said, he should now, at this last stage of the Bill, declare his opposition to it. He was opposed to it upon principle, looking on it, as he did, to be an interference with the rights of a large class of men, who, in his opinion, had been most unfairly treated. There was scarcely any attack which had not been made on them; yet, in no one instance, had they exceeded the limit of the law. The rights they were now attempting to enforce, more for their successors than for themselves, were secured to them by law, and by the law they had to act. The Bill of last year was a compact between the rights of the tithe-owners, lay and clerical (for he must again repeat, that this was not a question with the Church alone), and the public. The tithe-owners were warned by that Bill, that if they did not take care of their interests within a given time, they would for ever he foreclosed. Upon that warning, they had acted, and now they had done so, the hon. member for East Cumberland asked the Legislature to interfere to violate the compact that had been made, and take away the lights which the Bill of last year had, not given, but not taken away, till the end of a limited period. The general principles of the law were in favour of the opposition he now offered this Bill. The Legislature had already interposed, as he thought improperly, to put down tithes in Ireland, and he looked on this Bill as an attempt to assist in producing the same result in this country. He was therefore opposed to it, and should take the sense of the House upon the Bill. He moved that it be read a third time this day three months.

said, that after bestowing the greatest deliberation on this subject he had come to the determination to give the Bill his support, from a conviction that such was his duty. It had been said, that this Bill was contrary to the general principles of legislation; he admitted it; but then his answer was, that there might be extraordinary emergencies in which it would be the duty of Parliament to depart from common rules. It was said, that the Legislature had saved to the tithe-owners this one year, within which they might bring their suits, or they would be foreclosed for ever. He was sure, that, if these consequences could have been foreseen. Parliament would not have allowed this year of grace, or rather of vexation. From the information communicated to him by his hon. friend, the member for East Cumberland, he was authorized in saying, that 9,000 suits had been instituted for tithes in cases where there had been a modus. What was the consequence of that, in the way of expense alone? Taking these suits to cost 2,00l. each, there would be an expenditure approaching to 2,000,000l. But, independently of the expense, what Vexation was thus inflicted upon the occupier of land who had bought the property, or taken it on lease, subject to a modus? These suits were injurious to the families of the clergy themselves, in the money that must be taken from their pockets in the way of costs. Besides this, they gave rise among the people to a feeling, that injustice was attempted to be committed towards them; and the consequence was, a loss of that spiritual influence which the clergy ought always to possess. It might be true, that these proceedings were according to law; but it did not, therefore, necessarily follow that they were right and just. Empson and Dudley had the law on their side when they tried to force obsolete claims; but they were hanged; and, as far as he had ever heard, they obtained no sympathy from their fellow-men when they suffered. He agreed with those who said, that tithes were a property, not an impost, and that when the tithe-owner bought the right to tithes, he obtained as good a title to property as the owner of the soil; but still that property ought to be placed under the same regulations as other property. The law before Lord Tenterden's Act was bad and unjust; for the modus, though it might have existed for centuries, unless it could be proved to have existed before the time of legal memory—in other words, before the return of Richard 1st from the Holy Land—might be set aside. There were two exceptions to this—first, where the land had belonged to a religious house; and, secondly, where there had been a composition real. But, with regard to these exceptions, the Courts had departed from the usual principles of law, for they would not allow the exception to be established without the production of deeds; and as no such deeds could be produced since the 13th of Elizabeth, the composition real was generally set aside. It was the great number of these suits that rendered the thing mischievous, and called for the interposition of the Legislature. One or two suits, however unjust, would not have warranted the interference of Parliament. It was hard, that those who desired to correct the abuses of the Church should be pointed out as its enemies. The late Lord Tenterden was not an enemy of the Church—he was one of its most sincere defenders; and yet he had consented to the Bill of last year, limiting the right to a particular mode of payment to sixty years—had introduced it into the House of Lords—and it was against his opinion, that the clause which had given rise to these actions had been inserted. The only object in view now was to suspend these actions till Parliament in its wisdom should see what could be done in this matter. In his opinion, those were the worst enemies of the Church who refused to concede any confection of its abuses. He was not among that number, and he should support the Bill.

