The Sun.
London, England, 1828-03-12 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 11.

Mr. Johnson from the Chief Secretary's Office of Ire-
land, brought up some Returns from the Office.
Mr. J. GRATTAN moved the Order of the Day for
the House going into a Committee upon the Baron
Robeck's Divorce Bill. •

The House accordingly resolved itself into a Committee,
and Counsel were heard and evidence received at the Bar
in support of the said Bill.

TI-o; House then resumed. •
Sir C. COLE brought up the Report on the Ulster
Canal Bill, and leave was given to bring in the Bill.
Mr. LASCELLES presented a petition from a place in
York in favour of the Aire and Calder Canal Bill.

Gtneral GASCOYNE brought up the Report on the
Liverpool Docks' Bill, and obtained leave to bring in the
same.

Mr. ASTELL moved the first reading of a Bill fNr the
Improvement of the London Docks, by increasing the ac-
commodation for East India Shipping at Blackwall.—
Agreed to.
Mr. DUNCOMBF. presented a petition from the malt-
sters of Leeds, praying for a repeal of the Malt Act.
Mr. BYNG presented a petition from the Magistrates
of Middlesex, praying that they, us well as those of other
counties of England and Wales, might be relieved from
their liability to actions at common law for the non-repair
of bridges and roads.
Mr. BELL presented a petition from Hexham, Nor
thumberland, for the Repeal of the Stamp Duty.
Colonel ARBUTHNOT presented several petitions from
the Proprietors of Salmon Fisheries in Scotland against the
Salmon Fishery Bill.
Mr. AGAR ELLIS presented a petition from the Ro-
man Catholics of Kilbrough, County Meath, for Catholic
Emancipation.
Mr. S. MORLAND presented a petition against the
Salmon Fishery Bill from the Fishmongers of London.

Mr. STEWART.moved for a return of the number of
East India ships cleared out from tiv year 1801 to the
year 1826.
Mr. LASCELLES presented a petition from North-
allerton, for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts.
Mr. H. PARNELL presented a petition from a parish
in the Queen's County, in favour of the Catholic Claims.
General GASCOYNE presented a petition from Liver-
pool for the repeal of the Receipt Stamp Duties.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY postponed a motion which stood
for this evening relative to Excise prosecutions until the let
May.

Sir M. W. RIDLEY presented a petition from certain
freeholders of Newcastle, praying to be allowed to vote for
knights of the Shire or for Burgesses for the town of New-
castle.

Mr. HUME moved for returns of the quantity of wine
imported during the last five years; also an account of the
exportatiou'of wine, and an account of the number of gal-
lons of spirits which paid duty during the two last yearn
Mr. HUME gave notice that to-morrow he would
move for a continuation of the returns relating to Saving
Banks.

Colonel lIABERLY presented a petition from North.
ampton for the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts.

BANK NOTES.

Sir R. VIVIAN presented a petition from Helston,
Cornwall, praying the House to take into consideration
the Bill fin- doing away with Promissory Notes.
Mr. HUME wished some of his Majesty's Ministers
were present to state, whether it was intended to make any
alteration in the currency of the country. At present
there was one law for England, another for Scotland, and
a third for Ireland. It was the duty of Government to
bring the matter fairly before the House.
Mr. H. GRATTAN presented a petition from Wm.
Kertland, complaining of not being admitted a freeman of
the Corporation of Dublin.
After a few words from Mr. W. LAMB, the petition
was laid on' the table. _ . _

Lord F. GOWER postponed the second reading of 'the
Passengers' Regulation Bill to Monday next.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
A Messenger from the Lords announced that their
Lordships.' had agreed to the Truro Roads' Bill, without
any amendment.

