Mr. Lucas thought, that this case, if established went wholly to support the view of his right hon. Friend, (Mr. Lefroy). As even in a case where the parishioners had a right of appeal to the law they waived that right and preferred arbitration. the compositions made under the Act the honour of presenting a few nights that went by his name, both parties chose since. That was a petition from the a commissioner, and the composition parishioners of Castle Island, stating, that was the result of their mutual voluntary their Rector, the very rev. Archdeacon agreement. Now, in many instances Ryder, had, by fraud and collusion, prosince these compositions had been made in cured an unfair composition under Goul1821, the original incumbents had died, burn's Act. It appeared by that petition and had since had, in some instances, two that the Archdeacon claimed 1,8561. as or more successors, who came into the composition, and that his own Bishop, on receipt of their income upon the faith of being referred to as arbitrator, awarded an existing agreement. Were they now him only 1,450. This showed the neto be called on to have that agreement cessity for revision. re-opened without having the means of bringing forward evidence with respect to transactions that occurred in the time of their predecessors? It was easy to see the inconvenience to which this would lead in Ireland, considering the spirit of resistance to the payment of tithes, which at present prevailed there. He had continued to reside in Ireland from the passing of that act until 1827, and so far from any complaints against the working of that Act, there was, on the contrary, throughout the country, a general feeling of obligation towards the Government, for the advantages which had resulted from it. He repeated, that it would not merely be doing injustice to individual parties, but it would be introducing a most dangerous principle at this distance of time to re-open agreements that had been entered into with the voluntary consent of both parties, and upon the faith of an Act of Parliament. Mr. Sheil said, that the facts contained in the petition mentioned by his hon. friend (Mr. Roche,) were, that the Bishop of Cloyne on having the matter referred to him awarded the Archdeacon 1,450, instead of 1,8651. his claim. From this the right hon. Gentleman opposite might conclude, that the Archdeacon since that time had received only 1,4501., abiding by the arbitration; but what were the facts? He took the 1,450. until 1832, but when the million was granted, he claimed, and obtained, the proportion of his own claim, 1,856l., and afterwards made his success in that matter a ground for enforcing the same The Chancellor of the Exchequer amount from his parishioners. Surely thought that the apprehensions of the right such a case as this afforded some grounds hon. Gentleman were exaggerated. If for revision. He could not vouch for the alteration proposed interfered with agreements made under the right hon. Gentleman's Act, he should support them with very great reluctance; but as they only contemplated revision in cases where compositions had been unfairly effected, he could not see that their adoption would impose any hardship on the clergyman. The right hon. Gentleman should recollect that the application for revision was not to come from the majority of numbers in the parish, but from the owners of the greater value; and this being the case, he did not think there need be any apprehension that the application would be made on unjust or trivial grounds. Mr. E. B. Roche did not object to the clauses as going too far, but of not going far enough. That abuses had taken place under Mr. Goulburn's Act he needed no further proof than the petition he had had proctors were the acting parties for the clergymen, and they arranged the compensation, not according to the standard of the net sum which the clergyman had hitherto received, but according to what they had been able by every device to extort from the peasantry. it would be scouted out of that House, The hon. and learned Gentleman alluded to the opposing interests of tillers and graziers; but those opposing interests in reality formed an effectual check to the claims of the clergy. The case was never left with either clergyman or parishioner, whether tiller or grazier, but referred to some respectable men as arbitrators. Under these circumstances, although in the case of a single parish, which could prove an improper arrangement, he would be willing to grant a revision; yet, to extend it beyond-to an extent, in fact, almost unlimited-ap danger to the title of every property that depended on the sanction of an Act of Parliament. On these grounds he should refuse to open the composition. Mr. Hume was