The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-25 00:00:00

THE SITN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 1835.

• watch would be found in the lih:atry of the House, and which
in his ( Mr. C. Ferguson's) estimation laid down the very best
possible principle on which a settlement could be based. •By
that award it was provided that every owner of land, and
every taxman or leaseholder, should have the power of bring-
ing the tithe owner before a Commission, which should be
possessed of authority to value the land both as against the
clerical- and lay impropriator. The only difference, indeed,
made between lay and clerical impropriators, was that the set-
tlement with respect to the former should be permanent; and
accompanied by a provision that the tithe-payer might redeem
the tithe, and which, in the case of Clerical tithes, it being
considered that they constituted the fund for the maintenance
of future Clergy, a rent charge on the land was substituted.
The result of the adoption of this plan was, that in the course
of three years, there was no such thing as tithe collected
in Scotland —( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet's
plan as it now stood, contained a vast deal well worthy the
consideration of the House, and he for one was quite prepared
to give it the attention its importance merited. He thought,
nevertheless, that the people of England expected a measure
far more' decisive than it appeared they were likely to obtain
from the Government. The English farmer was expected to
be able to say, "in a few years I shall have my land tithe
free ;" and he was sure any measure which tended to disap-
point that expectation would not meet with general approbation.
Mr. ROLFE did not rise to offer the resolution any oppo-
sition, but simply to state his conviction that a purely volun-
tary system of tithe commutation would be found absolutely
ineffectual. The Right Hon. Baronet had referred to a Par-
liamentary document as affording evidence favourable to his
plan ; but if he (Mr. Rolfe) was not much mistaken that very
document Went to prove that not one out of twenty of the cases
it referred to was a case of redemption by corn rent. They
were almost all cases in which the tithe payer got rid of the
burthen altogether. The plan of commutation by corn rent
hal been already tried in the parish of Stoke-upon-Trent,
and although there was scarcely a spot in England where the
principle was more likely to take effect, it had been found
not to have succeeded. The Bill which authorised the trial to
which he alluded proceeded upon the plan of voluntary com-
mutation, and contained three principles; first, commutation
in land ; secondly, commutation in money ; and, lastly, com-
mutation in corn rent. The result'of the experiment was that
most of .the commutations were in money, but a few in land,
and not a single one in corn rent.—( Hear.) In fact, the
great majority of English landlords would just as soon allow
their lands to.remain as they were at present, than redeem their
tithes by a corn rent. The question was one of extreme dif-
ficulty, and all that wag possible to arrive at was• an approxi-
mation to justice.—( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet
seemed to consider it merely as a question between tithe
payers andtithe receivers, but it was much more, it was a na-
tional question,-( Hear, hear.) The great mass of the people
were bent upon getting vid of tithes, and :the Bill that did not
approach to that would' 'not give satisfaction.—( Hear.) The
Right Hon. Baronet. told them that the 'consent of two-thirds
of the landowneas'would be requisite as the preliminary step to
the commutation. Now he would be glad to know how the
landowners were to be found out ? HoW were they to b'e
asaertained?

An Hos. MEMBER—A 3 in the case of Enclosure Acts.

