Lords Sitting of 11 March 1831

MINUTES.
Bills. The Royal Assent given to the Pensions Duties, the Exchequer Bills, the Consolidated Fund, the Transfer of Aids, the Judgement and Execution, the Postmaster General, and the Richmond Asylum.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of the Earl of HADDINGTON, the number of Degrees taken at the Universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, St. Andrew's, and the two Colleges of Aberdeen, since 1850.
Petitions presented. In favour of Reform, by Lord DACRE, from Bishopsgate-street Ward, and from three Parishes of Hertfordshire:—By Lord KINO, from Saltash, Long Sutton, Grantham, and Falkland:—By Earl SPENCER, from Market Harborough, and the Renfrew Political Union:—By the Earl of GLENGALL, from Clanwilliam: —By Lord BELHAVEN, from several Parishes in Scotland:—By the Duke of AROY LE, from Campbell's Town:—By the Earl of Rosebery, from the Convenor of the Trades, and half the Members of the close Corporation of that City, and from the Heritors and Commissioner of Supply of Linlithgowshire. For a Revision of the Tithe Laws, by Lord KING, from Melsonby:—By the Earl of GLENGALL, from Tamlaght Finlagan. For a Repeal of the Union, by Lord FARNHAM, from Headford:—By Lord KING, from St. Mary, Kilkenny:—By the Earl of GLENGALL, from Caspell. For the Repeal of the Duty on Sea borne Coals, by Lord KING, from Bridport, Beaminster, Charraouth, Bishopsgate-street Ward, and several other places. By Lord BELHAVEN, from the Post Masters of Glasgow, for a Reduction of the Duty on Post Horses and Stage Coaches. For the Abolition of Slavery, by the Duke of GORDON, from the County of Aberdeen:—By the Marquis of BUTE, from Merthyr Tidvill and Dowlass: — By the Earl of RODEN, from certain Dissenters of Dublin. By the Earl of WHARNCLIFFE, from Mr. Golding, of Ditton-place, Kent, against the Game Laws. Against the proposed Alteration of the Timber Duties, by the Marquis of BUTE, from Shipowners at Cardiffind Greenoek:—By Earl STANHOPE, from the Shipowners of Hull. Complaining of pistress, and praying for Relief, by the same noble Earl, from the Landowners and Occupiers of Brenchleyr—By the Earl of GLENGALL, from the Labourers of Navan. By the Bishop of LONDON, from the Managers of the Savings' Bank at Chelmsford, for an Alteration in the Savings' Bank Act.

CLERKENWELL CHURCHES.
Lord Kingstated, that he had in his hand a Petition from the Churchwardens, and others, of the Parish of St. James, Clerkenwell, to which he begged leave to call their Lordships' attention, before they proceeded to the Order of the Day on the Church Building Bill. The Petitioners complained of the conduct of the Commissioners for the building of new Churches, in inflicting on the parish a new Church, which was quite uncalled for and unnecessary. Of course, he had no inform-
342
ation on the subject than what he derived from others; but the petitioners stated, that there were already in the parish three churches, in each of which there were a number of seats unlet. In St. James's Church there were 409 seats unlet; in Pentonville Chapel, 203 unlet; and in St. John's Church, 150 unlet; making in all, 762 seats unlet. The churchwardens of St. James's had objected to the building of the last new church, and they were, therefore, much surprised, when they found that the Commissioners had begun to build another, and they remonstrated against it without effect. In another parish in the neighbourhood they had, in the same manner, begun to build a new church, and the people of that parish remonstrated, and the building in that instance was stopped: and yet the petitioners said, that when they applied to the Commissioners, and remonstrated, their application was treated with contempt—that was what they stated. There were certain circumstances likewise to be attended to; for in one of these churches there was a very popular preacher, and a greater number of people attended in consequence—some of them being from the neighbouring parishes, and yet, notwithstanding this, there were a number of seats unlet. The Commissioners proceeded on the principle of the amount of population, but that was a very uncertain and precarious criterion, for a great portion of the population might be Dissenters. And then the parish had already been put to an enormous expense, and was obliged to pay not less than 2,000 l. annually, on account of the churches. In the new churches, the gross amount of the pew rents went to the preacher, and the parish was left to pay the sexton's salary, and other incidental expenses. That really appeared not to be just, for it ought to be the nett surplus of the pew rents, and not the gross amount, that should be given to the preacher. The petitioners stated, that they had expended 3,000 l. on the decorations of the last-built new church of St. Mark's, that now there was very great difficulty in raising the poor-rates, and that they were unwilling to be loaded with an additional expense on account of a new church, when it was not necessary-. The petitioners stated, that they had the strongest desire to promote the interests of morality and religion, and that they

