網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

12. Can you give information as to any such registers in the possession of private persons? Communicate all the information in your power.

[A certificate, copies of which may be had at the commissioners' office, accompanies the circular, which is to be signed by the minister, trustee, &c., and sets forth the description, custody, and other particulars of the books in question.]

DUTY OF CHURCHWARDENS TO MAKE A RATE.

Consistory Court, Tuesday, January 17.

THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE PROMOTED BY MILLER AND SIMES
AGAINST PALMER AND KILBY.

DR. LUSHINGTON gave sentence in this case, which was argued last term, and
reported in the Times of December 20. It was a proceeding, in the criminal
form, by the churchwardens of the parish of St. Alban, Wood-street, against
those of St. Olave, Silver-street, (which are united parishes,) for alleged dis-
obedience of the orders of the archdeacon at the visitation, and for refusing to
concur with the former parish in making a rate for the repairs of the church.
The learned judge repeated what he had said on the former occasion, that he
had nothing to do with the question as to the funds said to be possessed by
the parish of St. Alban applicable to the repairs of the church; that was a
question for the Court of Chancery. The question he had to decide was,
whether the churchwardens of St. Olave had been guilty of a breach of duty?
but it was of importance that he should not, by the decision he came to on
this occasion, give countenance to an erroneous impression that this Court
had not the power to punish churchwardens. With respect to the repairing
of the church, he could express his opinion that, according to authorities to be
depended on, this Court had adequate authority to punish the neglect by
churchwardens of any part of the duties committed to them.
The present
case was complicated, by reason of the union of the two parishes; but in ordi-
nary cases, if a church was out of repair, and, à fortiori, if the archdeacon had
ordered its repair, there were two courses of proceeding; first, if the church-
wardens wilfully disobeyed and neglected to take the legal means to repair
the church, a criminal proceeding might be instituted against them for neglect
of duty, and this Court would punish them; secondly, if no fault was person-
ally attributable to the churchwardens, but a question arose as to the propriety
of the repairs, or if the churchwardens were willing to do their duty, but
some obstacle occurred which it was out of their power to overcome, the
proper form would be to proceed in a civil form. To this conclusion he had
come, partly from authorities, and partly from the reason of the thing. Thus,
if to a monition calling upon the churchwardens to repair the church, they
should return that they had called a vestry, and that the vestry had refused a
rate, the case would be ripe for the most mature consideration of the Court,
whether it was competent to direct the churchwardens to make a rate, con-
trary to the resolution of the vestry, and by their own authority, or whether
a more proper course would be, to resort to the superior authority of the Court
of King's Bench. But, so far as personal delinquency went, the churchwardens,
having called a vestry, would be exculpated; for nothing was more clear than
that churchwardens were not bound—and that, indeed, it would be illegal-
to expend their own money, or to incur debt. The question would then arise,
whether by law churchwardens were entitled, and this Court could compel
them, to make a rate against the regulation of the vestry by their own autho-
rity? This, which was one of the most important and difficult questions
which had ever come before the Court, had not been attempted to be argued
on this occasion, and he would give no opinion upon it; and it would be im-

possible for the Court to express any opinion upon it until it had been most deliberately and maturely considered. To come back to the only question he had to determine—whether the churchwardens had been guilty of a dereliction of duty-he must look at the articles exhibited against them, which amounted to this: that the church was out of repair; that in October, 1835, the archdeacon had ordered repairs to be done, and the delictum alleged against the churchwardens was, that they had refused to agree to the report of the committee appointed to consider what repairs were necessary, and had refused to sign a contract for the same. This was the breach of duty alleged, and he was not prepared to say that the churchwardens were bound to do either one or the other. He knew of no authority which had laid down that churchwardens, under any circumstances, were bound to sign any contract by which they rendered themselves personally liable; he apprehended the law was the contrary. He was of opinion, therefore, that the two special charges fell to the ground; and it came to this :-could he, because the church was out of repair, and because the archdeacon had ordered it to be repaired, infer a wilful disobedience by the churchwardens? It appeared to him that every principle of justice militated against such an inference. If the churchwardens had refused to call a vestry to make a rate, or had had money in hand, he should have considered that a substantive ground of charge, and a direct proof of dereliction of duty; but not only was there no such charge, but it appeared, indirectly, from the exhibits, that a vestry had actually been called before the decree was returned in this cause in order to make a rate; what was done at the vestry did not appear in legal evidence. He (the learned judge) was of opinion, that unless the mere fact of a church being out of repair was sufficient to justify the Court in punishing the churchwardens, there was no delictum in the case, and he must therefore dismiss the parties from the suit. He was bound also to give them their costs; for it would be unjust to persons bound to perform onerous duties, if they were not protected in pari materia with magistrates and others, where no criminality attached to their conduct. There were other reasons which operated on his mind; he did not think that this proceeding, from the period when it was commenced, could have been used for any remedial purpose; for new churchwardens were elected a few days only after the decree was taken out; so that it was impossible the decree could be enforced against the preceding officers. Again, the facts had not been fully stated in the articles which it was the duty of the promoters to bring before the Court; such as, that the churchwardens had called a vestry. With respect to the alternative prayer for a decree against the present churchwardens, he could not ingraft on this suit any proceedings against persons not parties to it. But he was willing to go as far as the Court possessed authority to compel the repair of the church; and on an affidavit stating that the church was out of repair, and that the archdeacon had ordered it to be repaired, he would grant a monition against the present churchwardens to shew cause.

