LETTER 
 
 TO THE 
 
 [RIGHT HON. LORD STANLEY, 
 
 M. P. FOR NORTH LANCASHIRE, 
 
 LAW OF CHURCH RATES. 
 
 Bv 
 
 SIR JOHN CAMPBELL, 
 
 M. P. FOR THE CITY OF EDINBURGH. 
 
 EDINBURGH : 
 
 )AM AND CHARLES BLACK, 
 
 TO HIS MAJESTY FOR SCOTLAND. 
 
 M.DCCC.XXXVII. 
 
d 
 
 CD 
 
 Q 
 
 0 
 
 LETTER, &c. 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 As your Lordship was pleased, at the close of the late 
 debate in the House of Commons, respecting Church Rates, 
 very peremptorily to deny the law which I had laid down, in 
 supporting the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I 
 feel called upon to justify my opinion by a calm reference to 
 the authorities upon the subject. Let these be accurately and 
 candidly examined, and I think your Lordship will be convin- 
 ced that the language you employed was hasty, and that you 
 were prompted by partizans who had viewed the question su- 
 perficially, or with a prejudiced eye. This mode of discussing 
 it, I conceive, will be more satisfactory than a legal contro- 
 versy in the House of Commons, which would not admit of a 
 full citation of Acts of Parliament, or decisions, and could con- 
 $ sist of little more than assertion and denial. The inquiry must 
 necessarily be dull and tedious ; but I trust that no one who 
 has ventured to dispute the opinion I gave, will refuse to enter 
 j into it fully and fairly. 
 
 i After what has happened I must anxiously take care that it 
 , Obe distinctly known what that opinion was. Be it remembered 
 that I have never cast a doubt upon the legality of Church 
 (/^ Rates, or disputed that if a Church Rate be regularly made by 
 p a majority of the parishioners, the payment of it may be law- 
 ° fully enforced. 
 
 £ Church Rates are certainly not of the remote antiquity which 
 has been supposed by some, and there can he no doubt that in 
 6* this country, all the expenses attending divine worship, were* 
 originally defrayed by the Church itself from a portion of the 
 the tithes. The circesceat or Church shot , which King Canute 
 ordered to be paid by the faithful, suggested to have meant 
 Church Rates, consisted of the first-fruits of seed, rendered to 
 the clergy yearly, on the Feast of St. Martin ; and had no more 
 connection with the repairs of the Church, than alms for the 
 
2 
 
 plough, or tithe of animals born during the year, or Peter’s 
 pence, the payment of which he likewise enjoins. 
 
 Mr. Justice Blackstone says, “ At the first establishment of 
 parochial clergy, the tithes of the parish were distributed in a 
 four-fold division ; one for the use of the Bishop, another for 
 maintaining the fabric of the Church, a third for the poor, and 
 the fourth to provide for the incumbent. When the sees of the 
 Bishops became otherwise amply endowed, they were prohi- 
 bited from demanding their usual share of these tithes, and the 
 division was into three parts only. And hence it was inferred 
 by the monasteries, that a small part was sufficient for the offi- 
 ciating priest, and that the remainder might well be applied for 
 the use of their own fraternities, (the endowment of which was 
 considered to be a work of the most exalted piety,) subject to 
 the burthen of repairing the Church , and providing for its con- 
 stant supply.” * 
 
 So Lyndwood, Bishop of St. David’s, the highest authority 
 on Ecclesiastical law, who wrote in the 1 5th century, observes, 
 that “ By the Common law , the fabric or repair of the Church 
 'belongs to this day to the Rector, according to the appointment 
 and cure of the Bishop ; since under him that fourth due to 
 the fabric of the Church, has been transferred to the Rector 
 himself ; so that he who has the fourth ought to repair the 
 Church. So that, at common law , the laity may not be com- 
 pelled to do this. But certainly by custom even the lay pa- 
 rishioners are compelled to this sort of repair, so that the lay 
 people is compelled to observe this laudable custom.” — Const. 
 Lbgatin. 113. 
 
 I might cite the epistle of Pope Gregory to Augustine the 
 Monk, requiring a portion of the tithes to be set apart for the 
 repair of churches, — -an act of the Witenagemot in 1014, pre- 
 scribing that a third part of the tithe shall be appropriated for 
 this purpose, — and various decrees of Councils in the 1 2th and 
 1 3th centuries to the same effect. But all the books of autho- 
 rity, lay and ecclesiastical, agree in the position, that the bur- 
 then was at first laid and long continued upon the tithes. 
 
 Probably it was very gradually shifted to the parishioners, 
 and their contributions to the expense were purely voluntary. 
 
 The custom growing, it was treated as an obligation, and 
 enforced by ecclesiastical censures. 
 
 The Courts of Common Law seem to have interposed for the 
 protection of refractory parishioners, till the statute of Circum- 
 specte agatis, 13 Ed. L, which is in the form of a letter from 
 
 * Black. Com. I. 384. 
 
the King to his Common Law Judges, desiring them to use 
 themselves circumspectly in all matters concerning the Bishop 
 of Norwich and his clergy, not punishing them, if they hold 
 plea in Court Christian of such things as are merely spiritual, 
 as “ si praelatus puniat pro cimeterio non clauso, ecclesia dis- 
 cooperta, vel non decenter ornata.” 
 
 Lord Coke observes, “ That some have said, that this was 
 no statute, but made by the Prelates themselves, yet that is an 
 Act of Parliament, &c.”* 
 
 In the printed Rolls of Parliament, 25 Ed. III. No. 62, it is 
 called an Ordinance; but in the statute, 2 and 3 Ed. VI. 
 c. 13, s. 15, it is expressly styled a Statute, and it must now 
 clearly be taken to be the act of the whole Legislature. 
 
 From the year 1282, therefore, the Bishops were authorized 
 by ecclesiastical censures, to compel the parishioners to repair, 
 and to provide ornaments for the Church. 
 
 However, traces of the continuance of the original obligation 
 in particular places are to be found much lat$r, and in a MS. 
 treatise, entitled, “ The Tree of the Commonwealth,” written 
 by Edward Dudley, Privy Councillor to Henry VII., to be 
 found in the Harleian Collection, No. 2204, after enumerating 
 the duties of the clergy, the author calls upon them to per- 
 form these duties in all points, employing the prolits and re- 
 venues of their benefices, as they by their own law are bound 
 to do. It is, one part thereof for their own living in good 
 household hospitality; the second in deeds of charity and 
 alms to the poor folk, and specially within their diocese and 
 cures, where they have their living ; and the third part thereof 
 for the repairing and building of their churches and man- 
 sions.” 
 
