The Sun.
London, England, 1836-04-28 00:00:00

--- - -; i
establishment of rabble Corporations n Ireland, be- was very desirous to have the opinion of the Chair as to
whether
cause they will be worked by the same hierocracy,K L A Nhad s
apirdo properly
by
y done
titshe d
Standingut y o r
Orders
not.
through the same and other subaltern organs, to the Sir G.
that
.s Committeeßic_ D
parties were bound to deposit a plan and description of the
ruin of the Protestant laity. We will resist both, be- county through which the Canal proceeded, and this he be-
cause they are fraudulent and hateful manoeuvres, co- lieved had not been done in lie present. case. But there was
another' question before the House, viz. whether the party did
vertly tending to the subversion of our liberties, to the
not show such a case of hardship, so that the indulgence of
production of a civil war, embittered by religious ran- the House and of the Standing Orders Committee might be
cour, and to the separation from our representative mo- expected ? On that point he would not dwell ; but he thought
Lferneocht
ne,
narchy of all which has hitherto upheld and strength-
nitnfhaessume tine ha sh e id not
that the Hon. Member who brought forward the case, was
de fe ctiv e ine o nfe part e oifndetinssveesnpnt
ened it, though names and forms may for some time be
left unaltered. The powerful Conservative majority n
tsooiwndaueceastheoHpouse to
the duty of the House to adhere to the magnitude as
regsultaarnd. Order. It
in the House of Lords is a benefit, full of hope for. was
Standing Orders
the nation : it would have been still stronger than it as a regular rule, but where a case was shown of strong necessity
was, but Lords Mansfield, Winchilsea, and the Duke or of great public inconvenience, he would be the first to allow
a departureJ.
RfrAomH
AthAer,wndedto
toshow indulgence to the parties.
of Newcastle, and two or three others, who agree in
duced him to concur with the
in-
the main with the leaders of the.
.Conservatives, ob. -majoritystte
ntfhteheresastaonndsing which
Orders
jetted to the Ministerial Bill in principle as well as in Committee. Before the House reversed this decision, he
detail.— Times. begged to state that two Committees had concurred in
with sentiments approach-the opinion that the Standing Orders had not been com-
ing to disgust, the petulant, and all but unmannerly, decisions of two Conamittees,a andapwpaes in itself a question of
tone of Lord John Russell's reply, on Monday last, great importance. He admitted to the fullest extent that an
to the just remark which had been made by Lord adherence to the Standing Orders must lead to considerable
Stanley on the insulting propositions of Lord Mor- inconvenience in
the Midland Counties in the formation
state
eth, for grinding down the incomes of the Irish Canal, a
but notwithstandingltughthuisndhoeushvtaesdblyou d to
would lead to
that the
P Standing Orders,
established clergy, discharging the laborious duties inconvenience, were consistent with the rights of property and
of extensive parishes, to the level of an exciseman'., strict justice. The Standing Order, as now framed, whatever
salary. But it was befitting the embarrassment of might be the inconvenience arising from it, was strictly in con-
fortuity with the sacred rights of property in the original pro-
Lord John Russell's situation, as well as the grandeur
and refinement of his character, to let loose a pack p Mr. *EVELYN DENISON was surprised that his Hon.
of personalities at one whose arguments are not more Friend the Member for Yorkshire should suppose the Stand-
beyond his strength than his straightforward earnest- ing Order was so clear that nobody could doubt the meaning
ness and energy are above his Lordship's emulation. of it, when in fact, in the Committee upon the Standing
Orders a considerable difference arose, and a division took
Lord Stanley's was a natural comment upon the place upon that very Standing Order.—(" Hear, hear," and
gross and stupid recklessness of so dealing with the laughter.) He thought that in the case of this Canal the
