COUNSEL: Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas Q.C. and S. H. Noakes (both of the English Bar) and G. C. Emslie (of the Scottish Bar) for the appellant.

Lord Advocate Milligan, Harold Leslie Q.C. and Manuel Kissen Q.C. (all of the Scottish Bar) for the respondent.

 

SOLICITORS: Gouldens for Scott & Glover W.S., Edinburgh, and Burns, Reid & Tilston, Glasgow; Solicitor to the Ministry of Labour and National Service for Macpherson & Mackay W.S., Edinburgh.

 

JUDGES: Lord Morton of Henryton, Lord Goddard, Lord Macdermott, Lord Keith of Avonholm and Lord Somervell of Harrow.

 

DATES: 1956 June 11, 12, 13; July 19.

 

Among Jehovah’s Witnesses all members on baptism are recognized as ministers commissioned to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom. Within the organization a “congregation servant” is in charge of a congregation of not less than ten persons and a “pioneer publisher” ministers to persons in an assigned territory, preaching from house to house, conducting Bible services and giving spiritual advice:-

 

Held, that the functions performed by a person holding these appointments did not bring him within the exception “a regular minister of any religious denomination” in paragraph 2 of Schedule I to the National Service Act, 1948, which was confined to persons having a spiritual status apart from other members of their denomination. [*1003]

 

Decision of the Second Division of the Court of Session, 1955 S.L.T. 393 affirmed.

 

APPEAL from the Second Division of the Court of Session.

 

This was an appeal against interlocutors of Lord Stracham, one of the Lords Ordinary of the Court of Session in Scotland, dated January 7 and 18, 1955, and of the Second Division of the Court of Session dated July 21, 1955, in favour of the respondent, the Lord Advocate, representing the Minister of Labour and National Service, in an action against him by the appellant, Douglas Walsh. The appellant, as pursuer in the action, sought a declarator

 

“(a) that the body of Christian people known as Jehovah’s Witnesses forms and is a religious denomination for the purposes of paragraph 2 of Schedule I to the National Service Act, 1948, and (b) that the pursuer, by virtue of his appointments as pioneer publisher and company servant of the said body is a regular minister of that religious denomination”

 

and

 

“an order in terms of section 21 (1) (a) of the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, declaring that the pursuer not being a person subject to registration for the purposes of section 8 (1) of the National Service Act, 1948, the Minister of Labour and National Service has no power to serve or cause to be served upon the pursuer a notice requiring him to submit himself for medical examination.”

 

The facts are fully set out in the opinion of Lord Morton of Henryton.

 

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas Q.C. and S. H. Noakes (both of the English Bar) and G. C. Emslie (of the Scottish Bar) for the appellant.

 

Lord Advocate Milligan, Harold Leslie Q.C. and Manuel Kissen Q.C. (all of the Scottish Bar) for the respondent.

 

The following authorities, besides those referred to in their Lordships’ opinions, were cited in argument: Simmonds v. Elliott1; Reg. v. Oldham2; Offord v. Hiscock3; Montgomerie v. Mackenna4; Nock v. Malins.5

 

Their Lordships took time for consideration.

 

July 19. LORD MORTON OF HENRYTON. My Lords, the appellant was born on November 1, 1934. He holds the offices of “pioneer publisher” and “congregation servant” in the body now known as Jehovah’s Witnesses. Shortly before January 10, 1953, the appellant had some discussion with officials of the Ministry of Labour and National Service as to his liability to be called upon to serve in the armed forces of the Crown under the National Service Act, 1948. On January 10, 1953, the Ministry sent him a letter in the following terms:

 

“Consideration has

 

1 [1917] 2 K.B. 894.

 

2 (1869) L.R. 4 Q.B. 290.

 

3 (1917) 86 L.J.K.B. 941.

 

4 1918 S.C.(J.) 55.

 

5 (1917) 87 L.J.K.B. 62; 34 T.L.R. 3. [*1004]

 

been given to your claim to non-liability under the above-named Acts but this Department is of the view that a member of the Society of Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot be regarded as coming within the definition of a regular minister of a religious denomination for the purposes of exemption from liability under paragraph 2 of Schedule I of the National Service Act, 1948. I have, therefore, been instructed to inform you of this decision, and request you to attend at this office as soon as possible in order that your registration may be effected. Should you so desire, you can register as a conscientious objector.”

