The Press.
London, England, 1858-05-22 00:00:00

CHURCH-RATES.

WE cannot help hoping that the Church-rate
question presents a better prospect of a reason-
able adjustment being effected than it has pre-
sented for some time past. So long as the advo-
cates for total abolition, without a substitute and
without compensation, were buoyed up with the
hope that, by means of extensive agitation, they
could succeed in preventing, under the operation
of the present law, the levying of these rates in
the majority of parishes throughout the country,
so long it was perhaps not to be expected that
they would desist from urging upon the Legis-
lature their extreme demand for sweeping con-
fiscation. It is true that they have made some
progress in this work ; but, whatever the " Li-
beration Society" may say, that progress has in
reality been much less rapid than they pretend.
The Committee of Laymen, who have devoted
their time to an examination of the actual facts
of the case, draw conclusions far more to be
relied on for accuracy than the assertions put
forth by the " Liberation Society;" and, accord-
ing to the Committee, not more than five per
cent. numerically of the parishes in England and
Wales have as yet succeeded in a successful op-
position, whilst it also appears that of this number
nearly six per cent. have relented, and rates
have been newly granted in parishes where they
had been refused; and this is mainly owing to a
change of feeling in the minds of those who had
been parties to the refusal. They could not
bring themselves tamely to witness the decay of
the old church, long the ornament of their
parish, within whose sacred precincts the bones
of their ancestors lay buried ; and, Dissenters
though they be, they were too high-minded to
leave undischarged their duties as parishioners.
It seems, however, now more than probable,
not only that the numbers of parishes refusing
rates will not increase, but that they will steadily
diminish ; for, by a decision of the Court of
Queen's Bench, on the 26th ult., in the case of
the parish of Great Leighs, it appears that in
very many of the parishes in which the rates
have been successfully resisted, such success has
been owing to votes having been tendered and
accepted which the decision of the Court of
Queen's Bench has now declared to be illegal—
viz., the votes of the occupiers of small tenements
under six pounds value. The Court also decided
that the owners of these small tenements, of how-
ever many they might be possessed, were not
entitled to more than six votes, that being the
maximum of votes allowed by law to any one
single individual. We agree with the observa-
tion made by the Committee of Laymen, that this
decision reverses the respective positions of those
who would abolish and those who would main-
tain Church-rates--at least, if the abolition be
to be effected on the grounds on which the abo-
litionists have hitherto mainly relied for ulti-
mately carrying their point.
We confess, we have always thought that this
question ought to be decided on its merits, and
not on any accidental advantages which the
state of the law might confer on one side or the
other. But it has seemed good to the aboli-
tionists to lay great stress upon the assumed fact
that the advocates of Church-rates were strug-

sling to maintain that which had become of
little value, and which was, from daily increasing
opposition, likely to become of no value at all.
Why,
y, they have said, keep up feelings of irri-
tation and ill-will for such a trifle ? Now, it is true
that we never attached any great weight to this
argument, because we knew that an important
principle was at stake, and not merely a sum of
money; and, more especially, because we felt
that those who chiefly put it forward, did so, not
because they cared for the money, but because
they wanted to set aside the principle. Still, how-
ever, we cannot deny that the prospect of getting
rid of Church-rates, under the existing law, was
a prospect calculated to encourage the obeli-
' tionists to prosecute their designs—inasmuch as
it was likely to make the defenders of the rates
less zealous in maintaining that which was
rapidly slipping through their fingers, fight they
ever so bravely. In this respect, therefore, the
positions of the two parties seem to have been
reversed.
The case of tithes in Ireland during the
agitation of the well-known " Appropriation
Clause " is a case in point. There, as the Com-
mittee state, the occupiers refused to pay—the
Government proclaimed that tithes must soon
be extinguished. Then came the Exchequer
processes; and in less than a year, the tithes
which were apparently so near their extinction,
were never so well paid up. This was a source
of great dismay to the Whig-Radical Government
of that day ; and it is curious to look back upon
the trick to which they had recourse. Their
object (as openly avowed by them) was to compel
the House of Lords to pass the " Appropriation
Clause," as the only condition on which they
would consent to take measures to secure for the
Irish clergy their property, which force withheld
from them. When, however, the results of these
Exchequer processes became manifest, they saw
that they would lose the lever by which they
felt confident they should coerce the Lords: so,
with more of ingenuity than of honesty, they
inserted in the middle of a Police Bill a clause,
wholly unconnected with the avowed ob-
jects of the Bill, enabling their Lord-
Lieutenant by his fiat to put a stop to
these processes. The clause passed the Commons
undiscovered, and got as far as the Committee of
the House of Lords. It was then detected by
the vigilance of the late Lord HARROWBY, who,
contemptuously holding up the Bill in the face
of the Ministers, told them that it was "a
slippery trick," and that the clause must be
expunged. It was expunged accordingly, without
one word being said in its defence ; for the
authors of the trick cowered under the severity
of the rebuke. We rejoice, however, to see that
although the Committee of Laymen feel that this
legal decision may considerably strengthen their
position, they do not seem to be unduly elated
by it. They still avow their desire for a reason-
able adjustment : and for that we also are
anxious. Nor need we despair of finding a rea-
sonable basis of compromise ; the prospect of
which the decision of the Court of QueTi s
Bench above alluded to very materially im-
proves.
One other word we must add. We have no
doubt that the Whig Peers, as well as the Con-
servative ones, are entirely opposed to the total
abolition of Church-rates; while they are prepared
to consider any rational plan for an adjustment
of the question. Let them, then, in the present in-
stance, when a Bill for total abolition comes before
them, agree to an unanimous rejection of such a
proposal. Nothing could be more likely to bring_
the Church-rate agitators, who at present scoff
at the idea of a compromise, to their senses, than
such an unanimity in the House of Lords.

