The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-07-12 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MONDAY, JULY 8.

The Speaker took the chair at ti minutes past 12 o'clock.
Mr. Hoag presented a petition, of which he had given notice,
from the subjects of his Britannic Majesty at, the Cape of
Good Hope, agreed to at, he believed, the largest public meet-
ing ever held in the colonies, and assembled under the sanction
of the Governor. The object of the meeting was to take into
consideration the orders in council of November, 18.31, propos-
ing certain resolutions relative to the conduct of the slave-
owners. (Hear.) The petitioners complained that the impo-
sition of these orders was equally unjust and uncalled for; but
as the Government had, since this petition was agreed to, de-
termined to suspend those orders, the alarm occasioned in the
minds of the slave holders would.in a great measure be dispelled.

-The petitioners went on to express their willingness to co-
operate in any plan of the Government to ameliorate the con-
dition of the slave, consistent with the equitable rights of pro-
perty and the state of the colony. They nevertheless repre-
sented the injustice of legislating for any. body of British sub-
jects who had neither any representative in that house nor
were adequately represented in the colony to which they be-
longed. The honourable member called the attention of the
Government to the subject.
Mr. STANLEY' said it became less necessary for him to make
any observation in answer to the complaints of the petitioners,
the honourable member for Middlesex having stated, that since
the petition was signed an order in council had been issued
giving the governor of the Cape the power to suspend the exe-
cution of. tee orders of 1831, which latter orders bad not arrived
at the Cape at the period of signing the petition. He also ex-
pressed a hope that the bill which had been introduced by his
Majesty's ministers on the subject of negro slavery, recogniz-
ing as it did the rights of property, would reconcile any dis-
cordant opinions that might be entertained in the colonies, and
induce alt 'classes of his Majesty's subjects to render Govern-
ment every assistance in their power for carrying the measure
into effect. He thought the present an unseasonable time for
discussing the question of colonial representation, and as some
documents would shortly come before the house with reference
to this particular colony, he thought that would be a much
more convenient period tor entering fully into the consideration
of the question.
At this sitting the house was wholly occupied in receiving pe-

.itions.
The Speaker vacated the chair at ten minutes past 3 o'clock.
The Speaker resumed the chair at 5 o'clock.
CHURCH TEMPORALTIES (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion of Lord ALTHORP this bill was read a third
:ime.

Mr. SLIE:I, moved an amendment by way of declaration in
the preamble of the billeto the effect that the property of the
church was public property, and available to the purposes of the
state. He telt it the more incumbent to press his amendment
in consequence of the unaccountable and cowardly withdrawal
of the 147th clause by ministers,—a clause which, in common
with the large majority of the house, he had regarded as the
most important feature of the measure, involving and asserting
as it dip the great principle of the right of the state to. apply
church property to such uses, other than ecclesiastical, ao.the
legislature might think fitting. In declaring that he thought
the 147th clause a mast important feature of the bill, he did not
mean to deny that the abolition of the vestry cess and other
provisions of the bill were essential reforms in the present sys-
tem • but he must maintain that the withdrawal of a clause
which explicitly asserted the great constitutional principle that
the property of church was public property, resumable by
the state as circumstances might dictate, was a departure from
those pledges and declarations of ministers which, when out of
office, had won for them the approbation of the public, and
which this very session had induced the house to sanction their
coercive bill. The hon. member here referred to the vote given
by Sir F. Burdett, Mr. Bernal, Mr. Brougham -(now Lord
Brougham). Sir Thomas Denman, Lord Ebrington, Mr. R.
Gordon, Sir J. Ilobbouse, Messrs. Kennedy, Lamb, Ellice,
Maberly, Rice, Lord John Russell, and Sir J. Scarlett, in fa-
vour of a motion of Mr. Hume, to the effect of declaring that
the property of the Irish church was public property, vested by
the state in the church for certain public uses, which no longer
being attained, the state, repossessed the right of applying its
property to such useful lay purposes as were expedient. On
that occasion, in answer to Sir R. Peel, who stated that the

principle of the hon. member for Middlesex's motion would
lead to the spoliation of not only church hut private property,
the then Mr. Brougham said God forbid that the legisla-
ture should regard churcli property in the same light they did
private property. (Hear, tear.) The hon. gentleman concluded
by moving, as part of the preamble--" That whereas the pro-
perty in possession of the established church in Ireland was
under the control of the legislature, and was applicable to such
purposes as were deemed most fitting for the best interests of
the community at large, due regard being paid to the rights of
all persons interested."
Mr. HOME seconded the motion.

