The Sun. — London, England, 1837-05-02 00:00:00

" the Royal Assent shall have been given to it, and from that at which any one member of the Establishment shall have breathed his last. The present Bill in an other point is an aggravation of the former one. In chiding bishops, chapters, and parochial clergy within its ravages, it acts upon a gross income of, perhaps 500,0001. per annum. It transfers, therefore, at 10 pelt cent., 50,0001., a-year from the Protestant Church directly into the hands of the Papists—whereas the sum calculated upon as derivable from the " appropria tion surplus" under the former Bill would not at the end of 43 years have exceeded 30,0001. per annum, if it amounted to half §o much, as the extortion of the Papists from the Protestant clergy, by way of a fund for educating " the people." It is something worse still, this measure of Lord Morpeth. It is a robbery, covered by a downright fraud. The pre tence is, that by the 28th Henry the Eighth, each parochial clergyman was enjoined to support and superintend a school for teaching English to the poor parishioners—a law which was confirmed by certain Acts of Elizabeth and William 111., and therefore that the present Ministers now, after 140 years, from the latest of those Acts of Parlia ment, are justified in reviving the original , law of Henry VIII., and re-establishing, at the cost of the Protestant incumbent, a school in every parish. But what is the fact ? The above laws, from that of Henry downwards, had for their manifest purpose the cultivation of the English language, the inculcation of English spmpathies and feelings amongst an alien people, and the diffusion and prevalence of the Pro testant faith. Is there anything approaching to such objects in the tiew with which Lord Morpeth and the Melbourne Cabinet have insisted on the revival of the Act of Henry ? They would establish schools at the charge of the Protestant Clergymen ; but not to be superintended by the Protestant Clergymen, not for making Englishmen of the people, not for extending the reformed religion, but for the reverse of all these things. The priest is to be the treasurer, the auditor, the director, and the teacher ; the pupils are to imbibe fresh draughts of enmity to England, and of blind adhesion to Popery, from this fresh plunder of the Established Church. The new Bill, therefore, is in such respects more iniquitous and more insulting than the old. Lords J. Russel and Morpeth, Messrs. O'Connell and Shiel, have one and all declared, that in their next attempt upon the Church—meaning the present one—they must so frame it as to satisfy an increased measure of animosity in their partizans to wards the Protestant Clergy, and of exaction from their ;:roperty. The Noble Lords and the Papist agitators have carefully kept their word. This Bill is more im regnated than any which went before it- with hatred, robbery, and ruin to the Irish branch of the Church of England. But it will not speedily find a place among the laws of the British Empire, and the Minis ter 3 know it well. They have obviously planned a double imposition. With their Radical supporters tiw; mean to pass it eff for an appropriation clause more vigorous and perfect than any former. T. thy Conservatives, on the other hand, they exclaim— " You cannot call this an indefinite appropriation clause for general purposes of popular instruction ; it is iinly a sort of petty larceny scheme, confined within in.! ;Units of each particular parish ; how can von think of opposing that which pleads on its own bebop a precedtmt so applicable, so modern, so very-parallel, vt,ry pat, - as the 28th of Henry VIII., for teaching the English tongue to barbarians who knew nothing of it, and for imbuing with the principles of the reformed faith a multitude who had in reality no religion."— - It is not within our remembrance to have known such unnecessary and uncalled for attacks as those -.vhich have been made upon Mr. O'Connell on account of his opposition to the establishment of Poor-laws in Ireland. To read the comments which have been made upon the admirable and unanswerable speech which he delivered on the subject, a stranger to the .conduct which he has pursued upon all other ques ticus connected with Irish interests, would naturally infe.- that he opposed a system of Poor-laws because Poor-laws were as unpopular in Ireland as they arc unquestionably incapable of eradicating the number ] ss evils under which that country has laboured so Jong and so patiently. But the reverse is the fact. There is a rabid, and we must add, a most foolish mania among the majority of the people of Ireland for the introduction into that country of the same sys tem of Poor-law relief which exists in this country ; and it does the highest honour to Mr. O'Connell, whether right or wrong in his opposition, that he' has fad the courage to come forward, at the risk of all his popularity and all his influence, to denounce a measure which he conceives to be injurious to his country. If ever, in fact, he deserved great credit for downright sense and honesty of purpose upon any one occasion more than upon another, it is upon this question of Poor Laws. He has braved what we deem to be the false opinions of his countrymen—he has risked his popularity and self-interest with them—he has stood forward single-handed against all, in defence of opi nions which we deem to be founded in truth and jus tice, and we unhesitatingly declare, notwithstanding our previous censure of Mr. O'Connell's conduct, that in this instance he deserves the highest credit for his opposition. With regard to the question itself it is now scarcely worth a moment's consideration. It is determined that it shall be carried, and it would be useless to waste words in attempting to defeat it. We beg, however, to record our opposition to it, as a mea sure not only incapable of remedying the evils under which Ireland labours, but as likely to produce a greater degree of demoralization and misery than that which now exists. The only, and the cheap remedy is, not Poor-laws—not emigration—but employment, upon an extensive and useful scale; and until this remedy be applied, we despair of any practical and permanent im provement in the condition of the people.