The Sun.
London, England, 1835-05-26 00:00:00

c-een postponed—but, deeply impressed with the importance
of the other questions, he was content to give them his most
ordial sunrort;
Mr. Tft EVOR was of opinion that the DisSenters of Eng-
land would not be satisfied with the announcement made by
Majesty's Ministers.

Dr. BOWRING said that the Dissenters knew who were
their real friends—and expressed his conviction, that they
would not press their clainis, when their so doing might re-
tard the progress of the important measures that had been ad-
verted to.

Mr. POTTER also bore testimony to the willingness of
the Dissenters to postpone urging their claims until they could
be more advantageously conceded,
Mr. EWA RT strongly urged the necessity of Municipal
Reform. Since the passing of the Test and Corporation Acts
not one Dissenter had been admitted into the Corporation of
Liverpool.
Mr. M. PHILIPS was desirous to see the Church of Eng-
land and the Dissenters, united in the bond of peace and
concord.---( Hear.) He feared, however, that the adoption
of such proceedings as had given rise to the present discussion
would only foment and perpetuate differences which they all
deplored.
Mr. PEA SE said that the Dissenters of the county of
Durham, and he believed he might add of England generally,
were willing to wait for some well-digested measure from those
whom they considered their firm friends.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL contended that the con-
duct of the churchwardens was. aecording to the present state
of the law, illegal as well as oppressive. Before the passing
of the Act 53 Geo. 111., the remedy allowed by law in cases
of refusal to pay Church-rates, was only to be obtained by pro-
ceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts, and the penalty of re-
fusal was excommunication. nut Lord Stowell brought in the
Bill in question, by which it was required that all cases for
arrears of Church-rate under 101. should be brought before
the Justices, so that to that extent the jurisdiction of the Ec-
clesiastical Courts in the matter of Church-rates was for ever
taken away. But what was the conduct of the Churchwardens
in this case ? Instead of bringing the ease before the Jus-
tices, they took out a writ de contuniace capiendo in the Ec-
clesiastical Court, thereby acting illegally as well as op-
pressive.
Mr. LAW said the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had al-
leged that the conduct of the Churchwardens had been not
only illegal but wilfully oppressive. Now he (Mr. Law) en-
tirely denied the correctness of that statement. He was in-
formed that the Churchwardens, before sending Childs to pri-
son, had offered, rather than proceed against him, to take the
seventeen shillings and six-pence simply, and that they would
pay the costs out of their own pockets. Now this showed that
in what they did the Churchwardens were moved by no other
than the most proper motives, namely, the faithful discharge of
their duties.—( Hear.) He was disposed to concur with the
Hon, and Learned Attorney-General as to the vie* Which he
took of the state of the law. -- hear.) He was free to
admit that the course which ought to have been pursued was
to have summoned the defendant before two magistrates.
After a few words from Mr. COBBETT, which were
inaudible,
Dr. LUSHINGTON would tell the House who was to
blame in this case. The Churchwardens in the first place ;
and the judge of the Ecclesiastical Court in the second place.
—( Hear.) It was the duty of the judge of the Ecclesiastical
Court to have read the statute; and it ought to be known,
that the judge had sent a man tolljail because he Was ignorant
of the statute-law.---( hear.) e ttusled that the time would
soon arrive when the Dissenters would be relieved of these
grievances ; but he would be no party to holding out false
hopes that the relief could at once be effected, In the large
constituency of which he (Dr Lushington) represented, there
was perhaps the greatest body, of Dissenters that was to be
found among any constituency in the kingdom; and he be-
lieved that, with scarcely a single exception, they were all his
friends and supporters. To those Dissenters he would say,
that if he thought the Government was not inclined to do them
justice—if he found the Government remiss, and without the
desire of consulting the interests and wishes of the dissent-
ing body—if he observed any symptoms of their falling back
in their opinions—if they said now that there were reasons
why they should resist the claims of the Dissenters—if he
found that they were toying with their former political
sentiments—he would state what course he should fctliow
in such a case, and he had no doubt but his constituents
would believe him when he said so—he would be the first to
expose those men to disgrace and reprehension, who had first
availed themselves of the assistance of the Dissenters to get
into office, and then deserted them.—(Hear, hear.) But if
this was his opinion of the feelings and intentions of the pre-
sent Government, his place would be, not where he then was,
but upon the other (the Opposition) side of the House—
( Hear, hear); and nothing that his lungs could utter should
be considered too strong in upbraiding them for their decep-
tion. He was convinced, however, that the Government were
sincere in their intentions to give effective relief, and that
could not be done by hasty or ill-digested measures.--( Hear,
hear.) He had on a former night declared the absolute ne-
cessity of delay, and he now repeated, that if they wished to
grapple with this subject like senators and men of wisdom,
they must view it in all its bearings, and consider all the sub-
jects connected with it, before they effected a reform which
was likely to be satisfactory. He would say, that this could
not be done this session : but although it could not be done,
they could pass a resolution pledging the House at the earliest
possible period next session to take the grievances of the Dis-
senters into consideration, with a view of giving them complete
and effectual redress.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. C. PELHAM deprecated discussion upon a subject
which might be brought before another tribunal.
Mr. PRAED defended the Churchwardens from the charge
of having been wilfully oppressive.
Mr. PR YME ridiculed the idea of the Churchwardens
having, on the plea of fairness and humanity, clapt the un-
fortunate man into prison rather than bring him before a
magistrate, who happened to be a clergyman. By such an
excuse they added hypocrisy to the cruelty.
Mr. BAINES thought the country was much indebted to
Mr. Childs, the petitioner, for the firmness and decision that
he had displayed in support of his principles at a critical
juncture, and for the petition before the House, which had eli-
cited the information which had been given, as to the inten-
tions of the Government, by the Noble Lord the Secretary of
State for the Home Department.
Mr. HARDY was not acquainted with either of the two
gentlemen who had adopted the proceedings against Mr.
Childs, but he thought that a most unfair attack had been
made on them. _ _

