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

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JUNE 7, 1844,

SHOCKING ATTEMPT at MURDER
NEAR LOUTH.

On Thursday evening (30th ult.), about nine o'clock, the
utmost consternation was created in Louth, from the
galloping into the town of a mounted messenger, who
sought the assistance of the police in endeavouring to
discover the retreat of a ruffian who had made an at-
tempt to murder an old man, named Jacob Gainsley,
and his wife, who keep the toll-bar on the Spilsby -road,
about two miles from Louth.
About eight o'clock on the above evening, a tall,
stout, banker-looking fellow called at the bar, and asked
for a biscuit and a cup of water, which were sup-
plied to him by old Gainsley, and of which he sat down
and partook. When he had finished he went out, and
on his return said he would hare another biscuit and a
bottle of ginger beer. These were also supplied, and
soon afterwards he rose from his chair, went up to the
fire, and taking down a brace of loaded pistols which were
hanging over the mantelpiece, said to the old man,
" What do you keep these for?" to which he replied,
"To protect myself from robbers." The ruffian in-
stantaneously levelled a pistol at Gainsley, and fired.
Providentially the ball missed, and lodged in the opposite
wall. He then pulled from his pocket a heavy hammer,
with which he began to beat the poor old man on the
head. The noise brought out Gainsley's wife, who was
in a little parlour, who seized the assailant by the necker-
chief, when, to release himself, he took hold of the fiire-
finger of her hand with his teeth, and completely bit
off the first joint. He then began beating the
old woman on the head with the hammer until
she was nearly insensible. All this was but the work
of a moment, and at this stage Gainsley's son, a stout
young man, who was in bed in another part of the
house, rushed into the room in his shirt, when the vil-
lain fired at him with the second pistol, the ball of
which must inevitably have proved fatal, had it not
entered the thick part of his right arm, where it
lodged. The poor fellow grappled with the wretch,
and in the struggle he was severely cut about his
right hand with a razor, which his opponent pulled
from his pocket. He succeeded, however, in wresting
from him the hammer with which he gave him several se-
vere blows on the head, its shaft being broken in the
struggle. At this time, also, the old man recollected that
he had a sword stick, with a stiff square sword (four
edged), about a foot and a half long, and with this wea-
pon he several times stabbed the fellow, and it was sub-
sequently found stained with blood l The father and
son then rushed into the parlour for a loaded gun, which
was hung up there, when the fellow followed them and
seized it ; but the cap having been lost,- it was rendered
useless. The struggle in this little parlour was severe, and
so much blood was lost by the whole party, that the walls
were literally besmeared with it. The old woman
escaped by the window to give an alarm, when the
other three returned to the room in which the attempt'
at murder was first made, each too faint from exhaustion
and loss of blood to struggle any more. The ruffian
then (having unobservedly locked the door inside, and
put the key in his pocket), finding the old woman was
gone to give an alarm, took out his razor and swore he
would cut his own throat, drawing the razor across it as
he spoke, if they would not let him go. Whether from
fear or otherwise, he was then suffered to make his
escape, and took a direction towards the woods on the
Spilsby road.

e Mr. DIVETT presented petitions from Gloucester-
shire against the Bill.
Mr. WYSE presented several petitions from Ireland
in favour of the Bill.
Mr. GRANTLEY BERKELEY asked - the Right
Hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Colonies,
whether they were aware that an enactment had passed
the Legislature of British Guiana, sanctioning the rais-
ing of a loan in this country ?
Lord STANLEY said he had received dispatches from
Demerara that morning, to the effect stated by the Hon.
Gentleman.
Dr. BO WRING said, perhaps the Noble Lord would
be able without receiving notice of his intention to put
the question, to state whether he was able to lay on the
table the papers which had arrived yesterday from
China, containing some important declaratign issued by
the Government of Hong-Kong on the subject of slavery
and the slave trade. - -
Lord STANLEY said he had not seen the papers to
which the-Hon. Gentleman referred.
BANK CHARTER.