Mr. ROLFE—The cases` were quite different, for in the
one the Legislature did not interfere until the consent of land-
owners was obtained, but in the other the House would be
obliged to legislate in the supposition that such consent could
be obtained. In conclusion; the Hon. and Learned Member
promised to give the measure his best attention, and his sup-
port whenever he thought it deserved it—( Hear.)
Sir R. INGLIS approved of the plan which his Right
Hon. Friend had submitted to the Committee on two grounds.
First, on the ground that the working of the Bill was to be
voluntary ; and secondly, that it was to be but a temporary
measure. If he differed from any part of the Right Hon.
Baronet's speech it was that in which he expressed an opinion
that concession ought to be made to those who were willing to
take tithes at less than the actual value. He had always looked
upon tithes as property, and considered that they should be
dealt with exactly like land. He sincerely rejoiced at the pros-
pect of settlement which the measure held out, and he was
glad to perceive by the tone of the House that, as far at least
as its principle was concerned, it was not likely to meet with
opposition—( Hear.)
Sir M. W. RIDLEY doubted much whether anything
short of compulsory commutation would be found really be-
neficial. He hailed it as the beginning of a most beneficial
system. He was rejoiced to find that the present measure had
been received on all sides in a tone so favourable.
Mr. C A YLE Y asked, were the two-thirds in number men-
tioned by the Right Hon. Baronet as necessary for fixing the
amount of commutation, to be two-thirds in number of tithe-
payers, or two-thirds in the value of land ?
Sir R. PEEL was understood to say land.
After a few words from an HoN. MEMBER, whose name we
could not hear, arid whoie voice was altogether inaudible,
Lord J. RULS ELL was not disposed to object to the
measure now before them, in consequence of the quarter from
whence it came, nor to quarrel with the remarks that accom-
panied it. He did not, however, think that it was likely to
prove effectual in its operation. When it was taken into con-
sideration the difficulties that attached to both parties en-
gaged in tithe disputes—the farmer complaining that he was
unjustly taxed by the titheowner and the titheowner thinking
himself in another manner equally unjustly treated by the
farmer—it would not remain a matter of much wonder that
such disputes were not the most easy of settlement. There
was no doubt when the titheowner was indulgent that a com-
mutation was easily arranged, and tha.succession of another
incumbent might then tend to improve the condition of the
tithepayer. Looking at the whole of the question he could
not think that the plan proposed by the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet was likely to produce the desired effect, and that there
was no means of doing so but by the adoption of a compulsory
measure.

Mr. A. BARING perfectly agreed with what had been said
with regard to the difficulty of a commutation, and he was the
more convinced of it from the two tithe Bills previously intro-
duced to that House, and which had been drawn up with the
greatest care, and with the assistance of the Noble Lord who
had just spoken, and also from other schemes proposed to him,
all of which went to show the almost invincible difficulty at-
ten•ling all attempts at a compulsory arrangement. The pre-
sent voluntary plan, he conceived, had this advantage—that it
could not create dissatisfaction.—( Hear, hear.) When Hon.
Gentlemen saw it work and do well, as he had no doubt they
would, its advantages over the compulsory system would be
daily apparent. He knew in his own neighbourhood of no less
than six parishes where ineffectual efforts had been made to
compound for the tithe, but which they had not been able ami-
cably to do, though under the new measure he did not doubt
of its being done successfully.
Mr. BLANI IR E had heard with great satisfaction the terms
in which the Right Hon. Baronet had introduced the present
measure. He had always thought and always said that a mea-
sure similar to the present was wanted, in which the tithe-
payers could make bargains with the titheowners, and come to
Parliament without an enormous expense, and have their bar-
gains confirmed. As the Member who had introduced last
Session the measure called the Tithe Stay of Suits Bill, he
hoped and expected that the Right Hon. Baronet would pro-
vide so that the various law suits under Lord Eldon's Bill
might be settled before the tribunal of that House at a less
expense. He trusted that the measure would have the full
and entire confidence of the country.
Mr. ESTCOURT said the Right Hon. Baronet had said
that if two-thirds of a parish agreed, they should have the
power to force an agreement from the rest. Now, what he
was desirous of learning was, that, supposing the reverse to be
the case, and that two-thirds did not agree, but the smaller
proportion did, or even an individual, or a single farmer agreed,
could they or he have the power of calling in the Assistant
Commissioner to arbitrate between them or him and the tithe-
owner ? .

