The Sun. — London, England, 1835-03-21 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, MARCH 21, 1.835. the future tithes of his holding, but to the 'loss occasioned by the arrears of past years ? I doubt whether you can pass such a law—(Hear)—aand I am sure that, independent of the prin • ciples of equity, you will find such difficulties in the way of such a proceeding as will preclude the possibility of your proceeding with it.--( Cheers.) Then the question is, " Will you remit it altogether, as a boon to the Clergy, or will you take one of the only other two courses left open to you— will you impose the obligation of paying it on the landlord, or will you levy it upon the occupying tenant ?" The Hon. and Learned Member for the city of Dublin is, I perceive, preparing to address the House, and probably he is about to suggest that there is another fund from which it might 'be taken, namely, the fund in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Corporation, commonly called the Perpetuity Fund.—( Hear, hear.) In this case is there any Member present who does not know the nature of this fund? I may as well mention that its revenues are derived from two sources--firstly, from the sums paid by the holders of the perpetuity leases ; and, second . t y , from the suppression of bishoprics, and the tax imlnnsed on those retained. Now before the House comes tr any decision upon this point, it will be absolutely nen;:ssary they should have before them an exact account Cc the proceeds in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commiersion.—( Hear, hear.) Now at the present moment what is the state of their accounts? Why, their income amounted to but 30,0001. per annum, 'while there were charges upon them to the extent of 70,0001. per annum.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The. next question was the arrears - of 1834. My Right Honourable friend justly says that the previous Administration by their Bill provided for past years. The claim allowed to the landlord settles that ; but what are you to do with the inter mediate arrears ? What are you to do with the accumulated amount of 1834 ? If you adopt the plan proposed by my Right Hon. Friend ( Sir H. Hardinge) the occupying tenant of Ireland will be relieved of the tithe altogether; and to this, Sir, the House must come, for the sake of peace. Would you leave the arrears of 1834 unsatisfied? Would yoii vitiate all the claims of the Clergy, set the law at defiance, or compel the Government to call in the aid of the military? I believe that this House would shrink from placing the Government in so painful an alternative of exercising their duty by so en forcing the payment ;,f tithe, or seeing the law violated. Can any better course be adopted? Here you have a surplus of 370,0001. out of a fund from which in the years 1831, 1832, and 1833, you made advances; previously, it is true, to the clergy but ultimately to be paid by the occupying tenant. hich a course will now relieve the occupying tenant, and ihatever difference there may be between lion. Members oc zipying opposite places in this House, I am sure that there ire two principles upon which both sides arc agreed, and the first is that the existing Clergy should be protected; at least all will admit that their endurance, their very forbearance from exacting that to which they have a legal right, and which they have not exacted, entitles them to compensation— ( Hear)—and the other is that the burden should be borne by the land in Ireland.— (!leer, hear.) lam convinced that whatever ultimate opinion this House may express, that the subject must resolve itself into an equitable adjustment of this question. Neither party can claim this of the Govern ment as a right, and each party have an interest in the realiza tion of his own particular views, but it is not in a political but in an equitable s ense th a t th e subject must be viewed. Already you find that over the whole of Ireland, partly by amicable arrangements, and partly by compulsory circumstances, the land is burthened in the very way that it is the intention of the present measure to legalize. All land excepting that let to tenants at will, and all leases falling in since 1832, are to be subject to this rent charge. And here I think Hon. Gentle. men who object to this measure should remember that it assimilates in principle to that introduced by the Noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell) last Session, and places a com pulsory obligation on the. part of the landlord to discharge the tithe. Last Session I assented to that principle, conceiving that there was no alternative. True it is, I doubted, as the Noble Lord seems to signify; but my doubt was whether, at that late period of the year, so late as the month of July, you could have comanunication with the Irish landlords on the sub ject, and without acquainting them I doubted the propriety of doing as waa proposed ; but having no alternative, I did assent to the principle of the Bill. Mr. O'CONNELL said the Hon. Baronet alluded to his Bill, Sir R. PEEL acknowledged this, and resumed. If Hon. Members then present undertook to answer for the willing ness of the landlord, I feel the greatest disposition to assent, and did waive the objection in consequence of the necessity of the case. No new burthen is about to be imposed. We have been told that so much of the land is in the possession of Pro testants, as a reason for not approving the principle of the proposed measure, and yet in the south of Ireland they are Protestants.—(Hear.) But Ido hope, Sir, that, putting aside all minor considerations, the Gentlemen of Ireland, in consideration of the remission of 25 per cent. on the land paying tithes, but more for the sake of peace, not as Members of Parliament only, but as Irish landlords, will lend their aid and concurrence to the present resolution, embodying the principles of my Hon. Friend. The distribution of the balance of 330,0001. will satisfy the claims of the Clergy for 1834 ; it will put an end to tithe compensa tion and an end to the arrear of tithe. I will not solicit Honourable Members to bind themselves to the details of the measure to be brought forward, by giving their assent to these resolutions. I admit, nor would I lose sight of, the importance of the question to come before the House on Monday, the 30th of this month, which involves the principle, the gieat principle, of appropriation.--( Cheers.) Nor will, I am sure, my Honcurable Friend press the House to settle or decide on any measure arising out of the prin ciple put forth by these resolutions, until the sense of the House has previously been declared on the question of appropriation. I hope, however, the House, before it involves itself in the discussion of the principle of appropriation, will adopt the proper means of inquiring if there is any surplus at all to appropriata,—(hear, hear)--before it assents to estab lishing a precedent, before it indulges in any speculative pro position—cnear, bear)—affecting the probable interests of the Protestant Church, that the House will ascertain how the fact really stands ; for I am convinced, Sir, that nothing but the proved existence of a surplus fund can justify the House in any such resolution.—( Hear.) Mr. O'CONNELL said that this, question was one of all others that, properly settled, would pacify Ireland ; but it was no use to cry " Peace, peace," unless something was given to induce p eace . Th ere h a d b een two speeches delivered that evening, the one by the Hon. and Gallant General opposite, and the other by the Right Hon. Baronet; and never did he listen to two speeches that excited feelings of such deep regret. It was true that in the speech of the Right Ho nourable Baronet there was more of a subdued tone than lie usually displayed on matters connected with Minis terial questions. This was, perhaps, quite rational, for he was not yet secure of victory. But in neither of those speeches was there anything said to encourage hope in the people of Ireland. The Right Hon. and Gallant Officer, it was true, had sp o k en di s ti nct l y , b ut o f w h at use was that, for his speech shut out all prospects of relief to his poor and un fortunate fellow -countrymen. He remembered an anecdote of one Dr. Slop, a great metaphysician in his day.