The Sun. — London, England, 1836-04-28 00:00:00

--- - -; i establishment of rabble Corporations n Ireland, be- was very desirous to have the opinion of t h e C h a ir as to whether c ause they will be worked by the same hierocracy,K L A N had s a p i r d o properly by y done t its he d Standingut y o r Orders not. through the sam e and other subaltern organs, to the Sir G. that .s Committeeßic_ D parties were bound to deposit a plan and description of the ruin of the Protestant laity. We will resist both, be- county through which the Canal proceeded, and this he be cause they are fraudulent and hateful manoeuvres, co- lieved had not been done in lie present . case. But ther e was another' question before the House, viz. whether th e p arty did ver tly tending to the subversion o f our l i berties, to the n ot s how such a case of hardship, so that th e indulgence of production of a civil war, embittered by re li g i ous ran - the H ouse an d o f t h e S tan di ng O r d ers Committee might be cou r, and to the separation from our representative mo- expected ? On that point he would not dwell ; but he thought L f e r n e o c h t n e , narchy of all which has hitherto upheld and strength nitnfhaessume ti n e h a sh e id not that the Hon. Member who brought forward the case, was de fe ctiv e in e o n f e part e o i f nde ti n s svee s n p nt ened it, though names and forms may for some time be left unaltered. The powerful Conservative majority n t s o o i w nd a ue c e as the o H p ouse to the duty of the House to adhere to the magnitude as reg s ul t a a r nd. Order. It in the House of Lords is a benefit, full of hope for . was Standing Orders the nation : it would have been still stronger than it as a regular rule, but where a case was shown of strong necessity was, but Lords Mansfield, Winchilsea, and the Duke or of great public inconvenience, he would be the first to allow a departure J. R fr A om H A th A er, w nd ed to to show indulgence to the parties. of Newcastle, and two or three others, who agree in duced him to concur with the in the main with the leaders of the . . Conservatives, ob. -majoritystte n t f h t e he re s as ta o n n d s ing which Orders jetted to the Ministerial Bill in pr i nciple as well as in Committee. Before the House reversed this decision, he detail.— Times. begged to state that two Committees had concurred in with sentiments approach-the opinion that the Standing Orders had not been com ing to disgust, the petulant, and all but unmannerly, decisions of two Conamittees, a and ap w p a e s in itself a question of tone of Lord John Russell's reply, on Monday last, great importance. He admitted to the fullest extent that an to the just remark which had been made by Lord adherence to the St an di ng O r d ers must l ea d t o c onsiderable Stanley on the insulting propositions of Lord Mor- inconvenience in the Midland Counties in the formation state eth, for grinding down the incomes of the Irish Canal, a but notwithstanding ltugh th u is nd h o e u s h v t a e s d b ly ou d to would lead to that the P Standing Orders, established clergy, discharging the laborious duties inconvenience, were consistent with the rights of property and of extensive parishes, to the level of an exciseman'., strict justice. The Standing Order, as now framed, whatever salary. But it was befitting the embarrassment of might be the inconvenience arising from it, was strictly in con fortuity with the sacred rights of property in the original pro- Lord John Russell's situation, as well as the grandeur and refinement of his character, to let loose a pack p Mr. * EVELYN DENISON was surprised that his Hon. of personalities at one whose arguments are not more Friend the Member for Yorkshire should suppose the Stand beyond his strength than his straightforward earnest- ing Order was so clear that nobody could doubt the meaning ness and energy are above his Lordship's emulation. of it, when in fact, in the Committee upon the Standing Orders a considerable difference arose, and a division took Lord Stanley's was a natural comment upon the place upon that very Standing Order.—(" Hear, hear," and gross and stupid recklessness of so dealing with the laughter.) He thought that in the case of this Canal the Church, that hereafter no well-educated gentleman, not Standing Order had been distinctly complied with, and he be already in possession of an independent fortune, or lieved that in the Committee be had moved a resolution to pushed on by devout enthusiasm, to a total sacrifice of that effect. All that was required by the Standing Orders was, that a direct line should be drawn upon those points from every temporal and worldly good, will be found to enter which the water was to be taken, and that had been done. upon the majority of Irish benefices. Out of 1,200 As it was waste water which would flow when the canal was livings, and something more, to which Lord Morpeth at its highest level, it could not be said that it was drawn from threatens that he will reduce the Church of Ireland, it the e h he a o d rig d i o n n a e l C al a l n l a v l h . ieh H e e on c l o d n h ce e iv e e x d . s appears that no less than 800, or two-thirds of the the pr o i j a e g ct s or w s h ( i ) e f h th s e lp m pl e i a e s d ur t pect p e r dfrom them, in giving notice to the parties interested whole, will afford their respective clergyman a sub- in it. sistence of from 1001. to 2001. per annum !—not The O'C ONO R DON, as one of the majority who voted the wages of a fourth-rate banker's. clerk—not the in the Committee of . Standing Orders, wished to i s i t u a n te B h a is amount of a stage coachman's annual earnings .'A r p o e u r feet, the rr Memberen c for n Cumber] a t n a d k . b It y a t ppeared to him * the pretty set of married scholars a nd theologia ns will parties had not complied with the rules of the House, and that be invited into a Church thus endowed ! We repeat, it should be regarded as the extension of the original line therefore, that Lord Stanley's disapprobation of such of Canal. wretched impolicy and such vile injustice was not Mr. CAMPBELL replied—The complaining parties we re all aware of the source from whence the Canal was to b e only becoming but inevitable, and ought at least to supplied. He (Mr. Campbell) had not entered upon tho have been respectfully treated by a member of that merits of the Bill, but he would now take the liberty of stating same Russell family which retains at this moment that the Canal had not one lock from one end to the other— from the spoils of the Church of England, and revels which th an a d t t i h t at w anso injury wouldss-ast waste resultw ate to r b these e sep parties, t i it e w s,a a supplied, as the t he whole in a revenue equal to one-third of the sum-total, water of these streams was given to that Canal. There was a viz., 361,0001. per annum, designed by the Wh4gs vulgar Scotch proverb which he should mention, as it was to support henceforth the entire body of Irish very trite and applicable : it had been said that these parties Clergy. And how was Lord Stanley's reasonable and had been injured, ' and a pig may_ fly, but l he (Mr. Campbell) i that — ( p . r l o u p c e h r t l y a laughter.) t e Ns r .a . temperate observation answered by the whipster of the tho T tig e ht s it p w E a A s K a Eveßry unlikelyconsideredb d ?er was Whig-Radical majority ? Why, he was apostrophized just as deserving of the protection of that House as property as " Hotspur !" by Lord John Russell,—Pareum in land. He did not think that the House was prepared to parva decent ; and the joke was second-hand too, hay- reverse what was the obvious meaning of the Standing Orders to which allusion had b een ma d e , or the opinion of the Stand ing been uttered by a member in a debate last week. ing Orders Committe e , th e eff ec t of which would be the vir- What, again, was the argumentative effort of Lord tual repeal of that Order.