 

The result of this letter was that the appellant on January 15, 1953, issued a summons asking:

 

“1. For declarator (a) that the body of Christian people known as Jehovah’s Witnesses forms and is a religious denomination for the purposes of paragraph 2 of Schedule I to the National Service Act, 1948, and (b) that the pursuer, by virtue of his appointments as pioneer publisher and company servant of the said body is a regular minister of that religious denomination. 2. For an order, in terms of section 21 (1) (a) of the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, declaring that the pursuer not being a person subject to registration for the purposes of section 8 (1) of the National Service Act, 1948, the Minister of Labour and National Service has no power to serve or cause to be served upon the pursuer a notice requiring him to submit himself for medical examination.”

 

The office referred to in the summons as “company servant” is now known as “congregation servant.”

 

The relevant provisions of the National Service Act, 1948, are as follows:–

 

1. (1): “Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, every male British subject ordinarily resident in Great Britain who has attained the age of eighteen years and has not attained the age of twenty-six years and is not a person mentioned in Schedule I to this Act shall be liable to be called upon to serve in the armed forces of the Crown. ...”

 

6. (1): “The Minister may from time to time by public notice require male persons who have attained such age as may be specified in the notice (not being less than seventeen years and eight months), being persons who if they had attained the age of eighteen would have become liable under this Part of this Act to be called up for service in the armed forces of the Crown, to be registered for such service under this Part of this Act.”

 

8. (1): “The Minister may from time to time cause to be served on any person subject to registration a written notice in the prescribed form requiring that person to submit himself to medical examination by a medical board at such place and time as may be specified in the notice; ...”

 

Schedule I: “Persons not liable to be called up for service ... 2. A man in holy orders or a regular minister of any religious denomination.” [*1005]

 

When the case was heard by the Lord Ordinary (Lord Strachan) there were two issues to be determined – (a) Was the body of persons known as Jehovah’s Witnesses a “religious denomination” within the meaning of the Act of 1948? (b) Was the appellant a “regular minister of a religious denomination” within the meaning of the same Act?

 

The Lord Ordinary thus describes the evidence given before him1:

 

“A very great deal of evidence was adduced for the pursuer, the shorthand notes extending to no less than 760 pages. In my opinion the relevant evidence could have been stated within much shorter compass, but as this is a very unusual case, and is indeed a test case from the point of view of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and as three of their headquarters staff came specially from America to give evidence, I took the view that it was desirable to give them the fullest opportunity of putting forward their case and I was not disposed to curtail the evidence which they offered. I had in mind also that this is really the first opportunity in this country for an inquiry into the relevant facts in a civil process. A similar question has been raised in earlier cases but it has always previously been initiated in a summary prosecution with the consequent limitations upon a right of appeal.”

 

In his judgment the Lord Ordinary described the history, beliefs and organization of the body now known as Jehovah’s Witnesses, stated the facts relating to the appellant and to the offices which he holds, and arrived at the conclusion that Jehovah’s Witnesses were a religious denomination within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Schedule I to the Act of 1948. As to the appellant the Lord Ordinary expressed his final views as follows2:

 

“I therefore hold that the pursuer is not a regular minister of a religious denomination by virtue of his appointment as a congregation servant, and that he is not such a minister by virtue of his appointment as a pioneer publisher. I am also of opinion that the combination of both appointments does not make him a regular minister because, as I have indicated, it seems to me that the pioneer appointment really adds nothing material which could bring him within the category of a minister. The pursuer’s case therefore fails.”

 

The Lord Ordinary therefore granted decree of declarator in terms of conclusion 1 (a) of the summons but assoilzied the respondent from conclusions 1 (b) and 2.

 

From this decision the appellant appealed, and at the hearing of the appeal by the Second Division the respondent did not seek to challenge the finding of the Lord Ordinary that the body known as Jehovah’s Witnesses was a religious denomination. Counsel for the respondent, however, intimated to the court that this concession was only made for the purposes of the present case. The same attitude was adopted by the Lord Advocate in this House, and in his written case the respondent stated that he

 

1 1955 S.L.T 393-394.

 

2 Ibid. 399. [*1006]

 

desired to reserve his right, if so advised, to maintain in a subsequent case that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not a religious denomination and, in any event, are not such within the meaning of the Act of 1948.

