The Sun. — London, England, 1836-05-20 00:00:00

me mber h ow B rennus, i n t h e early history of Rome, con ducted hi mse lf towards the patrician b ody o f t h at c i ty, an d perhaps the modern Brennus may hope thus to outweigh the Houma of Lords ; but I will tell the Noble Lord this, that be never w ill b e able to overcome t h e un d aunte d courage o f t. assembly unless he marches into it with 150 new Peers to hver ies of blue and buff at his heels.—(Cheers an d laugh ter') Unless h e a lt ers th e co nstitution of that assembly— !_siess he p ersua d es hi s M a jesty to crea t e 150 new P eers —h e Tay rest assured that he will never be able to carry through Parliament the clause for spoliating the Irish Church, or the ?tiler provision for establishing normal schools of agitation m e very quarter o f Ireland. I repeat that the best thanks of the country are due to the House of Lords. I re peat that th ey possess an d en j oy i n a grea t er d egree th an any other tribunal the respect and confidence of the public. *(Cheers f rom th e Opp os iti on s id e , an d l a u g hter from the Ministerial side of the House.) Hardly a Bill is sent up Fora this House, which does not bear most unequivocal and h umiliatingtmiliating mar k s o f cru d e an d p ar ti a l legislation ' • it is the ness, the practice, and the province of the House of 'Laurels to detect our anomalies, to supply our deficiencies, a nd to rectify our blunders. There is not a measure that comes back from thence unimproved, and their Lordships at 41 time show their superiority in talents, in knowledge, in temper, and in statesmanlike qualities. Although we have Provided commodious benches here for the accommodation of their Lordships, we never have the pleasure of seeing any j4thern ; but if a discussion take place in the other House, Ministers and Radicals arc observed crowding to the bar, and eagerly listening, although to their great personal in convenience. —(Cheers.) If unexpectedly summoned from thence to vote on a division, although they may not have beard a s i ng l e wor d o f th e d e b a t e , h ow reluctantly do they leave their stations, and return to them afterwards with the greediest expoditior..—(Laughter.) I shall not trouble the l'iouse further at present ; I shall only conclude by saying, that in England, in Scotland, and in Ireland too, among Persons of intelligence, influence, and property, the House °f Lords has earned to itself a debt of gratitude which Public approbation will not fail to acknowledge, and the Members of that House who joined in amending this Bill will be handed down to posterity among the eminent bene factors of their country.—(Cheers.) Lord JOHN RUSSELL—I rise merely to remark, that whatever reasoning there may be in the speech of the Hon. Baronet, it is not to be taken as an answer to any thing I said. I did not enter into the merits or demerits of the House of Lords, and I hope I uttered nothing which rendered necessary the panegyric which has just been pro nounced.—( Hear.) I hope, too, that this House will not he led by the Hon. Baronet into topics quite foreign to the real question before it.—(Cheers.) Mr. HUIIE i—Having been personally alluded to, the House will give me leave to say that I have unquestion ably been seen at the bar of the House of Lords during the late discussions, and that I heard with the utmost astonishment the language used in that assembly.— (Cheer's.) In one part, and one part only, of my Hon. Friend's speech just delivered do I concur. It is where he told us of the difficulties that now exist. From the Manner in which he expressed himself I apprehend that he Spoke from some authority, and according to him the House of Lords never will do justice to Ireland.—(Hear.) Sir G. SINCLAIR—I did not say so. Mr. HUME—My Hon. Friend will allow me to say that his declaration amounted to that. He told us that the House of Lords never would concede what I think, and what a majority of this House thinks, justice to Ireland. - . -- Wheers.) I should indeed be sorry to believe that he Is a true interpreter of the intentions of their Lordships. While he was stating the differences between this and the other House I wish he had shown us also some way of getting out of the difficulty in which we are now placed. He says that Ministers never can overcome the majority of the Peers; but let me ask him how are the Peers to over 4eome the large majority of the Commons ?—(Much cheer ing.) He expressed surprise that I and other Radicals should go on so smoothly and quietly with the present Go vernment. No doubt he heartily wishes it was otherwise. He asserts that if the same measures had been proposed by other Ministers we should factiously oppose them. To this I have to answer that no such measures have been brought forward by the other side, therefore he has no means of making the comparison. When did be ever hear of any sincere intention on that side ofthe House to respect the rights of the Peopl e ? When did he ever hear on that • side such senti ments as have just been delivered by the Noble Lord ? When my Hon. Friend rose I rose also, in order to ex press what I trust is the opinion of the Hon. Friends who surround me. The Noble Lord stated clearly and de- cidedly what was his wish and the wish of the Government • respecting the measure as sent from the House of Lords. He deplored the changes without entering into particulars regarding them ; but with the means of information we possess we cannot be ignorant of what has been done, and I beg my Hon. Friend to recollect that one of the great evils and curses of the country has been the treatment of Ireland—the unequal, tyrannical, and oppressive treatment of her for centuries.—(Cheers.) If be asks, then, what is the bond of union between the Radicals and the Whigs, 1 answer that it is the principle now laid down for the :first time of doing equal justice to Ireland.—(Hear.) 1- believe that that is the chief, the sole bond which 4. 6 is united, and, I hope, will continue to unite us. Dif 1761?ces of opinion may—must—exist ; all shades are In thetrust all shades of reform eme inquire how House treat Mr. O'Connell'l t s motion for Re peal? I, among others, strongly reprobated it. I wished Indeed to improve the condition of the people of Ireland, b ut I most strenuously opposed the motion, and agreed to t he amendment—for what was it? That this House would roceed to do ample justice to Ireland in all matters of legisl a ti on or arrange ment. There was, I think, only one English Member who supported the Repeal, and he did so because he was impressed, like my Hon. Friend op • In site (Sir George Sinclair), that the House of Lords never would do justice to Ireland. In order that Ireland I,l.l_eht have justice, he voted for the Repeal of the Union. As to the debt of gratitude to the House of L ords, I have no hesitation in saying, that if there be any b ody of men in the kingdom whose acts have been more detrimental to peace and tranquillity than another, it is the Mouse of Lords.—(Much cheering.) If what my Hon. Priend has stated be the correct interpretation, I ask him this :—lf the Protestants rejoice at the proceedings of the ''''°use of Lords towards Ireland, what do the Roman Ca tholics do ? If one party rejoices, the other must deplore ; and what th en b eco mes of peace and tranquillity ? If one tenth of the population is pleased, and nine-tenths dis pleased, by being deprived of the rights and privileges ac "hied to Englishmen and Scotchmen, what must be the re . atilt? Why are the people of Ireland to put up with less Pau the people of England or Scotland ? Ido hope, there ore, that the House of Commons will never rest satisfied u ntil it h as , by means of its power and influence, carried th rough the Legislature measures of equal justice to Ireland. ~,- * :- ( Chcers from all sides.) Let the contest come when it ~ ,u,r a Y, the House of Commons has not sought it.—(Cheers.) 