The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-07 00:00:00

BENN DLEY.

The Bewdley Election Committee re- assembled at the
usual hoer this morning; Mr. Wrightson in the chair.
The Committee were engaged the whole of the day
in hearing evidence in support of the petition.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—(THIS DAY.)
The House sat to-day to hear appeals. The Peers
present were the Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Bose -
bery, and Lord Morley.
DRUMSIOND AND OTHERS V. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
AND OTHERS.
The further arguments in this part-heard appeal were
resumed to day. The case came before their Lordships
upon appeal from a decree of Sir Edward Sudgen, when
Lord Chancellor of Ireland, in the year 1842. The
facts of the case, according to the information, may be
thus stated:—About the year 1665, several ministers of
congregations in the city of Dublin, upon the passing of
the Act of Uniformity, having declined to comform to the
provisionss of that statute, withdrew from their parochial
cures, and with certain of their parishioners, formed five
Nonconforming or Protestant Dissenting congregations
agreeably to the Presbyterian form and discipline; and
they erected five meeting-houses in Dublin—one in
Wood-street, one in Cook street, one in New row, one
in Plunket-street, and one in Mary's Abbey. These
congregations were governed, according to the Presby-
terian form, by elders elected from among themselves.
No particular statement of what their religious faith was
appeared to have been agreed upon, but all united
to defend freedom of Dissent and Dissenters.
The information then alleged the grant of
certain property to trustees for the protection
of Protestant Dissenters, and alleged also that it had
been generally administered by the ministers and
elders of the congregation already adverted to. It then
nt on to state the particular circumstances out of
which the present suit had arisen; it stated the articles
of the trust-deed, and then alleged that all the original
trustees believed in the Trinitarian doctrines, and that
' up to a recent period the entire income of the fund was
applied according to the trusts of this deed, to and for
the benefit of Trinitarian Protestant Dissenters ; that
the Wood•street congregation had united with that of
Cork-street, and removed to a meeting-house in Strand-
street; that the congregation of New-row had lemoved to
Eustace-street, and that the congregation of I'lunket-
street had joined a congregation of Trinitarian Presby-
terians .ou Usher's Quay. The information further
stated that the congregations of Strand-street and
Eustace-street had adopted the opinions which are
commonly called Unitarian, and that the Rev. Joseph
Hutton and Dr. Leslie, ministers of Eustace-street, and
Dr. Hammond, minister of Strand-street, respectively
taught and preached Unitarian doctrines, and that the
lay elders and members of the congregations
belonged to the sect of Unitarians, but that
the ministers, elders, and congregations of
Mary's Abbey and Usher's Quay still maintained
their ancient faith, being Trinitarian Presbyterians. The
information then submitted that according to the true
construction of the trust deed, and the intent of the
parties, it was inconsistent with the trusts thereof to
apply any portion of the fund in aid of the teachers of
doctrines at variance with the belief in the Trinity, or
at variance with the belief in our Lord Jesus Christ, as
entitled to divine worship; and yet that the great
part of the fund was applied to the propagation
of doctrines called Unitarians—by grants to Uni-
tarian ministers—by educating young men in
Unitarian principles, and by building and re-
pairing Unitarian places of worship. The defen-
dants in the court below, who are the appellants, here
put in an answer to the information, in which they
alleged that at the time the trust was created no parti
cular dogmas of faith were in question among Protestant
Dissenters in Ireland, but they all agreed in rejecting
tests, and in making the words of Scripture the govern-
ing rules of faith ; that all such persons were deemed
" suflering Christians," within the meaning of
the articles of trust, and that the property
was intended for the benefit of all ; that such
had been the principle on which the property
had been administered from the period of the institution
of the trust until the present time, and that there never
had been any doubt that Protestant Dissenters generally,
and not any particular sects of them, were entitled to the
benefit of the fund. The cause came on for hearing
before Lord Chancellor Sugden in 1842, and he made a
decree declaring that the fund was originally intended
for the benefit of those who professed Trinitarian doc-
trines, which was the case with all the con-
gregations for whose benefit the trust was
intended at the time of its creation; that all the trustees
now administering the funds should be removed, as well
the Trinitarian as the Unitarian trustees, and a new set
of trustees appointed, and that directions should be
given to carry out the trusts by administering the fund
exclusively for the benefit of those who professed
Trinitarian doctrines; and from this decree the present
appeal was brought.
Mr. Rolt and Mr. Boundell Palmer, were counsel for
the appellants; and Mr. Kindersley and Mr. Malines
were in support of the decree of Lord Chancellor Sugden.
The arguments, which have already occupied several
days, were brought to a conclusion to-day.
Mr. BOLT having this morning replied on behalf of the
appellants to the whole case,
The LORD CHANCELLOR, at the conclusion of the
arguments, postponed giving judgment.