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

WAR-OFFICE, JUNE 7.

Ist Dragoon Guards—Lieutenant G. W. C. Jackson to be
Captain, by purchase, vice Turnor, who retires; Cornet P. S.
Thompson to be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Jackson, June 7.
6th Dragoons—C. Tower, Gent., to be Cornet, by pur-
ehase, vice Fitzwygram, promoted, June 7.
11th Light Dragoons—Captain 1. Jones to be Major, by
purchase, vice Rotton, promoted ; Lieutenant B. Harrison to
be Captain, by purchase, vice Jones ; Cornet G. T. Dun-
combo to be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Harrison, June 7.
14th Regiment of Foot—F. Fortescue, Gent., to be Ensign,
by purchase, vice Swinburne, appointed to the 83d Foot,
June 7.

15th Foot—Quartermaster R. Imray, from 83d Foot, to be
Quartermaster, vice Cartmsil, who exchanges, June 7.
36th Foot—Captain W. T. R. Brady, from half-pay Unat-
tached, to be Captain, vice Brevet Major W. H. Adams, who
exchanges; Lieut. P. L. M*Dougall to be Captain, by pur-
chase, vice Brady, who retires ; Ensign J. A. Brockman to be
Lieutenant, by purchase, vice M‘Dougall ; D. Tom, Gent., to
be Ensign, by purchase, vice Brockman, June 7.
41st Foot—A. E. Hardinge, Gent., to be Ensign, by pur-
chase, vice Wethered, promoted, June 7.

56th Foot—Capt, Sir W. Maxwell, Bart., from half-pay
Unattached, to be Captain, vice John Charlewood, who ex-
changes ; Lieut. L. C. Conran to be Coptain, by purchase, vice
Sir W. Maxwell, who retires • Ensign F. M. Ramsay to be
Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Conran ; H. C. Lanauze, Gent.,
to be Ensign, by purchase, vice Ramsay, June 7.
61st Foot—Lieut. F. Huson, from the Ist West India Regi-
ment, to be Lieutenant, vice Dobson, who exchanges, June 7.
85th Foot—Lieut. D. W. P. Labalmondiere to be Captain,
by purchase, vice Emslie, who retires ; Ensign J. W. Walling-
ton to be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Labalmondiere ; Ensign
J. D. Swinburne, from the 14th Foot, to be Ensign, vies Wal-
lington ; Ensign and Quartermaster J. Cartmail, from 15th
Foot, to be Quartermaster, vice Imray, who exchanges, June 7.
87th Foot—Captain Henry Thomas Earl of Chichester, from
half-pay Unattached, to be Captain, vice C. T. Graves, who
exchanges; Lieutenant Radcliff to be Captain, by purchase,
vice the Earl of Chichester, who retires; Second Lieutenant
W. H. Taylor to be First Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Radcliff;
J. Fitz Gerald, Gent., to be Second Lieutenant, by purchase,
vice Taylor, June 7.
Ist West India Regiment—Lieut. T. J. Dobson, from the
61st Foot, to be Lieutenant, vice Huson, who exchanges;
J. Rose, Gent., to be Ensign, without purchase, vice Spratt,
who resigns. June 7.
UNATTACHED.—Brevet Lieutenant-Colonel J. R. Rotton,
from the II th Light Dragoons, to be Lieutenant-Colonel, by
purchase; Brevet Lieutenant-Colonel J. Crosse, from Major
half-pay Unattached, to be Lieutenant-Celonel, without pur-
chase ; Brevet Lieutenant-Colonel Sir F. Watson, from Cap-
tain half-pay Portuguese Service, to be Major, without pur-
ehase, June 7.

HOSPITAL STAFF.--Surgeon W. W. Bell, M.D. from the
26th Foot, to be Staff-Surgeon of the First Class, vice J.
French, M.D., who retires upon half-pay, Jnne 7.
BREVET.—Captain W. S. R. Brady, of the 36th Foot, to
be Major in the Army, June 28, 1838; Captain H. T. Earl of
Chichester, of the 87th Foot, to be Major in the Army,
Nov. 23.

MEMORANDUM.—The date of the commission of Ensign
Richard Maclaine, in the 78th Foot, to be 31st May, 1843,
instead of Bth April, 1842.
Lieutenant-Colonel Manley Dixon, upon half-pay unattached,
has been allowed to retire from the army, with the sale of an
unattached lieutenant-colonelcy, he having become a setler in
Canada, June 7.

Commission by the Lord Lieutenant of Northumberland.
Northumberland and Newcastle Yeomanry Cavalry—R. C.
Bewicke, Gent., to be Cornet, vice Cookson, promoted,
May 24.

CORT OF ER.
Trinity Term. In the seventhXyear of t U
he Reign of Queen
Victoria.
Thursday, June 6.—This Court will, on Tuesday the 18th
day of June instant, and on the following days—namely, Wed-
nesday the 19th, Thursday the 20th, Friday the 21st, and
Saturday the 22d days of the same month, hold sittings, and
will proceed in disposing of the business then pending in the
new trial and special papers.--By the Court.
Read in open Court, June 7,1644, SAML. DARE, Master.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
TRINITY TERM—In the seventh year of the reign of Queen
Victoria, June 6,1844—This Court will, on Saturday the 29th
day of June instant, hold a sitting, and will proceed to give
judgment in cases that stand over for the judgment of the Court.
N.
WHITEHALL, MAy 31. C. TINDAL.
The Lord Chanceller has appointed Henry Coare Kingsford,
of Canterbury, in the county of Kent, Gent., to be a Master
Extraordinary in the High Court of Chancery.
BANKRUPTS.
JOSEPH LEVET, carpenter, Soham, Cambridgeshire,
June 20 and July 25, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
Amw
Turquell-terand, oracefficial assignee, Old Jewry-chambers; Wilkin,
JAMES BATTEN, sheep-dealer, Tilehnrst, Berkshire,
to surrender June 20, at half.past twelve, and July 25, at
Cole-
man-street, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Graham, official assignee,
man-street, London; Hill and Ce,.: ,Throgmorton-street,
London.

