my 
 
COMPULSORY 
 
 CHURCH RATES 
 
 PROVED TO BE 
 
 ILLEGAL, 
 
 UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND ANTI-PROTESTANT. 
 By S. W. NORTHHOUSE, Esq. 
 
 BEING THE SUBSTANCE OF A SPEECH DELIVERED AT THE 
 HORNS TAVERN, KENNINGTON, TO THE ELECTORS OF 
 THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF LAMBETH, 
 
 AND CONTAINING 
 
 REPORTS OF THE LEGAL DECISIONS on CHURCH RATES ; 
 
 AND QUOTATIONS FROM THE WRITINGS OF 
 
 BISHOP LATIMER, Dr. BARROW, Dr. BURN, JOHN MILTON, 
 
 AND OTHERS. 
 
 THIRD EDITION. 
 
 The Profits to he given to the Braintree Subscription . 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 J. RIDGWAY AND SONS, PICCADILLY ; 
 
 DINNIS, PATERNOSTER- ROW J EFFINGHAM WILSON, ROYAL EXCHANGE. 
 
 1837. 
 
 Price Twopei^pe, or 10$. per Hundred for Distribution, 
 

 LONDON : 
 
 PRINTED BY J. II ADDON, CASTLE STREET, 
 FINSBURY. 
 
■ ^luv-e^ Set;, 
 
 U 
 
 TO THE COMMITTEE FOR CONDUCTING THE DEFENCE 
 OF MR. BURDER, OF BRAINTREE. 
 
 a 
 
 X 
 
 © 
 
 f»4 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 / have the honour of dedicating this Edition of 
 some observations of mine upon Church Rates to you , and to 
 request that you will be pleased to accept the proceeds of the sale , 
 as my mite to the cause in which you have embarked . Though it 
 is neither a precept nor a practice of Christianity to “ go to law 
 with a Brother ,” I am satisfied that, in your case, the exception 
 will tend to carry out the general rule — by putting an end to the 
 litigation and strife which are now constantly occurring . What- 
 ever may be the decision of the tribunal before which you are 
 going, the result must be beneficial . If you succeed, the Dis- 
 senters and liberal Churchmen will be so strengthened and 
 encouraged by your success, as to get rid of this Anti-protestant 
 tax upon conscience by their own exertions, in their respective 
 parishes . If, on the contrary, you fail, the legislature will have 
 a more powerful case than any that has yet been presented to it, 
 for at once settling the question, and preventing the revival of 
 *• a, species of unholy inquisition riding over the common law of 
 * the land, which our ecclesiastical courts, with such a precedent, 
 5 might soon become . 
 
 Allow me to subscribe myself, with great respect, 
 
 Your most Obedient Servant, 
 
 W. S. NORTHHOUSE. 
 
 17, Cornhill, Oct. 10, 1837. 
 
 i 
 
 P 
 
 6 ^ 
 
 *30 
 

 
ABOLITION 
 
 CHURCH RATES. 
 
 A public meeting of the electors and inhabitant house- 
 holders of Lambeth, was held at the Horns’ Tavern, 
 Kennington, on Monday, the 27th of March, 1837, to 
 consider the propriety of petitioning Parliament in favour 
 of the plan proposed by His Majesty’s Government, for 
 the abolition of Church Rates. The attendance was very 
 numerous. The Chairman, Samuel Palmer, Esq., having 
 eloquently introduced the subject, letters being read from 
 Mr. Hawes, Dr. Lushington, Mr. Barnard, Mr. Pattison, 
 Mr. Duncombe, and Mr. Grote, and a gentleman having 
 requested that all the resolutions might be read, in order 
 that the Meeting might have the whole series fully before 
 them, to prevent their being entrapped by any party 
 
 manoeuvre ; — 
 
6 
 
 Mr. North house, being called upon by the chairman, 
 addressed the Meeting as follows: — 
 
 Gentlemen, I have the honour of being deputed to 
 bring the first Resolution before you. It is one to which 
 I trust that the gentleman who has requested that the 
 whole of the Resolutions be read will not object: it is one 
 to which every man may assent, be he Whig, Tory, or 
 Radical ; — it is one with which politics ought to have no 
 connexion ; and I earnestly hope that in its consideration 
 we shall strictly confine ourselves to its substantive merits, 
 and be prepared, rather than lose sight of truth, justice, 
 and Christian principles, to fling “ party to the winds, and 
 faction to the whirlwinds.” (Cheers.) The following is 
 the Resolution :— 
 
 “ That this meeting view with unfeigned regret, the grievances 
 and contentions which have constantly occurred on the subject of 
 Church Rates, often bringing the ministers of the gospel into un- 
 seemly collision with their parishioners, and destroying that good 
 fellowship which ought to prevail amongst the members of a Christian 
 community 
 
 (Cheers.) Now were there any thing in this Resolution, or 
 in the objects of this Meeting, that could have the least 
 tendency to impair the efficiency of the Church of 
 England, or to lessen the spread of moral and religious 
 education among the people, I should reject it with disdain 
 — I would be no consenting party to such a proposal. I 
 consider that England owes its greatness and its glory 
 mainly to the moral excellence of its people: that the ad- 
 vancement of religious principles, and the consequent sound- 
 ness of the population, are in comparison with politics, 
 
 “ As Ossa to a wart.” 
 
