fi THE SESSION OF 1844. 2935

pt of the question. Time can alone effect the business.
¢annot be carried by storm. We were wrong in thinking
of i, In the meantime Peel’s unsettlements are making
“hemes in the ranks of the united monopolists, and everybody
 is making up his mind to more change. As my labours
Must henceforth be loss intense than heretofore, I shall be
able to give more attention to my private affairs, which,
Heaven knows, have been neglected enough.”
The following passage relates to a subject which kindled
More excitement in the country than any other question
before Parliament. It was an episode in the endless battle
between bigotry and the sense of justice. The judgment in
the famous case of Lady Hewley’s bequest, finally delivered
after fourteen years of litigation, exposed endowments which
hag been for several generations in the hands of Unitarians,
bo the risk of appropriation by Trinitarian Dissenters. The
Ministry brought in a Bill to confirm religious bodies,
Whether Trinitarian or Unitarian, in the possession of pro-Perty
 of which they had been in the enjoyment for twenty
This measure was regarded by fanatics, alike of the
Episcopalian and the independent churches, as favouring the
oadly heresy of Unitarianism. The storm raged with
Tous violence ; but the Ministry held firm, and the Bill,
Which wag conservative of the rights of property in the right
“ense, happily became law. Sir W. Follett’s speech broke
down the opposition. We may be sure on which side in the
tontroversy Cobden was found.
; “I never entertained an idea of voting for the monopolists
otters of faith. Nor have I had a line from anybody at
tg Fort to ask me to do so. As at present advised, I
Certainly vote for the Bill. What a spectacle we shall
a, if the intolerance of the Commons should reject a
“asure which the Lords and the Bishops have passed! It
1 9 PF. W. Qobden, London, June 4, 1844.

1844.

ar 40.