The Sun.
London, England, 1836-06-28 00:00:00

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS BILL.

On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, the House
resolved itself into Committee on this Bill.

In answer to a question from Sir JAMES GRAHAM
respecting the right of persons, being borough electors, to
vote for counties,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he could not
tell what the original intention of the framers of the
Bill might be, but it appeared to him that a good deal
might be said on both sides.
Sir J. GRAHAM moved a. declaratory clause to get
rid of mushroom voters.

Mr. NVARBURTON objected to the proposition.

After a few words from Sir J. GRAHAI4 and Mr. Goa-
-ING the gallery was cleared for a division, when there ap-
peared—

For Sir J. Graham's amendment
Against it 133

Majority agliwt Sir J. Graham's amendment 33
The Committee then proceeded to the further conside-
ration of the Bill.

Sir R. PEEL took occasion to observe that more ad-
vances had been made in the course of the present Session
for conferring legislative authority on subordinate persons,
than he ever recollected to have taken place in the course
of any preceding session.—(Hear, hear.) He should now
give notice that, on the bringing up of the Report, he
would feel it his duty to call the attention of the House to
that part of the Bill which placed the appointment of the
revising barristers directly in the Crown. The practice was
highly objectionable. If, however, the appointment was to
be vested in the Crown, he would think it much better
that the appointing of the revising barristers should reef
with the Chancellor, rather than with the Secretary for the
Home Department.
The clause, after some further discussion, was withdrawn.

Sir J. GRAHAM thought the proposition of the Hon.
Member to constitute a new Court of Review for the pur-
poses of this Bill an extravagant one, and suggested that as
the Court of Review in bankruptcy had little or nothing to
do, and as it was in every respect a Court fully competent
for such a purpose, that it should exercise the functions of
the Court of Review, proposed by the Hon. Member.
Mr. WARBURTON would not object to the proposi-
tion if they could have one Judge instead of three, as in the
Court of Review in Bankruptcy.
Mr. CRAWFORD objected that the Judges of the
Court of Review in Bankruptcy were paid out of the
bankrupts' funds, which would be an improper mode of
payment for the Judges of a Court of registration revision.
Sir R. PEEL preferred one Judge, if he were a Judge
of a high quality in a legal point of view ; but be thought
it would be almost charity to the Court of Review in Bank-
ruptcy to give them something to do.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL hoped that soon the
Court of Review would have something to do more germane
to the object of their creation. He did not think the de-
cision of one Judge carried so much weight as that of
three.

Sir R. PEEL—Yes, but suppoto your three Judges
should not be unanimous ?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—It was a saying of
Lord Eldon's that the judgment of the Court was more to
be relied on when divided than when unanimous, for it
showed at least that they had fully considered both sides of
the question.

The conversation here dropped, and the remaining
clauses were agreed to.
The House then resumed, and the report was ordered
to be received to-morrow (this day.)
TITHE COMMUTATION BILL.

Lord J. RUSSEI.4I... moved the third reading of this
Bill, and stated his intention to propose two new
one for the purpose of regulating the mode in which tithe
of copsewood was to be recovered, and the other, to give
power to the occupiers of land to deduct the amount of the
rent charged from the owners of land.
The clauses having been proposed,
Sir ROBERT PEEL said—lt will be remembered that
early in the session I introduced a Bill identical in principle
with that which I introduced last year, when I had the
honour to act as a Minister of the Crown. My object in
proposing that Bill was to promote as much as possible vo-
luntary commutations, but it at the same time did not ex-
clude compulsory ones. That Bill I preferred to the Bill
of the Noble Lord ; that Bill I still prefer. The reason
why I objected to the Bill of the Noble Lord was, that it
made the compulsory commutations come on too quickly,
without allowing fair time for trial to the voluntary princi-
ple. The question for me to decide is—whether I ought to
continue my opposition to the measure of the Noble Lord,
and encourage others also to oppose it. On the whole I am
hound to say that I do not find such material difference
between this measure and mine, or such a presumption of
injustice in the probable operation of the Bill as should
induce me to withhold my assent and continue in oppo-
sition to it.—(Cheers.) It proceeds on the principle of
my Bill, so far as concerns voluntary commutation. I pro-
posed that two Commissioner *should be 4: pointed by the
Crown, and one to watch over the interests of the Church,
to be nominated by the Archbishops. The Bill of the
Noble Lord does not contain this. With regard to volun-
tary commutation, the Bill of the Noble Lord only allows
the period up to October, 1837, for entering into them.
I was anxious fora further extension of the time in cases
where it was specified that there was good reason to hope
that voluntary composition was likely to be entered into,
and that in such cases there should be no obligation on the
Commissioners to enforce the commutation. The Noble
Lord assumes in his Bill that the value of tithes
taken in composition for the last seven years, or in kind
where there was no composition, should be the rule by
which to regulate all future commutation. The rule was
open to very strong objections. Ido not, however, find
that any party anxious for the interests of the Church
have remonstrated against the measure. On the contrary,
there seems to be a disposition in favour of this settlement.

