them to surrender the chapel to the rest of the trustees, who were to take the proper steps to re-elect a pastor in regular course.1 Sometimes the rules of the religious body with which a congregation is connected throw light upon the regular course of proceeding in disputes about appointing a pastor. And whenever the deed of endowment neither provides for the succession of trustees nor the election of a minister, the court will find out a mode of supplying both these wants. Thus in the case of a congregation in London founded in 1769 calling themselves "the Presbytery of the Scotch Church in London" and conforming to the doctrine and practice of the Church of Scotland, the court said, that those persons, who, though seatholders, did not take the sacrament there, had no right to vote in the election of a minister, because the members who communicated according to the Scotch practice constituted the congregation on such occasions. 2

Dissenting congregations changing their creed or mode of worship.-Courts of law will protect all dissenting congregations in the enforcement of their peculiar rules and practices, and treat them with the same respect as all voluntary societies are treated, which prefer to manage their own affairs in their own way. There is no authority in the court of law to take cognizance of the rules of a voluntary society entered into merely for the regulation of its own affairs, save only so far as it inay be necessary, that they should do so for the due disposal or administration of property. If funds are settled, to be disposed of amongst members of a voluntary association according to their rules and regulations, then the court must necessarily take cognizance of these rules and regulations for the purpose of satisfying itself who is entitled to the funds. So if the rules of a religious association prescribe who shall occupy a house, or to have the use of a chapel or other building. On this principle, it is, that the courts have administered funds held in trust for all dissenting bodies. There is no direct power in the court to decide whether A or B holds a particular status according to the rules of a voluntary association. But if a fund held in trust has to be paid over to the person who,

1 Perry Shipway, 4 De G. & J. 353. 2 Russ. 114.

Leslie Birnie,

according to the rules of the society, fills that character, then the court must make itself master of the questions necessary to enable it to decide, whether A or B is the party so entitled. The only remedy which the member of a voluntary association has when he is dissatisfied with the proceedings of the body with which he is connected is to withdraw from it. If, connected with any office in a voluntary association, there is the right to the enjoyment of any pecuniary benefit, including under that term the right to the use of a house or land or a chapel or a school, then incidentally the court may have imposed on it the duty of inquiring as to the regularity of the proceedings affecting the status in the society of any individual member of it. It is a general rule, that when the trust funds have been settled on a definite religious body, the congregation cannot divert the property into a different channel or apply them to a different sect without an Act of Parliament.2 In a case in 1860 the trusts of a chapel were declared to be for the use of a congregation of Particular Baptists. The congregation became divided as to the doctrine of a strict and free communion. Since 1746 the congregation had acted on the doctrine of strict communion, but a majority in 1860 resolved to act on a free communion. The court held, that, whether the majority could make this change, depended on whether the doctine was an essential and fundamental doctrine of that faith. According to the evidence it was proved not to be so; and therefore the court protected the majority in making the change desired by them.3 In another modern case trusts had been established in 1716 and 1803 for the benefit of "the congregation called Presbyterians" in Devizes. Long before that date some Baptists had associated themselves with that congregation, and since 1803 the members had been Baptists. In 1865 a congregation calling itself Presbyterian now claimed the property. But the court held, that the use of the term Presbyterian did not represent any particular religious doctrines or mode of worship; and therefore the Baptists having held the property for forty-five years were entitled to retain it."

3 Att.

1 L. Crameorth, Forbes v Eden, 2 Paters. Ap. 1450; L. R., 1 Sc. Ap. 568. 2 Att.-Gen. v Market Bosworth, 35 Beav. 305. Gen. Gould, 28 Beav. 485. 4 Att.-Gen. v Bunce, L. R., 6 Eq. 563.

Hence in the case of a dissenting congregation being desirous to change its creed and mode of worship, it is not a question of a majority or a minority of the congregation so desiring it; but it is a question, whether their trust is specific enough to prevent it; and if so, then any one of the congregation can insist on preserving the original trust as it was. It is true that entire unanimity in a congregation may sometimes succeed; because then there would be no one having sufficient interest to interfere and set the law in motion against their acts.

