the motion for going into Committee on totally distinct from the profits of the
the Parochial Assessments Bill,
lessor. In an act which had passed the
Mr. Goulburn said, that the title of Legislature for encouraging the commuta-
this Bill had so little reference to its tion of tithes, the clergy were invited to
clauses, that it would not be competent take a rent-charge on land instead, which
for any Member to introduce it into Com-rent-charge would be subject to the same
mittee. He thought it would, therefore, rating as when the property was tithe in
be better, that the bill should be allowed
to drop.

the hands of the incumbent. But the effect of this bill would be to increase the amount of the rate on the rent-charge far beyond what it ever had been on the lithe. This he considered an act of gross in

Mr. Shaw Lefevre said, that as doubts
had arisen as to the purpose of the bill,
he would move as an amendment, the in-
sertion of the words "declare and enact "justice.
in each clause.

Mr. Goulburn said, that bringing in a
bill in the manner in which that bill had
been introduced, was a total perversion of
the constitutional practice of the House.
He felt it was a point on which the House
ought to be jealous, and he hoped, that
some remedy would be found by the hon.
Gentleman opposite.

The Speaker said, it was certainly the general rule, that a declaratory bill should not also be an enacting one; but he thought, that if any doubt existed on the subject, the mistake could be remedied by an instruction to the Committee.

The Attorney General said, that he did not feel the weight of the right hon. Gentleman's objection, as the mistake to which he alluded was merely technical, and could be easily remedied.

Mr. Goulburn said, he had felt it his duty to make the objection, not with the view of throwing an obstacle in the way of a bill of which he disapproved on other grounds, but because he thought it of importance that the House should adhere to those rules which had so long governed their forms of proceeding. He would now say a few words as to the general principle of the measure, which he considered as one of great injustice. It was a bill which, if passed in its present form, would alter the mode of rating property in parishes. The principle of the law of rating had always been, that it was to press equally on property, but this bill would depart from that principle, for in some cases it would make the rating on the whole profit derived from the produce of the land, while in others it would be made only on a portion of such profits. This was most unjust in principle, and in its application to many individuals, to the clergy, and to the owners of capital invested in railroads, canals, and many other species of property which were

One clergyman who had been rated on the one-fourth of his tithes, would now be rated on two-thirds of the rent-charge, which had been given in lieu of them, though he had been assured, that his rating on the rent-charge would not exceed that on the amount previously received as tithe. The difference between the present and the former rating would be 431. beyond the former amount. In another case, in Shropshire, a clergyman, whose whole income from his living did not exceed 1501., and from which he had to pay a curate, would, if this bill were to pass, have an increase on his rating of 201. a-year. The remark of the Gentleman from whom he had this statement was, that should this bill of Mr. Shaw Lefevre pass, he doubted whether that Gentleman's servant would be satisfied with the income which would then remain to this clergyman. He thought it would be highly indiscreet in the House, without inquiry, without information or discussion on the subject, to pass this measure at the present advanced period of the Session, and he begged to conclude by moving, "That further proceedings on the bill be postponed to that day three months."

Mr. C. Wood contended that it would be great injustice to delay the passing of a measure so imperatively called for, and so much affecting the interests of all parties.

Sir R. Inglis supported the amendment, because he thought it was a measure that would put into the pockets of the landholders a large sum of money that belonged properly to the tithe owners.

Mr. Darby was convinced that the principle of the bill was a right one, and did not think that the land-owners should first pay for the rent which they received, and afterwards for the profits of their tenants. If the land-owner and titheowner were charged on the rent which they received, justice would be done.

Palmer, G.
Parker, M.
Peel, Sir R.
Polhill, F.
Praed, W. T.
Richards, R.
Rushbrooke, Col.
Tennent, J. E.