JAMES YOUNG, laceman, Aldermanbury, June 20, and
July 25, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Graham,

official assignee, Coleman-street ; Wilson, Aldermanbury ;
Soles, Aldermanbury.
WILLIAM BARNES, bonnet maker, Ludgate-hill, June
14, at half-past twelve, and July 19, at twelve, at the Court of
Bankruptcy. Groom, official assignee, Abchurch-lane, Lom-
bard-street : Teague, Crown-court, Cheapside.
GEORGE FIELDING, ironmonger, Thame, Oxfordshire,
June 21, and July 12, at two, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
Foster, official assignee, Abchurch-lane, Lombard-street;
Tippetts, Pancras-lane, City.
JAMES BA RGUS WILLIAM KNIGHT, printer, St-
James's-walk, Clerkenwell, June 18. at one, and July 9, at
eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Johnson, official assignee,
Basinghall-street ; Green, Basinghall- street.
WILLIAM TURNER, builder, Manchester, June 19 and
July 10, at the Manchester District Court. Pott, official as-
signee; Chester, Toulmin, and Chester, Staple-inn, London;
Chapman and Roberts, Manchester.
JAMES LINTHWAITE SAIITII, cebinet-maker' June
18, and July 23, at one, at the
.Birmingham District Court.
Valpy, official assignee Birmingham; Brown and Palmer,
Leicester.
GEORGE JENKINSON, butcher, Wolverhampton, June
15 and July 18, at eleven, at the Birmingham District Court.
Bittleston, official assignee, Birmingham ; Clark, Wolver-
hampton ' • Smith, Birmingham.
JOHN PARKER, corn miller, Hull, June 17 and July 10,
at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Freeman, official as-
signee, Leeds ; Tilson and Squance, Coleman-street, London ;
Wells's, Hull ; Horsfall and Harrison, Leeds.
:IMEON HARTLEY SPENCE, maltster, Leeds, June
22, and July 18, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Hope,
official assignee, Leeds ; Milton, Southampton-buildings,
Chancery-lane, London; Dunning and Stawman, Leeds.
NOTICES OF INSOLVENCY.

T. Paragreen, foreman, jun., Richmond-street, Maida-hill.
J. Enoch, jun., upholsterer, Leamington Priors.
J. Barker, baker, Richmond-buildings, Brighton.
W. Roberts, coal merchant, Bangor.
J. Rae, Toxteth-park.
P. Doran, Blundell-street, Liverpool.
J. Thompson, innkeeper, Peterborough.
T. Hall, butcher, Great Ashby, Leicestershire.
J. P. Hillhouse, tea dealer, Bedford.
J. Williams, silk weaver, Bethnal-green.
J. Rees, manufacturer of pills, Leckhampton, Gloucestershire.
J. S. Harvey, traveller, City-gardens, Islington.
T. Lee, licenced victualler, !Millwood, Yorkshire.
A. Gray, miller, Long Ashton, Somersetshire.
E. Middle, jnn., butter dealer, West-by-Water, Somersetshire.
W. Mace, victualler, Worcestershire.
T. Dale, Provision dealer, Chesterfield, Derbyshire.
C. George, maltster, Worcestershire.
C. Cheetham, hatter, Pimlico.
B. B. Wilson, surgeon, Holme, Westmoreland.
J. Mitchell, wheelwright, High-street, Vauxhall.
W. Basford, engineer, Ratcliffe-highway.
F. W. Cole, builder, Hammersmith.
P. Hillen, warehouseman, Shepperton Cottages, Islington.
PRICE OF SUGAR.
The Average Price of Brown or Muscovado Sugar, for the
week ending June 4, 1844, is; 355. 9id. per cwt., exclusive
of the Duties of Customs paid or payable thereon on the im
portation thereof into Great Britain.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Their Lordships assembled at Five o'Clock.
Lord PORTMAN presented a petition from Somerset, com-
plaining of the existing fees to clerks •f the peace and magis-
trates' clerks.

Earl 13ROWNLOW presented petitions from Yorkshire
against any alteration in the corn-laws.
The Marquis of NORMANBY gave notice that on Monday
he should present two petitions on the subject on the subject
of the law relating to coursing ; and on that day he should put
a question to the Government as to whether they would object
to any alteration in those laws.
The Duke of RICHMOND expressed a hope that the Noble
Marquis would postpone his question till Thursday, when he
(the Duke of Richmond) should be enabled to lay a case of
considerable hardship before their Lordships.
The Marquis of NORMANBY said he would do so.
HOLYHEAD RAILWAY.
The Marquis of NORMANBY, at the request of the Earl
of Wicklow, postponed his motion for a Committee on this
railway till Monday.
ENDOWMENT OF SCHOOLS BILL.

On the motion for the colnmittal of this Bill,
The Bishop of SALISBURY opposed the Bill, on the
ground, that the Bench of Bishops had not been consulted
upon it.

The motion was then postponed (as we understood.)
VISIT OF THE KING OF SAXONY.
At twenty minutes past Five o'clock, his Majesty the King
of Saxony entered the House, and took his seat opposite to
the Bench of Bishops, and near to the Woolsack ; a chair
having been previously placed for his Majesty's accommoda-
tion. The House was, at this time, exceedingly
crowded, both by Peers and strangers. Two ladies were in
the House, the lady of Lord Lnrgan, and the Noble
Lord's daughter. His Majesty the King of Saxony appeared
to pay particular attention to the proceedings in the House,
but we did not observe him converse with any Noble Lord,
with the exception of exchanging a few words with the Marquis
of Londonderry. Shortly after his Majesty entered the House,
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he wished to know if the
Noble Lord near him (Lord Monteagle), who had a
notice on the paper with respect to the Corn-laws, would
have any objection to postpone it to a future day, as it would
be inconvenient to the Government, on this evening, to
have it brought on.
Lord MONTEAGLE expressed his surprise at the request
which had been made to him. He was perfectly ready
either to
.bring on the motion or to postpone it. But
other Noble Lords might not be in a position to wish for its
postponement, inasmuch as the motion had already been re-
peatedly postponed; and those Noble Lords might complain
that he had not acted with firnmess and resolution, if he con-
sented to postpone his motion. Ho thought there was that
which the House ought to consult before private convenience,
and that was the public interesi. —( Hear, hear. )
The Duke of WELLINGTON was nnderstood to say, that
if .he had had the opportunity, he would have informed the
Noble Lord, that it was the wish of her Majesty's Govern-
ment that this motion should be postponed.
Lord MONTEAGLE said, that he would postpone the mo-
tion provided it were understood that it should be brought for-
ward on Monday next.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE was understood to say that
he hoped there would be no objection to the motion being
brought on on Monday.
Lord BROUGHAM said he had come down to the House
to attend to the motion of his Noble Friend, and he hoped
that the postponement of that motion would not be made a
precedent.

