The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-06-11 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-TUESDAY.

Lord H. VANE moved for a committee of the whole
house to consider the expediency of repealing the export
duty on coal. He argued the question on its details.
. MIL. GOULBORN resisted the motion on grounds of
revenue.
Mr. WARBURTON thought the tax an eligible one
independently on any grounds of revenue. The commo-
siity was not capable of reproduction, and was accessible
to the sea only in alimited quantity ; and it was, therefore,
justifiable to secure to your own people a preference
in its enjoyment. Of the inferior coal the northern coun-
tries contained a supply which would last for some
hundreds of years; but of the best coal there was not
more than would last about 60 years. He complained of
a combination among the coal owners, keeping up prices,
and excluding British consumers of access to certain kinds
of coal, which, however, they permitted foreigners to
purchase.
After considerable discussion the motion was rejected
by a majority of 100 to 74.
Mr LYALL handed in, without any speech, a motion
for a select committee to inquire into the state of our
commercial marine. _

Dr. BOWRING wished the inquiry to embrace all the
topics of taxation, restriction, and foreign competition
connected with the subject.
Mr. GLADSTONE, in agreeing to the committee, desired
that this proceeding might not be regarded as a precedent
for similar inquiry on every case where a deep interest was
depressed. Such a committee could properly be proposed
only where there was a reasonable hope that such remedy
or alleviation might be found for the depression. He
begged that it might not be understood that the govern-
ment conceded this motion with the remotest idea of
rescinding the treaties of reciprocity, to which some persons
were apt to attribute the present distress of the shipping
interests. He could not accede to the suggestion of Dr.
Bowring.
Mr H AWES wished that the inquiry should embrace
also the cause of this distress, which he believed to have
their foundation in commercial restriction and exclusion ;
and he moved the addition of the words, " into the cause
of the distress."
Mr. GLADSTONE disapproved of this addition, as likely
to countenance the notion that the causes of the distress
were the reciprocity treatise.
Lord PALMERSTON thought that an inquiry into the
cause of the distress was necessarily involved in the ori-
ginal motion ; and that the question of adding these
words was one of language only, and not of substance.
He inquired whether the negotiation respecting the Stade
duties was at an end.

Mr. GLADSTONE answered, that a treaty upon this
subject, was in such a state of forwardness as to be virtu-
ally complete.
Mr. H AwEs amendment having been negatived without
a division,
Dr. BOWRING moved the addition of words embodying
his own suggestion, but subsequently withdrew it.
Mr. HUM E brought on a complaint about the conviction
and imprisonment of one Alfred Moore, a hawker, at
Shrewsbury.
Sir J. GRAHAM gave an explanation that the man was
found to have obtained money on false pretences, and for
that offence was convicted as a rogue and vagabond.
A good deal more conversation followed, several gentle-
men taking technical objections, and imputing oppression
and hardship, while Sir. J. GRAHAM demurred to their
attempt at trying the question by way of appeal.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-WEDNESDAY.

On the motion of Mr. BROTRERTON, the Birkenhead
Docks Bill was read a third time and passed.
A vast number of petitions against the Dissenters Cha-
pels Bill were presented.
Mr. ELPHIN STONE withdrew the Marriage and Divorce
Bill.
After considerable discussion, during which the mea-
sure was strenuously opposed by Col. Sibthorp and
others, the House went into committee pro forma on
Lord Worsley's Inclosure Bill, with a view to making
material alterations at the suggestion of government.
The County Coroners Bill went through committee,
and the House adjourned at a quarter-past seven.

