The Sun. — London, England, 1821-06-15 00:00:00

PARLIAMENT, HOUSE OF LORDS, JUNE 14. The Bills of Exchange Bill, the East India Prize Money Bill, the Irish Prisons Regulation Bill, and the Justice of the Peace Bill, were brought up from the Commons, and read the first time. A message was brought from the Commons re questing a copy.. of the Report of the Committee on Foreign Trade.=.Ordered. Mr. fryjng, from the Custom House, presented an account of the Foreign and British Wines upon which duties had been paid and dray. backs allowed, from the year 1785 to 1820. Lord Rous presented a Petition from the Owners and Occupiers of Land in the hundred of Clo%ves, in Suffolk, complaining of Agricultural Distress, and praying relief. The Irish Insolvent Debtors' Bill went through the Committee, and was reported. THE BISHOP OF PETERIIOROUGH. Lord KING begged leave to call•the attention of their Lordships to a petition which he felt it his duty to present to the House, and which ap pared to him to contain matter of considerable importance, both as it acrected the interests of the Church of England, and the rights of many per sons connected with the Church. The Petition Was from the Rev. Henry :Neville, Rector of Botherwicke, in the Diocese of Peterborough, -and he was authorised to state to their Lordships, that this Mode of seeking redress would sot have been appealed to, if the Reverend Person could haie obtained it in any other way. The Peti tioner's complaint was, that the Right ltev.,the Bishop of Peterborough had refused to licence a Curate to officiate for him in his Diocese, though the Curate had proper testimonials signed by the Archhbishop of York, and had subscribed to the 39 Articles, as required by law.' The ground of the Diocesan's objection was, that the Curate refused to sign a new test, propmed to him,. con sisting of a list of eighty-seven questions. On the peremptory refusal of the Right Reverend Bishop, the Petitioner applied to the Archbishop of Canterbury, from whom, after a considerable delay, he received an answer, stating that there could be no doubt as to the right of the Bishop of the Diocese to examine Curates before he ad mitted them, and referring to the 48th Canon, Without any further cominent or explanation.— The grounds and reasons of his opinion ought, he conceived, to have been more fully and satis factorily stated in a case of so much importance. It would probably be contended, on the other side, that the Bishopp, had a discretionary power, but if he had refused to appoint to a benefice upon such a ground, an appeal might be .made to the common law. In such cases the Bishops acted as Judges, and must be bound by known rules. If the Judges in WeStminster Hall committed any abuse, an. appeal might be made -to that House, and if an Episcopal Judge committed any abuse, he could not be persuaded but that the House might take cognizance of their misconduct - also. It was a principle that there could be 'no wrong in this country without a remedy. The power of examining Clergymen was properly given to the Right Reverend Bench ; but he Would. ask any one who had read the 87 ques tions, whether they could possibly be intended to ascertain the ability of the person ? These ques tions were in a printed form, and were sent by post to be answered through the same conveyance. If they were meant as a test, his answer was, that the law had declared a much better test in the 39 Articles. The unfortunate person thus refused by the Right Reverend Prelate was told that 11e might seek his remedy, hut the opinion of the authority to which he should appeal, had been already ascertained, and was against him. The new standard, if recognised, might affect the prospects of many persons and the inter ests of the Church at large. The questions were termed, in the language of ecclesiastical jocularity, " cobwebs to catch Calvinists," against whose doctrine they were principally directed. His chief objection was, that they had a tendency to create schisms in the Church ; for if oue Bishop had a right to put a strained construction on the 39 Articles, another Bishop had the same right, anal differences might hence arise destructive to the peace of the Church. The great object of the Church of England was to promote peace, quiet, and order ; the articles themselves were founded in peace, and many of them were of a nature not to be examined too curiously. There was even reason to believe that those Articles were drawn up originally by CalvinistS. The Right Reverend Bishop ought, he presumed, to be content with the 39 Articles, instead of ad vancing opinions of his own which he required the Clergy