The Sun.
London, England, 1833-06-22 00:00:00

poses.—(Hear, hear.) The Government had then deft ndei
the admissi,n of there most important principles, and the
Noble Lord had even stated that the
.tnei7ure would place
three millions Sterlintr at, the riispoial of parliament, to be
applied to pubic pure hear,) TheGovern-
meut now attempted to change their former opinions, and
to retract their words ; but those words were written,and
were known to the public ; and it would be for the public
to judge of such coninct.—(Hear, hear.) For his part,
he would say that it showed the most lamentable desertion
of preititis Pledges—(De-a, hear)—..the greatest want of
!irmties, and tra3 a die74raceFalbreaA of public
(Hear, hear.) Could they, as men of honour, retain that
honour if they did not redeem the pledge which they had
given to the country, of either retiring or carrying the
Church Reform Bill ?.L..( Hear.) He (Mr. Hume) had
stated when the Coercive Bill was before the House, that
the Tories them-elves had never ventured to bring forward
a measure which violated the constitution BO outrageously
as that which was then brought forward by the Whig
Government ; but the excuse always brought forward
was,
.that they intended to bring forward a .measUre
of Church Reform, would nullify the effect of
th, Coercion /3111. He (Mr. Hume) admitted that the
abolition of vestry eess was one of the principles of the
Bill, although in that he was sorry to find be differed with
his Hon. and Learned Friend below Lim. But of what
value, he would ask, was that in comparison to the advan-
tages expected by Ireland from the measure?—(Hear,
hear.) The Noble Lord had stated it to be about 60,0001.
a year, hut he (Mr. Hume) was prepared to show that
the benefit to be derived was no more than 27,0001. And
was that the advantage which Ireland expected from this
measure 2—(Hear, hear.) Ti:e Right Hon. Secretary for
the Colonies had stated that there was a strong feeling
both in this House and in the country against alienating
the property of the Church of Ireland. He (Mr. Hume)
did not know what it might be in the society in which tee
Right Hon. Secretary moved, but he knew that in the
country generally the proposition was hailed as the esta-
blishment of a proper principle on the subject of church
property.—(Hear, hear.) When the measure was brought
forward, the Noble Lord had stated that be would put
down ten of the Irish Bishops. He (Mr. Hume) saw no
principle on which the Noble Lord could have fixed upo❑
. .

that number, and h.' therefore assi,ted him with one—

namely, that as four Bishops were found to be sufficient to
do all the duties incumbent nn them as Irish Bishops in
Parliament, the same number would be sufficient to per-
form the °tinr ecclesiastical duties. He (Mr. Hume)
stated this merely to show that the provisions of the Bill
were its principles and its only principles. They now found
that the Government shrunk from some of the roost mate-
rial of those provisions, and they could not know whether
any more were to be changed or not. What right had
the Government to suppose that the clause would be
thrown out elsewhere ? They had found, no doubt, that
there would be a majority against them in the House of
Lords ; and finding that there was no other way of keep-
ing their pledge of standing by the Bill but by yielding
that point, they had yielded it. They were afraid to go
before the public and say that they had done all they
could to carry the measure, but that the majority of the
House of Liirds was against them, and that there was no
other way of carrying it but by their support. They
were afraid to do so : but if they did, they would then
redeem the pledge which they had given of standing or
falling by the measure. The Government now said that
the probable result of such a clause was to be deprecated ;
but he (Mr. Hume) would say, that if that House sup-
ported it—and it had hitherto been well supported by the
House—he saw no reason why it should be now changed.
—(Hear, hear.) Since the 14th of February, when the
Noble Lord brought forward the measure, the country and
the House hid supported it ; and notwithstanding that,
the Government now shrunk in alarm from the opposition
of the other House. They deserted their duty and their
honour to preserve their places.—(Cries of "No, no,"
and " Hear, hear.") Perhaps it might not be se, but it
appeared so to him.—(Herr, hear.) He hoped that the
majority of the House which had voted for the Bill as in-
troduced, would not retract that opinion.—(Hear, hear.)
He trusted that the same majority would now reject the
mutilated Bill altogether.—(Hear.) It was a mere
mockery, and the House and the country had been duped
by the Ministry. Their conduct was a cause of deep
sorrow and regret to him, and all he could do was to ob-
ject to the withdrawal of the clause, and, if it were with-
drawn, to vote for the rejection of the whole Bill.
11r. I\IACAULAY was not aware, when he entered the
House, that his Right Hon. Friend meant to make the al-
teration in the Bill which he had since announced; but he
(Mr. Macaulay) could say that he thoroughly approved of
the change.—(Oh, oh ! and Hear.) The application of
ecclesiastical property to secular purposes had not only not
been advanced by the Noble Lord who introduced the Bill,
but had been distinctly repudiated by him.—(Hear, hear,)
The Noble Lord bad declared, that whatever his own pri-
vate opinion might be, he did not wish to urge it at that
time, and that he wished the consideration of the subject
to be postponed.—(Hear, hear, and No, no.) He (Mr.
Macaulay) appealed to both aid, s of the House if such was
not the statement made by the Noble Lord.—(Hear, bear,
and erks of "No.") The Government had declared that
they did not consider the surplus fund arising from
Bishops' leases as Church property. Whether they were
right or wrong in saying that it was not Church property
he would not take upon himself to say, but he would say
that, in proposing that that surplus should be placed at the
disposal of Parliament, to be applied to secular purposes,
they did not declare whether ecclesiastical property should
be applied to secular purposes or not—(Cheers)—for, in
so disposing of it, they had considered it as not ecclesias-
tical. He would say that not one Member of the Ministry
had supported the application of Church property to secular
purposes.—(Heir, hear.) lie himself had supported the
Bill upon that principle, and if this clause were formed to
a different principle, it would be absurd to expect that he
should support it. Under these circumstances, and seeing
that neither money nor the principle of the Bill was sacri-
ficed by the alteration proposed in this clause, lie hoped
the House would not oppose the change.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. D. W. HARVEY was glad to find, that notwith-
standing all the splendid talent displayed by the sup-
porters of the Ministry on this occasion, the House had
not allowed itself to be gulled by the sophistry advanced
by them. He was surprised to hear a person of the great
judgment of the Hon. Member for Leeds put the inter-
pretation on the clause which he had then advanced to the
House. Now what were the words of that clause?—
" And the surplus of the slid moneys accruing to the
credit of the said commissioners shall be applied to such
purposes ar Perliament shall hereafter appoint and direct."
—(Hear, bear.) Now that was the principle on which
the Bill was founded ? It had been said by the Right
Hon. Secretary that another clause to nearly the same
effect was to be introduced in another part of the Bill ;
but why, he would ask, should the Government beguile
the House into a belief that another equally efficacious
clause would be introduced ?—( Hear, hear.) He (Mr.
Harvey) remembered when the measure was laid before

