The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-20 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,
"LOUSE OF COMMONS, June 19.
DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL.

Petitions against this Bill were presented by Sir J.
Y. BULLEI from Devonshire, and Mr. KEMBLE from
Camberwell.

Mr. WYSE presented a petition from Ireland in fa-
vour of art-unions.

VESTRIES IN CHURCHES BILL.

Sir R PEEL said, having been asked if it was his inten-
tion to hasten the Bill through the House, he begged to
say he had no such intention, and he had never
shown such. Should the Bill get into Committee there
were clauses in it which he thought ought to be omitted,
and others which ought to be modified.—(Hear.) His
Hon. Friend (Mr. O'Brien) was not responsible for the
origin of this Bill. In the year 1838 the principle of
the Bill had been affirmed by the House, and this
Bill was in perfect accordance with the views then
expressed. All his Hon. Friend sought now was,
to get into Committee, in order that certain
amendments might be introduced, when the Bill,
as altered, would be printed, and time would be
given to Hon. Members to consider the measure as it
would then stand. Surely there was nothing hasty or
very unreasonable in this.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. SHEIL wanted to know the reason why the Bill
was not to extend to Ireland. As to brawling and
tumult, the cause of these evils, where they did
exist, was to be found in the subject of discussion, and
till they put church-rates, and all other matters con-
nected with the Church, upon a proper footing, they
were only changing the field of battle from the Church
to the Mitre and Crown ; and how far better would it
be to get rid of the war itself.—(Hear, hear.) -
Mr. WATSON called upon the Hon. Member for.
Montrose (Mr. Hume) to persevere in his amendment.
Such a Bill as the present ought to have been brought
in by the Government, or ought never to have
been brought in at all.—(Hear.) As to the violent pro-
ceedings which had been stated to have taken place
in Shoreditch and other churches, he begged to
say that the law had provided a remedy, and they
would soon probably have a further remedy in the
Ecclesiastical Courts Bill—(Hear, hear)—which pro-
mised to take especial care both of soul and body.—
(Laughter.) It was said the Bill was to prevent the
desecration of 'the church. What cant ! What hypo-
crisy ! Why, was not the noblest church of the land
desecrated every hour of every day by the payment of a
paltry twopence by every Christian who wished to see
its glories and its wonders ?—(Loud cheers.) He had
as much awe as any man for the edifices of the Church,
but he had as much awe for the law. Talk of brawling,
this measure was calculated to increase it. At present
discussions at vestries was carried on properly, but would
it be so in the Crown and Sceptre ?—(Cheers.) But
then it was said' it was a scandal on the Church. Was
it not a scandal to call upon a clergymen to preside
over a drunken meeting at a public-house ?—(Cheers.)
There was not one single petition in favour of the Bill,
and he trusted, considering its provisions, the House
would throw it out altogether. _ _

Mr. B. ESCOTT said that it had been asked why
Ireland hod been excluded from the Bill. Why, the fact
was that the Right Hon. Gentleman the Recorder for
Dublin had asked the Hon. Member not to include that
country, as it would create too great a ferment there.
He hoped the Hon. Gentleman would withdraw. the Bill
at once.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. SHAW said he had requested that Ireland should
be excluded from the Bill, because he thought it inap-
plicable to that country.
Mr. WAKLEY said that the people of this country
thought the Bill as obnoxious to this country as the
Right .Hon. Gentleman thought it for Ireland. The
Right Hon. Baronet, by his speech and actions, showed
he did,not approve of the Bill, and surely .he was strong
enough in his position to say so manfully at once.—
(Roars of laughter.) Among the supporters of the Hon.
Baronet the other night, was the Hon. Member for
Northamptonshire and now, no doubt, he felt the effect
of gratitude.—(Loud: cheers.) He had always sup-
ported the Church, because he thought if it was dis-
placed they would have a greater evil.—(Much laughter.)
It was the bounden duty of Government to speak out
manfully on this question. The proposal now was to go
into Committee on the Bill—that was absurd. He
thought that it was much better to withdraw this mule,
this half horse'and half ass Bill.—(Great laughter.) He
thought the Government ought to take the responsi-
bility of such a measure, if there was any necessity for
legislating, which he did not think there was.—(Hear.)
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN replied. The mannerin
which the Government had acted towards him with re-
spect to this Bill deserved his gratitude, and he now
tendered it to them. He also thought the country was
equally indebted to the Government for the course they
had pursued.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion

Against it
Majority for going into Committee —8
On our return to the gallery, we found
Mr. HUME stating that, after two divisions, with all
the influence of the Right Hon. Baronet, only a majority
of eight could be found to support this obnoxious Bill.
He would move adjournment on adjournment but the
Bill should be defeated. He moved that the debate be
adjourned.
Mr. WAKLEY said as this was a subject of slight im-
portance, he should suggest to the Right Hon. Baronet
(Sir R. Peel) the propriety of asking the House to re-
scind the vote it had just come to.—(Great laughter.)
Mr. MAGEACHY said the people of England had
been greatly libelled by many of the remarks that had
been made respecting their behaviour. If they really
wanted correction, it could not be obtained by such libels
as those he alluded to, or by such a Bill as that before
the House.

