On behalf of the Dublin Steam-packet Company, I now move, Sir, for leave to bring in a bill, notwithstanding that the period has elapsed, when by the standing orders this should have been done. In this case a bill was some time since brought into the House, and upon the third reading it was rejected, on the ground that this body corporate were not individually responsible for the additional subscriptions to be made. On that account alone, I say, the bill was rejected. The Dublin Steam-packet Company had previously to this, entered into and made contracts to the amount of 137,000l.; and the great object of those contracts was that of building more steam-boats for the purpose of increasing a special branch of their trade, connected with the naviga- tion of the Shannon, by which party through Dublin a great trade is carried on; and no arguments have been raised against this measure, except that it would have the effect of creating a monopoly, which, however, I am confident was a construction not warranted by the facts of the case. The proposal which I have now to submit to the consideration of the House, and which I hope they will accede to is, that I may have leave to bring in this Bill; that every hon. Member may be put in possession of its object and its contents, and that no arguments may be urged against it, which are not to be justified and confirmed by its provisions. In moving for leave to introduce this bill, I have only to state that it is already printed, and will be deposited in the private bill office; when that is done, the House will decide whether they will entertain the measure or not. In the meantime, however, I must deprecate any premature discussion upon it before the facts and merits of the plan can be known. If, indeed, hon. Gentlemen raise a controversy now, they must do us the justice to suppose that the principle of the bill which we seek to introduce, has nothing in view beyond giving to the public this security— that every person who shall become a subscriber to this increased capital will be liable to the extent of his entire fortune, whatever it may be. Thus you will give an increased and unlimited security to those who may have any transactions with the Company. Under these circumstances, I do venture to hope that it is not too late to appeal to the House for its sanction to the introduction of this bill. The House objected to its principle, as it was before brought in, and this has prejudiced the interests of the Company. I repeat my hope that I may be permitted to bring in the bill, and that then hon. Gentlemen will dispose of it as they like; and let me add, I hope that no local jealousies of any kind will be allowed to interfere, or to bias the judgment of the House. I have only now to move for leave to bring in a bill, to authorise the Dublin Steam-packet Company to extend their capital, with an unlimited responsibility, for the purpose of building six additional steam-vessels.

I rise to second the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. I believe that an opinion has gone abroad that in this instance the responsibility of the Dublin Steam-packet Company is limited; but I have no doubt that all the bad parts or objectionable provisions of the former bill have been carefully expunged, and that each and every person who may become connected with this Company will be strictly liable to the whole amount of his property. I know it has been imagined that persons might be added to the new lists of subscribers, who being originally protected by the limited responsibility would continue in that favoured position. Now it is proposed that the former subscribers shall be allowed to become subscribers to this proposed additional capital, in which case they will take upon themselves the whole responsibility, and will be liable to the same extent as they would have been if the Company had never existed. I confess I cannot regard this case in a general way, as one involving the principle of a monopoly; because in the first place it is only proposed to allow the Company to obtain the power of increasing their capital for the positive benefit of the country —which if it be a monopoly, it is elsewhere obtained as in this instance, only by a successful competition. I conceive we are more especially called upon to regard the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin with a favourable eye, seeing that we have not many such advantages in Ireland, as this Company has already conferred, and will yet confer on the people more particularly who are resident along the banks of the Shannon and the adjacent country. I merely wish to conclude by observing that in consequence of the belief which has been entertained that a competition would be prevented in the conveyance of passengers and merchandize between Dublin and Liverpool, and that sufficient means of transport would not be found, this Company is now ready to build six additional steam-vessels to ply between those ports, for which they have entered into contracts, and are liable for a sum of 137,000l. out of the 150,000l. already subscribed. I repeat that every objectionable part of the former bill has been expunged.

—I am very sorry again to put myself forward to oppose the introduction of this Bill, but I am compelled to do so as a matter of public duty; and without following; the advice of the hon. and learned Gentleman, or troubling the House by any lengthened observations in support of my objections to this proceeding, I at once throw the question, and I throw myself, upon the rules and orders of this House, overwhelmed as we are with private Bills, and I ask whether the House is prepared to sanction the introduction, or rather the re-introduction of a private Bill, so many as ten weeks after the period prescribed by the standing orders? If the hon. and learned Member for Dublin meant to bring in a Bill involving the principle of unlimited responsibility, why did he not do so at once? No, he did not do this— but having brought in a Bill containing the principle of a limited responsibility, and finding that he could not obtain a monopoly, he moves us to set the standing orders and regulations of the House at defiance, and endeavours to bring in a Bill differently framed. The hon. Member for Drogheda, who seconded the motion, says that the present Bill does away with the principle of a limited liability on the part of the company; but I say that this very Bill sanctions the limited responsibility to the amount of 300,000l. I oppose the motion altogether, and I rest my case upon the grounds which I have stated. I shall resist the motion by dividing the House upon it, and in so doing I feel that I am only furthering the legitimate interests of my constituents.

