The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1869-06-05 00:00:00

AN OBJECTION TO VACCINATION.

THE RIGHT TO ELECT AND EJECT
A DISSENTING MINISTER.
In the Court of Chancery, last week, the cause of
"Cooper v. Gordon," was decided.
This case, which raises the important question
whether ministers of Dissenting congregations have, in
the absence of any special agreement or of any miscon-
duct on the part of the Minister, a life interest iii their
appointment, or whether they are mere tenants at will
of their offices, and liable to dismissal by a vote of the
majority of their congregations, was argued during four
days last Term. But, the case possesses, as was pointed
out by counsel at the Bar, such a special interest at the
present time, while the Irish Church Bill is wider dis-
mission, that it will not be tedious to recapitulate the
facts :
ihe plaintiffs are the trustees of an Independent chapel at
Broad-street, Reading, founded in the year 1707 by deeds
under which it was vested in 20 members of the congrega.
gation as trustees for the private church or congregation
meeting there during such time so the assembling
of Protestant Dissenters for religious worship should
be permitted by law." In the following year a house
was provided for the minister's occupation, the rent of
which was directed to be pail to him in case he slid not
occupy it, "so long as he should contione tube the minister or
pastor of the congregation" Thus the house and the pew rents
constituted the ndowment of the chapel. in the year 1865
It was considered desirable by the members of the congre-
gation assembling at the chapel that a second minister
should be appointed to assist the Rev. William Legg, who had
for more than 30 years officiated as pastor; during that and
the ensuing year candidate. for the co-pastorate were invited
to preach in the chapel. In April, 1806, Mr. S. C. Gordon,
who had been one of the candidates, was unauhnously
invited to become, and became, co-pastor. A year after-
wards dissentiotis arose in the congregation, a large party,
including a majority of the trustees, being dissatisfied with
Mr. Gordon, whi.e another party, including a number
of ladies, were just as decidedly in his favour. Ultimately,
on the 6515 of September, 1008, a meeting was held, at
which a resolution was passed dismissil g him from his
office, every person present excepting one, who remained
neutral, voting hi favour of the resolution. The total
number of the congregation was 212. Mr. Gordon's sup.
porters protested against the regularity of the ineetiug, and
abstained from attending it. It was also alleged, and was
not disputed, that upwards of 30 out of the 116 present who
voted in favour of the resolution were members of a chapel
at Twyford, some three miles from Rending. Other meetings,
entailer in number, were afterwards held by the supporters
if slr. Gordon, as which equally emanimous resolutions hi,
his favour were passed, Ile was then requested by two of
the deacons to resign his office. On his refusal they
themselves resigned, and it was alleged that several families
who had previensly been members ceased to attend the
chapel. After comdderable correspondence this suit was
inatuuted.
The case turns d principally on the question of usage,
on which the evidence was most conflicting, the plaintiffs
alleging that it was universally recognized and held as a
fundamental principle by the Independents that, in the
absence of ally special usage or agreement to the contrary,
the power of electing anti dismissing their pastor or minister
rubles entirely with the body of Church members assembling
at the chapel who have partaken of the Lord's Supper
within three niouths, to the exclusion of mere seatholders
who are are not in communion with the Church, and
that any congregation could at any time at their
discretiou dismiss their pastor from his office ; that this
power wes exercised by the vote of the majority of
the menibers, and that the minority were bound by the
decision of the majority, unless it were inconsistent with
the cardinal doctrines and principles held by the whole body.
While on behalf of the defendant it was alleged that . in the
absenee of special agreement) all appointments as pastor or
minister were for life, so long as the person appointed ab-
stained from preaching doctrines at variance with their
tenets and was not guilty of immorality or other gross mis-
conduct; and it was further stated on his behalf that for
more than two centuries no case has ever occurred of a
pastor or minister having been dismissed by the congregation
of that chapel. At the conclusion of the arguments last
Term, the Vice-Chancellor, after pointing out that in the
Interests of religion as well of the parties themselves, some
compromise was most desirable, reserved judgment, with an
intimatime that if he had to decide the case he must do so,
but that he wished both parties to remember that in that
event he must also deal with the costs of the suit.
Mr. Hardy, Q C., and Mr. J. ai. Higgins appeared for the
trustees; 111 r. Greene, Q.C., and Mr. Yates Lee for Mr.
Gordon and Mr. Gordon Whitbread for Mr. Christie.
The Vice-Chancellor said—Os a careful reconsideration of
the evidence and the arguments in this case, lean Mel no
just grounds for the claim of the defendant, the Rev. Mr.
Gordon, to continue to perform the duties and enjoy the
emoluments of minister against the will of the trustees and
el the majority of the congregation. There is nothing in any
of the written instruments to countenance the notion that
the choice of a minister by the trustees and the congregation
is an irrevocable choice, or that Ile is to continue the offi-
ciating minister for life, or during his good behaviour. In-
deed, considering the nature of the duties, the purpose of
the choice, and the constitution of the congregation, they
are hmonsistent with any such irrevocable appoint-
ment. It the minister has a right to continue is that
situations against the will of the majority of the con-
gregation and of the trustees, anti enjoy the emolu-
ments for his life, the numbers and proportion of the
majority could make no difference, and, instead of being
the minister of the congregation, he might be the minister of
a minority of ten or of one. Such a position would certainly
not be that of the minister or pastor of the congregation de-
scribed hi the Declaration et Trust of laoB. As to the argu-
ment that this congregation is not a society existing by volun-
tary subscription, but is endowed with property held upon
certain trusts, and that the minister is a cestui title treat
under the deed, it in no degree supports Mr. Gordon's claim
to continins minister tiering his lie or good behavour. By
the deed he is a cos/ilia. Gault only " so long as he shall 2011-
thine minister or pastor of the society or congregation, and
officiate as such and no longer." The endowment is for the
benefit of the congregation, and that they might be benefited
by the services of a proper minister. The declaration of
trust as to the rents and profits which the minister is to
receive creates a trust for the benefit of the congregation,
and a remuneratioe for those services by winch they are to be
benefited. There is no trust or purpose for the personal
benefit of the minister, except to reward the services which
he performs for the congregation. In the 3rd paragraphs of
his answer Mr. Gordon says, that, in the absence of any
special usage or rules, the will of every such congregation is
in all cases ascertained, and their powers exercised, by the
vote of the majority. Ile adds this qualification,—that the
minority are bound by the majority on all points, so long as
such majority act consistently with the cardinal doc-
trines and principles held by the whole body. Such a quali-
fication is futile, because as soon as the cardinal doe-
trines are contravened by the majority, they cease to j
be the doctrines of the whole body, and unless the
minority submit there is no longer a united body held '
together by doctrines and principlea aio doubt the
trustees and the corporation by the unanimous vote
which appointed Mr. Gordon to be minister might have, at '
the same time, contracted that he should enjoy all the
emoluments for his lifetime. It may, however, well
be ilonlited whether such a contract would be valid
as binding the property, or justified by the terms of
the trust deed, or the purposes for which the trust
is
created. That reasonable degree of harmory which is
secured by the submission or complete secession of the
minority seems essential to the endurance of an asso-
ciation founded for the sacred purpose which smiled this
congregation. In the case of " Perry v. Shipway " I noticed
the authorities, which establish these two main points :-1,
That the minister of a dissenting congregation l.s at law
merely the tenant.at-wili of the trustees ; 2, that in such
bodies the decision of the majority of the trustees bin is the
minority. Indeed, unless the law were so settled, nothing
could follow but confusion and defeat of the very purposes
for which these congregations are formed. The submission
of the minority is the principle on which civil society is
founded. Ills a principle essential for that reesonable har-
mony which is necessary for the coherence of all societies,
greater email, civil or religions. In the case of "Attorney-
General a Abed," it was decided that the minister of a body
of Dissenters has no equity to hold his office against the legal
right of the majority to dismiss him. The judgment leaves
open the question whether, in case of a capricious or improper
dismissal, the Court might interfere. This is not very im-
portant because of the improbability that anything done by
the majority of the congregation cencurriegwith the majority
of the trustees could be capricious or improper. This Court
would be very slow to interfere, and more probably would
not Interfere at all, with the discretion of the majority. In
the present case there is nothing to prove that there Is
anything earricious In the decision of the majority of the
trustees and of the congregation. It is in vain to try to
confound his position as to the permanence of Its tenure
with that of a public officer, of the rector of a parish, or a
parish clerk. The permanence of their tenure is established
by the law of the land for public purposes, and for the
public benefit. The minister of a Dissenting congregation
bus position which the law respects, and will protect, as

