The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-10-13 00:00:00

TUESDAY MORNING, OCTOBER 13, 1835.

The cases of dissenting ministers claiming to vote in
respect of the salaries derived froth their officepossess
some very peculiar features to which we desire to call
the attention of those who, without inquiry into the cir-
cumstances • under which their cases were decided, have
been led to believe, by the report of the proceedings in
the revising courts, that a right was possessed by these
persons, to exercise the elective franchise. We believe
that this idea is entirely a misconception. In many
cases undoubtedly their claims to be registered have
been allowed ; not, however, because their offices were
proved to be for life, or their property freehold, or their
salary secure, but because with that singular tact for
which they have distinguished themselves, they have
sworn precisely up to the mark required.
Our readers are doubtless aware that unless an ap-
pointment to an office be for life, any salary due to the
officer, though arising out .of freehold property, would
not confer the elective franchise; but the law will pre-
sume an appointMent to be made 'for life when no evi-
dence appears to the contrary,.and when precedent and
general proofs of the conviction of the truth •of the pre-
sumption by the nominators to the office can be shown
in the absence of express written stipulations at the
commencement of the servitude. Perhaps well aware
of this, or charity will compel us to say fortunately igno-
rant of the exact piece of information which would de-
prive them of their vote, the dissenting clergy have
appeared before the revising barristers to claim -a vote in
respect of a freehold office, and upon examination have
one and all declared that they believed themselves to he
appointed " quam diet se bone gesserit," during good
behaviour, which, in the absence of farther evidence,
afforded ground for the presumption that there was a
general appointment for life. But by some singular
good fortune these gentry managed unanimously to
stop at this point, and despite appeals to their candour,
and vigorous cross-examination, protested that they
knew not that the congregation, or the conference, or
the committee, or the trustees, could
.diSpense with their
services when and how they pleased, whenever no
express stipulations existed to the contrary ; not are we
exceeding the limits oftruth when we state that in nine-
teen cases out of twenty no such stipulation or condition
does exist to fetter and restrain the caprice of the
" flock" of these very fortunate voters: In the case of
the Rev. JOIIN KELLY, of this town, one of the barristers
allowed the claimant to register : subsequently came-
forth a goodly collection of trustees to claim also as the'
possessors of the freehold chapel'—a deed was produced,
and lo ! the first 'paragraph the barrister read was a
power to the trustees to turn off their pastor at any mo-
ment they might think proper, and for any reason they
might think fit. But the Rev. JOHN KELLY had prcqi-
ously sworn sufficient to induce the barrister to believe
he had an office for life, or at any rate might not at dis•
cretion be made the victim of " voluntary" caprice.
Mr. KELLY'S name of course was immediately erased
from the register, but many ministers were more fortu-
nate, for their trustees appeared before other judges
than Mr. GREENWOOD, who alone demanded impera-
tively the production of trust deeds.
Another means by which sundry trustees and minis-
ters obtained their franchise was by refusing to answer
the question whether their deeds were enrolled ! and
moreover some of the barristers, with a liberality exces-
sively singular, stated they would presume all necessary
forms were complied with.
We might proceed to unveil to our readers, the whole,
course of chicanery by which trustees sought to delude,
and dissenting ministers to deceive; but enough has
been said to show alike the means whereby a franchise
was procured, and the pliancy with which by a majority
of the barristers it was conferred. Such conduct we
assure the dissenting congregations is not in keeping
with their professions, and it is not consistent with the
practice of many of those whom in former times their
fathers followed in faith. A DODDRIDGE, a WESLEY, a
FLETCF!ER of Madely, a ROBERT HALL, were not men
to prefer privilege to reputation, or to endeavour to
procure by deception that which candour would not ob.
rain. 'Doubtless there are many' even in the present
day ming the sectarians who are worthy fullowerS of!