The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-03-15 00:00:00

Imperial l3arliament. HOUSE OP LOPDS. MONDAY, MAricir 11. JURY SYSTEM (IRELAND). Lord PLUNKETT gave notice, that on Friday next he would introduce a bill for amending the laws relative to juries in Ire land. The bill would be substantially the same as the measure which was before the house last session, but some alterations would be made in it. The Earl of WICKLOW expressed a hope that the noble and learned lord would acquaint the house with the opinion of the judges of Ireland with respect to the measure which he was about to bring forward. If it should appear that the alterations had been made in compliance with the suggestions of those learned persons, he would offer no opposition to the hill. Viscount MELBOURNE said it was unusual to produce the ovinion of the judges under such circumstances. Lord ELLENBOROUGH said that the committee which satupon the bill last year was adjourned sine die, in order to allow the chairman to ascertain the opinions of the judges with respect to the measure. He hoped that the ornions of the judges, would be communicated to the house between the first and se oetl. reading of the bill. The Marquess of LANSDOWNE concurred with his noble friend in thinking that it would be improper to produce the opinions of the judges. The House of Lords was justly jea lous of receiving the opinions of persons out of doors relative VI the measures which ought to be proposed in that house. Lord ELLENBOROUGH said there would be no difficulty in the learned lord stating the opinions of the judges without their being communicated officially to the house. Lord KING presented three petitions from Carlow, praying for the abolition of tithes; and one from a place in Middlesex .of a similar nature. The Earl of RODEN postponed his motion relative to the sys tem of education recently introduced into Ireland from to-mor row to that day se'nnight. The Bishop of CHESTER presented petitions from Preston, Congleton, Rochdale, and other places, praying for the enact ment of laws to enforce the better observance of the Sabbath, and for the repeal of the Beer Act. Lord. TEYNHAM presented a petition from a place in, Mayo, against the Irish Disturbances Bill; and gave notice that he would, on a subsequent day, move an address to the King, Praying him to direct the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to insti tute an enquiry into the circumstances which induced him to proclaim the barouy of Gallen in Mayo. ' The Bishop of BATH and WELLS presented a petition from Froine against the Brer Act. Lord TEYNHAM said that the act had been a boon conferred upon the country. Earl ST. VINCENT presented two petitions of a similar na ture. THE SABBATH. Petitions praying for the enactment of laws to enforce a bet ter observance of the Sabbath were presented by the Bishop of Bangor, from Wallingford and seven other places in the county of Berks ; by the Bari of Roden, from Aberdeen, Dublin, and 4 parish in Essex; and by the Lord Chancellor, from some hundred inhabitants of London and Westminster. The noble and learned lord on presenting these petitions said that the ob servance of the Sabbath was advantageous to thepeople both in at religious and worldly point of view, but he apprehended that great dif fi culty would be experienced in legislating on the sub j.ect. He believed that the petitioners were entirely mistaken as to the fact that the Lord's-day was less strictly observed than formerly. He was satisfied, both from his own observation and the information of others, that the Sabbath was better observed now than at any former period, and that there was now less ir religion in the n j ountry than there had been of late years. Above all things he deprecated anything like rash legislation on the subject,leit, by running counter to the feelings of the people, they sheuld make the case worse than it now was. The noble and learned lord then presented petitions from Perth, Montrose, Gainsborough, and other places, in all 2-1, against the continuance of negro slavery. The Bishop of BRISTOL presented a petition from a place in Gloucesterslute for the better observance of the Sabbath. Lord DINORBEN presented three petitions front different plAces in Wales against negro slavery.—Adjourned. TUESDAY. Petitions, praying the house to adopt measures for enforcing a better observance of the Sabbath, were presented by the Bishop of Durham from a place in Durham; by the Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, four in number; by the Bishop of Oxford, three in number; by the Earl of Clarendon; by Lord Byron, and by the Earl of Roden. The Earl of KINNOUL presented a . petition from the provost anti town council of Aberdeen, praying for an alteration of the courts of law in Scotland. The Earl of RODEN presented a petition from the inhabitants of Killaloe, expressing their dissatisfaction at the bill intro duced by ministers for the reform of the Irish church, and pray ing that the bishopric of Killaloe might not be abolished. Lord KING presentedpetitions, praying for the abolition of tithes from two parishes in Cork and Kilkenny, and from the town of Ashburton, in England. QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY. Lord KING said he was about to move for some returns relative to the application, or rather the mis-application, of (been Anne's bounty. He bad always contended that it was at crying abuse that rich impropriators allowed their curates .only a miserable pittance for performing the duties connec‘ed with the livings. The flagrancy of the case was the greater :when bishops and deans and cnapters happened to be the im propriators. lie had found, however, that those persons had been in the habit of increasing the stipends of their curates by grants obtained from Queen Anne's bounty and the Parliament ary grant for the relief of poor clergy. This was neither more nur less than obtaining money under false pretences, because those funds were intended to be devoted to the clergymen who held poor livings, whereas the bishops and deans drew upon them for the support of the ill-paid servants in rich livings. 