The Sun.
London, England, 1853-01-17 00:00:00

The Chairman of the late Committee on Church-
rates, Mr. TRELAWNEY, published, last Septem-
ber, in our respectable Dissenting contemporary,
the Nonconformist, a long and very able let-
ter, which we may properly consider as the Report
of that Committee. Some of its members would
probably have objected to the definite proposal with
which the letter concludes, and it is just possible
that a very stiff Churchman would still main-
tain, in the face of the evidence, that Church-
rates are necessary ; but the vast majority of
candid men of all parties will agree with the im-
partial conclusions of the late Member for Tavi-
stock, that " the evidence entiles him to consider
six propositions as conclusively established :

"I. That the law is inadequate for its pur-

pose.
" 11. That it is uncertain.
" 111. That it is expensive.
" IV. That it is Unjust to Dissenters.
"V. That in special cases it is unjust to Church-
men.

" VI. That it is unnecessary."

On the first three propositions there will
be no difference of opinion. If there
could be any, the facts mentioned by Mr. TRE-
LAWNEY under these heads would satisfy the
most incredulous ; all our readers, however, are
familiar with the Braintree case. That the tax is
unjust to Dissenters, many fairminded Churchmen,
as well as those who are unscrupulous sticklers for
the last penny of tribute to Ecclesiastical Supre-
macy, would be inclined to dispute. It is hope-
less to reason with the latter ; the former we
confidently refer to Mr. TRELAWNEY'S admir-
able summing up of the evidence ou
this point. Admitting that at Common Law the
repair of the fabrics, and the necessaries for public
worship, are a parish charge ; that they may be
considered, theoretically, as deducted from the rent
by every tenant who hires a property, liable to
Church-rates ; and that to give them up is there-
fore to make a present of their amount to the
owners of the property—he observes, " that it
may, indeed, be right to continue a certain charge
which has existed for many centuries, but it does
nct follow that the public are always bound to ap-
ply its produce to the same objects ; and if it has
ceased to give satisfaction to apply a portion of
the national wealth to the purpose of
diffusing particular tenets, those who disapprove
of such application have a right to its discon-
tinuance, and those who insist upon it are bound
to demonstrate its conduciveness to the public
good. " He proceeds to show from the evidence
of Dr. LITSHINGTON, and Mr. HODGKIN, a barris-
ter, and member of the community of Friends, that
the tax originated in Catholic times, when it was