._--~-

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—THURSDAY.
The second reading of the Dissenters' Chapels Bill was
moved by
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, who began by observing
that great numbers of the petitions presented against the
bill were founded upon misapprehension. There was no-
thing in it to affect injuriously the property of the Wes-
leyan Methodists, and the Church had no interest at all
in the subject-matter. The necessity a the bill was shown
by the state of the Hewley charity cause. The House of
Lords had decided that neither the Unitarians nor the
Church had any claim to any part of Lady Hewley endow-
ment ; but they had not decided who had such' claim :
and now the Presbyterians and Independents were con-
suming the funds in a litigation between themselves. The
spirit of the legislature had tended in late years to as
complete a toleration of the Unitarians as of any other
Dissenters; and the present bill, conceived in the same
temper, came now to the House of Commons with the
general consent-of all the legal authorities in the House of
Lords. Before the Toleration Act, any gift of foundation,
for whatever class of Dissenters, would have been illegal.
The Toleration Act itself excluded from its benefits the
-Roman Catholics and the Protestants who 'were not Tri-
nitarian. To relieve these two classes of Dissenters
enactments were from time to time introduced into the
legislature. The proposition against which the present
bill directed itself was, that where no particular sect was
designated by the founder, the founder should be deemed
to have intended the charity for the sect he himself be-
longed to. But this bill, while it combated that proposi-
tion, would not interfere with any case 'where the founda-
tion deed designated any particular sect. It was a mis-
take, therefore, to treat this as a bill enabling trustees to
violate their trusts. The trustees of a foundation chapel
bad generally no power over the doctrine to be taught
there; that was regulated by the congregation, who ap-
pointed, who paid, and who could
.remove' the minister.
In the cases now in- question, the congregations, for the
last 50' years, had been chiefly Unitarian ; these Unita-
rians had borne all the expenses ; had built, rebuilt, re.
paired : 'and was it reasonable that all' the existing edifices
-ahakild be taken away from those whohad thus • from ge-
neration to
.generation, maintained them, and regarded
-theen'as.tlietr own, and that strangers should be placed in
'l"ient4an ? Lord Chief Justice Tindal had laid it down
that thalangune of the founder was not to be construed
by evidence given alettl'ade of 'the founder's religions nr
political opinions. It was' not fitting that •the higheat
questions of divinity should be discussed court; and r*.
ferred ttoithe Master's-office This bill gave weight to
usage, and; as 'usage vase allowed to have weight 'in all
matters of private right,,'ie was no unfit guele for inter-
preting the muniments of a•religiou
particular fawitsuhul on foundation.
appeared ta
hte,
wherever a trust for a
face of the deeds, there the usage no,place,
-and' the. present bill no application.
Sir R. INGLIS denied that the Church of England was
unconcerned in this -question : that church? he must con_
tend, had a strong, interest in the principles which the bill
,iontravened. - He admitted the effect, or as he designated
it, the -kestige, produced by the support of the law lords
and of the government; bat the "question now was npt
what the law is, but what the l i
aw s. to- be •inade.- He
complained of the!alteration whiCh, in the last stage of the
bill, the House- of-Lords had intrOduCed into the last
clause, and which authorised that any pendingsuit might,
on the defendant's application, be settled in accordance
with the principle of this bill, upon payment of costs.
After adverting in terms of disapprobation to Sir Edward
Sngden's postponement of a decision in the Irish Court of
Chancery, with a view to let in the operation of this clause,

he concluded by moving that the bill should be read a
second time on that day six months.
Mr. PLUMPTItE seconded this amendment. To proceed
with such a bill would, he thought, inflict a severe wound
on those feelings of the country which ought to have been
respected by the government. He protested against the
doctrine which alleged that the church had no interest in
this question, merely because she could claim no benefit
from the funds connected with it. He regar.led this bill
as an insult to christianity, and to the christian feelings of
the country ; and he must, therefore, oppose it.
Mr. MACAU LAY declared his approval of the bill, and
gave full credit to the ministers for the purity of theirmo-
tives in supporting it. The petitioners against it had
proved their misunderstanding of it by treating what was
really a question of property as if it were a question of
divinity. The main principle of this bill was that which
its second clause set forth—that prescription was to be
proof of title. He maintained the validity of that prin-
ciple, and appealed to its prevalence in all ages and in all
countries. He vindicated the third clause, on the ground
that all statutes of limitation had been, and necessarily
must be, to some extent, retrospective. Besides, this kind
of property could not be taken from the Unitarians, who
had possessed it, perhaps, for a century, without thereby
taking from them also the large sums which they had laid
out upon buildings and improvement, and violating the
associations of the living with the pulpits of their illustri-
ous preachers now no more, and with the monuments of
beloved relatives interred in those precincts. It had been
urged that the Unitarians must have got possession of
such chapels dishonestly, because such chapels, for the
most part, were originally given to Trinitarian Dissenters ;
but the fact was, that as there was no stringent obligation
to subscribe any specific articles, the preachers and the
congregations had naturally and gradually glided into
different opinions from those of the founders. He cited
other cases where the same transition had taken place
with the most perfect and undoubted fairness. He in-
veighed against the intolerance of those Methodists who
were opposed to this measure. He could have understood
such conduct in Churchmen, but he was really scandalized
to see it among men who bad themselves had occasion so
often to invoke the principles of toleration.
Mr. COMIC tIOCN argued, that if a change of religious
opinion was so natural and gradual a matter as it had
been now represented, it was likely to occur again as it
had occurred before, and to occasion as much litigation
as if this bill bad not been introduced. If the Unitarians
were likely to be shocked at the violation of their asso-
ciations with the pulpits of their recent preachers, might
not the Presbyterians feel equal or greater pain at the
transfer of those pulpits from such men as Matthew
Henry to the modern disciples of Socinus ?

