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

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY MORNING, JUNE 7, 1844.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HO USE OF LORDS, June 6.

Their Lordships assembled this afternoon at a Quarter
before Four o'clock.
ROYAL COMMISSION.
The. House of Commons having been summoned to
the bar of their Lordships' House, the Royal Assent
was given by Commission, in the usual form, to
the undermentioned Bills :—The Customs Duties Bill,
the Stamp, Duties Bill, the Edinburgh Boroughs Bill,
the West Indian Colonies Bill, the Lancaster and Car-

lisle Railway Bill, the :North 'Union Railway Bill, the
Carlisle and Maryport Railway Bill, the Eastern Coun-
ties Railway Bill, the Salford Improvement Bill, the
Leeds Gas Bill, the Globe Insurance Company Bill, and
two Inclosure, Bills.

The Commissioners were the Lord Chancellor, the
Earl of Shaftesbury, and the Earl of Dalhousie.
The Commons having withdrawn, their Lordships ad-
journed during pleasure.
Their Lordships resumed at Five o'clock.
The Assaults (Ireland) Bill passed through Com•
mittee.

The Earl of MANSFIELD presented a petition
against Sir Thomas Wilson's Estate Bill.
DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL.

Earl FORTESCUE piesented petitions in favour of
the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. He gave his cordial thanks
to the Noble and. Learned Lord on the woolsack for
having introduced this Bill, and he trusted it would pass
into a law.

WILSON'S ESTATE BILL—INCLOSURE OF
HAMPSTEAD- H EATH.
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 Lordship? 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 therefor& he should op-
pose it in the present stage.
Lord COTTENHAM said, this Bill if passed would
not interfeie 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 ell.
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
carriedinto 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
31
-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.
The letter was ordered to be entered on the journals
of the House.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 6.
The SPEAKER took the chair at the usual hour.
ROYAL COMMISSI )N.

The Usher of the Black Rod appeared at the bar, and
summoned the House to the bar of the Souse of Peers
to hear her Majesty's Commission read for giving the
Royal Assent to several Bills, for which see Lords' report.
The Epsom and Croydon Railway Bill was read a
third time and passed.
The Taff Vale Railway Bill was read a third time and
passed.
DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL.
Mr. HAMILTON presented a petition from the cler-
gymen of the Established Church in the county of Dub-
lin, 100 Members of the Irish bar, and several fellows
and scholars of Trinity College, against the Bill.
Petitions against the Bill were presented by Colonel
Sibthorp, Mr. Antrobus, and Mr. Mundy from nume-
rous congregations of Wesleyans, Independents, and
Baptists.
Mr. WALKER presented a petition from a body of
Wesleyans, who stated that upon examining the Bill,
they found reason to withdraw their opposition to it, and
they prayed the House to allow them to withdraw their•
petition against the Bill.
Mr. M. O'CONNELL presented a petition numerously
signed from Roman Catholics in the county of Cork
against the Bill.
Mr. ARCHBOLD presented a great number of peti-
tions from Irish Catholics in favour of the Bill, amongst
others one from Kildare, signed by 5,000 persons.
Mr. MUNTZ presented two petitions from Birming-
ham, one in favour of, and one against it.
Mr: GODSON presented a petition in favour of the
Bill, and several against it, from places in Northum-
berland. •

Mr. WILSON PATTEN presented petitions from
Warrington, in 'Preston, and one from places in Lan-
cashire, in favour of the Bill.
Mr. TEIORNELY presented several petitions in
favour of the Bill, from places in the West of England,
and from Abby Lara, in the county of Westmeath, and
from several other places in Ireland.
Mr. TAYLOR presented petitions from several places
in Worcestershire in favour of the Bill.

