ibute in like proportion with these two towns," and that these
levies on the out-hamlets had been made for additions to, or improvements
of, Wolverhampton Church, which were quite superfluous in their
character, if not absolutely illegal.

On this opinion (of a learned Sergeant-at-Law) the inhabitants of
Willenhall were invited to join with those of Bilston in a common defence
for their mutual benefit. On the advice of the esteemed Dr. Wilkes, a
well-known local Antiquary, who was then the leading public man of
Willenhall, the invitation was declined.

Litigation proceeded for several years both in the ecclesiastical courts
and in chancery, but without any definite decision being arrived at.

In 1754 the Earl of Stamford tried to induce both parties to submit a
case fairly drawn up (for the legal work in the preparation of which he
generously offered to pay all the costs) and to abide by the decision.
The people of Willenhall, through Dr. Wilkes, thanked his lordship for
his friendly offer, and declared their willingness to accept it.

The Wolverhampton officials, however, rejected the proposal, in the hope
they would win their case in the ecclesiastical courts. When the case
eventually came to trial in 1755 an old parish book was produced, which
showed that the exorbitant demands of Wolverhampton were distinctly
illegal. In it was an entry of 1668, which ran in this wise:--

"This is the portion of Rates each Chapelry and Prebend shall pay
towards the repairs of the Mother Church:--

pounds s. d.
Wolverhampton 36 0 0
Bilston 12 0 0
Wylnale 12 0 0
Wednesflde 12 0 0
Hatherton 3 0 0
Featherstone 1 4 0
Kinvaston 1 1 0
Hilton 1 7 0
Pelsall 2 2 0
Bentley 1 10 0
Stretton rent 1 6 8
83 10 8

A writ of prohibition was forthwith filed to stay all further proceedings
in the Spiritual Courts; and the law costs of the trial, amounting to 282
pounds 1s. 8d., were divided equally between Bilston and Willenhall
(1756).

[Picture: Decorative flower]

XVI.--Dr. Richard Wi