The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-10 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, May 9.

Their Lordships assembled at Five o'clock.
Lord COTTENHAM presented several petitions
from places in Somersetshire, in favour of the Dissenters'
--Chapels Bill. =- -
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition froth
Yorkshire, in favour of protection to agriculture ; also a
petition from Aberdeen, praying for the abolition of
religious tests in the Universities of Scotland.
Lord KENYON presented several petitions against
the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.
The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL presented petitions
against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
The Marquis of NORMANBY presented petitions
from Ireland, praying that Presbyterian mixed mar-
riages might be legalised ; also petitions against the Dis-
senting Chapels Bill.
Lord REDESDALE presented a petition agreed to at
a public meeting at York, in favour of proection to
agriculture; also fifty-three petitions to the same effect
from Gloucestershire.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY presented a peti-
tion from London, against the proposed new tax on
coals imported into the port of London. He expressed
a hope that the Government would take the prayer
of this petition into their earnest consideration.
He would call on the Government seriously to recon•
sider the subject, and not to impose this new tax upon
an article so necessary to the poor inhabitants of London.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE said that on the occasion to
which the Noble Marquis referred he had only stated
his own opinions, and not those of the Government.

Earl FITZWILLIAM said that the coals subjected
to duty were of that kind which would be quite waste if
retained at home.

Several Bills from the Commons were brought up,
and, according to form, read a first time.
On the motion of the Duke of WELLINGTON the
Exchequer Bills Bill was read a second time, committed,
and read a third time and passed.
DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE moved the third reading of
the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
The Bishop of EXETER opposed the third reading of
the Bill.

Lord MONTEAGLE contended that the gentleman
who had been so frequently alluded to at dif-
ferent periods by the Right Reverend Prelate—namely,
the Reverend Mr. Hincks—had been a person who
was a minister for upwards of thirty years, having
been ordained in 1790, and during that time had
merited the highest respect, and although the gentle-
man still continued attached to his original opinions, yet
his two sons were now clergymen of the Established
Church.

The Bishop of EXETER said that in the year
1790 the ministers of the Presbytery of Munster
refused to ordain him, and he was compelled to apply
to his brethren in Dublin to gain his ordination.
The Earl of WINCHILSEA wished to record his
decided hostility to this measure, and he could assure
their Lordships that nothing but a conscientious con-
viction that this measure was not founded in justice, but
was at direct variance, both in a religious and civil poin
of view, to the interests of the country induced him to do
He contended that the great body of these Dissenting
meeting-houses were originally intended to be used for
the observance of religious worship by Trinitarian Dis-
senters. The ground upon which he founded this
opinion was, that the endowments took place long before
Socinianisra, or Unitarianism, had a legal existence in
this country. It was with deep regret that he felt him-
self compelled on that occasion to differ in opinion from
the Noble and Learned Lord on the woolsack ; but he
held that Unitarians and Socinians were not to be con-
sidered true . Christians, for whomsoever denied the
divinity of Christ denied both the Father and the Son,
and, therefore, such persons could not be looked upon as
Christians.

Earl FITZWILLIAM said he wished to express his
gratitude to the Right Rev. Prelate for what he had
done on that occasion. He also wished to express his,
gratitude to the Noble and Learned Lord on the wool-
sack for having brought this Bill before Porliaaient, in-
asmuch as thereby he had done a great public service.
He felt gratitude to the Right Rev. Prelate (Exeter) for
his having taken upon himself the office of chatechist.
He could not understand that the usage of the congre-
gation was to be interpreted as the doctrine of the
preacher. He thought that their Lordships would do
well to leave to the congregations the power of disposing
of their property according to their own wishes and their
own consciences. He believed that all that posterity
would ever know of the Bill would be that the House of
Lords had agreed to a Bill of which the object was to
enable parsons of particular religious opinions to endow
chapels for the performance of their own Ivor.thip. Such
a Bill would be no interference with property—it would
be no violation of God's law. It world leave the reli-
gious part of the people in the possession of their right
to worship as they pleases].
Lord KENYON, as a Christian, thought it was his
duty to oppose the Bill, and he would take the opinion
of the House.

Lord !JUNTO defended the Unitarian body from the
aspersions which had been cast upon it by the other
side, and especially by the bench of Bishops.
The Bishop of EXETER denied that he had ever
said anything to justify the attacks which had been
made upon him. In the remarks which he had made
upon the conduct of Dr. Hincks he never intended to as-
perse the character of the present Dr. Hincks.
Lord MOUNTCASHEL opposed the Bill as one o'
spoliation.

After some observations from Lord TEYNRAM, the
House divided, when there appeared—
For the third reading of the Bill
Against it
Majority for the third reading
The Duke of RICHMOND postponed his notice with
respect to Wool till to-marrow (this day).
POACHING BILL.

The Earl of STRADBROKE moved the second read-
ing of this Bill.
The Duke of RICHMOND said that there ought to
be some delay before the Bill was read a second time.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be committed to-morrow (this day).
The other Bills on the table were forwarded a stage,
and the House adjourned at Half-past Seven o'Clock till
to-morrow (this day).

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 9.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
LEEDS AND BRADFORD RAILWAY.

Mr. BECKETT moved the third reading of Bill.
Mr. COLLETT moved, as an amendment, that it be
read a third time that day six months.
The House divided, when there appeared--
For the third reading 73
Against it 2l
Majority for the Bill
The Bill was then read a third time, arid passed.
The Maryport and Carlisle Railway Bill was read a
third time and passed.
Mr. M. O'CONNELL presented twenty petitions
against Lord Eliot's Registration and Franchise Bill.
Mr. BROTHERTON presented a petition from Salford
against certain clauses in the Poor-law Bill.
Sir G. GREY presented petitions, on the part of the
Dissenters of Portsmouth, against the Factories Bill.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition against the
Irish Registration Bill.
Mr. MUNDAY presented a petition against the union
of the sees of Bangor and St. Asaph.
Mr. R. YORKE presented petitions in favour of the
County Courts Bill.
Lord CASTLEREAGH presented several petitions
from Rathpiland, Saintfield, Bangor, Drumgooland,
Dromore, Newton Aids, Glastry, Clonduff, and Porta-
ferry, praying for the legalisation of Presbyterian
marriages.

ART-UNIONS.
Mr. EWART presented a petition from the Art-
Union of London, stating the number of years it had
existed, and the amount it had been the means of dis-
tributing among artists, alleging also that it was about
to distribute 14,5001. in the same manner for the encou-
ragement of art, when its proceedings were stopped by a
letter from her Majesty's Treasury, declaring these
unions to be illegal. The petitioners, therefore, prayed
that the House would take measures to place art-unions
on a fixed, firm, and legal basis.
THE ANTI-CORN-LAW LEAGUE.
Mr. BANKES presented a petition from Dorsetshire,
complaining of the illegal proceedings of the Anti-Corn-
law League ; also a petition from Weymouth, against
the interference of the League in elections.
Mr. H. PALMER presented a petition from Reading,
in favour of the ten hours' clause.

Mr. CORRY presented a petition from a place in the
north of Ireland, praying for an Act to legalise Presby-
terian marriages in Ireland.

An HoN. MEMBER presented several petitions from
Londonderry, to the same effect.

Mr. FOYBES presented a petition, complaining of
the interference of the Anti-Corn-law League with Par
liamentary elections, and asking the House to continue
the present protection to agriculture.
NOTICES OF MOTIONS—COUNTY COURTS