Petitions against the Bill were presented from Mon-
mouth, by Mr. Blewitt ; from Cumberland, by Mr. Gore
Langton ; from Birmingham and places in Gloucester-
shire, by Mr. Scholefield ; and by Colonel T. Wood,
from Finchley and other places in Middlesex.
Mr. RICE presented a petition from Dover against
the Bill.
Mr. BUSFEILD presented petitions from congrega-
tions in Bradford, in favour of the Bill.
Mr. BROTHERION presented six petitions, signed
by several thousand Roman Catholics in Manchester
and Salford, against the
Lord R. GROSVENOR presented several petitions
for and against the Bill.—(Laughter.) He had carefully
examined these petitions, and he found the signatures
so nearly balanced each other in point of numbers, that
he was unable to say whether he was petitioning for the
Bill or against it.—(Laughter.)
Mr. BOYI) presented 51 petitions against the Bill.
Colonel TREVOR presented' a number of petitions
against the Bill.
Mr. PLUMPTRE presented a similar petition from
Margate.
Mr. 0. GORE presented petitions against the Bill from
Pershore, and other places in Worcestershire, and also
one from Sligo.
Dr. BOWRING presented petitions from Wesleyans,
and other Dissenters at Barnard' Castle and Manchester,
in favour of the Bill.

Dr. STOCK presented a petition, signed by 50,000
Roman Catholics in the county of Dublin, in favour of
the Bill.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
Mr. BECKETT presented a petition from a congre-
gation in Leeds in favour of the Bill.
Sir J. HANMER presented a petition against the Bill.
Colonel ACTON presented petitions from Dublin to
the same effect.
Sir G. STAUNTON presented petitions to the same
effect.
Mr. SHAW presented petitions in favour of the Bill
from the Roman Catholics of Dublin. •
Ms. WAWN presented petitions from South Shields
against the Bill.
Mr. E. TENNENT presented fifteen petitions from
the north of Ireland against the Bill ; also, nine petitions
in favoar of the Bill.
Mr. MILNES presented a petition from the deanery
of Pomfret against the Bill.
Mr. RICHARDS presented petitions to the same effect.
Lord MARSHAM presented petitions from Kent to
the same effect.
Mr. M. PHILIPS presented several petitions from
Lancashire in favour of the Bill. •
Mr. WILLIAMS presented a petition against the Bill.
Lord DUNCAN presented several petitions from Bath
against the Bill.
Mr. SHEIL presented fifteen petitions from Roman
Catholic congregations in Ireland in favour of the Bill.
Colonel VERNER presented petitions from the North
of Ireland for and against the Bill.
Viscount ACHESON presented petitions for and
against the Bill.
Mr. DIVETT presented petitions from Gloucester-
shire against the
Mr. WY SE presented several petitions -from Ifeland
in favour of the Bill.
Mr. GRANTLEY BERKELEY asked the Right

Hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Colonies,
whether they were aware that an enactment had passed
the Legislature of British Guiana, sanctioning the rais-
ing of a loan in this country ?
Lord STANLEY said he had received dispatches from
Demerara that morning, to the effect stated by the Hon.
Gentleman, '

Dr. BOWRING said, perhaps the Noble Lord would
be able without receiving notice of his intention to put
the question, to state whether he was able to lay on the
table the papers which had arrived yesterday from
China, containing some important declaration issued by
the Government of Hong-Kong on the subject of slavery
and the slave trade.

Lord STANLEY said
~he had not seen the papers to
which the Hon. Gentleman referred.
BANK- CHARTER.
Mr. MUNTZ wished IQ ask the. Right Hon. Baronet
at the head of the Government a question with respect
to the Bank Charter, in order to remove the doubt which
existed in the public mind. In the event of such an export
of gold as should withdraw from circulation all notes ex-
ceeding the 14 millions issued against securities, were
the said 14 millions, or any part of them, to be payable
in gold on demand ; and supposing that three millions
issued against the Exchequer to be withdrawn from cir-
culation, how were those notes to be redeemed which were
issued against the 11 millions of debt due to the Bank ?
Sir 8.. PEEL said he would really rather not answer
the question. He thought the intention of theßill was
quite manifest. Any demand made upon the Bank
must be paid in gold. The Bank was allowed to
issue notes on securities to the amount of 14 millions.
The debt due from the Government to the Bank, to the
amount of eleven millions, was assigned as part of those
securities. The remainder of those securities were
securities over which the Bank had an entire control.
It was of no use to put extreme hypothetical
cases.—(Hear.) The Bank should have free con-
trol over the three millions, and if it should be necessary
no doubt the Government would have credit enough to
pay the demand upon them.
In reply to a question from Lord J. RUSSELL.
Sir R. PEEL stated that the sugar duties would have
precedence on Monday next.
Mr. BORTHWICK wished to learn from the Right

