The Sun.
London, England, 1855-06-27 00:00:00

FORMATION, &c., OF PARISHES BILL.

... 2

On the order of the day for the second reading of the
above bill,
The Marquis of BLANDFORD said that, though the
session was so far advanced, he felt bound to ask the house
to consider its principle and agree to the second reading,
evec though it should net pass into a law this session.
The Church Building Commission had been founded some
years ago, to dispose of a grant by Parliament el
1,500,0001. for the purpose of building churches in
various districts. He should take the first descrip•
tion of districts, called the district parish, in which
churches were built by the commissioners, and
powers granted to levy rates for the repayment
of the original loan. The entire district was to be liable
to Church-rates for twenty years. Thera were 79 of
those districts ; but the commissioners found they were
not sufficient, and they then formed 92 consolidated
chapelries, in which services were allowed to be per-
formed immediately on their formation. The
next description of districts were district chapel-
ries, amounting in number to 578, and they
affected the largest portion of the country, and therefore
the laws affecting them were of the greatest importance,
and the noble lord averred that those laws were in a
state of the greatest anomaly. The result of this variety
of districts was a source of the greatest complexity,
which would require almost a lifetime to unravel and de-
termine. With regard to the question of church rates, he
believed the law must soon deal with it, and he was far
from wishing the law should deal with that question in
any niggard spirit. (Hear.) But there was one pecu-
liar grievance under the present system, where the pa-
rishioners saw the rates raised from themselves applied
to churches in another parish, not in their own district,
and with which they had nothing to do. Under the 6th
and 7th Victoria, commonly called Peel's Act, 242
parishes had been created, in which 189 churches bad
been built, and he controverted the simple working of
that act with the cumbrous machinery of the Church
Building Comtniesionere Act, which amounted to 18.
By an act of last session, the duration of these com-
missions was limited to the 26th July, 1856, and
attempts had been made to consolidate these acts and
continue the powers of those commissioners, but instead
of doing that, he thought it would be better for the
house to repeal the 18 acts alluded to and the commis-
sion be allowed to terminate, and any property they may
have vested in the Ecclesiastical Commission for Eng-
land, and extend the powers of Peel's Act as far as ne-
cessary to continue the subdivision of parishes to the ex-
tent required. It was all very well to make parishes
and buiid churches, but it was also necessary they should
be endowed. All churches, except those who were ap-
portioned tithes, and those erected under Peel's Act,
were endowed by pew rents. He thought there were great
evils atten ling such endowments, although from the
state of the Church not permitting it, they could not he
dispensed with. He did not see himself that objection
to pew rents which some did ; but, at the same time, he
did not consider that peg rents, looked at as an endow-
ment to a minister, was that provision he ought to have
made for his maintenance, because it did not place him
in that independent position with his parishioners he
ought, to occupy. (Hear, hear.) The Ecclesiastical
Commissioners stated there were 1,533 churches, re-
quiring 144,0001. to raise the incomes of the clergymen
officiating in them to a certain extent. Of these, 856
had been so benefitted by an appropriation of 46,000/.,
leaving 98,0001. so to be applied. (Hear, hear.) In
dealing with the great question in this bill, he proposed
that the patronage of the church should be, with proper
restrictions, placed in the hands of the persons who had
built or endowed them, which was a principle that
had been recognised by Parliament in the reign of
George IV., William IV., and the present reign. By
the Ist of William IV. the amount provided by private
individuals for endowments and building of churches
was 89,0001. ; and, under Peel's Act, there had been
raised for endowments and the building of churches
158,0001.—(hear, hear)—so that nearly half a million
of money had been raised by private liberality, by vest-
ing the patronage in their hands. With these facts be-
fore them he did not consider he was proceeding on a
wrong principle in proposing what he had, with reference
to patronage and endowments, and he was also of opi-
nion it might be further extended. There were a great
many churches or incumbencies in the hands of the
Mother Church which ought not to be the case, and he
thought that, where it could be proved that the person
so presenting had not been instrumental himself in
building or causing them to be built, that the patronage
should be vested in any person who had adequately en-
dowed them to the satisfaction of the commissioners,
and where the incumbent had been instrumental in get-
ting the church erected, his interest should not be dis-
turbed during his incumbency. With regard to parishes
under 2001. per annum, the commissioners had only in-
creased a few of them, by the appropriation of 46,000/.
to that purpose ; and these livings, which were in the
gift of the Lord Chancellor, the Chancellor of the
Duchy of Lancashire, Deans and Chapters, and Cor-
porations, he proposed should, with the consent of the
proper authorities, be transferred to those private in-
dividuals as would adequately endow therm (Hear.)
By that means ho thought adequate endowment would
be provided for many parishes that were at present lan-
guishing for want of propermaintenance—(hear)--or were
placed in a difficult or invidious position. There were
many cases' of public patronage where the parishes have
overgrown themselves, and he proposed in such cases
that the parishes should be divided, and the amount of
tithes also, and where the patrons wore unwilling to do
so he proposed the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should
have power to do so, leaving the patronage untouched.
(Hear.) He moved the second reading of the bill.
Sir G. GREY said it was impossible to deny the im-
portance of the bill, and the value of many of the pro-
visions which it embodied. It was founded to a certain
extent on the report .f a commission issued with refer-
ence to the subdivision of parishes, and who recom-
mended in their report many of the provisions of this
bill. But the very importance of the subject, the com-
plexity of its details, and the variety and importance of
the subject it professed to deal with, caused him to en-
tertain serious doubts whether it was wise at that period
of the session, and the then state of the house, to assent
to the second reading of the bill. The noble lord had
stated it was not his intention to proceed further with
the bill this session than with the second reading, which
would, he (Sir G. Grey) thought, lead to no practical re-
sults. It would not advance the bill whilst it fettered the
future discretion of Parliament on the question. (Hear.)
It was difficult to say what was the principle of the bill.
It stated it was to afford facilities for the sub-division of
parishes (which was a principle he was willing to accede),
but that could only be extracted from a great variety of
details, all dealing with important subjects. The
bill not only proposed to abolish the Church Build-
ing Commission, and to transfer their duties to
the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, giving them a large
increase of powers, but also to deal with the law as re-
garded the formation of parishes, mortmain, patronage,
and pew rents, all of which required mature considerau
tion. He was hound to say he could not see what ad-
vantage the noble lord would gain by pledging the house
to an opinion at that advanced stage of the ses-
sion, if no further progress was to be made
with the bill, and the great number of acts of Parlia-
ment with which this bill dealt rendered it impossible for
them to consider it in a committee of the whole house
before it had been referred to a select committee. He
should be sorry to throw any obstacle in the way of the
progress of the bill, neither did he think he was doing
so in asking the noble lord to withdraw the bill
for this session, and to introduce it at an early
period of the next session when progress might be made
with it. (Hear.) He (Sir George Gray) believed an
extension of the powers of Peel's act would be beneficial,
and drew the noble lord's attention to his intention by
his bill to repeal that clause in Peel's act, which made it
compulsory before a parish was constituted, that an en-
dowment should first be made, which appeared contrary
to the noble lord's views. With regard to adding fresh duties
on the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the (Sir G. Grey)

