The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-04 00:00:00

THIRD READINGS.

The following bills were read a third time :—The Leeds
and Selby Road Bill, on the motion of Sir J. Beckett ; the
Exeter Bridge and Ferry Bill, on the motion of Mr. Divett ;
the Amesbury Road Bill, on the motion of Mr. Bennett ;
Albrecht's Naturalization Bill, and Lowe's Naturalization
Bill, on the motion of Mr. Brotherton; the Sandback and
Congletou Road Bill, on the motion of Sir P. Egerton ; the
Great Torrington Canal Bill, and the Torquay Improvement
Bill, on the motion of Sir J. Y. Buller ; and the Dublin
Gas Light Bill, on the motion of Mr. Ruthven.
EDINBURGH WATER COMPANY BILL.

Mr. FERGUSSON presented a petition from Edinburgh
against this Bill.
Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND brought up the Report of
the Committee on the Ulleskelfe (York) Inclosure Bill.
Mr. POTTER gave notice that he should move that the
sum paid to the Commissioner's Clerk be reduced. The
Commissioner was paid three guineas a day, and the Clerk also
three guineas a day—this was too much, and he should move
that the Clerk's pay be reduced to one guinea per day.
After some discussion, the Hon. Member consented to
defer his motion until the third reading of the Bill.
LEEDS AND SELBY RAIL-ROAD.

Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND moved the third reading
of the Leeds and Selby Rail-road Bill. The Bill was rea,
a third time and passed.
MANCHESTER RAIL-WAY.

. _
On the motion of Mr. WILSON PATTEN, the Man-
chester, Bury, and Bolton Canal and Rail-way Bill was read
a third time and passed.

CORPORATION REFORM.

Colonel SEALE presented a petition from the borough of
Dartmouth, praying for Corporate Reform. He bad bad the
petition in his possession for the last five or six weeks, but had
no opportunity of presenting it. The petition had been got up
at the time other Right Hon. Gentlemen were in power. The
leading part of the Corporation of Dartmouth consisted of one
family of eight individuals, and they had property in their pos•
session to the amount of 25,000/. The income of the Corpo-
ration was 1,1001. per annum, and their outgoings 7001., leav-
ing a surplus of 400/., and they did not show how it had been
expended.
Captain PECHELL presented a petition from Brighton
in favour of the Sale of Bread Bill, and one from Worthing

to the same effect.
Mr. POTTER presented a petition from Wigan, signed by
the Mayor and others, against the Bill for abolishing- Impri-
sonment for Debt.

Sir WILLIAM FOLKES presented a petition, com-
plaining of agricultural diAtress, and praying for an alteration
in the currency, from the county of Norfolk.
TITHES.

Mr. CROMPTON presented a petition from a Mr. Harris,
one of his tenants, complaining of the conduct of a Mr. Fort,
(we understood) the Rector of Dangis, in the neighbourhood
of Thirsk. He felt that it was necessary, as he considered the
case to be one of much importance, to enter into it at consider-
able length. The petitioner stated that, in the year 1831, he
planted a field of his with cabbages. The tithes for a very
considerable part of them were taken away—a small part
only were left. He wished to clear the field, and took up the
cabbages, which he put into ten equal heaps. He sent notice
to Mr. Fort, and offered him either of the heaps, but Mr. Fort
did not at that time think it proper to take them away.
The petitioner wanted to put scme lambs into the field.
He took away his own nine heaps of the cabbages, and again
sent notice to Mr. Fort; as no attention was paid to it he let
in the lambs, and they very naturally eat up the cabbages.—
(Laughter.) Now, as the law stood the petitioner had no
remedy but an action at law, which in fact was none at all.
There were lawyers in the House, and they could inform them
how much more an action would cost, than all the value
of the heap of cabbages, which the petition stated con-
tained ten.—(Laughter.) He (Mr. C.) was not aware of
the price of cabbages, but Mr. Fort charged 7s. 6d. for the
ten which he was twice asked to remove. That demand
being refused, the petitioner was served with a citation. He
did not know what the citation meant, and he applied to him
(Mr. C.) He advised him at once to compromise the matter
—he submitted, and Mr. Fort's costs amounted to 91. 7s. 6d.
—the whole expenses amounted to 151. 16s. 6d., incurred for
the recovery of 75., which was considered and appeared to be
an overcharge. He complained of the whole body of tithe
owners, and though he was one himself he did most certainly
think it very wrong that they should be in possession of such
powers.
Mr. A. TREVOR said, that the clergyman against whom
the Petition was presented, had placed his case in his hands,
and he could not but think that he had been hardly dealt
with. The question was, whether that gentleman had ex-
ceeded the law; as to that he believed he should be borno
out when he stated, that they lived in times when it would
be easy to make statements against Clergymen of the Esta-
blished Church, and to have those statements believed. In
the present times, let a Clergyman do what he might, there:were
always persons to cast odium upon his character. Had Mr. Fort
transgressed the law ?—that was the question—which had be
done, he had laid claim to that to which he was entitled under
the law. What he had done was not so much for his own
benefit as those of his successors. From the statement in his
possession it appeared that every species of annoyance had
been offered by Mr. Harris to Mr. Fort. He had acted
towards Mr. Fort who was placed, he might almost say,
in the defencless position of a clergyman of the Estab-
lished Church, in the most unfair manner. Against such
a course he must enter his decided protest. He would
not trespass longer on the attention of the House, but
he would merely beg to ask the Honourable Member for
Thirsk, (Mr. Crompton,) and he hoped he would receive an
answer, why was it that a case, which took place in 1831,
was not brought before the House till 1835 ? Hon. Members
might find fault with the tithe system, and desire its abolition ;
but in common sense and common justice, they ought not to
cast odium upon clergymen who take legal means to obtain
their dues.
Captain PE C HEL L -condemned the conduct of the clergy-
men m many instances, and he agreed that the cases were all

of a-piece.
Mr. RICHARDS regretted the absence of his Majesty's
Ministers, which he considered disrespectful to the House.
He hoped that a commutation of tithes would take place,
based on fair and intelligible grounds, and which would put an
end to atrocities, for which the clergy were not responsible,
but which arose out of the state of the law.
Mr. STRICKLAND was of opinion that the evils com-
plained of could not be remedied, unless the cruel proceedings
of Ecclesiastical Courts were put an end to. Whole families
were involved in ruin, by being cited into the Ecclesiastical
Court for the most trivial debts.
Mr. NICHOL said these charges against the abuses of
the Ecclesiastical Courts came with a very bad grace from
Hon. Gentlemen on the other (the Ministerial) side of the

house.
Mr. O'DWYER said the delay in brining forward these
measures of Reform was owing to the changes brought about
by the Hon. Members opposite. The fact was not deiced that
the petitioner was cited for the trifling sum of 7s. 6d., sad was
put to the expense of 151. 17s. 4d. The -Hon. Member for
Durham (Mr. Trevor) said the Rev. Gentleman had acted
only in obedience to the law. True, he would have his
" pound of flesh," because it was law. There were two ways
left to the Rev. Gentleman, to obtain his dues—one cheap and
mild, the other harsh and expensive.—( Hear, hear.)
He denied that Members in that House were instigated
by factious motives, to asperse the Clergy.—(Hear, hear.)
As one of those who never hesitated to express their opinion
strongly if necessary on cases of hardship, he begged leave to