, Mr. MUNTZ wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet
at the head of the Government a question with respect
to the Bank Charter, in order to remove the doubt which
existed in the public mind. In the event of such an export
of gold as should withdraw from circulation all notes ex-
ceeding the 14 millions issued against securities, were
the said 14 millions, or any part of them, to be payable
in gold on demand ; and supposing that three millions
issued against the Exchequer to be withdrawn from cir-
culation, how were those notes to be redeemed which were
issued against the 11 millions of debt due to the Bank ?
Sir R. PEEL said he would really rather not answer
the question. He thought the intention of the Bill was
quite manifest. Any demand made upon the Bank
must be paid in gold. The Bank was allowed to
issue notes on securities to the amount of 14 millions.
The debt due from the Government to the Bank, to the
amount of eleven millions, was assigned as part of those
securities. The remainder of those securities were
securities over which the Bank had an entire control.
It was of no use to put extreme hypothetical,
cases.—(Hear.) The Bank should have free con-
trol over the three millions, and if it should be necessary
no doubt the Government would have credit enough to
pay the demand upon them.
In reply to a question from Lord J. RUSSELL,
Sir R. PEEL stated that the sugar duties would have
precedence on Monday next.
Mr. BORTHWICK wished to learn from the Right
Hon. Baronet when the Poor-laws Amendment Bill, the
Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, the County Courts Bill, and
other Government measures, would be brought forward?
Sir R. PEEL could give no pledge on the subject. It
was most desirable that the subjects should be properly
discussed. On Monday next he intended to proceed
with the Sugar Duties, on Thursday with the question of
the Bank Charter, and if to-morrow, he could state what
question would be brought on Friday, he would do so,
hut he would not pledge himself on the subject.
IRISH REGISTRATION BILL.
Lord J. RUSSELL trusted that sufficient notice would
be given of when it was intended to bring forward the
Irish Registration Bill.
Sir R. PEEL would take care to give such ample
notice respecting the Bill that all her Majesty's subjects
should have full intimation of its introduction.
POOR-LAWS.
On the motion for reading the Order of the Day for
the second reading of the Dissenter's Chapels Bill,
Mr. BOR HINVICK gave notice that he should on that
day fortnight move for leave to bring in a Bill for the
amendment of the existing Poor-laws.
DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL.
Sir B. HALL presented petitions against the Dis-
senters' Chapels Bill.
Mr. MACAULAY presented 100 petitions from
different parts of Scotland to the same effect.
Sir GEORGE STICKLAND presented a petition
from the Wesleyans of Preston against the Dissenters'
Chapels Bill.
. Mr. SCOTT presented petitions, in favour of the Bill,
from various Dissenting congregations, and also various
petitions, with a similar prayer, from the lineal descend-
ants of many of the founders of these chapels.
Mr. VILLIERS presented a petition from the Roman
Catholics of Wolverhampton, in favour of the Bill.
Mr. HUTT presented several petitions against the
Bill.

Sir JOHN SEALE presented a petition from the
Wesleyans of Dartmouth against the Bill.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented petitions in favomi of
the Bill. --
Mr. STUART WORTLEY presented a petition frOm.
a congregation of Wesleyans against the Bill, and to
a petition from Selby in favour of the Bill.
Mr. Alderman HUMPHERY presented thirty-six
petitions from congregations in London, Southwark, and
Lambeth, against the Bill ; also a petition signed by the
Right Hon. Fox Maule, as Chairman of a meeting held
in Exeter Hall, against the Bill, which petition stated
twelve distinct reasons why the Bill should not pass into
a law.

Mr. COBDEN presented twelve petitions against the
Bill, and three in its favour.
Mr. GROGAN presented petitions from various Wes-
leyan and Presbyterian congregations in Ireland against
the Bill.
Mr. WAWN presented a petition from Birkenhead
against the Bill.
Lord H. VANE presented petitions from various con-
gregations in Durham against the Bill.
Sir J. TYRRELL presented petitions from Essex
against the Bill.
Mr. WATSON presented eight petitions from dif-
ferent Roman Catholic bodies in Ireland in favour of the
Bill.

Mr. GIBSON presented petitions in favour of the Bill.
Captain PECHELL presented three petitions from
Brighton against the Bill.
Mr. BOUVEBIE presented a petition in favour of the
Bill.
Mr. P. S. BUTLER presented two petitions from
Kilkenny in favour of the Bill.
Viscount BARRINGTON presented a petition against
the Bill.
Lord CLAUDE HAMILTON presented petitions
against the Bill.
Lord STANLEY presented petitions in favour of the
Bill.

Mr. STANSFIELD presented a petition from Hud-
dersfield against the Bill.
Sir B. INGLIS presented petitions against the Bill.
Mr. COWPER presented four petitions against the
Bill.

