The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-03-13 00:00:00

this occasion which is quite new to us and of vast im-
portance to the institution. He contends that the Cur,-
poration of the institution have no more right to expunge
a minute than they hare to reduce his salary from the
maximum of £5OO to the minimum of £3OO. The first
point merges in the second and more important position.
Let us examine it closely. It is admitted that the Rev.
EDWARD HULL is chaplain for life, and his stipend is
fixed and regulated by the 26th clause of -the act of
parliament. It is in these words :

" And be it further enacted, that for the maintenance of the
chaplain for the time being• of the said chapel the persons who
shall be wardens thereof for the time being, in pursuance of this
act, and their successors, shall, by and out of the rents of pews
or seats erected therein, yearly and every year, well and truly
pay or cause to be paid to such chaplain, as snag be directed by
the said committee, a sum not less than three hundred pounds
nor exceeding five hundred pounds of lawful English money,
without any deduction or abatement for taxes or otherwise how-
-1 soever, on the Ist day of January and on the Ist day of July iu
each year, by even and equal portions, and the money so to be
paid shall be allowed to such wardens in their account; and a
due apportionment of tie said salary shall from time to time be
mark between the executors or administrators of any chaplain
of the said chapel dying in the interval between the h:alf-vearly
days of payment and the successor of such chaplain so
for and in respect of the half year wherein such death shall
happen."

If the wardens or trustees of this charity have no power
to regulate the chaplain's salary, this clause is utterly
devoid of meaning. Mr. Humaas received £5OO a-year
since 1826. In 1829 the act of parliament was obtained,
and shortly after the bill had received the royal sanction,
the chapel-wardens met and passed the following resolu-

on :

" sth May, 1829. Resolved that the chapel-wardens be di-
rected to pay the sum of £5OO. per annum to the chaplain, which
sum was unanimously voted to be paid him by the annual meet-
ing of the subscribers in the year 1526, and that the same be con-
tinued to he paid so long as he shall continue to perform the duty
in person."
The first question to be considered\here is—is this re-
solution a strictly legal one, according to the provisions
of the act of parliament? We humbly submit th6t it is
not. The chapel-wardens, in 1829, had no right to bind
their successors during the lifetime of Mr. HULL. We
contend that they had no right—that they hare no right
to vote Mr. • HULL a single farthing beyond the stipu-
lated £3OO, except from year to year. They do this in
the case of the clerk, the organist, and the sexton, and

they are bound to follow the same rule in the case of the
chaplain. The vote being illegal, Mr. HULL'S claim falls
to the ground. It is of some consequence that the com-
mittee should give the point their serious consideration;
because the time may come when they will be called upori
to provide a curate or assistant to the chaplain; and it
will be hard indeed tip saddle a charily with seven or
eight hundred per annum for two sermons per Sunday.
But we leave the matter in their hands.