1848 July 15th

The very question of Church-rates has thrown this parish into turmoil, and been productive of most unpleasant feelings. So long ago as the 7th of April a correspondence on the subject commenced between Rev. A.C. Wright, the dissenting minister, and the Rev. W. Selwyn, the vicar, since published as a pamphlet, and in which each gentleman, with great courtesy and talent, expressed his views for and against the imposition of church-rates; the vicar, in his concluding letter, expressing his determination of appealing to the parish. Accordingly, we are informed by a correspondent, “that a meeting at the chancel of the church to obtain the rate referred to was held June 5. It was adjourned July 3. There were then, on a rate being proposed, for it, 24; against it, 48. A poll was demanded on Wednesday night last, the result of which was a majority of one vote for .the rate. This majority is made up in part by the vicar claiming six votes, the lay rector, six votes, – the tenant of the latter, six votes – while none of this property is liable for church rate! The rate, however, is to be enforced by the usual means. Many will not pay but will suffer the consequences, whether distraint or imprisonment.”

1848 July 29th

The Church-rate Contest at Melbourne

There has been going on for some time in this parish, as our readers are aware, a contest on the equity of the payment of Church-rates. The feeling of opposition to them was first roused, some years ago, by Mr. Campkin, and it has been steadily increasing with the progress of Dissent. On the last occasion of a Church-rate being demanded, it was determined by the Dissenters to proceed to a trial of strength with the Church party; and, accordingly, an amendment was moved to the proposal for a rate, which was carried by a show of hands. A poll was demanded by the Church party, as well as several Dissenters, who, objecting to the principle of, still voted for, the rate, for the assigned reason of keeping peace in the parish, and submitting to the rate on account of long usage.

The leaders of the resisting party were “twisted” by their opponents with resisting the execution of a legal enactment, rather than at once attacking the principle of the enactment, and striving to effect the abolition by reaching and convincing the Government through the minds of the people. The Dissenters immediately determined upon a double stroke of policy, for they brought down a gentleman who is not only well versed in the law of the matter, but who has, on many occasions, been engaged in contests against its equity, and who has, in intellectual conflicts with some of the first champions of the Church party, come off victorious. The object of this gentleman’s mission was, doubtless, quite as much to win back to the Dissenters the erring votes of some of their party, as to secure the adhesion of the parishioners of Melbourne to the total repeal of the statute under which Church-rates are at present levied. We do not think that they could have procured an advocate better to the production of both these effects. That advocate was the Rev. John Burnett, of Camberwell, and Tuesday evening last was appointed for his address.

A large barn was fitted up on the premises of Mr. Campkin, the veteran champion of the Anti-Church-rate party, for the accommodation of the meeting, and long before the time appointed for the meeting (seven o’clock), it was crowded to repletion. The village exhibited an animated scene, from the continuous arrivals of vehicles and pedestrians from Cambridge, Royston, Meldreth, Therfield, Foulmire, Barrington, and Shepreth, most of the passengers being attracted by the interest they felt in the decision of this contest, and all by a desire to hear the address of Mr. Burnett, whose fame, as a public advocate, has travelled far and wide. The two first mentioned places contributed omnibus loads to the assemblage.

Before the conclusion of the meeting, the assemblage in the barn and the approach thereto, fully equalled 700 people; they presented a very interesting sight, and forcibly reminded us of the appearances presented by the primitive meetings of the Covenanters, the Wesleyans, or the Free Church of Scotland. On the platform we noticed, W.H. Nash, Esq.; the Revs. John Burnett, Andrew Wright, John Forsaith, James Flood, Samuel Eastman, – Gough, and – Harsant. G. S. Wallis, Samuel Clear, Wm. Butler, and Wm. Clear Esqrs.; Messrs. Meyers, Jos. Campkin, Titchmarsh, Nash, Aves, and Muney, were also present in the body of the meeting, which boasted the presence of a goodly number of the fair sex. We regret exceedingly that the pressure on our columns by our assize news, will not allow us to lay before our readers any more than the following slight sketches of the addresses of Messrs. Nash and Burnett. These were listened to throughout with the most breathless attention, and were from time to time broken in upon by bursts of applause.

Wm. Hollick Nash, Esq., having been voted to the chair by acclamation, said that any circumstances which had the effect of introducing to their notice the British Anti-State Church Association, were matters of congratulation. He was sure that they would be friends to its principles when they came to be explained to them, and he was glad at the occurrence of any thing calculated to bring them as nonconformists in contact with their principles, thereby teaching them to prize them more highly than they otherwise would. Mr. Nash proceeded (as, he said, the Association had never before held a meeting in their neighbourhood,) to give some account of its fundamental principles. They enunciated that man is responsible to God alone, and it was their object to liberate religion from all Legislative or Governmental interference; this they sought to effect by lawful and constitutional means, and such only. They quarrelled with the Church as a state and not as Episcopalianism. They meant no disrespect to individuals, and it was not part and parcel of their objects to put down Episcopalianism. He had noticed quietly and silently, for thirty years, the working of a State Church in that district, and he believed it to have been the greatest barrier to real religion and social improvement; it was hostile to the civil government, and to civil and religious liberty.

Mr. Nash proceeded to descant on the effect of the workings of a State Church in Ireland, and to point out the evils which had been practised under its sanction and authority. He thought it would not be out of place, as the object of the meeting was the consideration of the subject of Church-rates, if he asked the question, what was the amount of the property of the nation at present in the hands of the Church? They were all aware of the interest the Dean and Chapter of Ely had in that parish. The Church wished to put its hands into their pockets for the sum of £75., and they would- naturally infer from that that there was no church property. Instead of this being the fact, the Church received £1,600 or £1,700 a year. The Dean and Chapter of Ely had a tithe-rent charge equal to £918. a year, 300 acres of land in addition, which produced £450 a year, and the possession of the manor, which produced £100 a year.