Sir J. PARKER presented petitions fur and against
the Bill.
Mr. EWART presented a petition from Liverpool in
favour of the Bill.
Lord J. RUSSELL presented several petitions against
the Bill.
Colonel FOX presented petitions from the Tower
Hamlets against the Bill.
Sir C. DOUGLAS presented a petition in favour of
the Bill.

Mr. HAWES presented 63 petitions, some in favoUr
of, and some against, the Bill.
Mr. WARBURTON presented petitions from Kendal
against' the Bill.
Sir R. PEEL presented several petitions from mem-
bers of 'the Established Church, Roman Catholics, and
Dissenters .of various denominations, in the county'of
Down, in favour of the" Bill.
Mr. BELLEW presented similar petitions from the
_counties of Down and Antrim.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, on moving the,
second raiding of this Bill, he would endeavour to state
to the House as clearly as he could, the object
which was contemplated by it ; and he was the more
anxious to do so, because he was satisfied from what
was taking place out of doors, and from the language:
many of the petitions presented against the , Bill,
that much misapprehension prevailed upon the sub-
ject.—(Hear, hear.). Petitions had been presented
against the Bill from various denominations
of Dissenters, and, amongst others, from the classes who
-claimed to-have -an interest in the property which was
the subject-matter in dispute, and who said that if the'
Bill were passed they would be deprived of property to
which- they were now entitled. He would deal with that
allegation in_another part. There were petitions from
the Wesleyan body. He could not think there was any
provision in the- Bill which could in any way whatever
affect the property, of the Wesleyan body—(Cries
of "Hear, hear")—nor would it affect the pro-
perty of the members of the Church of England,
fur its operation was confined to Dissenting chapels.
The costs of the suits which had been going on for
nearly fourteen years had almost. destroyed the property
in dispute, and although the House of Lords had come
to a decision, it was at that • moment as
much a question what class of Dissenters were.
entitled to the benefits of this charity as when
the suit was instituted fourteen years ago. He did hot
know whether gentlemen were aware that a fresh infor-
mation had been filed on the part of the Independ-
ents against the Presbyterians, alleging that the
latter did not agree in doctrine with Lady Hevvley,
the founder of the charity, and that they were no more
entitled to it, therefore, than were the Unitarians.:—
(Hear, hear.) That suit might probably go through all
it 3 different stages. The litigation might last another
fourteen years ; and the whole charity would be dissi-
-pated before an ultimate decision would be given as to
who would be entitled to it. Neither the members of
the Church of England nor the Wesleyan Methodists
Were affected by the Bill. He felt every respect for the
conscientious feelingg which induced them to present pe-
titions against any l3ill which they thought likely to en-
courage a faith hostile to, that which they themselves
professed ; but he could not help thinking that it was too
late at that time fur them to be inquiring whether the
Legislature had done wisely or not in extending a com-
plete system of toleration.—(Hear, hear.) That had
been the spirit of the Legislature of this country now for
some years—(Hear, hear)—it was in that spirit that the
Legislature passed the Bill, of- 1779, which relieved the
ministers of Dissenting congregations from the necessity
of subscribing the doctrinal Articles of the Church of
England ; it was in that spirit that they bad repealed in
1813 the clauses of the Toleration Act against Unita-
rians, and in 1817 the Act making it blasphemy to deny
the divinity of our Lord. The same spirit of toleration
had been acted upon with respect to the Unitarians in
Ireland, who had been placed upon the same footing as
regarded all civil rights, as regarded all civil property, as
regarded their chapels, as regarded their schools, as re-
garded their charities; as other classes of Dissenters.—
(Hear, hear.) He could not help thinking that they
would not be acting in the spirit of complete toleration,
or in the spirit of the Acts which had been passed, if they
allowed any feeling which they might entertain to pre-
Went them from legislating for them in the same spirit
legislated for other Dissenters.—(Hear' hear.)
apprehension that this Bill would encou-
this country was wholly un-
did not believe it would
other ; and even
'he propo-
"f