Lord CAMPBELL thought that all inconvenience might be
obviated by their Lordships returning to the old system of
meeting at eight o'clock in the morning.—( Hear, and a laugh.)
The Duke of WELLINGTON would have no objection to
come to the House at eight o'clock in the morning ; but he
thought that Noble and Learned Lords—(A laugh)—who had
other business to attend to, and who were younger that he was,
would find it very inconvenient to come down to the
House at eight o'clock.—( Hear, hear, and a laugh.)
He had no objection to Monday, or any other day, for the
Noble Lord's motion.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord MONTEAGLE said that it would perhaps be as well
to postpone his motion to Thursday next.
The Gold and Silver Wares Bill was read a third time and
passed.

The Duke of RICHMOND presented petitions from
Worthing, Shoreham, and other places in Sussex, in favour of
agricultural Protection.
The Earl of RODEN presented a number of petitions from
the north of Ireland in favour of Presbyterian marriages.
The house then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
ARMY IN INDIA.
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock, and in-
formed the House that he had received a letter from the
Governor-General of India, acknowledging the thanks of the
House, which were given on the2oth February last to the army
in India.

DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL.
Petitions against this Bill were presented by Mr. Shaw from
Ireland ; Mr. Barnard, Deptford; Sir R. H. Inglis, Mr. Boyd,
places in Ireland ; Mr. W. 0. Stanley, Anglesey ; Mr. Tre-
lawney, from Tavistock ; Sir C. Douglas, the Earl of Hills-
borough, from Down; and by Mr. Stafford O'Brien.
Mr. BUTLER presented petitions in favour of the Bill
from the city and county of Kilkenny, and in doing so said he
was now obliged to act as Member for both the city and county
of Kilkenny, on account of the incarceration of Mr. John
O'Connell.
Mr. SHARMAN CR AWFORD presented petitions in fa..
your of the Dissenters' Chapels Bill, from the Roman Catholic
inhabitants of KiJcoun, Duncormack, and Killog, county
Wexford; Donoughcloney and Newtownards, county Down;
Ballymoney, county Antrim; Raphoe, county Donegal;
Dunsbaughlin, county Meath ; and Bough, county London-
derry ; and from the inhabitants of various religious denomina-
tions residing in Cromlin, county Antrim, and Saintfield and
Ballymullen, county Down. Also a petition from the
Blackwater Congregation of Rochdale to the same effect.
Also eight petitions against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill from
different bodies of Wesleyan Methodists in Rochdale, signed
by upwards of 500 names.

MAIL WAYS.
The Ashton, Staleynridge, and Liverpool Railway Bill;
the Sheffield, Ashton-under-Lyne, and Manchester Railway
Bill; the Edinburgh, Leith, and Granton Railway Bill, were
severally read a third time and passed.
NOTICES OF MOTIONS.
Mr. TRELAWNEY gave notice that on an early day he
would propose to the House a measure for relieving her Ma-
jesty's subjects of the Jewish persuasion from civil disabilities.
Mr. SHAW gave notice that he would move the substitution
of a possession of sixty years instead of twenty-five years in the
Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
PARISHES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On the motion that the House resolve itself into a Committee
of the whole House on the Scotch. Parishes Bill)
Mr. DUNCAN APNEILL said that he thought it right
to state what WM the object of the Government in
proposing this Bill. The Bill did not introduce any
new principle into the law of Scotland. It had for its
object to facilitate the division of parishes in Scotland.
By the law as it now existed, the patronage of a new parish
belonged to the patron of the old one; hut where other par-
ties bore the burden of erecting the new parish church,
it seemed but reasonable that some other provision
should be made, saving) of course, the rights of the heritors.
As the law at present stood, there was not any power of attach-
ing districts to churches, which had been erected in parishes,
without the consent of the heritors. Parties willing to erect
churches, and to provide endowments for their supprt, and for
the. support of the ministers, had at present no
power to erect them into distinct parishes. There was no
power anywhere existing for that purpose. The Church
of Scotland at one time believed it had that power, and had
exercised it, but when the matter was brought before the
courts of law, it was decided on an appeal to the House of
Peers that the Church had no such power. The pre-
sent Bill gave a power, in such cases, to attach
a district to the church, and to erect it into a separate parish,
without the consent of the heritors, who, as they were not
called upon to contribute, had certainly no right to interfere
capriciously to deprive persons of that religious instruc-
tion for which they were themselves willing to pay.
Some of the petitions against the Bill proceeded upon the erro-
neous impression that the Bill was intended to give power to
certain individuals who had contributed towards the erection of
churches, and who still continued in communion with the Church
of Scotland, to take possession of these churches, notwithstand-
ing the opposition of persons who had likewise con-
tributed towards their erection, but who were not mern-
hers of the Church. The Bill contained no such provisions.
Ttliheie dcißill did not set k to make any demands on the public
tfunds. Its objecLas he said before, was to give facilities for
vt rei oc
of parishesuld
be:any ; and
objection su ch bteoi n
gg ii
nt agobject
cob (slut
tnt
eoet
upon it.
blr. FOX
AIAULE thOught that some necessity should at
least be shown for brings, o
in this Bill, r on
the subjeet at all.
Hl-;, as spoken of died, f
i'jo 3g pares. The first clause of the Bill trenched
soi.Verrhat on the

