5 MAY 1838, Page 2

ifiebatee mill princeling in Valli/maid.


In the House of Commons, on Monday, the order of the day having been read for the third reading of the Irish Poor Bill ; and Mr. O'CONNELL having presented a petition against the bill, signed by Lord Roden, Mr. Hamilton, and many of the principal inhabitants of Dublin ; the question was put that the bill be read a third time.

Sir WILLIAM BRABAZON then rose, and expressed his disappoint- ment, that in its progress through the Committee the bill had riot re- ceived such amendment as could justify him in giving it support. He considered that the public voice of Ireland had been raised against the measure; and believing that it would not effect any amelioration of existing evils, he should move to postpone the third reading for six months.

LLON Baowta: seconded the amendment.

RENCH cordially supported the amendment ; for he bill so full of mischief. It would cause the perfect annihilation of property, and would entirely extinguish in try Lord CASTLEREAGII believed that he represented the opinion 111 0; almost all Ireland, when be stated that the opposition to the rested on the total inapplicability of the workhouse system to all ealsurd- and the extravagant power confided to the boat of paid officers Ireland, anis' about to call into existence. He called upon Mr. O'Connell withw' Ireland had been so active and energetic in opposing the bill, to °11: forward in the House of Commons and tell Ministers that if they°14 not withdraw the bill he would withdraw from them his countenaneedi- Mr. O'CONNELL rose at once in consequence of Lord Castlereagh 'a His rule, he said, was to support Ministers when right, and sf oppose them when wrong; whereas Lord Castlereagh evidently cared very little whether those he opposed were right or wrong. On thus present occasion, he thought Ministers exceedingly wrong. all religions and all parties in Ireland deprecated the measure F° once Ireland was unanimous; and he appealed to the House Whet: it would force upon his country a bill universally repudiated. Mrr, O'Connell proceeded to state objections to the details of the mes: sure,—to the exclusion of clergymen from the Boards of Guardians; to the workhouse system, and the denial of out-door relief ; to the in- efficiency of the provision for the repression of vagrancy; but above all, to the heavy burden it would impose on those who were unable to bear it. The erection of workhouses was estimated to cost 700,000/._ it would probably run tip to a million. There would be a staff of sea Chaplains and Guardians of the Poor. He would repeat what he had said on a former occasion—Ireland was too poor for a poor-law. At present the people of Ireland could not support their poor; then why load them with this enormous additional expense. This prison. bill was one of the blessed effects of the Union. He implored the House not to inflict this additional misery on Ireland. fle declared that the country could not bear it ; the farmers would not bear it; the people were unanimous against it.

Lord Mourrmt admitted that symptons of repugnance to the men. sure had been tnanifested; but be was surprised that they should have been repressed till the eleventh hour, if they were really so strong and general us represented. It \vas natural that the bill should disappoint two parties in Ireland— Whoever had a favourite scheme of his own upon the subject, of course looked with unfavourable eyes on any scheme preceding from another quarter. Those who were to be the recipients of the ptoposed relief would be disappointed that that relief tray not were extensive ; those who were to contribute the relief would be alarmed and jealous at the extent to which they were to he called upsa for that purpose. But for all these different kinds of opposition it was the duty of her Alajesty's Government to lie prepared. They had been so prepared; they had stood by the pritieiple of their IlleaStIre; they had yielded no part of that principle to influence or to opposition, except where it was shown by fir and open argument that some pot tion of the bill was susceptible of improvement.

It had been alleged that the measure bad been forced by the votes of English ).lembers on the representatives of Ireland : but such was not the tact— It appeared that on the pzinciple of the kill, (the question being the Speaker's leaving the chair,) the Irish Members who voted in favour of the bill were56 in number, the nuinher who voted against it wav1G. Perhaps it would he said, that the majority on that occasion waittil to make alterations in the Committee: it appeared, however, that in twenty-five divisions which took place in the Committee, there were only eight in which there was a majority against Government—in the other seventeen cases the majority was in favour of Government.

Lord Morpeth described the exceeding misery of the bulk of the Irish population ; and dwelt upon the fact, that while all admitted the necessity of a remedy, no attempt had been made to substitute another measure— With regard to any employment that might be afforded in the construction of public works and the draining of bogs, he could not conceal from himself the opinion that it would operate as a very imperfect meansof relief. With respect to emigration, he was undoubtedly of opinion, that. well and judiciously con- ducted, it would overate with ;teat advantage to Ireland; but it would not lie sufficient in itself, unaided by any system of poor-laws, to remove all the dis- tress which unhappily existed in that country. Ile should like to know shat scheme of emigration, or what system of out-rluor relief, maintained by an assessment upon land, could be established in Ireland for the relief of a dis- tressed population amounting to :..),:300.000 souls, if it were desired that the proprietors et that country should remain in posses-ion of a single acre of the lands they now held ?

