The Sun. — London, England, 1833-05-07 00:00:00

th..t the Bishops anticipated the revenues which ought to belong to their successors. They granted their leases for twenty-on e years at a low rent, and the amount was mach en td by renewal fin's. Every year the lease for twentt years was resigned into the hands of the Bishop, and e new lesse for to enty.one yeare was granted, on payment of a fine. That fine was calculated at an interest o. eight per cent., and thus it was found that, by cons. pound interest, the sum of 1/. would become 51., a t the end of every 21 years ; therefore, if at the end of every 21 years the Bishop would be entitled to 51. as his fine on a bona fide renewal, according to the present practice, lie accepted 11. per annum instead of it. What. then, did the Bill upon the table propose to effect ? Ti. girt the Bishops power to grant Wee' in perpetuity. instead of fur the term of 21 year., renewable upon the payment of a fine. If afterwards a tenant wished to sell his is ate, it would he much more va!trahle with a lease in perpetuity than for 21 years, and of this increased value the state was to avail itself. In what possible sense could it be contended that the difference in value b. tween d 21 years' leae and a perpetuity was part of the proper ty of the church ? It was exactly analogous to the case of n conyhold under the I.srd of a manor. The State was the lord, the Bishop the copyholder ; and any im provement made by the lord, for which the immediate tenant Wila ready to pay, could not he the property of the Bishop. The Legislature had the right to make the change for the improvement of the estate, and no injustice wa done to any party if the tenant were called upon to pat for it. The fact was, that, in this case, Parliament was dealing with the Bishops exactly in the same way in which it had dealt with the parochial clergy, in cases of composition for tithes, to which nobody had objected. The second point urged to-night was, that this B lowered the authority of the church, and the Hon. Member for Dublin objected, on this ground, to the con sti ution of the Baud. if the objection were that the Church had no weight in the Board, the answer was, that four out of the nine members were persons in the church. Perhaps the lion. Member for the University of Oxford Is as of opinion that the Ili•hops alone should have the control of church property ; but that objection had been answered by the Hon. Member for the University of Dub lin, when lie said that the Bishops would not have time to attend to it. Therefore it was that some of the commis. sioners would have no other duty to perform, and would he mainly responsible for the acts of the body. The re duction of the number of Bishops was resisted upon prin ciple; the objection did not apply to the diminution of one, two, or more Bishops, but to any diminution. Upon this branch of the measure, he (Mr. Stanley) had thought it his duty to consult the highest authorities in the church—and, first of all, the Primate of Ireland—a man foremost in ability, and foremost too in a zealous determi nation to support the rights of the church. When the ques tion arose under this Bill, as to the best mode of making good the deficiency of the church cess, the Primate himself sug gested, as the least objectionable mode, a reduction of the Lumber of bishoprics. He (Mr.Stsnley) did not mean to say that the Primate purposed to reduce ten—(Hear)—but that he was the first to adopt the principle of reduction. —(flear.) Yet this it *as which the Hon. Member had denounced as a violation of the Articles of Union, as a death .blow aimed at the Irish church, and as a perilous reduction of the number of its pillars.—(Hear, hear.) Then came the question whether Ministers had gone to too great an extent, and upon this point he would read to the House an account of the number of benefices in each diocese, in order to show that, at present, the Bishops w Ireland were not overburdened with employment in the Diocese of Raphoe there were 34 Benefices Dromore 27 Clogher 45 Kildare 53 Ossory 02 Waterford 06 Cork 93 Clonfert 31 Elphin 37 Rillala :to Would any man say, that 37 benefices were such a num ber that it was dangerous to add more benefices to it? In the diocese of Chester alone, which was one of the largest in England, there were about as many benefices as in the whole of Ireland put toatether.—(Cheers.) The number was between 1,100 and 1,200, and Exeter was nearly as large. It was little less than preposterous, therefore, to argue that 1;9 benefices for Ossory, which would he the largest, would he too many, and give too much employ ment to the Bishop. If there was anything in the clamour that the staff of the church was too nutnerou', there was peculiar reason for making the alteration. As a further proof that they had not proposed unduly to diminish the number of Bishops in Ireland, he wished to just state to the House the fact, that in Ireland, as compared with England, the pariah, s wet e as one to ten, while the Bishops— even the reduced number proposed to be retained—were as two to five. In England there were 26 Bishops, and 12,000 livings, while there were 10 Bishops' in Ireland to only between 1,100 and 1,200 livings. Nothing, therefore, could he plainer th in that the amount of superintendence re quired front the Bishops would be within their power. It Lad been said by Hon. Members on the other side, " Do not reduce the number of Bishops—let them remain, whatever may he done with their revenues." It was said, if the Bishops have too much, do not let that continue, but permit the Bishops, the only resident nob!. men of Ireland, to remain in their present poeitions.—(Hetr, hear.) He really thought that objection, fairly con sidered, was one which ought not to have much weigh with the House, for it constituted no answer to the argu• ment against which it was put forward, namely, that the bluff of the church was diaproportioned to the church it. self. The chief objections to the present measure were, first, that it interfered improperly with the property of the church ; secondly, that it reduced the number of the Bi shops ; and, thirdly, that it tended to diminish the autho rity of the church, and its va!tie to the community. Every one of those objections, as it appeared to him, had been most satisfactorily answered. There was one other topic to which, before he sat down, he desired to advert, namely, the auggestion thrown out for Equalizing the in comes of the Bishops ; to him, that appeared in a high degree objectionable. It would he attended with the very serious inconvenience of introducing a new principle, that of compelling the Bishops to look to other sources than the land within their respective dioceses, from which it had hitherto been derived. He objected to that, as com promising the authority and the integrity of the church— it would be nothing ',se than compromising for the Bi shops to come to that House for their revenues, and to have those revenues alterable from year to year, at the pleasure of the Parliament. It appeared to him, that it tvc.tild be a much safer and