The Sun.
London, England, 1836-08-06 00:00:00

AFFAIRS OF SPAIN.

Lord EXMOUTH begged to ask whether his Majesty's
Government had received any information of the evacua-
tion of Vittoria by Cordova and the Christino troops, and
the subsequent possession of it by the Carlists ?
Lord MELBOURNE believed his Majesty's Govern-
ment had received no information of the kind.

Captain CHETWYND and others from the Commons
brought up the Horton's Estate Bill.
GRAND JURIES (IRELAND.)

Lord DUNCANNON brought up the report of the
Committee on the Grand Juries (Ireland) Bill.
RAILWAYS.

Messengers from the Commons brought up the Railway
resolutions agreed to by that House.
GRANT TO THE SCOTCH CHURCH.
The Earl of ABERDEEN was desirous of asking the
Noble Viscount at the head of the Government a question
on this subject. About this time last year a Commission
was appointed to inquire into the claims of the Scotch.
Church for assistance, with a vibes to extend the accom-
modation of its members, A full inquiry had now taken
place in several districts, and he believed that as yet no
Report had been presented. Besides, the expense of the
inquiry for the present year amounted to the sum of
10,0001., and it would shortly amount to the sum required
for the grant. Under these circumstances he would beg
leave to ask the Noble Viscount if in the course of the year
any Report would be made from this Commission, and, if
not, to what party was the delay attributable?
Viscount MELBOURNE apprehended no Report bad
yet been made, but he believed that one was in a state of
forwardness. He still retained his original opinion, that
an inquiry was absolutely necessary, and that the expense
should be borne by the State, independently of the pro-
posed grant.
TITHE COMMUTATION (ENGLAND AND
WALES) BILL.
_ _