Mr. YOUNG, Lord Powenscouier, and Mr. BELLEW, were in favour of the measure ; Sir EDMUND HAVES, Mr. CORRY, Colonel Ct NOM, and Colonel VLRNER opposed it. Sir EDWARD SUDDEN said, that the

test proposed b i

y the bill was the best that could be suggested; and if the principle was to relieve destitution, a test they must have. The bill would not relieve all, but it would relieve no large portion of the distress in Ireland— There could not be a greater mistake than to suppose that because only 80,000 persons could at any one time be the recipients of relief, therefore, the system would only relieve 60,000 persons in a year. He supported this hill from a solemn conviction that it would raise the condition of the lower orders of the people, and compel the landed interest of Ireland to take more deeply iota consideration ti.e state of ;he labouring classes. lie was solemnly Impressed_ with the belief that, though open to objection at he admitted—and he knew 0! no plan that was not open to objection—the plan now proposed was calculate/ to confer great benefit on the people of Ireland. Mr. SHEIL remarked, that the Duke of Wellington had declared in another place that he looked upon the Poor Bill as a preliminary mea- sure to that of Corporate Reform : he wanted the poor-rate as a standard of qualification— Now, he dirt not think that Corporation Reform had the slightest natural connexion with the Poor-law, notwithstanding the artificial connexion which was attempted to be made between them. Between poor-rotes and tithes he did think that the strongest identity existed. Why? because both were charges on the land, and both were matters el experiment. And the (plettIOU saw, whether they were not inverting the natural order, when they imposed a new . charge before they extricated that country from the embarrassments incidental to the great ecclesiastical incumbrances under which she laboured. By Dr. Doyle, Mr. James Grattan, Mr. Carew, and others, it had been proposed to substitute a land-tax for tithes. There was et pre- sent an enormous arrear of tithes ; and be objected imposition of to the impos of a new tax at least till that arrear was discharged-

The clergy had claims due to them to the amount of nearly 2,01111000/. The

greyed re themselves owed the state 600,0001. The greatest body of the firmers h sees were previous to the Composition Act, and wed arrears eisfeiltne(Trwsir ;milers. What was the state of the landlords? Three who held acre paying as. tithe, paid 37s. and put the 3s. into their 0,81 4OSH. "g reviewed the state of the clergy the farmers, and the land- a—b.wistv,in-torknow was it judicioue at this Moment to press a bill of this ew incumbrance before they got rid of the difficulties lialaseme.'"ea'tsaintdotrtriethe question? If this bill were carried without the Tithe Bill,

it Id cause great practical confusion, with a great deal of political discon-

""u feared that is feeling would be excited that English gentleman were isle/IL& bent judges of the most effective mode of managing the heal concerns hole& What he meant to propose was, not that this' bill should be re- Ied, but that if a Tithe Bill were sent to the House of Lords, end they re- fiird

to carry it, that when this bill came back the House of Commons should wan

the same privilege and reject the Poor-law Bill unless accompanied by the Tithe Bill. Lord CLEMENTS and Mr. W. ROCHE spoke briefly in support of the immure. Mr. Lucas approved of the principle of the bill, but had /0 many objections to its details that he would abstain from voting on either side. Mr. POULETT THOMSON would ask Mr. Lucas, whether lie was pre- pared to leave Ireland without any Poor-law at all? That would be die effect of a general adoption of the course he had taken. He had himself witnessed in Ireland more destitution than he could have imagined— la a village which he visited, he found the people living in wretched hovels, which were without windows and without doors, while the wretched beings were unprovided even with straw to make their miserable beds ; and yet they were paying a yearly rental of 30s. or 32s. to their landlord. Ile had the curiosity to ask what was the probable amount received by the proprietor for the lands • and he was assured that it could not he less than 20,000/. Did the isrlividted to whom he referred support the poor ? Did he contribute in aid of the funds of those excellent charitable institutions in the neighbourhood of his mute? or did he, as the poor man always did, give "the bit and the sup" to the poor peasant who came to see him? In the whole course of his inquiry, he could had but one instance in which any portion of the great fund which he received had been appropriated to charitable purposes on the estate. The fact was, that all the regulations, however excellent they might be far the main- tenance of hotems of industry, were inoperative, because they were not compul- sory, He contended that it was the duty of the Legislature to provide some uniform system for the relief of the really destitute, and thus get rid of the difficulties they now had to contend with.

Mr. MORGAN JOHN O'CONNELL had voted, in opposition to many of his friends, for going into Committee on the bill, in the hope that it would receive material amendments. In that expectation he had been disappointed, and felt compelled to oppose the third reading.

Lord STANLEY had resolved to vote for the third reading ; but would express his dissent from several of the details of the bill, and his doubts as to the working of many more of them. The House was in the dark as to the consequences of the measure on the recipients of relief, the ratepayers, and the landlords. With respect to the number of persons requiring assistance, they had no accurate data to arrive at a conclusion

between the minimum of 80,000 and the maximum of between two and three millions. He could not see the justice of punishing vagrancy without giving a legal title to relief, which would require a law of set- tlement. With many objections, however, to the bill before the House, he was aware that some measure of the kind had become absolutely necessary; and he could not take upon himself the responsibility of saying to the Ministers who were responsible for the bill, that it should not go up to the House of Lords.

Mr. O'CONNELL said, he should divide the House not only on the third reading, but also on the question that the bill do pass.

A division took place on the question of the third reading—

For it 2:34 Against it 59

Majority 175

On the question that the bill do pass, Mr. O'CONNELL said, that atter the decision the House had come to, he would not again trouble it to divide ; ha he would state his full belief, that as soon as the Protestant farmers felt the effects of the measure, they would join the Catholics in demanding a separate Legislature.

Lord CASTLEREAGH was consoled by the confident expectation that the bill would be modified in that place were wicked measures were sure always to find a salutary check. Lord JOHN Russet!. remarked, that no bill could have received more attention. With the exception of the English Poor-law, he knew no measure which had been so dispassionately and deliberately sanctioned by large majorities of men of all parties.

