The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-21 00:00:00

MAYNOOTII.

Lord KENYON presented 28 petitions from places its
Cheshire arid Somersetshire, and 5 from places in Alunster,
against the grant to Mayuooth.
Lord HATHERTON presented a petition from the Dis-
benters in Stafford aeainst the grant to Maynooth—but stating
that they thought that all property which had been taken
from their Roinan Catholic fellow-subjects should be restored
to them.

OAKINGHAM CHURCH.
The Martinis of NOII3IANBY rose to present the
' petition of which he gave notice yesterday. It was
exceedingly lengthy, but as he was fully in pos-
ses-ion of the facts of the case, lie would take the
liberty of stating them to the House. The petition
was from the parishioners of Oakinglam, in Berkshire. It
appeared from the petition that the population of the parish
was upwards of 4;000, and the extent of the parish 8,000
acres. '1 he Dean of Salisbury was rector, patron, and ordi-
nary of the church. The tithes had been commuted for 1,6001.
a year, and on the last renewal of the lease, the dean
had received the sum of 2,000/. as the fine, although the an-
nual rental was only made to appear as 261. The curate's
stipend was 1501. a year, of which 40/. came out of the tithes,
and 26/. from Queen Anne's 13ounty. Owing to the dean
being ordinary, there had been no visitation for several
years, and the church had got so much out of repair,
that the parishioners were afraid to attend it. An architect
had been employed to survey the building, who reported
it to be in a state of great dilapidation. A vestry
had been summoned, who were unanimous in address-
ing the ordinary with a request that the repairs
might be effected. The ordinary referred them to the lessee,
Mr. Jacob—that gentleman employed his own surveyor to go
over the building, and he reported that the building was not in
that dangerous position which it was stated to be, and he ac-
cordingly refused to make the repairs. The parishioners upon
this applied to a learned civilian for his opinion upon the case.
His advice was that the parishioners might repair the nave, and
the rector the chancel ; that they might levy a rate, with the
con ent of the parishioners, but not without it. They again made
a representation to the dean, and on further inquiry, it turned
out that the lessee was bound not to restore the chancel, but to
keep it in its present state. The worst part of the business
was, that a letter lately appeared from the Dean in the pub-
lic papers, from which any one would suppose that only a partial
statement of the case had been laid before him, while he
was in possession of the whole of the facts. The parishioners
were prevented from repairng the nave, because from ano-
ther survey of their architect it appeared that if they
repaired one part of the building the probability was
that the whole would come to the ground. The
case was simply this, was it right that 4,000 persons
should be deprived of the power of repairing the church by a
rate levied by themselves, and placed in that anomalous posi-
tion, too, by one who was, in his own person, ordinary, patron,
and rector. lie would conclude by moving that the petition
do lie u on the table.
The Earl of HADDINGTON presented a petition against
the ➢laynooth Bill.