The Sun. — London, England, 1822-06-20 00:00:00

with Ilchester Gaon—(Hear I)—The Petitioner had received I frequent warnings, and after all was only deprived of his li cence upon charges preferred against him when he was present to answer them.—(Hear !) Mr. DICKENSON-defended the conduct of the Magistrates, upon whose conduct he thought there was not the slightest im. putation. They had refused toad on an es-rio intormation, and besides warning the Petitioner before, ha d given him every chance of exculpating himself on the licensing day. Mr. BENNET admitted that the statement of the Right Hon. Secretary (Mr. Secretary Peel) was most satisfactory, but he could not help observing, that it would be much better to put in practice the laws against such disorderly conduct, than ;take a course which deprived a man and his family of the means of livelihood. Mr.'JAMES, in moving that the Petition be received, ob served that he never meant to vouch for the truth of the allega tions of the petition, and was not aware of any unworthy con duct on his part in presenting the Petition. He was told that nothing could be said against the conduct of the Petitioner, and that there was only one day in the year when his•house was' in a disorderly and tumultuous state, and that was when the 'Clergy held their assembly there. Mr. Secretary PEEL said, he had only accused the Hon. Member of unfair conduct in endeavouring to create a preju dice against these Magistrates, upon a subject apart from the . merits of this particular case, in talking about their being the notorious visaing Magistrates of Ilchester Jail.—( Hear.) —He never meant to say.• that he was responsible for the truth of the allegations of the petition. The.petition was then laid on the table. ' - NEW WRIT. _ _ On the motion of the Marquis of Tx T cur IE 7- D, a new writ was ordered to be issued for the return of a Member in the room of Lord Walpole now Earl of Orford. The Marquis of TITCHFIELD presented a Petition•from the Tradesmen of the town of Worksop, complaining of the increase of the number of Hawkers and Pedlars. Mr. HUME-thought that it would be extremely illiberal to adopt any restrictions against hawking and pedling. It was competent to these shopkeepers to become hawkers and ped lars if they pleased.—The Petition was ordered to be printed. ALIEN BILL. Mr. Secretary PEEL postponed the Committee on the Alien Bill to the 24th instant ; and gave notice of a motion on the subject of the Police of the Metropolis for the sth of July. AGRICULTURAL PETITION. Sir WILLIAM ROWLEY presented a Petition from the Parish of Belford, in Suflblk, complaining of agricultural dis tress, and praying for Parliamentary Reform. - Mr. COKE seconded the prayer of the Petition, and spoke of the respectability of the Petitioners. They had met with every discouragement from the-Magistrates of the County, who would not convene a meeting according to their request, and they had long lost all confidence in the Hon. Member opposite for the County. Mr. GOOCH said, that the Hon. Member opposite spoke as though he were the emperor of the whole landed interest of the country. He was convinced the Magiitrates had acted justi fiably.; and, as for the Petitioners having lost confidence in him, they never gave him any. confidence, nor be them. Mr. WESTERN thought, that Magistrates acting in this way to the interdiction of petitioning, ought to undergo inquiry in that House, and were deserving of the utmost reprobation. Mr. HUME said, that was one of many instance of the im propriety of putting Clergymen into the Commission of the Peace. The Petition was then read, and ordered to be printed. The Hon. Baronet presented a similar Petition from another Parish in: Suffolk ; and a Petition from the Ship-owners of the . Port 6f Woodbridge, in Suffolk, against the Navigation-bill. AGRICULTURAL_ DISTRESS, Mr. WESTERN gave notice, that on some day during the Session he would subiliit to the House some'Resblutions decla ratory of the general distress of the country, and particularly of the Agricultural,classes and also descriptive of the extent to which the change in the currency had operated the present state otthetountry. _ _ GOULBOIN gave notice of a motion for Friday, on the subject of a vote of Money forlreland. CORN IMPORTATION BILL. Mr. ROBINSON moved the Order Of,the Day for the third reading of this BilL Mr. CURIVEN rose merely to say, that his sentiment,s on this subject weredn no way altered. He did not think that any attack should be made .upon the fundholder further than that funded property should be assessed to bear a share of the bur then, of the.poor-rates. He hoped some such measure as that would, at no distant period, be introduced, in 'order to relieve, .in some degree, the land-owner of that grievous and increasing burden. He therefore moved, that the Bill be read a third time that day three months, only for the sake of recording his opi nion, and not with the intention of pressing the motion. Mr. BRIGHT said he very much wished that something should be done to liberate the capital embarked in foreign corn, in order that that capital might be employed m the home-mar- Mr. WESTERN felt his various objections to the Bill in creased by a contemplation of the present state of Ireland.— The distresses of that country arose ? not, frOm a want of pro, visions, but from the want of money in the labouring classes to .possess them, arising frbm : the want of employment. To transport the capital of this country to the labourers of forei,, ,, n nations, by facilitating, as this Bill did, .the importation of fo reign produce, therefore he never could:agree to. Ireland, was quite competentto 7 gTow all the. corn this - country might want. Mr. DENNIS BROWNE said, he did not see any reason to fear the importation of foreign corn with the prospect of the 'harvest before us. " . • The Bill was then read a third time and passed. IRISH T YTH ES, The SPEAKER having called upon Mr. DALY to proceed 'with his motion on the subject of Irish Tythes, Mr. Secretary PEEL rose to point the attention of his Hon. .Friend to the situation of such a motion at that late period of ...the Session. It appeared to him that it was impossible to frame any practical measure now, and the house could therefore only enter into the general question. It had done this already, and the effect of persevering in this motion would be, that the .I-louse would give two pledges to enter upon an inquiry next Session, having given one already. Mr. DALY rose amidst cries of "Go On." He was very -willing to accede to any request made by the Right Hon. -Se ..cretary, in whose judgment he had so much confidence ; but there