of his Diocese to subscribe. He had no doubt but that the object of the Right Rev. Bishop was to produce uniformity in the Church, but the attempt was so made as to risk the peace of the Church. After some further observa tions the Noble Lord concluded with moving, that the Petition should be read, with a view to move afterwards that it should he laid on the Table. The. Bishop of PETERBOROUGH said, that as a prejudice had been eAcited, against him by publi- cations, he felt that be was the more entitled to their Lordships' indulgence. He was surprised at hearing from the Petitioner in six months after the transaction, after the Curate had been licens ed in another Diocese,. and another Curate ap pointed in his place, that it was his intention to bring the subject before Parliament. If any ap peat was to be made, it should be to the Arch bishop of the Province, and not to Parliament. But by adopting another Curate the Petitioner had acquiesced in the, decision which he - now come forward to support. The Bishop of the Diocese had a right to examine Curates ; but the objection in the present instance was to the mode of examination. His mode was a plain one, that of question and answer, and his object was to ascertain the doctrines and religious •opinions of those who applied, for admission into his. Diocese. The question was one of pure theology, relating wholly to the doctrines of the established church, and theref6re did not come under the jurisdiction of that House. His questions had been submitted to many Bishops, none of whom had stated the least objection to them ; so that he was justi fied in supposing that they met with the general concurrence of his brethren. BUt it they were erroneous, it was not for that House to alter or remove them. The prayer of the Petition ought not to he granted, let its allegations be what they might ; but he Would meet it on the ground of the allegations alone. He was accused of pro posing questions as a new standard of faith, in stead of the 39 Articles, whereas the questions he proposed were founded on those Articles, and were to be determined by a reference to those Articles alone. The offence with which he was charged consisted in his unwearied endeavours to prevent the Church from being. forsaken. He had succeeded to a great extent, or their Lord ships would never have heard of this Petition. The signature of the Curate was not required to be affixed to any opinions of his, but to the an. swers which might be given by - the Curate him self. It was, therefore, a misrepresentation to say that he proposed a test to which he required a signature. He did not think that so gross a misrepresentation of truth could have found its way into the House of Lords. If no credit were due- to his own solemn declaration, that he ac knowledged no standard of faith but that which was established by the Church of England, be cause it was the most consistent with the Holy Scriptures, at least some proof should be pro duced on the other side to establish the incon sistency of which he was accused. He never declined to admit clergymen into his diocese, in consequence of their refusal to answer the ques tions proposed to them, without remonstrating i❑ the first instance ; and he had often succeeded in correcting the error into which they had fal len. The Canon Law required, in addition to subscription to the 39 Articles, that the Bishop should enter into an examination of the Clergy man ; and if subscription to the Articles were alone to be required, the same effect would be produced in this country which now existed in Switzerland, where the same clergyman sub scribed to the doctrines of Calvin, and preached the doctrines of Socinius. The Petitioner had stated, that the influence of Lay Patrons was likely to be injured if a new standard were esta blished ; but he was convinced that the rule of justice, and not of private interest, would decide the fate of that Petition. The questions were not intended, as the Noble Lord had truly said, to ascertain the ability of the Clergyman, but whether his doctrine was sound ? The number of persons to whom he had refused ordination was one. He had also refused service to one, for refusing to answer the questions; so that the whole amount was two ; and this was the mighty grievance for which the House of Lords was to be set in motion. He would confidently assert, that the questions were approved by the great body of the Clergy, because they had a tendency to check fanaticism, which was one of the greatest evils with which the Church had to contend. He would repeat that the allegations of the Petition were destitute of truth, and leave the Petition to be decided upon by their Lordships' judgments • Lord KING denied that the Petitioner had re linquished his right to complain of the conduct of his diocesan, by appointing another curate ; for if he had not done so himself, the Bishop would have done so for him. The point at issue was, whether the 87 questions constituted a new standard or not ? The Right Reverend Bishop required answers to those questions in writing, that they might appear, on record against the par ties ; and so far it was a test. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY stated, in explanation of his own conduct, that the applica tion made by the Petitioner to him, was not in the form of an appeal, but merely a letter in quiring whether the Bishop could be justified in the conduct he pursued or not ? Some unavoid able delay had taken place in giving an answer; and when given, the answer was, that the 48th canon empowered and directed the Bishop to ex amine all applicants for admission into his dio cese. It was not necessary, nor would it have been right, to enter into further explanation. There was no appeal to him, and there could" have been none. Lord CALTHORPE expressed high respect for the character and talents of the Right Reverend Prelate; but was of opinion that the conduct which he had pursued in this instance was cal culated to disturb the peace of the Church, and to endanger the ascendancy of the Protestant Establishment, by the revival of controversial points. He should vote in favour of the motion for layint.r, the Petition on the table. The Earl of HARR° way did not see why the Petition should be laid on the Table, as it was not likely to be followed by any practical re sult. He deprecated the principle of exclud ing the Calvinists from the Church of England, which was never contemplated when that esta blishnient was formed ; and thought that there was but little Christian charity and humility in that mind which could deny that some of the brightest examples were to be found among those who professed that doctrine. What remedy could be afforded in the present case he knew not, but he hoped that the Right Reverend Bench would continue to exercise the same discretion which had chaiaCteriied their past conduct. Earl GREY contended, that those who had the charge of the general interests of the country had a power to protect those interests in question, which related to the Church as well as to the State, and that the House had therefore a' juris diction-over such cases as the present, though the Right Rev. Prelate was of opinion that the Pe titioner could have no remedy but from the Arch bishop. The Archbishop had himself declared that 'no appeal could be made to him ; that he had no jurisdiction ; the only appeal, therefore, that could be made was to the superintending jurisdiction of Parliament itself. The Noble Earl, in whose general opinions on this subject he concurred, had stated that he knew not what remedy could be applied. The complaint was that an attempt was made to require a subscrip tion to a new test, and if that complaint could be established, he entertained no doubt but that the House would be able to correct the evil by addressing the Royal Authority to direct an alteration in the course of examination, as he believed had been done in one instance before. With respect to the exclusion of Calvinists from the Church of England, all he would say was this—agreeing with the Noble Earl in what he had stated—that if it was right, it should be done by a regular Convocation, and not by the individual authority of any one Bishop. The 87 Questions were formed for the exclusion - of Cal vinists. The Bishop of PETranomouan dented that lae had any intention of excluding Calvinists by his examination. Ills only object was, to ascertain whether the opinions of the Curate were con sistent with the doctrines of the Established Church. ills only wish was, to exclude such persons as entertained opinions directly opposite to those contained in the 39 Articles, interpreted according to their plain and literal sense. Earl GREY thought it clear, from the nature of the questions, that they were levelled espe cially at Calvinists, although he was willing to accept the explanation of the Right Rev. Bishop, that such was not his intention. He (the Right Rev. Bishop) was offended at the application of the term " new standard" to his questions, but any one who looked at the questions themselves would see that they were so formed as to become affirmative propositions, and consequently to con stitute a standard. He had stated that all his brethren agreed With him as to the doctrines con tained in