The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-06 00:00:00

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS.

NOTICES GIVEN AT THE PRIVATE BILL OFFICE.
THURSDAY, MARCH 4.
1. Abingdon Road,—Com riittee on Bill, March 12, at one.
2. Oak wood and Argoed Coal and Iron Company,—Committee on
Petition, March 15.
3. British India Sugar Company,—Com. on Petition, March 15.
4. Britannia Life Assurance Company,—Committee on Bill,
March 12, at one.
3. Whitby Improvement,--Committee on Bill, March 19, at one.
e. Liverpool and Crosby Road,-- Committee on Petition, adjourned
till March 11.
7. Brighton and Shoreham Road,—Second Reading, March 8
8. Barnstaple Roads,—Committee on Bill, March 12, at one.
9. South Western Railway (No. 2),—Com. on Pet., March 15.
10. Olveston Inclosure,—Committee on Petition, March 15.
11. St. Marylebone Paving, &c ,—Committee on Petition, March 15.
12. Drogheda Harbour,—Committee on Petition. March 15.
13. Mersey Dack Dues Exemption,—Com. on Petition, March 13.
14. Preston and Longridge Railway,—Com. on Bill, Mar. 12, at one
16. Ipswich Docks,—Second Reading, March 8.

COMMITTEES ON PRIVATE BILLS APPOINTED BY THE
COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
I. Whitby Improvement Bill, referred to Mr. Bernal, Mr. Aaron
Chapman, and the Hon. W. Duncombe.
2. Preston and Longridge Railway Bill, referred to Mr. Bernal,
Sir Hesketh Fleetwood, and Mr. Townley Parker.
The meeting of the Committees cn the above-mentioned Bills, is
fixed for March 12, at one o'clock.

The Earl and Countess of Harrington are stay-
ing at Harrington House, having returned last week from
Brighton. The Noble Earl has quite recovered from his

Viscountess Palmerston has issued cards for
soirees to-day, and on the 13th and 20th inat.

MORNING

COURT OF SEWERS FOR WEST..
MINSTEkt. AND PART OF MIDDLESEX.

