Lord Althorp's scheme of

April 21st, 1834.

amount was, in truth, a deduction from rent. If dissenting tenants were relieved from its payment, their landlords would immediately claim its equivalent in rental. But, above all, it was maintained that the fabric of the church was national property, · an edifice set apart by law for public worship according to the religion of the state, open to all, inviting all to its services, and as much the common property of all, as a public museum or picture-gallery, which many might not care to enter, or were unable to appreciate. Such being the irreconcilable principles upon which each party took its stand, contentions of increasing bitterness became rife in many parishes, painful commutation, to churchmen, irritating to dissenters, and a reproach to religion. In 1834, Earl Grey's ministry, among its endeavors to reconcile, as far as possible, all differences between the church and dissenters, attempted a solution of this perplexing question. Their scheme, as explained by Lord Althorp, was to substitute for the existing church-rate an annual grant of 250,000l. from the consolidated fund, for the repair of churches. This sum, equal to about half the estimated rate, was to be distributed ratably to the several parishes. Church-rate, in short, was to become national instead of parochial. This expedient found no favor with dissenters, who would still be liable to pay for the support of the church, in another form. Nor was it acceptable to churchmen, who deemed a fixed parliamentary subsidy, of reduced amount, a poor equivalent for their existing rights. The bill was, therefore, abandoned, having merely served to exemplify the intractable difficulties of any legislative remedy.1 In 1837, Lord Melbourne's government approached this embarrassing question with no better success. Rice's scheme Their scheme provided a fund for the repair of church-rates, churches out of surplus revenues, to arise from an improved administration of church lands.

Mr. Spring

for settling

March 34,

1837.

This

1 Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., xx. 1012; Comm. Journ., lxxxix. 203, 207. 2 Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., xxxvi. 1207; xxxviii. 1073.

measure might well satisfy dissenters: but was wholly repudiated by the church.1 It abandoned church-rates, to which she was entitled; and appropriated her own revenues to purposes otherwise provided for by law. She enjoyed both sources of income, and it was simply proposed to deprive her of one. If her revenues could be improved, she was herself entitled to the benefit of that improvement, for other spiritual objects. If church-rates were to be surrendered, she claimed from the state another fund, as a reasonable equivalent.

case.

But the legal rights of the church, and the means of enforcing them, were about to be severely contested The first by a long course of litigation. In 1837, a ma- Braintree jority of the vestry of Braintree having postponed a church-rate for twelve months, the churchwardens took upon themselves, of their own authority, and in defiance of the vestry, to levy a rate. In this strange proceeding they were supported, for a time, by the Consistory Court,2 on the authority of an obscure precedent. But the Court of Queen's Bench restrained them, by prohibition, from collecting a rate, which Lord Denman emphatically declared to be "altogether invalid, and a church-rate in nothing but the name." 4 In this opinion the Court of Exchequer Chamber concurred.5 Chief Justice Tindal, however, in giving the judgment of this court, suggested a doubt whether the churchwardens, and a minority of the vestry together, might not concur in granting a rate, at the meeting of the parishioners assembled for that purpose. This suggestion was founded on the principle that the votes of the majority, who refused to perform their duty, were lost and thrown

1 Ann. Reg., 1837, p. 85.

2 Veley v. Burder, Nov. 15th, 1837; App. to Report of Church Rates Co., 1851, p. 601.

3 Gaudern v. Selby in the Court of Arches, 1799.

4 Lord Denman's Judgment, May 1st, 1840; Burder v. Veley; Adolph. and Ellis, xii. 244.

5 Feb. 8th, 1841; Ibid., 300.

The second
Braintree

case, 1841-
1853.

away; while the minority, in the performance of the prescribed duty of the meeting, represented the whole number. This subtle and technical device was promptly tried at Braintree. A rate being again refused by the majority, a monition was obtained from the Consistory Court, commanding the churchwardens and parishioners to make a rate according to law. In obedience to this monition, another meeting was assembled; and a rate being again refused by the majority, it was immediately voted in their presence by the churchwardens and minority. A rate so imposed was of course resisted. The Consistory Court pronounced it illegal: the Court of Arches adjudged it valid. The Court of Queen's Bench, which had scouted the authority of the churchwardens, respected the right of the minority, scarcely less equivocal, — to bind the whole parish; and refused to stay the collection of the rate, by prohibition. The Court of Exchequer Cham ber affirmed this decision. But the House of Lords, perior to the subtleties by which the broad principles of the law had been set aside, - asserted the unquestionable rights of a majority. The Braintree rate which the vestry had refused, and a small minority had assumed to levy, was pronounced invalid.3

Its effect upon the

rights of the church.

su

This construction of the law gravely affected the relations of the church to dissenters. From this time, church-rates could not practically be raised in any parish, in which a majority of the vestry refused to impose them. The church, having an abstract legal title to receive them, was powerless to enforce it. The legal obligation to repair the parish church continued; but churchrates assumed the form of a voluntary contribution, rather than a compulsory tax. It was vain to threaten parishioners with the censures of ecclesiastical courts, and a whole parish

1 June 22d, 1841.

2 July 15th, 1841.

8 Jurist, xvii. 939. Clark's House of Lords' Cases, iv. 679-814.

with excommunication.