wiser plan to permit a few eeifl ng inequalities to remain in the amount of the se veral incomes, than have each individual Bishop receiving from Parliament a definite salary, which might, at any time, be modified at the pleasure of that House. After the fullest attention to the discussions in that House, as well as to what occurred out of doors, he would affirm, that the atraelts made upon the details of the Bill were of a nature so trifling, and so unworthy the serious attention of the House, that he should not further detain them than to observe that the risk of doing nothing with the Church of Ireland would he tenfold—nay, a hundredfold greater than any In zard which attached to the present change— than any attempt whatsoever which might be made to rectify or to modify that church, if such attempt were carried on with a spirit of caution and moderation. Sir R. H. INGLIS nest rose, and the first of the Hon. Baronet's observations which we heard was, that in Isis opinion, the Bill in its press nt form was in one respect less objectionable than the Bill as fist introduced, for, according to the measure in its original shape, the Bishop was at liberty to suspend the performance of divine wor ship in any parish when it had been discontinued for any three years before the passing of the proposed Act, but he Was glad to perceive that the power had been limited under the new Bill. Air. STANLEY said, it was merely a clerical error in the printing of the Rll. Sir R. H. INGLIS adverted to that circumstance, without attaching any very great importance to it, for, incerporating it with the great body of the Bill, it was as nothing : he o' jetted to the Bill, from the crown of its head to the sole of its foot.—(A laugh.) It was a Bill which professed to deal with the temporalities of the church, but it went directly to interfere with the spirt. t ualities. It was not confined to the revenues of spiritual persons, but affected the numbers and privileges of that order, throu g h which an apostolical succession was pre served. Admittin g the power, be denied the right of Parliament to legislate in such a case ; for, as he con tended, an interferenc e with the s 1 iiritualities of the church should net unless procetd e d in, when it origi ng Hated with the church it se lf , acting as a body distinct from the Parliament. The state never conferred property on the church, and had no ri g h t to take it away. There ~i nthe reig n were, be acknowledged, two cxcept i ons-0, of Queen Anne, when money was granted for the build.. ing of churches in the metropolis ; and another, two or three Parliaments ago, when a further sum was granted The question at issue was, not for a similar purpose. —Whether four, six, or ten bishoprics were to be gut rid 1: 01, but whether one was to be reduced ; and he would distinctly say, that they had no right whatever to dis pose even of one. He maintained that this consolida tion of bishoprics was without precedent, arid that the present measure was directly opposed by the coronation oath. He could not in any way understand lu w a Prince, hating sworn to preserve the Bidioj s and the clergy their rights, could make up his nr:tl to consent to such a measure es the present, which destroyed at least ene-half of their spiritual rights. There were two points in the measure he objected to. The first ob jection related to the abolition of the first fruits, an' the substituticn of an annual tax in lieu thereof : the second related to the vestry cess. On this latter point the Hon. and Learned Recorder for Dublin said more than he was inclined to do. The amount of the cess was not considered a g' ievance ; it was complained of because it was considered as a badge of inferiority, and it was For that reason sol ly that for many years it had been an oh j-ct of animadversion. It had been two months since said at an assembly—a sort of Irish Parliament—with respect to the two measures—the present one and t he Coercive Bill—that tl e latter took away their liberties, and the other would give them in exchange twopence peracre. The present measure not only affected the rights of the clergy, but also those of the bar, who might also he treated in 'he same way as the clergy. It tended to take from the pockets of the clergy, and what it took it would put into the pockets of the landholders. Now, he would ask, was that a time to draw from the pockets of the clergy— was it a time when they were wallowing in wealth ? No one would say that it was ; for their poverty of late was pretty apparent. There was one concession for which he th inked the Noble Lord, namely, that the present measure differed thus touch from die one originally brought forward, that it freed vested interests from being taxed. With respect to first fruits, he begged to say they were not paid, and he knew of one whole diocese that never paid them it all. One principal objection he had to the measure was, that it was more a suppression of bishoprics than a consolidation of them ; it went to weaken the Protestant religion, and carried in it a principle favourable to the Roman Catholic religion. The Hon. and Learned Mem• ber for Dublin acknowledged that it was a ceding of a principle, and the Ilon. and Learned Member for Tippe rary also said that it was a principle which, once g tined, would lie afterwards extended according to the discret:on of Parliament. He contended that Parliament had no right to take from the increased value of church property, supposing even that the effect of the present me asure would be to increase it. He would conclude, therefore, by hop ing that the second reading of the Jill would be postponed. Mr. R. GRANT said the Hon. Baronet had raised several objections to the measure; and one of the first was, that he demurred to the jurisdiction of that House, arid said that without the previous consent of the church, the House could not institute so great a change of pro perty of the church as was contemplated by the proposed Bill. On the very first demurrer he joined issue with the Hon. Baronet. Several Hon. Gentlemen now objecting to the measure had more than once acknowledged that some reform of the church was necessary; but he had never heard them talk of previously consulting the church, nor of the necessity of a convocation of the clergy, and of addressing the Crown before they could begin to touch upon that reform. What was really proposed by the pre sent measure ? In the first place, what his Hon. Friend was pleased to call a suppression of bishoprics, was a con solidation of them, and he considered, that when his Hon. Friend made use of the word suppression, he was so dis torting the true intenders of the measure, that it might be truly said he was suppressing half of its meaning. The consolidation of dioceses was nothing new; every country, since the time of the Apostle., gave instance of the con solidation of bishoprics, which was thought so very extraordinary by the Honourable Baronet and his supporters. Italy, in its best and most religious times, afforded cases of three, four, and sometimes more bishop rics being consolidated into one. Spain