4 412 1 Hon. Friend has thrown out a taunt, that last ;elision I gave a notice which I have not renewed this lion. and he has asked why I did not redeem my ple dge ti ? I answer that I have been governed by discre ,n,n•--(Cheers and laughter.) I found that at different 1 1 alic meetings some of the Peers had declared that no tibt justice would be done to Ireland by the House r Lord s . I wa it e d t h ere f ore t o see th e issue, and if I ad not waited patiently, how I should have been met I nee,-1 not say. Ido not now anticipate what proceedings pay be necessary, but I have no hesitation in saying that s,,t session the country looked for some motion for the reform „, the House of Lords. This year we wished to leave them act without anything like an impending threat. As an in- the Member, I declare it to be my decided opinion that .„,n Conduct of the other House has been highly detri irntal—that it is the only stop at the present moment to et happiness and prosperity which the country was to ll? otherwise to enjoy.—(Cheers.) I regret exceedingly 4 ear that the House of Lords not only stands, but in it • s to stand, in the way of national improvement—that sk is °PPosed to all alterations—to all reforms : come to let conclusion it must and will. As to an organic change i ne inquire for what was the House of Lords established? j wEat was the House of Commons established ? To f or good g overnment t o the people.—( Cheers.) If it be tin good that any branch of the Legislature—the House of ord s . •ti for instance—opposes obstinacy to reason and jus ehe,.' and actually refuses measures deemed essential . by the 44-esentatives of the people, the question then arises what 14 0 14 to ? Every man will ask whether we are to allow v ern O r 150 individuals to impede the progress of good go a.iortrnt ? Are we to place ourselves at the mercy of the war d s' and to leave them to dole out what they think good 111 the quantities that they think proper? My lion. of e nd knows that if we employ machinery, and the cogs Dai . ,.: i n of the wheels do not act, that wheel must be re - N th uor removed. Do not let him fancy that there is any titi l sacred in the character of the House of Lords which 414 r abic it to im p ede g ood g overnment with im p unit y ; 1 ) d e 4 . 0 is mist a k en if he thinks the people of England will nOj It ' Iwhat may be will not now state means taken, 4 00L' er nernber that twenty-five years ago my Hon. Friend 4 404 in favour of a reform of this House.—(Cheers and i t)4 ty l r.) His maiden Tpcecb, if lam not mistaken, was °I • "r of reform and Ile must allow me remind him eau, ~o r„ ,. ough his opinions have since undergone an 4 14,7'we change."—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) I ask ke tish `f . en, as an early reformer, if the other House obstruct tetut necessary for the peace and happiness of the oa eo r7, what must follow ? In this House we have had au organic change as could well be effected, v s w e i , tosolut e nonsense t o say that we have not the go t , I ?,:natz e an organ i c c h ange in the other House. My rear me says the change here is not complete ghat haselizv c not half done ; but I am only speaking of a lready been accomplished. We have reformed the House of Commons, and we have limited the powers of the Crown, and are we to be told that the people of Eng land have not the power of making an organic change in the House of Lords? I had hoped that reflection would have induced their Lordships to fulfil the pledge they for merly gave—for I contend that they have violated a sacred engagement—and that engagement was to do equal justice to Ireland. —(Cheers.) I therefore protest against the whole conduct of the House of Lords. If any body deserve the name of Destructives, they of all men merit it.—( Hear, and laughter.) I have been often told that lam a des tructive. lam so—a destructive of pensions and sinecures. —(Hear.) But let my Hon. Friend, or any body else, show, if he can, that I have been a destructive of one right of the people. In one respect, as my Hon. Friend reminds me, I have been a constructive ; I have aided in the reform and reconstruction of municipal corporations in this coun try, and the people of Ireland may safely claim the same be nefit. Why are not they to have the same means of con trolling and managing their affairs? I assert, in the strong est terms, that the House of Lords, by manglin g this Bill, has declared that the people of Ireland shall not have equal justice.—(Cheers.) Sir JAMES GRAHAM—I confess I heard with great satisfaction the commencement of the speech of my Noble Friend, and I admit, most distinctly, that the pre sent crisis of affairs is somewhat dangerous.—(Hear.) I therefore thought the advice given by my Noble Friend, in his outset, prudent and statesmanlike—namely, that we should proceed on this question with calmness and delibe ration, and not rashly and prematurely. That advice, I repeat, was prudent and statesmanlike, and worthy of my Noble Friend ; but I am bound to add, that the satisfac tion I felt at the commencement was not carried through to the conclusion, because, already the discussion has pro ceeded farther than I think it consistent with the calmness and forbearance recommended by my Noble Friend, and the inducement was given by him.—(No, no, and cheers.) He admitted, speaking of the co-ordinate branch of the Legislature, that we are not informed of the nature of the Lords' amendments. The motion is, that they should be printed immediately previous to the adjournment, in order that they may hereafter be taken into deliberate con sideration ; yet my Noble Friend went on to argue as to the nature and extent of the amendments. He certainly held out a strong inducement for the House not to concur in them, if it should happen to agree with him that they were inconsistent with what was due to the attachment and loyalty of the people of Ireland. If my Noble Friend did not go quite to that length, he led irresistibly to the conclu sion that the people of Ireland could not take the amend ments. If I thought that concession after concession would naturally produce contentment, I might be led to take that course, even at the risk of danger. My Noble Friend has mentioned various concessions ; one in 1793, which granted the elective franchise, and when also the Test and Corporation Act may be said to have been virtually re pealed in Ireland, although it did not strictly lead to that result. Next he referred to the concession of 1829, which placed Roman Catholics on a footing of perfect equality. His inference was, that because these great concessions had been made, and made in vain, that therefore we ought to proceed further. I doubt the policy of such advice. I say that where great national concessions have been made, and those who made them have been disappointed in their ex pectations, instead of being hurried on from concession to concession in a downward path,'without being called upon to halt,. the time has arrived when we ought to pause. I contend that you must deliberate before you proceed fur ther in the same direction.—(Cheers.) And here I am re minded of the observation of a man of as great experience in government as any living—l allude to Prince Talley ran. What he is reported to have said is full of truth and wisdom—" That those who commence a government of concession, never fail in the end to make some concession they did not contemplate when they began their career, which concession proves ultimately fatal to them." I hope my Noble Friend will not experience this result in its full extent. Now to advert shortly to what fell from the Hon. Member for Middlesex. Ido not think it, in the first in stance, the duty of any individual Member of the Legis lature to solve the difficulty of our present position. If; unfortunately, there be any difficulty in reconciling the two Houses of Parliament, it is the duty of the executive Go vernment to propose the mode of overcoming it.—( Hear.) If I understood my Noble Friend correctly, he did, per haps indistinctly, hint at some mode of reconciliation. I thought he said that his objection to the amendment was, that it removed entirely from Ireland municipal govern ment.