the House by the Noble Lord (whose absence alit night
he much regretted), that the clause which was now pro-
posed to be expunged was bailed as one on which the

Government might display their standard of popularity;
and it was triumphantly alluded to by the Noble Lord,

as it would place three millions at the disposal of Govern.
ment. It had been stated that this change in the Bill was
to be made in order to conciliate hostility in another
place. They had been told lately that the other House
bad no voice in the affairs of the country; that the votes

of the hereditary legislators were borne down by intimida-
tion from that House; but now they found that the

opinions and votes of the Representatives of the Com-
mons of England were to he withdrawn from fear of the

other House. He congratulated the Tories on having dis-
covered that new way of defeating measures intended
for the good of the people without exposing themselves to
the responsibility of the rejection.—(Hear, hear.) In
the worst days of Toryism, there had been nothing worse
than this.—(Hear, hear.) What were they told ? That
the vestry cess was not abolished, for they had merely al-
tered the source from which it was to be derived ; still it
was as amenable to ecclesiastical purposes as ever, and the
change would be of advantage to none but to the land-
lord.—( Hear.) To the people it would be of no advan-
tage. There was one other principle in the Bill—that of

Church Reform. As to that, he was surprised that the
Members for the Universities, who generally considered it
their duty to maintain the interests of the Church, would
sit by and listen with such coldness while 10 of the Inch

-...,-
13i‘hops were struck out. If the Catholic religion was
making such progress in Ireland as was alleged, he (Mr.
Hat vey) would have thought that no way would be more
likely to support the Protestant religion than by keeping
up the number of Bishops.—(Hear, and a laugh.) He
was not surprised at the laugh, and he had no doubt that
those who laughed would support the Church, if by that
support they could keep their places. He would add one
more word on the subject of the Reform of the Church
Establishment. In his opinion, the reform ought to be
such that it would place the Church Establishment in
such a situation, that neither the adulation of its friends,
nor the rigour of its enemies, could affect it. As they
proposed to place it, however, they would be exposed to
the attacks of both. They ought to endeavour to placs, it
in a situation which would give it stability ; and if the
clause then under consideration were withdrawn, that
would not be the case. For these reasons, be would vote

decidedly. against the Bill altogether, if the present clause
were withdrawn.--(1Ie
Mr. STANLEY rose to vindicate, not himself, but the
Government, from a charge which had been bpoigh,
against them by the Pon. Member. The Horn Member
kid stated that the Governme'et had introduced principles
into the Bill to Whlch they had pledged themselves, and
afterwards abandoned. Now the Hon. and Learned
Member for feeds h id very truly stated that the alienati n
of the property of the Church formed no part of the prin-
ciples of the Bill. That had been also stated by hims If
(Mr. Stanley), and more directly by his Noble Friend the
Ciemeeller of the B:Zehequeri ezid he ihoughst it important,
not to the principles of the Bill, hilt tiithti character of the
Government, that the House and the country Should be set
right upon the subject. He would now teal what the
Noble Lord had stated on introducing the measure, APer
stating what the plan of his Majesty's Ministers was, he
proceeded, " Now, I apprehend, that however great the
differences of opinion may he, as to the right of Parliament
to apply the property of the Chtireh to the purposes cf the
State, both those that think that they have a right to apply
it to such purpOs•_,s, and those who think they have no
right so to apply it—all will agree in thinking that
the first claim upon the property of the Church,
is the claim of the Church itself. No parties are
!lei), to dissent from this opinion, but those who
either think that there ought to be no Church
establishment at all, or those who think a dif-
ferent Church ought to be established in Ireland. With
the cercPption of nose who entertain these opinions, it will
be generally agreed that the present property of the Church
estalildliment ought to be applied in the first place to the
purposes which may be necessary for extending the benefits
of the Church to the people of Ireland." And in another
part he stated, that" the measure I have proposed, provides
for not continuing the scandal of persons holding benefices
and receiving the revenues of a living where no duty is
performed ; and it provides to as great an extent as iS
practicable or advisable for the redaction of the number
of the Irish hierarchy. I would also beg to observe, that
it does not lay down any abstract principle. indeed it is
not necessary to do so for any practical purpose. It is
not necessary now to decide whether Parliament has or
has not a right to interfire with Church property. As I
have already observed, all who think that there ought to
he a Church Establishment at all, must agree that the
Church has the first claim to be considered. But when a
practical plan like this is brought forward, it is quite un-
necessary to call for a determination on any abstract prin-
ciple ; or to decide whether or not Parliament has any
right to interfere with the property of the Church. The
result of such a call would be only delay and obstruction.
The plan which I have now detailed to the House is
what his Majesty's Ministers feel themselves justified in
proposing at present ; without meaning to preclude
Parliament from considering the future disposal of
Church property to other purposes than those of the

