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

causes of disunion, it wa,s found impossible that these articles
of agreement could be sustained as they came to hand. But
the willingness of parties to bind themselves was not sufficient
to bind posterity. When they came to look at the trust de-
clared in the deeds, they found that the terms of that trust
declared, in the most general words, that the parties them-
selves, when about to confer the trust, did not refer to any par-
ticular doctrine, but used a general phraseology, Which showed,
irrefragibly showed, that their intention was not to bind their
successors to any particular form of doctrine. Well, but an
objection had been made by the opponents of the Bill. They
declared that the executor of the trust never could have for a
moment supposed that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity could
be questioned. Did those opponents recollect—did they alto-
gether forget the continual changes in religious opinions which
were going on at the very time that trust was executed?
Could any reflecting man suppose that in the rapid changes of
the seventeenth century, our forefathers who lived in
that age would have calculated on an entire agreement,
and that those differences in religious opinion would at
once cease ? Why, that was the very period of change ! Did
those men forget that it was about that time that the Act of
Uniformity was passed; and that Nonconformity was
legalised? and could it be imagined that men living in
such a period would believe in the doctrine of religious finality?
Controversy was at that period raging on the subject of the
Trinity. Did they forget the works of such men as Biddle and
Irvine ? From 1690 to 1710, there were all sorts of
pamphlets teeming from the press on this very subject. The
Act of Queen Anne sufficiently proved that subscription to
the faith of the Trinity was not peremptorily demanded.
A few years after that date, liberty or license upon this point
came to such a height, that., in 1718, the whole Presbyterian
body was divided on it. A Bill was then brought forward to
repeal this operation of the schism and Nonconformity Act,
and it was called " A Bill for the strengthening the Pro-
testant interests." In 1719 the Bill passed a sezond reading,
and in going into Committee instructions were moved to it, that
a clause should be added, to the effect that belief in Divine
Scripture, and a belief in the Trinity, should form a por-
tion of the oath. Now here was a plan directing reference
to the doctrine of faith in the Trinity, and it was proposed
to be made on condition of holding office. Most lion. Mem-
bers might have heard of the celebrated Salter's Hall contro-
versy. In 1718 two Dissenters were charged, before a Com-
mittee of Presbyterian congregations, with preaching Anti-
Trinitarianism, and those doctrines were condemned before
the congregation, and it was decided on that occasion that the
non-subscription of a minister to a faith in the Trinity was a
sufficient ground for the withdrawal of the congregation from
his preaching. About this time the Dissenting ministers of
London formed a central body, and they met in large numbers,
and the subscription to the faith of the Trinity was a loud sub..
ject of discUssion. It was warmly debated, whether the de-
claration concerning the doctrine of the Trinity should be for-
warded to the ministers of different congregations in
a letter of advice, and it was carried by a majority—a small
majority he owned, of four—that that doctrine should not be
declared. Yet still it was the opinion of the majority of the
large, and it was to be presumed, the most intelligent, of Dis-
senting ministers, that subscribing to the doctrine of the Tri-
nity should be made a distinctive form of communion. He
thought it necessary to remind the House that that meeting
was composed of Presbyterians and Independents, in fact, a
large portion of the meeting was of the latter class. He would
mention to the House a most essential testimony upon this sub-
ject from another source. He did not say that the non-sub-
scription to the doctrine of the Trinity was made a funda-
mental asticle in the Toleration Act, but from the year 1719 the
non-subscription was established to all intents and purposes.
What was the opinion of Mr. Wilson, who claimed the first part
of the controversy? He said that it was a matter of historical
notoriety. that the English Presbyterians, at the time that
charity was bequeathed. reused to subscribe to any declara-
tion of faith, because they would not bind themselves to the
words and terms of any human composition ; and Mr. Wilson
added, that the English Presbyterians of that day were all
now subscribers. But he was now going to quote to the House
the opinions of two gentlemen still more distinguished, one of
whom was Dr. Calamy, the other Dr. Doddridge. Dr. Calamy,
who in 1719, said that he was willing to subscribe to
the doctrine of the Trinity, but at the same time, he would
not recommend that it should be made absolutely essential.