Lti%, „

the attention of the House to the circumstances which
had induced her Majesty's Government to adopt this
Bill, on the recommendation of high legal authorities in
the House of Lords. The measure came down to that
House recommended by the authority of such men as
the Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham, Lord Denman,
Lord Cottenham, and Lord Campbell. Her Majesty's
Government, in bringing forward the measure, had no
other object in view but that of doing justice, and put-
ting an end to vexatious and cruel litigation.—(Hear,
hear.) He would now state the nature of the provisions.
He believed that no objections were entertained with re-
spect to the first clause, but. still it must not be forgotten
that that was a most essential clause.—(Hear, hear.)
Before the Toleration Act passed, any gift for founding
a chapel for the purpose of putting forth doc-
trines contrary to those propounded by the Church
of England, would be held bad either in a
courti of equity or a court of law. Before
the passing of that Act, all Dissenters stood
on the same foundation.; none of their acts were
legal. By the Act of Toleration, however, Protestant
Dissenters were placed in a very different situation,
their acts were declared legal, but the Catholics and
Unitarians were excluded from the operation of that
Act. After the passing of that Act, all other Protestant
Dissenters, if they founded schools or any other chari-
ties, those foundations would be recognised by the Court
of Chancery and the courts of law, and they would
perpetuate the trusts. Such, however, was not the case
with respect to the Catholics and the Unitarians. Very
early indeed there appeared to be a repugnance on the
part of Dissenters to subscribe to the provisions of the
Toleration Act. In 1772 an Act was introduced for the
purpose of putting an end to persons subscribing the ar-
ticles of that Act. That Bill passed the House of Com-
mons by a large majority, but it was thrown out in the
House of Lords. In 1772, however, the Bill passed, and
no Protestant Dissenter after that pericd was called upon
to sign any of the declarations of the Church of Eng-
land. After the passing of that Bill any foundation for
the benefit of Unitarian chapels would be held legal. The
first clause of the present measure put all Protestant
Dissenters, Unitarians among the rest, upon the same
footing as the Roman Catholics, it gave, in fact, a retro-
spective effect to the operation of the Toleration Act.
Such was the first clause. He understood there was no
opposition to the clause, and certainly it was a most
important part of the Bill. The second clause was in-
tended to afford relief against an evil which would rise
to a monstrous height if remedy were not applied;
he meant that spirit of litigation among the Dissen-
ters to which the decision in the case of Lady Hewley's
charity had given rise.—(Hear, hear.) The first clause
related to all charitable foundations ; • the second clause
related to chapels only. It was said that, according to the
existing law, no lapse of time could be pleaded to a
breach of trust. If the breaCh were of such a nature
as to call on the Attorney-General to interfere, on
behalf of the public, it was perfectly true no lapse of
time could be pleaded against the Attorney-General ;
but, in cases of breach of trust,, in which private
parties were concerned, a lapse of time could be
pleaded ; and with regard to this Bill, he trusted he
should satisfy the House that it contained no violation
of the existing principles of law, but on the contrary; it
was framed in strict analogy with those principles.
There was was no doubt but that a party might give land
or money in trust for purposes of religion, and if such a
person said that a chapel which he founded was intended
for the use of Roman Catholics alone, the will of the
donor would be strictly abided by, and such would be the
case with regard to every other sect ; but he did not
think that in every case of charitable foundation of that
nature, in which the doctrines to be taught were not
stated—he did not think they were bound to assume
that in every such case the founder intended that those
doctrines only should be taught which he himself pro-
fessed. They had no right to assume such to be the
case, for this reason : many of these chapels had been
founded by bodies of Dissenters wlio were conscien-
tiously opposed to the subscription of any articles
of faith, and they had no right to assume
that these persons would impose burdens upon others
which they shrank from themselves:—(Cheers.) In .no
case in which it was distinctly stated in the foundation
deed what were the doctrines to be taught in these
chapels would the present Bill interfere. He could not
understand what was meant by saving that the present
Bill would encourage a violation of trust, as it would not
interfere in any case in which particular doctrines were
directed to be taught. In what cases would it interfere
then ? It should be recollected that those Unitarian
-efrap-ers—were not founded by deed ; they were generally
in this manner : a congregation dissented from
the 'Church Establishment, they wished to establish a
chapel.; they formed a voluntary, association ; they sub-
scribed fun& and built 'the chapel, which, in the first in-
stance was vested in trustees, because it was necessary
by law that it should be so ; but so little had the
trustees to do with the management of the chapel that
in all the small chapels the original trustees had fallen
off, and new ones had been appointed. The congre-
gations relied upon possession. Who supported the
minister ? Not the trustees, but the congregation.
Who paid him ? The congregation. Who re-
moved him ? The congregation. The trustees had
no more power than any stranger. Supposing a cer-
tain number of persons to have purchased a chapel—
to have appointed a preacher—supposing that son had
succeeded son, and supposing that in the lapse of time
the clergyman had preached doctrines different from
those of the original founder—supposing that to be the
case, yet, after those persons had laid out their money in
purchasing a chapel, and after it was possessed from
generation to generation, he thought it was extremely
