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

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 22, 1644,

SUGAR D.
Mr. GREENE brought up U
theTIES report on the sugar
duties.
EWART said that, in the absence of the Hon.
Member for Montrose, who, nut being able to attend
himself, had requested him to embody the motion of
which h, 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. Ile (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
jectecl to the Bill, because it left a discre-
tionary power in the hands of the Government.
They lad in vain endeavoured to put down the slave-
trade, by means of gun-boats and of treaties with
foreign States. Sir Thomas Powell Buxton, and, in fact,
nearly- all persons who had written on the subject,
acknowleged the inefficiency of such proceedings.
With , whatever object the Bill might have been
framod, it was based on false principles. Such, briefly,
were the reasons which led him to bring this subject
before the House. He called on the Government 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 ques-
tion was not one of party, but strictly one of principle,
and as such lie entreated the House to consider it.
He begged leave, therefore, to move—f' That slave and
free Labour sugar be admitted upon the payment of equal
duties."
Mr. JAMES said he deeply regretted that the Hon.
Member fbr Montrose, who had put this notice upon the
paper,was prevented by domestic affairs from a ttending in
his plaice that evening. Thepresent motion wasueither 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 lie spoke against it,
and he voted against it. 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.
He recommended the adopting measures that should
insure a supply of • free labour to the West India colo-
nies, [rid suggested that the Government should afford
the planters a supply of convict labour. Many parts of
the colonies were healthy; the expense of the transport
would be less while the punishment would be greater.
He stated that convict labour was thus employed in
Bermuda. He could not support the motion, and de-
nouncei it as unjust.
Mr. BARCLA Y said it was impossible for the colony
to prosper till this question was finally settled, and he
hoped the present arrangemeht would he definitive for a
great number of years. As long as they were exposed
to th ese 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
Iron. Baronet intended to proceed with the Bill.
Sir R. 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 Lords 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. NVARBLIRTON 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 had taken place out of the House
would have induced them to withdraw this Bill. The
petitions against the Bill had received 330,000 signa•
tures, and the petitioners comprised members of the
Church Establishment, Wesleyan Methodists, and all
classes of orthodox Dissenters. He considered the Bill
as of no ordinary nature, and was surprised that it had
received the sanction of her Majet.ty'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 occuph d 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 repe:.ted it, absolute honesty,
and perfect purity compared wiih this treasure. To
withdraw means from the Church of Ireland, and apply
them to the purposes of the general education of the
people of Ireland, wa 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 Fah' 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 was not 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 Socinian, 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
11,tvabokiteilendtooccasion to run him down. He knew he was not
h ncompeteest l with
igwtehveerli
figehetbllyl r
iGweanytsleme
xpanr,esbsut
his

for Abingdon, the newly-elected Member had at his
chairing distributed 501. among the crowd from a
bag of money in his lap ? The following account
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 Flail, which consisted of a brass hand, 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 silvt r
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 Learned 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 bugled all
description, and thus terminated the Abingdon electio?.)
—(Much laughter.) He (Mr. Christie) bmievel 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 Lot, 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 ?—(tlear, hear.)
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 diffierent place,
and which might excite the curio: ity of Hon. Alembers.
The lion. 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 Solicitor-General) being in his place
at the time for asking questions. He 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
j answer or not the question which he 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 disfranchise Sudbury.—(Cheers.)
COMMONS' INCLOSURE BILL.
In answer to a question from Lord J. MANNERS,
respecting the Commons' Inclosure Bill,
The Earl 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.
SEEIL wished to know from the Right Hop.
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
hacl the best claims on the ground of professional merit
and 4haracter, and that he hoped he should never hear a
wor• t xespectino-a any appointment on political grounds.
He 6,mve tits cordial approbation to thesystem ofNational
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-
papera.—(llear, hear.)

Mr. ESCOVP 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 Ip.An givm to it for its disinterestedness
in bringing in this Bill, for it was calculated greatly to
increase the powrr of the Government.
Mr. PLUMPTBE, 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-
pencil; 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 lion. 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 or the last century all
Dissent was illegal in ll•nglard, 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 ndow-
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 be should, therefore,
oppose it.
The amendment was withdrawn.
The clause was then agreed to.
. On clause 2 being propo:A4d,
Me. S. WORTLEY said he felt great objection against
throwing the .protection of Parliament-over those cases
where there was not merely a change of dectrine, but
where there was a clear misappropriation of the trust
funds, alinost amounting to a fraud. He should, there-
fore, be anxious to know what was the precise awe of
the words in the clause relating to this point. lle looked
Ilion this lustier as a question of law and property, and
net 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
ease of the Presbyterians of the Synod of Ulster. The
Bill did not apply to cases where deeds exhted, or to
ea-es where documents as good as deeds exis:ed. Under
this last principle the Wesleyan Methodists were ex-
empted from the operation of the Bill. The Presbyte-
Hans of the Synod of Ulster had nt-lt deeds, but they had
decuments. which were as good evidence as deeds. The I
iSymod of 'Ulster had existed tim 200 years. From 1691 they,
had public r; cords of their proceedings, and they were int
the nature of courts of justice. They held the discipline,
of the Church of England. They were.a sort of quasi ()Lurch Establishment in Ulster from that time ti.) the pre-
sent ; and they had records setting forth the it reli-
gious doctrines as indisputable, and as satisfactory
in the way of evidence as any records cou'd 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 Scung men when licensed to
preach should be obliged to subscribe their confession of I
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 82 deeds amongst 500 congregations ;

