The Sun.
London, England, 1836-06-25 00:00:00

VHE „SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, JUNE 25, 1836.

DUBLIN POLICE BILL.
This Bill was read a third time; and on the motion of
Lord EL LENBOROUOH, a clause was added, empower.
mg the Lord Lieutenant to appoint Divisional Justices.
IRISH MUNICIPAL BILL.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN Pr; presented a petition from
Eaverfordwest in favour of the Irish Municipal Reform Bill.
Earl WINOHILSEA presented apeition from the county
of Ken', praying their Lordships th a there to their amend-
ments.
THE NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
The Earl of FALMOUTH complained. that he had been
misrepresented in the papers, in respect to tho petition pre-
sented last evening from the Architects.
HERNE BAY PIER.
The Horne Bay Pier Bill was read a third time and passed.
SCOTCH ENTAILS.
Their Lordships then went into Coir.6tte en the Scotch
Entails Bill, the Earl of Shaftesbury in the Chair.
On cllose 3 being real,
The Earl of MANSFIELD objected to this clause, which
allowed the heirs of entail in possession the power to greet
fear for building, not wlthstanding the prohibition in the deeds of
ent.iil. '1 he principle was one which 1w could not agree to, as it
w..la enable the heirs of entail to let land to increase the 101.
reri,tituency. It would also be very injurious to the heirs in
sueeession, and be productive of much inconvenience wherea
ditY.Tetice apolitical opinion existed. The Noble Lord eon-
eluz.cd by moving that clause 3 be expunged.
The Earl of ROSEBERY had proposed the clause with
the impression that it would produce considerable benelleial
effects on the estates of gentlemen of small fortune.
The Earl of DEVON did not think it a proper clause to
lee introduced into the Bill, and therefore he should support
the motion of his Noble Friend.
After a few words from Lord WHARNCLIFFE, +he
house divided, when there appeared-
-For the clause
Against it .... . 29
-l2
Majority ......
The Duke of RICHMOND breught up the report on the
Sale of Bread Bill, and fixed the third reading for Monday.
Several Bills brought up from tire Commons were advanced

a stage.
On the motion of the Duke of RICHMOND the evidence
taken before the Trinity Harbour Committee was ordered to
be printed.
•The House then adjourned to Monday.

