The Sun. — London, England, 1830-06-11 00:00:00

~. . IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. ,rl. HOUSE OF LORDS-:(LAST NIGHT.) The Slave Bounty Bill, the Forgery Laws' Amendment Bill, the Malt Duly (Scotland) Bill, and several Private Bills, were brought up by Met sengers from the Commons. • The Duke of NORFOLK presented a petition from Galway in farour of the Galway Franchise CORN RETURNS. On the motion of the Earl of MALMESBURY, Mane additional returns were ordered regarding the torn imported during last year. 0 . • The Marquis of ORMOND presented a petition from the hankers of Kilkenny, against the punish ment of death for forgery. I 4 ord LORTON presented a similar petition from the Directors of the Provincial' Bank of Ireland. Lord RADNOR presented a petition for the re peal of the corn laws and for reform in Parliament, from Bolton. ALTERATION OF DUTIES IN IRELAND. The Marquis of DOWNSHIRE presented a petition front the freeholders of Downshire, against the alteration of the duty on spirits and stamps. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY referred to the great ferment the proposed change of duties had excited in Ireland, and called upon the Noble Duke at the head of the Government to pause and reflect before he sanctioned such a course. The Marquis of DOWNSHIRE was not willing at present to express any decided opinion upon the subject. _ • The Marquis of LONDONDERRY added, that the strongest instructions had been sent to the Re presentatives for Downshire to oppose the Bill. ' Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented,several peti tions from the Weit Riding of Yorkshire, against slayery, and against the punishment of death for forgeq: Lord HOLLAND presented a petition from the merchant seamen of Poole, against any deduction for Greenwich Hospital. His LORDSHIP also presented a petition from Old ham, against the employment of children in cotton factories. Likewise petitions from Layton Buzzard, against the punishment of death for forgery ; and from Liverpool against the East India monopoly. FEES ON THE DEMISE OF THE CROWN. The Euvl of•DARNLEY should feel it his duty on Monday next to move for the Committee on the Bill in question, in - the hope that by that day the Noble Duke (Wellington) and the Noble Lord on the Woolsack would be prepared with their• amend ments. BOGS IN IRELAND. The Duke of WELLINGTON (on the question that the ,Bill for draining bogs in Ireland be com mitted) considered many of the details objectionable, especially the powers given to the Commissioners. He hoped, that the Noble Marquis who promoted the 'measure would consent to defer the Committee until Monday. The Marquis of DOWN SHIRE consented, and the Comniittee was postponed accordingly. The House then resumed the examination of wit nesses on the East Retford Bill.—Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS—(LAST NIGHT.) Mr, HOME DRUMMOND moved the re-com mittal of the Clyde Navigation Bill. Mr. C. W. W. WYNNE thought it would not be fair, after a Committee had found that the allegations were not proved, to proceed to the re-commitment `of.the Bill: • Colonel. WILSON thought the matter ought to be postponed. Sir JAMES GRAHAM observed, that there could be no doubt great public advantage would arise from - the Bill. • The present case Would form a pre cedint, and-therefore ought to be gravely considered he was of opinion that it should not be aent , back thi original Committee. After • a - few words frOm Mr. O'Connell, Mr. llttisda, Mr. Littleton, Mr. Sykes, Sir R. Inglis, .Mr:-Kennedy, and Mr. C. W. W. Wynne, . Sir• T. D. !ACLAND wished to learn from the Chair the practice-.of the House—if they should in ! the ulterior proceedings on a Bill discover that the •!Cominitteee had found the preamble proved on in - sufficient evidence, or -contrary to evidence, whether the House was in the habit of rejecting the Bill altogether, 'or of - re-committing it ? The SPEAKER—The House was aware that this was the Silt time such a question had arisen final the appointment of the present Standing .Order. The ordinary course of the House, he ap prehended, Was'at once to dispose of the Bill ; and, therefore, • the question was, whether they would adopt the opinions of the Appeal Committee or not ? If they did not adopt that opinion, then there was na ground for a 3T-committal ; if they disapproved of that . opinion (never having given out of theii hands the right of finally deciding), they would, = after a full consideration and inquiry, make a nul lity of the report of the Committee, and re-commit the Bill . . But a suggestion had been thrown out, that if they re-committed the Bill, it ought to be a new Cotumittee For that . there certainly was no precedent, and though the HoUse had frequently de cided for a re-commitment, it had always re-com mitted to the same Committee —(Hear.) Mr. H. DRUMMOND replied. After a few words from Sir G. CLERK, the gallery was cleared for• a division, but during our ab sence, we understood the motion was withdrawn. MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS. A Message from the Lords Wormed the House that their Lordships had agreed to several Bills. Mr. WARD brought up the Sixth Report of the East Imlia Company Committee.—To be printed. Mr. PRITTIE presented a petition from the county of Tipperary, against the proposed taxes on spirits, stamps, and tobacco. Mr. HtTCHINSON presented a petition from the - Graduates of the College of Surgeons, against the tax on diplomas. Colonel BARNARD presented a petition from the King's and Queen's counties, in Ireland, against further taxation in Ireland. Mr. 'SADLER presented a petition from Mac clet•field, against the Welsh Judicature Bill. Mr. S.%DLERpresented a petition from Newark, against the use of climbing boys. Mr. KING presented a petition from Whitchurch, praying for a repeal. of the Vestry Acts. Mr. RICE presented a petition from some place in the county of Limerick, against the increase of taxation in Ireland. Also a petition from the local directors of the Provincial Bank of Ireland, at Waterford, against the punishment of forgery by death. • Mr. CAREW presented a petition from some ap rishea in Wexford, praying for the abolition of tithes. Mr. MACAULAY presented a petition against Negro Slavery, from Southampton. Mr. CURTEIS presented a petition front Heathby, in Sussex, complaining of . distress. Mr. Alderman WAITHINIAN presented a peti tion from Joseph Kindel!, complaining that the laws afforded no protection against hydrophobia. Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition from a parish in the county of Waterford, complaining of distress.. Also a petition from some place in Clare to the same effect. Also a petition from a place in Cork, nomplaining'of the mode of levying church duekon Catholics. Also a petition from St. Patrick, county Doivu, against the Vestry Act. SOUTH CAROLINA. Mr. O'CONNELL wished to know whether any steps had•been taken respecting the detention of free-born British subjects of colour at South Caro lina under quarantine P• Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that one of the enact ments of South Carolina required all ships with men of colour on board to perform quarantine. Our treaty with America was certainly reciprocal, but it was provided that the Slave Laws of the United States should be made complete, and he therefore rapplehenatii that we could nut claim any altera:inn iu that law. 1 hvweyer, it wet: poseihle, he had no doubt that country would see the propriety of some modification. VV Mr. J. WILLIAMS presented - a petition from the solicitors of the metropolis, stating that they were well satisfied with the registrars, &c. and the way in which they were appOinted. After a few words from the Solicitor-General, Sir IL Peel, Sir ebarles Wetherell, and Mr. M. A. Taylor, the petition was breught.up. Lord JOHN RUSSELL presented a petition from Mr. Wood, stating that he had discovered a method for preventing the loss of lives in coal mines, nd praying that the matter might be inquired into by the House. AFFAIRS OV PORTUGAL. Lord JOHN RUSSELL would take that oppor tunity, seeing the Right Hon. Bar het in his place, to inquire if the GovernMent had received any in formation of a Regency having been established in the name of Donna Maria, .Queen of 'Portugal, in the island of Terceira ? He would also ask if the negociat ions which had been stated to be in progress for the settlement of the affairs of Portugal were brought to a dose? Sir ROBERT PEEL replied, in answer to the first question, that the existence of the Regency had been notified to his Majesty's Government. In answer to the second question, the negociation re specting the Crown of Portugal—or rather he ought not to call it a negotiation, but a communication—a communication had been made to the Emperor of Brazils relativt to the state of affairs in Portugal, and to that communication no answer had yet been received. An answer might be expected at an early period, but none had yet been received. Lord JOHN RUSSELL hoped that when the answer was received, that, as well as the communi cation made to the Emperor of Brazils, With the letter Co the Marquis Barbacena, would be laid be fore Parliament. Lord PALMERSTON having understood the Right Hon. Baronet to say that the existence of a Regency, in the name of Donna Maria, had been notified to our Government, he wished to ask, as our Government had recognized Donna Maria as Queen of Portugal, what relations, if any, had been established between the Government of this country and that Regency ? Sir ROBERT PEEL answered, no relations ‘I ere established. No formal recognition had been made of the existing Regency. Mr. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from Mr. Barrington, complaining that he had been de prived of the arrears of his pension by the Commis sioners of Chelsea Hospital. . . Mr. CALCRAFT was convinced that the case of the petitioner had already been considered by the Commissioners, and had received all the relief which the rules of the service could allow. CONSULS. Sir JAMES GRAHAM wished to inquire of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, as he intended to move an- amendment on the next vote on the Miscellaneous Estimates relative to the Consuls, when he meant to proceed further with the Supply? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied, that it was his intention to move that the House go into a Committee of Supply the first thing to-morrow evening—he should say five or six o'clock—when the Hon. Member would have an opportunity of bringing forward his amendment, as the Bill he mentioned stood first on the list. STAMP DUTY. Lord JOHN RUSSELL wished to inquire, *heftier the Stamp Duties were not to come under discussion to-morrow ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied, he was afraid it would be ont of his power to bring the subject on to-morrow. AFFAIRS OF GREECE. Mr. HUSKISSON rose to ask his Right Hon. Friend (the Secretary of State), if there would be any objection to furnish some Supplementary Papers, which seemed neussary to the full elucidation of the question concerning Greece ? The first paper he proposed to move for was," A letter from the Reis Effendi, slated December 10th, 1829;" and the grounds on which he moved for this paper were these:—At the close of 1828, the Ambassadors of the Allied Powers were obliged to withdraw them selves from Constantinople, on account of the refusal of the Porte to accede to the stipulations of the Treaty of the 6th of July. In,consequence of their withdrawal, all diplomatic relations .ceased between the Porte and the Powers patties to that treaty. So anxious were the Turks to get the diplomatic rela tions renewed, that the Reis Effendi wrote to the Duke of Wellington, and sent the letter to England. The Duke of Wellington returned an answer, in strict conformity with the communication made by the AmbasSadors, and stated as the wounds of not renewing the diplomatic relations, that the Porte had not complied with the stipulations of the Treaty of July 6th. The Right Hon. Gentleman wished to show that the letter from the Reis Effendi had re ceived a different construction from his Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs from that put on it by the Plenipotentiaries; and this difference of construction was important in itself and led to im portant consequences. The Ambassadors had de clared that they would not go back to Constantinople till the stipulations of the Treaty of the tith of July were: complied with ; but instead of the Porte agreeing to grant an amnesty, it refused the mediation of the Allied Powers. The Ambas sadors had stated that to renew the diplomatic rela tions, the acceptance of the mediation of the Allied Powers, and the granting of the Amnesty, were in dispensible conditions. The letter of the Reis Effendi, after they left Constantinople, was interpreted by them to be a refusal to accede to these terms; and that letter, it was indispensible, in his opinion, should be laid on the table. Of all the, important transac tions relative to Greece, none was, perhaps, more important than the return of the Ambassadors to Constantinople. It was declared that no diplomatic