and Germany afforded similar instances, and even Ireland itself would affo, d cases in point. The suppression of the bishoprics was only a part of the plan, and it was unjust to argue as it it was a mere question as to the suppression of the bishop acs. With regard to the abolition of church cess, he was astonished to hear it argued that, because it was church property, it ought not to be secularised. He doubted if church cess could be considered church pro perty; but without deciding that question, he would maintain, that if in any case a public establishment had in its possession any species of property of the nature of a I trust which was not put to the use for which the trust was held by the establishment, or which did not henefis the establishment, it then became the duty of the House to take the property from the trustee, and to put it to such use as might benefit the establishment. If it were found that the establishment, for whose benefit the property in trust was given, was injured rather than benefitted by the possession of it, it became their duty then so to dispose of the property as to benefit the trust, even if it were at the expense of the trustee. Thus it was with church cess. Though that was a small, it was a most invidious, tax, and did more damage to the cause of the establishment for which it was instituted, than it amounted to. Corald there he any thing more galling for those who matted under it, than to find, as happened in some instances, that as few as five Protestants met to assess a tax which had to be paid by 1,200 or 1.300 Ca tholics ?—( Hear, hear.) It was so odious that he was well convinced that the church would gain by getting free of it —(Hear.) It would, in fact, be an investment of capital in the affections of the people. He concluded by saying that it was a strong argument with him for the reform in the church of Ireland, that by the change pro posed it would become a woe king church, not a church k. pt up on account of the patronage connected with it, as had hitherto been die case. He thought it a monstrous thing to keep up an immense establishment, not for the sake of religion or of the church, but for the sake of its temporalities.—( Hear, hear.) Sir ROBERT PEEL—There were some objects con templated by the Bill before them of which he approved ; there were some objections brought to it by those who opposed it which he thought capable of being removed in Committee; and there were arguments brought to the Bill of which he was bound to say he did not see the force. The Right Hon. Baronet had said that reform was not necessary in the Irish church. He (Sir R. Peel) was of a different opinion. He thought some reform was necessary, in order to secure the stability of the church. —(Hear, hear.) He approved of that portion of the Bill which tended to redress abuse.—(Hear.) He approved of that portion of it which was intended to keep the clergy to their constant and scrupulous duties, and he ap proved of that part of the Bill which abolished church cess.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He thought that church cess was a species of property different from tithes, and al though there might he some plausible arguments brought in favour of its continuance, still be was willing to forego those arguments; because he believed that the church of Ireland, t.) relinquishing their claim, would make no sacri fice. Ile believed that another provision might be found fur the building of churches ; and, by abandoning the cess, they removed the cause of more litigation and strife, than th e whole amount of the revenue derived front it was worth. He thought, too, that the measure for the compo sition of tithes would not be complete, as long as church cess continued to be paid. At the same time, he did not deny that the exemption from this tax would be a benefit to die landlords. Yet, if the effect was to have decorous and proper places of worship, it was the same thing from what source the funds came. He would not object to the church taking the whole of that charg , , and that the ex penses should he paid out of the revenues of the church; but he thought it should be left to future consideration how the charge was to be apportioned. He hoped that Ministers wou'd n t object to adopt such plans in the details as might be proposed, where those plans were admitted to he im provements, and did not interfere with the principles . of die measure. In that way he hoped they would consider the propriety of not ol.siging the minor clergy to pay any of the expenses of building churches out of their revenues, which would bear very hard upon them. He would take, tor instance, the case of a clergyman having a living of 2001. a year. In such a case as that, he could not be lieve that the representatives and landholders would con sent to allow the clergyman to pay any part of the ex pense. lie thought that all clergymen having livings tinder the value of 3001. a year, ought to be exempt from rating. That, however, was a matter for discussion ; anti he hoped the Noble Lord would consent to its discussion. It did not interfete with die principle of th e B i ll, and as . . , on e of the details it was fair matter of argument, lie himself (Sir H. Peel) maintained that no man in the situ- ition of a clergyman—no person of good education, in the character of a gentleman, and who had the appearance of a gentleman to keep up, ought to hive less than a clear income of SOO/. a year—(Hear, hear)—and that was so clear a proposition, and one to which there was so itile objection, that he did not despair of seeing it adopted. He had great doubts of the policy of a graduated income tax. But that, too, was no principle of the Bill, , 11111 Wll4 not necessary for the objects contemplatid by it. lie thought, therefore, that it was fair matter for consideration, whether a vraduated or fixed scale sh ou ld b e . . adopted. The Noble Lot d had, on a former evening, stated some strong ohj,ctions to a graduated property tax, many of which in his (Sir R. Peel's) opinion, applied with equal toiee to the question before them. He thought it would he advisabl e to determine what the exact income of each ,clergyman should be, instead of giving a larger sum, and then taxin g it. For instance, if a clergyman was to have SOW a.year, he sa w no reason why that should not be fixed for his income, instead of giving 1,000/., and taking diff,rence 5:11 in order to establish a fund for the build ing of churches. It the clergy had to maintain the urchts, it would give the people the idea that that clergy were mainly interested in maintainin g the churches, , th d l ie objected to any such measure at would produce the idea that the clergy were more interested than the great tidy of the country. With respect to the abolition of bishoprics, he could not agree with the Hon. Member for the University of Oxford, that the abolition of them was beyond the power of Parliament; neither could he agree with him that it was contrary to the coronation oath, I-It• (Sir R. Peel) had been asked, and had received commu nications, asking him why be had abandoned the argument which the violation of the coronation oath afforded? and lie would say plainly, that he did it because he did not see its force.