The Sun. — London, England, 1835-03-25 00:00:00

SUCOND EDITION. SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock. THE PARLIAMENT. (THIS EVENING.) HOUSE OF LORDS. The Earl of Shaftesbury presided in the absence of the Lord Chancellor.. The Noble Earl presented the Report of the Committee on the Chancery Court ( Ireland) Bill. Several returns were pfesented from public offices. The House then adjourned, HOUSE OF COMMONS. The SPEAKER took the chair at half-past three o'clock. Lord SANDON reported from the Committee appointed to try the merits of the Droitwich Election Petition, that the sitting Member, J. &rneby, Esq., was duly elected, and that the petition against his return was not flivolous or vexatious, and that the Committee had amended the poll by striking off five bad votes. Mr. HOPE presented P. petition from Gloucester on the Islington Matliet Bill, P:ad Mr. M'Kinnon presented one in favour of the same Bill. CHELSEA WATER WORKS. Colonel EVANS moved the second reading of the Chelsea Water Works Bill. The Hon. G. TREVOR said there existed considerable ob jections to this Bill, on the part of certain individuals whose proporty would be seriously injured if the Bill passed, and he, should on that account oppose the second reading, by moving that it be read that day six months. Mr. B. H AWES thought it was not quite fair to endea vour to get rid of .the Bill in this way, because there were other persons who might make the same objection as that mentioned by the Hon. Member for Durham. He thought no suffi dent reason had been given to authorise the House in negativing thel ~ ,otiou.—( Hear.) Mr. O'CONNELL was of opinion that the Hon. Member for Durham had given a reason for his amendment, but at the same time, if a particular interest were likely to suffer by the passing of the Bill, the fairest mode would be to let it go into Committee, and then a proper enquiry would be instituted into the merits of the whole question, and equal justice done to all parties. Major BE AUCL ERK was a resident in the district which was likely to be benefited by the Bill, and should, therefore, not wish to have it thrown out. Colonel EVANS hoped that the Hon. Gentleman would withdraw his amendment, seeing that the object of the Bill was to supply pure water to a large portion of the inhabitants of the metropolis, and that great complaints were made of the quality of that now supplied. The Hon. G. TREVOR replied that he had been induced to make the motion by the representations of the parties con cerned, but, observing the feeling of the House, he would with draw his opposition.—( Hear, bear.) The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed. ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS' BILL. Colonel SIBTHORP presented a petition from Lincoln against the Ecclesiastical Courts' Bill, signed by several dig nitaries of the' Church and eminent barristers, who viewed with very great alarm the proposition for transferring the register of all wills and probates to Doctors Commons. So convinced was he of the public injury and inconvenience which this Bill would occasion, that he would give notice of a motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the subject, and he was determined to persevere in it, unless the Attorney- General would consent to modify the provisions of his bill on its second reading. Ile moved that the petition be printed. Mr. M. F. BERKELEY presented a petition from the city of Gloucester and other places, against the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill. Mr. A. TREVOR was able to state, that in the part of the country to which he belonged, he believed great objections existed to the bill of the Attorney-General. Amongst these, the first was the necessity of a general registration required by the bill ; and the next was, the extreme expense and incon venience which must take place in effecting the registration, by sending witnesses a great distance for that purpose ; and lastly, the public Was •quite satisfied to have their wills regis tered in their respective dioceses, and dissatisfied with being compelled to register them at a distance. H o was d eterm i ne d to oppose the bill unless some justice was done to the people. Mr. WILK S was also opposed to central registration, as required by th e provitur of the Ecclesia s ti ca l Courts Bill. He admitted that small courts had a tendency to create litiga tion that ought to be done away with, but the evils of them could be remedied, witliout necessarily adopting centralization of them in the Metropolis. The petitions were ordered to lie on the table. SPIRIT LICENSES. _ _ Mr. A. L AWSON Ncsented a petition from the licensed victuallers of Knar es b oroug h, praying for a repeal of the Act of last Session, for altering the duty on spirit licenses. Mr. GA SKE LL presented a similar petition from the inn keepers of Wakefield. Mr. H. BARE presented a petition to the same effect from the licensed victuallers: of Rumford, in Essex. They com plained that the duty upon spirits was now levied not in pro portion to the amount of spirits sold, but to the value of the premises. Sir. G. STRICKLAND supported the prayer of the peti tioners, and expressed a,,hope that the subject would soon be brought under the con:ideration of the House. LORD'S DAY OBSERVANCE BILL. Sir M. S. STEWART presented a petition from a parish in Reufrewshire in support of the Sabbath Observance Bill; also two petitions from th^ same County in support of the Es. tablished Church of Scotland. EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENT • Sir G. STRICKLAND presented a petition from an indi. lidual of the name of Wynne, residing in Halifax, praying for an equitable adjiistment between man and man, and that the rich and the poor mi ,, ht be compelled to bear an equal pro portion of the national expenses. Mr. ANGERSTEIN presented a petition from Deptford, for the better observance of the Sabbath. PUBLIC CHARITY. Mr. WILK S presented a petition from the inhabitants of Frampton, in Ihe county of Lincoln, complaining of charity property being misapplied in that parish, and praying for in vestigation. The Hon. Member gave notice, that on Friday next it was his intention to inquire of his Majesty's Govern ment, as to the measures they intended to adopt for the pur pose of completing the examination into charity estates. Mr. GRANTLEY BERKELEYpresented a petition from the licensed victu'allers of Cheltenham against the increased duty on spirit licenses. IRISH CORN. Mr. W. ROCHE presented a petition from the Chamber of Commerce of Limerick, complaining of the disadvantages the corn trad e sust a i ne d i n Ireland, from the adoption of mea surement instead of weight in the port of London, in the un shipping and sale of grain in Ireland. Mr. H AWE S said that the Committee on weights and measures confined their attention to that subject, and could not be expected to go into the question of whether corn should be measured by weight or measure. Sir S. WHALLEY presented a petition from the market gardeners near the metropolis, against the Bill for the obser vance of the Lord's Day, complaining that, if passed, it would do them the most serious injury in their occupations. GRAVESEND PIER BILL, Mr. TOOKE presented a petition from the Magistrates and inhabitants of Gravesend, praying that the sale of a piece of ground near Gravesend Pier, which was to take place on the 30th inst., might not be completed. The petitioners complained of the conduct of the Board of Ordnance in their negociations with them respecting the sale of that ground, which the petitioners were desirous of purchasing. They said that the sale now advertised would prove a complete nuisance to them, and to the inhabitants of London who resorted to Gravesend, and they prayed the House to cause that sale to be suspended, and the ground to be reserved for public use and convenience. He considered that time should be given to enable the parties to purchase at a reasonable price the land in question. _ _ Col. LEITH HA Y considered that as he had been a member of the late Board, it was necessary that he should give some explanation on the subject of this petition.