rose to move the postponement of the recommittal of this bill, to which he entirely objected. The bill appeared to him to be framed with a desire to inculcate a superstitious reverence for the mere walls of the church. That was his opinion. The bill was wholly unnecessary and uncalled for, and exhibited a total disregard of the interests of the great body of Dissenters, who, under this bill, were to be taxed for the erection of vestry halls, while by taking from them the right to meet on parochial affairs in the body of the church, it went to abolish the last link of the chain which bound the Dissenters to the Church establishment. On these grounds, he moved as an amendment, that the bill be recommitted that day six months.

seconded the amendment. He trusted, her Majesty's Government would not give their sanction to any such measure. If irregularities now took place at vestry meetings in churches, the law, as it at present stood, was sufficiently strong to punish the offence.

supported the bill. He wished to know, whether the hon. Member for Kilkenny had ever read the form of consecration for buildings devoted to the service of the Church of England? It was evident from the prayers then offered up, that the building was intended to be set apart for the offices of religious worship, and to be used exclusively for that purpose, and this had been the doctrine of the Church in all ages. The bill was intended for the prevention of brawls in churches, and only extended to parishes where the population exceeded 1,000 persons. He believed, that brawls would not take place where the population was small, and he was, therefore, content with the bill as it stood.

observed, that there appeared a difficulty about this bill, which, if not strictly a question of form, affected very nearly the forms and privileges of that House. Whatever his hon. Friend, the Member for the University of Oxford might say, this bill undoubtedly changed an ancient and established usage. It did so by ordering, that no meeting should be held in any of the churches to which the act applied, except for the purposes of divine service, or such other ecclesiastical objects as should be approved of by the bishop of the diocese. Now, it was impossible to pass that enactment by itself; it was then necessary, that a number of other clauses should be introduced, enabling the vestries of parishes to remedy the inconvenience caused by the first enactment, by laying upon the inhabitants very considerable burthens. Subsequent clauses, therefore, provided that the vestries might levy any sums for altering or erecting buildings to hold their meetings in; and to lay the burthen upon the poor-rates. Perhaps the power here given, was unnecessarily extensive, but beyond all question, very extensive powers were absolutely necessary. Without entering into general reasoning upon the subject, it could not be forgotten what great dissatisfaction had been caused by the powers of levying money which had been intrusted to vestries in parishes. He wished to know from the Chair, whether this bill came within the forms of the House—whether the Lords having passed a bill, which, by itself, was a mere nullity, which only would put people to inconvenience, and be inoperative, that House was afterwards to add to it, clauses which would make it operative, and lay a great burthen on parishes, because if carried into effect, the House of Lords would be imposing a tax on the people of this country? The seven or eight clauses in that part of the bill were introduced by this House, as supplemental, to carry into effect the main purposes of the bill; and it appeared to him, that though not doing so directly, yet by agreeing to this bill, that House would be allowing one of its privileges to be broken in upon, and transferred to, or participated in by the House of Lords. He should have no objection to a bill with reasonable provisions, by which, with the general consent of the parish, some other room might be provided than the church, where meetings of this kind might be held. Such an alteration would be beneficial. But although some alterations might be necessary, which he did not deny, he could not agree, that by this bill the House of Lords should impose a large and undefined tax upon the people—a bill originating with them, and not with the House of Commons, in the first instance.

said, that his attention had not been called to the bill till the present occasion; but if he understood the noble Lord correctly, these latter clauses had, in point of fact, been added in that House, and if that were so, there was no objection to the bill in point of form. There were various instances in which the House of Lords had legislated, in which the expenses, incidental to their legislation, had been left to the House of Commons to provide for, and there was no objection to this, because it gave that House a double check on the House of Lords—first, upon the merits of the measure itself; and next, upon the expense which it would entail.