On the motion of the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, the
House proceeded to take into consideration the amendments
of the- House of Commons upon the amendments of their
Lordships.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said that as the Commons
appeared to have met ;their Lordships' amendments in a
spirit of fairness and conciliation, he was disposed to accept
their amendments at once, and without opposition or dis-
cussion.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE briefly stated the
nature of the amendments, which were then agreed to.
COUNTY ELECTIONS POLLS BILL.
Viscount MELBOURNE, in moving the second read-
ing of this Bill, stated that it was founded upon the Report
of a Committee of the House of Commons which sat in
1834, for the purpose of considering the question of ex-
penses at elections. The chief object was to limit the
duration of polls in counties to one day, and to increase
the number of polling places. It was very well known
that almost all the manoeuvring and unfair practices at
elections took place in the interval between the first and
the second day, and that on the first day the great
majority of votes was polled. There had appeared some
difference of opinion as to the applicability of the mea-
sure to county elections ; but he certainly thought that
the advantages of the Dill were sufficiently dear and ob-
vious—though he would not deny that this might be accom-
panied by sonic disadvantages. The Noble. Viscount then
read passages from the evidence of the sheriffs of Kent,
upon which be proceeded to say that it was, then, clearly
the opinion of persons connected with county elections that
the polls might be taken in one day, and that•an increase in
the number of polling places was highly advi-;able. There
might be some errors and omissions in the Bill which had
been pointed out to him by some of his Noble Friends, and
which could he amended in Committee.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE could see no reason for agree-
ing to the measure now proposed. It was a curious fact
that the title of this Bill welt" A Bill for shortening the,
time of taking the polls at county elections," whereas, upon
reference to the preamble, it would be found that there was
no adleg,ation as to the inconvenience of ,the present mode
of taking the polls, but that there was an allegation as to.
the necessity of increasing the number of polling places.
There were two objects in the Bill—one to increase the
number of polling places ; the other to shorten the time
for polling. Now, suppose the House. was to agree to
enter upon the consideration of the first of those objects,
but was to reject the last clause of the Bill, which pro-
vided for the other object, what must they do with the Bill
after that ? The title must be wholly altered ;it would no
longer be a Bill for shortening the time of taking palls ;
but it would be a Bill for increasing the number of polling
places. He confessed that he could not but look with great
jealousy at this Bill. It was a Bill that went to give an ad-
vantage to the voters in towns over those of the agricul-
tural districts, and it did appear to him to be an attempt,
by a side-wind, to get rid of the effect of the Marquis of
Chandos's clause in the Reform Bill. He knew that im-
pediments had been placed in the roads, in order to pre-
vent electors from polling within a certain period.—[Vis-
count Melbourne made some observation, which we did not
hear.] How was it possible that that could be remedied
by this Bill ? Would the increase in the number of polling
places remedy it ? He thought not. But there was still
another objection. The returning officer would be in the
central part of the county ; the polling places and the de-
puties would be at a distance. Suppose a riot should take
place, he would be glad to know whether it was advisable
• that the whole proceedings should be closed at five o'clock
upon that day in all cases, but those in which the riot pro-
ceeded to such an extent as to induce the officer to pre-
vent the poll from proceeding ? He maintained that the
cases of towns and counties were as perfectly distinct as
possible, and that the arguments which applied to one were
wholly inapplicable to the other. As to the other part of
the Bill, for increasing the number of polling places, he
thought that the power should not be given to the Privy
Council ; they ought to proceed exactly as they had done
with the Boundary Bill.—(Cheers.) He would move that
it be read a second time that day three months.
Lord HATHERTON said that it really appeared to
him that the Bill was, above all things, advantageous to
the voters in the rural districts. This measure was for
the benefit of the small voters. Again, it had been asked
what was to be done in case of riots ? Why, the mul-
tiplication of polling places was the very thing to prevent
that. He had been the individual appointed to prepare
the measure for fixing the polling places. That measure
had been framed with the greatest care, and was received
with an unanimity he had scarcely expected ; he had been
in communication upon the subject with all the persons
connected with county elections, and he could positively
assure the House that the prevalent opinion was, that the
places for polling were far too few, and that a great saving
of expense would result from their being extensively multi-
plied. As to the practicability of this measure, he could
tell their Lordships that in 1832 thirty-four counties polled
upon the first day 115,142, and upon the second day only
25,122 ; and he was confident that if only one day were al-
lowed that would be sufficient time to record every vote.
The Marquis of SALISBURY said that the limitation
of the polls to one day would, it appeared to him, be an
actual premium upon riot ; and he therefore fully concurred
in the motion of his Noble Friend.
The Duke of RICHMOND said whilst he was strongly
in favour of the principle of the Bill, he would at the samey
time confess that there were several matters of detail to
which he entertained objections ; he should, however, vote
for the second reading, hoping that those parts might be
altered in Committee.
The Earl of FALMOUTH said, as to increasing the
number of polling places, he doubted exceedingly whether
that would save any expense. In-the present times there
were some gentlemen who appeared to desire to verify the
saying, " that it never rains but it pours"—(Laughter)—for
they were not contented with the good they had already
received—and he did consider the increase in the polling
places to its present extent one of the best provisions of the
Reform Bill—but they now wanted that ultra-multiplication
of polling places which was proposed by the present Bill.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE explained.
Lord MELBOURNE said that undoubtedly he did
consider the first part so important that he should be ready
to sacrifice the latter part in order to obtain it. He must
confess, however, that he thought Noble Lords opposite
were in the habit, of late, of considering all measures as
directed against their personal interests—(" Hear," and
laughter)—as if the object of every measure was to over-
throw their power ; so that they looked at the measures
whilst under the operation of fear and terror—and it was
known that persons under the influence of such feelings
were not generally very clear-sighted—(Renewed laughter,
and " Hear, hear"}—and he thought that was the case
with regard to the present Bill.

Lord ELLENB-OROUGH said that they would have,
then, to draw largely upon the memory of tie Noble Ba-
ron (Lord Hatherton), as it would be expedient that the
polling places should be specifically named.

- Lord WHARNCLIPFE begged, upon that under-
standing, to withdraw the amendment.

After a few words from the Marquis of SALISBURY,
Lord LYNDHURST said if they struck out the lea
clause they must strike out also the title to the Bill.
Lord HOLLAND apprehended no difficulty upon that
point.

