The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-07 00:00:00

rnE SUN, LONDON, PRIDAY EVENING, JUNE 7, 1844

it was impossible to tell when it had first appeared in
theology. The celebrated Richard Baxter had, when he
was'told that even Catholics and Unitarians would sub-
scribe to the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten
Commandments, replied " So much the better ; there is
the greater reason why it should be made a matter of
concord." —(Cheers.) At that time two of the Bishops
ofthe Church of England professed Unitarian doctrines,
and many of the professors in our Universities held
similar opinions. On these grounds, he felt compelled
to support her Majesty's Government. He could not
but remember that some of his own ancestors had been
Presbyterians, and had afterwards adopted Unitarian
opinions, and this perhaps had saved him, a member of
the Church of England, from falling into the same abyss
of bigotry into which so many friends whom he esteemed
appeared to have fallen. He implored the House to
remember that this question was not now as if it had
never been started. Most important consequences
might ensue. Virtuous and impassioned men would
take up this question, and bad men would take it up
also. False suits would be instituted by persons who
had no object in view but their personal gain. They
would also have acts of retaliation on the part of the
Unitarians—suits of inquiry as to how far the Wes-
leyans have carried out the doctrines of John Wesley,
or how far the Independents profess the doctrines that
were held by Harrison and the Independents of the
Commonwealth. There was no solution for these diffi-
culties but by the present Bill.—(Cheers.)
Mr. FOX MAULE wished to make a few remarks
upon the Bill, differing as he did upon this measure,
from those with whom it had been his pride hitherto to
act. He stood, therefore, in a painful position but he
had not placed himself in that position without duly con-
sidering the question. It was his firm conviction, that
if he agreed to that Bill he should be agreeing to an act
of injustice, and therefore he opposed it. lie agreed
that that House was no fit arena for theological discus-
sion, and therefore he should not go into it. He saw
with regret, that this Bill was supported by such an
array of talent in the other House. It was supported,
lie must admit, by Noble Lords for whose legal ac-
quirements- he entertained the highest respect, although
he differed from them in political opinion. Compara-
tively ignorant as he admitted himself to be of the
state of the law, he felt that this Bill was an act of injus-
tice, and felt bound to act upon his own individual
opinion, as an independent Member of Parliament, and
oppose it. The Bill proceeded upon the principle of the
introduction of a prescription of twenty-five years in
matters in which legal prescription had not hitherto been
permitted to operate. They intended to permit this pre-
scription to supersede the intentions of the founders of
trusts for religious and charitable purposes. In all cases
he believed there were means of ascertaining the inten-
tions of the founders. It might be expensive to do so,
but that would be a reason which would deter parties
from entering into litigation. If this Bill were passed,
it would not only be unjust as regarded the present foun-
dations, but it would affect all future donations, for no
one could feel assured that the intention with which
he left his money would be followed out after the lapse of
a few years. This principle was now, for the first time
introduced into the law. The Bill professed to apply
the same principle to this as applied to the tenure of all
other property; but it was the first instance in which an
Act of Limitation was made to have a retrospective ope-
ration. In all other cases of limitation the law had a
prospective operation only. The Act of Limitation of
James I. enacted that persons bringing suits should be
hound to bring them within a certain time after the
passing of the Act. Such was not the case in the present
Bill. In the statute of limitations, the right to bring suits
was reserved to parties fora certain time after the law was
enacted. Such was not the case under the present Bill.
No party having a claim, at present, to ascertain the
intentions of a founder could exercise that right after the
Bill should have passed into a law. It was an act of in-
justice, to which he, for one, would not subscribe. But
it was said that if the Bill were not passed, its rejection
would give rise to an enormous mass of litigation. Judg-
ing from the past, he denied that such would be the case.
In England, with the exception of the Hewley case, there
had been but one suit to recover possession from the
Unitarians. There was a case which came before Lord
Eldon, in 1817, and that suit had not been instituted by
Trinitarians against Unitarians, but it was an attempt
made by Unitarians to eject from one of their chapels
a minister who had returned to Trinitarian doctrines.
It appeared to him that her Majesty's Government had
not been decided about this Bill. There could be no
question that when the Bill was first introduced it was
not so malignant, as regarded the rights of property, as
it was at present. It was not till the Bill was read a
third time that it became so stringent, and, as he main-
tained, so notoriously unjust. When the Bill was intro-
duced, it did not extend to Ireland. The Lord Chancellor had
stated that the Bill should not be extended to Ireland until
the Presbyterians of that count!), had had an opportunity
of being heard against it before a Committee of the House
of Lords. That body, however, had not had the smallest
opportunity, before that House, of being heard, either by them-
selves, or by counsel, against that portion of the Bill which
had been so materially altered. There were no cases in England
to which the Bill could apply ; it was, in fact, a Bill against
existing cases in Ireland. In the Eustace-street case, the
Lord Chancellor of Ireland, although he had not virtually
given judgment, had stated the impression on his mind as to
what his judgment ought to be; and he was hanging
up his judgment until an Act had been passed to
supersede the rights of these individuals.-( Hear, hear.)
He believed that if this Bill passed, so far from having a ten-
dency to diminish litigation, it would create litigation without
end, and introduce into congregations elements of discord, the
consequences of which the adiocates of this Bill would be the
very first to regret. He knew it was quite in vain, with the
state of feeling in that House, to attempt to dissuade the
House from consenting to the second reading of the Bal.—
( Cheers.) He had, however, thought it his duty to state
publicly, the grounds en which he differed from those by
whom it was introduced. In the name of those who bad
intrusted him to represent them in that House, he protested
against the measure, as one fraught with injustice, de-
priving as it did other parties whom he repre-
sented from prosecuting a claim which the courts of law
had declared to be just.

