The Sun.
London, England, 1840-07-18 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, JULY 17.
The Lotto CHANCELLOR. took his seat on the Wool-
sack at Five o'Clock.
Lord LYNDHURST presented a petition from a
Newspaper Society praying an alteration of the law of
libel.

Lord DUNCANNON moved the first reading of
,he County Constabulary Bill.—Agreed to.

SPANISH BONDS.

The Earl of ABERDEEN had a petition to pre-
sent, to which he wished to call the particular attention
of her Majesty's Government. It appeared that in
1822 a convention had been entered into with the
Spanish Government for compensation for certain
outrages and seizures of vessels and property, and a
mixed Commission was appointed, which, however, led
to no satisfactory result. In 1828, when he (Lord
Aberdeen) had the honour of holding the seals of the
Foreign-office, a new negotiation was opened, and seeing
that there was no chance of obtaining the full amount
claimed, he had recommended to the parties to accept
the sum of 900,000/., in lieu of claims amounting to
nearly two millions, which had been proved and regis-
tered under the Committee. That sum of 900,000/.
was paid, 600,000/. in money and 300,000/. in bonds.
These bonds were issued and secured by a treaty en-
tered into with the Spanish Government, and they were
further ratisfied by an Act of Parliament giving them
a security which no other Spanish paper could possess.
In 1836 the dividends on these bonds ceased to be
paid, chiefly- owing to the remissness of her Majesty's
Government. Six dividends had now become due, and
under these circumstances the petitioners seeing that
through the perseverance of a Noble Marquis in that
House, the claims of the Spanish Legion had been set-
tled, and were in course of payment, prayed the House
to take their case into consideration. He did not
mean to deny the justice of the claims of the
Spanish Legion, but he thought these parties had
an equal right to the interference of the Government.
Those persons had laid out their money on the faith of
a treaty, and they were equally entitled to the inter-
ference of the Government as the members of the British
Legion. It was a breach of engagement on the part of
the Noble Viscount to say that the claims of the Legion
should be liquidated in preference to all others. The
Noble Earl concluded by presenting the petition, which
prayed the interference of the House to procure the
liquidation of their claims.
Lord MELBOURNE rose, but was for several
minutes inaudible in the gallery. We understood him
to say, that with respect to the facts of the case, his
Noble Friend had stated them correctly, and he (Lord
Melbourne) freely said that he would abide by his for-
mer statements. In addition to other circumstances,
he thought the state of that country in itself was a
sufficiently reasonable ground for the cessation of these
payments without referring it to any want of energy
, in her Majesty's Government. Those claims had
been strongly urged upon the Spanish Minister here,
land also on the Spanish Government at Madrid in the
spring of this year, to which it was replied that they
were really so pressed by the exigencies of civil war which
it was of such paramount necessity to put an end to,
that it was even for the inte-est of the creditors of
Spain themselves that all the resources which they had
should be applied to that object, which evidently was to
that country, as it must be to every other, the first object
of attention. In his (LordM.'s) opinion, it was impossible
not to feel the force of that argument, and he did not
think his Noble Friend had exhibited an inclination to
make sufficient allowance for a Government placed in
such a situation. It was easy for his Noble Friend to say
this was a small sum and Spain was a large country,
but they did not know the difficulty there was in pro-
ducing small sums in a country exhausted by civil war.
The rich man little understood the difficulties of the
poor one, and he must say he thought upon the whole,
the Government of Spain had shown great energy and
disposition to meet their engagements, and were only
prevented doing so by that necessity by which all per-
sons on all occasions must be compelled to yield. His
Noble Friend said he was quite sure the justice
of these claims would be admitted, and that
they ought to be satisfied, and that the Government
was not justified in paying more attention to the claims
of the Legion, but the claims of the Legion
had something in them of a temporary nature,
which perhaps these claims had not. He did not say
that this was a just argument, but he could conceive
some reason why that should be the case;
but at the same time it was impossible in
the difficult affairs of a distracted and convulsed
nation to preserve that exact regularity of transactionr
which might be maintained in time of peace. There
was reason to hope that now these difficulties had ter-
minated ; but it was at the same time quite impos-
sible that all their effects should cease at once ; and
the resources of the country become available for all
purposes without delay. But they expected a better
state of things, and a more regular course of procedure,
and then it would be the first duty of her Majesty's Go-
vernment to make the necessary regulations, and,
doubtless, the Spanish Government would see to the
satisfaction of these claims, which were undoubtedly

