The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-26 00:00:00

MORN' 'VG E.

William Lovett. What, he would ask, was Lovett's
offence ? Why he had written a political libel for which
he-was punished, but in doing so he had committed no
offence that affected his moral character. What, on the
other hand, had been the conduct of Lord Waldegrave ?
Why, he had been convicted of a brutal assault on a
policeman; by which.he was greatly injured, and his life
for some time despaired of. It was true that Lord -Wel-
degrave was punished for this, but what was the amount
of the punishment? Why, Lovett, who had com-
mitted no moral offence, was confined , for a year
in one of the most stringent and strict goals
in the country ; while Lord Waldegrave was only
confined in one of the outer wards of the Queen's Bench,
where he could enjoy every luxury, and receive and see
his friends. The only inconvenience he was subject to, was
not being able to diive a cabriolet during the present fine
weather, or go to the Derby.—(Laughter.) The Hon.
Gentleman had said that these parties should not have
adopted the agitation they did, but that they should have
applied to their representatives in the House of Com-
mons. That was the chief Complaint, and the only re-
source which they had was to agitate, in order to make
converts to their principles. What harm, he would ask,
could it do to. liberate these thirty-three men? The
Chartists were.not now agitating ; there was no danger
of outbreaks in Manchester or Birmingham ; and, there-
fore, what harm could result from such an act of grace
on the part of the Crown? He begged of the House not
hastily to dismiss this petition from its consideration.
Mr. GILLON denied that the petition had been re-
ceived with levity by the Members of that House. He
believed there were many who would object to oto the
whole extent of the demands made in that petition; but
it would be most unfair to suppose that the Members of
that House were indifferent to the prayers of 1,500,000
of their fellow-subjects. It appeared to him that the
people having been shown that they could not recklessly
set the law at defiance, some mitigation of the punish-
ment of these men 'might. now take place. He thought
another reason for agreeing to the proposition of the
Hon. Member for Finsbury was, the great disproportion
of the punishment to the offence. It was a sufficient jus-
tification of the assertion that was made in many quar-
ters, that there was one measure of justice meted out to
the Peer and another to thepoor man, and he could not.
help referring to the case of the Earl of Waldegrave,
who was suffering a trifling imprisonment for what a
man had a short time previously been sentenced to seven
years' transportation. He trusted much to the returning
good sense of the Chartists, and even if the Hon. Mem-
ber did not press his motion to a division, he was satis-
fied that the discUssion would be productive of much
good. He believed that these men were beginning; to
see the folly and absurdity of their conduct, and he
hoped they. would see no more of it, any more than of
the unnatural coalition that had lately taken place be-
tween the Chartists and the Tories. He should give his
cordial support to the motion.—:(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME thought the present was not the time to
discuss the conduct of the ChartistS, but what they were
to take into consideration was, whether, as had been
urged by the Hon. Member who had preceded him, the
punishment of these unfortunate men had not been
greatly disproportioned to their offence. He believed
much of the severity exercised towards these men arose
from the unfounded apprehensions which then filled
men's minds, and which subsequent events had shown to
be.completely unfounded. He sincerely trusted that the
Government would see the justice and expediency of re-
considering the case of these men who still remained in
confinement, and confer a boon upon the millions of that
country by restoring them to liberty.
Mr. WARBURTON complained of the severe treat-
ment to which these men had been subjected, and which
in itself formed a sufficient justification for a merciful
consideration of their case on the part of the Govern-
ment.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. WAKLEY said the treatment of these men was a
sufficient ground for the interposition of the Government,
and he trusted the hint would not be lost upon them, and
that it would not be necessary to press the motion to a
division. Nothing had taken place in that country for
many years which could be put in competition with the
punishment of these men, and the Government might
very fairly exercise some leniency to them, now that
these events had passed away. He could not understand
the awful silence that prevailed on the other side of the
House—(Hear, hear)—unless it was that the Right Hon.
Baronet was taking a careful review of the circumstances
of the country, and that the confinement of political
offenders might form one of its most prominent fea-
tures. • It appeared to him that a word from the Right
Hon. Baronet would be of immense service to these men,
and he hoped it would not be withheld. The Right Hon.
Baronet and the House ought to view with consideration,
and a merciful feeling of forbearance, the errors of these
men, who had been incarcerated merely for stating their
opinions in an honest and manly manner, at public meet-
ings.—(Hear, hear.) The working classes had no re-
presentatives in that House, and that it was which
made them so restless and discontented, and justly so,
and they would be undeserving the name of men if they
were not discontented until they had representatives in
that House. They were not called upon to support the
prayer of the petition ; they were merely called on to
support the motion of his lion. Colleague, and to that
motion no man could possibly object. It merely prayed ;
her Majesty to take into her merciful consideration the '
case of the prisoners confined for political offences, but
it did not ask for their discharge, If the Ministers
thought the motion objectionable they 'night I+i9Praill
from voting upon it, and leave it to the decision of the
House. It was a matter worthy of their consideration,
that 1,348,000 unrepresented men had addressed That
House in favour of These men, and he trusted it woidd
meet with their favourable consideratiw,
Sir R. PEEL did not think the Hen, gentleman had
any right to complain of his silence, for he we,s, not,
whatever other imputations might be cast upon him,
chargeable with evading dilltenities.,—(Hear, hear.)
He certainly would not pursue the course of the Hon.
Member, and put AA Antbby a construction upon
the motion of the lieu, Member for Finsbury. Why,
the manliness of the Hon. Member himself would repu-
diate such a construction.—{Hear, hear.) The lion.
