The Sun.
London, England, 1841-01-23 00:00:00

CHURCH-RATES.

It is calculated by the Tory journals that mere money
is often expended is a Church-rate contest than would
pay the whole amount of the rate proposed. They re-
present this as a very . lavish outlay, and aro much
grieved that the antagonism should be so inveterate as
to overlook the superfluous costliness. The legal taxa-
tion of Ecclesiastical Courts, by which a disputed rate
of a few slangs drags after it a long tail of costs, at the
rate of something like five-and-twenty pounds per shil-
ling, also seems to them a 7.0E11 and wasteful extrava-
_

;ante. And when imprisonment excites a sympaihy
that becomes palpable in the form of hard cash, they
elevate their hands and eyes at the profitable trade of
Church-rate martyrdom. The donation of nine hun-
dred pounds to John Thorogood plunges them in deepest
horror. They inter that clearly the hostility to Church-
rates is a sort of theological cantankerousness in which
the money power is lavishly employed to gra'ify the ma-
lignity of sectarian bigotry.
Such is one Tory view of the Church-rate question ;
but there is another. At times we are seriously told
that conviction, conscience, and sincerity, have nothing
to do with the resistance. The plea of religion is stig-
matised as a contemptible subterfuge. Tory perspi-
caeity has penetrated into its entire hypocrisy. The
opposition is resolved altogether into pecuniary greedi-
ness and sordidness. The argument then goes that Dis-
senters do not dislike the doctrine, but begrudge the
gold. They arc charged with prtferrieg the saving of
a sixpence to the saving of a soul. Their theology is
construed as thievery, their conscience as cheating, and
their resistance as robbery. The rate is affirmed to be
simply and solely a money question, and the Dissenter a
dishonestwaTler of his lawful debts.
tlikerilargues a subject twine without self-
contraMrioi It cannot escape the brand which na-
ture, in the constitution of the human mind, has fixed
upon unprincipledness. Each of the foregoing views
implies the falsehood of the other. If the anti rate
oarty be Lavishly malignant, it cannot be grossly sordid.
'Nor, if grossly sordid, can it be lavishly malignant.
In one of the two modes of putting the case there must
inevitably be a calumny. But although both cannot be
true, both may be false. The identity of malevolent
spirit exhibited in the irreconcilable diversity of argu-
ment, furnishes a presumption that both are false. The
presumption is confirmed by any fair view of the merits
of the question itself.
Put the Church-rate on its lowest ground, that of
a pecuniary burden, its infliction on the poor Dissenter
is a grievance. Why should the cobbler or labourer,
who in his poverty yet contrives to " keep a conscience,"
be double taxed fur religion ? Is it not enough t-hat
he is taxed in all the articles of necessary consump-
tion ? Is it not enough that he is taxed in his daily
bread ? Is it not enough that he taxes himself, ac-
cording to his ability, for the form of religion that mi-
nisters to his own edification ? He pays his five shil-
lings, hardly earned, to the chapel where he prays. 'Co
plunder his little hoard, if he have one ; or to take
his bed or his Bible, to get other five shillings out of
him for the Church, is an imposition that every honest
heart is impelled to resist.

Put the Churc!i-rate on the ground of a legal claim ;
treat it as any other payment, which by law may be
euferced ; an objection so far as to become a principle
of opposition is immediately evident. The claim al-
leged to be legal is founded on fraud. The rate, ori-
ginally, was not given to the Church, but stolen by the
priesthood. The endowment with tithes included the
repairs of the fabric within its purposes. The rate in
addition was obtained by the perversion of spiritual in-
fluence. The robbery has survived the superstition,
but not changed its character thereby. Robbery it is,
and robbery it will remain to the end of the world,
unless in the case of those who make it their voluntary
offering. Nor is the imposition at all dignified by the
change in the machinery for enforcing payment, and the
substitution of legal chicanery for the now defunct terrors
of excommunication.