—Morning, : Advertiser. We feel persuaded that it never entered into'in tention of any of our law reformers that while they were framing statutes for the mitigation of the san guinary but ineffectual punishments of our penal code, the country or the accused should therefore lose the be nefit of trial by the King's judges. Yet such has now become the practice, and uninformed country magis trates, under the guidance of a chairman, often but little better. informed than themselves, actually at their dif- fetent sessions hold gaol deliveries, at which they try nearly every species of offence heretofore consigned to ' the judges of assize. We have so frequently pointed out the evil arising from city judges in the metropolis doing the same thing, that we would advert to it here as forming part and parcel of a system calculated to defeat the ends of justice, by undermining the respect, the confidence, and the awe with which the country has been used to look up to the learning, the independ ence, and integrity which surrounded the ermine of the Judge. The Bills now before Parliament for the still further mitigation of the penal code, are calculated greatly to increase this evil, unless some one has the % courage to interpose, and insist upon some general evactment, whereby the powers of unlettered judges shall be circumscribed, and heinous and complicated ofrences, as heretofore, handed over to the competent and responsible Judges of Westminster Hall. There is, indeed, a Bill now passing through the House of Com mons (called, we believe, by the singular designation of the " Judges' Opinions Bill,"), which at once ac knowledges the evil, and professes in some degree to remedy it. By this Bill, if the point in any criminal case tried at the Quarter Sessions be too knotty for the Chairman to , decide, he may, in case of conviction, ar rest the judgment till the opinion of the last-going Judge of Assize can be taken ; or, if the latter think the point doubtful, and important enough, till lie has referred it to the whole body. We want no better ar gument in favour of the view which we arc taking, and of the necessity of Judges being competent to their duty in the first instance, than the manifest acknow ledgment of incompetency in which their measure is founded. In every case the Judge should be equal to his business, and, among other things, competent to cope with the bar, especially under the enlarged powers which the Prisoners' Council Bill has assigned to the latter ; nor is it any im peachment of their credit or understanding, to as sume that there is scarcely one Chairman of Sessions in 20 who can have had the education which qualifies Jinn for his pest, as its duties are now increased, or ambles him to sift the truth from the subtilty of the , raAised pleader. For this undesirable state of things two remedies exist—the one, that of confining the Sessions to the trial of minor offences as heretofore— the other by appointing competent paid Chairmen to do the duty, if the Judges (which is by no means certain) are unable to perform it. We wish we could see some of the many lawyers, who are now in both Houses of Parliament, take up this subject on the high constitutional grounds which its importance de mands. Their not doing so is one proof among many of their inutility in one, at least, of those assemblies. We are not without hopes, however, that the evil is arriving at a point at which it will cure itself, and that the self-acknowledged absurtiity of seeing the highest functions of the law consigned to persons who are avowedly ignorant of it, cannot long disgrace an age and a community, so enlightened as ours.—Morning Herald. For a very considerable period it has been known, and, indeed, we announced the fact very distinctly nearly a year ago, that Ministers, with the consent of their Roman Catholic supporters, had made up their minds to give up the appropriation principle at the earliest possible opportunity. We believe that it was seriously in contemplation to renounce the principle at the period to which we allude, and that the step was only delayed by the painful consciousness that the public recollection of the means by which Ministers had forced themselves into office was yet too fresh to admit the hope that such an example of profligate ter giversation would be patiently endured. Ministers and their Roman Catholic confederates have, accordingly, for many months been coquetting with a principle which, when it opened the way to place, was deemed of so much importance that a resolution of the House of Commons was obtained, after a solemn and pro tracted debate, pronouncing it a sine qua non of any settlement of the tithe question in Ireland. In the meanwhile the anti-tithe war in Ireland has proceeded, with no other check or impediment than that in terposed by honest and upright Judges, administer ing the law with fearless fidelity, in spite of the frowns and discouragements of the executive power ; in the meanwhile religious animosity and civil discord have spread throughout the land, the law has been re sisted, and in many instances overpowered and de graded, and murders of the most appalling barbarity have been committed, merely because, as it now seems, Ministers did not feel that a decent interval had elapsed between the assertion of the unjust and inadmissible principle by means of which they had crawled into place, and the final abandonment of that principle. If will be a source of satisfaction, however, to all the friends of the Protestant Church, and of the peace and welfare of Ireland, that Ministers have at length found courage to come forward, and say that the recognition of the principle of appropriating part of the revenues of the Church to secular purposes is no longer an es sential part of any adjustment of the question of Irish Tithe. That this is now the opinion of Ministers we collect, and it is nearly all that we can collect, from the confused and unintelligible speech delivered by Lord MOrpetli last night to the House of Commons in Committee, on introducing a resolution to the effect THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, MAY 2, 1837. that : " It is expedient to commute the composition of Tithes in Ireland into a rent charge, payable by the first estate of inherjtance, and to make further provision for the better re gulation of ecclesiastical duties." The measure now at length about to be introduced corresponds in su►bstance, if we may credit the asser tion of Lord Morpcth, with the resolutions upon the same subject moved unsuccessfully last year by Lord Stanley in the House of Commons, as an amendment to the Ministerial and O'Connell project, and subse quently sent down from the House of Lords in the form of amendments to the Government Bill. We do not say that Lord Morpetl► in this passage of his speech states correctly the intention of Government ; on the contrary, we incline to think, from some other parts of his address, that he misrepresents that in tention ; hut the assertion of the Noble Lord, should it even turn out not to be true, is still a -ground of satisfaction, as testimony from a hostile quarter to the merit of Lord Stanley's proposal, as subse quently adopted by the Upper House of Parliament. It is difficult to conjecture how Ministers will jus tify their conduct in resisting last year the proposal of Lord Stanley, and subsequently the amendments of the House of Lords, and in this year adopting them. Was not the proposal as wise and just last year as it is now ? Or was it necessary that there should be one more year of that strife and confusion in Ireland which the allies of Ministers have produced by means of the unsettled tithe question, and which the Executive Government in Ireland has done all in its power to foment ? Or did the policy of placing the two Houses of Parliament in collision prove so abortive last year, that it is thought no longer expedient to pursue it ? Or is the final triumph of the law in Ireland over the machinations of the friends of the Government so clearly foreseen, that the latter think it prudent to withdraw from the' contest, not because it is crimi nal, which it has been from the commencement, but because it is now found to be hopeless ? We leave it to Ministers, or their advocates, to answer these questions, expressing only our hope that the Conservative Members of the House of Commons will watch narrowly the provisions of any measure which Ministers may introduce. There is no trick so mean, no deception so fraudulent, that it may not fairly be suspected in the case of Ministers who play fast and loose with principles upon such a ques tion as that of Irish Tithe : who assert, for sake of place, and make the House of Commons assert also, that a certain condition is indispensable to any settle ment of that question, and subsequently, for sake of convenience, renounce the indispensable condition ; who keep a whole nation in state of needless agita tion and strife for two years to gratify a disloyal sec tion of their own adherents ; and who (assuming that the measure now to be introduced is what Lord Mor peth describes it) have only consented to a pacifica tory and wholesome alteration of the law when they discover that the law, as it is, is likely to prove too strong for their partisans, ,the enemies of the law.