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

our army in India, was ordered to be entered in the
journals, and the House adjourned.
In the Commons, a vast number of petitions were
presented against and in favour of the Dissenters'
Chapels Bill. One of these was from a body of
Wesleyans, setting forth that, "having examined the
Bill," they now found reason to withdraw their former
opposition to it, and prayed to be allowed to retract
the petition which they had caused to be presented
against it.
Lord R. GROSVENOR was in a still more embar-
rassing position. He presented several petitions in
favour of, and as many against the Bill, and, having
inspected the signatures, found them, numerically, so
nearly balanced, that he was unable to inform the
House whether he was to consider himself as petition-
ing for the passing or for the rejection of the Bill !
In answer to a question from Mr. GRANTLEY
BERKELEY, Lord STANLEY said that he had only that
morning received dispatches from Demerara, an-
nouncing the fact, that: an enactment had passed the
Legislature of British Guiana, sanctioning the rais-
ing of a loan, for that colony, in this country. The
Noble Lord added, he had not yet received cer-
tain papers adverted to by Dr. BOWIUNG, as contain-
ing declarations of the Government of Hong-Kong
against slavery and the trade in slaves.
Mr. MUNTZ put a question to Sir ROBERT PEEL as
to the intentions of Government touching the liability
of the Bank of England to pay in gold the
1006,0001. to be issued against securities, or any
part thereof, in the event of such a drain of gold as
should have the effect of withdrawing from circulation
all notes exceeding that amount of issues.
Sir ROBERT PIEL, who treated the question as an
" untoward one," recapitulated, for answer, the heads
of the plan announced by him on the 7th and the 20th
ultimo, in that House.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, after the presentation
of further petitions, moved the second reading of the
Dissenters' Chapels Bill. It contained, he said, no
provisions that could affect the property of the
Wesleyan body, or property of members of the
Church of England, for its operation was confined to
Dissenters' chapels. The costs of a suit which had
now been carried on for fourteen years, had almost
absorbed the property in question—and, despite a de-
cision of the House of Lords, the dispute was no
nearer adjustment than it was at that distant period.
In reference to the progressive spirit of tolera-
tion in which the Legislature had relieved various
other classes of Dissenters from various dis-
abilities and penalties, he conceived that Parliament
was bound to act in the same tolerant feeling
towards Unitarians, to whom if this Bill would give
a confirmation of rights Which the present state of
the law rendered uncertain, it was idle to fear that it
would give encouragement to their doctrine. Her
MAJESTY'S Government, in submitting to the House
of Commons a Bill which had come down from the
Peers, recommended to them by such authorities as
Lords BROUGHAM, CAMPBELL, DENMAN, and COT..
TENHAM, and by the LORD CHANCELLOR, had no
other object in view but to do justice, and to put an
end to a crael, protracted, and vexatious litiga-
tion. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman
went into a lucid and perspicuous statement
of the several clauses of the Bill, and the scope
and application of their enactments. The details
might be discussed in. Committee ; but he hoped the
House would unanimously affirm the second reading.
Sir R. INGLIS looked upon the subject-matter of
the Bill as a question of law and of property. If on
that ground alone., he should oppose the measure
and he moved "That it be read a second time that
day six months."
Mr. PLUMPTRE seconded the amendment.

Mr. MACAULAY supported the Bill, after a power-
ful appeal, in which he passed a high encomium on
the very able and eloquent speech of the ATTORNEY-
GENERAL. The noble and constitutional doctrine
avowed by the Right Hon. Gentleman himself, in
vindicating the rights of private judgment, and the
claims of religious opinion, cannot be studied, in the
perusal of his speech, without deep admiration.
Mr. BERNAL and Mr. M. MILNES severally stated
the grounds of their support to the Bill ; and, after the
House had been addressed by Mr. Fox MAULE, Mr.
GLADSTONE, Mr. SHEIL, Sir R. PEEL, and Lord JoHN
RUSSELL, in speeches for which we must refer the
reader to our Parliamentary report, the House
divided; and no less a majority than 190 affirmed
the second reading of the Bill ; a majority involving
the most signal homage to really sound and liberal
principles, in dealing with questions deeply interest-
ing to the friends of civil and religious liberty,
which we have yet had to record of the session
of 1844.

The Sugar Duties Bill was read a second time :
and other business having been dispatched, the House
adjourned.