--(Cries of " Hear, hear.") It had been determined by the late Board of Ordnance that a sale of the property which had been mentioned should take place, and that determina tion having been advertised, the Corporation of Gravesend expressed a wish to become the purchasers of this land. The sale was postponed in consequence of this application, and an offer made to the Corporation by the Board of Ordnance, that the property should be sold to them, with certain reservations, for a particular sum. That offer was declined. Subsequently to that a meeting of the inhabitants of Gravesend had taken place, when it was deemed advisable to reconsider the offer that had been made ; or they were desirous of purchasing the land for the embellishment of the. town, and for preventing buildings upon it which they considered would be detrimental to the beauty of the place. The Board of Ordnance, considering these parties were worthy of attention, and wishing to act with kind ness towards the inhabitants, endeavoured to effect a negotiation. After some ineffectual attempts at an arrangement, the Board of Ordnance conceived it their duty to break off the agreement. They did not, however, act exclusively on their own judgment; they took the opinion of the Attorney-Gene ral, whe gave it as his conviction that the contract was rendered altogether nugatory, by the conduct of these parties and that the Board of Ordnance might re-advertize those premises for public sale. Upon this the property in question was advertised to be sold by public auction, and reference was again made to Sir James Kempt, who en tirely concurred with what the Board of Ordnance had done. The sale was obstructed on the day appointed— Sir E. KNATCHBULL—Postponed. Colonel LEITH HAY—Well, postponed—and it was stated on these grounds that it was necessary to have further consideration, whether in a military point of view this piece of ground ought to be preserved. The fact was, this point underwent consideration in 1834, when a Committee, composed of members - of the Board of Ordnance came to the determination that the property ought to be sold. There was not the slightest doubt that if these premises had been put up in lots, without reservation, they would have brought a larger sum than that which they chose to bargain for. Under these circumstances he did hope the House would deem it conclusive, not to grant the demand of the petitionrs. Sir E. KNATCHBUL I, complained of the grave charges that had been brought against the Board of Ordnance by the Hon. and Gallant Member—charges which he begged to say were not borne out by the statements in the petition. Colonel LEITH HA Y explained. What he had said was that the late Board of Ordnance had made arrangements for the sale of a considerable portion of property ; ar.(l the present Board, without seeing any papers, or knowing any thing of the matter, had put a step to the sale. Sir E. KNATCHBULL entered into a lentthened expla nation of the conduct of the present Board of Ordnance, and, as we understood him, vindicated them from the charges con tained in th 3 petition. From the low tone in which the Right Hon, iiaronet spoke, we found it impossible to catch a single Sentence of his observations. Mr. D. W. HARVEY considered this to be a very modest application on the part of the little rising town of Gravesend, praying for no less a sum than three of 4,000/. cut of the pub lic purse. He took the statement on the authority of a gentleman connected with the Board of Ordnance. As a guardian of the public property, he must enter his protest against so deal ing with the public purse, because, if the House gave a grant to Gravesend,. other places would make a similar application. Southend required a pier, and would no doubt also feel grate ful to the House if it gave 3,000/. cut of the public purse for that purpose. He did not think it becoming on the part of a public Company to be driving an ungenerous bargain with the people. He suggested that a competent per son ought to be appointed to ascertain what was the value of the 'property sold, and that that amount should be given the Corporation, deducting 10 or 15 per cent. for accommodation. Thus the public purse would be respected, and the public pro perty protected. Sir E. KNATCHBULL made a few observations in ex planation. Mr: G. F. YOUNG regretted that the attention of the House had been laid aside from the subject to the difference be tween the Corporation of Gravesend and the Board of Ordnance. The prayer of the petition was not for a loan of three or four thousand pounds, as the Hon. Member for Southwark stated. All they required was leave to purchase ground from the Crown for the local interests of Gravesend. No prayer, he submitted, was better entitled to the attention of the House. Major B AU CLE RK made some observations, which were inuadible in the Gallery. Mr. WARBURTON supported tho view taken of the question by the Honourable Member for Southwark (Mr. D. W. Harvey.) He agreed with him, that the value of the lands should be ascertained, by the Board of Ordnance, and that m allow:Lace of 10 per cent. should be made to the purchaser in consideration of de. voting the same to public accommodation ; and he was also of opinion that a Trustee should be appointed, to see that the funds were not devoted to private purposes. Sir F. TRENCH expressed his,coneurrenee in the second suggestion which had been made, and hoped. that whatever was done, the public service would be considered paramount to private interest. Mr. TOOKE declared that he never wanted to see a public enterprise diverted to any private purpose whatever. The conversation then dropped. • BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. Upon Lord JOHN RUSSELL rising to propose his mo tion upon this subjoct, Sir EDWARD CODRINGTON instantly rose, and beg ged to say, that in consequence of what had passed yesterday, certain explanations had been given with which he was per fectly satisfied. He had had an opportunity of clearing up what he did say, and he thought that what had been done would be a sufficient lesson to those persons \rho had rendered the course he had taken necessary, and he hoped the Noble Lord would let the matter drop. Lord .1. RUSSELL rose, but from the very low tone in which the Noble Lord spoke, and the noise occasioned by the sudden entrance of Hon. Members, it was scarcely possible to hear a word the Noble Lord said. We understood him to say that he was quite convinced that the Hon. and Gallant Admiral's character was beyond injury from any such imputations as those that had been cast upon it.—( Hear, hear:. ) It was therefore only upon public grounds that it was necessary to bring forward this question. If he brought it' forward at all it was solely upon public grounds. He *was certainly in the hands of the House, and would act as the House should think fit. His Hon. and Gallant Friend's character could not suffer the least injury from an anonymous Hear, hear.) It was not therefore to clear the character of the Hon. and Gal lant Admiral that be intended to bring forward the subject, but because there was a general opinion that the character and dignity of the House had been insulted. Sir R. PEEL hoped the Noble Lord would not bring forward the subject.—( Hear.) He sliduld be very sorry if a precedent were established, which would render it neces sary for every public man to bring forward subjects of this nature, when imputations were cast upon them in the newspapers. If the Noble Lord was anxious to become the champion of the House, he could supply him with a great variety of cases.—( A laugh.) The lion. and Gallant Admi ral having expressed his opinion, and having entreated the Noble Lord not to bring forward the subject, he had not any doubt, therefore, but that the feeling of the House was, that they should not establish a precedent by which every Member of Parliament who was attacked, and might have the grossest imputations cast upon him, would feel bound to defend himself in that House. Sir H. HARDINGE concurred in all that had been said by his Right • Honourable Friend ( Sir Robert Peel). Had he been inclined to follow the course which had been pur sued by the Noble Lord (Russell), he might have come down to that House and complained or some very gross attacks that had been made on him within the last forty-eight hours. —( A laugh.) He thought it, however, much better to ab stain from doing so, as he thought that the attacks were too contemptible for" notice—( Hear, hear)—and he would not, therefore, notice them. Mr. SINCLAIR. rose, but was received by a general cry of " Oh;" which completely drowned the observations of the Hon. Member. DISSENTERS' MARRIAGES. Mr. DUNCOMBE wished to know when it would be con venient for the Right Hon. Baronet to bring in his Bill with respect to Dissenters' Marriages. The present feeling of anxiety out of doors had alone induced him to ask the question. Sir R. PE EL said that when he mo% ed for leave to bring in the Bill it was entirely prepared, and it was only for the purpose of introducing some valuable suggestions that the Bill had been delayed. In stating this he begged it to be understood that he did not want to invite further suggestions. No per son but a Chancellor- of the; Exchequer could answer for the number of useless suggestions that wera made to him, such as putting a tax on umbrellas and such things.—( A laugh.) He was in hopes of being enabled, in the course of a few days to lay the Bill on the- table of the House. REGISTRATION OF VOTERS. A MEMBER was heard to enquire of the Noble Lord the Member for South Devon, what course he intended to pursue with respect to the Bill for the Amendment of the Registration of Voters ? Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that be should move the second reading of the Bill to-night, leaving it to the House to determine whether the Committee should be of the whole House or not. IRISH CHURCH. Sir R. PEEL wished to know whether the Noble Lord opposite would have any objection, on Friday next, to state generally the outline of the resolutions he meant to propose on Monday.—( Cries of " Oh I oh I") ;The adoption of such a course would be extremely convenient, he thought, to the House generally.—( A laugh.) Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that as he did not expect the question, he was not prepared at the present moment with an answer.—(Laughter.) NAVY ESTIMATES. Lord ASHLEY said that according to the usual custom, it would be necessary to give notice in the Gazette on Friday next that the half-pay and widows' pensions would be in course of payment. This would be impossible unless they had the money, as they would begin to be paid on the 10th of April, and the last notice that could be given was on Friday next. Now, unless the House would vote that money to-night, it would be too late to do so on Friday, and it would, therefore, occasion great inconvenience, as those pensioners would think that they would not be paid. It might be said that Government could take money voted for other purposes, but this they did not ctonsider themselves warranted in doing, without the sanction of the House. Mr. LABO lietlE RE would be extremely sorry that any such inconvenience should arise, but he really could not see why the passing of that vote was so important, or more necessary than any other. It wasintended, as .he had understood, that all the votes should be passed by the Ist of April. He did not conceive that the Noble Lord had made out any case for receiving a further grant at present.-- Seeing his Right Honourable Friend, the late First Lord of the Admiralty in his place ( Sir J. Graham), he should like to know from him whether he was correct in the view he had taken ; if not he should certainly at once defer to the Right Hon. Gentleman's better judgment. Sir J. GRAHAM said he could not see any constitutional difficulty in applying monies which arc voted for one branch of the service to another. After the resolution had been refuted, and until the passing of the Appropriation Act. Dur ing the last Session, as, no doubt, the lion. Member for Middlesex would recollect, he had taken one objection, that ofter the money had been appropriated by Act of Parliament for one use, it had been transferred for ano ther; but he had never contended, and never could con tend, that in the interval between the passing of the vote, and the general appropriation of Parliament, the former resolution having been reported, there ought to be the least difficulty on the part of the. Executive in carrying on the service after the moneys had been voted. He would say, take this very instance with respect to the naval service, the sum voted the other night amounted to nearly two millions —( Cries of " Hear, hear")--and, while he was in the Admiralty, he should not have hesitated in the least in applying the sums so voted and reported to the general use of naval service, and certainly including half-pay. He saw in the procedure no violation of the Act o f Par liament. There was no objection, as he conceived, why the estimate should not be passed before the Ist of Apri next, yet he was compelled to say, that the controul which the House was a controul of the Executive perfectly constitu tional. He did not think it was necessary to have the votes passed before the Ist of April, nor that the public needed it. Mr. HUME wished to ask the Noble Lord whether he meant to pay the advance for the next quarter, because, if he understood it right, the whole of the Navy Estimates were provided for until next April Mr. HERRIES said he was glad to find that the Right Hon. Baronet had relaxed from some of his positions in respect to the appropriation of the public money.. He did not quite understand the distinction which he now withdraws. The Right Hon. Baronet contends, that after the appropriation of Parliament, all moni es vote d b y the House should be applied for the specific purposes mentioned ; yet that in the interval between the passing of the votes the monies may be applied indiscri minately for the naval service. He (Mr. H.) was of opi nion, however, that the greatest degree of strictness was necessary in the appropriation to the several parts of their THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 1835. detail. The' Right Hon. Hon. Baronet, however, says that with respect to great sums, that is latterly impossible. He considered that his Noble Friend (Lord Ashley) had done only justice to an opinion ofthe House on a former occasion, in calling upon them to enable him to fulfil what appeared to be the established regulations in conformity with the Act of Parliament for the appropriation of monies not voted for specific purposes. If it be said that all naval money Can be applied to any servic strictly naval, then this was unnecessary, but if the House was of opinion that it was not necessary, it was not constitutional to appropriate money to any other purpose than that for which- it was originally granted; he thought then, under such circumstances, it would be necessary to empower the Admiralty to pay those demands which his Noble Friend had shown to be so much required. He thought the House would act wisely to enable the Govern ment, by this vote, to carry on the business of the country. These were the feelings he had always entertained, and he thought that the House would best consult the interests of the public service by acting in this manner. Lord ASHLEY observed that in the Appropriation Act there was a distinction in the words regulating the half-pay of the army, and the half-pay of the navy. In the one the words wore " to defray all demands for the half-pay of the navy up to the 31st of March." In the other it was "to defray all demands for the half pay which shall come in course of payment on tha 31 st of March." They were in the habit, in consequence of this arrangement, of defraying the expenses of the old quarter out of the quarter which succeeded it, add at the present time, they had not one farthing to pay there documents. It was for this reason that he asked of the H>n. Gentleman and the House to allow him to go into Committee, and pass these votes. Unless these votes were passed to-night, it would occasion much difficulty and embarrassment. Sir JAMES GRAHAM apprehended that if the Appro priation Act was as had been stated on the other side, and that the half-pay demands could not be paid, until these votes were passed, he ( Sir James Graham) for one would be sorry to take any steps which would occasion the stopping of the half-pay of any officer.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") He thought however that the ar rangement was a very irregular one. • After a few words from Mr. W. WYNNE, Mr. PRYME said, if there was a difficulty he could re mind the House of the cause and' the authors of it. Did it not arise from the dissolution of the late Parlia ment ? That had priven the assembling of the Parliament beyond, the occustomed time. of meeting, the present Parliament having met late in February, instead of early in the month of January._( Hear, hear.) This was one of the evils of the unnecessary dissolution of Parliament.---( Hear, hear.) Dr. BARING remarked, there was difficulty in regulating the public accounts, but desired that the views of the Riglrt Hon. the Secretary of War would have their due effect. It might be true that the House could not carry its control into every department of the public accounts, but it would be well to have a fixed time for the consideration of the estimates. Mr. HUME wished to know whether the Noble Lord (Ashley) would take the votes singly or altogether. Sir R. PEEL—The question is, whether it is most advi sable for the HoUse to pass two votes, both as to the half-pay and pension together, or pass the one first and leave the other to some future occasion. His Noble Friend wished to con form to the feelings of the House. On Friday it is usual to give notice in the Gazette that the half-pay of officers will be paid in obedience to the votes of the House.