relations should be renewed with the Porte untii it acceded to the conditious of the Treaty; but they were renewed, though the Ottoman Porte did not accede to those conditions, as was well known, till after the Russians had got to Constantinople. The Right Hon. Gentleman concluded by_ moving " An Address to the Crown, for the letter from the Reis Effendi, dated December 10, 1828; fora copy of a letter from the Ambassadors to the Minister of the Netherlands at Constantinople, dated December 25, of the same year ; a copy of what the Drago man communicated as the answer of the Reis Effendi, on receiving the information contained in that letter; and another communication from the Reis Effendi, sent in July, 1829." Sir ROBERT PEEL seconded the motion. He should lie ready to discuss all the merits of the case on a proper occasion, when due notice had been given. With respect to the production of papers, it was always the wish of his Majesty's Government to give every useful paper, which did not compro mise the interest of this country or of other countries. It would be recollected, that during the time when those negociations were going on, a contest ensued between Russia and the Porte; that was now at an end; and he should be unwilling to produce any paper which might tend to renew unpleasant feel ings,or exasperate the unpleasant feelings whit') yet existed. There was one paper which his Right Hon. Friend had moved for, which had been.referred to the Protocol, though not among the papers pre sented to Parliament, which he thought might,:if produced, be of some detriment to other countries. To the production of the other papers, moved for by his Right Hon. Friend, he had no objection. Lord JOHN RUSSELL wished to have any papers which might throw further light on the quis tion of fixing the boundaries of Greece. He hicd then in his possession a letter from General Churclh, giving it as his opinion, that the Greeks would never give up Acarnania without bloodshed. • Lord PALMERSTON requested to be informed by the Right Hon. Baronet what steps had been 'taken (if any) to reconcile the Ottoman Porte sod Russia ? *ig kriLL, in answer, gated, that what bad been done might be seen in the answer to the eis Effendi, by the Duke of Wellington. Lord PALMER STON wished to know whether Turkey might not have expected to receive military assistance from this country ? Sir R. PEEL said that Tuikey never had any reason to expect that we would give her military assistance, or undertake any offensive operation , ;vhatever in her defence. With respect to the papers moved for, there was one communication from the Reis Effendi which was of so extraordi nary a character, and which he had withdrawn him self, that he hoped it wool,' not be moved for. That paper was certainly hi existence, but as it was with drawn by the Reis Effendi. himself, and as its pro duction would produce exasperation, he hoped his Right Hon. Friend would not require its production. Mr. HUSKISSON wag itnderstood to say that he would hot. press for that paper, and the address for the other papers was then agreed to. REPEAL OF THE VESTRY ACTS (IRELAND). Mr. O'CONNELL rose for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of the several Statutes in force in Ireland, as enable Parish Vestries to assess Rates for the re-building and enlarging of Churches and Chapels ; and also for the repairing of the Chancel of Churches ; and also for providing things necessary for the celebration of Divine Service there. His motion was limited to repeal the Sta tutes ; and it did not apply to the Common Law, which he proposed to leave as it was. It would be advantageous, not merely to Catholics, but to all the Protestant population of Ireland, as the peti tions in favour of a repeal of the Vestry Acts from several Protestants showed.. In Ireland, the mass of the people being Catholics, were called on to pay rates to the Protestant Church ; and there was this anomaly between the two countries—in England the mass of the population being Protestants, were not obliged to build churches ; but in Ireland, where the great mass were Catholics, they were compelled to build churches for the Protestants. The object of his Bill would be therefore to place the people of Ireland on the same footing as the people of Eng 7 land with respect to the building and repairing of churches—that is, to place the people of Ireland under the protection of the common law with respect to that subject, in the same manner as the people of England now are protected. At the 'present me• merit no new church could be erected in England without the authority of an Act of Parliament ; and his object was to extend the benefit of that protec tion to Ireland. At one time, indeed, it was supposed that a right existed to assess parishes in England for the erection of new churches; but the question, about a century ago, was tried with respect to the parish of St. Anne, Soho, mad after a formal trial in the Court of King's Bench, it was decided that the attempt was illegal, and that no such power existed. So much for the law on the subject of the building of - new churches in England. Then with respect to the repairs of churches—originally the tithes were given by the Common Law to the Bishops and Clergy absolutely, under the condition that they were out of the produce to execute all the repairs which the churches and cathedrals might require— the sum to be set apart for that purpose being one fourth of their income. It was afterwards decided by Act of Parliament that the repairs of the churches were to be assessed on the Protestants and Catho lics equally,being inhabitants of the parish, and that the clergyman was not required to repair any portion of the church except the chancel, out of the produce of the tithes. He did not mean to say that the people of Ireland were not to keep the churches in repair, hut that they were, as in England, to have a vote in the regulation of that assessment; which was to be applied to the repairs, and that they should understand their nature and extent. Another por tion of the laws he wished altered was to be found in the 7th of George the Third, by which parishes in Ireland were subjected to the necessity of pro viding every thing considered necessary for the per formance of divine service, and the ornament of the Church, He thought the language of the Statute much too vaette and indefinite, and he, therefore, wished to repeal it, and to render the parishioners merely liable to be assessed for things necessary for the performance of Divine Service. Having thus stated the objects of his Bill, he could not avoid remarking