The Sun.
London, England, 1840-02-13 00:00:00

VAGRANTS REMOVAL BILL.

On the motion of Mr. ROBERT PALMER the
Vagrants Removal Bill was read a second time, and
ordered to be committed on Monday next.
TITHE COMMUTATION ACTS AMEND-

MENT BILL.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL moved the second read-
ing of the Tithe Commutation Acts Amendment Bill.
In this Bill there were two or three claims which might
be modified in the Committee. He meant especially
those relating to hops and market grounds. He wished
to do every thing to forward the intentions which the
Legislature had in passing the Tithes Cemmutatioh
Act. And one of his principal objects in the present
measure was to prevent Cale from being taken in kind,
when the rent charge was fixed, that was to say, between
the apportionment and the commutation.
Mr. DIVETT was decidedly opposed to the Bill.
It would be impossible to dovetail an Act of 74 dis-
tinct clauses into the six different Acts which had been
passed upon this subject, without producing the greatest
doubt and confusion. The first Tithe Act was the
6th William IV., and then there was the Act of the
Ist Victoria, which had been followed by three
or four others on the same sulject. The Ho-
nourable Baronet said that his object was to
prevent the taking of tithe in kind between the
apportionment and the commutation. Now that might
be a very good object, but it would not be attained
under the proposed Bill, without great ex-
pense and inconvenience, and it would materially stand
i Lthe way of the justice of the appportionment.
He found that the expenses of the present Tithe Com-
mission amounted to 60,000/. a year, and he believed
that the present measure would tend considerably to in-
crease that. The Right Hon. Baronet, in introducing
his Bill, had talked of the inconveniences of the present
system, and of the great difficulty of collecting tithes.
He (Mr. Divett) believed, however, that those diffi-
culties existed only in a very few instances, and that
there was a general dispoFition in the country to enter
into voluntary agreements on subjects of the kind.
The Tithe Cninmissioners said they had reason to ex-
press their satisfaction at the working of the Bill, and
there was therefore no reason to come to the House
for its alteration when appeals were of rare occurrence,
and acquiescence was the general rule. If that was the
opinion of the Tithe Commissioners why allow a Bill of
this sort to pass, which would materially alter the Act,
and make that which was already extremely difficult to
understand, a great deal more difficult. He contended
it was not- sufficient for any Member to say the Tithe
Commissioners concurred in the Bill. If this were the
case the Bill cught to be introduced under their auspices,
and they should have taken upon themselves the
responsibility of any changes they thought might
be
required. One clause only in their report
could justify this supposition, though in another
place they said " the hardship of collecting tithe in
kind had been strongly pressed
upon them." He had
no doubt of it ; but the time of the House should not
be taken up in legislating on individual. cases of
grievance He contended that the intention of the
framers of the Bill had been fully carried out, and that
interfering.
And there was no occasion for the House again
And having stated what were his objections to
and knowing that vast alterations must be made Bill,
Committee, he thought it had better be stopped in
the second reading, than allowed to go into Committee,
where it would probably pass in a state that would be
prejudicial to the interests it affected. He therefore
moved, that the Bill be read that day six months.
Mr. FOX MAULE could assure his Hon. Friend
that this Bill bad been introduced with the full concur-
rence of the Tithe Commissioners.—(Hear, hear.)
When this measure was first proposed to the House,
he had referred to the Tithe Commissioners on the
subject, and he bad this day gone through the Bill with one
of those gentlemen, who had told him, speaking not
only for himself, but his colleagues—when he said that

the lull had their entire concurrence as calculated to
relieve them from a great portion of their labours, and
to make the operation of the Act much less expensive.
Hear, hear.) The object of this was to effect
a commutation of tithes into a rent-charge,
as speedily as possible. It was quite true that in most
cases this had been done on the voluntary principle,
but still there were many cases in which the old custom
of taking tithes in kind still remained ; and unless
some measure were taken to remedy this inconve-
nience the power conferred by this custom might be
exercise most vexatiously. It was quite true that the
clause had been introduced by the Right Hon. Gentle-
man opposite, and he did not think that this measure
could have come more effectually before the House
if the Tithe Commissioners brought it forward
on their own authority. On the contrary, the
Tithe Commissioners had said that they would
take advantage of this Bill to introduce certain ne-
cessary amendments. His Honourable Friend had
eemplained of the great number of amended Bills on this
subject ; it would be a matter of surprise if such had
not been the case, because it would he a wo-der if in a
great measure, suckas that of the Tithe Commutation
they should have beta enabled to have introduced a per-
fect Bill at once. .:;::Reserving therefore to himself the
right of entering ftio a full explanvion of this Bill
clause by clause iiieCornmittee, he should vet: for its
second reading.
Mr. GOUL BURN doubted if this Bill would effect
what the Honourable Gentleman expected. It ap-
peared to him that the clauses in question would affect
merely a small number of cases. By the proposed
arrangement that when a parish made an agreement sub-
stituting a rent charge for tithes, that any landholder
might render himself security for the payment of the
charge on the whole parish. If the landlord were
the proprietor of the whole parish it might be
worth his while to do so, but if he were not, it
was improbable that he would take the charge of reco-
vering the amount from the other landholders.
The delay now existing in carrying forward the operation
of the Act arose between the agreement and the ap-
portionment, and the apportionment was delayed from
petty squabbles among the landholder as to little ex-
penses, and the only way in which these squabbles
could be terminated was by the pressure upon
the parties of the inconveniences of the present
system.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") He much feared
little good would result from giving facilities for further
delay. There were other clauses of great importance
which be had not had time fully to consider—one giving
power to the Commissioners to fix boundaries. On the
whole, if the amendment were pressed, he feared he must
vote for it ; but he would rather not vote against the
Bill till sonic future stage.
Sir R. INGLIS deprecated proceeding with the se-
cond reading of the Bill, considering that it had only
been printed six days. He was of opinion that time
ought to be allowed for considering the Bill, but as that
was refused, he should vote, if called upon, with the
Hon. Member for Exeter, that the Bill should be read
a second lime that day six months.