—( Hear.) His Noble Friend did not wish to publish such a notice without the sanction of the House—for if he:published such a notice, would it not naturally create surprise that he should pledge the honour of Government to make payments before the House authorised them. The safe course which he ( Sir Robert Peel) considered:for the House to take wbs, to sanction the votes to-night much safer than leaving the payments to be made out of an appropriation of monies granted for other purposes. The exigencies of the public services may require indefinite appropriations on some occasions, but he did not think that, the House having passed a vote of monies for two or three heads, the Executive Government would devote it tojother purposes. (LEFT SPEAKING.) and his colleagues to seize upon the revenues of the colony, he did make use of it : but it was in following up the assertion. of the Nobl e an d . Learned Lord, who said that the Governor had seized on the revenues of Canada. If he had done sa then the blame must be attributed to the Noble and Learned Lord and his colleagues. He had not blamed Noble Lords opposite for the course they had pursued, but he stated that the grounds of complaint of the petitioners were quite different from those urged by the Noble and Learned Lord opposite. No blame was attributed on account of the instructions sent out to the Governor. What the • petitiOners complained of was delay, and that the home Government had done nothing to redress their grievances. The Earl of RIPON said that with respect to the seizure of the revenue, his Noble and Learned Friend ( Lord Brougham) had not used the words as if applied to himself, but had merely repeated the words of the petition.—( Hear, from Lord Brougham.) What the Noble Earl had said re specting his immediate predecessor was perfectly satisfactory. The observations of the petitioners did not apply to the late Secretary for the Colonial Department, but to a former Se cretary, his Noble Friend (Lord Stanley.) If there had been any seizure of the revenues, the charge must apply to his Noble Friend. But the truth was that his Noble Friend did not consent to any seizure of the revenues of the province, or to any appropriation of its funds, as mentioned in the petition ; but, on the contrary, his Noble Friend prohibited the appro priation of the said revenues. After the inquiry instituted by the other House into the grievances of Canada his Noble Friend intended to bring in a Bill respecting the appropria tion of the revenues of that colony. The imputation of hav ing ordered the Governor to seize on the revenues was with out any solid foundation. Lord BROUGHAM said that the Noble Earl who spoke last was correct, for he (Lord Brougham) made no charge; if there was any it was contained in the statement of the pe tition. He said that the charge might be right or it might be wrong ; that was the petitioner's affair ; he had nothing to do with it, and could have no opinion on the subject. There was no charge in the petition against the Government for not recalling Lord Aylmer. The charges were against Lord Aylmer, but not against the Government for any instructions transmitted to that Noble Lord Afrer a few words from from the Earl of ABR R.DEEN, The petition was then laid on the table, afro,- vnich the House adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Menen The SPEAKER took the ch&L - a quarter before 4 o'clock, but the gallery was not opene,: half-past 4, in consequence of there being two Ballots Windsor and Canterbury. Mr. CRAWFORD 0re,,,,..1ed a petition from the aorpo- IRISH CLERGY. Mr. HUME did not believe that either the expense or the trouble would be found near so great as the Right Hon. Ba ronet anticipated, and if it were ten times greater, he thought that the inquiries ought to be made. Sir 11. HARDINGE said that the Million Act had occa sioned two millions and a half of simple calculations, had oc cupied 95 clerks, 40 extra barristers at five guineas per day, and had cost 25,0001. There was certainly no difficulty in making out that part of the returns spoken of by the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, but in producing other informa tion connected with tithe, it would be very expensive, and cause much delay and inconveniency, and it was his duty to point this out to the House. BANKRUPTCY COURT. Mr. D. W. HARVEY moved for a return of the number of assignees appointed under the Act, establishing the Court of Bankruptcy, the number of fiats removed, amount of debts proved, dividends paid, expenses incurred, &c. &c. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. _ _ _ • _ Sir ED'W AR D COD RINGTON said he rose on a ques tion of Breach of Privilege, as in the course of the discussion on Friday last on the subject of a petition in which he had felt himself called to take part, he had been misrepresented in his statements. The observation which he made was that great intimidation had taken place at the election for Devonport, and that he considered it arose very much in consequence of Mr. Dawson having hoisted the Admiralty flag, as well as from the activity o f a G enera l o f M ar i nes . He did not say that he canvassed under the Admiralty flag. In consequence of this statement having gone forth in the public prints, Mr. Dawson had written to him, in which he gave that state ment a flat contradiction. He (Sir E. Codrington) had also given it a flat contradiction in his answer to that gentleman. Mr. Dawson had sent that answer, as well as the rest of the other correspondence, to the Times and the Morning Post. He ( Sir E. Codrington) should not detain the House, whether the best course would not have been to have given him an opportunity of contradicting such a staterr\ent in his place in that H ouse . I t was not, however, so much of this part of the statement, as it was upon the subsequent course pursued by the Morning Post in commenting on the correspon dence, which, in his opinion, conveyed a censure so strong that he felt bound to bring it publicly before the House. The Hon. Baronet then read the statement complained of, in which they vouched for the accuracy of the report, and concluded by ob serving that, in comparison of such conduct on the part of him (Sir E. Codrington), a direct falsehood was a respectable and manly vice. He was not much afraid of it, as far as af fected his character, still he thought it necessary to take some notice of it. He was not, however, anxious to press the mat ter further, but would just leave it for the consideration of the House to deal with it as they thought fit. Lord CLE MENTS begged to call the attention of the House to a passage which appeared in the Morning Chroni cle of that morning, purporting to be a report of a few obser vations which he had made on the subject of Orange socie ties. The Noble Lord read the passage, and observed that he had said no such thing.—( Hear.) He had always consi dered it unbecoming the character of a Member of Parliament to protect or encourage exclusive societies, for he considered all illegal and exclusive societies baneful to the peace of Ireland. He had never encouraged the formation of either Ribbon or Orange Societies. What he did say was that he was surprised that the formation of Orange Societies, in the county of Fermanaph, should have been attributed to the corruption of the Ribbonmen of the county of Leitrim, and that an infusion of some of the spirit of the people of the county of Leitrim would be useful to Fermanagh, as Leitrim was one of the most peaceable counties in Ireland. Mr. HENRY GRATTAN rose amidst loud cries of " Or der, order."—He complained that tho Morning Herald of that morning. —(Great laughter.) Words had been attributed to him which he had never used. The report alleged that he had stated that a party of Orangemen, on a Sunday, had marched into Trim, headed by a Clergyman, armed with a pistol, and that the men were in the service of the Honourable Member opposite. He (Mr. 11. Grattan) had said no such thing ; but be had stated that these Orangemen had marched into Trim, and that they were after wards in the service, if not in the pay, of the Hon. Member. He had to complain of this as a very great breach of privilege, and he trusted that that paper would be more correct in its re ports on another occasion. The case of the Hon. and Gallant Officer was one which loudly called for the interference of the House. Lord JOHN RUSSELL then rose.—No man was more indisposed than he was to bring forward the subject of breach of privilege, or to find fault with the gentlemen who are has tily compelled to write the reports of the proceedings of this House ; yet he thought that the language used by the news paper in question, in reference to the Hon. Admiral, ought to be taken notice of. The Noble Lord then proceeded to read the paragraph complained of, which appeared in the Morning Past of yesterday. He thought it not advisable to bring a question of this kind to issue when the passions are excited in favour of one party, a Member of this House, and to censure another not belonging to it. He there fore gave notice that on to-morrow he should bring the question of breach of privilege in reference to this paragraph under the consideration of the House. DUBLIN ELECTION. Sir J. CAMPBELL presented a petition from certain in habitants of Dublin praying, as far as we could catch its pur port, that the order of the House for examining the sufficiency of the sureties, in the case of the Dublin Election petition be discharged. Mr. C. W. WYNN was understood to object to receiving the petition, lest by so doing they should seem to sanction its prayer. Mr. S. RICE thought that every petition should be re ceived which did no: contain improper expressions, and was open to no other .objections stronger than those wLich were made a:Tainst the one before them. By receiving a petition they did not sanction its contents—( Hear, hear)—but to reject petitions upon slight grounds was a bad l.recedent, and unjust to the community. If by permitting tl e petition they approved of its prayer or contents, he should hesitate as to receiving it ;_ but as that was not the case, he thought it better for the House not to interfere, and not to express an opinion on such an occasion. He concurred in the general principles laid down by his Right Hon. Friend; but he did not think that there were sufficient grounds to reject this petition. Mr. F. SHAW hoped the petition would not only be re ceived, but that the House would take the matter up, and make some inquiry into the circumstances. He meant to make no charge against the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite, but now for a second time the security and solvency of two highly respectable gentlemen were impugned. He could state that there were not two more respectable and solvent men in Dublin. One was the Lord Mayor of Dublin.