The Sun. — London, England, 1836-07-01 00:00:00

I - MPERIAL PARLIAMEN T. ROUSE OF LORDS, JUNE 30. The examinolion of witnesses in the case of the borough of Stafford w?.,s resurnal at three o'clock this day, and con tinued till five, when the LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat ,on the Woolsack. IRISH MUNICIPAL BILL. The; Marquis of WESTMINSTER presented a peti tion in favour of the Irish Municipal Bill. SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES. The Duke of BUCCLEUGH ptesented Iniition in favour of the Scotch Universities Bill, MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS. Several Bills were brought up from the Commons, and read a first time. Amongst the Railway Bills were the London and Brighton, London and Blackwall (Commer cial), and Clarence (Durham). IBASII MUNICIPAL BILL. Lord ELLENBOROUGH presented the report of the Committee appointed to draw up reasons for disagreeing with the amendments made by the Commons to the amend ments made by their Lordships to the Irish Municipal Bill. The report. set out by stating that the Lords participated in the conviction expressed by the Commons, that a good correspondence between the two Houses of Parliament was essential to the well-being of the British Constitution, and it had always been a subject of regret to the Lords when, in the performance of their duty, they were compelled to take a dif ferent view of any important measure to that adopted by the- House of Commons. That the Lords were earnestly de sirous of re-moving all just causes of complaint, and of giving their assent to all well-considered measures of im provement to all parts of the United Kingdom. Im presselwith these feelings, the Lords were anxious to cor resr ond with the Commons in carrying into effect some of tb e important objects of the Bill for the regulation of Mu nicipal Corporations in Ireland. Although there was one principle in that Bill in which they were unable to concur, the Lords assented to the dissolution of the Corporations, the practical effect of whose Consitution was a subject of rearnable dissatisfaction ; but it did not appear to them advisable to establish in their places that particular form of local government proposed by the Commons. The Lords were not without the hope that the two Houses might agree upon provisions to accomplish the common object of both— to remove just causes of complaint, secure the due admi nistration of justice in the cities 'and towns in Ireland, reserve the 'Corporate property for their respective be nefit, and leave their local government under Acts volun tr.rily adopted.—(Hear.) The Lords concurred in opinion with the Commons, that it is not expedient to introduce, in the form of amendments, matters at variance with the principle of the Bill ; but, on the present occasion they deemed it the most convenient mode of proceeding, in order to enable the Lords to m:nte the fullest communica tion of their views to the Ho. - . 450 of Commons. The Lords were strongly impressed viith the belief that the system of local government, inveosed by the Commons, would, in the present s'..ate of Ireland, be a cause of party triumph, and likewise a continued source of party dissentien. The Lords earnestly desire the tran quillity of Ireland, but they were unwillinc , to adopt mea sures which, in their opinion, would supply new causes of dissention to the adherents of different creeds. They were prepared to do full justice to all parts of the empire ; but it could not always be assumed that, °,l the grant of similar institutions to c o u n t r i es dif fering in their circumstances, equal justice would be done. The Lords were unable to acquiesce in the pro position made by the Commons, that the Corporations constructed by the Bill should be confined to twelve cities and towns, because it was in those twelve towns, having the, largest populations, that the most extensive evils wou'al result from such a measure. The Lords disagreed with t / '..e amendments to continue the Corporations to 18 other towns, nor did they concur in the opinion that the pro visi-ans of the 9th Geo. IV., should be imposed in 20 cities ao d towns. The Lords were anxious that there should exist a power of taxation for local purposes wherever its existence was desired ; but they do not deem it expedient to suggest any alterations in that Act, nor do they acquiesce in the proposed facilities for incurring its provisions. They acquiesce in the desire of the Commons, that wherever that Act Was adopted, the whole Corporate property should be at onc e transferred to the Commissioners elected und er its provisions ; but they call to the recollection of the Commons, that in the cities and towns of Ireland they bad very generally refused to avail themselves of these powers of taxation, and they cannot but apprehend that the proposed intervention of the Legis lature, to overrule their manifest reluctance to be so governed and taxed, would have no tendency to satisfy the just wishes of his Majesty's subjects in Ireland, and would not b e i n accordance with the terms of the Union. They acquiesced with the Commons, in the opinion that the officers connected with the administration of justice should b e removed from local influence. It would be a matter of sincere regret to the Lords if their adherence to the %ore important amendments made by them, and their inability to concur in the new proposition made by the Common s should have the effect of leaving just cause of complaint without a full and present remedy. The Lords still entertain the hope that the two Houses will maintain the good understanding that has hitherto existed between them, and by a co-operation in the discharge of their respective duties, they may at no distant period intro duce such measures fortb e government of the local affairs of Ireland as may be effectual, by introducing real improve ments, to promote its Prowerity, by promoting social and religious peace in the dies and towns of Ireland. The Noble Lord concluded by moving that the Report be adopted. Lord MELBOU RN R, after the opinions and vote that had been given, thought it was superfluous to say that he did not concur in that opinion, or in the views that had, been stat e d in the Reasons. He much regretted the very hasty, rash, and imprudent course on which their Lordships had decided to enter ; but at the same time, after the very decid e d manifestation of their opi nions which , had been given o n a former occasion, it was not his intention to give any further opposition, or offer any objection to the Report. At the same time he hoped it would be fully understood by their Lordships and the country, that neither himself, nor the Noble Lords on his side of the House: were a party to it ; but, on the contrary, that they disclaimed all parti ci pation in it.—( Hear, hear.) On the motion of the Duk e of RICHMOND, the London and Brighton Railway till was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second tim e on Tuesday. Lord MELBOURNE moved th e first reading of the Marriages Bill, and the Registratio n o f Births, Deaths, and Marriages Bills. If there were objection, he would fix that the second reading of them be t a k en on Monday se'n might.—Ordered. Earl MINTO said a Noble Lord had given notice of his intention to put certain questions t o him to-morrow re lative to Spain. He would he unable to be in his place then, and it would oblige him if anoth er day were named. The Marquis of LONDONDERIty would be most happy to name, Monday for the purpose. Lord LYNDHURST presented a petition from the Dean of Faculty in Glasgow, against certain clauses in the Bankrup.ts' Estate Bill for Scotland. It having been announced that the Managers on the part of th'd Commons were ready for the Conference, On the motion of Lord ELLENBOROUGH, The Duke of Wellington, the Earl of Devon, the Earl of Shaftesbury, the Bishop of Cork, Lori Ellenborough, Lord Wharncliffe and Lord Abinger Were named to conduct the matter on the part of the Lorl s , who imme diately proceeded to the Committee Room, ll°. 