design of the Founder into execution, so far as it is consistent with the law." The same opinion as to the maintenance of the original doctrines is given in the case of Foley v. Wontner, 2 Jacob and Walker, 247; and his Lordship in this case added, "I take it to be now settled by a case in the House of Lords, on appeal from Scotland, that the chapel must remain devoted to the doctrines originally agreed on." The case referred to was Craigdallie against Aikman, 1 Dow. P. C. 1; and it is not a little remarkable that if Mr. Kay's zeal had been restrained until the publication of that very number of your paper, of which his letter forms so prominent a part, he would have learned from your columns the truth of this doctrine from the same high authority, in the case of the Albion Chapel, which was decided in London almost on the very day of the date of my learned friend's letter. I will, with your permission, quote from your pages. His Lordship said, "Where persons brought questions of property before Courts by suspension, or any other manner in which it might be subjected to their consideration, and it could be shewn that the property was in the first instance made applicable to a particular mode of religious worship, and complaint was also made that it was applied to a mode of worship totally opposed to the purposes to which it was first assigned, the Court would not permit even a majority of the individuals to depart from the purposes to which the property was in the first place applicable."

The law then is sufficiently clear on this subject, as recognized by the Chancellor, and also in the highest court in England, the House of Lords; and that the law is consistent with equity and justice, is obvious on the very same principles which protect the rights of private property.

It follows from this statement, and from the assumption that the lists of Chapels for the four counties of Lancaster, Chester, Derby, and Nottingham, are correct, the UnitaLorians possess but six chapels by legal and equitable means; and that to the remaining fifty-six chapels, with all their endowments, they have no legal nor equitable right or title whatever for the maintenance of Unitarian worship.

On this subject, I offer no further remarks at present.

The facts are before the public, and with the public I leave these facts, only referring them to the printed lists, by which it is alledged that in four large and populous counties, containing upwards of a million and a half of inhabitants, out of sixty-four chapels which the people of this bragging, boasting, noisy system possess, they have originated only Six!!! I am, Sir, your very obedient servant,

GEORGE HADFIELD.*

To the Editor of the Manchester Gazette.

SIR;-Your Correspondent, the "English Presbyterian," to whom I must now give the name of Mr. G. W. Wood, still declaims against introducing into the newspapers, a discussion respecting the funds and endowments, formerly left by the Orthodox Dissenters, but now enjoyed by the Unitarians. But why does he object to this? After all the fine things which we have heard from the Unitarians about free and unlimited discussion, there is surely no subject but what ought to be investigated. No: but he still contends that it is "a controversy on religious matters." His coadjutor, Mr. Kay, however, is more candid, and fully agrees with me, (as I presume all other persons do,) that “the question is not theological, but one of property," which may be as fitly discussed in the newspapers, as the public accounts of the town of Manchester. Authorities, from his own party, though produced by the round dozen at once, have indeed no influence whatever upon Mr. W., but, I apprehend, they, nevertheless, will have their effect with the public.

Such discussions, he further observes, "frequently serve to inflame some of the worst feelings of the human heart." But surely this consequence is not absolutely necessary.

• The following paragraph is copied from the preface to Mr. Grundy's lectures, which, be it observed, were preached in Mr. Newcome's pulpit, viz.-~

"Of what importance are the points at issue, even between Protestants of the Establishment and Roman Catholics, compared with those between Unitarians and Trinitarians? What are all the minor shades of difference between all other denominations of Dissenters and the Established Church, compared with that grand point on which we differ from them all, the object of religious adoration." Preface xviii.

same.

If Mr. W. is so fully alive to the danger of such "feelings," let him guard against them, and I will endeavour to do the He complains, too, of the very objectionable language which has been used in this controversy; but this is another instance of his peculiar felicity in committing an ar-gumentative felo de se. The most offensive words and allusions which have been used, those which relate to coveting and stealing, were certainly first brought into this discussion by himself. If he disapproves of such ideas and expressions, let him, by all means, avoid them, for, I assure him, they give as little pleasure to me, as they can possibly do to him.

