The Sun.
London, England, 1835-09-03 00:00:00

The House then went into the consideration of clause M.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had pre-
pared a clause, by way of amendment to the clause before the
House, which he thought would meet all the difficulty that
suggested itself on a former debate on this subject, as to the
Church patronage of these Corporations being at the disposal
of any members of the Corporations who were not members of
the Church of England, which must inevitably be the case if
the clause continued as it was proposed last evening. He
would not assert that the amendment he should now propose
was positively unobjectionable, but he thought it was likely to
smooth away the difficulty which all admitted was found to
interpose in the adjustment of this part the Bill to the wishes
of all parties concerned. In order to accomplish this object,
he should propose that when Corporations were so possessed
of such Church patronage appendant to the borough, the in-
terest shuuld be sold in such Church property, and the pro-
ceeds vested in the Funds for the use of the borough. He
then proposed, that in every case where any body corporate, or
governing body of ,a corporate character, should be possessed
of ecclesiastical patronage in a town or corporation, provided
that it was not in the nature of a charitable trust, according to
the terms of this Act, such patronage, whether it be an ad-
vowson or presentation, whether in gross or appendant, every
such presentation, advowson, grant, or nomination shall be sold
as soon after the passing of this Act as possible, and the pro-
ceeds of the sale invested in Government securities, in the
name of the Treasurer of the Corporation, for the use of the
Corporation, and carried to the credit of the funds of such
Corporation. In order to meet the objections that might be
started by the zealous friends of the Establishment, he should
have no objection to place the management of this sale under
the controul of the Board of Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
He did not anticipate that there would be any serious objection
taken to the proposition.
After a few observations from Mr. FRESHFIELD and Mr.

WYNN,

Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that when a great object was
to be gained, as in the present instance, he was disposed to
overlook the minor difficulties. _ The proposition, he thought,
would remove the difficulties which lay in the way, and would
smooth the passing of this Bill into a law. Whilst he ex-
pressed his intention to waive all other objections that might
be made to the amendment, for the reason stated, he must say,
that the amendment had the concurrence of many of his politi-
cal friends, who, in common with himself, were of opinion
that the transfer of this Church patronage would have a bene-
ficial effect upon the true interests of the Established Church.
It must be obviously advantageous to the dissemination of re-
ligious instruction, that the appointment of clergymen to these
benefices should not be made a matter of canvass or solicita-
tion ; which, in-such cases, as a choice must take place, was as
inevitable as in' the case of an election for a Member of Par-
liament, or other civil officer. He felt it necessary, at the
same time, to observe, that he altogether exonerated those
who had shaped the clause now about to be amended, from
any intentional jealousy of persons of other religious persua-
sion, or any desire to invade, upon the ground of religious dis-
tinctions, the equality of civil rights amongst the voters in these
Corporate bodies. Whilst he was upon this subject, he would
fain allude, in answer to charges made against certain Hon.
Members, of a too eager desire in these cases to guard the in-
terests of the Established Church, that in 1833, an Act of
Parliament had been passed by this House, under the sanc-
tion of most of the present Administration, for creating a
Commission to inquire into the state of the Irish Church,
which contained a proviso that the Commissioners should take
a positive oath in these words—" I solemnly declare I am a
Member of the Church of England, as established in Ireland,
so help me God." After what had been said as to a desire
having been displayed by his friends in respect to these be-
roughs to build up a wall of intolerance, he had felt it his
duty to call the attention of the House to an Act of their own
on record, which showed that former Parliaments were not in-
different to considerations of this nature. He would not pre-
sume, however, to say, that the duties in both these cases were
anomalous.