— Morning Post. Accounts from Schwerin announce that Mecklen burg had sustained a severe loss by the sudden death, on the 24th ult., of his Excellency Baron Von Pleaser, Minister of State, and President of the Privy Council. In this county (Cumberland), although on the eve of May, the hills are covered with snow, and the land pre sents the appearance of mid-winter. The farmers are likely to be sufferers to a ruinous extent, from the impossibility of getting the wheat into the ground during the spring, and their consequent obligation to forego wheat crops for the pre sent year. — Cumberland Pacquet. The long-continued wet and cold weather has done the most seriousinjury to the farmers, who have been prevented from sowing their wheat until the time for so doing is past, and they can only hope for crops of oats or barley. In Durham and Northumberland the farmers have had many sheep and lambs die for want of food, and have been obliged to sell their milch cows to prevent them from dying from starvation, the scarcity of hay and turnips being so great they cannot buy fodder.— Tyne Mercury. An account from Munich of the 22d says—" The report that Prince Polignac has purchased the little country seat of Neuberghausen is unfounded. He has taken furnished apartments in the house of the Count Von Reichberg, and for the summer the residence of Koesenig, on the road from Lund shut to Ratisboii. Nothing is known of his further plans." Monday week there were 261 weavers w i t hi n the burgh of Lanark without work, and adding those that are sup plied with work in Lanark and reside elsewhere, there are at least five hundred idle connected with this locality, in that single employment. The magistrates and council, however, on receiving a petition, readily gave work to a great number of them--of course, at very reduced wages. The stagnation in trade at present is not confined to one branch of industry. All, or nearly all, are in the same predicament, and many been so for a much longer time than the weavers.—Scots Times. The attempts of Tory underlings and Tory news papers to excite the prejudices of the poor and the ignora n t against the new law have had partial and transitory success. Many persons who have had good jobs many years under the old law, are averse to the vigilant supervision of the Poor-law Commissioners, and the New Boards of Guardians, and others attempt to obtain clap-trap popularity among paupers by slandering the Act. At Llanfair, Montgomery shire, the Relieving Officer of the Union was rudely treated by a few old women about two weeks ago, and he therefore applied to Mr. Day, the Commissioner, for protection. Ac. cordingly, on Tuesday week, Mr. Day, accompanied by several Guardians, and by Martin Williams, Esq., of Brongwin, the intelligent and humane Chairman of the Llanflyllid Union, went to Llanfair, where a mob of upwards of 100 persons flung mud and stones at the Commissioner and the Guardians. Mr. P. Devereaux, of Brynglas, convinced the mob of their error, and destroyed their banner. Next day a meeting was held at Pool, and a troop of cavalry called out. The con. stables, however, took three of the rioters, and they were held to bail.—Shrewsbury Chronicle. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, M4r 1. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at five o'clock. Mr. HINDLEY and other Members from the House of Commons brought up the Manchester and Oldham Road Bill, the Wyre Dock Bill, and the Leicester and Leeds Railway Bill. Earl BROWNLOW presented petitions in favour of Church-rates from Appleby, and several other parishes in the county of Lincoln, and from a parish in Suffolk. Lord KENYON presented four petitions to the same effect from parishes in Suffolk. Lord LICHFIELD presented petitions against Church rates, from the Mayor and inhabitants of Lichfield, from Gravesend, and from a parish in Huntingdon ; also a peti tion from Walsal, praying for an alteration in the mode of collecting County -rates. CANADA. Lord J. RUSSELL' and other Members of the House of Commons appeared at the Bar, with a Message desiring a Conference with their Lordships' House, on matters of high importance, relating to the Government of the Pro vince of Lower Canada.—Agreed to. The messengers were then called in and The LORD CHANCELLOR stated that their Lord ships had agreed to the desire of the House of Commons, and would appoint managers to meet the Commons pre sently in Committee-room No. 5. , The Duke of WELLINGTON presented petitions in favour of Church-rates from Barnet and other places. Lord ROLLE presented several petitions to the same effect. Lord POLTIMORE presented petitions against Church-rates from several places in Lancashire. The following managers of the Conference were then ap pointed :—the Duke of Wellington, Lord Shaftesbury, the Earl of Albemarle, Lord Ilchester, the Bishop of Ely, Lord Glenelg, and Lord Strafford. Their Lordships then left the House to proceed to the Committee room. The managers having returned, The Duke of RICHMOND stated that their Lord ships' managers had met Lord J. Russell and the managers on behalf of the Commons, who stated that the House of Commons had agreed to certain resolu tions in reference to the province of Lower Canada, in which they prayed their Lordships' concurrence. Lord TEYN HAM then moved for certain returns rela tive to the Poor Law Act. CHURCH-RATES. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY presented peti tions in favour of Church-rates from the Archdeaconry of Shropshire and other places. The Bishop of LONDON presented petitions to the same effect from Romford, in Essex, and from several other places. The Bishop of WINCHESTER presented similar pe titions from West Bromwich, and other places. Lord SKELMERSDALE presented similar petitions from West Bromwich, and other places. On the motion of Lord STRAFFORD, the second reading of the Church Notice Bill was postponed till Friday. The Earl of FINGAL presented petitions in favour of the Irish Municipal Bill, from places in Cork and the county Dublin. _ _ Lord SONDES presented petitions in favour of Climb rates, from several parishes in the County of Norfolk. A NOBLE LORD presented several petitions to the same effect from places in Yorkshire. Lord BROUGHAM presented petitions against Church rates, from places in Carmarthenshire, Fife, Suffolk, Pem brokeshire, Derbyshire, Durham, Denbighshire, from the Directori of the Glasgow Association for promoting reli gibus liberty, from Bradford, in West Yorkshire. The Noble Lord concluded by stating that the petitions were not from Dissenters, but principally from Members of the Church of England, and all in favour of the Ministerial plan for the regulation of Church-rates. Many of those who entrusted him with their petitions had become alarmed at the delay Which occurred in bringing on the measure. He had stated what he believed to be the ease, that Ministers had postponed it in order to render it as perfect as possible. He found, however, that it had been postponed by his Noble Friend in the other House to the 2:2d of May, in which case it would not be before their Lordships until late in June ; he trusted it was the intention of Government to proceed with the measure. Viscount MELBOURNE said that the Noble Lord was right as to. one of the causes of the postponement of the measure, which was intended to be brought forward with all the speed which the pressure of public business would permit. The Earl of ABERDEEN then presented petitions from the Synods of Glasgow and Ayr, in favour of Church rates. Viscount MELBOURNE presented a number of peti tions in favour of Church-rates, from parishes in Suffolk from Woburn, and other places. The various Private Bills were advanced a stage, on the motion of Lord SHAFTESBURY. The Consolidated Fund Bill then went through Committee. ENGLISH MUNICIPAL ACT AMENDMENT BILL. Their Lordships then went into Committee on this Bill. On the first clause providing that no election shall be questioned hereafter by reason of any defect of, or want of title, Lord ABINGER said that he did not object to the principle of the clause, but he certainly thought that this was not the proper opportunity for bringing in such a provision. The "LORD CHANCELLOR thought otherwise. And if there were no objection to the principle, why not introduce tha clause which provided against those evils which had created such frequent feuds ? After a few words from Lord WY NFORD, Lord DENMAN said that he could not see what objec tion there could be to the clause ; it was high time that the people should understand the basis and nature of their Mu nicipal institutions. The clause was then agreed to, on the understanding that, if some alteration could not be made to meet Lord Abinger's objection, the matter should be further considered. Clauses 2,3, and 4 were agreed to. Clauses 4 to 11, inclusive, were agreed to, with a few verbal amendments. Clause 12 was postponed. On cldus© 13, Lord W YNFORD said that he wished to propose an amendment in this clause, with a view to obviate the diffi culty that arose as to the election of aldermen when the councillors were equally divided. The effect of his propo sition was, that in all such cases the councillor who had been elected by the greatest number of votes should have the casting vote. The LORD CHANCELLOR opposed the proposi tion. Every person in the town would know which coun cillor had been elected by the greatest number of votes ; and the practical effect would be to vest the appointment of the aldermen in one stated individual. After a desultory conversation, in which Lord Denman, Lord Abinger, the Earl of Falmouth, and Lord Ellenbo rough took part, their Lordships divided, when the num bers were, For the amendment... Against it Majority -13 The clause, as amended, was then agreed to Upon clause 14, Lord ABINGER said that he thought the principle of self-election ought to be entirely excluded from this Bill ; and in order to effect that object he would propose an amendment in the clause which was then under considera tion. That clause regarded the election of aldermen, and provided that whenever any vacancy occurred in the list of Aldermen it should be filled up by the Aldermen them selves. Now his proposition was to this effect, that when ever such vacancy should occur the Councillors should elect other persons to supply it, and that no Alderman should have any voice in the election of Aldermen. The LORD CHANCELLOR opposed the amend ment, on the ground that the Aldermen, by the constitu tion of the Bill, were entitled to vote as part of the Council. Lord ABINGER had no desire to press his amendment. Lord ELLENBOROUGH preferred the clause as it stood to the amendment of his Noble Friend. The amendment was then withdrawn, and the original clause agreed to. Clause 15, at the suggestion of Lord WYNFORD, was struck out. The remaining clauses were then agreed to, with some verbal amendments. • The House resumed, the report was presented, and the Bill, as amended, was ordered to be printed. The other Orders of the Day were than disposed of, and their Lordships adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, MAY 1. The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour. Mr. MACKENZIE, of Applecross, the new Member for Ross-shire was introduced by Sir Wm. RAE and Sir GEO. CLERK, and took the oaths and his seat. . Lord W. BENTINCK presented a petition from alas gow against a clause in the Sheriffs' Courts Small Debts Bill. Sir C. B. VERE presented a petition from South wold, against the passing -tolls clause in the Scarborough Harbour Bill. Mr. R. FLEETWOOD brought up the Report of the Committee on the Preston and Wire Docks Bill. On the motion of Sir G. STRICKLAND, the Report of the Committee on the Wakefield Waterworks Bill was taken into consideration, and the Bill ordered to be en grossed. BATH AND WEYMOUTH RAILWAY. Mr. MILES moved the second reading of the Bath and Weymouth Railway Bill. Sir R, INGLIS would move as an amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. After the discussion it had undergone on the former occasion, he would not trouble the House at any very great length. Hon. Members would recollect the circumstances under which the Bill had come before Parliament on a former occasion. His Hon. Friend, the Member for Bristol, had presented a petition from a large number of the share holders, praying to be released from the liabilities they had incurred. It was stated upon that occasion that the concern was not likely to be a successful one so far as the conveyance of passengers went—what the profit or good might be they had yet to learn.—He (Sir R. Inglis) was not acquainted with any great commercial es tablishmenti, at either terminus of the line, and he believed it would interfere with the comforts of several respectable proprietors. With regard to the subscriptions, he un derstood that the list had been got up in such a way as was likely to deceive those who were not acquainted with the manner in which such speculations were set on foot. Ninety-two parts out of the whole of the shares were signed for by bribery, the parties having been paid a small donation for signing their names. The parties originally belonging to the concern had withdrawn them selves from their liability. Under all the circumstances, he felt justified in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. Mr. MILES did not think he would require to detain the House for many minutes. He wished that every rail road could come as clear out of the fire as the Bill then before the House had come out of the Committee : only four out of 180 shareholders had been proved to be not bona fide shareholders. It was very true that there was only one coach between the two towns, but there were more than twenty connected with other towns in the neighbourhood. In fact, the passenger traffic would be a great convenience to the whole surrounding country. It would also save 56,000/. per annum to the public in tolls alone, and would prove a great benefit to the county of Wilts, and a great part of Shropshire, as he considered the Bill would prove a benefit to the public in the neighbourhood, and therefore he would press his motion. Mr. HOPE had never seen a stronger case of opposition to any Bill made out. He would, therefore, with much pleasure vote for the amendment of the Hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford. Mr. BENETT said the Bill had already been before a Committee upon allegations made in that House, and it had come out of it an honourable manner. He had looked at the subscription list, and from his local knowledge he could assure the House the names were those of the most re spectable persons residing in the district. It would prove most advantageous to Wilts, to Shropshire, and to a great part of Gloucestershire, and therefore he hoped the House would give it a second reading. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when there appeared, Far the second reading 42 Against it Majority On the motion bf Sir 0. MOSLEY, Fourdrinier's Pa tent Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be referred to a Select Committee, consisting of the following Mem bers :—Sir Oswald Mosley, Sir John Wrottesley, Lord Francis Egerton, Lord Viscount Sandon, Mr. Davenport, Mr. Wilson Patten, Mr. Pryine, Mr. Baines, Mr. Mark Philips, Mr. Bannerman, Mr. Alderman Copeland, Mr. Mackinnon, Mr. Lennard, Mr. Maclean, Mr. Edward Buller. Sir 0. MOSLEY presented a petition against the Glas g•w and Edinburgh Railway Bill. Lord SURREY presented a petition from Worthing in favour of Rennie's line of Brighton Railway. Captain ALSAGER presented a petition from several individuals, stating that they were prepared, to pay the de posit on the Shares they had taken in Rennie's Brighton Railway. Mr. 'CALLAGHAN brought up the Report of the Cork and Passage Railway Bill. EXETER AND FALMOUTH RAILWAY. Lord EBRINGTON brought up the Report of the Committee on the Exeter and Falmouth Railway Bill. The Noble Lord gave notice that on Tuesday, May 9th, he should call the attention of the House to certain names on the subscription list of that Railway, and to the notice taken of them in the proceedings of the Committee appointed to inquire into the subscription list of the Deptford and Dover Railway. BRIGHTON RAILWAY. Mr. D. W. HARVEY presented petitions from W. Cook and Richard Blackmore, denying the charges which had been brought against, them for signing the Brighton Railway subscription list. COMMERCIAL AND AGRICULTURAL-BANK OF IRELAND. Mr. S. LEFEVRE brought up the report of the Corn. mittee on th© Commercial and Agricultural Bank of Ire. land. DUNDEE IMPROVEMENT BILL. On the motion of Mr. CHALMERS, the Dundee Im• provement Bill was read a third time, and passed. OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH. Petitions in favour of the better observance of the Lord's day, were presented by Sir James Graham, Sir John Becket, and Mr. Wilks. Petitions to the same effect were presented by Mr. Bar. nard, Sir 0. Mosley, Mr. Shepherd, Sir G. Strickland, Sir Andrew Agnew, Mr. Hardy, Sir R. Inglis, Mr. Fec. tor, Mr. Lowther, and Sir John Elley. CHURCH-RATES. Mr. WILKS presented petitions in favour of the' Mi nisterial plan for the abolition of Church-rates from dissenting Congregations in Buckinghamshire, Northampton,and Essex. Petitions to the same effect were presented by Sir G. STRICKLAND, from Huddersfield, and other places i❑ Yorkshire ; and in support of Church -rates, by Sir James Graham, Lord F. Egerton, Lord Stanley, Sir J. Beckett, Mr. Gally Knight, and Sir R. Inglis. Petitions against the Government measure were presented by Sir G. Clerk, from the Presbytery of Dalkeith ; Mr. Forbes, from the Presbytery of Stirling ; and by Mr. Fresh field, from Falmouth. Petitions in favour of the mea sure were presented by Mr. Hodges from Gravesend and Tunbridge ; Mr. Lennard, from nineteen parishes in Essex ; Mr. Stanley, from eight places in Anglesea ; Mr. Potter, from Wigan, signed by 4,527 persons ; Mr. Pease, from parishes in the counties of Durham and York ; by Mr. Strutt, from Derby ; by Mr. Dillwyn and by Mr. Baines, from Naseborough, &dein Chapel, and many other places. That from Salem Chapel prayed that the allowance made their minister under the name of Regiunz Donum might be abolished. His Hon. Col league had ,presented a petition from Leeds, signed by 4,000 persons, against the Government measure. He begged to say, that on a previous day he presented one in favour of the measure, signed by 14,000 persons.—(Cheers.) Mr. A. TREVOR presented a petition from Sunderland, signed by 1,370 rate-payers, against the Ministerial plan for the abolition of Church-rates. The Earl of LINCOLN presented several petitions from Nottingham to the same effect. Mr. HARDY presented similar petitions from Brad ford. Sir G. KNIGHTLEY pre3ented similar petitions from Northamptonshire. Mr. Gil KNIGHT presented four petitions from Not tinghamshire against the Ministerial plan for the abolition of Church-rates. Mr. PRAED presented similar petitions from Cambridge. Colonel LYGON presented similar petitions from Worcestershire. Mr. E. BULLER presented petitions from Stafford shire, in favour of the Ministerial plan for the abolition of Church-rates. Mr. SANFORD presented similar petitions from So mersetshire. Mr. DUNDAS presented similar petitions from York. shire. Sir CHARLES LEMON presented similar petitions from Cornwall. Mr. HUME presented twelve petitions from different parts of Middlesex in favour of the Ministerial plan for the abolition of Church-rates. Mr. MILES presented four petitions from Somerset shire, against the Ministerial plan for the abolition of Church-rates. Mr. HUTT presented petitions from Hull, in favour of the Ministerial plan for the abolition of Church-rates. Sir E. KNATCHBULL_brought up the report of the Committee on the London and Greenwich Railway. Captain DUNDAS presented petitions from Devizes in favour of the Ministerial plan for the abolition of Church rates. Mr. LEADER presented petitions from Bridgewater to he same effect. The HoN. MEMBER also presented similar petitions from St. Paul's, Covent-garden, St. Margaret's, Westminster, and St. Mary-le-grand.—(Great laughter.) BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—PUBLIC PETITIONS. Mr. A. TREVOR gave notice that he should to morrow call the attention of the House to the inconvenience attending the difficulty of presenting public petitions, and would move that precedence should be given to them on Wednesdays after the Speaker took the chair. JOINT sTocK BANKS. Mr. C A YLEY seeipg the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place, wished to ask him when the Committee on Joint Stock Banks would make their report, and begged to give no tice that he should very shortly move for a Select Committee to investigate all the causes of the commercial embarrass ment that at present existed, with a view to their removal. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER made a few observations in reply, which were not heard in the gallery. POOR-LAW COMMITTEE. Mr. HARVEY said that liberty having been given to him to call the attention of the House to the subject of the publication of evidence given before the Poor-law Comb mittee from day to day, he begged now to state that that matter had engaged the attention of the Committee, and they had come to the resolution that the evidence should be printed from day to day. CANADA. Lord JOHN RUSSELL appeared at the bar, and in formed the House that the Lords had agreed to a Con ference, in Committee Room No. 5, on the subject of the Canada Resolutions. Lord J. Russell, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Howick, Sir George Grey, Lord Morppth, the Attorney- General, Sir Robert Peel, Lord Stanley, Sir Jas. Graham, Mr. Labouchere, the Earl of Lincoln, Sir Robert Inglis, and Mr. C. W. Wynn were then appointed Managers to conduct the Conference on . the part of the Commons. The Managers having returned, Lord JOHN RUS SELL informed the House that they had been to the Conference, which had been managed on the part of their Lordships by the Duke of Richmond, that they had com municated to them the resolution of that House, and had left the resolutions with their Lordships. TITHES (IRELAND). Petitions praying for tha abolition of Tithes were pre sented by Mr. H. Grattan, Mr. Otway Cave, Mr. Fitz simon, and Mr. Sharman Crawford. On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, the Clerk read that part of his Majesty's speech relating to Tithes in Ireland. On the motion of Lord MORPETH the House resolved itself into a Committee on Tithes (Ireland), Mr. BEItNAL in the Chair. The NOBLE LORD then proceeded to say that. when he re minded the Committee that he then rose for the third time to move for leave to bring in the fifth Bill, which, within the short period of three years had been submitted to Par liament for the settlement of the Irish Tithe Question, they would allow that it would be better for himself, as well as for the subject which he could not then adorn—all its chief branches being fresh in the memory of Hon. Members—under all trieS7 circumstances, he thought that the more short, simple, and matter-of-fact he made the statement which he was called upon to lay before the House, the better he would discharge his own duty, and consult the convenience of the Committee. The more especially did he feel that that course would be best, as the whole question was likely to give rise to much party and inflammatory matter—as it involved most oppo site principles—not declining at a proper opportunity to state . most broadly his own views of those prin c ipl es , an d t o a bid e by their issues ; yet he would sincerely wish on that occasion to guard himself against unnecessarily or prematurely bring ing those opposite opinions into conflict. He would en deavour to avoid as much as possible, in the statement he was about to make, any party feeling. With respect to that part of the question which related to the bases on which the settlement of the Tithe question should take place, very little substantial difference of opinion had sub sisted among the principal parties in the State who had addressed themselves to this question for some time. They proposed to follow the precedents laid down in all the five previous Bills which had been introduced on that subject, by converting the Tithe-charge into a Rent charge upon the owner of the property of the first inheritance. They had taken the same mode of deduction as in the two previous Bills submitted to the House by his Majesty's present Government—a deduction of thirty per cent, or down to seventy, upon every ene hundred. Objections had been urged against the previous proposal for vesting the levy of the future rent charges in the hands of the Com missioners of his Majesty's Land Revenue, as tending to give to the Ministers of the Established Church a dependant character. Without stopping to inquire into the justice of those observations, he would say that it was not the intention to take that levy of the rent charge out of the hands of the present clerical proprietors, giving them the same powec i of recovery as was given by the Bill of last year to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests ; in fact the same power given by the Tithe Composition Bill of 1832. They preserved the same rule and regulations for the pro bable revision in certain cases of the present tithe composi tion, as was introduced in the Bill brought forward last year ; for although they were aware that plausible dis tinctions were drawn between compositions of one date and those of another, and between compositions entered into under one form and those entered into under another, they thought they should do most complete and substantial justice by making the power in all cases alike, taking care that proper and sufficient precautions were adopted against their being idly, capriciously, and needlessly resorted to. It would be remembered by the • Committee that in the Bill which was brought forward in the last Session, pro visions, the particulars, of which he need not enter into then, were included for an altered description of cle rical benefices tending to a more equitable appointment of ecclesiastical revenues. At the time that Bill was introduced, amendments were proposed by the Noble Lord opposite as to the future enjoyments of the Clergy ; but at the same time it was intimated by that Noble Lord that the, clauses he had suggested were not unobjectionable, but that they would not be disapproved of by the heads of the Church, or by the body at large.—( Hear, hear.) However, the shape which the Bill, independently of those specific alterations, wore, when it was re turned to that House at the close of the last Session was such, that his Majesty's Government felt convinced that, in the then and still subsisting state of the tithe question, they could not fail to arrive at the conclusion, with great re gret, that it was their duty not to consent to such enactment. Looking to; the amendments proposed by the Noble Lord, and adopted by the other House of Parliament indepen dently, with a view to an unaltered distribution of Church property, he confessed he was still inclined to think they were susceptible of further modification, and that if they were adopted as they stood there would be left many gross cases of disproportion and abuse which they would not reach, or at least which they would but very inadequately touch. Still considering the auspices under which they were propbsed, and the authority by which; they were supported—wishing, wherever they were able, and where the views of all the principal parties contending manifestly pointed to one common object, to move along that combined track in peace and amity—his Majes ty's Government had thought it expedient and advantageous to adopt those clauses, almost without variation in the shape in which they had found them—he believed, entirely without variation, except as regarded one provision which they thought militated against the spirit of the propositions it accompanied—he meant the prohibition to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to reduce any benefice, be the circumstances of that benefice what they might, to any annual amount of income below 3001.