 The matter was still purely of ecclesiastical cognizance. It 
 was regulated from time to time by canons and constitutions 
 of Archbishops and Bishops, who ordained what the parish- 
 ioners were to find at their own charge. 
 
 For example, by a Constitution of Archdeacon W inch el - 
 sea : — 
 
 “ The parishioners shall find at their own charge, these se- 
 veral things following : — a legend, an antiphonar, a grail, a 
 psalter, a troper, an ordinal, a missal, a manual, the principal 
 vestment, with a chesible, a dalmatic, a tunic, with a coral 
 cope, and all its appendages, a frontal for the great altar, with 
 three towels, three surplices, one rochet, a cross for processions. 
 
 * Inst. II. 487. 
 
4 
 
 cross for the dead, a censor, a lanthorn, an hand-bell to he 
 carried before the body of Christ in the visitation of the sick, 
 a pix for the body of Christ, a decent veil for lent, banners for 
 the rogations, a vessel for the blessed waters, an oscillatory, a 
 candlestick for the taper at Easter, a font with a lock and key, 
 the images in the Church, the chief image in the chancel, the 
 reparation of the body of the church within and without, as 
 well in the images as in the glass windows, the reparation of 
 books and vestments whenever they shall need.”* 
 
 In Popish times there was probably little difficulty in rais- 
 ing the rate without any assistance from the secular courts. 
 When the common law, by which the expense was to be paid 
 out of the tithes, had been forgotten, there could be hardly 
 any reluctance to contribute to a burthen from which all, be- 
 ing of the same religion, derived an equal benefit ; and if any 
 parish refused to make a Church Rate by a majority of the 
 vestry, there was a certain remedy by placing the parish under 
 an interdict, by which the Parish Church w*as shut up, the ad- 
 ministration of the sacraments within the parish was forbidden, 
 and if any parishioner died, he was to be buried without bell, 
 book, or candle. 
 
 It is laid down by Lyndwood that this was the mode of 
 proceeding, “ that so the parishioners may be punished by the 
 suspension or interdict of the place.” 
 
 The question will be, whether since the glorious Reforma- 
 tion, an interdict having happily become impossible, a new re- 
 medy can be supplied and the law can be altered without the 
 sanction of Parliament. 
 
 Before leaving this part of the subject, I must observe that 
 in England the Church Rate never was a charge upon the 
 land ; and in this respect as well as others is clearly distinguish- 
 able from tithes, which can in no respect be considered a tax, or 
 a render, or a payment by the occupier of the land of any thing 
 that ever was his. In Jeffrey’s case (5 Lord Co. Rep. 66.) 
 deciding that the occupier of lands in one parish, though he re- 
 side in another, is rateable to the repair of the Church of the 
 parish in which the lands lie, it was resolved that “ the church- 
 wardens and greater part of the parishioners met together, 
 might make such a tax by their law, and that it don’t charge 
 the land but the person in respect of the land for equality and 
 indifferency and it was said that “ the reason why every pa- 
 rishioner is charged to the reparations of the Church, and to 
 
 * Lindw. 251. ; 1 Burn. Ecc. Law, 375. 
 
a 
 
 provide convenient ornaments in it for tlie greater convenience 
 and honour of divine service, is first for the spiritual comfort 
 which he has in hearing the word of God there for his instruc- 
 tion and the true way to heaven, in celebration of the sacra- 
 ments, and in presenting to God their prayers, not only privately 
 but with the great congregation, to be thankful to God for all 
 his benefits, and to desire of him all things necessary, in re- 
 spect of which inestimable benefits, he is chargeable to repair 
 his own proper church in which he receives them.” 
 
 In Burn’s Ecclesiastical Law, vol. i. p. 384, we have — 
 
 An order and a direction set down by Dr. King, Dr. 
 Lewin, Dr. Lynsey, Dr. Hoane, Dr. Seveite, Dr. Steward, and 
 other doctors of the civil law, to the number of thirteen in ail, 
 assembled together in the common dining hall of Doctors Com- 
 mons in London, touching a course to be observed by the as- 
 sessors in their taxations of the church and walls of the church- 
 yard of Wrotham in Kent, and to be applied generally, upon 
 occasions of like reparations to all places in England whatso- 
 ever.” By this — “ Every inhabitant dwelling within the parish 
 is to be charged according to his ability , whether in land or liv- 
 ing within the same parish, or for his goods there ; that is to 
 say, for the best of them, but not for both.” 
 
 From the difficulty in getting at the amount of personal pro- 
 perty, the general practice has long been to confine the Church 
 Rate as well as the Poor’s Rate to real property ; but there 
 seems no doubt that originally, personal as well as real pro- 
 perty was subject to both, and that both were meant to impose 
 a tax upon the parishioners according to their substance and 
 ability. So late as the year 1823, in the Poole Case, it was 
 decided by the High Court of Delegates, that, by custom, a 
 Church Rate may lawfully be assessed upon shipping and stock 
 in trade.* 
 
 This short sketch of the history and nature of Church Rates 
 will assist us in solving the main question, whether there be 
 now any compulsory means of raising money to repair the 
 Church, if the parishioners refuse to make a rate for that pur- 
 pose. If, indeed, the rate had been a charge upon the land, 
 to which it has been subject from the earliest times, as affirmed 
 by some to whom great reverence is due, there would be a 
 strong probability that the Common law would afford a process 
 for enforcing the obligation ; — but if the contribution was vo- 
 
 * Miller v. Bloomfield and Slade, 1 Ad. Eccl. Rep. 499. 2 Ad. Ecck 
 
 Rep, 30. 
 
6 
 
 luntary in its origin, and has always remained personal, and 
 for many centuries no remedy was known except spiritual 
 censures, an inference may be drawn that spiritual censures 
 can alone be resorted to, unless where a statute can be produ- 
 ced giving a remedy by civil process. 
 
 Now, what I maintained and do maintain is, that a legal 
 Churce Rate can only be made by a majority of the parishioners 
 m vestry assembled ; and that if they meet and refuse to make 
 a rate, there are no means by which the rate can be raised. 
 
 This is a very unsatisfactory state of the law, and is one 
 among many reasons why, for the peace of the Church and the 
 benefit of religion, the law upon the subject should be altered, 
 and that the expense of repairing the fabric of the Church, and 
 providing for the decent celebration of divine worship, should 
 be defrayed from another source. 
 