Mr. Sergeant WYLDE argued against the clause as it
stood. He considered it was a clause which could not possibly
be reduced to practice. The greatest enemy to the Church
could not have devised a clause more objectionable, or more
injurious to its true interests. For these reasons, he should
support the amendment of the Noble Lords; but, whilst he
agreed it was expedient that this patronage should be sold, he
hoped the clause enforcing the sale would enact that the pro.
ceeds should, in the first instance, be applied to the payment of
the debts of the Corporation pro rata.
Sir NV. FOLLETT perfectly concurred in the expediency
of adopting the amendment of the Right Hon. the Chancellor
of the Exchequer under the circumstances in which the Le-
gislature was now placed with reference to this Bill. He
thought it was the best mode of avoiding all the difficulty felt
to exist to the passing of this Bill, whether in the conscien-
tious feelings of individuals, or in the views taken of the Bill
in another place. This clause, as it was framed, applied in
strictness to ecclesiastical patronage. Now, in his opinion,
some:disposition other than that which now existed was ne-
cessary with respect to that patronage in these Corporations
which, though not strictly ecclesiastical, savoured strongly of
it. He meant lectureships in chapels, the gift of Corpora-
tions, which were in value often only 50/. a year, but which
the liberality of the inhabitants voluntarily made up generally
to about 300/. a-year. To avoid all the inconvenience and
odium of exposing these appointments to a canvass, he should
suggest that those in future be in the gift of the Bishop of the
diocese.

After a few words from the ATTORNEY-GENERAL,
in reply to Mr. H. HUGITES and Sir F. TRENCII,
Mr. LENNA RD hoped that the Representatives of the
people would not consent to give the presentation to the Bi-
shops, but would secure that privilege to the population of the
place.

Lord J. RUSSELL made some reply in answer to the ob-
servations of the Right Hon. Gentleman, but his observations
were not heard in the gallery.
After a few words from Dr. NICHOLL, Mr. EWART, and
Mr. ROEBITCK,

LUS HINGTON approved of the amendment pro-
posed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and contended that
some delay should take place before advowsons were put up for
sale. He recommended that the period of the sale should be
fixed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He saw no ob-
jection to vest the patronage in the Crown. Indeed, he
thought it would.be more securely vested there than in any
other quarter. _ _ _

Colonel SIBTHORP and Mr. BORTHWICK supported the
amendment.

The question was then put and agreed to.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved as a
proviso that all vacancies occurring between the period of sale
fixed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the completion
of the sale, shall be filled up by the Bishop of the diocese.
Mr. WILKS would not oppose the proviso, but at the same
time he objected to add in this way to the extensive patronage
of the Bishops.
After a few words from Lord J. RUSSELL the clause was
agreed to.

TtIE. SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1835.