. .
Church. Whenever the purposes of the Church are
fully satisfied, Parliament may, if it think fit, pro-
ceed to the consideration of the manner in which the
surplus ought to be applied." These were the principles
on which the measure was introduced, and he now stated
ihem to be so, not in his own vindication alone, but in

vindication of the Government. When the Government
advanced a principle, and stated their intention to
stand by it, they were not inclined to shrink from their
duty; and he would not be doing justice to the Govern-
ment if he did not vindicate them from the charges
brought Inward by the Hon. Member.—(Hear.)
Dr. LUSHINGTON said that during his whole par-
liamentary experience he had never heard a discussion in
which so little of the decency of Parliamentary language,
or the courtesy of public life had been so much departed
from.—(Cheers.) Neither had he ever heard a discussion
in which the grossest and basest motives had been attri-
buted to a Government. He would say more; he had
never heard such language used on an occasion where it
was so totally destitute of foundation.—(Cheers.) An
Hon. Member had explained, that the surplus arising
front Bishops' leases was not considered part of the
Church property ; and that therefore the question
as to the alienation of Ecclesiastical property had
not been touched.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He (Dr.
Lushington) had been always, and still continued, of opi-
nion, that the surplus revenues of the church, after paying
the clergy, and other church purposes, ought to be appro-
priated to the promotion of education, and be owned that
it was from supposing that they were ready to secularize
that property, that he had voted for the second reading of the
Bill. Nothing would deter him from stating that these
were the principles which he held on this subject. Was it
worth while then to enunciate a theoretical proposition,
when, by the very terms of the Rh itself, they were
stripped of carrying that proposition into effect? And for
what reason, he should like to know, were they bound to
conciliate one part of Ireland at the cost of irrit sting ano-
ther ? He at least saw no just ground for giving this
useless and unnecessary insult to the Protestants of Ireland.
Then what would be its effect elsewhere? There might
be some people in that House des roue of calling in the
power of the people to annihilate the authority of another
assembly.—(No, no, no, and Hear, hear.) When he saw
the delight with which any proposition was hailed that
seemed to threaten such an event, he must say that he did
not observe that fear of a collision which any man desirous
of avoiding it would wish to see, and which could not
happen without such consequences as all m n of modera-
tion and prudence must desire to avoid.—( Hear, hear.)
When there was any principle concerned that by its
concession would he of great advantage to the country,
and when it became absolutely necessary to obtain its
concession, he trusted that he should be found at least as
firm in demanding it as any of those who now appeared
most ready to rush into the battle.—(Hear, hear.) There
seemed to him no such necessity now ; and he therefore
desired to avoid all irritation upon any subject on which
the evil of that irritation was not demanded by an ade-
quate necessity, and balanced by at least an equal advan-
tage.—( Hear. ) He must say that he was surprised at
the conduct of some Hon. Members. He had heard, not
merely during this session, but long before, so much said
of the evils of the church cess, and of the benefit that Ire-
land would gain by its abolition, that he could not but
feel surprised at the remarks now made—remarks, which,
if they meant anything, meant to deny all that had been
before said, and to leave it to be believed that the aboli-
tion of the church cess was of no advantage to Ireland.
What ! was it of no advantage to abolish that which had
so often and 80 universally been the subject of complaint?
Was it no advantage to abolish two Archbishops and
several Bishops?—(Hear hear)—was it no advantage to
equalise the livings, and to give the other checks on the
abuses of the church establishment?—(Hear, hear.)
After all this, he must say, that those who made these ac-
cusations ought first to enable themselves to support those
accusations by facts, which in this instance he thought
they hail nut done.— (Cheers.)

Mr. O'CONNELL said that his approbation of the
principle of the Bill had been often quoted against him.
What was that approbation ? He would tell the House,
from the same authority which had been quoted against
hint, and in which it was said " he approved of the
principle of the Bill, which would be applicable to all
other property, and he valued the principle, since it recog-
nised the right of the Government to look into ecclesias-
tical property hereafter." As to the censure thrown on
him for the language he bad used when he was expressing
his abhorrence of what he conceived to be a gross breach
of faith, he must, before he bowed to that censure, be
convinced that the person who uttered it was entitled to
sit in judgMent on a question of breach of faith.—(Hear,
h-ar.) He had heard of some Hon. Gentlemen who had
made pledges enough to their constituents when on the
hustings, but who had found it convenient not to keep
them when in that House.—(Cries of " Order," " You
made pledges to repeal the Union.") Ile denied that he
had given any such pledge.--(" Yea, and shrunk from
it.") Ile denied it indignantly. (The Hon Member
here made some observations with a great warmth of
manner, but the confusion in the House prevented his
observations from reaching the gallery.)
Mr. BERNAL (the Chairman of the Committee)
having in some degree restored order, said, he would put
it to the Hon. and Learned Member himself to say what
the line of argument he was now pureuing had to do with
the question at present before the C-immittee?
Mr. O'CONNELL—I shotild like to know, Sir, in
what I deviate?

Mr. BERNAL--I can answer the Hon. Member at
once. The pledges which Hon. Members may possibly
have given on other subjects can have nothing to do with
the question of the Irish church now under debate.
Dr. LUSHINGTON—If the Hon. Member alluded to
him in his statement about pledges, be begged to say that
the assertion was totally without foundation. Necessarily
he could not use strong langr.age towards the Hon. Mem-
ber, but he distinctly dism-owed having made any pledge
of any kind.—(Hear.)