—(Hear, hear.) Such being his John Russell ? Lord Stanley had condemned the re- (the Speaker's) view of the case, it was his opinion that the duction of the highest incomes provided for the most Standing Order had in the present instance been complied with. arduous labours of the Irish clergy to the Mr. HINDLE Y th oug h t un if orm i ty s h ou ld b e o b serve d i n maxi»zum House, otherwise it would be allowance of 5001. a year. Oh, cries Lord John Rus- impossible g t the b t u t s o h i ne s s of that rough it. sell, but is not that much better than that Irish der - The SPEkK E R reiterated his opinion that the House gymen should now enjoy 800/. or 1,000/. a year, and should enforce the Standing Order. In the present instance, spend it at Cheltenham or Brighton ? My Lord John it mo appeared to him that compliance with the regulation s was Il Russell, you are as little of a logician as you are of an indispensably lr necessary. ft the • • rong opini historian, a statesman, or a poet ! No Conservative the Speaker, would not persevere er st in his tionon expressed by . has the least idea of indulging or continuing the race of NENE OUTFALL 81!..L. pampered sinecurists. Sir Robert Peel and Lord Mr. TOWNLEY moved the second reading of this Bill. Stanley have both disclaimed all such absurdities. We HERNE BAY PIER BILL. KNATCHBULL, the Herne therefore ask you, my Lord John, wheth er th ere i s no On the motion of Sir E. . r Bay Bier Pill was read a second time. medium between underpaying miserably the pastor of DOVER HARBOUR. above 3,000 souls, and lavishing a prodigal income Mr. P. THOMSON moved for a Select Committee to in upon the watering-place voluptuary, whose house of quire into Dover Harbour. devotion is his club-house ? A Bill like that of which 11.* HUM E wished to know whether the charges on ship itpling, would l be , er d .T.iired into b d y . t f his his Co c m o mitth t e t . That was Lord Morpeth drew on Monday last the detestable e were not outline will never become the law of a civilized coin- competent leo°ject re would ain b ‘ r . i i n e r %, - v 'th a e n sub ' jec t •t again.forwar in d ml :nullity, because it goes to place the worldly respecta- Mr. P. THOMSON said that was his only object in ap hility of those who are to instruct the Protestants of pointing the Committee. Ireland in the science most important to human wel- hadMtrlie H p L o T n l . l e E r t said i t u m must he understood that the Committee ir st into the sub'ect of passim , - Tolls. fare incomparably below the level of the other edu- This was assented to, g and the Committee j appointed. cated classes. This may be Whig statesmanship, but Mr. C HAPMAN presented a petition from Whitby, in it is flat and vulgar ignorance, and the authors of so favour of the South Durham Railway Bill. EDINBURGH Ie, „ CORPORATION. The . T I mean a policy will not long escape its recoil upon Th A OIN E Y-G NE RA L presented a petition from themselves.—Times of yesterday. Edinburgh against the Scotch Salmon Fisheries Bill. The Learned Gentleman also brought up the Report of the Com mittee on the Edinburgh Poor Bill. Mr. A. JOHNSTONE objected to the priviliges being taken from the Corporation of Edinburgh in the manner pro posed by the Bill. Every person admitted into the Corpora. tion must be qualified by education, and were obliged to pay large fines for their admission.—( Hear, hear. ) The direct taxation of Edinburgh amounted to no less than orii per cent. upon the whole rental. By certain privileges (as we understood) the College of Justice was exempted from taxation to the amount of 13 per cent. The Faculty of Advocates, how ever, offered to give up these privileges for the sake of the community. The question ought to be taken into consideration. [ There were large districts within the town which enjoyed the exclusive privilege of not paying Poor Rates.—( Hear. ) He maintained that the citizens of Edinburgh should not be taxed, as was proposed, to the amount of 20,000/. per annum, and he submitted that the House ought not to entertain a mea sure of so partial a nature, to the prejudice of a vast body of the community. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL expressed his astonish ment that any Hon. Member of that House could come for ward to make such a proposition. What was the object of the present Bill ? About the year 1698, Bill was in troduced for the relief of the poor into which the members of the College of Justice, consisting of the judges, advocates, solicitors, writers, and their clerks—a very powerful and influential body, contrived to have a clause inserted exempting them from contributing to the poor's rates —at that period the rate was trifling, but it was now very bur thensome, and it was for the purpose of putting an end to that most unjust, and, he would say, scandalous exemp tion, that the present Bill had been introduced.—(Hear, hear.) The fact was, a very large proportion of the members of the College of Justice were favourable to the measure, they were actually ashamed of their exemp tion.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for St. Andrew's now stood forward as the zealous defender of that body—they were vested rights, and should be continued in sccula seculo rum. In France the ancient noblesse were exempt from con tributing to the relief of the poor, and the Honourable and Learned Member for St. Andrews, it appeared, wished to be on a footing with the French noblesse.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member had stated that this Bill was an innovation and an invasion of the rights of property, but this could not be the case, inasmuch as the tax was a personal one. Under these circumstances he trusted the Hon. Member for St. Andrews would meet with no sympathy from that House. Sir G. CLERK hoped the House would not set aside the vested rights of any body of persons without compensation. The Society of Advocates were willing to give up their privi leges upon conditions—which con diti ons were no t to b e f or their own benefit, but for the community at large —upon the condition that no tax whatever should be levied upon any House of less value than 10/. Had that been done the questions of the annuity-tax and the poor-rates would have been settled upon a firm basis. Last session the Lord Advo cate had promised to bring in a Bill for the purpose of set tling the two questions. The Society of Advocates had then declared their intention of giving up their privileges if the two Bills were conjoined, but if they were disjoined, they would oppose both. That declaration was made in June last year, and yet, although the House sat for three months after, no Bill was brought in by the Learned Lord, nor was any mention made of it. Why was that ? In a measure of this kind, due provision ought to be made for the Clergy of the Established Church. The Faculty of Advo cates were justified in making stipulations so purely disinte rested, and he trusted the House would not deprive them of privileges which they had always exercised in so laudible a manner. They were willing to give up these privileges, but they would not do so till some plan was proposed for set tling all these questions that disturbed the peace of the popu lation of Edinburgh.—( Hear, hear.) He trusted after what had fallen from the Hon. and Learned Attorney-General last night, that a Bill would soon be brought in to settle the An nuity Tax.---( Hear, hear.) Mr. R. STEUART was very glad to hear the Hon. Ba ronet, the Member for the county of Edinburgh, give up this claim of exemption ; but he was greatly surprised to hear the Honourable Member for St. Andrews support it. The Hon. Baronet objected to any measure until the whole question was gone into, but he must know that the rest of the inhabitants of Edinburgh would be relieved the fifth of the present amount of taxes imposed upon them.—(Hear.) The Hon. Baronet expressed surprise that the Lord Advocate had not during the last Session, brought in a Bill on the subject of the Annuity Tax ; but he must be aware that there are questions still pending in the Courts of Law which must be decided before any settlement can be expected.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He had not heard any reason why the rich should be exempt while the poor were subject to a heavy tax. All that was proposed by the Bill before the House was to remove an abuse which had existed for centuries, and which no one had attempted to defend. It was said the privilege had been hitherto used by the College of Jus tice without disadvantage to the public. He should be sorry to cast any reflections on that body or any member of it, but he trusted the House would not affirm the principle of exempting any longer the rich from a tax which persons far less able to bear it, were still subject to. Mr. PRINGLE said the Members of the College of Jus tice had paid large fees for their admission. He therefore ) 71' ft) SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT, (THIS EVENING.) HOUSE OF COMMONS. The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour. EDINBURGH AND GLASGOW RAILWAY. Dr. BOWRING presented a petition from the Town Council of Kilmarnock, in favour of the Edinburgh and Glas gow Railway Bill. CLYDE NAVIGATION. Mr. OSWALD presented two petitions from places in Scotland, against the Clyde Navigation Bill ; also a petition against the Glasgow Waterworks' Bill. LONDON AND BLACKWALL RAILWAY. Mr. CRAWFORD presented a petition from the owners and lessees of