been frequently introduced into the discussions of this House,
though some Noble Lords, it appears, have refrained from in-
troducing it until it served their own purposes so to do. The
remarks of the Noble Lord who has just sat down, I cannot
suffer to pass without notice. The Noble Lord, with a great
deal of that sarcasm in which he is known to have been so pe-
culiarly fortunate—( A laugh)—has stated that I owe a tribute
of gratitude to Mr. O'Connell for the support which he has
afforded to us, and which the Noble Lord is pleased to say
protects us against the indignation of the people of England.
—(Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches, followed by
cheers from the Opposition benches.) What, my Lords, is it
to be said—am I to understand by those cheers that it is said
—that I—that our Government—stands only upon the support
of Mr. O'Connell ?—(Cheers from the Opposition benches.)
Is it really so, my Lords? Are, then, the Representatives of
the English people nothing ?—( Cheers from the Ministerial
benches.) Is their support nothing?—( Cheers from the Mi.
nisterial benches.) Are the general votes and spirit of the
people nothing ?—(Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) Is
the apprehension manifested by a great and decided majority
of your Lordships—are the measures which out of doors it
is proposed to take for our removal—nothing ?—( Loud
cheering.) Do you throw these entirely out of your con-
sideration ? If not, is the Noble Lord justified in declaring
that we stand only upon the support of that single indivi-
dual ? Is the Noble Lord warranted in stating that we owe
our seats entirely to the dictation of that Gentleman ?
, ( Hear.) Is he justified in attributing to that individual
measures introduced by us, and in affirming that we intend to
hand over the Government entirely to his guidance and domi-
nation? I ask Noble Lords whether anything in the course
of the Noble Earl's speech, whether any of his objections to
the provisions of the Bill, at all bore out the great pomp and
high-sounding pretensions of the exordium with which he
commenced his address ?—( Cheers.) My Lords, I deny the
allegations of the Noble Earl. I deny any co-operation with
Mr. O'Connell. I deny any intention to extend the power,
the weight, the, influence of that Gentleman, either in Ireland
or this country. But, my Lords, when we speak of Eng-
land, of power, of influence, do we forget what form of Go-
vernment we live under ?—( Cheers. ) Do we forget that we
live in a nation governed by popular assemblies—that we live
under a form of Government which has been rendered still
more popular by recent measures—by measures which were
called for by the•feverish excitement prevailing—not mea-
sures which, being brought forward, produced that excite-
ment?—( Cheers.) I say, then, that in the state of things
we live under it is impossible that persons of the in-
fluence and weight which Mr. O'Connell possesses—that
the party of which he stands the head in the House of
Commons—should be regarded with indifference either by
the Governments they. support or the Governments they
oppose.—( Cheers.) I have never been desirous to say any-
thing in the slightest degree disrespectful to the Govern-
-1 meat we have succeeded : but, my Loids, I must beg leave to
remind the Noble Earl that that Government, no matter whe-
ther he intended to support or oppose it, was by no means
averse to the acquisition of support from all parties. I
must say that, on their part, I never observed any such indif-
ference to popular support—any such unwillingness to court
popular favour—any such unwillingness to ask for it, and to
seek for it, as to mark such conduct on our part with so
much singularity.—( Cheers.) I say that the whole object
of that Government was to try to manage and cajole
the people—(Cheers)—I say that the whole of their mea-
sures were a series of claptraps—( Cheers)—an attempt to
win and to gain the people.—(Cheers.) It is, therefore, not
fair on the part of those, who, undoubtedly, pursued that po-
licy to make such a charge against those who do not pursue
it. We deny pursuing that policy. We pursue that policy
which we have independently chalked out for ourselves--a
series of open and manly measures, which ought not to sub-
ject us to the imputations which have been cast upon us—im-
putations which we do not deserve, and which I for one en-
tirely disallow. I repeat that the Noble Lord has not stated
one single fact which bears him out in the assertions he has
made." The Noble Viscount, having briefly contended that
the provisions for entrusting the registration to other Barris-
ters, instead of the Assistant Barristers, and for fixing the
qualification, were requisite, and improvements upon the pre-
sent system, proceeded as follows :—" I doubt whether your
Lordships, in the course which you are now adopting, act
wisely, even according to your own views. I doubt whether
this plan of paring down and cutting out the most material
parts of the Bills which are sent up from the Commons will
be successful. The pretence is always the same. My Lords,
you speak in this House as if that party to which allusion has
been -made was the only ultra party in the kingdom. That
we are led by that party I deny ; that we are guided by them
I deny. But Ido know those who are led, guided, and go-
verned by these ultras.—( Cheers.) I know those who are
subject to their domination and guidance, and who in my opi-
nion adopt the measures they do because they are led by their
ultra party—because those measures are forced upon them by
men who are more blind, more violent, and more unreflecting
than themselves.—( Cheers.) I repeat that the observations
of the Noble Lord do not apply to us who sit on this side of
the House, but, in my opinion, there is a party—it is true we
may be mistaken in judging by what appears on the surface
—but, if we judge by what we observe, there is a party led by
men more violent than themselves, and which, if left to them-
selves, would not approve of, and would not adopt a course
of proceeding so extreme and so unwise. From the conduct
which your Lordships have lately pursued—from the manner
in which you have used the power you are invested with—from
the violent manner in which you have rejected Bills which
everybody admits to be for the benefit and advantage of the