Mr. PR YME objected to the principle of the Bill. The
commutation.was made on a corn rent, and the clergyman had
an inducement to encourage inclosures. He thought the
measure was at the present period of agricultural distress cal-
culated to produce great dissatisfaction. He did not quarrel
with the details of 'the measure, but for this. solitary reason,
that it was not on a compulsory principle.
Mr. GREEN was sure that if Hon. "Gentlemen looked to
the situation of parishes in this country they would feel com-
pelled to acknowledge ,that it was impossible to adopt the
compulsory system. He had himself been a party to two of
those enormously expensive proceedings under the present
systeM to endeavour to effect a commutation, at.d in one case
it had cost no less than 3,000!. The present measure, in re-
moving dissatisfaction alone, with regard to the great expense
attendant upon commutation, would be a great benefit.
Mr. E. J. STANLEY approved of the measure as far as it
did go, and should support it ; but if he entertained one senti-
ment upon the subject more strongly than another, it was the
necessity for a compulsory union of parishes. It was infinitely
better than the present system of local Acts, but he hoped that
it would lead ultimately to a compulsory measure.
Sir R. PRICE complained that the uncertainty of the law
for the last fifty years had almost invariably tended to induce
decisions in favour of the Clergyman and against the farmer.
—( Hear, hear:) He suggested that a declaratory law (so we
understood) should be passed, explaining the law as it now
stood.

An HON. MEMBER wished to ascertain if he had under-
stood rightly that one Commission was to be appointed by the
Archbishop of Canterbury, and two by the Crown. He was
fearful if tl:e present plan were adopted it would produce no-
thing but combination in the larger parishes. It appeared to
him that every man should be at liberty to commute his tithe
individually, and not bound by the act of other individuals un-
less in so far accorded with his own interest.

Mr. BARNARD inquired whether the tithe payers could
put their lands under the provision of the Bill, for a period of
more than twenty-one years, or whether the incumbent could
consent to it ?

Mr. HODGES said that the Bill would be received with
great satisfaction in many tuts of England, particularly in
those parts where tithes were very high ; in other parts, how-
ever, and they were many in number, where the tithes were
comparatively low, it would not meet with such a reception.
The Hon. Member asked, as we understood, a question as to
the effect the Bill of the Right Hon. Baronet would have upon
hop-growing parishes, and whether five per cent. might not be
fairly taken off this article in the composition ?
Mr. Div Err asked' a question of the Right Hon. Baro-
net, which was inaudible in the Gallery.

Mr. GROTE wished to know whether the tithes in city
parishes, would be put on the 'same footing as those in the
country, and whether cities were' included in the Right Hon.
Baronet's Bill ? The House should be aware that in many
parishes in the City of London, tithes were extremely oppres-
sive and unequal in their distribution.
Sir R PE EL—Considering that this is only the first stage
of the Bill which I propose to introduce to the notice of the
House, and also that there may be some objection to pledg,
iug myself as to the particulars of it, I think it much better
that I should not at present make any positive declarations on