Mr. GLADSTONE said, that having felt it his duty to
look into this question for the purpose of arriving at the best
conclusion he could with respect to this Bill, and having made
up his mind that it was incumbent upon them to pass it if they
would not sacrifice their character for regard to the sacred
principles of justice, he desired to take his share of any re-
sponsibility which might attend the introduction and sup-
port of that Bill.—(Cheers.) He must be allowed to say
first, that he distinguished broadly between the substantial
purpose which they had in view, and the precise form of the
legal instrument by which it was proposed to effect that pur-
pose. He had before him a great question of justice. That
question he apprehended to be, whether those who were
called in England Presbyterian Dissenters, and who
were, as he believed, a century and a half ago,
universally of Trinitarian opinions, ought or ought not to
be protected at the present moment in the possession of the
chapels which they held, with the appurtenances of those cha-
pels. Upon that question helventured to propound the strongest
opinion. The speeches against the Bill had not contained one
syllable of argument upon the principle. The Right Hon.
Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford, and the
Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, had used divers arguments as
to the effect which this Bill, if it were passed, would have upon
particular parties ; but he had not heard either of those gen-
tlemen argue this question as a question of justice. He would
not enter into the question whether Unitarians ought to be
protected 'in the possession of property which was originally
given for Trinitarian purposes—upon that question there
could not be the smallest ditTcrence of opinion ;
but what he now proposed to argue was, that although
the original founders of these meeting-houses might have been,
and were, in the vast majority of instances, persons of Trini-
tarian opinions, yet, upon the principles of justice, the present
holders, being Unitarians, ought to be protected.—( Hear.)
His Him. Friendhad said that the opposition to this Bill was an
opposition which the Government ought to respect. He
trusted that the Government would pay every respect to every
opposition to this Bill which was founded on sincere and con-
scientious opposition, and he did not doubt that this opposition
of that character. He believed it was very mach less owing
to theological animosity than to misapprehension.—( Hear. )
His lion. Friend had said also that the Bill was an insult
to the Christian feelings of the English people. He believed
that if the Bill was required by the principles of justice, so
far from its passing being considered an insult to the Christian
feelings of the people of England, those feelings would require
them to pass it.--(Cheers.) He was persuaded, that when
they had fuller information upon the subject, they would make
that demand. A very great prejudice existed in the public
mind from the undefined association between the purpose and
°Ejects of the Bill and the Lady Hewley case. There was a
sort of family resemblance in all such cases, but he thought he
should be borne out by all lawyers, when he said there was a
oad and essential distinction between Lady Hewley's case
and the general mass of cases to which this Bill applied.—
( Hear, hear.) Lady Hewley was a foundress ; she was a
person who devised a large portion of her property upon trust
for aparticular purpose. But were the parties who instituted
those chapels founders in the eye of the law? He apprehended
that they were not parties who devised their property for the
benefit of others, but for their own purposes. Undoubtedly
it was to descend after they themselves had made use of it, but
he apprehended that there could be no doubt but there was a
great and marked practical difference between the two cases.
The right of a founder to have his intentions ascertained, re-
spected, and preserved, was a right entirely different in its na-
ture from that possessed by persons who associated together to
form a body, of which they themselves were the first members,
and who were to he replenished in the ordinary and natural
way. In the case, of Lady Hewley it could not be said that
there were no indications of the intentions of the foundress.
She made reference to • the Apostles' Creed, the Ten Com-
mandments, and the Lords' Prayer. He hoped, therefore,
that Honourable Gentlemen would consider the Bill
apart from the case of. Lady Hewley. He would pass
by, for a moment, the question, whether these parties
were founders or not, only observing, that if they were
not it would be impossible to wake out a breach of trust. Even
if there were a breach of trust, he should have to consider the
length of time during which the chapels had been held, the un-
doubted innocency of the present generation, and the long
period during which Unitarian opinions had prevailed. He
would have to consider that they had the lineage and descent of
the original institutions of these chapels; he would have to
consider the insuperable difficulty of finding a claimant with
a good title to the property ; and he must say, without wishing
to give offence to any man, that he would have
to consider that for one hundred years,- while Unitarian
opinions had prevailed in these chapels, the class of persons
who now came forward proclaiming themselves the right-
ful possessors, had endured in silence the breach of trust, and had
fought side by side with them in the acquisition of civil liberty.
He said, therefore, that if there had been a breach of trust the
case was one of a most painful and difficult description. But,
had there been a breach of trust ? Had there been any viola-
tion
of the intentions of the founders? The custom out of
doors was not to argue the intentions of the founders, but to
assume them. He would maintain that this Bill would go far
to restore the original intentions of the founders of these
chapels. After all, the question was one of history, and a
very important historical question it was. If they were to
examine into the history of this matter, they would find that
from generation to generation, almost from year to year,
during the seventeenth and eighteenth century the question
was the subject of continual change. Who were the parties into
whose views they were then inquiring? They were not Pres-
byterians prior to the Act of Toleration. It was ' about
the year 1643 that the original Presbyterian faith
was established, and by the year 1690 that very
faith was itself abandoned. Now he asked whether this was
not an important point for their consideration ? si the year
lti2o Mr. Cotton Mather wrote a history of the pi',grimage of
the Fathers who went to New England. That *history con-
contained an address, written by Robins, one of the Fathers
who went over, and which address was written to. the planters
in the colony, and in that address the writer adt(ocated change