—( Hear, hear.) They were both gentlemen in business, and it was of the utmost importance to their cha racter that these charges should be investigated. Both those gent l em en, when their solvency had been impugned on a for mer occasion, had travelled from Dublin for no other purpose than to meet the charges that had been made against them. He would declare, upon his word as a gentleman, that he be lieved each of the gentlemen to be worth at least 20,0001. ( Hear, hear.) He trusted that the petition would be re ceived, and the matter investigated, provided it was not to put off the ballot upon the Dublin Election petitions. Th e y were gentlemen whose personal property was at the very least worth 40,0001. per annum; he entreated the House not to let this go off on a mere point of form, but to investigate the matter ver) closely.—(Cries of " Question.") Mr. H. MAXWELL said he was perfectly satisfied, and he would vouch for the perfect solvency of the two sureties.— ( Question.) Sir JOHN CAMPBELL hoped the House would allow the petition to be brought up, and then decide upon the question in its own way ; he did not mention the Lord Mayor, for the best of reasons, he did not know it himself. . The petition was respectfully worded, and he hoped it would be allowed to lie on the table. After a few words from Mr. H. GRATTAN, my, G OULBURN rose, and said that the question for the House to consider was, not whether it should receive the peti tion, that was a small matter, but how far the House would commit itself by so doing, for they might be driven into this alternative--either to an inquiry into the solvency of the par ties, or the truth of the allegations. He hoped that the Lamed Gentleman would look into the petition, to ascertain if t con tained any allegations adverse to its reception by the ;louse, and he believed the Learned Gentleman would exercis a just and sound discretion. SIR JOHN CAMPBELL would not discharge Is duty to the petitioners if he withheld it. So far as the matter rested with him, he certainly should persist in presenng the petition.—( Hear. ) Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSON said, the question of the jurisdiction of .the House, was not the one which theybad to consider, but whether it should be received or not. le pe tition complained, however, of the conduct i the sureties of the petitioners against the sitting mOsbers, _one of whom was, he believed, an officer of that louse. He admitted that the House ought not to set aside th deci sion of the Examiners who were the proper persons t, judge of the qualification of the sureties, but he saw no reaon why the petition should be rejected. A great deal too truch had been said about qualifications of the ,Lord Mayor, ind the impropriety of calling his credit in question : but every per son who became a security put his character and cedit in question—( Hear)—and he hoped the doctrine wou3 never he recognized in that House, that they were not at 11)erty to question the qualifications of any surety. It would 1),1 a dan gerous precedent to refuse to receive petitions complaning of grievances.—( Question. ) Mr. JAMES MAXWELL bore testimony to the olvency and respectability of the Lord Mayor of Dublin, and tie other surety to the petition. Mr. ROBINSON observed that enough had alreati passed to show the impoiicy of entertaining such petitions. If the present was entertained, other Hon. Members world have similar petitions to present ; and before many days they should perhaps have a petition impugning the truth of the albgations in the present petition.—( Hear.) The House, in his opinion, had no jurisdiction in the matter, and he trusted it would not consent to receive the petition.—(Loud cries of " Qeestion," and " Divide.") Mr. LE FRO Y said, as it was now admitted upon 1,11 hands that the House had no jurisdiction in the case, why, he would ask, was the question pressed, unless for the purpose of casting an imputation upon the solvency of an honourable and respectable constituent of Dublin—upon the solvency of a man who was well known to be worth more than twenty times the amount of 5001., which at present was all he was to he answer able for? He felt it to be due to the respectable gentleman not to press upon the House such a course as would have no other tendency than to cast unfounded imputations upon an Hon. Gentleman.—( Loud cries of " Question, question.") Sir R. PEEL then rose and said it appeared to him that there was a vast difference in the mere bringing up of a peti tion, and the question that it do lie on the table. The Mem ber presenting the petition might, not, in his opening of its contents, put the House fully in possession of all its facts. Supposing a petition to be presented in the usual form, which, on being brought up, was found to contain a charge affecting the personal character of any person, then the House might object to its being laid upon the table ; but if it was not brought up, the House could pot be aware of the objectionable matter.—(Hear, he,r.) The House had had especially appointed persons to judge of the question of sureties, and the House should not encourage ap peals from them. He for his part would like to have the petition brought up in order to have it read, so ihat he might be able to judge how far it might go. The petition was then brought up and read. Sir JOHN CAMPBELL said that he had done his duty, and he had nothing more to say in the matter. The petition was then withdrawn. COMMUTATION OF TITHES IN ENGLAND AND IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, MUCK 24. GAOLS AND HOUSES OF CORRECTION. (Continued from The Son of last night.) The Dukc of RICHMOND said he was not to be put down by the Noble and. Learned Lord's sarcasm—( Hear, hear) and he would give him an opportunity of making as long a speeciras he liked—( Laughter)—in his place in that House, for he would then give notice that on that day se'nnight he would move for the return, but he begged leave to give the Noble and Learned Lord notice, that he would neither permit him, nor any other man in. that House, to make sarcastic obser vations. Lord BROUGHAM—My Lords,' I really must, having been attacked by my Noble Friend, appeal to your Lordships, whether in the whole course of your ex perience of Parliamentary debates, of Parliamentary tactics, or of Parliamentary attacks or defence, you ever heard or saw an individual more unjustly dealt by, o: more harshly treated than I am by my Noble Friend. Hear.) Which of us attacked the other first ? (Laughter.) Did not my Noble Friend on the cross bench (the Duke of Richmond) begin by attacking me for my wish to make long speeches? All I said was that I wished that a debate should take place on the 9uestion before the Committee was appointed. My Noble Friend got up in his turn, and by his sarcastic remarks produced on the visages of your Lordships a considerable grin and a laugh ; not indeed at the expense of my Noble Friend, but the - unfortunate individual who now ad dresses you was the subject of it.—( Hear, and a laugh.) My Noble Friend offered to place me on the Committee, and there. by give me an opportunity of making long speeches, from the hours of ten until five, or nearly from the time of the sun's ris ing to its going down.