Member had said that the time was come when these
political offenders should be discharpd, and that the
Crown would act well in extending its mercy toward
them. Let no Man Ytlttl fbr the motion under the im-
pression that the object merely was to pray her 'Ma-
jesty to take the case of these men into her gracious
consideration. The real underetanding of the motion
was—and the Hon, Member for Finsbury would not deny
it—its real ohjeet was to obtain the discharge of these
rquu, He should act in conformity with the prin-
ciples' on which he had always acted, namely, to
leave the matter in . the hands of the Crown.
He thought the consideration of those cases ought, con-
sistently with the Constitution, to be left with the Crown.
The functions of the House of Commons were clearly
separated by the Constitution from the prerogatives of
the Crown. He remembered a similar instance to the
present occurring when he was Secretary of Stitt% re-
specting Mr. Hunt, then a prisoner for a political of-
fence in Ilelester Gaol, and then he (Sir IL 'Peel)
stated that he could not take itpon himself to advise the
Crown to mitigate the piktk:4,ltment. It should he rainem-
bered that this was Ika advice given to the Crown with
respect to pupthiliment inflicted by the adjudication of
the criminal law, but given upon the opinion Of the
House of Commons. It was, therefore, on constitutional
grounds that he was unwilling to establish a precedent '
which ho knew might be easily followed—(Hear, hear)—
and that he must resist the motion of the' Ho- ;
nourable Gentleman, lie (Sir Robert Peel) opposed
no Obstacle Whatever to the free consideration
of these Q4kaa6s; he thought it was the duty of the Crown
to consider them well, and to act upon the judgment
thereby formed of the justice of continuing or remitting
these punishments. On this point he gave no opinion,
but he trusted the House would not be influenced by the
desire to acquire ,popularity--(Hear, hear)—but would
look to the permanent interest involved in considerations
of this naturet xnd he trusted also that they would re-
member the painful duties which devolved upon the
Crown in the administration of criminal justice. Re
thought they would be placing the Crown in an mUteees-
sary and an unfair position Wiley persevered in claiming
for themselves that favour and those opportunities •of
showing indulgence which properly belonged to the
Crown alone. He was sure that. a popular assembly Would
never ask for the infliction of punishment. He trusted
he had now fairli, stated his opinions on this subje.et, op-
posing an *Stale .es to the cautious and merciful' consi-
deratton of these meat he only wished that where favour
and lenity could be shown the grace of Slowing mightit
belong to the Crown.--(Hear, heal,)
Mr. EASTHQVg, who was very indistinctly heard,
said he could PAt consent to give a silent vote on qie pre-
sent trcasioA, lie agreed, as a general principle in the
sentiments and views laid clown by the Right lion.
Baronet the Member fo Tamworth, Vitt he asked
whether the present case Was not tut 'exception to the
general rule F Might it not be expedient that the House
should e-Np•e..ss itself favourable to the remission of the
penalty in cases so distinguished from the general rule ?
He trusted he should be pardoned for mentioning an mel-
diticual reason he had ;for voting for the motion, that
some of the individuals of - the constituent body whom he
onehad ofth these ehonourto represent had presented a petition that
offenders should be so circumstanced that
he might laecome a candidate for the representation of
that taws in Parliament.—(" Oh, Oh," and "hear.") He
(Mr. Easthope) desired that tb.ere should be no inter-
erence with the proper and just expression of an opinion
of that sort. He intended not himself to interp(4) any
obstacle to the expression of that, opinion and he eon-
sieleVed this as an additional reason why lie should sup-
port the motion before the louse,-Hear, hear, hear,)
Sir DE LACY EVANS said he thought it an addi-
tional reason in favour of this motion, that. the only two
"Members, of that House who had expressed an opinion
.against it, the Hon. Under-Secretary for the Home De-
partment, and the Right lion, Baronet (Sir Robert Peel),
had not addressed themselves to the merits of
the case, but had entirely defended the colurs!
they. toeit on some rather fine-drawn doctrines of Co,s
NNW law,L-(Hear, hear.) He would again their
attention to the fact that this petition waa sib nee
up-
wards of a million of their fellow-subjects, and of
class who were not rtßyAnted in that House._ Ttiv..,yegitiecls
itiolin of
not come Rix-amid. praying for an extensieonalvt
fur themselves, but merely to solicit time
the punishment of those raispidedPirlisti who sl. till
exoses:
main in the prisons of this eP,
ane
trusted
Vst for
&tat time Govern-
Under the ellPYrkgtgAces h•w of their ease,--dicer.)
IntWOronld take a favourable
connected
with
the
Sir B. HALL said, that 111
county in which t
called upon to take a re-
he outbreak had taken place a year and
a half,
,410., had thenb'ee'llm,,,•intte, from which responsibility
tChle
he'l)-'4ls dial ZtP4-o,li4sn::a'-naTh-f
.thosu.oglnhttliet
lhriat i)scrudi.ittly,
occasion.
oinpttendion
-wn it more tranquil or icß4k
had come
nneovtgi7suv:thstanding that the wo4TLin,Al' -
Bsthae)ri:nt.thfflaint tainneidatsetlajt-eahc most
te. P 97.
d
forwar to a Krcq red,nctien in
consequence of the great stagnation of th •
wuea pthnalan,ti:iotn 1.
the iron
tiaae.(Hear, hear.)
.1-le ti.oggnt tnat if ever there was
a time in which a inieradul COnsideratioif shonl4, hp. given
_ . . . • , • •. •
to
fraqes persons confined for political offences, it

DITION.

vas the present, when the whole country was in a state
of tranquillity.—(Hear, hear.) He should, therefore ,
support the motion.
