The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-01-08 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF TILE TIMES.

SlR,—Your paper is understood on many occasions to speak
the opinions and the intentions of the Ministry, and, whether
such be or be not the fact, it cannot be denied that many per-
sons implicitly follow in the wake of your political course.
Knowing your power, it is not surprising that the West Indian
colonists have read with alarm your journal of last Tuesday,
which contains two articles on the subject of the difference be-
tween the Government and the Assembly of Jamaica. 1 who
have had opportunities of being intimately informed on the
proceedings of the Jamaica Legislature for more than 20 years,
venture to offer a few remarks, which 1 hope will convince you
that the Assembly have advanced no new pretensions in claim-
ing the right of internal government; nor have they stopped in
the work of melioration, which alone can afford an excuse for
the bitterest enemies of the planters to call on the imperial
Parliament to interpose between them and their slaves. I will
not now enter on the question of the omnipotence of Parlia-
ment; it is enough to express my fervent hope that the House
of Commons will never set up a claim which will unite our
West Indian and North American provinces in a bond of union
on the broad and intelligible principle of resistance to a most
extravagant and monstrous assumption of power, which can
only end either in the reconquest of the colonies by force of
arms, in their final separation from the empire, or in the pass-
ing of laws without machinery to give them effect,—laws which
cannot be enforced, because to enforce them would be the de-
struction of all law.

You assert, that the "difference between the Jamaica plan-
ters and the Governor is but the out-break of the unextin-
guished fire which smoulders beneath the whole surface of the
West Indies."

I agree with you that the colonists are at present, and have
long been, in a miserable state of agitation and alarm. If your
metaphoricallanguage has that meaning, I agree with you that
the Assembly of Jamaica regards with suspicion, and, perhaps,
with fear, every proceeding, both of the local and imperial Go-
vernment, that bears relation to their affairs. The Assembly
has not heard without concern of the resolutions of 1823, of the
subsequent adoption of those resolutions by the House of Lords,
of the speeches of influential members of both branches of the
Legislature, of the claim of interference set up, and of motions
made in the Commons' House,—all having reference to the
compulsory manumission of their slaves. No reasonable per-
son can be surprised that the colonists are terrified at the pros-
pect of being brought to trial before a tribunal that has already
condemned them in the most unmeasured language. I beg to
ask you if, amongst the vast crowd of enemies raised up against
the colonies by self-interest, false humanity, and fanaticism,
there is one to be found who has not resolved to believe, at the
very starting-post, that West India slavery is an aggregation
of unfeeling tyranny, persecution, and insult, on the one hand,
and suffering, unhappiness, and hatred, on the other ? When
slavery is spoken or thought of, the idea conjured up thereby is
that of perpetual labour, lacerated backs, manacled limbs,
whips, chains, and dungeons. So long as the English people
believe their countrymen abroad to have laid aside all those
feelings of humanity and justice which distinguish themselves,
and to pass their lives in tormenting their fellow-creatures, so
long will the West Indians refuse to acknowledge the repro-
sentatives in Parliament of this portion of the empire as the
Iljudges of their conduct and disposers of their lives and fortunes.

I can inform you, Sir, of one obstacle which will for ever
defeat the designs of our enemies, unless supported by a fleet
and army, and possibly even then,—and that obstacle is, the
feeling of not having deserved the infamy to which our country-
men think proper to condemn us. If it can be shown that the
condition of the negro in Jamaica is a condition of ease and
happiness hitherto unattainable by the labouring classes in any
part of the world,—if it can be shown that he has been making
progress to this state, even before 'the abolition of the slave
trade, and that there is nothing to prevent his arrival, in the
course of time, at perfect freedom,—and if, also, it can be shown
that his premature emancipation will be equally injurious to
himself, to his master, and to the nation, I trust you will admit
that for these reasons, if for no other, it will be the safest way
to leave the question in the hands' of the local Legislatures,
Who have hitherto—for I confidently assert the fact—so success-
Le, fully and humanely treated it.

I know the value of your space, and that probably even this
'short essay will not be admitted. If, however, lam agreeably
:liistaken, I shall proceed to adduce proofs innumerable of the
truth of my statements.