5. The Duke of WELLINGTON and the oth er Managers appeared at the table, and said they had met the Chan cellor of the Exchequer, Lord John Russell, an d other of the Commons, to whom they had communicated their Lord- ships' reasons for not agreeing with their amendments. IRISH C'HURC,II. The Marquis of WESTMEATH said, Mo r e he pro ceeded with the motion of whiel , .. n e had given notic e , he would trouble the House with a. iev: words upon a matter personal to himself. In the course of Tuesday last an unjust, repre hensible, and cruel r , jisYepresentation of what be had said on Monday was given, lie was aware of his own deficiencies, and never addressed, the House except upon matters con nected with 1 1'.a own country, with which he was tolerably acquainted ; yet, insignificant as hp was, he hkd drawn down cens.dre of this cruel kind upon himself, and if he did not notice it, it would be so again.—(Heat, hear.) In the Courier of Tuesday, he was reported to have_ said th a t h e f or one would not cor.sent to gi ve the Catholics of Ireland a power to tax, their richer .fellow-corantrymen. He 'glad never made use of so rash ar,d foolish au expression. What he had said was, that 'le Bill impose additional taxes upon his already oPr i gessed country, and therefore he could not agree to it. he Noble Marquis then moved that a humble address be presented to his Majesty praying that he would be gra ciously pleased to order the Bishops of the Protestant Church of Ireland to amend the returns presented on the 2d of June, and that the Bishop, of Meath be commanded forthwith to furnish th l .:, returns already ordered by his Ma jesty, to be fur:,;ibed to the House, in conformity to their I .lord.ships' address. Viscount MELBOURNE said that he should oppose the motion, as he did not think it sufficiently distinct. Afte r a few words from Lord Ellenborough, the Earl of alengall, and the Marquis of Londonderry, The Earl ,of RIPON said that he would recommend the Noble Earl to withdraw his motion, so that it would with tolerable certainty, bring before the House the-,in formation that was desired. The Bishrp of EXETER said that he was not aware of' any, prerogative by w hi c h th e Crown could order Bishops, and he trusted the House would not agree to a motion which sanctioned such a principle* without some Very strong reasons. In fact, he would sooner move that :he question as to the law be put to the twelve Learned Judges of the realm. He, therefore, hoped that the Rouse would not entertain the motion of the Noble Earl. The Marquis of CLAN RICARDE said that he liOp'ed some proper returns would be made, for with et tbent it would be impossible to legislate en the subject. The Maiquis of LANSDOWNE would recommend to the Noble - Earl that he should withdraw his motion, for the Ftote of supplying the deficiencies complained of. he Marquis of WESTMEATH, in reply, 51i .4 1 would withdraw hi s motion. tilat The Earl of UXBRIDGE called their Lordships' atten tion to an occurreo.;:z concerning which some mistake had arisen, and wilich lie was of opinion should be brought be fore tile notice of the House. A Member of,their Lord ships' House, the Marquis of Anglesey, had been entered amorist the proxies in the late division on the Irish Cor poration Bill. Now, some Noble Lords had imagined that the Noble Marquis had been in the House in the course of the evening, a circumstance which Would of course re scind the entrance of his proxy. For his own part he (the Earl oT Uxbridge) understood that the Marquis of An glesey had hot been there at all since the time when he en tered his proxy. Lord KENYON said that the name of Lord Anglesey had not been called, and one of the clerks had, upon the, evening in question, said that his proxy was rescinded. He (Lord Kenyon), therefore, had been of opinion that the vote of the Noble Lord should be added to the minority. The Earl of HADDINGTON had been told by some Noble Lord that the .Marquis of Anglesey had been in the House during the debate. Lord HOLLAND thought that he (the Marquis of Anglesey) had not been in the House. Speaking consti tutionally, the Woolsack was no part of the House, and consequently it had always been the practice of the Chan cellors to stepiorward from the Woolsack more into tho body of the House, when they wished to address their Lordships upon any subject. If the Noble Marquis, there fore, had passed the Lord Chancellor he certainly had been in the Houk. These were points of some intricacy, and he (Lord Holland) wished that a Select Committee were appointed to report to their Lordships upon the sub ject.—(A . . After 'a few words from the Earl of SHAFTESBURY and Lord CARBERRY, the subject was dropped. THE PETTY SESSIONS (IRELAND) BILL. Viscount DUNCANNON, moved the second reading of this Bill. The Earl of WICKLOW thought that the object of the Bill was good, but that several amendments were re quired as to matters of detail. - The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a petition from certain parochial schoolmasters in Scotland, praying their Lordships not to pass the Scotch Universities' Bill. The Earl of ABERDEEN presented a petition from the Principal of the University of Glasgow, praying to be heard by Counsel in support of his own privileges; and those of the University over which he presided. The Noble Lord observed that he was glad to see that in part of this petition there were objections taken to the Bill, which would be obviated by the amendments that he had suggested to the House. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented a petition from his Noble Friend the Marquis of Londonderry pray ing to be heard by Counsel againt the Durham Railway Bill. The Noble Lord gave notice that when the Bill had been read a second time he should move their Lordships to hear Counsel, as prayed. Lord MELBOURNE presented a petition from Sun derland for the abolition of church-rates, and one for the removal of Jewish disabilities. Upon the Order of the Day for going into Committee upon the Prisoners' Counsel Bill. The Duke of RICHMOND said that he thought the Bill was one which ought to pass, and he now begged to suggest to their Lordships the propriety of inserting a clause which would remedy the evil arising from the provision which rendered it necessary for the jury, in cases of secon dary offences, to be charged that the prisoners had been before convicted. The consequence was, that they came before the jury with a prejudice against them. Lord LYNDHURST would have no objection to the introduction of the clause, provided that the Noble Lord would not afterwards call it an " original" Bill.—(A laugh.) He (Lord Lyndhurst) must state to the House that he meant the first clause to provide that the Bill should take effect, not immediately after it had passed, but upon the Ist of October. It would be absolutely necessary also to change the title of the Bill, which was called " A Bill for enabling prisoners to make their defence by Counsel or Attorney," whereas, in fact, many persons were tried for felony who were not present at all during the trial. The House then resolved itself into Committee. The preamble was agreed to. Upon the first clause being proposed, The Earl of WICKLOW said that it was the opinion of an eminent Judge, in a country where many cases of felonies were tried, as also of a Learned Counsel of much practice in that country, that this measure would not be beneficial to the prisoners themselves. Lord HOLLAND said it was not the object of the Bill to be exclusively beneficial to prisoners ; and, if it were, that the prisoners themselves, and not Judges or Counsel, would be the best authorities upon that point. The prin ciple was, to place all persons tried for felonies upon the same footing with those who resided in the northern parts of the kingdom. • Lord ABINGER made some observations which were inaudible. The Earl of RADNOR said there undoubtedly at pre sent existed a strange discrepancy between felonies and other crimes in this respect, which it was most desirable should be abolished. The first clause was then agreed to, with the amendment of Lord Lyndhurst, that the Bill should come into opera tion upon the Ist of October. Upon the 2d clause being put, Lord LYNDHURST said that, their object being to make the law regarding felonies correspond with the rest of the law, he should move that this clause, which gave to the prisoners the