HC Deb 09 June 1837 vol 38 cc1332-6

On the motion of Mr. Brotherton, the Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate on the Wigan Rectory Bill having been read,

Mr. Hindley moved a clause providing "that nothing in that Act contained shall in any manner prevent or interfere with any future appropriation by Parliament of any of the monies raised under and by virtue of this Act to the providing salaries for additional ministers of the Established Church in the parish of Wigan."

The Earl of Darlington

said, the object of the Bill was to enable the rector to let a portion of the glebe on building leases; and agreeably to the wishes of the inhabitants of Wigan, the Committee had resolved that space should be left vacant for the recreation and enjoyment to which the townspeople had long been accustomed on these common lands, a part of which should continue to be held on the same tenure as at present, and not be liable to be built upon. The clause, if passed, would, in his opinion, completely establish the right of that House to interfere in the disposition of private property. The parish of Wigan was a large one, but yet he had never heard that additional ministers were wanted by the parishioners. If any such necessity were proved to exist, he should have no hesitation in saying, that the rector ought to pay those ministers out of his own pocket. In his opinion no private property would be safe if Parliament were to give the power embodied in this clause, to which he trusted the House would never be brought to accede.

The House divided on the question that the clause be brought up:—Ayes 29; Noes 84:—Majority against the clause 55.

On the question, "That the Bill do pass,"

Mr. Hindley

did not want to injure any clergyman connected with the Established Church—but when he found a Bill of this nature before Parliament, which sought to double the income of the rector, in a place where 18,000 persons had been proved to be utterly unprovided with spiritual education, he felt bound to oppose it.

Mr. E. Ellis

said, that there had never been an inclosure of the property hitherto, and there was a well in the centre of the ground sought to be enclosed, which was of great use to the inhabitants of Wigan, who had strongly petitioned against the Bill, and the only person that would be benefitted was the rector.

The House divided:—Ayes 112; Noes 59:—Majority 53.

Mr. Hume

said, that on Monday a Committee was to be appointed to consider of the best means of increasing the value of Church-lands by a different manner of leasing. The Bill then before the House prejudged that question; he therefore moved that the question be postponed till that day six months.

Mr. D. W. Harvey

regretted the absence of his Majesty's Ministers. The House appeared to be studiously kept in the dark on the question. It was admitted that the rector of Wigan already enjoyed an income exceeding 2,000l. a-year—he was informed 2,300l.; now the effect of the Bill was, to double that income. The Gentlemen opposite had come forward upon a late occasion as the most strenuous supporters of the Church, as the poor man's church. Now that an opportunity presented itself when they could carry out the views they had then only theoretically put forth, every club had been scoured and emptied in order to swell the numbers of the Conservatives against their avowed principles. He trusted the House would, by some means or other, procrastinate the measure even in its final stage, until the Ministry were present to clear themselves from the inference which might be drawn against them, and to give hon. Gentlemen opposite an opportunity of considering the vote they were about to give.

Mr. Hindley

begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, whether it would be in order then to move that the title of the Bill be altered.

The Speaker

answered in the negative.

Mr. Hindley

The question was, whether the House would allow this money to go to the increase of the luxury of any individual.

Mr. Baines

had a return by which it appeared that the gross income was 2.823l. a-year, and the net 2,330l. There was a want of church accommodation in the parish. Where, he would ask, could there be a better opportunity than the present of increasing church accommodation? The question was, whether the House would sanction the proposition for increased accommodation, or would uphold the abuses of an overpaid Church?

Mr. Roebuck

There is a great deal of hypocrisy in this House. I see the right hon. Member for Cambridge opposite. I want to meet that right hon. Gentleman on this matter. I hear very often on the opposite side of the House great statements made about accommodation for the worship of God. I heard this week, on Wednesday night, great statements made about the necessity of worshipping God on the Sabbath-day, and now we have in opposition to the worship of God a certain sum of money to be put into the pocket of the rector. And now we shall find the value of certain protestations by the vote that will be given on this occasion. Which will carry it, worship or the parson's pocket? The parson's pocket, if I understand it. You talk about worship when it is for your own peculiar party purposes, but when there is a question of whether you are to have money or worship, you are all for money. The question is this:—a certain clergyman, having about 2,000l. a-year, wishes to put about double that sum into his pocket by an improved value given to the estate by Act of Parliament. The real question before us is, are we to interfere by an Act of Parliament so as to increase the value of Church property when there is before the House a measure respecting improving Church property generally? This is nothing more than an attempt by a side-wind to take out of the operation of that Act a particular person, and I am somewhat surprised his Majesty's ministers are not here to defend or resist a specific violation of their measure to a very important extent, and let the country understand to what extent it is.

Lord Stanley

said, the rector and patron of the living of Wigan applied for powers to build on a certain portion of land connected with a living, and also for liberty to mine for coal under the same land. A complaint was, however, made that there was on the land a public well, and that several public footpaths crossed it, which it would be unjust to shut up. These points were referred to the two hon. Members for Wigan, and an arrangement was made, whereby not only the footpaths and the well secured to the inhabitants, but twelve acres of land were given to them for recreation. The sole object of the Bill was to allow buildings to be erected and the land to be mined for coal. He admitted that the value of the living was 2,000l. a-year net; but out of that considerable sums were paid by the incumbent, one of the most liberal men he ever was acquainted with, in stipends to curates, and in supporting minister's chapelries. He believed that he was fully justified in asserting that the rev. gentleman dispersed annually 1,100l. among his curates and parishioners.