—(Hear, hear.) At the same time, he considered the matter under discussion, which involved the destruc tion of ten Bishops' seen, to be one of so much consequence, that it ought not to be attempted without the most serious consideration. One objection to the Bill, to which suffi cient importance did not seem to be attached, was, that three of the largest cities in the south of Ireland would be left without a resident Bishop—Cork, Waterford, and Kilkenny. Mr. STANLEY observed, that provision had been made in the Bill against the evil. Sir. R. PEEL argued that the provision alluded to was not sufficient. He maintained that the right to the church property ought to be on the same footing as private property; and in that he was supported by the opinions of Lord Plunket and Mr. Canning. It could not be said that the improved value of private property ought to be applied to the purposes of the State. The right to church property was not acquired by the statute of 1658. It was not acquired, but controlled by that Act; and controlled for the benefit of the church. The Right Hon. Baronet protested against applying the property of the church to any but ecclesiastical purposes. Many tenants of church lands would be far better pleased to continue under the church than to become the tenants of laymen. The Right Hon. Baronet concluded amid considerable cheering. Lord ALTHORP admitted that it was very dangerous to interfere with any established right of property. From the noise of Members leaving the House, and of strangers quitting the gallery, as well as we could collect his ob servations, th e Noble Lord stated, that the case of the property of the church and of corporate property, could not be considered by any means as similar ; and still less could it be considered similar to that of private property,which came to particular individuals by inheritance, whereas, in the case of the holders of church property, they obtain their rights neither by the inheritable, purchaseable, or otherwise acquirable title to corporation property, but by the arbitrary choice of the Clown, or of certain indivi duals. The Right Hon. Gentleman, he understood, did not object to converting Bishops' leases into perpetuities, hut he objected to appropriating the increased value thereby given to the property of the State. But the Right Hon. Gentleman objected principally on account of the small ness of the amount, and seemed to admit that he would have no obj , ction to it provided the amount were consi derable. After that admission, Ire did not understand how the Right Hon. Gentleman could object to the prin ciple, or say it was inequitable or unjust ; all that he was entitled to say was, that it was impolitic.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman agreed, too, in the principle that the Church cess ought to be abolished, but objected to the mode of providing for that expense. For his part Ire did not see, if it were to come out of the property of the Chu:•ch, as the Right Hon. Gentleman admitted, why it should not conic out of the revenues of the clergy. He believed that, in principle, he and the Right Hon. Gentle man agreed ; and he should be happy to take into consi deration in the Committee any objections the Right Hon. Gentleman might make to the details. The Right Hon. Gen- Orman had objected to the graduated tax on the incomes of the clergy, and had quoted the observations he (Lord A.) had made against a graduated property tax. But, be tween a graduated property tax, and a graduated tax upon the incomes of the clergy, there was a great difference. The Right Hon. Gentleman objected to the reduction of the Bishops--that it would not leave enough, when the Bishops were attending their duties in Parliament, to attend to their episcopal duties in Ireland. But if that argument were applied to English Bishops, all of whom were in attendance in Parliament during its sittings, while only a part of the Irish Bishops had seats in the other House, the argument would have much mote force. The Right Hon. Gentleman had proved too much. Alter the Bill had passed, the number of Bishops in Ireland in pro portion to the revenues of the clergy, and to the number of benefices, would be much greater in proportion than the number of Bishops in England. In his opinion, the number would be large enough. As to the ex pansive power of Protestantism to which the Right Honourable Baronet had alluded, that expansive power would, lie believed, be increased as they removed the abuses which he had always understood pre vented it from rising and spreading over the land. The large number of bishoprics was one of the burdens that confined it, and kept it from spreading. After the number of Bishops was reduced, it would be found, on comparing the number left in Ireland with the number in England, that the former would be in proportion much larger. Of course he did not admit with the Hon. Member for Oxford, that they were not to touch the Bishops at all. Looking at their duties, he thought that the number left would be sufficient. Looking, too, at the benefices, he was of the same (pinion. The revenue of the Irish Bishops was 130.0001 , and the revenue of the parochial clergy was 600,000/. ; the revenue of the English Bishops was 160,000/., and the revenue of the English parochial clergy was 3,000,A00/. ; which showed that the Bishops of Ire land would be quite enough. The great number of Bishops was one of the causes of discontent and dissatisfaction. He could not concur, therefore, with the Right Hon. Gentleman in his objection to reducing the number of Bishops. (The Noble Lord made a few further observations, but the talking and noise in the House prevented them from bring audible in the gallery. On his resuming his seat, there were loud calls of " Question.") Colonel CONOLLY rose, and persisted in standing up for sonic time and addressing the Howe, but almost eve r y sentence he uttered was lost amidst calls of " Question," and "Divide." We understood him to contend against the Bill, and to declare that he would oppose it as a mea sure of spoliation. (Loud cries of " Withdraw" and " Divide.") Lord SANDON was met with similar cries. He said lie should stand there till he was heard.—_(A laugh.) He wished to state the reasons for his vote. He agreed in nearly all which had fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tarnworth, and }et he meant to vote against him—(A laugh)—and he wished to explain why, There was no one part of the preamble of the Bill in which he did not agree ; and the only part of the measure, which could scarcely be called a principle of it, in which he did not agree, was that for the appropriation of an imaginary surplus to arise at some future time, as Par liament might think fit. The Noble Lord admitted that this part would lie a blow to the security of property ; and he did not think it worth while, for the sake of ap propriating an imaginary surplus, to establish a principle tt at would weaken the security of property. If he could not alter that provision of the Bill in the Committee, he should probably hereafter think it his duty to vote against it. He agreed with a large part of it, and he was anxious to see a reform in the church—anxious to see the clergy bound to perform their duties ; but he wished, by giving this explanation of his vote, to prevent its being sup posed by the public that those who voted for church reform were pledged to a principle which violated a principle of property tor the sake of an imaginary surplus.