 Hence I would implore you to suffer nothing to divert or 
 distract your minds from the real question at issue; which 
 is, whether it is more for the interests of Christianity, and 
 better for the community at large, that Church Rates 
 should be abolished, or that they should not (hear, hear), 
 and whether in fact that the present system does or does 
 not produce consequences the most inimical to religious 
 feeling — war where there ought to be peace, discord where 
 there ought to be harmony, and hatred where there ought 
 to be Christian charity and brotherly love? (Cheers.) 
 
7 
 
 Gentlemen, a great number of petitions have been 
 presented to both Houses of Parliament, praying that 
 Church Rates should not be abolished, and really it might 
 be imagined, from the clamour of many of the Church 
 Rate payers on the subject, that the old charge against the 
 people of “ an ignorant impatience of taxation,” should be 
 changed to an ignorant impatience of relief; ( laughter ) 
 but do I regret the number of these petitions ? Far from 
 it ; I rejoice that such a feeling exists ; I rejoice in 
 believing that any portion of those petitions evinces a 
 sincere apprehension on behalf of the Church ; — the 
 motives of such petitioners are deserving of the highest 
 honour and the warmest sympathy ; — they love the faith 
 of their fathers, and desire that their children may never 
 want the means which they possess, of being educated in 
 the paths of religion and piety: — God forbid that of such 
 a feeling they should ever be deprived, or that the policy 
 of any government should ever interfere with its growth, 
 and its development! — I accuse not it , but I accuse those 
 who would take advantage of such virtuous simplicity ; of 
 those who, for their own ambitious and corrupt objects, 
 have guaged the extent of unsophisticated piety in the 
 rural districts, and made nice calculations of the votes 
 they might gain by alarming the fears of wayfaring but 
 church-loving country people. {Hear, hear.) I do accuse 
 those who expect by such tricks to regain place and power. 
 I do accuse that blasphemous presumption which would 
 make the ‘ 4 kingdom of God” a mere stepping-stone to 
 mundane preferments ! — I do accuse that reckless selfish- 
 ness which could risk, for such paltry objects, the con- 
 tinuance in Christian faith, of those who, when they 
 discover how they have been cheated, may confound reli- 
 gion itself with its false-hearted professors! {Hear, hear.) 
 That there is no such pretended veneration for Church 
 Rates among those fomenters of the rural districts, I have 
 a pretty strong proof in my hand ; I hold here a letter 
 addressed to one of the greatest champions of the present 
 Church system, from the Churchwardens of two metro- 
 politan parishes, the parishes of St. John and St. Margaret, 
 Westminister, beseeching him to pay his own arrears of 
 Church Rates which have been due for more than four 
 
8 
 
 years ! ( Loud cries of hear , hear.) The Right Honourable 
 gentleman to whom this letter is addressed is not poor so 
 that he is unable to afford them, but on the contrary of 
 princely wealth ; he is not sordid, but on the contrary of 
 princely liberality. You must judge therefore politically, 
 rather than personally of his motives. I will read the 
 letter. 
 
 [Mr. Northhouse then read the letter, which was dated 
 10th December, 1836, and asked for the payment of 
 £16. Os. 10 d., being arrears for Church Rates in the years 
 1831 and 1832. It stated, that there might be a doubt 
 as to the legality of the rate, but £800 having been 
 advanced on the security of the rates, for the purpose of 
 providing increased accommodation for the poor, and the 
 executors of the party who had advanced the money being 
 anxious for its repayment, the churchwardens hoped that 
 their request would be complied with, especially from 
 those “ who were such true friends to the Church , and who 
 had never yet paid any Church Bates at ally” as was the 
 case with the inhabitants of Whitehall, Richmond Terrace, 
 &c. This letter was signed by Henry Lucas, James 
 Bower, John Johnson, and James Lys Seager, church- 
 wardens. ( Loud cries of name , name .) ] 
 
 I ought not to give the name — the letter is not answered 
 to this hour; but from the important claims upon the Right 
 Honourable Gentleman’s time, it may not yet be convenent 
 to answer it ; and I only adduce it to show that there is 
 no such personal feeling of the necessity of Church Rates 
 among the great promoters of the cry in their favour as 
 they wish to enkindle in others. ( No , no — name , name.) 
 There might be another reason : the Right Honourable 
 Gentleman has alluded, in Parliament, to the “ privilege 
 and pleasure ” of contributing to the Church Rates; and, 
 perhaps, he might not be averse to indulge the people with 
 the privilege and pleasure of paying his portion as well as 
 their own. ( Laughter , succeeded by cries of name , name.) 
 Gentlemen, the argument is just as good without the name 
 as with it. ( Name y name.) I hope, as the Right Honourable 
 Gentleman may pay this demand, you will not compel me 
 to divulge his name. {Here the uproar became tremendous , 
 and Mr. N. was not permitted to proceed by the shouts for 
 
9 
 
 the name.') Well, if I must give you the name, this is 
 the copy of a letter addressed, among other persons, to 
 the Right Honourable Sir Robert Peel , Baronet. (Loud 
 cries of Oh! Oh! and long -continued laughter.) 
 
 Gentlemen — having disposed of this letter, I will now 
 proceed to the consideration of compulsory Church Rates, 
 in a legal, constitutional, Protestant, and religious point 
 of view ; and as it is a subject of very great importance, 
 
 I must solicit your attention to details of rather a dry 
 character, as t shall first begin with the Law. During 
 the recent debates in Parliament, it has been said, that 
 where parishes refused to pay Church Rates they could 
 be compelled to do so by a mandamus. In the second 
 vol. of Modern Reports, the following cases occur : the 
 first is Rogers v Davenant . 
 
