Star. — London, England, 1814-05-18 00:00:00

/was, the frequent meet:4 l , gs which had been held by the Catholic Clergy P . n (;eland; an assumption of authority the more IP:ander ful, considering the restric. tions which the C?.tholic Clergy had submitted to in Catholic as well as reformed countries. The columns of the Dublin papers were full of accounts or pro. jects of such ar,semblies ; and to prove their assump tion of corporate authority, he had only need to refer to resolutions of the Catholic Prelatei, adopted in a Meeting held at Dublin on the 16th of February, 1810. Ile hoped the Government of Ireland was alive to the consequences of such meetings, as well as tot rat of another body—the Catholic Board—a body which had taken on itself to appeal from its own Government to the Spanish Cortes. Of this proceeding, the mischievousness of which was only to be equalled by its folly, for they thus appealed against intolerance to the most intolerant government , of Enrope. The Honourable Baronet then proceeded to advert to the umtradicti(in which existed between theßescripis which had on former occasions been obtained from Rome, and which thus rendered them of no authority. In. 1805, when Dr. Milner wrote to Rome, to obtain a Rescript respecting a provision. to be made for the clergy, from the State, the Secre tary de propaganda had returned a Rescript, which deprecated such, a measure, as one fraught with the most ruinous conseq • uences 'to the Catholic . Church. This Rescript was in exact echo of the letter which Dr. Milner had written, and the Rescript of the fol lowing year, which wasiintanded to carry a lit:fen:lnt poirat, sontaine.d sentiments completely opposite to it. The Papers which he should wish to be printed would inform the House of the regulations adopted in fo reign edentries, respecting the Catholic Clergy, and would rive them a more accurate idea of the practice of the,.catholic Church, than could be obtained from the varying and contradictory rescripts of the Papal See. The Honourable Baronet, after recommending the .diffelence between the Prelates and the Catholic Clergy 40 the attention of the:lrish Government, con cluded by !nosing, that the 42d and 43d paragraph of the instructions to Sir G. Prevost, Governor of Lower . Canada, of the 2.2c1 Ootober, 1811, presented to the House of Commons in July, 1813, belaidbefore the Honse. Sir H. PARNELL stated, that he had an inter view with Mr. Kenny, the head of the Institution, which had been alluded to by the Hon. Baronet, and had been fas'oured with a prospectus of the establish ment, which was in tact no other than a lay establish ment for the education of young people in Ireland of any religious persuasion. Not only were no new 'doe- trines to be taught in this seminary, but it was open to the inspection of any person who had curiosity enough to desire it. The Honourable Baronet (Sir J, Q. Hippesley) had not stated any fact to the House to induce them to believe that the Institution was any other than he (Sir H. Parnell) had described it. Any fears from the efforts of the Jesuits in the present state of that society, and of religious opinions, he conceiv ed to be lidictilous; and he did not see how the House or Government could interfere to prevent a gentleman frpm keeping a school because he was formerly edu cated at a Jesuit's college. ' Mr. PEELE said, he should not have spoken on the subject before the House unless he bad thought that his silence might be misconstrued. He should therefore protest against any inference that the Irish Government had negkcied the subject alluded to by the Hun. B.ironet. He (Mr. P.) had, in consequence of some conversation in the blouse last year, request-' ed an interview with Mr. Kenny, the head of the in stitutton at castle Brown, and bid been informed by hint that it was a lay institutioa, for instruction—not exclusively, for Catholics, and carried on by Itim, not as agent for any other person, but on his own account. To a question respecting tlit source from which he bad derived his funds, that gentleman had given no answer. He (Mr. P.) had then told him that he was sita. to infer that the .liish Government acquiesced in the existence of the institution ? but, that they should continue to watch it with jealousy. Sir J. NEWPORT said, that in 1806 or 7, in con sequence of a refusal on the part of the Archbishop of Dublin to licence a Roman Catholic teacher, the Trish Government had authorised the Benches of Md.. gistrates, or the Ordinary, to licence teachers of that religion. The teachaa at Castle Brown must have been licensed by one sof these atathorities, and if so, lie was legally compettnt to superintend that seminary. He should not enter into the question whence the fonds for the support of that seminary were derived, but it was highly desirable that there should be some Inst tation in Ireliind fur the Lay Catholics, as May. not,th was not open to them. Sir H. FA ItNELL explained, that he was autho rised .0 say that Mr. Kenny had ref used to answer the apt - soon from what quarter he der‘ved his funds, merely because he had conceived such a question to be an impropa' interference with his private