343
only objected to the other church, because it was unnecessary. The petition was signed with about 1,800 names, and the petitioners prayed relief in this matter.
The Bishop of Londonthought himself called upon to say a few words on this subject, as the parish was in his diocese. The population of that parish was 52,000, and if the Commissioners did, in building the new churches, act on the principle of population, they did so by the direction of the Legislature; and if there was anything erroneous in it, they were not in fault. He did not know whether any remonstrance had been made by the petitioners against the building of St. Mark's Church; but, were he to judge from circumstances, he should say that the remonstrance, if made, could not have been very strong: for they had, as they rightly stated, expended 3,000 l. on the decorations of that church, which was more than was required. If in some of the churches the seats were not all occupied, it was, perhaps, owing to some temporary circumstances; for that of St. Mark, as soon as it was built, was filled to overflowing. Soon after, a representation was made by many respectable inhabitants of the parish to the Commissioners, that there was still great need of another church, for the accommodation of those who resided about Battle-bridge, a circumstance which was sufficiently obvious, and this representation was accompanied with the offer of a site for another Chapel. The Commissioners were, at the time, rather straitened for funds, but they did, in the execution of what they considered to be their duty, make preparations for erecting a cheap chapel, for the accommodation of the poor. All this was well known, and yet no remonstrance had been made till the labourers had been engaged, and the work, in fact, been begun. It was true that then a remonstrance was sent to him, which he forwarded to the Commissioners, and it was then represented to the parties that they had come too late, but the remonstrance was not treated with disrespect. The noble Baron had stated the facts in a very temperate manner, and no blame could attach to him or to the petitioners for bringing forward their complaints. The Commissioners, however, thought it their duty to provide, as far as their funds allowed, churches for the accommodation of the whole of the population, if they chose to
344
attend; and the objections probably did not come so much from the petitioners, who, he believed, were worthy persons, as from others of a different description.
Lord Kenyonbegged permission to say a few words on this subject, as he happened to be present, on Tuesday last, at a meeting then held by the Commissioners, when this subject was under discussion. The grievance was certainly a small one, for the parish was not called upon to pay one farthing towards the building of this chapel; and if all the seats in the churches already built were not taken, it was still a great object to give an opportunity to attend to those who chose to do so. It ought to be observed, that accommodation already existed only for 4,000 out of a population of 52,000, and this additional chapel would only accommodate 1,200 more; and the whole accommodation would still be rather below the mark. As to the expense, if the petitioners had thought the expenses extravagant, they would not have laid out so much on the decoration of St. Mark's.
Lord Kingsaid, that the petitioners did not object to a proper expense, and therefore they had laid out the 3,000 l. on the decoration of St. Mark's, since, as the thing was to be done at all, it was reckoned desirable to do it handsomely. But what they complained of was, that when they were already at an expense of 2,000 l. a year for the parish churches, they were to be saddled with an additional and unnecessary expense. There was no denial of the correctness of their statement, that in the existing churches there were 762 seats unengaged.
Petition laid on the Table.

CALICO DUTIES.
Lord Aucklandmoved, that the Calico Duties' Bill be read a second time. He was not aware that there would be any opposition to his Motion, but he wished, if there were, that the discussion might take place on Monday next, when he meant to move the third reading of the Bill. The object he had in view was, not to avoid any discussion which the Bill might deserve, but to carry it forward with as much expedition as possible, in order to relieve the trade of the state of suspense in which it was at present; and he assured their Lordships, that no less than 200,000 persons were out of employment, and would continue so until this Bill had passed into a law,

345
—Bill read a second time, and ordered to be read a third time without being committed.