The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-17 00:00:00

TRUSTEES CHARITIES BILL.

On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
Mr. SELWYN presented a petition from the
Wesleyan body against this bill as being injurious to
their interests. The hon. and learned member then
moved that the bill be committed that day six months.
He said that he had addressed the house
at such length that he would not occupy their attention to
any extent. He said that the principle on which it ap-
peared desirable to proceed in respect to these matters was
one of compromise and conciliation. Considering the
number of the Wesleyan body, he contended that the
great body of the Dissenters were as much
opposed to this bill as members of the Church of England,
and that its supporters wore to be found only amongst
those political Dissenters, of whose opinions the Liberation
Society was the exponent. He contended that the opera-
tion of the bill would be most injurious to the
interests of religion, and he trusted the house
would reject so objectionable a measure. He
thought, before they proceeded with the bill, they should
see how the measure which the house had already passed
in reference to the subject worked.

Mr. BEECROFT seconded the amendment, and con-
sidered that the subject proposed t be dealt with by thebill
should be left t 3 the decision of our lawcourts. The bill was
in contravention of the intentions of these endowed chari-
ties, and it was in :fact a measure of spoliation, and an at-
tempt to sever education from religion, which would be a
most perilous experiment.
Mr. MELLOR supported the bill, the object of which he
said was merely to render eligible persons who were fitted
to discharge the duties of trustees without reference to their
particular religious tenets. He said, when he introduced a
bill on this subject; which was identical with the present,
he was not influenced by the Liberation Society, but solely
from a belief that it was carrying out fully the principle of
civil and religious liberty. He denied, as had been asserted by
the opponentsofthebill,that its advocates were those who
were indifferent to the interests of religion, or who were
actuated solely by political motives. He expressed a hope
that the house would not reject a bill of this enlightened
character.

Mr. HARDY opposed the bill at roam length.
Mr. DILLAVYN, the mover of the bill, defended its
principle. He was desirous t) adopt any course calculated
to effect conciliation, but he did not think the part taken
by the opponents of the bill calculated to lead to
that result. The bill was not one of spoliation as
had been asserted, but would allow any honour-
able man to discharge the duties that might
be entrusted to him in regard to these charities. He pointed
out the litigation that had arisen out of the present state
of the law, by which Dissenters were excluded from the
performance of functions for which they perfectly qualified.
He, and those who agreed with him, had been accused of an
aggression on the Church, which he utterly denied ; and as
regarded him, he asserted that, in bringing forward this bill,
he was onlyacting up ti his:sincere convictions. He defended
also the Liberation Society from the imputations thrown on
them, and contended that the Church party were the ag-
gressors. He was a member of the Church of England, and
did not wish to attack her temporalities, but he considered
that the Church should assume a more humble attitude
and a more Christian spirit with respect to the remainder of
the community.
Lord R. CECIL said that the hon. member for Swansea
(Mr. Dillwyn) had defended himself but not his bill, the
case for which • had entirely failed. - He denied that the
effect of this bill would be to restore harmony in reference
to these charities or be attended with the other results
ascribed to it. The Dissenters according to their
own description were not animated by a de-
sire to injure the Church, but he would ask if
the conduct of Dissenters in that house justified that de-
scription. These gentlemen, estimable as they were, were
restrained by no scruple in regard to the Church—omitted
no opportunity to assail her, and to seize her property.
He believed this was the general feeling of Dissenters, and
argued that it could not be otherwise, as they were opposed
to the Church from conviction, and, if honest, must pursue
the course he had described. In his opinion, Dissenters and
Roman Catholics if admitted to the trusteeship of these
amities would conscientiously endeavour to colour the
teaching at the schools of those foundations by their own
doctrines. He described the conduct of the Liberation
Society in regard to the Church as reckless in the measures
adopted and the passions aroused, and contended that the
measure was in reality what it had been designated—one
of spoliation.
Mr. HADFIELD supported the motion for going into
committee. He denied that heartburnings would result,
as had been predicted, from the operation of this bill, and
referred to the Manchester Grammar School where the
business had been transacted more efficiently since Dis-
senters were admitted into the trusteeship. The
Dissenters by their institutions were educating the
country, and he referred to the fact that out of
the 35,000 places of worship in the kingdom, not more than
150 or 200 received endowment. Dissenters did not want
endowment, as it would be the greatest injury that could
be inflicted on them, and he inferred that no injury could
arise from their admission into these trusteeships.
Mr. ADDERLEY supported the amendment, and main-
tained that the act introduced by Lord Cranworth had
relieved Dissenters of any just ground for complaint. The
primary intention of the founders of these trusts was to
provide religious instruction, which would be obstructed or
frustrated by this bill. He would go further, and assert
that as the bill provided that the religion to be taught
should be decided by the majority of trustees, it would vir-
tually eliminate all religious teaching from these institutions.
He appealed to the Government to offer tome expression of
opinion on this subject, and to the house to reject a bill
to which even a large number of Dissenters were opposed.
This bill, though apparently very simple, was most dan-
gerous in its design, though he believed the hon. member
who introduced it was ignorant of its effects, and he felt
indebted to the Liberation Society for their attacks on the
Church, for nothing was more injurious to any question
than when it emanated from a league, who endeavoured by
noise, money, and dictation, to accomplish their object.
Mr. BALL said that, although he had previously voted
for the bill, the petitions from the Dissenters considerably,
altered his opinion, but he would vote for going into com-
mittee.