sentiments sentiments which did not pass merely
from the lips, but which he felt in leis.heart. , lin.knew
it was now in vain to appeal to her Majesty's Govern •
silent ; 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 censtituents, 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 might 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 ether 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
• pe.rseention—(lfeer, hear.)—but then their legislation
would be direct. As to the question of property, that
' question had been fully argued, aryl he Itel 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. lie was of Opinion filet there should be
some limit as to time where there was such a variation
in religions opinions as there was amongst the D4sen-
tiers, aho 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, fir practical pur-
poses, toleration had existed for the last century.
And if such cases had come forward in the time of Sir R.
Walpole, end Lord Chatham, it never would have beea
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 h:m could have supposed for a mo-
ment that recent circumstances could have had anything
whatever to do with the present question. fie as,ured
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 eon. 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 Biil
under such circumstances. It had been rightly said that
the Government could have no partyinterest 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 is
faith, but of property—(llear, hear)—and, if Parna
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 he excluded from the operation of that clause.
Ile 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 Bid, 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 MURPHY defended the conduct of the
lion. 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 pe=rsons, and admittf dit 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 SIBTHOIip 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 inaile, and withdraw his amendment. If, how-
ever, he persisted in pressing it to a division, it should
have his most cordial support.
Mr. cor..LErr 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 Mil, 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 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 been• great
injustice ; if Members had understood its true cha-
racter, there would have been a great majority against
it. He regretted whenever he was compeded 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
smple justice and equity. He d'd not believe that Chris-
tian toleration and charity would be at all proMoted by
allowing the law to wrest the chapels (corn 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 WOWI'LEY 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.

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
Committee divided, when there appeared—
For Mr. Shaw's amendment .... 43
Against it
Majority against the amendment-118
On our roadmission to the gallery, we found
Mr SHAW on his legs, proposing that sixty years
should be the term of usage required, instead of twenty-
fire years, as originally proposed. Sixty years was the
limitation in cases of advowsons. Five-and• twenty years
would be no protecti,n at all, and would encourage
deceit on the part of those who wished to get po.ses-
sion of those chape!s for Unitarian purposes. He there-
fore moved that the word sixty be substituted for the
words twenty-five.
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 SIBTTIORP was against the Bill altogetl er. 1
The term of 25 years was then agreedto without a division. .

Lord JOCELYN moved, that instead of the words
"my 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 a ords " usage of the coneTegation?"
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 doc-
trines, that usage should be evidence of the usage of the
congregation.
Mr. COLQUIIOUN would like to have the opinion of
the Law-officers of the Crown as to what would he the
effect of this clause in such a case as the ease of Frost-
street Chapel. Mr. Motterhead had been the minister of
that chapel for forty years, When , first appointed he
held high Calvinisticidoetrines, he subsequently became
an
he Aresurianm, d
h and then again, towards the close_ of his life,
eis Calvinistic doctrines. Now, in the case
of Mr. Motterhead, hawished to know what was the usage
of the congregation ? Ile wished to know what view
her Majesty's Government to k of cases like Mr. Motter-
head's, and what course they intended to pursue under
such circumstances ?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL wished to know al .e-
-ther Mr. Motterhead had, for twenty-five years, held the
same religious opinions?—(Laughter.)
Sir R. PEEL said the opinions of Lord Eldon and t.f
the present .Lerd Chancellor of Ireland were, that when
religious trusts were created, a hich became doubtful in
course of time, the title should be decided by the usagcs
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. CARDIVF,LL made some suggestions, which
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he would take
time to consider.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the clause as it stands
......... 188
For the amendment .................. 62
Majority for the clause ...... —126
Lord ASHLEY inquired of the Chairman in what

