The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-12 00:00:00

VIE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 1835.

counties, containing ten millions of inhabitants, one in ten
received education; not, however, from endowed schools, but
chiefly from the gratuitous schools. It might be said that
there were remedies at law, for the abuse of these trusts,
so there were—in name. Too many of these cases were
brought before the Court of Chancery, and there they
were, many of them waiting for redress, eighty-eight cases
have been already submitted to the Court of Chancery ; and
the account of the mode in which many of these cases were
dealt with would be sufficient to dispel the delusion that it was
only necessary to lock the doors of the Court on the case, and
propose some measure of Parliamentary Reform, in order to
make every thing right. The Hon. Member proceeded to detail
the history of a case brought before the Court of Chancery
in 1820, for the recovery of an amount of 71. for several years,
in which, as we understood, the Court only gave an order for
the recovery of 421., and 61. arrear ; but from his position and
mode of delivery, we could not collect the particulars satisfacto-
rily. A similar return was moved for in 1830, and what was the
result? "Why, it was stated that the cause had been set
down for hearing, but that, John Adams having died in the
meantime, the suit became abated.—( Hear, and a laugh.) A
fresh information, it appeared, was then filed, reviving the
original suit, and making the devisees of Adams' parties, and
the costs of these proceedings, and setting down both causes,
amounted to—what did the House think ?—why, to no less a
sum than 461. 14s. 10d.' which actually exceeded the subject
matter of contention.—( Hear. ) He would now travel on to
the next year, in order that the House might see what had
been done since the original and supplemental causes had
been set down for hearing. On the 23d of November, 1831,
the case was called on for argument ; but it was then settled,
as one might suppose it would have been? Oh, no lit went
off on the objection of want of 'fa rties, as two children had
been born to one of the defendants pending the order for
hearing, and they, it was said, were necessary patties to the
suit.—( Hear, and laughter.) Well, then, the cause was
ordered to stand over until these children were made defend-
ants by a supplemental information ; and, having come on for
decision on the 26th of January, 1832, a decree was pro-
nounced in favour of the charity, by which an account was
ordered to be taken of the annuity, due six years prior to the
filing of the original information ; and the Master was directed
at the same time to take the Attorney-General's costs. The
Master accordingly made his report on the 26th of the follow-
ing August, from which it appeared that the arrears amounted
to somewhere about 771., while the costs in the cause was as
much as 2091. 15s. But this was not all, for there were extra
costs to the extent of 881. allowed, and the whole of these
monstrous expenses were incurred for the recovery of the
trifling sum of 71. a year. So much, then, for the zeal and
utility of the Court of Chancery, which, instead of injuring
the suitor by dilatory and expensive proceedings, was bound
to protect his rights by the exercise of promptness as well as
of justice.—( Hear, hear.) This was one case of the abuse
of the funds belonging to charities • but without noticing it
further, he would pass on to the case of the Brentwood schools.
In that case certain estates were devised by Sir Anthony Browne
for the twofold purpose of educating the poor children of
Brentwood aad 12 neighbouring parishes, and allowing a sum
of eighteen-pence a week to five aged persons belonging to
the almshouses there. At the period this devise was made
the property bequeathed was commensurate with the object
to which it was to be applied. It then yielded somewhere
about 1001. a year, while it now produced an income of
from 1,200/. to 1,5001., and the increase, it was contended,
belonged to the owner of a neighbouring estate and not to
the charity, it being deemed sufficient, to satisfy the terms of
.the donor's will that a grammar school—that was a place for
teaching Greek and Latin—had been established, and the
payment of eighteen-pence a week was made to five of the
occupiers of the almshouses in question. This construction of
the terms of the bequest the Attorney-General, and very pro-
perly too, dissented from, contending that as the funds extended
the number of the recipients of the advantages of the charity
should also be enlarged. With this impression on his mind,
the Attorney-General caused an information to be filed in
1823 against the master and wardens of Brentwood Grammar
School, and the costs of the proceedings in that cause down to
1828 amounted to no less a sum than 1641.85. Bd. But what was
the state of the cause in 1828, as appeared from a return then
made to that House ? Why, that it had been partly heard on
the 26th of May, and was appointed for further hearing in the
Easter Term following. Now, this was hopeful enough,
and it might be inferred that when Easter Term came the
matter would be disposed of. But was that the case ? Oh,
no for it was then stated that the cause had come on for
further argument, but that it was ordered to stand over until
it, and a supplementary cause connected with it, could be
brought before the Court at the same time.—( A laugh.) The
costs of these proceedings amounted to 197/., and then a case
was directed to be submitted to the Court of King's Bench,
which, in 1830, was only set down for argument, although it
had been prepared nearly two years before. A variety of
other expensive and harassing proceedings had occurred in
this suit; and, as it still remained pending, though a nego-
tiation for settling the matter was going on, he concluded that
nothing would be done until Parliament actually interfered.
He had now put the House in possession of the principal facts.
What was wanted was an efficient and permanent Committee
of Public Instruction, with some high dignitary of the law to
direct and superintend the conduct of all legal proceedings
that might become necessary for the preservation of the funds
of the charities. After some further observations on the ne-
cessity there was for placing the moral and religious education
of the people on some better basis than that on which it rested
at present, the Hon. Gentleman moved, " That a Select Com-
mittee be appointed to examine into and consider the evidence
contained in the'several volumes of reports of the Commis-
sioners appointed to inquire into the state of the charities in
England and Wales ; to report upon the means by which, in
their opinion, charity funds could be most effectually and
promptly recovered ; and to consider how such funds might
be most wisely and at the same time economically applied."
Mr. WILK S seconded the motion.

Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to say that he rose,
not to offer any opposition to the motion of the Hon. Member
for iouthwark, but, on the contrary, to give it his assent—
( Hear.) He fully agreed that it was desirable to have that
which was valuable in those reports ascertained ; but with re-
spect t,) the last proposition, that of " considering how the
funds of charities could be more wisely and economically ap-
plied," he should certainly give it his support, although he
wished to guard himself from expressing any opinion on it.
In his evidence, given last year, Lord Brougham stated that
after years of consideration he had been unable to say whether
or not those funds had been applied according to the view of
the founders, arid as that was the case, he (Lord J. Russell)
was anxious to avoid risking any opinion on the subject, though
he was, at the same time, glad the matter had been brought
forward ; and, should the motion his cordial and hearty assent.
—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. WYSE fully and cordially sympathised in the exer-
tions made by the Hon. Member for Southwark to regenerate
the charities of this country, and he thought the assent which
the Noble Lord had given to the motion was the most prudent
course which, under such circumstances, could be taken by a
Minister of the Crown.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL entertained no feelings
of difficulty in expressing his entire satisfaction in the course
pursued in moving for the appointment of the Committee.
The Committee about to be appointed, he would remind
the House, would have two objects in view. The one would
be more the summarily, economically, and effectually cor-
recting existing abuses. And here he would observe that
those abuses not having been corrected must not be imputed
as a matter of blame either to him or his predecessors in
office. The fault was not with them, but with the system.
—( Hear, hear, hear.) But to return. The only object
the Committee ought to have in view, should be the en-
tirely fresh and better application of the funds of these
charities.--( Hear, hear.) He rejoiced that the motion had
been made, and was gratified at the reception it had met
with.—( Hear, hear. )
The motion was then agreed to.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY said that the success of the inqui-
ries of the Select Committee must materially depend upon
the impartiality of the Members composing it. He should,
therefore, defer the proposition for their nomination until he
had consulted the Noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) on
the subject.

