To examine into claims, And transmit the names of those who have substantiated them. The Bishop may redress parties aggrieved. Church built by Church Building Commissioners. These Commissioners are to inquire into the rights of persons, if any, who may claim to hold such Pews or Seats as above mentioned, and three or more of them, of whom the Archdeacon must be one, are at their earliest convenience to proceed to examine into such claims, having previously given fourteen days' Notice, by affixing a copy of their Commission on the door of the new Church, together with a Notice signed by the Archdeacon, specifying the day, time, and place on which such examination is to be made. (r) After making an examination into these claims, the Commissioners, or the majority of them, are, under their hand, to transmit in writing to the Bishop, the names and residences of those persons who have substantiated their claims to such Pews or Seats; and the Bishop, if satisfied, must assign, under his hand and seal, to such parties respectively, convenient Pews or Seats in such new Church, and they are to hold them in the same manner as their Pews or Seats in the old Church. (r) If any party find himself aggrieved by the finding of such Commission, the Bishop of the Diocese may, if he think fit, afford him redress, by allotting him Seats in the new Church. (r) But where such new Church has been built, wholly or in part, out of funds advanced by the Church Building Commissioners, and a transfer has been made, in such case the Rents of the extra Pews or Seats, over and above the number in the old Church, are to be fixed and regulated under the Church Building Acts. (r) (r) 8 & 9 Vict. c. 70, s. 1. ALTERATIONS. In important alterations, where Parishioners are IMPORTANT to be burthened with additional Rates, it is highly proper, and indeed quite necessary, that a Faculty should be applied for. (s) Church. Therefore if the Clergyman, Churchwardens, and Re-pewing a a majority of the Parishioners agree upon the repewing of a Church, they should apply to the Ordinary for a Faculty. rence should be obtained. And this should be done if possible with the con- Whose concurcurrence of those who hold Pews by Faculties or Prescriptive titles, because, as we must assume that in many cases such Pews cannot be interfered with by the Ordinary, a great deal of difficulty might be occasioned by these parties refusing to allow their Pews to be pulled down. The best and most satisfactory method for all parties, would be to prepare a Plan of the new Pews, clearly shewing the situation and size of the Pews to be substituted for those already appropriated by Faculty or Prescription; and, with the sanction and approbation of the Ordinary, to annex this Plan to the Faculty for repairing. (t) For where a building is done by the Parish, it would be a cession of the Pew to the Parish, unless some express agreement to the contrary could be shewn, and the Pew-owners would, therefore, run the risk of losing their rights, unless some such course were pursued. (u) may The best proceeding. Express agreement with Pew owners. We have seen that a Parishioner well entitle Liberal contrihimself to a Faculty for a Pew, by contributing (8) Per Sir John Nicholl, Parham v. Templar, 3 Phill. 327. (t) So annexed in the case of Parham v. Templar, 3 Phill. 515. (u) See Pettman v. Bridger, 1 Phill. 328. butions from Parishioners. Seats allotted by the Church wardens. Who must do it fairly. Faculty for confirming alterations. Alterations in Great St. Mary's. liberally to the enlargement or even the new pewing of his Parish Church. Such claim being duly weighed by the Ordinary, and being fettered with the necessary restrictions. (x) Therefore such a Pew should be particularly set out upon the Plan. After the Church is new seated, the Pews are allotted by the Churchwardens, who sometimes, though it is not strictly regular, take from each occupant a small sum as a Pew-rate, to be applied to the repairs of the Church. (y) The Court censured the conduct of a Churchwarden who had a small family, and took a large Pew for himself, as he had placed himself there in violation of the Faculty; it being obvious, from the appearance of the Plan, that the space he took for his Seat was intended for two Pews. (z) When alterations have been made without the grant of a Faculty, an application, ex gratiâ, is sometimes made for a Faculty to confirm them. In the following case, a Faculty was decreed, but and extensions never actually granted, for making certain alterations in the Church of Great St. Mary's, Cambridge, and for appropriating certain proposed extensions of the Master of Arts' Pit, and the Galleries, to the members of the University. The alterations were accordingly made at the expense of the University, which, in A.D. 1837, obtained Letters of Request from the Ecclesiastical Court of Ely, to the Court of Arches, and prayed in the latter Court for a Faculty confirming the alterations, and appro (x) Fuller v. Lane, 2 Add. 436. See Faculties for Pews, Chap. II. p. 31. (y) Parham v. Templar, 3 Phill. 518.. (z) Ibid. 523. priating the extensions, to the Members of the Uni versity. (a) The Faculty prayed for had therefore two ob- Faculty prayed jects. First, the confirming alterations in the for. Church, made by the University, in pursuance of an agreement with the Parishioners; and, Secondly, the appropriating the extension to Members of the University. (b) The Churchwardens appeared and petitioned Alteration unagainst the grant, but it was not pretended that objectionable. there was anything objectionable in the Faculty prayed for, so far as the first object of it went. Although it was urged, and the Court assumed, for the sake of argument, that the extensions could not be legally appropriated as prayed. (c) Where alterations have been ordered by a Vestry, and a Faculty applied for to confirm them, it seems unimportant whether the Vestry was legally constituted, if the alterations themselves were proper, and such as the Ordinary ought to approve. (d) The costs of opposing a Faculty are in the discretion of the Court, and not matter of strict law. And one great object of the Court in Parish contests, is to quiet them as soon as may be, hoping that moderation on its part, in not condemning the objecting parties in costs, may teach them moderation in their future intercourse with their neighbours and fellowparishioners. (e) (a) Hallack, v. University of Cambridge, 1 Q. B. 613. (b) Ibid. 614. (c) Ibid. 614, 615. (d) Rogers's Eccl. Law, 163, citing Thomas v. Morris, 1 Add. (e) Groves v. Rector of Horn- Constitution alterations. Costs of opposing a Faculty. Difference of Parish. And where there had been a difference of opinion opinion in the in the Parish, though the majority were in favour of a Gallery, the Court did not condemn the opposers in costs, although the witnesses were all of one family, as it did not wish to seem to imply, that the opposition was not on public grounds. (f) Opposition on private grounds. Opposition by the Vicar. The Churchwardens, however, have a claim upon the Court for its support, in the expenditure of money in the way directed by the Parish and finally confirmed by the Court, and therefore costs may fairly be given when the opposition has been carried on after the final approbation of the Parishioners, particularly if it appears to have been factious or on private grounds. (ƒ) A Vicar opposed the grant of a Faculty for the erection of a Gallery, and the Court decided against him, but gave no costs. The Vicar appealed to the Court of Arches, which confirmed the decision of the Court below, and Sir John Nicholl said: "I hardly think that the original opposition to this measure, and the contest which was carried on, justified so lenient a sentence; at least, the Vicar should have been satisfied with that decision: the appeal has some appearance of being vexatious. Looking, however, to the relation in which the parties stand to each other, and considering how desirable it is that they should return to a good understanding together, perhaps it would be advisable that the Parishioners should waive pressing the costs. I shall allow the question to stand over for (f) Groves v. Rector of Hornsey, 1 Hag. C. C. 197. |