Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-04-06 00:00:00

CHURCH RATES.

DESPITE the still signal failure •of the endeavoUrs
made in Parliament to settle the question of Church-
rates, by some other plan than that of their aboli-
tion, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, it seems, is going to try
his hand at another piece of patchwork. He has
given notice that in committee on Sir JOHN
TRELAWNEY'S Church-rates Abolition Bill he will
move certain amendments,---which we humbly think
he had much better let alone, not only as likely to
interpose obstacles to the full carrying out of the
voluntary principle which the Bill involves, but as
an interference with the arrangements of the
Church's own affairs which, under such circum7
stances, Parliament can never fairly exercise.
For instance, with respect to salaries charged upon
Church-Rates, Lord JOHN RUSSELL proposes to add
to the clause of the Bill relating thereto :—" Provided
also, that in any parish where, before the passing of
this Act, the salary of any person holding office or
employment has been lawfully charged upon or made
phyable out of Church-rates to be made and levied
in such parish, such rates may be made and levied
as heretofore for the purpose of paying such salary
to the person' entitled at the time of the passing of
this Act to receive the same, so long as such person
shall continue to hold such office or employment, but
no longer." Now this is manifestly inconsistent, we
conceive, with the principle of the measure. It is a
perpetuation of the obnoxious impost for a particular
and partial purpose. What claim has " any person
holding office," which the fabric of the church itself
has not, to be maintained by Church-rates ?
Churches, they tell us, were built on the faith
of such rates for their maintenance and repair,
just as much as such persons were appointed to their
offices on a similar understanding. And where is the
difference —where can there possibly be any—in
principle, between requiring a Non-conformist to
pay to the support of a church officer, and to the
maintenance of a church building ? If there be a
conscientious objection to the one, there must of
necessity be also to the other. The great argument
that has always been brought forward in support of
Church-rates that the greater part of the •
property of this country has been bought and sold
with an understanding that the church of the parish
is to be kept and repaired by the owners of such
p.”.-pnlrty nrul liability,
sum would have been paid for that property. Why,
then, if this objection is now to be set aside by Act
of Parliament, as respects the fabrics of the parish
churches, is another, and a less evident obligation,
to be retained in preference to it,—one affecting, not
the building, which may still be reverenced, for
various reasons, even by those who resist being com-
pelled to maintain it, but only the individual advan-
tage of some one or other of its salaried officials ?
Surely if there is to be no regard for " vested inte-
rests" in the sacred edifice, there can be no reason
why there should be in " any person holding office "
in connection with it.

Further, Lord JOHN RUSSELL proposes to exercise
a legislative interference with the voluntary disposi-
tion of property for the purposes to which Church-
rates are now applied, which is quite inconsistent
with the voluntary principle. He would add a clause
enacting that,—" Any rent-charge may be given by
will to the incumbent and churchwardens of any
parish and their successors, upon trust for maintain-
ing the fabric of the church, and for providing things
necessary for the celebration of Divine service
therein, provided always that the amount of such
rent-charge, or of all such rent-charges, if there be
more than one given to any one church, shall not exceed
the yearly sum of pounds." Why, the Dissenters
have and exercise this right, without express legis-
lative permission; and surely Churchmen may be
allowed to do the same, of their own free will and
accord, without any Act of • Parliament grant of
leave and liberty ?
Again,—Lord JOHN would introduce a clause to
this effect :—" The churchwardens of every parish
shall, upon two Sundays in every year, collect volun-
tary contributions of money for maintaining the
fabric of the church, and for providing things neces-
sary for celebrating Divine service therein, and
the incumbent and the churchwardens for
the time being shall, from time to time,
as occasion may require, apply the money
so collected to the purposes aforesaid." Here
then, would be a return to the old and corrupt
system of Briefs,—a system which had to be
abolished on account of its gross abuse, its arrant
and most offensive corruptness. The principle of
this clause and that of Briefs is almost identical.
For Briefs were letters patent giving licence for a
public collection in churches. And this clause
proposes a Parliamentary enactment " giving
licence' for the same thing ; and for the same
purpose .too,—for collections made or pretended to
be made under Briefs, were often for the restoration
and repair orchurches.
No, my Lord JOHN—this will not do : it would
not be doing jttstice either to the Church or to
Dissent; it would be a miserable piece of patch-
work, which could only be, in practice, the
substitution of one set of evils for another. If
the principles on which the Bill is based are to be
tried at all, let it be in their integrity, They can-
not possibly have fair play without such a trial; and
they certainly deserve that, if they are to be adopted
at all, Let Churchmen,
.among whom is so vast a
proportion of the wealth of the country, faithfully
and consistently act upon the responsibilities of the
religion of their Church. Let their alms along with
their prayers, as in the case of Cornelius, go up "as
a memorial " before Heaven—which they are in
Christian duty bound, in fact, to do,—and there need
be no fear of the inot of an efficient and most
unobjectionable, because voluntary substitute ;for
Church-rates,