—I confess, Sir, it does appear to me after all that has been said, that this is a sort of nondescript liability, and that the result of passing this measure will be, that a great difficulty will be created in ascertaining in a satisfactory manner, hereafter, the difference which may exist between those of the shareholders who enjoy a limited or an unlimited responsibility; for the parties will be continually purchasing and exchanging their shares, and in that way both will be released from all responsibility. Now, I should like to have further information on this part of the subject. The powers sought for under the Act are extensive, and if vested in large companies like that now before the House, will be likely to retard the intercourse between the two countries by raising the passage money. This is the opinion which I strongly urged upon the committee which sat in the year 1833, upon the application then made to the House for a Bill connected with this company.

—I beg to say in one word, that there is no protection whatever given by this Bill to parties who may subscribe one sixpence to the new fund, and it is clearly shown by the provisions of the measure, that there is an unlimited responsibility to the fullest possible extent. On this account it is that I do implore the House to allow the Bill to be read a first time, in order that the case may not be viewed upon any man's ex parte statement; but, on the contrary, that we may have all the facts laid before us.

—I certainly feel that the explanation of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin has removed the chief objection which very properly attached to this Bill, and therefore I hope that the House will accede to the motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am aware that in the instance of the introduction of some great measure, involving very complicated details, it would be a good and valid objection to urge the late period of the session, or the noncompliance with the standing orders of the House; but I confess I do not think that such a line of argument holds good in the present case. Now it appears to me, from what I know of the objects of the Bill, that the principle of non-liability does not extend to it, but that, on the contrary, the parties who may take an interest in the company under this new Bill will be fully and perfectly liable and responsible to an unlimited extent. When this company came before the House on a late occasion, they asked for permission to increase their capital on a limited responsibility; they did so in accordance with privileges which they already were in possession of. This was objected to by those who thought their interests might be affected by it, and the Bill was thrown out. Aware of the great private inconvenience it would cause, as respected contracts previously entered into, in expectation of no exception being taken to the measure, and also of the injury it would inflict on Ireland, the parties now come again before the House, removing, as they conceive, all grounds of objection, and now they are met with a like hostility to that which defeated the former Bill. Against such a mode of proceeding I do protest; and I confess it does appear to me to be somewhat inconsistent to hear hon. Gentlemen regretting the deficiency of capital in Ireland, and now, when it is sought to be introduced there by a company which it has been admitted has already conferred so many benefits in the interior of that country, giving it all the opposition in their power. I am not going to make professions about my desire to serve Ireland, but I hold that the introduction of capital should be encouraged in Ireland, and with that feeling, and aware from my connexion with canal property in Lancashire, of the advantages which this company has conferred on both countries, I think it would be an act of injustice, even though the standing orders have not been strictly complied with, to refuse this motion, and I shall therefore give it my most cordial support. It may be urged, indeed, that the system which the passing of this measure will introduce may form a dangerous precedent, and that the principle may be carried too far, and that the company may override the interests of individuals. But if there be any point or force in those speeches which are continually made on Irish subjects, it is a great benefit to encourage the introduction of capital into Ireland. Now, I believe, and I am ashamed to say it, that this is almost a solitary instance in which this system has been brought to bear effectually upon the prosperity of that country, and it will be for those hon. Gentlemen who hear me, and who are connected with Ireland, to say whether I do not state the sentiments of the people at large. I do again implore the House to accede to the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin.

I do not see upon what just grounds we are called upon to accede to the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. I cannot conceive, Sir, upon what principle or how it is that we can pass one Act of Parliament, containing the principle of non-liability, and another Act by which we are to get rid of that responsibility. What is the construction to be put upon this Act? Much has been said of the advantages conferred on Ireland by this company. I may admit that fact; but it is my opinion, that if there had been no legislation whatever of this kind, there would have been no want of capital, or of the power of investing it for the promotion of steam-navigation in Ireland. The whole of such legislation is founded on false principles. The true principle seems to be overlooked—that where there is security for making profits, capital will be there employed, and it needs no encouragement.