The bill was then passed.

On Tuesday, the bill was carried up to the Lords, and read a first time, on the motion of Lord MELBOURNE; who proposed that it should be read a second time on the 11th instant.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE thought that there would he a great advantage in complying with the precedent laid down by the Duke of Wellington, and in putting off the second reading of the bill till they had before them the measures relating to the Irish Tithes and Corpo- rations.

The Earl of LIMERICK and the Marquis of LONDONDERRY declared their opposition to the bill.

The Duke of WELLINGTON suggested a post onement of the o nd reading to the 14th or 15th instant; and LorelpLYNDIAURsT concurred in the suggestion, as his noble and. learned friend, Lord Brougham, Would not return to this country till the 12th of May. Lord MELBOURNE agreed that the second reading should be on the 14th of this month.


b_On.Tues..day, after the presentation of some petitions against the Poor-law, Lord .WHARNCLIFFE moved for a Select Committee to in- quire into the alleged cases of misconduct under the law. The motion Isla agreed to, and the following Lords named,—the Dukes of Welling- km. Richmond, and Rutland, the Marquises of Salisbury, Lansdowne, And Bute, the Earls of Winchilsea, Stanhope, De la Warr, Radnor, Carnarvon, Chichester, ti Eton, and Blowt.low, Lord. Sy- I t.ro ring, Deere, King, Kenyon, Colchester, Wynford, Whatheliffe, and the Bishop of Exeter.

Lord WYNEORD then moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend tla_ Poor-law. In the course of a long speech, lie enlarged upon mans alleged defects of the law, and especially on the iniquity of the bas- tardy clauses : in which he suggested an alteration— lie Lad been informed, that in the neighbourhood in which he lived, there were three girls between fourteen and fifteen veers of one who were got v..;,!. child by men from twenty-five to thirty years r;fage. Would any one tell him, that it was OR any principle of justice, humanity, or policy, that they could ex. cuse the beast who had got such a girl as that with child, and punish her, by throwing the whole burden upon her, though she had perhaps hardly knows the consequences of the act she had committed ? He had heard it said, that as the shame fell on the woman, so ought the burden, to prevent her from yielding to improper solicitations. To this extent he concurred with the existing law— he would not afford the woman the slightest temptation to offend, by allowing her to speculate on any advantage to be derived from the maintenance provided. To meet this difficulty, he would have the amount of the maintenance lend to the Guardians; and the Magistrates should decide:what the amount should be as well as whether it should be paid by the woman or man, or by both, and what should be 'he proportions. This power being given to the Magistrates, would enable them to adapt the relief to the circernstancee of the parents. 'When the woman prevailed on a boy, she should be made to bear the whole of the expenses. But these were motels for the diacreticn of the Magistrates, and in whom could they trust, if not in the discretion of three honourable Justices of the Peace? Ile proposed that the child should fur one year be as .th with the mother, because during the first year the mother could render assistance to the child which no other individual could afford it. After that year, al children of this description would, in his opinion, do better in the workhouse. For that twelve months some allowance ought to be made to the woman ; bait after their expiration, the unfortunate children woula he taken greater 'care of. and be more virtuously brought up in the workhouse than in the family (Ague!, a mother.

Ile was anxious to make the measure as perfect as po-ssible, and dis approved of the clamour that had la cu gut up against it.

The bill was brought in, read a first time, and ordered to be read second time next Tuesday week.

THE KING or HANOVEn's :1Ir. Heats, on Tuesday, moved the Commons for leave to bring in ; bill to suspend the payment of the annuities of risalflt aed I5.1110. to the Duke of Cumberland, SO long tie he should celainne King of Hama ver. Mr. Hume contended that the Duke. of Cumberland was ne longer in a situation to support the constitution of England, for the support of which his allowance had been granted— As King of Hanover, he was a member of the Germanic Diet. 1k already, as far as that went, entered into a league against the commercial in. terests of this country. if the Diet were to declare war against England, r King of Hanover would be bound immediately to act in coOperation with tee Diet, and to furnish his contingency .tf military force against a country from which lie was receiving a large annual payment. Now, he held that to hi' a state of things which ought no longer to Ire allowed to exist. lauppose the Duke of Cumberland had become King of England, would not a great change have been made in his allowances? If so, then becoming King of Hanover, a' longer owing any allegiance to her Majesty the Queen of England, but beitet an independent potentate, no longer in a condition to enppert the constitution ot this country, be ought not to receive the allowance which was granted him on that express condition. As a proof of this, lie would ask the House whethrt they thought that if at the time the grant was proposed, the Duke of Cumber- land had been King of Hanover instead of Duke of Cumberland, Parliamena would have agreed to the grant ? Would the English Parliament have granted an allowance to the King of Hanover? - The constitutional plea, on which the Princes of the Blood Roy. were granted annuities, was that they might be made independent of Ministers ; such was Mr. Fox's doctrine. And if it were true, as had been staid, that the Duke of Cumberland had contracted debts for which the annuity was to provide means of payment, he would maintain that the Duke had no right to contract debts, for he then became dependent upon Ministers. He only asked the House to suspend, not to abolish the annuity.

Mr. WARBURTON seconded the motion.