Mr. AGLIONBY, who rose amid loud cries of " Di-
vide," said he thought the House having spent so many
mhiis-
nduaete,ssintedeabna)ter sHoofnle. sms iemmphoertanr
whceo, might
dalltoow.stfiaNt-ee
opinion on this subject.—(Hear. hear.) It was ad-
mitted that in one case, whatever might be the opinion as
to the constitutional mode of procedure, the expression
of an opinion by that House had Jed to a mitigation of
the punishment, and he could not but think that any ex-
pression of an opinion by that House would have its
wduoeumweniogththewihthteotminhe Cgrohiwn
the. He quite
agreed that
Home-office
tourgtett it
his
respect
tthe o Ct
hreow j,.h
Chartists,
i sat
s,
he t ttehr
ouogfhtPt(lapetilay hlitdynotl done
their duty by them. If Hon. Gentlemen had attended more
ma
their general meetings and evinced more sympathy with
the interests of that class, he thought they should not
have heard so much of the disaffection which erieted.
among them towards that House.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord SANDON said that, although on a former occa-
sion, he had expressed his sympathy with the working
classes, he could not carry out the sympathy in the manner
now proposed. He could not consider the objections of
his Right Hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) as matter of official
etiquette. He represented a large constituency of the
working classes, and he dared say their feelings gene-
rally sympathised with these political offenders, though
he knew of no constituency so free from the taint of
Chartism. But at the same time he could not overcome
his constitutional objection to the motion, however much
these persons might have been misled—however much
they might be "more sinned against than sinning," and,
however, much agitation from a higher quarter had
urged them to the very verge of the law, but. punished
them severely for trespassing one inch beyond it.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, with reference to the case
which had been alluded to and which he had brought
before the House many years ago, he believed it was a
strong exception to the general rule, because, whereas in
this case, the advisers of the Crown might think themselves
at liberty to advise a remission of the punishment; yet
where the House had interfered to ask for the prosecu-
tion of offenders, the Crown might think itself restricted
in its prerogative. It was with that view he bi aught for-
ward the case of Sir M. Lopez. Having elicited flpm Lord
Castlereagh a declaration that the motion he zuade should
not be any obstacle to the remission of any part of the
sentence which the Crown might think fit, lie moved the
motion that been alluded to. That case appeared to him
a particular exception to the general rule, but motions of
this kind were generally felt to interpose great oustacles
in the way of the consideration of these eases by the
Crown, in the way in which they ought to be considered.
Petitions in favour of offenders should be addressed
directly to the Crown, and not to that House. He had
felt this difficulty greatly with respect to a case that oc-
curred some years ago, that of the Dorchester labourers.
It appeared to him, in reviewing that case, that what-
ever were the reasons that induced the Judge to pro-
nounce that sentence, after. a certain time it might be
the duty of the Secretary of State to advise the Crown
for its remission ; but the greatest difficulty he felt in so
advising was, that a motion had been made and repeated
in that House upon the subject, when he was obliged
to declare, that if that motion was carried he
could not advise a remission of the sentence, although
he might feel . on other grounds that it might
be unjust to those men to refuse it. But having given
that notice he had felt since that considerable evil had
resulted from it, and that the favour was received not
with the acknowledgements due to the Crown for its
mercy, but with boastings that though the House of
Commons did nut directly interfereee motion had been
made to which the remission of the sentence 'was due,
and not to the clemency of the Crown.—(Hear, hear.)
He therefore hoped that Hon. Gentlemen would consider
that those who were charged with the responsible duty
to advise the Crown upon (theen•tubjeets, instead of
feeling themselves assisted by the interpoSition of the
House, felt themselves reetriceel by it. Feeling fearful
that the effect of this motion would: be to produce
others for offences of a similar kind, and that offenders
would thus be induced to look to parties. in. that House
to take up their case, and not to look to the Crown as
the natural and constitutional Source of mercy—on
these general grounds, and without saying a word on
the other points, he should give his vote against the
motion of his Hon. Friend`the Member for Finsbury.
Col. SIBTHORP opposed the motion.
Mr. 'WARD begged his Hon. Friend the Mem'eor for
Finsbury to reflect on the nature of the motion,, and not
to press the House, under the circumstances, ee a division.
His Hon. Friend had sten the imputatioroa to which the
motion gave rise they were told it was -not 'a motion
honestly beetig•lit forward, but haa reference to 'questions
out of doors. The best answer, however, to that impu-
tation, into which he was /sorry to find that the Noble
Lord the Member for Liverpool had fallen, was, that the
petition had been in preparation for many months, and
that it has emanated at a time when no one entertained
the remotest idea of a dissolution. His (Mr. Ward's)
opinion was, that if his Hon, Friend had been desirous of
submitting his motion to the House at the moment most
etulialeussing to Ministers he would have chosen the sent,.because it wee impossible for any Government,' what-
ever their. tioelings might be, to concur in it without ex-
poeten themselves to the imputation of taking such
a course for the purpose of
L e
• gaining popularity
out of floors.—(Hear, hear.) t them d
h=ose unworthy considerations, and look solely. tdi oscar the
merits, of the case ; and on that subject he should say he
differed entirely from the Right lion. Baronet the Mem-
ber for Tamworth and the Noble Lord the Secretary
for the Colonies, because he did think there
were eireumstatwes in the case which not only
warranted, but in some degree called for the interference
of the House. Political crimes were very undefined in
their nature ; and although he did not cell-se-re either the
Judges, the Juries, or the Government under whom the
late prosecutions had taken place, lie did feel that some
of those political offenders had been treated with great
severity.' IF admitted, however, that in other instances
the grievous nature of the crime committed Merited the
severest punishment. There could be no doubt, too,_ but
it was necessary at the time these prosecutions hadbeen
begun, to take strong measures for the peace of the corn-
munityee.(Cheers.) Still he was persuaded that many
of those parties now in confinement had more . than ex-
plated the offences they had committed. He was at the
same time of opinion that after the explanations which
had been given by the Noble Lord the Secretary for the
Co/onies,
proceeding his H Friend might injure his own cause by
onivi sion.
