The Sun.
London, England, 1824-06-04 00:00:00

NEW CHURCHES

On the Order of the Day being read for the House going into
Committee on the New Churches Bill—
Col. DAVIES, as a matter of personal convenience, request-
ed that the Committee might be postponed till to-morrow.
Mr. JAMES would prefer that the question should be then
disposed of.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then moved,
that the House resolve itself into the Committee.
Mr. JAMES said, it was his regard for the Established
Church that induced him to oppose the motion. These grants
rendered the Church a mendicant body, and thereby degraded
it in the opinion of the public. The Church of England was
splendidly endowed, and able, from its own funds, if they were
properly applied, to erect such places of worship as the increase
of the population and other circumstances might render neces-
sary. '‘Vhy were not the members of the Church as zealous in
building as the Dissenters? Because, after three presentations,
the right of presentation to a church built by an individual,
devolved to the Bishop of the Diocese. He recollected some
years ago that a respectable Clergyman named Bragg opened a
chapel at Liverpool, in which he celebrated worship until he
was deprived by the Bishop of Chester, for preaching in an
unconsecrated place. The Rev. Gentleman then took out a
licence as a Dissenting Minister, but continued to read the
church prayers. On his decease the chapel was sold, and it
was now converted into a great sugar-house; a large boiler
occupying the place in which the pulpit formerly stood.--(A
tauo.)—The Right Hon. Gentleman must have a heart of
adamant to call for such a grant, considering how the people
were burdened with taxes of every kind, even on the air they
breathed. He should therefore move, that the House resolve,
itself into Committee not until that day six months.
:Mr. HUME seconded the amendment. He was the more
ready to support it, as it was stated that the money would not
be used for some time, during which the interest was to be ap-
propaiated to the support of the new shops in the West
Indies. No account had yet been given ofßi the rnillion formerly
voted for this purpose. At Islewingtoz, toie62. had been ab,.

PRICE -SEVENPENCE.

sorbed in law expellees by one attorney, respecting the building
Of -a church in. 'that parr h. For the payment of.these rates,
124 distresses bad been, levied, In that number:he did not
include eighteen Quakers, whose goods they had allowed to .be
taken from..theiii. He begged to ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer whether he intended to insert a clause in, this Bill
to enable the Commissioners at Newington to increase their

assessmehts ?
The. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, the
Hon. Gentlemen had made a wonderful, confusion between the
Commissioners under the general Act in 1817, and those under
a private Act for the parish of Newington. -He had no know-
ledge of the Newington*Commissioners-; and knew of their exist-
ence only from the squabbling which he remembered four or
five years ago in that House respecting tf►is Act.
Mr. HUME said he would divide the House, Wanly his Hon.
Friend (Air. James) divided with him.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but we understood
that' no division took place.
The amendrimt was then negatived, and the House resolved
itself into a Committee of the whole House on the New Churches
Bill.

111 r. M. A. TAYLOR suggested the propriety of allowing
persons who subscribed towards the building of churches to
have a vote in the selection of tlic clergyman. If such a per-
mission were given, lie was 'satisfied it would do much to
strengthen the growth of orthodox Protestantism.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, the Bill
contained such a clause. Three trustees were to be appointed
at the request of subscribes, who were to elect clergymen for
two terms of forty years.
The Bill went through a Committee, and after a few obser-
vations from Mr. Maxwell, Mr. C. C. Western, and Mr.
Monck, the Report was brought up, and ordered to be taken
into further consideration to-morrrow.

ii'AREHOUSED WHEAT BILL.

Mr. HUSK ISSON moved the third reading of the Ware-
housed Wheat Bill.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL wished the duties on wheat and
flour to be equalised.
Mr. HUSKISSON had no objection to the principle of the
Hon. Member's suggestion, but he feared it could not be prac-
tically acted upon at present.
CUItTEIS expressed a hope that some permanent law
should be adopted with regard to the corn regulations. As au
agriculturalist, he wished to know what he was to get before he
gave up that which he had.
The Bill was then read a third time.
Mr. CUR TEIS wished a clause to be introduced appointing
Inspectors-General to look to the averages.
Mr. lIUSKISSON observed, that the Government had no
wish to extend their patronage by any such appointments ; as•
he and they were satisfied the persons already appointed would
do their duty.

