The Sun.
London, England, 1834-05-17 00:00:00

WARWICK BOROUGH.

The Earl of RADNOR said that their lordships had
ordered Samuel Dingley and Wm. Oram, witnesses sum-
moned on the Warwick Borough Bill, to attend that day.
He understood that they were not present, and should
therefore move that they be taken into custody.
Mr. BUTT, jun., the Deputy Sergeant-at. Mace, stated
that he had served the order for attendance at the resi-
dences of Dingle), and Oram.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then directed that the
two witnesses should be called. On their not answering,

The Earl of RADNOR moved that warrants be issued
to take the witnesses into custody. . . .

The LORD CHANCELLOR recommended that the
execution of the warrants be suspended until Wednesday,
that the witnesses might be in custody for as short a time
as possible.
The motion was then put and agreed to nemine dissen-
tiente.

The-LORD CHANCELLOR said that he should move
that it be an instruction to counsel to state shortly the facts
to which they intended to call other witnesses without going
into an examination of what had already been given. His
lordship then said that he had a petition to present from
2,290 persons in Aberdeen, similar to that he had presented
a few evenings since from Glasgow, respecting the church
establishment in Scotland. He had, on former occasions,
given his opinion on the subject. It was, therefore, unne-
cessary for him to go into the question. He was of opinion
that all the grievances of the dissenters, that was, all those
of which they so justly complained, should be removed. It
gave him great pleasure that a relation of his, holding a
high office in the Court of Chancery, had introduced into
the other house a bill for the better registration of births,
marriages, and deaths, which, if carried, would remove
many causes of complaint existing at present. He was a
friend to the established church, and would support all
their due privileges; but he was also a friend to the claims
that had been urged in many of the petitions presented to
their lordships. There might be a difference of opinion as
to what were abuses or grievances, but whenever anything
could be shown to be an abuse beyond doubt, no one would
be a more warm supporter of the removal of it than himself.
The petition was then laid on the table.
PL URALITIE S—N ON- RESIDENCE.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then stated that he had
two bills to lay on their lordships' table, which it would be
unnecessary for him to describe at any length. He had
brought them forward with the full concurrence of his col-
leagues, and he trusted that they would be acceptable to
their lordships. The one was to prevent pluralities, and
the other to put a stop to non-residence. These bills
struck at two of the greatest abuses in the church esta-
blishment. They had been constantly subjects of com-
plaint, and had been a source of continued weakness to the
church. The holding pluralities had been a ground of
objection for the last two hundred years ; at any rate,
since the time of the Commonwealth, and the time had
arrived when it must be removed. The abuses he had
alluded to were now ripe for the sickle, and ready to be
cut down. They had been handles to the enemies of the
church, and they ought no longer to be allowed to
lessen the usefulness of the establishment, or impair its
foundations. The evils of non-residence and pluralities
could be done. (Hear, hear, hear.) In large towns the
were not originally a part of the church, and the catholic
church, from which our church sprung, knew nothing of
them. Non-residence was a constant source of disunion
between the clergyman and his parishioners, and the ex-
istence of it was a snare for the one and a cause of dissatis-
faction to the other. The title for dispensation for non-resi-
dence was not given to the clergyman in consequence of
peculiar duties, but merely because he happened to be
chaplain to a peer, or a judge, or the attorney-general, or
a member of the royal family, or any of the great officers of
state. At present a duke was allowed to have six chap-
lains ; that was, he was allowed to give six titles to non-
residence. He (the Lord Chancellor) also believed that
the holder of the office which he had the honour to fill also
had the same number of chaplains. He did not know
whether their lordships were benefitted by having so many
chaplains ; but he knew the non-residence, which was the
cousequence, was the cause of great evil. At present there
was hardly a single person who could get two livings who could
not get a dispensation for non-residence. He intended to
get rid of this evil by a short and consistent and uniform
remedy for both the evils he had alluded to. With regard
to non-residence, he should propose that no person should
be relieved from residence. He intended that this should
not be confined merely to the inferior clergy, but
to others ; but of course it would not interfere with
the legislative functions of any of their lordships.
His object was, indeed, to prevent a clergyman aban-
doning his church and parishioners. He should, there-
fore, propose that all persons holding a cure of souls,
whether Rector or Vicar, should be bound to reside within
the bounds of his parish, except during two months of the
year, under a penalty, for the first offence, of forfeiting
triple the yearly value of the livings ; and for a second of-
fence, forfeiture. Of course there would be an exceptoin
in case of sickness or attending the sick bed of a near rela-
tive. With regard to pluralities, it was his intention to
lay the axe at the root of the evil. He intended to pro-
pose that no person should be allowed to hold two livings,
provided neither of them was under the annual valise of
200/. a year. There would be only the exception when
one living was under the value of 2001. and when the in-
cumbent of it was presented to an adjoining parish of not
more than the annual value of 1001. ; but in no case must
the parish churches be more than five miles apart. The
principle he went upon was, that if the parish was large
enough to maintain a curate it was sufficient to maintain a
resident incumbent. He would not trespass longer on
their lordships' attention, but move that the bills be read a
first time.

