The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-06 00:00:00

I aware, common ecclesiastical law. apPliect t'o*: itl,*-PliA
• number of offences---he should, perhaps
z-mei-e. priperlt ,
term'them sins-of which the. ordinarycrirnihal itit'kai.
the country took no cognisance,. ramongst' ivhiCtil he,
might enumerate incest, which Was not declared a `ctlini'e
according to the statute kw: Fie feared' tfute herkVis
pursuing a hopeless task in. opposingthi4 BiPaeeitise
he knew how vast was the power -of the 'Nolite. and
Learned Lord on the Woolsack - in. thOlOtlie.: 'The
ii;;;-
Noble and Learned Lord was sure "triumph, for 'he
was in that 'House a giant—a BriarmW-( suighter)—
with a hundred arms, for a hmidied,of'olr 4?rdships• 1.
were ready to rise up and support hip., (~lie Bishop.
of Exeter). most heartily coricuireff its end ..'• ..t
that had been moved by his Right t e- the--..;f4"'
14,ki
Bill be committed that day six, month's, ''' • .." ".'.?::.i" '-'' '''' -i
Lord COTTENHAM was readyl4ll't ia idly..."
odium which . might be thrown upon • die: IX Mci•',l.
Learned Lord on- the' Woolsack, ,fotbri.24l4 TeiLea'
this measure ; and he Should suppart;t4 Bil 4 Adtwfttrw
standing the dark insinuations :wbiBli'ha4 Leer? thrr
out by the Right -Rev.'-Prelate;,lYrle. woig-aOO Aiit-'?.,
Lordships whether, alter what 04 had heard, theYf It
the the slightest doubt as to the propriety of uiuloc I-4w
.-,
Bill the, law 'Of the. land? ', Thetr;Serdllygs,,had
heard all that could be said. ' akattist;t,,t'POth
the Right Rev. Prelates . had argn,W ut'on.,2 the
law of this case, and upoh the polley,,eo, 't.,vr,ere a,
question, depending between the eorigOgebAir in
s ssion and some pther clasA OfnPersonA• ix had
po Se
been dispoisessed. :This was quite an ei•ronelM pm,:
of the case, and he had ao doubt
.tiAt.-tliert ‘tFlo,ilis
would see that it' Was., . The Right li_ifit,riii, err,4lA4
e.,0
just sat down had evidently'reforell.* qdt IktiAt
number' of law books, but he bad, sot,nif, Ag iehlS
tt4ir
wou'd have set him entirety right 'ITO tit subject."
Had .that Right Rev. Prelate, in' the eq4ii,of his legal
investigation, turned to the case of Lotclijchohnonde,ley,
he would have fimhd that the VieNV-!A the Saitieet,of this
Bill which he hied taken was entirelyWrirlcins, at least
with respect to the law of the, case. 1 0-tight Rev.
Prelate, in the course of his speoh, had sad that heresy
was still punishable. It was pithishable, it Was true, but
in what courts was it punishable? Why; it was punish-
able in those very courts whigh.thellight Rev. Prelate
hiniself had . so :Strenuously defended,
.namely, the
diocesan courts.
:Now be (Lord. Cottenham) trusted
that what .the Right Rev. Prelate had said that
night would be represented to the How of Commons.--
(Laughter)—before. they passed' . the Ecclesiastical
Courts Codas 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 bepri 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 by them and their predecessors for 150 years, in
ethers 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 be
would again repeat, was, that he would wish to see all
power which the Established Church possessed over the
Dissenting classes abolished, provided that they were
prevented from interfering with the rights and privileges
of Churchmen.

. . . .
Toleration Which pre-vented its 'benefits froth being ex•
tended to those Who held Unitarian doctrines. Dissent-
ing ministers could not, then, exercise 'their- functions
without subscribing to the dectrine of the HoliTrinity ;
and therefore, for many years, there was no encloWment
established, but in the firm belief that Unitarian doctrines
would never be preached in the chapel to which it re-
ferred. In 1647 a union took place between the Inde-
pendents and the Presbyterians ; but still they con-
tinued strict Trinitarians. At that time a curious in-
stance occurred to show the abhorrence in which doc-
trines appinaching to Unitarian*.sin were held by, the
orthodox Dissenters: A very distinguished Dissenting
clergyman in Dublin was deprived of his benefice. He
held what were called high Arian doctrines, and so
strong, on this account, was the feeling againit him?
