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

DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL.

The LORD CHANCELLOR then rose to more that
the House should resolve itself into Committee on this
Bill. He expressed his surprise at the opposition which
had been shown towards the Bill. The petitions, how-
ever, against the Bill were generally in the same hand-
writing, and he had no doubt emanated from the same
source, and therefore he did not feel much fear for the
Bill he had introduced oe account of these petitions.
The Noble and Learned Lord went on to state—lt must
be remembered, that there are numerous petitions, also,
on the other side; but I humbly presume to say they are
widely different in character from those I have men-
tioned, and entitled to much greater attention. There are
petitions from members of the Established Church—peti-
tions from Presbyterians and various denominations of
Dissenters, not couched in general terms, but pointing
out specific hardships and evils, and praying a remedy
fur the complaints which they made. There is an oppo-
sition, however, of a very different description which
this Bill is destined toencounter—l mean that:of a Right
Reverend Friend of mine (the!Bishop of London), formi-
dable not more for his talents than for his character and
position. I do not apprehend, however, considering:the
strength and justice of the case, even the effect of that
formidable opposition. I feel some surprise indeed at
the new association into which my Right Reverend Friend
has fallen; but great advantage must be derived from it
if, as I am persuaded he will, my Right Reverend Friend
uses his influence to temper their zeal, and, if possible,
to put an end to the differences which unfortunately
prevail amongst them. I am happy to say, that as to
one part Odle Bill—l mean the first section—no differ-
ence of opinion exists as to the necessity of some change.
The Bishop of EXETER, iu a loud tone, " No, no,
no."—(A laugh.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR—WeII, this is the only
quarter from which I have heard any objection. I be-
lieve my Right Rev. Friend (the Bishop of London) does
not join in the opinions entertained by the Right Rev.
Prelate. What is the object of this section, and the
state of the law which it is intended by it to correct ?
Some charities with respect to places of worship were
established at a period when by law that species of wor-
ship was illegal. Subsequent Acts of Parliament passed
legalising the form of worship. Though the foundation
was illegal, those charities have since become legal ac-
cording to our present law. The more liberal character
and spirit of the present age have repealed the statutes
declaring they were contrary to law. Notwithstanding
this, as the finindation of those charities was illegal, it
has been considered, notwithstanding the alteration of
the law, that the defect was not completely remedied ;
and for the purpose, therefore, of preventing the con-
sequences resulting from those charities being vacated
by process of the courts of equity, I have introduced the
present clause into the Bill. The object of this clause is
that those charities should be considered as if they were
founded subsequently to the Act which legalised them,
What can be more reasonable—what more just ? If
they are legal, the foundation of the charity should be
declared so also. And what is the object of their being
set aside and declared void ? To vest them in the
Crown, and thus devote them to other purposes than
those for which they were originally intended. Until I
hear some argument urged against the clause, I rest on
this statement and the position I have made out—l rest
On the support I expect to receive from my Right Rev,
Friends—on the decided opinion expressed everywhere
out of doors on the subject, and I shall not trouble your
Lordships further with any observations respecting it.
Now, as to the material point to which opposition is di-
rected. I must state what the nature of the provision is.
Nothing. can be more simple. Places of worship are
established by deed or will, for some benevolent purpose,
That place has been established for one hundred and
fifty or two hundred years ; but for a long period, say
thirty, forty, fifty, or seventy years, the congregation
meeting in that place have entertained the same religi-
ous doctrines and opinions. No change whatever has
taken place during that period. It is a matter of
speculation what the opinion of the original founder
was. He has not in his deed of trust stated the
doctrines and opinions which he is desirous should
be propounded and inculcated in that place of wor-
ship. Why not take the usage which has prevailed
for so long a period as evidence of the original inten•
hen of the donor ? If in a deed it be declared to be
the declared will and intention of the donor that
particular doctrines should be preached and in-
culcated, to such a state of things this clause did not
apply ; but when it was not laid down what parti-
cular doctrines should be preached, or what the precise
object of the foundation was, and yet that the parties
frequenting the chapel had uniformly, and for a long
period continued the same usage as to religious worship
and doctrines, I ask your Lordships why we may not
reasonably take the usage as evidence of the intention
of the donor, and not allow the title to the occupancy
of the chapel to be impeached in a court of justice ? My
Lords, a Noble and Learned Friend of mine stated, on a
fernier night, the principle on which this law was
founded. It is a principle well known to our law—that
uniform possession for a long series of years establishes
a title. That.great principle of our law is embraced in
the law of every civilised country, and is adopted by our-
selves from the wise jurisprudence of ancient Rome,
That principle wo apply to our estates—to our civil
rights. Why not apply it to a case of this description ?