—(A laugh.) Dr. Slop gave Corporal Trim, instead of his supper, a dis quisition upon metaphysics. " Metaphysics," says Trim, " what's that? One thrust of the bayonet is worth it all." And instead of speeches one word would be worth them all. One single word, and that word was appropriation. That word would act like magic in Ireland, and he had trusted that it would have been thrown out. He had hoped that after sup plying the necessities of the Protestant Church Establishment that the surplus revenues of that Church would be appropriated for the relief of the people. But no ; they would not indulge them in any such declarations ; they carefully kept back that word. What right had the people of Ireland to expect that anything should be done for them from what they were told by the present Administration ? The returns under the Tithe Composition Act he had demonstrated last session were im mensely overrated, and numbers of the Members had risen on the same subject in that House,' and he (Mr. O'Connell) had received a distinct promise and pledge that the returns should be overlooked and reduced to what they ought to be, and now no notice was taken of it. Then, too, there was another Tithe Composition Bill, which was introduced last Session • not a composition of 75, b u t 60 p er cent . Two-fifths would have been considered a reasonable amount to be struck ofi and although the people of Ireland expect e d thi s , an d th e l a t e Mi nisters and the House of Commons were pledged to it, yet now they had a speech from the Right Hon. Gentleman—and he had watched it throughout—but it did not contain one word about composition. It was all cant and hypocrisy to talk about peace to Ireland, when, instead of 60, they had a composition of 75 per cent., when the late Government had given a distinct pledge upon the subject of the reduction, and had, he believed, actually issued a Commission for carry ing it into effect. That measure, after passing this House with a large majority, to which the minority was as nothing, was thrown out to be sure in the House of Lords. But that rejection he would ask any gentleman on the benches oppo site—always excepting the Hon. Member the Recorder of Dublin—in what situation that rejection placed the present Ministers ? Why, it compelled them to offer the parson 75 per cent. instead of 774-, making a difference of 21. 10s. Oh, say the people, we shall be gainers by 2/. 10s., we shall have so much less to pay. Oh, no, say that galaxy of glory, his Majesty's Ministers—( A laugh)—by our magic measure the parson only will be the loser and the people cannot be the gainers. The Right Hon. Baronet (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had given the history of tithes in Ireland, but be had confined his account to the last three years. But was any man present who did not know that it began before, any man in that House was born ? It began in 1759. In 1772 the Act was passed that authorised Magistrates to shoot at those who were out at a certain hour after night-fall. In 1774 and 1775 Acts were passed creating no less than fifty capital penalties. From that time then the war had continued ; it had had its lulls and and cessations ; but an innate sense of justice and a defiance of wrong had broken the bonds of law and shattered the parch ment chains of Acts of Parliament. The dungeon, the trans port-ship, aye, and the scaffold, could tell the history of tithes. They were written in blood. When the tithe war was raging he had heard of a mother going out one morning in fear and trembling for her child, whom she dreaded might have been slain. On examining the first of the dead she approached she shrieked for joy, for it was not her son ; she came to a second, and another shriek alike proclaimed her gladness; but at the third she shrieked not, her eyeballs became as living coals, and her tears refCsed to flow, she had found her son. Such were the scenes with which the tithe system had made Ireland familiar. It was not new acts that would do away with it ; what they wanted was a new principle. What mattered it whether they called the impost a composition or a rent charge ? What the people of Ireland wanted was it abolition. He had heard a calculation of the Protestant acres in Ire land. That calculation was incorrect; it was made by Dr. Boytun and Mr. O'Sullivan, who travelled over here, and pre tended to give the result of their peregrinations in Ireland, and it amused him to hear such an account quoted as an au thority. Why, he could name Noble Lords who bad an abun- dance of those Protestant acres; but they were occupied by Catholic tenants.—(A laugh.) A million had been already voted for the purpose of settling this question. He had at the time warned Hon. Gentlemen that it would not be paid. But they who were so fond of misgoverning ought to pay not only to obtain peace for Ireland but for the House of Commons. But the way in which Ireland was generally treated reminded him of the meekness of the Quaker, who would not on any account injure a dog, he would not touch a 'hair of his head, but told the people he was mad.—(A laugh.) It had been said that several clergymen in Ireland had not acceyted t o pro vision made for them. But had they not auvised to refuse it ?—( Hear.) If the Bill of ":::sslon had passed, would the murders at Rathcorrpe ave happened? Perhaps they would. But would :lie murder of Mr. Locke, with six or seven other bil:nan beings, have taken place? The fact was, that t ; '" :y had now gone through seventy-six years of warfare, 71nd they had tried every experiment but that of altering the principle. Everything in the way of legislation had had its turn, down to the hocus pocus of changing names. Every thing had been done but relieving a Catholic population from supporting a Protestant Church.—(Cheers from the Opposi tion.) The Right Hon. Baronet opposite, he hoped, would do him the justice to say, that when this subject had before been under discussion, he had never displayed any thing but a due regard to vested interests. In the opposition that had been offered to his Tithe Bill of last session, he was sorry to say that the clergy had not been able to perceive, as far as their interests were concerned, anything of a reciprocal spirit. The Right Hon. the Recorder for the city of Dublin had told them of secularizing the property of the Church, and with a gravity that bad in it something of the ludicrous, had stated that when the surplus of church revenues was found it would be secularized by being paid into the Consolidated Fund. But he seemed to think that they would maintain their spirituality, if invested in the Perpetuity Fund. This might do well for scholastic amusemant, but it would not do for the people of Ireland. The newspapers told them falsely, perhaps, when they spoke of the blood shed lately at E nniskil len, but they did not tell them so when processions were concerned.—(Cries of " Oh, oh !") " Ah," said the Hon. Gentleman, "we shall have time enough for that." The Hon. Gentleman then pro ceeded to intimate that there were facts contained in the re port of the Irish New Poor Law Commission that would strike horror, as far as the landlords were concerned, into the minds of all humane men ; and concluded by imploring the House to mark their sense of the necessity of extinction of tithe in Ireland, for that nothing short of it could soften or conciliate, and hold out hopes of better times to that country, but their marked vote of that evening.—(The Hon. Gentle man was loudly cheered from the Opposition.) Colonel CONOLL Y stated that his reasons for supporting the measure of the Government was that it carried in view all those considerations mentioned by the Hon. Member for Dublin., but without doing injustice to any one. He entirely approved of that determination of the Government not to divert Ecclesiastical revenues from Ecclesiastical purposes. The - present Bill did ample justice to the Clergy, secured a present income to the present incumbents, and did as much as could be done without producing irritation. The Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin had said that the Landlords would avail themselves of the reduction which the present measure offered, and would not extend it to their tenantry ; but there never was a greater calumny uttered. It was of a piece with all others uttered by the Hon. and Learned Mem ber when he had a purpose, party er personal, to serve. The Hon. and Learned Member thought he could do with the present measure as he bad done with the last—gorge it down the throat of the G o v ernmen t ; b u t b e would find himself greatly mistaken, because the measure of the Government was a sound measure in principle, while that which the Hon Member passed through the House last session was no better than a protested Bill.—( Laughter.) If the former had passed through the other branches of the Legislature he (Colonel C.) was of opinion that the Minister would have to come down to the House and congratulate the country on the retrogression of Christianity, for the very name of religion Would, by its operation, be erased from the land. With res pect to the remission of the 670,0001. due to the country by the Clergy, and the appropriation of the remaining 330,000/. to the uses of that body, he (Colonel C.) felt bound to say that he fully concurred in the principle which dictated it. The resolution before the House had, he believed, the sup pression of agitation in Ireland for its object ; it should there fore have his best support. Mr. CHARLES WOOD wished to know of the Right Hon. Baronet opposite whether he proposed to withdraw the second resolution and adopt the first ? Sir R. PE EL should call on the House to affirm the first resolution pro forma—the second, for the remission of the 670,0001. already due by the Clergy, together with the grant of the remainder 330,000/., he should not press at present. He did not mean, however, to relinquish it ; but would bring it forward on due notice. It was his intention on some future night to ask the House to affirm that also. Sir H. HARDINGE felt it due to himself, the Right Hon. Baronet, and the House, to state that the second resolution was only adopted since the morning—in point of fact, since he, had entered the House. - Mr. CHARLES WOOD said that with the understanding that the resolution was to be passed merely pro forma, and that so doing would not pledge him to the principle contained in it, he should not oppose its passing. With respect to the second resolution, however, he should hear a great deal more, and that of a more convincing nature than anything he had as yet heard, before ho could consent to charge the country and his constituents with such a sum as that contained in it. When the million was voted by the House, there was a positive and strict assurance of repayment. On the part of the people of England he looked for that repayment.