130] ANNUAL REGISTER, 1818. 



CHAPTER XII. 



Neio Churches Building Bill— Purchase of Game Bill— BlU for 

 varying and amending certain Provisions of the Regency Act. ' 



THE House of Commons hav- 

 ing resolved itself into a 

 committee on this bill, Sir Wil- 

 liam Seott objected to the clause 

 which entitled twelve well-dis- 

 posed persons to build a church 

 and appoint a minister witli the 

 consent of the bishop, as tend- 

 ing to disturb the tranquillity 

 of the church by the intro- 

 duction of dogmatical secta- 

 ries, and by infringing on the 

 rights of patrons. It was unwor- 

 thy, too, in the church to depend 

 upon private funds for its support. 

 He further objected to the lan- 

 guage of the clause ; the expres- 

 sion " well-disposed" was loose 

 in the extreme, and bore no cer- 

 tain construction. Their being 

 householders of the parish was 

 no protection ; for strangers who 

 did not belong to the parish 

 Tnight join with them ; and if the 

 bishop refused his consent, he 

 would be exposed to a degree of 

 odium he might be unwilling to 

 encounter. A clause of this kind 

 could not fail to encounter oppo- 

 sition in another place, and might 

 endanger the success of the bill 

 altogether. He therefore moved 

 its rejection. 



The Chancellor of the Exche- 

 quer defendea the clause, and 

 ahought that the church should 

 tvail itself of every source of as- 



sistance from private liberality. 

 Tliis clause, he said, would not 

 endanger the bill in another 

 place : those who were most in- 

 terested had been consulted, and 

 had expressed their satisfaction. 

 The clause would not introduce 

 sectarians ; it mentioned only that 

 twelve well disposed householders 

 of the parish, and others, might 

 build, and have two presenta- 

 tions. As the law stood already, 

 nothing could prevent parties 

 from building and preacliing as 

 long as they hked, doctrines the 

 most opposite to those of the 

 church. With respect to patrons, 

 the clause did not interfere with 

 their right of presentation. He 

 could not therefore consent to 

 abandon the clause. 



Mr. Wrottesley opposed the 

 clause, as being likely to make a 

 serious inroad on the rights of 

 the established church. 



Mr. Bathurst was willing to 

 give both clauses his support, 

 because he did not wish to en- 

 danger the success of the bill, but 

 he would consent to them only 

 with some modification. These* 

 related chiefly to the possibility 

 that the funds for building the 

 church might be levied without 

 the parish instead of within it v 

 and that the nomination might 

 fall into th« hands of persons not 

 connected 