con cerns. Mr. PEELE, in eTplanation, observed that the ut most jealousy of Jesuitic Institutions had always been evinced by the Legislature and Goyerament of this country, and, therefore, when he had the communi catioo alluded to with Mr. Kenny, he felt himself bound to state to that gentleman, that he should con ceive it his drty, in his official station, to a atch the establish:nein with which he (Mr. *Kenny) was con nected, ia ith peculiar jealousy, to which he. was the more disposed by that Gentleman's refusal to state the funds from which he derived the very considerable sum will which that establishment was supporteda:— He was besides induced to feel jealous of such an In stitution by the same motives which urged the Go vernmeut of Canada to abolish the Order of J es uit s , and to confiscate the property belonging to that order. Sir J. NI.WPORT denied that the property of the Jesuits had been confiscated in Canada, althougli the establishment of the order was prohibited, that pro perty having been, on the contrary, settled upon the individuah possessed of it with benefit of survivorship, so that the whole of this property had actually fallen into tie bar;cl% of an .ti(riVid94. • Sir J. C. HIPPISLEV contended ? that the pro perty of the Jesuits had been confiscated in Canada by the ordei of the Canadian Qoverninent, and that this property kid been since granted to Lord 4mherst. lie contended also; that according to theßultOf Pope GAnganelli, whockodered the univer s al abolition oa the Jesuits, who waf, much more deyoted to their own General than to the Pope, 41 Christian countries, whether Catholic or Protestant, must fees ilaitzen to discountenance such institutions 7 4,1 All Christian States had indeed manifested their sense 1 of this interest ; and it behoved the Government of I England to look with peculiar care to the institution under discussion, especially when it was known that such a considerable sum had been found to support it, and that sum too derived from some source which the Principal of the Institution refused to reveal; He (Sir J. C. Hippisley) could not help declaring his re gret. that Gentlemen of great weight and character in that House had thought proper to decline expressing any objection to the establishment alluded to. Upon the character of the Jesuits he did not think it neces sary tqAtate any opinion, nor to call to the recollection of the House the jealousy which all the free and hide. pendent States of Europe had manifested against that Order. But he must again caution the British Go vernment to be on its guard. For the moral charac ter and general good disposition of the present Pope, he ptofesied the highest respect.. But the Jesuits had always been found a powerful means of influence, a formidable band of intriguers, apd he therefore would wish to protecthis country against the fat of any Pope, for the resurrection and reorganization of such an order. The motion was agreed to ; and the several papers presented to the House in May last with regard to the Catholics were, on the motion of Sir I C. HIPPISLEY, ordered to be re-printed. • THE CORN LAWS. A Petition against the proposed change in the Corn • LAws was presented by Sir M. W. RIDLEY, and ordered to lie on the table. On the motion of Mr. FOSTER for the recorit• mittal of the Report respecting•the Corn Law s , Sir JOHN' NEWPORT expressed his conviction that themost convincing arguments had been adduced to she that it was the policy of this country to guard its home agriculture by providing against the free import of foreign corn. If it were asked whether it was necessary to alter the arre.ngements of 1804, or provide any additional guard for our,agticulture, as that agriculture had since increased, he should answer that this increase was not owing to those arrange. ments, but to the peculiar nature of our relations with foreign States. Besides, it was now impossible to put the agriculturists in the same state that they were in in 1801-, as so many additional burthens had been since impoSed upon them, and would it then be fair to expose them to competition in their own market with foreign agriculturists, after having in curred those very burthens—after becoming subject to such a weight of taxation for the deliverance of Europe, for the advantage of foreign States, in order to relieve them from the calamities of wars ? Such a proposition would, indeed, be utterly destitute of com mon justice, as to allow a foreigner, armed witlt the, security which Great Britain had purchased for him by '2O years war, to undersell the British trader in his own market". In fact, the principles.of a free trade could not be fairly applied to the question of' corn, es pecially after those pi inciples had hewn departed front with regard to our other manufactures. Our woollen manufacture, for instance, was protected against the competition of any foreigner whatever in our own ket, and why should not o'er corn meet an equal protection? It was alledged that the proposed ar rangement would serve to impose a permanent tax udon the consumer; but he denied the justice of this allegation. It, however, it were evan true, he should have no hesitation to