At the Bow-street police-court, in London, Mr. Skelton,
a medical man residing In Bloomsbury, appeared to a sum-
mons, at the instance of the parochial authorities, charging
him under the Act 30th and 31st Vic., chap. 14, that he "iii
unlawfully neglect to take, or cause his child to be vaccinated,
according to the provisions of the Act, and did neglect to
render any reasonable excuse for sech neglect."
Mr. Skelton pleaded guilty, and being asked by the
magistrate if he wished to say anything, replied that
his objection to vaccinate his child was founded on a
conscientious belief that vaccination is injurious, lie
had been 1.4 years in practice, and from his experience
of the terrible results of vaccination, he was convinced
that so far from being prophylactic, it tended largely to
the propagation of disease. Some of the worst cases of
small-pox within his knowledge had occurred in patients
who had been vaccinated, not only once or twice, but even
three times. He therefore ref used to vaccinate his child, a
perfectly healthy boy, preferring to accept any ills
with which Providence might vieit him, than to incur
those which neither he nor anyone she knew anything
at all about. He believed that posterity would learn,
from only too convincing evidence, that in this as in
many other medical "discoveries," a grievous mistake
had been committed. Acting upon this deliberately-
formed conviction, he not only refused to vaccinate his
own child, but to vaccinate or authorise the vaccina-
tion of any others.
The magistrate said that this was a conscientious,
or he might say a scientific, objection, and he did not
Sc., that the Act in any way enabled him to take notice
of it.
Mr. Skelton said he came to the court under the im-
pression that the magistrate had only to deal with the
law as it stood. He presumed that there was no alter-
native but to impose a penalty. So far he was pre-
pared to submit to the law. Ile would pay the
penalty, but he would not vaccinate the child. He
had attended and made this statement simply to show
that he was not evading the question, but seriously
and deliberately refusing to do what he held to be
wrong.
The Magistrate said under these circumstances be
really did not like to impose a fine. But the Act left
him no choice. His WM almost a ministerial duty.
Mr. Skelton quite understood that. It seemed
curious that the law made it penal to inoculate with
the virus of the small-pox, and yet enforced a system
of inoculation which, he contended, was none the less
so because the matter was occasionally passed through
the body of a heifer.
The Mic;istrate said he was sorry he had no course
butts impose a fine, but he would mitigate the penalty
of El to lie. Ile P/3.4 afraid that Mr. Skelton would be
summoned again and again.
Mr. Skelton said he had no doubt of it. He was
prepared for that.
The Magistrate thought defendant would be obliged
to have the child vaccinated after aIL
Mr. Skelton thought not, but it was a question for
the legislature.
He then paid the fine, and left the court.