the following effect :—" That the House is of opinion that
the continuation of the imposition of the tax upon windows
is highly inexpedient and hurtful to the health of the commu-
nity, and that it is advisable such tax should be repealed.—
(Loud cries of " Divide" again greeted the Hon. Member
on his re-occupying his seat.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER appre-
hended from the manner in which the Hon. Gentleman
brought forward his motion, he did so more to discharge his
duty to his constituents than in expectation of being able to
reap any particular benefit from the motion. It was very well
to say repeal taxes. He should like very well to repeal them,
but it must be remembered that the demands for repeal always
exceeded the power of doing so. They had been asked to re-
peal the Malt Tax—been pressed to repeal the Assessed Taxes
affecting the agriculturists—to repeal the duty on glass—to
repeal the duty on paper—and to take off the taxes
from newspapers ; now they were asked to repeal the window
tax, and a proposition was before the House for taking off the
additional duty on spirit licenses. It would be very gratifying
to be able to attend to all these suggestions, but it was his
painful duty to oppose them. He must ask the Hon. Member
to withdraw his motion, otherwise he should feel compelled to
oppose it. Before he concluded he had a short statement to
offer to the consideration of the House. In 1820, there were
968,000 houses in London liable to the house and window rate,
and producint, a revenue of 2,578,0001. In 1832, there were
only 380,00ehouses rated, producing a revenue of 1,100,0001.
thus making a reduction of 1,478,0001. And last year, by the
repeal of the house tax, there was a saving of an additional
491,0001. He did not oppose the motion of the Hon. Member
out of any feeling of disrespect to him, but on the grounds, as
he had stated, which induced his opposition the other evening
to the proposed method of relieving the landed interest.
Colonel E V ANS thought that from the state of the reve-
nue there was no probable ground for expecting a repeal.
Should the surplus revenue be greater than had been antici-
pated he trusted that the claims of the Householder would be
first taken into consideration. He trusted, too, that parties
letting lodgings, although a small item in a revenue account,
might have their claims for relief taken into consideration.
Mr. F. ROBINSON thought that no good could be ef-
fected until the subject of a general revision of the system of
taxation was brought before a Committee of the House.
Dr. LUSHINGTON had endeavoured that day to present
to the House a petition upon the subject then before it, in
which his constituents, though favourable to the motion, did
not think it proper to press it upon Ministers in the present ad-
vanced state of the session, and under other existing circum-
stances. His constituents only wished that their claims to
relief should have a fair consideration with those of other
classes of the community. They wished that Ministers would
take off those taxes that pressed the most on natioual indus-
try, and hoped that they never would be induced to invalidate
the national credit. _ _

Mr. FE CT OR, as an enemy of direct taxation, would cer-
tainly press the motion to a division.
Mr. T. ATT WO OD thought that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer ought to abolish the tax, and find the means of
providing a substitute. Why should not the Right Hon.
Gentleman borrow the money as well as his victims ? The
Hon. Member then went into the currency question and into
the price of wheat, amidst the cries of " Question," and
" Divide."