Mr. Lefevre explained, that where | Mackenzie, T. tithe-owners had been more indulgently rated hitherto, this bill would not produce any result of which they need be afraid. Mr. Bruges said, that the House, in legislating on this subject, ought to consider the rent-charge as so much tithe, and then the question would be, supposing the tithe to be let, what sum was it likely to obtain? Upon that sum it was, that the assessment ought to be made, and it would not be fair to place the tithe-owner in a worse situation with regard to assessment than the landlord. As it was impossible to allow the law to remain in its present state, and as the bill, if properly worded, might prove beneficial, he should vote for the Committee.

The House divided on the original motion: Ayes 59; Noes 31: Majority 28.

Tyrell, Sir J.
Vere, Sir C. B.
Waddington, H.
Wodehouse, E.
Wood, Colonel T.

TELLERS.

Inglis, Sir R.
Estcourt, T.

House in Committee.
On the first Clause,

Mr. Goulburn said, that great injustice would be done were this clause carried into operation. There were many cases in which tithe had been commuted under the recent Act, and unless a clause was inserted in the bill applicable to those cases, a much higher rate would be imposed on the rent-charge than what had been formerly charged upon the tithe. Such a proceeding was highly improper and unjust, and he wished to know from the hon. Gentleman who had framed the bill, whether he would consent to the introduction of a clause protecting the interests of those who had commuted their tithes by an equitable adjustment into a rent-charge?

The Attorney General said, that it was absolutely necessary that a measure of this kind should pass before the Tithe Commutation Act came into compulsory operation, but if the right hon. Gentleman would frame a clause protecting the individual cases to which he had alluded, he (the Attorney General) would support it.

Sir R. Peel said, that it was not the duty of his right hon. Friend, but the duty of those who framed the bill to propose a clause to prevent the injustice of which his right hon. Friend had complained. He thought that they were proceeding to legislate on this subject with great precipitation, and he contended, that time ought to be afforded for more mature deliberation. The interests of the titheowner had not been sufficiently attended to, and if the time were allowed, an equitable arrangement might be effected. in regard to the owners of tithe. He would not say, that a measure of this kind was not necessary, but rather than proceed without mature deliberation to legis late on a subject so important as the present, it would be better to suspend for a time the compulsory operation of the Tithe Commutation Act. Of the two evils, that, he thought, would be the least, for at present they were totally

not at all adapted to meet the real difficulties of the case, and he thought it would be unwise to pass such a bill, because it must necessarily be inefficient. It was too late in the day to talk of rating profits.

without information on this subject, while | which they would hereafter find them-
it was clear that great injustice would re-selves bound to hold. But there was an-
sult from the operation of the bill if it other objection; the bill appeared to him
were passed. The interests of the land-
owner had been more attended to than the
interests of the tithe-owner, and they
might depend upon it, that if they, as
land-owners, acted upon that principle,
posterity would condemn their legislation.
The interests of the Church would be
seriously affected were this measure car-
ried into operation. It would also alter the
liabilities of property, and he therefore
contended that time ought to be allowed
for further consideration, as the House
had not sufficient information to enable
them to come to a sound decision on the
subject.

Mr. C. Wood said, that great injustice
would be done if this measure were not
passed.

Mr. E. Buller considered a measure of this kind necessary; but he thought, that they were dealing with too much haste with the important question of the liability of property.

Colonel Wood thought, the shortest way would be, to introduce a clause to exempt all future rent-charges from poor-rates; and at the same time make no additions to the tithe compositions for the rate. That would, he thought, settle the question of rating profits.

The Solicitor General concurred in the views stated by the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth, and could not think that the bill would interfere with voluntary commutations, or with those compulsory commutations which would take effect in October next.

Clause agreed to. The House resumed, and the Bill was reported.

