66

discretion of

so long as they continue inhabitants of a certain house in the Parish.” (9) Because, on the expiration of a Faculty limited to Limited to a

certain period. a certain period, the right of the Parishioners to the Pews, the subject-matter of such Faculty revives. (h)

A Faculty for erecting a Pew, which contains a Clause to sell clause permitting the party erecting it to sell it, is illegal. illegal. ()

Faculties are to be granted at the discretion of Faculties the Ordinary, but it must be a sound discretion, granted at the having a due regard to times and circumstances, the Ordinary. and to the rights and interests of all parties concerned. (k) If an unsound discretion be exercised, a party Subject to an

appeal. may appeal to a superior tribunal. (k)

The leading object of the Court in granting Object in Faculties is the convenience of the Parishioners. (1)

granting them, Faculties were certainly granted in former times Formerly

granted too with too great facility, and by no means with due easily. consideration and foresight. (m) Ordinaries, at the present day, are bound not to should be

sparingly issue Faculties, appropriating Pews to individuals, issued. but under special circumstances. (n)

When the Court grants a Faculty to appropriate Preliminary a Seat in a Church to an inhabitant, it should be matter of preliminary consideration :

considerations.

(9) Tattersall v. Knight, 1 Phill. 237; Fuller v. Lane, 2 Add. 426.

(h) Blake v. Osborne, 3 Hag. 733.

(i) Walter v. Gunner and Drury, 1 Hag. 314.

(k) Butt v. Jones, 2 Hag. 424.

(1) Sharpe v. Hansard, 3 Hag. 337.

(m) Fuller v. Lane, 2 Add. 426.

(n) Woolcombe v. Ouldridge, 3 Add. 4.

Necessary in quiries.

1st. Whether the appropriation would be prejudicial to the Church or the Parish generally? In which case, though the Minister and Churchwardens are the most proper persons to shew cause, yet any other Parishioner may oppose and shew cause if he thinks fit, because he has a general interest. (0)

2ndly. Whether it would affect the rights of any particular persons ? In which case, only the persons who would be injured, and no others, except the Churchwardens, as guardians of the parochial rights of every Parishioner, ought to oppose it. )

3rdly. Whether the person applying for it is, from station and property in the Parish, qualified to have such a grant. (0)

What is the population of the Parish in proportion to the number of Sittings in the Church ? whether it is an increasing or a diminishing population? are necessary inquiries previous to any grant of a Faculty for the appropriation of Pews to particular persons. They are most necessary, and the result ought to be most satisfactorily in favour of such applicants, to ensure the success of their applications. (p)

The size of the Pew, also, and the proportion of the number of Sittings in the Pew, to that of the applicant's family, are also to be taken into account. (p)

The want of Church room generally, and the propriety of affording additional Sittings, especially to

Size of the
Pew.

Amount of
Church room.

(0) Partington v. Rector of Barnes, 2 Lee, 345.

(2) Fuller v. Lane, 2 Add. 432.

tion for the

be driven to

the poor, are strong features of the times; and they are not to be overlooked by Ordinaries, when application is made for a Faculty. (9)

And every possible reason exists, why no conces- Accommodasions should be made, at all likely to infringe upon poor. the due accommodation of the poor, in their several Parish Churches. It is to be presumed that they are the persons most in want of religious instruction, and their title, as such, in particular, to receive it, is expressly recognised by the Divine Founder of Christianity itself. (9)

If disabled from receiving it from want of room Who must not in their Parish Churches, they are almost driven to dissent. seek it in places of dissenting worship; of course they are clearly entitled, and should be freely allowed to resort to such places of worship if they prefer it; provided they are really Dissenters in opinion, from the doctrine or discipline of the Church. But if they are obliged to go merely from want of Church room, it is a circumstance exceedingly to be deplored. (r)

A strong case should therefore be made out to A strong case induce the Ordinary, in the exercise of a sound dis- should be cretion, to appropriate any Pew, by Faculty, to a particular Parishioner and his family, at the present day. (s) For a Faculty, when once issued, is good and As a Faculty is

valid against valid even against the Ordinary himself. And this Ordinary. consideration alone might well induce the Ordinary

a

(s) Fuller v. Lane, 2 Add. 431,

(9) Fuller v. Lane, 2 Add. 428.

(r) Per Sir John Nicholl, Fuller v. Lane, 2 Add. 428.

Present inconvenience.

Future difficulty.

to pause, when applied to for a Faculty to grant a permanent and exclusive possession of a particular Pew, though no present inconvenience should seem to result from its concession to the applicant. (t)

True it may be that, at the particular time when the Faculty is applied for, its issue may not be generally inconvenient; the Parishioners at large may be sufficiently accommodated, after and notwithstanding its issue. But in this even, the most favourable case, there are obvious reasons for inducing the Ordinary, to entertain such applications with a good deal of reserve. (t)

For instance, additional room may be soon, or at some time, wanted, suggesting the propriety of new arrangements in the Church; but such future arrangements may be formidably obstructed, by the actual issue of the Faculty then prayed. (t)

The result, upon the whole, of these Faculties, is, that in many Churches the Parishioners at large are deprived, in a great degree, of suitable accommodation, by means of exclusive rights to Pews, either actually vested in particular families by Faculty or Prescription, or at least, which is the same thing as to any practical result, supposed to be so vested. (u)

In the present times, and with the increased population of the country, a Parish must be very singularly circumstanced to induce and justify an Ordinary, in granting a Faculty of any sort for a Pew, so as to preclude the Parish from improving the

The result of
Faculties.

Improvement must not be precluded.

(t) Fuller v. Lane, 2 Add. 431.

(u) Fuller v. Lane, 2 Add. 428.

Church accommodation, particularly for the poorer classes. (2) A Parishioner, however, might well entitle him- Claim to a

Faculty. self to a Faculty for a Pew, by contributing liberally to the enlargement or even the new Pewing of his Parish Church, in order to furnish additional accommodation for his fellow-Parishioners, and especially Free Seats for the poor. (y) But even the claims of such benefactors should be Should be duly

weighed. duly weighed by Ordinaries, and the indulgence sought by them should be fettered with all these restrictions and limitations. (y) For instance, in allotting them, by Faculty, good Necessary

restrictions. or even the best sittings, Ordinaries should be careful, at the same time, not to afford them too great a proportion of room, or accommodation exceeding their real (actual and probable) wants, to the exclusion of other Parishioners; for that would not be justifiable under any circumstances. (y) A Faculty (for annexing a Pew to a house or Faculty ob

tained by messuage) obtained by surprise and undue contri

surprise. vance may be revoked. (z)

Should any gentleman, having a house in the Faculty to Parish, build a new Aisle with the consent of the Clergyman, Patron,and Ordinary, and have a Faculty from the Bishop to hold the same to the use of him and his family, to bury their dead in the Aisle, and also to sit there for hearing Divine Service, on condition constantly to repair it, this Faculty would give him a good title to the Aisle. (a) (2) Butt v. Jones, 2 Hag. (z) Butt v. Jones, 2 Hag.