The Sun.
London, England, 1836-04-29 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, APRIL 29, 1856.

praying, that in the event of the revenues of the see of Dur-
ham being curtailed, the surplus might be applied to the reli-
gious and moral education of the people of that county.
Mr. BROTHERTON had been requested to support the
prayer of the petition from Durham. In doing so he would merely
take occasion to remark that in that county where the eccle-
siastical revenues were the largest, the condition of the people
with regard to education was the most deplorable.
Mr. TREVOR was obliged to protest against the state-
ment just made in the strongest manner. He would be un-
worthy of the situation which he held, the representative of a
large clerical constituency, if he sat still and heard such a
charge made without giving it a decided contradiction.
Nits ROBINSON presented a petition from Worcester in
favour of the Manchester and Chester Railway Bill.
Mr. ANG E R STE IN brought up the Report of the Green-
wich Improvement Bill.
Sir R. FERGUSON moved the 3d Reading of the Not-
tingham Cemetery Bill. Read a third time and passed.
COUNTY RATES.
Mr. ESTCOURT wished to know from the Hon. Gentle-
man opposite (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) when he expected the
Report of the Commissioners on County Rates would be pre-
sented ?
Mr. S. LEFEVRE said that he expected the Report
would be made shortly.
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS' BILL.
On the motion of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, the
House went into Committee on this Bill. Mr. BERNAL in
the Chair.
Clauses 49 and 50 were then agreed to.
On clause 51 being read,
Mr. DUNCOMBE wished to add the clause of which he
had given notice, the object being that no tenant should be
deprived of his vote in consequence of his landlord having
compounded with the parish for the parochial rate.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to the clause on
the ground of irregularity.
Mr. DUNCOMBE said the object of the clause was to
place the electors of boroughs on the footing of those of coun-
ties. He hoped his Majesty's Attorney-General would give
some reason for his objection besides the grounds which he
had stated. lie (Mr. Duncombe) maintained that his
amendment was perfectly regular.
The amendment having been put from the chair,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL would feel it his duty to
oppose the motion. In the first place it was quite irregular,
and the Hon. Member was endeavouring to do indirectly
what he could not do directly. The present was quite a dis-
tinct and specific clause. and had no relation to that to which
it was said to be an amendment. He objected to it further,
inasmuch as the present Bill did not seek to make any change in
the qualification in the franchise, it was merely a Bill to facilitate
the registration of voters. He was not bound, he thought, to
enter upon the merits of the question, but he apprehended it
would open the door to much fraud.
Mr. KEMP totally differed front the view taken by his
Right Hon. Friend the Attorney-General. He thought the
amendment would be highly advantageous.
After a few words from Captain PECHELL'
Mr. ROBINSON said he supposed 'the Hon. Member for
Finsbury would be satisfied if the Attorneys General would re-
cognize the priniple ent'soiiei in his resolution. He (Mr.
IL) warmly supported the principle.
Mr. DUNCOMBE thought the Attorney-General was
renderirrtr, the Bill as vexations as it was possible. He would
divide the House.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said his only object was
to preserve the franchise as it was before.
'the Gallery was then cleared for a division, when there
appeared—
For the clause as it stood
For the amendment