was glad to hear such a statement upon the authority of the right hon. Gentleman in the chair, which utterly and entirely demolished the whole argument of the noble Lord as to the matter of form. It had often been objected to the House of Lords, that they were too slack in originating measures of reform; and now, when they proposed to carry an improvement into effect, carefully avoiding, at the same time, trenching upon the privileges of the House of Commons, the noble Lord, the Secretary of State turned round on the bill, and said, "The Lords have been meddling with matters which ought to have originated with us, and I, as a Minister of the Crown, object to the reception of the bill on the ground of form." The question of form, however, having been disposed of, the question now was, whether the Government concurred with the measure itself. It was very desirable to ascertain this, as it was high time to relieve the Church from the scandal caused by the transaction of secular business within the walls of the edifice, which ought only to be devoted to those sacred purposes for which, and for which alone the fabric of the church was intended.

did not object to the bill as a Minister of the Crown, but as a Member of the House of Commons upon a point in which he believed the privileges of the House were concerned. He had stated that he regarded this as a matter directly affecting the House of Commons, and that if it was not a violation of the forms of the House, it was, in effect a violation of the spirit of their privileges, in accordance with which burdens upon the people ought to be originated there. He could not consent to any measure by which it was proposed to make a demand to an indefinite extent upon the pockets of the people. His object was, in the first place, to affix some limit to these expenses, and, in the second place, to give to the parishes themselves some choice or control as to whether these vestry rooms should be built.

objected to the bill in toto, and on principle. After the churches in this country had for 700 years been used uninterruptedly for the purpose of holding public meetings of this description, it was now sought to deprive the people of this prescriptive right. He would be willing to give the hon. Member his support, provided he brought in another bill giving to parishes the power to determine whether or not any other place of meeting should be provided.

wished to see the system of holding vestries in the parish churches universally done away with. He considered, that tumultuous party squabbles utterly degraded the character of these sacred edifices. At these vestry meetings the most disgraceful scenes had occurred, instances of which could be quoted without number.

remarked, that Ireland had been included in the operation of this bill as well as England. Had any case, let him ask, been made out for including Ireland? He had never heard of any tumults occurring in the churches of the establishment in Ireland, except at the vestries which had been held for the tithe commutation. But all this was gone by, and no pretext therefore existed for extending the provisions of the bill to Ireland. If this bill were allowed to pass, he should not be surprised at hearing of a resolution being passed at some vestry in the north of Ireland for building an Orange lodge at the expense of the parish. Scotland had been excluded altogether from the operation of this bill, and he hoped that Ireland would be also excluded. The hon. Member might, he thought, as well have brought in a bill to prevent the future desecration of Westminster Abbey by holding in it the coronation ceremonial. He had never seen either in Ireland or in Scotland such a scene of scrambling for seats, as he had witnessed in that venerable abbey on Thursday last. He hoped that it would be long before another coronation would take place. He should certainly move that Ireland be exempted from the operation of the bill.

supported the bill. In accordance with the suggestion of the noble Lord, he was perfectly willing to introduce a clause limiting the amount of the expenditure. He could not but express his surprise, however, at what had fallen from the noble Lord. The bill had been introduced in the House of Lords, and passed by their Lordships without one dissenting voice, or the slightest opposition having been offered to it on the part of Her Majesty's Government. With regard to petitions, he would just observe, that there had been three presented on the subject. Two of these were against the bill,—one from the parish of St. Leonard, Shoreditch, which, strange to say, claimed the right of having the use of the church at all times for party and political squabbles; the other from an individual, which he believed had never been laid on the table of the House. The petition in favour of the bill, and praying the introduction of the very clauses now objected to, was from the parish of St. Mary, Islington. In answer to the assertion that there had been no case made out for the bill, he would refer hon. Gentlemen to the cases which had occurred at Portsmouth, at Southwark, and at St. Leonard's, Shoreditch. He did not propose that the bill should come into operation until December, 1839, so that during the interim there would be abundant opportunity for the various parishes to prepare other places for such meetings, if they should think fit. They might be held, for instance, in the Mechanics' Institute or Town Hall, or any public building in the parish. With regard to what the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had stated, in reference to Ireland, if they should go into Committee on the bill, he would be prepared there to meet the hon. and learned Gentleman on that point. If the hon. Member, however, should satisfy him that Ireland ought not to be included he would have no objection to alter the bill in that respect.