I trust that the House will not indirectly sanction a principle which they have refused to do directly. The hon. and learned Member has told us, that this company has entered into contracts for the supply of steam-vessels, which I contend they ought not to have done; and in spite of the representations of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, I am opposed to this measure. It is quite certain that in this case, a number of persons with unlimited responsibility are to be grafted on those who have the limited responsibility. I will not, however, at the present moment detail the objections which I entertain to this measure; but, under all the circumstances, I really think that the better mode of proceeding for this House to adopt will be, altogether to reject the Bill at once. Let the parties come before us again, if they think fit to do so, in the next Session of Parliament.

I am one of those who are of opinion that all these matters are much better and more properly discussed whenever the Bill shall be brought fairly before the House, and I therefore hope that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin will be allowed to bring it in. When we consider the real benefits that this company has conferred upon Ireland, fulfilling what we have always in this House said should be done by encouraging the industry of that country, I think that we should regard it favourably. It appears to me that it would be rather hard to make the Company pay for any indiscretion they might have committed in regard to the former Bill by the rejection of this. The House rejected the former Bill because it allowed the Company to add 300,000l. to their capital, and on the principal of limited responsibility. By the present Bill they seek only for an increase to half that amount, and on the principle of unlimited liability. The objection upon public grounds to the increase being thus removed, I shall vote for the motion.

considered the hostility with which the motion before the House had been met, was quite uncalled for. What were the facts of the case? This Company were desirous of increasing their capital for the purposes of their business, and in doing so they availed themselves of the privileges which they enjoyed under their Bill. That was dissented from, and their application was rejected. They then came before the House a second time, and complied with what was required of them; and strange to say, they were again opposed. All who were acquainted with the interests of Ireland must be aware of the advantages conferred on it by the introduction of steam-vessels, which was mainly owing to this Company, who by their exertions and enterprise carried improvements into the interior of the country, particularly in those neglected districts adjoining the banks of the Shannon. It was argued by those connected with the interests of Scotland, that the Scotch companies should have similar privileges; but that was not objected to by this Company, who had not interfered with any other company. However, he could not avoid saying, that from the extent of the opposition directed against the Dublin Steam-packet Company, it appeared to him that the object was, to remove competition, that the Scotch companies might avail themselves of the advantages that would be gained by competitors being out of the field. This was no new company; it was a successful one, that had done much good in Ireland, and if the present motion were defeated, it would make a bad impression on his (Lord Clement's) side of the water, where the outlay of capital was so much sought for. He could not conceive how hon. Members could support every railroad humbug brought before them, and oppose such a measure of utility as that under consideration.

said, the question before them was whether sufficient had been shown by the hon. Members who introduced and supported this motion for violating the standing orders of the House-Here was a Bill that was rejected by the House, and with a slight alteration introduced again at that late period of the session, with no other recommendation than the statements of interested individuals. If the House were to agree to such a proposition, as well might they legislate on the presentation of a petition. The Bill on the former occasion had been opposed by numerous influential parties, who had the trouble of attending, but who were not prepared for its being brought forward a second time. He thought there should be a minute inquiry instituted before the motion was acceded to. He would oppose the granting leave to introduce the Bill.

was sorry that those who supported this motion did not follow the example and exercise the discretion of the hon. and learned Member who introduced it. Either this Bill was or was not the same in principle as that which had been thrown out before by the House. If it was the same Bill, they could have little hesitation in rejecting it; if it was not, the promoters of it should show a very great necessity for introducing it at this late period of the Session before the House gave it their sanction, and that in direct violation of the Standing Orders. The object of this company was to increase their capital to a sum of 150,000l.; and on the rejection of the Bill, they complain of the hardship of their case, as they had already entered into contracts for the building of steam vessels to the amount of 137,000l. How that expenditure was to promote the internal improvement of Ireland he (Mr. Young) was at a loss to understand. The lion, and learned Member said, that it was necessary to build these vessels to enable the company to enter into competition for conveying the mails for the Post-office; he thought that would not be a sufficient reason for the House departing from the general rule laid down for the regulation of private Bills, and acceding to this motion.