'l'he bishops and deans and chapters ought to provide for their curates out of their own superabundance, and not come upon a public fund intended for the support of really poor curates. Tfie noble loid here read the following figure statements to shew the number of livings which had been augmented from time to time : "Dean and Canon of Windsor impropriator of the following parishes, received from Parliamentary grant and Queen Anne's bounty :-Plymsted, 1811, £600; 1812, £400; 1815, £3OO. Plympton, -, £6OO. St. German's, 1811, £800; 1814, £4OO. Wembury, 180, £200; 1816, £1,400. Northam, 1764, £200; 1812, £4OO. South-Molton, 1813, £6OO. "Dean and Canon of Winchester, impropriators of tithes of tWo large parishes in Wales :-Holt, 1725, L2ooi 1733, £2OO. Iscoyd, 1749, £200; 1757, £200; 1798, £200; 1818, £2OO. "Dean of Exeter, impropriator of tithe :-Landkcy, 1775, £200; 1810, £200; 181 u, £1,400. Swimbed, 1750, £200; 1811, £4OO. " Dean and Chapter of Carlisle, impropriators of valuable tithe :-llesket, 1813, £600; 1815, £2,000 to purchase land ; 1816, £300; 1817, £3OO. "Dean of Bangor, impropriator of tithe (curate paid £32. 4s :) -Gvffin 1677, £ 200; 1810, £2(X); 1816, £1,400. " Bishop of Bangor, impropriator of valuable tithe (curate pai6l £3O 125.) :-Llandegar, 1812, £200; 1815, £1,600; -, £300; -, £3OO. " Bishop of Lichfield, impropriator of large tithes in Me •rionethshire (curate paid only £27) :-Tallylyr, 1808, £200; 1816,. £1,400. Penal, 1810, £2:00." The noble lord continued,—The two collegiate bodies of Win chester and Windsor, with the three deaneries of Exeter, Car lisle, and Bangor, had alone received £14,500 from Queen Anne's botinty. He had. no doubt that he should be able to prove many cases of a similir description if the returns for which he was aboUt to move should be laid before the house. It was not to be endured that deans, chapters, precentors, chancellors, and all the rubbish of cathedrals, should have so much money, and the really working clergy so little. Public indignation was ready to cry aloud "begone,- you deans and chapters, and give place to honester men, who really serve the church." On other occasions the bishops were ready to tell the people that the "labourer was worthy of his hire," and that "those who served the church must live by it." Let them act upon that principle in the present case. He was for getting rid of the drones of the establishment, who did nothing but suck the ho ney out of the public purse. The noble lord concluded by moving for a return of all parishes in which the tithes belonged to bishops or ecclesiastical bodies that had received augmenta tion from the governors of Queen Anne's bounty or the parlia mentary grant for the relief of the poor clergy. The Bishop of LONDON said that the governors of Queen Anne's bounty had voluntarily presented to parliament a very minute account of all their proceedings up to 18243, it would, therefore, only be necessary to continue that account up to the present period, and the noble lord would be in possession of alLthe infoimation which he desired. The governors were not men who desired to conceal, any part of their conduct, and it would be found, upon investigation, that they were free from blame in all that they had done. He begged to inform the no ble lord that the bishops and ecclesiastical bodies who were im propriators stood in precisely the same situation as lay impro priators. A bishop held his tithes on the same condition as a uy impropriator—namely, to, provide a certain sum to the cu ate, which was generally fixed in the leases,.and could not be THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD. altered until the leases ran out. That was the condition in ' which matters stood until the Archbishop of Canterbury intro duced, his bill in 1831. Up to that time the bishops could not Jefiarge the tithesittith a higher remuneration for the clergy than was fixed in the %aims. If the bishops had done as the noble 'lord wished them to do they would be unable to maintain the dignity of their station, which was se. necessary, not for their own aggrandisement, but for the interests of religion. The language in which the noble lord had indulged with respect to deans and chapters, and " all the rubbish of cathedrals, ' was not new. Precisely the same language had been used before the great rebelliOn by harry Martin and Sir Harry Vane. Ile could assure the noble lord and the house that the governors of Queen Anne's bounty dispensed the funds at their disposal with the utmost impartiality, and that in no instance was any fa vour shown with respect to livings held by bishops or ecclesi astical bodies. The Bishop of' CHESTER stated that he. had seen a petition, a _Pc-simile of the one lately presented to the other house of parliament by &noble lord, which was full of the grossest mis statements, and displayed an utter ignoreuce of the whole•na ture of impropriations. He merely , allipled , to the eirchrn stance to show with what caution such a statement ought to be 'received, and to declare that if ever the opportunity should offer itself; by the presentation of that petition to the house, he should feel it his duty to controvert its statements in detail, by entering into an explanation of the circumstances to which it referred. The Earl of HARROWBY said he would trouble their lordships with but a very few words. He rose not, indeed, to add any thing to the statement made by the right rev. prelate, (the Bishop of London,) which was in his (Lord Harrowby's) esti mation complete, but to give his testimony in favour of that statement, lest it should be supposed he did not fully concur in it. The noble earl defended the conduct of the governors in their distribution of the royal bounty. He thought not the least doubt could be entertained with respect to the impropriationa which had fallen so unfortunately under the noble ba or n's lash being precisely similarly situated to lay_impropriatiohs. But j whether that were so or not, he (Lord Hanowby) thought it rather hard that the faults of their predecessors - should be vi sited on the present board. He entirely agreed with the right rev. prelate that the best node of meeting the views of the noble baron would be to order the production of a copy of the book to which allusion had been made. The Bishop of ExeTrai did not rise for the purpose of speak ing on the general question, but for the sake of