Church, that hereafter no well-educated gentleman, not Standing Order had been distinctly complied with, and he be-
already in possession of an independent fortune, or lieved that in the Committee be had moved a resolution to
pushed on by devout enthusiasm, to a total sacrifice of that effect. All that was required by the Standing Orders
was, that a direct line should be drawn upon those points from
every temporal and worldly good, will be found to enter which the water was to be taken, and that had been done.
upon the majority of Irish benefices. Out of 1,200 As it was waste water which would flow when the canal was
livings, and something more, to which Lord Morpeth at its highest level, it could not be said that it was drawn from
threatens that he will reduce the Church of Ireland, it the
eh he
aodrigdionnael Calalnlavlh.iehHeeonclodnhceeiveexd
. s
appears that no less than 800, or two-thirds of the the proijaegctsorwsh(i)efhthselpmpleiaesdurt
pectperdfrom them, in giving notice to the parties interested
whole, will afford their respective clergyman a sub- in it.
sistence of from 1001. to 2001. per annum !—not The O'C ONO R DON, as one of the majority who voted
the wages of a fourth-rate banker's. clerk—not the in the Committee of. Standing Orders, wished to
isituante
Bhais
amount of a stage coachman's annual earnings .'A rpoeur feet,
the rr
Memberen c
forn
Cumber] a tnadk. b
Ityatppeared to him* the
pretty set of married scholars and theologians will parties had not complied with the rules of the House, and that
be invited into a Church thus endowed ! We repeat, it should be regarded as the extension of the original line
therefore, that Lord Stanley's disapprobation of such of Canal.
wretched impolicy and such vile injustice was not Mr. CAMPBELL replied—The complaining parties were
all aware of the source from whence the Canal was to be
only becoming but inevitable, and ought at least to supplied. He (Mr. Campbell) had not entered upon tho
have been respectfully treated by a member of that merits of the Bill, but he would now take the liberty of stating
same Russell family which retains at this moment that the Canal had not one lock from one end to the other—
from the spoils of the Church of England, and revels which thanadt
tiht
atw anso
injury
wouldss-ast waste
resultw ate
tor b
these
e sep
parties,
t i ite ws,aa supplied,
as the
t he
whole
in a revenue equal to one-third of the sum-total, water of these streams was given to that Canal. There was a
viz., 361,0001. per annum, designed by the Wh4gs vulgar Scotch proverb which he should mention, as it was
to support henceforth the entire body of Irish very trite and applicable : it had been said that these parties
Clergy. And how was Lord Stanley's reasonable and had been injured,' and a pig may_ fly, butl he (Mr. Campbell)
i that— (p.
rloupcehr
tlya laughter.)
t eNsr.a.
temperate observation answered by the whipster of the thoTtigeht
sitpwEaAs
Ka
Eveßry unlikelyconsideredb d
?er was
Whig-Radical majority ? Why, he was apostrophized just as deserving of the protection of that House as property
as " Hotspur !" by Lord John Russell,—Pareum in land. He did not think that the House was prepared to
parva decent ; and the joke was second-hand too, hay- reverse what was the obvious meaning of the Standing Orders
to which allusion had been made, or the opinion of the Stand-
ing been uttered by a member in a debate last week.
ing Orders Committee, the effect
of which would be the vir-
What, again, was the argumentative effort of Lord tual repeal of that Order.—(Hear, hear.) Such being his
John Russell ? Lord Stanley had condemned the re- (the Speaker's) view of the case, it was his opinion that the
duction of the highest incomes provided for the most Standing Order had in the present instance been complied with.
arduous labours of the Irish clergy to the
Mr. HINDLE Y thought uniformity should be observed in
maxi»zum
House, otherwise it would be
allowance of 5001. a year. Oh, cries Lord John Rus- impossible
gt the btutso hi ne s s of that
rough
it.
sell, but is not that much better than that Irish der- The SPEkK E R reiterated his opinion that the House