---
.11191
possible showing the impolicy of dividing I,,lio,,,slock,.police i
from the ttawik4olice. It was dangerous, awl:attended with
expense, to have two bodies of police instead ot cite. If the
clause had been carried in the Committee it was t.iwoughTlie un-
paralleled exertions of the Hon. Member for Harwich, who, on
this occasion surpassed all his predecessors in the science of
whipping-in.—( A laugh.) It was against all the evidence, and
he could not help expressing his astonishment that his Noble
Colleague should advocate the separation of the police of Li-
verpool into two sections. He called on the House to thr
out the Bill. It took away from the Municipal bodies w
they had themselves created, that legitimate power that oug
to be vested in them—it was contrary to the principle of the
Municipal Reform Bill,and to all principles of sound policy.
He concluded by moving that the report be taken into fur-
ther consideration that day six months.
Lord SAN DON said it was very hard that a question of a
purely commercial character should be converted into a ques-
tion of politics, and that Hon. Members connected with the
Government should sanction a course which must be produc-
tive of serious injury to the commercial interests of the coun-
try. The Trustees had made several propositions to the
Town Council, with the view to obtain an amicable:and satisfac-
tory arrangement, and it was not until all these overtures were
rejected that the present Bill was introduced. The first great
struggle on this subject took place in 1825 and 1826, when
Mr. Gladstone endeavoured to wrest the power from the Tory
Corporation, and place it in the hands of the rate payers.
The grounds upon which this struggle took place was, that
the Corporation was an irresponsible body. It might be said
that the case .was now altered since the measure of Municipal
Reform had passed; but he (Lord Sandon) would ask, was
the Town Council elected by the rate payers ?—( Hear, hear.)
The Police attached to the Docks would by this Bill in no way
be connected with the Police of the Town, which was neces
sary and essential in order that the Company might have
complete control over those who were to watch the pro-
perty which was under the care of the Dock Company.
He would defy his Hon. Friend to say that the Dock estate
had ever conferred any power for political or party purposes.
On the contrary, the dock keeper and manager, and the other
officers, were usually of what was called the liberal party.—
(Loud
cries of " Question, " Divide.") If the Bill was re-
jected, there would be no protection for the great commercial.
interests of the country.—( Question.) It would throw the
whole of that trust into the hands of the new Corporation, as
it had been said that it was formerly in the hands of the old )
corporation.—( Renewed cries of " Question," " Divide," Sze.
Mr. STANLEY thought the Dock rate-payers were a most
improper constituency, as their interests were transitory, while
those of the Town Council were permanent. As a Member for
Cheshire, he asked all those who were well-wishers of the
town of Liverpool to join with him in endeavouring to re-
lect this Bill.--(Loud cries of " Divide.") _
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the Original Motion
For Mr. Ewart's Amendment 197
Majority in favour of the Amendment —24
On our return to the gallery, we found
Mr. P. THOMSON on his legs. Ile said he had taken
no part in the political part of this question.—( Loud cheers.)
Politics had been most improperly mixed up with it.—(Re-
newed cheers from the Ministerial side of the House.) He
looked at the subject dnly in a commercial point of view.
He duly considered the matter in this light, and in his opinion
it was the only light in which it ought to be viewed. He was
afraid he had given dissatisfaction to both parties, as neither
was content with the plan he had suggested. His opinion was
decidedly against the recommendation. He considered
that the Doe!: rate-payers were the most improper parties to
be entrusted with the management of these concerns—
he had stated this to the parties themselves. lie considered
the proposition of the Honourable and Learned Member for
Liverpool nearly, though not quite equally objectionable; be-
cause it seemed to him that the stock-rate payers ought
not to be in any way concerned in the management
of the docks.—( Hear, hear.) But, at the same time,
he felt strongly, and he wished to impress it, cn the
House, that such a question ought not to be made a
matter of party arrangement in Committee, ( llear,
hear,) and he hoped that in a -future Session
the matter would be brought in a public shape before the
1 House.—(Loud cheers.) They ought to have the opinion of
Parliament taken relative to the constitution of the body,
ar.d that the commercial interest would be considered in the
reduction of the dues, and that proper secwity would be taken
for the dues. so that they should not be improperly raised, and
that they might be managed with economy and propriety.
He trusted that the Bill would be made a public Bill in the
course of the next Session, and by that means be brought in
a proper shape before the House.
A Message from the Lords brought up the Parrott Naviga-
tion, and several private Bills.
NORTH AMERICAN BANKING COMPANY BILL.
On the motion of Mr. RICHARDSON, this Bill was read

a third time.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Sir R. PEEL wished, for the sake of general conveni-
ence, to make some arrangement with' the Noble Lord with
respect to the Irish Tithe Bill. The principle of the measufe,
he apprehended, would require only one discussion. Of course
neither he nor any other Gentleman would be precluded from
entering upon the details. That discussion might be
taken upon that clause which refers to the leading princi-
ple of the Bill. He should propose that the Noble
Lord should .name the day on which it was probable that
the clause would be taken under consideration by the
House.—( Hear, hear.) The Committee stood for Friday
next, but he understood that the Hon. Member for Kilkenny
had a motion to propose on that night, which would most
likely take the whole evening. He should therefore propose
that that clause should be taken on Monday se'nnight.
The clause in question was the 50th, which gave
the Lord Lieutenant the power to appoint Commissioners
to apply the surplus.—( Hear, hear.) That raised the whole
question of the principle, and if it met the general conve-
nience he should name that day for the discussion.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought that some day should be
named for proceeding with the clause to which the Right
Hon. Baronet had referred. Of course he should not be able
to say how far tire Committee would proceed on Friday;
if they proceeded so far as the 50th clause, he certainly
should be quite ready to postpone any discussion on the clause
-till the Monday following. If the Committee proceeded as
far as the 50th clause, he would undertake it should not be
proceeded with till Monday.
Sir ROBERT PEEL thought it was the general desire to
take the discussion on the 50th clause on Monday.
Lord J. RUSSELL should propose going into Committee
on Friday on the Bill, on the understanding that the 50th
clause should not be proceeded with till Monday.
Mr. OLIPHANT presented two petitions from Perth,
and one from Leslie, in Fife, against the Municipal Corpora-
tion (Scotland) Bill.
BRIGHTON RAILWAY BILL AND BLACKWALL
RAILWAY BILL.

