The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-05-10 00:00:00

li2 3E2' i3arli cnt. lI3IISE or LORDS. MONDAY, MAY 6. The Marquis of Waesnisonn, the Earl of Wanwrce, and another Peer, took the oaths and their seats. The, royal assent was given by commission to the London and Birmingham Railway Bill, to the-Liverpool (Warrington) and Birmingham Railway Bill, and to several private bills. The Commissioners were, the Lord Chancellor, the Duke of Rich mond, and the Earl of Shaftesbury. After which the house was wholly occupied in the reception of petitions on various subjects. TUESDAY. SLAVERY. ,Petilinneeageinst slavery were presented (50 -in number) by leird Suffield, from various congregations of Wesleyan Me tinetiets in the counties of Bedford, Durham, Oxford, Lancas ter. Sussex, York, Kent, and from Wales; by the Earl of Ripon antLehe Duke of Itiehmond, from places in Sussex; by the least (ml Radnor, from Maidenhead ; by the Earl of Rossly n, from two places (names not heard); by the Bishop of Lincoln, from a parish in his diocese ; by Earl" Cawdor (19) limn various places ; -by Lord• Western (3), from the county of Essex; by the Mar- A:sie of Lansdowne, from clergy of three denominations of Pro teetant Dissenters in the neighbourhood of London, from Ken sin eatou, frOm Ackworth, -and three other places iu Wiltshire ; by Earl Fitzwilliam, from Northamptonshire, Yorkshire, Bath, and five-other places in Somersetshire ; by Earl Grey, from the Lord Mayor, aldermen, and commons of the city of London, from Camberwell, and seven other places; and by the Earl of Gmemford-from Tandaragee, in the county of Armagh. Lord Western presented two petitions from Bucking, in Es sex, against ecclesiastical dues on Dissenters' marriages. SCOTTISH UNIVERSITIES. The gad of lIADDINOTON asked his noble friend the Secre tary of State for the Home Department, whether anything had -.been determined by his Majesty's government in consequence of-the reports of the commission on the Scotch universities Sln 182 i or tes27 his Majesty, by virtue of his.peerogative of visitor ssf- the Scottish Universities, appointed a commission with full pewees en examine, report, and frame regulations with respect to the discipline, studies, revenues , and ail things connected -with_ those universities. Ile was a member of the commission, which eat for four years, and was presided over by his noble fiend opposite with great credit to himself. 'the board made several voluminous reports, one with respect to each university, besides a general report, whichi was presented in October, 1830. Ile wished to know from the noble secretary whether any, and if so, what part of the recommendations of the commission irouel be adopted by his Majesty's ministers. Lord MetesounNE observed, that from the length of time that Karl elapsed since the reports of the commission without any thing being dime, it might appear as. if government had neeer 10eted the subject, but all who were acquainted with the reports Dauer. know that they embraced great changes in the constitution, discipdue, and regulations of the universities, and this circum stance afforded the only explanation and excuse why no measure hadehitherto been taken in relation- to the subject. However, Wil.3 the intention of government to take the matter into con sideration as speedily as possible, with •a view to consider what paltsof.the- reports should be adopted. Earl Fitzwilliam presented a petitton from the Glasgow Po litical Union for the repeal of the corn laws. ISIr. Bernal and others from the commons brought up the personal estates bill, and several private bills. A.OMINISTIIATION OF THE CRINIMAL LAW. Earl thew presented a petition fronea place the name of Which was-not heard, for the abolition of the punishment of death for offences against property. The Duke of SUSSEX presented a petition from inhabitants of London and its -vicinity, agreed to at a public meeting at Exeter-hall, for an efficient reform of the. criminal law, and the adoption. of a judicious system of prison discipline, with a view t') afford protection to property without the sacrifice of human life. The petition was signed by 5330 persons, many of whom, on signing the petition, stated that they had been robbed and had -refused to prosecute, thereby exemplifyiug in their own cases the insufficiency of the laws to protect property. lie was aware of the difficulty of the subject, which ref iied the ntmost caution and deliberation in dealing with it. It au ything eotial be safely done with a view to diminish capital punish- Ments, man would rejoice snore than himself. Ile fully agree , 1 with the petitioners. as to the necessity of entering iuto an examination of prison discipline. He understood, that in proportion to the severity of capital punishments, convictions n capital offences were found to decrease. In England and Wales, in 1831), out of every 101) persons charged with capital eitiences, only 28 were convicted, whilst 80 were convicted out ef every lot) charged with offences not capital. In London the fseammency of capital punishment, which was much greater than ie the country, had been found to operate against capital con victions. In conclusion, the illustrious duke expressed his willingness to afford every assistance in this power on the subject, without desiring, however, to hurry , the house in its proceedings upon a matter so important. The petition was then read at length, as follows : " To the Right Hon. the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireiand, in Parliament assembled. " The petition of the undersigned inhabitants of London and its vicinity, agreed to at a public meeting, held in Exeter-hall, Humbly showeth,—That your petitioners are deeply im pre-se with the opinion that - the efficacy of - criminal laws Gepends less upon the severity of punishment than the certainty of infliction; and that laws which cannot be carried into execu ti us without shocking the feelings of society, and exciting sympathy for the offender, are contrary - to reason, inconsistent with morality, and