HC Deb 18 June 1855 vol 138 cc2147-9

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed— "That the Bill be now read the third time."

MR. ROBERT PHILLIMORE

strongly objected to that clause in the measure, under which the expenses incurred in its passing through Parliament could be defrayed out of the proceeds of the pew rents which might be received from any persons whatever during a period of thirty years. Such a provision would be a manifest violation of ecclesiastical law, and might be so used as to leave no seats for the poor in their own parish church. He also objected to that portion of the preamble of the Bill in which it was declared that its object could not be gained without the special intervention of Parliament. In his opinion all that was valuable in the measure could be attained by means of existing statutes, and that statement of the preamble was, therefore, he considered, inaccurate. Under those circumstances he should move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a third time that day three months.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the Word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

MR. MILES

said, that this was a peculiar case, and stood upon its own merits. With respect to mortgaging the pew rents to persons from whom money might be borrowed, they had a direct precedent in the Act of Parliament called the Pimlico Act. Under the present Bill free seats were accorded to every inhabitant of the pariah; and when the House considered the total want of church accommodation in Torquay, they could not fail to see that this was a Bill of necessity. The measure came down under very different auspices from the Committee to what it went up. They had now not only obtained the consent of the patrons—the Dean and Chapter of Exeter—but they had likewise obtained 1,000l. to be set apart immediately as a sum of money, the interest of which was to be given to the clergyman.

MR. LASLETT

hoped that the Amendment would be withdrawn.

LORD SEYMOUR

said, he should support the Bill, which was one much desired in the district to which it referred. An Amendment which he had suggested in the 23rd clause had been acceded to.

MR. HADFIELD

said, he would not oppose the third reading, but he wished for some explanation with regard to the 32nd clause. Under that clause it appeared that not only all the Church Building Acts in existence were to be extended to this Act, but also all the Church Building Acts which might hereafter come in force. It was admitted that no person could understand those Acts, and therefore their extension to the present Bill Would only make "confusion worse confounded." He certainly trusted that it was not intended by the present Act in any way whatever to throw an obligation upon the Church Building Acts in existence which should prevent their expiring in July, 1856.

MR. BLACKBURN

said, that the clause in question was pot in by the opponents of the Bill, and Was accepted by the promoters.

MR. PALK

said, that the population of Torquay had very much increased during the last few years, and the church accommodation had not kept pace with it. It was by the advice of the Bishop of Exeter that the promoters had applied to Parliament for the powers sought by the Bill, including the power which the hon. and learned Member thought so objectionable.

MR. GRANVILLE VERNON

hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

bore testimony to the necessity for further church accommodation at Torquay, and supported the Bill.

MR. ROBERT PHILLIMORE

said, he would respond to the appeal which had been made to him, and withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read 3°

Further Proceeding adjourned till Wednesday.

Back to