After a few words from Mr. RUTHVEN and Capt. PECIIELL
Sir S. WHALL EY replied, and expressed his consent to
withdraw the motion. The cry for a division, however, was
very general, and the House divided.
For the motion
Against it
Majority 188
THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH OF SCOTLAND
Sir W. RAE rose, in pursuance of notice, to move that a
select Committee should be appointed, in order to examine
into the numerous petitions that had been presented from Scot.
land, praying for the building and endowing of places of public
worship adequate to the accommodation of the people of that
country that were of the faith of the Established Church. It
was his duty to state to the House the extreme anxiety that
was felt throughout all Scotland upon this important subject.
According to the last report to the House by the Committee it
appeared that 385 petitions had been presented from Scotland
in favour of the Established Church, and in the year that had
since elapsed 200 more had been presented, so that there
had been, in fact, more than 600 petitions presented from
Scotland in favour of the Establishment. This was a num-
ber totally unprecedented from that country upon any one
subject that had occurred since the Union. Such, then,
were the strong and almost universal feelings of Scotland
upon
.this most important point. He begged also to re-
mind the House that the people of Scotland had them-
selves subscribed 65,000/. in furtherance of the object they
had in view, and all they called upon his Majesty's Minis-
ters to do was to aid their exertions. The population had
increased nearly double in Scotland, while there was no pro-
portionate increase in the number of places of worship. In
Glasgow there was a population of 224,000 souls, while there
was only accommodation sittings there, in places of worship
connected with the Church of Scotland for 77,000 persons.
In , Edinburgh there was the same deficiency, and in an
equal proportion throughout all Scotland. What was the
baneful effect of this? Why, a lamentable increase of crime
before unknown in Scotland, namely, 'twenty-five fold in the
last twenty years. The General Assembly of Scotland had
at last roused the country to a sense of this great evil, and he
could not believe that any Government would refuse assistance
toss ards so deirable an end. All that was asked was that
some aid might be given to enable the places of worship to be
thrown open to the poor, as well as to those who were able to
pay for seats. The object of the petitioners was to secure re-
ligious instruction to the poor, and he could not think that a
body of English gentlemen would refuse such a boon.
1,000,0001, had been granted to sustain the clergy of Ire-
land, and it could not be credited that one portion of the com-
munity of this great country would be preferred to another,
It was a mere matter of whether the poor shall be instructed
in Christian prayer or not, in a country proverbial for its ho-
nesty, sobriety, morality, and industry. He should conclude
by moving that the petitions on this subject be referred to a
Select Committee to report thereon.
Mr. PRINGLE rose to second the motion. All they
asked was to provide accommodation for the poorest classes
who were unable to provide it for themselves. There were
extensive districts in which additional churches were neces-
sary, and where the people were too poor to build them. It
was the bounden duty of a Government to provide the means
of religious arid moral instruction for the people. The
Church of Scotland had not sufficient funds to provide the
necessary accommodation. The funds might be ample in
some parishes, but they were not transferable by law to the
use of other parishes. The Hon. Member concluded by
seconding the motion. He was scarcely audible in the
Gallery.
The LORD ADVOCATE said that, considering the
great increase of crime, and the great evils arising from the
want of sufficient accommodation, which must have been long
known to the Right Hon. Baronet who brought forward this
motion, it appeared extraordinary that he should have so long
delayed it; that he did not bring it forward in the first,
second, third, or fourth week, after the meeting of Parliament.
The evils which it was now proposed to remedy might not
have been known to others, but they were known to the Right
Hon. Baronet. Why then did he so long neglect the sug-
gestion of some legislative remedy ? He did not mean to
deny the respectability of the petitions. There were 382
petitions in favour of a grant, but, considering the eloquence
urged in favour of it by some of the most able and distin-
guished of the clergy, the surprise was that there was not a
petition from every parish in Scotland—from 554 in place of
382. If there was no petition on the other side, the case
would be much stronger. It was, however, a peculiar circum-
stance that not less than 79,000 persons of the same religious
belief sent in petitions against the grant. This did not arise from
difference of creed. The Member for Selkirk, the other night,
presented a petition in favour of the grant signed by 200. Ho
(the Lord Advocate) saw a petition from the same county,
signed by 600 against the grant, expressing surprise at such a
proposition, and stating that there were already ample means
of religious instruction. How could a Committee of that
House ascertain whether the 200 or the 600 were in the right ?
The evil complained of was one of long growth, and arose from
the union of parishes. It was long in progress. Why was not
some remedy sooner applied? He did not deny the existence
of the evil, but a Committee up stairs was not the best mode of
inquiry into it. By the law of Scotland a church, however
small it might be, and however the population might have in-
creased in a parish, could not, as long as it was kept in repair,
be enlarged. This, as well as other points in the petitions, de-
manded inquiry. Particular reference had been made to the
church accommodation in Glasgow. There was great dif-
ference of opinion upon that point, such as could not be inves-
tigated or settled by a Committee of that House. It ought to
be inquired into upon the spot. The House ought, in the first
place, to take steps to ascertain the nature of the evil, and, that
being ascertained, to devise the most effectual remedy. They
were told, the only remedy was a grant of money. It should
be recollected that there was a numerous body of Dissenters in
Scotland. He would not say they were so numerous as those
of the Establiihed Church, but certainly they were not so
wealthy.—( Cries of " Hear, hear, hear.") The liberality of
the Dissenters was fully admitted by the supporters of
the grant, and, after all their liberality, and the spirit
of accommodation they displayed, would it not be right to
respect their feelings, and not call upon them without further
inquiry, and against their opinions, to pay a tax of this kind ?
They were told that if there were a Church Establishment at
all it ought to be supported. He did not think this a wise
argument, and many members of the Church of Scotland,
when they saw the disinclination of the Dissenters, refused
to press the matter by petition on the attention of Parliament.
Would they now peril the Church of Scotland, which so long
had proved itself most useful, and most efficient, by forcing
forward a measure of this kind against the opinions and incli-
nations of the Dissenters? There was nothing he more de-
sired than that the Church of Scotland should stand unim-
peached in the opinions of the whole people. A Committee
of that House was not a fit mode of inquiry. The grant
should be proportioned to the urgency of the case, and how
could a Committee determine that ? To enter upon such an
inquiry at so late a period of the session would be quite nu-
gatory. Parliament ought not to decide without full and
careful investigation, and for that purpose the best way, in his
opinion, would be to appoint a Commission to inquire into
the funds at present applicable to religious instruction in
Scotland, and the means of affording accommodation for that
purpose to the poorer classes, whether belonging to the
Church of Scotland or to any other religious persuasion ; also
into the resources now applicable to the building of churches.
It might be objected to a Commission that it would occasion
delay. The same objection would apply with equal or greater
force to a Committee, for every witness to be examined be-
fore such a Committee would have to travel up to London, a