last word, be struck out. Lord HOLLAND objected to the motion, on the ground that the Scotch law, which as he contended, they were copying, allowed to the prisoner that privilege ; but the motion was agreed to, and the clause was struck out. At the suggestion of Lord LYNDHURST clause 3 was also expunged. Upon clause 4 being put, Lord LYNDHURST said be could see no necessity for the next clause, which provided that copies of the deposi tions be allowed to the prisoners. Now, the persons ac cused were present'wben the charge was made, and must at least know the substance of the accusation. He proposed, therefore, that that clause also be struck out. Lord HOLLAND said that also was a part of the Scotch law which he deemed to be most prudent. Lord LYNDHURST doubted whether the Noble Baron was correct. The Duke of RICHMOND said he could see no good reason for objecting to the clause, because they permitted attorneys to be present, and an attorney would but ill dis charge his duty to the prisoner, his client, if he did not write down every syllable of the evidence, which most cer tainly he would do. Lord A BINGER suggested if it was necessary for the investigation of truth that the prisoner should know the evidence before, why should not the prosecutor also ? The clause was then Struck out. The next clause was agreed to. LI The Gth clause, which provided that any of his Majesty's Counsel might be allowed to plead on behalf of persons tried for felony, was, after some conversation, upon the motion of Lord Lyndhurst, struck out. The last clause was agreed to. Lord LYNDHURST said he had another amendment to propose to their Lordships. The present title of the Bill ran thus :—" A Bill for enabling prisoners to make their defence by Counsel." Now that was not sufficient, and he should suggest the substitutiori of the following words :—" For enabling persons charged with felonies to make," &c. The title, thus amended, was then agreed to. The Bill was reported with amendments ; the House resumed ; and the report ordered to be received to-morrow (this day.) - Lord LYNDHURST begged to postpone the second reading of the Transfer of Property Bill. On the motion of the Duke of RICHMOND, the Pa rochial Assessment Bill was read a second time. IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT BILL. The LORD CHANCELLOR, in laying on the table the Bill for the abolition of imprisonment for debt, said, as the provisions of the Bill differed but little from those of the Bill of last session, their Lordships would not deem it necessary for him at that stage to enter into particulars. He would, however, on the second reading, s t ate to t h e i r Lordships' the details of the measure. The Bill was then read a first time. _ _ _ The Archbishop of ARMAGH said a few words, which were wholly inaudible. The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from Epsom in favour of the Brighton (Stevenson's) Railway Bill —Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, JuNz 30. The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour. NEW MEMBER. Mr. RICHARDS, (the new Member for Merionethshire) in the room of Sir Robert Vaughan, was introduced by Mr. W. W. Wyne and Mr. W. 0. Gorr, and took the oaths and his seat. WESTMINSTER SMALL DEBTS. On the motion of Mr. WARD, the Westminster Small Debts' Bill was read a third time and passed—a clause having been previously added by way of rider. Lord ACHESON presented several petitions from . . places in Armagh, in favour of the Irish it had Originally palsed that 49,45. e ; and One . itned by'SOO persens of all relrgiiini tiiftying for the toval ahiitiOn of V,thelil teb'rtlSH LAW REFORM. _ Mr. WALLACE had several petitions to present from Scotland upon a subject which had very much agitated the public mind there, namely, an improvement in the law, and the way ,in which it was administered in the Courts. The first petition - 4as from the town of Greenock, which be had the honour to represent, signed by the Provost and Town Council. The Lord Advocate, with the most praiseworthy perseverance, was attempting, to carry through Bills for the purpose ofiniproving these laws. It was a matter of the deepest concern 'to the people of Scotland that the feudal system in all its absurdity should be retained in the passing of pro perty from one proprietor to another. He thought there was now good reason to expect that the present Lord Advocate would not let the matter sleep ; and he trusted Government would not throw obstacles in the way of passing the Bills, but would take care they were sent up to the other House in time for their being passed this session. The other petitions were from the feuars of Ayr and Wallacetown, and an other place, also. in Ayrshire. The Hon. Member also presented a petition from the Chamber of Commerce of Greenock, praying that no greater power might be granted to the Steam- Navigation Company of London. Also a petition from the county-town of Argyle, praying that the Acts of Parliament might be placed in such hands, and in such a manner, as that the public might have better ac cess to them. The Hon. Member thought, that persons who were bound to obey Acts of Parliament ought to have the means of knowing what the laws were. Also a petition from the Office-bearer and Council of the Glasgow Political Society praying for Vote by Ballot. The Hon. Mem ber thought the time was come, if justice was to be done to the people, that they ought to have Vote by Ballot. If it was adopted there would be no such thing heard of as head-money. Also a petition from the same place praying for an alteration in the Municipal Reform Bill. Also a petition from Hamilton, praying that the attorney tax might be abo lished ; also a similar petition from the Dean of Faculty and Writers .of Greenock. The petitioners had prayed for law reform for three Sessions, as they were convinced that it would be for the good of the community at large to have a sweeping reform. The Hon. Member also pre sented a petition from Greenock against the Lords' amend ments to the Irish Municipal Reform Bill. He would not now enter into a discussion on the subject, as he should have another opportunity in the course of the evening of doing so. Sir E. CODRINGTON presented a petition from a gentleman, a surgeon in the navy, who had been removed and deprived of his half-pay without trial or examination that he was aware of. At the end of the war the peti tioner bad been put upon the half-pay list, and went into private practice. He had a right to do this—it was his duty towards his family to do so, and it was in,all respect becoming. In 1827 he became bankrupt, being indebted to his agent 521. He was brought before the Commissioners, and opposed by his agent, when this debt was treated as a private debt, and the petitioner was discharged. The pri soner ought not to have undergone any further punishment. The agent, however, made false representations to the Admi ralty, and the consequence was, that the petitioner was re moved from the list and deprived of his half-pay. This was one of those transactions which he had endeavoured to bring before the House, but always found himself opposed when he endeavoured to lay the facts of the case before the public. He had several other petitions of a similar nature, but all they sought was the reasons for which they were removed. The present petitioner having undergone all punishment for his debts was discharged as other men, and he ought not to be subjected to further punish ment. What was the case ? He was removed from his station by an arbitrary, unseen power, which was nothing more nor less than a star chamber. This power deprived him of the means of procuring subsistence for his family. This man had served his country. He says that two gentlemen had been lately put on the Pension List for certain services—which were no services in com parion with the services of those persons whose cause he advocated. He asked the Government whether these gen tlemen were subject to be scratched off the List by an un seen power ? And if not, why were others to be subject to this arbitrary, unjust, and merciless power? The LORD ADVOCATE presented petitions' from Glasgow, Leith, and other places, in favour of the Scotch Municipal