The Sun.
London, England, 1837-05-24 00:00:00

blishment founded: honoured: and respected by civil polity

*site i4.-e.'!itn`g a note of that, and now it would be said that the;
were going to be provided. But whet was not this., proposition
made in 1834, when the trieli precectent was before them ?
Why Was the proposition to abolish Church-rates then, accom-
panied by another to provide fie eittiValent Cut of the funds of
the public? filial the lionourahle Gentleman opposite
W4y in that proposition ? The Right Hon. Gentleman
complained of their being called enemies of the Church.
They declared they were not its enemies; aro we are bound to
believe them, as fat Pa thelr and. intentions went.
But see *dit still at perfect liberty to canvass their actions.
and cheering.) He (Sir Robert Peel) would
venture to say that if, on any question affecting the inte-
rests of the Dissenters, those had 4eeti a majority
of 116 in the Reformed Parlial±±ellt, it would have been con•
sidcred a deeieion It favour of the Dissenters. That was the
nveiority in 1834 on the Irish precedent. It might be said
that they then had not made that discovery which the Hon.
Member for Wegabuth had so much lauded, and for which the
ohligailion of the Hon. Member was so great that he never
thought that divine man the Chancellor of the Exchequer
could have achieved anything so great. Had it never occurred
to the Right Hon. Gentleman that Lord Althotp was well
aware that there were Bishops' laede Iti. England and Scot-
land, as well as in irelend; and that if they were to run the
eternal life of the Commission against the mortal lives of the
Bishops, they would be doing great injustice Yet it seemed
Lord Althorp, being quite aware of these facts, and having
the Irish precedent, then a one-year-old infant, at his back,
never thought it necessary or desirable to apply the prin-
civic; of the Irish measure to -England. The Noble Lord
opposite, and those who acted with him, had not yet laid
down the principle that it was the bounden duty of the
State to provide ample Church accommodation for the poor.
The Dissenters, up to the present time, had never been
led to believe that an equivalent for Church rates could be
found in tile property of the Church. On the contrary,
Church-rates were then considered essential to the existence of
an establishment. Now, however, the Gentlemen opposite
turned round upon them, and taunted them, because they ex-
prested a determination to adhere to the very principle they
nad themselves before maintained.—( Loud cheers.) The
Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member for Tipperary
asked, with an air of triumph, what had occurred since 1834
to excite their apprehension ? He would tell the lion. and
Learned Gentleman that the measure now proposed was to-
tally different to that of 1834—(Cheers)--that they had aban-
doned the principle upon which the measure of 1834 was
founded--(Chee:s)—that the two measures were totally dif-
ferent in principle and in eletail ; for the principle of making
provision for the religious destitution of the Establishment
in the means of affording accommodation to the poor was
not adverted to in 1834. The report of the Church Com-
missioners had not then received the signatures that were
since attached to it ; and it was now proposed for the first
time to take away from Church property the means of
providing for all deficiency of accommodation for the poor.
In this way Ministers allied themselves, now and hereafter,
with the principle which they before considered entirely sub-
versive of an Establishment. The Member for Middlesex
acted manfully and openly upon that occasion. He did not
conceal his views. He combated the proposition brought for-
ward by I Althorp. lie left no possible means of evasion,
for he rested his opposition to the measure of 1814 distinctly
on the principle that the revenues of the Church itself were
amply sufficient to supply a substitute for Church-rates as now
levied. Now, upon that occasion,' and in answer to the ob-
servations of the Member for Middlesex, the Noble Lord
(Russell) said he adhered to the principle of Lord Althorp,
and entirely repudiated that for which the Member for Mid-
dlesex contended. The Noble Lord then said that he and his
colleaguss did not expect the support of the Hon. Member
(Mr. Hume), or of the Hon. Member's colleagues, whose
object was to destroy—( Loud cheers) —but that they hoped
for the support of those who wished to see a Church Esta-
blishment maintained in all its efficiency, in independence, in
all necessary splendour, at the same time that they were per-
fectly ready to apply a remedy to all practical grievances.—
(Cheers.) The present proposition of the ,Noble Lord and
his colleagues was directly at Variance with the sentiments
then expressed by him. It was identical with the principle of
the Hon. Member for Middlesex, a principle which that lion.
Gentleman did not deny must ultimately lead to the over-
throw of the Establishment—(Loud cheers)—but, on the
contrary, supported, as leading to such consequences. With-.
out stopping here to inquire into the extent of conformity, or
of inconsistency, between the case of Ireland and of this
country, 'the Noble Lord must give him leave to say that,
with the precedent of Ireland before them, with a knowledge
of what took place there since the abolition of Church-rates,
the Noble Lord could not with fairness blame gentlemen on
his side of the House for now occupying the ground which the
Noble Lord and his'colleagues occupied in 1834, but which he
now abandoned, even with the knowledge of being supported
by those whose object was the overthrow of that Church which
in 1834 the Noble Lord professed himself determined to sup-
port.--(Cheers, and a call of " Question.") The Hon.
Member who called " Question" need be under no apprehen-
sion that he would delay the House much longer. Hitherto,
at least, he had kept the promise with which he had set out.
Ile adhered closely to the question, and had not as yet occu-
pied even so much of their time as the Right Hon. Gentleman
(Mr. Rice) did merely in the proemium of, his speech. He
might be asked what course he meant to pursue in case the
amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for St. Andrew's
should be put. It would, under usual circumstances, be quite
time enough to state that when the main question was de-
