The Sun. — London, England, 1834-07-01 00:00:00

was, affected only the feelings and character of an individual peer ; and however valuable the privileges and character of emery member of their lordships' house, yet these considera tions were of far less importance than the protection that was due to the individual who filled the hirrUst judicial situation in the country, and who performss:s the judicial functions of that house. He looked uposs a libel against the Lord C' sans cellar, or any publicaeicn tending to degrade tht crearacter of the individual filling that high office, as a lar graver offence than any attack., however atrocious, made against an indivi. Idual peer. Although, therefore, he was disposed to acquiesce in.the general feeling of the house on the-present occasion, h e should certainly feel ' better satisfied if a marked distinction were made between this case and any other that had only re ference to an i dividual peer, as to the degree of punishment that ought t be dealt out to the offender. .The Earl*of RADNOR said that the publication that was involved in Ate present discussion was not only a gross libel on the Lord Chancellor, but a daring insult to their lordships' house, for it !hoc! died their lordships' journals as nothing bet ter than a sot cif garbled entries. • He quite agreed that in this case some grant at fk g ree of punishment than a mere reprimand should be este tried to the person at the bar, whose proceedings were perfectly unjustitieble. In all cases that had hitherto come before their lordships of this nature the offending party had always been Tither committed to the custody of the Usher of. the Black _ l 6d, or to Newgate. There was no instance of a -person thus offending having been discharged out of cus tody on the same day that he was brought to the bar, or without petitioning tho house, and expressing his regre t f or the. offence. He called upon the house to support its own privileges. The libel in the present instance was the most groundless that was ever published. It was based on tke most ridiculous and trifling circumstances. The slightest inquiry of any of the clerks of the house would have informed the writer of this libel that he had no foundation for his attack. If the house. thought fit that the Morning Post should every day abuse its privileges, and set, their lordships' power and authority at defiance, they ought to say so at once. (Loud cries of " Question.") The LORD CHANCELLOR begged to inform their lordships that their motion was already passed. The Duke of CUMBERLAND wished to know what ques tion had been passed. He understood the noble and learned lord to have moved that the individual at the bar be now dis 'charged. The LORI) e ANCELL OR--I said I wished that course to be adopt.) , but the question was not put. The Duke of CUMBERLAND—Did the noble and learned lord make the motion, or did he not? The LORD CIIANCELLOR—I really cannot answer 'with certainty. The Earl of WI C OW—The noble and learned lord most certainly did put the motion, that the person in custody should be called to the bar and discharged. The L 0 1t I) CII ANCELLOR—It is possible I did, but I have no recollection of it. (Here there was much noise and confusion amongst a number of peers who surrounded the table, and general and loud calls of ." Order.") Lord FARNHAM—Th e no bl e an d learned lord has made so many motions that he cannot recollect them all. (A laugh.) It is quite clear that, according to the usage of the house on such occasions, the individual at the bar must remain in cus tody until he presents a proper petition to the house. He must purge hirnsel fof the contempt in which he at present is, before he can hope to be discharged. He must present a petition. It would have been better if the . question had not been put as it has been by the noble and learned lord. His motion must either be negatived or withdrawn.' The LORD CHANCELLOR—It is very likely that I may, as the noble lord says, have put so many questions that I do not recollect them. I may have been irregular. The usual course, certainly, is to petition the house before the individual in custody can be discharged. I remember, in the case of Gale Jones, that person had been declared guilty of a breach of privilege, and, having refused to petition, he remained in custody until the end of the session. It will be more regular, perhaps, if I withdraw the motion I made. Leave was thou given to withdraw the motion. Lord ELLENBOROUGH—The motion that the noble and learned lord made, and ha's now withdrawn, was made in his capacity of an individual peer, and was not put by him as Speaker of this house from the woolsack. There did not, therefore, exist any motion at all before the house. The Earl of HARROWBY—I move that your lordships pass to the order of the day. The house then passed to the order of the day, and conse quently Mr. 13ittleston remained in custody. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY put some question across the table to Earl Grey relative to the affairs of Spain and Portugal, but from the noise of peers quitting the house, neither the question nor the answer could be heard in the gal- Imy. The result, however, was, that The Marquis of LONDONDERRY moved that their lordships be summoned for Friday next on the subject of the question to Earl Grey. BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS BILL. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE rose to call the attention of their lordships to a bill which had been sent up from the other house of Parliament, and the object of which was to make provisions for the more effectual prevention of bribery at elections. The bill heal not been produced by his Majesty's Ministers, but it had seceived the most favourable eonsidera. tion of all parties ; said he was sure that it must be the wish of that house to Tett an end as much as pos,sible to the practice of bribery at elections. Whilst there did exist a system of national representation all persons must acknowledge that it ought to be kept pure, and unpolluted. (His lordship here went into the prinaipal provisions and enactments of the bill, as they have been reported from time to time, during its pro gress through the House of Commons.) The only alteration which he proposed that the bill should undergo related but to one point. He proposed that it should be enacted that when an election committee was appointed in the house below, the committee should address the crown, and upon that address the crown might appoint a commission of inquiry into the trans actions of the borough, by evidence taken on the spot. Upon the report of that commission the committee might hear coun sel and report the final result to the house. This was the only amendment which he intended to propose to the bill ' • but if any noble lord had sa y amen d men t s t o suggest, he - was sure that he should \, most willing to pay them every possible attention. A tecase of the borough of Carrick fergus had been investig , s iand reported upon the operation of the present bill could us tbe said to bear upon it in the na ture of an ex post facto law and he could only observe that if their lordships were themselv oireo the case of Carrick fergus it would delay the prop fiLe present bill most in conveniently. He should move the bill be read a second time that evening. Lord FARNHAM did not obje cite the principle of the bill, though there were many of its provisions against which he should protest. He could not but reprobate the house pro ceeding against the borough of Carrickfergus without a further inquiry into the case at their lordships' bar ; and on a general principle he never would consent to disfranchise any borough without that house hearing the case. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE begged to observe that the bill only made it optional in that house to comply with the proceedings of the house below. Lord ELLENBOROUGH was of opinion that the bill ought to be referred to a committee up stairs. It was im possible that the house could go on for another session treating Disfranchising Bills as they had treated the War wick Bill. The whole effect, object, and operation of the proposed measure was to perform all the business of inquiry by a committee of the House of Commons, and to pass•by the House of Lords. He, for one, would object to this altogether. The present bill admitted of no appeal, of no review of any case of possible offence, and he trusted that such a law would never meet the sanction of that house. Let noble lords consider how the bill destroyed the rights of individuals. Persons might complain against any borough upon vague or general grounds of corruption, and then give in a list of people charged with bribery, only fourteen days within proceedings, and then the - accused were called upon to rebut the charge by evidence. Nothing could be more proper than this ; but in some cases the bill enabled persons to bring charges of bribery without any notice whatever, and the committee had no power to let them appear in defence, either personally or by counsel. No notice was given to the ac cused, nor were they empowered tq cross-examine any wit nesses that might be brought against them, nor could they without the special leave of the committee be allowed to bring forward witnesses to support their defence. If the case were gone into in the country, then the accused had all these powers, but immediately the commission made its re port their privileges ceased altogether. The report of the committee was to be conclusive against all persons charged with bribery, and their names were to be forthwith posted on the doors of the town-hall and church of the parish, so that the parties might be exposed to derision and obloquy, and this al though they had had no previous . means of defending them- , selves. But what were the provisions of the bill with respect to indemnification ? All those who brought such charges might be indemnified ; but no similar indemnification was al lowed to those who might even successfully defend themselves, unless indeed the committee might report that the charge s were frivolou s an d vexatious. With