The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-22 00:00:00

COURT OF REQUESTS.

Mr. 0. STANLEY, seeing the Right Hon Baronet,
the Home Secretary in his place, begged to repeat a
question he had put to the Right Hon. Gentleman, at an
early period of the session, with regard to the
prison of the Court of Requests at Birmingham ;
and also with respect to the prison of the Court of Re-
quests at Kidderminster, which was stated to be badly
constructed, while great complaints were made by the
prisoners of the diet, which was only bread and water.
Ile wished to know whether any inquiry had been
instituted with respect to the prison at Kid-
derminster ; whether the Right Honourable Gen-
Veman, as Home Secretary, bad felt satisfied
with the correspondence with the authorities at
Birmingham, as to the state of the prison there, and if
he had instituted any inquiry into the state of the prisons
of the Courts of Request in other parts of the kingdom.
He wished to know, likewise, whether the Bill brought
into the other House of Parliament (the Abolition of
Imprisonment for Debt Bill) would do away with these
prisons ?
Sir J. GR AIIAM said, with respect to the prison of
the Court of Requests at Kidderminster, he had thought
it his duty to send down an inspector, for the purpose
of making a report, which he understood had been
completed, but he had not yet received it. With
respect to the prison at Birmingham he had not as
yet received a satisfactory report. The proper course
to be adopted in such a case was to apply to the Court
of Queen's Bench, for the Secretary of State had no power
to interfere. With reference to the question of the
Honourable Gentleman on the subject of the
County Courts Bill, he had to state that there certainly
were provisions in the Bill which would remove these
objections. But there was before the other House a
Bill which went to the abolition of imprisonment for
debt altogether, and if that passed into a law, it would
altogether remove the necessity of legislating on this
subject.
EMIGRATION TO DEMERARA—WEST INDIAN