gymen should now enjoy 800/. or 1,000/. a year, and should enforce the Standing Order. In the present instance,
spend it at Cheltenham or Brighton ? My Lord John it
moappeared to him that compliance with the regulations was
Il
Russell, you are as little of a logician as you are of an indispensablylr necessary.
ft the • • rong opini
historian, a statesman, or a poet ! No Conservative the Speaker, would not persevereer st
in his tionon expressed by
.
has the least idea of indulging or continuing the race of NENE OUTFALL 81!..L.
pampered sinecurists. Sir Robert Peel and Lord Mr. TOWNLEY moved the second reading of this Bill.
Stanley have both disclaimed all such absurdities. We HERNE BAY PIER BILL.
KNATCHBULL, the Herne
therefore ask you, my Lord John, whether there is no On the motion of Sir E. . r
Bay Bier Pill was read a second time.
medium between underpaying miserably the pastor of DOVER HARBOUR.
above 3,000 souls, and lavishing a prodigal income Mr. P. THOMSON moved for a Select Committee to in-
upon the watering-place voluptuary, whose house of quire into Dover Harbour.
devotion is his club-house ? A Bill like that of which 11.* HUM E wished to know whether the charges on ship-
itpling, wouldl be, erd.T.iired into bdy
.tfhishisCocmomitthtet. That was
Lord Morpeth drew on Monday last the detestable e were not
outline will never become the law of a civilized coin- competentleo°ject re would
ainb‘r.iiner%,-v'thaensub'ject•t again.forwarindml
:nullity, because it goes to place the worldly respecta- Mr. P. THOMSON said that was his only object in ap-
hility of those who are to instruct the Protestants of pointing the Committee.
Ireland in the science most important to human wel- hadMtrlie HpLoTnl.le Er
tsaid i t
um must he understood that the Committee
ir stinto the sub'ect of passim,- Tolls.
fare incomparably below the level of the other edu- This was assented to,g and the Committeej appointed.
cated classes. This may be Whig statesmanship, but Mr. C HAPMAN presented a petition from Whitby, in
it is flat and vulgar ignorance, and the authors of so favour of the South Durham Railway Bill.
EDINBURGHIe, „ CORPORATION.
The . T I
mean a policy will not long escape its recoil upon Th A OIN E Y-G NE RA L presented a petition from
themselves.—Times of yesterday. Edinburgh against the Scotch Salmon Fisheries Bill. The
Learned Gentleman also brought up the Report of the Com-
mittee on the Edinburgh Poor Bill.
Mr. A. JOHNSTONE objected to the priviliges being
taken from the Corporation of Edinburgh in the manner pro-
posed by the Bill. Every person admitted into the Corpora.
tion must be qualified by education, and were obliged
to pay large fines for their admission.—( Hear, hear. )
The direct taxation of Edinburgh amounted to no less than orii
per cent. upon the whole rental. By certain privileges (as we
understood) the College of Justice was exempted from taxation
to the amount of 13 per cent. The Faculty of Advocates, how-
ever, offered to give up these privileges for the sake of the
community. The question ought to be taken into consideration.
[ There were large districts within the town which enjoyed
the exclusive privilege of not paying Poor Rates.—( Hear. )
He maintained that the citizens of Edinburgh should not be
taxed, as was proposed, to the amount of 20,000/. per annum,
and he submitted that the House ought not to entertain a mea-
sure of so partial a nature, to the prejudice of a vast body of
the community.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL expressed his astonish-
ment that any Hon. Member of that House could come for-
ward to make such a proposition. What was the object of the
present Bill ? About the year 1698, Bill was in-
troduced for the relief of the poor into which the
members of the College of Justice, consisting of the judges,
advocates, solicitors, writers, and their clerks—a very
powerful and influential body, contrived to have a clause
inserted exempting them from contributing to the poor's rates
—at that period the rate was trifling, but it was now very bur-
thensome, and it was for the purpose of putting an end
