The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-27 00:00:00

of the cadets of the Royal Navy was not a plan by
any means to be exclusively relied upon. After-
wards the Duke of SOMERSET went on to remark—
" It was said that if they were not to promote naval
cadets they might at least promote masters in the
navy; but in the first place the masters in the
navy now ranked as lieutenants, and therefore it
would really be no promotion. In the event of
war also there might not be a sufficient number of
masters, and it would be most unwise by any
arrangement to diminish their number." All this
having been thus scrupulously taken into account.
"There were therefore," said his grace, "no im-
mediate means available but to bring in officers of
the merchant service, who, under the recent insti-
tuted examinations, had shown that they were fully
competent to perform the duties of the Royal
Navy." To this plan, of course, as to all other plans,
there were objections that might be raised, and, in
fact, that had been raised. Two of these ob-
jections the Duke of SOMERSET particularized,
and while particularizing, proved to be utterly
valueless as objections. " First," he remarked, "it
was said that the officers of the merchant service
would not come in, and secondly that their coming
in would interfere with the promotion in the Royal
Navy. Now he believed that these officers not
only did not object, but were quite willing to serve
under captains of the navy. He proposed that after
they had served for a certain time they should be
eligible for honorary rank, which should run paral-
lel with the rank in the navy, but not interfere
with the navy." Without in any -way wishing to
pronounce an opinion prematurely upon a scheme
that is, of course, as yet only partially before us,
we cannot but recognize in it the indication of a
plan shewing plainly enough that the Admiralty
are at last moving in the right direction—that, in
fact, they are at:length (under the guidance of their
skipper his Grace the Duke of SOMERSET)—on the
right tack !

Mr. CROSS'S Church Rate Bill is now pub-
lished. It is, as distinguished from Sir JOHN
TRELAWNY'S, an amendment bill. The first
emendation proposed is that any person may, be-
tween the let of January and the Ist of March,
exempt himself from liability to being rated. The
notice must be annual. He is not required to state
the ground of his objection, but simply, in the
words of the schedule annexed, to " give notice
that he desires not to be rated to the Church Rate
of the parish of -;" the notice may be delivered
in the form most convenient, even by post.
What the Churchmen are to gain from this conces-
sion is, that, first, the troublesome objectors to rate
paying are no longer to vote at the election of
churchwardens, or on the application of the rate ;
and secondly, that the enforcement of church rates
is to be taken away from the unavailable ecclesias-
tical courts, and the rates are to be recovered like
poor law rates. The assessment of church rates is
also to be similar to that of poor rates, and the
levy of them to be conducted in the same way.
These are the most important points in the Act.
Will it be accepted ? We doubt it. Churchmen
will foresee that their power over their own members
will vanish in the effort to avoid ticketing Dissen-
ters. Every unpopular clergyman will find in the
past two months of the year that his parishioners,
as a body, will soon send in notice of exemption.
Some may say, so much the better. Well, that, to
this extent, his parishioners should have bail for
his good behaviour. Such, however, is not
the theory of clergymen who assert independence
of their flocks, and profess that it is essential to the
fidelity of their teaching. 'We must say that on
this count we rather lean to the people ; if a clergy-
man affronts a whole parish, the presumption is
that he is wrong and the parish right ; but if he
affronts only a factious and conceited individual,
and that in the discharge of clerical duty, he
may be perfectly sure that the better disposed
parishioners will support him, and far more than
compensate for the loss. On the other hand, the
gain to parish peace would be great, and the
facility of collection would be worth much.

But the Dissenters will also have their objection.
They will say, with Sir G. C. LEWIS, that the
exemption begins in the wrong way ; it assumes,
what they deny, that all persons ought to be held
naturally liable for Church-rates. They will prefer
the Home Secretary's scheme—that the church-
wardens should keep a list of the persons who
attend church during the year, that these should be
considered as the persons properly liable for the fabric
and the expenses of worship, and that a small rate
for the accommodation afforded should be charged
to each. This is what, in fact, is done in a large
number of new churches, and there seems to be no
reason why it should not be done everywhere. Its
fairness none can dispute, But the difference be-
tween the two is, alas ! the point of honour. The
Dissenter says, I object to being held liable to the
Church unless I protest —the Churchman says, I
object to surrendering my nominal claim on the
whole nation ! Who shall decide ? We fear Mr.
CRoss's bill will only reveal the cross purposes of
Dissenters and Churchmen.