Star.
London, England, 1827-06-08 00:00:00

received on briefsovithoet being fore* struck with the
necessity for some aiteration.With respect to raising sums
in churches nn account of fires, it seemedlo him (Mr.
Peel) requisite to put a strip to it altogether—(Hear,
hear). When the practice was introduced, no insurance.
offices were established ; but now, what reasons ex-
isted why an individual who had neglected to insure,
shield have recourse to persons living at a 'distance,
and ignorant of all the true tircitrnstances of the case?
—(Hear). It appeared that the sum raised for an
individual loss, whatever the amount might be, was
from 7001. to 8001. that
.for the repair of a church
•as from 4001. to 5004 no matter what the amount
roquired—so that where an individual had lost 501
he received more than he ought; but in a case where
1 2.:0!. was lost, the individual received less. The
reductions in the amount of the sums raised furnished a
ground for discontinuing the practice. In a case where
3401. had.been lost, the sum raised was 70,51. of which
864 was the espense of the warrant, and .3271. the
salary of the collector. The sums raised for the repairs
of churches were really so small, that no injury could
accrue to the church by abolishing the practice. 'He
proposed, therefore, to abolish briefs for this purpose
- also, and to substitute a collection at the church door,
on one Sunday, and that the sums thus voluntarily given
should be paid over to the society for building churches;
loch an appropriation would be more for the advantage
at the church. He would confine his present motion to
thb obtaining of further information ; and accordingly
molted for an account of all briefs for rebuilding and
repairlog of churches and chapels, from the 15th May,
1819, Os June 1827, comprehendingplaces, dates, and
estimates, the sums contributed, the amount of the ex-
penses. and the net proceeds.
Mr. STURGES BOURNE seconded the motion, and
concurred entirely in the view taken of this subject by
his Right Hon. Friend. He would advert to one point
unnoticed by his Right Hon. Friend, which was the
unseemly interruption of Di ne Service occasioned by
collections on briefs. There was another consideration
of importance : such collections encouraged parishioners,
who were bound to repair their own churches, to beg
all over the kingdom—(Hear, heat). In some of the
cases, the Magistrates who signed the application, he
thought. were censurable ; they woe bound to see that
the churches were repaired by rates in the parish, ii
practicable. He begged to express his thanks to his
Right Hon. Friend for his proposed measure, and hoped
he would persevere in it.
After a few remarks from Sir W. W. Wrs“ and Mr. Taxis-
sots the motion was greed to.

NAVY PROMOTIONS.
Mr. HUME said be rose to move for a return of the
number of ptomotions in the navy during the last year.
The number was greater now than during the war. In
1323, the t..tal number of Officers in the naval service
was 5.558, and in 1827. the number was the same. The
number actually employed was only 842, and the num-
ber of 'promotions last year 120. It was by this means
the dead weight was kept up without diminution. When
his return was laid upon the table, he should move an
Address to the Crown, for the purpose of limiting the
power of the Admiralty in granting promotions,
He did not know whether it was necessary for him
to allude to a plan of which he had heard some-
thing, the object of which was to place the navy
on a similar footing to the army with respect to the sale
of c mmi.sions. The Han. Member concluded, by
moving for a return of all Promotions in the Navy,
horn the !at January, 1827, up to the present day.
Mr. CROKER said, when the prover time arrived he
felt confident the Admiralty would be able to shew that
they had acted in the best manner for the interest, of the
public service, and that that alone I►ad beet► their guide
rind object. Before any alteration, such as that alluded
to by the Hon. Gentleman, could be introduced, it must
be attentively considered in all its bearings. The motion
was agreed to.
Mr. WILLIAM LAMB obtained leave to lying to a Bill for
consolidating and amending the laws relative to Jurors an 4 Juries
In Ireland ; and another Bill for lighting, cleansing, and watching
Cities, Towns Corporate, and Market Towns is Ireland.

WAYS ♦PD DUNS.
Mr. flllllllll brought up the Report of Ways and Means.—The
Resolutions were agreed to.
Mr. MA URRLY said, he should defer to another opportunity
such obseseations as he had to make relative to the Ways and Means
of the present year.

ICU TURIMP.
On tie motion of Laid JOUN Itassau,, Miss Turner's Nullity of
Marriage MU was had a second time, and committed for to-murrow,

BOROUGH OF PEN RTN.

L.rd JOHN RUSSRCL moved the Order of the Day for the
*led readlog of the Pearyn Election Bin.
MT. CHARLES BARCLAY opposed the Bill.-1
was no comparison, in point of guilt, between
the case of Penryn, at the last election, and that of the
other Boroughs which had been disfranchised for semi.
lar practices. In the other cases the bribery was gene-
ral and notorious. In this only a proportion of the
electors were proved to have been guilty. The Hon.
Member could not credit the witnesses, and thought
there was no ground to disfranchise Penryn. He there-
fore moved as an amendment, 44 That the Bill be sea d
this day three months."
Mr. MANNING rose to second the amendment. Ne
ease in his opinion had been made out to justify the
did; anchisemerit.

Mr. C. CALVERT supported the Bill. During the'
elections he had stood for Southwark, bribery had been
noknown. The cry of his constituents was strong beer
for ever —(A laugh.) In Penryn the conduct of the
electors was different ; they had forfeited their elective
franchise by repeated corruption, and the Hon. Member
was ready to give it to Manchester.
Mr. FERGUSSON considered the corrupt conduct
of the voter sof Penryn clearly proved. The, e was no
doubt they received from Staubury the wages of iniquity.
Mr. C. PALLMER (Surrey)—Though fueling as great an aver-
sion as any man to corruption, yet he objected to reaching it by
means of injustice. A number of Innocent men ought not to be
punished no account of 16 delinquents.
Lord MILTON contended, that the inhabitants of Penryn
*Dubd be dealt with as a community; and that, looking to its
bistory up to the present time, there was a sufficient case made out
to justify the disfranchi.enient of the borough.
Sir P. CARRINGTON forcibly re-stated his objections to this
hulk. contending, on grounds of justice and general policy, that no
od, uate cause for such a measure as this had been made out.
Mr. ROBINSON supported the Amendment.
Mr. Secretary BOURNE observed, that he bad been induced
In the first instance to think the elective franchise should be taken
data Peoria, and given to the neighbouring Hundred; but, as the
-Honor bad deliberately decided for the Bill as it then stood, he
4111nold vote for the third reading.
Lord PALMERSTON said. he was prepared to give his sup-
port to the third reading of the Bill.
Mr. GOULBURN said, he was convinced that a degree agat
144 existed in the Borough of Paulo, which called foe the marked
disapprobation of the House.
Lard BINNING supported the amendment. He said it was
a judicial gyration. The voters of Penryn had a vested right, end
the majority *tight to enjoy it, not having done wrong.
Mr. L.A. %ECK. was read to cots for the third reading of the