chamber case a clergyman be not compellable to serve the office of collector  and expenditor to the commissioner of sewer SC stram motion for a writ of  privilege for exempt Charles chamber clerk and vicar of Dartford and a  proprietor of land within Dartford fresh marsh in Dartford from serve the  office of collector and expenditor for the say level and a affidavit be  produce that Mr chamber hold the land as vicar of Dartford and that the same  be glebe land and the motion be principal find on dr lee case I vent SC I lev  SC I Mod SC keb on the other side it be argue by sergeant wright and Mr Filmer  that a clergyman be not exempt either by statute or commonlaw from the service  of this office the statute of great Charta c confirm only such privilege as  clergyman have at commonlaw and the same thing be mean by Lord coke in his  comment on this statute Inst where he say that clergyman be not oblige to  serve any temporal office as he seem to explain it in Inst and therewith agree  the opinion of Lord holt in in Mod that statute therefore do not extend to the  present case because the office in question arise from Act of parliament and  it have often be settle that in respect of ecclesiastical possession person be  not exempt from charge and office create by Act of parliament they be bind by  the statute of Winton the statute for repair of bridge and of watch and ware  notwithstanding this last be a personal service and of a low and servile  nature and very laborious style roll vent SC lev SC keb Andrews clergyman  frequent act as justice of peace and in the commission of sewer Calliss read  on sewer and they be compellable to act in these office because the king have  a right to the service of all his subject their ecclesiastical revenue be also  liable to all parliamentary charge as well as other estate though the payment  of tax be a service of tenure as to the present office it be one of high trust  it be a office which tend to preserve the property of the Andrews er p church  as well as other possession and it be for the benefit of the whole country and  consequent it be a very proper office for a clergyman and not beneath the  dignity of his profession to act in it be also material that by the statute of  h c a power be give to the commissioner of sewer to make expenditors without  any exception and the word of the Act be accord to their discretion and the  king himself be not exempt from this office for in dock and yard it be  exercise by the officer of the crown as to dr lee case the reason give by one  of the judge do not hold here and as to the present point it be only the  opinion of one judge against another beside this office may be exercise by  deputy and then the reason of the privilege now claim as appear by the writ of  privilege itself fail and the principal shall not be exempt lev SC keb a  affidavit be therefore produce that this office be exerciseable by deputy and  also that it have be the constant usage for the commissioner of sewer since  the year to appoint expenditors by turn and that thirtyfour clergyman have  serve this office since the case of the archdeacon of Rochester which be in  the time of car in support of the motion it be argue by solicitor general  strange and Mr chip that the general rule be that a clergyman be a god  military man shall not be oblige to intermeddle in secular affair f n b Inst  Andrews and the whole tenor of the book be that they be exempt from serve  temporal office because person of that profession be suppose to be always  engage in their cure and for the same kind of reason atorneys be privilege  person they be suppose to be always attendant on the court cro car vent SC I  lev there be no difference as to the present point between a office at  commonlaw and a statuteoffice as appear by in Mod and the queen and Henley a  this seem to be the case report vin ab but see on this point king Stubbs term  Rep a east Ann a mandamus be there pray to elect a overseer in the room of a  widow woman who have be choose into the office and a peremptory one be grant  because woman be excuse from serve office at commonlaw and by the same reason  they ought not to be oblige to exercise these office by statute as to the Act  of h the power thereby give to the commissioner to appoint officer be not a  absolute one but a power bind by the law for the word be do therein c after  the law and statute of the realm c and at the time when that Act be make  clergyman be not oblige to serve this office and consequent be not so now  neither can a deputy be appoint tinder this statute because he can be fine and  it seem to be petitio beginning to say that this may be do because if a  clergyman be not oblige to exercise this office he need not make a deputy  beside he may not be able to procure one and then must himself intermeddle in  secular affair contrary to the above rule for these reason and upon the  authority of dr lee case and in Mod the whole court page just absent be clear  of opinion that Mr chamber be not compellable to exercise this office the  first case be direct in point and stand upon both the reason give in the book  and the other be contrary to the distinction take between a office at  commonlaw and under Act of parliament and lee c j say that the usage in this  case bath no influence on the present question for Andrews the exemption be  claim as a privilege any person entitle to it may certain waive it if he  please a writ of privilege be therefore grant