the subject, but reserve them for a future stage of the pro-
ceedings on it. With respect to the last question, respecting
the tithe on houses, the difficulty is great to give it a distinct
answer. I have given it much consideration, but much more
is required before I am prepared to give any assurance', on
that.part of the Bill. I shall next take the question of the.
Hon. Member, who inquired. why I should not rather appoint
five Commissioners than three. My reason for selecting the
latter number, is the increased facility with which I have al-
ways observed business is transacted when the number of
those engaged in it is small, and the better manner in which
it is put out of hand. Of these three two are to be appointed
by the Crown, and the third by the Archbishop of Canter-
bury. The power of appointment given to the latter, is in
lieu of the power of assent., or dissent to composition at pre-
sent possessed by the Church. I was then asked by another
Hon. Member whether, if two thirds of the landowners in a
parish assented or dissented from a composition their decision
should be compulsory on . the remaining third, however indis-
posed to it? The Hon. Member said also that this might
give rise to intrigues, and cause much injustice. It was for
the express purpose of putting an end to intrigue, and avert-
ing the possibility of injustice, that I proposed to appoint a
superintending power—a Commission. In order that the
owner may not control the lessor or the occupier, I mean to
propose that no commutation shall. be final until it shall have
been examined into and sanctioned by the Commissioners in
London, as well as having received the consent of the incum--
bent, and two-thirds of the tithepayers. With respect to the
question of another • Hon.- Member, as to whether it would
not be proper to institute some standard wherewith to regulate
the prices of corn, I can only say that the fewer elements in
such a calculation the better._( Hear, hear.) Although of late
years it has been assumed that the price of wheat bears a dis-
tinct and uniform relation to the price of all other species of
corn, it has been found by experience that this relation is
so very wide as to afford no substantial ground for calcula-
tion. Therefore, I think that the combined average price of
wheat, oats, and barley, for a septennial or quinquennial pe-
riod, will be found more accurate, and quite sufficient for all
useful purposes. It is on this general principle that that
part of the Bill will he framed. The next question put to me
was, whether, if two-thirds of the tithe payers of a parish did
not concur in a composition, and that an individual or indivi-
duals saw it would be to their interest and advantage to enter
into it as for themselves, they would be at liberty to dq so, and
make a separate composition ? To this I should answer in the
rcgative. The Bill which I intend to introduce will not per-
mit individual composition. Nothing would be gained by the,
adoption of such a principle in the way of public advantage;
and great evil might be done. To instance only one, the odium
of collecting tithes from those not in composition would be in-
creased, when, as the probability would be, they contrasted
their own Cenditinri in the lapse of time with that of those who
had compounded, and compared the advantages enjoyed by the
latter over them. The last question which was put to me was,
whether the incumbent would have a power for extending the
composition over a space of 21 years ? To this I have only to
answer that, if the tithe owners, the tithe payers, and the Com-
missioners consent, the arrangement may be made perpetual.
With respect: to the question relating to hop parishes, I think
it is necessary that some special provision should be made for
them ; but of what nature that provision should be, I have not
yet determined. Ido not know of any more questions to be
answered ; and I think that, on the whole, it will be found
much better to postpone any others which may arise, until a
future stage of the Bill. I shall then hear them, and give
Hon. Members all the satisfaction in my power with much
pleasure.—( Hear.)

Sir R. PRICE said that the state of the law as regarded
the whole subject of tithes was so very complicated and so
very defective that the right of the clergy was absolutely un-
defined. He should, therefore, beg to suggest to the Right
Hon. Baronet that the subject ought to be taken into consi-
deration.

Sir R. PEEL said that the advantage of his Bill was that
it comparatively put an end to the necessity of litigation by
taking the best and cheapest mode of settling all disputed
questions—voluntary agreement of the parties interested. If
the Hon. Member chose to bring in a Bill to amend the law
as relating to the subject of tithes, he might do so ; but he
( Sir R. Peel) thought it no part of his duty in connection with
the measure before the House, to embrace that question at
present. The Bill offered the option of voluntary composi-
tion, and gave a Commissioner empowered to settle to a great
extent all cases in dispute, without any expense. If, after
that, there was a litigation, it would be the fault of the parties
themselves. But as to the policy or expediency of under-
takinf, to adjust every individual case arising out of the ques-
tion of tithes, it was not to be thought of then ; and even if it
were, he doubted much whether any legislation could settle
them ; for even if they were put an end to by one measure,
they would spring up under another.

