DOMESTIC..

Scottish Unitarian Christian

Association.

THE Ninth Anniversary of this Society was held in Glasgow on the 12th inst. The Rev. B. Mardon introduced the serrices of the day. The Rev. D. Logan preached a very animated sermon on the Duty of an unbiassed Investigation of Scripture, from John v. 39. The Rev. P. Cannon, of Edinburgh, delivered an. excellent discourse, much admired for its elegance of composition, on Prov. xviii. 13, on the Duty of Deliberation in forming, and of Candour in defending Religious Opinions; in the course of which the preacher was led to notice some of the unfounded charges against Unitarians. The Annual Sermon was preached in the evening, by the Rev. T. C. Holland, of Edinburgh, on the Love which the Saviour evinced in Dying for Mankind, which naturally led to a consideration of a prevalent perversion of Scripture in the notion of Satisfaction.

Mr. Holland has consented to print this discourse in the form of a tract, for distribution, and to annex to it a short Appendix, containing some of the extravagant assertions of the orthodox on this subject. The three services were attended by as great a number of avowed Unitarians as we have for a long time witnessed. The Annual Report described the labours of the preachers connected with the Association, in conducting worship at Carluke, Renfrew, Paisley and PortGlasgow. The Rev. David Rees, M. A., now supplying the congregation at Merthyr, in Glamorganshire, although actively engaged in academical pursuits, and the Rev. D. Logan, of Glasgow, the recent convert from the Divinity Hall, chcerfully offered their gratuitous services towards supplying the above places with preaching. Some of your readers may perhaps be pleased with a few extracts from the Report." It is gratifying to be able to communicate the pleasing information, that at Carluke, in particular, the congregations, during the term of preaching, were very considerable, being held out of the time of the Church service; and abundantly prove the lively and cordial interest which a great number of the Carluke people take in Unitarian worship, and a rational interpretation of the Scriptures. This state of mind is well known to have been produced by the judicious exertions, and truly Christian labours of

a late pastor, whose name they hold in deserved reverence, and are naturally anxious to honour as the instrument, in the hands of Divine Providence, of imparting a faith without paradox, and a hope blended with universal benevolence."

Mr. J. Ross, in a letter to the Association, dated August, 1821, thus writes: "I cannot omit this opportunity of acknowledging the very great obligations we are under to Mr. Logan, by whose laborious exertions we have been enabled to resume public worship once a fortnight. Permit me to add, that we are highly pleased with his prudence and zeal, and from his scriptural and urgent manner of preaching, there is every reason to hope that he will be a useful minister, and able advocate for the pure and holy doctrine of Unitarianism." Divine worship will be carried on regularly in the school-room belonging to the Dissenters there, the use of which on Sabbaths has been obtained by the decision of a majority of the subscribers to it.

At Port-Glasgow, by the wishes expressed by our friend Mr. David Hutton and others, about the time of the last Association a plan of preaching there was concerted, and the labourers before-mentioned, Mr. Rees and Mr. Logan, consented to alternate their services at PortGlasgow, while they continued their preaching at Carluke. Mr. Logan first preached on Thursday, the 3d of August, 1820, in defence of Unitarianism in general, to a crowded auditory in the Masons' Hall. In the language of one every way competent to describe this occasion, "The people yielded a patient and civil attention; and though their errors were not spared, yet not a mark of uneasiness, or of disapprobation, was expressed; and there was augured from the manifestation of so marked a change in the public mind, a coming day of triumph over established error." Mr. Rees preached there about ten days after; and from that time to the present, no interruption has occurred in the services, but that furnished by the recent Anniversary of the Repeal at Paisley, which several of the Port-Glasgow Unitarians attended. At Paisley, the usual highly creditable and useful exertions of the elders of that church have been seconded by the services of the same two preachers, with the addition of Mr. Mardon's, who preaches on the evening of the second Sunday of the month at Paisley. It is with great satisfaction that the writer of this report refers also to the exertions

of relief. They had suggested the mode which he formerly submitted to the House, under the idea that it would produce less change than any other in the existing system. They were willing, however, to receive the relief which they sought, in whatever manner the legislature might think proper to concede it. The petition was then ordered to be printed.

Poor Relief Bill. July 2.

On the question that this Bill be recommitted,

Mr. SCARLETT said, at this period of the session he felt it would be unavailing to press this Bill, or even to endeavour to revive the discussion upon it. He, therefore, rose only to state the circumstances in which he found it most expedient to withdraw the Bill. The House would do him the honour to remember, that when he had introduced this measure, he had been by no means sanguine that he could carry it through the House this session. He had never wished to carry this measure, nor would he wish to carry any measure without full discussion. Circumstances over which he had no controul had, however, prevented the discussion of this measure to the extent that he had wished, and, therefore, he would not press it any further at this period. (Hear, hear, from Sir Robert Wilson.) He would endeavour next session to contend with the gallant General, either by single or double combat. He would in the mean time brush up his law, in order to be prepared for the encounter. (A laugh.) He hoped the gallant General would not be more successful than he ought to be. There were many things connected with this subject, which were calculated to influence the public mind. He had never altered his conviction on the subject for thirty years, and during that time he had had occasion to attend to it, and to inquire into its evils. He considered the system of poor-laws most oppressive in itself, and most degrading to the labouring classes; and his object was to restore the wholesome principles of liberty and independence, which were deeply compromised and threatened with entire extinction by the present system. (Hear, hear.) He proposed to renew the Bill next session; he would not pledge himself to the very terms, but the substance would be the same. He hoped that the measure would be attended next session with a greater degree of discussion. He would at the same time propose another bill for the purpose of regulating and modifying the system; with the view particularly of specifying the moral claims for relief, which demanded