scw
WeAstgmeinnesrtaelr, C&oc.u,rtwaosf
yeSsettevredrasy floireidthaet
tCheityoffiant.ed L
missioners for Sewers, Greek-street, Soho, at twelve o'cloc•e
The usual routine bus ness of the Court having been g°ll
through, done
Mr. HERTSLET, the Clerk, drew the attention of the
to the motion of Mr. Gall y Knight, in the Hoiise of Corninuns:
for an ad tress for copies of the Decrees made by the Colinn!!!.,
sioners for the rate in the Ranelagh and Counter's-creek w
tricts, but as it was stated that no order had been Made in
CO
The Clerk then drew the
the matter duattentionp d the Court o .
powers proposed to be given to the Commissioners of
t ~,
of ithheer t
and Forests, in relation to Sewers, by the Bill now before rni.
liament, for making a new street continuous with Long Acre.
The CHAIRMAN said the clause had been drawn up accer_dt
ing to his suggestion when before the Committee last )se
and the Court expressed themselves satisfied with its enactment;'
Mr. A'BECKETT moved—That the Marquis of NormattiA
be requested to introduce into the Bill, entitled "An Aci.e
the better drainage and improvement of buildings in :11
towns and villages," a clause to exempt from Sewers-rnte_d
Churches, Chapels, and other places of religious worships and •
all other places and buildings now exempt from Pe°' aced
Church-rates, by Act 3 and 4 Wm. IV., cap. 30. lie ask rd
for no more than the Legislature had already done with regl.,.
to Poor and Church-rates. Whatever might be the case WI:
regard to Churches, Dissenting Chapels, were eertainhil.
liable to Sewers-rate, which was undoubtedly a hardshiP ;to
thought. he had defined his meaning sufficiently, by referring t
the Act of Wm. IV. His proposition would be following t°ne
the principle of the connection between the Poor-rate ana,_ea.
Sewers-rate which the Legislature had already establiscinb d
His proposition was not the giving up of any principle an, Age
the attention of the Legislature at the time of passing
.lded
been drawn to the subject no doubt they would have tncl'
Sewers-rite in the exemption.
Mr. PERRY secerfded:the motion.
Mr. ADEI said that large majority of the Commistnberi:
had decided that churches were liable to Sewer-rates, aunted•
motion went to shoW that the Commissioners were not
to carry out their own decrees. It would not remove the di
culties under which they laboUred, nor would it have the ne_t.
contemplated by the mover, for the Act itself was liable to t,"ni
constructions. It was so loosly worded that the latter 14114
the Act defeated the former. Ile should like to know to wo"of
buildings that Act applied. If he derived a profit from snood
that species of property the Act did not apply, and he sr-74
like to know where the property of the sort was to be foun
either in churches or chapels, from which a profit washes
derived by pew-rents or otherwise. He believed that chnr.ie he
as well as chapels were liable to sewer-rates, and
thought this moti,n would only occasion dificult,.
The only way for them to proceed was to go on until tn.°,
attention of the Legi,lature should be drawn to the subje!L'
and they should pass an Act either exempting such property fw-
rfwee
rat..ability, or giving the Commissioners power to enf
their decrees. It was unjust. that churches or chapels froth
which a large Income. Was derived should be exempt, and the
poor cottager should be taxed. He should not support
motion. a talc*
Mr. JOSEPH BROWN considered the motion did not n
of the uncertainty of the wordinn. of the Act, inasmuch
went to the positive exemption or churches, chapels, an
001 d be
of religious worship. He certainly hoped the motion :
reji,
carried. The exercising the power of rating places (n the
gious worship now, for the first time, was in fact saying
former Commissioners had neglected their duty. These buena
lags were all established for the good of the communitp_rnea
they ought not to be taxed. The rate could not be ea° do
without going to law, which would be an expensive burden
on the district. As the power had so long lain dortun°' •
was most ungracious to enforce it now. ,;„ii in
Mr. JOSEPH FULLER considered this merely a motion oes
arrest of judgment ; it was asking them to upset the werdif,
of Tuesday last. hy had they involved themselves the.h.r.
ficulty at all ? and that would be the first question Lord
_7.,
manby wo,:ld ask them. He would ask them if they brille
one case established their right to assess there churches;
would move an amendment to the effect that it was enli;istl •
cessary for the Court to adhere, as heretofore, to the prc
assessments, and all these buildings would he exempted'
The amendment, not being seconded, fell to the ground' to
Mr. WILLOUGHBY thought it the duty of the Legisaincf:urt
consider what property ought to be exempt, and that the it.
had nothing to do but to administer the law as they fowl,' „
Neither did he think Lord Normanby's Bill a proper ell;
which to engraft a clause of this kind. When they fen° oe
difficulty in carrying nut the law, they would have a good rids
to go to the Legislature with far relief. He did not agree with
Mr. Adey's construction of the Act alluded to. ety
The CHAIRMAN thought they could with perfect propr
i In
submit to Lord Normanby the question of churches now.
acting as they had done the Court had only done .their duty
carrying out the law, and that duty having been a most n!:4
dioas one, they might ask to be relieved. What they
done had been done merely in carrying out the presentmeatto
the Jury. It you'd have been more judieious perhaPtog t
have drawn Lord Normanby's attention to the subject wit'nej
expressing any opinion on it.. In whatever they did, he bctr
the Court would maintain its dignity.
Mr. GRACE should oppose the motion in its present shr:
Mr. BEACH wou'd have supported such a motion tlieti4
months ago, but wishing to support the character of the C°„.,a
for consistency, and what he believed to be the right renal
of the Statutes, he must oppose the motion. There witge
clear distinction between the Sewers'-rate, involving ""t e ,
outlay, and applicable to an extensive district, and a Poor-rs
involving no outlay, or a Church-rate, applicable only to r:‘,
rish. If a church was built upon a piece of land, which
e 5
been previously liable to Sewers'-rate only, should it uerthe
empted 'o render more profitable the church patronage
person who had the presentation of the living? de'
Mr. J. Witern considered that as large revenues were to,
rived from churches, they ought to be charged Sewers'-ra ot
out of justice to the inhabitants of the district. He could
support the principle of the motion. c art
Mr. T. DvER said the question was, whether the °on
should re-establish itself in the public estimation, or Poo
floundering in the way it had done. The object of he in°
was to do an act of justice. He denied that the Court lid
suming to itself the power of legis'ation by this motion• f the
merely threw out a suggestion
.for the consideration ° the '4l
Home. Secretary, without giving any opinion whatever 00 aid
u.
hi
7AI:fIlol ;;r. ATa'.l::°E'D‘7l IgEna:aaldi n"o warrantll:
bel c"
oayrt'rhevesi'tlei ell erni nggshitexe o scwCi!geoonsumi ladr Commissioners
sna loiodnnPefire.:r'ise) e otherrwt,Yy "e
Commissioners to join him. He would not sign for one, s",i
under the indemnity of the Court. He hoped the 01°-°
would be carried by a large majoritv. tissre
Mr. A'BECKET replied, and the. Court divided, when -
appeared—
For the motion
Against it
.Alajority against the motion .
Mr. C' that after • -••• • ***
the Court

.r. k;HALMERS said, that after the decision which • tog
had just come to, he should not press his motion, reqo64 die
the Marquis of Normanby to introduce a clause exemptingaila
Royal Pa!aces, Houses of Par!iiment, Courts of Law,
other public buildings from Sewers-rates. to-det
Sir John Hanslcr had given notice of a motion for
that for the future the Sheriff be directed to summon a.sl)`-0.
jury on all occa,ions ; but Sir John not being present wur,"'"
motion was called on, it dropped, as a matter of course. '
The Court adjourned at Half-past Four o'Clock.