respect to those parts of the bill that related to costs; their lordships could not make any alterations in the bill, and if, therefore, they received it at all, they would be compelled to pass it with all its imperfec tions upon this important part of the law. He objected to the power given to the Speaker to reduce the list of thirty-three members into eleven to form the committee. Such a pow#' might be absurd, especially immediately before a dissolut 4 , o7u. This was attacking a valuable principle, and it was t o giving a judge the power of red uc i ng the general jury, list to the number of twelve. What he would prefer was that t'4,, second reading of the bill should be postponed for a weektwo, and • in the meantime a committee should b e appointc4 to consider in what manner all future proceedings conre ssted with dis_ *franchisement bills might best be , conducted t hat house. ..eed The LORD CHANCELLOR consisle that the a b so l ute necessity of some such measure as th at under consideration was demonstrable on two grounds—ti it, on that of principle - had had o f on that their lordshi ps and secondly, on that aff ni dedorth the pres en t system i n the e inconveence by 0 „. . , instance of the Warwick bon ;ugh. -Nothing could be more cumbrous, inconvenient, ineffective, and, consequent on all these qualities, expensive, than the mode in which their lord ships at present tools,. measures for the disfranchisement of offending boroughs ; and if the present measure did, as he contended it did., remove each and every of those bad qualities, it was impossibl e to deny that, as far as principle was con cerned, it was unobjectionable. But nothing could more effectually prove the necessity of some such measure as that proposed than the pending proceedi ngs in the case of the borough of W arw i c k. Th e bill for the disfranchisement of that borough might prove an excellent measure when they came to the end of the existing inquiry. At. present they were at most-but in:the middle- of it : but surely, it was not too much for him to say that such was the annoyancu and fatigue that inquiry had given their lordships, that it would be difficult, even though a stronger ciao was liade out, to induce them to consent to a similar one in ano ther instance being proceeded with. i The otte* considered was whether i, t + h , e present . l L „mum .e—fr.e.ctun-tato dew as object. He thowr ,c would. He thought that aS tar as its princinl— went it was good, and if it required any and it was evident from t hat his noble friend announced that it would require some alteration, as far as the issuing of a committee of inquiry emanating from the Crown instead of from Parliament, was concerned, he would be most ready to give his best attention to it in committee. The noble baron who spoke last seemed to consider the bill as an infringement on the authority and dignity of their lordships' house, but he must say he saw not the least foundation for objecting to it on that ground. If a commission was to be issued by the Crown upon a petition complaining of a return being presented, and if a copy of the report of that commission was transmitted to each house of Parliament, and if, upon that report being printed, their lordships were deliberately to consider how far it went to condemn the accused borough, could it be said that they delegated their authority as a branch of the Legislature, and in the smallest decree, to the House of Commons? The bill only proposed that the obtaining of evidence should be entrusted to a commission, but their lordships, after its passing, would retain the power of deciding upon that evidence. He contended that the bill did nothing more than delegate a painful and laborious inquiry to a com mission instead of to a select committee of that house. But" was the House of Lords to be bound by the report of those commissioners? Certainly not. If they were of opinion that the evidence had not been properly taken they might separate themselves from the House of Commons, and institute an in quiry of their own either by a second commission or by an in vestigation at the bar. The noble Iron complained that the names of parties accused of bribery were to be placed upon the church doors, although they were afforded no opportunity of refuting the charge. But were they in this respect worse situated than at present? Certainly not; for now it was only necessary for a party to accuse fifty or sixty individuals of bribery in a petition to the House of Commons, and, on that petition being printed in the votes of that house it might be published to the world, aye, even on those selfsame church doors, a law being in force permitting the votes of the' two houses of Parliament to be there affixed for publication. The noble and learned lord concluded by expressing his intention of voting for the second reading. Lord ELLENBOROUGH, in explanation, disclaimed en tertaining any indisposition to facilitate inquiries of theliature referred to in the bill, but felt bound to protest age - I:list the course it proposed for the purpose. .), The Duke of WELLINGTON did not hesitate to say that the measure before the house was as ill considered as any that ever passed the other House of Parliament. (Hear.)' If it became law there would be but one mode of punishing'refrac tory boroughs, namely, disfranchisement. No alternative, no discretion, would be left in peculiar cases, and Pailiament would be obliged either to take no steps whatever or dis franchise. That such a result, and especially when it' was to originate in a committee appointed by another House of Par liament, and over which their lordships would exercise no control whatever, could be a proper one he utterly and posi tively denied. Even if the house were to institute an inquiry of their own, and upon that inquiry originate a bill, no good could come of it, as it would be sure to be resisted by the other house. Under all the circumstances he thought the best course their lordships could adopt would be to refer the bill to a select-committee, in accordance with the suggestion of his noble friend.--( Hear, hear.) The Marquis of L ANSDOWNE said he would have no objection to adopt the suggestion, as it seemed to be the wish of the house. After a few words from Lord WYNFORD the bill was read a second time, and referred to a select committee, which was named. JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL. On the motion of Viscount MELBOURNE the Justices of the Peace Bill was. committed pro forma,land ordefed to be re committed on Monday next. The house glen adjourned at a quarter past eight o'clock. . ROUSE . OF COMMONS, June 30. The SPEAKER resumed the chair at five o'clock. On the motion of Mr. O'CALLAGHAN, the Tipperary Inclosure Bill was read a third time and passed: An HoN. MEMBER presented a petition from the Dissenters of Chelmsford against church rates. Col. WOOD presented a petition from the churchwardens and inhabitants of the parish of St. Andrew, in the diocese of London, for the protection of the national church, and pray ing the house to pass'no law that would in any way tend to alter that establishment. Mr. GROTE presented a petition from the owners of ships under 200 tons burden of London, praying that such ships trading between this country and Boulogne might be exempt from the Cinque Port duties. Mr. WILK S presented a petition from Dr. Newman and the Baptist congregation of Bow, in Middlesex, against Church rates ; also another from the Dissenters of the same denomination of Wild-street chapel, Lincoln's Inn-fields, praying for a redress of grie v a n c es ; an d ano th er to t h e same effect from the Dissenters of Hitchin, Hertfordshire. Mr. METHUEN presented a petition (from what place we could not hear), against the separation of Church and State. CHURCH Mr. WILKS begged to' ask the noble lord opposite (Lord Althorp) what day he intended to appoint for the second read ing of the Church Rates Bill ? Lord A LTHORP could not precisely name the time. Mr. WILK S hoped the noble lord would not bring on the measure without giving due notice as to time. Lord ALTHORP—Certainly not. • Mr. B. BARING presented two petitions in favour of the established church ; one from North Walton, and the second from a place the name of which was not heard. Mr. BAINE S presented petitions against church rates from the following places :----From the Dissenters of Clapton ; from the Baptist congregation of Stony Stratford; and from the Protestant Dissenters of Potters Bury ; also a petition from Wigham in favour of Dissenters' claims generally. Mr. STANLEY presented a petition from the inhabitants and chapelry of Howick, in the county of Northumberland, against any appropriation of the church property to secular purposes. CUSTOM-HOUSE. Mr. GROTE wished to know from the right hon. Presi dent of the Board of Trade, when he intended to proceed with the Customs Bill ? _ _ Mr. P. THOMSON should proceed with the measure on Wednesday next, if hon. gentlemen who notices stood for that day would allow, the bill alluded to to ,have precedence. He hoped they would, since the discussion• upon it would not take up more than a couple of hours of the time of the house. The delay that had taken place, relative tolhe introducing of the Customs Bill arose from, the circumstance, that he was waiting for certain resolutions to be passed by that house. PRIZE-FIGHTING. Mr. O'CONNELL had a question to put to the noble lord the Under Secretary for the Home Department, as to whether any steps had been taken, or were about to be taken, to pre vent the frightful loss of human life that was constantly taking place ht consequence of prize -fighting . However, as h e did not see the noble lord in his place, h should defer his ques tion until to-morrow. Mr. T. ATTWOOD wished to ask the noble lord (Al thorp) whether it was his intention to persevere in giving notice that the third reading of the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill should have precedence of motions on to-morrow (this daY)? The SPEAKER reminded the hon. gentleman that he was premature in this question, since they had not as yet come to the subject. Lord ALTHORP