the hon. Member accuses me of having stated that this company had entered into a contract with the Post-office, and that that was what induced them to build additional steam-vessels, one word of which never escaped my lips; but some observations were made during the discussion which would bear that import, but the hon. Member was so puzzled and confused that he could not distinguish one from another. He (Mr. O'Connell) considered that he had much reason to complain, and complain bitterly at the hostility he had met with on introducing this motion, which should have been reserved until the Bill was on the table, and then they might with propriety have stated their objections, and it would be his (Mr. O'Connell's) duty to explain and remove them. Let the Bill be brought before the House, and if it did not contain the principle of an unlimited responsibility on the part of every shareholder to the full extent of his property, reject it; but do not on mere form and technicalities defeat a measure calculated to impart so many advantages to Ireland. Hon. Members were often heard to indulge in what he (Mr. O'Connell) would not term "cant," about the introduction of capital info Ireland; here was an opportunity of doing so, not experimentally but practically, and he would be glad to know on what substantial grounds they could refuse assent to it. He had not a particle of personal interest in the measure: his support was derived from his consciousness of the advantage it would be to Ireland. Complaints had been made, that sufficient notice had not been given of an intention to bring in this Bill, but that would not appear from the manner in which hon. Gentlemen opposed it from all sides of the House. All he would ask was for leave to place the Bill upon the table of the House, and he would give it up and allow of its being rejected the moment any hon. Gentleman said that it was not what he had described it to be.

inquired whether it was the intention of Government to make provision for the accommodation of ladies in the Strangers' gallery, in pursuence of the report of the Select Committee, approved by the House, before the first of June, because in that case he should beg to withdraw the motion of which he had given notice, for an address to his Majesty on the subject this evening.

did not think it advisable that the question should again be submitted to debate and division, the resolutions of the hon. Member having been already twice acceded to by the House; and accordingly Government was ready to propose an estimate on the subject. Still it was out of his power to fix the 1st of June for the completion of the arrangements; indeed, he did not very well see how they could be completed before the recess.

had the misfortune on this subject to differ in opinion from the hon. Member for West Glocester-shire; the question, he contended, should again undergo consideration in Committee, and when the estimate was submitted to the House, it would be quite competent for hon. Members to negative the whole proposition.

did not, of course, mean to preclude the adoption of that course. The view he took of the question was, that the House having twice affirmed the resolution that the gallery should be erected, the Government should, in deference to that decision, propose an estimate on the subject, in order to carry into effect what he presumed were the wishes of the House in that respect; although he confessed (as might indeed appear from the votes he had already given), if he had merely followed his own judgment in the matter, he should most willingly have seen the hon. Member (Mr. G. Berkeley) in a minority.

expressed a hope, that as the House had once negatived the proposition last Session, when it came to be re-considered in Committee, it would still meet a similar fate.

was anxious to put a question to the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, which, although not on the all-engrossing subject of the ladies, was nevertheless of very great importance. He wished to know whether it was the intention of Government this Session to propose any measure for the better relief and maintenance of pauper lunatics in England and Wales—an un-fortunate class of persons, most inadequately and improperly provided for under the present system.

was quite ready to admit that the clauses in the new Poor Law Act with respect to pauper lunatics had occasioned some inconvenience, and perhaps not a little suffering, to that unfortunate class of persons; at the same time, until he had fully consulted the Poor Law Commissioners on the subject, he could not pledge himself to bring in any Bill during the present Session.

hoped the noble Secretary for the Home Department would answer another question he had to put, connected with the Poor Law Amendment Bill, with respect to money advanced to unions for the building of workhouses. He wished to know whether Government would extend the period for repayment from ten to fourteen or twenty years; and also whether they would allow a reduction of the interest payable on the loan below 4l. per cent?

said, with respect to the latter part of the question, his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already reduced the rate of interest on any advances which might be made for the building of workhouses from 5l. to 4l. per cent, but it was not thought advisable to make any further reduction. As to the time fixed for repayment, he had to state, that on an application of the parties, declaring their wishes to that effect, Government would have no objection to extend the period to twenty years.

supported the Bill.

opposed it, and moved an instruction to the Committee "to introduce clauses for relieving, under proper restrictions, railway and other public companies from unconscionable contracts extorted from them by landowners as the price of their assent."

thought it would be better to refer the whole question to the Railways Committee.

withdrew his amendment.