Sir R. PEEL came down to the House this evening
with the intention of giving his c,,rdial support to the
amendment of the Hon. Member for Newcastle-under-
Line, that whatever surplus there might be from the un-
proved value of the Bishops' lands should be applied to
the purposes of the united churches of England and Ire-
land. The object of that amendment seemed to him to
be fully answered by the proposition of the Right Hon.
Gentleman, and he therefore supposed that the Hon•
Member would not think it necessary to press his amend-
ment. But there was one observation he must notice.
The Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin had said,

that measure of the Government had been adopted
-,r•f?4*l3s,(pi,,rlce of a et;eipinnine with their opponents.—
(kar.) For himself he utterly disela:tned any know-
lege of such cotoprotnise—(Hear, hear) and he de-
clared, that when he entered that House this evening, he
slid not know what was the intention of the Government.
—(Hear, hear.) 11,1 disdproved of all compromises, and
he owed it to the Gen,tlemen with whom he acted to say
' they did the same; 1n givipe• assent, therefore, to
any part of the Bill, he was free as air as to the rest, and
in public matters that was the course ,he should generally.
pute,ue.—(Heir.) He disapproved of compromise, for
when once they were made, they not only did not gain
the confidence of an opponent. but they most certainty
lost that of the Men tfho had b!•en accustomed to follow
anti rely upon those who made it.—(Load cheers from
the ORosition. ) He entirely approved of the course the
Government had adopted on the present occasion in °mi.-
ring this clause; but he did not much rejoice in it, for
he was able to show that there never would and never
could be a surplus. The principle against which he on
another occasion had protested was, not that they had 1:n
right to apply church property to secular purpoies—for
he had no occasion to dispute that point—but that if the
Legislature gave a new valne to Chterch property, that
new value belonged to the church alone. But of all the
extraordinary propositions he bad ever heard, was that of
an Hon. Member, who had always complained of the ab-
senteeism of the clettY, but who, nevertheless, proposed to
abolish all hot four Irish bishops; and for this reason, o!'
all others, that they were entitled to sit in Parliament—
(Laughter)—and that was the way in which he proposed
to remedy the non-residence of the higher clergy.__
(Laughter.) He should say no more now, than that Ire
supported the proposition of the Rt. Hon. Gentleman with
respect to this clause, but in doing 30 he did not think
himself pledged to agree to any other clause in the Bill.
Mr. LONAYNE accused the Government of giving
promises which they did not perform.
Mr. GISEIORNE observed, that it was natural that
Irish Members shou'd wish to be heard on such a subject ;
but Ire must say a few words, and he thought that there
were many English Members in the same situation with
himself. Many of them had voted for the Irish Coercion
had for every clause of it, upon the faith that the
Government would pass the present Bill in the form in
which it was first announced. He did not deny that the
abolition of the church cess was a relief to Ireland ; but
then this clause also was a most important feature in the
Bill. He looked to it without regard to Ministerial ex-
planations; and he wished to ask the Ministry whether
they had any more prospect of carrying it in another place
when they first proposed it, than they had at the present
moment?—(Hear, bear.) Were they the only people in
the world who did not know that it would be made the
subject of a desperate struggle?—(Hear, hear.) If, when
they proposed the Bill, they intended to recede front this
condition in it, they deceived the House; if they did
not, then they were bound to show that the circum-
stances" under which they now withdrew it were
different from those under which they haul first pro-
posed it.--([leer, hear.) Toe Right Hon. Gentleman
had at first told them that there was a division in
the Cabinet on the subject of the church property, but
they had at last agreed upon a medium principle, which
was the one contained in this clause. If the Legislature,
by any act of its own, could increase the value of the
church property, it had a right to dspase of that increase.
The principle must be admitted, for how would the Go-
vernment have the right to interfere with the property at
all, if it was not state property ? He did not think it was
a proper argument to address to the House of Commons
of England, that they must recede from a certain mea-
sure, because it was possible that such a measure might
produce a collision with the other House of Parliament.
He knew not what were the chances of such an event,
but he did not think it fit to be adduced as an argument
to bias the resolutions of that House. Neither could be
agree with the argument, that the Legislature could not
meddle with church property, for that proceeded on the
supposition that a finite possession of property gave the
right of making an absolute disposition of it, which was
absurd ; and they could only escape from that to another,
by saying that the Legisl lure had confirmed that dispo-
sition, for that would go to show that one Legislature
could eternally hind all other Legislatures. He hoped that
the House would never agree to any such proposition ; and
for himself, he never would consent to its adoption ; and
further, he trusted that the House would not allow this
clause to be withdrawn.

Lord SANDON thought that the proceedings of this
night formed an ample justification of the Ministry in
withdrawing this clause. An opinion had gone abroad
that this clause involved the principle that the State had
a right to de with the property of the Church. As
that was an error, the sooner it was corrected the better.

Colonel DAVIES said, that Ministers had altogether
disgraced themselves in the eyes of the country by with-
drawing the present clause.—(Cheers.) They had
hitherto been supported by most obsequious Houses ; but
if the House were as obsequious on this occasion, they
would degrade themselves to the lowest depths of degrada-
tion.—(Cheers.) He trusted that the House would nut
so far forget its dignity and independence as to he
frightened like so many children at the bugbear of colli-
sion, so unceasingly held out by Ministers, for purposes
best known to themselves.—( Hear, hear.) If the present
Government pursued this course, he, f,r one, would give
his devoted adhesion to the Right Hon. Baronet, who,
although most of his past measures had not altogether
pleased him (Colonel Davies), or met with his support--
had more in his head than all the Ministry put together.
—(Cheers, and partial laughter on the Ministerial
benches.) If there were to be Tory acts, let them be done
under Tory banners.

