The Sun.
London, England, 1826-05-12 00:00:00

BONDS FOR RESIGNATION OF LIVINGS.

A question of considerable importance to the Clergy
is about to be discussed in the House of Lords as a

Court of Appeal, in the case of Fletcher v. Sondes,
and which involves the principle in which the above-
mentioned bonds have been hitherto held valid. A

practice has obtained of late years for patrons of bene-
fices, who are desirous of presenting particular persons
to them, but which persons cannot by law, at the time
the livings fall vacant, take upon themselves the cure
of souls, to present another person to the Bishop for
admission and induction, and to take from that per-

son a bond in a penalty conditioned for the forfeiture
of the penalty, in case the obligee shall not resign the
living in question, according to the terms mentioned
in the condition of the bond. These bonds are called

Bonds of Resignation, and for a length of time were
held to be valid, whether the resignation were general
to resign. on demand, or special to resign in favour
of a particular person. The only objection, indeed,
that could be advanced against these bonds was,
that they were contrary to the Canon Law, and also
opposed to the spirit if not the letter of the statutes
against simony, and 'many attempts were made to
overthrow them, so as to allow the party who gave
the bond to retain the living contrary to the terms on
which he was. presented. So little effect, however,
did this opposition produce, that in the case of Peele
v. Earl of Carlisle, reported in Strange's Reports, 227,
the point was held too clear for argument, and the
Court positively prohibited the COunsel from indulging
in any line of observation that went to impugn this
then fixed and settled doctrine of the law. this prin-
ciple was even carried further, and the Court held a
bond Of this kind to be forfeited, although the incum-
bent was willing to resign, but was prohibited from so
doing by the Bishop. This point was decided in Hes.
keth v. Gray, H. 'I. 28 G.. 11. On the other hand,
it is' to be observed, that opposite doctrines have been
held by, the Courts. But this, indeed, cannot avail
very much, for the same thing occurs -in almost
every doubtful point of law ; and, further,
the cases opposing the doctrine now under
consideration, oppose it rather by implication
than.by direct and positive decisions. Thus the mat-
ter stood until the celebrated case of Ffytche v. the
Bishop of London. The facts of this case were simply
these : the intiff was the patron of the living of
Woodhani' Walter, in Essex, and he presented one
John Eyre to the Bishop for adMission and induction.
The Bishop refused, because the presentee had ac-
knowledged that he had given a bond to the Patron
in the sum of 3,0001. conditioned to resign on
request. The plaintiff then brought his quare inapedit
against the Bishop, and the Court of Common
Pleas gave judgment for
,the plaintiff, affirming
the bond, anti upholding the ancient doctrine,
which prevailed in this respect. Dissatisfied with
,
the decision, the Bishop brought a Writ of :Error to
the Court of King's Bench; which COurt 'affirmed
the judgment of the Court.b4OW. Undismayed, the
Bishop pursued his object by Writ of Error to the
House of Lords, and which House reversed the judg-
ment of the Courts of King's Bench and Common
Pleas. , This ease is reported in Brown's Parliamentary
Reports, 2 vol. 211. ; and by this Report it would
appear that the reversal took place in opposition to the
opinion of the eight Judges who delivered their senti-
ments on the occasion
Ever since this' memorable decision, the Courts hive
been in doubt whether to hold these bonds legal or
otherwise, or whether to make a distinction between
general and special bonds of resingation, and determine
one to be valid and the other illegal. Accordingly. we
find Mr. Justice, Dampier saying—‘, I know that since
the case of The Bishop of London v. Nytche it has
been considered that bonds of resignation in favour
of specified persons are not illegal." That is to say,
. that special bonds of resignation are valid. Now the
side note of the case 'of the Bishop and Ffytehe, as
reported in ,Brown's Reports, is thus expressed :
NVhere a Clerk, previous to his being presented to
a living, gives his patron a general bond of resigna-
tion upon request, such, bond is good, 'and the Ordi-
nary cannot refuse admission to the Clerk' so pre-
sented.
This, the reporter tells 'us, was the effect of the
decision of the House of Lords, and. truly we ought
to be greatly Obliged to hint, aS- without it we declare
it quite impossible to arrive at any conclusion on the
subject. It will be. readily perceived that the .okter
dictum of Mr. Justice Dampier and the side-note of
the reporter are .at varianpc,' and that we remain just
as much puzxled'aS.eicr between the validity
.of the
general and special bond. , Nor will ,the case in the
King's Bench assist us a.great deal. The
.side-note
given there is as follows :
Held .bY B. 11: that the Ordinaryof his diocese
may not refuse to admit a Clerk to a rectory to which
he was presented, because he had, given a general
bond to resign upon request of his patron.
This judgment we have said was reversed ; but we
ask are, not the side notes of the two reports as like
one another as possible ? 'Both hold general benda,
good, both declare the, Bishop cannot refuse to,admit
a clerk upon such grounds; and yetthe judgment of the
Court of King's Bench was reversed. Prom these cases
there is no authority to' say,tbat special bonds are good;
and it would appear quite as little to warrant a
conclusion that general bonds are bad ; and altogether
the question is so, nicely involved by cross; decisions
and cross reports, that we are pleased to aee some one
hardy 'enough to open it again, and let us have a little
more light upon this darksome subject. We heartily
hope, however, the house of Lords will support the
bond, beeause we' cannot believe that any evil can come
the. Church by it, seeing that the powers of the ordi-
[wry are sufficient to prevent the admission and induc-
tion of improper or insufficient clerks.

A Morning Print has gravely charged. the Chan-
cellor of the .Exchequer with inconsistency, because went into
a Committee to examine evidence on the question of Scotch
Banking, and decided in the Committee according to the evi-
dence 1 We remember a story of en old Scotch Judge. In times
long past, who was met posting down to the Parliament House
in Edinburgh. ". Whither so fast, my Lord?" said his friend,
" Hoot ! I'm just gaein' awa' to hang a mon," replied the
Judge. In fact, the said man had not, at that moment been put
upon his trial; but trying and hanging were probably deemed
synenymous by. his Lordship ; who must, no doubt, be re-
gariled by our contemporary as the beau ideal of judicial im-
partiality.
We understand that a private meeting of Ship-
owners was held yesterday in the City, to consider the inadequate
state of the Ileproentation of the Shipping Interest in the House
of Commons ; when it was resolved that a Meeting of Ship-
owers shall be held on 'Tuesday next, at one o'clock precisely, at
ilnuwn
the George and Vulture Tavern, to consider whether any, and
what, steps are advisable with reference thereto—...Publie Ledger.
HAII. INSVAANcE SOCIETY.--A society has
neffesellnagishiledisuarat Tecesrnage,ailveitthiossthepraopxuretatiboyn
hail
Government,;
been
t ig
that, destructive as are its ravages, still they are only partial ; and
as the means of averting them by means of hailconductors have
been
been unsuccessful, a society has been had recourse to, to repair the