The Sun.
London, England, 1836-05-14 00:00:00

CONSTABULARY FORCE (IRELAND.)

Lord MORPETH moved that the Lords' Amendment to
the Constabulary Force (Ireland) Bill, be printed.
Mr. SINCLAIR thought the present was one of the many
occasions which must convince the public, notwithstanding all
that had been said to the contrary, of the utility of the Henn
of Lords.—( Hear, and a laugh.) They -,11 knew to what an
extent the Bill confirmed patronage upon his Majesty's Go-
vernment as it originally stood, and also the large amount of
additional expense created by it. He thought it would be
advisable that the schedules with the original Bill should
be appended to the amendments, for the purpose of showing
the House the number of offices and amount of salaries which
had been reduced by the House of Lords. It surprised him
(Sir G. Sinclair) how the Bill, as it had passed that House,
had escaped the notice of the Hon. Member for Middlesex ;
but he trusted their Lordships' amendments would render the
Hon. Member more favourable to that branch of the Legis-
lature.
Lord A:0 RPETH would content himself with moving that
the amendments be printed—of course any remarks upon them
would he more pertinent when the House was fully acquainted
with their nature.

Mr. HUME could assure the Hon. Baronet that he had not
been asleep, but wide awake. He had often complained of the
Constabulary Force being paid out of the Consolidated Fund.
He thought the Government ought to come to that House,
and ask for a grant for that purpose. He thought, however,
the other House had made a mistake in the matter. He be-
lieved that the present Bill made a considerable reduction in
the present expense of the force.
DUBLIN POLICE BILL.

Lord MORPETII moved the third reading of the above
Bill.

Mr. SHAW hoped the Noble Lord would not insist upon
the head constables being put under the controul of the new
Magistrates ; they were peculiarly the officers of the present
Magistrates of the divisions.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
CRIMINAL LAWS.

Sir E. WILMOT wished to ask a question of the Noble
Lord the Secretary for the Home Department. Some time
ago be asked whether it was the intention of the Government
to bring in a measure to establish summary tribunals to try
offences of a petty description. The Noble Lord said that
the subject was under the consideration of Government. Since
that time a report had gone abroad which recommended the
very thing which he ( Sir E. Wilmot) endeavoured to suggest
as a proper remedy, viz., that prisoners should be tried by a
Jury of five or seven. He wished to know whether it was the
intention of the Government to introduce a measure on the
subject ?
Lord J. RUSSELL might bring in a Bill on this subject
this session, but at the same time he would not hold out any
great hopes that he would be able to carry the second reading
in the present session.
Sir E. WILMOT would bring in a measure himself, if the
Government would support him in it ; not in all the details,
but on the principle of it.
RURAL POLICE.

Sir 0. MOSELEY wished to know whether his Ma-
jesty's Government had it under consideration to bring
in a Bill this Session, or very early in the next, to
regulate the rural police. A measure on this subject was very
much required, and the country felt very anxious that some
measure on the subject should be passed.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that a Bill was in preparation on
the subject; but he could not say that he could bring it under
the consideration of the House this session. If there was time he
would do so, but it would altogether depend upon the ques-
tion of time.
BISHOPRIC OF DURHAM BILL.

Mr. BE RNEL brought up the Report of the Committee
on this Bill.

TITHE COMMUTATION BILL.

On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, the House
went into Committee on the Tithes Commutation Bill. Mr.
Bernal in the Chair.

Upon the 34th Clause being put by the CHAIRMAN,
Mr. FINCH rose to move the amendment of which he had
given notice, that 751. should be substituted for 601. In doing
so the Hon. Member said that upon consideration he should
waive his amendment, and direct his observations chiefly
to the clause. The reason why he moved in the place of 60/.
751. should be inserted, was a conviction that if a balance
was struck between the tithe-payers and owners, 751. would
be the proper amount. There was a variety of opinions
upon the subject, and it was, therefore, difficult to say what
was the proper amount, and what was not.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL wished to know whether he was
to understand the Hon. Member as proposing an amendment
with respect to whether it should be 60/. or 75/. ?