seemed to be a general feeling in the House that this Ses ,sion should not be lost. ', Sir E. O'BRIEN observed, that the Noble Marquis at the '.head of the Irish Government 'could not be expected to take any steps upon the subject of tithes at. present ; but he was -satisfied that next Session some measure would be brought forward. • Mr. SPRING INCE said that,the House and Ireland would *not he fairly dealt with if the Hon. Member suffered himself to /be persuaded against bringing on this motion, as many Hon. ..Members had omitted to give notice of motion on this subject in deference to the Hon. Member, Sir J. NEWPORT said, that if the Hon. Member did not "proceed, he should not allow the Session to pass without mak.: .Ing a motion on the subject s Mr..D. BROWNE hoped the Hon. Member would not bring on iris motion this Session. Mr. DALY said, if he could understand that he would not be opposed by his Majesty's Government in moving for a Com . mittee at the commencement of next SeSsion; he, would with , draw his motion. • Mr. GOULBURN repeated what he • had before said, that this subject was under the serious Consideration of the Govern ment of Ireland, and that he expected to state to the House, at the beginning of next Session, whether he fhould be able to ; propose any measure or not. Beyond this he could not then pledge himself. Mr. V. FITZGERALD thought the Hon. Member (Mr: Daly) had better portpone his motion, in doing which no one could doubt that he was actuated by any other motive than that of acting in the way most likely to promote the best Settlement of this important question. Mr. C. H. HIITCJIINON, Sir H. PARNELL, and Mr. CAL cnAFT' were of opinion that the Hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Daly), had better proceed with his motion. Mr. PLUNKETT advised the Ilon: Gentleman to postpone 'his irlotion: With regard to the general question, he never had said that no specific measure could be proposed ; although he himself could not see his way to•one. He thouht that next :Session some specific measure would be brought forward; and thought so far the principle of commutation might enter into it, as that land might be- commuted for tithes ; and that was a ..desirable way of removing the difficulty. if this motion were persevered in until , the final settlement of the matter, no one in Ireland would be found to pay Et portion of tithes. Mr. DALY said, as he was then, called upon to make a de cision; lie must say, that as his principal reason for making the motion was to see how they were to stand at the beginning of next Session, lie was willing, after what he had heard, to abandon his motion. The motion was then withdrawn. Mr. HUME then rose and said, that in consequence of the Hon. Member for Galway having quitted the field, it was his intention forthwith to take the matter in hand, and bring the whole queition of Irish Tithes before the House.—(Hear, hear, tear !)--He had for some time contemplated a motion on the -subject, and seeing, as he dill, with surprise, his Majesty's Ministers were contented to sit idle for the rest of the Session with regard to this heart-burning subject, whilst Ireland was in a state which required a military establishment, at an ex pence of two millions, he was not sorry for the opportunity of stating his views on the subject. If they were errone ous lie would he corrected • if not, he relied upon the sup „port of .the House to rectify the, evils which he considered to be at the bottom of the present state of that country.— His views might be wild. and visionary, btit he confessed that he was not, able to reconcile the long series of insurreetions in Ireland with the existence of the present tithe system. alone. Tithes were indeed the principal cause'of the disturb ances of Ireland. He was -anxious to enable the Clergy of Ireland to discharge their duties, but he protested against making them allowances disproportionate to those duties. He wished to avoid both extremes. It had been stated that tithes were property as sacred as property of any . other description. He was for, preserving the rights of property inviolate, but church property had always been considered as at the disposal of the Government; and he contended they had a right to dis pose of it, subject to the rights of persons actually in existence. This right of interference had been . exercised by the Parlia ments of both countries ; the same sight had been also exer cised by the Governments of foreign countries. Church esta blishments were in fact no part of the Christian Religion, nor were they necessary for its support. He had the authority of Doctor Paley for this position, and he (Mr. Hume) con tended- that, at all events, - the allowance made to the Irish Clergy was considerably too much. This allowance was, of itself, a source of disaffection • but it happened that the duties themselves were most inefficiently performed. He admitted the service and respectability of a resident Clergy ; but a great proportion of the Irish Clergy were absentees ; and the money drawn from the industry of the people was spent at Bath, Paris, and, - other places. Another objec tion to the present system was the present practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts ; and another was to be found in the mode of collecting the tithes. The landed Gentlemen had low ered their rents, but few of the Clergy had lowered their tithes.—[The Honourable Blernber here stated an instance of a refusal to lower tithes proportionably with the fall in the agricultural produce.]—He had received' many letiers containing other examples on the same subject ; one from the Earl of Glengall, stating, a rise in the amount of tythe made by the Bishop of Waterford. He had also the copy of an address to the Grand Jury of Galway, in the Spring Assizes of 1822, complaining of the pressure of tythes, and stating that the Petitioners were charged as much for 'tythe as they were when their produce was four times its present value. These Petitioners admitted that their rents had not been increased for ,thirty years. He mentioned this circumstance to show how unfair was the charge made by his Majesty's Ministers against the landed Gentlemen of Ireland ; but Ministers were ready enough to shift blame from their own shoulders upon those of others. This was a subject of the first consequence to this country, which was' compelled to support the expence of keeping down the unhappy people .who were goaded by oppression to resistance. And yet the two Right Honourable Secretaries apposite, and the Attor ney-General for Ireland, were perfectly • willing to deprecate inquiry, and to leave this load of suffering untouched for the ensuing six months. If the Government suffered this oppres sion, anirshewed no disposition to remove it, the people would be driven to 'resistance. He believed that neither the Arch bishops nor the BiShops had done their duty ; for he was pre pared to' show the evils attending their non-residence. In support of .this, his assertion, he had only to refer to the pub lished - correspohdence between Lord Blayney and the Inha bitants (+Castle Blayney, respecting the neglect shown to their and his application to the Bishop of Cloglier.