assert, that it would be for the interest of the consumer to pay that tax in order to sect:re the advantages of that steady supply, and in dependency of any foreign State, which the measure promised. As to the argunteat, that the tendency of this me isure would he to throw capital unnaturally into agriculture, he thonght it quite untenable, as the only probablejestilt would be to recover for agricul ture, which formed the most solid wealth of a nation, that capital which had been heretofore diverted from it by an undue partiality to manufactures. But the, • advantages •r hick the proposed Al rangeme4t held out 'to Ireland ware incalculable. In that country, the interest of which was completely identified with that of Great Britain, not above one-fourth of the people were employed in manufactures, the. rem7tinder being wholly dependent on agriculture or pasturage, and there agaiculttire has of late years made very conside rable advance ; insomuch, indeed, that it had ',Ton ed a vast quantity of corr. to this part of the empire. Would it then be fair or wise to impede the prosperity of that country ? But it such impediment were : really offered, what must be the state of things between the two countries? Ireland at present took the risanufac tures of England, and paid for their corn. it indeed prohibited any manufacturer from enter inginto com petition with that of England in the Irish market. Its duties with a view to that prohibition were, upon woollen, as 5U to 1 in favour of England—upon hard ware as 33 to 10—upon glass as b 3 to 10, and so on in proportion upon earthenware and other articles of English manulactnre. Would it then be an equita ble return towards Ireland to withhold due encourage ment from that agriculture which enabled it to pay for such articles—which enabkd it, especially of late years, to become the best customer of England ? In tact, if that encouragement were ref used, he could not .e,csaceive how the Irish people were to pay these Ab-, sentee rents, which formed so severe a drain upon that country. These absentee rents, however, were spoilt in England, which thus profited. in every point of • view, by the improving industry of Ireland. To the interest of that country he therefore trusted that the House would look with peculiar solicitude, and no dthing could contribute so materially to that interest • as the encouragement - of agriculture, to which the • , Irish wet e peculiarly disposed, and which was so much • more calculated than pasturage, or perhaps even ma , npfactures, to promote morality, industry, and good order. * _ . Mr. BURp.ELL said, that many Gentlemen seemed to conceive that corn was the only thing which ought to be lowered in price. He would wish to know whether any of them had found out a way to lower the price of all other comrnodnios in the same proportion. Oqr farmers were loaded with taxes nn land, horses, leather, propgro-ta4, and tithes, beyond what the farmers of other nations were subject to. It corn tha v t s subject to none of these ditties were allowed . to come free into Zpr market, this country would SOOTI he overwhelmed with corn from the Con tinent. When wp had, from official accounts, a statement of the rapid *Tease of agriculturp in . Ire. land, were we to n check her prosperous carevr ? the tgricultoristt or this country did not ask for motiq r poly—they onfwvanted protection. They did ui-,t want to raise the price of Ott loaf ;spoil the poor, but tboy wanted to be preferred to foreigners in their own markets. Sir HENRY PARNEtt. vindicated the Report of the Committee from the inaccuracies charged upon it by a Right Hon. Gentleman, in his speech or pam phlet, for he knew not by which name to characterize The Right Hon. Gentleman himself, in mler taking to expose what he considered the errors of that Report, bad himself fallen into a variety of mistakes. At the very outset, he charged him (Sir Henry Par nell) with being the only one who had suggested the first Resolution : but what had occurred since utterly . disproved that assertion. In fact, &re were many things in the pamphlet which the Right Honour. able Gentleman had not uttered in his speech.— In comparing the Eton prices of wheat, a wrong principle had been assumed in the pamphlet. —The Eton market was supplied with the best wheat, and in reducing the Eton measure to . the Statute measure, it was necessary to deduct t wo-ninths; in stead of which the Right Hon. Gentleman had de ducted only one-ninth.. In another part of the pamph let it was said that the Committee had very snperfi cially examined the various Statutes connected with the Corn Trade, having mentioned only seven ;—if the Right Hon.7Gentleman had read the Report a little more attentively, however, he would find that fourteen were mentioned. All the Acts, indeed, that had any present relation to the subject were examined by the Committee. It was stated by the Committee that this had been an importing country sir.ce 1761; but the Right I-lon. Gentleman affirmed, that the statement was contrary to the fact, inferring, of course, that it had been an exporting country, during that pe riod. But he could not disprove the Report. Sir M. WOOD