hard they should.now be deprived of it.—(Hear, hear.)
Why, if this plea were good, although for a hundred or
a hundred and fifty years Unitarian doctrines might have
been preached, all the money subscribed for such a
chapel—all the money left for the benefit of the clergy-
man or his family during this time, would be handed
over to strangers.—(Hear, hear.) This was not, at least,
founded on a principle of justice and equity, supposing
it were even founded on law. He would here assume it
to be law—what, he would ask, was it right that the
property which had come for the support of such chapels
should be given to those who were perfect strangers?—
(Hear, hear.) But it ought not to be assumed that the
law was clear ; it was the novelty of the law in the case
which induced the Noble and Learned Lords to recom-
mend the Legislature tp interfere. If, on the face of the
deed, it appeared that the trust was for the support of
Trinitarian doctrines, or any particular sect, the Bill
would not interfere in such a case. It was only where
they had not, on the face of the deed, any particular
system of doctrine mentioned, that the Bill would inter-
fere. When there was no particular system of doctrines
mentioned, were they to assume it was the intention of
the testator that it should be applied for any particular
sort of doctrines ? How were they to know that the
testator was Of the same faith with themselves? In the
case of Lady Hewley her deed was produced, and cer-
tain documents and catechisms were produced, for the
purpose of showing that she was a Trinitarian. Sup-
posing that to be so, had she declared that this trust was
.for the benefit of Trinitarians ? It was very doubtful
whether such evidence was admissible. Lord Chief
Justice Tindal, in his judgment, stated that
pa-ale views or seeret intentions were not ad-
missible in evidence. He admitted that the Lord
Chancellor of Ireland was of a contrary opinion.
But he would ask was it not mischievous and improper'
that the most solemn points of Christianity should be
discussed in courts of law? This was not the proper
tribunal for theological discussions. What he recom-
mended was, that they should introduce a certain test
which might be applied to cases of this nature, and
which had been applied in other analogous eases. There
-was no single case in private life that did not depend
more,or less on usage. Under the old law if a question
had been set up the modus 'would be proved by twenty
years' usage, and by a recent Act of Parliament a ques-
tion could not be set up after a modern usage of thirty
years. It was necessary that there should be some
guide, some landmark in order to 'prevent those scan-
dalous contentions which had hitherto taken place. The
proposed Bill did not disturb existing rights. It did not
take anything from congregations who might be in pos-
session of a benefice, and which they might have for
many years been enriching. The Bill confirmed existing
rights, but it did not perpetuate injustice. It
might be urged that particular trusts might be
misappropriated, 'but they were misappropriated only
through the minister, and there was no great danger of
such perversion through him,, as he was liable tio be
dismissed upon proof of such perversion, and any mem-
ber of the congregation could prefer the complaint.
There was, therefore, no danger of Presbyterians being
ousted from their property. The Bill was not meant to
interfere with the religious tenets of any sect; it had
perfect regard for every form of Christianity.—(Loud
cheers.) _He did not, thinkit was at all open to those
charges which had been made against it ; he hoped and
believed it would prove beneficial to the great body of
Dissenters, and that it would annihilate that spirit of
litigation and dissension which had been the production
of so much scandal and _ hear.) The de-
tails of the Bill might be discussed in Committee, and he
trusted the second reading of the Bill would have the
general concurrence of the-House.—(Loud cheers.)
Sir R. INGLIS, although wishing the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman joy of the manner in which he
had been received by 'the House, must say, that he
was unconvinced by the arguments of his Hon. and
Learned Friend, and came to a different conclusion from
the premises laid down. He looked, upon this as a
question of law and of property, and on that ground he
opposed the Government measure. He did not say the
Bill interfered with any sch em e ofChristianity,but he hoped
they would act as men interested in the cause of truth and
justice. The Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman had
fortified his praise of the measure by the approbation of
the Lord Chancellor, but he (Sir R. Inglis) appealed from
Lord Lyndhurst in the House of Lords to Lord Lynd-
hurst 9n the Bench, and to the opinion of that Noble
and Learned Lord in Lady Ilewley's case.—(Hear.)
The Bill did not affect any property in which the inten-
tions of the founder of the trust were clearly marked
out; but he would ask his Right Hon. Friend how liti-
gation was to be prevented by the Bill, which left open
the Court of Chancery to, all those who chose to con-
test the measures of trustees. At a meeting held this
day, a resolution was come, to, condemning the Bill on
the ground of its opening the door to litigation. A.
petition was agreed to, signed by " John Wilks," for-
merly a Member of this House, and recognised as the
representative, if not the leader of the Dissenting body.
The third clause was one of great importance. As it
was brought into the House of Lords it was a very sim-
ple clause, and the marginal note was actually larger
than the clause itself. Whilst the Bill was passing in
the House of Lords alteration was made in the clause,
with such breathless haste, that whereas the clause itself
was essentially changed, the marginal referenee remained
the same.—(A laugh.) The clause was originally
worded so as to affect suits commenced before the first
day of March in this year; and the alteration was
made to enable parties to plead the Act, in suits
tbat'might be instituted after the passing of. the Bill.
There migLit be good reasons for the Bill, although he
4 not benable-to.disoover them) .yetle WAS' sure that

