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

State? Was---.—____.
not h
interfered nt their principle this, that they would it was impossible to tell when it had first appeared in lin the religious faith of the settlers. The writer contended
brande e with by the State? And would they . theology. The celebrated Richard Baxter had, when he that if the original founders of their faith could have returned
~_ e . the whole generation of men us insincere because was told that even Catholics and Unitarians would sub- ito this world, they would not have thought of adhering strict!,
li!y had gradually shaped their doctrine to something scribe to the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten
lie would
I to the forms which they themselves had originally prescribtet..
to what it might have been originally? a But Conarnandinents, replied "So much the better ; there is !
time,
f owere
himchanythe othersame worksdeductions
tiheroa‘cmui ld take the case of the Wesle•yan Methodists the greater reason why it should be made a matter of linml;94r, from which
waccount of the doctrinal differences and other
passing' Yes'
who were so tag•er to prevent this Bill from concord." ---.(Cheere.) At that time two of the Bishops : causes of disunion, it was found impossible that these articles
• Was there nothing in their own 1 • •of the Churchof England professed Unitariandoctrines'of could
History to
But
Make them littlea uneasy? Ile thought he could point and many of the professors in our Universities held the willingness of parties to bind themselves was not sufficient
out some which -
they r _ matters might make them careful how similar opinions. On these grounds, he felt compelled 'to bind posterity. When they came to look at the trust de-
.
ef that ()seated recrimination. What was the doctrine to support her Majesty's Government. He could not dared in the deeds, they found that the term 3 of that trust
to the let
great and good man, . Tolin Wesley, with regard but remember that some of his own ancestors had been I declared, in the most general words, that the parties them-
leini ' lay administration? He held that the lay ed- Presbyterians, and . had afterwards adopted Unitarian selves, when about to confer the trust, did not refer to anewPadr-
__
.otstration of the sacrament was a great sin. The opinions, and this perhaps had saved him, a member of titular doctrine, but used a general phraseology,. whichbt
snhdo theire
irrefragibly showed, that. their intention was. not to
a-1),n! c c was much debated, and soon after rtis death it was the Church of England, from falling into the same abyss '
"" aled by the
Conference,therefore • • of bigotry into which so • friendswhom he esteemed
every building
successors to any particular form of doctrine. Well, but an
used as a
I,v _
, objection had been made by the opponents of the Bill. They
',Sunday in esleyan chapel was employed every appeared to have fallen. He implored the House to '
declared that the executor of the trust never could have for a
to ,0 that which John Wesley pronounced remember that this question was not now as if it had moment supposed that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity could
fuse( t a
sin. He believed that if they re- never been started. Most important consequences be questioned. Did those opponents recollect—did they alto-
of o,';',',, 0. pas,s this Bill, it would let in an amount might ensue. Virtuous and impassioned men would gether forget the continual changes in religious opinions which
,-,`._ Itlttoi„nttion which the Wesleyans, perhaps, little take up this question, and had men would take it up were going on at the very time that trust was executed?
7....'rc‘ 'd of. Ile owned that it was painful to him to also. False suits would be instituted by persons who Could any reflecting man suppose that in the rapid changes of
._ ea the; manner in which this Bill was opposed, and the had no object in view but their personal gain. They the seventeenth century, our forefathers who lived itn
‘.1.,L1n rter from whence the opposition came. Then ppo,ii- would also have acts of retaliation on the part of the that
that
wh-ootsteld
differenceshave calculated on an entir.enagwroettemldena;
l',,,'_: to the Bill on the part of the Established Church Unitarians—suits of inquiry as to how far the Wes•• and
once cteaaste 3 Wh that in
religious. opinion 4 id in .
1 Did
y, was t e very period of change .
~e.
vin.ii , comparision with that from other quarters; leyans have carried out the doctrines of John Wesley,
those men forget that it was about that time that the Act of
a._,,,,it :mid the opposition of the Established Church have or how far the Independents profess the doctrines that Uniformity was passed; and that Nonconformity was
sp,sisotb.nore excusable than that from any other quarter. were held by Harrison and the Independents of the legalised ? and could it be imagined that men living in
dose. In.g was more rational than for supremacy, power, Commonwealth. There was no solution for these dial- such a period would believe in the doctrine of religious finality?
ininion, and the habit of authority to produce some culties but by the present Bill.—(Cheers.) Controversy was at that period raging on the subject of the
faults,e hardly separable from human nature; and the Mr. FOX MAULE wished to make a few remarks Trinity. Did they forget the works of such men as Biddle and
1 Church of England, with her strength, her rich endow- upon the Bill, differing as he did upon this measure, Irvine ? From 1690 to 1710, there were all sorts
The
8, her seats in Parliament,l her ancient unite • • from I, -• hwhom it had been his ride hitherto to
lies, - t .ose nlt
other
might be accustomed to something like disdain for act. He stood, therefore, in a painful position. but he • •
Act of Queen Anne sufficiently proved that subscription to
sects '
far pro • setting up for religious liberty. He was had not placed himself in that position without duly con- the faith of the Trinity was not peremptorily demanded.
A few years after that date, liberty or license upon this paint
_ - from defending the feeling, yet he could in some sidering the question. It was his firm conviction, that
came to such a height, that,' in 1718, the whole Presbyterian
1.,7 pardon , it. But to see persons who within if he agreed to that Bill he should be agreeing to an act body was divided on it. A Bill was then brought forward to
been'a own memory haul, over and over again, of injustice, and therefore he opposed it. He agreed repeal this operation of the schism and Nonconformity Act,
libert compelled to invoke the principles of religious that that House was no fit arena for theological discus- and it was called " A Bill for the strengthening the Pro-
feel.
