The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-04 00:00:00

and the result was not yetdetermined. One thing, how-
ever, was determined —the costs amounted to 30,0001.
and were to be paid, as usual, out of the charity.
He knew that there were at least two hundred suits in
contemplation, for the purpose of ousting the trustees of
several of those charities, and he thought their Lord-
ships. would agree with him, that he was perfectly jus-
tified in calling for the interference of that House.--
(Cheers.) The object of the Bill was to prevent liti•
gation, and he felt confident that he would meet with
the cordial support of their Lordships.
The Bishop of LONDON said, he should not venture
' to oppose so distinguished an authority if he bad not a
grave and weighty judgment on his side. He should
not say that he was about to imitate a great Roman
orator, and appeal from Philip in one condition to Philip
is another—(a laugh)—but he would appeal from the
legislator to the judge. And here he was reminded of
the truth of an axiom delivered by one who was the
ornament of the Wools:telt and the Bench, that the
opinion of a judge was more certain than that of a
senator. Ile should.describe the Bill as one to render
lawful that which was at present unlawful. It was true
another object was to prevent litigation. Bat litigation
was a great though not unmixed good, when by it justice
was vindicated. As to Lady frewley's charity, the
blame of the expense incurred rested on those who per-
tinaciously resisted the claims of these justly entitled to
it. These chapels were at first founded by persons
obliged to subscribe to the doctrines of the Church of
England. Before the Act of Toleration it was not allow-
able for any sect to worship according to any forms, save
those of the true Church of England.' At the time of
the Restoration, 2,000 ministers were displaced from
their benefices in consequence of their refusal to subscribe
to the articles of the Church. A great many dissenting
chapels were then built and endowed by persons pro-
fessing and believing in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
Dissenters were then permitted to build chapels and
endow them under certain limitations. But there was
vine remarkable exception. The benefit of the Act of
Toleration was not to extend to those who held views
denying the divinity of Christ. About 2,000 chapels
were built within twenty years from the year 1644, when
the Act of Toleration was passed ; and every one of
these chapels was built by persons holding Trinita-
rian doctrines ; nay, more—not one of these chapels
was occupied by a minister who would not
have thought it the height of blasphemy to promul-
gate Unitarian principles. The dissenters of these
days, then, subscribed to the doctrine of the Holy Tri-
nity. They had no scruple in doing so. Presbyterians
and Dissenters approved of that provision of the Act of
Toleration which prevented its benefits from being ex-
tended to those who held Unitarian doctrines. Diesent-
ing ministers could not, then, exercise their functions
without subscribing to the doctrine of the. Holy Trinity ;
and therefore, for tnany4ears, there was no endowment
established, but in the firm belief that Unitarian doctrines
would never be preached in the chapel to which it re-
ferred. In 1647 a union took place between the Inde-
pendents and the Presbyterians ; but still they con-
tinued strict Trinitarians. At that time a curious in-
stance occurred to show the abhorrence in which doc-
trines approaching to Unitarianism were held by the
orthodox Dissenters. A very distinguished Dissenting
clergyman in Dublin was deprived of his benefice. He
held what were called high Arian doctrines, and so
strong, on this account, was the feeling against him,
that when he came over to London not one of the Pres-
byterian or Independent ministers would hold com-
munion with him. He (the Bishop of London) offered
at present no opinion upon doctrinal points ; he was
merely urging the question historically. So matters went
on until 1770, when, instead of the former subscription
to the articles of the Church, a declaration was substi-
tuted, by which Dissenting ministers admitted that they
received the Holy Scriptures in-the sense usually adopted
by Protestant churches, and that they held them to be
the word of God.. From 1689 to 1770, it was next to
impossible that any chapels, or, at least, a considerable
number of chapels, should have been erected for the
promulgation of Unitarian doctrines. Not only were
they built with the view of not promulgating Uni-
tarianism, but they were built with the view of com-
bating its advance. It would probably, howeyer, be
asked why, in the cases of many of these chapels, there
were not express stipulations in the trust deeds, pro-
viding that no doctrines other than those of the founders
should be taught therein. Why, for a very obvious reason:
the, founders considered that they were protected by the
law. They never thought of the possibility of such a
change as had occurred really happening. They
never considered that Unitarianism could be legally
preached. He did not say whether the change was
right or wrong, but it was a change which their fore-
gathers nevercontemplated. This was not his opinion alone:
there was a letter, published upwards of twenty years
ago by an eminent minister .of the Independent per-
suasion, in which he found it stated that all who knew
the old Presbyterian doctrines, from the writings of the
period,-would know that the authors would have shrunk
with the deepest horror from lending their support to
doctrines which they believed contrary to the Scriptures,
and ruinous to the everlasting welfare of man. And
here, he would remark, that it could not be said that
the Unitarians had had no warning. The note of alarm
had been sounded nearly twenty years ago. At that
period an action was brought upon the subject, but the
uncertain state of the law, until the late decision in the
Howley case, prevented it from being proceeded with.
A controversy upon the subject, however, sprang up in
Lancashire in the year 1825, when it was clearly shown
that out of 700 Unitarian chapels in the Duchy of Lan-
caster, the possession of 274 had been usurped by Uni-
tarian trustees. Hewould remark, too, that the claim
in question was put forward by only -a small body
of Dissenters, acid that it was opposed, although not
unanimously, by other dissenting sects. The Uni.
tarians formed, he believed, about two per cent. of
the great body of Dissenters. . The Wesleyan Me-
thodists had held a meeting; and agreed to represent
strongly their reasons against the Bil. The general
body of Dissenters had had a meeting, at which a simi-
lar address was agreed to. He considered that this Bill
was neither more nor less than an es post facto law,
rendering necessary to the validity or a trust certain
conditions not necessary to its validity when the trust was
executed. It proposed to render it necessary to the vali-
dity of a trust that the purposes of the founder should
have been mentioned in the deed, although at the time
of itsexecution these intentions were perfectly notorious.
And this brought him to the general and sound principle
upon which, up to this time, courts of equity had de-
cided in such cases—namely, that when the intentions of
the founder could be ascertained, they should be strictly
adhered to. He did not speak on legal matters upon his
own authority ; he sheltered himself behind a long array
of witnesses, whose evidence was unexceptionable. The
Right Rev. Prelate here proceeded to read a number of
judgments pronounced by various judges in various cases,
to the general effect, that where it was possible to ascer-
ttin what were the religious tenets of:the founder of a
chapel, that it ought to belong to and be in communion
with the sect who maintained these tenets. That it was
not in the power of the trustees of chapels to alter the
purposes for which their founders endowed them. One-
of these judgments (continued the Itigh tßev. Prelate) had
been delivered by his Noble and Learned Friend on the
woolsack,, and it was to the effect, that in any case of
charity, whether the object of the charity was for civil or
religious purposes, it was the duty of the court to give
effect to the intentions of the founder, provided that
oinfringing
gear and precise, both as
any known rule of law.
cifuld be done
thete.rms without
o fofthe dienfdr
to language and application, the course of the court would
einbge
not be difficult ; but if, on the eontrary, the terms were
doubtful and obscure, it then beeitue the duty of the
court to ascertain by means of evidence, as clear as could
be laid before it, what were thel intentions of the founder,
and the moment the fact was known the application of it
became clear. Such:were the legal opinions of the Noble
and Learned .Lord on the woolsack upon the point ; and
it would be scarcely necessary for- him to cite other au-
thorities in support of a principle so clearly laid Own,
and so evidently in accordance with common sense and
common justice. But well-founded as that principle was,
this Bill went to subvert it. His Noble and Learned Friend
said, and said truly, that they could not believe that Lady
Hetvley, a' pious and well-meaning lady,could have given
funds to promote and encourage the promulgation of
doctrines directly at variance with
_those opinions she
entertained, as regarded points universally considered as
essential in matters of religious belief. No; she never in-
tended her bounty to be applied to the encouragement of
the teaching of Unitarianism. It was almost superfluous
for him to add another word to this argument of his
Noble and Learned Friend. But his Noble and Learned