—( A laugh.) This may be very good sarcasm or it may not be ; it may or may not be intended for sarcasm by my Noble Friend ; but it certainly had the effect of being so. I consider it one of the most extraordinary in stances of hard treatment that any one could be subject to— (A laugh)—and that the conduct of my Noble Friend indicates one of the most marvellous examples of want of recollection, particularly when I reflect on the acuteness of his recollection, —of his great caution with respect to all he says. My Noble Friend first attacked me, and all I have done was to defend myself. After a few words from Lord WHARNCLIFFE the motion was agreed to. LOWER CANADA. The Earl of ABERDEEN had a petition to present to their Lordships from Lower Canada, signed by 11,000 persons, in habitants of Montreal and its vicinity. Out of the above number 10,000 were persons either British born or of British descent, and those persons represented the opinions of a numerous and respectable body of individuals, not less than 100,000 in number. The petitioners stated that they wore highly sensible of the value of the connection between the two countries, between Canada and the mother country, that they were partial to the Constitution granted to their province by his late Majesty, and that they were determined to maintain that Constitution. They state, however, that they view with regret the tendency of the 92 resolutions passed by the Ho•:se of Assembly, because they tend to spread alarm throughout the province. They view with feelings of deepregret the disloyil principles promulgated under the sanction of Parliament , aga►nst the constituted authorities ; they reprobate the system of withholding the supplies, of endea vouring to usurp the prerogatives of the Crown, and establish ing a pure democracy by placing in the hands of the people the power of electing the Legislative Council. They entreat your Lordships, should you think it necessary, to interfere in their favour, and concur in a mo lification of their Constitution, so far as to secure a better arran - vmennt of their financial system, and to strengthen the connection between the two countries, and preserve the mutual rights of all classes of his Majesty's subjects in that province. Knowing, as he did, the intentions of his Majesty's Government in this country, if they were met with the same spirit of conciliation by the inhabi tants of Canada he thought it would be hard if the whole question was not brought to a satisfactory and favourable con clusion. The Noble Earl concluded by moving that the peti tion be laid on the table. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE wished to know whether the Noble Earl, in his remarks a few evenings since, intended to attach any blame to the conduct of his immediate prede cessor in the Colonial department, with respect to the instruc tions that that Right Hon. Gentleman had transmitted to the Government of Canada. He had understood the Noble Earl to say that his Right Hon. Friend had sanctioned the seizure of the revenues of the country by the Governor. In justice to his Right Hon. Friend he begged to state that so far from sanctioning** seizure of the revenues of the Colony he advised measures of quite a contrary character, inasmuch as his Right Hon. Friend, being aware of the great distress that existed in Canada on account of the non-payment of the salaries of Offi cers under Government, ordered that they should be paid out of the extraordinary revenues of the country. With re spect to the other charge of delay imputed to his Hon. Friend, he thought his Right Hon. Friend had done right in taking a large space of time for the consideration of the question, and that the choice of the time for transmitting the instructions and intentions of Government was not wise and convenient, since it was the period when the Legislative Assembly was to be convened. He thought, therefore, that no unnecessary delay hid taken place respecting the transmission of the instruc tions of Government by his Right Hon. Friend. He also understood that it was imputed to his Right Hon. Friend as a charge, that he had not recalled the Governor (Lord Aylmer). Now, if their Lo:dships recollected the attacks made on Lord Aylmer, they would feel that his recal would in some degree justify those attacks, and he believed that the Noble Earl opposite himself would not think it just, under those circumstances, to recal Lord. Aylmer. The Earl of ABERDEEN said the Noble Marquis should recollect the comments that had been made on the allegations contained in the petition presented by the Noble and Learned Lord opposite (Lord Brougham) the other evening, and that in it blame was imputed to those who retained Lord Aylmer as Governor of Canada, particularly after the report of the Committee of the other HOWE that sat to inquire into the question last year. It had never entered into his contempla tion to say that Lord Aylmer should have been recalled. He had stated that the complaints in the petition presented by the Noble and Learned Lord w7re unfounded, but as the Noble and Learned Lord seemed to adhere to some of them, he thought he had a right to say if there were any just subjects of complaint, they rested with the Noble and Learned Lord and his colleagues. Trat was wliat he said, and he had no inten tion of imputing blame to any party. With respect to the other point, the expression made use of by him, that the Go vernor had been authorized by the Noble and Learned Lord WALES. Sir ROBERT PEEL.—I am about to call the attention of the House to a question not connected with any party matter, but in which the public have long felt a deep interest. I allude to the facilitating the settlement of the Tithe question in England and Wales. I approach the subject with great diffidence of my power to settle it in a satisfactory manner.—(Hear.) To pre sume otherwise would be to betray a great ignorance of of the subject. The inconvenience has long been felt of taking the tithe in kind. and it is time the prayer of the public should be conceded. I will not trouble the House with a displayof pedantic learning, or by referring to details, but will at once allude to the variety of interests connected with the question—to the bad effects of taking tithes in kind on cultivation, in discouraging improvements, and involving the owners of tithes in litigation with the payers of tithe, and I will take for granted that both the House and the country are unanimous in their desire that the cuestion should be settled. I think, Sir, that a great object would be attained if we could devise any other mode by which this might be levied. At differ ent periods various suggestions have been proposed for attaining that object, and it is necessary that I should shortly review the principal features of those various suggestions ; but I do not hesitate to say, that if I thought that any of these suggestions were preferable to those which I am about to bring forward, or if, in the course of the discussion, it may appear that any thing bet ter can be devised, I shall not hesitate to adopt them ; because in submitting any measures to effect a settlement of this most important question, it is impossible to do so without great distrust and anxiety as to its probable re sults.—( Hear, hear.) The measures which have hitherto been devised for the settlement of the Tithe question have gone upon one or other of these principles.—( Hear, hear.) It has at one time been proposed that the tithe of the country should be valued, and aftei that valuation has taken place, that an equivalent, either in land or in a corn rent, should be substituted. for the amount of tithes. I apprehend, however, that if any measure were introduced, founded on that principle, it would fail to give satisfaction. If there were to be a strict valuation, exclusive of every other consideration, and exclusive of the forbearance of the clergy man in the levy ; and if any equivalent were granted in lieu of tithes, founded upon a reference to its abstract value ; as it is impossible to refer to the evidence taken before the Agri cultural Committee, without finding that there was an universal concurrence on the part of the surveyors of the lands, and others acquainted with the actual burden of the lands, as respected the rents and the tithe—it is impossible to refer to that evidence, without finding that the tithe paid, or the sums paid in lieu of tithes, was less than equivalent to the value of the tithe, and without finding that the clergyman, the minister of the Church of England, had acted with greater forbearance than the lay appropriator.