The Sun.
London, England, 1835-09-02 00:00:00

very different, matter from taking a course of that kind, to
establish the principle that the governing council of the muni-
cipal bodies, should be divided into two parts, separated from
each other by a line of jealousy. On this ground he could
not do °Chemise, in the present state of the question, there
being no, other proposal on the subject before the House, than
move eatit they disagree to the Lords' amendment, leaving it
to thr,se who were of opinion that the repeal of the Test and
Corporation Acts and the original provisions of the present
Bill left the question too open, to suggest any other arrange-
ment which they might deem fit, in order to provide some ad-
dit'.onal security for the Church.
Mr. G 0 UL:BURN was understood to express an opinion
that municipal corporations were not fit depositories for Church
patronage. If the amendment introduced by the Lords were
omitted, a power of exercising Church patronage would be
placed in the hands of Dissenters, who had never enjoyed it
before. Against the principle of such an arrangement he for
one cou.id not refrain from raising his voice.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was wil-
ling to make any concessions with respect to the clauses of
this Bill, which were consistent with reason or common sensu;
but this amendment contained a principle abhorrent to his
sense of justice and toleration. It was one which he could
never agree to.—( Hear, hear.) But even supposing for the
sake of argument that such a principle might be aflopted, it
must be utterly impracticable and worthless, and could not be
carried into execution without the imposition of a religious
test, the revival of which would be received with horror and
disgust, and would never be submitted to.—(Hear, hear.)
Though he was disposed to yield on other points of the Bill,
yet the principle involved in the amendment of the Lords on
this part of the Bill was one which he felt bound to re-
sist. He therefore took that 'opportunity of giving notice,
that if this clause were omitted, he should at a more advanced
stage of the Bill, propose a clause directing corporations to
sell the Church property over which they exercised controul,
and apply the proceeds to the common uses of the towns.
Mr. TWISS supported the suggestion of the Right Hon.
Gentleman.
Mr. WILK S was not disposed to offer any opposition to the
sugg *..10n of the Right Hon. Gentleman. It would, in his
opinion, if complied with, tend to prevent collision between
Churchmen and Dissenters.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought that all the di-
Ileulties which surrounded this question might be overcome by
consenting to sanction the suggestion of his Right Hon.
Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The power over
Church property which it was proposed to confer on the
Council as a body, without regard to the religious opinions of
its members, was exercised in Scotland both by individual
Dissenters and by Councils, some of the members of which were
Dissenters, with the best possible results.—( Hear, hear.)
He thought, however, that municipal corporations ought
to have nothing to do with Church patronage.—( Hear.)
They were never instituted for any such purpose, but were
established with a view of managing only the local affairs of
the towns, &c. To this object they should be confined, and
the sooner their right of Church patronage was abolished the
better.--( Hear. )
Sir F. POLLOCK heartily concurred in the suggestion
of the Right Honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the
Exchequer.
Mr. C. BARCL AY thought that such an arrangement as
tk at proposed, would be acceptable to all parties.
Mr. POULTER was of opinion that these Church pre-
-ferments enjoyed by the Corporations should be purchased by
the Crown.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that as the proposition laid down
by his Right Hon: Friend appeared to give general satisfac-
tion, and he did not think it necessary to enter into any dis-
cussion on the principles of this clause, as amended by the
douse of Lords. It appeared to him, from the manner in
-which that proposition was received by both sides of the
House, that it would relieve the question from all the dif-
ficulties by which it was embarrassed. With respect to the
suggestion of the Hon. Member for Shaftesbury, that the pro-
perty in these livings should be bought by the Crown, he
really thought it much better not to encumber the present
question with the objections to which such a proposition
might be held liable. He hoped his Right Hon. Friend
would frnme the clause which he intended to submit for
adoption. in such a manner as to meet with general con-
currenrje.
Dr. BOWRING observed that the clause, as it stood.
amended by the Lords, cast the greatest opprobrium on the
Dissenters.
Sir R. PEEL wished that the advice as to conciliation
had been sooner followed, for motives were attributed in the
stTongest terms to the House of Lords, for the amendments
'which they had made, which were not, he was persuaded,
justifiable. Even the Hon. Gentleman who spoke last said
that the amendments of the House of Lords cast an oppro-
brium on the Dissenters. Now he must declare that he
did not believe the House of Lords had the slightest inten-
tion of fixing or implying any opprobrium on the Dissenting
body, by the introduction of the amendment which they had
made.---( Hear, hear.) He, for one, would never consent to
take any part, either directly or indirectly, which would;
frustrate the effects of that political and religious equality
wh',ch had been established by the repeal of the Test and
Corporeion Acts; but he must say that the clause which
prevented the members of one Spiritual creed from appoint.
ing the ministers of another, did not, in his opinion, interfere
in any way with the beneficial consequences of the abolition
of su,:h laws as the Test and Corporation Act.—( Hear.) If
by Act of Pqrlilment the nomination of Unitarian or other
I)issentiug ministers were placed in the hands of members of
the Church of England, such a legislative provision would be
reprobated by all parties. It was no answer to that position
to say that the parties who in such cases would be selected
would- in all p..ebability be well qualified end rroper persons.
He was ready at the same time to admit that ele existing lan
did give Dissenters who were members of Cqr,,,,rations en,
4g:tit of taking a part in the appointment to thell;ings whic'

