The Statesman.
London, England, 1818-12-10 00:00:00

Jr? -
I.°lW_

. ~

.

,

11, •

,111 INTIM LIG E NOB.
-.0,, .: .. i 3 144.• 4 4rikbiliaL.
' irlCl4ll All CELLOR'S COURT, bic. v.
~.
TIM A ECTORtAL TITHES OP THE PARIAH
ST. DUNSTAN-IS-il E-W4T.
• tail it El c. Alum.
Mr. WETHERELL stated, thW wee I sill filed
the Plaintiff against the Defendants, tome of the
habitants of the parish of St. Denstenf in the tit,
London end the question which it involved
whether the Lay-Rector, or his Spiritual Vieth
entitled to receitothatithes of the parish. The
fondant Abram held a house in the parish, which
within the cif/of 'tondo*, which stood ort the
where the Devil's Tavern formerly ,stnodf but .
which five houses ore new stetted. The Defendant
Abram had, ever sincethet year 181; resisted
payment of tithes,. on the ground that boob
demindeble beyond the sent of 21. 13,. 4d.
had been demanded and paid from the year 1525
the year 1588. The Learned Coubsel, on behalf
the Plaintiff, the Lay-Rector, contended-dist he '
entitled to the tithes. He was, howevet,,st 6 ,
to conceive what would be the defence Wet opt inlets
the Defendants were prepared to alto* that tbrinte..
rest had been transferred from the Rester to the '
car. It appeared extraordinary that the Revs !•
and Lloyd, the Vicar of the parish, did net
pear by Counsel, for be could not parceiva how
case could be argued with that of the lobabitanta
the parish.
sa
r hy
Vicar,l rt
0a
. 4s
end h
separate
e
epa4Trttseciduh4i
could
licee,s nut sepptiered as Counsel for
frommetihvaet of the i o
it
was
ilecn.4.•
ere. Ile could produce the strongest e * . 40
=0
show that the Lay-Rector was entitled 11.11.10,411§1i
pension of 101. per annum, and not to 449
.
and this he would prove front the deed okiehiOW
ofd
priated the parish church t• the Abbey- of
in the county of Northumberland sod the
Durham. ,
r.' 1 1.,1i
Ilia Hooper the Vice•Citausectott.-..441t1V0S
any evidence, Mr. Wetherell, to show that 4 dillhest
tithe was paid before 169.5?" - -- -
Mr. IIoRNE (Coutteel mud. 1111ffle sidle ow Iblri
Wetherell) stated, they had ',Nettie whiak went '
• mach earlier date. i„. The original sum Ortidibe
parish to the Abbey of •ItPusick, nes 181. monocrat;
hot, at tire request, of As .parisllionereasatat
deceit to 101, annually; and ott the seppresjion
the Mostapere., It felt seto the hands of Henry
and remained vested ia the Crown etstif lite
1599, when a different erraugemept sea Made,
the payment of dia 101..iyear, was still contiaur
blr. Mute asked tf kother it would not be
for him to go encpsad4tote.the Vicar's use,
would.put his Letittped.:Prigalls in possession
grounds he, rant oia ?. lie Meted that it was a
of very great. Importance ht every point of view.-a
The Rector contended that its beilq so appropriate,
Rectory, he was entitled to the whole rates of 21.9 d.
in the pound ; and, on the other hand, it was con.
tended by the % car, that its being e• endowed
Vicarage, he was 'witted to the /retire tithes, w`
the deduction of MI. per annum to the lay,
Rector. '1 h. history of tete case ..... a..•.....a...,
and he would state it briefly to save the time of the
Court. The Rectory had try some means, which
could not be slow kuoven, got into the hands of
the Crown before the year 1361, which also was
the 36th year of the reign of Edward the Third.—
It was not necessary for him to take any notice of
the anterior period to 1361, as it was not essential to
the case. In that year the Crown gave the Rectory
to the Abbey of Alnwick, as an appropriation to
that establishment; the date of the apprupriatiow
was particularly important. In the 9th year of the
reign of Richard 11. and on the 30th of October,
1386, that Monarch granted a licence of the 'ppm-
priation of the Rectory; and by the terms of the
licence it was covenanted, that the Abbot and Monks
of the Abbey should have the cure regularly served
by a Canon of their own Monastery, or by a secular
priest. It was necessary to mention this, for the
purpose of showing that at that time no endowment
had been made for either a rector or a vicar. The
person then who was to serve the core of St. Dun-
stan's was not appointed perpetsal curate, bat
was liable to be removed at pleasure; therefore
he was neither a perpetual rector nor vicar, but a
priest appointed for the time being. The nest
regulation which took place respecting the appro..
priation wss in the year 1391, which was in the 15th
of the reign of Richard 11. an Act passed, which
enacted in all appropriations a vicarage should be
well endowed its such parishes as had them. In the
year 1402, which was the fourth year of the reign of
Henry IV. and precisely eleven years subsequent
to the Act of the 15th of Richard 11. an
the Act
passed, the preamble of which states, that
Statute of Richard 11. bad been by no means duly
observed, and that many abuses bad crept into the
management of parishes, by the negligence of
monasteries, and directed that a general provision
should be made for all vicarages annexed, united,
or appropriated to the abbeys, by
a secular priest
being ordained to the perpetual cure of such
vicarages, the vicar was to have a comfortable
maintenance, and an adequate endowment.--
The perish of St. Dunstan's at this time was not en-
dowed, but he contended that the endowment took
place soon after. The first document on that subject
was the institution of John Plower, in 1437, who
was then inducted into the living as,the first regular
Priest, the effect of which urnoestionably showed
that he was endowed to be the Clergyman of the
Vicarage. The next question to be considered was
the nature of the endowment which bad taken place
On the Vicarage bring established. The acinal in-
strument of the endowment could not be found, and
therefore the nature of it must be taken from the
conflict between the parties, the one being long in
possession, and founding his claims-on that, and the
other trying to get possession. lie Contended that
the ten ponds per annum was all that the Rector
was entitled to, which he would prove by the doles
mentos
The VICE-CHANCELLOR.—" I think, Mr. Hafts
you had better postpone the farther arguments in
this case till to-morrow morning; in the mean time I
would feel obliged to the Counsel, on horn- - _
inform me, whether after the decision of
of Lords in a similar case, it is possibt
eater farther into this case, without my

`• ~ %0 •

- 40,
• • .:.
. •
=l4* ‘*.ft4lol*
4 '
I •
ot •
led b/
the in-
city of
d was;
ir, eat
he De:
eh was
he site
ast ott
endant
td the
were
which
35 to
bait of
to was r'
h lost
;14
inlets
3
he Via
, •
Rieke
ot spa
w lals
nts of sT
sr the -
eeesse-
104°.
I.
• t
hestt4
•
1::10
••
viSS
mead
1/4 ri
Nest td
by the
amain;
eat re-
MI of
VLII.
se year
le, bet
;ad.
better
*hick
of the
case
pflated
21.9 d.
Is con.
.doved
a, wills
t
of tbe
%laic&
oda of
50 MIS
tic* of
ttial to
rectory
Lion to
'Ude%
of the
debar, ,
appre.
• 1...

lib sides to
th• Haus*
I* for tad to
ditectiog as