He said, in the words of Chillingworth, let all men believe
the Scriptures, and in them only, and endeavour to take from
them their true sense, their rule of faith, and no more was
required of them, for that would restore union and abolish
heresy. They could hardly have a more unequivocal testi-
mony than that. Dr. Doddridge used these remarkable words
in the latter part of the year 1737—" You cannot be too care-
ful in giving countenance to that narrow spirit of bigotry
ehich had already done so much mischief in the Christian
Church, and the doctrine of the Trinity, if enforced, would
cause much dissension." In short, with such a mass of autho-
rities as he had quoted to the House, he did not think there was
room for any difference of opinion ; and he thought it was
therefore unnecessary to occupy the time of the House by
quoting further testimony. He hoped the Bill would pass—
indeed he had very little doubt but it would pass through the
House by a large majority, but he had a still further and a still
more earnest hope to express, and that was that it would allay
the bitter and hostile feeling which at present prevailed out of
doors. He did not believe the Hon. Member for Kent, when
he stated that in passing this Bill, they were passing a measure
for the encouragement of error. Suppose the Hon. Member
had been a judge in a case in which two litigants were contend-
ing- for an estate, and one, the rightful claimant was as profligate
and abandoned a character as could be, and the other most
benevolent and just ; would the Hon. Member, under such
circumstances, be deterred from awarding the estate to the
profligate suitor on the ground that the award would encourage
error ? He called on the House, most earnestly and emphati.'
tally, to give their sanction to the Bill. Aiter some further
observations, the Right Hon. Gentleman concluded by saying,
the highest use he could make of his religious belief was to ap-
ply it to the decisive performance of this important Act—an
Act which, in its spirit and tendency, was, as he hoped he had
in some degree proved, founded upon the everlasting principle
of truth.—( Loud cheers.)
Mr. SHELL then rose, and said he could assure the House
he was glad to hear from such high authority that the mea-
sure was reconcilable to the principles of State conscience
(Laughter and cries of " Hear")—and that the Right Hon.
Gentl. man, a Cabinet Minister, had become the champion of ,
freedom of conscience.—(Hear.) He very much regretted
that the arguments of the Right Hon. Gentleman were not
used in the Healey case, for if used with such surprising effi-
cacy and applicability—if such irrefragable historical evidence
were brought to bear, he could not help thinking that a very
different decisitm would have been come to. He would nut
have ventured to address the House in this debate if any other
Roman Catholic had spoken ; but he thought it right to avail
himself of the opportunity afforded him to state that the entire
of that great and powerful community were in favour of this
Bill.—( Loud cheers, and cries of " Hear, hear.") It was not
froth any feeling of a sectarian character—it was not from any
interested motive—hut because the Bill was founded upon the
principle of religious toleration.—( Hear, hear.) Whatever
sins the Catholic Church might commit in connection with the
State, he had no doubt but that at the present moment the
Catholic Church in Ireland was thoroughly tolerant.—( Ironical
cries of " Hear, hear," from the Conservative benches, and
cheers from the Opposition.) He supported this measure
though professing that creed of which the haughty
Wolsey and the meek Fcnelon were members, and
was as Athanasian as either. The Honourable Baronet
the Member for the University of Oxford reprobated the
measure, but at the same time gave credit to the Right Hon.
Baronet at the head of the Governments He (Mr. Shed)
could be actuated by no sordid or party motive in giving his
support to the Bill. He supported it heartily, but he sup-
ported it from a hearty conviction of its merits ; and he could
not refrain ft.( m expressing his strong approval of the measure,
the promotion iaf which the Attorney-General had, in his ad-
mirable speech, so advanced, and which had been received in
so approving a manner by all sides of the House. The Hon.
and Learned Gentleman adverted to the opinions of those
Noble and Learned Lords who were Members of the other
House, and he certainly bad ample reason to congratulate
the House that those Noble and Learned Lords who
had been Lord Chancellors of England and Ireland hid
approved of the measure. He hoped the discussion which
took place to-night would extirguish the erroneous feeling
against the Bill, which, if he could judge from the number of
petitions laid on the table of the House, was so rife among a
large portion of the community. The object of the Bill was
to confirm those principles of toleration by which this great
country was so eminently distinguished 1. The object of this
Bill was to put en end to that controversy in courts of justice

