Between Christopher Temple, Esq, one of HM Counsel and Chancellor of the County Palatine of Durham, Plaintiff; and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, Defendants
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 December 1853 |
| Date | 10 December 1853 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 43 E.R. 164
BEFORE THE LORD CHANCELLOR LORD CRANWORTH.
S. C. 23 L. J. Ch. 673; 18 Jur. 45; 2 W. R. 112.
[418] Between christopher temple, Esq., one of Her Majesty's Counsel and Chancellor of the County Palatine of Durham, Plaintiff; and the ecclesiastical commissioners for england, Defendants. Before the Lord Chancellor Lord Cranworth. Dec. 10, 1853. [S. C. 23 L. J. Ch. 673; 18 Jur. 45; 2 W. R. 112.] By the 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 19, the temporal jurisdiction, including all jura regalia of the Bishopric of Durham, was transferred from the bishop to the Crown, and by the 6th section of that Act the rights of any persons holding any office by patent were reserved, and the revenues of the See were made chargeable with the same fees and stipends in respect of any office in the county of Durham as the same had theretofore been subject to. Under the authority of the Acts constituting the Ecclesiastical Com mission ers, and by an Order in Council in 1836, the surplus revenues of the See of Durham, after providing for the bishopric, were directed to be paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and such surplus was made chargeable with the payment of the fees and stipends granted out of the revenues of the See by the last or any preceding bishop to any officer of the Palatinate who held his office by patent at the time of the passing of the Act 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 19. The office of Chancellor of the Palatinate was created by patent before the time of Henry VIII., and the fees in respect of such office were about £27. In the year 1788 the then bishop made a voluntary grant of .£100 to the Chancellor, payable out of the revenues of the bishopric, for each sitting of the Chancellor's Court, and from that period down to 1836 £100 was entered in the accounts of the bishopric-under the headings sometimes "new stipend" and sometimes "new stipend clue this sitting." The Ecclesiastical Commissioners having refused to pay the present Chancellor, who was appointed in 1852, any more than the sum for which there was evidence of a grant by patent:-Held, that, having regard to the period during^ which the £100 had been de facto paid, and irrespective of the question whether the payment of that sum could ever have been enforced by action at law, the surplus revenues of the bishopric in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were liable for the payment of the sum of £100 for each sitting of the Chancellor. This was a special case, under Sir George Turner's Act, stated for the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, his Lordship having consented to bear it in the first in-[419]-stance, and the Plaintiff and Defendants having agreed to be bound by his Lordship's decision. The case stated as follows :-1. The county of Durham has from time immemorial been a County Palatine, and previously to the time at which the Statute 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 19, came into operation, the Bishop of Durham was Lord of the Palatinate, and by letters patent under his seal appointed all officers of the Palatinate. 2. The Chancellor of the County Palatine of Durham was one of the ancient officers 3DEO. M.AG.UO. TEMPLE V. ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS 165 of the Palatinate, and had full equity and other jurisdiction as Chancellor within the limits of the county, and during the time that the bishop was Lord of the Palatinate, the Chancellor was appointed by letters patent under the bishop's seal, and generally for the term of his life. 3. By the above-mentioned Act of Parliament the Palatine jurisdiction and authority, and all forfeitures of lands and goods for treason or otherwise, and all mines of gold and silver treasure trove deodands escheats fines amerciaments and all jura regaMa of what nature or kind soever within the Palatinate are vested in the Crown, and it is provided by the said Act, amongst other things as follows, that nothing in the said Act contained shall affect the right of any person holding a patent of any office, whether abolished by the Act or not, to receive any fee or stipend granted by such patent out of the revenues of the Bishopric of Durham, and that such revenues shall continue and be subject to all the same fees and stipends in respect of any office in the said county of Durham as the same have heretofore been subject to. And Her Majesty in 1846 appointed Sir Richard Torin Kindersley, now one of the Vice-Chan-[420]-cellors, Chancellor of the County Palatine of Durham, and in 1851, on the resignation of Sir Richard Torin Kindersley, Her Majesty appointed the above-named Plaintiff Chancellor of the County Palatine of Durham. 4. The Plaintiff was appointed...
To continue reading
Request your trial