Lord Ei3RINGTON reproached the Hon. and Gallant
Member for the inconsistenry of this his present declara-
tion, with his motion in support of Ministers the other
night. As to the clause itself, he considered that no
practical benefit would result from it ; and he did not,
therefore, see any necessity for such pertinacity in attempt.
ing to retain it.

Colonel DAVIES said, that what be had done the other
night was not for the sake of Ministers, but as matter of
public neces,ity.

Mr. F. O'CONNOR protested against cutting out the
only two lines of any value in the whole 152 clauses.
Ministers had thus given two Bills to the Protestants in
Ireland ; he, therefore, wished to know when the people
of Ireland were to have their case considered. The
Hon. and Gallant Colonel talked of the House being
about to degrade themselves by supporting the Govern-
ment; it was no new thing, and would, therefore, only
be adding to the measure of their degradation. He hoped
the House, however, would now reject the Bill alto-
gether ; he, for one, would give it his most decided op-
position. He first said that he would premise his few
observations by a confession that his recollection of what
had been said by Government in the outset of this Bill,
quite coincided with what the Right Hon. Gentleman
had said to-night ; his opposition to it—(Cheers)--
therefore, was on no allegation of tergiversation on their

part, but on much higher grounds. He opposed the Bill
itself altogether. There appeared to he some deference
paid to the anticipated fear of its rejection, if sent up, in
its present state to the Upper House ; why the Lords
could only have rejected it.—(Hear, hear.) Whet: the
Lower House got it sent back to them, then they might
have seen what they could do to accommodate: it to their
Lordships—(Hear, hear)—but; as it was, this House was
framing difficulties for itself.—(Hear, bear.) Supposing
the Lords to have made a stand in opposition to this
clause, the Commons could hut have cut it off; but now,
not having this clause to work upon, their Lordships
would direct their opposition to some other clause, and the
Bill would be rendered, if possible, still more inefficient.—
(Hear, bear.) He protested against the omission of the
clause. In conclusion, he would earnestly advise Minis-
ters not lo tantalize the people with those crumbs of
reform, those parings of a blessing, adapted to the opi-
nions of another House, hut to frame a reform suitable to
the wants of the people, and then let the other House
deal with it as they, in their judgments might think fit.
They need not fear being accused of going too far or too
fast.—(Hear, and a laugh.)
Mr. H. GRATTAN considered the attempt made to
terrify this House into compliance was most unconstitu-
tional. He protested against the intimidation held out,
and called on the House of Commons to stand by their
pledges, and then the country would stand by them ; but
there was no doubt the country would not stand by such a
vacillating Ministry.—(Loud cheers.) The conduct of
the Ministry was such as no previous administration had
ever been guilty of.—( Hear.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL had always contended, that
though Church property ought not to be lightly touched,
yet it was competent to Parliament to apply it for the
promotion of the religious and moral culture of the people.
—(Hear, hear.) At the same time, it was, in his opi-
nion, much to be deprecated, that the question could not
be raised without bringing on a convulsion in this country.
The different views taken upon this subject made it one of
very delicate nature. Those who opposed the appropri-
ation of Church property contended, that to appropriate
Church property in the manner suggested, was neither
more nor less than spoliation ; whilst the Hon. Mein •
her for Derbyshire and the Hon. Member for London
appeared to consider the clause chiefly valuable,
because it sanctioned the principle of appro-
priating Church property to State purposes.-.-
(Hear, hear.) Consequently, if they yielded to this

feeling, they would not be carrying into effect their oe r
principle; but would, without any ttlequate necessity, is
yie'ding to the general principle' of the diversion of chmel
property fur State purpeses.;-, (Hear.) If that-House wa
to enter into a contest with the Lords, they should do i
for something wordi t'ontesting, The present waS but the
shadow of a claim to prosecritte rehi.ll would be riskier
the peace and tranquillity of the cotintryi for the sake i 2;
an abstract principle. He regardedethe Constitetion in
very different light from some Hon. Gentlemen. Th.
check which 636'11000e eliereised oeer another was nn.
invented for the purpose of lesirgiesg the two Heusi, in,
collision on every difference of opinion, beet in order tha
measures should be adopted that were satisfactory to boti
and beneficial to the country. There was no doubt that the
diminution of the number of lliseops, and the abolition o
the church cess, would not b vo'untatil7 acceded to by
the House of Lords, but merely because, on considering the
nature of the Constitution, they would feel it their dut)
to yield to the sense of the country, and to the declare,'
wish of the House of Corm/Tem The question for them tc 1
consider was, whether, at the ptettent season, they woule
think it worth white to pass a Bill which contained many
essential benefits, although it did not sanction a principle
to which there now existed great, and, perhaps,
able objections.—(Cheers from the Tories.) If that Huns,
was to enter into a contest with the House of Lords, he
hoped the centent would take place on a question' of some.
importance, and that they would not wantonly, and on
trivial grounds, provoke a col.leisse.—(Cheers ) Although
the Huse of Commons wa., doubtless-, the strongest of the
two branches of the Legislature, yet he hoped they would
use their power with temper and moderation. Some of
the gentlemen on the other aide, especially the Hon. Mem-
ber for Colchester, stipported the cliuse, because they itn
gined that if this clause were retained there would be more
probability of the Bill being rejected—sean event to which
they looked forward with no inconsiders :satisfaction.
—(clear, hear.) He could not at all approve of each a
feeling. He could understand it as proceeding from those
who, in the discussions vihich had taken place in that
House, had paid but little regard to the general security
of property ; but, for himself, lie was of opinion that this
country could not stand a revolution once a year..---(Loud
cheers.) Let others be for convulsion, lie was for peace.
lIEATHCOTE regretted very much to bear so
unconstitutional a doctrine as that which hail been
laid down by the Noble and Learned Lord and others
of the Ministry, as to the conduct to he pursued by that
House in anticipation of a collision with the House of
Lords.—( Hear, hear.) His opinion entirely clashed with
that of the Noble Lord, and he called upon the House of
Commons, in the name of the people of England, to do
their duty fearlessly.—(Loud cheers.) The next question
was, were the people of England to succumb to the House
of Lords ?—(II. ar, hear.) He was bound, as an honest
man, to say that no power on earth should have induced
him to vote for the coercive measure, had it not been the
opinion of his Majesty's Ministers that they would carry
out the principles of the premedial measure in the spirit
in which it was first introduced, without reference to any
party in the country, or to any power, however high.
Sir H. H. INGLIS said, that even if this clause were
left out there was quite sufficient in the Bill to mortify
the friends of the Established Church, and afford matter
of triumph to its enemies—there was enough still left in
the Bill to induce him to give it his most determined op-
positien.—To adopt this clause, under existing circum-
stances, would, in his opinion, be nothing less than a gra
tuitous insult to the clergy.—(Question, question.)
After a few words from Sir H. WILLOUGHBY,

