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

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY MORNING, JUNE 22, 5844.

, -
power to relieve those who were now suffering from the
existence of the system of imprisonment for debt.
The Earl. of MINTO looked upon the preposition of
the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack as an in-
direct way of getting rid of the Bill. He should cer-
tainly support the Bill.
Their Lordships then divided on the motion that the
Bill be read a third time, when there appeared—
Contents 4
Not Cont nts - 28
Majority — 24
The Bill was then ordered to be referred to a Select
Committee.
Messengers from the Commons brought up the Parishes
(Scotland) and other Bills.
The LORD CHANCELLOR laid on the table a
Bill for securing the better administration of charitable
trusts in England and Wales.
Their Lordships then adjourned at Half-past Nine.

for-Abingdon, the newly-elected Member had at his
chairing distributed 50/. among the crowd from a
bag of money in his lap ? The following ac::ount
of the chairing had appeared in the newspapers.
(Here the Honourable Gentleman commenced read-
ing a description of the chairing,, of the Solicitor-
General. It stated that ' the procession started from
.the Town Hall, which consisted of a brass band, with
twenty pensioners. The Solicitor-General sat in a chair
ornamented with flowers and ribbons ; the chairing of a
Member was considered important, for it was customary
for the gentlemen who were elected to take a bag of silver
money with them, which they distributed among the
crowd. One gentleman, Mr. Mabberley, distributed
1201. in this way, Mr. Duffield not more
than 701.—(A laugh)—and the L( arned Solici-
tor-General threw away but 50/. It was amusing to
see the old women holding out their aprons to. receive
the money which the Hon. and Learned Member, like an
elegant gentleman as he was, threw away.—(A laugh.)
There was a great deal of scrambling, scratching, shout-
ing, and fighting, such a scene took place as baffled all
description, and thus terminated the Abingdon election.)
—(Much laughter.) He (Mr. Christie) believed that
the words of the late Act of Parliament did not
apply to the custom of " scramble-money," but one could
see that with a little arrangement it could be converted
to the purpose of direct bribery. It could not, at all
events, tend to exalt the purity of election ; and he
therefore begged to ask the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man, whether it was true or false that he contributed, in
the manner he had just described, to promote the purity
of Parliamentary election ?—(Hear, hear.) '

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 •
went ; 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. He had 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 Hon. 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 accept 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
persecutiour-(Hear. hear.)—but then their legislation
would be direct. As to the question of property, that
question bad been fully argued, and he had had no an-
swer to the objection, that they could not ascertain to
whom these trusts were to be given, if taken from the
Unitarians. He 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 hound together by an establishment.
The utmost that could be done was to let such property
fall to the ground. Though by law toleration was hot
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 IL
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 hll 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. EEL 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 dtsctssion only
seemed to confirm him in the truth of his opinions as to
the rectitude and necessity of the Bill. Ile 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 interest 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

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that a very in-
correct and, he believed, irregular practice had been intro-
duced into that House of putting questions not relating
to matters before the House, or with regard to Bills with
which Members might be charged, but upon matters
wholly foreign to it, and occurring in a different place,
and; which might excite the curiosity of Hon. aiembers.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman, it was true, gave
him notice of his intention to put this question so long
ago-, as yesterday week, but circumstances prevented
him (the So:icitor-General) being in his place
at the time for askinj. questions. Ile had, however,
hoped that the opportunity afforded the Honourable
and Learned Gentleman in the interval for reflection,
would induce him to consider what extreme impropriety
there Was—(oh, oh !)—in putting a question
,of this
description. He certainly should not give sanction to
the practice which had been introduced ; and, therefore,
he begged leave most distinctly, at the same time with-
out any want of respect for the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman, to decline answering such a question.
Mr. CHRISTIE said that the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman could take what course he liked, either to
answer or not the question which be had put ; but
he put it to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman as a Mem-
ber of her Majesty's Government, which brought in a
Bill to disfranchite Sudbury.—f(Cheers.)
COMMONS' INCLOSURE BILL.
In answer to a question from Lord J. 'MANNERS,
respecting the Commons' Inclosure Bill, . .