sentiments sentiments which did not pass merely.,
from the lips, but which he felt in his heart. He knew
it was now in vain to appeal to her Majesty's Govern-
ment ; but if there were any there who would make a
motion on the subject, he would most willingly join
them in opposing the measure ; but he would not make
any motion.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he would state in a few words
the error in which he thought the Hon. Gentleman,
whom he believed to be perfectly sincere in his opinion,
was involved. lie bad received several communications
from his constituents, saying they would withdraw their
support from him if he supported the Bill. Now, he
could not but think that the lion. Gentleman, and others
out of doors, had mixed up two questions which ought
to be kept separate. —(Loud cheers.) They laid stress
on the religious opinions of the Unitarians, but then
they ought to secept them as they were accepted by
the Act of Toleration. If the Unitarians were to have
the benefit of the Act of Toleration they ought :to be
treated on the same footing as the other Dissenters.—
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman did not think so;
but if that were the case their legislation should be in
conformity with it, and they ought to make laws to dis-
courage the Unitarians. He should call that religious
persecution—(Hear. hear.)—but then their legislation
would be direct. As to the question of property, that
question had been fully argued, and he had bad no an-
swer to the objection that they could not ascertain to
whom these trusts were to be given, if taken from the
Unitarians. lie was of opinion that there should be
some limit as to time where there was such a variation
in religious opinions as there was amongst the Dissen-
ters, who were not bound together by an establishment.
The utmost that could be done was to let such property
fall to the ground. Though by law toleration was not
given to the Unitarians until 1813, yet, for practical pur-
poses, toleration had existed for the last century.
And if such cases had come forward in the time of Sir R.
Walpole, and Lord Chatham, it never would have been
permitted that such persons should be divested of their
property. He must say that he never was more tho-
roughly convinced that a Bill was necessary than at
present. It was only right that impartial justice should be
done to all classes of their fellow-subjects, without any
reference to their religious tenets, and he would give the
measure his entire and cordial support.—(Cheers.)
Sir R. PEEL said, it grieved him very much that his
Hon. Friend behind him could have supposed for a mo-
ment that recent circumstances could have had anything
whatever to do with the present question. He assured
his Hon. Friend that nothing that had occurred would
induce him to vary the opinions he had formerly enter-
tained and expressed, and the able arguments which had
been advanced pro and con. on the late discussion only
seemed to confirm him in the truth of his opinions as to
the rectitude and necessity of the Bill. He should consi-
der it disgraceful in a Government to withdraw a Bill
under such circumstances. It had been rightly said that
the Government could have no party inf:,:est in bringing
forward the measure, and that they were wholly influ-
enced by better motives. The Government gave no
assent by their advocacy of the Bill to any particular
class of religious opinions. It was a question not of
faith, but of property—(Hear, hear)—and, if Parlia-
ment did not interfere, there would be a general crusade
against those holding that property. The Bill was in-
troduced for the sake of religious peace and concord,
and to quiet long-established possession, and prevent
litigation.
Mr. SHAW believed the first clause of the Bill was
founded en justice, but thought the second clause most
unjust in its nature, and would move an amendment to
it in Committee. He thought the Synod of Ulster
ought to be excluded from the operation of that clause.
He had been informed, that the Hon. and Learned
Member for Worcester (Sergeant Wilde) had been in-
structed by a large and influential body of Presbyterians
to oppose the Bill, and did not signify his intention of
declining to give that opposition until the very night
before the Bill was introduced. A large body of Pres-
byterians in both countries were opposed to the Bill.
Mr. PLUMPTRE explained.
Sergeant MURPFJY defended the conduct of the
Hon. Member for Worcester. His declining to oppose the
Bill was the very best proof of its utility. He thought
the measure both just and necessary.
Mr. DARBY said his objection to this Bill was to be
found in the fact that it excluded evidence with respect
to one class of persons, and admitted it with respect to
other classes. As to the suggestion of the Right Hon.
Recorder of Dublin (Mr. Shaw), to extend the period of
adverse possession to sixty years, what was that but ad-
mitting the principle of the Bill ?
Colonel SIBTHORP said the Hon. Gentleman near
him (Mr. Plumptre) was the proper person to decide
whether or not he would yield to the suggestion which
had been made, and withdraw his amendment. If, how-
ever, he persisted in pressing it to a division, it should
have his most cordial support.
Mr. COLLETT said he should give his support to the
Bill, because he thought religion was a matter between
man and his Maker, and with which no human power had
any right to interfere.
Sir W. JAMES said the second clause of the Bill was
the clenching clause in his mind, and if the Right lion.
Baronet (Sir .R. Peel) would consent to withdraw it, he
should then have his support to the other portions of the
Bill. A prescription as to property was one thing, and
could be established ; but a prescription as to doctrine
was another, and not capable of proper regulation. The
Bill, in his opinion, was calculated to increase rather
than to diminish litigation.
Mr. WARD said, if the second clause were omitted,
then the Bill itself might as well be withdrawn, for in
that clause was its virtue. It seemed to be forgotten
that the object of the Bill was to put a stop to litigation,
and not to regulate articles of faith. He supported it
entirely from an impression of its justice, and not on
political or on religious grounds. It was a Bill, in his
opinion, that did infinite credit to the Government.
Mr. LAWSON said he should oppose the Bill; but in
doing so be begged it to be understood that he was
not moved to that course by religious hostility, but
merely by legal grounds.
Colonel VERNER considered the Bill to be a great
injustice ; if Members had understood its true cha-
racter. there would have been a great majority against
it. He regretted whenever he was compelled to vote
against the Right lion. Baronet, but, on this occasion,
he felt it his duty to do so.
Mr. M. PHILIPS said the Bill was a measure of
simple justice and equity. He did not believe that Chris-
tian toleration and charity would be at all promoted by
allowing the law to wrest the chapels from those who
now held them. He should give his support to the mea-
sure, and tendered his thanks to her Majesty's Govern-
ment for having risen superior to the influences that
might have been brought to bear on it.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY thought the Bill might
safely be allowed to go into Committee; it had been
very fully discussed, and the whole force of the Bill was
contained in one clause, and that would be discussed in
the Committee.
Mr. ESCOTT hoped it would be allowed to go into
Committee; and he hoped, also, that no alteration would
then be made in it that would injure its operation. He
did not think the Government was deserving of all the
praise that had been given to it for its disinterestedness
in bringing in this Bill, for it was calculated greatly to
increase the power of the Government.
Mr. PLUMPTRE, after the expression:of opinion on
the part of the House, would not press his motion to a
division.

