The Sun.
London, England, 1848-05-09 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICE CHAIN, CER Y, May, 8.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR Of ENGLAND.)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. 'WILSON.
hieh have already oi
The arguments in this case,
copied the Cot four days, werewres.umed to:day. Th
case came before the Court upon an information relatin
to the song-contested case with respect to Lady Hewley' s
charity, which has been, as our readers are doubtless t
aware, the source of so much difference between the
various bodies of Dissenters from the Church of Eng-
land. It will doubtless be remembered that in the case
of the Attorney-General v. Shore, the Unitarians laid
claim to the charity property, and their claims ,
having been set aside, the Baptists, the Inde -
pendents, and the Dissenting Presbyterians claime a
the property. The case will probably occur iy
several days yet, but it may not be improper at
the present moment to state bow the case now state Is.
In the former proceedings in the cause, which Was ul ti-
=ltaly decided in the House of Lords, the decisions wt ire
unanimous against the claims of the Unitarians, w ho
had intruded into the charity; and that result led to an
Act of Parliament, which quieted the claims of part. :€3
who should hereafter be, under similar circumstanc:
of long possession notwithstanding a gradual departu re
from the tenets of the founder. But the Act did ist
touch the present case, which was pending at ti ie ,
time when the Act was introduced. The Ueitariat
being excluded from the charity, the question remained
entirely open as to which of the different classes of
what are sometimes called orthodox Dissenters were
admissible. The original relators were of the class of
Independents, and succeeded in driving out the
Unitarians. The effect of that decision was an order
to remove the Unitarian trustees, and a reference to the t
Master to appoint new trustees. The parties who then '
commenced the new war between themselves were the In-
dependents and the Scotch Kirk in England, and a branch
which separated from it in 1733, called the Secession Kirk.
These two latter parties attempted to show that the
foundress was a Presbyterian on the model of the Scotch
Presbyterians, and not an Independent. All the parties
were allowed by an order of the present Lord Chancellor
to go before the Master on the reference. The Master
made his report in 1837, which was to the effect that out
of two classes of seven grand trustees and seven sub-
trustees he appointed of each class two from the repre-
sentatives of the Kirk, two- from the Secessionists, and
three from the Independents. In 1843 the case was
brought before this Court upon exceptions to the report..
But his Honour overruled the exceptions. The cause was•
now brought to a hearing, and the same question which was.
debated oa the exceptions was raised more formal? y.
The trust was mated in the year 1707. The esta, ;03
were given by Lady Hewley, who was the widow of ' a
bencher of Gray's Inn and a Dissenter, " for the bem ;fir
of poor and godly preachers of Christ's Holy G' °six
and for poor and godly widows of such poor and go, IV
preachers, and for promoting the preaching of Chri it's
Holy Gospel in poor places, and for the education of.
young men intended for the ministry, and that York :ad
the four northern counties should have the prefeten ea,
and a hospital was to be founded at York.
Mr. Bethell and Mr. (handless,
who appeared as,
counsel for the promoters (the Independents), cc ,n-
-tended, in opening the case several days since, that t he
members of the Scotch Kirk in England, or minista
rs
licensed in Scotland, and having chapels in England,
were not entitled. That Scotch Presbyterians were n es:-
within the Acts of Uniformity nor the Toleration Ate,
which referred to them; and that the Independents:,
Baptists, and Presbyterians of Lady Hewley s time wee-,
represented by the class now called Independents,
That the name
of Presbyterians had grmownyinotfo
tdhiast:
repute, on account of the profession by an
body of Socinian principles, and hence had almost.;
disappeared, and that of Independents now prevailed ir:
its stead. The persons: who now came forward as et 7
the Scotch or Secession Kirk in England were, in fact,
members of the Church of Scotland, which claimed a
exercised jurisdiction over them, and they, the mem-
bers of a great national Church, wools: disclaim the!
title of Dissenters, and would separate themselves alto, -
gether froni the great body of English Dissenters, b,
that it was supposed something was to be gained by, thl..
e
use of the name on this occasion.
Mr. Stuart, Mr. Rolt, and Mr. Bacon, on subsequent
days, followed oa the behalf of parties who had a comm on
interest with the relators, and to-day
Mr. Swanston, with whom was Mr. James Parker arid
Mr. Matins, opened the case of the defendants, the Di s-
senting Presbyterians.
The arguments of the Learned Counsel occupied the
Court the whole day.