Mr. HARDY contended that the same principle which
the clause would establish as to church property, might
with equ 4 justice be applied to private property. If the
Hon. Member for Middlesex was correct, his Majesty's
Ministers were in a state of extreme jeopardy ; for if they
retained the clause they were in great jeopardy from the
House of Lords, and if they expunged it they were in
danger from six out of every seven men whom they might
meet out of that House.—(Question.)
Mr. D. BROWNE rose, but his voice was drownid
in the cries of "Qllts iou."

M. STANLEY felt the importancr of corning to a
decision that night, but begged a hearing for his Hon.
Friend the Member for Mayo, who had the great Parlia-
mentary merit of making short speeches.
Mr. D. BROWNE said, it was now proposed that they
should of a sudden come to a decision quite opposed to
that which they had entertained fur the last three or four
months.—(Heir.) It always gave him great pain to
differ from his Majesty's Ministers, but be was compelled
to do so in the present instance. He would rather have a
Tory Administration—would rather see the present Minis-
try break up—would rather see a dissolution of Parlia-
ment, than that it should go forth into Ireland that the
Reformed Parliament had declared that church property
was inalienable. He could conceive nothing more disas-
trous than the effects which such a proceeding would have
on the people of Ireland.—(Questiou, question.)
Dr. BALDWIN supported the clause as it originally
stood. He denied shat ,the chose went to appropriate
church property; all that it appropriated was the right of
the reversion to the property at present held on lease.—
(Loud cries of " Question," and " Divide !")
Mr. ROBERT FERGUSON wished to have the prin-
ciple established arid the details might be altered ; but the
withdrawal of the clause would do away with the princi-
ple.—(Again loud calls of " Question," and " Divide.")
Mr. STANLEY wished the House to be aware that

the clause did not open the question whether the Sate had
or had not a right to deal with Church property. No such
question was at issue before the house. If it were, be
might be obliged to vote one way, and his Right Hon.
Friend another. That was not the question at issue, and
those who voted for the omission of the clause might adhere
to and act upon thoir opinion, that Parliament might inter-
fere with Church property without ary inconsistency what-
ever. The Government thought that that property was dif-
ferent from any other description of Church property, and
might be separated from it ; but that idea bad been dis-
countenanced by both sides of the House. The question,
then, was, whether the property was not to be dealt kith
as other Church property, and to be placed in the
same fund, and devoted to the same purpose, as other
Church property ? He again repeated, that the abstract
question of the right of Parliament to deal with Church
property was not before the Committee.

The Committee then divided upon the question that the
anise stand part of the Bill :

Ayes
Noes
Majority for excluding the Clause --132
On re-entrt ing the gallery, we found that the House
had resumed.
SEPARATISTS' AFFIRMATION.

Mr. PRYME moved the third reading of this Bill.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY moved that the Bill be read a
third time that day six months.
Mr. MURRAY supported the Bill, and expressed his
surprise that it should be opposed by his Hon. Friend.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS opposed the Bill, and would
vote for the amendment.
Mr. BRISCOE supported the Bill.

Strangers were ordered to withdraw, hut Sir M. W.
RIDLEY said he would not press his amendment to a divi-
sion, and the Bill was read a third time and passed.

BOROUGH OF WARWICK.

Sir RONALD FERGUSON regretted being obliged
at so late an hour to trouble the House with a new
subject; but he would state the circumstances of it as
brialy as possible. Oa the 20th of February a petition
had been presented from certain electors of the borough
of Warwick against the return of Sir Charles Greville,
on the ground of corruption and bribery, and of illegal and
unconstitutional interference in the election by the &ill
of Warwick. Immediately afterwards a counter-petition
was presented against the return of Mr. Bolton
King, charging him with bribery and corruption.
The Committee was appointed in May. Of that Com-
mittee he was unfortunately chosen the Chairman. If
any person would read the evidence taken before the
Committee, they would find strong statements of
bribery and corruption, and of the illegal and uncon-
stitutional interference of the Earl of Warwick. The
Committee began by inquiring into the allegations of bri-
bery against Sir Charles Greville, and it was soon proved
to them that seven agents had been appointed by him,
which seven agents had bribed twenty-two electors. When
that was proved, Sir Charles Greville withdrew the case,
and the petition against Mr. Bolton King was abandoned.
The Committee could do nothing, therefore, but close
their proceedings ; as they could not go on at an emu -
mous expense to parties who had spontaneously abandon,
their case. They made a special report to the House,
stating that it had been proved that Sir Charles Greville.
through his agents, had been guilty of bribery, and al,o
that it had been proved thrt the Earl of Warwick',
Steward, Mr. Brown, had paid large sums, amounting t.
1,5001. info the bank at Warwick, in favour of the
Town Clerk, Mr. Tibbitts (who had been appointed I))
the Earl of Warwick), and that Mr. Tibbitts had give))
checks on the bank to the agents of Sir Charles Greville.