Mr. C. BULLER never recollected any case of in-
justice or oppression brought before the House, in which some
gentleman did not come forward and assert that the persons
against whom that complaint was brought were most humane
characters, and were actuated by the purest motives. These
persons had adopted a most extraordinary mode of showing
their humanity towards Mr. Childs. From the individual
question respecting Mr. Childs, the attention of the House had
been called to the general question of the injustice of conti-
nuing the present law respecting Church-rates. His attention,
however, had also been directed to another great question,
namely—the constitution of the tribunal by which Mr. Childs
was subjected to these iniquitous proceedings.—(Hear.) It
appeared that Mr. Childs had been illegally brought before
this Ecclesiastical Court, for the paltry sum of 17s. 6d. ;
and according to the Learned Civilian (Dr. Lushington)
than whom there could not be a better authority on the
subject, the expenses would amount to at least 161. He
asked how long his Majesty's Ministers intended to allow
the present system in the Ecclesiastical Courts to be con-
tinued ? The Government he trusted would at once give
some information on this point. He was satisfied that if they
did not bring forward some effectual measure of Reform with
respect to these Courts, they would lose the confidence of the
country. He was the more anxious upon the point, as some of
his constituents had been injured by the oppressive conduct of
the Ecclesiastical Court—indeed the oppression on this point
was very great in the West of England.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL answered the question, but, in
consequence of the low tone of voice in which he spoke—as
well as from the noise made in the side-gallery, by three or
four Members—not a word that he said was audible in the
gallery.
The petition► was then laid on the table.
BOROUGH OF TIVERTON—NEW WRIT.

Mr. HE ATH COTE moved that a new writ be issued for a
Member to serve in the present Parliament for the borough o
Tiverton, in the room of J. Kennedy, Esq., who had accepted
the Chiltern Hundreds.