said, that he did not feel disposed to accede to the suggestion of the noble Lord for postponing his motion relative to the Parliamentary Surveys of the Church Lands; preserved in the library of Lambeth Palace. Those documents were of the greatest importance now that the question of tithes was under the consideration of the House, inasmuch as they formed the connecting link between the value of that property to which they referred as given in the King's books and its actual value at the present time. They had been made by order of the long Parliament—consequently they were the property of Parliament, and moreover the Archbishop of Canterbury admitted, that they were deposited with him—that he was the keeper of them—for the Parliament. He thought it necessary that they should be in every hon. Member's hands, embracing as they did much valuable information on a subject under discussion in Parliament, in place of individuals having to pay two guineas for a single extract to the Archbishop's Secretary, which they were now obliged to pay He did not see how any objection could be made to his Motion, and he trusted he should have the House with him in making it. The hon. Member concluded by moving for a copy of the Parliamentary Surveys of Church Lands, preserved in the Library of Manuscripts at Lambeth.

thought the Motion was unnecessary, as, according to his hon. Friend's own statement, these documents were not difficult of access to any one. In the next place, he saw no more reason for copying them at the expense of the country than he did for copying the parish registers of any part of the kingdom, or those documents of a similar nature in the Rolls Chapel, the Tower, and other depositories of them. If his hon. Friend's motion was acceded to, it would afford a plea and a precedent for other hon. Members to move for other records of the same character; and, in the end, all the records in the kingdom might be moved for by that means. The noble Lord concluded by moving, as an Amendment, that the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into a Committee on the Tithes Commutation Bill, be read.

expressed his surprise at the disinclination of the noble Lord to consent to the production of these papers. They were Parliamentary documents, and, therefore, ought to be in possession of Parliament. In his opinion it was extremely desirable that they should be produced.

maintained the expediency of producing these surveys.

would not deny that they were public records, but objected to their being printed by an order of that House. It would be equally reasonable for any hon. Member to move that Doomsday Book, which was public property, should be printed, and laid upon the Table of the House.

opposed the motion, because he thought it absurd to call for the production of twenty quarto volumes, which must be copied and printed before they could be laid before the House, and which, if the information they contained were of any value at all, ought to be in the hands of Members at the present moment.

replied, that his motion went merely to have the papers laid upon the Table of the House. He had no wish to cast a reflection on any one, particularly the Archbishop of Canterbury, but he thought that these public documents should be in the possession of the House. He felt that the production of them was of so much importance, that he should certainly take the sense of the House upon the question.

placed in the hands of the Chairman the 33d Clause, as it was proposed to be amended. It was in the following terms:—

"And be it enacted, that in every case in which the Commissioners shall intend making such award, notice thereof shall be given in such manner as to them shall seem fit; and after the expiration of twenty-one days, after such notice shall have been given, the Commissioners, or some assistant commissioner, shall proceed to ascertain the clear average value (after making all just deductions on account of the expenses of collecting, preparing for sale, and marketing) of the tithes of all the tithe able produce of all lands subject to tithe in the said parish, according to the average of seven years preceding Christmas, in the year 1835; provided, that, if during the said period of seven years, or any part thereof, the said tithes, or any part thereof, shall have been compounded for or demised to the occupier of any of the said lands, in consideration of any rent or payment instead of tithes, the amount of such composition or rent, or sum agreed to be paid instead of tithes (including all unremitted arrears thereof), shall be taken as the clear value of the tithes included in such composition, demise or agreement during the lime for which the same shall have been made and the commissioners, or assistant commissioner, shall award the average value of the said seven years so ascertained as the sum to be taken for calculating the rent-charge to be paid as a permanent commutation of the said tithes; provided also, that in estimating the value of the said tithes, the Commissioners or assistant Commissioner shall estimate the same as chargeable to all Parliamentary, parochial, county, and other rates, charges, and assessments to which tithes are liable; and whenever the said tithes shall have been compounded for, on the principle of such composition being paid free from all such rates, charges, and assessments, or any part thereof, the said commissioners, or assistant commissioner, shall have regard to that circumstance, and shall make a fair addition on account thereof."