Mr. BERNAL suggested that the modern Wesleyans
themselves might not, perhaps, be in all respects of the
same opinion with their own John Wesley, any more
than the modern chapel-holders with the Trinitarian
Dissenters of the last century. He insisted upon the
state of confusion in which the Hewley funds are left
under the existing law. The printed forms of prayer
used in the dissenting chapels would always be good evi-
dence what the doctrine in each chapel had been for any
period of five-and-twenty years. He vindicated the
course taken in the Irish case by Sir E. Sugden, ob-
serving that in that case the possessors had been Unita-
rians for 80 years.
Mr. M. MILNES felt himself compelled, notwithstanding
the adverse impressions of his own constituents, to sup-
port the present bill. When the dissenters in general
should understand that they were as much interested in
it as the Unitarians themselves, and that the question in-
volved the great principles of civil liberty, he trusted that
their opposition, or at least the tone of it, would be miti-
gated.
Mr. F. MAULE opposed the measure, as a tampering
with law which might form a dangerous precedent. He
complained of the alteration of the last clause, as affecting
ex post facto rights already under legal investigation, and
commented upon, though he professed not to censure, the
conduct cf the Lord Chancellor of Ireland in hanging up
his judgment on the beforementioned case until this bill
should have been passed. He believed that the measure,
so far from preventing litigation, would be introductory
of interminable discords.

Mr. GLADSTONE treated this as a great question of
justice • and declared that, in his opinion, it was a duty
incumbent npon the house to pass this bill, which he
believed was opposed not so much from theological ani-
mosity, as from misapprehension. So far from thinking
the Christian feelings of the people insulted by the bill, he
conceived that Christian feeling required this act of jus-
tice. It must not be supposed that the generality of the
cases would be found to resemble that of Lady Hewley.
She was a foundress; but the generality of the persons who
had associated in congregations to build chapels were not
in the nature of founders ; there was no obligation what-
ever to perpetuate the opinions of those original sub-
scribers, no intention on their part to bind their own
successors. Besides, through several generations, dur-
ing which the Presbyterians had been making common
cause with the Unitarians, no steps had been taken at
law by the former to assert these supposed trusts, though
the state of them was as notorious all along as now He
then entered into some historical deductions, for the pur-
pose of showing that the leading Dissenters, towards the
close of the 17th century, considered their creeds as open
to the progressive modifications with the increasing light
of the time, and that, in fact, progressive modifications of
those creeds did take place, almost from year to year, at
the end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th centuries.
He trusted that reflection would allay the feeling now
adverse to this bill and adapt law to justice. He was sure
that Mr. Plumptre himself, if he had to decide as a judge
upon the title to an estate between a pious and an infidel
claimant, would not be deterred from adjudging the
property to the latter, if rightfully entitled, by the appre-
hension lest by doing strict justice he should encourage a
profligate.
Mr. SHEIL declared that the Roman Catholic body, to
a man, were favourable to this bill, The object of it was
to establish toleration—to quiet possession ; it was a
spiritual act of settlement, much needed in Ireland. if
this bill did not pass, hundreds of clergymen and their
families would be reduced to misery. There was now a
cry against Unitarians, as formerly against Papists, and
therefore this bill was unpopular; but it was a mistake to
suppose that this bill was for them alone : it was applica-
ble to a 25 years' possession, of whatever sect. He then
made a ludicrous attack upon Sir R. Inglis, by which he
produced, much laughter. He was surprised that the
Presbyterians, who asked so much liberty for themselves
should extend so little toleration to others.