—(Hear.) By the Church Tensporalities Bill, one of the chief objects which it was intended to defray from the revenues that would have ac crued under the operations of that Act, was the increase of small livings, which were estimated by Earl Grey, in the clear and comprehensive statement he made in introducing that measure into the other House of Parliament, at -16,500/. per annum. One of the items to meet the expenditure. Contemplated to be provided for under the same Act, was a tax on all clerical incomes, whether of arch bishops or of bishops. Without then, adverting to the question of a surplus revenue, which, according to th• calculations of the authors of that measure as well as of the eminent accountants to which the details have sub• sequently been referred must eventually be admitted at a very distant day, but must eventually arise under the ope ration of the Bill as it then stood, or as it had been since amended—without adverting to that question of surplus, the Committee would perceive that the item of expen diture in the outgoing of the Church Temporalities Fund to which he had alluded, namely, the increase. of the small livings, would be met by the provisions contained in the Bill of last year, by which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners wore empowered to make deductions from any living of which the annual income exceeded 5001., or in which the number of members of the Established Church fell short of one hundred, and to augment any benefice of which the annual value was below three hundred pounds, or which comprised a city and a town. The provisions of these clauses of the Noble Lord and the House of-Peers would indeed be far more than commen surate with what would be derived from that tax, which, from the deductions since made, would be a mere trifle. That tax they proposed to repeal, because it did not seem necessary to keep u p a t ax i nsu ffi c i ent f or t h e purposes to which it was applied, and which purposes were amply provided for in another manner.—(Hear, hear.) lie had already stated that he had adopted almost precisely in the shape in which they stood, the suggestions of the Noble Lord or the amendments of the House of Lords, call them which you will, in the Bill of last year ; but as in carrying these provisions into effect, it was probable, and almost inevitable, that further proposi tions would be made to give stability to the enact ment, a power would be given to the Ecclesiastical Com missioners to report to his Majesty any further subsi diary and supplemental suggestions, and which, if his Majesty's advisers thought fit, might be brought under the consideration of Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) There was an ancient statute of Henry the Eighth, which had been cited on a former occasion, but which had not met the consideration it was fairly entitled to. The 15th chap. of the 28th Henry VIIIth, enacted that every incumbent of every parish should keep or cause to be kept a public school to learn the English language, and that every Bishop or other dignitary on making such induction should administer an oath to the incumbent to keep and maintain such school. There were penalties attached to the omission of that duty ; for the first two offences fines of different amounts, and for the third the incumbent was to be deprived of his living. That statute was subsequent to the acknow ledgment of the King's supremacy in Ireland ; but it was clear that Ireland was then in the eye, as at pre sent, a Catholic country. That Act had been further reinforced by the 12th of Elizabeth, cap. 1, which provided for the establishment of diocesan schools, into which an inquiry was at present making, under the superintendence of his Honourable Friend the Member for Waterford. An oath was imposed by the 28th. of Henry the Eighth upon all incumbents ; it was not repealed, and was in force at the present day. Every vicar and incum bent in Ireland was, on presentation, obliged to swear that he would keep, or cause to be kept, in his parish an English school ; that obligation still rested on the Clergy in the freshest force—the question was, Was that obligation fully complied with ?--(Hear, hear.) BY the first report of the Irish Education Commissioners, it appeared that out of 1,242 parishes there were 782 schools, which gave a little more than one school to every fourth parish in Ireland. By the Report of 1835, it appeared that there were many benefices which had no parochial school at all. And by a Report which was made in 1810, he found that it was the practice of the clergy, no salary hav" ing been provided by the Act of Henry VIII., to al" low the schoolmaster only 40s. per annum, which paymen t made the school a parochial one. In the year 17 87, ' when Mr. Ord was Secretary for Ireland, a Committee was appointed who reported that it was obligatory on the ClergY to keep or maintain an English school on their benefice; that they had made a computation of it for 40s. per annum which was not considered sufficient, he proposed resolutions to gradually increase the sum ; but that plan, like marl' other good ones, was abandoned. A change of Government took place, and shortly after the tragedy of the rebellion occupied the public mind, which was again occupied. by the great question of the Union. In 1806 the Duke of Bed' ford, the father of his Noble Friend (Lord J. Russell), who, he hoped, was destined to work out that good wo r which had been commenced by kindred hands—(Cheer s) —in that year he issued a Commission of InquirY into the whole subject of education in Ireland. Upon that Commission were the Archbishops of Armagh an d Cashel.—( Hear, hear.) They reported that it was highly expedient that the contribution of th e Clergy should be paid with more regularity, and to a greater extent, and they suggested that two Per cent. on the income should be the fixed rate. He migh t be told that the statute of Henry VIII. was only intended to substitute the English in plac e of th e I r i s h l an guage, on e that it was only superintendence on the part of the c lergY , and not the contribution which the Legislature meant... -. (Hear, hear,) That had been amply confuted by th e documents which he had already read to the House' What was the course lie invited the House to pursue'? the present inextricable st a te of th e tith e q uestion Why, first, the repeal of the provisions of the Statute of Henry the Eighth, and, secondly, to relieve the Clergl of the Established Church from the obligation of an oat h which was of no value. The circumstances of the times had rep' tiered the taking of an oath on the induction of a clergyme n totally unnecessary.