oppoecil to the interests of justice. " That the criminal laws of England are of a character so .ificlictive and barbarous as to Le utterly incapable of uniform execution,. and that consequently, under the present system, the lives of men depend less upon the precise and express pro visions of law than upon the temper, feeling, or caprice of a judge, or secretary of state, whence it arises that all the assizes and circuits throughout England afford examples of inequality of punishment, amid practical proofs of the arbitrary discretion eaercised in the selection of victims for the altars of sanguinary Justice. "That the excessive severity of the law operates to the total impunity of a great proportion of offenders, by deterring hu mane persons from prosecuting, and by holding out a tempta tion to jurors to violate their oath rather than be accessory to judicial murder ; while almost all the capital punishments now on the statute-book are innovations upon the temperate and wholesmne principles of the ancient common law of the land, which has ever been admired for its humanity and wisdom by the greatest legal authorities, and is coeval with the noblest and best principles of the English constitution. " That your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray your right hon. house to take the criminal laws into your consideration, and, in accordance with what time true interests of justice as well as of humanity require, to introduce such a thorough and efficient reform of the criminal law as will render it snore availing to public morals than to private vengeance, and by a judicious system of prison discipline afford, that protection to property of whieh all persons may avail themselves without purchasing it by the sacrifice of human life." Lord LYNDHURST' referred to the act passed at a late period of time last session, subjecting persons for certain offences to transportation for life, and observed that the returns made on the subject showed that out of 300 conviction under that act, cases only had occurred in which the punishment had been eominuted or remitted; and he was satisfied that in several of those cases the remission proceeded from the circumstance of the offences having been committed before the passing of the act. It appeared, then, that the law had been enforced in 29 cases out of every 30. He did not hesitate to declare that to enforce the law in this manner was a harsh and unjustifiable administration of the criminal law. He did not allege this as -a charge aga inst the noble viscount. opposite. The bill came up from the other house of Parliament to this without the clause enforcing transportation, which was introduced in the Lords. The bill went back to the Commons, and that house was ex treeiely averse to the clause, which, however, it cousented to adopt, lest the bill should be lost for that session by expunging: it. What was the effect of the law as it now stood ? A man was tried and found guLty of stealing to. the value of £5 iu a dwelling-house, and it was imperative on the judge to sentence him to fransportatiou for life,—a sentence which was carried into effect. the next prisoner was tried for stealing, accom panied by breaking and entering a dwelliug-house ; he was also convicted and sentenced to one year's imprisonment and hard labour; so that the punishment of the inferior offence was t ra nsportation for life, and of the superior offence, which in volved a felony,_ the punishment was a year's imprisoinnent. This was an anomaly in time criminal law of the country ? On what pretence did it proceed? It was stated that the system bad been adopted in order to prevent crime by the certainty of punishment. Ile maintained that the ex-. tent of punishment should lie iu the discretion of the court, and that it was impossible to prevent crime by snaking di s proportionate punishm ent certain. '1 he evil to be appre hendee in discretionary- punishment consisted in the various tempers and dispositions of different judges, of whom. some ight be too stict, and others too lax, inthe administration of C eu lQ law ; but to m s void the chance of that evil, you adopted e fixed THE LIVER l'ool, STANDARD. punishment, and insured the certainty of disproportion between punishments and offences. Still the whole system was discre tienary, except - in this and one or two other cases, if it was right to take away the judge's discretiOnary power in this par ticular case, why not extend the principle, further, and carry it into the whole of your criminal administration ? If it was wren . , generallv speaking, to - deprive the judges of a discretio n, wh y this single exception to the rule ? He entreated, the noble. vis count opposite to bring 'in a bill to alter this law. if the noble viscount sire disposemtolollow tip= ie.course_marked out by a distinguished predecessor in office (Sir R. Peel), with respect to the ameutlment of the criminal law, he. would do an act of important service to the country, at the same time. that,he would • thereby elevate his own character. lie felt the inure anxious to call , the noble viscount's attention to the subject on account of the returns that had been presented with reference to the.in crease of crime of late years. Within the last 20 years crime had increased in the proportion of three.to oue.aecomparedavith preceding years. In 1812 the number of offenders committed was 60(X); iii 18.32, 29,030 were committed. Ite the seven years ending in 1818, 130,0(1) persons were 'committed for trial; in the seven year ending iu 1632 the number. was 421,003, The in crease in the amount of crime was not confined to particular dis tricts—it was the stone in the agricultural as in the manufactur ing division of the country—in the metropolis as in more remote places. The increase was not sudden, but progressive, from 1812 up to the preseilt time. He directed the noble viscount's attention to the subject, in order that the noble lord 'might in vestigate the returns, and see whether they contained any fal lacy, or that, if they proved to be correct, an inquiry might be entered upon as to the causes of the evil, with a view to ascer tain iu what manner it could be checked. Lord ne eaou uN a said the noble and learned lord complained of a harsh and unjustifiable exercise of the prerogative with re spect to the clause inflicting t r ansportation for lite. LordLYN On et:ST said teat the noble viscount was mistaken ,his interpretation of what had fallen from him (Lord Lynd hurst.) 