cided. However, so many new _Members had of late taken
their seats on his side' of the House--( Loud cheers)—who
were not, perhaps, well acquainted with the technicalities con-
nected with their deliberations, that he would endeavour to
explain to them the vote they would be called upon to give.
Unfortunately, they could not give a direct vote upon the
question. This he regretted. lie wished they bad an op-
portunity of giving a direct negative to the question. He
would not have it implied from his opposition to the motion
that he was altogether unwilling to enter upon the considera-
tion of Church-rates, with a view to remove any well-
grounded objections, and to substitute some other mode than
the present, less liable to cavil, or inconvenience. He would
not say that he had decided objections to a measure similar
to that of Lord Althorp in 1834.—(Ciicers from the Minis-
terial benches.) But he never could give his support to
any measure which went to divest the bishops of all inde-
pendence of station—of all interest in, of all controul over,
their own property.—( Cheers.) With respect to the resolu-
tion proposed by the Hon. Member for St. Andrew's, which
he brought forward with so much talent, so much temper, and
such sound views, it was quite another and a totally different
proposition. This was the resolution of the lion. Member :
" That it is the opinion of this House that funds may be
derived from an improved mode of management of the Church
lands, and that these funds should be applied to religious in-
struction within the Established Church where the same may '
be found deficient in proportion to the existing population."
Now, the Hon. Member for Weymouth (Mr. F. Buxton)
toad him (Sir R. Peel) that he might vote for this resolu-
tion without any inconsistency. The Right lion. Gentleman
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) told him he could not. lie
was not at all called upon now to explain the course he meant
to pursue, but he would not leave his intentions equivocal.
Ile could not vote for the resolution of the Hon. Member for
St. Andrew's; first, because he had grave objections against
voting for any abstract proposition like this. The measure of
Government had, at least, the merit of being conveyed in a
direct prop,sition, which, if affirmed by the House, was imme-
diately to be followed up by the introduction of a Bill to carry
it into operation. He had some knowledge from intuition of
the general enactments which such a Bill must contain, but
he knew nothing of the details of any plan the Hon. Member
for S. Andrew's might have in contemplation. He never
would, under such circumstances, support any abstract propo-
sition. lie expected from Ministers, and he thought he was
entitled to a cheer from them, for the determination to which
lie came upon this point. lie objected, in the second place, to
the proposition of the I-lon. Member for St. Andrew's, as it
might possibly be inferred from it that a Commission would
become necessary to carry out his proposition, and to take upon
themselves the duties now performed by the Bishops themselves.
He entirely objected to any such Commission. Neither was he
prepared to concur in any proposition which might seriously
affect the interests of the lessees of Church property, without
knowing, exactly all its details, and its bearings upon those in-
tterests. Ile was well aware that lessees of Church lands had
Ino legal right to renewal ; but then the lone-established cus-
tom, the confidence of renewal under which they entered upon
their leases—all the circumstances connected with this species
of property, had given to it, in general estimation, an almost
equal value with cope hold property. It would not he con-
sistent with justice that the lessees should be deprived of ad-
vantages which they had every reason to believe would not be
interfered with. It was possible, in his opinion, that a mea-
sure might be introduced to secure the advantages of im-
provement in Church lands, maintaining at the same time, the
independence of the Bishops, and not interfering with the just
claims and the interests of the lessees. If such improvement
as might fairly be anticipated could be made in the value of
Church lands, so that a surplus fund might arise, he might,
under such circumstances, be disposed to concur in some such
. proposition as that made by the Hon. Member for Weymouth.
He did not think that, by improvement in the present mode of
tenure in Church lauds, the result might be to enable them to
go a considerable way towards realizing the objects suggested
by the Member for Weymouth. He could not, however, con-
cur, for the reasons he before stated, in the resolution proposed
by the Honourable Member for St. Andrew's. If they
could,. by good management, and by gradual improvement
in the mode in which Bishops' lands were now disposed
of, realize a fund sufficient for the purpose, it could
not be applied in a better way, in a slay more condu-
cive to the interests of religion and of society, than
by employing it to provide Church accommodation for
the poorer classes.—( Cheers ) He rejoiced that this propo-
sition was submitted to the House by a Scoto-Calvinist, the
Member for St. Andrew's. Ile rejoiced at the community of
interest which was thus demonstrated between the two Esta-
blishments of Scotland and England.—( Loud cheers.) The
time had gone by when petty jealousies should be allowed any
longer to exist between them.—( Cheers.) Their cause was
a common one..--( Cheers.) The . question now with many
was, shall Establishments be abolished altogether, and must
they trust the voluntary principle.--( Cheers.) This was, in
reality, the question, at least, with many of the Dissenting
body, and not the paltry sum to be saved by an abolition ofb
Church-rates.—(Cheers.) It was against that principle they
contended—(Cheers)—because they believed that the main-
tenance of an Establishment was interwoven with their civil
institutions ; that it was necessary to society ; that it was con-
nected, intimately connected, with the peace and interests of
society—(Cheers)—and, what was a still higher considera-
tion, it was connected with the maintenance of religion against
the assaults of infidelity, and the lukewarnmess of indifference.
Cheers.), If there was any one contrivance for the sup-
port of religion mere powerful than another it was an Esta-