The vicar’s rent charge was £241 a year, and the glebe was worth £60 a year. If the question of Church-rates had never been mooted in the parish, he should have passed Melbourne without observation. In the year 1835 a report was issued from a Commissioner, previously appointed to enquire into the revenue of the State Church, and the returns upon which it was founded were received (on oath) from the clergy themselves. Mr. Nash having quoted and dwelt upon the amounts received by the Archbishops, Bishops, Deans and Chapters, Colleges, Incumbents of Benefices having no cure of souls, Curates, &c., and comparing the paltry allowances made to the latter, with the plentitude of the resources of the rest, gave the total income (as stated under that commission) at £8,738,951.

Another return has since been required under the Tithe Commutation Act, and then it was the interest of the Clergy to make their incomes appear as large as possible; and the income appear as large as possible; and the income now derived from tithes alone was nearly double the whole amount stated under that commission, and when all the tithes should be commuted would amount to about eight millions. There was a living not ten miles from that place which had been returned under the first commission at £149m per annum, and under the Tithe Commutation Act at £183, and there was beside glebe land in the parish, which let for more than £100, making the total income, which had been sworn to be £149 only, within £10 of £300. Then there were other sources of income in the Church, as surplice and burial fees, &c., and which at a fair computation would make the income of the Church amount to ten millions per annum.

Mr. Nash having criticised the patronage in the hands of the Archbishops and Bishops, Cathedral Chapters, &c., &c., said that under the Tithe Commutation there were a great many curious questions put to the commissioners, as whether the interest of the purchase money given for the living could not be deducted; whether they could not charge for the repairs of the parsonage house, &c., &c. There was a great difficulty in getting rid of the ecclesiastical courts, (although they had been acknowledged by the House of Commons to be a nuisance,) inasmuch as they were the sources of great patronage. He thought they would acknowledge that the Sparkes had done extremely well at Ely; three sons and a son-in- law of this apostle having succeeded in netting about £25,000 or £30,000 a-year between them – he had heard it stated at £40,000, but would rather be below than above the mark. Mr. Nash next adverted to pluralities, and the evils resulting there from; and to the patronage in the hands of the Crown, the Bishops, Deans, and Chapters, and of private persons. In addition to all this the Church had received in Parliamentary grants which could be enumerated the sum of £5,547,246, so that he thought they might well say the motto of the Church was “Give” (shouts of laughter).

The income of the State amounts to fifty millions, of which thirty millions goes to pay the interest on the National Debt. The State Church receives ten millions, which is about one half of the expense of maintaining the Government, and at 25 years’ purchase would give £250,000,000, or a sum equal to one-third of the National Debt. Mr. Macaulay had said with reference to the State Church of Ireland, that he considered it “one of the most utterly absurd and indefensible of all the established institutions of the world”. There were many benefices in that country, which had no church, and not a single Protestant inhabitant. The Precentor of Lismore, the Archdeacon of Meath, and many others, derive large incomes from their preferments and livings without having a single Protestant soul to cure. He had thought it right to lay before the meeting the few statistical facts he had stated with reference to a State Church, and he thought they would make them all admit that there was room for a little feeling of dissatisfaction on the part of the Dissenter, when they found their pockets picked for Church Rates. If there were any Episcopalian present who wished to address the meeting, they would, he was sure, hear him patiently; it was only by discussion that they elicited truth, and the Dissenters did not fear, but challenged discussion in this matter.

The Rev. Mr. Barrett (recently returned from the West Indies) said he had served nearly two apprenticeships under a tropical sun, and stood with pride upon that platform, as he should ever wish to do where men were set to overthrow and unjust and unscriptural authority. After designating a State Church as an invarying engine of oppression, Mr. Barrett proposed, as the first resolution –

“That this meeting, regarding any attempt to impose Church- rates as a flagrant violation of the right of conscience, pledges itself to use all constitutional means to obtain their abolition.”

A State Church had spread its ramifications into out colonies, and there, like the fabled upas tree, was found death into death. Mr. Barrett entered into a lengthened listing of the proceedings of the State Church in British Guiana, its origin there, and the treatment the representatives of the London Missionary Society had received at the hands of the planters who refused to allow their slaves to be instructed unless they were first convinced that, after the receipt of enlightenment, they would remain slaves still. These were paid by the colony, and they would willingly maintain all the religious services in the colony if the ministers would teach their doctrines. The London Missionary Society invariably refused to listen to any such proposal; but the Wesleyans, he was sorry to say, accepted. His (Mr. B.’s) chapel had actually been seized and handed over to a member of the Established or State Church, who kept it, with the parsonage house, for eleven years, and then surrendered them in a state of the most perfect dilapidation. Mr. Barrett designated the State clergy as a sort of ecclesiastical police, or janissaries, and said that, on several occasions, police had been sent in disguise to his chapel, to watch his expressions.

The Rev. Mr. Forsaith seconded the resolution. The Chairman then introduced the meeting.

The Rev. John Burnett, of Camberwell, who proposed the following resolution:– “That this meeting, believing the connexion of the Church if England with the State to be alike anti-Christian in spirit and injurious in practise, rejoices in the formation of the British Anti-State Church Association, and would urge upon Dissenters of every name the duty of giving to that Society their vigorous support, and thus assisting in the abolition of all secular religious establishments, and the restoration of the national property now employed for the maintenance of those establishments to its legitimate purposes.”

He rejoiced, he said, in the spread of the principles of the Association in the country, and in seeing such a meeting of the sturdy peasantry of England in a building destitute of any of the trappings and garnishings, such as were furnished by forced payment. It was well for them to be there although no Church-rate would be levied upon them for their accommodation (laughter). It had been said that architectural beauty and the solemn tones of the organ were necessary to secure a congregation to a Church; but here they had come to hear what was just and right, and he) observed were even content to stand for that purpose. What was the origin of a State Church? Did it come from heaven or earth? Was it the creature of policy or a dream, were was it born and where did it receive its education? In what parish was it registered, and to what workhouse did it lay claim, or was it by Act of Parliament entitled to go, in case it should ever be reduced to such poverty as to need an asylum (shouts of laughter)? It would be said that such observations as those were disgraceful and insulting to the Church. He said no. If they asked him for his money, they must hear what he had to say. When he went begging he did not find fault with the man of whom he asked for an alms, if he told him that he should work for himself. The man who quartered himself upon him, had a right to listen to what he had to say, and even if they would not, he would tell him that there were many of his own trade who worked for themselves.

