The Press.
London, England, 1858-11-20 00:00:00

CHURCH RATES.

I fear I must not deceive you into any expectation that
in those panshes in which church-rates have been lost
they are likely to be recovered, though signs are not
wanting of the inhabitants of newly-constituted parochial
districts being more ready now to contribute to the main-
tenance of their own particular church than they were
formerly to the distant mother church of the undivided
parish. The feeling of Parliament does not seem to war-
rant the hope of our recovering what is lost. We know
not what plan the Government may devise for settling this
difficult and embarrassing question of church-rates.
believe, indeed, that it' what was hinted at last summer
by the heal of the Government be adopted, the landed
proprietors of England will not be found unwilling of their
own accord to tax their property by an annual rent-charge,
fairly calculated, that they may keep up what the vast
majority of them happily regard as the most valuable in-
stitution in the country. I fear, however, that in the
towns we could not expect to share very largely in the
advantage of such a commutation, since in so many in•
stances in towns other terangements have already become
habitual, and people feel also that in towns the churches,
from the overwhelming amount of population, are not able
to provide that full accommodation for the poor which is
secured in the country, and for which the landed proprietors
think it no hardship to be obliged to pay. Ido not mean
that there is any substantial equity in considering the
holders of property in towns free from a burden of this
kind. Common reason te Is us that the owner of a large
manufactory is as much indebted as the owner of a large
landed estate to the labourers by whose industry his capital
is made productive, and is therefore bound to contribute
his full share of whatever is required to secure for them
the means of instruction, whether secular or religions, and
of worship. And it is nothing bin the barest justice that
persons, whose income is derived from the high-rented
dwellings of toe poor in the squalid lanes of our crowded
cities, should contribute to secure for their tenants the
means of frequenting that house of God in which alone, in
their life of hard toil, they may be taught, in the only true
and safe sense, to regard themselves as equal to their
brother men. But I atu afraid in this matter, besides
what is just, it is very necessary to be looking to what is
feasible. Aud I should be deceiving you if I said that I
had any good hope of such an impost being laid by
Parliament on the owner of house property in towns, or
voluntarily adopted by_ them. The Government inearnre
is as yet unknown. No one can say what is likely to be
the result of the fresh discussions which must boon arise
on this vexed question. For myself, once for all. I must
repeat what 1 have elsewhere maintained, that I know r.o
argument which has been adduced which proves that there
is any injustice in men being liable to a tax imposed
fur the maintenance of a great public institution, even if
they 'lo not themselves approve of that institution ; and I
see, certainly, no greater hardship in Dissenters and Roman
Catholics contributing to the maintenance of our churches
than in our paying our proportion of the taxes which ore