—( Heat, hear, hear.) He should not then go into the question of the Irish tithes or the Irish Church Bill ; but he could not refrain from express ing the pleasure he felt at hearing the Right Hon. Baronet say that the great question of appropriation was to be speedily settled.—( Hear.) Mr. LITTLETON should wish the resolutions were post poned and printed, when the House would be able to form an estimate on comparison between their principle and that of the Bill of lest session ; but from the temper of the House be per ceived that was impossible. However, he cculd not let them pass without entering his protest against them, and pronoun cing it, if a division took place, in the emphatic monosyllable— no. With respect to the remission of the million loan, he felt bound to say that he believed it to be quite unnecessary, and also to add in his opinion, if the late Government had con.. tinned in office, it would certainly have been repaid. He stated this upon the authority of several communications which had been made to him by clergymen who availed themselves of the fund, and who intimated their readiness, and willingness, and power of paying within a very short period. A fortnight only before he resigned office he had had a letter from one of them, stating that the writer had the first instalment in hand, and that he was prepared to pay it forthwith. The Right Hon. Gentleman was pleased to compare his measure with that brought in by the Government during the last session, and to take to himself credit for the difference between them. But the Right Hon. Gentleman should have remembered that the measure introduced was not the measure which had been passed, and therefore his comparison was ineffectual. He (Mr. L.)believed that measure, as it stood when it had passed the House, was one entirely in accordance with the general feeling of the landowners in Ireland. If it had passed the other branches of the Legislature, it .would, he was convinced, have had the effect of closing finally the tithe question, an ef fect which the present measure could certainly not contem plate, as it would be found to be quite as open beforels at the end of the session of Parliament. Mr. HUME was surprised the second resolution could have been proposed to the House, as it was utterly impossible it could ever affirm it.—( Hear, hear.) The principle of the measure was not alone the commutation of tithe, but a vote of money. A million was to be given away in Committee, and yet the House bad had no previous notice on the subject. It was unprecedented. Bad enough with notice, it was not to be thought of without it.—(Laughter.) What he (Mr. Hume) should propose was the adjournment of the consideration of the question. The Hon. and Learned Member for the Univer sity of Dublin had made a long speech, into which he (Mr. Hume) should not enter. But he could not avoid expressing his sense of the melancholy change which had taken place in the sentiments of the Right Hon. Gentleman. He had come down to the House with a long harangue in favour of a Bill which was precisely the same in principle as that which he bad argued against within the last year. It was a miserable in. stance of the Right Hon. Gentleman and his colleagues try ing to take up measures with a premimr.—(Laughter.) With respect to the conduct of the Right Honourable Baronet opposite, he could tell him that it was not con sistent with the feelings of honour which should actuate a Gentleman to bring forward a Bill the same in prin ciple but more defective in detail than that thrown out by his friends in another place in the last session, and then claim the confidence of the House and credit with the country for the act. The Right HOB. Baronet had said that the question of appropriation was intimately connected with that of tithes. Why, then, did he separate the one from the other? He split the whole subject into halves, and said, " Let me have one, and I shall be satisfied.". Would the House be satisfied with such a course of proceed ing? The House should have both or none before them: it would not, or he misunderstood it, be content to take the matter by piecemeal: An HON. MEMBER here suggested something about eggs. —( Laughter.) Mr. fiUME should not say it was one of the eggs of the Administration, though he believed it to be a nest-egg.— (Laughter.) The Right Hon. Baronet ought to know that the abandonment of one-half of his resolution, even though it were only temporarily, was a virtual resignation of the whole. He (Mr. Hume) should propose an adjournment of the debate until the Bill should be introduced. Several Members suggested another course to the Hon. Member. Mr. HUME then said that, as the more formal mode, he should move that the Chairman report progress and obtain leave to sit again. Sir R. PE E L—l shall take the sense of the House on the first resolution, in order that my Right Hon. Friend, (the late Secretary for Ireland) may be able to compare the Bill to be founded on it. with the Bill of the last session of Parliament. I adopt that course, because unless the resolution be affirmed, the Bill cannot properly be framed on it, and because there can be no comparison instituted between two objects unless both are visible—( Laughter)—which cannot be the case in the present instance, except the Bill of the Government be brought before the House. With regard to the assertion of the Hon. Member for Middlesex, that it was intended to vote away a million in the Committee without any notice, I feel no shame in saying, that I do not mean to ask it without a notice. That Hon. Gentleman has alluded to the course I have taken with respect to the measure, and passed some strictures on my conduct on the occasion. I should wish to ask him cne question in reference to them. Does he mean to say that in taking the course or pursuing the line of conduct I have done, I did aught inconsistent with the character of a man of honour, or aught unbecoming a Gentleman ? Mr. HUM E—The Right Hon. Barofet's course cannot be consistent with honour, when he takes up a measure +the principle of which was opposed by him last session of Par liament. Sir R. PEEL—The Hon. Gentleman knows my course last Session of Parliament, and he knows my course this Ses sion of Parliament. Does he mean to apply to me the terms that I took a course inconsistent with honour ?" Mr: HUME—I mean to say that, as a political man, I should not take the course pursued by the Right Hon. Baronet, if I were placed in the same position as he is. Sir R. PEEL, we believe, made some observation, but it was inaudible to us. The conversation then terminated. Mr. C. FE RGUSSON, in the last Parliament, had voted against the principle contained in the first and second resolu tion ; and therefore he could not consistently vote in their fa vour now. He considered the question was of such a nature, that it required great consideration, and he therefore hoped that the House would not he called on to divide on it that night. Mr. SHE IL said the House was taken by surprise. The first resolution was, however, to be passed pro forma, while the second, because it involved the granting of money, was to be postponed until proper notice had been given. Why not pass both ? or why pass either ? The first resolution con tained three distinct propositions. First, the owner in fee was to be charged with the tithe. Secondly, a distinct abatement was to be made in the income of the Clergy ; that is, they were to get 751. for every 1001., which was to be paid to the land lord. If the Right Hon. Baronet wanted to pass the resolu tion, why not say at once that the tithe composition was to be a rent charge?—( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet was not consistent in his conduct, for he admitted that no no tice had been given of the resolutions, while he called on the House to pass them. He (Mr. Sheil) wished to ask the Hon. and Gallant General opposite whether the Clergy were to sue for their composition in the rent charges, or whether it was to be left to the State to sue for them ? Sir H. H A RDINGE said that the Clergyman in the first instance was to apply to the landlord for the amount of his rent charge. If it was not paid by him the case was to be transferred to the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commission. By this means the collection of tithes would be no longer the task of the Clergyman. Mr. SH EIL said that the statements of the Hon. and Gal • lant General only proved the necessity and great importance of a previous notice on the subject. The Bill of last Session gave a control over surplus ecclesiastical property to the House of Commons. The Bill before them confirmed it in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. In the former the prin ciple of appropriation was indirectly recognised by that means. In the latter it was entirely abrogated. Again he asked why not defer the resolution ? He entertained a strong objection to putting resolutions on matters of that description to the House merely pro forma. Mr. D. W. HARVEY begged that the first resolution might again be read from the Chair. The resolution having been read by Mr. BERNAL— Mr. G 0 U LBURN rose, and said, the Hon. and Learned Member opposite had complained that he had had no notice of the nature of the first resolution which had that night been brought forward, and therefore that he was totally incapable of pronouncing any opinion upon it. He wished to ask the Hon. and Learned Gentleman how he could expect to have any notice of the preliminaries of a Bill which was to be intro duced ? If the resolutions in question were more particular than what suited the taste of the Hon. and Learned Member, it was because it had appeared to his Right Hon. Friend that it would not be proper to bring forward a question of this very grave importance without stating more on the face of the re solutions than the mere form of announcing the Bill to be brought in. If the Bill had come into the House without this resolution, what would have been the argument of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman? He would have exclaimed that Ministers had asked him to vote in the dark; that they had wanted him to pledge himself blindly to an important measure ; and that he would not rush into such a measure without knowing its principle and object. Such would have been the language of the Hon. and Learned Gentle man, and yet he now turned round upon Ministers and accused them of stating too much.—( Hear, hear.) In his opinion the Hon. and Learned Member had raised very unfair objections to the resolution. He put it to the House, whether Ministers were deviating from the course pursued with other Bills upon the same subject ? The Hon. and Learned Mem ber had referred to the Bill which had been introduced by the Hon. Member for Stafford in the last session, but other Hon. Members had called upon the Hon. Member for Stafford to produce some practical resolution, which should embody the principles upon which the Bill intended to proceed; and which was done, not to the same length as in the present case, al though they were in substance the same. The former resolu tion had contained some of the very same words as the present, namely, that out of the redemption money, land or money should be provided to indemnify the owners of tithes.—( Hear, hear, hear.) And yet when the resolutions were brought down by his side of the House, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman and his friends, who had seen nothing but propriety in the similar course that had been pursued last year, turned short round on Ministers, and said that they had stated too much in the resolution, and called upon him to go further in his pledges than was consistent with propriety, or the usages of the House.--( Hear, hear, hear.) With respect to the reso lution itself, lie must say, in answer to the Hon. Member for , Middlesex, that it was not fair in him to cast imputations upon Ministers for bringing this resolution forward. In point of fact there was a great doubt whether any resolution was ne -1 cessary to the introduction of the Bill. But his Right Hon. Friend and himself had thought it would not have been acting fairly to the House if they had come down with any resolution of the present nature without putting into the resolution the effect of the measure itself. Although the present resolution was in the shape of a money grant his Right Hon. Friend had very properly consented to postpone one part of that resolu tion ; but so far from this being any just ground of imputation against Ministers he for one would have been sorry if occasion had been given by gentlemen opposite to tell him that Minis= tern had concealed from the House the course which they had intended to pursue. He conceived it to be impossible that Honourable Members could, consistently with the ordinary forms of the House, withhold their votes from this resolution, inasmuch as their supporting the resolution did not bind them to support the details of the Bill. The resolution left every Hon. Member at perfect liberty hereafter to oppose the entire Bill, or to oppose it in detail in all its parts. Mr. D. W. HARVEY was very sure that the Right Hon. . Baronet ( Sir Robert Peel) would scorn to entrap the House into a recognition of any measures not contemplated in the resolutions themselves. But all he wanted to know was, that if the Committee affirmed the first resolution, would the Right Hon. Baronet consider that they 'had affirmed anything more than their consent that Ministers should have leave to intro duce a Bill for the extinction of tithes? If this were well understood, he did not apprehend that any Hon. Member would withhold his assent. Every gentleman in that House perfectly well knew that the extinction of tithes was a darling object with every class of persons throughout the country, and if the House placed upon its resolutions any other opinion —any principle to which so many of its Members were hostile.' —he would say that the House had been entrapped into pre maturely giving its concurrence to a measure with the na ture and extent of which it was not acquainted. He under stood the Right Hon. Baronet to say three things. First, that Irish tithes could be extinguished to the extent of 25 per cent. below their actual value. In this respect h e (Mr. Harvey) should say that the Bill would be prefer able to that of last year, for the Bill of last session had proposed to abandon 40 per cent. for the benefit of the landlords. He considered the tithes of Ireland to be public property—( Hear, hear)—and the Bill was nothing more nor less than a bribe to Irish landlords to consent to a measure by which the public property would be sacrificed to their benefit. But when the Government should have converted this rent charge, which was not less than 500,0001. per annum, into landed or some other sort of security, he would ask, them whe ther they or any set of men could be ignorant of the danger of placing in the hands of the Church landed property to the value of half a million a year ? Were Hon. Members ignorant of the origin and nature of the Mortmain Act, and if they were not, could they now consent to give to the Church an accessory of lands to the extent proposed ? The resolutions affirmed, thirdly, that, after tithes should be converted into a rent charge, and invested in land, or in money securities, the amount should for ever be inviolably applicable to the same purposes. Let not the House be inveigled into a course from which they could not retreat, and which they would have so much reason to regret. He hoped that the Committee would ponder before it was deluded into any such transaction. He called upon Hon. Members to reflect that their admission of the resolution would be used against them hereafter with great dexterity.—( Hear, hear, and cries of Question.) Mr. WA RD wished to know if all that had been asked of the Committee in calling upon it to assent to the resolution was to permit Ministers to lay the details of their Bill before the House? If Ministers would give such a declaration, dis tinctly stated, lie should not oppose the motion before the Committee.—(Cr i ies of Question and divide.) Sir R. PEEL could not conceive that any Gentleman in permitting the resolution to pass could prevent himself from objecting to the Bill either altogether or in part. The reso lution embodied the intentions of his Majesty's Government, and if it were permitted to pass it .was the intention of Minis ters to bring in a Bill conformably to the resolution. The Hon. Member for St. Alban's (Mr. Ward) might recollect that lie assented to the resolutions of the last year, and that he afterwards changed his opinions when the Bill was brought in. Mr. WARD would vote for .the resolution if he did not preclude himself from voting against the Bill, or any part of it of which he might disapprove. He took this simply to be the meaning of the Right Hon. Baronet. He would not go into details, but he would congratulate the House on one or two points. He in the first place congratulated the Rouse most sincerely on having a Ministry not of concession, but of resistance to popular principles, who would maintain invio lable the rights of the Church, and whose first act was an acknowledgment that it was impossible to maintain the Church system as it now existed. He congratulated the House upon the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Northumberland (Lord llowick), who had distinctly pledged himself to a new appropriation of Church property, and he was only sorry that he could not obtain the Noble Lord's assent to the same proposition last year.—( Cries of Question, question.) Mr. S. RICE maintained that there was no analogy be tween the present proceedings upon this subject and those of last year. The state of the country at the two periods was essentially different. After the report of the Church Com mission he did not think that any pledge to a future appropria tion of church revenues could be entertained by Ministers. If Ministers would consent to take a resolution which would merely enable them to introduce a Bill into that House there would not be a dissenting voiee.on his side 6f the House. He knew that his Gallant Friend would not have come forward with his resolutions if he had not had his Bill in his pocket, and let him, therefore, move a general resolution, and at once introduce his measure. He objected strongly to important re solutions being introduced merely pro forma, especially upon subjects which deeply interested the public mind. He would offer no opposition to the Right Hon. Baronet if he now moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the amendment of the laws re lating to Irish tithes. The present resolution certainly did not commit the House in any respect.