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

but there could be no question as to the right of
property. They did not wish to take away property
from the Unitarians which properly belonged to them ;
but this Bill afforded an encouragement to a change of
doctrine.—(Hear, hear.) He could not conceive it pos-
sible that her Majesty's Government intended to shake
the foundations of the property of the Synod of Ulster.
It was not intended by the Unitarians of Ireland that the
founders of these chapels held the same opinions as them-
selves; they admitted that the change had been gradual.
The measure would render it necessary for the Synod of
Ulster to bring actions whenever they suspected that a
minister was preaching erroneous doctrine. That he con-
ceived would be a very great hardship to a body which
was by no means rich. The Ilon. and Learned Mem-
ber concluded by proposing to insert the following words
to limit the operation of the Bill :—" Or where no parti-
cular religious doctrines or opinions are contained in any
book or other documents preserved amongst the authen-
tic records of any recognised synod or religious body,
concerning the congregation frequenting such meeting-
houses."

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he must object to
the insertion of these words, and he could not conceive
any words which, meeting t',e Right Hon. Gentleman's
object, would be consistent with the spirit of the. Bill.—
(Hear, hear.) What the Government proposed was,
that wherever there was any deed, will, or instrument,
in which the intention of the founder was expressly de-
clared, or which referred to documents or books con-
taining certain doctrines, in such cases the will of the
founder should be inviolably observed to the end of
time; no one was to interfere with the original intention
of the trust. But the Right Hon. Gentleman now pro-
posed to enlarge the exception to an extent which would
involve great injustice. The Committee would observe,
in the first place, that it was very difficult to construe
the expression " authentic records."—(Hear, hear.) Who
was to say what were authentic records ?

Mr. F.SHAW—The court which tries the case.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL continued—What
means would the court have of ascertaining what were
regarded by the congregation as authentic records ?
There was no reference here to the will of the founder.
Any document which was found amongst the " authentic
records" was to be taken as expressive of the religious
doctrines which were maintained at a particular period.
According to the proposal of his Right Hon. Friend,
although the intention of the founder might have
entirely differed from the documents contained in the
" authentic records ;" yet the insertion of the document
amongst the "authentic records" was to be conclusive
evidence of the religious doctrines of the congregation
at that particular period.—(Hear, hear.) If these
words were inserted, or any equivalent words, which
would reach the object of his Right Hon. Friend, they
would produce the most monstrous injustice.—(Hear,
hear.) Ho would take the case of the Synod of Ulster.
The Right Hon. Gentleman said, that that existed for
200 years. The first document which was found among
its " authentic records" was of the date of 1698.
Mr. F. SHAW-1691.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, he would give
the Right Hon. Gentleman the seven years. Now, this
document was no evidence as to the intention of the
founder, because the Synod of Ulster existed before the
year 1691. He might take for granted that the Right
Hon. Gentleman had no document containing
any information as to the intentions of the
founder with regard to the particular religious
doctrines to be preached to the congregation.
The Right Hon. Gentleman, therefore, proposed to
take the document which contained no evidence as to the
intentions of the founder, and to apply that document as
a proof of the religious doctrines which prevailed in par-
ticular congregations. He believed that in the year
1726 several congregations seceded from the Synod of
Ulster, to and formed themselves into the Presbytery of
Antrim. From that year Unitarian doctrines had been
preached in those churches, and in many cases new
churches had been built; and until this time the idea of
stripping them of these meeting-houses had never been
mooted ; yet the Right llon. Baronet said, " You pro-
pose by this Bill to take from the Synod of Ulster
their property." If his Right Hon. Friend could get the
words he proposed inserted in that clause the effect would
be that the Synod of Ulster would be enabled to say,
" We have a right, under the provisions of this Bill, to
take back our own property." He thought that it
would be a gross injustice to put the property of the
Presbytery of Antrim under the control of the Synod
of Ulster. He was anxious to confine himself to the
question before the Committee, and would not, there-
fore, follow his Hon. and Learned Friend throughout his
very discursive argument. He should refuse to accede
to the amendment now proposed, as he thought the
granting of the proposition would be a monstrous in-
justice.

Mr. SHAW explained. What he wanted the Govern-
ment to do was to give equal justice to all parties; but
by this Bill they were infringing upon the rights of the
Synod of Ulster, by giving Unitarians a power to which
they were not entitled. He could see no difficulty in
doing justice if they but set their minds to it ; but
while they protected the rights of the smaller class, they
should extend a similar protection to the larger.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that his Right
Hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw) ought to have explained what
claim the Synod of Ulster had to these chapels. The
Synod of Ulster did not found them. They could
not, therefore, claim a property in them. His Right
lion. Friend could not show that the intentions of the
founders had been to confine the doctrines taught in
those churches to the particular dogmas of the Presby-
terian Synod of Ulster. Surely his Right Hon. Friend
knew that the property of these churches did not lie with
the ministers of those churches, but with the congrega-
tions; and were they, after having been allowed the
rights of those met.ting-houses for so many years, to be
now deprived of thea? Ile should resist the amend-
ment of his Right Hon. Friend.