to that most unjust, and, he would say, scandalous exemp-
tion, that the present Bill had been introduced.—(Hear,
hear.) The fact was, a very large proportion of the
members of the College of Justice were favourable
to the measure, they were actually ashamed of their exemp-
tion.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for St. Andrew's
now stood forward as the zealous defender of that body—they
were vested rights, and should be continued in sccula seculo-
rum. In France the ancient noblesse were exempt from con-
tributing to the relief of the poor, and the Honourable and
Learned Member for St. Andrews, it appeared, wished to
be on a footing with the French noblesse.—( Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Member had stated that this Bill was an innovation
and an invasion of the rights of property, but this
could not be the case, inasmuch as the tax was a personal one.
Under these circumstances he trusted the Hon. Member for
St. Andrews would meet with no sympathy from that House.
Sir G. CLERK hoped the House would not set aside the
vested rights of any body of persons without compensation.
The Society of Advocates were willing to give up their privi-
leges upon conditions—which conditions were not to be for
their own benefit, but for the community at large—upon
the condition that no tax whatever should be levied upon
any House of less value than 10/. Had that been done the
questions of the annuity-tax and the poor-rates would have
been settled upon a firm basis. Last session the Lord Advo-
cate had promised to bring in a Bill for the purpose of set-
tling the two questions. The Society of Advocates had
then declared their intention of giving up their privileges if
the two Bills were conjoined, but if they were disjoined, they
would oppose both. That declaration was made in June
last year, and yet, although the House sat for three
months after, no Bill was brought in by the Learned
Lord, nor was any mention made of it. Why was that ?
In a measure of this kind, due provision ought to be made for
the Clergy of the Established Church. The Faculty of Advo-
cates were justified in making stipulations so purely disinte-
rested, and he trusted the House would not deprive them of
privileges which they had always exercised in so laudible a
manner. They were willing to give up these privileges, but
they would not do so till some plan was proposed for set-
tling all these questions that disturbed the peace of the popu-
lation of Edinburgh.—( Hear, hear.) He trusted after what
had fallen from the Hon. and Learned Attorney-General last
night, that a Bill would soon be brought in to settle the An-
nuity Tax.---( Hear, hear.)
Mr. R. STEUART was very glad to hear the Hon. Ba-
ronet, the Member for the county of Edinburgh, give up this
claim of exemption ; but he was greatly surprised to hear
the Honourable Member for St. Andrews support it.
The Hon. Baronet objected to any measure until the whole
question was gone into, but he must know that the rest of
the inhabitants of Edinburgh would be relieved the fifth of the
present amount of taxes imposed upon them.—(Hear.) The
Hon. Baronet expressed surprise that the Lord Advocate had
not during the last Session, brought in a Bill on the subject
of the Annuity Tax ; but he must be aware that there are
questions still pending in the Courts of Law which must
be decided before any settlement can be expected.—(Hear,
hear, hear.) He had not heard any reason why the rich
should be exempt while the poor were subject to a heavy
tax. All that was proposed by the Bill before the House
was to remove an abuse which had existed for centuries, and
which no one had attempted to defend. It was said the
privilege had been hitherto used by the College of Jus-
tice without disadvantage to the public. He should
be sorry to cast any reflections on that body or any member of
it, but he trusted the House would not affirm the principle of
exempting any longer the rich from a tax which persons far
less able to bear it, were still subject to.
Mr. PRINGLE said the Members of the College of Jus
tice had paid large fees for their admission. He therefore