'IN hat he said was, that to enforce the transportation clause:. in-themanner resorted to was_a_harsh and unjustifiable administration of the criminal law. Lord Ivimmoueste - did not see that the, noble and learned lord's explanation altered the case. The power to transfer the law rested with the Secretary of State, anu if its administration were harsh and unjustifiable the fault was his. The principle which those who had called for an alteration of the law hau in view—the object which they wished to effect—was to deter from crime by making the punishment more certain; for it had been well ascertained that when very severe punishments were award ed, the sympathy of the public frequently prevented them from being carried into execution. 'With respect to the conviction at the Carnarvoushire assizes, to which the noble and learned lord had alluded, the punishment in that case was mitigated, pre cisely according to the recommendation of the noble and learned lord; and lie believed that not a single recommendation had been forwarded by any learned judge to which a due degree of weight and consideration had not been given by.the office over which he had the honour to preside. He admitted that the law, as it now stood, in some degree diminished the power which the judge. formerly possessed, with respect to the cases that were tried before. hint; but still application could be made to the Secretary of State, and the knowledge which was im patted, ..ta_ that_ functionary _with reference- to_ the _p re vioue cha racter of the offender—the information which he received—the list which might be, forwarded to him of the previous con victions, if any,of the criminal, enabled those t o whom re ference was made to decide upon the application better than a judge could do during the hurry and bustle of the assizes. The noble and learned lord had referred to two cases of a very different kind, one in which a comparatively slight offence was severely , punished, the other in which a grave offence was passed over lightly. Now, the, argnment _of the noble _earl Learned lord was precisely that which was formerly urged against the penalty of death iu a great variety of cases, namely s -- the uncertainty of that penalty being carried into execution. The fault was not to be traced to the measure. of -last session, but to the state of the law at large. The noble and learned lord called on him to turn his attention to the amendment of the crhnival law. If he could discover any means that would more effectually provide for the due punishment of different degrees of crime, if he saw any means for the attainment of that object, no man would be more ready. than he-was to carry such pans into execution, and to give to the country the benefit of them. The noble and learned lord lied alluded to the increase of crime. That was a most important subject; it re quired a - more deep, a more profound, and a more enlarged discussion than he was prepared to give to it ou the present occasion. The question of the criminal law was a most intri cate one. The noble and learnd lord well knew that the argu ments connected with it were of a metaphysical character, and the science of mind, if it were a science, was one of the Most uncertain, and at the same time the most curious, that ever was. presented for investigation. He again admitted the subject which' the noble and learned lord had introduced to be most impor tant, but, with reference to the alterations which, had been made in the law, he must say that no system could he effectual if its course were interrupted by perpetual agitation and per petual condemnation, coming also from those whose opinions must have very great weight, peers of Parliament and judges of the laud.—(llear, hear.) Lord LYNMICItST, said that, to show the inequality of the law, lie had instanced' two cases—in one instance, an indivi dual condemned for a minor offence was sentenced to trans portation for life; in the other, the person who was next tried,-, and who was convicted capitally, was sentenced to one year's imprisonment and hard labour. The question was, what was the practical effect of the new system, as compared with the old? Formerly, the Judge, in' case of conviction, made his re marks in the margin of his notes of the trial, and stated the punishment; but now he must send. up to the Secretary of State an account of the proceedings, which, from the number of cages, would often be impossible. The noble lord had said this was anew system, andthat time ought to be giyen to see what effects would be produced by it. He did not complain of as a new system, but as an anomaly, contrary. to all sound principles of 'law. The Lord CHANCELLOR said, that in consequence of whaf had occurred between himself and the noble. and learned lord, he had inquired whether it was in the contemplation of his no ble friend to send a circular to the judges containing instruc tions.for those learned persons to transmit the ealenaars, with their remarks, to the Home-office. That he understood wou!d he done; and he conceived that such a course would obviate much of the objection. of the noble and learned lord. Lord LytiDlicitsrr said he was very happy to hear that such a proceeding was in contemplation. the Loan CHANCELLOR observed that it - was but fair, in the absence of .the noble and learned lord, the late Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, (Lord Wvnford,) who had prevailed on their lordships to adopt the amendment to which allusion had been made, to state that he had deferred•to the opinion of the noble and learned lord, although he had; at first entertained a different sentiment. He was. the.