Star.
London, England, 1828-06-25 00:00:00

union of parishes, the Reetor by whom they were held
,often held. them as pluralities ifs addition,to other he.
ings; and at the same time there wefe 600 unbeneficed
Curates in Ireland—moved a series of resolutions declara-
tory of the facts of his statement, and that an humble
Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that his
Majesty would be pleased to order an inquiry to be
made into the state of the Church of Ireland respecting
unions and pluralities, and unbeneficed Curates.
On the questien being put on the first Resolution,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
he regretted the evils that had grown up in the Church
of Ireland; but all the evils were in a coup e
being remedied) and many of them could not again
occur. He admitted the greet unions were positive
evils ; but in some cases unions were necessary, where the
income of particular parishes were too small to support
a Clergyman. Last Session an Act was passed to pre-
vent the formation of any union of parishes in Leland
without the consent of the Lord Lieutenant in Council ;
the units's' formed by the Bishops are to cease at the
deaths of the present incumbents. The Prelates of
Ireland were also anxious to get rid of the system
of unions, and to place a Clergyman in every parish
that could support one. The present Primate had als•'
exerted an authority in repressing pluralities far beyond
what was practised in this country. When he (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) went to Ireland, the salary
of the Curates was fixed at 751. a year; he proposed
that they should be put on the footing of Citrates in this
country, to which the Prelates readily agreed, and the
Curates were now entitled to sal 'ries from 751. to 2501.
a year, in proportion to the amount of the living and
the population of the parish. As he conceived a remedy
was provided for the evils complained of, be should
more the previous question.
Mr. M. FITZGERALD supported the original mo-
tion. The curates of Ireland were a well•edocated and
exemplary body of men, and were now, in consequence
, of unions and pleralities, condemned to poverty and
degradaticin.
Mr. LESLIE FOSTER said, there was no diffe-
rence of opinion that the unions should be dissolved as
speedily as possible. The only difference was uto the
mode; and he thought the case was already provided
for by the Bill brought in by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT replied.

-
The House divided—
Ayes for the previous question . . . ,S 9
Noes . . . - 4$

•
•
• . •

Msjority against the Resolution . . . 11
The remainder of the Resolutions were then put and negadved.
mat liriOßD.

Mr. N. CALVERT Moved for leave to bring in a Bill to die.
qualify certain electors of East Retford. Re had separated the
electors. and meant to disqualify only those who bad been proved
to have taken bribes.

Oa the question being put the Home divided—.
Aies —74
Non

- - 26

Majority
Leave was even to bring in the Bill.
The House revolved itself into a Committee on the Sale o

--4 S

Game MIL

Sir H. VlVlAN.opposed the clause enabling qualified persons
to sell game, which, be said, by opening the trade, would give
facilities to the poacher in the sale of his game.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY and Mr. BENETT supported the clause,
as highly calculated to stop poaching.
Sir J. SHELLY thought the Bill would not prevent poaching,
but still be thought it the best bad Bill he ever saw—(A laugh)—
and therefore be gold(' support it. If game was universally pre.
Served, adieu to fox hunting, and he would much rather give up
shooting than fox hunting.
The clause-was agreed to.
I Mr. G. LAMB complained to that clause of the Bill which

prevented a Gentleman from selling his game to a neighbouring
licensed victualler, or a stage coach proprietor. Stage wiachmen
=ban carry illegal game to the market, but they would also carry
legal game.
- Mr. STUART WORTLEY said that the reason why those
persons were not licensed was, that they conveyed the Game to
the Metropolle.
After a few words frost Mr. BENETT,
Mr. STUART. WORTLEY explained. The clause of the Bill
did not prevent a Licensed Victualler from purchasing Game for
the consumption of his own house, but not beyond it.
Sir HUSSEY VIVIAN thought all persons should be licensed
whom the Malistrates thought ought to be licensed.
Mr. Secretary PEEL could see no degradation in the sale of
Game • he had himself sold his rabbits, and did not see why any
degradation should attach to him for so doing. Formerly venison
was prohibited to be sold, but it was now commonly sold. As fhe
Bill was only a temporary one, he thought it should be allowed

to pus.
Mr. G. LAMB would not divide the House upon the clause;
but be, nevertheleu, thought it was a most injurious clause.
The clause was then agreed to.
On the clause that persons occupying twenty acres of land should
be allowid to kill game in their own right, being read,
Sir JOHN SMELLY opposed it, and moved, as an amend-
ment, that the 9ualiication should be increased to fifty acres.
The Gallery was then cleared for a division, when the numbers
appeared—
For the Amendment
Against it

- 21
- SI

Majority in favour of the original clause - —lO
The Home resumed. Report on Wednesday nett (thisday).
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at TMw O'CLOCK.