The Sun.
London, England, 1838-05-16 00:00:00

PARIS RACES--CHAMP DE MARS.

Sunday was the last day of the Paris Spring Meeting, and a very
poor one it was.

The first was a match between Lord H. Seymour's ch. e.
din, 3 yrs old, 941b5., against the Marquis Lavalette's eh. m.
Heiress, 5 yrs, 1321b5., twice round for 2,500 f. aside, p.p., was
won by the former by a neck in five minutes nine seconds.
Aladdin afterwards gave the mares 101bs. off, and beat her by a
length and a half in four minutes fifty-six seconds, same distance.
Lord H. Seymour's b. e. Royal George walked over for the
2,500 f. prize. Aladdin and Jeroboam were drawn.
Lord H. Seymour's Lesteez walked over for the Glatigny
Stakes of I,ooof. Fortunatus, Vendredi, and Nautilus did not
start.

The Porte Maillot Stakes of 1,000 f., h. ft., was won by his
Royal Highness the Duke of Orleans's b. f. Margarita, beating
M. A. Lupin's eh. f. Sarah, easy, in two minutes twenty-nine
seconds.

Lord H. Seymour's Lydia walked over for the Orleans prize of
3,000 f. Heiress paid forfeit.

ELECTION COMMITTEES.
(YESTERDAY.)

(From our Second Edition of last night.)
BEDFORD.

One vote of the sitting Member's was struck off; and at the close of
the day's proceedings the parties were equal, Counsel for petitioners
being engaged in objecting to another vote of the sitting Members.

FROM LAST NIGHT'S GAZETTE.

ST. JAMES'S PALACE, MAY, 1838.
The Queen has been pleased to appoint James Runes Curlin,
Esq. to be Clerk of the Check of her Majesty's Honourable Corps
of Gentlemex at Arms, vice Albert Beetham, retired.

( The fallowing article is substituted for that which appeared in
last Friday's " Gazette.")
DOWNING STREET, MAY 10, NM.
The Queen has been pleased to appoint Major John Longley to
Lieutenant Governor of the Island of Dominica.

CROWN-OFFICE, MAY
I‘IEMBEIT. RETERNF,D TO SERVE IN THIS PRESENT PAR.LIAXIENT.
Boßotrair OF WOODSTOCK.—Thc Right Hon. George Spencer
Churchill, commonly called Marquis of Blandford, in the room of
Henry Peyton, Esq., who has accepted the Chiltern Hundreds.

KENSINGTON PALACE, ALty 15.
His Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex has been pleased to ap-
Ppoint the Rev. Richard BUrgh Byam, M.A., Vicar of Kew and
Petersham, late Fellow of King's College, Cambridge, one of his
Royal Highness's Domestic Chaplains.

BANKRUPTCY SUPERSEDED.
ALEXANDER HAWKINS, ironmonger, Cinsvrell-street, St.
Luke's.

BANKRUPTS.