Mr. DIVETT was understood to inquire whether the pay-
ment of the tithe rested on the owner or occupier of the land?
and on which should the levy for it be made? Also whether
'the Commissioners should have the power of abatement?
Sir R. PEEL said—The payment rests on the owner, but
the levy must be made on the occupier. Ido not propose to
invest any power of abatement in the hands of tbe Commis-
sioners. If I thought that making the composition compulsory
would have the effect of benefitting the country I should not
hesitate a moment in bringing in a Bill to that effect ; but, after
discussing the subject in all its possible bearings, I have come
to a contrary conclusion. A general plan to make composi-
tion compulsory could not .be brought to act without much
trouble and great ill-feeliiig on the ,part of all concerned.
The adoption of the principle of the Bill to be introduced
does not, however, preclude the subsequent adoption of the
compulsory principle, provided a necessity for it arises. I
wish, however, to try the effects of the voluntary principle of
composition first, to see the points in which it works well and
those in which it may be found defective, and then adopt, the
compulsory principle, if it be perceived that benefit will accrue
to the country from it. By taking this course the country
will steer clear of all the difficulties which beset the question,
and leave themselves at perfect liberty to deal with the exi-
gencies of the case as they may arise. What I most depre-
cate in the compulsory arrangement is the chance of failure.
Failure would throw the question back for years. The
especial advantage of a voluntary one is that it leaves
you, at worst, as it found you ; and that, even though
you may fail, you are exactly in the same position as you
were before. You can then take up the compulsory prin-
ciple, if you choose to carry it into action. I must say that
I am more sanguine with respect to the success of the vo-
luntary principle than many Hon. Members, and my rea-
sons for it are these : when a property tax was imposed it met
tithes as well as every other species of property, and conse-
quently they were included in the return made at the period.
By the return of 1810 it appeared that the value of the tithes
of England and Wales was 2,353,000/. Of this amount
1,532,000/. was under composition ; of the remainder upwards
of 400,000/. was taken in kind, about a fifth of the whole, or,
more strictly speaking, 18 per cent. of all the tithes in the
kingdom. I need not adduce further proof, except it be the
corroborative one that this amount of composition existed, even
though the expense of entering it was enormous. I cannot
help thinking that any argument on the failure of past attempts
at commutation is fairly answered, when it is considered that
each commutation was obtained at an expense for a private Bill
of about 2,000/. But let us take care of voluntary commuta-
tion. Here are two parishes, Lancaster and another (Coeborn
we believe). In 1824 a private Bill passed for the former, and
shortly after another for the latter. By that Bill a Commissioner
was appointed, the. vacancy, in case of death or any other
cause,' to be filled up by the Magistrate. A corn rent was
raised, and other arrangements in conformity with its provi-
sions, and to some extent. analogous with those of the Bill
about to he introduced, entered into. How does the case
stand? The measure, despite of the great expense attendant
on it, works well in both parishes ; and, in point of fact, the
only objection since raised against it is on the score of the
cost which had been incurred in procuring it. That objection
is obviated in the present Bill ; and I hope that, as the prin •
ciple has been found to work well notwithstanding, it will
continue to do so when the expense is abolished. The Bill
proposes to give the power of accepting land in lieu.of tithes,
but that I consider only the exception. I take the corn rent
as the general rule, and the land as the exception. This Ido
on the strength of the success of a similar mode in• Scotland,
and to prove that there is nothing so vicious in the corn rent
as might be supposed. The main question is one in which
no party interests arc involved—no partial predilections to be
indulged in.—(hear.) I shall give every suggestion, coming
from every quarter of the House, my best consideration, and
all that attention which is dui to it under the circumstances ;
but I mean to proceed on the principle of the corn rent, be-
cause I firmly believe that any departure from it would preju-
dice the utility of the measure.

Mr. DIVE-TT wished to know whether the. Bill would con-
fer a power of redemption ? •
Sir R.- PEEL said that the power of redemption and its
application was better reserved to the Legislature by the Bill,
until it should be seen how the principle, of the corn rent
worked.

