and there then will be little need to encourage them to liberality: their own sense of duty will tell them, and their own conscience bear them witness, that as the care of God's house ought to be their first duty, so no expenditure produces such heartfelt pleasure, as that which is devoted to the public honour of God.

I have already alluded to the difficulties which meet us in the repair of our Churches, from the uncertain state of the Church-rate question. It may be allowed me to make some few observations both upon that question generally, and upon the state of the law respecting it, as affected by the recent decision in the Court of Queen's Bench upon the Braintree case. Were we to inquire into the origin of these difficulties, we should perceive that it is owing to the concurrence of two distinct and remarkable changes, one in the condition of the Church, the other in that of the State. The first change to which I allude, is the multiplication of Churches in populous parishes, a measure which. though fraught with blessings to the inhabitants, was necessarily accompanied by increased demand upon the revenues of those parishes, under the head of Church-rates. We all know what influence any man, however mean his rank, however sordid his principles, is able to acquire amongst his fellowparishioners, when he sets himself up as the protector of rights. And if the cause he pleads be apparently

identified with private benefit, it is not surprising that large bodies of men should be carried away by the zealous exertions of one, who seems to be in all respects their friend. The opposition to Church-rates accordingly appears to me to have first arisen in the active endeavours which were made by persons of this description in some populous parishes, first to prevent the number of Churches from being increased, and afterwards to save the parishes from the charge of maintaining them, when, in spite of this unholy opposition, they had been actually erected, and bestowed as a national gift upon parishes, in several of which men were not ashamed publicly to avow that they wanted no more Clergy or Churches. The second change which I have to mention, is that alteration in the principle of the English constitution, by which first Dissenters, and then Roman Catholics, were admitted to legislate for that Church, the alteration and the destruction of which we are bound to believe, that the sincere Dissenter and the true Roman Catholic cannot but most earnestly desire. I will not detain you with recalling to your mind, what solemn pledges were given during the progress of that measure, that the immunities of the Church should be inviolate, what disavowals of all intention to injure and impair the Established Church were made by men of all ranks and sects and parties, what halcyon days of harmony and peace and public concord were foretold; is it too

much to say that the Church was, if not betrayed, yet deceived; that the promises have been broken, and the prophecies have failed? We cannot be at all surprised, that the opponents of our Church and our religion should have been ready to make the most of such circumstances and advantages; and it is due to their wisdom and sagacity to admit that their plans for taking the fortress of the Church, as it were by assault, were most ably laid. They well knew that the Church-rate question was a vital point, that upon the continuance of the liability of the parishioners to repair the parish churches, what I may term the Nationality of the Church, depends; and that if one of two measures could be achieved, either that the Churches should be repaired out of the means provided by an annual vote of Parliament, or that the making a Churchrate should be acknowledged to be only a voluntary act of the parishioners, and not a legal duty, the Church would at once be reduced to the condition of a sect dependent for the support of its Churches upon the precarious bounty of Parliament, or the good-will of popular vestries. Happily, the first of the two schemes was found by some of our greatest statesmen to be, from various causes, of which they were not aware, quite impracticable; and as to the second grand endeavour made under the sanction of men of high rank and station, to persuade the country that Church-rates

B

were the result of modern encroachment by the clergy, and that the people were not compellable by law to repair their churches; although it has been effectual to stop the collection of Church-rates in some few places, and to hinder the use of them in others; still, on the whole, it has done more good than evil. It has made men reflect, what would be the consequence, if the support of the churches depended upon the caprice of popular assemblies, or the revocable vote of Parliament; it has compelled us openly to teach the truth, that the building and sustaining of churches is not merely a duty but a privilege of the highest value; and, above all, it has justified the Church in appealing for the defence of her rights to the authority of the law, and has put to shame the senseless clamour, which pretended that the enforcement of a Church-rate was a religious persecution. It has become evident that the Church is, in truth, the unoffending but persecuted party.

With respect to the decision lately pronounced by the Court of Queen's Bench, in the Braintree case, I confess myself unable to sympathize with those who consider that the rights or interests of the Established Church are weakened by that decision. I see little in it which, on the part of the Church, we need regret; and certainly still less that can be cause for rejoicing to our opponents. I have formed this opinion, not from newspaper reports or doubtful authority, but from a careful

perusal of the judgment itself, a copy of which I have procured. The point which the Court decided was this: It had been held, that since the Churchwardens were liable to be cited into the Ecclesiastical Court, and to be punished for not doing the necessary repairs of the church, they had, therefore, authority, if the parishioners should refuse to make a rate, to make a rate themselves; for otherwise, if the Churchwardens were punishable for not repairing the church, and the parishioners were to escape from the obligation which the law lays upon them, there would be a wrong without a remedy. The question, then, was simply this,— Can the Churchwardens make a rate when a majority of the parishioners refuse it?

The Churchwardens of Braintree had made such a rate under such circumstances; the Court of Queen's Bench has decided that they have no such power, and that a rate so made is illegal. But it must be observed, that the Court of Queen's Bench, in pronouncing this judgment, took pains to show that its decision would not, as our opponents would gladly discover, unsettle the law of Church-rate, or leave it to the caprice of the parishioners, to determine whether they would have their churches repaired or not. For the Court of Queen's Bench has laid it plainest terms, and as a truth, which no one ventured to dispute in the course of the argument, that

down in the