 “ In prohibition the question was, whether, if a Church be out of 
 repair, or so much out of order, that it must be rebuilt, the bishop 
 of the diocese may direct a commission to empower commissioners to 
 tax and rate every parishioner for the rebuilding* thereof 7 The court 
 unanimously agreed, that such commissions are against Law, and 
 therefore granted a prohibition to the spiritual court to stop a suit 
 there commenced against some of the parishioners of Whitechapel, 
 for not paying the tax according to their proportions.” 
 
 Again in the Court of Exchequer, page 222 — in the case of “ St. 
 Mary Magdalen , Bermondsey Church, Southwark ,” wherein was de- 
 cided : “ That the Bishop, or his Chancellor, cannot set a rate upon 
 a parish ; but it must be done by the parishioners themselves.” “ So 
 North, Chief Justice, said it had been lately ruled in the Commoiv 
 Pleas.” 
 
 Again, there is a case in the fifth vol. of the Term 
 Reports (the King against the Churchwardens of St. 
 Peter’s, Thetford), which is reported as follows : 
 
 (t Bower (Counsel) moved for a mandamus to the defendants (the 
 Churchwardens) to make a Rate for the repairs of the Church of this 
 Parish. He admitted that, in general, the Rate should be made by 
 the Churchwardens and Inhabitants , at a Vestry, but said that the 
 former alone might make a Church Rate, if the latter refused (1 
 Ventris, 367) ; and he stated that the Inhabitants had refused in this 
 case; but the Court said, we cannot interpose by granting a mandamus , 
 this being a subject purely of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction.” 
 
 Also in “the King against Wilson and others.’ — Dowling 
 and Ryland’s Reports, vol. V. p. 602, it is stated : 
 
 “ On a former day a Rule was obtained, calling on the Church- 
 wardens of , in the County of Cambridge, to show cause why a 
 
 A 3 
 
10 
 
 mandamus should not issue to them, commanding them to make a Rate f 
 for the repairs of a donative Church, in that Parish. Scarlet showed 
 cause, and objected, preliminarily that a mandamus would not lie to 
 the Churchwardens to make a Rate. All that they could be required 
 to do was to call a meeting of the Parishioners, for the purpose of 
 considering the propriety of making a Rate. The Churchwardens 
 had not power to make a Rate without the sanction of a Vestry. He 
 cited the King against the Bishop of Chester (1, T. R. 396), and the 
 King against St. Margaret’s (4, Maule and Selwyn, 250). Denman 
 (Counsel on the other side) admitted the force of the objection. The 
 Court said , you cannot call upon the Churchwardens to make a Rate. You 
 can only call upon them to hold a Vestry -meeting for that purpose — 
 Rule discharged.*” 
 
 Now, Gentlemen, all these cases agree, in the principle 
 that the Common Law Judges have not power to compel 
 
 * Since the first Edition was published, I have received from a very 
 rising Member of the Bar, the following letter — The authority of that 
 first rate Lawyer, Lord Tenterden, adds greatly to the case. 
 
 Lincoln’s Inn , 17 th April, 1337. 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 It may appear superfluous, after the conclusive argu- 
 ments in the Pamphlets just published by yourself and the Attorney- 
 General, to cite any additional authority to prove that Church Rates 
 cannot be legally imposed without the consent of the Parishioners ; 
 but there is a case of Cockburn versus Harvey (2. Barnw . <Sf Adolph. 
 797) which has not yet been referred to, strongly confirming the 
 above proposition. 
 
 A new district Church had been built in the parish of Saint George, 
 Camberwell, under the general Act of the 58th Geo. III., c. 45, and a 
 rate for the repair of this Church was made by a select vestry under 
 the provisions of the Act of the 59th Geo. III. c. 134. Cockburn 
 having refused to pay this rate was cited by the select vestry in the 
 Ecclesiastical Court, and he thereupon proceeded in prohibition in 
 the Court of King’s Bench. The select vestry contended that the 
 words of the statute, investing them with “ the care and management 
 of the concerns of the Church, and all matters and things relating thereto ,” 
 gave them, by implication, a power of making a Church Rate without 
 the consent of the Parishioners : — Cockburn, on the other side (by 
 Joshua Evans , his Counsel), urged that the right of the parishioners 
 to tax themselves was clear, and could not be thus taken away. 
 
 Lord Tenterden decided against the Rate, on the following grounds : 
 he said, “ Rates for the repairs of Churches in parishes, by the common 
 law, are to be made by the Churchwardens and the vestry ; that is, by 
 the Churchwardens and Inhabitants in Vestry assembled ; if there be not 
 a Select Vestry by usage or Act of Parliament. It was contended 
 for the plaintiff, that the powers given to the select vestry did not 
 extend to the making a rate for the repairs of the Church ; and it 
 was urged that Act's of Parliament, by which any charge may be brought 
 
11 
 
 a Rate, but that all the power to make a Rate is vested 
 in the Parishioners themselves, and that their refusal is 
 subjected alone to the exploded anathemas of the Spiritual 
 Court. (Hear, hear.) This, however, ought to be no 
 matter of surprise; the great principles of our constitution 
 run through and intersect the whole law, and the maxim 
 everywhere prevails that no man can be taxed, save by 
 his own consent ; and though perhaps some of us may dif- 
 fer upon the point whether actual representation should be 
 co-extensive with taxation, we shall all agree that taxa- 
 tion, without either actual or virtual representation, is 
 tyranny. (Cheers,) On this principle I take my second 
 position, that compulsory Church Rates are not only ille- 
 gal, but that they are unconstitutional. (Hear, hear.) 
 