CHURCH MATTERS.

PASTORAL AID SOCIETY.

THE deliberations of this society have ended in resolving to retain lay agency. It is, therefore, a principle laid down by the society, that one of the appointed means of spreading the knowledge of the gospel is, by the teaching of uncommissioned, unordained, men. And they who hold this doctrine still account themselves churchmen.

After what was said last month as to this matter, it cannot be necessary to go again into the principle of a lay ministry; but very much and of a gloomy character must have been said, if time had

permitted, respecting this decision of the Pastoral Aid Society as a sign of the times. It cannot be much doubted that there is a large class of laity, active and religious men, who call themselves churchmen, but who see with something of envy the great power possessed by rich dissenters in regulating the worship and ruling the teachers of their sects. They wish for the same power themselves. They wish to have a share, and a large share, in the management of the church's spiritual as well as temporal affairs, and societies are the most admirable instruments for effecting their designs. They can always, by a little activity, get the lead in them, and thus get to a degree of management in the church. But what will be the end of all this? What will be the result, when societies are ranged against the large majority of the bishops on points of church discipline, and will go their own way? Will not some of the higher minded of the lay leaders consider where they must end, if they pursue their present line with consistency?

CHURCH-RATES.

THE abolition of church-rates is to be, it seems, the cheval de bataille of the dissenters this session. Their campaign opened with a meeting at the City of London Tavern, on February the 2nd, which was said, by some person or other, to be highly respectable, especially in the department of M.P.s. On looking at the list of names given in the "Times," out of about a dozen, most of whom could hardly belong to a higher class than the "fortemque Gyan fortemque Cloanthum," the following appeared as the most prominent :-Mr. Hume, Mr. D. W. Harvey, Dr. Bowring, Mr. T. Duncombe, Mr. Sharman Crawford, who were very properly headed by their chairman, Mr. C. Lushington. About four hundred delegates, from different parts of England, attended the meeting, probably members or ministers of dissenting congregations; and, on the following day, they paraded the streets on a mission to the government, four abreast. The whole matter turned out rather flatly; but it is reported that 14,000 petitions left London about the middle of February in order to be returned filled up, as per order, by the dissenting interest in the country. They seem to be calling spirits from the deep; but the spirits are slow in answering. After the dull field-day in London, with no support but the old standards of radicalism, there was an attempt at a meeting in Bath, which mustered about three hundred people in a city of sixty thousand inhabitants. At Brighton another failure took place, the numbers being about two hundred (and those chiefly mechanics) in a population of at least forty thousand. At Birmingham there was another failure also. This does not look very symptomatic of much pressure from without. Other failures have also taken place; while it remains to be seen what will be done by petitions on the other side of the question. Highly respectable meetings have been held in dif ferent parts of England in support of church-rates. At Bath, for instance, and Exeter, there is reason to believe that petitions are pretty extensively in preparation, and will be signed only, or chiefly, by those who are subject to these rates. At the meeting in support

of church-rates at Bath, the speeches of Sir W. Cockburn and the Rev. E. Tottenham deserve reprinting for separate distribution. An admirable petition, signed (as we are informed on unimpeachable authority) by almost every inhabitant of any weight or respectability, has been forwarded from Wolverhampton. A Sussex paper of Feb. 23rd, mentions petitions against the abolition of church-rates from Horsham, Eastbourne, and Hastings; and the papers of every day mention numerous petitions already presented in the House of Lords. The petition from Manchester against church-rates, so yaunted at the City of London Tavern meeting, was signed, indeed, by upwards of thirty-five thousand persons; but by how many rate-payers Mr. Lushington did not inform the meeting. Some of the delegates came from Scotland, where there are no church-rates; and it certainly is difficult to say what those who do not pay rates can have to do with abolishing them.

In Exeter a highly-respectable and influential meeting of the laity was held lately in support of church-rates, and it was determined to print two thousand copies of Mr. King's speech at Chelmsford. That speech is so valuable, as coming from a dissenter, that it is reprinted here.