RICHARD DAVIS, linen-factor, Watling-street, to surren-
der May 25 and June 26, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
Graham, Basinghall-street, official assignee; Robinson, Queen-
street •place, Upper Thames-street.
WILLIAM REDG RAVE, brans-founder, Great Queen-street,
Lincoln's Inn-fields, May 25 and June 26, at eleven, at the Court
of Bankruptcy. Graham, Basinghall-street, official assignee ; Cat-
lin, Ely-place, Holborn.
FREDERICK THRESHER COOKE, tobacconist, Queen's-
row, Piralico, May 25, at two, and June 26, at eleven, at the Court
of Bankruptcy. Carman, Finsbury-square, official assignee ; Bed-
ford, Calthorpe-street.
JOHN MURRELL, coach-maker, Brighton, June 2 and 26, at
two, at the Town-hall, Brighton. Galsworthy and Nichols, Took's-
court, Lincoln's Inn ; Kennett, Middle-street, Brighton.
JAMES WINZAR, builder, Fordington, May 23 and June 26,
at eleven, at the Royal Oak Ina, Dorchester. Mansfield and An-
drews, Dorchester ; Rhodes, Beevor, and Lane, Chancery-lane.
RICHARD MARSHALL, carpenter, Bristol, May 22, at
eleven, and June 26, at twelve, at the Commercial-rooms, Bristol.
Hicks and Braikenridge, Bartlett's-buildings, Holborn, London ;
Wellington, Bristol.
RICHARD MASKELL, currier, Weobley, Herefordshire,
May 26 and June 26, at eleven, at the Royal Oak and Unicorn
Inn, Leominster. Robinson, Queen-street-place, Upper Thames-
street, London ; Pritchard, Hereford.
GREGORY SECCOMBE and SAMUEL SECCOMBE,
tailors, Tavistock, Devonshire, May 26 and June 26, at eleven,
Plymouth. Jones, Sise-lane, London ; Bridg-
at the Royal Hotel,
man, Tavistock.
THOMAS SMITH, ironmonger, Stockport, May 30, and June
26, ar two, at the Commissioners-rooms, Manchester. Bawer and
Back, Chancery-lane, London; Harrop, Stockport.
EDWARD JAMES, and HENRY JAMES, butchers, Kid-
derminster, Worcestershire, May 25, and June 26, at eleven, at
the Black Horse Inn, Kidderminster. Westmacott, South-
square, Gray's-inn, London; Backhouse, Solicitor, Bridgenorth.
HANNAH DICKINSON, nail manufacturer, Sheffield, York.
May 26, and June 26, at twelve, at the Town-hall, Sheffield.
Tatershall, Great James-street, Bedford-row ; Hoole, Solicitor,
Sheffield.
JOHN JONES, rag-merchant, Whitechapel-road, May 23, at
one, and June 26, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. -Groem,
official assignee, Abchurch-lane ; Hutchison, Crown- ceurt, Throg-
unLelo2y6d:
atC heeleapvesnid,ea.
morten-street.
FRANCIS MORGAN, linen-draper, Long-acre, May 24, at
one, and June 26, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Abbott,
wao",iganndeeJ;
WILLIAM FRANCIS FITZGERALD POWELLBRYANT
and HENRY JAMES PEAKE, ironmasters, Tythegston, Gla-
t the Court
King's Arms-Ayraaryd,2:caitatl
Gibson, Basinghall-street, official assignee ;
Taylor, North-buildings, Finsbury-circus.
DIVIDENDS.
onrrgßaannskhriruPtcy.

At the Court of Bankruptcy, Basinghall-street.
J. Barrow and R. NV. Vizer, merchants, Bristol, June 11, at
half-past-twelve—J. B. and J. Inglis, merchants, Mark-lane, June
7, at one.
In the Country.

T. Jones, ironfounder, Carnarvon, June 8, at ten, at the Goat
Hotel, Castle-square, Carnarvon—Wm. Ellam, tobacco manufac-
turer, Ashborne, Derbyshire, June 11, at eleven, at the Red Lion
Inn, 13clper—R. Betts, wool merchant, Alford, Lincolnshire, June
7, at twelve, at the Windmill Inn, Alford—S. Weaver and 13.
Hickman, mercers, Ludlow, Shropshire, June 12, at twelve, at the
Angel Inn, Broad-street, Ludlow—M. Kerr, draper, Haslingden,
Lancashire, June 5, at three, at the Ramsden'a Arms Inn, Hud-
dersfield; Yorkshire.
CERTIFICATES, JUNE 5.

j J. Schenck, lace manufacturer, Nottingham—F. S. Frost,
surgeon, Cowick-street, St. Thomas the Apostle, Devonshire—J.
Slingsby, cattle dealer, Moston, near Manchester—B. T. Balguy,
money scrivener, Derby—G. Bryant, malster, Winterbourne,
Gloucestershire—D. Hogarth, sen., coach proprietor, Great Yar-
mouth, Norfolk—W. Cottrell, plater, Birmingham—H. Mopsey,
ironmonger, Oxford-street—R. Fenner and S. Hobson, corn fac-
tors, London-street, Fenchurch-street—T. W. Brighton, draper,
Cheltenham, Gloucestershire—S. Gower, wine merchant, Dept-
ford, Kent.

