The Sun.
London, England, 1834-06-26 00:00:00

BILLS.

The Duke of CUMBERLAND wished to ask
the noble and learned lord on the woolsack when he
intended to move the second reading of the Non-
Residence and Pluralities Bill, because the ses-
sion was now drawing very fast to a dote, and
he was very desirous that the discussions should take
place in the presence of the right rev, prelates, many
of whom were in town. The noble and learned lord
had mentioned to him the other night that there was
one clause he wished further to consider, but he
was afraid that if it was delayed too long they would
not have the presence of the right reverend prelates.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that what
the illustrious duke had stated with respect to
the clause he had mentioned to him the other
night was perfectly correct. It was a very important
one, and should be drawn with great care, and the
learned individual who had to draw it, had had some
difficulty in framing it so as to meet the exi-
gency of the case. (.Hear, hear.) That • difficulty
had been now overcome, and he had licit. We
least doubt that, on next Monday at the latest,
(if not on Friday), he should be able to give his royal
highness' a copy of the bill—if not publicly he would
privately. He had not made up his mind yet on what day
he would move the second reading, and it did not
matter how late in the session the bill passed. He' had
a great deal of correspondence from patrons and per-
sons interested iri the subject, which would certainly
takehim-a long time to read 'over. He would not
proceed further in the discussion on the hill than to
say, that his only wish was to have those points to-
..sellielt.he had adverted fully brought before the atten-
tion ,of their lordships ?
The Duke of CUMBERLAND put it .to the
house "and to the noble lord whether. it would be act-
ing candidly to bring on a measure of the -importance
of the one the noble lord had adverted to, in the absence
of the bench of bishops.
• Lod- WYNFORD said that there were several
parts'of the bill that would require the undivided at-
tention of the house. The present bill could not
satisfy anybody ; and if it was pressed in its present
form, their lordships would allow him td say, that
there was not a single clause but he should feel it his
duty to give his decided opposition to.
The Duke of-RICHMOND' thought the present
one of so great importance that it ought to be well de-
bated. He thought it most desirable that there should
be a resident clergyman'. in 'every 'parish, and that
divine worship should be performed in every rural
parish twice on a Sunday, and in towns-three times.
The Archbishop of 'CANTERBURY thought
that the length of time for the'absence of clergymen
ought to be extended in cases of ill health. He had
received more complaints from the absence of curates
than from any'other cause. In his opinion the'bill that
had been brought forward, ought to undergo the most
mature consideration, and would require great atten-
tion. 'wish was to enforce as strict a re-
sidence as possible. The means of enforcing residence
under the existing law was exceedingly objectionable,
inasmuch as it were in the hands of the common in-
former. His wish was, that a bill should be introduced
compelling the residence of clergymen, and giving
the jurisdiction to any other person than the diocesan
tcycompel his residence.
The LORD CHANCELLOR' said that he had
brought forward the subject of the criminal law, and
upon -that 'occasion the tight reverend prelate had
taken the opportunity to speak upon the subject
of non-residence, which had no more to do with
the subject than the light with the dark. He
had been dragged into the question of non-residence
by his noble friend (Lord Wynford) and the
right reverend' prelate whether he would or not,
and that too without any 9ueStion on the'subject being
before the house. The right rev. prelate had made a
stated that espeech on
nt
if tit billhe:m.erlits of the
was ropsed in it
bill, andohisnoblefs presentriendhad
shape, he should 'oppose every clause .of it. Was it to
be supposed that he would sit quiet without saying one
word upon the subject? There was no pretence what-
ever -to introduce 'the subject, and-' he -would not
be tempted to enter into any further discussion upon it.
His noble and learned friend had taken an
erroneous view, not of the bill, but of the abstract
of it, which had been published incorrectly.
He defied any one to say 'that there was truth in
the remark' that no• one party would be pleased with
the bills because they did not go far enough. He would
defy his noble friend to produce any one who would say
so after reading the 'bill it went completely to put
ah end to plurality altogether; if that' was not far
enough' he did not know what would be; indeed the
most' 'rev:• prelate thought it went much • too' far.
(Hear, hear.) He did • not complain of what
had been said of the two clauses proposed to be added,
because it had been introduced' by his answer-
ing' the question put to him by the ' illustrious
duke. He would now, however, after what had fallen
from the most rev. prelate, think seriously about whe-
ther' he should' now introduce these' clauses or not,
because the most reverend prelate thought they wete
unnecessary. Now if he, upon the part of the church
which he represented, thought that the clergyman
should not have a day or two to attend the assizes or
other places with his wife or daughters, without its
being included in the 90 days, certainly he (the Lord
Chancellor) would not think it his duty to press it
upon the house.
Lord WYNFORD explained.
The -Duke of CUMBERLAND said the' dis-
cussion had arisen out of the noble and learned
lord's explanation of the clauses he proposed
td introduce, and not upon the question which he had
Aced.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY was not aware
that there had been any other question before the
house. As the noble and learned lord had entered into
a full explanation of his two new clauses, certainly he
had as good a right to state his opinion as he had.
The LORD CHANCELLOR cried" Hear, hear ;
I had no right to do it."
The address vvas then agreed to.
Lord FARNHAM said he had, on a fornier night,
put a question to the noble earl at the head of the
Government as to their intentions with respect to the
!Coercion Bill. In that noble earl's absence he wished to
sate 'that that bill' would expire` n a"fery few"days•