Lord MELBOURNE said the question as to the altc-

\
\
ration in the title of the Bill could only arise hem the
Bill thereby would itself be substantially altere -but. it
never could be said i4the HguNof %mons sent that
House a Bill with a aefectiii ti e—i 'never cbidd b aid,
in reason or common sense, that they lad no riOit to ter
that title.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE_The difficulty was that the
title was a perfect one.
After a few observations from Lords HOLLAND and
LYNDHLTRST,
Lord HATHERTON said that he could see no impro-
priety in altering the title.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed on Monday.
THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH BILL._

LoWlVlll:l6ißNl;;;edti;ethild reading of this
Bill.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY brought up three
clauses, which wete agreed to:
On the motion that the Bill be read a third time,
_ _

The Duke of CUMBERLAND hoped the Most Rev.
Prelate would excuse him that he could not concur in the
measure, and must enter his protest against it.
The Bishop of HEREFORD wished, before the Bill
passed, to express his concurrence in the opinion expressed
by the Illustrious Duke. It had been remarked that this
measure had been unanimously concurred in by the clergy.
For his own part he could not say that his experience in-
duced the same conclusion. He would not put his expe-
rience in opposition to that of the Most Rev. Prelate ; but
all with whom he had communicated, either personally or
by letter, had expressed but one opinion, of dismay and
distrust, with regard to this measure. They felt that
the arrangement of Church property was about to be
disturbed, and how it was to be settled again they did not
know. .

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY was surprised at
the opposition of the Right Rev. Prelate, as he did not
suppose him in the first instance opposed to this mea-
sure—a measure the object of which was the better dis-
tribution of Episcopal revenues, and the prevention of
commendams. He had thought that the re-distribution
of Church property and the levying a tax on the larger
bishoprics for the relief of the lesser had not been ob-
jected to. It had not been objected to when the Com-
mission was proposed under the Government of the Noble
Duke opposite (Wellington), nor under the Administration
of Sir Robert Peel. On the contrary, the principle then ap-
peared to be approved of. He should like to know
what it was which the Right Rev. Prelate objected to.
Did he disapprove of a more equal distribution of Epis-
copal territory ? Would he have the diocese of York still
continue to contain a territory equal to any three others ?
Would he have the diocese of Lincoln, as at present, extend
from the Humber to the Thames ? The emoluments of
some of these dioceses had greatly increased, as, for in-
stance, was the case with Canterbury within the last sixty
years. 'then there was London, the emoluments of which
see had been greatly augmented by the increased value .of
building ground, and was likely to be still more so from the
income of the ground which yet remained to be covered. It
was the same with Ely and Durham, though not in a pro-
portionate degree.
The Duke of WELLINGTON felt himself called upon
to express his approbation of the Bill. It was one the ob-
ject of which was to correct great anomalies, which all must
allow existed in the Church government of this country,
particularly as regarded commendams.
The Bill was thon read a third I:ra,-, and passed.
SMALL DEBTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On the Order of the Day being proposed for going into
Committee on this Bill,

The Marquis of JUTE would move that the Bill be
committed this day three months.
The LORD CHANCELLOR had already postponed
this Bill, which was brought in on the 14th of July, to af-
ford time for its consideration. It was a measure anxiously
looked for by a large portion of the people of Scotland, and
its object was to raise from Si. Scotch to 101. of the same
currency the 'cases over which the Sheriff had jurisdiction,
and to enable that functionary more effectually to promote
justice with regard to the payment of small debts, by bold-
ing Courts for that purpose in different parts of the county.
It was true the Sheriff was at present empowered to do
so, but then he had no remuneration afforded for the ex-
penses which this would throw upon him. As regarded'
the justices in petty sessions they had no right to com-
plain, as they were permitted to retain the jurisdiction
which they at present possessed. If it was deemed de-
sirable to extend that jurisdiction, let a Bill be brought in
for that purpose, but let not a great measure be impeded
because it was not coupled with another.
Lord HADDINGTON would support the Bill if it
gave the magistrates a jurisdiction concurrent with that of
the Sheriffs.

The amendment was carried without a division, and the
Bill was consequently lost.
•
• The House then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. AUGUST 5.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at a few minutes to four
o'clock.

Mr. OSWALD presented a petition from the hand-
loom weavers of a place in Scotland, complaining of distress.
On the motion of Captain CHETWYND, the Horton's
Estate Bill was read a third time and passed.