' as a tax equal, and therefore just, dissent being
scarcely known, that the legislation for a long
time after the Reformation was based on complete,
uncompromising intolerance of dissent ; but tha,t
the legal toleration of dissent necessarily altered
the state of the question, " the tax ceased to be
applicable to purposes in the benefit of which
all could partake, and then became unjust."
We may add that the liability of newly-created
property to Church-rates is defensible on no
ground whatever. Such property certainly has
not been liable to Church-rates " from time im-
memorial ;" and, so far as it goes, they hinder
the improvement of property, like copyhold ten-
ures and charges. The smallness of the impost is
an argument cutting both ways.
The injustice of Church-rates to Churchmen 1
themselves in, the case of district churches paying
their own expenses, and those of the parish
church also, has often been felt, is sufficiently
obvious, and was established by clerical evidence ;
indeed, we remember more than one church-rate
having been defeated by Churchmen in these circum-
stances. The last, and main point, is, that Church-
rates are unnecessary. Most cord lolly do we wish
that Mr. TRELAWNEY may gain the concurrence of
all parties here. He ought to gain it. The facts
he adduces of what has been voluntarily done by
Churchmen themselves (especially by Dr. HOOK
at Leeds, and Mr. BURGESS at Chelsea) as well as
byDissenters, amount to moral demonstration ; Mr.
REID NEWSOME, churchwarden of Headingly, gave
very instructive evidence on the ease with which a
voluntary Church-rate canbe made. He charged the
house-rental of each person occupying a sitting.
" Out of a rate 0f52/.los. 7d. somade, 451.55. 9d.
was raised ;. and out of 53 persons, only 5 refused
an appeal to them for the requisite funds." All
that is needed, therefore, to meet the expenses of
worship, is an Actof Parliament legalising such volun-
tary rates, and making it the duty of Churchwardens
to call together the inhabitants, and declare flab
amount needed for the year. But how is the
fabric of the churches to be upheld ? Now here
there must be a little concession on the part
of the more extreme Dissenters. If Church-
men will pay their own expenseS for wor-
ship, as their part of the adjustment,
cannot Dissenters agree to regard the churches
themselves as valuable public property, which the
nation should not allow to become dilapidated ?
Some Dissenters will reply, of course, that while
the Churchmen are tenants of buildings which
have cost them nothing, and while Dissenters have
to repair chapels of which they themselves have
borne the cost of erection, Churchmen ought at ,
least to keep their buildings in repair, and be
grateful too. We admit the plausibility of the
reasoning ; but we appeal to them as men who
must wish to rescue Religion from the contentions,
heartburnings, and reproach of Church-rate
Meetings, to concede a little for the sake
of their common faith. We would, if we
could, induce Churchmen everywhere to: emu-
late
Dissenters as successfully and efficiently as
they have done at Leeds ; but, failing this, we
would beseech Dissenters not to ride their hobby
of principle to death. As a large section of the
nation, they are in part landlords of the
national churches ; and if a landlord,
from some cause, cannot compel a tenant
to keep his house in repair, why, as a man of
prudence, he must repair it himself. Now of
all the proposals yet made, Mr. TRELAWNEY'S
must be, we should think, the least exceptionable
to Dissenters in regard to the mode of raising the
money. He would raise it from Church property
entirely. The Marquis of BLANDFORD has sup-
plied him with a fund. The Marquis, it will be
remembered, brought forward a scheme for Church
extension, through a fund to be raised by sel-
ling a large part of the ad:Vowsons now in
the hands of the Lord Chancellor. Mr. TRE-
LAWNEY would apply this fund to Church Repairs.
The MARQUIS wants to build. 600 new churches ;
Mr. TRELAWNEY would save the old ones from
going to ruin. For the details—which, indeed,
except as to the proposed application of them, are
the Marquis of BLANDFoRes—we must refer our
readers to Mr. TRELAWNEY'S admirable letter. It
is quite clear that, if Dissenters will be moderate
and Churchmen just, here is a fund which would
amply suffice for the repairs •of all our
churches. To all who wish for a settlement
of this harassing question, we would merely
say, in conclusion, that it should be strongly
pressed upon the attention of the present Govern-
ment. Mr. TRELAWNEY himself, the author of
the letter to which we have called attention, most
handsomely declined to oppose Lord ALFRED
HARVEY at Brighton, and may, therefore, fairly
ask, at their hands, for the consideration of his
proposals,
parties are unanimous that a
All
more exceptionable mode than the present one
of raising funds for the repair of churches and the
conduct of worship could hardly be devised ; and
it may well be demanded of a Ministry which
is to be one of deeds and of progress, that it
should abolish this nuisance by some means. Sir
ROBERT PEEL, whom so large a portion of the pre-
sent Cabinet venerate as their highest authority,
stated distinctly that the subject could not
be left unsettled, " and yielded to no other
in, emergency." The Whig Members of the
Ministry must be willing to renew their former
attempts under more favourable circumstances; and
even Lord DERBY (who was in office when Mr. TRE-
LAWNEY wrote) when previously in the Cabinet,
having' stated that " the present condition of
Church-rates has al ways been considered 'a
very great grievance from which her MAJESTY'S
Government are prepared to grant substantial
relief," added, " Suppose that, year after year, the
Church should be triumphant in maintaining the
payment of these rates to the uttermost farthing,
and maintaining every abuse connected with
their collection and distribution, does my Ron.
Friend think that such a course of proceeding
would be advantageous to the interests of the
Church, or lead to the promotion of true religion ?
Does my Hon. Friend consider the heartburnings,
the acrimonious revilings, the profanation of the
Church where these meetings take place, by
which, year after year, the cause of true Religion
is violated and profaned?" ." I say that such
a state of things imperatively calls for re-
lief." Zealous Dissenters, we know, covet
these opportunities of damaging the Church,
which they are sure of doing in every contested
rate, whether they lose or win ; but more mo-
derate Dissenters, and all Churchmen, aware of
their true interest, would, we think, do wisely,
by a combined and vigorous movement, to press
Mr. TRELAWNEY'S proposition on the present
Liberal-Conservative Government.

I The farmers themselves are, we perceive, making
a little stir again about the Malt Tax. Between
two and three hundred highly respectable persons
of this " depressed class" met at the Royal Hotel,
in the ancient capital of that pre-eminently agri-
cultural county, Norfolk, to " call the attention
of the public to the grievous oppression of the
Malt and Hop Duties on the producing and con-
suming classes of the kingdom." So at least ran
the circular by which the meeting was convened.
It was composed, so far as the speakers were con-
cerned, of hearty, thoroughgoing Protectionists ;
and the Chairman,
H. J. STRACEY, Esq., is the
reputed Tory candidate for East Norfolk at the
next election—a circumstance which, though un-
supported by anything said at the meeting, led
some to suppose that political objects were at the
bottom. The Chairman, however, and his farmer
friends, all treated Free Trade as a thoroughly
settled thing; they did not even gnash their teeth
at it; they only wanted it carried out thoroughly;
good old Protectionists, too, they neither spoke long-
ingly thereof, nor complained contemptuously that
the unreachable grapes were sour. They had but
one burden to their song—that consistent Free-
traders, consistent friends of the consumer, con-
sistent " lighteners of the springs of industry,"
ought to grant them the repeal of the Malt Tax.
The only Senator amongst them was Mr.
EDMOND WODEHOUSE, Deputy Lieutenant, and
one of the East Norfolk Members, who elicited no
small measure of rather noisy dissent ; because,
although thirty years ago he had voted with Lord
WESTERN for the repeal of the Malt Duty, he
had
told Mr. CAYLEY at the present time that the
circumstances, were J changed, and he could not