very much surprised at the opposition given to the proposal of the noble Lord, because as the right hon. Gentleman opposite must recollect, on the introduction of Mr. Goulburn's Bill the grounds advanced for its adoption were that there must be a revision every fifteen years. Sir R. Peel said, that the hon. Gentle-peared to him a measure fraught with man had just awoke from a dream of fifteen years, and forgot entirely what had occurred in the interval. Mr. Goulburn's Act certainly provided for a revision at the end of twenty-one years, but the answer to Mr. O'Connell said, they were all agreed that was, that since the time of its passing as to the desirableness of correcting frauds, another act had been passed by the noble and the only question was, the extent to Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, which they should go in endeavouring to and by that the compositions were made per- do so. It would undoubtedly be a fraud manent. It appeared to him that the case if the tithe-owner were allowed to receive of Archdeacon Ryder should be put en-one-fifth more than he had a right to, and tirely out of consideration; from reading it was not too much to ask for the power the petition he did not clearly understand the case, and certainly before any inference unfavourable to that clergyman was drawn, the allegation should be substantiated by proof. He did not understand how Archdeacon Ryder contrived to get 1,8407. out of the million, still less how he continued to enforce that claim from the tithe-payer. Why had not the parishioners appealed to the Privy Council, as they were empowered to do by Lord Stanley's Act. [Mr. Hume:-The case occurred in 1832.] The parishioners complained that there was a discrepancy between the statement of the Bishop's award and the Archdeacon's, the Archdeacon's stated that award to be 1,4507., provided all the rates were regularly paid, while the parishioners insisted that it was absolute. This was a very material difference, and sufficient to make them put the case entirely out of view until the real facts were ascertained. He Lord Stanley contended that the clauses objected to the proposal altogether, be- if agreed to would allow the compositions cause he thought that the reopening of an to be opened if it were alleged that they agreement made under the sanction of an exceeded even by the amount of a single Act of Parliament would have a tendency halfpenny. It would be too hard thus to to shake all agreements similarly circum- open compositions which had been entered stanced. He would venture to say, that, if into nearly twenty years ago. Legal inthe proposal were made in England or inquiries would be instituted, barristers sent any other country than Ireland, or in any down, and the clergyman would be sadother case than that of the Irish Church, dled with all the expenses of an inquiry of appeal in cases of existing imposition, when the tithe-owner was receiving 20 per cent. more than he ought properly to receive. Surely this was fair, and when a proposition was made for what hon. Members contemplated as a final and perpetual settlement of the question, they should not leave in the bill that which would be the cause of future collision and contests. When the tithes were sprinkled with blood as had been the case at Rathcormac and elsewhere, it was not to be wondered at if re-action should take place. Hon. Members should learn experience from the past, and endeavour as much as possible to remove all cause of complaint. If by any of the existing compositions the tithe-owner received upwards of 20 per cent. more than he ought to receive, the composition must have been a fraudulent one. acted in obedience to orders. When the army were employed in Ireland they never exceeded their orders. The observations of the right hon. Gentleman, so far from overthrowing, vindicated his opinion. Murder had been done in the case at Rathcormac, and many others had been committed in Ireland, without retribution. In Rathcormac seven human lives had been lost for a sum of three shillings and fourpence. Such a thing could not occur in any other country in Europe. into a composition made by his predecessor | pute anything to the soldiery who were upon views and statements which could employed on the occasion. They only not be now adduced. It had been asserted that there was no valid appeal under the existing law, and this in the teeth of several instances where appeal had been made, and made successfully. In his opinion it would be most unwise to re-open compositions which had been made at a time when no agitation existed, and made too, after cool deliberation on the part of those who entered into the contract. Such a proposition was calculated to shake the very foundation