Mr. FINCH observed that he was going to state why
75/. should be the amount fixed upon.—( Hear, hear.)—
He could not give his sanction to any Bill that did not
proceed upon the principle of equity. The only principle
with which the people ought to be satisfied, and would be
satisfied, was the principle of strict and substantial justice.
It had been said that the public were interested in this Bill,
but he contended that the Bill did not affect the rights or
property of the people at all ; it went merely to arrange
matters between the tithe-owner and the landed proprietor.
He was sure the landed proprietors of England—he was sure
the landed aristocracy of England—desired not to take one
sixpence from the clergy of the Established Church. If they
passed this Bill, how could they resist the principle of appro-
priation involved in the Irish Church Bill?—( Hear, hear.)
He should, therefore, feel it his duty to give the clause his
decided opposition.
Mr. E STCOURT fully concurred in the observations of
the Hon. Member who had last spoken. He believed the
Noble Lord would shortly find that, instead of attempting a
maximum and minimum, he should have adopted the sugges-
tion of the Hon. Member for Cumberland, and have recourse
to a valuation.

Mr. PA RROTT conceived that such a proposition would
produce confusion throughout the entire country, and create
enormous expense. He bad hoped that the minimum
would have been fifty instead of sixty per cent. In
his opinion, tithes were not worth more than they would
produce in money, after deducting the expense of col-
lection. He should not make the 75 per cent. maximum,
but would reserve to himself the power of objecting to the en-
tire clause hereafter.

Mr. GOULBURN did not see why a special provision
should be made for those cases in which the collection ex-
ceeded the maximum, while no special provision was made for
those cases where the collection was less than the minimum
There was no reciprocity in this instance.
Mr. ESTCOURT said there were many cases where the
collection did not amount to ten per cent. There was no
provision for such a case.
Sir J. WROTTESLEY complained of the heavy ex-
penses to which the tithe-payer was put. The thrashing of
the corn alone cost 25 per cent.
Mr. GOULBURN thought the Hon. Baronet did not take
into his calculation the value of the straw.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL considered the straw to
form part of the produce upon which the Hon. Bart. calcu-
lated.

Sir R. PEEL understood that the 33d and 34th Clauses
involved the main principles of the Bill—that the compul-
sory principle should be enforced, and that the maximum
and minimum should be fixed. He would suggest that the
discussion upon these points should be postponed, and he
hoped the Noble Lord would not conceive, that in making any
suggestion of this sort, there was any concession on the part
of himself or those who acted with him. It appeared to him
that no answer, had been given to the objections urged as to
the maximum and the minimum of the last 7 years. Accord-
ing to the plan now proposed, the amount of commutation
will depend in many cases on the lenity and forbearance
of the clergyman, and it would be unfair that his for-
bearance should tend to his disadvantage. He thought in
the arrangement the voluntary principle should be included.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL observed that the basis which
had been selected was taken on the ground that it was cal-
culated to lead to little disturbance ; and though in some
cases it might be productive of difficulty, he was impressed
with the opinion that it was the best that could be made
choice of.

Mr. BLAMIRE would be glad that the plan of fixing the
minimum and maximum was abandoned, and a more satisfactory
one established. He did not go quite the length of the
Right Hon. Baronet, though he admitted there was some
reality in his objections.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought it would be better to postpone
all discussion upon this and the subsequent clause until the
bringing up of the report, when the necessary amendments
might be made in it.

Mr. PARROTT moved that a proviso be inserted at the
end of the 34th clause, to the same effect as the amendment
proposed and withdrawn by him on a previous evening, enact-
ing that a reduction of ten per cent. should be made on the
aveYage of the valuation ascertained by the Commissioners.
Lord J. RUSSELL opposed the motion.
Mr. Gillon and Captain Curteis supported it, and Mr. E.
Buller and Sir Price opposed it.
After some further conversation the Committee divided.
The numbers were :

Against the amendment 73
In favour of it 3B
Majority ... • 35
The question was then put that the clause as amended
stand part of the Bill.
Mr. WRIGHTSON rose for the purpose of moving that,
the clause be omitted. After expressing his extreme unwil-
lingness to interpose any obstacle in the way of a measure of
so much importance, for the introduction of which so much
credit was due to his Majesty's Government, the Honourable
Gentleman proceeded to say that he felt satisfied the clause
could never come into operation in a useful or satisfactory
manner. The 33d clause contained within itself all the mate-
rial principles involved in the present one ; and he considered
it quite unnecessary to introduce a second principle, applica-
ble to the same point, the only effect of which would be to
commit a very gross injustice against a large class of persons,
by disturbing the existing compositions, on the faith of
which land had been let tithe free on the one hand, and taken
on the other. The principle he wished to substitute had been