• more inclined to take that course, because the proposition was.. backed by another legal• authority equally high,—he meant the late Lord Tenterdeu. After a few words from a noble lord, which did not reach the gallery, the petition was laid on the table. Lord SUFFIELD presented a similar petition from the inha bitants of Lisburn. His lordship expressed his opinion, that the severity of punishment occasioned a.repuguance on the part of juries to convict in capital cases. It was a well-known fact, that there was a greater number of acquittals when the. crime had capital punishment annexed to it than iu cases- where the p,nalty was less severe. If they compared the number of per sons acquitted of the same species of crime, at different periods, they would find, that in proportion as the punishment 'became more merciful, the acquittals had diminished. Lord SueeiELD presented a petition front the inhabitants of Londonderry and its vicinity, praying. that the prisoners charged with felonious acts might be allowed counsel to plead for them. In cases of high treason counsel was allowed to appear for the prisoner, but whether such a plan would be eventually bene ficial to prisoners, in cases of felony, he would not attempt to decide.—Adjourned. that the petitions against his return were neither frivolous nor vexatious. Mr. O'CoNNELL wished to know whether the.stamp duty on advertisements was to be altered with respect to Ireland; and if so, what alteration was to be made. Lord Ail:none was understood to reply, that a reduction of Is. was proposed to be made in the advertisement duty in Ireland. Mr.isnsixssoN said, that in rising to give notice of his inten tion to submit a motion for the repeal of the house and window tax, he wished to know. what Were the precise intentions of government with respect to those taxes. Lord Aurtiolu , , whose veiny was very.indistinct, was under stood to say that it would be. better for. the right hon. member to postpone his motion until the bill on that subject was brought in oy ministers, - Mr. 1-lusm also wished to know whether the windows of schools were to be e.vnupted from the duty, The taxes in question, .he believed, .pressed with extreme, severity on the proprietors of, scientific institutions, and 11e hoped that minis . ters, when they considered the great importance of the case, would consent to relieve them. Mr. trCoNNs..l.l..begged to suggest to ministers the policy of reducing the stamp duty on awards. This duty was now 20s. for every award, and the poor people in Ireland were subjected to great inconvenience on account of the largeness of its amount. Ile thought that there should be no duty-at all on awards, but if one was ,considered indispensably necessary, it should be fixed at 10S:sinstead of 20s. Dr. Ltisnixozos agreed with the hon. member for Mid dlesex in the propriety of making some exemption with regard to the windows of school establishments . He considered - the proprietors of schools equally entitled to relief with those other persons whom it was proposed-to exempt from the payment of the duty, since cheap education was a point of paramount importance to the country. - Sir G. Gees( rose Os usk whether it was true that the Arch- bishop of Cashel, who Objected to the reduction of the number of bishops in Ireland, hau not been in his diocess for two years? lie wished for information on this point; because, if the fact were correct, any such opposition came with singular bad grace from him. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Gour.aultN gave his most unequivocal denial to the state ment. ( Lbud cries of " Hear.") Sir G. GREY expressed himself satisfied with the denial of the right lion. member, and laid no doubt he had been misinformed on the subject. Mr. WYNN thought that before an hon. member put such questions, it would be better to make some inquiries on the sub ject, for such interrogatories always had the air of an imputation. Lord ALTHORP brought up a message from the Crown, stating that His Majesty was desirous that an inquiry should be made into the state of the woods, forests, and crown lands, with the view, of rendering the revenue derived therefrom inure produc tive, and recommending the appointment of a committee to take the subject into consideration. Mr, Lefroy presented 21-petitions from various places in Ire land and England, against the Irish church temporalities bill. Petitions of a. similar nature were presented by Lord Stor mont, Lord Ashley, Mi. Shaw, and Mr. A. Lefroy. CHURCH TEMPORALITIES (IRELAND) BILL. Lord ALTuoite moved the order of-the day for the second reading of the above-named bill. Mr. GOLILBURN said that he found it recited in the bill that his Majesty had been graciously pleased to signify . that he had placed at the disposal of Parliament his interest in the tempo ralities of the archbishoprics and bishoprics of Ireland. Now, he had looked over the journals of the house without having been able to discover that any message had been sent from the Crown signifying such consent. ALT H. 0112.. admitted that no message had been. sent from the Crown, but thought that the passages in his Majesty's speech at the opening of the session—" Your. attention will also be di rected to the state of the. church, more particularly as regards: its temporalities and the maintenance of the clergy ;" and " It may,also be necessary for you to consider what remedies may be applied for the correction of acknowledged abuses, and whether the revenues of the church may not admit of a more equitable and judicious distribution," justified the recital iu the bill. Mt. C. WYNN said that the house ought to have some evidence of-the - fart - which they were called - upon - to" affirni. It 'Might - lie said that:this-was merely matter of form, but such forms-wore of the greatest importance. Ile saw that he provoked laughter, but it was no laughirm matter to be -thus disposing of the here ditary revenues of the Crown without its consent. Lord ALI - tme said that his Majesty's consent had been sig nified en the first