Star. — London, England, 1824-04-03 00:00:00

I ! E ... s - l__.~-- .. '4Tr _ would enable the proprietors of lands to give six votes' each in all vestries met for compromising the tithe.— What, however, now turned out to be the proper and undi guised fact? He discovered, not more than six months after, that the smaller and larger land proprie tors were to be placed on the same footing, - which led to an order, ur rather a confusion of things, unparalleled in this country ; so that, should the progressing Bill pass the other House and como.before their tordship‘which he hoped it l would not, all theiiilluential property owners would be out-voted•in vestries, and the subdivided at last overpower the holders of uadivided lands. By ano ther clue any one Commissioner-under the Act was entitled to examine all landlords and landowners—to send for title-deeds, covenants, and other papers—and so to examine and investigatethern. Was ever, he would ask their Lordships, such an inquisitorial, such an un constitutional power, so hateful to the feelings of all ho nourable minds, attempted to be vested by any Bill, un der •stieh,Ciocumsrances,.in any man? He would appeal to the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack 'late LOAD CHANCELLOR here rose, and ad dre;Sed,the Houle in the following words : • " $a Lnanso-I do not wish to interfere with Lour . Lordships proceedings while in discussion on any given point. But the Noble blargeis has been pleased to appeal to me; and I can only say, that I believe this is the very first time your Lordships were ever in dulged in a debate upon a Bill only in progress to this House from the other House of Parliament." The Marquis of LANSDOWN resumed. He had listened with due deference to the opinion of the Noble and Learned Lord upon the Woolsack ; but he begged to submit to their Lordships, and even to the Noble and Learned Lord himself, that .leis observations were bottomed on the prayer of the Petition which was con fided to him. He had been given to understand that a design existed to do away with the system of averages, in relation to the composition of tithes. It was pro posed, with such a view, that wherever the parties so compounding had agreed to commute on an average, calculated by the seven preceding years, such maximum or minimum, be it more or less, should determine the valuation fur the seven years ensuing, and not for three yeris only. If such enactments were in contemplation, they would be far, very far indeed, from remedying the evils's% hich were occasioned by the Bill passed last Session. His principal, aad indeed his only wish upon this occasion was simply to put their Lord. ships in possession of his sentiments on the subject, both retrospectively and prospectively ; and, having so done, he would not detain the licuse; for though he had three Petitions, he should only move the reading of one, being ail alike, and referring to one common complaint. The Noble Marquis then presented his Petitions, which here from the county of Tipperary, and which were Lund upon the table. The Earl of LIVERPOOL then rose and said, villat their Lordships had principally to understand svas, the exact state of the question—what the Bill of last Session had accomplished, and on the contrary, in rhat respects that measure had failed. And here it was recessary to recal to their Lordships, that when the Bili of last Session was presented to them, he treated„it as en imperfect measure—one rather of experiment than of certainty ; but which might upon trial be revised by the benefit of experience ; and on this view he supported it. At that time the only cause of difference was whe ther the measure should be compulsory or not, and upon this clause alone their Lordships had divided, end declate,!, by the result, against all compulsion. Now, it such a measure, so applied, had succeeded in fifty cases, he would pronounce it successful, inasmuch as it formed a precedent for extending its operation, though at the same time he certainly did - not desire to see the principle in universal operation. Yet. he was prepared to info) nt their Lordships, from the Papers now upon the table of the House, that the Bill passed last Session bad succeeded far beyond the hopes either of its sup porters or its opposers. More than one-tenth of the parishes in Ireland, to the number of two hundred and seventy-one, had benefited by the composition of tithes ; and this not avowedly so much at the desire of the Clergy as upon the joint application of the Clergy and tithe-payer. Even since the meeting of Parliament, when the Act in question was repiesented as of none effect,' not less than thirty-nine compositions had taken' place. But the fact was, that the nicasure was rather a commuting of rights than of receirts ; but in most cases the Clergy had not obtained more, but less, than they might have got by standing to their right. Here, then,was the oflice of the Commissioner, who acted by virtue