C_ olonel DAVIES had no hesitation in saying that the conduct
of government was inconsistent with their professions a few
weeks ago, for he asked was it not understood, both in and out
of the house, that the present measure was not to be a bit-by-bit
improvement, but a real and sweeping reform of the Irish
church? In his opinion the most valuable part of the bill was
that very portion which had been expunged. If the 147th
clause had never appeared in the bill, the question of the alien-
ability of' church property would not have been raised on the
present occasion; but there was a Wide difference between not
mooting a subject at all, and, having mooted it, then abandon-
ing it. (Hear, hear.) If the principle of that clause was not
readmitted, and a motion should at a subsequent period be
made to reject the bill altogether, he should feel it to be his
duty to'vote for it, because he considered that the measure, as
it stood at present, so far from pacifying the people of Ireland.
would only create disappointment and discontent. (Hear, hear.)
..On a division the numbers were :
For the amendment se
Against it ' 177
Majority against it 9l
It was in consequence lost. On our readmission into the gallery
we found the house consenting to several verbal amendments
in the bill. When the house came to the 50th clause, which
contains a provision for the reduction of the revenues of the
Bishop of Derry,
Mr. O'CoNNEne said, that in proposing an amendment to
this clause, he would remind the house that this bill, as origi_
flatly proposed by the noble lord, contained a system of taxation
upon all the present incumbents of ecclesiastical benefices in
Ireland. The system was objected to as unreasonable, and in
consequence the bill was altered so as to make the taxation
commence immediately after the decease of the present holders.
This alteration applied also to the bishops and their revenues,
so that there was not a single person possessed of a benefice in
Ireland who would suffer any diminution of this income during
his incumbency. This rule was universal, with one exception,
and that exception was the present Bishop of Derry, and his
reason for now coming forward with an amendment, was to
call the attention of the house to the unseemliness of making
the right rer. prelate such an exception. In common with his
Catholic brethren, he owed a debt of gratitude to that right rev.
prelate, far had it not been for the countenance of that right rev.,
personage, he and others of his persuasion would not have been
entitled to a seat in that house. He knew of no other fish
clergymen who had taken the part which that right rev.
prelate had taken on behalf of his Catholic fellow-country-
men, and therefore it was that he came thus pubicly for
ward and called upon the house to decide, whether the Bishop of
Derry should be the only exception to the rule established in
this Gill. The only reason which could be urged for this excep-
tion was that the Bishop of Derry had accepted his bishopric
knowing that the government had this arrangment in view.
But this arrangement was originally intended to apply to every
bishop and incumbent in Ireland; and as it had been altered
with respect to them, he saw no reason why it should remain
unaltered with regard to the Bishop of Derry, on whom, by
remaining unaltered, it placed an unseem y mark of degrada-
tion. Connected as the right rev. prelate was with certain
leading members of the administration, it was possible that
government might have felt some delicacy in placing him in
the same situation as the rest of his rev. brethren ; but he
thought that they ought to discard such false delicacy, and
not be afraid of rewarding a friend when his merits deserved'
reward, merely because it might be displeasing to an enemy.
He should therefore propose to leave out of the clause the words
" the now. Bishop of Perry," and to alter it so as to make
the annual' payment of £4160 out of the revenues of that see to
the commissioners under the act fall only upon the successors
of the present bishop.
Mr. O'DWYER seconded the amendment in a speech highly
complimentary to the Bishop of Derry.
Mr. STA:ILLY was not impressed with the propriety of acced-
ing to -this motion by the arguments of the hon. and learned
gentleman opposite. If the house were legislating for the in-
dulgence of political principle, or for the sake of gratifying. pri-
vate feelings of regard, there was no man from whom either
ministers as a body, or he himself as a private individual, would
more regret to take away part of his income than from the
Bishop of Derry (hear); for there was no individual in whose
hands a large income could be better placed for the benefit of
the church. (Hear, hear.) The hon. and learned member for
Dublin might think it right to express his gratitude to the right
rev. prelate for the part which he-had taken upon the great
question of Catholic emancipation. He rejoiced that the right
rev. prelate had taken that part; but his payment for it must be
found in the good feeling which was beginning to prevail be-
tween Catholic and Protestant, and not in an increased payment
of £4OOO a year to him as Bishop of Derry. (Hear, hear, hear.)
The right rev. prelate did net accept his see under an engage-
ment that his votes in favour of Catholic emancipation should
meet with such a munificent reward, but under an engagement
that when Parliament dealt with the revenues of his see, his
vested interests in them should not stand in the way of reform.
In consequence of the alteration which had been made in the
bill, the government had not. made that reduction in the reve-
nues of the see of Derry which they had orighially intended.
Instead of reducing it £6OOO a year, they had only reduced it
£4OOO. •
Sir 11. INGLIS was prepared to support the amendment with-
out reference to the political principles of the right rev. prelate
for whom the hon. and learned member for Dublin had been
pleading. He would not be a party to diminishing the income
of a single clergyman, much less to leaving a right rev. prelate
a soiitary exception to the rule applied to all other persons of
his rank and importance in the church.
Mr. FINN opposed the proposition of his hon. and learned
friend, which he thought a most extraordinary one, coming from
church reformers. If there was any great debt of gratitucle due
from the Catholics to the right rev. prelate, they ought to pay
it out of their own purses. Ile would reduce the whole of the
incomes, but he would make no exception of this kind on the
ground stated. The learned gentleman, at the close of his re-
marks. put a question to Mr. Stanley as to theactual amount of
the income of the Bishop of Derr?.
Mr. STANLEY said he had been assured by the registrar of the
late bishop that the net income of the see did not exceed £12,000

