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

he would take the case of the Wesleyan Methodists
themselves, who were so eager to prevent this Bill from- • •
passing. Was there nothing in their own history to a
outmak es
otnhciernmaa t littleters uneasy
m?
iglhlte
mthaokuegthhtemh eccareoulfdurpo.hoirin
othfe3;hpartogvroekaetdanrdecgroirnodinmataionn,
John. What
Wesley,w was the doreetgate
to the lay administration? He held that the lay ad-
ministration of the sacrament was a great sin. The
point was much debated, and soon after his death it was
conceded by the Conference, therefore every building
esel as a Wesleyan chapel was employed every
--
Sunday in that which John Wesley pronounced
to be a sin. He believed that if they re-
fused to pass this Bill, it would let in an amount
of litigation which the Wesleyans, perhapk little
dreamed of. He owned that it was painful to him to
see the manner in which this Bill was opposed, and the
quarter from whence the opposition came. The opposi-
tion to the Bill on the part of the Established Church
was mild, in comparision with that from other quarters; -1
yet would the opposition of the Established Church have
been more excusable than that from any other quarter.
'Nothing was more rational than for supremacy, power,
dominion, and the habit of authority to produce some
faults, hardly separable from human nature; and the
Church of England, with her strength, her rich endow-
ments, her seats in Parliament, and her ancient universi-
ties, might be accustomed to something like disdain for`
ct'ier sects setting up for religious liberty. lie was
far from defending the feeling, yet he could in- some
way pardon it. But to see persons who within
his own memory had, over and over again,
been compelled to invoke the principles of religious
liberty—(Loud cheers)—on their own behalf—he did
feel an astonishment, not unmingled with a harsher
feeling, to see them call for the aid of Parliament for the
injury of others. He would also refer to the question of
the Irish Presbyterians, among whom he contended the
question of the mixed marriages was identically the
same in principle as the possession of the chapels by
Unitarian congregations. He knew that between these
cases there was this distinction, that Trinitarian Dis-
senters were a powerful body, and likely to unseat those
Members who might vote against them to night. The
Unitarians, as a sect, were small in numbers, were un-
popular, and had but little political influence. Perhaps
for a candidate to say that he had not the support of
that body, might in many places be the best way to
public favour. If any persons of an arbitary nature
wished to enjoy the pleasure of persecuting with perfect
impunity, there could be no better opportunity for him
than the present one. But he (Mr. Macaulay)
had espoused the principles of religious liberty.
not because they were popular, but because they were
jast.—(Loud cheers.) Ile had supported those princi-
ph s when applied to by them in a different cause; and
the time might come—and it might 'come soon—when
some of those who were now crying one against the Bill
might be obliged to appeal, for their own protection, to
the principles on which this Bill was based. Because he
would prevent others from oppressing them, he would
prevent them from oppressing others; and in the mean-
time (concluded the ight Hon. Gentleman), I will can-
tend against their intolerance, in the same spirit in
which I would have contended for their rights. (The
Right lion. Gentleman resumed his seat amid loud
cheering.)
Mr. COLQUITOUN said that one of the great objects
of the present Bill was stated to be the prevention of
litigation. But now they had it on the authority of the
Right lion. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Macaulay)
that litigation would be increased. He did not deny
the principle of prescription with respect to private
property, but he did its application to public trusts.
The Right lion. and Learned Gentleman had spoken
of the disappointment felt by the Unitarians, on
seeing the pulpit of Dr. Priestly and other Unitarian
preacher filled by ministers of other sects ; but he con-
tended that the regret of Trinitarians was quite as great,
on seeing the intention of the founders of these chapels
completely departed from. Let the law adjudicate in the
matter. It had done so in some cases, and was in pro-
gress of doing so in others ; but with this Bill they
stepped in and arrested the operation of the law. The
Bill was one for the benefit of the few against the inte-
rests of the many ; for he begged to remind the Hon.
Gentleman of what was a notorious fact, that the Uni-
tarian body, though small in number, occupied a dis-
tinguished position in society. They were remarkable
for the philosophy and peculiar acuteness of their opinion.,
in itself an indication of a high position in society, and
superior cultivation. The other sects were larger in
numbers, and were likely to feel the loss most. He
could see no grounds for the measure. He believed it to
be both unjust and impolitic, because it took the pro-
perty of the poor, and sacrificed it to the interests of
the rich.

Mr. BERNAL said, when the Hon. Member for
Oxford said he had no objection to the first
clause of the Bill, he gave up. the greater part
of the grounds of his opposition to the measure.
He rejoiced that his Hon. Friend had abstaine4
promised he would, from all polemical arguments. and
political stimuli. He had presented himself several
petitions against the Bill, but he could not coincide in
their prayer. He looked on the Bill as an honest one
on the part of the Government—(Hear, hear)—and he
thought those who were opposed to them generally ought
not to be content with giving a silent vote. It was idle
to say that the arguments founded on this supposed
breach of trust could influence their votes on this occa-
sion. The arguments on this head had been set at rest by
the Attorney-General. This Bill had received the..
approbation of the Law Lords, because they felt the
hardship of the law. His Hon. Friend seemed to dis-
regard the opinions of the. Law Lords, but surely they
were not to be considered legal automata or judicial
mannikins, when addressing the other House of Parlia-
ment in their legislative capacity? He denied that the
Bill applied exclusively to the case of the. Socinians. It
was well known that several Wesleyan congregations
inclined towards the doctrines of -the Calvinists- with
regard to will and predestination tenets, which were not
held by John Wesley, and the grants left to such con-
gregations would, under this law, be held to ba •void.
The law, as it stood at present; would give rise-to
useless litigation. Was it proper to say they would
deprive the Socinians and Unitarians of those chapels
which bad been been built and beautified by themselves,
because they stood on 50 or 60 feet of ground, on which
a chapel had been built, but of which not a vestige
now remained. Were they to deprive those Socinian and
Unitarian ministers of the grants which had been left
to them, and give them to the Church of Englaad ?
No. To the Anabaptists, Baptists, Muggletonians, or
Society of Friends? They knew not to whom, and no
person could take on himself to say whom they
should be given to. Would the honour of religion
be promoted by those disputes ? He was afraid there
was a good deal of the odium theologicum in the matter.
In several of the petitions the Unitarians were called a
a two per cent. body. He was afraid that the ground of
a breach of trust was put forward as a cheval
and that the odium theologicum remained behind. He
wished to know what objections there could be where
there was a 2:5 years' use of a chapel, without anything
in the trust deed to indicate the intention of the donor
against leaving it in the possession of the persons
who had this undisputed use ?—(Hear, hear.) He
called on the House to support the Government
in their honest endeavours on this occasion.

Mr. M. MILNES felt called upon, from motives of a
personal natnre, briefly to state the reasons by which
he was influenced, in giving his vote on the present
occasion. He had presented a petition against the mea-
sure, signed by all the clergy of the borough which he •
had the honour to represent. His Hon. Colleague had
presented a petition to the same effect from the leading'
inhabitants of that borough, and he therefore trusted
the House would permit him briefly to state the reasons
which impelled him, out of a sense of justice, to sup-
port the Government upon the present occasion.—
(Cheers.) He had derived his first impulse towards.
this line of conduct from the consideration of the prin-
ciple " Do unto others as you would they should do
unto you"—(Hear)—a principle so just, that no theolo-
gical distinctions could be put in o,ompetition with it.
When be considered the tenure by whieh the' Church
of England held her funds and her
perceive no ground for her holding possession of _ that
piopeety, he could
property, i f he
ine did
religion.n o t
_7 cil e(Hear.) e
the
Largeprinciple
sumse fde-
velopmento twhich could not
foloorntehyew. hsaodulsb,eaennd left by
obtyheroupruzscoesstors. for
. prayers
ednicoittuptedrethheenspiroinncioplf
principle of
oprooslseisbilyastibeoarooruegedh,t
nwnliethssinwetha
religious development—(Cheers)—and if they applied .
the same principle to the Bill before the House, they
must admit that it would lead to the same conclusions.
Nay, those conclusions were even still more forcible, as
against the Protestant Dissenters, who stood up for the
unlimited right- of private judgment, than they were
against him who did not admit the right of private judg-
ment to nearly the same extent.—(Hear.) He believed
that this measure would never have been brought for-
ward had it not been for one case of gross abuse. That
ear ne d
p thenerm penal i
ttethh;dayrt
character
endeavouredeeremain
againstai
uponti oloout provideas
was the general course of our legislation. Bad laws
were permitted to lie dormant until some case of grievous
remedy. He believed' that there were many laws of a
injuricy
extravagantlys, w l.
ioccurred,ehl
tmosthol
ibnrfloiuegtli-intgbepfoernealttihees Hupoounse
ptheersonexsistwehncoe
doidf thn
book only because they were never acted upon. He had
:
the lap
lagow
to church on Sundays, and if the -.House -Would
permit the Government to carry the Ecclesiastical
Courts Bill it would be found that by that measure the
law in question would be repealed.—(Hear.) They owed
the present measure to the case of Lady Hewley's Cb k
t -
rity. The conclusion of that case had been followed ~:
notices of no less than forty, different suits, and we
being the case, the Government could not do rasa OW
bring forward the present Bill, and he hoped the/ wonla
persevere with it notwithstanding all the oppointion.
(Cheers.) It had been stated that there was no occasicia
for this Bill, because there was not any intention.on.the
part of the other Dissenters to wrest from the I:l_nitraranme
any of their chapels. Jf that were the case
owhinsehasure
32?
the e what
could be done by the measure ? • If some
.su b.
would be the effect produced in large townsbyl n
eject-
mentas this were not passed, let the House
: H believed
the transfer of them to other parties.
eth in favour
of the present possessors from their chapels, and
such an ejectment would raise up asyrnpa
exist.y
of Unitarianism, which did not at present The
d the other Dissenters were
because . they were weak, an
strong, and because Parliament had not the courage to
people would feel that the Unitarians had been oppressed
*Unitarianism had been a gradual process, applied, he
protect them. The argument, that the introduction a
thought, with stronger force in favour of this Bill than
against it. In the early part of the last century, the
Unitarian principle had so i nsinuated itself, not only among
all the Dissenting bodies, but into the Church itself, that
it was impossible to tell when it had first appeared in
theology. The celebrated Richard Baxter had, when he
was told that even Catholics and Unitarians would sub-
scribe to—the Creed the --Lord's Prayer, and: the Ten -
Commandments, replied " So much the better ; there is
the greater reason why it should be made a matter of