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
C. Law and Co., wine merchants, Shades, London-bridge—G.
Stephens and J. Blackwell, Regent-street--W. Brownley and W.
White, ironmongers, Regent-street—E. and J. Hunter, flag mer-
chants, Huyton Delph, Lancashire—T. Harvey and T. Palgrave,
attorneys-at-law, Liverpool—J. Murray and Co., millwrights, Li-
verpool—.l. Wright and Co., merchants, Nassau, Island of New
Providence—J. Archer and M. Hutchinson, sailmakers, Liverpool
—J. Finch and Co., fell mongers, Deptford, Kent—J. Bell and
'agents,
C. Head, attorneys, Hesham Northumberland—T. 11Iarshall and
ers Hi g'
S. Clark, cheesemongh-street, Whitechapel—J. S. Dob-
son and G. Goddard, sur'geons Harlow, Essex—R. Wood and S.
Atkinson, ale merchant Bradford,, Yorkshire—W.A. Dawson
and W. Clark, commission
G. Sargent, High-street, Mar debone—W. M'Cann and J. Harri-
son, shipping
agents, Liverpool—W. Kendrick and G. Moyse,
am--. an
lamp makers, Birminghßd AV. Hutchinson, linendrapers,
Reading, ne,. Liverpool—W. Gunston and
3
kshire—T Moore and J. Barrel!, grocers, Colchester,
shire.
Essex __.J. Wilkes and Sons, pump makers, Leominster, Hereford-

naval and military,
many of the topics discussed,
T 1:
- UNITED SERVICE JOURNAL FOR MAY.
—A more than usually varied and interesting number of this excellent
periodical. It contains a fund of entertainment and instruction for those
readers
Unitev
ic BNdz SA are not without stirring interest to other
classes. The articles. On Naval Biography, On Promotion by Purchase,
which hasvies
The Minter for whom it is especially intended, while
Y Operations in Canada Narrative of the Expedition to
Coorg, R.,
-C, cannot fail to attract the attention of the Members of the
Picton and Sir Sidney Smith, with the lively sketches of the "Drumstick
Club," will amuse the general reader as much as the naval or military
works Services and the Anecdotes and Original Letters of Sir Thomas
warrior who may peruse them.
RECOLLECTIONS OF CAULINCOURT, DUKE OF
and his deeds. Its pleasant conversational style, and the inexhaus-
narinsoetnh
out
tof o
ft
theh t host,,,yi
lodfnenndtertainin wondrous andtate
~ instructiveof Napo-
leontibl e attraction of everything connected with the Emperor, are the chief
merits of the book. In addition, however, to his Recollections of Na-
poleon, Caulincourt relates Innumerable traits and scenes of his own
activewo and varied life, connected with almost every notable personage
h
figured in the annals of the twenty years preceding the downfall of
derful man
NaWcon—at least every one connected with the fortunes of that won-
; and all is related with that intelligence, vivacity.,;ind enthu-
siasm which form such attractive feau.res in the French char,.ctr. A,
i together the book is a most lively, piquant, and amusing ope,,,tiaval
.
1 and Military Gazette. • ' ' • .

'stEC( )NI) 1)1 r 11(jA

S UPS' OFFICE, Seven o'clock

ELECTION COMMITTEES.
(THIS DAY.)

BEDFORD.
When the Committee rose, at four o'clock, the sitting Me:nber wee in
a minority of one.

EMPER AAA PARLIAMENT,

(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'Clock.
On the motion of Mr. IL STEUART, it was ordered that the House
its rising adjourn until Friday.
Mr. FAZAKERLY brought up a report from the Poor-law Committee.

On the motion of Mr. CRAWFORD the Middlesex County Court
Bill was read a second time and ordered to be committed.
On the motion of Mr. G. BERKELY the Dean Forest Roaes Bill was
read a third time and passed.

Mr. PENDARVIS brought up the report on the Newquay (Corr.
wall) Harbour Bill.
Mr. HAWES presented a petition praying for leave to bring in a Bill
for forming a Company for :the Galvanization of Metals. Referred to
the Committee•on Private Petitions.
Mr. HODGES presented several petitions from parishes to Southamp-
ton, in favour of the New Poor Law Bill, and praying that no
material alteration be made in it; also one from Rochester, praying that
no clause be inserted in the Copyright Bill which might tend to fetter
the diffusion of useful knowledge.
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD presented a petition from Birmingham, praying
for the abolition of Slavery.
Mr. WALLACE presented a petition to the same effect. Also peti-
tions from places in Ayr and Perth, praying for a reduction of the rates
of postage. The Hon. Hon. Member then presented petitions from the
pressmen of Leicester square, Old Bailey, and Frith•street, Soho, against
the Copyright Bill. The Hon. Member stated, that as the rules of the
House curtailed the observations of Members on the presentation of pe-
titions, the petitioners had curtailed the size of the paper on which the
petition was written, in order to skew the absurdity of the manner in
which the petition of the people were treated in that House.—(A laugh.)

