The Sun.
London, England, 1836-06-18 00:00:00

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

In reply to a question from Mr. SANFORD,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he had on a former oc-
casion announced that at the end of the month of June, he
should move that Orders of the Day take precedence of mo-
tions on Tuesdays and Thursdays. They had not yet arrived
at the end of June ; when they did, he should be happy, with
a view to forwarding the Bills before the House, to submit such
a proposition. It was unnecessary at the present moment : for
the gentlemen who had notices on the paper for next week,
had one and all consented to give way, and allow the prece-
dence to the orders of the day.---( Hear, hear.)
Sir R. PEEL took that opportunity of suggesting that it
would be very desirable to give public notice of the days on
which particular measures were really to be brought forward ;
so that when the House separated on a Friday night, Hon.
Members might have an opportunity of preparing their minds
for the discussion of important matters, with the certainty of
their being brought forward on a particular day.--( Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL could not refrain from saying that
during the twenty years he had had the honour of sitting in
Parliament, he had never known such ample notice given of
the days on which particular subjects would be brought forward,
as had been given in the course of the present session.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND) BILL.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER appeared
at the Bar and said: I have to report, Sir, that having been
to the Lords to desire a conference on the subject matter of
the amendments made by them in the Bill entitled " An Act
for the Regulation of Municipal Corporations in Ireland," the
Lords do agree to the said conference, and appoint the same
to be held presently, in Committee-loom No. 5.
The managers of the Conference, attended by a large
number of Members from the Ministerial benches, then left
On their return in about a quarter of an hour,
the House.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER again ap-
peared at the Bar and said : I
Conference
rinnraepactoret,a
oM n ther.part
Speaker,of
that the managers of the
havethe Lordsv
ebrye thed
theirLo r d Presidentreasons
for of the
disagreeing U nc
oa ntdh
eo t hers),
Lords
amendments, and have left the Bill and the amendments with
that House.

THE SUN, lAON

CUT *C H OF IRELAND. t
On'theortitistethe 4v for the further consideration of the
report on the Tithe Commutation Bill being moved by Lord
JOHN RUSSELL.
Sir G. SINCLAIR rose for the purpose of asking the
Noble Lord why the Church of Ireland Bill, which stood at
the head of the list, was to be postponed? The conduct of
his Majesty's Ministers on this question, when in power, was
very different to that which they pursued when they sat on
that (the Opposition) side of the House. The House beard
of nothing then but the difficulty of settling the tithe question
in Ireland. A vast deal was said about the appropriation
clause, and they were told that it was impossible to pacify Ire-
land until a measure, of which it formed a part, became the
law of the land. How stood the fact now? Week after
week, and month after month, the question remained in abey-
ance, and was treated with as little ceremony as if it were a
measure for lighting and paving the town of Belfast. He
could not reconcile this course with his notions of what con-
stituted manly, straightforward, statesmanlike, and patriotic
conduct. There was only one reason which he could assign
for the conduct of his Majesty's Ministers in this respect. It
was, that they found the appropriation clause a very conve-
nient millstone to hang round the neck of the Lords—a very
serviceable catapulta with which to break down the barriers
of the House they wished to get rid of.—( Cries of, " Oh,
oh I") He hoped a day would be fixed for the full and fair
discussion of the measure. At all events, he wished to
know whether it was to be wholly extinguished or proceeded
with ?—( Hear, hear.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL could not help observing that it
certainly would seem that the Hon. Member who had just
sat down had not paid the slightest attention to the events of
the last few years.—( Hear, and a laugh.) The Hon. Mem-
ber charged him with having pretended a great anxiety for the
settlement of the Church question in Ireland. Undoubtedly
he had not pretended, but felt a great anxiety for the settle-
ment of that question. Acting upon this feeling, he had in
the year 1834—being then one of the King's Ministers—taken
a part in framing a measure for the settlement of the question,
which was proposed in Parliament, and carried in the House
of Commons; at the same time declaring the opinion with re-
spect to the appropriation clause which he had restated a few
days since.—( Hear, hear, hear.) What became of this Bill ?
It did not pass the other House, and was consequently lost.—
In 1835 his Majesty's Ministers, so soon as they had had time
to consider the question, proposed another Bill on the subject
of the Tithes and Church in Ireland, and that Bi!1 was like-
wise thrown out by the House of Lords.—(Cheers.) These
were the facts of the case ; facts of which the Hon. Gentle.
man seemed to be wholly and completely ignorant. Another
Bill had been brought in, and that Bill would be proceeded
with, although he (Lord John Russell) might not entertain
tbp hopes which he had cherished in the two preceding year',
of its passing into a law.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to
the Bill which he now proposed should be taken into considera-
tion, namely, the English Tithe Bill—it was brought into
the House early in February; it had since been the subject of
frequent discussion ; it was a question of very great import-
ance ; it was one with which the interests of a large number
of persons were materially connected, and on which he hoped
Parliament might be brought to agree, inasmuch as it involved
uo such question of party difference as arose in the case of the
Church of Ireland.—( Hear, hear ) Under these circum-
stances, he really did not see why a question brought forward
early in the month of April, should Le postponed for one in-
troduced a few months later. The one question might suit the
lion. Gentleman better than the other. He might have pre-
pared an oration on the subject of the Irish Church which he
was impatient to deliver, but if he would have the goodness to
make it on the English Tithe Bill, he had no doubt it would
be equally well received by the House, and equally appropriate
to the subject.—(Cheers and laughter.)
IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT BILL.