—(Hear; loud c ills of " Question," and " Divide.") Lord ALTHORP gave a short explanation, which was wholly lost amidst the noise. Mr. DAVID ROCHE attempted to address the House, but he was met by laughter, and cries of " Question," and " Sit down." Mr. LEFROY next rose for the same purpose, and was root in the same way, but with louder laughter. After a short time comparative order was restored, and the learned Gentleman then moved that the debate be adjourned.— (More laughter, cries of " Oh, oh !" and " Go on.") Loud ALTHORP hoped the Hon. and Learned Gen tlemanent on persist, t h l a i r tYv a Yt . o_uld ol ne ,, v a e r. r ) decide any u ' t N lhde N 7 7 t oncurred with the Noble Lord in depre cria'jtSeinsitgri.otfl'l'l‘s.ei:C)'adjournment—(Cheers)—but he must also de precate the proceeding of not hearirg an Hon. Alenaber who wished to address the House, and who was especially called upon to speak on this question.—(N o , no.) II there were any Hon. Member who had a greater interest in this subject than another, it was the Hon. and Learned Member for the University of Duhlin.—(No, no.) Lord CASTLEREAGH blamed the Ministers for not rtoculing a hearing for the Members of that side (the Opposition) of the House. The consequence of that would be, that they would all be made Repeal. ta—(A laugh, Oh, oh, and loud cries of " Question.") He would not be put down.—(Laughter, and loud cries or. (4 Question.") Ile represented a large constituency, and had as peel a right to be heard as any Hon. Gentleman. The Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin was not to be l'ut down by a sm er or a cough. Ile had a peculiar right to deliver his sentiments.—(Loud calls of " Question.") Ile would only repeat that the attempt to put down the Opposition Members would make every marl of them a I:epealer.—(Cries of " Withdraw," and Go an.(,) The SPEAKER put the question on the amendment to aiJourn the debate, and the Gallery was cleared for a division We were informed, however, that Mr. Lefroy withdrew his amendment, on the understandin g that he would state opinion on the Bill, on the motion for going into a Committee. The House then divided on Mr. Shaw's amendmerie. For the Amendment 7B Against it Majority The Bill wai then read a second time, and ordered to be t ommitted on Monday. GLASGOW LOTTERY BILL On the reading of one of the other orders of the day, Sir R. PEEL tonk the opportunity of adverting to the Glasgow Lottery Bill, which had been smuggled through the House, and recommended, in order to prevent any si milar occurrence, the appointment of a Committee to exa mine all Bills that were introduced into the House. Mr. SPRING RICE observed, that no one could sup pose front the Bill itself, that it could be made use of fur such a purpose. Even the law agent on the occasion (Mr. Richardson), a highly resp , ctable man, was entirely igno rant of the real object in view, nothing of the kind being mentioned in his instructions. A MEMBER. remarked, that as the projectors of the Lot tery frequently gave the purchasers of the fortunate tickets the value of the houses, instead of the houses themselves, there would pi obably be another lottery drawn. Sir R. PEEL said, that in that case it was desirable that the Bill should be repealed. Some other Hon. Members made a few observations on the subject; after which the conversation dropped. NEWSPAPER ADVERTISENIENTS. On the motion of Lord ALTHORP, the House resolved itself into a Committee on ttr. Stamp Duties Act. A resolution was agreed to for imposing a duty of eighteen•pence on every newspaper advertisement, instead of the graduated duty proposed by Lord Althorp on bring ing forward the Budget. The House having resumed, the report was ordered to he received this day. Mr. FINCH postponed his motion for the suppression of political unions till the 27th June. Mr. ATTWOOD moved that the name of Sir C. Bur rell should he added as one of the Committee on the state of the agricultural districts. It was proper that some fair and competent persons should be included in this inquiry. Lord ALTHORP obj,cted, not by any means with re ference to the individual named—a person most eminently entitled to respect, but on account of the principle which would be involved. Every Hon. Member might get up and propose an additional Commissioner. The Committee had been selected upon the maturest and most impartial deliberation. Lord DARLINGTON was rather inclined to doubt as to the impartiality of the persons so elected, when he saw that one of them was the Hon. Member for Wolverhamp ton, who deni.d that there was any agricultural distress. Lord EBRING TON thought there was not the slightest necessity for adding to the Committee, whose number was already 38—a larger number than Committees generally comprehended. The question was decided against Mr. Attwood's pro position without coming to a division. A MEMBER'S proposition, that Lord Stormont be a 'ded to the Committee on manufacturing distress, was also negatived. The other business was then disposed of, and the House adjourned at a quarter to three. The following is the list of the Committee on Army and Nvriy Appointment., nominated on Friday fart : Abercrombie, Right Ferguson, Sr Ron. Oswald, R. A. lion. J. Graham. SirJ. R. G. Parnell, Sir H. Byng, Sir J. Hardinge, Sir H. Net, Sir R, Carew, R. S. Hawes ' W. Pendarves, E. W. Carter, JAL Hope, Sir A. Sobright, Sir John Davies, 'l'. Hume, Joseph Strickland, G. Ebrington, Lord Lambton, H, Russell, Lord .1. Ellice, E. Mauerly, W. L ,Wilbraham, G. Fazakerly, J. N. O'Connoll, M. I Wrottesley, Sir J. B. Fleming, Admiral O'Conn or D on Wynn, C. W. In the list of the minority who vote , motion for reducing our military establ i❑ our paper of yesterday, the name of for Berkshire, was omitted by mistake d for Mr. Hume's ishinent, published Mr. Walter, M.P. ROYAL ASSENT. The Speaker reported the Royal Assent to the following Bills:—lndemnity Bill—Customs Wharfs G , nveyance Bill—Seimen's Hospital Bill—Rother Levels Drainage Bill—Tredington Church Bill—Exeter Waterworks Bitl —Exeter Water Company Bill—Camberwell Poor Bill— Grand Junction Railway Bill—Whitby and Pickering Railway Bill—London and Birmingham Railway Bill— Cardiganshire Roads Bill—Egham and Bagshot Road Bill—Norwich and New Buckenham Road Bill—Chester and Woodside Ferry Roads Bill—Upton and Kington Road Bill—Cheshunt Road Bill—Lewes and Brighton Road Bill—Hodges and Cuckfield Road Bill—Carmarthen Main Trust Road Bib—Matthieasen's Naturalization Bill. 