Mr. WA SON called the attention of the House to the fact
that the Reports on these Bills were not yet presented, al-
though
there was ample time for doing so.
TITHE COMMUTATION (ENGLAND) BILL.
Lord JOHN RU SSE LL moved the Order of the Day for
the House to resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from Ware,
in Hertfordshire, against that portion of the Bill which related
to personal tithes.
POOR LAW COMMISSIONERS.
Mr. MACLEAN begged to know whether the Poor Law
Commissioners had the power of preventing the poor from
attending divine service on Sundays ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that on one occasion they
had been let out, and instead of going to church they spread
themselves over the country, doing much damage to the public
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

argue t
'.lr.
Sir

Mr. D. 1,11. HARVEY complained of the uncertainty at-
tending the public business of the House, as Hon. Members
did not know what measures would or would not be brought
forward in the course of each evening. It would be very de-
sirable if that were ascertained.
Lord:J. RUSSELL feared it would be objected to him that he ,
bad brought forward measures in the absence of Hon. Members.
He would propose, after the Tithe Bill, to take the Lords'
amendments to the Municipal Corporations (England) Bill.
After that the Charitable Trustees Bill, and then the Plura-
lities Bill.
Mr. HUME suggested that the better way would be to
take the business according to the rotation in which it stood,
and then if Hon. Members did not attend in their places the
fault would be only theirs. At all events three or four mea-
sures should be named to succeed each other.
Lord J. RUSSELL admitted that this would be by far
the most convenient mode of proceeding ; but if he made
that arrangement he might be accused by Hon. Gentlemen of
having brought forward measures in their absence. He
would, however, say that what he proposed was, after the
Tithe Commutation Bill to bring forward the Lords' Amend-
ments to the English Corporation Bill, the Charitable Trusts
Bill, and the second reading or the Pluralities Bill.
Sir R. PEEL said that the Charitable Trusts Bill was too
important a measure to be treated in this way. He thought
that a given day should be fixed for the discussion of that
measure.
The Order of the Day having been read for further consi-
dering the report on the English Tithe Commutation Bill.
Mr. A. TREVOR felt it incumbent on him to take the
sense of the House on the proposition which he had to make.
The Hon. Gentlemen then moved that in the clause appointing
the Commissioners these words should be inserted, namely,
" being members of the Church of England as by law
established."
Lord JOHN RUSSELL considered the words wholly un-
necessary.
The numbers were
For the motion ... 19
Against it
Majority
Mr. HITME moved an amendment, to the effect that the
Bill should be re-committed, for the purpose of• inserting a
provision that in all cases the expenses incurred by calling in
the Commissioners should beborne by the parties interested in
their award.
Mr. CURTEIS oppo3ed the motion.
Sir R. PEEL thought that those expenses ought not to be
placed on the parties, but paid out of the Consolidated Fund.
r. HUME said that the charge in by commutation
was paid by the people of Ireland, and he did not think it fair
to make a distinction.
Mr. DUNCOMBE thought that instead of paying the costs
out of the Consolidated Fund, they ought to be borne by the
impropriators, the parsons, and the tithepayers.
After a short conversation, the House divided, and the num-
bers were—
Against the amendment
For the amendment
Majority against the amendment --50