just, with as little delay as the state of the country
I would permit.
Earl of ABERDEEN wished it to be under-
'
• t
good the British Government were responsible for this
treaty, and that it was the's' cluty to see the amount was
paid_
Viscount MELBOURNE presented several peti-
tions against the Bill.
The Earl of WINCHILSEA presented a petition

on the subject of the reduction of the duty on Foreign
Fruit, and gave notice that early in the next Session
he should move that the petition be referred to a
•
Select Committee.

The Duke of RICHMOND presented several pe-
titions to the same effect from the market gardeners in
Surrey, Middlesex, Kent, and other places. He
thought the fruit•growers were an extremely ill-used
body, and unless the Bill had been smuggled through
the Parliament it never would have been allowed to
pass.
Viscount STRANGFORD moved for certain re-
turns relative to the warehousing of goods in inland
towns, preparatory to the Bill on that subject being
' iyrought under the consideration of their Lordships.—
Agreed to.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from
Chest& against the Weaver Churches Bill ; also a pe-
tition from n roaster chimnoy sweep at Macclesfield,
against the Chimney t3Weepers Bill.
The Earl of WICK 1,0r,7 wished !o move for a
copy of the instructions given to fir Geofge Arthur
when he undertook the government of Upper Canada as
successor to Sir F. Head ; coptes of the instructions
issued to all the Governors, had been mu:red for, and
laid on the table ; and he had no hesitation in s:Zting
that his object in moving for that return was to do jus-
tice to Sir Francis Head. He believed that the publi-
cation of the despatch would do justice to Sir F. Head,
and enable the public to judge of his merits. He
trusted that the Noble Viscount would not refuse to
produce the paper, unless its production would be de-
trimental to the public service.
Lord MEL BO U RN E did not think that the production
of the despatch was necessary for the vindication of Sir
F. Head's character, and there were reasons, on ac-
count of which it would be an unpleasant duty to him
to comply with their Lordships' order to lay it on the
table. No motion was made, and the matter was
dropped.
LAW OF EVIDENCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved tile second
reading of the Law of Evidence (Scotland) Bill.
The Elrl of HADDINGTON objected to the Bill.
It had been represented to him, by persons who were
well acquainted with the feeling of the people of Scot-
hind, that the measure would be most detrimental to
the interests of the country, and go far towards shaking
the confidence of the people in the administration of
justice. He would also state that the Faculty of Ad-
vocates were decidedly opposed to the Bill, which, in
fact, had been called for by no parties whatever, and on
these grounds he would move that the Bill be read a
second time that day six months.
Lord BROUGHAM understood that the Faculty
of Advocates approved of some portions of the Bill,
and he saw no reason why it should not be passed into
a law.

The Earl of ABERDEEN thought the Bill was
entirely useless and uncalled-for. He himself bad pre-
sented many petitions against it, and he hoped the
further consideration of the measure would be delayed,
at all events, for another Session.

Lord DEN MAN contended that the princiele of the
Bill was just ; it ought to be passel into a law. Great
exp,-‘
-se and delay was frequently created, in conse-
quence of unig.-2.!sions about the inadmissibility of a wit-
ness. His opinion yr.:. !bat no interest ought to dis-
qualify a witntsa lot giving oviu• 'Lnce. He should give
the measure his most decided support.
The Marquis of NORMANBY also support,.
Bill.

`-d the

The LORD CHANCELLOR briefly replied, and
strangers were ordered to withdraw, but no division
took place, and the B II was read a second time.