The following Report is taken from the "Standard" Newspaper. ON Wednesday, Jan. 18th, agreeably to public notice, a meeting of the inhabitants of Chelmsford took place, to consider a church-rate, required by the churchwardens, the rate of the 1st of August having been abandoned. The Rev. C. A. ST. JOHN MILDMAY, the Rector, was in the chair. A very warm opposition was offered to the granting of the rate, the Rev. Mr. Gray, the minister of the Independent Chapel, heading the anti-church party. The Essex Standard furnishes a very interesting report of the proceedings, including some excellent addresses from Dr. Badeley, Mr. Bartlett, &c. We are, however, compelled to confine ourselves to the following speech of Mr. King, a truly independent and enlightened dissenter :

MR. KING, Surgeon.-Unaccustomed as I am to take a part in parochial affairs, I feel it my duty to come forward on the present occasion. I consider that the question on which we are convened to decide, and the consequences that may follow from that decision, are so intimately connected with the preservation of the peace and order of the town, that I feel it not only necessary to come forward and vote in favour of the rate, but also to give my reasons for differing from that part of the community with which I am considered generally to act, and for whom I entertain a sense of great personal respect. I support this rate, because, from the observations that have fallen from Mr. Butler, I am satisfied, though I have not seen the estimate, that the rate is required to keep the church in decent repair. This is no time for the lavish expenditure of the public money; and if any person who may be opposed to this rate convinces me that any of the rate is wanted for useless ornament, I should not vote for it; but it is tacitly admitted by those who are opposed to it, that the sum is wanted for the worship of God, and the preservation of his sanctuary. I think that great good arises in this country from the existence of a church establishment; and if any one has opposed a rate on the ground of profuse expenditure, they have now abandoned it. From the observations made to-day, it seems that they have taken what may be considered higher ground. Mr. Gray says he opposes the church-rates because he considers them anti-scriptural; and my friend, Mr. Wells, opposes them. because he considers them almost a tax on the consciences of the dissenters. Now I will beg to make a few observations on both those points; and first of

church-rates being anti-scriptural. Mr. Gray maintained that there is nothing in the bible to countenance a church-rate. Mr. Gray says that we do not now live under the old dispensation. I grant that; but if he turns to the bible, he will find that occasional calls were made on the property of the Jews for the maintenance of the temple. We read in Ezra that under Cyrus all were taxed for the rebuilding of the temple; and that this was not an act of which God disapproved is shewn by the language of his prophet, when he calls Cyrus his servant. It is said that we do not find in the New Testament any mention of a national church; the reason of this is obvious; none of the governments of the earth having been then converted to Christianity; but, reasoning from analogy, if any of them had been converted, they would have been found maintaining a national religion, and kings would have become its nursing fathers, and queens its nursing mothers. I argue this the more, because the other day, in reading the last book of the bible-(that of Malachi)-I there saw a curse pronounced on the people of Israel, because they had not paid those rights those tithes-those contributions towards the maintenance of the religion of the country-which they ought. Here the old dispensation was about to expire, and the last prophet who wrote under it had spoken of the coming of the Messiah; and yet the duty of supporting a national religion was as much enforced by that prophet as it was by Moses, who was the first that wrote on the subject. So much for church-rates being anti-scriptural. And now with regard to the act of injustice in compelling us dissenters to pay for the support of a national religion: I am at a loss to know what is meant by it. Living in a country professedly Christian, we expect that the government will be Christian; and that they should consider it a duty to provide such religious instruction for the people as they deem most expedient-the best calculated to promote their eternal happiness. So far from the dissenter saying this is an injustice, I will say that the moment a government ceases to make this provision, it ceases to be Christian. It leaves the discharge of one of its first duties to others, and betrays the confidence placed in it by the friends of peace, order, morality, and religion. I am at a loss to understand how individuals can think it right to set up their own private judgment as to the payment of taxes for religious instruction; why, they might, by the same rule, think it very wrong to pay any tax which had for its object the promotion of social order and the defence of the country. This is all involved in the same principle; that which demands obedience to one law, demands it to all. If I admit to-day that a person may refuse payment of a tax for promoting religious instruction, because it is not precisely the sort of instruction which he best approves, I can see no reason why I may not be called on to-morrow to admit that he may refuse to pay a tax for the defence of the country, because it is not conducted in the manner most accordant with his feelings. If a man refuse to pay a tax for religious instruction because it is not in accordance with his opinion, I repeat that I see no reason why he should not be permitted to refuse to pay a tax for the support of social order and the administration of justice, because it is not administered in the way the most pleasant and congenial to his feelings. If the government protect me from insult, and secure to me the enjoyment of my opinions as a dissenter, and permit me to do that which my Bible tells me I may do, and an interference with which I should resist-if the government suffer me to worship God according to the dictates of my own conscience, I am satisfied, and I never should accuse it of injustice because it compelled me to pay my fair proportion towards the religious instruction of the country. So much for the injustice of the thing. Much has been said with regard to the folly of the church-rate, and that it is an unfair tax. The advocates of the voluntary system have told us, that if acted on it would produce enough to meet the demands, or rather the exigencies of the country. Now let me examine the truth of this. It must be considered a gratuitous assumption, for this country has never been left, thank Heaven, to the mercy of the voluntary principle. But they say it has been

« 上一頁繼續 »