in the religious faith of the settlers. The writer contended
that if the original founders of their faith could have returned
to this world, they would not have thought of adhering strictly
to the forms which they themselves had originally prescribed.
There were many other works published about this
time, from which the same deductions were to be drawn.
In 1694, on account of the doctrinal differences and other
i causes of disunion, it was found impossible that these articles
of agreement could be sustained as they came to hand. But
;
I the willingness of parties to bind themselves was not sufficient
1 to bind posterity. When they came to look at the trust de-
clared in the deeds, they found that the terms of that trust
declared, in the most general words, that the parties them-
selves, when about to confer the trust, did not refer to any par-
ticular doctrine, but used a general phraseology, which showed,
irrefragibly showed, that their intention was not to bind their
successors to any particular form of doctrine. Well, but an
objection had been made by the opponents of the Bill. They
declared that the executor of the trust never could have for a
moment supposed that the doctrine of .the Holy Trinity could
be questioned. Did those opponents recollect—did they alto-
gether forget the continual changes in religious opinions which
were going on at the very time that trust was executed?
Could any reflecting man suppose that in the rapid changes of
the seventeenth century, our forefathers who lived in
that age would have calculated on an entire agreement,
and that those differences in religious opinion would at
once cease ? Why, that was the very period of change ! Did
those men forget that it was about that time that the Act of
Uniformity was passed; and that Nonconformity was
legalised? and could it be imagined that men living in
such a period would believe in the doctrine of religious finality?
Controversy was at that period raging on the subject of the
Trinity. Did they forget the works of such men as Biddle and
Irvine ? From 1690 to 1710, there were all sorts of
pamphlets teeming from the press on this very subject. The
Act of Queen Anne sufficiently proved that subscription to
the faith of the Trinity was not peremptorily demanded.
A few years after that date, liberty or license upon this point
came to such a height, that, in 1718, the whole Presbyterian
body was divided on it. A Bill was then brought forward to
repeal this operation of the schism and Nonconformity Act,
and it was called " A Bill for the strengthening the Pro-
testant interests." In 1719 the Bill passed a secood reading,
and in going into Committee instructions were moved to it, that
a clause should be added, to the effect that belief in Divine
Scripture, and a belief in the Trinity, should form a por-
tion of the oath. Now here was a plan directing reference
to the doctrine of faith in the Trinity, and it was proposed
tt) be made on condition of holding office. Most Hon. Mem-
bers might have heard of the celebrated Salter's Hall contro-
versy. In 1718 two Dissenters were charged, before a Com-
mittee of Presbyterian congregations, with preaching Anti-
Trinitarianism, and those doctrines were condemned before
the congregation, and it was decided on that occasion that the
non-subscription of a minister to a faith in the Trinity was a
sufficient ground for the withdrawal of the congregation from
his preaching. About this time the Dissenting ministers of
London formed a central body, and they met in large numbers,
and the subscription to the faith of the Trinity was a loud sub-
ject of discussion. It was warmly debated, whether the de-
claration concerning the doctrine of the Trinity should be for-
warded to the ministers of different congregations in
a letter of advice, and it was carried by a majority—a small
majority he owned, of four—that that doctrine should not be
declared. Yet still it was the opinion of the majority of the
large, and it was to be presumed, the most intelligent, of Dis-
senting ministers, that subscribing to the doctrine of the Tri-
nity should be made a distinctive form of communion. He
thought it necessary to remind the House that that meeting
was composed of Presbyterians and Independents, in fact, a
large portion of the meeting was of the latter class. He would
mention to the House a most essential testimony upon this sub-
-1 ject from another source. He did not say that the non-sub-
scription to the doctrine of the Trinity was made a funda-
mental article in the Toleration Act, but from the year 1719 the
non-subscription was established to all intents and purposes.
What was the opinion of Mr. Wilson, who claimed the first part
of the controversy? He said that it was a matter of historical
notoriety that the English Presbyterians, at the time that
charity was bequeathed, refused to subscribe to any declara-
tion of faith, because they would not bind themselves to the
words and terms of any human composition ; and Mr. Wilson
added, that the English Presbyterians of that day were all
now subscribers. But he was now going to quote to the House
the opinions of two gentlemen still more distinguished, one of
whom was Dr. Calamy, the.other Dr. Doddridge. Dr. Calamy,
who wrote in 1719, said that he was willing to subscribe to
the doctrine of the Trinity, but at the same time, he would
not recommend that it should be made absolutely essential.
He said, in the words of Chillingworth, let all men believe
the Scriptures, and in them only, and endeavour to take from
them their true sense, their rule of faith, and no mere was
required of them, for that would restore union and abolish
heresy. They could hardly have a more unequivocal testi-
mony than that. Dr. Doddridge used these remarkable words
in the latter part of the year 1737—" You cannot be too care-
ful in giving countenance to that narrow spirit of bigotry
which had already done so much mischief in the Christian
Church, and the doctrine of the Trinity, if enforced, would
cause much dissension." In short, with such a mass of autho-
rities as he had quoted to the House, he did not think there was
room for any difference of opinion ; and he thought it was
therefore unnecessary to occupy the time of the House by
quoting further testimony. He hoped the Bill would pass—
indeed he had very little doubt but it would pass through the
House by a large majority, but he had a still further and a still
more earnest hope to express, and that was that it would allay
the bitter and hostile feeling which at present prevailed out of
doors. He did not believe the Hon. Member for Kent, when
he stated that in passing this Bill, they were passing a measure
for the encouragement of error. Suppose the Hon. Member
had been a judge in a case in which two litigants were contend-
ing for an estate, and one, the rightful claimant was as profligate
and abandoned a character as could be, and the other most
benevolent and just ; would the Hon. Member, under such
circumstances, be deterred from awarding the estate to the
profligate suitor on the ground that the award would encourage
error ? He called on the House, most earnestly and emphati.
cally, to give their sanction to the Bill. After some further
observations, the Right Hon. Gentleman concluded by saying,
the highest use he could make of his religious belief was to ap-
ply
it to the decisive performance of this important Act—an
Act which, in its spirit and tendency, was, as he hoped he had
in some degree proved, founded upon the everlasting principle
of truth.—( Loud cheers.)'