concord." —:(Cheers.) At that time two of
the Bishop's
of the Church of England professed Unitarian doctrines,
and many of the professors in our Universities held
similar opinions. On these grounds, he felt compelled
to support her Majesty's Government. lie could not
but remember that some of his own ancestors had been
Presbyterians, -and bad afterwards adopted Unitarian
opinions, and this perhaps had saved him, a member of
the Church of England, from falling into the same abyss
of bigotry into which so many friends whom he esteemed
appeared to have fallen. He implored the House to
remember that this question was not now as if it had
never been started. Most important consequences
might ensue. Virtuous and impassioned men would
take up this question, and bad men would take it up
also. False suite would be instituted by persons who
had no object in view but their personal gain. They
would also have acts of retaliation on the part of the
Unitarians—suits of inquiry as to how far the Wes-
leyans have carried out the doctrines of John Wesley,
or how far the Independent: profess the doctrines that
were held by Harrison and the Independents of the
Commonwealth. There was no solution for these diffi-
culties but by the present Bill.—(Cheers.)
Mr. FOX MAULE wished to make a few remarks
upon the Bill;differing as he did upon this measure,
from thoze.with whom it had been his pride hitherto to'
act. He stood, therefore, in a painful position hitt he
had not placed himself in that position without duly con-
sidering the question. It was his firm conviction, that
if he agreed to that Bill he should be agreeing to an act
of injustice, and therefore he opposed it. He agreed
that that House was no fit arena for theological discus-
sion, and therefore he should not go into it. He saw
with regret, that this Bill was supported by such an
array of talent in the other House. It was supported,
he must admit, by Noble Lords for whose legal ac-
quirements he entertained the highest respect, although
he differed from them in political opinion. Compara-
tively ignorant as he admitted himself to be of the
state of thd.law, he felt that this Bill was an act of injus-
tice, and- felt bound to act upon his own individual
opinion, as an independent Member of Parliament, and
oppose it. The Bill proceeded upon, the principle of the
introduction of a prescription of twenty .five years in
matters in-which legal prescription had not hitherto been
permitted to Operate. They intended to permit this pre-
scription to supersede the intentions of the founders of
trusts for-religious and charitable purposes. In all cases
he believed there were means of ascertaining the inten-
tions of the founders. It might be expensive to do so,
but that would be a reason which would deter parties
from entering into litigation. If this Bill were passed,
it would nut only be unjust as regarded the present foun-
datioos, but it would affect all future donations, for no
one could ..feel assured that the intention with which
he left his money would be followed out after the lapse of
a few years. This principle was now, for the first time
introduced into the law. The Bill professed to apply
the same principle to this as applied to the tenure of all
other property; but it was the first instance in which an
Act of Limitation was made to have a retrospective ope-
ration. In all other cases of limitation the law had a
prospective operation only. The Act of Limitation of
James I. enacted that persons bringing suits should be
bound to bring them within a certain time after the
passing of the Act. Such was not the case in the present
Bill. In the statute of limitations, the right to bring suits
was reserved to parties fora certain time after the law was
enacted. Such was not the case under the present Bill.
/Co party having . a claim, at present, to ascertain the
intentions of a founder could exercise that right after the
Bill should hare passed into a law. It was all act of in-
justice, to which he, for one, would not subscribe.. But
it was said that if the Bill were not passed, its rejection
would give rise to an enormous mass of litigation. Judg-
ing from -the paSt, he denied that such would be the case.
In England, with the exception of the Hewley case, there
had been but one suit to recover possession from the
Unitarians. There was a case which came before Lord
Eldon, in 1817, and that suit had not been instituted by
Trinitarians against Unitarians, but it was an attempt
made by Unitarians to elect from one of their chapels