—( A burst of laughter from the Ministerial Benches.) His apprehension was that the House might in future be committed by the resolution. Ministers spoke of the resolution being mere surplusage ; but in his opinion it was surplusage of a most mischievous nature Whatever might be the result of that night's discussion, he should certainly bring forward the question again when the House resumed. He was convinced that no Bill relating to Irish tithes could pass through that House until the question of appropriation had been settled--( Hear, hear, hear)—and if it could be carried there would be no chance of its being satis-, factory to the country. Were the Hon. Member for Dublin University now in his place, he could have reminded him of the protest he had made last year against the principle of the resolution to which he now was giving his assent.—( Here the. Hon. Member, Mr. Shaw, entered the House.) The Hon. Member's sudden appearance put him in mind of his own de clarations on a former occasion. The Hon. Member had treated the loan of 1,000,000/. as an insult to the Clergy of Ireland, and now he complained of the payment of the million being an insult, and set forth the reluctance or inability of the Clergy to refund the money. With respect to the repay ment of the one million he would say that he knew the con dition and feelings of the Irish Clergy fully as well as the Honourable Recorder of Dublin, and he would consider their sufferings, but never until justice could be done to the people of Ireland. This was not a question of pounds, shillings, and pence, and he would say that no man in that House had been more willing than his Hon. Friend the Member for Middlesex to vote the money of England for the real pacifi cation of Ireland. If the clergy of Ireland were now suffer ing, and to the extent that had been stated, the blame lay on the other House, which.had rejected a Bill unexampled in its generosity.—( Laughter.) The first Reformed Parliament of England had been willing to make a sacrifice of 3,000,000/. to the pacification of Ireland, and under such circumstances the responsibility lay on the other party. The question was different now. He would not part with a single fraction until lie saw a prospect of a just settlement of the question. He trusted that the Committee would not allow itself to be seduced by a sidewirid to assent to a proposition which nega tived the views that his side of the House were determined to take. Mr. SHAW rose to complain that the Right Hon. Gentle man had totally misrepresented him. The Hon. and Learned Member showed that his present vote was consonant to the view he had taken of the subject in the first instance. Mr. H. GR A TT AN said that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was willing to accept the simple proposition that leave should be given to bring in a Bill to abolish tithes in. Ireland, he (Mr. Grattan) should not oppose such a proposi tion ; but if, on the other hand, the Chancellor of the Exche quer remained silent, and refused to accede to that mode of proceeding, he must take the opportunity of protesting against several parts of the resolutions before the Com mittee. The whole system of tithes in Ireland was abo minable, and he protested against the principle to which it led of bribing one class of men in that country to tyrannize over another class. If the vested rights of the clergy were to be held so sacred, he must put in a claim for the vested rights of another portion of his Ma jesty's subjects, he meant the poor people of Ireland. Their rights to the tithes were considered unalienable, until the Re formation unjustly deprived them of them.—(Loud cries of " Question.") If the House wished to know what would sa tisfy the people of Ireland, he should submit some resolutions as an amendment, that he doubted not would have that effect if adopted. The first resolution would declare that, for the sake of humanity, the state of Ireland required that tithes should be abolished in that country. The second declared that the rights of all persons, having vested interests, should be provided for; and the third, that a tax be imposed in lieu of tithes, and the amount raised to be paid into the Exchequer, for such purposes as Parliament should think proper. , Was not that, he asked, a fair proposition ? If that proposition should not be acted upon, or some other in the same spirit, lie hoped that Ireland would never remain quiet, and that the pre sent hatred of the people to tithes would increase rather than diminish. If the Government wished to regain the affections of the people of Ireland, it must do them justice. They would no longer submit to such odious tyranny. Lord STANLEY was rejoiced to perceive that the Com mittee was disposed to accede to a proposition offering so much, but so much only as would enable the Governinent to bring forward that measure which had been expounded to them that day. He felt great satisfaction, too, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had consented to withdraw one of the resolutions, which, if acceded to, might have the appearance of conceding more than as a mere matter of form it was intended to convey. He had hoped that after these concessions to reason, to justice, and to sound argu ment and discretion, and after the declaration of the Chan cellor of the Exchequer, that the words of the resolutions were not meant or designed 4,0 bind any Hon. Member be yond the bare permission to introduce his zneasure fully be fore the House—he had hoped, lie said, that there would have been no further discussion upon the subject that night. The various matters of the Bill about to be introduced must lie most important, and to all the propositions in the present resolutions be felt disposed to give his assent. He approved of that part of the resolution which went to establish a rent charge, reduced, as it was intended to be, by 25 per cent.; and he considered it a highly important feature in the Bill that this rent charge was to be redeemable immediately in such a manner as the landlord might please, on terms most favourable to himself, but without at the same time causing any great reduction in the funds necessary to be raised. The last preposition, which went tp establish that these funds should be appropriated to the uses of those who were entitled to them, lie was prepared fully to affirm ; but this he did not think was the time to enter into a detailed argument upon that head. The subject ought not to be met with a sidewind. It appeared that a Bill was to be brought forward that should be founded upon the resolutions before the Committee, and it was impor tant that it should be distinctly stated how, and in what man ner, every part of that ,Bill was to operate. If the Committee should come to a division now, they would still be as much in the dark after that division as before. The Chancellor of the Exchequer h a d sa id th a t th e reso l u tions were not intended to bind any Member to any part of the Bill of which he might disapprove, and where, then, could be the benefit of a division that night? If they were to have a fight, let them fight in earnest, but not enter into a profitless contest that went only to an unnecessary prejudging of the question. If the majority should be with the opposite side of the House, the appropriate principle would still remain to be decided, and if the Ministers should have the majority, that would not at all affirm his pro positions, b u t wou ld on ly o bt a i n for him permission to bring in his Bill. In this state of the question, he confessed that if the Committee went to a division, he felt disposed to vote for the insertion of the words proposed, in order that the Bill might be brought in, depending, as he implicitly did, on the declara tion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he was not bound by that vote to approve the Bill hereafter. His sole obj ec t was to give th e G over nment every opportunity of laying be fore Parliament their specific measure in all its details. Per haps lie might be thought to speak sometimes on one side and sometimes on the other.