—LThe Hon. :31 em ber here read the . Correspondencel—He would ask the Right ' Hon. Secretary himself, whether he had not, during the con tinuance of his office in Ireland, heard many complaints of clerical Absenteeship ; -and this he (Mr. H.) believed was a painful cause of the absence of Landed Proprietors. lie found by returns on the table, that there were 1270 benefices in Ireland, and there were only 770 Clergymen'who resided upon their liv ings. None were more ready to cant about religion than his Ma jesty's Ministers • yet it was they who appointed the Bishops that suffered such a system of disgraceful neglect. It was a perfect mockery to suppose that the power of leasing would remove , the evil, for the evil consisted in absenteeship. He understood that the late Bishop of Derry was absent fifteen or twenty years from Ireland. The Honourable Member here referred to the - answers 'given by the Irish Bishops to a circular letter from the Lord Lieutenant, inquiring the state of the Church. - One of the inquiries was, as to - the value of the. land in each diocese, and only one Bishop an swered the question. Of the 1270 persons holding benefices, only 460 had made the returns required of them. The pro-, perty of the Bishops consisted of two-elevenths of the whole property. , The Bishops on the whole Continent had not an income equal to that of the Bishops of Ireland. He would prove this if the House would go into a' Committee on the sub ject. He believed England and Ireland were the only coun tries in Europe in which a tenth was exacted from the' produce to support the Church. It was said the Government was con nected with the Church ; but a Government which could be supported only by the Church did not deserve to be supported at all. Ile knew of no reason why this country should not follow the example of France and other countries, in which tithes were abolished, and allowances made to • the Clergy.— In some countries the Clergy . were allowed only a third of the tenth, and yet they were highly respectable.—l The Honour able Member here referred to a statement in support of his latter proposition, shewing the mode in which the Clergy of foreign countries were paid, and the amount of the pay ments.l—Unless the root of the evil were to be aimed at, it would be impossible to expect relief, and he therefore intreated the House not to refuse inquiry. Parliament had - voted away sums for the support of the Church ' • but he was prepared to shew that most of the sums had found their way into the pockets of the great Dignitaries, while the poor Curates were left to starve. The object of the Committee he intended to propose was principally t 6 ascertain the value and distribution of the Church property of Ireland. Unless a review of this Establish ment were taken, it would be impossible to expect any remedy for this grievance of so many centuries standing. He had no desire to interfere with existing interests. He would be satis fied, as he had no doubt the people would 'be, with a Resolu tion . pledging itself early in the next Session to take into its consideration the state of the Church Establishment of Ireland, with a view to make such alterations as may be found desirable. The Honourable Member concluded by moving a Resolution to this effect. _ _ Mr. ELLICE seconded the motion. Ile regretted that the Hon. Member opposite had given up his own motion on this subject. He preferred a motion of l a limited nature„ but he was quite prepared to support the present motion: This, he apprehended, was no new question, for it had long been consi dered-that the subject would ultimately press itself on the con sideration of Government. Ile denied that the property called church property was any other than national property, subject to the rights-of persons at present in possession of it. The tithe system of Ireland was most oppressive; he understood that there were as many as 46;000 suits for tithes in the county of Galway within the last five or six years. Yet he was not disposed to exempt the landlord from the payment of tithes, because, as he had before mentioned, he considered the tithes as church property. Mr. D. BROM- NE said he was in favour. of a commutation of tithes ; but he thought the revolUtionary speech of the lion. Member would disindine many Members from such a com mutation. He (Mr. B.) called upon all those who supported commutation to vote againsf the present motion. Sir JOHN NEWPORT trusted he should be considered as one taking as strong an inttvst in the affairs of Ireland as any man in that House.—(Hear, hear, hear!)—The House had been told to be satisfied with the assurance of the Right Hon. Secretary, that the important subject of tithes - was under the serious consideration of Government. This very declaration had been made five years ago by the Noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government. He (Sir Johti) therefore, could not be` satisfied with an assurance' merely repeated. The evil was of so notorious and so extensive a nature, that the House, he thought, ought not to separates without coming to some resolution on the subject. Much inconvenience was oc- ' casioned by the union of parishes under episcopal authority ; inconsequence of which there .wdre -many parishioners unable to attend their parish churches on account of the distance.— The Protestant population of Ireland was fast diminishing in consequence 'of this last circumstance. Five vicarages were united in 1818, comprising a district of 22 miles from East to. 