1Y—(Loud cheers)—on their own behalf—he did sion, and therefore he should not go into it. Ile saw testant interests." In 1719 the Bill passed a seeond reading,
feeling astonishment, not unmingled with a harsher with regret, that this Bill was supported by such an and in going into Committee instructions were moved to it, that
iii• g, to see them call for the aid of Parliament for ;he array of talent in the other House. It was supported, a clause should be added, to the effect that belief in Divine
teclearY of others. lie would also refer to the question of he must admit, by Noble Lords for whose legal ac- Scripture, and a belief in the Trinity, should form a por-
nuue Irish Presbyterians, among whom he contended the quirements he entertained the highest respectealthough tine of the oath. Now. here was
.a. plan directing reference
vet',a_stion of the inixed marriages was identically the he differed from them in political opinion. Compare,- to
bthe doctrine of faith int.
btot.Trinffinye,e angliotstwHasooproAtresmed.
i"
principle as the possession of the chapels by Lively ignorant as lie admitted himself to be of the
btnerserZahet hoanvceanhealtridnnofothe cellengraoted "Salter'e Hall.contro-
„eaarion congregations. He knew that between these state of the law, lie felt that this Bill was an act of injus-
verSy In 1718 two Dissenters were charged, before a COM.
B_4llS. there was this distinction, that Trinitarian Dis- lice, and felt bound to act upon his own individual mince of Presbyterian congregations, with preaching Anti-
e t were a powerful body, and likely to unseat those opinion, as an independent Member of Parliament, and Trinitarianism, and those doctrines were condemned before
~.Members who might vote against them to night. The oppose it. The Bill proceeded upon the principle of the the congregation, and it was decided on that occasion that the
• a
oetsarians, as a sect, were small in numbers, were un- introduction of a prescription of twenty •five years in non-subscription of a minister to a faith in the Trinity was a
101?„1114r, and had but little political influence. Perhaps matters in which legal prescription lied not hitherto been sufficient ground for the withdrawal of the congregation from
the:t tuedidate to say that he had not the support of permitted to operate. They intended to permit this pre- his preaching. About this time the Dissenting ministers of
„„l.bodv, might in many places be the best way to scription to supersede the intentions of the founders of London formed. a.centralbbody,bandf thheyTmet in large
loud numbers,b
'",,"u_,llc favour,- If any persons of an arbitary nature trusts for religious and charitable purposes. In all cases andt thestusbscripotion Ito t
wase fwaiatrmol
t debated, b artlend tywrestherthestule--
i,!!eued to enjoy the pleasure of persecuting with perfect he believed trtere were means of ascertaining the inten-
jest
ccounscseironi.ng the doctrine ofy the Trinity should be for-
triap nity, there could be no better opportunity for him tions of the founders. It might be expensive to do so,
warded to the ministers of different congregations in
for-
had the present one. But he (Mr. Macaulay) but that would be a reason which would deter parties a letter of advice, and it was carried by a majority—a small
jllOl ,_ espoused the principles of religious liberty. from entering into litigation. If this Bill were passed, majority he owned, of four—that that doctrine should not be
DC4s..°ocause they were popular, but because they were it would not only be unjust as regarded the present foun.. declared. Yet still it was the opinion of the majority of the
(Loud cheers.) Ile had supported those princi- clarions, but it would affect all future donations, for no large, and it was to be presumed, the most intelligent, of Dis-
thes hen applied to by them in a different cause; and one could feel assured that the intention with which tenting ministers, that subscribing to the doctrine of the Tri-
remeluue might come—and it might come soon—when lie left his money would be followed out after the lapse of pity should be made a distinctive. form of communion. He
tili of those who were now crying out against the Bill
a few years. This principle was now, for the first time thought it necessary to remind the House that that meeting
,t gat beObligedappeal, for their • to introduced into the law. The Bill professed to apply
wie • to
all large portion of the meeting was of the latter class. He would
woulliarinciples on which this Bill was based. Because he the same principle to this as applied to the tenure of
mention to the House a most essential testimony upon this sub-
pi„ev,„ prevent others from oppressing them, he would other property; but it lt•as the first instance in which an
ject from another source. He did not say that the non-sub-
tisen'nt them from Oppressing others; and in the mean- Act of Limitation was made to have a retrospective opee
scription to the doctrine of the Trinity was made a funda-
terl,. (concluded the Right Hon. Gentleman), I will con. ration. In all other cases of limitation the law had it mental article in the Toleration Act, but from the year 1719 the
kevhigo_against their intolerance, in the same spirit in prospective operation only. The Act of Limitation of non-subscription was established to all intents and purposes.
een, 1- would have contended for their rightS. (The James I. enacted that persons bringing suits should be What was the opinion °fair. Wilson, who claimed the first part
ehra lion. Gentleman resumed his seat amid loud bound to bring them within a certain time after the of the controversy? He. said that it was a matter of historical
ing.)
passing of the Act. Such was not the case in the present notoriety that the English Presbyterians, at the time that
kr. c
"li in the statute of limitations the rieht to suits charity was bequeathed, refused to subscribe to any declare-
0e , OLQUITOUN said that one of the great objects 1-1' •
_, n
bring
, tion of faith, because they would not bind themselves to the
helm present Bill was stated to be the prevention of was reserved to parties fora certain time after the law NS as
words and terms of any human composition ; and Mr. Wilson
light But now they had it on the authority of the enacted. Such was not the case under the present Bill.