kr. SYKES presented ❑ petition from the merchants
and other inhabita❑ts of Hull, complaining of the Stamp
Duties on Receipts, and praying for a repeal of so much of

the Act as applies to the two and threepenny stamps on
receipts.
Mr. LEYCESTER supported the prayer of the petition,
and said that the Government, by doing away with the
Sinking Fund, which could never afford relief to the coun-
try, might repeal so much of the Stamp Act as was re-
quired by the petitioners.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
he must, in his situation, always look with jealousy upon any
proposition which must have such an effect as to reduce
the public revenue by no less than the sum of 240,0001.
the annual produce of the Receipt Stamps, and he should
not consent to such a proposition, unless it should he made
apparent that such a reduction could be made without in-
jury to the country, or that the tax was so grievous in its
operation that the deficiency arising from its repeal could
be substituted by resorting to some other description of tax-
ation less objectionable.
Mr. BRIGHT objected to the tax, because it gave an
opportunity to every man who wished not to pay his debts,
and who had ever got an acknowledgment on unstamped
paper from his creditor for a part of the debt, to defraud
his creditor of the remainder, threatening as Exchequer
process if he should insist upon being paid a just debt.
He denied that by repealing the stamp duties mentioned,
the deficiency would be 240,000/. as stated by the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer. He thought two and threepenny re-
ceipt stamps did not produce more than 50,000/. annually.
He did not ask for a repeal of this tax from any wish to
embarrass Government, but solely for the purpose of af-
fording substantial relief to the small traders in large towns,
Mr. FRANKLAND LEWIS said he did not know any
tax which would not be considered burdensome by some
class or other in the country, and in his opinion there had
been no grounds alleged to induce the Government to ac-
cede to the repeal of the tax in question.
After a few words from Mr. BATLEY anti Mr. Hula,
the Petition was brought up, and ordered to be printed.
TITHE COMMUTATION ACT.
_ _

Mr. Secretary PEEL gave notice of his intention, on
Monday next, to move that instructions he given to the
Committee on the Tithe Commutation Act, to limit the
terror of agreement under that Act to 21 years.
UNREPRESENTED FREEHOLDERS.

Mr. SYKES rose to move for the appointment of a
Committee to take into consideration the state of the un-
represented freeholders in certain districts or counties
corporate. At the latter end of the last Session of Par-
liament, he drew the attention of the House to the case
of certain unrepresented districts and counties cor-
porate, and a Bill which he then introduced was read
a first time ; in moving the first reading of which he stated
what he considered to be the law upon the subject. His
proposition was opposed by two arguments ; the first was,
that his conclusions ought not to be adopted by the House
without further consideration ; and the second was, that
as it was so near the time for the termination of Par-
liament, it might lead to much confusion at the approach-
ing general election. Neither of these arguments could
now be put forward, because, to avoid the force of the first
it was his intention to shape his proposition as a motion for
the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry. The Hon.
Member then proceeded to point out several counties cor-
porate which ha.. been separated by various monarchs, and
in which freeholders had no power to vote. In many of
the counties of England, the freeholders of those counties
were not placed on a footing with those of others. There
were many authorities in support of the opinion that a King,
though by grants he might separate counties, yet he could
not take away the elective right—and one case of the kind,
which was in Granville's Reports, page 154, had been de-
cided by the House. This ease regarded a borough in which
Queen Mary had limited the charter to a smaller number
of burgesses, and it had been decided that Queen Mary
could not alter the charter, as far as the power of electing
members to serve in Parliament was concerned. He trusted
lion. Gentlemen would not feel alarm at the word Reform.
The measure he bad in contemplation could hardly be
classed under that head—it was one imperatively called for
by circuinstances totally unconnected with political or other
abuse of the elective franchise. The Hon. Member con-
chided by moving, " that a Select Committee be appointed
to Inquire into the State of the Elective Franchise, in the
several Districts and Counties Corporate of England and
Wales."

Mr. F. LEWIS had never heard in that House a mo-
tion made for the appeintment of a Committee, for which
so little ground for inquiry had been laid as . for the pre
sent. His principal objection to the motion of the Hon..
Member was, however, not because it applied to RrticUlar
and isolated cases, but because it comprehended the whole
and general subject of the representation of . the country ;
and he must own, that the speech of the Hon. Member
had, instead of removing his preconceived objections to the
motion, confirmed them. He was quite sure that were a
Committee granted, the result would be a report to the
House that the present mode of electing Members was
clearly consistent with the circumstances of the country,
and the best that could he devised. Let the Hon. Gentle-
man look at the city of London, for example, and lie would
there find that it had never been held to form a component
part of the county of Middlesex ; that the citizens of Lon-
don, as such, had never exercised any right of freeholders
of Middlesex, yet the city of London had never uttered any
complaint on the- subject. In York, however, the contrary
was the case, for the inhabitants of that city had a
right to vote for Members of Parliament for the city
and county also. In Carmarthen, a different practice
from either of these prevailed. There the freeholders
voted, not as such, but as freemen ; any man possess-
ing a certain amount of freehold property in the town,
had a right to become a freeman, and in that cha-
racter to vote for Members of Parliament. This proved that
there was no uniformity in the evil complained of, if it were
an evil, and he was almost certain, that in the entire of the