more than a month, and as every obstruction was likely
to be given to it in another place, he thought no
time should be lost in bringing it in.. (.Hear.) He
Wished to know from the noble viscount (Melbourne)
Whether that bill was to be renewed, and whether, as
!expected, it would be introduced first into that house?
He therefore wished to ask when the bill would be
brought in, for he repeated that as it was certain to
Meet with great, but he trusted unavailing, opposition,
not a day ought now to be lost.
Viscount MELBOURNE .said he could add but
Very little to what had been said by his noble friend en
a 'former occasion. It was intended to reintroduce the
bill, and to do so in that house first. He trusted that
in a few days, his noble friend (Earl Grey) would be
I:capered to bring in the bill, as no time would be lost
upon the part of the government.
Petitions in favour of the church were presented by
the ArchbiSinip of CANTERBURY, the Duke of BEAU-
FORT, and several other Peers. . .

The Earl of -ROSEBE RR Y presented a petition
from the schoolmasters of the Presbytery of Linlithgow
in favour of the connection of church and state. lie
presented-the report of the Select .committee upon the
Scotch Entail Bill, which he would movefor further
consideration on'TuesclaY next.
A NOBLE LORD, whose name we could not learn, pre-
sented several' petitions from the county of Monaghan
against tithes, and for the repeal of the union. The
latter prayer he could not support.
WARWICK BILL

Witnesses and counsel in favour of the Warwick
Bill were then recalled.
The house examined the witnesses Green and Mor-
ris, after which the bill was postponed to Saturday
next.

The house adjourned, at a quarter to seven, to Fri-
day, at three O'clock.

HOUSE OF C0.31401V5, June 25.

The SPEAKER resumed the Chair at a quarter past
five. • • •

A Message from the Lords• announced that their
lordships hUd agreed to the Edinburgh and Dalkeith
Railway, and other bills.
Colonel WILLIAMS gave notice that on Thurs-
day week he should move for leave to bring in a bill
for the'rep'eal of the Royal Marriage Act.
Mr. MILDMAY presented a petition from Win-
chester . .
i_n support of the established. urch.
Mr. WYNDHAM presented a petitien from the
Dissenters of Norwich, praying to be relieved from
the disabilities affecting that body.
Mr. Alderman WOOD presented a petition &Om
the Watermen's Company, praying to be heard -by
counsel -against the •Lord's,Day Observance Bill.
Sir RUFANE DONKIN presented a petition
fromthe ehufehirardens'and others of:l3erwick against
the increase of beer-01(4A.
Colonel PERCEVAL presented a petition from
a parish in the county of STio, on the subject of the
Irish Tithe Bill. „

Mr. BAINES presented a petition from Tiverton
against the ,Chnrch Rates -13 ill.
Mr. STANLEY, on renewing his notice relative
to the Lancister Court' of Cominon Pleas Bill, begged
to ask •the right hon. Secretary for Irekind. when he
intended- to proceed.with the committee on the Irish
Tithe Bill.