 It seems to be admitted on all hands, that, in the first in- 
 stance, it is necessary to assemble the parishioners in vestry, 
 and to propose to them to make a Church Rate, — when it 
 must be put to the vote whether a Church Rate to a given 
 amount shall be made or not. Let us suppose that they re- 
 fuse to make any Church Rate* As the law now stands, what 
 is to be done? I say nothing can be done. Your Lordship 
 says, it shall not depend upon the caprice of a majority of 
 the vestry to grant or to refuse. 
 
 I will examine in detail the different compulsory expedients 
 which have been suggested. 
 
 That which I think has been most strongly relied upon is 
 a mandamus by the Court of King's Bench to the church- 
 wardens and parishioners to make a rate. And if there were 
 a legal obligation upon them, I conceive that, upon their re- 
 fusal, a mandamus would be granted as a matter of course. 
 If there be a refusal to make a poor rate, ora highway rate, 
 a mandamus immediately issues, — which would be followed by 
 an attachment, or process of imprisonment against those who 
 should disobey it. 
 
 The experiment of a mandamus to compel the making of 
 a Church Rate has been tried more than once, and has as 
 often failed. 
 
 In the year 1793, when Lord Kenyon was Chief Justice of 
 the Court of King's Bench, an application was made for a 
 mandamus to the churchwardens of St. Peters, Thetford, to 
 to make a rate for the repairs of the Parish Church. The 
 counsel admitted, that in general the rate should be made by 
 the churchwardens and inhabitants at a vestry, but said, that 
 
7 
 
 the former alone might make a Church Hate if the latter re- 
 fused, and that the inhabitants had refused in this case. 
 
 The Court thought it so clear that they could not interfere 
 by mandamus, that a rule to shew cause was refused.* 
 
 In Rex v, Wilson and others, decided in February 1825, 
 when Lord Tenterden was Chief Justice of the King's Bench, 
 a rule was obtained, calling on the churchwardens of a parish 
 in the county of Cambridge, to shew cause why a mandamus 
 should not issue to them, commanding them to make a rate 
 for the repairs of a donative Church in that parish. 
 
 Sir James Scarlett, now Lord Abinger, shewed cause and 
 objected preliminarily, that a mandamus would not lie to the 
 churchwardens to make a rate. All that they could be requir- 
 ed to do, was to call a meeting of the parishioners for the purpose 
 of considering the propriety of making a rate. The churchward- 
 ens had no power to make a rate without the sanction of the 
 vestry. 
 
 Mr. Denman, now Lord Denman, Chief Justice of the King's 
 Bench, contra, admitted the force of the objection : 
 
 “ Per Curiam, You cannot call upon the Churchwardens 
 to make a rate. You can only call upon them to hold a 
 vestry meeting for that purpose." Rule discharged. t 
 
 There may be a mandamus to raise a rate to pay a debt in- 
 curred under the Church Building Acts, marking the distinc- 
 tion that the one is obligatory, and the other is not. Rex t\ 
 Churchwardens of St. Mary, Lambeth. J 
 
 This was an application for a mandamus to make a Church 
 Rate to repay a debt contracted under the Church Building 
 Acts, 58 Geo. 3, c. 45, and 59 Geo. 3, c. 154, which enact, 
 that it shall be lawful for the Churchwardens, upon the appli- 
 cation of the parishioners, to borrow money on the credit of the 
 rates for the building of new churches, and in every such case 
 to make rates for the payment of the interest of any monies 
 advanced for the building any such Church, and for providing 
 a fund for repayment of the principal. It was submitted on 
 the part of the Churchwardens, that they could not, of their 
 own authority, make a rate, and that the consent of the 
 parishioners was necessary. 
 
 Lord Tenterden distinguished this case from the making of 
 a common Church Rate, and held that by the statutes the 
 Church wardens were authorised to make the rate of their own 
 authority. 
 
 * 5 Term, Rep. 364. 
 
 *f* Dowling and Ryland’s Reports, vol. 5. p. 602. 
 
 £ 3 Barn. & Ad. 651. 
 
8 
 
 The same distinction was taken, and the same rule laid 
 down in Rex v. Churchwardens of Brighton in Michaelmas 
 term 1830. 
 
 In Rex v. Wix,* a mandamus was granted to elect Church- 
 wardens, that they might exercise the powers which lawfully 
 belong to Churchwardens, but no hint is thrown out that they 
 could make a Church Rate without the vestry. 
 
 In Rex v. Churchwardens and Overseers of the poor of St. 
 Margaret and St. John, Westminster, t the Court granted a 
 mandamus to assemble a meeting to consider of a Church Rate, 
 but expressly said they would not interfere by mandamus to 
 compel the making of a Church Rate ; 'and they would onlv 
 command them “ to assemble, in order to inquire whether it 
 be fit that a rate should be made/' 
 
 The last case is particularly strong to shew that as far as the 
 common law is concerned, the making of a rate is an act in the 
 discretion of the vestry, as the parishioners were ordered to 
 meet and to consider of it ; — just as a mandamus will be granted 
 to Quarter Sessions to hear an appeal : But wherever the deci- 
 sion is in the discretion of the parties to whom the mandamus is 
 directed, — when they have deliberated, the power of the su- 
 perior court is at an end, and the refusal to interfere farther 
 proves the act to be discretionary. 
 
 I hope that after these authorities your Lordship will no 
 longer insist upon the remedy, by mandamus, from whatever 
 quarter it may be recommended. 
 
 Can any thing more be done in the courts of common law ? 
 Will an indictment lie against the inhabitants of a parish for 
 not repairing a church, as against the inhabitants of a parish for 
 not repairing a highway, or against the inhabitants of a county for 
 not repairing a public bridge ? If the repair of the church were 
 a common law liability, like the repair of a highway or abridge, 
 I have no difficulty in saying that it might be enforced by in- 
 dictment ; but there is no precedent for such a proceeding, 
 and I believe no lawyer will say that it could be adopted. 
 
 As there is no remedy at law, can equity give relief? None. 
 No ingenuity could make this out to be a case of trust, or could 
 find the proper parties to the bill. 
 
 The only « recourse, then, is to the ecclesiastical courts. A 
 valid rate they can enforce ; but without a valid rate they are 
 now powerless. The churchwardens may be cited ; and if 
 they had funds in hand they might unquestionably be com- 
 
 * 2 Bam. & Ad. 197. 
 
 *|- 4 Maule & Sel. 230. 
 
9 
 
 pelled to repair the church. It seems to me equally clear, 
 that on shewing that they have no funds in hand, and that a 
 rate has been refused by the vestry, they must immediately he 
 absolved. 
 