how small a number of Members ; and particularly of Irish Members, who thought fit. to be present on the occasion. The subject was one of the most overwhelming interest to all those Mem bers who had constituents, but he - believed that since the Union upwards of four-fifths of the Mem bers had no constituents to represent. Why the law was altered, or why the law of England was not to be the law of Ireland, he had yet to understand. There was no justification for it in the conductof the people, for at the time of the Refor mation Ireland was studded with churches, all of them well attended by the people; and if the Pro testant priesthood had neglected their duties,alr hough in possession of kip andincreasing tithes,it was to them, and not to the Catholic people, that the deca dence in the attendance atpublic worship must be at tributed. It wus curious to observe the manner in which the change in the condition of the Catholics with respect to their power of eontrouling the exper di ture on churches had been brought about. By the 2d Geo. 1., Catholics and Protestants had an equal right to vote ,for the repairs and decorations of churches, and a majority of Catholics bud it in.their power to negative any propositions for- that purpose; by the 10th of George the First that power was considerably curtailed; and by tile 12(11, under the allegation that the Catholics had thrown impedi ments in the way of the repair of churches, the power of voting for that purpose wad taken away altogether. Again, by the 12th of George the Third, the Archbishop and Bishops of a See had it in their pc aver to erect a new church in whatever parish they thought proper, and to saddle the in habitants with the expenccs. Here, then, was the difference between the- state of England and of Ire land. In England the churches must be built by the authority of an Act of Parliament: - In Ireland they were erected by the authority of the Bishops; thus presenting the extraordinary spectacle of the Mini sters of the richest church in the World taxing the poorest people on earth for the erection of places for their public worship. In the absence of the ex pedient for the erection of new churches, another plan had been adopted for the support of the churches of the Protestant Establishment; this was the Episcopal union of parishes ; a system carried to such an extent, that it was by no means un usual for one parish to be joined with another full ten miles of F, and to that church the pa rishioners might betake themselves for the pur pose of hearing divine service, and at all events they were bound to pay for all the expences of reputing and ornamenting it.. They had to pay for the organ-blower and the organ-player, and the sexton and the sextoness, and the church-cleaner, and the bell-ringer, and the clock-winder, and the whole of those officers connected with the -Irish Church Establishment. His object, he repeated, was to place the people of Ireland in thesame con dition as time people of England. ' He asked 110 more. • He asked for the Catholic of Ireland, the benefits of the English law: The PrOtestant in Ireland when compelled to pay for the support of his church, gets value for his money. The Ca tholic gets no value_ for_his expenditure; and lie asked, in the name of justice and of religion, that the Catholic should be put in possession of the power to claim an account of-what has been or is to be done, and that instead of being taxed to any ex tent, without the power of complaint, he should, when called on to support tile expenses of the church of his Protestant neighbour, be, like that Protestant, possessed of a vote amid furnished with an account of the nature of the expendifure. The statements on this subject were hot new they were to be found in the returns laid on the table of the House, on tile motion of the Honourable Baronet, the Member for Waterford (Sir J. Newport), in , the year 11 . 1;25. Some of • the - items of the church expenditure to be -found in these leturns were almo , t incredible. Besides all the different salaries jze had mentioned, there was in the parish , Nt of Wexford an additional salary paid to the bell ringer. For what now did the House suppose the salary of the bell-ringer was to be raised ? Why, because the bell was broken he Was paid an advance of salary; When he had no belt to ring. The Right lion. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goulbnrn) had promised, when these things formed the subject of a motion brought forward by his Hon. Friend, to introduce a Bill for the removal of all such abuses. The Right lion. Gentleman did bring in a Bill. But hoW did he, retnove them ? 'Why, the Bill which he brought in exaggerated every evil which it professed to remedy. Before that Bill was intro duced, the Catholic who complained of an illegal item in an assessment for the repair of the church, had it in his power, in a great measure, to confront the disposition to abuse, because, if that (me item proved illegal, the whole rate assessed must drop to the ground—as a matter of course. Wherever, therefore, the Catholics were in a situation to con test it, the illegal rates could be rendered void. The Bill of the Right Hon. Gentleman had removed all the checks, and, left the Catholic nothing but hope less litigation. They were now left with a remedy such as no Catholic, or lawyer advocating the cause of the Catholics, would venture to put in force for their relief. He arraigned this measure of the Right Hon. Gentleman, therefore, before the English House of Commons; and he called on them in the name of justice and humanity, to relieve the people from the burthensome conditions which it imposes. The grievances to which the Catholics were sub jected for the support of Protestant churches could scarcely be conceived in this country. In his own pari•.h, in Ireland, the sum assessed for the expenses of the church during the last year was 1,710/. ; and that, too, in a parish where the incumbent received 2,0001. a year. There were three organists, who received 135/. a year; then there,was a person who received. 13/. 2s. .for tuning these organs; 191. 