those questions, but did he not know that many of those who signed the 39 Articles, and agreed in their general spirit, differed as to their construction ? If the Right Rev. Prelate introduced his rubric of faith, others might intro duce theirs, and it was impossible to calculate to what extent the confusion and diversity of opi nion might proceed. Their Lordships well re membered the late trial of her Majesty the Queen, and the opinions given by eight Right Rev. Prelates on a passage in Scripture relating to the subject of Divorce. To that passage four gave one interpretation, and the other four an in terpretation directly the reverse. His Lordship concluded with expressing his opinion that .the Petition ought to be entertained, though he hoped the Right Reverend Prelate would not render it necessary for the House to proceed any further. The Marquess of LANSDOWN agreed with his Noble Friend in hoping that it would not be ne cessary to proceed any further ; but as the House might possibly be called upon on some future oc casion, he was anxious to assert its right to address the Crown if necessary. He admitted the expe diency of empowering the Right Reverend Bench to examine persons applying for admission in their dioceses. But though he . admitted the right, he must say it might be abused, and for the purpose of asserting the right of the House to in terfere, he would vote in favour of the motion, that the Petition should be laid upon the table. The motion was then put, and negatived with out a division.—Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Sir I. COFFIN presented a Petition from the Inhabitants of Margate and Sandwich, complaining of the Light-house Tax and Harbour Dues, and mode some remarks upon the jealousy shewn towards French shipping. The Petition was referred to the Committee upon Foreign Trade. Mr, CIIETWYND presented a Petition from Stone, in Stafford Shire, in favour of the Bill to prevent cruelty to ani m2ls.—Ordered to be printed, as were Petitions ,to the same effect from Poplar, Bromley, and the vicinity ; from certain In habitants of Manchester; from the Inhabitants of St. Anne's, Blackfriars ; from certain Merchanti of London ; from several Gentlemen at Bath ; and from the Inhabitants of a certain Parish in Gloucestershire. Mr. LYGON presented a Petition from Dudley, in Wor cestershire, against the Poor Laws Amendment Bill.—Ordered to be printed, as was a Petition to the same effect from Can terbury. On the motion of Mr. S. RICE, a Message was ordered to be sent to the Lords, requesting a copy of any Report made to that House with respect to Private Trade with India and China; and on the • motion of the same Hon. Member, a Return was ordered of all Fees and Emoluments received by the Usher of the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, as well as by other officers of the same Court. A Report of the Evidence taken by the Committee upon the subject of the Land Tax, was presented at the Bar.—Ordered to lie on the table, as was a Statement presented of the expense incurred in the redemption of the Land Tax. The 'ThirteenvMillions Loan Bill, the Twenty-nine Millions Exchequer Bills Bill, and the Irish Treasury Bills Bill, were read a second time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow. CONSTITUTIONAL ASSOCIATION. Mr. HOBIIOUSE presented a Petition from a person of the name of King, stating that an in dictment was preferred against him by the Con stitutional Association, upon the evidence of a person named Horatio Orton. That the Bill was thrown out, and that subsequently Orton, in an affidavit which he voluntarily made before a Ma gistrate, stated that he did not know who was the publisher of the pamphlet indicted upon.-- That notwithstanding his statement, it appeared that he had previously purchased a copy of the pamphlet, with the name of the Publisher upon it. The Petitioner stated, that he was without any legal remedy, and he prayed that the House would 'enable him to find out who were his real prosecutors. The lion. 'Member made several observations in support of the Petition. A man, he contended, might be ruined even by being put upon his defence, on a charge of which he was entirely innocent. The Constitutional Associa tion was in every respect highly objectionable.