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
( as having tlie legal estate of a part ) be enabled to keep Mr . Steward in his present situation . As to what had been said on the subject of Mr . Maunder ' s having * , as was contended , abandoned the trust by never having acted , and having' left thu congregation
thirty years , &c , he could only observe , that Mr . Maunder had thought the objects of the charity mistaken or disregarded , and therefore withdrew ; he merely declined attending to hear doctrines which his Conscience disavowed : in short , he was in a minority , and therefore submitted , as he must do , to the majority .
The counsel on the other side had contended , that the Court had nothing- to do with the doctrinal question that had been raised ; they had endeavoured to lay that point quite out of the question as irrelevant ,
but if the nature of the charity was as the plantifF contended , could they keep that question out of view ? If the Court is to see tbe trust , to consider it in order to carry it into effect , it must look what it is , and what is the intent of the foundation . How
can they avoid this ? The Solicitor General has stated the question to be merely , whether the defendants have committed any breach of their trust , and if they have not , whether they are not entitled as the majority of the trustees to regulate the charity ; but then the question must arise , can they divert the
purposes of that charity , as we say they have diverted it ; the majority can only have . the power of managing the trust as established , they cannot alter the object of it . The only important question , therefore ,, Sir Samuel Komilly contended was , whether they had alverted the charity from its original and legitimate object . " In
1701 , land had been settled and a meetinghouse built for the service and worship of God , " and there can be no question that this meant the worship of the Trinity . It must have meant so , because the opposite doctrines had at that time no legal establishment or toleration , being expressly excepted by the Toleratiqn Act . A change
had now taken place in tl > e ppinion of the persons having the management of the trust -a difference of opinion from what must be taken to be the opinion and intention of the founders * and can they divert the charity by applying it Jo the support of these new opinions , especially if ( as we contend ) those opinions are illegal ? And
can they call upon the Court to carry into effect a trust for such illegal purposes ? I apprehend they cannot . / am confident that if a man were nqw to make an endowment for the support of lectures for the propa gation of Unitarianism , that the Court must refuse to carry such a trust into effect , pr /^ e Court could jio more ca rry into effect a trust for profnoting . Unitariajni&m
Untitled Article
than Judaism , which it refused to do in the case of Decosta and Depassy which was a foundation for lectures on the Jewish law . There can be no doubt that both are illegal at law . God forbid that any persons , whether Unitarians or Jews , or holding any description of religious opinions , should be
prosecuted on that account . There can be no person so illiberal as to cherish such idea , and in my opinion it would be most illiberal to attempt any leg-al interference on such subjects ; but at the same time I apprehend that a Court would be bound to say , that it would not carry any trust for such purposes into effect .
The question , therefore , is solely whether these gentlemen can be suffered to divert the object of the charity , by preaching any other doctrines than the doctrines of Christianity , as they were tolerated when the trust was founded .
Another point in the case , Sir Samuel Romilly observed , was not a lig"ht one , viz . whether the trustees were competent to appoint the minister for a limited term , as in this case they had done of three years , and not for life . He contended that this was
inconsistent with the intent of these trusts and good policy . In the-case of trusts for the support of schools , the trustees have in many instances , and sometimes very laudably , endeavoured to keep a proper controul over the master , by making- him dependant
on their will , but the Court has always said that such limitations are illegal , and that the appointment must be free of any stipulations whatever of that sort . This case , he contended , was one of similar policy , and nothing in the trust deed empowered such limitation .
The foundation was here to teach the gospel , and the regulation of such an establishment ought to be considered , and might be very properly reg'ulated with reference to the relig-ious establishment of the country . The policy of that establishment has been to make the minister independent of the will of his hearers , and to give him
a freehold interest . The congregation must not be set up as the censors * at their caprice of their minister . Because he preaches on a particular Sunday a . sermon which clashes somewhat with their notions , which may perhaps give offence because some particular vice or action is reprobated , which comes home to and offends some of his
hearers , are they to be allowed to cashier and dismiss him at their pleasure ? Such a power of giving notice of quitting , he thought had never heen allowed by the Court .
Sir Samuel Romilly then adverted to ? ome remarks made by Mr . Phillimore on Mr . Steward , contending * that it did not appear by his answer , that he had but lately adopted Trinijarianjsm . He would not trouble the CoUrt with reading- passag-ef ,
Untitled Article
Intelligence . —Proceedings in Chancery regarding Unitarians . 435
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), July 2, 1817, page 435, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2466/page/59/
-