intended to persevere in his notice. Mr. T. ATTWOOD begged the noble lord to postpone his notice, since he (Mr. Attwood) had a motion which stood for to-morrow, of which he had given notice four months ago. It would be very hard— The SPEAKER said that any argument against the noble lord's notice of a motion could not be made. TITHES (IRELAND) BILL. Mr. LITTLETON, in moving the Order of the Day that the house resolve itself into committee on this bill, said that before he moved that the Speaker do leave the chair he thought it but fair to put the house in possession of rather an important alteration made after due consideration in the mea sure before the house. Throughout all their deliberations for the last six months Government had been especially attentive to this measure, for they saw that some measure was absolutely necessary in order to save tithes from total annihilation in Jr e _ land. It was expedient that certain interest should v tended to—he all u d e d t o th e i nterests of the landlords---i- .je at_ make them more rea dil y a d op t t h e c h ange that was t' j : ,i 130 ade in the measure. Th e G overnmen t was aware that tl .Ol landlords m were opposed on th e su bj ec t o f a rent c h arge unlessorder to ' redeem themselves from the burdens that ~.ney were enabled to . would be imposed upon them by this rent charge. Now G° 7.evaltrient wished to relieve them from such burdens, and that - ,ras the first object, therefore, they had to consider. Govern recommend to Parliament o,,,,:dent bad consequently resolved to nrevisions by which this was to be done, and he would give , provision§ wer Is, co the house a brief outline of what those was proposed in the first place to provide an inducer:Lent th e edowners of first estates of inheritance to bear vo lunta'Ay the rent charge. And in order to hold out this induce me•At 'it was intended that where the landlords, on or before the Ist 13 ::( P.;ovember, 1836, wished to incur this charge, they would be at Eoerty to do so, and after that the land tax was to cease, and they would be only subject to the rent charge. In order to as certain the amount of the rent charge that amount would be deter mined according to the relative number of years' purchase ap plicable to the land from which the rent charge arose. Then the land tax, multiplied by four-fifths of the number of years' purchase, would constitute the amount of the rent charge on such estate. The interest was to be calculated at three and a half per cent. The composition was to be subject to a reduction of twenty per cent. It was proposed in the first instance to make the Consolidated Fund chargeable with the amount of difference that would arise to the commissioners of land revenues from future payments to the land owners and from deductions to the titheowners. A question might be asked as to how this amount was to be made up to the Consoli dated Fund ? Gentlemen might object to touching this fund, but it was necessary to make a sacrifice in order to ensure the peace of Ireland, and tliat could not be done unless some satisfactory ar rangement was, entered into on the subject of tithes. Government had resolved to apply the amount of the sale of perpetuities that might be found in the hands of ecclesiastical commissioners to mak ing up any loss that might accrue to the Consolidated Fund from this arrangement. He would state to the house what would be the probable amount of the funds in the hands of the ecclesiastical com missioners. He had to state, in the first place, that there were two funds for increasing the value of small livings. The first was a small amount which was invested in the hands of private trustees, and which was almost exclusively the result of Robinson's bequest. This fund was only about 5,000/. a-year. This amount would be increased by the revenues now paid to certain prebends, but which woad, . if the Church Temporalities Bill now before the house received the sanction of Parliament, - be devoted to in setasing the, value of, mall:livings. (Hear, hear.) The amount from this source would be 11,500 t Thii, together with the sum he had just mentioned, would make 16,500/. (Hear, bear.) The principal fund in the hands of the cogarcilszioners tr - tne Church Temporalities Act n as charged the ment of arrcara, dab. tb Proiestant clergy, for the charges repairitt 1,256 parish churches, and also .the expenses of• the commissioners and solicitors appointed under this bill. The whole charge for these purposes was estimated to amount to 66,0001. per annum. The amount of the fund likely to accrue from various sources, and to be placed in the hands of the ecipmiasionert,, as follows :—The amount of the reventleS Of the eleven supressed sees, including also the retellile of the suppressed Archbis h opr ic, was 51,325/. In addition to this there was 10,0601. to be taken from the revenue of the see of Derry. - The tax on all benefices above the annual value of 3001. (deducting the land tax) would give 22,000/. ; from the repayments for buildin g glebehouses (which source of income would ce ase i n 1847), 6,068/. The whole source of income would then be 91,0331., from which the various charges under the Church Temporalities Act, amounting to 66,0001., were to be deducted, which would leave a balance of 25,0001. per annum to be disposed of, either for the better support of the church of Ireland, or for such other purposes as the commit tee might resolve. The whole amount which he calculated would be derived from the sale of perpetuities could not be Jess than 1,200,000/. He begged the house to bear in mind that the re venue likely to accrue from the sale of the fees on bishops' lands had never been adjusted to the church ; therefore no possible evil could arise from devoting it to other purposes. He considered that this fund would be a security to the church, as it would induce individuals to take upon themselves the payment of the rent charges. He had no doubt that the changes he had proposed would be satisfactory to all classes. He had no doubt that such would after a. short time be the feeling of all classes in Ireland, and he had no doubt that such would be the feeling in this country when time had been allowed for calm deliberation. The govern ment, after the most mature deliberation, had come to the conclu sion he had stated on this subject, and they recommended theadop tion of the plan he had stated. He would defer any further ohm., vations for the present. He had confined himself to a bare state ment of the subject. He would only further remark, that, whether the landlord incurred the rent charge voluntarily or compulsorily, it was not intended to suffer him to charge more on the tenant than he himself paid. Mr. SHAW felt extreme difficulty in understanding what would be the changes in the bill, from the statement of the right hon. gentleman. Mr. O'CONNELL put it to the right hon. gentleman whether, by pursuing the line of conduct adopted by the right hon. gentle : . man, he was making the public acquainted with the bill, or whether he, was treating the house fairly, in pressing them to go into com mittee on a totally different measure from that which was read a first and second time. The custom formerly was, to have the bills read at length, that members might be made fully ac quainted with the principles and details. Printing, however, had since been substituted, with the same object. What, how, ever, had been the case with the present bill ? It was intro duced some months ago, and that bill was totally different from the measure they were called upon to consider in com mittee. Ten or twelve different clauses had been introduced not in the original bill, and that night a statement had been made by which it appeared farther and most important alterations were to be made. They proposed to introduce new matter which he con jectured he understood, but he was not sure that this was the case; but he was perfectly satisfied that it was impossible that nine-tenths of the house could understand. He would therefore suggest to his Majesty's 'government the propriety of printing the alterations they proposed to make before proceeding further, so that the house might understand the nature of the.alterations. If they proceeded tO "the discussion on the mere statement of the right hon. gentleman he would only state that it could not be satisfactory, as it was impos sible for any man to bear in mind a statement which he had not the opportunity of referring to. He hoped that there would be no objection to postpone the further consideration of the , subject, for a short time. Mr. LITTLETON thought that it was quite unnecessary to delay the subject, as no question would arise with respect to the alterations till they got to the 122 d clause.. Mr. O'CONNELL said that there were questions growing out of the alterations involving the principle of the bill. (Hear, hear.) The substance of the alterations changed the principle of th e bill. There was no othe r p ar t 'of the empire that the government would attempt to treat in the manner Ireland had been dealt with in re ference to that bill. Hii countrymen were divided amongst them selves, or no government would dare to adopt the contemptuous mode of proceeding pursued towards Ireland. They had pro posed very important alterations in this bill, and the right honourable gentleman called upon the house to proceed with them before - time was allowed to consider them. • The go vernment had not determined till that day what kind of bill they would have to oppress his country. They had not till that day determined as to the details of the bill which was to be broUght forward against the liberties of Ireland, and it was at 'that mo ment they came forward with these alterations as a bonus to the landlords to aid them. They thought they should be able to screen themselves behind the interests of the landlords. He had never heard anything with more surprise than he did the proposed altera tions in the plan of government. He wished to know whether they were prepared to declare war against the people of Ireland-- war in the most unmitigated manner ? He wished to know whe ther a British parliament was