(Loud awe eceetineed cheers.)
Lord J. 14..1T 88E-ILL lierie'd the Pane Memlief: tiAcr wile!
he just heard, would not persevere in his amendment. The.)
who thought ,it eleiirable to abolish churele:raecs, could no;
itiripoie !t. If egreed to, the effect Would be that the liousc
would come to no decision at all upon the mciii subject. Must
they keep up the independence of the Bishops, as the Right
Hon. Member for Tamworth said, until such time as thee
toultierpeide adequate mettns iof religious instreetion for the
Poorer classed`. He could eciticeiv6 that, Eiieliepe, when
first put in possession of their lands, had a right td dispose of
them like private individuals in any other class of society ;
but, .with time, abuser crept in, in the exercise of this right,
and it often happenea tiiitt one rellei seccended in a bishopric
had scarcely the means of sustenance left him, in consequence
of- the fines taken by his predecessors An instance lately
eartle under lilt obsereetion; in vrilich, by the falling in of
leases, the income was raised from 800/. to 4,001. or te,ooo/.
a year. This was the result of the independent character
which the Right Hon. Baronet wished to preserve to the
Bishops. It nut unfrequently happened that even private Acts
were smuggled through Parliament, by which the income of
Bishops and of Chapters was much improved, but that of their
successors greatly diminished. There was no reason why
they should any longer retain these private bargains and clan-
destine Acts of Parliament. He would not enter into irrele-
vant matter, but he thought the Right Hon. Baronet taunted
his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. S. Rice) unfairly for the irrele-
vancy of part of his speech. Did the Right Hon. Baronet
forget what so very recently occurred ? Did he forget the
speech made by one of those new Members (Sir Francis
Burdett) to whom he alluded.—(A laugh)—one of the
weakest and shallowest he ever heard—( Opposition cheers)_.
containing nothing, or next to nothing on the subject but
filled with references to the conduct of Ministers in Ireland
and Scotland—nothing, in fact, but a repetition of what was
before said in the letter to " Dear Mr Psuncey ?"—(Oppo-
sition laughter.) That speech was not answered, or attempted
to be answered, by Ministers, and for not doing so they
were attacked that night by another Right Honourable Ba-
ronet (Sir James Graham). They were attacked because
they did not follow the example of one of those young
and ardent recruits—( A laugh)—who entered into a dis-
sertation on their manner of treating Ireland and Scot-
land, for the purpose of showing that they were enemies
to the Established Church.—(" Hear, hear, hear," from Sir
Jame; Graham.) When the Right Honourable Baro-
net has finished his vociferations he would proceed. He
did not complain either of the Hon. Baronet (Sir F. Bur-
dett), or of the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham); but
he thought it not quite fair on the part of the Right Hon.
Member for Tamworth to attack his Right Hon. Friend for
referring in his speech to what lion. Members had said upon
former occasions. If he was not mistaken, the Right Hon.
Member for Tamworth himself was the first person who intro-
duced that custom of quotation, which had grown since to so
inconvenient a length. He recollected that when the Mem-
ber for Cumberland (Sir J. Graham) was in the habit of sit-
ting among them at his side of the House, whenever he saw
the Member for Tamworth, on the other side, with a book in
his hand, he used to cry " Oh, here comes Hansard 1"—( A
laugh.) With respect to the arguments of the Member for
Tamworth, he believed they would be best answered Isy quota-
tions from his own speeches. His present argument about the
injustice and folly of now professing to relieve the landed inte-
rest by the repeal of Church-rates might go too far. The same
arguments, if allowed to have force, might have had the effect
of still keeping the old feudal burdens in existence. In the
time of Charles the Second it might have been said, by a
audator temporis acti, that these feudal tenures were conse-
crated by time, and, as was now said of Church-rates, ought,
therefore, to be retained. He saw no reason why they
should be preen led from relieving the land of this bur-
then. Let him go to Hansard, but, much more, let him
go to the Mirror of Parliament, and would find some pas-
sages in the speeches of the Right Hon. Baronet, when he
was Prime Minister, in 1835, which would show that he was
not then so averse as he seemed to be now to afford some
relief to the landed interest. An lion. Member opposite,
on seeing the King's Speech, asked what was the mean-
ing of that pert of it that respected the burthens of the
agricultural interest, and on being told that it related to
the burthens of Church-rates he said, knowing that that
was one of the burthens of which the agricultural inte-
rest greatly complained, be could not help rejoicing that
the subject was one of those which was to come under
the consideration of the Government.—(Hear.) The Noble
Lord the Member for Liverpool, who moved the Address,
did not speak of Church-rates as an ancient and immemorial
right, imposed time out of mind, and therefore ought not to be
taken away. Oh no ; but he said that " the Church-rate was
one of those burdens which pressed upon the land, and as the
removal of the local burdens was pointedly alluded to in the
Speech from the Throne it might be the Church-rates were
included amongst them." This was what the Noble Lord
had said, and the Right Hon. Baronet did not forbid this in-
terpretation, because, on the contrary, lie told the House that
the Noble Lord was quite right that he " thought there was
an obligation on the State to provide for the repair of
churches, but he also thought the charge of providing fur
that repair bore unfairly on the land, sad it was that sub-
ject which he had in view when he spoke in the King's
Speech of elevising a method for mitigating the press of
those local charges which bore heavily on the owners and
occupiers of land, and for distributing the burden of them
more equally over other descriptions of property," at the
same time adding " that it had a specific reference to the
Report of the Committee of _lase Session-on county rates, and
to the relief of the agricultural interests from certain local
burthens of which the Church rate was one therein men-
tioned."—( Loud cheers.) in the whole course of the pre-
sent debate a very different doctrine had been held, and
the Right lion. Baronet himself told them that Church-
rates was a burthen which the landed interest had not
always borne, but ought always to bear.—(Cheers.) By the
by, there was one argument used by the Hon. Baronet the
Member for Westminster, though not in the same invidious
way that it had been used by the Right Hon. Baronet the
Member for Tamworth, which he must, in passing, notice.
It was said by the Hon. Baronet the Member for West-
minster that it was most ui.j Ist on tl e part of the Dissen-
ters to seek to get rid of the burthen of Church-rates
merely because it would relieve their pockets. The Hon.
Baronet before he made such an observation should have
considered that the Dissenters not only supported their own
Churches, but even submitted to pay tithes.—( Cheers.) The
Dissenters, it should not be forgotten, were subjected to
burthens connected with the Established Church, although
they bud also to maintain their own places of worship and pay
their own Ministers, who preached to them the word of God
according to their own views. He therefore said, when they
did all those things it was most unjust to impute to them that
they cared for their own pockets, and cared for or regarded
nothing else.—( Cheers.) But this was what he supposed the
Hon. Baronet called " the cant of patriotism."—( Loud cheers
from the Ministerial benches.) He (Lord J. Russell) must,
however, say that although " the cant of patriotism" might be
disgusting, " the re-cant of patriotism" was still more so.—
( Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches.) The ground
on which they put the alteration which they proposed te
make in the law of this country was expediency, and because
Church-rates occasioned vexatious conflicts, heart-burnings,
and discord, and, in short, prevented that religious peace
which a Noble Duke, formerly at the head of the Govern-
ment, declared ought to be considered as the dearest object to
be attaiaed by those who held the destinies of the country in
their hands.—( Cheers.) That was exactly the view which his
Majesty's present Ministers entertained. They were actuated
by the same motives as the Noble Duke, and their object was
not to substitute the voluntary system for the present, but to
do what they thought it was expedient that they should do for
the general interest of the country.—( Loud cheers.) The
Right Hon. Baronet had quoted some words which had been
attributed to him (Lord J. Russell), but whether his recollec-
tion or Hansard was the best authority he would leave the
House to determine. Be that as it might, his recollection
was that the words alluded to were addressed to the Hon.
Gentleman who was then Member for Ipswich, and now for
Southwark, and not to the Hon. Member for Middlesex. That
lion. Member declared on the occasion referred to, that it
was impossible for the Church Establishment and religious li-
berty to co-exist, and that he, being favourable to religious
liberty, thought the Church Establishment blight not to be
allowed to remain. Now, it was in answer to this doctrine
that he had said the Hon. Gentleman was a destroyer, arid
that they were only refiners and removers of abuses, and there-
fore could not concur with him. They all knew that in the
nature of things trifling errors must now and then occur in the
reports of the proceedings of that House, and that the substi-
tutioe of a mere word might alter the whole sense of a pas-
sage; but he had said enough on this part of the subject. He
found that so far back as the year 1796, two Prebends of
Litchfield were sacrificed for the repairs of the cathedral of
Litchfield, and yet they were told that the present mode of
providing for the maintenance of the fabrics of the Church
should remain:

Lord STANLEY—But cathedrals and parish churches are
different things.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—The Noble Lord said that in
that case the sacrifice was made for the repairs of a cathedral,
and not of a parish church. Where was the difference be-
tween the two cases ?—(Cheers.) He, for his part, could not
see the distinction between applying proceeds obtained in that
way in the repair of a cathedral and of a parochial church.
The distinction, however, might be reasonable, though he
could not perceive it ; but perhaps it consisted in the fact
that, in the one case the application was by friends, and in the
ether by enemies.—(Cheers.) Now, with respect to the
Irish precedent. The Hon. Gentleman opposite agreed to
the abolition of Church-cess in Ireland. Would they say that
where there was no cess, there ought to be no Established
Church, or that because Church-rates were abolished the
voluntary principle must be adopted ?—( Hear, hear, hear.)
They might refuse to rote for this measure on some such
ground, but he maintained that the abolition of Church-rates
did not necessarily imply an attempt to establish the voluntary
principle. They had consented to Lord Althorp's scheme for
the abolition of Church-rates, and yet, with all this, they now
contended that the abolition of Church-rates would be equiva-
lent to the establishing of the voluntary principle.—( Cheers.)
Such was the declaration of the Hon. Baronet the Member for
Westminster. He would not enter further into that argument,
although the Hon. Baronet had told them he was glad there
was another place, in which their decision would be reversed.
He must say that this reference called up to his mind former
recollections—called up to his mind the time when the Hon.
Baronet the Member for Westminster was a Reformer—
when he went too far in the measures he proposed and in the
declamations by which those topics were urged by him.—
( Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches.) It was, then, a
common thing for the Hon. Baronet to say, speaking of
that House, " the Gentlemen assembled in this room ;" and
when called to . order by the Chair to correct himself, by
adding, 44 Well, the Gentlemen assembled in this House,

