the Ordinary to grant him, ex gratiâ, the permanent and exclusive possession of this particular pew? I say ex gratiá; for as to any claim of right, that he has abandoned. It appears to me, by no means, a strong case. It is founded, merely, upon his connexion, by marriage, with a family, one of the members of which, more than a century ago, presented the parish with a pulpit cloth, and a silver salver, said (the latter) to be still in

use.

But in return for this, in itself no very splendid, benefaction, the head, and representative of that family, has had the exclusive use and possession of this pew, perhaps the best in the church, for more than a century, until the sale of Batnors, the family mansion, in 1820. The parish account with the family, on the score of that benefaction, seems to me to be fairly balanced. Mrs. Lane's claims, as a descendant of the original donee of the pew, are of the very weakest description. She married, and quitted Lingfield in 1807; and she was domiciled with her husband in London, having no connexion whatever with Lingfield, except as an occasional visitor at Batnors, for fifteen years. At the expiration of that time, Lane became a parishioner: but he is a new settler, a novus homo, to all intents in the parish: it is extremely doubtful even whether he was a parishioner at the time when the citation issued, which is the foundation of this whole proceeding: he is the tenant of a house scarcely begun to be built at that time: he is entitled, most undoubtedly, to suitable church room for himself, and his family; to the best which the circumstances of the parish will afford him, without prejudice to other parishioners :-but as reasons for inducing the Ordinary to allot him, ex gratia, the exclusive and permanent possession of this particular pew by a faculty, the case set up on his part would, under any cir cumstances of the parish, be, in my judgment, extremely feeble.

But how, secondly, is the parish circumstanced in this particular? What, I mean, is the population of the parish in proportion to the number of sittings in the church, and is it

an increasing, or a diminishing, population? These are necessary inquiries, previous to any grant of a faculty of this description; but they are most necessary, and the result should be most satisfactory, in favour of such an applicant, to ensure the success of his application. The size of the pew, too, and the proportion of the number of sittings in the pew to that of the applicant's family, are also to be taken into the account. It remains to state the result of the evidence on these several particulars; which I think decisive against the application.

In the first place, then, this pew is one of the largest in the whole church, in point of capacity-it appears, I think, that there are only three pews in the church as large, and that there are none larger. It is capable of holding ten or twelve persons, according to Lane's own witnesses; and twelve or fourteen, according to several witnesses examined on the part of the parish. Mr. Lane's family, however, consists of six persons only, including a Miss Faringdon, the wife's sister, and said, at present, to be domiciled with Mr. Lane.

Next, as to the capacity of the church to accommodate all the parishioners. The parish church of Lingfield appears to be an old collegiate church, with three chancels as they are called, or more properly aisles. The number of pews in these aisles is twenty-three: but the aisles themselves, and the pews in them, are the mere private property of three several parishioners, who keep them in repair; and the sittings in these aisles are not open, in any sense, to the general accommodation of the parishioners. The number of pews in the church is sixty-six; capable of containing, according to the evidence, from six to eight persons each on an average. But the population of Lingfield is fixed at 1770, and the number of families at 325, by authentic documents. Consequently, there are nearly five times as many families as there are pews in the body of the church; and the pews in the body of the church (the only part of it in question), to contain the whole population, should be capable of holding twenty-seven, '

instead of seven, persons each. Hence, though sittings in the church may not be necessary for the whole population, and though it may not be necessary, again, that each family should have a separate pew, yet still the result is, that there can be no superabundance of church room; which Mr. Lane undertook to shew, but, in which, in my judgment, he has failed. The same inference results from the present arrangement of the church, as I collect it from the evidence. Every part of the body of the church is filled with pews; nor do I understand that there is any accommodation for the lower classes, out of the pews, but certain benches in the aisle, appropriated, in part at least, to a Sunday school. This is a large agricultural parish; the labourers, however (many, perhaps, aged and infirm), should seem to have no free seats, with backs, to which they can resort with convenience, to attend divine worship in the church. It also appears, that several heads of families (respectable farmers) sit together in one pew: their wives and families, (in one instance to the number of seven) in another, separate pew. This again suggests that the parish is driven to shifts for want of church room.

It

is a matter of feeling with many to perform their religious duties by the sides of their wives and families. It is matter of practical benefit, so far as may be, to indulge this feeling. Parents, in that case, are more attentive, as setting an example to their children; who are likely to be, and, undoubtedly in many instances, are, benefited by that example. As a matter, therefore, both of feeling and practical advantage, families should be seated together in church, where this can be done; and its not being done in this instance, suggests, like all the rest, that this parish church of Lingfield is, even at present, unequal to the fair general accommodation of the parishioners.