Mr. ROUND presented a petition from the Guardians and other parish
officcrs of the parish of Yelverton, complaining of the operatic n of the
Poor Law Act.

Mr. BAYNA RD presented a petition from the inhabitants of St. Paul,
Deptford, complaining that neither the victualling-offices or the dock-
yard at Deptford paid poor-rates or land-tax.
Sir C. E. GREY presented petitions from Tynemouth, praying that
the system of negro apprenticeship might terminate on the Ist of August
next. Also a petition against the establishment of the British Pledge
Company.

Sir G. STRICKLAND presented petitions from places in Yorkshire,
against the negro apprenticeship system.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from the parish of Blackrock, Kil-
kenny, praying for the entire abolition of tithes. If any more scenes
like—(Cries of " Order, order.")

. ,
Mr. LITTON considered that the rule of the House, that no Hon.
Member had a right to make comments upon a petition which were
likely to a debate. He would like to hear the opinion of the Speaker on
the subject.

The SPEAKER said there was no rule on the subject, but the House
had generally acknowledged that it was for the convenience of all that
the substance of the petition should be stated.—(Hear.)
Mr. HUME—Then the petitioners complain that the Church in Ire-
land was the bane of that country, an opinion to which he had given ut-
terance more than twenty years ago, and in which he still cordially con-
curred.

The time of the House was entirely occupied with the reception of
petitions up to the time of our going to press.

NEW YORK.

APRIL 20, 1838.-1 expected before this to have been able to hare
informed you of the re-establishment of peace in the Canadas, but I have
been sorely disappointed. The reign of oppression continues in Lower
Canada and in Upper Canada. The new Lieutenant-Governor has
commenced his administration by shedding blood—by executions and
quarterings--contrary to all that we were led to expect from the declara-
tions of both parties, Whigs and Tories, Ministers and Oppositionists, in
the British Parliament. For the particulars of this horrid butchery I
must refer you to the papers which I send. You have already heard,
I presume, that Mr. Lount and Captain Matthews were
arrested, and put upon their trial for high treason, at Toronto.
The debates in Parliament, and the general tone of the London Press, in-
duced us to believe and to hope that a merciful policy would be pursued
towards them and others. Indeed, if Ido not mistake, Ministers them-
selves declared that they had forwarded instructions to Canada to pre-
vent the shedding of blood. It turns out now that they have, as usual,
deceived you and the people of Canada. On Sir George Arthur's ar-
rival at Toronto, addresses were presented to him from divers public
bodies and private persons. In reply to one presented to him by the
Mayor and Corporation of Toronto, he held forth at length upon the
blessed qualities of mercy, quoting an extract from Shakspeare. Every
person was led to believe that a merciful and forgiving policy would be
followed. Lount and Matthews had been ordered for execution upon
the 12th, and this answer led people to imagine that they would be re-
prieved. Much anxiety was felt at their threatened fate. Petitions,
with several thousand names, were presented on their behalf. To the
great disappointment, horror, and indignation of the Province, they
were executed upon the 12th, and their bodies given over for muti-
lation, notwithstanding the tears and entreaties of their wives and
families. Several others are ordered for execution to-day, and others
for the 24th. You cannot conceive the shock this bloodshed has given
to the public feeling here. Every person speaks with horror of it; and
the Government is regarded as barbarous which could have permitted it,
now that the danger is at an end. It will seriously damage the influence
or England in the Canadas, and hasten that separation which must
eventua4 happen. How will your Ministers in Parliament took, or
reply, when they arc questioned about these cruelties? By a refc.
rence to the debates it will appear that they disclaimed all idea
of, or wish for, bloodshed. Contrary to their declarations, they
have since authorized Sir Geo. Arthur to commit the severities they
disclaimed, for offences which Sir Francis Head boasts in his dispatches
that he encouraged and held out every inducement for their commissier.
It was impossible that Sir George Arthur could have gone this length
unless he was authorized by Lord Glenelg. The men who have been sa-
crificed were of unexceptionable private character. Lount was a native
of Pensylvania, to which state his father emigrated with the celebrated
Dr. Joseph Priestley. His brother is registrar of the county of
Simcoe, for which county he was formerly returning officer. Lount
had a large farm and a numerous family of sons and daughters. He
was about forty years of age, and I believe, of the Methodist persua-
sion. Captain Matthews was an American of about forty years of age.
He has been long established in Pickering, county of York, where he
had a large farm.