ngtl..b F..
were in the gift of those Corporations. It was. however,
clearly the principle of our law, before the pas,in.,...r of the
Test and Corporation Acts, that the members of Cot ~,iatorts
should be members of the Church of England, attire,..-11 an
annual hill of indemnity was agreed to for the purpose of re-
having those who violated that law from being subjec:ed to
its penalties. In many cases in which there were numeroes
livings in the gift of Corporations=such, for instance, as B. is-
tol and Norwich, it was clear that the majority of the Meill'lrT3
of such Corporations might be Unitarians or other Dissenters,
and that the whole right of presentation would be vested ia
them. Now he never could be persun'-d that an arrangement
by which such a state of things could be produced would be
satisfactory either to the possessors of the patronage themselves,
or to the members of the Church of England who were more
immediately affected by it. In limiting the right of presenta-
tion, therefore, to those members of the new Corporations who
were also members of the Church of England, he was con-
vinced that the House of Lords had not intended any disre-
spect to Dissenters, and had not manifested the intolerant spi-
rit which had been imputed to them. It should be remembered
that there was a wide distinction between a civil trust and a
spiritual trust.—( Hear, hear.) With regard to the proposition
made by the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it
was one of very great importance ; and he (Sir R. Peel)
thought that it would be more satisfactory to all parties if the
discussion on the clause under consideration were postponed
until they saw the mole in whi,h the Right Hon. Gentleman
meant to develop° Ow proposition. At the same time, it was
exceedingly desirable that the whole subject—the clause in the
Bill which it was proposed to omit, and the provision which
it was proposed to introduce—should be taken into consideration
at the same time; and he, therefore, thought that it was not
advisable to dispose of the clause to-night, and to take the
Right Hon. Gentleman's proposition into consideration to-
morrow. He confessed, too, that on a matter of such impor-
tance, introduced for the first time to the House, although he
was not in a condition to state that he entertained any
serious objections to it, he was still desirous of reserving to
himself the power of deliberation, before he yielded to it
his assent. He certainly was not prepared at the moment to
give to the proposition the unqualified approbation which had
been given to it by his Hon. and Learned Friend. In the first
place, he should have beet glad if it could have been found
practicable to avoid an absolute compulsion by law on the cor-
porations to dispose of their Church patronage. It might be
that in many cases they were by far the fittest persons to ex-
ercise it. He would rather wish to avoid compelling, by law,
either Corporations or individuals to sell property of that de-
scription. Whether, however, the Right Hon. Gentleman's
proposition would be preferable to leaving the nomination to
livings in the hands of Dissenters was a question on which he
was not prepared at once to decide. Some of the Corpora-
tions possessed very extensive Church patronage. The Cor-
porations of Bristol and Norwich, to which he had before al-
luded, had, he believed, no fewer than twenty-two livings in
their gift. At so short a notice, he did not think the House
ought to be called upon to deal with so considerable a pro-
perty without due consideration. Many points must be con-
sidered. Within what time were the Corporations expected
to dispose of this property ? If they recognised that property
as the property of the Corporations, they certainly ought not
to compel the proprietors to dispose of it under circumstances
which would not allow the proprietors to realize its value.
The suggestion of the Hon. Member for Shaftesbury, that the
property in question might be purchased by the Crown, and
the nomination placed in the hands of the Bishops, would
perhaps be a better mode of dealing with the subject ; but, at
the same time, he (Sir R. Peel) readily admitted that it
would not be wise to encumber the Bill at present with such
a proposition. He trusted that the Noble Lord would post-
pone the further proceeding with the clause in question until
time had been afforded to take into consideration the proposi-
tion of the Right Hon. Gentleman. He had been too much
in public life not to know the value of four-and-twenty hours
in deliberating on any great public subject.
Lord J. RUSSELL was ready to postpone it until to-
morrow.

The clause, accordingly, after a few words from Mr.
HUGHES HUGHES, which, in consequence of the rush of
Members from the House, were inaudible in the gallery, was
postponed until to-morrow.
The House then proceeded with the consideration of the
Lords' other amendments.
JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.

On the 96th clause, in which the House of Lords had
omitted the provision that the councils of the different bo-
roughs should from time to time name so many fit persons as
to them might seem expedient, for the purpose of being qua_
lined to receive his Majesty's commission to act as justices of
the peace,
Lord J. RUSSELL moved the re-insertion of the words
omitted by the House of Lords.
Sir. W. FOLLETT maintained the expediency of con-
curring in the Lords' amendments.
Mr. C. BUL LER said, that while the members of the
corporation were self-elected, the Tories were quite satisfied
with their acts ; but the moment that it was provided that they
should be chosen by the peoples they were characterised as of