The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-20 00:00:00

LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 20, 1835

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE. OF LORDS, JUNE 19.
PUBLIC INSTRUCTION.

Lord DUNCANNON laid upon the table the report of
the Commissioners of Public Instruction in Ireland.
SCOTCH CHURCH.
Earl HARE WOOD presented a petition from a place,
the name of which we did not hear, in support of the Esta-
blished Church of Scotland.

Lord BROUGHAM presented petitions from places in
Dumbartonshire, Banff, Kilmarnock, Perth, and eight other
places, against any grant to the Church of Scotland, and three
petitions in favour of it. The Noble Lord also presented a
petition from Perth, for the amendment of the laws—a petition
for the repeal of the duty on newspapers—and one from the
Glasgow Radical Association, for the removal of all Bishops
from the House of Lords. Upon this latter he (Lord
Brougham) did not intend to found any motion at present.
A Message from the Commons requested that their Lord-
ships would allow the Earl of Caledon, and the Earl of
Charleville, to give evidence before the Committee appointed
to inquire into the nature of Orange Lodges in Ireland.
Mr. E. WILMOT and others, from the Commons, brought
up the Birmingham Railway Bill, with their Lordships' amend-
ments, to which the other House had agreed.
The Bishop of EXETER gave notice that on Thursday
next he should present a petition from the Rev. William Baker
Stoney, Rector of Brunsboole, in Mayo, complaining of the
conduct of the Church Commissioners.
EXECUTION OF WILLS.

Lord BROUGHAM moved the second reading of the
Execution of Wills Bill. The Noble Lord proceeded at
some length to point out the importance of this measure as af-
fecting the disposition of real and personal property.
Lord ABINGER thought it was very important that the
matter should be fully discussed before any change was effected
in the law in this respect. Some of the alterations he,,
(Lord Abinger) approved of, others he thought were objet-
tionable, and all he asked was, that ample time should be
given to discuss the provisions of the Bill.
Lord BROUGHAM had no objection to the Bill being re-
ferred to a Committee up stairs.
Lord MA LME SBURY suggested that the second reading
should be postponed to Monday next.
Lord DENMAN approved of the principle of the Bill.
Still discussion was of course necessary in any alteration of so
important a law ; but this Bill had been year after year be-
fore the House of Commons, and its provisions had undergone
very ample investigation. Under all the circumstances, he
thought that referring the Bill to a Committee up stairs would
meet the objections of the Noble Earl (Malmesbury).
After a short conversation, the debate upon the second
reading was adjourned to Monday next.
LAW PATENTS.

Lord BROUGHAM reported from the Select Committee
on the Law of Patents, that they had made certain amend-
ments, which he moved should be printed.
Lord RODEN presented a petition from the Reverend
Harcourt Lees, praying to be allowed to give evidence
before the bar of their Lordship? House relative to a conspiracy
%which was on foot for the overthrow of the Established Church
in Ireland, and the separation of that country from Great
Britain.—( Hear.) Although the petitioner was a little wild
and hasty in his notions, he (Lord Roden) was aware that
he had stated many things which had come to pass, and he
agreed with the petitioner in believing that such a conspiracy
did exist in Ireland. . . .

4.
After one or two other petitions had been presented, their
Lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, JuNE 19.

The SPLAMER took the Chair at three o'clock.
Colonel VERNER presented a petition from 1,400 land-
holders of the county of Belfast in favour of the Newry Road
Bill.

Sir M. S. STEWART brought up the Report of the Com-
mittee on the Clackmannan Railway Bill. .

Lord J. STEWART brought up the Report on the Ayr
Harbour Bill.

Reports of the Committees upon various Private Bills were
brought up by Sir W. Folkes, Sir G. Clerk, Sir R. Ferguson,
Mr. Tooke, and other Hon. Members.
Sir E. WILMOT presenteda petition from the magistrates,
clergy, and other inhabitants of Birmingham, praying for a
legislative enactment against drunkenness.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.

Mr. PL UM PTRE presented a petition from the Agricultural
Society of East Kent complaining of agricultural distress, and
praying for some measures of relief. Also a petition from a
parish in East Kent to the same effect.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL supported the petition. He
hoped some measure on the subject of tithes would shortly be
brought forward, as the petitioners believed that it would afford
them substantial relief.
CHURCH CEREMONIES.

