The Sun.
London, England, 1835-05-25 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The SPEAKER took the chair at 10 minutes to 3 o'clock.
Being forty minutes before the usual hour, very few Members
were then in attendance.

Several reports were brought up and laid upon the table.

TRINITY HARBOUR BILL.

Mr. TOOKE brought forward his motion, the discussion of
which was suspended by what he called " the untoward event "
of Thursday last. He alluded to the mistake that occured in
balloting for the Ennis Election Committee. The motion
was to the effect that it be an instruction to the Committee
to whom the Trinity Harbour Bill now stands referred, that
they do not enter into the question of compliance with such of
the standing orders of the House as was required to be proved
before the Committee to whom the petition for the said Bill,
was referred.

Sir G. CLERK opposed the motion. He did not wish to
go into the question as to whether the standing orders had
been complied with or not—the question was, whether the
House should interfere in this stage of the Bill, and he trusted
that the House would not support the motion of the Hon.
Member, which interfered with the progress of a bill in so
very unusual and unprecedented a manner.
Mr. WILK S, having no doubt as to the course of prac-
tice of the House, or to the line that justice and expediency
recommended, would support the motion of the Hon. Member.
'She ATTORNEY GENERAL observed, that a large
majority of that House had already Uecidcdt:,:_;air.st mod -.1
of the Hon. Member for Truro. The Bill was for the pur-
pose of making an harbour. The petitioners say that the
grounds on which the harbour was to be built were theirs, and
that they had no notice of the application for such a Bill. The
petitioners further say that there is no bona fide list of subscribers,
so that if the Bill should pass, the work would pause in lintine—
they would be deprived of these grounds, and there was no fund
out of which they could be repaid. The projectors of the Bill
had been heard, but the petitioners had had no opportunity of
replying, and he appealed to the House whether they should
not be afforded an opportunity of proving their case. Was it
not a monstrous injustice to take those grounds from the peti-
tioners without showing that there were any funds out of which
they could be paid. They were now prepared to prove that
the standing ordeis had not been complied with, and he was
satisfied the House would not refuse them the opportunity of
doing so.
Mr. HUME said the House of Commons had never yet
become the arbitrators in cases of disputed property, at least
he had never heard that it had. It would be monstrous for
the House to stop the progress of the Bill, because an action
at law happened to be pending between two parties.
Sir M. W. RIDLE Y thought, in allowing the Committee
to go into the question of the standing Order, it would be
only an act of justice, and would be consistent with the rule
laid down by the late Speaker of the House in a similar case.
He should therefore vote against the motion.
M. A. JOHNSTONE hoped the House would enable the
Committee to do justice to all parties.
Mr. BROTHE RTON said, in his opinion, the Committee
ought to have power to iniuire into the standing orders, for
he saw in the share-list the name of Thomas French, of Man-
chester, for 5,000/. He had been long acquainted with Man-
chester, and did not know such a gentleman, but on looking at
the London Gazette c,f last week, he saw the name of Thomas
French, a bankrupt.—(Laughter.) He thought that substan-
tial justice could not be done unless the motion was agreed to.
Mr. TOOKE rose amidst loud cries of " spoke, spoke."
He said he had but a few words to say, and as he did not often
trouble the House, he trusted the House would hear him, the
more so as lie was anxious to save the House the trouble of a
division. As the question was one of a technical nature, he
would be bound by the decision of the Speaker.
The SPEAKER had abstained from interfering in the ques-
tion, because it particularly interested a large portion of his
constituents. As he conceived that those who had the honour
to fill the situation he held, ought to be above suspicion, he
would beg to decline to respond to the call made upon him.
The motion was negatived without a division.
- CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. .