property adjoining the river Thames, against both the lines of Railway from London to Blackwall. LONDON AND NORWICH RAILWAY. On the motion of Captain ALSAGER, a petition, pre seated on the subject of the London and Norwich Railway, was referred to the Committee on the Bill. EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY. Sir W. FOLKES presented a petition against the Eastern Counties Railway Bill. STIRLING CANAL. Mr. W. F. CAMPBELL moved that the projectors of the Stirling Canal Bill should be allowed to proceed without giving further notice. The Bill was read a first time, but a short time afterwards four gentlemen petitioned against it, on the plea that the Standing Orders had not been complied with, and it was then returned to the original Committee, to exa mine the question, when it was decided by a majo rity of six to five, that the Standing Orders were not complied with. There were thirteen Members of the Com mittee, one of whom did not vote, neither did he ( Mr. Camp bell) as chairman, and it was again referred to the Standing Orders Committee, who decided that it could not be viewed in any other light than as the extension of the original line of canal. He would appeal to any Hon. Member acquainted with the length of that Canal, whether it would be possible to furnish any map without giving one three-fourths the size of E ng l an d. His construction of the Standing Order was this, that no person should be taken by surprise, or their property injured, by any measure which might pass through that House, without their knowledge. In this instance the parties were not taken by surprise, because the place from whence the water was to be taken, was stated in the notice lodged in the office of the Clerk of the Peace. He, therefore, trusted the House would let this Bill go before the Committee on its merits. This ap plication was not a novel one, for they had precedents in the cases of the Edinburgh Bridewell, and the Liverpool Dock, Bills, in which the House permitted them to go before the Committee, although the Standing Orders had not been com plied with. He would now move that the promoters of the Stirling Canal be allowed to proceed with the Bill. Sir G. CLERK said, in the instances referred to by the Hon. Member, it had been shown that very great inconvenience and injury would be the consequence if the parties were not allowed to proceed with their Bills, but in the present instance no such case had been made out. In the instance of the Edinburgh Bridewell, the inconvenience had been pointed out of there not being sufficient accommodation for the prisoners, and that was why it had been made an exception. He knew not the ground on which the Bills had been proceeded with, but he was satisfied they must have been very strong ones, as the House had shown a very great disinclination to establish such a precedent. He was willing to admit that some inconve nience might arise from too strict an interpretation of Stand ing Order, No. 5, and there might hereafter be some modifi cation of it; but if that Order was now referred to, it would be found that no ease'had been made out for the interference of that House. The present was a Canal communicating with an existing Canal, and to be supplied entirely from it. The object of having the plans laid before the Committee, was that full notice should be given to all the owners of the brooks and streams that supplied it. Now any owner might permit a certain portion of his stream to be supplied to a Canal, but it would be an act of the greatest injustice if that Canal Company would afterwards, without due notice to the owner, give such an inde finite quantity to other Canals as would draw off the entire supply from the owner's mills.--( Hear, hear.) He did not think the House was bound to go further than to put a proper interpretation upon the Standing Order which had been re ferred to. He concurred in the decision of the Standing Orders Committee, and he therefore left it for the decision of he House. Mr. LOCH said, though this was a question of very great importance to the Midland Counties of England, there were mangy instances within his own knowledge where such interpre tation had not been put on the. Standing Order. There was the Liverpool and Whitchurch Canal, which, it was within his own knowledge, the plans were not considered requisite. He thought the interpretation attempted to be put on the Standing Order was extraordinary, and, therefore, he would support the motion of the Hon. Member (Mr. Campbell.) Mr. PALMER, as one of the Standing Orders Committee, THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 1836 thought it hard that they should be deprived of their vested rights. The faculty of advocates had already signified their willingness to give up this privilege, but this should not be mixed up with any other question. The LORD ADVOCATE thought it a monstrous thing that any body should be exempt from contributing to the sup port of the poor. It was not a right attached to property. Upon what ground, therefore, so reasonable a proposition was to be resisted he could not divine. The Gallery was then cleared for a division. The numbers were— Ayes ... Noes.... 108 Majority in favour of the Bill —3l VOTING IN VESTRIES. Mr. WAK LEY moved for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the 58th of George 111., chap. 69., so far as the same relates to the manlier of voting in vestries, and to alter the mode of voting in all cases in which the manner described in that Act is adopted by other Acts of Parliament." The Hon. Member stated that he hoped no objection would be given to the introduction of the Bill---( Hear)—as every opportunity would be given to Hon. Members to discuss the Principle of the Bill at the second reading. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said this Bill differed essentially to the one brought in by his Hon. and Gallant Friend the Mem ber for Westminster, he should, therefore, feel it his duty to oppose it on a second reading. (LEFT SITTING.) other period he was anxious to draw their Lordship's attention to, was 1813, inasmuch as at that time it was thought desir able to afford assistance in the Court of Chancery.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear, hear.") Another period was 1823, He referred to the year 1823, because there was appointed a Committee to ascertain the best course to bo adopted for despatching the business of the appeals then pending. In 1813, they wished to ascertain the average of causes set down for bearing in the three years preceding 1810, 1811, and 1812, so as to know what was the state of the business at the time that it became necessary to establish the Vice-Chancery Court. The average number of causes in the three years he had men tioned was 540 ; then, taking the years 1823, 1824, and 1825, he took those years as corresponding with 1833, 1834, and 1835, to which he should next refer, he found the average to be 945, while in the three last-mentioned years im mediately preceding the present the average number was 1,301. (LEFT SPEAKING.) IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMONS, ArAIL 27. The SPEAKER took the Chair this evening at the usual hour, GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY. Colonel SIBTHORP wished to ask a question re lative to the Great Northern Railway, on which the House had como to a decision last night. He thought when the Noble Lord brought forward the question, he ( Colo nel S.) had settled the line proposed by Mr. Gibbs, but he found this gentleman appeared before the Committee this mor ning, claiming to be heard as a party bringing forward a line in the next Session of Parliament. It appeared, however, instead of killing the snake, he only scotched him—that he was not killed, only kilt.—( Laughter.) He wished for the opinion of the Speaker, whether or not Mr. Gibbs had a right to be heard before the Committee. If so, any individual might come be fore them, and certainly if one dead man must be heard, any living man had an equal right to be attended to. Mr. WARD, as Chairman of the Committee, begged to say, that they acted on the belief that the meaning of the sixth resolution was to give the public the benefit of knowing the merits of every line, whether before or intended hereafter to be brought before Parliament, but with the dis tinct understanding that Mr. Gibbs could not expect any Legislative sanction for his plan in the present session of Par liament. The SPEAKER said the meaning of the 6th resolution evidently was to give the public the benefit of knowing the merits of every intended line of Railway. Mr. JE PH SON begged to ask for information-sake, whe ther a Committee was not bound by the six resolutions of the House to report on any line of Railway, the plans of which were submitted to them, in accordance with the regulations laid down. The SPEAKER said that questions of this nature ouch to be left, in a great measure, to the discretion of the Com. mittee. BRITISH ALKALI COMPANY. Colonel LYGON moved the third reading of the British Alkali Company. After a few words from Mr. WILBRA HAIM, the Bill was read a third time, and passed. LONDON AND BRIGHTON RAILWAY. • Sir G. STRICKLAND presented apetition from Mitcham, in Surrey, against Rennie's Brighton line ; also a petition against the River Dunn Navigation Bill. DERBY AND LEEDS RAILWAY• _ On the motion of Sir E. WILMOT the Lords' amendments to the Derby and Leeds Railway Bill were taken into considera tion and agreed to. The Hon. Baronet then moved the third reading of the Hollington and Hastings Road Bill.