Mr. Wakley

said, when the question of Church-rates was brought forward, hon. Gentlemen opposite said, they had no objection to Church property being improved, but that the increase should be applied to procure religious instruction for those destitute of it. Now, what were hon. Gentlemen opposite doing? Instead of securing the increased funds for those destitute of instruction, they were handing the funds over to a fat rector.

The House divided on the question of postponement:—Ayes 108; Noes 189: Majority 81.

Mr. C. Buller

said, if there was a great opposition got up at the last stage of the Bill, it was because the Bill was a job, carried through so privately that those who are not locally acquainted with Wigan, or with the parties, knew that its object was to convert public property—Church property—to private purposes. He should move an amendment to the title of the Bill, in order to show that those who opposed the Bill would not lend themselves to private Committee jobbing. He begged to move to leave out the last four words of the Bill, and to insert these words—"To enable the rector and patron of the same to increase their private property out of Church property, which was much needed for spiritual purposes in districts which were represented to be in a state of spiritual destitution."

Mr. Hume

seconded the amendment.

Mr. Hindley

would move that the debate be adjourned to Monday.

The House divided on the question that the debate be adjourned:—Ayes 66; Noes 165: Majority 99

The amendment of Mr. Buller was negatived without a division.

We subjoin the lists of the division only on the question "That the Bill do pass."

List of the AYES.
Agnew, Sir A. Jervis, J.
Ainsworth, P. Johnstone, Sir J.
Alsager, Captain Johnstone, H.
Ashley, hon. H. Jones, W.
Bailey, J. Jones, T.
Balfour, T. Irton, S.
Barclay, C. Kearsley, J. H.
Barneby, J. Knightley, Sir C.
Beckett, right hon. Sir J. Law, hon. C. E.
Longfield, R.
Bethell, R. Lowther, hon. Col.
Blackburne, I. Lowther, J. H.
Blackstone, W. S. Mackenzie, T.
Bolling, W. Mahon, Viscount
Bonham, R. F. Maunsell, T. P.
Bradshaw, J. Mordaunt, Sir J.
Brotherton, J. Mosley, Sir O.
Canning, right hon. Sir S. Nicholl, J.
Palmer, G.
Cartwright, W. R. Parker, M.
Chaplin, Colonel Parry, Sir L. P. J.
Chapman, A. Pemberton, T.
Clerk, Sir G. Pigot, R.
Clive, Viscount Polhill, F.
Clive, hon. R. H. Pollen, Sir J. W.
Cole, Viscount Pollington, Viscount
Compton, H. C. Price, R.
Corbett, T. G. Richards, R.
Crewe, Sir G. Ross, C.
Dalbiac, Sir C. Rushbrooke, Colonel
Duncombe, hon. W. Ryle, J.
Duncombe, hon. A. Sandon, Viscount
Eastnor, Viscount Sheppard, T.
Egerton, Lord F. Shirley, E. J.
Elwes, J. P. Smyth, Sir H.
Estcourt, T. Somerset, Lord G.
Feilden, W. Stanley, E.
Finch, G. Stanley, Lord
Fitzroy, hon. H. Sturt, H. C.
Fleetwood, P. H. Surrey, Earl of
Forester, hon. G. Tennent, J. E.
Forster, C. S. Thomas, Colonel
Fox, C. Townley, R. G.
Gaskell, Jas. Milnes Trevor, hon. A.
Gore, O. Trevor, hon. G. R.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Vere, Sir C. B.
Greene, T. Verner, Colonel
Gresley, Sir R. Vyvyan, Sir R.
Grimston, Viscount Walker, R.
Hamilton, G. A. Whitmore, T. C.
Harcourt, G. S. Wilbraham, hon. B.
Hardy, J. Wilmot, Sir J. E.
Hayes, Sir E. S. Wodehouse, E.
Herries, rt. hon. J. C. Wortley, hon. J. S.
Hogg, J. W. Wrottesley, Sir J.
Hope, H. T.
Hotham, Viscount TELLERS.
Houstoun, G. Darlington, Earl of
Jackson, Mr. Sergeant Patten, J. W.
List of the NOES.
Baines, E. Bowring, Dr.
Berkeley, hon. F. Bridgeman, H.
Bewes, T. Brodie, W. B.
Blake, M. J. Browne, R. D.
Bodkin, J. J. Byng, G.
Codrington, Admiral Macleod, R.
Collins, W. Mactaggart, J.
Crawford, W. S. Mangles, J.
Divett, E. Marshall, W.
Duncombe, T. Marsland, H.
Dundas, hon. T. Musgrave, Sir R.
Ellice, E. Ord, W.
Etwall, R. Pattison, J.
Fenton, J. Roche, W.
Ferguson, Sir R. Strutt, E
Grote, G. Stuart, V.
Guest, J. J. Talbot, J. H.
Harvey, D. W. Thornley, T.
Hawes, B. Turner, W.
Hawkins, J. H. Vivian, J. H.
Hector, C. J. Wakley, T.
Heron, Sir R. Walker, C. A.
Hume, J. Wallace, R.
Humphery, J. Wason, R.
James, W. Wilbraham, G.
Johnston, A. Wilks, J.
Lefevre, C. S. Williams, Sir J.
Lennox, Lord G. Wood, Alderman
Lennox, Lord A. TELLERS.
Lister, E. C. Hindley, C.
Lushington, C. Strickland, Sir G.
Back to