'West, and 14 from North to South. If the - Government would not meet circumstances of this description, they must expect the Protestant population to diminish. It had long been di minishing, while the general population had increased. He thought the House should give its entire attention to subjects which admitted of a particular- and distinct remedy, and he should therefore move an , amendment to the present motion. He should have nothi to do with measures of spoliation. Those he left to the Union' Parliament of Ireland, which passed the Agistment Bill in five days. This was a spoliation ; and yet he believed his 'Right Hon. and Learned Friend (Mr. Plunkett) did not oppose that Bill which was brought into that Parliament by Viscount Castlereagh. He (Sir John) would not spoliate, but he would support any measure which tended to the advantage of the country without violating existing rights, by a fair system of commutation. The people and the Parliament of Ireland had consented, to the Union on the ex press condition that this subject should be examined by the United Parliament. The Right Hon. Baronet concluded by -moving as an amendment a resolution, " That, with a view to the tranquillity and happiness of 'lreland, this House will, early in the next Session, take into its serious consideration the state of the Tithe Laws of Ireland, for the purpose of sup pressing the vexatious system attending their enforcement, and to provide a fair equivalent for the Established Church." Mr. GOULBURN said, he had no right to expect the Right Hon. baronet to concur in opinion with him. It was his misfortune to be opposed to the flight Honourable Baronet upon the amendment, because he considered it prejudicial to the interest of Ireland. The question propounded was, whether the House should pledge itself to take into considera tion the tythes of Ireland, with a view to give the clergy proper support. He did not mean to enter into the question of com mutation of tythes. The argument was not whether the com mutation of tythes was useful or practical. It was not before the House, and he should only state how far he considered it inexpedient. He was not willing to give credit to pledges made by the House. The Honourable Baronet had told them the collection of tithes was unproductive, and he might ask him what would be the effect upon the collection of tythes, if the Right Honourable Baronet's motion were carried ? The effect of the motion if carried would be to stop the payment of tithes. Some topics had been intr6duced'by the Right Ho nourable Baronet, and others, which required a few observa tions. With respect to the residence of the Clergy, he felt the advantage which must arise from having a numerous re sident Clergy in Ireland. It was the source to which they must look for civilization of the people of Ireland ; but there were cases in which non-reeidence was justified. If the Hon. Member for Aberdeen had looked a little further into the re turns, he would have found 47 incumbents residing in parishes adjoining the parishes to which they belonged. In the case of one individual, Mr. Knox, that individual was obliged to leave the county to accompany a wife in a melancholy state of sick ness. Having followed her to the grave, he returned to his living. This was the case which the Hon. Gentleman consid ered one of so much importance. The Hon. Gent. had said the Bishop of Waterford had levied too largely upon tithes, but it would be found that the Bishop of Waterford did not levy tithes in the parish mentioned by the Hon. Gent. for the purpose of adding to his own income, but as the trustee of persons entit led to the tithes. The Hon. Gent. denied the right of the Church to tithes, but that proposition he denied. He might cite the opi nions of lawyers and eminent men in that House, who had uni formly allowed that tithes were property. Sir S. Romilly, who was not a man willing to resign too much to the Church, had allowed tithes to be property ; with these authorities he could not agree to the doctrine of the lion. Gentleman. If the Hon. Gentleman came forward to take away the income of the Clergy, who was to say what ought to be the sums taken from the highest Dignitaries of the Church ? If they were to reduce the income of the Archbishop, and confiscate the pro perty of the Church, why not reduce the income of persons in other high situations ? The Hon. Gentleman's proposition at. tacked the property of thp Church, and who could say it would not lead to the spoliation of other property ? On these grounds he was adverse to the amendment. Sir J. NEWPORT explained. Mr. DALY said, he had withdrawn his motion in conse quence of the pledge given by the Right Honourable Secretary (Mr. Peel); -but as he thought the pledge of the House of Commons preferable to that of the Right Hon. Gentleman, he should support the Amendment of the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Newport). Mr. S. RICE observed, that Mr. Perceval had given a pledge, as large as that of the s ßight Hon. Secretary, in 1811. • A simi lar pledge had also been given to his Hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County (Sir H. Parnell) by the present Lord Al ary borough. He was satisfied that there would be no tranquillity for Ireland until this question met with a full and deliberate consideration ; and, if anything were calculated to allay the pre sent discontents, it was a pledge on the part of Parliament, that they would examine the whole subject. The Irish Members were almost all favourable to a commutation of tithes ; he ad dressed himself, therefore, principally to English Members, and he relied upon their justice and generosity, that they would not . resist a change of system which was admitted to be neces... sary by the great mass of the Irish Representation. If Parlia ment threw cold water on this motion, he trusted that every county, town, and hamlet in Ireland would demand it from the justice and generosity of Parlianient. He was satisfied that a commutation of tithes was the only effectual corrective for the evils of the tithe system in Ireland, and he claimed the adoption of this measure on behalf of that suffering and injured country. If Ministers did not exert themselves to pour balm into the wounds of Ireland, measures of coercion would be unavailing, for they would be regarded only as the instruments of a heart less and despotic Government. He cordially supported the motion. • • Mr. PEEL denied that any collusion had taken place between the Government and the Honourable Member for Galway (Mr. Daly). He (Mr. P.) had merely requested that Honourable Member to withdraw his motion, and scarcely any conversation had passed between them, He did not believe that the present motion was calculated to promote tranquillity in Ireland, for if Parliament were to give such a pledge, and afterwards should be unable to redeem it, the worst consequences might result from the disappointment of the hopes which it would excite. He ob jected generally to the principle of giving pledges in one Session as to the course which Parliament would pursue in another.— He had given much consideration to this subject, and he felt himself bound to state, lest his opinions should possibly be misconceived, that a commutation of tithes was liable, he would not say to insuperable,' but to very great objections.