 Gentlemen, I now approach a most important branch of 
 this subject, the justice or injustice of those Rates; — and 
 here there are certain principles, which only require stating, 
 to be immediately and unanimously acknowledged. The 
 first I take to be this ; — the golden maxim, as it is most 
 
 upon the subject, or the subject be deprived of his rights in dero- 
 gation of the common law, are to be construed strictly ; and several 
 cases were quoted in support of that proposition ; I shall notice only 
 two of them, as we consider the principle to be clear. In 
 Fludyer v. Sir T. Lombe (cases temp. Hardwicke), Lord Hardwicke, 
 then Chief Justice of this Court, says ‘ it has been rightly said that 
 this, being a law to take away people’s franchises, should be strictly con- 
 strued.’ — So in the case of Buckridge, v. Flight (6 Barnw. & Cres. 49), 
 Mr. Justice Holroyd says, 4 where Acts of Parliament vary or take 
 away the rights of parties, they ought to be strictly construed,’ many 
 cases on the construction of the Stamp Acts have been decided on this 
 ground ; and this principle must be kept in view in putting a construction 
 on this Act of Parliament. 
 
 It is impossible to place the right of the Parishioners, to make or 
 refuse a Church Kate, higher than Lord Tenterden has done in this 
 case: — he unequivocally decides that it is a common law right and 
 franchise which cannot be derogated from by implication, or frittered 
 away by legal technicalities. 
 
 Asa Member and warm friend of the Established Church, I sin- 
 cerely trust that, in the present state of the law, the admirable measure 
 of His Majesty’s Ministers will not be long delayed. 
 
 I remain, 
 
 Yours faithfully, 
 
 J. H. PALMER. 
 
IS 
 
 properly called, “ Do ye unto others as ye would that 
 others should do unto you.” Apply it — ask the Church- 
 man how he would like to have summonses and warrants 
 issued — to have his goods seized, and sold— to pay for the 
 support of a Dissenter’s Chapel? ( Loud cries of hear , hear.) 
 But it is contended that the Church is the National 
 Religion, and being the Religion of the majority of the 
 people, ought to be supported by all. Now waiving the 
 application of this argument to Ireland (hear, hear), and 
 suspending my opinion, as to the fact of the majority, 
 (hear, hear,) let us inquire whether the establishment 
 have not sufficient property, and is not in justice bound 
 to apply that property to the maintenance and repair of 
 its own Churches, The great Ecclesiastical authority, 
 Dr. Burn, in his chapter on Appropriations, says — 
 
 The benevolence of a Diocese was, at first, entirely at the Bishop's 
 receipt and disposal : but, that there might appear to be a just 
 application of it, a rule was obtained for dividing the fund into four 
 parts ; one to the fabric and ornaments of the Church ; another to the 
 officiating priest ; a third to the poor and necessitous travellers ; and 
 a fourtli reserved to the more immediate service of the Bishop and 
 his College. But when Sees began to be endowed in the lands, and 
 other firm possessions, then the Bishops did tacitly recede from their 
 quarter part, and were afterwards by Canons forbidden to demand it, 
 if they could live without it. So that the division was now only into 
 three parts ; and every priest was the receiver and distributor, as the 
 Bishop had be^n before, — standing obliged to expend one part on the 
 raising , supporting, and adorning his Church and manse, — another part 
 upon entertaining strangers and relieving the poor, — and to have a 
 third reserved for his own immediate occasions. Yet still the whole 
 product of tithes and offerings was the bank of each parish Church, and 
 the minister was the sole trustee and dispenser of them, according to those 
 stated rules of piety and charity * 
 
 Gentlemen, this is the law. The Church took the wealth 
 of its Catholic predecessors, upon the same trusts on which 
 that wealth was then held, and one of those trusts clearly 
 was the repair and maintenance of the 66 fabric and orna- 
 ments.” If it will no longer perform the trusts, it is bound 
 to give up the property, and justice demands that such 
 should be the case. (Cheers.) There are other reasons, of 
 a still more important character, bearing upon this portion 
 *>f the case. The immortal Milton says, 
 
 * Burn on Ecclesiastical Law.* 
 
13 
 
 ** Forced consecrations out of another man’s estate are no better 
 than forced vows— hateful to God ( who loves a cheerful giver but much 
 more hateful, wrung out of men’s purses, to maintain a disapproved 
 ministry against their conscience ; however unholy, infamous, and 
 dishonourable to his ministers, and the free Gospel, maintained in 
 such unworthy manner as by violence and extortion. If he give 
 it, as to his teacher, what justice or equity compels him to pay for 
 learning that Religion, which leaves freely to his choice, whether he 
 will learn it or no, whether of his teacher or another, and especially 
 to pay for what he never learned or approves not ; whereby, besides 
 the wound of his conscience, he becomes the less able to recompense 
 his true teacher V 9 * 
 
 Here is a powerful argument which I now call upon the 
 advocates of those “ forced consecrations” to answer. Are 
 they prepared to provide for the chapels of the Dissenter 
 to the extent that they incapacitate him from providing 
 for them himself? If not, where is their justice? Where 
 is their practical observance of “ Do ye unto others as ye 
 would that others should do unto you V* ( Loud cheers .) 
 