Lord SANDON explained. He had expressly guarded
himself" against any imputation on the motives of those
who had supperted the motion. He only referred to the
inconvenience which might arise from the interposition
of thn :douse at that particular time.
Mr. T.- DUNCOMBE said that his only object in
bringing forward the motion was, that he might give
effect to the wishes of the numerous body whose petition
he had presented that night. He had confined himself
to the case of political offenders at hothe ; and he was
rather surprised to find that his Hon. Friend, the Under
Secretary for the Home Department; had mixed up with
that subject the principles of the Charter, and the case
of Frost, Williams, and Jones. He complained of the
injustice of the treatment which many of the offenders
had undergone ; they having been in many instances
confined in houses of correction with hard labour, con-
trary to the sentence of the Judge. The subject was
one which well deserved the consideration of the House ;
and his belief was, that he would betray his duty to those
whose interests he represented, if he did not call for the
opinion of the House. If he was sure the case of those
individuals would be considered with a view to their dis-
charge, he should be too happy in withdrawing his mo-
tion ; but as he had no assurance that an Act .'of Am-
nesty, so much desired by thousands out of doors, would
be granted unless an Address was carried to the Throne,
he should divide, with the hope that lie would have with
him a majority of that House.
The House then divided, when the numbers were—
For the motion
Against the motion 5B
Majority
The SPEAKER then gave his vote against the motion,
and it was consequently lost.

CHffialiAtA TES.
Mr. HAWES presented several petitions from Dissent-
ing congregations, praying for the total extinction of
Church-rates, and the abolition of Beclesiastical Courts.
Mr. DENNISTOUN presented similar petitions from
four dissenting congregations.
Mr. C. WOOD presented six petitions from Dissent-
ing congregations in Halifax to the same effect. •
Captain PECHELL presented similar petitiOns from
4,460 inhabitant's of Brighton assembled iu public meet-
ing, and from a Dissenting congregation in Sussex.
Sir A. DALRYMPLE presented a petition from a
to pass_ any lawhurch of
place in Sussex, praying the House,
not
of the C
against the rights and privileges
England.
Mr. EASTH a great number of OPE presentedpeti-
tions from Dissenting
congregations inLincolnshire, and
from Moorfields, Bethnal-green, and other districts of
London, praying for
the aboli.tion of yhurch-rates, and.
against the practice of the _ecclesiastical courts, and that
no further grants of public
,money be made for theioux.
poses of Church Extension ; also a petition from (John
Lowry, the vicar of Burleigh, in Cumberlaild, iii favour
of the abolition of Church-rates.
ABOLITION OF CrIURCH-RATES.
The Has.
AumnEa then rose to brimg forward the
to
motion of which he had given notice, forlea,ve bring
in a Bill to abolish Church-rates, and •to empower the
the s'i-tablished Church to levy a tax on the members of L
pews nd seats for the maintenance of Churches. He
said he was sure he would not in vain entreat the House
to abstract itself from the excitement under which the
House and the country existed for some time, and apply
its attention to a subject which, though not so exciting,
eras not less important, inasmuch as it related to the re-
ligious establishments of the country. He was Confident
that the House would set the good example of showing,
that in. the midst of that excitement it was not prevented
fiqra interfering in a subject which was intimately con-
nected with the religious interests of the country. He
was confident tho House would, in this discussion, divest
itself of all party views, and, above all, rid themselves of
av imputation that whatever differences of opinion
might exist amongst them on the subject, their object was
not to diminish the just influence or, above all, to inter-
fere with the due exercise of the religion oithe c,stablish-
rnent. There was one feeling with which he (Mr. B.)
approached this discussion, anti that was surprise at
this question being allowed to remain so long unsettled.
It would be in the 'recollection of . the House
that there was scareolz one individual of rank, &tine.
tion, or influet",,
row in the House, br.who had formerly
a seat is, that had not considered that the question
NN' ,eno of importance and difficulty, and which ought
ka. be set at rest. lie would call the attention of the
House to sentilaentJ-,...'
of men of eminence,as to the neces,-
siiy wArmg. this question. [The Hon. Gentleman
iwre wad extracts from speeches of Earl Spencer, Lord.
amaley, and other Hon. Members, in the debate on tbis
subject in the year 1834, in which the expediency of
setting the question of Ch k
--urc..-rates at rest was enforp ed.)

MORNING ;EDITION

The parish of Dover had been in the habit of voting the
stipend of the Minister in the form of Church-rates.
The result was, that an individual had been cited before
the Ecclesiastical Court, and was undergoing all its at-
tacks. Could any advantage be derived to the Esta-
blished Church from such a state of things ?—(Hear,
hear.) A Church so wealthy, so amply endowed and
sufficient for the purposes of religious instruction, ought
never to have resorted to such means of support ; it was
altogether indefensible. He deeply regretted that neither
the proposal of Lord Althorp in 1834, nor that of Lord
Monteagle in 18. had received the sanction of the
House. Nothing 7.,
g.waa more necessary to the peace of so-
ciety,or to die prosperity even of the Established Church,
than an administration of its funds, by which it would be
enabled to maintain.with dignity and propriety all that
was requisite for its cOnduct. It was stated by Lord Ale
.thorp An 1834 that the amount collected by way of assess-
ment was about 560,000/., and that there could be
no doubt that one-half of that was of a very equivo-
cal and needless character, and might have been avoided.