right of property. He admitted there were some points
which created alarm in Scotland, and which were made
clear by the Learned Lord Advocate. There was no ob-
jection to what was proposed with regard to giving the
staters of ministers to those who directed the forty
churches in the Highlands of Scotland. There
was no objection to giving the status of parish ministers to the
minis-ere of great towns. His main objection to the Bill was
that it was unnecessary, and therefore he should propose that
the Bill be committed this day six months.
The amendment having been put,
Mr. P. M. STEWART said that this was a far more im-
portant Bill than its title seemed to indicate. It was one of the
most extraordinary and unaccountable attempts at legislation
that ever was made in the House. It was, in fact, a Bill for
church extension, and a Bill for this purpose was introduced at
a time when a great secession had taken place from the Esta-
blished Church of Scotland. How would English Members
like to have such a Bill proposed for England, if a secession
took place in England. But more emphatically he put the
question to Irish Members on both sides of the House, who
had experience of what it was to possess churches without con-
gregations. The Hon. Gentleman then went on to object to
several of the details of the measure. He thought there was a
salutary tendency in the law to prevent persons indulging in
their charitable propensities at the expense of their successors.
There was no precedent for a Bill of this description. Why
should they offer these facilities for the extension of a church
which was already much too large for the wants of those be-
longing to it, while they offered no such facilities to the real
Church of Scotland—the Free Church. They gave permis-
sion to take lands for railroads. They were now giving per-
mission to take lands for the purpose of extending the Esta-
blished Church. How would they treat an application or the
part of the Free Church to take lands—
(At this period of the Hon. Member's speech his Majesty the
King of Saxony entered the House. His Majesty occupied
the seat of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and appeared to pay great
attention to the proceedings.
Soon after the King of Saxony entered the House, Sir
Robert Peel went up. to his Majesty, and entered into conversa-
tion with him. No interruption, however, took place in the
proceedings of the House, and the debate proceeded as though
his Majesty had not been present.)
He believed the object of the Bill was to restore Dr. M'Leod
to the status of a parish minister. He had a great respect for
Dr• lll4Leod personally; but he made himself exceedinily con-
spicuous when the Right Hon. Baronet ( Sir It. Peel) visited
Glasgow some years back, and the general belief was that
the main object of this Bill was to restore this gentleman to
position of a parish minister.
Mr. HUME was sorry that this Bill had been introduced.
It was quite unnecessary, as five hundred new chapels had
been erected in Scotland within the last eighteen months.
It was also contrary to all sound principle, and he
thought the object of its introduction was to call off
attention from more important qu. stions.—( Laughter. ) He
should give it all the opposition in his power.
Mr. E. ELLICE, jun., said he would oppose the Bill as
nothing less than a confiscation of property.—(Hear.)
He had heard nothing to show a necessity for this Bill. There
were many churches in Scotland which had no congregations,
and it was perfectly unjustifiable to bring in this measure for
the support,f the deserted church.
Mr. WAELACE could not be persuaded that the object:of
the measure was not to bring the people of Scotland to think
less of their new free church than they did. There was already
plenty of space (and to spare) in the churches of the Establish-
ment, and it was to the new church the patronage of the
Government should be extended, although he himself was
still a member of the old church. —( A laugh.)
The effect of the measure would be to divide the people of
Scotland, and to create dissensions amongst them, upon that
very theme, the national religion, upon which they had been so
much united. He supported the amendment.—( Hear. )
Sir JAMES GRAHAM was surprised that the Hon. Gen-
tleman who had just sat down could say that the Bill was
brought in with objects which had not been avowed. The
Hon. Gentleman ought at least to give his grounds for
that statemet.—( Hear, hear.) The principle of the measure
was not Erastian—it was a principle which had been always
upheld in the best times of the Scotch Church.
[LEFT SITTING.'

COMMONS INCLOSURE BILL.
( A portion of the following was omitted in our Thigd Edition
last night.)
On the Order of the Day for going into Committee on
the Commons Inclosure Bill being read,
Lord WORSLEY apologised to the House for
having kept the Members so long in suspense with
regard to this measure, in consequence of his indispo-
sition; but he was still very anxious to proceed with
the measure, because several parties had been
put to inconvenience by the delay. He had
that day, however, had a communication from
the Government with respect to this Bill, and he found
that, though favourable to it generally, her Majesty's
Government wished it to be materially altered. He
would therefore suggest that those Hon. Members who
were opposed to the Bill would withdraw their opposi-
tion, and allow the Bill to be committed pro forma; he
would then fix another day for proceeding with it, after
having communicated with the Commissioners of Woods
and Forests as to the alterations that would be required.
He hoped the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman opposite
would not feel it necessary to persevere in his opposition
on the preSJnt occasion, but that he would permit the
Bill to go into Committeeproforma.
Colonel SIBTHORP said that no one could regret
more sincerely than he did the indisposition of the Noble
Lord. He had put down 46 clauses in this Bill,
on each of which he was determined to take
the sense of the House. He protested against the Bill
as a measure calculated to effect serious injury to that
class which the House was most bound to protect. But
as the Noble Lord had expressed a wish to have the Bill
committed pro forma, for the purpose, as he understood,
of expunging some of the clauses—and among them,
perhaps, the 46 clauses to which he objected—he (Col.
Sibthorp) would not object to the Bill being committed
pro forma, if the Hon. Member for Montrose did not
object. If, however, the lion. Member for Montrose
persevered in his opposition, he (Colonel Sibthorp)
should undoubtedly support him in it.
Mr. lIUME said it was not often that he agreed with
the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman, but he did so on the
present occasion. This Bill had been brought in without
due consultation with the public authorities of the coun-
try. The Bill would require a great deal of pruning
before it could be made even passable. Such a
measure as this ought to be a Government
measure.—(" Hear, hear" from Colonel Sibthorp.) It
was a Bill that would affect the whole country, and if
passed it would be a great injustice to the labouring
classes. Already had 2,000 Inclosure Bills been passed,
and the only effect of them had been to give an additional
quantity of land to the squirearchy of the country. No
one could be more willing than he would be to support
any measure of the Noble Lord's (Lord Worsley's), be-
cause he knew the Noble. Lord was actuated by the
best intentions.—(Hear, hear.) But all the best
lard of the country had been already inclosed, and
there was no necessity for new powers to enable persons
to inclose land which was worth cultivating. He hoped
the Noble Lord would withdraw the Bill for the present
session; as he could assure him that the working
classes throughout the country looked upon the measure
with great suspicion. If there was any necessity for in-
creased powers of inclosure, let the Government take
the matter into their own hands.
supported
dteadt athfuetußriells.tagnee.
Lord SANDON recommended that the Bill should be
allowed to pass through Committee pro forma, and that
Mr. AGLIONIIY believed
that the interests of the poorer classes would be much
the details might be disscuupsps
better protected under it than they were at present.—
(Hear, hear.) He thought the more land that was inclosed
and brought into cultivation would be pro tante an ad-
vantage to the working classes. He knew himself a
neighbourhood is which, by the system of inclosing,
much good had been done. Those who wanted work
were amply supplied with it. They had draining and
planting, and other work of a similar character, and the
result will, that what had been an uncultivated waste,
was now well laid out as arable land or in plantations.
He hoped, therefore, that the Noble Lord would proceed
with his Bill.

