Letter received by Banks from Sir William Scott, ca 23 November1808 (Series 92.07) - No. 0007

[Page 7]

If the Chapter consulted proper persons, of apparent Judgment & acted upon their advice in pulling down these ancient ornaments of the Church, the Idea of the any wilful intention to do an injury to the Building fades.  But if the Chapter consulted no Architects or Builders or persons of competent Judgement, but proceeded themselves ex mero motu, that circumstance itself goes alone would go  far to prove an Abuse of their discretion.  Upon the whole I am of opinion that the Court of Chancery would grant an Injunction to restrain the chapter from doing future waste injury to the Cathedral, provided they shall be unable to make it appear that they were exercising a real & bona fide discretion; a defence which from what is stated to me (tho' I could have wished for a statement rather more full) It seems they cannot make out.  They are also I think at all events bound to account for & apply to the purposes of the Fabrick the amount of the materials sold which it seems they have applied to their own use, & the further effect consequences of establishing against the Chapter a case of waste would be, according to the ordinary principles of a Court of Equity that they would be decreed to make good compensation in damages or to restore the Spires.

If upon a minute examination of the whole proceedings such conduct of the Chapter on this occasion, which possibly is are already known tho' the circumstances of it they are not stated fully to me,