 I shall prove, by and bye, that they are not bound to lay out 
 money, or to incur personal responsibility without a rate hav- 
 ing been previously laid on to reimburse them, and that to re- 
 pay a debt already incurred, a rate cannot lawfully be laid on, 
 even by a majority of the vestry. Therefore, if the ecclesias- 
 tical court were to take any proceedings against churchwardens 
 who have no funds, and who, having done their best, can ob- 
 tain none, a prohibition to stay the proceedings would be im- 
 mediately granted. A fortiori , nothing can be done against 
 an individual parishioner, who is not an officer, by monition or 
 otherwise. It has not been suggested that the majority who 
 refused the rate may be excommunicated for that act. The 
 interdict is gone, and it is replaced by no substitute. 
 
 There being no remedy in any court, civil or criminal, lay 
 or ecclesiastical, without a valid rate, the only question remain- 
 ing is, whether a valid rate can be made without the consent of 
 a majority of the vestry. 
 
 In the difficulty that has been occasionally experienced upon 
 the subject ever since the Reformation, on a refusal by the 
 parish, attempts have been hazarded to make a rate by the Ec- 
 clesiastical Court, or by commissioners appointed for that pur- 
 pose by the bishops. These have been held to be illegal, and 
 I apprehend will never be repeated. In the case of St. Mary 
 Magdalen, Bermondsey,* it was the opinion of the whole 
 Court (among other things), that the Bishop or his Chancellor 
 cannot set a rate upon a parish, but it must be done by the pa- 
 rishioners themselves ; and so North, C. J., said that it had 
 been lately ruled in the Common Pleas. 
 
 In Black v . Newcomb, t it was decided that the Ecclesias- 
 tical Court cannot make a rate, or appoint commissioners to 
 do it. 
 
 So in Rogers v. Davenant,J 2 G and 27* Car. 2. “ In pro- 
 hibition the question was, whether if a church be out of repair, 
 or so much out of order that it must be re-edified, the bishop 
 of the diocese may direct a commission to empower commis- 
 sioners to tax and rate every parishioner for the re-edifying 
 thereof. 
 
 " The Court unanimously agreed that such commissions are 
 
 * 2 Mod. 222. f 12 Mod. 327. £ 2 Mod. 8. 
 
10 
 
 against law, and therefore granted a prohibition to the Spiritual 
 Court to stop a suit there commenced against some of the parish- 
 ioners of Whitechapel for not paying the tax according to their 
 proportions/' 
 
 The last expedient is to contend, that if the parishioners re- 
 fuse a rate, the churchwardens may, of their own authority, 
 make a valid rate in spite of them. 
 
 I must first observe that this would be a very strange law, as 
 it entirely annihilates the power and control which the parish- 
 ioners have immemorially exercised over the rate. If the 
 churchwardens have the power, they must be allowed to judge 
 of the quantum of the rate, as well as the necessity for it, and 
 the assembling of a vestry to consider of a rate would, in every 
 instance, be a mere mockery. The privilege of the parish in 
 this respect would be such as would belong to the House of 
 Commons, if, upon their refusal to grant a supply, or such a 
 supply as the minister requires, a tax to raise the amount 
 might be imposed by the King's proclamation. 
 
 I may further observe, that if there were such a law, it would 
 be well known, — it would be laid down in all the books upon 
 the subject — and having the merit of being very simple and ef- 
 ficacious, it would be constantly acted upon where a rate is re- 
 fused by the vestry. 
 
 But it is not to be found in any book that treats professedly 
 of Church Rates, or the practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts. 
 
 In Degges Parson s Councillor , part 1, c. 12., the author, 
 with some hesitation, says, he conceives that if the parishion- 
 ers refuse or neglect to join in making an assessment, the 
 churchwardens, having just cause for such assessment, may pro- 
 ceed alone, they being liable to ecclesiastical censures for not re- 
 pairing the church. He immediately adds, however, But 
 some are of opinion that the churchwardens cannot proceed 
 alone, but must compel the parishioners to do it by ecclesiastical 
 censures : Ideo qucere.” 
 
 His only reason, the supposed liability of the churchwardens 
 to punishment, for not repairing without funds, is now proved 
 to be fallacious, and if he had been aware of this he would pro- 
 bably have agreed with those who, he observes, deny the power 
 of the churchwardens to proceed alone, and he would not have 
 considered the matter doubtful. 
 
 In Viner's Abridgment, and in Bacon's Abridgment, title 
 Churchwardens," it is said that if the parishioners upon notice 
 refuse to come, or being assembled, refuse to make any rate, the 
 churchwardens may make one without their concurrence, on 
 
11 
 
 the ground that being liable to be punished in the ecclesiastical 
 court for not repairing the church, it would be unreasonable that 
 they should suffer by the wilfulness and obstinacy of others. 
 
 These two compilations, I conceive, are of no authority, un- 
 less when they are supported by the decisions which they cite. 
 The following is the only case referred to in support of this doc- 
 trine : — 
 
 T. T. 35. Car. 2. — In Banco Regis,* Anonymous. — A mo- 
 tion for a prohibition to a suit in the ecclesiastical court, for a 
 churchwarden’s rate, suggesting that they had pleaded that it 
 was not made with the consent of the parishioners, and that the 
 plea was refused. 
 
 “ The Court said that the churchwardens (if the parish were 
 summoned and refused to meet and make a rate) might make 
 one alone for the repairs of the church, if needful ; because that, 
 if the repairs were neglected, the churchwardens were to be 
 cited, and not the parishioners; and a day was given to shew 
 cause why there should not be a prohibition.” 
 
 Now, in this very loose report of this anonymous case, bv 
 an inaccurate reporter, there is only an obiter dictum as to the 
 power of the Churchwardens, which is contradicted by a rule 
 to shew cause being granted why there should not be a prohi- 
 bition, or in other words, why the rate should not be quashed 
 as invalid ; and the reporter never states what was the judg- 
 ment of the Court when cause was shewn. 
 
 I have, I believe, stated all that is in print, or that was at 
 all known in Westminster Hall on this point, till, during the 
 reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a decision of Sir 
 William Wynne in the year 1799, was cited from a MS. note 
 of Dr. Arnold, by Dr. Nicholl, M.P. for Cardiff. The case is 
 Gandern v. Selby, and was very accurately cited : but when 
 examined will be found entitled to no weight whatever ; and 
 I apprehend it must have remained unpublished, like many 
 other notes of erroneous decisions, because the publication of 
 it would only introduce uncertainty and confusion into the law. 
 