Mr. SHELL then rose, and said he could assure the House
he was glad to hear from such high authority that the mea-
sure was reconcilable to the principles of State conscience—
(Laughter and cries of " Hear")—and that the Right Hon.
Gentleman, a Cabinet Minister, had become the champion of
freedom of conscience.—( Hear.) He very much regretted
that the arguments of the Right Hon. Gentleman were not
used in the Hewley case, for if used with such surprising effi-
cacy and applicability—if such irrefragable historical evidence
were brought to bear, he could not help thinking that a very
different decision would have been come to. He would not
have ventured to address the House in this debate if any other
Roman Catholic had spoken ; but he thought it right to avail
himself of the opportunity afforded him to state that the entire
of that great and powerful community were in favour of this
Bill.—( Loud cheers, and cries of " Hear, hear.") It was not
from any feeling of a sectarian character—it was not from any
interested motive—but because the Bill was founded upon the
principle of religious toleration.—(Hear, hear.) Whatever
sins the Catholic Church might commit in connection with the
State, he had no doubt but that at the present moment the
Catholic Church in Ireland was thoroughly tolerant.—( Ironical
cries of " Hear, hear," from the Conservative benches, and
cheers from the Opposition.) He supported this measure
though professing that creed of which the haughty
Wolsey am! the meek Fenelon were members, and
was as Athanasian as either. The Honourable Baronet
the Member for the University of Oxford reprobated the '
measure, but at the same time gave credit to the Right Hon.
Baronet at the head of the Government. He (Mr. Sheil)
could be actuated by no sordid or party motive in giving his
support to the Bill. Ha supported it heartily, but he sup-
ported it from a hearty conviction of its merits ; and he could
not refrain &cm expressing his strong approval of the measure,
the promotion of which the Attorney-General had, in his ad-
mirable speech, so advanced, and which had been received in
so approving a manner by all sides of the House. The Hon.
and Learned Gentleman adverted to the opinions of those
Noble and Learned Lords who were Members of the other
House, and he certainly had ample reason to congratulate
the House that those Noble and Learned Lords who
had been Lord Chancellors of England and Ireland had
approved of the measure. He hoped the discussion which
took place to-night would extinguish the erroneous feeling
against the Bill, which, if be could judge.from the number of
petitions laid on the table of the House, was so rife among a
large portion of the community. The object of the Bill was
to oonfirm those principles of toleration by which this great
country was so eminently distinguished. The object of this
Bill was to put an end to that controversy in courts of justice
which had brought the most sacred subjects into desecrating
familiarity.—( Hear, hear.) The principle of the Bill was
founded on an enlarged limitation of the principle which
regulated private property. It was an Act of Set-
tlement, of which they stood in great need; and
what stronger proof ' could there be of that than
the case which the Hon. Baronet, the Member for the
University of Oxford, had reluctantly submitted to the House
—the case of Mary Armstrong.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear,"
particularly from Sir Robert Peel.) The principle of equity
was, that in an original trust, every subsequent donation,
though made with a different intent, was attached to that
original trust, so that the corsequence was, that any subse-
quent grant would apply to that trust. But what was the case
of Mary Armstrong, who became a teacher of a congregation
in 1806 ; her husband died in 1839. A small fund was con-
tributed by the Unitarians. The bequest came before Lord
Plunkett, who was the son of a distinguished Arian minister,
She had four daughters, and found it 'difficult to main- .
tain the painful position between decency and destitution.
If this Bill was not passed Mary Armstrong and her four
daughters would be turned out. The Right Hon. Baronet had
felt the force of that case, his good nature had got the better of
his habitual predilection, and he suggested that a special clause
should be introduced into the Bill. The case of Mary Arm-
strong was not a solitary instance, hundreds of clergymen
would be deprived of their subsistence if the present Bill did
not pass into a law. The Bill did not interfere with express
trusts. If a donor made a specific declaration of his opinion,
no matter however fantastical, a court of equity, centuries after-
wards, would carry it into effect; but if the trusts were not
expressed, if they were the subject of surmise and
probability, in that case, after the lapse of twenty-five years
of uninterupted possession, in that case alone, the present Bill
would operate, and iniquitous litigation would be put down.—
( Hear, hear.) The Bill was not confined to Unitarians, it
did not make them the special object of favour. There was a
cry against them at one time, but they would not hunt a Uni-
tarian when they had a Papist for game.—(Laughter.) But
now the spirit was abroad that a Socinian should be hunted
down.—( Hear, hear.) The object of the Bill was to give pro-
tection to all classes. All were placed upon a perfect level.
The distinctions that were supposed to exist between Presby-
terians and Unitarians in Ireland were erroneous. The Con-
formers, taking advantage of the decision in Lady Hewley's case,
and disagreeing with the Nonconformers, took a court of equity
as the stage on which to deprive them of apostolic consolation.
—( Hear, hear.) This Bill, then, does not interfere with
express trusts; it does not interfere with the Established
ofC h uorxc hf
0. r d
—S
not
roatnige nd
et
ehda ti
in the h
this
1 Hi s
Hon H. 0
ul‘slee mt
hbee r
v forisi b
lteh eh
eUa
dn i vo ef r stiht ye
Church, but its fearless, undaunted, and dauntless champion—
should have thought it his duty to interfere in a case wherein
the Church has no concern. From the vantage ground of
. truth—if I may venture to use an expression employed by Lord
Bacon in translating a passage of Lucretius—which the Right
Hen. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment a few nights ago so happily quoted—all Dissenters should
be seen with equal disregard. If then the Right Hon. Baronet
would but borrow a little of this philosophical commiseration—
if he would look down on its in the spirit expressed by the great
follower of . Epicurus, from his clear and serene elevation of
orthodoxy—(Laughter)--Lpoor wanderers in the labyrinth of
adoration, there might be some hope of a better understand-
ing. But let me hint to the Honourable Baronet that the
principles he broaches are of a somewhat serious tendency.
i What I am going to suggest to him has occurred to my
own consideration from a notice he has given himself—
" Sir Robert Harry Inglis—to insert in the seventh section
the words, in the College of the Blessed Virgin Mary
at Winchester," I think the case of William of
1 Wykeham's College at Oxford, even stronger than that of
Winchester. Does not he know that William of Wykeham,
the founder of St. Mary's College, selected, as mentioned in
his life, the Viigin as his peculiar patroness ; that he gave di-
rections for a ritual to be performed in honour of the Virgin,
and that her statue should be placed in some high spot, as a
conspicuto intimatioa of his tegard?—(Rear, hear, and

