The Sun.
London, England, 1860-08-09 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at a quarter past twelve
o'clock.

CHURCH RATES.

Mr. HUBBARD gage notice that early next session he
would bring in a bill to amend the law relating to church-
rates.
UNION OF BENEFICES BILL.

11 On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
i Mr. D. GRIFFITH complained of the manner in which
public business was conducted. The present bill was
brought down ready made from the House of Lords at a
period of the session when it could not pass without a dis
cussion. The fact of the bill being brought before the
House of Commons at that period of the session, and so
early in the day, when they could scarcely muster a sufficient
number of members to make a house, rendered it impossible
that the measure could receive the necessary discussion.
This was not properly legislating on a measure of such im-
portance.

Mr. HENLEY said that in this bill the bishop, the
clergy, and the patrons were well cared for. He objected
to that part of the bill which related to the removal of
the dead, and he certainly would divide the house on that
point

The house then went into committee on the bill.
Mr. GRIFFITH said there was no one on the Ministe-
rial bench who was responsible for the bill and he would
move that the chairman report progress.
Mr. B JUVERIE said that the bill had undergone much
discussion in the Upper House. It was in his charge, and
he brought it on as early as was in his powe.-:.
Mr. JOHN LOCKE considered that the members of the
City of London ought to hare had charge of the bill. It
certainly had nothing to do with Kilmarnock. (Hear,
hear.) The Bishop of London had opposed the demolition
of churches in the City for the purpose of making London-
bridge. He was not of opinion that London was destitute
of churches; but if they placed clergymen in them who
could not preach, of course congregations would not be at-
tracted.

Mr.CRAWFORD, as one of the members of the City of
London, said he thought it would not be courteous to the
hon. member for Kilmarnock to take the bill out of his
hands, simply because he representel one of the five cities
affected by the bill. The measure was introduced into the
other house by the Bishop of London, and its provisions
were well known.

Mr. AYRTON supported the bill, and said that the pre-
sent state of things was most objectionable. The only
question was as to the mode in which a remedy should be
applied, and he hoped the house would be rational enough
to prefer the interests of the souls of the living to the bones
of the dead. Let the bones of the dead be treated with
respect, as no doubt they would be under the provisions of
the bill, but he trusted it would not be said fuel when the
making of a dock or railway was concerned, ;it was
quite easy to have churches and the bones in church-
yards removed. There was no difficulty experienced, but
when the interests of religion were involved it was another
case altogether. He hoped that, although the bill might
be amended in passing through committee, its main object
would receive the support of the house. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Alderman CUBITT said it could not be denied that
several churches would require to be removed, and in one
place there were about fifty-eight churches in an area of
about half a square mile. He considered it was obvious
that seme remedy was required for the existing evils, and
he thought all the details might be arranged without diffi-
culty.
_ _

gr. HUBBARD said that he did not think the house
were sufficiently acquainted with the principle of the bill.
Were the house aware of the manner in which the bill was
read a second time? At a quarter to one o'clock in the
morning an hon. gentleman was asleep at the end of one of
the benches. He was roused by a touch of the elbow and
the words, " Union of Benefices Bill." He then jumped up,
and all he (Mr. Hubbard) heard was the word " Monday,"
and he discovered that the bill had actually passed a second
reading, (Laughter.) Under these circumstances he con-
sidered that the bill required at least a little more illustra-
tion. Against the bill of 1854 there was a very general
feeling outside the house, and why, he would ask, should
a bill conferring equally large powers be introduced ? Why
should not the arrangements of a certain group, which re-
quired anaendation, be made the subject of a specific pro-
position ?

Mr. BOUVERIB said that this bill ha 3 been on the
table of the house six weeks, and no objection was made to
its principles. The fact was, that the present state of things
required great improvement, as it presented a very ano•
malous condition. In some parishes with a population of
50,000 or 60,00 J there were 50 or 60 churches, while other
parishes were without any adequate provision. In other
places there were no congregations, owing to the ground
being occupied with warehouses.