Mr. HE said that the statement of the last speaker
was the strongest possible condemnation of this measure,
but notwithstanding he proposed to go into committee.
What the hon. member would do if the bill even got into
committee was not clear. The arguments on this subject
had been exhausted, and nothing new had been advanced
on behalf of the bill, which in most cases was unnecessary,
and in some cases would prove most injurious. He believed
that the effect of the bill would be to multiply by a hundred-
fold instead of to diminish legislation, and he considered
great praise was due to the hon. and learned member for
the university of Cambridge.
Mr. BUXTON opposed the motion for going int) com-
mittee.

Mr. WHITESIDE voted for the amendment, and con-
tended that the bill would revolutionise the law of evidence
by introducing a principle not proved by argument, and
opposed to reason and experience.
The house then divided, and the numbers were—
For going into committee..
Against it
Majority —29
The bill was accordingly lost.

MARRIAGE LAW AMENDMENT LAW.
On the motion for thesecond reading of this bill..

Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition -signed by 0 mem-
bers of the Corporation of Birmingham and others, in
favour of legalising marriage with a deceased wife's
sister.
Mr. WILLIAMS presented 81 petitions from different
parts of the metropolis to the same effect.
Lord J. MANNERS presented- petitions against any
alteration in the marriage law.
Other petitions pro and con were also presented.
Mr. HUNT then moved the following amendment :
" That, in the opinion of this house, any measure that
would have the effect of placing the law of marriage, with
regard to the prohibited degrees, on a different footing in
different parts of the United Kingdom, would be highly in-
convenient." He objected to the bill, in the first place,
because, if it were passed, there would be no less than three
different laws relating to marriage in the United Kingdom.
The effect of this would be, that a man might have two
lawful wives at the same time, one in England and another
in Scotland, and he cited the authority of Vice-Chancellor
Sir Page Wood in support of that statement. The clause
which limited the act to England was inserted merely to
prevent opposition on the part of Irish and Scotch
members, and no doubt it was intended to extend
it ultimately both to Scotland and Ireland. He
argued that it would be more impolitic to pass a law to
which a number of their countrymen were opposed on re-
ligious grounds. It had been stated it was unwise, when
it was known a number of persons-were living with their
deceased wife's sister, to render such an act of concubinage
by maintaining the law in its present state. But if there
were anything in that argument it should apply to other
cases, for there were several cohabiting who were not only
in the degree of affinity but of cpnsanguinity. He denied
that this was a poor man's question, and said that in the re-
turn made in 1847 it was ascertained out of 1610 persons
living with their sisters. only 40 were labourers o:
mechanics. He disputed also the argument that the sister
would be rendered a better guardian of the brother-in-law's
children if the laws were altered, and contended that it
would entirely change her feelings towar3s him and her
sister.
Mr. PEASE supported the bill on social and religious
grounds, as well as on expediency.
Mr. K. SEItMER opposed the second reading, and
dwelt on the fact of the sentiments of the people of Scotland
and Ireland being so adverse to the measure. He core.
tended also that on religious grounds the bill was objee•
tionablo, and that the feeling against it was stronger out of
the house than in it. If passed, it would lead to an entire
change in the law, and they would have to adopt the Welsh
' system. If they were to sanction by law everything they
could not prevent, they would alter the whole morality of
the country. Why, he would ask, were they called on to
alter the law at the wish of a comparatively small number
of their countrymen ? He then proceeded to combat the
'other arguments in support of the bill.
Sir S. M. PETO said that all Nonconformists stated

FROM THE GAZETTE OF LAST NIGHT.

DOWNING-STREET, APRIL 15.

The Queen has been pleased to appoint George Hunter
Cary, Esq., to be_Attorney-General for the island of "Van-
Couver.

^-7":;''ADMIRALTY, APRIL 16.
Her Majesty does not require that the Officers of the
Fleet or Royal Marines should wear mourning for her late
Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent after the Ist May.
C. PAGET.

GENERAL ORDER.
HORSE GUARDS.-APRIL 8.

His Royal Highness the General Commanding-in-
Chief has received the Queen's commands to notify to the
army that the mourning for her late Royal Highness the
Duchess of Kent will be discontinued on the 2d of next
month.
By command of his Royal Highness the Duke of Cam-
bridge, General Commanding-in-Chief.
JAMES YORKE SCARLETT, Adjutant-General.
WAR-OFFICE, PALL-MALL, APRIL 16.
BREVET.

Captain Henry Yarburgh Gold, half-pay, Unattached,
to be Major in the Army.
Captain Henry Young, half pay, Unattached, to be
Major in the Army.
Captain John Williamson, half-pay, Unattached, to be
Major in the Army. _

Captain Edward Barclay,. half-pay, Unattached, to be
Major in the Army.
Brevet-Major Henry Yarburgh Gold, half-pay, Unat•
tached, to be Lieutenant-Colonel in the Army.
Brevet-Major Henry Young, half-pay, Unattached, to
be Lieutenant-Colonel in the Army.
Brevet-Major John Williamson, half-pay, Unattached,
to be Lieutenant in the Army. _ _ _

Captain Lewis John Fillis- Jones, Bth Foot, to be Major
in the Army. _ _

Captain Robert Gibson, 89th Foot (late 87th Foot); to be
Major in the Army.
Second Captain John Heron Maxwell Shaw Stewart,
Madras Engineers, to be Major in the Army.
Captain Charles Patton Keyes, 30th Madras Native In-
fantry, to be Major in the Army.
The under -mentioned Paymasters to have the honorary
rank of Captain under the Royal Warrant of the 27th
January, 1860.
Paymaster Raynsford Taylor, 37th Foot.
Paymaster Frederick Thomas Ongley Hopson, 3d Light
Dragoons.