Mr. HENRY BERKELEY thought that the Bill gave
the Commission such arbitrary powers as were never
given to a Commission before. Was he to be told that
the poorer classes were to depend upon any Commission
for the liberty of taking their wives and families out for
the exercise that was absolutely necessary for health and
comfort? The Bill introduced by the Noble Lord last
year would never have passed to a second reading had
it not been for the very remarkable language of the
Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth. He
had many objections to the Bill ; he said that it was
very bad in many points, but he said also that the Noble
Lord had expended a very great deal of industry upon it,
and that the House might therefore allow it to pass the
second reading.—(Hear, hear.) Ho did not question
the Noble Lord's industry, but he thought there were
other Members in that House whose zeal had not been
similarly rewarded. He would say to the Noble Lord
that before touching the parks of the poor, he ought to
begin with the parks of the rich. The flower plucked
on the uncultivated waste was just as 'valuable to the
poor man and his child as was the rose, or rich exotic,
grown in the nobleman's hot-house.— (Hear, hear.) They
would, by passing this Bill, be debarring the working
man from the pure air of heaven, and condemning him,
instead, to receive into his system the dust of their car-
riage wheels.
Lord JOHN MANNERS supported the Bill of the
Noble Lord. He thought the country owed him a deep
debt of gratitude for having had the boldness and deter-
mination to bring forward this measure ' • and he hoped
the Hon. Member for Montrose would withdraw the
amendment.
Colonel WOOD opposed the motion. He thought
that there was no necessity for instituting a Commission,
as desired by the Noble Lord. If a waste were worth
inclosing, it was worth coming to Parliament for powers
to do so. He had heard objections against the enor-
mity of the expense, but he begged to say that these
were very trifling after all. He would, therefore, he
repeated, oppose the Bill of the Noble Lord.
Mr. C. BULLER said that they must remember,
when speaking of commons, that the term .embraced not
only fields really waste, but such as were not properly
cultivated. He knew a very large tract of waste land,
and it was proposed by all those interested in it to
parcel it out in allotments, in order to its cultivation. It
was found, however, that under the present state of the
law such could not be done. Then, surely, it were well
that that state of things should be altered. He thought
that by Commissions—he did not care whether it
were the Tithe Commission or any other—but surely
those matters could be better inquired into and arranged
by them than by coming up to that House. He thought
they ought not to throw the Bill overboard without well
considering its details. It was one of the utmost im-
portance to the weal of the country, and therefore en-
titled to the consideration of that House.
Mr. MILES thought they might read the Bill pro
forma, and then take leisure to consider its provisions.
Mr. WARBURTON thought that the Bill could be
easily carried into effect without encroaching upon
towns.pla ces of
He
ms
nupspe
Mr. HUME said, that as the motion was merely for
omretendt
thein neighbourhood of large
.
going into Committee proforma, he would nottohpep,oloeniste.
The Bill was then committed pro forma, and
resumed.

COUNTY CORONERS BILL.
The House then went into Committee upon the County
Coroners 13111, the clauses of which were agreed to with

' verbal amendments, and the House resumed, when the
report was ordered to be brought up on Wednesday next.
The House then adjourned at a Quarter past Seven.

GUANO.—A lively interest was excited last week'
in the Colonial market, owing to a sale by auction of the
first cargo of guano imported into London from the re-
cently discovered island of Ichaboe, on the western coast
of Africa. The interest was increased by a similar sale
in Liverpool, a few days before, of the largest quantity
that has hitherto come from the same place, in one
bottom, namely, the ship Blake, of one thousand tons.
The competition at both sales was very spirited, and each
cargo was sold in about twenty minutes. The desire for
Ichaboe guano has arisen from the fact, that all the emi-
nent chemists who have analysed it, have found it
to possess the fertilizing properties in the highest
degree ; and the results of its application by practical
agriculturists has proved the correctness of their
analysis. The farmers in the northern and some of the
western districts in England and in Scotland, were
among the first to try Guano, when introdnced from
South America, four years ago, and have had the best
means of ascertaining its qualities. The conse-
quence is that the consumption in these parts
of the kingdom is, this year, increased at least
twenty times above that of last year, being no
small evidence of the superior merits of this invalu-
able manure. Besides the demand for home consump-
tion, several ships have discharged in the West Indies,
and there are large orders for various ports on the
Continent. The immense benefit to the shipping inte-
rest, from this new branch of commerce, may be con-
ceived, when it is known that about four hundred ships
are on their way to Ichaboe and the adjoining islands
for the next year's supply, and that from this cause the
value of shipping has advanced fifteen to twenty per
cent. We perceive that a cargo of Ichaboe Guano is to
be sold by public auction, at the Corn Market, Mark-
lane, on Monday, the 10th instant.
THE ALBERT CAP.—If we were to judge of the
" New Regulation Cap for the Infantry" by the numerous
letters we receive from all ranks, expressing utter disgust
with it, we would be led to think that the selection could
never have been made by a soldier. Indeed, it is worthy of
fair consideration how far it is advisable to force this ob-
noxious head-dress upon our soldiers. We could show letters,
and quote opinions, all tending to convince us that desertion
has, in some cases, taken place, rather than wear the " Janus
cap," and that, in many instances, recruits have refused to
enlist in a regiment that now has the cap in wear. The men
who are to wear the cap ought to have some voice in the
matter; and, we believe, the whole army condemns it. It is
not too late to amend the order ; the issue, as vet, is very
limited—but on the Ist of next April the whore army will
have this fools' cap placed on their heads, on a most suitable
occasion, " All Fools' Day." This cap, like other unseemly
things, we heartily wish the army well rid of.—Naval and
Military Gazette.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, June 6.