'the Eitrl of LINCOLN said that it was not true that
the Government had taken charge of the Bill. On
Monday, probably; he would be able to state what were
the intentions of the Government with regard to it, as he
intended before then to have an interview on the subject
with the Noble Lord who introduced it.
NATIONAL EDUCATION IN IRELAND.
Mr. SHEIL wished to know from the Right Hon.
Baronet at the head of the Government whether he had
given any directions to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland
with regard to the distribution of the patronage of the
Church with regard to education.
Sir R. PEEL said he did not know upon what the ques-
tion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was founded,
and what he stated to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-
land was that he was desirous that the patronage
of the Irish Church should be appropriated to those who
had the best claims on the ground of professional merit
and character, and that he hoped he should never bear a
word respecting any appointment on political grounds.
He gave his cordial approbation to thesystem ofNationel
schools, but it was untrue that he desired the Lord
Lieutenant to require any test on the subject of education.
He would again caution Honourable Gentlemen not to
place implicit credit in reports which appeared in news-
papers.—(Hear, hear.)
SUGAR DUTIES.
Mr. GREENE brought up the report on the sugar
duties.

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 he 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 sigrify 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 MURPHY defended the conduct of the
Hon. Alember 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 Ir. JAMES said the second clause of the Bill was
the clenching clause in his mind, and if the Right Hon.
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 step 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 he 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, thre would have been a great majority against
it. He regretted whenever he was compelled to vote
against the Right Hon. 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. Ile 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. PLUPTRE, 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 lattr period in
Ireland. If any question should arise as to tha 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 cases 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 existedfor 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 exemps
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.
These were only 82 deeds amongst 500 congregations ;

Mr. EWART said that, in the absence of the Hon.
Member for Montrose, who, not being able to attend
himself, had requested him to embody the motion of
which he had given notice, he begged to move that slave
and free labour sugar might be admitted into this country
on the payment of equal duty. He (Mr. Ewart)
objected to the Bill of the Government, because it
was uncertain, and the merchants of the country would
not know how to act under it. He also ob-

jetted to . the Bill, because it left a discre-
tionary power in the hands of the Government.
They had, in vain endeavoured to put down the slave-
trade, by means of gunboats and of treaties with
foreign States. Sir Thomas Awell Buxton, and, in fact,
nearly all persons who had written on the subject,
steknowleged-• the inefficiency of such proceedings.
With whatever object the Bill might have been
framed, it was based on false principles. Such, briefly,
were the reasons which ..Jed him to.bring this subject
.before the House. liegfCalled on the Governmeut to
adopt one of two alternatives—either to define on what
terms they intended to admit foreign free-labour sugar,
or at once to admit foreign slave labour sugar. The queL-
tion:was not one of party,v•but strictly one of principle,
and as such he entemted - the House to consida. it.
Be begged leave, theredre; to.move---" That slave and
free labour sugar be admitted upon the payment of equal
duties."

