On this page

• Text (1)

  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.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• 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

    law , or what common law punishment existed ,- ^ -I do not recollect any difference of opinion on the point that , the penalties enacted by these statutes—that it was difficult to say that the penalties enacted hy these statutes , were proper to be inflicted . The Act , therefore , of the 53 rd of the

    King- repealed the clause of the 9 th and 10 th William lit . against denial of the doctrine of the Trinity ; hut I apprehend that it left the common law exactly where it was : and conceiving the object of the present application to be to contend that the defendants are not the persons entitled under the circumstances to the

    management of the trust , or if they are legally invested by the deeds with the character of trustees , that they are not bond Jide administering this trust , hut under colour of the trust created in them hy the deeds , they are in truth creating" a new trust ; and

    that they are so executing and creating a trust directly at variance with that contemplated by the founders : and whatever may have been stated and argued at the bar , as to the criminality or not of parties , with which I conceive that I hare in this

    case nothing * to do , I have here only to administer civil rights , and in this instance to go no further than to determine the points arising upon the pleadings , having no office to determine what is or is not crime or offence at common law , except

    where the Court is of necessity called to determine it by being called upon to interfere in a case which depends upon such determination , or to aid such crime or offence . I shall therefore confine myself to the civil question , * because the other does not in this case arise .

    You will recollect , that by the Toleration Act , the benefit of it is not given to impugners of the doctrine of the Trinity , and the Attorney General , by this information , contends that the trust is about to be applied to doctrines which the Legislature , when it was extending toleration to the ihass of Protestant Dissenters , did not think

    proper subjects for such toleration . The first deed is that of 1701 , which declares the trust to be for the worship and sevvice of God , with variods provisions - and it is especially provided that if at any time such meeting * for the worship and service of God should be prohibited by law , and the

    meeting-house thereby become useless , the same should go to other uses . Several passages in this deed were particularly commented on at the bar . I shall now only state that there is quite sufficient of allegation in the information , that this was a foundation made by a body of Protestant Dissenters , established with a view to pro-* ttauiely , what was the intent of the founder as to doctrine . E . T .

    Untitled Article

    mote the teaching of doctrines to which they were attached , and especially for the purpose of inculcating the doctrine of the Trinity , or at least , that the original founders' * intent and opinions were such that the teaching of Unitarianifim would be at variance with their object . I observe

    upon this particularly , because I take it that if land or money were given in such a manner , as to be legal notwithstanding the statutes concerning * charitable uses , and given to build a house , &c . to maintain the worship of God , and nothing- precise appeared as to the particular intent , the Court would consider it made for worship

    according to the established religion ; bnt it is now clearly established that if the mode and intent of the trust he clearly expressed to be by Protestant Dissenters , for promoting their particular doctrines , not amounting to crime , the Court must administer that trust according to the intent of

    the founders . In this case , however , I repeat there is sufficient allegation on the bill and on the deeds , to leave no doubt that this trust was originally to maintain Protestant Dissenting 1 worship , and therefore it cannot be said that the worship intended was that of the Established Church .

    I take it , however , from experience , that if any body of persons mean to create a trust , and to call upon the Court to administer that trust according to the intent of the foundation , whether connected with religion or not , it is incumbent on them in the instrument creating such trust to let the

    Court know enough of the nature of that trust to enable it so to act ; and therefore ^ where a body of Protestant Dissenters establish a trust without any precise definition of the object or mode of worship , I know of no means the Court has of

    ascertaining it except by looking to what is past , and collecting by usage what may by fair inference , be presumed to have been the intent of the founders . From this deed I can collect that it -was for thte maintenance of Protestant Dissenting

    worship , but it shews nothing more , except as I can collect from some of the clauses , particularly the clause contemplating the future prohibition of that worship , whidi seems to shew that they did not mean to establish an institution not then tolerated

    by law , and that they did not mean to give an unlimited power to vary the plan of doctrines whenever the majority thought proper . Looking at the date of the Deed of 1701 , nnd that of the Act of Toleration , and of mh and 10 th William III . and

    what I nnd in the deed of 1742 , it is impossible to say that while they look to a dissolution of the existing- system of toleration , and to the Legislature prohibiting their Worship , that they meant to create by that deed an Illegal system , a system which the Legislature had just thought

    Untitled Article

    Intelligence Proceedings in Chancery regarding Unitarians . 4 SQ

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), July 2, 1817, page 439, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2466/page/63/