Mr. SPRING RICE complimented " his honourable friend " on hi- abstinence from exciting political topics. Ile should reply to Mr. Hume's argument, that it was not competent to Parliament to revoke an annuity granted for life, in consequence of a change in the circum- stances of the annuitant. For the same reason, King Leopold could not have been deprived of his annuity ; though the greater part of it had, with great generosity, been relinquished. The motion Involved a breach of public faith ; which in Englund especially should be main- tained inviolate. It was not, he could assure Mr. Hume, in conse- quence of any arrangement for the payment of the King of Hanover's debts, that Ministers opposed the motion, but from a determination to maintain the public faith, and to fulfil a solemn engagements

Mr. IVanavicroN briefly supported and Mr. Goetnettar opposed the motion.

The House divided : for the motion, 62; against it, 97.


On Tuesday, a discussion, occupying six columns of the Morning Chronicle, arose on a motion of Mr. COLQUHOUN, for a return of the outrages committed in Ireland from June 1835 to the present time, on Protestant ministers of the gospel. Mr. Culquboun mentioned the particulars of a great variety of outrages, instigated, as he alleged, by the Catholic priesthood. There was nothing striking or novel in his statement.

Lord MORPETI1, in reply, referred to instances in which Protestants had insulted and assaulted Catholic clergymen, destroyed Catholic chapels, and exhibited a bitter spirit of intolerance. He defended the Irish Government from the charge of conniving at or encouraging the maletreatment of the Protestant clergy; and read a letter from Mr. Colquhoun, which exhibited the industry of the Protestant party in getting up cases against the Catholics.

Mr. SPRING RICE and Mr. WYSE spoke against the systematic at- tacks of the Protestant on the Catholic clergy and people. Mr. Rice said, that though all the stories might not be fabrications, there was

but a halfpenny worth of bread, or truth, in an enormous quantity of sack, or falsehood; and did not think that Mr. Colquhoun, as a Scotchman, was well employed in raking up charges against the Irish Catholic clergy.

Mr. GOULBURN maintained Mr. Colquboun'a perfect right to act as he had done, and reproved Mr. Rice for his " diatribe."

The motion for the returns, being unopposed, was carried.


Lord JOHN Ressr.i.r., on Thursday, movtd for the appointment of a Select Committee " to inquire into the mode of granting and renewing leases of the landed and other property of the Bishops, Deans, and Chapters, and other Ecclesiastical bodies of England and Wales, and into the probable amount of any increased value which might be obtained by an improved management, with a due consideration of the interests of the Established Church, and of the present lessees of such property." Lord John protested, that in moving for this Com-

mittee, he had not the slightest intention of taking from the Church any property justly belonging to it. No proposition had ever emanated from fro the Ministry calculated to deprive the Establishment of the revenue it had hitherto enjoyed. That revenue he found from the reports of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, was in the gross 3,738.9511.; made up as follows. The revenues of the Archiepiscopal and Episcopal sees were 181,6311. ; of the Cathedral and Collegiate chinches, 284,2411. ; of the separate members of those churches, 75S,34/. ; of the benefices, 3,197,233/. The total net revenues were 3,439,767/. Now, in no way had it been, or would it be proposed to diminish this income ; although, with the approbation of the heads of the Establishment, alterations had been made in the distribution of it. It had been declared by Lord Stanley, that any additional value which could be given by Act of Parliament to the property of the Church weuld belong to the State, and might be applied to any secular purpose. It was the intention, however, of the present Government to apply the fund that might be so acquired to purposes deeply and clearly connected with the Church—to the re- pairs of the church fabrics. That was, however, a point for after con- sideration : what he now wished to urge upon the House was, that in- quiry into the mode of managing Church property would be expedient ; and that such inquiry could be best conducted by a Committee of the

House of Commons. Lord John then pointed out the obvious inte- rests the persons who held Church property for life had in leasing it at small rents for heavy fines. He described the operation of that system in reducing the property of the Establishment. In one instance, the income of a see, through the management of a Bishop, bad been reduced from 11,000/. to 4,0001. or 5,000/. a year. Many instances of the like nature might be mentioned, but he would not weary the House with details. In the reign of Charles the Second, the amount of fines, accruing from the falling-in of leases, according to Bishop Burnett, was neatly a million and a half ; and of this immense sum, through the in- strumentality of Clarendon, the Bishops pocketed the greater portion, though it ought to have been applied to the general advantage of re- ligion. If even fifty years ago means had been taken to prevent the alienation of Church property by its holders, there would now have been no deficiency of the means of religious instruction. In one in- stance a fine of 40,000/., in another a fine of 100,000/. on the renewal of leases of coalmines in Northumberland, had been taken by the Dean and Chapter of Durham; who ought to have made provision out of those sums to meet the increasing demand for religious education. With respect to the surplus. which had been last year calculated, by Mr. Spring Rice, at 250 sithd.,1 Lotd John believed that it would annually amount to 300,0001. The question occurred as to the proper parties for conducting the proposed inquiry. The Church Commis- sioners could not enter upon it without incurring great odium. There would be strong objection to the appointment of a paid commission. It undertaken by Government, there would be endless disputes as to the correctness of their calculations. He thought it best to have the

report of a Select Committee as a basis for legislation. He still ad- hered to his opinion, that the wisest application of the surplus would be to replace Church.rates%; but this point lie did not wish to press : 211 I e now asked for was a full and patient inquiry.