that when lie carne over to London not one of the Pres-
byterian or Independent ministers would hold' com-
munion with him. He (the Bishop Of London) offered
at present no opinion upon doctrinal points ; he was
merely urging the question historically. So matters went
on until 1770, when, instead of the former subscription
to the articles of the ChUrch, a declaration was substi-
tuted, by which Dissenting ministers admitted that they
received the Holy Scriptures in the sense usually adopted
by Protestant churches, and that they held them to be
the word of God. From 1689 to 1770, it was next to
impossible that any chapels, or, at least, a considerable
nuinbar of chapels, should have been erected for the
-promulgation of Unitarian doctrines. Not only were
they built With the view of not promulgating Uni-
tarianism, but they were built with the view of Com-
bating its advance. It would probably, however, .be
asked why,. in the cases-of-many-of-these chapels, there
were net express stipulations -int the -trust deeds, pro-
viding that no doctrines other than those of the founders
should be taught therein. Why,- for a very obvious reason :
the fuunders considered that they were protected by the
law. They never -thought 'of the possibility of: such a
change as had occurred really happening. . They
never considered that Unitarianism could be legally
preacheit's. - He. did not' say whether' die change was
right or wrong, but it was -a change which their fore-
fathers never contemplated. This wasnot his opinion alone :
there was a letter, published upwards of twenty years
ago by an eminent minister of the Independent per-
suasion, in. which he found it stated that all who knew
the old Presbyterian doctrines, from the writings of the-
period, would know that the authors would have shrunk
with the deepest horror from lending their support to
doctrines which they believed-contrary to the Scriptures,
and mincing to the everlasting welfare of- man. And
here, he would remark, that it 'could - not be -said that
the Unitarians had had no -warning. The note of alarm
had been sounded nearly twenty years ago. At that
period an action was brought-upon the subject, but. the
uncertain state of the law, until the late-decision in the
Hewley case, prevented it from being proceeded with.
A controversy upon the subject, however, sprang up in
. Lancashire in the year 1825, when it was clearly shown
that out of 700 Unitarian chapels in the Duchy of Lan-
caster, the possession of 274 had been usurped by Uni-
tarian trustees. He would remark, too, that the claim
in question was put forward by only a small body
of Dissenters, and that it was opposed, although not
unanimously, by other dissenting sects. The Uni-
tarians formed, he believed, about two per cent.. of ,
the great body of Dissenters. The Wesleyan - Me-
thodists bad held a meeting, and agreed to represent
strongly their reasons against the Bill. The general
body of Dissenters had had a meeting, at iyhich a simi-
lar address was agreed to. He considered that this Bill
was neither more nor less than an ex post facto, law,
rendering necessary to the validity of a trust certain
conditions not necessary to its validity when the.trust was
executed. It proposed to render it necessary to the vali-
dity of a trust that the purposes of the founder should
have been mentioned in the deed, although at the time
°fits:execution these intentions were perfectly notorious.
And 'this brought him to the general and sound principle
upon which, up to this time, courts of equity had de-
cided in such cases—namely, that when the intentions of
the founder could be ascertained, they should be strictly
adhered to. Ho did not speak on legal matters upon his
own authority ; he sheltered himselt behind a long array
of 'witnesses, whose evidence was unexceptionable. The
Right Rev. Prelate here prooeeded to read a number of
judgments pronounced -by various judges in various cases,
to the general effect, that where it was possible to ascer-
tain what were the religious tenets of the founder of a
chapel, that it- ought to belong to and be in communion
with the sect who maintained these tenets. That it was
not in the power of the trustees of chapels to alter the
purposes for which their founders endowed them. One
of th ese judgments (continued the Right Rev. Prelate) had
been delivered by his Noble and Learned Friend on the
woolsack, and at was to the effect, that in any case of
charity, whether the object of the charity was for civil or
religious purposes, it was the duty of the court to give
effect to the intentions of the _founder, provided that
could be done without infringing any known rule of law.