thought there were objections to the wording of the Act. In his opinion it would go further than was intended by the hon. Member.

thought this a bill for the protection of the Church, and not for its injury. He should support the Bill.

was opposed to the principle of interference which this Bill recognized, except in cases of extreme necessity. He could not, however, shut his eyes to the extreme inconvenience of the present proceedings, and should, therefore, give his consent to the Bill They did not destroy, but only suspended the rights of the tithe-owners, and he did not think that they would suffer much hardship from the Bill.

hoped, that the House would adopt this measure, though it was not, perhaps, framed in the best possible manner. He admitted the objections to this mode of legislation, and said, that nothing could justify this Bill but the interests of the community at large. He believed, that the Bill was necessary, and that there could be no gentler mode of carrying its object into effect than to suspend the actions for tithes.

said, he had several petitions in favour of the measure. The feeling excited against the clergy by these actions was considerable. The Bill would be rather a benefit than an injury to them; and as for the principle of the legislation, that was justified by the precedent of 1800, in which the Legislature had interfered to save them from the consequences of numerous actions for non-residence.

expressed his full approbation of the changes effected in that measure by the other House of Parliament.

likewise approved of those Amendments, especially that which had reference to British Courts of Justice to be established in China. He censured in strong terms the proposed imposition of tonnage—a tax that had not been enforced for more than 200 years, and which, when last attempted, had been resisted to the death. The hon. Baronet then went through the several amendments, and expressed his concurrence in all. The Bill as it passed the House of Commons gave an unrestricted power to his Majesty's Ministers, and the advantageous alterations which had been effected in it restraining that power had been made by the unreformed House of Lords.

wished to inquire from the noble Lord near him, whether it was proposed that the superintendents under the Bill should interfere with the opium trade carried on in Canton?

said, that certainly there was no intention of interfering with any trade excepting that which was carried on by British subjects.

observed, that since there had been one reduction of duty from 20s. to 10s., it might not be unreasonable to expect that the tonnage would be reduced from 5s. to 2s. 6d.; and he should propose an Amendment to that effect.

was, he confessed, surprised to find that the hon. member for Oxford should consider that tonnage had been out of use for centuries, when it was a matter of notoriety, that at all times tonnage had been, and was at present, levied in all our Crown colonies.

could not agree to the proposed change from 5s. to 2s. 6d. To make such an alteration was not then necessary, for if hereafter the payment was found too much, it would be remonstrated against, and doubtless there would be no difficulty interposed in the way of reduction, if circumstances should then prove not unfavorable; at present, however, he could not agree to the proposed reduction; for the expenses of the consular establishments, to which the proceeds of that revenue were to be applied, were still considerable.

said, it was a mistake to suppose that the Lords had made any change abolishing the British Courts proposed to be created under the Bill as sent up from the Commons. The Lords' Amendment merely went to remove the generality of the terms in which the enactment respecting these Courts was couched. The Bill as it now stood, instead of abolishing those Courts, limited them to Canton.

said, he fully concurred with the hon. member for London, that there should be no interference with the opium trade.

, adverting to the foreign policy of the present Administration must say, that he felt considerable confidence in the manner in which they were conducting the intercourse of this country with the European powers; but before Parliament separated for the recess, he wished to call the attention of the House to one or two topics. He hoped, that the noble Lord would give them some expectation favourable to the cause of Poland. It was with infinite satisfaction that he found himself in a situation to congratulate the House upon the fact, that Belgium now enjoyed a national government; and he hoped that before long he should be able to congratulate the country on the recognition by England of the Queen of Portugal. Having said thus much, he hoped he might be allowed to observe, that as Russia had prevented France and England from interfering in the concerns of Portugal, so he hoped France and England would prevent Russia from overpowering Turkey. He desired to know whether the troops sent by Russia to Constantinople were sent with the consent of France and England, or against that consent? Further, he desired to know if it were not the fact, that a treaty had been agreed to between Russia and the Sultan himself, without the concurrence of any Minister, and without the knowledge of any diplomatic agents at the Porte? Surely, if that were so, he should say, that strong measures ought to be taken to prevent a recurrence of such a proceeding.

