a

British Museum were bound by the letter of the written and express covenants which were contained in the deed, whereby the property in question became severed from some ancestor of the Bedford family, upwards of one hundred and fifty years before the question then before the Court arose. Although there was no doubt that the matters complained of fell within the strict meaning of the words of the covenant, yet Lord Eldon thought, that, in order to decide the question fairly, -in order to determine whether the Court should interfere, he must regard not merely what was expressed in the deed, but the circumstances under which the deed was made, and what of necessity must have been the implied agreement and understanding between the parties, although not even one word of those matters appeared on the face of the instrument itself. Now in the case in which I am called upon to interfere, the late Rev. John Wesley, having instituted Methodism, and given rise to the society since denominated the Wesleyan Methodists, we find that in the year 1781, the first deed is made which relates to the chapel in question, the Oldhamstreet chapel, to which the Rev. Dr. Warren was appointed. This was deed made during the life-time of Mr. Wesley; and it conveyed the tenements in question to certain Trustees, upon trust that they and the survivors of them, and their heirs and assigns, and the Trustees for the time being, should permit and suffer John Wesley, and such other persons as the said John Wesley should, for that purpose, from time to time nominate and appoint, in like manner, during his life, to have and enjoy the said premises, respectively, to the intent that he and they might therein preach, &c. and after the decease of the said John Wesley, then upon further trust, that "the said Trustees, and the survivors of them, and the Trustees for the time being, should permit and suffer such person and persons, and for such time and times, as should be appointed at the yearly Conference of the people called Methodists, in London, Bristol, or Leeds, to have and enjoy the said premises for the purposes aforesaid." Then it goes on to enforce certain provisoes on the Preachers, with regard to the doctrines which such persons shall preach or expound; and then there is a particular proviso upon which a great deal of observation has been made at the bar, namely, that if any person so appointed to preach, shall, in the judgment of the major part of the Trustees for the time VOL. XIV. Third Series. APRIL,

being, be deemed an unfit or improper person, and the Committee of Conference shall not appoint another in his stead within two months after a regular notice in writing, containing the reasons of the Trustees for his dismissal, then it shall be lawful for the Trustees to appoint such other person as they shall think fit, until the next Conference. Now this is a power plainly in the nature of an executing power. It is a power which is expressly given to the Trustees; but this deed does not contain anything which puts in terms any obligation upon the Trustees, in case they thought the person improper, to permit him still to enjoy the chapel. I do not see anything in that deed of that nature, nor anything beyond what could be inferred from the first part of the deed, which was generally creating the trust; but it strikes me, that if the Trustees should conceive, in fairly exercising their opinion of the individual, that, in consequence of the act committed, it became necessary to interfere immediately, and prevent such person from preaching, then the deed gave them the further power to take the course prescribed by it. The course prescribed, in the first instance, was to give the Committee of the Conference a notice to appoint a substitute; and, in case they did not exercise that power, then there

was

an express power given to the Trustees to appoint a substitute.

Next, we have the deed of 1826, (the Oldham-road deed,) which was made long after the death of Mr. Wesley, and subsequent to various rules and regulations made at different meetings of the Conference, in the years 1791, 1792, 1793, 1794, 1795, and 1797, and which have been the subject of much observation. According to this deed, the Trustees are to permit the chapel to be used and enjoyed for the purposes of religious worship, for the service of Almighty God, by the society of people called Methodists, late in connexion with the Rev. John Wesley, and to that intent to permit and suffer such persons as should be appointed by the Conference, and no other person or persons whomsoever, except as after provided, to have the free and uninterrupted use of the chapel. Then there is a proviso, declaring that the moral character and ability of the persons so appointed shall be unexceptionable; and then it is stated, that they shall not preach any other doctrines than those of Mr. Wesley, defined in the same manner as is described in the other deed of the year 1781. Then it is provided, that, in case the Trustees shall 1835.

