only
Unitarians, but all Protestant dissenters on the same footing; it
rendered the toleration act retrospective. The second clause, he
continued, related to dissenting chapels only; not to general charitable
foundations. By the present law, the will of the donor must be binding;
but it was not to be assumed, in the case of every religious charity,
that it was founded for a particular sect, even though the donor held
the doctrine of that sect. It was said, that the bill would encourage
trustees to violate their trusts, and hand over the property for
purposes not intended by the donor. It could do no such thing.
Dissenting chapels were thus founded:--Congregations of dissenters
wishing to establish places of meeting and chapels for worship, formed
together voluntary associations, which associations subscribed funds,
purchased the land, and built the chapels. In the first instance these
chapels were vested in trustees; but he was told that so little had the
trustees to do with the arrangement or control of these chapels, that
in the great majority of cases when the original trustees died, no
fresh ones were appointed to succeed them: the congregation relying upon
possession. In this country every question of private right was decided
upon usage; twenty or thirty years' possession prevailed against both
the crown and the church. Why then should it not be applied to the
property in dissenters' chapels? He was told that the consequence might
be, that property now possessed by Presbyterians or other dissenters
would in the lapse of time fall into the hands of the Unitarians. How
could it be so? By the bill the usage must be that of the congregation.
Notwithstanding this explanation, the bill was strenuously opposed in
the commons by Sir Kobert Inglis, who moved that it should be read a
second time that day six months, and by other members of the house, who
looked upon it as outraging and insulting the Christian feeling of the
country. On a division the amendment of Sir Robert Inglis was negatived
by a majority of three hundred and seven against one hundred and seven.
The house then went into committee on the bill, and having made some
unimportant amendments to it; it passed and was sent up to the lords,
where it again became the subject of discussion. It was opposed in its
progress by the Bishop of London, who moved "that the amendments be
taken into consideration that day three months," but this was negatived
by two hundred