The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-08-30 00:00:00

'WARWICK ELECTION.-EXPLANATION.

The Earl of WAR was anxious to take the opportunity
of saying a few words to their lordships on the subject of some
severe charges which had been made against him in another
place. and which had found their way to the public through the
newspapers. He was absent from England when these charges
were made, and one of the first intimations of them which he
had received was from a letter written to him by the noble
viscount, the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
He regretted that he had not the advantage of havipg the
whole of the documents fully before their lordships, as he was
ready to meet them all. lie came to England as soon as he
could. after he had heard of the affair, ready to meet any charge
that might be brought against him. (Hear, hear.) All he
could now say was, that he denied those charges altogether
(hear, hear), and that of any malpractices with respect to the
election for the borough of Warwick he was as innocent as any
one of their lordships. (Hear, hear.) As to an advance of
pecuniary assistance in matters relating to the election, he would
not then enter into any details, further than to say, that he was
wholly innocent of any application of money to any other than
strictly legal purposes. He most positively denied that he had
t iken any part, or that any part was taken by his desire, in the
election for Warwick, beyond the advance of a sum of money
for what he knew to be strictly legal purposes. Personal part
he had taken none whatever ;n the election, and though he was
represented in the journals of this country, and even in some of
the foreign journals, as hating taken an active part in the olece
time for Warwick, he had taken no part whatever. He had, on
the contrary, studiously kept away from the borough, or from
any interference with respect to it. As to money, it was true
that he had directed a sum to be paid on account of his relation,
but for purposes strictly legal. There was a registration going
on which required certain expenses, which expenses, he re-
peated, were strictly legal; for that purpose alone the money
was intended, and it it were applied to any other, it was with-
out his knowledge and consent. He had studiously, and at
considerable inconvenience to himself, kept away from the
place for a time before and during the election, and he knew
nothing of what teok place until long after it happened. (Hear,
hear.) He felt it necessary to state thus much in his own de-
fence. He was sorry that the whole of the evidence was not
before their lordships, as he was ready to go into the whole of
it, and prepared to meet any charge that might be brought
against him. He thanked the noble viscount whose letter o
him had given him the opportunity of coming forward as soon
as he possibly could to meet the charge; and all he would add
was an expression of his regret that the whole evidence was not
before the house; and a repetition of his readiness to meet any
charge that might be brought against him. (Hear, hear.)
Lord WyNForto, adverting to the Sea Apprenticeship Bill,
expressed a hope that it would not be allowed to proceed further
until the report of the poor-law commissioners should be before
their lordships.
The Duke of RICHMOND consented to drop the bill for the
present. session, but he thought it was one which ought to be
renewed in the next session.

The order for the third-reading of the bill was then discharged.

TITHES STAY OP SUITS' BILL.

Lord WESTERN made a few.observations, which were almost
inaudible in the gallery, to show how useful this bill would be
in putting an end to the litigation which had commenced be-
tween the clergy and their parishioners, and in suspending the
progress of that excitement against the church, which, it con-
tinued, must be pregnant with danger not only to the interests
of the church, but also to the interests of rel►gion itself. He
understood that suits had been instituted already against 901)0
persons, and, to put a stop to their further progress, he should
move that this bill be now read a second time.

Lord WYNFORD said that there was a wide difference be-
tween this bill and Lord Tenterden's bill, of which it professed
to be an improvement. That bill was a bill for the regulation
of a certain species of property; this bill was abill which singled
out one species of property, and prevented the owners of it from
exercising that control over it which they could exercise over
every other species of property to which: they were entitled.
The objections to passing this bill were much stronger than he
had imagined them to be when it was first submitted to his con-
sideration. If there were so many suits commenced as his noble
friend alleged, there was a chance that the plaintiffs in many of
them would die before the suspension of these suits terminated.
The suits would then abate, and to recover the tithes due the
snits would have to be commenced de novo by their heirs or ex-
ecutors, who, in all probability, would know nothing at allabout
the matter. Considering that there were upwards of 10,01/0
benefices in England, he really thought itstrange that the num-
ber of suits commenced was not greater than the number
stated by the right rev. prelate (the Bishop of London.) He
contended that their lordships had no right to single out indivi-
duals of a certain class, and to say to them, "The suits which
you have instituted for the recovery of what you consider your
just' rights you shall not be permitted to proceed further with."
As an argument for passing this measure, their lordships had
been told that it had been carried through the other House of
Parliament by a large majority. Whether it had been so car-
ried or not, was a point to which their lordships ought to attend
less than to the intrinsic merits of the bill itself: but, admitting,
that the majority in its favour was so large as had been repre-
sented, how did it happen that that large majority had not
brought in a bill of this importance at an earlier.period of the
session, when their lordships might have had time to consider it
in all its details? As it was framed at present, it appeared to
him to be inefficient for the object which it was intended to ac-
complish: but, independently of that objection, it appeared to
him to inflict upon the clergy various hardships, from which it
was the duty of the legislature to protcrt them. For instance,
some of them had gone to all the expense of getting their causes
ready for trial, and new they were informed that the decisions
on those causes were to be indefinitely postponed. He felt him-
self bound, out of gratitude to the clergy for the benefits which
they had conferred upon the country, to protect their interests
to the utmost of his ability, and with that view he should now
move that this bill be read a second time this day six months.
The amendment was agreed to. The bill is, in consequence,
lost.

TITHES (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord MELBOURNE, in moving that this bill be committed,
said that he must advert to a declaration of the noble duke op-
posite, in which he had stated that the resistance to the payment
of tithes in Ireland was the result of an organized conspiracy.
Now, whether it was the result of an organized correspondence
among the different classes of society in Ireland,—which he
should call a conspiracy,—or whether it was the simultaneous
result of the spontaneous feelings of the people in that country,
he was not prepared to say. In either case the result was the
same, though the criminality might be different. It became
also the more dangerous on account of the minute subdivision
of property in Ireland, which led to a multiplicity of claims for
small sums due to the clergy in the first instance, and, where
those claims were refused payment, to a multiplicity of suits to
recover them in the second. 'fhe noble viscount then proceeded
to state the terms upon which 1:1,000,0(X) sterling was to be
granted to the Irish clergy for arrears of tithes, and the provi-
sions by which the repayment of that sum was to be secured to
this country. After he had made to their lordships a state-
ment similar to that which we have very recently reported in
the Parliamentary proceedings of the House of Commons, he
concluded by stating that this bill had been acceded to by the
representatives of the landlords of Ireland, who thought it for
their interest to take upon themselves this burden.
Their lordships resolved into committee on the bill.
Some amendments were proposed and agreed to, the house
resumed, and the bill was ordered to be reported to-morrow.
The following bills were severally read a third time and
nassed

The Dower Bill, the Bank Notes (Stamp Duties) Bill, the
Inheritance Bill, the Roman Catholic Marriages (Ireland)
Bill, the Land-tax Commissioners' Names Bill, the Chancery
Offices Bill, and the Edinburgh Community Estates Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR stated that the Commons had made
some amendments to the Court of Chancery Regulation Bill
which he considered objectionable, though not so much so as
to induce him to move that they should be rejected. He would,
however, state his objections to-morrow, with the view of pre-
paring Parliament to retrace its steps in thiS respect in the next
session. Adjourned.