Sir R. PEEL said, that notwithstanding a preponderance
of argument on one side unexampled in his parliamentary
experience, he was desirous to state the grounds upon
which he and his colleagues had determined to give their
most perseve►ing support to this bill. Its prospects were
now much brighter than when that support had first been
resolved on by them. When the foundation deeds were
express this bill did not propose to disturb the intention
of the founder, but when the words were merely " for
Protestant Dissenters of the Protestant denomination."
it was too much to say that a specific trust existed. The
precise object was probably omitted by the Unitarian
founders on purpose ; because until very modern times
their faith was not recognised by law. In the town he
himself represented there was a bequest of an Unitarian's
daughter to an Unitarian chapel, not legal, because given
before the act of 1813. There was now religious har-
mony in that town ; but how if a speculative attorney
were let in upon this little endowment? The decision in
Lady Hewley's case had brought litigation upon places
always peaceable before; and not even for the purpose of
benefitting the Church of England. The Unitarians of
Ireland had been willing that the case of the English Uni-
tarians should be taken before their own,—content that
their own should wait ; but the Government thought this
unjust, and resolved to include both cases in one bill;
and this bill they had not adopted until every attempt at
Private and voluntary arrangement had failed. He did
not believe that they were inflicting any wound upon re-
ligious feeling ; on the contrary, he thought it was an ad-
vantage to the church to place her in the favourable posi-
tion of a considerate, kind, and disinterested arbitress.
Our faith was different from that of the parties connected
with these chapels—our faith was great—our hope was
great—he trusted our charity would be great in propor-
tion.

Lord J. RUSSELL thought it unnecessary to add to the
argument, which was already of an overwhelming weight ;
but he could not refrain from giving his testimony to the
merits of the bill and to the motives of the Government.
He regretted that the feeling out of doors had been less
tolerant and kindly than the tone taken in the house. If
the resistance to this bill would be, as he thought it would,
an injury to justice, it could not be a benefit to the esta-
blished church.

Lord SANDON said a few words in favour of the bill
amid a general cry for the division, which took place as
follows :

For the second reading..
Against it , ... 117

Majority

190

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-FRIDAY.

-- -
The house was almost completely occupied with a dis-
cussion on the motion that the Division of Parishes
(Scotland) Bill should go into committee. The motion
was eventually carried by a large majority. During the
debate, the King of Saxony entered the house, accom-
panied by Sir W. Gorset ; and Sir Robert Peel immedi-
ately went to him and conversed with him, evidently
directing his Majesty's attention to the leading members
and those engaged in addressing the house.

FOREIGN AND COLONIAL.

INDIA AND CHINA.

The indiait mail of the Ist of May does not contain any
very remarkable intelligence. The dissatisfaction which
prevailed, at the departure of the April mail, amongst the
native troops had ,ceased, Ths Supreme Government had
by the adoption .of,jiidicious, and at the same time severe,
measures, brought the Sepoys to a full sense 9f duty.
One regiment, the Sidi Bengal Regiment, was disbanded
in the most. impressive. Manner. The Commander-in-
Chief, who was allowed a carte blanche on the occasion,
used his power's with considerable leniency. The dis-
banding of the 34th Regiment was a
painful sight. The
men had always been quiet and peaceable, but they had
mingled.themselves with the mutineers of.other corps and
they were ordered to be paid up and discharged from the
tervice. Thay seemed to feel their disgrace most acutely.
The 6th Irregular Cavalry, which behaved so nobly in
resistinga. all the attempts to mutiny, has had considerable
Theeciffiieacntmt advantages
spirit
do
font h
oi e by v
ethe e g
iGmoern• etrsn ohra.sGeneral.
calling forth the -most decided proofs' of a con-
trary disposition from the Bengal27th Regiment, and
from the Bundelkund Lesion, both which volunteered to
proceed instantly to the Wanks of thell
The Benc,ral regiments that have gone. to Northern
of
Scinde are likely to find employment, in consequence
a revolt brought about to the north of Shikarpore by a