 Selby, a Churchwarden of Easton Mawdit, sued Gandern in 
 the Ecclesiastical Court of Peterborough, for non-payment of 
 Church Rate, and he alleged in his libel that the Church being 
 out of repair, and other things wanting, &c. ; the parishioners 
 met and agreed on a Church Rate of 9$d. in the pound. The 
 defendant pleaded, among other things, that the rate had not 
 been obtained by the major part of the parishioners. It ap- 
 
 * Ventris, 3G7. 
 
12 
 
 peared by the evidence., that tlie Parish Church requiring some 
 repairs,, Selby, having no funds in hand, instead of calling a ves- 
 try, and making an estimate of the repairs, ordered such re- 
 pairs as he thought necessary to be done on his own credit. 
 He then called a vestry to make a rate to reimburse him, and 
 asked a rate of 9^d. in the pound. The parishioners objected 
 that the repairs were not necessary, and that they had employed 
 a mason to overlook them, who confirmed this statement. 
 They offered a rate of 6d. in the pound, and refused more. 
 Selby, then, by his own authority, made a rate of 9|d. in the 
 pound for his own reimbursement. 
 
 Sir W. Wynne, on appeal to the Court of Arches, is suppo- 
 sed to have held this rate to be valid, and to have condemned 
 the appellant in costs. 
 
 Sir W. Wynne cites no authority whatever, and gives no 
 reason, except that Churchwardens may be proceeded against 
 for not repairing, although they cannot get a rate, which is 
 clearly a mistake, and that, as an interdict and other ecclesias- 
 tical censures are now unavailing, there is no other remedy. 
 
 Without any disrespect to the memory of Sir W. Wynne, I 
 must be permitted to say, that if he so decided, he decided er- 
 roneously. 
 
 It seems strange, in the first place, that the plaintiff should 
 have succeeded, when the material allegation of the libel had 
 been denied and negatived by the evidence — that the 9^d. rate 
 was made by a majority of the parishioners. Even if a rate 
 made by Churchwardens against the will of the parish be good, 
 the truth ought to be stated in a proceeding to enforce it : but 
 it might have been inconvenient to have stated the truth in the 
 libel, as the want of jurisdiction would have appeared, and the 
 proceeding would have been held null in a Court of Law after 
 sentence. Next, we have the anomaly of one Churchwarden 
 acting without any account of the other ; and such an act by 
 one of two Churchwardens must be void. Then we have it laid 
 down, that a Churchwarden can make a rate for his own reim- 
 bursement, and that he is the sole judge of the sum required. 
 
 I will venture to say, that if Gandern had applied to the 
 Court of King’s Bench, or that, if the case had been brought 
 by appeal before the Court of Delegates, the rate would have 
 been held to be invalid. The objection that it was retrospec- 
 tive would alone have been fatal. It is now considered clear 
 law, that a retrospective Church Rate is bad ; and this goes to 
 the very foundation of the supposed power of the Churchwar- 
 dens to make a rate against the will of the parish. 
 
13 
 
 In Rex v . Haworth/* it was decided, upon the authority of 
 several prior cases, that a rate to reimburse Churchwardens 
 such sums as they had expended, or might thereafter expend, 
 on the Parish Church is had on the face of it, as in part retro- 
 spective. 
 
 Lord Ellenborough there says : — ■“ The regular way is for 
 the Churchwardens to raise the money beforehand by a rate 
 made in the regular form for the repairs of the Church, in order 
 that the money may be paid by the existing inhabitants at the 
 time, on whom the burthen ought properly to fall. It will, 
 indeed, sometimes happen that more may be required to h^ 
 expended at the time than the actual sum collected will cover ; 
 hut still it is admitted that the inconvenience has been gotten 
 rid of in such cases by an evasion : for the rate has been made 
 in the common form, and when the Churchwardens have col- 
 lected the money, they have repaid themselves what they have 
 disbursed for the parish. But we cannot now grant the man- 
 damus to make a rate in the common form ; for the demand 
 made upon the defendants was to make a rate- in the form in 
 which the rule is drawn up, to reimburse the Churchwardens 
 of Bradford for money which they had expended, as well as 
 for what they might expend ; and the refusal of the defend- 
 ants to make such a rate applies to the form of the demand ; 
 and we cannot now qualify their refusal. At present it appears 
 that the rate prayed for in this form would be had, and there- 
 fore we cannot enforce it by mandamus/' Per Curiam. Rule 
 discharged. 
 
 The illegality of a retrospective Church Rate has likewise 
 been decided in equity. In Lanchester v. Thompson,!' an at- 
 tempt was tried to force the making of a Church Rate on the 
 the ground that the vestry had sanctioned the expense which 
 the Churchwarden had incurred. But Sir John Leach, M.R. 
 said, “ In the case before Lord Ellenborough it was established, 
 that a Church Rate can he legally made for the reimbursement 
 of no Churchwarden, because that would shift the burden from 
 the parishioners at the time, to future parishioners. The law 
 was the same with respect to the Poor Rate, until a late statute. 
 And although the spiritual court may compel a Church Rate for 
 the purpose of repair, it must follow the law, and cannot com- 
 pel a rate for reimbursement/' 
 
 A question has been made, whether if the rate does not pro- 
 fess upon the face of it to he for a retrospective purpose, it can 
 
 12 East, 55 G. 
 
 *f* 5 Madd. 4. 
 
be invalidated on the ground, that in truth it was made either 
 in whole or in part to defray a debt contracted by Churchwar- 
 dens ; but in a late case in the Consistory Court of the Bishop 
 of London, it was decided by the very learned Judge of that 
 Court, that the evasion of making a rate professing to be pro- 
 spective, but meant to be retrospective, cannot be, tolerated, 
 and that whatever the form of the rate may be, if the rate be 
 really made to pay off a debt already contracted, it is void. 
 
 The case was Chesterton and Hutchins,* respecting the le- 
 gality of a Church Rate for the parish of Kensington, which 
 appeared on the face of it in the usual form, but was made 
 partly to cover a debt previously incurred by the Churchwar- 
 dens. 
 