— Upon prosecutions instituted by the Attorney- General, a defendant was entitled to an office copy of the indictment ; but, upon those institut ed by this Society, a defendant was not so entitled, and copies of the proceedings often cost a defend ant2o/. He would not enter into the discussion of the question, whether the Association was illegal ; but it was clear that the Court of King's Bench had not intimated any opinion of its legality. —A clear distinction was to he taken between this Society and that for prosecuting felons. In the case of a felony, the question was, who was the perpetrator ? but in that of a libel, not only was the person to be identified, but even the question of libel, or no libel, was - to be after wards ascertained. The Society had prosecuted several Editors of Newspapers ; and among them, the Editor of a Paper who had published an Ad dress to the Electors of Westminster, signed by him (Mr. II.) They ought to have prosecuted him, and he wished they had.—He was quite sure the Subscribers to this Society did not know of the use to which their funds were to he ap plied ; and he was sure that in cases of this de scription, where the Law Officers did not prose cute, no prosecution ought to be brought. The Petition was then read ; and its substance corresponded with the statement of the Hon. Member.—lt was ordered to be printed. Mr. CALVERT presented a Petition from South wark, in favour of the Bill for punishing'Cruelty to Animals. • Mr. GoocH supported the Petition, and read a: letter from a friend, describing an instance,-of brutal con`dAct in a cartt , r towards a horse of his mas,ter.---:Whe iktition,y.ks then ortSered ILA). lit printed. _ SCOTCH BURGHS. - Lord A. HAmwros brought up the Report of the Committee 'on Scotch Burghs. The Noble Lord said, that although as Chairman of the Com mittee he presented the Report, he did not assent to its contents. As they were at variance with the prayer of the numerous Petitions which had been presented on the subject, ,he could. not allow the Report to be read without offering a few words to the house. He complained that a majority of the Committee. had not obeyed the orders of the House, inasmuch as they had not gone into a fair and full investigation of the sub ject. They had given a more convenient turn to the qUestioti by offering their own opinions. If the House would order the production of the Minutes, of the proceedings taken before the Committee, it would then be seen he had not pre ferred a groundless complaint. In - fact, several of the Committee had retired, because they could not approve of the general proceedings: The Mouse would be surprised to learn, that the Re port had been prepared during an absence of ten days' leave, which he had obtained from the House. When the subject of the Report should come before the House, he would examine it in detail, but at present he should confine himself to moving . that the Report be read. Lord BINNING said he had no intention to oppose, the production of the Minutes. They would ; he thought, be harmless and perfectly useless. Had the Noble Lord confined himself to expressing his dissent from the Report ; he should have had- nothing to say on the subject ; but as the Noble Lord had arraigned the con duct of the Committee, the House would allow him to say a few words. The Report was the Report of the Committee, and not of the Chair man. He was aware that courtesy allowed the Chairman to prepare the Report, but it was, on the other hand, not very usual for a Chairma❑ to absent himself for a fortnight at the most import ant part of the proceedings. There was no de sire to take the Noble Lord by surprise, or to hurry the Report, but the Committee was not bound to wait for the return of the Noble Lord. When the Noble Lord moved the appointment of the Committee, he (Lord B.) had opposed it, and his conduct in the Committee had - been in accordance with his first opinion. The Commit tee had concluded its labours, and he trusted the question would not be revived, as the Report pointed out a complete and practical remedy for every real abuse which had been the subject of any Petition. Mr. ABERGROMBY said, it appeared from the statement of the Noble Lord (Binning) himself, that the prayer of the Petitioners had not been complied with. He said that the minutes would .be harmless and useless. This (said Mr. A.) was because the Committee had taken care to shut out every thing which could be 'useful. The usual courtesy of a Committee towards its Chair man had been violated, and it was impGS3ible, under all the circumstances, to say that it had acted with fairness. Lord BINNIV'G explained. He had said that the minutes would be harmless and useless, be cause all the evidence was incorporated in the Report. [A Message from the Lords here announced their Lordships' assent to several Bills.] Sir GEORGE CLERK said, it appeared that the Hon. and Learned Member (Mr. Abercromby) had fallen into a mistake, because he was not aware that the minutes applied