Civil and religious freedom of dissenters and Churchmen.-It has been seen, that the Toleration Act of 1688 first recognised attendance at dissenting chapels as a valid excuse for escaping the penalties incurred by not attending the parish church. This relieved the Protestant dissenters to a considerable extent, and allowed them to meet in conventicles, provided they took certain oaths and held their religious meeting with open doors. In 1779 dissenting ministers were allowed, on taking an oath that they were Christians and Protestants, freely to teach youth. And in 1812 the Conventicle Act and Five Mile Act were repealed; and this left them to hold conventicles without restriction, provided these were registered with the bishop. And finally in 1829 the Test and Corporation Acts were repealed, which prevented dissenters filling offices in the army and navy and magistracy and in corporations. In 1846 every kind of penalty for not conforming to the Church was repealed.1 Lastly, in 1871 they were allowed to enter the Universities of Oxford and Canibridge and take their degrees and enjoy the privileges thereto attaching. And in 1867 those dissenters who were magistrates were allowed to enter their own chapels in their official robes of office. And in 1836 they were no longer bound to go to the parish church, to be married according to the forms of the Church of England. result is, that Protestant dissenters enjoy all the liberty and have the same advantage in filling all the offices of social and political life as freely as Churchmen. Whatever property they choose to dedicate for worship or education, they can do therein as they think fit; the law has 19 & 10 Vic. c. 59. 234 & 35 Vic. c. 26. 330 & 31 Vic. c. 75, § 4. 4 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 85.

The

nothing to say to the object, the manner, or the machinery, unless and until they quarrel about their rights amongst themselves. They in fact manage entirely their own. affairs in their own way, having only the same kind of protection from the law, as other persons have according to their respective employments and acquisitions. The dissenting clergy, while enjoying liberty to conduct their public worship according to their own forms, whether these are adopted by each separate congregation, or by synods of many congregations, are bound only by mutual contract to adhere to certain rules of doctrine and discipline. All the restrictions they are subject to are of their own adoption and choice. On the other hand, the clergy of the Church of England are bound down by rigid statutes in all that they do-in the enjoyment of their property, their maintenance, their rites and ceremonies, their vestments and the doctrine they shall profess and teach, so that no deviation from the standard appointed for them can be allowed. And so multiplied and minute are these restrictions, that they occupy a large space and fill many chapters in the laws of the land, and the enforcement of these laws requires frequent aid from the courts, and a large variety of officers and assistants, as has already been set forth. But the substantial right which Churchmen and dissenters now enjoy is one and the same, that is to say, each can in peace and security join in that form of worship which be considers best, and incurs no liability or risk, and loses no worldly advantage, and is subject to no drawback in doing so. They have both arrived, so to speak, at the same goal, neither being allowed to interfere with the other, or make each other any longer afraid. The only restriction on dissenters is the trifling homage they pay to order, by registering their chapels and holding their services with open doors. In all other respects they may be said to be as free in the exercise of their public worship as any member of the community in the exercise of his trade or profession.

Quakers and Unitarians as dissenters.-The Quakers were the first of the dissenters to express a decided antipathy to church rates and tithes. They are said to have assumed the offensive, and to have gone to churches to assail the preachers and excite disturbances. During the

5

Protectorate 3,173 of them were imprisoned, whipped, and pilloried for these offences. In the time of Charles II. they were punished with imprisonment and transportation, if they refused to take a judicial oath. But two Acts of William III. allowed them to make an affirmation instead of such oath, also to serve compulsory offices by deputy.3 A bill to relieve them in some particulars as to oaths and as to the mode of paying tithes was opposed in vain by the London clergy as endangering the maintenance of the clergy by tithes, "and as dispensing with oaths, which God himself instituted as the surest bond of fidelity among men." They were soon also allowed to make declarations of fidelity in lieu of oaths of supremacy and allegiance. The proceedings as to tithes were varied as regards them, as stated in a previous chapter." They were allowed to find substitutes to serve in the militia and kindred acts. And the Marriage Act of 1753 did not interfere with their customs of marriage, though it did not spare most other dissenters.8 And even the Acts of 1836 with amendments left their marriages alone, provided only that due notice is given to the superintendent registrar of the district; and the marriages may take place in their own meeting-houses." And when a Quaker was elected a member of Parliament in 1833, he was found entitled on making his solemn affirmation to enter and take his seat.10 In all other respects the Quakers are on the same footing, so far as their religion is concerned, as other dissenters.

Unitarians were in 1813 relieved from the punishment assigned to blasphemy against the Trinity by the statute William III. And in other respects they do not differ from other dissenters. Their grievances in relation to Lady Hewley's charities led to an amendment in the laws, as already stated, which was at the same time communicated to all other dissenters.

Roman Catholics as dissenters.-It is necessary to notice one class of dissenters at greater length. Roman

1 Skeat's Hist. 70.

2 13 & 14 Ch. II. c. 1; 16 Ch. II. c. 4. 47 Parl. Hist. 942. That bill passed

5 8 Geo. I. st. 2, c. 6.

3 7 & 8 Will. III. c. 34. the House of Lords by 52 to 21. ante, p. 467. 7 42 Geo. III. c. 90, § 50. 9 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 85, § 2; 35 Vic. c. 10 11 See ante, p. 64.

6 See

8 26 Geo. II. c. 33, § 18. 10 H. C. 14 Feb. 1833.