2s. for a person to blow their bellows; for a clerk 80/. a year; for two other clerks, 1401.; and to a per son who collected this 1,7101., a poundage of 10 per cent., which amounted to 170/.; and to the Board of First Fruits, a certain sum for advances on former occasions. These were some of the items raised on the inhabitants of the parish, while the incumbent received, as he said before, an income of 2,000/. a year. After enumerating various items of expenditure in other parishes; the Hon. Gentleman proceeded to say that he had called the Bill to which he alluded the Bill of the Right Hon. .Gentle man opposite (the Chancellor of the Exche quer), but he knew that he would be told it was not his Bill, but that of the Law Officers of the Crown for the dine being. No man could deny the great talent and the extensive knowledge of the Attorney-General of Ireland of that period (Lord Plunkett). He paid his tribute to his abilities; but while he did so, and while he, in common with many others, felt regret to see his great powers ob scured and rendered useless in a corner of a Court (the Common Pleas), over which he was never in tended to preside, still it was open to every man to condemn, as it should be condemned, the provisions of an Act which professed to improve the condition, of the people, but which was in truth a mockery of their sufferings. What was it that the people com plained of ? - Why, that they were called on to pay for every thing which appertained to the ornament of the church, or which was required by any rubric or canon of the church of England. These were the purposes for which the rates were levied ; and for the better collection of those rates, and for 'the re moval of the abuses connected with their collection, did the Bill of the Right Hon. Gentleman and the Attorney-General provide. It provided for the people of Ireland, not a remedy for the unjust imposition of but thens for the support of the Protestant Church, but an endless source of litigation. This litigatiiiretoo, was not carried on against Protestants, but against Catholics, who pretended to be Protestants for the petty poWers with which it invested them, and who at the hour of their death were always anxious to take refuge again in the bosom of their church, if they had warning enough of its approach to give time for that purpose. It was a direct instance of taxation to any extent, without requiring the slightest consent on the part of those called on to pay such taxes ; of a taxation levied to support ob servances enjoined by the canons of the church of England, not of the church of Ireland; and without any consent; as in England, on the part of those who are. to. pay. Could any one after this complain of taxation without representation ? He begged the House to - look at the case stated in the petition he had that night presented from Ardglass. There were upwards of 2,500 . Catholics compelled to support the expences of a church which was attended by only., we've Protestants, arid taxed to pay for all its ornaments and appurtenances, without even a specification of the items being furnished for their information. Could, then, what he bad stated, be considered an exaggeration ? Were • they in a country governed by the same laws as England; or were they not rather uncles the dominion'of those who employed a Reis EffArdi, the personage of whom they had heard so much that erening ? Even in Greece, however, when oppressed by the utmost despotism of Turkish intolerance, no such power 'was ever exercised. But then, the Bill of the Right Hon. Gentleman gave a right of ap peal; and such an appeal as might fairly he desig nated a'rnere mockery of the sufferingi of the Cik tholies. 'ln the first place, they must give notice of their intention, Within ten, or, 'at the utmost, four teen days, from the time of making the rate. Then they must specify all the causes 'of that appeal, as if it were possible for any peasant, or even lawyer, to make an accurate specification of that kind.— And all these, specifications, with all their technicali- - ties, were required to be signed in the hand -writing of those who appealed. When this part of the formalities was gone through, there remained another still more grievous, namely, that the Catho lic who appealed against the rate, must inter into two recognizances of one hundred pounds each, to - abide the consequences of that appeal, and pay all the costs which might be incurred in the event of a failure. But the most extraordinary part remained behind. When the appeal came on for hearing before the Assistant Barrister, it was necessary he should be satisfied that all these forms were com plied with, that is, the Judge who was to hear and .determine the course, must be satisfied before he entertained it, that all forms and technicalities Were complied with—a regulation *aches he believed was never heard of before in any coun:ry in the world. The statute took away all real protection, and sub stituted this 'mockery :of •protection. The Bishops, by this Statute, had controul over the property of the Catholics, of the Protestants of the established church, and of Dissenters. It gave en unlimited, undefined power of taxation, first to the Protestants as respected the Catholics, and 'then to the Bishops as respected the Protestants. Another thing that it did" was.. to. relieve the churchwardens who committed a trespass from punishment. It provided, that 'if rttitioris were brought' against the churchwardens, ,for any thing done under colour of the Act,an,aSsessment should be laid on the parish to pay the damages. So that the person by whom the action had been brought was compelled to pay a share of the damages, which had been in flicted for- the evil which he had sustained ! He would venture to appeal to the good sense and can dour of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, whether an Act of Parliament had ever passed which was less deserving •of his support. He would do that Right Hon. Gentleman the justice to expreits his belief; that if 'that Right Hon. Gentleman h4d applied his mind to the Act before. it had passed, he would iieVerl'have consented to it. Ile heggel, therefore, that the Right Hon. Gentleman would consider the subject and see if the lew could not Ile repealed ; or, at.least, if the existing power ofta*- tion might not be limited. The Hon. and Learntd Member here read a letter,, which the Right Hen. Gentleman when he was Chief Secretary for , Ise , land, inserted.in. the Dublin Gazette, particularizi tg the various' things • which= the Pal Ish Vestries we re to be called upon to furnith. This letter - had been treated with a disrespect which ought not to have Wen Shown towards it, and had been absolutely .