The Liverpool Standard, and General Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-10-31 00:00:00

THE WAR WITH RUSSIA.

WHILE the public interest with reference to the
War has been almost centered in the operations
against the fortress of Sebastopol, with the almost
certain consequence of the expulsion of the Russians
from the Crimea, it is desirable that we should not
lose sight of the object for which the War has been
undertaken. Not the slightest doubt seems to be
entertained of the success of the Allied forces in
the Crimea, and even the ultimate possession of the
shores of the Black Sea, but then will come the
question how far have we progressed towards
attaining those material guarantees for the future
peace of Europe, for which the Western Powers
have joined their armies to those of Turkey. It can
hardly be supposed that the Emperor NICHOLAA,
who has already displayed so much obstinacy in
order to carry out the leading principle of Russian
policy, win consent to forego his ambitious projects
of universal empire for such a loss as the Crimea,
great though it may be. Secure in the vastness of
his sterile dominions, he may bide his time, and
bid defiance to Europe ; nor, after the experience
of the brief campaign from the victory on the
heights of Alma to the assault on Sebastopol, can

we anticipate any important results from carrying
the War, under so many disadvantages, into the
territory of Russia Proper. The Allies, with all

their vast resources, may well pause before ven-
turing on an expedition which may forcibly remind
them of the annihilation of NAPOLEON'S mighty
armament in the celebrated retreat from Moscow,
and yet the end must be achieved, or all that has
been accomplished will be rendered comparatively
futile.

It must not be forgotten that Russia, for her
sources of wealth, depends mainly, if not solely, on
her large exports of agricultural produce, and that
without the custom of civilised Europe she would
be shut up in her own poverty, and possess
few of those means for aggression which she has
hitherto used with so much crafty ingenuity. To
deprive her of her export trade would, therefore,
be to inflict a far, heavier blow, and one that would
be more severely felt, than the capture of a fortress
or the occupation of a province. It might have
been supposed that this damage to her commerce
would have been effected by the blockade of her
seaports in the Baltic and the Black Sea ; but two
circumstances have been permitted to prevent it.
Refining upon former experience, a proclamation
was issued at the time when the War was com-
menced, declaring goods in neutral vessels to be
free of capture. This was error the first, as it gave
Russia an opportunity to continue her export
trade through neutral ports ; and, notwithstand-
ing the restrictions against trading with an enemy,
there can be no doubt that much English gold has
found its way to Russia through Russian inter-
vention. In the next place, though the German
Powers were called upon to take part in a quarrel
which was essentially European, Prussia has been
allowed to play the coquet to her own advantage,
and virtually to the rendering nugatory the opera-
tions of the Allied fleets in the Baltic. On the
one hand she has professed great interest in the
success of the Allied Powers, while on the other
she has courted peace with Russia, and allowed
her ports to be used for carrying on that trade
which it was the especial object of the blockade of
the Russian ports to prevent. There ought to be no
alternative but that Prussia should be imperatively
called upon to declare herself with us or against us.
If she declare for the alliance, then she should at
once assume a hostile attitude towards Russia,
seize all Russian property within her dominions,
and put an immediate and effectual stop to Russian
trade through her ports. Her refusal, on the
other hand, should be met by prompt measures.—
War should be declared, her ports blockaded—
which could be effected with little difficulty—and
the rest of Germany called upon to act with
efficiency against the common enemy. If this
were done, and it is far more easy of accomplish-
ment than any incursion into:the Russian territory,
we might have more reason than we have at
present to hope that the northern despot would
be compelled, by a pressure which he could not
withstand, to succomb to that public opinion which
demands the freedom of Europe..
There is, however, a further mode of attack,
which, if pushed with vigour, might also prove
seriously detrimental to Russian ambition. The
Allied Powers should take measures to restore the
nationality of Poland, and by this means impose a
barrier between Russia and Germany. There are
many Poles scattered over Europe, who profess to
be thirsting for liberty, and if they receive the
countenance and support of the Great Powers,
would bring all the enthusiasm of their long-
cherished cause to do battle in its behalf. By far
the greater part of the territory of Poland was
seized by Russia in the division of the spoil ; and
though Austria and Prussia came in for a small
share, the former State might receive an equivalent
for the surrender in one of the Danubian provinces,
of which she has already taken possession : and the
latter State is deserving of no consideration, from
her complicity with Russian intrigue. Little
reliance can be placed at any time on the gratitude
of nations ; but Poland, on her own account, would
prove antagonistic to Russia and Russian interests.
We may remark, in conclusion, that however
desirous we may be for peace, it is most unwise to
declare such an opinion in the hearing of an enemy.
For this reason we consider that the public decla-
rations of the PRICMIER, of his anxiety for a return
to peace, have been most injurious, as tending to
confirm the Emperor NICHOLAS in his obstinate
refusal to concede the terms demanded of him, and
consequently to prolong the struggle.

