The Sun.
London, England, 1839-04-23 00:00:00

CHRISTCHURCH CPIURCH-

RATES.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
Sra,—ln your evening edition of Wednesday last
a paragraph appeared, stating that Mr. Hawes, the
Churchwarden of Christchurch, had cited one parish-
ioner, and was about to cite others, into, the Ecclesiasti-
cal Courts, among whom was Mr. Apsley Pellatt. In
your Friday evening's edition, a letter sinned by Mr.
Hawes 's brother appeared, affirming that the former pa-
ragraph was calculated to give an erroneous impression,
as the action is strictly a friendly one, and that Mr.
Pellatt had been selected at his ox n request.
Without taking other evidence than this of the
Churchwarden's brother, here is an admission on his
part that he had concurred in the selection of Mr. Pel-
latt by the parishioners, some of whom Mr. Hawes had
determined to victimize in the Ecclesiastical Courts ;
but unfortunately for this assertion, instead of citing Mr.
Pellatt he had cited Mr. Webb, and that gentleman
had already paid the rate and the costs of that Court, by
a misnomer called the Court Christian.
This fact shows the manner in which Mr. Hawes ful-
filled his part of the friendly suit—a friendly suit so far
as Mr. Pellatt is concerned, in the same sense that a
man being about to be robbed with poorer companions
begs of the gentlemen-robbers that they will be content
with fleecing him.

Mr. William Hawes must surely bo a youngcr bro-
ther of the worthy Churchwarden, when he men-
tions the fact that his brother is a Dissenter in proof
of his objection to Church-rates, a Dissenter,
and at the same time a Churchwarden, making a rate
He knows that a Dissenter cannot be compelled to servo
the office, and yet here is this consistent Dissenter; hold-
ing it to be his duty to ask for a rate, and to en-
force it.

He dissents from a Stat Church for conscience
sake, and yet casts his brethren into •the lion's den be-
cause they will not rear the shrine at which he himself
professes he holds it to be wrong to worship. Why
this is worse than the now notorious recreant recanter
on the bench, the Maze-pondjultra-Resolutionist. Will
the worthy Dissenting Churchwarden tell us how he
reconciles his conduct with any part of that Scripture
Volume which has induced him to dissent from a State
Church, yet give voluntary conformity, and the breach
of his promise, when he bad got the power to use the
boot, and put it on more sufferers than one.
Why was Mr. Webb selected, when he had agreed
to cast Mr. Pellatt into the furnace? What a mise-
rable state must Mr. Churchwarden Hawes, who takes
credit for being a sincere Dissenter, be in, to have to
bind his brethren for what //e must believe to be the
unholy sacrifice ! Here we have a sincere Dissenter,
not only binding his brethren, but lighting the fires of
persecution in his own name, and then writing a letter
by his brother to a public Journalist to say he is in
the position of a man who has said one thing and dale
aneort,haeir,
d tolifenoneemplh;)' s a relativeprofesses to v onein‘dvicay and acts ano-
ther, him. He will
not deny that he has cited Mr. Webb, though he declares
the action is a friendly one against Mr. Pellatt. He
knows well that the object of Mr. Pellatt and his
friends is not to try whether or not there- is such a
pariJi as Christchurch, but whether the Episcopal sect
ought to compel Dissenters to build up altars at which
they cannot worship ; and he seeks to cover his volun-
tary instrumentality under the plea of official duty, that
office being one which he was not compelled as a Dis-
senter to accept. There are some old-fashioned Dis-
senters who think there is no religious duty inconsistent
with Christianity, and that this plea of official duty is
one of the convenient blinds which those who have no
just grounds for their conduct set up to keep off self-
reproach.
It is one of the evils which a Church established by
law creates, that it establishes rest for a man's con-
science. which prevents his mind from tracing his duties
to their source. As vulgar robbers disguise their enor-
mities from themselves by slang, so do these conventional
phrases hide from the unthinking the error of their
doings, and enable the designing and artful to disguise
their inconsistencies.

A DISSENTER,
BUT NOT A CHURCHWARDEN.

April 22, 1839.
SIR—In your paper of the 19th instant there is a let-
er from Mr, W. Hawes, relative to the Church-rate in
his parish, written fur the purpose of correcting what
!e considers an erroneous statement previously pub-
-Ist:ed.