The State Church was the foundation of an ambitious and politic sovereign, who had no religion for political purposes. He did not allude to Henry the VIII., but to Constantine the Great, as he was called. He saw the Church was making its way; he saw that there were many traditions connected with Old Rome and its patrician families, and he thought it would be best to leave Rome altogether, and to rebuild the ancient Byzantium. He carried out this project and called his new city Constantinople, after himself. He made a new Rome and a new Christianity, and by taking the latter under his protection, strengthened his hands greatly for a while. His Pagan friends and dependants of course, became Christian too, and they were placed by him in bishoprics and dioceses, invented for the purpose. Then onwards it went, sometimes the State ruled the Church, and sometimes the Church ruled the State (laughter); up and down they went, according to the relative values of each.

Now is was true that the Emperor had left Rome, but all the spirit of old Rome had not accompanied him, and by and by his principal minister became Bishop of Rome, and thinking that Rome was still Rome, and must remain so for ever, he placed himself at the head of the Church. Thus things went on down to the time on Henry VIII., on whom the title “Defender of the Faith” was conferred – a Popish title preserved by our Sovereigns to this day. There were, at that period, what were called fools in the courts of kings, though some of them were clever, shrewd fellows. One of these, when Harry was making much of his new title, said to him, “Harry, let’s thee and me defend one another, and leave the Faith to defend itself.” That was the motto of the British Anti State Church Association, and he thought it better than either that of Henry VIII. or the Vicar of Melbourne. (Cheers and laughter.)

The rev. gentleman next took up and handled the matter in a scriptural sense. He denied that, in any of the three dispensations, had any forced contributions been made for the building of the places of worship. He descanted on the pecuniary situation of the Vicar of Camberwell, whose living is under sequestration for the benefit of his creditors, and to keep together the body and soul of this worthy man. It had been said by the advocates of Church-rates, that Melchizedek received tithes from Abraham. He contended that the tribute paid to Melchizedek was voluntary, and that was not the question. The question was, what they were legally called upon to pay; and where, he would ask, was the revelation from Heaven compelling them to pay Church-rates? He had no objection to Abrahamic tithes, and if the State Church would adopt that system, he would accept it. They were purely voluntary, and so he should pay when he liked, and when he did not like he should with hold them. (Laughter.) If the Vicar of Melbourne would adopt that system, he should be satisfied.

The Dissenting ministers were the Melchizedeks and the Abrahams their people, and they were just in the same position with regard to each other as those two under the patriarchal dispensation. He admitted the Jews had an Established Church, but tithes were no where enforced; and he challenged all Oxford and Cambridge to produce a passage from scripture which would bear the interpretation that they were. The collection for the erection of the Jewish Tabernacle was voluntary. Moses did not say – “Mr. Churchwarden So and So proposes a rate; and Mr. So and So seconds it– hands up for a rate!” and then if too many hands were held up against the rate, give up counting the hands, and take to counting the polls. No!

He called upon all to give freely, and so liberal were the contributions that he had to issue a second proclamation, calling them to withhold their supplies. What a glorious spectacle such an one as that would be in Melbourne. Only fancy the Churchwarden saying, “We want to repair the church,” and by and bye finding a notice on the church door – “There is enough; bring no more.” Oh, what a noble spectacle (laughter). Every face sprightly and expressive of satisfaction, and the harmony prevailing throughout the parish (shouts of laughter). The Vicar and the Church party said to them – “Oh, let us have no strife–you will only insult one another.” They had it in their power to do away with all chance of that at once; but they said – “Give us £75 first. You must not fight us; but here’s at you.” This was a little too bad; people might be fools, but they did not like to be fooled in that way.

The Church party might think the Dissenters fools; but that was almost telling them so. David received the public money to build the Temple, and the Clergy would make a Chancellor of the Exchequer of him, and say that he was the keeper of the public purse, like the present Sir Charles Wood. The truth was, that David appropriated his own share of the spoil only to the erection of a Temple unto God. The money offered in addition was so great, that David offered a thanksgiving unto the Lord for so opening the hearts of the princes of the wilderness. The affair did not end in the seizure and sale of the goods of those who refused to contribute. The Apostle Paul had refused to receive money at all, lest it should be used as an argument against the purity of his mission. Where were the descendants of this apostle? If they were to believe in the Apostolic succession, let the clergy prove themselves Paul’s successors out and out.

Mr. Burnett next contended that the tribute paid by our Saviour was voluntary. Princes did not take from their own family for the support of their family, and no contribution was likely to be required from Christ for the erection of a temple to his father. Let them produce an inspired book with directions for the erection, and giving the architectural proportions of the parish church of Melbourn, and he was sure there was not a man but would voluntary contribute. The Redeemer did not pay under the Christian, but under the old Jewish dispensation, which lasted to the atonement. He was paying for the clergy according to the good they did. He would say to them, then, as the first question – “Have you produced sufficient good feeling to support yourselves?” If his (Mr. B.’s) congregation would not maintain a roof over his head, and support him, he should say, “I am doing no good here; I will go away; I have not succeeded in making these honest ment; I have been teaching, christening, marrying, and regenerating them and sending them to heaven, and they will not in return but me a breakfast and a dinner” (laughter).