of property, and he, for his part, could not agree to the extent of the provisions made upon this point by Government. Sir E. Sugden was sorry this question had arisen, but by whom was it raised? By the hon. and learned Gentleman oppoSir E. Sugden, as allusion had been site, who could not regret more than he made to the affair of Rathcormac, would (Sir E. Sugden) what had taken place at take the liberty of saying a few words on Rathcormac. The hon. and learned the subject. The hon. and learned Mem- Gentleman might turn round and cry ber for Dublin had published it to the "Oh," but he did not care for the hon. world as his opinion, that the homicides and learned Gentleman's acting. It would which had taken place at Rathcormac have no effect but to lessen the respect were murders. Now, he would as a law-which he might otherwise feel for him. yer, state his opinion on the subject. He The hon. and learned Gentleman had would state to the House that the opinion given his opinion, and it was published, published by the hon. and learned Gentle- with his name attached to it. On what man was not founded in law, and the pub-ground did the grand jury ignore the bill? lication of that opinion had been productive of great mischief in Ireland. It was an easy matter for an hon. Member in his place in that House to detract from the purity of a judge, and the integrity of a jury; but such a proceeding would reflect little credit on him who did so. The was an enclosure. This he denied. There was no enclosure; but, on the contrary, there was fair access. There was an open way which was blocked up from the inside by carts and other obstructions, which it was quite lawful to remove. Again, he would insist that, in point of law, there had been no murder. Mr. O'Connell admitted, that he was not so fortunate a lawyer as the right hon. Gentleman. With respect to the opinion which he gave in the transaction at Rath-hon. and learned Gentleman said there cormac, it was given after he had been consulted upon the subject professionally, and if those who consulted him thought fit to publish the opinion which he gave, he could not prevent them. By that opinion, however, he would still stand. From the statement made to him when he was consulted upon the point, it appeared that a more foul and horrible murder had Mr. O'Connell said, that the right hon. never been committed. It was a murder Gentleman could not have read the charge most base and horrible. From the state of Justice Foster, who did not use the ment made to him it appeared that the argument of there being no enclosure. field was enclosed. [Sir E. Sugden-No, The speech of Judge Foster, which was a No.] He was glad to hear that denial. long and rambling one, made no allusion The right hon. Gentleman was too good a to an enclosure. He had done that lawyer not to know the value of the fact.learned personage injustice, forsooth. A Eleven witnesses proved to the enclosure. man who had been twenty-five years a There certainly was trespass, and a mur- barrister without a brief, and was then by der had been perpetrated, which was still a hop, step, and jump, transferred to the unavenged. For his part he was glad bench. With respect to the question of that the question of enclosure had been enclosure, there was a Gentleman in the agitated by so eminent lawyer as the House who had seen the spot, and could right hon. Gentleman. In charging the testify to the enclosure. He was glad case as a murder he did not mean to im-¡that the question had been raised, as it elicited an opinion from the highest Chancery lawyer England ever produced, that if the place was enclosed a murder had been committed. Mr. E. B. Roche knew the haggard, and could state distinctly, that it was as well inclosed as any other haggard in Ireland. He saw it before and after the transaction, but was not there at the time when the murder took place. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Dublin in characterizing it as a most foul murder. On the Question that the clause, as amended, stand part of the bill, the Committee divided. Ayes 103; Noes 88: Majority 15. List of the AYES. Aglionby, H. A. James, W. Hope, hon. C. A'Court, Capt. De Horsey, S. H. Eastnor, Lord Visc. Eaton, R. J. Hotham, Lord Jermyn, Earl Knightley, Sir C. Lockhart, A. M. Lucas, E. Mackenzie, T. Mahon, Lord Meynell, Captain Nicholl, J. Norreys, Lord Palmer, G. Peel, J. Peel, Sir R. Perceval, G. J. Polhill, F. O'Connell, J. Chalmers, P. Egerton, W. T. Estcourt, T. Fellowes, E. Childers, J. W: Clements, Lord Collins, W. Crawford, W. Ord, W. Crawley, S. Parker, J. Curry, W. Parnell, Sir H. Dalmeny, Lord Pechell, Capt. Duckworth, S. Pendarves, E. W. Easthope, J. Philips, G. R. Ebrington, Lord