Mr. PEASE said that the county of Durham did not on
the average produce more than fifteen bushels of wheat per
acre, therefore that the tithes were paid by cattle rather than
corn. He could not help saying that land which produced so
little corn, which paid its tithe out of cattle, which was in
pasture, and consequently becoming more and more impo-
verished every succeeding year, would not commute volun-
tarily. Fifteen bushels of wheat per acre, at 103. per bushel,
would be sufficient to pay the landlord his rent, the Clergyman
his tithes, and, moreover, enable the farmer to live ; but when
the price was reduced to ss. per bushel, and the Clergyman
got his 121. 103. per acre, there was nothing for the landlord
and nothing for the tenant. If cases of that kind were not
provided against; and he could assure the House that they
were frightfully great in number, such a state of distress would
ensue in the north of England as no power of language would
be able to describe. He knew whole estates so circumstanced
at this moment. Something should be done, and it should be
done at once. He (Mr. P.) did not think that measure cal
culated to confer the slightest advantage upon tillage lands,
though he was free to admit that it would benefit grazing lands.
Mr. ROLFE wished to know how was the tithe on fish, as
Well as on fishing, to be dealt with by the Bill ? In the ex-
treme west of England, as well as in some parts of the north
and east, these two tithes were levied distinctly. In the
former it was easy to estimate the amount, becauSe it con-
sisted only of the tenth of the gross quantity taken ; but in
the latter an attempt was made to enforce a tithe of the pro-
bable value of the fishing, which led to injustice and ill-will on
almost all occasions.

Messrs. RictiAinis and C. FEsonssoN made one or two
olr•ervations, the purport of which were not understood in the
Gallery.

Mr. GROTE wished to know if parochial surveys were
necessary to composition ; and, if so, whether the parish
would-have-to bear the expense?
Sir R. PEEL said the expense, if such surveys were
deemed necessary, was to be borne by the parish.

The resolutions were then put and carried, and the Chair•
man obtained leave to report progress and sit again.
The House then resumed.
RELIEF OF THE POOR IN IRELAND.

Sir R. MUSGRAVE rose, pursuant to notice, to move for

leave to bring in a Bill to authorize the relief of the poor in
certain cases in Ireland. He was aware that it might be/ob-
jected to him that there was a Commission sitting at present
in Ireland, for the purposes of inquiring into and reporting on
the subject of the Bill he should move for leave to bring in ;
but he would answer that objection by assuring the House
that it was not his intention to press it to a second reading,
until such time as the report of the Commissioners should be
in the hands of every Hon. Member in the House. He was,
however, quite satisfied that the report would be found to concur
mainly with the provisions of the Bill. IF when the report
should be made, his Majesty's Ministers thought fit to bring
forward any satisfactory measure on the subject, he should
even then willingly relinquish his Bill. To prove the abso-
lute and immediate necessity for such a measure as the one he
proposed to introduce, he should beg to mention one fact. It
was in evidence, on the authority of the medical gentlemen of
the counties of Clare and Limerick, that a full fourth of the
labouring population of these counties was carried off by dis-
ease, induced by want of the common necessaries of life. The
object of this Bill was to enable Irish parishes voluntarily to
extend relief to the poor, directly, or through the medium of
Mendicity Societies. He would propose that parishes should
be divided into sections, for the purposes of the Bill. He
would conclude by saying, that the question of relief to the
poor of Ireland was one of the greatest importance to the
people of England.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN supported the Bill.
Mr. GO ULB URN would not enter into any discussions of
the Bill before the evidence taken before the Poor Law Com-

mission had been laid before the House. Considering, how-
ever, that the Bill would not come under discussion before the
report was laid before the House, he should offer no objection
to the present motion. He could only add, that he would take
every measure in his power to expedite the printing of the re-
pok, so that it might be laid before the House with as little
dehiy as possibid.
Leave was then given to bring in a Bill.
THE CHATHAM ELECTION.

Mr. L. HODGES rose to move for a Select Committee to

inquire into the allegations 'contained in a petition which he
had preser.ted to the House in reference to the recent election
for the town of Chatham, and which he had ',brought forward
on the 19th inst. The petition, had been signed by upwards of
300 persons, and it deeply affected the characters of Officers
high in the employ of Government. He had intended to refer
the petition ;t4-..the consideration of the Intimidation Com-.
inittee,;but icaPpeared to him to be the general feeling of the
House that it would be preferable to appoint a Select Com-
mittee of Inquiry, aad he should accordingly move that a
Select Committee he
-appointed.

