The Sun.
London, England, 1831-07-22 00:00:00

As to the duties to be performed by the barrister, be
thought a standing of five years was quite sufficient quali-
fication for the competent discharge of them, as all that he
.would be called on to do was to ratify the composition,
1 and to see that it had been made in accordance with the Act.

. -
Lord ELDON said a few words in explanation, which
could not be heard at the Bar.
The LORD CHANCELLOR was sure that nothing
could be more advantageous to the Bill, or more calculated
to secure its completeness, than that the assistance of the
Noble and Learned Lord should be given to discover its
faults, and to supply its deficiencies. He was sure that if
it passed with his assent, it would be free from errors, as
he, surely, would allow no fault to escape.—(Hear, hear,
and a laugh.) But he (the Lord Chancellor) did not
think that the Bill was liable to the objections alleged
against it by his Noble and Learned Friend. In the first
place, the Learned Lord had said that the Bill contained
no provision for cases in which there bad been a composi-
tion real. Now,
.he (the Lord Chancellor) thought it
would be safest on that subject to follow the precedent of
the Irish Composition Act, which was so far attended
with no difficulty, which was, to make no mention what-
ever of composition real.—(Hear.) He believed it was
not mentioned in the Irish Aet, and if he were mistaken
his Noble Friend behind him would correct him.—(Hear,
from Lord Plunkett.) The provisions of the Bill for the
assessment were so distributive, that they might compre-
hend all cases that could arise.—(Hear, hear.) It was
provided, that when a dispute might arise respecting the
assessment of one particular part, then there should be, for
that part, a separate assessment. In another clause the
case of composition real was comprehended ; for it con-
tained a provision that where any land had been before
exempt from tithe, the Commissioners should have no
power to make an assessment, as it was not the inten-
tion of the Act to give the tithe-owner a better title than
he possessed before. The Commissioners should have no
power to decide upon disputed claims, all which were, on
the contrary, to be referred, after the Act, to the Courts
of Law, as was the course followed at present. As to the
objection to the qualification of the barrister, looking to
the very moderate jurisdiction, he thought that the expe-
rience of cave years' standing was quite sufficient. He was
not prepared to say, however, that there were not defects
in the details of the Bill ; on the contrary, he believed that
the Most Reverend Prelate who introduced the Bill had
himself some alterations to propose.—(Hear.)
Lord WYNFORD thought that the Bill was particu-
larly deficient in its principal enactment, inasmuch as it
provided no means of ascertaining who constituted the
two-thirds of the tithe-payers ; and yet it was indispen-
sible to have that ascertained before the first step could he
taken towards that composition which was the great object
of the Bill. Reference to the poor rates would not, as
had been said, be sufficient for that purpose. He thought
it would be better to take the majority, say two-thirds, of
the parishioners assembled in vestry, as was done under the
Irish Tithe Composition Bill.—(Hear, hear.) He
thought that the public were deeply indebted to the Most
Reverend Relate for having introduced that Bill ; and he
(Lord Wynford) knew how much attention the Most
Reverend Prelate had bestowed upon the principle of the
measure, although his mind was so much occupied with
more important matters that he must necessarily leave the
preparing of the clauses to others. He (Lord Wynford)
submitted to the Committee that the Bill should be referred
to a private Committee, if such a proceeding were con-
sistent with the practice of the House.—(No, no.) He
perceived, from the nod of a Noble Friend opposite, that
his proposition could not be acted upon. He should, there-
fore, take the liberty of moving that the Noble Lord on
the Woolsack would leave the chair, and report progress
to the House : so that before the next siting of the Com-
mittee, his Noble and Learned Friend beside him, and
other Noble Lords, might have time to consider the Bill.
Ile made that motion because he was friendly to the prin-
ciples of the Bill, and he was satisfied that by postponing
the Committee, such alterations might be proposed as
would render it effective.

Lord CARNARVON proposed that the Bill should be
printed and re-committed on a future day.
Lord ELDON said, that if the further consideration of
the Bill were postponed, he would give it his best attention.
A conversation then took place, across the table, between
the Archbishop of CANTERBURY and Lords ELDON and
ABINGDON, which was inaudible at the Bar.
After a few words from the Bishop of LONDON, the
re-commitment of the Bill was fixed for Monday se'nnight.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from a
town in Lancashire, in favour of the Reform Bill.—The
House then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, JuLY 21.

The House was occupied till Half-past Four with ballot-
ing for, and swearing in Committees to try the Glasgow
and Roxburgh election petitions.
Lord MORPETH again called the attention of the House
to the statement he had made on the former night respect-
ing the proceedings of the Leeds and Manchester Railway
Bill Committee. The Noble Lord went over again his ac-
cusation against them, for having decided without hearing
evidence, and moved that the matter be referred to a Com-
mittee of Appeal.
Mr. STRICKLAND supported the motion.
After a few words from Mr. DENISON and Sir R. FER •
Gnaw; the motion of Lord Morpeth was agreed to without
a division. The Committee to be appointed on Monday
next.