The Sun.
London, England, 1855-08-01 00:00:00

The Marquis of BLANDFORD said he believed the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners had not paid sufficient at-
tention to local wants—(bear)—but he was opposed to
the principle of the bill now before the house ; and he
should recommend the hon. member (Mr. Ferguson) not
to press his bill now, promising that on another occasion
he should be mot ready to give him every assistance to
procure aid for local wants.
Mr. FREWEN said, though be had voted for the
second reading of the bill, he believed it could not pass
into law this session, and therefore he hoped the hon.
member would not press it at present.
Mr. T. CHAMBERS hoped the hon. member for
Carlisle (Mr. Ferguson) would persevere with his bill,
for no argument had been shown against it.
Sir W. HEITHCOTE expressed a hope that the
honourable member for Carlisle would not take up
the time of the house in further discussing a measure
which could not possibly pass into law this session.
Mr. COWPER and Sir J. PAKINGTON also hoped
the hon. member would not take up the time of the
house in a debate which at present could lead to no
practical result.
After a few words from Mr. HADFIELD and Mr. Fizz-
Roy, the latter honourable member proposing that this
debate be now adjourned,
A division took place, when the numbers were—
For adjourning the debate .
Against it 36
Majority against —ls
The house then went into committee, when
Mr. FERGUSON said, having now affirmed the
principle of the bill, he should move that the chairman
do now leave the chair.
Mr. R. PHIL [AMORE said this was not a seemly
proceeding, when the hon. member for Carlisle had
divided the house, that he should then move to with.
draw his bill.
After a few words from Lord J. MANNERS the bill
was withdrawn.

UNION OF CONTIGUOUS BENEFICES BILL.

The house resolved itself into committee on this bill

The Marquis of BLANDFORD then moved the
amendment (,f which he had given notice, that all refe•
rence to the Church Building Commissioners should Le
omitted throughout the bill.
Sir J. PAKINGTON supported the amendment.
The Marquis of BLANDFORD felt bound to say
that on moving this amendment he did so under the
best advice.

Mr. PELLATT opposed the amendment, and trusted
that the house would not proceed further with the bill.
He would, therefore, move the Chairman should report
progress, in order that the bill should be postponed to
next session.

Sir G. GREY opposed the amendment of the hon.
member for Southwark.

After sltne discussion the committee divided, when
there Ippeared
Fpr reporting progress ..
Against it

12
62
-50

Maj my

• The committee then proceeded with the bill ; and the
Marquis of Blandford's amendment, after some discus-
. sion, was agreed to, and the words "parish commis-
sioners" was inserted, instead of "church building CO -
migsionera," which were the words used in the bid.
On clause 3 being pet,
Mr. Alderman OLTBITT moved the following amend-
ment :—" Provided that no rates for the purposes afor.e-
said be continued to be levied on the inhabitants beyond
what may suffice for the wants of the respective parishes
when so united."
After some considerable discussion the amendment
was withdrawn.
The ctau-e was then agreed to.
Clauses up to 9 were agreed to, with a few verbal
amendments.
On clause 10 being put, which provided for the sale of
the site of chur •bes and churchyards,
Mr. HENLEY objected to the provisions of the
clause, considering that it was against public policy and
humanity to disinter bodies that had been buried in
consecrated ground.
Sir J. PA.KINGTON could assure the right bon.
gentleman that, as promoter of the bill, he had no desire
to desecrate the dead. He would be most willing to
insert any words in the clause that would have the effect
of meeting the objections of the bon. and learned member
for Oxford.
After some further discussion, an amendment, agree-
able to the suggestions proposed, was agreed to.
Mr. HENLEY said, that baying disposed of the sale
of burial grounds, the next question for the committee
to consider was the sale of the churches. With respect
to the latter question be could see no difference with
the former, and thought that it ought to be treated in
the same way.
Mr. R. PB.ILLIMORE proposed an amendment that
no site of any church should be sold.
• Sir J. PAKINCTON said that it was the intention
of the promoters of the bill to resect the remains of the
dead, and he hoped, therefore, the bon. and learned
gentleman would withdraw his amendment.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS would like to know how it was
proposed to found mercantile establishments upon the
sites of burial-grounds without disturbing the remains
of the dead. Ile thought the sites ought not to be sold,
but to be reserved as open places, because in that way
they would tend very much to the. health of the public.
He ,vas therefore in favour of the amendment.
Lord EBRINGTON briefly Opposed the amendment.
sir W. HEA.THCOTE thought the feelings of the
people ought not to be outraged by the adoption of the
bill as it at present stood. He therefore supported the
amendment.
Sir G. GREY said he e.)uld see no difference between
• sites where interments bad been made in churches
and
actual burial grounds, and suggested that the clause
should be amended so as to meet the former case only.
It was his opinion that the clause as it stood would fc.e.
very objectionable.
After a few words from Sir J. P_ AKINGTON and Mr.
HENLEY,

Mr. PHILLIMORE said be was content to accept
the amendment suggested by the right hon. baronet (Sir
G. Grey). •

.
The amendment was accordingly withdrawn.
Mr. HADFIELD proposed to add at the end of the
clause,---" Pr )vided always that the inhabitants of, and
the owners of property in, the parish or place which may
be deprived of any existing church under the powers of
this act, shall no longer be liable to the payment of
tithe, church-rate, tax, or other impost, now payabie in
respect of such church, or the incumbent thereof, or for
the conduct of divine service therein.
Sit' J. PAKINGTON objected to the addition of