The Hon. Member for the University of Oxford, on the
proposal of a grant to the College of Maynooth, had
stated that he would not voluntarily or willingly pay for
the support of a system from which he conscientiously
differed. Surely that ought to form a reason with the
Hon. Member tor relieving the Dissenters from this in-
tolerable grievance. It had been confidently predicted
in that House, that unless this question was equitably ad-
justed, it would continue to be the subject of strife and
of conflict. He would ask the House whether those pre-
dictions had not been fulfilled. The Hon. Member for
Kilkenny had presented a petition that night from an
individual who was suffering incarceration for
the nonpayment of this impost. That had been
follow ed by the incarceration of another indivi-
dual in the town which he (Mr. Easthope) had the
honour to represent. He had formerly stated to the
House that that individual was an object of deep and
general sympathy in the town ; and, as a proof of this, in a
ward comprising 20,000 inhabitants, he had been una-
nimously elected a member of the corporation. The
ministers of that town felt it to be one of the greatest
hindrances, and one of the most aggravated difficulties
with which, as ministers, they had to contend. It had
been stated to bins by a gentleman whose name was well
known in the history of this country, and who was nearly
connected with the great man who had made that name
memorable, the Rev. Mr. Erskine, that during the
whole course of his Ministerial career nothing had ever
afforded him more pain or more deeply afflicted him in
the discharge of his ministerial functions than the ques-
tion of Church-rates.—(Hear, hear.) Now, was it pos-
sible that could arise out of such a conflict ? At the
present time there were legal proceedings taken in the
following places :—Braintree, Bradford, Entomb, Hack-
ney, Brentford, Portsea, Weymouth, Dover, Ringwood,
Lancaster, Great Yarmouth, Abergavenny, and several
other places. Not only were Church-rates annihilated in
many large towns, but the strife of legal proceedings
was at this moment in operation. Many families were
kept in a state of uncertainty. their feelings worked
up to desperation by the fear of imprisonment
because they would not contribute to that which
their consciences repudiated. He was aware that
he might be told by the Honourable Member
for the University of Oxford, that individuals were
not entitled to consider Church-rates as a grievance upon
their conscience, for that it was simply a question of
pronerty. Such had -been the argument of the Hon.
Ileittessy on former occasions. But how could it be a
question property, when it was made to depend upon
the will of Cs: voters? If it were simply a question of
property, the would be how much they should
vote, but it was a quetsun whether they should vote any
suns whatever.--(" No, no," from Sir R. Inglis.) The
Hun. Baronet said No. He supposed the Hon. Baronet
referred to the judgment of Chief-Justice Tindal in the
'Braintree case. "za which it was stated by way of impli-
cation, that the parish church must be maintained; but
it was also stated in that judgment, that if the case came
on in another form, it might possibly receive another
edjudication. In a pamphlet addressed by the Attorney-
Ge aeral to the Noble Lord, the Member for North Lan-
cusimee, it was s!istinetly affirmed that it was not a ques-
tion of property; and that no rate could possibly be
made except by a majority of the voters in parish vestry;
and that any rate, '.eviel otherwise than in that form, could
not be maintained either in the courts of common
'law or in the ecclesiastical courts. The civi-
Islans and common lawyers had never supposed
time the churchwardens could make a rate by their
own ,:iriority, unless none but themselves attended
the vestry. The opinion of Lord Holt was cited in suppor of
that view. he would now state what_he had to propose to:the
House on this su;,Ject. In the first place he proposed to
abolish that which was 'he chief cause of the di,sension, namely
Church-rates. Should .Ne be told that the Church would
not be able to maintain its fabrics ; that the-members of the
Established Church, comparatively so numerous, comparatively
so wealthy, he would not say comparatively so indifferent to
the cause of religion, would not subscribe like tie assenters
for the maintenance of their own places of worship ? The
Bill which he proposed would empower those who attended the
Established Church to rate themselves in resp,,et to pews and
seats for their families. He was aware that a difficulty would
arise where churches had been rebuilt by funds provided from
'mortgage. Of course, in all such cases ma Act of Parliament
should Zppl y until all the monies had been repaid. The Bi 1
he had to propose was simply for the abolition of Church-
rates, and to empower the inhabitants to ratc themselves with
respect to pews in the church, which, he believed,
would be feund at no distant period to be more than
sufficient fur the maintenance of the fabric of the
'church. In confirmation of that he had a letter
Won a member of the Church, not from a party indifferent to
interests, but from a clergyman of the Established Church, the
Rev. J. Lowry, vicar of Burley, near Carlisle. That gentleman
stited that he was a friend to the Established Church, and he
belie red that unless an alteration was made relative to Church-
rites, congregation would soon fall off from the church.
That letter' was evidence not to be slighted, as it was not the
evidence of a Dissenter, but a Member of the Established
Church. He hat also a letter from Mr. Bone, the church-
warden of St. Antirs-w's, Plymouth, to a similar effect. He
bad also a letter fr.im an';ndividual who signed himself as " A
Sincere Enemy to Church-ra;es." deprecating in strong terms
the present system of Church-rees. These letters showed a
ease which he hoped would convince the House that not only
Dissenters, but even Churehmen, were of opinion that Church•
rates were an impost that ought not to he tolerated. The So-
ciety of Friends had submitted to those imposts for upwards of
(.10 years, but they had led to discontents and strife. He
would read to the House a letter he had received from
a member of the Society of Friends, in which he detailed the
course pursued in the collection of Church-rates from members
of that body. He believed the facts he should furnish from the
Society of Friends would shot* the House that there was jobbery
and robbery in the collection of Church-rates, which the
House would not tolerate.- The i!,.n. Member then read a
letter from a member of the Society of :'riends which stated an
instance where, for a Church-rate of Is "14'4- property worth
30s. was taken in execution It appeared to I:jin that the
gloese had neglected its duty to the country in allonting the
question to remain for so long a period in the unsettled state in
which it at present was. In the ease to which had alluded the
individual had sustained a loss of not less than 351. 14s. efts
He could scarcely imagine it possible that there was any Mem-
ber in that House who did not teel with him that it was most
desirable that some Member of the Government, or some of the
gnat party opposed to the Government, should take up the
question and bring it to a satisfactory conclusion,—( Hear. )
tie could however scarcely hope that, under she circumstances
in width he brought the question forward, that it could be
carried to any satisfactory issue at present, but he trusted that
another year would not be allowed to elapse without its being I
taken rip by the Government of the day, and thereby put an
end to the bitterness and acrimony that unfortunately prevailed
wish regard to it. The Hun. Member eoncluded by moving
for have to bring in a Bill to abolish Church-rates.
