The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-10 00:00:00

(LEFT SPEAEING.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Lords' amendments to the following Bills were
considered and agreed to:—

Architects, Civil Engineers, Builders, and General
Fire and Life Insurance, Annuity, and Reversionary In-
terest Company (incorporation of the company under a
different name).

Clerical, Medical, and General Life Assurance Society.
Wakefield Borough Market.
The following Bill was read a third time and passed—
Great Northern Railway Deviations. Amendment of
Acts, Alteration of Tolls, and of East Lincolnshire
Railway Tolls.
The following Bills as amended were considered and
agreed to—

Liverpool Corporation Waterworks (Extension of Time
fur Purchase of Land, kc.)
Waterford and Kilkenny Railway.
MANCHESTER RECTORY DIVISION BILL.

Mr. GOULBURN proposed an amendment to this
Bill to the effect, that the salary of the canons of Man-
chester should be 7501. instead of 6001. a year.
Mr. M. GIBSON opposed the amendment on the
ground that after a full consideration of the Bill by the
Committee they had come to the conclusion that 6001.
was an ample remuneration for the canons. The object of
the Bill was to apply the parochial revenues to the pa-
rochial purposes generally of Manchester, and if the
amendment of tte Hight Hon. Gentleman were agreed to
the result would be to trench further upon the surplus
fund, out of which the poorer clergy were paid. The
amendment was inconsistent with the whole principle of
the Bill, and he was therefore decidedly opposed to its
introduction.

Lord JOHN MANNERS supported the amendment.
Mr. PLUMPTRE thought the Bill would be far
better without the amendment.

Sir BENJAMIN HALL thought the salaries of the
canons should be decreased to 5001. a year instead of
augmented, because they did not properly discharge the
duties of their office, and most of them left those duties
to he performed by deputies. There were as many as
fifty or sixty churches in Manchester, and the average
endowment did not exceed 801. a year, and he thought
it would not be just or fair to deprive the poorer clergy-
men, who really did their duty, of a portion of their re-
muneration for the purpose of increasing the salary of
the canons.

Sir GEORGE GREY considered the Bill was a most
valuable one, and should be sorry if it did not receive
the sanction of Parliament. The Bill as it originally
stood proposed to give the Canons 5001. each, but the Com-
mittee, after due deliberation. raised it to 6001., and he,
therefore, thought some strong grounds ought to be
stated before they consented to depart from the decision
of the Committee.

Mr. DEEDES, having had the honour of sitting as
Chairman of the Select Cornmitte, was anxious to say u
few words upon ' this subject.—(dear, hear.) The
Committee were not unanimous in fixing the income
at 600 L. but three years ago Parliament passed a public
Act, fixing the future income of the Dean at 2,000/.,
and that of the canons at half that sum, and the Com-
mittee did not feel altogether justified in changing that
law.—(Hear, hear.) It was therefore proposed that a 3
the income of the Dean was 1,5004 that of the canons
'ought to be 7504 but eventually the income was fixed
by the Committee at 600/. He was sorry that his
Honourable Friend the Member for Marylebone
had thought proper to introduce personalities into
this debate, because he knew that when the evi-
dence takes before the Committe was printed, it
would turn out that it did not justify the strictures which
his Right Hon. Friend had passed upon same of the Gen-
tlemen interested in the Bill.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. CEIILDERS assured the House that the reason
the sum was not fixed at 7501. was, the desire of the
Committee to be as unanimous as possible upon the de-
cision they came to.—(Hear, hear.) They ought to
look to where that additional sum, amounting to 6001.
a year, would go. It would go into the parish of Man-
chester, consisting of 400,000 inhabitants.—(Hear, hear.)
Under these circumstances be could not help thinking
the House would do better to adhere to the opinion of
the Committee.
Mr. HORSMAN thought the House had every reason
to be satisfied with the proceedings of the Committee on
this Bill. This was not a question of payment, but it
was one of apportionment and distribution; and he called
on the House to remember that in every 1201. they gave
to one of those canons they took a living from a clergy-
man, and a pastor from his congregation.
Mr. WADDINGTON bore his testimony to the effi-
cient manner in which the Dean and Canons of Man-
chester discharged their duties, and he did not think it
fair under these circumstances 1,0 come forward and at-
tempt to throw opprotsium upon these gentlemen.
Mr. HUME wished to know what the parochial duties
were which these gentlemen had to perform. On their
own admission they never considered they had any
duties to perform, and they never had any to perform.
Sir R. H. INGLIS supported the amendment.
Mr. H. DRUMMOND said that the question of
pluralities was not an ecclesiastical question, but a
question of common sense. It was an abuse which
would not be suffered in any other service but the service
of God. If these gentlemen were forced to do all their
sivethoef origm
duty they woinuldoehadvae tofrohmoldsisxertvniceeizin._th(eLcaantghbetedrra.)l
every hour ,
yenwtaat
Mr. BRIGHT wished, as a
eGfeenattlheemdernalms.ight laugh, but that
erperae:
the matter.
say a few words
Man-
chester, to
r
It might be considered presumptuousfoonarna Dopiisnsiennatewr,itans
every one knew him to be, to express
regard to the .unds of the Church; but, looking at the
decision of the Committee as a Member of Parliament,
and as a citizen of a community, he, thong htthought thesensible
men
ner wouldth,
e havetheir
consideration.—(Loud
e n
edoneider
awtiietnh.—regcLaredudto
cthrieesfunodfs befHouegahrt,
hear.") The Bill as it came from the Coin-
mittee, would give great satisfaction to all persons who
where in the habit of attending the services of the
Church in Manchester. The way in which the funds of
tbheeen yCheuinrctehd
at as an rg
had beeauanpmprz and appropriated
a very there had always
argu-
ment, against the management of Church satffritoinrgs gene-
rally. What the Committee proposed was simply that
td2lseleft. c,eadnboennsi
d:hsthoeucledrtt
ari
Bill
c ivf
eee 6,oowl.haichyeacro,
uladnd
nro;ctubres
; and if they raised those
sums, the result would be to defer the accumulation of
the fund which it was expected would be derived frem a
better management of the collegiate establishment. The
Bill would give satisfaction not only to Churchmen but
to Dissenters in Manchester, and he therefore trusted
the House would pass the Bill in its present shape.
The House then divided, when there appea ed-
- For the amendment ...., .... ............. 60
Against it ................................. 193
Majority against ............... ---.133
The amendment was accordingly rejected. The other
amendments were then considered and agreed to, and
the Bill ordered to be engrossed.