country—Bills which I expect, and which I shall not be sur-
prised to see, proposed from this side of the House by those
who are now sitting on the other side—for, my Lords, with
regard to the opinions of the ultra party, there is always the
consideration, that though so violently expressed they are not
so irrevocably fixed.—( A laugh.) I say, my Lords, from
the recent proceedings of your Lordships, and the manner in
which this party has exercised its power, that it would be far
more unfortunate if greater, if Ministerial, influence were de-
posited in their hands, than it would be if in the hands of any
party whose support I am accused of having."—( Cheers. )
The Duke of WELLINGTON—My Lords, I feel called
upon to say a few words in consequence of the allusion made
to the late Government by the Noble Viscount opposite. My
Lords, since I have had the honour to sit in this House invari-
ably have I avoided anything approaching to personality, and
more especially any personal allusion to individuals not present
in this House. My Lords, it has never happened to me—at
least Ido not recollect that it ever has—to mention by name the
particular individual to whom reference has been made by the
Noble Viscount. Of that person I entertain my opinion, as
well as other Noble Lords. But at the same time it is not
my habit to allude in personal terms to that individual, or any
other person, when they are not present to defend themselves.
(Cheers.) The Noble Viscount has, however, been pleased
in plain and unequivocal terms, to compare the violence of that
particular party and individual on whose proceedings my Noble
Friend" (the Earl of Wicklow) thought proper to animadvert
with the violence of another party on which the Noble Lord, I
conclude, means to insinuate that other Governments have de-
pended for support.—( Cheers.) All that I can say upon that
subject is this—l never depended for support upon any party,
but that of his Majesty's loyal and peaceful subjects.—(Much
cheering.) I never depended for support upon any party or upon
any individual who had been convicted of misdemeanours.—
(Renewed cheers.) I never depended for support upon any
individual who, after being convicted of misdemeanours, re-
ceived a high promotion from the Minister of the Crown.—
( Cheers.) On the subject of this Bill I must say that it is
proposed to repeal that which at the time of its enactment in
1832 was generally considered to be a fixed and solemn compact.
—(Cheers.) It was thought to be fixed in reference to the
particular arrangement then made concerning those individuals
of whom the Gentleman already alluded to was supposed to be
the head.—( Cheers.) The measures subsequently adopted,
in 1832—measures which I should not have referred to had I
not been called upon to do so by the Noble Viscount—placed in
the hands of that individual a political power such as was never
before possessed—nay, such as was never heard or thought of
as being possessed—by any individual, during all the different
Ministerial changes which have occurred from the Revolution in
1688, down to the present period. It is notorious that that
individual has avowed in another place the possession of power
such as was never before known to exist.--(Cheers.) Now,
I ask, my Lords, what is the object of this Bill ? What, I
ask, will be the inevitable consequences of this Bill which the
Noble Lord introduces, and attacks us for opposing ? The cer-
tain effect of this measure must it not be to increase still
further that political power which was centered in one indivi-
dual by the Reform Bill, that political power which he con-
tinues to hold and exercise with undiminished force and
energy ?—( Cheers.) This is the measure which the Noble
Viscount comes down to boast of. This is the measure for
opposing which the Noble Lord accuses us of having caught
at popularity as the basis of our Government.—( Cheers.)
The Noble Viscount affirms that when we were in office we
eagerly sought after popular fame. True it certainly is that
we proposed several measures which we thought would be sa-
tisfactory to the country, and would not involve, or tend to in-
volve, the injury or destruction of its best interests. Some of
them undoubtedly were measures growing out of others which
had been previously adopted ; but they were not measures
against which we had irrevocably fixed ourselves. They were
measures, as my Right Hon. Friend stated in the other House
when he proposed them, to which he had never offered any op-
position, and which he had expressed during the preceding
sessions of Parliament his willingness to support.—( Loud
cheers.) There was not one of those measures to which I
was aware that any Noble Lord on this side of the House was
opposed.—( Cheers.) They were measures satisfactory to the
country as far as they went—( Cheers)—and measures not such
we never professed to take into consideration.—(Cheers.)
But, my Lords, that was courting popularity, according to the
Noble Viscount.—( Cheers.) Such was the charge that came
from the Noble Viscount, that Noble Lord having himself
neglected to bring forward any one of those measures—
( Cheers)—and having, in the very outset of his Government
introduced other measures which tended to increase still fur-
ther in Ireland the influence of that individual first established
by the Noble Lord, and pregnant with danger to the welfare
of the kingdom.—(Cheers.) My Lords, I had no intention
of interfering in this debate, and I have said no more than I
thought necessary as an answer to the attack which the Noble
Lord thought proper to make upon me, although, on my part,
entirely unprovoked.—( Cheers. )
The Marquis of CL ANRICA RD E said that Noble Lords,
in declaring that this ,Bill would be injurious to the country,
were not, perhaps, aware of the state of Ireland and its very
defective registration. It was stated that the provisions of the
Bill broke the compact fixed in 1829 ; but, in his opinion, their
only effect was to explain and elucidate the points referred to.
Much unnecessary allusion, he considered, had been made to
Mr. O'Connell. He thought that any man who possessed the
ability, power, and energy, to convey the sentiments of a people,
ought and must possess great influence ; but when it was said
that the Ministers were giving power tO Mr. O'Connell, he