SALE OP BEER.

Lord WIIAIINCLIFFE moved the second read-
ing of the Sale of Beer Bill.
The Duke of RICHMOND suggested that the
Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. Unless
that was done, they could not do justice to all the
parties concerned. If they passed it in its present state
they would make a different and more stringent law
for the parties who paid the highest taxes.
Lord PORTMAN thought the Bill was realty eood
fur nothing.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered
to be referred to a Select Committee.

The Report o❑ the Settled Estate Drainage Bill was
received, and the third reading fixed for Monday next.
Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Jui 17.

The SpEAKEe took the Chair shortly before Four.
On the motion of Sir G. GREY certain alterations
were made in the Standing Orders, in conformity vrith
the recommendations contained in the second Report of
the Select Committee on Private Business.
CHESTER AND HOLYHEAD RAILWAY.

Sir G. GREY brought up the Report of the Com-
mltee on the Chester and Holyhead Railway Bill.

FARNHAM RECTORY BILL.

Mr. DARBY brought Up the Report on the Farn-
ham Rectory Chapels' Bill, and moved certain amend-
ment,

Mr. HUME said that as they were altering the
standing orders relating to private business, he thought
it was essentially necessary that they should introduce
some alteration to prevent bills relating to public pro-
perty, which church property undoubtedly was, from
passing as private bills.—(Cheers.) This was the more
necessary when they found that the most valuable pro-
perty, such for instance as the Southampton estate,
which was of the value of two millions, had been passed
away by a private Bill for a paltry consideration
of 300/. a year. That property had been passed
away by a private Bill, and had been conferred
by the Minister of the Crown of that day upon his
brother.—(Cheers.) He would submit that it was fit
and proper that her Majesty's Ministers should take
the subject into their serious consideration with a view
of preventing such abuses for the future. If that pro-
perty, extending from St. Giles's to Highgate, and out
of which the granter had realized more than a million
and a half had not been passed away in that manner,
they would have had ample funds for Church pur-
poses without any necessity of applying to Parliament for
assistance. He knew nothing of the merits of the
present Bill, but he protested against Bills relating to
Church property being considered as private Bills.
Sir R. INGLIS knew hardly which most. to admire,
the naivete of the Hon. Gentleman or his ingenuity.
His naivete in assuming, as it were, e concessu, that
Church property was public property, or his ingenuity
in making a Bill relating to Farnham Rectory an occa-
sion for introducing a question relating to the disposal
of certain Church property upwards of eighty years ago by
the Duke of Grafton, who was then the Prime Minis-
ter of the Crown.—(Cheers.) He supposed that pre-
sently the Hon. Member would be making some allu-
sion to the disposal of Church property in the time of
Henry VIII., and telling her Majesty's Ministers to
take some measures for the prevention of the recurrence
of similar abuses.

Mr. J. JERVIS complained of his being still left
ignorant of what the amendments might be.
Mr. KENIBLE said that the evidence was but a
repetition of that which had been taken, in 1837 and
1838, before the Committee on Church-rates. He did
not think, therefore, that any additional information
could be received from its publication.