Hon. Baronet when the Poor-laws Amendment Bill, the
Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, the County Courts Bill, and
other Government measures, would be brought forward?
Sir R. PEEL could give no pledge on the subject. It
was most desirable that the subjects should be properly
discussed. On Monday next he intended to proceed
with the Sugar Duties, on Thursday with the question of
the Bank Charter, and if...to-morrow, be could state what
question would be brought on Friday,-he would do so,
but he would not pledge himself on the subject.
IRISH REGISTRATION BILL.
Lord J. RUSSELL trusted that sufficient notice would
be given of when it was intended to bring forward the
Irish Registration Bill.
Sir R. PEEL would take care to give such ample
notice respecting the Bill that all her Majesty's subjects
should have full intimation of its introduction.
POOR-LAWS.
On the motion for reading the Order of the Day for
the second-reading of the Dissenter's Chapels Bill,
Mr. BOR rEiwicK gave notice that he should on that
day fortnight move for leave to bring in a Bill for the
amendment of the existing Poor-laws.
• DISSENTERS' CHAPELS 81T.T.,
Sir B. HALL presented petitions against the Dis-
senters' Chapels Bill.' , •
Mr. MACAULAY presented 100 petitions from
different parts of Scotland to the same effect.
Sir. GEORGE STICKLAND presented a petition
from the Wesleyans of Preston against the Dissenters'
Chapels Bill.
Mr. SCOTT presented petitions, in favour of the Bill,
from various Dissenting congregations, and also various
petitions, with a similar prayer, from the lineal descend-
ants of many of the founders of these chapels.
Mr. VILLIERS presented a petition from the Roman
Catholics of Wolverhampton, in favour of the Bill.
Mr. HUTT presented several petitions against the

Bill. -
Sir JOHN SEALE presented a petition from the
Wesleyans of Dartmouth against the Bill.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented petitions in favour of
the Bill. - _

Mr. STUART WORTLEY presented a petition from
a congregation of Wesleyans against the Bill, and also
a petition from Selby in favour of the Bill.
Mr. Alderman HUMPHERY presented thirty-six
petitions from congregations in London, Southwark, and
Lambeth, against the Bill ; also a petition signed by the
Right Hon. Fox Maule, as Chairman of a meeting held
in Exeter Hall, against the Bill, which petition stated
twelve distinct reasons why the Bill should not pass into
a law.
Mr. COBDEN presented twelve petitions against the
Bill, and three in its favour.
Mr. GROGAN presented petitions from various Wes-
leyan and Presbyterian congregations in Ireland against
the Bill.

Mr. WAWN presented a petition from Birkenhead
against the Bill.
Lord H. VANE presented petitions from various con-
gregations in Durham against the Bill.
Sir J. TYRRELL presented petitions from Essex
against the Bill.
Mr. WATSON- presented eight petitions from dif-
ferent Roman Catholic bodies in Ireland in faiOur of the
Bill.

Mr. GIBSON presented petitions in favour of the Bill.
Captain PECHELL presented three petitions from
Brighton against the Bill.
Mr. BOUVERIE presented a petition in favour of the
Bill.