hoped, that Donna Maria would speedily be recognized by England. The declaration made by the noble Lord on a former day with respect to Poland, had given the greatest satisfaction; and he hoped, that by Europe at large, the cause of Poland would not be considered as having been by any means decided, but rather as remaining in abeyance. He had but to add, if Russia and Turkey had concluded a treaty offensive and defensive, so should France and England.

observed, that it was not his intention to follow the observations of the hon. Members who had just addressed the House, but to inquire whether there really had been concluded a treaty offensive and defensive between Russia and Turkey? He must confess, that he had no other knowledge of any such important transaction than what he derived—not through the Government—but from the perusal of the intelligent correspondence that appeared in the Morning Herald. According to the important information communicated in that able correspondence, the treaty precluded Turkey from entering into any new treaties with other powers, except with the concurrence of Russia. He hoped, that the noble Lord and the Government did not allow themselves and the House to rely for information on the ordinary resources of a newspaper; and that therefore his Lordship was prepared to give some explicit information on the subject, other than that derived from the Journal to which he had alluded. He was willing to admit, that it was irregular to apply for this information; but he trusted that if the noble Lord could not now give the information required, he would be prepared before the prorogation of Parliament to lay before the House, not merely the treaties that had been made, but all communications connected with the formation of those treaties between Turkey and Russia. The interests of England and of all Europe had long been bound up with the independence of Turkey. He trusted the noble Lord would have no objection to state whether the reports which had been circulated, and which were so injurious to the cause of England, were or were not true?

assured the House, and the hon. and gallant member for Westminster, that he felt it at all times a duty and a pleasure to give them every information connected with his department that he could afford, consistently with the duty he owed the public. He did not mean to follow either the hon. and gallant Member, or the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Cutlar Fergusson), through all the topics they had thought fit to advert to, because he considered that in doing so they were rather expressing their own opinions than putting questions to him which he was bound to answer. He thought it right, however, to correct one mistake into which the hon. and gallant Member had fallen with respect to Portugal. The hon. and gallant Member had stated, that Russia had prevented England and France from interfering with Portugal, and that, as Russia had done so, both this country and France should have entered into an alliance to prevent Russia from meddling with the affairs of Turkey. The hon. and gallant Member was very much mistaken if he thought that they had been influenced by Russia in respect to the conduct they had pursued towards Portugal. The line of conduct the British Government had pursued was that which they deemed consistent with the honour of the country, and consistent with that public policy they had uniformly adopted. He repeated, that in their conduct towards Portugal, they had not been influenced by what might be the opinions of Russia, nor by what might be the opinions of any other government of Europe. So much he said for the Government of this country, and he thought that he might go equally as far with respect to the government of France, and say, that she acted according to her own considerations, and was not, any more than this country, influenced, in the line of policy she pursued, by the advice of any other nation. Now, with regard to the affairs of the East, it was perfectly true, that his Majesty's Government had been informed, that a treaty had been recently signed between Russia and the Porte; but as that treaty was not officially signed, and as he was not in possession of it, the House could not expect of him to give any information as to what that treaty contained. With respect to the information said to be received by means of the public journals, it could be no blame to Government if, by the activity of their agents, they were sometimes beforehand with the Government. The hon. and gallant Member asked another and a double question—namely, whether the entrance of the Russian troops into Turkey was with the consent of England and France, or, whether both or either of those Powers, had on their part protested against the entrance of those troops. It was not necessary for the English Government to protest against the entrance of those troops, because it had received the most positive assurances from Russia, that when they had accomplished the purposes for which they were sent, they would retire. He had now, he believed, touched upon all the points on which the three hon. Members had questioned him. He was not in a condition to give any positive information as to the conduct the British Government might think proper to pursue with respect to the treaty alluded to. When they were sure that such a treaty really did exist, and when they were in possession of that treaty, it would be then for them to determine what was the course of policy they ought to pursue.

reminded the noble Lord, that there was one question he had left unanswered—namely, whether the Porte, previously to having asked for assistance from Russia, had made a similar demand from the government of this country.

said, it was true that such a demand had been made in the course of last August by the Porte, before it had applied to Russia for assistance. The application that had been made to the country on the part of the Porte was for maritime assistance, and his Majesty's Government, from the nature of circumstances had not thought fit to grant the application.