The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-01-19 00:00:00

. VICRkIiANCRLLOR's COURT, Jati.

C111111:11 RATE'.

. I,,ancrearLe. e. Tllto II COTIIER:i.
'Phis was iv bill S'ed oil the part of the plaintiff who
had beeh iieburchwahltti of the parish of M. James,
Bury Rtli:Jaionds, in the year Inn, .and in that cap:i-
-t-ivhal caused eertitiwrepairs and alterations to be ef-
fected in thy church of the said parish, under the autho-
tit C, as lie alleged, of an order of Vestry, for which he
liiinaelladvanced the necessary sum. The bill set forth,
that the rropritoy of the repair having been agreed
Num dt a t'estry holden for the purpose--two plans were
peoposed—uneloy 31r.,Patience, and the other by Mr.
thunipson. The plan of Mr. Patience it as first accepted
by a resolution of Vestry, but the eider upon this rese-
liition as. subsequently rescinded by an order of Vestry
upon the giound that the proceedings oldie antecedent
meeting were informal. In the course of the pleadings
is appeared that the parishioners had been completely
iiivitied in their opinions as to the adoption of a plan of
repairs, the one stile supporting 31r. Patience, and the,
oilier side, eirtuaget whom was the plaiiciff, then
churchwarden, sanctioning 3lr. Thottips.,:i's phin. The
saajority haring concluded in favour of the latter, the
t toirchwarden advanced the money to the extent of the
estimate, MHN., and the repairs were effected. The bill
then prayed that an somata he taken of the expenses
or repairs, and that the Court would grant a decree to
compel the present churrliwardens to call a Vestry fur
purpose of making a rate un the parish to indent-
the plaintiff fur the stuns so advanced by him, or
in case the Court would not grant this, that it would
order the other defendants individually to pay, or to
comtribute to the payment of those sums. It appeared.
that after the repairing of the church had been under-
taken, as soon as it was ascertained that the parish
might he involved in some disputes, a committee was
ionised in the Vestry, who drew up articles of agree-
them, by which they pledged themselves to act in re-
sistance to any attempt made on the part of the plaintiff
to set up a claim of this sort on the parishioners.—The
plaintiff accordingly stated in his bill, that several of diet
parties signing these articles, were of those who had
formerly encouraged and authorised him to undertake
the repairs.
Separate answers were pot in by the different defend-
am.. and they were heard by separate, Counsel.
Mr. PONDI.ANQtra opened the ease on the part of the
rtaintitf Ile stated that there were some difficulties to
he encountered on his side of the question, but the prin-
cipal of them related to the jurisdiction of the Court in
the matter at all. The Learned Guideway) then pro-
ceeded to argue, on the authority of various cases which
he cited, in favour of the jurisdiction.
The Vice-Citasiceccon observed, that the only way
which he could comply with the prayer of the bill,
way, to make a decree directing the cliurchivarden to
ell] a Vestry, he bring the only person legally compe-
tent to do so. But the charebwarden not being made a
party to the :nit, the Court could nut direct a decree,
iigainst a party not pet:okay before it. Supposing, heir-1
ever, this defect to be got rid of, and that an order was
decreed directing the churchwarden to call a Vestry.
how was that order to be enforced? The Vestry niiglit
be called, and so far the party complied With the decree
of tbe Coort. Rut what decree, or what power of that
Court, or of any Court, could compel she Vestry to con-
cur in a vote to make a rate in the present case?-1
Clearly there was none. The decree prayed fur was
then nugatory, and no Court could male a Nugatory,
0/111r.
Mr. FONRI.Vtgra and Mr. ROUPELL referred to
%umber of cases to shew tlsj waters of the nature Fray-
ed for hays been beretorafe tnadA by ratinits COltrts.
The Vtea-CnamcaLtou said,tlast w all, these cases the
question was as to pours' rate, tbcprrseist one being one
ai to church rate. The principle upon which Courts
acted in each case was very differeut, as the distinction,
between the two systems of rats wait very important.—
. •• the case of pours' rate, the churchwardens and over;
seers were legally authorised of themselves to create
t.,eni, anti although they usually made these rates with
Th. concurrence of the Vestry, yet that coneurrenre was
by no means legally necessary. It was obvious, there-
sure, that a compulsory order of Court as against those
individuals could be eidurced. But in the case of church
it was not the churchwardens or vocalisers alp*,
but the majority of the Vestry, which authorised dm
creation of them. Hence, then, an order of Vert to
the churchwaedeus of a parish, upon the subject of
church rates, could only
ll go to the extent of compelliog
tie churchwarden to caa meeting to consider of a
c:airch rate. and certainly not to compel him to make a',
rate.
elr. FONIILANQUa admitted that the diiculty (we-
iosed by the distinction was a very strong one Ile
iv.:bmitted, however, that there were cases in which au
analogy to the present might be ma4e out, in which the
Court bad acted. For lust:nice...there was the case of a
decree compelling a husband to procure the consent of
his wife'
The Vica-CHANcei.toa.—That might have been the
case formerly, ' Id make each
row. The trot
Oa well as of other