laughter.) Does not he know that William directed that mass
should be said three times a day for the repose of his soul, and
that Ave Alarias and Salve Reginas should be every night per-
formed by the choir? Now, I ask, has there been no breach
of trust in the case of William of Wykeham ? At a meeting
lately held in Exeter Hall, under very peculiar auspices, a
gentleman named Hamilton said, that if the saints of heaven,
meaning thereby the Presbyterians—(Laughter)—could only
guess the desecrating purposes to which these donations were
applied, they would shed tears such as immortals shed. If
William of Wykeham knew that the statue of the Virgin,
which he caused to be set up, had been made the
subject of iconoclastic profanation—that the images had
been subverted, the mass suppressed, a liturgy in a modern
dialect substituted for the ancient, the imperishable lan-
guage of Rome ; if he were to hear—oh, worse than the
demolition of the Virgin's statue, than the fall of her altars,
than the suppression of the mass—that 'his own college,
founded by a bull of Urban VI., was now represented in the
House of Commons by the Hon. Baronet—(Laughter)—the
terror of cardinals. the dismay of the conclave, the sc urge of
Rome—how would he grieve, how would he be indignant for
the non-performance of his trust !—( Cheers and laughter. )
No; restore the precepts of Urban, and when you have done
so, then become the abettors of the orthodox Presbyterians;
but until you have done that, do not become the anixiliary of
those who avail themselves of a court of equity to perpetuate a
si:nal injustice. Let us, for God's sake, put a stop to that
litigation in which controversy and chicane are combined—in
which the mysteries of Calvin are rendered darker by the
mystification ofjnrisprudence—in which the rapacity of ortho-
dox solicitors is associated with the still more accumulative
spirit of divines.—( Hear, and a laugh.) I have done ; but
before I sit down, let me express, following the example of my.
Right Hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, my surprise
that men who are themselves asking for favours from the
Legislature, and complaining of the effects of the existing law
of marriage, by which property is mainly secured, should them-
selves show so little forbearance to others. Is it not wonder-
ful that them who allow so small a participation of liberty,
should themselves demand so large a measure ?—( Hoar, hear.)
They, whose ancestors suffered persecution to the death fur the
cause which they thought the truth, were now the foremost
to call for pains and penalties upon others ; sitting in the iron
chair of nonconforming infallibility, they converted the Scrip-
ture into a code of intolerance, reading it by that lurid light
with which Geneva was illuminated when Servetus was con-
sumed I —( Loud and continued cheering, amid which the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman sat down. )
Sir ROBERT PEEL then rose. He said, notwithstanding
the preponderance of argument on one side of the question,
unexampled within his recollection on any former debate—
( Hear, hear)—still he was unwilling to permit the debate to
close without briefly expressing the grounds on which he had
determined with his colleagues on giving it his most decided
and persevering support. He had undertaken to give it that
support under very different impressions with regard to the
success of the measure than he now entertained. He undertook
to give it his support at a time when he had good reason to
doubt whether it would be conducted to a successful issue; but
he entertained so strong a belief with reaped to the justice of
the principles on which the Bill was founded, that be and his
colleagues were prepared to make every other consideration
subordinate to the fulfilment of the duty which it appeared to
them was imposed ou them, of supporting a Bill founded on
those principles. He was bound to say that he had formed his
opinion without any elaborate consideration of the historical
truth of the legal doctrines which had been presented for
consideration. He was not about to undervalue the great doc-
trines to be found in the law of England ; he held in venera-
tion the great doctrine of trusts, as contained in the English
law • but he did say, that if this, or any other doctrine, im•
posed the necessity of inflicting a great wrong, he would al-
ays look out for a mode of remedying that wrong—first, because
individual justice required it ; and, secondly, because in pro-
portion to the importance of the doctrine, so in proportion was
increased the necessity of not subjecting it to the odium of
being made the instrument for inflicting wrong.—( Hear,
hear.) He thought it would be unjust to permit any rule of
law to be so applied that chapels now held by Dissenters from
the Church of England should be taken from them, and ap-
plied they knew not to whom; for after they had taken them
from their present possessors might arise a very complicated
question—( Hear, hear)—as to on whom they should devolve.
He found that before the year 1813, there were
a number of chapels founded with trust deeds,
some of which expressed that the doctrines of the Trinity
should be preached in those chapels, founded by those who dis-
sented from the Church of England, but who agreed with it
in that doctrine. Where it was clear that the intention of the
founders was that Trinitarian doctrines should be preached
there, it was not intended to disturb them, they were to re-
main intact. But there were other chapels in the deeds of
_which there was no mention of the particular doc-
trines, further than that they were to be devoted to
the " worship of Almighty God, by Protestant Dis-
senters, of the Presbyterian denomination." He could
understand why Unitarian founders should say nothing
of their intentions; the principle of the existing law was
against them; there was a motive for concealing their inten-
tions; they were obliged to deal generally, because the law as
it existed, told them if they contravened the doctrine of the
Trinity, their endowments would be forfeited. But there was
no reason why the Trinitarians should remain silent. The law
respected their endowments, if their intention was expressed.
What motive could they have for not being more explicit?
Was it not probable that they objected to any conformity,
and did net wish to bind their successors to one rule of
faith ? He was also determined to support the Bill,
from a knowledge of the injustice that would be done without
it. He instanced the case of the Unitarian chapel at Tam-
worth, which had one bequest left by the daughter of the mi-
nister, who had preached there for fifty-three years. At pre-.
sent they had in the town of Tamworth congregations of all
sects and churches, living in peace and concord; but once let in
a " speculative attorney"—( Hear, hear)—armed with the
power of bringing actions, and they would soon in-
troduce, religious discord where there Ns now re-
ligious peace. He also instanced the case of the remon-
strant Synod of Ulster. Would the House of Commons
permit the grievous infliction on every chapel that had been
done to the remonstrating Synod of Ulster? In 1829. the
Synod separated from the General Synod, and were to remain
in possession of all their chapels, privileges, and immunities.
They continued to hold them till after the decision in Lady
Hewley's case, when actions were brought against
them by parties most interested in the roaster.
Those who in Ireland would be injured, if this Bill did not pass,
came to the Government and stated that they were generally
opposed in polities to the present Government,- but that they
knew that the Executive Government would not tolerate such
a wrong.—( Hear, hear. ) They explained their case to the
Government when the Bill of the Hon. Member for Kendal
was before the House, which related to the English Unitarians,
but as they knew there would be a great opposition to the mea-
sure if they were included in the Bill, they did not wish to in-
terfere with the English Unitarians. The Government thought
this would be a manifest injustice towards them, and they depre-
cated passing the Bill in that way. Before coming to Parliament
he had made strong attempts towards an amicable arrange-
ment. He asked the Synod of Ulster to leave the decision
of the question to four Members of Parliament chosen from
both sides of the House, or to a Commission chosen by the
Queen, but they refused both those offers, and proposed to
leave it to their Chancery lawyers, which he ( Sir R. Peel)
after reading Lady Hewley's case, and the judgment of Lord
Chancellor Sugden, in his turn refused.--( Hear, hear.) It
was not till they had exhausted every effort for the purpose
of bringing about an amicable adjustment and failed,
that they came to Parliament.--( Hear, and cheers.)
He doubted whether they were not injuring the principle of
law in perseveringly demanding its application to effect an in-
justice. He did not believe that in the part the Government
took he or his colleagues were inflicting any injury, or throwing
any discredit on that great estalelishment the Church of Eng-
land, whose interests and welfare they were bound to consider.
—( Hear, hear.) On the contrary, he believed that it would
conduce to the character of the Church of England to exhibit
herself as the aiiiitrator of contending sects.—(Hear, hear. )
The Church of England had no interest in the
adjudication of the matter. To the Church the
funds could not belong. But was it not better for the char-
acter of the Church of England to say, that she did not want
to profit by the weakness of others by sending them to courts
of law, or referring to Masters in Chancery the religious
opinions held by men one hundred years ago? He did not be-
lieve it would be for the interests of religion, that the religious
opinions of those persons who founded those chapels, should
undergo discussion in the public courts,—(Cheers;) Not-
withstanding the obloquy cast on those who supported the
Bill, notwithstanding the imputations cast on their re-
ligious belief and opinion, he believed after the lapse of a time
those stipulations would carry no weight with them. He
believed the sincerity of one's religious opinions was much
better established by his acts and conduct than by professions
made in the House of Commons.—( Cheers.) The faith of
the Church of England differed from that of others ; their
hope of salvation was different ; but it was not inconsistent
with the spirit and precepts of that religion which they pro-
fessed to bear in mind—that, though faith was great, and hope
was great, yet there was one thing greater—that comprehensive
charity which induced them to be toleranteven of the errors
of others whom they supposed to be wrong.--(Loud cheers.)
But they ought to be specially careful not to inflict penalties on
those who differed from them in creed, on the ground of those
religious differences, but which ground they dare not avow.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he entirely agreed with the Right
Hon. Baronet when he stated that he had never heard a case
in which the arguments were so overwhelming on one side.—
( Hear, hear.) Ho should not, therefore, think it necessary to
state the reasons which induced him to support the Bill, and
he rose merely to say that he considered this Bill had been
brought forward upon sound principles of policy and justice, and
to add his testimony in favour, both of the Bat itself and the
conduct of the Government. With regard to' the argument,
he thought that after the able speech of the Attorney-General,
whom he rejoiced to see again in hts place, and bestowing that
lucid argument on every subject which he took up—(Cheers)
Memberh
utit was for
not Oxford
sotreithtedad
—it was scarcely necessary to hear the brilliant speeches of his
Right Hun. Friend near him and the Right Hon. Gentleman
treatediopposite.nth e
this
petitions s hu eh
sic
ele
not nt
as
goßt
onehara Baronet
Horse,
o property,uths
e and he observed that thee
first resolution passed at the meeting presided over
by a Right Hon. Friend beside him was, that the measure
would interfere with the rights of property, and would tend to
maintain a dangerous heresy. If it shook the rights of pro-
ground that it was by others g.v.ng angerous
perty, let it be thrown out onthatstigprpoourritdetobuat act on the
;;
heresy. Those who had opposed the Bill, had done it upon
two grounds, when one ought to have been sufficient. He did
not see why the rights of property should have prescription in
their favour, and no prescription be extended in cases of this
kind. Those cases were much more difficult, the
ninumueehrousg,reataenrd
etohnefusieunit.imaAte
law-suits
decision
property wereeou courts
taken
there was no person
f
question as to the right heir to property was a ques-
tion between individuals, and if one individual were
wouldwere involve more
deprived another would be placed in possession. But after
persons had held a chapel for one hundred years--after they
and their fathers, and their grandfathers, had continued
would
creeds, be en dlaensds litthie-
representation of what had been the opinions of various
g in
rn
neuninthteermruptehdy possessione—cisif
onts the
of
beproppeartileyn,i
transferred. The consequenceTdhiseeussienefvarious
religious sects. lle said, then, that the Bill was entitled to
support, as tending to settle the question of property.
(Hear, hear.) He had already said that he would not add
anything to what had been already so ably stated. He should
give his cordial support to the Bill.—( Cheers.)
Lord SANDON rose amidst loud cries of " Divide." He
said he merely rose to suggest that while they were making the
usage of a number of years the interpreter of the founder's in-
tention, they should take care not tolsind congregations not to
change their opinions in future.—( Hear.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading of the Bill ...... 307
Against it
Majority in favour of the Bill
The Bill was then read a second time.
The Forestalling, &c., Bill, and the New South Wales, &c.,
Government Bill, were read a third time and passed.
The Vinegar and Glass Duties Bill went through Com-
mittee, and was ordered to be reported this day.
The Limitation of Actions (Ireland) Bill went through
Committee.
SUGAR DUTIES BILL.
The CHANCELLOR of the_EXCHEQUER moved the
second reading of this Bill.
Mr. STEWART hoped that there would be no objection to