'IX OF THE MINT. A meeting of the Lords of Majesty's Privy Council was held yesterday morning at the Exchequer Chamber. for the purpose of charging a Jury of Goldsmiths to make trial of the pix of the Dlint. The Lords present were— the Lord President, the Lord Chancellor, the Duke of Richmond, Viscount Althorp, and Lord Auckland. Be fore proceedings commenced, an objection was started that six Privy Councillors were rtqnited, whereas but five were present, and of that number Lord Auckland held the office of Master of the Mint. A jury of twelve eminent goldsmiths were sworn to assay and make a true return of the weight and fineness of the moneys given to them for trial. The Lord Chancellor, in charging the jury on the part of their Lordships, alluded to the antiquity of the ' custom they had to perform, which (mild be traced as far back as the reign of Edward 1., and was spoken of in the record of that time as an established custom. The standards of gold and silver were contained in indentures, executed in 1817, by Lord Maryborough, as Master of the Mint. Subsequent Masters of the Mint had also executed these indentures, and were bound by the covenants they con- Nined. His Lordship concluded his charge in the following words :—" It is a just subject of congratulation that the standard of our coin has been preserved inviolate through so many ages, and juries have often, upon occasions like the present, been appropriately reminded how greatly this steady conduct, alike betokening the integrity and the wis dom of the Government, redounded to the advantage of the country. Reference has, I find, also b, en made by my predecessors to the kindred subject of our paper circu lation, and to the measures, now so universally deplored, by which the coin of the realm was banished from the circulation and the only currency that was left suffered a depreciation most calamitous in its effects upon all the transactions of the state. Of those measures I shall only now say that, like all departures from just and sound policy, it occasioned two pernicious changes, and was doubly fruitful of mischief; the evils following from the destruc tion of the currency being almost matched by those which attended its restoration. Under the consequences of both, the country is still suffering ; but it has learnt a lesson which, as it is dear bought, will be long remembered, and will save us from the ruin to which the like course, if ever again followed, must inevitably lead." fl e jury were to test the pix of the Mint by the pro portions of gold and alloy, and of silver and alloy therein specified, and return a verdict to their Lordships. The pix of the mint consisted of one piece of coin out of every fifteen pounds of gold coined at the Mint, and one piece of coin for every sixty pounds of silver. These specimen coins were preserved under the keep of three officers of the Mint. Three years had elapsed since the last trial of the pix ; during that period gold coin of the value of 1,580,000/. had been coined, and silver of the value of upwards of 33,000/. ; the value of the specimens in the pix amounted to upwards of 6,0001. The Lords present were invited by the officers of the Goldsmiths' Gimpany to dine with them at Brewer's.hall, in the evening, where the verdict would be returned. We hear that Sir PULTENEY MALCOLM i 5 to replace Admiral floTtlAm in the Mediterranean. The Duke of CLEVELAND, the Marquis of CLANRICARDE, M. Van de WEYER, Viscounts PALMER STON, AIELBOURNE, and DUNCANNON, Sir JAMES GRA HAM, Mr. STANLEY, Lord AUCKLAND, Baron Ron's- CHILD, and Sir G. QUINTIN, were among Vie distinguished persons who paid their respects yesterchiy to his Highness the Duke of BRUNSWICK, at FENTON'S 110,d, St. James's street. Among the distinguished visiters of his Royal Highness the Duke of ORLEANS, at GniHon% hotel, Al bemarle-street, yesterday, were —Princes TA LLE YEA ND LIEVEN; the Dukes of WELLINGTON, ARGYLL, GOR DON, RICHMOND, and VALANA Y ; the Marquis of LANS- DowNE, Earl GREY, the LORD CHANCELLOR, Earl of ltirox, Lord HOLLAND, Lord ADOLPHUS FITZCLARENCE, ViSCIIIIII!S MELBOURNE and PALMERSTON ; M. DE RA COURT, Secretary to the French Embassy ; Count BJORN. STJEUNA, most of the F, reign Mtnisttrs, Mr. C. Woon, s c , Pi ince TALLEyitaNn called early in the afternoon, " ( I had a long inlet view with his Royal Highness, who ifterwards dined at the French Embassy, where a distin ,nished party was assembl e d to meet him. On Saturday, n ois Royal Highness called, with Prince TALLEYRAND, on Earl GREY and others of the Cabinet Ministers. A con .itierahle number of fetes are in preparatim in compliment to the heir apparent, and their Majesties have invited him to a grand entertainment, to be given at Windsor in a !ew :lays. His Royal highness's sojourn amonot U! ie tX), peettd to extend to a mouth. WESTMINSTER ELECTION. quences that he believed were not very common; at least, he could not find many parallel cases.—(A voice, " Why resign ?") Sir John. That's the question. If the repeal of the assessed taxes had been the question, he would have voted for their repeal ; but he could not vote for the re peal of the malt tax—it would have led to a property tax of the most odious nature, and one that he could not Live supported, but he would have supported a graduated pro.. pet ty tax. Again, had hi, vote been given, it would have tended to have deprived the country of the services of the best men that had presided over the affairs of the state fur a long series of years. It had been asked, why not vote against them ? Had he done so, no one could have known the effect, no one could have contemplated what many other members might have done. The Ministry must have been prepared for a dis missal—that Ministry who had given to the country a real representation.—(Hear.) He would ask, was he st such a time to turn round upon such men, and by such a vote, and by so doing, in effect vote for men who had never given up one tax unless forced to do so? Desert such men, at such a purchase ? Never, never, never : no, if it was at the sacrifice, had he them, of 10,000 hands. (The cheering was here immense.) Some people might have been wrong, although there could not be a doubt but that they acted on principle. He thought that he had acted on principle, however some might have differed from him. He had thought that he bad no other honourable course to pursue, and had shown that had he pursued any other it might have bey n destructive to them, and have brought us hack to the worst days of anarchy, and perhaps something worse. He was ready to go to the poll, and if it was their opinion that be ought not so to do, he should retire to his home satisfied that he had done right, and should only feel sorrow that his motives had been mis taker. That line of conduct that he thought would have been applauded by many it would appear had been mis taken, but that would not alter his purpose. Let the re sult be what it might, he should show by his conduct, for the remainder of his days, that he had deserved their ap probation. The Hon. Baronet sat down amidst the cheers of all pr.sent. H. F. Stephenson, Esq., Mr. Pitt, and Mr. :Abbot, having made some pertinent remarks as to the course to be pursued, and the upright conduct of their late represen tative, the meeting was dissolved, a vote of thanks having been passed to the chairman, and Sir John Hobhoute re tired from the meeting cheered by all present. SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY, FROM LLOYD'S. DEAL, MAY 6.