If the terms of of the deed be clear and precise, both as
to language and application, the course of the court would
not be difficult ' • but if, -on the eontrary; the terms were
doubtful and,obscure, it then became the duty of the
court to ascertain by means of evidence, as clear as could
be laid before it, what were the.; intentions of the founder,
and the moment the fact was known the application of it
became clear. Suchlwere the legal opinions of the Noble
and Learned Lord on the woolsack upon the point ; and
it would be scarcely necessary for him to cite other au-
thorities in support of a principle so clearly laid down,
and so evidently in accordance • with - common sense and
common justice. But well-founded as that principle was,
this Bill went to subvert it. His Noble and Learned Friend
said, and said truly, that they could not believe that Lady
Hewley, a pious and well-meaning lady,conld have given
funds to promote and encourage the promulgation of
doetrines directly at variance with those opinions she
entertained, as regarded points universally considered as
essential in matters of religious belief. No; she never in-
tended her bounty to he applied to the encouragement of
the teaching of Unitarianism. It was almost superfluous
for him to-add another ward -to this argument of his
Noble and _Learned Friend. But his Noble and Learned
Friend's Bill went directly in contravention to the principle
he bad himseltso luminously laid down. It was now pro-
posed that the usage .of a congregation for the last
twenty years should be taken as convincing evidence of
what was. the purpose of the founder—it might be 150
years ago—and of the nature of the religious doctrines
which he intended to be taught. He should have thought
that they could have a better test of what those inten-
tions and what those doctrines-were by 'taking the usage
of the first instead •of the last twenty years after the
founder's death.—(Hear, hear.) If they could prove
what was the usage for those twenty years they could
settle the . question at once, but surely twenty . years
preaching of a doctrine which the founder held to be
blasphemous was not so conclusive. It was argued in
favour of the Bill that it would produce a feeling of
peace and security amongst many congregations of Dis-
senters, but he objected to upset equity and justice for
the' sake of at best a doubtful peace. He believed, in-
deed, on the contrary, that, if carried into effect, it would
excite a spirit of watchfulness and jealousy as to the
doctrines and words of the preachers in many dissent-
ing congregations. The dissent of many of the chapels
to which he had alluded, from what was generally called
orthodox doctrine to the depths of Socinianism, had been
effected by slow degrees. The history of these chapels
showed that that dissent usually commenced through the
instrumentality of some minister holding the doctrines
of what was called High Arianism. The congregation
became habituated to his doctrines and forms of expres-
sion. Then he or his successors ventured on the plain
Arianism ; from thence they proceeded to Socinianism;
and thus Unitarian doctrines came regularly to be
preached in the chapel in question. He should like to
know what security there was, if this Bill were carried
into effect, of chapels not being ultimately claimed by So-
cialist preachers ?—(Hear.) The Actiwas so.vague that
he did not know but that any party of individuals claim-
ing, to be a religious body at all, might not advance
elairas to chapels under it. Another question he would
put.to the serious consideration of their Lordships was
whether, as was now proposed, the same principle of law
should be applied to trust which was applied to private
property. He maintained that the duty of the legisla-
ture and of the judges, in respect to trust property, was
quite different from their duty as respected private pro-
perty. The former required more protection, more
careful guardianship, than the latter. It appeared, then,
to him that, by passing this Bill, Parliament would,
without any su?ficient cause having been shown, be pur-
suing a course tending to enrich and endow Unitarianism
with the spoils of orthodox Dissenters. Anxious as he
was to do everythingin his power to prevent unnecessary
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, equi.ty, and
the interests. of -true religion.-4 Hear- hesse.) The
Right Rev.. Prelate concluded by moving -'ihat -the Bill
be read that day six montht. . - • •
Lord BROUGHAM gave this Bill his entire support.
He thought the Right Reverend Prelate had (lulu, mis-
taken the- object of, his Noble and Learned Friend in
bringing forward this measure, for this Bill dicln,grptz-
vide that the doctrine! of the elders of the dispels
b tt of taking
last thirtyyeara sheadd be held to be doctrinetheo_ of the
original' founder cif the chapel.' The
~1
the doctrine which: had been litigation, and to
The Venerable G
years-in these chattels; *es to preveerns
d of chapel.' He
met with an accident at hliaakereSt'
save the -tuna of e original fowl
preached. m the last thirty
did not think- that the 30gs:rents to which the Right. .. ._
Reverend d'relate•liad alluded ought ' to be referred to as
d did • ene
evidence aguinat 'this Mill, • because the ju ges not layT.n RMeu.sle!rinsearbaniceuoe, Bt,tifastl
week, by the falling of a scaff&oding on which some workmen
what the law ought to b e, but
down in-thew i were engaged at worky•-The injuries Sir Thomas received
chow) judgments what the law was. The were not •
they gateakr—land and the lawgiver
udgunnts
serious, ..
were two
tiffiei ms. His (Lord Broughams) opinion BEEen-svw-,,ET, B rcass.—sßetween seven and eight
admnaivtiatot of the
*could be very beneficial in its opera. o'clock
ALARMING!: rTRE AT BARRETT'S IRON FOUNDRY,
wasveryttiatrehnistßill
lion. He thought nothing could be more consistent • ',..pri l'riday evening, a fierce fire was discoiers4 .
