of the
state, and he seeks to draw this conclusion, that
because, the church has allowed the state to inter-
fere with her property it implies no acknowledg-
ment of no title to it. For the church to be satis-
fied that the property in her possession was her
own, and yet to submit, as she has done to state
interference is a height of virtue too much for the
credulity of Mr. Rogers and so the strongest
proof he can bring forward that the pro-
perty in the possession of the church is the
property of the state. Now we pity men of
ability who are enatnoured of . a cause which leans
for its support on such slender foundations. A
cause supported by such feeble and sophistical
arguments must be weak aed wrong. We can
soon show the absurdity of his plea.
There was a proposal before Parliament some
days ago for the increase of four new Bishoprics.
All the endowments necessary for the purpose
w.:re to be provided by voluntary means, not a
'many was to come from the state but the Bishops
are to be appointed by the state, and of course the
law will secure the property for the purpose it
was given, it will be ia ional property in the
sense fer the benefit of the nation. Now if we
were tete that because the Bishops were appointed
by the state ard then the state was trustee of the
property that it les'onged as longer to the church
ro which it was given, but Co the state, to be
used if the state thought proper for the reduction
of the national debt we should not only raise a
smile of incredulity but we should think the man
who made such an illegal, absurd, and monstrous
proposition beside himself.
The property in the possession of the church
was never given to the nation and then trans-
ferred to the church, it was distinctly given to
the church for her own use. But because the
church is called the National Church, an idea is
entertained that the property belonging to her is
national property. It is national property so
long as the church continues to he the National
Church, but when it ceases to be so the property
ceases to be national property.
The case, to quote the language of a writer,
thirty years ago resembles that of a man who has
united himself te a woman of independent fortune,
so long as the woman continue it may be said with
some degree of truth that the property of the wife
is; also the property of the husband, bnt if to
gzatify some fancy of his own a separation is to
take place the very first thing to be done accord-
ing to the most obvious dictates of justice is to
give back to the wife that which was her own and
to replE ce her in those circumstances of indepen-
dence which she originally enjoyed, instead of
which the proposition which is now cooly put for-
ward that by some who assume a religious charac-
ter is nothing less_ • than this that the husband

sh-,11 retain possession of all that became his in
virtue of his union with his wife whilst she

against whom the chief and indeed only cause
alleged is that of having been united to him is
not only to be cast aside and adrift briefly to
renounce all those possessions which were dis-
tinctly and independently her own into his posses-
sion. I contend that there is a case of analogy
and it was the utter injustice and unfairness of
the disendowment proposais.
An important consideration in this controversy
is how the property belonging to the church came
into her possession a considerable part of which
ac tthes. I have been astonished at the falsifi-
cation of history of which the liberationists have
been guilty oa this point, but the fast is th'y
htve a history of their own a modern hi -,tosy of
asicent fasts, manufactured expressly to suit their
own purposes. Nor have they any scruple of
L liag in fiction to their aid if they can serve the
cause they have at heart, hence is was proposed
ts Ms. Gilbert, ti e novslist, that he should write
novel setting forth with all the fauina,tion ti a
romance the beauties of Nonconformity and the
evils of the establishment. Whether Ms. Gilbert
found the task too much for his flights of imagina-
tion or whether he thou ;lit in attempting such a
work he should descend- from the sublime to the
ridiculous I cannot say, but the novel has not yet,
I believe, made its appearance. I say that the
liberationists in their accounts of how the tithes
came into the possession of the church have falsi-
fied history. I have looked out the subject for
myself. I have embraced every opportunity I
have had for the last three or four years of
Investigating the tithe of the church to her pro-
perty. I have consulted every hist srical record in
my reach, and I say that the tithes came into
possession of the church by the gem rad consent
and agreement of the landowners of this country.
Our opponents say they were given by public law.
Now to say they were given by the law is to say
which is
.ambiguous and meaningless. The law
cannot give in the true sense of giving the simple
reason that it does not possess. It seems what is
giuen for the purpose it was intended. When Mr.
Touchstone was at Brierley Hill some time ago he
said he could find every Act of Parliament passed
since there was a Parliament but he challenged
any one and offered a reward if they could do so
to find an Act of Parliament giving tithes to the
church, but it could not be done. The most trust-
worthy authorities are in complete antagonism
with the liberationists on this point. There is
not a more impartial historian. than Hume. He
cannot be accused (being an Atheist) of pondering
to religious or ecclesiastical considerations. His
testimony is that tithes were giuen not created by
law. There is not a more learned authority than
Selden. He says tithes are the offsprings of the
general consent of the landowners. Blackstone
another great authority on this question says
"At the original endowments of parish churches
the tithes of the parishwere vested in their par-
sons by the bounty of the donor." As to the
statement we sometimes hear that it is an hard-
ship that people should pay tithes now because
their ancestors thought proper to do
.so centuries
ago or let me say there is no hardship whatever.
There 'is no man in England who either own or
occupies land subject to tithes who did not know
when he purchased it or took it upon leaae, or any
other tenure thit it was expressly subject to such
slaim or hardship upon it.
There can be no hardship in paying a fair price
for full value. If a man rents a farm at £lOO per
year subject to tithes and pays .e9O to the land-
lord and £lO to the parson for tithes it would be

