The Sun.
London, England, 1834-08-08 00:00:00

THE CHURCH.

The Marquis of T AVI STOCK said that his Noble Friend
near him (the Marquis of Westminster) had upon a late occa-
sion pressed upon the Government the necessity of proceeding
with reforms, in order to meet the demands of the people ; he
would also press the same thing upon them, and must
say that he had before that expected they would have introduced
some safe and salutary reforms with respect to the Church, in
order to clear away those great abuses which had crept into her
government. In his opinion, it was absolutely necessary that
those abuses should be done away with even for the well-being of
the Church herself, he alluded more particularly to the great
grievance of non-residence ; for, notwithstanding all that had
been said, he must say there was no greater blessing that could
be given to England than a well-educated and rightly minded
clergyman resident in every parish.--( Hear, hear.) He had
great confidence in his Noble Friend at the head of the Go-
vernment, but unless he well considered the subject during
the recess, and early in the next session introduced some
measure upon the subject, that confidence would be greatly
shaken. Having briefly stated his views upon the subject, he
begged leave to ask the Noble and. Learned Lord on the Wool-
sack whether it was his intention to proceed with his Bills re-
lative to Pluralities and non-residence, in the next session.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he agreed in every
word that had fallen from the Noble Marquis, and for his
satisfaction, and for the information of their Lordships and the
public he might say that the subject would be seriously consi-
dered by the Government during the recess. He had been pre-
vented from proceeding with his Bills in consequence of the pres-
sure of other business, that in the first place ; and in the next,
he had had a very active correspondence with clergymen upon
the subject, and was anxious to give others time to for-
ward him their suggestions in order that the Bills might be
rendered as perfect as possible.--( Hear, hear.) He was
most anxious, as a friend to the Church, to have the question
settled, and would be most happy to receive and consider any
amendment in the details of the bills, but he believed that no-
thing short of the principles contained in them would satisfy the
just expectations and wishes of the people. In answer to
the Noble Marquis's question, he had to say, that it was his in-
tention to resume both Bills immediately upon the re-assem-
bling of Parliament.

The Duke of CUMBERLAND protested against
the use of the words " great abuses " in speaking
upon the subject of the church—they were misapplied. If
their Lordships made it requisite to have a resident vicar in
every parish, what then would become of the poor curates?
The Bishop of LONDON must enter his protest against
the words as applied to the Church in their popular sense :
he held that pluralities were a great blemish to the Church,
but it was a system handed down from their Popish ancestors
which could not be got rid of in the present time without also
putting an end to another great abuse, derived from the same
source, viz., the system of lay impropriation, with which the
Noble Marquis was as well acquainted as any of their Lord-
ships.—( Hear.) He did not think that the two Bills alluded
to could possibly pass with safety without some very great
modifications.

Viscount MELBO URNE said, though not personally asked
any question, still their Lordships would expect him to
say a word or two upon the occasion.—( Hear, hear.) He
professed himself a warm friend to the Church which he
considered was in some danger in the present day, to avoid
which it was necessary to remove the evils which had crept into
the system from time. The whole question would engage his
attentior, and that of his colleagues during the recess ; and he
trusted that early in the next session they would be prepared
with a measure of safety.
The Bishop of DERRY would not let the discussion close
without stating that the Primate of Ireland had set his face
most firmly against nonresidence, and had not granted one
such application for years.
Lord ELLENBORO UGH was sorry that the Session had
been allowed to close without some means having been taken
by the Government to settle the question of tithes in England.
He trusted it would be one of the first measures of next Session.
POOR LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.
Upon the Order of the Day being moved for the third read-
ing of the Poor Law Amendment Bill,
Lord KENYON said he objected to the principle of this
Bill, but of all the clauses of the Bill he objected to those
most which separated the children from their parents.
The Bishop of LONDON said that with respect to the
children of poor in general, and perhaps even with respect
to the children of paupers, if they eould all be placed
in schools in their immediate neighbourhood, or have such
superintendence as that which had been bestowed by the
Noble Baron who had just sat down, he might then perhaps
be induced to modify the opinion he now entertained
upon that subject, but at present he begged leave to say
that, generally speaking, when a person became a pauper,
it was expedient for his children and himself that
they should be educated apart from their parents,
provided that education was on right
.principles. Although
there was a great mass of feeling in favour of our na-
tional schools, yet of all the schools those most ad-
mired were those where the children were taken from
the parents educated; clothed, and boarded in a district estab-
lishment. It was from those schools that the best servants
came forth.—( Hear, hear.) He trusted, and indeed he took
it for granted, that the schools in the workhouses would be
such schools as they ought to be, and he hoped that the Com-
missioners would be able to make such regulations as to keep
them not very far distant from that standard of perfection
which abounded in those schools over which the Noble Lord
opposite (Kenyon) presided.
Lord TE YNHAM thought the Bill was a delusion from one
end to the other. Indeed he had no doubt that the Noble
Viscount himself at the head of the Government would very
early next Session move its repeal.—(Laughter.) As he
was sincerely and strongly opposed to the Bill, he should
move as an amendment that the Bill be read that day six
months.
Viscount STRANGFORD was opposed to the principle
of the Bill.
The Earl of FALMOUTH said there could be no doubt
that the Bill would now pass, but he considered it to be
wholly unnecessary, because it was perfectly well known that
very great exertions had been made by most parishes so as to
restore the administration of the Poor Laws in some degree to
its proper state. He should liked to have seen the result
of those exertions before the passing of the Bill, which he
proposed what he must call very violent measures. He thought
the House of Lords had done itself great credit in the manner
in which it had passed the Bill, and certainly in the Committee
he had not seen even the tincture of any party spirit.
The Bishop of ROCHESTER said, that although he did
not object to the principle of the Bill, yet that he objected
to several of its clauses, and mere particularly that which
separated man and wife.
Lord WYNFORD supported the amendment.
The Duke of RICHMOND was not aware of any
clause alluded to by the Right Reverend Prelate which
went to separate man and wife. If there were suchia
clause in the Bill, be should like to know whether it was in-
troduced in the Committee. when, and by whom.
The Bishop of ROCHESTER said there was a clause in
the Bill, which went to place the husband in one workhouse,
and the wife in another.
The House then divided, when there appeared
For the third reading 45
For Lord Teynham's Amendment l5
Majority for the third reading —ao
On our entering the House; we found the LORD CHAN-
CELLOR putting the question that the Bill do pass.
Lord WYNFORD moved two amendments to the 40th
clause, which were agreed to.
The Bishop of EXETER then rose to move the expulsion
of the bastardy clause, and was left speaking.