prepared to support the government,. in enforcing a measure of this kind—whether this country was to be involved in a species of civil war with Ireland ? Let the house recollect what took place on the second reading of the bill. He proposed a plan by which less would be taken from the church than was proposed by the right hon. gentleman. He (Mr. O'Connell) proposed ultimately to get rid of the burthen of tithes altogether, while he preserved to the church four-fifths more than the right , hon. gentleman proposed to preserve. They proposed by this bill to promote the peace of Ireland, but instead of peace they would inevitably involvt themselves in a civil war if they persisted in it. lie proposed his plan against the feelings of the great majority of the people of Ireland. Their object was to get rid of tithes alto gether. He would never agree to make a present to the landlords of Ireland of the amount paid for tithes. (Hear, hear, hear.) He wished to see the full value secured to the country, and if his plan had been adopted four-fifths of the present value of tithes would be preserved for the Established Church for as long a time as it 'might appear necessary to devote it to that object. Everybody knew that it was not so much to the amount as to the principle of paying tithes that the people of Ire land objected. (Hear, hear. After, then, he had reduced the amount o f tith es h e h intended to propose that the moral burden should be removed. What were the opinions of his Majesty's Government on this question? The noble lord (Al thorp), the other evening,. admitted that tithes were most objec tionable. The right hon. Secretary-at-War, also a member of the Cabinet, spoke out loudly against tithes. The right hon. member for Cambridge, who made a speech on this subject, seemed to have determined to act on the aphorism well known in a neighbouring country, namely, " That words were given to man to conceal his thoughts," for he had most admirably succeeded in concealing his opinions. The noble lord the member for Devonshire, also a mem ber of the Cabinet., spoke out. There was not a greater variety of notes in the music shop over the way than there were opinions en tertained by his Majesty's Ministers on this question. From the bass note of the right hon. Secretary-at -War they went down to the minor key of the right hon. member for Cambridge. The truth was that no two members of the Government entertained similar opinions on this subject. He (Mr. O'Connell) had in the first place proposed an amendment, the effect of which would be to get rid of the ultimate charge on the land, and when he was de feated on that point he wished to pledge the Government to Esuch an appropriation as would give satisfaction. Nobody knew what the bill was at present after the alterations that were proposed. Some hon. gentlemen had told him that they had supported_the bill because there were clauses in it Which were COI , the security of the established church; but Government had come forward and struck those clauses out of the bill: (Hear ' hear.) 13y the present bill the sword of th e Ki ng was to b e raised to enforce the collection of tithes. • They had trampled on every law in governing Ireland, and they now declared for the first time that the King was 'the - owner of all tithes. If they were determined to enforce the pay ment of tithes they would have to enlist in their service the infan try and artillery, and the navy, including Lord Anglesea's four gun brigs. He implored the house to endeavour to understand the nature of the bill before they passed what would be equivalent to declaring war on the people of Ireland. The 'right hon. gentle man had already spent 38,000/. in endeavouring to recover 60,0001. for arrear of tithes. What had induced him to abstain from pro ceeding with his attempt? He had given it up because five pa rishes in the county of Cork turned out in open day when the sol diers attempted to collect the tithes. The people turned out, and their cattle and their flocks were sent away, and such was the im posing effect of the multitude collected that it was thought prudent for the British army, which had never shrunk before au enemy, to retreat to a town and to take shelter in houses. Were gentlemen who were anxious to support the Established Church ready to sup port ministers in whom they had no confidence, and who by their votes they had more than once kept in their places this session? What would those hon. gentlemen say to the clause 147 ofthebillof last yea r b e i ng a d opted i n this bill ? He asked ho n . gentleme n .whether they cou ld compre h en d t h e o bj ects of his Majesty s govern ment? All that he then required was that they should have a plan either on one side or the other, which should at least have the merit of being intelligible. (Hear, hear.) According to the report of the Tithe Commissioners the amount of the tithes in the hands of the. clergy and lay impropriators was 600,0001. Supposing that they struck off 15 per cent., 'it would reduce the amount „. to 450,0001. W as the p er aware that the Consolidated Fund was to be charged with the payment of this money? Was the house aware that on the Ist of January in each year the Irish clergyman was enttled to send in . his claim to the commissioners, who gave. him a bill bearing interest? This bill was payable at' the 130 .:Lik of Ireland at the end of a twelvemonth, and was an point of fact equivalent to a bank-note. By this plan tithes in - Ireland were made a species of stock, andthe British Teasury was to be burdened with the payment of 450,000/. per annum for five years. The clergy and lay impropriators were to be paid this whether one shiling was collected or not. By the course they were pursuing they were nomi nally endeavouring to secure tranquillity, but in,point of fact they were sowing the tempest. Would 500,0001. or 1,000,000/. p a y for the troops that it would be necessary to employ in the collection of tithes ? He was sure that he did not exaggerate when he said that at least 2,000,000/. a-year would be necessary to eoforce this bill. Would it not be better than at 'once to pay the 450,000 t. for the Irish Church than be at the expense of 2,000,0001. for collecting it ? He assured them they would have war tram one end of the country to the other . if they endeavoured to carry this. bill into effect. He had been censured in the Irish papers for hesitating in. the matter, and not at once coming forward, and calling for the total abolition of tithes. The popular party were angry with him for consenting to any thing like a compromise. If they persisted in this plan those who were so anxious to preserve vested - rights would find that they had not the power of doing. so. Tithes- had b sa e m e n e principle. opposed i lreland, nße f or en the e d rent would be o of tithes pp w o saesd upon refused, priorsel - to 1831, there Was a constant market price fur tithes as well as for land. Land brought twenty-two years' purchase, while tithes were sold at twelve, and yet what was now proposed to be done? Why, to raise the price of tithes from twelve to sixteen years' purchase, or, in other words to add • one-fourth to their value. Such was the proposition which the right hon. gentleman now brought for ward; but although he might imagine what he said to be a mere playhouseas itdeserved. B the at pr e p ( 1 emor. o cnf Ireland ewouldn should hear ohfkite t an o d know treat it what good the Reformed Parliament—the Reformed Ministry—had done for Ireland ? Could any man say, and speak with truth, that the situation - of Ireland was better now that she was governed by a Whig Administration than it had been during the period she was h u e n e d n er in th o e ffi s e w e ay fo o o f r a yTeoarrys,Ahliantisthrad the y y? T e could entitle them t o th e confidence of the Irish people, or them y he dopi r i e e se a nt s ingle government aet whichh a i n d consequence of wt.ich the people of inland could look as benefactors ? Undoubtedly they had been ver y - in the to estore application of coercion ; but not one step h a d they Thra. n r - , le of peace and tranquillity to that unfortunate country. The peti t .. Ireland were now more divided, dissatisfied. and distracted than at any former period; and even the administration of justice was more i r t e oe s N p vt. etchtaetdstudheh was the condition during o r e in o g o t t h r e period the T or i es wer e in office than it was y w to under the which the controlof r eformed present sent Ministerso Govern merit. Inn o - f , the Crown had reduced Ireland. The people of Ireland demanded e ag ot a t n e cry uhe o n out for for power a legi o il f at t i h ir e e o s t tat t e h was . m justice ; b u t w h en t h ey found that all 'their appeals to that h ouse .for measures . o f ame li orat i on were disregarded, .tectuld :they not eiro,wn? ployd The e tt saisrifi nionwa e s e n a l that rat' sacred and dear to the people of Ireland,-when. the same means were resorted to to stifle their voice, whether constitutional right's were contended foe or unjust spoliation resisted. All he re quired now: was that they should put off this committee until - the next session ; that they should pause before they proceeded to deal with a measure so entirely new to them. Perhaps, however, he would he told that, if they consented to delay; the present state of things mist continue until next year. That certainly would be the case ; but did they not think that it would be much preferable to take another million out of the Treasury or the Consolidated Fund, for the pu r p os e of settling for the arrears of tithes, for buying peace until Parliament should assemble again, than to have an army employed in their collection, and for the preservation of public tranquillity ? But was not a repeal of the Union indis pensable for Jreland when a measure of this description was brought in without any consultation with the Irish members ? They called for a reduction, an abolition of tithes, and this bill was handed to them. But could they forget the different scheme brought forward for the settlement of this question, and the manner in which those schemes had