be decently inhabited: I do not mean that it is to be new white-washed and painted, if the white-washing and painting be fit for use; but if it is not so, the executor is bound to white

wash and paint it anew. I need not add that the floors, ceilings and cornices must be all in good condition : as likewise windows, frames, doors and locks; and every part of the apparatus of a decent habitation. When I say in a good condition, I mean that each should be in a sound and proper condition, fit for its respective use; their being plain is no sufficient objection against them. It would be endless for me to particularize the articles to which dilapidations extend; nor could I do it from mere memory, without having the several articles proposed to me with an inquiry upon each. But I may lay down the general principle to be this; that dilapidations are such repairs and renovations as are proper to make the house habitable with decent convenience, respect being had to the value of the benefice to which the house belongs. I take this to be the strict principle of law applying to dilapidations. I need not add that in practice this principle ought not to be acted upon with a minute and sordid rigour, but ought to be moderated in the adjustment by a liberal disregard of things trifling in their own nature and value. Doctors' Commons,

June 27, 1795.

WM. SCOTT.

Marble hearths, chimney pieces, locks on doors, belong to the successor, and cannot be removed nor charged for. So paper on walls; ranges and stoves, if fixed, belong to the suc

cessor.

CASE.

The legal acceptation is requested of the word "Dilapidations,” i. e. whether it implies the same as, or more than what is generally understood by the words "complete repairs in common tenancy;" and if more, how far it extends beyond them?

Are fixtures, as kitchen ranges, brewing vessels, coppers, to be considered as belonging to the successor; or has the predecessor or his executor a right to remove them, the prede

cessor having paid for them when he took possession of the living?

OPINION.

I am of opinion that the word "Dilapidations" does not imply more than what is generally understood by the words "complete repairs in common tenancies. The precedents in actions for dilapidations treat the words dilapidated and out of repair as synonymous; and I think it impossible that premises should be considered as dilapidated if they are in tenantable repair. I can find no case which ascertains what things an incumbent or his executors are entitled to remove; but unless there is a settled usage to the contrary, I think they must be bound by the same rule as applies to tenants for life and remainder-men; and if so, I am of opinion that they have no right to remove kitchen ranges, brewing vessels or coppers, if they are really fixed to the freehold. Whatever is fixed to the freehold is, prima fucie, to be considered as passing with it; and whoever insists upon a right to remove it, must shew that the law has established an exception in his favour. An exception is established as to articles of this description, as between landlord and tenant; but I am not aware that any is established as between tenant for life and remainderman, or predecessor and successor. think, however, that usage of uniform might give the right of removal in this case; and therefore, if it should turn out upon inquiry that by the established usage these things have been either paid for by the successor, or removed, I should think in this instance they might be removed; but without this usage I think they cannot. The circumstance that the predecessor paid for them in this instance when he took possession of the living, is of very little weight; for the question is not what has been done at this living, but what is the established usage as to livings in general. I would have the usage, therefore, inquired into, and the claim may either be insisted upon or given up, according to the result of that inquiry. JOHN BAYLEY. Temple, Jun. 7th, 1805.

I

Opinion of Mr. Dumpier on the same Case.

As I understand the law on this subject, the successor is entitled to have the buildings belonging to the living put into complete substantial repair, respect being had to the age of the respective buildings, and the materials of which they are composed. I believe that of late a claim for painting has been allowed in the Ecclesiastical Courts, upon the principle, I presume, that it is necessary for the preservation of the wood work;

but cases of this sort come so seldom before Courts of Common law, that I am not aware that this doctrine has received the sanction of the Courts in Westminster-hall, though I incline to think that if the point came in question there, it would be decided according to the practice of the Ecclesiastical Court. I think that in the case stated, the fixtures do not belong to the successor, but to the predecessor or his executor.

H. DAMPIER.
Temple, Dec. 22d, 1804.

S. P. C. K.

THE Master of the Temple lately gave notice of a motion to the effect, that the Standing Committee should hereafter consist of the Archbishops and Bishops of England, and thirty-six elected members, one-third of whom should be laymen, and that one-fourth of the elected members shall go out annually by rotation, being capable of immediate re-election; also that after the alteration, the Society should only meet quarterly. This motion was referred to the Standing Committee, and at the Monthly Meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 4th, they made their Report; which in substance stated, that the Standing Committee at present consist of the Archbishops and Bishops, and the following thirty-two members :— Very Rev. Dean of Chichester. The Rev. Archdeacon Pott.