doing justice once more to certain individuals who had been particularly ad verted to by the noble baron, and subjected by him to grave charges,—fie alluded to the dean and chapter of Exeter, whom ' the noble baron had that night charged along with others with conduct disgraceful to theinsetves and to the church to which J i they belonged. He had described th em as diones,—the suckers (of the honey of the others who, did their duty. It would cer- I tautly be in the recollection of the house that he (the Bishop of Exeter) only a few nights ago had satisfactorily shown how in- Docent those parties were of the charges which had been alleged against them, and, having doee,so, lie hadhoped that the noble baron would not have come down to the house to reiterate those 'charges, or, at least, would have refrained from bringing them prominently forward without instituting some inquiry as to their j truth. He needed hardly to rep . eat, that they were - entirely destitute of foundation. What might be the feelings of the•no ' ble baron on occasions like the present be (the Bishop of Exe ter) knew not ) but this he would say, that he, for one; would ra ' they be esteemed guilty of the greatest abuse of power ever charged—he would not say proved by the noble baron—against any individual, than have it said of him that he was in the- ha bit, night after night, like the noble baron,.of.bringing forward unfounded allegations on flimsy and unsubstantial information, and treating that• information as if it were really entitled .to credit. (Hear.)• Lord KING declared that if he had said• anything improper he was sorry for having done so, but his remarks were not di rected so much against the individuals as against the deanery itself,—not against the men, but the system. He• did not mean, on the other hand, to impute any impartiality to the board, but he wished to know why they and not the impropriators of the parishes were the parties to reward the curates for the duties they performed ? lie could only say, that had the knowledge of this appropriation of the funds placed at the disposal of the board been obtained by Parliament previously to the test grant, that grant never would have been made. With respect to the amendment moved by the tight rev. prelate- he had one obser vation to make, and that was to repeat his wish that the sepa ration specified in his motion should be made from the whole mass of the information, The Bishop of LONDON said that if the noble baron would not agree to have a return of all the parishes held by impropriators, he should feel it his duty to divide the house upon the 'question. Lord KING said his only objection to that was the difficulty which would thereby be occasioned in getting at the particular information he required in so large a mass. Lord ELLENBOROUGH thought the motion should' be with drawn, and another of a mole general nature substituted in its place, in order that the subject might be clearly laid before the house, and their lordships thus be enabled to say whether the funds of the bounty had been impartially administered or not. Lord WHARNCLII'FE denied that the noble baron (Lord King) had shown how any distinction could be drawn between the clerical and lay impropriations in the present instance. Besides, who could assume the power of alienating any part of the revenues of the deaneries in question? He (Lord Wharn cliffe) thought the noble baron would find it a difficult task to shots that any person possessed that power. He contended that the clerical 'Appropriators had no more failed in their duty than the lay impropriators. Earl GREY said he did not rise for the purpose of defending tha conduct of the governors of the Royal bounty,—the right rev. prelate (the Bishop of London) had absolved him from that task,—but to say a few words with respect to the nature of the question which was before the house, which, in its present form, he thought open to objection, inasmuch as it would place the parties to whom it referred in an invidious position. No dis tinction whatever, it appeared to him (Earl Grey,) would by the motion in its present shape, be made with respect to those clerical, persons standing in the situation of lay impropriators. He would suggest the propriety of having those returns which were already complete up to 1826 laid on the table, accompanied by returns from that period up to the present time. This would render the information complete;_ but if the motion were per sisted in in its present form, he (Lord Grey) should feel bound to vote for the right rev. prelate's amendment. The LORD CHANCELLOR said it would be much more con venient to the house, as well as to the officers who would have to compile the information, and it would be infinitely the best mode for rendering that information clear and distinct, for the noble baron to withdraw his motion, and ask for the production of the returns up to 1826, which were in existence, accompanied by others which would carry . the information he sought down to the present period. By this means the whole object of his motion would be attained. He would not advise the alteration of the motion so as to reduce it to a different shape, as he was convinced that would be attended with con siderable difficulty, but would recommend its entire withdrawal. Lord KING ultimately withdrew his motion, with the inten tion of submitting another in its stead on Thursday next. The Duke of RICHMOND presented two petitions against sla very from places in Sussex and Bedfordshire. - The Archbishop of CANTERBURY presented two petitions from Gravesend and bath, for the better observance of the Sabbath. The Bishop of LONDON presented petitions for the better Observance of the Sabbath, from St. Albans; from a place in Essex; from the congregation of the Espiscopal chapel in Chelsea; and some other places.—Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS. MONDAY, MARCH ii. The SPEAKER took the chair shortly after twelve o'clock, when several members took the oaths and their seats 'lhe pri vate business before the house having been disposed of, the Speaker reminded the house that no petitions were to be pre sented on that day, except those having reference to until they had tried the effects of remedial measures—(hear) — and then, when they had, as. it were, entered into recognizances to keep the peace towards Ireland, they might have called upon every member to support them in any measure for the protec. tection of life and property. He could not concur in tke bill now before the house,- by which the government had lost the support of many of their most sincere friends and strenuous supporters. Sir JOHN MAXWELL presented a petition from the Political Union of Renfrewshire, praying the house to reject the coercive bill, and to pass a law for the abolition of tithes, the intredue ' don of poor laws into Ireland, and the taxation of absentee landlords. The state of Ireland was such as induced him to support the measure proposed by government. Mr. F. O'ComNott presented a petition from the parish of Glenturk, praying the house to reject the bill. Mr. 13LACKNEY presented a similar petition from a parish in Carlow. Sir ROBERT BATESON presented a petition from the clergy,' merchants, and other inhabitants of the city of Londonderry, stating that the petitioners, in common with every friend to the , peace and tranquillity of Ireland, deprecated the systematic opposition to the law of the land,—a system sapported, and en couraged by unprincipled agitation, and praying the house to pass the bill for increasing the power of the law brought in by his Majesty's ministers as speedily as was consistent with the forms of Parliament. The petition was signed by the mayor, sheriffs, all the magistrates, several deputy-lieutenants, the Chamber. of Commerce, the reformers, and every respectable inhabitant of the city of Londonderry. Mr. O'CoNNaLL begged to state, that he had a petition to present against the bill, from the same place, but which he had not yet had an opportunity of doing. The petition he had re ceived was not got up privately, but originated at a public meet ing. (Hear.) Captain JONES supported the prayer of the petition, and was proceeding . to address the house when he was met by loud cries of " Question." The hon. member resumed his seat.—Laid on the table.. _ _ _ _ _ The SPEAKER left the chair shortly after 3 o'clock. The House resumed its sitting at five o'clock. IRISH CHURCH REFORM BILL. _ Lord ALTHOIiP brought up the bill of which he had given notice to amend the laws relating to the temporalities of the church of Ireland. The noble lord moved that it be read a first time now, and that the second reading be fixed for Wed nesday next. Sir ROBERT INGLIS could not omit the opportunity to ex press his disgust at the manner in which his Majesty's minis ters were about to press forward the second reading of a bill of this description at a notice of only 21 hours, and before a print of the bill was in the hands of members. (Hear.) Lord ALTHORP said that the hon. baronet must by this time be pretty well aware of the principle of the measure, because lit had been stated at length by him (Lord Althorp) nearly a month ago, and the disgust expressed by the hon. baronet was sufficient to show that he was aware of the nature of the mea sure: (H - ear, hear.) The bill would be printed to-morrow and in the hands of members, and he proposed to take the second reading on Wednesday , next. It was impossible, he thought, that the house could be ignorant of the principle of the bill which was the only question involved in the second reading, and he had therefore fixed it for as early a day as possible in order to save time. _ . Sir ROBERT INGLIS complained that the house should be called upon at so short a notice to discuss a measure involving such extensive changes ; and he . put it to the candour of the noble lord to say whether a bill, in which the interests of so many persons were concerned, should be hurried through the house in this indecent manner. He contended that a question of this kind ought not to be pressed forward without giving sufficient time to those who might feel it their duty to oppose it. Colonel DAVIES differed totally with the opinion which the hon. baronet had expressed with regard to this bill. So far from thinking that it was hurried forward by his Majesty's government, he conceived that it had already been too long de layed. Mr. Sit,tw objected to the course proposed by the noble lord with regard-to this. bill, and contended that the time proposed between the first and second reading was, too limited. Was the noble lord aware that when he introduced this bill he had made a five years' purchase instead of six years ? The measure pro posed by the noble lord with regard to the church of Ireland was, perhaps, one of the most important that had ever been brought forward, whether it was considered with regard to the existence of the church of Ireland, or the many interests in volved in the proposed change. He, therefore, put it to the noble lord to say whether it would be consistent with parlia mentary usage, or decent to fix the second reading for Wed nesday next. Lord Aurrioap said that arrangements were made by which this bill would be placed- in the hands of members to-morrow morning, and when it was considered that the principle of the measure must be fully known both to the house and the coun try, he really could not see any good reason for delaying the second reading. Sir R. PEEL said that he had had several communications on the subject of this bill with persons who took a deep interest in the welfare of the Irish church, and he conceived it to be per- Thctlymonstrous to hurry such a bill forward without giving sufficient time, either to consider its principle or discuss its de tails. (Hear, He ventured to say that no bill of equal importance had ever been attempted to be pressed forward in so short a time, and he hoped the noble lord would not persist in fixing the second reading for so early a day as Wednesday next. (Hear, hear.) Mr. O'CONNELL said that the noble lord ought to remember the very great excitement which prevailed in Ireland with re gard to the coercive bill, and he conceived that that considera tion alone was sufficient to justify the necessity of passing a re medial measure as speedily as possible. Mr. WiLss contended that as the principle of this bill must be well known to every member of the house, there was no oc casion for unnecessary delay. Mr. A. JOHNSON condemned the haste in which this bill was attempted to