Sir EDWARD SUGDEN objected to the powers
that had been added to the Bill by the Tithe Corn-
sioners. What he would therefore propose was, that
the Bill should be referred to a Committee up st
where the whole subject could be considered with more
deliberation than in that House. If that were agreed
to, probably the Hon. Member for Exeter would with-
draw his motion.—(" No. no," from Mr. Divett.)
Sir E. KNATCHBULL was quite ready to accede
to the proposition of a Select Committee. He hoped
the Hon. Member for Exeter would allow the Bill to be
read a second time, in order that it might be sent to a
Committee! up stairs.
Mr. DIVETT intimated that he would persevere
with his amendment.

Tne House accordingly divided, and the numbers
were—

For the second reading 77
Against it
Majority
The 13.d1 was then read a second time.

SPIRIT LICENSES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Mr. GILLON moved the second reading of this
Bill. The object of it was to take out of the hands of
Magistrates the power of granting licenses, and to trans-
fer tat power to the Excise.

Mr. PRINGLE opposed the second reading of the
Bill. It would do away with certificates of character,
which were now required once a year ; and no one he
thought should wish to do away with that necessity.
Mr. ROBE KT STELLA RT thought that certain
alterations should take place in the Bill, and he did
not wish to deprive Magistrates altogether of the
salutary power which they at present possessed,
of withdrawing licenses under certain circumstances ;
but the only change it would effect was, that a person
to whose character there was no objection, would be
saved the trouble of travelling thirty, or, in some in-
stances, forty miles, to take out a renewal of his
license. If a man had forgotten to take out his license,
as frequently happened, the Excise had no power to
grant it upon his petition, for the law only fixed two
days in the year for the purpose, and if be did not at-
tend on those days, he was deprived of it for six
months following, which was a great temptation for a
poor man, who had invested Isis capital in this way, to
sell without a license, if he had lost it under these
circumstances.

Sir GEORGE CLERK said, his objection to
the Bill was, that it would make a difference
in the law of England and Scotland. The
great difference between England and Scotland in
the sale of spirits was, that in Scotland many grocers
sold spirits ; and he should wish to see the trade in
Scotland assimilated to the trade in Ireland. He hoped
the Hon. Member for Falkirk would give up this mea-
sure to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and then an
alteration might be made in the law on this subject,
and also on the subject of the recovery of debts due to
the sellers of spirits for liquors sold in small quantities.
He hoped the Hon. Member would withdraw this
Bill, and leave the whole matter in the hands of the
Treasury. He should certainly vote against the Bill
in its present shape.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
thought that the Right Hon. Gentleman who had
spoken last had left the subject of the Bill now before
the House totally out of his consideration. He thought
the most strenuous advocate for the control of the
Magistracy over spirit sellers would admit that the law
in Scotland in this respect stood in need of amendment.
The law, as it now stood, did produce some inconve-
niences. But to the Bill, as it now was framed, he
objected. And he should vote for the second reading
only on this ground, that the Magistrates should retain
virtually their present control over the licensing, and
that the Bill should only provide against the great in-
juries often resulting from accidental omission of attend-
ance.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. HERRIES said, considering that every one
even of the supporters of the Bill could not agree to it
as it now stood, he thought it should be withdrawn and
altered.—(Hear, hear.) He should vote against the
second reading of the Bill.
General SHARPE was also opposed to the Bid.

Mr. GILLON would leave the Bill in the custody
of the House, and as it had been taken up by the Go-
vernment he should be most happy to entrust it to the
Member for Edinburgh.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and tho
House divided, when _there appeared—
For the Bill
Against it
Majority
FINANCE.
The House having resolved itself into a Committee
on the Transfer of Aids Bill :

Mr. HE R RIES asked if only the million granted last
year was to be now issued ? And he also wished to
correct an error in a former statement of the Chancellor
of the Exch&quer—that Lord Monteagle had reduced
the Unfunded Debt from 29,000,0001 to 20,000,0001:
whereas it was only to 21,000,000—its reduction being
thus, 8,000,000/, instead of 9,000,0001.

The CIIANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER--
replied that only the one million was to be issued. As
to the other point we understood him to agree with the
Right Hon. Gentleman.
Mr. HERRIES—Then no part of the additional
four millions last year will be used?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—
No.

Mr. HERRIES—Then the 4,000,0001. was a
superfluous, unnecessary vote.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
could not agree to that at all.
Mr. HE RRIES thought confusion must necessarily
be produced in the public accounts.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—
That could easily be set right—a mere matter of form.
Mr. GOULBURN said the objection was not one
of form, but of substance. The effect of the addi-
tional four millions having been in the Appropriation
Act of last Sesiion, was that Government had at least
the power of issuing so many more bills than the Par-
liament had contemplated.—(Hear.)
The House then resumed.
RAILWAYS.

Sir H. FLEETWOOD moved, " That an humble
Address be presented to her Majesty, praying that her
Majesty wit! be
engineer or enginetrs who pleated to direct that the
have been appointed, in pur-
suance of the Address of this House of the 14th day