embers
attempted to introduce modifications in the bill, all the original
propositions were carried, and, with the exception of a small section,
witli the general concurrence of the house. In the house of lords it
received very little discussion. The first and second readings passed
_sub silentio_; and it went through committee without any division: the
Earl of Radnor and Lord Ashburton only expressing fears of its practical
working.

DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL.

During this session a bill was brought into the house of lords by the
lord-chancellor for confirming the possession of religious endowments in
the hands of dissenters, and arresting such litigation as had recently
taken place in the case of Lady Hewley's charities, which were endowed
by her for Calvinistic Independents, but which had gradually passed
to the Unitarians, whose occupancy was successfully opposed. The
lord-chancellor's bill proposed to terminate all further legal
controversy respecting the right to voluntary endowments connected with
dissenting chapels, by vesting the property in the religious body in
whose hands it had been for twenty years. The bill was opposed in
the house of lords by the Bishops of London and Exeter, the Earl of
Winchilsea, and Lords Kenyon, Teynham, and Mountcashel; but it was
carried by a large majority. Before it came under discussion in the
house of commons a vigorous opposition was manifested against it,
especially by the Trinitarian dissenters. Public meetings were held,
and petitions were sent up from all quarters against the obnoxious
proposition. Under these circumstances, on the 6th of June, when the
second reading of the bill was moved, the attorney-general explained its
objects, which, he said, had been misunderstood. The alarm which this
bill had created, namely, that it would have the effect of encouraging
Unitarian doctrines, he contended was wholly unfounded. An act had been
passed in 1813, legalizing the foundation of schools and chapels for
the benefit of the Unitarians, and placing them upon the same footing
as other Protestant dissenters. The question then arose respecting
foundations which might have been made before 1813, when the Unitarians
were excepted out of the Toleration Act: namely, would they or ought
they to take from that body, which was now legal, and could legally
endow chapels, that which they possessed, because it was given them
before the year 1813? The first clause of the bill put not