added, that the English Presbyterians of that day were all
that t.ilon. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Macaulay) No party having a claim, at present, to ascertain the
now subscribers. But he was now going to quote to the House
the litigation would be increased. Ile did not deny intentions of a founder could exercise that right after the
the opinions of two gentlemen still more distinguished, one of
pt, Principle of prescription with respect to private Bill should have passed into a law. It was an act of in- whom was Dr. Calamy, the other Dr. Doddridge. Dr. Calamy,
ZertY, but he did its application to public trusts. justice, to which he, for one, would not subscribe. But who wrote in 1719, said that he was willing to subscribe to
et %gilt lion. arid Learned Gentleman had spoken it was said that if the Bill were not passed, its rejection the doctrine of the Trinity, but at the same time, he would
seeithe disappointment felt by the Unitarians, on would give rise to an enormous mass of litigation. Judg- not recommend that it should.
.be made absolutely essential.
pre 11. c. the pulpit of Dr. Priestly and other Unitarian ing from the past, he denied that such would be the case. H_ e said, in the words of Chillingworth,dlet all men believe
ferruled filled by ministers of other sects ; but he con- In England, with the exception of the llewley case, there theScriptures,tb.t and inthemt. only, and en eavour to take feem
et, ieeu that the regret of Trinitarians was quite as great, had been but one suit to recover possession from the them
uired eoifr
them, sfeonrs e
that h essirorotldl e
restore
t faith,ore unionand naomtrin oartlizsabs
titil, 16-11 g• the intention of the founders of these chapels Unitarians. There was a case which came before L_obed
heresy.reg They could hardly have a more unequivocal testi-
' matter departed from. Let the law adjudicate in the Eldon,. in 1817, and that suit had not. been instituted
y niony than that. Dr. Doddridge mused these remarkable words
tress • It had done so in some cases, and was in pro- Trinitarians against Unitarians, but it was an attempt
in the latter part of the year 1737—" You cannot be too Rep,°l doing so in others ; but with this Bill they made by Unitarians to eject from one of their chapels ful in giving countenance to that narrow spirit of bigotry
care-
-Bill,,e' iti and arrested the operation of the law. The a minister who had returned to Trinitarian doctrines. which had already done so much mischief in the Christian
rests"as one for the benefit of the few against the inte- It appeared to him that her Majesty's Government had Church, and the doctrine of the Trinity, if enforced, would
Q ef the for lie begged to remind the Hon.
eetie many ; not been decided about this Bill. There could be no cause much dissension." In short, with such a mass of autho-
teria„ man of what was a notorious fact, that the Uni. question that when the Bill was first introduced it was rities as he had quoted to the House, he did not think there was
totiti2-, u, ody, though small in number, occupied a dis- not so malignant, as regarded the rights of property, as room for any difference of opinion ; and he thought it was
-,,osned . .. .
it was at present. It was not till the Bill was read a therefore unnecessary to occupy the time of the House by
the position in society. They were remarkable . .
ill its philosophy and peculiar acuteness of their opinions, that it became • • quoting further testimony. He hoped the
third time so stringent, and, as he main- Bill would pass—
sllperi'a an indication of a high position in society, and tamed, so notoriously unjust. When the Bill was intro- indeed had very little doubt but it would pass through the
House by a large majority, but he had a still further and a still
444 er cultivation. The other sects were larger in duced, it did not extend to Ireland. The Lord Chancellor had.
stated that the Bill should not be extended to Ireland until hope to express, and that was that it would allay
more earnest
,totildesrg, and were likely to feel the loss most. lie
the bitter and hostile feeling which at present prevailed out of
the Presbyterians of thathad had opportunity
4 1),,i,e no grounds for the measure. Ile believed it to
of being heard against it
county
beforea
CommitteeanofeHouse doors. He did not believe the Hon. Member for Kent, when
th, " unjust and impolitic, because it took the pro- of Lords. That body, however, had not had the smallest he stated that in passing this Bill, they were passing a measure
ae•T.of the
for the encouragement of error. Suppose the Hon. Member
Nit. poor, and sacrificed it to the interests of opportunity, before that House, of b • heard, by
being either them-te
selves, or by counsel, against that portion of the Bill which
had• d einain •
been aju g.
case which two litigants were contend-
° le pts,
h Iclaimant
ing for an estate, and one, therig tfu was as profligate
xfora -41INAL said, when the Hon. Member fur had been so materially altered. There were no cases in England
and abandoned a character as could be, and the other most
tlstese4 said lie had no objection to the first to which the Bill could apply • it was, in fact, a Bill against
benevolent and just; would the Hon. Member, under such
13f ' of the Bill, h
le the . e gave up the greater part existing
• cases in Ireland. in the Eustace-street case, the
the ,st estate to the
circumstances, be deterred from awarding e_a
Lord Chancellor of Ireland, although he had nut virtually
le re; . grounds of his opposition to the measure. . judgment,
suitor on the ground that the award would encourage
hadstated
he given the impression
on his mind as to profligate
Areiesinlced that his Hon. Friend had abstained, as • error ? He called on the House, most earnestly and emphati.
