The Sun.
London, England, 1834-06-12 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

.110 USE OF LORDS, June 11.
Mr. OLIPHANT and others from the Commons
brought up the Perth Harbour Bill, the Security on
Land ( Ireland) Bill, and the Carmarthenshire Railway
Bill, which were severally read a first time. The
Hartlepool Railway Bill was returned without any
amendment.

Lord HOWARD (of Effingham) presented a pe-
tition from Sheffield and its neighbourhood, praying
for the removal of all restrictions on the freedom of
public worship.
Lord BE XL E Y presented a petition from Walton,
Essex, praying the house to uphold the church as by
law established.

Lord COURT 0 WN presented a petition to the
same effect from Frome.

The Earl of H ARE WO OD presented a petition
from a parish in Lincoln, praying for protection to the
Established Church from the claims of Dissenters.

The House then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 11:

The SPEAKER resumed the Chair at twenty minutes
past five.
Mr. C. WOOD moved for a new writ for the
county of Wexford, in the room of Robert Shapland
Carew, who had been raised to the peerage.
Mr. BRISCOE presented a petition from the Dis-
senters of Kingston-upon-Thames, praying for the total
abolition of church-rates.

Mr. W. WHITMORE presented a petition from
Wolverhampton, against drunkenness.
Mr. MARRYAT presented a petition from the
Dissenters of the borough of Sandwich against the
payment of church rates.
Mr. BOWES presented a petition from Barnard
Castle against drunkenness.

Mr. COB BE TT gave notice, that on to-morrow he
should move for a return of all the salaries and other
expenses to be incurred under the poor law com-
missions. _ . . _

Mr. H. HANDLE Y presented two petitions from
Dissenters against the payment of church rates.
Mr. MADOCKS presented a petition from Den-
bigh in favour of the Established Church.
Mr. HARDY presented a petition from the ma-
nufacturers of Bradford, complaining of the use of
olive oil in their trade.
Lord STORMONT presented petitions from Nor-
wich and Aldborough against the claims of Dissenters.
Mr. C. W. WYNN presented several petitions
from Denbigh, Kent, and Montgomery, against the
claims of Dissenters. _ _ _

RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLIES BILL.
Mr. HARDY moved the third reading of the Reli-
gious Assemblies Bill.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the propositions of the
bill would create a great deal of discussion, and wished
the hon. member to postpone his motion.
Mr. HARDY trusted the noble lord would allow
the bill to go into committee at least. He would not
press the third reading under that impression.
The Marquis of CHANDOS wished to ask the
noble lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) whether the
amount of salaries of the Poor Law Commissioners
was finally deci•ed upon ?
Lord J. RUSSELL replied that ho was not able
to say at present.
Mr. C. W. WYNN opposed the third reading of
the General. Religious Assemblies Bill, as it would
give an opportunity to men who had once belonged to
the Established Church to preach doctrines contrary
to her creed, under the apparent authority of the said
church. _ .

