The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-11-24 00:00:00

THE BRITISH PRESS.

he ought, and should he indicted for perjury. Uow was this
business conducted? Mr. Fletcher, himself, brings it before the
Synod, though he now denies the matter to he of an ecclesiastic
nature. He never said to the alynod, You ars twisting and twining
a civil with an ecclesiastic matter ; you have no cognizance here.
He said no such thing ; he was himself the initiative of the affair.
Ile makes his appeal to the Synod, that is to a body which he
tells the Court has no competent jurisdiction ; and when this
Synod. to which he appeals as to a Court, decides against him, he
caste off their authority. and aflirnis the affisir is not within the
reach or cireninfere lee of their jurisdiction. There are many cases
existing at present in the Scotch Church, to winch the old English
law bore a loving analogy. These laws or.ee brought offenders in
this country within the pale of their authority. One was, if a per-
son was chiding, quarrelling, or brawling in • church during ser-
vice, it was lawful for the Ordinary to suspend him. This was
law still, lie was nut transferring his argument from one church to
another. This would lie at once bad law and bad logic.
The argument was almost conclusive as to the old customs
of both Churches. The assertion of the gentlemen op_
petite was, that the Court could not interfere ; it could not keep •
layman nut of the Church. Ile 'hewed that tither layman or
clergyman could be kept out, and the old pr.tcti'ze flowed in with
the stream of his argument ; even the claim to a desk and pulpit
were recognized by the inentnon Law ; still noire ought they to be
admitted in Courts of I:quity, where this sort of possessory action
cad alone be tried. As to the ecclesiastic law, a man, lie thought,
maybe suspended without being heard. though he could not be
deprived. -Here again he would argue from analogy : would not a
person in this country be suspended if he did not appear ? lle cer-
tainly would. His personal presence was necessary ; and if a
notice were necessary, which he would deny, hie. Fletcher him had
it ? Does he deny he was convened? He canr.ot, for he was con.
vened. Hoes he deny that the Synod has no pnwer to make an
order in (threw= F This he does not, he cannot deny, for he well
knows that universal law and reason are against him. He is there.
fore bound, in every sense, by that order which he refuses to obey.
A Clergyman can be suspended in England though lie possess the
freehold, and the proper authority can fill tip the chasm. The
right of suspension was included in the right of filling up the
gap. In the course of his allotments upon this cause, there was
no impediment placed in his way by his learned Friends :
his road was perfectly smooth, as far as they were cone
eerned ; it was not so with regard to the objections of his
Lordship, though lie misted he would get over even these.
His Lordship had nude an early objection to the deed, which
stated that a Minister couhi rot be appointed without the con-
sent of the majority of the congregation. This he admitted
to be true; but his proposition was, that this consent was not
necessary to elect the intervening Ministers. Ile would look
at this question as a lawyer, as a reasoner, and a logician,
and he was ready to eihnit they had no right to elect perma-
nent clergy without such consent. Ity analogy the same case was
here. In case of sequestration or absence, the proper authorities
tnay appoint a Minister ; they could fill up the place of the absent,
but they did not deprive. Such was the case before them. Mr.
Fletcher was theoretically the hlinister ; lie held, to uses law
phrase, in right of his old title. There was no legal appointment
of intermediate Ministers; they were not called Ministers, they
were merely ordered to go and preach ; there was nothing more.
'rimy had nu right to a salary, no rank or consideration as Minis-
ters ; they had a mere right of access to the chapel. to perform the
duties upon thee,: grounds. Pc therefore hoped that the Court
would see that this was within its jurisdiction, and grant the order
for which he prayed. As to the objection arising frotn the proble-
matic injury that may be done to the property, it should also be re-
collected, that if judgment be passed only by decree, years may
elapse, and complete ruin may be caused to the parties. The law,
as laid down in the lords, would, he was sure, Le acted on in this
use. That law would not suffer the dissidents, however numerous,
to violate the original trust. There was some collusion—he would
not use the wad offensively—he would drop the word altogether,
and say there was a concert between Zilr. Fletcher and the trustees
to take this chapel out of the original deed. hut he felt convinced
this Court would grant his motion, and not suffer the parties to
throw down the original decd.
The LOAD Criasett.too—The question before the Court is
not merely one of jurisdiction, but it must be also considered in
reference to and as it regards the stage in which the subject is
brought forward, and whether it comes under the notice of the
Court, according to its admitted jurisdiction with regard to trust
motions. He would not hazard the proposition, that unless this
question was brought forward in this extraordinary way, unless it
were brinight fors ard according to the regular mode of proceeding
in the Court, this case would not sustain the order which was
sought fi -. He would not say this now ; it was obvious from the
nature of things that it would be a groan act of injustice to give an
opinion on the filing of a bill, which should perhaps be contradicted
on the issuing of a decree. There was no case exactly like this,
either in reference to the ,libject, the powers exercised by the
Synod, or the covenant for the execution, and the time that the
decree, if granted, should endare, namely, April, 1825. It will
be obvious to all, that until the decree is granted the Court will
not be deciding upon all the matters within its jurisdiction. To
those who say. that if the injunction be not granted the suspension
will expire bei're the decree is issued; and therefore the decree
ought to be granted now, utile s the injustice of it were manifest
and clear—in answer to ail:. objection, the Court would look at its
other powers, anti act in this case as it did, for example, in the case
of a tenant for life cutting down timber. If an injunction was ap.
plied foe against this tenant, as having oo right to cut, and if he,
the tenant, opposed the injunction, all the prate arising from the
timber would be suspended in the interim, us no person could act for