Mr. JAMES said he dpeply regretted that the Hon.
Member for Montrose, wbo had put this notice upon the
paper, was prevented by domestic affairs from attending in
his place th at evening. The present motion wasneither more
nor less than the motion which had been brought for-
ward on a former occasion and had been then disposed
of. And how did the Hon. Member for Montrose speak
and vote upon that occasion ? Why he spoke against it,
.and he voted against IL He said it was impossible
for the West India colonies to compete with the
foreign growers of sugar, tied up as they were. If any-
thing, then, could astonish him (Mr. James) at his time
of life, and after all he had seen, it was to find that
Hon. Member putting on the paper such a notice as.this.
Ile recommended the 'adopting measures that should
insure a supply of free labour to the West India colo-
nies, and suggested • that the Government should afford
the planters a supply of convict labour. Illany parts of
the colonies were heal k; the expense of the transport
would be lees while the punishtnent would be greater.
He stated that convict lahour was thus employed in
Bermuda. He could not support the motion, and de-
nounced it as unjust.
Mr. BARCLAY said it was impossible for the colony
to prosper till this question was finally settled, and he
hoped the
_present arrangemeht would be definitive for a
great number of years. As long as they were exposed
to these harrassing discussions, capital would be prevented
from going into the colonies.
The House then divided, and the numbers were—
For receiving the report
For Mr. Ewart's amendment
Majority for Ministers —llB
Lord J. RUSSELL wished to know when the Right
Hon. Baronet intended to proceed with the Bill.
Sir IL PEEL said, in case there should be a disposi-
tion to enter into a lengthened discussion upon the Bill on
Monday, he proposed that the Bank Charter Bill should
have precedence on that day, and that the further con-
sideration of the sugar duties should be postponed till
Thursday. He would name Monday for the third read-
ing of the Bill with that understanding.
The report was then received, and the Bill was or-
dered to be engrossed, and read a third time on Monday.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

-Messengers from the Lora brought down .certain
Bills.

DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL.

On the motion that the order of the day for the House
resolving itself into Committee on the Dissenters' Cha-
pels Bill being read,
Mr. WARBURTON presented a petition from the
Mayor and Corporation of Kendal in favour of the Bill.
Mr. PLUMPTRE had clung to the hope that her Ma-
jesty's Ministers would have given up this Bill. He be-
held the progress of this Bill with the deepest pain. He
had hoped that what bad taken place out of the House
would have induced them to withdraw this Bill. The
petitions against the. Bill had '-received 350,000 signa-
tures, and the petitioners comprised members of the
Church Establishment, Wesleyan Methodists, and all
classes of orthbdo*Dissenters. He considered the Bill
as of no ordinary nature, and was surprised that it had
received the sarction of her Majesty's Government. A
large body of their general supporters had opposed them
on the last occasion. If the Government had depended
entirely on their general supporters, he doubted if they
Would -have carried their measure. If a measure of this
kind had been proposed by the Noble Lord opposite when
he occupied the. Treasury benches, it would have met
with the strenuous and the united opposition of the
Gentlemen who then occupied the Opposition benches.—
(Loud Opposition cheers.) The appropriation clause of
the Irish Church Bill was absolute honesty—(Renewed
Opposition cheers)—he repeated it, absolute honesty,
and perfect purity compared with this measure. To
withdraw means from the Church of Ireland, and apply
them to the pirposes of the general education of the
people of Ireland, was absolute honesty compared with
a measure which would apply funds, left for a religious
purpose, to a purpose of a totally different nature. The
Attorney-General had said that the Bill was not well
understood. Now, although the people could not follow
a lawyer through all his legal subtleties, yet they tho-
roughly understood that the object of the measure was
to legalise a violation of a sacred trust, and to operate
practically in favour of a class of men whose opinions
were held by the great majority of the Christians of this
country to be an awful and a fatal heresy. The Right
Hon. Gentleman said that, although a considerable feel-
ing existed at present on the subject, he trusted that
that feeling would soon subside. He could assure the
Right Hon. Gentleman that the wound inflicted by this
Bill Wisirat a superficial one • ' it was deeply and keenly
felt, and 'Would not be soon healed. The Right Hon.
Member for Dungarvon had said that they now wished
to hunt Socinians as formerly they. had hunted
Papists. There was no hunting of Socinians or Papists
now; but it was one thing to hunt a Sociniati, and another
to endow and establish him. The most offensive part of
the Bill was, that it went to the vitals of our Christian
constitution. He should not have spoke thus if he had
not felt the matter most acutely. The majority of the
Christian community of this country regarded a measure
like this, for the endowment of the Socinians, as a
withdrawing of the keystone from the arch of Chris-
tianity. The Right Hon. Gentleman who had succeeded
him when the subject was last under discussion, had
taken occasion to run him down. He knew he was not
able to compete with the Right lion. Gentleman, but ho
would honestly, however feebly, always express his