I mentioned in my last letter that some of the New York papers are
forbidden to be circulated in Canada. This was a high-handed measure,
sufficient to excite surprise. The extinction of the Liberal press within
the province had left the Tories no materials at home upon which to
foment their rancour, and they have therefore waged war against the
liberal papers of New York. But, Sir, this is not all ; they have not
stopped here, They have commenced war upon the press of London;
They have begun by ostracising the London and Westminster Review. In
the January Number of that work appeared an article, entitled " Lord
Durham and the Canadians." Some Canadian Gentlemen at Montreal
having read the article thought that its circulation might do good, and
pave the way for a favourable reception of Lord Durham. It was,
therefore, determined to re.print it as a pamphlet, and 1)r. Francis
Antoine Larocque, of Montreal, accordingly, ordered the work
to be done at the office of Mr. Louis Ferault, proprietor of
the late Montreal Vindicator a paper which cuts no small
figure in the dispatches of Lord Gosford, and which he sup-
pressed before he left the province. The work was accordingly executed,
and delivered to ;dr. Larocque. The Montreal magistrates, however,
and Sir John Colborne, thought the article to be too liberal, and they
have positively seized the types and the presses of the Vindicator office,
where the work was executed, and they have thrown Mr. Larocque into
gaol, where he now remains. I forward to you a copy of the pamphlet,
in order that you may satisfy yourself that it contains no new matter.
Who the author of it is, Ido not know. Whoever he may be, this ag.
gression will enable him to form a correct idea of the state of political
liberty, and the freedom of the press, in Lower Canada. He could have
little imagined that the Government would have wreaked their vengeance
on the Canadians for reprinting it.
Mr. Spring Rice and others stated, in the House of Commons, that
not two in an hundred of the Canadians were able to read. If this be
true, can you explain why the oppressors of Lower Canada have ex.
eluded the L'Estafettc of New York, a French paper, from the pro.
vince—or why they forbid the circulation of articles from the London
and Westminster Review Dr. Rolph is in this city. A true bill for
high treason ,Os been found against him at Toronto. Sutherland has
been found glty by a court-martial, and is to be transported to Botany
Bay.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OP COMMONS, MAY 15.
EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY BILL.

On the Order of the Day for the second reading of Bill being
moved by Mr. ROUND,

Captain PECHELL presented a petition from Lord Petro against
the Bill. The Noble Lord stated that the Railway would pass through
his property, which was of great value ; that the Company had agreed on
his withdrawing opposition to the Bill to give him 20,0001. for land and
100,0001. for compensation ; but that the Company had refused to
acknowledge the agreement, and had given notice of an inten-
tion to enter the petitioner's lands, and that the Lord Chancellor had
granted an injunction on the 23d of December last to restrain them
from so doing.
Mr. LANGDALE said the Company had thought proper to go to
the Courts ; the Courts had decided it was a real and bona tide trans-
action and therefore the House was bound to see that nothing was done
which could impede the carrying of it into effect.

Mr. FIUME said it appeared to him to be a most unjust proceeding,
and the House ought not to interfere in any matter pending before
Courts ofJustice. What right had the House to interpose for the purpose of
stopping the further progress of this Bill t—(Hear, hear.) It had been
laid down, more than once, as a rule, that the House ought not to med-
dle with anything that was pending before a Court of Law. If such an
agreement had been entered into let it be enfOrccd, but the Bill
ought certainly not to be stopped merely because two parties had
quarrelled. It was highly unjust, and he was surprised that his Hon.
Friend the Member for Dublin wished to stop this Bill, merely because
as injunction had been granted.
Air. O'CONNELL said the Hon. Member must have misunderstood
him. He had spoken of a fraud committed by this Company,
who insisted upon coming before that House in order that they
might have an odditional advantage to meet that fraud. The Company
had not instructed any Member to contradict that statement. They
wanted to gain an advantage by a new Bill, which they had not
by the present. All he proposed was, that the Bill should be
postponed for a fortnight.

This was agreed to, and the conversation then dropped.
BIRMINGHAM, BRISTOL, AND LONDON JUNCTION
RAILWAY.