Mr. Burnett said he would so carry out the resolution as not only not to pay any more tithes or rates, but actually to take the property of the nation now in the hands of the church, which was given originally to the Catholics, seized by Henry the Eighth and handed over the Protestant Church. While in the clumsy fist of Henry, and in a state of transition between the Catholic and Protestant Church, there was no doubt it became national. He did not, however, give it all to the church, but to the Russells and others, who were well able to help him in the affairs ‘of State,. This was national property to this day, but of course it was not likely the present Premier would take any steps for its reclamation. It had been said that the officers of the Church were not of the State, but he thought the late Hampden case had proved that they were. The Queen made Hampden a Bishop and stood by him, despite the protestations of the clergy, and a Bishop he was to that day. Mr. Burnett dwelt at great length on these subjects, and then passed on to the constitution of the Lords’ and Commons’ Houses, which he said were composed of admirals, generals and lawyers–people not at all conversant with the requirement for church legislation. Mr. Burnett passed in review the late alterations in the constitution of the church in Ireland by the abolishment of ten bishoprics, the abolishment of Church- rates in the same country, and the alterations in the manner of collecting the tithe, the Cotch Secession, and many other topics, the whole of which he rendered subservient to his argument in favour of the adoption of the resolution.

The Rev. J. Harsant seconded the resolution, and it was carried unanimously.

The Rev. S. Eastman proposed, and the Rev. Mr. Cough seconded, the third resolution, as follows:-

“That this meeting rejoices in the prescence of the Rev. John Burnett, the long-tried and consistent friend of Dissent, as a deputation from the British Anti-State Church Association, and begs him to accept their cordial thanks for his able exposition of its principles and plans of operation.”

The Rev. Mr. Burnett returned thanks at great length, congratulating the meeting on its numbers, and saying that this was the 34th year of his agititation of the question. He could recollect the time when a meeting on the subject did not number as many as were on the platform. The ball was rolling and increasing in bulk; they would roll it till it reached its full accumulation, and then let it come down – woe then the man or the church that come in its way.

The Rev. James Flood proposed, and the Rev. A. Case Wright seconded, a vote of thanks to the Chairman; which having been duly acknowledged, the meeting separated, after enrolling some members in the Association.

The Rev. Mr. Burnett, we believe, addressed a large audience at Royston on Wednesday evening.

1848 August 5th

The Melbourn Church-Rate [The following letter not having been inserted by the Editor of the Nonconformist, its authors have requested its insertion in this journal.]

To the Editor of the Nonconformist.

Sir, In the Nonconformist of the 19th instant there is a long account of the recent Church-rate contest in this parish, which, however, contains a very unfair statement of the proceedings, and an unjust representation of the conduct of the excellent Vicar, the Rev. W. Selwyn.

It is there implied that the present is the first attempt “to impose a rate” upon the parish, whereas it is perfectly well known that there have been Church-rates in Melbourn from time immemorial, but that they have never been opposed till now; some of the Dissenters having recently discovered that it hurts their consciences to comply with the law by paying them. The notice of the Churchwardens referred to, contained the opinions of the Judges in this matter, who are likely to be at least as well informed with regard to the law of the case as Mr. Thomas Titchmarsh, of Royston. Your correspondent accuses Mr. Selwyn of obtaining a majority by the votes of those who hold Church lands, and who, as they pay no Church-rates, are not, in his opinion, entitled to vote. Perhaps he is not aware that all who pay the Poor-rate are legally entitled to vote in the vestry on a question of Church-rates; that the Vicar, whom he represents as pretending “to be unable to pay for his own,” is about to spend a considerable sum in the improvement of the Church at his own expense; that the repairs of the Chancel devolve upon the lessee of the rectorial tithes, who pays by far the largest amount of Poor’s-rate, and that among those who voted against the rate, there were some whose Poor-rates as well as Church-rates are paid by their landlords. Such being the case, it is surely a most unwarranted perversion of Scripture to apply to it the language of Our Saviour, – “They bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.”

The charge against the Vicar of “unauthorised efforts at prayer” is too absurd to be worth refuting, but seldom has one been made more unfounded, or more contrary to fact, than that of his “vociferous behaviour at the Church porch” (unless your correspondent uses that word in a sense totally different from the ordinary one.) Everyone who lives in this parish, and we are happy to see that your correspondent does not, knows that no term could be used more inapplicable to Mr. Selwyn’s conduct, either on the occasion alluded to or any other; that one can rarely meet with a Minister, of any denomination, who displays so much of his Master’s spirit; that, since he had resided at Melbourn, he has made no distinction between Churchmen and Dissenters, but that he seeks to conciliate all, and to unite with all, both in deeds of charity, and in the spread of the Gospel through the world. When he declared the poll at the Church porch, though he was insulted by some of the bystanders, and though the “intelligent” Dissenter, whose handbill your correspondent inserts, publicly gave him the lie, when he expressed his hope that all had voted conscientiously, he betrayed no marks of irritation; his whole deportment, and the Christian spirit which he breathed through his address, forming a striking contrast to the angry feelings displayed by some. whom we could name.

These few facts, which we feel it our duty to state, may make the recent contest appear in a somewhat different light. There are many others which might be mentioned, as, for instance, that though the votes were so nearly equal, the land in the parish occupied by those who supported the rate is about 2,400 acres; by those who opposed it, about 1,600 acres; that, while the supporters of the rate made scarcely any effort to make a majority, their opponents used every method in their power to swell their numbers, by exhortations from the pulpit, by extensive canvassing, and by paying arrears of rates while the polling was going on.

We do not intend here to enter into the question of the justice or injustice of Church-rates, nor upon the duty of paying them while enforced by the law of the land; we merely conclude by expressing our decided conviction that no cause, however good in itself, is promoted by its advocates giving utterance to unfair statements, and impugning the motives or misrepresenting the characters of those who differ from them. (Signed by)

The Principal Rate-payers and proprietors, both episcopalians and dissenters.

1848 August 12th

The Melbourn Church-rate

To the Editor.

Sir, In your paper last week I find there is a letter on the subject of out late contest, and as it contains many erroneous statements, I am sure you will not deny me the justice of saying a few words in reply.

1. It is stated that Church-rates in Melbourn have been from time immemorial, and have never been opposed till now. This is utterly untrue. Let one instance to the contrary suffice. Mr. Campkin opposed one a few years since at a vestry meeting, when he heard Mr. Carver (one of the most active of the pro-rate party) say, that if the Government did not, as was then expected, interfere, to abolish them, he would never pay another Church- rate. Had your correspondent said, that, in all probability, there would never be another Church-rate in Melbourn through all future time, he would, perhaps, be a truer prophet than he has proved himself a historian.

