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

I 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.—(Hear, 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 gal 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 thunder 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 he 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
intdntiou 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 what 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 tended directly to counteract
the principle of the statue passed upon this subject,
namely the 53d of Geo..M. Their Lordships must be
aware, common ecclesiastical law tip-plied to a vast.,
number of offences—he should, perhaps more properly
term them sins-7.0f which the ordinary criminal law of
the couatry 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 Briarmus—(Laughter)—
with a hundred arms, for 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 legal
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 bo seen
that in some cases chapels of the petitioners had been
held by 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 he would wish to see all
power which the Established Church possessed over the
Dissenting clas'es abolished, provided that they were
prevented_from 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 entitled 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 opposite to divide the House upon
this question.
The Bishop of LONDON said it was not his intention
to divide the House.

Lord TEYNHABI would oppose the Bill, because he
thought it was calculated to inflict much hardship upon
many parties, and also because of the number of peti-
tions which- had been presented by various bodiei 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 years,
but then they , also bad enjoyed all their
concomitant advantages. He felt that passing this
Bill would b© a gross injustice, because those sums
of money were granted, not for the promotion of parti-
cular. doctrines, but for • the purposes-of trurh. Such
being his opinion, he felt justified in coinciding in the
expression that this Bill was one of spoliation, a& 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. Believing that
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-
norted, and ordered to be read 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 HOWARD DOUGLAS moved that the Liver-
pool Docks Bill be recommitted, and that Lord Gran-
ville Somerset be added to the Committee, for the pur-
rose of adding a new clause to the Bill.
The'motion, after a short conversation, was agreed to.
The Leeds and Selby Railway Purchase (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 used for manure.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD presented 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. PARKER presented a petition from Sheffield,
praying for aCommittee 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 coal-
factors of London, against any additional tax on coal ;
one 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 Ineosure Bill.

Mr. AINSWiTIiTiI presented ten petitions from the
persons employed in ten factories in Bolton, in favour of
a Ten Hours' Bill. _ _ _

Mr. KEMBLE brought up the rf.port on the London
Gas Bill, which was ordered to lie on the table.
The Thetford Inclosure and Drainage Bill was read a
third time and passed.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from the inhabitants
of Devizes, in which they complained that the duty on
tobacco was 900 per cent. on the value, and prayed
that it might be reduced ; also a petition from Montrose
against the Commons Inclosure Bill.
RECAL OF LORD ELLENBOROUGIT.

Mr. HUME gave notice that on Tuesday next he
should move for a copy of all the correspondence be-
tween the East India Company and the Government
relative to the recal of Lord Ellenborough from the
Governor-Generalship of India.