On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
the {* rop£ rty af a txmgtegatien ; and it soeaqred also 4 iffie $ U jo refusesuch an application as wad made to them in a recent case * wh ^ re laji d was offered by a benevolent individual t <> a can ^ regation too poor tQ a & rd tbe ^ means of secu , ring' the bounty of thfe contributor ; but 01 * the other hand , the Committee We felt tka $ there was a great difficulty in drawing a liu ^ , which should preven t the i % refcnvenieat , increase of calls pji tthe » i for assistance iji this ^ department , and they doubted whether it was the intention or could be within the means < tf this A 8 s © ciafci (* ni to become the general resort e £ congTe # ati © * i s who were
unable or indisposed to bear the fexpense of taking the proper means of securing their triistjFunids . . > They have endeavoured to act upon as fair a discretion as they were enabled to exercise , havifig- a regard to the meana placed a | their disposal $ and they have entered thus fully into the subject ia order to triford an opportunity
to the general Meeting , if it be so disposed * to ghre any directions , or to point out any particular principle as a guide to the discretipa of future : Coimnittees . The Committee beg * Igave to add ^ that they have given directions in the laat case ( which was one in which they were , called . upofi to frame ai * original trust deed of a new endowment ) , that the deed sho / Uki he prepared with a view to ,
forming a proper precedent , to be recommended in future cases 4 > i a similar nature * M many of which > probably * the information imparted by the mere communication of the form which this Society recommends for adoption ; will supersede the accessary and consequent ; expense of further inter * fetence . Considering the original object of this Association , your Committee would not , perhaps , be justified in j ^ assing over without some notice the proceed - ings of the courts oh the subject of offences against religibp punishable at common law . It will be recollected that ( though . in the Wolverhampton
Case a high authority gave some sort of weight to the doubt , whether the impugnfng of the doctrine of the Trinity might not still Jail within the common law jurisdictiop , as an offence against the Established Religion of the country , so as to render the relief afforded by the act of the 53 d Geo . III . of little value as confined to the repeal of the statutory penalties only , ) yet various considerations seemed to shew that the duty 01 your Committees * and the interests of
the Unitarian hody , would suggest rather a vigilant attention to the opinions and decision , of the courts on any question that might oceur , and active assistance to any parties who might be exposed to difficulties or vexation in the mean while , than any immediate application to the Legislature on the subject . It seemed generally felt that the opinion was one unfounded in reason , principle , or policyi To have gone to the legislature we must , to a certain ^ exr tent , have admitted our penal liability , and it appeared premature to apply
fear relief from an evil against the existence of which we ourselves were contending . It behoves the Committee , however , to watch with care every case in which the same opinion can be expected to come into discussion , and they have hitherto seen an anxiety expressed by the judges before whom-imputed
offences against religion have been tried * to negative any idea that the eorambh law jurisdiction is levelled against the free discussion of theological questions , confining it to attacks upon religion bx general , as the basis of moral obligations * or to injurious and contumelious slanders , tending to molest and irritate individuals , or 4 € break the peaee- "
In the late case , however , of the King , and WadtUngton , * one of cthe jud # 3 & has thrown out observations which certainly place the liberty of discussion , on the part of any branch of Dissenters , on a very slippery foundation : and the Committee will therefore shortly detail the facts , and the opiiuon of th $ judge alluded to * with aome observations on its statements * the inaccuracy of which will perhaps remove any apprehension as to ithe additional > weight
which it might be supposed to add to th $ doubts before ^ 4 ert , aiwd It was asserted by the defeMattt , on moving foa ; a a ^ w tr . ial i tbat the JU > r 4 Gbltf Jiistlcti had chained the jury to cornet ym f or a libel de ^ A yin ^ : ^ trtviofty of Jesus Glurist , whereat ffyt defea 4 apl argued that # t * f | $ < |^ ^^ BwA 6 wiiU « tad AWe *; st '» ' fl j ttpwttb YoL VJU p . 2 € .
Untitled Article
8
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Dec. 2, 1823, page 8, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1714/page/32/
-