 Dr. Lushington. (( It is admitted that the Rate is a retro- 
 spective Rate, to the extent of more than one-third of the 
 whole amount, though not on the face of it, — and the question 
 I have to decide is, whether a Rate, admitted to be retrospec- 
 tive to the extent which I have stated, can or cannot be en- 
 forced by the authority of this Court. Now, it is my duty, on 
 the present occasion, to be entirely guided by the decisions 
 which have previously taken place in Courts which have had 
 to consider this question ; and if I see any reasonable doubt as 
 to what the law is, I shall certainly deem it my duty to give 
 the Churchwardens the benefit of that doubt, and by admitting 
 the allegation, leave the other party to proceed as he may be 
 advised. But if, on the other hand, the law is clear, and laid 
 down by high authorities who have decided the point, I appre- 
 hend I am bound in duty to bow to those authorities, and to 
 pronounce against the admission of this allegation. It is not 
 disputed that a rate, which on the face of it is retrospective, is 
 vicious, and that it is impossible that such rate can be enforced. 
 Whatever decisions there may have been on the subject from 
 early times down to a comparatively modern period, it has been 
 since settled by repeated decisions in the Court of King’s Bench 
 and the Court of Chancery, that a Church Rate cannot be re- 
 trospective. A case occurred in the year 1770, in which the 
 decision of Sir George Hay was apparently founded on a differ- 
 ent principle. In that case, Sir George Hay rejected an alle- 
 gation of a defendant resisting a Church Rate, on the ground 
 that it was retrospective for one year ; and thus the law stood 
 in these Courts till 1812, in which year my predecessor. Sir 
 Christopher Robinson, in the Spitalfields case, held the same 
 
 Decided April 28th, 1836, not yet reported. 
 
15 
 
 doctrine as Sir George Hay, in 1770. But the parties, in that 
 case, had so little hope of succeeding in a Court of Law, that 
 they declined proceeding. Since then, the decisions have been 
 uniform, that a rate, which is on the face of it retrospective, 
 cannot he enforced. But I am now to consider whether a rate, 
 which is not on the face of it retrospective, hut which is ad- 
 mitted to be intended to cover in part expenses previously in- 
 curred, is legal or not. Had these sums been of small amount 
 I should have felt myself justified in leaving them entirely out 
 of consideration ; hut in the present case, it cannot he said that 
 the sunis admitted to he retrospective are trivial or unimport- 
 ant. Now the case is this : I cannot say that any case has yet 
 been decided, which expressly and directly governs the present 
 case ; hut I cannot, on principle, comprehend that there is any 
 real distinction between the case of a rate on the face of it 
 retrospective, and a rate admitted to be intended to cover debts, 
 or part of a debt, previously incurred. It appears to me to be 
 a distinction without any foundation, and that the cases are 
 without any real and essential difference. Can it be maintain- 
 ed that this Court is bound to set aside a Church Rate where 
 the party making it had avowed an illegal object on the face of 
 it, and to give force and effect to a Rate where the object, 
 though not equally avowed, was equally clear and illegal ? I am 
 unable to see any such distinction, and I am very clearly of opinion 
 that if such distinction w T ere attempted in a Court of Law, it 
 would not be admitted. For the consequence would he absurd: 
 it would be in the power of any Vestry, by shaping the head- 
 ing of the Rate, to suit their own purposes, to violate the law 
 at their own pleasure, and to any extent. I think that all the 
 principles laid down by the Court of King’s Bench, and by the 
 Vice Chancellor, in the case of Lan Chester against Thompson, 
 are equally applicable to rates admitted and intended to he re- 
 trospective, and to those which are retrospective on the face of 
 them.” Rate adjudged to be illegal. 
 
 Finally, Sir W. Wynne’s doctrine is completely demolished 
 by a decision of the Court of Exchequer, in the time of that 
 great Judge, Lord Lyndhurst. The case was Northwaite v. 
 Bennett,* in which Mr. Baron Bayley intimated a strong opi- 
 nion, that a Churchwarden is not bound to do repairs to a 
 church on credit ; that it is his duty to take care that he has 
 funds in hand, and to pay ready money ; and that it would be 
 a good answer for a Churchwarden to a libel in the Spiritual 
 
 4 Tyrwhitt’s Exch. Rep. 236. 
 
16 
 
 Court for not repairing a church, that he was not bound to use 
 his own money, and had taken steps to get a rate paid, hut 
 without success. 
 
 Lord Lyndhurst — “ No fund appeared to exist at the time, 
 out of which the repairs might he paid for. I question if a 
 Churchwarden is hound to incur responsibility by putting a 
 church in repair, if the parish do not previously supply him 
 with funds for that purpose.” 
 
 I deem it unnecessary to take further notice of the decision 
 of Sir W. Wynne, which I believe never was quoted in any 
 Court, lay or ecclesiastical, and which has lain in retentis for a 
 period of thirty-eight years. I may boldly ask, if this were 
 law, would it not have been acted upon in some one of the 
 many instances in which Church Rates have been refused of 
 late years. The civilians, and the common lawyers, and equity 
 lawyers, who have been consulted about the mode of dealing 
 with an obstinate vestry, while they have suggested the possi- 
 bility of succeeding by mandamus, or monition, or bill in equity, 
 appear never to have thought of the plain, straight-forward 
 course of the Churchwardens making a rate by their own au- 
 thority. 
 
 Let it not be supposed that this has been prevented by that 
 which, were there such a power upon a refusal by the Vestry, 
 would be a shallow device, — an adjournment for a twelve- 
 month. Such an adjournment, or any adjournment with the 
 intention of refusing, is the refusal of a rate, and would clearly 
 admit the Churchwardens to the exercise of any power which 
 a refusal confers upon them. 
 
 But there is no ground for saying, that the authority of 
 Churchwardens in making a rate goes farther than this — that if 
 a V estry is regularly called to make a Rate, and none except 
 the Churchwardens attend, the Churchwardens then constitut- 
 ing the parish may make a Rate ; — as I conceive that they might 
 do any other act competent to the Vestry, of which they are 
 members. 
 
 Lord Holt is said to have been of opinion, “ that if there be 
 public notice given to the parishioners, and they will not come, 
 the Churchwardens may make a rate without them.”* 
 
 I have no doubt that this opinion is sound, and that it is the 
 only foundation for the notion, that the Churchwardens can 
 make a rate without the parishioners. 
 
 A more extensive power in the Churchwardens was unknown 
 
 Comb. 344. 
 
17 
 
 to Lyndwood ; and Gibson, elaborately defining the power of 
 the Churchwardens in making a Rate, must be taken to deny 
 it : — 
 
 “ Rates for the reparation of the Church are to be made by 
 the Churchwardens, together with the parishioners assembled, 
 upon public notice given in the Church. And the major part of 
 them that appear shall bind the parish : or, if none appear, the 
 Churchwardens alone may make the Rate, because they, and 
 not the parishioners, are to be cited and punished in default of 
 repairs. But the Bishop cannot direct a commission to rate 
 the parishioners, and appoint what each one shall pay. This 
 must be done by the Churchwardens and parishioners, and the 
 Spiritual Court may inflict spiritual censures till they do.” 
 