—( A laugh.) He confessed candidly that his wish was to see the Bill brought in w ithout the words to which objection had been made—(Oheers from the Oppo sition)—but he did not think that there could be any advan tage derived from contesting that point in the present state of the question. It would be only leaving the country in doubt as to the nature and effect of the decision whichever way the majority might be, and that he did not think was prudent or politic. On so important a subject as this every step taken ,and every decision come to by the House should be clear, dis • tinct, intelligible, and, as far as possible, satisfactory to the country. While he assented, therefore, to the four propositions that had been submitted to the Committee, he assented also to the principle maintained by those who refused to be bound by the words of those propositions. He was sure at the same time that the Chancellor of the Ex chequer did not mean anything in the least degree unfair, or in bad taste or bad .feeling, by any one of those proposi tions, and therefore if the words were considered necessary to carrying forward the measure by the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, he should vote against reporting progress. His wish was to have the measure fully and fairly before the House, so that it might undergo ample discussion in all its details and in all its momentous bearings. If the Committee was dis poseckto agree to such a proceeding, let the Government take a resolution, giving leave to bring in a Bill founded on certain principles, hereafter to be canvassed in all its details. He had not"the most remote idea of addressing the House that night—indeed he bad gone out, supposing that the discussion was at an end, but he was desirous of guarding himself against any pledge, without first having before him the specific measure in all its details. Mr. P. THOM SON did see involved in the present reso lution a principle to which lie could not consent to be consi dered in any way pledging himself. Why did not the Go vernment make a simple proposition for leave to bring in a Bill, by which they would be enabled to bring the whole question before the House, without the appearance o f any co mpromise of principle on the part of any Member in th e vote he might give ? Why not withdraw the resolution, an d su bstitute another on which to found a Bill simply to abolish tithes ? Unless the Right Hon. Baronet adduced sufficient reasons for not acceding to this course, he was sure his Noble Friend (Lord Stanley) would not, and he hoped the House would not, permit himself to be involved in any declaration that might either in reality or in appearance comp rom i se any principle. Was there any valid objection to the course be proposed ? He felt deeply upon this subject, and he again ap pealed to the Committee not to be involved in any compromise of principle on so momentous a question. Sir R. PEEL then rose, and spoke to the following ef fect : —Sir, if I considered the course which I meant to pur sue upon this occasion inconsistent with the usages and prac tice of this House, or if I felt convinced that it was inconsistent with common sense, no false shame, no f ear o f i ncurr i ng a charge of inconsistency, should deter me from accepting that modification of these resolutions which has been suggested by Hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House. If, how ever, I.feel that the course I propose to follow is consistent w ith the usages of the House, is consistent with precedent and with justice, I care not for the consequences, I care not what the re.sult may be, I am determined to persevere in the course I originally proposed to myself.—( Cheers.) All I now ask from the House is permission calmly and dispassionately to state what are the grounds of my adhesion to my original purpose as regards these resolutions. Ever since I have had the honour of a seat in this House, I have always understood that in all questions which have relation to religion, it is necessary to in troduce the subject, in the first place, to the consideration of Parliament by moving resolutions, and that it is not enough simply to move for leave to bring in a Bill. This is the stand ing order of tile Houser- 4 . No Bill relating to religion, or to an alteration of the laws relating to religion, shall be intro duced by way of a Bill till tile proposition shall have been first considered in Committee."—(Loud cheers.) I na turally thought, therefore, that I was acting in perfect accordance with the rules and forms of the House, with the established and well-known usages of Parliament, when I de termined, before moving for leave to bring in a Bill, to state in the shape of resolutions what were the general views upon which that Bill was to proceed.—( Cheers.) Well do I know what would have been the course of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. S. Rice) had I abstained in these resolutions from going into some detail as to the general nature of the measure. Had I not embraced in them so much of explana tion as would open generally to the House the view which the Government takes of the question—had I not done so ts - bat would have been the course of the Right Hon. Gentleman ? (Mr. S. Rice.) He would have stood forward in his place, and loudly complained that they were left completely in the dark ; that the resolutions contained no details which could enable the House to form any judgment of what was intended to be done, that it was a shallow device to entrap the House and to delude the country.—(Loud cheers.) " Why don't you (would the Hon. Member for Cambridge have said) go into details? Why don't you embody in your resolutions such explanations of your views as will enable us to judge what are your intentions ?"—( Cheers.) If there be any Hon. Gentleman present who is apprehensive that by voting for these resolutions he is pledging the House to the course it shall hereafter pursue, to him I will say " See what is the difference between the resolutions pro posed by the present Government, and those proposed by the Government of Lord Grey upon the very same subject ?" When the Right Hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had a similar measure to propose last session did they confine them selves to a jejune resolution ? Did they not embody in the resolutions they proposed so much of detail as might explain what were their general views ? Here are their resolutions : " That it is the opinion of this Committee that composition for tithes be abolished after the Ist of November next—( Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches)—in consideration of an annual land tax—( Cheers)—payable to those who are entitled to the tithes ; that the said land tax shall be redeemable— ( Cheers)—and out of the proceeds of such redemption that provision be made, either in money or in land— (Loud cheers) —for the indemnification of such persons as are now entitled to the receipt of tithes"—( Great cheering.) I will say no more upon this part of the subject but merely observe that one of the tellers upon the division which took place, was the Right Hon. Gentleman himself (Mr. S. Rice)—(Cheers)—who now so warmly opposed resolutions that differed so little— that differed in no material point, and but very slightly in words--from the resolutions now proposed. " But," says the Right Hon. Gentleman who spoke last, " with the opinions I entertain of the Church of Ireland ; with the conviction on my mind that its revenues are much too large ; believing that it is the right of Parliament to deal with any superfluous revenue that may accrue on a modification of the tithe system—l cannot," said the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Poulett Thomson) "accede to' the resolutions that are now proposed, and will not tie up my hands from dealing hereafter with the temporalities of the Irish Church." May I ask how long it is since the Right Hon. Gentleman has taken up that view of the Irish Church question which he now expresses, and upon which he is determined to oppose these resolutions ? Surely it must have been since the last session of Parliament —since the period when the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Staffordshire (Mr. Littleton) proposed his resolutions. Had the Right Hon. Gentleman entertained his present opinions en the temporalities of the Irish Church before last session—had he then entertained the principles upon which he now main tains that the temporalities of the Church ought to be appro priated, how could he have acceded to the resolutions of last year, for they, as effectually as the present resolutions, pre cluded him from carrying his great principle of appropriation into effect ?—(Cheers.) If the Right Hon. Gentleman did not then feel such scruples—if, after profound reflection—( A laugh)—he had come to the conclusion that church property might be made applicable to secular purposes—if, with a safe conscience, and without scruple, he could assert the resolutions of last session—how comes it that such scruples arise now ? ( Cheers.) How comes it that he may not hereafter feel him self as much at liberty to deal with any surplus of Church temporalities that may arise, as he did last session when he offered similar resolutions ?—(L on d c h eers .) I t i s perfectly clear that the Right Hon. Gentleman was not precluded by the resolutions of last session from the application at any future time of his principle of appropriation ; neither is he so precluded by the resolutions now proposed. " But," says the Right Hon. Gent., "your resolutions embrace a money vote." My answer is, there was no money vote in the resolutions of last session—there is none now.—( Cheers.) It has been sug gested to me by an authority for which I entertain the highest respect (Lord Stanley), to leave out that particular part of these resolutions which has reference to a money redemption and to investment in land. I am sorry that, consistently with a sense of duty, consistently with the view of the subject to which I have come, after mature deliberation, I cannot accede to the suggestion of the Noble Lord. The words which the Noble Lord wishes removed were introduced only for the purpose of explaining fully and fairly what is the real nature, the objects, and tendency of the proposition which the Government means to submit to the House. Had we omitted the concluding proposition of the resolutions now submitted to the Committee, we could not show what is the real nature of the Bill with which we mean to follow them up, and we might, then, indeed, fairly, at least with some degree of justice, be chargeable with an in tention, and a wish to e nt ra p th e House, and to delude the country. What will be the effect of withdrawing this part of the resolutions 1 Will it not be interpreted into a proof that I consider the resolutions as. implying a pledge ; and that for this reason, and for this alone, I consent to have those words expunged.