The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-11 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING. JUNE. 11. 1844.

• whether a Bill having the objects stated in the.preamble
did not come within the purview of the resolution of the
House, which stated that all Acts relating to religion br
in matters cnneerning religion; should be first preceded
by a resolution of the. House? •

"The SPEAKER said, he had no hesitation in saying
that this Bill, comparing it with other Bills of this de-
scription, was not a Bill so far relating to religiOn as to
make it necessary to move a resolution in a Committee
of the whole House.—(Cheers.)
Mr. R. YORKE begged to submit to the Right Hon.
Gentleman whether this course was not adopted with
regard to the Bill for • the. reduction of Bishops and the
Church Leasing Bill ? - . -
After a few words from the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER, Which did not reach us,
Mr. WARBURTON said it appeared to him, that on
the surface many objections might be raised to this Bill.
The parties were not to meet to discuss the question of
Church-ratei and other matters 'in, the parish church,
but instead of this they were to meet in a room. Now,
he thought that vestries ought not to meet in 'public-
houses. It had been often remarked, indeed, that pa-
rishioners were more liberal in voting money after din-
.ner than before it; besides, there was not an absolute
prohibition of meetings in churches, for the Bishops were
empowered by the 3d clause to give a license for the
holding, of a meeting. He thought it would be better to
prohibit such meetings, altogether than to provide for
_their being held under the direction of a Bishop. There
were 11,000 persons interested in this Bill, and as he did
not suppose the Hon. Member would inform them that
he had held correspondence with each of these parishes,
he thought it would be better that the Chairman should
report progress, in order that due notice might be given
of its effect to all parties concerned.
Mr.ESCOTT concurred in the view which had just been
expressed. The second reading of the Bill was carried
whilst he sat in that House paying every attention to its
proceedings, but he declared that he had not the most
distinct idea of the nature of its provisions.—(Hear,
hear.) , Tho3lll-110 been originally applied to Ireland,
as well as to England, but the clause relating to Ireland
had since been struck out.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. JERVIS would like to know what the Right
Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home De-
partment had to say in reference to this BilL—(Hear,
hear.) The' first section took away from the church-
wardens all control over the freehold of . the church and
gave it to the Bishop. This was in direct opposition to
the Act with respect to - the select ves-
tries. This clause _opened all select vestries
and by declaring that the inhabitant& were at liberty to
be present, declared that they had a right to vote. That
clause rendered the people at the " Red Lion," next door
to the church, liable to ecclesiastical censure. Lastly,
the gentleman who drew up the Bill, as if not aware
that Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, and Sark, were subject
to the jurisdiction of England, had, introduced a clause,
deelaring that such was the case.—(Laughter.)
Mr. HUME thought that, under the circumstances, the
Chairman had better report progress.
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN expressed his regret that
no member of the Government had spoken in referende
to the Bill. It was impossible for him to answer the
many objections which had been made to it. Some of
the provisions appeared to be stringent. The Hon. and
Learned Member, for Bath had asserted that the Bill
had originated in some squeamish scruples and exagge-
rated views of the party calling itself " Young England."
Whether he numbered him (Mr. Stafford O'Brien)'
amongst that party he could not say ; but he was not so
bigoted to old usages and ancient institutions as to
fuse to concur in changes which were necessary in the
altered • condition of the country. The Hon. and
Learned Member said the principle of the Bill was new.
Now if be might take what he read in the statute-book,
instead of what he heard from an authority so far higher
in his own estimation thau the statute-book—(Hear,
hear)—he should say that the principle was at least
thirteen years old. He would not give up the Bill until
Ise had heard stronger reasons against it than had been
advanced that night. He did not anticipate the support
of her Majesty's Government. He had not had an op-
portunity of consulting them in private, and to do so in
public was perfectly hopeless.
Sir R. PEEL said he had not had an opportunity of
considering this Bill, but he thought there were objec-
tions to it which were worthy of consideration. He
would not, however, support any proposition which
would have the effect of crushing the Bill, but he
would recommend his Hon. Friend to agree to any mo-
tion by which the Bill could come on for consideration
on a future day.
Mr. HUME moved that the Chairman report progress.
Mr. ROEBUCK thought such a Bill as this ought not
to be introduced, except with the authority of the Go-
' vernment.