Bill. Also a petition from the shipowners of the town of Leith, in favour of an improvement of the Leith Harbour. CHARITABLE TRUSTS. Mr. Serjeant GOULBURN presented a petition from certain gentlemen in the town of Leicester, who were en trusted with very large Charities under the will of the late Alderman Newton. The petitioners stated that that gen tleman had declared himself a zealous member of the Church of England, and .had given certain sums of money for the purpose of clothing and bring ing up children in the doctrines of the Established Religion. They further stated that the Bill for the regulation of Charitable Funds might have the effect of giving those funds to persons who utterly dissented from the doctrines of the Church of England, and prayed that care would be taken by the Legislature that the trusts should not be handed over to Dissenters and others, who were op posed to the Established Church. DIOCESE OF DURHAM. Mr. A. TREVOR presented a petition from the paro chial clergy of the diocese of Durham, praying that the House would take into its special consideration the ecclesi astical condition ofthat diocese. He trusted he would be ex cused for trespassing upon the attention of the House ; but he thought the petition one of very great importance, and he trusted his Majesty's Government would allow full time to inquire into the statements made by the clergymen of the diocese. The Hon. Member concluded by moving, that the petition be printed. Captain PEC HELL opposed the motion. He had no objections to the sentiments contained in the petition ; but, when he (Capt. Pechell), brought the case of a poor wo man, named Jane Campion, before the House--(A laugh) they had refused to allow the petition to be printed, and he submitted that the present petition' came within the rule laid down on that occasion. The SPEAKER was of opinion that the petition did come within the rule, as it was not intended to found any ulterior proceeding upon it. The, motion was then withdrawn. Sir . GEARY presented petitions from the Trustees of turnpike roads against the Turnprike Trusts' Consolida tion Bill. Also a petition from the Tithe-owners of the county of Kent, praying that compensation might be awarded them in case of any legislative interference with their property. The Hon. Member then presented a peti tion from Blackheath, Greenwich, &c., in favour of the Lords' Amendments to the Irish Corporation Bill. Sir G. STRICKLAND presented a petition from the Delegates from the factories of Leeds, Dewsbury, and other places, praying for a concise ten hours' Factory Bill, the one now in the statute book being a nonentity. It could not be carried into effect. Mr. DUNCOMBE presented a petition to the same effect from a factory in Dewsbury. Mr. J. A. SMITH presented a petition from (as we un derstood) Mr. C. E. Drummond on behalf of himself and complaining of his being excluded from pursuing his claims upon the sum awarded by France, for the re payment of losses by British subjects during the war. Mr. WILKS presented a petition, praying for the abo lition of Church-rates. Lord W. BENTINCK presented a petition from Glas gow, against the Scotch Municipal Reform Amendment Bill. SALE OF SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS. Sir J. BECKETT presented a petition from the Mayor and Town Council of the borough of Leeds, complaining of the number of places in that town that had lately been erected for the sale of Spirituous Liquors, and praying the House to adopt some measure for their suppression. The Hon. Baronet thought the subjects of the petition were well de serving of the attention of his Majesty's Government ; and he hoped they would take the subject into their own hands. The Hon. Baronet also presented a petition from the Di rectors of the Leeds Joint Stock Banking Company, com plaining of the course adopted by the Select Committee to enquire into Joint Stock Banks, in having called upon those establishments to forward returns as to the mode in which their business was transacted. The petitioner; thought the course adopted by the Select Committee was most inquisitorial. Mr. BAtNES supported the petition. CASE OF LIEUT. PERROTT, R.N. Mr. T. ATTWOOD presented a petition from Lieu tenant Perrott of the Royal Navy, complaining that he had been dismissed the service without any sufficient reason. The Hon. Member then went at some length into the facts of the petition, but they have been so often laid before the House, and the public, that it is unnecessary to repeat them. He hoped the House would stretch out to this unhappy man the arm of its protection, and shelter him from wrong and oppression. Mr. PESE rose to order. He had attended there for a whole week to present petitions. If it was the under standing of the House that speeches should be made on the presentation of every petition, he would submit to it readily ; but if they were to have a certain time in which to present petitions, he thought that time should be occupied by the presentation of petitions alone.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. ATTWOOD was in the possession of the House. The SPEAKER said, that if the Hon. Member would state the circumstances and facts mentioned in the petition and the prayer, in all probabitity the Hon. Member's pur pose would be answered. Mr. ATTWOOD would follow the advice that had been given from the Chair The Hon. Member then stated that the petitioner had been struck off the list by all arbi trary order th Admirdity;, withclut any trial that he had hcen tried by a &WA-Martial, and striiCk id three years before, and that in one month afterwards he was restoredby the sign manual on account of his bravery ; hut his solicitor had made an affidavit, in which he stated he would not have been convicted if be could have procured a copy of the in dictment which the Admiralty had refused him. The petition having been brought up, Mr. C. WOOD was sorry 'to be obliged to trouble the House upon a subject with which he believed every Hon.—Member was already fully acquainted. The only circumstance which had occurred since the case of Mr. Perrott had been last before the House, was the trial and conviction that had taken place. He (Mr. C. Wood), although the trial had been relied upon by the Hon. • Member for Birmingham, was glad that it had taken place, as every one of the allegations made against the petitioner had been proved. He had been convicted of a gross and base fraud ; and it had also been shown that he had obtained his pension by gross fraud, he having stated he had lost his arni while exercising7eat guns in the Channel. It was true the fraud had not been found out for some time, but, so far from acting harshly, the Admiralty had acted most humanely, as they allowed him to retain a pen sion, to which it was clear he had' no right. The peti tioner had charged Sir John Hardy with first giving him a good character, and then refusing the prayer of the petition. Now the fact was, that the character was given by Captain Hardy previous to 1808. Between 1808 and 1809, Mr. Perrott's conduct was so bad that the Captain had de termined to bring him to a Court-martial, but he obtained his discharge in consequence of losing his arm—so that that loss had first saved him from a Court-martial, and then had got him a pension, to which he was not entitled. The petition mentioned many wounds received, and battles at which he said he had been at ; he only mentioned one date, and then the Records of Admiralty proved that he could not be at sea at all. He, therefore, doubted all the state ments of the petition. Sir E. CODRINGTON said that here was assertion against assertion. He did not understand why the Admi ralty reiords should be trusted without investigation. The quest: here was, had there been an examination face to face ?—(Hear, hear.) He did not know the case. The SPEAKER called the Hon. Member 'to order. A motion would be made by the Hon. Member for Bir mingham on the subject, and then the Hon. and Gallant Member would have an opportunity of expressing his sentiments. Sir E. CODRINGTON would postpone any observa. tions he had to make until the motion was made ; but he knew the difficulty there was in bringing forward a mo tion.