be pressed forward. The measure was one of so much magnitude and importance, that full time ought to be allowed to consider it; and, for himself', he could see no neces sity for such haste. He considered it was highly improper to endeavour to conciliate the hon. and learned gentleman, the member for Dublin, by striking at the established church of these realms. Mr. LEFROY observed that he had heard the proposal of the noble lord to fix the second reading of this most vital bill for Wednesday next. An honourable member had stated his opi nion that this bill and the coercive bill should go through their several stages pail passu ; now that could not be, as the coercive bill was in advance of this; and the urgent necessity of the case called upon the house to pass the other bill with all rea sonable despatch; but the present bill stood upon totally diffe rent grounds, for it went to the very existence of the established church in Ireland, while the other bill was only a necessary measure which was called for by the disturbed state of that country. He hoped, therefore, that his Majesty's government would give a longer time than 21 hours to consider this bill, and he conceived that a few days, at least, ought to be allowed for that purpose. Mr. D. NV. HARVEY said that this measure, being one in tended for the relief of Ireland, ought to have preceded the other, with - a view to supersede its necessity. He suggested that the coercive bill ought to be delayed, as well as the other bill. _ _ Mr. WARBURTON said that it would be very hard on the people of Ireland if the coercive bill were to be pressed forward, while this bill was allowed to be delayed. Lord ALTIIOIIP said that as there seemed to be a difference of opinion on the subject, he should propose a compromise. (Oh ! oh! from the Irish members.) The compromise he had to propose would be to fix the second reading for Thursday next instead of Wednesday. Mr. M. O'CONNELL observed that the course pursued by the noble lord was just what the people of Ireland expected from him. _ _ . COl. CONOLLY said that the very existence of the church establishment and the Protestant religion iu Ireland were threatened by this bill. Mr. Si, Amor said that the noble lord (Althorp) bad a most difficult task to perform, for he had to deal with two extremes of opinions. .rhe honourable gentleman said that in his opinion the two bills should be passed together; and he pro tested against any further delay in the bill which was now the subject of debate. Lord Jour; RUSSELL was quite sure that the people of Ire land would not withdraw the confidence which they reposed in his Majesty's government for the delay. of a single day. Lord DARLINGTON said that during the experience which he had had in parliament he never remembered any measure of so much importance hurried through the house so hastily as this bill. The noble lord obtained leave three weeks ago to bring in this bill, and he wished to know why it had not been brought forward sooner ? The bill was then read a first time, and on the motion that it be read a second time on Thursday next, Sir R. PEEL said, that if the noble lord had brought forward this bill first he should have had no objection to discuss it, but he considered that it was contrary to every fair principle of parliament that one bill should be brought for the purpose of passing another. The noble lord (Darlington) lad understated the time that had elapsed since the noble lord (Althorp) had first obtained leave to bring forward this bill: A month had THE I R ISH BILL. Petitions against this measure were then presented by Mr. Cobbett from thirty different places; Sir Hyde Parker from a parish in Suffolk; Mr. J. Oswald from the Political Union of Glasgow ; Mr. Roebuck one from Bath signed by 4000 persons, and another from the Political Union of Yeovil, which stated, that the Irish Bill was " a diabolical, tyrannical, and blood thirsty measure," and from several other places ; Mr. Faithful from the Political Union of Brighton ; Mr. Wilks from the "Cartwright Club," the clergy, churchwardens, and inhabi tants of Boston, and from the borough of Derby ; Mr. Ronayne from Clonmel, and from a parish in Limerick ; Colonel Wil liams from Mosley and Stayley Bridge, Lancashire; Mr. Mau rice O'Connell .from Tralee, and several other places in Ire land; Mr. Gillon from the Political Union of Bradshaw, the borough of Hamilton, and several other places in Scotland; Captain Dunlop from the Political Union of Kilmarnock ; Mr. D. Roche from several parishes in the county of Limerick ; Mr. Ewart from the inhabitants of the town of Liverpool, signed by 15,000 persons—the hon. gentleman said, that in every state ment of the petition he most cordially concurred, and was equally adverse with the petitioners to the substitution of mar tial for civil law, and equally opposed with them to the tithe system, and thought that His Majesty's ministers had made Out no case for such a bill as they had brought in. The gover n _ went had been most injudicious in bringing forward such-:i bill • elapsed instead of three weeks since the noble lord I his measure. He (Sir R. Peel) begged to say th at wish whatever to cause unnecessary delay i n the measure. All he wished for was, that time sht consult those whose interests were concerned, au' tested against was, that the house should be call notice of three days only to decide upon a bill important changes. He considered that either Thursday was too early a notice for members to selves to discuss the principle of this bill. He assert that if reasonable time were allowed, the (Althorp) would find no disposition evinced by those he (Sir R. Peel) acted, to delay this bill as the of been delayed by the gentlemen connected with however, he did not mean to blame for pursuing was hardly fair he thought of the noble lord to I opposed this bill as if they had a desire to delay it He pia it to the noble lord's sense of justice to sa' reasonable to ask him to delay the second readh next. He (Sir R.Peel) begged to say for one, tha n consent to any unnecessary delay . in the ,passf and he did not think it would be fair dealing the with whom he acted, should suffer for their ft bill of this description, the object of which was the the Established Church, and the