a-year.
• The amendment of Mr. O'Connell was then put and nega-
tived.
On the question that the bill do pass,
Mr. LEFIZOY rose amidst cries of "Oh I oh ! oh!" He ob-
served, that although he had already expressed his opinion on
the second reading, he could not let the present stage pass with-
out adding a few remarks. He was hostile to the bill, on the
ground that it would interfere essentially with the property of.
the church in the hands of the present holders. It went to make
the bishop a rent charger on his own estate, and took f►om him
that control over his tenant which he had heretofore had in case
of the nonpayment of his rent. He had a most strong objection
to that pat t of the bill which prevented parishioners from erect-
ing a church in any parish in which any religious worship had
not been performed for three years before the passing of the act.
This he conceived most unjust to the Protestant inhabitants, for
it extended to no other religious persuasion. On all these
grounds he was opposed to the passing of the bill, believing that
the best interests of religion were bound up with the established
church, and were greatly dependent upon the due maintenance
of that church.
Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE said that he would not shrink under

POOL STAN DARD.

the ignoble cloak of silence as to the grounds of his vote. He
had heard a good deal of 'abuse of the Irish church, as being
rich and sluggish, and some.hon. members opposite seemed to
shrink with horror from the supposed imputation of risinc, to
defend it. He would admit that the Irish church had done'
little for Protestantism, (loud cheers from the ministerial side, )
but was that the only church against which the imputation
could be made ? He would beg of those who seemed to think
that primitive apostolic poverty was necessary to stimulate the
zeal and activity of a church, to look at what took place iu the
valley of the Vaudois. The people there maintained the pure
principles for which their ancestors had fought and bled, but
was it found that their activity as a church was in proportion
to their want of worldly means? No : it had been greatly sup-
ported by money from this country. But how did it act ?—it
acted solely on the defensive, and never sought to make an im-
pression on the principles of its surrounding Catholic neigh-
bours. , He would admit that the established church of Ireland
had long slumbered, but he would contend that since the union
it had done all that human power could do. The question how-
ever was, not what it had done, but was it capable of being fitted
for action? He-contended that in a social point of view it was
no slight advantage to have scattered over that country a num-
ber of men who were gentlemen by education, and, more espe-
cially, who were Christians by profession. The existence of
such a body of men in that country was also of no slight impor-
tance, as affording a connecting link between it and England.
But he did not defend it on those grounds alone, nor was it on
those grounds that he opposed the present bill. He opposed it
because he thought it would tend to desecrate the established
chug and the desecration of a church must be productive of
the nMt serious injury to a country. He thought it was,of the
utmost advantage to a country to have a body capable of spread-,
ins and extending the Protestant doctrines, and without mean-
ing any offence to his Catholic fellow-subjects, he could not but
think that it would be productive of great benefit, in a national
point of view, to have the means of expounding, defending, and
maintaining those doctrines in an active manner. All he asked
was, that such fair opportunity should be given, and then God
defend the right., (Hear, hear.) He feared that the probable
effect of the bill would be to place the church on an untenable.
foundation. He objc.ted to the reductiml of the bishops, as
calculated to prevent the future expansion of the church, and
because when once the bishops should be diminished it would
be difficult to replace them. He protested against any surren-
der of the principle that a nation might be taxed for the main-
tenance of a national church; at the same time he admitted the
desirableness of avoiding a collision with the people of Ireland.
Of course the bill must pass the house by a large majority, and
he was willing to hope that, as doubtless was intended by its
framers, it might strengthen and extend the church establish-
ment.
After some further discussion the house divided, when the
numbers appeared—
Ayes 274—Noes 91—Majority ISO
The bill was then passed.
'On the motion of Mr. H. CUTITEIS, the Sea ApPrenticeship
Bill was read a third time and passed.
The Irish and Scotch Vagrants Bill and the Tithes Commuta-
tion Bill, were read a'second time.
The Royal Burghs (Scotland) Bill was read a third time and
passed.