Mr. HANDLEY moved the second reading of the Birmingham, Bris-
tol, and London Junction Railway Bill.
Captain WOOD said that he would oppos•: the Bill unless it could bi•
e.hown by its supporters that the Railway would not so encircle the me.
Awl,. as to interfere with the ordinary and ueeessary it-adj.' of the city.
Mr. HANDLEY said, the object of the Bill was only to alter some of
the net nal regulations of the Company, and the opposition to the Bill

The SOLICITOItaGENERAL presented similar petitions from St..
„ Andrew's, Holborn, and several other places.
Colonel CONOLLY presented a petition from a parish in Do-negal,
in favour of the Lochfoyle and Lochswilly Drainage Bill.
Mr. FRESHFIELD presented several petitions from the parish of St.
▪ George the Martyr, St. George Bloomsbury, Marylebone, and St.
Magnus, in favour of the Small Debts Bill.
Mr. EARL presented a petition from the city of Oxford In favour of
the Oxford and Great Western Railway Bill,
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON presented a petition iron? Sunderland,
against the British Pledge Society Bill.
Mr. HUME gave notice that on the 17th of May he would :nitre for
certain returns relative to the admission of the public to the Tow,er, and
on the 22d he would call the attention of the House to the state or' the
law respecting Savings' Banks, and more resolutions thereon.
LIGHTING OF THE HOUSE.
Sir F. TRENCH wished to ask the House a question which related
to their own cipmfort and convenience (and he was sorry the Chancellor
of the Exchequer was not then in his place), which was, whether they
were satisfied with the new mode of lighting ?—(Hear and laughter.)
If Hon. Members were, it was of importance that an order should be
made which would not be very extravagant, for three lustres, which
would cost about 1491. The former experiment of lighting had
cost 71. per night; this would only cost 5/. His. He had ascertained
that the expense of lighting Goldsmiths' Hall was 71. per night ;
rend the expense at Almacks—(Laughter)—was 101. 4s. per night. fie
was very anxious that his arrangements should be carried into effect_
He had seen Mr. Speaker (and he was the first Speaker that he had ever
seen do so), reading a paper without a candle on the table.—(Loud
cries of " Hear, hear, hear.") In fact he believed his plan of
lighting the House gave great comfort to those who sat .
I.elow as well as to those who sat above.—(Laughter.) He eves sorry
the Chancellor of the Exchequer seas not then in his piece, although he
believed that both that Right Hon. Gentleman aid the Speaker were
favourable to his plan. He hoped an order would be given for the con-
struction of those hastres, whereby a considerable saving woul,l be
effected. The cost of them, as he had stated before, would be only .
1491., if the old lustres were taken in exchange.
ADJOURNED DEBATE.—APPROPRIATION CLAUSE.
The Order of the Day for resuming the adjounsed debate upon the
Irish Tithes Bill having been read,
Mr. LITTON said he would, as briefly as he could, state
the opinions which induced him to vote against the details
and against the principle of the resolutions, and to support the motion of
the Hon. Baronet, the Member for North Devon. It was a great satis.
faction to him to know that hie opinions coincided with these of the
great mass of the Protestant populistion of Ireland; and that there were .
few of the members of the Established Church in that country who did
not perceive the injury which those resolutions, it' carried into effect,
must inflict on Protestantism.—(Hear, from the Tory benches) The
Clergy themselves ought to be consulted on a question of this kind,
and they were all unanimous in opposition to the measure. There
was therefore no ground for the assertion which was so boldly
made on the other side, that the Bill was a boon to the Clergy. They
on the contrary considered it a measure striking at the roots of private
property, and tending to the ruin of the Church. The Noble Lord
opposite had very truly stated that this measure should be
looked upon with a view to its effects upon the peace of Ireland..
—(Hear, hear, hear.) But he thought that the more fair course
for the Noble Lord would be, to give the opponents of the mea-
sure, on his (the Opposition) side of the House, the opportunity
of explaining fully the principles which would induce them to vote
for the motion of the Honourable Baronet, and against the resolutions.
If the discussion were fairly, fully, and plainly taken, the resolutions
of 1835 must be removed from the books, because they forced on the
House in advance the principle of appropriation, which every one
sitting upon that side of the Rouge most strenuously opposed,
lie thought it important that the House, and especially the Eng-
lish Members on both sides of the House, should know the exact
state in which the property of the Church of Ireland was at pre-
sent placed—what were its general receipts, whet was the state of
the payment of the tithes of that country owing to the
working of the • various Acts of Parliament which had been