—(Cbeers.) Thereby he pointed at a mode by which the difficulty might be surmounted. Not having Parlia mentary knowledge of the amendments, 1 am not prepared to enter into the discussion of them ; but I should frankly and fairly point out to the House, as I did when the mea sure was under discussion here, that my objection was to the constructive part of the Bill. It was distinctly avowed and has not been dissembled, that the measure, as sent to the House of Lords, consisted of two parts—one destruc tive, to which we on this side of the House did not in the least object—(Some laughter)—destructive, I mean, inas much as it was generally admitted that the Corporations of Ireland, close in reality, as the Report proves them, though technically and legally open, ought no longer to continue. To the destructive part of the measure, therefore, we felt no objection ; and the whole difference arose as to the con structive part of it. The opinion which was pronounced Upon the subject by the House of Lords was' the opinion, not of a small number, but of a very large majority of that House. Sir, I am, and ever have been, the unflinching friend of every description of just and necessary reform ; but if we arc to be told, as indeed we have been told —if the threat is to be held out, that unless the House of Lords concede on this point, an organic change in that body is so inevitable that it will be impossible to prevent it—why then, Sir, I say that, friend as I am of reform, I am no friend of revolution.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Having been born under a limited monarchy, with a House of Lords co ordinate in authority with the House of Commons—a House of Lords hereditary, not elected by the people—l, for one, can never consent to that which, under the name of reform, is nothing more nor less than revolution.— (Hear.) To such a reform, I trust, I shall always be found opposed. The Hon. Member for Middlesex talks centemptuously of the number of those by whom the Bill on the table has been altered from the shape in which it was sent up by this House. The House of Lords was not so numerous a body as the House of Commons ; but the amendments which were made in this Bill by the House of Lords were made by a majority of two to one of a body which the Constitution declares to be co-ordinate in legis lative power with ourselves. It is possible that a time may arrive when the general opinion shall declare that the House of Lords ought no longer to exist ; and when what I have already characterised as a revolution with reference to that body shall take place. But, Sir, the public men of this country are at present on their trial. I firmly believe that the people arc still warmly attached to the existing form of our Government. Whether proceeding from any pulic man, from any Minister, from the House of Commons, or from the House of Lords, I am convinced that any rash or impru dent step, that any violent measure, threatening in its conse quences to involve the peace and tranquillity of the empire, will not be pardoned by a people, too much attached to the existing institutions of the country—too much attached Us the pieservation of liberty—too much attached to the se curity of property, to risk any of those benefits for a spe culative theoretical proposition, recommended on the grounds of a remote and contingent advantage.—(Hear, hear.) Convinced that this is the fact, I say that we ought to proceed with caution and deliberation. The Hon. Member for Middlesex has said that, as a good Radical, he supported his Majesty's present Government ; and that he supported them especially in consequence of the mea sures which they have brought forward respecting Ireland. A letter from the Hon. Gentleman has been published w;thin the last month, in which he states that as a good Radical he thinks some forbearance is due to his Majesty's present advisers, and recommends to the people to wait a little before they censured the conduct of Government. This and other circumstances ought, in my opinion, to operate upon the House as a warning ; and ought to in duce them to pause, before they agree to any proposition which may be deemed a preliminary step to obtaining the approbation of the Honourable Member for Middlesex. Sir, I still reserve the point to which I have already al luded, namely, that the discussion is at present premature. —(Hear, hear.) If, as that cheer imports, I have failed in pursuing the course which .1 have advised to others, it is in consequence of what fell from the Noble Lord, and which, if it had been wholly unnoticed, would have left those Hon. Members who sit on this side of the House open to misrepresentation. I have endeavoured to state what I have stated as dispassionately as possible ; but it is impossible on a question of so much importance wholly to restrain one's feelings. I cannot be blind to the very critical emergency of the situation in which we are placed. At the same time I do not think that a pre mature discussion of the subject can be in any point of view beneficial ; and I regret, therefore, that the Noble Lord courted, and more than courted, that he provoked, such a discussion ; for the observations with which the Noble Lord concluded his speech rendered it imperative on this side of the House that those observations should not be left unnoticed. If a system of concession on this subject seemed calculated to be beneficial, if it were probable that the people of England would be satisfied with any step that might be taken on this subject, even at the risk of a departure from the system of caution and pru dence which I have been recommending, I might be desi rous of seeing some proposition of that nature adopted. But as it is, seeinc , no probability whatever of a consum mation so desirable, I am prepared to adhere to the last two votes which I gave on the subject. It has been de clared that what is called justice to Ireland cannot be ob tained without an organic changeintlleHooseofLords s . Now , to such organic change I am as strongly opposed a I should be to any other revolutionary measure which might be proposed. - Unless, therefore, I hear some arguments stronger than any I have hitherto heard, or than I antici• pate, agaiiist this Bill, as it has been returned to us from, the House of Lords, I repeat that I am not prepared to depart from the last two votes which I gave on this subject, and that so far from thinking any compromise desirable, I protest most strongly against it. Lord CLEMENTS—I feel it impossible to hear the interests of the Irish people alluded to as they have been without protesting in the strongest manner against it. The blood boils in my Irish veins when I hear the disposition to do the people of Ireland justice called concession. Con cession ! Are the municipal Corporations of England to be reformed for the good of the people of England, and is the reform of the Municipal Corporations of Ireland, for the good of the people of Ireland, to be called a concession ? (Hear, hear.) Sir, I much fear that the Protestants of Ireland have much more to fear from their zealous but in judicious friends, than they have from their worst enemies. For myself, I hope and believe that I am conscientiously attached to the religion which I profess ; but I deeply re gret that the interests of that religion have been taken up in the manner in which they have been taken up, and that the Tories seem desirous of maintaining the distinction be tween Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, instead of try ing to forget all religious differences, and to merge them in one general feeling for the common good.—( Hear.) Sir, I am convinced that if this destructive measure sent to us by the House of Lords be adopted by the House of Commons, many a Protestant in Ireland will lose his rights. And why is this done ? To me it is evident, that merely for the sake of destroying the rights of the Catholics in Ireland the House of Lords has consented to destroy the rights of the Protest.. ants in that country. We have been told of British do minion over Ireland ! To such language I can never listen without resentment. Concession and dominion ! Was it concession to Ireland when the penal laws against the Ca tholics in that country were abrogated? 