for by the Noble Lord conveyed little or no information, while all the real information was brought into the Report. The Committee was willing to meet every obser vation which might be made upon its conduct at a proper time. At present the Report had not been read, and it was therefore impossible to say whether the Committee 'had acted fairly or not. The supposed want of courtesy to the Noble Lord was explained, from the circum stance of the advanced period of the Session, and the necessity for the Committee making an early Report. Sir it. FEacusso - Nr said, he was one of the Members who thought it 'their duty to withdraw frdm the Committee. The Members who had taken a particular view of the subject no doubt had acted consistently, for they invat!eilY re sisted inquiry into every abuse. Mr. K. DouoLts regretted the Noble Lord (A. Hamilton) had taken the present opportunity of charging the Committee with having neglected their duty. He (Mr. I).) thought, that, if the suggestions of the Report were acceded to, every real abuse would be removed. Air. HualE thought the complaint of his Noble Friend (Lord A. Hamilton) as to a want of cour tesy, was perft , ctly well founded. He (Mr. Ti.) had attended the meetings of the Committee; but he was so accustomed to be in a minority, that he was not surprised to find himself always in a minority in the Committee. The Petitioners complained of the practice of self-election, and the Committee decided that no change should take place. The consequence was p , that men convicted of the grossest abuses were still com petent to hold their situations. He regretted that the majority of the Committee had invariably patronized abuse, and had his Noble Friend taken his (Mr. IL's) advice, he would not have gone into a Committee Ishii predetermined Members. • Mr. DUNDAS hoped the House would pause until it should be in possession of the minutes, the production of which was not resisted. The Report was then read, and ordered to lie on the table. On the motion that it should be printed, Lord A. HAMILTON explained. • When he asked a Mem ber of the Committee whether the Report was trete, he was an swered that it was both true and false. He left the House to judge from this circumstance on the fairness of the Report. The Report was then ordered to be printed. Mr. J. PEARSE presented a Petition from Devizes in fa vour of the Bill to prevent the ill treatment of Horses and other Animals.---Ordered to lie upon the table. Mr. CALCRAFT presented a Petition from t! - .e parish of St. George's in the Fields, against the Poor Relief Bill. He did not see his Hon. and Learned Friend in his place, or he should ask him whether the Bill was to come on that night, and if not, when it was to be discussed fully by. the House. The Woollen- Stamp Duties Bill was passed. Lord MILTON seeing an Hon. Member, the Chairman of the Agricultural Committee, in his place, which he had not often the honour of doing, he wishe§t,t4k him, whether the Report of that Committee was likely made in the present Session ? Mr. GOAH said, t t the Report mill 114(made as soon& as iosrible, He must erve, that the ioZ:o e Lord, had al:Ni \: ", wiyochoseri to pu„t this cpg ticii whet', he (Mr. '.) was out of • \ the House, although he might lie found lum present at any other time. Lord MILTON could assure the Hon. Member, that he had looked with all his eyes to find him, and it was therefore not right to sex that he had chosen the when he was absent. Mr. GOOCII.—" It is a matter• of fact." Mr. DICKENSON presented -a-Petition-from:Walcott, in the County of Somerset (as we understood) against the Poor Relief Bill.--OrAered to be printed. A 'Petition was presented from - Battersea, in favour of the Bill for.preventing the ill-treatment of flcrse'. Mr. Serjermt ONSLOW presente'd a Petition from the Parish of St. Mary's, Newington, to the same effect. Each Petition to be printed. WATER COMPANIES. Mr. FREEMANTLE said, he held in - his' hand , a Bill for regulating the supply of Water to tiie Metropolis. The Hon. Member entered into an explanation of the proceedings which had taken place before the Committee, and stated. that the Bill was in strict conformity' to its opinions. From the advanced state of the Session he could not hope that the Bill would be carried through all its stages, but he*wished to introduce it in order that the House might become acquainted -. with its objects, with a view to its being carried into. effect . upon a future occasion. There was one circumstance to, WhiCh be must allude, name ly, a notice -which stood upon the paper from the Hon. Member for Aberdeen of a motion for printing the minutes of the evidence taken before the Committee. He condemned such a course, as being inexpedient, as well on` account of the voluminous extent of the evidence, as the expense which it would give rise.to..