 Upon a refusal, spiritual censures were considered the only 
 remedy. 
 
 I will now cite some Common Law authorities, in which the 
 power to make the Rate was held to be in the majority of the 
 parishioners, without any restriction, qualification, or exception. 
 
 “Pierce v. Prowse, Salk. 165. — Churchwardens assessed a 
 Rate, for repairs of the Church, and after libelled against a pa- 
 rishioner for not paying it. Et per cur. being moved for a 
 prohibition. The parishioners ought to assess the rate, and 
 not the Churchwardens.” 
 
 “ S.C. 1. Lord Raymond, 59. — Mr. Pratt moved for a prohi- 
 bition to the Consistory Court of the Bishop of Exeter, where his 
 client was libelled against for a rate assessed by the Churchwar- 
 dens by custom, for the repair of the Church, as well the chancel 
 as the nave of the Church ; and resolved, 1. That the parish- 
 ioners, and not the Churchwardens, ought to assess the rate. — 
 A prohibition was granted.” 
 
 In Rogers v. Davenant, as reported 2. Mod. 194 . — ■“ Wynd- 
 ham, Atkyns, and Ellis, Justices, accorded, the Churchwardens 
 cannot, none but a Parliament can, impose a tax, but the greater 
 part of the parish can make a bye-law, and to this purpose they 
 are a corporation.” 
 
 In a case reported, 1 Mod. 79. it is stated to have been de- 
 cided that, “ the Spiritual Court cannot impose the payment of 
 a Rate made by Churchwardens only. 
 
 “ Moved for a prohibition to the Spiritual Court. For that 
 they sue a parish, for not paying a Rate made by the Churchwar- 
 dens only, whereas by the law the major part of the parish 
 must join. Twisden, Justice. — Perhaps no more of the parish 
 will come together. Counsel. — If that did appear, it might be 
 something.” 
 
18 
 
 The very form in which a Church Rate is made appears to me 
 clearly to shew that it is, and must be, the act of the majority of 
 the parishioners taxing the parish. 
 
 The following is from Burn's Ecclesiastical Law, and, I believe, 
 is that which has been universally followed : — 
 
 “ We, the Churchwardens and other parishioners of the parish 
 of in the county and diocese of , 
 
 whose names are hereunto subscribed, do hereby this day 
 of , in the year , at our Vestry Meeting for that 
 
 purpose assembled, rate and tax all and every the inhabitants and 
 parishioners aforesaid here undermentioned, for and towards the 
 repairs of the Church of the said parish for this present year, the 
 several sums following — 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 1 2 0 
 
 0 3 0 
 
 0 2 6 ‘ 
 
 A. B. 
 C. D. 
 E. F. 
 
 And so on. 
 
 I will now only refer your Lordship to the opinion of an emi- 
 nent divine of the Church of England, a thorough Conservative, 
 a determined opponent of the Ministerial plan, the Hon. and Rev. 
 A. P. Perceval, B.C.L., who has just published a very interest- 
 ing pamphlet on the subject of Church Rates. Having stated 
 that the agreement to make a rate is a spiritual duty, and to 
 which men are no otherwise bound than by those motives of con- 
 science and religion to which alone the Spiritual Courts appeal, 
 he says — 
 
 “ It is this which makes the marked difference between Rates 
 and Tithes, which some persons, for purposes best known to 
 themselves, seem anxious to confound. Rates up to this hour 
 are a voluntary contribution on the part of a parish, to which, if 
 they refuse, there is no earthly power to compel them. But 
 tithes are a distinct property ; the only thing voluntary here, is, 
 whether a man will cultivate his land or not ; if he does, one- 
 tenth of the produce is not his, but another's, who may sell it to 
 whom he pleases." 
 
 I hope your Lordship may think that I have now vindicated 
 
19 
 
 the legal opinion which I gave in the House of Commons upon 
 the subject of making a Church Rate, and that although I did 
 not then cite legal authorities, I did not speak without book. 
 If the legal argument which I have the honour to address to 
 you admits of an answer, let it be answered, and impartial in- 
 quirers will decide between us. But I must insist upon the 
 practical remedy being pointed out for levying the rate, upon the 
 refusal of a Rate by the V estry. Mere dicta as to the obliga- 
 tion upon the parish to repair will not invalidate my position. 
 
 I will not mix up this question with your charges against me 
 as a politician, farther than distinctly to deny them, and to ex- 
 press my readiness to refute them whenever you shall give me 
 the opportunity. I must add, that in the speech to which you 
 replied with so much warmth, I had no intention, as I could have 
 no motive, wantonly to attack you. Till I heard your assertion 
 of consistency , I own I was not aware that you meant to 
 contend that having introduced the Irish Church Temporalities 
 Bill and opposing a Bill for England on the same principle, you 
 were to contend that you were consistent . I expected that 
 your Lordship would say that you had seen reason to change 
 your opinion respecting such measures, and I am sure I should 
 most willingly have given you credit for sincerity, for disin- 
 terestedness, for a high sense of honour, and a chivalrous devo- 
 tion to what you considered the good of your country; — but 
 when your present coadjutors taunted us with inconsistency in 
 bringing forward this plan, there was surely nothing unfair in 
 reminding the House that one of its most violent opponents was 
 the author of a plan for abolishing Church Rates in Ireland, and 
 providing a substitute, not only by allowing the lessees of 
 Bishops' lands to acquire a permanent interest in them upon 
 equitable terms, but by abolishing ten bishoprics, and imposing 
 a tax on all ecclesiastical livings to boot. It may be easy to 
 point out differences in the details of the two measures, which 
 would be very fit subject of discussion in Committee; but 
 does your Lordship believe that any unprejudiced persons will 
 say that all the objections to the principle of the English mea- 
 sure might not have been urged with greater force against the 
 Irish. Hear what is said on this subject by the Hon. and Rev. 
 Mr. Perceval : — 
 
 “ But, says Mr. Rice, why call it monstrous at all, when 
 it is no more than we did to your Church in Ireland four 
 years ago ? 'Tis very true ; but there is a saying of a wise 
 man not wholly irrelevant to the point : — f Bind not one sin 
 upon another, for in one thou shalt not go unpunished/ It is 
 very true that in 1833 this nation did to the Church of Christ 
 
20 
 
 in Ireland even worse than it now meditates to do to it in 
 England. * * * 
 
 * * The y ear 1833 witnessed the spectacle of an ancient 
 
 and independent Christian church, teaching the way of God in 
 truth, loyal and faithful to the civil government, in the midst of 
 assaults from its enemies, being singled out by that same govern- 
 ment as an object for insult, tyranny, and sacrilege, to vent 
 themselves upon ; — its apostolic government superseded by a 
 new state commission ; the whole of its endowments transferred 
 to that commission ; and ten of its bishoprics annihilated at one 
 blow ; while almost the whole church and nation of England 
 stood by in silence, and scarcely raised a voice against such re- 
 volting impiety.” — p. 46. 
 