falsely calling itself the Commons' House of Parliament"—
I T cheers)—inconsistent as it was, such was the language
frequently indulged. He had

'• House did not
..,....,

in which the Hon.
sail: Ca ik4y insttli, than
renresent toe people,te horn, now ~......
they (11,1 represent the people, that he 14'2'.; td fr"s-,'"it f*efit,
telling thetn that he did not care for their decisions—that ee
despised their rhsolti,tions-01,enewed cheers)--and that he
H
looked to tho other ouse of rarl.fai ec t for thf reversal of
whatever they might do ?—( Loud cheering.) !le tecrtld
conclude by saying that this measure had been brought for-
ward witii tie tieyt• that; while it Fon ccd ed to the reasonable
demands of the Disenfefs, if itetfid fetid to the harmony
of the- country, and to egtablisli gfeater Security .in t 6
Church.—( Hear, hear. ) If they went on yeaf after year
squabbling in vestries, they might tell them that the Churt'h
in one place grJr!.t.r.l. from 250 to 240,' and in another from
1,000 to 960; but still they nigh t depend upon it that if they
'ouk pride in such victories, they would, in the end, find that,
instead of seeuring the Church, they would undermine its
very foundations, and that Churchmen would combine with
Dissenters against it. If they adopted the scheme now pro-
posed by the King's Ministers, they would avoid all this; but
at all events, they had brought forward this measure with that
view, and if they did not attain their object they would have
have the consolation to know that they had done their duty,
and would rest satisfied with the part they had taken.—(Loud
cheers, and cries of " Divide.")
Mr. G. PALMER rose, with a view to address the House,
but the cries of " Divide, divide," " Withdraw, withdraw,"
were so loud and general that the lion. Member was unable
to obtain a hearing.
Mr. A. JOHNSTON should, with the permission of the
House, withdraw the amendment which he had moved.—
( Cheers from the Ministerial benches.)
Mr. G. PA LME R again rose, amidst renewed cries of
" Divide, divide," and made a few observations ; but, owing
to the noise and confusion in the House, II hat the Hon. Gen-
tleman said was not heard in the gallery:-
Mr. D. W. HARVEY had risen at the same time with the
Chancellor of the Exchequer ; and he tnust say, that during the
twenty years he had been in Parliamen., that was the first oc-
casion on which he ever knew a Minister of the Crown interpose
to prevent a Member of that House from speaking his sentiments,
particularly when those around him were desirous that he should
do so. The Honourable Gentleman then gave notice that
if the resolution were to pass, and a Bill founded on it were
brought in, he should, when that Bill arrived at the proper
stage, move an instruction to the Committee on it, to the ef-
fect that they should consider it with a view to the entire and
early abolition of Church-rates.—(" Hear, hear," and renewed
cries of " Divide.")
After a few words from Lord SANDON the gallery was
cleared for a division.
The numbers were then announced from the chair :
For the motion
Against
Majority for Ministers
This announcement was hailed with a burst of fervid accla-
mations from the Opposition Benches, which was enthusiasti-
cally returned for several minutes.
Lord J. RUSSELL then moved that the House, on its
rising, adjourn to Thursday next.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at Three o'Clock.

PARLIAMENTARY DI VISION.

CHURCH-RATES REGULATION.

From the Votes and Proceedings of theHomse of Commons.)