Mr. P. S. BUTLER presented two petitions from
Kilkenny in favour of the Bill.
Viscount BARRINGTON presented a petition_ against
the Bill.
Lord CLAUDE HAMILTON presented petitions
against the Bill. -
Lord STANLEY presented petitions in favour of the
Bill.
Mr. STANS]IELD presented a petition from Hud-
dersfield against the Bill.

Sir R. IRGLIS presented petitions against the Bill.
Mr. COPPER presented four petitions against the
Bill. _

Sir J. PARKER presented petitions for and agains
the Bill.
J. RUSSELLART presented several petitions against
presented a petition from Liverpool in
the Bill.
Colonel FOX presented petitions from the Tower
favi.Mojourrr.dEof the Bill.
Hamlets against the Bill.
Sir C. DOUGLAS presented a petition in favour of
the Bill.
Mr. HAWES presented 63 petitions, some in favour
of, and some against, the Bill.
Mr. WARBURTON presented petitions from Kendal
against the Bill.
Sir R. PEEL presented several petitions from mem-
bers of the Established Cliurch, Roman Catholics, and
Dissenters of various denominations, in the county of
Down, in favour of the Bill.
Mr. BELLEW presented similar petitions from the
counties of Down and Antrim.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, on jneving 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 various denominations
of Dissenters, and, amongst others, from the classes who
claimed to have an interest in the property Which was
the subject-matter in dispute, and who said that if the
Bill were passed they would be deprived of property to
which they. were now entitled. He would deal with that
allegation in another part. There were petitions from
the Wesleyan body. He could not think there was any
provision in the Bill which could in any way whatever
affect the property of the Wesleyan body—(Cries
of "Hear, hear")—nor would it affect the pro-
perty of the members of the Church of England,
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 bad been filed on the part of the Independ-
ents against the Presbyterians, alleging that the
latter did .not agree in doctrine with Lady Hewley,
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 as to
who would be entitled to it. Neither the members of
the Church of England nor the Wesleyan Methodists
were affected by the Bill. He felt every respect for the
conscientious 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 fur them to be inquiring whether the
Legislature had done wisely or not in extending a com-
plete system of toleration.—(Hear, hear.) That had
been the spirit of the Legislature of this country now for
some years—(Hear, hear)—it was in that spirit that the
Legislature passed the Bill of 1779, which relieved the
ministers of Dissenting congregations from the necessity
Actey against of subscribing the doctrinal Articles of the Church of
spiritera ttihoant they England
lthe ;had repealed in
clausesitwas of the
Unita-
rians, and in 1817 the Act making it blasphemy to deny
the divinity of our Lord. The same spirit of toleration
bad been acted upon with respect to the Unitarians in
Ireland, who had been placed upon the same footing as
regarded alt civil rights, as regarded all civil property, as
tthhea trrol
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
hare any effect, either one way or the other ; and even
if it would, the time for interference was on the propo-
sal of the Bills of 1813 and 1817, for the extension of
complete toleration.—(Hear, hear.) He 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 Denman, I
Lord Cottenham, and Lord Campbell. Her Majesty's
Government, in bringing forward the measure, had no
other object in view but that of doing justice, and put-
ting an end to vexatious and cruel litigation.—(Hear,
hear.) He would now state the nature of the provisions.
He believed that no objections were entertained with re-
spect to the first clause, but still it must not be forgotten
that that was a most essential clause.—(Elear, 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 • of that Act, all Dissenters . stood
on the same foundation ; none of their acts were
legal. By the Act of Toleration, however, Protestant
Dissenters were placed in a very different situation,
their acts were declared legal, but the Catholics and
Unitarians were excluded from the operation of that
Act. After the passing of that Act, all other Protestant I
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 ProtestantCissenter 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 chapeli-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;
ho meant that spirit of litigation among the Dissen-
ters to which the decision in the case of Lady Hewley's
charity had given rise.-I(Hear, hear.) The first clause
related to all charitable foundations ; the second clause
related to chapels only. It was said that, according to the
existing law, no lapse of time could be pleaded to a
breach of trust. If the breach were of such a nature
as to call on the Attorney-General to interfere, on
behalf of the public, it was perfectly true no lapse of
time could be pleaded against the Attorney-General ;
but, in cases of breach of trust, in which private
parties were concerned, a lapse of time could be
pleaded ; and with regard to this Bill, he trusted he
should satisfy the House that it contained no violation
of the existing principles of law, but on the contrary, it
was framed in strict analogy with those principles.
There was was no doubt but that a party might give land
or money in trust for purposes of religion, and if such a
person said that a chapel which he founded was intended
'for the use of Roman Catholics alone, the will of the
donor would be strictly abided by, and such would be the
case with regard to every other sect ; but he did not
think that in every case of charitable foundation of that
nature, in which the doctrines to be taught were not
stated—he did not think they were bound to assume
that in 'every such case the founder intended that those
doctrines only should belaught which he hithself 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 no right to assume
that these persons would impose burdens upon others
which they shrank from themselves.—(Cheers.) In no
case in which it was distinctly stated in the foundation
deed what were the doctrines to be taught in these
chapels would the present Bill interfere. He could not
understand what was meant by 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 formed 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 congre•
gations relied upon possession. Who supported the
minister ? Not the trustees, but the congregation.