The Bill was then passed.
VAGRANT LAWS.
On the motion of Mr. ESTCOURT, the tiOtise went into a
Committee of the whole House on the Vagrant Act Bill.
Mr. JOHN SMITH wished, that in all cases where a party
was charged with the indecent exposure of his person, that he
should not be punished without the intervention of a Jury.—
Such a charge would crush any man in public opinion, which
was a punishment too severe to be visited on any subject by the
summary decision of one Magistrate. lie believed that the
Magistracy of London generally discharged their duty very
well ; but there were many Magistrates, particularly in small
corporate towns, to whose decision he should not like to be
subjected.
Sir J. NEWPORT objected to summary convictions before
one Magistrate, and on the evidence of one person. The higher
the offence, and the higher the punishment, the greater should
be the benefit of trial by .Jury.
Mr. ESTCOURT said, that it was the intention of the
Committee at first to omit the clause; but they found, on con-
sultation with the Magistrates, that some provision to meet the
offence was necessary. The clause, however, was so narrowed,
as to apply only where the indecent exposure was made to offend
the feelings of a woman.
Mr. MONCK thought that an appeal should be allowed to
persons charged with such an offence, from.the decision of the
Magistrate; and no sentence should be inflicted till the appeal
was decided.
Mr. PEEL obsterved, that this case was to be decided on evi-
dence ; and, from all he had heard, he believed that the pro.
posed clause was`hbsolutely necessary. As the security of an
appeal was now given, and no man could be sentenced without
a trial, he must support the Bill. He felt a delicacy in dis-
cussing any such clause • but he bad
.the best reason for stat-
ing, that the frequency of the crime rendered a summary pro-
ceeding necessary, though only in the first instance. The fear
of punishment should be held over the head of such offenders.
Mr. Alderman BRIDGES said a few words, after which the
clause was agreed to.
c r
On the clause that persons who had been twice convicted, who
had broken
violen
violence,
prison,sho i
uI and
be personsdeenled who
le resriostgeudes, thet.u3d officers
im-
prisonedwi
twelve months and whipped-
Mr. MONCK moved, as an amendment, that the words,
" and whipped" be left out of the clause, as 'he considered
whipping as an undefined and degrading punishment, and in
nowise tending to the reform of the morals of the prisoner.
Mr. LOCKHART and Mr. .1. Satins supported the amend-
ment; the latter Hon. Member observing, that in France no
corporal punishment was inflicted, except branding, ani that if
thirty millions of people could be controulled withoa it, he
thought it a fair argument that it might he dispensed with.
Mr. ESTCOURT was in favour of the clause. He desired
that it might.be recollected that tile law was greatly altered;
that it was formerly incumbent on the Magistrates to See that
all rogues were whipped, that punishment was only now re-
served for incorrigible rogues.
Mr. PEEL also supported the clause. He did not see any
thing so very unpopular in whipping. The discussion should be
confined to the whipping, as directed in the particular. clause ;
and they ought not to go into the general question. From the
experience he had had in criminal justice, he thought that the
fear of whipping operated very much to .the suppression of
offences ; every effort made for the improvement of a prison
lessened' very much the terror of imprisonment ; he cg uld not
therefore go the length of abolishing all bodily pain in award-
ing punishment.
-Mr. R. SMITH said, that he had no objection to the in-
fliction of the punishment on the two first classes of offenders;
but lie confessed that the mere circumstances of opposing the
officers of justice was too vague an offence to expose a man to
such a punishment, as a person very often might, from sud-
den indignation, at being charged with a crime of which he
was conscious of being innocent, be induced to oppose and
commit an assault on the officer ; and he thought it too much
to say that for such conduct he should be treated as an incor-
rigible rogue. He, therefore, unless some alteration-was made,
would vote for the amendment.
After some further observations from Mr. W. Smith, Mr..T.
Smith, Mr. Martin, Mr. illonck, and Mr. Estcourt,
Monck consented to withdraw his amendment ; and oy, the svgs.
gestion of Mr. R. Smith it was then agreed, that, 'petsonß...op-
posing the officers should not be considered as incorrigible
rogues till after they had beer: convicted V. -the'oance for
which they were apprehended.
The clause was then agreed to. , .
The other clauses of the bill 'were weed to, till HOUse re-
sumed, and the report was ordered to he received to-Morrow.
COMBINATION LAWS REPEI I, DILL.
Mr. HUME moved, that the Combination Laws-Repeal Bill
should be re-committed for to-morrow.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS druid, that he was happy to find that
the whole operation of-the Combination Statutes-would be swept
away by the present hill.
Mr. G. PHILLIPS hoped that it woulttbe understood, that
notwithstanding the repeal of the lawN.combination" would be
y possible means.
discouraged by ever
Mr. Alderman C. S.MIT Li said a few words against the re_
peal of the I3i/l• lie thought it would. do more harm than
good. •
Mr. /lEJIVLE made Fame observations ;' after which the Bill,
was re-committed for to-morrow.
SLA UGnTERI -
HORSES