 

Thus the only question which arose for decision in the Second Division and now arises for decision in your Lordships’ House is whether the appellant was, in January, 1953, “a regular minister of any religious denomination” within the meaning of the Act of 1948.

 

The three learned judges of the Second Division – the Lord Justice-Clerk, Lord Patrick and Lord Mackintosh – concurred in answering this question in the negative and dismissed the appeal.

 

My Lords, notwithstanding a very able argument by Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas for the appellant, I find myself in agreement with each one of the three very powerful judgments delivered by the Second Division, and for this reason I have decided not to detain your Lordships by examining the whole matter afresh and stating my conclusion in words which can be no improvement upon the words chosen by these three learned judges.

 

I feel, however, that I should give my own answer to a question which naturally arose in the course of the hearing: Who can be said to be a regular minister of this denomination, if the appellant does not answer that description? In my view, the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses is of such a kind as to create no such office as a “regular minister” in the sense in which these words are used in the Act of 1948. At the head of the organization are the president and directors of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, a non-profit making corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, U.S.A. To quote the appellant’s condescendence 4:

 

“All authoritative pronouncements among Jehovah’s Witnesses throughout the world are made by the president of the society who is a witness and chief spokesman of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The seven directors of the society, who are elected by the members, are for practical purposes, the spiritual governing body on earth of Jehovah’s Witnesses.”

 

At the other end of the organization is a person who has just become a member of the body of Jehovah’s Witnesses by baptism, and I quote the appellant’s condescendence 3:

 

“It is one of the essential tenets of the body that every member of the body is by virtue of his membership a Minister or servant of God and his Gospel. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that, in fulfilment of Biblical prophecy, they are members of the earthly part of a theocratic organization. Each believes that having dedicated himself to do the Will of God as evidenced by baptism in the presence of witnesses, his ministry and manner of witnessing is directed by Jesus Christ through his visible instrument on earth after-mentioned and that he must, as required by the Scriptures, preach to all who will listen that the Kingdom of God is at hand. When an individual determines to become a witness and minister he first begins to [*1007] take courses of study with a company (now congregation). He is then known as an adherent. The period of preparation is variable depending upon individual diligence, aptitude and concentration. The ‘company servant’ after-mentioned supervises his development as shown by his participation in classes held by the company and by his activities as a student gaining practical experience of field ministry. His general course of conduct, devotion to the Church, the renunciation of the affairs and pleasures of the world are all factors considered to be indicative of the adherent’s preparedness for ordination. When it is considered that an adherent is truly dedicating his life to the service of God, a discussion is then held with him concerning the meaning and responsibility attached to ordination. It is once more emphasized to the adherent that the individual who dedicates himself to the service of God and is ordained by God cannot turn back and that all his future life time, energy and assets become the property of God, following upon the binding covenant of dedication. The adherent then attends a baptism ceremony of Jehovah’s Witnesses, which is held at each circuit assembly (twice a year), district assembly (once a year) and national assembly (once every three or four years). At the ceremony there are prayers and a discourse on dedication is given by the district servant or circuit servant who also questions the candidate. If he satisfactorily answers the questions put to him, he then proceeds to the final stage of the ceremony, complete immersion in water, which is the outward and visible symbol of the binding covenant of dedication. The adherent once thus ordained becomes a witness and a minister commissioned to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom and is acknowledged as such by the governing authority of Jehovah’s Witnesses. He thereafter is required to devote his life, or such part of it as is not occupied in the essential discharge of family responsibilities, to preaching the Gospel in the same way as did Jesus Christ and his disciples, by preaching from house to house, conducting home Bible services, preaching on the street corners, distributing literature containing printed sermons, delivering public lectures and preaching in the schools and congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses. There is no lower age limit for ordination laid down in the Bible and accordingly the body has no authority to impose one. In practice before a person is recognized by the body as ordained, i.e., having a commission to preach, he must bring himself into a fit condition by his studies, actions, and conduct as condescended on.”

 

I have set out this condescendence in full because it shows so clearly that in the eyes of this body every member of it becomes a “minister” and comes under very extensive obligations, as soon as he is baptized; and he continues to be a “minister” for life unless he is expelled from the body.