Rev. A. M. Campbell.
Richard Clarke, Esq.
Rev. Dr. Dealtry.
Rev. Dr. D'Oyley.

T. G. Estcourt, Esq., M. P.
Rev. E. W. Grinfield.
Rev. W. H. Hale.
Edward Hawkins, Esq.
Rev. John Lonsdale.
Rev. H. H. Norris.
Rev. C. A. Ogilvie.
Baden Powell, Esq.
Rev. Dr. Russell.
Rev. T. L. Strong.
Rev. Dr. Spry.
Rev. J. E. Tyler.
Rev. W. Vaux.
Rev. J. G. Ward.

Joshua Watson, Esq.

That this Committee manage the affairs of the Society, but subject to the control of the members at large; that vacancies be filled up by the Society, which has hitherto invariably adopted the recommendation of the Standing Committee; and that the Standing Committee see no reason for any change. But that as circumstances have produced vacancies in the Committee, they recommend the following twelve gentlemen to fill up the same:

Rev. R. G. Baker.
Rev. Thomas Bowdler.

Rev. Allen Cooper. William Cotton, Esq. Rev. J. W. Cunningham. Joseph Delafield, Esq. Rev. Percival Frye. Rev. Richard Harvey. John Diston Powles, Esq. Rev. Hugh James Rose. Rev. Dr. Roy. James Trimmer, Esq.

It was proposed to proceed immediately to the reception of this Report, when W. W. Hull, Esq., stated that he had received a letter from the Master of the Temple, expressing an expectation that the Committee would make their report, but that the discussion of so important a question would be reserved for some future occasion. It was finally decided that this Report should be taken into consideration at the next monthly meeting.

S. P. C. K.-SPECIAL MEETING.

Ar a special general meeting of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, on Monday, February 10th, 1834, his Grace the ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY in the chair, the following Resolutions were passed:

1. That a separate Committee be appointed for the purpose of superintending the publication, and promoting the circulation of the Holy Scriptures in foreign languages, and also of Versions of the English Liturgy.

2. That a grant be made to that Committee of a sum or sums of money, to be drawn for from time to time, as the Committee may require, to an amount not exceeding in the whole 4,000l.

3. That donations* and annual subscriptions be received from any persons wishing to promote the objects for which the Committee is formed, provided that such Donors or Subscribers do not thereby become members of the Society, and that the amount of these donations and annual subscriptions be placed at the disposal of the Committee.

4. That the Lord Bishop of London be requested to communicate with his

Grace the President, as to the persons who shall be appointed members of the Committee.

Agreed unanimously, That the thanks of this meeting be given to his Grace the President, for his courteous and impartial conduct in the chair.

The above proceedings of the special meeting of the Christian Knowledge Society claim the serious attention of all those members who adhere to the principles which have characterised it to the present period, and who have given it their support as the best bulwark of the Church of England, and as the depository of sound religious instruction adapted to all the stages and circumstances of the christian life, to which the Clergy may resort with confidence for aid in the prosecution of their pastoral labours. The separate fund and its Committee, constituted by the vote of that meeting, are contrived for a refuge for the destitute Churchmen, for whom the Bible Society is too bad, and the Christian Knowledge Society too good an asylum. The party who have effected this, have already made the Sister Society in Ireland a mere caput mortuum, and they will never cease the insidious warfare they have commenced till they have reduced ours to the same state of degradation, and have taken full possession of it for themselves. To bring the subject before such of our readers as take an interest in the prosperity of the most important Church Society, we cannot do better than submit to them the Resolutions of the Bath District Committee, expressive of their unanimous sentiments upon the measure in question; and though the communication made no impression on the meeting to which it was addressed, we trust the great body of the Society dispersed throughout the kingdom will fully weigh this new feature, and will institute such proceedings of their own, in concert with the Bath Committee, as the emergency seems to require.