The majority of mankind are more affected by visible distinctions than by differences on matters of opinion. And when those who have been educated in the bosom of the Church, shall hereafter find, that to leave her communion will draw with it a renunciation of all the rites of the Church: rites associated in a peculiar degree, with all the best and tenderest feelings of our nature, and to which the great body of the people are attached, from long and immemorial usage, if from no other motive:-they will at least reflect before they quit the religious profession of their fathers; and require better reasons for the sacrifices they must make, than those which now, for the most part, decide their choice.

I have to apologize to you, my Reverend Brethren, for the length to which these remarks have extended; but having said thus much to you, on the general policy of Church Rates, I must, I fear, still further intrude upon your time and patience, while I address a few observations to the Churchwardens on the present state of the law, as affecting this important question; and I am the rather induced to do so, because the particular view of the subject which I have always taken, appears to have escaped attention.

The question is supposing the majority of the parishioners assembled in vestry to refuse a rate for the necessary repairs of the Church,

which they are by common law obliged to maintain, is there any power of compelling them to perform this duty? This is the question; but the point commonly put, is very different from this--namely, whether, in the case where a majority of the parishioners have refused a rate, the Churchwardens, possess the power, under their own authority, of making one?

Now about this last point, there are many and serious doubts; but about the former, my opinion (which, however, you will receive, Gentlemen, with due allowance, remembering that my profession is not that of a lawyer,) is, that there are not any.

It is admitted on all hands that it is the duty of the Churchwardens to repair the Church, and that they are responsible to the ordinary for the performance of this duty. The Churchwardens are likewise, in the first instance, (as is not denied,) the judges, both as to the necessity and the extent of the repairs required, as also of the amount of the rate which is to be levied. But is it to be inferred, therefore, that the parishioners have no voice in these matters? That surely would not be agreeable to reason, nor is it, I apprehend, agreeable to law. In case the parishioners, assembled in vestry, should think the repairs not necessary, or too extensive, or the estimate too high, they have no doubt the power of withholding their

sanction, not as against the principle of a rate, but as against the judgment of the Churchwardens in this particular case, who, in such circumstances, must appeal to the ordinary. The real question, then, is, whether in this supposed case, the refusal of the parishioners, can be pleaded as a bar to such repairs, when ordered under the authority of the Archdeacon? This appears to me to be the true question. It is not, as is commonly stated, a question between the parishioners and the Churchwardens, but a question between the parishioners and the Archdeacon. And putting the case in this way, it is one, Gentlemen, on which I feel myself entitled to speak with some confidence, because since my appointment to the office which I have the honor to hold, I have twice brought the question to issue as far as I could, and on both occasions my authority was affirmed.

At the first Parochial Visitation, which I held at Coggeshall, the orders which I left behind me with the Churchwardens, were disputed in the vestry. The Churchwardens appealed to me for advice. Thereupon, I renewed the orders which I had before given them, and desired them to take the dissentients into the Ecclesiastical Court:--at the same time putting into their hands a written guarantee, purporting to bear them harmless against all costs, in case the decision of the Court should not be in their favour.

On this, a second vestry was summoned; and it was agreed to take the opinion of a certain learned judge (who at that time was not the member for the Tower Hamlets:) and then, his opinion was, that the parishioners of Coggeshall must submit to the orders of the Archdeacon: which accordingly was done.

The next case, Gentlemen, was that of Wix, in the Tendring Hundred. Here the parishioners did not refuse to repair the Church, but denied my authority to compel them to appoint Churchwardens. I directed a vestry to be called for the purpose of taking the sense of the parish upon the question; which was assembled accordingly, and the majority came to a determination not to admit my authority, nor comply with my decree.

As Churchwardens are considered to be civil and not ecclesiastical officers, I was in this case compelled to proceed against the parish in the Courts of Common Law. I applied, therefore, for a mandamus, which was granted accordingly; and the result was, that Churchwardens were forthwith appointed.

Now, Gentlemen, I consider that though the first of these cases, does not affirm the power of the Churchwardens to levy a rate, under their own authority, yet it goes to establish that authority, upon an appeal to the Archdeacon.

And the second case, is also clear to the point, that the common law of England, which

calls upon all parishes to repair their Church, and for this purpose to elect Churchwardens, cannot be defeated simply by the non-consent of the Parishioners.

Having stated thus much, Gentlemen, I will not detain you longer, except to say, that I hope, by the blessing of God, to hold a Parochial Visitation, in the Archdeaconry, next year, preparatory to the Bishop's Visitation; and when that time comes, if the law remains upon its present footing, I shall be found ready to try the question here considered with any parish, that shall think fit to demur to my authority.

PRINTED BY H. HARDACRE, HADLEIGH.