Who paid him ? The congregation. Who re-
moved him ? The congregation. The trustees had
no more power than any stranger. Supposing a cer-
tain number of persons to have purchased a chapel—
to have appointed a preacher—supposing that son had
succeeded son, and supposing that in the lapse of time
the clergyman had preached doctrines different from
those of the original founder—supposing that to be the
case, yet, after those persons had laid out their money in
purchasing a chapel, and after it was possessed from
generation to generation, he thought it was extremely
hard they should now be deprived of it.—(Hear, hear.)
Why, if this plea were good, although for a hundred or
a hundred and fifty years Unitarian doctrines might have
been preached, all the money subscribed for such, a
chapel—all the money left for the benefit of the clergy
man or his family during this time, would be handed
over to strangers.—(Hear, hear.) This was not, at least,
founded on a principle of justice and equity, supposing
it were even founded on law. He would here assume it
to be law—what, he would ask, was it right that the
property which had come for the support of such chapels
should be given to those who were perfect strangers?—
(Hear, hear.) But it ought not to be assumed that the
law was clear ; it was the novelty of the law in the case
which induced the Noble and Learned Lords to recom-
mend the Legislature 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, fur 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 seeret intentions were not ad-
missible in evidence. He admitted that the Lord
Chancellor of Ireland was of a contrary opinion.
But he would ask was it not mischievous and improper
that the most solemn points of Christianity should be
discussed in courts of law? This was not the proper
tribunal for theological discussions. What he recom-
mended was, that they should introduce a certain test
which might be applied to cases of this nature, and
which had been applied in other analogous cases. There
was no single case in private life that did not depend
more or less on usage. Under the old law if a question
had been set• up the modus would be proved by twenty
years' usage, and by a recent Act of Parliament a ques-
tion could not be set up after a modern usage of thirty
years. It was necessary that there should be some
guide, some landmark, in order to prevent those scan-
dalous contentions which had hitherto taken place. The
proposed Bill did not disturb existing rights. It did not
take anything from congregations who might be in pos-
session of a benefice, and :which they might have for
many years been enriching. The Bill confirmed existing
rights, but it did not perpetuate injustice. It
might be urged that particular trusts might be
misappropriated, but they. were misappropriated only
through the minister, and there was no great danger of
such perversion through him, as he was liable 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
Disienters, 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 R. INGLIS, although wishing the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman joy of the manner in which he
had been received by the House, must say, that he
was unconvinced by the arguments of his Hon. and
Learned Friend, and came to a different conclusion from
the premises laid down. He looked upon this as a
question of law and of property, and on that ground he
opposed the Government measure. He did not say the
Bill interfered with any scheme of Christiani ty,but he hoped
they would act as men interested in the cause of truth and
justice. The Right HOn. and Learned Gentleman had
fortified his praise of the measure by the approbation of
the Lord Chancellor, but he (Sir R. Inglis) appealed from
Lord Lyndhurst in the House of Lords to Lord Lynd-
hurst 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 Right Hon. Friend how liti-
gation was to be prevented by the Bill, which left open
the Court of Chancery to all those who chose to con-
• test the measures of trustees. At a meeting held this
day, a resolution was come to, condemning the Bill on
the ground -of its opening the door to litigation. A
petition was agreed to, signed by " John Wilks," for-
merly a Member of this House, and recognised as the
representative, if not the leader of the Dissenting body.
The third clause was one of great importance. As it
was brought into the House of Lords it was a very sim-
ple clause, and the marginal note was actually larger
than the clause itself. Whilst the Bill was passing in
the House of Lords alteration was made in the clause,
with such breathless haste, that whereas the clause itself
was essentially changed, the marginalyeference 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 professed
objects, the prevention of litigation. The Court of
Chancery had'now as much power (and no more) as the
Bill would give it, for deciding disputed matters relating
to trustb of a religious character. He bad now to refer