) 71' ft)
SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,

(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
EDINBURGH AND GLASGOW RAILWAY.

Dr. BOWRING presented a petition from the Town
Council of Kilmarnock, in favour of the Edinburgh and Glas-
gow Railway Bill.
CLYDE NAVIGATION.

Mr. OSWALD presented two petitions from places in
Scotland, against the Clyde Navigation Bill ; also a petition
against the Glasgow Waterworks' Bill.
LONDON AND BLACKWALL RAILWAY.

Mr. CRAWFORD presented a petition from the owners
and lessees of property adjoining the river Thames, against
both the lines of Railway from London to Blackwall.
LONDON AND NORWICH RAILWAY.

On the motion of Captain ALSAGER, a petition, pre
seated on the subject of the London and Norwich Railway,
was referred to the Committee on the Bill.
EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY.

Sir W. FOLKES presented a petition against the Eastern
Counties Railway Bill.
STIRLING CANAL.

Mr. W. F. CAMPBELL moved that the projectors of the
Stirling Canal Bill should be allowed to proceed without
giving further notice. The Bill was read a first time, but a
short time afterwards four gentlemen petitioned against it, on
the plea that the Standing Orders had not been complied with,
and it was then returned to the original Committee, to exa-
mine the question, when it was decided by a majo-
rity of six to five, that the Standing Orders were not
complied with. There were thirteen Members of the Com-
mittee, one of whom did not vote, neither did he ( Mr. Camp-
bell) as chairman, and it was again referred to the Standing
Orders Committee, who decided that it could not be viewed in
any other light than as the extension of the original line of canal.
He would appeal to any Hon. Member acquainted with the
length of that Canal, whether it would be possible to furnish
any map without giving one three-fourths the size of England.
His construction of the Standing Order was this, that no person
should be taken by surprise, or their property injured, by any
measure which might pass through that House, without their
knowledge. In this instance the parties were not taken by
surprise, because the place from whence the water was to be
taken, was stated in the notice lodged in the office of the
Clerk of the Peace. He, therefore, trusted the House would
let this Bill go before the Committee on its merits. This ap-
plication was not a novel one, for they had precedents in the
cases of the Edinburgh Bridewell, and the Liverpool Dock,
Bills, in which the House permitted them to go before the
Committee, although the Standing Orders had not been com-
plied with. He would now move that the promoters of the
Stirling Canal be allowed to proceed with the Bill.
Sir G. CLERK said, in the instances referred to by the
Hon. Member, it had been shown that very great inconvenience
and injury would be the consequence if the parties were not
allowed to proceed with their Bills, but in the present instance
no such case had been made out. In the instance of the
Edinburgh Bridewell, the inconvenience had been pointed out
of there not being sufficient accommodation for the prisoners,
and that was why it had been made an exception. He knew not
the ground on which the Bills had been proceeded with, but he
was satisfied they must have been very strong ones, as the
House had shown a very great disinclination to establish such
a precedent. He was willing to admit that some inconve-
nience might arise from too strict an interpretation of Stand-
ing Order, No. 5, and there might hereafter be some modifi-
cation of it; but if that Order was now referred to, it would be
found that no ease'had been made out for the interference of
that House. The present was a Canal communicating with
an existing Canal, and to be supplied entirely from it. The
object of having the plans laid before the Committee, was that
full notice should be given to all the owners of the brooks and
streams that supplied it. Now any owner might permit a certain
portion of his stream to be supplied to a Canal, but it would be
an act of the greatest injustice if that Canal Company would
afterwards, without due notice to the owner, give such an inde-
finite quantity to other Canals as would draw off the entire
supply from the owner's mills.--( Hear, hear.) He did not
think the House was bound to go further than to put a proper
interpretation upon the Standing Order which had been re-
ferred to. He concurred in the decision of the Standing
Orders Committee, and he therefore left it for the decision of
he House.

Mr. LOCH said, though this was a question of very great
importance to the Midland Counties of England, there were
mangy instances within his own knowledge where such interpre-
tation had not been put on the. Standing Order. There was
the Liverpool and Whitchurch Canal, which, it was within his
own knowledge, the plans were not considered requisite. He
thought the interpretation attempted to be put on the Standing
Order was extraordinary, and, therefore, he would support the
motion of the Hon. Member (Mr. Campbell.)
Mr. PALMER, as one of the Standing Orders Committee,