} laughed at. -Altei a : brief recapitulation of his various arguments', and. ebserVing, that when he formerly addressed the Hcruse on the subject it was merely for leave to bring in a :Bill to allow the Catholics to vote tit Parish - Vestries, but that now his objeet was to relieve .the - : Protestants of the Established Church as wella's the Protestant Dis senters, the lion. and.Leetned Gentleman concluded by moving for " leave to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of the several Statutes in force in Ireland as enabled Parish Vestries to assess rates for the build ing, rebuilding, and enlarging of Churches aad Chapels; and also for the repairing of the chancel of Churches, and also for providing things necessary ; for the Churches, and also for providing things ne cessary for the celebration of divine service therein." The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had laboured under an erroneous notion that this motion was not to be brought forward that night, and was therefore hot prepared to follow the Hon. and Learned Member for Clare into all the details ; into which he had entered. On a former occasion he had stated that his Majesty's Government felt the necessity of some revision of the statutes in question. The letter which he had written when he was Chief Secretary, and to which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had referred, evinced that con viction. A measure for the purpose was at present in preparation, and lie had reason to believe would, at an early period, be submitted to the House. The Hon. and Learned Member had complained of the difference of the law in England and Ireland with respect to Catholics voting at vestries. He would not go back with the Hon. and Learned Gentleman to ancient times. He would forbear from adverting to those periods when there was a mutual jealousy between Catholics and Protestants. Rather than do that, he would even leave the imputations which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had thrown on the Protestants unanswered. But he would tell the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, that though there were -distinct laws relating -to the building and re building of churches in Ireland, they were not all peculiar to that country. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman must knoW that in England the right of imposing rates- was vested in an Ecclesiastical Tri bunal. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had thought fit to complain of the Bill which had been drawn up by his Mile Friend Lord Plunkett, and which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had introduced for regulating the vestry rates in Ireland. lie could assure the Hon. and Learned Gentleman that he had no wish to shield himself from any re sponsibility to which that measure might subject him. It was in his opinion a great amendment of the existing law. It was a great relief to those • whose cause the Hon. and Learned Gentleman advo cated. To excite an impression against the law which he was so desirous to overturn, the Hon. arid Learned Gentleman went over all the preceding obnoxious occurrences, and adduced those evils as an argument against a bill—the object of which was to correct them, and which :did correct them. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman contended that it was monstrous to compel an appellant to state the causes of his appeal and to sign the document in which it was contained. But why not ? Was. the appellant to leave those against whom he appealed in the dark 'on the.sub ject of.his appeal, up .to the moment when it came to be considered? And when the Hon. and Learned Gentleinab said that the law compelling an appellant to sign his appeal was made to include, those who could not sign their numes,it 'was surely unnecessary to remind him that there were modes by which such persons could authorise others to sign fur him. There were two objects which ought to be secured ; the one to guard against the imposition of excessive rates—the other to prevent persons by a vexatious opposition from defeating a just and le- . gitimate rate. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman', mentioned that the. churches should be repaired at the expence of the incumbents of 'the several pa-, 'rishes. That was not consonant with the practice of-former periods; and' *heti' the proper time came ; he Would assign his' rettieir4 ?or , disaenring from the proposition. For the preientl he' should'rekisv the motion as he had resisted it -when it was' formerly brought forward. Although the terms of it were different, it would lead to the same result. Mr. SPRING RICE said he would trouble the House for only a few minutes. He confessed that in a considerable part of the statements of the Right Hon. Gentleman he entirely concurred ; but not in that with which the Right 1-ion. Gentleman had closed those statements. 'lf the basis of the view taken by his Hon. and Learned Friend - the Member for Clare: hid been that the abuses which existed antecedently to the Right Hon. Gentleman's Act were occasioned by:that Act, he would admit that tl'e view would have been uncandid. That, how ever, was; not the view which his Hon. and Learned Friend had token. But many'"molt grievous abuses which existed prior to tne passing of the Act re 7 mained uncorrected by that Act, although they were not occasioned 'by it. The abuses of parish vestries remained so uncorrected, and in that so spect further relief was requirel Ott that point, therefore, the Right Hon. Gentleman and he dif fered. On a former occasion he had expressed hit wish that the desired reform might be undertaken by Governtnent, and that the subject should he con ducted by a member of the established church, re' , cher than by one who was not a member of that church. Not that he did not believe that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman would not exhibit perfect fairness in any Bill which he might introduce on the point; but to prevent misapprehensions and jealousy, it was undoubtedly desirable that the mea sure should be brought forward by an individual who belonged to the established church. On a former occasion he (Mr. Spring Rice) had said, that if his Majesty's Government, instead of vague decla rations, would pledge themselves to seine distinct measure, he and his Right Hon. Friend, the Mesh ber for Waterford, and others who thought with them, would most cheerfully leave the subject in their hands and support them with their vote. But Government refused to give any such pledge. They said then, as the Right Hon. Gentleman said now, that they had some measure under consideration, but would give no distinct pledge respecting it. What was the result of that conduct on their part ?