--(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Admiral ADAM said that when the motion was made he would be ready to meet it. Mr. HUME said he would be able to disprove every allegation that had been made against the petitioner, as they had been disproved before a jury of his countrymen. The Hon. Gentleman bad made the same assertions last year ; they had been printed in a public newspaper; Mr. Perrott brought the printers of the paper before a Jury, who stated that they did not believe a single word of the charges, and gave damages to Mr. Perrott, and found the Admiralty guilty.—(Great laughter.) Mr. C. WOOD—When the Hon. Member stated that the Admiralty had been found guilty---(Renewed laughter) —he must say that the Admiralty had in no way whatever offended. Mr. HUME—I beg pardon ; no, no.—(A laugh.) He understood, however, that the attorney for the Admiralty laid before the Jury every document they held, in justifica tion of the Admiralty ; and the Jury, after the most pa tient inquiry, gave a verdict against them. It was hard, after all this, that the individual in question should be so persecuted. Admiral ADAM begged to be allowed to say one word in explanation. The Attorney for the petitioner had been to Sir John Barrow, and apologised for giving him so much trouble for so unworthy a purpose.—(Cheers.) After a few words from Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Hume, and Mr. Attwood, the petition was ordered to lie on the table, to be printed ; and Mr. Attwood gave notice that, on this day se'nnight, he should bring forward a motion on the subject. TITHES IN IRELAND. Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD presented a petition, signed' by the Rev. James Carey and the Rev. John Dominick Berrill—Vicar and Chaplain to the Religious Community of the Ladies of the Sienna Convent of Drogheda. They state that the ladies of this convent are daily occupied in communicating religious, moral, and literary instruction to young females committed to their charge : that on the 16th day of June a bailiff accompanied by two constables entered their convent, and made seizure for 2/. 6s. 2d., minister's money claimed by the Rev. John M‘Ghee. They state that it is contrary to divine and natural law, that any religionist should have a power of entering their peaceful abode to levy his tribute for a ministration from which they derive no benefit ; and pray your Honourable House to relieve the parsons of the Protestant Church from this odious, un-Christian, and un-Scriptural mode of obtaining support, by the total abolition of tithes and ministers' money.--Also Petitions from Cookstown, County Tyrone ; Clonleigh, Donegal, and Kilmegan, Down. They state generally, that the tithe system endangers the whole frame of society ; they complain of the system of writs of rebellion, and pray for the total extinction of tithes, and that all the clergy should be supported by the voluntary subscriptions of their own hearers. Also a peti tion from Ballynaskreen, Londonderry, praying for the "same measure of Corporate Reform as was granted to England and Scotland. CHURCH RATES. Mr. PEASE presented a petition from the Dissenters of Durham, against the Church Rates. Mr. LENNARD presented a petition from the Protes tant Dissenters of Bray and Thaxsted, in Essex, to the same effect. MEDICAL WITNESSES. Mr. HANDLEY presented a petition from the Medi cal Practitioners of Lincoln, praying that medical witnesses attending Coroners' Inquests might be remunerated. DUBLIN AND DROGHEDA RAILWAY. Mr. O'CONNELL brought up the Report of the Com mittee on the Dublin and Drogheda Railway, and pre sented two petitions in favour of the Bill. The Report was ordered to be taken into consideration on Friday se'nnight. NAVY PENSIONS. Sir E. CODRINGTON said that he perceived Sir John Barrow was to receive a pension of 1,0001. a year. Captains in the Navy were subject to be struck off the list and removed from their pensions, in case they miscon ducted themselves ; and he wished to know whether Sir John Barrow stood in that situation. Mr. C. WOOD, as we understood, said he' knew no thing of the grant of the pension. Sir E. CODRINGTON then wished to know whether it was a vested right in Sir John Barrow to have 1,0001. a year, let him do what he would ; at the same time having the power to scratch off the most distinguished officers of the Navy ?—(No answer was given to this question.) MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND.) Lord MORPETH presented a petition from Oxford, prayinc , that Irish Corporations might be placed upon the same footing as English Corporations. Mr. THORNELY complained of having been excluded from Westminster Hall, having gone there to-day' with a party of ladies to see that building. The SPEAKER said he had no control over West minster Hall. He had, however, issued orders, in conse quence of the resolution of that House last night, that no fees should be taken for admission to the gallery.—(Hear.) MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS. The Suir Navigation Bill with amendments, was broug down from the Lords. CONFERENCE. Their Lordships requested a Conference in Committee room No. 5, on the subject of their - Lordships' Reasons for not agreeing to the Amendments of the Commoni to the Irish Municipal Bill.—(Hear ' hear.) Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved that this House do agree to a Conference with the House of Lords.--Agreed to. 'rho following Members, amongst others, were appointed to manage the Conference :—Lord John Russell, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. P. Thomson, Sir John Cam Hobhouse, Lord Morpetb, Mr. Cutlar Fergus son, and the Attorney-General for Ireland. The Managers of the Conference having returned, The, C HANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated at' the Bar, that he 'had to repeat to the House, that the Managers of the Conference on behalf of the House of Commons had met the Lords. The Conference on the part of their Lordships had been managed by the Duke of Wellington and others ;—and he had to acquaint the House that the Lords, having taken into consideration the Reasons given by the House of Commons, for disagreeing with the several amend ments made by their Lordships, do insist upon some of the amendthents with which the House of Commons dis agreed, for which they have given their reasons, and do not insist upon other amendments to which the House of Commons had disagreed—they had agreed to some amendments made ,by the House without amendment, but had disagreed to others. Lord J. RUSSELL moved that they should be read, which was accordingly done by the Clerk of the House. The reading of these reasons appeared to excite a considerable sen sation in the House. After it had somewhat subsided, Lord J. RUSSELL said, I rise, Sir, to address the House upon the subject of the amended Irish Corporation Bill, as returned from the House of Lords, and I think that those who agree with us on the original formation of that Bill will agree with me in thinking that after hearing the reasons given by the Lords, and what the amendments are upon which they insist, it is not possible for us to hope to come to a satis. factory settlement of this.. Merit important question under any such circumstances. —( Loud dwell, An'iong the minor ameadonentS . , therc is. one .Of n 6 slight importlnce—naincly, that by which the vthorc of the Corporate property is trans ferredto the Commissione;'s Y., to a Geo; I V:, where such subsist. I cannot omit to note that tl:!9 ie art amendment of some importance ; but, Sir, the Lords have jialed, and in their reasons have very strongly supported that static tent, that there is one Vi'l.tieltA of the AM in which they have not been able to concur. Midi 1 .:! ? Sir, that one principle of the Bill is the very princiP.l.: gr:e it vigour arid vitality—( Loud cheers)—that principle wattli rtlpl,l o it consistent with the constitutional fre:alorn of these realms— ( Renewed cheers)— that principle, from the operation of which we expected to give content to the people of the towns of Ireland—( Loud checrs)—and when that one principle is refused and denied to us, and when it is so elearly stated that no concession will be made on this point, I can , only submit that it is unnecessary fur Its to take spy further time for consideration,--( Vehement cheering,) That principle we have long anti deeply considered upon that prin ciple we have over and over a gain declared our opinion, in de bate and 'on division, from the very first day upon which the House was first addressed upon the subject, in the speolt of his Majesty from the throne, and I cannot for an instant sup. pose that now, upon the last day of June, wt.', the House of Commons, are prepared to surrender the principle uptia we have so solemnly decided.