PUBLIC RECORDS.] On the motion for going into Committee on the Public Records Bill,

Colonel Sibthorp objected to going into Committee at so late an hour. He moved, that the House do now adjourn.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that the hon. Member had stated that the Record Cominission cost the country large sums of money. He should not then stop to inquire with which side of the House that commission had originated; but should then content himself with saying, that the object of the present Mr. Aglionby observed, that it was said measure was merely the improvement of that in many parts of England, the farmers that commission, and it would be for the had been living upon their capital, and House to judge of the consistency of the that the yeomanry were gradually dis-hon. Member, who had previously made appearing; but whether that was the case such loud complaints of the expenses ator not, there would be great difficulty intendant upon the commission, and now at ascertaining the rate of profits of farmers; once proceeded to oppose a bill, the main because, in many parts of this country, object of which was, to place all matters farmers did not keep books. As to the relating to the public records under the Tithe Commutation Act, the general feel-unpaid control of the Master of the ing in the north and west of England, was Rolls. not that the landowners received any The House divided on the motion of great benefit from that act. adjournment:-Ayes 2; Noes 39: Majority 37.

Sir R. H. Inglis did not concur in the suggestion of his hon, and gallant Friend, but still he recommended the reconsideration of this subject to the hon. Member for Hampshire.

List of the AYES.

Bagge, W.
Blackstone, W. S.

Sir E. Sugden said, he had already
stated, that he felt that the case of "The
King e. Joddrell" was not law, and that
the bill was right; but he voted against
the bill, because it was very dangerous for
that House, by legislation, to reverse the
decisions of courts of justice; he was
afraid it would become a precedent, to | Broadley, H.

TELLERS.

Sibthorp, Colonel
Sinclair, Sir G.

List of the NOES.

Ackland, T. D.
Aglionby, H. A.
Baines, E.
Bannerman, A.

Blake, M. J.

Brotherton, J.
Bruges, W. H. L.
Campbell, Sir J.
Chalmers, P.
Chichester, J. P. B.
Craig, W.G.

Freshfield, J. W.

Rice, right hon. T. S.
Rolfe, Sir R. M.
Rushbrooke, Colonel
Salwey, Colonel
Sanford, E. A,
Smith, B.
Tennent, J. E.
Vigors, N. A.
Wallace, R.
Warburton, II.
Williams, W. A.
Wood, G. W.

Ebrington, Viscount
Filmer, S. E.

Gillon, W. D.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Hodges, T. L,

Hume, J.

Hurt, F.

James, W.

Langdale, hon. C.

Lefevre, C. S.

Maher, J.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

TELLERS.

Parker, R. T.

Maule, F.

Redington, T. N.

Parker, J.

The House in Committee.

Order in Council, might give effect to any such arrangement. It was impossible to say what the operation of this Bill might finally effect, or how many countries would be willing to accede to such an arrangement as he had adverted to. But he could assure their Lordships that the subject had not been taken up without first ascertaining that there was a disposition on the part of several European Governments to con cur in such an arrangement, which would be, he need hardly add, extremely beneficial to the general interests of literature. Lord Ellenborough expressed his approbation of the principle of the measure.

Clauses of the bill were agreed to, and He conceived that such an arrangement as House resumed.

was contemplated by the bill was most desirable both for this country and the other nations of Europe. But, in his opinion, the bill, in some points, required amendment. Looking to the first clause, it appeared that the bill applied to those authors only who divulged their names when they published their books. But the noble Marquess must know that some of the most valuable works were those which, in the first instance, were published without the author's name. Thus, in the place in his Diocese, by the Bishop of SALISBURY, from case of Sir Walter Scott, when he originally Westbury (Wiits), and by the Bishop of GLOCESTER, from published his novels his interests would from Norwich, from the Wesleyan Methodists of Maiden- not have been protected by this bill had it hall, in Suffolk, from St. John, Hampstead, from Birken-been in existence at the time, because he head and its neighbourhood, and from the Wesleyan Me

(Ireland); Port of London; Coal Trade; County Trea-
surers (Ireland); Revenue Departments Securities;
Apostate Friends Affirmation; and Insane Persons (Eng
land).-Read a second time:-Captured Slave Vessels;
Vagrant Act Amendment; Administration of Justice in
New South Wales. Read a third time :-- Qualification of

Electors; Judges' Jurisdiction Extension.
Petitions presented. By the Bishop of HEREFORD, from a