Mr. GOULBURN said the Hon. Member had not distinctly
stated hose he intended to meet the deficiency which the aboli-
tion of Church-rates would create; and before the question
was put, he wished to suggest to the Speaker whether the
Lotion of the Ron. Member was not informal, inasmuch as he
proposed if he (Mr. Goulburn) understood him correctly, to
levy a tax upon pews and sittings, for the maintenance and re-
pair of churches, and that was such a measure as must origi-
nate in a Committee of the whole House.
_Mr. EA ST HOPE begged to explain that he had followed
the 1, recedents which,had been adopted in similar Bills ; and,
further, that it was not intended by his Bill to make the levying
of the tax upon pews and seats compulsory, but to leave it
optional with the vestries.-(Cries of " Chair, chair.")
The SPEAKER said it was quite true that no bill impos-
ing a tax for the repair of churches could originate unless in a
o ranittee of the whole House, but he thought the explanation
of the Hon. Membeieremoeed the objection.
Lord MORPETH did not mean to offer any opposition to
the introduction of the _Bill ; but the principle to which the
,
Government were not prepaY top give its acquiescence, was
that of leaving it to chance ui' tion as to whether the tax
should-Le imposed or not. No man Tias more alive to the im-
portance of the subject than himself; and no man was more
anxious to see the litigations and impOsownents, the heart-
burning* and ill-will, which the present. .eyStem gave.lise to
put an end so. He was therefore friendly to any weil-con-
sidered enactment which would provide a substitute' for Church-
rates. The Governments of Lord Grey and Lord 31elbounist
had introduced propositions with that object ; but upOn being
introduced and laid before the House, it did not to
them that they would would co
that
with ae.ree
• acquiescence which would inspire them a
'hope of bringing them to any satisfactory termination.d
He understood that his Hon. Friend proposed some met o
supply the deficiency that would be. oc.casion. ed by the total
abolition of Church rates ; it ramained to be seen whether
eisis would be anything more than chance.—( Hear, hear.)
so long as it was so, he could not give his consent to
- abolish the compulsory powers that now existed. But as it
was most desirable that this matter should be duly considered
and properly settled, 'without taking on himself to pronounce
any opinion whether the substitution proposed was adequate in
sarsaount, or satisfactory in its application, without giving any
dopinion eseept as to the general principles of the present mo-
f on, on the part of the Government he should give his sanc-
tion to its introduction.—( Hear, hear.)
air 11. H. INGLIS said that when a similar measure to the
present was brought forwatd a short time ago, it was opposed
by the Government on the ground of the pressure of other
busine,s, in consequence of which it could not be properly
considered. This objection applied still more strongly to the
-ipiesent motion, and he was therefore surprised that the Go
wernment should give their assent to it. The present Inca•
stare was to transfer the ancient method of taxing by the po-
pular discretion of the country to the Vestry—a system more
elasory could not be well conceived. It was on the ground
that there was a. slight distinction between the present mo-
tion and that of the Hoe.- Member for Finsbury, that the
Government were induced_ to give their consent to it. He
cm.uld only account fortheir conduet on the ground
that the 1-resent - measure contained some extraordinary
. panacea for the various evils complained of, or that they
could not now afford to give it a negative.—(oh, ob, and
`'dicer, bear.) So far as he-understood the decision of the Court
of Queen's Bench, it was that the extreme measures had not
been exhaissted by Which the law as it stood might be vindi-
cated.- 11/4004 lherefere, they introduced a measure which
would completely t'verturii the fabric of the church, let them
Sesame whether the ineesent law was not sufficient for mg
desirable purpose. The p,\wer of the country to provide for
the repair s attaches could ,sot, in his opinion, be denied; and
property was fairly subjected !et such an impost. It wu in
order to Prevent the Church of England from being starved
out—(Loud
mantisue of
suvpo the
rtptt oeeple
laughter)—of the means of meeting the spiritual
which was their best inheritance,
ftha
the,
present syssem. The measure they
/1%-'lllcalled upon to saaction was to be adopted optionally, but
.theca would remove time, h the c
'bitch her claims now rested,h the solid grounds en
to 'l
oppose the motion:'
For---urtchese reasons he felt bound
A h'. HUME said that the time of bringing forward this
•
meat tare was agreed to in December last, so that there could
be no allegation more unfounded than to state that the motion
was su !witted to the House for the convenience of the day.

In April, 1834, the Hon. Baronet opposite had himself voted r
for the abolition of Church-rates.—(" No," from Sir R. H.