Friend's Bill went directly in contravention to the principle
he had himself so luminously laid down. It was now pro-
posed that 'the usage of a congregation for the last
twenty years should be taken as convincing evidence of
what was the purpose of the founder—it might be 150
years ago—and of the nature of the religious doctrines

which he intended to be taught. He should have thought
that they could have a better test of what those inten-

tions and what those doctrines were by taking the usage
of the first instead of the last twenty years after the
founder's death.—(Hear, hear.) If they could, prove
what was the usage for those twenty years they could
settle the question at once, but surely twenty years
preaching of a doctrine which the founder held to be
blasphemous was not so conclusive. -It was argued in
favour of the Bill that it would prodtiee a feeling of
peace and security amongst many congregations of Dis-
senters but he objected to upset equity and justice for
the sake of at best a doubtful peace. Ho believed, in-
deed, on the contrary, that, if carried into effect, it would
excite a spirit of watchfulness and jealousy as to the
doctrines and words of the preachers in many dissent-
ing congregations. The dissent of many of the chapels
to which he had allucied, from what was generally called
orthodox doctrine to the depths of Socinianism, had been
effected by slow degrees. .The history of these chapels
showed that that din en% usually commenced through the
instrumentality of some minister holding the doctrines
of what was called H igh Arianism. The congregation
became habituated to his doctrines and forms of expres-
sion. Then he or his ' .successors ventured on the plain
Arianism ; from thence they proceeded to Socinianism;
and thus Unitarian doctrines came_ regularly to be

preached in the chapel in question. He should like to
know what security there was, if this Bill were carried
into effect. of chapels not being ultimately claimed by So-
cialist preachers ?--(Hear.) The Act,was so vague that
he did not know but that any party of individuals claim-
ing .to be a religious body at all. might not advance
claims to chapels under it. Another question he would
put to the serious consideration of their Lordships was
whether, as was now proposed, the same principle of law
should be applied to trust which was applied to private
property. He maintained that the duty of the legisla-
ture and of .the judges, in respect to trust property, was
quite different from their duty as respected private pro-
perty. The former required more protection, more
careful guardianship, than the latter. It appeared, then,
to, him that, by passing this Bill, Parliament would,
without any sufficient cause having been shown, be pur-
suing a course tending to enrich and endow Unitarianism
with the spoils of orthodox Dissenters. Anxious as he
was to do ererythinia his pacyel, to prevent uimecessary