The Sun.
London, England, 1837-03-11 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, MARCH 10.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat at Five o'Clock.
The Bishop of BATH and WELLS presented petitions
from Wells, and certain other parishes in the County of So-
merset, against the abolition of Church-rates.
.the Archbishop of CA NT ERBURY presented a petition
from the Clergy of the diocese of the City of Armagh, against
the present s) stem of National Education in Ireland. Also
petitions from Peckham, Sudbury, and other places, against
the abolition of Church-rates.
Lord VERUL AM presented petitions from Egham, and
several other places, against the abolition of Church-rates.
The Bishop of E X ETER presented petitions from Clifton
and other places, to the same effect.
Lord R E DESD ALE presented a petition from Clapton
to the same effect.
Lord ASHBU RT 0 N presented petitions from Croydon,
Ealing, and several other places, to the same effect.
Lord BRO UGIIAM wished to know from the Noble
Lord, whether he was not aware that the great bulk of
the petitions which he had presented, proceeded upon the
notion that there was to be some plan for letting the
Churches go to ruin altogether, because the lan-
guage of many of them was to that effect ? He deprecated
an} system that would prevent the Churches being kept in
proper repair. Now, none of the petitions which he (Lord
Brougham) had presented, of so many hundreds, had the least
idea that the Legislature meant to bring forward or sanction
any measure that would have this effect, nor would they for a
moment countenance any such thing.
Lord A SHBURTON said that the petitioners in this case
certainly had presented their petitions without knowing the
precise object of the Bill which had been brought into the
other House. Undoubtedly the petitioners were moved by
this consideration, that they saw a large body of persons in dif-
ferent parts of the country with feelings hostile to the Established
Church, and they certainly did present their petitions under
an apprehension, that it was wished to do something to the
injury of that institution, and that a system of spoliation of
the Church property would be adopted.
Lord BROUGHAM said that only showed that had the
petitioners been asked their opinion upon the plan proposed,
they would have petitioned tile other way, and in support of
what was called the abolition of Church-rates.
Lord HOLLAND stated that he must really say, that he
had presented a large number of petitions to the House against
Church-rates, but not one of those by whom they bad been
undersigned had avowed any hostility to the Church ; on the
contrary, they desired that a better provision should be made for
the repair of Churches, and he was persuaded when the Bill for
this purpose was considered by the country and the House, it
would be found to be a measure of relief, not for Dissenters
alone, but for all parishioners and for the Church also, from its
present dependent and precarious circumstances.—( Hear. )
The Bishop of EXETER said that he had presented
one hundred petitions to their Lordships' House, and
lie could state that the purport of the whole of them
was to implore their Lordships to maintain the present
mode of collecting the Church-rates--( Hear)—or at least
to insist that the present charge should be continued, as an
ancient—he would say the most ancient charge—( Hear, hear,
from Lord Holland)—which existed upon any other species
of property. He held in his hand a petition in favour of Church-
rates, which he begged should be read at length—it was one
from the inhabitants of Clifton Morrisson, in Devonshire, and
had already been on the table of the House.
The Clerk then read the petition at great length. The
prayer of it was, that their Lordships would not consent to
the abolition of Church-rates.
Lord RADNOR then addressed some observations to the
House in reference to the petitions presented by the Right
Rev. Prelate, but he spoke in so low a tone that they could
not be collected in the gallery. The substance of them was,
we understood, that the forms of these petitions had been
printed in London and sent down to the country, and that this
was the manner in which they had been got up. .
Lord WHARNCLIFFE defended the petition, and in-
quired of the Noble Earl if the course he had referred to in
getting up the petition had not been continually practised in
getting up petitions on his side of the House.—( Cheers.)
The Earl of RADNOR said that he had never been a party
to any thing of the sort.
The Bishop of EXETER said, that whether the petition
was a copy of sprinted form was entirely out of his knowledge.
He had, however, the strongest assurances that the feeling of
the district from which the petition came, was almost unex
ampled in favour of the ancient rights which they possessed.
Supposing the facts which the Noble Earl had furnished rather
than affirmed to be as he stated, what did it amount to ?—why
that such was the confidence and feelings of the people on
this great question, that they are invited to look to a form of
a petition, and see whether it did not embody their views, and
the expression of their feelings. He could hardly conceive
anything more fair than putting before parties petitions of that
kind. He had been informed—and he did not complain of it—
that thousands of blank forms of petitions were sent from Lon-
don by one of the Post-office receiving-houses in a single
night. Ho did not complain of them, but on the subject of
the petitions now under discussion, the people, whether in a
printed form of petition or not he would not take upon him-
self to say, had expressed their determination not to sacrifice
their dearest interests.
Lord HOLLAND, with great respect to the Right Rev.