16.-.lsed
what his judgment ought to be; and he was hanging
catty, to give their sanction to the Bill. After some further
''''ltti he would, from all polemical arguments and his . had been passed
up judgment until an Act
Ptt •e4l st• • '
to observations, the Right Hon. Gentleman
concluded by saying,
their ale, 'Mull. Ile had presented himself several supersede the rights of these individuals.—( Hear, hear.)
the highest use he could make of his religious belief was to a m
„ s against the Bill, but he could not coincide in He believed that if this Bill passed, so far from having a ten- . . .
of_.importantl -
it to the decisive performance this Act—an
;)11, thevraYer. He looked on the Bill as an honest one dencydiminish litigation,it would create litigation without Ply
to
No - Part
Act which, in its spirit and tendency, was, as he hoped he had
light hof the Government—(Hear, hear)—and he end, and introduce into congregations ~ .
elements of discord, the
in some degree proved, founded upon the everlasting principle
t'at ti, Lt °se who were opposed to them generally ought eonsequences of which the advocates of this Bill would be the
of truth.—(Loudcheers.)
••‘) - ,Ie co • • • • - idle very first to regret.
le say content with giving a silent vote. It Is as
.. He knew it was quite in vain, with the
'Neil mat the arguments founded on this supposedthat H the
state of feeling in House, to attempt to dissuade Mr. SHELL then rose, and said he could assure the House
‘ °f artist House from consenting to the second reading of the 13111. he was glad to hear from such high authority that the mee-
tic 'ph ust could influence their votes on this Dees- House
was reconcilable to the principles of State conscience-
-4,-, ° arguments on this head had been set at rest by (Cheers.) He had, however,. thought. it his duty to state
(Laughter and cries of "Hear")—and that the Right Hon.
s‘ii,, ‘tot.,,
publicly, the grounds en which he differed from those by
h arohas"ea--General. This Bill had received the
a Cabinet Minister, had become the champion of
lad . . Lion
whom it was introduced. In the name
of the L Lords, because they felt the
s, rule °n aw
intrusted him to represent them in that House, he protested freedom of conscience.—(Hear.) He very much regretted
ttirci Pof the law. his Hon. Friend seemed to dis- against the measure, as one fraught with injustice, de- that the arguments of the Right Hon. Gentleman were not '
mere the opinions of the Law Lords, but surely they priving as it di other parties whom he repro- used in the Hewley case, for if used with- such surprising effi-
kal)...llot to h
cacy and applicability—if such irrefragable.his.torical evidence
considered legal automata or judicial seated from prosecuting a claim which the courts of law
kes uilar, - e
IlTlit ja "8, When addressing the other House of Parlia- had declated to be just. were brought to bear, he could not help thinking that a very
He would not
Ass itp itheir legislative capacity ?He denied that the Mr. GLADSTONE said, that having felt it his duty to different decisionventured
to
co wouldcidress
thily emboeuesen come o
in this tdelate if any other
ii,. te,l3l;ie,cl exclusively to the case of the Socinians. It look into this question for the purpose of arriving at the best haveß
'it .I'n -that severalcongregations
t, tea own
it .
he could with respect to this Bill, and having made .°hadbut he thought it •ht to avail
Roman Catholicspoken ; rig
himself of the opportunity afforded him to state that the entire.
to it if
Ora t°lvards the doctrines of the Calvinists with up his mind that was incumbent upon them pass
Id t'') will
would not sacrifice their character for regard to the sacred B.
. hy, , and predestination tenets, which were not
Bill'—(Loud cheers, and cries of " Hear,.hear.") It was not
principlesof • t• he desired to take his share of any re-
aitatiea"hn Wesley, and the grants left to such con-
,t
I justice,
hiceLight attend the introduction and stip- from any feeling of a sectarian character—it was
dnot from anhy;
Mesala„,,,3 Would, under this law, be held to be void. s poor nt soifb 1
tib
ayt
which might
He must be allowed to say inrtirtereetstieedomf motive—but because the Ililelawras
ifieoaurn
)edluvpboantevt
er
]iii as .it stood at present, would give rise to 12
first, that he distinguished broadly between the substantial spins the Catholic Church min
ehntnc.omm in connection with the
Were t,, Ration. Was it proper to say they would
purpose which they had in view, and the precise form of the State, he had no doubt but that at the present moment the
he °h ho? Socinians and Unitarians of those chapels
legal instrument by which it was proposed to effect that pur- Catholic Church in Ireland was thorou (Ironical
hl tolerant.—
4 kost 't been been built and beautified by themselves, pose. He had before • him a great question of justice. That
th the .
cries of " Hear, h " from the
ear, Conservative benches, and
le4, atm ,_3 stood on 50 or 60 feet of ground, on which question he apprehended to be, whether those who were cheers from the Opposition.) He supported this Measure
the retee."ad been built, but of which not a vestige called in England Presbyterian Dissenters, and who though professing that creed of which the haughty
e, ltaria,"tued. Were they to deprive those Socinian and were, as he believed, a century and a half ago, woisey and the meek Fenelon were members, and
kt,,l'ter ministers of the grants which had been left universally of Trinitarian opinions, ouht or ought not to was as Athanasian as either. The Honourable Baronet
,t,,. T takil4 give them to the Church of England ? be protected at the present moment ing the possession of the the Member for the University of Oxford reprobated the
isb,.'et°"o Anabaptists, Baptists, ior chapels which they held, with the appurtenances of those cha- measure, but at the same time gave credit to the Right Hon.
st,74is youriends? They knew not townhom and no Pels. Upon that question heyentured to propound the strongest Baronet at the head of the. Government. He (Mr. Shell)
bt"htlici Od take on himself to say whom' they °pinion. The speeches against the Bill had not contained could be actuated by no sordid or rty motive in giving his
Nrsrnot°,ogeiven to. Would the honour of religion far
raoleoleet of
the
argument Member upon r
the
ee
t tve principle. University
0 fT The
Orford,Ri gh t H
and the. supporttei it tofro thefrom
a Bill.e r t y He
nen supportedvtet
too of i
tist
mheerairttsi.l y, hu t
it he
and" ec
could
te4 Reed", even
those disputes ? He was afraid there Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, had used divers arguments as inot f kern expressing his strong approval of the measure
h„ 'NI deal of the odium theologicum in the matter. to the effect which this Bill, if it were passed, would have upon the refrain otion of which the Attorney-General had, in his ad:
44 ° Per °J. the petitions the Unitarians were called are r een particular parties ; but he had not heard either of those gene miraerlemadvanced, and which had been •d •
speech, so receive in
ith. 4cli v t• bedy. lie was afraid that the ground of tlemen argue this question as a question of justice. He would so approving a manner by all sides of the House. The Hon.