He states that at every step the Churchwarden sub-
mitted his proceedings to the Committee for opposing
Church-rates. Will Mr. Hawes answer the following
queries :—Did he submit his obtaining about 400 ma-
gisterial summonses for non-payment of minister and
Church-rates against parties, the greater part of whom
were the poorer rate-payers of this parish ? Did he
consult them relative to the citation of Mr. Webb,
thus subjecting him to the expense of upwards of 61.,
after a promise made that if be cited any Mr.
Pellatt should be selected ? Does Mr. Ilawes think
it generous, open, or candid in his brothi r, by threats,
magisterial summonses and orders, to extract from the
timid a rate, the legality of which was disputed ? Would
it not have been a more manly and straight-forward
course if he had previously taken Mr. Pcllatt, who Mr.
W. Hawes states was willing to meet the question ?
Had he thus proceeded, and the decision
been unfavourable to Mr. Pellatt, the rate would have
no doubt been paid without further oppcsition, but the
Churelmtardens would not then have had the gratitica-

tion of havinc, extracted from the pockets of the poor
the amount of about `t 0/. in fees to the Vestry Clerk,
who by this disreputable mode is paid for his services.
Mr. W. Hawes informs us his brother is a Dissenter.
This I regret, for I am at a loss to reconcile a Dissen-
ter's taking the oath required to be taken by Church-
wardens with any principle of truth, honour, or even of
common honesty. I consider it a dereliction of moral
principle, and contrary to the divine precepts of the
New Testament. His opinions, it appears, are un-
altered. Not so his conduct, nor that of Mr.W. Hawes,
as the inhabitants of this parish can testify. In 1837
we find these gentlemen strenuously opposing Church-
rates, and influencing those in their employment. The
opponents of the rate were then successful, but in
1838 we witnessed no such exertions, although the firm
of 8., T., and W. Hawes voted against Church-rates.
If the polls of 1837 and 1838 are compared, the poll
of the latter year will be found to be dela:lent of many
names of persons in their employ, which are recorded
in the former, and it has been confidently asserted that
in 1838 they were discouraged by their employers from
recording their votes.

Mr. W. Hawes may be able satisfactorily to account
for his brother's protecting the collector in his petty
frauds on the inhabitants of this parish in the collecting
of the minister's rate, which circumstance, when men-
tioned in vestry, in the presence of Mr. Thomas
Hawes by me, was made the subject of laughter.
The opinions of Drs. Addams and Phillimore may
prove to Mr. Hawcs's satisthetion the legality of the
rate ; hut I believe the opponents of Church-rates in
this parish are not of that opinion. I apprehend that
what ho calls a dispute on the ordinary grounds of
compulsory payments to the Church would not be re-
ferred to the Ecclesiastical Court. I think any party
opposed to Church-rates would think it hopeless to raise
that question there ; but I do hope if the case is ar-
gued there the rate Ivill be objected to for many other
reasons than that of whether this parish is in the bo-
rough of Southwark or otherwise ; but how that " al-
most involves the question whether or not there is such
a parish as Christ-church " I cannot understand.
Mr. Pellatt is no doubt able to explain the part Ile
took (if any) in the election of Mr. Thomas Hawes as
Church-warden. I know not how that crentleman may
appreciate his, conduct in office, but I know there aro
many who do not form a t cry high estimate of its value.
Requesting your insertion of this communication,
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
THOS. GOODE,
26, C.
—o..,egwood Street.

attent:on has just been called by a friend
to a lettt r signed
Sin,—MY w. Hawes, dated April 18, making
various comments upon_
1,7
then_ot.ice your Correspondent
was pleased to take on the 17th lust., of the expected suit
in the Eeclegiastical Court, against several inhabitants of
the parish of Christchurch. It is questionable whether,
in the present stage .oi.
,proceedings, it is desirable to
N
enter into detail, but as rl . . Hawes has ventured
to state his view of the opinions of tho two learned
civilians, which he considers were in favour of the legality
of the rate ; he ought also to have named that he had
viz., that of James Manning, Esq.,
seen a third opinion,
Barrister at Law, of Lincoln's Inn, a good legal au-
thority on Church-rata questions, and which, on many
important points, differs from that of Dr. Phillimore,
giving my friends the most sanguine expectation of
quashing the rate, even should We fail to prove
that the provision of,' S,.nrges Bourne's Act do
not apply to this parish. Ha villg been requested by
most of the parishioacrs Vho have not pail the rate
to allow my name to stand, that one case may decide
aequier,ced ; but I cannot
the whole, I have willingly
agree with Dlr.lv. Hawes, that the question is merely
one of locality ; in it is involved (:
01 my opinion) the
vital principle of the unscriptural and tyrannical ope-
ration of Church rates. various important objections
will be argued of a public and patriotic nature (as
well as the isolated one of Stourges Bourne's Act) if,
as I expect, a citation should be served upon
Yours, very truly,
APSLEY PELLATT.
Falcon Glass Works,
Holland-street, April '2O, l 539.