Lord JAMES STUART presented a number of petitions
from towns in Scotland in favour of the Established Church
of that country.
Dr. BO WRING being requested to support the prayer of
these petitions, would take that opportunity of correcting a
mistake which, had gone abroad relative to the sentiments he
had given expression to when this subject was before under
discussion. He did not state, as was represented, that his
constituents were generally against a grant for the Established
Church of Scotland. He merely stated that a great portion
of them were opposed to such a grant.
MR. CHILDS' CASE.

Sir W. FOULKES presented petitions from a number of
towns in Norfolk, complaining of the punishment which Mr.
Childs, of Bungay, had received for non-payment of Church-
rates.

Mr. HUME presented six petitions complaining of the im-
prisonment of Mr. Chills, in which the petitioners stated their
regret that any such harsh measures should have been resorted
to, and praying that an alteration of such an oppressive and
tyrannical law should take place, as that which incarcerated
this gentleman in a goal. One of these petitions was from
Bungay, and was signed by 810 out of the 900 householders of
that place.
The following is Mr. Childs's petition :
"TO THE HONOURABLE THE COMMONS OF THE
UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND

IRELAND, IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED,
" THE PETITION OF JOHN CHILDS, OF BUNGAY,
IN THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, PRINTER, A
PRISONER IN HIS MAJESTY'S GAOL OF IPS-
WICH, IN THE SAID COUNTY,
" SHEWETH,—That your Petitioner dissents from the doctrines
and ritual of the Church of England, as by law established, and
holds it incompatible with Christian liberty that the expenses of a
religious service, to which he is unable to conform, should be levied
upon him.
" That, during the last year, a sum of 17s. 6d. is charged to
have been assessed on your Petitioner, or his property, in respect
of Church-rate, and that the late Churchwardens of Bungay St.
Mary, Samuel Scott, tanner, and John Bobbit, ironmonger, caused
him to be cited to appear in the Episcopal Consistorial Court, holden
in the Cathedral Chirch of Norwich ; but your Petitioner believ-
ing that the Sacred Scriptures do not confer on any religious sect
the right to summon the members of any other sect to its own
places of worship, or of determining questions in dispute between
itself and such members of other sects, declined to appear at the
specified time and place; but that a large and extensive establish-
ment, belonging to him, was at all times in the said town and parish,
upon which the said rate might, by due eourse of law, have been

" That, on the 12th day of May instant, your Petitioner was ar-
rested by an officer of the Sheriff of Suffolk, and was delivered, on
the following day, to the custody of the Keeper of the Gaol at Ips-
wich, where he now remains.

‘. That the warrant for his arrest purports to issue from the office
of the Sheriff of the said County, in obedience to a writ of his Ma-
jesty, and to authorize the imprisonment of your Petitioner, until
he shall have made satisfaction for an alleged contempt of the said
Episcopal Consistorial Court of Norwich, and is indorsed Take no
Bail ;' that your Petitioner offered bail to any amount, but the
same was refused.

" That your Petitioner has committed no contempt of such Court,
unless his non-resistance of its process is made by construction a
crime deserving of imprisonment.
" That, in the 53d year of the reign of his late Majesty George
the Third, an Act was passed entitled an Act for the Better Regu-
lation of Ecclesiastical Courts in England, and for the More Easy Re-
covery of Church Rates and Tithes (Cap. 127), in passing which Act.
your Petitioner verily believes it was the intention of the Legisla-
ture wholly to abolish the power and jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical
Courts in all cases of Church-rate, where the sum to be recovered
did not exceed ten pounds, but that whether that was or was not
the intention of the Legislature, power is given by the 7th section
of that Act to the Justices of the Peace, by an easy, cheap, and
summary process, to enforce the payment of all church and chapel
rates which do not exceed ten pounds, over and above the reasonable
costs and charges to be ascertained by such Justices.
" That the Prosecutors in the present case, the said Samuel Scott
and John Bobbit, avoiding the short and simple and cheap, and
therefore less oppressive, process, by the said Act provided, have
taken proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court, by which the costs
of an expensive suit, and the pain and suffering of being cast into
gaol at a distance of forty miles from his family, and a very exten-
sive business,.of which he is the head, are inflicted upon him and
his family, as a punishment for his conscientious refusal to pay a
demand which he believes is not warranted by the word of God,
and with the view, as he submits to your Honourable House it is
reasonable to believe, of deterring his Dissenting brethren, whose
worldly circumstances may be poor, by the fear of imprisonment and
ruin, from acting upon their own convictions of religious duty.
" Your Petitioner therefore prays your Honourable House to
take measures for the immediate abolition of the barbarous
and anomalous powers of the Ecclesiastical Court, powers
inconsistent with all principles of British Law, and capable
of being employed, as in the present case, to effect the
purpose and gratify the rancour of religious intolerance.
" Your Petitioner further prays your Honourable House to
abolish all those Laws which empower the members of the
Church of England to levy the expence of conducting the