Parties value their rights as connected with property of
this description more highly than those appertaining to
ordinary property. Those places of worship have been
frequented by their fathers and grandfathers.
The burial ground attache) contains the names
of their relatives and parents, and is it not,
therefore, most natural and important that the
pr'ec'ple appl:ed to civil rights-should be nut in force as
to property of this mixed character ? With respect to
civil rights, if a party obtains unlawfully possession of
land ; if he acquires property by a fraudulent act, or one
of violence, still, if he is allowed to remain in uninter-
rupted possession for a long series of years (and indeed,
not a very long pried according to modern law) his
title becomes indeteasible. The parson kept out of pos-
session may say" I am wrong'ully dispossessed. I hive
distinct evidence of the fact ;" the answer is " an inde-
feasible title has been acquired against you by lapse of
time, and this has been built on a wise principle of the
law." Evidence is lost by lapse of thee ; witnesses
die, end their testimony is gone ; parties ase no longer
able by distinct evidence to establish what their rights
were, The lapse of time effects all this. It has also its
connteractirig etfecte. It establishes continued possession
as evidence or the right of another, thus balancing and
replacing the title'which was lost. This is an established
principle of the law. But it'is material to consider how
it huh been recognised and extended in modern tunes, for
the purpose is f seeing what importance has been at-
tached t 9 it, Everybody
eh "lows that the rule I have
h
pcOnzneaegrendedw, .itthhe Crown
tio)asuperintend
public
pcer
affairs,
fb
nrn
dsg,
its
sua
own
nshe
pad
ed tounl beat
r u
an
ep,s)(ti'
alluded to did not exten to awe whore the Crewe was
tunity itefiVelY
Perhaps there was another reason for the exception. It
was not thought right that the weakness or supineness
of the immediate possessor should impair the rights and
interests of the successor. This for a long period was
the few of the country; in modern acts it was consi-
dered Eo eatablish this limitation in the
tfailliellseCee'rgP:e‘irvricrip,i:ertixeocde except
o against tiFi; ifs
rir7VoreP4l;7;
sciaosne foorar
subject; and after long discussion the rule, excepting
the Crown fro:n the operation of the principle I have
named, was abolislig4- Jti blip case of the Church, too,
Lord Tenterden, in our own ifiktlistiel the ex-
ception which said that no time should Fkm. egorAt this
Church. Why enter into this detail for the purpose of
Impressing on your Lordships the importance of this
nits., and the universality of its application? The cir-
cumstances which >i am aboui; to though not
coming within the scope Bill, stole Ile
throw light on the epeetee o' ini4iFy
instituted if some such mea,uro as the preeent
be nq~
passed. I allude to Lady Howley's charity.o• (fife e)ne
it w
• • un es
to say that is not a single case ; many suc
penaine, arrd many more threatened. The Noble
and Learned Laird awii y: Yet on to give a his-
tory of this case, by which it appeared 'that' the judge#
and House of Lords voted in favour of the claimants.
Tihneidoeennyge
belong.
geisnlet
es-
said,
atal
tetz
tiev questionreia arer.s
saidto,
theatiod pw,a,hrTot rces3i. dnaitrdeen
odt
the,
dre_s/cf, uTnds
the
h e
Master had to investigate those conflicting claims, and
report to the . Vice-Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor
.4a4 a second time to sift the most conflicting evidence,,

and the result Was not yet determined. 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 wt re 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- 1
tified in calling for the interference of that House.—
(Ch,:ers.) The object of the Bill was to prevent liti•
gation, and he felt confident that he vi ould meet with
the cord:al support of their Lordships.