I the principle of the Bill being discussed on going into
Committee.
IA an wer to a question from Mr. LABOUCHERE,
Mr. GLADSTONE said, a certificate of origin was re-
quired on the importation of sugar from foreign countries.
The Bill was then read a second time, and was ordered to
be committed on Monday.
Mr. BELLEW moved—• That that part of the minutes of
the evidence taken before the Committee on the Croydon and
Epsom, and South-Western and Epsom Railway Bills, which
includes the evidence of the engineers examined before the
Committee, with reference to the working of railways upon
the atmospheric principle, be printed.—Ordered.
Captain PECHELL moved for a return of the number of
paupers relieved in-door and out-door, with the expenditure for
in-maintenance and out-relief in each union and parish not
united under the Poor-law Amendment Act in England and
Wales, for the years 1840, 1841, 1842, and 1843, distinguish-
ing the amount expended in medical relief, together with the
amount of the population of the same according to the last
census.—Agreed to.
Mr. HUME moved for a return of the date at which each
colony or foreign possession of the British Crown was captured,
ceded, or settled, the number of population, and those having
legislative assemblies, or governed by orders of the King in
Council, stating also the ♦alue of exports and imports, and
number and tonnage of vessels entered inwards and cleared
outwards in each colony in the year 1842.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at a Quarter to One o'clock.