appropriation of revenues to secular purposes, ought to be calmly considered; and he did not think that the deL beyond the time limited by the noble lord was If the government wished to conciliate the chi who felt an interest in its concerns, they could disposition better than by allowing a fair and for the consideration of this bill. speeches of the two gallant colonels fru aa evidence of the calmness and prude Of Ireland, and a strong proof of the I Would give to that faction. (Hear.) 4 , 41 a 41 ) the Secretary of State for Ireland, the language he used. He thought the niisia.uad exhibited such a total want of discret wh'7 o La place such extraordinary powers in "' Measure was only calculated to give the I Pliies of the government, an opportuni cia the government of the country, and iltire place and power. (Cheers.) The s ii:derived from the right hon. baronet, tl 11 4. And his Conservative colleagues, wa -Weight to the measure, when the pu e a influence that was thrown into t Was directed that evening against . •reland. H e did not consider that t for such unheard of powers, that wot ,c iple of B r i t i s h law and justice. The di ti 4tr Y during th e discussion upon the Reforn Oltrageous as the a g it a ti on o f th e repeal 'le was free to admit that there existed :OM of the necessity of putting them down e , and property; but he differed with his 4;:ks to the Ineaus.that thoug to be adopted gable an object. He ght remedial 1 , coercive means, would be more efficaciou lI IPPose that they could ke up . the prese la Irela n d when the Catholic disabili i ti w ere shallow politicians indeed. (Hear tkijiere outwo r k s of the bastion, a and so long so odious esta bli shment (hear, hear, and 1 9 4 would the people of Ireland be opp The hon. gentleman concluded by n to the effect, that the house was not sati for pa ss i ng t hi s bi l l ex i sted at the prese t h i e seconded the amendment. He °pi ? saw- that it went farther than merely! of that unfortunate country from the sustaining the law. He feared that th • it could be brought to bear in any way, tot 4a nces, o grasping within its iron hand matt e theoutenaplated it should lay hold of. Wh' 40 . and learned member for Dublin so 're, the ostensible object of which was t outrage ? How many of the p eo pl e o f ,felt that this was a bill to put down Mr. o'l it Were to put down predial agitation, h e eted to this - bill. If ever there was a case legislate bit by bit, it was in this very CE C are that, in lowing the chain, they sl It aless the proceeding one was weak and in .) 4°„aPEnii felt great regret to be obliged t 4 I reland bill, from the kind way in which he Areland by those very individuals against u i t tfte degree operate. (Hear.) He agreed '"e appellations bestowed upon it, name] and unconstitutional, but it had two • it, namely, stern necessity and sovereig Saw the necessity of the measure in th in or property being safe in Ireland. E dd, left that country. (Cries of No, no). 2 ( ,Es- stated the grounds of the objection • ""' With respect to the county of Carlo e had done their duty, the few outra • that part of the country would have beei ( Hear. ) `itfisiox supported the bill, and bore testi '"Y exertions of Dr. Doyle to preserve t. • Lord ALTHORP said that the delay in bringn bill was occasioned by the time which was necessl in arranging its details, and the bill would be conformable with the plan laid down by him w! troduced the measure to the notice of the house. that the difference between Thursday and Mond object, because, if hon. gentlemen could not minds in three days they could not hope to be lightened in seven days. With regard to the must observe, that he never recollected a simii debate of five nights taking place on the first rea Colonel PEncivAL could not see on what grou, lord (Althorp) could persist in refusing further sidering this important bill. Lord SANDON considered that his Majesty's not to refuse a reasonable request, because it had from a particular quarter of the house. From w would ask, did the opposition to the other bill pi that opposition more pure and disinterested in its that by which the party who conscientiously opi i . were influenced? (Hear, hear.) Surely the dela days was consistent with common sense and comm( Mr. A. BARING said that he first entered that he same period when the noble lord opposite (Lord came a member of it, and he appealed to that noble any hon. member who had the same experience, to 01 they ever recollected any measure of so much this attempted to be discussed on two days' notice out having the advantage of seeing the bill in pr Althorp, across the table, said that the printed b: ready to-morrow.) If ever there was a bill requirii ture consideration than another, it was this very noble lord was about to hurry forward with such brt. Was it right then that not even sufficient time shot to those who might wish to consult persons in Irelal answers by the post ? This method of yielding to tl the noble lord was opposed was a dangerous precei doing away with the customary courtesies and est of Parliament, might be consistent with a reform , Commons ; but, in his opinion, "it was more hon( breach than the observance." The noble lord (. motion on the paper respecting tithes in Engla, bill intended to be founded on that motion to be a manner similar to this? (Rear, hear.) The member concluded by observing, that, if he str would divide the house on this question. Lord J. RUSSELL said, that, after the explanatit his noble friend (Lord Althorp) with regard to this quite satisfied that honourable members would col the house on Thursday perfectly prepared to vote The house, moreover, would not be called upon to details of the bill on the second reading, as those for the consideration of the committee. He did not there was any material connection between this and I bill, and his Majesty's ministers might, if they thougi in a measure of conciliation without one of coercion, versa. If there were grievances to be redressed, it that they should be redressed; and, on the other ha were disturbances to be put down, it was right that be repressed. When grievances existed, such as I it was.the object of this bill to relieve, it was most Parliament should take the earliest opportunity measure for their removal. he' said