'Was not that abrogation calculated to be at least as beneficial to the Pro testants of Ireland as to the Catholics ? I will always stand up for the country from which I come ; and I will never hear the terms concession or dominion applied with reference to that country without the frank expression of my feelings. The House of Lords, by the course which they have adopted on this occasion, have prevented much good from being done. Ido from the bottom of my heart believe that the majority of the House of Lords have taken the course which they have taken on the present question, because they dared to do with reference to the people of Ireland what they did not dare to do with reference to the people of England.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. E. DENISON—The Right Hon. Baronet who spoke on the other side of the House indulged in an admo nition probably addressed to me as well as to other Hon. Members, on the danger of the path on which he appre hended we were about to enter. Sir, a juster admonition might be addressed to those who, having commenced great political changes, and having laid down great political prin ciples, do not follow up those changes, or pursue those prin ciples to their proper termination.-4 Hear, hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet launched into a very just and a very legitimate deprecation of rashness and imprudence.' But if he, who was a party to Catholic Emancipation, who was a party to the Reform of Parliament, who was a party to the resolution of the House declaring that the peo ple of England and the pe o pl e o f I re l an d were entitled to equal rights, will suddenly stop short in that laudable career, and will substitute for action, advice and warning to those misguided politicians, as he conceives them to be, who are disposed to continue the course recommended by his early example, and.an entreaty to pause before they venture further on their path, it is, I should suppose impos sible for the House or for the country to contemplate such a change without feelings of great dissatisfaction.--(Hear.). Sir, when the proper time arrives, I shall be prepared to deliver my sentiments on the alterations which have been made by the other House of Parliament in the Irish Mu nicipal Corporations Bill ; but I now mean to do, what no Hon. Member who has preceded me has done, although every one has claimed the attention of the House on the ground of his intention to do it—namely, to confine my ob servations to the question immediately before us. Sir, I am perfectly satisfied with the statement which has been made by the Noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department. That Noble Lord confined his observations to the point which is really under our consideration ; he said nothing about organic changes in the House of Lords, or about the Irish Church, neither of those subjects being under discussion. All that the Noble 'Lord said was, that as the Bill for the reform of Municipal Corporations in Ireland had come down from:the other house of Parliament with amendments, he should move that those amendments be printed, with a view to their being taken into considera tion on a future day. This was the only course for the Noble Lord, in the peculiar situation in which he was placed, to adopt ; and if he had not taken it, he would not have done his duty. I will not enter at all upon the question ; I will say nothing of the clauses in the Bill which have been struck out, or of those which have been substituted ; but I cannot hesitate to express my con currence in the opinion that a party measure, annihilating all municipal government in Ireland, is a proceeding to which it is impossible that this House can agree.—(Hear, hear.) With that declaration I sit down. I join issue with the Hon. Baronet in the conviction that the eyes of the country are upon us ; that it becomes us to proceed with caution and deliberation ; and that whatever individual, or whatever body of individuals may transgress the bounds of prudence on this subject, will be visited with public disap probation : and I hope that the example of decorum and forbearance that has been set by the Noble Lord will be followed, and that this debate may not at present be con tinued. Mr. SHAW—In reference to some of the observations which fell from the Noble Lord the Member for Armagh, I must be permitted to say, that I never heard the word " dominion" used on this side of the House in the sense in which the Noble Lord seems to suppose that it has been used. As to the word " concession," it has been freely introduced in discussion on all sides of the House. Sir, there have been very surprising changes on this very question of the dissolution of municipal corporations on the part of the Noble Lord. What is the question before us? Municipal cogoorations have been extinguished on the proposition of - his Majesty's present Govern ment. The only question here is, whether or not there should be an entire extinction of the Municipal Corpora tions of Ireland. That is really the only point which we are called upon to consider. Some Hon. Gentlemen insist that we should legislate on this subject for Ireland, pre cisely as we have already legislated for England. But is our legislation for Ireland to be free from all consideration of the peculiar circumstances in which that country is placed ? The only legitimate question to be determined is, How are the towns in Ireland to be governed peaceably, quietly, and beneficially to all parties? Now, of this I am persuaded, that if you give to those towns Corporations constituted ac cording to the provisions which existed in this Bill before it went up to the other House of Parliament, you will give them the germs of strong political excitement, and violent party feeling. The question is, whether, in order to get rid of evils, the existence of which is allowed on all hands, we should attempt to improve the present Municipal Corpora tions in Ireland, or should entirely transfer their privileges and powers to other bodies? I cannot help thinking that there was something in the tone and manner of the Noble Lord, that indicated something beyond the mere motion that the amendments made by the House of Lords in this Bill be printed for future consideration. I can hardly help thinking that the Noble Lord had in his contemplation a letter which appeared this morning, and which has al ready been alluded to this evening, in which the writer de clares that an organic change is necessary in the constitu tion of the House of Lords, because, without such an organic change there will never be an independent Parlia ment in Ireland ; without such an organic change we, shall never have universal suffrage ; without such an organic change we shall never have vote by ballot. This I can tell the Noble Lord, that if he adopts such opinions and pro ceeds to act upon them, he will be led into difficulties, the extent of which he perhaps does not now anticipate, but which will place him in a situation that he will not find very agreeable. There is scarcely any absurdity which has not been proposed under the high-sounding phrase of " doing justice to Ireland." Sir, I am as anxious as any man that justice should be done to Ireland ; and it is, therefore, that I can never give my consent ton measure which in my opinion would be likely to be a fruitful source of discord and contention in Ireland.—(Hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Sir, I rise to answer, not merely the statements and arguments, but the insinuations, which, not very fairly, have been thrown out by the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman who has just sat down. A more unmanly, a more disinge nuous, a more unjustifiable attack, I never heard made upon a public man, than that which the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman has, by implication at least, made upon my Noble Friend.