Sir R. KNATCIII3IJLL would beg leave to state to the
lionse what were the charges which existed in the present
case, and he doubted not that he should be able to convince

the House that there existed no necessity for the appointment
of a Committee. No public or private good whatever could
arise from the proposed inquiry ; but he would rest his ob-
jection on a distinct denial of the total charge brought forward
against the individuals in question. In reference to the peti-
tion which the Hon. Member had presented on a former oc-
casion, he had stated that certain rules had been established
in the dock-yards, by which certain persons had the monopoly
of supplying slops to,the seamen and marines who might be at
those stations, and that on the occasion to which he alluded a
special order had been issued restricting the admission into
the yard to three individuals who had been in the interest of
Admiral Beresford at the preceding election, while admission
had been refused to those slopsellers who hail voted for Cap-
tain Byng. The lion. Member had further gone into a state-
ment of a Conversation that had taken place between two of the
slopsellers and the Gallant Admiral. in which the latter had re-
ferred to the votes of the parties, and had connected the favour
to be granted with the votes they had given. Now he ( Sir E.
Knatchbull) held in his hand evidence on the part of the
officers to prove that the allegation was altogether without
foundation. It was perfectly true that the orders relative to
the admission of slopsellers into the dock-yard had been re-
lapsed in. avour of the three persons in question. But then
came the question, were or were not the three
inpersons in ques-
tion engaged, and how were they engaged the election?
Two of the persons were named Isaacs, and one of them Lu-
cas. Now it so happened that these two men named Isaacs
were not voters at all.—( Hear, hear.) This had been as-
serted in the petition of the Gallant Admiral, and it was
proved by a reference to the poll-books which he then held in
his hand. Then with respect to the case of Lucas, it was not
absolutely certain whether he bad a vote or not. It did cer-
tainly appear by the poll-book that there was a voter by the
name of Lucas, but that person was described not as a slop-
seller but as a gentleman, and whether therefore he were or
were not the Lucas alluded to was a matter of doubt. He
next came to the allegation that a Gallant Officer had
expressed himself strongly to the parties in question, that
if Admiral Beresford did not succeed the Government
custom would be taken from them. Now the Gallant
Officer had acknowledged that he had had a conversation
at that time with the parties in question, but that he was
now unable to remember what that conversation was.-:--( A
laugh.) It' was a general and discursive conversation, which
had taken place sometime before the election, and which
was not connected with. it.. There were one or two other cir-
cumstances which bore upon the decision of the caso. The
Gallant Officer stated in his opinion that he had given the
permission to the two men Isaacs, and to Lucas, without the
least reference to party feeling, and that they remained at
perfect liberty to be engaged on whichever side they might
please. If the House should think fit he should feel no ob-
jection to the appointment of the Committee, but he would
rely upon the character of the House that after the statement
he had made, it would not deem it necessary to employ the
public time upon an inquiry so unavailable to any practical
advantage.
Mr. HODGE S said that when so serious a charge was
made against an Officer of so high a grade, he would maintain
that it was the duty of the House to entertain it. It had been
said that two of the men in question were not voters, but they
had stated to the agent of the Gallant Admiral that if they had
had votes they would have given them to him.—( Hear, and a
laugh.) These men were upon this admitted whilst all others
had been excluded.. He would now allude to the employment
of the band in favour of the Government candidate, and he had
to add that the regimental colours of the Royal Marines had
been taken from the staff, and had been borne amongst the
flags of the Gallant Admiral. This he believed was not a
proper purpose to which to apply the colours of any regiment.
He had to add that the petition was signed by many persons
who had voted for the Gallant Admiral.
Mr. V. SMITH supported the motion.