Mr. LODDELL rose to move a direct negative on the proposition. He 6;iposed the motion on the two grounds of justice to the Church and justice to the lessee. He considered that the Church had a right to all that the property of the Church could be fairly made to yield ; but the proposed measure would cause vast injustice to those who, trusting to the renewal of their leases on the usual terms, had expended large sums on property they looked upon as substioithilly their own. The lessees of coal-mines would be especially injured. He firmly believed that Ministers intended to apply the property they designed to get hold of to purposes of their own ; and if the motion for a Committee were carried, he should make another in the shape of an instruction to the Committee, to apply the expected surplus to Church purposes. Mr. Hirst' charged the Tory Opposition with systematic indifference to the welfare of the inferior clergy, whose cause they now pretended to take up. The charge against Ministers, of a design to rob the Church, was most unjust. The real robbers of the Church were to be found within its own fold. He considered that Lord John Russell proved himself the real friend of the Church, by bringing forward a measure calculated to relieve it from the hostility of the Dissenters. Mr. GOULBURN observed, that it was quite true that Ministers were generally charged with designs inimical to the Establishment ; and lie believed himself that there was much truth in the imputation. The way in which it was now proposed to deal with the property of the Church, was not calculated to remove that impression. Lord John Russell might flatter himself that he was maintaining the amount of the Church property, but he was certainly diminishing its security. He would snake the clergy mere owners of rent.charges issuing of property pre- viously their own. Amid if the owner of property on which a rent- chnige was laid happened to be a Dissenter, he did not see that his con- scientious objection to paying it would be less than to the payment of Church:rates. He considered that in the first instance the question of appropriation should be settled, not postponed till after the Committee's report. Lord John Russell was not going the right way to settle this question; the settlement of which he admitted to be desirable. Mr. Goulburn saw many difficulties in the way of inquiry b mittee, many intricate calculations which a Committee was a fit to . make or' examine. But he was opposed on principleinvestigation into the private arrangements necessarily mixed apt° the inquiry into the value of Church leases. He denied that :- management of Church property, supposing it to be clearly estabii 11-44' gave any right to Parliament to take the course proposed ; for hes Cool, prepared to maintain•that Church property, belonged as exclusiruelvIA ap to the same manner to the corporation that held it, as an

private property to its owner.

property was not public property, seeing that the State had given it to the Church. As to abuses in its management, he was for pusi,h6; individual delinquents, but would not make the entire Church s ft;

Mr. WILLIAM EVANS saw much good, and no evil in inquiry. Sir ROBERT Incur; entered into an argument to prove that finest the faults of a few of its members.

Mr. PEASE referred to the county of Durham for proof of the os,, management of Church property. He contended, that under an is. proved system, all parties would be greatly benefited. Much dorm* capital would be brought into play. It was a mistake to suppose tie leaseholders under the Church looked upon the property they rented% their freehold, or treated it as such. Mr. Pease dwelt upon the hid. ships which Church-rates inflicted on Dissenters, especially on al Society of Friends. The continuance of the present system prods* animosity and ill will, which every sincere Christian must deplore.

Sir ROBERT PEEL would, in the first instance, resist the propositirs for inquiry, as it could not lead to any beneficial result; but if se Committee were appointed, be trusted the House would require dal any improved value given to Church property should be devoted a strictly clerical purposes. If it could be proved that a necessity ex. isted for increasing the means of religious instruction, then he felt satisfied that the Legislature would not relieve the owners of lardd property from the obligation they inherited or acquired with theirs. trues to support the fabric of the churches. The main question we not whether they should relieve the conscientious Dissenters from pl. ing their small proportion of the Church.rates, but whether the grat landed property of this country should be relieved from the oblIgAtioe to repair the fabric of the churches, the burden being thrown innk Establishment itself. Reference to the past proceedings of 111ibistee on this question proved that the real object of the Government true find a substitute for Church-rates out of the property of the Church_ Thenoble lord felt that the inconvenience of leaving the question in its pa sent state was so great, that he said " You must finally settle it next session of Parliament." Would the noble lord allow hint to ask, how it happened try it was not until the 4th of May that a proposal for a Committee was nude What possible reason could be assigned for not having proposed a Cumulate within one week after the meeting of Parliament in November? Lastyeaa Committee was appointed in July, but did nothing. Parliament met in Na vember last. The present system had been condemned in November lti$4. Why was so long an interval allowed to elapse, not for the purpose of bringing forward a measure already concocted and prepared, but merely for the papa of moving for a Committee of inquiry ? He made no charge against the mo. tives of the noble lord ; he believed they were pure. If ever there was a pro posal calculated to gull both parties, it was the present. The Coronation wu used for the :Nth of June; by which time, nothing of course could be dune; and yet the noble lord said the question must be settled in the next stain 01 Parliament. Either the noble lord had a bill in contemplation, or he had mt. If he hail, why did he not announce it to the House, as it was the duty oft Minister of the Crown to do? It would be much better to do so, than allow the battle to be still fought in every village, and to aggravate by silence and de lay all the evils of discontent. If the noble lord thought the measure odd not be furthered this session, what was the use of his asking for a Comsat*? They could not possibly make a report which would be satisfactory redo' peat counties of Durham and Northumberland, and the dioceses of %laws and London, and the other great proprietaries holding lands by Meal tenures. They never could do it—it was quite impossible they could, salmi receiving all the suggestions and assistance which the Government could dal them. If, on the other hand, her Majesty's Government had no plan pre pared, no principle digested, then he would ask the noble lord whether that is not a conclusive reason why Parliament should not interpose ?