VESTRIES AND CHURCH-RATES,

T

THE _Edinburgh Review, which has just been
published, contains an ably-written article on the
above subject, stating the arguments on both sides
with much fairness, and making suggestions for al-
terations; but at the same time the position assumed
by the writer is open to animadversion. The pro-
posal of granting exemption from the payment of
Church-rates to every man who declared himself to
be a Nonconformist, was opposed on the ground
that it would be insulting Dissenters by ticketing
them like railway parcels. This the writer stigma-
tises as absurd, because all of us are registered in
different ways from birth to burial, and says, the
mode of opposition distinctly shows that the object
of the party is not to relieve the Dissenters from an
impost, but to rob the Church of a revenue. He
contends that the reform proposed, of the registra-
tion of Dissenters, would not be dangerous to the
Church, but yet it would be wise to abandon it,
because an outcry has been got up against it. The
writer proceeds to state his own plan for the settle-
ment of the question, and proposes that the Church
should give up all that portion of the rate which is
applied to " the necessaries of Divine Service,"
limiting the demand to the mere repair of the
fabric. The cost of this, he suggests, should be
ascertained by a surveyor appointed by each county,
who should make an annual estimate, and that the
sum required for the repair of all the churches in
the county should be included in the county-rate,
but that every dissentient should have the right of
demanding repayment, so as to confine the rate to
Churchmen. He then proceeds to remark upon it

" This reform, in order to make it complete and satisfac-
tory, must be accompanied by others. In the first place,
the obsolete powers of the Ecclesiastical Courts, and their
vexatious methods of procedure, should be done away.
They should be no more permitted to treat a Nonconformist
as a rebellious Churchman, nor to concern themselves in
any way whatever for the health of his soul.' Secondly,
the parochial Synods of the Church should no longer be
rendered useless by the intrusion of Dissenters. This
latter change is closely connected with the former ; and
gross injustice constantly results from the present law.
For example : when the Church party in a parish, for the
sake of peace, give up the attempt to enforce a rate, and
maintain their church by their own voluntary offerings,
the management of the funds which they have raised is
sometimes transferred to their opponents. They are
liable' (in the words of Mr. Gladstone) to have the appli-
cation of their money taken out of their hands by the
men who had the week before voted against the rate.'
Another example, still more flagrant, is of no unusual
occurrence in the present day : a church is built in some
large town by zealous members of the Establishment. By
their private liberality the fabric rises in all the loveliness
of mdeival architecture ; breaking the dull and vulgar
line of our commercial streets with belfry and buttress,
gabled porch and mullioned window. Within its walls,
the like harmonious richness is given to the service by
the chants and anthems of cathedral music. If now the
founders turn their edifice into a commercial speculation ;
if they divide the area into pews, and share the pew-rents
among themselves; they will at once have the pleasure of
a service according to their mind and the profit of a lucra-
tive partnership. No law forbids them to make this gain
of godliness; and such a practice is not uncommon in the
builders of proprietary chapels, whether Churchmen or
Dissenters. But if scorning this sordid aim, they are
anxious for the spiritual good of the population which sur- 1
rounds (their new-built church ; if, accordingly, they 1
attach to it a parochial district, and make the clergyman
not their own hired servant, but a parish minister; then
they at once resign the control of their work to a miscel-
laneous multitude. It is true that no rates can be levied
for the church thus gratuitously bestowed on the parish-
ioners ; so that no inhabitant has any more reasonable