Before I could despatch this writing to your office, I have
1,11 den your paper of Saturday, containing the letter of " Marcus,"
;tad your editorial comments thereon. It is true that
1 i.
1 Marcus" gives too wide an interpretation to the act of 1778.
1 e British Parliament by that act only abandoned the claim
tO levy internal duties; but if the Imperial Parliament cannot
tawfully take from the colonies a portion of their income, in the
I, gape of taxes, how can it deprive them of the cultivators of their
lands. If emancipation means anything except a mere change

name, the negroes will have the choice of labour or idleness;
they will certainly choose the latter, and the planters' lands
ll return to their original forests. It never can be asserted
that the self-denying ordinance of 1778, while it surrendered
4e right of taking a small part, retained the power of dispos-

41g of the whole of the colonists' possessions. if this mighty
kd dangerous power be contended for, then, I say again, the
Ilispicion and jealousy of the designs of the tritish House of
olarmons entertained by the Jamaica Assembly are well found-

1 and reasonable. I must be excused if I do not give much
'eight to " the most solemn resolutions of the House of Cora-
!or's," which you refer as sanctioning the claim of the British
4liament to omnipotence in colonial government. I cannot
llow that the Commons are the best judges of their own rights,
Ild especially when the case in which they assume to judge
1:1s been already considered and decided by King, Lords, and
lloamons.*
Ll' Marcus," in reply to your statement that the Local Legis-
‘tores would do nothing to raise the social condition of the
likve, invites your attention to the proceedings of the Jamaica
tislature. You refuse to afford a serious answer to your cor-
Pondent's assumption, that Jamaica has spontaneously done
ell to ameliorate the character of slavery, and you even
,lent that a serious answer would appear ironical. You have
,
Iten on this matter lightly, and without your usual consider-
-4- It surely is a substantial boon to the slave that the right
holding personal property is extended to him by law, and
tfor small sums be can recover property by summary pro-
i,i; while for larger he may, in the name of his owner, be a
'3l' in the upper courts. However imperfect the protection
fat this new law seems to give to the negro, yet it is a great

tovement on the ancient system, and in practice, combined
0 4he customs of the colony, it effectually secures him from
Ndeprived of his peculium. If, however, the law for guard-
L 3. negro property is imperfect, the same charge cannot be
t 7.41. against the clause which admits his evidence in all courts,
rkinal and civil. The negro slave may now accuse his mas-
t .„,0
121 further support Lord Mulgrave's doctrine of the transcendent
r of Parliament by referring to " the highest legal authorities."
~ &rune to request you to name these " highest legal authori-
.. 1 may consult thpn for the information on the subject 1

ter before a competent court; he is protected in his own person,
and in the persons of his witnesses, before and during the trial;
he can summon his fellow slaves on his behalf; and, in one
word;those horrors which the anti-slavery people love to dwell
on,—those tortures, lashings, and mutilations, which their ima-
ginations luxuriate in, have become as difficult to commit with-
out instant and exemplary punishment, as they are, or have
ever been in well-governed and moral England. This amend-
ment in the law is not the fitting subject of irony ; but, permit
me to say, of serious gratulation to all good men.
The apprehension that you will not find room for this hasty
dissertation obliges me to conclude here. I wil only add, that
1 desire nothing more than to be occasionally permitted to ex_
plain in your columns such portions of the conduct of the_
Assembly and people of Jamaica as may appear bigotted or
ambiguous ; and I am certain that, humble as my labours are,
I shall be enabled' to clear up many a misunderstanding, and
allay many a heart-burning, which now threaten ruin to the
colonies, and vast losses to the parent state. B.