Such processes were out of date. Even if vestries had lost their rights by any forced construction of the law, no rate could have been collected against the general sense of the parishioners. The example of Braintree was quickly followed. Wherever the dissenting body was powerful, canvassing and agitation were actively conducted, until, in 1859, church-rates had been refused in no less than 1525 parishes or districts.2 This was a serious inroad upon the rights of the church.

Bills for the

church-rates

While dissenters were thus active and successful in their local resistance to church-rates, they were no less strenuous in their appeals to Parliament for legis- abolition of lative relief. Government having vainly sought the means of adjusting the question, in any form consistent with the interests of the church, the dissenters organized an extensive agitation for the total repeal of church-rates. Proposals for exempting dissenters from payment were repudiated by both parties. Such a compromise was regarded by churchmen as an encouragement to dissent, and by nonconformists as derogatory to their rights and pretensions as independent religious bodies. The first bill for the abolition of church-rates was introduced in 1841 by Sir John Easthope, but was disposed of without a division. For several years similar proposals were submitted to the Commons without success. In 1855, and again in 1856, bills for this purpose were read a second time by the Commons, but pro

1 Church Rates Committee, 1851; Dr. Lushington's Ev., Q. 2358-2365; Courtald's Ev., Q. 489-491; Pritchard's Ev., Q. 660, 661; Terrell's Ev., Q. 1975-1982; Dr. Lushington's Ev. before Lords' Committee, 1859.

2 Parl. Return, Sess. 2, 1859, No. 7.

On Feb. 11th, 1840, a motion by Mr. T. Duncombe to this effect was negatived by a large majority. Aves, 62; Noes, 117.- Comm. Journ., xcv. 74. Again, on March 13th, 1849, an amendment to the same purpose found only twenty supporters. In 1852 a bill to relieve dissenters from the rate, brought in by Mr. Packe, was withdrawn.

4 May 26th, 1841; Comm. Journ., xcvi. 345, 414.

5 June 16th, 1842; Comm. Journ., xcvii. 385; March 13th, 1849; Ibid., civ. 134; May 26th, 1853; Ibid., cviii. 516.

6 May 16th, 1855; Ayes, 217; Noes, 189. Feb. 8th, 1856; Ayes, 221; Noes, 178.

2

measure

ceeded no further. In the latter year Sir George Grey, on
behalf of ministers, suggested as a compromise between the
contending parties, that where church-rates had been discon-
tinued in any parish for a certain period, sufficient to indi-
cate the settled purpose of the inhabitants, the parish
should be exempted from further liability. This suggestion,
however, founded upon the anomalies of the existing law
was not submitted to the decision of Parliament. The con
roversy continued; and at length, in 1858, a
brought in by Sir John Trelawny, for the total abolition of
church-rates, was passed by the Commons, and rejected by
the Lords. In 1859, another compromise was suggested,
when Mr. Secretary Walpole brought in a bill to facilitate
a voluntary provision for church-rates: but it was refused a
second reading by a large majority. In 1860, another aboli-
tion bill was passed by one House and rejected by the other.*
Other compromises were suggested by friends of the
church: 5 but none found favor, and total aboli-
favor of the tion was still insisted upon by a majority of the
Commons. With ministers it was an open ques-
tion; and between members and their constituents, a source
of constant embarrassment. Meanwhile, an active counter-
agitation, on behalf of the church, began to exercise an in-
fluence over the divisions; and from 1858 the ascendency
of the anti-church-rate party sensibly declined. Such a re-
action was obviously favorable to the final adjustment of the
claims of dissenters, on terms more equitable to the church;

Reaction in

church.

1 March 5th, 1856; Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., cxl. 1900.

2 The third reading of this bill was passed on June 8th by a majority of 63: Ayes, 266: Noes, 203. Comm. Journ., cxiii. 216.

Comm. Journ., cxiv. 66.

8 March 9th, 1859. Ayes, 171; Noes, 254. 4 The third reading of this bill was passed by a majority of nine only Ayes, 235; Noes, 226.- Comm. Journ., cv. 208.

5 Viz. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Mr. Alcock, Mr. Cross, Mr. Newdegate, and Mr. Hubbard.

6 In 1861 (beyond the limits of this history) the annual bill was lost on the third reading by the casting vote of the Speaker; and in 1862 by a majority of 17.

"aher always avoids giving vote will chose subject - gives далася своего