Mr. PLUMPTRE then presented petitions from Margate
and another place, complaining of the present mode of licens-
ing ; also a petition from four clergymen, who had been for-
merly officers in the British service, praying the House totake
the case of the two officers of Artillery who had been dismis-
sed the service for refusing to assist at the Roman Catholic
ceremonies at Malta, into consideration. The Hon. Member
expressed his determination to bring forward a motion upon
the subject, and take the sense of the House thereon.
Mr. SHE IL said the case of the two officers alluded to had
excited very strong sympathy, and he believed there was not
a Roman Catholic Member in that House who did not sympa-
thise with them.—(Hear, hear.) The Roman Catholic
soldiers had been exempted from attending any religious
place of worship but their own, and he saw no reason why
the Protestant soldiers should be placed in a worse position,
or why the same privileges should not be extended to them.
He hoped the Hon. Member would press his motion to a divi-
sion, and he was satisfied that the majority of the House
would be with him.—( Hear.)
Mr. R. C. FERGUSSON.begged to set the Hon. and
Learned Member for Tipperary right. The officers had not
been dismissed for refusing to assist at the Roman Catholic
religious ceremonies, but for a direct breach of military duty.
Mr. RUTHVEN rose to deprecate a discussion upon raj-
litary discipline, but
The SPEAKER suggested the propriety of the Hon.
Member refraining from any further remarks upon the subject,
until it should be brought before the House in a regular form.
STAMP DUTIES ON NEWSPAPERS.

Sir W. COCKBURN presented a petition from the in.
habitants of Wells, praying for the repeal of stamp-duties on
newspapers, that they might have the benefit of cheap and good
knowledge.
Dr. BOWRING supported the petition, observing that
this was a subject of consummate importance and general in-
terest at the present time. It was the duty of the House,
when it made new laws, to make those laws known, and they
could not sufficiently extend the knowledge of them. Many
of those circumstances which they had cause to regret, and
most of the grievances under which the labouring classes suffered,
were to be attributed to the inaccessibleness of political know-
ledge.
Mr. M'CANCE (we believe) presented a petition from
Belfast, to the same affect.
Mr. RUTHVEN supported it.
DUTIES ON FOREIGN TIMBERS; UNITARIANS;

injurious practice, and, generally speaking, it was so con-
sidered—for his part, he thought it also a- very unjust one.
By the returns made to that House, it appeared that there were
356,434 persons employed in factories, and that 64,237 certifi-
cates had been granted up to February last. Thus the chil-
dren of Manchester had been taxed to the amount of 5201. is
consequence of this charge. This he conceived was a very
great evil, and ought to be done away with.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. M. PHILLIPS considered that the 'hatter complained
of was a very great hardship on the poor people. He had
never expected that the Bill would give satisfaction to the class
of people for whom the House was then legislating, and he now
regretted much that he had been so true a prophet. The
House would surely think that the payment of the 6d. was in-
deed a hardship upon people whose average earnings did not
amount to more than 3s. per week—it actually operated as a
preventive on the poor children from going from one employ-
ment where work was scarce to that of another master. He
was sorry that the petitioner had not pointed out some means
whereby the money for the certificates might be drawn, in case
the House should consider it necessary to retain that clause.
The matter was well deserving the attention of the House.
Mr. C. H ANDLE Y was also of opinion that the matter
was well deserving of the interference of the House,
because in many cases he thought the inspectors had
far exceeded their duty.—( Hear, hear.) One of them,
Mr. Richards, who was in the populous district of Man.
chester, had laid down a rule, whereby he had ap-
pointed 150 surgeons, from whom only he would receive cer-
tificates. He had also made it imperative upon a boy or girl
of sixteen years of age who changed thdir employment
to produce a certificate ; and yet if, from any cause, they were
within the month again to change, they must again produce
a fresh certificate, which made such a patronage as the
appointment of surgeons valuable. In his report that gentle-
man stated as his reason for always requiring fresh certificates,
that the children were much in the habit of changing from one
master to another, and he thought the tax would have the
"affect of snaking them more steady ; but he (Mr. H.) doubted
whether the Bill gave him any such powers. The other two
inspectors had not made such a rule, but the House would be
much surprised to find, from a return then on the table,
that for certificates alone in those two districts the
poor children within eleven months had paid 4,0001.
In Manchester, where only 14,000 children were employed, not
less than 5001. had been paid for certificates. The Hon.
Member for Manchester regretted that a remedy had not
been suggested ; but he (Mr. Handley) thought that
repealing the Act of last Session would be a remedy.—
( Hear, hear, hear.) If some limitation was not fixed
as to the age at which children should be employed in these
factories, the relief the House was anxious to afford them
would not be obtained. He had been told by a respectable
manufacturer in Manchester, that even if a child was un-
der ten years' old, the surgeon would grant a certificate
that the child was twelve, if the manufacturer said
that the child would be useful to him. He was deter-
mined, when the estimate for the payment of the inspectors
was brought forward, to oppose it until their Repbrts, which he
had frequently moved for, were laid upon the table.
Mr. AGLIONBY bore testimony to the respectability of
the petitioners, and should most cordially support any mea-
sures of the Hon. Member opposite for the relief of the work-
ing classes.
After a few words from an Hon. MEMBER, whose name we
could not hear, the petition was laid on the table.
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON presented a petition from D. Kelly,
residing near Tralee, whose son had found a forged note, and
for which he had been prosecuted, and sentenced to 14 years'
transportation. The Hon. and Learned Member feared the
House could not interfere, but he thought it his duty to pre-
sent it.