2. It is said, some of the Dissenters have recently discovered that it hurts their consciences to comply with the law by paying Church-rates. I have only to say, Mr. Editor, that those who can sneer at the consciences of their neighbours, excite strong suspicion that they have silenced this faithful monitor in their own breasts; and if they have done this, I shall not be surprised at any length of wickedness to which they may go.

3. It is stated that the Judges are probably as well informed with regard to the law of Church-rates as I am. My reply is, that all the Judges in the universe shall not lay down the law to me in religion. I acknowledge no human authority in ecclesiastical matters. The bible is my statute-book, and Christ, the sole head of the Church, my Lawgiver.

4. 3It is stated, that the Vicar is about to spend a considerable sum in the improvement of the Church, at his own expense. True; but he is not forced to do this; he is acting on my principle–the voluntary principle. Let the Vicar leave it to me to act voluntarily as to the improvements I shall make in his Church, and there will be an end of the dispute. It is stated further, that the lay rector keeps the chancel in repair; and so he ought, if he takes his £900, a year out of the parish on those conditions. If I took a house on a repairing lease, how could I be commonly honest if I did not fulfil any agreement? But any schoolboy can see there is a wonderful difference between this and compelling me to support a system in which I have no interest whatever, excepting in seeing it abolished.

5. It is stated the Vicar was insulted by some of the bystanders at the Church porch, and that I gave him the lie. Nothing can be more untrue. There was not a person present insulted him. When he expressed a hope that all had voted conscientiously my reply was simply this, “I doubt it, Sir.” Why be so sensitive on so small a matter, and pass by without a remark other expressions far more startling that came from the lips of his two principal pro-rate friends, who, to their shame be it spoken, still would be honoured as Dissenters. While Mr. Wright, the Dissenting clergyman was speaking, one of these gentlemen told him to his face, “It is false.” Yet no rebuke was administered. The other worthy made a still more awful remark. Speaking of that blessed martyr, Charles I., of glorious memory, who was for above all other Vicars, Bishops, and even Archbishops, who was in fact head of the Church as long as he had a head, and who is now thought by some to be a glorified spirit in heaven–speaking of this martyr, Mr. Selwyn’s friend called him an infamous scoundrel–a martyr to his own lies and wickedness. Yes, Mr. Editor, this was said in the Church, before the very altar; and yet it failed to rouse the Vicar’s holy indignation, or to call forth one single condemnatory remark. But when the correctness of his own assertion was doubted, it was iniquity that ought to be punished by the Judges. It is said he betrayed not irritation, but breathed a most Christian and forgiving spirit; but what is really the truth? A few days after I received an epistle, most priestly in its style, and most haughty in its spirit, demanding a public apology, which was to be posted over the parish, and holding out a threat of what might be the consequence if I failed to comply. But the says of ghostly despotism are over. No real offence was given, and no kind of apology will ever be made.

6. It is stated that the supporters of the rate made scarcely any effort to obtain a majority; but that their opponents used every means to swell their numbers by pulpit exhortations, extensive canvassing, &C.I: all these statements are very far from correct. I have seen several connected with the two congregations, but no one has the slightest recollection of any exhortation as to how they were to rate. As to the extensive canvassing and dishonourable methods used to get a majority, let the public judge by the following facts:– Two persons were brought to vote for the rate, who had not paid rates of any kind for four years, with the exception of a shilling from one of them. Such were their circumstances, that they had not sufficient to pay for the distraining. Two others were brought forward on that side, whom a Churchman in the room called fourpenny voters, alluding to the small sum with which these champions of the Church had been bribed. Another went to an influential landlord and obtained from him a letter to all his labourers, unless they voted for the rate, they should work for him no longer. Tradesmen confessed they were intimidated, while some who were not to be frightened are now suffering the consequences in the loss of trade. Many other facts could be given; and when it is remembered, that at the show of hands there was an overwhelming majority against the rate, must there not have been canvassing, intimidation, bribery, or something else, to get their glorious majority of one? In two or three instances I admit persons in humble circumstances borrowed a few shillings that they might pay their Poor-rates, and thus became qualified to vote; and one of the first who did so was a Churchman, who borrowed 2s. 6d. of a Dissenter, with which he paid his Poor-rate, and then went and voted for the Church-rate.

Much is said about the Vicar’s catholic spirit, and his liberality in alms-giving to Dissenters as well as Churchmen. Be it so; but we cannot forget that it is only giving to the poor what was originally their own. Zaccheus restored fourfold. I am afraid our friend has yet something to do to come up to him. But is this unusual liberality purely disinterested say some; or is it, to use a common proverb, a sprat thrown out to catch a herring? What mean these murmurings from Church going paupers, that more is given to the Dissenters than is given to them? Does our dear friend think to kill us with kindness? Does he remember the old saying – “More flies are caught with honey then vinegar?” Does he think, by a little affability and condescension, we Dissenters are going to sacrifice what is most dear to us, and that, by an invitation to the vicarage, we are going to renounce our principles? If so, he does not know us. If Mr. Selwyn is a real friend to Dissenters, this Church-rate, which he would force upon us, is a curious way of showing it. We must have in our friends, not merely the wisdom of the serpent, but also the harmlessness of the dove. Thanking you, Mr. Editor, for your impartiality in hearing both sides of the question,

I remain, yours very truly, Thomas Titchmarsh.

1848 August 19th

Melbourn Church-rate Contest

To the Editor

Sir. A letter like that bearing Mr. Titchmarsh’s signature in you last week’s impression is unworthy of notice. As, however, he thought to introduce my name, I request you, for the sake of distant friends, to insert my emphatic denial of the truth of those sentences in which it occurs; and assure you that the entire letter is a mass of falsehood and prevarication, mixed with a small portion of truth, so expressed as to convey a false impression.

I am, sir, yours respectfully, Wm. C. Carver. Melbourn.

