The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-19 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON. PRIDAY, JUNE 19, 1835

or why the see privileges should not be extended to them.
He hoped th Hon. Member would press his motion to a divi-
sion, an. •ti . • isfied that the majority of the House
would be •; at- i )
Mr. ( ' I N .begged to set the. Hon. and
Learned 'er; for' . y right. The officers.liad not
been dismissed for re to assist at the Roman Catholic
religious ceremonies, . or a direct breach of military duty.
Mr. RUTHVEN rose to deprecate a discussion upon mi-
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
mostof 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 effect.
Mr. RUTHVEN supported it.
DUTIES ON FOREIGN TIMBERS; UNITARIANS;
AND THE SCOTCH CHURCH.
Dr. BOWRING presented a petition from a large body of
his constituents with whom, however, he did not concur,
for the repeal of the differential duties on foreign timber.
Also another from the Unitarian Dissenters of Bath, corn-
plaining of certain clauses in the Dissenters' Marriage Bill,
particularly those that draw a distinction between the position
of the Dissenters and the members of the Established Church.
And also a petition from the town of Port Glasgow,
against the grant to the Scotch Church. As he might not
have an opportunity of saying anything during the discussion
of that question in the House, he would take the liberty of
saying that the majority of his constituents were opposed to
the grant. In the town of Kilmarnock, a public meeting was
held, and it was determined to have the whole of the electors
canvassed, and he had received a return from the Provost,
from which it appeared that the result proved that there was
a majority of 13 opposed to the grant. That was not a very
great majority certainly, but he was aware that a still greater
majority of the non-electors of the boroughs which he repre-
sented were of the same opinion. This had been ascertained
at several public meetings.
Mr. GIL LON presented a petition from a congregation of
his own constituents against the grant. Many statements
had gone abroad respecting the great preponderance of feeling
in Scotland in favour of the grant ; but he hesitated not to
say, that three-fourths of the population were against it.
TIMBER DUTIES.
Mr. BINGHAM presented a petition from the great body
of shipowners and others of Newcastle, praying that the House
would not allow any alteration to be made in the timber duties.
The petitioners expressed their conviction that any change
that should transfer the trade in timber from the
Colonies to the Baltic, would be in its consequences ruinous
to the shipping of this country. As there was a Committee
sitting upon this subject it would be unbecoming in him to an-
ticipate what the result of their enquiry would be. He would
merely express his confidence that the enquiry, if compre-
hensively carried on, would be satisfactory to the country.—
Petition referred to the Committee.
FACTORY BILL.
Mr. BR OTHERT ON rose to present a petition from an
individual of the name of James Turner, residing at Man-
chester, complaining of certain practices connected with
the Factory Bill, and which he was confident, when in-
formed of them, the House would be of opinion ought to
be dispensed with. It would be in the recollection of the
House that an Act had passed two years ago for regu-
lating the labour of children in factories. That Act required
that no children under eleven years of age should be employed
in factories, without producing a certificate of a surgeon to
prove that they were of a proper age. The surgeons, it ap-
peared, were empowered under the Act to charge sixpence
for each certificate they gave. A practice had obtained of
requi ing the children to produce certificates every time they
chamr,ed their employers. This he conceived to be a very
injurious practice, and, generally speaking, it was so con-
sidered—tor 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. 1 hus the chil-
dren of Manchester had been taxed to the amount of 5201. in
consequence of this charge. This he conceived was a
great evil, and ought to be done away with.—( Hear. hear.)
Mr. M. P H ILL IPS considered that the matter complained
of was a very greet hardship on the poor people. He had
never expected that the Bill would give satisfaction to the class
of people for whom the House vr, a- then 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. II 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 their 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
effect of making them more steaoy ; 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 4,000/.
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 reports, 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 JACKS ON 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
the 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 nols?, He would tell them of one where they
did, and he could mention names, if he chose.--( Cries of
" Name, name I") MrosMahony, 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 occa.Son on which the Hon. and Learned Member made
the 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 1 I am 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 I.2r(Order, order.)
Mr. RUTH YEN deprecated this discussion as wandering
towards disorder.—( Hear.)
Mr. CALLAGHAN took the opportunity of rescuing the
place from which the petitionfame, 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 PECHELL rose to present a petition from
Pechell, a Captain in the Royal Navy, and a proprietor of
land in Hampshire, comßlaining 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 well as he could.
In 1826 the Rev. Mr. Kerhp entered into this Vicarage, and
found that a composition of 191. 9d. had been paid by the peti-
tioner—the real value of the tithe being about 71. Mr. Kemp
gave noticethat this compositions should cease, and that he would
levy tithes. The petitioner feeling the value of keeping a good
understanding with the clergymen, 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 he claimed for
3/. 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 ( Lyndhurst) 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.
He would not further detain the House than by stating that
the claim made by the clergyman was 31. 6s. ; a valuator said
that 30s. was the utmost ; the costs of the clergyman were 2381.
but reduced on taxation to 2071. 18s. sd. The petitioner's
own bill amounted to 1101. 10s. id., although the Coun-
sel for the petitioner, then the defendant, seeing the gross-
ness of the proceedings, actually 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 31. 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 Gentlemen would have ran the risk of
expending upwards of 2001., for the purpose of recovering the
trttling sum of 3/. 65., if he could have gone befo,e a Magis-
trate. l'he 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 th.• fact of the Lord Chief Baron
having t.:ken a wrong view of the matter. If such was the ob
j .ct of the petition, it v.a, properly enough brought
Houic.—(l-lear, hear, hear. If such were re;,l'y
intention, tin- [louse would tal<e time to consider of 111. e,,
before coming to a decision. He for one was inelini LI to b,.-
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 ATTORN E Y- GENE RAL said that it seemed to him
a very proper petition to bring before the House, in order
to spew 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 ;
arid he had uo doubt but the decree was made in str:ot
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 be 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. 10s. 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 INGLIS 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 to them had in this case gone over to the clergy.
Lord SANDON 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 EVANS said Sturges Bourne's Act was so ob-
noxious, that wherever it was introduced, a perpetual feud had
been the consequence.
Mr. GO ULBURN was surprised that the Hon. Member
for Middlesex should oppose plurality of voting, after support-
ing a similar clause in the Poor Law Bill.—( 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 toll render the working of the
Bill more effective.
Mr. C. BULLER 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. GOULBURNE, 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. SHEIL 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.
IMPORTATION OF CORN.

Mr. P. THOMPSON, in answer to a question from an
Hon. Member, said that a ißill to prevent the illegal importa-
tion of corn from the islands of Man, Jersey, and Guernsey,
was now ready, and would be introduced into that House as
soon as possible.
Mr. GILL ON asked the Lord Advocate what legal autho-
rity the General Assembly of Scotland had to suspend on a
lawful working day the industrious pursuits of the labour-
ing classes ?—(Cries of " Hear, hear.) He asked this
question, therefore, in consequence of the General Assembly
having appointed July 3d as a fast-day in Scotland.
The LORD ADVOCATE supposed the authority of the
General Assembly arose out of its spiritual character, and that
it was considered to be altogether indisputable.
The Report of the Committee of Public Instruction was
brought up, which upon the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL
was ordered to be printed.
Seine conversation took place between Lord J. Russell and