support the repeal now. The farmers, when
asked by him, loudly declared that five millions
could be spared ; and one of them, a shrewdish
son of the soil, told the County Legislator, that
when ho could convince him that no pensions and
sinecures were paid out of the revenues of the
country, and that the luxuries of the rich were
taxed in an equal proportion to the necessaries of
the poor, he would then believe that the five mil-
lions could not be spared. Excellent tuition this
for nascent M.P.'s, and for old Protectionist
M.P.'s too,--and to receive it from their own
tenant-farmers ! Assuredly we shall soon have
the good old stock county members turning hearty
financial reformers. Had we been present we
could scarcely have avoided reminding the worthy
farmer that he was not a short time ago, while
clamouring for Corn Laws, so anxious to
lower the price of the " necessaries of
the poor ; " then, however, a Corn Tax
meant a higher price for wheat ; now, a Malt
Tax means, as he thinks, a lower price for barley.
Let all that pass, however, and let ustake our East-
Norfolk farmer friends for pure patriots—the im-
portant question is—Are they on the right tack ?
Now, we do think there would be many advan-
tages in really cheap malt, especially if the Licens-
ing System were abolished, and the trade made
as free and open as that in most untaxed articles.
If everybody were as much at liberty to make
and sell beer as to sell haberdashery and grocery,
we should no doubt have abundance of it, both
unadultered and cheap. Competition would in-
sure both genuine quality, and a reasonable price.
It would also be procurable of numberless re-
spectable venders besides the publican and the
beer-shop keeper ; it would be a trade open not
only to persons of moderate capital, but to every
cleanly, good cottage housewife, who wished to
earn honestly a few additional shillings per week
by selling it to her near neighbour. Best of all
would it be if the cottager could brew his own
monthly bushel of malt at home ; the wife, who
in times of weakness often needs such nourish-
, ment, enjoying it with her husband ; the grains
serving for their pig, and the fresh yeast itself
being no mean aid to the weekly cottage baking.
Nothing would be better for the morals of the
working man than thus to withdraw him from
the drugged beer and evil companions of
the public-house, and to retain him in
the bosom of his family to enjoy his humble
luxuries and comforts there. One of the resolu-
lutions passed at the meeting distinctly expressed
the wish " to see again the spigot and the mash-
' tub in the dwellings of the labouring poor." Is
this, however, chimerical to hope for ?—that is,
if the Malt-tax were repealed. We hardly think
it is. Notwithstanding the growing partiality,
even of working men, for tea and coffee, we are
confident that agricultural labourers at least do
not consume anything like the beer they wish for
and need. Their wages and the price of malt
together make it an impossibility. Now their
wages are certainly somewhat improving, emigra-
tion is reducing their number, and more work
for each, better pay, and better living, is the
present course of things. If, then, the bushel of
malt be reduced '75 per cent. to them—if they
will be able to get for four or five shillings, or
less, what now costs them fully seven or eight—
their improving wages may enable them to com-
mand this important luxury—or necessary, as it
would perhaps be fairer to term it. If, how-
ever, the price be reduced by the full
amount of the duty (and a less reduc-
tion would not materially increase the
consumption), where would be the benefit
to the farmer ? For, patriotic as we be-
lieve the gentlemen of the Norfolk Hotel to be,
we still fear they would scarcely trouble themselves
to meet together if they did not imagine them-
selves to be promoting the farmers' interest.
We reply that the only possible advantage to them
would be scope for increased profitable production
of barley. Barley is now proportionably the best
priced of all grain. It has risen rather than
dropped since the Budget was thrown out, prov-
ing that the present supply is insufficient ; but
taking off the duty would have one very impor-
tant consequence : it would make it profitable to
malt qualities, which now will scarcely pay for the
manufacture, because while the same high duty is
paid on all qualities none but the best barley will
afford to pay it. Hence foreign barley, which
generally is inferior to our own, would be very
largely imported, and at the same time lands
which will furnish but second-rate qualities here
would be encouraged to grow them. There might
be at first some rise of price, and it might be
slightly sustained for some time, but we think
adu cethe only benefit the farmer, as a producer
would be a better market
for could n
cultimatelyre
If he cannot increase
his produce, the foreign producer would alone be
i increased
produce. reap,
benefitted, since it is admitted on all hands, from
Mr. DISRAELI to the Royal Hotel speakers, that
the country will not tolerate the present prohibi-
tory duty on foreign malt a day after our own
Malt Tax is repealed. We think the gain to the
consumer would be by far the greatest, but unless
it would make beer, as extensively as bread, a
domestic manufacture, we do not think it would
compensate the community for the loss of five
millions of revenue.

We are, however, thoroughly pleased to see
our farmers meeting. They need to meet much
more. Like every other class they will improve
themselves by discussion. We want to see far
more of the municipal spirit amongst them, and
there must be more of it, if they are ever to have
the influence they ought to have in public matters.
We hope the time will come when every union of
parishes will become a kind of municipal district,
enjoying similar privileges and powers with those
of our present corporate towns. The farmers are
as thoroughly competent to form corporate bodies,
to elect magistrates, and manage their own local
affairs municipally,
as their more favoured bre-
thren of our cities and towns.