In reply to a question from Mr. MACLEAN,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL expressed his very great
regret that the Imprisonment for Debt Bill had not yet been
introduced in the other House of Parliament. The measure
was in the hands of his Right Hon. and Learned Friend the
Lord Chancellor, however, and he had every reason to believe
that in a few days it would be submitted by him to the House
of Lords.—( [lear, hear.)
Mc. MACLEAN wished to know whether, supposing the
Lord Chancellor's other avocations prevented hint from intro-
ducing the Bill into the House of Lords, it would be brought
forward in that House (the House of Commons) without fur-
ther delay ?
Lord JOHN RUSS t:LL said that the Lord Chancellor
had consitkred the subject with the utmost attention. It was
one of very great importance, and required the fullest cortsi-
de;•ation ; but he ( Lord John Russell) knew that the Learned
Lord would, at a vury early period, be prepared to submit it to
the other House of Parliament.—( Hear. )
UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM.

In reply to a question from Mr. ARTHUR TREVOR,

Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated that it ,sas not his inten-
tion to propose any further measure with reference to the Uni-
versity of Durham], than that contemplated in the Report of
the Church Commission.
TITHE COMMUTATION BILL.

The original question having been put and carried, and the
Order of the Day for the further consideration of the Report
having been read,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL reminded the House that when
the subject was last under consideration, he had stated that
although they had been some time in Committee upon it,
yet the attendance had not been so numerous, nor had the
sense of the house been so fairly takem on the 34th clause,
as to justify him in proposing that the Bill should pass, with.
out affording them an opportunity of pronouncing some more
decided judgment upon that particular provision. The effect
of that clause was, that if it should be found in certain cases
that the amount of tithe paid, or the amount of the compo-
sition for tithe, was above 75 per cent. on the gross value,
it should be reduced to 75 ; that, in cases where it fell below
GO, it should be raised to 60 ; and that in special and pecu-
liar cases it might be fixed at between 60 and 70. He had
since considered the subject, with a view to meet, if possible,
the objections of those who had spoken and voted against this
clause as one which, in their opinion, would commit a very
great injustice against the landowners. the result of that
consideration was, tit:. t he gave notice of a motion for the
re-committal of the Bill, for the purpose of effecting a very
considerable change in this enactment. That change would
be a modification of this clause, as the former clause was a mo-
dification of the 33d clause originally proposed. It was es-
sentially necessary that that clause should undergo some modi-
fication, because it was evident that in many cases the sum of
money taken as composition fell very much below what ought
to be taken as its fair amount ; and it was represented—with
great justice, as he thought—that it would be very unfair if
persorrs who from their own leniency, or other creditable mo-
tives, had taken a small amount of composition for a certain
period, were to be fixed for ever to that precise amount ;
while others, who had got as high a rate of composition as
they possibly could, were benefitted in proportion to the tena-
city with which they had insisted on exacting the utmost far-
thing. However, so much alarm having been created by the
principle he originally proposed to adopt in the 34th clause,
he now proposed to modify it in a different manner, and to fix
a limit beyond which the tithe should not be varied by the
Commissioners. He now proposed that the Commissioners,