I have some cause to complain that his representation of the manner in which this discussion commenced, is not quite calculated to give a correct and fair notion of it. A person who should read his last letter alone, would suppose that the controversy originated in two very moderate letters, by "An Orthodox Dissenter" and "An Unitarian Christian." But was there nothing at all, before these letters, relating to the matter? Was not there a meeting of the leading Unitarians in Manchester, where a speech was loudly applauded, in which, amidst much matter of the same description, "the spirit of Orthodoxy" was pronounced, "slavish, mean, partial and capricious, cruel and vindictive? Was not your correspondent, Mr. W., present at this meeting? I shall not say that he was "consenting to" this oration; but unless he can show that he absented himself during its delivery, or otherwise manifested his disapprobation, the public will very naturally come to this conclusion. speech was defended in the newspapers, with new aggravations, by its author; and when I took up the subject, no Unitarian, either with or without a name, had taken a single public measure to disavow the defence. This, I conceive, is the true representation of the earlier part of the discussion: and yet Mr. W. assumes the tone of one belonging to a highly injured party: just as if they were to go to what lengths they please in the newspapers, and others were to have no will or pleasure in the matter.

This

It seems to be the determination of your correspondent to

have no concern whatever with the subject in its general hearings; and therefore, he has passed over the greater, and more important, part of my letter, without a single word of notice. Let me, however, extricate the real question, at issue once more, from the cloud of words and things, foreign to the purpose, in which he has enveloped it, and place it fairly in public view. A considerable number of Unitarian Ministers (whose conduct the late meeting was avowedly designed to honour,) are in the habit of publicly reprobating in the strongest terms, the leading articles of the Calvinistic and Trinitarian faith. Frequently these very Ministers receive an important part of their support from funds and endowments which were unquestionably designed by the founders, for the support and endowment of that faith. In particular, a great majority of Unitarian places in the north, receive support from the cbarity of Lady Hewley, who was a Calvinist and a Trinitarian. I learn, too, from the report of the York Academy for 1822, that six students who were educated for the Ministry among the Unitarians, received, for that year, grants of £20 each from Lady Hewley's charity. This, I conceive, was not exactly what her Ladyship intended, when she expressly appointed, in her deed of settlement, that the number of "young men" (even if they had not been of sentiments contrary to her own,) " designed for the ministry of Christ's Holy Gospel, who might receive "exhibitions" from her fund, should never exceed five such young men at one and the same time." This is certainly to employ the property of Lady H. and others, to overturn the principles which it was intended to support. Now, I ask, is such an appropriation of such property to be accounted just? or is it not rather to be considered as perverted from its original intention ?

And what if it should be a fact, that all assistance from the charity of Lady H. is denied to those "Schools of the Prophets" whose theology accords with her own, while afforded thus abundantly to one of an opposite character? Or if there should be instances of the aid of Lady H.'s charity being afforded to chapels while Socianism has been preached

in them, but refused to the same places, when it has been supplanted by Orthodox, doctrine ?" Ought these things so to be ???

A copy of Lady Hewley's will, in the preamble to which she feelingly recognizes her dependence, for the pardon of sin, on the atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ, lies before me, as well as faithful copies, or abstracts of her two deeds of settlement, in which she devotes her extensive and valuable estates to religious and other charitable uses. My interesting collection of papers contains, also, the opinions of Lord Camden in his time, repeatedly taken by a trustee to the charity on various things connected with the deeds by which it was founded: and also the opinions of several others of the most eminent men of their day. It includes, too, many curious and interesting particulars relating to the secret history of Lady H.'s posthumous affairs. I have attentively and repeatedly perused the whole mass, and, in the abundance of my blameable ignorance, I take upon me to say, that the reasoning of Lord Eldon, in the case of the Attorney-General v. Pearson, and in another case, discussed in Chancery a few days ago, is as fully applicable to Lady H.'s charity, as to the cases to which it is more immediately applied. The subject was presented to Lord Camden under a different aspect from that in which Lord E. has viewed it; but his reasoning, when considered analogically, is to the same effect.

I allow that it is incumbent upon Dissenters in particular to lay no more stress upon the opinions and authority of these eminent persons than is perfectly consonant with Christian liberty, and with moral justice and equity. But, in determining what is just and equitable, are the views of such persons to be treated as totally unworthy of consideration? It may be said for them, that they are not liable to be biassed by the partialities to which persons in the situation of your Correspondent, are exposed. They do not want capacity to understand the subject. To acquaint themselves with all that jurists and moralists have taught on such points, is the object of the science to which they have particularly devoted themselves. They of the present day,