from time to time been varied and altered ? The position which the right hon. gentleman had, however, taken was one of hostility to the people of Ireland. It was, however, his (Mr. O'Connell's) deep conviction of the danger to the state ; it was his deep conviction of the danger to the ra tional progress of the tithe system itself; (Cries of " Hear, hear, hear"); it was his deep conviction that the government were playing the game of their enemies by thus abandoning the advice of their friends ; it was his deep conviction that this measure would only aggravate the evils of Ireland, where prosecutions had been iniltiplied, where the Attorney-General had been kept twice as busy as ever a law officer of the crown had been kept under any Tory administration, and where more human blood had been shed chiming the last three years than at any former period ; it was, he repeated, his deeiconviction that this bill, if adopted, would only add to,those scenes of blood to which he alluded that induced him to entreat them, to pause on the threshold, and not commit them selYes by passing a measure which had not been duly considered, and which was fraught with such fearful consequences to the peo ple of Ireland, who, instead of being governed in this way, should be treated with something like benevolence and kindness. (Hear, hear.) It was his fixed determination to oppose this bill in all and every of its stages. He now begged leave move• that the bill be committed this day six months. Mr. T. ATT\VOOD seconded the amendment. • The question having been put, Lord CLEMENTS said the hon. and learned member for Dub lin told them that more blood had been spilled within the last three years in Ireland than during any former period. (" Hear," from Mr. O'Connell.) But could that be the fact ? For his part, he must beg leave to say, that he doubted it very much ; that he thought the hon. and learned gentleman had coloured his picture rather too highly when he represented more blood to have been spilled in Ireland of late years than in former times. (Hear, hear. ) But if it were so—if the hon. and learned gentleman were correct in what he asserted, what inference is to be drawn from it but that it told against the hon. and learned gentleman himself, and refuted the arguments which he himself had used ? (Hear, hear.) He (Lord Clements) was convinced that no one who knew the state of Ireland would say that the bloodshed had been so great since the passing of the Coercion Bill as it was even during the year preced ing ; and that being the case, he thought he had a right to deny the allegation whith the hon. and learned gentleman had advanced. But although he could not agree with the hon. and learned gentle man on this point, he did upon some others. He did not think that the measure would pacify Ireland, or restore tranquillity to that country ; neither did he believe that it would satisfy the Irish people. (Hear, hear.) He must, however, confess, that he did not clearly understand the proposition, although he supposed the object of it was to hold out a promise to settle the tithe question ; but, he must say, he doubted very much whether it could have any such effect. He wished that the Government would be allowed to go into committee on the new clauses, in order that they might be brought more fully under the consideration of the house. Mr. O'CONNELL explained. Mr. LITTLETON said that the hon. and learned gentleman had suffered his temper to overrule his reason, and therefore he (Mr. Littleton) could not regard the arguments which he used as the result of his sober and dispassionate judgment. The scheme of the hon. and learned gentleman was similar to that brought for ward by the hon. gentleman the member for Limerick : and he (Mr. Littleton) should adopt his advice, so far as that advice met his approbation. The hon. and learned gentleman complained that the clauses now submitted had not been printed before they were brought forward. But whose fault was that? It was not his (Mr. Littleton's) fault, because he, more than a fortnight ago, desired to go into committee pro forma, in order that those clauses might be printed ; but the hon. and learned gentleman the member for the University of Dublin objected to his taking . that course, saying if he did so he would at once raise the discussion on the principle of the measure. The same hon. and learned gentleman had placed a motion on the paper on the subject, and, seeing delay inevitable, he (Mr. L. ) deemed it more prudent that the measure should go through a committee at once than that he should run any risk by sub mitting the new clauses pro forma. No one could suppose that it was not, the desire of the government to submit every clause and proviso of the measure to the house ; and if the clauses alluded to had not been printed he could only say that the delay was attributable to the circumstances he had stated, and not to him. He was not to blame; and if he had his wish he could assure the house those clauses should have been printed a fortnight ago. Another com plaint of the hon. and learned member for Dublin was that the go vernment had not consulted the Irish members upon this measure ; but here the hon. and learned gentleman was again mistaken. He (Mr. Littleton) had, in point of fact, consulted every Irish mem ber in whom he could confide, and he might add, that of late his whole time had been occupied, almost to the exclusion of other bu siness, with interviews and correspondence upon the subject. His noble friend (Lord Althorp), whose doors were always open, had received two or three deputations respecting this bill ; and not only were its several clauses gone through and discussed with the utmost care, but no one appeal was made that was not received with can dour, attention, and respect. The same regard had been paid to every communication that had been received upon the subject ; and he would venture to assert, without the fear of contra diction, that no measure had ever been brought forward by his Majesty's Ministers on which the representations of others were more attended to than in the present instance. (Hear. ) He would altogether omit to notice the splenetic observations which the honourable and learned gentleman had made with respect to the Government. They were, in fact, not deserving of notice. (Hear.) The hon. and learned gentleman, however, had given them the credit that was due to them for doing away with ten bishoprics, for the abolition of vestry cess, and he also gave them credit for the money they granted last year for the payment of the owners of tithes, as well as for adopting his own suggestion of including lay impropriators, as well as ecclesiastical persons in the distribution of that grant ; and yet he said the Government did no thing for Ireland. But were these no boons, and did this not show that the Government were anxious to promote the interests of that country ? The Government had done all in their power to settle this question, and if the fortunes of Ireland had not been rendered desperate they would not have resorted to this course if they con ceived there was any other means by which peace and tranquillity could be restored. The hon. and learned gentleman also com plained that this measure would not be any benefit to the occupy ing tenantry of Ireland ; but surely when he said this he must have forgotten that in the collection of the land tax no less than 15 per cent. was to be remitted to them, provided any paid up voluntarily all the arrears within a given time. Was this then no boon? — (Hear, hear ; and No, no.") Mr. SHAW 'did not understand the right hon. gentleman very clearly on this point, and hoped that he would be at the trouble of giving some further explanation of the matter. • Mr. LITTLETON stated when the subject was first brought forward that those parties who paid up their arrears voluntarily within a given period would be entitled from the Government to a remission or allowance of 15 per cent. ; and that being the case, he would ask whether this was no relief to the occupying tenantry of Ireland? He had said that those who paid up their arrears be fore the expiration of the five years would be entitled to a deduc tion of from 15 to 20 per cent. ; and he thought the house must admit that it would be impossibe to carry concession farther than this without injuring the incomes of those who had already suffered so grievously from the baneful system of agitation which had been got up in that distracted country—an agitation that was as discre ditable to those in whom it originated as it was prejudicial to the security of property. (Hear, hear.) The hon. and learned mem ber for Dublin confined himself so little to the statement which he (Mr. Littleton) had made, that it was unnecessary for him further to comment upon his speech ; but if the house would go into committee he would undertake to vindicate not only the policy of the measure which he proposed, but the principle upon which every one of the details of that measure was founded. (Hear. ) Mr. STANLEY should have thought it a matter of utter im possibility that any plan relating to the 'Church of Ireland could have been brought forward which he and the hon. and learned member for Dublin would be induced to look at in the same way. After the declarations made by his noble friend (Lord Althorp) he (Mr. S.) entertained doubts as to what the intentions of his Ma jesty's government were, and if they resisted the present motion for postponing the consideration of the Bill in Committee until the house had an opportunity of finding the new principle on which it was founded out, he certainly should feel it his duty to vote against the government, and with the hon: and learned member for Dub lin. (Hear, hear.) He stated the doubt which he felt because he knew the responsibility which he was likely to incur by the vote which he meant to give—what the house in common with him would incur if' they were to persevere with this measure in the present critical state of tithe property, and when his Majesty's go vernment might be obliged to take upon them the responsibility of vindicating the laws as the only means of preserving