to a recant decision of Sir Edward Sugden, a judge of
whom he could not speak in other terms than those of
the highest respect and esteem. That Learned Judge,
howeveri, had, upon some grounds, which he (Sir It.
Inglis) could not comprehend, deferred his judg-
ment, because this measure was in progress in Parlia-
ment. in conclusion, he would say that he thought, at
all events, the 3d clause might he so modified as to re-

mote his objections. He moved an amendment that the
Bill be Lead a second time that.day six months.
Mr. rLUMPTRE, in seconding
.the amendment,
said that he thought the oppositidn which had

been given to the Bilk ought to have com-
manded- the attention of her Majesty's Government.
It was laid the Wesleyan b;:dy., had no interest in the
matter. Supposing they had not,. was it to be supposed
that ontsuch a. ground they would give their sanction to
error? But then it had been said the Bill was not un-

derstood. fle asserted it was fully understood, and he
would say if it was carried, as he was afraid it would be,
the Christian public of this- country, would be insulted,
and cruelly used by this measure. His voice was feeble
in that House, but he was not to be deterred from ad-
dresiink the House when he found Christian principles
assailed. lie would perseveringly give his opposition to
the Bill, and in doing so he believed he was speaking the
sentimOts of thousands out of that House.
Mr. MACAULAY then rose to address the House.
He des aired of adding much to the excellent arguments
of the Learned Attorney-General, whom, he was sure,
all mutt be happy to see again in his place.—(Hear,
hear.) He had thought it right, however; that some
person on that side of the House should rise to express
his conviction of the excellency of this Bill. He was glad
to observe the temperate manner in which his Hon.
Friend the Member for Oxford had treated the subject.
Ho had considered the matter as one not of a theological
character, but mere meum and tuum. The course, how-
ever, that had been pursued by the Hon. Member who
had seconded the amendment was very different ; he
had made the question one, not of property, but of
divinity.—(Hear, hear.) Now, for his own part, if the
Bill was in favour of Catholics, the Secession Church of

Scotland, or the Free Church, his language would be the
same, and be should vote in precisely the same way as
he should do that night.—(Hear, hear.) The great
point, he considered, on which any question would arise
would be the second clause.—( Hear.) As to the first
clause, no objection had been made to it, even by his Hon.
Friend the Member for Oxford. Then came the second

clause, which rested on the principle of prescription.
A few hours ago he should not have supposed that any
lion. Member would have got up in that House or else-
where, and denied its necessity ; he bad, however, been
painfully undeceived. A conclave at Exeter-hall had