But a subject of inquiry, not unimportant, still remains. Is the population of this particular parish an increasing, or a diminishing, population? for this is, obviously, a material consideration. Now upon this head, the Court is left in no doubt. It appears * by the evidence of Sir Thomas Turton,

an old parishioner, and Mr. Lane's own witness, that, in about thirty years, the population of Lingfield has nearly doubled itself; increasing, in that time, fron 900 to 1700 persons. It is still, too, a rapidly increasing population, as results both from the evidence and from the strong probability of the thing. I allude, as well to the easy distance of Lingfield from the metropolis, as to the several villas, &c., said to have been recently built, and to be now building, in the parish. The very situation indeed of Lingfield, independent of any evidence, renders it utterly improbable, that whilst the population of the country, throughout, is, as it is, on the increase, that of this particular place, of all others, should be on the decline.

Upon the whole, then, I am of opinion, for the reasons stated, that the present is, by no means, an application, which the Ordinary would be justified in acceding to: taking into consideration, the merits (so to call them) of the applicant, and the circumstances of this parish in the particulars to which I have just been adverting. And this I do, without, at all, meaning to say, that no possible case may arise in which a faculty of this description might be issued, with great propriety, even in these times. For instance, a parishioner might well, possibly, entitle himself to such a faculty, 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 matter, this, which may soon be called for in this particular parish of Lingfield, and would perhaps be very proper, even now, upon some considerations which have already been stated. A benefactor of this description might have strong claims to a faculty of the kind now prayed. But even the claims of such benefactors should be duly weighed by ordinaries; and the indulgence sought by them should be fettered with all due restrictions and limitations! For instance, in allotting them, by faculty, good, or even the best, sittings; ' ordinaries should be careful, at the same

-a

time, not to afford them a too great proportion of room, or one exceeding their real (actual and probable) wants, to the exclusion of other parishioners: for that would be justifiable under no circumstances. In short, I repeat, that it is the Ordinary's duty, keeping pace with the times, to proceed in this whole matter, at the present day, with the utmost care and circumspection.

In respect to costs, of which something was said in the argument-the Court is disposed to make no order upon costs, in favour of either party. Of the original litigants, both were in error. From the time, indeed, of the appeal heard, when the Court intimated its opinion that Mr. Lane had little chance of obtaining a faculty, but in the event of the circumstances of this parish being just the reverse of what they appear to the Court to be, on the evidence, I think, that Mr. Lane should have desisted from his

application. From that time, too, it became the duty of the minister and churchwardens, the parties cited specially, and particularly of the latter, ex officio, to put the Court in possession of those facts and circumstances necessary to guide its discretion in the premises; and upon which it has just decided that this application is not one of a nature fit to be acceded to. But, in the hope of promoting conciliation, and with a view to give a triumph to neither party, I am not disposed to accompany the refusal of a faculty in this instance, with any decree against Mr. Lane, for costs. As to the costs of the opposition, those, I am clearly of opinion, should be borne by the parish from the time of the hearing of the appeal. Up to that time, the opposition proceeded upon the ground of a particular parishioner's (Kelsey's) asserted right to the pew; a question in which the parish had no concern whatever. I must presume it to have been matter of indifference to the parish to which of these parties, if to either, this pew, of right, exclusively belonged. Up to that time the parish, then, may reasonably decline; and leave the costs of the opposition to be defrayed by Kelsey alone.

The churchwardens may, possibly, wish to know what the Court would' recommend to be done, on their part, with respect to this pew, now ascer tained to be at their disposal. Certainly not to seat either Lane or Kelsey, exclusively, in the pew. Their claims to be seated in it, perhaps, are pretty equal. Lane, from his marriage into the Faringdon family, may have contracted a something of attachment to the pew, not improper to be gratified, to a certain extent, and within reasonable limitations. Kelsey, on the other hand, as the now proprietor of Batnors, the owners of which, for the time being, have exclusively occupied this pew for more than a century, may have just reason to complain (at least probably in his own opinion, and in that of many of his fellow-parishioners), if actually, and altogether, dispossessed of it. Not that there are not certain grounds of expediency which would excuse, or even justify the churchwardens, in declining to seat either of these parties in this particular pew.

