The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-24 00:00:00

CONSISTORI' COURT, Feb 23.

THE BRAINTREE CASE.--VELEY ANn JOSLIN, CHURCH.
WARDENS, C. GOSLING.

The present case came before the Court on the admission to•
prove the libel, and the facts connected with it originated ire
the decision of the Court of Exchequer Chamber, on
the well known case of the Churchwardens of Braintree
v. Burder. In that case the parishioners of the pa_
. rish of Braintree, in Essex, having refused to snake
a rate to repair the parish church, a suit for substrattion of
Church-rates was instituted against Mr. Burder, one of the
parishioners of the said parish, by the churchwardens; but a
writ of prohibition having been obtained from the
Court of Queen's Bench, which was subsequently
confirmed by the Court of Exchequer Chamber,
the proceedings of the chullchwardeni Were declared to be in-
valid. 'The churchwardens thereupon called a vestry for the
13th of May 1841, when a rate to repair the church was again
sought to be made, but which was again refused by a majority
of the inhabitants. The vicar of the parish, the Rev.
Bernard Scale, in consequence of that report, sought
and obtained a decree under the seal of the
Court, calling upon the churchwardens and parishioners
to show cause why a monition sho.ilit not issue against lien',
to compel them to take steps to repair the church. The pa-
rishioners not having appeared, the monition accordingly
issued, and the churchwardens, in obedience to it, conve.ned a
vestry on the 15th of July, 1611, at which it was pro-
pose to impose a church-rate of ta o shillings in the pound.
o the proposition so made an amendment was proposed, and"
carried by a majority of the parishioners, to the effect that the
tax was unjust, and an interference with the religious freedom
of the subject. The churchwardens then, of their own autho-
rity, made a rate of 2s. ; and Mr. Gosling, a party refusing,
being cited to appear for his refusal to pay his assessment on.
231., a libel on his behalf was prayed for, and the arguments
for its admission were now heard by the Court.
Dr. ADDAMs, for the defendant, entered at great length
on the judgment in the case of the Churchwardens against
Border, delivered by Chief Justice Tindal in the Court of
Exchequer Chamber. He contended that the rate made was
bad, because a majority of the parishioners had voted against
the rate, and that the votes of the majority were not lust, be-
cause they refused to submit to a rating. The case
was quite distinct from that of a Corporation met to elect
an officer, and some of them refusing to proceed to the election,
in which case the votes would be void. The argument from
analogy thrown out by the Learned Chief Justice was fanciful,
because the one was a case of obligation, and the other one of
privilege. As to how far the present was a Common Law obliga-
tion he would say one word ; he contended that „that was not the
Court in which the rate ought to be enforced it it. were a common
law obligation. It was the custom of England for the
parishioners to repair the nave of the church, and not the
chancel, which the parson was bound to repair. The Learned
Advocate cited numerous cases, to s.h.ov that the parishioners
were not bound to repair the whole of the church, and that
therefore the rate must be bad. lle allowed that in one sense the
making of the rate was one of Common Law obligation,
not in the sense in which it was assumed to be so in the judg-
ment of Lord Chief JuVice Tindal. It was half civil andhr
ecclesiastical, and the present was not theo properobjeeted
juris-
dictionto
the
proceeding,toappl
yds to be
had no
If the rate was legal, the
yto btoeceainds'teirceitthe properwroang.rellipreoceeding.
the case. h'Tgttc7
was adopted, the present defendant
e.d would I
taken, and there would
be by distress ; and he had noptriveuibrt.,ii :::111eaatelmfnwodprece.
his goods
proceeding
e‘Werni:
what the "Pc" on
contrary to the Billy considered
Englishmen,
swain.t their,
don of their rights, and
tonsent. The
to be a vie a
concern the Church
nt
case did not generally, for he sup.
right to take the present na;nl
of Rights,
to .•
would Lave no difficult in repairing their churches. There was another reason why
posedprese that 99 out. of every 100 pari,lies wo