 Gentlemen, let us now look at another feature of this 
 case, and inquire how far Church Rates are consistent with 
 Christianity. [Hear.) There are certain principles and 
 precepts which all acknowledge, and which bear most 
 powerfully upon this part of the subject. The great 
 founder of our faith laid an express injunction upon his 
 disciples, — (the successors of whom the Established Clergy 
 claim to be)— he directed them to go forth and “ preach 
 the Gospel to every creature;” to “ take neither purse nor 
 scrip,” but in every house say “ peace.” Do they, in the 
 forcible exaction of Church Rates, obey this injunction? 
 Do they not take both purse and scrip (a voice , (C yes, and 
 Bibles too, 1 ’) and in every house say “war?” ( Great 
 cheering.) 
 
 Again, our Saviour proposes a test of the sincerity of his 
 followers ; — he says, “ By this shall all men know that 
 you are my disciples, if ye have love one to another Where 
 is the love that is enkindled or developed by summonses 
 and warrants of distress? Milton in his time denounced 
 
 * Essay on the likeliest means to remove Hirelings out of the 
 Church. 
 
14 
 
 such anti-Christian conduct, and compared it to that of 
 the wicked sons of Eli, who fell victims to the righteous 
 vengeance of that God whose temples they had desecrated, 
 and whose services they had prostituted : he says, 
 
 “ Their violent and irreligious exactions ; — their seizing of pots 
 and pans from the poor; from some the very beds; their suing and 
 imprisoning, worse than when the Canon Law was in force ; worse 
 than when those wicked sons of Eli were Priests, whose manner was 
 thus to seize their pretended priestly due by force; — 1 5am. 12. fyc. 
 
 * Whereby men abhorred the offering of the Lord,* And it may be 
 feared that many will as much abhor the Gospel, if such violence as 
 this be suffered in her ministers, and in that which they also pretend 
 to be the offering of the Lord. For those sons of Belial, within some 
 limits, made seizure of what they knew was their own by an un- 
 doubted Law ; but these, from whom there is no sanctuary, seize 
 out of men’s grounds, out of men’s houses, their other goods of double, 
 sometimes of treble value, for that which, did not covetousness and 
 rapine blind them, they know to be not their own by the Gospel they 
 preach.”* (Hear, hear,) 
 
 What a spectacle we had but yesterday in this great 
 metropolis — here in the capital city of Christianized Europe, 
 to witness in one parish alone the issuing of 1200 warrants 
 of distress for Church Rates ! ( Loud cries of hear , hear, 
 and great groaning.) Is this Christianity? (No! No!) 
 But let us not confine ourselves to the testimonies of our 
 friends — to the evidence of those who “ have a reason for 
 the hope that is in them” — let us go into the camp of the 
 infidel and behold there the direful use that is made of 
 these unholy weapons of professing Christians ; — let us 
 mark how the Titans, who ate warring against our 
 Olympus, shoot back those weapons upon Christianity 
 itself. Observe the language of their great leader : 
 
 “ Is it, say’st thou, religion that’s the parent 
 Of all this rapine, virulence, and rage? 
 
 No ! true religion is ever mild, propitious, and humane; 
 Plays not the tyrant ; plants no faith in blood ; 
 
 Nor bears destruction on her chariot wheels ; 
 
 But stoops to succour, polish, and redress, 
 
 And builds her grandeur on the public good.” 
 
 * Milton on the likeliest means to remove Hirelings from the 
 Church. 
 
15 
 
 Let not those who profess the benign, the mild, and the 
 beautiful principles of Christianity, be taught their own 
 religion by the arch infidel Voltaire. {Loud cheers .) 
 
 Gentlemen, we will now go from Christianity in general 
 to Protestantism in particular, and see how far the very 
 basis of Protestantism bears upon the question at issue. 
 And here we are very favourably circumstanced; a meeting 
 is advertised to be held in this room next Friday, of no 
 doubt equally pious and patriotic individuals, to support 
 Protestant principles, and to check the “ alarming growth 
 and encouragement of Popery.” (Laughter*) That meet- 
 ing is to be under the auspices and presidency of the 
 Honourable and gallant member for the County, and being 
 so honoured (laughter), and having such truly Protestant 
 objects, it may be as well that those pious and patriotic 
 people should be reminded of the foundation on which 
 Protestantism itself is based, and then perhaps we may 
 look for their co-operation in getting rid of the Popish 
 leaven that still cleaves to our Protestant establishment, in 
 the shape of compulsory Church Rates. (Laughter and 
 cheers,) Be it known, therefore, to Captain Alsager, and 
 his friends, that some two centuries ago the Roman Catho- 
 lic Religion being the dominant Church throughout nearly 
 the whole of Europe, and there being then some few Dis- 
 senters who could not conscientiously belong to it, under- 
 took by three modes to compel all men to lend it their 
 support —first, on pain of forfeiture of goods; secondly, 
 on pain of forfeiture of liberty ; and, thirdly, on pain of 
 forfeiture of life : — now, in the present times there is 
 another dominant Church, which does not attempt to force 
 all men into its communion, but without coveting their 
 souls, extorts their purses, and takes from many their 
 liberty, and from all, their money. (Hear, hear.) Where, 
 I ask, is the difference between the two Churches save in 
 degree ? It is true the present dominant Church does not 
 go so far as the former one ; the secular arm does not ex- 
 tend to the stake, but to the step next to the stake it does 
 extend ; and in principle, both Churches are “ one and 
 indivisible.” (Cheers,) Let me tell Captain Alsager, that 
 it was to combat this very principle that the first “ protest” 
 was issued ; that the sacred right of private judgment in 
 
16 
 
 matters of faith, was the very banner of Protestantism 5 — 
 that for this “ the holy army of martyrs” which the Church 
 honours in its liturgy, but forgets in its law {hear, hear), 
 ascended up into heaven through the racks, tortures, and 
 flames of the earth {immense cheering ) ; that for this the 
 Latimers and Ridleys fed those fires in Smithfield, which 
 illumined the Christian world, and at which the torches of 
 the Protestantism, that soon after blazed into day, were 
 lit ! These indeed were pillars of the Christian temple — 
 
 “ Flinging tlieir shadows from on high, 
 
 Like dials which the wizard Time 
 Had raised, to count his ages by !” 
 
