The Sun.
London, England, 1854-07-06 00:00:00

(LEFT SPEAKING.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(THIS DAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Lords' amendments to the Wet Bromwich Im.
provement Bill were considered and agreed to.
The S tlisbury and Yeovil Railway Bill wAi considered
and ordered to be read a third time.
PETITIONS.

Several petitions were presented from Manchester
and other places against the ,ale of intoxicating drinks
on Sundays; by Mr. GROGVS, from the Corpo, ation of
Dublin, against the extension of the Bills of Exchange
Bill to Ireland; Mr. WISE, from Hanley, in Stafford-
shire, against the extension of the Board of Health
Bill to that district; Dr. PHILLIMORE, against the Church
Building Acts Amendment Bill ; also a petition from the
merchants and inhabitants of London, praying to be
heard by council at the bar of the house against the
same bill ; by Sir J. PAKINGTON, from 41 incumbents
of churches in the city of London, in favour of the
Church Building Acts Amendments Bill.

CHURCH BUILDING ACTS AMENDMENT
BILL.

Sir J. PAKINGTON moved the second reading of
this bill, and briefly stated its object to be to give autho-
rity for pulling down certain superfluous churches in the
City and re-erecting them in other parts of the metro-
polis which were destitute of church accommodation.
(Hear, hear.) The house was aware that owing to
a change of circumstances most of the City churches
were now little better than useless, because there
were no parishioners to attend them, and the Bishop
of London and his clergy were of opinion that the
buildings should be pulled down, the sites sold, and the
materials and proceeds applied to erecting churches in
those metropolitan districts that most required them—
that was the simple object of the bill. It embraced no
new principle, because a similar measure had already
been extended to other sees, and since the measure was
one of necessity, he hoped the house would experience
no difficulty in adopting it.
Mr. R. PHILLIMORE moved that the bill be read a
Second time this day six months. He denied that there
any superfluity of churches in the City, while he
contended that the deficiencies which were said to exist
in certain districts, could be supplied by the contribu-
tions of the places themselves. This bill interfered with
the
rights of Parishioners in a most unjustifiable
manner, not only in
tar London, but in Bristol, Ches-
had yet been York, and
.various other places, and as no proof
given of the necessity of this measure,
except as regarded the city of
think the house would be • London. He did not
arbitrary measure as this. lusts
in
very exceptional one. It tvaset passing such an
`tee of
rLicohnhdaodn
to make it the place of their residrne
live in the suburbs, but would thenceased
live
housed had gona to
disregarding the claims of the poor be justified in
accommodation (Hear, hear.) P The Tall to Church
cumbenta of many of these churches hade-
to
the in-
the opening of their pews that the poor werea° r,tge,ed,.
of them, and now, because they wanted tofoll"`
affluent parishioners into the suburbs it was"l their
forsooth, that the churches were superfine a arge,aed:
necessary, simply on the ground that they neverweraend
attended. But why were they not attended Onlybe-
cause while the rich found it convenient to retireto the
suburbs, the poor though forced to remain in the City
were kept out of the churches, not by their own wish
but against their will to serve the interest of the incum-
bent. (Hear, hear.) There was a great constitutional
objection in this bill ; it proposed for the first time in
the history of this country to pull down churches, break
up church-yards, transfer church rates and tithes from
One district to another without the consent of the pa-
rishioners. (Hear, hear.) The powers of the bill were
to be put in force merely at the will of the bishop, the
leariihioners were to have no voice in the matter, and
that being so he was right in stigmatising the bill as
shocking, arbitary, and unjust. (Cheers.)
Mr. HADFIELD seconded the amendment.
Sir J. PAKINGTON replied to the objections which
had been urged against the bill, which, he said, could be
all removed in committee, as they appeared to go to the
detail., and not to the principle of the measure. The
attack which had been made upon the clergy of the
City, Was as misplaced as it was unjust; it was said,
that they supported the bill, because it would put money
into their pockets, but it would do nothing of the sort.
It might have the effect of increasing the stipends of one
or two of them, but to say that the advocacy of the
Clergy was attributable to sordid motives, was a calumny
which could not be sustained. The right hon. gentle-
man then proceeded to give a number of facts and
figures in support of his assertion that the
Church accommodation in the City was highly
superfluous, and in the suburbs of London deplo-
rably deficient. He cited various instances where the
churches and graveyards had been pulled down and
broken up for secular purpoees—for promoting health in
some cases, and the interest of commerce in others ; as,
bt witness St. Katherine's Docks, and asked the house
~> whether it was not of far greater importance that this
should be done when the object to be secured was the
st
removal of a large amount of spiritual deitution.
ltitr4=.-i.„:, Mr. MOFFATT said all the statistic,' which the right