worship of that one Sect from persons who are unable to
join in it, and which inflict on loyal and conscientious
subjects the marks of civil and religious degradation.
(Signed) " JOHN CHILDS, of Bungay,
in the County Gaol of Ipswich,
Suffolk."
Lord HENNIKER rose not for the purpose of making any
observations generally upon the subject of Church-rates, but
to vindicate the characters of two individuals who had made
communications to him, as the representative of the county in
which Bungay was situated—he meant the Churchwardens.
When he made known the real facts of the case, the House would
see that, so far from their exhibiting harshness on the part of those
two gentlemen, that they had acted with great lenity. In making
this statement, he disclaimed any offence to Mr. Childs, or
any of the other gentlemen who had signed these petitions ;
for he agreed with his Hon. Friend, the Member for Mid-
dlesex, in his opinion as to the respectability of Mr. Childs.
He would state simply the facts of the case. In 1833 no
public opposition was made to the Church rates, but the pay-
ment of them was objected to by two or three gentlemen, one
of whom was a relative of Mr. Childs. Their goods were dis-
trained, which caused considerable excitement in the parish, but
the rate was eventually paid. In 1834 again, there was another
Church rate; it was not objected to at the time of making, but
Mr. Childs objected to pay it afterwards.—( Hear, hear.)
The reason why the Churchwardens took the course
they had adopted was, first, because one of the two sit-
ting magistrates was a clergyman.—( Hear. ) Another
was to prevent a recurrence of the excitement which took
place in 1833 ; and the third was that they thought the case
would be best decided in the Consistorial Court. The
Churchwardens afterwards offered to give up all proceed-
ings against Mr. Childs, if he would pay the rate, without
any payment of costs. He refused, and the Churchwardens
therefore were required to proceed against him. These were
the simple facts of the case, and they would be found to be so
when the circumstances were fully brought before the House.
Mr. HUME rejoiced that the Hon. Member bore testi-
mony to the great respectability of Mr. Childs, and to the
petitioners who had signed the petition which he had
just presented. Mr. Childs was an individual at the
head of a large establishment, where 40 persons were em-
ployed. He had resided at Bungay for 30 years, and was the
father of a large family, so that it was of the utmost im-
portance to him that his character should stand clear. It ap-
peared to him that the facts were simply these, Mr. Childs being
a Dissenter felt conscientious scruples towards contribut-
ing to the maintenance of another religion, and there-
fore refused to pay the Church-rates. So the Quakers
had done for many years, but the same course had not been
adopted towards them that had been adopted towards Mr.
Childs. When Mr. Childs refused to pay this rate of
17s. 6d., he said that he did not object to let the law take its
course against him ; they might seize his goods and sell
them, but he would not willingly pay the rate. All Mr.
Childs objected to was, that the regular course had not been
adopted to compel him to pay this rate. By the Act of 53,
Geo. 111., which was passed for the purpose of preventing such
cases as this from being brought into the Ecclesiastical Court,
it was required that where the charge was under 101.,
it should be brought before two magistrates, who were
to raise it by an ordinary distress. On looking over the
Bill, he had some doubts whether it could bear that inter-
pretation.—( Hear.) Although there was a power to rate
persons for sums of 101., it was not distinctly stated that they
can be cited for smaller sums. Instead of calling upon two
magistrates to sign a warrant, to enable them to make a
a distress upon his property, of which it was well known he
had abundance, the Churchwardens cited him to appear
before the Ecclesiastical Court. Mr. Childs refused to
attend on the same principle that ne hail :efused payment
of the rate—his non-compliance was construed into con-
tempt of Court, and a warrant was issued by which he was
dragged from his family a distance of 40 miles,
whatever his state of health might be, and he was