 Mr. Perceval is consistent in denouncing the present plan ; so 
 is Sir Robert Inglis ; so is Sir Robert Peel : but Lord Stanley 
 can only claim the merit of good intentions ; and methinks he 
 might shew a little more forbearance and a little more Christian 
 charity for those who still retain the opinions wdiich he has seen 
 reason to abandon. 
 
 Before I conclude, permit me, my Lord, very respectfully, to 
 ask your Lordship again to consider whether it may not be for 
 the peace of the Church and the advantage of religion to accept 
 the offer now made. Can the present system of Church Rates 
 efficiently and beneficially continue ? Mr. Perceval says, in the 
 publication to wffiich I have before referred, that the existing 
 state of the law has occasioned clamour and confusion through- 
 out the kingdom, — that it has disturbed the peace of number- 
 less parishes, — turned the temples of God into election booths, 
 and substituted the fiercest ebullitions of base party spirit for the 
 solemn and holy devotion which befits Christian men when 
 engaged in a subject so nearly affecting the honour of Almighty 
 God, as the repairing and decently providing for his house of 
 prayer. 
 
 These crying evils, I am afraid, are likely to be aggravated, 
 and there is a danger that in many parishes the Church Rate, 
 upon its present footing, may prove wholly inadequate to its 
 purpose — that there may be no available fund for the repair 
 of churches — and that by opposing this measure the lamentable 
 consequence may follow (which is falsely charged to be the wish 
 of its promoters,) that those venerable edifices, under which the 
 ashes of our forefathers repose, and which are so closely con- 
 nected with all the most solemn circumstances of our own 
 earthly career, and with our eternal hopes, may become a heap 
 of ruins. 
 

 Your Lordship calls for a more stringent law to enforce the 
 t payment of Church Rates. Read the stringent code for the 
 I payment of Irish tithes, and remember how it has operated. 
 
 There is proposed a certain and safe substitute for Church 
 .Rates, which, when the details of the measure are adjusted, 
 
 [ may be applied without loss, and without injury to any one. 
 Your Lordship asks, whether the new created fund belongs to 
 the State or the Church ? I might answer in the words of a 
 distinguished nobleman, “ I say to the State but whether it 
 belong to the State or the Church, quacunque via data , its 
 destination is legitimate. If it belongs to the State, the State 
 may apply it to a purpose beneficial to the community, and akin 
 to the purpose for which the property was originally intended. 
 If it belongs to the Church, it may be fairly applied to any ec- 
 clesiastical purpose : and surely it is an ecclesiastical purpose 
 :o repair the fabric of the house of God, and to provide for the 
 lecent celebration of religious worship, according to the rites and 
 ceremonies of the established religion. 
 
 The most plausible objection to the plan certainly is, that 
 :he fund might be advantageously employed in augmenting 
 small livings and extending religious instruction. I hope there 
 may soon be a surplus applicable to this laudable object ; but 
 is it not true wisdom, before proceeding to new endowments to 
 secure the efficiency of those which we already possess ? 
 
 The men who say that church lands are for ever to continue 
 be held, and let on their present footing, are not to be reasoned 
 I will venture to say that this is the worst species of 
 for all concerned that ever was invented. Copyhold 
 [fine, according to the improved value, is bad enough, and 
 " een encouraged by eminent men of all parties in the 
 efforts to improve it. But there the tenant is en- 
 e to a renewal from the lord on payment of his 
 the church lessee has no right recognised at 
 after the expiration of his term, and the Bishop 
 leases, run his life against the lives in the lease, 
 iconditions he pleases for a renewal. The equit- 
 icnt of copyholds would be no injury to lords 
 nfranchisement of church lands would be no 
 there being reserved to every dignitary 
 full amount of his present income upon 
 
 ced comparatively little inconveni- 
 ure, but is now becoming daily 
 t improvements are taking place 
 
3 0112 07782842 
 
 rapid! 
 3d pro 
 
 
 wherever there is 
 growing populatio " 
 duee of the soil. 
 
 I conceive that the great principle of legislation is to make 
 laws harmonize with the altered circumstances of the times 
 Church Rates themselves, w r hen first submitted to, were nc \ 
 unequal or unjust. Would the tax have been originally sane 
 tioned, if, in the reign of Edward I. a large proportion of thos*. 
 who were to pay it had dissented from the established religior 
 and had been permitted to erect and to maintain places of reli 
 gious worship of their own. In the present state of society k 
 it right, that no man, wdiatever his religious creed may be, ca 
 occupy a cottage, or a warehouse, or a shop, without being liabl 
 to be assessed to the Church Rate ? It has been supposed the 1 
 this liability is only incurred by choice when a man purchase J 
 an estate ; but, falling upon the occupier, no man in the realn 
 who cultivates a patch of land, or is in possession of any build \ 
 ing for habitation or business, can avoid it. 
 
 Sir Robert Peel himself, although for different reasons, haj 
 pronounced the tax unequal and unjust. Is there any chanc j 
 then of its continuing much longer ? 
 
 If I have in any degree succeeded in shewing to your Lord | 
 ship, that it partakes of the voluntary principle (which I agre ‘ 
 with you cannot be relied upon for supptying adequate religiou i 
 instruction to the population of this country,) I may have in* 
 duced your Lordship to regard more favourably a certain, fixeci 
 permanent, legal provision by the State for the repair of relis 
 edifices and the decent celebration of divine worship — r 
 pending on “ the caprice of the vestry” or the relative 
 tioiM of Churchmen and Dissenters in any parish. 
 
 I *can only express my firm conviction, that if the « 
 tion of tithes were followed up by this healing meas j 
 a substitute for Church Rates, the possibility of af 
 between Churchmen and Dissenters being obviated 
 to the Church vrould die aw r ay, and religious peacj 
 would prevail throughout the land. 
 
 Seel quis erit modus ? aut quo nunc certamina t^ 
 
 Quin potius pacem seternam- 
 Exercemus. 
 
 I have the honour to be 
 My Lord, 
 
 Your Lordshi: 
 
 Temple, March 31, 1837.