a minister who had returned to Trinitarian doctrines.
It appeared to him that her Majesty's Government had
not been decided about this Bill. There could be no
question that when the Bill was first introduced it was
not so malignant, as regarded the rights of property, as
it was at present. It was not till the Bill was read a
third time that it became so stringent, and, as he main-
tained,. so notoriously unjust. When the Bill was intro-
duced, it did not extend to Ireland. The Lord Chancellor had
stated that the Bill should not he extended to Ireland until
the Presbyterians of that count' y had had an opportunity
of beettg beard against it before a Committee of the House
of Lords. That body, however, had not had the smallest
opportunity, before that House, of being heard, either by them-
selves, or by counsel, against that portion of the Bill which
had been so materially altered. There were no cases in England
to which the Bill could apply ; it was, in fact, a Bill against
existing cases in Ireland. In the Eustace-street case, the
Lord Chancellor of Ireland, although he had nut virtually
given judgment, had stated the impression on his mind as to
what his judgvaetit ought to be; and he was hanging
up his judgment until an Act had been passed to
tuperteile the rights of these individuals.—( Hear, hear.)
He believed that if this Bill passed, so far from having a ten-
dency to diminish litigation, it would create litigation without
end, and introduCe into congregations elements of discord, the
eonsequenees of which the advocates of this Bill would be the
very first to regret. He knew it was quite in vain, with the
state-:of feeling in that House, to attempt to dissuade the
Homes from consenting to the second reading of the Bill.—
( Cheers.) He had, however, thought it his duty to state
publicly; the rounds en which he differed from those by
whorh it was -introduced. In the name of those who had
intrusted him to represent them in that House, he protested
against the measure, as one fraught with injustice, de-
priving as it did other parties whom he repre-
sented from prosecuting a claim which the courts of law
had declared to be just.
Mr. GLADSTONE said, that having felt it his duty to
look into this question for the purpose of arriving at the best
conclusion he could with respect to this Bill, and having made
up his mind that it was incumbent upon them to pass it if they
would not sacrifice their character for regard to the sacred
principles of justice, he desired to take his share of any re-
sponsibility which might attend the introduction and sup-
port of that Bill.—( Cheers.) He must be allowed to say
first; that he distinguished broadly between the substantial
purpose which they had in view, and the precise form of the
legal instrument by which it was proposed to effect that pur-
pose. He had before him a great question of justice. That
question he apprehended to be, whether those who were
called in England Presbyterian Dissenters, and who
were, as he believed, a century and a half ago,
universally of Trinitarian opinions, ought or ought not to
be protected at the present moment in the possession of the
chapels which they held, with the appurtenances of those cha-
pels. Upon that question he ventured to propound the strongest
opinion. The speeches against the Bill had not contained one
syllable of argument upon the principle. The Right Hon.
Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford, and the
Right Hon.• Gentleman opposite, had used divers arguments as
to the effect which this Bill, if it were passed, would have upon
particular parties ; but he had not heard either of those gen-
tlemen argue this question as a question of justice. He would
not 'enter into the question whether Unitarians ought to be
protected in the possession of property which was originally
given for Trinitarian purposes—upon that question there
could not be the smallest difference of opinion ;
but what he now proposed to argue was, that although
the•original founders of these meeting-houses might have been,
and were, in the vast majority of instances, persons of Trini-
tarian opinions, yet, upon the principles of justice, the present
holders, being Unitarians, ought to be protected.—( Hear. )
His Hon. Friendhad said that the opposition to this Bill was an
opposition which the Government ought to respect. He
trusted that the Government would pay every respect to every
opposition to this Bill which was founded on sincere and con-