(the Marquis of Clanricarde) would say thaat ho believed those
Noble Lords who sat on the other side of the House had been
mainly instrumental in giving that Learned person his present
power. If Mr. O'Connell's sentiments had not been in unison
with the wishes of his fellow-countrymen, neither he nor his
followers in the other House could have been elected as the
representatives of the people of Ireland. If their Lordships
rejected this measure they would be adopting a course which
would be extremely prejudicial to that country.
Lord FITZGERALD and VESCI said that this Bill, if
passed, would be calculated to affect property by limiting the
franchise at present enjoyed ; it would, in fact, repeal the pro.
visions of that Act which was made an accompaniment to the
Catholic Relief Bill, without being actually embodied in it.
By the present Bill it was proposed to assimilate the law of
Ireland on this subject to the law of England. Ile con-
tended that there could be no resemblance between the fran-
chises. He denied that any inconvenience resulted from the
present system of registration. By another enactment of the
Bill it was proposed to multiply the number of polling places.
This would be a most improper and injudicious alteration, in-
asmuch as it would interfere with the freedom of election.
—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") During the course of the de-
bate it had been stated that Noble Lords on his ( Lord Fitz-
gerald and Vesci's) side of the House had thrown out or post-
poned many important measures from party motives. The
Noble Lord then referred to the case of the Dublin Police
Bill arid to the Constabulary Force ( Ireland) Bill. Those
Bills had not been opposed from party motives or for party pur-
poses, and in the case of the latter Bill, as was stated last
night, that Bill had been on the office table of a Noble Lord
for more than a year previous to its being introduced.---( Hear,
hear.) The Noble Viscount when he saw the Noble Duke
(Wellington) opposed to him, ought at least to have refrained
from attributing any improper motives to that opposition. When
a Right Hon. Baronet was charged with having introduced no
popular measures during his Administration but as a clap-trap
for popularity, he (Lor Fitzgerald and Vesci) thought that
the Noble Lord ought to allow the Right Hon. Baronet that
degree of credit which he claimed for himself. The Noble
Viscount ought to recollect that the majority which placed him
in the situation he now filled was not a majority of the
Representatives of the people of England.—(Hear, hear.)
He (Lord Fitzgerald and Vesci) was the last man to attempt
to analyse the composition of Parliamentary majorities; he
knew nothing more dangerous, if not unconstitutional; but
he believed that in the division on Lord John Russell's reso-
lution, a majority of the representatives of England were in
the minority. He hoped that the Noble. Viscount would leave
office with as much honour and consistency as the Bight Hon.
Baronet, whose Administration was called a clap-trap ; and it
would be well for the Noble Lord if, in the page of history,
his character as a statesman and Minister could bear com-
parison with that of the Right Hon. Baronet, whose opinions
and whose Government had that night been arraigned.—
Loud cheers.)
Lord \YHA RNCL IFFE thought that if ever there was
a measure which was deserving the name of a clap-trap it was
the question of the appropriation of the surplus of the Irish
Church.