The House then proceeded to the further consideration of •
•
the Bill.
On the clause, •
-Mr. JEll S suggested that there would be some difficulty
in assessing the tithe of coppice land, and proposed that a
greater discretion should be vested in the Commissioners as
respected it.
Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to admit the difficulty.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL suggested that the insertion of
the words " titheable wood" might obviate the difficulty.
rIVAZIIIIUME said it was monstrous that the produce of ye-
,,etablftardens hereafter to be brought into cultivation should
be subject to a higher rate of tithe than the land now paid.
Mr. Jl said, with respect to coppice wood, as alluded
to in the amended clause, there were many cases in which it
was not cut for seven years, and how then could the average
be computed ?
Mr. PALMER considered that as there were compositions
existing, payable every year, an average might be struck from
them.
Sir R. PEEL was of opinion that, as there: were composi-
tions in some cases and none in others, it would, therefore, be
necessary to vest a greater discretionary power in the Com-
Missioners as respected those instances in which no composi-
tions had been entered into.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—That has been provided
for in a preceding clause.
Sir R. PEEL—Even so. This clause being so important
should speak distinctly for itself, and not rest its interpretation
on any other.
Major BE AUCLERK—It should be remembered in ad-
justing this matter that, owing to the progress of railroads,
market gardens in the neighbourhood of London will, in a few
years, fall so much in value that their owners will be ruined.
Mr. C AYL EY—As respects the arrangement with regard
to trees, it is necessary to observe that of late they were con-
sidered more valuable for their production of bark than anything
else, and that they are, therefore, sometimes not cut once in
twenty years.
Sir R. PEEL—If there be any difficulty it can be removed
by the Cmmissioners after a fair inquiry stating what they con-
sider to be a fair principle of commutation.
Lord J. RUSSELL—That, perhaps, with some modifica-
tion, may be the best course.
Mr. L ENNARD—Aa the practice is to rate them annu-
ally, might not that form a criterion?
The clause was (as we understood) postponed.
On the 38th clause an amendment was proposed.
Mr. 'HUME objected to that part of it which rendered land
brought into cultivation for hops, or any more valuable species
of crop liable to a greater amount for ccmposition of tithe
than it previously paid.
Lord J. RUSSELL introduced that part of the clause in
compliance with a deputation, of which the Hon. Member for
Middlesex was one.—( A laugh.) The deputation represented
that the owners of market-garden lands in the neighbourhood
of' the metropolis were liable to have arable lands in the neigh-
bourhOod after the commutation competing with them, they
paying a heavy tithe, and the others a very light one. There
were two views of the case consonant with justice—either to
exempt land brought into a better cultivation from a higher
tithe, or to say all lands shall be liable to the amount of tithe
hitherto paid.
Mr. WARBURTON thought that the commutation should
apply to the value of the soil, not to the expenditure of capital.
He hoped the Noble Lord would attend to the principle of the
Bill, and not be influenced by any representations. The object
would seem to be to give the proprietors of hop grounds a mono-
poly ; and as there were no great proprietors among the market-
gardeners, they were neglected. Were there no representations
from the proprietors of hop grounds? The clause was en-
tirely opposed to the principle of the Bill, and induced him to
hold to his former opinion, that it would be better to get rid of
tithes altogether, by throwing them on the Consolidated Fund,
and then, in requital for this boon given to the landowners, to
abolish the existing corn laws.
Sir R. PEEL—If the Hen. Gentleman has not better ar-
guments to support this opinion than those which he urges
against the clause, I fear he will not be able to gain many sup-
porters for it. He says there has been no regard paid to the
market gardeners, whilst the interests of those who own hop
grounds have been consulted.
Mr. WARBURTON—No.
Sir R. PEEL—Surely he meant that, when he asked had
he hanowners made no representations ?—he would seem to
hat the market-gardeners were small proprietors in fee.
WARBU RTON—I did not say so.
R. PEEL—`To; the Hon. Member did not say so;
but he argued as if he assumed it. He says the market-gar-
deners are humble ; hat will not those from whom they hold
their lands, either on lease or at will, and who may be pro-
prietors of 200 or 300 acres, be affected by this measure?
The clause is not at variance with the principle of the Bill ;
on the contrary, it is in accordance with that principle. It
fixes? definite sum, which I take to be the principle—(Hear,
hear)---different to be sure from arable lands, but still definite.
It takes the ordinary and extraordinary cases,
,making them
distinct; but it adheres to that principle of the definite sum,
and is kept within a certain limit.
Mr. JERVIS contended that stilt the charge would be a
charge on capital, and, therefore, contrary to the principle of
the Bill. It would affect any new improvement which might
render a few yards of ground very valuable. Indeed, it was
a controverted point whether market-gardens or hops, tlle
culture ef which were later than the imposition of tithes, were
liable to the payment. The Noble Lord admitted that this
part of the clause was contrary to what he felt to be the prin-
ciple of the Bill. Why, then, did he introduce it ? Why did
he not take his standard of tithe commutation from the rate of

corn ?
Sir Er KNATCHBULL thought the Noble Lord should
be more cautious how he acceded to the suggestions of Hon.
Members at the other side, when his concessions were thus
met. If the tithes were to be compulsorily commuted it was
batter that the commutation should be definite.
Mr. BENETT thought that the better plan would be that
Parliament, in any case of injury which could be shown to
arise out of its enactments, should allow compensation. It
was contrary to the principle of the Bill to check the outlay
of capital, and yet when railroads came into operation, market
gardens, to furnish the metropolis, would be cultivated a hun-
dred miles from London.
Mr. HODGES was understood to support the amendment.
Mr. R. PRICE would support the clause as it stood, be-
cause be thought the amendment would effect a fraud upon
tithe-owners.
Mr. AGLIONBY said that, after having listened very at-
tentively to the arguments which had been used on both sides
of this question, he was induced to vote for the amendment.
He would rather, however, see the clause thrown out alto-