thought it could not be done without revising their pre-
sent duties, and strengthening their hands by the infu-
sion of new elements into their composition. He should
offer no objection to the second reading of this bill pro-
vided the noble lord would refer the bill to a select com-
mittee, where all the details might be properly investi-
gated.
Lord EBRINGTON considered it impossible for a
bill of such importance to be carried that session, but
was of opinion it should be read a snond time by the
house, which would give it that sanction and weight in
the country which would direct attention to it during
the recess.
Sir W. HEATHCOTE thought that the house would
do well to consider the suggestion of the Home Secre-
tary upon this bill. He thought that nothing could be
more fatal to any measure than to adopt it, unless the
house had made up its mind upon it. (Hear.)
Sir W. CLAY objected to sanctioning the principle
of this bill by allowing it to pass a second reading. If
the bill was passed it would give an entirely new princi-
ple with respect to Church rites. It did more than that:
it gave another devotion to the property of the National
Church. (Hear, hear.) By the provisions of the bill a
Government officer could acquire land out of the revenue
of the Church, and appropriate it to purposes totally at
variance to the purposes for which it was originally in-
tended. No less than 38 Acts of Parliament would be
affected by the present bill.
Mr. G. BUTT thought the bill ought to be withdrawn,
in order that the objects it had in view might be con-
sidered fully in committee. He hoped that the promo-
ters of the bill would fall into his suggestion, and with-
draw the bill.
Mr. A. PELLATT proposed as an amendment that
the bill should be read a second time that day three
months.
After some observations from Mr. Palk, Mr. R. Phil-
limore, Mr. Cowper, and Mr. V. Scully,
The Marquis of BLANDFORD consented to withdraw
the bill, upon the understanding that a bill similar in its
details should be introduced in the next session.
Mr. HADFIELD objected to any measure like the
present being referred to a select committee. It was a

very well for the noble marquis at once to consent to
withdrawal of the bill ; but, acting as the representative
of his constituents, who he thought were far more nume-
rous than the noble lord's, he would never be a party to
placing the extensive powers proposed to be given by
this bill in the bands of the Government.
Attar some further discussion the bill was withdrawn.
THE MAYNOOTH ENDOWMENT.