17th August 1848

To the Editor

Sir. A handbill has been distributed in this parish by Mr. Thos. Titchmarsh, of Royston, who says that a printed handbill, bearing the date of the 8th of July, professing to be signed by William Knott and James Ransom, the Chruchwardens, was not seen by Mr. Ransom until he saw it in print, and that it is believed Mr. Knott is equally innocent of its authorship, which is due to the Vicar alone. I declare that I had the written copy of that handbill, and signed it, before it went to press, and the other signature was there before I put mine, as it was printed. Concerning the collecting the rate Mr. Titchmarsh is wrongly informed, whoever gave him the information: for what Mr. Selwyn stated in my hearing was, that the £100. which was given was for the substantial repairs of the Church; but Mr. Selwyn never declared, in my hearing, that the £100. should not be touched until the rate was collected, as stated by Mr. Titchmarsh. Wm. Knott, Churchwarden.

Melbourn, August 16th, 1848.

1848 August 26th

Melbourn Chapel-rate

To The Editor.

Sir. You are, perhaps, almost tired of hearing about the Melbourn Church-rate, made to raise £75, let me tell you about a Chapel-rate amounting also to £75, which has been made more easily. Since the question about the Church-rate began to be agitated, the Independent Chapel at Melbourn has been repaired, painted, &c. ;the tradesmen’s bills amounted to £75 12s. The work was finished last Monday; and yesterday (Sunday) morning it was announced from the pulpit that all the money had been paid in, the bills settled, and that not a penny of debt remained. Besides the £75 raised by the congregation as a body, individuals have done some things extra at their own expense, amounting to about £15 more – making altogether an outlay of about £90. Now, if our neighbours, who accuse us of making a disturbance, would imitate our example, we should all be quiet and harmonious. Our people pay willingly, because they approve of) the object, and think the voluntary method of raising the money the scriptural plan. If Churchmen love their principles, let them provide for their own, and especially for those of their own house; if they will not, what are we to think of them?

I am, Sir, yours respectfully, An Independent.

August 21st, 1848

Melbourn Church Rate

To The Editor.

Sir. I took the liberty, a fortnight since, of correcting some erroneous statements made by some pro-rate payers. It seems to have given Mr. Wm. Carver uneasiness. He assure you that which I have stated is unworthy of notice. It seems, however, that he has noticed it, and, no doubt, would have replied, had he been able so to do. It is very easy for a man to say that the entire letter is a mass of falsehood and prevarication, but I leave the public to judge between his ipsedixit and my facts, which he has not attempted to controvert. I had written, and, so far from retracting any statement, am prepared to furnish proof, if necessary. Mr. C., no doubt, finds it remarkably easy to charge people with prevarication and falsehood: but, if we are to be put down, it must be done by fair argument, and not by abuse. We expect better things from one who has undertaken the training of youth.

I am, sir, your’s very truly, Thos. Titchmarsh.

Royston, Aug. 23, 1848.

1848 September 2nd

The Melbourn Church-rate

Mr. Editor.

Sir, In the Cambridge Chronicle of last week there is a letter signed ‘Vindex,” on the subject of our present contest. Permit me through your valuable paper to say a word to that very sensible person, whoever he may be. I don’t know that I should have troubled myself about him, but in a book I read, it is written, “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.” In the selection of his fables he seems to be particularly unfortunate. He will have it that I am but the ass in the lion’s skin. Little was he aware how accurately he was in drawing his own portrait when putting this on paper; for the ass was the concealed party, whereas I have sought no concealment, but have affixed my name to my letter. It strikes me that the animal hid behind the name “Vindex,” on his own shewing, much more resembles that very intelligent quadruped than myself. Three lines further on, he speaks of the party concealed as a cunning man. This is more than I can say of “Vindex;” for, in combining cunning with proverbial stupidity, he not only proves himself an ass, but a most unmeaning one.

Observe another of his inapt quotations from his book of tables:-He says, the Dissenters refusing to pay the Church-rates remind him of the hungry wolf quarrelling with the lamb, and accusing that emblem of innocence of disturbing the stream. The Dissenters are described as the wolves, and the State Church as the lamb. Surely ‘Vindex” has been amusing himself with standing on head and viewing everything upside down. If his heels are no longer in the air, probably he can see that by reversing the statement his fable does admirably well. What has been the cause of this commotion at Melbourn. Judging from this scribe, you would suppose the Dissenters had been fleecing the Church, whereas it is the church wants to fleece the Dissenters – they, poor things, in perfect innocence, are simply crying out, and determined, if possible, not to be fleeded. The church says, we have a perfect right to thrust our hands into your pockets, and we will do it – the law says we may. The Dissenter replies, you shall not if I can help it; and, as for your law, I don’t know it. It is of no use to discuss the point, says this emblem of innocence, you must not only pay your own £75. for repairing and beautifying your chapel; but we’ll make you pay our £75. likewise, for repairing and beautifying the church. Now, “Vindex, ” as that you are, surely you have sense enough to discern which most resembles the wolf and which the lamb! Did your mother never teach you that the lamb is inoffensive and never attacks other animals; how then can your church be like it, when it is constantly striving to satisfy its cravings by feeding on all it can make its prey. How lamb-like! I am afraid, “Vindex,” if your pet belong to the sheep species at all, it must be a very black sheep.

Do not suppose, either, that we have any mouth-waterings (to use your elegant allusion) for the Ecclesiastical revenue of your Church. We see what a curse it is to the sect already endowed, without wishing to share in the degradation and corruption. We could be endowed equally with yourselves, the very next session of Parliament, were we so inclined. Nothing would be more pleasing to those now in power; but we have no desire to surrender our independence, or see our ministers converted into spiritual policemen. There is one thing, however, we do hope to see before long, viz:– the 10 millions of money now so misappropriated to keep up a State Church, returned to the national treasury, and applied to the relief of national burdens; and your sect, like all others, be made to support itself. It will then be worthy of the name – now so falsely assumed – the poor man’s church, by relieving the poor man of excessive taxation on almost every thing, he eats and drinks and wears.