X

think any such Preacher to be immoral, deficient in abilities, erroneous in doctrine, or to have broken any of the rules contained in the Articles of Pacification, the Trustees for the time being shall proceed, according to certain regulations which those Articles prescribe. Now, it is observable, therefore, that this deed, in a general way, refers to the use of the chapel for the purposes of religious worship, and for the service of Almighty God, by the society of people called Methodists; and that is a circumstance which, I conceive, is not to be kept out of sight, or to be in any way forgotten, when we are commenting on the deeds, and on the duties of those persons who are to exercise the Trusteeship under the deeds. For I must consider, that it never was intended that this instrument was to be construed separate and apart as if this chapel stood alone. I must consider, that it never was intended by the parties who have continued to belong to the Methodist society in succession, since the time when it had its origin, that there should be anything else but one general object pursued, unless indeed there might be any particular bylaws, or rules and regulations, of a local kind; but that it was the object and intent of all parties concerned, to form one body, to be governed by one set of laws. Although it may be perfectly true, to a certain extent, that the persons appointed Trustees under the deed of 1781 might consider themselves called upon to execute their trust, with regard to a certain then existing set of laws, it appears to me, that if, in the progress of time, the persons who were Trustees for the time being, as successors to the first Trustees under the deed of 1781, received into their chapel a person appointed by the yearly Conference to preach, they must take that person into their chapel, and deal with him, not merely on what is the general expression of the obligations of the trust-deed, but according to all the rules from time to time enacted by the Conference, which, it is admitted on all hands, has been the supreme legislative and executive body since the death of Mr. Wesley.

Now, whether or not a District Committee has the power of suspending a Preacher, appears to be a matter of some doubt; nor am I surprised at it, when I consider that the persons who drew up the various Minutes were not professional persons accustomed to prepare for all the exigencies likely to happen, but simple, straightforward, intelligent men, who had in view only the exigencies of the mo

ment. During the life of Mr. Wesley, it appears that he had the sole power of appointing the Preachers, which, of necessity, on the face of the deed of 1781, included the power of removal; and the persons holding the office of Trustees were to receive into the chapel such person or persons as Mr. Wesley might from time to time appoint. This, of course, implied that the power of removing the Preacher was vested in Mr. Wesley. When, in consequence of Mr. Wesley's death, the power which he had possessed of trying, suspending, or expelling Preachers in the intervals of the Conference, necessarily ceased, that power vested in the Conference, as instituted by the deed of 1784. The Conference, at their first meeting after Mr. Wesley's death, in the year 1791, asked the question, "What regulations are necessary for the preservation of our whole economy, as the Rev. Mr. Wesley left it?" and answered, "Let the three kingdoms be divided into Districts;" for the management of which Districts the following Rules were then framed :— The Assistant (afterwards called the Superintendent) of a Circuit shall have authority to summon the Preachers of his District, who are in full connexion, on any critical case, which, according to the best of his judgment, merits such an interference. the said Preachers, or as many of them as can attend, shall assemble at the place and time appointed by the Assistant aforesaid, and shall form a Committee for the purpose of determining concerning the business on which they are called." There it ends: it is not said what they are to do. It is left to be inferred, that they are to exercise their judgment, and deal as well as they can with the case so brought before them. And then it goes on to say that they shall choose a Chairman for the occasion, and that their decision shall be final until the meeting of the next Conference, when the Chairman of the Committee is to lay the Minutes of their proceedings before the Conference;

And

provided, nevertheless, that nothing shall be done by any Committee contrary to the resolutions of the Confer

ence.