On the motion Mr. MARTIN, the Slaughter erg Horses
Bill was read a 'tecond time, and ordered to be committed to-
morrow.

AIARINE-INSURANCE BILL.
Mr: F. BUXTON ',moved, that the House shoUld resolve
itself into a Committee on the Marine Insurance Bill. •
On the motion,that the Speaker do leave the Chair—
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON opposed it. lie observed
that there, were I,soVpersons. of.
whctse interests wc;uld be completely ruined by the operation of
tilt.: present Ilia. He believed the present sys
thereforetem of Marine
Txxsurance was. the best that could be devised ; and, he
i. 49,1414 move„ .as an amendment, that the Bill be referred to
the

Committee up stairs, to take evidence, and to report
Abereon to this House.
Sir F. OMMANNEY seconded the amendment, but was
inaudible in the gallery.
stringers were ordered to withdraw, and the House divided.
For the original Motion - - 29
Against it - - - - - - 26
Majority - - - —4
Mr. C. FORBES opposed the Speaker's leaving the Chair,
upon which the House divided, when there appeared—
For going into the Committee - - 33
Against it - - - 22
On onr re-entrring the Gallery ore found Sir F. 031.31AN-
NEY on his legs opposing the Bill. The Hon. Member
moved, as an amendment, that the operation of the Bill should
commence in the year of our Lord 2000.—(Bursts of laughter.)
—The Chairman asked the Hon. Gentleman if he persisted in
ha amendment. He replied in the affirmative, and declared
that if he Wag certain of standing alone he would divide the
House on it.--(Continued laughter.)
The Committtee.then divided on Sir Francis's amendment—
Ayes - - - 12
Noes - -- - 33

_
Illajority against the amendment -—2 l.
On our re-admission to the Gallery, the Committee were
considering the saving clause respecting the exemption of the
.chartered Companies from the operation of the Act. On this
clause the Committee divided—
For the Clause
A gainstit

Majority - —25.
Aldermen THOMPSON then proposed that the Subscribers
should beliable to the full amount of their fortunes.
Mr. T. WILSON supported this amendment, and Mr.
HUSK ISSON opposed it, observing, that it would interfere
with private contracts, as no such power existed in any Act
now in force relative to chartered Companies.
The clause was withdrawn.
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON moved, that the names of the
subscribers should be enrolled in the proper office of the Court
of Chancery.
The Committee divided on this amendment,
Ayes . - - - 7
Noes - - - 30
Majority against the amendment - —23.
Mr. BROGDEN then left the Chsir, and the Report was
ordered to be received on Thursday next.
SILK TRADE WAGES BILL.

After a few words from Mr. F. BUXTON, in favour of the
postponement of the measure, the. Silk Trade Wages Bill was
read a third time, and passed.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and
_the House adjourned at a Quarter past Twelve o'clock.