accommoda

tion.

WHEN the number of Parishioners increase, so that Increase of the Seats are insufficient to accommodate all those who apply for them, the Parish is bound, and may be compelled by Ecclesiastical censures, to provide against these inconveniences. (a)

Therefore, under such circumstances, a Gallery

(a) Groves v. Rector of Hornsey, 1 Hag. C. C. 194,

be erected.

A Gallery may may be erected, for accommodating the increased population of the Parish, and a Faculty will be granted for it by the Ecclesiastical Court. (b)

If the Churchwardens erect or add a new Gallery or Seats, they should have the consent of the Parishioners, and a License from the Ordinary, although this is not required for occasional repairs. (c)

It being clearly shewn that some addition is necessary, the only question for the Court is, whether the proposed method is expedient; not whether it be the most expedient, as the Faculty can regularly be only for the Plan proposed. (d)

And it is no objection to it, that other and better means might have been devised for the purpose, if Evidence as to those Plans being better has not been regularly brought before the Court. (d)

In all cases where any dispute may arise, the Ordinary is sole judge whether more Pews are necessary, and where they are to be placed. (e)

The Ecclesiastical Court is always anxious to give an early intimation of its opinion upon the law, more especially in Parochial matters, in order that the Parish may get into the right course, and that animosities may cease as soon as possible, since it seldom happens that the interest and excitement of a contest, are confined to the immediate litigants. (ƒ) In the proceedings in the country Courts, which

(b) Groves v. Rector of Hornsey, 1 Hag. C. C. 188.

(c) 2 Inst. 439; 1 Mod. 273; Ayl. Parerg. 484.

(d) Groves v. Rector of Hornsey, 1 Hag. C. C. 195.

(e) Rogers's Eccl. Law, 163; Johns. 163.

(ƒ) Blake v. Usborne, 3 Hag. 732.

are frequently very irregular, it is necessary to look Country to the substance of the proceedings rather than to proceedings. the form of them, otherwise it would in most instances be impossible to administer justice between the parties. (g)

must be over

Disappromajority of the inhabitants.

bation of a

For it is the duty of the Superior Ecclesiastical Irregularities Courts, to overlook irregularities in the country looked. jurisdictions, and endeavour to get at the substantial merits of the case. There are, however, certain fundamental rules which it is impossible to neglect. (h) The disapprobation of even a great majority of the inhabitants is not conclusive against any proposed Plan; for although it is a fact to which the Ecclesiastical Court pays great attention, it is certainly not the only circumstance to be considered; for the majority may incline to unnecessary expense, against which the Court ought to protect the minority, or it may object to necessary expense. (¿)

The Court is not bound by this circumstance alone; it may refuse the whole Parish joined together, or may grant, if it appears necessary, a prayer, on the application of one against all the rest. (¿) But though the Court is not bound by the wish of the majority, it will pay great attention to it. The Parishioners being in the first instance the best judges of the inconvenience and the remedies for it, the Court will not lightly presume that a majority would authorize, or willingly incur, an unnecessary expense. (i)

(g) Per Sir J.Nicholl, Tattersall v. Knight, 1 Phill. 233.

(h) Parham v. Templar, 3 Phill. 522.

(i) Groves v. Rector of Horn

sey, 1 Hag. C. C. 189.

Court not

bound by it.

Though it pays great attention

to a majority.

How disappro

The first point to which the Court looks is, whebation is to be ther the disapprobation of the Parish, on which

ascertained.

When due

notice of Vestry has been given.

Majority obtained by

canvass.

No objection

the objection is founded, is capable of being duly ascertained by the resolution of the Vestry, or by the opinions or sentiments of others, who being prevented from attending there, have joined in the proceedings in the cause. (k)

If it can be shewn that due Notice of Vestry was given, persons who did not choose to attend are not to plead ignorance, even if the Notice was general and for parochial purposes only; but still more so, if particular, and the Vestry was called for the object in question. (1)

Where a majority of Parishioners is in favour of erecting a Gallery, this inference as to their wishes is not impeached by saying that it was an approbation obtained by personal canvass, and that one of those who formed the majority was active in the procurement of it, since, in all public business, some one individual must take the lead. (m)

If, indeed, he does it corruptly—if he intimidates if done fairly. or bribes his fellow-parishioners, that may impeach a measure which has been effected by such means; but if he obtains a majority fairly by interference, the degree of activity and zeal which might have been used for that purpose, will not affect the validity of the measure. (m)

Committee attended by strangers.

It was made an objection on the application for a Faculty to build a Gallery, that the meeting of the Committee was attended by others who did not

(k) Groves v. Rector of Hornsey, 1 Hag. C. C. 190.

(2) Ibid. 191.

(m) Groves v. Rector of Hornsey, 1 Hag. C. C. 193.

belong to it. It appeared that there were nine members present, of whom five were Parish Officers, who by custom, as was extremely proper, were standing members of all Committees. It was held by Sir W. Scott, that if it appeared that the other persons who attended had controlled the proceedings by a fair majority, it would have vitiated the application; but it being proved that the resolution for a Gallery was unanimous, their attendance was therefore of no consequence. (n)

granted for

A Faculty for erecting a Gallery for the accom- Faculty modation of the increased population was granted, erecting a notwithstanding the objections of certain Parish- Gallery. ioners, on its being proved that, new houses having been built, several families were prevented from going to the Parish Church from the want of Seats, while others were obliged to go to the neighbouring Churches; that repeated applications had been made to the Churchwardens for Pews; that the Church was not capable of holding more than two hundred persons, and that on the lowest calculation there were seventy or eighty families too many for the present capacity of the building. (0)

A Faculty for the erection of a Gallery in a Opposition of Church, notwithstanding the opposition of the Vicar, the Incumwas granted by the Consistory Court of Gloucester. The sentence was appealed against to the Court of Arches, and the decree of the Chancellor of Gloucester confirmed. (p)

The Incumbent, however, may properly object to

(n) Groves v. Rector of Hornsey, 1 Hag. C. C. 191.

(p) Tattersall v. Knight, 1

Phill, 233.

(0) Ibid. 194.