I

it would not effect that most important ota; ri„S
objects, the prevention of litigation. leiPorS.
Chancery had now as much power (and °eters.
Bill would give it, for deciding disputed 107 nos
to trusts of a religious character. He den,si •
to a recent decision of Sir Edward Sag ~,,,010
whom he could not speak in other terms reliejJ
the highest respect and esteem. Thwhat /I b(4
however, had, upon some grounds, ie
Inglis) could not comprehend in deferred bi,
ment, because this measure was progre
ment. In conclusion, he would say that 700'
all events, the 3d clause might he so ine,LettO
more his objections. He moved an amenw:ii.,
Bill be read a second time that day six men's
Mr. FLUMPTRE, in secOnding the
said that he thought the opposition
bn
been given to the Bill ought to Go,
mended the attention of her Majesty's,
It was said the Wesleyan body bad no. sinter
matter. Supposing they had not, was it tos. ,
that on such a ground they would:give thf,,.
error? But then it had been said the Bill
derstood. He asserted it was fully tinder!, t,
l.
would say if it was carried, as he was afratti'l„
the Christian public of this country, woulee
and cruelly used by this measure. Ji's
in that House, but he was not to be oe".• yr
dressing the House when he found Christualo:p
assailed. He would perseveringly give his
5p
Pr '
the Bill, and in doing so he believed he was
sentiments of thousands out of that House' the
Mr. MACAULAY then rose to address,
He despaired of adding much to the excelletibe
of the Learned Attorney-General, whom, l,
all must be happy to see again in his P tlis'
hear.). He had thought it right, h°"'ev• gent 1
person on that side of the House should 111,00
his conviction of the excellency of this Bill.. it
to observe the temperate manner in wittse
Friend the Member for Oxford had treates, tb
He had considered the matter as one not ca :00
character, but mere meum and teens Thes‘teabtf,.i
ever, that had been pursued by the Hon. 'riliffere/01
had seconded the amendment was very nett!'
had made the question one, not of Pos „Art, ss
divinity.—(Hear, hear.) Now, for his owe I chro
Bill was in favour of Catholics, the Secessionoidi,
Scotland, or the Free Church, his langnagals6
same, and he should vote in precisely the nsbe tp.s‘
he should do thai night.—(Hear, hear) 0.001,1
point, he considered, on which any questi°ll4 toss°
would be the second clause.—(Hear.) L'•by
clause, no objection had been made to it, eve% ty7
Friend the Member for Oxford. Then cat-tegstr'
clause, which rested on the principle of
A few hours ago he should not have suP,,P°,se °rlo4
Hon. Member would have got up in that Pnotefti y
where, and denied its necessity r he had, ",e) sbP,ljd
painfully undeceived. A conclave at e'sticoni;,ed
sent in a resolution of certain proceedings tb
place there, from which it appeared, that al tin'AS
the principle of prescription as untenable Ocirostd
of a British Legislature, and. that it was in,c of Pi;l,o
the Government to bring forward principle ,s
Lion.' If these gentlemen were right, the ;$Olll ef
men had been governed for ages were t°, eserlier
The law of prescription had been known in. the °IV
lised age.—(Hear, hear.) It was knownget
bunal of Athens ; and even after the Frenei`rorti)oli
it was admitted in the Code Napoleon; inssotrie'ssr
trine of prescription was known even in e°''d
tohfethneamgrecoaft Jchusatrtineiranofhthadisnceovuenrubyenjhbeearrt.io",ro
joy
It must be clear to any well-thinking °fibs rid!
principle of prescription was necessary te;esstit,
tion of property, and there would ba 30 or t°
lar cee
if it was taken away. Was it to be so's' bill
lis°be,
that a man should be compelled to pay ile
by his great-grandfather in the year 1660?-'nt4