 

The appellant was baptized at the age of 12 years and 3 months, nearly three years before he left school. He was [*1008] appointed to the office of pioneer publisher when he was just over 15 years of age and had just left school, and to the office of congregation servant in the Dumbarton congregation on October 20, 1952, when he was nearly 18 years old.

 

“In the Dumbarton congregation” (to quote the Lord Ordinary3 “there are 29 persons consisting of 4 male adults, 18 female adults and 7 children. Only 19 of the congregation are baptized members of Jehovah’s Witnesses.”

 

It is argued, on his behalf, that he became a “minister” on his baptism and a “regular minister,” within the meaning of the Act, on his appointment as pioneer publisher or at latest on his appointment as congregation servant. I cannot accept this argument.

 

Having carefully studied the evidence as to the organization of this body, I think the true view is that while it contains a number of posts no one of them is of such a kind as to bring the holder within the description of “a regular minister of a religious denomination” as these words are used in paragraph 2 of Schedule I to the Act of 1948. The reason why the organization is of this kind may be found in the following passage from the judgment of the Lord Justice-Clerk4:

 

“The outstanding and distinguishing feature of the beliefs of this body is broadly speaking, that in this generation Christ has already returned to this earth and set up his Kingdom. At some point within the lifetime of those now living, the end of the world as we know it will come. When that end comes, certain living members of the body who attain the character of the anointed will join in a Heavenly Paradise, those of the anointed who are already dead. The other members of the body who do not number among the anointed, will have conferred on them immortality on earth. Those members of the human race who fall into neither of these categories pass into death and oblivion. Two things follow from this belief. First, the only hope of any sort of salvation depends on becoming one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Second, time is short – we cannot tell how short – and there is a tremendous urgency if souls are to be saved. Accordingly, the ruling impulse of the body is missionary zeal. The promulgation of the doctrine is of absolute and overwhelming importance. It is only thus that knowledge of the one way of salvation can be brought to the ignorant.”

 

No doubt the president and directors of the Pennsylvania corporation thought that the best way to carry out this urgent task was to make every witness a minister and a preacher and to create a large number of posts for the ministers such as branch servant, district servant, circuit servant, congregation servant, pioneer publisher and some nine other named posts within the congregation (which may number as few as 10 persons). In so thinking they may have been right, but the result of setting up such an organization is that which I have already stated. My views as to the true construction of the words “regular minister

 

3 Ibid. 397.

 

4 Ibid. 401. [*1009]

 

of a religious denomination,” having regard to the context in which they are found, and my reasons for thinking that, so construed, they do not apply to the appellant, are to be found in the judgments of the Second Division.

 

Your Lordships were referred to a number of cases in the courts of England and Scotland and to one case decided in the Supreme Court of the United States, Dickinson v. United States,5 decided on November 30, 1953. In that case the Supreme Court had to consider two sections of the Universal Military Training and Service Act. Section 6 (g) provided that:

 

“Regular or duly ordained ministers of religion, as defined in this title ... shall be exempt from training and service (but not from registration) under this title.”

 

Section 16 (g) contained the definition, under three subheadings. The language of these subheadings is so far removed from the language which your Lordships have now to construe that I do not find Dickinson’s case5 of assistance in the solution of the problem before this House. Nor can I derive assistance in construing the Act of 1948 from the observations of Lord Justice-Clerk Inglis in Lord Advocate v. Ballantyne6 as to the meaning of the word “ministers” in the Act 4 & 5 Will 4, c. 28, dealing with the celebration of marriages in Scotland “by Roman Catholic priests or other ministers not belonging to the Established Church of Scotland.”

 

Three cases were cited in argument which dealt with officials of the denomination to which the appellant belongs. They were Kipps v. Lane,7 Guy v. Mackenna8 and Saltmarsh v. Adair.9 In each of these cases the official contended that he was a regular minister of a religious denomination. In each case that contention failed, and in Saltmarsh v. Adair10 the Lord Justice-General (Lord Normand) said “there was no such thing as a regular ministry of the denomination.”

 

I move that this appeal be dismissed with costs.