of the llill of last Session, as a sot t of moderator to both parties. From the Returns on the table, both in Irish and in English, it appeared that the measure had operated in a most liberal manner in the Dioceses in Ireland. In those of Cashel and Clonfert, for instance, the compo sition was arbitrated at one shilling and three pence per acre; in others at even sixpence ; and in the Dioceses of El phiii and Meath, the ratio was eleven pence per acre for the Clergy. Ile stated these particulars in order to chew their Lordships the reasonableness of the commutation made under the Act upon the pats of the Clergy. He would assert that the reeasule had even now succeeded far beyond the expectations of those who proposed it ; and, under these circumstances, it remained for their Lordships to consider how far it might be desirable to continue the working of it. The Earl of KINGSTON, in presenting Petitions from Templetown, Kilbeggan, and other places (which were ordered to lie on the table), fur alterations in the Irish Tithe Composition Act, stated, that he knew not one parish that had commuted for tithes tinder the Act. Polishes were without Churches, so that Protestants went to Mass, which was butter than not goieg to any place of worship, and, in process of time, their deAetid ants had become strict Catholics. lie himself had ad ti the peasants to bewat e of the:pros isions of the • Lord KING lamented that the i,ious intentisli of the Legislature, which had voted such sums of motley for the building of churches and glebe houses, should have been so strangely counteracted, as it appeared they had been, according to the statements just made. But he thought it hard to single out an individual for censure whet) there were so many of the piolession who were as much to blame--(A ). Lord CLARE presented tour Petitions from pat ishes against the Irish Tith e Compo the county of Clare, sition Act. - He observed that the principal errors of the system seemed to be the exposure of the residents to the power of the clergyman, as well as the retaliatory power of the residents capable of being exercised to the preju dice of ecclesiastical property. Lord DARNLEY said, that what their Lordships had heard that night supplied them with a very power fel argument for entering upon the subject of which he had giveirnotice for Monday—that of the State of Ile hind. With respect to the necessary independence and . sacredness of ecclesiastical property, which had been just alluded to t he perhaps entertained sentiments diffe rant from those just 'delivered. certainly the Church of *had was not upon .so perfect a footing as our Church, or as it ought to be.—The Petitions were or dered to be laid on the table. STATE OF IRELAND. Lord LIVERPOOL hoped that the Noble Lord op posite (Lord Darnley) would postpone his motion upon' the State of Ireland, for the convenience of the 'louse, for a few days. Lord DARNLEY said, he should not hesitate to post pone the motion until Thursday next. The Noble Lord then adverted to the extraordinary number of trials for murder that had taken place in Ireland during the last Assizes, and particularly alluded to a trial in the , King's County ; adding that those desperate symptoms' 'chewed the necessity of producing some measure im mediately. He concluded by moving, that the Clerk of the Peace for the King's County should furnish an, account of all the trials for murder which had taken place in that county during the last Assizes.—Ordered. The Earl of HARROWBY did not wish the motion postponed to a later day, except to allow the papers to be all presented which the Noble Lord had moved for, and which he-feared could not be laid before the House on Thursday. Lord DARNLEY could not agree to postpone his motion beyond Thursday.—Motion put off till that day. Lord KINGSTON moved for a return of the number of years that Sir T. Mostyn had served the office of Sub• Sheriff to the county of Sligo. The LORD CHANCELLOR wished to know for what object ? Lord KINGSTON said, there was a law in Leland, that no Sub-Sheriff should serve the office two years running; and that he must take an oath to that effect. Now he understood that Sir T. Mostyn had filled the office year after year, still taking oaths that he had not served it the year before. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, it was the duty of the Noble Lord to prosecute this person for peijury. Lord KINGSTON did not conceive it the duty of in dividuals to prosecute for crimes like these. After a few words horn Lords HOLLAND and HAR ROWBY, Lord KINGSTON withdiew the motion, and said that on Thursday he would bring it forward in another shape. matter of jurisprudence, and not a religious question. It had been clearly proved that an Established Religion was necessary for a State, and it must be fenced with exclusive privileges, one of which was the celebration of marriage: a right of which the Church ought not to be deprived, but for good and valid reasons. He would deal with the Unitarian as he would be dealt with him self. It this Bill passed he thought they could no longer say that the same privileges should not be extended to every other class of Dissenters. That would greatly diminish the number of marriages in the Established Churches, and would consequently greatly diminish the little income of the poorer Clergy ; now he thought their Lordships were not prepared to deprive them of that little pittance. Lord HARROWBY said, if he saw any danger to the interests of the Church from this measure, he would be one of its greatest enemies; but he could see serious objections in a person giving his assent to the epithets "GOD the Father, GOD the Son, and GoD the J-loly Ghost," • who disbelieved in the Trinity.— Marriage was but a civil ceremony, to which they at. cached w religions sanction, to make it more binding on the conscience. • Lord CALTFIORPE said, he should do the Unita tarians an injustice if he did not admit that they had often shewn themselves foremost in the cause of liberty and humanity; but he could not help recollecting that the opinions they entertain are at variance with what the Church of England considered to be the very es sence of Christianity. He joined decidedly in opposing any alteratiod in the Liturgy or Marriage Ceremony of the Church of England. in compliance.with the wishes of the Unitarians; and he ><•as glad the Reverend Bench had set its face against any such alteration. The Earl of WESTNIORLAND would vote against the Bill, because he absolutely and distinctly objected to the principle of ir, as it altered the law of the land, and the establishment of the Church. It was not consistent with the true principles of toleration to grant such an exemption to these Dissenters, rather than to all the other sects of them. If it was given to one sect, it should he given to them all. The Bisilup of LONDON thought the policy which induced the Legislature to give the solemnization of marriages , to the Church, was a very wise one; and therefore no infringement of it should be suffered, with out very weighty grounds. In this case he saw none; fur a man coming to the Church to be married, did not by that give his assent to any of the doctrines of the Church, but only to go through a particular ceremony, which he could not get performed elsewhere. In cases where Jews and Quakers were married by the Church of England, they were required to prove that they were. Jews or Quakers; but the Unitarians were to be ex empted from this, and the Public thereby deprived of a very important security. Unless the Bill was very much altered in the Committee, he could not give it his assent. Lord HOLLAND argued in favour of the measure; and the LORD CDANCELLoft explained. The Marquis of LAN'SDOWN replied. Then house then divided, when the numbers were— Contents . - 21 Not Contenti Proxies - - 14 Proxies 35 - 20 - 13 The Bill of course was read i second time upon a majority ot two. It was ordered to be committed on illonday.—Adjouram‘ t lIOUSE OF COMMONS. Lord STANLEY moved the third tc..eiing of the Lancaster Judges'. Lodging Bill. General GASCOYNE moved.as an Amendment, that the Bill should be read a third time on Tuesday.—On this Amendment the House divided.—For the third reading 41—Against it, 24—Ma jority in favour of the 'Bin, 17.—The Bill was then read a third time and passed. Mr. -Alderman WOOD said, he bad several Petitions to present against the second reading of the St. Catherine's Dock Bill; and here he must observe, that a paragraph had appeared in one of the blornitig Papers, imputing to him that he was the author of this Bill. Now hr could assure the House, that he had no knowledge whateier of this Bill until after it was in the House. lie had, in deed, presented one Petition in favour of the Bill, but he had pre sented several against it ; and they must be strong reasons indeed which would prevent his opposing the second reading of the sill, when he considered the arguments which had been used by a nu merous body of his constituents against the construction of these Docks. The lion. Alderman then presented Petitions against the Bill from the Commissioners of Sewers for the Parish of St. Ca therine's; from several Ship-owners, from a body of Merchants, and from a number of the Inhabitants of St. Catherine'sAU or dered to he printed. The Sheriffs of London presented a Petition from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council, against reviving the Alien Bill. Mr. Altitirman WOOD said, that he strongly approved of the Petition. It was agreed to at a full meeting of the Common Coun cil, and was carried by large majority. Many of the Common Councilmen had reason to know the injurious character of the Bill, for many of their ancestors had perceived the advantages of suffer ing foreigners to reside amongst us. Alderman II EY G ATE thought that such power ought to rest' with the Ministers; and he had sufficient confidence in them to lease it to them to determine when such measure ought to cease. Alderman C. SCI ETII expressed similar sentiment4.