Majority

The elause was then agreed to.
On the 52d clause being put, Mr. PEMBERTON said he
had heard with the greatest pleasure what had fallen from the
Attorney-General, because unquestionably on the same prin-
eples his Hon. and Learned Friend must support him ( Mr.
Pembe. ton) in his opposition to the present clause.—( Hear.)
lie (the Attorney-General) had stated that it was no part of
the object or principle of their Bill to alter the right of vot-
i ig. and that its objet was to provide a more convenient re-
gistration, ned to remove any doubts that existed as to the
present right of voting. If, therefore, he found that this clause
was one which beyoed all doubt altered the right of voting.
and destroyed existing qualifications, and made new ones ; he
oiled upon him (the Atturaey.General), in common consist-
e.:cy, whether he approved of this clause or not, to concur with
him (Mr. Pemberton) in throwing this clause out of the Bill.
The clause stated that doubts existed upon the subject. Now
doubts did exist, and if they did, the clause would.
not remove them. He wished that either land alone
or houses alone should give the right of voting.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the clause was intended to
remove doubts which existed, and for the better registration of
voters. The framers of the Reform Act were aware that it
would become necessary, from time to time, to take measures
fur the Purpose of explaining parts of the Act, and that it would
be requisite to apply to Parliament to make amendments in it.
The object of the clause was to entitle any person occupying
a house or shed or tenement with land attached, to have the
va`ue that laid included in the valuation.—( Hear, hear.)
He could net agree to omit the clause altogether, but he had
no objection to put the other one to the sense of the House.
PEMBERTON hoped if the Noble Lord brought in
a Bill to disfranchise these voters, he would also bring in a
BM to disfranchise the forty-shilling voters of Dewsbury.
Mr. W. PRA E D said he would oppose the clause decidedly,
and would divide the House upon it.
Mr. E WART would cordially support the clause of the
Hon. Member opposite (Mr. Pemberton).
Mr. AV LE AN .also supported the clause.
The SO LICITO R.- GENERAL opposed it.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the clause.
Mr. S. WORT LEY.—I said that the effect of notinsert-
ing the proposed clause ,would be the means of disfranchising
18 or 20 persons.
Af,er a few words from W. C. Wool),
• Sir J.• GRAHAM objected to the clause as it stood, on ac-
count of the inequality to which it gave rise. It gave an
advantage to the voters in boroughs and towns over those in
the agricultural districts. If the Noble Lord (Lord J. Rus-
sell) would consent to the omission of the words 4! not being a
house, warehouse, counting-house, or shop," he thought that
it would remedy this inequality.
Mr. C. BULLER thought the proposition of the Hon.
Bart. very !air as it except as it applied to the word Dwelling

House.
After a few words from Mr. C. BULLER and Lord JOHN
RInSELL,
Sir ROBERT PEEL wished to put on record his objec-
tion to the clause altogether, inasmuch as it was a dangerous
precedent in a bill professing to facilitate the registry, to
introduce a clause changing the qualification itself.
The clause, as amended, was then agreed to.
(LEFT SITTING.

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 20,0001. per annum,
and he submitted that the House ought not to entertain a mea-
-1 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 ;he
present Bill ? About the year 1698, a 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, h 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 secula 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
he on a footing with the French noblesse.—(Hear, hear.)
The lion. 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 lion. 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 101. 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 ?
Li 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 laudable 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.) Re 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. STE UA RT 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 fur 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 one-fifth of the
present amount of taxes imposed upon them.—( Hear.) The
lion. 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 effected.—(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 hear 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
thought it hard that they should be deprived of their vested
rights. The Faculty of Advocates had already signified their
willingness to give up this privilege, but this should not be
mixed up with any other question.
The LORD ADVOCATE thought it a monstrous thing
that any body should be exempt from contributing to the sup-
port of the poor. It was not a right attached to property.
Upon what ground, therefore, so reasonable a proposition was
to be resisted he could not divine.
The Gallery was then cleared for a division. The numbers
were—

