The Sun.
London, England, 1838-06-30 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,

(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The SPFAEItR took the Chair at TwelYo o'Clock.

Mr. EASTHOPE presented a petition front Ce'tar, cl• c•
tors of Maidstone, against the return of Mr. Fcctor for thei
I3,rough.

FISHGUARD HARBOUR BILL.

Mr. JOHN PARKER brought in the Fishguard Harbour
Bill, which was read a first time.
The Sudbury Town Lands Bill was re.ul a third time r.nd
passed.
ALL SOULS COLLEGE (OXFORD) ESTATE

I3IL L.
On the motion of Sir R. INGLIS this Bli was rend a
second time, and referred to the Oxford CommiLtee List.

CHURCH PROPERTY.
Mr. ROUND presented a petition from a parish in Ei:ex,
praying that any additional value which arty be given to
Church property may be applied exclusivey to cecics4istical
purposes.

MAILS ON RAILWAYS BILL.
Mr. BROADLEY presented a petition against this Bill.
POSTAGE.
Mr. SHAW presented a petition praying for a reduction in
.he r..tes of postage.

- ROYAL EXCHANGE.
Mr. HALL presented a petition from Marylebonc against
the Bill for rebuilding the Royal Exchange.
IRISH TITHE BILL.
Mr. SHAW gave notice that in the Committee upon tln,
Irish Tithe Bill he should move several amendments. la the
second clause, which provides for the repayment of the
million lean, he should move the introduction of an exception
of those cases in which repayment had been already made by
the tithe-owners. In the third clause he should move an
amendment that instead of deducting 30 per cent, from the in-
come of the Clergy in case of prompt payment, 25
per cent. only should be deducted—( Hear)—and that in
cases where payment should not be made within six months,
only 20 per cent. should be de lucted. He should further
move the omission of ten clauses—from 9 to 19; and he
should substitute other clauses to specify the cues and the
manner in which provision should be made for the support of
the Clergy, as contemplated by those clauses.—( Hear.)
Mr. R. STE RT said there was one of the dropped or-
ders to which no opposition would be off,red, and he would
ther"fore propose that the Bill should be forwarded a stage.
Tha Edinburgh and Leith Agreement Bill, to which we
understood the Hon. Member to refer, wa: then read a second
time.

VESTRIES BILL.
Dr. NICHOL L moved" the Order of the Day for the
ruraer consideration of the Report on the Vestries Bill.
Mr. HARVEY objected to the Bill. It appeared to him
o inculcate a superstitious reverence forlthe mete walls of the
Church ; independent of this, the Bill was defective in point
of principle; why, he would ask, were not all parishes to be
included,and all prevented from holding vestries at the Church?
By the preamble of the Bill it was stated that holding vestries
in the Church was a scandal to religion; he could not view it
in that light. He thought the Bill was altogether unneces-
sary, and totally uncalled for; one great objection ho had
to the measure was, that by it a total disregard was
shewn towards the numerous body of Dissenters.—( Hear.)
The Bill would abolish the last link in the chain which bound
the Dissenter to the Church, and he felt so much objection
to it that he moved the recommittal of the Bill that day
three months.
Mr. HUME seconded the motion, because there was no
evidence before the House to justify them in passing
the Bill. It was a gross outrage on the privileges of
the people, and he for one could not agree to it.
It appeared to him to be a meddling interference which ought
not to he sanctioned by the House. He would ask the Noble
Lord the Secretary for the Home Department whether he
had read the Bill, and whether he was prepared to say that he
had received any such information as bore out the preamble
of the Bill, that the proceedings at vestries were a scandal to
religion. If any such irregularities took place, the law as it
already existed was strong enough to punish the offenders.
For these reasons he seconded the amendment of his Hon.
Friend.
Sir R. INGLIS said the Hon. Member for Kilkenny began
by saying the House was called upon to leg:slate without infor-
mation ; but he would ask whether this as the only case to
which that observation was applicable ? In some cases there
was sufficient notoriety to justify interference. He repeated
the question—Did the Hon. Member believe in the sacred-
ness of the ceremony of consecration ?—(Cries of " Hear,
hear.") Prayers were offered to God that he might bless
the building, and it was held to be devoted exclusively to
his worship, by all denominations of the Catholic Church.
He meant the Universal Christian Church, whether it was
called the Church of England or the Church of Scotland—
or of Rome or by any other names—( Hear.) There would be
very little ('anger of brawls in the Churches of small pa-
rishes ; therefore he (Sir R. Inglis) was content with the Bill
a now limited to larger parishes.
Lord J US SE L L said that this Bill went undoubtedly to
change an ancient and established usage. It enacted that
Churches should not be used fur any purposes but religious
except with the consent of the Bishop of the diocese. Now
it was impossible to pass that enactment by itself ; it was then
necessary that a number of other clauses should be introduced,
enablingthe Vestries of parishes to remedy the inconvenience,
of the first enactment, by laying upon the inhabitants very
considerable burdens. Subsequent clause:, therefore, provided
that the Vestries might levy any sums for altering or erecting
buildings, to hold their meetings in, and to lay the burden up -n
the Poor-rates. P, sharps the power here given was unnecessarily
exteesive; but beyond all question, very extensive powers were
absolutely necessary. Without entering into the general reason-
ing upo❑ the subject, it could not 100 forgotten what great
dissatisfaction had been caused by the powers of levyii g
money which had been entrusted to vestries in parishes.
Ho wished to know from the Chair whether this bill came
within the forms of the House—whether the Lords having
passed a Bill which was a mere nullity—(Hear)---which only
would put people to inconvenience, and be inoperetive_
( Hear)—that then they were to pass this Bill, and this House
was afterwards to add to it clauses which would make it opera-
tive, and cause n great burden on parishes—( Hear)—because
if carried into effect the house of Lords would be imposing a
tax on the people of this country ?—( Hoer. ) The seven or
eight clauses in that part of the Bill were introduced by this
House as supplemental, to carry into effect the main purposes of
the Bill; and it appeared to him that, though not doing so directly,
yet by agreeing to this Bill this House would he allowing one of
its privileges to be broken in upon, and transferred to, or par-
ticipated In, by the House of Lords.—( Hear, hem-. ) He
should have no objection to a Bill with reasonable provisions,
by which, with the general consent of the parish, some other
room might be provided than the Church, where meetings of
this kind might be held.—( Hear.) Such an alteration would
be beneficial. Although some alterations were necessary, lie
could riot agree that by this Bill the House of Lords should
impose a large and indefinite tax upon the people—a Bill ori-
ginating with them, and not with the house of Commons, in
the first instance.—( Hear, hear.)
The SPEAKER thought there was no objection to the
Bill, inasmuch as he unders ood the clause to which the Noble
Lord had adverted had been been framed in that House. fle
was clearly of opinion the Bill was no encroachment on the
privileges of that House.
Lord STANLEY was glad to Leer the statement just
made by the Chair, as they entirely put an end to the argu-
ment of the Noble Lord. It was said that the House of
Lords was tardy whenever any meesures of reform or improve-
ment were introduced, and now when they were instituting
such measures they were complained of.---( Hear, hear, and
cl-eers.) The question now was, whether the Noble Lord
and her Majesty's Government concurred in the measure, as
it was desirable, if possible, to relieve the Church from the
ecandal it was under, in consequence of proceedings that some-
times took place at vestries.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL could not say that the Noble
Lord had stated correctly a hat had fallen from him. Ile had
not spoken as a Minister of the Crown, hut as a Member of
the (louse of Cemmone upon a point in which he
thought the privileges of the House were concerned.
He believed that it was necessary for some Legislative pro-
ceedings upon the subject, but be could not consent to the
Bill unless the parishes bad a control over the money which
they were to be called upon to pay.
Mr. CLAY objected to the Bill cetnpletely and on principle.
After the Church had been used for public meetings ui;in-
tcrruptedly for 700 years, he did not See there was