scientious opposition, and he did not doubt that this opposition which had brought the most sacred subjects into desecrating
ot. that character. He believed it was very mach less owing familiarity.—( Hear, hear. ) The principle of the Bill was
to theological
animosity than to misapprehension —( Hear ) founded on an enlarged limitation of the principle which
His Hon. Friend had said also that the Bill was. an insult
regulated private property. It was an Act of Set-
to the Christian feelings of the English peo le. Ile believed tlement, of which they stood in great need; and
that if the Bill was required by the principles of ju_stice,. so what stronger proof could there ,be of that than
far from its passing being considered an insult to the
would
ihristian the case which the lion. Baronet, the Member for the
feelings of the people of England, those feelings outhcartequire University of Oxford, had reluctantly submitted to the Honse
them to pass it. —(Cheers. )He was persuailewd wheninoat —the case of Mary Armstrong.--(Loud cries of " Hear, hear,"
they had fuller information upon the subject, they would
.particularly from Sir Robert Peel.) The principle of equity
that demand. A very great prejudice existed in the publice was,
hthat in an original trust, every subsequent donation,
mind from the undefined association between the purpose and
original g made with a different intent, was attached to that
olsieets of the Bill and the Lady Bewley case. There was astw,osoohithat the consequence was, that any subse-
sort of family resemblance in all such cases, but he thought he quent grantm apply
.hotohteh,aat trust. But what was the case
9a.tea;thser
aolflaf enontgregation
should be borne out by a'l lawyers, when he said there was a of Mary Armstrong,
in 18C6 ; her husband died in became
b odd and essential distinction between Lady Hewley's case
Lorde con-
anti n -
anti the general mass of cases to which this Bill applied.-- tributed by the Unitarians. The bequestm cameu b(efO'ras
( Hear, hear.) Lady flewley was a foundress ; she was a Plunkett, who was the son of a distinguished Arian mienister,
person who devised a large portion of her property upon trust She had four daughters, and found it difficult to main:
for a particular purpose.' But were the parties who instituted lain the painful position between decency and destitution.
those chapels founders in the eye of the law? He apprehended if this Bill was not passed Mary Armstrong and her four
that they were not parties who devised their property for the daughters would be turned out. The Right Hon. Baronet had
benefit of others, but for their own purposes. Undoubtedly felt the force of that case, his good nature had got the better of
it was to descend after they themselves had made use of it, but his habitual predilection, and he suggested that a special clause
he apprehended that there could be no doubt but there was a should be introduced into the Bill. The case of Mary Arm-
great and marked Practical difference between the two-ewes. strong was not a solitary instance, hundreds of clergymen
The right of a founder to have his intentions ascertained, re- would be deprived of their subsistence if the present Bill did
spected, and preserved, was a right entirely different in its na- not pass into a law. The Bill did not interfere with express
ture from that possessed by persons who associated together to trusts. If a donor made a specific declaration of his opinion,
form a body, of which they themselves were the first members, no matter however fantastical, a court of equity, centuries after-
and who were to he replenished in the ordinary and natural wards, would carry it into effect; but if the trusts were not
way. In the case of Lady Bewley it could not be said that expressed, if they were the subject of surmise and
there were no indications of the intentions of the foundress. probability, in that case, after the lapse of twenty-five years
She made reference to the Apost!es' Creed, the Till Corn- of uninterupted possession, in that case alone, the present Bill
mandments, and the Lords' Prayer. He hoped, therefore, would operate, and iniquitous litigation would be put down.—
that Honourable Gentlemen would consider the Bill ( Hear, hear.) The Bill was not confined to Unitarians, it
iiapart from the case of Lady Howley. He would pass did not make them the special object of favour. There was a
by, for , a moment, the question, whether these parties cry against them at one time, but they would not hunt a Uni-
were founders or not, only observing, that if they were tarian when they had a Papist for game.--( Laughter.) But
n otit would be impossible to wake out a breach of trust. Even now the spirit was abroad that a Socinian should be hunted
if there were a breach of trust, he should have to consider the down.—( Hear, hear.) The object of the Bill was to give pro-
length of time during which the chapels had been held, the un- tection to all classes. All were placed upon a perfect level.
doubted innocency of the resent generation, and he long The cEstinelri .ns that were supposed to exist between Presby-
