The Sun.
London, England, 1840-07-29 00:00:00

WEAVER CHURCHES BILL.

The Bishop of LONDON rose to move the
third reading of the Weaver Churches Bill. In
doing so it was not his intention to trouble their
Lordships at that time with any detailed observations,
because he would take the opportunity of replying to
any remarks which might be made against the motion.
He would, however, state in a tew words the objects of
the Bill, and the purposes it professed to accomplish,
as their Lordships might not be aware of the entire cir-
cumstances of the case. The Bill was owing to the
flourishing condition of the funds of the Weaver Trus-
tees. The state of the navigation was so flourishing,
that the income of the trustees exceeded a sum of
34,0001., independent of ail the demands on them.
The trustees held that they were discharging the most
important part of their duty as trustees of the naviga-
tion, in providing church accommodation for those per-
son who worked on the canal. As matters at present
existed there, the men who were very properly
prevented from working on Sundays, assembled on the
banks of the canal on that day, in consequence of there
being no church accommodation for them. It there-
fore appeared to the trustees of the navigation
to be their dut3 to provide that accommodation, which
they proposed doing by taking 6,000/. from these tolls, and
with that amount erect three churches on the bank! of the
canal. Notwithstanding all that had been said against the
measure he should not hesitate to say that the.. great
mass of the middle-classes in the county of Chester
were decidedly in favour of the present Bill. He
Itrusted, therefore, that their Lord ships would unani-
mously agree to its being read a third time.
The Marquis of WESTMINSTER looked upon
the Bill as most monstrous and unconstitutional, and he
should therefore move that it be read a third time that
day six months. If it passed it would affect the rate-
payers in every parish and every trust in the kingdom.
It was a most unconstitutional Bill, and. if, unfortunately
it should pass into a law, it would be productive of the
very worst consequences. He thought their Lordships
should pause before they committed themselves to
a bill of confiscation like that before the House—
a Bill which was in direct violation of a trust.—(Hear.)
He could not understand what necessity there was for
such a violation. The parties for whose benefit the
Bill was professed to be introduced had petitioned
against it. Half the neighbourhood consisted of Dis-
senters, and they of course were not in favour of the Bill.
The Noble Marquis then referred to the manner in
which petitions had been got up in favour of the BM,
but he owned he did not place much reliance generally
upon petitions, as it frequently happened where the
question was one of public interest that very unjustifiable
means were resorted to by both parties. He had no
doubt whatever of their being able to obtain by volum.
tary subscriptions all the funds that were necessary for
the purpose. If that means was objected to, let the
churches be built out of the revenues of the Church...—
I (Hear, hear.) The funds of that establishment were
I sufficiently ample without bringing forward a measure
ilike the present, and he should decidedly oppose it.
Lord LURGAN would say but few words on the

MAJORITY-AYES, 72. •
Atwood, W.—Greenwich I ngestre, Viscount—Staffordshire
Raines, Edward--Leeds Ir n, Samuel—Cumberland
Cannerman, A.—Aberdeen Jones, T.—Londonderry Co.
Baring, F. T.—Portsmouth Labouchere, Right Hon. Henry—
Bellew, B. M.—Louth, Taunton
Bernal, Ralph—Rochester Lockhart, A. M.—Lanarkshire
Blackburne, Ireland—Warrington Lushingtun, Rt. Hon. .s—Tower
Blair, J. Wigtooshire Hamlets
Bramston, T. W.—Essex South Morpeth, Lord—Yorkshire
Bruadley, Henry—East Yorkshire Morris, IV—Carmarthen
Brooke, Sir A. IL—Fermanagh Muntz, G. F.—birmingham
Brownr.gg, J. S.—Boston Nichol!, J —Cardiff
Bruges, N. H. L.—Bath Palmerston, Viscount—Tiverton
Burrell, Sir C.—Shoreham Parker, John—Sheffield
Campbell, Sir John—Edinburgh Pechell, Captain—Brighton
Clay, William—Tower Hamlets Peel, Rt. Hon. Sir IL—Tainworth
Cocnrane, Sir T. J.—lpswich Pigcit, David Richard—Clonmell
Dalmeny, Lord—Stirling Praed, W. T.—m.. Ivcs
Dalrymple, Sir A.—Brighton Price, Sir R.—Herefordshire
Darby, George—East Sussex Itawdon, John Dawson—Armagh
Dunbar, George—Belfast Rutherfurd, Itt. Hon. A.—Leith
Eliot, Lord—East Cornwall Sandon, Lord—Liverpool
lerguson,Sir IL A.—Londonderry Sanford, E. A.—Somersetshire
French, f.—Rosscommon Scholetield, J.—Birmingham
Gordon, Robert—Windsor Seymour, Lord—Totness
Gordon, Hon. W.—Aberdeenshire Shell, Richard Lalor—Tipperary
Goulburn, Ilight Hon. H.—Cam- Sibthorp, Colonel—Lincoln
U bridge nivirldlY Smith; It. V.—Northampton
Graham, Right Hon. Sir J. It. G Somers, J. P.—Sligo
Bt.—Pembroke Stanley, E. John—North Cheshire
Greenaway, Charles--Leominster Stuart,. Lord J.—Ayr
Grey, Sir George—Levonport Style, Sir Charles—Searborough
Grimsditch, T.—Macc;esfield 'Penitent, J. E.—Pelfast
Handley, Menry—LinciAnshire Tufaell, Henry—Devonport
Hodges, T. L.—West lie.,t Vere, Sir C. B.—East Sonata
Hodgson, ltd.—Berwick-on-Yweed Wilde, Mr. Serjeant—Newark
Hogg, James Weir—Beverley
Rothman, Edward—Cockermou.tB
Hoskins, K.—Herefordshire
Dowaid, C. W. G.—Cumberland I