introduced—that they might appreciate the suggestion that
in offering what was called a boon, by the present resolution, anything
of service was done to the Clergy, or anything effected, save a spoliation
of their incomes. By the operation of Lord Stanley's Act, which was
passed in 1832, two modes were suggested, by which the payment of
Tithe was taken from the occupier.—(Hear, hear, hear.) The first
W. by the landlords who had the power to undertake the
payment of Tithes, to enter into a contract which made them liable to the
clergyman for the entire tithes of their estates, giving them for the
trouble of collection and the risk of loss, a bontis of 15 per cent. In the
Province of Ulster six-sevenths at least of the tithes of that province
were paid by the undertaking landlords. The Clergy in that Pere..
vince had not to encounter the hostility of the tenants, for they
were dealing with those who throughout all Ireland were pay..
ing the tithes—he meant the landlords. The clergy of Ulster
were thus paid five-sixths, or six-sevenths of their income, without the
slightest difficulty or loss. They had just as much title, as easily en..
forced, and as successfully acted upon, as any landlord had to his rent.
Therefore, as to that course, he would ask what bonus was given to
them be deducing at once an additional 15 per cent., without the
slightest necessity fcr it, or the slightest return being made for it.
They did not come into collision with the occupier; they hsd a fixed
settled title—settled by law, for which both remedies ut law and In
equity had been given them ; and he would venture to say, that there
was no instance in the province of Ulster, in which the landlord
had put the Clergy to sue hint at law for that which was not tithes, but
rent charges; with respect to the other clauses, the other provisions of
Lord Stanley's Act, in every case of a tenancy from year to year, sub-
sequent to Aug., 1833, in every case of a lease mode since that period the
landlord was, by that very Act, of having his :and discharged, charged
with the tithe without deduction. Every lease made shire 1832, and
erery existing tenant from year to year is not liable to the payment of
tithes, but the landl- rd . liable for it. Now, his object was
to show that in the southern and western parts of Ireland
those most disaffected towards the payment of tithes were now willing
to pay them. He would also say ehgli respect to the occupiers, that
the great proportion of them paid ther' tithes. Now he would un-
dertake to say, that when the returns which tee should move for were
laid upon the table, it would be shown, upon an average, that the
clergy received 50 per cent. of their tithe• without deduction.
Was it any boon to take anything from the 50 in,: cent. which was
really paid P Do they produce peace, and any ebsence.' of litigation ?
Do they produce regularity of collection- with respect to this 50 per
cent. P Regularity and puectuality they already had' Without
litigation, and with the assistance of his lay brethren of the
Protestant faith, who were in fact the real pay., of the tithe'. the
landlord was the real payer of the tithe both in England Putt
Ireland; the c'eegsman was in peaceab e receipt of his Si) per cent.
The 50 per cent, paid without the trouble of collection, and without its
being the source of litigation, was it a boon to give it him at a loss of
30 per cent. The 50 per cent. was now secured to him—as secure to
him as the well paid rents of any gentlemen in the House. It was
upon these grounds that he Impugned the first reeolution—it was
an uncalh d-for reduction ofe the income of a clegeyman, upon
which lie depended, and might reduce him to beggary and ruin.
So far he had endeavoured to show the House that by this firet resolu-
tion they were acting most unjustly. It was very well to ,`alk of
taking off 15 per cent, from the incomes of the Clergy, but
it would by and by reach 100 per cent —(Hear, hear)—and that
merely for the sake of satisfying a certain piny, and if the Clergy refus
ed
they would then be called a grespiug and grinding act who pre-'
ferred money to the Wets, of the realm.-- (elear, hear.) With
respect to the incomes of the successors of the present Clergy,
he begged the attention of the Heusi while he stated his total dissent
from the version of the Noble I.ord who closed the debate last night
upon the effect of these resolutio.ls. Notwithstanding the Govern-
ment had avoided any very distil:et enunciation of an inten-
tion to appropriate to secular purposes any portion of the in-
come of the present clergy, he must be allowed to say that lie
would demonstrate that with respect to their sucree sort, those resolutions
if passed, bound the House and the country to appropriate for
every year four-fifths of the Income of the Churn.' —( Hear, hear.)
The House would please to observe that, by the second or those resolu-
tions, so much of the rent charge as was now paid in lieu of tothes should
be purchase able by the Government, at sixteen years' purchassh at the
rate of seventy per cent. The clergy were no longer to receive e.'rhes,