Ayes
Noes
Majority in favour of the Bill --31
VOTING IN VESTRIES.
____

. 108

Mr. WA KLE Y moved fur leave to bring " in a Bill to re-
peal the sStli of George 111., chap. 69., so far as the same
relates to the manner of voting in vestries, and to alter the
mode of voting in all cases in which the manner described in
that Act is adopted by other Acts of Parliament." The Hon.
Member stated that he hoped no objection would be given to
the introduction of the Bill—(Hear)—as every opportunity
would be given to Hon. Members to discuss the principle of the
Bill at the second reading.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said this Bill differed essentially
to the one brought in by his Hon. and Gallant Friend the Mem- '
ber for Westminster ; he should, therefore, feel it his duty to
oppose it on a seeond reading.
Mr. A. TREVOR thought that the Bill, if passed into a
law, would be most mischievous.
Mr. HUME said that his lion. Friend merely proposed to
do zu.vay with an innovation on the law of the land.
After a few words from Dr. BO WRING and Mr. BEN-
NETT, leave was given to bring in the Bill.
THE INQUESTS AT WOOLWICH.
Mr. WAKLE Y moved for a " copy of the evidence and
verdicts of the juries at the inquests lately held at Woolwich,
on the bodies of two marines who had been subjected to the
punishment of flogging." It was with deep regret he heard
that the motion which he was about to make would be opposed
by the Ministers of the Crown. It appeared to him of great
importance that the evidence taken on such an occasion,
and before such an initiatory court, should be laid before the
House.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that in cases of a very seri-
ous and grave nature the House might be justified in calling
for the notes of the coroner, but in such a case as the pre-
sent Ile considered it most inexpedient that the evidence taken
before a legal tribunal should be submitted to that House.—
( Hear, hear.) He thought that the Hon. Member for Fins-
bury had failed in making out a case of necessity for the pro-
duction of this evidence.—( Hear.)
Mr. HUME observed that his Hon. Friend's motion merely
embodied the public wish on the subject, as expressed at the
time of these occurrences.
Mr. WAKLEY admitted that there was no exact prece-
dent for the motion which he made.—Motion withdrawn.

COPYRIGHT ACT.
Mr. BUCKINGHAM moved "for the repeal of so much
of the Copyright Act, as enjoined the gratuitous delivery of
eleven copies of every published work to eleven of the public
institutions, colleges, and libraries of different towns in the
kingdom."
Dr. BOWRING seconded the motion.
Mr. A. TREVOR considered it so dangerous that he
should oppose the motion at its introduction.
Mr. GOULBURN looked upon any change of the pro-
posed kind as one which he felt bound to oppose.
Mr. C. WYNN thought the subject should be fully
considered.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER should be
very glad to see the Bill, when it was introduced, and hoped
the House would give it every possible attention.
After a few words from Dr. Lefroy, Sir R. Inglis, Colonel
Sibthorp, Mr. Hume, and Mr. Baines,
Mr. BUCKINGHAM expressed his wish to shape the mea-
sure in such a manner as would obviate all objections.
The motion was agreed to ; and the Bill was ordered to be
brought in by Mr. Buckingham, Colonel Thompson, and Mr.
Ewart.

PATENTS.
Mr. M‘K INNON would not press his motion for " A Select
Committee to consider the expediency of amending the pre-
sent system of granting patents ; and of rendering more easy
and expeditious, and also less expensive and less liable to liti-
gation, the manner of securing to individuals the benefit of their
inventions ; but on Thursday, May 19, he would move for
leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law to that effect.
GRAND JURY LAWS (IRELAND).
Lord Viscount MORPETH, after describing the principal
provisions of his intended measure, moved for leave to bring in
a Bill to consolidate and amend the Grand Jury Laws in
Ireland.
After a few observations from Mr. W. S. O'Brien, Mr.
Shaw, Mr. M. Chapman, Mr. Sharman Crawford, Mr.
French, Mr. Sergeant Jackson, and Mr. Standish Barry, leave
was given to bring in the Bill.
DEBTS FOR SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS.
Mr. GILL ON then moved for leave to bring in a Bill
"to alter and amend certain clauses in the 6th Geo. IV., c.
81, and 9th Geo. IV. c. 58, relating to the granting of certi-
ficates to keep alehouses and victualling houses, in which ale,
beer, spirits, and other exciseable liquors may be sold by re-
tail in Scotland, and to enable the holders of licenses, except
in cases of change of circumstances or delinquency, to obtain
a renewal of such licenses from the excise ; and further to
enable his Majesty's justices of the peace or magistrates in
Scotland to grant certificates for the sale of ale and beer only,
without such certificate entitling the holder thereof to demand
from the excise a license for the sale of spirits and other ex-
ciscable liquors."
Sir G. CLERK opposed the motion. He had great doubts
whether a change in the present system of licensing public-
houses in Scotland would either be useful or advantageous
to the people of that country.
Mr. WALLACE seconded the motion. It was high time
that a complete change should take place in the system of
licensing Publicans in Scotland. He differed widely from the
Hon. Baronet the Member for Edinburghshire. There was a
monopoly—and that too of the very worst kind—that of