gether.
Colonel THOMPSON thought the clause unfair, and mili-
tated against the grand principle of the Bill.
Major BEAUCLE RK supported the amendment.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL supported the clause,
because he felt it was founded in justice, and likely to be
beneficial to the country.
Mr. STRUTT said he very much preferred the Honour-
able Gentleman's making a proposition for the total abolition
of this species of tithe, then come to the same end bythe pro-
posed circuitous and expensive mode.
After a few words from Sir H. Verney, Mr. Warburton, and
Major Curtis.
Mr. HUME begged to say the explanation of what had
been imputed to him as a wish expressed on the part of the
deputation that had waited on the Noble Lord, with reference
to this part of the Bill, that all he had urged on the Noble
Lord's consideration was, that garden grounds should be
placed on the same footing as the arable lands adjoining.
The view which he endeavoured to impress on the Noble
Lord was the general injustice of levying a tax in the shape
of tithe on the capital and skill applied to land. If, there-
fore, this clause could, after that explanation, be considered
his, all he could say was, that he was perfectly willing to give

it up.
The House then divided, when the numbers were—
For the amendment 23
Against it lO4
Majority
On our return Mr. HUME was remarking that every new
land converted into hop ground would require fresh valuation,
so that every year a new adjustment of tithes might be neces-
sary. Now, as it was ascertained that there were fifty-three
thousand acres of hop ground in the whole of Great Britain
he thought the quantity of orchard ground should be also as-
certained, and the whole of it valued, so as to prevent such
fluctuations as otherwise would arise. The Hon. Member
expressed his intention, on the third reading, to take the sense
of the House on the question.
Mr. WARBURTON proposed a proviso to one of the
amended clauses (the number of which was not announced),
to the effect that all gardens not cottage gardens should be
considered as market-gardens. He thought the clause as it
now stood contained tne germ of interminable squabbles be-
tween the clergyman and his parishioners, in consequence of
the undefined meaning of the words.
Mr. C. BULLER said that the clause was calculated to
produce endless litigation.
After a few words from Major Beauclerk, Lord J. Russell,
and Mr. Aglionby, the proviso was withdrawn.
On clause 61 being proposed,
—"Mr. HUME submitted that the titheowners being the par-
ties principally interested they should bear also the expense
of paying the witnesses under this clause, and he thought
that it was unjust they should be charged on the Consolidated

Fund.
Mr. 'GOULBURN was of opinion that the expenses
should be borne by the parties who benefitted by the award of
the Commissioner:A.
After a few welds from Sir R. INGLIS and Mr. LEN-
NARD, which were inaudible in the gallery, the clause
as amended was ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Several other clauses wore agreed to, with some verbal
amendments.
Sir H. VE RE suggested that it would be desirable if some
person were appointed to act between the clergymen and the
tithe-owner to collect the amount.
)11r. GREENE proposed the insertion of a clause that the
Commissioners should have power to reduce the rent charge,
as the land might be deteriorated in value.
Lord J. RUSSELL objected to the clause, as contrary to
the principle of the Bill, and it was rejected without a division.
Mr. WALTER commented at some length on the three
leports which had been laid on the table of the House relative
to the state of the Established Church, and objected to the
proposed distribution of the livings as a virtual plunder of the
Church, and likely to lead to greater evils in respect to its
revenues than those at present existing. He quoted Burn and
Bishop Gibbs, and other writers on Ecclesiastical Law and
the liabilites of Church property, at some length, and con-
tended that, according to the precedent set by Henry the
Eighth, where lay appropriations were made on the tithe pro-
perty newly apportioned, a congrue portion should he set
vide for the parish Priest, and the use of the parish church.
The Hon. Member then moved the clause of which he had

given notice for the congrue appropriation of lay tithe pro-
perty to the Clergyman of the parish.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought that the clause proposed by
the Hon. Member for Berkshire had nothing to do with the
subject before them. Lay tithes were as much private pro-
perty as any other, and were not liable to be brought within
the purposes of this Act. In fact, an Act of Parliament
could not touch it any more than it could touch other private
property, subject to mortgage and sale like it, and having no-
thing to do with the appropriation.
The clause was the negatived without a division.
The report was agreed to, and the Bill was ordered to be
read a third time on Monday.
On the motion of Mr. BROTHERTON the other Orders
of the Day were entered into and disposed of.
On the motion of Dr. BOWRING, the House adjourned
at a Quarter past Twelve.