reading of the bill. He thought it very hard that the right hon. gentleman had not pointed out this defect when they raised the former objection, which government yielded to. (A laugh from the opposition.) Mr. C. -WYNN said that the hill was printed on Tuesday morning, and proposed to be read a second: time on Thursday, and in toe cursory glance which he gave to it. under those cir cumstances, it could not be excepted that he could discover all the blunders in it. (A laugh.) He discovered one error which was fatal. The error now brought to light certainly. had not struck him, but it was not the less important. Mr. GOULBURN said this was not a trifling question. Here was a recital that the King had placed a part of his hereditary revenues at the disposal of-Parliament, and he only asked' for the'proof- of that fact. The noble lord had that night brought down a message. from the Crown relative to the revenues of the Woods and Forests. Why had he not - pursued the same course in the case under consideration ? It was - a sound principle of the - ronstitutton, which hattaliVays hitherto been acted on, that Parliament could not deal with the revenues of the. Crown unless the King had previously placed them at its disposal ; but now the house of Commons was, called upon to act upon a false states ment, and to establish a• dangerous -precedent. If it were suf 'ficient to tecitathat the King had placed any •portion of his reve .nues at the disposal of Parliament, without producing any proof of the fact, what was to prevent any member from introducing a bill which would deprive the Crown of a branch of 'its revenue ? It ill became the noble lord s -who, as • Chancellor of the Exche quer, was especially sworn to protect the revenues of the Crown, to proceed with this -bill in the absence of any: proof that his Majesty had consented to surrender the revenues which it would deprive him of. He could not believe that the noble lord would, upon reflection, wish the bill to be read a second. time, without a message being brought, down from his Majesty. On. the last occasion when fhe Crown gave up a portion of its hereditary re venues ministers brought down -a• message from his Majesty, Stating that-he. haddone ,so with, -the approbationof the Archbi shop of Canterbury, and other dignitaries ,of the church. Now, if a similar message. should be brought doWri with .respect to the present bill, he bail no doubt it would remove many objections which were now felt towards it. Mr. STANLEY contended that that portion of the royal speech on the opening of the session in which his Majesty tells his' Par liament that their " attention. will also be.directed.to tlie state the church, more particularly as regatds its temporalities and the maintenance of the clergy," sufficiently warranted their pro ceeding with the present bill. (Hear, and No.) He ;would offer no opinion whether it might not be expedient to have a distinct message from the throne in .reference•to the particular temporit lities affected by the bill before its details were discussed in com mittee; all he would affirm then was, that they without violating any important form or principle, accede to the present motion. He could not help observing, that this cavilling about forms struck him as an indication of the reluctance of the oppo nents of the bill to deal with its substance. (Hear.). Else. why should they have permittedthis . alleged irregularity to be now six weeks or two mouths in existence without censure or , notice? Sir IL PELL said that it was vain to attempt cont,,.ling the fact that this was a great -oversight on .the- part of ministers. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord knew very well that the heredi tary revenues of the Crown- could, not be interfered with by Par liament without a message from . the throne authorizing them (hear,) and indeed had himself proved that such was, the case by only a feW minutes ago bringing down a Message in. reference to the woods And forests. (Hear.) It was idle to assert that the royal sanction was contained in the King's consent" bracket, for that should be given in every measure proposing salaries. (Hear, hear..) : Mr. GooLaintsi,' after repeating, his objections, put it to the Speaker whether it would not be regular to permit the bill beinc , read-a second time; :till the allegations of the- 16th section had been confirmed by . a message from the King? The SPEAKER - , ni• answer, said that he saw no- difference, so far as the principle of the questiou was-concerned, in its being applied to the second stage more than to the first reading. If it ' was not wrong to read the, bill a first. time without a message • from his Majesty; it would not, as it appeared to hint, be wrong ' to read it a second time. As it was only in.committee that the details-of a bill could be aitered, he conceived that the.present stage might he now proceeded with, so as-to admit of any noes ' sage or alteration before it went through committee. After a few words from Mr. Wynn-to the same effect, the question was put from r the- chair,•.that. the bill, be.then read a. second time. Mr. SuAw rose to move as an .amendment, that the bill be read a second time that day six months. In doing, so he begged. not to, be. understood as one •opposed to. the church reforms , which time and circumstances might. have rendered expedient. He brought forward, his amendment because. he conceived the principle of the bill to be • obnoxious to two serious objections, namely,, its violating the right of property„and its-tendency to lower the character of the established clergy. And here -he must observe,. • that- thought he, maintained that every subject was bound to contribute towards the support of the established church of the state, yet, under the peculiar circumstances.in which Ireland was now placed, he, and he was confident the HOUSE.,pfs MoNnAy, MAY 6. The House was occupied in receiving petitions, and among theta Lord Sandon presented petitions from the bankers, mer chants, and inhabitants of Liverpool, in favour. of the bill fur