The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority

The Bill i 3 of course lost.

•• . •• • ............... •• • ---5-I

Lord DENMAN presented a petition signed by one
hundred and fifty persons confined in the Fleet Prison for
debt. They expressed their regret that the Bill for abolish-
ing imprisonment for debt had not passed into a law, and
prayed that a short Bill might be passed this session to abo-
lish personal restraint for debt as regarded debtors willing to
give up their property to satisfy creditors.—Ordered to lie on
the table.

A message was brought from the House of Commons, in-
forming their Lordships that the Commons had passed the
Shannon Navigation Improvement Bill. The Bill was read a
first time and ordered to be printed.
Adjourned at Ten Minutes past Eight.

HOUSE OF LORDS-TUESDAY.

APPEALS.

(Before Lords BROUGHAM, DENMAN, the Earl of DEVON, and
others.)

SIR W. F. ELLIOTT AND OTHERS V. CLEGHORN AND OTHERS.

This was an appeal from the Court of Session, which had
been partly argued last year. It involved a cross appeal, in
which the appellants and respondents changed places. One
Counsel only at each side was appointed to argue the case at
present. Dr. Lushington appeared for the appellants, and
the Attorney-General for the respondents.
Dr. LUSIIINGTON said that when last this case was before
the House, Lord Jeffrey appeared as Counsel for the appel-
lant. It involved many points of great difficulty with respect
to the law of Scotland, and he most unfeignedly wished (as
far as he was concerned) that Lord Jeffrey had now been re-
tained at their Lordships' bar to argue it.
Lord BROUGHANI-That is very selfish of you, Doctor.
Dr. Lt:SIIINGTON-1, admit it, my Lord; but this case is so
fraught with difficulty, and contains so many intricate points
connected with the law of Scotland, that I feel myself placed
in no enviable situation. However, I shill present it to your
Lordships in the best manner I can. The Learned Counsel
then proceeded to detail the facts of the case.

After the case had been argued at considerable length, and
brought to a conclusion by the reply of Dr. Lushington, their
Lordships postponed judgment, to take time for considera-
tion, Lord Brougham observing that it was a case of very
considerable difficulty with respect to the question of liabilities
under the entail—Judgment postponed.

JAMES ACKERS V. SOPHIA PIIIPPS, AND S. PHIPPS V. GEORGE II

ACKERS.

Lord BROUGHAM read his judgment in these two cases from
the same paper, both arising out of claims under the will of
the late James Ackers, of Laik Hill, Salford, Lancashire.—
Judgment reversed in the first case, and postponed in the second.

WEDNESDAY.

HENRY ALLEN V. TRUSTEES OF R. GLASGOW.

Lord BROUGHAM read the judgment in this case, which his
Lordship stated had been very ably argued at their bar on the
previous day for the appellant by Sir Charles Wetherell, and
by the Lord Advocate for the respondents. The question at
issue arose out of an action of declaration under the following
circumstances :—Mr. Glasgow- possessed an estate in Mont-
greenan, in Ayrshire, where he built a large mansion, and laid
out considerable sums of money in its improvement. He exe-
cuted a trust deed on a series of heirs, wherein he expressed
an intention of enlarging his entailed estate by further pur-
chases, and in particular by employing monies due to him,
together with personal estate, in the purchase of lands in
Scotland, to be entailed in the same manner with the estate
of Montgreenan ; but the trust deed contained no power of
sale or authority to the trustees to sell any part of the heri-
table estate. After several comments upon the case, his Lord-
ship concluded by recommending the House to reverse the
judgment of the Court below.
Judgment reversed accordingly.