Lord PALMERSTON suggested that the Bill should
be withdrawn, and that if the Government really thought
that legislation upon the subject was necessary, they
should bring in a Bill in a manly way, upon their om n
responsibility.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN said it was evident the
Bill was not to be allowed to proceed. He should, there-
fore, move as an amendment on the Hon. Member for
Montrose's motion (Mr. Hume) "That the debate be ad-
journed"—" That this House do now adjourn."

The SPEAKER having put the amendment first—
" That the House do now adjourn," there was a roar of
"Ayes," and one solitary but loud " No." The Speaker
said the "Ayes" have it, and, amidst shouts of laughter,
the House adjourned at a few minutes after Seven o'clock.

THE NEW POOR-LAW.

TREATMENT OF PARISH APPRENTICES.

A good deal of interest has been created among the
authorities of the Croydon Union on account of a reso-
lution recently come to by the magistrates of that divi-
vision, restricting the hours of labour of the poor boys
apprenticed by the uniOti. The circumstances out of
which the resolution in question arose. were these :—An
orphan boy had been sent out from the union on liking
to a master shoemaker in London, and, at the expiration
of a certain period, the parties came before the bench for
the purpose of having the boy regularly boung The
magistrates, not having any information afforded them
by the. overseers, questioned the boy and his master,
when it appeared that on several occasions the lad had
been worked from seven o'clock in the morning until
eleven or twelve at night, and that no regular period was
allowed. for his meals or recreation, and the bench de-
clined to bind the boy until some further information
was afforded, and Mr. Garraway, the acting overseer of
Mitcham, was appointed to make the necessary inqui-
ries, and, at the next meeting of the bench, he
reported that the master bore a very good character,
and that, although it was true that the boy had on
some occasions been kept at work till eleven or twelve
at night, it was only on Saturdays, or when they were
very much pressed with work. The magistrates, Messrs.
Adams, Lucas, and Sutherland, on this occasion ex-
pressed their opinion, that from whatever cause it arose,
they were too many hours for a boy to work, and they
remarked that it would be like binding a boy to a state
of complete slavery ; and as they considered themselves
to be placed in the position of the guardians of poor per-
sons, and that it was their duty to protect them, they
would not consent to bind any poor boy as an apprentice,
unless under certain restrictions, and they eventually
came to a resolution that the hours of labour should be
from seven till seven in the summer, and eight till eight
in the winter, and that two hours of that period should
be allowed for meals ; and they directed that a covenant
to that effect should be inserted in the indenture before
they would sign it.
It appears that the person to whom the boy was
to be apprenticed refused to take the boy with
these conditions, and at a subsequent meeting of the
bench, Mr. John Blake and several other gentlemen,
who are guardians of the union, waited upon the magis-
trates, and urged them to rescind their resolution, on
the ground, that if they did not the union would not be
able to get rid of its poor boys, as no master could be
found who would take them upon such terms, and they
also said, that if the bench persisted in carrying out
their resolution, they considered the question of so much
importance that they should feel called upon to make a
special application to the Poor-law Commissioners upon
the subject. The magistrates upon this occasion de-
clined to make any alteration in their resolution, and the
matter stood over.

At the last meeting of the bench, Mr. John Drum-
mond attended professionally, on behalf of the parish
authorities of Mitcham, and went at great length into
the whole subject, contending that the magistrates, by
law, had no power to come to any such resolution as the
one above alluded to. He then cited the Act of Parlia-
ment under which the parish had the power of binding
boys apprentices, and read the preamble of it, which
commenced as follows :—" Whereas many grievances
have arisen by the binding of poor boys to improper
persons, and at a great distance from their homes and
their parents," &c., and he argued that, when the
magistrates were informed that proper inquiries had
been made by the overseers, the signing of the inden-
ture was merely a magisterial act, and that they had no
power to go into any of the details of the apprentice-
ship. lie admitted that the magistrates had a discre-
tionary power to inquire into the fitness of the party to
whom the apprentice was to be bound, but that it, was
quite beyond their province to restrict the hours of his
labour.

Mr. ADAMS intimated it to be his opinion that the
Legislature had made the magistrates parties to the binding
of parish apprentices, for the very purpose of protecting.
those who probably had no relations or friends to pro-
tect them, and who were therefore likely to become vic-
tims to the cupidity of parish officers. The preamble of
the Act which referred to many grievanceses having
arisen by the binding of poor boys to improper persons,
confirmed this impression, and showed that the magis-
trates were empowered to inquire into all the circum-
stances of the party, and to take care that the
apprentice was not in any manner ill-treated. In this
case not the least pains were taken by the overseers in
the first instance to ascertain how the boy had been
treated ; but he was brought there to be bound, as a