The Sun.
London, England, 1841-06-15 00:00:00

congregation attending the church at Kilmarnock ; from
Gayhuret Cherries, Long Crandon, Bucks ; ironfoundry
in Horsleyfields „• from Messrs. Ridgway and Co.,
Potteries ; from Messrs. Elkin and Co., and° their work-
men, Foley Potteries ; from Messrs. Boyd and Co., and
Messrs. William Orr and Co., and their workmen, Bel-
fast • from householders in the parishes of Hoxton,
Eiackfriars, St. Olave's (Southwark), and Lambeth.
Also one from the friends of the Scotch Church in Wol-
verhampton against intrusion.
Mr. BANNERMAN presented a petition, very nume-
rously signed, from the city of Aberdeen, against
Church patronage. •
Mr. PROTHEROE presented petitions from Halifax
and other places in Yorkshire, praying for the total abo-
lition of the Corn-laws.
Sir E. FILMER presented a petition from Kent,
cgainst the repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. AINSWORTH presented a petition from Bolton,
praying that Liverpool might be appointed a station for
the West Indiaanail packets.
Mr. DARBY presented a petition from Sussex aga:nst
any- alteration in the Corn-laws.
Mr. MACAULAY presented a petition from a place
in Perthshire in favour of the commercial measures of the
Government. -
Lord MORPETH presented a petition from the general
body of Prote.itant Dissenters of the three denominations
residing in London, priying.fbr the abolition of all re-
strictions on the necessaries of life, which the petitioners
deprecated as fraudulent and immoral.
Sir. DE LACY EVANS presented petitions to the
same effect from the parishes of St. Martin's and St.
John's, Westminster.
Mr. HAWES presented a petition from Croydon, with
4,000 signatures, praying that corn might be imported
on dee payment uci. moderate duty ; also a petition from
a bady of Dissent: rs in Kent, praying for the abolition
of Church-rates.
Sir E. KNATCHBGLL presented a .petition from.
Kent against any alteration in -the Corn-laws.
• Mr. HUME presented petitions from a place in Der-
bs;shire„ and from various places in London and Mid-
dlesex, praying for a repeal of the present Corn-laws.
Mr DENNISTO N presented 81 petitions from
various nieces in Scotland to the same effect.
Air. *ALTER, presented two petition; from benefit
Nocietie3 in Essex, praying for a repeal of the new
Pcor-law. • I

Lord CASTLEREAGH presented a petition from
7.rewtownards, in the connty Down, praying that agri-
culture might not be deprived of its present protection.
ST. JOHN'S HOSPITAL (WINCHESTER)
ESTATE. BILL.

Sir J. GRAHAM said he had intended to move that
the Report' of the Committee on this Bill should be
hro.ught 'up to-day; but, in consequence of unexpected
opposition to it, he should move it as an Order of the
liav to-morrow.
LE2‘DEIZ said if the Right Hon. Baronet did so
he should move as an amendment that the Bill be re-
committed.
The SPEAKER said it was not competent to the lion.
Member to move that the Bill be recommitted, as the
Report Wllfi not yet brought up.
Ater some further conversation Mr. LEADER
moved that the Report should be brought up that day
fortnight.

