The Press.
London, England, 1858-02-20 00:00:00

CHURCH RATES.

IF Church Rates are to be abolished, let us
have a clear understanding on the subject.
As a great deal is now said on the point of
fairness and candour, and freedom of con-
science, let us at least give the suffering party
the benefit of these admirable sentiments as
well as the aggressor. If, according to the
leading journal, the existence of church
rates adds strength to the hands of the
Church's foes, their abolition ought certainly
to lend strength to the hands of the Church's
friends. We have always foreseen the possi-
bility of being driven to take this ground.
Notwithstanding the opposition offered to Sir
WILLIAM CLAY by a considerable section of the
Whig party—notwithstanding the avowed
sentiments of constitutional Liberals like
Lord Jo►ty RUSSELL—we have always felt that
the active and persevering minority whom Sir
JOHN TRELAWNY represents stood a very fair
chance of carrying their point. Independently
of the religious convictions of the regular sup-
porters of the Bill, and the practical difficul-
ties in the levy of church rates which weighed
with so many more who have no dislike to the
principle, there must always be a small body
of members whose idiosyncrasy attracts them
to anything which bears the resemblance of
relief from coercion. No matter whether what
is enforced is good or evil, just or unjust, due
or not due, nothing in their opinion can be

171

right which is effected by compulsion. With
nothing, on the other hand, to oppose to these
agencies but a disunited clergy, to whom the
question of candles or no candles is much
more important than the maintenance of a
church to put them in—who have allowed
their internal differences to prevent a unani-
mous support of the only party in the State
which could have preserved them from their
enemies—we have ever considered the total
abolition of church rates as only a
question of time. We have never ceased
to warn her of what she might expect;
and we must now turn our attention to the
present emergency, and endeavour to ascertain
how far the Church may be enabled to convert
to good this blow at her ancient authority.
As was well said by Lord ROBERT CECIL,
the abolition of church rates is a step towards
the separation of Church and State. The
revenue so raised might be small in amount,
and irregularly collected ; but it was a link of
association in the popular mind between the
ecclesiastical and the civil authority. Wise
men do not require to be told on what subtle
and apparently trifling things great events
depend. We do not object to the abolition of
church rates because of its material detriment
to the Church, but because it will familiarise
the popular mind with a different idea of her
position—with an idea of her as an isolated,
independent body, instead of being woven up
in the general system of the country.
Now, we warn those persons who look for-
ward to the separation of Church and State
with equanimity, if not with joy, that such an
event must bring with it the realisation of
much which they have hitherto opposed. The
common fairness of Englishmen will not allow
the Church to be deprived of State protection
with one hand and bound in State fetters with
the other. If the union falls to the ground,
Convocation rises in its place. That is a con-
cession which will inevitably be demanded,
and we think is impossible to be refused.
Our readers know that our own observations
upon this subject have always tended rather
to moderate the zeal of the Hich Church
party. We should be unfeignedly sorry at
anything which seemed to justify their ac,
tivAy ; yet if anything could do so, it would
be the course of legislation to which the
abolition of church rates not indirectly points.
Affairs are gradually but surely verging to a
crisis. Shall the old, broad, free pale of the
Church of England continue as it is—an area
on which so much conflicting opinion had room
to expatiate? Or shall it be narrowed to the
dimensions of a sect, to gratify the malice of
a sect in which her different schools shall be
jostled together, and compelled to fight it out
till one or the other is destroyed ?
It is a question of no less magnitude that
is now before the country, and we would fain
believe there was any ground for hope that the
practical blessings we now enjoy will not be
sacrificed for the sake of a pure theory and an
unsubstantial grievance.