Then it appears that in the year 1792, that resolution was altered by giving a power to the Chairman of the District, to be thenceforth annually appointed at each Conference, to call a meeting of the Committee of the District, on any application of the Preachers or people, which may appear to him to require it; but he was not permitted individually to interfere with any other Circuit except his own. It was further directed that when

ever the Chairman received any complaint against a Preacher, either from the Preachers or the people, he should send an exact account of the complaint in writing, with the name of the accuser or accusers, to the party accused, before he called a meeting of the District Committee, to examine into the charge. There is nothing here to limit the power which is to be exercised by the District Committee thus summoned; but only a previous step required, namely, that, before the power is exercised, it is to be preceded by sending a copy of the charges, &c. In the fourth article of the rule of 1792, respecting Districts, which provides for the case in which the Chairman himself might be the person accused, there is a power given to the District Committee to try a Chairman, and, if he be found guilty, to inflict punishment; that is, "to suspend him from being a Travelling Preacher, till the ensuing Conference, or to remove him from the office of Superintendent, or to depose him from the Chair, and to elect another in his place." It is reasonable to suppose that the Committee had the like power with respect to the Preachers generally, which was thus delegated even in 'reference to the Chairman. In the year 1793, there was a partial alteration in the mode prescribed to the Chairman of the District for trying Preachers accused of immorality. was then enacted, that, instead of a meeting of all the Preachers of the District, the Chairman himself, with four other Preachers of that District, two of whom were to be chosen by the Preacher charged with immorality, and two by the party bringing the charge, should have the authority to try the case in a more private manner, and if they found the accused guilty, to suspend him, should they judge it expedient, till the ensuing Conference. Now suppose that, antecedent to this period, the District Committee had, under the regulations formerly made, acquired any particular powers, I apprehend that those powers so acquired would remain just as large and extensive, except so far as the special provision made for their proceeding in the case of immorality might be considered as varying it.

It

Then there arose a dispute with respect to the administration of the sacrament of the Lord's supper; and it appears that, at the meeting of the Conference in 1794, the Conference state in their letter, that they had taken into their mature consideration the state of the societies, and set forth the various rules to which

they had come, "for the sake of peace

and love." By the fifth of these resolutions, "it is agreed that the management of the temporal and spiritual concerns of the body shall be separated, as far as the purposes of peace and harmony can be answered thereby, as they have ever been separated, in times of the greatest peace and harmony, viz., 1. The temporal concerns shall be managed by the Stewards chosen for that purpose, who shall keep books, wherein all money collected, received, or disbursed, on account of their respective societies, shall be entered. 2. The spiritual concerns shall be managed by the Preachers, who have ever appointed Leaders, chosen Stewards, and admitted members into, and expelled them from, the society, consulting their brethren the Stewards and Leaders." Well, this certainly seems to reserve to the ecclesiastical part of the body the fullest power over all spiritual concerns. And then there follows the sixth rule, which first provides a certain mode in which the Trustees, in conjunction with their Superintendent Preacher, shall choose their own Stewards, receive and disburse the seat-rents, &c.; all which obviously applies only to matters of a temporal nature. Then it is provided, that "if any Preacher be accused of immorality, a meeting shall be called of all the Preachers, Trustees, Stewards, and Leaders of the Circuit; and if the charge be proved to the satisfaction of a majority of such Meeting, the Chairman of the District shall remove the convicted Preacher from the Circuit, on the request of the majority of the Meeting; nevertheless, an appeal to the Conference on either side shall remain." This appears to be a power which, as I under stand it, never was given before to the lay portion of the community, to exercise a jurisdiction over the Preachers; and it is the first time, as far as I can collect, that the Trustees, Stewards, &c., were to interfere in order to compose a court, This was, however, not a power given generally, but only in the particular case in which a Preacher shall be accused of immorality.