tenant for life atter his death. The Court would say, under these
circumstances, let the timber be cut down and sold, and the ntuney
lodged in Court. and it shall be given to the executor of the tenant
for lite, if he die entitled to the receipt. There was another diffi-
culty in this case. The persons who came front Scotland to preach
at this chapel were not, it was said, to receive any revenues from
the chapel ; neither was it decided whether it was a charitable in-
stitution. Ile would grant, for the sake of the present argument,
that the suspension did no: deprive Mr. Fletcher of his revenue;
and if, as it was admitted, the successors received no salary, why
should he interfere with the funds of the chapel ? In the case
before him the suspension went to remove him from his duties, but
not to deprive him of his revenue. The extent of this suspension
would be to remove the Minister from his duties, though
not from the benefits of them ; and the discharge of these
arduous duties remained for the successor without revenue:
this obstacle seas gotten rid of by arrangement ; but no arrangement
could be made here; it was not possible to make it; the deed
must be literally adhered to. If those successors refused to act
without a salary, what was to be done ? He would therefore call
upon all parties, if the Court deemed it necessary, to refuse this
injunction, to consider and bear in mind the purposes for which
the application was made. The Court was not called upon to
pass a judgment upon these parties in a moral and religious point
of view. From this it was relieved ;it was merely his duty to act
to the beet of his judgment in regard to the evil rights ; it was not
his panditl duty to view the circumstances submitted to the Court
all connected with moral and religious conduct, with proper and
temperate demeanor. This was not his painful duty. He would
hot, therefore, state his opinions upon these matters, he would
gladly pass them by. There were some other general judicial
views which it was his duty to take. : t was known to all that there
was an Act of Toleration in this country; by this Act all his
3lajesty's Justices and Magistrates were required to glee the benefit
of the law to all Dissenters, provided they required nothing con-
trary to law. Ile adhered, in its fullest and most unlimited sense,
to the law, as laid down by rite Lords in "the Attorney-General
and Pearson." The principle there was, that when the majority
were dissidents and wished to fly off; the minority may say, n You
shall not fiy off with this property and apply it to other principles,
except those mentioned in the deed." The dissidents, though the
majority, had no power to change the deed, except they had a
contract for the purpose. Al to the case in Bowe, they had a
custom in Scotland. on which they set a high value, which was not
known in this country—that if two persons claim a certain right,
and neither does any act which gives him a claim, they can get to
a Court for a deer, e to state who has the right. 'rite question
was, who had a right to the management of the Burgher Synod ?
The Lords gave no judgment, and he could never discover what
became of the question. The &et question for hint was, what was
the nature of the Synod, and what were the powers of the trustees ?
At one period of the discussion lie w.:s inclined to think it abso-
lutely necessary to inquire how far the Synod was connected with
she congregation, and how the Synud's decrees would be supported
by the law of Scotland. Ile was now strongly of opinion that the
inquiry was unnecessary t for no matter what the rules of the Synod
may be, whether sanctioned by law or not. If they were not con-
trary to law, they should be observed according to the deed. Ile
also was disposed to doubt whether Me. Fletcher was a party to
the deed ; of that there could, however, be no doubt, when he con.
sidereal his conduct before this unhappy controversy comment d.
And whilst upon this subject, he could nut help declaring that
there was no measure so necessary to maintain the peace and tran.
quillity of the dissenting portion of the community than the greatest
accuracy and correctness in the trust deeds under which they con-
structed their places of worship ; and be was astonished to fool this
correctness was not more attended to; it would put an end to all
unfortunate controversies. It would spate expense to the parties ;
it would spare, be may say, the religious character of the country.
By the deed, the quantum of salary wee left to the congregation.
They could, if they pleased, place the Pastor in a must unplea-
sant situation. As to the powers alluded to in the deed, it required
the experience of a long life to comprehend all those mentioned in
the deed. It wins clear, that if a minister was suspended, he should
at least be so aceneding to the conditions of the deed, and any of
the congregation may say, we do not dissent from the sentence, but
we haves right to see the settence passed according to the rules
and iestitutions of the Synod. Of this Synod, he knew nothing,
and as this suspension is admitted to be a' an end in April, the
artier of the Coon would he merely a matter of costs, and not a
mainlatory decree. He will not do, on an interlocutory decree, what
he tray he obliged to retract upon better informatioti, if the matter
came to a hearing. As to the property, he was not justified in in-
terfering ; there was no necesatty, as -he was informed that no reve-
nue was taken from the pester, nor was given to the preachers ;
who came from Scotland. He would therefore leave this property
to chance, if the matter should come to a hearing ; this may be be.
Gore April, and then the Court would have it in its power to say
that the suspension was right or wrong ; and if it were right, leave
matters as they are. For these, and other reasons, it was the duty
of the Court to refuse the injunction. This proceeding prevented no
other right, it did not prevent the hearing of the cause. If any
person thought that upon making this interlocutory order he judged
uatevourably of any of the pantos concerned, he protested against
the supposition. It was fit for hint in that chair to utter the senti-
ments of the individual man, but it was his rigbtand duty to speak
Ins judicial sentiments ; and if the supposition to which lie alluded
was funned, he protested against it. Ile had net made up his
'lliad shout the costa. lle would give ass opinion in a few days.

VIOE-CIIANCELLOR'S COURT, Tt: E SDAT, Noe. 23.
The Vece-CliswercLot was occupied the whole of the day in
hearing arguments in causes of no public importance.