the emancipation of the Jews ; from the Lancashire Scotch Presbytery, praying the house, to pass the Sabbath observance bill, wish such modifications as might be deemed proper; from the proprietors of the Theatre Royal, Liverpool, against the theatres' regulation bill; and from the inhabitants of Liverpool, for the intayiuction of a system of poor laws into Ireland. After a short desultory conversation, in which Sir John Wrotteslev and Lord Sanilon took part, the petitious.were laid on the table. The Speaker vacated the chair at_a quarter past 3 o'clock. The Speaker resumed the chair at 5 o'clock. Lutd GnosvExua brought up the report of the. Linlithgow Election Committee, and infollued the house that Sir A. Hope, the sitting member for that county, was declared duly elected, and that the petitions against his return were neither frivolous nor vexatious. Mr. Wtt. SH.ItUAM brought up the report of the Lincoln City Election -Committee, and informed the house that the sitting member (Mr. E. L. Butwer) wa4a declared duly elected, and N e 511sdelia44t1I't adroit • tv e t e it b eenth, n art 7 11 'ch ee ?f . Pr up t us . le eases ' t : withPto°lane• sn , erty t '.4d th e Prop er of th e 1,11e1,. liotii e t 5 ~'essicy tha t Wj IZ! li biec t) t I is u t, ejtiivole he iii i 11th th~ `t°llll hev, ii ,e44. I\l l o4 l erd vet ar t , brin L i , d r " delit;" one th e I.ll'retiiiieo Irish clergy themselves, would willingly har c present vestry cess system, and (affected" such i 01 ),.. were compatible witfi the efficiency and digui t Y ,. establishment. Ile said that the bill was calcll the character of the established clergy in Ire cramp its energies, and, by contracting the sidle' tions, lessen its influence. 't hen, if property s° of Parliament as church property was thus er, by.the legislature, where, he would ask', was j 1 . 0) •found for all other species of property ? The then proceeded to argue, that as the ecelesia' commissioners was to contain two laymen for member, the. clergy would be, to all interest, ciphers, and the church entirely under the coat Ilis main objection to this bill rested on the pie contained.for the .reduction of the number of (Hear, hear.) Having given up the vestry -, that...he miett fairly be asked what he propose", its stead. Ile wa; prepared to find a substittitebe the reduction of the number of bishops, but by of their incomes. Wear, hear.) It had bee,' Irish bishops were in the receipt of a yearly its` a , 5 supposing Now that the income of 20 bishops !, c to be fixed at £ 1000 a-veer each, and that i allowed to each of the two archbishops (for •r, 1 1 e reduce the archbishops to that number , ) there lt. G th e , .It AN ..,„ - main, out of the present income of the bishor • Nee '-' felt ras hi s , t of ~4 exceeding 1:20;0(I0, which might be made al'k ` 1 : 1 - 111 1d ( :, (41 . hi e " purposes of the vestry . cess. He objected to , l t oltp - to 'AY th at l ',l ecclesiastical and political grounds. The gic.% ( - if th Pe r a, s . bill were to dissolve the unions, and to extingal s. , t i ,_ e ate _ ig n non -residence; yet it contained provisions vc!, :tit the ate bishops which would totally defeat those purl)°,'; e i r „olis I , o _ Xte m tamed . that it would be . impossible for the rea . , sit ''''llt 1. ' l d lie r r eetp, ( t" ) ee r bishops efficiently - to discharge the dunes of s l e: ”- , l * -;-. th e se s; spectton of churches throughout the whole ii . dioceses. In a political wilt. of view, be h • e ,' 'his the fact Cuo r t i• leli. ~ jr , 4k. 'S‘ " It 1 effnt of the bill would be exceedingly ini tt c , t'.the ‘," We re al 3 . ' admitted on all hands that one of the erect e la t ;11 11 ,-, ,-, ec was . absenteeism; .and it was evident that lh e i, i - =t e l. - mi lt , "Jee t • • 4 11. ,4 to increase that evil, by reducing the number ei t i t aw lit f teta I'h at present resided in that country, and sP, en r a il 14 4 e l 5 ll ti tkl• among the people. He felt it his duty, unu e be • stance of the case to, to move that the bill be ' ti vel • " tune that day six months. be , 'es t s i4 : 4:ll) :: 4 :; el 'l ) d i Mr. Es-rcounT rose to second the motion, ~ "ag, hi .s tre dered that the bill not only attacked the propel If 'Llen2 ° Prie. but was founded on ie•inciples which affected. ' l lati„„ rl4 e pi, kinds of property . fie should therefore.give lt li es, 'Jut opposition In all its stages. • / 1(,, , wi t ,. w( ,di s h p h . iped Mr. PLI:SITRE. was of opinion that the oulr, which a bishop should beliable was a tratislati9ur ` ut Y ur l'itt , qa, to the next. There' was one point in the bill!, qt tile` Isseetii '4, l eY e I ; left unexplained by his-Majesty's ministers, ' 01 '; -. .)ti „ ft i i Me e t to vote against it; and that was the diversion 9' t , ( 41 f t , Y h ' . (.1 1 ... ti eii __ . the church of Ireland to other than ecclef: " l lci', s s, li e ' 9 ' There was - also another point on which he e,s? .. 1 t O „Ve th minority on the side of the house upon which De 41. ‘ehd ,i t ' eh lug. Ile was of opinion that it would be bette r,r 'llo • ' lat I- , ti ., tipi o ~ .., revenue than the number of bishops. ••‘e ~,. - so A st , .01,r; art Alt. STAN-LEY-Dill-St remind the house, that b •• 'e t ,- e. for the University of Dublin had said that this ~ ire t vhiel , e o , o pi . , i enough if it had been introduced under the sal' stqlno ttit e. , ...er ti of the church. Before he introduced this hill i" i6l (Mr. Stanley) had felt it to be his duty to 0 . 1 . 1 , I ghil, lls rflie st . ll rlll e e .beis e e t° -' of Ireland upon . its provisions,—a prelate. al - -,1 1 ,,, eh ott l exi attention to the interests of the church`, and _ tf ° the of tt prelate was, that under his guidance the c 1 . 1 . 1 4 1, illeace.c.oi-ottitn no detriment which he could prevent: (. 1-1- ., e ti " N u , ',l' h e . question was raised as to the best means of 1 " , kt i's.t i t , the it . ti , i'pt s 41 40 Wa s 1 .. eney which , would be oeceSiumed by.• the alo- - te do , / - 4 ( , 0 4. ho en . tan cess,—and it was the suggestion of the Prin" t ijli° r ef'? !tli til tti4, l °Us W I " it the least objectionable mode of meeting it w°" rt ief; r opi t .,,iiti iti . ( 4 i t. 