LIVERPOOL BOROUGH.

Mr. WARBURTON1110;a111al, five be the quorum of the Liver-
pool election committee, on the ground that if a larger quorum
were fixed, it would be impossible to obtain a sufficient attend-
ance of members to carry on the investigation.
Lord SANDON contended that the decision of so important a
question ought not to be left to a majority of three, anti he there-
fore moved, as an amendment, that the quorum should consist of
eight members. •
After some discussion the house divided, and the numbers
were— -
For the original motion ....85—Against it...2B—Majority
The house then adjourned at half-past three o'clock.

DOUSE OF LORDS, TUESDAY, JULY 9.

The Earl of Carnirvon took the oaths and his seat.
The Earl of RODEN. presented a petition from the Synod of
Ulster against the new system of religious education in Ireland.
The individuals who had agreed to -this petition, his lcrdship
observed, were as strongly opposed to the system as the Synod
of Scotland, a petition from which body was presented a few
evenings since by a noble lord opposite -(Lord 13elhaven.)

CONFERENCE WITH THE COMMONS.

On the motion of the Marquis of Lansdowne, a conference
was ordered forthwith in the. Painted Chamber with the mana-
gers on the part of the Commons, for the purpose of communi-
cating to them their lordships' concurrence in the resolutions
of the Commons on the subject of the renewal of the East India
Company's charter.
CHURCH TEMPORALITIES (IRELAND) BILL.
The Duke of BUCKINGHAM, seeing the noble earl at the head
of the King's government in his place, and observing that a bill,
materially affecting the established church of Ireland, had been
brought up from the other house, wished to know when the no-
ble earl meant to move the first reading of that bill?
Earl GREY answered, that it was his intention, as was cus-
tomary, to move the first reading of the Bill immediately; he
believed that in general it had not been usual to make any
objection to the first reading of a bill when introduced from
the lower house to the House of Lords, and he should there-
fore move "that this bill be now read a first time."
The bill was then read a first time; ordered to be read a
second time on Monday next, and to be printed.
The Bishop of BRISTOL rose to present a petition from, as, we
understood, the clergy of the diocess of Oxford againstthe Irish
Church Temporalities Bill. The petitioners complained that
the intention of this bill was, and its effect would he, to assess
and tax the clergy of Ireland most partially and unjustly; and
they prayed, as it was evident that it would be subversive of
the interests of the church, that it might not pass into a law.

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY rose to move for certain re-
turns, the production of which he believed the noble earl on the
floor would not oppose. When they heard of the enormous
sums which were now about to be levied on the country for the
purpose of carrying the great plans of ministers into effect,—
when they heard of the Russa-Dutch loan, and other items of
expenditure, amounting to between 40 and £50,000,000; and
when they looked at the extraordinary embassies which his
Majesty's ministers had sent to different quarters, and from
which the country had not derived any one benefit, he thought
their lordships would feel that he was not acting very wrong
when he asked for an account of the expense incurred in the
foreigh department since the noble earl was placed at the head
of the government. 1-le should therefore move, first, for an ac-
count of the expenditure in the foreign department from the sth
of January, 12527, to the sth of January, 1833, distinguishing the
amount in each year; following up the return of 1827, which
was upon the table : second, an account of the expenditure under
the head of secret service money, from the sth of January, 18.32,
to the sth of January, 1833, in the foreign department, the co-
lonial department, and the admiralty department: third, an
account of the expense of the extraordinary embassy of Lord
Durham to St. Petersburgh, in 1832: fourth, au account of the
expense of the Duke of Wellington's extraordinary embassy to
St. Petersburgh, in 1826; and fifth, an account of the expense
of the extraordinary embassy of Sir Stratford Canning to Ma-
drid, in 1832.—Ornered.

SCOTCH BURGH REFORM.