The motion being withdrawn, the House went into
Committee on the Bill, Mr. GREENE in the chair.

On clause 1 being proposed,
Mr. HARDY said the great body of the Dissenters
were against the Bill, and he therefore objected to the
terms of the preamble.
Mr. BERNAL said that the preamble had been post-
poned; they were then on the first clause.
Mr. HARDY had the same objection to the enacting
part of the first clause, and proposed that the words,
" being Unitarian Dissenters," should be inserted.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the Hon. Mem-
ber totally misunderstood the nature of the clause. It
was necessary for the protection of all classes of Dis-
senters. During the greater part of the last century all
Dissent was illegal in England, and till a later period in
Ireland. If any question should arise as to the founda-
tion of a chapel established during that period, the
Chancellor would be obliged to decide that the endow-
ment must be taken from those who held it, and given
to a form of worship legal at the time. As this was
intended to be a measure of justice to all, if the amend-
ment of his Hon. Friend were passed, it would defeat
the very object of the Bill, and he should, therefore,
oppose it.
The amendment was withdrawn.

The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 2 being proposed,
Mr. S. WORTLEY said he felt great objection against
throwing the protection of Parliament over those cases
where there was not merely a change of doctrine, but
where there was a clear misappropriation of the trust
funds, almost amounting to a fraud. He should, there-
fore, be anxious to know what was the precise force of
the words in the clause relating to this point. He looked
upon this matter as a question of law and property, and
not as a religious one.
Mr. SHAW proposed the following amendment :
" Providing that, where the particular religious doc-
trines or opinions appeared in documents contempora-
neous with the endowment, and preserved amongst the
authentic records of the congregation, the usage should
not be taken as evidence contradictory of such docu-
ments." He made this amendment in order to meet the
case of the Presbyterians of the Synod of Ulster. The
Bill did not apply to eases where deeds existed, or to
cases where documents as good as deeds existed. Under
this last principle the Wesleyan Methodists were ex-
empted from the operation of the Bill. The Presbyte-
rians of the Synod of Ulster had not deeds, but they had
documents, which were as good evidence as deeds. The
Synod of Ulster had existed for 200 years. From 1691 they
had public records of their proceedings, and they were in
the nature of courts of justice. They held the discipline
of the Church of England. They were a sort of quasi
Church Establishment in Ulster from that time to the pre-
sent ; and they had records setting forth their reli-
gious doctrines as indisputable, and as satisfactory
in the way of evidence as any records could be.
In the report of a law case which he held in his hand,
those records were received as evidence. The Presby-
terians of the Synod of Ulster required subscription to
particular doctrines, and on this ground he claimed exemp-
tion for them. In 1698 it was moved and carried in the
Synod, at Antrim, that young men when licensed to
preach should be obliged to subscribe their confession of
faith. A similar condition was repeated in 1705. When
the Toleration Act was passed in 1716, it became a
question with the Synod of Ulster on what terms it
should be accepted, and the subscription to the West-
minster Confession of Faith was still retained. From
the earliest period down to the present time there was
no difficulty in ascertaining what were the doctrines of
the Synod of Ulster ; and to those doctrines every
minister was required to subscribe. It was a monstrous
thing to tell the Synod of Ulster, as they did by this Bill,
that the whole of its property would be placed in danger.
There were only 62 deeds smongst 500 congregatims ;

Tilt SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 22, 1644.