There

are, doubtless, parishioners whose claims to be seated in it are superior to those of Mr. Lane, a new settler, abstract from his connexion with the Faringdons; which has nothing to do with his being seated in this pew, de jure at least. And with respect to Kelsey-generally speaking, most undoubtedly, churchwardens act more correctly in allotting vacant pews to such parishioners as have the best claim to them in point of standing in the parish, and general respectability, rather than to those who happen to succeed as tenants of the houses inhabited by the late occupiers of those pews. The Occupancy of pews being thus altered, from time to time, according to circumstances, is the best provision against the birth or growth of those prescriptive rights to pews, as in certain families, or annexed to certain messuages, the existence of which, I have said, is so injurious to the general interests of the parishioners. But the present proceedings may have rendered this unnecessary, as a measure of precaution, in the present instance. Supposing it not to be, and that no other good objection

applies to the proceeding now about to be recommended, I see no reason why the present churchwardens should decline allotting this pew to Mr. Lane, and Mr.Kelsey, jointly, or in common. It is sufficiently roomy, according to all the evidence, to accommodate both families. But should the parties in question, unfortunately, be on such a footing as to render their common occupancy of one and the same pew grating to the feelings of both, or either, it may not, perhaps, under the circumstances, be quite improper, that the churchwardens should convert this into two pews. Each of such pews would be capable of holding five or six persons. Mr. Kelsey might be

seated in the one of these pews, and Mr. Lane in the other. To this it should seem that there could be no reasonable objection; although of the exact state of the parish, in all its details, the Court is not in possession of sufficient information, to be enabled to form a very decided opinion on this part of the case. It can only, therefore, in conclusion, recommend the churchwardens, generally, to act impartially in the premises between these, and all parties, subject to the principles just laid down. In the performance of this part of their duty, they will be assisted by the advice, though they are not governed by the authority, of the minister.

and unholy Poor Laws Amendment Bill. The Bishop of Exeter made one of the most splendid and convincing speeches that we ever had the pleasure of listening to, against its most iniquitous clause; and so powerful and effective was his eloquence, that of the Peers present, a majority of one only voted against his amendment. It is satisfactory, however, to know, that the Whigs will never be able to find tools for their dirty work, nor slaves to bow the neck to such unchristian, disgraceful, and intolerable tyranny. If ever this bill maintains in England, the "abomination of desolation" will have commenced upon earth.

The "ne'er-do-well" parliament has terminated its session, for which we are grateful;- -we mean, ,for their being incapacitated from doing mischief, not for the benefits we have received. On the 15th of August, "cretá notandus dies," the King, "God bless him!" personally bowed his faithful Commons out of St. Stephen's, and read (we pity him from our hearts!) one of the most unmeaning speeches that ever even a Whig cabinet had the impudence to inflict on royalty. Fortunately all the world knows that the

King was perfectly innocent of this verbal nuisance; for which his ministers are solely, and awfully, responsible.

Of other matters relating to this island and its dependencies, we can only say, things progress much as usual. Harvest is ended, and supper is past," as the old song says-but Michaelmas has not yet arrived; and the probability is, that in most counties the entire produce will not pay the outgoings, and leave a mite for the hungry Poor Law Nimrods, who are mighty hunters after pounds, shillings, pence, and even farthings. Still, however, as Lord Byron says, "My native land, good night."

FRANCE AND BELGIUM, in the person of their monarchs, have entertained us with royal speeches, almost as good as the one noticed above. But as another monarch is reported to have said, when he showed a Hebrew pig, ""Tis more noise than wool."

SPAIN. Rodil, the general of the chaste usurper, Isabel (we would she and all rebels were chased from the soil!), has, by his atrocities, obtained the agnomen formerly bestowed on Djezzid Pacha, at Acre, and is now best known as the " Butcher!" What an enviable notoriety do the Whigs every where acquire!! We recollect the way in which the Scythian Queen served the Butcher Cyrus of old, and

recommend Rodil to call to mind her pithy address

"Satia te sanguine quo semper sitisti." In the mean time, we urge all " good men and true," not to despair of the cause of honour and justice.

It is satisfactory to find, that the Spanish usurper has only been acknowledged by the brother pirates of Portugal and Morocco-the regicide's son, who holds the crown of France, pro tempore; and the apostate King of Belgium.

IRELAND.-Dublin has been the scene of a vast and most important Protestant meeting, at which upwards of five thousand noblemen and gentlemen, who possess far the greatest portion of the soil and capital, pledged themselves to support the Protestant Faith, and to resist, even unto blood, the re-establishment of Popery, with all its accursed abominations in that priestridden country. We should like to see General Mina's famous receipt for removing the Popish leprosy, tried in Ireland. We expect it would rid the country of a curse much more deleterious than honest St. Patrick ever dreamt of, when he banished the frogs and toads. Daniel would then find himself in a den of lions, whose mouths the prayers of all the saints in the Popish calendar could not shut; and stand a fair chance of becoming a relic himself.