 

LORD GODDARD. My Lords, I agree that this appeal should be dismissed. While I agree with all the judgments delivered in the Court of Session, that of Lord Mackintosh so exactly expresses the opinion I have formed that it would be superfluous for me to give my reasons in detail. It is the spiritual or pastoral status and not the performance of functions that gives the right to exemption from military service. A clerk in holy orders is exempted whether or not he holds a benefice or preferment, so also is the minister, priest or pastor of any other religious body. While I will not attempt to define the expression “regular minister of any religious denomination,” at the risk of uttering a platitude I would say that a man cannot be a regular minister unless he is first a minister. He cannot for the purpose of the

 

5 (1953) 346 U.S. 389.

 

6 (1859) 3 Dru. 352, 371.

 

7 (1917) 86 L.J.K.B. 735; 33 T.L.R. 207.

 

8 1917 S.C.(J.) 59.

 

9 1942 S.C.(J.) 58.

 

10 Ibid. 64. [*1010]

 

National Service Act be regarded as a minister merely because that term is applied to him by fellow members of his sect. Considering that among Jehovah’s Witnesses every person baptized into the sect is a minister regardless of sex, age, education or any other qualification, it follows that the sect has no ministers within the meaning of the Act and consequently no regular ministers. A pioneer publisher in this persuasion is no more than a colporteur of tracts and other of its literature, and a congregation servant appears to me to be no more than an organizer or secretary, perhaps honorary at that, of a group of adherents be it large or insignificant. True, he has a duty to preach, but so have all the other members to anyone whom they can persuade to listen. To put the pursuer, even though he is both a pioneer publisher and a congregation servant, on a level with a clerk in holy orders, the pastor of one of the great nonconformist congregations or a Jewish Rabbi, would, to my mind, be fantastic. There have been several attempts in the courts to get young men of this connexion exempted from their obligation of military service: they have all failed, and now that the matter has been before your Lordships’ House I hope this case will be the last.

 

LORD MACDERMOTT. My Lords, the category within which the appellant would bring himself is set out in Schedule I to the National Service Act, 1948, thus: “A man in holy orders or a regular minister of any religious denomination.” These words are not easy to translate. A precise definition of either “holy orders” or “a regular minister” appears impossible, and to search for one is to wander about between the realms of interpretation and application. The reason for this seems to flow from the legislature’s manifest anxiety to avoid any semblance of religious discrimination. The language employed is accordingly wide in its scope and such as to embrace a great diversity of belief and organization; so much so that I think the legislature must have used the expression immediately in point – “a regular minister” – to designate a fairly broad class rather than to describe the attributes of an individual. As I see it, therefore, the question of construction now to be resolved is as to the nature of this class. After that the issue ceases to be purely one of law and becomes substantially one of fact; the primary facts and circumstances must be weighed and considered and a finding reached as to whether or not they bring the person concerned within the ambit of the exemption.

 

This course was followed in the courts in Scotland, and I agree so fully with their conclusions on both branches of the inquiry that I do not propose to add more than a summary of my views on each.

 

In my opinion, the words “a regular minister” connote a class which forms but a part of the denomination in question and is acknowledged by that denomination as having a superior and distinct standing of its own in spiritual matters. The expression [*1011] itself, the earlier reference to “a man in holy orders,” and the obvious desire of the legislature to attach the exemption to a circumscribed and identifiable category of some special quality, seem to me to justify this view which, to state it in another way, postulates the co-existence in the same denomination of at least two elements, namely, a ministering or clerical element and a lay element to which it can minister. If I may say so, Lord Mackintosh puts this requirement very clearly when, speaking of the “regular minister” he says11:

 

“... he must have by virtue of his appointment as a minister what might be called ‘a clergyman status’ which sets him apart from and places him over the laity of his denomination in spiritual matters.”

 

I turn, next, to the finding of fact. To my mind, the material offered by the oral and documentary evidence was more than sufficient to found the conclusion reached by the Lord Ordinary and the Second Division that the appellant was not within the class designated by the words “a regular minister.” This is not to say that each of the several considerations canvassed by the courts in coming to this conclusion must have a particular cogency or carry the same weight with different minds. For my own part, for example, I would not be disposed to draw any very close analogy between “a man in holy orders” and “a regular minister,” or to build much on a lack of traditional forms and solemnities on appointment to office. But these and the other matters that have been regarded on this issue were all relevant to it, and I can see no good reason for impeaching the decision under appeal because they were taken into account.