Lord BEXLEY said that he would not at present go
into the subject, ;but would reserve his observations until
the second reading. He wished to correct an error fallen
into by the noble and learned lord as to pluralities. If
the noble and learned lord would take the trouble to in-
quire, he would find that pluralities existed to a much
greater extent previous to the Reformation than they did
afterwards, and instanced the case of Cardinal Wolsey, who
was at the same time Archbishop of York, Bishop of Win-
chester, Bishop of Munster, and Lord Chancellor.
The Marquis of BUTE was glad that the government
had taken up the subject, and expressed his regret that the
bill brought forward by the Archbishop of Canterbury two
years ago on the subject of non-residence had been rejected
by the other house.

The Earl of RADNOR was glad to see some steps taken
with respect to this measure by the government. He hoped
the bills would be considered, as they were in the other
house, as measures that did not go far enough. He was
happy to see that government had taken up the question,
and he hoped that its provision would be extended further.
If so the more willingly would he support it.
Lord WYNFORD would not give any serious opposi-
tion to the first reading of the bills. However, he could
not help stating it as his firm conviction that if they were
allowed to be passed into law they would place the church
,of. England infinitely beneath all the other sects of the
country..__

The-bills were then read a first time.
_ _ WARWICK BOROUGH BILL.

On the motion of the Earl of RADNOR, William Tra-
vers, the younger, was ordered to attend the bar of the
house on Thursday night.
The LORD CHANCELLOR ordered counsel to be
called in, and informed them that on Thursday next they
would be heard as to the facts about which they wished to
hear further evidence, but that they would not be per-
mitted to comment on the evidence which had been already
adduced. _ _

Several bills were then forwarded a stage.
The house then, at a quarter to eight o clock, adjourned
to Thursday next at half-past three o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 16.

The SPEAKER resumed the chair at twenty-five mi-
nutes past five o'clock.
A message from the Lords announced that their Lord-
ships had agreed to the Wortley and Stanningfield Roads
Bill, the Grand Junction Railway Bill, and other bills.
Returns from the Commissioners of Dover Harbour were
laid upon the table.
On the motion of Sir RONALD FERGUSON, the
Warwick Witnesses Indemnity Bill was read a third time.
and passed.
Air. B. HANDLEY brought up the report of the com-
mittee on the Welland Navigation Company's Bill.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
Lord ALTHORP moved that the house at its rising do
adjourn to Wednesday next.
The SPEAKER having put the question,
AFFAIRS OF THE PENINSULA.
Sir R. R. VYVYAN said he should take the present
opportunity of calling the attention of the house, and of
the noble lord opposite, to a matter of very considerable
importance. It had been generally said that a treaty had
been entered into by the representatives of three powers,
and the noble lord opposite (Lord Palmerston) on the part
of the British government, containing certain stipulations
of great importance to the foreign commerce of this
country. It was said that that treaty also contained stipula-
tions by which an interference on the part of Spain in the
affairs of Portugal was to be admitted. It was also stated
that by this treaty Don Miguc was to give up his claims to