—Wind N.E.—Arrived and sailed for the river the Duke of Bucclench, from Bengal. PORTSMOUTH, MAY 6.—Wind S.S.E.—Arrived the Sultan, Scott, from St. Michael's. FALMOUTH, MAY s.—Wind N., light breezes. Dovint, MAY 6.—Arrived off port the Robert, Quayle, from Bombay. CLYDE, MAY 4.—Arrived the Euterpe, Brown, from Trinidad; and Freedom, Cox, from Palermo. GALWAY, MAY s.—Arrived the Asia, Ward, from London, leaky, bound to Quebec. LP/Earoor., MAI , s.—Arrived the Fie!Hire, Robinson, from New Providence; and Fanny Connelly, Joy, from Lisbon. GIBRALTAR, APRIL 15.—A brig, of about 200 tons, supposed to be a Dine or a Swede, abandoned, and only the bowsprit and mainmast standing, was fallen in with off Cape Finisterre, by the Vautur, Grillett, arrived here to day from Bordeaux. 18t11.—The Africa, Hos Santos, from Lisbon, has been ordered away, in consequence of two deaths on hoard, and has proceeded to the Mediterranean, PENZANCE, May . 4.—S,rine pieces of mahogany, marked " F," have been picked up and brought here. They correspond with those found the beginning of March. The Eagle, Wi:son, from Liverpool to Newfoundland, ran on shore in Carnarvon Bay on Saturday night, and bilged —crew saved. The Earnest, Hart, from Memel to Sunderland, ran on shore on Coquet Island the 4th instant. _ _ _ Arrived Off Bantry Bay the Berwickshire, Thomas ; and Edinburgh, Marshall—sailed the 12th January. Arrived at China the Moffat, Cromartie, from London and Sing•rpore; and Sir David Scott, Ward, from Bengal. Arrived at St. Helena the Feegee, Bewlay, from Ma nilla ; and Bland, Calland, from Bengal. iN IA R RIED. —On the 4th May, at All-Sours Church, in the parish of Marylehone, and afterwards at the Spanish Catholic Chapel, Manchester-square, Do❑ Ysrono LOPEZ DE ARZE, sun of the Chevalier Don LOPEZ DE ARZE, .Cl'., to HARRIET JANE, youngest daughter of Sir GERARD NOEL NOEL, Birt., of Exton Park, M.P. BARING WALL, ESQ., M. P.—Y ester d ay morning Mr. HUMPHREYS, the solicitor to the ab ove men tioned gentleman, delivered a Special Jury list, w i t h no tics of solicitor,tr i.:at lla Lo ndt t,n_ Sittingsoo ,ga rl(en, employedaf after Term, to Mr. TOM mby PA LME R , t h e discharged policeman, fur the prosecution. Mr. CEARICsON is retained for the prosecution ; and Sir JAMES SCA ItLETT and Mr. Pimurs are for the defence. By the death of Vice-Admiral the Hon. Sir HENRY HOTHAM, K.C.8., the command of the British squadron in the Mediterranean has become vacant. Sir HENRY succeeded Vice-Admiral Sir PULTENEY MALcor.m, as Commander in -Chief, on the station, March 30, 1831, and consequently one year's service remained unexpired at t h e time of his demise. Sir HENRY has left a widow (Lady FRANCIS HOTLIAM, sister to the Earl of STRAD- EnoxE), and three children. He commanded the Fleche t!oup in the Mediterranean so far back as 1794, and attained post rank in 1795. Yesterday a numerous Meeting of the Committee ap pointed for the conducting and securing the re-appointment of Sir John Hobhouse as one of their representatives for the city of Westminster, took place at Richardson's hotel, Covent• garden. About 8 o'clock Mr. DE Vstaa,'the chairman, entered the room, and was followed by Sir John Hobhouse, T. Duncombe, Esq., Pascoe Grenfell, Esq., R. Todd, Esq. M.P., the Hon. F. Carlton, H. F. Stephenson, Esq., and miny other gentlemen. The CIIAIRMAN shortly stated, that in consequence of the resolution of Saturday, a deputation had waited upon Sir John Hobhouse, who instantly expressed his willingness to attend the committee or any meeting of the electors, and give any explanations they might please to require. Sir John was there, and would answer any questions that might be put to him. (Cheers.) Sir. J. HonuousE said, that when he thought it his duty, as a gentleman and man of honcur, to take the steps he had done, he had done so spontaneously and of his own free will, both with regard to his Majesty's Govern ment and his resignation of his seat as one of the repre sentatives of the enlightened electors of the city of West minster. It was his intention to have retired into private life, as he had stated in the letter be addressed to the electors. He had been surprised to hear that a report the most calumnious had been circulated, that he had not re tired horn place, that he had in fact kept his appoint tnent in his pocket, and had consequently appeared be fore them in a false character. Gentlemen, said the Hon. Baronet, no charge could have been snore base or false— nothing so untrue. He thought (though it was painful to speak of himself, yet the whole question was personal) that he might appeal to the past to show at once that he had never acted with duplicity.—(Great cheering—" Never, never.") Had no other cause led him to depart from his original intention to retire into private life, he should have felt bound, in justice to himself, to his character, to have come forward to put that matter right by rebutting such a malignant falsehood. But a large meeting had been held, and the electors, after having so repeatedly re-elected him, had again wished hint to come forward. That wish he could not but obey, when made by those by whom he had been so long, and so much respected. He would not shrink from their wishes; they should be obeyed, and with cheerfulness.— (Great cheering.) He had before so done, and would continue to act with them, and for them, through good and evil report.—(Hear, hear, and vehement cheers.) He would not say at what sacrifice he had endeavoured to serve them with fearless honesty of intention. He would only say, that if the electors at large agreed with those present, he was there to take the field, and also to take whatever share of disgrace or danger there might be, and he was hold enough to say, with character untainted and above all suspicion, ay, and he would do so without pledges. —(Hear, hear; " The last thirteen years is sufficient pledge for your future conduct.") They knew what they could do without risking their reputation. They knew what be was prepared to do. He was the can didate; it was for them to choose him if they thought fit. He would ask theni to look bark at his past life, and he thought that recent events ought to explain the integrity of his conduct, if such expla nation was necessary. Pledges he would not condescend to give, conscious as he was of the rectitude of his con duct. Some electors might differ with him, and if they did, they (the Committee) were bound to tell him so, and be as candid to him as be was to them. He was asto nished at the mistakau impression that had been made, but he hoped he had said enough to explain. If not, he would add, that his late conduct carried with it conse- TRICEs OF STOCK' THI , Hank Stock 3 per Cont. Red. B7 636 1 3 per Cent Cons. M 7 , 8 7;41 3 , 4 rer Cent 9I4N j Ditto Red 0 4 1 4% I New 3% per Cent 35% 3 per Cent. Ann. 17'26 - I 4 per Cent. 14*26 Rank Long Ann. to expirp Jan. 5, 186. l6 9 15-:6ln Oct. 10, :85 ---1 Jan. 5, 1860 N 1 1-16 Jan. 5, 1880 .....