here rose to order, and observed, that if the Hon. Baronet went on 'ranking the pamph let, they would have an hour's reply from the Right Hon. Gentleman in defence of it. ( A laugh.) Be sides, it was taking the House unfairly, as many Mem bers bad come down expecting the Amendment of an Hon. Member to be proposed. Sir H. PA RNELL continued, by observing, that the statements of the Right Hon. Gentleman were ab solutely erroneous, and that he had failed, ia every instance, in fixing any inaccuracy upon the labours of the Committee, .and contended that no Committee bad ever taken more pains to produce a well digested and correct Report. Mr. ROSE said, he was sorry that the objections of the Honourable Baronet had not been brought forward earlier, its he unfortunately laboured under such a severe cel.l that he doubted whether be could render himself audible to the 1 - louse. With regard to want had been stated by the Honourable Barimet, he had nut satistied him (Mr. Rose) thit he had fallen into a single mistake. He was still of opinion, 'that such a Report had never been prec:nted to Par liament upon so grave and important a subject. As to the statement in the Pamphlet, that the first Reso lution belonged wholly to the Hononrahle Baronet, the only mistake he had committed in that waa, that he had not been gifted with the power of prophecy ; tor when the assertion was made, no ether person, ex cept the Honourable Baronet, had addre,sed the House upon t h at. proposition. With regard to the Eton tables, if the Honourable Baronet, had lead his speech, he would have found the reason stated, why he (Mr. Rose) had deducted only or.e-ninth, instead of two. _He had applied to the Registrar of Eton College, - and bad received from him a certificate, which, if lie had anticipated the object ions that were made, he could have brought in his pocket, from which it appeared that the wheat supplied at the Erin man Let was not the best wheat, but whit was called the middling wheat ; and therefore, the second ninth ought not to be deducted in reducing the Eton to the statute measure. He should not trouble the House with replying minutely to what had been advanced by the Honourable Baronet, but content himself with stating his firm conviction that in every thing which he bad brought forwarthin his speech, he was borne out by facts. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER deprecated any farther occupation of the time of the House in this stage of the business—he wished the House to go at once . , into Committee on the Resolu ;ion.—(llear, bear) - On the second Resolution being read, Mr. FOSTER rose and said he should state, as shortly as possNe, his view of the question in refe rence to the Amendment which he intended to pro pose. The uniform policy pursued by the Corn Laws had been to incre4ae the quantity of corn by increasing the home growth, and shutting out the importation of it, tilt Corn had reached a very high price in the hame market. This was done to protect the agri culturist, atd with this view the duties imposed were tantamount to a complete prohibition of importation. Th.: wisdom of those laws, while they were left in full operation, was sufficiently apparent. From 1670 to 176.5, this country had supplied itself with all the Corn it consumed, and had besides exported large quantities. During the whole of that period, there %%etc only two years in which the exports had tint ex. cteded the imports, and, therefore, the effect of that regulation and encouragement, which it was the ob ject of the law to produce, was to secure this country from the necessity of depending on foreign supply. From 1765,however,matters were changed. The laws first began to fail in their operations in 1757, and the Legislature then fOund it necessary to interfere from year to year, whence he inferred that our duty now was to bring the law hack to its old original prin ciple, so as to secure the same encouragement to farmers, and the same good results to the country. This was specifically the object of his Amendment.— The power of money of that period over the necessa ries of life, compared with that of the present day, was in the proportion of el. 13s. Bd. to £7. 4s. 4td. which with the duty of XI. 4s. 4d. would make the sum at present amount to in. Bs. 80. He did not •intenit, however, to propose any thing like this, as the sum at which import of corn should be permitted ; but, by taking the view of the subj ermined by his Right Hon. Friend • (Mr. Rose lf, as the protecting price against importati amounted to R 5. Is. 4d. ; or by taking the av of the last two years, which amounted to about 45. 