The Church had been abandoned by Ministers: their own Com. mission had been broken up, and it was felt that the Government hal not kept good faith with the Church— The noble lord and his colleagues had fearfully increased the agitstia throughout the country upon the subject. They had thrown the whole of Durham and Northumberland and the great Church property conning into confusion. They had neither the vigour to execute nor the manliness to re up. They had abandoned the grave, venerable, and high authorities of the Church of England, who willingly cooperated with him. Ile wou'd tell Ma that their position with regard to the Established Church was altered; dot they could not compel the passing of measures obnoxious to the Estalrhslad Church. That was the reason why they asked refuge in a Select Comtism. He would tell them, that they were not now the masters of their own muslin affecting the Church of England or its interests; that there was a party both to that House and also in the House of Lords, but above all, that there Ira party more powerful than either, public opinion—which would rally mud the Church in sufficient strength to prevent them. If her Majesty's Goverement did not think so, why were they content with asking fur a Committee?. Why did they not introduce a measure similar to that of laq year, embod)reg ths resolution then submitted to the House—" That for the repair and inaihrensoce of parochial churches and chapels in Blighted and Wales, and the due erletra. Lion of divine worship therein, a permanent and adequate provision be !oedema of an increased value given to Church lands by the introduenou of a sea system of management, and by the application of the proceeds of pew..reirts, the collection of Church-rates ceasing altogether from a day to he deteraonedby law; and that, in order to facilitate and give early effect to this resolution, Ms Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury be authorized to made stymies' 011 the security and repayable out of the produce of such Church lands?" Sir Robert read a number of figure statements to prove that the property of the Church ought not to be diminished, but oil the trary there were many small livings that ought to be auga ented. He concluded by warning the House, that the conscientious objection now made to the payment of Church-rates would be pleaded agsnot !I" payment of tithes ; and by expressing his earnest desire, that se.el; they considered the pressing necessities of the Church, the WIT gentlemen of England would not-combine to discharge their pier/ from a burden to which it was justly subjected for the public gas&

*. •

Stereo RICE asked Sir Robert Peel, whether he did not con- sider the repair of the fabric of the churches a strictly spiritual pur- .0 If e said " No," Mr . Rice vvould remind him, that when tbe VII Church Temporalities were under discussion, Sir Robert bad declared that be bad no objection to apply the property of the Church to the mainterance of its fabric ; yet now he turned round upon Minis- ;s and charged them with a design to divert the ftmds of the Church Lee purposes not ecclesiascl. He shld ale same rincle to

It was unjusti a

t to desigtateou proposal prpy p

for a Committee s,su

bterfuee: the Committee was asked for in order to adjust con- keg interests, and ascertain the amount of the surplus which might hereafter be applied as a substitute for Church-rates, or to lam ease the income of the Church— The right honourable baronet had warned her Majesty's Government, that nteing upon this course "they could not now command the carrying of measures which were injurious to the Church; " and that observation had been loudly cheered by gentlemen opposite. (Opposition cheers.) Ile did not regret to hear that cheer, and to hear it repeated, because he was well assured that her Majesty's Ministers would not propose any measure which they be- lieved to be injurious to that Church. Honourable gentlemen opposite had ex- pressed their determination of doing every thing in their power to prevent Ministers from having the means of injuring the Church. Honourable gentle- men might use that power, which they fancied they possessed to their utmost, ehl they would never check Ministers, because Ministers never would be parties ti the Introduction of any one measure which they believed would injure the Nat. (Cheers, and cries of Oh, oh !" from the Opposition.) It was pod the policy of honourable gentlemen to represent otherwise; but he said it with all due respect to those gentlemen, that those denunciations and those imputations were more conveniently suede at festive meetings and on the ywtiogr, than when Ministers were in a position to answer for themselves, and when gentlemen did not think it necessary to state their overweening confidence at being able to prevent the carrying out of what Ministers never intended to propose. Neither did gentlemen, in his opinion, rely on their strength in that lioule quite so much as they would wish it to appear ; for Sir Robert Peel himself, with an indiscretion which did not often belong to him—an indiscretion which contradicted the general course of his useful and honourable public life- rontiadicted that confidence when be made the declaration so much to the regret of the gentlemen who now surrounded him, when lie expressed his mi.- girlies as to the strength of his party, and declared that no measure could be arried, and that no Government could be sustained, except such as met with the support of the House of Commons returned under the Reform Bill. Ho- lovable gentlemen now declared, that to debar the carrying of measures in- rious to the Church, they had a party in that House—they had a party in the HHome of Lords—( Opposition cheers)—and they had a party in the country. (Renewed cheers). To the reference to the party in the country lie did not object, for the people of this country were the constituents of the Members of that House; but when an appeal was made to a party in the House of Lords— (Cheers from the Ministerial, returned by cheers from the Opposition beaches)—und when that appeal was made in the course of a debate hearing on a particular question, which woold meet with the approval of the House, he did think, that even a gentleman possessing the great experience of the sight honourable gentleman ought nut to have made it.

The House divided—

Fur the Committee 277 Against it 2t1 .Majority 36

Mr. LIDDELL then moved to add the following words to the resolu- tion—" with a view of applying such amount to the gradual diminution of the evils which flow from the deficiency in the means of religious instruction and pastoral superintendence by ministers of the Esta- blished Church."