Inglis.) That was his (Mr. Hume's) opinion, though he had
not then the votes by him. The Church had no more right to
enforce a rate against the will of the majority 1;s the rate-
payers than any man could have a right to put his hand into
the pockets of another. But in any case what could be more
unworthy of a Christian country than those scenes of violence
and strife which the present system led to? Was it fitting,
seeing that Ireland was relieved from Church-cess, seeing
that in Scotland there were no Church-rates except in Edin-
burgh anti Montrose, that the present eonte-t should be going
on in England with a Church that was so rich ? The clergy
had robbed the Church, they had taken to themselves that
portion of the Church revenue which should go to build sa-
cred edifices and the support of the poor. Since the year
1800 there had been paid the Church 5,678,00 N , inde-
pendent of 5,500,000/. which was received in tithe. The
interest of that sum ought to do much more than build and
repair sacred edifices. In England members of the Esta-
blishment were to the Dissenters in the proportion of five
to four, in Scotland of three to four, and in Ireland of one
to nine. He therefore hoped that the Hon. Baronet would
not object to the present motion.
Mr. GOULBURN said, if he thought it possible that the
13111 could proceed further in discussion in the present Session.
he would enter into details to show the fallacy of the view,
which the Hon. Member (Mr. Easthope) had advanced. 11,
was sure no result could be arrived at by obtaining leave to
bring in the Bill, then to have it printed for the use of the
Members, and then let it die with the Session. He was not
ed to offer any opposition to the introduction of the mea-
sure ; but in giving his assent to its introduction, he must
guard against his being supposed to give the least assent to the
principle of the measure. The Hon. Gentleman proposed to
levy a tax on the inhabitants of the parish who might attend
religious instruction at the church. In the time of Queen
Elizabeth a tax was laid on every person who did not attend
church ; but the Hon. Member proposed to levy a tax on all
those who went to church.—( Laughter.) He had departed
from none of the opinions which he had formerly expressed on
this subject. He still maintained that it was the duty of the
State to provide, out of the general funds of the country for the
religious Instruction of the people.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. C. WOOD said he could give no opinion at present on
the Bill under consideration ; but he was sure that nothing
could be so desirable as a measure by which the heart-burning
and dissensions which now prevailed throughout a large portion
of the country would be removed ; and they ought to be grate-
ful to any person who introduced a measure with a view to
that effect.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. PLUMPTRE said he had voted on a former occasion
for the abolition of Church-rates, but he bad done so upon the
understanding that a substitute was to be provided. He
would nut support any measure which did not provide what he
should consider an adeq"ate substitute.:
Dr. LUSHINGTON said he could not but express his
thorough conviction from much experience that it was impos-
sible that Church-rates could continue to be levied in their
present form.--( Hear, hear.) Where they were enforced
by the power of the law, the result was to excite and exas-
perate the feelings of the people. The Hon. Member for Oxford
seemed to think that the Church-rates from the commence•
ment were a tax upon property. In his (Dr. Lushington's)
judgment, they were no such thing. The Church-rate origi-
nated in the circumstance that every person in the land was
supposed to be a member of the then existing Church.—
(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Easthope) —that that consequently they
had a right—for no man could say then that he did not belong
to the Establi.hment. They had a right to compel him
to contribute to that worship, which he not only did not
deny, but preferred ; and which it was a crime, according to
the law of the country, not to prefer. The whole of the au-
thorities told them that it was binding upon the individual by
reason of his possession of property of any sort in kind, and
not by reason of his possession of real estate. The law, as
laid down at. the time of the Reformation, was, in case the
friends of the Church failed, three or four persons should be
selected for the purpose of taxing every person resident in the
parish, not according to the estate which he held, or accord-
ing to his stock in trade, but according to the whole means
which he possessed. He alluded to this in order to repudiate
the notion that it was simply a tax upon property, and to put
it in its proper light, namely, that of a tax upon persons resi-
dent in the parish, according to the means they possessed,
He perfectly agreed in the statement of Chief Justice Tindal,
that the Church-rate was at this moment a lawful tax, and that
there were means of enforcing it. For many years after he
had commenced practice, no opposition had been made to the rate.
Twenty-six years ago there was very little feeling upon this
subject, but from that period, from time to time, cases upon
cases had arisen, in which there had been resistance to the pay-
ment of these rates. The Dissenters said that Church-rates
were a tax placed upon the people of England when the whole
people were Catholic, and that at that period, when the Act
of Toleration came into operation, and when all parties were
al.owed to profess freely their religious sentiments, the law
was not altered, which the Dissenters contended ought to have
been the case. They said, that when they were sued for
Church-rates they were proceeded against for their sours sake
and the correction of their manners, according to the reli-
gion that existed at the time the Toleration Act came into
operation. The general feeling of the Dissenters was, that
the Church of England had large property, out of which their
ministers were maintained; that the Dissenters had no property
by which they could support their ministers, and they therefore
considered it a hardship to be compelled to support the minis-
ters of a Church which they did not attend. There was
another grievance of which the Dissenters most justly com-
plained, and that was that they were compelled to maintain
many other things connested with the Established Church.
They were compelled to maintain the organ and even the
singers. Now such grievances, he considered, ought to be im-
mediately redressed. With respect to the measure introduced
by his Hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, he shoulJ wish
to reserve his final opinion on it till he had had an opportunity
of seeing it. But if the principle of the measure was
that those who belonged to the Church should con-
tribute to the maintenance of the edifice, in consequence
of the advantage they derived from occupying the pews, that
he considered would be a just and righteous imposition, and
one that any person who flinched from ought not to consider
himself a man of the Church.
.lle would give his hearty con-
' ient to the introduction of the measure, believing, from the
statement of his Hon. Friend who introduced it, that it wa,
likely to allay discontent, while, at the same time, it upheld
the services of the Church.

Mr. ESTCOUR.T thought the proposition of the Hon.
Member to abolish Church-rates would be attended with the
worst results. He should protest against the proposition of the
Hon. Member for Leicester. If the measure should proceed
to another stage he would take the opportunity of expressing
more at length his opinion's against it.