2s. he thought no one could find fault with him in proposing for the protection of the -British fitful& the sum of 45, as the price ;t which permission should be given to import corn into these kingdoms. A greater proof of the policy of this measure could not be pointed out than this, that from the year 1700 to the year 176.5, when - the export of corn was encoura g e d, d the potation of it was discouraged, the system was Timm , effectual to keep down the prices. It was not till after the year 1765, when a change of system way adopted, that the operation of the law failed, and no better reason than this could be adduced why w:' should now return to the old system. To fix an im portation price would have this good effect, that it would hold out to the farmer, that, up to that price, he should have his own market, free from the inter ference of foreign growers, which would operate as an inducement to hint to embark his capital in ainal pursuits. When corn began to be scanty in a country, that was no reason why We should immedi atclyfly ma foreign supply; on the contrary, we shoal try what economy would do before we h ad' recoerre to foreign aid. Nothing was so injurious to a country as the unsteady prices of corn ; and 'therefore it was better to fix the importation price at once, at a sum which was likely to protect the aatine grower, witlient producing a necessity for frequent lilteratiens -f tha law.. From the year 1763 down to 1770 there were' no less than fourteen Corn Acts passed ; from 177 1 ) to 1780 there were eight Acts more ; from 1790 to 1790 there were seven Acts on the satin subject; from 1790 to ISOO there were eleven more Acts ; and from • 1800 to 181 . 0 there were thirteen Coro Acts, being .11 Acts on the. subject of Corn passed in the space of V; years. In corroboration of his position, the kight Ho nourable Gentleman alluded to the situation of agri : culture in Ireland previous to the year 1782, when. Mr. Grattan had succeeded in procuring a change ' her system. England then scat Corn to Ireland on sr bounty, and Ireland had not the power of exportation. lii three years after the alteration was introduced, she cc as able to provide for her own wants, and soon after wards to export to England to the amount of £:;,000,000. Indeed there was no saying to what extent her export trade might be carried under proper encouragement. • What he should now propose would not have the enct of exciting any great extension of agricultural pursuits, but would only have the effect ot preventing a retrograde motion. He concluded by prornising an amendment to this effect, That itawas expedient that the sever:A duties in existence should cease, and that importation should be prohibi:ed when ever the prices should be tind6r 100 s. per quarter of wheat ; titis. per quarter of barley and rye ; 50s. per quarter ot big or bear ; and Tis. - 6,1. of oats, except coin coming from our American Colonies, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was of opinion, that it might he hett.:r that the farther consideration of this part of the subject should fie postponed till next Session. At all eventspit either the graduated scale or the amendment were now to be adopted, lie thought it should be only'for a time to be limited The graduated scale,. in his opinion, was tie preferable mode of proceeding ; it liremed, in deed, to be the only mode.hy which a sudden transi tion from prohibition to a free importation could be resorted. He doubted, itnetever, if an thing could • ultimately ti more effectual on this subject than free export would be. Mr. J. P. GRANT thought thit - no proposition could be more plain than this, that the commer cial, agricultural, and mannfacluring interests of the country were inseparable ; anJ that all of them, as far as the object' could be accomplished, ought to be put on an, equal footing. The Right . Honourable Gen tleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) treated this question as if it were one on which the House and the country had no experience. He seemed to regard it as if we were in a new situation, one in which we were called on to Legislate on a speculative ground ; and as if the present was entirely s new case.— • He (Mr. Grant) entertained great respect for the opinions and authorities of his Honourable Friends on the other side, but still he must be excused for sayihg,. that he telt mirth more attached to the .evidence of experience ; and, if he found that a system had beat . acted on with.success for half a century—when that system was departed from, that contrary effects were , produced—when he saw the formersystem again act ed on, and again the same consequences produced— , whether these effects necessarily followed from the systems or not, he could not resist the conviction that there must be a connection between these opposite systems and their effects. He could not help saying. when he saw one system produce happy effects, and another system produce consequences exactly the con trary, that he must regard this as something moat than the mere effect of chance. He could not help thinking that Gentlemen were bound to shew him, in such a state of things; that there were other reasons which might have produced, and had produced, those effects. To judge of the force of this observation, he should take the averages of certain considerable pe riods at the different times he had alluded to, and should see what effect the two contradictory systems had, at those various periods, produced on the price of grail. We had no returns of the price of grain prior to the year 1605, when the first return of the price of grain was made. He should state it without making any deduction. The average of the first eleven years was £2. Is. 6d. From the year 1620 to 1625 the average price was. el 2s. 3d. 3.sths. During the next fen years the average price was AM 10s. sd. being one-sixth more; and, during the following ten years, the average price was £2. 