—( Cheers.) Even if I omit these words, what is it the Committee will have to affirm in that part of the resolution which will still remain ? First, they will have to affirm the annual-rent charge ; secondly, the pay ment out of that charge 'to those who are entitled to the re ceipt of tithes; in the third place, they will have to affirm the deduction of twenty-five per cent. ; and, fourthly, the im portant principle of redemption. But, by assenting to these four points, is it to be supposed that the Committee will be pledged to all the details of the Bill? They will be per fectly at liberty to deal with the details. The resolutions do not preclude me, they do not preclude the Ilouse, from any alteration in the details which hereafter, upon consideration, it may be deemed expedient to adopt. Though I insert in the resolutions the sum of seventy-five pounds, do I mean by that, or do I suppose that the House would hereafter be pre cluded from inserting fifty pounds, or sixty pounds, or sixty-five pounds, or any other sum ? No. I mention this particular that we may be enabled at a future period to submit the whole measure to the House. These being my views, must, with out adopting any one of the alterations proposed, adhere to these resolutions as the exposition of the intentions of the King's Government on the subject of tithes in Ireland. —( Cheers.) The adoption of the resolutions is not binding on the House against future alterations in the Bill that we pro pose to introduce. The Bill of the Member for Staffordshire was altered last session—first at the desire of the Right Hon. Gentleman himself; and again on the suggestion of the Hon. arid Learned Gentleman, the Member for Dublin. The House afterwards completely changed the original resolution on which the Bill was founded. I pursue a different course now, and refuse to' alter these resolutions, shall I place myself by so doing in a more unfavourable situation than did the Member for Staffordshire last year ?—( Cheers.) I have only one more appeal to make to the House. As soon as my Right Hon. 'and Gallant Friend ( Sir H. Hardinge) had proposed the resolu tions and explained to the House what were the views of his Majesty's Government, the Noble Lord, who acts as leader of the Opposition, felt so completely convinced, of the total ab sence of all future obligation to arise from affirming the reso lutions, that he did not hesitate to say, " I will not place the slightest obstacle in the way of these resolutions ;" and the late Secretary for Ireland was so entirely convinced of the justice of the view I have taken, as to the effect of them on any future deliberations of the llouse, that he said " I will vote for the resolutions, with a protest, however, that I am not bound by them." When such is my own view—when such is the view of the Noble Lord (J. Russell), and of the Mem ber for Staffordshire, that there is nothing binding in them, nothing to preclude hereafter the assertion of any principle or the alteration of any details—it would be inconsistent with common sense—with all practice of former Governments— with the usages of the House, were I to consent to the alte ration proposed. With this view of the matter I feel that I should not be doing my duty as a Member of this House, as a Member of his Majesty's Government, if I consented to the course which it is now endeavoured to persuade me to. Mr. P. THOMSON explained. When he voted upon the resolutions of last year, the great question of appropriation was not raised, and the Government was not communicated with upon it. The present Government, however, was ; tho Right Hon. Baronet having announced the principle that the temporalities of the Church must never be applied to any but Church purposes. Sir R. PEEL.—My answer is this :—The Right Hon. Gentleman says that last year the question was not raised of the appropriation of Church property. Now, how stood the fact ?—(Cheers.) A counter resolution was moved to this effect, " Due regard being had to existing interests, any sur plus that may remain shall be applicable to such purposes as Parliament may hereafter determine."—( Loud and continued cheers.) Mr. S. RICE said in fact there was no practical difference of opinion on both sides of the House.—(A laugh.) They had no wish to preVent the introduction of the Bill. When he acted as teller it was under circumstances quite different.to the present. The Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goulburn) brought in Tithe Composition and Tithe Commu tation Bills. Had they been followed up, much of the evil that had since occurred would have been prevented. Now these Bills involved a question of religion as much as the measure to be proposed did, but yet the Right Hon. Baronet assented to them without any resolutions having been previously moved.—( Cheers from the Opposition.) Where were the scruples of the Right Hon. Bart. then ? The Hon. Gentle men opposite thus rejected their own authority arid acted upon that of their opponents. When they on his side of the House were quite avillieg to permit a Bill to be brought in, was it conceivable that some ulterior object was not concealed under this perseVerance in the present resolutions? If his Hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) would consent to withdraw his amend ment he would propose the following as a substitute for the resolutions now proposed :—" That it is expedient to alter and amend Tithes in Ireland." Sir R. PEEL said it was not competent to the Member for Middlesex to withdraw his amendment without the consent of the House. He was not disposed, however, to raise any question which might lead to debate upon a mere point of form. Mr. Hume's amendment being withdrawn,. ana t hat of 3 1 r. S. Rice put from the Chair, the House divid.ed— For the amendment 93 213 For the resolution Majority for Ministers ............... -- 15 The House then resumed, and the other orde rs of the day were disposed of. The House adjourned at a quarter past Twelve. PRICES OF,CANALS, DOCK STOCKS, ASSURANCE COMPANIES, &c. &c. LONDON, FRIDAY, MARCH 20. , p r :,3 , Number . Dividend per of l eer CANALS /WA. Sna l : C. 'Shares. Annum. 1,482 01. Ashby.de.le..Zanch 1,060 Basinoinke---. - ha .5 51. A ' e ' " I I : a) : 1 / 1: asu sh. . ''''..' 555' R.s...c'a - nock ..nd Aberg. , ve 410 Y••••••••• 1 •7 1. • 10s. 27 • 1 ,%)Oish. pa, m 5..,.- 'Birmingham, i shale.... 4,001 ....._.. Ditto and Liverpool 3 in.1t.... 11 0/..s i h. all pd '. 6 - 9 4 600 Bridgewater and Tauntor. •••• IOU!, s ;CPI. sh. 10:1 4`'o 91. Chelmer and Illackwater . , 00/. sh. 71.1.1, tOO 4-3. Coventry 'I/ 0 s 100. sh. ~s; 4,316 Croydon ....... ..-.....Average b. • - 10 1 sit. 40 :, , ,00 I ,',3/ 10s. Dudley .. • , 11101. sh. 1 4 .,„ .0 600 ' l 6/. Derby 'IL sh. t. 3,5751 tar 43'. Erewash o't. s ' l • 604: 1,097 •...8/. Forth and Clyde Average 404. os. s' 2 " $4O 11,50) 121. Grand Junction . 01 , I. sit. 1,501 Grand Surrey 1 rI. sir. 75 12.,0001. 5/. per cent. Dino (optional) Loan 10 ')1. 3,096 Grand NVestern 600 13/. Ids. Bd. Giam •rganshire, Average co;t ° l l l . 2/ v . h as l . l L'i d . 2: 2 ;11 1,1,60 Gloucester anti Berkley lei 1 sli. 4_oo 7441 ;0/. Grantham "AV. sh. tn . i. .0 6,238 1/. lOs Huddersfit Id Average 37/. 6s. 60. sh. 5 4 ,„ 100 Kensington 25,328 11. ss. Kennet and Avon, Average 39!. tis. 100. sh. 5213'? 2,697 , 1 204 Leeds and Liverpool luct sh. ~ 515 121. Leicester iv/. :h. llv 0 . . 79taL 1,907 4/. Leicester and Northampion...Aver. 03/. .0 5 . ‘2. -i, 531 51. per cent. Liskeard and Looe Unit) , ' 4 5/. sh. all Pd• 1.640 7.1 144/. Loughborough Average 140 /. 17s. sh. .„„ 2,409 131. Monmouthshire lOO/. sit. K 7, 515.1 91. Melton Mowbray 1111 sh. T.; 590 2'l Mersey and lrwell lOO/. sh• °l 'r 3,000 Macclesfield 247 151. Neath lOO/. she all pd. 70 5 '1 1001. sh• 0 0 109 1,755 32/. Oxford 10(4, sh. 'O2 2,400 4/. Peak Forest Average about 78/. sh. j ,,1 21,415 Hs. Regent's (or L melon) Aver. 3:3/. 16s. Sd. sit. 12 1 s,4ital 5/. per cent. 0 oclidalcs Average 83/. sh• ; 3 .4 500 61. Shropshire 1 . .:51. sh• 70 800 10/. Somerset Coal 15 0 01, sh. 4.„, - 45,000/. 6-1 pr cent. Ditto Lock Fund Stock l2/. 103 . at. .„,', 700 361. Stafford and Worcester lOl sh. ...:57., 300 St Stourbridge 3,1347 1/. lOs. Stratford-on -Ay n ...Average 714/. 9s. Bd. sh. 018 1 533 13/. Sts",ansea '01'!. sh. 'ir 11s 3,702 I!. Sevens and Wye and Railway ...Av. 351. sh. c . 20 '2,600 ish. 32/. 10s. Trent ants Mersey, 1 share PP/ sit. , 1 8,1 i 9 'Thames and Yedway... Aver. 19/. ss. SO. sh. 1,(:00 sit./ 15/. . Warwick and Birmingham I,ool,ksh. 980 12/. Warwick and Naptod t 6,000 3/. 10s. Worcester and Birminghar.n...Av.7B/11.:82;hbh: 22°5: 2',000 ss. Wilts and Berk', .. Average 101. 17s. Bd. Ell. 4 ;' 106 ... ..... Wisbe,ch lO5/. sh• 2.21 1)05 It Wey and Arun llOl. sh. DOCKS. 35 198,667 f/. _ 3,238,3104 2 1. ss. p. ct. London „st.ock 10 ,1 Ditto Bonds ~ 95 1,390,000/. 