lodged in Ipswich gaol. He might Lave remained
there to the end of time, if some individuals had not come for-
ward and made an entry by which he was purged of his con-
temp+, and paid the expenses attendant upon his imprisonment.
It was against_ this system that the Dissenters complained
—they admit that there is authority to levy the rate,
but they say, and justly, that this was an act of oppres-
sion, and that the Churchwardens had taken the most
vexatious mode of recovering the money.—( Hear, hear,
hear.) He ( Mr. Hume) thought it a most tyrannical stretch
of authority, and tending more than almost any thing,
to bring the Church into contempt.—( Cries of " Hear.")
Why was it that tithes were not paid in Ireland, after
so many years of bloodshed and oppression ? It was
the vexatious mode in which they had been levied against
the feelings and wishes of the people. In this case
there was a gratuitous insult offered to a respectable
individual, and a disrespect in his, (Mr. Hume's) mind to the
opinion of that House, where a Minister of the Crown had
lately in his place declared that in many cases these rates
ought not to be levied. He held in his hand the vestry ex-
penditure of last year, and it appeared by it that there were
many items charged in it which Lord Althorp, a Minister
of the Crown, had in his place declared, ought not to be
levied. The present was an Act of oppression against which
every liberal man ought to protest. The Noble Lord ( Henniker)
stated that there was an excuse for these proceedings, and that it
was necessary to have recourse to the Ecclesiastical Court, be-
cause the Churchwardens were unable to make any dis-
tress. He (Mr. Hume) held in his hand a letter relative
to the statement made in the Ipswich Journal, upon which
the Noble Lord had argued, and which clearly contra-
dicted the statement made in that paper.—( Hear, hear.)
The letter was from Joseph Morris, the individual al-
luded to in the paragraph. The Hon. Member here read
a letter of Mr. Morris, which appeared in The San a few days
since, directly contradicting the assertion that it was impossible to
to make a distress, or sell ; he would ask the House if ever
there was a case of oppression more distinctly put before it,
and the object evidently was by intimidation to prevent
any resistance to the rate.—( Loud cries of " hear, hear.")
If the treatment which Mr. Childs had experienced was
held out as a threat against other house-keepers, would
they - not be terrified into a compliance with whatever
demands would be made upon them ? He trusted that
this most oppressive and vexatious Act would not continue
another session on the statute-book. He was glad to see the
Noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, in his
place, as he was satisfied that that Noble Lord would see the
necessity of introducing some change in the present system.
He hoped the Noble Lord was prepared, or soon would be
prepas ed, with some measure to prevent the possibility of any
respectable householder being insulted in the manner in which
Mr. Childs had been insulted. He trusted, at least before the
termination of this session, that something would be done to
preserve the order of society from such interruptions, and the
supporters of the Church should remember that the best plan
they could take to secure her from destruction would be to re-
move all that was calculated to make her hateful to the people.
Supposing Mr. Childs to be out of prison, that would not alter
the question at all.—( Hear, hear.) Was it likely that the
people of England would submit to such treatment, when
they saw that Church-rates were wholly abolished in Ire-
land?—(Hear). This case had come before the House at a
Very opportune time, to warn the Ministry to do something
towards the settlement of this question, and to keep peace in
the land:—( Hear. )
Mr. F. KELLY entirely concurred in the observation that
this question required the anxious consideration of the House.
It was improper to make petitions to this House the vehicle for
rabid, venemous and cowardly calumnies, such as this petition
conveyed. He would beg to call the attention of the House to
the strong words with which this petition concluded—the peti-