—(Hear, hear.) Nothing can be more un justifiable than the mode which the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman has adopted, of ascribing motives, and then sug gesting that they are the motives of my Noble Friend, and of his Majesty's Government. But such is the course which the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman and his friends have long uniformly pursued. In order to avoid dis cussing the real merits of the question, the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman endeavoured to connect the expressions in a letter written by an Hon. and Learned Gentleman — who, if he were present, would no doubt have been able to answer for himself—with the opinions which he sup poses are entertained by my Noble Friend. Sir, this is only a part of that miserable, that unmanly system which our opponents have for some time been in the habit of pur suing, and the adoption of which only shows the weakness of those who condescend to have recourse to it. The question is, whether we shall do right or do wrong in adopting or re jecting the amendments which have been made by the House of Lords in the Irish Municipal Corporations Bill ? That question ought to be treated argumentatively, and not by the suggestion of motives to any party. What right had the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman to hold my Noble Friend responsible for the opinions expressed by another, that an organic change in the House of Lords was indispensable to obtaining an independent Parliament in Ireland, to obtaining Universal Suffrage, to obtaining Vote by Ballot? Does not the Right Hon. and Learned Gen tleman well know that such opinions are not participated in by my Noble Friend ? Mr. SHAW—I never said that they were. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—No the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman never said that they were ; but he implied it ; quoting those opinions as having been expressed by one who bad acted in support of his Majesty's Government.—(Hear, hear.) I have thought it necessary thus to repel the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman's insinuations ; not from any appre hension of their effect within these walls, but to prevent the effect which they might otherwise have on weak minds out of doors. The question for the House to consider, and it was a question of great importance, was, what was to be done with the new Bill, for a new Bill it essentially was, that had ben sent to them by the other House of Parliament ? In speaking upon that question, if his No ble Friend had not stated what his feelings were with re spect to it, he would have been deficient in candour, in common sense, and in consistency.—(Hear.) But what had that to do with the letter which appeared this morning? It is true that in that letter the extinction of Municipal Corporations in Ireland is reprobated. But is that a new doctrine ? Is it not a doctrine which a large majority of this House has sanctioned by its vote on the motion of : the Noble Lora the Member for Lancashire ? At the time that the proposition to extin guish those Corporations was brought before us, did we not distinctly declare that we would not consent to their extinction ? That refusal we are, I hope, prepared to re peat. Is that an unexpected declaration ? In or out of this House, in any place whatever, such a result must have been supposed. Even the Noble Lord himself who framed the amendments could not have imagined that we should concur in them. But it has been said that this is a premature dis cussion. To a certain extent that is the case ; but it must be recollected that with reference to this Bill, as returned to us by the House of Lords, we are not in the condition in which we are placed with reference to Bills generally. In Bills generally there may be a discussion on the first read ing, a discussion on the second reading, a discussion in the Committee, a discussion on the Report, a discussion on the third reading. But this Bill, which is essentially a new measure, we are called upon to swallow whole, without that previous caution and repeated consideration usually consi dered essential to legislative measures.—(Hear.) I perfectly concur in what my Noble Friend has said, and conceive that we are doing no more than what we are absolutely called upon to do in the first instance, in declaring that we are not pre pared to assent to a measure which pronounces the whole people of Ireland to be unfit and unworthy to exercise those rights and privileges which have been conceded to their brethren in England and Scotland.—(Cheers.) This is the principle which is laid down in the Bill which has been laid upon the table of the House. The Right Hon. Mem ber for Cumberland has pointed out to the Heuse that the first Catholic question was carried without producing tranquillity to Ireland—that the Parliamentary franchise was given to the Catholics of Ireland without producing tranquillity there—and that, finally, the last great act of Catholic Emancipation brought no peace to that country. But what is the reason why these measures have not had the full effect of giving peace to that country, and repose to her people? It is not because much has been given, but because more has been withheld—(Hear, hear) ; it is not that the Catholics of Ireland are unconscious of the advantages which they have derived from these con cessions, or ungrateful to those who promoted them, but they know, at the same time, that all of them have been granted with reluctance, and would never have been granted at all, if those who -did grant them had dared longer to refuse.—(Cheers.) They knew very well that even when the last great measure had been forced from the Ministers it was rejected by the House of Lords, though within a twelvemonth after the House of Lords thought itself under the necessity of giving the measure, when again brought before it, a reluctant consent.—(Hear,hear.) The Irish nation, I repeat, have not been unconscious of bene fits received, but they have been greatly disappointed that those benefits have not been followed up by others to which they were equally entitled. This is the evil which has hitherto prevailed, and which it is our desire for the future to avert ; and I cannot, therefore, agree with the Right Hon. Gentleman, that because the concessions he has spoken of did not produce all the good which was expected, that he and the House are called upon to pause ere they assent to any other concession, however calculated it may be to complete those benefits, and produce that tranquillity, which the other measures of which he has spoken failed to bring about. Sir, if the course of legislation is to be stopped because some measure which has passed has hap pened not to produce the good results anticipated from it, the course of legislation will be stopped altogether.— (Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman is very earnest about what he calls pausing. I have never heard this phrase made use of except for the purpose of delaying some, good results. What I say is, let us proceed on in the course of just, and even, and impartial legislation. I repeat, there fore, Sir, that I consider my Noble. Friend to have done no more than his duty.—(Hear.) Sir, a great outcry has been made about organic changes ; but his Ma jesty's Ministers have not spoken a word about organic changes. We have not attacked the exercise by the House of Lords of their privileges in dealing with this measure as to them seemed fit. All we have to do is to deal with the Bill as it is, without inquiring whence it comes to us, or by whom it has been rendered such as it is —(Hear, bear)—we have to deal with it just as if it were an entirely new Bill, now first introduced to the House—(Cheers and laughter)—and there is no par liamentary restraint to prevent us from dealing with it as its present merits deserve, or from giving it every term of reproach which we may conceive it justly open to.— (Hear, hear.) We have to state our opinion in re ference to this Bill in its present state, and to consider how near it is consistent with the resolutions of this House upon the subject ; and I can freely say, that if the measure can be put into such a shape as will ensure its success here and elsewhere, the Right Hon. Member will find that I am as far from seeking a collision with another branch of the Legislature as he can possibly be.—(Hear.) Here, as in the English Corporation Bill, we may feel that it is most desirable to avoid any collision or difference, and we hold that the best way to prevent any collision or dif ference is to maintain with the utmost freedom of discussion the rights, privileges, powers, and authorities of the House of Commons.