—( Cheers.) I think, there fore, that as there can be but one opinion upon the subject among those who formed the large majority upon the last oc casion on which the House decided upon this question, it will be quite unnecessary for me to enter now into any length ened statement of the reasons upon which our opinions arc founded—to enter now into a description of the advantages of local and popular municipal government, or to endeavour to expose or to confute any reasons by which the adverse view of things is sustained. But, Sir, I cannot help calling the at tention of this House to some words in the reasons of the him - Ise of Lords which induce me to take a less dark and less despair ing view of this greatqucstion than I have hitherto done. It has long been my opinion, that whatever the Government you wish to establish in Ireland, you should endeavour to make it rest on stable principles, and that there was nothing so dan gerous as to be adopting from day to day, and in one part of the Government and another part of the Government, diffe rent principles with regard to the rule and Government of that country. I had been strongly confirmed in that opinion by the differences which I saw prevail so many years on these benches—when, on a subject deeply involving the interests of Ireland, exciting all the pAssions, provoking all those religious feelings which it was desirable tc keep tranquil—when I saw the members of the same Government on these benches differ ing and disputing as much as any ministry and any opposition were ever seen to differ and dispute._( Hear, hear.) I think my Noble Friend the Member for North Lancashire, who now sits opposite, must have imbibed the same opinion as myself on this subject, because he must be aware of the difficulties which arose with respect to the great Irish question, when the mem bers of the Government were expressing each his different opinions, and voting in the divisions of the House, some on one side and some on the other. I do not believe his seriously ex pressed opinion could be, that it would be for the advantage of this country that such a difference should exist ; I believe that both parties concurred in this, that one principle or the other ought to prevail with respect to the Government of Ireland. But if that be admitted, I think I may assume it to be im portant in an equal degree, that the two Houses of Parliament should not entertain, unalterably, opinions totally discordant as to the system of government which ought to be pursued. And I can conceive no question on which it could be more dangerous, on which it could be more calamitous, that the Houses of Parliament should differ than on the paramount principles on which the Government of Ireland should be conducted.—( Cheers.) I will say, further, that I cannot conceive, and I do not think, the Lords in their reasons wish it to be imagined that this is a question of a different na ture. But in the prospect and in the immediate view of that calamity, I think I can gather some hope from the words used in the reasons of the Lords, and I will repeat the whole of those words, that the House may judge of them.—[The Noble Lord here read the passage, which was to the effect that the Lords still entertained the hope that the two Houses would continue to maintain the good understanding which had happily hitherto subsisted between them, and that, in the zealous discharge of their duty, there might at no distant period be devised such a measure for the ad ministration of the local affairs of the cities and towns of Ireland as would effect a real improvement, and tend to the promotion of peace in that country.) Now, know ing the principles which we have maintained, knowing the principles to which we have adhered, I think the Lords would hardly have expressed such a hope unless they expected that at no distant period they might agree to the measure, on the principles on which the present Bill is founded. —(Hear, hear.) If that be the view that is taken, I much lament that the House of Lords did not take the present time for acting on it.—(Cheers.) I exceedingly lament that, disregarding the advice of some of the greatest, and wisest, and most experienced among them, they did not feel that, if the question were to be settled--if they looked to an end to the differences existing between the two Houses—they did not take the present moment for terminating it, when the content ment they would give to Ireland would be pure and unalloyed, instead of postponing it to distant times, when it may be mixed with other elements.—(Much cheering.) I trust that every possible means will be resorted to—l can hardly say in the words of the House of Lords, to maintain the good understand standing that now prevails between the two Houses—but to bring about a better understanding than now prevails. I am disposed, then, to rely on the hopeheld out to me in this para graph. I do say, in conformity with what has been in former times the course of the House of Lords, in conformity with what I think ought to be the course of the House of Lords, if, in a great measure of this kind, the majority of the House of Commons remain firm to their principles—if that majority, so remaining firm to their principles, are supported by public opinion—(Loud cheers)—l maintain the hope, I anxiously cherish the hope, that the time may come—perhaps within a feiv:months—when the settlement of this question may be effected, and when the prevalence of the rea sons which have given rise to this disagreement may yield to the general opinion of the House of Commons and the people.—( Cheers.) I am sure if did not entertain that hope, I should despair of the British. C o nstitution.—( Great cheering.) I can conceive no Constiution mote inconvenient than one in which the House of Coe moe s and the people whom they represent being of one opnion, another House of Parliament is determinately, perseveri ng ly, and unyieldingly of the contrary opinion.—(Renewed cheers.) The Lords have stated it as a matter of sincere rerret with them that the more important amendments which thy made have not been acceded to by this House. Thus they admit that the more important of their amendments this 'louse has certainly not been disposed to adopt ; and that I think will be a sufficient justification to us, if, at all events, as retards the more impor tant principle we should not be disposedlo give way. I should probably close my observations with tlb hope which I have ventured to express, and with a declaraion of the determina tion which I am resolved to adhere o by every possible means, to infuse into the Government of Ireland and the le gislation for that country the principles -. ) f equity and justice, if it were not that complaints have been hack greatly affecting my conduct, and which have been so nterwoven with the question, that I consider it my duty not altogether to pass them over.--( Hear, hear.) Sir, it is easy in this House, without committing any breach of the prisileges of this House, to refer to matters which have passed in conversation, or in another place; and no person can say, 'eat of all can you, Sir, say, that the speaker is then alluding to that which took place in another House of Parliament. Undou)sedly to allude to what passes in another House of Parliament is an irregularity, but, on special occasions, when Gentlemen have found them selves compelled to do so, they have always been able to avoid the use of words that would bring them within the orders of this House. I have repeatedly heard such allusions.