Mr. HORNK _
plaintiff, and attempted
Freund of fraud
1,41,111 upon the
tiff, that Ise proceeded
church, and

This attempt
that the allegation
majority of the
'sanctioned the

ally set forth that
raged and opposed ,
Air. [NALL> on ti Nat ctefonlidal., argued,
Ix
diktat, independent of the ohjectious 10 .y.. it, which
had already been found stifficirriptlyor yby the
Conet, there was no power retirliteg,un nilliwardrus
Ito slake a church rate for the raptor reloshtusing
money already espended. Fravirmyly 400,4] 44t At
George 111. oo money which was cxpenffed by overseers
or churchwardens for the use of the poor was to be re-
unburied by IA Mo.'
some ineasui
, poors' rates,
bad been, an
'ion of Lord

rievarcbwartien
rate made of
p Vice-CuArs,

fientlinnan
•fau6 of there
wau issued

, was stcongi
no instance

.Hier. CI

impeftible
ford relief
vitrify madt . upon
Mr. FON etArrqrs suhmitted, that rheirhweeddris
being personally responsible for the yyptifif of flee
church, it must beau extraordinary reilitlYdr bir 'system'
a law, indeed, if he, who was so responsible, bad no
means of relieving himself, in ease the l'estry refused
their coueurreuce iu giving bias the means of making

but no Court could make pitch a decree there
ith is, that the jurisificticin of this Court, Mc
ther Courts, was formerly very louse. , , strati
next addressed the Courkfla behalf of the ilrell
Attempted to make oat his own case ciaj.the 171 e
W
id practised by the defendatita, it having I.'
faith of their sauctior4,girszi to this plain- Sveifli
'oceeded to and•rtak tbs rApa,irs of the• Willcl
vhich sanction they,
mds.withdrew. Purred
~. .
it was overruled by Is g*, who said ti"vill
1 tion in the bill, so far Rojicharging the .1414),,
17a
is defendants with . ,sveouraged or Pirul
dishirsements of ths IntsfC bad acts- ILI"(
that these defendants always, discos- Wm"-
osed him.
on the part of the (ie./AP/J*4s, argued. P"Pel
.

by a enbsemeent rate. Thai Milne, which in
sure corrected the common law relating to
rs, left the law relating t% . k .
late.late deci•
tViii
rd Elleoborough. in which, . e , at no
rdencould imfetnnify hitoke I . •'j: I. i . 'by
le after they were incurred., 'w .
Cit-CUANCELLOR concur* ArOlft VVitittl
Li in his view of the easi. ".e sat , t kt,lbe
:re being no instance in which ajlanditmOs
.d to churchwardens, to make a tikailfratr,
Kly in favour of this view. Theene,l4s, 'eyes
cc of the Spiritual Court having maila".ehlth
'pun the whole, therefore, he
.60940 iimott'
r to show that t.:ourt, or any Court,. could oi-
l' in the case, much less that there wawa,-
Ldr out to call upon him to exerciseireetarvintii.