But, hear me, “Vindex,” for I cannot be wasting much more of my precious time about you nor be filling the columns of a respectable paper answering your asinine effusions. You may say you are modest, and therefore did not like to put your name to your production. This is certainly the best proof you have given of intelligence; for had you done so, there would have been no occasion to say with Dogberry, “write me down an ass;” for it would have been already done. Now if you really are as modest as you make yourself out to be, perhaps you will not be above listening to a little good advice that may be useful to you in future days.

1. Don’t you get figuring away in newspapers on a subject you evidently know nothing about; for, notwithstanding all the soft soap you use, I am sure, before this, the vicar has cried out, “save me from my friends. “Your modesty will best discover itself, not by resting awhile from troubling editors, but by abstaining from so doing altogether. It is evidently too wonderful for you it is high, you cannot attain unto it.

2. If your fingers so itch that you must write, then let me recommend you to address a word to your friends. Tell them that, all things considered, they had better not look to the poor, beggarly Dissenters at all, but pay their own debts; that it is a perfect anomaly for a rich man occupying a mansion showing so much funded property to expect the poor cottagers to pay their own expenses and his likewise; and that if they are so niggardly as not to be willing to pay for the repair of a building they constantly occupy, they had better turn out, and let the Dissenters occupy it, who will undertake to keep out wind and weather, without using any compulsion at all.

3. Let me recommend you always to adhere to the truth, and not misrepresent things. You charge the Anti-State-Church wranglers with disturbing the quietude of Melbourn. Now you know, “Vindex,” as well as I do, that it is the Ecclesiastical wolf that has disturbed the stream, and not the Dissenting lamb. Had no attempt been made to fleece us, we had remained quiet to this day. As well might the housebreaker charge us with disturbing the peace, because we cry Stop thief, It as for you to make such a charge, simply because we protest against compulsory church-rates.

4. It is of no use for you to wear out your pen in writing to us about its being the law of the land; for this is an assertion destitute of proof. If it were the law of the land, we feel under no obligation to obey it. As we should not allow France to make laws for England, so neither do we allow England to make laws for the kingdom of Christ. We will render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; but we will not render unto Caesar the things that are God’s.

5. Let me advise you to whisper a word in the ears of your vicar. Tell him the tree is known by its fruits; and that if he will only show himself to be a real friend to Dissenters, it will save you an amazing deal of trouble in trumpeting forth his amiable qualities and disinterested benevolence. Tell him we do not see much liberality in it, after all, to extract money from our pockets with one hand, and give alms with the other.

Thanking you, Mr. Editor, for allowing me to tender a little good advice to this modest quadruped,

I remain, yours very truly, Thomas Titchmarsh.

Royston, August 30, 1848.

1848 September 9th

To the Editor.

Sir, I was very sorry to find that the Melbourn correspondent of the Cambridge Chronicle has, in his letter to the Editor, given a false and very erroneous account of what occurred at the Baptist chapel. The Rev. A. C. Wright was officiating at the chapel on the evening spoken of, but I can positively assert that there had been no previous engagement of constables to protect the rev. gentleman in the prosecution of his spiritual duties. I was the only constable present–and attended, not in my official capacity as constable, but simply as a hearer and worshipper, like the others in the congregation; in the middle of the sermon we were interrupted by a strong smell of tobacco smoke proceeding from the doorway: and a person in the chapel spoke to me about it, and I immediately went out and saw a young man walking from the door with a lighted cigar. I then stationed myself at the gate, when about twenty others came up, some of them having cigars: some attempted to enter, undoubtedly for the purpose of disturbing the people in the chapel, but I prevented them, and kept my standing at the gate till the service was over. I acted on this as on other occasions, of my own accord, and also gratuitously; and I am equally ready to protect our Church friends from being annoyed or disturbed in their worship by those remaining outside. I beg thus to correct the false impression which the statement in the Chronicle would convey. It is much to be regretted that the name of the correspondent alluded to by opprobrious names. I think that truth should be vouched for by the name of the writer being appended. I am very sorry to find that the Independent Minister is styled by such epithets as incendiary and firebrand, as I am sure that the terms are very inappropriately applied, for I and many others can bear our humble testimony to his piety and usefulness in this village; and there is reason to believe that those who call others by such names, do not possess much of the spirit of our Lord and Master. As for the statement as to the decrease of the church and congregation under his pastoral care, it is in a great measure unfounded, as I know of only a solitary instance in which the church has lost a member, and the congregation is apparently as large, if not larger, than ever it was: at any rate there are manifest tokens of increasing usefulness standing the ministry Rev. A. C. Wright at Melbourn.

Requesting that you will insert these few lines in your valuable paper, I beg to subscribe myself, yours obediently,

James Wright, Constable of Melbourn.

Sept. 6, 1848.

[We have been favoured with a copy of Mr. Carver's letter and Mr. Wright's reply; but we really cannot consent, by any remarks of ours, to keep alive any unpleasant feeling which may have been produced by the late church-rate contest. – Ed.]

1848 September 16th

To the Editor.

Sir, In the Cambridge Chronicle there have been a series of articles of late, in which the Independent Minister of Melbourn is honoured with no little abuse. I say honoured, because we are accustomed about here to count its praise a disgrace, and its abuse equivalent to praise. As there are few writers, however, who will not be believed by some persons sometimes, you will oblige me by inserting the following brief remarks:–

1. At a parish meeting, holden in the chancel of the church, the Rev. W. Selwyn publicly proposed that a correspondence, which had passed between him and myself, should be printed and distributed in the parish. Could I do other than consent to this? My letters, in that correspondence, had been written, not for the public, but for Mr. Selwyn. To the Vicar’s last long letter, therefore, I had replied very briefly, having previously in conversation expressed my views on some of the points contained in it. After the poll had been declared I wrote an “ADDITIONAL LETTER” to embody some things omitted in the printed correspondence, and to record some facts which had taken place, which, it appeared to me, deserved to be remembered. This additional letter was not offered for sale, until Mr. Selwyn had received a copy at Sandgate, and had sent me a not in reply, which he has since printed. This letter, moreover, was never distributed in the parish, but only sold to those who chose to buy it, or in a few cases given to those who asked for it. More recently Mr. W. C. Carver, son of my grand-predecessor, printed, distributed, and exposed for sale, a letter addressed to the parishioners, but manifestly intended especially for my congregation. To this I deemed it my duty to print a reply, and to distribute it among my own people. As to any notices which I may have sent to newspapers, the Chronicle seems, in so far as I remember, to have concerned itself in no way about them. The above, therefore, are all the documents of which I suppose the Editor to speak as “letters, pamphlets,” &c. “from the pen of the ever-busy and ever-scribbling Mr. Wright.”