19 cities and towns referred to by the Hon. Member, al
most as many distinctly different customs would be fount

to belong to them. How had the rage grown up which
the lion. Member wished to put an end to? It had not
originated in an intention to punish a borough or city, but
ix a desiro favour it. It had been granted as an immu-
nity at a time when the right to return Members of Parlia-
ment was not, as now, a matter of pride and honour, but a
heavy burden, as at Carmarthen, where the freeholders had
absolutely relinquishe4l the privileies of voting for Members
of Parliament.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY thought that the House ought to
concur in the motion of his Hon. Friend.

Colonel SIBTHORP, though not favourable to the ge-
neral question of Reform, thought the case referred to in
the particular motion before the House was deserving of at-
tention.

Lord LOWTHER opposed the motion.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought the present
motion was an anomaly to cure another anomaly, and
would open the door to Parliamentary Reform.
Sir J. NEWPORT denied that the freeholders could be
said to "have surrendered their elective franchise by charters
or contracts with the Crown. As to the defence of the
present system, on the ground that it-was a constitutional
anomaly, what then? If such anomaly was injurious to
the public interest, he hoped the House would instantly
abolish it.

Mr. WYNN declared that the whole constitutional sys-
tem of representation was a collection of anomalies ; but
then his belief was, that all anomalies went to strengthen
the constitutional system, and he was unwilling to change
them for speculative grievances—speculative in effect, as
the Members of that House, however differently elected,
represented the whole kingdom. He was satisfied with
the present system as it stood.
Mr.
Alderman WOOD declared his wish that the free-
_ _ _ _ _

holders of London should possess the right of voting for
the election of Members of Parliament. Every man hav-
ing freehold property ought to have the right of voting,
either by being added to the Livery, or by the freeholders
electin,ga.Member of their own.
Mr. PEEL said, the speech of the worthy Alderman
was any thing but a recommendation of the measure which
he supposted. The present right of voting in the city of
London had been granted by charter, and freehold property
had no concern whatever with the exercise of that right.
" But," says the Worthy Alderman, " it is most unjust
that persons possessed of a certain property should be exclud-
ed from the privilege of voting in London.
Mr. Alderman WOOD—That they should be excluded
from voting entirely.
Mr. PEEL—In the city of London?
Mr. Alderman WOOD.—Or elsewhere.—(Laughter.)
Mr. PEEL—The worthy Alderman then insists that it
is unjust to exclude freeholders in London from voting
elsewhere, and so fu• he had met his (Mr. Peel's) objection,
But he understood the worthy Alderman to say that the
freeholders of London should have a separate member for
themselves. Does he inean'to say there should be a fifth
member for the city ?
Mr. Alderman WOOD.—Yes.—(Great laughter.).
Mr. PEEL conceived it to be a proposition open to se-
rious doubts whether this House possessed the power of in-
creasing the number of members for the city of London.—
As to the Hon. Alderman's proposal to give the power of
electing representatives of their own, to all freeholders re-
siding within corporate jurisdictions, if that were carried
into effect it would introduce an additional number of Mem-
bers into that House, and thus the number of Mem-
bers returned by Scotland and Ireland should be increased
in proportion—a consequence which would be rather incon-
venient. But surely, as persons resident in counties and

possessing much personal property were excluded, if they
-had no freehohl, from voting for ;be county, it was not Ull-