—(Cheers.) Mr. BROWNE did not rise to discuss the general merits of the Bill, or of the subject upon the present occa sion, nor did he rise to discuss the general merits of the House of Lords. What he were to' express was, his con viction, that if equal justice longer denied to Ireland, which would be the practical result of this Bill being re ceived in its present form, the whole Irish nation would demand the repeal of the Union ; and he for one, if jus tice were refused to Ireland, would return whence he came, and agitate that question. He had stated to his constituents that he would take the first opportunity that offered of voting for a reform of the House of Lords. Impressed with this conviction he would therefore at once declare, that if no other Member of the House of Com mons came forward with a motion to that purpose, he himself would stand up, and propose a measure which should produce some organic change in the House of Lords._( Ironical Opposition cheers.) Sir H. HARDINGE begged to congratulate the Hon. Member upon the manliness and candour he had thus ex hibited in his maiden speech—(cheers)--though he could givenn kG o i no t dv. e ron extend uiunt epbno ytr: the : t Hon. Member compliment subject sub e rw further. asm The os t mischievous one, and if acted upon would in a s h or t ti me ren d er t h e country ject a immediately b democracy efo r c o f the t e Housewors t he had little to say in its present stage. He agreed with the Right Honourable Gentleman opposite, that though it was a measure coming down to them from the other House, it was their duty to consider it, not in reference to the place whence it last came, but to consider it in refe rence to its existing character.—( Hear, hear.) As to what the Right, Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said in reply to the Member for Dublin University, respect ing Mr. O'Connell, that Right Hon. Gentleman must really not feel surprised that Hon. Members, reading the letters and speeches of that Learned Gentleman, should in some degree connect his sentiments with the measures of Government ; because it had been frequently stated by that Learned person, both in his speeches and letters, that there was a compact and alliance of the most intimate cha racter between him and the Whigs—(Opposition cheers) —those very Whigs, be it observed, whom but last year the same Learned person branded as " brutal, 'base, and bloody," but whom he had now found out were not brutal, base, and bloody." No, the Whigs of this were not the Whigs of last year, nor the Whig-sof 1834, whom the Learned Gen tleman had described as the worst enemies Ireland ever had, worse ten times than the Peels and Goulburns had ever been.—(Opposition cheers.) The Noble. Lord op posite was no longer, it seemed, the malignant enemy to Ireland that the Learned Gentleman had called him as well as Earl Grey. If this Learned Gentleman was to have influence with the Government, both in the House and out of it, Honourable Members opposite must not be surprised that the Learned Gentleman's name was occasionally connected with Ministerial pro ceedings.—Opposition cheers.) He (Sir H. Hardinge) was glad to bear the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite dis- claim any wish fur an organic change in the House of Lords, and he hoped and believed that when the Hon. Member for Mayo should bring forward his motion upon that subject, the Hon. Member would find himself docked to a very short tail indeed.—(Laughter.) As to the pre sent Bill, he did not understand how it could be described either as an injury or an insult to the people of Ireland.— (Hear, hear.) . It destroyed the present exclusive system, and it rendered justice equally to Catholic and Protestant. This, however, was its mistake ; for it was one thing to do away with exclusion as regarded the Protestants, and an other thing to do away with exclusion as regarded the Catholics.—(Hear, hear.) In his opinion, a perfect equality in all circumstances was quite impossible at the present moment in Ireland. When the state of society in that country was such as to admit of an equality of justice in every respect with England ; when the police force, and every other arrangement of a similar character in Ireland, could be put on the same footing as in .England, he should be most ready to acquiesce in entire equality. The Go vernment Constabulary Bill which passed but the last night, by its peculiar nature, showed clearly that Government itself was fully conscious that the state of society was dif ferent in Ireland from the state of society in England. Mr. D. ROCHE said, the Right Hon. Gentleman might accurately repeat the . sentiments of the Orangemen of Ire land, but these were not the opinions of the Irish nation. The deMolition of the Irish Corporations would be any thing but a boon to Ireland ; and so far from being received with gratitude by the people of that country, would but create a new discontent.—(Hear, hear.) It was a mere absurdity to say, that because the Catholics of Ireland formed the large majority of the population, they should therefore be refused the management of their own affairs. The Right Hon. Gentleman appeared to look upon Ire land as a mere dependency of England ; but the people of Ireland justly asserted their r ight to be considered as an equal with England and with Scotland, and if this equality were not conceded to them the repeal of the Union would be the universal demand of Irishmen. He bad voted for repeal once, and he would do so again if justice were de nied to his country. But of that justice he did not de spair, for he looked for it at the hands of the great majority of that House, and to the nation, and not to the majority in the House of Lords. Mr. WYSE said this was not a measure of mere regu lation, but one founded upon a great and just principle, and he therefore trusted the House would not for a moment en tertain the Bill as it was sent to them from the Lords. The question of a repeal of the Union had not been got up by the eloquence of the late Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, but was founded upon the refusal of England hitherto to do justice to Ireland, and to acknowledge her equal rights. The people of Ireland would no longer suffer that there should be one law for England and Scotland, and another for Ireland. Nothing would now satisfy her but equality of rights and advantages, and if they were refused, then it would be for her to consider how she might best obtain these advantages by her own exertions. Mr. S. CRAWFORD said the great body of the Pro testants of Ireland were quite ready to admit the Catholics to a full participation of their political rights. In reference to this Bill he trusted that no compromise would be made upon it with the other House. 'Nothing but the Bill as it originally stood would or ought to satisfy the people of Ire land.—( Hear, and cheers.) With respect to the letter of a Learned Gentleman, not at the present moment a member of the House, he felt called upon, in that Learned Gentle man's absence, to declare, that, although upon some points he differed from that Learned Gentleman, in the sentiments expressed in that letter he did most cordially concur, and he considered it an expression of sentiment for which the people of Ireland were deeply indebted to its talented w rite r.