WILSON'S ESTATE BILL-INCLOSURE OF

HAMPSTEAD- HEATH.

The Earl of EGMONT moved the second reading of
this Bill, and in doing so he denied that it was intended
to apply the powers of the Bill, should it be passed, for
the purpose of inclosing Hampstead-heath.
Lord DENMAN felt it his duty to oppose this Bill,
for he was at a loss to know what grievance there was
of which Sir Thomas Wilson could complain, and there-
fore there was no necessity for this Bill.—(Hear,
hear.) The will under which Sir Thomas Wilson
held his property, provided that Hampstead-heath
should not be leased for more than twenty-one
years. It had been said that this Bill was not for the
purpose of inclosing Hampstead heath. It was true
that it .was not intended to cut up the heath into small
portions, as was the case of an inclosed common ; but it
was meant to give by the Bill power to certain parties
to build over 400 acres of land, which now made the
heath a healthy and happy place, and the resort of
thousands on every Sabbath-day in the summer time ;
and this, he thought, ought to be more gratifying to the
proprietor than any trifling increase in the value of that
property. The holders of copyhold property near to
the heath were greatly annoyed at the prospect of hav-
ing 400 acres of the heath built upon. It had been
said that the will of the late Sir Thomas M. Wilson
was a very strange will, but he (Lord Denman) thought
it was a very humane will, for he believed that Sir Thos.
Wilson as much devised the enjoyment of Hampstead-
heath to the public as he did any of his property to his
son. Under these circumstances he should move that
the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
The Earl of COLCHESTER supported the Bill.
_ . _ _ . .

Lord CAMPBELL thought the Bill ought to be re:
jected. The same powers existed with respect to the
property of Sir Thomas Wilson, as were possessed by
his ancestors. Why then should he come to Parliament
for further powers as to the disposal of such property
as that on Hampstead-heath ? Why should Par-
liament give powers to a private individual, at the
expense of public convenience and comfort. This Bill
was precisely the same as the Bill of last session, which
was brought forward to empower Sir Thomas Wilson to
lease Hampstead-heath for periods of sixty and seventy
years. He (Lord Campbell) hoped their Lordships
would reject this Bill.
The Earl of WICKLOW said that within the last ten
years thirty Bills similar to this one had passed, and he
would ask what objection there could be to this Bill
going before a Committee of their Lordships' House ?
He should support the second reading.
The Earl of MANSFIELD argued that if this Bill
were unsound in principle, there was no necessity for
going into the Committee, and therefore he should op-
pose it in the present stage.
Lord COTTENHAM said, this Bill if passed would
not interfere with Hampstead-heath at all.—(Hear.)
The Bill contained nothing which in an ordinary case
would prevent its passing, and, therefore, if they refused
to pass this Bill, they would forfeit their character for
doing equal justice to all.
Lord BROUGHAM was surprised that his Noble and
Learned Friend should defend Sir T. Wilson in an at-
tempt to dispose of his estate by statute, in such a
manner as to be in opposition to his father's will.
Lord COTTENHAM explained.
Lord DENMAN said, that from the plan which he
held in his hand, it appeared that it was proposed to
build upon 400 acres of Hampstead-heath; and this, if
carried into effect, would very seriously inconvenience the
public in the enjoyment of the heath.
The Earl of EGMONT replied.
Their Lordships then divided—
Contents
Non-contents
Majority against the second reading
The Bill is consequently lost.
GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF INDIA.

20

-11

The LORD CHANCELLOR read a letter from Lord
Ellenborough, stating that he had received the thanks of
the House of Lords, expressing their Lordships' appro-
bation of the services rendered by the army in India.
Tho letter was ordered to be entered on the journals
of the house.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 6.
DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL.
' Viscount ACHESON presented petitions for and
against the Bill.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, on moving the
second reading 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 of
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 vacious 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,
for 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 not
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 Howley,
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
its different stages. The litigation might last another
fourteen years ; and the whole charity would be dissi-
pated before an ultimate decision would be given at 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 feeling which induced them to present pe-
titions against any Bill 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 for 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 had 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-
vent them from legislating for them in the same spirit
as they legislated for other Dissenters.—(Hear, hear.)
He thought the apprehension that this Bill would encou-
rage Unitarianism in this country was wholly un-
founded.—(Hear, hear.) He did not believe it would
have any effect, either one way or tho other ; anti even
if it would, the time for interference was on the prop-
sal of the Bills of 1813 and 1817, for the extension of
complete Toleration.—(Hear, hear.) lie Would now call