Prelate, did not think the authorship was worth much conten-
tion—( Hear, and a laugh)—because, if he was not greatly
mistaken, the petition contained as much unsound law, and
• Perverted history of facts, as it was possible any piece of paper
could contain. The Right Rev. Prelate had talked of
• the ancient impost on the people of this country to pay Church-
rates. When the proper time came for the discussion of this
Matter, it would be for the Right Rev. Prelate to make out
how the original intention of the donors or the founders of
Churches was perverted, and that both, for the support of the
hands
and the support of a certain party, were taken from the
'lnds of the clergy, and put upon the people of the country. It
might have been right so to do, but the Right Rev. Prelate would
find it difficult to prove what was asserted in that petition ; be-
cause the intention of the donors was. directly the reverse, and
shove all, the principles of the Primitive Church of England,
and the principles for which Protestants, more particularly in
all the countries of Europe-, contended, were quite the reverse.
Re could not help thinking it was irregular, inconvenient,
and unparliamentary, to discuss the merits of a question
which was not really before the House, and by which the public
and the House were only led to misunderstanding by taking
at by piecemeal.
The Earl of FALMOUTH said that to present a printed
petition for the purpose for which the Right Rev. Prelate
had so well explained, was not only a perfectly legitimate mode
of proceeding, but one most conformable to the practice of the
present times. But to accompany it with an earnest entreaty
to sign it was another thing ; and he begged, therefore, to ask
the Noble Earl, whether the Archdeacon accompanied the
printed form of petition to individuals with an earnest entreaty
that they would sign it ?
The Earl of RADNOR—Upon my word, I really don't
inow.—(Hear, and a laugh. )
The Bishop of ,E XETER—Not one of my petitions was
printed.
The Earl of RADNOR did not mean to say the petitions
were printed, but there was a printed form accompanying
th,em• His informant had told him there was a printed form
()1 a Petition sent round, and the petitioners were requested to
sign it.
Lord BROUGHAM presented petitions from Ward Chapel,
1-,3andee, and from Pennicuik, against Church-rates, and against
all State grants, whether to Protestant Dissenters or Catholics;
o petitions against Church-rates, from New Broad-street
Chapel, London ; Edinburgh ; Aldburgh, Boroughbridge, and
other Places in York ; from places in Worcester ; and from the
D7?teigregation of the Independent Chapel, Hounslow, Middlesex,
vonport and Stonehouse, and other places. The petition
aom Devonport and Stonehouse had been agreed to at a meet-
g called together for that purpose. The petitions which he
_es,ented differed in this respect, that all those from Scot.
ad were not only against Church-rates, but against any
grant, whether regium donum or otherwise ; while those from
England were confined to any imposts in the shape of Church-
-24 or throwing the Church-rates on any general fund.
rd Ho L L AND . presented petitions from Kingston-
ullenThanles and Carmarthen in favour of the Abolition of
Chu: en-rates.
!I -Message from the House of Commons
Private Bills. brcsught up two
Mr. Elsee presented
Earl of DEVON from the Bank of England.
papers
hear the name o_ presented petitions from .
(we could not
I the place), praying for an enquiry
iirnthe othe operation of the Poor-law Amendment Act
bpetiti Noble Lord then said he held in his hand a number of
eep ells on the same subject as that on which so many had
n presented: one of them was from Exeter, agreed to at
one of the largest public meetings ever hold in that place. The
petitioners could not refer to the particular measures about to
ibrought
w forward, but on the other hand they did not peti-
n_urer the apprehension that the reparation of the Church
would not by some way or other be providedstill they
desired that the onus forproviding for the repairs of the Church should not be rent d P
In
h. ovefrom the land, upon which it at present
It devolved.
.t is view of the question he entirely concurred.
ek,:a. impossible to regard this measure except as an at-
.,e pt at an evasion of that rate which properly belonged to
the land ; and the petitioners, under the supposition that it
w4ould.. take from the Church her established right of claim-
ingtrom the land that which she was entitled to, have
for her repairs intreated their Lordships not to sanction any
'such The petitions came before their Lordships not
an expression of opinion, but upon their decided objet-
let to a
which
oval of that burthen towards the support of the
Inca welch they now sustained, and which they were desi-
rous
of having continued.
andTahe NOBLE LORD then presented petitions from Darlington
rates.
great many other places, against the abolition of Church-

Lord WHARNCLIFFE said he bad a petition to present
against the abolition of Church-rates.
Lord HOLLAND asked if it were printed.
Lord \V H ARNCLI FFE answered in the affirmative.
Lord HOLLAND said he understood it was contrary to
the Order of the House to receive printed petitions—he had
Many petitions which were printed, and which he had been
anxious to present, but had been overruled. If a Committee
tad been appointed their Lordships would find that it had been
sled
ruled that printed petitions should not be received
in that House.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE said he understood that numbers
of printed petitionosush:d been presented to and received by
their Lordships' He.
Lord DEVON said that the rule not to receive such peti-
tio.ns had existed up to three or four years ago ; but on the
...teea,sion of the abolition, of slavery, or some other important
been printed petitions were received after the subject had
iscussed, and they had now been received for three or
-1011 r Years.