The Press.
London, England, 1854-07-08 00:00:00

METROPOLITAN CHURCHES.

The second reading of the Church Building Act
Amendment Bill was moved on Thursday in the
Commons by Sir J. PAKINGTON. The purport of the
measure he described to be briefly this—to give
power to certain commissioners to pull down certain
churches in the City, and rebuild them in the
suburbs, the result being to make the superfluity
of church accommodation in one place supply the
lamentable deficiency existing in the other.
Mr. R. PHILLIMORE expressed strong objections to
the bill, which appeared to be proposed because the
rich people having gone from the City to the suburbs
the incumbents were desirous of following them.
He insisted that it was not because the rich man
chose to leave the City that the poor man's church
should be taken away from him. One great consti-
tutional objection to this bill was that it proposed,
fur the first time in the history of this country, to
pull down and build up churches and to transfer
church rates and tithes from one district to another,
without the consent of the parishioners. The bill
was, in his opinion, arbitrary and unjust, and shocking
to public feeling, by its inevitable desecration of
churchyards, and he moved as an amendment that it
be read a second time that day three months.
Mr. HADFIELD seconded the amendment.
Sir J. PAKINGTON repelled the attack upon the
clergy of the city of London. He contended that
there was a great superfluity of churches in the City,
arising from the diminution of the population, and
this superfluity it was, in his opinion, most desirable
to apply to places in which there was an acknow-
ledged deficiency of church accommodation. He
cited various instances in which in modern times
churches had been pulled down, and churchyards
done away with, for the interests of health and
commerce, as in the case of the St. Katharine
Docks, and asked if it was not of infinitely greater
importance that this should be done where the
object was to supply an enormous amount of spiritual
deetitution?

In the course of a long debate which followed,
Mr. S. HERBERT, on the part of the Government,
supported the bill. On a division, however, the bill,
winch had been brought forward at a day sitting of
the house, was rejected by a majority of 143 votes
to 59-84,

THE REGIUM DONUM.
In committee of supply on Thursday the vote of
38,7451. for the nonconformist ministers in Ireland
was opposed by Mr. BRIGHT. The hon. member
strongly condemned the grant as being, in the words
Candlish, "the hush-money of the State,"

THE PRESS.

which ought to be rejected by the Presbyterians of
the north of Ireland, who could so well afford to sup-
port their own clergymen without the aid of this
Reg ium dottum. As, however, he had no hope of de-
feating the grant, on which the subsistence of some
hundred clergymen depended, he only sought to get
an assurance that the vote should not be expansive,
that it should not be increased, and that some
definite period might be named when it should cease
for ever. He wished to have a discussion upon the
question, and a division upon its principle, and
should, therefore, move to negative the increase of
3461. now proposed on the vote of last year.
A protracted debate ensued, in which many partisans
of the voluntary princisle joined in condemning the
grant, and exhorting the Irish Presbyterians to a efuse
alms from the State.
L.,rd J. RUSSELL closed the discussion with a
speech defending the vote. It bore, he said, the
character of a contract, and the just expectations, and
even the subsistence, of the Presbyterian clergy would
be sacrificed if it were withheld.

On a division the vote was carried by 119 votes to
02-87.

MAYNOOTH.

Under the provisions of the bill intituled the " Pub-
lic Revenue and Consolidated Fund Charges Bill "
numerous classes of public expenditure, grants, sa-
laries, Sze., heretofore charged upon the Consolidated
Fund, are to be removed and placed upon the annual
votes, for the purpose of subjecting them to the scru-
tiny of Parliament every session. Nine years since,
in 1845, a precisely contrary operation was carried
into effect with regard to the Maynooth grant, which
Sir R. Peel then succeeded, in spite of very strenuous
opposition, in removing from the annual estimates
and placing—comparatively out of sight or reach of
the Legislature—upon the Consolidated Fund. This
question having been opened by the introduction of
the bill above named, Mr. Spooner gave notice of an
amendment in the shape of an additional proviso, by
which the Maynooth grant would be included among
the items transferred back to the estimates.

On Monday the bill came up to pass its final stage
in the House of Commons. Before the time arrived
when Mr. Spooner could bring forward his motion a
preliminary discussion took place on the subject, ori-
ginating in an appeal made by Mr. Williams, the real
author of the bill. He entreated Mr. Spooner not to
press an amendment which would peril the safe pas-
sage of so excellent a measure.
Lord J. RUSSELL, followed in a similar strain. He
urged by way of argument that, as Sir R. Peel had
effected the change in 1845 by means of a formal bill,
it was wrong to reverse that decision by a mere sup-
plemental proviso, attached to a bill not immediately
relating to the subject. By way of threat the noble
lord added that, if the amendment were carried, Go-
vernment would abandon the bill.

Mr. SPOONER declined to yield. There was no es-
pecial distinction between the Maynooth grant and
many other charges which the bill dealt with and
transferred to the estimates, although entitled under
acts of Parliament to remain upon the Consolidated
Fund. He believed that the change of 1815 was ac-
complished for the purpose of stifling public opinion,
and that the grant itself was maintained against the
Protestant feeling of the country. As to bringing in
a bill upon the subject it was absurd, for he would
be defeated by hon. members speaking against time
until six o'clock on Wednesdays. Let the result be
whatit might, he would press his motion to a division.
If the bill were a valuable one, he would leave the
responsibility of withdrawing it to the noble lord.

