The Sun.
London, England, 1836-03-25 00:00:00

LADY ,HEWLEY'S CHARITY.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
Bristol, March 8, 1836.
SlR—About a month ago, Lord Lyndhurst, with his learned
coadjutors, Baron Alderson and Sir John Patteson, confirmed
the decision of the Vice-Chancellor in the case of Lady
Hewley's Charity ; and since that time, statements have )ap-
peared in various newspapers, especially one copied from the
Patriot, strongly criminatory of the late Trustees, and of the
religious body to which most of them belonged.
I have never myself been in any way concerned in the ma-
nagement of the trust, or in the legal proceedings respectino.
it ; and I have never derived any pecuniary benefit from the
Charity. My view of the case has not only been formed de-
liberately and conscientiously, but also after having had some
apprehension, when the case was first brought forward, that
the Trustees might not have been fully justified in the course
they pursued, although in point of fact they distributed about
2,0001. per annum out of 3,0001., among persons of Orthodox
opinions. Thus circumstanced, I respectfully submit the fol-
lowing observations in relation to the Trustees, and to the
judgment pronounced against them.
Some things will be admitted on all bands :
1. That if Lady Hewley had left her money expressly to
encourage ministers to preach or write against the Trinity, or
to deny any of the persons therein to be God, her intention
could not have been legally carried into effect.
2. That she did not institute her Charity for such purpose.
3. That if the Trustees had employed her Charity to send
forth Ministers to execute such purpose, this appropriation
would, before 1813, have been illegal, and at all times morally
unjustifiable.
4. That the Trustees were to be guided in the distribution
of their Charitable funds, by what they believed to be her in.
tention in relation to the several classes of recipients, viz.--
Preachers, Widows, Students, and Hospitallers.
The ascertainment of this intention is the essence of the
matter, not only in the moral, but in the legal, view of the
case. It was repeatedly stated by the learned Judges, that
the whole is a question of FACT, the course of law being clear
when that is known.
It is only on this ground that I presume to object to their
decision. In the balance of probabilities as to Lady Hewley's
intentions, persons accustomed to discrimination among reli-
gious opinions, and to the history of their variations, especially
at the period in question—the beginning of the last century__
have some of the most important elements for sound judgment ;
and for myself I declare that I desire no decision that is not
according to truth and justice.
I am of opinion that Baron Alderson did not show that dis-
crimination among religious opinions which the case peculiarly
required, in relation either to the Apostles' Creed, or to
Bowles's Catechism. To the latter I shall advert hereafter :
respecting the former, I have two serious objections to his
judgment. 1. Where representing the Apostles' Creed as a
test of the intentions of the devisor, he did not take the Creed
simply, but as explained by the Catechism of the Church of
England, though Lady Hewley neither was a member of that
Church, nor directed the use of its Catechism. 2. That
though Unitarians in general object to the use of any Creed
in their public worship, they regard this as fully accordant
with their own fundamental doctrines; and it actually formed
a part of the Liturgy originally used by Mr. Lindsey in the
Unitarian Chapel in Essex-street, and is found in other Litur-
gies compiled by persons of like sentiments. Taking the
Apostles' Creed as a test of the intentions of the devisor, as
the Learned Baron laid down, the decision should have been
for the Trustees.
It further appears to me that the Learned Judges were not
observant of the important distinction between the practice of
worshipping God, the Father Almighty, alone, in the name of
the Lord Jesus Christ, (which is the restrictive principle of
Unitarian worship, and the sole bond of union among the
members of Unitarian congregations,) and the writing or
preaching against the doctrine of Trinity. The latter put
the individual out of the pale of the Toleration Act; the for-
mer was in no way whatever affected by it. The exceptions
in that Act did not reach the worship which was exclusively
addressed to the Father, nor the exclusive preaching of those
doctrines, which all believers in " Christ's holy Gospel" receive,
I now proceed to state what appears to me of the chief mo-
ment in ascertaininr, the intentions of (he devisor.
Everything that hasb transpired in evidence, leads to regard
Lady Hewley as what would now be termed moderately ortho-
dox ; believing, not improbably, in the Trinity ; but, like
many others of that class, in the present day, laying the
greatest stress upon hopes and principles which are, in reality,
common to all Christians, whether Protestant or Catholic,
Trinitarian or Unitarian ; and seeking chiefly to promote the
spirit of the common Lord and Saviour, and obedience to his
commands. She belonged to an English denomination, called
Presbyterian, though without any of the characteristics of the
Presbyterian form of Church-government, as distinguished
from the Independeuts ; but which essentially differed from
the latter, at the period in question, by imposing no Creed, or
Confession of Faith, as the terms of Christian communion. By
this unshackled liberty of private judgment, the way was pre-
pared for a gradual change of opinion, among the congrega
tions which were the early objects of Lady. Hewley's bounty,
as well as among the descendants of her original Trustees,
and of her own kindred. Her heir-at-law is a Unitarian.
Without departing from the system of her religious deno-
mination, Lady Hewley could not have imposed any exclusive
test of doctrine on the ministers of the Gospel, or the students
for the ministry, who we-e to be the objects of her bounty. As
a matter of fact she did not impose any.
The Learned Judges laid down, that those conditions of
religious knowledge which the devisor appointed for admis-
sion into her alms-house, she may be presumed to have in-
tended for the other classes ; on the contrary, I argue that
since she imposed some conditions for the " alms-bodies," and
did not for the ministers and students, she did not intend to
impose them for these, or that others should do it after her.
But even such conditions as those for the women of the
alms-house, would decide nothing against the Trustees. Lady
Hewley required that they should be able to say the Lord's
Prayer, the Apostles' Creed, the Ten Commandments, and
Bowles's Catechism ; and, without doubt, expected that they
would entertain the sentiments therein taught. As to the
Lord's_ Prayer, that is the Unitarian's model of worship. The
Apostle's Creed, 1 repeat, is essentially Unitarian. As the
Learned Baron has shown that he misinterpreted this last, I
the more confidently appeal from his judgment respectingßowles's Catechism, which is reprinted in Mr. Tottie's " Plain
Statement" respecting these Charities. I have repeatedly pe-
rused it, and declare that, in relation to the sole deity, the ex-
clusive worship, and the essential mercy of the God and Father
of our Lord Jesus Christ, which are the only principles com-
mon to all Unitarians, their is nothing which would prevent
their employment of it for religious instruction ; that there is
nothing whatever which teaches the personal deity or worship
of Christ, or the doctrine of the Trinity : the chief thing in it
to which the Unitarian would object, is what it teaches, though
in no very precise form, respecting Original Sin. To this I
add, that the selection of this Catechism, in preference to one
most extensively, and almost uniformly employed in those days
among the orthodox Dissenters—viz., the Assembly's Cate-
chism—in which the doctrine of the Trinity, with others re-
lated to it, is explicitly taught, itself affords strong presump-
tive evidence that she did not intend to press Trinitarian doc-
trine even upon those for whom she appointed the Catechism.
That Lady Bewley did not intend that any test of confor-
mity to Trinitarian doctrine should be imposed as the condi-
tion of the reception of her bounty by preachers, I regard as
certain, because she has not imposed any test. Being a lady
of religious education, she could scarcely be-ignorant that near
the close of the preceding century, the English Unitarians ( Mr.
Locke, as Bishop. Law states, being one of them,) had pub-
lished a series of important tracts, (forming several thin but
closely printed quarto volumes,) in defence of their doctrines, to
the good spirit and talent of which Archbishop Tillotson bore
testimony ; and at any rate she could not be ignorant that the
common doctrine of the Trinity was the subject of much dis-
cussion, and that many relinquished it. Yet she appointed no
test on the subject for the recipients of her bounty ; and this,
though there was nothing in law to prevent her doing so, and
the prevailing system of the religious world would have sup-
ported her in it : but it would have been contrary to the system
of her own communion; and her requirements for those on
-whom she did impose conditions which are chiefly practical,
show that it would have been inconsistent with the spirit of
her own mind.
Taking-. therefore, the intentions of the devisor as the sole
ground of judgment, I conclude as follows :-
1. That the trustees whose removal the decision of Lord
Lyndhurst confirms, would have. acted legally as well as mo-
rally wrong, if they had required any doctrinal test, or laid
down conformity to any doctrinal standard, as the condition for
receivinr, Lady Hewley's Charity, by persons whom they be-
lieved toe be " poor and godly preachers of Christ's Holy
Gospel."
2. That by distributing that bounty without requiring any
such test or conformity, but simply on respect to circumstances
and character, they acted according to the trust reposed in
them ; and, being Unitarians, they showed their impartiality
by distributing two-thirds of the income among Trinitarians.
3. That whoever may hereafter be Trustees of Lady Hew-
ley's Charity, they will act legally as well as morally wrong,
if theY sould requie any octrinl test from the objects of it,
or makeh conformityr to anyd doctrinal standard the ground of
'heir distribution.