The Hon. FOX MAULE said he should make inquiry into
:he facts stated in the petition.

MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.

Mr. Sergeant JACKSON then presented a petition from
several hundred inhabitants of Cork, praying that no further
grant of public money might be allowed for Maynooth College.
The petitioners complained that the interference of the Roman
Catholic Clergy had done away with all freedom of election ;
and that the Roman Catholics of Ireland were well able to
support that establishment, as they paid in voluntary contribu-
tions to one man, more than would support the College twice
over.

Mr. O'DWYER said the interference of the Protestant
Clergy at elections was much greater than that of the Roman
Catholic Clergy. The latter had only moral influence, while
the former had also their votes, which they invariably gave in
support of principles obnoxious to the people of Ireland.
Mr. SHAW denied that there was any comparison between
the two bodies. The Roman Catholic Clergymen proposed
and nominated candidates, and dragged the freeholders to the
place of polling in a manner which, if it had been done by
Protestant Clergymen, he ( Mr. S.) would consider most dis-
graceful.—( Hear. )
Mr. O'CONNELL took the liberty of saying, that the
statements of the Right Hon. and Learned Gentlemen were
totally false. It was true that Catholic clergymen had spoken at
elections, and seconded the nomination of candidates ; for in-
stance, one of them seconded Mr. Vigors, a Protestant Member.
Their speeches were printed and published, and it would be
seen that they did not deserve the character given them by the
correspondents of the Right Hon. Gentleman as to their existing
violence. Were there not many persons ,in Ireland who
would be ready, and were exceedingly anxious, for opportuni-
ties to prosecute them, if they said one word that could
make them liable ?—( Hear.) But their protection was that
they carefully avoided violating the law, while, as men and
citizens, they exercised that right to which they were en-
titled. But, on the other hand, there was violence used
against the Catholics by the Orange party, particularly in
one county, for no other reason than because they were Catho-
lics. Was the Right Hon. Gentleman aware that almost all
the Protestant Clergy interfered with elections ?—(" No, no,"
from Mr. Shaw and other Members.) The Hon. Members
cried, " No, no," but would they tell him one place in Ireland
where they did not? He would tell them of one where they
did, and he could mention names, if he chose.—( Cries of
" Name, name 1") Mr. Mahony, of Dromore. —( Hear ) But
he utterly denied the charge against the Catholic clergy.
Mr. SHAW would call the recollection of the House to a
recent occasion on which the Hon. and Learned Member made

;he same assertion respecting other correspondence which he
Mr. Shaw) had received.

Mr. O'CONNELL would be glad to know to what case
the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman alluded?
Mr. SHAW--To the case of Daniel Murphy.—( Hear. )
Mr. O'CONNELL—Oh lam glad you mentioned that,
for there was not a single statement then made that was not
contradicted by your own documents.—( Hear. )
Mr. SHAW—I leave that to the judgment of the House.
Mr. O'CONNELL—So do Order, order.)
Mr. RUTHVEN deprecated this discussion as wandering
towards disorder.—( Hear.)
Mr. CALLAGHAN took the opportunity of rescuing the
place from which the petition came, from being chargeable in
the gross with such sentiments. In fact, he had looked at the
names, and found them to be those of persons who did not reside
within several miles of Cork. The names of many respectable
clergymen were attached to it, and no doubt they were de-
voted to the duties of their profession ; but the first name he saw
was that of General Henry Barry, who was before a
Committee of the House the other day, and whose name was
struck off the list of voters for non-residence. There were a
great many other names of the same description ; and if the
Hon. Member had shown him the petition before he presented
it, he would have given him that information privately which
he now gave thus publicly.
HAND-LOOM WEAVERS.