 {Great cheering .) That Protestantism was founded upon 
 this great principle, we have authority upon authority; 
 but I will again refer you to Milton, who says, 
 
 “ It is the general consent of all sound Protestant writers, that 
 neither traditions, Councils, nor Canons of the visible church, much 
 less edicts of any magistrate or civil session, but the scripture only, 
 can be the final judge or rule in matters of religion, and that only 
 in the conscience of every Christian to himself. Which protesta- 
 tion, made by the first public reformers of our religion against the 
 Imperial edict of Charles the Fifth, imposing church traditions 
 without scripture, gave first beginning to the name of Protestant j 
 and with that name hath ever been received this doctrine, which 
 prefers the scripture before the church, and acknowledges none but 
 the scripture, sole interpreter of itself to the conscience. But if any 
 man shall pretend that the scripture judges to his conscience for 
 other men, he makes himself greater, not only than the church, but 
 also than the scriptures ; — than the consciences of other men — a pre- 
 sumption too high for any mortal. Chiefly for this cause do all true 
 Protestants account the Pope Antichrist, for that he assumes to him- 
 self this infallibility over both the conscience and the scripture — 
 * sitting in the temple of God,’ as it were opposite to God, ‘ and exalting 
 himself above all that is called God , or is worshipped ’ — 2 Thess, ii. 4.”* 
 
 Here then, in their departure from this great principle, 
 is the “ alarming growth of Popery,” at which those pious 
 gentlemen are so much, and so justly alarmed. {Laughter 
 and cheers,) I recommend them to consider the following 
 quotation : — 
 
 (i The Papist exacts our belief as to the Church due above scriptures, 
 and by the Church, which is the whole people of God, understands 
 
 * Treatise of Civil power in Ecclesiastical cases. 
 
17 
 
 the Pope, the general Councils, prelatical only, and the surnamed 
 fathers ; but the forcing Protestant, though he deny such belief to any 
 Church whatsoever, yet takes it to himself and his teachers, of far 
 less authority than to be called the Church, and above Scripture 
 believed ; which renders his practice both contrary to his belief, and 
 far worse than that belief, which he condemns in the Papist. By all 
 which, well considered, the more he professes to be a true Protestant, 
 the more he hath to answer for his persecuting than a Papist.”* 
 
 Let us mark too what one of the greatest dignitaries and 
 luminaries of the Church of England says — -a man acknow- 
 ledged to this hour to have been one of the soundest and 
 most erudite of her divines — the distinguished Dr. 
 Barrow ; let us mark the test by which he tries a Chris- 
 tian Church. After showing what such a Church ought 
 to be — “ simple without wealth and pomp,” “ gentle 
 without force and violence,” “ persuasive without imperious 
 awe,” “ forbidden to domineer,” w furnished with no arms 
 save the divine panoply,” teaching to reprove but not 
 being allowed to compel; — he goes on — 
 
 i( But supposing the Church was designed to be one in this manner 
 of political regiment, it must be quite another thing ; — nearly resembling 
 a worldly state, yea, in” effect, soon resolving itself into such an one ; 
 supposing, as is now pretended, that its management is committed to 
 an ecclesiastical monarch ; it must become a worldly kingdom : for 
 such a polity could not be upheld without applying the same means 
 and engines , without practising the same methods and arts, whereby 
 secular governments are maintained. Its majesty must be supported 
 by conspicuous pomp and phantastry. Its dignity and power must be 
 supported by wealthy which it must corrode, and accumulate by large 
 incomes, by exaction of tributes and taxes . It must exert authority , in 
 exacting laws for keeping its state in order , and securing its interests , 
 backed with rewards and pains ; especially considering its title being 
 so dark, and grounded on no clear warrant, many always will contest it. 
 It must apply constraint and force , for procuring obedience and cor- 
 recting transgression. It must have guards to preserve its safety and 
 authority. It must be engaged in wars, to defend itself and make 
 good its interests. It must use subtlety and artifice, for promoting its 
 interests, and countermining the policies of adversaries. It must 
 erect judicatories, and must decide causes, with formality of legal 
 process ; whence tedious suits, crafty pleadings , quirks of law and 
 pettifoggeries ; fees and charges, extortion and barratry will necessa- 
 rily creep in. All which things" do much disagree from the original 
 constitution and design of the Christian Church, which is averse from 
 
 * Treatise of Civil power in Ecclesiastical cases. 
 
