The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-18 00:00:00

MAYNOOTH.

Lord KINNAIRD presented two petitions from the
working men of Leeds against the Maynooth grant.
Several other Noble Lords presented similar petitions.
Lord MONTEAGLE presented a petition from the
inhabitants of Coventry, complaining of the Bill passed
last session for abolishing imprisonment for debt, and
praying the House to pass a Bill establishing County
Courts.
The Bishop of St. DAVID'S presented a petition
against the grant to Maynooth, and nine petitions against
the union of the sees of Bangor and St. Asaph. The
Right Rev. Prelate also presented five petitions from cer-
tain parishes in Wales, and two from Monmouthshire,
praying the House to establish Local Courts.
The Earl of BREADALBANE presented upwards of
40 petitions from the Free Church of Scotland, against
the grant to Maynooth. The Noble Earl reminded their
Lordships that the Free Church of Scotland brought
up and maintained its own clergy. It had never re-
ceived any support from the State, but on the contrary,
it had been frowned upon and persecuted by those who
ought to have supported it.
SHERIFFS (WALES) BILL.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE moved the second reading of
the Bill for assigning Sheriffs to Wales, the object of
which was to place sheriffs of that principality on the
same footing as those of England.
Lord CAMPBELL regretted that the provisions of
the Bill did not extend to Scotland.
The Bill was then read a second time and ordered to
be committed.

THE MUTINY BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
THE MARINE MUTINY BILL.
This Bill was also read a third time and passed.
GLASS DUTIES BILL.
The Bill for repealing the duty on glass was read a
third time and passed.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said that on Tues-
day next be would present a petition from the Le-
gislative Council of New South Wales, complaining
of certain grievances, and especially of the Act passed
two years ago, in so far as it related to the disposal of
land in that country.
NEW CHURCHES.
The Earl of CADOGAN then brought forward his
motion, of which he had given notice, relating to certain
returns concerning the building of new churches. The
Noble Lord said it had been stated in another place that
the matter was of little or no importance, and affected the
interests only of private individuals. So far, however,
from this being the case, it involved the administration
of public funds by a public board, and the invasion of
the rights of one party by another. He would proceed
to give their Lordships an idea of what these acts were ;
he would quote the Act 58th Geo. 111., by which this
fund was created, which gave a complete power to apply
the surplus pew-rents to the rector of Upper Chelsea,
instead of appropriating them to the erection of rectory
houses, regard being had to the extent and popula-
tion of the parish. Under the Act of 3d and
4th Victoria had arisen powers of an unlimited
nature, and which enabled them to transfer for
ever the surplus pew-rents to the rector, instead
of applying them, as they ought to have been applied, to
the building of a rectory-house, The Right Rev. Pre-
late (the Bishop of London) bad stated that he bad
expressed displeasure, when in reality displeasure was
not the word at all which should have been applied to
his observations ; but it was true that he did object to
this proceeding, and he would show the grounds on
which he objected. By the surveyor's report, he found
that the new residence for the rector was to cost 1,500/.
or 1,600/. when a place which w as equally appropriate
as that which had been selected might have been chosen,
and on that a house might have been built for 1,1001. or
1,200/. ; and thus a house would have been obtained in
seven or eight years, as useful as that which would now
require fifteen or twenty years to erect it. With respect
to the parish of Paddington, the population had in-
creased, while in Upper Chelsea the population had
very greatly decreased, rendering an addition to the
income of the rector quite unnecessary. He would now
explain to their Lordships the peculiar nature of the
funds derived from the pew-rents. This was not a fixed
but a fluctuating suns ; and that made it a very different
matter, and he believed that the application of this sum
was not only unjust but perfectly illegal. With respect
to the assignment of this sum, he had no objection if it
were rightly applied; but the present rector was
in good circumstances ; and there was no
need whatever for increasing his income. He
wished to know if all the communications and papers
which had passed between the rector and the Board of.
Commissioners had been laid on the table of the House;
because, if they had not, he thought it was essential for
the interest of the public and the Church that they
should be. The Noble Earl concluded by moving for a
Select Committee to inquire whether the assignment of
the pew-rents of St. Luke's, Chelsea, to the rector and
his successors for ever, by,the Commissioners appointed
for regulating the building of new churches, was advis-

able or not ; or whether it would not have been more
advisable to invest the money in Government Securities,
and afterwards appropriated it to the building of a rec-
tory house ?
The Bishop of LONDON did not feel himself bound
to say whether any private communications had taken
place between the Commissioners and Mr. Burgess on
this subject ; but he could assure the Noble Earl that
every document which had been submitted to the Board
in its public capacity had been laid before the House.
The question more concerned the private interests of the
Noble Earl than the welfare of the public or the Church,
and he could therefore see very little ground indeed
calling for a Parliamentary inquiry. The pew-rents had
been considerably increased by the talents and popula-
rity of the rector, Mr. Burgess, and in his opinion it
would be extremely bard to take away that emolument
which had accrued to the rector from his own zeal and
exertions, merely to provide for the convenience and
comfort of some future incumbent, or to swell the value
of a particular advowson of which the Noble Farl was
himself the patron.—(Hear, hear.) He did therefore
trust that their Lordships would not for one moment en-
tertain the motion which had been proposed by the
Noble Earl, because he did think he had given sufficient
reasons for the rejection of the motion.
The Earl of CADOGAN complained that the Right
Rev. Prelate had thrown out as unjust an aspersion
upon his character, as it was possible for one man to
throw out against another. He said that he (the Earl
of Cadogan) made this motion through interested mo•
tives ; such motives he despised, and considered that
they could be entertained by no one sooner than the
person who imputed them,—(Laughter.)
The motion was negatived without a_4ilivision._