period during which Unitarian opinions had prevailed. He tenant and Uni arians in Ireland were erroneous. The Con-
would have to consider that
the original institutions Oft theyth had the lineage and descent of forme I,taking idvantage of the decision in Lady Hewley's case,
consider the insuperable difficult edits chapels ; lie would have to and di agraping with the Nonconformers, took a court of equity
a good title to the property ; andsit of finding a claimant with as the stage on which to deprive them of apostolic consolation.
e inu,t say, without wishing —( Hear, hear.) lie was surprised that the Honourable
to give offence to any m
to consider that for one hundred that he would have Member for Oxford should have thought it his duty
elarsii while Unitarian to interfere in a case in which the Church had
opinions bad prevailed in these ehap
who now came forward proclaiming te class of persons no concern.—(Hear.) According to the Honourable
themselves the right- Baronet's opinion all Dissenters ought to be treated with the
ful possessors, had endured in silence the breach
of trttst and had same disregard. If he might venture to make a suggestion
fought side by side with them in the acquisition of civil
liberty. to the Hon. Baronet, he would tell him that the principles he
He said, therefore, that if there had been a breachpotiftrustthe had broached had a somewhat serious tendency:. The Hon.
case was one ofd most painful and difficult deserioo lint
•Member had taiked about the absurdities connected with the
had there been a breach of trust ? Had there been any viola- o
liai
;hest
Mary, and had complained of the breaches of trust that
tion of the intentions of the founders? The custom o
taken place in charities connected with the worship of
doors was not to argue the intentions of the founders, but
..atcit. , hoti r. Was not the ease of William of Wykham stronger than
H
assume them. e would maintain that this Bill would go i
,that? William of Wykham founded the College of St Ma-
to restore the original intentions of the founders of these ry's, at Oxford. He had given directions that a certain ri-
chapels. After all, the question was one of history, and a tual should be performed in honour of the Virgin Mary, arid
very important historical
.question it was. If they were to that a statue of her shouldlto be placed on some high spot, and,
eltmine into the history of this matter, they would find that in addition to this, directed that certain masses should
from generation to generation, almost from year to year, he said for his soul. Had there been no breach of trust in
during the seventeenth anti eighteenth century the question the case of William of Wykham'' At a meeting at T:!:xeter-hall
was the subject of continual change. Who were the parties into the other day, under particular. auspices,
gentleman named
whose views they were then inquiring? They were not Pres- Hammerton had said, that if the saintsa
in heaven, only knew
purposes on earth was being squandered, thkehytz
byterians prior to the Act of Toleration. It was about the manner in which that which they had left for religious
the year 1643 that the original Presbyterian faith p
:::(I,edoutlfhtiece
was established, and by the year 1690 that very greatest disgust ; and if William of W
faith was itself abandoned. Now he asked whether this was that the statute of the Virgin Mary had Wykham,
jest of ridicule, and that in the college that hem I
thinksut hbe-
not an important point fur their consideration ? In the yearhad founded
1.,20 Mr. Cotton Mather wrote a history' of the pilgrimage of instead of the " Ave Merles" and " Salve Begin
n," lie had
fwtahseren6Lte:
the Fathers who went to New England. That history con- directed to take place, the modern dialect had ntroduced,
contained an address, written by Robins, one of the Fathers and if William of Wykham was to know that his
col-
who went over, and which addres was written to the planters lege, which was founded by a bull of Pope Urba own
in the color - -
,uld not William
in the , rivocated change rented in the flouse of Commons by that terrs,rno,
that if tl
Lys college?"—_t triter contended slave and scourge of Rome—( Hear, hear)—wr
to this, ild have returned of Wykham say, " Give me back St. Ma
to the adhering strict! ( Hear.) Let them put a stop to the ' ,pirit of litigation

There

ty
Tibed

p .
litigation which

time,
In 169.

nal!), prescl
ied about this origin in the worst of human passions. Before
e to be drawn, he sat down, ho could not but express
nig surprise that men
lice. and other I who were asking for lama—who vie'4 calling for alterations

that Was taking place—a

had

_ ..—..
colony, and in that address the wri'.er c(
religiousptir la ~..ho settlers. 1 h ,-., w
the origi loifthiefaitif'ilit)iy WI cool
world,' ztxriirrt-trat9,4ht of a
r6rrnsiWtt_. e - eu* la'rl'origin
we*-"' , . Q r:1/4 *0 kit . ptiblishe
fro <Q - •Op--14.5,A u,oilisis vver(
Mfr 9t, . V uni. ciifferet
...., •:.-.,:
\\.....A....z.
•":.i• - • ...- t_, Lii,r7,\-.y:.,
.I>.l. •
~fli Ai