—( Hear, hear.) Dr. BO WRING felt some surprise that the declaration of the Hon. Member for Mayo had been received with such coldness and indifference by the House. That decla ration, be it recollected, was the latest testimony to the state of the public mind in Ireland ; and that public mind would soon find abundant echoes in this country, unless Ireland were really and truly raised to the. equality she had a right to occupy. When the question of the repeal of the Union was last debated, none but Irish Members were will ing to advocate it ; but if the present system were per sisted in, if a perpetual injustice towards Ireland were per petrated, it would not be left alone to Irish representatives, for many of the representatives of England and Scotland would unite in demanding a repeal of the Union, unless equal justice were obtained for Ireland. He did not un derstand what was meant by the word collision. He knew the duty of an honest representative. It was to proceed in a straightforward path—it was to remove abuses—it was to redress wrongs—it was to obtain good and cheap govern ment for the people. If this were prevented by those who were blind and deaf to the state and to the power of public opinion, on them, and on them alone must the res ponsibility rest. Ana as the subject of organic changes had been referred to, he wished the House to know that the organic change which he and those who thought with him insisted on—aye, and would obtain in spite of all resist ance—; as the organic change from bad to good government. The question eras then put that the amendments of the Lords be printed, and it was ordered accordingly, and the amendments were ordered to be taken into consideration on Wednesday, June 1. PO - --• --- 77-ZI4, TO THE PEOPLE OF E 4• -e=:PZ:.— Cl. 40,1,\F. -- • ' • ~...,q •-• ..,-.,. .• k 4, ii a 1. ,: .., _ , -4-..'l'4° ' LETTER No. I. - 54 ''. - i'•'' - ' II Q--,f,.. 4' London, M. , $ Atilti -.,..'". • Let the situation of Ireland be understoo(:-- ' l l.. i *' ..,. ' that there is an UNION between that country aInIINS ~..,. deny it—l totally deny it. There is, to be sure, a le„a kir A,..4„ 1 UNION—a parchment UNlON—but. for any practical purpose or for any purpose useful to either country, there is No UNION at all. " The Union," said the celebrated Cur.ran, " will be just this, and, no more—a full participation of British burdens and taxation, without any adequate share of British franchises or advantages." His was a prophetic spirit ; the fact is just as he stated it would be. We share your battles and your burdens, but we are jealously, and, in deed, insultingly, excluded from your franchises and ad vantages. I therefore repeat, there is NO UNION. That of parch ment is a cobweb, which we will break through the mo ment we are convinced that we cannot obtain justice from you, if such a moment-shall, as now appears probable, arrive. Our cry is, A REAL UNION, or NO UNION-NO UNION, or a REAL UNION. I candidly and at once admit that my own opinion ig, that the Union, in its most favourable shape, must neces sarily be highly i n j ur i ous t o I re l an d. Ido not think it is of any rea l a d van t age to E ng l an d ; b u t th a t it i s detrimen tal to the Irish people I have not one shadow of doubt. I am old enough to remember the cruelty, the tyranny, and, above all, the overwhelming corruption and bribery, by which that measure was brought about ; and it may be prejudice, but I am at least candid in the confession that my own conviction is, that, for the prosperity of Ireland, a local legislature—whether dependent or independent, I stop not now to canvass—is essentially and necessarily requisite. Accordingly I have been the active and unequivocal ad vocate for a repeal of the existing Union. The people of Ireland have already roused themselves, with an unanimity unequalled, and with a determination never surpassed, to demand that repeal. Impressed with these convictions, and impelled faster than my own judgment did warrant by the strong senti ment that pervaded. the Irish mind, I brought the subject before Parliament. Whigs, Tories, Reformers, and Radicals of Great Bri tain joined against me—l was defeated by assertion and by numbers. There was a plentiful Mack of argument to sustain these numbers, but prejudice supplied the place of reasoning, and I was signally defeated by an enormous majority. The men vvho formed that majority felt that the truth of the evils inflicted upon Ireland by the Unio❑ was all at my side ; they could not vindicate the past, but, as is usual in such cases, they were full of promise for the future. Nay, these promises were not the mere assertions of individuals of any rank or party, but were converted into solemn pledges. The House of Commons unani mously—for we Repealers did not interrupt that una nimity—the House of Commons unanimously pledged themselves to redress all the real and practical grievances. of Ireland. The House of Lords—mark this, Englishmen !—with equal unanimity, made the same pledge. Ireland was to be governed as if she were part and parcel of England ; there was to be no difference between them—the identity of the people of both islands was to be complete in fran chises, in rights, in liberty, in prosperity. There was still more. Both Houses of Parliament con ferred. They, without a dissentient voice, concurred in: an address to the Throne, embodying those sentiments; proclaiming them to the King, and calling upon him Lo be the witness and the sanction of the solemn obligationi thus incurred—TO DO JUSTICE TO IfIELAND. Thus was a species of new charter tendered to the peo ple of-Ireland—King, Lords, and Commons concurring in one solemn pledge. I stand upon this pledge. I demand, in the name of the Irish people I insist, upon its fulfilment. The Irish nation has a right to require and demand it ; and in the name of that nation, or at least of more than seven millions of that nation, I insist upon its fulfilment. Upon the promulgation of that pledge we paused. We have ceased to agitate the question of repeal—we have ac cepted the promise, and converted it, by our acceptance, into a contract. We have sought redress for Ireland only by and through Parliament—only by and through the peo ph?. of England. We are still satisfied to look for redress, through these means alone ; but whilst we take this course ; , let us not be confounded with miserable mendicants, who, having no resources within themselves, seek by supplication and abject intreaty to obtain that from the bounty of others which they are unable, in any case, to seize and to enjoy for themselves. We are more than seven millions ; and seven millions; never yet knew and asserted their rights without success. The House of Commons has, slowly and cautiously, ar.r2- menced the effort to redeem its pledge, and perform. its contract with the Irish people. We do not complain of that caution, nor do we quarrel much with that slowness. We make ample allowance for the situation in which the: Ministry are placed, and the difficulties by which they are, surrounded. We are not unreasonable, neither are we dis contented with the conduct of the Ministry, or of the House of Commons. But what shall I say of the House of Lords ? .I will speak my mind feeely. The Lords have scanda lously, insultingly—l will add, because it is true, basely violated their pledge, and broken their contract. People of .England, we appeal to you—ls the Union to be real ?Isitto he the union of a brotherhood—of free dom and prosperity—or is it to be, as the Lords declare,. a vile bond between master and slave ? People of England, we appeal to you ; and I, on the part of the Irish nation, lay before you as short a sketch as I can of the case of Ireland. After thirty-five years of the parchment Union, the state of Ireland is this :—Upon a population of eight millions there are existing more than two millions three hundred thousand actual beggars, living on alms, supported by charity, Yes ; after thirty-five years of that union, whose promoters declared, and proclaimed, and swore, in the face of Heaven, that it would be a source of perennial prosperity to Ireland—after thirty-five years of that union, there are, upon a population of eight millions, no less than two millions three hundred thou sand beggars ; more, much more, than one-fourth of the entire people, beggars. Yes ; after thirty-five years union with the richest country in the world, more than one fourth of the population of Ireland are actual beggars I know that I shall be met with the taunt that there are no poor-laws in Ireland, and that I have, until now, opposed poor-laws. Whv so I have, because it has not been shown to me, and cannot be shown to me, that poor-laws can increase the property, the capital, or the fund for the payment of wages of any country. And now I adopt the poor-laws, not as an actual benefit, for they will be none, but as a mitigation of the