— He protested against the whole statement assumed in the speech of the Honourable Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume.) Well, indeed, might his Honourable Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Daly) say, that if the opponefits wanted a most efficient ally to defeat such a measure, they could find one in the Hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume). Whatever previous opi nions his (Mr. Peel's) connexion with the Irish Government might have induced him to form on this question, he begged to assure the House that to its future consideration he should feel it his duty to give the most unprejudiced attention. Mr. BROUGHAM supported the amendment. The Bill brought in met none of the grand and paramount difficulties.— Nothing to satisfy the minds of the people of Ireland. The Government, after taking thirty years to consider the subject, required six months more, and then they would tell whether the could do any thing or not. His wish was that it might not be thirty years more the subject of consideration. Precedents bore out pledges on the part of the House. :Something must be done on this question, and Parliament could lose no time in doing it. The discussion was necessary for the preservation of Ireland, and the support of the church of that country. Mr. HUTCHINSON supported the amendment. No per son who had heard the statement of the Hon. Member for Montrose, would deny that there was a crying grievance which called for remedy. Mr. PLUNKET did not rise to detain the House. The mo tion of the Right Hon. Baronet was premature and dangerous. The motion stated that the measure to be introduced by his Majesty's Ministers could not be attended with any benefit. Was it fair or candid, before the Bill was read a second time, and the details known, to condemn it as useless ? He was con vinced that it would be hailed as a boon by Ireland. The Hon. Member for Montrose had introduced principles of spoliation and robbery ; principles which went to the subversion of all the property in the kingdom. Would the Hon. Member ad mit that lay improprietors were entitled to tithes ? Mr. lIUME answered, yes. • Mr. PLUNKET then•observed, why deny the same right to the Church ? The principles laid down by the Hon. and • Learned Member for Montrose, would go to the destruction 'of all property. Following up the principles of the Hon. Member by a pledge, would lead the people of Ireland to believe there would be an end to all property. Long and anxious attention to the subject convinced him that a commutation • of tithes would not relieve the discontent of Ireland. It would be un-: wise to enter into any pledge ; therefore, he concluded by mov ing the previous question on the amendment moved by the Right Hon. Baronet. Mr. D. BROWNE said, he was bound to vote for the mo tion of the Right Honourable Baronet. The Hon. Member would vote for the amendment, but oppose the motion of the Member for Aberdeen. Mr. TRENCH spoke in favour of a general commutation of tithes. 'Mr. DAWSON defended the Bishops alluded to by Mr. Hume. Sir E. O'BRIEN supported the Amendment. ' Mr. MARTIN (of- Galway) •was unwilling to pledge the House, but said he should be ready to discuss the question the next Session-of Parliament. The question was then loudly called for. Mr. lILTME replied, and after defending himself against the charges applied to-his statement and principles, consented to withdraw his motion, admitting, at the same time, that the Amendinent of the Right Hon. Baronet was entitled to more attention than his. The House then divided on the Amendment— Ayes Noes - - - - 72 Majority against the Amendment —7 On bur return to the Gallery, we found the House on the other Orders of the Day, which were postponed. Mr. HUME asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the persons who had been prosecuted by the Board of Excise for selling roasted grain, were not, according to the pledge of the Right Hon. Gentleman, to find indulgence from his. Ma jesty's Government ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, no di rect pledge had ever been given on the subject, but inquiry had been made, and no case of hardship had been found.to require a remedy. The House adjourned at a QUARTER to THREE O'CLOCK. SCOTCII SEQUESTRATIONS. MEETINGS, &C. _ David Wilson, merchant, St. Andrew's, to be examined in the Tontine, Cupar, 26th June and 17th July, at 12. Creditors of John Drysdale, grocer, Glasgow, meet in the office of George Miller, jun., accountant there, 11th July, at I. Creditors of Archibald. Cochran, of Ashkirk, some time mer chant, Fisherrow, meet in the Royal Exchange - Coffeehouse, Edinburgh, 3d July, at 2. James Ferguson, banker ,and writer in Stewarton, has ap plied for a discharge. EAST INDIA Housg. • A General Court of Directors was held at the India House yesterday, for the purpose of re suming the discussion on those clauses of the Na vigation Bill which affect the trade with and to India.—The Chair was taken at twelve. The CHAIRMAN announced the recommendation to pay a Dividend of 5i per cent. on the Capital Stock. Agreed to, unanimously. The Report of the Committee on the Bye Laws was read, and the Committee continued. The CHAIRMAN then adverted to the special business of the Meeting,which was to resume the consideration of the Bill for con solidating the Acts relating to the trade of India, and especial ly that clause of it which went to remove the present restric tion, which prevented vessels under 350 tons burthen from tra ding to India. He stated, that the Court of Directors had con sidered the continuation of this restriction proper; but as it had been in some measure rendered nugatory by subsequent Acts of the Legislature, they resolved not to object to it. They had wished, however, to be guided by the opinion of the Court of Proprietors, and for that purpose the last and present Meet ings had been held. He knew not how he could bring the matter before them unless by a motion of concurrence in the proposition of the Board of Controul. He would do this, how ever, merely for the purpose of brining the subject before them. If the motion were not generally approved, he would not persevere in it ; he would merely propose for the pur pose that they might discuss. He would propose, " That the Court agree t 9 the repeal of the Act by which vessels un der 330 tons burthen are prohibited from trading between this country and India." The Honourable Chairman then read - the correspondence which had taken place between the Court of Directors and the Board of Trade. He mentioned, that in all the correspondence and communication which the Court of Directors had had with that Board, they had excepted the arti cle of •t(ugar ; and that he had received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a letter, intimating - that the present duties were to be continued but for one year, and that the subject would be taken up and fully discussed by a Committee of the House of CoMmons early in the next session. Mr. FORBES, M. P. felt much pleased at the candid and clear manner in which the business had been introduced by the Honourable Chairman ; and he hoped that, though he felt it his duty to propose an amendment to the motion of the Hon. Chair man, he would do it in such a manner as would show tho he was far from entertaining any personal hostility to the Ho nourable Chairman. When the subject was brought before the Court formerly, it had been so fully discussed, that there was no need now of treating it with any great minuteness.