the general property in Ireland. (Hear, hear.) His right hon. friend stated, however, in answer to this, that it was not his fault that the clauses had not been printed. He said he had been ready to go into a committee pro forma; but, if that were so, why now object to the certainly very reasonable proposition of the hon. and learned member for Dublin? It would appear that it was intended to grant 'certain bonuses out of the Consolidated Fund to the landlords, and what he complained of was that the house knew nothing of this new plan. The bill which his right- hon. friend had now proposed w as entirely different from that which as far as the clauses from A to 0 were concerned had been introduced. So different indeed had the alterations that had been made in it rendered it that those who voted for the first bill could not support the present . me asure. But his right. hon. friend and himself took oppo site views on this. subject. He wished, however, that they s hould come at once to the real question at issue between them. His tight hon. friend proposed one course and he another. The course that he proposed was that they should vindicate the law, and not give way to the clamour raised by interested parties. (Hear.) The state of Ireland was such last year, and the difficulties that in terposed in the collection of tithes in that country were so great, that he had himself found it necessary to come down to that house to ask them, for a grant of a million of money to put an end to the distress and distraction that prevailed among the owners of tithes until the subject could be brought before Parliament. But what were the leading principles of the bill which was subsequently brought in? It was found that no mode would be satisfactory un less it put an end to tithes, not by extinction, but by reduction. Reduction was, therefore,' the main and principal object which that bill had in view, and to that end did all its machinery tend. In deed that was the principle which alone justified the strong measures which were adopted in it with regard to property. For the pur pose of encouraging the reduction of the annual payment of tithe by its conversion into land and by other meansthe government un dertook to secure this species of property, and this declaration they made over and over again. It was therefore, he contended, the duty of the government, whatever other speculations they indulged in, to secure in the first instance the payment of those sums which persons were entitled to receive ; and that principle was not only laid down, but considered so important, that those who supported the clause stated at the time that they consented to the land tax being collected by the state on the ground that the payments would be made out of the consolidated fund by the government, and that the country would take the whole risk of the matter - itself. (Hear.) The tithe was, however, to be col `n '-e same person, though under a n ew name, and the ob lected of 1, ' to prevent those colli s i ons w hi c h had previously ject of this wa., miserable cottiers and the clergy. By the t a ken place between hon. gentleman opposite (Mr.. Goul act introduced by the rip.- 1 1 was established, the tenant be burn) in_lB24, this same prinetp.-. the composition from the ing empowered to . deduet the.amoun t 0.. . , aenticak" prineiple was refit, and in his (Mr. Stanley's) act this carr ied still further. There was a & eat advantl64) in having the * `rent unmixed wi t h tithe or other ineurnbrance, so 4 the land could be let from' the, landlord to the tenant at its fair valuation ; and feeling this, he had Stildleuslv avoided disturbing any bargain of that nature which had existed. But whitt did :.his bill do ? At the end of five years the tithe would - be converted into a rent charge, to be paid, not by the occupying tenant, but by the land lord ; and this, he contended, was a strong interference with the tights of property. • It was an introduction of a subordinate princi ple of extortion which he must call upon the Irish landlords not to accede to. (Hear, hear.) The whole burden would be ultimately thrown upsin them, and they would have no power after the five years had elapsed of reducing that burden. In -this alteration of the bill there was a manifest departure, not only from what had been determined upon but from principle. Such a departure from principle could not be rectified in committee, for it would be ab surd to say that they could reject the principle, aml yet retain the clauses. The right hon. gentlelnan now, however, put forward a proposition with a view to reconcile the landlords of Ireland. To induce them to take upon themselves the payment of the rent charge before the expiration of the five years, he held out cer tain advantages to them ; he offered them a sort of premium, varying from 20 to 40 per cent. Undoubtedly this was a boon, for the landlord would have no reason to complain if h e were to receive such an abatement; but he (Mr. Stanley) could not help thinking that the people of England and the whole of Ireland would have grounds for complaint when they found that the deficiencies occasioned by this deduction must be made up by the one or the other of them. (Hear, hear.) This deficiency was, in the first instance, to come out of the Consolidated Fund; but he thought such a proposition would not be over satisfactory to the house. The hon. gentleman adverted to what occurred with respect to the 147th clause of the former Tithe Bill, and said that the doctrine now attempted to be established had already been repudiated as an unjust interference with church property. That property was not now,' it - would appear, to be, applied to the exigencies of the state, but to grant a boon of 40 per cent. to the landlords, and that was a principle which never would be sanctioned. He asked, upon grounds very different indeed from those of the hon. and learned member for Dublin, but he concurred with him in asking for decent time in which the house might see the bill, and if they should then determine to adopt it with the alterations and omissions proposed by his right hon. friend, let it at least be after due deliberation. He spoke with great doubt as to the course he should feel it his duty to take if the committee were pressed, and he trusted that his right hon. friend would not push him to a decision upon the clauses. He certainly felt the greatest difficulty in voting for the hon. and learned member's proposition to postpone the bill to that day six months, because that would be to negative the bill altogether. (Hear, hear.) But in voting against going into committee upon the bill now, he protested against that vote being taken as a vote against the bill which he held in his hand, or against the bill before the house as it might be after the clauses were considered and dealt with in commitee. Before the measure were rejected, as proposed by the hon. and learned member for Dublin, he called upon the houseto consider, and he called upon the Government to consider, that upon them must ultimately rest the responsibility of protecting by law the property of the country. Lord ALTHORP said that his right hon. friend had'argued not so much in favour of the proposition for rejecting the bill, as of the postponement of the committee until after the clauses should have been brought fairly under the consideration of the house. What he (Lord Althorp) said to that was, that as the part of the bill in whiCh the clauses were to be introduced was so very late in the bill as that there was no prospect of their getting to them to-night thff'would be printed, and in the hands of members long before th'elietuse would be called to make any decision upon them. He would go farther and say, that if the house wished to have the clauses printed before going into committee upon the bill at all there .was nothing unfair in that, and certainly nothing to which he felt himself at liberty to object. (Hear, hear, hear. ) His right hon. friend (Mr. Stanley) had freely stated — indeed he could expect nothing else from him but perfect fairness—what the original principle of this bill was, and with what objects it was adopted. He had truly said that its object was a complete commu tation of tithe for land, so that nothing in the shape of tithe should any longer exist. But his right hon. friend must recollect, that since that the principle of the rent charge had been admitted, and that, though the conversion of tithe would be complete, the rent charge would remain. But his right hon. friend said, by leaving out the redemption clauses, the rent charge would be made to press heavier upon the occupiers of land. He admitted this to a certain extent, and it was upon hearing such representations that his right hon. friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland had brought forward his new suggestions to mitigate the pressure. It was said that the measure as it now stood was a great boon to the landlord. Un doubtedly it was so, but not exclusively to the landlord would it operate as a boon. It was admitted when the'first bill was intro duced that tithes varied in value in different parts of the country, and that was the reason why the rent charge was to be variable. If eliargain was fairly made between the commissioners-of land reve 'dues and persons wishing to convert tithes into a rent charge, it aeould not operate as a boon to the landlord only, but also to the ,e'eeupier. He was satisfied that nothing they were now doing with tie measure would go to put unfairly into the pockets of the land lords what they would not now gain as the bill had stood. His right:hon. friend next came to the difference which would be cre ated by the substitution of the rent charge with regard to the pay ments to the clergy. He was sure those payments would not amount to any thing like what the hots. and learned member for Dublin had stated, and he thought they would not amount to the sum named by his right honourable friend, which was one hundred thousand pounds. (Hear, hear.) He thought it not at all likely to be any thing like that sum. His right hon. friend had said that they were now going back to the principles