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 Penman,
Lord Cottenham, and Lord Campbell. Her Majesty's
Government, in bringing forward the measure, had no
other object in view but that of doin,,,s 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
court of equity or a court of law. Before
the passing •f that Act, all Dissenters stood
on the same foundatioW; 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 some 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 Ronian 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 who were conscien-
tiously opposed to the subscription of any articles
of faith, and they had r.o 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 saying 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 these Unitarian
chapelS were not founded by deed ; they were generally
built in this manner : a congregation dissented from
the Church Establishment, they wished to establish a
chapel ; they forms d a voluntary association ; they sub-
scribed funds 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 congres
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 fur 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
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 to 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
private views or secret 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 cf
such perversion through him, as he was liable to 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 think it 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 ill-will.-----(Hear, 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 B. 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 scheme of Christianity,but he hoped
they would act as men interested in the cause of truth and
justice. The Bight Hon. and Learned Gentleman had
fortified his praise of the measure by the approbation of
the Lord Chancellor, but he (Sir H. Inglis) appealed from
Lord Lyndhurst in the House of Lords to Lord Lynd-
hurst on the Bench, and to the opinion of that Noble
and Learned Lord in Lady Hewley'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 Bight 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 reference 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
that might be instituted after the passing of the Bill.
There might be good reasons for the Bill, although he
had not been able to discover them; yet he was sure that