—( Cheers. ) Without adverting to any earlier measures on the subject, I will merely go to those two most recently before the House ; namely, the two measures successively introduced in 1833 and 1834 by a Noble Lord ( Althorp) when he held the office of Chancellor of the. Exchequer. The Noble Lord had evi dently paid great attention to the subject, and was well ac quainted with the important interests connected with it, and impressed with the necessity which existed for its final set tlement. In fulfilment of his often expressed opinions on the subject, the Noble Lord introduced successively the measures to which I refer, and I can assure the House that if at the time I had been at all satisfied that the principles upon which either of these measures proposed to attain their object, I should not have opposed them, and I feel confident that the Noble Lord himself, if he were now in this Honse, would con cur in the measure which I am about to introduce. The pro visions of the Bill of 1833 were shortly these. It attempted in the first place to encourage a voluntary arrangement towards a commutation between the tithe-payer and the tithe-owner But after a period of one year had expired, should such an adjustment not have been arrived at, the Bill gave the power to either party to compel the other to a commutation, and to appoint valuators, who should have a regard to the respective interests of the tithe-payer on the one hand, and of the tithe-owner on the other, and then to adjust a commu tation on a certain basis of value. That basis was not a refe rence to the actual value of the tithe. The Noble Lord knew the difference between the actual value and the amount paid of tithes, and be proposed that the actual average amounts of tithes paid for the seven years preceding should be taken in lieu of the real value of the tithe. Objections were immedi ately raised against this proposal, and upon this ground, that by reason of the different degrees of forbearance or modera tion—call it what you please—of the Clergymen in different parishes, tithes had in some places been closely exacted, and in others levied upon a moderate principle, and , in others, in consequence of the neglect or forbearance of the Clergyman, no tithe, or a very small one, had • been paid for many years. The Bill met with great opposition, and being referred to the Agricultural Committee, they came to the conclusion that it was inexpedient to pass it into a law, and the consequence was that the Noble Lord declared towards the close of the session, that he did not intend to persevere in so much of it as related to the seven years' valuation. The Noble Lord was induced, however, to persevere in so much of his Bill as involved the voluntary principle of commutation, but finally abandoned it altogether. At a subsequent period, in the year 1834, the Noble Lord brought in another Bill for the settlement of the question ; and so little bias have I in the matter, and so little wedded am I to the Bill which I now propose to bring in, though I do think it preferable to any I have yet seen upon the subject, that I do hope that if there is any Gentleman in the House who deems the Noble Lord's last Bill preferable to mine he will give notice of his inten tion to produce it, in order that both may be compared, and that the House, after discussing the respective merits of each, may select that which they may think best.—( Hear, hear.) I paid Lord Althorp's Bill verb great attention, and if I dissent from its principle I pay no disrespect to the Noble Lord's intelligence and good intentions. The Noble Lord's Bill proposed a commutation of tithe for a money payment. The Bill is rather complicated in its provisions, but I will en deavour to explain them. The first provision of the Noble Lord's Bill was that there should be made to the tithe owner a money payment in proportion to the rent of the farm or land chargeble with tithe, in lieu of the tithe before levied. The Bill further provided that a power of redemption should be given to the proprietor, on the payment of five years' pur chase of that money payment. If that redemption were to take place, then the money so applied to the purchase of the redemption would be used for a further security of the rights of the clergy, and would be converted into a rent charge on the property of the landlord. The relative rights of the clergyman or the lay owner of tithe and of the land owner being thus established, it comes to be considered how the other provisions of the Bill consequent upon the former are to be carried into execution. It was accordingly provided that, in order to carry them into effect, and as a guarantee to the tithe owner on the one hand, and the tithe payer on the other, against imposition or extortion, or any of those difficulties or inconveniences attendant on the adjustment of such a complex question, that a power was to be given to the Secretary of State to appoint valuators in the several districts, whose duty it would be to fix the proper value of the land, and the amount of tithe to be levied upon it. It was proposed, by the Noble Lord's Bill, that the valuators should take each district seriatim, and in their valuation take° the amount and quality of the arable and the pasture land. Two divisions were to be made of the land, the one into arable, the other into pasture land. The -arable land, in the criterion be formed of what c ncler cultivation for five years . to be considered land onstituted that description of propertyro4 be their duty further to asevrtain what was the amount oil.,llu_t able land in each district, merely in the aggregate, but fractionally. They s hould! - e ci,; d was to be paid from 1 and report what amount of ! ti l e _ aid the amount ef tithe pal that was arable and that was not. lal'‘'ing: each species f n amount of tithe for the last five years on ere to and the average value of the land, the Con:missinel mos. transmit to the Magistrates at the Quarter Se' ssi " s l t i :„i ste ates tered value so laid down by the valuators. lie guag e then, having considered the case, were to take s a • . t ip order then ascertaio datnti: the average amount of tithe and the value of the le l s there to ascertain the quantum of titles to be paid. Now .0- 1 d an d are striking difficulties io the way of coming to a fil._ntsio agreed decision on this point. The valuators were to as" o f the value of the arable and non-arable land, and the alron n lye tithe to be paid on each, and then they were to stell'.e t,• mean of the value on each, and the Magistrates on a c tiA ,,,: n e ' r , tion so liable to chance, the operation of caprice, or u .' ene d, tainty, were to be called on to determine the data furni data of a doubtful and fleeting character, the amount of v t e li iil a to be paid. Suppose the valuators were right, which b e be often questioned, would the decision of the Magistra t a. e t b o always thought unimpeachable. Now, the decision or the magistrates was to last five years ; and, taking into accolnlcte circumstances that might lead to the award and the j:lst l . , swe t injustice of the valuation, I do not think that such a it', 3 should be given to the magistrates accidentally attending'. Quarter Quarter Sessions —( Hem.) Well, it seems by the lat t t t titheshe the a r o cl e e e l ratesrsat recommendationandcharges sve r o e f to th o b eßdi Bill deducted t ° t bb '` . lie approval was said to be the fact that tithes were to be s ti u rn d jest to the parochial rates and charges. But these rate.sonly charges should be guided by one equitable principle, and ties press on a district in the relative proportion of its capabui of the superior fertility of One soil to the other. The pritl e cu P re , then, and the detail of the Noble Lord's Bill, I aill e e i , er s would not be acceptable to the House or the country. 1 130 6, was first to be a valuation of the annual profits of the tbat with the amount of tithe that was chargeable upon it 1 , 1 , be value was not careful and correct, then the result woui;_a involved in uncertainty and confusion. The value o f the} 11 , 0 could not be ascertained without knowing the liabilities ofal4. tenants—without estimating. the value and qualities and er the bilities of the soil—without also escertaining the value 0 ' it , buildings, the houses, and the barns that xere erected ur n s o f Now these are fluctuating things in the constant firtae e . a s ioe , growth and decay, and it is difficult to ascertain their %(:, There is a second difficulty, which is that tithe was nett t _ 00 e hagu je , o valued in kind,' but was to be taken as a money the litho the average produce of the land. The average of collection was to be taken for five years, and was to be, mi d on the average of the tithe- collected both on the arable pasture land of each parish. Then how is a strangey'rbe valuator, to determine the amount of tithe to be paid .ear`, real rule was not to be the mean value of tithes for five elf e but the payment of tithes. A third difficulty presente d , l From the amount of tithes the rates and charges of t i l l . ch r it fishes were to be deducted. Now this is a knot wl 1 ,.30 required great ingenuity to untie. The rates and charg e b ' t he different in different parishes. The parishes in wh ir pe rates arc high would have an advantage over the oe .le ! cie rishes in which the rates were low, so that a ge nera, r duction of the rates would establish but a false rule for guidance in this question ; and it is peculiarly unfortunate. oidd for the purpose of equalizing dues and charges a rule ° l os e be adopted to unequalize them more. Well, then, rele r . o o was to Le made to the Magistrates at the Quarter far ed But how was this clause of the Bill to work? It ail) , to that no reference was to be had to the value of the laniny the capabilities, qualities, or