titeej(ir
Well, then, if it was desirable that a certslo °Tet
scription should be made to limit rights, reselV
see why it should not be applied to the paste
But then it was said they wanted to pass an, 009;
law. Why, let them go to what Act the? e r,
would find none that had not a retrospecisv thee aei
and till religious bigotry stepped in 13sau1b
no objections offered to such Acts' lO,OO,
it was said that they made the it sh°,.
time for doing wrong the reason why
continued. The present question, in hissso i-st,`°;
one on which the principles of linsi„„ta'3o,-. briL,
apply most forcibly .—(Hear, hear.) the ,b9;74
Members bestowed much attention Of ofrotio"
had they compared the petitions in fav°%eitiess
with those against it? If they had, they „Ay
the one sound arguments, and in the other, the
reseeet
declamation. Let them look to the cases c's Ci Ars
chapels in the country. Take the case O'• e el
Large sums were laid out on the chapel tilerl4lVA
been derived from sources foreign W to 44;
then worshipped there. Let them • c°.",
then. There was a large chapel, im
tion of which, up to 1774, were fin ts jti
There the chapel was filled with the raer'lltatV4
tarians ; it had a library and school-house:oV
which had been erected at the expense °s. oneself;
and at this moment the members of the; eb,trts,,,
were sitting still, not daring to repair thea:i tbeloiS
daring to build or make improvements,
~tidilos
what would be the result of this Bill. It "1 sd Y'
where they went ; this was the common asgrety,
history of Unitarian chapels and e°„l3f tbe,
siAhtbGicr
juearotydnti
beetcLb
edeosederhttehnaaadint Manchester,—he was not quite sure ", ito rl_,,s ‘9,
laid beenityhefoougrt atrseaueangvtdehpnttray.t
monumentsrl lyrleiaae nsr ets
lhyea
himself
aelmder
sa;
bes fee::tb
fdo repairs at
the
th presente great m ounineintat,ri:l,looobioei
fund was 'Ting idle, because they dared 110 t:
House decided whether it could afford therds-ttl,A
At Maidstone there was the same story • for '
not matter where they went; but at Maids'teeeol
years Unitarian principles had been taughhoirliejt,
had been subscribed; at Exeter the same LI be 130!„;
been taught for eighty years; there 29° cad
~ n
subscribed. It was the same at Rotherhet°', 17,‘
and other places. And were these the elte;,,e-ted itja
British Legislature would allow to be stlu?,-,
robbery? He really could not use any °t`l" 00-0
how would it be viewed with regard to aillooe"
was really
Would it be borne for a single,hp feel,lo,i
was really painful to think what must be ",:fe tbe',d's
these who cried out for the ejectment isb°o4;
viduals; why what were the claims of thof °
to eject them, compared with the claioss het,ed
remain? What were their associations ,`";‘,l-ss hllin`e;
of a Priestly or a Lardner? What feePliaa
in connection with the monuments of llnit tbe„,
What feelings had they in connection wins bs' se
°i
• stones which the piety of four genera
dot 004
over -the ashes of sisters, and wives a° plciJiss
Yet they came forward to eject men 'fr°Tish ceboes
were to them invaluable, and the loss of w fel eir
be supplied, while to the intruders thoseotherf
had no more value than any, ore
s°,
they might have a so%i
heads. If the House threw out this Bi'" to frebll7,
not merely be robbing one party to giv,,chl (fags?
which would be bad enough, but theY s ,;,•
one party of what they considered Wale ';
bestow it in a quarter where it could ordY. h orestak)
trophy of an inglorious war—a tropllY.whso d
rive no value except from the humiliation ototo'he
tion of those who were driven out. An iiPsP...--0100 J
been thrown out in some of these petition friol
Roved it had been repeated elsewhere--of
part of the Unitarians. It was .asserted