Mr. LTTTLETON said it would be impossible to
proceed with• it before Friday, as it was expedient
that the Poor Laws. Bill should be finished before that
day. It. was their intention to proceed further with
it on Saturday morning. •
Mr. GISBORNE begged to ask whether the noble
lord would-proceed With the Church Rates Bill on
Monday?
Lord ALTHORP said 'that they were anxious to
get through "with the Poor Laws Bill before they
proceeded with the Church Rates' Bill.
Siel GRAHAM Said it sibuldbe extremely incon-
venient to proceed with a bill such as the Irish Tithe
Bill on Saturday; Olean )
LOrd ALTHORP said they would proceed with
the • liish-,Tithe Bill on Friday evening, and the house
would be able to decide upon theii further proceeding's
'when they had seen What progress would be Made on
Friday evening.
Mr.' O'CONNELL -expressed his determination to
bri*g-the substance and principle of the bill before
the house. ". '

COERCION BILL ,(IRELAND).
Colonel PERCEVAL begged to ask the right
hon. Secretary for Irehind when he intended to lay
the documents, upon which he intended to rriove for' a
renewal Of the Coercion Bill Upon the table of the
house ?

114;.LITTLETON said the papers would be laid
upon the tablelyefore any discussion would take place.
Mr. SHAW wished to know 'if the bill abdut to
b e introduced was the same as that of last session ?
Mr. LITTLETON did not think that proper
question, and it was one upon which he did' not think
it his duty to give any information. ( Heir,' 'hear:)
Mr. O'REILLY wished to know whether it was
the intention of his Majesty's Ministers-to put an end
to any meetings, if 'those meetingi were calcu-
lated to 'disturb the pUblic peace. TheY'had lately
heard of meetings in the north' of Ireland, which,
from all they knew of ' that part of the country were
calculated to disturb the public peace.
- Mr. FINN objected to any' meeting being put down
either in the north or south of Ireland. (Cries of "Oh;
oh !")
Mr. LITTLETON said the question was, whether
it was the intention of his Majesty's GovernMent to
administer the laws equally and impartially ? He
thought such a qu6tioh was quite' unnecessary to an-
swer. (Hear.)_

Mr. 'STANLEY said• he had understood the hon.
member for Cork had taken upon himself to state that
he (Mr. Stanley) had taken some part in the Dun-
garvan'election. He assured the house that such an
assertion was utterly without foundation.
Mr. O'CONNELL said he was not in the house
at the time the discussion was going on, ' but' 'he
thought there was nbthing in the documents referred
to that could justify the introduction of the tight hon.
gentleman's name. '
The hour then resolved itself into a committee
on the Highways Bill. Mr. PRYME in the chair.
The cominittoi proceeded through several clauses,
when the Chairman obtained leave to report progress,
and to sit again on Thursday se'nnight.
The Registry of Births Bill* was postponed to
Wednesday next.
The house then Went through the orders of the day.
Mr. H. HUGHES (at two o'clock) rose to present
a petition.
Mr. RUTHVEN moved that the house be counted.
The requisite number of members not being present
the house adjourned.

DIVISION in the HOUSE of COMMONS.

Of 30 (TellerLlB TincOluredT),lllN-4-h4Ollllvoitfd-bßir 7
against 11r: Miles's
Amendment on the Bastardy Cla.use in the Poor Laws'
Amendment Bill.
Ayes .lll Majority, 7.) ,
.
Noes -... 39
Aglionby, H. A. S' ipwith, Sir G.
Airlev,,,,r Jacob Stewart, E.
Baring, W. B. ,rickland, Sir G.
Eo.iverie Captain Struts, E. •
Buller, C t :meted, H. W.
Calvert; N. Throckmorton, It.
Da;hwood, G. H. Toad, J. B.
Dtvett, E Trelawuey, Sir W.
Evans; W. Wedgwood, J.
Fvani, 0. Whitmore W. W
Ew, rt, W. , Wilbraham, G.
kazikeyley, J. N.
FitzrV, 'Lord C.
Fjlkes, Sir W.

Port, J.
Goring, H. D.
t,rote, G.
Heron, Sir R.
Hornby, E. G.
Lloyd, H
LoCKe, W.
.ia, tin, J.
Parrott, J.
Ronny, E.
Rooper, J. B.
Ryle, J.
Sellp, Colonel
SLeppard, T.

TELLER.
Peter, W.