17& 3d. being about one seventh more ; or during the operation of the system, pursued in the reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King dilutes, a rise of about 16s. Then the system was reversed, and a great rise took place in the price of grain ; but, about the year 1700 the old system was again restored, and between that period and the year 1765, a fall of more than one-fourth took place below the average, which had existed before this old system was again called into operation. So that, notwithstanding the lapse of 160 years, and notwith standing the great depreciation of money within that period, the monied price of corn w is then ex actly the same it had been 160 years ber ire.—Theei. once more, after those laws were again abolished, the average price of corn row within the first twenty years to £5. Is. 9d. ; but deducting tor the depreciation of money to 43. 16s, being one half 4s much again as the average of the former twenty years.. So he ( Mr. Grant) was entitled to conclude, from what hid passed before, during the poi iod of, and since those systems had been acted upon, that those effects to which he had alluded were the necessary tome quences of those opposite systems'which had at dif. fetent periods prevailed. By the one of thosi syS terns our exports increased, and by the other our ex ports were entirely done away; and the importation of corn increased in a proportionate degree: The variations in this respect were inexplicable in any fluff *ay than as beiug cousidcrc hange of systeth. Why our m.l acreage and prosper while our agt lackwards„ or vice terra, could un in this principle, that equal advar )ut to both. No person could friend than he (Mr. Grant') was t at the same time, he thought that be extended equally to all the obj ro the graduated scale proposedl ma n (Mr. Eisskisson). be (Mr. ( objection, because it did not fix point out to the farmer any disi be cou ld look for the regulati ..It was a great error to suppo land was raised by an increase It was raised by the increase of pier, and that depended not of price of corn, but on the increas it. It was so in manufactures. worn at present, from its cheap= ilphe inferior classes, was one whi the days of our grandmothers , afforded to purchase. Yet, wa latturer of the present day po mendfatturer of former days' though the price of his manufa rably diminished, yet the dem than proportionably increased. of the farmers, depended on tl could produce, and that again tal which be was able to emp error to say that she pries of Lai price of corn. America, and th trasted with Holland, afforded this assertion. The price of la! every thing else, depended on In times of scarcity, labour average price, and in times of in times of scarcity the labou work snore, and in times of ph Work le.s, than wis average all mince would refer to the enqui esl Lords, in 1812, into the e; an ufactioing districts, they aby evidence that those dist the pike of corn, but from chi He was anxious to satisfy tl question before them had net joyments of the people, even i lation were to raise the averse he was satisfied it would not great objects which the Legi contemplation on this subject at ai steady a price as possif ply some fund for occasion tirmly persuaded that this itself for its supply, and What hazard could result A free exportation had b s.—lf to this were added sue: market as would induce the industriously, in the hope of object-would be obtaieed. to go further than the props lie would willingly returns tiod of the aban&ntwent country had commenced, a exportation of corn—yet I limited measure be was cc • in 'Apia:ling coma". whip never s ufficiently guard a •iils which we had endure patinas that had of late ye grain. On all these groan tordial support to the pro Gentleman. Mr. F. LEWIS was c this subject to itself, they heat to the country than f with It. Ma. L. P. WELLES: ',Won made by his Right he was that the agricultnr to such a state of perfect enable us to supply one c Mr. ROSE was of o amendment passed, 1061 1 1 nimum price of corn. Mrs HUSKISSON d I* by no means thought aorta from some times ci He was not averse to re very distant period ; proposed by the Chance long for so important Mr. D. GIDPY sal by Mr. Fosters V 1 45 Gov would be better fixed a Mr. FOSTER had in his amendment to S Lord MILTON thi to a Inver conclusion ;ea. He therelcre w chequer to persist in poned till next Sessioi Mr. CANNING poaetnent of the sulit scale was the least c least, for he had con lecessary or proper ti alone. namely, the grain. But as he d judgment against th the graduated sae, future stage, from th'ult proper. He I ra.,:asure would be 1 •••*.ts not unanimibu beiug allowed to Whatever mea‘sri he merely tempera, The CHANCE said. that if the Cc aced stale, it migh till next Session. After some obi I. Newvoar, and Foe Mr. FOsTrlt'll Majcrity Y 1 iii lac SZWe's - t t 'I - •. " i r . k I the itelnlutiel Pat ordered w % Hau•mr T w 0