that this was a measure quite unca teu by th e government that only a few of tl toa disturbed s t a t e , and why, th ere f ore, s h o place the whole of Ireland under such bill was intended to establish. The h br described the tithe sy s t em as t h e diurban ces which had arisen in Ireland, a that system (and he would beg to remark this assertion by the evidence given 131 other gentlemen of known intelligence) of the crimes which were committed in itry. This was a legsilation n o t f or th e f 4)11 ; it was not a legislatio for the peopl c 't the purposes of a faction. n (Hear.) HI call upon the house to remember that the he bad alluded had been caused by th ' governments, and not by any act of the t ' a oT said, in the consideration of.that bill the en every tittle of evidence and argument w/ they came to a conclusion. He had , ted to say that, looking at all the evidence ants which had been produced, he felt es his sorrow must be and was at the fac tat ministers had made out their case, (heal Measure, severe and violent as it was, wa had no hesitation in giving his support to put down political agitation. (Hear, be: A NT, after seine preliminary remarks, said for Newport seemed to imagine that, by t were proclaimed, martial law would at the sa ,ected. Now that was not the ease ; for if I Sad of itself the effect of quelling the distu ueno necessity for proceeding to the oth er end sought to lie attained would have been law, not being required, would not then or erected. If circumstances arose to rend, bagt an inroad in the constitution, it was ne th° what e ff ect wou ld b e pToduced, were the at e e vent of the measure arising therefrom•bei. 4 4 ,f h i s a precedent. The hon. and learned men fi .t unnself said that the members of the Irish and proper persons to act as judges in cases 1 , C, Ile for one agreed with the hon. and learn ii.q e ee did not consider it right for a judge of tl te e the provisions of this measure. He shot act upon his own opinion, without t 1 lar to those which, under this bill, he called upon to adjudicate in. The tsarily return to his own court with a ,stly attached to his character, for fell) an individual or individuals. T tnerefore, avoided this unpleasant .1 Sir R. INGLIS said, he had stated to the noble lo (Lord Althorp) his determination to oppose this stage, and he expressed the same determination to honourable gentleman the Secretary for Ireland. went to abolish oue single bishop only, instead of ten , to have the fullest consideration. Mr. ROBINSON said, that although he was in principles of the bill, he was of opinion that the terested ought to have-sufficient time for the considt question of so much importance. He was of opin , ought to undergo a full and calm discussion. Sir F. VINCENT hoped his Majesty's ministers forward their remedial measures with as much cele) had done those of an opposite character. He wisheuw. that sufficient time would be given to discuss the dew' bill. Mr. PETRE hoped that the noble lord would notg l s but that he would bring on the second reading on the stated.—The house then divided. For the motion lB7 Against it. Majority for Ministers l4l Upon our re-admission to the gallery we found on his legs, moving a further adjournment of the the appointment of the Liverpool Election Com] quire into the abuses of the elective franchise in I tion; which, after some discussion, was agreed to. MALLOW ELECTION. On the motion of Mr. O'Connell the order of till further postponement of the period to allow the r' to be entered into, was discharged. MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE OF LORD! Sir John Soane's Museum Bill was brought House of Lords, and read a first time. KNARESBOROUGH ELECTION. table and: learned member for Dub )f the magistracy in the same way ; th body sitting in judgment. Now, it and to rescue the people from the pc id from the Orange magistracy, as th eman had denominated a portion of dative to the courts martial had bees Sir WILLLTA M INGILBY moved the order of the Lear.) He could not but observe that 1 election ballot upon the petition. against the r( iotous conduct in Ireland had taken ph Rotch be deferred. More, that the measure—that the proci Mr. BOTCH said that he rose under strong feelin Ad thus early done good. (Hear, h his sentiments upon this petition, which was who) rmination of Parliament to adopt a met] dented in the annals of the history of parliament. 1 crime in Ireland had, he was rejoiced of the petition was not only to unseat him, but it in some parts of that distracted countr a bill of pains and penalties against him, as it st id struck terror and alarm into the he was an alien. The question involved his prop , a., hear.) The severity of this measure whole of his future prospects in life. (Hear, hear. ,:retion of the Lord Lieutenant of I tion states, as the grounds of postponing the ing , lactments would not be brtmgJat into act (Mr. Rotch) is an alien born, and owed no alle absolute necessity for their applica Majesty, and that his father was the subject of a I cared that his Majesty's ministers had t (Hear, hear.) • 'ard because they considered it to be m. Mr. W. WYNN rose to order, and said that :hought that the state and condition ought to be called in to verify the statements of th, with danger. They imagined and b fore the house entered into such a statement. (C) of that country was all but, if not qi Mr. Mander, the agent to the petitioner, was ;fore that a measure similar to that tl examined. He said the election petition had b• is the only one by which tranquillity ci on the 18th of February, founded upon letters 2. rved. (Loud cheers.) His -Majesty's Dunkirk, stating that Mr. notch and his father tently introduced this measure to arrest cans, and that the main object of the present petit 'ding over Ireland and her people. was to enable the petitioners to procure evidence , it with approbation or censure, his Mt allegations of the petition. ermined to - bear all the responsibility. Upon cross-examination by Mr. O'Connell, he . responsible for it, and they should th the letter containing the infOrmation was dated th , irse. (Applause.) They felt that the bruary, and he did not send over to Dunkirk to ' them cotapaet, and as compact were tt inquiries until the 24th. Auld deliver