Then we come to the Conference of 1795. That Conference agreed to certain Articles of Pacification, from which it is obvious that the thing mainly had in view was the subject of the dispute which had so long agitated the society, viz., the administration of the sacrament of the Lord's supper, baptism, and other matters, which were purely matters of ecclesiastical discipline or rite. Then concerning discipline, it is directed that the ap pointment of Preachers shall remain solely

with the Conference, and that no Trustee or Trustees shall expel or exclude from their chapel any Preachers who have been appointed by that body. That certainly seems to allude to the circumstance, that, in consequence of disputes having arisen relative to the administration of the sacrament of the Lord's supper, the Trustees of Bristol had, in the preceding year, taken on themselves to suspend or remove some of the Preachers. There seems to be in the first instance, a positive law against the interference, of the Trustees at all. Then that is qualified by a second rule,-" Nevertheless, if the majority of the Trustees, or the majority of the Stewards and Leaders, of any society, believe that any Preacher appointed for their Circuit is immoral, erroneous in doctrine, deficient in abilities, or that he has broken any of the rules above-mentioned, they shall have authority to summon the Preachers of the District, and all the Trustees, Stewards, and Leaders of the Circuit, to meet in their chapel on a day and hour appointed; sufficient time being given. The Chairman of the District shall be President of the assembly; and every Preacher, Trustee, Steward, and Leader, shall have a single vote, the Chairman possessing also the casting voice. And if the majority of the Meeting judge that the accused Preacher is immoral, erroneous in doctrines, deficient in abilities, or has broken any of the rules above-mentioned, he shall be considered as removed from that Circuit." Then it goes on to say, "that the District Committee shall, as soon as possible, appoint another Preacher for that Circuit, instead of the Preacher so removed, and shall determine among themselves how the removed Preacher shall be disposed of till the Conference; and shall have authority to suspend the said Preacher from all public duties till the Conference, if they judge proper." And then there follows that fifth regulation on which so much stress has been laid, "That no Preacher shall be suspended or removed from his Circuit, except he have the privilege of the trial before mentioned." Now, it has been made a subject of contest at the bar, whether this fifth rule is to be taken as a general rule, applying to all cases whatever, or whether it is not, and ought not be, taken as a rule applying to those cases only which are enumerated in the document where this passage is found,—that is, the four cases of immorality, heterodoxy, deficient abilities, or breach of any of the preceding Rules of Pacification. It appears it was only in these four cases that

the jurisdiction of the lay portion of the society was determined by the Conference to be fit to be administered at all, in regard to the Preachers; and the very article in which they recognise the limited exercise, in certain cases, of the lay power over the ecclesiastical, is itself coupled with an admission of the existence and operation of the District Committee, -and it appears to me, that you cannot properly construe these words, “except he have the privilege of the trial beforementioned," but by referring to the four cases; for it is only in these four cases that this particular trial can take place. The effect of giving it a general construction would be this, that, although the Conference have expressly pointed out the mode of trial which may be pursued in these four cases, they must be understood to mean, that no other mode of trial is to take place in any other case, save and except the one here prescribed. Now, however unacquainted with, or uninstructed in, legal matters these gentlemen may have been, I cannot conceive that they would so completely have blundered, as, at the end of these rules, to give, by implication as it were, a general power to the new tribunal of laity and clergy, whereas that power is, in the very outset, restricted to four enumerated cases. This would have been a method of construction quite inconsistent with the ordinary use of the English language, by any persons who might be supposed to be reasonably competent to understand the subject on which they were employed. A book, marked with the letter F., has been produced as an exhibit in this cause. [His Honour here referred to a collection of Rules, which the Conference of 1797 had individually subscribed, and which was published by their order in that year; having in its title-page the express designation of "The Form of Discipline."] This code confirmed, he said, the view he had taken, viz., that the Articles of Pacification, in 1795, did not supersede the District Committees composed of Preachers only; for it contained the original laws of 1791 and of other succeeding years, respecting the power and jurisdiction of the District Committees; and by thus reprinting them, the Conference substantially recognised and re-enacted those laws. He noticed also, and commented on, some additions and alterations made in the phraseology of these laws, which further confirmed his view. A rule of 1793 had appointed a certain mode of arbitration, in the case of differences between Preachers; but to this same rule, when revised in the collec