It was with great regret that he made thlsmotion7bO:
the nature of the evidence lift hint no option. He woul.:
move, therefore, that a Select Committee he appointed t
consider and report as to the best mode of preventir,,,
bribery, treating, and other corrupt practiees at the hitt),
election of burgesses to sit in Parliament for the borotig!.
of Warwick. fie intended to propose that the Membzr•
of the S,lect Committee be the Members of the Com mitt,

which had sat ou the petition ; they being, from th

•ircrimatance, the best persons to carry on the inquiry.
Lord AI OL YN ti s-corulcd die mutton.
Sir JOHN HAMMER orain.sined that the allegations
in the petition against Charles Greville bad not been
'mine out by the evidence, and rxticessed his hope that
it this late period of the session House would not
brow away Ito rim'e by entering into the consideration
of such a !object.

Mr. ELLICE supporter/ the proinaition for a Corr-
lnittee ; but moved, as an arnewlment, that the Coo ..
utitterf also instructed to make further inquiry int,.
ti e circumat.l7mt, of the late election for the borough of
Varwirk. Ile catty not who were the guilty persons
•lie object of that House PIT/A to be to trace such prat.
tice• up to their source. -

An Hort. MEMmut, whose name the Could not learn,
,naintained that the allegations in the petition were corn-
pletcly borne out by the evidence ; and that the House
would lose its character with the country if it did not
follow tip the inquiry.
Sir RONALD FERGUSON male a few observations.
Mr. HALCOMB observed that the report of the Com-
mittee ought not to be received, as Warwick was, in his
opinion, a place as little susceptible of corruption as any
with which he was acquainted. The Committee had
even called upon the Earl of Warwick's banker to show
his hooks. If he (Mr. Halcomh) had been in the situa-
tion of the banker he whould ha►e preferred going before
a jury to exhibit his books. The number of 22 had been
cheered as a large number of cases of bribery —The
Hon. Member for Beverley might, perhaps, be able to say
whether it was so or not.

An Hox. MEMBER, whore name we could not learn,
made a few observations.

Sir THOMAS FREMANTLE. and Sir RONALD FERritl±,ON
4 Igo made seine remarks, which were inaudible, amid
erica of " Question ! question !" in all directions.
Sir E. KNATCHI3ULL moved, as an amiltdincrit,
that the Committee should be appointed by h,llot.
Mr. MURRAY objected to th- appointment ff the
Committee by ballot, as implying an imputation upon
the Members of the former Select Committee.

The House divided upon the amendment, when 'here
appeared,

For the Amendment ll
Againbt it 97
Majority
. _ _

Th. original motion vras then :weed to.

CoIoneIDAVIES brought i❑ a I3iil for the more speedy
trial of persons accused of petty larceny, which was read
first and second time, and ordered to be committed on
Friday.

After the presentation of several petitions, the House
adjourned at half-past two o'clock.

LIST OF TR)
As far as it could be aserrti

E MAJORITY,
reined, who voted against the
r the Registry Bill.
[PhiHipps, C. X-,-North Leices-
tenthire

Second Reading 01
ENGLAND.

Aglionby, H. A. —Cockermoutt,
Attwood, M.—Whitehavet,
Bethel', R.—East Yorkshire
Blamire, W.—East Cumberland
Boss, J. G.—tiortballerton
Cayley, Sir G.—Scarborough
Cayley, E. S.—North Yorkshire
Chandos, Marquis of—Bucks
Chapman, A.—Whitby
Chaytor, Sir W.—Sunderland
Chetwynd, Capt. W.—Stafford
Cobbett, William—Oldham
Cornish, James—Totness
Curteis, H. B.—East Sussex
Curteis, E, B.—Rye
Darlington, Earl of—South,
Shropshire
Divett, E.—Exeter
Duncombe, Hon. W.—North
Yorkshire

Pryme, George--Cambridge
Richards, JP .—Knaresborough
ltidley, Sir 14. W.—Ncwcastic_
upon-Tyne
doss, C.—Northampton
Ryle, ./.—Maccle,ficki
Sheppard, T.—Frome
Staunton, Sir G.—South Hants
Strickland, G —West Yorkshire

Tennyson, Right lion. C.--
Lambeth
Thompson, P. B.—East York-
shire
Todd, J. Ruddell—lloniton
Cooke, W.—Truro
Tynte, C. K. K.—Bridgwater
fynte, C. J. K.—West Somer.
setshire
Tyrcll, C.—West Suffolk
VtUiers, Viscount—Honiton,
Vvvyan, Sir It. IL—Bristol
Wason, Rigby--Ipswich
Wilks, John—Boston
Williams, W. A.—Monmouth..

Fenton, L.—Huddersfield
Fielden, John—Oldham
Finch, G.—Stamford
Gaskell, J. M.—Wenlock

Gaskell, Daniel—Wakefield
Goring, 11. D.—New bhorcham
Holcomb, John—Dover
Hardy, John—Bradford
Harvey, D. W.—Colchester
Heathcotc, Sir G.—Rutlandsh.
Henniker, L9rd—East Sussex
Hodges, 'l'. L.—East Kent
Howard, P. H.—Carlisle

shire
Williams, G.—Ashton
NVood, T.—Breeknockshirc
Yorke, C. P.—Cambridgeshire

SCOTLANIY.
Hay, A. L.—Elgin, &c.