it up. (Continued cheers.) Mr. WYNN rose and said that it would never , rd to convince -the house that this n dente of this kind was made a ground for the p , with every evil to Ireland, far outweighi (Cheers.) Avantages. He complained of the e Mr TENNYSON said that the statement would ii which had been made, and of the defect further postponement. The witnesses were in :e by which the necessity of the measu t 4 , ,1 4 1 4 44 u 4 rn 9 e e ex as tr i a n cts sup fr i o ,o m rt r af iv h a i :e ca l: e tt , e th rs, e b f u o t rm ha e d r a b i would be an act of injustice to postpone the inquirP o itVlt t h -lie right honourable Secretary for lrelai hear.) He recommended the honourable baronet to his motion. The motion was then withdrawn. llt . l'ol Oil I N Y on. This said little for the wisdom of , OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH. ~, t0,.i ti .:44 . , Q ..e house, however, ought to be provided w Sir ANDREW AGNEW postponed his motion for lett at ), '4 4 ti kve the case admits of, one way or another. in a bill to enforce the due observance of the tab' , th kr had a complete list of every crim e , o f ev , 19th of March. e ll , Red with it. Nothing of the kind had been c LIO N ,nt. •h. w ished i DISTURBANCES (IRELAND) BILL. , o 0 0 either to .mpose upon the ha On the order of the day, for resuming the deba te L T ktv it t strangely imposed themselves. The hone cond reading of this bill, being read, ' r iti 'I th r !Peech was continued amid considerable in Mr. C. BULLER said that he regretted the rnan'' t 0 1 !4 , i c t e ,Peated calls of " Question," " Question," the debate had been carried on upon this question; 2, 18 1) , N A :_ilY sat down. unworthy the dignity of the house; it had assullw v f y; ' 4 tt 1) -. R then read the amendment. personal:discussion; and appeals were made to anri f iel l p "'las asked, if the house would permit itse] with a view to injure his honourable and learn foe member for the city of Dublin. (Hear, hear) Ire] called I" in the s „ila Peeche' le lord ip t ! uge rhe , 44 _ „Ovid, l y that he measure of the pass' • • gentl e _ ould should be Ntiou s t e,,, a 11, Ulf I, an d a ll ind eina Laie lank c alled lifts un sa t f l had exh: al involviae w h oi : to Plac e to PreP3l.l4tltssapt"emies ( H e veat e ,ra t o ou th e ier Wed:.6l,:tve:natizia:eeci,:eraespuiraeti d the ' e ivl' Ta t it der . y thos t l 14, 011 31, e, : h e other ated t , , and th Irelaud,ini t ,h' give weir he 41 0 let d t t he sa ng t ho f e e spet . lue to trea t t v e hltrei . I sm m I o, I re :sianjytguvilull'ilu.Setchil6e;Pciai.4ll:Petioauaritoeforof t lat he 110 1 if ilii a e ll ite l' eri a aiiil s o t u Y i d rt ta ig r le i s t e g 03 141) 44, irtrageoi that he 4 ttanoos, „ e ,was f • forhe a ' - 4 4 4 lir of th Ls the led„,ciact,htlioleoet and Pri on of arl' to d •• ''''' to th a tdi'steact '''labl mly offan o d i „, c of ean Lelay 43tabiOuld s-Iluereive was uot e ;i rtk e 'slak eti lVose t church 3 _,.,,, , , e ) ,': off, tr t to, fr Id not d'ilief the mere ere she l reason tii ti o , f tilt 4 ( , i 'uwe ii.e.:, so 1 0 41.0 us t ere ill tted by ti mind ff;An, e ") hea r tl ,g won cessarolAtinly „t4 e , it • , Th e be .foul:.;lo4,44,,:Nll7,etitessityt°the c i wile! , et Li L.,,,,twi for p a , R. fleidei;74llseillNS se, Imlay Ir t i w„gibi a ,„ 4 Ise ° , saw t at niaY t ef," ita"or, lie of ti be mad f . y , 11 ,,t(1, th - ", Susta, Coerrl ti oi L ta geol ts '• It c oo sitar i n t il e t iot e a nees, LI readings, th of the eiltei np r i rrounds 7 if otii measureeti. au, appe or y e , Qv, Were i what St! kite jetied to proceed:4 4 ,,tai te e glstate ppo eaj' L T, 'mess the nts °, 'llk e al'e th e, li hso, e .iy r in d bi n e isol l ii d 4e l o, , i this ti z .I,_ st a ommoll i of this `f ET it f a hous e in / hill, ,ord A._,l i h te ' e uild bi e delay., noble lu''' -vii 3 °rne de 4 k. th ee, to sal . -.Ar a e app, sh imp° ' 11 44 1 ,7 1 , , , and u notice 0 , 1 •) " it, lA] in print' wi r . personaw th quiring e to °Lt e , , ieft ti 1 breatbl e ,,,' I,titikt bill \\lli shoulc' es gt ,:s th e , ha Irelarici te ' t 'lvn eed that ait Id 6 !Hear.) ted bills o ,„ i „ . ' 1 ,0 . L 4 , 1 o , r p r !tO OW - , 1 , u, recedel?l, ,a l Aew,, t ,',l l 'iNox I establs,:i , eoup t - "Y exe !formed :A4 ' Ly 4 r Y. honoUrc", : v 4 adr a P i said th gland. , f % I iY : d isturb be disri 41 th." Place Th e i 1 0P,,, •i 14 l's bill wa d (Alibi , s stood `if th erQi ier d , e d i (... Nit storhas anatioq 4 i t hat sy s ,o this b , , ril l i i i iid i i thi B as ld could t y efe,o.ether ge vote oti 0 t' s .te eo - se of the an to voted ',,,a f ac t i c ntry, lose wo'i` tt .. " °ll ' it nt e - for the' - did n-, , , Lor , pur s and the 'itch." , call iiti t leh h u r thought - , eti r ehe :4,4;)e Ili fo.fietft th;ite sercion, A i. t t,i,lea r e goverr ssed, it 17 •A A L ) ler haom, kb w s h oz sa id , t that they i,' Lef e " every t h as thr o l e ' l'er, °t e the ° t ett d y most P 4, I kr tc ,,,,,,e to s aity of r ,i tl e „„ - - , etits ~,„ 'N R O: as hi s s ble lorl, , ° t it til !liat minis this 100,,,,,' ;leo he imeasur ion to a '`lie'nad no laud. Pit , b ,‘.'• fi i Put do dof tea , ' c i e l lll ; e-A t"T, aft L lb et t for Nei in favoutri e ere w.or e pro( it the 1 13 .0 tioluleted, N, :onsiderati ir d , 0 1114 4 1 , - of itse if opini°' .%th be no n , e en ., e J , t a , ti , soul isters ifirti, ' for e al law, i •h celcrit' t o - ,, n e or erecte wishear.„l , 4 4 Z,ake an in Wl t4 :: t l l: " es il ls3 e i e ng e e s i c i s " tti" inci t hat •.4 ( 1 nr biinst Th e ` l ' L l s bill, he d 3 l. 4,4 uenour real' )ttte,Psed that) _to that os. / 00 li•lst r e : ls ° ll , a up 'el - Cy and gent]. „ Q a e. (Use rela e da_ . .,5 cf ' he rio theref ngs to ev ti m im th a( color 1) mkt deterr hcittent of t t ao l l ll lo' , 11 ; t t : (1 . 4 ced ii state7 s e ,it hac pertYrdic t (Hear, r.) IL Ve ve e disci ti s lv _e enan eff iai! vo c4 for ere an inre , c 711 4 ,e deela ‘e forwa solo! The ti tit , I, fr a he pc, .01 41 ligKt 1 :hee,; . ,l 0 Peace h theref lk tl ') t ise, was rece . ; l c oll. preser r 20quen ioo°„ r e ) as cro e r , were i t te , 're date adora tLeY were the ," f ter coui make the to hey Co OU be 6 bopc postr ° Pt s , 4 ght 4 q t ;'ed ad n ot J" Ne ?tits to' °' ( oti v "letice . The f