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
which we know has even among many Unitarians been entertained on the merits of the case in question , we shall make considerable extracts from Mr . R / s pamphlet , at the same time earnestly recommending the whole of it to the perusal of our readers . The case is thus stated : —
< c In the year 1813 , Mr . John Steward , wha then professed himself a Unitarian , was invited by the cong * relation at the Old Meetinsr-iiouse , in John Street , Wolverhampton , a congregation avowedly Unitarian , and considered in this character by that gentleman , ta become the minister ot
the place for the term of three years . In 1816 , Mr . Steward renounced the profession of Unitarianism , and avowed himself to be a Trinitarian . The congregation , ou learning this change of sentiment in Mr . Steward , informed him that he was no longer their minister , and that he must leave . He was allowed three months' longer
residence ( by courtesy of the congregation certainly , for he could have no right to it ) , for the purpose of having * time to provide himself with another situation . As the consequence of disputes and proceeding's © risfinatino * in Mr . Steward's refusing to quit , the Attorney-General filed an information at the instance of Mr . Mander and
Mr . Steward , supported and encourag'ed by the Dissenting- ministers whose names are affixed to the case , to restrain the trustees , uniting" with the congregation , from ejecting * Mr . Steward . On Thursday , July 17 , 1817 , the cause was heard in the Court of Chancery , Sir Samuel Romilly ,
Mr . Hart , Mr . ShadwcN , and Mi . Ching , appearing for the plaintiffs , Mander and Steward * and the Solicitor-General , Mr . Benyon , and Mr . Phillimore , for the defendants , namely , the congregation . The grounds on which the congregation was
opposed , and the judgment of the court solicited against them , were the three following * : 1 . That Unitarianism was now illegal , and , therefore , that a Unitarian congregation could not lawfully hold any property . 2 . That Unitarianism not beingtolerated at the time of the erection of the
Meeting-house , and the date of tlie endowments , Unitarians could not be the lawful possessors of the property . 3 . That Mr . Steward , as the minister of the congrejfalion , could not be removable at the will of its members , his appointment , being- to be considered as for tlie term of bis natural life . " —Pp . 8 , 9 .
Mr . Robertson then quotes the speech of Mr . Shadwell in support of that case , which the ministers have thought proper to sanction and recommend , and which ? speech lie con-
Untitled Article
tends , ( and it seems to us it is impossible for any one to deny , ) contained a principle * ' most hostile to religious rights , viz . the illegality of a " particular religious profession according to the common law / ' Mr . Shadwell , it will be recollected ,
u contended at great length , and with much particularity , that impugning the doctrine of the Trinity is at this moment an offence indictable at common law . That Christianity , as maintained in the Church of England ? is part of the common law , and that the doctrine of the Trinity being
part of this Christianity , an offence against it was indictable at common law , the repeal of the penal statutes which inflicted a specific punishment on the offence , not altering in any respect the nature of the crime which was still in the eye of the law blasphemous and wicked . Referring- to the
case of Mr . Wright , at Liverpool , he reminded the court that prosecutions wero , at that very moment , pending against individuals for impugning- the doctrine of the Trinity . Unitarian doctrines , he asserted , were blasphemous and wicked , and the professors of them ought not to he protected by the court . "—Pp . 10 , 11 .
If these arguments were used , about which there can be no doubt , and if they are appropriate and necessary to support the case patronized by the ministers , as cannot be denied without great disparagement to the judgment and legal knowledge of their counsel ,
these gentlemen seem involved , in no small degree , in the odium which must attach to such principles , especially when issued under the sanction , and at the expense of a body of Dissenters . One main point , then , at issue between them and Mr . Robertson , arises from their endeavour to evade the
charge thus brought against them , which they do , by flatly denying ( to use their own words ) 4 t that they ever solicited , or sanctioned the soliciting of any proscription of the common
law , for the purpose of disqualifying and excluding from common rights any class of religious professors . " To this , Mr . Itobertson replies as follows : —
** Tlie cause of these gentlemen , originally hud , they have made worse by their uiantici of defending it . c The argument of which J . R . complains / they say , was adduced , certainly not as a reason against Unitarian ism , but as a proof of the intention of those who founded the ineetrng ^ honse , am ) to explain the foundation deeds . " I
Untitled Article
710 Review . ^ Case of the Old Mee ting ? House , Wofoerfiampton .
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Nov. 2, 1818, page 710, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2482/page/46/
-