it would not effect that most important of its porouferstteef
objects, the prevention of litigation. The eei -
Chancery had now as much power (and no more) a 5,!,,,
Bill would give it, for deciding disputed matters relating
to trusts of a religious character. He had now to re of
to a recent decision of Sir Edward Sugdee, a Peciebse °of
whom he could not speak in other terms then
thoseJudge'
the highest respect and esteem. That Learned
however, had, upon some grounds, which he (S!l'A
Inglis) could not comprehend, deferred his Jug.,
rnent, because this measure was in progress in tit
ment. In conclusion, he would say that he thOuge'..e,
all events, the 3d clause might he so modified us
move his objections. He moved an amendment thatee'
Bill be read a second time that day six months. at,
Mr. IeLUAIPTRE, in seconding the ainendwebte
said that he thought the opposition which 0,
been given to the Bill ought to have ee_et,
mended the attention of her Majesty's Governraele
It was said the Wesleyan hely had no interest in
s'ed
matter. Supposing they had not, was it to be sePr to
that on such a ground they would: give their sanction
error? But then it had been said the Bill was net, el'.
derstood. He asserted it was fully understood, ane, ° be,
would say if it was carried, as he was afraid it woul a_
the Christian public of this country, would be insenbye
and cruelly used by this measure. His voice was fee_d,
in that House, but he was not to be deterred from
dressing let
the House when he found Christian prie,ciPle
assailed. He would perseveringly give his oppositie-„tes
the Bill, and in. doing so he believed he was speaking
sentiments of thousands out of that House.
Mr. MACAULAY then rose to address the Liellse;
He despaired of adding much to the excellent argenleure,
of the Learned Attorney-General, whom, he wasleer•
all must be happy to see again in his place•—'a otee
hear.) He had thought it right, however, that
person on that side of the House should rise to eeP,.;tl
his conviction of the excellency of this Bill. He rs,rlsitiore
to observe the temperate manner in which his-oe
Friend the Member for Oxford had treated the seel.e
He had considered the matter as one not of a theoleg!ir
character, but mere meuni and tuum. 'The course, ho,bo
ever, that had been pursued by the Hon. Member wee
had seconded the amendment was very differeat ;s
of
had made the question one, not of property, b.ifithe
divinity.—(Hear, hear.) Now, for his own part", of
Bill was in favour of Catholics, the Secession Churc
Scotland, or the Free Church, his language would he%,
same, and he should vote in precisely the same wileet
he should do that night.—(Hear, hear.) The g. ise
point, he considered, on which any question would alrit
would be the second clause.--(Hear.) As to the o,
clause, no objection had been made to it, even by his oti
Friend the Member for Oxford. Then came the sec.
clause, which rested oat the principle of preserietlee
A few hours ago he should not have supposed that r;
Hon. Member would have got up in that House or ;cell
where, and denied its necessity ; he had, however' had
painfully undeceived. A conclave at Exeter-ha" .100
sent in a resolution of certain proceedings that hael,liertel
place there, from which it appeared that they coos' or
the principle of prescription as untenable and enwet for
of a British Legislature, and that it was inconsistea its.
the Governmeet to bring forward principles of nice
tion. If these gentlemen were right, the laws by wrong.
men had been governed for ages were totally w",ter
The law of prescription had been known in every Tri'
used age.—(Hear, hear.) It was known to the old to
burial of Athens ; and even after the French Ilev°lldor
it was admitted in the Code Napoleon; in short ilseeo
trine of prescription was known even in countries W; tot
the name of Justinian had never been heard. It wesselette)
of the great charter of this country's leberties.--Tlthe
It must be clear to any well-think** mind, tal/erte
principle of prescription was necessary to the Prespr it
tion of property, and there would be no securiti
if it was taken away. Was it to be supposed or tolerate
that a man should be compelled to pay a bill eeegere
by his great-grandfather in the year 1660?—(Hear' f
Well, then, if it was desirable that a certain time °idol
scription should be made to limit rights, he e 014.1. ease'
see why it should not be applied to the present
But then it was said they wanted to pass an ex Peesveeei
law. Why, let them go to what Act they week's tool
would find none that had not a retrospective °Pell yel
and till religious bigotry stepped in there thee
no objections offered to such Acts. 1311tte of
it was said that they made the leneeid be
time. for doing wrong the reason why it see'„- els
continued. The present question, in his opinien'et to
one oil which the principles of limitation °loop
apply most forcibly .—(Hear, hear.) Now, he-„eA
Members bestowed much attention on the, ,t;l3r.,
had they compared the petitions in favour or ee•tli"
with those against it? If they had, they woule,
the one sound arguments, and in the other nothlered
declamation. Let them loOk to the ceses of the d' stet.
chapels in the country. Take the case of Cirenehe
Large sums were laid out on the chapel there, evhle
been derived from sources foreign to the pareTtie:reeiell
then worshipped there. Let them go to l'e_eir
then. There was a large chapel, the ceeepe
tion of which, up to 1774, were I-Thitet•liiii'
There the chapel was filled with the monuments e, wit,
tarians ; it had a library and school-house attachnees;
which had been erected at the expense of linitee'-stiel,
and at this moment the members of that cong.etpot
were sitting still, not daring to repair their chaPe psi
daring to build or make improvements, till 00:006
what would be the result of this Bill. It did not liesd
where they went ; this was the common and Orutiopf•
history of Unitarian chapels and congregadatte
Go to Manchester,—he was not quite sure of the te'
but certainly fur seventy years at least, UnitarisP6ooo
trines had been taught at panchester ; there large be
had been laid out and monuments had been built ibibeee
lieved that the great Dr. Priestly himself preached sot'.
At Leeds, at the present moment, 4,0001. weredn the
scribed for repairs of the great Unitarian chapels %Odle
fund was lying idle, because they dared not use it' tee
House decided whether it could afford them Pr;
ee -
At Maidstone there was the same story ; indeed nept
not matter where they went; but at Maidstone for se 7001.
years Unitarian principles had been taught, and
had been subscribed; at Exeter the same princie..Al°Kell
been taught for eighty years; there 2,0001. ha; jeitl4,
subscribed. It was the same at Rotherham, en"
and other places. And were these the places white ibis
British Legislature would allow to be subjected tt't for
robbery? He really could not use any other Wei, pre'
how would it be viewee with regard to any othe t?
perty? Would it be borne for a single racomeir!ogs,'s
was really painful to think what must be the fee',l,
these who cried out for the ejectment of t,l,,etsb";
viduals; why what were the claims of those evneteers
to eject them, compared with the claims of the °'
remain? What were their associations with tgd tbesei
of a Priestly or a Lardner? What feelings eli?
(D
in connection with the monuments of Unitarian gel;
What feelings had they in connection with the 01-
stones which the piety of four generations bli„elatells
over the ashes of sisters, and wives, and dia'Zi
Yet they came forward to eject men from P'sn'ted Do
were to them invaluable, and the loss of which e pee'.
be supplied, while to the intruders those very plrie
had no more value than any other tlisid
where they might have a roof oLletri.Noo
heads. If the House threw out this Bill, Cue.' edit"
not merely be robbing one party to give robe roue to
which would be bad enough, but they wouldooll be
one arty of what they considered invaluable., es 1,0,
bestow it in a quarter where it could only
.be
trophy of an inglorious war—a trophy.whicbeW,Oortil'y.
01
rive no value except from the humiliation allur-tin bed
tion of those who were driven out. An imente he ty
been thrown out in some of these petitions-4'a oe
lieved it had been repeated elsewhere—of fraud
part of the Unitarians. It was asserted that t,"01 foe.,
have known what was the intention of the origlol3,o 0";
ders of these chapels—that they must have itoce/erie
were attached to Trinitarian doctrines, all% land
this they must have inevitably, down to a verlolo-4
riod, either have been Trinitarians or have Prfesseatipi
be so. For, it was urged, till 1779, everY -1"-] orticot
teacher was obliged to subscribe to the doctrinso merry
of the Church of England, which, if he was /00s.
man, he could not do, if he held Unitarian on10;79 is sq,e
inference, therefore, was clear, that down to l' TOIL/
senting minister must either have been sled le?)
tarian or a rogue ! Now, he believ-(OesPs's
were neither the one nor the other'"-rgonleeo
The very eminent person who had used this 0,
y
pt
was no doubt well acquainted with the hist° r
ent ; of
Church, of which he was so bright an ornareeietorief
he questioned if he was so well read in the
very epic'
r or; lei
non-conformity. The truth was that d by dy
period those articles ceased to be subscribed tee
tlat _,t
senting ministers. Even in the first genera atebreect
scription was refuses), among others by the,. ei, there
Calmet; this was in the first generation arte^croee,v
passed, and they all knew the force of the c tettei.ett
which told them that " new brooms sweePed,
(Hear, hear.) In 1711, the Whigs, he belied),
they formed a coalition with Lord Nottingba wetcbe,e,
Bill passed through the House of Lords, P2A clgweils
order to favour the Dissenters, they inser'-enectslit if
the.,.l
which really took away the stringenc of
as to the subscription of the articlesy .
It stiSseeesret
any information should be laid against
,fee seel
minister for non-subscription to the articieinet_tionsib,
any time between the lodging ef the infors._e_ole ebs
o'llool the delivery of the judgment, the minister ;
scribe the articles, the costs of the suit shoo Tee t 5
cast upon the shoulders of the infortneneeeiegtog
was, that in 1773, as proved both by the PrThisse°,4
Parliamen;; and the publications of the Disselweie
party themse!ves, the majority of teubseeibed tore'
preachers then alive had never teeito to,
articles at all ; the whole of the argernes'ae'est '''raof
tfhouengdreodunond.tleaiansiitnnceereietses'aorfytthoepDroisysee,na7t....betto.iewtt%,4ol,
General had very simply and ably stated it 00e.pe
and naturally these congregations,
ciple of the Presbyterians of the day—that artiFie„
confession of faith at all, having no
distinct
blivieProtlie
which the divisions of sects could be
fitte•etber sty-
subscription of articles, and only bound
as ee,ore
principle of religious freedom—what was
sensibly that
than that they should glide gradually and wortaintYleere
• with „in ge
one into another, without knowing
one ?
holding
017 ble of
the doctrines preached in the chapel on another pi%
mightrt
ide nt eaven
venture
titihree
tsoamreefearshtilaiosne
d reaseileiie te
lieve he was perfectly intimate. He Inie wh
of ecclesiastical history, with which he eaLt referee. tbr;
the history of the great Scotch secession'eetoesesedeee
Se eet
opnr.e"Frhieednd°tn° enctiletre
the same as the original docrines 0 •
Der e.,y
Weseceo,nam:faciteneerl"_btee,Pcaree
doctrines now held by the
.Scot:p
,jSUJ
tfue: 50r:
—(Hear.) He had talked with many
b s tbe 61?
-e
suasion, and they all acknowledged t at eelby dß' tP'
•
gwehniecrhatwioenre
ocfonsseideeedreedrs
Presbyterians. The first seceders ma'read Steed to
t to thud fro oro
when the great George Whitfield t!.d (co
seceders,
vital
were
nndo
trine of the connexion between Mir" " gcotwl. ea
Presbyterians would not unite. withe difee'sir ed of
them on this point. The old %tate. )3tit ut en' c/
miring his abilities and
connexion between Church and
_.,ing o
the Presbyterians of the present day 'Jo/ Chas"
separation
voluntary system, and the
The
Deeueuedco
suppower,
130