but there could be no question (1.3 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
f 'tinders 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 a henever 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 Hon. 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 insertien of these words, and he could not conceive
any words which, meeting t.e Right I-lon. Gentleman's
object, would be consistent with the spirit of the Bill.--
(1-lear 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 basks con-
taining certain doctrines, in such cases the a ill of the
founder should be inviolably observed to the end of
tune; 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 count 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 among t the "authentic
record," 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.) He 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
of of the Right Ilou. 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 docurrient 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 congregationsejeceded from the Synod of
Ulster, to and forme-] themselves into the Presbytery of
Antrim. Frorrethat 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 Hon. 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
he 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 ire
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
Hon. 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 meeting-houses for so many years, to be
now deprived of them? He 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 possessors. His object was to restore
the property to the original and proper parties.
Sir It. PEEL would allude only to one single point,
which would show the absolute necessity of leeislating,
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 dec!aration of the
Right Hon. Gentleman would relieve the Remonstrant
Synod and the Presbytery of Antrim of the apprehen-
stuns 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 01
interfering with the Remonstrant Synod or with the
Synod of Antrim, yet in leseember, 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, irmnecE-
ately, for congregations, which had been so spoliated, to
recover their property, to be devoted to Trinitarian pur-
poses—(Oppositioncheers)—and that resolution was fol-
lowed by another:—" Resolved, That copies of this re-
solution be transmitted to thd 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 Antritr,
but he had no doubt but that these apprehensions would
be relieved by the declaration of the Right Honourable
Gentleman.

COUNTY CORONERS' BILL.
On the motion that the order of the day for the third
reading of the County Coroners' Bill be read,
Mr. II UME said he was determined to take the sense
of the House on the subject of that portion of the Bill
which went to increase the allowances of coroners for
mileage. The time was come when they ought to put a
stop to any further increase of the county expenditure.
He, therefore, wished to see the twenty-first clause
expunged.
Mr. P. HOWARD thought a case had been made out
for allowing the increased mileage, and he believed the
counties in general did not object to it.
Mr. ESCOTI7 supported the Bill; and as the measure
had last year received the sanction of the House; he
hoped the matter would not be pressed to a division.
Mr. DARBY supported the clause.
Mr. HUME moved that the 21st clause be expunged.
The Bill had been lost last year in the other House, in
consequence of. the increased allowances proposed to be
made to coroners.
General JOHNSON supported the notion of the
Hon. Member for Montrose. On all occasions Of va-
cancies in the office of coroner, there was no lack of com-
petent candidates for the office.
Mr. W. O. STANLEY had wished to 'introduce a
clause, enacting that the coroner should,.at every assize,
give in an abstract of the inquests he had h&c' in the
interval between the assizes; but as the Government was
opposed to the clause, he would not propose it.
Mr. WAKLEY contended that the mileage allowed
to coroners ought not ,to be reduced, seeing that they
were compelled to perform a duty for which no public
provision was made. The coroner wss'not appointed by
the Crown ; and, therefore, he met with no favour. He
was elected by the people, and his accounts were very
closely scrutinized, and every endeavour was made in
all cases to reduce his charges. He regretted that an
alteration had been made in this Bill by the Hon. Mem-
ber for Kendal with respect to the time of polling. As
the Bill originally stood, the polling was to last only
one day ; but an alteration had since been made in-
creasing
that time. He trusted,. that when the Bill went
to the House of Lords, the time for polling would be ;
again reduced to one day.
Mr. EVANS thought the present payment to coro-
ners was sufficient.
After a few words from Mr. DARBY Ilia House
divided, when there appeared.
For Mr. flume's amendment
Against it
Majority
The Bill was then read a third time.
Mr. WATSON moved that the petition of Lieutenant - Colonel Leslie Frith (presented 20th June) be printed
with the Votes.—Agreed to.
' The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (for Ireland) moved
for leave to bring in a Bill for the better protection of
purchasers against judgments, crown debts, lis pendens,
and commissions of bankruptcy ; and for providing one
office for the registering of all judgments in Ireland ;
and for amending the laws in Ireland respecting bank-
rupts and the limitation of actions.
After a few words from Mr. SIIF.IL and Mr. REDING
TON, approving of the measure, leave was given, and the
Bill was brought in and read a first time.
The House then adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'clock