Mr. AGLIONBY said that in ordinary cases
it. was not necessary that evidence relating to pri-
vate Bills should be printed. The case, however,
was then different, as the Honourable Gentleman
should have known, from the notice he had that
the amendment would be opposed. He would there-
fore move that the evidence taken before the Committee
should be printed, and that in the meantime the further
consideration of the question should be postponed.
Sir R. H. INGLIS said that he thought it would
be more convenient that the former amendment should
be first disposed of. It was proposed by the pre-
sent Bill to prevent the Archdeacon from renewing cer-
tain leases or taking fines for the renewal, which would
amount to between 11,0001. and 12,000/. The Bill
professed to be opposed by two of the lessees, but what,
he would ask, had become of the other two ? Why
the truth was that they were content with the Bill be,
cause it gave them compensation. Such being the case,
when the proper time arrived he should move the ornis-
sion of the clause that recognised the expediency of
granting compensation. He would oppose the motion
of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman.
Mr. R. STEUART, as a Member of the Com-
mittee, begged to say that he hoped the papers would
be printed, as the question was an exceedingly im-
portant one.
Mr ORDE was anxious that the evidence should be
printed, because the House would see there was no
evidence before the Committee to warrant them in
granting compensation for the loss of leases.
After a few words from Mr. SMITH and Mr. DARBY
Mr. JOHN JERVIS, as representative of a con-
stituency much interested in Church property, felt
it his duty to resist the introduction of an entirely new
and most dangerous principle. He wanted to see the
evidence, in order that he might see whether it war-
ranted compensation or not.
Capt. PEC HELL had taken care to make himself
well acquainted with the whole facts of the case, so
much so that the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for
the University of Oxford named him the champion of
the lessees. Now it was in that character that he prayed
the House to have the evidence printed. He would
appeal to the Speaker if it was not usual to have the
evidence laid on the table when the Committee had
made such important [alterations in a Bill as they had
done in that before the House.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw. The House
divided :

Ayes llO
Noes 73
Majority against Mr. Aglionby's amendment .—.37

EVENING EDIT'

IN. _ ,

- -
On the amendments proposed by the Conlittee being
put from the Chair,
Sir R. H. INGLIS moved the omilsitqtr-of—ceitain
wo:ds• -
any decision on the subject, as the
Afr. 111.1 ME said that the House was perfectly tlit-4
been printed, and Honourable
a ablem e n tdom
ecnotms e
had to
n.:
jilfrobers could not poss;Ny_be aware of the nature
of that oa which they were caliez_i to decide.
Mr. AGLIONBY..said the mist:;.Re into which the