'at i t 1 the number of bishops in Ireland, and by th at th e li tl l , e ( tl ß l N * 1 , 4 all He ( that purpose. Ile (lit) not mean to saY tu - f r o0 1 0 1, 1 :1.14 the actor 114 ported the reductiorr Of ten bishops. (Cheer' e t 0 11 .,,efid , i tt i, 1 t ,,( 1 . ( 1, 0 , tion.) ' Hon. gentlemen cheered, but he was 0 015 , 19 ,6, fit4'ea t Zes. re ar, ' t the number of bishops. to be reduced, but f ° t 0 6 i dit r ii 4 , 1• ~ 1 1 . ti, g t, t Ra e : Was whether any-bishops-ought to , be reduced. I ftliei ti il , -Qiteli !ugh i, °lett reduction of their-number was a weakeuing,°;troy,i, 4( 4 , 1 4 , ho t , ?Pru e; depriving it of the props and pillars on whie,ll.'oo l' o e'i r tl tit , it, /I,l` - w( 1'1,0 , h t, , , , , t port, and yet he had shown that the princil,", r r0.,j 0 ,. jr,„..1141.11. that , founded lead- be6n-affirmed and supported 1 1 : 1 nett, p l y ie fti i . ;i l l ' i tly : i t. Q had 1 c 1( one of the most zealous defenders of the ch" l - 10 4,1;19 ik u "PS •th ' If 1) 0 1 kis . 1 eL, • ablest props and pillat'#. (hear, hear.) or' tot? 4 4, , 51 1 ,, i litt,, — Itan arose whether the' government had gone too ev oe ., l i e,t, D,ttiti„ whilaul,.. e the number of the bishops, and the - hon. 1 " c ol l ;, e ,c' e f I , o 'ettrsklst it i a ill, versity of Oxford had said, " You ought not ta to ti er 6 i otitilt ear 4, lded the.number. of souls which the. bishops Ira `ell sie'idro 'Y th r '.4. p'off t ` i x' tt the extent of the diocess over which they o l e 0 -5 0 , er e 11 1 14 . iq,„. 1 31 .4 4, 's si ) , side," In consequence-of that observation b .0, si . d: ', t 0 . 1 . 1 0f ' kid H ., e .-4 2 I ‘11,• ,4 a house a list of the number of benefices vi lt its s imian ()IA eti Ith L care of the different bishops who were to be r0e,4.., o ,t , , , i i i it i,i:itt, ,, : , ,, I' l l , ' was no better method of obtaining a knol 1 0: 1 0 :4 0 ,. 4 . 414.,„ 4 44 ! I ti le , which each bishop had to perform than bY ~ , (t t o f ' r i p t k ,; ll lo, e 'ot eo 'etaii s _ how many benefices he lied to superintenn tii ,i 4; , ,, , 10. I tittl (to, st "tto t .. ) cess of Itaphoe there . were 3-1 benefices. ;` ,is re, 6 . .. 4 ,, (1 41it t Q ~,titil .) : l t c.) , i , 27; in that of. Cloglier„4s ; in- that -of 1-%-" th ,it ' O O 'I ti ; ':hril e ,n! th e t ° of 1 Ossory, 62; in that of Waterford, 66; n 1 1 i,, t e .l li,t's,.-,. , of t ,Pr oi , r that of Clonfet•t, 31; in that of Elfin, -37 . : 01 , ' t t il ,P4 o 44, 41 t k," O a '')s. , 30. Would. any man pretend to tell hhn tr 0t h . c ..3 ,4!, , .1 0 !iti o ,,Piti iii. 1)14 4 1?: ence ot this number of benefices was so calla' t i i e . l'a)l l " 4o ;t h :hp': ly :i . dlitr e of any bishop. that it would. be dangerous t° f tlie,; o 4 l i 4 4 th , 14 vid ei Lh arge .churelt.to•acld to them the superintendaneeb% eP e .i. i 44, 11 , 1 4 iil . lo eb, ii ' . l,o. i i iii of benefices in another diocess? Why, in t s ,-tlic t ,l ll `f e •,Y i t t:'(ltit i lit 1, Writl(, rof Chester there -were- as-many-btu etiCa 3 w ee' . l e il . 4 4 st kal o e th u ave wholeof Ireland. Ile believed that there: i i s te 1 :0111, ilei kliti i ill g • te h w e 'in that bishopric. In the scheme which. in ,O gr . 0 iti lit ll ll), 4t lsk.t., h, L 'for the union of the Irish bishoprics, it w"'•; ° ce re i ,"o lll ,lo .11 t e t'4 lo I. ttiii 411, 1 li bishop would have 2(t). benefices. uuder 1 " .. ..ie Al i l t 0h oil ), if th e it of Chester had, ..her believed, 1,200 bettetie e ,`,oo;„l l : ri t ' l , , t,, , A , 10, he k,-.: .d it the highest number which any Irish bish 4 o l tr:ti' o if 4 °Oti t ilkl,,. -I , l l lle, t '179; and that bishopric was the bishoprTlete V ; t!,i ii t , ky l ,ett e 4 l. •(,leti . it But au lion. gentleman had said, " 1 ~' 'al 'oo!,s ',,s4l l ° ai 4 e e h .or ti, diminish the number of the Irish-bisholtircho,,(l ..4,1 i t. p e vin e ittg.,, s only. for-the clamour that time staff of the 1 : - . 1 cle re o ite.l l ' iit tiees a ~.1 . ) 0 11 'vie e, too numerous. for - the amount of its parocho t he ~(u ri ii ,, , ( ~,,i (l.b e t vt Ro : . )ped . fr in .his opinion, be a• sufficient reason fl to rti e JN,"„ ! I t t ll s o tivi h e 'utu,., proposed. In parishes; were ' .0 4 . !".„ 111, 4, l l ‘tl et ° l o i 7ed , 11,000 and 12,0(10 in Ireland ther e tie ticr i 7 h ;t ri J41.14414' oft: and between. 1,104 and 1,200 separate b re llo. ( s ber i I N't.ik ) l , 4, ‘ e that the parishes in England Were to those of .....,,f bi_ A i l , ,*.,__nf t ot. } - e ,`," allot it seem very unreasonable that the nutiabero;:s O cie 4;? o , )"! . i t „'1,,, , ," - ,.11 1 ,1 . should he ;educed to the proportion of ' 2 l' eti t°,i 0 , N'ltlti'',itut, a rety England? The government would be °P. t he ele f f e No 4 . 01,, ~t tl e i !,l i ll , left too few bishops for the performance o t( t , verfpo4,,,itol,'None eadu(itis b ill but, compared with time duties they had „ m elt i ;0 13 4 1 s einti, 4t tile " DI they would be quite sufficient: but it OVOs ' l . o f Jellt is . I e,' I N I ,.°C th at %4 Ute diminish the- revenue, but let• the. nut `the to he tto tipi kb , 4; 11 It ,„, 11 )to but as a mere question of the advantag e he t O v ri f t. 4: e l - 4 .1% l 'old i' te r ' u ld country from.so• many resident noblentern!otoifit,,, . h -_ ,4tt.(i ro teilitie ti tt( make no difference whether 20 were to e ,, .t i 091 'Q the a grai fY o reduced _to half, or 10 with a whole reven t . l ,‘,4 . 451,.„ tq,N . o illob,e , luat, points of objection—first, as to interferon; titel l oi t i ti; Ni tl q. v t . h e l ord , the church . , which he •had shown was 11 °,1 e el f Vit a l? Ie 4, 1 011 V, th 111 ) wi church; next, as to the diminution of P.' tig o'„ty, `bard ll ) , ) ,, t laaieltt B s i which he had shown would be no weaken.! 'i t e,. l e $ . 0,,, ls,, t ,e th .. y i i „ to the church. As to the equalization 0 .. 1 , 13 0 V i , 1 1 1 1:, lts t My .' , l _ ta x. 'V'estei bishops, he objected to it as one which . t e i tte r . ' it OA r w e A l u l i. ti te 'rom. II great inconvenience, and he thought it !