- The present motion. Approaching the close of a Session in which petitions had been presented shoW ing the jealousy which existed in every parish in behind on the subject, and - in which, nevertheless, nothing had been done respecting it, the only consolation which the Members for Ireland had to communicate to their .consti tuents was, that they were assured by his Majesty's Go vernment that some measure was under consideration. He willingly allowed that the letter of the Right Hon. Gentleman which had been alluded to, evinced a disposi tion on his part to correct ;he abuses which existed. But that letter was written thne years ago ; and nothing fur ther had been done. Under those circumstances, be did not think that they would discharge their duty to their constituents and to the country at large, if they allowed mere time to elapse without endeavouring to obtain a re form of those abuser. having said so much as to the necessity of.a reform, he must proceed to say, that he dif fer,al from his Hon. and Learned Friend as to the kind of reform which it was desirable to establish. When, on a former occasion, his Hon. and Learned Friend had pro posed -that Roman Cathorcs and Protestants should tie equally admitted into parish vestries in Ireland, he (Mr. Spring Rice) objected to the preposition. He obiteted to it still. For although he hoped the tiiae would coins when Roman Catholics and Protestants might be so unind without evil orinconvenienee, he slid not think that it was as yet -advisable to make that particular alteration in the existing law. He was quite aware of the inconveniences and abuses that remained to be corrected on the subject ;of appeals; but he could never consent to appeals without securities. To allow of such appeals would be to open die door to endless litigation. Securities there must be; hut care ought to be taken that those securities should not be such as would prevent I gitimate appeals; and That they • should be only such as would' prevent vexatious or delusive appeals. The remedies' which it appeired to him wee, calculated to correct the e xistin g evil , he had more thitn once stated in that House ; aid he had obtained the csin currence of the Right Hon. Secretary of State for title Home Department in his views. The principal point lot "the Bill which ho should wish introduced, was, in fut4re lea , es, to throw the payment of the rate on the landlords ; as in the litho Ceinnositioa Act; and hi would einbod). tin the Bill the whole. of the &hile in the letter of the, eight Heim the • Chancellor •of the Ekehequer. Sucha ;measure WfJuld be 'calculated ,to put an end to the heart littrnings and jealoosiee which. at :present existed. IslO t being able to acquiesce in the motion of his H o n. and learned - Friend, but being still morn unwilling tosubwit to art nnlimited postponement of any measure of refornli he *Huh! take the liberty, however reluctantly, and ::lthough he kneet to What imputation and attack lie should subject himself 'ay so doiug, to Adopt another course. Be' lieving conscientiously that that course was right, be would . move . as an amendment for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the 7th of Geo. IV. c. 72, far regulating Vestries in Ireintl He repeated ) however, that hashoyld be most willing to sir' render the att , Asiire to the lkdble Lord, if he would bu . t constiments, and tell them that thtli grievances were ante in a Bill on the lie refight then return to bin to be redressed. The Hon. Gentleman 6f:included 11 moving the amendment which he had just describe:4: . Sir, B. INGLIS could not allow the speech ofthe and Learned Member for Clare.to pass without some Ob servation. All the complaints of the Ilone_ond learn° Grntleman were founded on. the supposed hardship of the members of one religion being called upon to support the members of another. But the tax was a tax on laud. was paid as a tax on land, Without reference to religion. The Hon. and Learned Gentlemati ) however, eharac.- terised the church rates in Ireland as an Ora equalled: l l magnitude by no other in that country; if so, the ctrl' complained of in Ireland were not what they were fee . tented to be. 14e had examined the returns on the stor Ject. He had taken four parishes in four different dier, ceses ;, and h.! found that the church rates Were lit tutair''• threepence an acre ; in the second, fourpOntiej in th e third, fivepence ; and in the fourth, for the space of eiatr. years, tot quite ninepence. Now was that such a grie v i anee as celled for the apneal which th e H o n. Arid 'Lear"' Member for Clare had made to the passions, not of thas of t Bill , s y e e , rebut said df to oersaoffnese affect l t s h e e w p h e e o r p e i ? e o T f Irelgarnide v a a ti :s. ee and as Dissenters. He denied the assertion, and would . state, withent fear of contradietion, that the Its!' affect: d the Irish People wholly and chance ter as tenants of the land. He confessed that he did not, think the law required alteration ; it was connected with the letting of the land, and was a tax on the land, Anti not on the sectarian holder of it ; and. he, should therefore neither vote for the original motion nor for the amendinent . . Lord F. L. GOWER believed that many more grounds of objection were stated to the.present Bill.then'could well be made out. The church of Ireland : atm:id in a peculiarly unfortunate situation, and was in many respects unfairly Oared in cdthparisan with the church of England. There were constant complaints made against the Irish church for.what teas celled an unfair consolidation of parishes; but those who made the accusation not - see that the situation of the Irish church required'consolidation. There were some portions of the motion which he confessed It could not understand, and that was especially the cis with regard to that portion ofthe motion which rclate o the reparation of the chancel. As far as be knew soy thing of the law, the Statute of the 2d Geo. 1., c. 14, had left the matter as it stood at-common law, and tb° other Statutes which had. since been passed, numerous as they were, had not altered it. It seemed to him : that time law could not be alter'ed; if it was meant that there should be still a church establishment in Ireland. Mr. HUME obierved that. the • Ministers themselvcs had frequently admitted that this Vestry Pill contained clauses which were productive of irritations" among the Irish people, and as they had often declared not only. their readiness but their anxiety to put an end _ to all causes of popular irrigation in Ireland,' he : thought they must be glad, of the opportunity of -repealing' this Bill. Sonic Hon. Members seemed to 'think that the sums paid by the Irish farmers and peasantry were bat trifles ; hut the/ should recollect that what was an insignificant trifle might be most itnpottant to the class of men on whom, three