—Passed. Mr. MARJORIBANKS brought up the Report of the Dundee and Newtylc Railway Bill. The LORD ADVOCATE moved the second reading of the Leith and Newhaven Harbour Bill. Lord. C. CLEMENTS moved the second reading of the Dublin and Drogheda Railway Bill.—Ordered to be com mitted. HOUSE OF LORDS. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at five o'clock. tIRISH MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS BILL. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE presented a petition iu favour of the Irish Municipal Corporation Bill. OBSERVANCE OF THE LORD'S DAY. Petitions in favour of the better observance of the Sabbath werepresented from Wesleyan Methodists by Lord Yarbo rough, the Bishop of London, the Marquis of Bute, the Earl of Ripon, and the Bishop of Bangor. BOROUGH OF IPSWICH. Lord HATHERTON said he had three petitions to present from the Borough of Ipswich. The first, from the Aldermen and Town Council ; the second, from the Mayor and Magistrates ; and the third from the inhabitants of that town, all very respectably signed. The petitioners represented that great public inconvenience was likely to arise in consequence of an alleged informa lity in the election of the Town Council, and prayed that their Lordships would pass without delay the Bill then before the House, containing clauses which would meet those incon veniences. CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS. Lord DACRE presented a petition, praying for the abol tion of capital punishments, except in cases of murder. . MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS. Mr. BERNAL and others brought up the Grand Junction London and Birmingham Railway Bill, and stated that the Commons had agreed to their Lordships' amendments. The Sussex Turnpike Road Bill was also brought up. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY presented a petition from Houghton-le-Spring, praying for the better observance of the Sabbath. Earl CLARE presented a petition from the European re sidents of Bombay, praying for an equalization of the duties on Sugar and Coffee. Lord DUNCANNUN laid on the table the fourth Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the prisons of Ireland. Lord LANGDALE presented petitions from Robers Al' William, against the Grand Junction Railway Bill. Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented a similar petition from Hull. The Earl of ROSEBERRY gave notice that it was his intention to move the second reading of the Scotch Entail Bill, on Thursday next. Lord HOLLAND presented two petitions from Mansfield, against the punishment of death in any case except murder. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented the Report of the Committee with respect to both Houses of Parliament. The Belfast and Armagh Railway Bill, the Wearmouth Dock Bill, the Endowment Bill, and the Lanark Road Bill, were severally read a third time and passed. The British Alkali Company's:Bill was read a first, and or dered to be read a second time to-morrow. RESIDENCES AND PLURALITIES BILL. . _ _ The Archbishop of CANTERBURY, in moving the fur ther consideration of the amendments to the Residences and Pluralities Bill, observed, that as he understoodthere were some amendments of an important nature to be moved, he would sug gest that they should go into Committee pro forma that even ing; that the several amendments be printed, and if any other amendments were to be moved that they also be printed. After a few words from Lord Ellenborough, the Duke of Wellington, and Lords Radnor and Melbourne, the Bill was reported, and ordered to be printed. CHANCERY REFORM. The LORD CHANCELLOR, having moved that that part of his Majesty's Speech whidh related to the administration of justice should be read, proceeded to say it became his duty to call the attention of their Lordships to the plan which he should submit, for the purpose of carrying into effect the intentions of his Majesty in that part of the speech which was just read.—( Hear, hear.) He should have to ask the indulgence of the House, because, though it was not his wish to detain them at ®any Yet he found the subject so uninviting, at least he found it so in another place, that it was not easy to attract the atten tion of his hearers. But a subject more important than that which he was about to bring forward, either to the country at large, or to each individual of the House, could not be found because the Court of Chancery by degrees became the ultimate Court for deciding by far the greater portion of the property of their country, and it was re sorted to, to decide the nature of property, the complexity of the means resorted to for the better enjoyment of property, and from a variety of other causes, which it was not now necessary to explain, a large portion of the property of this country was under the controul, and would continue so as long as the present law existed under the administration of the Court of Chancery. The Bill he had now to propose for their Lord ships' adoption was one to provide for the due adminstration of a Court having such extensive jurisdiction—that Bill required a most patient inquiry, and lie was sure their Lordships would give it their most serious attention, and they would bear with him while he shortly pointed out the existing evils which it was proposed to redress, and what remedies had occurred to him to remove them. As to the business now transacted by the Court, he would refer to the returns which he had taken the liberty of calling for. He had moved for these returns from a very early period—some might think from too early a period for the purpose—but he had done so for the purpose of showing- the increase which had taken place since the time when Lord Hardwicke presided in the Court, which were called the golden days of the Court of Chancery. Many doubted that the business bad increased since that time, but considering the increase of the wealth and opulence, and commerce of this country, it would be most extraordinary if it had not increased. When the first appointment of the Vice Chancellor's Court took place, he was astonished at what was stated by Sir Samuel Romilly, who was not used to bd incorrect—who was most particular :in his statements, yet he had said that he believed the busines of Chancery had not increased since the time of Lord Hardwicke. He confessed he was astonished at it from such a quarter. and that if they had now such men as Lord Hardwicke, the difficulties would bease, and that the evils were not in the system but in those who administered it.—( Hear, hear.)_.. For these reasons, he was anxious to have means of ascertaining the fact one way or the other, and to know whether the in convenience which existed and the delay which occurred from the pressure of business arose in point of fact from an increase of bssiness, or from some other cause. For these reasons, he was anxious to procure returns from the period of Lord Hardwick's Chancellorship, but, unfortunately it appeared that no books were kept during this period, and consequently they were unable to make these re turns.