The motion was opposed by Lord JOHN Russet!, and supported by Sir ROBERT PEEL.

Another division took place— For Mr. Liddell's motion 254

Against it glib

Major ity 11

The House rose at one o'clock.


In the House of Lords, on Monday, the Earl of WINCIIILSF.A spoke for some time on the injudicious curtailment of the ceremonial at the approaching coronation, and the impropriety of fixing it far the anni- versary of George the Fourth's death. lie wished Lord Melbourne to give the House information on these subjects.

Lord Meeuounaa replied, that the day of the coronation would be changed from the 26th to the 28th of June— The day formerly named had been fixed upon certainly. from inadvertence ; from which, in as far as it could be called a very heavy crime, he thought that say government, or any individual, might stand exempted. There were but kw days, if ally, which were not in fact the anniversary of some melancholy mat. The accession of every Sovereign was kept and observed as a festival in this country, and yet the accession of one Sovereign was the anniversary of the death of the preceding Sovereign. lie did not think, therefore, there was any weighty reason in the objection to the day that had been fixed ; but frotn the recent period of the death of George the }math, from our having lost him so lately, and from there being persons living whose feelings might be supposed to he in some measure affected by the event, it had been deemed advisable to direct that another proclamation should be issued, postponing the day for the short time he had named.

It was not intended to make any change in the ceremonial, as laid down in the proclamation. He would not plead guilty to the charge Of indifference to the usages of our ancestors on solemn occasions— When those ceremonies had any thing like substance in them—when they were agreeable to the present time—when they were in accordance with the usages and customs of the present day—it might be well to adhere to them. But when they appeared to be mere shades and mere shadows—when they ap- peared to be mere vain pageants, useless, and idle, and, in some instances, tend- lag to create ridicule—when this was the case, lie conceived that they were prudently and properly given up and abandoned, especially when they had been even up on a former occasion. Moreover, the diminution of expense was not to be disregarded ; and it was advisable to spare her Majesty u degree of fatigue which perhaps she was hardly able to undergo. In reply to questions similar to those of Lord Winchilsea, put by Sir ROBERT INGLIS in the Commons, Lord Jorstr RUSSELL said... Sir FREDERICK TRENCII asked, if it was the intention that ladies should appear its British manufactures ? Something should be done to relieve 50,000 starving weavers.

Lord Jotter RUSSELL—" The matter does not belong to my depart- ment." (Laughter.)


The Peers were occupied on Thursday with a discussion respecting the Maltese Commission. Lord RIPON, in moving for an account of the expense of the Commission, ridiculed the proceedings of the Com- missioners, especially that part of their first report which Lad reference to the press in Malta and recommended the establishment of a news- paper without a censorship. He contended, that in the present state of the finances of the country, the cost of the Commission—about 5,000/.—ought to have been avoided ; especially as the information collected by the Commissioners could have been procured from Sir Frederick Ponsonby in five minutes, for nothing.

Lord GLENELG replied, that Sir Frederick Ponsonby had Iiiineelf recommended an inquiry on the spot ; that the Commission had only cost 1,690!. ; and that the state of the island showed the advantage and necessity of the investigation— The Commission of the present Government ascert 'Mee that this smell ter- ritory was overloaded with expensive establishments ; that they were not adapted to the wants of the country ; that the judicial establishment was maintrined at a vast expense, that it did not answer its purpose efficiently, and that it Lila to command the respect and confidence of the Maltese people. The Commis- sioners found that with respect to the charities, abuses existed of a nature much resembling those which prevailed in this country prior to the amendment of the law. They found that eleemosynary relief had been afforded to a great extent ; that it had continued for years ; that it was increasing to an extent which threatened to devour the resources of the country ; and that its ten- dency was to add to the ;Hopei-ism of the country. He did not charge, the Commissioners did not charge, intentional abuse : they merely stated the fact that abuse existed. They found, ful thee, that the legislative system was not such as to obtain the confidence of the country ; some amelioration was abso- lutely necessary to adapt it to the feelings and wishes of the people. With re- spect to many of these sul.jects, the Commissioners had completed their in- quiries and reported ; as regarded others, their report was in the course of pre- paration. 'The Comniksion itself was drawing to a close ; but he must say, that till the whole of the repots were before their Lordships, they could not form a correct opinion as to its efficiency. It naturally created great dis- content among the Maltese when they saw high salaries were paid in many in- stances without any performance of duty, and that they score appropriated ex- elusively by Englishmen. Besides the iniprovement which was required in tie_ management of the revenue and expenditure of the country, the Commissioners found that there existed offices with large salaries without the purer/name of any duty being attached to them, and these sinecure appointments were appro- priated exelush ely by the English. 'this naturally created great discontent among, time Maltese. The Commissicners found e!su a milked distiactioa b '- Immo the English and the Maltese ; they were divided into two distinct cha-ses : there was nut only a general exclusion of the Miltese from the higher offiev, but they were generally degraded, if he might say so. The result of this treat. ment had been, that the 31altese felt thAnselves deeply humiliated; and their sense of the injustice to which they were exposed produced among them general discontent, and great jealousy of the ascendancy of the English. If the only good resulting from the Commission were its putting an end to this unnatural and unjust distinction between the two races, that in itself would be a benefit of so much importance as fully to compensate for its appointment.