reasonable that persons possessing freehold property in cities
should he excluded from voting for .the city, in case they had
no corporate right to the franchise. These were anomalies,
but they were useful in this way, that through the means
of them men of any condition and rank had the power of
obtaining the elective franchise—even the lowest in society
could obtain it, as in cities, by servitude. But the local dif-
ferences as to the mode of possessing the elective
franchise were very numerous; in some places freeholders
within corporate jurisdiction had right of voting for
the county. In other places they, as in London, had not
a right. In Lichfield, Bristol, Exeter, and other plates,
freeholders enjoyed the elective franchise for the city or
borough. York was different from all these; for in some
districts of that city, the freeholders voted for the city
election, while in other districts they could only vote for
the election of the county members ; and in some places,
as Newcastle, and Kingston-upon-Hull, the freeholders
could vote for neither city nor county. It would be im-
possible to enact a general measure suitable to so many
different cases.
After a few words from Mr. SYKES, in reply, the
motion was withdrawn, and notice given of a Bill on the
subject for Thursday se'nnight.
GLASGOW CIRCUIT COURT.

The LORD ADVOCATE, in moving, pursuant td HO-
tire, for leave to bring in a Bill to institute an additional
Circuit Court in Glasgow, declared that the measure was
founded on the increase of crime in Scotland of late years,
particularly since 1805. The number of persons commit-
ted for trial in that part of Scotland, in 1805 was no
more than eighty-five. It had increased much since tbenk
that increase appeared, from some returns which he read,
to he owing to the increase in the manufacturing popula-
tion, more especially in the western districts. The neces-
sity of an additional Assize at Glasgow, and of the conse-
quent facilitation of criminal trials in that part of the king-
dom, was confirmed by the very fact of Glasgow being the
largest of the commercial parts of Scotland. The Judges,
under the present constitution of the system of Scottish ju-
dicature, found the very greatest difficulty to get through the
mass of business which pressed upon them, owing to the in-
crease of criminal cases, in this district more particularly.
The Bill which he proposed to introduce would contain a
power t o extend the Circuit Courts of Justiciary to other
districts of that country as occasion might require ; but the
House would admit, when they reflected that Paisley and
other great manufacturing stations were within that dis-
trict to which he had just alluded, that it called more
urgently than any other for the advantage of the addi-
tional tribunal. The Bill would include various other im-
provements connected with the administration of the
Scotch criminal law. The Learned Lord concluded by
moving for leave to bring in a Bill to authorise an addi-
tional Circuit Court of Justiciary to be held at Glasgow,
and for facilitating criminal trials i❑ Scotland.
Mr. HUME was of opinion, that if there were eight
Circuits, with intervals of only a fortnight each between
them, crime, which had increased to so lamentable an ex-
tent in England, would be very much diminished. As to
Scotland, where there were many more Judges than we
have in England, there would be no want of additional
Judges for any additional Circuits.
Mr. BENETT (of Wiltshire) felt that much of what
had fallen from the Learned Lord in respect of the increase
of crime in Scotland, bore out and sustained his (Mr.
Benett's) view of the causes of increase of crime in Eng-
land. The Scottish peasantry, and the people generally,
had been hitherto considered a,s very remarkable for their
high moral conduct and habits. Increase of crime among
them, therefore, he must consider to depend, as he had
before argued of the English people, not upo:•. an increase
of vicious diSpositions, but rather upon the accumulated
distress, which at present weighed so heavily upon them.
—(llear, hear.)
Mr. KENNEDY expressed himself in favour of the Bill.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY desired to ask whether the punish-
ment of banishment still subsisted in the law of Scotland?
The inflictiou•of this ancient punishment might in many
eases be matter of great grievance to those neighbouring
countries into which an unfortunate Scot who had been
guilty of a crime which subjected hint to the penalties of
the law, was sure to come immediately after his expulsion
front Scotland.—(A laugh.)—lt would seem, too, that
there could be little objection to repeal a law which, for
any purposes of punishment on the party banished, was
proverbially ineffectual ; for, according to a proverb of the
north country : _ _ _

"Had Cain been a Scot, God had alter'd his doom

Not forc'd him to wander, but kept him at home."'