18 
 
 pomp, doth reject domination , doth not require craft , wealth, or force to 
 maintain it ; but did increase at first, and may do still without any 
 such jneans.”* 
 
 This is what the great Dr. Barrow considered in his 
 day, and this is but a prophetic vision of the Church in our 
 day, and one which that great light of martyrdom, Latimer, 
 saw in his. Listen to the following sermon, addressed by 
 him in the spirit of prophecy to the then clergy : — 
 
 “ Take heed, and beware of covetousness ! take heed, and beware of 
 covetousness ! take heed and beware of covetousness ! And what, if 
 I say nothing these three or four hours, but these few words ? 
 Great complaint there was against it, — much crying out, — and 
 much preaching, — but, little amendment . Covetousness is the root 
 of all evil. Therefore, strike at that root ? Aye, out with your axes, 
 ye preachers, and strike at that root ! Stand not ticking and toying 
 at the branches, for new branches may spring forth again ; but strike 
 at the root. Fear not these great men , these men of power, — these 
 oppressors of the needy, — fear them not, but strike at the 
 root 
 
 {Great cheering .) Aye, indeed, “ Strike at that root.” It 
 is the Upas of the Garden of our Eden. — {Hear, hear.) 
 Gentlemen, it is now gravely argued, and that too by great 
 names in the Church, that without wealth to incite — prizes, 
 as they are termed, to provoke emulation — Sees and pre- 
 ferments, to tempt young aspirants for Holy Orders to feel 
 and to declare that they are moved by the Spirit; the 
 Church would have no efficient ministry, and would cease 
 to be preached by u lips wet from the Castalian fount.” 
 The argument is met by Milton in a burst of indignant 
 eloquence. In a reply to some such disputants as are now 
 clothed in lawn sleeves, he says — 
 
 “ As for your young scholars, that petition for Bishoprics and 
 Deaneries to encourage them in their studies, and that many 
 gentlemen, else, will not put their sons to learning ; away with such 
 young mercenary striplings, and their simoniacal fathers. God has 
 no need of such ; — they have no part or lot in his vineyard. They 
 may as well sue for nunneries, that they may have some convenient 
 stowage for their withered daughters, because they cannot give them 
 portions answerable to the pride and vanity they have bred them in. 
 
 * Barrow’s Discourse concerning the Divine Unity of the Church. 
 
 f Gilpin’s Life of Latimer. 
 
19 
 
 This is the root of all our mischief ; that which they allege for the 
 encouragement of their studies, should be cut away forthwith, as the 
 very bait of pride and ambition, — the very garbage that draws 
 together all the fowls of prey and ravine in the land, to come and 
 gorge upon the church. How can it be but ever unhappy to the 
 Church of England, while she shall think to entice men to the pure 
 service of God, by the same means that were used to tempt our 
 Saviour to the service of the Devil, by laying before him — honour 
 and preferment V ’* 
 
 Gentlemen, I wish not to press the Church too hard, or 
 to probe her wounds too painfully; yeti may ask, why is 
 she not more beloved and respected than she is ? There is 
 little in her liturgy that is not lovely and of good repute — 
 her thirty-nine articles are scriptural and sufficiently latitu- 
 dinarian to let in nearly all consciences, from the Calvinist 
 to the Arminian ; how, then, are there such hosts of Dis- 
 senters, who refuse to belong to her communion ? Is it not 
 because she is self-degraded by these attempts to compel 
 men to support her whether they like it or not ? Is it not 
 because her “Right Reverend Fathers in God,” instead of 
 being imitators of the meek and lowly Jesus, are rapacious 
 in their graspings, and rampant in their politics ? (Hear, 
 hear.) It is an old and true aphorism, <c that Religion 
 brought forth Wealth, and that the Daughter devoured the 
 Mother.” ( Cheers and laughter .) 
 
 Gentlemen, I am the last individual in the world to 
 institute an inquiry as to the means by which those Right 
 Reverend Prelates attained the power which they now level 
 against the liberties of the Dissenters. I am the last being 
 in the world disposed to ask whether some of them were 
 indebted for their vast sees, and magnificent revenues 
 more to a king’s conscience, or a king’s concubine (im- 
 mense cheering ) ; but if they will force themselves before the 
 people as enemies alike of the Government and the Gospel 
 — if they will flatter themselves that they are pure streams 
 from an impure fountain (great laughter), and will — 
 
 “ Play such fantastic tricks before high Heaven, 
 
 As make the angels weep” — 
 
 they must take the consequences of their conduct in the 
 
 * Milton’s Animadversions upon a Remonstrant’s defence, &c. 
 
20 
 
 institution of such inquiries — and rest content with the 
 halloo of faction, instead of the respect and veneration of 
 the wise and the good of the whole Christian world. 
 {Cheers.) Well indeed has Milton described them — 
 
 “ Although the Prelates, in the time of Popery, were sometimes 
 friendly enough to Magna Charta , it was because they stood upon 
 their own bottom, without their main dependence on the Royal nod : 
 but now being well acquainted that the Protestant religion, if she will 
 reform herself rightly by the scriptures, must undress them of all 
 their gilded vanities, and reduce them as they were at first, to the 
 lowly and equal order of presbyters ; they know it concerns them 
 nearly to study the times more than the text, and to lift up their eyes 
 to the hills of the Court, from whence only comes their help ; — but if 
 their pride grow weary of this crouching and observance as ere long 
 it would, and that yet their minds climb still to a higher ascent of 
 worldly honour, this only refuge can remain to them, that they must 
 of necessity contrive to bring themselves and us back again to the 
 Pope’s supremacy ; and this we see they have, by fair degrees, of 
 late been doing.”* 
 
 Gentlemen, what is the chief cause of the dissent which 
 exists ? It is not in doctrine, for nine-tenths of the differ- 
 ent sects may find their own doctrines in the Articles of 
 the Church. It is not in the liturgy, for, with the exception 
 of the atrocious forgery rarely read, known by the name of 
 the Athanasian creed, nearly all Dissenters concur in ad- 
 miring its beauty and piety, and acknowledge that they 
 have nothing equal to it. It must be therefore not because 
 of the principles, but because of the practices of the 
 Church that dissent has covered the land. Why do we 
 dissent? Because we believe that Christ’s “ kingdom is 
 not of this world because we acknowledge no supremacy 
 save that of our own divine Master, and no code save that 
 of the Eternal Word — because we have not yet learned to 
 solve the problem of a Christian church being able to 
 serve at once both God and mammon — because we — 
 
 “ Disdain to rest our Heaven-aspiring wings 
 Beneath their native quarry.” 
 