— Tie would therefore say, that all which the Company looked for at the hands of his Majesty's Government was merely justice. If they were called upon to surrender a part of their chartered rights, they ought not to do this without some equivalent. They ought to bear in mind that this con duct of theirs was not to affect themselves merely, for it would have an influence upon the condition of 100,000,000 of human beings. He would merely call the attention of the •Court to the leading facts,. and leave the arguments to Gentle men who knew the principles and the details better than he. This was no new question. It had been discussed 30 years ago; and he would beg that the Resolutions of 1792 be read. They were read accordingly. They stated, in substance, that the in crease in the price of sugar was owing to the variations in the supply from the West Indies ' • and that this would be corrected by allowing the sugars of the East Indies to be imported on the same tirms, and at the same duties as those of the West. His view of the iresent case was to propose an amendment which would be in substance a confirmation of those Resolutions, as he thought they were as applicable to the Present time as to that for which they were passed. There was one general principle from which he thought Government could not well dissent ; and that was, that the Colony which took most of the manufacture of the mother country ought to enjoy the largest share of protection. He would beg leave to call the attention of the Court to a Meeting of Merchants and others interested in the affairs of India, which had been held on. the 18th. All that he would propose had been fully recog nized by ,that Meeting ; and if he were allowed he would read. their Resolutions (the Resolutions were read as part of the Ho nourable Proprietor's speech). There was one objection to the Bill, as at present worded, to which he wished to call particular attention ; and that was, that the removal of the prohibition of vessels under three hundred and fifty tons burden applied only to British built vessels. It might, for aught he knew, be the intention of the Board of Controul, that it should extend to ships built in British India ; but certainly the expression went to exclude them. Now though ,he was willing to admit that the condition of the shipping interest in this country was by no means good, he contended that that of the India ship ping was no better; and that, therefore, while Ministers at tended to the interests of British shipping, they ought not to overlook those of India. The trade in both countries was equally depressed, or if any one was suffering more than the other, it was India—for in that country the greater part of the ships were lying rotting in the rivers. Now if small ships were allowed to go out to India, and to trade from port to port there, without restriction, they would produce the greatest hardship and misery to the people of that country. They would run away with' he most valuable part of the trade; it being well known that small ships could easily procure valuable cargoes, while larger ones were not only found to wait longer, but also to take inferior articles, which could not bear to pay so high a freight. Besides this, they would ruin the trade of ship-build ing in India, and the trade of the country ships, by engaging in the carrying, of goods from one port of the country to another. The Company ought not to sacrifice their chartered rights, without a fair equivalent. Besides, the Proprietors had not been duly apprised of the introduction of the Bill, and it had been introduced at too late a period of the Session. On these accounts it should be delayed till the next Session. It seemed that the Board of Controul thought very lightly of the Court of Proprietors, and thought they only needed the consent of the Chairman and Court of Directors. The Bill was carried through, too, without any very great respect for its importance; the second having, for instance, been pro posed in the House of Commons this morning, at one o'clock, and that too when there was in fact no House, only 37 Mem bers being-present. The reading had been opposed and 'put off till Friday ; and lie would assure the Court that he would oppose it in every stage, and if possible get it to stand over till next Session.—(Applause.)—He thought that the questions of the tonnage of the ships, and the duty on sugar, ought not to be separated. They ought to go hand in hand, and if the Company conceded the one, Government ought to concede die other. As for him, he understood that when the law authorizing the free trade with India (a law which had been productive of advantage to both countries) had been passed, it was un derstood that British ships were not to Interfere with the country trade of India, any more than India-built ships were to interfere with the coasting or country trade of Britain. If a Committee of the House of Commons were to take up the sugar question next Session, then the best way would be to postpone the Bill till that Committee had finished its deliberations. He contended that the high duty on East India sugar was unjust, not merely to India, but to the whole consumers of sugar in this country. If, therefore, it were to be delayed till its merits could be fairly discussed, the sense of the people of England would be expressed in Peti tions against it. He did not mean that they would beat up for Petitions, and he should be sorry to think of their resorting to such conduct ; but he knew that they had only to do what, he hoped, would be done by the public announcement of their opinions that day, to state that their rights, and the rights of the people, had been attempted to be imposed upon, and