 

My Lords, what I have said is enough to dispose of the case; but its importance for the appellant and the denomination to which he belongs is such that I should make it plain that my concurrence in the decision of the Scottish courts rests on more than an inability to find any sufficient ground for disturbing it. Despite the full and careful argument submitted on behalf of the appellant, I am of opinion that no other decision was open on the evidence. Apart from anything else, the whole weight and tenor of the testimony, including that of the publications put in proof and regarded by this denomination as authoritative, appear to me to lead inevitably to the conclusion, so convincingly stated in the opinions of Lord Patrick and Lord Mackintosh, that in this particular body there is no distinction corresponding to that between the clerical and the lay and, accordingly, no class of regular ministers of which the appellant might claim membership. Disregarding mere adherents, this body considers itself to be a body of ordained ministers, its views as to the effect of baptism and the duties of the baptized being stated fairly and accurately, as I think, in a passage from the appellant’s third condescendence which, after describing the baptismal ceremony, says:

 

“The adherent once thus ordained becomes a witness and a Minister commissioned to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom and is [*1012] acknowledged as such by the governing authority of Jehovah’s Witnesses. He thereafter is required to devote his life, or such part of it as is not occupied in the essential discharge of family responsibilities, to preaching the gospel in the same way as did Jesus Christ and his disciples, by preaching from house to house, conducting home Bible services, preaching on the street corners, distributing literature containing printed sermons, delivering public lectures and preaching in the schools and congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses.”

 

The sense of urgency evoked by the tenets of this denomination goes some distance, I think, to explain the common standing in spiritual matters which is thus portrayed. But, be that as it may, this characteristic has not prevented the body from developing an elaborate structure for the furtherance of its objects, and it is clear that the opportunity and ability to serve may bring special duties and responsibilities to individual members either as congregation servants or in some other capacity. That, however, is something of a kind to be expected in any organized movement, and, to my mind, it falls far short of investing the appellant, and those chosen to discharge obligations such as his, with the distinguishing status in spiritual affairs which, as I would hold, the expression “a regular minister” signifies.

 

For these reasons I agree that the appeal fails and should be dismissed.

 

LORD KEITH OF AVONHOLM. My Lords, I have little to add to the full and admirable judgments of the courts below. What I think is fatal to the appellant’s case is that all the members of this religious denomination are regarded as ministers of the gospel. It was conceded before the Lord Ordinary, as it was conceded at the hearing of this appeal, that this does not make them all regular ministers within the meaning of the statutory exemption. What distinguished the appellant as a regular minister, it was said, was his functions or vocation. The appellant was discharging full-time spiritual functions as a congregation servant and pioneer publisher. This distinguished him from other members of his sect and made him a regular minister. The definition was satisfied by a person officially charged by his denomination with whole-time spiritual functions which constituted his vocation for the time being. But that is not, in my opinion, the test. It would exclude many ordained ministers who were not discharging any, or at least full time, spiritual functions and who would, according to ordinary conceptions, be regarded in this country as regular ministers. I would not be prepared to accept Lord Anderson’s view expressed in Guy v. Mackenna12 that in this field “regular” could be contrasted with “occasional.” The judges of the Second Division were, in my opinion, right in regarding a regular minister under the statutory exemption as

 

12 1917 S.C.(J.) 59, 63. [*1013]

 

someone set apart from the other members of his denomination. This cannot be said of the appellant. He is no doubt functioning full time and performing more spiritual duties than the other members, but these are differences of degree and not of kind.

 

It was next said that if function was not the test the appellant could be held to be a regular minister by virtue of a regular appointment. This refers to his appointment as a pioneer publisher when he was 15 years of age by the letter dated December 28, 1949, from the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society to him and his appointment as congregation servant by the letter dated October 20, 1952, from the same society to him. But these letters did not make him a minister. He became a minister when he was baptized on January 31, 1947. They merely appointed him to carry out the functions of pioneer publisher and congregation servant. These functions, as I have said, were not sufficient to make him a regular minister, and a formal appointment to perform them did no more than stamp him as a person prepared to carry out these functions. The method of appointment was no doubt in accordance with recognized procedure of the denomination, but it did not confer on him any spiritual qualities or powers. In short, it did not set him apart from his co-religionists and so was ineffectual to confer on him the status of a regular minister.

 

I would dismiss the appeal.

 

LORD SOMERVELL OF HARROW. My Lords, I agree.

 

Appeal dismissed.