he crown of Portugal, and Don Carlos his claims to the
crown of Spain. It had also been said, and it was well
known, that a Spanish general ( Rodil) had crossed the
Portuguese frontier, and had driven Don Carlos before
him. He (Sir R. V.) understood that at Lisbon the
ratification of that treaty had been delayed, that it had
been returned by the British minister at Lisbon as un-
favourable to British interests. He thought that the
time had arrived when it was the duty of that house
to call on the Foreign Office, in order to ascertain
if Great Britain had thus eompromised her own interest,
or had acted in a manner so little in accordance with those
old stipulations to which she had formerly adhered. He
did not mean to allude to the politics of Spain or Portu-
, gal, but would merely confine himself to three questions.
He begged to ask the noble lord, first, whether that treaty
had been entered into by France, England, Spain, and
Portugal, having for its object the settlement of the
affairs of the Peninsula by force of arms ? (Hear hear. )
Secondly, whether the ratification of this treaty had been
delayed at Lisbon, or whether there had been a refusal to
ratify it ? And, thirdly, whether the noble lord (Pal-
merston) had been officially informed of the fact of Gene-
ral Rodil having passed the frontier of Portugul, and hav-
ing driven Don Carlos before him, and whether the mini-
stry of this country approved of such conduct?
Lord PALMERSTON said, that in answering the
questions of the hon. baronet, he would not follow him
into a discussion upon the various reports which the hon.
baronet stated that he had heard. ( Hear, hear, hear. )
With regard to one of his ( Sir R. Vyvyan's) questions,
he (Lord P.) had great satisfaction in being able to state
that a treaty relative to the affairs of the Peninsula, had
been signed by the Plenipotentiaries of England, France,
he himself
haesarfa. )r
as he
stated this
with graenadt Ps
a°t. ri
gcat Haenadr,
was concerned, with pride. With regard to the treaty,
he could not state what were the contents of it, or
what was the nature of its provisions. A. s soon,
however, as it was ratified, it would be laid upon
the table of that house, and then the house and
the hon. baronet would have an opportunity of knowing
what that treaty contained. He could relieve the anxiety
of the hon. baronet respecting the dangers which he con-
.ceived to exist of this treaty being ratified. The ratifi-
cation of three of the powers had already arrived
in London, and the ratification of the government of Por-
tugal had only been delayed in consequence of some forms
which were necessary for the completion of the ratification.
Its approaching arrival was however announced, and in a few
days the vessel containing it might be expected to reach our
shores. With regard to the last question, General Rodil had
entered the territories, but his operations were confined to
dislodging Don Carlos from the frontiers. Some of the
fortified towns of Portugal had, however, taken advantage
of his presence spontaneously to declare in favour of
Donna Maria. He should not go into the details of the
treaty, which would be laid before the house in due course.
Mr. A. BARING said that, probably, the noble lord,
after the holidays, would be ready to produce the treaty,
and, therefore, it would be unfair to enter into the
discussion of the question just now. (Hear, hear. )
But the noble lord's view of neutrality seemed
to be different from that which any other person could en-
tertain of neutrality. General Rodil went into Portugal
professedly to drive before him the Pretender (for
that was his proper name), and yet, according
to the noble lord, his presence had induced
some towns to declare in favour of Donna Maria.
It was rather a singular species of neutrality which
the noble lord had spoken of. (Hear.) Did the noble
lord forget that there was interference on the part of va-
rious foreign powers in Portugal ?
Lord PALINIERSTON replied, that when he spoke of
neutrality he did not lay any stress on the circum-
stance mentioned, but merely stated the fact. As
to the interference alluded to by the hon. member, there
had been no inconsiderable interference on the other
side. ( Heart hear. )

Mr. BARING Was not aware of any interference on the
other side. No doubt the noble lord spoke from official
information, which, perhaps, he would impart to the house.
Lord PALMERSTON replied that the hon. member's
state of ignorance appeared so enviable that he did not
wish to disturb it. (Laughter and cheers.)
ASSIZES.

Mr. WOOD wished to ask when it was the intention
of his Majesty's government to change the assizes at Lan-
caster, as he understood such-a change was contemplated?
Mr. P. THOMSON replied that at present he was
unable to give any information on the subject.
PORT OF LONDON DUTY.

Mr. G. F. YOUNG wished to ask the right hon.
the Vice-President of the Board.of Trade, when it was his
intention to bring in the bill for the reduction of the Port
of London Duties ?

Mr. P. THOMSON said it was not till yesterday he
had received the draft of the bill from the solicitor in Lon-
don. The delay therefore did not originate in the slightest
degree in his office, and he hoped immediately after the
holidays to be able to bring in the bill.
Sir 11. PEEL said that if the noble lord (the Chancellor
of the Exchequer) could give him an answer to the
question he was about to put he should ferl obliged to
him, and he thought it would also tend greatly to the con-
venience of the house. The noble lord, he understood, did
not intend to make any progress with the English Tithe
Commutation bill, while the Poor Laws' Amendment bill
was before the house. He thought that that was a wisepro-
position, so that the attention of the house might bedirected
to the measure. Also, no doubt, the noble lord might find
it difficult to devote his attention to both subjects at once.
But the question he wished to put was, whether the noble
lord had a confident expectation that he would be able
to get through some measure during the present
session, connected with the commutation of tithes?
Lord ALT HORP, in answer to the right hon. baronet,
begged to state that he did feel a most confident expecta-
tion that he should be able, as far as he himself was con-
cerned, to get the decision of the house upon the question.
Lord EBRINGTON presented a petition against the
Beer Bill, from a parish in Devonshire.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL presented a petition to the
same effect.