upon a consideration of the circumstances of the case, should
ascertain the gross value of the tithe and should have the power
of raising or diminishing the sum to be paid in future, with this
limitation—that they should not raise or diminish it more than
one-fifth beyond the amount paid for the last seven years.
He proposed, likewise, that the Commissioners should,
by the Ist of May next, make a Report to his Majesty, which
should be laid before Parliament, stating what rules and regu-
lations they thought fit to adopt, according to which this
amount—never exceeding the one-fifth—should be estimated.
This would the better enable Parliament to decide upon the
rule they would lay down, which would naturally be founded
partly on the state of the different districts, and partly on the
proportion which they should be told the sum taken bore to
the actual tithe. He had thought it necessary to give notice
that he should propose this clause in lieu of the 35th : at the
same time he must express his opinion, that the clause he
originally proposed was founded on the principles of justice,
and his regret that it had met with so little support when first
brought forward.
Mr. GOULBURN said, that if he understood the state-
ment of the Noble Lord, it referred to an entire alteration in
the principle of the Bill as originally proposed. If this were
the case, be submitted that the clause ought to be printed to
enable the House to consider it with that attention which its
importance demanded.
Sir R. INGLIS wished to urge upon the Noble Lord
(Lord J. Russell) the expediency of giving more time for the
consideration of this clause.
The House then resolved itself into committee.
The clause (35) proposed by Lord John Russell was then
brought up and read.
Mr. HODGES-suggested that as the clause involved mat-
ters of a complicated nature it would be mueh better to post-
pone the consideration of it until it had been printed. He re-
commended that the debate on it should be postponed until it
came regularly before the House.
Mr. GOULBURN was quite incapable of discussing the
clause with anything like satisfation to himself till be had
seen it in print, and had had time to consider the probable

effect of it.
Mr. SHAW LE FEVRE thought that the adoption of this
clause would be a decided improvement of the Bill, and
would materially assist the working of it. He felt obliged to
the Noble Lord for adopting it. He did not see the necessity
for postponing the discussion of it, but still he thought that
there could be no objection to doing so.
Mr. E. A. SANFORD approved of the principle of the
clause, because it gave a greater discretionary power to the

Commissioners. -
Mr. G 0 ULBUR N observed that it was probable that the
Hon. Member for Hampshire (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had seen
the clause, as he had expressed so strong an opinion in favor
of it ; but this was not the case with the rest of the committee.
He once more suggested the necessity of putting the com-
mittee in possession of the clause with which they had to deal.
He could not conceive that his proposition would be regarded
as unreasonable.
Mr. BL AMIRE said that he did not perceive that there
was any difficulty in understanding the clause, although he had
not seen it. He thought that it was highly advantageous that
it had been brought forward. By means of it they would be
enabled to guard against many cases of injustice, which other-
wise would have been met with.
Viscount EBRINGTON said he hoped the clause would
be agreed to. Hon. Members could state any objection to it,
on bringing up the Report.
Mr. ESTCOURT obie-cted to the clause being inserted in
the Bill, without the fullest discussion.
Mr. BENNETT had no objection to give large powers to
the Commissioners. Indeed, he thought the clause did not go
far enough in this respect, for there were many cases in which
the Commissioners ought to have the power of lowering the