Talk:Church rate

Opposition to Church Rate
I am descended from Thomas H. Boykett, secretary of a co-ordinating committee formed in London to abolish the Church Rate. I have some information at http://www.douglaidlaw.net/boykett/rates.html, and the beginnings of a book at http://www.douglaidlaw.net/boykett/boykettbook.pdf  Please feel free to use any of my info. I would much rather that you blend it in how you want. Douglaid (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Since Boykett had left England in 1853, the Church Rate was no longer his concern, and I didn't follow its later history. Reading between the lines in http://www.hampsteadparishchurch.org.uk/data/vol_rate.php, the 1868 Act is still in force, and parishes continue to levy a Church Rate. The Hampstead Parish Church levied such a rate in 1986, and to quote from that page: "The response was so good and the feedback so positive that we have continued to raise this rate every year since." This would bring your page up to date, as the Editors no doubt want.Douglaid (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I am unclear now about whether the Government did contribute anything. Ellens (my only authority) says that it was thought that if the Church Rate were abolished, parish revenues would be insufficient and would need to be supplemented by Parliament. One proposal was to replace the Church Rate by an allocation from Land Tax. The Dissenters didn't like that either, because their taxes were still funding the C of E. Dissenters wanted the C of E to be supoported by its own adherents. Russell thought that every good Englishman should be glad to support a fine English institution. Wheels within wheels! It is getting too far from the purpose of the article.

Perhaps replace the whole paragraph with the following?

"The objections of the Nonconformists were not only on principle. They did not want to have to support another parish as well as their own. Enforcement of the rate was not uniform across the country. Resolutions were passed protesting against the rate, and societies to abolish the church rate were formed all over the country. The following example, from Barnstaple, Cornwall, is perhaps typical.

Church Rates - A Public Meeting of the inhabitants of Barnstaple, was held last week, on the subject of Church Rates, when the following Resolution was carried unanimously: "That this meeting regarding all compulsory payments for the support of religion impolite and unscriptural, feel themselves called upon deliberately to protest against church rates - as oppressive to the conscientious dissenter, who supports his own minister and place of worship - degrading to the churchman, by implying an unwillingness to support the church he conscientiously approves; and in their influence on society - unfriendly to its peace and religious advancement."

It was further determined to petition the House of Commons on the subject; and an Anti-Church Rate Society was formed.

Source of the resolution is http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~wbritonad/cornwall/1837/misc/jan.html

I like my other quote, where they won't pay until the curate gets the sack, but it doesn't belong here. Douglaid (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm looking at this question because of your helpme tag, but since I'm not familiar with this topic, I'm not a good person to answer it. I'd suggest posting a link to this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglicanism (or on the talk page of another relevant WikiProject) to ask for opinions from people familiar with the topic. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd say the "supported by Parliament" refers to the Church rate itself, though that should be clarified. For Douglaid's draft we'd need better sources; in particular we'd need a secondary source calling the Barnstaple example typical. I too am not an expert and can only second Dreamyshade's suggestion to get WT:WikiProject Anglicanism involved. Huon (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It was implied by an article I read. The Barnstaple resolustion suggests that the congregation was self-supporting. The article "Properties and finances of the Church of England" implies that the Church was never financially supported. I will check my sources.

Boykett himself was a man of some complexity, a Congregationalist, with an administration job in their Church, then became a lawyer, then migrated to South Australia with Benjamin Boothby the second Supreme Court Judge. Boothby's son William introduced the secret ballot in Australia. He was my ancestor's Best Man. Is the father worth an entry in Wikipedia? I have a family history half written, and probably won't finish it. Douglaid (talk) 06:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

poor relief
can someone please clarify? was parochial poor relief also financed by the church rate? i had always assumed so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.50.43.208 (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Uninformative
Their is very little about the actual Church Rate, how it was administrated over the centuries, the mechanisms ( who actually received the yearly ( ? ) sums from each parishioner, how the result was divided ( eg: X to the Rector, X to each Curate, X to Church Fabric, X to Gravediggers etc. etc. X to the Diocese ), and much on whiny nonconformists objecting to its existence.

How did it differ from Tithes etc. ( which were objected to by whiny farmers ) ?

And it ends: ''Eventually, in 1868, the Compulsory Church Rates Abolition Act was passed. By this Act church rates are no longer compulsory on the person rated, but are merely voluntary,'' I have never heard of this ( despite living in Britain mostly ). If they are voluntary they are no longer a tax, even on believers; and how do they differ from donations to one's church ?

And face it, whether Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim, Methodist or Jew, every congregation throughout history has had to financially support it's pastor and temple: to suppose the C of E was being unfair is weird. [ And I am not a christian. ] Claverhouse (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)