The Duke of WELLINGTON said, that the Commission lie had ap- pointed in IS:10 was presided over by the late Lord Rosslyn ; and ex-

cept for the pay of two clerks, never cost the country a farthing. Yet

he believed, that all the valuable improvements which had been made in the government of the colony had been based on the report of that Com-

mission. There was a considerable difference between that Commission and the one which Lord Glenelg had sent to Malta, for the pur- pose, it would seem, of establiehitig a free press there. The notion

was ridiculous—perfectly contemptible. You might its well think of

putting a free press on board an Admiral's ship, or its the garrison at Gibraltar, or at Sir John Colborne's head-quarters. The newspapet was to be conducted, too, not by Italians, who might be sent out of the country, but by native Maltese, who might from their den stir up re- bellion in the Italian states. TheCommiseion had liven mischievous, dangerous, disgraceful to the country, and formed only for the sake of patronage.

Lord 'MELBOURNE briefly defended the Commission; which he maintained wits useful and necessary.

Lord Ripon's motion was agreed to.


Alit. TuatroN's APPOINTMENT. Li the House of Peers, on Monday, the Earl of Wieentesea referred to the answer given by Lord Mel- bourne on Friday respecting Mr. Turton,—namely, that Mr. Turton had received no appointment under Government. Now he was informed that Mr. Turton had gone to Canada, if not in an official capacity, at least at the public expellee— It could scarcely be supposed, looking to the situation which he held in the legal profession, that he would go there for nothing ; it could not be imagined that he had gone out to serve the country at his own private expense a and he would not do so much injustice to the noble earl who was selected to ti 50 dog' nifiell a situation--he would not thick so lightly of his character—as W SUP: pose that this individual, who had appeared as a criminal at their bar, had gone out in the character of that noble earl's private frie was impossible that that noble earl should admit to his friendshi

society. What he asked of the noble viscoo

an individual whose conduct had banishednhtitir4furowmaas—ll fifermstal:,6 situation of any description or character was ever offered to this individual second, whether any promise had been given to him that when he arrived in British Canada lie should be appointed to any public situation 1 and third, whether, if he were not going out in a public character, or in any character at The coronation shout 1 take placs in the same mariner as it did it in the lento of his late Majesty King William the Fourth. :so precession took place at the coronation of George the Fourth ; and upon the occasion of the present it was intended that there should be a public procession through the streets from the New Palace to Westminster Abbey. He might as well state at the Caine time, that her Majesty had approved of the advice given to her upon the subject by her Ministers; which would be formally submitted to the consideration of the Council in a day or two. The it6th day of June was the day upon which the coronation would take place, instead of the 26th, as had been originally in- tended. all, his expenses were to be defrayed in whole or in part by the public? If this Individual had in any way been recommended to a public situation, or if any portion of his expenses were to be defrayed by the public, he should boldly con- tend that such a proceeding was highly objectionable; and he should give their Lordships an opportunity of expressiug their opinion on what he would con- tend was, if the fact were so, a gross dereliction of duty on the part of Ministers.

Lord MELBOURNE had no difficulty whatever in replying to the auestions- I do not intend to enter into details of which 1 ant not in possession, and I shall confine myself most strictly to answering the questions which the noble earl has put to me. I saw then, first of all, that no situation whatever was eiiimed by her Majesty's *Government to the gentleman whose name he has alluded to; and next, that that gentleman has gone out to Canada, if he has tune out at all—which I do not mean to deny—without any appointment, without any prospect of an appointment, and without any intention on the part of Government, or on the part of may noble friend the Earl of Durham, to 4ppoint him to any public situation whatever." (" hear, le cur! from Lord 11,41and.)

THE BUDGET. In the Howse of Commons, on Monday, Mr. SPRING

ecit gave notice that he intended to make his financial statement on Friday the 11th of May. In it would be included the probable expense of the warlike operations in Canada ; the want of data fur which bad 'teen one cause of the delay in bringing forward the budget.


On Monday, Mr. BAKER, from the Yarmouth Committee, reported Suet Mr. Mouthed(' and Mr. Wilsliere had been duly elected. _The petitioners on Monday abandoned their case, on the ground of the ameense expense of prosecuting it.]

Mr. WARD, from the Stirlingsbire Committee, repotted that Mr. William Forbes was not, toorthat Coluncl Abel erumby had been duly let red.

in Thursday, the Bedford Committee was appointed.

rids-7 ; Tories

Mr. John Ponsonby, Mr. C. Whieleleie, Strangways, Illennerlia:s.t. Mr. I leathetiat, Sir 110111.1% 11V1/1.4111“ Mr. Alexander Spiers, Mr. C. Vivian, Douid/ii/— ;

Lcrd Ebritigton, Sir Charles linion. Mr. George Phillips.

petitioners are Liberal electors against the vette' n of Mr. Henry • Solart.

Tie! Waterford City Committee was appointed.

Lib,' als —3 ; Mr. Wil-bete,

Mr. Maeru...iaia,

Mr. Malor.

'foe petitioners are Tory electors against eles of tic Lil:sral Mem- see s. Mr. Barron.

;dr. NVilliant 11 i1, -, hieEihNartl 1„ uos,1:, II Ir. Peers Mr. J. If. Lan do", 11.Ir. W. i'ar I., , Mr. Coat, ;au, 31r. Laois trial..