The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-28 00:00:00

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-
tion of the Rector of Whitechapelj 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 Bill, 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
had 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 wrong.—(Hear, hear.) Such measures as these were
a disgrace to the Established Church, and he should
therefore move that the Bill be read a second time that
day six months.
Mr. G. THOMPSON seconded the amendment.
Mr. GLADSTONE deprecated the tone in which the
Honourable Member for Middlesex had discussed this
Bill. The Honourable Gentleman would have assisted
the House more in coming to a conclusion on this
Bill had he preferred dealing explicitly with the cir-
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
paying the rector 1,0001. a year in lieu
of tithes, but he (Mr. Gladstone) maintained that the
Bill did no such thing. All that he wanted was, that
the House should alarm 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 1,0001. 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 consi-
derable litigation in the parish.—(Hear.) If the tithes
could be collected they would give the rector consi-
derably more than 1,0001. a year. The tithes claimed
were equal to a rate of 2s. 9d. ou a rental of 96,0001. a
year, which would give something like 12,0001. or
14,0001. a year, and what be 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 should be secured to a
clergyman of the Established Church in a parish where
there were so many non-conformists. For those reasons
he was obliged to vote against the Bill.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL cautioned the House
against sanctioning the principle of the Bill, which gave
power to pay the rector, out of th• poor •rates, an inde-
finite sum instead of an uncertain legal claim which he
had. The claim of the rector had not been clearly made
out, but assuming that it had, the principle then in
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 introduced, which
would show on the face of it the way in which the rector
proposed to levy the rate.
Mr. GOULBURN said, the principle was not a new
one, and that it was not 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 teat the op •
position to the Bill did not arise from any personal op-
position to the rector, Mr. Champneys, who was univer-
sally beloved by the inhabitants of the parish,whether con-
nected with the Church or with Dissenting congregations.
They desired that 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 sq-s-
-sion, he doubted not that those rights 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 front 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 sum than 1,100/. a year. Mr. Champneys
claimed no more. The parishoners had resisted
the payment of that amount, and the stipend had been
reduced on their instrumentality to 450/. ; but now it
was 6501. a year. The parishioners were not
indisposed to the rector receiving double his
present stipend if proper inquiry 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 quite 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-
sign, 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 proceeding. 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. Ile hoped the Right
Hon. 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 bo a petition presented some day or other;
but he was not at all prepared to say when
that would be. He stated that one or two
Jews would petition the House in favour of the
measure; 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 it is unconstitutional and unjust to impose on
Ireland a separate national taxation for the wants of
particular localities, so long as the public general revenue