 ( Great cheering .) 
 
 Gentlemen, the Dissenters are of opinion, and they have 
 a right to be protected in that opinion, that they ought 
 
 * Milton’s Reasons of Church Government urged against Prelaty. 
 
21 
 
 not to be compelled to support another Church from which 
 they conscientiously dissent,, in addition to the support 
 of their own Chapels. The liberal Churchman is of 
 opinion, that he ought not to be degraded by being in- 
 debted for his place of worship to the forced contributions 
 of his Christian brother, the Dissenter. Who then have 
 we in opposition to these? Not the honest bigot — he is 
 deluded, but he is just 5 — not the working Minister of the 
 Church — he starves in the midst of its wealth, and will for 
 ever starve under the present system ; — not the Common 
 Law, for its greatest authorities have declared that they 
 have no power to interfere; — not the British Constitution, 
 for its crowning jewel is, that no man shall be taxed with- 
 out his own consent ; — not the Protestant faith, for it was 
 founded on exactly the opposite principle ; — not the 
 Christian religion, for it is a Temple, unbuilt by human 
 hands, and seeking no forced consecrations ; but, Gentle- 
 men, by the mean and the selfish — the ambitious prelate, 
 and the crouching priest — the calculating trader in poli- 
 tics, and smooth-tongued dealer in devotion ; men who, 
 to win their tortuous way to the offices they have lost, 
 would make Heaven a stepping-stone, and God a go-be- 
 tween. ( Immense cheering.) 
 
 But we have one consolation — the system cannot last. 
 (Hear, hear.) It was always difficult, it is now impracti- 
 cable. The light that the late debates have shed upon the 
 people, will enable them to rid themselves of the tyranny 
 that has so long oppressed them. After the Attorney 
 General’s speech, stating the law, and a knowledge of the 
 cases which I have quoted, and many others which I 
 might have quoted, it is impossible for the system to drag 
 much longer its “ slow length along but how awful is 
 the contemplation of the means by which it may be de- 
 stroyed. What rancour ! — what fury ! — what desecration 
 of the Temples of the living God ! Wicked are the men 
 who will not permit an enlightened Government, and a 
 beneficent Monarch, to provide other means, without in- 
 justice to any, for contributing that which has been hith- 
 erto forced from all ! (Cheers.) 
 
 Most glad should I be to behold the Church regaining 
 her primitive purity and glory, and denuding herself of 
 
22 
 
 the harlequinade garb in which avarice and ambition have 
 enshrouded her. (Cheers.) Once more I hope to see, 
 before its kindred altar, the gentle dove take the place of 
 the voracious vulture that now too frequently haunts it. I 
 hope to see the place of Megsera and her sister furies with 
 their serpents hissing for wealth and power, supplied by 
 the Christian graces of Faith, Hope, and Charity, “the 
 greatest of whom is Charity.” (Loud applause.) Then 
 indeed will the Church be worthy of the name of its Di- 
 vine Founder, and deserve the high title which it assumes, 
 of being the greatest Protestant Church of Europe ; then 
 indeed will dissent be abated, and the first Church of the 
 great Reformation reclaim her lost children ; and then 
 indeed, may those who love her exclaim, that she is 
 
 IMMORTAL, IMMUTABLE, UNIVERSAL ! that 
 
 “ The stars may fade away, the sun himself 
 Grow dim with age, and nature sink in years. 
 
 But she shall flourish in immortal youth, 
 
 Unhurt, amid the war of elements, 
 
 The wreck of matter, and the crash of worlds !” 
 
 —(Immense cheering .) 
 
 The resolution was carried unanimously. 
 
 N ote . — It will be observed that I have not enlarged 
 upon the plan of the Government for the abolition of 
 Church Rates, and substitution of a more certain and less 
 oppressive mode of obtaining the necessary supplies, in- 
 asmuch as the plan itself formed the subject of another 
 resolution, and also from my conviction that in case this 
 particular plan were to be successfully resisted, that the 
 Church possesses in its unpaid, and consequently unap- 
 plied first fruits and tenths, a more than sufficient amount 
 to provide for the deficiency. It is true it will be said 
 that those first fruits and tenths belong to the inferior 
 clergy, as it is said that if the Church, by a better man- 
 
23 
 
 agement, can produce a larger income, the excess should 
 be appropriated to the building of new churches , — both 
 are cunning fallacies to prop up dishonest practices. If 
 the first fruits belong to the lower clergy, why not give 
 them to the lower clergy to eke out their scanty incomes 
 — and if the increased property of the Church ought to be 
 appropriated to increased Church accommodation, surely 
 more of that accommodation can be obtained by repairing 
 and rendering habitable old Churches, than by the enor- 
 mous expense of building new . The argument is fatal 
 only to those who advance it. 
 
 THE AUTHOR. 
 
 j. 
 
 HADDON, PRINTER, CASTLE STREET, FINSBURV.