The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-20 00:00:00

PRICE 4D. STAMPED, SD.

CIiURCH BATES:

The most exciting event of the Session is the
defeat of Sir John Trelawny's Bill yesterday, by
the casting vote of the Speaker. Yachts have been
known to touch as they passed the winning-point,
after being separated by intervals of miles during
the day's sail, and dead heats are common enough
on racecourses, though the greater contests of the
turf are strangely exempt from them. Even in
the game of politics an equal division is no rare
occurrence on some point of little interest, but an
even balance of opinion between 548 members on
a measure of first-rate importance in itself, and
doubtless selected for a fair trial of strength at the
late Conservative meeting, is little short of 'a por-
tent. Half the dining-tables of London will have
canvassed the Speaker's conduct when the ominous
fact was announced to him, and the elevation or
depression of his thumb was to decide for a whole
year the fortunes of English Dissenters. At such
a moment the Homeric gods meet in council and
deliberate 'whether they shall incline to the side of
Greeks or Trojans, of besiegers or besieged. No
meaner motives than theirs, we may be sure, ani-
mated the Speaker, as '
fairly call the weaker n`" -• by his single voice the revenues of the Church. It
has been suggested that had he voted for the third
reading, and thus postponed the crisis till he had
put the question " that this bill do now pass,"
the activity of the whippersin might have been
exerted in the meantime so as to turn the
scale. But although, in that case, the Lords Would
not have been robbed of their sport, the effect
would not have been so striking, and the loss of
excitement to the general public would have been
irreparable.
The real wonder is, however, not that, under the
circumstances, there should have been a drawn
battle, but that this subject should still be within
the sphere of discussion at all. Twenty years ago
no one would have given it credit for having so
long a term of life before it. Not one of the
great questions of that period—the Corn Laws,
Education, or " Ireland "—seemed likely to be
solved before this. It is the survivor of a whole
family of grievances proverbial for their longevity,
and may still continue for a few years—thanks to
yesterday's Division and the House of Lords—to
astonish the world by its vitality. Of its ultimate
destiny no wise man can entertain a doubt. After
such blows have fallen upon any institution, espe-
cially if it be a tax, and such admissions have been
made by its very advocates, its fate is sealed, how-
ever long it may linger after its death-wound.
There are very few members of the House of Com-
mons who are not committed to some scheme of
compromise, conceding the whole principle at stake,
and reserving scarcely a shred of sentiment to fight
for. Every variety of adjustment has been tender-
ed, and has failed, down to the last notable sugges-
tion of Mr. Sotberon Estcourt, by which the prac-
tice of the last five years should determine for ever
the grand issue of Rates or No Rates, and the acci-
dental balance of parochial parties during this brief
interval should thus be stereotyped by legislation
and made the rule for posterity. It was hardly to
be expected that the Nonconformist leaders would
accept any such terms, or, indeed, any terms that
have yet been offered. After the Braintreecase had
decided that church rates, except when sanctioned
by a majority of the ratepayers, were an instance
of a legal obligation 'without a corresponding means
of enforcing it, the game was theirs. It is notori-
ous that in many large town-parishes, and especially
in the metropolis, church rates have not been paid
for years, and that the voluntary system, in some
form, is found adequate to supply the deficiency.
With all our prejudices against uniformity, it cannot
long be tolerated by common sense that a tax re-
presented to be essential to the very being of the
church should be levied in one place, and repu-
diated, without any perceptible injury, in another.
Nor is there less uncertainty in its appropriation
than in its incidence. The repair of the fabric
stands on a footing of its own ; the " necessaries "
are distinguished from the " luxuries " of public
worship ; the cost of surplices, books, and the
sacramental elements are placed in a different
category from that of the organ, carpets,
and cushions, and nice distinctions are drawn as
to the liability of congregations or parishioners for
each of these items. When an impost so paltry in
its aggregate amount, compared with the irritation
which it produces, has to be thus apportioned to
make it compatible with any theory of justice, and
it is gravely proposed to abandon the old basis of