23

-18

REFORM CLUB.
The Parliamentary Librarsenew in course of forma-
ion at this establishment;* '441,31 carried out according
co the plan laid down, be ciiiitirOaerVe with the magni
ficence of the building, tit3elithelfilini7er of members that
it accommodates ; and thWadliiiielblO 'system which has
been adopted of arranging and indexing the papers, will
make it of great value to the practical Members of the
House of Commons, and still more so to those who wish
to become so.
The reports and papers published by the House of
Commons during the present century, commencing im-
mediately after the union of Great Britain and Ireland,
have been taken first. The whole of these papers, at a
rough calculation about 12,000 in number, will he sorted
into subjects and sub divisions, and arranged under the
litter in the order of their dates. Each subject will then
be hound up complete in itself, and the several subjects
placed in alphabetical order upon the shelves, so that
every paper, upon any given subject, can 'lie referred to
with the greatest facility.
A single example will show the advantage of such an
arrangement better than any other means, and we select
the subject of education, bound up as follows :
Accounts and returns relating to England and
Wales
Ditto Scotland
Ditto Ireland and the Colonies
Reports, England and Wales 2 Ditto, Ireland and Scotland 11 In all twenty-two volumes, containing the subject com-
plete from 1801 to 1842, both inclusive, and comprising
about 140 separate publications, which, under the ordi-
nary arrangement, are distributed amongst, perhaps, half
as many volumes, and which must first be looked out in
seven different indices in general, including together the
period 1801-1838, and a separate index for any session
since the latter year.
The hard-working statistician alone can fully appre-
ciate the vd!ue of such en arrangement ; but every one
may form some idea of the immense saving in time, la •
hour, and disappointment that must result.
Upwards of 400 volumes are already placed upon the
shelves, comprising nearly the whole of the Reports—the
set, when complete to 1842, will form 900 to 1,000 vols.
The papers of subsequent sessions will be added, from
time to time, to those already bound, so as to maintain
the continuity of the arrangement.
Each volume is furnished with an expellent tablo of
contents, with references to pages, and a copy of the
whole of these contents will be bound up to ether for a
general index, in which, however, will be inserted an
immense bomber of references to relevant matter con-
',allied under other heads. This index will then exhibit
at a glance the whole of the publications upon any given
subject.
To bring the arrangement still more to perfection, and
obviate any difficulty arising from former habits or tech-
nicalities, a copy of the indexes, published by the House
of Commons will be marked in red ink, in such a manner
that it can be seen at a glance what situation any single
paper occupies in the new arrangement.
We recommend the simple and admirable plan of this
gigantic Parliamentary Encyclopaedia to the careful study
of those bibliographers who, instead of studying simpli-
city, perplex everybody, themselves not excepted, by their
complicated philosophical classifications, nicely wound up
with section miscellaneous, in which we would recom-
mend the student always to look first for any book he
may want—the chances are great that he will find it there.
The names of the subjects and sub-divisions, and the
dates, are fully lettered upon the back, and standing, as
before explained, in alphabetical order upon the shelves,
offer to the eye a conspicuous synopsis of the index.
The papers printed by the Ilouse of Lords, which are
not duplicates of those of the Commons, will complete
the series of the Parliamentary Papers
of the United
Kingdom, thus rendering available an enormous mass of
most valuable information, a great portien cf which was
entirely us, less, from the impossibility of finding it wider
the ordinary arrangement.
* The scheme for which we understand was suggested
by one of the oldest and most persevering labourers in
the liberal cause.

5 vols,

------------------
.
[ADYERTISEMENT.I—A FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD.
—C 7 URE EXTRAORDINARY BY HOLLOWAY'S OINTMENT
AND PILLS.—John Watson, a mason, residing in Ila!f-
-moon-street, Bishopsgate street Without, fell froth a
scaffold two years ago and broke his arm. He remained
fifteen months in ..!,t. 'Thomas's Hospital, where they
wished to amputate the limb, as several abscesses had
formed on it. The young man refused, and left the hos-
pital with his arm apparently in an incurable and use!ess
state. In two months, however, all the abscesses were
healed. and the limb rendered perfectly sound by the use
alone of Holloway's Ointment and Pills. Sold at Pro-
fessor Holloway's Establishment, 244, Strand (where
advice may be had gratis), and by al.nost all respect-
able Vendors of Medicine throughout the civilised
world.

. DIE.D.
On the 16th of April, at
ossipore, tire Hon. Major-General
Sir William Casement, K.C.B. Member in Council.
On
nn
the
ee
Bth
htloi
fofmAni!yrt
sr, Calcutta, Mr. Robert Sevestre•
one of the Government suravte3tirsaltlZlFsileanneff TCeaYitjrnsti:h:
On the 18th inst., at Highbrry place, Islington, ar'''"
relict of the late W. Fairbrother, Esq., aged 84. of
77,
On the 18th inst., the infant sou of William Speed,
'---..'
Lincoln's Inn.
On the 18th inst., at Melbourne-street, Royston, Ca°l-
- James `Northam, Esq., aged 90.
On the 18t Gibson-square at Cross-street, Islington,
Inca
Cooke, Esq , of, and late of the Hon. East in
Company's Service.
flill
On the 19th inst., at Tunbridge-wells, Mr. Edward
Creasy, of North-street, Brighton. On the 19th inst., at Islington, Jane, daughter of the lat."
C. J. Hector, Esq., M.P., for Peterslield.
_..—...

41P"
London : Printed and Published byilrilll3o---YoUNS,!
No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, N". - Jo
Strand, in the Precinct of? the Savoy, in the CCOLTO 0
Iliddle..sca. Saturday, June 22, 1844.