Is
that t trust was put forward as a cheval de bataille, not enter into the question whether Unitarians ought to be and Learned Gentleman adverted to the opinions of those
IteM to 11;le odium thcologicion remained behind. Be protected in the possession of property which was originally Noble and Learned Lords who were Members of the other
,I. tlO
,1t tas w what objections there could be where given for Trinitarian purposes—upon . that question .t.
here House, and he certainly had ample reason to congratulate
11' t a 25 Y 'ofchapelwithout
s..eeit, is ! ears use a , anything could not be the smallest ditlerence of opinion •
~ the House that those Noble and Learned Lords who
'les •It I a ceed to ireliente the intention of the donor but what
lhfe nowd protposed to argue
sweassm,
ttattbaavlethboeugn had been Lord Chancellors of England and Ireland had
,lledtadt‘-ivillr.'g it in the possession of the persons
soulthe owi..elgrien at
ofoundersvast of
majority h eseln meeting-houses ing-
instances, u
persons of Trani- approved
took
tonight
w measure.ool d
ex
tei
ui hopedai,
the
edrirscnnuseseitnisn whichfee;i
'' the: on „'_s undisputed use ?—(lioar, hear.) He
tarian opinions, yet, upon the principles of justice, the present against placethe Bill, which, if he could judee from the number of
atr'r hea`_",e House to support the Government holders, being Unitarians, ought to be protected.—( Hear.)
Petitions laid on' the table of the House; was so rife among a
ns .
t ill,
lleiet endeavours on this occasion. His Hon. Friendhact said that the opposition to this Bill was an large portion of the community. The object of the Bill was
iviittl t ILXES felt called upon, from motives of a opposition which the Government ought to respect. lie to confirm those principles of toleration by which this great
't!N .ks ihins.tnre, briefis to state the reasons by which trusted that the Government would pay every respect_ to everp country was so eminently distinguished. The object of this
Iles 14,4 -elle/seed • - . •
', t% 4. •He ,in giving his vote on the present.
Bill was to put an end to that controversy in courts of justice
scientious opposition, and he. did_ . not doubt that this opposition •
k 4 „ r,e(,,, had presented a petition against the met- e which had brought the most sacred snbjects into desecrating
Pyl)t h -it by allthe l 'the b • hwhich he
c ergy of boron of that character. lie believed it was very mach less owing familiarity.—(Bear, hear.) The principle of the Bill was
14 'lteti °llcUr tto theological animosity than to misapprehension.—( Hear.)
founded on an enlarged limitation of the principle which
th Q)it a
His Hon. Friend had said also that the Bill was an insult
eat kit, Petition to the effect from the leading
le Ile believed regulated • te property. It was an Act of Set-
,private .
'‘.ll "ais""f th same
justice,
tlement, of which they stood in great need; and
pi Ith i e. svo,_,
.. at borough, and he therefore trusted that if the Bill was required by the pnnciples of so what stronger proof could there be of that than
R;'t tilt:ape/ler Permit him briefly to state the reasons far from its passing being considered an insult to the Christian the case. which the Hon. Baronet, the Member for the
thtilett.„ Q.,., him, out of a sense of justice, to sup- feelings of the people of England, those feelings would require University of Oxford, had reluctantly submitted to the House
•``' I. "•.) 1 -verarnent upon the present occasion.— them to pass it.—(Cheers.) He was persuaded, that when
see 111„
~/,
—the case of Mary Armstrong•—(Louel cries of "Hear, hear,"
the •• would brO ii',,Of A had derived his first impulse towards they had fuller information upon the subject, y make •
artieularl from Sir Robert Peel.) The principle of equity
.:It4 1k -ondnet from the consideration of the prin. that demand. A very great prejudice. existed in the public Particularly
'that yin an original trust, every subsequent donation,
til)'`.'ll" lint° others as you 11 they should do
wou (
li 1114ti(iear, objects of the Bill and the Lady Hewley case. There was a • •
es ~,111.1 action . )—a principle so just, that no theoio-
-1 trust, so that the consequence was, that any subse-
origma.
i .f
family resemblance in all such cases, but he thought he
lar''ipi eeesie4 Could be put in competition with it.
shouldsort
beborrieout by al lawyers, when he' said there was a
quent grant would apply to that trust. But what was casecongregationthe
tej alit' , "-ered the tenure bY which time Church of Mary Armstrong, who became a teacher of a
to
ve 'mid h e b-oad and essential distinction between Lady Hewley's case la
18C6 ; .her husband died in 1839. A small fund was eon-
') re her funds •
t,i t.t,_
.) g,o_ and her property, he could and the general mass of cases to which this Bill applied.— tributed by too Unitarians. The bequest came before Lord
14,4 p ,a.:',11. he ii!ld for her holding possession of that (Hear, hear.) Lady liewley was a foundress ; she was a Plunkett,' who was the son of a distinguished Arian minister,
I% 'NI, kllt in did not, acknowledge the principle of de- person who devised a large portion of her property upon trust She had four daughters' and found it difficult to main-
N7lelrlsii"ad beenreligion. (Hear.) Large sums of for a particular purpose. But were the parties who instituted main the painful position ' between decency and destitution.
