§ MR. DILLWYNsaid, that in the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Barnes) he rose to ask the Home Secretary, Whether his attention has been drawn to the state in which the town of Accrington has been placed by the Vicar of Whalley seizing the household goods and other property of poor parishioners, and selling the same by auction, to enforce the payment of small sums of money claimed by him for Easter Offerings? Accrington contained a popul- 1542 lation of 17,000 persons, and its inhabitants were called upon to pay for religious services which were rendered, not to themselves, but to the people of Whalley and its neighbourhood. He had no doubt that the demand thus made by the Vicar of Whalley may have been legal; but it had been enforced in a manner little calculated to raise the Church in the eyes of the community, or to promote the harmony of the district. Though compulsory payment was contrary to the spirit with which Easter offerings were originally established, the goods of some of the poorest inhabitants of Accrington had been seized and sold by public auction, and these harsh proceedings on the part of the Vicar of Whalley laid naturally led to great excitement, almost amounting to riot. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would inquire into the circumstances, and, if necessary, bring forward a measure on the subject next Session. He called attention to two petitions which had been presented on this subject, and their prayer was so moderate and reasonable that he hoped the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department would take the matter into his serious consideration. He moved for any Correspondence that had taken place.
§ MR. HADFIELDseconded the Motion. He could not understand why those dues should be claimed by a clergyman who rendered no service whatever to the persons from whom he claimed them.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that in consequence of the notice which had been given on the subject by the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Barnes) he had caused a letter to be written to the clerk of the magistrates at Accrington, and he had received from him a reply explanatory of what had taken place. He should be very happy to submit it for the information of the hon. Gentleman and the House. The facts appeared to lie in a very narrow compass. There was some dispute with regard to the legality of Eatter offerings in the parish of Accrington. He had no information whatever in regard to the legality of those claims; but if there was any legal defence to those against whom distress warrants had issued, they would, no doubt, raise the question by an action of trespass. It was essentially a question of civil right, and it would not be competent to the Executive Government to interfere in any way in the matter. At least, he knew of no power that resided in the Executive Government 1543 to decide questions of this nature. He was informed that distress warrants had been issued against thirteen individuals; their goods had been seized and sold by auction, but bought up by two persons representing some association for the protection of those whose goods were seized under these distress warrants. Considerable excitement prevailed at the time of the auction, but there was no breach of the peace, a party of police who had been present being quite sufficient to maintain public order. That was the account which he had received from the clerk to the magistrates. With regard to the general question of Easter offerings, his impression certainly was that they were a voluntary gift, and not recoverable by law; but he presumed there was some special custom or practice in that part of the country which enabled the vicar or incumbent to assert a legal claim. He repeated he had no information as to the legal nature of those claims, and he could see no ground for the interference of the Secretary of State.