Mr. HARDY contended that the bill would pre-
vent the evil anticipated by the hon. gentleman. It
was only designed to afford lay members of the esta-
blished Church, in situations where they were destitute
of the means of public worship, to read a portion
of the liturgy, and perhaps a sermon in their houses,
or in the servants' hall, and to allow the presence of his
poor neighbours. According to the 71st canon of the
ecclesiastical law, no license could be granted in such a
case without a license for the performance of the
whole church service. He only wished to secure
to members of the Church of England the
same privilege that Dissenters enjoyed. (Hear. )
He did not see why the privilege should apply to
Dissenters only. Undoubtedly an equal privilege
ought to be extended to the members of the Established
Church. The latter undoubtedly might meet and read
a chapter out of the Bible, but the moment they at-
tempted to explain the importance of it or to address
themselves to the Almighty, they were bound to
ascertain that there were not more than twenty of them
assembled together. No one could fail to observe that
the members of the Church of England laboured
under an inconvenience in this respect. There were
not churches calculated to accommodate morethan a fifth
part of the population of the members of the Church
of England, and why should not a gentleman, a mem-
ber of that church, be at liberty to assemble his ser-
vants and neighbours in his hall for the purpose
of social worship ? He was quite sure that if
the hon. gentleman who had addressed the house
was only made once properly aware of the nature of
the proposed plan, he would no longer object to it.
( Hear.) It was a plan proposed upon the sugges-
tions of many clergymen, all of whom were
anxious that every facility should be afforded
to it. They were persuaded that it would strengthen
the Church of England, and not draw members away
from it. He was far from advocating any thing likely
to an encouragement of fanaticism ( Hear, hear) ;
this bill would have no such effect, and he
did hope it would be allowed to pass a second read-
ing, that the country might know the house approved
of its principle.
Mr. C. W. W. W YNN explained.
Mr. HARDY said that no clergyman would have
a right to attend at such meeting, or to take
any part in their proceedings, because by the 71st
Canon of the ecclesiastical law he could not do so
without going through the whole of the service.
Mr. O'CONNELL would not detain the house
many minutes. He thought that the more they were
assembled together to worship their God the better,
whilst they did not interfere with others. They
could not create a riot, as the bill contemplated worship
in private houses • and why people should not pray as
much as they liked, or why that house should dis-
courage prayer by making it a crime, he could not un-
derstand. It was against this very principle that persons
should be allowed to lecture upon astrology, theology,
every art and science, and even upon materialism, but
the moment they prayed to the Deity, if more than
twenty were present, it became a crime. Such an
absurdity ought not so long to have remained on the
statute-book, and the sooner it was expunged the
better. (Hear, hear.) It was their duty to make
conscience free upon the principle that true piety and
genuine religion could only prosper by greater latitude
being allowed for practising them. The more families
attended upon private worship the more it would be
a means of bringing down God's blessing upon the
country.
Mr. HAL COMB thought that the privileges of
domestic religion were already sufficiently exten-
sive. (Cries of " Hear, hear.") By the present
law, any gentleman might assemble a congregation
of riends in his house to the number of 20, exclusive of
his family and servants, for the purposes of private wor-
ship. It would be setting up as many chapels as there
were different grades of opinion, and he should give it
his most strenuous opposition.
Sir D. SANDFORD supported the bill.
Mr. WILKS considered that any individual in
the county ought to be allowed, either in his own
house, or the contiguous premises, to assemble his
friends for religious worship. Persons were allowed
to assemble for any other purposes, to any extent
without any license, and without any legal interposi-
tion being offered, and he did not see why they should
not be allowed to assemble for the purposes of religious
worship. He was certain the moment the operation of
the bill was understood any member of a liberal mind
could not fail to give it his warmest support.
Mr. PL UM PTRE hoped that the bill would not be
thrown out. He was not ashamed to say that when he was
in the country he had had assembled together in his
house two or three hundred persons, for the purpose of
religious worship, although, as the law now stood, he
was subject to a penalty for so doing. (Hear, hear.)
If he could not do it again according to law, he was
afraid he should have to do it against the law, and he
would wish to see every law of this kind erased from
our statutes. He hoped every hon. member would
give his consent to the bill.
Mr. BRISCOE, feeling that every friend of civil
and religious liberty would do the same, supported
the bill.

Mr. E. J. STANLEY supported the bill.
Mr. O'REILLY objected to the bill, as it would
have the effect of extending to private houses that pri-
vilege and protection which no places of religious
worship had.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY protested against the bill, not
on account of its extending religious liberty or toleration,
but because it would have the effect, if they pleased,

of turning members of parliament into preachers
As he did not wish religion to become a by-
word with those who were not connected with
it, he would move that the bill should be read a third
time that day six months.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL seconded the motion.

Sir G. STRICKLAND supported the bill.
Mr. HUME objected to the argument of the hon.
member who had moved the amendment ( Sir M. W.
Ridley), that he thought it improper for members of
Parliament to become teachers of religion. He saw
no reason, if they were qualified for that purpose, that
members of Parliament should be prevented from do:-
ing so. He would wish to see even the system of
licenses done away with, as it was a remnant of in.-
toleration. He gave his cordial support to the bill,
Sir G. GREY thought it was unfair to be asked
to continue a bill of pains and penalties when the
occasion for their enactment had passed away. He
supported the bill. (Hear.)
Mr. FLEETWOOD hoped the bill would receive
the cordial support of the house, and of the Irish
be memrs particularly. It gave no additional powers
to Members of Parliament to become religious in..
structors, but it estalgished religious toleration, and
he should therefore give it his strenuous support.
Lord JERMYN thought the bill was intended to
break in upon the fundamental regulations of the
Church of England. (Question.) He would support
the amendment of the hon. baronet. ( Question.)
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
house divided, when the numbers were—
For the third reading
Against it
Majority for the third reading —s3
Th• bill was then read a third time and passed.
HANDLOOM WEAVERS.