—The Peti tion was ordered to be printed. The Sheriffs of London also presented a Petition from the Com. Mon Council, against the St. Catharine's Suspension Bridge Bill. Sir J. YORKE trusted that the House would pause before it agreed to this Bill—it would be a most " diuightly" object; for, only think of an enormous umbrella spread over acres of ocean!! Mr. J. SMITH said, that, the principles on which the Bridge were to be built merited approbation. Mr. HUME thought the Hon. Baronet had unfairly opposed the Bill; the principle of the Bridge had frequently been advantageously tried. It would be no obstruction to the River. Sir I. COFFIN said, that no bridge could be built without ob structing the River. Mr. II UM E replied, that this Bridge would go over the River. Mr. CALVERT said he should oppose the Bill, as it interfered with the property of his constituents.—Ordered to lie on the table. A Petition was presented from Mr. Hoare, a brewer, against the St. Catharine's Docks Bill. Several other Petitions were presented against the said Bill, from Wm. Clay, Wm. Fitzroy, several Ship owners, the parish of St. Botolph, Aldgate, &c. Alderman 'THOMPSON presented a Petition from Wm. Ponti fez, against the Fleet-market Bill. ST. CATHICAINS'S DOCKS. Mr. P. GRENFELL moved the second reading of the St. Catherine's Docks Bill. Under ordinary circum stances, he should make no remark ; loaras the Bill was to be opposed, he should trespass on the House for a short time. Docks were much wanted for the in c reasedanil increasing commerce of the country. In 1798, the exports and imports were £30,000,000; they• were now £56,000,000. Independent of such increase, there was the Warehousing Act of a former Session : and by !that Act upwards of 200 different articles might be de posited in warehouses in this country. The Company asked no exclusive privileges. The grounds on which this Bill was opposed by a monopoly, which, he trusted, would never be renewed, were those on which the Bill ought to be supported. - Mr. CALVERT opposed the Bill. The Docks al ready provided for huodreds of thousands of tons more than were wanted ; he therefore moved as an amendment, that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. Sir J.YORKE seconded the amendment, and in doing so he should tire off his squib at the blue-eyed Nun of St. Cathei ine's—(A laugh). This pretty piece of work had for some time occupied the . attention of 18 gentle men and a half; namely, 18'gentlemen who had sub- DISSENTERS' MA RRIACIE BILL. The Marquis of LANSDOWN ' moved the second reading of this Bill; and, in doing so, would not have troubled them at any length, had it not been that lie an ticipated some opposition to it. This Bill had its rise in Petitions from the Protestant Dissenters, which were referred to the. Committee on the General Marriage Act; and alrhougliihe Committee did not think it proper to report on the Petitions, yet the Members of it were ge nerally favourable to the prayer of them. It was of the utmost importance, that such a contract as that of mar riage should be celebrated with as much publicity and solemnity as would make it lasting and binding. But after that, it was their duty to give to all within the pale of Cluistianity the facility of being bound according to their own feelings and religious belief. The pro position which he had to make in no way altered or interfered with the Liturgy of the Church of England, in the mode of celebrating marriages according to it. He only called on them to sanction the entering into that important contract in their own way, by those whose religious beliefs and ceremonies in every thing else was tolerated by the law of the land. All that was necessary was, to give publicity to the con tract; and he proposed now, that Unitarians should be allowed to celebrate marriages in their own Chapels, upon the payment of fees to the Church : of England. But it was objected that such a facility would open a door to clandestine marriages ; but that could not be the case, as they would marry none- but members of their own persuasion and congregations. The Bill proposed that any Minister should be punishable, if-he presumed to act contrary to the provisions of this Bill ; and in the Committee he should propose the punishment to be transportatiOn. 