The Bi;Eop of LONDON said, he should not venture
to oppose so distinguished an authority if he had not a
grave and weighty judgment on his side. lie should
not say that he was about to imitate a great Roman
orator, and appeal from Philip in one condition to Philip
in 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 Woolsack and the Bench, that the
opinion of a judge was more certain than that of a
senator. He should describe the Bill as one to render
lawful that which was -at present unlawful. It was true
another object was to prevent litigation. But litigation
was a great though not unmixed good, when by it justice
was vindicated. As to Lady Hewley's charity, the
blame of the expense incurred rested on those who per-
tinaciously resisted the claims of those 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
one 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. Dissent-
ing ministers could not, then, exercise their functions
without subscribing to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity ;
and therefore, for many years, 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, however, 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-
fathers never contemplated. 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
Hewley case, prevented it from being proceeded with.
A controversy 'alien 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. He would remark, too, that the claim
in question was put forward by only a small body
of Dissenters, and 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 Bill. The general
boiy of Dissenters had had a meeting, at which a simi-
lar address was agreed to. lie considered that this Bill
was neither more nor less than an ex post facto law,
rendering necessary to the validity of 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 its:execution 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 do-
himself behind a long array
on
cided in such cases—namely, that when the intentions of
a hds
eei dsheltered
not
evidence speak on legal matters upon his
own
the founder could be ascertained, they should be strictly
%;
He
Right Rev. Prelate here proceeded to read a number of
ofadhereditestsoe.s,
authority
vh
judgments pronounced by various judges in various cases,
to the general effect, thi.t where it was possible to ascer-
tain 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
es
purpos
• for which their founders endowed them. One
of these judgments (continued the nigh t Rev. Prelate) had
been delivered by his Noble arid 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
eTeet to the intentions of the founder, provided that
could be done without infringing any y known rule of law.
It the terms of of the deed be clear and precise, both as
to language and application, the course of the court would
not be difficult ; but if, on the eontrarv, the terms were
doubtful and obscure, it then became the duty of the
court to ascertain by means of evidence, as clear as could
be laid before it, what were the; 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 down,
and so evidently in accordance with common sense and
comnian 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
Hewley, a pious and well-meaning lady,eould have given
funds to promote and encourage the promulgation of
doctrines directly at variance with those opinions she
entert lined, as regarded points universally considere I as
essential in matters of religious belief. No; she never in-
tended her bsunty 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 tot lie principle
he had himself so luminou •ly laid down. It was now pro-
posed that th.r, usage of a congregation for the last
twenty years should be take n 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 lie intended to bo 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 produce a feeling of
peace and security amongst many congregations of Dis-
senters but lie objected to upset equity and justice for
the sale of at best a doubtful peace. He believed, in-
deed, on the contrary, that, if carried into effect, it would
excite a spirit of watchfulness and jealousy as to the
1 doctrines and words of the preachers in many dissent-
-1 tug congregations. The dissent of many of the chapels
to which he had alluded, from what was generally called
orthodox doctrine to the depths of Socinianism, had been
effected Ly glow degrees, The history of these chapels
showed that that dissent usually commenced through the
instrumentality of some minister holding the doctrines
of what was called High Arianism. The congregation
42('41i4P liiibiNgri lo his doctrines and forms of expres-
sion. Then he er ilia sttecessera yentnred nn the 111144
Arianism ; from thence they proceeded to Socinianism;
and thus Unitarian doctrines came regularly to be
r.reached in the chapel in question. He should like to
;: ~
knqw 4(44 stavity tileFe syq,s, if this Bill were carried
into effect, of chapel's not bwig ultimately Olit4e4 by q.;
cialist preachers ?—(Hear.) The Actiwas so vague that
he did net know but that any party of individuals claim-
'n,7 to be a religious body at all, might not advance
Ir;cld'ids to cliapefs ilyic.;ll 4. Angther question he would
pin, To the golBlas C'olieiddratiOri .6,r 0,,r --P,,,mishAv.,Yf:',
wlie6o,aq was pc4 piopieclAilo %Inn rcliwifte'9,l, law
414euld be applies' to talk whieli was applied to private
- , et. maintained that the duty of the legisla-
, property. --- -
cure and of the judges, in respect to trust property, was
i onito different from their duty as respected private pro-
I Pray.. The forsster required more protection. more
careful guardianship, than 'the !titter'. It 'appeared, ths4
to him that, by passing this Bill, Parliament wcnici,
without any suflipieet cause having been shown, be purr
suing a course tending to enrich and endow Unitarianism
Iwith the spoils of orthodox Dissenters. Anxious as he
was to do everythingin his power.to prevent unnecessary.