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

THE EASTERN QUESTION.

( Prom the Press. )
If the character of Great Britain and the balance of
power in Europe, and the great interests of liberty and
civilisation were not deeply involved, we might say the
solution of the Eastern question, as explained by Lord
John Russell on Tuesday, was simply ridiculous.
After a long and grave silence—after significant ap-
peals to Mr. Layard, importing and portending great
results—after a congress of the representatives of the
European Powers, with negotiations and messages
and notes, daring the season for energetic measures—
the solution is this : the united fleets of England
and France, instead of moving from Besika Bay to the
waters of Constantinople, may retire to Salamis and
Malta ; and the armies oißussia, may retire beyond the
Pruth ; but neither process is stipulated for or is treated
as material to the issue, which is confined to the acqui-
escence of the Porte in certain proposals upon which
Russia has been previously sounded, and which the
Ministry have thankfully ascertained are acceptable to
her.
The debate on Tuesday was not, however, so pacific
as the contemplations of Lord John Russell and his
colleagues. Exhausted as it is, the House of Commons
evinced more spirit than its leader. Every speaker, ex-
cept Mr. Cobden, vigorously assailed the Government,
and even he, the only apologist of the Ministry, received
a castigation from Lord Palmerston for supporting his
colleagues. Simultaneously the spirit of England has
shown itself in the tone of most of the organs of public
opinion ; and it is obvious that Englishmen of the pre-
sent day feel, like their ancestors, that the blessings of
peace are purchased too dearly, and cannot be secured
permanently, by the sacrifice of national honour.
Nothwithstanding the. Ministerial reserve, some
matters of considerable importance transpired through
Lord John Russell's speech.
It is admitted now, for the first time, that the ques-
tion regarding the Sacred Places was but the pretext
for Russian aggression. Lord John Russell states that
in April last Lord Stratford was informed by the
Turkish Minister that new demands had been made
by Russia, with the ignominious requirement that
they should be concealed from the knowledge
of Great Britain and France. Turkey, with her
characteristic good faith, communicated them, not-
withstanding, to her allies. But Lord John Rus-
sell, on Tuesday, did not express himself with the
indignation befitting a British Minister addressing
the British House of Commons, as regards this dis-
creditable attempt. It appears, too, that what Lord
John Russell declares to be the undoubted right of Tur-
key to consider the occupation of the provinces as a
cams belli was waived by that power under the pacific
influence of Lord Aberdeen, a counsel of which he is
entitled to take the chance fruits if he dared to assume
its certain responsibility.
In conclusion, we learn, that should the Sultan re-
fuse to accept, or require any modification of, the
note proposed by the four Powers, the previous com-
munication of that note to ussia, tends, as
suggested by Mr. Layard, to complicate this re-
sponsibility with conflicting obligations. The Min-
isters are not, indeed, absolutely concluded by
their recommendations, for they have not acted
in the matter as arbitrators ; but Lord Aber-
deen may find himself in a position towards
Russia which may be inconsistent with the liability he
has contracted on behalf of Turkey. In any event, and
whatever may be the issue, he and his colleagues are at
length exemplifying the spirit of " self-sacrifice in which
they professed to take office. For them, their conduct
of this business is a voluntary abandonment of their
credit as English statesmen ; while for the interests for
which, as Russian diplomatists, they are providing, the
substantial question, as Mr. Layard stated, is " not
settled, but only deferred."

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 unenN :able 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 tat 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.
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 palish 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 compulsory power
avails nothing--it is a name, not a reality--a majority of the
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 6,000,000/.
Some put it higher, some lower ; we take a mean.
Church rate revenues
an do d
not exceed
the 600,000sum1ai., or d
by 10
dpis-
er
cent. on the whole ; of p
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.

THE AMERICAN CUTTER Y ACHT SILVIE.—The owner
of this splendid vessel, which won the second prize (a
cup value 501.) on.
Saturday, not feeling satisfied in being
beaten by the Julia, is reported to have challenged Mr.
Peareth to sail his yacht for any stun he may please to
Dame.