attention, and of checking the extravagance of management which was so generally felt. As an instance of these regulations, he might mention that he would suggest the alteration of that part of the law which respected the operation of the militia laws, when a man had two children. He now begged leave to withdraw the Bill.

Sir ROBERT WILSON said, that as the honourable and learned gentleman had given notice of his intention, he now gave notice that he would be at his post ready to dispute every inch of ground, and in the inean time he would endeavour to qualify himself for the contest.

Mr. H. GURNEY said he could not allow this Bill to be withdrawn, without a protest, and strong protest, against the principle on which it was founded. The honourable member then entered into some origin and principle of the poorlaws, and referred, for confirmation of his opinions, to Harrison's Preface to Hollingshead. Before any change should be sanctioned in the principle of the poorlaws, he hoped the House at least, if not the honourable and learned gentleman, would well consider the subject. When the Bill proposed to obstruct the marriage of the poor-(" No, no," from Mr. Scarlett)-when it was founded upon Mr. Malthus's system, he could not but view it with abhorrence. Such a measure would not leave an Englishman to till the ground. He hoped the House would not be insulted again by Mr. Malthus's ravings, which were entirely destitute of truth; every page of history, every chapter of Sacred Scripture, every province uncultivated, refuted the doctrines which he maintained.

Dr. LUSHINGTON said, that he would certainly oppose such a Bill, if he believed that it tended to degrade the poor; but his settled conviction was, that the increase of poor's rates was an increase of distress to the poor. If he failed to express this conviction from any unpopularity to which it might expose him, he should prove himself destitute of moral courage. (Hear.) The effect of the present laws was to oblige the industrious and prudent to support the improvident and thoughtless; to mulct the single individual for the support of the married individual. (Hear, hear.) Every country long inhabited had been obliged to have recourse to emigration. Why should England be thought an exception? The Bill probibiting artificers from emigrating was utterly unjust in its principle. He was glad, however, that the Bill of his honourable and learned friend was withdrawn for the present; the public press, the great instrument of discussion in this country, would in the mean time examine

and discuss its details, and when the House should come to consider it next session, they would be themselves better prepared, and the public would be found better informed respecting it.

Mr. SCARLETT said that he did not feel great alarm for the fate of the measure, in point of argument, from finding himself assimilated to a raving madman. That was no argument; and a man who professed himself to be under the influence of passion, could not be expected to use much argument. The honourable gentleman (Mr. Gurney) had confessed himself to be an abhorrer, and abhorrence was not much connected with reason. He (Mr. Scarlett) had taken a course which was not his own choice, for it was by arrangement with the opponents of the Bill, that it was withdrawn without any discussion. When he had agreed to that arrangement, and abstained from answering all the arguments that had been urged against this measure, he had not expected that advantage would be taken of his silence to declaim against the Bill. His wish was, that no prejudice should go forth to the public from either side.

Mr. GURNEY explained. He wished to apologize to the honourable and learned gentleman if there had been any want of courtesy in what he had said. It was against the nature of the Bill that he had directed his observations. He might have warmly expressed his opinion of its tendency, but he had felt no desire whatever to be disrespectful towards the honourable and learned gentleman. He (Mr. Gurney) had not been one of the opponents of the Bill with whom any arrangement had been made.

Mr. P. COURTENEY said, that if any thing gave him pain in opposing the Bill of the honourable and learned gentleman, it was the praises which had been bestowed upon him for that opposition. He was a strenuous advocate for modifications and qualifications, and was disposed to agree with the honourable and learned gentleman, with respect to the second Bill of which he had given notice. Mr. HARBORD complained that there seemed to be a disposition, even that evening, to hear praises of the measure, but to hear nothing against it. Notwith standing his respect for the talents of the honourable and learned gentleman, he differed entirely from him on this subject. Mr. C. F. PALMER said, that such a Bill as this would do away with what he considered the chartered rights of the labouring classes, which were too sacred to be lightly tampered with. Without meaning any disrespect, he would say that there was not one member in the House who was sufficiently acquain

with the condition of the poor, to legislate upon the subject. He hoped much inquiry would be made, and that returns of various kinds would be laid upon their table, before any thing like this Bill should be entertained. He had in his possession a list of 300 poor labourers, who, at the end of the last century, could not support themselves by the amount of their earnings. He had himself lately made a similar calculation with respect to a smaller number. An extended inquiry of this nature would demonstrate, that the wages of labour were not suffi cient for the sustenance of the poor.

Mr. B. COOPER (we believe) said he would oppose the Bill.

