trittrs In t4t Ram
CHTIRCH-PROPERTY.
Sra—I beg to thank Sir Arthur Elton for the courtesy with which he has noticed my letter, and request a short space for reply.
He does not deny that his plan for the simple continuance of the building- rates involves injustice to Dissenters ; but he regards this, if I understand him, as unavoidable, and as not important enough, owing to the smallness of the amount involved, to need consideration. No doubt the parishes subject to building-rates are comparatively few, but they bear among them an amount of building debt considerably exceeding the present aggregate of ordinary church-rate throughout the entire coun- try. Nor is amount the only grievance. I believe it is common for these rates to be illegally laid, for the monies raised by them to be misapplied, and that there are cases in which the debt itself, owing to these circumstances, has been nearly hopeless of extinction. I must, therefore, continue to urge upon him that in a scheme for the equitable settlement of the whole question, this cannot be ignored. Nor need there, upon Sir Arthur Elton's plan, be any difficulty in dealing with it. The mortgagee must of course retain his legal rights against the parishioners generally ; but what is there to prevent an available guarantee to the parishioners from the proposed Church Vestry?
Sir Arthur Elton conceives that we are opposed to the institution of Church-vestries. I can assure him that he is misinformed. Not only would Dissenters, political and otherwise, gladly welcome the adoption, among their Episcopalian brethren, of an ecclesiastical polity so nearly ap- proaching to their own, but they have actually proposed it themselves on two occasions. Sir W. Clay's bill of 1856 contained an elaborate set of clauses for the purpose, and last session the present Government were as- sured of support for any similar proposals they might wish to bring forward. But the resolutions 1 am considering go much further. Not only do they institute church vestries with power to expend their own contributions but they propose to invest their vestries with the absolute property fn.perpituum of the fabric of the parish church. This raises a question not involved in the discussion, and our views of which we certainly are not prepared to abandon for the sake of abolishing church-rates. If the settlement is to de- generate into a mere matter of bargain, we think we can get rid of church- rates without any interference of Parliament at all. If it is•-to be confined, as I venture to think it ought to be, to the subject in hand, leaving other points open, the course seems to be to abolish church-rates, guarantee the parishes against outstanding debts, and institute church vestries with power to deal with their own subscriptions. Sir Arthur insists on the claims of "parishes, congregations, and indivi- duals," who since the Reformation must have expended "millions" on the improvement of church property, in the expectation of its continuance as left by Elizabeth. I believe, Sir, that this claim, such as it is, is not inca- pable of more exact calculation, and it is certainly to be met by a set-off in the rights of patronage of some and the exclusive enjoyment by all. The bulk of the expenditure, moreover, dates from the time subsequent to the Be- form bill, and was to all intents and purposes incurred with a clear sense of the contingencies of legislation. Take it at its full, it is no more than a fine on the renewal of a peppercorn lease, and were the surrender of the lease to be now required it would leave the tenants enormously the gainers by the terms of their occupancy. Is there no claim for compensation, on the other hand, on the part of that one-half of her Majesty's English subjects who all this time have been shut out from the churches, and been obliged, nevertheless, to contribute to their maintenance and to the very bread and wine of the sacrament from which they are excommunicated by the canons? Sir Arthur thinks that we " ought not to be too fastidious in criticizing plans formed to carry out our views." I trust he will forgive me for re- minding him, of what is apparent on the face of his own letter, that his plans are formed for not carrying out our views. We have attacked church-rates, as the best means open to us of bringing under discussion the injurious relationship, as we deem it, between Church and State. lie wishes to give them up, as the beat means open to him of maintaining that relationship, and interpolates into his resolutions a proposal not necessary to the extinction of church-rates, but admirably calculated to strengthen into actual dominium the possession now enjoyed bythe Church of the national property. We certainly must criticize this, for we must cer- tainly oppose it. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, A Poirriekt. DISSENTER.
Previous page