ASCOT HEATH RACES.
YESTERDAY.

Repeated descriptions have so completely shorn the Cup
day at Ascot of every particle of novelty, that without any
dereliction of duty we might pass at once to the customary
matter-of-fact details of the sport, were it not that the pre-
sence of the Queen, made the more welcome by the disap-
pointment on Tuesday, accompanied by her illustrious visi-
tors, gave it an interest that the racing itself failed to pro-
duce. It was not unreasonable to expect that the excitement
of the review would prove injurious to the attendance, and
that it did so to a slight extent. is beyond a doubt ; in fact,
but for the stimulus given to the public appetite by
the gratifying announcement in our last, we should
have had to record one of the least attractive
" grand days" that it has been our duty td describe.
Such, however, was not the case ; the morning it is
true was cold, showery, and gloomy, in fact anything but
inviting ; but the attraction was not to be resisted, and long
before the arrival of her Majesty, the assemblage on the
course, if less numerous than on some occasions, was im-
mense, comprising a phalanx of rank, beauty, and fashion,
that is seldom seen now-a-days at a race meeting.
As we intimated yesterday, the arrival of the royal party
was not expected to take place until after the commence-
ment of the races ; accordingly, the departure from the Cas-
tle was so arranged that the cortege entered the new mile
about two o'clock. Its appearance was hailed with delight
by the company, and its progress up the course elicited
the warmest expressions of loyalty and attachment towards
her Majesty and the Prince Consort, and of respect towards
the august personages by whom they were accompanied.
These greetings were warmly repeated on the appearance
of their Majesties in the royal stand, and were most
graciously acknowledged. Leaving to the Court reporter the
task of speaking more in detail, we need merely state here
that the procession consisted of ten carriages and four, and a
pony phaeton and pair, preceded, as on Tuesday, by the Earl
of Rosslyn, the Royal Huntsman, and several of her Majesty's
grooms with led horses. In the first carriage were her Ma-.
jesty, the Emperor of Russia„ the King of Saxony, and Prince
Albert. The second carriage contained their Royal High-
nesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, the Duchess of
Buccleuch, and the Earl of Jersey. In the others were his
Grace the Duke of Wellington, who was loudly cheered, the
Princes Vassiltchikoff and Radzivill, Count Orloff, General
d'Alderberg, M. Minkwitz, and the various members of
her Majesty's and Prince Albert's suites. The departure
of the Royal party took place after the Cup race, which was
over a little before:four o'clock ; the passage of the Royal
carriages down the course was accompanied by cheers and
waving of hats and handkerchiefs, which ceased not until
they were out of sight. The course was then cleared for the
Grand Stand Plate, which was over a few minutes after four
o'clock ; the walk over succeeded, and then a shower, just
heavy and long enough to lay the dust, and make the journey
homewards an agreeable one.
The exceedingly crowded state of the Grand Stand must
be an apology for a very meagre selection of fashionables :
—Duke and Duchess of Montrose, Duke of Rutland, Duke of
Bedford, Duke of Richmond, Marquis of Normanby, Marquis
of Clanricarde, Marquis of Worcester, Marquis of Exeter,
Marquis and Marchioness of Londonderry. Earls of Strad-
broke, Albemarle, Verulain, Sefton, Chesterfield, Wilton,
Suffield, Lonsdale, March, and Countessses of Chesterfield,
Sefton, and Albemarle. Lords—S. Osborne, Forester, C.
Manners, W. Powlett, E. Russell, Paget, Lennox, Villiers,
A. Fitzclarence, Maidstone, Leveson, Cantilupe, Macdonald,
Gardiner, &c. Sirs—R. Bulkeley W. W. Wynn, D. Baird,
W. M. Stanley, W. Codrington, C. Cockerell, J. Shelley, M.
Farquhar, G. Heathcote, J. Gerard. Honourables—H. Rous,
G. Anson, S. Herbert, A. Paulett, G. Fitzroy, Cecil Forester,
Chas. Forester. H. Forester, Boyle, F. Villiers. J. Villiers,
H. Pitt. Generals—Grosvenor, 'Wemyss. Colonels—Peel,
Challenor, Bouverie, Knox. Messrs.—Greville, Payne, S.
Stanley, J. Stanley, Batson, Newton, Neville, Shelley, Sheri-
dan, Martyn, Bastard, Bouverie, &c., &c.
Lord Exeter's party at Buckhurst consisted of the Dukes
of Montrose, Rutland, and Bedford, Earl of Stradbroke, Hon.
Capt. Spencer, &c.
Of the sport, and the conduct of the owner of Bloodstone,
the winner of the New Stakes, we subjoin full particulars.
The Windsor Forest Stakes, of 50 sous. each, h ft, for three
year old fillies, Bst 71b each ; the winner of the One Thou-
sand Guineas, Derby, Oaks, or Coionation, to have carried
51b extra. Old Mile. (4 Subs.)
Lord Verulam's Charlotte

Mr. Phillimore's Skeleton

Mr. Ford's Eccola _ _

6 to son Charlotte, and 6 to 4 apt Skeleton. The run-
ning was made by Skeleton, Charlotte waiting; at the Stand
they closed, and ran a fine race home, Charlotte winning by
a neck.

The New Stakes, of 10 sous. each, with 100 added for two
- •

year old colts, Bst 71b ; fillies, Bst 31b ; winner before start-
ing of a stake of 1001. value, including the winner's own
stake, 51b extra. T.Y.C. (33 Subs.)
Mr. R. Newman's Bloodstone, by Bubastes (Bell) 1
Mr. J. Day's Old England
Mr. Mostyn's Pantasa
The following also started, but were not placed :—Mr.
Story's Young Eclipse, Mr. Chapman's b f Alice Lowe, Mr.
Bristow's Carissima, Lord Lonsdale's c by Jerry out of Tur-
quoise, Lord Lonsdale's Loadstone, Colonel Anson's Piquante,
Mr. G. Ongley's Mystery, Lord Albemarle's Scarmentado,
Mr. J. Minor's Birdswing, Mr. May's Corinthian Tom, Lord
Rosslyn's f by Marciam, dam by Blacklock, and Lord G.
Bentinck's Pulce.
Betting-2 to I agst Old England, 7to 2 agst Pantasa,
5 to 1 agst Mystery, and 10 to 1 agst any other. The winner
was backed for a trifle at 10 .to 1, but can scarcely be
said to have been in the betting.
Although there are some curious circumstances connected
with it, the race itselfmay be described in a few words. The
start was excellent, but the moment he was off, Bloodstone
took the lead, made strong running all the way, and won by
six lengths, Old England second, Pantasa third, the Tur-
quoise colt fourth, and everthing else tailed off. On going
to scale John Day claimed the stakes, on two grounds—first,
that the winner is three years; and, secondly, that he is im-
properly described, as by Bubastes. Both points stand over un-
til the horse shall have been examined by persons to be selected
by the Stewards. The most notable portion of our tale re-
mains to be told—Mr. Newman engaged Bell to ride his horse
on Wednesday, and on doing so instructed him to run a
quarter of a mile, and "get a taste of Old England," and then
to pull him up ; " on no account to win," as the horse had
some heavy engagements for which he wished to reserve him
(the Derby and St. Leger, besides several others). Bell
hehad
The
corn-
crdlie whose
ee t
his opinions
intentions
coincided
we Is-itl
have
at.vh _e e
already
determinationrea dy shown.
Th
municated his orders to one of his masters, the same evening,
and on the day of the race to a gentleman well known on the
he turf,
previouslya made, viz., to do his best to win ; how effectually
incident is as creditable to the jockey as it is disgraceful to
the owner. The Stewards, we believe, do not mean to let it
pass unnoticed.