Hon. Member for :Kilkenny had fallen, tilzt the amend-
ments had not been printed was a natural one. The
Hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Cam-
bridge he believed was the only Member of the House
who had been in possession of a copy of them,
until within the last five minutes. He (Mr. Aglionby)
had applied to one of the agents for the Bill for a copy
of the amendments five minutes since, and the
agent had replied that he had not seen a
copy. Since then be had procured a copy. He thought
this was a fair ground for asking that the further con-
sideration of these amendments should be post-
poned to some future day. He hoped the Govern-
ment would give their support to the recommendations
of the Committee, and that the amendments of the Hon.
Baronet would be rejected.
Mr. B. WOOD regretted that the evidence was not
then before the House, because he did not think the real
question connected with the Bill was fully understood.
The Bill provided for one Canonry being taken froto the
number intended to be suppressed, for the purpose of
giving it to the Archdeacon of Surrey. He was
ready; to admit that the Archdeacon was not benefited
by the exchange. In fact, he believed he was injured
by it, but then it must be borne in mind that he had
been but very recently appointed. He was satis-
fied the Noble Lard the Secretary for the Colonies
had know!: the whole merits of the question before he
proposed the r, tension of the Canonry, he would
i
never have adopteu
that course. The Right
Member for the Univer-
sityec true ; two
Honourable Baronet the .
of Oxford had stated that tLis was an application
made by only two lessees. It was ptleftly
only had gone before the Committee. 1: was not for
him to say why the other two had not presenised them-
selves, but it was the duty of the Committee to attend
to those who had come forward. Had the Noble Lord
been aware of all the facts of the case, he would never
have consented to such an arrangement. If the House
looked carefully at the whole question it was impossible
that this Bill could pass. Those who were so fond of
standing up for the clergy ought to be consistent and to
act on principle. Now they prevented one Bishop from
raising poor livings above 300/. a year, while they were
giving to another Bishop 1,400/., who was residing in
a parish with a small population. Why should this dif-
ference be made, more especially when there was a cler-
gyman in the parish who did all the duty for 400/. a-year
He now came to the real question before the Horse
—(lronical cheers from the Opposition)—which was
whether this clause should stand part of the Bill or not ;
that was the real question, and he should say very little
upon it—(lronical cheers and loud laughter)— but it
was not to be supposed because he said little, that he
did not feel sensibly on the subject. He thought the
claims of the lessees honest and just. The Bill had
been described on its introduction as patriotic, liberal.
and pious ; as to its piety he would say nothing, but if
it were patriotic, it ought to be good, and if it were Jibe
ral. it ought to be just ; now, this usage had long pre
veiled, and it was not just that it should now be violated.
Captain PECHELL rose amid cries of " Question'
and said, if Hon. Gentlemen would not listen to argu-
ments on both sides, he should move that the debate
be adjourned. The Hon. Baronet had mistated in say-
ing the vicarage of Farnham was in the patronge of the
Bishop of Winchester, for it was in the patronage of
the Archdeacon of Surrey. He was surprised the
Hon. Baronet should be the first person to act in oppo-
sition to the recommendation of the Committee. The
i%ommittee had dealt very fairly by the lessees, but the
kon. 21aronet objected to the compensation they re-
commendet: to those who had fought the battles of the
d offer every opposition in his power
Ctohtuhrechß.i
Bill, for
vo:.1
t;hpure:
se of protecting the interests of
the lessees.
Mr. HUME protested against, the measure, as in-
jurious to the claims of others, and dealing unfairly
with them. The Honourable Member co.ncluded by
moving the adjournment of the debate till some of her
Majesty's Ministers were present.—(Laughter.)
Mr. J. STE WART would vote for the adjournment
of the debate, unless some satisfactory reasons were
given for the course that had been adopted. There
had not been a single speech made on the subject on
the 01::‘,.,r side of the House, which he thought was not
treating
a sui,jet of such importance fairly.
Sir GREY wu tld vote for the adjournment of the
debate, as he had not hard one word from the lion.
Baronet, the Member for 0xi`..7(3, why he should vote
for the recommendation of the Col"lmittee•
Strangers were then ordered to witi,":l/awl
and the
House divided, when there appeared—
For the adjournment.. ...
Against it
Majority against the adjournment --46
Oa our reentering the gallery, we found
Mr. HUMS upon his legs, moving that the other
Orders of the Day should be read.
The SPEAKER made some observations which
were inaudible in the gallery, upon which
' Mr. HUME moved that the House should ad-
journ.—(Cries of " No, no;')
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
rose amid much laughter. He was anxious to save the
time of the House by proceeding with the public busi-
ness ; and he thought that. as the Bill had been dis-
cussed for some time, some arrangement ought to be
come to, in order that the other business might *be pro-
ceeded with. He would therefore suggest, whether it.
might not be possible for the Hon. Baronet to moverhis
amendments in a future stage.—(Hear.)
Mr. GOUL BURN could not accede to the sue-
gestion of the Right Hon. Gentlemen, because it was,
evident the course that had been adopted was for the
of defeating the Bill without entering into its
merits.

