The Sun.
London, England, 1837-11-11 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 1837

£a3,800
'Which with the voluntary subscriptions of those pious
persons who wished for the new church, and who, no
doubt, subscribed in proportion to the sincerity of their
wi.,-.hes, and also including a gift from the Board of First
F ruits, cannot leave less than 80,0001. expended (?) in build-
ing a church which, 1 am informed, might be completed for
20,000/., ti ith a liberal remuneration to the architect. Yet
the assessinent or imposition still continues, and no pa-
rishioner is allowed to hope that it may not continue for
seven years longer, unless the Legislature interpose to re-
lieve the Establishment from such a stigma!
It is unnecessary to state here the circumstances that
made a Catholic parishioner, inhabiting a house built since
1814, acquainted with this state of things. Suffice it to
say, that before he looked into the St. George's Acts, he
paid the church-building cep, With the Minister's money,
and other cesses imposed by vestries, because be believed
himself bound by law to do sa. But after becoming suffi-
ciently acquainted with these Acts—namely, 33 Geo. 111.,
c. 53, Irish ; 46 Geo. 111., c. 123 ; and 54 Geo. 111., c. 78,
Local and Pers.—herein-before stated sufficiently at large
to convey a correct notion of their entire and full meaning,
he considered himself not liable in law to pay the Church-
building cess, though he has paid and still pays the Minis-
ter's money, and other legal rates. He accordingly refused,
' and was sued by civil bill, in the Court of the Chairman
of the County of Dublin, at last Easter Sessions.
Ile appeared by Counsel, who denied the liability, under
any law now in existence, or under any undertaking or
agreement entered into by the defendant, or any person for
him, to pay this rate.
First—Because the Church Temporalities Act (3 and 4
W. IV., c. 37) had repealed the St. George's Acts (if ever
binding on defendant) by its 65th section, which declares,
that " from and after the commencement of this Act, it
shall not be lawful for any vestry, called or holden in or for
any parish, union, or chapelry, or place, in Ireland, or for
any person or persons, to make or levy any rate or assess
nzent for any Church purposes whatsoever." The language
of this section is so plain, that no doubt could exist about
the matter, had not Mr. Littleton (now Lord Hatherton),
Secretary for Ireland, when this Act was passed, declared
that the Legislature did not intend interfering with St.
George's Church Building-rates ; and neither the St.
George's Acts already alluded to are mentioned amongst
the Statutes repealed by the Church Temporalities Act,
nor is any provision made therein for the payment of the
debt of the parish of St. George. These are the grounds
upon which it is denied, that the Church Temporalities Act
could have abrogated the laws of this parish. On the
other hand, it was shown that that Act repealed altogether
the, Irish Vestry Act (7th Geo. IV., c. 72), which Ves-
try Act had repealed and substituted new provisions for
the Acts 3d Geo. 11., and c. 11, and 21st and 22d Geo.
111 , c. 52, on which two last-mentioned Acts the trustees
of St. George's parish depended upon their powers of Ves-
try ; and according to which they were bound to account
for the rates and cesses which they bad been authorised to
make and levy, Ly 46th Geo. 111., c. 123. (See Section
10 and 20 of this last-mentioned Act.) Now, if the Sta-
tutes vesting in the trustees powers of a Vestry, and ren-
dering them accountable for the monies levied thereunder,
have been amended, and new provisions substituted for
them ; and if these new provisions have been since absolutely
repealed and abolished, and other provisions made in lieu
thereof, it is strange if the trustees can still continue to levy
2,250/. annually, and appropriate it without being ac-
countable !

yV
Secopdly—Because the St. George's Acts are local and
personal, that is Private Acts of Parliament, and as such
only binding on those who were parties thereto directly or
indirectly, but nonbinding on strangers. Several houses in
the parish have been built since the passing of these Acts,
and arc inhabited by persons who were not all inhabitants
at the periods al:uded to, who could not directly or indi-
rectly be parties thereto, and w ere consequently strangers.