TUESDAY: HAT 23.

Resolution reported from the Committee :—" That, for the repair
and maintenance of parochial Churches and Chapels in England and
Wales, and the due celebration of divine worship therein, a perma -
nent and adequate provision be made out of an increased value given
to Church Lauds, by the introduction of a new system of manage-
ment, and by the application of the proceeds of pew-rents ; the col-
lection of Church-rates ceasing altogether from a day to be deter-
mined by Law ; and that, in order to facilitate, and give early effect
to this Resolution, the Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury be
authorized to make advances on the security, and repayable out of,
the produce of such Church Lands," read a second time; Motion
made, and 'Question put,—" That the House do agree with the
Committee in the said Resolution :"—The House divided:—

• MAJORITY-AYES, 287.
Acheson, Lord-Co. of Armagh Hurst, R. H.-Horsham
Adam, Sir C.-Clackmannanshire Hutt, W.-Kingston-upon-Hull
Aglionby, H. A.-Cockermouth James, William-Cumberland
Ainsworth, P.-Bolton Jephson, D. 0.-Mallow
Alston, Rowland-Hertfordshire Jervis, J.-Chester
Andover, Visc.-Nlalmesbury Labouchere, Right Hon. Henry-
Angerstein, J.-Greenwich Taunton
Anson, Colonel-Stoke-upon-Trent Lambton, H.-North Durham
Anson, Sir G.-Lichfield Lee, J. Lee-Wells
Astley, Sir Jacob-West Norfolk Lefevre, C. Shaw-North Hants
Attwood, Thos.-Birmingham Leonard, T. 11.-Maldon
liagshaw, John-Sudbury Leveson, Lord-Morpeth
Bainbridge, E. T.-Taunton Lister, E. finliffe-Bradford
Baines, Edward-Leeds Lushingtop, Dr.-Tower liaml,
Baldwin, Dr.-Cork City Lushington, Charles-Ashburton
Ball, Nicholas-Clonmell Lynch, A. II -Galway
Bannerman, A.-Aberdeen M•Leod, 11--Sutherlandshire
Barclay, David-Sunderland Macnamara, W.-Clare Co.
Baring, F. Thornhill-Portsmouth M.Taggart, John-Wigton
Barnard, E. G.-Greenwich Maher, John-Wexford Co.
Barron, H. W.-Waterford City Mangles, J.-Guildford
Barr , G. S.-Cork Co. Marshall, W.-Carlisle
Belfast, Earl of-.Antrim Co.. Marsland, Henry-Stockport
Bentinek, Lord W.-Glasgow martin, Thomas-Galway Co.
Berkeley, Hon. F.-Gloucester Motile, Hon. Fox-Perthshire '
Be: keley, Hon. G.-Gloucestershire Melgund, Viscount -Ilythe
Berkeley, Hon. C.-Cheltenham Methuen, P.-North Wilts
Bernal, talph-Rochtster Molesworth, Sir William-Cornwall i
Bewes, T.-Plymouth Moreton, Hon. A.-Gloucestershire
Biddulph R.-Hereford Morpetis, Lord-Yorkshire
Blake, Al. J.-Galway Morrison, J.-Ipswich
Blunt, Sir Charles-Lewes Mostyn, Hon. E.-Flintshire
Metkid, John James-Galway Mullins, F. W.-Kerry .
Bowes, John-South burharn Murray, .Itight Hon. J. A.-Leith
Bewring, t/r. -Kilinarnock Musarave, Sir II -Waterford
Brady, Denis Caulfield-Newry Nagle, Sir R.-Westmeath
Brideenian, Hewitt-Ennis O'Brien, W. S.-Limerick Co.
lirocklenurst, J.- ilacclesticld O'Connell, Daniel-Kilkenny ,
Brodie, \V. 11.-Sallsbury • O'Conneil, John-Youghall
Brotherton, .1.-Saltrod O'Connell, M. J.-Kerry
Browne, It. D.-Mayo O'Connell, Morgan-Meath
Buckingha•n, J. S.-Sheffield O'Connor Don-Roscommon Co.
Buller, Charles-Liskeard O'Ferrall, Richard M.-Kildare
Buller, E.-North Staflltrdshire Oliphant, Laurence-Perth
Bulwer, H. L-Marylebone Ord, \V.-Newcastle-upon-Tyne
biulwer, E. L.-Lincoln Paget, Frederick-Beaumaris
Burden, \V. W.-Weymouth Palmer, General-Bath
lurton, Henry-Beverley Palmerston, Viscount-Tiverton
Butler, Hon. P.-Kilkenny Co Parker, John-Sheffield
Buxton, T. F.-Weymouth Parnell, Sir 11.-Dundee
Bytig, George-Middlesex Parrott, J zsper -To: nem
Bytig, Right Hon. G S.-Poole Paulson, James-London
Callaghan, D.-Cork City Peass Joseph-South Durham
Campbell, Sir John-Edinburgh peehell, Captain-Brighton
Campbell, \V. F.-Argyleshire Pendarves, E. W. W.-Cornwall
Tarter, J. 8.-Portsmouth Philips, Mark-Manchester
Cave, Robert Otway-Tipperary Philips, G. R.-Nidderminster
Cavendish, lion. C.-East Sussex Phillipps, C. M.-N. Leicestershire
Cavendish, Hon. G. 11.-Deibyshire ',woe!, 'W,_l„yose Regis
Cayley, E. S.-N. Yorkshire Ponsonby, Hon. Julni-Derbyshire
Chalmers, Patrick-Inverbervie Potter, it.-Wigan
Chapman, M. L.-Westmeath Poulter, J. C.-Shaftesbury
Chetwynd, Capt. W.-Stafford Power, John-Hon.:l'volt
Chichester, J. P. 8.-Barnstaple Power, James-Wexford Co.