—( Hear.) He would, therefore, call their atten tion at present to the period of his administration from the year 1767, the earliest period at which the returns could be comple. It appeared that the 9average of the cases set down to be heard in the two branches of the Court of Chancery, viz., the Court of the Lord Chancellor, the Court of the Master of the Rolls from the year 1761 to the year 1765, was 411. This was the annual ave rage during that period. Comparing this with what ap peared upon the returns, the annual returns for the last 5 years, viz., from 1831 to 1835, was 1283. Proceeding to an other description of business, viz., the petitions which had been presented in the two branches of the Court of Chancery. He found that from 1750—for the returns of the petitions went back to an earlier period than the causes—to 1760, the average during this period was 379, whilst, during the last five years, the annual average was 2,813. He had then looked to another branch of the Court of Chan cery, in order to see what was the pressure one the time of the Lord Chancellor, in hearing appeals from the other Court, that of the Master of the Rolls. They found they averaged from 1761 to 1765 was twelve, and the average from 1831 to 1835, was fifty. The latter applied to all matters that occupied considerable time none of them being matters of course. He had now, he trusted, disposed for ever of that imputation on the present course of business in the Court of Chancery, as compared with the time of Lord Hardwicke, and the assertion that no assistance was required in his time. No man was more disposed to estimate highly the character of Lord Hardwicke as a Judge than himself, and few had better opportunities of judging of it than himself, hav ing been entrusted with the manuscript notes of his Lordship. He had' therefore, abundant opportunity of tracing out the ac curacy and industry of that Learned Lord in disposing of the business, whicn, although it was small as compared with the present time, yet received his unremitting attention, He found that that Learned Lord had not only made copious notes but had adopted the best security for the suitor, by writ ing his judgments in his own hand, and then delivering them. That mode of administering justice so much practised by Lord Hardwicke, and which must have tended to raise the great name which belonged to his memory, was a practice always advisable to follow if possible.--(Hear, hear.) It would be absurd to say that Judges were always to write their judgments ; but in complicated cases lie was convinced that no course was better for a Judge to adopt to lead him to a right conclusion than writing out his judgment. Drawing the comparisons he had done, it must not be sup posed that he was detracting from the character of that great Judge ; his object was to rescue the Court of Chancery of the present day from the charge of delay, not being able to perform the business of the Court as it was done in the time of Lord Hardwicke. Looking at the very great in crease of business in the Courts, no person whatever could be at all surprised that the present machinery was not as effectual at the present moment as it was then., An- FACTORIES BILL. Mr. FINCH presented a petition from Stamford and other places, against the Factory Bill. Lord ASHLEY supported the prayer of the petition, and gave notice (as We understood) that when the Bill was brought forward, he would move that it be read a second time that day six months. Mr. FIE LDE N presented a petition from Oldham, praying the House to shorten the hours of labour in factories. DISSENTERS GRIEVANCES. Mr. B. HOY presented a petition from the Wesleyan Me thodists of Southampton, praying for the redress of the grievances under which they at present labour. Sir, R. FERGUSON presented six petitions to the same effect from different congregatins of Dissenters in the county of Nottingham. ATTORNEYS' CERTIFICATES. Sir E. WILNIOT presented a petition from the solicitors of Birmingham, praying for a reduction of the duty on their licenses. FACTORIES. Sir G. STRICKLAND presented a petition from Keigh. ley and other places in Yorkshire, praying that the hours of labor in factories might be limited to ten hours. Also a peti tion from Huddersfield, praying that the law which restricted the labor of children might be repealed, and that children from nine years of age and upwards, might be allowed to work for twelve hours in the day. The Hon. Baronet stated he could not agree with the prayer of the petition. DUTY ON NEWSPAPERS. The HON. BARONET then presented a petition front Keighley, and another place in Yorkshire, praying for the abolition of the Tax on Newspapers. SPIRIT LICENSES. The HON. BARONET next presented a petition from the West Riding of Yorkshire, praying that the duty on licenses for the retail of spirits might be repealed. RIVER SHANNON. Lord CLEMENTS presented a petition from Carrick-on- Shannon, praying that the contemplated improvements in the river may be speedily carried into effect. CIVIL BILLS (IRELAND.) Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL presented a petition from an in dividual residing in Killarney, connected with the manor court of that district, praying for compensation in case a clause in the new Civil Bill Act, which affects his rights, should be passed into a law. MARINE INSURANCES. Captain PE CH EL L presented a petition from Shoreham, Arundel, Chichester, and Little Hampton ; also from the shipowners of Sunderland, praying for a reduction of the duty on Marine Insurances. ANNUITY TAX. Mr. GILL ON presented a petition from Thomas Chapman, a prisoner in the gaol of Edinburgh, complaining of the pres sure of the Annuity-tax, and praying the House to in terfere to procure his release. It was, he said, an instance of clerical rapacity and tyranny seldom brought un der the view of Hon. Gentlemen. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had a petition to present on the same subject; he might perhaps as well take that op portunity of doing so. Mr. GILL ON intimated that he had not concluded, and was proceeding when, Sir G. CLERK rose to order. After a few words from the SPEAKER, Mr. GILLON hoped that this attempt to stifle the cries of the victims of oppression would not be successful. He applied to the House on behalf of Mr. Chapman, who had been most unjustly deprived of his liberty. The SPEAKER suggested, that in conformity with what appeared to be the opinion of the House, the Hon. Member should then present his petition, and give notice of a motion on the subject. Mr. GILLON had not concluded the observations which he proposed to make in reference to the petition he had just presented, and insisted upon his right to resume the statement in which he was interrupted. Sir G. CLERK submitted that it was not competent for the Hon. Member for Falkirk to enter into any argument upon the presentation of a petition. • The SPEAKER said that the Hon. Member was at liberty to advert to the allegations contained in the petition, but that if he deemed it necessary to argue upon the facts, it would be far more convenient if he gave notice of a motion. Mr. GILL ON said the annuity.tax was confined to the city of Edinburgh ; and if he were to introduce any Bill for the repeal of the tax, he might be met with the objection that it was in the nature of a private Bill, and that the time for the introduction of private Bills had expired. He could assure the House, however, that there was a determined intention on the part of the people of Edinburgh to resist the collection of this abominable tax. Mr. C. BRUCE rose to order. Mr. METHUEN suggested to his Hon. Friend to refrain from further discussion for the present, and to give notice of a motion for a future evening.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. GILL ON called on the Right Hon. Gentleman near him (the Attorney-General) to comply with the wishes of his constituents, and endeavour to procure the immediate repeal of a tax which they conceived to be at variance with the laws of God and man. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was as anxious as the Hon. Member, or as any other Member could be, for the re peal of this obnoxious tax. He could not agree with the Hon. Member, however, that it would be justifiable to resist the payment of the tax whilst the law remained unrepealed —( Hear, hear.) Sir GEORGE CLERK wished to know why the report of the Church Commissioners had not yet been presented ? Ministers ought to urge them to lay it before his Majesty without delay. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL explained. Mr. HUME observed, that Montrose and Edinburgh were the only two places where these differences existed. Sir GEORGE CLERK explained. Mr. WALLACE said he rose to present two petitions on this very important subject—one from Mr. Councillor Russell, at present in gaol for non-payment of this tax, and the other from a numerous body of the inhabitants of the city of Perth. He would treat this as a very grave and serious matter, and in that respect agree with what had fallen from the Learned At torney-General. He was happy to see that the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department, had entered the House. He would ask that Noble Lord if any plan had been devised, or was in contemplation, for getting rid of this most scanda lous tax, in which term, as also respecting the shameful ex emption of the whole legal profession in Edinburgh, he cor dially agreed with the Attorney-General. It was one of the very worst features of this tax, that the richest, the most influ ential, and best informed class in Edinburgh, had continued to keep themselves out of this scrape; and he could not but remark its savouring strangely of their having connived at the mode in which it had been fastened on the rest of the commu nity of Edinburgh, and which had been so well described by the Hon Member for Falkirk—( Hear, hear)—for it is —____,. quite true that the professional body never put their ticman's duty as a Minister of the Crown not to ----- ''- a i, ...... less inf orme d f e ll ow _ e itizcns on their guard when the Bill was fair and partial selection of taxes to be rernitted in t , — „ e an - in its p rogress t h roug h p a rliament. He woald speak of this that all classes were benefited in the reductio ns ' -4 te ll ß " tax only as a very grave and stringent one, which all classes held about to effect. —THear, hear.) It was a currieh h:Sfl stance, but it was the fac't, that in the reduction °11 : f e i 4 1 4 as odious and oppressive—one which must be got rid of in ac_ cordance w i t h t h e w i s h„ o f a ll classes, whether Churchmen which had taken place in this country during th e l ast tax at . • or Dissenters ; b ut if it m ust b e kept on for a time, he had no no great or substantial relief (as was shown by the fi ve ye to i , difficulty in sa yi ng that t h ose w h o had hitherto paid it must turns dated the 17th of March, 1836) had been ati o e v r,elal k : B ) now be relieved from it, and those who had contrived to escape agricultural interest. From 1831 to 1835, the ama s'eq to r h " from it be forced t o pay i t ent i re ly, until, at the least, they had duction of taxation was 891,000/. ; but when the v -4t °i t' : paid to the same amount as their brethren. He would sane- examine how much of this remission was of taxes "' j a k t tle t- r ,.. tion a Bill to thro w t h e w h o l e o f this odiou s tax on the directly on the land, the House would be surprised w aA e g he t i , : learned profession of Edinburgh for five or seven years, or that the whole amount was only half a million.—( Fi t e " gise ov ; until they had paid as much as those who presently suffer under He found amongst these reductions the duty on til ear' hearer it; and he would like to know what valid objections that rich, a certain extent, no doubt, was borne by the land, es ' il ,l"ich t o numerous, and learned b o dy wou ld ma ke to so just a proposi- amounted to 33,0001. That on fire insurance with a ,-,„tthiek tion. In accordance with your advice, Sir, and the feeling agricultural property amounted to 30,0001. Th e t a r v Pact t - manifested by the House, he would not enter further at pre- dows and houses was also repealed ; but he - " w ii ° sent into this case, but merely bring up the petitions of Mr. House, that though that was a general reduction Ti l l tell t i h; Councillor Russell, now in the common jail of Edinburgh, ficial to the country, and of which he was, at the tr Ihbeae and that of nearly seven hundred of the inhabitants of Perth, proposed, a warm advocate, it conferred a benefit not rn s - W4 ' who sympathised with that gentleman, and who prayed that on the agriculturists as on the inhabitants of town s . 0 - thin s the tax in question be abolished, as every other detrimental whole, he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer On tht to piety and morality must do. low, that with respect to taxes which had hitherto be n -se al. Lord J. RUSSELL said, difficulties had stood in the way off, a rather partial reduction (to say the least of it) le,a-‘, taken epni°3sfst'ss Bhe-ttlell of the borough commissioners which had delayed the report of made. The duty on printed cottons had been thetak the Church commissioners ; and he had been informed that a or entirely for the benefit of the the manufacturing p a ,. 80 1e1, report had been drawn up by the latter, which was ready to be country. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer m 1,4.14 the presented, but that a question had subsequently arisen as to that the taxes which had been taken off were benefi e iV say , the exp e diency of presenting a report regarding Edinburgh agriculturists, because those on whom they immediate) al the only, wh en eve n that was not complete ;it was suggested that contributed to the charges on the land. Now let tied it ought t o b e d e layed until that portion of the subject had take the fact, that not half a million of taxes whichQp,°llBo been thoroughly investigated. The Commissioners were fur. immediately on land had been remitted ; and then look pres sed nished with t h e num ber of persons attending the churches, but number of general and direct taxes to which th e l a 4t the not with th e amo unt of funds applicable to them, and the subjected.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Let the m l ook nd a jaa Commissioners had applied to him for his opinion, to which he expenses of the county rates, which were very consider a i t i th e replied that as they must be much better judges of the matter not at present diminished by any material amount. T h e allti than he could b e , it would be fit for th em t o adopt some deci- vernment certainly last year afforded the agriculturist s ° 'a• sion of their own ; he had added, however, that according to partial relief by the payment of 100,000/, for their original in s t ru ctions, if they were no t prepa r ed to make of felons ; but he quite concurred in the opinlilo.hnicthhatthethaee;tei°4ll a report on part of the subject, it would be proper for them to expense of these prosecutions should be taken dr, and e l v, not e make a report, stating the grounds for not doing so. The should be made a national charge on the country. ( Tat i t Commissioners had not yet taken either course, and he had hear.) In the malt tax and assessed taxes, not received either a partial report or a statement why a turists had to pay, he regretted that neither the pre so gleat partial report had not been made.—( Hear, hear.) H e qu it e t h e G overnment b y w hi c h i t was preceded had thought 11`) agreed in what had been generally stated, that it was ex p e - to ma k e t h e s li g h test re d uct i on. Th e question of the r lO- r elle.:. dient some settlemeat of the question immediately before th e tax was one u p on w hi c h h e did not f ee l j ustified in t 1.441 House should be made; but difficulties had been crea t e d, no t The [louse on of Commons had decided it, and h e only ad et l. ung, by the Government, but by events which had happened long to it for a moment for the purpose of repeating hi s ( T i rted ago ; notwithstanding those difficulties, if only what was rea- from the co urse whi c h wa s taken in r ef us i ng agnculturiat: the , he sonable were considered, a settlement, he thought, might be relief which on this question they demanded.—(H ear made, but it would not be at a ll easy to frame any settlement The Noble Lord then adverted to a Committee app o i ate ,„ .) in which all parties would concur.—( Hear.) the House of Lords in 1824 on the subject of county r at 4 by es . Sir W. RAE gave notice, that if in the course of a fort- highway rates, and read from their report an extract to th e ea .'4 night nothing were done, he would bring the subject again be- that it was clearly established by the evidence brought b e f or fl eet fore the House. Committee that the landed interests were not comp ensa ,_e th e After a few words from Mr. Pringle, Mr. A. Johnston, the any corresponding reductions in taxation for the fi xe d ni ` e d by Attorney-General, and Mr. Hope Johnstone, the petition was payments to which they were liable ; that, whilst their 15 ,. ° teY laid upon the table. able returns had decreased, their burdens had been au ` --e 'ata COURTS OF EQUITY. that improvements and the facilities of internal grnented improvements in..-- ___. _ cornmunicat•-; were national objects of importance, the expenses o f wil .°4 should be borne by the community generally, th at the exisohleh of the highway rate was 421,5041., of which 388,440/. f e 'ese the land, and only 33,3061. was borne by the holders of o f property. In 1834, he had submitted a moti on very simii:'er the present, name ly, th a t i n any red uc ti ons which should to effected relief s h ou ld no t b e w ithheld f rom th e landed interest and the Minister of that day having opposed it, a divisio n t( ; ,: ;,; place, when the num b ers were — agains t th e proposition n: and in favour of it 204. So that the Government t h en had Os, a majority of two.