'though the security of banns being published had been thought sufficient, yet he had no objection to the registry of these marriages in the Parish Church. It Was impossible that Unitarians could give a direct assent to the marriage ceremony of the Church of England without a violation of their own consciences. If they granted this, it' would be soon attended by a burden, in consequence of the additional expense to which it would subject them. Unless some Noble Lord was of opinion that Unitarians should be. put out of the pale of society;' he kite* not what objection could be made to this Bill, the second reading of which he moved. The Archbishop Of CANTEIMUSY said, last Ses- sion a Bill of a different coniplexion was brought into the House. There appeared then a disposition in their Lordships to give relief to the Unitarians, which could only be done by allowing them to intermarry in their own places of worship, only altering the Church of England Liturgy to meet their views and tenets. To the latter of these expedients he totally objected. He was friendly to the second 'reading of the Bill, trusting that in the Committee they would be able to devi,e measures to give security to the Unitarians, and nextto the Public at latge. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that he spoke as a member of the Church of England ; and it was his dUty to support it, and the principles upon which it had been established. When the Act of Toleration, in King William's reign, passed, it gave no toleration to those who denied the doctrine of the Trinity. That Act punished the denial as blasphemy and profaneness, and that severity of punishment was the cause of its repeal, as well as that of the Scotch Act on the same subject. They had Jews and Quaker-,whose marriage ceremonies were not according to the Church of England. If this Act were passed, could they refuse the same sanction to them, and above all, to the Roman Catholics, who did not dissent from the doctrine of the Trinity ; and were they to grant it U.) the *Unitarians, who were to go to the Archbishop of .Cariterbury, and say to him, " We deny the truth of the ftinity, a nd therefore you must grant me a mar r i age li cen i e r He could nut agree to make the Church of England -subservient to these people, whose belief was blasphemy by the Common Law. His objection to this Bill was, that if there was one doctrine more essential to the existence of the Church of England than another, it was the belief in the Trinity, and there fore he should vote against the Bill. The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, he should vote for the second reading of the Bill, and for its going into. the Committee; but it mus t come out of it very different from what it now was before he could consent to it. The relief should be given wherehoth were Unitarians ; but if one was of the Church of England, as in other cases, then they should be married by the forms of the Church of England. That was the case where one party was a - Jew, or a Catholic. The Bishop of CHESTER heaven bred" in the prin ciples of religious toleration; but this was a mere civil - , ~_~ Tr' ii•idai ;._.. - scribed 50,0001. each, and one who bad subscribed 30,0001. Where the million of money was to come from, he knew not—he hoped not from the pockets of any onourable Member ; but as the spot ch sen was the one required by and refused to the London Dock Company, he could not think the short time that had elapsed could render the Docks there requisite now. Besides the IS' gentlemen and a half wanted to get noses too near the London Docks ; and he therefore op posed the Bill with all his heart. ....... • . Mr. J. SMITH and 'Mr. HUMS opposed the Bif,en the ground that sufficient notice had not been given of the intention to apply to Parliament. . Mr. MANNING deemed it right to state that these Docks could not be wanted, since the London Dock Company had still many warehouses which were un finished, and which they would be glad to finish if they had encouragement. Mr. T. WILSON was in favour of the Bill, because he thought the additional accommodation in the Port of London was wanted, under Cie .new and particular circumstances of the commerce of the counts y. Mr. BRIGHT was against the Bill, on account of the hasty manner in which it was brought forwarsh Alderman HEYGATE said, in the London D rk, of the warehouses were unoccupied. Had the other Di .ckt paid so well ? Even if the persons who pi o.tioted this Bill were disposed to fool away their own motley. they were not to be clothed with the Parharneotsr y autho rity to fool away the money and prppeity . of other I:er sons. The Bill gave to the individuals large pthit „-es and exemptions; and it was to destroy one beantiful . chuich, cis o burial grounds, and whole streets. The Bill was to encourage a wild-goose speculation. Par. liament ought to interpose, and to prevent the.misery and I uin of hundreds of families. HALDINIAND supported the Bill. He beheved the gallant Admiral was mitt.tken in the asserttoo that this spot had been refused to the London Dock Com pany ilk) years ago—(Hear). The Company were em powered to treat for it, 'butithey went lower down, be cause the property was there. to • be obtainea at a lower rate. Besides, as 200 at tides siege to be warehoused, it' would do well to make arrangements for the changes that might be expected to result. Mr. BUTTERWORTH, Mr. LITTLIMONy and Mr. W. Suin, thought a sufficient necessity was