y ioidsa ltft by cur ancestors for prayers those chapels founders in. the eye of the law?. He apprehendedftil If this Bill was not passed -Mary Armstrong and her four
reeNeare brought
and for other purposes which could not that they were not parties who. devised their property
Undoubtedly
e daughters would be turned ;:iiit, The Right Hon. Baronet had
ale ti
e ,ght within the comprehension of our benefit of others, but for their own purposes._ . felt the force of that case, his good nature kad got the better of
NI setti at,eirtsed, unless we admitted the principle of it was to descend after they themselves had made use of it, but his habitual predilection; and he suggested that a special clause
N 4)• 't 4esPrj °Pruent—(Cheers)—and if they applied he apprehended that there could be no doubt but there was a should be introduced into the Bill. The case of Mary Arm-
-4)• lai neiPl
eat and marked ractical difference between the two cases,
itc, th t pie .e to the Bill before the House, they
gfrh •htof a founder to have his intentions ascertained, re- l
wrong was not a solitary instance, hundreds of clergymen
be deprived of their subsistence if thepresent Bill did
1144144 tit(' coneli.t would lead to the same conclusions. spotted, and preserved, was a right entirely different in its na-, •
nwontupdass into a law. The Bill did not interfere with express
kß4itajt,,,i e.lsretk'staiaons were even still more forcible, as ture from that possessed by persons who associated together to trusts. If a donor made a specific declarationofhis opinion,
ttrietPt.hirlgh
_ft nt Dissenters, who stood up for the form a body, of which they themselves were the first members, no matter however fantastical, a court of equity, centuries after-
tikt‘te ant esh `'..l Private judgment, than they were and who were to he replenished in the ordinary and natural wards, would carry it into effect; but if the trusts were not
"a till Nrl ° "id not ad •private • de-way. In the of Lady Howley it could not be said that
tti 4 41 Y the
.. mit the right of itt e . case. . . .
if they ,
expressed,
in were the subject of surmise and
a,4 et, . easa , actin
ofthe foundress.
0 extent.—(Hear.) Ile believed there were no intimations of the intentions
the' ltrk le wetild have been b let for- She made reference to the Astles' Creed, the Ten Corn-
j A ke it bee never rougof uninterupted possession, in that case alonehßill
, the present
114,11elee.aerai Dior one case of gross abuse. That mandments, and the Lords' Prayer. He hoped, therefore, would operate, and iniquitous litigation would e put do*n.—
reiti Y et7llted t ise of our legislation. Bad lawsthe Bill
that Honourable Gentlemen would consider (Hear, hear.) The Bill was not confined to Unitarians, it
14 Ny..e',P-red u lie dorm-int 'I apart from the case of Lady Hewley. lie wouldpass •
did not make them the special object of favour. There was a
until some case of grievous
41°, e tee , tuid then '
by, for a moment,' the question, whether these parties cry against them at one time, but they would not hunt a UM-
lie4•kteavil beiiev__, en they endeavoured to provide a
were founders or not, only observing, that if they were tarian when they had a Papist for game.—(Laughter ) But
ctkik Iv hitAaiiih, `-'". that there were many laws of a not it would be impossible to make out a breach of trust. Even now the spirit was abroad that a Socinian should be" hunted
IA Jay k_a w,ire Ptnal character against Roman Ca- if there were a breach of trust, he should have to consider the down ...4 Hear, hear.) The object of the Bill was to give pro-
alli lit Cecina Permitted to ' 1 our statute length of time during which the chapels had been held, the un-
remain neon .
tection' to all classes. All were placed upon a -
le 'tie efore se they
perfect level.
lie had doubted innocency of the present generation, and the long • tinctions that were supposed to exist betwe n
11. ob. g•
1,( the p were never acted upon. . . , . . • • - The distinctions •• • c PresbY.
r'a(ittoitqtth rlalties 1°1,50 the existence of' the law period during which Unitarian opinions had prevailed. He terians and Unttarians in Ireland were erroneous. The Con-
Nie tl On s upon persons who did not go would have to consider that they bad the lineage and descent of formers, taking advantage of the decision in Lady Hewley's case,
lel, .1e 11.1 e unclues and • •
would the original institutions of these chapels; he would have to
Ile ill it overatu_, , it the House
and disagreeing with the Nonconformers, took a court of equity
consider the insuerable difficulty of finding a claimant with
t'l Or 14N. WULlid b e to carry the. Ecclesiastical .