Power, J. Evans, G. Pryme, G. Finch, F. Reddington, T. N. Hale, R. B. Fitzgibbon, Col. Rich, H. Hawkes, T. Fleetwood, Sir P. Roche, E. B. Gordon, R. Roche, Sir D. Grattan, J. Rolfe, Sir R. M. Hinde, J. H. Hodgson, R. Hogg, J. W. Holmes, W. O'Connell, D. Filmer, Sir E. Freemantle, Sir T. Gordon, hon. Capt. Graham, Sir J. Greene, T. Grimsditch, T. Hayes, Sir E. Herbert, hon. S. Powell, Colonel Praed, W. T. Pusey, P. Rose, Sir G. Rushbrook, R. TELLERS. Perceval, Col. Lefroy, rt. hon. T. Clause added to the Bill. Remaining Clauses agreed to, and Re port to be brought up. House resumed. HOUSE OF LORDS, MINUTES.] Bill. Read a third time:-Dean Forest Mines; and Dean Forest Encroachments, Petitions presented. By Lord REDESDALE, from a place in perty to other than Ecclesiastical purposes; and from Clergy of Northumberland, against certain parts of the The, APPOINTMENTS IN CANADA.] Earl of Winchilsea begged leave to ask the noble Viscount, whether any information had been received by her Majesty's Ministers as to the appointment of the Gentleman, Mr. Gibbon Wakefield, to whom he had last night alluded? He had also to ask, whether the information reported in the public press was correct, namely, that Sir John Colborne had resigned the command of her Majesty's troops in Canada? and whether it was true, that the Earl of Durham had applied for an additional military force? Viscount Melbourne said, he had received no information on the subject of the appointment alluded to. As to the resignation of Sir J. Colborne, he believed it was true. He was not aware of any alteration in the situation of Canada, that called for an increase of the troops in that colony. As to the resignation of Sir J. Colborne, it was no doubt true, that the gallant officer had requested that an arrangement should be made, to enable him to relinquish the command in Canada. Conversation ended. JUVENILE OFFENDERS.] The Marquess of Lansdowne in moving, that the House should go into Committee on the Juvenile Offenders Bill, stated, that as the measure was one of much importance, he felt it necessary to explain its nature and object. Their Lordships must be aware, that for many years past there had been a very great increase of juvenile of fenders-that was, of offenders under twelve years of age. This, it had been remarked, was the case in every part of Europe, but to a greater degree in this country than in other states. A laborious inquiry had been instituted, in order, if possible, to ascertain the probable causes of this increase of crime. By some it was attributed to the rapid increase of the population, and the growth of large manufacturing towns, while others found some peculiar circumstances in the state of soThe Earl of Winchilsea wished to know ciety in England, which they were of opiwhether her Majesty's Ministers, had re- nion occasioned the evil. But, whatever ceived any communication from Sir John the cause might be, the increase of Colborne, on the subject of his resignation? juvenile depravity was most appalling. As In the present situation of Parliament, the result of an inquiry made in one great when they were on the point of separating, manufacturing town, that of Manchester, and when they saw this important colony it was ascertained, that in four years so peculiarly situated, he thought that this the number of children absolutely abancountry had a right to expect full inform-doned or found lost in the streets amountation on every point connected with it. He could not doubt for a moment the appointment of one of the persons to whom he had before adverted, and he should now ask the noble Viscount, hoping to receive from him a plain answer, whether such an appointment as that to which he had referred in the second instance had taken place, or was likely to take place? He should say, if two such appointments did take place, that he would not be worthy of holding a seat in that House, if he allowed the session to pass without calling their Lordships' attention to the subject, and taking the sense of the House upon it. Viscount Melbourne said, he certainly did not think, that the appointment last referred to by the noble Earl had taken place. He repeated, that there was nothing in the present situation of the colony, that required a reinforcement of troops. ed to 8,610. In 1832, there were 1,954; in 1833, 2,104; in 1834, 2,117; and in 1835 they amounted to the enormous number of 2,435. With respect to the commitments of juvenile offenders throughout the country, the result had been, as taken from accounts lately made up, that in the last two years 5,174 males and 1,275 females under the age of 16 years were committed for various crimes, the average of the two years being 2,587 males, and 637 females. The ratio in London was still greater. For many years |