produce of the soil, or to at ilt to tural connection between distinct districts or parishes , , ac ee the simple accident of having a number of resident N,,F to trates in that district. Now, though it might be desiralecoo have a number of Magistrates residing in a district, th et , s ei , no reason why land districts of unequal capabilities , resoa and powers should be huddled together. Why s hould 3 90 0. trict that had no resident Magistrate be wedded to ish e ther under great inequalities and advantage? If P a • r t scot were leagued together at the will of the valuators, winogi reference to their identity of advantages, or their ju:tt a- ,, r to tion—or if the decision of the Magistrates i'v el ; r ea , be the ultimate rule of decision, there would be the dissatisfaction. If the plan were to spread over e no ull l country it • might perhaps be sufficient, all landlord s p ro• then bear the burden alike. But, when, by the P l f i e rlie ll posed, only particular parishes were to be relievenr . , tbe there was to be no general relief; when in some parisu e — e ip tithe was to correspondent with the amount of rent w' re brir others it was to bear no such proportion,' but was to be o so lated by the value of the land ; when one parish was to placed in one condition, and another parish to be Pla,,cce t oe another ; when there were these anomalies ; then it wr t to avoid these objections in any Bill now to be brag' to be ward. There is one great misconception which deserves.d t he corrected in the consideration of this question. sf rent amount of tithe is in the proportion to the a mount Now that is not so. The tithe was always determine d ) ( 1 value of the land, the rent by the cultivation, labour , a n d O ne pease laid out upon it. For instance, if a farm produeeXtiot hundred quarters of wheat, and bringing in 3001., 811 , net the expense of production be 200/., then there will be But profit to the farmer of 1001. for the payment of his rent• co o if there be another farm yielding the same amount of es ol, modity, the cost of production on which amounts to 2 501.+ modity, h l a and only leaving 501. to the farmer for the n t ° r payene . c lear rent ; and if the tithe be the same on both, then it l A s er a ble that the holder of the richer farm will be a-cea"" e 0 gainer. In the one case the amount of tithe is as 2°, 0 0 l i is 100/. ; in the other it is as 20/. to 501. Tithe then cot°, tile the amount of the produce, and not on the profit ' 3 o ' 00 rent. Suppose an application be made to the Quarter S tbst to fix the amount of tithes on a particular district, and its district varies in the quality, produce, and ca pabilitY As isif soil, and that the Magistrates make a general order B ' 4 o l the specified amount of tithe on that district, without r e c es s' to the particular condition of its several sections, to the s P i n to liar advantages or disadvantages of the various segm ent Ib e which it may he divided—see what peculiar hardships 111 7 t he imposed, considering the difference of the capabilities of soil, and the consequent capabilities of the occupier to e co re the tithe demand by this junction of parishes. The di , ff ot es ° would be so great as to reduce tithes in one parish andal e i them in another to an injurious and most unfair extent. in t he by way of example, a district—in Sussex say. Take the ee north and south side of the Downs, and it will be s e i ell e loc i e t , great would be the disparity of tithes in both cases. 1 1,;13i,," of equalising the burden, the eff e ct of the Noble L er : ",„,io ls ),," would be to increase the tithes on the rich lands and ri""; po rt those on the poor. Supposing from the light land 0 0 th h e i i e side of the Downs that the rent was 9s. an acre, r‘" so u ° tithe was 35., and from the richness of the soil on theacre' side the rent was 405., while the tithe was 49. an bide+ in place of throwing the burthen chiefly on 00 ., e nr tiol Y the better course would be t o l ev y th e tax Pr e t — isit t '; ately to the re l a ti ve capacities of the two districts, Ift out encumbering . one at the expense of the other'cies would not be fair o r p ru d en t t o encum b er one Se t otlf r , agriculture, in or d er t o yi e ld re li e f t o anot h er w hen th at , if could bear its own r e l a ti ve , p ro p or ti on o f th e burthell'it. could general average of the amount of tithe were struck , 4 _,, t5 0 .1 have the effect of increasing the tithe on the rich IsP" e „, peT, diminishing it on the poor land. This would produce dissatisfaction, and would be one of the greatest spa tr country could complain of—an evil that the House s isettA i° Government should labour to avert. Having now ref" s tsr the former plan introduc e d by th e N o bl e L or d-110' 11 %s it ai my reasons for considering it objectionable, for lookin too complex in its nature and too difficult in its 0 ,,,,, P e 0 r : Or o come to the substitute I mean to propose as giving t ee faction, and less liable to objection. My objections t°, ", 19 °- e Bill may be reduced to three heads. My first objectle-erstc the ground of valuation ; second, on the ground of then, tD e receipts ; third, on the ground of the proportion betw ee oo os° rents and tithes. What, then, is my principle? a , 1 5 will see that the question is one that d e ser ve s exceet he le g o b t tion and care, and while I am anxi o u s t o m a intain t he and property of the Chur c h, I d o no t w i s h to trene` e larog - f right of the layman. My pri nc ipl e , th en , is to e ne voluary commutation of tithe.—( Cheers.) This P rilic ` s ettn voluntary commutation is n o t a new one ; it h as be it, on for many years. The people se em attached t ° ;„ O r e I now propose to give it legislative support.--( Hea r ' ) ,„e port of the fact that voluntary commutation has ieee • acted on, the f Member for C to am th b e rid p g a o per s s oro c e alled ear f s or a b g y o. la„ l; Friend ge m anic papers were pr o d uce d t o the House. They embraced to tP, i c topics connect e d w ith t hi s su bj ect. Th ey r elate o ,o co s ; number of parishes i n E ng l an d an d W a l es, an d in vc;`.„tho commutation had been e ff ec t e d ; w h et h er t h e tithes parishes were the property of laymen or of cleric s, ' e, fro' priators. The document s ex t en d e d over a l a rge sP a , ° , - I tol io or 1757 to 1830. They stated th e na t ure o f the CO whether it was for a corn rent, or f or mone y, or for , 5 it 4 : for small or for large tithe. From these docuin ee ' toc atj e peered that in 2,000 parishes, from voluntary arrang e r tbe s int voluntary commutation was entered into. Many, re gr e s , arrangements of commutation were attended w'', l iie e ec ie difficulty and expense. In many cases it was fon- J.- a sary to procure private Acts to give them sancti°llbie, expense of these private Acts was great ; the tr °l- `, re os ,e annoyance, and diffi cu lty, t oo , o f procur ing tb en n . TI C C, i fl j. matter of considerable importance to all parties. ' 11 ,,; rv " 2,000/. was expended in procuring one Act. If t ":„ s (r e c c ' culties and this expense in procuring Acts for legali A zi- e ' o tag e b; mutation were removed, would not that be a great an C ic t le t q —( Hear, hear.) As every parish was a sort of CliS t t kingdom in itself, having its own rules for its goV er N3d' some parishes were small and others large, and each ( -10 ° . e general, separate interests, it would be difficult to IaY 3I I t g o en a e p ra p l ly ru a le f r o u r le t , he t i o r a b d e m d in ir is e t c r t a o t d io , n. b ow H av o e w r e , However, I Shall 1 0°s1 c1 b y loceinie, pd ledge, particular interests, the habitudes of the Per ep pli the condition of the several parishes. The rule she „„sr each parish according to its circumstances, but shall b _ ° , l' a r e, evs e Live upon all. My rule is to facilitate commutation ° at ot be principle. I mean, then, to propose the anr in u t i t i eerf Board of Commissioners, composed of a small this oe smaller the better, to superintend the execution 0 , to P io .. These Commissioners, who are to sit in London , ar ',opel r , the power of nominating Assistant Commissioners to the fo o _ tend the local districts, and afford every facility .t ° t hat I therance of that system of voluntary commutatafitoisrae, fi b e e r e s n o li f it t h h e e rt c o om ac m te u d ta o ti n on p ; artially. The duty Of th or recti t. I mean that in every Commissioners would not merely be to be witnesses ef f e ct h i e parish i e t i t r h b o us p i a n y e payers should meet to arrange the terms of the cominuteltwbosines, body to use the common ade 4, what is every t l eo 0 is nobody's," and as it might , frequently happ en t i l ;pr° ll3 l the parties might be well inclined to come to a eau yet a meeting could not easily be got up betv,ooololo will, if the Bill pass, be a principal duty of Ore w a o n u d l d o be woe t ; : f ; (4; y F~ I F 1 44 d e h a r, a• 44 t . Al