LANT CARPENTER•

The reconciliation between the Dilly and the Tories
was consummated a few days ago, when Lord de Grey gave
dinner to Sir Robert Peel, Lofd Stanley, Sir James Graham,
and the rest of the clique, at his house in St. James's square.
HIGHWAY ROBBERY.—A highway robbery of the
most atrocious character was committed between Hastings
Lodge and the pay-gate on Saturday as early as
manhalf-past
seven o'clock in the evening. An industrious young
named Spencer Sargent, of Seddlescomb, was going up the
hill in his cart, accompanied by his sister and three children,
when lie perceived a man lying extended in the centre of the
road. Supposing the man to be ill, he alighted from the
cart and approached to get hint up, when he was sud-
denly attacked by five or six accomplices—four men and the
rest women—and robbed of 31. 10s. in money. Not content
with their plunder, they beat the poor fellow so dreadfully
that he was fully expected to breathe his last during the night,
the Magistrates were summoned to his bedside to receive
his deposition. He recognised the parties, who had been im-
mediately apprehended on suspicion, on their being introduced,
and unhesitatingly swore to their identity. There are three
men and two women in custody ; they are all bad characters,
and it is supposed from the daring nature of the attack, almost
within sight of the town, that it is not their first attempt.
Sargent still lies dangerously ill. The male prisoners looked
extremely troubled, but the women treated the
all
with somewhat more non-chalance. They were remanded
till Thursday. A large number of inhabitants remainewdhi hin
High-street during the whole of the proceedings, c
lasted from ten till three.—Brighton Guardian,