A Sweepstakes of 50 sow. each, for three yrs old colts, Bst 91b ;
fillies, Bst 51b, which never won before the closing of this
stake ; the winner of the Riddlesworth, Column, 2,000
Guineas, 1,000 Guineas, or Oaks, 61b extra ; of any two of
them, or of the Derby, 101 b extra; no horse to carry more
than 101 b extra. New mile. (3 Subs.)
Sir G. Heathcote's Campanero (Chapple) 1
Mr. Ford's Sir Diggory Diddle
2 to 1 on Campanero, who won in a canter by two lengths.
The Gold Cup, value 300 guineas, by subscription of 20 sovs.
each, with 200 added from the Fund; the second to receive
50 sovs. out of the stakes ; three yrs old, 6st 101 b ; four,
Bst slb • five, 9st ; six and aged, 9st 31b ; mares and geld-
ings allowed 31b. About two miles and a half. (21 Subs.)
Lord Albemarle's ch cby Defence (Whitehouse) 1
Mr. Townley
''s Corranna, 5 yrs
Col. Peel's lonian 3 yrs
The following also started but were not placed :—Sir R.
Bulkeley's The Bishop of Romford cob, 4 yrs—Sir G. Heath-
cote's Sirikol, 4 yrs—Duke of Richmond's Lothario, 4 yrs—
Mr. Ford's Poison, 4 yrs—Col. Anson's Attila, 5 yrs.
Betting-5 to 2 agst lonian, 3to 1 agst Lothario, 4to 1
agst Corranna, 6 to 1 agst Bishop of Romford cob, 8 to 1
each agst Sirikol, Poison, and Attila, and 10 to 1 agst the
winner.

Corranna made play at a good pace, followed to the
top turn by the Bishop of Romford cob, and thence alter-
nately by Sirikol and Lothario, the cob fourth. lonian next.
the Defence colt behind Poison, and Attila, who was beaten
before he passed the stand, last. No change of moment took
place until they reached the turn for straight running, where
Defence colt passed his horses, and took his place at Corranna's
side ; in this position he waited to within three or four strides
of the chair, and then making his effort, surprised owner,
trainer, jockey, spectators and all (being in every respect an
untried horse), by winning by a length. lonian was a bad
third, and Lothario fourth, beaten off ; the others were
tailed off before they reached the distance. Lord Albemarle
won the Ascot Cup last, year with Ralph.

The Grand Stand Plate of 501., added to a Sweepstakes of 5
sous. each. Once round and a distance. (11 Subs.)
Lord .klbemarle's Delapre, 3 yrs, 6st 131b...(Whitehouse) 1
Lord Exeter's Maria Diaz, 4 yrs, 7st 61b - 2
Sir G. Heathcote's f by Velocipede, out of Miss Wilfred,

3 yrs, sst 41b
Sir it. Bulkeley's m by Bay Middleton, out of Adriana, 5
___

.
yrs, Bst 71b .
Captain Martyn's Emilian, 5 yrs, 7st 101 b 0
Mr. Withy's.Ellen, 5 yrs, 7st 61b
Mr. Jaques' Advice, 3 yrs, sst 51b 0
Mr. Reeves' Tarquin, 4 yrs, 7st 41b • 0
7 to 4 agst Delapre, 4 to 1 agst Miss Wilfred, and 4 to 1
agst Adriana. Won by a length; Miss Wilfred a good third.
The Dinner Stakes of 100 sovs. each, h ft ; for three years old.
Old mile. (18 Subs.)
.. _

Colonel Peel's Orlando

STATISTICS OF THE ASCOT GOLD CUP.
Yesterday was the thirty-seventh anniversary of the race
for this splendid purse, the gift of Royalty, it having been
first run for in 1807, when Mr. Durand was the fortunate
winner with Master Jackoy. On that occasion there were
twelve 'subscribers,' four of whom only started horses, and
from that period to the present there have been considerable
fluctuations, both as regards entries and starters. In 1835,
when Earl Jersey won with. Glencoe, there were thirty-six
subscribers, while nine appeared at the post, and on the pre-
vious year, when the Earl of Chesterfield carried oft' the
prize, there were twenty-seven entries, and ten started. His
late Royal Highness the Dukeof York was a winner on two
occasions, in 1815 with Aladdin, and in 1821 with Banker.
Lord G. Cavendish was the first nobleman that ever bore off
the cup two successive years. This was in 1824 and 1825,
and with the same horse, Bizarre. Sir Mark Woqd was a
winner three years in succession, in 1830, ,with Lucetta
(Robinson), 1831, Celus (Robinson), and 1832 Camarine
(Robinson). me Marquis of Westminster, likewise, was a
winner two successive years, and on each occasion with
Touchstone, the celebrated stallion. The Earl of Chester-
field twice won, in 1834, as before stated, with Glaucus, and
in 1829 with Zingaree ; likewise Lord Darlington, in 1823,
with M arcellus, and in 1827 with Memnon. Among other
noblemen and " sporting charaqers," well known on
" the turf," who have carried off this regal prize with their
bigh-mettlecl racers," may be named the Marquis of

Exeter, in 1833, with Galata ; Earl Jersey, in 1835, with
Glencoe; Lord G. Bentinck, in 1838, with Grey Moms; the
Earl of Albemarle, in 1843, with Ralph ; Captain Berkeley,
in 1839, with Caravan Mr. Pettit, in 1840, with St. Francis ;
Mr. Ramsey, in 1841, with Lanercost ; and the late Mr.
Orde, in 1842, with the famous old mare, Beeswing. Robin-
son, the celebrated jockey, has ridden the winner of the Gold
Cup no less than six times, and three years in succession.