Captain PECHELL said his Hon. Colleague, having referred
to a petition that had been presented on this subject from
Brighton, he felt it due to his constituents to state that
though, as stated by that petition the question of Church.
rates had been carried in that town by a large majority, yet
that the number of persons voting was much less than the
number of votes, as the votes were taken under Sturges
Bourne's Act. The opinions of that town on the subject were
much better expressed by a petition which he himself had pre-
sented, adopted at a public meeting, and signed by 4,400 in-
habitants.—( Hear, hear. )
After a few words from Sir A. DALRYMPLE and Captain
PECHELL, in mutual explanation,
Mr. HINDLEY said that in the town which he had the
honour to represent, the bell of the parish was at that moment
silent—(Laughter)—in consequence of a dispute respecting,
Church-rates. This proved that there was something defec-
tive in the present law, and he should therefore vote for its al-
teration.
After a few words from Mr. EASTHOPE in reply, the
motion was put and agreed to,
Mr. SLANEY moved for leave to bring in a Bill to enable
the ratepayers of any parish, or division of a parish, under
7ertaincircumstances, to make a sehuol rate, of limited amount,
for the education of the children of the poorer clwses.—
Grant ed.
Lord INGESTRIE moved for a Select Committee to in-
quire into the Post-office communication with the South of
Ireland.
Sir 1). NORREYS seconded the motion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had no ob-
jection to the appointment of the Committ e. The subject
had been for some time under the consideration of the Go-
vernment.
After some further convewsation the motion was agreed
to ; the words being altered, on the suggestion of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, to Post-office communication
between Great Britain and Ireland.
Sir G. GREY obtained leave to bring in a Bill for affording
further facilities for the Conveyance and Endowment of Sites
for Schools.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER obtained
leave to bring in a Bill to extend the Assessed Taxes Compo-
sition Act for one year.
Mr. FOX MAUL E obtained leave to bring in a Bill for
the better Drainage of large Towns and Villages.
The other Orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
House Adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'Clock.

ANOTHER STEAMER SUPPOSED TO BE THE
PRESIDENT SEEN AT SEA. LIVERPOOL, MAY 24.—Mr.
Court, Secretary to the Underwriters, has this morning re-
ceived, from his correspondents at Lisbon, a letter, stating,
that the Conde de Palmo, arrived at that port from Rio, saw
on the 23d of April, at 6, p.m., in lat. 31 24, long. 40 23, a
large
steamer, with three masts, painted a dark colour ' • the
paddles were not in action, nor did any smoke issue from the
chimney.t ...she did not exhibit any flags. She was under a
p
ro canvass and steering N.N.E. At eight o'clock on the
following morning, the steamer was still in sight, with topsails
and fore and aft sails set. So mepersons hope, that the steamer
seen by the Conde de Palni, on the 23d of April, was the
President, which would then have been out thirty-six days
which was seen en the 10th April by the Lord Saumarez,
from New York. Others supper that it was the same steamer
stance did the steamer make which we published. In neither in-
the
particulars
respecting
whi
act r
whatever
rtea
er steamer or steamers they
signal to the sails in sight, an
vs4ich the President, in her peculiar circumstances, would
scarcely have omitted, and
omission of which, in both in-
10th
and the 23d of April, neither
stances, satisfies us, that,
were that were seen on the
,
of them was the President. Besides, if the steamer sailed so se
to keep in sight of the Conde de Palmo, and, was bound for Eng-
land, we ought to have heard of her arrival at some port before
publie.—po:tornthe Liverpool
now. Still, as the letter received by
(17 to publish its con-
dill Court has excited
much interest, we have deemed it our
The best informed nau-
tical President.labove
tents for the information of the
hopesel/bi a
0,
fsecond a
feetdyitoiofnth. has revived the
men here are puzzled to decide what steamer the above
could be.
DR. CHALMERS'S OPINION ON THE C ORN-
LA ws.—ln a note to his work on Political Economy,
"For the sake of its moral benefit, we know no he says_achievement
more earnestly desirable than that of a free corn trade. There
is net a more fertile topic of clamour and burning discon-
tent all over the land, and. were it but effectually set at
rest, we are aware of nothing which might serve more to
sweeten the breath of British society. And again, after
dwelling with eloquence and ingenuity on what may proba-
bly be the ultimate effect of the abolition of the Corn-laws
on the interest of landlords, and On the industrye
la andnd prownospe-
rity of the country, and showing that tko loss to ther
is much exaggerated, he proceeds to say--" Vet in the face of
all this uncertainty, we feel no hesitation in affirming, both
the expediency. and the rightness of a free trade in earn."
When ct,nsidering the probable effect on revenue, he says,
" We should not object to a slight ditty, such a 4 live shillings a
quarter, oil imported corn, to be remitted only in years of
scarcity ;" and finally, in winding up his remarks on the whole
matter, he says, that the real good, the comfort and prosperity
of the people, thew proper end of all legislation, is less dependent
on material resoTes than on moral restraints and right
principles."
DRAMATIC WORKS itir r,
.T
date of the 2d of May, from St. Petersburgii, alp s:ated that
tli:' censor cit,lat city had seized and publicly destrova ali the
edition 6.‘ a drama entitled lemtoriski ritten under the sig-
nature of " Iwen'" and further' the Advertisement sheets of
..hick announced the publication of
another dramatic' work 4 for this measure was, that
this drama. The cause • assigne,
subs^ensors certain .ffen-
eguently to the examination
'
sive allusions to the R •
ussian army had been in..
the work. .. _.

HURRICANE.—Atiout one o'clock on Saturday
a tremendous hurricane came an with heavy claps of thunder
and vivid flashes of lightning, the rain and hail descending in
torrents, but whichlasted a very short thne.—lpswich Express.