The Acts themselves do not affect to regard them other-
wise, inasmuch as they contain no words, such as " here-
after to be built," like those to be found in the Minister's
Money Acts, or the Acts intended to bind strangers or in-
habitants of new houses. And the doctrine as to the con-
struction of Private Acts is, that they are always regarded
as contracts binding only on those who have sued for them,
or been parties to their enactment. Conformably to this
doctrine, both Ilouses of Parliament have certain orders,
requiring all persons who may in the most smote degree
be affected by Private Bills, to have notice thereof, before
they are passed into a law. The inhabitants of St. George's
parish, in the years 1806 and 1814, may have all had due
notice of the passing of the Acts in question, and they, or
the majority of them, may have actually assented, or be sup-
posed to assent thereto, so far as to bind themselves and
their successors in the houses then in the parish. But how
could individuals, perhaps not then born, without predecessors
•in the parish, but now having houses not then built, or lia-
ble to any rates, assent to such laws, or be parties to them ?
What say the authorities on this subject " Special or
Private Acts," says Blackstone, " are rather exceptions
than rules, being those which only operate on particular per-
sons." And D.varris on the Statutes says (page 750)
"a power derogatory to private property must be construed
strictly, and not enlarged by intendment." The 17th sec-
tion of 46th Geo. 111., c. 123, says, the trustees shall " from
time to time rate," &c., " but that such rate shall not exceed
such sums of money as shall from time to time be allotted," &c,
and it is contended by the trustees, that the intendment of
this section was, that the rate should attach and become
chargeable on all houses, no matter when built, liable to
Minister's money. But this money and the cess in ques-
tion are totally different—the former was imposed by public.
Act of Parliament on all houses built, and " hereafter to
be built ;" and the latter was by private Act of Parliament,
without the words " hereafter to be built," or any words
tantamount thereto. And though some of the parties
might intend its meaning to be enlarged to suit their pur-
poses, such intendment, even if it could be spelled out of
the Acts, is not binding in law. What says Dwarris fur-
ther on the subject ? " Private Acts of Parliament con-
ferring new and extraordinary powers of a special nature
upon particular persons, affecting the property of indivi.
duals, should receive a strict interpretation ;" and he refers
to various cases, showing that " every presumption is
against a company or body (like the trustees in question),
and in favour of private property," and that " Acts of Par-
liament on behalf of such bodies were regarded as private
contracts between the parties to them." I shall briefly re-
fer to one of these cases, because it bears upon both points
of this question—that is the non-liability of all the pa-
rishioners, or of those only inhabiting houses lately built.
In the case of Scales v. Pickering, 4 Bing. 448, a Company
having the authority of a local Act of Parliament (for sup-
plying the inhabitants of the parish of St Mits, StraYbrd.le-
Bow with water), for breaking up highways, pathways, &c.,
broke up a pathway in plaintiff's field, for which he brought his
action, and obtained a verdict, with liberty to defendants to
move for a new trial. They did so ; but it was refused on
the grounds of the Company having no right without the
plaintiff's consent ; " notwithstanding they could not carry
oh their purposes without going to Parliament."
The respectable Chairman of the county Dublin listened
very patiently to arguments on both sides, the substance of
which is set forth in the two preceding paragraphs—said
the point relative to the houses recently built was novel,
and should have due attention. After some days' delibera-
tion, however, he pronounced his decree against the defen-
dant. It had been declared in his presence, that whatever
be decision of that Court might be, an appeal would be
made to a higher tribunal, in order to settle the 'matter
finally, as the majority of the parishioners had not been for
many years past satisfied as to the legality of the demand ;
and it was consented that an appeal should be had without
immediately entering into recognizances. The plaintiffs,
however, long before the time for trying the appeal arrived,
had the defendant arrested, who, to avoid "durance vile,"
paid the money. But he is still of opinion that if the case
were brought fairly and solemnly before a higher tribunal,
his view el the law would be sustained. And thoueli he
buuld bs mistaken in this point, it is still manifest from all
the facts herein disclosed, that such a state of the law as is
described is disgraceful to the nineteenth cantors', and could
be enforced only by that party whose monopoly, haughtyascendancy, and unreasonable exactions, have been so 'well
calculated to foment disaffection, rebellion, and bloodshed
in Ireland,