On the order of the day for the resumption of the
debate on this question,
Mr. MAGUIRE said the discussion of the Maynooth
question from time to time had b,en forced upon the
house by the hon. member for North Warwickshire (Mr.
Spooner), who, when asked the other evening to with-
draw his proposed measure, declined to do su ; thereby
signifying his intention of taking the opinion of the
house by a division. He (Mr. Maguire) was not un-
anxious that the house should express its
opinion in that manner; but in the meanwhile the
matter involved was so important not only to the
Roman Catholics in Ireland, but also to the
welfare of the United Kingdom, that lie felt it to be a
duty imposed upon him as a Roman Catholic member of
that house to enter fully into the charges made against
Maynooth, with a view to show that those charges were
baseless and without foundation. Reverting to the
period when the College of Maynooth was first esta-
blished, the hon. member observed that the Marquis of
Camden, when he laid the foundation-stone of that edifice,
said they had that day inaugurated the commencement of a
wise institution for the education of the Roma❑ Catholic
clergy at home; and a Protestant King, and Pro-
testant Ministers, a Protestant Perliarnent, a Pro-
testant Clergy, and a Protestant , people all at
that time concurred in the wisdom, prudence,
and policy of an establishment which had of late
been the object of so much intolerant and unjustifiable
abuse and misrepresentation. He contended that those
persons who were the uncompromising advocates for the
abolition of the grant were actuated by motives of pan-
dering to the very worst feelings of humanity and mor-
bid religious feeling ; and were, moreover, impelled iii
the controversy by a mast unchrist an spirit. If all
that had been stated against the doctrines inculcated at
Maynooth were true, if it were true that her object was
to prevent all oaths, compacts, and allegiances, then he
would be the first to demand its extinct,on from exist-
ence ; but he called upon those by whom these charges
were brought forward to prove them. (Hear, heer.)
Before proceeding to the consideration of the charges,
the hon. member adverted to the cry which was formerly
made, by the hon. member for North Warwickshire
and his supporters, for an inquiry into the Maynooth
system. (Hear, hear.) Well, he proceeded, an
inquiry took place, and the assertion these gentlemen
now made was that the evidence, simply because a por-
tion of it had been sent to Rome three menthe after it had
been printed in England, was garbled and unreliable.
(Hear, hear.) At the same time this inquiry was con-
ducted by persons of the highest possible character and
probity—men who had character to lose, and he felt
bound to say, after a deliberate perusal of all
the documents contained in that blue-book, that a
more searching or complete investigation could not
have been made. (Hear, hear) The hon. member then
went on to notice the remarks which had been made re-
lative to the power of the Pope to absolve Roman Ca-
tholics from their oath of allegiance to the Sovereign,
and quoted several Roman Catholic divines, amongst
them Dr. Furlong and Dr. Moriarty, in order to show
that allegiance to the Sovereign was held in the light of
one of the first principles of morality, and that the Pope
under no circumstances whatever had power to influence
a Roman Catholic in violating his oath of allegiance. As
to oaths and contracts in general, the hon. member cited
the writings of Dr. Hanlon and Dr. Murray, in which
it was laid down that an oath or contract with a heretic
(so called, he observed, in a religiously technical sense),
or any other person whether baptised or not, was of
equal validity as if made with a Roman Catholic. (Hear,
hear.) The hon. gentleman next referred to a catechism,
in which the principles of the Roman Catholic
religion were inculcated amongst the children
of persons of that persuasion in all classes of
society, and pointed out, amongst other things, that the
youth of that church were taught to love their Lerd
above all, and their neighbour as themselves ; the latter
term including all men alike, even their enemies, and
those who differed from them in religion. (Cheers )
He afterwards dwelt in feeling terms upon the
fidelity and loyalty of our Roma❑ Catholic soldiers,
notwithstanding the baneful influence of Maynooth.
Of the 29 archbishops and bishops in Ireland, 2 arch-
bishops and 22 bishops were educated at Maynooth.
1,222 priests had been educated there, and she sent
about 60 missionaries annually to the colonies, and there
were 24 missionaries in England educated at Maynooth.
He contended, on account of the poverty of the clergy
and people, nothing would be so unjust to the people of
Ireland as the withdrawal of this grant. Ireland was
sought to be treated in this question as if she were a
prosperous country like England and Scotland, but hon.
members appeared to forget that terrible social revolu-
tion that had taken place in Ireland, whereby 15 mil-
lions of property had been brought to the hammer, and
2i millions of people deprived of the soil they once pos-
sessed. Owing to the parsimony of the house and the
Government Maynooth was in an incomplete state, and
to that was to be attributed the condition of the library,
and there being no catalogue of the books. The com-
missioners, in speaking of the results of the di.icipline at
Maynooth, said there was no imputation against the
moral character of the young men, and no reason to be-
lieve their general conduct was other than irreproach-
able. The honourable member proceeded to enforce the
necessity of an additional grant, to place the college
in an efficient state instead of the house attending to the
miserable agitation going on out of doors for the with-
drawal of the present grant. He detailed at some length
the dilapidated condition of the buildings, and dwelt on
the qualifications of the Irish Roman Catholic
clergy, who, he said, were eminently suited fur the
scene of their labours in Ireland, and ❑one were more
bold and conscientious in the discharge of their duties
than they were. The friends of education in Ireland
were the Roman Catholic clergy, whilst the clergy of
the Established Church in Ireland were its opposers.
(Hear, hear) He deprecated the taunts thrown out
against theAßoman Catholics of Ireland, of their being
disloyal, and reviling them in no measured terms, and
asked had not the Roman Catholics of Ireland shown
their bravery and loyalty in their recent engagements
withthe enemy in the Crimea? As sure as they withdrew
the grant to Maynooth and the reyinin donuin to the
Presbyterians, the downfall of the Church of England
would be certain.

