Who are entitled to a manse. Who are liable to build and repair a a manse. Minister's claim for house rent.
Robert Mutter v. The Earl of Selkirk
Date: 16 June 1784 Case No. No 23.
A minister of a parish, partly landward and partly consisting of a royal burgh, is not entitled to demand the building of a manse, but may claim a sum for house rent. See Heritors of Elgin against Troop, No 21. p. 8508.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
There being no manse for the ministers of Kirkcudbright, the heritors of that town and parish had been long in the use of allowing to them for houserent 100 merks yearly; and to Mr Mutter, the present incumbent, they have given L. 15 Sterling on that account. In a late process of augmentation, the Earl of Selkirk, the principal heritor, moved the court of teinds to include in their decreet a special decerniture for the last-mentioned annual sum; but the Lords Commissioners, doubting their jurisdiction in that particular, reserved to him the 100 merks only, so long enjoyed by his predecessors. The payment of the L. 15 having been afterwards with-held, Mr Mutter made application to the presbytery for a decree ordaining a sufficient manse to be built; upon which they decerned the heritors to make payment of L. 355: 2s. for that purpose. The Earl of Selkirk having brought a suspension of the charge that followed against him,
Pleaded; By the statutes which passed in 1563, in 1572, in 1592, and in 1593, provision for manses and glebes was made to the reformed clergy out of those of the ancient parsons and vicars, and the possessions of abbeys and cathedral churches; and, with respect to glebes in particular, out of any churchlands whatever within each parish. It was not until the usurpation, that by statute 1644 the right to manses and glebes was declared, even where there had been previously no ecclesiastical possessions. That act, however, expressly excepts burgh-town kirks; and though the subsequent statute of 1649 extends the provision to parishes partly consisting of burgh and partly landward, both these last-mentioned enactments have been rescinded; while the statute of 1663, ordaining the building or the reparation of manses, is confined to country parishes, The claim therefore of the charger, who is minister of a royal burgh, is not warranted by law.
Answered; Ministers of parishes that comprehend landward districts, such as Kirkcudbright, are by law entitled to manses; whatever may be the case of those ministers whose parishes consist wholly of royalty. The statute of 1663 is general, and respects landward heritors equally, whether the parish includes a royal burgh or not. Accordingly, it refers to this difference among burghs royal, that of some the ministers have, and of others have not, right to a glebe; thus plainly indicating there being a landward district in the first instance, and none in the second.
Observed on the Bench; It is not to be expected, that ministers should find in the country proper houses, if not built on purpose for them; but in royal burghs they may always obtain fit habitations. Of course it is to landward parishes that in this respect the statute of 1663 relates. Sometimes indeed burghs royal do give manses to their ministers; and if the charger were in possession of one, he ought to be permitted still to retain it. But more frequently, as in the present instance, ministers in towns are allowed a certain annual sum for the renting of a house.
Upon a report of the case by the Lord Ordinary,
The Lords ‘suspended the letters; reserving to the minister to insist for a competent house rent.’
Reporter, Lord Alva.For the Charger, G. Wallace.Alt. Wight.Clerk, Home.
Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 398. Fac. Col. No 156. p. 244.