they would find the public ready to do them justice. He knew that the opinion which he was to state, would not be pa latable to the Government, but he must repeat (what he had stated formerly), that there was a bias to others and against them —(Hear ! )_-H e would say this here, and he would say it in the House of Commons, as often as he had occasion. He hoped that through the whole course of his public conduct, no one could accuse him- of having advocated private or particular in terests in preference to general ones. He hoped, therefore, he would not be misunderstood when he stated, that he wished to see such a Reform in Parliament as would give to the interests of India a more full and equitable representation, and he trusted he could do thus much without laying himself open to the charge of being a Radical Reformer. The Honourable Pro prietor paid some handsome compliments t 9 Mr. C. Grant, for his zeal and attention to the interests of India ; and concluded by moving as an amendment— " That the existing limitation as to the size of vessels em ployed in the East India trade is a part of the compact with the East India Company, to which the faith of Parliament is pled ged. " That this Court cannot consent to the relinquishment of this part of the compact, unless reciprocal concessions are ob tained, by the restoration of East India-built ships to the right of full British registry, and by the admission of Sugars from British India, for home-consumption, on equal terms with Sugars produced in other dependencies of the British Empire. That this Court are induced to adopt these Resolutions, not merely on commercial grounds, as affecting the people of the United Kingdom, but on behalf of one hundred millions of our fellow-subjects in India, whose rights and interests are involved therein, and which it is the bounden duty of the East India Company to protect." Mr. TRANT thought they were bound to attend to the inte rests of the British Empire in India, towards which it seemed that the Board of Controul did not mind, though they exercised a certain donee violence. They did this upon the pretence that the West Indians laboured under certain disadvantages which did not apply to the East; buthe knew of no disadvantages which the one laboured under from which the other was exempted. He the c° l '" '' tended that the introduction of small ships, coupled with r! ° fusal of the importation of sugar, would be ruinous not only !... the manufactures, but to the agriculture of India. Be knew the distressed state of that country from the falling off of the manufactures. He knew that in bladras alone, five factories& employing 18,000 men each, had recently been stopped; thus, in this one instance, nearly 100,000 men had been tiroev;i:: as a burden on the agricultural interest. He gave the Am id meat his decided support. Mr. PETER MOORE was most anxious not to mislead o thers. He thouhrlit that the Court should not allow the' oa rd of Con troul to depreciate the contract. He thought it right to i' courage the private trader by every fair means ; but it ought hot_ 'to be done in such a way, or to such an extent, as to injure ell interests of India and of this country at the same time. Il'lre,ll3. been the opinion of Mr. Fox, and of the other great g leaders, that the interests of India and of this country had ha bedeen - sacrified for those of the Mrest India Colonies. • They dared that the East Indies if properly attended to would b e of the utmost importance to this country i and that adv f tages of India, if properly improved, mght be the mean s ° paying the national debt. They had marked the vast differeneo in the expence of procuring sugar in the East Indies and in the West. In the West Indies it was almost 51d. a pound, Ita in the East it was not more than one halfpenny. Thi s ro ference was owing to the sugar in the one country being p duced by slaves, and in the other by freemen. If we Were t° have none but West India sugar in this country, then there would, of necessity, be an increase of the home trade ; and der such an encouragement it was in vain to talk of the a bo 1 tion of that traffic. Mr. CARRUTHERS rose and caught the eye of t he Chai i r c : man, but at the same instant Mr. S. Dixon began to sPe a The Chairman called him to order. Mr. Dixos—" I rose not to speak—l rose only to ask question." He wished to ask the Hon. Proprietor (Mr. Moo ~ e , if he had said that slaves were now imported directly to t British colonies ? Mr. P. MOORE replied, that they were imported first to the Havannah. Mr. CARRUTHERS would ,speak his mind to any man , 1 1 he high—be he base. He thought the Court bound to atten to the interests of the West Indians; they ought to consi,de r the question not as it affected the interests of resident man iac : turers and traders, but as it affected those of Stock-proprie tor ? , n° • and if it could be shown not to hurt the Stock-proprietors, did not see how the Court could object to it. He would SI; port the original motion. If India shipping were to en.i°Y the full advantages of registers, it would be most injurious to shipping of this country ; and they ought not to injure he mother country for the sake of the colonies. Mr. TUCKER felt pleased with the numbers and reap ee tr bility of the Court. They had both Greeks and Trois li t both East Indians and 'West. To all, however, he was ° ti l e ous to address what was reason and truth. He thought e Court had a right to assist the Legislature, and ought to 11,4 been consulted by the Directors. He would not take "„f metaphysical part of political economy out of the ha nds " o f Mr. Ricardo; but he would state some simple principles t, commerce. There were some /lands which afforded no re: and the sugar estates of the West Indies were many of es aim of this description. The rents of these 'West India es° he were therefore paid either by the British pu bli c or by the East India trader. This was borne out by the opinion was Ricardo, Mill, and others, the' first men of the day it ri most unfair to allow such a difference in the duty upon sob', from the East Indies and from the West, considering th, 3 ,'„„ 5 1813 the difference was only 3s. in the cwt. If the East 111 ' 4 0 were not allowed to pay any part of their dues in kind, they O h o not be expected to pay long in the precious metals. If theY b i e h to import bullion, they would soon produce a scarcitY what, would produce low prices and ruin to them. The Chairma n ia at a former Meeting, given a flattering account of the sl d ; out of which the Stock Proprietors' dividend was to be but if they had to import the Sicca rupee at ls. 10o • i . 