Captain STEWART entered into the origin of the
grant, which he said was to assist the Irish in erecting
this college, and not for an endowment. This college
was under the direct control of the Pope, from which
:missionaries were sent to erery part of the world ; so
that the grant was not for the purpose of education, but
propagating the Roman Catholic faith. They
must guard against bequeathing this legacy to their chil-
dren, seeing it had increased of late pars.
Mr. B. STANHOPE opposed the grant. If the
house was prepared to carry out the freedom of
election, he called upon them not to make a grant that
would strike at the very vitas of so important an object.
Mr. P. O'BRIEN supported the grant.
The debate, it being a quarter to six o'clock, was then
adjourned till to morrow.
YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed afterisome
observations from Mr. ADDERLEY, withdrawing the
clause he had proposed.

- . -
COURT OF EXCHEQUER (IRELAND).
The Court of Exchequer (Ireland) Bill was read a
third time and passed.
UNION CHARGE ACT CONTINUANCE BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
DOWNING-STREET OFFICE EXTENSION.
On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER it was agreed that the house would
upon Thursday resolve itself into a commit.
tee to consider of authorising the exchange of
any lands vested in the Commissioners of her
Majesty's Works, under the Acts 14 and 15 Vic. c. 42,
and 16 Vic. c. 18, for any lands of the Crown, required,
to be taken for the purpose of providing additional
effices fur the public service in or near Downing
street, and of making provision out of the Conso
lidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland, or out of the Land Revenues of the
Crown, for the payment of the difference in value (if
any, as the case may be) of the lands of the crown and of
the lands now vested in the Commissioners of Works iu
trust for the Consolidated Fund.

The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the house adjourned at 6 o'clock to 12 o'clock to-morrow,

DEATH OF BRIGADIER-GENERAL ESTCOURT.—We re-
gret to announce the death, by ebolera, on the 23d, of
Brigadier-General Estcourt, Adjutant-General of the
Forces in the Crimea, after a short illness.

LAW INTELLNICNCE.-(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings at Guildhall, before Lord Justice Campbell and

a Special Jury.)

VAN WAGENINGEN AND ANOTHER V. MARSI,IIRLE AND

ANOTHER

This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, ship
owners of Holland, to recover damages from the de-
fendants, Australian agents of this city, for an alleged
breach of charter party. It appeared that in March,
1854, the defendants' chartered the plaintiffs' ship, the
Osiris, at 5.7. per ton for a voyage to Australia, she being
at the time discharging her cargo at Dort. She was
to be surveyed and got ready for sea with all
possible despatch, coming to London to ship her pas
sengers. She did not arrive at the London Docks until
August, when the defendants refused to take her be-
cause, as they alleged, all possible despatch had not beer.
used to get her ready. Freights having gone down the
dtfendants, however, afterwards chartered her withont
prejudice to the first charter, for which they gave 4/
per ton, instead of Si. The action was for the differeLce
of amount.

The case was proceeding when our report left.

COMMON PLEA S. `
(Before Lord C. J. Jervis.)
The court sat this morning at Guildhall, for the dis-
posal of common jury cases; but the whole list only
occupied the attention of the learned judge for a short
time, and the court rose at an early hour.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Sittings at Guildhall before the Lord Chief Baron and

Common Juries.)
The Court sat this morning for the first time this term
at Guildhall, and proceeded with the Common Jury list.
Up to the time our report was despatched no case of
any general interest bad been heard.