-----
Mr. HUME had no factious objects in view in the
course he had pursued—he wished to know from her
Majesty's Ministers if they thought it right to increase.
an already valuable living to 1,4001. a-year, when there
were in the county so many, the incomes of which
were totally inadequate to the support of a minister?—
( Hear, hear.) He would put it to the Speaker whether
he had ever known a Private Bill discussed after seven
o'clock.
Mr. AG LIO NBY would support the motion for the
adjournment.
The CHANCHELLOR of the EXCHEQUER,
in order to save time, would propose that the question
should be adjourned till Monday—(Cries of " No") ,
upon the understanding that the question should then
be fairly discussed, and upon a pledge on the part of
the Government not to interfere with the discussion by
bringing forward public business.—(Cries of " Na.")
Captain PEC HELL thought they ought to pest-
pone the debate till they received further information.
Mr. A. SMITH would support the adjournment of
the question till Monday.
Mr. KEMBLE said if those on his Bide of the
House were to be met constantly by delay wizen they
happened to be in a majority, it would be their duty
either to retire from the House or to see whether it
would not be incumbent upon them to follow the same
tactics.—( Cheers.) That was not the proper time to
discuss the principle of the Bill, but on a future occa-
sion he would be enabled to show that the principle Iva,v
a fair one. The compensation clause was carried by
a majority of 3 to 2, so that it had no great weight—it.
settled a principle which was declared by the Church
Lessees Committee to be right neither in law nor equity,
Mr. GOULBURN wished very much to save the:
time of the House. There were only two courses open
—either to allow them to go on with their amendments.
--(No, no)—and have the discussion on the third
reading, or adjourn the discussion till Monday, and then.
discuss the Bill upon its merits ; to either course he
would willingly agree.
Mr. B. WOOD and Mr. ,KEMBLE severally ex-
plained, but amidst such cries of " Divide, divide," time
it was impossible to hear one word they said.
Sir GEORGE GREY said many of the Hon. Mem-
bers opposite appeared not to understand the state of
the question. It was proposed to adjourn the discus-
sion of the question of compensation till Monday, when
the question would be fairly discussed, and met with no
factious opposition.
Mr. GOULBURN did not see that the offer was
not a fair one, if the House allowed it to be fairly un-
derstood.—(Cries of " Adjourn.")
Mr. T. DU NCOMBE said the interruption which
the Right Hon. Gentleman met with came from hist
own side of the House—his friends would not be bound
by him.
Mr. KEMBLE understood the proposition to be
that they should take a division upon the compensation
I clause, that the opposition to the Bill should then cease,
and be allowed to pass.—(Loud cries of "No, no!.
Sir R. INGLIS said many Hon. Members had de-
cidedly dissented from the offer to proceed to a fair dis-
cussion of the Bill on Monday. They had already
spent three hours in fruitless discussion—if they wsre
to be met with the same sort of opposition on Monday)
it would be useless to adjourn the debate.
Mr. HUME said his pre-position was that, upon
Monday, they should take a division upon the principles
of compensation, and, if beat upon that, then another
division upon the third reading of the Bill—against the
Bill itself.—(Cries of ' Go on," and " Adjourn.")
Mr. LABOUCHERE thought the proposition of
the Hon. Member for Kilkenny a fair one. Of course
it was not to be met by any factious opposition, but
only one division would be taken upon the third read.
I ing of the Bill.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, but
Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose, and said he thought
the proposition of the Hon. Member was a very fait
one, and one which he had a perfect right to make, and
as he understood it, it was agreed to by the leaders
among the promoters of the Bill.—(Cries of " No,
no," and " Adjourn." He had heard what was stated
, e—would the Hon. Gentleman who shouted so show

,VENING EDITION.