sent in ti resolution of certain proceedings that had taken
place there, from which it appeared that they considered
the principle of prescription as untenable and unworthy
of a British Legislature, and that it was inconsistent for
the Government to bring forward principles of limita-
tion. If these gentlemen were right, the laws by which
men had been governed for ages were totally wrong.
The law of prescription had been known in every civi-
lised age.—(Hear, hear.) It was known to the old Tri-
bunal of Athens ; and even after the French Revolution

it was admitted in the Code Napoleon; in short the doc-

trine of prescription was known even in countries where
the name of Justinian had never been heard. It was part
of the great charter of this country's liberties.—(Hear.)
It must be clear to any well-thinking mind, that the
principle of prescription was necessary to the preserva-
tion of property, and there would be no security for it
if it was taken away. Was it to be supposed or tolerated
that a man should be compelled to pay a bill accepted
by his great-grandfather in the year 1660?—(Hear, hear.)
Well, then, if it was desirable that a certain time of pre-
scription should be made to limit rights, he could not
see why it should not be applied to the present case.
But then it was said they wanted to pass an ex post fuck)
law. Why, let them go to what Act they would, they
would find none that had not a retrospective operation;
and till religious bigotry stepped in there was
no objections offered to such Acts. But then
it was said that they made the length of
time for doing wrong the reason why it should be
continued. The present question, in his opinion, was
one on which the principles of limitation ought to
apply most forcibly --(Hear, hear.) Now, had Hon.
Members bestowed much attention on the subject,
had they compared the petitions in favour of the Bill
with those against it? If they had, they would find in
the one sound arguments, and in the other nothing but
declamation. Let them look to the cases of the different
chapels in the country. 'fake the case of Cirencester.
Large sums were laid out on the chapel there, which had
been derived from sources foreign to the parties who
then worshipped there. Let them go to Norwich
then. There was a large chapel, the congrega-
tion of which, up to 1774, were Unitarians.
There the chapel was filled with the monuments of Uni-
tarians ; it had a library and school-house attached to it,
which had been erected at the expense of Unitarians ;
and at this moment the members of that congregation
were sitting still, not daring to repair their chapel, not
daring to build or make improvements, till they knew
what would be the result of this Bill. It did not matter
where they went ; this was the common and ordinary
history of Unitarian chapels and congregations.
Go to Manchester,—he was not quite sure of the dates,
but certainly fur seventy years at least, Unitarian doc-
trines had been taught at Manchester ' • there large sums
had been laid out and monuments had been built : he be-

lieved that the great Dr. Priestly himself preached there.
At Leeds, at the • present moment, 4,000/. were sub-
scribed for repairs of the great Unitarian chapel, and the
fund was lying idle, because they dared not use it, till the
House decided whether it could afford them protection.
At Maidstone there was the same story ; indeed it did
not matter where they went; but at Maidstone for seventy
years Unitarian principles had been taught, and 1,7001.
bad been subscribed; at Exeter the same principles had
been taught for eighty years; there 2,0001. had been
subscribed. It was the same at Rotherham, and Bath,
and other places. And were these the places which the
British Legislature would allow to be subjected to this
robbery? He really could not use any other word, for
how would it be viewei with regard to any other pro-
perty? Would it be borne for a single moment? It
was really painful to think what must be the feelings of
these Who cried out for the ejectment of these indi-
. .

viduals; why what were the claims of those who wished
to eject them, compared with the claims of the others to
remain? What were their associations with the pulpit
of a Priestly or a Lardner? What feelings had they
in connection with the monuments of Unitarian divines?