General SHARPE presented a petition from the hand-loom
weavers of Dumfries praying for relief.

LICENSED VICTUALLERS.

Sir J. Y. BULLER presented two petitions from places in
Devonshire, complaining of the increased duty on spirit licenses.

TITHE EXACTIONS.

Captain PE CHE L L rose to present a petition from S. G.
Pechell, a Captain in the Royal Navy, and a proprietor of
land in Hampshire, complaining of the oppressive conduct of
the Rev. Mr. Kemp, the Vicar of his parish, in putting him to
great expense, by instituting a suit for tithes in the Court of
Exchequer. He intreated the indulgence of the House for a few
moments whilst he stated the facts of this case as brefly as he could.
In 1826 the Rev. Mr. Kemp entered into this Vicarage, and
found that a composition of 19/. Os. 9d. had been paid by the peti-
tioner—the real value of the tithe being about 71. Mr. Kemp
gave noticethat this composition should cease, and that he would
levy tithes. The petitioner feeling the value of keeping a good
understanding with the clergyman, agreed to continue to pay
the amount of the composition, though so much more than
the value of the tithe. Mr. Kemp demanded an increase of 201.
per cent., which was, of course, refused. The petitioner, still
desirous of keeping up a good feeling, agreed to refer the
matter to some arbitrator, to settle their differences. He did
not wish by his remarks to cast any reflection upon the clergy
as a body ; he hoped this case was singular, though he recollected
that a case of a somewhat similar nature had been presented a
few nights since. Mr. Kemp chose as arbitrator his own
solicitor, and introduced him to the petitioner to settle the dis-
pute, in consequence of which he derived a benefit from
the conversation, which was not intended for a professional
man. Mr. Kemp immediately gave notice that he would claim
the tithe of turnips generally. The petitioner required a
specific demand to be made of the claim. The clergyman re-
fused to do this, and the consequence was, that lie claimed for
31. 65., and succeeded in proving only a third of his claim. This
could be much better settled by an arbitrator, or before two ma-
gistrates; but Mr. Kemp chose to bring a suit into the Court
of Exchequer, and he would shortly state what had been the
consequence of that proceeding.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon.
Member then referred to the proceedings in this case in the
Court of Exchequer, and said that in his opinion the Lord Chief
Baron ( L vndhurst).had mistaken the case. That Noble Lord had
decided that the Rev. Mr. Kemp had a right to the tithes of
turnips before the hurdles are placed, unless the sheep were
allowed to graze over the whole field.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
Now this was contrary to the feelings and opinions, as
well as the practice, of the farmers of the County.
We would not further detain the House than by stating that
tie claim made by the clergyman was 31. 6s. ; a valuator said

PRICE 7D.

that 30s. was the utmost ; the costs of the clergyman were 238/.
but reduced on taxation to 2071. 18s. sd. The petitioner's
own bill amounted to 1101. los. ld., although the Coun-
sel for the petitioner, then the defendant, seeing the gross-
ness of the proceedings, actuaily acted gratuitously, and the
solicitor who acted for him was actuated by the same motives,
and made no other charge than for the costs out of pocket—
( Cheers and laughter.) The whole amount of costs incurred
in the recovery of this sum of 3/. 6s. actually amount to
318/. Bs. 11d. The Gallant Member then moved that the
petition be brought up.
Mr. E STCOURT felt obliged to say, that he could not
think that the case had been fairly stated. It was impos-
sible that the Reverend Gentleman would have ran the risk of
expending upwards of 200/., for the purpose of recovering the
trifling sum of 31. 65., if he could have gone before a Magis-
trate. The only object of the petition appeared to him to be,
to show the hardship of the proceeding in the Court of Exche-
quer, and to lay before the House the fact ofthe Lord Chief Baron
having taken a wrong view of the matter. If such was the ob-
ject of the petition, it was properly enough brought before
the House.—•( Hear, hear, hear.) If such were really the
intention, the House would take time to consider of the case
before coming to a decision. He for one was inclined to be-
lieve in the law of the Lord Chief Baron, in preference to
that of the Gallant Officer. He had no doubt but that the
clergyman had been driven to take the course he had done.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that it seemed to him
a very proper petition to bring before the House, in order
to chew the state of the law of the land as it at present
stood, and in order to induce the Legislature to alter it.
He must protest, however, against that House being in
any manner considered as a Court of appeal from any of
the Courts in Westminster Hall. Though he differed from the
opinions of the Noble Lord who decided the case,
still he was eminent for his learning and impartiality ;
and he had no doubt but the decree was made in strict
conformity with the law of the land.—(Hear.) In fact, the
Gallant Officer had stated that the decision was founded upon
other decisions of 150 years ago—it was to bet borne in mind,
that during that time there had been no alteration in the law,
and the Learned Baron was bound to take the law as he
found it.