Churchill, Lord C.-Woodstock Poyntz, W. S.-Midhurst
Clay, \V.-Tower Hamlets Price, Sir IL-Herefordshire
Clayton, Sir William-Marlow l'ryine, George-I'ambridge
Clements, Visc.-Leitrim Co. Prose, Pryse-Cardigan
Clive, Edward 8.-Heretiatt Ramsbottom, J.-Windsor
Codrington, Sir E.-Devolved Rice, Right Hon. T. S.-Cambridge
Collier, J.-Plymouth Rippon, C.-Gateshead
Collins, W.-Warwick Robarts, A. W.-Maidstone
Conytigham,Lord A.-Canterbury Robinson, (.s, ii_wor„,,,er
Cookes, 'l' H.-Worcestershire Roche, William-Limerick
Cowper, Hon. \V. F.-Hertford Roebuck, J. A.-Bath
Crawford, W. S.-Dundalk Rolfe, Sir IL M.-Penrhyn
Crawford, W.-London blooper, J. B.-Huntingdonshire
Crawley, S.-Bedford Rundle, John-Tavistock
Crompton, S.-Thirsk Russell, Lord John -Stroud
Curteis, E. 8.-Rye Russell, Lord-Tavistock
Curets, If. 8.-East Sussex Russell, Lord C.-Betlfordshire
Dalmeny, Lord-Stirling Rutin-ea, Ed.-Kildare
tkoison, \V. J.-West Surrey acholetield, J.-Birmingham
Denison, J. E.-South Nottingham
Stott, J. W.-North Hampshire
Dsnistottii, A.-Dun' artonshire Serope, Ponied-Stroud
Ddlwyn, I, W.-Glamorganshire Seale, Colonel-Dartmouth
Dived, Edward-Exeter Seymour, Lord-Totness
Dunkin, Sir It. S.-Berwick Sharpe, General-Dumfries
Inineombe, Thomas-Finsbury Shell, R. L.-l'ipperary.
Dundas, lion. J. C.-York Simeon, Sir IL-Isle of Wight
Duad is, Hon. T.—Richmond Smith, J. A.-Chichester
Dundas, J. Deans-Devizes Smith, Hon. R.-VI ycomhe
Dunlop, John-Ayrshire Saiith, It. Vernon-Northampton
Ebrington, V i:te.- North Devon Smith, Benjamin-Suttbury
Faiwards, John-Montgomery Speits, AIeX3II,ICT-Iticinnolid
Ellen, Bight Hon. E.-Coventry S•anleY, W. 0 -Anglesea
Ellice, Edward-Huddersfield Stewart, I'. H.- Lancashire
Elph instone, Howard -Hastings
,trangways, Hon. John -Caine
Et a rat, Ralph -Andover Strutt, Edward-Derby
Evans, G. -Dublin Stuart, Lord J.-Ayr
Ewart, ',Via.- Li verpool Stuart, Villiers-Waterford Cd.
Fell"we''ll"' N.-North Devon Talbot, C. It. M.-Cilamorgaiishirc
J Fenton, John-Itoehdale l'albot, J. 11.-New Boss
Fergus, John-Dysart Talfourd, Mr. Serjeant -Reading
Ferguson, Sir It. C.-Nottingham i'ancred, H. W.-Banbury
Ferguson, IL-Haddingtonsitire 'Thompson, P. 8.-East Yorkshire
Fergusson, Right Hon. It. C.-Kirk- Thomson, Right Hon. C. P.-Man.
eudbright Chester
Finn, \V. F.-Kilkenny Co. l'horneley, Thos.-Wolverhampton
Fitzgibbon, lion. 11-Limerick Co. Tooke, yv......Truro
Fitzroy, Lord C.-Bury St. Edin. Trelawnev, Sir \V.-East Cornwall
Fitzsimon C -Dublin Co. Troubridge, Sir I'. E.-Sandwich
Fleetwood, I'. H.-Presmo Tulk, C. A.-Poole
Folkes, Sir William-Norfolk Turner, \V.-Blackburn
Fort, J.-Clitheroe Ty nte, C. J. K.-West Somersetshire
French, F.-Rosscommon Verney, Sir 11 -Ibuckingh AM
GaS ken, D.-Wakefield Vigors, N.-Carlow Co.
(iillon, Win. D.-Linlithgow N'illiers, t . P.-Wolverhampton
Gisborne, T.-Norte Derbyshire Vivian, John Henry-Swansea
Gordon, :Robert -Cricklade Wakley, Thomas-Finsbury
Grattan, James-Wicklow Co. Walker, C. A.-Wexford
Grattan, henry-Meath Warburton, 11. -Bi idport
Grey, Sir George-Devonport Ward, H. 6.-St. Albans
Grote, George-Ila-Won \Vason, Rigby- 'owlets
Guest, J. .1.-Merl'yr.Tydvil Wemyss, Captain-Fifes hire
Gully, John-Pontefract Westenra, Hon. H. It.- Monaghan
Halt, Benjamin-Monmouth Westenra, Hon. J. C.-King's Co.
Handley, Henry-Lincolnshire Whalley, Sir S.-Marylebone
Harland, \V. C.-Durliam White, Samuel-Leitrim Co.
Harvey, D. W. --Southwark Wigney, J. N.-Brighton
Hastie, Archibald-Paisley Wilbraham, George-Cheshire -
Hawes. Benjamin-Lambeth Wilde, Mr. Serjeant -Newark
Hawkins, J. IL-Newport, 1. Wight Wilks, John-Boston
Hay, Sir A. L.-Elgin Williams, \Villiam-Coventry
fleatheoat, J.-Tiverton Williams, \V. A.-Monmouthshire
Hector, C. J.-feterstiell: Williams, Sir J.-Carmarthenshire
Hindley, Charles-Ashton • NN: innington, H. J.-Worcestershire
Hebliouse, Right Hon. Sir J. Cam Wood, Charles-Halitax
Nottingham. , Wood, Alderman-London
Hodges, T. L.-West Kent Worsley, Lord-Lincolnshire
Hodges, T.l' -Rochester \Voulfe, Mr. Serjeant-Cashel
Holland, Edward-Worcestershire Wrightson, W. B. - Not thallerton
Howard, IL-Wicklow Co. I Wyse, Thomas-Waterford
Howard, P. H.-Carlisle
llowick, Visc.-Northumberland
Hume, Joseph-Middlesex
Ilumphery, Joists-Southwark