"immemorial usage" for the precedent of the last
five years, there is but one solution possible, how-
ever frequently or skilfully it may be postponed.
Nothing could be less satisfactory than the view
which predominated in the debate of yesterday. It
was assumed by all supporters of Church-rates that
no arrangement could be permanent unless it
savoured of a compromise. It was not because
justice lay half-way between the two parties, or
because the establishment could not maintain itself
without this compulsory endowment, that these
speakers insisted on some bargain being concluded.
It was rather as the old English way of settling
differences that they recommended it, hinting, at
the same time, that an unconditional surrender
would be inconsistent with their honour. No one
proposed to retain Church-rates in their integrity,
but no one would go beyond " personal exemption."
It must be admitted that Mr. Sotheron Estcourt's
proposal, as explained in his speech, was " con-
ciliatory" enough—being, in fact, nothing less than
to make Church-rates optional in practice, though
compulsory in theory. Sir G. C. Lewis contrived
to gild his pill still more delicately, inventing an
expedient by which Churchmen might distinguish
themselves from Dissenters, and thus relieve the
latter of the invidious responsibility of ostensible
separation. Some such half measure as these might,
for aught we know, be practicable and unobjection-
able enough if the object were only to tide over a
crisis, and not to set at rest a vexatious question
which has got beyond the stage of "amicable
arrangement." Before Messrs. Estcourt and
Cross call upon us to adopt some new-fangled
refinement on what they stoutly defend as a
" common law right," they should satisfy us that
Sir J. Trelawny's simpler remedy would be mis-
chievous or ineffective. This they entirely fail
to do. Mr. Estcourt upholds the machinery of
Church-rates because, forsooth, it perpetuates a
venerable mode of local self-government—as if
taxation were an end in itself, and as if vestries
were really a school of political education. We can-
not see that there is anything ennobling in the-
right of a majority to tax an unwilling minority,
even of fellow-Churchmen ; and as for the right to
tax themselves, it would remain unimpaired, not to
say invigorated, under a voluntary system. The
experience of all Dissenting sects proves that it is
possible to maintain plates of worship, and minis-
ters to boot, by spontaneous efforts, even after con-
tributing to the expenses of another communion ;
and the experience of our own Church during the
last 50 years is still more encouraging.
It would be a great mistake to suppose that, be-
cause the majority for the abolition of church rates
has for once sunk to zero, the question is now finally
shelved. It is impossible that a question like this
should not ultimately triumph, whatever its tem-
porary fluctuations. Some years ago the Liberation
Society and its emissaries had all the advantages of
the attacking party, and seemed on the point of
victory, A slight reaction has since ensued, partly
due to the untiring efforts which the clergy have
made at the recommendation of Mr. Disraeli, and
partly to the number of persons, in and out of Par-
liament, who have some pet nostrum to recommend,
Even Mr. Bright has a scheme for keeping up the
existing machinery, " only abolishing the sum-
mons, the magistrate, and the bailiff,' and with
them, of course, the compulsory character of the
rate. Every practitioner likes to try his hand on
a case of this kind, and so the wound must be kept
open till the whims of all have been gratified. But
there is a third and more powerful cause which has
delayed and prejudiced the abolition of church
rates, and this is the ulterior aims avowed byttor;
of its own champions. It is the height
tfPult of
to introduce a measure as a m oro
man be
changes of undefined magnitude and
tionable policy. How can any timid
as "Vestry
eted to deal with church rates,ospc when he is
'n Ireland,
Cass" was dealt with sa
moat ques-
gtrathrye
openly told that by clomp;
tithes hise is
directlyba tpacvei
nn
f and the downfall
way for the extinction o„
of Church "supremacy
legisla-
tion
to the tentative character of all Englishb
der and more
down principles broader to lay
equired to cover the case in
sweeping than are required
enough
question. It will to discuss Tithes
when a scheme for
their extinction is before Parlia-
ment, especially as the principle involved in them is
radically different from that of Sir John Tre-
lawny's Bill. Meanwhile, much as we regret the
continued agitation of this subject, we have no
fault to find with the Speaker's discretion in pre-
venting such a Bill being sent up to the House
of
Fords by the vote of 0. bare majority.—Times,