Justiced e amen sense
with an eon than the burnis.4 in the stables immediately adjoining the foundry mita
illet.sure now wr...rehouses -belonging to Messrs. Barrett, ircinfounders, BeS•ii
proposed by bit Nrible and Learned Friend
thought it might 'well be surmised fro-
,n because he , King's Headscourt, Beech-street, Barbican- So raPidt at
tenets:L iif L the -founders what the relip:toit;
lofts were destroyed and the roof 'burned off. . En followed
the flames spread that in a few minutes the contepis u„=
were -*meeting t'he doctrines to 1 their intentions all the surrounding brigade stations having arnwas'vegrtunatay
foundations: Because he felt the r ..m taught in those by the West of England and Couinty, the
fluof the warehouse and
end t& vuxatious litigation, and necessity of putting an confined to the stabling and one enidn _
Pe Ho* it originated
intention.' of ;the donors, 'il • • fulfilling the original foundry, which it immediatgyo,uagclioup
h to nine o'clock every
thanks to his Nobly Friend ' returned' his sincere could not he ascertained,
ed t discover. the-cause. The 'me.u.
Bill hebadintroduced, and 'r in the Woolsack for the e
ndeavour -had been us o .
es
an _ _..a -
left work at ix o'clock. The massive crian ttiorhia
with every Sup Port from the hoped that it would meet
peering in - a darigereue state' 4ldeilhotreed to prevent seri.
Th a aishop, of ' EXETEr :ir Lordships. .
be his Braidwood they were temporan. y
dutY Woripbse this Bill n: R certainly felt it to
1 dents.. The firm
BAN 15130 T's EDUCATION:—A boy of thir•
cularly(its' .first:',clsed sured.
.oat
band more parti-
au strongly,he thought the i AS Eli ec'nDwas about to be sworn to give- evidence at
objects andlinteutions•l :'e,
rthe 'eflillsewere to set aside all ' teen or
inquest held last evening, at the Gelded Lion, Dean-street,
the sae'rednesi and- V' s_
, ule I); 'of those trusts. If the
;nog, when-ha Bald, as if he feared he was unfit to take an
principle" tetornbaew' . .
'a"' d girtiyi - the Noble and Learned 1 oath, that be could not read. He, however, said that he wan.
Lord eft- the Wool . e • '
X aelc were true and just, it 'should in the . habit of going to-chapel, and was accordingly swola,-
ri his evidence in. a tolerably ' clear be carried out tc, the fullest extent. -He would- oppose i Having-give
the surprise • of the
jury, wrote his name, •
manner.-
this Bilkbeeae kh: ‘ - , he, much to .
Ul "
• •-e 0 contended its ten ency
had no in- a clean.legi ehand, at the end of the depositions. .X.
regard Wel, . •.4V '. ,'
center iof the founders; for if they
heßill juror theaght it a rather strange mode of-education to teas*
means of Itimwi--,
ii.%, what those intentions were, t
a boy •to write before he could read and -felt ciniotis'ter; ,
would be:Who*, it , ,Oiis, and all they *Mild have to de-
tts those ascertain how_he learnt. The boy said. thatbe had learnt Ws-
pentl upon was 't•,bi •• general usages with respect write nothing but .his name ; and .a juror inferniedl,th..r.,
trusts. He alio ashi .uht it tended directly to counteract . Coroner thatit was a common thing fe ,r errand bait 1010''''‘_,,L ' •
the principle of ,tie _'statute liaised upon th 3,sutpiect, to sip.their names' frequently,4 'vr j.ta4ght to:avaiteln.sw.'-
nudely the 53ti cif( 'tea. In. ' TheirlLOldSbipEriillSt be i autographri-and nothing else. ' - -

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 coniriction,. 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 net his intention
to divide the House..
Lord TEYNHAM would oppose the Bill, because. be .