no benefit to him if he had no tithes, for in that
case he would still have to pay .2100 for his farm
which his landlord would receive. rhe farm
wsuld be none the less with £lOO per year because
tithes were abolished. Some liberationist lecturer
have affirmed that land has been reclaimed from
the sea and tithed within the last century, but
sueh statemen's appear to be pure assertions with-
out proof. A case of the kind occurred some time
ago when Mr. Touchstone lectured at Brierley
Hill. A dissenting minister, Mr. Millington from
Netherton stated that the Bishop of London re-
ceived part of his income from lands reclaimed
from the wash of the Thames and tithed. Mr.
Carpmail you will remember wrote to the Bishop
of London to inquire if it were true. The answer
proved that it was a pure fabrication and the Rev.
Millington who made .the statement stood
"convicted of walking round about the truth," if I
may nse a Yankee phrase. A case of the same
kind occurred with Mr. Girdon, the notorious
liberationist lecturer. He stated in one of his
lectures that in the neighbourhood of Morecambe
Bay there were tracts of land reclaimed from the
sea and tithed. Enquiries were made into the
matter on the spot. The result was no one knew
anything of such land as described by Mr. Girdon.
Mr. Girdon has been convicted over and over
again of uttering falsehoods in his public lectures
and I say the cause which reqqires falsehood to
support it cannot be a worth cause. After a few
further remarks the Lecturer said the subject was
a very important one and time would not permit
him to say more on this occasion but he hoped to
give another lecture at some future time.
(Cheers.)
The Vice-chairman next addressed the meeting.
He said it always gave him pleasure to meet good
Conservatives on occasions like the present. The.'
speaker then at some length reviewed the Eastern
Question and spoke in high terms of Earl
Beaconsfield, who, he contended, was the ablest
statesman of the day. He regretted that Earl
Derby had ceased to be a member of the Cabinet
and contended that England was not anxious for
war as the Liberals has stated, but they had done
and they were doing all they could to prevent
%var. He was pleased to see the step that Govern-
ment had taken to defend the interests of Eng-
land. The Liberals were continually asking what
interest was at stake and they were doing all they
could to harras the Government, but if they
wanted to know the British interests in the East
he would refer them to Lord Salisbury's dispatch
and he asked those to read it who had not. If
England were compelled to go to war he had no
doubt they would remember the watchword
"England expects that every man will do his
duty." (Cheers.)
Mr. G. Rhodes, sen., also addressed the meet-
ing, Mr. Rhodes said their association was but
young, but was pleased to say that since it started
it had made rapid progress and he was glad
to sly that several gentlemen had subscribed to
it. Mr. 11. Hickman had given ..t2 2s, Mr T.
Perrins .£2 2s, Mr. W. Perry is, and a number
had given lOs GI He strongly recommended
the organization of the association and by so
doing their hands would be strengthened.
I Mr. G. H. Rhodes announced that the associa-
tion had succeeded in engaging Mr. Byrne, of Lon-
don, to give a lecture on the 29th inst. Subject,
" Constitutional Principles explained." 'From a
report of the Lecturer he had no doubt the lee..
ture would be very interesting.
Mr. H. Collier proposed a vote of thanks to
the Lecturer.
Votes of thanks was also passed to the Chair-
man and Vice-chairman, which were duly acknow-

iecged.
The next meeting will be held at Mr. T.
Gardiner's, the New Inn.

HAGLE Y.

SL)CIi SAL,—At this sale on Monday, there was a
larg - supply of every cilia's of stock, atnountlu in tlik
sgregate t £2 300. Beef was sold +fearer than last week.
Fat sheep made good market rates. Store sheep were
mach lower. Pigs were sold dearer. The atle,,danoe
as very large. Fat beasti male as high as £33 ; Tegs
80s; Lambs 445.