— Aprils, 1880 -- Jan. 5. 1870....... ..... - PRICES OF FOREIGN FUNDS Austrian Bonds 91 1 4 Belgian Bonds P 514 Ditto Account 85 5 4 Brazilian Bonds 654 Ditto Account t15!4 i i Buenos Ayres Bonds o4y,', 4 Ditto Account ......... ..... Chilian Bonds 2l Ditto Account Columbian Bonds l 5 -14 Ditto Account — Ditto Bonds, 189 A Ditto Account — Danish Bonds -0.% Ditto Account — Greek 80nd5...-. ............ 32 01 1 Ditto Bonds, 1825 -1 Ditto Account...... -1 Mexican Bonds, 5 per cent 25!.4 Ditto Account Ditto, 6 per cent '33 4 Ditto Account 334 Neapolitan — ____ DAY AT 0.,e New sper C e nt. .... In di a Stock .. 5 71 / Ditto Hon do ........ I Sout h Sea Sto ck I Old INevt t. 3 per Cen Anni lsi0! Ex. Bills, 1,0t,'".' $1 , Ditto !twill Di t to Conante !Ditto Adverti • ie o IBank for Acco unt un I n dia for Acco C one . for Account :H IS DAY AT O ,VII °V Per Bonds .. Portuguese Bon ds Ditto Acc0unt...,',441 Regency ' Ditto Account,'/ D Pru itto Bo nds ssian Bonds ...,;;,,;1 Russ i an Bonds, tr,.-/d Ditto Account.o,/ New LOan ...... 1, ......... ✓ SpaniSh BOndS,18: Ditto Account..":„' Ditto Bonds,ount Ditto Acc..,c, French Rentes , 5 P' Dutch, = p. c .... ..., Ditto Account „, Ditto, sp. ......., Ditto Account. Fnench Scrip t... 4 --- r - i,4 ------- #' PRICES OF SHARES THIS DAY AT DO °C Paid. Anglo Mex. Min, Co. (ins, at 5/. Pin. ) L loo Bolanos Mining Company •£l2 Brazilian Imp. Min. Co. (ss. at 5/. pr* ) C`" 17g !lino National [ Ditto St.. John Del Rey Ditto Cocaes British Iron Mining Company Columbian Milling Co. (is, at 51. pm.) English Mining Company 12 2 g 0 General Mining Association Mexican Mining Co. I! Real del Monte Mining C 0...., -- II Tlalpuxahua Mining Co sal 0 , United Mex. Min. Co. (iss. at 21. tam.) 4° Ditto New Sctip 5 Pi 10 Alliance Fire Insuran ce C omp Y Protector Insurance Comp. Australian Co Canada Comp a ny l7 1__ ..................... „/ General Steam Navigati o n C o . 3 25 Provincial Bank of Ireland MAILS. / i Arrived. Due. Arrived• g ..". 1 0 America 0 0 Hain bur ... .","1 0 Holland • ..,,, 0 Brazil 3ic- riio 0 Buenos Ayres 0 0 Jam d 10 , ,,,1 0 Carthagena 0 0 Leeivar • .., ..... ", 1 Dublin 0 0 Lisboa•• .. " ~,, 0 Flanders 0 0 Malta. , ..... „,,,,, I France 0 0 Guernsey' &Jersey 0 01 swurt i ere ad' "° el HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE 0 0 0,40 , Morning ...50 minute; after 4. I Evening...ll'._./ 01 Et/ 1 40 A LONDON, 10 TUESDAY EVENING, MA •' hs" l Several shopkeepers of Westmin ster win/ some days past had placards in t heir be P $ announcing that no assessed taxes will t i o rli by them in future. We do n ot melt odth because we believe that the vapourers in 3l i llls " future" to extend beyond the nett by the tax-gatherer—for we arc Per su desir e their chief, if not only motives, are th e but notoriety and of advertising their sh°o --- f . 0 11: , cause we take th em as co ll atera l Pre ° I really great exc i tement which preva'o-; 0 0, public mind w i t h respect to t h e house % t i c (' dow taxes. Let the sense of their kept alive, and f a ll th ey must . Under t viction we will proceed to lay before O ur o f )' one or two facts, which no sophis tr Y•i SPRING RIC E ' S can d epr i ve of thel l e)f` The Hon. Gentl eman ma d e a great reet t l i,o ll , circumstance of only one-sixth or sever' it h houses in Great Britain being charge d vi • of 4. house d u ty. F or t h e space of a (in 3rter of hour did h e t rumpet f ort h the poise', aristocracy, and point to the circumsta nce ' to 1 1. the cheers of the House, as an an svve p r dtlie charge that the tax imposers always sPa r i iis cc' selves. Let us see h ow f act b ea rs out r 3 53 elusion. The reason why- the , 111 „ g ell the workin g p opu l at i on i s n ot e °3- t v es t the house and w i n d ow tax is, th'3gerlr the smallest sums could not he r a sed , ' from the m , b ecause t h e i r prov i s i o ns are such a variety o f s h apes , t h at t h e y ha ve mr oti"',' left but a su b s i stence . B ut, g i v i ng the 1 1 1 - th e mongering P ar li ament , w hi c h irur se for j i taxes, wh a t ever cre di t i t may elaillt,re desire only t o ma k e t h ose pay who sc- ro ttot able to pay, we must conclude, tha r t : botP l being exempt f rom t h e paymen t of t y e er ty cr and window t axes , on account o f the P °l or i,.° l ' 1 1 their inh a bit ants , pa l aces wou ld, a i brii tg% ed account of the wealth of their owners, be - JO' least in equal proportion with the hou ses diog i: middling classes. Yet we saw that, ac eur i:o ).. the scale of the window duty we gave u i tj a ses th : directly it began to touch the upper c. ,,, 5 0 te (1) burden was lightened. Mr. RICE atle" i ,,,, get out of this by comparing the , P ie 3. made by a Nobleman with those 1 113 ' 1 ,do' ° ' man living in a house hating ten vit o , 0 111) He clearly showed that the D u ke of paid somewhat more in proportion 01 03 1, 113 tit ht earning thirty or forty shillings per "' ee l e 1 7 ! carefully abstained from saying whethe r t ig er! ' more than a shopkeeper, in the loves/ s treet London. He took an extreme ease , b e ; 0 0 1 Y suited his then purpose. He saw no thhir " in this on Th urs d ay night ; but on fri dY ' re ee i l' Mr. COB BETT compared the duty on a n d P c stamp, paid by a poor man, for "21., a" 00 11 ' paid by a wea l t h y man f or 10,000/./ t he ole ti° Secretary, k now i ng t h e conve nient n le 113' 1 1 possessed by his audience, said-- b o ro, mu " In every . scale of duties, be it long °I . 9 1 t bel s i o , l trust necessarily be a point or extreme, wbic h ' oac ill' tt i/ it, it would be most unfair to found any general,_e:,e 0 r .,10 upon ;—take, for example, tLe ten-pound francu'ootre,,vid stamp receipt minimum, or any other extreme; der being tl3o' being valid, because not true and fair, from the averag e or mean d ut i es ." t What a pity Mr. RICE did not teen the night before ! He thus proceeded " The Hon. Me m b er f oun d e d all his statemendt, 0-0 t ic tremes, when, in fairness, they should he bal d we tr Ic mean or average duty. Ile (Mr. It ice2 o : ti . .7 eom t e t l ; e t t i counter.a , etnent on the average tlutie s, result would be a total overthrow of the 110 0 ' gross misrepresentalens." It is proverbi a l th a t a certain cla ss o f P erse te l; ; Unfortu l° to ought to h a v e goo d memories. rn e for Mr. R ICE ( n ot that we p resu say he b e l ongs t o that class), a ll his ore r ocs misrepresent a tions" of thenight bef he clearly ex p ose d by the very rule "Ad „re , lays doAn. He, as we have sai d above, 01,1 f t 1... t not with espeet to the window du t y , boi c-s did the aristocracy pay more than nic e cor dil but actually let off altogether, those wh° . tere o :rot pay... So loudly did the land ed Irl d " 41 be cheer this statement, and so fully convinceof the be valiant Secretary of' the gullibilitY.vioo: F.rdish that lie has permitted the e alc e P h to 12 lie referred to in the course of hip sPee PUbli Was t ........: