The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-04 00:00:00

litigation, and to settle doubtful titles, when these objects'
could be accomplished without gross injustice, he must
still oppose the Bill, at least the second clause, as in-
volving a principle inconsistent with justice, equity, and
the interests of true religion.—(Bear, hear.) The
Right Rev. Prelate concluded by moving that the Bill
be read that day six months.
Lord BROUGHAM gave this Bill his entire support.
He thought the Right Reverend Prelate had quite mis-
taken the object of his Noble and Learned Friend in
bringing forward this measure, for this Bill did not pro-
vide that the doctrine of the elders of the chapels for the
last thirty years should be held to be the doctrine of the
original founder of the chapel. The object of taking
the doctrine which had been preached in the last thirty
years in these chapels, was to prevent litigation, and to
save the funds of the original founder of the chapel. He
did not think that the judgments to which the Right
Reverend Prelate had alluded ought to be referred to as
evidence against this Bill, because the judges did not lay
down in their judgments what the law ought to be, but
they stated in those judgments what the law was. The
administrator of the land and the lawgiver were two
very different officers. His (Lord Brougham's) opinion
was that this Bill would be very beneficial in its opera-
tion. He thought nothing could be more consistent
with justice and common sense than the measure now
proposed by his Noble and Learned Friend, because he
thought it might well be surmised from the religious
tenets of the founders what their intentions
were respecting the doctrines to be taught in those
foundations. Because he felt the necessity of putting an
end to vexatious litigation, and fulfilling the original
intention of the donors, he returned his sincere
thanks to his Noble Friend on the Woolsack for the
Bill he had introduced, and hoped that it would meet
with every support from their Lordships.
The Bishop of EXETER certainly felt it to be his
duty to oppose this Bill most strongly, and more parti-
cularly its first clause, because he thought the
objects and intentions of the Bill were to set aside all
the sacredness and integrity of those trusts. If the
principle recommended by the Noble and Learned
Lord on the Woolsack were true and just, it should
be carried out to the fullest extent. He would oppose
this Bill, because he contended its tendency was to dis-
regard the intention of the founders; for if they had no
means of knowing whit those intentions were, the Bill
would be wholly useless, and all they would have to de-
pend upon was the general usages with respect to those
trusts. He also thought it tendd directly to counteract
the principle of the statute passed upon this subject,
namely the 53d of Geo. 111. Their Lordships must be
aware, common ecclesiastical law applied to a vast
number of offences—he should, perhaps more properly
term them sins—of which the ordinary criminal law of
the country took no cognisance, amongst which he
might enumerate incest, which was not declared a crime
according to the statute law. He feared that he was
pursuing a hopeless task in opposing this Bill, because
he knew how vast was the power of the Noble and
Learned Lord on the Woolsack in that House. The
Noble and Learned Lord was sure to triumph, for he
was in that House a giant—a Briaraeus—(Laughter)—
with a hundred arms, fit a hundred of their Lordships
were ready to rise up and support him. He (the Bishop
of Exeter) most heartily concurred in the amendment
that had been moved by his Right Rev. Friend, that this
Bill be committed that day six months.
Lord COTTENHAM was ready to share in any
odium which might be thrown upon the Noble and
Learned Lord on the Woolsack, for bringing forward
this measure ; and he should support the Bill, notwith-
standing the dark insinuations which had been thrown
out by the Right Rev. Prelate. He would ask their
Lordships whether, after what they had heard, they felt
the slightest doubt as to the propriety of making this
Bill the law of the land? Their Lordships had
heard all that could be said against it. Both
the Right Rev. Prelates had argued upon the
law of this case, and upon the policy, as if it were a
question depending between. the congregations now in
possession and some other class of persons who had
been dispossessed. This was quite an erroneous view
of the case, and he had no doubt that their Lordships
would see that it was. The Right Rev. Prelate who had
just sat down had evidently referred lately to a great
number of law books, but he had omitted one which
would have set him entirely right upon the subject.
Had that Right Rev. Prelate, in the course of his letral
investigation, turned to the case of Lord Cholmondeley,
he would have found that the view of the subject of this
Bill which he had taken was entirely erroneous, at least
with respect to the law of the case. The Right Rev.
Prelate, in the course of his speech, had said that heresy
was still punishable. It was punishable, it was true, but
in what courts was it punishable? Why, it was punish-
able in those very courts which the Right Rev. Prelate
himself had so strenuously defended, namely, the
diocesan courts. Now he (Lord Cottenham) trusted
that what the Right Rev. Prelate had said that
night would be represented to the House of Commons.—
(Laughter)—before they passed the Ecclesiastical
Courts Bill. With respect to the Bill before their Lord.
ships, he would remind the House that many of the
chapels to which it referred, had been considerably en-
larged at great expense by the present congregations,
and he would ask how were they to deal with such cases?
From the statements which appeared in the petitions
which he had presented on this subject, it would be seen
that in some cases chapels of the petitioners had been
held hv them and their predecessors for 150 years, in
others 100, and so on. The intention of this Bill was
to afford that protection to property of Dissenting con-
gregations which every other person or species of pro-
perty possessed. It was merely to protect that property
which had been enjoyed by those congregations for so
many years, and he therefore hoped their Lordships
would feel perfectly satisfied that, in passing this Bill,
they were only protecting those persons from injustice,
inconvenience, and loss.
The Bishop of EXETER said the Noble and Learned
Lord who had just sat down mistook his (the Bishop of
Exeter's) meaning. What he had said, and what he
would again repeat, was, that lie would wish to see all
power which the Established Church possessed over the
Dissenting classes abolished, provided that they were
prevented froin interfering with the rights and privileges
of Churchmen.