THE IIOUSE OF COMMONS AND THE
OATHS BILL.
THE reasons given by the Commons for opposing
the Lords' Amendments in the Oaths Bill are
expressed with much weakness, and the real
difficulty of the case has not been met by Lord J.
RUSSELL or Sir R. BETHELL. It is beside the
purpose to consider what was the original mean-
ing attached to the words " on the true faith of a
Christian," because time, custom, and the sanc-
tion of the Legislature did affix a positive mean-
ing to them. We might as well ask how pro-

perty was first acquired in the soil attached to
Woburn Abbey. The words did exclude the
Jews, and that was enough. Besides, when the
Roman Catholics were excluded no one would
ever have dreamed of admitting the Jews. But
the second resolution goes on :
"Because the exclusion of British subjects
from seats and offices of State, on the ground of
their religious opinions, is contrary to the
general maxims of freedom of conscience."

The affirmation of the "principle" (?) as-
serted in this "reason" would carry the House
of Commons much further than it intends. The
House is not prepared to admit " Deists," who
reject revelation ; and it is yet to be proved what
are the personal merits of the hereditary deniers
of CHRIST, as contrasted with the Deists who reject
Scriptural Revelation, although professing to
acknowledge the obligatory power of conscience,
and a future state. If a Jew be admitted to the
Legislature, why should an avowed Deist be ex-
cluded ? TOLAND and TINDAL were men of
misguided talents and misdirected learning, but
there is no reason for supposing that they were
less conscientious in their disbelief of the Bible,
than the Jews are in their rejection of the
Divine Redeemer. What is a Jew but an 'anti-
Christian Deist, whose traditions, as well as
prejudices, are opposed to the religion of
? Admit the Jews (as a matter of
the honours and trusts of the Legisla-
it might be difficult to exclude those
creed is "the love of the good and the
convenient form of expression for Deism.
said, thirdly, that the Jews have not
disloyal, and that they are not intellectually
offices : the same assertions might be
`moral Deists." Aild (fourthly) it is
that exclusion savours of " persecu-
does every "exclusion," and Lord J.
ought to recollect the Anti-Papal Act
Other " reasons" of a similar kind do
the difficulty of the case.
is, however, far more force in the fifth
which appeals to the progress of opinion
subject, though it is awkwardly stated in
calculated to increase the antagonism
'wo Houses. If a large portion of the
public, after repeated discussions, should
that, after the latitude given to Roman
it is hard to exclude the Jews, and if
measure could only be taken in a political,
in a religious sense, we can understand
those Peers who have conscientiously
' the admission of the Jews might change
minds. The Jew question when demanded
`stand-and-deliver ' tone is a very different
the same Jew question when asked for
respectful and conciliatory manner. " I
opposed Reform formerly," said Lord PLUNKET
1831, " because it came like a housebreaker
' menanced life and property ; it now ad-
like a creditor, and I am ready to con-
the propriety of discharging the account."
conciliation and a proper style were employed,
possible that the Peers would consider
further opposition should be given to
of the Jews.
iothing could be worse than for the House of
to make a precedent for trying to
question by itself. Before five years
would bitterly regret its conduct. One
the State cannot arrogate the privilege
independence of all others, and it is not per-
., to every branch of the State to say, like
Is XIV., "We arc the State." If the House
Commons set at nought the decision of the
f Lords, the time might come when Con-
- would follow the example of the House
Commons,
and disregard Parliament! The
udicature, also, might prove an extremely for-
dable and disagreeable opponent of the House
Commons at some future time, if the House
commit itself by an unconstitutional
worth recollecting that when the Jew ques-
first actively brought before Parliament,

~' .

misguided tal
there is no rl
less conscieni
than the th
Divine Rede
Christian I)
whose prejw
the Cross ?
right) to the
ture, and it r
whose creed
fir"—a cow
But it as 8
been disloyal
unfit for offic
made of " m
contended tl
tion." So d(
RussELL oug
of 1851. Ot
not touch the
There is, 1
reason, whicl
on the subjec
a manner ca
of the two
religious pub
think that,
Catholics, it
the measure
and not in a
how those
opposed the I
their minds.
in a "stand-i
one from tht
in a respect
" opposed- R 4
in 1831, " bi
" and mena
" vances Ilk
" sider the p
If conciliatio
it is just pos
whether fur
the claims of
Nothing c
Commons ti
settle the q
passed it wol
Tower of the
of independi
flitted to ev
lours XIV.
of Commons
House of Lo
vocation wol
of Common
Judicature,
midable and
of Commom
were to cor
precedent.
It is worth
tion was firsi
111