burdenei were placed. After what' the Ministers them , selves had declared respecting the irritation caused by this Bill, he thought they ought to have intriailuatd a ;ilea/sore for its repeal, and he trusted that even', this Session, though now much advanced; would not be allotted entirely to pass away without their bringing in Some measure W remedy an ;evil which was universally COMplained of is Ireland. Sir 11... PEEL said that even if he were to introduce any measure for the purpose `recommended by the gen' Member for Aberdeen, he could not promiii Himself it would meet with that Hon. Member's approbation. The questien 'no:iv:before the House might be thus stated. Wa y it right or ?proper that there should be some provision made. for -the- p er f ormance . o f di v i n e serv i ce in I r el an d? He'sbould answer the questiomiu the affirmative. Then , hate was that :provision to be-onside ? It. must either he t levied in the fdrm of a park-Mal alsesstrtent of in tirst - 'of a burden fixed upon the public funds of the etattoa ar , Now how could the public of this country—how would the Hon. Member himself, like to be taxed for the support Of the Irish Church ? What then was to be done? 11r. HUME—Allow_ the inhabitants in. Vestry, Cr tholies as 'well as Protestants, te tas:-themitelves. Sit, R. PEEL-...That was, Tin fact,:admitting that-the money. should be raised by a paroChial assessment ; hut did not every one see the impossihilitrit literally adopting the Hon. Member's ,suggesticin.!.lt:;tstesatdmitted that there were•one thousand Catholics in many parishes where there were but twelve Protestants, and surelyit would be nothing Letter than a mockery to allow the Catholics toaletermine what should he the provision made for the performanee of Protestant worship. ,In his opinion,- it ought to be distinctly specified by the law what , should •be the means afforded for the reparation of the 'Churches of the Irish Church E.;tablishifient, and that matter ought not to be left to the - letter- of - his - Right-Hon. Friend. The Hon. Mentber for Aberdeen had recom mended;: nay, bad caPed on UM and his 'colleagues, to bring in a Bill to repeal the existing law. ,Notte t he nittst say, in the presence of that Hon. Member, ; that they iota not get, at this moment, a fair consideration of any.mev stile they proposed, for Hun. Members did - not afford them time for the purpose; they rose : night, after night to die cuss every question that was introduced. It was true tbld every Hon. Member might say, "J. am a Member of .tbe Legislature, and • every point on which I. make a. log speech—(A laugh). a -is a' matter of importance, and . I have a duty, to perform;" bat if twenty other.Membero took the same view of their duty as the Hon. Member opposite, nut only the' House would not be able to pass one Bill, but they would not get any one Bill through the first reading. Admitting that such discussiOrte were flat unnecessary, that there was _not_an unnecessary argil' ment in the Hon. Member's speech, yet he must repeats that if twenty other Hon. Member, pursued the same course, they should never get through their ..business. He must say that when the 'Hon. Menther occupied in various discussions four sr five hours every night, it woe a little hard in him to become the accuser of Ministers for not introducing other measures. He appealed to the House, whether it was not With' the greatest difficulty that Ministers now 'got a fair hearing for any Bill they intro diteed, and when they did obtain. something like a hearing for it, whether they were ever able to do to' before one or ' two o'clock in the morning? Under these circumstances, he must confess that he felt the greatest reluctance to odd any thing to the business of the Session; and for his own part, he was quite unable to undertake any new business with the least hope of doing it justice. At' present he ' was often employed 17 or 16 hours out of the 24, and when it was considered that he was friquently ten hours in attendance on that House,' it must be ichnittid that he could Lave but little leisure fur properly considering any measure with a view to bring it under their notice. He had thought that it would not be for the public advantage for him to press an immatured 'measure 1416 i - their dis cussion, and he had consequently avokletf, and shoUld still avoid, taking on himself the responsibility of introducing the Bill. PROTHEROE could' not ionenr with the Right Hon. Baronet in his attack upon the Hon'. Member for Menke*. For himself, since he' had had . a lest in that House, he , had day by Jay b ee n more conilia - a - nir the hi g h merits of that Hon. Member, Who, in Houses with s full attendance, and in Houses with a thin:attendance , alike persevered in the object he had in view, and had done so much towards procuring some diminution of 'the burdens of time people, and towards obtaining that which was absolutely necessary for the purposes of economy and re f or m—namely, a more correct +node of stating the esti' mates. With regard to the question itself, be should vote for the measure proposed by Mr.' O'Connell. He must say that he viewed with disgust a system, by which the people who differed from them in religion were obliged to provide the sacred- elements fur the performative of asso' timer worship. Sir P.. PEEL had not intended to make any attack on the Hon. Member for Aberd een , but referred to th a t Hon' MeMber's practice with a view of showing, that if °theta followed the same'cOurse, there would be no .opportunity 'to get through business. .is Mr. O'CONNELL, in reply, trusted that-hit matino would be carried. He could not vote fur the amearlenetat proposed by the • Hon. -Member for Limeridk, heitansee though that Hon. Metaber had not -meant 'it to-be . a testa' sion, he was sure it would be so eintsidered - in Irelan& In his opinion the real Protestant ought to wrish: for the al' teration he now proposed, tor that ulceration alone . woulti have thepoiver of petting an stud to that•hestility of feel ing which now existed among different classes of people iu Ireland, Hie object was to put the Yrotestimtvittuch of Irela fend, to and tho °Nispo that the had d en !tent o should a ennside► The Sir and he appoint Inischi4 obj for the Was no iert peTa 'Was th eonven CatliCS strifti it, het =lot da pressed be give or mu shape hot ne - the aw but re to u m cellor rid; bi begte; urged. cery three e ery; ‘vtrary betel it ova , ‘tyff , efi la ty He ti allusi wen the the neca Vier he r of 5 thir opp no I Vic poii ron, ,vai See pter, talc thin ' •nri thol trot th a no and and alto Stir i 8 the cell plat