The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-16 00:00:00

JULY 16, 1850.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF COMMONS, July 15.
MER,CANHLE AtIRINE BILL.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)

(in clause 27 being prop.)3ed,
Mr. MOFFATT m )ved the orals:ion of the clause.
Shipowners gene rally agreed that the Bill would neither
very much promote or injure their interests—that it
would leave matters pretty much the same
a 3 they were at present ; but they consilered
that fresh restrictions were placed upon them
by some of the clauses in regard to the clearing of
vessels and the hiring of crews, which ought not to re•
ceive the sanction of Parliament.

Mr. LABOUCHERE said the principle which he
proposed by the clause was that at every considerable
port in the kingdom a respectable person should be ap-
pointed by ti.e shipowners residing there, to superin-
tend the making of contracts between the sailer and his
employer, instead of having:, as heretofore, that duty
performed 6y agents licensed by the Board of
Trade. The system had a most demoralizing
tendency among the merchant seamen, and it was
wish the unanimous support of the shipping interest that
he proposed to remedy the evil by the insertion of this
clause in the Bill. The establishment of an office at each
purt for superintenrling the contracts of seame❑ was the
most important part of the Bill, and he trusted, there•
fore, it would receive the support of the House.
Mr. WAWN supported the amendment.
Mr. BROWN considered that these offices would save
shipowners a great deal of time and expense, and pro-
tect the sailors from the imposition of "crimps," and
such other persons.
Mr. ANDERSON could see no good in establishing
a public officer to interfere between the sailor and his
employer. It was an int-amedling that was most un-
justifiable. _ _ _

Mr. LABOUCHERE observed that the interference
was by no means new, while it would have the effect
of rescuing the sailor from the extortions of crimps.
Mr. FORSTER still insisted that the proposed inter-
ference was wholly uncalled for ; it was opposed by the
shipping interest at large and ought not to be per-
severed in.

Mr. A. STAFFORD should vote for the amendment.
The shipping interest of this country was too mwth ex-
posed to foreign competitions to admit of their standing
;-uch an interference as this.

Mr. RICARDO supported the clauses, believing that
they would protect the sailor from the operation of
crimps. There was no interference in the matter, ex-
cept where it was perfectly legitimate.
Lord J. MANNERS announced his intention to vote
for the amendment. There was nothing in the prevent
state of things to call for the proposed interference.
Mr. WAWN moved that the Chairman do report
progress.

Mr. CARDWELL hoped at this period of the session
the latter amendm-nt would not be persevered in.
Mr. WAWN objected to having a division forced upon
them in that way, and as the question under discus ion
had not been fully debated he snould press his motion.
Ultimately, however, the Hon. Member was induced
to withdraw it, and,
After a few words from Mr. ANDERSON,

The Committee divided on the original amendment,
when there a?pearei—

For the amendment ... ... ... 9
Against it ... ... ... ... 67
Majority ... ... ... —5B
The amendment was consequently lost.
The Chairman was then ordered to report progress,
and the House adjourned till Five o'clock.

The House resumed at Fire o'clock.
ROYAL COMMISSION.

The Usher of the Black Rod appeared at the table,
and summoned the House to the bar of the House of
Lords to hear the Royal assent given by commission to
several public and private Bills (for which tee Lords'
report). The Speaker, accompanied by many Jim.
Members, left the House accordingly; and on his return
he announced the Bills which had been assented to.
SUNDAY LABOUR AT THE POST-OFFICE.
Lord MARCUS HILL, the Treasurer of her Ma-
jest)'s Householi, appeared at the bar, and stated that
he had presented the address on the subject of
Sunday labour at the Post-offwe tr) her Majesty,
to which she bad been pleased to snake the follow-
ing most gracious reply
I have received your address praying that I will
cause an inquiry to be made, whether the amount of
Sunday labour in the Post-office might not be reduced
without completely putting an end to the collection and
delivery of letters, &c., on Sundays, and I have given di-
rections that such an inquiry shall be instituted."
PETITIONS.

Mr. HUME presented a petition from certain printers
and pressmen, residing in Norwich, against the penny
newspaper stamp; also, one petition from Paisley and
six from Glasgow against any restriction on the lac' eise
of beer-shops.
Mr. LOCKE presented a petition from Lancaster
against the recent regulations in the Post-office.
Mr. DISRAELI presented a petition from a place in
Buckinghamshire in favour of a more general assessment
of the poor-rates.
Mr. ELLIOT presented a petition from Hawick
against the Beer Bill.

—Several petitions were presented against the admission
of Jews into Parliament.

Mr. SADLEIR presented a petition from a place in
the county of Cork in favour of an annual division of
tithe rent-charges.
Mr. HUME presented two petitions from Edinburgh
in favour of the for the erection of a National
Gallery in Edinburgh.

when, having confiriried the by-law, and completed the
tippontment, the powiT of the ratepayars to object to
itieh apoointtrient, under the Act 11 and 12 Victoria,
chap. 112, hal expired?
2. Udon whit authority, written or verbal, the Me-
tropolitan Commissioners of Sewers changed the name
of the 'individual originally announced as Mr. Frank
Foster into Mr. Frank Forster'?