Colonel DAVIES conceived it to be unfair to take this opportunity of making general declarations against the measure. Although he had been desired by many whom he respected, to oppose it, yet so convinced was he of its necessity, and so friendly to its general purpose, that, without pledging himself to support the precise Bill of his honourable and learned friend, he felt that some measure of that nature was quite necessary.

Mr. MONCK said, that he considered the poor-laws to be an ingenious device for obtaining the greatest quantity of labour at the least expense (hear, hear); they ought, therefore, to be abolished; but previously to any attempt of that kind, redress must be given of great and numerous grievances which affected the poor. When that redress should be af forded, they would be prepared for the extinction of the poor-rates.

Mr. SCARLETT said he would state to the House the opinions of an individual, with respect to the tendency of our poorlaws, who certainly could not be considered to deserve the imputation of advocating mad schemes. He believed, however, that the honourable gentleman (Mr. H. Gurney) had made use of this expression without intending the slightest personal allusion to him (Mr. Scarlett). The person whose opinions he was about to state to the House was Dr. Franklin. That eminent individual had said, “that he was for doing good to the poor, but he doubted as to the means of effecting that object. In his youth he had travelled much, and he found that in those countries where most was done for the poor by the state, their situation was the most deplorable. He thought that those who passed the English poor-laws took away the greatest inducement to frugality, industry and morality; and had substituted a premium on idleness and crime. He was of opinion that a great change in the habits of the people would soon be perceived, if the poor-laws were repealed." e honourable member then observed,

that the effect of the poor-laws was to produce a diminution of the wages of labour. At the present time, the price of corn had fallen so low as to enable a man to support his family with the usual wages; but he understood that in many counties the rate of wages had been lowered, because they were paid out of the poorrates. He understood, too, that this practice was extending to other parts of the country, and that the labourers were compelled to receive as charity what they were entitled to in the shape of wages. The honourable and learned gentleman then observed, that he had not been actuated by any desire to obtain popularity in bringing forward this measure. He should despise himself if such had been the case. But what had been said by an ancient comic writer could not be applied to his conduct with regard to this question:

"Id sibi negotii credidit solum dari, Populo ut placerent, quas fecisset fabulas."

Popular Education.
July 10.

Mr. S. RICE rose to move that the 14th report of the Commissioners on Education in Ireland be reprinted. Since the union not less than £1,200,000 of the public money had been expended on education in Ireland. On the ground of economy, therefore, as well as on other considerations, it was important to inquire into this subject. But if the Commissioners were right, this money had not only been vainly, but most mischievously expended. Three establishments in Ireland had been the objects of very extravagant expenses. The Protestant Charter Schools had received £622,000; the Foundling Hospitals had received upwards of £500,000; and the Association for the Discouragement of Vice, which he could tell the honourable Member for Bramber (Mr. Wilberforce) was in Ireland an institution for the education of youth, had also received large grants. In every one of those establishments proselytism was the great object. This excited a spirit of controversy and hostility most baneful to education and to peace and harmony. The very moment an exclusive Catholic establishment was put up, the Protestants put up an exclusive Protestant establishment. In this contest the government had interfered mischievously for Ireland, and extravagantly and expensively for this country. When the 5th Finance Report had been made, £1,200,000 had been expended. This very year there had been £100,000 expended. With the view of remedying this

abuse, he now moved that the 14th report of the Commissioners be reprinted.

Mr. BROUGHAM said that he concurred entirely in the view which the honourable Member had taken of this subject. No principle could be more sound than that recommended by the honourable Member, namely, of founding schools upon a plan which should obviate any suspicion of a desire to proselyte, which necessarily created much jealousy in the minds of those persons who were to benefit from the establishment of the schools. The footing upon which the Established Church and the sectaries stood with regard to schools in Ireland, was somewhat different from that on which they stood in this country. In Ireland the schools which had been established by the Catholics, in answer, he might say, to those established by the Protestants, from which Catholics were excluded, were not open to Protestants. In England, however, the Dissenters founded their schools in such a manner as to be equally open to the children of persons belonging to the Church of England, as well as to the children of Dissenters from the Establishment. This was a great advantage in favour of the Dissenting schools of England. He would now, as he had given notice on a former evening, proceed to state the reasons which had induced him to delay the bringing forward of his Bill for the promotion of education, and in doing so it would be necessary to occupy the time of the House for a few minutes. The cause of that delay arose out of the circumstance he had just alluded to, namely, the conflict between the Established Church and the Dissenters. He could not now help considering that as an advantage which at the time he thought a misfortune, as it had prevented him from bringing his Bill before the House-he meant his necessary absence from Parliament, to attend his professional duties. During the two months he was absent in the country, the controversy among the Dissenters, with regard to his Bill, made considerable progress. A vast number of publications met the eye of the country, which generally tended to make the principles of the measure understood. He had possessed an opportunity of attending to every one of the arguments brought forward by the enemies of the Bill. It would give him much pleasure to find himself able to state to the House that he could propose any course which would reconcile all the contending opinions on this subject. He greatly feared that the difference was too wide which separated the combatants. A great part of the oppositions made by the Dissenters to his Bill arose from a belief, on their part, that the schools which it proposed to