Politically, the Church-rate is offensive and intole-
rable, as a civil distinction which creates a privileged
and a subordinate caste in the country. The rights of
property ought to be equal in all classes of a free
community. Generally, they are so. At least, the
inequality which does exist is veiled ; it is the inei-
di,Nital result of the inability of poverty to cope with
legal expenses ; but the law itself is open for all, as
well as the London Tavern. But Dissent puts one
portion of the rights of property in abeyance. Tho
chapel-going man can be taxed for the Church ; the
church-going man cannot be taxed for the chapel. his
money is taken without his own consent, because he is
a non-conformist. That is a license for picking his
pocket to a defined amount ; or if he resist, to an
amount not easily defined. Here is inequality. Here
is a subordination which no member of a free State
can submit to, without compratnising the character
and rights of a citizen. Were such an invasion tamely
endured, the quiescent victims would be no batter
than plundered renegades from English feeling and
principle.
But there are those who might even bear this, for
the sake of quiet and godly lives, did it not touch
them still nearer. They inquire not closely into im-
perial claims, but " render unto Caesar the things
which are Ctosar's," until they find one who to them
must appear as a surpliced marauder, in Caesar's
name; demanding " that which is God's." At that
point, conscience sticks. They pay for the purity of
Christianity, they cannot pay for (to them) the cor-
ruption of Christianity. They pay for the propagation
of the true faith, they cannot consent to pay for the
propagation of a false faith. They must, by
Peacabtle,,
means, hut as eiT,ctively as possible, resist. l
them " very stuff o' the conscience ;" and
v not
iou3
ttotiohoestr:
only, but to all who hold that, in their consciousness,
however mistaken, the great principle of religiousli-
berty should be respected.
isc
hounrloyill!
rya
tuon iotaend
,eoxreerdt iroens
steldt t each a
thingg r grievance
as as It
tie
short
of a compromise of
principle should, be eciaocc,ok.nlimi odl a
of
Lyndon t
ed
to the production of such union.
he-
port of the Dissenting Deputies
passage which, if we iiAhtly tand it, is seAreely
greatca object. Nye extract
it:lepualrittlt)c,diot to
hporohnotioieteo
ft lios
being found less la:prat:dna-
t.s
ble than we apprehend :

" In blay last, it was proposed to introduce into the
House of Cominons a 13:11 for relieving Dissenters from
Church-rates on their making a (leclaration of their being
Dissenters. Your Committee intimated to the proposer
their objections to the principle of this measure, as they
d:ssired a total abolition, and could not agree to declarations
and tests on the part of Di-3r_•nter% The plan eventually
foil to the ground.

Thu advancement ef religious yhas; in the
his-
tory of our country, been gradual. We have at 011 times
been willing to accept the smallest instalments, but the
very idea of recurring to a test, and thereby mrking a civil
distinction on religious grounds, reminds us of that Test
Act, which it required so many plats and such arduous
struggles to remove. Your Committee will feel satisfied
with nothing leas than a total and unqualified freedom from
CLureu-rates, and this they would fain hope, by a Wong

MORNING E

general, WO united effort of liberal Churchn-en sad wr
principled Dissenters, may soon be obtained."
Now whatever objections may lie against the forms
declaration proposed in Mr. T. Duncombe's Bill (1,:,
alluded to), we do not see how the principle can be r
jured, and the relief obtained independently of some s,
of declaration. No Dissenter can reasonably object
Churchmen's taxing themselves for their own Church s
worship. Their " total and unqualified freedom fru
Church-rates" is no part of the relief now strugg
for. As to them, the rate may be an imposition ; 1
that is their business, and a distinct question. Ho' .
then, is the discrimination to be made ? The declar •
tion is not necessarily offensive. The civil immunit,,l
of Dissenting ministers are obtained by a declaratico
of faith before a Magistrate, which they general
make. Corporation offices also imply a declaration
faith in Christianity, Under the Marriage Act, wi.
which Dissenters have expressed their satisfaction, n'
only is declaration of Dissent, but of the particular s
or forms of the parties, made to the civil officer. T
hostility to such test, as a declaration of dissent wet:
imply, especially when required, not for degradation b
for immunity, does seem to us unreasonable. Aboliti
of the rate, as an involuntary payment on the part
any who do not conform to the Established Church,
the point to be aimed at. With that, any mode of ale, ,
taining the parties liable may ho tolerated which is e, .
purposely offensive ; without that, no friend of religiot s•
freedom can be satisfied.—Morniiw Chronick.