wished to ask the noble Lord whether this average was to be taken on a valuation of the last seven years' produce in all cases? If this were the intention of the clause, the consequence would be, that the commutation, which was to be made first in corn and then in money, would have a very injurious effect in a great number of instances. Suppose the price of corn to fall permanently, as it probably would, in that case lands of an inferior quality, which were now cultivated for the purpose of raising corn, would be thrown out of cultivation, and would probably be laid down for grass lands. It would then he extremely unjust to saddle such land with a permanent tithe composition, calculated when wheat was 6s. a-bushel, for when it was laid down in grass the rent would diminish from—say, 18s. to 10s., and wheat being then probably 5s. the bushel, the land would have to pay a permanent rent-charge of 5s., which was half the amount of the rent. This clause appeared to con- vey to the Church half of the whole of this kind of land, and he therefore strongly objected to it.

thought, that there would be no time at which a proposition could be made for a commutation of tithes when something of this kind must not happen. You might certainly suppose, that the produce of some land would be worth now 80s., and the composition for tithe 3s., and that perhaps at some future period the produce of the same land would not be worth so much, while the 3s. would still remain as a rent charge upon the land in lieu of tithe. But, on the other hand, we might suppose, that land, whose produce was now worth 30s., might, by the application of capital, in a short time be worth 50s. or 60s., and in these cases the commutation of tithe would be a great benefit. In attempting to carry a measure of this kind, it could not be avoided, but that some part of the country or other might suffer at a future period by the commutation of tithes; but the hardship which had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Cumberland—namely, that individuals who had taken land of not a very good quality, and had been at a greater expense than their neighbours in improving it, should be subjected to pay a higher rate of composition—was very much done away with by the provision which had been inserted, that the valuation should be made by two applotters on the parish generally, and not on each particular piece of land. With respect to the possibility of loss referred to by the hon. Member for Middlesex, no arrangement that could be made with regard to tithes, either now or fifty years hence, could prevent a loss falling somewhere, but it would be more than balanced by the settlement of the question.

Will the noble Lord allow me to ask him whether his applotment is to be made once for all, or from time to time?

Once for all.

thought, then, that it was extremely unjust that an average of the last seven years should he taken as the basis of the rent-charge upon the land, not merely during the occupation of it by the present possessor, but ever after.

was not able to persuade himself, that an average for the last seven years, where it could be taken, would give that fair test which it was desirable to ascertain. It was quite clear, that such a standard must operate favourably or un- favourably, according as the land was kept in a good or bad condition. He had said, that it would not give a fair test where the average could be taken, but there were many cases where it would be impossible to apply it. It was quite impossible to make a fair estimate of the value of produce in different parts of the country. He thought, that an attempt to legislate on this subject, by adopting any one general principle to which all must conform, could not be successful; and he should therefore move as an amendment, instead of the words, "valuation of the average produce for the last seven years," to insert, "having regard to the nature and quality of the land."

considered, that the plan proposed by the noble Lord was the best that could, under the circumstances, be devised, and in his opinion, that which the right hon. Baronet had moved by way of amendment was open to much graver objections. The principle of this clause had already been carried into effect in many voluntary compositions, that had been entered into in various parts of the country, but at the same time he must admit, that after all had been done that was possible to be done, there would be many cases that would press on individuals. But the hon. Member for Middlesex should also bear in mind, that some parties would be greatly benefitted by this settlement. Many lands which were about to be brought into cultivation would remain unimproved till this settlement was made, and the gain on these lands would be considerable. To be sure that would be no satisfaction to the man who should lose by the arrangement, but in the settlement of a great question, some such losses were unavoidable.

observed, that in the county which he had the honour to represent, some lands were over-cultivated, some were under-cultivated, and some were out of cultivation altogether. How was this plan to be made applicable to all?

had at first been disposed to think, that the valuation of tithes ought to proceed on the principle suggested by the right hon. Baronet (Sir E. Knatchbull), but subsequent reflection induced him to think, that the plan proposed by the noble Lord would be more equal and more just. He knew not, indeed, why the particular period of seven years should be selected as that on which the average should be taken. Seeing that the farmers throughout the country now generally pursued the system called four. course cropping, he thought an average of eight years would be preferable.

approved of the principle of the clause, as he supposed it was intended that the valuation should be made on the produce of land under good cultivation; but unless some alteration were made in the wording of the clause, the valuers would have to calculate the average upon the actual state of the land.

observed, that in many parts of Essex there were lands now in the course of cultivation to raise wheat which the occupiers were on the point of relinquishing as corn lands, and if corn was reduced in price, they would be laid down in grass, and it would be an extreme hardship to impose on those districts a permanent composition for the tithe of land on the average of the last seven years, which afterwards might produce nothing more than a second-rate crop of grass. The only unobjectionable plan would be, to abstain from making this measure uniform, and in the cases he had referred to, to ascertain what proportion tithe had borne to rent, and to fix the composition accordingly—a plan which would not make the tithe a part of the rent.

was glad to hear the hon. Member for Somersetshire admit the justice of the principle of the clause, and he thought his objections to the wording of the clause might be removed by a slight alteration in its wording.