Mr. SHAW contended that the property now in ques-
tion had been left to the Synod of Ulster for particular
educational purposes, which purposes were not fulfilled
by the present possessor=. His object was to restore
the property to the original and proper parties.
Sir R. PEEL would allude only
.to one single point,
which would show the absolute necessity of legislating
on this subject. The Right Hon. Gentleman had pro-
posed a clause, and when his attention had been drawn
to the state of the Remonstrant Synod and of the
Presbytery of Antrim, he said that the Synod of
Ulster had no desire to meddle with them, and yet he
proposed a clause which would give the Synod of Ulster
the right to seize the property of those two synods, one
of which had seceded a hundred years ago, and the other
in 1829, by consent. No doubt that declaration of the
Right Hon. Gentleman would relieve the Remonstrant
Synod and the Presbytery of Antrim of the apprehen-
sions which they entertained—apprehensions which had
been made known to the Government, and had convinced
them of the necessity of legislating on the subject. Now,
although the Synod of Ulster disclaimed any intention of
interfering with the Remonstrant Synod or with the
Synod of Antrim, yet in December, 1842, just after the
decision of the Wolverhampton case, the Synod of Ulster
had come to a resolution, to the effect that in relation to
the judgment in that case, it was competent, immedi-
ately, for congregations, which had been so spoliated, to
recover their property, to be devoted to Trinitarian pur.
poses—(Oppositioneheers)—and that resolution was fol-
lowed by another:—" Resolved, That copies of this re-
solution be transmitted to the Remonstrant Synod and to
the Presbytery of Antrim."—(Renewed cheers.) This
resolution had certainly excited the apprehensions of the
Remonstrant Synod and of the Presbytery of Antrim,
but he had no doubt but that these apprehensions would
be relieved by the declaration of the Right Honourable
Gentleman.

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
Committee divided, when there appeared—

For Mr. Shaw's amendment .... 43
Against it
Ma: ,hr -nd, -11

_ajority against the amendment 118
On our readmission to the gallery, we found
Mr. SHAW on his legs, proposing that sixty years
should be the term of usage required, instead of twenty-
five years, as originally proposed. Sixty years was the
limitation in cases of advowsons. Five-and-twenty years
would be no protection at all, and would encourage
deceit on the part of those who wished to get posses-
sion of those chapels for Unitarian purposes. He there-
fore moved that the word sixty be substituted for the
words ON enty-fi ve.
Mr. HARDY said that the only usage with respect to
the doctrines of Dissenters was the usage of the minis-
ter. The only usage of the congregation was to sit down
at the sermon and to stand up at the prayers. The only
evidence as to doctrine was the evidence of the minister,
and as his ministry might extend over a longer period
than twenty-five years, he thought they ought to adopt
the proposal of sixty years.
Colonel SIBTHORP was against the Bill altogether.
The term of 25 years was then agreed• to without a
division.

Lord JOCELYN moved, that instead of the words
" any suits relating to such meeting-house," the words
" the passing of this Act" be substituted.
After a few words from the SOLICITOR-GENERAL,
he withdrew his amendment.

Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN wished to know the
meaning of the words " usage of the congregation?"
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the object of
the clause was, that where a particular religious congre-
gation had been in the habit of listening to certain doe-
trines, that usage should be evidence of the usage of the
congregation.
Mr. COLQUHOUN would like to have the opinion of
the Law-officers of the Crown as to what would be the
effect of this clause in such a case as the case of Frost-
street Chapel. Mr. Motterhead had been the minister of
that chapel for forty years. When first appointed he
held high Calvinistic doctrines, he subsequently became
an Arian, and then again, towards the close of his life,
he resumed his Calvinistic doctrines. Now, in the case
of Mr. Motterhead, he wished to know what was the usage
of the congregation ? He wished to know what view
her Majesty's Government took of cases like Mr. Motter-
head's, and what course they intended to pursue under
such circumstances ?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL wished to know whe-
ther Mr. Motterhead had, for twenty-five years, held the
same religious opinions?—(Laughter.)
Sir R. PEEL said the opinions of Lord Eldon and of
the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland were, that when.
religious trusts were created, which became doubtful in
course of time, the title should be decided by the usages
of the congregation.
Mr. HARDY proposed as an amendment that the fol-
lowing words should be added to the end of the clause:—
" Shall, nevertheless, be applied for such purposes and
promoting. such doctrines as are expressed in the deed,
or instrument." _

Mr. CARDWELL made some suggestions, which
Tho ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he would take
time to consider.

The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the clause as it stands
For the amendment 62
Majority for the clause
Lord ASHLEY inquired of
.the Chairman in what