Sir R. PEEL said it was too much to ask that no
Member should be allowed to bring in a Bill if he
thought proper.
Mr. ACLAND said he could not allow the discus-
sion to terminate without expressing his thanks to his
Hon. Friend the Member for Northamptonshire, for haV-
ing introduced this Bill.
Mr. HAWES had mentioned as an inconvenience the
fact, that sufficient publicity was not now given to the
notices relating to the holding of vestries, and had pro-
posed that those notices should be affixed to the doors of
the Dissenting places of worship in the parishes as well
as to the churches. He had mentioned this to the Hon.
Member for Northamptonshire, who had stated that he
had no objection to the introduction of a clause to re-
medy that evil, There was, however, one objection to
the Bill, which he feared would be insuperable.—(Heir,
hear.) This measure would affect all the parishes
in England. The Hon. Gentleman wali, therefore,
bound to make out a case of general abuse in order' to
justify a general measure. Now, although some few
instances might have occurred, which they must all
regret, yet he doubted whether the Hon. Gentleman
could prove anything like such a case of abuse as would
justify a general measure.
Mr. WAWN thought that they ought rather to en-
deavour to relieve those who were not members of the
Church from church-rates, than to add to this tax.
The House then resumed, the Chairman reported pro-
gress, and asked leave to sit again on Wednesday week.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
In answer to a question from Mr. HUTT,
Sir R. PEEL stated that he had every disposition to
give private Members precedence on Wednesdays. The
Hon. Member himself had a Bill on the paper for Wed-
nesday, that stood for the second reading. Ho would not
object to the Hon. Gentleman taking the second reading
of that Bill on Wednesday.
Mr. TUFNELL wished to know when the Ecelle-
siastical Courts Bill would be proceeded with ? He Ob-
jected to the postponement of it to a late period of 'the
session ; if so, he would certainly speak upon every
clause, upon every phrase of it.
Sir B. PEEL said, however great the temptation
which the Hon. Gentleman had held out to him,l he
would not yet abandon the Bill. It would be considered
at as early a period as was consistent with the due dis-
charge of public business.
The House then went into Committee on the Bill.
DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL brought forward cer-
tain verbal amendments on the second and third clausei,
which were agreed to.

The Bill th-en 'passed through. Committee pro forma,
and the House 'resumed.
SAVINGS' BANKS BILL.
The House then went into Committee on the Savings'
Bank Bill. ,

--The Bill passed through Committee, and the House
resumed.

--Mr. GROGAN brought forward a Bill to regulate the
election and payment of coroners, and payment of wit-
nesses at coroners'' inquests in Ireland.
Several orders of the day were then disposed of.
JOINT . STOCK COMPANIES REGULATICINS

BILL.
Mr, GLADSTONE, in moving the order of the fday
for the second reading of this Bill, said that it contaihaed
several provisions which would require consideration;
and he would only ask the House to agree to the second
reading, with the understanding that the Bill should be
fully discussed in Committee.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordere d to
be committed on Monday next.
, THE GILBERT UNIONS.
Captain PECHELL moved that the name of Col onel
Rolleston should be added to the Committee on the
Gilbert Unions.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said he would not op pose
the nominatiom of the Hon. and Learned Gentle man
upon the Committee, although he was convinced That
the services of his Hon. and Gallant Friend could not
be better bestowed than in his attentions to the Com-
mittee of which he was a Member.

Mr. R. YORKE protested against this species of
patchwork legislation.
Mr. FERRAND said that there was a rumour abroad
that the. Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Hom e
Department, knew that the Hon. Member for Yorkshire%
eould not act on the Committee when he was nominated.
He put it, therefore, to the Hon. and Gallant Member
for Brighton whether he would withdraw his motion.
without taking the sense of the House ?
Mr. COLVILE considered that the Committee was
most unfairly composed, and that it was one which was
not at all calculated to do justice.
Mr. WAKLEY said, that the fairest course had
been adopted by the Committee, in fact the minority had.
it all their own way.
After some short discussion, strangers were ordered.
to withdraw ; and the House divided, when there ap-
peared
For the motion
Against it
Majority -8
- - _

There not being forty Members present, the Souse
adjourned at one o'clock.

CAUTION TO CLERGYMEN.—On Tuesday last, the
Rev. M. Trappes, priest of the Catholic Church, Bud-
dersfield, was convicted in the mitigated penalty of is.
and 9s. 6d. costs, by the sitting magistrates, for inteTripg
a private soldier, of the 70th Regiment' of Foot, Pow
stationed in Huddersfield, on the 22d ult., without a.• re-
gistrar's certificate, and neglecting to give notice thereof
within seven days. The charge was brought by ;
Brook, the registrar of Huddersfield, and supported by
Mr. Floyd, clerk and superintendent registrar of t he
union, who said he was not actuated by any hostile fet 1-
ings towards the Rev. Gentleman, but he had a duty to
perform, and he would as soon have brought the Vic ar,
had he so offended. Mr. Trappes explained, that I kie
captain of the regiment told him that it would, not be
necessary to register a soldier ; he however had no 4:Te-
ske to evade the law, and would not offend in futtr re.
'The captain, who accompanied the Rev. Gentleman,
said he had always understood it was not necessary, a nd
the magistrates therefore mitigated the penalty tc'
mere nominal amount.—Leeds Times.

Lord Francis Egerton's eldest son, the Hon. G.
Granville Egerton, heir to the immense Bridgewater estates,
will come of age on the 16th inst., when the event w ill be,
celebrated by great rejoicings on the Noble Lord's esta ves iu
Lancashire.