SUGAR DUTIES_

HOUSE OF LORDS, JuNz 27.

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1836.

The Bill of the Noble Lord has been received by the
House with as much general good-will as any other pro-
position which I remember during the session. Retaining,
as I do, a preference for my own Bill, and wishing to sug-
gest to the Noble Lord a further extension of the time for
entering into compositions as the basis of commutation,
still, as I see that there is a strong disposition in favour of
this measure, I shall not interrupt its progress, more espe-
cially as I look upon it as a practical experiment with re-
spect to the final adjustment of the tithe question.
Mr. HUME was satisfied that the Bill would be highly
advantageous to the Church, and no part of it more so than
that which rendered the commutation compulsory. This
was what was wanted in the Irish Tithe Bill. If, how-
ever, the 37th and 38th clauses were allowed to remain
the agitation of the tithe question would soon be renewed.

Ali. WARBURTON did not despair, and at no distant
time, to see tithes totally abolished, the Church provided
for out of the. Consolidated Fund, and the Corn Laws abo-
lished. This was the only way in which the question could
be finally and satisfactorily adjusted.
Sir R. INGLIS said that, notwithstanding the resist-
ance to tithes in Ireland, their payment was now enforced
by the power of the law, and he should be sorry to think
that law would not have the same power in England. He
objected to the basis of the commutation, as not being a
fair one.

Mr. BE NETT said no one ciould decide by the Bill what
was garden and what agricultural produce. If this obscure
clause were suffered to remain it would be well to have the
Bill rejected in hopes of a better one. It was, however,
creditable to the Church that there had been no petition
aigainst the Bill.
After a few words from Mr. Parrott, Lord Ebrington,
Mr. H. Curteis, Mr. Baines, and Captain Pechell,
Lord J. RUSSELL expressed his pleasure that the Bill
was so near its last stage in that House. He certainly was
of opinion, in opposition to the sentiments expressed by the
Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), that the provisions of the Bill
should be compulsory. The clergy were entitled to much
credit for their forbearance and their disposition not to
interpose any obstruction for their own advantage.—(Loud
cheers.) The Bill did not give any unfair advantage to
the clergy or to the landed interest, but dealt equally
with all.
The Bill was then read a third time.

It was proposed to add a clause, giving the power of dis-
traint in the levy of tithes. After a desultory conversation
the House divided, when there appeared—
Ayes
Noes 39
Majority OS
Mr. HUME moved that clauses 37 and 38 be expunged.
Mr. BENETT seconded the motion.
Mr. HODGES opposed the motion.
Mr. WARBURTON supported the motion.

Sir R. PEEL said, if the Hon. Gentlemen's motion
were agreed to, land hereafter cultivated for hops and
market produce might pay no tithe ; thus holding out a
premium for the cultivation of land to those possessors
wholly unfit. As, then, the principle of the Bill was a
broad one, and the objection of the Hon. Member ap-
plied to so small a quantity of land only, he (Sir R. Peel)
did not see why the progress of the measure should be
impeded. If hereafter greater protection could be afforded,
that might be done.
Mr. LENNARD opposed the clauses.
Sir R. PRICE supported the motion.
Colonel P. THOMPSON supported the motion.
Mr. CURTEIS said that the retention of these clauses
would compel many Members, from a regard for consis-
tency and a wish to maintain the principle of the Bill, to
vote against the measure.
After a few words from Mr. BLAMIRE and Mr. T.
DU N CO M BE,
Lord J. RUSSELL denied that the clauses were new,
as they had been introduced and printed so long back as
the 18th of May. It was erroneous to suppose that the
tithepayer was not to be benefitted equally with the tithe
receiver ; but it was clear that the opponents of the clause
differed among themselves as to what the operation of the
Bill would be. He therefore hoped the Committee would
reject the amendment.
After a few words from Mr. WARBURTON and Mr.
GORING the House divided. The numbers were—

Ayes
Noes
Majority for the clause
The remaining clauses having been agreed to, the Bill
was rod a third time.
On the que3tion that the Bill do pass,
Mr. HUME proposed that the word " partial" should
be introduced into the preamble, so that it would read, not
as at present, " for the commutation,' but " for the partial
commutation of tithes."