not made out for the Bill. The CHANCELLOR.of the EXCHEQUER .a id, that difficulty had not beets thrown in the way of the Bill. because it was deemed A fair subject for consi..e. ration. He sliould not oFrpose the second .eading. he• cause he thought it might be shewn that additional docks would be useful; at the same time, if disa,lvan tage to many individuals were to result, that would be ground, in the Committee, for throwing out the Bill for the present Session. He did net feel that he sh.iuld be warranted in opposing the second reading. Mr. WALLACE also supported the second reading. Thi; measure would have the effect of reducing the Dock dues; if it were thrown nut s the monopoly would be secured, and perhaps it would drive still more of the trade from London. • Mr. P. GRENFELL replied...-, Three hundred out of the five hundred housekeepers, who were to be dis turbed by the Bill, had petitioned for it ; and as to St. Catherine's Church, theie would be no occasion to touch it--(11ear). As to the necessity for the Bill, a large body of merchants had said that such additional Docks were wanted —(Hear, hear). The gallery was cleared for a division-- For the Motion 74—For the Amendment 59—MajorIty is fa. TOW of the espessd reading as. SUPPLY. The Mille went Into a Committee of Supply. Mr. HERRIES moved for• Newfoundland £4830. Mr. HUME repeated, that those places were able to pay tlie:r own expenses; and be trusted That next Session different arrange ments would be maclr.—Agreed to. Mr. BERRIES moved for the new Building at Whitehall, for the .Board of Trade, 417,000. The gm 4NC ELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, the new Buildirig had become necessary, from the' inclination the old build- • ins had evinced to tumble. A, handsome building was Uncurled fur the site—for a Board of Trade, the Privy Council, &C. - Mr. W. SMITH asked whether the public-house at the corner of Downing-street was to remain? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied In the • negative. • - Mr. W. SMlTH—and that on the opposite side? • The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied, that% , was not quite clear whether such '-'public-huniti was built 460 - Crown land ; but it would be advisable to keep an eye 44 . 401% -, house, with the view of perfecting aboappeirance of the 1011.111111. • Mr. HERRIES moved X 63,200 for the purchase of the Apaepp _ stein Collection of Pictures. •Mr. A. ELLIS expressed his approbation of the object of this vote. He suggested the policy of setting apart money to purchile and separate pictures. Mr. BERNAL said they would not get a person to look after the pictures properly for aftoo a-year. Sir C. LONG also expressed hls approbatin of_thisvote. The Resolution was agreed to. .5,000 was voted for Improving the liavigatifft Rf Otit Men* Straits. . • • -. X 34,450 was voted for the Charges of Classoll iviiween_. . . abroad.suls • .. • . ..C2Z,500 was voted to pay the Expense of at areili , ollllllloll4..- to South America. • • " X 543,000 was voted for Cominissariat'Eopenses. £620,000 for Army Extraordinarles. • £106,510 w3siroposed for Civil Contingencies. Mr. HUM objected to a sum of 5001. as a salary to Sir William Cougreve for inspecting gas-works; be said the Hon. Baronet had made a resort that tbeielaal„ the greatest danger from the explosion of a gasometer, whereas Sir Humphry Davy, and other scientific men, had stated, that there was not thehleast danger of ex plosion ; that a lighted torch plunged into a gaaOgiet er would be extinguished. Mr. PEEL said, it was judged proper to have an in spector, for the public security, as many scientific melt were of opinion there was danger from the gasometers. Alderman WOOD said he hoped the Secretary of State would direct that the Gas General should inspect the Mansion House, as there was a gasometer there, which he slept over for two years, and if there was all the danger from explosion that was represented, not only the Royal Exchange, but even , the Bank of Eng. land might be blown up.—The vote was agreed to. £195,457 was voted for the Disembodied Militia of Great WC tain.—The House resumed; the Chairman reported progress, and asked leave to sit again. .'. • ALIEN BILL. Mr. Secretary PEEL then moved that the Order of the Day be read for the second reading of the Alien BA Mr. HUME said, as he intended to oppose the Bill -in every stage, he should object to the reading of the Order of the Day; and as an assurance had been given that the Right Honourable Secretary for the Foreign Department would that evening state the reasons why the. ill should be renewed, he hoped the House wetild have the benefit of that informatisln before the order of Use day WAS ze.tcl. the Bight Hotiolsiable Gentleman (Mr. Peel), on.opening the debate on the first reaping of the Bill, had represented, from facts of an aueikat date, that the rower of expelling Aliens was inherent in ._ 31i it a PA cot Tel ttl tb 4 C t 4 3 1 ' ~.~