204

distance of 400 miles. The delay that took place in former
Commissions could not arise here.
Sir G. CLERK said he had listened with great regret to
the speech of the Learned Lord who had just concluded,
which, while it admitted the existence of the evils complained
of as in connection with the Church of Scotland, was calcu-
lated to destroy all the hopei entertained by the people of that
country for their removal. Did the Learned Lord recollect
that the measure now proposed by his Right Hon. Friend was
one specially referred to in the Speech from the Throne on the
opening of the present session 2—( Cheers.) Did he further
recollect that no dissent, as respected that reference, was ex-
pressed in the address of that House in reply to that Speech?
—( Cheers.) Again, did the Learned Lord recollect that at
various periods since the year 1818, when grants of money were
made to the Church of England, it was distinctly intimated
that similar, though smaller, grants would be made to the
Church of Scotland if it could be shown that that Church re-
quired such aid. It was alleged that the motion of his Right
Hon. Friend was one for the immediate granting of public
money. It was not so, it was simply a motion for an inquiry,
which might be most satisfactorily instituted by a Committee of
the House. He objected to a Commission on two grounds, first,
because it struck him as a novel mode of carrying on the
Government of the country, and, secondly, because it struck
him, from the speech of the Learned Lord, that such a Com-
mission as he proposed was not likely to recommend anything
that would meet the exigencies of the case.—( Hear, hear.)
Every one in Scotland ought to have religious instruction
brought home to his own door. He had now stated the chief
grounds on which he thought that small endowments for
building chapels in Scotland ought to be allowed by the
Government. At present the poorer classes in Scotland were
excluded from participating in religious worship, because they
were in want of sufficient church accommodation. The sum
required would be comparatively small, not more than 10,0001.
He considered that there was no class of the community that
would object to have that sum raised. He was in favour of
an inquiry above stairs, and he objected to the proposed
Commission, as he was assured that the effect of it would
be not to allow the grant. He hoped the Noble Lord op-
posite (Lord J. Russell) would afford some hopes that a
grant of the sort required would be allowed by the Govern-
ment.—(Cries of " Question.")
The LORD ADVOCATE said a few words in expla-
nation.

Mr. C. FERG US SON considered that there were suffi-
cient grounds to induce the House to accord the grant sought
for, though he had no wish that any additional burthens should
be placed on parties who did not wish it. It was of vast im-
portance that the poorer classes in Scotland should not go
without religious instruction. The chief principle involved in
the .question lay between those who were in favour of a
Church Establishment in Scotland, and those who were
averse to any such establishmedts. The poor people in
Scotland did not ask that churches should be built for
them, they only looked for some assistance. As the facts
connected with the question were disputed, and as it would
be impossible to ascertain them through means of a Com-
mittee, he should vote for a Commission.
Mr. WALLACE said that there was a great deal of pro-
perty belonging to the Church of Scotland, which could be
rendered available for increasing the places of public worship,
and for this reason he felt that the Commission would be the
proper course.
Mr. G ILL ON would meet the question with a direct ne-
gative. He spoke the opinions of an important body of Dis-
senters when he stated that it was their opinion no set of
men should be taxed for the moral or religious instruction of
others.
On the motion of Mr. BROTHERTON the debate was
adjourned.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and
the House adjourned at One o'Clock.