—( Hear, hear.) I remember that when Lord Castlereagh made a statement in this House with respect to the conduct of Lord Lansdowne during his administration, Lord Lansdowne again stated the whole matter in the House of Lords, and went into his defence in that House.—( Hear, hear.) I re member this instance, which is not a little remarkable, because it bears certainly on sonic of the words which I used, and on the matter in which I am supposed to have been the cause. The words to which I am referring were used in the great debate on the Catholic queaion, when Lord Canterbury sat in the chair of this House. Mr. Canning said on that occasion, " However a man may alloy,, himself to be engrossed by the quarto, he generally contrive; to peruse the diurnal sheet of reports. And must not every man who reads know what passes? Nay, I myself have listened, in another place, hisce auribus, to what was meant to be the most taunt ing language, as applied to the Roman Catholics. It was said, if you give them relief, do it largely, do it effectively, &c." And so he went on, and stated the arguments which he had heard in another place. Mr. Caning said be heard them "hisce auribus," and as regards the words to which I referred, I say I have with my own ems heard them A laugh, and cries of " Hear, hear I") But he stated that he had heard them in another place. Lord Canterbury was then in the chair—that zealous and dignified maintainer of the order of this House, and he did not think proper to interrupt the speaker, or call on him to explain his words. Though the circumstance, however, may have been passed over by Lord Canterbury, there was one person prcselt on whom that speech must have made an impression, becaisc it was a speech which did convey one of the most vigorous and one of the most successful replies I ever heard to the mistaken views and the unfounded attacks of the then Master of tile Rolls.— ( Great laughter and cheering.) Well, then, it is lot without example that allusions of the kind have been made; it is not even beyond the recollection of those who are now living, and sitting in this and the other House of Parliament.—( Hear. ) Having passed by the matter of form, I will now come to the matter of courtesy, and it seems I am said to have repeated words used by a Learned Lord without giving him notice of my attack. What I intended to do was not to make an attack on that Learned Lord ; but if I omitted any matter of courtesy I am sorry for it. When, however, it is said that if I had given notice of my intention, some of the friends of the Noble and Learned Lord might have been here to defend hits conduct, I cannot forget I stated those words at the beginning of a de bate which lasted two nights--( Loud cries of Hear, hear") and I spoke in the presence of the friends of the Noble and Learned Lord.—(Hear.) I spoke also in the presence of his former colleagues. Further, with regard to the use of those expressions which were remarkable enough in them selves, a Learned Gentleman, the Member for Tipperary, took care to repeat them on the second night of the debate, and to call the particular attention of the late colleagues of the Noble and Learned Lord to the subject; and though there had been full time, from the appearance of the reports in the morning, to arm any of the colleagues of that Noble and Learned Lord with any answer that might be given, the Right flon. Baronet, wisely, as I think, but certainly, in fact, avoided all mention and allusion to the words--(Cries of .‘ Hear")—and the only r!ference made to them was made by the Noble Lord the Member for Lancashire, who alluded to them, pithily enough, by saying that they were words wh i ch he did not mean to justify or agree with.—(Cheerin,*.) Now such being the facts of that passed on the second night of this debate, let it not be slid, or let it not it not he believed at least by the Members of this House, that if I had given notice of my intention there vrotld have been a triumphant reply by some of the friends of the Noble and Learned Lord..— ( Cheers. ) Well, then, as to the matter itself, Ido not wise —I do not tiiNs; there is any occasion for me to explain the statement that I to:rde, because, as far as I can I earn not from a .., 1 nY , 1 4 m any observations wade o n the subject, do find that the ;'';'3'r.49 in themselves !iave been in the least altered or retracted. -( AO elleeril i g.) it appears to me, th a t what ever force they had as Ut?Fi,-,ally deliA:3red, they still retain.— ( Cheers.) If those word! were right words to use, they re tain their original propriety ; if they were' wrong 7 if they were insulting words to use—which i neve,' said t hey were —they yetaio their origins' offence.—(Colitint,o cheering.) What I did say was, that those words were evicts:nee of the motives, the grounds, the reasons on which the amendments were carried.—( Hear.) I think I have not been misv,Aken in that view.—(Hear, hear.) And it appears to me, I n oy say, that the clear and powerful mind of the person who used the words prompted him to give what was not a just, but what, !.f it had been just would have been a sufficient redson for those amendments, because what I thought was want ing--.1-fliat I considered to be defective in all the arguments I heard from the other' side of the House—was no t a sufficient justification of a measure I"Or depriving t h e p eo p le of Ireland of municipal government. If the statement contained in those words was correct, it was a just au:! sufficient gr ound f or the course adopted. But I thought, besit!es, that in stating that I supposed to have been the grounds of ;lie the Lords I was somewhat justified by their own practice. I may have been deceived. I know it was thd custom for the public journals of former times to give un der foreign names, and dated from Rome and Athens, r eports of the debates that occurred in the Houses of Parliament ; and the public papers of the present day may have reversed that amer drneuts of practice : they perhaps have given real names , and the speeches themselves . may have been entirely drawn front fiction. I suggest the possibility of this, because I cannot conceive any such observation as I have mentioned to have been made by any Member accustomed to go to any assem bly where, as the persons who write these narratives t e ll us, there is hardly a measure with respect to Ireland which is not rejected, and the g rounds for the rejection of whi ch ar e not some words that have been used by an Hon. Member of this House.—( Much cheering and laughter.) Not only last year was that the ease, but in the present year some words fell front the Hon. and Learned Member on the first night of the Ses sion. Ido not wish certainly to take on myself the respon sibility of expressions to which the Hon. and Learned Member affixes his own meaning, those expressions being to the effect that the Corporations would be " normal schools for peaceful agitation." I think lam right in saying " peaceful" agitation --( Hear, hear, from Mr. O'Connell)—those words, with an alteration not trifling in substance—( Hear, hear)—those words, so used in this House, if we are to believe those false and feigning reporters, were made elsewhere the very ground work of opposition to measures for the benefit of Ireland.-- (Cheers.) I will own that I have been led into error—that had these diurnal reports—that I read them with a good deal of belief—that I now consider them unfounded, and that their object vvas to give occasion to censure the House of Lords ; they have put into the mouths of Noble and Learned Members reasons founded on words used in this House, but which never have been actually uttered. I must admit all this, for I cannot conceive that I have been made the subject of attack for doing that which is con stantly practised in that House. With respect to that matter itself—with respect to any justiheation of the words, it may be said, perhaps it will be said, that those who sought to excite the people of Ireland, and who placed themselves_ at their head to demand the repeal of the Union, made the difference between the two nations the ground on which the demand was made. When a large portion of the people of Ireland sent in their petitions to this House, and said, " You are unfit to legislate for us, you do not share in our feelings, you do not belong to the same religion as ourselves, and we ask you to let us legislate for ourselves," what was your answer ? "We will not consent.