6d stead of.importing goods. by which it would be worth 2s. .tie the profit of the Stock Proprietor must he reduced to ht or nothing. If this were the case, a depreciated PPe r rency might be introduced into India, the consequences of would be lamentable. With regard to the question of the S piv ping, although it had been ably advocated, he would be fq. 0 , 0 „ ing it up, provided that the Company . got a small share °L i f o y i . tice in return. There was this objection to small shiPs7 seas , ever, that they would not be so well acquainted with the _raj o; so well navigated. Still he would not object to it on getto, principles. He complimented Mr. Forbes for the interes t he took in the affairs of the Company, supported his Reo,e c tions, and called upon other Honourable Proprietors to do li tc r. same. He was particularly pressing upon one gentleman ( Alexander, we understood) ; and in order to induce him t?„ ; ,, - a l dress the Court, quoted a passage of Homer, in the 0135-- Greek, giving at the same time Pope's translation. ,_,„d The CHAIRMAN here intimated, that he had just recei‘,; communication from the President of the Board of Trade,Tvo mating, that in consequence of the lateness of the season Z. be intendd to omit all clauses in the Bill to which there wool in' serious objections on tha part of the Court ; and that it 'O S l a A tended to postpone to next Session the clause which allow e,, direct trade to India with the British colonies in the 'West S.as dies and North America. Under such circumstances , expected that the clause relating to the removal of the rest"' tion on the ships would meet with no opposition. ornotu tii• Mr. TWINING thought, that notwithstanding this C ot• cation, it would be as well to discuss the matter before the m ing. The Hon. Proprietor then quoted some Latin, hop.l; that he would be pardoned after another Hon. Gentleman ( said Tucker) had quoted a more learned language (Mr. T uc ker g? he had given a translatiori of his Greek). He (Mr. T wi° c to did not see why the Board of Controul should not take, t i T ca r• discuss the proposal made to them by the Court. In allit s , o o l ings this was one of the most important questions th at., come before the Court. rt to Mr. C. GRANT wished first to call the attention of the CI. the the state of India, as brought under the arbitrary power e t ba d greater state. This was evinced by the great increase t in 0 1 ° taken place in the exportation of British manufacture s ' or' duties had not only excluded the cottons of India from oli h r c,o kets, but had made us exporters to a great extent. l'. o aki vernment laid a duty upon the manufactures of India, an d a liar not allow the Indian Government to impose a counter tbe duty. This was very hard. In the case of the slig ars 'trad e effect was the same. By these means we injured our own pie with India. True, we sent many things which the i", - / eal w of that country were willing to take ; but then, as we take none of their goods in, return, they were unable toysocie3 It was unfair to put a burden on one part of our depen," a e ia, l ,; for the sake of relieving another. As to the ships, a f ar fer e ". was clear that the coasting trade ought not to be ini", e ist , with;—and he (Mr. Grant) 'remembered well, that till' ; Ist the opinion of . the Ministers 'at the time when Iferalgt opening the trade to India was passed. It was °," however, that it would be so construed as to n'',! fo" that interference, and that being the case, the interfere/ 00' lowed as a matter of course. If, however, the Board °be n ° troul asked the Court to concede this matter, there c oulo . , i a be impropriety in asking an equivalent. All the points slic',oo' stood upon. He concurred as to the little Representati on s India had in the House of Commons ; he thought all t" f d'", of India owing to those who had advocated the Openittal 0°- Trade.—They had been hurried on by passion, andlt the given to all the circumstances that consideration wh i 'd merited. He trusted . , however, that the general feeling Court now would be to watch over the interests of Irldia . LP" Mr. WEETING regretted that the Chairman had lot de 1 1° , motion for approval of the proposal of the Board of Traunrtio thought the question of the sugar would be more easilY 7 0 5 than that of the shipping. The difference of the duty bonus of 30,000 a year against the Company. That ,_cl ° „el4`" if contended for, must be ultimately carried, because -to e I had an interest in it. to beat Mr. R. JACKSON thought that the question oug h t on the investigation of the impartial, and that their decisic9 t h the should be such that they could identify themselves li t , / a cle ° public. The admission of small ships into the countrY ; t raer; India ought not to be -admitted, as it would admit able, incomprehensible, and indescribable person s ,ogj o o u u g g h h t t . ntootptoaussuebjeercet tihteyotouftnr:clidtoeiduitt:tel;:' shores of India; and make those shores be visited by " - " st m pr a e d ss e jo i n n . dia Th ou e persons from all parts of Europe. Though oon,lag r ( si ot w ir e t thing to Government. They ought to reflect that 1-",k s t butcour to s e between t h h d e e d East I Indies uex t a s n e d s the s in . Colonies They in the ' 1 "red upon, the diminution which would take place in the cc ° every thing returned from India. They ought to Ils ' uS ° ;; they made one of the greatest articles of Indian produce s iy. p et we suppose) a dead letter. It was not fair to levy °ne vi , ail; cent. on our exports to them, and impose about 7 0 c al t w 11 „ f S ports to us. Why not make both equal ? At anY r ye D 1 not adjourn the business till they had the advantage °' quis of Hastings ? If the restriction were odiousz it e i' v as five times re-enacted, and one of those times so ia t i -i s b Session of Parliament.' If they could not acconiP:' lo - a erw" thing they wished, much might be done without 3 ,1 rA te r em equality of duty ; . and he thought they should at anY cord the Amendment. . s o me ,g Mr. GAHAGAN read (amid cries Of " Question foow, tracts of the opinions of the Lords and Commons (c th e e pioT e `i the one with the other), tending to shew that it w" gel, of certain Illustrious Persons, that it would be better vo rtai; India built ships than to prevent British one of sroar so° 3 from visiting India. The Hon. Proprietor proceede!l,, length, but at last sat down amid cries of " Question ! , ; „el , "` O fv out and denied the advantages of a register, while elm we re P, West, • c re mensra i Canada, and the other colonies in the t , o This was the w ore Mr. MONEY could not see why India ships should ,e_e lowed all the advantages of it.