tioners prayed this Hon. House to adopt same measures for the
abolition of the barbarous and anomalous powers of the Ecclesias-
tical Courts.—( Cheers from the Ministerial side of the House. )
He had heard that that cheer, and did not of course complain
of such an expression of feeling respecting the power of
Courts which he admittep were open to and guilty of abuses,
but what he complained of was, the following improper lan-
guage of the petition, which stated that the power of these Courts
was not only. inconsistent with the principle of. British law, but
was in this instance capable of being employed to gratify the
most vindictive motives, and appease the rancour of reli-
gious intolerance.—( Cheers from the Opposition.) He
(Mr. K.) would beg to ask, Was a petition of that
kind, containing such charges against a minister of the
Established Church, to be received—alleging that the only
object he had in view was the gratification of malignant
purposes, and to satisfy the rancour of religious intolerance.—
( Cheers from the Opposition.) He did not mean to delay the
-House, as he was aware that a very important discussion was
'to come on to-night, but he could not refrain from re-
peating, that it was a gross abuse of the right of petition-
ing to state, that the proceeeings in this case were
prompted by the rancour of religious intolerance, and to im-
pute such motives to a Rev. Gentleman, ( Archdeacon
Glover), who does honour to the establishment, and highly
distinguished for the purity of his character, the amiability of
his manners, and the most undeviating and strict integrity.
He would now proceed to a detail of the facts of the case.
In 1833 certain Church-rates were collected in Bungay, all
of the inhabitants of which place, who were liable to Church-
rates, with the exception of two, no matter of what religious per-
suasion, willingly paid them. As these two refused to pay and
as they assigned no satisfactory reasons for not paying—for
they did not plead poverty—law proceedings were instituted
and a warrant was itsued against. The proceedings resorted
to were such as the statute prescribed. The goods of the
parties were seized, and notwithstanding the seizure was
made as quietly as possible, a tumult took place in the
town of Bnngay. He stated this on the authority of men well
known to many Members of that House, who were incapable of
misrepresenting. A tumult took place, and was occasioned,
not as the Hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Hume) had stated,
because the goods seized were not sold publicly but privately.
A false colouring was given to this matter by the statement of
the Hon. Member, but was not that Hon. Gentleman aware
that if the goods seized were not sold according to law (and
the private sale of them was resorted to, to avoid public expo-
sure), the party had a sufficient remedy for the oppression ?
In the last year the rates were, as usual, levied on the house-
holders of Bungay, and only three refused payment out of
them—two of them were those who refused before, and the
other was the individual (Childs) who now petitions. Applica-
tion was made to him to pay the rents, and if he was unable to
pay indulgence would have been shown to him by those who
regulate these payments. The two to whom he alluded did
pay, Childs alone refused, not from inability, for he is a
respectable man— a printer, and perfectly able to meet
the demand. He claimed no indulgence, but presumed to
set his scruples of conscience above the powers of the ,law.
One of two ways of proceeding against him were then to be
takan either in the Ecclesiastical Court, or as the Statute
of George 111. already referred to, directed—( Hear.) The
Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to state the reasons why the
course that had been adopted was taken. The chief reason was
to avoid the tumults that on a similar occasion had taken place.
(LEFT BITTING.)

PRI:V-COUNCIL.

SWIFT V. KELLY, OTHERWISE SWIFT.
(Continued from The Sun of Saturday.)

In the course of the speeches of the Learned Counsel, the
following letters from the respondent to the appellant were
read to the Council, and excited much interest. They were
written at Naples; .the first eight immediately before, and
the remaining six immediately after the marriage :