THE CHURCH ESTABLISHMENT.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

SlR,—The purpose of a religious establishment being to
regulate the conduct of men in society, by adding the moral
influence of religion, to the coercive influence of the temporal
law, it is evident that compulsion is contrary to its very nature.
Persuasion is its only lawful instrument. And here was the
great mistake of former times. Men looking to the early parts
of the Jewish history, when the Almighty was the temporal as
well as the spiritual sovereign of his people, saw that idolatry
and blasphemy were condemned to death, and persuaded them
selves that heresy and schism might be punished by fire : or in
later days, by the tender mercies of imprisonment and confis-
cation. Men of all persuasions thought this, Papists, Church-
men, and Puritans. Calvin caused Servetus to be burnt for
heresy. During the reign of the Puritans, the use of the book
of common prayer, even in private, was prohibited, under
severe penalties; 7000 clergy were ejected from their benefices,
for non-comformity, and nearly starved; and the toleration of
episcopacy was declared to be the establishment of iniquity by
law. The church of England shared in the general delusion,
and her otherwise spotless garments were sullied with blood.
Nothing could be more contrary to the spirit of christianity.
The duty of a legislature is simply to provide its people with
the means of religious instruction, leaving them at liberty to
accept or reject it as they please. And how is this to be done ?
By a body of men employed for the purpose. And how are they
to be paid ? By a national tax no doubt, if necessary. But is
not it unjust to make dissenters pay to the support of a religious
institution from which they cannot derive any benefit? Not
more unjust than to make them pay for the maintenance of
roads and bridges over which they do not travel, or of public
ornamental buildings and works of art which they do not see.
" The legislature of every state," says the American Dr,
Dwight, "has not only a right, but is obliged to pursue every
lawful and expedient measure for the public welfare. To this
great purpose religion in every country is not only useful but
indispensable. But religion cannot exist without public
worship ; as every man therefore ought willingly to contribute
to the support of whatever increases his own prosperity, he is
obliged to support religion, which, by increasing the common
prosperity increases his own." I dont know that any thing
need be added to the reasoning of this transatlantic republican,
to prove, that when a legislature lays a tax for the support of
religion, the people are as much bound to pay it, as they arc
bound to pay any other. The legislature, which is supposed to
represent the majority of property and intelligence in the
country, is the supreme judge; and when this legislature has
decided that a tax is expedient, it is, generally speaking, a
duty of conscience to obey. A member of the Society of
Friends, may, therefore, at least, as conscientiously pay to the
support of a religious establishment, as he can to the pomp of
a regal court, or the expences of a foreign war. In this country,
however, this difficulty is obviated; the religious establishment
is not supported by a tax, but by its own property, held by a
title, antecedent to that of any estate in the kingdom.
All the titheable estates in the kingdom have been subject to
that payment from time immemorial ; their estimated value
was deducted from the purchase-money in every sale, and is
allowed for in every lease.
Tithes were generally, if not universally, granted by the
owners of the land; the patronage of the living remaining in
the family that endowed it.

The assertion—that one-third of these parochial tithes was
reserved for the poor, and one-third for the fabric, is utterly
groundless and untrue.
Such being the case, I do not see how any man can gainsay
the proposition of Dr. Chalmers, that tithes as a tax are a
burthcn on no man. That by their means, the property of
the nation has only descended to its present proprietors more
diyided than it would otherwise have been; part being in pos-
session of public functionaries who do something for their
money, instead of being wholly owned by men who in return
have nothing to do, but to "eat, drink, and be merry." "This,"
says he, "is the real state of the alternative ; and when so
viewed, we may fearlessly commit the question of our literary
and ecclesiastical establishments to its trial."

But' it will be said, if tithes are not a tax, surely church rates
are. I am-not prepared to admit even this without qualifica-
tion. In the original endowments of families, the owner built
the church ; appropriated the'tlebe and tithes to the support of
the minister and the repair of the church, and charged the
maintenance of the body of the church, with the other expences
of public worship, upon the- tenants. Property has changed
hands subject to this payment; and if it has been overlooked in
the purchase-money, it has been so because it was too trifling
to be valued. Suppose, however, that it is a tax, let us inquire
into its amount.

From a parliamentary return of this year, it would appear,
that from Easter 1830, to Easter 1831, the churchwardens of
England and Wales, spent in repairs of churches £248,125 165.;
in organs, bells, &c. £41,710 155.; in books, wine, &c.
£46,337 195.; in salaries to clerks, sextons, &c. £126,185 175.;
and in fees, dinners, travelling expences, &c. £183,523 25.;
total £645,883 9s. ; of this about £176,076 was front estates,
pews, and other voluntary sources, reducing the compulsory
rate to £469,812. The payments for bells will not probably
be grudged by Dissenters, neither the substantial repairs
of churches, as they would not wish to see our parish churches
tumble down. Salaries to rectors and clerks could hardly be
remitted, without a substitution of salaried officers, to register
marriages, births, and funerals ; and if the dinners, fees, tra-
velling expences, organs, books, and wine, were abated, the
compulsory rate might easily be reduced to nOO,OOO a yea:,—
and if this were all the tax that the English Dissenters hadlo
pay their proportion of, I dont think they need wish for the
abolition of the church on pecuniary grounds alone. Let us
proceed to inquire how the church rate operates in Liverpool.
It is sometimes three-halfpence, and never exceeds two-pence
in the pound. When it is Three-halfpence, a rated ten-pound
householder pays fifteen-pence a year; when it is two-pence, he
pays one shilling and eight-pence. Of this larger sum about
one fourth, or five-pence; goes to the clergy, in compensation be
it observed for ancient.`' rights, which if they had not been sur-
rendered, would have greatly exceeded what is now paid. Part
of the remainder is spent in hell-ringing, which is a sort of
public amusement, and in providing cemetries and other requi-
sites for the decent burial of the poor. The rest ,is spent in
keeping up the parish churches, and providing for the decorous
celebration of the national worship, which latter expellees can