or the present existing rent-charge; but instead of either, they were to
receive an annuity from the Consolidated Fund, which, he con-
tended would not, according to the effect of those resolutions produce
more than 31 per cent —(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord opposite
(Lord John Russell) cried " hear, hear," but he (Mr. Litton) would
assert that when the future income of the Clergy was considered the
effect of the proposed purchase of the rent charge would be to reduce
the value not to seventy per cent., hut to fifty-six per cont.—(Hear,
hear.) Did the Noble Lord mean to say that the sixteen years'
purchase.money was to be invested, not in the Funds, Lott in land ?
—(Lord J. Russell:—" No, no, sot in lane.") Well then suppose it
were in land, which would give the greater probaln:'ty of a fixed income
in many parts of Ireland, the purchase money of land !vould not yield
more than 3 per cent., and in those places where: land was
cheapest land was worth from 30 to 33 years' purchase, acts sm"
instances he knew it to be worth forty years' purchase. All the differghce
therefore, would go into the pockets cf the State for secular purposes.
By the Gth resolution, the rent charges, produced from the ecclesias-
tical property in Ireland, were to be 'applied to certain local
Purposes, by which he (Mr. Litton) understood secular purposes,
such as county charges, Ac. It was for this reason that the Learned
Member for Dublin was principally pleased with the resolutions. Why
did not the Government dissipate the doubt which new enveloped
the question, by leaving the discussion on these resolutions open
to fair and free debate? What right had the Government
to chain Honourable Members to the principle. of appropriation, esta-
blished in the resolution of 183$ ? Every Hon. Member was eetitled
to come free and unshackled to the consideration of the subject, with-
out being tied down to the principle of appropriation, to which
so large a portion of the House strenuously objected.—(clear.) He should
be wrong in entering at large into the question of whether there would
or would not be a surplus. It was perfectly well known that there
was a large body in this House, an well as of those attached
to the Church of England out of doors, that would never yield
to the question of appropriation. It was perfectly well known that
the tithe question could not be settled while they hung upon
it the resolutions --of 1835 as a necessary ingredient. He therefore
arraigned them as the parties who were seeking to preveilt this question
from being settled—who themselves preserved iu the country the apple of
discord, by reason of refusing t• withdraw the resolutions which
kept up the discord.—(Hear, hear.) Let them introduce any re-
solution or Bill, which should contain the assertion of end,
principles as they thought fit. Let it be discussed, then—but let them
not be said, as free agents, to enter into the discussion of any Bill
whilst they were c7ossged with these objectionable resolutions. As some
cases had been mentioned on the other side,he should mention one which
happened under his own knowledge. The vicar of a small parish whose
sole income from his tithes, tinier the composition, was 138/. lie was a
man who had served 29 years in the Chinch, and had a large family.
From that he has to pay a deduction for Viceri d Tithes and other
things, by which his income is reduced to abeet 1031. Tereedenths
of his gross income were taken away, and the roan who hail served
twenty-Mee years had only aii income of ti,/. a tear to support
himself and family.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Ills is ould not go
further into instances, but he would venture to say that in the
greater numbs of cases the ineohie of the clergyman was
not 100/. a-year. The Clergy did not want the aid of Parliament,
fur the law as it at present existed afforAel them protection.
He would venture to assert that the reeolutions that had
been passed, and which it was now the object of the present metion to
rescind, were adopted to satisfy a certain seetioe of that House.
If they opened the compositions entered into under Mr. Gouiburn's
Act of 1824, the Clergyman woeld be unable to prove title—was he
then to be sent before an adverse Commission: r to has e his title imp:ire:l
into after it hail been secured to Lim by Act of Pal liament for twent y.one
yea's ? if the Ministers west, the fremess of the resolutions,
which he doubted--if, tie Sore doing so, they had, t. ken the
trouble to enquire inns these cignpositions, they must have
e
been well aware that they could not be °pet:eel without deer:iv ate the
Clergyman of his rights. . Therefore, or. the part of tli Clergymen
of Ireland he objected M. the resolutions, as beteg an unealled-
fcr interference with their ta, bat he obje he.; mere cones he
considered that it was an attempt 10 elestroetthe titles of the clergy.
If t iie clergy werenow to ne interfered with ass lit Lite take,. rein them
their rights 'eight be subjected to an annual revisiose isle had not the
slightest doubt that the object of the reseltetithis was to destroy the Church