tion of 1797, there is appended a new clause, stating that if the matter cannot be decided by the arbitrators to the satis faction of the parties, then it is to be referred to a meeting of the District Committee. By this regulation the District Committee is made a court of appeal from a court which has done only this, viz., has not decided the matter to the satisfaction of the parties concerned. In this case, a power is expressly given to the District Committee to interfere as a supreme court; of course, the District Committees could not have been superseded by the Rules of Pacification in 1795. [Still quoting from, and remarking on, the same book, containing the revised "Form of Discipline," his Honour proceeded as follows:]-Then I observe, there is this article in page fortytwo, "In order to render our Districts more effective, the President of the Conference shall have power, when applied to, to supply a Circuit with Preachers, if any shall die or desist from travelling, and to sanction any change of Preachers which it may be necessary to make in the intervals of the Conference, and to assist at any District-Meeting, if applied to for that purpose by the Chairman of the District, or by a majority of the Superintendents in such District; and he shall have a right, if written to by any who are concerned, to visit any Circuit, and to inquire into their affairs with respect to Methodism, and, in union with the District Committee, to redress any grievance. 2. The Chairman of each District, in conjunction with his brethren of the Committee, shall be responsible to the Conference for the execution of the laws, as far as his District is concerned." Now, that appears to me to be remarkable, because it is an express recognition of the authority of the District Committee, giving it, as I understand, in certain cases, a power to act, unlimited in point of extent, with the assistance and co-operation of certain other individuals. In the same year, 1797, there is a circular letter from the Conference, stating, that they think it their duty to inform the general body of Methodists, that certain rules and regulations have been adopted, which they (the Conference) trust will have the effect of promoting the harmony and unanimity of the whole body. They then set forth the rules and regulations respecting certain temporal matters, and then they state, "We have selected all our ancient rules, which were made before the death of our late venerable Father in the Gospel, the Rev. Mr. Wesley, which are essential rules, or prudential at

this present time; and have solemnly signed them, declaring our approbation of them." This seems to be a reiteration of a former letter, inserted in page 360 of the "Minutes," vol. I.; and then they say, in page 378,-" In short, brethren, out of our great love for peace and union, and our great desire to satisfy your minds, we have given up to you by far the greatest part of the Superintendents' authority; and if we consider that the Quarterly Meetings are the sources from whence all temporal regulations, during the intervals of the Conference, must now originally spring; and also, that the Committee formed according to the Plan of Pacification can, in every instance in which the Trustees, Leaders, and Stewards, choose to interfere respecting the gifts, doctrines, or moral character of Preachers, supersede, in a great measure, the regular District Committees; we may, taking all these things into our view, truly say, that such have been the sacrifices we have made, that our District Committees themselves have hardly any authority remaining, but a bare negative in general, and the appointment of a Representative to assist in drawing up the rough-draught of the stations." Now it does not appear to me, when they state, by way of reference, the very cases in which alone they have given the Trustees, Leaders, and Stewards, power to interfere, that they can be considered, by the subsequent words, as positively taking away all the authority which, up to the time of the Conference meeting in 1797, the District Committee had exercised, or might have exercised, in cases other than those four cases in which the lay portion of the body were now allowed to interfere, in respect to the Preachers. They have stated it in a loose and general way for the purpose of making it appear to those who read the letter, that the District Committees were not now possessed of such extensive or unlimited authority as formerly. The words used clearly show, that they were still in existence, though their functions were diminished, by the exemption of merely temporal affairs, "in a great degree," from the operation of their sole authority. As to ecclesiastical affairs, there are found in the Minutes of the very same year,

Sundry Miscellaneous Regulations," which prove that the Conference did not intend to set aside the District Committees' jurisdiction in spiritual matters. Instead of this, they made these additional regulations, with the express and avowed purpose of rendering those District Com. mittees "more effective" for managing,