. -
any good reason for interfering at the present time.
I-le admitted that tumultuous meetings did sometimes tike
place in churches.—(Tory cheers.) In one parish of the
borough which .he had the 'honour to represent the exFense of
building a room sufficiently large to accommodate the vestries
would amount to 10,0001.—(Hear, hear.) Was the incon.
venience su great as to justify the imposition of so great a tax
to remove it ?—( Hear.)
Lord DUNGANNON denied that the Bill would deprive
the inhabitants of any parish of the only ad%n.ltzge which they
received in return for the expense of supporting the fabric of
the Church ; and he hoped that the practice of holding
vestries in churches would be altogether done away with.
Mr. O'CONNELL said this Bill included Ireland in its
enactments. What case had been made for Ireland ? Had
there been any riots in the Established Churches there ? He
had never heard of them. The Bill gave vestries the power
of taxing the people. Now Church-rates had already been
abolished in Ireland, and if this Bill were to apply to Ireland
the expense of building these edifices should be raised
front the ecclesiastical funds, nut of which Church-rates
were then provided for—( Hear, hear, hear)—why, if
the Bill passed, a vestry in the north of Ireland
might, if they plea,cd, erect an Or.:nge Lodge under the p-e-
-tence of an edifice for holding mectins of the prishi, ners
na. _What was to prevent this from being done? It was pre-
post:Tout to include Ireland in the Bill.—( Hear, hear.) The
Bill went to alter a long established practice. Who were the
innovators now ?—(llear, hear.) The Gentlemen on the
otlwr side.—(hear, hear.) The Gentlemen on this (the
Minivrrial) side, were now the Conservatives.—( Hear,
hear, Inv.) Why, it might, with quite as much reason,
he said, that Westminster Abbey should no longer be
desecrated by Coronations.—(Laughter.) Certainly, he
(Mr. O'Connell) had witnescd on the late occasion a scram-
ble as violent as he had seen any where.—( Loud laughter.)
He hoped it would be long before there would be another
Coronation.—( Laughter, and bear, bar.) The Noble Lord
( Stanley) was v( ry eloquent as to the antiquity of the
Churches. But 300 years ago they were used for a different
kind of worship. It was not the antiquity of the Churches
then that excited his admiration. Were the people of
England grown so riotous ,that. they could not quietly
enter their Churches ?—(Loul cries. of " hear.'')
The Bill stigmatized the people of England as if they were.