The amendment was negatived without a division, and
the Bill passed.

The House then resolved itself into committee on the
Sugar Duties Bill.
The several clauses, after some conversation, were
to, and, the House having resumed, the report was ordered
to be received to-morrow. _ _

The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of,
and the House adjourned at One o'Cloek.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his scat at the usual hour,

Several Bills were then advanced a stage.
A Message from the Commons brought up the London
d Cambridge Railway Bill ; the Eastern Counties Rail-
way Bill ; the Parrott Navigation Bill ; the Hayle Rail-
way Bill ; and the Herne Bay Pier with the Lords
amendments agreed to.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND).
Lord HATHERTON presented a petition from the
town council of Walsall against the Lords' Amendments to
the Irish Municipal Bill ; and a petition from the Stafford-
shire Potteries against the Manchester and Cheshire Rail-
way.

Lord DARTMOUTH presented a petition from 2,400
inhabitants of Birmingham in favour of the Lords' Amend-
ments to the Irish Municipal Bill.
Lord HATHERTON begged to ask if that petition
had been agreed to at a public meeting?
Lord DARTMOUTH—I believe it was not.

The Marquis of BRISTOL presented a petition from
Bury St. Edmunds in favour of the Lords' Amendments to
the Irish Municipal Bill.
Lord RADNOR had received a letter from a person
named Francis Baring, informing him that the petition just
presented by the Noble Marquis had emanated from the
National Conservative Association, and that the signature
had been obtained to it by private solicitation.
The Marquis of BRISTOL knew nothing how the
petition had been got up.
Lord DUNCANNON presented a petiticti from
Bridgenorth, against the Lords' amendments.
Lord LYNDHURST presented a petition from Belfast
signed by 12,000 inhabitants, in favour of the Lords'
amendments.

Msirquisses LONDONDERRY and DOWNSHIRE
severally supported the prayer of the petition.
Lord LYNDHURST presented petitions to the same
effect from Frome, Oldham, Wigan, Dudley, and other
places.

The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a petition
from the merchants, bankers and others of the city of Lon-
don, in favour of the Lords' amendments, and deprecating
the systematic attacks which were made on the indepen-
dence of that House. The Noble Duke did not wonder at the
alarm manifested by the petitioners, but from what he knew
of their Lordships, he was convinced that they would not
allow themselves to give way upon any fear—any appre-
hension of danger with which they were threatened—nor
would they be forced to take any cd'urse which was not dic-
tated by wisdom and a due sense of justice.
Lord LYNDHURST, on three occasions, presented
petitions to the same effect from Lincoln, Lambeth, Dart-
ford, Leicester, Devizes, Warrington, and Haverford-
west. On the last petition being presented, ,
The Marquis of LANSDO WNE said he had been
asked to state to the House that a public meeting
had been held in that town, and the petition on the
other side was agreed to by a large majority—after which
seven or eight persons went round with the present petition,
and obtained signatures.
The Earl of WINCHILSEA presented a petition from
Greenwich, Deptford, and Blackheath, in favour of the
Lords' amendments.

Viscount MELBOURNE presented a petition from
Barnstaple in favour of the Commons' amendments.
Lord ROLLE was acquainted with the feeling of that
town, and he was sure that all the respectability of it
were in favour of their Lordships' House ,which he would
maintain for the few years which he had yet to live.
Lord FITZGERALD presented petitions from several
parishes in Dublin in favour of the Lords' amendments.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented a petition signed
by 5,000 operatives and others of Leeds to the same
effect. At the request of the Noble Lord the petition was
read at the table.

The Earl of RADNOR begged to explain that the pe-
tition to which lie had formerly alluded was got up at the
instigation of a Conservative Society, in opposition to a
public meeting, at which a petition to a contrary effect was
unanimously agreed to. He wished to know what steps
were taken to inform the operatives of Leeds that this Bill
would abandon the Protestants of Ireland to an anti-Pro-
testant and anti-Christian faction? _

Lord WHARNCLIFFE apprehended that the people
of Leeds were not so ignorant but that they knew this
Bill would give an immense power to the Catholic party.
The Earl of CARNARVON presented a petition in
favour of the amendments made by their Lordships' House
in the Irish Municipal Bill, from the parish of Kilmaine.
The Earl of HADDINGTON had a petition to pre•