2. So far back as April last, on the very first intimation that it was likely there would be an attempt to obtain a church-rate, I wrote at once to Mr. Selwyn to inform him that there would be opposition to it, and that whether the attempt were successful or unsuccessful, it could not fail to be productive of much unpleasant feeling. My aim to the last, in that correspondence, was to induce Mr. Selwyn not to disturb the parish by the attempt to levy and unnecessary and unjust tax. At this moment the Vicar has in hand more money than is needed for the repair of the church; his own people are well able and, some of them at least, willing to meet their own incidental expenses. Yet he has, within these few days, I am informed, commanded the Churchwardens to gather the rate, against which a majority of persons voted; and for which a majority of votes was obtained only by 16 votes being given for church property not liable for church-rate. If Mr. Selwyn desires peace, he can at once easily and honourably obtain it, by just informing the parish that no rate will be demanded of them. If he will not take this step, I leave the public to judge who is to blame for keeping up the agitation. 3. One of the Chronicle’s correspondents says:– “The meeting- house rings with political discourses, and those who differ from the preacher are cursed by bell, book, and candle.” In another communication, sent first to the Nonconformist, and at last appearing in the Independent Press, likewise from the pro-rate party, “exhortations from the pulpit” are stated as a part of the means used to obtain a majority on the poll. Now, as to this last charge, I have merely to state that neither in the pulpit not in private intercourse did I direct any of my people as to how they should vote. What the Chronicle would count political discourses, and what I would count such, might not be the same. When I preach that Christ above is the Head of the Church, this the Chronicle might perhaps regard as political; and when a clergyman speaks of The Law in things sacred (not meaning thereby the law of God), I might deem his discourses political. But what is intended by cursing my opponents “by bell, book, and candle” I know not. The writer is surely thinking of a section of his own Church, to which such things are dear, because so long used by their “Holy Mother Rome.” I would only say, that if it be meant that I curse in any way whatever those who voted for the rate, the statement is utterly without foundation.

4. The editor of the Chronicle takes credit to himself, both directly and by his other self “Vindex,” for having demolished by figures in reply to Mr. Carver. In the Independent Press of July 29, your readers may consult the speech of the Chairman of the Anti-State Church meeting, holden at Melbourne. The income of the Church is there reckoned at £10,000,000 annually and sufficient reason given for so reckoning it. But my reason for speaking of it so indefinitely as between five and ten millions was two-fold: first, perfectly accurate statistics cannot be obtained by anyone; and secondly, I regard all that property as the Church’s own, which has been let to it by private persons. How much this amounts to I have no means of knowing; but this is all that really belongs to the Church. All else I regard as public welfare. That to a great extent it is not so employed at present, many Churchmen would themselves admit.

5. Perhaps “Vindex” may expect a word from me before I have done. He thinks himself very witty, and very sagacious; but I leave him to Mr. Titchmarsh, who can deal with him without my help, as he has done already. No document under the name of Mr. Titchmarsh has been prepared, either in whole or part, by me. I ought, however, in justice to that gentleman, to state that his facts can be proved to be facts by many witnesses; and that (though, not being a resident in Melbourn, he has expressed himself less fully and clearly than he might have done had he been always on the spot), his communication is such as conveys ideas in harmony with the truth. If “Vindex” will publish his real name, and lay aside his folly, I shall be happy to answer any arguments which he may think fit to advance against Dissent; but I will enter into no controversy with a man in a mask, and who has, besides, as yet given no proof that he is able to wield any other weapons than those of low wit and unmeaning abuse.

I am, Sir, yours respectfully, A. C. Wright.

[We are heartily tired of the Melbourn Church-rate discussion, and so we are fully aware our are readers; and, therefore, Mr. Titchmarsh must excuse our inserting his reply to the long, vapid, and vulgar letter of an anonymous writer in the Cambridge Chronicle, who signs himself "Vindex." This letter, so far as it relates to Mr. Titchmarsh, consists of the lowest Billingsgate, and it totally unworthy of any reply; and we regret to see that our contemporary is again reverting to his old habit of inserting personal attacks against those who differ with him in opinion.– Ed. ] .”

1850 April 13th

The Choral Society of this place gave a performance to its members and friends one evening last week, which was fully attended; and the company seemed highly delighted with the rich treat afforded them by the talented performers.

1850 June 8th

Handbills have for some days announced that a meeting would be holden at the Dolphin Inn, on Thursday evening last, to form a protection Society for this and the adjoining village of Meldreth; an hour after the hour appointed for the meeting, however, only seven persons were present including the Reporter for out contemporary. Mr. John Burr, was called to the chair, and said that protection they must and would have. Mr. Naylor, of Cambridge, gave some very important suggestions, and rather staggered the meeting by informing it that in his opinion the difficulties and distress were caused by the lowness of price.. He also suggested, as an infallible remedy that the farmers should read no newspaper but his, and be sure to send him all the advertisements. – Mr. Campkin said he, too, was a Protectionist; not that he feared the foreigner, but he wished to be protected against every act of plunder in taxation. He strongly recommended that every exertion should be made to obtain a repeat at the Malt duty, which he thought would increase the price of barley 5s a bushel. Mr. Linton and Mr. Spark contended, that in his country it was impossible to do without protection. The first gentleman said he would rather give up business than screw his labourers down; and the latter gentleman said that all the money paid to the foreign labourer would not pay for the English labourers’ cottages. The company left after a very short sitting.