The Sun.
London, England, 1853-08-23 00:00:00

CHURCH. RATES.

(From. the Press.)
The decision of the House of Lords in the long-liti-
gated Braintree case has established a point frequently
in dispute, and which lies at the very root of the whole
church rate controversy. It will, perhaps, be remem-
bered that the parish of Braintree, in Essex, has for
many years past acquired an unenviable notoriety in
connection with this quarrel. The holy war of church-
warden against vestry was nowhere waged with more
uncompromising pertinacity. Far be it from us to
revive the memory, or to trace the successive steps, of a
lawsuit, or rather of two suits closely connected, and
following one on the other, which jointly have lasted
without intermission from June, 1837, to the present
time. The result of these may be summed up in a single
sentence. By the first decision, in 1841, it was laid
down authoritatively that a churchwarden alone could
not make and raise a rate against the will of the pa-
rishioners, even though for the necessary repairs of the
consecrated fabric—a claim to that effect having been
put forward, and the state of the law being up to that
time so doubtful that Dr. Lushington, in his judicial
capacity, felt himself bound to affirm the validity of the
act. The ecclesiastical litigants, naturally dissatisfied
with their defeat, renewed the contest without delay. A

Ty •••• •
-
vestry was again called in Braintree—a rate again pro-
posed—the proposal defeated—evidence of the necessity
adduced—and the churchwarden, acting in this instance
with the defeated minority of the vestry, proceeded once
more to collect the amount so decided upon by the usual

legal means. This second question has run the gauntlet
of five tribunals, and is now settled in favour of the re-
cusant parishioners, and against the churchwardens.
The consequences of this suit are practically of con-
siderable importance, though less so than they would
have been before the good sense of the parochial clergy
had led them to resort as generally as they now do to
less obnoxious methods of raising the needful funds for
church repair. For, according to the strict theory of the
law as previously understood, vestries had very little
right of refusing to pay whatever burden might be laid
upon them. It was, at least, doubtful whether the
ecclesiastical officer had not individually, in case of re-
fusal, the power to tax them ; and it was certain that, in
the event of the church falling into disrepair through
neglect, the whole parish might be punished for their
contumacy. But the latter mode of action has long
been abandoned as vexatious and impracticable; and the
former is now ascertained to be contrary to law. Hence,
for the future, both in theory and in practice, every
parish is allowed to decide for itself whether it shall, or
shall not, keep its church buildings in repair. But this
is, in fact, though not in name, a recognition of the
"voluntary principle ;" the only compulsion being that
which the majority within the parish may exercise over
the minority also residing therein. Of such compulsion
it does not seem to us that members of the National
Church have any right to complain. They receive value
for their money. They are only doing that which, by
somewhat different machinery, every dissenting congre-
gation does ; for every dissenting congregation supports
its place of worship by payments to which all except the
poorest members contribute. The case is different as
regards dissenters. Their claim to exemption, as a
matter of right, cannot, indeed, be asserted consistently
with the theory of a national establishment ; but as a
matter of expediency—as a means of avoiding discredit-
able quarrels, which often terminate in defeat—the clergy
would do well to acquiesce in, if not to demand, a change
in the existing law. For how does that law operate
Simply in the great towns, and throughout the manu-
facturing districts generally (to say nothing of many
rural parishes), to prevent the levying of any church
rate whatever. Voluntary efforts are paralysed by the
existence of a compulsory power. Than this, no result in
physical science is more certain; and the compulsorypofze r
avails nothing--it is a name, not a reality—a majority o
vestry may defeat it—vexatious lawsuits may defeat
it—
the resistance of a few individuals may cause a degree of
opposition and difficulty which it is not worth while to
encounter—the proceeds are generally small, the ex-
penses of law always considerable--prudence, peace,
economy, all combine to forbid a struggle.
Once more, let us remind our readers how large a
proportion of ecclesiastical incomes are raised either from
sources independent of church rate, or from that part of
church rates which falls on churchmen. In round num-
bers, the revenue of the establishment equals 6,000,0001.
Some put it higher, some lower ; we take a mean.
Church rate revenues do not exceed 600,0001., or 10 per
cent. on the whole ; and of these, the sum paid by dis-
senters certainly falls short of 100,0001., while it pro-
bably comes nearer to 50,0001. In one case, 1-60th of
the total income : in the other, 1.20 th of that income.
That is to say, the above amount ought to be collected.
But in practice but a small fraction of it is collected ;
the real payment falling far below the nominal debt.
Is this a tax worth fighting for ? "No change or
compromise " may be a fit motto for Rome ; but it is
scarcely one which can or should be adopted by our
Reformed and Protestant Church.

TIN AIasICAN CUTTER YACHTS ILVIE.—The owner
of this splendid vessel, which won the second prize (a
cup value 50/.) on Saturday, not feeling satisfied in being
beaten by the Julia, is reported to have challenged Mr.
Peareth to sail his yacht for any sum he may please to
name.