3. Whether the name appended to the' return (ses-
sional paper No. 481, of ses,ion 1850) as Francis For-
ster, engineer, is that of the person originally announced
as Mr. Frank Foster, and subsequently designated by
the Metropolitan Commissioners of Sowers as Mr. Frank
Fort:tor?

4. Whether the engineer to the Metropolitan Com-
missioners of Sewers is the same person as the Mr.
Francis Forster who valued the Comgrevo property at
the request of James Henry Shears, and whose deposi-
tions, n' a witness, appear at page 77 of the appeal case
of " Small v. Attwood," in the House of L.adt ?
Lord EBRINGTON etited that the name of the en-
gine r to the Metropolitan Commissioners of Sewers
was Forster, and not Foster; that he had been appointed
on the recommendation of Mr. Stevensoa and Sir H.
De la Bache, and that he was the same gentleman whose
depositions as a witness appeared in the appeal case of
" Small v. Attwood."
ATTORNEYS' CERTIFICATE BILL.

Lord R. GROSVENOR moved the second reading of
this Bill.
Mr. BASS seconded the motion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed
the motion, and moved that the Bid be read a second
time that day three month?. In all probability, every
llon. Gentleman then present had received a circular
letter, signed by every attorney and solicitor in her Ma-
jesty's dominions, in favour of repealing this tax, and if
they.were prepared to give their votes under that descrip-
tion of solicitation and pressure, then, of course, they
would consent to the second reading of the Bid; but he
for one would not believe that the House of Commons
was thus to be acted upon. If he were about to impose
the tax in question, doubtless, he should he bound to
show good reasons for doing so; but, on the other hand,
when it was proposed to repeal a tax which returned so
large a sum as 100,000/. to the public revenue, those
who supported its repeal should show in what the impost
was objectionable. This tax had existed for 50 years;
up to the present year it had been paid without mur-
muring, and no adequate reason had been given why it
should of all others be now selected for repeal. This
was only one of a considerable number of licences which
were issued for the purpose of raising revenue from
persons carrying on different professions. There were
not less than 35 classes of persons who were subjected
to a licensing duty, and unless the House was
prepared to say that it would put an end to the system
of raising revenue by means of licences, and was prepared
to sacrifice 1,200,0001. a year, which was the amount at
present raised by that means, he knew not upon what
grounds they could be called upon to repeal this parti-
cular tax. He did not intend any disrespect to the
learned profession in mentioning other cases who paid a
licensing duty, but there were bankers, auctioneers, and
others who were subjected to it, and if the House re-
pealed this individual tax, he asked were they prepared
to refuse to extend the same relief to them? No doubt
it was a very painful thing to say " no" to a personal
friend when he came forward and asked the repeal of a
duty—(A laugh)—but unfortunately, from the position
which he occupied, it was a duty which he had frequently
to perform, and a disagreeable duty it was.—(Another
laugh.) Let Honourable Gentlemen remember that they
were sent there to act not upon personal considerations,
and that it was no less theirs duty, as-well as his,
to say no " to a personal request of this kind,
unless upon public grounds a case could be
made out for the repeal of this duty. He
would put it to them was this the question of a
tax upon consumption? Was it a tax upon property?
Or was it the case of a body of men who were suffering
under any particular distress or pressure? The number
of persons who applied for admission into this profession
was yearly increasing; and he presumed that it was so
because upon the whole they made a sufficient livelihood
out of 1.. The present measure applied only to attorneys
in England; but there were parties in Scotland and Ire-
land, also, who were entitled to a similar remission. He
held in his hand a letter which he had received from a
notary, sylia said that he conceived himself to be as much
entitled to the remission of the duty he was called upon
to pay as an attorney. If this duty am e removed he
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not believe that
the public would derive the a ivantage of a general re-
duction of attorneys' charges, and he observed that the
attorneys themselves had proposed to increase the fee
paid to the Law Institution for certificates of registration
from Is. 61. to 103. If the House was prepared to give
up so much revenue he thought there were many other
taxes which were much more objectionable, and the re-
mission of which would b attended with greater advan-
tage to the country. Upon these grounds he proposed
his amendment.

Mr. MJLLINGS (amidst cries of " Divide") said
the Right lion. Gentleman had compared the annual
certificate of solicitors with the licences of bankers, auc-
tioneers, and other persons; but it should be remem-
bered that when a young man was articled to au attor-
ney he had to pay 1201. for the stamp, when admitted he
had another stamp duty to pay amounting to 251, and
sometimes a premium amounting to 500 guineas. The
case of an attorneywas not parallel, therefore, to the case
of a banker or an auctioneer.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. MUNTZ objected altogether to taxes upon trade,
and was therefore opposed to the duty on attorneys'
certificates. It was on that ground he should vote for
the Bill.