* After a few words from Mr. ScART.ETT and Mr. HUME, leave was given to bring in the Bill. P 0011• RELIEr BILL. MrScAnt. - Err moved the Order of the Dayfor the further consideration of the Report upon the. Poor Relief Bill be now read, for the purpose of postpOning it to Wednesday next —Postpon,ed accordingly.. Mr. FREEMANTLE brought in his Bill for regu lating the Supply of Watei. to that part of Lon don and Middlesex north of the Thames; which, after a few words from Mr. Alderman Bridges, was read a first thrte, and ordered for a second reading this day fortnight. - - EVIDEI:CE OF ''i'llE-COMMITTEE. Mr. Humt: rose 'to submit a motion- to o . e . House, for'having the evidence upon which this. Bill wns founded printed and laid before the House. The lion. Member read various parts of the Report of the Committee, and eondemnedi the Bill as not being consistent with that Report. ft stated that the 31 7 at e r companies had .acted contrary to the spirit of the Acts of Parliament. by which they were incorporated. He sbould therefore have expected that a Bill would have been introduced for the protection of the public against thorn . , rather than one for granting them further advantages. . The Committee ought to have compared the- rates of Islo, taking into consideration the iiigh price of labour at that time, and 'all other cirnmstances, with acne of the preso.it period, - and . they would have found that the establishment of a Water Company might be kept up at less expence now than in the first mentioned year, yet that the rates were nnw to be considerably higher. The Hon. Memberco tended, that there was, not a greater quantity Or water supplied to tit Metropolis now than at any preceding periods. The evidence upon this . subject was of the most contradictory nature, and no one ought to support the Bill without the• whole being before the Honse. He should there fore move that it belaid before the House, with a view to its. being printed. Mr. lionHousE seconded the motion, and ex-. pressed his:concurrence in :what had fallen from his Hon. Friend. Mr. WirmoT supported the Bill. The Hon. Member_coUld not Have read the Report of the Committee with attention, or he would not have stated that it deciarecrtheVitrater Companies to have acted contrary to the spirit, of the acts by which they were chartered. The passage to which the Hon. Member alluded could bear no such con struction. The present Bill ought only to be' . . considered as a temporary measure, and one to protect the Public until the House should h e in a situation to legislate some permanent maxico for regulating the supply of water. lie should, not oppose the motion, but he hoped the Hon- Member would consent to the re-appointment or the Committee, in order to select such part of the evidence as was .admissrole or useful to tl: purposes of conveying information to the Houol upon the subject in question.—(Hear.) Mr. Alderman BitinGEs defended the conduct of the Water Companies; and said he was anxiou s for the printing of the evidence, as it would giS' satisfaction to all parties. Mr. HumE- expressed his willingness to We. the Committee appointed for the purpose recoll"/ mended by the. lion. Gentle Man opposite Wilmot).---The motion was - then agreed to. AGRICULTURAL fIORSE . TAX. Mr. CunwEN said, that in rising' to call 01° attention of the House to the important subjec t of which he had given notice, he extremely rep gretted the lateness of the.period in the S e ssioP which rendered it imperative on him to p ro cee" notwithstanding the absence. of, the Noble M guess. He • the more regretted this, be6l o9 ;' when the subject was last before the H o use, ti"' Noble Marquess had earnestly intreated hitt ) I,° wait until the termination of the inquiry 1-)Yr Committee on Agricultural Distress, pled , '' himself to support the proposition, should th eri. ) : suit of that inquiry be to recommend I. V .Y t that requestbe (Mr. Curwen) had complie"' ht Right Hon. Chancellor of the Exc hequer hacl also said, That. any such recommendation on the part of the Agricultural Committee w"id 11 be strong; inducement with him to comply'with tbe proposition. The object which l i e had in viegr. was one most material to the interest's 0 1 Agriculture: The -Tax had alway s b een un just in principle, and oppivssiv e in p r ac tice. But the question .now wore a very different aspect from that which it assumed whok he had formerly brought it under the ccaf ;