, from what had passed during this discussion, had been more than ever convinced how great a waste of time there was in discussing the details of a measure before the House was agreed upon its principle. The wise and honest principle of the 33d Clause was rendered null and of no effect by Clause 34. If it were not for that clause, he should give the Bill his earnest support. What we wanted was, not to lower or raise, but to fix tithe, and this object the clause would effect. It took the voluntary compositions which had been made by different parties in the country, who might be supposed to have generally dealt fairly with each other, as a basis for a compulsory commutation. For these reasons it was, that he supported the principle of commutation. But the whole object of the present clause was defeated by the provisions of the next—the 34th Clause; and when that clause came under consideration he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the House upon it. As to the amendment of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for East Kent, he thought, that from the language which had been introduced being so vague and indefinite, the Bill would only prove beneficial to the profession to which he had the honour to belong.

could not understand the objection of the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard to the 34th Clause, which had for its object an appeal against the decision of the Commissioners. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say, that the determination of those Commissioners ought to be final without any appeal?

would not now discuss the objection of the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard to the 34th Clause. He had admitted the principle of the 33rd Clause, and had likewise admitted the necessity of modification of that principle. The House had first to discuss the amendment proposed by the right hon. Baronet opposite, and afterwards discuss the amendment which he (Lord John Russell) had proposed in the whole clause. When the discussion as to the mode in which the whole tithe should be apportioned among the different tenants in the parish came to be discussed, he thought it would be quite right that some words should be introduced declaratory that that apportionment should be made with reference to the productive value and quality of the land, but the present was a very different question. The object of the present clause was, to ascertain the actual average value of the tithe for the last seven years on each estate; he did not, therefore, think that the amendment of the right hon. Baronet had any application whatever to that object.

said, that he was strongly in favour of the amendment proposed by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Knatchbull), and that upon the very grounds upon which the noble Lord had said, that when they came to the clause for apportioning the whole tithe among the different cultivators of the parish, he would introduce words to the effect of those contained in the amendment of the right hon. Baronet. And why? Because the same reason which induced the noble Lord to adopt such a principle with respect to the apportionment of the charge of the whole tithe of a parish among the tithe payers was equally applicable as between parish and parish in the general application of the principle of tithe to the whole kingdom. For suppose a parish should have been under corn cultivation for the last seven years, and the average of those years should be taken as a criterion of the amount of the future payment to be made by that parish in commutation of tithes, was it not quite obvious that that parish would have a permanent charge imposed upon it, much greater than the adjoining parish, if such adjoining parish should hitherto have been grass land? Then, if the land in this latter parish should at any future time be broken up and converted into corn land, was it not clear, that inasmuch as the occupiers of this parish would have a much less sum to pay as a rent charge in lieu of tithe, than the occupiers of land in the former parish, they would be able to undersell the cultivators of the land in the parish which had always hitherto produced corn?

proposed the introduction of the following proviso:—"That the said Commissioners shall make a deduction, after the rate of 10l. for every 100l. of the average value so ascertained, and shall award the average value so ascertained and reduced, as the sum to be taken as the amount of rent charge and permanent composition of the said tithe."

opposed the amendment on the ground that it appeared to introduce a new principle into the Bill.

moved the addition of the following proviso: — "Provided always, and be it enacted, that in case any part of the lands in the parish shall at any time be broken up and the surface destroyed and rendered unproductive, by the operations of raising and getting coal, iron, stone, and other mines and minerals, or for the erection of any works for converting the same, that the rent-charge imposed as hereinbefore provided, shall on the breaking up or converting of the surface of such land as aforesaid, abate in the proportion of the extent of land so rendered unproductive, and that such rent-charge shall accrue only on such land being restored and brought into cultivation."

thought that it would be a violation of the principle of the Bill, if land under the circumstances stated in the proviso should be totally exempted from tithe. He might mention that it would be only in Staffordshire the proposed exemption would operate. And he did not think it right for the sake of such a small district to make a complete alteration in the principle of the Bill.