Mr. GOULBURN said' that the observations of the
Hon. Gentlemae (Mr. Monte) presented a sound reason
why the Howe should paus3 before they gave their as-
sent to the Bill. The Lion. Member was averse to any
tax upo❑ trade, and was therefora prepared to give up a
million of revenue. He (Mr. Goulburn) would resist
the repeal of this tax on the ground that there was no-
thing that more imperilled the sources of the public re-
venue of the country than that parties should thus
come forward to seek the, repeal of certain taxes,
which were small in amount certainly, but the repeal
of which involved a principle that rendered it impos-
sible to maintain an adtgeate revenue. For instance,
because the stamp duties on legal proceedings were re-
pealed, it was now asked to abolish the attorneys' certifi-
cate duty.
Mr. BRIGHT had formerly voted for the Bill, be-
cause he thought that by so doing he was aiding in the
relit f of a body wh-e were -oppressed by a heavy tax ;
but• he had found since that there was a great difference
of opinion among attorneys themselves on the matter,
though the greater number certainly were of opinion
that the tax ought to be taken off. He agreed with the
Hon. Member (Mr. Monte) that the taxes on trade
were of a very obnoxious character, ard that the attor-
neys' certificate duty stood upon the same ground ; hut
as all those taxes would be m ►de the subject of revision
next year, he should vote with Government on the pre-
sent occasion, on the ground that this tax should be in-
cluded in that general revision,
Colonel Slanioar- attributed the Hon. Member's
change of opinion to his looking for a place from the
Government.

After a few words from Lord R. GROSVENOR in
reply, _ _

The House divided, when there appeared,
Eor the second reading ... 139
For the amendment ... ... 122
Majority ... ... --17

The Bill was accordingly read a second time, and
ordered to be committed. -

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION BILL. .
The House went into Committee on this Bill, Mr.
BERNAL in the chair.
On the 15th clause,
Sir B. HALL inquired upon what data the salaries of
bishops and archbishops were fixed? lie found that the
salary of the Bishop of Oxford was fixed at 5,0001. a
year, and yet that in one instance he received 5,874/.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the principle on which the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners appointed the sums that
were allotted as salaries to the bishops was, that instead
of settling a fixed payment yearly, they took a certain
period of years, according to the returns laid before
them, and directed certain payments to be made such as
on the average of those years would produce the allotted
sum, so that in some years the amount paid them might
exceed, and in some fall short of the salary named for
them. The obj Pct of the present clause was to make
an entirely new arrangement, so that the bishop should
receive the exact amount of his salary—neither more
nor less.

Sir J. GRMIA:II was glad of the introduction of the
clause; for, prospectively, it would be a very great im-
provement. With respect ta the Bishop of Oxford, as
his name had been introduced, he wished, in conformity
with a request from that Right Rev. Prelate, to offer an
explanation of some eircumstaeces which had been ad-
verted to on a former occasion. The Bishop of Oxford, on
being appointed to his see, was informed that he could
hold no preferment in commendam, but should reside
constantly in his diocese, having no other preferment.
The fire preceding bishops in the see had held extensive
preferments in commendam, and very seldom resided in
their diocese. The episcopal residence at Cuddesdon
had in the interim been destroyed ; and some outlay
being necessary to render it habitable for the bishop,
the Ecclesiastical Commissioners gave the bishop 3,500/,
for the purpose, and a further sum of 1,3001. to remove
a public-house that was in the gardens of Cuddesdon—
in all 4,8001.; in addition to which the bishop laid out a
further sum cff. 1,6001. upon buildings. He then asked
the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to make a further ad-
vance, but they refused, expressing a wish that he
should go to Quein Anne's Bounty Fund for the 1,6001.,
which he did, and for that sum he now paid interest out
of his own private resources. He could assure the Hon.
Member there had been no extravagance whatever in
the outlay upon the episcopal residence. With respect
to the arrangement which made the payment of the
bishops contingent upon an average of seven years,
he thought it very objectionable, and he was de-
cidedly favourable to giving them a fixed immutable
sum, which would be the effect of the clause they were
stow discussing.
Mr. GOULBURN, in reLrence to what Ind been
said on a former occasion with respect to the income cf
the .Bishop of Louder, read a communication from the
Rigitt Rev. Prelate, in which he stated that the sum he
hscl returned vas the exact sum that he had received on
the year for which he had made the return.
Sir B. HALL said that the amount of income re-
turn ed by the Bishop of London for the year 1837 was
14,9101-, and for the year
1843, 12,4811., showing a fad-
'' inc.-
off of 2,429/.; while in the same years the assess•
mene of property in Paddington, where the Bishop's
property was situated, amounted in tee former year to
112,988/., and in the latter to 191,194/, being an ineroase
of 78,2061., while the a-sessment fir 1850 amounted to
343,066/, being an increase of upwards of 230,000/, on
the assessment upon property in Paddington, and yet
the Bishop of London said there was no increase in
his income, which was derived from property in that
very parish of Paddington.
Mr. GOULBURN said that only one-third of the