What feelings had they.in connection with the grave-
stones which the piety of four generations had placed
over the' ashes of sisters, and wives, and daughters?
Yet they came forward to eject men from places that
were to them invaluable, and the loss of which could not
be supplied, while to the intruders those very houses
had no more value than any other place
where they might have a roof over their
heads. If the House threw out this Bill, they would
not merely be robbing one party to give to another,
which would be bad enough, but they would be robbing
one party of what they considered invaluable, only to
bestow it in a quarter where it could only be felt as the
trophy of an inglorious war—a trophy which would de-
rive no value except from the humiliation and mortifica-
tion of those who were driven out. An imputation had
been thrown out in some of these petitions—and he be-
lieved it had been repeated elsewhere—of fraud on the
part of the Unitarians. It was asserted that they must
have known what was the intention of the original foun-
ders of these chapels—that they must have known they
were attached to Trinitarian doctrines, and knowing
this they must have inevitably, down to a very late pe•
riod, either have been Trinitarians or have pretended to
be so. For, it was urged, till 1779, every Dissenting
teacher was obliged to subscribe to the doctrinal articles
of the Church of England, which, if he was an honest
man, he could not do, if he held Unitarian opinions. The
inference, therefore, was clear, that down to 1779 -a Dis-
senting minister must either have been a Trinita-
tarian or a rogue ! Now, he believed they
were neither the one nor the other.—(Hear.)
The very eminent person who had used this argument
was no doubt well acquainted with the history of that
Church, of which he was so bright an ornament ; but
he questioned if he was so well read in the history of
non-conformity. The truth was that at a very early
period those articles ceased to be subscribed by Dis-
senting ministers. Even in the first generation the sub-
scription was refused, among others by the celebrated
Calmet; this was in the first generation after the Act
passed, and they all knew the force of the proverb,
which told them that " new brooms sweep clean."—
(Hear, hear.) In 1711, the Whigs, •he believed, when
they formed a coalition with Lord Nottingham, got the
Bill passed through the House of Lords, in which, in
order to favour the Dissenters, they inserted a clause,
which really took away the stringency of the enactment
as to the subscription of the articles. It stated that if
any information should be laid against a Dissenting
minister for non-subscription to the articles, and if at
any time between the lodging of the information and
the delivery of the judgment, the minister should sub-
scribe the articles, the costs of the suit should then be
cast upon the shoulders of the informer. The truth
was, that in 1773, as proved both by the procee,dings in
Parliament and the publications of the; :B:nnttling
gz
party- themselves, the majority of the,,, . !
.n
tnhge
preachers then alive had never u b r)
articles at all ; the whole of the argument,ssQ tlirfeaflolrteo,
founded on the insincerity of the Dissenters must
the ground. Was it necessary to it—how
General had very simply
ably stated
simplytheAttorne
and sholdei
b ed i
fis txi iel cdt, ahratvi ci
iliegs bbyand naturally these congregations,
ofga ttihoensd,ay—thnagt tohfehoanveingno
prin-
ciple of the Presbyter
confession
defivfiasiitohnsa to
f all,seeltias
vicnoguldno
no
subscription of articles, and only bound together by the
principle of religious freedom—what was more natural
than that they should glide gradually and insensibly from
one into another, without knowing with certainty that
the doctrines preached in the chapel on one Sunday were
identically the same as those preached on another? He
might venture to refer his Hon. Friend to another part
of ecclesiastical history, with which he had reason to be-
lieve- Ike:was perfectly intimate. Ile might refer him to
the history of the great Scotch secession, where the
doctrines now held by the Scotch Presbyterians were
the same as the original docrines of the Scotch seceders.
—(Bean) He had talked with many men of that per-
suasion, and they all acknowledged that the same points,
which were considered vital and essential by the first
generation of seceders, were now condemned by the
Presbyterians. The first seceders maintained the doc-
trine of the connexion between Church and State, and
when the great George Whitfield went to Scotland the
Presbyterians would not unite with him, though ad •
miring bis.abillties and piety, because he differed from
them on this point. The old seceders supported the
connexion between Church acid State. But were not
the Presbyterians of the present day crying out for the
voluntary system, and the separation of Church and
State? Was not their principle this, that they would
not be interfered with by the State? And would they
brand the whole genet-mien of men- as insincere because
they had gradually shaped their doctrine to something
different to what it might have been originally? But