TELLERS.
!Stanley, E. John—North Cheshire
'Steuart, Robert—Haddington

[MINORITY—
Agnew, S'.r A.—Wigtonshire
A!ford, Viscount —Bedfordshire
Alsager, Captain—Surrey
Arbuthnot, Gen.—Kincardineshire
Archdail, Gen. M.—Fermanagh
Ashley, Lord—Dorsetshire
Ashley, Hon. H.—Dorchester
Attwood, M.—Wh:tehaveh
Bagot, Hon. W.—D. bighslore
Bailey, Joseph—Worcester
Baillie, H. D.—Honiton
Balfour, Thomas—Orkney
Barclay, Charles—Surrey
Baring, K—Thetford
Baring, H. B.—Marlborough
Baring, W. B.—Winchester
Baring, Thomas—Yarmouth
Bateson, Sir IL—Londmderry
Beckett, Right Hon. Sir J.—Leeds
Bell, M.—South Northumberland
Bentinek, Lord G.—King's Lynn
Beresford, Sir John—Chatham
Bethel!, ll—East Yorkshire
Black.burne, I. J.--Warrington
Blackstone, W. S.—Wallingford
Buld,tro, Heni y G.—Ch:ppenhara
Belling, W.—Bolton
Bonham, R. F.—Harwich
i3orthwiek, Peter—Evesham

-NOES, 282.
Bowles, George Rushout—Evesham
'Bradshaw, James—Berwick -
Bramston, T. W.—South Essex.
Broadwood, Henry—Bridgwater
Brownrigg, S. J.—Boston
Bruce, Lord E.—Marlborough
Bruce, C. L C —lnverness, Ike.
Bruen, Colonel—Carlow County
'Mien, F.—Carlow
Buller, Sir J. Xarde—llevonshire
Burdett, Sir F.—Westminster
Burrell, Sir C.—Shoreham
Campbell, Sir H.—Berwickshire
Canning, Right Hon. Sir B.—King's

Lynn--
Cartwright, W. R.—North Nor,
thamptonshire
Castlereagh, Visc.—Down
Chandos, Marquis of—Bucks
Chaplin, Colonel—Stain ford
Chapman, Aaron—Whitby
Chichester, Arthur,—Honiton
Chisholm, A. W.—lnverness-shire
Clive, H. H. South Shropshire
Codrington, C. W.—Gloucestershil
Colc,Hon Arthur H.—Enniakillei
Cole, Lord—Fermanagh
Compton, H. Combo—Hampshire
LConolly, Edward M.—Donegal