The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-18 00:00:00

THE CHURCH.

Mr. R. TREVOR presented a number of petitions from
Gateshead, Chester-le-street, and other places in the county
of Durham, against the appropriation clause to be inserted in
the Irish Tithe Bill. The petitioners were very respectable,
and lie quite agreed with them in opinion. It had been stated
that these petitions were got up by the Clergy—he had made
some inquiries into the matter, and he was perfectly convinced
that these petitions were the spontaneous acts of the people
who signed them.
Mr. LAMBTON was sorry that the Hon. Gentleman had
not read those petitions to the House, that the sentiments they
contained might be fully known. On the part of him-
self and his Honourable Colleague, he would give a
most positive and distinct denial to their assertions,
and he would unhesitatingly say, on the part of the great
majority of the inhabitants of that county, as well as the majo-
rity of the electors, that such sentiments were not entertained
by them.—( Hear.) There were one or two points he wished
to remark upon, though he was aware that this was not the time
to enter at large into the subject.—( Hear, hear.) It did
appear strange to him, that because they sought this ap-
propriation clause to relieve millions of Catholics from paying
towards a Church Establishment, for which they derived no
advantage, and to alter that law which gave a large salary
to clergymen who had no congregation—it did appear
rather strange that such a clause should be considered
as endangering the safety of the Church of England : such
an assertion was an insult to the Protestant religion.--
( Hear, hear.) As to the other remark, about the viola-
tion of their oaths by Catholics, he must say that he did
not believe any of the Catholic Members in that House were
capable of violating the oath they had taken, nor was the sup-
port of that clause any violation of that oath.--( Hear.)
Mr. HARLAND (as was understood in the gallery) said
said he did not wish to call in question the respectability of the
petitioners, but he would say that their assertions were not in
accordance with the opinions of the majority of the people
of that county, and he was very happy to find that seven or
eight out of the ten Members for the county of Durham
had already sanctioned the appropriation clause.—( Hear.)
He would say nothing of the manner in which the petitions
were got up by raising a superstitious dread of popery being
about to pull down the Protestant Church, but he would
content himself by saying that if this question were put
fairly and honestly, and in a proper light before the country,
the great majority of the people would be in favor of it.
( Hear.) Indeed, it was his opinion that this clause would
have the effect of placing the Church itself in a much more se-
cure and permanent footing than it now stands.—( Hear. )
Mr. CUTHBERT RIPPON said that this petition was
carried about by a reverend gentleman, and the petition con-
tained the names of 78 electors, and other inhabitants of the
the parish of Gateshead, which contained 608 electors,
twenty of whose names were appended to the petition.—
( Hear, hear.) The parish contained 15,177 families,
59 of the heads of which had signed the petition.—( Hear,
hear.) But the Rev. Gentleman, not content with hawk-
ing the petition about this parish, took it into adjacent
parishes. He believed that this was not the petition of
the people, but that that pious and political brotherhood
the Dean and Chapter of Durham and the Conservative Asso-
ciation, who were unionists for a bad purpose, had selected the
Hon. Gentleman as their parliamentary conduit-pipe, through
which to pour the overflowings of their bigotry and malevo-
lence.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. A. TREVOR most unhesitatingly admitted that he
was extremely proud of being chosen as the conduit-pipe
to convey the sentiments either of the Dean and Chapter
of Durham, or of the Conservative Association.—( A
laugh.) It was not unnatural that those who entertained simi-
lar opinions to his own should confide a petition containing
their sentiments to him.

Mr. PEASE, as the petition came from a portion of his
constituents, and as allusion had been made to what he
had said on a former occasion respecting the manner
in which these petitions were signed, would take the
liberty. if the House would grant him the indulgence, to
read a few lines from a letter which he had received
upon this subject from one of his constituents.—( Hear.) It
would be recollected that when he, ( Mr. P.) stated on a former
occasion that those who signed these petitions were ignorant
of the purport of them, be was contradicted by the Hon.
Member (Mr. A. Trevor) who presented the petition. The
letter, after referring to this, proceeded to state that the writer
had signed this petition, and he was quite sure that he was not
only ignorant of the nature of the petition, but be was most
grossly deceived by the person who obtained the sig-
natures.—( Hear.) As the sheet which he had signed
was a blank one, he had asked if the petition :was intended
to contain any tiring contrary to, or disapproving of, the mo-
tion of Lord John Russell for appropriating the surplus
revenues of the Irish Church to the purposes of general
education, he was told, " No, not in any shape."—( Hear,
hear.) There were many others who had made the same
complaint. The petition was carried about by the clergy-
man—at least the sheets containing the signatures
were hawked about, and were afterwards attached to the peti-
tion. He would ask whether this was not a gross perversion
of the sentiments of the petitioners? The writer further stated
that if public notice had been given of this petition, a petition
containing contrary sentiments would be signed by nineteen
out of twenty of the inhabitants. He knew that many who had
signed this petition were highly respectable, and conveyed what
were really their sentiments, but they were not the sentiments
of the great majority of the people of Durham—that county,
out of the the ten representatives which it sends to Parliament,
sent seven or eight who supported the motion of Lord J. Russell,
and he did not believe that they were displeased with the con-
duct of their Representatives, or regretted their choice.
The petition was then laid on the table.
TIMBER DUTIES.

Mr. A. TREVOR then presented a petition from the
Chamber of Commerce at Gateshead, against any alteration
in the Timber Duties.

POOR LAWS.

The same HoN. MEMBER gave notice that on Friday night,
in going into a Committee of Supply, he would call the at-
tention of the House to the state of the poor is the parish of
Grantley (as we understood).