horrible evils of the Union in its present form. Six years ago I published to the landed proprietors.of Ireland, that they must abdicate the rights of property to give a temporary relief, in the shape of poor-laws, to the people of Ireland, or repeal the Union, and permit a domestic Legislature, freely and fairly chosen, to abolish the causes which have produced the hideous anomaly of a country the most fertile and pro ductive of all the necessaries of life, with the most wretched and poorest population in the world. But that which poor-laws cannot effect, JUSTICE may easily attain. We have been promised justice—we are en titled to justice ; justice is the only experiment that has not hitherto been tried towards Ireland. We are enti tled to have this experiment made, and we insist upon its being made. Ifaving placed the first fact before you, namely, that more than one-fourth of the people of Ireland are in a state of destitution and beggary, I come to the next. It is the ingratitude which has been hitherto exhibited towards the Reformers of Ireland. We joined you in your battle for Reform. Our num bers not only swelled, but actually constituted, the majori ties in your favour. England obtained a considerable in stalment of reform. Her franchises were augmented, and the number of her voters considerably increased. Scot land obtained a still larger portion of reform, and from a mere nominal and paper franchise, she obtained a sounea, a valuable, and a numer•jus constituency. Ireland—lreland alone—was defrauded and cheatc-d and insulted by the .deform Bill which Stanley flung to tie, rather than conceded. That " calamity" of his p Arty and country, that " curse" of Ireland, defeated all my efforts to procuro at that time justice for Ireland, and gave us, in stoad of a just and generous reform, a jejune, restricted, confined, and ineffectual Reform Bill. . Of this I never will cease to complain until it be reme died. The Ministry, in the last and in the present seF.- sions, have endeavoured to mitigate some of the defects of Irish Reform ; but the House of Lords last year, w ith brutal scoffing, defeated the attempt, and here they are, ready in the present year, under the ignoble leadersY,p o f Lord Lyndhurst, to inflict the same injury a secor.d. time upon Ireland. It is quite true that these are calamities and. crimes of which 1 have already complained, and which do not con stitute the leading object of my present adiiress ; b ut I could not avoid once again placing before the att ration of the British public the miseries of Ireland, and tb.e iniquity practised a gainst her even in the name of Reform. I now come to the principal object of thi., address. It is to rouse British attention to the s t a t e o f cipal Cor porations in Ireland, and to the base outrage offered to that country by a majority of the House of I o quiet and a w n la d etl l T i t r il t o h u e i British reno s people tra nee s t p o or; s s u ib b i n e r:t w i .i n d therefore despotic, authority of tha o t asseinldy ; or will they now join with me to make the Union re,(l, by insisting, in a voice too distinct to be misunderstood - 1 1 too loud t.D be neglected, upon an organic change in tisaatiaL;sembly, styli as tarethreciidrlie, s. 1 wish. t(, COUNTY RATES. Mr. HUME moved for leave to bring in a Bill to au thorise the ratepayers in counties to choose representatives to form a county revenue board for the assessment, levying, and administration of county rates. Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET, as he understood the measure was to be introduced without a discussion taking place upon its merits, objected to so important an a principle being allowed to advance even a single stage sub silentio. Lord J. RUSSELL fully admitted that the subject was one deserving a full discussion, but he thought that when a Bill was introduced and printed, the House had much bet ter means of understanding its real merits than they could otherwise have. The Noble Lord was proceeding to make some further observations upon the subject, when An Hon. MEMBER whose name we did not collect, moved that the House be counted. This having been done, and it appearing that only thirty six members were present, the House adjourned at hall-past seven. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS. (From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.) WEDNESDAY, MAY 18. LORD'S DAY BILL. Motion.made, and Question proposed—" That the Bill be now read a second time • "—Amendment proposed, to leave out the word " now," and at the end of the Question to add the words " upon this day six months :"—Question put, " That the word now' stand part of the Question : —The House divided— Bagot, Hon. W. Baines, E Balfour, T. Bateson, Sir R. Becket, Sir John Brocklehurst, J. Bruce, C. L. C. Chapman, A. Chichester, A. Chisholm, A. Couolly, E. M. Dunbar, George Dunlop, J. Eaton, R. J. Edwards, Colonel Fector„tohn NORITY—AYES, 43. Finch, G. Fleetwood, H. Fleming, J. Forbes, W. Forster, C. Fremantle, Sir T. Glynne, Sir S. Greene, T. 0. Hale, Robert B. Hardy, J. Hughes, H. Jackson, Serjcant Jones, Wilson Lee,, John F. Lefroy, A. Lennox, Lord A Lowther, J. H. Miles, W. Pease, Joseph Philipps, C. M. Plunkett, Hon R. E, Shaw, F. Sheppard, T. Smith, A. Thompson, Ald. Verney, Sir H. Wilson, Henry Young, G. F. TELLERS. kgnew, Sir A Johnston, A. Aglion , ,y, H. A. Alston, it. 13arelay, C. Baring, F. ilarnaid, E. G. Barry, ts. S. Beauclerk, Major Bernal, It. I3ish, T. BoWes, J. Bowling, Dr. Bridge:llan, Hewitt Browne, R. D. Campbell, Sir John Churchill, Lird C. S. Clay, W. Clements, Lord Crdrington, Sir E. Crawford, ),V. S. Crawley, S. Curteis, Duncombe, T. S. Ehringt,:n, Lord Elphin,tone, H. Ewart, \V. Fitzroy, Lord C. ,JORITY—NOES, Port, John Hawes, B. Iliwttins, J. H. Hector, C. J. Heneage, G. E. Horsrnan ' E. Howard, P. H. Howick, Lord Hutne, Joseph Hutt, NV. Jephson, C. D. 0. Jervis, J. Langton, Col G. Lennox, Lord G. Lushington, Dr. NPLeotl, R. llPTaggart, John Marjoribanks, S. Marsland, H. Mostyn, K Mullins, \V. P. O'Loghlen, Sergeant Par rott, J. Pechell, Captain Philips, Mark Philips, G: It. Potter, It. Roche..7l). Roebuck, 3. A. Rolfe, Sir It. H. Trundle, John Russell, Lord John Ruthren. P. Sharpe, General Smith, B. Struts, E. Surrey, Earl of Talbot, J. H. Tancred, H. W. ' Thompson, T. P. Thornely, T. Trclawbey, Sir W. Trowbridge, Sir T. Villiers. C. P. IVakleY. Thomas Wil Thomas Williams, T. P. Williams, W. Wynn, Right Hon. C TEL Ward, 11 G. Pryme, G. PARLIAMENTARY PAPER. ALE-nousc.s. —ln Mr. Hawes's Bill fer 'regulating Ale.. houses, it is the intention of Mr. Warburton to propose that, " the hours so to be fixed for closing Beer-houses in any town. s hip, parish, or place, containing, by the last Parliamentary Census, not less than five thousand inhabitants, or which may have been included by the English Municipal Reform Act within the Parliamentary boundaries of any borough, shall not in any case be earlier than eleven of the clock at night ; and on Saturdays, public holidays, fair and wake-days, not earlier than twelve o'clock at night ; nor for opening the same later than five o'clock in the morning except on Sunday, Good Friday, and Christmas Day, or any day appointed kr a public fast, or thanksgiving at the parish church of the place or pa rish in which such Beer-house is situate, when the same shall not be opened before one of the clock in the afternoon of such day ; after which last mentioned hour, every person s.) licensed as aforesaid, shall be at liberty to keep open his or her ltause for the remainder of the day, any provision in any Act con tained to the contrary notwithstanding." Clauses will also he proposed to permit the widow or exe cutor of a Beer-seller to contiaue to carry on the business under the same license, so long as it may have to tun. And also to empower Magistrates to mitigate penalties, any law to the contrary notwithstanding. It is a remarkable circumstance that a mare, the property of a person at Chudleigh, has twice foaled twins in both instances, however, dead. Such an occurrence sel'inm happen s more than once. Ti3E:SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY . IVIAIt 20, 1836. "- ry, 1