chief named Bejee Khan, who, having placed hicoselfat
the head of some cavalry, attempted to plunder the coun-
try. A party of horse, under the command of Captain
Taite, was sent to take him prisoner; but he .repulsed
them, and cut down 10 and wounded 20 of the British
troops. This event had taken place near Poolagee, and
had awakened all the energies of Sir C. Napier, who was
determined to put down the disturbance in the bud.
There was to be a general assembly in May of the Beloo-
chee chiefs at Hydrabad, when a conference was to take
place between them and the governor of Scinde. This
measure is calculated to remove any dissatisfaction which
may still have existed in that country.
The news from the Punjaub represents that country in
as disturbed a state as eve,r. Another member of the
Dogra family has fallen the victim of his own nephew.
Two of Runjeet Singh's reputed sons, named Cash-
meera and Peshora, had raised a party and endeavoured to
oppose the tole of Heera Singh and his puppet king.
They stationed themselves at Sealcote, a fortress about 80
miles north of Lahore. Heera Singh sent troops to attack
them, but they defended themselves with bravery.
Amongst the chiefs disposed to support their cause was
the uncle of Heera Singh, Suchet Singh, a brave but rash
soldier. The army of Lahore, who now hold the reins of
power, and who are ruled by Sheer Singh, because he has
the disposal of the treasury, invited Suchet Singh to
come to Lahore, and promised to put him at their head.
He came with about 500 followers and took up a position.
Heera Singh, in great alarm, made all sorts of promises
to the army, and led them to attack his uncle. Suchet
Singh made promises also, but the army knew who had
the money, and adhered to Heera. Suchet attempted to
retreat with his small band, got into a faqueer's house,
and fortified it. Heera caused the artillery to play upon
it, and soon forced the party to come out. They attacked
their assailants sword in hand. Suchet and his minister,
and some of his most attached adherents, were slain.
Heera is described as weeping over his uncle's body, and
caused every honour to be paid to the remains. The fall
of Suchet was a death-blow to the hopes of the pretenders
at Sealkote ; they fled, and their partisans dispersed.
Heera Singh is master at Lahore as long as the troops,
who receive from him double the pay they used to receive
from old Runjeet, will allow him. He is possessed of
talents, but he is not a favourite with the old Siekh fami-
lies, many of whom are intriguing against him. The Aff-
ghans appear to be awaiting the acts of Heera Singh, as if
in expectation of a bloody termination to his life. The
notorious Akhbar Khan was at Jellalabad, watching and
intriguing with the Mahomedans in Peshawur, and on the
west bank of the Indus. The British residents seem to
await a revolution in Lahore. Lord Ellenborough was to
go for some time to Allahabad. Intrigues were in full
operation at Gwalior, where the minister chosen to go-
vern the country during the minority of the young rajah,
Jyajee Sindeah, was unpopular; and it was even said that
plots were laid to assassinate him. The residence of Lord
Ellenborough in the neighbourhood of this state will have
the effect of neutralizing many of these intrigues.
The news from China extends to the 10th of March. A
ship was seized with opium on board in the port of Shang-
hai, and sent down to Victoria, where she was subse-
quently liberated on payment of a fine of 500 dollars.
This seizure appears to have been brought about by a
British merchant, who compelled both the Chinese autho-
rities and the British Consul to take official notice of the
opium being on board. Several chests were thrown into
the sea, and others injured. This step has brought the
question of the treaty and of the opium smuggling into
discussion.

The cholera was ravaging the three Presidencies, but
not to any great extent. _ _

.
The post-office arrangements through India had enabled
the express from Bombay, with the news from Europe, to
reach Madras four hours, and Calcutta 46 hours, before
the Hindostan steamer had arrived at either of those
ports.