The discussion was continuing, when, upon the
suggestion of Mr. Brotherton, the SPEAKER interposed,
and urged that it would be more convenient not to
debate the question until the proposed amendments
were regularly before the house. The subject accord-
ingly lay by while various new clauses were added,
and Mr. V. Scuts had argued and divided more
than once upon provisos relating to the judicial estab-
lishments of Ireland.

Mr. SPOONER at last WHS enabled to bring forward his
proposition. He abstained from arguing the question
in its religious bearings, though in these his convic-
tions remained unchanged, but commenced by reply-
ing to the allegation that the Maynooth grant had
assumed the character of a contract, and could, there-
fore, neither be discussed nor rescinded :
" In the case of the grant to Maynooth there was nothing
whatever in the grant of the nature of a contract, and the
subject was not one which ought to be stifled, but, on the
contrary, there should be an opportunity afforded annually
of taking the sense of the house upon the subject. That
the grant contained nothing like a stipulation must be
evident. In the year 1845 Sir R. Peel said, that he had
had communication with the leading ecclesiastical
authorities of the Roman Catholic Church, but that no
stipulation or contract had been made. Such was the
positive assertion of Sir R. Peel, and there could be no
doubt as to the correctness of it. The grant was originally
made as a free gift of Parliament, and it was made for pur-
poses which had totally and entirely failed. One of the argu-
ments in favour of the grant had been, that the effect of it
would be to conciliate the Roman Catholics ; but no such
effect had been or ever could be produced, for no honest,

629

conscientious Roman Catholic ever could be conciliated if
he acted upon his professions until he had obtained that
which they were endeavouringall along and struggling every
day to obtain—he meant supremacy instead of toleration.
It was impossible that the grant could do any good, and he
did not think it proper that a Protestant nation should be
called upon to pay for the idolatry of others. (' Oh, oh r)
Hon. members might cry ' Oh, oh !' but such was the
case, and the country felt it to be the case. He would call
upon the Governmeut'—upou all those who felt themselves
to be the representatives of public opinion on that point, or
those to whom the expenditure of the country was en-
trusted—to place the grant to Maynooth on such a footing
that Parliament should have the power of exercising a
control, which vas especially the duty with which they
were entrusted. If the principle had been recognised of
taking from the Consolidated Fund sums which had been
granted by act of Parliament, he would ask the house to
take the grant to Maynooth out of the Consolidated • Fund
and to place it in the estimates. He might be told that to
do so would give rise to angry discussions ; but had the
principle of paying the grant from the Consolidated Fund
succeeded in preventing angry discussion? He was satisfied
that the people of the country required that this subject
should be fairly inquired into."
Mr. NEWDEGATE seconded the motion :--

" He asked what special claim Maynooth had to exclusion
when almost every other charge was placed upon the rad-
mates ? He wished to have some explanation, some reason
for it, because if there was any one charge more than
another which ought to be transferred from the Consolidated
Fund it was this very Maynooth grant. (Hear, hear.) It
was proposed by the late Sir H. Reel on the ground that
the poverty of the students at Maynooth required it, but
he had ascertained since the act passed that the plea
of poverty was wholly without foundation. (Hear.) The
whole parliamentary grant had been expended in mere
carcase-building, and he presumed that the authorities at
Maynooth expected another large vote in order to provide
the interior fittings. What was the object of this misap
propriation of the parliamentary grant? He believed that
it was to enable the college to take 725 students, while Par-
liament only intended that 520 students should be received
there. All these sacrifices of principle and of capital were
made in order to conciliate Ireland. But was Ireland con-
ciliated? He would let 1848 and the outrages which
preceded and followed it answer the question. Had it even
conciliated the Roman Catholics here ? The abominable
assumption of titles by Roman Catholic ecclesiastics was
the reply. At that time the Roman Catholics rose like one
man—(Oh, oh!)—to defy the law. If the Government in-
tended properly to govern Ireland, they should govern it
in such a way that Irishmen should be on an equality with
the rest of the kingdom. (Cheers from the Irish members.)
Hon. members cheered when he spoke of equality. He
was sorry indeed that the religion of Roman Catholics
condemned Parliament to impose restraints upon them : it
was not the fault of the Legislature, it was the fault of those
to whom Roman Catholics gave blind allegiance. He was
astonished that the noble lord the President of the Council
(Lord J. Russell) should take the course he had upon this
question, standing in opposition to the whole weight of
public opinion. As to the plea of the necessity of finding
a place for educating priests, he would point out to the
house that it was said in Irish newspapers that 50,000/. had
been subscribed for a Free Irish Roman Catholic University.
He said to the Roman Catholics, why did not they build
this university and send their priests there to be educated?
By that means they would get rid of all these questions at
once; they would then have no annual or other discussion."

When Mr. Newdegate concluded there were evident
expectations that some minister would speak, and in
full anticipation of a prolonged debate a great nu►u-
ber of members, especially on the Oppos►tion side,
left the house. No member of the Government,
however, rose, and, when Mr. HEYWURTH and Mr.
GARDNER had spoken a few words each, a division
was called, and the Speaker turned his sand glass.
Mr. BUTT attempted to frustrate the attempt to snatch
a division, and was proceeding to speak, when he was
interrupted by a shout from the Ministerial side of
the house, accompanied by calls to order and appeals
to the Speaker, who, however, decided that no rule
of the house forbade Mr. Butt from going on with
his speech. The Ministerialists and Irish members,
nevertheless, insisted upon dividing at once, and,
after some minutes' uproar, Mr. Butt was obliged to
yield to mere clamour, and the division was taken.
There appeared :—For Mr. Spooner's proviso, 90 ;
against it, 106: so the amendment was lost by a
majority of 16.
The bill was then passed.