The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-27 00:00:00

BILL.

On the motion that this Bill be read a second time,
Mr. REYNOLDS said since last he bad the honour
to address the House on this subject he had re-
ceived several petitions from all classes of the citi-
zns against the Bill. He held in his hand a
petition from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and
burgesses of Dublin against the Bill, from the
Grand Canal Company, uuer their common seal, from
the burgesses and rate-payers of Dublin, amounting to
4 000 in number, both of them against the Bill, and
from the president of the Chamber of Commerce and
from the members of the Chamber of Commerce, against
they Bill.
The SPEAKER intimated to the lion. Member that
he could not tau the course which he proposed, having
on a preview: occasion addressed the House on the Bill.
Mr. REYNOLDS would therefore move that on this
day fortnight the Bill be read that day six months.
After a few words from Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL and
Lord LINCOLN,

The House divided on the original question, that the
Bill be read a second time, when there appeared—
For the second reading 23

Against it
Majority
Mr. REYNOLDS then moved that the Bill be read a
second time this (lay six months.
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT moved as an amendment
that th, Bill be read a second time this day fortnight.
Mr. REYNOLDS objected to the Bill, inasmuch as it
was nothing more than a measure which was concocted
by an attorney in Dublin, with no other view than mak-
ing an enormous bill of costs. He construed it as an
insult to the inhabitants of Dublin to tell them that they
should not be governed by their own representatives,
which was the principle which was involved in this Bill,
but that they should be governed instead by an
ex officio board. He would never be a party
to the creation of an irresponsible power.
There was another Bill which was likely also to be re-
ferred to a Committee. If they meant honestly by these
Bills. they would re!er them both to a.Committee up stairs.
—(Elear, hear.) At any rate they would concur in the
rejection of this Bill, and not allow an attorney to foist
this measure on his fellow-citizens without their consent.

Mr. GROGAN trusted that her Majesty's Ministers
would not vote against this Bill without inquiry.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE had already stated to the
House that this was the least desirable of the two mea•
sums; and thinking the Bill was a bad Bill he should
do so now. Ile trusted that some postponement of the
Bill would therefore take place.
Mr. REYNOLDS—My motion is that the Bill be read
a second time this day six months.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For Mr. Reynolds's motion, that the Bill be read a
second time that day six months
For Mr. Sidney Herb;,rt's amendment, that the
Bill be read a second time that day fortnight

Maj,irity for Mr. Herbert's ;mendnierit ... —26
The Bill was then ordered to be recd a second time
;his day foleight.
LEEDS AND THIRSK RAILWAY.

The Leeds and Thirsk Railway (power to guarant(e
interest on certain shares, &c.) Bill was read a secoLd
time, and ordered to be committed.
LDNDON AND BLACKWALL RAILWAY.

The London and Black wall Railway (Amendment
and Extension of Time) Bill was also read a second time
and ordered to be committed.
NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE RAILWAY.

The North Staffordshire Railway Amendment of Acts
Bill was also read a second time and ordered to be com-
mitted.

ST. MARY, WHITECHAPEL.

On the motion for the second reading of the St. Mary,
Whitechapel. Tithes and Easter Offerings Bill,
Mr. B. OSBORNE objected to the motion, be,
cause the Bill was introduced at the sugges •
Lion of the Rector of Whitechapel, to ex-
tinguish the rights of the inhabitants of that
district altogether, and to give him compensation for
that for which he had, in fact, no right to compensation,
namely, the tithes of the parish, to which the
rector had no title whatever. But, granting
that the rector had a clear title to the tithes,
the House, he was sure, would not consent to in-
terfere with, a commutation to which the parishioners
were altogether opposed. They were so much opposed
to this 8.11, that the promoters had to go back
to a vestry meeting held in 1815, but was the
proceedings of a vestry held so far back as that
to bind the parishioners in 1849?—(Hear, hear.) He
bud now shortly put before the House the cir-
cumstances of this Bill, but the mere fact that
it proposed to legalize a commutation of a 1,0001.
a year for tithes, which did not produce 300/. a year,
was .—(Hear, hear.) Such measures as these were
adisw:r°angce to the Established Church, and he should
therefore move that the Bill be read a second time that
day six months.
MGLADSTONE deprecated the tone in which the
di this
sus es
adi
sttheids
Mr.
G. THOMPSON seconded the amendment.
Bill. Honourable
T he Honourable
f o rciAlelni
tdl de
ml e
as en
x w ho
I tu
dl
d
the House more in coming to a
Bill had he preferred dealing explicitlyconcluwsiiotnh onthe thissir.
cumstances under which the measure was introduced
to making a random speech against the Church.—
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman said the Bill
called upon the House to sanction a plan for
plying the rector 1,000/.
a year in
of tithes, but he (Mr. Gladstone) maintained
Bill did no such thing. All that be wanted was, that
. .
that
tltiheue
the House should affirm the principle of the Bill, which
authorised the rector to abandon his right to tithes, and
the payment by the parish of a certain stipend in
lieu thereof, but the House was not called upon to fix
that stipend at 1,000/. a-year. The Hon. Gentleman said
the parish was opposed to this Bill. True, the parish
was divided on the subject, but it was also most true that
a large and respectable portion of the parishoners
were strongly in favour of the measure, and a petition
was about to be presented in its favour which was
signed by a large number of the ratepayers, including
Dissenters, a Dissenting minister, and some Jews.—
(Hear, hear.) The object of this Bill was to extinguish
claims of the rector of a large and indefinite
character, and which could only be enforced through
the medium of a suit in Chancery, at considerable ex-
pense to the rector, and much more expense to the
poor-rate Payers, and which was productive of could-

derable litigation in the parish.—(llesr.) If the tithes
could be collected they would give the rector ccsnsi-
derably more than 1,0001. a year. The tithes ela;rim-d
were equal to a rate of 2s. 9d. on a rental of 96.000/. a
year, which would give something like 12,000/ or
14,0001. a year, and what he asked the House to do in
reading this Bill a second time was to establish the
principle that the claim to these tithes should be com-
muted for sums not then to be fixed.