Ingham, IL—South Shields
Ingilby, Sir W. A.—Parts 01
Lindsey, Lincolnshire
Jcrmyn, Earl—Bury, Suffolk
Jervis, J.—Chester

:IRELAND.
Castlereagh, Vise.—Down
Talbot, J.—Athlone
young, J —Cavan

TELLERtI.

Johnstone, Sir J. V. B.—Scarbro
Knatchbull, Sir E—East Kent
Lister E. Cunlilie—Bradford
Lowther,Viscount—Westmore.
land
Lowther, Col.—Wetcmoreland
Marshall, J.—Leeds
Parker, J.—Sheffield

1 ' Sanford E. A.—. West Sorer-
. . ,

setshi'rc

Hodgson, J.—Newcastle-upon-
Tyne

-1 FAIRED OPE.
Lincoln, Earl of—South Notts
Ossulston, Lord—North North-

Parrott, J.—Totness
Pease, Joseph—South Durham •
I'clham, lion. C. E. W.—Lin-

umberl;nd
Molyncux, lord—South Lancs.
•shire
Herbert, Hon. B.—South Wilts
Gladstone, W. E.—Newark
ILunsden, J. C.—Mallow

collisliire, parts of Lindsey
Philips, M.—Manchester

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUNE 21.

JOHNSON IN FORMA VAUTEILIS V. BEACH.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a ship's
carpenter, against the defendant, the Captain of the ship
Illadres, for an assault and false imprisonment.
The plaintiff was carpenter on board the Madras,
free-trader, on her voyage out to India in 1829 ; and on
the sth of May in that year, he happened to have had a
quarrel with a lad on board, to whom he gave a blow.
One of the passengers, a Lieutenant Rockford, remon-
strated with the plaintiff, which so exasperated him that
he threw a jack-plane at him. The noise brought all the
passengers on deck, as well as the Captain, who remon-
strated with the plaintiff on his violent conduct, which
had quite a contrary effect to that which was intended,
and instead of inducing him to be quiet, la! abused the
Captain, and attempted to strike him. He was imme-
diately put in confinement in irons, where he was kept
110 days, deprived of his grog, and every convenience
necessary to the preservation of health. On their arrival
at the Cape he might have been brought to trial and
punished, and he could have been discharged, but his
imprisonment was continued tinder the greatest possible
bodily suffering. It was proved, that at the time the
plaintiff was first put in irons he was a strong healthy
man, and at the termination of his incarceration he was
scarcely able to walk.

The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 701

CONSISTORY COURT, J 19113 21.

BOWCOTT V. BOWCOTT.

This was a suit commenced by Mr. James Bowcott
against his wife for a divorce on the grounds of adultery.
The parties were married on the let of January, 1825, the
lady being sixteen years old and the husband twenty-one,
the consent of the father of the lady being given. A
child was the issue of the marriage, and the parties co-
habited together till July, 1830, when Mr. Bowcott pro-
ceeded in command of a vessel to Calcutta. In November
the wife proceeded to India, but was compelled to return
owing to ill health. The husband returned soon after,
when Mrs. Bowcost declared she would no longer reside
with her husband, and formed an adulterous connection
with a Mr. Reynolds, the parties living together at many
places as man and wife.
Dr. LUsHINCTON pronounced for the divorce.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, JUNN 21.

Charles Wadsworth, who figured at Hatton-garden-
police office some time ago, came up to•day to receive
judgment.

- The insolvent was opposed by a Mr. Stephen Henry,
a watch and clock maker, residing in Berkeley-square,
and was defended by Mr. CHADWICKS JONES. He took
a house in Clifford-street, Bond-street, which he got
splendidly furnished by tradesmen in the neighbour..
hood ; be had incurred numerous debts within a
short time, and was then taken to
.Hatton-garden
Police-office o■ charges of swindling, but no case
was substantiated against him, and he was consequently
discharged ; he was, however, immediately arrested, and
had since been incarcerated in Whiteeross-street Prison.
Before he quitted Clifford-street, where he passed as a pri-
vate gentleman, he called on Mr. Henry, accompanied by
two dashingly-dressed females, and ordered. a handsome
clock to be sent to his residence, which was done. The
price was fixed at sixteen guineas, and no portion had
been paid ; in a short time it wag pledged, and on Mr.
Henry calling one day he found the street door barred
with a chain, and many creditors round the house. Some
had obtained their goods by force, but the insolvent alleged
that he had made over the furniture which he had of Mr.
Bailey, an upholsterer, but which that gentleman fortu-
nately got back, to his brother-in-law, one Cooper, now
in Horsemonger-lane Gaol. It was stated that the furni-
ture had been made over by a bill of sale to that person
for the sum of 2901., which the insolvent, Cooper, and a
person named Aylett, swore had been ;slid.
Mr. Commissioner Bowgt: said it was quite clear
that there bad been a gross conspiracy and an illegal com-
bination to obtain goods for the purpose of disposing of
them. The Learned Commissioner, therefore, sentenced
the insolvent to an imprisonment of nine calendar months.

Every necessary arrangement has been at
length finally made for the erection of a new theatre on
the site of the former Lyceum aeatre, which was a few
years ago destroyed by fire. The plan been appr .ved,
and the theatre is to be on a compact scale, of a modeat4
siv, and in every particn'ar convenient and commodious.
It is expected to be finished in the tootling spring,