sessse
have known what was the intention of th
ors
ders of these chapels—that they must hav-od late t,
were attached. to Trinitarian doctrin% ref ojel.ol
this they must• have inevitably, down to precsees:;
riod, either have been Trinitarians or ha_very ofti's
be so. For, it was urged, till 1779, eve view so";;;
aoca
teacher was obliged to subscribe to the an
of the Church of England, which, if he ws,ssiei°°.4.of.P;
man, he could not do, if he held Unitarians -o'sii 9/,rand
inference, therefore, was clear, that down en a A Or.)
senting minister must either have h'boief,c'es
tarian or a rogue I Now, he the, .rail°,lol
were neither the one nor the °,l this,' 'Ol 'pol
The very eminent person who had use ,iistort t ; of
was no doubt well acquainted with the
..foen afs
Church, of which he seas so bright an int'belo4-erY,
he questioned if he was so well read iat serl
41b'
non-conformity. The truth was tha :toed the d
period those articles ceased to be suust.,tionieht"tet
senting ministers. Even in the first geue the eethe
scription was refused, among others hy, ,ster tosee,
1 Calmet; this was in the first generatil the coasi.es
passed, and they all knew the force .eep eel
1
iedie
which told them that new brooms s bevy not is
(Ikar, hear.) In 1711, the Whigs, he. hste,blcll',,s
they formed a coalition with Lord Notitt°! i 0 sisupt
Bill passed through the House of Lcille'stedlosti'etif
order to favour the Dissenters, they the :13104
asstwich really took away the stringencY atst -010
the subscription of the articles. st Pool 01
any information should be laid agauLticies Lion 'ss
minister for non-subscription ,to the mietboasrions
any time between the lodging of tinst.er srtbt,s°lo
the delivery of the judgment, the min` shOtijche
ip
scribe the articles the costs of the soulreer, didso
cast upon the shoulders of the inf.fie proc4,sentat:
was, that in 1773, as proved both by le the ,vissertse
Parliament and the publications n.; the 1-fhed ,toe,
party themselves, the majority subsclbervii to
preachers then alive had never
_root, st fs'ls
articles at all ; the whole of the arglivrs rsti
,r0„0
founded on the insincerity of the Dissent the A!
the ground. Was it necessary to proeae:,_(7ry,,hooeo pee
General had very simply and ably state
and naturally these congregations,
noIV oil
be fixed, o'
ccoipnlfeesosfiothneo
fPfraeisthbaa- Presbyterians
having
aovfitnhge daytos-dildtsihtiantetotl;chali3riiiiiclllollllol°
which the divisions of sects could , togeth „,0
subscription of articles, and only hot:in:as i50r,,e001,701
principle they religious freedom—wh od insee'isy 'ere
t 5
he
hhneae
intond ot le another,tarti
doctrines
es p rse wuhilectldhgoiluiildt
tehifenr
coa
aujapnacsl.lbYedoy:i tohn c;tztl.tildel?
uttl
on 5111010"tber
Uto
identically the same as those preo_,l to 0 41 _
might venture to refer his Hon../c
eu`baa re
e;
li
of ecclesiastical history, with whill.on_io.tit r ivoierewere
lieve he was perfectly intimate.
.11
_woo:'sion, rons sets'
tt
hhee doctrinesshaims toerayns
otoh‘fye
held
original gbrye ad theo
cISI
vvrciiins(, atilticgsohet(4l
bit
tt2...lbcnieyo
ttsc:,b3frotttehe ctroefe "rripcssi,;
—(Hear.) He had talked
suasion, and they all ackno , rid 0 jesi
which were considered vital annnovve.conde.° a be s'ss
generation of seceds were_
r 0
maintmetei tsoeci
with hir°'ailfere'la
whentrineP r esb
tofht eet rhi
the
great n s.
connexionGT George
erge firstv hs ct betweenfiedeoled
went
to
tboon
(row_
51'coil''‘,4, a
Presbyterians would not unit
_aloe
'hes
_as
miring his abilities and pieth,",_°eoeriers„uart,restr 1,1
them on this point. The awl 'state.
connexion between Church and &s erYi'Thers
the PreSbyterians of the Presen...AA '2'
voluntary
,system, and the 6eP3A"'-