of the 147th clause. In so far as applying the perpetuity fund to this purpose, he admitted that they did so, but the clergy would derive benefit from it. According to the bill of last year, the fund was to be applied to State purposes ; here it was applied to increase the security of church property, because if it induced the landlords to take the charge upon them that would greatly strengthen the secu rity upon which the clergy held their claims. In a country situated BS Ireland was, if by any such mode of employing the fund they could connect the landlords more with their estates, they should be taking the best means of effecting the peace of the country; and, if so, he was sure they could not devise a better mode of applying it. He was sure his right hon. friend could not mean, by any vote he might give on the present motion to vote for the actual rejection of the bill. He had said, and said truly, that it was the duty of the Go vernment to protect property ; but if the house deprived them of the means, by refusing to entertain the propositions they had to make, it would be hard indeed to expect them to do it, If the bill were now ordered to be printed in the form it was ultimately intended to stand, and if they went into committee with the under standing thai they did so for that purpose, with a view to taking the business another time, he should not object to that course ; but if they were now to take the question of postponement as deciding upon the principle of the bill, then there was no other course for the house that he saw but going through with the measure. Mr. M. O'FERRALL was not surprised at the opposition of the right hon. gentleman the late Secretary for the Colonies to this Bill, but he certainly.was surprised at the opposition of the hon. and learned member for Dublin. The state of this question in Ireland was such that he did not feel justified in refusing to go into Committee, and endeavour .to make the measure such as might be passed with advantage. If such alterations were not made in the bill in Committee as he thought necessary, then he should vote for its rejection. Mr. O'CONNELL said that the only difficulty or difference ap peared to arise from gentlemen opposite not understanding each other. (Hear, hear.) If they had proposed going into Committee only for the purpose of putting the whole bill before the house he should have made no objection. All he desired was that their pro ceedings in Committee should be restricted to the introduction of the new matter. ' Mr. LITTLETON had.no objection to going into committee on the bill pro forma, and ordering the printing of the whole bill as it would then stand. SHAWobserved that the proposition of the hon. and leareed member for Dublin was quite reasonable and fair, but the very reverse was the character of that made by the right hon. gentleman the Irish Chief -Secretary, namely, that the house should go into committee, and agree to the printing of the bill with the clauses of redemption and appropriation left out. Was it fair, he would ask, in the right hon., gentlenian to call upon those gentlemen to consent to such a course- who were induced to vote for the second reading of the bill only because those clauses were in it? (Hear, hear.) The difficulty in which the house found itself all arose from this, that the government did not know their own minds, or rather one member of it did not know the mind of the other upon the question. He contended that the bill would be no longer the same with the omissions now proposed, as the clergy would no longer derive the advantages from it which induced many members to consent to it. As it stood before it relieved them entirely from the collection of any annual charge in any shape for at least five years. Now that they had given up that, the measure stood upon as totally different principle. The house knew very well what had been the cause of these alterations. It was the question upon which those great divisions and changes had recently occurred which had occupied so much of the attention of the country. It was too much to say that that change which had, led to such serious consequences elsewhere should be introduced, and ob tain the sanction of that House by a proceeding pro forma. Surely the right hon. gentleman would not be so uncandid as to press any proposition which must have that effect. He agreed with the noble lord that goirernment had incurred great responsibility by taking up this question, but they must not now expect to shift it upon the house or upon any other parties. He was convinced that before the unfortunate declaration of the noble lord tithe could have been collected without difficulty. The hon. and learned mem ber then described 'the manner in which the government had evaded the question from year to year, and called upon the house not to suffer them now by a new shift to postpone it for another. Mr. LITTLETON certainly did not wish by any proceeding taken merely pro forma to take any advantage Of the house, or to pledge it in any way. At the same time it was his wish that the house should know as such as possible exactly what the measure Was as it stood, and he thought he could suggest a course which would accomplish both objects. He would pledge himself to have the whole measure printed and in the hands of members by Friday, upon the understanding that they should then go into committee. After a few words from Mr. O'Callaghan and Mr. M. O'Fer rell, Mt. O'Conriell's motion was withdrawn. Various orders of the day were postponed, and some measures advanced severally a stage without discussion amidst confusion, which prevented our hearing the titles of the bills. ROADS ACT (IRELAND) AMENDMENT BILL. Mr. LITTLETONs moved the committal of the Roads Act (Ireland) Amendment Bill. Mr. O'CONNELL objected to the bill as vexatious, and calcu lated to lead to collision between the peasantry and the police. Mr. LITTLETON said that great inconvenience and disturb ance was created by the negligence - with which cars and stray cattle were left about in the 'roads, and that the object of the bill was to produce order and regularity on the roads. Colonel PERCIVAL approved of the bill as calculated to do much good. Mr. O'REILLY thought that the house had other and more important matters requiring their attention with regard to Ireland than exposing the peasantry to vexatious informations against their stray pigs. Such petty legislation was only calculated to bring the government into odium with the people. The house divided, when there appeared — For the motion 25 Against it • Majority —47 Upon the re-admission of strangers the house were in committee on the bill, and Mr. O'CONNELL-moved the omission of the clause relating to cows and pigs. Mr. LITTLETON' did not wish to press the clause if their was a strong feeling against it. Colonel PERCIVAL said that for the security o f the lives of his Majesty's subjects the pub lic carts should be numbered and have names of the owners painted on them. He knew more than fifty carts, without guide or owner, left on the high roads ; the fellows who should guide them were drunk, and any gentleman passing by in a gig or carriage would be in imminent danger from the negli gence of those persons. Lord ALTHORP said a few words which were inaudible. Mr. O'CONNELL thought it monstrous that the owners of carts, if they had not their names painted on their carts, should be liable to be dragged by a common policeman or informer before a magistrate, and subjected to a penalty. Clauses 2 and 3 were then agreed to. On clause 4 being put, Mr. LITTLETON said that in Ireland according to the exist ing law cattle found straying on the high roads were to be bp pounded. When the police in discharge of their bounden duty in; terfered to remove the cattle to the pound the people resisted, al": constant scenes of bloodshed were the consequence. The Lora Lieutenant seeing this issued an order that the police should no more interfere. It was then proposed to put an end to the pool ing of cattle, and in lieu of the pre s e n t penalty to inflict a sil l fine (as we understood). If the fine were large the object W O be defeated, as,the people would resist. The hon. member th_ell proposed the omission of certain words in th e c lause to meet tne above object. Mr. O'REILLY did not like this legislation that operateckel elusively against the poor Mr. LITTLETON said, as the cattle should of necessity be, pounded at present,' there was no other way of getting over tb P ' evil than by adopting the present bill. After a few words from Mr. O'Dwyer, Ari.. Roche, O'Reilly and Colonel Percival, which did not reach us, Mr.. O'CONNELL said, as a proof of the shifts the Pe?' cottiers were reduced to, that, within the last six months, 500 fate' lies were turned out to live or die by the ditches. The hon. mer e ! ber observed that the magistracy were the cause of much of the 6 ' lamities of the p6ople. - Sir R. BATESON said, as the hon. member for Dublin vo lunteered such sweeping accusations against the magistrates of Ire; land, he called on him and defied him to name the parties. Il e (Sir R. Bateson) would contradict him in the strongest terms the English language would admit. (Hear. ) Mr. O'CONNEL - L stated what he heard. Mr. RUTHVEN said magistrates were in the habit of issuing blank summonses to be filled up by their underlings at the ir pleasure, and according to circumstances. The_house then divided, when there appeared— Ayes Noes Majority On our re-admission to the gallery Mr. O'REILLY was inveigh* ing against the magistracy of Ireland, who he said, used to levy fines for the sake of their favourites. (Strong marks of dissent.) Major MACNAMARA said that in his county (Clare) no stab practice existed, and he would t es tify f or th e huma n ity of the lanw lords of that county. Mr. O'REILLY said that was the severe conduct of those enle" gised landlords that notoriously drove the peasantry of that county into the late insurrection. Major MACNAMARA calleri on the hon. member to name in; stances of such severity, for thus only could he justify his unfounded accusation. Colonel PERCIVAL called on the hon. member to