any reason against the general opinion of both sides of
the House ?
Sir JAMES GRAHAM was aware that the ob-
ject of the Noble Lord, and it ought to be that of all,
was to promote the transaction of public business, but
how could that be done if, after two or three hours'
discussion of the Bill, it was to be postponed for no
other reason but that the majority was on their side of
the House?—(Cheers.) Let them decide the ques-
tion fairly of compensation or not that evening, and
then debate and divide upon the third reading on
Monday. Bat if they were to have two debates and
two divisions, he saw no reason for any adjournment
of the debate.
Sir CHARLES GREY said the Right Hon. Bare. '
net had not candidly stated the facts of the case. He
utterly denied that they had even discussed the impor-
tant question of compensation at all ; the two or three
hours discussion alladed to was wholly wide of that
most important question.
Mr. WARBURTON thought it was reasonable
4o ask for some delay when they were called upon to
decide without debate the important question whether
lessees of Church property were entitled to compensa-
tion or not.—( Hear, hear.) It should be recollected that
in deciding in this particular instance they were setting a
precedent which would affect all property of this de-
scription.
Mr. FRESHFIELD proposed the amendments
should be read pro forma, and the discussion taken on
the third reading on Monday.
Mr. BENJAMIN HAiWES said this was a
queetion which would hereafter be debated on prin-
ciple in cases where much lager property was at
stake than in the present case. They should, therefore,
have all the information that could be procured, and
proceed with great deliberation, before they decided on
the subject.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
Home divided, when there appeared—
For the adjournment of the House lO
Against it lO2
Majority
On our return,
Mr. HUME was appealing to the Hon. Baronet
(Sir R. H. Inglis) whether the Bill ought not to have
a fair hearing, and whether it would not be better to
adjourn the debate ? If the Hon. Baronet would not
move this, he should feel it his duty to do so.
Sir R. H. INGLIS said he wished the amendments
to be read, pro forma. The Hon. Gentleman could
move the insertion of the words on Monday.
After some conversation,
Ar. HU INIE moved the adjournment of the debate.
On the question being put,
Mr. AGLIONBY said, before strangers were or-
dered to withdraw, he wished to state his opinion that
'it was the &AT of the Ministers, in a case like the pre-
sent, involving a great principle, to deviate from their
usual practice with regard to private Bills, and give
their opinions on this subject. He hoped they would
consider the question before the debate was resumed,
nail treat thi as a public and not as a private Bill.
Whether the amendment of the Committee was agreed
to or not, he should oppose the third reading of the
Ell.