_',, o f s "._ . OO, f i! st,.. l th it, s l ,tio o el ,tg . inequality in the sees than to put theta s 11 . •!" cr ia,p , s t tr: i. u,ll ß l y „Wi ll aa i objections-to the details of the bill A "el o bje,, e r, l t ,c ll , 'lli s 'lll'e tit. ") sl iei lela would not go into. them. The two g rea_s ile. 0 ta ., 41 1 0i ; 1 . 4., liiii ~_ li e Ab e that it: would weaken the church; tincl .." , , et ia'tty c i i „ k yh e T. A_ t his Si t unsettle property. These , contrary obi tu sid:! e idpe, - , 11 ,1, i 4 ( a5,. 1 `. 1 .ree „toil; solid or substantial objection could be be" e* . l oli lj ti lr o I iir ill r4 10: : 1 1 1 :1".. , ' ' .e lb( which, -he thought, would be a safe ann ther e° o , l ' j P e d 'ilt r; ' )ls,"t th: 1(>11 : i i i , ( ,' 3 I' would admit that,in any.great change . -ow „iv ! );. - N;:se o 'let o f 'Poi but he thouht that any risk of that her e "' 0 0' i ,, N s l 3ll4'; o l)es e t 'ioi( . would not be. half so . great a risk as t t" sta tet 0 0, 0 i ttho)i ii,, ,. : N ow o tic the church in Ireland. in its preset), ~e'• ,iti 15 5 r oi- I T ':.• lit e , change. (Hear, hear.) refr 11 t oq i le 4 sur „e if ) V i„ -it mi . or e , c Sir - 11. IL In O Lis admitted that in sal: .t bee t he ,e ,lP i , i itl, s l l , w . u t q ed eeni a n n e . il improvement ailthis, he o o n i -.ktihecattedwhtoiethhleta.t.6liT.t"t•t:riettoolo!ool'.o4loLi(!ilittlsthi:suti th.,, ext, the end—from the preamble to . the ire t Of, l` ii 11 :.,Ovi s i o e e s i .( ;4 11 1 1 1 to -it in every part. The reduction of flipt 0 lb g ,„, if t etif 14 . rtli t t ilre e 4 ° rth T would be less objectionable, but eee." ct ioe It alt o •e 1 .)0 1 4 11 1 , J 1 p te , of th e , ,' . party.; but he had still stronger obi e , ie . 0._re,.. ‘ 1 , 4 , t l o ,,'itt ed reeled .L o a the number of bishops. Parliament, i : (.0 die de o c .: ll, ; i .I, ll4 :e ti. t c e t .. potent •in all measures; but though ' t ,.. lledilcoe' ce t) ' i ',,N 4 , th:,t liad bee . • strongly to protest against its rigb,l. 4 t he- 5 0 1 , ,i5 i be „ ;t, Of 0.1 it th e ue ) : ment had any right to.. interfere wn fie d W ilt I . ' lio t,., if , I ,4 . iqr 1 44 ,_L I,ll„ lr _i v 'l consent of the church had been 5ig1 11 .0 0,.. 0 0 l c . c'i tt l ,I'l4 'ii s i; . l , l tai4 e,. ° l e - hon. baronet went on to cite, w ally, , to . I , J , tirl il .c h I ' 4 l 4 lt "wit s: 4 (4 (41 as ,t,I well as in the Parliament of helm% ) (._ 4 0 0(1 , , , , „ 0 1 , i , et c. i , k i .. r !,)rt ie o“ )..ti haul been any iustance of interfere tic ;'. 1 11) (1 , , P o ': I ., i ' t ' .l. lar oe . e `' t aat. i i ii 4 t church gave its. consent as a chi Of o te e ill ,e lj ef , l'll l ' c ' legi s i l( llt t6 g u ' i the-ri g ht of tho state , to touch a Pe_ l ver gr'!„.tl l ,,, g .4, l ;i kt ' i llt to stn to on the ground that the state had uu 01 .,,,iit J o fl l ,Jr' l p 4,i l ; . k tli ts of s ,,,kte plii any ind to the church, exeePt ` 1 ::' / - 0 r t h i . a' e ir r o 4 t t - At t e ilt. i;;lri, , Anne, and a grant a few years ag‘' ro t 0 . , 0 .1 , 1 1 .1 j ., . i , , ti n ( , th e . Ile i i , , • churches, there never hadiLeen I . l ,g ii i beo: h ort e W e ill , 4. 1 1 ,t, tlit li g h t i t state-to the church. Thew never 11 ', 0 , 0 1 -, ll ll , l i .iih jeJ ni'i',lll'l all 3: ri c ,,,d'i , single parish , church by the state. _ er ty. i ' ce . ot etl e , t!,,t . , v.‘ l ?th e orp ur .`,L, betshe by older title& than any lay P_r. ° e r r iere i tie ce r P',l, l : ri," l t f ur i , llqt e g r l' aid that there was a g reat 1 1 " bet .I , e rf e l,ll ll. o l ",. i ' '""- 11 (1 !' is hcd' . pert} in the time. of Henry i n v u ch the ,f , ' ~t • t •Ort• ani, , ,i t church itself gave its con s ent to ' to -t j ‘ don e ' 1,0 '' l•'; , %f t ' t''' ( e (l e , pose there had been an injustice. _.._( VIII. ; in. c• 4 .1 . a, tt i„ ei turies ago, which he did net adrast--- 1 1 -* %144 4 , 1 ,--,„_ ~ -•••-. hatea'lell'f ! Q ' "Lid 4 h iinPrifltbe t a 4 v sent to ;A %the een o L!aleih"d. II Let:tlee ol 11'6 0 ' f p',t pro oenth sp bere u c ce ill , ti, l3 l ,c'sed c l Y e s i () lf f r e°3c e o b il' 4, ' r ive d s ic 14°1 L s the de10:,4 Ll i e v e ; :. t i s ie t te he 110aile: li se ° e ` the I, e ,i L lst c ;ef f , 1 ., Or e. -, Or 'c'al) o , 1.,i to s a ...' ests t, 0 ,°,,f tbe,', 4 „?-tess,3r, contoi,,lo::, 'qe 1a .,,1y the . 1 °J e, f the ` r ioe : li ' eiti' N ce'''''stv. hee "l tor te, ,sea t° f o r i t ' ' t s th,,Y. it h ti . ittite„ il,,, h i Jell ho 'I. ill hY th e ()lit,' ;44, beet' ' o f P.. fl ee '. 4Citd ; incogleiil 01 . '' e ' art, " )s wa s - .c; ,8110,'.r E'6()359w. .e t i! lcilit s t l l l c ' he 's- til l1), i 1 1 Je re ‘; e;' tri s i '• It . r , h o p s' caned (LL t he 0 1‘ ) ! ailLiDill, t ) as h is 3, to thbjeC°' . Q UID I4 I'° 11 et° Of 4 ',113.-isall 1'1°44 tte IP4'op. 1 tit re" tt_its, the 1 N 1 fo r )? b k;. , e 4, pose / A p f d..,, , 910, 14( cedtice'tippi teat ItiV4 IV f v isita ..t . tr . , ,i tire (-1 de eS.tefilY h: to b et ed beli es - 1. 41, °11 it e , 11( injeri!),:'6 4 Oi(„. e • at e2l/ Or •t t Y, the '" the " I c " 0 ill /- a ..t. of t i l, e c it io , lij(* Nil pent i t ; ty yd, l L aiii t il l ~ier be ( is I, 1, 4 , tip, I be read, it?l' l liat . " LI y' 4 414 b ki/ L , . 1 ecOehe' l'llte, en e ti L tc o f,- Illeattt sln g ; i 5 the. fp,,,401 i his .- i'-'4t 4 ati, ' „lt! t e °o ,l)B .l°l ie! 0 01)* ° ° t t 11. 441 ll ' tioii fq, c h„ ii LL„'e ut tsh ; il l, soli 0 0, , i 441 th. l.t r ,, i w irali• T,O , e Le e , 111, 't ftl'ff sl'' btu e i s ( i ) as tie e t s 4 '''„L' ;':' 41 ( 1 1 41 fl esp ce.. o r. i ( , ii t i ll. .e es Ile ''''''ai ,e14,41e,c4P1e ;fret t° .4tt4:l,ll.!tet theb°,foldV '"L:t,111elll'i is kil,,P'o'lo# ‘.tilat'ull,,st ijo'. tictiovPariit '44 „-,,, t o i,to , - It t oe, i t ,:P.Le,l trio east, 1 th cit g i: th, iistillvo • t the de r 'b I k :h t 4lle, t b „rch ' l ,ett . Of g the g e ar ! ,e 0 1, 111 411' Q le( la eetlill F id i '''4l.!:e 14 4 ‘lii iitiort 'i l i , Ai 4t i tt ha dkt it late ' - 'e El h ','Re:' od•, Ili id b' ,e,5, , ,‘ !tiie - ‘ tid`oti!