Sir W. CLAY said it was with pain and reluctance
that he was compelled to vote against the Bill. The
object sought to be obtained would be more fully met.
by means of compromises than by a measure of that kind.
He could not see how they were justified in giving an
arbitrary sum in lieu of a legal right. It was distinctly
understood that the churches in Whitechapel were to be
supported by the pew-rents, and he did not think it
creditable that such a payment shout] be secured to a
clergyman of the Established Church in a parish wbero
there were so many non-conformists. For those reasons
he was obliged to vote against the Bill.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL cautioned the Hons.,
against sanctioning the principle of the Bill, which gave
power to pay the rector, out of the poor rates, an inde-
finite sum instead of an uncertain legal claim which h.
hall. The claim of the rector had not been clearly made
out, but assuming that it had, the principle then is
question ought never to have been made the subject of a
private Bill. He considered that it would be more
satisfactory to postpone the second reading of the Bill
and to wait until another Bill was introouced, which
would show on the face of It the way in which the rectos
proposed to levy the rate.
Mr. GOULBURN said, the principle was not a new
one, and that it was n.)t the first time that the House had
been called upon to affirm it. Two years ago the House
had agreed to Bills of the kind, and most
justly, because they would prevent much litigation.
He supported the Bill, because it would be well for the
House to step in and decide between the parties without
causing them to enter into a litigation, which would
cost ten times the amount of the sum at which they were
at issue.

Mr. GEORGE THOMPSON wished, on behalf of
a large number of his constituents, to trouble the House
with a few observations. He understood t. tat the op
position to the Bill did not arise from any personal op-
position to the rector, Mr. Claampneys, who was univer-
sally blessed by the inhabitants of the pariah,whether con-
nected with the Church or with Dissenting congregations,
They desired tha., the rector should receive that to which
he was fairly entitled, but no more. With a view to the
amicable settlement of the matter, and the discovery of
the exact rights of the rector, the parishioners
were making an inquiry, which they were
at that time continuing; and if the Honourable
Gentleman would postpone his Bill until next &s-
-sion, he doubted not that those right, would
be discovered, and he might depend upon it,
when they were, that they would be fully re•
cognised by the parishioners. The parties were not
afraid of litigation, as there had been repeated and
renewed litigation between them, and the result had
always ended in the cutting down of the claim of the
rector, and of the right of a large portion of
the inhabitants to be exempt from the payment
of the rate. The Honourable Gentleman had
laid great stress upon the claims of the
rector. In 1817 the then rector endeavoured to exact as
much out of the parishioners as he possibly could. A
vestry was called, and though his endeavours were sup-
ported by the staunchest friends, he could not obtain a
greater suns than 1,100/. a year. Mr. Chempneys
claimed no more. The parishoners had resisted
the payment of that amount, and if the stipend had been
reduced on their instrumentality to 4501. ; but now it
was 6501. a year. The parishioners were not
indisposed to the rector receiving double his
present stipend if proper enquiry showed that
he was entitled to it. If, however, the
stipend was taken out of the poor-rate a great portion
of the parishioners would pay it with reluctance, since
the payment of it did violence to their conscientious
scruples.
Sir F. BUXTON hoped the House would allow the
Bill to go into Committee. He had been connected
with the district by business, and he considered that the
claim of the rector should he commuted for a fixed sum,
which he considered could be easily settled in Committee.
He was (site satisfied that it was for the benefit of
Whitechapel that those rights, whatever they were,
should now be commuted. One great reason for anxiety
with him that the Bill should be passed now
was, that at present Whitechapel had the advantage of a
most admirable clergyman, and he believed the excellent
rector there would feel it his duty before long to re-
ign, and that another rector would be appointed who
might be less scrupulous in asserting his rights. On
that account he begged the House would allow the Bill
to go before a Committee.
Sir DE LACY EVANS said the Hon. Member
who had addressed the House from behind him, had pro-
posed a very decisive and summary mode of settling all
the matters in dispute. The Rector of Whitechapel said
he had certain claims, and he did not find it convenient
to go before a court of law to litigate them; but he asked
the House to go before a court of law and get the
matter settled for him. He (Sir De Lacy Evans) did
not think that a very proper proceedidg. Surely, in
these times, it was not advisable to press measures of
this kind suddenly on a population, a great portion of
whom were Jews and Dissenters. e hoped the Right
llon.Gentleman would attend to what had fallen from the
Attorney-General, and that he would think it would be
time enough to bring the Bill before the House next
session. The Right Hon. Gentleman had rather been
wanting to the House on this subject. He said there
would be a petition presented some day or other;
but he was not at all prepared to say when
that would be. lie stated that one or two
Jews would petition the House in favour of tht
mia,ure; but one swallow did not make a summer, or
two either.--(Laughter.) There was a vestry meeting
last year, which was unanimously of opinion that the
Bill was oppressive in its character, and that it would
be a great tax on the population.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading
Against it
Majority against the Bill —l9
IRISH POOR-LAW.

Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD gave notice that
he should on this day fortnight move an amendment on
the motion for going into Committee on the Irish Poor-
law, that a clause should be inserted providing that no
rate collected in Ireland as a rate in aid should be ap-
plied to the general purposes of the United Kingdom.