5/. per ct. West India 74 0 4 2,..:10.) 3/. 6s. 4d. Bristol Average 14 7 /. 11 's. .` 4 -• 'pi 08,324/. 51. per cent. Ditto Notes, various amounts ~.** 50 1,352,722 3p r colt. St. Katharine St oCe. o.l r 1 4 , 500,000 44 per cent. Ditto Bonds lO4 200,000 a per cent. Ditto Bonds for 10 years Ot Shoreham Harbour • BRIDGES. Oi 5,000 .„... ~,?,, 5,000 11. 2s. Ditto, Old Annuities of Si. 6o/. p 0 i4 O - I ': 2 , 2/t , 5,000 10s. 3d. Ditto, New Ditto of 71 401. poi • 1 15 00,0001. 51. per cent. 1600 Bonds 2 li 6,000 I/. Vauxhall Averaste 70/. 105. 3d. sh. ASSURANCE COMPANIES. _,., 761 2,000 3/ 103 Albion 500/. sit. 501. p. 12 500,,,,,000 [5 incr.] Alliance, British & Foreign 100/. sh. 10/. pd Li 50,000 6 per cent. Ditto, Marine 1001. sh. 5/. pd jilt ' 24,000 103. per sh. Atlas 1,200 ish. 4/. Birmingham Fire ... ...... .....250/. sh. 5.51 P., 41) 20,000 4/. per cent. British Fire 2'o/. sh. 50/. pa 0; 10,000 01. per cent. British Commercial 50/. sh. 51. pd :31 5,000 5/. per cent. Clerical, Medical;&c. Life...loo/.sh. '211 0 81 , d 42. 4,000 2/ 10s County lO.Ol. sh. 10/.14 si 6,000 ss. Eagle ' 50/. sh. 51. pd 0 ‘40,4c5 Per cent] Economic Life lOOO/. sh. 2501. pd 31 1 2,271 tand 30/ bs. 3 2 2,271 W. percent. European Life 'o4 sh. all pd if 50,000 2s. Ditto, New 'V. sh. 21. pd , 5 0 1,000,000/. 71. per ct. Globe Stock 422, 20,000 1/. Guardian 100/. sh. 2201. pd Fire 5 et. fi 40,000 [ Life 8 p p ct. . Hope 50/. sh. 5/. pd , 2,400 5/. 7s. Ik).' Imperial Fire 5001. sh. 50/. P _,, ~ 111,1 7,540 9s. Imperial Life 100/. sh. 10/ P., 12 51. per cent. Indemnity Marine 0 0/. sh. Si. Pa oat 3,900 1/. London, Fire "Si. sh. 121. 10s. P . ; Or 31 000 I/. London, Ship '25/. sh. I_/. 105. P. el!' 40,0'11 :1. per cent. Palladium Life 50/. sh. 21. Pd 1 j XO3 25 1 0,00) Is. fid. Prote c tor Fite '2ol. sh. '21.1 , 1 1:4 2,50.0 11. Provident Life 100,000 ss. Rock Life 20/. sh. 2/. pd ‘ ,2 684,2204 5/. percent. Royal Exchange Stock. • 45,e4 50,600 4 per cent. United Kingdom Life 2/. 1; 41 21''' JOINT STOCK BANKS. A 21 5,000 Australa•ia 4O/. sh. 231. P., WO 10,000 lOper cent. Bit mingham Bank 50/. sh. Si. P., jst 1 50,000 London and Westr.finster...loo/ sh. 154 p d 444 20,000 7 per cent. Provincial Bank of I reland...loo/. sh. 05/. pd 00 ' 10,000 National Provincial 100/. sh. '251 Pd, 11 10,000 10 per cent. Gloucestershire 50/. sh. 5/. 1 01 , 009 6,000 GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANIES. 29e" , 2,500 I/ 12s Bath 2O/. eh. l' 1 . P d, , 5,000 6/. per cent. British 4O/. sit. li 4 /. pa 24 5, ,,,„, r 54 percent.] Ditto Provincial 20/. sh. 191. pd - Land Bs. ss, 10 0 ' 814 5/ 103 Birmingham 5O/. sh• s9l 4,250 2/ Os Bristol 1,500 Brighton 2Ol. sh; 12 750 Ditto, New 20/. sh. 181. P' l 19 2,471 t'a. per cent. Brighton General 20/. sh. all pa 6t 4.000 31. . Continental Consolidated .lOO/. 511/ Pd 19 2 ' 1,000 10/. City of London 'oo/. sh. all pd l ae # 1,000 el. Ditto, New 4,000 4/. Equitable . oc/. P. 41. 6,000 Cl, per cent. East London 51. sh. 4/. pil ~,,%a 10,000 5/. per cent. Imperial 5 O l. sh• 434 214 SIX) 5/. per cent. Isle of Mallet 251. sh. 20/. pd, 50 2.350 6/. per cent. , ndependent aaa . s i t , all pa 251 9,000 41. per cent. Phenix 5 0 /. alt. 39/ Pd 40 1,000 41. per cent. Ratcliff 1001. sr,. (rol. p 1; 141 4,000 South Metropolitan 5 ,1. sh. 13/.IN 5 0 , 8,200 5/. per cent. United General 5O/. sh. 44/. P . 24 240 5/. per cent. Warwick s'l• sh. $4l 400 115 s Wakefield '2sl. sh. 47t, 12,000 3/. Westminster Chartered 5O/. sh• 0 es. 6,000 12s. Ditto, New 5O/. sh. 1 0 /. I'd g WATER WORKS. , 4 211 4,800 . 4,433 5/. East London lOO/. sh. 53 4,500 '2l 10s. fir lid Junction ....Average 41/ 133. 4d. s h • 404/ 2,000 0/. Kent 1001. s h , • 30 0 348 101. Liverpool Bootle • . 0 . 2 01, sh ' 0 1,500 21 lOs New Inver London Bridge Water Annuities 41' 6,485 1/. Manchester and Salford 1,000 4 per cent. South London - 10 01 . di ' 19 8, 00 3/. sh. 44 West Middlesex ....Average 63/. 12s. 94 1 . ~• -- 1,360 1/ 14s York Building Co. Lessee Prop 1001. s.• IRON RAILWAYS. /9 350 Cheltenham 1001 sh• 9,,1 2,000 Clarence lOO/. rh. 100/. P" v, .2,500 19s. Forest of Dean 5 Ol 2 - a Grand Junction 100/, sh. '2O l . P . 1 5,100 1) per cent. Liverpool and Manchester 100/. sh. 100/ P''' 4 ' 4 London and Greenwich ' Ol. sh. 0 3 • Ditto Quarter Shares .5/. I' d 111 20,000 .• / I'd 4 2 25,000 London and Birmingham ...1001. sh. ' 2sl ' 1 4 2,500 Preston and Wigan '2ol. I_, 15r 800 Durlia , n Junction 1001. sh. 10 1 . P.' MINES. 4,000 Alten 15/. sh. 10/. 103. Pi ,a , 10,000 Anglo Mexican, iss. 5/. pm.... 100/. sh. all r d ` 1 - ',. 2,000 801..n0s 10,001) 3/. Is. Brazilian Imp iss. 51. pm 35/. sh. '2 O ,- 1". f, 6,010 Macatibas & Cocaes United 05/. sh. 2 4 - 4 ,• Id ~,, Ditto St. John Del Rey 20/. sh. 7 ii . ''' 31. P d Is Candonga • P d i" 9,000 Bolivar Copper Company -.201. sh. 20/ ~i 1,500 English , l2l 1 0 ' L- 1 1 11,500 Real del Monte, Unregistered .................0 7 5,000 United Mexican, iss. 2 pm .... , :0/. sh. all Pd _d ,l 0 30,000 Ditto Subscription 2/.1 • .„ Ditto New Scrip 5/. P d 5,100 - 9 , LITERARY INSTITUTIONS. s h e 2. 1,000 ...... ... London, with Bronze Ticket ......... 75 g s ;, 1: j A 1,500 Lond n University lOC/. sh. all} .00 0 0 King's College MISCELLANEOUS. 4'ol ' ' l'. 2i 1,030 I!. Auction Mart a ..i 6,0 '0 British American Land Company ...... ' 4 . 1- n d , 0 1 10,000 61 per cent. Canada Comeany Hp/ sh. 2°l ' F- ' 1 - , ...... 1 0 4 ' 200,000 51. per cent. Upper Canada Loan City Bonds, 4 per cent ........................... ...L-8 15,000 1/. per cent. General Steam Navigation ~.1 51. sh. 1:31 P" .T . 4 , 11. per cent. Hudson's Bay Stock .............................. ', l ': ..la , 51 s l P 2,000 1/. London Com. Sale Rooms • Av. i n ,/ pd s'o 2,714 4/. per cont. Reversionary Interest 50c...100/ sh. I ',''. l pcl It 0,633 4/. per cent. Ditto New 101/. sh. t i i 0 1 1 4, 1 00 Thames Tunnel 501. sh. ' AI 10,000 Van Diemen's Land 1001. sh la. I i , s, PfII CIP LIST OF SCOTTISH COMPANIES' - I MARCH 2, 1835. . rt. BANKS. Ore/ 11Pd li . 1,!00,00 0 /. 031. p. et. Bank of Scotland g3l. Gs. 8.1. sh. a ll Pd ~.:01. ' 2,000,000/. ai p. ct. Royal of Scotland 100/. sh. 3" 1 l 'Ot •il IA i ' ell 500.0004 ts p. rt. British Linen Company 100/. 01 . , 1 1 4 . - 3,00 0 ,000/. 01. p. ct. Commercial 5OOl. sh. 1 ° 6 , 1 7 1 :1 10 1( 7a)/. 5,000,000/. sp. ct : National lOOl. sh• l'-'"„; ' 4 .1 0. ' 2,00 ,0001. 2- 1 11. p. ct. Glasgow Union 250/. sh. 0,„..• 1 d 4,000,00 , 1 op. ct. Western of Scotland 2OOl. sh 3"`• P 1 1 INSURANCE COMPANIES 11. rd 1 0 ' • 250,0005 h. sp. ct. Scottish Union "", sh I 1 1 d / I ( '' 7,500 sp. ct. Hercules 100 / . ~,s __ .ilt pd ob . 100,000 sp. ct. Insurance Co. of Scotland....lo/. sh• ',/. pd 13 1 ' 50,000 6 p. ct. North British 2OO/ sh• it 1 tcl 3/ 1,000 sp. et. Caledonian Fire 100/ sh• I°l ',o 1,1 5,000 6p. et. Edinburgh Lif e 1001. sh. 104 i sd 100,000 4p. ct. West of Scotland ........................ 10 1 . I .10i Sr MISCELLANEOUS. s it ' a ll d 9° ,/ 4,810 Edin. and Glas. Un. Cana1...50/. s, J • A I"d :.;- Ditto Allocated - 9' i• " i ). 7,11 pd 4 5 Z • 5,400 5 per cent. Edinb. Joint Stock Water... .0/ s'l* all pd 1 4 '" Carron Iron Company ......2501 sh. /. p d 1/. 2,00` sh. 15 per cent. Slings Iron Founctery .... ' ..... 5 01 - sh ' AP ( ' 94 . 1 ; /0,000 3 per cent. Edinburgh and Leith G1a53... 20 / . sh• p 0 5 , ', 4,500 lOper cent. Edinburgh Coal Gas. ...........25L sh. allli I ,d 5 1 1. 4,430 10 per cent. Glasgow Gas : 2 ‘ 5 ,/. ,011,1,.. all pd 59 ,0/ : 1,200 5 '730 6 perand cent. Edinburgh dI) ilkeith Eailway. .. 0/ 1 ) ,, : 3,000 5 per cent. Equitable Loan Company. . 251 . -- a• 1 • , asse*"'" -.- !a pt MARRIED. , Ma dras, 0 , , C e a t i l i e - ' 4l . On the 18th of November last, at Tellecherry , - maste r- ' icho llr' William John Butterworth, Acting Deputy ter of the Madras Army, to Harriet, second (laugh 0'13 . - Esq. the r ie. r i 0 , Quarter of s. is On the 12th inst., at Brightwell, Oxfordshire, , dor oore . Trevenew, of Drewsteignton, Devonshire, to Bun n t a il Yo r w tre'' ter of the late Sir William Strickland, Bart., of BeYn ° 's. 13 4 .00 rl es ' On the 17th i ns t., a t M ann i ng t re e, Essex, Chaservice, t° f Esq., of Colchester, late of the Hon. Company s •,,tre c • o o ° m an n' r , e h.• Orme, daughter of Daniell C. Alston, Esq., of * „„„ r eoe ' d og On the 18th inst., at St.' George's Church, . I : 3 `7, ist atia, Ormerod Heyworth, Esq., of Everton, to Chariot '' ter of the late John Kayne, Esq., of New :York- ea r, DIED. 1, in hi s B f 3e t h lP °' On the 18th inst., in Catherine-place , Bat"' • el ° B CPO" General Sir Henry Johnson, Bart., G. C• ----' liable" Aisv r ot' Foot., and Governor of Ross Castle. On the 20th inst., at the house of his brothei:;'e-rr E l s '4 '. ., i s f ti j ., ° f place, Burton-crescent, Thomas William Che a l r u hoa lier , , rington-square,.only son of the late Thom '-' oict of t " South Audley-street, aged 34. of On the 20th inst at Datchet, near Windsor, Jan e ' r P c l . ' •, latOnthe William Sturges Es Ito e 6th inst., Dorothy, widow of James Salwell, * Der t Kirkconnel, Dumfriesshire. 1 ntl - P lace ' On the 20th inst., in W e y mo uth -street, Bort a A;o• Stone, Esq., in his 78th year. of ' - OE/ SG' ' Ol4 ........... - - - --- tinno - in the L on 1 Printed and Published by 1%1 Ill' S ir 112, Strand, at The Suit Office, No. 11 ' , of liddlesex. ■ pr, Ni l Dr iro rp s PA rea ctc tali! exa Your bla, A Dtu€ UN o f 4