Mr. BAINES believed that although the present
;Bill was not so good as it might be, yet it was a great
'improvement on ecclesiastical legislation generally. He
was, however, surprised at the course pursued by the
Right Hon, Gentleman, the Member for the Uuniver-
sity of Cambridge, because he understood that he bad
always contended that there was a beneficial interest in
Church leases ; but the course he was now pursuing
.seemed to show that he was of r. contrary opinion. The
House, on this question, had been taken so completely
by surprise, that it had not had time to consider this
important principle, and on that ground he should
support the motion for the adjournment. It would
cause no delay that would prejudice the Bill, for, hav-
ing alseady passed to the other House, they could af-
ford to take ample time for its consideration. He was
in favour of the Bill, leaL he would urge the friends of
it not to press it until ample opportunity had been af-
forded for its discussion.
Lord J. RUSSELL did not consider the request
to postpone the further consideration of this vestion
until Monday an unreasonable one under the circum-
stances. His opinion, with regard to the claims of the
holdeie of Church leases, differed from that of the lion.
Member for Cockerrnouth, and also from that which
the Righ't Hon. Baronet the Member for Pembroke
lied given, last.year. lie (Lord J. Russell) maintained
that the lessees had no right to expact a renewal of
taer leases. That the lessors, en the part of the
Church, 11,,d a right to refwe such renewal, and that
Parliament was not bound to recognize any such right.
Tile Right Honourable Gentleman contended that
the lessees bad a dear right to expect and cal-
calate upon such renewal. "With rogar,i to the right of
les,ees undti these eircumstinces to any compensation
or indulgenco, it was one of the most difficult questions
which Parlia rent could be called on to settle ; and with
regard to this particular Bill he should be unwillicg to
tiler any opiiden upon it, unless he were acquainted
with the whole that hal pasied in the Committeg on
the subject.—(Cheers.) Ile knew no principle more
Ciportant than the one they were called upon to de-
' hide in disposing of this question. For himself he
eras decidedly against awarding any compensation to
nerFons on account of reasonable or usual expectations.
He thouplit that was straining the principle of compen-
setion to much too great an extent. But that was a
question, however, on which there existed much differ-
ence of opinion. The Right. Hon. Baronet the Mem-
ber for Pembroke, had last Session distinctly stated
that the leisees were entitled to compensation.—( Hear,
hear, hear.) Seeing, therefore, the importance and the
daliculty of the question, and the great principles in-
volved it) it. and that this decision on the present ques-
tien wAuld in all probability become a precedent fist-
,i,..l4ing with future questions of the same sort, he
thought there was nothing unreasonable in postponing
the further consideration of these amendments to Mon-
day, when there would be an opportunity for ample dis-
eussion.—(Cheers.)
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said the question they were
now called on to decide was by no means a new one.
'lke question had been amply discussed, and he still ad-
hered to his opinion that it ought to be settled that
evening.—(Cheers.) Ile did not recede from the opi-
cion -he had expressed last Session as to the moral right
,:f lessees to compensation, where the usual custom was
to grant renewals, and he admitted to the full extent the
existence of the difficulties stated by the Noble Lord
But this was a question not of evidence hut of principle,
end the House was as competent to decide upon the
principle to-night as it would be on Monday.—
Ele,r,hear.) Tile fact was, this was a question of
iminbers.—(Cheers.) Hon. Gentlemen opposite were
anxious for victory, and they were not in numbers suffi-
cient to secure it to-night, and therefore they endea-
voured to delay the decision.—(Loud Opposition
tro cheers.) tie had steadily supported the Noble Lord
on the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill, because
he considered that under the circumstances that Bill
was useful and necessary, but he would defy the Noble
Lord to claim his support of that Bill, if he (Sir J.
Graham) had not t`esught it proper to waive his scruples
with regard to compensation. There was not an argu-
ment for compensation that could be urged in the pre-
sent case, that could not have been urged with equal
force in support of the claim of the dignitaries in the
Church, which it was proposed to suppress by the Ec-
clesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill, to compensation.
_(C'heers ) The principle was the same in both
cases. He admitted the difficulty of the case ; but
having given it his full consideration, and having
balanced the inconveniences in his own mind, he had
determined that the most proper course would be for
him to support that measure. The arguments in sup-
port of that Bill, and these in support of his Ho-
nourable Friend's proposed amendment to the pre-
sent measure, were precisely the same. It was
not a questien of evidence, but of principle.—(Hear,
hear.) That principle bad been admitted by the
Noble Lord and by her Majesty's Government, and,
although they were perfectly right in being absent at
the discussion of private Bills in general, yet in a Bill
like the present; involving a great public principle,
ought not to shrink from the avowal of their opinions,
and acting upon the principle upon which he had acted
in bringing forward the Ecclesiastical Duties and Re-
venues Bill, he was sure the Noble Lord must vote
with him to negative the proposition for adjournment.
This was merely a minority fighting against the ma-
jority, by having recourse to repeated motions for ad-
journment. Me should be sorry to stand in the way of
publie business being proceeded with, but if this course
were persevered in, the next motion for the adjourn-
ment of the House should have his support.—(Cheers.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
should vote for the postponement. The Right Hon.
Baronet admitted that this was a most important and
difficult question, involving the decision of a most im-
portant principle, and if
.so, was it right that it should
be discussed without notice ?--(Cheers.) Was not such
the case ?a-(Cries of " No," from the Opposition.) Had
notice been given of these amendments ?—(Cheers.)
So far from such being the case, he had, when he first
came down to the House, left under the impression that
they were discussing a private Bill.—(Cheers.) It
was not generally known that under the case of the
.Farnham Vestry Bill the House would be called upon
to decide upon a principle affecting the rights of large
bodies of proprietors throughout the kingdom.—
.(Cheers.) His Noble Friend had not shrunk from the
avowal of his principles.—(Cheers.) He had not shrunk
from stating his opinion.--(Loud cheers.) All he asked
was the postponement until Monday of what now turned
not to be a private Bill, but a Bill involving the
decision of a great public principle.--(Loud cheers.)
Mr. GOULBURN asked what would have been
thought of his conduct if he had moved the adjourn-
ment of the debate on the Ecclesiastical Duties and
Revenues Bill, with a view of discussing the question
•f compensation.—(Cheers.) Would the Noble Lord
have given *ay on such a reason at that late period of
the Session, and would he (Mr. Goulburn) have been
justified by his refusal in moving repeated adjourn-
'rents ?—(Cheers.) He would deny the principle in-
volved in this Bill, but every man had considered the I.