Sir E. KNATCHBULL explah;cl:
Mr. HODGES then read a part of the petition, which
contained the allegation of partiality in the admission of the
parties in question into the dock-yard.
Mr. O'LOGHLEN maintained that the statement of the
Hon. Baronet opposite (Sir E. Knatchbull) did not contro-
vert the allegations of the petition.
Sir G. CLERK said that upon the arrival of several ships
of war to be paid off at Chatham, and when a large pay-
ment was to be made to the men, the Commanding Officer
had thOught necessary to regulate the mode in which the
slopsellers should be admitted to supply the men, and that
lie had made inquiries into the character of the slopsellers,
and that upon. the result of these inquiries he had thought fit
to admit three of them only. Now so far from these men
being supporters of Admiral Beresford at the election, two of
them had nn votes at all, and the third had been an active agent
in canvassing for Captain Byng.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. WARBURTON thought the statements of both the
parties ought to be considered by the House as exparte. He
wished to know if it was not a fact that when it was made known
to Colonel Tremonier that this petition was in preparation he
did not send round an orderly to the different shopkeepers, ac-
quainting them that the exclusive order he had issued had been
recalled? This order of exclusion did not appear to be neces •
sary for the purpose of any military discipline, but seemed
solely to have emanated from political feeling. This state-
ment, hOwevcr, he admitted was only exparte, as was that on
the other side, and therefore it was that he considered a Com-
mittee so necessary to inquire into the real facts.

Mr. FRESH FIELD had the honour of being acquainted
with Colonel Tremonier, and from his knowledge of the high
character and proper sense of his duty as an officer, as well as
in his capacity as an elector, that belonged to that officer, he
did not believe there wasthe slightest foundation for the charge
preferred against him in this petition, that he issued the order
in question from any political feeling whatever. Was not
Colonel Tremonier justified in saying to the electors of Chat-
ham" Return to the Government some of those favours which
it had conferred on the town?"—( Loud Opposition cheers.)
If he had the honour of being a military man he should feel
himself as will entitled
,to hold political opinions and to ex-
press thorn, independently of any controul of any Government,
as any other person in the community.
Mr. ORD was informed that the order of exclusion issued
by Colonel Tremonier on the occasion was an unprecedented
order at Chatham, and that it could be proved by the evidence
of respectable tradesmen that the order proceeded from poli-
tical feeling alone, and was dictated by electioneering interests.
The animus of the transaction was shown by the conversation
which Colonel Tremonier 'held with the returning officer.
Sir J. HANMER said that the order of exclusion was
Cleary issued only for a temporary purpose, and as soon as
that purpose was answered the order was rescinded, on the
14th of February. He would seriously ask the House if they
were to pay attention to words alleged to have been spoken by
Colonel Tremonier to somebody in the street during the heat
of a contested election?. Did it become the dignity of the
grave senate of the Commons of England—( Oh. oh)—to take
any deliberate proceeding upon words thus spoken, not with
any idea that they should ever be brought under the consi-
deration of that House ?—( Cheers from the Opposition.)
Sir R. FERGUSON rose as a military man to protest
against the doctrine laid down by the Hon. and Learned gen-
tleman opposite (Mr. Freshfield), that the Officers of the
navy, army, and marines had not as good a right to express
their political opinions as any other class of men. The Hon.
and Learned Gentleman had said that the Officers of marines
were bound. to vote for the Government candidate. Now, he
would tell that Hon. and Learned Gentleman that military
officers were as independent in their political opinions as he
was. He should wish to know if Colonel Tremonier had as
vet received anything from the present Government?—( Oh, oh. )
°But perhaps they had been too short a time in office to do aity
thing for him. If so, he was sure they would be too short a
time in office to do much for the future.—( Cheers from the
Opposition, and cries of Oh, oh, from the Ministerial side.)
Mr. FRESHFIELD, in explanation, said that the Gallant
Officer whCi had just spoken had altogether misunderstood
what he had said. What he did say was that officers of the
army were under no control to act in support of a Govern-