as the stage on which to deprive them of apostolic consolation,
ty .141, inn , 0 found tl •by • • the Itheand he
a good tit eto property ;
—(Hear, hear.) This Bill, then,does
not interfere with
Itete 1, tme Nod. h_ . that that nie:istue to
give offence to any man, that he would have
Lit, he e asare t e lepealed.— (Hear.) 7 hey owed consider that for one hundred years, while Unitarian express_
1,,`.!0 4Of 4rlclu • o the ease of Lad .11 . .1 s •.' Cha- to • •that the Hon. M h
Church. Strange
ete,k the ho le_ slen or that ' )c" ''Y s ' opinions had prevailed in these. chapels, the class of persons of Oxford—not indeed in this House the visible head ef the
ttiNli forges,,,', .5 than forta" case had been followed b
Y ; who now came forward
in
themselves the right- Church, but its fearless, undaunted; and dauntless champion—
(ll,,e
arti the Gov y different suits, and such I ful possessors, had endured in silence the breach of trust, and had should have thought its,
his duty to interfere in a case wherein
kt, t,.,r,,t Witt,the pre., ernrnent could not do less than I fought side by side with them in the acquisition of civil liberty. the Church has no concern. From the vantage ground of
ttiii.) It't it no, a!'nt Bid, and he hoped they would ' lie said, therefore, that if there haul been a breach of trust the
i twithst• •
most painful and difficult deseri tion. But truth—if I may venture to use an expression employed by Lord
lel t tia till, ad bee anding all the opposition.— case was one of a
P • s Bacon in translating a passage of Lucretius—which time Right
of the "eeee 4 stated that had there been a breach of trust ? Had there been any viola-
'ltc. th - "th "se there there was no occasion
, Hen. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
tion of the intentions of the
~ d i ei,, .er bis..: was not ally intention on the
of the but tnent a few nights ago so happily quoted—all Dissenters should
; ti.,ee Caebapos aiters to wrest from the Unitarians doors was not to argue the intentions..this founders, to be seen with equal disregard. If then the Right Hon. Baronet
assume them. He would maintain that Bill would 0
eic'lla i Wee bY th, If that were the case what g far would but borrow a little of this philosophical commiseration
oe e net tneasuro ?
If harm
to restore the original intentions of the founders of these
tla ,t Of the ell, Pass d 1 _ some such measure chapels. After all, the question Was one of history, and aif he would look down on us in the spirit expressed by the great
ti, Lie •th -.fleet . e-, .Lot. ti
follower of Epicurus, from his clear and serene elevation of
el, -LIN,, ehr PrOdue .me HOLM marque what very important historical question it was. If they were to orthodoxy—(Laughter)—poor wanderers in the labyrinth of
et e 4 ter r eseln ed in large towns bv'the elect- • important
' 1 li• t • of this matter they would find that
1E 1144 ees(4 theta Pt ussessers from their " - " examine into.t is is my .
ftdoration, there might be some hope of a better understand-
ee, ithe, „naee, ~0 Oth„,__ .
the , tio '
et4le w'lttraart"t sedum :r parties. He believed that , during the seventeenth and eighteenth century q.ies. n principles he breaches are of a somewhat serious tendency.
tiNitta° °hid i. ~ which ,r,a,se pia sympathy in favour was the subject of continual change. Who were the parties into What lam going to suggest to him has occurred to my
'?tee' th,, t,et that 'hl not a present exist. The whose views they were then inquiring? They were not Pres- own consideration from a notice he has given • .
arid., were 1 the Unitarian had
action Robert 11.
t hi,t th beeau vealc, and
the s been oppressed ins rior to the Aet of Toleration. It was about n
byteri p . . .
1 Presbyterian faith h .Harry ng is—te insert in the seventh section
lit ,41.i4. !10. ,h ge parr other Dissenters the year 164.3 that the originae t e words, in the College of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Sltlst,t'late 11_44 arfpo_mentent had not was established, and by the year , 1690
the courage wereto
Iwhethetrhattli is w. veryas ere Winchester," I think the case of William of
iest.it.With 41.'1 berg
ow
_n_t__, that the introduction of foaoitth
awriasimitsp(olrftaaribtapnodionntedfo.r
tteoiar•eohoesiadsea
:Mien ? In the year v4keebheasmte'rs. Collegeis not
Oxford, even stronger ti,an that of
kl.traetia th`nter foreBerctual process, applied, he 120 NI Cotton Mather ICof the it irimage ofthe founder f St. _ _
_he know that William of Wykeham,
454.1). l'rin • e earls, an favour of tl • • 6, r. wrote a istory
~., einl,, ./
.Part f IIS Bill than the Fathers who went to New England. That history con- his life, the Virgin as his peculiar atr nie.s • that h d•
,e gave 1-
94etIti , .7oaci so, • o the last centure-, the contained an address, written by Robins, one of the Fathers
nk h„,,. slisinuated it .
rections for a ritual to be performedP • ' -
in honour of the
- esaeles, but into _ ielt, rot only amoug who went over, and which address was written to the planters and that her statue should be placed in some high spot, Virgin,
the Church itself; that in the colony, and in that address the writer advocated change opnspicuous intimation of his regard ?—( Hear, hear, and
•

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

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 !Varies 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 new 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 I—(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 e.quity 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 of jurisprudence—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 those who allow so small a participation of liberty,
should themselves demand so large a measure 1—( Hear, hear.)
They, whose ancestors suffered persecution to the death for 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 intolermice, reading it by that lurid light
with which Geneva was illuminated when Servetus was con-
sumed 1—( 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 respect to the justice of
the principles on which the Bill was fourated,- that he and his
colleagues were prepared to make every other consideration
subordinate to the fulfilment of the duty which it appeared to
them was imposed on 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.
the doctrine of the
3's because the law as
ittioenxsis;tetdh,eytowldertehoembligiefdthtoeydceoalntgreanveernaedll
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 not 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 was 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 matter.