After a few words from Mr. Homit Datmxtoxn and the
LORI) ADVOCATE, leave was given to bring in the Bilk
The Learned Lord also obtained leave to bring in a Bill
to alter and amend the Act 55 Geo. 111. cap. 69, entitled
" An Act to regulate mad-houses in Scotland."
Bill to be brou,ht in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. R.
Gordon.

Mr. S. RICE had the pleasure to assure the House that,
in proposing to refer the Reports on Education iu Ireland
to a Select Commitee, he should have to detain the Nouse
for but a very short time indeed.
IRISH EDUCATION.

Mr. S. RICE rose, pursuant to notice, to move that the
Several reports presented to the House on the subject of
Education in Ireland, be referred to a Select Committee, to
report their observations and opinions thereupon to the
House. He did not wish to enter at all at large into the
subject, but merely to establish such a Parliamentary case
as would warrant him in asking for the Committee. In
1806, the question of Education in Ireland was for the first
time since the Union agitated in that House. A Commis-
sion then issued, which produced fourteen reports, on which

. -
arose the Board of Education, which had since continued
to sit. These reports lasted down to 1813, at an expence
to the country of from 17,0001. to 20,0001. Since that,
another Commission had issued, which had published
nine reports, at an expence to the country of nearly
40,000/. Nothing, however, had been since done in
consequence. This was illustrative of the general prin-
ciples in Parliamentary tactics, by which an enquiry
was got rid of. It was thus both sides of the House,
(for he did not mean to except his own) found it con-
venient to get rid of the responsibility that ought to de-
volve upon them by moving for a Commission. Unless Par-
liament resolved to pursue enquiries and take measures
in consequence of those Commissions, the farce of them,
for it was nothing'better, might as well be done away with
at once. For the Committee which he was about to move,

he should not ask for extended powers of investigation ; he
should not, for example, enable it to send for witnesses.
The duty he should require of them would be, to take all
the different reports that had been made upon the subject
before them, and extract from them, if possible, some plan
that might answer the ultimate object he had in view. In
proposing this Committee, he did not wish to add to the
burdens of the people: Enough money bad already been
thrown away upon useless objects completely to educate

Ireland. There was one establishment which he rejoiced
to say hall been given up by all parties—be meant the
Charter School system of Ireland, which had cost no less

than 1,000,000/., a sum of money which, if properly ex-
pended, would be amply sufficient for the entire object he
had in view; for he thought that the national funds should
be aided by local contributions in Ireland ; the contribu-
tions would then serve as sureties to the nation that the
money was properly applied.—(Hear.) He did not pro-
pose that the Committee should consist of more than 21
Members, as, in his little experience of Parliamentary mat-
ters, he was aware that a more extended committee, or
one that was generally considered an open one, would not
be so fit for the practical purposes to which he wished to
put it. The Hon. Member concluded by snaking his mo-
tion as we have given it above.

It having been seconded and put from the Chair,
Mr. LAMB feared that the time was not come when the
subject could be discussed with that calmness it required.
He should not himself have brought it forward, and had
the Hon. Gentleman taken his advice, he would have post-
poned it for the present for the reason he had. assigned.
Standing in the situation in which he did, admitting that
he did not see his way in the matter, he must necessarily
go into that Committee with less sanguine expectations of
success in coining to a favourable conclusion than the Hon.
Gentleman. He was anxious to be understood with peculiar
distinctness, as not pledging himself to further the recom-
mendations that Committee might make, although be
should not oppose the formation of the Committe itself.

Mr. BROWNLOW felt obliged to the Hon. Member for
Limerick for having brought this subject befo;e the House.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT deprecated debating the sub-
ject before inquiry
had been made.
PEEL—The more they avoided every
topic calculated to add to the irritation which he feared
prevailed, the more would they be likely to promote the
important ends which they all had in view.—(Hear,
hear.)—Ile (Mr. Peel) was inclined to support the present
proposition, from the circumstance that they had made the
experiment of trying Commissioners, and that these Coin-
missioners had not given any precise advice to Parliament
respecting the grand object of their appointment. There
were two points connected with the education of the people
of Ireland on which he would express his opinions—namely,
the extent of the public fund to be applied to that:_pur-
pose, and the mode of its application. It would be right,
he thought, to apply that assistance in aid of benevolence,
for if the public purse were devoted to the general aid it
would have the effect of paralysing local exertions._
(Hear, hear.)—He strongly recommended that the public
money should be distributed not only by inspectors, but that
it should rather he applied in aid of local efforts, through the