---( Hear, hear.) In the present House but Commons, and with a l arge re t urn w hi c h h a d been m a d e q Hon. Gentle men w h o a t t h at t i me , an d s i nce , professed th tf attachment to the landed interest, he could not but beliee'r that he should h ave th e sa ti s f ac ti on no t on ly o f hearing thei°o professions, b u t o f see i ng t h ose p ro f ess i ons esta bli s h ed by theirr votes, and that th os e w h o d ec l are d th emse l ves to be the assertion friends on th e h us ti ngs wou ld p rove th e truth of tse assertion by their acts in that House.—( He ar , h ear .) T he l'e had heard rumours within the last few days (it was not for hi th 3r to say whether or not they were correc t) o f th e probability - their appearing again bef ore th e i r const it uen t s . if et should be the case, he, for one, would certainly feel mot !'t gratified if he were enabled to call on his constituents f or renewal of their confidence on the ground that he had cony tributed towards attaining some relief for them, partic u l ar) when he should feel co n v i nce d th a t i n h av i ng acte d as e should have done he would n o t h ave h am p ere d th e i nte ntio,..! of Government with regar d t o th e re d uct i ons w hi c h they pr7s posed.—( Hear, hear.) With regard to the question of c orns laws the Committee had made an allusion to it in their re_ port, nor did he think they were called on to do so ; but th ere were Hon. Gentlemen in that House whose opinion it was that the landed interest had, by these laws, a monopoly, and that we were inclined to say that we wished solely to relieve ourselves, and not our neighbour. He begged distinctly and publicly to deny this assert i on , an d to represen t th e op i nion of the agriculturists i n it s t rue li g h t w h en h e sta t e d t h e i r wish tobe not to look for an y monopo l y w h a t ever , b u t t o require a fair remu nera ti on f or t h e i r l a b our , an d an equa l participa.. tion in the benefits to be derived from reduction of taxa. tion.—( Hear, h ear .) If H on . M em b ers rea d th e ev i dence of the Committ ee , th e y wou ld see no t on ly th a t t h e e,. pital of the farm er was di m i n i s h e d, b u t th a t, i n many in. stances, the landlord mad e a re d uc ti on i n hi s ren t, an d yet was not able to save his ten an t. H e k new th a t i n thi s i nstance he would be asked w hy h e did no t p ro p ose an y spec ifi c se_ medy for agricultural dis t r ess ?—( Hear, hear.) H e eers tainly did not think h e was ca ll e d on t o d o so ( a l t h ough he entertained an opinion on th e su bj ec t w hi c h h e h oped to prove to the satisfaction o f th e C omm itt ee w h en they were about to make their report), when he merely claimed for the farmer his due, just, and fair proportion of the relief whi c h was promised to the community.—( Hear, hear.) The N o b le Lord concluded by moving a resolution to the effect, that i n t h e application of any surplus to the revision of taxation or oth er. wise, due regard should be had to the necessity of affordi ng proportionate relief to the agricultural interest. Mr. W. DUNCOMBE seconded the motion. If th e Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Excheque r b e. lieved that in repealing the stamp d u ty on newspapers h e was conferring a benefit on a great portion of the community, if he was certain that he had not unnecessarily yielded to clamour( Hear, hear, and a laugh)—if he believed that measure would be the means of affording substantial relief to the public, h e did not blame him for submitting, but he only put in the cl a i m of the agriculturists as entitled to some share in the remission of taxes which was contemplated by Government.—(Hear.) With .espect to the duty on newspapers, he had heard that in this metropolis all the papers might be read on payment of 2d . at certain coffee-shops and reading-rooms. There was n o doubt but equal facility was afforded in other great towns f or reading the public papers; and if that were so, it might not be unfairly assumed that the public had already sufficiently eas access to the inf orm ation contained in the public j o u rna l s. B u t whether that w ere so or n o t, he thought th e H ouse wou l d do well to that if any surplus were found to exist, some portion of it at least should be applied to the relief of the agricultural i n . terest.—( Hear, hear.) The question having been put, Lord J. RUSSELL said that he rose to object to th e motion just made by the Noble Lord. The distress of th e agricultural class had not only been shown by the presenta. tion of petitions on that and previous evenings ; but it w as noticed in the King's Speech, and before the Noble could could make the motion which he intended to make for a Com, mittee, a declaration was made on his (Lord John Russell's) part that he was ready to enter into the fullest inquiry on t h is subject. The Committee appointed had made no report, a n d was far from completing the evidence to be brought before it. Therefore the Noble Lord was not quite justified in alluding to extracts and drawing deductions from part of the R eport which had been printed, because there could be no fair deci_ sion as to the cause and extent of agricultural distress until the whole of the evidence was heard, and the Committee h a d considered that evidence, and submitted their conclusions to the House.—(Hear, hear, hear.) On this ground he eon.. sidered the motion premature. He said premature, the more especially when every opportunity was given to the Noble Lord and the witnesses who entertained the same op i s nions with him, in order that their evidence might be heard. The question involved in the motion of the Noble Lord, namely, the extent of distress, was a question whi c h remained still to be considered, on which evidence was to b e taken and witnesses heard ; and he said decidedly that the House could come to no adequate decision until witnesses had been heard with respect to other parts of the country of a diffe.. rent description and position from those upon which the wi t , nesses already examined had given their evidence. Then wi t h regard to the immediate motion of the Noble Lord. A s far as that question did not depend on any inauiry before the Agri.. cultural Committee, but as a general question which the Noble Lord wished to bring forward, he thought the better course with respect to it, as with respect to others of the sam e kind was to hear the reductions to be proposed by his Right Hot,. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and then..., should those reductions not appear to have been well c ons i .. dered—should they propose to relieve those parts of the coun. try which were not the most distressed, or to afford a stimulus to industry in regard to those branches of trade which were not most in want of a stimulus, it would be time enough f or those Hon. Members who represented the various interests of the country thereby aggrieved to state to his Right Hon. Hear, hear.) Friend that he had been mistaken in his selection, and that the relief which he proposed ought to be applied to other taxes a n d to other parties than those to which he contemplated applying. it. Such being the case, be thought it would be unwise, he thought it would be premature in the House to declare i n the first instance, and before they had heard the statement of his Right Hon. Friend, that one particular interest, namely, five year: the agricultural interest, ought to be the one to which, i n pre _ ference to all others, relief should be applied.—( very lit. Had the Noble Lord pointed out that there was some partial tax, some especial burden, pressing so heavily on the agrieul.. tural interest, that before listening to any other complaint the Government was bound to give relief in respect to it, he (Lord John Russell) might perhaps have admitted that there was some justice in the statement the House had that e ven i: s heard ; but inasmuch as the Noble Lord had as far a s 5 l'essi.. ble abstained from making any such statement, he did not feel that he or his Majesty's Government was at the present moment called upon to deliberate upon it.—(Hear.) The Noble Lord complained that although within, the last upwards of eight millions of taxes had been repealed, tle relief had been thereby given to the agricultural interest; but had he in his c a l cu l a ti on th o ught pr o p er to take in the year preceding that f r o m w hich the return h e rea d was dated ° , he would have b een a bl e t o s tat e to th e H ouse that upcul the demand of a v er y c o nsiderable body o f i ts members; whom Lord Althorp was the leader, the then Governrnetoif had reduced the tax upon beer, and removed completely th t remaining duties upon leather. Now he (Lord John Russell e • maintained that the beer tax was a tax which pressed upon t h) agricultural interest more especially than any other. At the time the reduction to which he alluded was agreed e upon, Mr. O'CONNELL referred to a Bill in progress through Parliament for reforming Courts of Equity, and asked whe ther it was intended to introduce a clause to prevent a practice inconsistent with common sense, viz., that a judge should hear and decide an appeal in the House of Lords against one of his own decrees ? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that even if he were acquainted with them, it would be irregular for him to disclose the enactments of a measure in the other House of Parliament. He would go so far as to say that he disapproved of the prac tice alluded to, where an appeal was merely made from the Lord Chancellor to the Lord Chancellor—ab eodein ad eundem, but the Lord Chancellor often only assisted. Mr. O'CONNELL did riot refer to cases where the Lord Chancellor only assisted in the same way that a judge, who had tried a case at Nisi Prius, aided the other judges in Banco, on a question of new trial. His question was limited to a judge even volunteering to sit on an appeal from himself, when it was possible that a suspicion of his motives might be excited. AGRICULTURAL CLAIMS. Captain PE C HEL L asked the Noble Member for Buck inghamshire whether he really meant to interfere with all other business by bringing on his motion on agricultural distress on the moving of the first order of the day ? The Marquis of CH AND OS replied in the affirmative, ex pressing his regret at thereby putting Members to inconveni ence. The question he had to introduce was one of some little importance. . . Captain PE C HELL did not think it more important than a question respecting the fisheries of Great Britain. POOR LAWS (IRELAND.) Mr. GREENE inquired whether the Hon. Member for Stroud intended on Monday to press forward the subject of Irish poor-laws ? Mr. P. SCR OPE said that it was his intention to persevere. Lord J. RUSSELL hoped that his Hon. Colleague would not persevere in bringing on the discussion of the Irish Poor Laws on Monday. Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN said—lf the Noble Lord objected to the course proposed he ought to fix some day for the regular discussion and decision of the question. Nothing could be more pressing than that some provision should be made fur the pour of Ireland. After a few words from Lord J. RUSSELL. Mr. O'CONNELL thought it right to sav that more zeal than discretion might influence some of the advocates for the introduction of Poor Laws into Ireland. The question could not be properly settled but by Government, and Hon. Mem bers ought to wait to see whether Government was disposed to take it up. The subject was dropped after a remark by Mr. J. GRAT TAN and Mr. P. ScaorE, neither of whom was audible. Mr. BUCKINGHAM urged the Noble Marquis (Chan dos) to defer his motion Pt, agriculture, as the course he was about to pursue prevented any Member from knowini , when any Order of the Day in which h e was interested ° would conic on. EXCISE LICENSES, Mr. W. MILES begged to know whether Government had taken into consideration the subject of the additional duty on Spirit Licenses, and the claims of the Licensed Victuallers ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had re ferred to the Board of Excise upon the subject, and had not yet received any Report from the Commissioners. AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS. Sir J. WR OTTE SLEY presented a petition from Staf fordshire, in favour of the agricultural claims. Colonel SIBTHORP, and the Marquis of CHANDOS, each presented petitions on the same subject ; the first from Lincolnshire, and the last from Buckinghamshire. Mr. HUME submitted, that when Wednesday was set apart for measures promoted by individual Members, it was very in convenient that they should be deprived even of that one day as the Noble Marquis proposed to do, by the motion he inten ded to make on the first Order of the Day. The Marquis of CHANDOS had stated, on Friday, that it was his intention to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice for that day (Wednesday) ; but if it were the wish of the House that he should not proceed, he was most willing to submit to their determination.—(Cries of go on, go on ?) After a few words from Mr. BUCKINGHAM, The Marquis of CHANDOS said—lf he felt himself, in the claim which he made, coming into collision with the de mands of other classes of the community, or in any way in terfering with the reduction in taxation considered necessary by the Government, he should entertain fears for the result of his proposition ; but feeling that he did not, in the slightest degree, interfere with the arrangements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, much less with the just pretensions of other classes of the community, he could not bring himself to be lieve that his resolution would receive the opposition of the House. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already announced his intention of making some reductions in the taxation of the country. He did not of course know by what means the Right Hon. Gentleman in tended to effect that object, nor did he mean in any way to call on him for the statement of his mode of affording the relief which was promised, but all he desired was to have the Right Hon. Gentleman's assent to the declaration, that in reducing the taxes which pressed on the other classes of the community, the feelings of that class, whose interest he stood forward to represent on that occasion, should be attended to. Therefore it was that he proposed a resolution, calling upon the Govern ment, that in the course which they might think proper to adopt for the relief of the community from the burdens of taxation, the claims of the agricultural class should not be ex cluded from their consideration.—( Hear.) The Noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department, laid down as a fair rule to judge of the interest taken in any public question, the number of petitions which were presented upon it. Now, he thought he should be borne out by the Noble Lord, when he said that not only on that evening, but on every previous even ing, the number of petitions presented on this subject were very numerous. Of this fact he was quite satisfied, that if the House were to sit for an entire year, not a day would pass without the presentation of petitions on the subject of agricul tural distress; and the reason of the frequency of those peti tions might easily be accounted for by the conviction on the part of the landed interest, that nothing effectually has as yet been done for their relief.—( Hear, hear.) He might be asked why it was he thought proper to introduce the question of agricultural distress when the Committee appointed to :n -quire into it, had not as yet made their report. To that ob jection he had this simple answer—that as a member of the Committee he had no right whatever to prejudge their opinion, or to anticipate the report which they might make ; but there was not a member of the Committee who could fairly oppose the motion upon which he considered it his duty to take the sense of the House, because the report of the Committee was not in the slightest degree affected by it..—( Hear, hear.) But whatever force there was in that argument was completely met by the fact that there were two reports already presented con taining a great mass of information bearing directly and dis tinctly on this subject ; and with much regret did he say it, for the cause which he advocated, that these reports unequivocally showed (and he appealed to the Hon. Members who composed the Committee for a confirmation of his statement) that the farmers of 1833 were not improved in circumstances, but that, on the contrary, in many instances their condition now was worse than at th a t period'. He believed there was evidence to prove the fact that the heavy clay soils must go out of cultiva tion if the farmers did not receive a more profitable return for their produce. The testimony of thirty-six witnesses, who had been already examined, went to show that there were great distress and difficulty amongst the agricultural classes. As he had already said, in urging the claims of the agricultural in. terest, he did not wish to depreciate those of the other classes of the community. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Chan cellor of the Exchequer had voluntarily declared his intention of reducing the stamp duties and the tax on spirit licences. It was not for him then to pronounce any opinion on these re ductions, but he did say this, that it was the Right Hon. Gen- r ' ! i t 1 I N * sO t he pal s er Jo! WI Val CO' tht t ha the