The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-03-30 00:00:00

TO CORRESPONDENTS

We postpone very reluctantiy the last letter to the Protestant
constituencies of England, but we expect—with the aid of
a SUPPLEMENT—to present it to our readers on Tuesday
next or the following Friday.

Ebt Ltbcrpool stanbatt.

TUESDAY MORNING, MARCH 30, 1841

It is understood, by most of our readers, that our
local contemporary the Mercury is a journal principally
occupied, in its original editorial department, (a de-
partment in which, by the by, it is exceedingly origi-
nal) with inquiries and speculations much out of the
course of every-day journalism, and that its ingenious
editor has, by his well-directed labo rs, frequently re-
duced to a matter of science and demonstration almost
mathematical, trifles of common occurrence, and which
people in pneral pass by as unworthy of a moment's
thought. We are not sure on which of these he is
most engaged at this moment, nor are we concerned
on the subject just now. Our attention is at present
engaged by a certain exhibition of extreme views put
forward by him on a politico-religious topic, which we
scarcely expected at his hands.

In his last number he has been led aside, we know
not by what accident, from his favourite pursuits and
speculations, and launches a bolt which shows by its
aim some desperate and deadly aim on his part. His
topic is the affair of Mr. Baines, the Dissenting mar-
tyr of Leicester, and the debate on Mr. Easthope's mo-
tion on the 18th instant ; and such is his impatience at
the result, that, in his haste, he seems ready to quarrel
with all the world. He denounces Sir R. H. Inglis,
and his own particular friend, Lord John Russell—
Tory and Whig alike; snaps his fingers at lawyers,
judges, common law, and, we were going to add, com-
mon sense alike; and concludes by warning THE
CHURCH of certain downfal, it she. do not speedily
attend to his advice and amend her ways. "For Doc-
tor Nichols' legal dictum," he says, " and the decision
of the judges in the Braintree case, that, by the com-
mon law of the land, the parishioners are bound to
support the fabric of the Church, we feel as great re-
spect—(viz. contempt)—as for Sir Robert Inglis's lo-
gic or Lord John Russell's historical references; and
he concludes in these words :

" A few more cases like these of Messrs. Baines and Tho-
rogood, and the feeling will be general through the land that
such cases do involve a punishment for acting conscientious-
ly, and are a violation of the principles of religious freedom,
whatever the House of Commons may say to the contrary."

We have examined some of the reasoning by which
our contemporary has been unfortunately led thus to
stand out, as it were, against the world, and have found
it to be singularly inconclmive. He says, for instance,
that " for every other tax the payer receives something
in the nature of a quid pro quo ; but for the tax levied
in support of a church to which he does not belong, he
not only receives nothing, but is absolutely compelled
to contribute towards the maintenance of that which he
believes to be erroneous."

Here our contemporary is under a complete mistake
of FACT; but his' fault is ignorance. He does not
know how much a man may owe to the Church through
indirect channels—how much the safety of his own
person and property is derived from that orderly and
moral state of society which the Church is mainly the
instrument of creating and maintaining. A man's ig-
norance, however, does not alter the actual relation of

things, and has only the effect of making him act un-
gratefully and appear ridiculous, when, had he been
better informed, he might have escaped notice. A man

is bound to contribute to the repair or making of a
road, whether he travel that road or not, and it would
he no excuse for non-payment to say that he did not
consider it the best road, or that he did not himself
use it : he must tell down his quota to the common
good, and the world has long since agreed, that he
suffers no hardship whatever in being made to pay.
The same rule holds good with regard to the Church,
but is much stronger than in the case supposed, be-
cause here there is no question whatever as to their
being a real quid pro quo. In the case of the road it
might be otherwise; here it is not possible.
His next argument is not so easily understood. Lord
John Russell quoted CHRIST'S command, "render
unto Cxsar the things that are Caesar's, and to GOD
the things that are Gon's" ; and defied, as we think
he might justly do, any scripturally guided Dissenter
to get over that authority. But what says our brilliant
contemporary, the Mercury :

" The mere mandate to pay to Cmsar what is due to Caesar,
and to God what belongs to God, is so far from serving his
lordship's argument, that it constitutes the reason and autho-
rity of the conscientious dissenter for not paying for the sup-
port of a religion which he believes to be erroneous and
offensive to God."

Now, we ask, was there ever exhibited mere wretched
and contemptible sophistication, or rather sheer non-
sense, than that ? The command is broad and gene-
ral, and admits of no exception—harmonising with
that of the apostle Peter, " submit yourselves to every
ordinance of man, for the LORD'S sake." Caesar is
" the state ;" and whatever tax or tribute the state or-
ders to be paid, it is the duty of every subject to pay.
Such is the command, and it is open to no exception.
It does not signify for what purpose the tax may be
levied; and Lord John Russell correctly stated, that
the early Christians did, in paying Caesar's tribute mo-
ney, necessarily contribute to the support of the hea-
then temple and idolatrous worship, and that they
must have been quite aware of it. This .was another
lunge at the " sufferers for conscience sake" in our
time; but our adventurous old friend the Mercury
makes an attempt to parry the thrust. He says,—
" The tribute which the Jews were commanded to pay was
not levied for the support of the Ileathen fanes, as the church
rate is for the maintenance of Christian temples,—but for
the general purposes of the empire. If Lord John Russell
could have shown that a direct tax was levied for the support
of the temple of Jupiter, at Rome, or for the expenses at-
-tendant on the worship of Venus, at Rhodes, and that our
Saviour directed the Jews to pay that tax, this direct sanction
of the payment of a compulsory tax for the support of a reli-
gion which the Jews held, in abhorrence, would have been

something to the purpose

Now granting, for argument sake, that there was no
specific tax for the heathen temple, it is certain that
the support of idolatrous worship was one of the " ge-
neral purposes of the empire" to which its revenues

were applied ; and then, we ask, what difference could
it possibly make to conscience whether the tax were di-
rect or indirect, specific or general ? What consciences

our contemporary must suppose Dissenters to po,

sess. They would have a conscience against eating
raisins, forsooth, if you offered them to their accept-

ante in a plain state; but serve them up in a plum-
pudding, and they will swallow them without making

a wry face

Conscientious fellows !

A few more such martyrs as Baines and Thorog

says the Mercury, and—c'est fait de nous—the game is

up with church rates at least

And this is surely • a

great encouragement.to the martyrdom speculation. It

has been very gainful to Thorogood, and Baines has
had immense sympathy and great honours thrust upon
him in consequence. But the practice, like a two-
edged sword, cuts at both sides.

Dr. Nichols' exposure of Baines's trickery, chica-
nery, and dishonesty in his legal defences, has settled
and his "Dissenting conscience" along with him,

in the opinion of .every Conservative and reasonable

Whig; and a few more such cases, so far from having
the effect contemplated by the Mercury, will, we think,
be very likely to save us a great deal of trouble in

dealing with the party hereafter

It is not surprising that the Radicals shrunk from a
contest in the election of the'Board of Guardians; for,
k of the hopelessness of such an attempt,
a victory, were it even attainable, must have been at-
tended by some disagreeable consequences. " Willing
to wound but yet afraid to strike," they had no objec-
tion to see a local and independent administration of
poor relief put an end to.because in the hands of Con-
servatives, and a foreign power let- in because in the
hands of the 'Whigs ; but when it came to be a ques-
tion as to the• administration of the obnoxious law,
their courage cooled amazingly, and they have pru-
dently left it altogether in the hands of Conservatives.

not to sped

Their journals boast that the Conservatives have fallen
into a trap :—" Now," say they,
." whatever odium may
attach to the operation of the law, upon you it will fall
exclusively; we have washed our hands of it." But
this is mere trifling. The introduction of the law into
Liverpool is the act not of Conservatives but of Radi-
cals, and they, and not its mere ministers and ser-
vants, are accountable for the consequences.
But have the Conservatives really fallen into a trap ?
For our parts we cannot perceive it. Mr. Aspinal's ma-
nagement of the matter appears,to us to have been most
judicious, and he has won by it, we have good reason
to know, increased confidence and esteem from all
Conservatives. ,They consider that the offers he made
were most liberal, and such as he did well to make with
a view to save the town the expense and annoyance of
a contest; whilst, on the other hand, in refusing the
demand made by the " Reform Association," he took
a course which avoided any compromise of those inte-
rests which he may be considered as representing. The
Reform Association, forsooth, aspired to a perfect
equality of Whigs with Tories in the new board, whilst
in the old—viz., the Select Vestry, they constituted but
a small minority. This was a claim which they had no
right to make, and which even their own plenipos con-
demned as unwarrantable.

And here we may admire the sweet harmony and
union that exists in the Radical camp. They appointed
Mr. Tate and Mr. Paton to conduct the negotiation on
their part, and those gentlemen obtained terms for them
such as they were themselves quite satisfied with ; but
on reporting the result to the Reform Association, this
modest and discreet body disavowed their acts, and re-
fused to ratify the treaty. Such treatment naturally
excited strong disgust in the minds of Messrs. Tate
and Paton ; and they declared, as mentioned by Mr.
Aspinal, that " they would have nothing more to do
with the Reform Association—that the Conservatives
had acted honourably and fairly, and that they, Messrs.
T. and P., would support them." This fact speaks
for itself, and needs no comment from us.
On the whole, so far from having fallen into a trap,
we think those roancevring gentry have themselves fal-
len into the pit they had digged for others. The Con-
servatives of Liverpool have shown by their memorial,
signed by upwards of twenty-one t'housand persons,
how much they deprecate the New Poor Law and its
introdnction here. The Radical party would not lift
so much as a finger against it. But the fiat of the
commissioners went forth, and the law must be obeyed.
Under those circumstances the Conservatives had no
choice but to take and administer it themselves, or
abandon it altogether to the Radicals; and we say we
rejoice in the wise decision taken by Mr. Aspinal act-
ing in their behalf. The law is a bad one, but it is a
great matter that it will be administered not by those
who approve, but by those who condemn it, and who
will not fail to deprive it, so far as may be possible, of
its harshness, and apply its provisions with due ten-
derness and compassion to the miserable.