The Sun.
London, England, 1855-06-28 00:00:00

PETITIONS.

Petitions were presented by Viscount Ebrington from
St.Neotts, from Shiffnal, and from,Montgomery in favour
of the Marriages Bill • by Mr. Spooner, several petitions
from different parts of country against the Maynooth
Grant.
FORMATION, &c., OF PARISHES BILL.
On the order of the day fur 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,
even though it should not ease into a law this session.
The Church Building Commission had been founded some
years ago, to dispose of a grant by Parliament of
1,500,0001. for the purpose of building churches in
various districts. He shauld take the first descrip
tion of districts, called the district parishes, 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. There 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, be
believed the law must soon deal with it, and he was G.
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 had
been built, and he controverted the simple working of
that act with the cumbrous machinery of the Church
Building Commissioners 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 buitd churches, but it was also necessary they should
be endowed. AU 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 attenling such endowments, although from the
state of the Church not permitting it they could not be
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 pew 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 46,0001.,
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 reigri 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 be 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 incembent bad 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 46,0001.
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 them. (Hear.)
By that means he 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 were 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 of 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 be 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 considers. 3
Lion. He was bound 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. lie
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 mace)
with it. (Hear.) He (Sir George Grey) 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
en the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, he (Sir G. Grey)
thought it could not be done without revising their pre-
sent duties, and strengthening their hands by the infu-
sion of flee 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 second 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. THCOTE though,
that the house would
HEA
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 LID its mind upon it. (Hear.)
Sir W. CLAY objectesl 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 rates. R did more than that:
it gave another devotion to the property of the National
Church. (Hear, bear.) By the provisions of the bill a
Government officer could acquire land out of the revenue
of the Church, and appropriate it to purpose` totally at
variance to the purposes for which it was originaly 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 crder 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. P2ILLATr 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. HADFIiLD objected to any measure like the
present being referred to a select committee. It was all
very well for the noble marquis at once to consent to the
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.
After some further discussion the bill was withdrawn.