Lord CAMPBELL supported the Bill, because he
thought, that on the broad principle, and in the spirit of
the law, the Dissenters were entitlel to the same protec-
tion with reference to their property as other persons,
and because he felt assured that the law, as it at present
stood, inflicted much hardship and inconvenience upon
those bodies. Such being his conviction, he could not
help expressing his hope that it was not the intention of
the Right Rev. Prelate oppouite to divide the House upon
this question.
The Bishop of LONDON said it was not his intention
to divide the House.

Lord TEYNHAM would oppose the Bill, because he
thought it was calculated to inflict much hardship upon
many parties, arid also because of the numttr of peti-
tions which had been presented by various bodies of
Dissenters disapproving of the measure. He agreed
with the Noble and Learned Lord that something re-
quired to be done, but certainly this Bill would not at
all provide a remedy for the evils which now existed.
It was true that these congregations had had
possession of those chapels for many y.ars,
but then they also had enjoyed all their
concomitant advantages. He felt that passing this
Bill would be a gross injustice, because those sums
of money were granted, not for the promotion of parti-
cular doctrines, but for the purposes of truth. Such
being his opinion, he felt justified- in coinciding in the
expression that this Bill' was one of spoliation, and he
much regretted that it should be sanctioned by any high
and honourable body of her Majesty's subjects. He
questioned very much whether this Bill would prevent
litigation, for if the trustees of any of these chapels
should find that their ministers were preaching doctrines
contrary to the doctrine of the particular sect to which
they belonged, it would then be the duty of those trus-
tees to bring those ministers into Court. Believingthat
this Bill would open a wide door to litigation, he should
oppose it.
The amendment was then put and negatived without
a division. .

The Bill then passed through Committee, was re-
ported, and ordered to be real a third time on Monday.
The Eastern Counties Railway Bill was read a third
time and passed.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

.HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 3.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.

The Pontop and South Shields Railway Bill was read
a third time and passed ; as was also the Newcastle and
Darlington Junction Railway Bill.
Sir 1101VARD DOUGLAS moved that the Liver-
pool Docks Bill be re2ommitted, and that Lord Gran-
ville Somerset be added to the Committee, for the pur-
pose of adding a new clauSe to the Bill.
The motion, after a short conversation, was agreed to.
The Leeds and Selby Railway Purchive (No. 2) Bill
was read a third time and passed.
Col. WOOD presented a petition from a place in Bre-
ton, signed by 3,000 persons, praying for a repeal of the
duty on lime u ed for manure.

lqr. S. CRAWFORl7piesented a petition from Roch-
dale in favour of a Ten Hours' Factory Bill.
Lord INGESTRE presented a petition from Bolton,
in the county of Durham, against the union of the sees
of Bangor and St. Asaph.
'Mr. W. PATTEN presented a similar petition from
the Hundred of Amounderness.

Mr. PARkiER presented a petition from Sheffield,
praying for a CoMmittee of Inquiry into the principle of
atmospheric railways.
Sir E. COLEBROOK brought up the report on the
Leeds and Bradford Railway Bill.
Mr. SOTHERON presented a petition from Ton-
bridge and one from Tonbridge-wells, against the South-
Eastern and Hastings Railway Bill.
Colonel WOOD presented a petition from the c,)al-
factors of London, against any additional tax on coal ;
on to the same effect from Uxbridge ; and one from
the Enfield Coal Club,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from the
inhabitants of Waltham-chase, in Hampshire, against
the Commons Inclosure Bill.
mr, AINSWORTH presented ten petitions from the
persons einplOyed in ten factories in Bolton, in favour of
a Ten Hours' 13111.
Mr. KEMBLE brought up the report on the London
Gas Bill, which was ordered to lie on-the table.
The Thetford Jnclosurc and prtlinti,gs,' 441 rea4
thialiihe'i4l4as.4e4; "
Mr, HtME presented a petition from the inhabitants
of Devizes, in which they complained that the duty on
w.is goo per cent. on the valve, and prayed
that it might be reduced ; also a petition from Montrose
against the Commons Inclosure Bill,
let e 4.12 U LOD E.WiENWOROL:(iti,
Of. TO" that' on' 71711e.:§44Y ne44 he
should move for a copy dt 411' the GerrespolitiPnee be-
tween the East India Company aii.udtrhoeu::yfreornlnnpth„:
relative to the recal of Lord
Governor-Generalship of India,

~,