The Sun.
London, England, 1847-04-26 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

ATTORNEY-GINERAL V. WIMBOLTIIN SCHOOL.
This was a petition iu the suit, praying that the Eccle-
siastical Commissioners might be admitted as parties to the
suit.

His LORDSHIP delivered judgment this morning. The
Ecclesiastical Commissioners sought to administer to the
charity of Queen Elizabeth's school at Witnbourn, in the
county of Dorset. It appeared that the Attorney-General
had laid before the Master to whom the subject had been re-
ferred, a scheme respecting this charity upon which the
master had not expressed any opinion. The Ecclesiastical
Commissioners prayed that they might be at liberty to be
heard before the Master. These Commissioners were first
incorporated in the year 1836, it was their duty to lay before
her Majesty in council schemes in reference to charities
which, when ratified by the consent of the Crown, were to
have the same force and effect as if contained in the Acts.
In the Act of this charity there was a clause providing for
the better provision of the poor of the parish." He appre-
hended that the ecclesiastical commissioners had no vested
trust direction or control over any portion of the property of
that charity, the powers which the commissioners claimed
in those petitions was not to be conceded. In the matter of
charities they might give, from their position, judicious ad-
vice, and render considerable assistance, and there could be
no objection to receive such advice and assistance ; but the
question was not, whether or no it would be desirable to
have the advice and assistance of the ecclesiastical
commissioners, but whether or no they had the right which
they claimed? And they made an application to the Attor-
ney-General to be present at the inquiry before the Master,
it was not likely that they would be reused ; but instead of
that they think they had a right, and litigate the matter
with him. It was contended that the ecclesiastical commis-
sioners were independent of the jurisdiction of this Court ; but
it was clear that all they were competent to do was to lay a
scheme before the Queen in council, which scheme they could
not ratify. What powers of the Court might be opposed by
her Majesty in council might be urged by the Attorney-
General, but it was his (Lord Langdale's) opi-
nion that it should not be urged by the ecclesiastical
commissioners. It was not likely that the Crown would
oppose the Court, or act contrary to the law laid down by
that or any other Court. It seems, that having instituted
an inquiry respecting this charity, the ecclesiastical com-
missioners were informed that there was property for the
collegiate church of Wimbourn Minster; but it did not ap-
pear that it was intended by the Act that it should, as was
contended, rest in them. That must depend upon the
Court, according to the principles by which it was
governed in such cases. The ecclesiastical commis-
sioners, it must be admitted, had a very important
duty to perform ; but in the present case they
had no trust that the case could be recognised in this Court.
They had in this suit, the Attorney-General, the governors
of the charity, the Bishop of Bristol, who was said to be a
visitor, together with other parties, so that there were quite
sufficient to give the Court all the information and assistance
requisite ; and he trusted they would be able to proceed with-
out any conflict with the Queen in Council. If the ecclesias-
tical commissioners would not consent to act in the way he
had pointed out, he would dismiss the bill with costs.
Oa the application of Mr. TURNER, the case was ordered
to be mentioned on Friday next.