Mr. HUME did not understand the petition to be brought
forward in the nature of an appeal at all, but for the purpose of
showing the absolute necessity for a change in the law,
which as it now stood obliged a party to incur an ex-
pense of near 4001. in the recovery of a paltry sum of
31. 6s. It was all, too, for the support of the Church.
—( Hear, hear, and cries of " No, no.") Would any
one say that tithes were to be appropriated to other than
Church purposes ? This suit was for the purpose of reco
vering tithes—therefore, for the support of the Church,
which, in consequence of these iniquitous suits, had become a
curse to the country. He trusted that the Ministry would not
allow an hour to pass which they could possibly avoid, before
bringing in an alteration in the law in that respect.
Sir ROBERT INGL IS said a few words which were to-
tally inaudible in the Gallery.
Mr. GILL ON considered the petition properly brought for-
ward for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to
the nature of these proceedings. The clergyman in this case
demanded the tithes of turnips, when he was perfectly sure
of getting his tithes of the sheep which were to be fed off
them, and of the corn to be grown on the land. According
to the report of the Hon. and Gallant Member lawyers were
about to loose their distinctive appellation. The rapacity which
usually attached t" them had in this case gone over to the clergy.
Lord S AND ON did not consider it fair for Hon. Members
to bring forward such gross charges, and stigmatize the con-
duct of parties who could have no opportunity of defending
themselves in that House. Upon the very face of this case,
it was clear that the other party would have something to say
upon the matter, for it was impossible to believe that, for the
recovery of 31. 6s. he would have willingly gone into an ex-
pense of upwards of 2001.
PLURALITY OF VOTING.

Mr. A. CHAPMAN presented a petition from Whitby
against beer and spirit shops. And one from the same place,
against the Repeal of Sturges Bourne's Act.
Mr. HUME said that Sturges Bourne's Act, instead of
taking away the rights of the people, would destroy the plu-
rality of voting, which was an unfair monopoly.
Colonel E VANS said Sturges Bourne's Act was so ob-
noxious, that wherever it was introduced, a perpetual feud had
been the consequence.
Mr. GOULBURN was surprised that the Hon. Member
for Middlesex should oppose plurality of voting, after support-
ing a similar clause in the Poor Law Hear. )
Mr. HUME assured the Hon. Member that he entered his
solemn protest against that clause, as inconsistent with the
whole Bill.

A message from the Lords announced that their Lordships
had agreed to several bills, for which see Lord's Report.

CORPORATION REFORM.

Lord STANLEY gave notice that upon the House going
into Committee on the Municipal Corporation Re-
form Bill, he should move an amendment to obviate
the frequency of elections of councilmen, and also some verbal
amendments which he did not think the Government would
oppose, as they were intended to render the working of the
Bill more effective.

Mr. C. BULLE R gave notice that he should move an
amendment, to the effect that all elections of common council-
men should be annual.---( Hear, hear.)
Mr. GROTE gave notice that he should move an amend-
ment that it should be competent for any municipal corporation
to direct the votes of the qualified rate-payers at all such elec-
tions to be taken by ballot.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. GOULBURN, on the part of the Right Hon.
Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, gave notice that he ( Sir
R. Peel) would move as an amendment, to the 6th clause of
the Corporation Reform Bill, that the payment of rates should
be as necessary for the qualification of electors under this Act
as under the Reform Act.

Sir R. INGLIS gave notice that he would move that the
new Bill should not come into operation in any burgess till it
had been accepted by an absolute majority of the same.—
(Great laughter on the Ministerial side of the House.)
AFFAIRS OF TANJORE.

Mr. SHELL renewed the notice he had formerly given
respecting the Commission appointed to inquire into the affairs
of the late Rajah of Tanjore, for Tuesday next.
Mr. FINN moved for certain Returns respecting the Courts
of Petty Sessions in Ireland, which was ordered.