Sir-J. GRAHAM said that the object of the Hon.
Gentleman was now apparent; it was to get rid of the
Bill without discussion.
Mr. LEADER said he was perfectly willing to discuss
it now, and the facts of the case were briefly these. The
estate in question was situated in Wiltshire, and adjoined
the estate of Sir Edmund Antrobus, it consisted of about
500 acres, and had been held by a family named Blatah
for the last 100 years, under a l ease, rene.wable for ever from
a charitable corporation :,t Wi•ichef;ter. They, of course,
considered such an ejcenpatiim as tantamount to a free-
hold, and on the faith of the constant renewal of this
lease, they had expended v:-..wards of 10,000/. on the im-
provement of the cf.:ate. Some years ago the estate got
into Chancery. am. tlr. tenants were then told that if the
estate should eve': be sold they should have the refusal of
the property. It aplaeareal. however, that Sir E. Antrobus
had entered into negotiations with the Trustees for an
-change of this estate for some estate of his iniklamn-:
shire. These tenants had had no notice ofqijis Bill
which was 6o carry that negotiation into effect, and there-
fore he elljtcted to the Bill on the ground of its injus-
tice : he also objected to it on the ground of form, for
when the Biatch family had applied to the Clerk of the
House of Lords they had been informed that they need
take no steps as the Bill could not pass during the pre-
sent Session : and he further objected to it on the ground
of its being against the interest of the charity—for if
charitable estates were disposed of by private contract
instead of by public competition, a door would be opened
or groPA jobbing.
Sir 4. GitALLAM saldithe Hon. Gentleman, as a spe-
cimen of his accuracy, had called this estate Church
property, whoa it was, in reality, a charitable trttst. The
lon. Member had said that there was a good deal of
jobbing in this matter. Now, what were the facts ? The
estate had been in Chancery upwards of 30 years ; and
e.ei far from its not having been controlled by any supe-
rior power,,. every stop which had bean taken with re-
spect to,it had been determined upon in the Master's
office, 1-vith- the direct sanction of the Lord Chancel-
lor. It was true that for a number of years it was
held under a beneficial lease, but for the last fourteen
years-that lease had. expired, and the estate had been.
held subject to the rules which governed an occupation
front yem• to year. The contract was of this nature,
under an order from the Lord Chancellor, and with a
view to the interest of the Charity, the oiler of an ex-
change made by Sir Edmund Antrobus was accepted ;
and 1,800/. more than the value of the estate was
realized. The Bill was introduced into the _House of
Lords, under the direct sanction of the Lord Chan-
cellor, and recommended by him to the adoption of the
two Houses. Under these circumstances he could not
but deprecate this attempt to put an end to the Bill in
this, summary manner, and he would take the sense 'of
:he House on th 4 subject.
Mr. LABVCIIERE said that it would be a most
unusual course to divide in the present stage of the Bill.
tie therefore felt bound to vote against his Hon. Friend,
but in doing so he begged to be understood as expressing
no opinion on the merits of the question.
Mr. LEADER, after a few observations, withdrew his
amendment, and the Report was ordered to be received
to-morrow.
Mr:LOCH, before the public business commenced,
wished to put a question to his Right Hon. Friend, the
President of theßoard of Trade. As it was nowgenerally
understood that a disiolution would take place, he wished
to know what, course he intended to pursue with respect
to the private business that might be got through.
• Mr. LABOUCHERE said, that if he held the situa-
tion in the next Session which he did in the present,
he should certainly adopt the precedent with respect
to the private business which had been followed in 1831.
He did not believe there was any great amount of pri-
vate business in that position ; butlwhere parties had ex-
pended money, and that as these private Bills had ad-
vanced to a certain, state; they ought to be placed in the
Same position in a new Parliament. Ile trusted it would
be the business of the new Parliament to relieve so ma-
nifest an inconvenience and injustice.
Sir R. PEEL presented a petition from the Arch-
deacon and clergy of the diocese of Norwich, praying
that some provision would be made for the re-
pair of the edifice of the church with as little in-
convenience as possible to all their fellow Christians; also
a petition from the Rev. Herbert Smith, chaplain 6f the
New Forest Union Workhouse 'praying that in the ad-
ministration of the new Poor-law distinction might be
made between the deserving and the undeserving poor.
Also petitions from Wallingford, Berks, and several places
in Staffordshire, in favour of the present Corn -laws. He
had been entrusted with petitions from parties, of
whom he had no local knowledge, praying for a repeal of
the Corn-laws. • The petitions were from several
parishes in Lancashire.

Mr. BARRONpursentod petitions from the shipowners
of Waterford, against any alteration of the Timber Duties.
Colonel RUSHBROOK presented three petitions
against any alteration in the Corn-laws.
Mr. PATTISON presented fourteen petitions from
Bloomsbury and other districts of the metropolis, praying
for repeal of the Corn-laws:
Mr. HAWES Piesiinted a petition from Camberwell,
signed by 4,000 persons, to the same effect.
The Report on the Ecclesiastical Commissioners Bill
was received. • - -

THE APPROPRIATION BILL.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER having
Pries' onol
on
Bupll,
thallepart-of the-Committee on the Appro-
Mr. HUME said. that he would take that opportunity
of ollering to the •}lvitse some observations upon an
assertion which he had trade on a former evening,
to the" effect that in the present- state of our legislation
the agricultural interest paid butatld a very small portiontc ab
heencoulnettiryt,hein
tthaletyythae
lia.)rrgoetercstuivm
taxes e
dofuttihese thtaexyees of the
upon the community than all the opaid to the State.
His assertions were not of that vague nature which the
Right Hon.- Gentlemen the Megber fur Cambridge
supposed. He (Mr. Hume) considered e
landed
prietors of -England, as compared with those
soo opthreor-
countries, to be peculiarly favoured and free 'froffi
any-
thing like heavy burdens. In France the landed prietary paid nearly 40 per cent, of the entire
revenue of
the country. - He made.that assertion upon the authority
of a statement of the French Chancellor of the
Exchequer which appeared' to him (Mr. Hume) unan-
swerable. In Belgunn and Holland, the land-tax
amounted to from twenty-two to twenty-five per
cent. upon, the entire revenue of those States. In
fact, England was now much in the same situation
as France in the year 1789.. At that time, the Frervii
nobility were exempt from taxation, while the whole re-
venue was levied upon the working classes. He re-
peated that in an indirect way the people of England
now pay, a 3 the people of France then did, the
entire revenue of the country, inasmuch as the
protecting laws more than compensated the aristocracy
fbr any taxes which they paid. They enjoyed in addi-
tion alarge portion of the twenty millions paid to the
army and navy ; and the journals of the House proved
that every possible burthen 'bearing on the land of the
country had been removed by Acts of Parliament.
He had in his hand a list of taxes formerly levied on the

whole: community, but which, since 1816, had been
gradually taken off the land while they were suffered to

remain on the community at large. Taxes on husbandry,
agricultural servan ti,horscs, and so forth had been repealed,
and Wore the house-tax was removed. The statement

in hTs hand showed that 130,000 farmhouses were ex-
empt from all taxes whatever, while taxe: on other

hotises were continued. The paper he had in his hand
showed that there was no less than 983,0001.

annual taxation which ;vas formerly borne by the land,
and which it did not now pay, but which other portions
of the community did pay.— (Hear, hear.) So that it was
an attempt to delmle the community to say that they
were taxe6 which they_boro, iuit which- the community
did not bear. lie would refer to the evidence before the
Committee in 1825, on the distress which existed at that
time in the agricultural districts ; and he thought he