---- ---- ----
adopted again and again in former com:nutations of tithe:
ter:
sinew the injustice of that proposed by his Majesty's Minis.ned
t
ho need only refer to the evidence of one witness, coati
el'oef:ipr(:)stilt'ieonCot7rmittlitt'leie an acre, 'oto
stated that if his tithe were taken in kind would amount
ge
more than his rent—to n 3 less perhaps than Os. all
onwatslgirlitcuil,truersee,nttherount of wl%),oisec,
would only add, that in those parts of the countr)77nre;ci,t
this clause was understood, there was a very strong fees'ulir:
jest,ag i n st
preferring;it.
lheaat,l,
e not,
the however,ina matter
of Parliament, in which they placed a contidenc !, "Irish
hoped would not be disappointed. There could he no
ge
ne-
cessity whatever for the present clause. The tithe owr,e:r.
e.l
present enjoyed a greater sum than they had ever enjoyed.!__
tore ; and tinny would hereafcer enjoy a larger sum than a e.:
rt(!)Ltltrieti(l'vlseddon:uP°anndeljatf?tihDeee
could lowe possessed under the existing law, or ever hoped W.
possess in their wildest moments. The lion. Member con
eluded by moving the omission of the clause.
Mr. GAIL I' K NIG HT stated that if clause 34 was ngrecil,,
to, it would clef at the olject of the clauses already adoptrat
If this part of the measure was adopted it would not giveltbill
satisraclion to the country which should be the result of ,ltis_
on this subject. It was his intention to propose another cl, u
as an amendment to the present.
the
The CHAIRMAN reminded the Hon. Gentleman thatW be
could not propose a substitute clause for the present, until
that
mot before the Committee was disposed
the clause should be negatived. the
Mr. GALLY KNIGHT said that he should support
amendment. rd,
Mr. CA YLE Y had no hesitation in telling the Noble 1,0
the
that if he did not modify this clause he would destroy triteo
principle of the. Bill, which, no doubt. he was most anxi°°,s )
carry. If he persisted on this part of the Bill, he (Mr. CareYoi
of—namely, t"
would tell the Noble Lord that he would lose the supfortt.,
those who were most anxious that the principle of comMu "
tion should be carried into effect. Honorable Gentionneni3olll
posite were most anxious to keep up those parts of the uld
which appeared most favourable to the Church ; but wore?
this satisfy those prepared to carry out a satisfactory turcasbers
He thought this was a point on which Honourable Item--
should make a stand.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL observed that the lth;
tion had been over and over again discussed relative t; be
clause, and notwithstanding the objections urged againSt 3 'that
preferred it as it now stood to any of the amendments •
tared
had been proposed. The principle of the Bill was coata,
in the 34th clause, which would affect the present cotrun-the
tion of tithes in the actual state of things. He entertaine.
re.
strongest objection to this amendment, as it would tend tleca
vent a satisfactory settlement of the question. It had —the
said that in extreme cases the decision should be left t° t of
this Commissioners,AAifkriierrt
i‘dla would lead
wordslbeua dt htooefrrtnwoeemdaesdt
illconvincedeiesrs.a ml
Giteiigisdautmoit
ofthenNan.tEt
~ any arra n g e
and Sir R. PRICE,
The Committee divided upon the question that Clause
as amended, stand part of the Bill—
Ayes
Majority for the Clause ... 78
Noes
mb eimi nßogEd pu rslsoe, pos e d Ito Lord J.:81155$
31'144,
•••• ••••••
Clause 35 was postponed.
for convertingACllra.ußseii3 A
corTnhreersi,to? isshferodmaasfikxewdhamtonneeycepssaiytymetabterient:l
LICITOR-GENERAL said the object wa9 ralgre'
mtooApvrefotetdhruecacefeuxlnivsitfilorvirogmrdditsiyffi.culties of the law of modjuses, an
from Mr. E. Buller Mr. CaYlell' *O.
Aglionby, Mr. Greene, and Lord J. Russell, rt.he
Upondesultoryprogress.inclusiveconversation,werethen the motion of Mr. BROTHERTON, the 11
MANthe
.0,1
The other awcrasr e :ceiretf;ri to,
HAIR'
Orders of the Day were then disposed oc, P
House adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'clock