mention in" stances of malpractices of the magistracy, and would also call on the member for Dublin to state the place where the tenants we re turned out. The several clauses, as amended, were agreed to ; and the lint!! resumed, and the report was ordered to be received to-morrow (ta i " day.) COMMON FIELDS EXCHANGE BILL. , The house then resolved itself into a committee on this bill, the several clauses of which were agreed to, and the report ordered to be received to-morrow (this day). LONDON PORT DUES BILL. This bill was then committed, the several clauses agreed to, and the report ordered for to-morrow (this day). CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT BILL. The house resolved into committee on this bill. Mr. H. HUGHES moved the insertion of a clause to provide that " all and singular the enactment s and powers (by 4 Ueorg e IV., c. 48) for enabling courts to abstain from pronouncing se% tence of death in certain capital felonies shall be deemed to exten and shall extend, to the proposed court." After a few words from the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, *vi e/ did not object to the clause, it was agreed to, and added to the bin. The several clauses of the bill were then agreed to, and the house_ resumed, when the report was ordered to be received to-morrow (this day), POOR LAWS' AMENDMENT BILL. "t h e order rase to move, according to notice, that " n 1 order of the day for the third reading of the Poor Laws' Amendult i Bill have precedence o f N o tices on Tuesday" (this day). If he f thought that the busi n e ss of th e h ouse w o u ld have been - disposed,: a so early this evening, he should probably have proposed the ti n reading to have taken place that night, as he really did think that It would not be right to postpone a measure of such importance te r " ther than was absolutely necessary. He believed that this applieti tion was not an unusual one in parliamentary practice, and he boP7 A therefore that hon. members who had notices for to-morrow wen' give way on the present occasion. Mr. ATTWOOD oppbsed the motion: Mr. POTTER complained of the speed with which the proleat measure was urged forward. Mr. GROTE hoped the noble lord would persist in his motto",' Mr. HODGES gave notice that if the noble lord - did persist n' his motion he should to-morrow evening, on the order of the del f for the third reading of the bill being read, move by way o f amendment that the bill be read a third time that day six months' —( Hear. ) After a short conversation, in which Mr. Attwood, Hughes, Mr. Aglionby, and Mr. Bennet.joined, the motion - vre s agreed to. - IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT BILL. In answer to a question by anJ-low. MEMBER, • The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he should certainly rilo" the second reading of this bill to-morrow (this day). GENERAL TORRIJOS. Lord PALMERSTON was not aware whether the hon. men' ber for Drogheda was in the hous or not, but he wished to info him, in answer to a question which he put to him a few nights se that on looking over some papers at the Foreign-ogee he found w" letter written by General Moreno to General Torrijos to which th 6 hon. member for Drogheda hail referred. He was not aware 6t the time the question was asked him that such a letter was in en istence, but, having found it, he had now to state that a copy it should be laid upon the table of the house with the other &Mr ments which had been moved for. (Hear. ) The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the hone adjourned at half-past ten o'clock. FASHIONS FOR JULY. LADIES'. (From the Lady's Magazine and Museum.) - • Ton.errn DE ROMEN ADE.—Dress made en redingotte of organd s ' embroidered down each si.:e of the front en tablier, and round the "t -tom of the skirt above the hem ; sleeves a l'imbecile ;the peleriti4 round at back, and reaching to the waist in front, with a large squi re , collar, is trimmed 'with lace, and embroidered to m a t c h th e d ro ss. 1-1 ' of paille d'ltalie (Leghorn), ornamented with sarsnet rilands and fea thers. Parasol of poux de soie, white silk gloves, open work stockings' and shoes of satin loyal. GRAND FESTIvAL DRESS —Coiffure, ornamented with a dianew , of t blue and gold flowers, surmounting the bow of hair, and coming down : S ea-h side of the head, as far as the ear. Barbes or lappets of P °ll3t d'Alencon are fastened at each side under the bow, and fall gracefwg. over the. neck and shoulders. Robe of point d'Alencon, exquisitely en i : broidered a colonnes, with a deep flounce ; corsage drape, .sleeve s _Z l'imbecile, and mantille, deep on the shoulders, and narrow at the c 7,, tre of the front and back. This - magnificent dress is n over anotb`" of blue moire ; bows of blue gauze riband, retaining gold spriggr re placed at distances at the top of the flounce ; ceintu re ant i bracelets 0t blue riband ; blue and gold bouquet, white gloves, embroidered S i ' . stockings, blue satin shoes, gold necklace, ear-rings, and brooch. (From the World of Fashion.) CONCERT DRESSES —A Persian foulard, white ground, with crims on and green, arabesque design. Pale rose-colour skirt worn. under' and displayed en tablier. Sevigne cape pointed on the shoulderstl in g fastened on the bosom with a ruby brooch. Coiffure, en , cheveo . .. - I'antique, plume of white feathers and gold bandeau. A dress of . PO% rose percale silk, covered with a lace pattern a Pantique. Mantilla e'" suite with square ends, fastened by primrose bows of glace riban ci ; bland cap, with a wreath of yellow roses across the foreh ea d an d a igrett e of jewels on one side. MORNING DRESSES.—The absolute fashion of tight corsages has r e ; laxed this month, and the most stylish morning will have plaits evantail from the shoulders, or bias folds, &tea exactly to the -01 13 P 6 , The deep epaulettes are essential to the increasing size of long slee e ° , preventing a heavy or disproportioned effect, by uniting, as it Vi er , the different parts of the dress. Tile Scotch silks look • best, made 0; round dresses, with worked muslin pelerines and collars. A bu lel straw hat trimmed very simply, and tied on one side, is the most propriate head.dress. _ With richer silks, and of more liVely pattern:: capotes of rice straw, lined with a delicate fluted :crape, on sarcen e are usually worn. Vandyked cuffs, we are glad to observe, are ag e t : neral fashion-; they should be trimmed with ,a ru c h e o f r iband, lace edging. SHAWLS AND SCARFS.— A new manufacture for summer shawls has brought into vogue some very beautiful patterns The texture apPe_...v • mixed silk and wool; it is light, pliant, and warm. N o thi ng Is .finpr propriate as the square satin shawl with embroidered border andcelnre; The stamped ones are cheaper, but by no means ao recherche. 111 , 4 summer scarf, which used to be so universal a t this se ason , 'now n n ". share favour with the broad pompadour r.bands, u s ed f o r 'the purpose. These last have a very pretty effect when gracefully justed. They may either match the dress or form a pleasing o _ °°' treat of tint; but with the waist-belt they should always assiali!Va ,‘,. Very rich scarfs for evening parties are composed of tulle, embroider .— in gold or silver. MORNING NEGLIGES.—A, spirit of emulation has indu ce d a n atteln e r to give the new lapis tint to muslins as well as silks. Success is h 0 ever, rare, and the possession of a lapis colour peignoir is theref ° '., considered vety enviable. The Scotch cambrics and gingharas, an white bastite are universal, these are trimmed with 4 band of the sam e ' three inches wide; the capes of the paerine en suite, and the tiPri: collar richly worked. 'Tis useless to attempt a description of the st) and pattern of coloured stamp muslins. PREVAILING COLOURS FOR THE MoNTO.—A pale s rose colour, se green, primrose, lapis, and pearl lilac. Blue is very much worn P " linings and trimmings. On Friday morning the superintendent of the 1 4 ,1 1 .; mane Society discovered in the Serpentine, Hyde Park, body of a stout young man, about thirty, with I arge whiskers extending under the chin, who was unfortunat e drowned while bathing on Sunday morning in the river. body was removed in a shell to Knightsbridge watchhouse. BIRTHS. On the 28th ult., the lady of Philip C. Moore, Esq., of Doctor" Commons, of a daughter. The infant died on the Monday followili On the 28th ult., at Spondon, the lady of J. 13. Story, Esq' a son and heir. On the 28th ult Lady Katherine Jermyn, of a son and hey>, MARRIAGES. On the 17th ult., at St. Peter's Port, Major T. R. Ljub p; Madras Army, to Ellenor, third daughter of Staff-Surgeon Paddol'„/ On the 26th ult., at Sidmouth, Philip Castel Sherard, Esql . ; • Glatton, Huntingdonshire , to Ann , youngest daughter of th e Nathaniel Weekes, Esq. On the 28th ult., at St. Martins Outwich, James Mortit e : Esq., of Wyke-house, Dorset, to Ann Morris, daughter of Morris, Esq., of Aberdeen. DEATH& . On the 25th ult., at Lodge Park, Kilkenny, P. A. Wa rrell' 1 Esq., aged 23. 119 11 i On the 22d ult., the lady of the Rev. Richard Baker, Br i t; Chaplain at Hamburg.. On the 25th ult., at Leamington, Amelia, daughter of Sir • rin,gton Edmund Carrington, of Chalfont St. Giles, Bucks, ag eu • s ly On the 30th ult., in Oxford-street, corner of Old Casella' street, Mr. Edward Churton, in his 75th year. DO ° On the Bth of F e b ruar y, a t Old T own , C u dd a lore, East Eliza, the wife of Captain C. Turner, of the Madras army. et° On the 20th ult., at Bishop's Castle, Captain James aov . Drew, R.N., only son of the late Samuel Drew, Esq. e lict On the 26th ult., at High Leek, Lancashire, Mrs. Weleht.l i of the late George Welch, Esq., of the same place. A AOI 1 On the 26th inst. ' at Hampstead, Mrs. Elizabeth Scott , of the late Thomas Scott, Esq., in her 76th year. ~ 1 London : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG' at The Sum Office, No. 112, Strand. I Do li ef IN' th e *tre e wi le , sold, Quist Just SOI ffied. mrne total' esta4 eta is .4 0 d ebit hi re 4 have Sir e tlieaC affectii r esult t eeeiv i until I aa Ys tr as u . ei , Vhat THE SUN, Ifw""A L",,,tv, TUT ItitY 1, 1834. (