After soine discussion it was agreed by the hon. member
in charge of the bill that its operation should be limited to
the metropolis.
The amendment was negatived without a division.
Clause 1 was agreed to.
On clause 2,

Mr. MALINS said that he did not consider the house
possessed the necessary materials for legislating on this
subject at present, and concluded by moving that the chair-
man leave the chair.

After some remarks from Mr. Ayrton, Mr. Crawford, Mr.
Henley, Sir G. Lewis, and other hon. members, the house
divided—

For the amendment l6
Against 76
Majority
The clause was then agreed to, with some alteration, as
were clauses 3 to 6 inclusive.

On clause 7,
Mr. HADFIELD wished to be informed what was
meant by the words " spiritual destitution" in the bill.
Was it merely to be understood as meaning Church desti-
tution, ignoring altogether the spiritual insction sup-
plied by the Nonconformist body.
Mr. BOUVERIE said that the meaning of the words
" spiritual destitution," as he understood them, was the
absence of sniritual instruction, in which condition were
several populous distilcts of the metropolis.
Some discussion ensued, in the course of which
Sir G. LEWIS said that the population of the City of
London was about 55,000, and there were 58 churches.
There was a considerable deficiency in the means of afford-
ing spiritual instruction, which could be remedied only by
the passing of this bill.
The clause was agreed to, as well as clause 8.
On clause 9,

Lord J. MANNERS considered that the powers con-
ferred on the Ecclesiastical Commissioners by the clause
were too extensive, and that these powers with reference to
the building of churches should rather be entrusted to the
governors of Queen Anne's bounty.
Mr. BOUVERIE said that there was no other body be-
sides the Ecclesiastical Commissioners who would be an
adequate machinery for the discharge of the duties con-
fided to them by the present bill.
After some discussion the committee divided, and the
numbers were—
For the clause
Against
Majority
The clause was accordingly adopted.
Clauses 10 to 12 were agreed to.
On clause 13,
Mr. D. GRIFFITHS moved the addition, at the end of
the clause, of words to the effect, that before any scheme for
annexation, severance, or union of parishes be carried out,
it should be laid on the table for two calendar months pre-
viously.

After some conversation the amendment was negatived
without a division, and the clause was agreed to.
On clause 14,

Mr. HENLEY said that he had a great objection to the
removal of the remains of the deceased, or "bones," as
they had been described by one of the hon. members in the
course of the debate, who had the misforiune to die before.
He concluded by moving an amendment restricting the
operation of the bill to churches in which no interment had
taken -place, or which had no vaults underneath them.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BENTINCK moved the following addition to the
clause :—" Provided always, that nothing in this act con-
tained shall authorise the pulling down the churches of St.
Stephen's, Walbrook, St. Martin, Ludgate, St. Peter,
Cornhill ; and St. Swithin, Cannon Street; or the towers
and steeples of any of the churches within the City of Lon-
don, and specified in the schedule (B) to this act annexed."
Mr. B 0 IJVERIE considered that there was no necessity
for this provision.
Mr. NORRIS thought that instead of removing these
churches from the centre of a population more than ade-
quate to fill them, they should improve the.condition of the
patronage, and place in the pulpits persons calculated to
attract iongregation s. He expressed a hope that the
amendment would be adopted and the bill withdrawn.
Sir G. LEWIS said that it would be injudicious to inter-
fere with the provisions of the bill on architectural grounds,
as proposed by the hon. member (Mr. C. Bentinek).
Mr. A. SMITH suggested that the clause should be with-
drawn, and the sites of the churches should not be built on
if they were pulled down.
On clause 14,
Mr. HENLEY proposed an amendment, which led to a
long discussion, prohibiting the sale of sites on which there
have been interments.
The committee divided—
For the amendment 5O
Against it BO
Majority —3o
The amendment was negatived.
After some further clauses had been agreed to, the clock
pointed to a quarter to six, when the discussion closed.
The other orders of the day having been disposed of, the
house adjourned at six o'clock.