—( Hear, hear.) That repeal of the legislative union would lead to the dismemberment of the empire. —( Hear, hear.) We will not repeal the Union, but we will listen to your just complaints ; we will show you that for your portion of the empire we feel as much interest as for any other portion ; in proof of our good disposition towards you, we will give you the same mea sure of justice as we gave to England and Scotland, why then will you entertain the unreasonable and restless jealousy which arises from your thinking that we will legislate for you in any other spirit ?"—( Cheers.) That is the answer which you have given to the numerous petitions which have been presented to this House. Then comes an instance. You found a measure of Municipal Reform on sound principles, and you give it to Scotland. You found another measure of Municipal Reform, not quite the same, but on similar principles, and you give it to England. You have before you another measure of Municipal Reform, founded on the same principles, but likewise differing in some respects, and you would give it to Ireland. And then, when the people came by petition, not to ask for repeal of the Union, but for this measure, are they to be told, " No, we cannot legislate for you as we do for the other parts of the em pire. You are alien from us •in blood, alien in religion, and hostile to us in feeling, therefore, for you a different measure of legislation must be provided?" Why, there is so obvious and so glaring an injustice in this--(Repeated cheers). —that I consent With confidsnce, though with reluctance, to a delay of the question. lam persuaded the people of England will feel that after being absolutely and t otal ly denied any e.?tholie approach to a repeal of the Union, it is no t j ust to say to the people of Ireland they shall not be dealt w ith as if th ey formed a part and parcel of the empire. And o n this questi on th ere may be, but there cannot so well be, any deg ree of religious difference. I well know on the Roman question and latterly on the Church question, that the feeling which was endeavoured to be instilled among the pecpio of Eng land was that the object of the promoters of these mea sures was to compel the people of England to give t their own Church and their own religion.—( Hear, hear.) / l e ave been addressed by many a freeholder whose vote I asked laj" the reproach that I was myself a Roman Catholic —(A laugh ) ---and that I wished to pass a measure which would have the effect of preventing the Protestants from going to their own places of worship.—( Hear, hear.) This feeling has prevailed, I assure Hon. Gentlemen, to a great exte nt.—( H ear, hear.) But this cannot so easily be made a ground of objection in a will not be allowed, by a question of municipal reform. I have been told to-cl a y (only a few minutes ago) that the people of the north of Scotland are indignant at the notion that they Bill now in Parliament, to have a provost in their towns. The question is a similar one as regards Ireland —it i s Whether a mayor and council shall be allowed in the towns there, This is no question involving an alteration o f. the religi on of the people, or the subversion of the Churclee-(..ear, hear.) It is a simple question whether the inhabitants of the cities of Ireland shall be allowed to have a mayor and c ouncil of their own. The Lords say they cannot consent to the ri —orporations being confined to twelve cities and towns ; perhap s they are right, and we may hereafter extend them to a greate r number. could not —( Much cheering.) I think certainly that they ‘ t h Demise be confined to twelve cities and towns—(C, heelli l — but I made to some un- I thought it a proposal to that effect to the House, • our duty, by every means in our power, to come derstanding on this great question, and even yi e l d some of our opinions, that it might never be said it was on our sides that the want of forbearance was exhibited.-7( h eers.) We have obtained the object we had in view so 'ar.—( Hear, hear, hear.) That which we thought necessary to r e °Feet to our ue i mo deration own principle we have insisted on with as m as possible—we have confined it to as narrow. a t e i c i i . rnp ess as we could, consistently with the principle wh ic ~ 13 Ho use was bound to maintain. I regret that the attemP c : at Conciliation re th at has not proved successful ; but I never caneraen the at- Ce an tempt has been between For ll - .3uses, Iti harmony, for a cordial agreement the two 6 ant ready ue con n e sacrifice much—to alter many opinions, to views which done t h• might be further enlarged; but having e with Is, and the House having done me the honour to ogre fe their c proposed to them, I should be betrayin,,iil h confidence—l should be exhibitiog a pusillanimity', wh eel d the °Pc the House of Commons never will exhibit—if I ask ion t vi, l l . L - 0 take into their consideration any further calico s in „h ic t u a view to their swerving from the great principles •" is involved s sential f the' future peace of Ireland, which are e .O t he • on whi , main tenance of the character of this HOUSC , end - g. d Ith " I believe the proud situation of this country depen _...., , e re lore move, Sir, that these amendments be taken into emisuserati n _ e on this rine%) day three months.—( Protracted Owe gon, The SPEAKER having put the r. rn • ° d had stater! Mr. HUMS thought the Noble -`-',e.,' t he must - very fairly his views on the present occasion,oo" c which ,b o sa Y that they were much more moderate than tli_s voice of trei entertained. They had in this instance the united estion for th e id demand ing justice front this House. The qu i y whethe r ,eensidera- . firm of the House of Lords, was simP ii-eland ? Cere should be inefficient or good government they had do n , f :the Lords continued to oppose themselves, a 3 cn ~,j, the n - "o good go- • vernment, the day would come .: the a r eo Ple would consider the propriety of sweepigoeuse of way . __ (Hear , hear.) Could it be supposed that th e Lord s w a s se .1 themselve institution constituted for the Loro rr ley I 'were 3 ? No they had a higher object to accomplish. co positio n alPointed as one branch of the Government." - ,r ( P utunici e e el's.) S° were the royal boroughs appointed toroub nil s bee government, yet they had swept away the royal bor . eir ow n ....se they were supported by men who consulted Y onl th , h ine,,. ...,_s t. rotten hOr 1 ,,„ -- '"tg. wu there any difference between toe of Lords ?°-ws hi Eag ,r, laud and Scotland and the 11 ° 11 % jg to do g . "CY w ere , asked, would they not allow the !, r . t b 11- they liked . ted it 114 "%tie , • a He would say no. Ile repea a l uestio e t h e Legislate whether this second branch 0 ' . e should he ~ n d nen ernm e „ allowed to stand in the way 01 gO - Use Df Ler -." A •Ho rduSt say that the manner in which the -no exhibited" had met the }lolls ,_ moderate proceedings of this Noble Lora ,very ungra cious return.—( Hear, hear.) The .. d f 11 ad notice d A recene or r ,,, the rap on the knuckles be ha“ - , ors and ' - ' e posine , that only twelve boroughs should have ma) . to wu. 0 tis ; and nee. say th n counci that was an act of injustice, an P a lle conside r w aY in which ed his concessions were appreciated . the tlov er ; that it wa s n I the duty of his Majesty to carry 0 roPerlY 'fin - a . nl ent of the country peaceably. He would not p thing '"e high situ.' any . undo nn , b ..,. ation which he occupied if he left h es o f L - io p ro mo.. . that harmony between the two branF . his the Legislature It d t ,, which was necessary. He considered . -- - 7 at a tint ( ' )ntiOn ro m “ like this, boldly to state that in his ° ll an or g - n; 'no. H ouse o f f Lords nothing was to be expecte,. t, me it i -,-- li j,Chan e a bad taken place.—(Hear, and No.) co ftutions l s o h - rt and when it did come, it might sweep away in s . 1 0 1 would v -e " they were t now anxious to preserve. The peop been acted net for e t the / " shilly-shally" policy which had i years o f reform, er,? ten years ; they had lust tsko - ' vv, .., ) ' .1•11,. THE SUN, LONDON, F DAY, 1 '("4