—( Cheers.) He thought it would be desirable and advantageous that the Clergy should be re' lieved from such an obligation. Now what autho rity had he upon this occasion ? Why, the eleventh Re' port of the Commissioners of Education stated that it was unnecessary, and the first Report of the Commis" sioners on Education in Ireland observed that the ClergY were subject to a restriction that was totally unnecessary' After a few other observations, the Noble Lord concluded by moving " That it is expedient to commute composition s for Tithes in Ireland into a rent-charge, payable by the owners of the first estate of inheritance ; and to make fur ther provisions for the better regulation of ecclesiastical du ties and revenues." The resolution was then put, and agreed to without all further observation being made from either side of the House. IRISH POOR LAWS. Mr. BARRON opened the adjourned debate on this subject. He denied that the principle of the measure now before the Henze was new to Ireland. The system already existed to a great extent in the shape of the houses of i n " dustry established in that country ; and from his own ex" perience, as Governor of the House of Industry a t Water' ford, he could say that they had been productive of great benefit to the poor. He thought it most important that Is the asylums proposed in this Bill a system of labour s hould be established combined with a system of rewards an d punishments, and that model farms should be attached 0 each workhouse. In order to work this measure more sue" cessfully, it was essential that the Commissioners should be invested with po w e rs a t l eas t as f u ll as t h ose t h ey posse ssed for working the En g li s h measure . It was one o f t h e b and wholesornest features of the Bill that its working wa s , not left to mere parish officers or mere interested hul" - duals, but that great control was given to Government 0, the management of the system. Thi s measure h e hailsd as the first practical step to alleviate the misery of li t : land ; but it was ess e n ti a l th a t it s h ou ld b e com bi ne d with measures for the promotion of emigration, the improvemen t of waste - lands, an extensive system of drainage, the or ploymcnt of the poor on public works, and other we ll ' sures ; and he was happy to find that Bills to seee rs these essential objects had already been b ro ught it' by his Honourable Friend the Member for Galway. I t seemed to him that great inconvenience would arise from the mode in which property was made chargeable u nder this Bill. It also appeared to him desirable for many rev sons that there should be two new Commissioners u nder the Bill, and that they should be Irishmen, well acquainted with the localities of their country, and with the feelings and habits of their countrymen. 'lt was really too bad that / Irishmen should be excluded almost entirely, as they wer e ; from any share in the a d m i n i s t ra ti on o f t h e a ff a i rs ev ens: their own part of the empire. Of the persons connected with the Government only five were Irish, while there were sixteen Scotchmen, and between thirty and fo i l English. Sir R. BATESON joined most heartily in the praY e . l : that the barracks i n I re l an d m i g ht b e converte d by 61 ' measure into houses for the poor ; but he feared that the' houses about to be built for the poor would have to be co n ' verted into barracks, u n l ess a b e tt er system o f govern men were acted in on that cou n t r y. Th ere was a consider:kb, is portion of the details of th e Bill w hi c h h e t h oug ht woos' • not work well. The measure had been got up in a has t y and undigested mann er . M r . Ni c h o ll s , w h o h a d con t e nt himself with a six weeks' tour, for the purpose of a cquiriti the necessary inf orma ti on , never went to t h e prov i n ce °, Ulster : he perhaps cons id ere d th e s t ate o f t h at pa rt ° L '_ the country not worthy his observation. In his opinion se" senteeism was one of the greatest of the evils with which Iry land had to contend, and any measure brought in for th e relief of the p oor oug h t t o h ave operate d so as to g ive i premium for residence ; it ought also to have punished 0 5 residents, by ma ki ng t h em pay tr ib ute f or t h e suppo rt, te the poor. This Bill was founded on the very oPPeta principle ;it offered a premium for absenteeism—it pin, absentees in a better situation than those who were resicl,e o nr He objected to the Bill, a l so , th a t it exc l u d e d out-d° relief. In conclusion, the Hon. Member contended til j the Bill ought to h ave con t a i ne d a prov i s i on f or t h e more and religious education of the pauper children. The O'CONOR DON sa id th a t th e H on . 13 0° net b had instituted a com p ar i son b etween t h e N ort h an d Sout e, of Ireland, but he b egge d t o rem i n d hi m t h at t h e PresPt,. rity of the one, as con t ras t e d w i t h t h e ot h er, was a ttribe able to the advantages it derived from English gov ernre,e 4 and English laws. I n th e R epor t i t was ca l cu l a ted tr eighty workhou ses wou ld b e requ i re d ; b ut i n hi s opirV a a ten times that number would be found necessary. thought it injudicious to attempt to work this Bill by En it lish Commis s i oners . Thi s measure was no P oor -lsr ' be was simply a Bill whi c h gave th ree or f our i n di v iduals t power of introducing any Poor-law they pleased. Mr. LYNCH w as f avoura bl e t o t h e pr i nc iple of the Bill, but in hi s o pi n i on it oug ht to b e accompan i e d by ot ll , o measures—for instance, a measure to enable landlord s improve th e i r es t a t es . H e was conv i nce d t h at ;f the o d o o , Member f or Kilk enny k new M r . Ni c h o ll s as we ll a s be as he would believe that Mr. Nicholls's zeal for Ireland : ix , only exceeded by his ability t o serve h er . H e d ec lared, fr`_', o his knowledge of Ireland, th a t th e num b er o f the destl7 ; poor in Ireland had been greatly exaggerated. Axe ° 0 15 to the calculatio ns ma d e , every t hi r d p e rson i n Irelan d 06 a pauper ! This was on the face of it an absurdity gr . referred to the authority of Mr. Griffith on the point. .„ er e Griffith stated that at some ti mes i n th e year hands " sat so scarce, th a t h e was o bli ge d to stop hi s works. The 1,.. d of employment h e ca l cu l ate d was con fi ne d to n i ne ty-four i i o g in the year, and instead of one-half of the population J,e_ th , unemployed, he did not consider it to exceed one-tvven_t°,4 He preferred the authority of Mr. Griffith to that of - e " a f Commissioners. He hoped that this Bill would be the means of putting an end to one of the great evils eifiTt., land—c om p e titi on f or l an d'— an ev il to wh i c h they Isigd po C tribute those outrages, that were in fact agrarian, an foss political. Th e Bill wou ld re li eve t h e sma ll f art ners i _ t o the support o f th e d est i tute , w hi c h was now thrown upon them. As to emigration, he was o'2 ) to it until ever y acre th at cou ld b e cultivated was productive. Lord CLEMENTS approved of the Bill proposed by his Majesty's Ministers. With /Ob i to the workhouses he could say that the able-bodie d , die poor would . not get into them. He thought th at proposed unions in Ireland, comprehending a ,n 0 to of 400 square miles, and a population of from O r '', too 100,000 souls, would be found in practice to be ta a 'hena large. The largest unions in England did not comPr to e. prinelple efpteheat a population of more than 30,000 souls. At the: so se rt 0° • as he had already stated, he was disposed to suPP ° O 4 to principle of the Bill ; although in so doing be regr. th ba say he sh ou ld not b e act i ng i n accor d ance with opinions o f hi s const i tuents. Th e id ea o f b e i n g 100. 4 in w or kh ouses was so uncongen i a l to the f ee lings ° ,i tooo ol people, ho wever d est i tute th e y m i g h t b e , t h a t all to si he had spoken upon the subject were strongly OP ° he measure. f the Mr. P. SHAW was favour a bl e to t h e principle,° ortr measure, and if. the Government thought they CO gr. teed with it with safety a n d e ff ect h e s h ou ld be re 0 7 support them. ~'~'