•
agency of the resident gent►y, who, from their influence
in the country, would be enabled to de far more
than any public officers could '►e expected to accomplish.
He wished to say one word with respect to the details of
the Hon. Member's proposition. He (Mr. Peel) perfectly
concurred with him in thinking, that from the mass of in-
formation laid before the House, it would be wise to limit
the Committee to the consideration of these reports ; but
he need not go quite so far as to exclude rigidly against
further evidence which might he deemed necessary. Let it
therefore be understood, that if circumstances required it,
the Committee might be allowed to call for oral examina-
tion. If the Hon. Member would only say so much,
then the Right Hon. Gentleman would fully agree with
him. One thing he would entreat of his Hon. Friend,
and of the Hon. Member for Armagh, that if from the
degree of excitement existing upon the subject, the parties
whose concurrence would be required could not be obtained
to any new plan, then that these Hon. Members would
refrain from taking any step to deprive the people of Ire-
land of the benefit of the existing Institutions, although
that benefit might not be so full as could be wished.

Mr. SPRING RICE, in reply, said that it would be
better, in the first instance, not to give the Committee
the power of calling witnesses, because the earnest Catholic,
and the equally earnest Protestant, would he both coming
with a request that their evidence might be added to the
information before the Committee.

The motion for the appointment of a Select Committee,
consisting of 21 Members, was then agreed to.

IRISH CURATES.

Sir JOHN NEWPORT then rose to move for a return
of all appointments to Benefices by the several Diocesans of
Ireland during the last ten years, specifying the value of
each benefice, and tlke previous length of service (as a
Curate) of each person appointed in the diocese in which
he had been promoted. The Hon. Baronet said that in
several instances, although Curates were licenced to re-
ceive 751. a-year, they were, by a composition, actually
working for 40/. or 50/. Thii,wa.s a most disgraceful eva-
sion of the law, and where he should succeed in discovering
an instance of it, he most certainly would feel it to be his
duty to bring the matter before the House. He concluded
by saying, that he would consent to withdraw his motion,
if any serious objection were entertained to it.

Mr. Secretary PEEL concurred with the Right Hon.
Baronet in this observation, that if the Legislature fixed
a particular sum as the stipend of a Curate, and that if he
were paid less than that amount, such a proceeding would
be highly culpable. The Right Hon. Gentleman, after
reading the terms of the motion, said that it would, if
agreed to by the House, convey its opinion that Curates bad
a prior right to all appointments. It would be most incon-
venient for the House to make any such declaration ; in-
deed, in many instances, the Curate, from his moral cha-
racter, might not have the best claim. But as the right
of appointment by the Diocesan was unquestioned, it
would be wrong in the House M convey any opinion on
the subject.---(Hear, hear.) He therefore begged the
Right Hon. Baronet to withdraw his motion, and assured
him, at the same time, that if he had reason to expect that
any evasion of the law was practised, no inquiry would be
refused by him (Mr. Peel) calculated to elucidate the
truth.—(Hear, hear.)

Sir. J. NEWPORT said that the great evil in the
Church was the power of translating. It was, he thought
wrong that a Diocesan coining into hie diocese should
bring with him a number of Clergymen, who were to be
placed over the heads of all the Curates belonging to it.
_ _

Mr. Secretary PEEL explained. He did not mean to
say that a Curate of unexceptionable character might not
have a just claim on his Diocesan, in whom the right of
appointment rested.
The motion was then withdrawn.
The Mutiny Bill was read a third time and passed.
The Westminster Session's Bill was read a second time,
and ordered to be committed on Friday next.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER obtained
leave to bring in the Animal Indemnity Bill.
The Marine Mutiny Bill was read a third time and
passed.

The Scotch Estates' Bill was read a second' time, on
the motion of Mr. KENNEDY.
On the motion of Mr. LAMB, the Cities and Towns in
Ireland Lighting Bill was read a third time, and passed.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and
the House adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.