The Sun.
London, England, 1830-04-21 00:00:00

THE CHURCH AND ITS DOINGS.

(Frani the Waterford Chronicle.)
Yesterday, Friday, April 16, the Very
Rev. Dean Lee, Incumbent of th€
Trinity in this city, went, in the person of o
his
collector, to demand from Mr. Pierse RiCh-df
Barron a certain sum amounting, we believe, tt,
ahbimouatstlhnreceumpobuellildt s,mwolni iecyh. he
Mr. Barron
awrraosndue asked
what value he had received, or.was to receive
o
from his reverence for his money, but not obtain-
ing any explanation, Mr. Barron refused to pay
the sum demanded. Upon this the Very Rev.
Dean Lee, in the person of his collector, pro..
ceeded to distrain. Mr. B. desired him desist,
and said that if he did distrain, it would be at
his peril. He persisted, however, and actually
carried off one large mahogany table and ten ma-
hogany chairs. This is the plain and simple
narration of the circumstances attending this
transaction, and we have considered it our
duty to lay them before the public, in order
that they may form a due estimate of the
meek and pious spirit which animates the
exemplary Divines of the Established Church,
and of the laws which sanction'. and sup-
port such a system. The oppressive nature
of these laws has been severely and generally felt
for years, and we rejoice to find that a corres-,
ponding spirit of determination in seeking for
their repeal is now exhibited. We would wish
to see the plan pursued on this occasion by Mr.
Barron universally acted upon. Every individual
not a member of the Established Church should
refuse to pay this unjust tax, for by paying upon
demand, he, to a certain extent, gives his sane-
tion and assent to this odious and oppressive im-
post. These sanctified cormorants will tell us
to be honest and honourable in our dealings—.
they will preach whole hours on the virtuous
obligations of justice and charity—indeed we
do not mean to accuse the Very Rev. Dean
Lee of dilating very largely upon this or any
other subject—but in the exercise of his arduous
duties, which consist, we believe, in an annual
sermon, he no doubt in that discourse, such as
it is, paints in vivid colours to the imagina-
tions of his enraptured auditors the characteristic
beauties of justice and charity—and next day
we find him depriving his neighbour of his pro-
perty, without giving him any return. Is this
practising what he preaches ? But we will be
told, the law establishes this as his right. Trash
we say. Justice is the law of God—that law
never sanctions the taking of any wan's property
without giving him some value in return. This
is the precept of God, and no law which man can
devise has the power to alterfthat principle. It is
always one, unchanged and unchangeable, no
matter what laws the capricious or interested
fickleness of the human mind may suggest, they
cannot controvert this principle. The law of man
may accord its sanction to such an iniquitous and
oppressive system ; but justice—the fixed, immu-
table, and sacred law of God—never will. It may
be law, but it is not justice. It is a law which,
under pretence of supporting religion, violates the
first precepts of Christianity, to do unto others
as we would be done by—to encourage peace, and
to promote universal concord. Does this boasted
law effect this ? No—it engenders strife,
cherishes discord, and perpetuates ill-will, ha-
tred, and animosity amongst all classes. It is a
libel upon religion to say that it requires such
support—true religion repudiatesit ; but the fact
is, that under the semblance of maintaining re-
ligion, the law is really for the purpose of mi-
nistering to human cupidity. Again—we will,
no doubt, be told that the law may be a bad
one, but as it does exist, we must submit to it.
To this we reply, that if it be the law, it is the
fault of those who feel aggrieved by it. It is so
only because they have not resisted_ it in every
legal and constitutional way. Had they done so,
it would not now be law, and therefore we
say it should not tamely be submitted to.
While the Catholics of this country remained
quiescent, did they ever obtain any thing ?
Are we not borne out by the declaration of
.the
British Minister, that it was by constitutional
resistance to the penal code that the people ob-
tained its repeal ? Had they remained inactive, it
would be at this moment in existence. Again,
have not the English people, by the same spirit of
determined resistance, obtained-a -repeal of three
millions of taxes. With all this before our
eyes, are we to be told that the people should
submit to the odious tax of which we hero com-
plain ? This must not, cannot be. It is a
itsacred d
quietly
w everyuty
paid,
h legitimate every
iattheout
obstructionmo pa matt owespositi o opposition,
anti
society,
the
obstacle
aibewst yt to
e
in the way of this odious impost. As long as
will
exist, but if all the parishioners, or even half the
parishioners, would submit to distraint rather
than pay it, the collection would become diffi-
cult, ultimately impracticable, and we would
then soon sea the law abolished. The spirit
'which is now abroad gives strong earnest that
this will soon be the case, and when we contem.
plate the result of a similar spirit in the times
gone by, we feel disposed to antertaia a strong
conviction that this iniquitous system of legal-
.
jail plunder fauncl Ong 4th