could not agree to this bill. He was of opinion that a general act to enable parishes, if they should think fit, to erect buildings for secular purposes, to which churches were now applied, was desirable. On that account he would not object to go into Committee, in order that the compulsory and objectionable parts of the bill might be amended, and provision made for removing the inconvenience of the present system.

conceived that the hon. Member who had just sat down had taken a fair view of the subject. There was evidently a strong desire throughout the country to prevent edifices intended for religious purposes from being used as arenas for political squabbles and discussions. That principle was generally assented to by hon. Members. Why, therefore, refuse to go into Committee, when it was clear that it was in a Committee only that the objectionable parts of the bill could be discussed with effect? Judging from the debates in that House, even during the last fortnight, could it be said, that they who were the representatives of the people of England were models of quiet and orderly demeanour, or that when excited by political contests they were not occasionally betrayed into scenes which could not be considered as fitting for a religious edifice? As to this bill being an innovation he had only to remark that the principle it embodied was distinctly sanctioned by a bill which had passed that House, and which was introduced by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Nottingham in 1831. Then, as regarded the expense into which it was thought this bill would lead parishes, hon. Members seemed to labour under a mistake, as the parishes were in no way called upon to erect new buildings, unless they thought fit to do so. In 99 cases out of 100, the hire of a room at an expense of 4l. or 5l. would suffice for all purposes, just as it did at present when a parish chose to have a public dinner. And now for the dangerous principle! If it were dangerous, pray who introduced it? The act he had just referred to as having been brought in by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Nottingham, and which he held in his hand, was entitled "An Act to provide for the better regulation of vestries, and the appointment of auditors of accounts in certain counties in England and Wales," and contained an enactment to this effect, that when a vestry-room was not sufficiently large for a vestry meeting, it should be held elsewhere, but not in the chapel or church thereof. That was a bill brought in by the right hon. Baronet to prevent the desecration of sacred edifices by heated discussions upon similar subjects. The question now was, would the House assenting as it did to that principle, refuse to go into Committee on the bill.

, in consequence of what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, felt it necessary to observe, that his object was not to prevent meetings in churches, but to prevent them being held for the continuance of taxation. He wanted to take away the power of the Church to tax Dissenters for that with which they had nothing whatever to do. He wanted to remove the cause for those heated discussions at vestry meetings, but not to take away the rights which had been established for centuries of holding meetings fir parochial purposes either in the vestry-room or church.

The House divided on the original question:—Ayes 141; Noes 70:—Majority 71.

House went into Committee.

On Clause 1 being proposed,

would propose, that the clause be made permissive, and that meetings be allowed in the churches of all parishes, if the vestry thought fit to order it.

opposed the amendment, as destructive of the principle of the bill.

said, that if the permissive principle were adopted, the elect would be, that parishes where the remedy was most called for, would be those where there would be the most difficulty in inducing the inhabitants to remove their place of meeting.

said, that if the bill were adopted, it would impose an additional tax of 2,700,000l. on the people of England. If the hon. Member did not make his bill permissive, he (Mr. Clay) would give it every possible opposition.

stated his determination to oppose the bill by every means in his power, if the hon. Member refused to make it permissive.

considered the holding of meetings in the body of the church disgraceful, and the question was, whether a remedy was to be applied to an evil which was loudly complained of. If they wished to remove the evil effectually, it was impossible to adopt the amendment which had been proposed; for if they agreed to sanction the permissive principle, matters would remain exactly as they were at present. He could not consent that the parishes should have the power of holding meetings in the churches or not, just as they pleased, and he should therefore support the clause as it stood.

The Committee divided on the Amendment:—Ayes 68; Noes 88.—Majority 20.

On the question being again put, Mr. O'Connell moved that the chairman do now report progress.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 88:—Majority 34.

said, he thought to hurry a bill of this kind through the House must prove injurious instead of beneficial, as was expected to the Church of England, and he should therefore move that the chairman do now report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

supported the motion.

The galleries were then cleared, and the Committee again divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 61:—Majority 19.

Other motions to arrest the progress of the bill having been made, Dr. Nicholls, its promoter, consented to the House resuming. The Chairman accordingly reported progress.

Committee to sit again.