Merchants, Bankers, and other Inhabitants of Bristol,

thodists of Salisbury, against Hindoo Idolatry.-By the
same right rev. Prelate, against a continued support to
the Romish College of Maynooth; from the Village of
Peckham and its vicinity, from the Inhabitants of Derby,
from Saffron Walden, in the county of Essex, and from
the Protestant Association of London, against a Grant to

had not divulged his name to the world. Therefore, it appeared to him to be necessary that an alteration should be made in the bill so as to protect the interests of those who published their works without Maynooth.-By Earl CAWDOR, from the Commissioners divulging their names. The noble Lord

of Supply of Nairn, and by the Earl of HADDINGTON,
from the Commissioners of Supply of Elgin, against
also suggested that alterations should be
parts of the Prisons (Scotland) Bill, and from the Com-made in that part of the bill which related
missioners of Supply of Dumbarton, to the same effect.

By the Duke of RICHMOND, from Ossal (Sussex), and

by the Duke of SUTHERLAND, from the county of Su-
therland, for reduction of Postage.

INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT BILL.] The Marquess of Lansdowne, in moving the third reading of the International Copyright Bill, stated that the object of the measure was to secure to the works of foreign authors in this country the same protection from piracy which British authors enjoyed, provided the governments of such foreign authors extended a similar privilege to the works of British authors in their respective countries. An arrangement of that nature could not now be made except by a specific treaty, which must be laid before Parliament. But it was provided by this bill, that her Majesty, by an

to the regulations connected with the importation of foreign works.

The Marquess of Lansdowne admitted, that the bill was only intended for the benefit of those authors who avowed their works. He was ready, however, to attend to the suggestion of the noble Lord.

Lord Ellenborough said, he did not mean to move any amendments, but he suggested the alteration to which he had adverted, as worthy of the consideration of the noble Marquess. The bill he considered to be of great value and importance.

Third Reading postponed.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.] Lord Ellenborough rose to present a petition. which had been placed in his bands a

The petitioners were perfectly right in the view what they toos of the existing law, whier, s far as the interests of Bombay and Madras were concerned, undoubtedly called for repeal. That the existing sysen worked undry was evident by the case of EL Coles, which was lately the subFect of a bil. mtroduced by a noble Lord omposte Lord Geneig. Early in 1836, the governor of the Mauritius called on ne givernor-general, in council, at Beng., I make some provisions and regula tions for the protection of the natives of Lada whc might wish to enter into conTRCES as inbourers in the British colonies. Nating, however, was done until May, 18: ant in November following so ineffecrve was the law, that the Bengal givennen vas obiged to alter it altogether, and tc suisicute another regula

Wier this latter inw was passed, it was found to relate to Calcutta, and not uu Mains. The naners which the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Departmen rad mic or the Table of the House proved what & areadiul mortality had decurred amongst those native labourers whr hat beer sent out to the Mauritius. Every one of those shims carried out Bri1st subverts naives of India, to act as labourers. Alary of them had perished. But he was quite convinced, that no such catastrophe wont have occurred if the government of Maures had been possessed o use legislatie nowers of which they hat been dewed by the last Charter Act. Efficient sters would, in that case, have beer taken it prevent that over. crowing of vessels which had occasioned

such tata, consequences.

Lon Feeney said, the provisions of the Act hat beer tulis discussed in the other House of Parliament, on the occasion of its teng introduced. He considered its genom principle to be a wholesome one, although it was possible, that its adverrages mgh: bc, to a great extent, defeated by the mode of carrying it into operation, and that injustice might be inflicted in particula: cases.

Petition to lie on the table.

LAX TITHE OWNERS.] The Bishop of signed by the positionors for having the old Chichester presented a petition from the antrenewed in these two churchwardens and inhabitants of the pssidencies, homight alsuquote the decided Irish of Lindfield, Sussex, which petition 95% of Mr. P nstone and Si Tho-hari remained in his possession for a year s Ponto, w, were strongly opposed to and a half. Thinking, however, that some the phenation, that a been introduced. steps would have been taken to remedy