N. .tieing the 3bove case, a correspoudent of a Lon

don contemporary writes :
A case of vaccination in my family will. I think, Bluer
to
a little the truth of Mr. Skelton'a objection to vaccination.
I have three children, a baby of live months, a little deught, r
about two years old, and a son about four and a half sears
old. Some two mouths age the baby was vaccinated.
A short time after the operation sores apreare,l pretty
well all over it. The little boy was seon iii the satire
state. They were not large sores, and both are now
free from them externally. Sly little daughter,
' however, has had her head and body, I might almost say,
covered with large sores, said to be chicken pox. Sonic of
these sores were neatly as large so a farthing. :Anne idea of
her state may be formed by the fact that the sores emelt so
badly that her mother was almost unable to go near her. Ilse
child has been very ill, and has also had a lit It never bail
a fit before She is now almost recovered; but any one
interested can still see, from the aorta yet on her, what she
has endured. I know nothing concerning vaccination but
this. Before vaccination my children have been in perfect
health ; since vaccination they have had dleca-e, and have
been subject to attacks of illness to which apparently they
were not subject before vaccination.

THE VALUE OF OLD PICTURES.

THE SALE OF LIQUORS ON SUNDAY.

In London, on Tuesday, a meeting of members of
Parliament and others was convened at the Westmin-
ster Palace Hotel, for the purpose of conferring on the
best mode of supporting Mr. Rylands' motion in the
House on the 22nd, and also for considering future
Parliamentary action in favour of stopping the sale of
intoxicating liquors on Sunday. The chair was taken
by Mr. Bazley, M.P., and among those present were
Mr. Thomas Whitworth, M.P., Mt. Alderman Carter,
M.P., Mr. Dickinson, M.P., Mr. Cawley, M.P., and
Mr. R. W. Whitworth.
Mr. Bagley expressed regret at the absence of Mr.
Rylands, and said that though, perhaps, few changes
could be made this Session, it would be of extreme ad-
vantage that the minds of members of Parliament
should be impressed with the importance of the sub-
ject.
The Rev. E. Matthews stated to the meeting what
steps had been taken to get a bill introduced into
Parliament by Mr. Candlish. In the meantime Mr.
Rylands' motion had been brought forward, and the
committee determined to co-operate with him. A dis-
cussion in Parliament would, he believed, be of immense
ackantage, as the evidence taken before Mr. Abel
Smith's Committee had been circulated through the
preen to a very limited extent. Mr. Edward Jackson
proposed—
]. That a thorough discussion in Parliament would be most
, beneficial, and that members be requested to sui,port each
other to prevent the question being shelved.
2. That the Central Association correspond with members
favourable to the cause, with the object of attaining united
action in Parliament.
Mr. Alderman Carter, M.P., thought the bill ought
to contain a clause compelling the houses to be opened
I on the Sunday for ordinary refreshment, though not
for the sale of intoxicating liquors.
Mr. Bailey reminded the meeting that it was very
possible that the question before them would have to
, be considered in the bill on the regulation of licenses to
be brought in next Session by Mr. Bruce. The resolu-
I tissue were carried unanimously.