The Sun.
London, England, 1834-04-15 00:00:00

CHRIST CHURCH RECTORY BILL.

Mr. BRISCOE said that he had a petition to pre-
sent against the bill for raising 400/. a year upon the
parish of Christchurch, Surrey, for the better main-
tenance of the rector. The petition contained the
signatures of 583 persons, who were parishioners of
Christchurch, and who, on account of their numbers
and respectability, as well as on account of the pecu-
liar circumstances of the case, deserved the serious
consideration of the house.
The SPEAKER—Is the bill before a committee?
Mr. BRISCOE said it had not been read a second
time, and because the sense of the house might be taken
upon the second reading, he would briefly state the
contents of the petition. Originally the parish of
Christchurch formed part of St. Saviour's parish,
but in consequence of some property bequeathed
by John Marshall it was severed from it, and by cer-
tain acts of Parliament the parish of Christchurch was
exonerated from all sums payable, in lieu of the parish
of St. Saviour ; but the rector of Christchurch was
to derive no benefit from the will of John Marshall,
unless from time to time he resided within the parish.
The present rector had held the living for twenty-five
years, and up to the year 1832, he had continued to
enjoy the confidence and esteem of his parishioners, in
consequence of his residence within the parish, and
the faithful discharge of his duties. At that period he
believed that the income of the rector was nothing less
than 1,000/. a-year, which was derived from several
sources : 2001. was paid by the trustees of Mr. Mar-
shall ; 4001. for ministers' money ; and 4201. was
granted in open vestry by the parishioners at l"rge.
These three sums made together somewhat more than
1,0001. a-year. At this period, 1832, the rector had
ceased to reside within the parish, which was an
express condition of his receiving those sums,
and he at the same time accepted a living in the same
county to the amount of 300/. a-year. Upon this the
parishioners discontinued their payments to the rector,
and the trustees, under the will of John Marshall, had
refused to pay the 2001. a_year, since the rector had
ceased to reside within the parish, that being the con-
dition upon which the grant was originally made.
The hon. gentleman considered that the house should
pay attention to the petition. The chief reason for
claiming that attention was the fact of 34,000 per-
sons residing in that parish, and its being the only one
which did not come under the ordinary jurisdiction
and regulation of episcopal parishes.
Mr. BROUGHAM remarked that the house
should not lose sight of the fact, that the reason why
the parish had withdrawn its contribution from the
rector (Mr. Mapleton) was, that he ceased to be a re-
sident amongst the parishioners.
Mr. HAVES said, that a subject was now before
the house, and it should be seen whether the house
would sanction the non-residence of rectors, or autho-
rise pluralities. Regarding the contribution that had
been given to the clergyman of that parish, it was al-
ways passed at vestries, and levied from the inha-
bitants who paid it, though they were aware it was

Major BEAUCLERK thought that the bill was a
most preposterous one.
Colonel EVANS could not understand how such
an extraordinary bill could have been introduced.
Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE presented a petition from
an individual, named Thomas Cubett, against the
Western Railway Bill.
On the motion of Mr. F. LEWIS, the Montgo-
mery Canal Bill was read a third time.
Major BEAUCLERK brought in a bill for im-
proving the parish of St. Mary Magdalen, Bermond-
sey, which was read a first time.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY presented a petition from
the Chamber of Commerce, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, in
favour of the Durham Junction Railway Bill.

Col. POWELL presented a petition from a parish
in Cardigan, praying for the better observance of the
Sabbath. Also two petitions from congregations of
dissenters in the same county, praying relief. The
hon. and gallant member expressed his determination
to oppose the .bill brought in by an hon. baronet (Sir
A. Agnew) for the better observance of the Sabbath,
as he considered it objectionable in many of its clauses.

MERCI-lANT SEAMEN.
Mr. B. HANDLEY presented a petition from the
merchant seamen of the port of Boston, county of Lin-
coln, complaining of a deduction of 6d. per month
from their wages, which had been hitherto made
for the support of Greenwich Hospital. There was
another deduction of the same amount, which went to
a sort of benefit fund for the support of their families,
and to this the petitioners did not object; but as they had
not for many years past received any benefit from the
fundil o
spcontributedthey
prayedb to be by them
to the support of Greenwich
relieved from its future
payment. He (Mr. Handley) thought it a most un-
justifiable impost ; he would be one of the last to
abstract a single sixpence from the support
a of that great
shame national establishment, but he thou that
it should be taken from so laborious and useful a
Mr. WILKS supported the petition most class.
o
dially. The want of a maritime code under whichcthre-
seamen in the merchant service might be regulated
like those in the royal navy, was universally admitted.
Mr. HILL concurred in the observations of the hon.
member by whom the petition had been presented.
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON presented a petition
from the shipowners of the port of Sunderland, com-
plaining of the depression under which they at pre-
sent laboured. The hon. member referred to the
report of the committee upon trade and commerce last
session, in proof of the low state in which the mer-
chants and traders at present stood, by the great re-
duction in freight, &c., and in consequence of which the
trade with Russia, Norway, and Sweden, was now al-
most entirely carried on by foreign vessels. The

hon. member then presented a petition from the mer-
chant-seamen of the port of Sunderland, com-
plaining of the deduction made from their wages
for the support of Greenwich Hospital. It was impos-
sible the house could refuse to extend its protection
to that most industrious class of men who contributed
from twenty to thirty thousand pounds per annum to
the support of an institution from which they derived
no benefit. Until about three years ago the sum paid
by them for this purpose had been Is. per week.
(Hear, hear.) He thought that the payment should
be put an end to, and the deficiency made good out of
the consolidated fund. There was a'motion of which
notice had been given by the hon. member for London
upon that subject, which would come on on the 24th
inst., and he (Alderman Thompson) would give it his
most cordial support. The hon. member also pre-
sented a petition from the Unitarian Dissenters at
Sunderland, complaining of grievances, one of which
was the union of church and state. He stated that in
all but that he entirely concurred. He also pre-
sented a petition from Mr. Wilkinson, of Leadenhall-
street, praying for a penal enactment against all per-
sons lending money to foreign nations, and for the abo-
lition of the reciprocity treaties of 1826.
Mr. OSWALD presented a number of petitions
from different parts of Scotland, for an alteration in
the law of Church patronage, for a free trade in corn,
for the better observance of the Sabbath, &c.
Mr. DOBBINS, in presenting a petition from
2,138 inhabitants of Armagh for the repeal of the
union, and for the abolition of tithes, took that oppor-
tunity of contradicting a statement which had been made
that he had been called on by 400 of his constituents
to resign.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR had a great many petitions to
present for the repeal of the union, but in the present
state of the house he would decline doing so at
present, and move that the house be counted.
The house was then counted, and there being but
31 members present they adjourned at half-past one
o'clock.