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 ill 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 oppositiori 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 hie 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 establishment 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 as bitrator 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 hlasters 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 tae public courts.—(Cheers.) Not-
withstandingßill, notwithstanding the imputations cast on their re-
ligious belief and opinion, he believed after the lapse of a time
the obloquy cast on those who supported the
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 tolerant even of the error,'
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 beard a case
in which the arguments were 'so overwhelming on one side.—
( Hear, hear.) He 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 Bill 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 his place, and bestowing that
lucid argument on every subject which he took up—(Cheers)
—it was scarcely necessary to hear the brilliant speeches' of his
Right Hun. Friend near him and the Right for.. Gentleman
opposite. The Hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford -had
treated this subject as one of property, but it was not so treated
in the petitions sent to that House, and he observed that the
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-
perty, let it be thrown out on that ground, but sot on the
ground that it was by others giving support to a dangerous
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
law-suits were more numerous, and the ultimate
decision would involve much greater confusion. A
question as to the right heir to property was a ques-
tion between individuals, and if one individual were
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
in uninterrupted possession—if the property were taken
from them by the decisions of the courts of
equity, there was no person to whom it could pro-
perly be transferred. The consequence would be endless liti-
gation, including the discussion of various creeds, and the
representation of what had been the opinions of various
religious sects. He said, then, that the Bill was entitled to
support, as tending to settle the question of property.—
( Hear, hear.) Ho had already said that he would not add
anything to what had been already so ably stated, He
give his cordial support to the Bill.—(Cheers.) should
Lord SANDON rose amidst loud cries of " Divide." He
said he merely rose to suggest that while they were snaking the
usage of a number of years the interpreter of the founder's in-
tention, they should take care not to bind 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 8i11......... 307
Against it ••• 117
Majority in favour of the ......... --.193
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 Cern-
mittee, and was ordered to be reported this day.
Comm
The
ittee. Limitation of Actions (Ireland)
Bill went through

the principle of the Bill being discussed on going into
Committee.
Ie answer 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-reli,f in each union and parish not
united under the Poor-law Amendment Act in England and
Wale., 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 value 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 to 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 wannest 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 Vassilichikoff 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, Verulam, 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. ileathcote, J. Gerard. llonourables--11. bus,
G. Anson, S. Herbert, A. Paulett, G. Fitzroy, Cecil Forester,
Chas. Forester. H. Forester, Boyle, F. Villiers. J. Villiers,
11. Pitt. Generals—Grosvenor, Wemyss. Colonels—Peel,
Challenor, Bouverie, Knox. Messrs.—Greville, Payne, S.
Stanley, J. Stanley, Batson, Newton, Neville, Shelley, Sheri-
dan, Marten, Bastard, Bouverie, &c., &c.
Lord Exeter's party at Buckhurst 'consisted of the Dukes
of Montrose, Rutland, and Bedford, Earl of Stradbroke, lion.
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 Coronation, 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 agst Skeleton. The run-
ning was made by Skeleton, Charlotte waiting; at the Stand
they closed, and ran a line 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 100/. 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 2
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 Scannentado,
Mr. J. Minor's Birdswing, Mr. May's Corinthian Tom, Lord
dam by Blacklock, and Lord G
BReTtliYnnck's'sfPbu3icel,rejain'

Betting-2 to 1 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
tthnel reserveorse
some heavy
on Wednesday, and on doing so instructed him to run a
`o a cfecro u
whichn t to s
hequarter of a mile, and " get a taste of Old England," and then
to pull him up ; ‘
engagementsn
ihe n,"
sd
him
(the Derby and St. Leger, besides several others). Bell com-
municated his orders to one of his masters, the same evening,
no
turf, whose opinions coincided with the determination he had
previously made, viz., to do his best to win; how effectually
lie carried out his intentions we have already shown. The
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 SON'S. 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. Heathcoters 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 sm.
each, with 200 added from the Fund; the second to receive
50 soya. out of the stakes; three yrs old, 6st 101 b; four,
Bst 51b; 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 nomford 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 ; iu this position he waited to within three or four strides
of the chair, and then making his effort, surprised owner,
trainer, jockey; spect.atots 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 Gup last year with Ralph.
The Grand Stand Plate of 501., added to a Sweepstakes of 5
sovs. each. Once round and a distance. (11 Subs.)
Lord Albemarle's Delapre, 3 yrs, 6st 131b...(Whitehouse) 1
Lord Exeter's Maria Diaz, 4 yrs, ist 61b
Sir G. Heathcote's f by Velocipede, out of Miss Wilfred, .
3 yrs, sst 41b
Sir R. Bulkeley's m by Bay Middleton, out of Adriana, 5
yrs, :Bst 71b
Captain Martyn's Emilian, 5 yrs, 7st 101 b
Mr. Wally's Ellen, 5 yrs, ist 61b 0
Mr. Jaques' Advice, 3 yrs, sst 51b 0
Mr. Reeves' Tarquin, 4 yrs, 7st 41b . 0
7 t 0.4 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 sows. each, h ft ; for three years old.
Old mile. (18 Subs.)
Colonel Peel's Orlando

STATISTICS OF THE ASCOT GOLD CUP.
Yesterday was the thirty7seventh 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 Jacket'. 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 off the
prize, there were twenty-seven entries, and ten started. His
late Royal Highness the Duke of 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 Wood was a
winner three years in succession, in ]B3O, with Lucetta
(Robinson), 1831, Celus (Robinson), and 1832 Camarineasa
(Robinson). The Marquis of Westminster; likewise, was
winner two successive years, and on • each occasion with
Touchstone, the celebrated stallion. The Earl of Chester-
, ' twice won, in 1834, as before stated, with Glaucus, and
new with ingaree ; likewise Lord Darlington, in 1823,
in 1829 ~ ' -s.. and in 1827 with Memnon. Among•other
with Marcella., enortin characters," well known on
tC noblemen and —rfed e this regal prize with their
the turf," who ha.;:o
"high-mettled racers,'l may. be named the Marquis of
r.

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