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 varioui bodies of
Dissenters disapproving of the measure. Ike azieud
with the Noble and Learned Lord that something, re-
quired to be done, but certainly this Bill Wank], not at
all provide a remedy for the evils whkh now existed. -
It was true that these congregations, tad, had.
possession of those chapels for _ many
but then they ids° had enjoyed all. their
concomitant advantages. He felt that pa,ssing 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 al 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 lii ;k
and hoaourable body of, her Majesty's tiubjects. Ile
questioned very much whether this Bill would prevent.
litigation, for if the trustees of any of these ?chapels
should find that theirministers were preaching•doettines •
contrary to the doctrine of the particular sectlo which
they belonged; it would than be the duty of those trt.ue=
tees to: bring those ministers into Court. Believinfc that
this Bill would open a wide door to 'litigation;hti should
oppose it. . .
The amendment was then ptit and uegitived without
a division.
The Bill then passed through Coriamittee, was re-
ported, and ordered to be read a third time on Monday.

MURDER AT BATTERSEA.
WANDSWORTH POLICE COURT.

Augustus Dabnas, the unfortunaterrenchman charged"
with' the' murder of Sarah Eleanor WFarlane, was
examined on Saturday before Mr. CliVe.
The prisoner was brought down from London in the
cust.)dy of Sergeant Cummings of the. D division, and
Police-constable 203 of the same section. He was con-
veyed in a cab, handcuffed to the first-named offic(er.
At half-past eleven the prisoner was introduced into
Court, and, despite the heavy charge against him, he
seemed of all present the most unconcerned. ,He stood
during the whole period of examination, in a most easy
attitude, resting one hand on the back of a 'chair, while
the other was negligently pressed against his side. lie
gave every attention to the evidence of the witnesses,.
and occasionally interrupted them by asking some
questions.
The evidence of Mrs.. Gibson was literally the same
with that detailed in The Sun on Thum's!), last. She
had been called in to.see her sisterlying *in the Swan
Tavern, Wandsworth; and found her dead from the ex-
tensive injuries inflicted on her neck.
Sergeant Cummings, 3 D, was the next and the only
1 new witness examined.. He stated that the prisoner
Augustus Dalmas had knocked at the door. of Maryle-
tone-lane station about one o'clock that morning; that
-he requested the reserve constable to ahem him the in-
spector ; that the inspector, Mr. Brown., not being pre-
sent, he was introduced to him (Sergeant Cummings);
that he stated to him that he had been haunted day and
night by the reports which had ar,peared in the news-
papers ; and that he was the rny.n described as being
the murderer. He (Sergeant Crniimings) told him that
if he wished to make an statement, he would
take it down in - writing, Antt, cautioned him at the
same time that such would 'be produced afterwards.
The prisoner again recapitulatod the substance of what
he had said before, and added that he did not accom-
pany the deceased upon Battersea-bridge. He also said
that the only true evidence, ass given in the newspape,"
on the occasion of the inquest at the'Swan Tavern, Bat--
tersea, was that given by hisi daughter Charlotte.'
Prisoner—Did I say Charlotte, or Augusta P
Sergeant Cummings—l cannot positively say which.
Mr. Cuva—Did you bear both daughters named, be-
fore you saw the prisoile ? Cummings—l certainly
heard Augusta's name, butddo not think I heard of Char-
lotte's ; but I cannot be cArtain which of his daughters
the prisoner named.
~,- - as to the
ttidilteicTeec'eheMaioPeedosotdrable
36 V, and Mr. Goeang of the
• ely the same
nature of the-woun?4, and gave precis
Dr. Connor, of Besterssa; was examined hters
evi-
dence as already, given by us. .
Mr. Hall, t:tie toll-keeper, i to assist, and u4d-
called to h 4 wife and another rema
e Tavern.
mately ltadhcr carried into. the.'__ Swan
Prisoner, Augusta, :was
The. Youngest daughter of the
ten wheni she was left at her
then, '‘fled, and merely 'sta .
evening, she ,Cbservedi her flether
dbagryed the woman frail,
tacfc thoughtnetthey iwouldcalled,tnt
walk home.
nothing to the statement made b4'ora' the
she added
eldestgirl was deeply affected, and before
as carried out in strong h ate -eel
riitogether'
ti er and
daughter,
Court fainted, and in the midst of , her evidence
g I' Ci
convulsions. .
magistrateielastvvitnesses. They de,posed to the
deceased, in the full knOwleo.ge of her dyitlg
eCnoTtreohilikneitanhoerrgpenl.e*o
factsb we fao
Swan,
thate, twh
teehr ee
state, had declared Dalmas to be her tiravaever. ' ' • '
Mr. CLIVE asked Superintendent 334.0kne1l if be Wished
a remand, and being answered in fne affirmative, 'flied
Friday next for the final examination of the prisoner.