The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-01-19 00:00:00

THE BRITISH PR- Eg4S.

SWALLOW-STREET CHAPEL.

A meeting of the Presbytery was held yeaterday at this Chapel,
at which Dr. M.aXt:la. presided its Moderator. The object of the
meeting (which eat in this instance as a judicial court) was to
decide whether seatholrlers. as such, were crank(' to vote for the,
election of a minister. This question was litigated in consequence
of the appointment of the Rev. William Woodrow to officiate in
this chapel in the place of the Rev. Mr. Marshall, who has been
lately removed to another simatina. A number of individniiis who
were dissatisfied with the nomination of Mr. Woesirow signed is'
protest and dissent against this gentleman's appointment. A
petition signed by 32 sentliolders was also presented, praying to be
allowed to vole for the election of a ;pastor.
ale. NE IV MA X, 011 the part of those who signed the protest and
dissent. said that the congregation wire the most competent persons
w decide the qualifications of a minister; that many of those who
signed had been thirty or forty years members of it, and their
opinion, therefore, was entitled to consideration. It was said that
the seatholdera were incompetent to vote, and that they should
haVe been guided and directed by the decision of the elders. They
hail applied to the elders to establish their unquestionable right,
but they obtained. nn answer, and were left in utter darkness, to
grope their way 34 well as they could.
Mr. SCOTT said that he would not impute blame to any person,
but he would assert that he. and all those who signed the document
which was under the consideration of the Court, were dissatisfied
with Mr. Woodrow.
The lifour ATOlt here said it was competent for Mr. 'limey
and Mr. Romani). the elders, to whom the protest and dissent
were forwa-ded, either to appear at the bar, or to sit as judges.
These gentlemen waved their right of elders, and appeatett at the
bar.

Mr. Ilta wig stated that hia reason for not attending to the
protest was, that it contained a false statement. and way not there-
fore a fit document to be read In such a sacred place an the church.
The consideration of the petition next came before the court,
when

Dr. Iltsys IE addressed the court, he said that those who signed
the petition were persons who had not, as he hat; been informed, ever
communicated with the congregation, and might as well be con-
sidered Mahometane as metubers of that congregation. He was
proceeding to make further observations of this kind, when he woe
called to order by the Moderator, and admonished to abstain from
personalities. The gentleman having complained of the cold. dbl.
continued his harangue. Perhaps the observations of the Mode-
rator served as a damper to the warmth with which hebegan.
A Mr. NtwalAN replied.
Mr. LEST.EE advocated the cause of the seatholders. He read
a written speech. He answered two objections against the right of
the seatholder to vote Mr the appointment of a 'moister. The first
was that the practice was contrary to the custom of the Church of
Scotland mid the second that it was dangerous to admit such a
right, as many persons might become seatholders for the purpose
of exercising that right to appoint objectionable persons. To the
first objection lie replied, that the Clergy of the Presbyterian
Church derived their support from the contributions of the sent.
holders, but in Scotland they derived it front other sources. In
Scotland, a patron who MRS not a Member of the Church might
appoint; but he contended that they were not bound bf the
laws of the church of Scotland, nor could they Appeal to a synod
or Presbytery of Scotland front the decision of thut Court. It was
therefore illiberal and unfair ton:strict their privilege to rote. The
Her. Gentleman in question bad declared that he would not ac.
cept the situation unless he was appointed by the consent of all,
and now that two-thirds of the congregation bad dissented, it
would be equally oppressive to the seatholders, and that gentle.
man, if the dissentients were decided to have no voice in the
election, as he must obtain a proportion of his support from
persons who disapproved of his ministry. In tvply to the
second objection, he said, that as the consent of the Presbytery
was memory in all cases, on danger could arise front allow-
ing the right in question. The exclusion of the seatholders to
vote was the more intolerant, as it proved a gross partia-
lity for those who were friendly to the " Call," were allowed to
sign that instrument, while these who dissented were not al-
lowed to vote, and were now obliged to appear as peti-
tioner at the bar of that Court. The right of the seatholders to
vote was established at the Caledonian Chapel at London-wall,
and Dr. Manuel himself admitted die right at the election of the
Her. Mr. Marshall, and he had an affidavit in his hand which
proved that the Moderator (Dr. Manuel), had made that admission
to iir Peter Laurie.

MS. I il:1.\011;Ved to see the affidavit ; but as it was not signed,
he said, it was not a valid document.
The Mootnaxost having asked both parties if they had any
further observations to make, declared the proceedings on the port
of the dissentients and Presbytery closed. lie then vacated his
seat as Chairman, which was taken by Dr. Bright.
Dr. Maxviet. then said that he never admitted that the seat.
holders had a right to vote ; on one occasion, where all were unani.
mous, he had waived the technical forms. and permitted those per.
sons to express their approbation of the person then appointed in
that way, and he was sure his friend Sir Peter Laurie would admit
that to be the fact were he present. Dr. Manuel having given this
explanation, tenanted the Chair, and
Dr. Int G tr, an elder of the Church, moved that the call should
be sustained