The Earl of lIADDINGTON wished to put a question to the
noble viscount opposite with reference to three bills relative to
the burghs of Scotland, which had been that evening brought
up from the Commons. An alteration was to be ir►ade both
with respect to England and Scotland. As to England, the dif-
ference in the constitution of the burghs was so great, that it
was deemed necessary that inquiry should precede legislation.
'lt soon appeared, that though inquiry was not to precede legis-
lation, yet that inquiry-was nevertheless to take place; for by
the orders of the House of Commons, it would be seen that it
was intended to call for a commission to inquire into the consti-
tution of the Scotch burghs. lie should now ask whether it was
the intention of His Majesty's government to proceed with that
pekion? and if they did proceed, whether they would also,
pending that inquiry, go on with these bills? and, finally, to
what objects, unconnected with these bills, and which would be
unaffected by them, the labours of the commission would apply,
supposing the commission and the bills to proceed together ?
Viscount MELBOURNE said, undoubtedly it was the intention
of ministers to advise his Majesty to sanction a commission to
inquire into certain points connected with the Scotch burghs.
Certainly it was not intended to delay the progress of those bills
.until that inqury took place. The matters to be inquired into
were in no way connected with those bills, and therefore there
was no reason to delay their progress.
The Earl of HA DDIN G 1 oN said, he should feel it his duty (and
he believed other noble lords would take the same course) to
state why, . in his opinion, it would be better to inquire before
they proceeded with those bills.
CHURCH TEMPORALITIES (IRELAND) BILL.
The Archbishop of DUBLIN rose to present a petition from
(as we understood) certain clergymen in the diocess of Dublin,
praying for alterations in some of the provisions of the Irish
Church Temporalities Bill, but not opposing it entirely.
LOCAL JURISDICTION BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, the order of the day for the third
reading of the bill having been read, said that. alter the indul-
gent hearing which their lordships were more than once pleased
to afford han when explaining at length the principles and
details of this bill, he felt that it would be unpardonable in him
then to further trespass on their attention, and therefore would
simply move that the bill be then read a third time.
Lord WHAFINCLIF'PE moved, as an amendment, that the bill
be read a third time that day six months. He proposed the
amendment, not, he assured them, in the spirit of party, but
from a sense of public duty; and he had waited till the last
moment in order to see whether it was possible to avoid the task
4without a sacrifice_ of duty. A bill so introduced as that was,
founded on the report of the Common Law Commissioners; and
submitted to their consideration by the highest law authority in
the realm, should not be condemned till after the most careful
and patient examination; accordingly, he had wholly abstained
from expressing his dissentient Opinion till the last stage, when
it was as perfect, as it were, from its framer's hands as in the
nature of things it could be expected to be; and when the ques-
tion was, would they assent to its adoption as a measure calcu-
lated
to promote the well-being of the people ? The bill was
then before them as it came out of com►nittee. He had care-
fully examined its provisions; and the result was his conviction,
that it could not realize the expectations of its advocates, and
would materially impede the happiness of the people. He there-
fore called upon their lordships to do their duty to the people,
and 'reject it.
The Earl of BOSSE, in support of the bill, contended that the
40 years' experience of the Assistant Barrister? Bill in Ireland,
which was based on the pridciple of the present measure, was
decisive as to the practical excellence of that principle. The
bill was well worthy of support, for it went to make justice
cheap, and to place it within the reach of the poor suitor.
The Earl of Wicx Low begged the noble earl to bear in mind
that there was this great difference between the Irish assistant
barristers and the proposed local judges, that the former were
non-resident, and practised in the courts above, while the latter
would be stationary, without any such means of improving them-
selves in their profession. He begged to assure their lordships
that if the house should vote for this bill on the supposition that
it was supported, as his noble friend had stated, by the 40 years'
experience of a similar system—namely, that of the Ass►stant-
Barristers' Courts in Ireland—they would be altogether mistaken
in doing so, for that system established in Ireland was totally
different from the system proposed to be established by this bill.
Lord LYNDIIURST said that at that stage of the discussion he
felt it his duty to address their lordships. He was well aware
- that, considering the office which he held, he-ought to discuss a
question of this kind as little as possible in the spirit of party
or political debate, and he therefore rose thus early in the
evening for the purpose of candidly and fairly stating to their
lordships the opinions which he had formerly expressed, and
which he still entertained, with regard to this measure. He
knew full well that out of that house—lie would not say in that
house—he had been charged with being influenced by party
motives in opposing this measure. He would be leave, there-
fore, to state exactly to their lordships the position in which he
stood in reference to this bill. When his noble and learned friend
on the woolsack first introduced this measure, lie stated in distinct
and precise terms that it was not a government measure, but that
he brought it in on his own individual responsibility. (Hear,hear.)
He (Lord Lyndhurst) then expressed to his noble friend in
private and, he believed, in a note which he sent from circuit
•to him, the opinions which he entertained respecting this bill,
and his noble and learned friend must then have known that it
was his ( Lord Lyndhurst's) intention to give this bill his oppo-
sition. If the measure, since that period, had been adopted by
his Majesty's government, that surely was no reason why he